Thursday, June 27, 2019
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
California Court Strikes Down Local Restrictions on Personal Cannabis Grows
OFF THE WIRE
California
Court Strikes Down Local Restrictions on Personal Cannabis Grows - A
court this month decided that the City of Fontana has gone too far in
restricting personal cannabis cultivation. A lawsuit was filed against
the City by one of its residents. The court threw out various City
restrictions on who can obtain a personal grow permit, as well as
restrictions on the physical aspects of residences that qualify for a
permit. The Court also found that the required property inspections
were not justified nor was the cost of the permit.
Read the news article... https://www.jennifermcgrath.com/…/fontana-personal-cannabi…/
Read the news article... https://www.jennifermcgrath.com/…/fontana-personal-cannabi…/
Monday, June 24, 2019
Sunday, June 23, 2019
Saturday, June 22, 2019
Friday, June 21, 2019
Thursday, June 20, 2019
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Monday, June 17, 2019
Sunday, June 16, 2019
Saturday, June 15, 2019
California Court Strikes Down Local Restrictions on Personal Cannabis Grows
OFF THE WIRE
California
Court Strikes Down Local Restrictions on Personal Cannabis Grows - A
court this month decided that the City of Fontana has gone too far in
restricting personal cannabis cultivation. A lawsuit was filed against
the City by one of its residents. The court threw out various City
restrictions on who can obtain a personal grow permit, as well as
restrictions on the physical aspects of residences that qualify for a
permit. The Court also found that the required property inspections
were not justified nor was the cost of the permit.
Read the news article... https://www.jennifermcgrath.com/…/fontana-personal-cannabi…/
Read the news article... https://www.jennifermcgrath.com/…/fontana-personal-cannabi…/
Friday, June 14, 2019
Thursday, June 13, 2019
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
THANK YOU BIG V
OFF THE WIRE
THANK YOU BIG V
You know, Not Surprised, put up what is one my most objectionable points to any RICO prosecution.
RICO’s foundations were Robert Blakely under Sen. McClellan. The base test was an enterprise test, rooted in economics.
I can say, at risk of someone giving me a good smackaroo(the type that gets your attention, not type that dulls the senses) that I spent many hours around several MC’s.
I knew people who had legal problems- but those legal problems were their own doing. Some of those people decided to trade their souls for thirty pieces of silver and try to bring their brothers into the mix in order to save their own asses.
Well, the reality is that there was no enterprise related to the Motorcycle Club itself. Until this bullshit, there has never really been a whole club put on trial, never a whole chapter even. Why ?
Because motorcycle clubs fail the enterprise test that Blakely based his RICO work under. Even Blakely has admitted that RICO has been warped beyond all possible recognition. RICO requires an enterprise test and that requires a portion of Law and Economics to be used. Law and Economics is the intersecting branch of legal theory and applied economics where economics answers some of the questions that legal theory cannot.
The enterprise test basically asks a couple questions. Is the organization established for the purposes of commercial, industrial, or business activity which is established or organized for the purpose of profit ?
There are two things I can absolutely tell you: (1)John Wayne was never on the sands of Iwo Jima. (2) No real MC is an enterprise- it does not exist for profit. You can find some guys who’ve got good educations or good families or just worked their tails off, and they’ve got money- but it is their money. NOT THE MC’s. When club dues are due, the member that is wealthy does not pay for another brother’s outstanding dues. A member that is wealthy does not profit from the club. Being in a club is a zero sum game- the club most of the time does not have money for runs(small chapters often catch shit for having rough, shitty runs, but most everbody has a good time); the club often times doesn’t have enough money to fully stock the well of the bar and relies on donations to pay for a drink(and yes if you are a guest of most clubs you’ll get free drinks til you’re inebriated- you’re just a shitty guest for not paying the suggested donations; most club brothers have to trade parts or rely on a brother with tools and mechanical ability to fix their bikes. I remember one guy had purchased a 74ci EVO Sportster, and it ate it’s S&S and Andrews wheaties and became a 96ci Sportster. Except the people keeping it running were the guy who could do the menial machine work, the brother with the lift and all the tools, the torque adapters, the slugging wrenches. We kept his bike going and he quit being a damned car hop and helped fill up the well.
