MADD- When Lying Isn't Enough
I'm never surprised when MADD lies to further their agenda. However, this is a new low, even for them.
Bookmark: 
Posted On:
May 31, 2008
Posted On:
May 30, 2008
DWI- .00 and still arrested!
Here is the story-
Jason Squires is a DWI attorney in Arizona. Mr. Squires gets a not guilty verdict on an "extreme" DWI case. Officer Bond Gonzalez was a witness at the trial.
A few weeks later Mr. Squires goes out drinking with his wife Heather and two friends. Heather was the designated driver and did not drink.
On the way home Officer Gonzalez pulls the car over. Officer G smells alcohol (from passengers) and demands Heather perform field sobriety tests.
Jason tells Heather to refuse these tests. DWI defense attorneys know these tests are a fraud. Jason also believed that Officer Gonzalez wasn't going to be impartial. Result- Heather gets arrested for DWI, car is impounded. Heather's blood alcohol was then tested and confirmed to be .000!!
This is why opinion crime is so dangerous. The police have unilateral authority to arrest without evidence. The driving public has no protection from corrupt or incompetent police.
Later the police department stated that Heather had "forced" Officer Gonzalez to arrest her by "not cooperating"! The very purpose of the 5th amendment is that you are not required to "cooperate" with the police.
At the very best this case represents the presumption of guilt for DWI cases. We train police to assume drivers are drunk and that they must arrest more to save lives. We then reward officers who arrest the most.
At worst this is a payback arrest by a corrupt officer. In an earlier time, Freedom protected you from corrupt police. However, the Bill of Rights has since been repealed in for DWI suspects.
What will happen to the either incompetent or corrupt Officer Bond Gonzalez? Nothing. Police who arrest the innocent rarely face any consequences.
Bookmark:
Posted On:
May 29, 2008
Who can be a Texas Juror?
I'm set for a DWI jury trial in the near future. I don't blog about pending cases and I'm not going to start now. But I would like to share some insight on Texas juries. Today, let's discuss juror qualifications.
To be a juror in Texas you must
Be a citizen of the United States and of this State.
Be at least 18 years of age.
Reside in the county of jury service.
Be able to read and write.
Be of sound mind.
However,you are not allowed to be a juror if
You have been convicted of a felony or of any type of theft (unless rights have been restored);
You are now on probation or deferred adjudication for a felony or for any type of theft; or
You are now under indictment for a felony or are now under criminal charges for any type of theft.
Believe or not, some people do not want to be on a jury. They would like to excused. I've heard many reasons from jurors (busy at work) etc. However, here are the sure fire reasons.
You can be excused from jury duty if you
Are over 70 years of age;
Have legal custody of a child under 10 years of age and jury service would leave the child unsupervised;
Are a student in class;
Are the caretaker of a person who is unable to care for themselves (an invalid); or
Can show a physical or mental impairment or an inability to comprehend or to communicate in English.
Are a member of the United States military forces serving on active duty and deployed to a location away from your home station and out of your country of resident.
If you can be excused you still must show up. Disobeying a jury summons is not an option. Besides, if you are reading this blog we need jurors like you. Jury duty is a chance to actually hold the State to their burden. Remember, jury duty is not about "solving the case", or "finding the truth". Jury duty is about holding the government to its' burden, lest we completely abandon the liberty on which we were founded.
Bookmark:
Posted On:
May 29, 2008
Dallas Sports Stars and Cocaine- Tarpley, Hamilton, and Irvin
The Texas Rangers are off to a surprisingly decent start this season. One of the reasons was the offseason acquisition of Josh Hamilton from the Cincinnati Reds. Mr. Hamilton's story is an amazing tale of drug addiction and redemption. Here is the short version.
Josh Hamilton gets drafted first overall in the 1999 MLB draft. Josh gets a lot of money. Josh gets hurt in the minors, becomes a drug addict. Josh is suspended from baseball but claws his way back into the league and is now performing at an all star level for the Rangers.
