Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MADD display spurs quiz of jurors in DUI cases
Arizona Daily Star ^ | 12/7/05 | Kim Smith

Posted on 12/11/2005 2:30:55 PM PST by elkfersupper

An annual campaign presented by Mothers Against Drunk Driving caused some concern within Pima County's Justice and Superior courts Tuesday.

MADD members spent the day next to the courthouses handing out ribbons as part of their Tie One on for Safety campaign, which aims to get people to use designated drivers during the holiday season.

At least two judges, Justice of the Peace Jack Peyton and Superior Court Judge Ted Borek, were presiding over driving-under-the-influence trials Tuesday and were forced to question jurors to see if they were tainted by the display. The jurors were asked if they saw the display, which included a crushed car and photos of DUI victims, if they spoke with anyone about it, and if they were swayed in any way.

The trials continued uninterrupted after only a handful of the jurors said they saw the car but weren't influenced by it.

Defense attorney James Nesci said the display was a "blatant attempt" to influence the judicial system, noting MADD could have held the event anywhere, anytime. "They have a First Amendment right to protest, but that right ends where the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial begins," Nesci said.

Theresa Babich, a victim advocate with MADD, said Presidio Park was chosen because of its heavy foot traffic, not because jurors were around.

"We weren't out soliciting anyone specifically," Babich said.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: alcohol; dui; dwi; madd; neoprohibition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-336 next last
To: Badray

Hey Ray!

Cool use (and proper) of the word "proscribe".

You put all this together yourself? Doesn't look like your writing style and are you somehow expecting me to dispute any of this?

This is reasonable discourse and I agree with everything.

Hopefully you'll grasp the proper context and comprehension. That is where our differences will likely arise.


301 posted on 12/15/2005 10:29:26 PM PST by jaguaretype (Sometimes war IS the answer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Badray

"Is this the first time that you've been on a thread that has shifted from the original topic to the underlying principle?"

Ummmmmm....well they doesn't usually shift completely off the topic.......you know...the tangent thing you zoom off on.

I've found that focus is not a bad principle when formulating thoughts. Try it. Then you can post your very own brand new thread on whatever topic you can come up with.

Trust me Ray, I am fret-less. And happy that we got the begging groveling thing out of the way. We've both got a set so let us use them.


302 posted on 12/15/2005 10:37:02 PM PST by jaguaretype (Sometimes war IS the answer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Badray

Ray, I did some looking into your posting history.

It's scary how much you and I think alike on so many issues except DUI, C/P validity and Airport security (I will agree that AP security is stupid in it's PC implemetation but not in it's priciple and nor do I believe in arbitrary ID stops and numerous provisions in the Patriot Act).

It's unfortunate you act as though all who are not falling hard for the Libertarian type beliefs are your ememy.


303 posted on 12/15/2005 11:33:59 PM PST by jaguaretype (Sometimes war IS the answer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: jaguaretype
I can understand your disappointment at having to go throught the DMV again. While it may seem with those links that I was dismissing the notion that licensing requirements are legal, my actual aspirations were more modest. Throughout this thread you have justified DUI checkpoints on the grounds that driving is a privilege and that in order to gain access to that privilege one must submit to restrictions such as implied consent. I hold that implied consent is an unconstitutional restriction. You can point to SC decisions upholding the practice, but interestingly those decisions may not be long for this world.

Search and Seizure

Many legal experts believe Edmonds is on shaky ground. They point to the three dissenting justices -- Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia -- and note that Roberts is likely to vote as Rehnquist did, and that with a Bush replacement for O'Connor, the vote is likely to shift from 6-3 to 5-4. Let Bush replace one of the more leftist justices, and Edmonds is in peril.

I'm not so sure. Thomas voted against the majority in Edmonds, but only to make a point. Thomas wrote a separate dissent from Rehnquist's, and noted:

Taken together, our decisions in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444 (1990), and United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543 (1976), stand for the proposition that suspicionless roadblock seizures are constitutionally permissible if conducted according to a plan that limits the discretion of the officers conducting the stops. I am not convinced that Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte were correctly decided. Indeed, I rather doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered "reasonable" a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing.

Respondents did not, however, advocate the overruling of Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte, and I am reluctant to consider such a step without the benefit of briefing and argument. For the reasons given by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, I believe that those cases compel upholding the program at issue here. I, therefore, join his opinion.

Emphasis mine. Thomas is basically asking for the opportunity to overrule Sitz, the case that gave the Court's okay to random DWI checkpoints! Incidentally, the Supreme Court of Michigan ruled on remand that sobriety checkpoints violate the state's constitution.

At the moment, I'm not sure the Court's political makeup is ripe to overrule Sitz and reclaim a good chunk of the Fourth Amendment. But under the right circumstances, it's not difficult to see how a properly-argued case could convince a libertarian-minded justice like Janice Rogers Brown, with Thomas, and a few of the Court's lefty justices that the the DWI fatality statistics cited in Sitz were vastly exaggerated, that sobriety checkpoints have turned into revenue generators that serve more to harass the public than protect it, and that these factors, when weighed in the balancing test Rehnquist put forward in Sitz, aren't enough to set aside the Fourth Amendment.