You trade your individual rights to wear a patch or support gear or some logo related to the MC for the brotherhood and the bikes. That’s it.
No profit to it. At 36, I have a PhD that will never be finished, and is useless. I have had encounters with law enforcements. Other people have bruised their knuckles on me, I’ve bruised my knuckles on other people.
In 18 years, I heard of one patch pulling and it was by a club up out Kansas way, and they jumped on a guy and took his patch. They got the honor of sending it FedEx overnight, they had the leather cleaned, and the patches wear taken off and dry cleaned. They lost about $400 on the stupidity. It was a zero sum game. Yes, one of their idiot members could claim- “I pulled a patch”- with his Howdy Dowdy grin, but they lost $400 and a lot of people’s respect. The club later disbanded itself because of shame- and that’s honestly what it was.
The point is: RICO DOES NOT EVEN APPLY TO MC’s. We’re broke- 99% of us. We’re broke off our ass. We live pay check to pay check. Our money goes into our family, our bikes, our dues, and some people drink. An MC exists because of biking and brotherhood. That is it.
Here is what goes on at a church meeting(boys- I got pins in my hip, and I ain’t healed yet, so could you wait on keelhauling me ?).
1. You take roll, you remember the brothers who aren’t there because they gave their lives for biking and brotherhood(if they gave their lives for other stupid shit- no, typically they aren’t remembered). If someone isn’t there, you have to go back outside church, find a landline, and call around looking for the lazy person who didn’t who up.
2. You discuss anything to do with the club: who’s visiting, is there someone who wants to transfer in/out, is someone on medical leave returning or turning in club property
3. Brothers discuss matters of interest- we talk politics- as in real actual politics that affect our jobs, retirements, and ability to ride the way we want to ride.
4. We discuss our interactions with other clubs. We genuinely want good relations with other bikers. HONEST TO GOD, WE DO.
5. We ask each other how projects and honey do’s are going. Wife wants a new carport for her Sienna ? Can’t afford it. One person has timbers- 4″x4″x10′, one person works at a concrete company and can drop off leftovers til a pad is laid, one guy has tin, one guy is a roofer. Carport comes together. Another guy has a GM diesel that needs the motor changed out, bring it by the garage, we got a gantry and hoist, presto changeo, the burnt out 6.2L is replaced by a nice 6.5L Turbo Diesel by Detroit Diesel. Yes, the catalytic converter and O2 sensors were hooked back up so nobody get any ideas that we RICO’d Mother Nature. One dude just needed sod hauled. We talk about each others kids, people are proud of their children. Sometimes if a kid’s birthday is at family day or several are near family day, we get a big cake, and there are presents and rides. And as a side note to Billy Queen: you may have been reliving a scene from your own childhood where mommma and daddy didn’t have no money for presents and Aunt Bea brought you a police and a firetruck from the Mayberry playset, but I never saw a kid not have a party on his birthday. If a kid is getting into trouble, a brother who has been in trouble, seen the error of his ways, may talk to the trouble maker and tell the youngin’ what it is like to live in an environment that is segregated, where you make a left turn when a gunbull tells you to make a left, even though the colored line says follow RIGHT. Having to lose all privacy and urinate and eliminate inches from another man. Being at risk because of your skin tone or your body build or your youth. A brother that has been behind bars will flat scare another brother’s child straight if asked. And having heard one myself when a kid was misbehaving, I think I eliminated a little. I know the kid joined the baseball team, quit hanging out with spray paint huffers, and he changed from a D/F student to a B/C student and got a welding degree.
5. We actually lecture each other: don’t do stupid illegal stuff. A man who was a club member predicted he would go to prison for saying to his brothers “Don’t do illegal or immoral stuff.” We still say- don’t do it. Your business outside the club is your business but that stuff is inseparable and condemns us all.
6. Church adjourns and we watch tv, browse the internet, federal prisoners can email us, there are women who want to meet us, there are men of all age, race, ethnicity, religion, and skin tone who want to meet us and find out what MC life is about.
