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.