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.
Science left the equation and politics took over somewhere in there.
There are some very real Constitutional issues that prosecutors are grappling with in DWI prosecutions. This is not one of them.
I passed through a checkpoint in Artesia, NM where all the cops in town where hanging around the roadblock.
Got to get that overtime.
It's called "jury nullification".
The rights to trial by jury and presumption of innocence are not Constitutional issues?
I don't want government involved with peoples bodies unless they are using them to hurt someone else.
So it's OK to make it illegal for me to strangle someone with my bare hands, thereby regulating my body. Or prohibit a woman using her body to kill someone else, such as her own child.
Instead of getting truly draconian on the driver who's truly presenting a danger by driving at 0.16, MADD's solution was to lower the limit to a near impossible .08. Once you look at that in perspective along side MADD's involvement in raising the drinking age nationwide, a true picture emerges. MADD isn't against drunk driving or even drunkenness. MADD is against alcohol, period.
Did you see me? I was the middle-aged dude in the F-350 looking like he needed a pressure-relief valve.
I average 3,000+ miles per month, mostly in NM & W. Texas, all hours of the day.
I think I've hit them all.
You also forgot to add the fact that I don't sort my garbage for the recycling bin. You wouldn't believe what an SOB I am.
"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"
Funny - that's the same liberal, Marxist rhetoric that the gun-grabbers use when they introduce new gun-control legislation. I don't care what subject you're addressing - when I hear that twisted logic, I do a knee-jerk reaction against you.
Do you realize that you are advocating "assumption of guilt before being proven innocent"? That it's up to the individual to immediately prove his innocence in the name of safety? Absolutely absurd.
But it's not ok to prohibit a drunk driver from maybe killing someone, such as you or me?
are weapons and explosives checks at airport check-in also unconstitutional?
I drive the same as you all over NM and West Texas, I hate the drug task force worse than the checkpoints.
Whenever I was in my pickup with equipment or boxes, I got stopped for some BS reason, so they could look.
Never happened in my Caddy.
Thank God, they quit funding them.
A brief, 1-minute stop on the highway is martial law? You have no idea what martial law is, do you?
The problem is I have never been in a one minute stop, by the time I get to the actual checkpoint it has been at least 20 to 30 minutes. If I had been drunk I would have been sober by the time they got to me.
"are weapons and explosives checks at airport check-in also unconstitutional?"
Good try. Not gonna fly. When you fly on an airplane, you are entrusting your safety to someone else. You are paying someone else for your transportation, and they have thus assumed the liability for yours and everyone else's safety. You are NOT in your own private vehicle driving down the road.
In your own vehicle, you are CONSTITUTIONALLY protected to a RIGHT OF PRIVACY, where they cannot search your vehicle without prior consent or reasonable probable cause.
Try again.
They're not an issue. They exist. End of story.
I realize now what your deal is....during our last fight you couldn't resist telling me that you write for a living...you really think you're an articulate and witty writer. But if you are as witty and articulate as you think you are, you wouldn't have to tell everyone. God, you're pathetic.
I think it is time for you to move on to moveon, you will fit in better there.
when I drive on the road, my safety also depends on "someone else" - the drunk crashing into me and killing me.
they aren't "searching your vehicle" - if you appear intoxicated, that gives them probable cause to test you.
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.