Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Dinner with the “One Trick DUI lawyer” Warren Redlich
I recently had the opportunity to host the Fair DUI Lawyer, Warren Redlich, featured in several media outlets. He takes the idea of not incriminating yourself to a different level.
The conversation was very revealing. There have been cases of people being charged despite having a 0.0 alcohol reading on the breathalyzer machine, according to Mr. Redlich. The trouble, according to him, is that DUI laws assume a person is guilty until proven innocent; and in a lot of cases, the innocent end up paying the price. A breathalyzer has a margin of error of 15% – that would be considered ridiculous in any other type of crime/scientific purpose, but the public opinion on DUI is so strong that we allow innocents to be prosecuted in the name of safety.
Apparently, having consumed Wonder bread, and no alcohol, can create a positive reading on a breathalyzer test. So imagine of you have a slice of bread with a glass of wine. A conviction under the DUI laws can be damning. And in many cases, the people being charged have no idea how to get out of the mess.
One of his points is this: if the point is to reduce drunk driving, then the more efficient way would be to offer free rides to drunk drivers, not create DUI checkpoints.
A recent video featuring his technique has gone viral; and as of this post has had more than 2.5 million hits.
My own view of all DUI laws are that they are “pre-crime” laws – a la Minority Report. In other words, laws created to “prevent crime” are on morally dubious grounds. Punishment should be for committing a crime, not for creating a possibility of committing a crime. Mr. Redlich did not dismiss my point of view.
In any case, it is good to see some new perspective and some push back on the encroachment of our freedoms. Especially when there is a distinct possibility of the innocent getting incriminated.
What are your thoughts?
Published in General
Rights and privilege can be complicated. When one believes in the right to drive there are some common sense restrictions. Someone who is blind is restricted from driving. Unless of course they have a seeing-eye dog who barks once for stop, twice for turn left, three times for turn right. Persons that have a history of uncontrolled seizures or Alzheimer’s are not allowed to drive.
Rights have been distorted to someone providing you services. You may have a right to marriage but you have to find a willing spouse. In the case of marriage we have gone down the road that you have the right to demand that specific individuals provide your photos, cake, and a place for you to marry.
You have the right to firearm ownership but for some reason the “you must provide my wedding cake” demand won’t work if you tell the sheriff that he has to provide you a handgun.
Well, I do my part whenever I am in a discussion group. It usually shocks the audience, but we then go into licensing in general and often I can prevail with the concept that licenses are merely ways to restrict access to a market. Hair dressers, barbers, and insurance salesmen are great examples.
But you are right – it seems hard for people to envision no licenses. The state has managed to convince them it’s for their own “good”. Few take the time to recognize that such limitations impinge on what we can do.
You have a point about the difficulty in exercising your rights. BUT along with those rights are responsibilities, so IF you attempt to drive blind, you will most likely get in an accident, and THEN you should be prosecuted for criminal negligence. Doesn’t impinge on the right to drive OR move about the nation; addresses the results of such actions. Same for driving drunk.
Punishment is for crime, not pre-crime.
If you think the DUI laws are abused you should check into the Public Intoxication laws. Basically they are for a display of public intoxication as determined by LEO discretion. No test, no proof, just the LEO’s word. I know people that have been arrested sitting on a bench waiting on a cabs or riding in a car with their designated driver.
I can think of one pre-crime. Individual seeking hit-man to kill spouse or business partner. Police send an undercover officer to pose as hit-man. An agreement is reached with the undercover officer. Subject is then charged with solicitation to commit murder. I don’t think we want to wait until a successful attempt to murder someone is completed.
While I can buy that it warrants prevention, I do not agree that a plan to commit a crime is the same as a crime.
The scenario you describe is entrapment.
The process is the punishment. Safety be damned; this is about power over your life, nothing more.
I’m absolutely, 100% against driving impaired. I grew up riding with impaired drivers, and I am surprised I live to tell the tale. Driving while drunk (or high, or whatever else causes today’s impairment) is one of very few things impossible to do by accident. One cannot mean to do otherwise and do this instead. (I put copulation in this category as well.) One either actively chooses to not do this thing or passively chooses to do it. The decisions to do it or not do it are made before impairment.
