I think there’s something to this criticism: All but one of the current Supreme Court justices went to Harvard or Yale. All were federal appellate judges when they were nominated. And this one seems particularly troubling: Only one–Souter–ever actually presided over a trial. More than skin color or penis-vagina diversity, it would be nice to see Obama look for someone from a different orbit than the usual echelon of elite legal circles. I like the idea of Russ Feingold. Yes, he’s awful on political speech, but he at least possesses some admirable skepticism for government power.
Thousands of Minnesota DWI cases in jeopardy after state supreme court orders breath machine manufacturer to turn over source code. They’re refusing. It’s somewhat amazing that these companies have gotten away with keeping source code secret this long, though I believe something similar happened in Florida a few years ago.
Injustice in Seattle is doing some interesting stuff with the media reports of police misconduct he’s been tracking.
Former NYPD cop runs red light, plows into car of teens in New Jersey. Local cops say he was belligerent, had watery eyes and slurred speech, and smelled of booze. The teens in the car had passed his car earlier, and said he was parked and slumped over the wheel. There was an empty beer can in his car. He refused both blood and breath tests for alcohol. He also had an unlicensed handgun and illegal ammunition in the car at the time of the accident. But his former colleagues from NYPD vouched for his character in his defense. He got probation, because the judge says he wasn’t convinced the guy was drunk. Maybe that’s true, but I’m wondering if any of us normal people would get off that lightly.
Home invaders in Orlando yell, “Police! Open the door!” before breaking in and killing one of the home’s occupants. They’re learning.
Lovely. The feds want to create a “West Point for public service.” Imagine, a whole campus filled with douche-y college resume builders who all want to be politicians when they grow up! Sounds like a kind of customized hell for me.
Speaking of crappy ideas for colleges….
Uh-oh. I think if my dogs get wind of this, they may start their own political action committee.
Two polls now show legalizing marijuana more popular with America than either party in Congress.
Florida passes primary seat belt law, more commonly known as the “pretext for racial profiling and asset forfeiture law.” This one lets cops pull cars over even if the front seat passenger isn’t buckled up. The reader who sent me this says he thinks this most disgusting line in the article: “The bill makes cash-strapped Florida eligible for a one-time, $35.5 million traffic-safety grant from the federal government.”
This entry was posted
on Monday, May 4th, 2009 at 6:54 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Alcohol, Dog Blogging, General Criminal Justice, General Drug War, Motorist Freedom, Nanny State, Police Militarization, Police Professionalism, There Oughtta Be a Law.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
Regarding story #2, wtf? Order the company to hand over the source code or charge them with contempt. Roughly translated, “trade secrets” means our code sucks and releasing it will end up with us getting sued into oblivion. The only reason I can see the Minnesota Supreme Court not taking further action on this is that they have a pretty good idea that the state will end up being sued into bankruptcy from the resulting wrongful conviction lawsuits. I’m guessing that they see this getting appealed up to the scotus, and the feds will cover their asses.
“Home invaders in Orlando yell, “Police! Open the door!” before breaking in and killing one of the home’s occupants. They’re learning.”
This isn’t a new phenomenon. I’ve got copies of articles over the past 4 years of this type of thing happening. Some criminals even buy t-shirts with “POLICE” across the front to improve the chances of compliance.
I guarantee you that Obama’s nomination will be someone who, while referred to as a ‘liberal’ – i.e. supports gun control and abortion, will be anti-fourth and fifth amendment – pro unlimited federal and police power. Of course this choice will be hailed as a ‘moderate’ by the media. From what I’ve seen so far, Elena Kagan fits this bill perfectly.
Maybe once the outrageous decision in Redding v. Safford is issued there will be more interest in the continuous erosion of individual rights. Then again, probably not.
I’ve suggested elsewhere – Andrew Napolitano for the Supreme Court nominee. (Besides, he’s got a show on Fox News – how can Republicans oppose THAT ?)
