QUESTION: Has the "War on Drugs" been effective?
ANSWER: An article in the Rocky Mountain News, written by a Federal Judge.
"America in a fix", By John L. Kane
April 27, 2002
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
QUESTION:
I'm from Eatonton Ga. My wife and myself are headed
to Tennessee for a well needed vacation.
I am a gun owner and licensed in the state of Georgia. I do keep a gun in my
car at all times, and I was needing to know if I can carry a gun
in Tennessee in my car? If not, what do I need to do to be legal?
ANSWER:
If you have a valid Georgia permit to carry a handgun for the purpose of
going armed, then it is legal for you to carry the gun in Tennessee. Georgia
is one of nine states with which Tennessee has a reciprocity agreement to
recognize each other's permits.
I cannot necessarily guarantee that every Tennessee law enforcement officer
you might encounter would know and understand this. Hopefully you will not
be in any position where you have to try to explain it to them.
I hope you enjoy your vacation trip to Tennessee. I've lived here all my
life and I still find it full of interesting things to see and do.
John G. Maddox
Assistant District Attorney
QUESTION:
I have been searching the web on victim rights and juvenile
prosecution. I am sick and tired of nothing being done to juveniles.
They are old enough to break the law so they should be old enough to
suffer for their crimes. We were recently robbed and the fact that some
of the boys involved could not be brought to jail, even though they knew
it was stolen property they were piddling through, nothing. So only 2
boys got brought up on charges or should I say issued juvenile
citations. What is that mess? They have all been given juvenile
citations for 2 other robberies on their street alone. What does one
have to do to get the maximum sentence for these kids, who have parents
that are no better than them? We have recently found out that the mother told the boys she was going to keep our computer...so why can't
the police bring her in on receiving stolen goods, obstruction of
justice, and harboring stolen property??? If you can answer any of
these questions we would appreciate it.
ANSWER:
In most states, if not all, juveniles are not sentenced according to what
the crime would be if they were adults (burglary, rape, etc.). Rather, they
are either declared delinquent or not. Once declared delinquent, then they
get "treatment". Juvenile law is civil law, not criminal law.
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
QUESTION: WHAT CAN BE DONE TO ELIMINATE THE AGGRAVATING AND EXPENSIVE WASTE
OF TIME VICTIMS, WITNESSES AND POLICE HAVE TO PUT UP WITH IN COURT?
ANSWER: You are not the first to ask this question--see the Chattanooga
Times article on this subject dated October 31, 1999.
Keep in mind that the perceived "waste of time" where someone sits all day
in court "...only to find that the case was pleaded or settled..." is often
not a waste at all--in virtually every instance the defendant would not have
pleaded guilty except for the fact that the policeman was there and the
prosecution was therefore ready to proceed.
If the policeman or other witness had not been there in court when the case
was called, the defense would have demanded a dismissal on the grounds that
"the State is not ready!"
Any competent defense attorney will wait and see whether the prosecution's
witnesses, including the policeman, will "tough it out" and appear against
the defendant when the time comes.
In summary, if the policeman is not present the defense will demand a speedy
trial; if the policeman is present the defense will demand a continuance.
They also serve, who only stand and wait....
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
www.AttorneyGeneral.org
QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE DUTIES OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY?
ANSWER: The legal duties can be found at TCA 8-7-103 and elsewhere in the code.
The discretionary duties of the District Attorney General are best stated in
the ancient Tennessee case, CATHERINE FOUTS V. STATE OF TENNESSEE, 4 Tenn.98
(1816):
"He is to judge between the people and the government; he is to be the
safeguard of the one and the advocate for the rights of the other; he ought
not to suffer the innocent to be oppressed or vexatiously harassed, any more
than those who deserve prosecution to escape; he is to pursue guilt; he is
to protect innocence; he is to judge the circumstances, and, according to
their true complexion, to combine the public welfare and the safety of the
citizens, preserving both, and not impairing either; he is to decline the
use of individual passions and individual malevolence, when he can not use
them for the advantage of the public; he is to lay hold of them where public
justice, in sound discretions, requires it".