All that said, the law does not exist to keep you from doing stupid [expletive]. It exists to butt-hammer you once you have done it and are found guilty of doing it by a jury of your peers. This rarely happens anymore. “The system” doles out punishment through the process so that the charges of the state against an individual only rarely have to be tested openly in a court of law and judged by the citizenry. The state gets to punish the innocent and the guilty alike, and the few who make it to the end of the process who are truly guilty make the state look like it is “doing something” on our behalf. Or, someone innocent makes it to the end of the process and is vindicated, and we all pat ourselves on the back saying “the system works,” but what we fail to see is the exponential amount of wreckage strewn about the sides of that path. By “exponential amount” I mean the 90+% of cases that don’t go to trial.
Entrapment would be if I as a police officer searched out someone at random with no prior info who was having a problem with someone and then saying I’ll kill them for you. Entrapment is not offering my services and then individual sets a price for the “job”, think of it as someone placing a help wanted add. The police officer is there because a named individual has informed the police that this person wants to hire a hit-man.
Yes. It’s not entrapment. An advertisement was placed. And remember, we are talking about murder here. They always get the person on tape and totally committed to having the hit man carry out the act, with an agreement that there will be no communication until after the act is carried out. Then they are charged with attempted murder. I like when police protect us from murderers, rapists and thieves. Not when they protect us from ourselves.
Unprompted solicitation may well be something to prosecute. I think some of the cases I have heard of the FBI arresting potential jihadis appeared to be entrapment, though.
Conspiracy
In the case of our individual that is looking for the hit-man it really doesn’t matter that he has negotiated with an undercover police officer. He was willing to negotiate with anyone that answered his “ad”, if not why would he have placed the “ad” in the first place.
I am not really disagreeing with your hit-man scenario, even if Barkha may be. I find, however, that the FBI appears to have egged young, impressionable teens toward jihadi acts. It’s not the same thing if the officer LEADS the person to it.
So, in your example, if the officer met someone who was having marital problems (or otherwise), then made serious arguments that the person SHOULD get a hit-man, then had his police friends respond, that’s entrapment.
Everything I have to say about DUI laws are very well represented by this Lew Rockwell Article:
http://mises.org/library/legalize-drunk-driving
As for conspiracy – I would have to ask what is the crime?
IMHO, a conspiracy to commit a crime is not a crime – the crime is the crime.
Yes, according to OUR legal system, conspiracy is a crime in many cases, as is Driving without a license or driving while drunk.
However, in my “ideal” world, conspiring to harm is not the same as harming. So, I would not make it illegal.
One can catch a person while committing a murder and charge them for “attempted murder”; but to plan is not to commit a crime.
As for exchange of money and goods, no voluntary exchanges should be prohibited.
?So what would you call giving someone money to kill someone else. That is soliciting murder AND there was an act. The fact you are separated from the actual act doesn’t absolve you as you purchased the act.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0LEVib0yfNU3OIAq3wnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTB0ZjNuMHJ1BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwM18x?p=annual+deaths+from+drunk+driving&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dannual%2Bdeaths%2Bfrom%2Bdrunk%2Bdriving%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla&w=640&h=351&imgurl=www.cdn.mto.gov.on.ca%2Fgraphics%2Fenglish%2Fsafety%2Forsar%2Forsar09%2FEng7.jpg&size=91KB&name=Eng7.jpg&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdn.mto.gov.on.ca%2Fenglish%2Fsafety%2Forsar%2Forsar09%2Fforeword.shtml&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdn.mto.gov.on.ca%2Fenglish%2Fsafety%2Forsar%2Forsar09%2Fforeword.shtml&type=&no=6&tt=120&oid=06818798e3a1465245a1f79cc5bd476a&tit=This+bar+graph+shows+the+number+of+drinking+and+driving+fatalities+by+…&sigr=128hbkq4u&sigi=124hgf7f0&sign=108f4iki2&sigt=103vg5ole&sigb=13c34f987&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
According to Leslie, there’s something in the law about the legal limit, with the caveat “or at the officer’s discretion” or words to that effect. So even if you blow well under the limit, the officer can make the judgment you are impaired.