7. Errata: There are exceptions to every rule, there are bad people that get into chapters for bad reasons, there are good men who let life slug them in the chest until they become bad men. There are bad chapters that need to be shut down and are shut down. In the fine and well beloved but oft misunderstood short story, “A Good Man is Hard to Find”- the antagonist of the story can be paraphrased to say, “They’d been good people if someone was there to kill them every moment of their life.” My favorite authors are Flannery O’Conner, Stephen Crane, and Joesph Conrad, some Ambrose Bierce thrown in is also good. Were Mr. Bierce alive, I think he’d have something to add to the Devil’s Dictionary about this farcical judicial moment in history.
My favorite authors understood that humans are not monsters nor are they saints. My favorite brothers and hangarounds and women understood the same. We are human beings, prone to failings, prone to err. In the MC world, some will err and the club will try to help guide them back(see LV Mongol Face).
If the good jurist trying this happens to find this, I ask him to check a link I attached.
THANK YOU BIG V
You know, Not Surprised, put up what is one my most objectionable points to any RICO prosecution.
RICO’s foundations were Robert Blakely under Sen. McClellan. The base test was an enterprise test, rooted in economics.
I can say, at risk of someone giving me a good smackaroo(the type that gets your attention, not type that dulls the senses) that I spent many hours around several MC’s.
I knew people who had legal problems- but those legal problems were their own doing. Some of those people decided to trade their souls for thirty pieces of silver and try to bring their brothers into the mix in order to save their own asses.
Well, the reality is that there was no enterprise related to the Motorcycle Club itself. Until this bullshit, there has never really been a whole club put on trial, never a whole chapter even. Why ?
Because motorcycle clubs fail the enterprise test that Blakely based his RICO work under. Even Blakely has admitted that RICO has been warped beyond all possible recognition. RICO requires an enterprise test and that requires a portion of Law and Economics to be used. Law and Economics is the intersecting branch of legal theory and applied economics where economics answers some of the questions that legal theory cannot.
The enterprise test basically asks a couple questions. Is the organization established for the purposes of commercial, industrial, or business activity which is established or organized for the purpose of profit ?
There are two things I can absolutely tell you: (1)John Wayne was never on the sands of Iwo Jima. (2) No real MC is an enterprise- it does not exist for profit. You can find some guys who’ve got good educations or good families or just worked their tails off, and they’ve got money- but it is their money. NOT THE MC’s. When club dues are due, the member that is wealthy does not pay for another brother’s outstanding dues. A member that is wealthy does not profit from the club. Being in a club is a zero sum game- the club most of the time does not have money for runs(small chapters often catch shit for having rough, shitty runs, but most everbody has a good time); the club often times doesn’t have enough money to fully stock the well of the bar and relies on donations to pay for a drink(and yes if you are a guest of most clubs you’ll get free drinks til you’re inebriated- you’re just a shitty guest for not paying the suggested donations; most club brothers have to trade parts or rely on a brother with tools and mechanical ability to fix their bikes. I remember one guy had purchased a 74ci EVO Sportster, and it ate it’s S&S and Andrews wheaties and became a 96ci Sportster. Except the people keeping it running were the guy who could do the menial machine work, the brother with the lift and all the tools, the torque adapters, the slugging wrenches. We kept his bike going and he quit being a damned car hop and helped fill up the well.
You trade your individual rights to wear a patch or support gear or some logo related to the MC for the brotherhood and the bikes. That’s it.
No profit to it. At 36, I have a PhD that will never be finished, and is useless. I have had encounters with law enforcements. Other people have bruised their knuckles on me, I’ve bruised my knuckles on other people.
In 18 years, I heard of one patch pulling and it was by a club up out Kansas way, and they jumped on a guy and took his patch. They got the honor of sending it FedEx overnight, they had the leather cleaned, and the patches wear taken off and dry cleaned. They lost about $400 on the stupidity. It was a zero sum game. Yes, one of their idiot members could claim- “I pulled a patch”- with his Howdy Dowdy grin, but they lost $400 and a lot of people’s respect. The club later disbanded itself because of shame- and that’s honestly what it was.
