Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 09/01/2006 8:37:33 PM PDT by elkfersupper
It was a case that prompted the president judge of Commonwealth Court to upbraid some judges for ignoring the constitution in the name of stopping drunk driving.
At issue: If a police officer outside his jurisdiction stops a vehicle and the driver refuses to take an alcohol breath t est, can the license of the driver be suspended for a year?
The answer is no, according to a ruling this week by the state Supreme Court.
Police have grounds to make arrests outside of their jurisdiction when they see a "felony, misdemeanor, breach of peace or any other act which presents an immediate clear and present danger to persons or property."
A motorist normally faces an automatic one-year license suspension by the state Department of Transportation if they refuse to take a breath or blood-alcohol test to determine intoxication. But that does not carry over if the stop is done outside the officer's jurisdiction, the high court reaffirmed.
In this case, a Hampden Twp. officer began following Myra J. Martin around Nov. 27, 2003, in the township, but stopped her in Camp Hill. She refused a breath test.
Because of Martin's refusal to take the breath test, PennDOT attempted to suspend her license. Cumberland County Judge Edgar B. Bayley threw out the suspension, but the Commonwealth Court overruled Bayley.
In Tuesday's opinion, Supreme Court Justice Ronald Castille said the Commonwealth Court ruling contradicted almost identical cases and issues decided by the Supreme Court.
"I agree with the Supreme Court that PennDOT was trying desperately to revisit that issue and the Supreme Court said they were not going to do that," said Martin's attorney, John B. Mancke.
The high court ruling also backed what Commonwealth Court President Judge James Gardner Colins said when he disagreed with his court's majority opinion that backed the suspension.
"We do not want a police state," Colins wrote in his dissent. "It seems we are on the precipice of becoming one, in the name of DUI."
"We do not want a police state," Colins wrote in his dissent. "It seems we are on the precipice of becoming one, in the name of DUI."
Ping.
Love it love it love it.
Take cover from the incoming fireballs from DUI zealots.
Cover my 6.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
It's good to know there are still judges following the law..
I've already modified my behavior in that I won't drive at night anymore unless I have to.
How would I know whether any of the myriad of lights on my rig burned out while I was driving or not?
I don't want to have to do the roadside monkey dance for a burned-out license plate light.
I have the notion that he is doomed.
People have no idea how powerful MADD is.
They have "courtroom observers" who crucify judges like this.
Second, there was a ruling in the New Jersey state courts some years ago about jurisdiction. Some people might not like it, but when you think about it, it is absolute common sense.
In the case, a local police officer observed an offense outside of his town and stopped the car. The accused was convicted and appealled based on the fact that the offense did not happen in the officer's town, and the stop was not made in the officer's town, therefore the officer had no jurisdiction to make a stop.
The state argued that police officers in New Jersey are sworn to uphold the laws of the State of New Jersey. Since moving violations are part of the state laws, title 39, the court ruled that the officer was in fact upholding the laws of the State of New Jersey and was doing exactly what he was sworn to do.
And they are right. The oath and the laws authorizing police officers in new Jersey say nothing about the particluar town that swears the officer. If you're a cop in New Jersey, you're a cop in all of New Jersey. I wonder why other states have not followed this ruling.
People who drink should not operate a vehicle for no less than 24 hours after their lips last touch a bottle. These are the rules I obey now.
Granted, far too much of DUI laws have been dictated by the neo-prohibitionist MADD. Nonetheless, I want to keep drunks off the road.
Go home. Grab a twelver and rent a movie or three from Blockbuster. Get F'ed-up in your home. Stay off the roads.
"We do not want a police state," [Commonwealth Court President Judge James Gardner] Colins wrote in his dissent. "It seems we are on the precipice of becoming one, in the name of DUI."
I'm glad to see this happen, The whole DUI issue is a gateway to destroy the rights and privacy of citizens.Yeah, you're right.
It is worth 10,000 - 20,00 or even 30,000 more deaths on the road each year ...
I would HATE to be inconvenienced even 30 seconds to save a life not my own for the sanctity of not having my rights violated.
We already became a police state for the War on Drugs... then it was aimed at cigarettes... now at alcohol... when will it stop?
Presumes as fact matters not in evidence. In light of the inflated MADD DUI death statistics posted above, you should perhaps examine that figure, as well as consider alternate causuality.
I would HATE to be inconvenienced even 30 seconds to save a life not my own for the sanctity of not having my rights violated.
i see...and how many more of your rights are you willing to give up for the "cause of the day"? Funny thing this line of reasoning. Many on this board castigate the Libertarians and libertarians that post here as advocating a 'pick and choose anarchy', while those who are supposedly more enlightened authoritarians are demonstrating their hypocracy while picking and choosing which God given rights they would have violated for their pet causes.
Don't mean to offend FRiend, but if the shoe fits wear it proudly. If not, then toss it.
That they do, I know it for a fact.
They had one at mine and she wanted to sit with the prosecutor,at her table. We had to formally ask the judge to move her back to the gallery.
I'd never seen her before never affected her life, yet she was there to make sure I got the maximium penalty.
I found out later this is like her hobby she shows up all the time with her knitting and then stares the judge down during the dui cases. Now you not only have to face your acusser, but the fanatics too.
Great decision by the judge.
Ain't it the truth. We lock this kid up for 2 years for the crime of being asked by an undercover cop to sell him some marijuana. And that's a Federal mandatory sentence, one the jury was not told would be in effect. I'm not too inclined to worry about what happens to drunk drivers.
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.