Today I'm in Providence, RI on business when the snowmageddon of the week hit.
Watching the news, They show a press conference with the Governor, who has declared a state of emergency, and travel ban.
The local news stations are claiming people can be arrested if they violate the travel ban and travel on the roads.

Curious about the laws here, I looked up the statute the Governor cited in  his declaration.

RI Chapter 30, Title 15, section 9
Full law here

Some excerpts:
"(d) During the continuance of any state of disaster emergency the governor is commander-in-chief of the organized and unorganized militia and of all other forces available for emergency duty."

"(4) Subject to any applicable requirements for compensation under § 30-15-11, commandeer or utilize any private property if the governor finds this necessary to cope with the disaster emergency;"

"(7) Control ingress and egress to and from a high risk area, the movement of persons within the area, and the occupancy of premises therein;"

"(8) Suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives, and combustibles;"

So this is the law of the state, and I have little doubt that local law enforcement will carry out these tasks if directed until a higher authority says otherwise.
I know most states have similar laws.

I'm not aware of any of them ever being challenged in court.

Is there a constitutional legal basis for these powers during a state of emergency?

What are the emergency laws in your state?

Other thoughts?
RB

As with all things they are enforceable if people allow them to be enforced upon them.

There is a law for everything. And if there isn't then it can be easy to find a politician, judge, or overzealous law enforcement branch to make up something to fit the situation.

Can they stop you.... yes, can they tell you what to do.... yup. Do you get to decide what your actions will be? ... sure

We are well past the time where the situation can be debated at the moment of enforcement. You will have to deal with the courts and the costs of it later down the road. Or you can choose other paths as your principles dictate.

I chose to remove myself and my family from the very worst of it by not being around the type of environment where it would come up in daily life. I doubt they will come hiking through the woods and knock on my door to tell me what rules are will be enforced today and which ones won't be. So I really continue to ignore the whole lot of them. Makes it much less worrisome.

Picked up the wife last night about 0200 just as the first flakes were coming down.  There was a rumor of a travel ban after midnight.   If I was stopped, I would have signed the ticket, and took it to court.   Question one and only to the officier writing the ticket would have been, "Officier, what is New Hampshire's State Motto?"  

That being said, seeing that the OP is from Tennesee, unless he has life or death reason to be out AND experience driving in the snow with a properly equipped vehicle, I recommend he stays put.

Basically not inviting the Man into his life.

Government can issue a travel ban during State of Emergencies due to issues involving public safety and well being.

+1
The government has vast executive authority during an emergency.  All of which can be challenged in court later.

I think the biggest reason for the travel ban is to keep idiots from getting stuck on the roads with inappropriate vehicles and interfering with snow removal.

This.  In my area, when the roads begin freezing, there is a couple hour period where the roads are super slick and 99% of the public should not be on the road.  The bigger issue is, when the moron drivers are on the road, they EXPECT to be rescued.  When you have many accidents going simultaneously, you can't handle them all.  So, you prioritize them.  Simple slideoffs....they are the lowest of the low for priority.  

I remember last winter...it had just started snowing and it was starting to stick.  Road crews were out but it would take awhile to get the roads driveable.  2 hours after it started, the roads were easily passable with care.  I came across a woman with kids in a ditch.  They were stuck.  Didn't appear to be much damage...looked cosmetic.  In talking to her, she said that she didn't have a working heater either.  What moron goes driving on icy road with kids and no working heater?  All she would have had to do was to pull over and give it a couple hours and the roads would have been reasonably safe to drive on.  I didn't see her driving prior to her wreck but I bet she was driving the speed limit.....and should have been driving WELL under the limit.  

The world is full of morons....and they live and breed around you.  Most of these laws are made to respond to the lowest common denominator.

Pretty much... at the moment of actual shit happening. Government is given leeway in public safety and well being. After the fires die down, the snow melts, and water drains, and the winds stops blowing. Shit can be reviewed and challenged in court.

 

If I recall correctly, a few weeks ago, can't remember the exact locale, there was a storm back east and people were bitching because the govt didn't do enough to prepare, keep the roads clear and take extra precautions.  Now the govt took precautions and people are bitching. That storm was the Midwest I believe though.  How ironic.  

King George III would be so proud.

Yeah... this is the proverbial "no win" situation for pols.  Still, no sympathy for them - they not only asked for the job, they lied, cheated, and stole to get it.

Oh, and that law is reason #87 for maintaining an ammo fort.

He didn't fear criminal or civil prosecution, wasn't elected and doesn't relinquish the power after the emergency.

How else do you propose we handle emergencies?  No special authority?  Just wait to pick up the frozen bodies?

Agree!!!  I will quote myself:

Would solve a lot of problems.

Of course travel bans seem illogical and "unconstitutional" BUT take into account why they are in place. Person "A" opts to drive in the dangerous weather conditions, gets into an accident, and now requires help to stay alive- police to control the scene and alert other drivers of the accident ahead, firemen to utilize their rescue equipment, EMS to deal with trauma caused to the patient and transport him to a medical facility, numerous healthcare personnel caring for this individual (or family or multiple victims involved in this accident). This pulls emergency personnel from other potential accidents and calls from homes and such. Doesn't seem terrible but now compound this scenario with the hundreds of people who feel invincible in such conditions. The best way to control chaos is to simply avoid it.

Under declared states of emergency, the government allows itself quite a bit of leeway.  

In this case, I don't like the method, but the goal of reducing non-essential travel IS wise.  
Unfortunately, there are plenty of idiots who don't understand that driving in a snowstorm is very risky, and will get themselves into trouble.
(Heck, I misjudged once and blew out a tire before even getting to the main roads, after things got icy!...and I was trying to be very careful.)

First of all, it was not an emergency,, and turned out to not be an emergency at all.  It is a snow storm.  They happen in the winter.  Secondly, I don't have a problem with them making safety suggestions, but how about we put a focus on personal responsibility?  To me, this seems like social engineering towards totalitarianism.

Unfortunately, personal responsibility is somewhat of a moot point in this regard. You crash your car on the highway. Without emergency responders, another vehicle may collide with yours, eventually causing a pile up. Duty to act also applies by saying that if there are reports of a vehicle going off the road into a ditch while hitting a tree, you can bet (thank God) that a crew of various personnel will be on site to help out. I'm not trying to argue, simply just want you to see from another vantage point.

Fuck'em, I will just continue doing the freedom thing, you all remember hearing about freedom right?

If they want to punish people as for being a burden, they should have to wait until they have become one.

God damn this place loves freedom!!!

I am talking about commanding people to stay in their homes, as opposed to asking, explaining why, and then people being responsible for their own choices.  And what about the blockade on sale and transportation of alcohol, firearms, etc?  WTF does that have to do with anything?  My point is that this kind of thing teaches people to be sheep, and is part of the march to absolute tyranny.
My vantage points are varied.  I am a Police Sgt. with 17+ years in an area where the city earns the "golden snowball" award just about every year.  I still promote personal freedoms FIRST.

Thanks very much for the part in blue.

This is the crux of the problem.  It's like a mandatory hurricane evacuation - if you stay (or get out, in this case) and get in trouble, you are on your own.

Whether it's real or made up to further ones own agenda.

Now, afterwards we can pass laws to give them more specific restrictions in the law.   That's a pretty significant difference between our republic and a monarch.