good morning ladies and gentlemen..welcome to Judge Hill's Traffic School..
today's lesson is Fun with Traffic Signals...you got red, yellow and green lights and what you do when you see them is optional...for example, when you see a green light, you can linger in front of it for up to a minute....what you do with that minute is up to you..talk on your cell phone, eat a cookie, have a beer or play with yourself....a yellow light means nothing so just ignore it....and a red light means you should stop unless you're really in a hurry, then you can blast right through it....and if a pesky cop pulls you over, just tell 'em to mind their own business because if Lance can squirm out of a DUI, so can YOU!! ok so today upon sober reflection I still can't believe Lance's case got dismissed..but maybe Judge Hill did us a big favor.... no more Lance tantrums in the court room...
the next trial will be the People vs DeNunzio...that should be interesting unless Hill gets the case...please God, don't let Hill have this case!!
well I figured out what all the hay bales were for..the City of Santa Barbara anticipated that Judge Hill's indecision would result in more DUIs, so they are lining the streets with hay so the drunks don't hit parked cars or people, just hay!! Good idea!
and Lance..oh Lance you little pimp....do you fit in your tuxedo now? do you look skinny now? actually, Lance looks pretty silly and I hope he pays big time for the smear job..and I know that Santa Barbara cops are not going to stop their professionalism just because Judge Hill and Peter Lance made their jobs a little harder.....
the next trial will be the People vs DeNunzio...that should be interesting unless Hill gets the case...please God, don't let Hill have this case!!
well I figured out what all the hay bales were for..the City of Santa Barbara anticipated that Judge Hill's indecision would result in more DUIs, so they are lining the streets with hay so the drunks don't hit parked cars or people, just hay!! Good idea!and Lance..oh Lance you little pimp....do you fit in your tuxedo now? do you look skinny now? actually, Lance looks pretty silly and I hope he pays big time for the smear job..and I know that Santa Barbara cops are not going to stop their professionalism just because Judge Hill and Peter Lance made their jobs a little harder.....
and I bet that Genis who is defending DeNutzio will use his new-found ace in the hole, the 4th Amendment, to try and get that case dismissed
and here's a rhetorical question.....do judges get bribed very often??? new set of golf clubs??hmmmmmmm..
instead of relying on obscure cases from out of state, like in Montana where they want to legalize drunk driving, and instead of ignoring the California Vehicle Code, Judge Hill could have done a simple google search:
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. This means that an officer can't simply stop your car for no reason. In fact, in the landmark case Terry v. Ohio, the United States Supreme Court held that an officer must provide "specific articulable facts" that a crime is or was taking place before he/she can initiate a traffic stop.
This doesn't mean that the officer must believe that the driver is DUI. Any traffic infraction or violation will suffice. If, for example, an officer notices that a driver's brake light is out, the officer would be entitled to stop that car. As long as the officer is able to articulate some reason for initiating a traffic stop, probable cause is usually satisfied at this level.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. This means that an officer can't simply stop your car for no reason. In fact, in the landmark case Terry v. Ohio, the United States Supreme Court held that an officer must provide "specific articulable facts" that a crime is or was taking place before he/she can initiate a traffic stop.
This doesn't mean that the officer must believe that the driver is DUI. Any traffic infraction or violation will suffice. If, for example, an officer notices that a driver's brake light is out, the officer would be entitled to stop that car. As long as the officer is able to articulate some reason for initiating a traffic stop, probable cause is usually satisfied at this level.
If your California DUI defense attorney can prove that probable cause didn't exist during any one of these stages, your DUI charges could be reduced or even dismissed. This remedy is based on a legal principle known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree". It means that any evidence obtained as a result of an illegal procedure is subject to suppression. When a judge "suppresses" evidence, it means he/she will not permit it to be used against you.
well, Genis didn't prove anything....the Judge assumed that probable cause didn't exist because of a few other cases in California or elsewhere, and then dismissed the case on that basis....
because according to Hill, a green light doesn't mean "GO" anymore!
because according to Hill, a green light doesn't mean "GO" anymore!
5 comments:
So after all these "investigative" stories by Peter Lance and the "forged signature" claims by attorney Darryl Genis, this case is dismissed on Fourth Amendment grounds. Why didn't Genis bring up the Fourth Amendment issue in the first place?
Up in here in Montana we determine distances not in miles, but in six packs. "How far is Billy-Bob's ranch from here? Um, it's around one and a half six packs."
Next time you stop at a red light and it turns green, do a countdown and see how long 30 seconds is in reality. One thousand 1, one thousand 2, one thousand 3.... Even 7 seconds is eternity. And next time a cop is behind me and the light goes green, I'm going to sit there counting up to 30 (that's just a little bit less than halfway before the light goes back to red.) If the cop honks or tries to pull me over, I get to say: "Judge Hill says it's okay. Now leave me alone and shut up, thank you."
Let me answer this one Mick....
....it's because there isn't one. The only 4th Amendment issue in this case is the one that Hill manufactured to get this case out of his courtroom. If he was looking at the whole situation concerning the traffic stop... Taking everything into consideration... Like the two officers correctly did that night, then Hill would have ruled correctly.
It's called the "totality of the circumstances" and if you consider things this way, then you would probably come to the same conclusion that the officers did - this guy, with his head looking down, sitting at a green light and making the guy behind him wait at One in the morning on New Years,
is probably drunk and since we are cops we should probably pull him over.
How'd I do Mick?
well, if I was a cop, Mr. Hill would be on my shit list!
Then if Hill's ruling is manufactured to end the case, what impact might his ruling have on similar cases in the future? Or would it have little impact because this case didn't go to trial?
Post a Comment