Background- Read the original post
It seems that Texas prosecutors are in agreement that judges who do not sign off on their blood draw warrants must be removed. Police state apologist (and Williamson County DA) Jon Bradley weighed in with typical blood on the highway rhetoric.
A vehicle crashing into another vehicle, on the other hand, is considered a MAJOR intrusion into the life of an innocent person. If we wait for that to happen, then, amazingly, the prick of a needle is somehow “justified” to prove intoxication murder. For my money, I’d rather deal with forcing the MINOR intrusion before a drunk driver kills someone. So, tell that judge you are actually doing the defendant a favor. Then file the grievance.
A typical argument against constitutional protections for DWI suspects is to claim that it will save lives to make it easier to convict. Mr. Bradley’s position is that if he could only replace this judge with a rubber stamp magistrate lives would be saved. This is a classic false dichotomy.
DWI enforcement is not a choice between liberty and death. Instead of being “tough on crime”, destroying freedom, and convicting the innocent- law enforcement could use their resources more efficiently by focusing on the driver’s likely to cause an accident.
Look at Fort Worth, they have implemented forced blood draws and an increase in DWI enforcement. The results? Convictions are up 40%, deaths are up 30%. We are arresting the wrong people uner a misguided belief that convictions alone save lives. It’s simply not true.
Title of TDCAA thread-
Zealous DWI enforcement can make on oblivious to hypocrisy. The title of the TDCAA post is “Are magistrates supposed to be objective?” However, “objective” to this DPS trooper means a rubber stamp warrant signing judge. A real objective judge would recognize that she is not a law enforcement tool, but employed to exercise discretion.
It’s disturbing that Texas prosecutors would propose filing a judicial complaint when a judge rules against them. DWI hysteria and “tough on DWI” indoctrination seminars has made prosecutors like Bradley zealots for conviction, when they are supposed to be seeking justice.
One prosecutor, Clay Abbott from Austin, notes the judge should be grieved for “not following the law.” Mr. Abbott, here is the law on forced blood draws. Tell me how the judge is not following that law.
Finally, I’d like to share some information with these prosecutors from the Judicial Ethics Commission. From their website-
What is not judicial misconduct?
“Wrong” decisions by a judge are not misconduct, even if those decisions appear to fly in the face of the evidence or appear to be based upon “perjured” testimony, and even if the judge misapplies the law. Appeal may be the only remedy for such a situation, or there may be no remedy. Granting of custody or visitation, or setting child support are generally decisions within the discretion of the trial court. Any fine or sentence imposed by a judge in a traffic or criminal matter, if it is within the parameters set by law for the offense charged, is not usually a matter for Commission consideration.