ROADBLOCK CONVICTION OVERTURNED

CHATTANOOGA - When Dennis James Varner pulled his van into a checkpoint with
an open beer, smelling like alcohol and having slurred speech, it was
officers who made a mistake, a Tennessee appeals court ruled. The Court of
Criminal Appeals said in an opinion released this week that Hamilton County
Sheriff's Department officers did not set up the roadblock primarily to
catch drunken drivers, so his arrest and conviction violated constitutional
bans on unreasonable search and seizure. ''Significantly, the officers had
no equipment at the site for testing blood alcohol content,'' the appeals
court said in throwing out Varner's conviction and dismissing the charge.

The appeals court also took exception to officers who selected the
checkpoint location participating and having drug-sniffing dogs at the
scene. One of Varner's attorneys, Jerry Summers of Chattanooga, said
abuses of checkpoints by law-enforcement agencies are not uncommon.
''They say they are doing one thing but are using subterfuge to
ascertain other types of activity,'' he said.

In a ruling on Varner's challenge of the arrest, the appeals court
reversed Judge Stephen Bevil's decision to allow evidence from the
Sept. 1, 2000, checkpoint, where deputies including two K-9 officers
stopped traffic and worked in the emergency lights and headlights of
about 10 patrol cars. Summers said court rulings don't allow officers
at license or sobriety checkpoints to also have a drug dog and ''see
if they (drivers) have got a marijuana roach in the trunk.'' Varner,
47, of Soddy Daisy, could not be reached for comment.

Another attorney who represented him, Thomas Greenholtz of
Chattanooga, said his client was ''pleased the court reversed his
conviction.'' Jason Thomas, a Hamilton County assistant district
attorney who prosecuted the case, said, ''There was no question we had
a solid case based on the evidence. The roadblock was the only
issue.'' Records show that while Hamilton County officer Ragan
McDevitt described his assignment that night as ''working field
sobriety checkpoints,'' Lt. James Newman said officers ''weren't
specifically looking for anything.'' Newman described the checkpoint
as a ''safety tool.'' The appeals court also said that while Newman
testified the checkpoint location was selected because of fatal
accidents and speeding, there was no testimony that ''either the
accidents or the speeding were in any way related to drivers impaired
by alcohol.'' The appeals court said there was ''no single specific
goal in place for this particular roadblock.

Rather the sheriff's department was seeking to inhibit speeding
drivers, 'aggressive' drivers (of which the state offered no
definition) and impaired drivers.'' More than 500 vehicles were
stopped in one hour but ''the state offered no proof as to how many of
these stops involved motorists driving under the influence,'' the
court ruling said.

Thomas said the appeals court decision would not likely affect any
pending cases involving checkpoints.

''It's an old case, sort of in a league of its own,'' Thomas said.