The point is: RICO DOES NOT EVEN APPLY TO MC’s. We’re broke- 99% of us. We’re broke off our ass. We live pay check to pay check. Our money goes into our family, our bikes, our dues, and some people drink. An MC exists because of biking and brotherhood. That is it.
Here is what goes on at a church meeting(boys- I got pins in my hip, and I ain’t healed yet, so could you wait on keelhauling me ?).
1. You take roll, you remember the brothers who aren’t there because they gave their lives for biking and brotherhood(if they gave their lives for other stupid shit- no, typically they aren’t remembered). If someone isn’t there, you have to go back outside church, find a landline, and call around looking for the lazy person who didn’t who up.
2. You discuss anything to do with the club: who’s visiting, is there someone who wants to transfer in/out, is someone on medical leave returning or turning in club property
3. Brothers discuss matters of interest- we talk politics- as in real actual politics that affect our jobs, retirements, and ability to ride the way we want to ride.
4. We discuss our interactions with other clubs. We genuinely want good relations with other bikers. HONEST TO GOD, WE DO.
5. We ask each other how projects and honey do’s are going. Wife wants a new carport for her Sienna ? Can’t afford it. One person has timbers- 4″x4″x10′, one person works at a concrete company and can drop off leftovers til a pad is laid, one guy has tin, one guy is a roofer. Carport comes together. Another guy has a GM diesel that needs the motor changed out, bring it by the garage, we got a gantry and hoist, presto changeo, the burnt out 6.2L is replaced by a nice 6.5L Turbo Diesel by Detroit Diesel. Yes, the catalytic converter and O2 sensors were hooked back up so nobody get any ideas that we RICO’d Mother Nature. One dude just needed sod hauled. We talk about each others kids, people are proud of their children. Sometimes if a kid’s birthday is at family day or several are near family day, we get a big cake, and there are presents and rides. And as a side note to Billy Queen: you may have been reliving a scene from your own childhood where mommma and daddy didn’t have no money for presents and Aunt Bea brought you a police and a firetruck from the Mayberry playset, but I never saw a kid not have a party on his birthday. If a kid is getting into trouble, a brother who has been in trouble, seen the error of his ways, may talk to the trouble maker and tell the youngin’ what it is like to live in an environment that is segregated, where you make a left turn when a gunbull tells you to make a left, even though the colored line says follow RIGHT. Having to lose all privacy and urinate and eliminate inches from another man. Being at risk because of your skin tone or your body build or your youth. A brother that has been behind bars will flat scare another brother’s child straight if asked. And having heard one myself when a kid was misbehaving, I think I eliminated a little. I know the kid joined the baseball team, quit hanging out with spray paint huffers, and he changed from a D/F student to a B/C student and got a welding degree.
5. We actually lecture each other: don’t do stupid illegal stuff. A man who was a club member predicted he would go to prison for saying to his brothers “Don’t do illegal or immoral stuff.” We still say- don’t do it. Your business outside the club is your business but that stuff is inseparable and condemns us all.
6. Church adjourns and we watch tv, browse the internet, federal prisoners can email us, there are women who want to meet us, there are men of all age, race, ethnicity, religion, and skin tone who want to meet us and find out what MC life is about.
7. Errata: There are exceptions to every rule, there are bad people that get into chapters for bad reasons, there are good men who let life slug them in the chest until they become bad men. There are bad chapters that need to be shut down and are shut down. In the fine and well beloved but oft misunderstood short story, “A Good Man is Hard to Find”- the antagonist of the story can be paraphrased to say, “They’d been good people if someone was there to kill them every moment of their life.” My favorite authors are Flannery O’Conner, Stephen Crane, and Joesph Conrad, some Ambrose Bierce thrown in is also good. Were Mr. Bierce alive, I think he’d have something to add to the Devil’s Dictionary about this farcical judicial moment in history.
My favorite authors understood that humans are not monsters nor are they saints. My favorite brothers and hangarounds and women understood the same. We are human beings, prone to failings, prone to err. In the MC world, some will err and the club will try to help guide them back(see LV Mongol Face).
If the good jurist trying this happens to find this, I ask him to check a link I attached.