I don’t understand how the source code for breathalyzers hasn’t come up before. I mean, if a man has a right to face his accusers, and the machine was the one who “said” he was drunk (or proved it, however you want to put it), then the man has a right to see that the source code isn’t corrupted.
The same should apply to radar/lidar guns when speed is determined electronically.
Lovely. The feds want to create a “West Point for public service.” Imagine, a whole campus filled with douche-y college resume builders who all want to be politicians when they grow up! Sounds like a kind of customized hell for me.
Do you actually oppose the concept, or are you just saying you’d dislike it? I’d oppose it for the same reason I oppose the military service academies: I think other options are sufficient and more cost effective (ROTC and OCS for military service, and several “schools of government” in Universities around the US). That said, if this becomes a reality, I doubt most attendees would want to be politicians per se, most would be going to become beureuacrats.
Nando,their fighting this in several states.Some states have passed laws preventing people from disputing the machines in court.I’ve seen many DUI warriors state without the tests they can not prove DUI in 80% or more cases.Think of that.This means,in my mind,many are being arrested who pose no harm.The seatbelt laws are a way to make money and give a easy reason for dui and drug checks.Imagine if we applied this standard to all crime.
I doubt most attendees would want to be politicians per se, most would be going to become beureuacrats.
That’s not exactly appealing either.
This guy has been following the source-code issue for a while:
http://www.duiblog.com/
Seems that there are a lot of bugs in some of the software and the machines cannot take into account the fact that people’s natural BAC differ plus a lot of cops have people blow improperly into the machine which can effect results as well.
Some areas permit officers to draw blood samples on the scene if a breathalyzer is denied. I guess the idea is to prevent time from passing and having the BAC reduced but who would be comfortable with a cop sticking you in the arm on the side of a road. Apparently some cops use alcohol to steralize the arm (I wonder if any of that gets into the test results).
Check out the comments on the news article about the breath-testers. Isn’t it amazing how totally unconcerned some commenters are that innocent people may have been railroaded by an inaccurate machine? No pause for thought for these swine just “I wonder what the victims of drunk drivers will feel like” and similar appeals to lynch law.
Wake up, folks. MADD stopped being a legitimate voice for a legitimate cause some time back. Now it exists to exist; to pay the salaries of its chief employees, and to deliver power to certain interested parties. You can tell because it doesn’t concern itself with finding and jailing those who are actually impaired (statistically almost always over .1 blood/alcohol) or those who are an actual menace to society (90%+ already party to a drunk-driving incident with property damage), but wants to harass the general public with checkpoints, testing devices in their cars, and other fascism.
Just another Crusade, like the anti-smoking ninnies, the war on drugs (all this over POT!?!), and the swine who want the State to obsess over what we eat.
And I know people – fairly nice people, even – who approve of all these things, but rail against the “Christian Right” for wanting to “force its morality on everyone”. Not that it doesn’t, but where’s the difference?
Why can’t BOTH sides of the political spectrum be told to mind their own Goddamned business?
The duiblog link is well worth anyone’s time. The guy who runs it appears to be pretty locked on.
The MN SC ruling has the potential to be huge insofar as DUI cases and the erosion of basic rights go. IIUC, there are some jurisdictions (at least according to the duiblog dude) in which a defense attorney merely mentioning the fallibility of breathalyzers, let alone attempting to introduce evidence to support the claim, can result in a contempt charge.
Feinstein:
While I have a great deal of respect for the man, I like anyone who says what they truly believe and lives by it, but….the man is a loon. I can’t even imagine the new heights of judicial activism feinstein would be pushing. I don’t understand those who believe what we really need in this country is a more activist supreme court. They can’t get the rulings they have right, so lets put more of our faith in just one of the 3 branches of our government.
feingold, that should be feingold. I got my “sen. crazy eyes” mixed up for a second.
Cop gets away with driving drunk and carrying a gun where anyone else would have gotten ten years at least. Another “isolated incident” I guess. Good to know the system looks out for its own.
If we don’t create many, many new universities of public service (teaching things like asset looting), how will we ever be able to complete the transformation from capitalism to socialism?
