other cases, get with it.One of the biggest problems facing those doing constitutionaldefense for people accused of drunk driving is that drunk driving haslong been, and is increasingly, a political crime. It is no secret that
, and other Prohibitionist political action groups,forgetting apparently that the 18
Amendment was repealed,elevating symbolic victimization to an art form, have bulldozed theirway into legislative and judicial precincts so effectively that theirgovernmental patrons low-crawl around and pander to their extortionto keep them from demonstrating outside legislative chambers andcourthouses. And those groups’ political terrorism has effectivelyengrafted drunk driving exceptions to the Constitution, and tocommon sense, onto our juro-political landscape such that “deuces”are harder for the defense effectively to litigate than are murders.As I have lectured, publicly and privately, for well-over 20 years,and as I scolded in the court of appeal just five weeks ago, there havegrown up drunk driving exceptions to the Fourth Amendment[
Ingersoll v. Palmer
(1987) 43 Cal.3d 1321,
Michigan v. Sitz
(1990) 496U.S. 444
People v. Banks
(1993) 6 Cal.4
People v. Wells
People v. Schofield
(2001) 90 Cal.App.4
Indianapolis v. Edmond
(2000) 531 U.S. 32, 39, drunk driving was decreed tobe an exception from the general rule of particularized suspicion for libertyinfringements, further proving that DUI is a political crime.
This enunciation of the radical doctrine that there is a DUI exception to thewell-established anonymous tip rule is eyebrow-raising in the extreme, but cert.was denied, even though the holding is contrary to U.S. Supreme Courtprecedent, and it is premised on the constructed hyperbole that DUI is more likea bomb than a concealed gun! See also
Lowry v. Gutierrez
926 [anonymous informants okay for stops for DUI licensesuspension purposes, even though 4
Amendment standards are supposed togovern such proceedings]. I must confess that I thought
would go theother way, given that the U.S. supes have so held, or that cert. would begranted.In original constitutional intent, or course, there is no “public safety”exception to the 4
Amendment, because the 4
Amendment was designed tobe individuals’ safety against public power. Ah, those “originalists.” Wonder whatFramers’ utterances they look at when they self-servingly assign themselvessuch misleading labels!
“Presence,” a common law requirement for misdemeanor arrests since beforethe Framing, and hence deemed to be a reasonability requirement under the 4
Amendment by well-established authority, is not required for a DUI arrestbecause the evidence “might” disappear. Of course, it might also be increasingdue to the passage of time, but who cares ~ “get them drunks off’n thuh road”!/?
Ruminations on Motions