Let's hope (or at least I do).
304 posted on 12/16/2005 12:12:41 AM PST by JTN ("We must win the War on Drugs by 2003." - Dennis Hastert, Feb. 25 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: jaguaretype

I should have clarified - Edmond is the case in which the SC ruled that checkpoints looking for drugs are unconstitutional.


305 posted on 12/16/2005 12:21:26 AM PST by JTN ("We must win the War on Drugs by 2003." - Dennis Hastert, Feb. 25 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: JTN
Looks interesting and I plan to look at this.

Without knowing much yet, I would agree that looking for drugs in the trunk of a motorist going through a DWI/DUI checkpoint without PC such as pupil dilation / smoke billowing from windows / erratic vehicle operation /paraphernalia in plain sight or whatnot is illegal. Absent those items I maintain that anyone can refuse to allow an officer to search person/domain/effects absent a warrant. I do not believe that multiple officers on scene of these checkpoints will collude to fake PC ..... too much to lose for them what with all the recording devices in peoples cell phones/pdas nowadays.

Additionally, I still try to have faith in our system to repudiate the nonsense of arbitrary ID checks or warrant checks in these C/Ps and I know this crap is happening.

The C/P tool should be used for DUI/DWI as it was intended....nothing more.

PS: why don't you Libertarians blast away at the stupid/dangerous precedent we've complacently allowed with the installation of Freeway cameras? That is indeed nefarious in my view......and yet they are everywhere.
306 posted on 12/16/2005 12:47:45 AM PST by jaguaretype (Sometimes war IS the answer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: jaguaretype
PS: why don't you Libertarians blast away at the stupid/dangerous precedent we've complacently allowed with the installation of Freeway cameras? That is indeed nefarious in my view......and yet they are everywhere.

Well, actually I do. When I see stories about them I post them. The problem is that I don't see very many. Here's the most recent thread I posted on that subject.

307 posted on 12/16/2005 12:54:52 AM PST by JTN ("We must win the War on Drugs by 2003." - Dennis Hastert, Feb. 25 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: JTN

I didn't read the whole thread but it's title is Red Light Cameras (which I hate as well) but I was talking about the video cameras mounted on interstates on the top of lightpoles. They are also on State hiways here in Calif and I've seen them on I-4 and 395 in Florida as well.
It's late and I've got to hit the sack so pls advise if you cover those casmeras in that thread.


308 posted on 12/16/2005 1:18:12 AM PST by jaguaretype (Sometimes war IS the answer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: jaguaretype

You came on to the thread defending c/p's as legitimate and effective. Call it a morbid curiosity, but I have watched DUI and alcohol's impact (NPI) on accidents and the death toll for 30 years.

Anecdotally, every news account that I have read put's the arrest rate at 2 or 3%. Last year, looking at a NHTSA report, it confirmed it as closer to 2% than 3%. Reports from PDs all over the country indicate that they have much higher rates of DUI arrest from roving patrols. Many are discontinuing c/p's for that reason. My local community refuses to participate in the regional task force, but they still pull over plenty of drunks. Those who present a risk are evident. Most people can safely drive home after even more than a few drinks as evidenced by the fact that they do every night of the week.

Perhaps because you appeared to be unconcerned with the facts and defended that practice vigorously, I reacted too quickly. I've run across (and over) many here that routinely relinguish liberty for some percieved notion of safety and I put you into that category.

If you agree with me on most things, then you can't be all bad. We just need to get your mind right on this.

Cheers and apologies for having misjudged you.


309 posted on 12/16/2005 7:14:01 AM PST by Badray (Limited constitutional government means protection for all, but favor for none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: jude24

I've never had a DUI and I am sixteen years sober in recovery from alcoholism. I have no agenda.

These people are fanatics. They started out against drunk drivers and now carry that opposition over to "drinking drivers." They are criminalizing innocent people and wasting law enforcement resources. They are the epitome of the incrementalist approach.

This happens to any successful group that achieves their aims. They expant and grow in fanatical directions. Look at the civil rights movement, still running around talking about racism under every rock.


310 posted on 12/16/2005 7:18:41 AM PST by Luke21 (Political correctness is the insane religion of our rulers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jaguaretype

An arrest for DUI carries a stigma regardless of conviction and refusing a breath test results in loss of license in most states; therefor, all arrests should be made on the basis of observed impairment while driving (checkpoints bypass this) rather than the stock, "bloodshot eyes, unsteady on feet, strong smell of alcohol..." that has become a litany in hearings.

No other crime has such a conviction record as DUI.

If the goal is to end driving with any alcohol present in the driver's system, the honest thing to do would be to lobby for that, not simply broaden the target zone.

My major gripe lies with the roadblock tactic, not the goal of stopping impaired drivers.


311 posted on 12/16/2005 7:26:19 AM PST by Old Professer (Fix the problem, not the blame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Badray

Sorry, I didn't finish this thought.

You came on to the thread defending c/p's as legitimate and effective. Call it a morbid curiosity, but I have watched DUI and alcohol's impact (NPI) on accidents and the death toll for 30 years and over the years have found the c/p's to be anything but effective and also to be overly intrusive.

I believe as Adams did when he warned us that we should react quickly and not allow abuses of our liberty to become grounded in prescedent.


312 posted on 12/16/2005 7:27:33 AM PST by Badray (Limited constitutional government means protection for all, but favor for none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: jaguaretype

"Snort, snort, snort,snort!! yeah, Einstein, that'll happen!"

Darn, I just realized we've been trying to argue with Lily Tomlin...



313 posted on 12/16/2005 7:29:18 AM PST by Old Professer (Fix the problem, not the blame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
It's spelled Fascists.

How, exactly, are MADD fascists? Fascism is about government control of privately owned business. Since MADD is not the government, and drunk drivers are not businesses, what the !#$@ does Fascism have to do with anything?

It's such a DU favorite to use the word "fascist" to describe each and every group/organization/regulation/law which you oppose. FReepers should be a bit more careful with the language, IMO.

314 posted on 12/16/2005 7:35:48 AM PST by TChris ("Unless you act, you're going to lose your world." - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

MADD stood for something twenty years ago when the BAC limit was .15 and most DUI penalties were a slap on the wrist. MADD has been enourmously successful at changing public perception of drunk driving, but it has failed to recognize a point of diminishing returns. MADD was originally formed to change the laws to get blatant, habitual offenders off the roads. It was never meant to go after average folks who have one or two drinks somewhere. It has since turned into a prohibitionist organization. This is so true, the founding 'mother' of the organization has since abandonded it.


315 posted on 12/16/2005 7:43:05 AM PST by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris
How, exactly, are MADD fascists? Fascism is about government control of privately owned business. Since MADD is not the government, and drunk drivers are not businesses, what the !#$@ does Fascism have to do with anything?

Fascism also means a tendency toward reactionary or dictatorial control. That describes MADD exactly.

316 posted on 12/16/2005 7:53:02 AM PST by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
Fascism also means a tendency toward reactionary or dictatorial control. That describes MADD exactly.

And how, exactly, does MADD exercise "reactionary or dictatorial control"? Is MADD the state government where you live?

For Pete's sake! They have every right to voice their opinions and influence their representatives, just as you do. Because you don't like those opinions, and you don't like that laws have been enacted in response to their influence, it doesn't make MADD a bunch of Fascists.

By its very definition and nature, the word "fascist" is about the government. If you're pissed off about DUI laws -- and it certainly seems you are -- then aim your seething anger at the legislators who passed the laws. If there are any Fascists out there, they work for the government.

317 posted on 12/16/2005 8:00:52 AM PST by TChris ("Unless you act, you're going to lose your world." - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: TChris; elkfersupper
For Pete's sake! They have every right to voice their opinions and influence their representatives, just as you do.

So do socialists, and communists and retards. I never said they didn't have the right to advocate. But that doesn't change my outrage at what they are trying to accomplish. I will continue to call them for what they are - fascists.

Because you don't like those opinions, and you don't like that laws have been enacted in response to their influence, it doesn't make MADD a bunch of Fascists.

I am not calling them fascists because I "don't like" them I am calling them fascists for the dictatorial control and severe penalties they want over alcohol consumption. MADD are a bunch of nanny state totalitarians who want more and more and more laws dealing alcohol -- regardless if such laws will solve the problem.

As many people have posted on this thread, the problem with drunken driving involves people who drink A LOT and drive at .15, .18 and .2 blood alcohol levels. Meanwhile the MADD fascists want to keep lowering the legal level to drive .08, .05, 03. All that does is create more criminals.

Don't even get me started on the police state checkpoints they started that now are frequently set up to check for seat-belts and baby car seats etc. etc.

318 posted on 12/16/2005 8:25:11 AM PST by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
Don't even get me started on the police state checkpoints they started that now are frequently set up to check for seat-belts and baby car seats etc. etc.

Well, at least we agree on that much. :-)

319 posted on 12/16/2005 8:28:34 AM PST by TChris ("Unless you act, you're going to lose your world." - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: jaguaretype
I didn't read the whole thread but it's title is Red Light Cameras (which I hate as well) but I was talking about the video cameras mounted on interstates on the top of lightpoles.

Sorry, freeway cameras are actually news to me (although I am not surprised). I'll try to pay more attention to this.

320 posted on 12/16/2005 11:59:58 AM PST by JTN ("We must win the War on Drugs by 2003." - Dennis Hastert, Feb. 25 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-336 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson