Posted on 04/25/2017 3:10:22 PM PDT by equaviator
Sorry you feel that way MollyPitcher1.
I believe in people being good neighbors.
If the officers came and asked him to turn the music down, they must have considered the complaint valid.
He didn’t comply. He should have.
There were three visits by the police, and I suspect that took place over a period of time.
I’m not sure what time of night it was either, but it would seem it would have to have been ten to twelve at least.
When I consider noise a problem, is when I can’t do things in my own home to drown it out so I can go on with my life.
If I can still hear it when I have music on, when it’s drowning out my television, it grates me.
I am considerate of my neighbors and I expect them to be considerate of me.
I suspect there is a lot of behind the scenes info that we don’t know about.
Just how bad did he piss off the cops that night? How many times have the cops been called out to his place? 3 times that night. I bet that’s not the first (or last) time.
Is he a repeat offender? Well known to the authorities?
There are always two sides to every issue. There may be a lot about Rea we don’t know about that is driving this “uppity” Prosecutor to do all this.
I think he wins. It’s Private Property, not a Public Business has some have said.
Laws regarding endangerment may supersede the PP status but that’s it. We don’t have enough info to determine how the police affected this arrest without a warrant.
What if the state rules against him and he loses his license?
What if he chooses to mow his lawn on a rider without a license?
Nah, he wins.
“Turtle on a fence post doctrine?”
I think the word “Bullshit” best describes it.
Your head is the one screwed! A business private property has NO COMPARISON to PERSONAL PRIVATE PROPERTY. He was on his own private property, not that of WalMart! If you can’t see the difference, I feel sorry for you!
Then charge with disturbing the peace.
Pissing off the cops doesn’t mean you forfeit your rights nor does it authorize the cops to take them away from you.
A remark like that just shows how ignorant you are. I’ve never been drunk in my life! I defend this guy because he did not break the law per the statute they are trying to hang him on. When you LEARN a little about law, you can argue your case. Here, you know nothing and it is obvious.
He hasn't been tried yet. The lower court dismissed the case as a matter of law, and the appeals court upheld the lower court's decision.
If the question of law is settled in the DA's favor, THEN the case goes to trial where the facts can be presented to the jury.
Keys not applicable in this case. Private Property Rights are the issue. The statute covers PUBLIC roadways and areas usually used by others. A PRIVATE driveway is NOT subject to the statute they tried to hang him on. You CAN be drunk on your own property just as you can defend your own property. (2nd Amendment)
I dont believe the guy was loud just once.
I think he was pissed at the cops telling him to lower it because he knew which neighbor probably called, and kept doing it once they left.
I have as much evidence as you do to claim he only did it once. My hypothesis is as strong as yours.
It almost certainly is, as are parking lots at the mall, etc. One difference is that parking lots are quasi-public, or public accommodations, whereas a private driveway is not a public accommodation.
I think the DA is hoping to reverse the law in Michigan. See Nettles-Nickerson v. Free et al
I can legally idle in my unregistered project car in my driveway.
I said that up thread.
I don’t back what they did here.
And you are on the side of those trying to take away his property rights.
The key word is “generally” and the mans private driveway is NOT accessible to the general public to park on. Do you even wonder why the cops didn’t pull INTO his driveway instead of remaining on the public street at the base of his driveway? Of course not. That would require too much thinking.
I hope he collects big time. He has been harassed!!!
What is your state?
My bad. I was a bit late to the private property battle.
Why the high court is taking this up is where we are left without more information.
On its face as presented, no way.
How do you know he didn’t comply? WHO complained the second and third time? Was it the same person? No mention is made that the cops heard any loud music when they returned the second and third time. You’re condemning him on an ASSUMPTION of GUILT, and upon your desired social conduct, not on the PROVEN FACTS. It used to be in the old America I grew up in that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty.
What you “suspect” doesn’t count old friend. What counts in a court of law is the “facts.”
What we don’t have is a bunch of information.
Can the cops prove he was driving between visits 1 and 3 on public roads?
Without that, there is no case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.