Lesson being do not get in a wreck with a police officer.

https://www.wsmv.com/2025/08/2...ui-by-state-trooper/


NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WSMV) - A former US attorney from Kentucky is the latest sober driver to be arrested by THP trooper James Zahn.
Last week, WSMV4 Investigates reported that we’d discovered seven sober drivers had all been arrested by Zahn for DUI.
After that story aired, former U.S. Attorney Jane Bondurant called WSMV4 Investigates to say she, too, had been arrested by Zahn.
“I think I’m eight people too many,” Bondurant said.
Bondurant was arrested last November in Franklin after getting into a fender bender with a Franklin police officer.
The arrest report indicates Trooper Zahn was called in, and he wrote that Bondurant had bloodshot watery eyes and appeared to be impaired.
“Keep in mind, I’m 71 years old, I’ve been in a wreck,” Bondurant said. “I felt like I was doing really well (on the field sobriety test), and I felt like my friend with me felt the same way.”
WSMV4 Investigates asked Bondurant why her friend decided to record the arrest on her phone.
“I think she was so shocked that I’d even been arrested and that I was even doing it,” Bondurant said.
Bondurant, who served as a U.S. attorney in Louisville, said that after her arrest, she was handcuffed to a wall in the jail.
“Shock was the first reaction. Trauma. And the trauma lasted for months, because it took months for it to be resolved,” Bondurant said.
Her bloodwork would later come back showing no alcohol and no drugs, except for her sleep medication she’d taken the night before. The charge was nolled, which means prosecutors opted not to prosecute.
“I’m wondering what you think the THP should do,” WSMV4 Investigates asked.
“I know they’ve got a problem person,” Bondurant said.
Bondurant is now the 16th sober driver identified by WSMV4 Investigates to be arrested by a state trooper for DUI.
WSMV4 Investigates asked Governor Bill Lee this week if he felt the THP needed to review how it’s conducting DUI investigations.
"I think we have, in fact, put in place this past year a requirement from the TBI to provide transparency of those cases,” Lee said. “I think that’s the first step, transparency.”

WSMV4 Investigates has confirmed eight separate drivers have all been arrested by the same trooper

The Governor referred to a new state law prompted by our “Sobering Problem” investigations, which will require the TBI to gather all the sober drivers arrested for DUI, and the police agencies that arrested them, in 2025

It seems to me that trooper James Zahn has violated the trust bestowed on him by virtue of his position. He should be suspended and investigated and if he's fabricating these cases he should be fired and prosecuted. The victims also have potentially huge civil claims against the State of Tennessee.

quote:

Her bloodwork would later come back showing no alcohol and no drugs, except for her sleep medication she’d taken the night before.

Was it enough to cause impairment that led to the crash?

What are the facts of the other 7 DUI cases for this LEO?

And FWIW, her nor her friend's "feelings" are irrelevant to her performing a Field Sobriety Test.

The Officer may or may not be doing the tests correctly, but "feelings" do not matter. The facts do.

If such procedures are to be useful to the public, then they need to be carried out properly and consistently.


We can be certain the the "News" will always report only the facts and never with bias or driven by agenda...

Once again, the monkey nailed it.

Agreeing to take a field sobriety test under any conditions is evidence of mental impairment.

To quote Nancy, "Just say no."

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
The Officer may or may not be doing the tests correctly, but "feelings" do not matter. The facts do.

If such procedures are to be useful to the public, then they need to be carried out properly and consistently.

I don’t think it’s completely accurate to say that feelings don’t matter. Judging the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) certainly has some degree of subjectivity regardless of how uniformly they are explained and administered. There is some degree of “feelings” on the part of the officer in determining whether or not a test subject exhibited a “clue.” I don’t like the notion of drunks on the road and I’m not saying that the SFSTs are bad, but it’s far from a perfect, completely objective test.

Sigmonkey is spot on.

Drug DUIs make up a significant portion of impaired driving cases, but the problem is that all you have to go on to build your roadside case are your own observations as an officer. Unlike alcohol, there aren't portable breath tests or certified intoxilyzer machines at the jail that will give you an immediate numerical result (unless you have access to a SoToxa, but those are expensive and not very available, at least not around here). You have to do a blood draw, and the results take months to come back. So probable cause for the arrest is established based on the circumstances observable to the officer...mainly driving behavior, the behavior of the driver, and their performance on field sobriety tests.

The field sobriety tests are pretty accurate at determining impairment...IF you administer them properly. And if the lady in this case was on prescription sleep meds, it may well have created observable impairment that established legitimate probable cause for her arrest.

Nevertheless, the fact that this single officer has arrested so many people that have been found to be sober is definitely cause for concern. IMO they need to look into his cases and evaluate how he's getting his probable cause. At least around here it would all be on video, so it ought to be pretty easy to do. Is he administering the field sobriety tests correctly? Correctly documenting and interpreting the results? Is there a training deficiency here or is he outright making stuff up?

As an attorney who does a lot of DUI defense, don't these troopers have portable breath test devices? I'd love to know if this was available and not used.

As to the SFST (Standard Field Sobriety Tests) certainly there are possible points of objectivity, but in my experience are very subjective. Much like "her voice was slurred" or "he exhibited sway". This can be obvious or, let's just say, very very subtle when viewed on body cam video.

And to be clear, if the SFSTs are voluntary in your state, don't EVER do that.

It's a subjective test and that particular trooper clearly has a problem recognizing a person who is actually impaired. Retrain the trooper and give him a breathalyzer tool to utilize. Maybe the officer is a tyrant or maybe he's just super physically coordinated and articulate and finds the general public to act somewhat impaired when compared to his own abilities.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
... You have to do a blood draw, and the results take months to come back...

Why is this? I go in for my annual physical and have a blood draw at 9AM. Results are trickling in at the end of the day, next day at the latest.

quote:

Originally posted by Lt CHEG:...... There is some degree of “feelings” on the part of the officer in determining whether or not a test subject exhibited a “clue.” ....

I was referring to the woman's statement. (BTW. I don't disagree with your statement.)

“Keep in mind, I’m 71 years old, I’ve been in a wreck,” Bondurant said. “I felt like I was doing really well (on the field sobriety test), and I felt like my friend with me felt the same way.”

quote:

Originally posted by IntrepidTraveler:

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
... You have to do a blood draw, and the results take months to come back...

Why is this? I go in for my annual physical and have a blood draw at 9AM. Results are trickling in at the end of the day, next day at the latest.

At least in Washington it's the allocation of resources. The Legislature doesn't care about the delay. And the "months" is somewhere between 8-12 months depending on whatever the Washington State Patrol Toxicologist is doing.

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:

"he exhibited sway"

If the ability to walk steadily is a requirement, I would appear to be drunk on my best day.

8 out of the 16 sober arrests have been this trooper alone in the whole state.

This trooper needs to be removed.

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:

quote:

Originally posted by IntrepidTraveler:

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
... You have to do a blood draw, and the results take months to come back...

Why is this? I go in for my annual physical and have a blood draw at 9AM. Results are trickling in at the end of the day, next day at the latest.

At least in Washington it's the allocation of resources. The Legislature doesn't care about the delay. And the "months" is somewhere between 8-12 months depending on whatever the Washington State Patrol Toxicologist is doing.

Lawyer shit. It has to go to a certified lab. Yes, the hospital could tell you in 20 minutes (were it not for HIPAA), but that's not good enough for the courts. We have to send it to the state lab, and it takes forever. I got some results earlier this month from a sample that I submitted in February.

Believe me, I hate it too. For alcohol OWIs I always prefer the certified breath test because the results are immediate. But that machine doesn't work for drugs, or drunks who can't provide a sample or refuse consent.

Why should anyone participate in a field sobriety test?

You are not required by law to perform them, and it appears they are highly prone to individual interpretation.

Same theory as why let the police search your vehicle or home without a warrant.

Maybe some of the Sig lawyers will chime in.

I was a designated driver about 10 years ago and got pulled over for no license plate light. No failure to maintain my lane, not rolling a stop sign, just the license plate light. The cop told me to step out of the car and asked if I would to field sobriety tests. My only response was "Let's go get the breathalyzer". We did and I blew 0.0. That was the end of it. We both went our separate ways. A pretty cool LEO in my opinion. If the tests are not required don't do them but be prepared for a breathalyzer and/or blood test. I you're intoxicated you are cooked no matter what. Side note, my license plate light was fine.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Agreeing to take a field sobriety test under any conditions is evidence of mental impairment.
To quote Nancy, "Just say no."

Loswsmith: And to be clear, if the SFSTs are voluntary in your state, don't EVER do that.

I’ve researched this before and again just now. There is NO mandatory SFST in the United States.
You don’t have to submit to any roadside test or HGN test. Just say no!
It amounts to is giving the officer more data to charge you - don’t do that. Without more data (that you provide) the officer may be denied enough to reach probable cause.

Yes, you must submit to breath or blood draw as part of your implied consent agreement to get your license.
Anything prior to that is fishing for evidence…don’t give them that.

quote:

Why should anyone participate in a field sobriety test?

But you are, under implied consent, supposed to give a breath, blood or urine sample. Don't give your consent? Bye goes your license, and your car, because they towed and impounded it. Good luck getting it back without your license, not to mention the hundreds of dollars to bail it out of the impound yard.

See the post right above yours…

quote:

Yes, you must submit to breath or blood draw as part of your implied consent agreement to get your license.
Anything prior to that is fishing for evidence…don’t give them that.