Monday, June 10, 2019
Sunday, June 9, 2019
Arizona - PROMOTING AWARENESS OF MOTORCYCLE PROFILING AND ENCOURAGING LAW
OFF THE WIRE
REFERENCE TITLE:
motorcycle profiling; encouraging prevention
State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Fifty-fourth Legislature
First Regular Session
A MEMORIAL PROMOTING AWARENESS OF MOTORCYCLE PROFILING AND ENCOURAGING LAW
Your memorialist respectfully represents:
Whereas, motorcycle ridership in Arizona continues to increase over
time with registrations growing from 138,000 in 2009 to over 325,000 in
2018; and
Whereas, as of August 2016, the ongoing National Motorcycle
Profiling Survey, conducted by the Motorcycle Profiling Project, found
that approximately one-half of the motorcyclists surveyed felt that they
had been profiled by law enforcement at least once; and
Whereas, motorcycle profiling means law enforcement arbitrarily uses
the fact that a person rides a motorcycle or wears motorcycle-related
apparel as a factor in deciding to stop and question, take enforcement
action against or arrest a person or search the person's vehicle with or
without legal basis under the United States Constitution and the Arizona
Constitution; andWhereas, complaints surrounding motorcycle profiling have been cited
in all fifteen Arizona counties; and Whereas, nationwide protests to raise awareness and combat motorcycle profiling have been held in multiple states; and Whereas, in 2011, the State of Washington enacted legislation requiring the criminal justice training commission to ensure that issues related to motorcycle profiling are addressed in basic law enforcement training and offered to in-service law enforcement officers in conjunction with existing training regarding profiling; and Whereas, reported incidents of motorcycle profiling have dropped approximately ninety percent in the State of Washington since the 2011 legislation was signed into law; and Whereas, in 2016, Maryland became the second state to pass a law addressing the issue of motorcycle profiling. Wherefore your memorialist, the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, prays:311. That law enforcement agencies in Arizona work to promote increased public awareness of the issue of motorcycle profiling. That law enforcement agencies in Arizona collaborate and communicate with the motorcycle community to end motorcycle profiling. . That state and local law enforcement officials include a statement condemning motorcycle profiling in their written policies and training materials. That the Secretary of State transmit copies of this Memorial to the captain of each law enforcement agency in the State of Arizona.
REFERENCE TITLE:
motorcycle profiling; encouraging prevention
State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Fifty-fourth Legislature
First Regular Session
A MEMORIAL PROMOTING AWARENESS OF MOTORCYCLE PROFILING AND ENCOURAGING LAW
Your memorialist respectfully represents:
Whereas, motorcycle ridership in Arizona continues to increase over
time with registrations growing from 138,000 in 2009 to over 325,000 in
2018; and
Whereas, as of August 2016, the ongoing National Motorcycle
Profiling Survey, conducted by the Motorcycle Profiling Project, found
that approximately one-half of the motorcyclists surveyed felt that they
had been profiled by law enforcement at least once; and
Whereas, motorcycle profiling means law enforcement arbitrarily uses
the fact that a person rides a motorcycle or wears motorcycle-related
apparel as a factor in deciding to stop and question, take enforcement
action against or arrest a person or search the person's vehicle with or
without legal basis under the United States Constitution and the Arizona
Constitution; andWhereas, complaints surrounding motorcycle profiling have been cited
in all fifteen Arizona counties; and Whereas, nationwide protests to raise awareness and combat motorcycle profiling have been held in multiple states; and Whereas, in 2011, the State of Washington enacted legislation requiring the criminal justice training commission to ensure that issues related to motorcycle profiling are addressed in basic law enforcement training and offered to in-service law enforcement officers in conjunction with existing training regarding profiling; and Whereas, reported incidents of motorcycle profiling have dropped approximately ninety percent in the State of Washington since the 2011 legislation was signed into law; and Whereas, in 2016, Maryland became the second state to pass a law addressing the issue of motorcycle profiling. Wherefore your memorialist, the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, prays:311. That law enforcement agencies in Arizona work to promote increased public awareness of the issue of motorcycle profiling. That law enforcement agencies in Arizona collaborate and communicate with the motorcycle community to end motorcycle profiling. . That state and local law enforcement officials include a statement condemning motorcycle profiling in their written policies and training materials. That the Secretary of State transmit copies of this Memorial to the captain of each law enforcement agency in the State of Arizona.
