Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-411 (2026)
Presumption of impairment - Notice of penalties for additional offenses - Allegation of prior convictions - Mandatory service of minimum sentence - No defense that person is lawful user of substance - Strip searches - Jurisdiction of general sessions court - GPS monitoring breath alcohol analyzer - Part definitions
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) For the purpose of proving a violation of § 55-10-401(a)(1), evidence that there was, at the time alleged, eight-hundredths of one percent (0.08%) or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood shall create a presumption that the defendant's ability to drive was sufficiently impaired thereby to constitute a violation of § 55-10-401(1).
- (b)
- (1) Any person convicted of an initial or subsequent offense shall be advised, in writing, of the penalty for second and subsequent convictions, and, in addition, when pronouncing sentence the judge shall advise the defendant of the penalties for additional offenses. Written notice by the judge shall inform the defendant that a conviction for the offense of driving under the influence of an intoxicant committed in another state shall be used to enhance the punishment for a violation of § 55-10-401 committed in this state.
- (2) In the prosecution of second or subsequent offenders, the indictment or charging instrument must allege the prior conviction or convictions for a violation of driving under the influence of an intoxicant under § 55-10-401, boating under the influence under § 69-9-217(a), vehicular assault under § 39-13-106, aggravated vehicular assault under § 39-13-115, vehicular homicide under § 39-13-213(a)(2), or aggravated vehicular homicide under § 39-13-218, setting forth the time and place of each prior conviction or convictions. When the state uses a conviction for the offense of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, boating under the influence, aggravated vehicular homicide, vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, vehicular assault, or adult driving while impaired committed in another state for the purpose of enhancing the punishment for a violation of § 55-10-401, the indictment or charging instrument must allege the time, place, and state of the prior conviction.
- (c) No person charged with violating § 55-10-401 shall be eligible for suspension of prosecution and dismissal of charges pursuant to §§ 40-15-102 - 40-15-105 and 40-32-101(a)(3)-(c)(3) or for any other diversion program nor shall any person convicted under such sections be eligible for suspension of sentence or probation pursuant to [former] § 40-21-101 [repealed] or any other law authorizing suspension of sentence or probation until such time as the person has fully served day for day at least the minimum sentence provided by law.
- (d) Nothing in chapter 591 of the Public Acts of 1989, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, shall be construed as altering, amending or decreasing the penalties established in this section for the offense of driving under the influence of an intoxicant.
- (e) The fact that any person charged with violating § 55-10-401 is or has been entitled to use one (1) or more intoxicants, alcohol, marijuana, controlled substances, controlled substance analogues, drugs, or other substances that cause impairment shall not constitute a defense against any charge of violating this part.
- (f) No person arrested for a violation of § 55-10-401 shall be subjected to a strip search or body cavity search, unless the officer has probable cause to believe the arrested person is concealing a weapon or contraband in a body cavity. Contraband includes, but is not limited to, illegal drugs.
- (g) No judge of the general sessions court has jurisdiction to punish any person violating § 55-10-401 under the small offense law.
- (h) The following definitions shall apply to this part:
- (1) All definitions at § 55-8-101;
- (2) "Functioning ignition interlock device" means a device that:
- (A) Connects a motor vehicle ignition system to a breath-alcohol analyzer and prevents a motor vehicle ignition from starting if a driver's blood alcohol level exceeds the calibrated setting on the device;
- (B) Employs technology capable of taking a photo identifying the person providing the breath sample, recording the date, time, and test result along with the photo of the person providing the breath sample and storing such information on the device for transfer to remote storage and reporting; and
- (C) On all new installations on or after January 1, 2024, employs global positioning system (GPS) technology that will geotag the motor vehicle's location whenever an initial startup test, a random retest, or a skipped test occurs, or when circumvention of the device is detected. The GPS technology shall not be used for continuous tracking of the vehicle;
- (3) "Ignition interlock provider" means an entity that has been approved and certified by the department of safety to provide the installation, monitoring and removal of functioning ignition interlock devices in this state; and
- (4) "Test" means any chemical test designed to determine the alcoholic or drug content of the blood. The specimen to be used for the test shall include blood, urine or breath.
Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 20, s 1, eff. 1/1/2024.
Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 910, s 6, eff. 7/1/2022.
Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 876, s 9, eff. 7/1/2016.
Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 344, s 10, eff. 5/13/2013.
Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 154, s 11, eff. 7/1/2013.
Acts 1969, ch. 292, § 7; 1973, ch. 400, § 2; T.C.A., § 59-1050.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2018–2026 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Cristobal J. Quintana II (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025).
State of Tennessee v. Cristobal J. Quintana II (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “The State counters that section 55-10-411 refers to the existence of a “prior conviction or convictions,” thereby signifying that the date that another conviction was received by a defendant, rather than the date that another offense occurred, and is determinative of whether…”
Terry Lea Bunch v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018). “Specifically, Petitioner complained that the affidavit of complaint did not set forth both the time and place of his prior DUI convictions in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-411(b)(2). On February 6, 2017, the State filed a response, arguing that…”
Terry Lea Bunch v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018). “Petitioner’s specific contention – that the charging instrument fails to comply with the requirements for charging an enhanced DUI under Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-411(b)(2) – alleges only a statutory violation rather than a constitutional violation.”
Humphrey v. Bukari Kwasi Yobonta (M.D. Tenn. 2021). “32-1 at ¶¶ 16-19); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-411 (“[E]vidence that there was, at the time alleged, eight-hundredths of one percent (0.”
State of Tennessee v. Jereme Walker Amis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). “§ 39-17-418 (e) (simple possession); Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-411 (b)(2) (driving under the influence); Tenn.”
State of Tennessee v. John Palladin Gibson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018). “§ 55-10-411(a) (2013) (amended 2016). Given the significance of the blood-alcohol content evidence and the less-than-dispositive nature of the video evidence, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s erroneous admission of the blood-alcohol evidence was harmless as to the…”
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Ray Oaks (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019). “§ 55-10-411(a). The State’s evidence established that the defendant was driving his vehicle while his blood alcohol concentration was .”
State of Tennessee v. Sterling Panchikal (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019). “For the purposes of this section, “intoxication” includes alcohol intoxication as defined by § 55-10-411(a), drug intoxication, or both; T.”
State of Tennessee v. Terry Lee McAnulty (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “For the purposes of this section, “intoxication” includes alcohol intoxication as defined by § 55-10-411(a), drug intoxication, or both; T.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-411(B)(2): 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Cristobal J. Quintana II (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “The State counters that section 55-10-411 refers to the existence of a “prior conviction or convictions,” thereby signifying that the date that another conviction was received by a defendant, rather than the date that another offense occurred, and is determinative of whether…”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-411(a): 4 cases
State of Tennessee v. John Palladin Gibson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018). “§ 55-10-411(a) (2013) (amended 2016). Given the significance of the blood-alcohol content evidence and the less-than-dispositive nature of the video evidence, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s erroneous admission of the blood-alcohol evidence was harmless as to the…”
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Ray Oaks (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019). “§ 55-10-411(a). The State’s evidence established that the defendant was driving his vehicle while his blood alcohol concentration was .”
State of Tennessee v. Sterling Panchikal (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019). “For the purposes of this section, “intoxication” includes alcohol intoxication as defined by § 55-10-411(a), drug intoxication, or both; T.”
State of Tennessee v. Terry Lee McAnulty (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “For the purposes of this section, “intoxication” includes alcohol intoxication as defined by § 55-10-411(a), drug intoxication, or both; T.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-411(b)(2): 3 cases
Terry Lea Bunch v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018). “Specifically, Petitioner complained that the affidavit of complaint did not set forth both the time and place of his prior DUI convictions in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-411(b)(2). On February 6, 2017, the State filed a response, arguing that…”
Terry Lea Bunch v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018). “Petitioner’s specific contention – that the charging instrument fails to comply with the requirements for charging an enhanced DUI under Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-411(b)(2) – alleges only a statutory violation rather than a constitutional violation.”
State of Tennessee v. Cristobal J. Quintana II (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “The State counters that section 55-10-411 refers to the existence of a “prior conviction or convictions,” thereby signifying that the date that another conviction was received by a defendant, rather than the date that another offense occurred, and is determinative of whether…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.