The triumph of Josh Hamilton over cocaine reminded me of some other former Dallas sports stars who has a fondness for snow- Roy Tarpley and Michael Irvin. Let's do a comparison to see what we can learn.
Josh Hamilton-
Team- Texas Rangers
Drugs- Cocaine, maybe heroin
Legal Issues- None
Work Troubles- Suspended and reinstated.
Today- Center fielder, playing like an all star
Roy Tarpley-
Team- Dallas Mavericks
Drugs- Alcohol and Cocaine
Legal Issues- Arrested twice for DWI
Work Troubles Suspended forever from NBA.
Today- Out of basketball, never reinstated.
Michael Irvin-
Team- Dallas Cowboys
Drugs- Cocaine and marijuana
Legal Issues- Arrested for cocaine possession
Work Troubles- Suspended for 5 games.
Today- Doing mediocre TV work
It would be hard to argue by any measure that Roy Tarpley has had the same level of success as Michael Irvin, or the current success of Josh Hamilton. What can we learn from these three different cases of athletes on cocaine?
1. Don't destroy a future over drug use. Roy Tarpley may have had a Josh Hamilton-like career if not for the NBA's drug policy. Whereas Josh was suspended and reinstated to MLB, Roy received a lifetime ban. The NBA's tough on drugs policy prevented Mr. Tarpley from exploiting his greatest marketable talent- rebounding.
If Roy Tarpley has been a musician, actor, son of George H W Bush, hedge fund consultant, etc he would not have had his future destroyed.
The NBA's lifetime ban is misguided for the same reason as financial aid bans for marijuana convictions. We are destroying the future of so many because we disagree with their recreational substance choices today.
2. Bring back original Coca Cola!
Cocaine is not something I am personally familiar with. However, unlike marijuana, cocaine can kill you and it is addictive. The fact that our nation's best athletes have used coke leads me to believe that while dangerous, a safer legal product would not be the societal Armageddon drug warriors predict. For example, a legal coca leaf product like..... Original Coca Cola (yes it really had cocaine in it).
Bookmark:
Posted On:
May 28, 2008
George W. Bush- On Cocaine
Scott McClelland, the former White House press secretary, has written a new book about his time serving the Bush regime. As most of you know, President Bush is a former alcoholic who was rumored to have used cocaine in his earlier days. However, since Bush is well connected neither his drug use or DWI arrest were allowed to ruin his future.
Here is an an expert from an Atlanta Journal Constitution story on the book-
McClellan tracks Bush's penchant for self-deception back to an overheard incident on the campaign trail in 1999 when the then-governor was dogged by reports of possible cocaine use in his younger days.The book recounts an evening in a hotel suite "somewhere in the Midwest." Bush was on the phone with a supporter and motioned for McClellan to have a seat.
"'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'"
"I remember thinking to myself, How can that be?" McClellan wrote. "How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."
Bush, according to McClellan, "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie."
"So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true," McClellan wrote. "And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious — political convenience."
So many drug war lies exist for political convenience. The commander in chief of our War on Drugs is finally being exposed for the full range of his hypocrisy. Whereas Mr. Bush can claim blackout party moments to conveniently forget his coke use, thousands upon thousands of Americans are imprisoned for the same behavior.
If Mr. Obama wins then we will have two successive president who can not deny using cocaine. Maybe, just maybe, we should quit arresting those who make the same choice. After all, they could be POTUS some day.
Bookmark:
Posted On:
May 27, 2008
Rusty Duncan, Netroots Nation, Tubing! Video?
I'll be at the Rusty Duncan conference in June. Mark has proposed getting the blawgers together, I concur. If you'll be in San Antonio June 26-28 shoot me an email.
I'm also speaking at Netroots Nation in Austin July 17/18. I'm in an open records panel. NN is a "progressive" media convention. If there is any liberal in me, it's classical liberal. Today, I'm libertarian. Should be fun to meet Vince from Capitol Annex and other proggresive bloggers.
Tubing
I am considering floating down the Guadalupe after the Rusty Duncan conference. I have never tubed before. Any recommendations/ideas? Finally, once one is down the river how do you get back?
Do You Want Video?
