I AM THE LAW!

That's Judge Dredd for you non-comic book geeks.

Quick blurb from CNN about a "Citizens Citation" against a Portland Police Officer over, get this, a parking violation. First of all, I had no idea that you could even do this. I've heard of "Citizens Arrest" but "Citizens Meter Maid" is a new one. You have to be one serious Parking Afficiando to take the time to go down to the courthouse and file whatever you need to file against a cop. I think someone has a GI JOE collection. But all jokes aside, good for Eric Bryant. He has a right to file the citation and he did it. Probably best if more folks did the same.

But on to 5-oh's take. Assistant Police Chief Bryan Martinek says he tells his officers that it's OK to break the law, and since he says its OK the officer did "nothing wrong." My favorite part comes late in the interview when Officer Martinek says that it would be wrong for officers to wait for a "legal" parking space and then uses the mocking finger signal for "" and goofy shrug when he says "legal." So he acknowledges that the officer in question broke the law. I guess according to officer Martinek the police are there to enforce the law on others, but are above it themselves. I'm not sure that's the best message. I don't want to tell the Portland Police Chief how to run his department, but if it were me, I would make sure Assistant Chief Martinek never came near a camera again.

For the record, I agree that police officers should stay near their cars. But according to Mr Bryant, Portland's law says that the police can only park in loading zones under certain clearly defined situations, and take-out isn't one of them. The police are here to enforce the law, not ignore it.

Twas SWAT, it twas

Interesting news going on in Colorado. World Net Daily report on a Garfield County Sheriff's use of SWAT to break into a home and take a boy, Jonathan Shiflett, from his parents to receive medical care.

Gist of story, some kids were playing, and the young by slipped and hit his head. His father, Tom Shiflett, a former paramedic immediately took the boy inside and checked him out. Decided he was OK and gave him ice and pain relievers (remember this plot point). A neighbor called 911, and according to the article,

The paramedics were allowed to see the boy, and found no significant impairment, but wanted to take him to the hospital for an evaluation anyway. Fearing the hospital's bills, the family refused to allow that.

Paramedics told two friends, who told two friends and so on, until Garfield County Magistrate Lain Leoniak decided to issue a seizure warrant. SWAT was called. Then hilarity ensued.

Oops, my bad. Not so much hilarity, as bungling abuse of power. According to the Mother, Tina, what ensued was,

One (officer) grabbed my daughter Beth (18 years), who also had a gun to her face, slammed her down and kneed her in the back and held her in that position… My sons Adam (14) and Noah (only 7) lay down willingly, yet they were still forced to put their hands behind their backs and were yelled at to keep their heads down.

"My daughter Jeanette was coming out from the back bedroom when she was grabbed, drug down the hallway, across a couch and slammed to the ground," she said. "The officers then began throwing scissors and screwdrivers across the room (out of our reach, I suppose) and going through our cupboards.

"I asked if I could make a phone call and was told, 'no.' My daughter asked if that wasn't one of our rights. The reply was made, 'That's only in the movies,'" she said.

While I like He Said/She Said as much as the next guy, that's not really the point of this post. I just have the following questions.

One, if you're forced to get medical attention, do you still have to pay for it? By the way, and this is important, the net result for the boys medical attention? You guessed it, ice and painkillers. This is important. According to the article, the Paramedic's called in to the scene, were satisfied that the boy was OK, but wanted to give him a ride to the ER for evaluation anyway (look above for the quote silly). At this point I have two sub questions. On who's dime is this "what the heck" evaluation made? Two, the net result of all this is that the Paramedics essentially ordered Tom to allow them to take his child to the ER (with the now implied use of force to back up this order). Do we really want Paramedics to have that kind of authority? Shouldn't the parents have that authority, with the Paramedics giving recommendations?

Two, was SWAT really necessary? According to the Sheriff, Lou Vallario, what prompted him to call in SWAT was Mr Shifletts comment to "bring an army" if the cops come back. Really? Are we now at the point where "you and what army?" isn't really a cheap boast, but a command? (Yes, Mr Shiflett also allegedly chased someone with an ax years ago, but there was no arrest). OK, but SWAT? Busting in the house and taking the boy at gun point? Guns and confinement for the other children? Really? Aren't we supposed to trust our safety professionals to find better solutions, especially solutions to problems that didn't really exist?

