Jerry Summers
I don’t intend to get into the thorny thicket of whether the recent action of the elected officials in Choo Choo City, Hamilton County, and the State of Tennessee violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution and additional due process of law provisions.
Two knowledgeable private citizens in this publication on November 13 and November 15 have given their “pro” and “con” opinions on both the “Law and Order” and “Big Brother is Watching You” positions in our communities.
The High Sheriff of Weston’s Domain waxed eloquently before the 11 elected officeholders and they unanimously voted to accept another $1.2 million state grant to purchase and install the 122 cameras. Their compadres on the Choo Choo municipal council previously approved a $400,000 state grant to protect its citizens with the devices.
A couple of slight erroneous interpretations of the status of the latest George Orwell’s law enforcement tool should be mentioned for the benefit of the 102 readers of these article amongst the 385,000 population (my fans are increasing!):
- It is correct that the “all knowing” Tennessee General Assembly enacted Tennessee Code Annotated 55-10-302 in 2014 and section 504(a) in 2021 that are applicable;
- Through February 3, 2022 no reported case has been decided by any appellate court in the Volunteer State; Google the topic for two 24-page total summaries of both sides of the issue in the 50 states and federal courts from the Brennen Center for Justice, dated September 14, 2020;
- The visionary statement that “the state wouldn’t approve this if it weren’t ‘legal’ is a little bit of an overreach”, pending a court challenge by some defendants whose life and liberty for a possible 100 years sentence at one of our “3 hots and a cot” penal facilities may be eligible;
- Whether the Tennessee courts will uphold the law passed by the legislature, strike it down, totally or in part, is premature at this time;
- The Tennessee Governor’s office was also drawn into the constitutional controversy in 2021 when the legislature authorized the Department of Transportation (DOT) “to permit law enforcement agencies to install surveillance cameras on interstate/state right of ways for non-highway use to help with criminal investigations and searches for missing and endangered people as long as they don’t interfere with free and safe flow of traffic, maintenance, and highway safety.”
Although not publicly discussed in the reports of political approval by the two aforementioned municipalities (and approval of a majority of the satellite cities wanting the devices also) the normal procedure is that the free grant funds are only available for normally three years and then the local, state, and federal taxpayers get to pick up the costs of maintenance and repairs (carrot and stick approach).
(The public can be assumed that the competent legal staff now in place in Gig City and the present double tier Hamilton County Attorney’s office, local district attorney’s office, State Attorney General’s office, etc. will thoroughly protect the constitutional rights of any thugs, convicted felons (and misdemeanants), and any innocent citizen whose civil rights might be affected by a false arrest, based on a subterfuge or malfunctioning equipment.)
P.S.- As of November 18, 2023 the totally scientific and completely accurate (And non-partisan political) local version of the Gallup Poll in this publication stood 55 percent in favor of the devices and 45 percent opposed to the use with 2,904 votes cast electronically!