A judge has ruled that the results of a blood-alcohol test for State District Judge Elizabeth Berry taken in November cannot be used as evidence in her drunken driving case.Berry, 43, was charged with misdemeanor drunken driving Nov. 8 after lab results showed her blood-alcohol level was above the state’s legal limit of 0.08 when she was driving...
...Berry was driving 92 mph in a 65-mph zone on Interstate 35 south of Fort Worth when she was pulled over. An officer smelled alcohol on her breath and saw beer cans — some of them empty — in her car... [More]
Insufficient evidence--for an "Only One." The rest of you, back into the holding tank with the scary killers.
Next...?
I wonder--do they really think this stuff won't be noticed? And that cumulative resentment that could grow into rage isn't building...?
[Via Lane]
6 comments:
I was curious as to WHY the blood test was ruled inadmissible. This is what the story goes on to state:
"After a three-hour hearing Thursday, retired Senior Judge Robert Dohoney ruled that the facts cited by the officer who arrested Berry were not sufficient to support a search warrant granted by a judge to obtain her blood.
Dohoney said the arresting officer left too many critical details out of his report. He said there was not enough probable cause to draw her blood."
How is it that a "retired Senior Judge" can simply disregard the ruling of a different judge, who granted the search warrent for the blood test? And since when are empty beer cans, smelling alcohol, and driving at half-again the speed limit NOT probable cause?
The prosecution should definitely appeal this ruling. It sounds like one judge was scratching the back of another...you know, professional courtesy.
"some pigs are more equal than others"
"I wonder--do they really think this stuff won't be noticed? And that cumulative resentment that could grow into rage isn't building...?"
Yes, they think that way, and they are right. As long as there is enough money for beer and cigarettes and porn, resistance will be isolated and seen as "crazy."
There's always a tipping point, though, where inertia takes over. We are close.
The L.A. riots come to mind. Those people burned down entire neighborhoods, including their own -- well, the landlords'...
Looks like you're right. It's all in the PERCEIVED amount each has to lose.
But, back to my original point. We ARE close, even us middle-American suburb-dwellers. If they have search warrants to back an unconstitutional law, infra-red wall-piercing viewers, and so on, it's not really YOUR house any more, it's THEIRS.
It's only "stuff." If there was a fire, it could all be gone in minutes.
That reminds me. George Carlin used to say a house was just a cover for your stuff. He used to also make fun of America, about how "we're going to ban TOY guns and KEEP the f-ing REAL ONES!"
Later, he slammed the government and the anti-s hard on violating ALL our constitutional rights. Eventually even the most dedicated liberal people get it. When THEY'VE been abused by those whose methods they champiion.
Defender, all I can add is that the house never was yours. Property taxes are nothing more than rent to the king and if you refuse to pay them, he will take his house back, by force if necessary.
Wait. Hang on.
Something you may or may not understand is the heinous practice, spreading through Texas, of:
- stopping you at a checkpoint
- asking for a breath test (you could be perfectly sober, and refuse)
- the cop calls a special, overtime-paid judge and gets a warrant ON THE SPOT.
- the cop then sticks a needle in you (which is actually not legal in Texas but somehow with a 24 hour course, "cop" becomes "technician") to draw your blood against your consent.
- "implied consent" is what they say you've given, by ATTAINING A DRIVERS LICENSE.
That there are legal precedents being created by Only Ones used against Only Ones tells me that this is actually a GOOD thing. The only way to get around this crap, right now, is to generate affirmative defenses to this practice.
Just FYI.
Post a Comment