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO COLLABORATE AND COMMUNICATE WITH THE MOTORCYCLE
COMMUNITY TO PREVENT PROFILING.
Saturday, June 8, 2019
Friday, June 7, 2019
Thursday, June 6, 2019
Wednesday, June 5, 2019
Tuesday, June 4, 2019
Monday, June 3, 2019
Sunday, June 2, 2019
An Eye on Recent Motorist Rights Court Cases, Part 1: NMA Weekly E-Newsletter #529
OFF THE WIRE
May, 30, 2019
Motorist rights cases have made news and even history recently. There have been so many as of late, we are dedicating two separate newsletters to provide some insight on the legal rulings that are affecting drivers around the country.
This week’s newsletter focuses on recent rulings and pending US Supreme Court and federal court cases. Part 2 next week will outline state court decisions.
TheNewspaper.com, featured prominently in these two newsletters, is a great supplement to the NMA’s Motorists.org site for the latest news and opinions on the politics of driving.
The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS)
Last week’s unanimous decision that curtails excessive government fines and property seizures has provided further impetus for one of the NMA’s primary lobbying initiatives: civil asset forfeiture (CAF) reform. The decision received broad bipartisan praise. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the ruling that the excessive fines clause is a fundamental restriction that applies to the states under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the SCOTUS decision is monumental, the fight is far from over. Some states still allow the seizure of property from citizens --- motorists are prime targets --- who have never been charged with a crime. Our work for reform at the federal and state levels continues in earnest.
Additionally, SCOTUS accepted a case in January that will decide whether an unconscious drunk person has given implied consent for a blood draw to determine alcohol level. The case might resolve an important constitutional question: Can state legislatures obviate the warrant requirement by “deeming” that citizens can consent to Fourth Amendment searches without explicitly expressing that consent?
Federal Appeals Court Cases
Judges for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in late January that a person driving a registered vehicle on a public road is not “reasonably suspicious.” Federal authorities appealed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a border patrol traffic stop in Freer, Texas. The driver turned onto a public road that happened to bypass a checkpoint 50 miles inland from the Mexican border. The U.S. government has declared anything within 100 miles to be under Border Patrol jurisdiction. The Court ruled that turning onto a road that is “known” for smuggling in a truck registered to an individual is not enough to support reasonable suspicion. If it were, then virtually anyone driving within 100 miles from the border could automatically be deemed suspicious.
In December, judges in the Eighth Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled that it is appropriate for officers to use force to ram a driver with an expired registration sticker off the road. The driver sued the Arkansas state trooper for using excessive force and a US District Judge agreed with the plaintiff that the officer was out of line. She felt that at the time the trooper turned on his lights to make the stop, she could not reasonably do so on the shoulder which was unlit, dark and narrow. She continued to drive 20 mph under the speed limit for 42 seconds to find a safer spot, but after she passed an exit the trooper used a precision immobilization technique (PIT) maneuver to push her vehicle into a ditch. She and her young daughter were both injured. The Appeals Court sent the case back to the same district judge who now must determine if the lawsuit can proceed on the basis of malicious intent.
In early February, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that police do not need a reason to place American citizens on a ‘Suspicious Person’ list. Judge Milan Smith wrote, “Tips and leads required only ‘mere suspicion,’ a lower standard than the reasonable suspicion required for criminal intelligence data and is up to the discretion of law enforcement and other government officials. This case is chilling in the sense that the government can put anyone on the list for not much more than a whim.
The Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled in January that police cannot demand ID from car or truck passengers without a reasonable suspicion of a crime. The judges agreed that in this Arizona case, the US Supreme Court ruling in Rodriquez v. US, which prohibits police from prolonging a traffic stop by asking unrelated questions, established precedent.