Three, why does Garfield County even have a SWAT team. Must be the incredibly high number of violent crimes in this county of 44,000. What's that? 130? Per day, right? No...that's for all of 2004. Hmmmm, well no wonder they called in SWAT. Those SWAT guys must be bored out of their feakin' minds. I'm surprised they don't get called out to deliver parking tickets.

Four, I wonder if a mandatory ER trip and psychoanalysis was ordered for the other kids after the invasion?

Bottom line? I have great respect for our police officers. I dig being safe, a lot. And I absolutely know that without the police, that would not be the case. I also don't claim to know exactly what happened here. But this whole incident seems rife with individuals wielding outsized power with outsized toys. This event should have been left to the parents. That's what parents do, decide what's best for their children. There was no prior indication of abuse, nor was there an immediate indication as the Paramedics only advised a trip to be sure that their initial examination (which agreed with the parents) was correct. It's not like the the boy was delirious, paralyzed or bleeding out. A parent and a homeowner has rights. Even, ultimately, the right to be wrong.

CO gets tough on Drunk Drivers

CO State Rep Joell Judd (D-Denver) is introducing a new bill aimed at increasing the penalty for Drunk Driving. His bill would

• Mandatory revocation of driver's license for anyone convicted of vehicular homicide or vehicular assault.

• Revocation for one year for first violation, four years for second offense and six years for third DUI offense.

• Revocation for two years for first offense, six years for the second offense and eight years for the third offense, if the driver refuses to take a blood-alcohol-content test.

Here's my bias alert. I despise drunk driving. You can drink yourself stupid and I won't think a bad thing about you, but when you get behind the wheel you become a real problem. I have no issue with taking someones privilege to drive. Yes it sucks, but you made your decision when you got behind the wheel. So I favor this bill, and here's some more reasons why.

One, again driving is a privilege. Abusing it sends you to the bus. Don't want to ride the bus, don't be an idiot. Just like if you're an idiot at the mall, they ban you for life.

Two, this bill doesn't set up more random checks or any other mechanism/idea that infringes on the rights of ordinary citizens. The way I read it, the only way for the penalty to occur is upon conviction.

Three, it doesn't increase jail time or fines. It goes after the problem, driving. I prefer laws like this.

Now what I don't like. I assume that if you're busted the state takes the car. Don't like that, but it is an assumption.

Two, I'm not entirely comfortable with the notion of the breathalyser in the car. I get that using it is voluntary (but how voluntary is it really?) but I don't like where the concept could lead. I'd rather leave that door closed. Just come up with a penalty and go with it.

Just a quick aside, if I were Rep Judd, I would have reworded it to read that the penalty was two years/six/eight unless the individual elects to take the breathalyser route. Thus it would appear that rather than increasing the punishment for opting out of the breathalyser, you could instead decrease the punishment through your actions. Sort of like time off for good behavior.

Say "Cheeeeese!"

Radley Balco over at Reason wrote this post about short yellow lights at traffic signals. The gist is that at signals with cameras to catch traffic violators, the yellows are short. Why have short yellows? According to the link cited in the article (I know, I know its like a treasure hunt) about short lights in Lubbock, TX,

Adding an additional second to the ITE minimum yellow yielded 53% reduction in violations, producing the greatest benefit of all the factors studied (2-6). When safety is the main concern, preventing crashes is more important than reducing violations. Yellow signal timing again proved most effective in reducing crashes. An extra second yielded a 40 percent collision reduction.

Read those numbers again. As a citizens, adding a second to yellow light length reduces expenses by 53% and reduces crashes by 40% (which reduce insurance costs, hospital costs, and lots of other expenses - and oh, yeah SAVES LIVES). One second? That's it? This is fantastic. Seems like there's a citizens initiative in the making, just huge savings all around. Now someone please remind me what the role of government is? Is it to debate safety v. revenue? I've never liked situations where the government views citizens as a source of revenue (which means I'm mostly unhappy), just too big a conflict of interest. But here it looks like citizens pay with fines and injury.