I've been pitched a few different services for video on attorney websites/blogs. I've always thought blogging is a better medium that vlogging. Blogging creates a statement that can be studied, edited, and clarified. Vlogging seems to be more personality driven.
However, I am here for you guys. If you really want video, I'll find a way to make some video.
Bookmark:
Posted On:
May 24, 2008
Kaufman County Death Warrant
Yesterday I caught the last half of a death warrant hearing. This was the first case set for a death warrant in Kaufman County since the Supreme Court ruled that lethal injection was not cruel or unusual punishment.
What is a death warrant? In Texas, when a defendant who has been sentenced to death has exhausted his appeals the court may set an execution date. The date is up to the judge, however,Texas law requires that no convict be executed until after 6pm.
I had some other cases set that morning. I came in about 15 minutes late to the death warrant hearing. I walked in as the judge was reciting the procedural history of the case, the dates of the trial, the sentence, etc. The judge then ordered that on September 17th the defendant be injected with various substances until he died. The judge ended with "May God be with you".
That was it. The defense attorney walked over to the woman in front of me who was crying. It may have been a relative of the defendant. I can only speculate.
The victim in this case was 93 year old Rena Ratcliff. The man sentenced to die for her rape and murder was William Murrary. . I have no first hand knowledge of the facts in this case. I have heard Mr. Murrary confessed to this horrible crime and that guilt was not really an issue.
On the death penalty
I have not blogged much about the death penalty. I have never worked on a death penalty case and I may never take one. My beliefs on capital punishment?
I believe killing innocent people is wrong. Our legal system is not capable of accurately sentencing people to death. The government is not capable of screening death penalty cases for innocence. Capital defense is adequately not funded. Finally, government actors are routinely corrupt or incopmetent. Therefore, I believe all executions should be halted.
Bookmark:
Posted On:
May 22, 2008
Texas CPS Reacts To Appellate Ruling
The sad tale of the CPS polygamy raid took a fortunate turn today. The 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that CPS had no legal authority to abduct 41 children from their parents. Without legal authority this compound raid is nothing more than a massive kidnapping.
How would you expect CPS to react to the court's ruling that they had no evidence and acted illegaly? If I wrongfully kidnapped your children I would probably apologize- from my jail cell.
Check out the bunker mentality press release from CPS.
The Department of Family and Protective Services removed children from the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado after finding a pervasive pattern of sexual abuse that puts every child at the ranch at risk...
Actually CPS you did not find a pattern of sexual abuse that put every child at risk. You wanted to believe that and ignored the massive evidence to the contrary. Here is what the court said about your "pattern of abuse". From the Dallas Morning News
The court said the state failed to show that any more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and offered no evidence of sexual or physical abuse against the other children.
Five teenage girls being sexually abused is horrible. It is also criminal. Law enforcement should have done an investigation and arrested those responsible. Instead CPS chose to condemn the entire community with a guilt by association/religious profiling approach.
So we know that the pattern of abuse claim is a fabrication. What other justification could CPS have for continuing to hold these children hostage? From CPS
Investigators also observed a pattern of organized deception in those first interviews. Women and children frequently said they could not answer questions about the ages of girls or family relationships. Children were moved from location to location in an apparent attempt to prevent investigators from talking to them. Investigators observed numerous girls who had small children, and girls told us that marriages could occur at any age.
Organized Deception
CPS is so blinded by bureaucratic arrogance that they can not even consider why some parents would not want to speak with them. CPS began with the view that these families were abusers. If these families failed to "cooperate" CPS concluded they must have something to hide. I have blogged before about this guilty until proven innocent approach of CPS.
Freedom Protects You From The Government
If this case had not involved hundreds of children, or gathered national media attention, then the systematic CPS failure may not have been exposed. To prevent future CPS disasters we need to raise the bar for removals and provide more protections for parents. We also need to ban religious profiling, end the "remove first ask questions later" mindset, and quit punishing parents who do not "cooperate" with CPS.
You may not be a polygamist living on a ranch in West Texas. However, if the YFZ children can be removed without cause so can yours. Without legal authority this YFZ raid has turned into the largest kidnapping in state history. Texans need better protection from the good intentions of government, including CPS.
Bookmark:
Posted On:
May 21, 2008
Dallas Police Ticket Scandal- No Punishment For Criminals With Badges
The sorry tale of Dallas Police Sergeant Walter Clifton came to an end yesterday.
Sgt. Clifton was involved in the phony tickets scandal in Dallas. Here is a summary. Sgt Clifton and his officers would write many tickets to homeless or transient defendants. These defendants sometimes missed their court appearances. Allegedly, Dallas judges would not issue arrest warrants when these defendants failed to appear.
Sgt. Clifton sought to guarantee the incarceration of the destitute and came up with a plan. He instructed his officers to write put phony occupations on the ticket. That way the judge would issue an arrest warrant and these homeless defendants could be incarcerated. Besides being morally reprehensible writing false tickets is illegal in Texas.
From the Texas Penal Code- § 37.10. TAMPERING WITH GOVERNMENTAL RECORD. (a) A person commits an offense if he: (1) knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of, a governmental record; (2) makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent that it be taken as a genuine governmental record; ...(5) makes, presents, or uses a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity; or
Since Sgt. Clifton intended to have these defendants arrested this should have been a state jail felony offense. Unfortunately, criminal laws rarely apply to those in law enforcement.
What punishment did Sgt. Clifton receive?
Criminal charges? No.
Loss of job? No.
Suspension from job? No.
Documented Counseling? Yes!!!
Dallas Assistant City Manager/Bureaucratic Stooge Jill Jordan reduced Sgt. Walter Clifton’s work suspension to a "documented counseling." Apparently Ms. Jordan thinks illegal arrests of the homeless is no big deal.
Still think the government is looking out for your freedom? There is an inverse relationship between constitutional protections and criminal police conduct. The more we gut our freedom and liberty, the more Sgt. Cliftons we get. People often view Constitutional protections as "technicalities" that criminals use to escape justice. The truth is that without liberty, freedom, and Constitutional protections our government becomes a criminal enterprise in which there can be no justice.
Bookmark:
Posted On:
May 20, 2008
Dallas DWI- Forced Blood Draws and The Right To Counsel
Dallas Morning News has yet another story on the proliferation of DWI blood warrants. This time the Dallas Police are joining the bandwagon of cities who have chosen to circumvent the law and violate your right to refuse blood testing.
What about the right to counsel? Will these DWI suspects have the right to consult an attorney before the Dallas Police forcefully remove their blood?
Texas Bill of Rights
From your Texas Constitution- Article 1 Section 10.
In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right of being heard by counsel,
DWI Blood Draws
Does Article I Section apply to DWI suspects? After all, the Dallas police want to detain you, interrogate you, ask you to perform useless physical challenges, arrest you, ask for a breath sample, and finally hold you down and forcefully extract your blood. That sounds like a good time for a defense attorney to intervene.
Unfortunately, the right to counsel for DWI suspects was repealed long ago. Here is a summary of the sorry state of RTC law from the Texas prosecutor's DWI manual, DWI Prosecution and Investigation by TDCAA.
An officer does not have to give Miranda warnings to a suspect before asking for a breath sample. A suspect does not have the right to counsel before deciding whether to give a sample. An invocation of the suspect's right to an attorney will not later exclude evidence of a refusal to take a breath test.
How was the right to counsel repealed? Conservative Judicial Activism. (Due Process also applies to this discussion. However, that is outside the scope of this post.)
McCambridge v. State
The Court of Criminal Appeals abated the right to counsel for DWI suspects in the early 1990s. A string of DWI cases allowed COCA to rewrite the Texas Constitution in order to save DWI convictions. A good example is McCambridge v. State (778 S.W. 2d 70).
In McCambridge the defendant was found guilty of DWI. On appeal McCambridge argued that he should have had the right to speak with an attorney before deciding whether or not to give a breath sample.
How would COCA save this DWI conviction that clearly violates the Texas Bill of Rights?