In January, the Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals upheld a traffic stop over a fast blinker. Apparently, driving with a turn signal that flashes “too fast” is potentially a criminal act in Georgia. The blinker was actually working properly; the Georgia Code does not stipulate how fast a turn signal should blink, only that all equipment be kept in “good working condition.” The appellate panel suggested that the plaintiff’s blinker was not in compliance because it was in working condition, just not “good” working condition. American jurisprudence at its best.
Check out Part 2 next week when we showcase recent state cases that could impact motorists.
May, 30, 2019
Motorist rights cases have made news and even history recently. There have been so many as of late, we are dedicating two separate newsletters to provide some insight on the legal rulings that are affecting drivers around the country.
This week’s newsletter focuses on recent rulings and pending US Supreme Court and federal court cases. Part 2 next week will outline state court decisions.
TheNewspaper.com, featured prominently in these two newsletters, is a great supplement to the NMA’s Motorists.org site for the latest news and opinions on the politics of driving.
The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS)
Last week’s unanimous decision that curtails excessive government fines and property seizures has provided further impetus for one of the NMA’s primary lobbying initiatives: civil asset forfeiture (CAF) reform. The decision received broad bipartisan praise. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the ruling that the excessive fines clause is a fundamental restriction that applies to the states under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the SCOTUS decision is monumental, the fight is far from over. Some states still allow the seizure of property from citizens --- motorists are prime targets --- who have never been charged with a crime. Our work for reform at the federal and state levels continues in earnest.
Additionally, SCOTUS accepted a case in January that will decide whether an unconscious drunk person has given implied consent for a blood draw to determine alcohol level. The case might resolve an important constitutional question: Can state legislatures obviate the warrant requirement by “deeming” that citizens can consent to Fourth Amendment searches without explicitly expressing that consent?
Federal Appeals Court Cases
Judges for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in late January that a person driving a registered vehicle on a public road is not “reasonably suspicious.” Federal authorities appealed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a border patrol traffic stop in Freer, Texas. The driver turned onto a public road that happened to bypass a checkpoint 50 miles inland from the Mexican border. The U.S. government has declared anything within 100 miles to be under Border Patrol jurisdiction. The Court ruled that turning onto a road that is “known” for smuggling in a truck registered to an individual is not enough to support reasonable suspicion. If it were, then virtually anyone driving within 100 miles from the border could automatically be deemed suspicious.
In December, judges in the Eighth Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled that it is appropriate for officers to use force to ram a driver with an expired registration sticker off the road. The driver sued the Arkansas state trooper for using excessive force and a US District Judge agreed with the plaintiff that the officer was out of line. She felt that at the time the trooper turned on his lights to make the stop, she could not reasonably do so on the shoulder which was unlit, dark and narrow. She continued to drive 20 mph under the speed limit for 42 seconds to find a safer spot, but after she passed an exit the trooper used a precision immobilization technique (PIT) maneuver to push her vehicle into a ditch. She and her young daughter were both injured. The Appeals Court sent the case back to the same district judge who now must determine if the lawsuit can proceed on the basis of malicious intent.
In early February, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that police do not need a reason to place American citizens on a ‘Suspicious Person’ list. Judge Milan Smith wrote, “Tips and leads required only ‘mere suspicion,’ a lower standard than the reasonable suspicion required for criminal intelligence data and is up to the discretion of law enforcement and other government officials. This case is chilling in the sense that the government can put anyone on the list for not much more than a whim.
The Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled in January that police cannot demand ID from car or truck passengers without a reasonable suspicion of a crime. The judges agreed that in this Arizona case, the US Supreme Court ruling in Rodriquez v. US, which prohibits police from prolonging a traffic stop by asking unrelated questions, established precedent.
In January, the Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals upheld a traffic stop over a fast blinker. Apparently, driving with a turn signal that flashes “too fast” is potentially a criminal act in Georgia. The blinker was actually working properly; the Georgia Code does not stipulate how fast a turn signal should blink, only that all equipment be kept in “good working condition.” The appellate panel suggested that the plaintiff’s blinker was not in compliance because it was in working condition, just not “good” working condition. American jurisprudence at its best.
Check out Part 2 next week when we showcase recent state cases that could impact motorists.
Saturday, June 1, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