A free doctorate in public service is as much a right as universal health care!
/sarcasm
Just wanted to note: $100million on the next SCJ being more of the same. That system isn’t broken (in the opinion of the Executive and Congress).
I entirely agree with Radley on the Supreme Court pick. I once watched an oral argument there on a relatively arcane issue having to do with the use of peremptory challenges. Justice Kennedy, to his credit, explained in asking a question of counsel that he had no idea how often the issue actually came up at trial (and suggesting that he had no real-world experience in trial procedure). Although none of the others were similarly forthcoming, all one has to do is read their bios to find out that they routinely have to pass final and near-permanent judgment on areas of the law where they have absolutely no first-hand knowledge.
Here’s my ideal justice: Someone with:
1. Experience actually practicing law (with double credit given for work both for and outside the state or federal government)
2. Trial experience (ideally both civil and criminal)
3. Legislative experience (Sandra Day O’Connor was the last, I believe, who had been in a legislature and so knew that process first-hand).
Way, way down on my list would be someone with experience either as a constitutional law prof or as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Definitely agreed on the thoughts re: The Supreme Court. And Feingold would be an interesting choice, if for nothing else his skepticism on the issue of government power. He was really the only member of the Senate who was even willing to speak out against the PATRIOT Act when it was first presented in 2001. Not sure I like the rest of his views though.
But yeah, I want to see someone other than a DC Circuit Appellate judge moving up to SCOTUS.
re: SCOTUS. Its not just Harvard/Yale. Most of the experience is academia, appellate courts, or Fed Govt: great for interpreting the law, but little experience in how the law affects actual people. It would be good to see someone with experience as a governor, legislator, trial judge, military etc.
Wasn’t the original West Point for public service anyway?
The power of the federal government to establish a national university has never been established, even though it was on the agenda since Washington. The military academies are presumptively justified under the federal government’s power to raise and train an army, but this would just be a Liberal Arts college…
Re: SCOTUS: I think if you want to bring real diversity to the Court, you need to appoint some people who have NEVER (or at least not for much time) worked for the government in any capacity. Not as a lower-court judge, not for the DOJ, not as a Governor, not in congress…
Then you may get some people who are skeptical of government authority, rather than embracing it.
I am pleased to note that the NH senate just put aside the proposed primary seat belt law, apparently for good. Still the only state without a seat belt law for over 18.
#19 Brian: Of course they can. Establishing a college for bureaucrats falls under Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. Somehow.
RE: Home invaders in Orlando yell, “Police! Open the door!”
(I’m no authority, so I apologize in advance if my reasoning is uninformed, but I just have to comment on this, it irks me so.)
If society ever develops beyond a totalitarian/semi-totalitarian police state, this era’s police raids will be understood as unconstitutional violations of liberty. Lethal force is acceptable only in response to lethal conduct, and is inexcusable as a protocol of initiating contact with a suspect who is not behaving violently. To expect people to remain passive whenever approached by armed attackers is to expect the citizenry to be defenseless on an individual basis. Criminals can (and apparently do) dress and behave as raiding police officers when attacking, and police officers can and do mistakenly raid incorrect homes of completely innocent people. These two dynamics combine to render law-abiding people completely vulnerable to attack in their homes. This is not an acceptable living condition for American citizens. No right to defend ourselves in our homes? If this condition had been imposed upon us by a foreign power, then America would have waged all-out war.
Cop Watch: spend a little time surfing the links from “Injustice in Seattle”. There are literally hundreds of cases of extreme preferential treatment for cops involved in DUI, vehicular homicide, or assault. In fact, I cannot find a case of a cop involved in a crime (while off duty) where it looks like the cop was held accountable in the same way a non-cop would be.
I make the distinction of “off duty” because courts have explained to us that it is impossible for an “on duty” cop to commit a homicide or pretty much any crime…what with them being heroes and all.
Home invaders in Orlando yell, “Police! Open the door!” before breaking in and killing one of the home’s occupants.
So were they police or not? That doesn’t specify.
If forcing someone to tie themselves to a seat is not a violation of liberty then my dating life is going to change.
The secret breathalyzer code:
#include
#include
#include
#define BAC_MIN 0.06f
#define BAC_MAX 0.10f
int main()
{
srand((unsigned)time(NULL));
printf("%.2f\n", (BAC_MAX - BAC_MIN) * ((float)rand()/RAND_MAX) + BAC_MIN);
return 0;
}
Easy money for some programmer.
Oops, I should have character-escaped the includes . . .
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
“Lovely. The feds want to create a “West Point for public service.” Imagine, a whole campus filled with douche-y college resume builders who all want to be politicians when they grow up! Sounds like a kind of customized hell for me. ”
This already exists. It’s called Washington, DC.
#2 | Brian | May 4th, 2009 at 7:24 am
“Home invaders in Orlando yell, “Police! Open the door!” before breaking in and killing one of the home’s occupants. They’re learning.”
This isn’t a new phenomenon. I’ve got copies of articles over the past 4 years of this type of thing happening. Some criminals even buy t-shirts with “POLICE” across the front to improve the chances of compliance.”
The federal solution to that will be to ban t-shirts with “POLICE” on them. And when that doesn’t work we’ll go to the War on T-shirts.
Stop wondering, we wouldn’t. He refused BAC tests! We’d be doing time.
I’d like to see an economist, personally. AFAIK, nothing says a Supreme Court Justice has to be a lawyer or have gone to law school.
#27, using namespace fuckthepublic? (they can’t use $$$!!!)
If they’re going to have a law requiring dogs get 20 minutes of exercise a day, how long before owners are required to read to them for a period of time each day as well?
My guess is they pick them from the appellate courts because that’s who they owe the favors to.
But, law school is probably where they get all that special training that allows them to see all those exceptions in the Bill of Rights.
I love how the feds are looking to increase asset forfeiture, but the people are looking to end marijuana prohibition… this is gonna be quite a collision to watch.
From the DUI cop article: “He taught me, if you drop a prisoner off to central booking, and he doesn’t shake your hand, chances are you did something wrong.”
WTF?
Feingold’s views are as consistent as Ron Paul’s. What views do you disagree with? His support of the 2nd Amendment? His purpose of reestablishing the rule of law? His arguments against torture vs Sensenbrenner? Free speech for individuals? Arguments against the Patriot act and warrantless wiretapping? The main problem with his arguments in regard to political speech is that he has never run a mudslinging campaign. He runs on facts. His senatorial opponents have used the same arguments against him every time (AIEEEE!!! Liberal! Liberal! Soft on Crime! Abortion! Gays!) without bringing up facts or cogent arguments and have lost since 1992. As a constitutional scholar, few are his peer. I would be sad to lose him as my senator, though.
I assume the breathalyzer company is refusing to hand over the source code in order buy them the time they need to sanitize it before releasing it. It’s not as if a judge has the expertise to know whether the source code they’ve been handed is actual working code, or even compiles. It wouldn’t surprise me that the real code intentionally overestimates BAC, since that is exactly what their customers would want.
While we’re at it, how about the hardware? Information regarding variance in accuracy of the alcohol sensors is curiously absent from any public forum.
on DUI…a friend of mine was on a jury…long story, but a woman got into an accident and then went into a bar and had a few drinks…she got off becasue it was impossible for them to determine how drunk she was at the time of the accident.
We were talking about this over the weekend and he said that based on his experience, the best thing to do if you’re ever pulled over (and you’ve been drinking) is to pull out a sealed bottle of alcohol, open it in front of the cop, and drink it on the spot.
I’m gonna have to chew on that a bit, Seth. INTERESTING idea.
42 comments on a post that includes implied criticism of the entire breathalyzer business, and not one “how DARE you even THINK about letting drunks drive!” comment. I’m impressed.
But doesn’t Yale already exist?
My major complaint with Feingold is that stupid campaign finance bill he authored with McCain which is actually better termed the “incumbent protection act”.