I spoke to Leslie about suing for false arrest. While I think she was tempted, I believe she felt it wasn’t worth the time and effort. This is a pretty small town and all of us with teenagers are pretty nervous about drawing too much attention.
She was a huge help to me when my daughter was arrested. I was treated very poorly at the police station even with her help. All I kept thinking was: My God, how horrible is it for people WITHOUT a lawyer, let alone a famous one? What if my English wasn’t fluent enough to understand what’s going on?
The stories from my children’s peers about DUIs are legion. A friend of my son’s was at a BBQ at a park, cops showed up. She had a beer in her hand and the cop, finding out she was under 21, told her she had to leave. So she did. As soon as she turned the key in her car she was arrested.
@Dev : The money exchange is only irrelevant when no crime is committed. In case a murder actually takes place, it is relevant.
Seriously? Lew friggin’ Rockwell?
Annefy if their stories about DUI’s are legion then there is a chance some may be true and some are not. In the specific case of the young lady that was told to leave and then arrested as soon as she turned the ignition key her parents might have some options in vacating her arrest for DUI if her account is true.
Was she actually arrested for DUI? If so here are some relevant questions for her parents.
When told to leave did the young lady inform the officer that she had driven to the BBQ and the officer then told her to drive home? If so here are some questions for the police.
Did the officer believe she was impaired and then allow her access to her vehicle to make a DUI arrest?
Did the officer who had control over someone who is impaired allow that individual access to a motor vehicle that the officer could not control?
Wow, how very cool–very valuable information. Thanks for sharing this with us, Barkha.
@Doug: of course some of the DUI stories are true. I never claimed otherwise. I don’t believe every DUI arrest in inappropriate.
As regards to my son’s friend, it doesn’t matter if she was impaired or not. If you are under 21 and blow anything other than a 0.0, you’re guilty.
If the cop really cared about impaired driving, what he should have said is: you are under 21, and you need to leave. But don’t you dare get behind the wheel. You’ve been drinking and it’s not safe. Plus, I am going to arrest you for DUI.
It’s yet another example of the adversarial relationship between citizens and cops, especially young citizens. And I believe the adversarial relationship is the fault of the cops. And these kids are not going to forget. As I told the last one who was hassling my son: good luck if you need a witness to come forward, or God forbid your pension or benefits are under review. You’ve alienated an entire generation. Good luck with that.
The law can only be changed by legislation. The problem for police becomes even if a minor does not blow 0.08 but is turned loose to drive home and they are involved in an accident the police officer and his/her agency will assume part of the liability for death, injury, or damage as will the city or county they represent. Lawyers that can help get your child off a DUI charge if no accident is involved have partners that will start salivating at the thought of that kind of lawsuit. Big bucks, large settlement pays for condos at a golf resort.
“If the cop cared” portion of your comment is entirely correct.
While I agree with you Doug about laws and how to change them, the way these issues are handled by cops makes me question their motives. Are they really trying to protect and serve? Do they really just want a safer society like the rest of us? Because it doesn’t feel that way – not to me and not to my kids.
I don’t think a cop should let a minor loose who has just blown .08 – leaving aside liability, it’s not safe.
But there are different ways to deter unsafe behavior rather than pouncing the second someone steps over the line. And a little instruction on where the line is and how to avoid it would be a good first step
What if you display all articles inside your window: one at a time for the police to read?
Here’s Warren doing just that;
Annefly ….the way these issues are handled by cops makes me question their motives. Are they really trying to protect and serve? Do they really just want a safer society like the rest of us? Because it doesn’t feel that way – not to me and not to my kids
Doug is being very restrained throughout this conversation. I’m impressed, but then, law enforcement officers are given so many, many opportunities for practicing patience both on duty and off. On his days off, a police officer’s friends and acquaintances are apt to entertain him with their own, expert analysis of his profession’s shortcomings. Depending on the analyst’s politics, these will be based on “Ferguson,””the friend’s roommate caught with pot” and, of course, the always-riveting story of the last speeding ticket.