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
QUESTION: I SAW ON A TV COP SHOW A "THIRD DEGREE" SESSION WHERE THE DA AND
THE DETECTIVES WERE QUESTIONING THE "SUSPECT", AND THE DA SAID, "YOU CAN'T
HIDE BEHIND YOUR RIGHTS WHEN A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED!" SAY, WHAT?
ANSWER: You are right to drop your jaw on that one. It is ONLY when a
crime has been committed that the Bill of Rights kicks in, to protect the
individual citizen (the suspect) against the government.
I am not surprised that the "law and order" shows depict scenes like
this--it is in my opinion part of the "dumbing down" of the public's
understanding of due process for pure commercial success (ratings)--and by
the very ones who should know better, the media!
The media is called "The Fourth Estate" because of its valuable role as a
WATCHDOG to government.
From my perspective as a prosecutor, this is maddening because it sets up
unrealistic expectations on the part of those claiming to be victims, which
simply cannot be met by prosecutors sworn to follow the law (and rightly so,
in that our system is deliberately differentiated from that of the ancient
and modern tyrannies, like the empires of Genghis Khan or Joseph Stalin).
Also alarming to me professionally is the idea that the prosecutor
participates with the police at the investigative level in a "third degree"
session: WE ARE NOT INSURED FOR THAT!
Prosecutorial immunity ceases at that point; we are to take the work product
of the professionally trained investigators (usually police or auditors) to
court and are allowed to interview them and others as witnesses in
preparation for trial, but when we participate in investigations (gratifying
as it may be for some DAs to step in front of a TV camera at the bloody
crime scene), we subject ourselves to liability for civil rights violations
of the suspect, or at the very least we risk becoming witnesses ourselves
and that causes ethical problems--as in "ride-alongs".
What you saw on TV is unprofessional and contrary to our hard-won system of
government.
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
QUESTION: IF THE PRESS IS THE "FOURTH ESTATE", WHAT ARE THE OTHER THREE?
ANSWER: I am not a scholar, but it is my understanding from reading
footnotes in lawbooks over the years that any governmental system is made up
of the "three estates".
They are the "nobles", the "commons", and the "clergy" (read: the
aristocrats, the people, and the experts).
If this is true, and I stand to be corrected, then you can see how our
system of government has evolved from aristocratic to bicameral congress and
representative forms, etc.
Ideally, the press as "fourth estate", should be the "disinfectant" of the
"sunshine" (read: the watchdog on those others).
This is the subject matter for virtually all of public life, and PhDs are
conflicted about it.
However, in my opinion high school civics classes will be the most important
ingredient in keeping our finely tuned civilization intact--and we have very
good ones here in the Seventh Judicial District--Anderson County.
I have had the honor and the pleasure of being a guest speaker for some of
these civics classes--or possibly I was the teacher's "Exhibit A".
Either way, that's where the action is--in liberal education, widespread.
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
QUESTION:
"We have a question regarding DUI punishment. A DUI-1 fine has been $350
and costs plus other limitations. We were told the 1998 legislation moved the
fine to $500 and added mandatory jail time, but we still see judgments
handed down at $350 and costs. Can You tell us the current penalties for DUI
1,2,&3 etc......... and clarify for us the $500 fine information?
Also, what are misdemeanors A, B and C...?? "
Marilyn Wing, RID
ANSWER:
It is NOT correct that new legislation raised the minimum penalty for
Driving Under the Influence to $500.
Rather, the legislature in 1998 created a new offense called Adult Driving
While Impaired (found at TCA 55-10-418), covering persons over age 21 who
drive "while such person’s ability to safely operate the vehicle is
impaired" due to intoxicants. The statute further provides that this section
shall be applicable to persons with a blood alcohol level grater than .08%
and less than .10%, indicating this statute addresses a lower level of
intoxication/impairment than the Driving Under the Influence statute.
The penalty for Adult Driving While Impaired is a fine of $500; no more, no
less; and no jail time or loss of license.
It should be noted that once a person is convicted of Adult Driving While
Impaired, a second charge of that offense can be treated/punished as a
second offense DUI. And, a DUI charge after an Adult Driving While Impaired
conviction can also be treated as a second offense DUI.