Just for the record, and not surprisingly, I'm totally against traffic cameras.

MADD not mad at influential State Rep

MADD decided to enter the picture to defend Ocean City PD officer Douglas A. Smith's (AKA OCPD's toughest DUI enforcement officer) decision that Delaware State Rep John C. Atkins was drunk enough that a friend had to come get him from his pulled over vehicle, but not drunk enough to merit a charge. Lest you doubt Officer Smith's judgment, a breathalyser tested the Honorable Atkins at .14 (well over the state limit of .08).

Fun quote.

"(Smith) followed the same procedures and protocol for this arrest as he would for any other," she said. "He did smell alcohol on his breath, but there was no hesitation or fumbling, no confusion as to what was being asked, no slurring, no delay. None of the clues were really there."

And,

"He administered the (test) after he had decided not to make an arrest and he made the right call by not letting him continue driving," Elzey said. "He probably saved lives by not letting him drive home."

Yet...

"He's had a couple hundred DUI arrests in a few years,"

Now frequent readers of the H-Blog (Hi Ma!), know I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer (wait, Ma look away!), but I'm a bit confused. Alcohol is so damaging that a level of .08 is illegal, yet you can have a BAC of .14 and not be exhibiting any signs of impairment? Which begs the question, if "none of the clues were really there" why did Officer Smith pull Atkins over in the first place?

Also, Officer Smith "probably saved lives by not letting him drive home" but made the right call by not making an arrest? Did Rep Atkins teleport to the place where Officer Smith pulled him over? What about all the risk the other drivers were taking before Officer Smith found him? It's not like Officer Smith intercepted the good Rep before he started his car (but sitting behind a parked care with a BAC above the legal limit does qualify you for an arrest). In that vein, how can MADD, with a straight face, say that Officer Smith treated Rep Atkins the same as all the other people he pulled over? The guy's "toughest" DUI officer in the state with "a couple hundred arrests in a few years." You don't get those kinds of numbers if you sitting around waiting for friends to come get a drunk driver you just pulled over (I accept that I may be wrong here, maybe Officer Smith pulled over four hundred drunks and only arrested 200 hundred, but I'm skeptical).

So what gives?

Balco's take: Reb Atkins sits on Delaware legislature's public safety committee and has apparently had some positive votes on MADD-favored DWI issues (nows a good time to thank Mr Balco for bringing this to my attention). This is also supported by Rep Atkins' actions after being pulled over. Again, according to Balco (I found back up here), "Immediately after getting pulled over, he flashed his Delaware Legislature ID, after which the officer assured him that he wouldn't be arrested."

Maybe MADD's not playing favorites, but here's the thing, MADD's savvy enough to know that the best move is to stay out of this. A simple "This is a police matter" would have been the better response. Getting directly involved only muddies the picture and makes them look bad. I don't imagine that many readers are sitting back and thinking, "Good for MADD, supporting the release of a State Rep, while simultaneously supporting more road blocks (plus, I assume hiring more police officers to sit with caught drunk drivers while their friends come and pick them up), putting alcohol detection devices in every vehicle (I guess we're all guilty now), zero tolerance (or I guess, zero plus one)." - all spot taken from the MADd website.

Look I want to be clear. I get MADD. I'm also a fan of DUI laws. My particular brand of libertarianism is basically, do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't threaten me. Not much more threatening than a 5000lb vehicle under the control of a drunk. But I also think they push it. Getting arrested for being drunk behind the wheel of a parked car? Nope. Roadblocks? Nope. Breathalysers in all cars? No way, no how. But I've always given them a pass because so many of their volunteers have been directly affected by drunk driving. But this little incident, and getting directly involved to give cover to both the Officer and the Rep, well that just blows the "monomaniacs with a dream" exemption.

I'm also a fan of officers working with citizens to find an acceptable solution (anything that gets around the fact that citizens are a source of income for police departments is for the better - I'll save that for another post). But this just doesn't seem to be the case. Officer Smith, at least according to MADD, is fairly hardcore about this.

So now the way I see it, Mothers are Against Drunk Driving, unless you're in a position to vote for things said mommies like.