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.
DAMM
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Agreed.
MADD is not about impared driving; they are about abolition.
Sign me up.
Courtrooms as well. Check this out.
FRiend, I've scraped more than my fair share of DUI victims off the roadways, and I take pleasure (perhaps too much) in tossing offenders of DUI laws in the slam.
However, MADD is an organization that is (quietly) in favor of total abstinence, and are doing everything they can to see a new prohibition arise in America. We have already made that mistake once, and are currently involved with it again in the WoD. Prohibition WILL NOT WORK!
Checkpoints are a travesty of justice; I thank God my jurisdiction does not conduct them. We just look out for, and have zero tolerance for, impared drivers.
That has been our experience in my jurisdiction as well.
For years the State of Mo and the DEA have run a drug stop on I44 in a remote unpopulated area. They don't actually set up on the interstate, but put up a sign stating that there is a drug checkpoint ahead. Drug runners see the sign and jump off on the next exit, where the cops are set up. At this point you have an out of state vehicle exiting the interstate for no apparent reason (there is absolutely nothing at the exit except a rural road going to nowhere) which gives them probable cause to ask questions.
Making plans to move to your jurisdiction PDQ (I promise I'll behave myself).
Yes - and each state's statutes are handled differently. In the case I was referring to, there were totally different circumstances. The stops were made randomly (every so many vehicles) and the officers would ask permission to search the vehicles. If the person was smart enough to say "no", there was a judge sitting in a parked vehicle down the road who signed warrants to search. It was blatently unconstitutional. Warrants are only valid if based on reasonable probably cause - and a random stop checkpoint did not amount to probable cause.
The courts in some states have ruled checkpoints unconstitutional, while in other states the courts have upheld checkpoints which stop the flow of traffic in both directions for license checks, informational stops, DUI's, etc. However, "general crime" enforcement reasons have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Care to point me to the Power granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution to perform such checks? I can save you some time, it doesn't exist! You could make the case that as a Private Industry, the Airlines, and a Citizen entering into a Contract, a Ticket, that they have the right to do so, but the Feds? No way! Blackbird.
"As regards the checkpoints, they are only a minimal intrusion to the privacy rights of the innocent. You're stopped for maybe a minute. Only those who have something to hide have anything to fear from them."
Platitudes of a police state mentality. Have you ever read the Bill of Rights or the Constitution? Do you work for the government in any capacity?
DDAM = Drunk Drivers Against Mothers
OK, so let's outlaw the TSA and just let everybody walk onto the planes with whatever they want.
I hate mad, but I hate drunk drivers much much more.
Thus, by your own statement, you have proven the point. You are against all alcohol consumption and support any measure to harrass those that chose to use it; responsibly or not.
We'll see you soon in NW Georgia.
You'd BEST behave, FRiend.... I'll be watching! ;)
Where did I say that?
Post 127.
A Freudian slip, perhaps? Didn't mean to let intentions slip out?
>That's the problem with MADD. If MADD had pursued policies where truly drunk drivers were given harsher penalties, then there would be no problem. However, MADD's policies have been gone the opposite direction.<
In Virginia, if a person is sitting in his car, with the engine running, even if he is in the passenger seat, he can be charged with DUI. So, some poor person drinks at a party, and passes out in the car. The driver gets to the destination, gets out, but leaves the car running so the heater can stay on. The passenger could be hauled off to jail, even if the car is sitting in front of his house.
So you think because I said Alcohol causes pain and misery I think it should be outlawed? That's a bit of a stretch and I didn't say that. Didn't imply that...not even close.
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.