Rights under Article 1 Section 10 only apply during a "criminal prosecutions." COCA held that DWI suspects are not being prosecuted. Ergo, they have no rights.
Only in a DWI case would such tortured logic be allowed. COCA won't even stoop this low to save a drug case. For example, if the police had a warrant to search your house for drugs they could not force you to show them where the drugs are. If you asked for an attorney while they were searched they would not continue to question you.
The Dissenting opinion sums up the McCambridge decision well.
Today... a lackluster majority of this Court declines to hold that under Art. I, § 10, of the Texas Constitution, the "Rights of the Accused in Criminal Prosecutions" clause, 1 an individual lawfully arrested for allegedly committing the offense of driving while intoxicated has the right to the assistance of counsel from that point forward; they opt instead to hold that such a person has the right to the assistance of counsel only after formal criminal charges have been filed, which act apparently lies in the discretion of the police as to just when that must occur.For unknown reasons, a person lawfully arrested in Texas for driving while intoxicated is to be treated differently from a person who has been lawfully arrested for committing some other criminal wrong.
DWI = Not A Criminal Prosecution?
This arbitrary decision by COCA has little basis in law enforcement reality. Any assistant DA or criminal defense lawyer can attest that every DWI arrest is indeed a criminal prosecution. Every facet of law enforcement works in concert to arrest and convict dwi suspects. The police work under the direction of prosecutors, who then conspire with cooperative judges, who then sign "fill in the blank" search warrants. Under any definition (besides COCA's) that is clearly a criminal prosecution. But don't take my word for it. From DMN-
Deputy Chief Tom Lawrence said the effort is "the next step in what we are ultimately trying to achieve when we make an arrest for driving while intoxicated. That is the successful prosecution of these cases."
Bookmark:
Posted On:
May 19, 2008
National Polka Festival- Ennis, TX
I live in Ennis, TX. Ennis is a wonderful city 25 miles south of Dallas of I-45. This weekend (5/23-5/25) Ennis is hosting the 42nd annual Polka Festival. There is a parade, dance contest, run/walk and the usual Czech food and beer. It's a great reason to visit Ennis.
Polka dancing also isn't terribly difficult to pick up. Whereas I can only do the chicken dance, anyone who can two step will have no problems.
Here are the bands scheudled to perform.
Czech & Then Some
Harry Czarnek & The Texas Dutchmen
Brave Combo
Vrazels' Polka Band
The Harvesters
Dujka Brothers
Jodie Mikula Orchestra
Fritz Hodde & The Fabulous Six
Mark Halata & Texavia
Czechaholics
Polka Freak Out: Bubba Hernandez with Alex Meixner
Jak Se Do
Bookmark:
Posted On:
May 17, 2008
Texas Age of Consent Law
A reader asked me what the age of consent is in Texas. Great question. Let me begin by stating there is no section of the Texas Penal Code that defines "age of consent." Rather, you have to begin in the Sexual Assault Provisions of the TPC.
§ 22.011. SEXUAL ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person: (2) intentionally or knowingly: (A) causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of a child by any means; (B) causes the penetration of the mouth of a child by the sexual organ of the actor; (C) causes the sexual organ of a child to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; (D) causes the anus of a child to contact the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or (E) causes the mouth of a child to contact the anus or sexual organ of another person, including the actor.
This begs the question- What is a child?
(c) In this section:
(1) "Child" means a person younger than 17 years of age
who is not the spouse of the actor.
Ok. So performing any of the acitivties under (a)(2)(A)-(E) with anyone under 17 (and not your spouse) is illegal in Texas. Doesn't that make many high school students felons? No. Texas has a "Romeo and Juliet" law for minors who are within 3 years of age.
(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that: (1) the actor was not more than three years older than the victim and at the time of the offense: (A) was not required under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, to register for life as a sex offender; or (B) was not a person who under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, had a reportable conviction or adjudication for an offense under this section; and (2) the victim: (A) was a child of 14 years of age or older; and (B) was not a person whom the actor was prohibited from marrying or purporting to marry or with whom the actor was prohibited from living under the appearance of being married under Section 25.01.
So, to answer- the age of consent in Texas is 17. However, if you are 17, the AOC could be 14, as long as you meet the affirmative defense requirements. However, I would recommend you consult with your attorney before choosing any course of conduct.
Bookmark:
Posted On:
May 14, 2008
Texas Law- Defining Intoxication
When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' - Humpty Dumpty, Through the Looking Glass
Most of the rhetoric surrounding DWI includes statements about drunk drivers. For example, Texas MADD has a "campaign to end drunk driving." No one supports drunk driving which makes the label great to stifle debate.
The reality is that Texas DWI law is not aimed at drunk drivers. Texas law forbids driving while "intoxicated". Ask most people what intoxication means, and they will say "drunk". Webster defines intoxicated as "affected by or as if by alcohol : drunk." Proving a driver was drunk would be a high standard and lead to less convictions for DWI. To make convictions easier the Texas Legislature simply redefined intoxicated for the purpose of DWI. From the Texas Penal Code- Intoxication means-
not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or (B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.
I'll save .08 for a future discussion. Let's start with "loss of normal use." If an officer states that you have lost the normal use of your faculties what does that imply? That the officer actually knows what your normal physical mental or faculties are. The reality is that the police have no idea what you act like normally. Most will readily admit to this fact during cross examination. How do officers swear to something they do not know is true? Training!
Since the State of Texas has invented a new definition for intoxication, they can also simply invent evidence that shows you meet their new definition. This explains the bizarre laundry list of driving behaviors that are taught to be evidence of intoxication.
Field sobriety testing is another great example. SFSTs were designed to detect specific BAC levels (which they don't). SFST were never designed to detect "intoxication." However, officers are taught to use SFST's as evidence you have lost your mental and physical faculties.
How can that be? Made up definitions, allow for made up evidence. DWI laws are written to maximize convictions, not to reflect reality. No one support drunk drivers. If only convicting the innocent carried the same stigma.
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.''The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Bookmark:
Posted On:
May 12, 2008
Dallas ALR- A Morning At The State Office Of Adminstrative Hearings
I spent the morning at the State Office of Administrative Hearings in Dallas. SOAH is where all live Dallas ALR hearings are held. You can also request a telephone hearing. Ceteris paribus, I prefer a live hearing. A live cross examination contains more useful information than one by phone.
What is an ALR hearing?
ALR stands for Administrative License Revocation hearing. These hearings are triggered when you are arrested for DWI. Refusing, or failing a breath/blood test allows the State to suspend your license. If you request an ALR hearing your attorney can challenge the suspension and by association, your DWI arrest itself. These hearings are held separately from any criminal case. Winning at the ALR has no effect on a later criminal case.
YOU MUST REQUEST THIS HEARING WITHIN 15 DAYS OF BEING ARRESTED!!
My Morning
The hearing notice lists 8:30AM as the start time. However, like many court proceedings 8:30 is more of an idea than a reality since many cases are all set at 8:30. While waiting in the lobby I overheard a few officer discussing the monotony of these hearings. "The lawyers ruined it" one officer remarked.
"Ruined what?" I thought. Is Due Process really such an inconvenience? This statement was telling about how the government views rights and liberty- as a frivolous impediment from the glorious work of DWI enforcement. TDCAA message boards echo this sentiment.
ALR hearings are not held in a courtroom. They are held in a small conference room at SOAH. These hearings are open to the public. Many people are surprised to learn that they can watch almost any court proceeding. I enjoy watching different lawyers approach the same problem.
My Hearing
I had an interesting case with some unique facts. However, I generally don't blog about pending cases. I will say that at any ALR hearing the burden is on the State to prove that the defendant (respondent) was legally stopped and asked for a specimen, and the defendant refused or failed said request. I believe one of these elements was missing. Hopefully, the judge will agree.
Bookmark:
Posted On:
May 11, 2008
Dallas SWAT
Until yesterday I had never viewed any of A&E's Dallas SWAT reality show. Last night I caught about 15 minutes of one episode. This 1/4 hour of television showed much of what is wrong with law enforcement. Here is what went down on Dallas SWAT.
Home Invasion Search
The SWAT team was preparing to arrest a woman on an outstanding drug warrant. The house was known to have children inside. SWAT members formulated a plan to rip the door off the house and storm the residence.
A&E showed only a few minutes of home invasion raid preparation. SWAT members discuss how best to rip the door off, where Alpha/Brave/Charlie team should be, and what to do when they find the kids. No one proposes that maybe, just maybe, ripping the door off house full of children and sending a militarized police force is not the best idea.
Most people I know eventually leave their residence. Why not just wait for this suspect to leave then arrest her? This wait and arrest approach is not as ecxiting as the Rainbow Six approach. But why create a dangerous situation where none exists? Yet another example of the shift from Peace Officers to Law Enforcement. It appears that having a SWAT team obligates SWAT home invasion raids.
A Better Use for SWAT
I also caught an appropriate use of the Dallas SWAT team. A man was in his apartment and threatening to kill himself. He had a gun and may have shot at officers (I missed the beginning). The police used tear gas, and sent in a team to apprehend a disturbed and violent man. Stopping those who pose an immediate threat to the public is a much better strategy than creating threats by storming houses.
Johnny Baker- Cosmic Irony Strikes Back
Finally, the show also contained a segment of Officer Johnny Baker and his love of motorcycle riding. Officer Baker spoke about how much he enjoyed the rush of dangerous SWAT work.
What escaped Officer Baker at that moment was the cosmic irony of his alleged enjoyment of commercial sex services.
Officer Baker was later fired. Consensual crime enforcement giveth Officer Baker a job, consensual crime enforcement taketh away.
Bookmark:
Posted On:
May 8, 2008
The Cory Maye Tragedy- Reason.TV
The story of Cory Maye encapsulates the worst of our drug war- racism, injustice, loss of civil liberties, and needless death. Drew Carey produces another must see Reason.TV episode.
Bookmark:
Posted On:
May 8, 2008
What is a Writ of Habeas Corpus?
Here is an article I wrote for the Ellis County Press.
What is habeas corpus?
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." - United State Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 9
A Writ of Habeas Corpus (Writ or WOHC) is one of your most basic and fundamental protections against tyranny. Habeas corpus is a Latin phrase that roughly translates to "show me the body." WOHC originated in England as a check on the king’s power.
If the king locked you up you would file a writ of habeas corpus and ask the king to "show you the body," or tell you why you are incarcerated. Today writs of habeas corpus are commonly used in Texas criminal cases.
Writs are filed to challenge the state’s restraint on your liberty (incarceration, probation etc). Without writs the State could throw you in the county jail for no reason forever. Writs prevent such fundamental abuses of the criminal justice system.
Here is a quick overview on how writs protect your rights. You are driving home from work and the police pull you over for speeding. You have a marijuana joint in your pocket. Overcome with guilt you confess to the police and ask for forgiveness. The cops arrests you and take you to the Ellis County Detention Center. Bail is set at $50,000,000.
Bail
Writs are commonly used to get bail lowered, or get bail set if bail has been denied.
Any criminal defense lawyer who takes court appointments (indigent defense) will spend a lot of time on bail writs.
A bail writ states that a defendant is being held in the county jail, convicted of nothing, yet is denied the ability to leave the jail. A writ challenge this restraint on liberty.
Challenging A Prosecution
After getting bail lowered to $500 you are released. Three weeks later the State files a marijuana case against you. You have a jury trial and your brilliant defense lawyer helps win an acquittal (not guilty).
Ten years later the State files another misdemeanor case against you for the same marijuana charge. Again, WOHC to the rescue. Writs are also used to challenge a fundamentally flawed prosecution. For example, cases barred by limitations (too old) or double jeopardy.
Post Trial
If you are found guilty in a case and wish to challenge the conviction the usual route is an appeal. However, some constitutional and jurisdictional issues can be raised with a WOHC. Any error raised in an appeal cannot be later raised in a writ. One common claim in post trial writs- "ineffective assistance of counsel."