Those of us who work in law enforcement will joke that “drunk and stupid” represents job security for law enforcement, since the smell of alcohol greets us at nearly every call—bar fights, of course, but also domestic violence, sexual assault, suicides, homicides…and every active or former law enforcement officer has a thick file-folder in his head filled with images of just exactly what it looks like when drinking and driving ends in tragedy.
Forgive me if I am less restrained than Doug, but I think this conversation could use a reality check. If you don’t serve as a first responder, it is difficult to grasp just what “tragedy” means, so let me try to help. Especially Annefy, and any other parent inclined to go along with an adolescent’s analysis of who is to blame for the adversarial relationship between the innocent little darlings and the big, mean cop.
To the first officer who responds to the scene of your teenager’s fatal drunk driving accident, your child will look very young and surprisingly small. He will notice small details—the way your daughter’s hand rests in her lap amid the chunks of auto glass, or the brand of sneakers your son is wearing, and the way the lace catches on the crumpled metal as the officer helps to extract him from what is left of the car.
Maybe it’s your car and it was your kid driving it, drunk. Maybe it was his best friend, the kid you’ve known since they were both in diapers, who would’ve blown a 1.3 on the breathalyzer if only he was still breathing. But perhaps your kid and his friend were blameless, and it was another car, driven by someone who, in Barkha’s ideal world, would have committed no crime at all until she actually crossed the center line and smashed head-on into your child.
Believe it or not, blame is a secondary consideration at this point. If your child is screaming and bleeding, the police officer will actually be happy—the dead don’t scream and bleed, so maybe your kid is merely injured, maimed, disfigured or disabled? Maybe he’ll survive, therefore count as lucky?
If your child is unlucky, it will be the police officer—not Barkha, not Mr. Redlich, not Franco— who has to ring your doorbell at two in the morning, listen to your footsteps approaching the door and then, even as the look of sleepy befuddlement on your face yields to devastating realization, he will tell you that your beloved child is dead. He will put his arms around you when the news knocks you to your knees.
Does that police officer want a safer society? Yes. Much, much safer.
When he gets home that night, with the smell of your child’s blood still lingering on his hands, and the sound of your cries echoing in his ears, the police officer will check or maybe double-check to make sure that his own sleeping children are alive and whole.
The next day, he will probably deliver yet another uncool, paranoid lecture about drinking and driving and his children, and maybe his wife too, will roll their eyes and tell him to lighten up. And the following night, back at work, the police officer will pull over some kid who won’t roll the window down, and sticks a leaflet in his face instead. Or a woman who will ask him belligerently why he isn’t out catching real bad guys instead of hassling nice, middle-class Republican moms like her. “I’ve heard legions of stories and I don’t trust your motives!” she’ll say.
He will almost certainly respond patiently. He’s had plenty of practice.
Doug,
Not all police officers are as nice as you. I was pulled over on suspicion of DUI one time at 2 AM. I told the officer honestly I had consumed a beer and a half at 7 PM. I was also extremely tired (running on about 2 hours sleep). The officer rattled off a list of supposed infractions and told me he had been following me since X street. I had not been on X street but I didn’t think arguing was going to do me any good.
He then ran me through the balance tests even though I explained to him time and time again I had an inner-ear problem. My balance at times can be really bad, I sometimes trip standing still. I failed the balance test and the gaze nystagmus test. I explained to the officer that both my inner ear issues and other (unrelated) neurological issues would cause me to fail the nystagmus test as well. When he gave me the cognitive tests I aced them. He kept my by the side of the road for 45 minutes doing balance and nystagmus tests and had me “blow” on him. He kept telling me he wanted to arrest me because my balance was so bad. Finally he let me go.
The thing that really bugged me about the stop was the fact that I told him I had a beer but it was over 7 hours ago and he still forced me to go through all of that. I know cops get lied to all the time, but I not listening to someone and forcing them to do a balance test over and over…….it seems silly.
That dude lives one town over from me.