At the Bar

                                                        News you can use

My Car Said I Did WHAT!

 That’s right, if your car is 1999 or newer chances are it’s probably equipped with an “Event Data Record” or, as most people call them, a “black box”. A disturbing trend has developed with prosecutors and insurance companies issuing subpoenas for the info the box records to use in either a criminal proceeding or to deny you insurance benefits! A new bill in Congress, HR 1015, will clarify “ownership” of the data the car’s “black box” collects by providing the vehicle owner with control of the data. The bill would also give the owner the choice of having the box turned on or off, preventing data from being downloaded without owners’ consent or a court order and address other civil liberties concerns. Get Big Brother outta your car; support passage of HR-1015. (Vol. 18, Issue 2, “Driving Freedoms”)

States play “Chicken” with the Fed!

 The 109^th Congress passed a bill, called the “Real ID Act”, which mandated that a national digital identification system, with features that include digital photos, anti-counterfeiting measures and machine-readable magnetic strips be in place nationwide by 2008. What they forgot to do was to provide funding for the States to make the ID program happen. In January Maine, were the costs of implementing the “Real ID” mandate had been estimated at 185 MILLION dollars told the Fed to stuff it, they weren’t going to do it. Within a week of Maine’s decision Georgia, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont, Hawaii, Missouri and New Hampshire all passed similar legislation. This is a high stakes game because, after 2008, state drivers’ licenses that are not Real ID compliant will not be allowed to be used as valid identification when boarding a plane, entering a federal building or opening bank accounts. The real goal of the states opposing this mandate is to get the “Real ID” law changed before the deadline. Good Luck! . (Vol. 18, Issue 2, “Driving Freedoms”)

Ya Can’t Arrest Mama ‘Cause The Dog Can’t Take the Pressure!

 Yes, it seems that Mama was arrested and charged with “obstruction of justice” when the local police, K-9 officer in tow, came to arrest her son for drunk driving. While the K-9 officer and dog searched her son’s car; Mama stood on her porch, over 30 FEET away, and gave the officer and his dog a piece of her mind! The officer claimed that her ranting distracted his dog from the performance of its duties and he arrested her for “obstruction”; in this case telling the cop where to go and how to get there. The local judge agreed with the police but Mama, asserting her First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech, appealed her conviction. Well, the angel was on Mama’s side and the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Mama saying that her rants were NOT “fighting words”, which can get ya bagged, as the officer had alleged, but were, rather, protected speech. Looks like, at least this time, the case didn’t “go to the dogs”!

McDermott v.Royal, 2007 WL 86799 (8^th Cir. 2007)

EVERYTHING You Say Will Be Held Against You.

Everyone knows that a cop has to read you your Miranda rights before he can start questioning you after you get arrested; however, there are some exceptions to this rule. Case in point: a suspect of a shooting who was a known violent felon was found by police to be staying in a local hotel. When the cops entered the hotel room, they arrested and ordered the felon to the ground and asked him if there was “anything or anyone in the room that [he – the cop] should know about;” no Miranda was read before this question. The suspect told the cops about a gun in the other room. The suspect was convicted and later appealed because he wasn’t Mirandized. Well, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the cops who claimed that there was an exception to Miranda because there was a threat to public safety: the suspect was a known felon who has had a gun in the past, and someone was possibly in the room with him. Bottom line, don’t EVER say anything to the cops!  US v. Newsome, 2007 WL 88716

Not ANOTHER Road Block

We’ve all seen them; we know they are there; but, are they allowed to be? Roadblocks seem to be springing up everywhere in today’s world. However, not all roadblocks are legal. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that a checkpoint for drunk drivers and safety issues are completely legal when considering the Constitution: the brief detention to investigate a legitimate issue is not unreasonable. However, in a fairly recent decision, the same Court has held that a roadblock erected for the purpose of finding drug traffickers is completely illegal. They held that a checkpoint that is merely checking for illegal activity, mainly drug trafficking, cannot be protected under the Constitution: the main difference here is that there is no public safety concern like there is with drunk drivers. So, be thankful that the Court is trying, at least in some way, to protect our civil liberties.  City of Indianapolis v Edmond, 531 US 32

                                                         

                                                           This publication was produced by

The Law Offices of Ralph Buss

168 East High Street

Painesville OH 44077-0705

440-357-5577