WPCL& # V %a 0 gw@m UF 4  0> 0DT 0@ UF 0J 0Th  0^ 0h" 0r 0| 0x 0 1u 0d BgUFU6U.B).DCW AM D3U*DYY75>sv~Vv AO$$ 0D% D/& B/&HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0nLH#X4?$opinion   XXXXX7XdXXd7    :XX DUUPӀ<4 9Z .Courier New RegularD 3|x((3+$ ?!   XX||XX#X7||Xdd7    !XX||   `   0  (#$  0  ("$    <4 9Z .Courier New Regular2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<4 9Z .Courier New Regular<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(Courier% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd (C << G'dxd<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#%       X #d#    %  ++   YYY FILED+XSeptember8,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   O !#d#%       X #d#    %   $       %XTenn.CodeAnn.5510401. O !#d#%       X #d#    %   $       %XTenn.CodeAnn.5550504.  !#d#%       X #d#    %   $       %XAccordingtoPennington,herefusedtosubmittoabreathalcoholtestbutwaswillingtohaveabloodsampletaken. + !#d#%       X #d#    %   $       %XJudicialcommissionersareappointedbythegeneralsessionsjudgesofthecountyandareauthorizedtoissuearrestwarrants,searchwarrants,andsetordenybond.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.405201etseq.An405101etseq.  !#d#%       X #d#    %   $       %XInhisbrieftothisCourt,thedefendantattemptstoarguethatthisprofferedrationaleforthedetentionwasapretextandthathewasactuallydetainedaspunishmentforthechargedoffenses.However,thestipulationwasofferedbytheStatesattorneyinopencourt,anddefendantscounselconsented.Therefore,thedefendantssubsequentcontentionthatthepolicywasapretextissimplyofnoconsequence.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva  C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . %       X #&&d##&&d#    %  7||XXdXd7` XX\RA'\%Xԛ @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLESTATEOFTENNESSEE  )FORPUBLICATION      ) Appellant    )FILED:SEPTEMBER8,1997      )v.      )DAVIDSONCOUNTY      )JEFFERSONC.PENNINGTON   )HON.JAMESR.EVERETT,JUDGÈ  )̀ Appellee   )NO.01S019607PB00133ForAppellee:     ForAppellant:̜J.BRYANLEWIS     JOHNKNOXWALKUP̜PHILLIPA.PURCELL    AttorneyGeneralandReporter̜Nashville,TN      MICHAELE.MOORE̜R),(A1-j|g` - `@Rߛ      SolicitorGeneral            DARYLJ.BRAND      AssistantAttorneyGeneral      Nashville,TN            VICTORS.JOHNSON,III      DistrictAttorneyGeneral      JAMESW.MILAM      AssistantDistrictAttorney      General      Nashville,TN       @ OPINION̜JUDGMENTREVERSED,INDICTMENTSREINSTATED,ANDCAUSEREMANDED.        BIRCH,J.%%X Wereviewthiscausetodeterminewhetherdetentionimmediatelyafterarrest,purposelycontinuedbecauseoftheaccusedsrefusaltosubmittoabreathalyzertest,constitutespunishmentthatprevents,underdoublejeopardyprinciples,punishmentuponconviction.Becausewefindthatjeopardydidnotattachtotheproceedingsbeforethejudicialcommissionerandbecausethedetention,evenifpunitive,didnotconstitutepunishmentforthechargedoffenses,wefindnodoublejeopardyviolation.Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisreversed,theindictmentsarereinstated,andthecauseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings.@ I JeffersonC.Pennington,theappellee,wasarrestedinMetropolitanNashvilleDavidsonCountyandchargedwithdrivingwhileundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant .   ׀anddrivingonasuspendedorrevokedlicense. /   ׀Becauseherefusedtosubmittoabreathalyzertest, 0   ׀Penningtonwasnotpermittedtoarrangehisreleaseimmediately.Consequently,heremainedincustodyforapproximatelyelevenhours.Penningtonwassubsequentlyindictedonbothoffenses. PenningtonfiledamotiontodismisstheindictmentsinwhichhecontestedthepolicyestablishedbytheMetropolitanNashvilleDavidsonCountygeneralsessionsjudgesandjudicialcommissioners 1   ׀wherebypersonschargedwithdrivingwhileintoxicatedweredetainedincustodyfortwelvehours(moreorless)upontheirrefusaltosubmittoabreathalcoholtest.Theexistenceofthispolicywasstipulated;stipulatedalsowasthatthepolicyservedtopromotepublicsafety. 2    Ingrantingthemotiontodismiss,thetrialjudgestated:8 8 Theproblemyouhave,General,isthatapunishmenthasbeenimposedonadefendantwithouttherebeinganadjudicationofguilt.Theyjustsaideverybodythatcomesinhereandmeetsthisclassificationisgoingtoget12hours,period.Thatisabadpolicy;thereforetheCourtwillgrantMr.Raysmotion. Theintermediatecourt,inaffirmingthejudgmentofthetrialcourt,concludedthatdetentionbasedonthestipulatedpolicyconstitutedpunishmentfortheoffensescharged.Furtherpunishment,thecourtheld,wouldviolatedoublejeopardyprinciples.WegrantedtheStatesapplicationforRule11review.@ II ThedoublejeopardyclauseoftheFifthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution,applicabletothestatesthroughtheFourteenthAmendment,providesthatnopersonshall besubjectforthesameoffensetobetwiceputinjeopardyoflifeorlimb....Article1,10oftheTennesseeConstitutionprovidesthat nopersonshall,forthesameoffence,betwiceputinjeopardyoflifeorlimb. ThepurposeoftheconstitutionalprotectionagainstdoublejeopardywasaptlyexpressedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt:8 8 Theunderlyingidea,onethatisdeeplyingrainedinatleasttheAngloAmericansystemofjurisprudence,isthattheStatewithallitsresourcesandpowershouldnotbeallowedtomakerepeatedattemptstoconvictanindividualforanallegedoffense,therebysubjectinghimtoembarrassment,expenseandordealandcompellinghimtoliveinacontinuingstateofanxietyandinsecurity,aswellasenhancingthepossibilitythateventhoughinnocenthemaybefoundguilty.Greenv.UnitedStates,355U.S.184,187188,78S.Ct.221,223,2L.Ed.2d199(1957).Jeopardyinthissensereferstotherisk traditionallyassociatedwithactionsintendedtoauthorizecriminalpunishmenttovindicatepublicjustice.Breedv.Jones,421U.S.519,529,95S.Ct.1779,1786,44L.Ed.2d346(1975)(quotingUnitedStatesexrel.Marcusv.Hess,317U.S.537,548549,63S.Ct.379,388,87L.Ed.2d443(1943). Incontext,doublejeopardyviolationsariseonlywhenanindividualistwiceplacedinjeopardyforthesameoffense.Customarily,injuryproceedings,jeopardyattacheswhenthejuryissworn,andinnonjuryproceedings,jeopardyattacheswhenthefirstwitnesstestifies.Cristv.Bretz,437U.S.28,35,98S.Ct.2156,2160,57L.Ed.2d24(1978);Serfassv.UnitedStates,420U.S.377,95S.Ct.1055,43L.Ed.2d265(1975).Adefendantmustbeputinjeopardyatleastonce, foronlyifthatpointhasoncebeenreacheddoesanysubsequentprosecutionofthedefendantbringtheguaranteeagainstdoublejeopardyevenpotentiallyintoplay.Crist,437U.S.at3233,98S.Ct.at2159. Itiswellestablishedthatjeopardydoesnotattachinpreliminarypretrialproceedings.SeeUnitedStatesexrel.Rutzv.Levy,268U.S.390,45S.Ct.516,69L.Ed.1010(1925);Collinsv.Loisel,262U.S.426,43S.Ct.618,67L.Ed.1062(1923).Rather,tobeputinjeopardy,thedefendantmustbe subjecttocriminalprosecutionandputtotrial.UnitedStatesv.Grisanti,4F.3d173,175(2ndCir.1993).Theproceedingmustbe essentiallycriminalandconstituteanaction intendedtoauthorizecriminalpunishmenttovindicatepublicjustice.Id.