The last time I checked, the Sonics' Rashard Lewis wasn't a suspected terrorist and wasn't engaged in terrorist activities so may have his recent DUI expunged from his record.
Here's the money quote from the story:
Washington, they pointed out, is what's known as a "per se" state. That means if your breath-alcohol content measures 0.08 or greater, you're guilty of DUI. So if the judge is required to admit breath-test results into evidence, it's up to the defendant to prove his innocence. That is at odds with federal law, which says you're innocent until proved guilty.Blogger shout out to orbusmax!
3 comments:
I find it odd that so many that are so worried about Civil Liberties being cast aside by the NSA Eavesdropping and Patriot Act haven't commented about this.
Makes me wonder sometimes if the cry of "Civil Liberties" isn't a smoke screen.
You might be treading on apples and oranges here lew. Let me give it a shot though..
Gathering evidence lays the burden on the prosecution to prove the suspect guilty, or in the least to prove the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (assuming it was gathered lawfully), and the burden on a judge to decide what evidence to allow. It is assumed that ALL evidence gathered sans warrant will be thrown out.
Not to drag up the other conversation (your fault though) -- if spied upon and brought up on charges under the "trump all" power of the President, without a warrant, the trust is put in hands of your prosecution to decide what will and will not pass for evidence in your case. It's not a big step to go from citizen watched under a warrant-less search to suspected enemy combatant with no legal rights during wartime, a wartime that has no end.
Not to run off discussion, but this DUI law seems to be closer to my second statement above. So if I sit in the crowd crying about civil liberties, I would think that my arguments align themselves at the same conclusion in both situations; Presidential wire taps on Americans and this DUI law.
Drinking and driving is a problem. A serious one. And I think more measures should be taken to prevent unneeded injury and death caused by it. But those measures should fall within the law, and this doesn't. So, I would offer, while we cry about making this law go away let's also offer up a solution to improve the situation.
Actually, Eric, my point was about how the DUI suspect really isn't a suspect here, but considered guilty until he proves himself innocent.
It was also wondering why all the cries about Civil Liberties from so many over the Patriot Act when we have laws as this that are also considered addressing a major problem.
Forgive me, but I often think outside of the box and tend to see points tied together in ways others don't.
While I agree drunk driving is very serious, why do we accept Civil Liberty to be ignored in a DUI case when a possible terrorist attack is even more serious and yet, so many wish to block discovery of possible attacks over Civil Liberties?
If we are to be vigilant, shouldn't it be across the board evenly and not just when we dislike who is in office?
Along these same lines, do we not accept random stops checking for DUIs over Holiday periods where drinking is usually excessive? Is that any less intrusive than warrantless intercepts of cell phone calls for those with connections to a known terrorist group?
BTW, I'm all for tough measures to combat Drunk Drivers. BUt shouldn't we be at least equally as tough on terror?
Post a Comment