On January 10, 2007, Bonnaroo organizers Superfly Productions and AC Entertainment purchased a major portion of the site where the annual music festival is held. The purchase of 530 acres encompassed all of the performance areas and much of the camping and parking area used for the annual festival; the festival will continue to lease another 250 acres that currently serve as additional parking and camping.

Tennessee Law Enforcement Officers across the state are well aware that a large number of out of state visitors make the trek to Manchester for this annual event. Unfortunately, law enforcement in some parts of the state tend to be a bit more "aggressive" with these out of state visitors than they might normally. They often believe that Bonnaroo concert goers carry a multitude of illegal substances with them when they visit the show. There are several things concert goers should remember should they be pulled over by one of these law enforcement officers.

If one person in a vehicle has illegal drugs, law enforcement will often charge every person in the vehicle for possession of these illegal drugs. This certainly does not mean that every person in the car is guilty of possession of the drugs. The term “possession,” as used in the Tennessee drug statutes, means both actual and constructive possession. Constructive possession of drugs occurs when a person has the power and intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over the drugs either directly or through others. The mere presence of a person in an area where drugs are discovered is not alone sufficient to support a finding that the person possessed the drugs. State v. Cooper, 736 S.W. 2d 125, 129 (Tenn Cr. App. 1987)

If you refuse to give an officer consent to search your vehicle, then only in very limited circumstances do they have the right to do so. Further, if you did give consent; the consent given must be unequivocally, specifically, intelligently, and must be uncontaminated by duress or coercion. State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530, 547 (Tenn. 1992) Moreover, even if the consent is voluntary, evidence seized in the search will not be admissible if the search exceeds the scope of the consent given.. State v. Troxell, S.W. 3d 866, 871 (Tenn 2000) For example, what parts or items in the vehicle did the police have consent to search?

Also, the police may only hold you for so long before letting you go on your way; a reasonable traffic stop can become unreasonable and constitutionally invalid if the time, manner or scope of the investigation exceeds the proper parameters. Any consent given after this reasonable time has lapsed may not be considered valid. State v. Troxell, S.W. 3d 866, 871 (Tenn 2000)

The police may tell you things such as “The drug dogs are on their way so you might as well just give me what you have” or “If you give me what you have right now, then I will just issue you a citation” or “I can search anyway- that is the law in Tennessee so you might as well let me.” Do not believe them, this is not the law in Tennessee or any other state. You always have a right to say no.

As I said before, Law enforcement can only detain you as long as necessary to complete the purpose of the traffic stop. For example, if you were pulled over for speeding; you can only be detained as long as it takes to issue a citation. The police may not detain you any longer than that. You may politely explain to the policeman that you are in a hurry and if they are through issuing the citation, you would like to leave. THEY MAY TELL YOU UNDER TENNESSEE LAW YOU HAVE TO STAY UNTIL DRUG DOGS ARRIVE - THIS IS NOT TRUE!! IF THE POLICE HOLD YOU LONGER THAN NECESSARY, ALL EVIDENCE THEY SEIZE AFTER THAT MAY BE SUBJECT TO BEING SUPPRESSED IN COURT!! If you were held an unreasonable time while waiting for the drug dogs, or while the officers were trying to convince you to let them search- the search may have been illegal under Tennessee law.

AT THE GATES AT BONNAROO, YOU STILL MAY REFUSE TO LET THEM SEARCH YOUR VEHICLE. They probably will search it anyway and say they have permission to search any vehicle coming onto the property. However if you refuse to give them consent, or give consent under duress- any evidence seized may be subject to suppression in court. Think about it, if I had a friend at my house and the police came and asked me to allow them to search- do I have the right to allow them to search my friend’s purse because she is on my property? Absolutely not. Also, if you sign a consent form under duress or threats from any officer, the search may not be valid.

Remember above all, be polite, but also be firm and be clear. The following videos offer some good practical advice about how to handle yourself in case of a traffic stop:

I have handled many cases involving people on their way to or on their return from Bonnaroo. Cops are out there looking for these folks and they are often targeted for unwarranted traffic stops and illegal searches. Please do not hesitate to contact our office should you have any questions regarding problems you encounter on your trip to Bonnaroo. Have fun, but be careful!

The "exclusionary rule" has its roots in a case decided by the Unites States Supreme Court in 1886, Boyd v. United States. It was not until 1961 in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, that the Supreme Court made it clear that the exclusionary rule applied to all federal AND state law enforcement officials. However, as the Supreme Court has become more conservative in recent years, the exclusionary rule now has a much more narrow application than when the Mapp case was decided in 1961.

"Although the exclusionary rule has not been completely repudiated, its utilization has been substantially curbed. Initial decisions chipped away at the rule's application. Defendants who themselves were not subjected to illegal searches and seizures may not object to the introduction against themselves of evidence illegally obtained from co-conspirators or co-defendants, and even a defendant whose rights have been infringed may find the evidence coming in, not as proof of guilt, but to impeach his testimony. Defendants who have been convicted after trials in which they were given a full and fair opportunity to raise claims of Fourth Amendment violations may not subsequently raise those claims on federal habeas corpus because of the costs overweighing the minimal deterrent effect. Evidence obtained through a wrongful search and seizure may sometimes be used in the criminal trial, if the prosecution can show a sufficient attenuation of the link between police misconduct and obtaining of the evidence. If an arrest or a search which was valid at the time it was effectuated becomes bad through the subsequent invalidation of the statute under which the arrest or search was made, evidence obtained thereby is nonetheless admissible. A grand jury witness was not permitted to refuse to answer questions on the ground that they were based on evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure, and federal tax authorities were permitted to use in a civil proceeding evidence found to have been unconstitutionally seized from defendant by state authorities.

The most severe curtailment of the rule came in 1984 with adoption of a ''good faith'' exception. In United States v. Leon, the Court created an exception for evidence obtained as a result of officers' objective, good-faith reliance on a warrant, later found to be defective, issued by a detached and neutral magistrate. Justice White's opinion for the Court could find little benefit in applying the exclusionary rule where there has been good-faith reliance on an invalid warrant. Thus, there was nothing to offset the ''substantial social costs exacted by the [rule].'' ''The exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates,'' and in any event the Court considered it unlikely that the rule could have much deterrent effect on the actions of truly neutral magistrates. Moreover, the Court thought that the rule should not be applied ''to deter objectively reasonable law enforcement activity,'' and that ''penalizing the officer for the magistrate's error . . . cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations.'' The Court also suggested some circumstances in which courts would be unable to find that officers' reliance on a warrant was objectively reasonable: if the officers have been ''dishonest or reckless in preparing their affidavit,'' if it should have been obvious that the magistrate had ''wholly abandoned'' his neutral role, or if the warrant was obviously deficient on its face (e.g., lacking in particularity). The Court applied the Leon standard in Massachusetts v. Sheppard, holding that an officer possessed an objectively reasonable belief that he had a valid warrant after he had pointed out to the magistrate that he had not used the standard form, and the magistrate had indicated that the necessary changes had been incorporated in the issued warrant.

The Court then extended Leon to hold that the exclusionary rule is inapplicable to evidence obtained by an officer acting in objectively reasonable reliance on a statute later held violative of the Fourth Amendment. Justice Blackmun's opinion for the Court reasoned that application of the exclusionary rule in such circumstances would have no more deterrent effect on officers than it would when officers reasonably rely on an invalid warrant, and no more deterrent effect on legislators who enact invalid statutes than on magistrates who issue invalid warrants.

It is unclear from the Court's analysis in Leon and its progeny whether a majority of the Justices would also support a good-faith exception for evidence seized without a warrant, although there is some language broad enough to apply to warrantless seizures. It is also unclear what a good-faith exception would mean in the context of a warrantless search, since the objective reasonableness of an officer's action in proceeding without a warrant is already taken into account in determining whether there has been a Fourth Amendment violation. The Court's increasing willingness to uphold warrantless searches as not ''unreasonable'' under the Fourth Amendment, however, may reduce the frequency with which the good-faith issue arises in the context of the exclusionary rule.

If you feel that you have been the victim of an illegal search, you should definitely seek legal advice. The Supreme Court of the United States, as well as the Supreme Courts of the several states, have taken the relatively simple language of the Fourth Amendment and carved so many exceptions - that the protections it affords us now as American citizens are less than the protections provided forty years ago and most certainly less than our founding fathers envisioned. There are several tips to remember though to protect yourself from being the victim of an illegal search. Consider the following videos from www.flexyourrights.org:

Each case is different factually and there is no bright line rule as to when evidence is going to be excluded because of an illegal search. Our office has handled hundreds of these sorts of cases. If you feel you have been the victim of an illegal search in Middle Tennessee, please feel free to contact our offices.

Driving Under the Influence is one of the few crimes for which an individual can be convicted solely on the opinion of a police officer. While most Tennessee DUI offenses are classified as misdemeanors (although a fourth-offense is a Class E felony in Tennessee), the penalties for Tennessee DUI are typically much more serious.

Upon conviction for First Offense DUI in Tennessee, a person is subject to a maximum sentence of 11 months, 29 days, with a minimum of 48 hours in jail, or a minimum of 7 days in jail if, at the time of the offense, the defendant's blood alcohol level was .20% or higher. A first offense also require a minimum $350.00 fine and court costs; the loss of driver's license for a period of one year; and enrollment in a court approved DUI education course.

Attendance at AA meetings may also be required. License revocation for one year is also required when a defendant is found to have refused to submit to a chemical test (blood, breath, or urine) after being lawfully requested to do so. This may apply even where the defendant is not convicted of DUI.

To be charged with a second offense DUI, the alleged offense must occur within 10 years of the first offense. A second offense carries a mandatory jail time of 45 days and a fine between $600 and $3,500. Second offense also carries with it a mandatory loss of license for a period of 2 years.

The mandatory jail time, mandatory fine, and mandatory loss of license increases dramatically upon each conviction of DUI. If you are charged with DUI, it is crucial you obtain legal representation so your legal rights are protected. Our firm has handled many DUI cases and is experienced in ensuring that the State can prove each element of their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tennessee DUI law requires the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was (1) operating or in physical control of (2) a motor vehicle on (3) any public road, highway, alley, parking lot, or any other premises generally frequented by the public while (4) under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or with a blood alcohol content of .08% or higher. Failure of the state to prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an acquittal.

In Tennessee, possession of Marijuana is a Class A Misdemeanor and can carry with it a fine of up to $2,500 and a jail sentence of up to 11 months and 29 days. First convictions for any misdemeanor has a mandatory minimum fine of $250. Second convictions $500, and subsequent convictions, $1,000. A person in Tennessee found in possession of more than one-half an ounce or 14.75 grams, may be charged with possession with intent to sell, a felony charge. The class of felony will increase depending on the amount of marijuana a person is charged with being in possession.

In 1985, Gabriel G. Nahas published "Keep Off the Grass", which stated that "[the] biochemical changes induced by marijuana in the brain result in drug-seeking, drug taking behavior, which in many instances will lead the user to experiment with other pleasurable substances. The risk of progression from marijuana to cocaine to heroin is now well documented;" however, this claim has yet to be scientifically proven.

In 1995, Partnership for a Drug-Free America with support from The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the White House Office of Drug Control Policy launched a campaign against marijuana use citing a Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) report, which claimed that marijuana users are 85 times more likely than non-marijuana users to try cocaine. However, an article published in The Activist Guide by John Morgan and Lynn Zimme entitled "Marijuana's Gateway Myth," claims CASA's statistic is false. The article states:

"The high risk-factor obtained is a product not of the fact that so many marijuana users use cocaine but that so many cocaine users used marijuana previously. It is hardly a revelation that people who use one of the least popular drugs are likely to use the more popular ones -- not only marijuana, but also alcohol and tobacco cigarettes. The obvious statistic not publicized by CASA is that most marijuana users -- 83 percent -- never use cocaine."

Multiple opponents of marijuana decriminalization have claimed increased marijuana use results in increased abuse of other illicit drugs; however, multiple studies have found no evidence of a correlation between marijuana use and the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.

In 1997, the Connecticut Law Revision Commission reviewed examined states that had decriminalized marijuana and found decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana has no effect on subsequent use of alcohol or "harder" illicit drugs. The study recommended Connecticut reduce marijuana possession of an (one ounce) or less for adults age 21 and over to a civil fine.

In 1999, a study by the Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Health at the Institute of Medicine entitled "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," found no evidence of a link between marijuana use and the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs on the basis of its particular physiological effect.

In 2004, a study by Craig Reinarman, Peter D. A. Cohen, and Hendrien L. Kaal entitled "The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco," was published in the American Journal of Public Health. The study found no evidence that the decriminalization of marijuana leads to subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs. The study also found the mean age at onset of use of marijuana and the mean age of the average marijuana user are both higher in Amsterdam than in San Francisco.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has claimed that marijuana decriminalization will lead to increased marijuana use and addiction in the un-sourced pamphlet entitled "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization". The pamphlet states in 1979, after 11 states decriminalized private marijuana use, marijuana use among 12th grade students was almost 51 percent and in 1992 and when stricter marijuana laws were put in place, the usage rate reduced to 22 percent. The pamphlet also states that when Alaska decriminalized marijuana, the marijuana use rate among youth rose twice as much as the youth usage rates nationwide; even though the decriminalize law did not apply to anyone under the age of 19, the pamphlet explains this is why Alaska re-criminalized marijuana in 1990. Multiple studies are in contradiction with the DEA's statement and suggest that decriminalized marijuana laws do not result in increase marijuana usage.

In 1997, the Connecticut Law Revision Commission reviewed examined states that had decriminalized marijuana and found any increase in marijuana usage was less than the any increase than in states that have no decriminalized marijuana; furthermore, the commission stated "the largest proportionate increase [of marijuana use] occurred in those states with the most severe penalties." The study recommended Connecticut reduce marijuana possession of an (one ounce) or less for adults age 21 and over to a civil fine.

In 2001, a report by Robert MacCoun and Peter Reuter entitled "Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes," was published in the The British Journal of Psychiatry. The report found there is no available evidence marijuana use would increase that if marijuana were decriminalized.

In 2004, a study entitled "The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco," found strict laws against marijuana use have a low impact on usage rates.

Multiple U.S. based advocate groups exist, such as Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, The Drug Policy Alliance, the Marijuana Policy Project, NORML, and Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis. There are many individual American marijuana activists, such as Jack Herer, Paul Armentano, Edward Forchion, Jon Gettman, Rob Kampia, and Keith Stroup; Marc Emery, a well-known Canadian activist, supports activism in the U.S. among other countries by donating money earned from Cannabis Culture magazine and Emeryseeds.com.

In 2001, the New Mexico state-commissioned Drug Policy Advisory Group stated that decriminalizing marijuana "will result in greater availability of resources to respond to more serious crimes without any increased risks to public safety."

In June, 2005, Jeffrey Alan Miron, a libertarian economist and Visiting Professor of Economics at Harvard University and more than 530 distinguished economists, including Milton Friedman, a Nobel prize winning libertarian economist, called for the legalization of marijuana in an open letter to President George W. Bush, the United States Congress, Governors, and State Legislatures of the United States. The open letter contained Miron's "Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States" report. You can view the report at this link: