Page 1 of 20
Posted on October 27 at 9:59 a.m.
DUI checkpoints are great PR for law enforcement because law abiding citizens love to hear this kind of 'news'. They are also a tremendous way to boost the olficers pension and overtime incomes. However, they are WORTHLESS at achieving their required objectives:1. To educate2. To deter; and3. To apprehend.In the seminal case of Ingersol, police utilizd an educational pamphlet which each motorist was given. 19 years later NO LE agency in 'Avoid the 12' hands out any educational pamphletThere is no provable deterrence, but LE loves to point to the low number of arrests to argue they succeeded in deterring.Apprehension is so low as to be a shameful squandering of police resources.Heck, as a DUI defense lawyer, I would profit from a success in apprehension, though I still feel the use of checkpoints is wrong. They use them for 'general crime apprehension' otherwise known as insurance and licensing violations, and anything else that turns up in these suspicion-less, warrantless fishing expeditions.
On Friday Night Driver Checkpoint
Posted on October 26 at 9:32 a.m.
H-G,Morua contacted me through family and he indicated that he was ashamed he had run, and he wanted to take responsibility. I had to find a way to meet his directive without allowing him to bring unnecessary punishment (more than he would otherwise receive) and the easiest way to do that is to align the victims desires with the clients desire since the DA is influenced by victim input (if Malory's family had told the DA to insist upon Life in prison, DDA Arnie Tolks would have probably done so). In fact, the last person to insinuate that I was working with Bob Stoll was Mr. Tolks and the I/O JC Hunter, so which one of those is your true ID?
On Lois Capps: Does Character Matter?
Posted on October 26 at 9:24 a.m.
BC, at .069% (just .012 below the legal limit) there is neither a presumption in favor of, nor against being under the influence. More important at that point is the point on the alcohol absorption/elimination curve and the drivers tolerance or intolerance to alcohol. Some people would definitely be unsafe to drive at .069% while others would be fine.
Posted on October 25 at 11:29 a.m.
AutoC, don't believe everything your government tells you. Your name is not Autopilot. The chart is dead wrong if that's what it says. I guarantee, that if you weigh 205 pounds, (normal weight, not obese) and drink 1.5 ounces of 80 proof, your BAC would never approach 0.03. That might be your theoretical max BAC if you shot the alcohol intravenously, but through oral consumption, NEVER. Lastly, slight impairment is not the standard for driving. Otherwise soccer moms and soccer dads impaired by kids in the car, people with alergies sneezing or coughing, people addicted to canine driving to Starbucks in the morning to get their fix would all be guilty. And certainly the standard for walking is not as you suggest. In order to be against the law walking, you have to be so intoxicated that you are a danger to yourself or others, not merely distracted.
Posted on October 25 at 6:37 a.m.
AC, define 'impaired'. And BTW, you could not possibly be a .03 from the drink you described, more like .003 max. If you are impaired at that level, you should NEVER cross a street, or even leave the house.
And For the record, the standard for driving is not merely 'impaired' (to the slightest degree) but the much higher standard of 'under the influence' which is 'drunk'.
Posted on October 24 at 2:11 p.m.
Dear Autocoalition: as Mr. Morua's attorney, I have seen the initial medical records upon admission and can tell you that Malory's BAC was so negligible that there was a legal presumption that she was NOT impaired by alcohol at the time she was run down. My client took responsibility for his part of this horrific tragedy, and he thought his boss would too, but apparently that kind of honesty is not part of her moral fiber.
Dear Bill Clausen, do you really want to say that because a young woman worked in a bar, she was somehow less of a victim?
Posted on October 10 at 7:53 p.m.
"The prosecutor has far more control over life, liberty and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated, and if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations …While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficial forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst." Justice Robert Jackson, prior to serving as chief U.S. Prosecutor at Nuremberg
On Prosecutor Faces State Bar Complaint
Posted on October 10 at 7:30 p.m.
NOBODY (certainly not a 3 year old) should be victimized, but just because Justin did right by you in NO WAY equates to him being a good and ethical prosecutor and it certainly does not atone for all the people he has Victimized and they are many IMO, So heed your own advice: easy! Your welcome
Posted on October 10 at 2:46 p.m.
Not saying the whole office is corrupt, or even the majority of the office.Are you suggesting that you randomly found an article online that is not visible on the front page of the online paper, and were so I sensed that you jumped into action and enrolled on the INDY with an anonymous screen name because JG couldn't possibly be anything bad? You know him so well after a single case, right?
Posted on October 10 at 2:08 a.m.
I'm implying that it looks like you were asked by Justin or possibly Hilary to make this post, or worse that the post was actually made by one of them or someone close to them. I'm also saying that even if you are legitimately a complaining witness in the case of People v. Jorge Serrano, who was happy with how Justin treated you, and even assuming Justin did nothing wrong in that case, and was the textbook example of a gentleman prosecutor, that does not undo his wrongful behavior in Santana, or Kathleen Jo Porter (watch this video http://www.keyt.com/news/mistaken-ide... or or any of the other wrong doings in literally dozens of other cases.