Joseph P. Welch

Flex Your Rights.org reports on an Eight Circuit Court of Appeals decision in which an innocent man had his life savings stolen from him through our unfair system of civil forfeiture laws. From Flex Your Rights.org:

The blogoshere is buzzing about the fate of Emiliano Gonzolez, an immigrant who consented to a police search only to have his life savings confiscated. The Eighth Circuit upheld the seizure even though Gonzolez was never even charged with a crime

The problem here is that forfeiture laws target the money directly, without addressing the guilt or innocence of the suspect. This case, for example, is bizarrely titled United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency. Forfeiture cases require a mere “preponderance of the evidence”, which means that the court only has to be 51% sure you did something wrong in order to take everything you own.

Yet even this government-friendly standard appears unmet here. Gonzolez’s evasive answers during the traffic stop are easily attributable to his difficulty with English and his obviously valid concern that police might confiscate his money if they knew about it. The fact that a drug dog alerted on the money is insignificant since 80% of U.S. currency contains drug traces. He had a one-way ticket because he intended to drive home in a truck, and he had someone else rent the car because he couldn’t rent without a credit card.

A policy that ignores reason condemns itself to the inevitability of injustice against the innocent. Even if the Eighth Circuit truly disbelieves Gonzolez, these judges must surely recognize the ease with which law-abiding citizens could be rendered helpless under this doctrine.

This callous ruling underscores the importance of knowing your rights in the first place. Had Gonzolez known to refuse the search and remain silent instead of lying, he may have been able to avoid this mess entirely. At the very least, a 4th Amendment challenge would have given him an additional legal option to pursue.

Read the rest of the story here at Flex Your Rights.org.

joe :: Sep.28.2006 :: Drug Laws, Criminal Law :: No Comments »

Why did the government try to suppress reports that their anti-drug public-service announcements aimed at teens actually promotes drug use, you may ask? Because the government wants to be hip, and to sit at the cool kids table, and to achieve that end they’re encouraging a whole new demographic of kids to try drugs by extending their campaign to YouTube.com.

By now it’s old news that this government ad campaign actually promotes teen drug use, as reported by the Marijuana Policy Project, and now the Seattle Times reports that these ads are being released online:

The decision to distribute anti-drug, public-service announcements and other videos over YouTube represents the first concerted effort by the U.S. government to influence customers of the popular service, which shows more than 100 million videos per day.

The administration was expected to formally announce the move today. It said it was not paying any money to load its previously produced videos onto YouTube.

“If just one teen sees this and decides illegal drug use is not the path for them, it will be a success,” said Rafael Lemaitre, a spokesman for the drug office.

Of course, that’s the “anti-drug” story the government gives to its parents, but the truth is the government actually knows these ads encourage teens to use drugs, as reported by the Marijuana Policy Project:

The report – which was commissioned by NIDA and performed by Westat, a private research firm – was made available to GAO investigators and served, in part, as the basis of the GAO report released on August 25. According to the GAO, “the only significant effect indicated in Westat’s analysis of the relationship between campaign exposure and self-reported drug use” was an increase in first-time marijuana use by 12½- to 13-year-olds and girls. Responding to Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP’s) claim that failure to continue the media campaign would be “raising the white flag to those who favor drug legalization,” the GAO authors wrote, “In our view, on the other hand, continuation of programs that have been demonstrated not to work diverts scarce resources from programs that may be more effective.”

Good try, government, but the kids ain’t gonna buy it. If you really want to be cool, get your parents to buy you a new car.

joe :: Sep.26.2006 :: Drug Laws :: No Comments »

Schools in Missouri, Texas, and Wisconsin are urging parents to randomly and gratuitously test their children for drug use.

From seattlepi.com:

“It’s another (drug prevention) resource that’s available,” said Jim Heiden, superintendent of the Cudahy, Wis., school district in suburban Milwaukee.

The effectiveness of such measures, though, is subject to debate.

Drug prevention researchers warn about the prospect of false-positive tests and note the lack of evidence suggesting such measures lead to a decrease in drug use.

Other critics cite the invasive nature of the tests and the damage done to the parent-child bond.

“It’s a sacrifice of human dignity,” said Dan Viets, an attorney for the mid-Missouri chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

School participation in home drug testing by parents is an “end around” a Supreme Court ruling that limits random drug testing of students unless they are involved in extracurricular activities, he said.

“When the schools get involved they’re going beyond what the Supreme Court allows,” said Viets, a criminal defense attorney who often represents people accused of violating drug laws.

joe :: Sep.26.2006 :: Drug Laws :: No Comments »

A police officer will often request that you get out of your vehicle after pulling you over, and most people comply without giving it a second thought. What, exactly, are your rights when a cop asks you to get out of your car?

Anyways, in Missouri a police officer has the right to order you out of your car after pulling you over for almost any violation at all. If that little light above your license plate is burnt out, you can be pulled over and be forced to get out of your vehicle. You do not have a right to refuse to get out of your vehicle, and the officer can then proceed to ask you a few specific questions regardless of whether they have any reason to believe that you’re breaking the law.

Once you have exited the vehicle, the officer may do the following:

1. License and registration

It’s a good idea to always have your license and registration in a safe and convenient location. If you fumble for your paperwork or can’t find it, officers are trained to assume that you’re intoxicated, and can use this to detain you longer, ask you more questions, and possibly search your vehicle or arrest you.

Almost everyone keeps their registration and proof of insurance in their glove compartment, but screwing around with your glove compartment with a police officer outside your door is a good way to get shot, because the glove compartment is also a convenient place to store a handgun, and this is one thing that every officer is concerned with, and rightfully so. Keep your registration and proof of insurance easily accessible in your glove compartment so you can have it out and ready before the officer walks up to your car. And sometimes it’s a good idea to leave your glove compartment open after you remove your paperwork so the officer can see that you’re not trying to hide anything in it.

2. Sitting in the police car.

A police officer in Missouri may also require you to sit in his or her police car after stopping you for a minor offense. In most cases they only do this if they suspect that you’re up to something illegal, but legally they don’t need a reason. The justification for their right to hold you in their car is to ensure the safety of the officer, an important reason, even though its legitimacy is questionable and the power it grants officers is ripe for abuse. As I said before, the officer doesn’t need a reason to make you sit in the patrol car, and they often use this power when they suspect you’re up to something and want to intimidate you into allowing them to search your vehicle or confessing to something.

It’s often a good idea to lock your car in these situations- the officer must obtain a search warrant to search your locked car, and it’s more difficult for the officer to lie and say you consented to the search. By having your license, insurance, and registration ready before the officer walks up to your car you’re all set if the officer requests you to get out of the car, and neither you nor the officer should have any reason to get back into it unless the officer has a reasonable suspicion that something illegal is going on (I mean, aside from the illegal traffic stop and violation of your constitutional rights, of course).

3. Where are you going and what are you doing?

The officer also has the right to ask where you’re going and what you’re going to do there. In most cases the “where” part is easy because you’re going home, or to work, or a friend’s house, or whatever. A short, simple, and truthful “home”, “work”, or “my friend Jack’s house” (if that is his real name, of course) is often a safe answer. If you’re going somewhere that you’d rather not mention to the officer (like, a bar, or club, or a subversive political meeting), then the negative answer “nowhere unlawful” might be good. If you’re going somewhere illegal, like if you’re going to be tresspassing or vandalizing a church or something, then… well, you’re a bad, bad person and should probably atone for your life of crime.

As for what you should say when the officer asks you what you’re going to do at your destination, the best answer is usually “nothing unlawful”.

And as always, nothing in this post is intended to be specific legal advice in Missouri or anywhere else. Every traffic stop and case is unique, and if you have a question about your rights or get pulled over contact an attorney in your area.

joe :: Sep.25.2006 :: DWI, Criminal Law :: No Comments »

My alma mater, the University of Missouri, Columbia, better known as Mizzou, was recognized by High Times magazine as a key university involved in marijuana reform. This article from NORML mentions a couple of inaccuracies in the High Times article, as the pro-marijuana propositions passed were a community effort and not just advocated by students.

The university has received high marks from a monthly “stoner-friendly guide.” High Times magazine ranks MU third on the list of university campuses helping to soften the nation’s pot laws.

The magazine’s October 2006 issue recognizes the efforts of two student organizations — the MU chapters of Students for Sensible Drug Policies and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws — that helped pass two city propositions.

One protects medical marijuana patients from criminal penalties; the other decriminalizes marijuana and makes the drug the lowest priority for law enforcement.

Continue reading the full article at the Media Awareness Project’s NORML page.

joe :: Sep.11.2006 :: Drug Laws :: No Comments »