(citingBreedv.Jones,421U.S.519,528,95S.Ct.1779,1785,44L.Ed.2d346(1975),andUnitedStatesexrelMarcusv.Hess,317U.S.537,54849,63S.Ct.379,386,87L.Ed.2d443(1943)). InGrisanti,afterahearing,thedefendantsbailwasrevoked.Subsequently,hewasindictedforthesameconductthatwasthebasisforthebailrevocation.Thedefendantcontendedthatdoublejeopardybarredtheindictmentbecausehehadalreadybeenputinjeopardyfortheindictedoffense.Rejectinghiscontention,theCourtofAppealsheldthatthebailrevocationhearingwasnotessentiallycriminalandhissubsequentdetentionserveda regulatoryfunctionratherthanacriminalone.Id. Intheinstantcase,thepartiesstipulatedthatoneofthepurposesofthedetentionpolicywastokeepsuspecteddrunkdriversofftheroadforaperiodoftimeaftertheirarrest.Inotherwords,thepolicywasintended,atleastinpart,toprotectthepublicfromindividualswhohadbeenarrestedonsuspicionofdrivingundertheinfluence.Thisisaremedialpurpose,notapunitiveone,andtherefore,thedefendantsinitialappearancebeforethejudicialcommissionerdoesnotconstituteanessentiallycriminalproceedingbroughtto vindicatepublicjustice. Finally,assumingsolelyforthesakeofargumentthatjeopardydidattachatPenningtonsinitialappearanceandthatthedetentioncouldbeconstruedaspunishment,thepunishmentwasforrefusingtosubmittothebreathalyzertestnotfortheoffensesforwhichPenningtonwaslaterindicted.UnderouranalysisinStatev.Denton938S.W.2d373,381(Tenn.1996),refusaltosubmit    toatesttodeterminebloodalcoholcontent,Tenn.CodeAnn.5510406(a)(3),isnotthesameoffenseasdrivingundertheinfluence,Tenn.CodeAnn.5510401,ordrivingonasuspendedorrevokedlicense,Tenn.CodeAnn.5550504.Theelementsoftheoffensesaredistinctfromoneanother;thesameevidencewouldnotbeusedtoprovetheoffenses;andthestatutesservedifferentpurposes. Apolicyofdetainingsuspecteddrunkdriversforrefusingtosubmittoatesttodeterminebloodalcoholcontentmay,ifpunitive,implicatecertainconstitutionalprotections,butthedoublejeopardyclauseisnotoneofthem.Topunishanindividualwithoutaprioradjudicationofguiltisaviolationofdueprocess.SeeKennedyv.MendozaMartinez,372U.S.144,186,83S.Ct.554,576,9L.Ed.2d644(1963)( [P]unishmentcannotbeimposedwithoutdueprocessoflaw.Anylesserholdingwouldignoretheconstitutionalmandateuponwhichouressentiallibertiesdepend.).Pretrialdetentionthatisremedialasdistinguishedfrompunitiveispermissibleprovidedthattheindividualisaffordedsufficientproceduraldueprocess.UnitedStatesv.Salerno,481U.S.739,751,107S.Ct.2095,2103,95L.Ed.2d697(1987);Schallv.Martin,467U.S.253,264,104S.Ct.2403,2409,81L.Ed.2d207(1984);Bellv.Wolfish,441U.S.520,536,99S.Ct.1861,18727360L.Ed.2d447(1979). Insum,thepostarrestdetentionofthedefendantdoesnotbartheStatessubsequentprosecutionofhimfortheoffenseschargedintheindictment.ThejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisreversed;theindictmentsagainstthedefendantarereinstated;andthiscauseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings.Costsofthiscausearetaxedtotheappelleeforwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.̛̛̜̜     ____________________________________     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,Justice̛̜CONCUR:̜Anderson,C.J.Drowota,Reid,Holder,JJ.