[Note this new offense should not be confused with Underage Driving While
Impaired, on the books since 1993 at TCA 55-10-415. This offense applies to
drivers under age 21 with a blood alcohol level over .02%. This is a Class A
misdemeanor that carries a 1 year license suspension and a $250 fine – but
no jail time.]
[Note of course that persons under 21 can still be prosecuted for DUI if
their intoxication/blood alcohol levels are sufficiently high.]
The basic penalties for Driving Under the Influence, found at TCA
55-10-403, did not change in 1998, though a couple of new wrinkles were added.
**First offense DUI carries a minimum fine of $350, with a maximum of
$1,500. The maximum jail sentence is 11 months, 29 days, and 48 hours must
be served. The new thing is that if the defendant’s blood alcohol is .20% or
more, the mandatory minimum jail service is 7 days, rather than 48 hours.
The license revocation for first offense is 1 year.
**Second offense DUI – minimum fine of $600, up to $3,500; mandatory jail
service of 45 days, up to 11 months, 29 days maximum. Loss of license up to
two years. Note that on second offense the court may allow up to 28 days of
the 45-days to be satisfied by in-patient drug treatment.
**Third offense DUI – minimum fine of $1,100, up to $10,000. Mandatory jail
of 120 days, up to 11 months 29 days maximum. Loss of license from 3 - 10 years.
**A new provision, applicable to offenses committed on or after July 1,
1998, makes a fourth or subsequent DUI a Class E felony (rather than a Class
A misdemeanor). Mandatory fine of $3,000, up to $15,000. Minimum jail
service of 150 days, with a maximum of 2 - 6 years in the penitentiary,
depending on the subject’s total criminal record. Note that for this to
apply, at least one of the prior DUI violations must have occurred on or
after July 1, 1998.
The grades on misdemeanors (A,B,C) is a function of the penalties attached
to the various offenses by the legislature. In setting out an offense, the
legislature also decrees what grade offense it is:
Class A misdemeanors carry a maximum 11 months 29 days in jail and a
maximum $2,500 fine.
Class B – up to 6 months in jail and up to $500 fine
Class C—up to 30 days in jail and up to $50 fine
Note that the legislature can, and frequently does, prescribe penalties for
specific offenses which differ from the above general scheme; DUI being a
prime example.
John Maddox
Assistant District Attorney General
QUESTION: "Occasionally, a DUI case is dismissed without
prejudice.....reasons might be flawed paperwork or failure of the arresting officer to appear in court. What are the requirements to reinstate cases like that?"
RID
ANSWER: The phrase, "without prejudice," means that the case is dismissed
for procedural reasons not invoking the constitutional "double jeopardy"
prohibition against bringing the same charges again.
Examples would be those mentioned above in the question.
To reinstate the charges merely requires that the same witness, usually a
police officer, appear again before the magistrate as in the first instance
and swear to a new affidavit of complaint; alternatively, if the charge is a
felony (in most cases) and adequately substantiated by the facts as
demonstrated by the admissible evidence available, the charges can be taken
anew at the grand jury level with the cooperation of the district attorney.
This presumes that the statute of limitations has not lapsed and that the
case is not otherwise "stale" (witnesses died or disappeared, or memories
faded, etc.)
This tactic often draws a defense claim of "failure to provide the defendant
his right to a preliminary hearing" and a motion to dismiss.
But see State v. Mullins, an Oak Ridge City Court case where the appellate
courts upheld this practice by the district attorney.
Jim Ramsey
District Attorney General
QUESTION: THE KNOXVILLE NEWS-SENTINEL FOR SUNDAY, JANUARY 24, 1999,
REPORTED ON THE LEGISLATURE'S EXAMINATION OF THE CHECK CASHING
INDUSTRY--THE SO-CALLED, "CASH-ADVANCE" BUSINESS. THE FEBRUARY 18, 1999, ISSUE OF THE OAK RIDGER REPORTS THAT THE STATE SENATE HAS APPROVED EXTENSION OF THE LAW AUTHORIZING THIS INDUSTRY. WHAT IS YOUR POSITION?
ANSWER: From the beginning several years ago when this phenomenon appeared,
where the pawn shops and others would take a check (known to be written on
insufficient funds at the time of taking) and "advance" cash upon a promise
to pay the amount "advanced" plus a "fee" within ten days, we have been on
record in opposition
.
We have been told to "mind your own business" about this; nevertheless, it
is clearly a law enforcement question and a public policy issue.
Whether expressly or implicitly, when the "cash-advance" proprietors
(sharks) give the check-writers (victims) to believe that they will be
prosecuted under the "bad check" law for failure to repay, they are bringing
our office into it--an abuse of process since the "bad check" law
specifically does not apply and the "cash advance" companies know it.
In my opinion, this is a consumer fraud issue because under this bogus
threat of prosecution, the customers (victims) most frequently are
maliciously leveraged to renew the contract with another "bad check" and
another, still larger "cash advance", ballooning the debt astronomically and
forcing the consumer into a black hole of despair with immeasurable ill
consequences.
Some horrendous stories are there to be told, but the victims are powerless
to fight back, they are fearful that they are in the wrong (since that is
what they have been told, and often they have had trouble with the law
already), and they are ashamed to come forward.
Unless I speak out against such an enterprise, my office is implicated.
I have made it clear that no prosecution will ensue against the consumers
under these circumstances.
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
QUESTION: THE KNOXVILLE NEWS-SENTINEL FOR MARCH 25, 1999, REPORTS THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IS HEARING ARGUMENT ON
"RIDE-ALONGS" WITH THE POLICE BY THE PRESS. WHAT IS STATE POLICY ON
"RIDE-ALONGS?"
ANSWER: "Ride-alongs" by a prosecutor tend to put the prosecutor at
the scene of the crime and make him or her into a witness in his or her own
case.
It is ethically forbidden for a prosecutor to be a witness in his or
her own case. (DR 5-102)
This impugns the entire office, not just the one who rides along, and
forces the entire office to be recused from
further prosecution.
This is often at great expense to the State of Tennessee when a
Prosecutor Pro Tempore has to be brought in from another district.
For these reasons ride-alongs are inadvisable for prosecutors,
unless they do it in some other jurisdiction than their own.
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
QUESTION: EXPLAIN WHY "RIDE-ALONGS" CAUSE PROBLEMS WITH CASES FOR PROSECUTORS WHO DO IT.
ANSWER: Nothing good can come of it.
If the defense attorney finds out that a prosecutor was on a
"ride-along" with the policeman in his client's case, he will argue
reversible error (and if he does not his client will claim inadequate legal
counsel on appeal if convicted.)
The City of Oak Ridge has a written policy for "ride-alongs" at both
the police and fire departments, and citizens may ride along after waiving
liability and conforming to other restrictions--Leadership Oak Ridge takes
advantage of this opportunity each year, but they are not prosecutors.
It is fun to ride along, but it is simply not our business as
professionals.
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
QUESTION: WHAT ABOUT "RIDE-ALONGS" FOR THE PRESS OR OTHER CITIZENS?
ANSWER: It is simply not part of the constabulary's professional
responsibility to provide "ride-alongs" for anyone but other officers in
training who are properly insured or bonded and have appropriate business in
the venture.
At best, providing those who are third parties to law enforcement
activities with participatory experiences is a public relations activity,
not a legitimate public service activity, and such considerations detract
from the ensuing criminal case which often results.
Law enforcement activities are not amusement park rides, and yet the
officer is certainly tempted to "show off" for the person riding along,
simply in order to make the experience meaningful and not dull, which is
usually the case otherwise.
Therefore, extraordinary adventures are artificially introduced into
the law enforcement patrol, even if unconsciously; extraordinary
cross-examination opportunities necessarily result in behalf of the defense
if and when the case later comes to trial.
Whether the interloper (the third party ride-along) is a citizen or
a member of the press, he indisputably becomes a witness to whatever cases
develop.
It has been our experience that these "randoms" are not subsequently
listed in the routine police report transmitted to the DA along with the
court case, thus we are ignorant of exculpatory possibilities which it is
our ethical duty to disclose to the defense in every prosecution.
So it can be understood that the "ride-along" policy of some police
departments compromises essential considerations of professionalism throughout
the criminal justice process.
"Ride-alongs" are unprofessional.
That the press claims a statutory privilege under the "shield law"
as justification for non-disclosure of the fact that there may have been a
newspaper reporter as a "ride-along" present in a given case is of no
mitigating consequence to our prosecutorial duty to make disclosure.
The press may then litigate such claim of privilege with the
defense, but it remains the prosecution's duty to provide that information
to the defense notwithstanding the claim.
For these reasons, all "ride-alongs" are bad policy with respect to
criminal process, regardless of what fun they may provide to the ingenue,
and at the very least the fact of a "ride-along" must be disclosed by the
police to the prosecutor when in fact it has taken place in a given criminal
case.
"Ride-alongs" cause trouble and can do no good, even when civil
liability to the municipality is waived by the "customer".
There are other ways to educate persons deemed eligible.
In a shoot-out, the officer has the safety of the "ride-along" witness to
worry about while he is otherwise trying to be professional in dealing with
the suspect; the "ride-along" witness thus becomes a gratuitous impediment to
the legitimate police operation and an additional safety hazard as well as
an unnecessary lay witness required to be disclosed to the defense.
At the very least, the police should be required to list the
"ride-along" as a witness in the report.
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
QUESTION: I TAKE IT YOU DISAPPROVE OF "RIDE-ALONGS"?
ANSWER: Yes. "Ride-alongs" adversely affect due process.
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
QUESTION: I HAVE BEEN WATCHING WITH INTEREST (see Washington Times article February 23, 2001; Knoxville News-Sentinel article February 22, 2001; NEWSWEEK, March 5 Issue Summary on MSNBC )
THE DEVELOPMENTS RELATING TO
THE RECENT U.S. SUBMARINE ACCIDENT NEAR HAWAII IN WHICH SEVERAL JAPANESE
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WERE KILLED WHEN THE SUBMARINE EXECUTED AN EMERGENCY
SURFACING MANEUVER WITH CIVILIANS AT THE CONTROLS AND SANK A FISHING BOAT IN
THE PROCESS. IS THIS THE KIND OF CONSEQUENCE YOU FORESEE IN YOUR CRITICISM
OF THE POLICE PRACTICE OF PATROLLING WITH "RIDE-ALONGS" IN THE PATROL CAR
FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS PURPOSES, WHERE THE TENDENCY IS FOR THE OFFICER TO
"SHOW OFF"?
ANSWER. Bingo! No "ride-along" experience is uneventful, by its express
purpose of demonstrating police activities to civilians and the press; and
nothing good but self-serving public relations comes of the custom.
Professional practices are always compromised, and to date the Oak Ridge
Police Department has yet to include the fact of a "ride-along" witness in
any given police report although the practice clearly continues.
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
QUESTION: ON MARCH 28 MR. BRADSHAW OF WACKENHUT PRAISED THE OAK
RIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S "RIDE-ALONG" PROGRAM. WACKENHUT IS A SECURITY
COMPANY CONTRACTED BY DOE--THEY SHOULD KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT,
SHOULDN'T THEY?
ANSWER: "Ride-Along" programs are great public relations tools for the
City, as indicated by Mr. Bradshaw's panegyric; but it is not law enforcement.
ORPD continues to treat "ride-along" witnesses as invisible and does not
list them in the police report for any given incident.
This practice deprives both the prosecution and the defense of eyewitnesses
who observe both the conduct of the defendant and the conduct of the
officer--all relevant at trial.
Thus, there is a cadre of "phantom witnesses" to all "ride-along" cases,
unknown to the lawyers.
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
QUESTION: HOW MUCH DOES THE ANDERSON COUNTY COMMISSION SPEND ON NONPROFIT AGENCIES OR CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS?
ANSWER: The Anderson County Government Budget Book for 1999-2000 at page
58, account number 58500, shows that the figure is $159,600 for the current
fiscal year. This is down from $196,691 last year because some
appropriations were apparently relocated to other codes and no longer appear
as "Contributions to Other Agencies".
Some of the nonprofit charitable agencies supported by the Anderson County
Commission are: Norwood Boys Club, Lake City Little League Football,
Clinton Optimist, NAGAF, Claxton Youth, Aging, Planned Parenthood, Emory
Valley Center, HOPE, Community Action, Children's Museum, ETHRA, Oak Ridge
Rowing Association, Clinton Rowing Club, Girls Inc, Contact Tele-Ministry,
Habitat For Humanity, AC Health Council, Town of Lake City, Child and Family
Services, Sexual Assault Center of Knox County, Clinch Valley Literacy
Council, VORP, CASA, Aid to Dependant Families, Oak Ridge YWCA, Roane State
Community College, Oak Ridge Boys Club, Women's Crisis Center, AC United
Soccer Club, Norris Health Forum, Shiloh Monument, and others.
Scattered thoughout the budget in other codes are agencies such as Melton
Hill Regional Development Association ($104,500, account number 58120 at
page 57), AC Tourism Board ($202,260 last year, account 58110 at page 57)
and the Mental Health Center ($16,465, account 55310 at page 54), so the
figure is actually considerably higher than $159,600.
Many recipients also get money from the United Way, and do independent
fundraising as well. For a list of registered charities properly filed with
the Secretary of State's Charitable Solicitations Division you may go to
http://www.state.tn.us/sos/charity.htm and to see what agencies exist in
Anderson County you can go to http://www.OakRidger.com/community/clubs.html and look at their "Clubs and
Organizations" page. Both make very interesting reading.
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
QUESTION: DOES THE CITY OF OAK RIDGE FUND CHARITIES, AND HOW CAN I GET COUNTY SUPPORT FOR MINE?
Answer: You'll have to ask your County Commissioner or your City Council
Person.
I am told that Oak Ridge used to fund charities within the city limits but
put a stop to it many years ago on the grounds that "...there is no end to
it..."
Also, it was hard to avoid favoritism, and the appearance of political
patronage--in other words, it tended to become abusive.
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
QUESTION: WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION?
ANSWER: I'm tempted to say, "I gave at the Courthouse," when approached by
volunteers for local charities, but I often give again.
While most if not all these agencies are worthy institutions, it is my view
that the County should contract for services through the duly appointed
Purchasing Agent under the Central Budget Act of 1957, sponsored half a
century ago by our very own John Reeve, of Oak Ridge.
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
QUESTION: IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER WHO HAS NOT OBTAINED A GRANT FROM THE
ANDERSON COUNTY GENERAL FUND FOR A CHARITABLE NONPROFIT AGENCY IN HIS DISTRICT?
ANSWER: It's hard to tell. The Anderson County Commission supports more
nonprofit agencies than the United Way, although not to the same dollar amount.
Only the Clerk's office can tell you whether there has ever been a
dissenting vote in a particular case.
In Congress they call that "pork barrel".
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
QUESTION: WHAT FINANCIAL SUPPORT DOES THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE GET FROM THE ANDERSON COUNTY COMMISSION?
ANSWER: One secretary, which is much appreciated (law enforcement is a
governmental obligation).
See account number 53600, page 45, budgeting $24,757, which breaks down to
$16,714 salary and the rest mostly mandatory benefits.
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
QUESTION: WHAT FINANCIAL SUPPORT DOES THE JUVENILE COURT SERVICES GET FROM THE ANDERSON COUNTY COMMISSION?
ANSWER: Account number 53500 at page 44 shows a total of $274,067 for
Juvenile Court.
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ADVISORY BOARD
This is a question by the DA, published as a letter to the editor in the Anderson County section of the News-Sentinel, Jan. 2, 2000:
To the Editor:
Why does the County Commission continue to maintain a Community
Corrections Advisory Board (CCAB) under TCA 40-36-201(a) even though our
Community Corrections Program was cancelled years ago as a failure?
Jim Ramsey
District Attorney General
QUESTION: HOW DO I KNOW WHEN A SOLICITATION FOR A CHARITABLE CAUSE IS LEGITIMATE?
ANSWER: I can give you no reliable advice about the legitimacy of any given
charity--recent history indicates that even the most "reputable" charitable
institutions have been abusive.
At the very least, before contributing anything substantial you would be
well advised to check with the Charitable Solicitations Division of the
Office of the Secretary of State in Nashville, which governs nonprofit
charitable agencies.
Tennessee law requires either registration or exemption at this office, and
compliance with state law is a good indication of responsibility.
This information is available at http://www.state.tn.us/sos/charity.htm.
Jim Ramsey, District Attorney General
