Few defense attorneys have prosecuted; Kevin Kennedy did so in Davidson County for three years. He handled cases involving police encounters, vehicle stops, arrests, and felony prosecutions. He understands how prosecutors assess body-worn camera footage, dash-camera video, officer testimony, driving evidence, and the surrounding circumstances when deciding whether an evading-arrest charge can be proved.
Evading arrest can range from a misdemeanor allegation of fleeing on foot to a felony charge involving a motor vehicle. Vehicle cases are especially serious because Tennessee law imposes mandatory minimum periods of confinement and allows enhanced punishment when the alleged flight creates a risk of death or injury to officers, bystanders, or other third parties. If you are charged with evading arrest in Nashville or Middle Tennessee, contact Kevin Kennedy Law Firm for a free, confidential consultation.
What Is Evading Arrest in Tennessee?
Tennessee’s evading-arrest statute is Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-603. The statute creates different offenses depending on whether the accused allegedly fled on foot or by another means of locomotion after an attempted arrest, or fled while operating a motor vehicle after receiving a signal to stop. In either situation, intent matters. The State must prove intentional conduct rather than mere confusion, delayed compliance, inability to stop immediately, or an innocent failure to recognize what the officer was attempting to do.
Evading Arrest on Foot or by Other Means
Under subsection (a), it is unlawful, except as provided by the vehicle subsection, to intentionally conceal oneself or flee by any means of locomotion from someone the person knows is a law enforcement officer when the person knows the officer is attempting to arrest the person or after the person has already been arrested. The knowledge requirements are important. The defense should examine whether the officer clearly communicated an intent to arrest, whether the accused could identify the person as an officer, and whether the accused’s movement was actually an intentional effort to evade arrest.
Evading Arrest in a Motor Vehicle
Under subsection (b), a person operating a motor vehicle on a Tennessee street, road, alley, or highway may not intentionally flee or attempt to elude a law enforcement officer after receiving a signal to bring the vehicle to a stop. These cases often depend on when the emergency lights or siren activated, how long the vehicle continued, speed and traffic conditions, whether the driver had a safe place to pull over, and what the video shows. A delayed stop is not necessarily the same as an intentional attempt to elude.
Risk of Death or Injury Enhancement
Motor-vehicle evading arrest becomes more serious if the flight or attempt to elude creates a risk of death or injury to innocent bystanders, pursuing officers, or other third parties. The State may point to speed, intersections, traffic density, lane changes, weather, pedestrian activity, collisions, or other driving behavior. The defense should examine the actual video and roadway conditions rather than accepting a generalized characterization that a pursuit was dangerous.
What Are the Penalties for Evading Arrest?
Evading arrest under subsection (a), commonly associated with fleeing on foot, is a Class A misdemeanor. A Class A misdemeanor can carry up to eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail and a fine of up to \$2,500. Motor-vehicle evading arrest under subsection (b) is a Class E felony and carries a statutory minimum of at least thirty days of confinement. A Class E felony carries an overall authorized sentencing range of one to six years, with the applicable range depending on the defendant’s offender classification and criminal history.
If motor-vehicle flight creates the statutory risk of death or injury to innocent bystanders, pursuing law enforcement officers, or other third parties, the offense is a Class D felony and carries a statutory minimum of at least sixty days of confinement. A Class D felony carries an overall authorized range of two to twelve years. The statute also requires a driver-license suspension of at least six months and up to two years for vehicle evading arrest, and restitution may be ordered if the evasion recklessly damages government property.
Common Defenses to Evading Arrest Charges
The defense depends on whether the allegation involves foot flight or a vehicle, what signal was given, what the accused knew, and what objective evidence exists. Video evidence is often particularly important because it can show the timing and sequence far more accurately than a short narrative in an arrest report.
No Intentional Flight or Attempt to Elude
The State must prove intentional evasion. A person may continue driving briefly to find a safe shoulder, fail to notice emergency lights immediately, be unable to hear a siren, misunderstand which vehicle is being signaled, or move for a reason unrelated to avoiding arrest. The defense should examine speed, distance, duration, turn signals, braking, traffic conditions, statements made at the scene, and whether the driver’s conduct is actually consistent with an intent to escape.
No Knowledge of an Attempted Arrest or Police Signal
For non-vehicle evading, the State must prove the accused knew the person was a law enforcement officer and knew the officer was attempting an arrest, or that the accused had already been arrested. In vehicle cases, there must be evidence that the officer gave a signal to stop. Poor lighting, an unmarked vehicle, distance, noise, chaotic circumstances, or an unclear command can create legitimate disputes about knowledge.
The Alleged Arrest Was Unlawful
Tennessee’s evading-arrest statute expressly provides a defense when the attempted arrest was unlawful. That makes the legal basis for the arrest an important issue in appropriate cases. The defense may examine whether officers had a warrant, probable cause, or another lawful basis for the attempted arrest and whether the facts known to police at the time actually supported that action.
Challenge the Felony Enhancement
Even when the State can prove some form of vehicle evasion, it does not automatically follow that it can prove the Class D felony enhancement. The defense should scrutinize whether the driving actually created a risk of death or injury to the people identified by the statute. Roadway video, speed data, pursuit reports, crash evidence, maps, traffic-camera footage, and witness testimony can all be relevant.
How Kevin Kennedy Defends Evading Arrest Cases
Kevin approaches an evading-arrest case by building a precise timeline. That includes the reason for the police encounter, the first command or signal, the point at which the accused allegedly knew an arrest or stop was being attempted, the duration and manner of any flight, and the moment the encounter ended. Body-worn camera footage, dash-camera video, dispatch audio, GPS data, traffic cameras, witness statements, and roadway conditions may all be important.
His former-prosecutor experience helps him identify which facts are likely to drive charging and plea decisions and where the State’s proof may be vulnerable. Depending on the evidence, the defense may challenge intent or knowledge, contest the legality of the attempted arrest, attack the felony risk enhancement, seek suppression of evidence, negotiate for a reduction, or prepare the case for trial. If you are facing an evading-arrest charge in Nashville or Middle Tennessee, contact Kevin Kennedy Law Firm for a free, confidential consultation.
*Legal references: Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-16-603, 40-35-111, and 40-35-112. This page is general information, not legal advice.*