Sunday, February 21, 2010


Over the past 22 years of representing clients charged with DUI it has become obvious that a large group of people charged with the created crime were pretextually charged: Legal Scholars would say because Terry v. Ohio was in fact a slippery slope decision which has resulted in a game being played as far as articulating real suspicion for making a stop. Why then not make articulable suspicion and roadblock DUI arrests when they are 1st/5 and 2nd/10, and where there is a refusal or intoxilyzer result of .13 or less, an administrative only case by taking away the punishment of jail time: the Supreme Court has stated that where there is no prospect of jail time there is no right to trial by jury and thus arguably these cases could be administratively tried cases? The skeptically inclined I think would argue that the reason this will never, ever happen is that it would take a revenue stream away from the local government and then streamline the appeals process where on appeal when Appeals Courts, whose focus in life centers around protecting constitutional rights, got the case(s), many would be thrown out because the reality is that the games being played with the Constitution would not stand judicial scrutiny if they were routinely appealed. Then again, do we really want to confront the fact that on a routine basis too much has been allowed in the way of pretextual reasons for enforcing the law or do we just want to go along with the system and hope it doesn't get worse? This is Just My Humble Opinion Dealing With The Modern World and The Reality Of The Game I think should be called: "Let's Put The Constitution On Its Head And Spin It, Law Enforcement".