COLUMBUS, OH – The Ohio juvenile justice system is failing the state's children by permitting children to be routinely shackled, ...   more »

Great News!  Below is a story from today, May 22, 2009 announcing the return of a Cincinnati classic - Burger Beer.  The story is from Cinncinnati WLWT-tv.  Have a wonderful and safe Memorial Holiday weekend and enjoy a Burger Beer!

Source: National Motorists Association (www.motorists.com)

With the first major driving holiday of the summer season approaching, we have analyzed the laws across the country to determine the best and the worst states when it comes to exploiting the motoring public.

These state rankings were calculated using seventeen criteria related to specific traffic laws, enforcement practices, and the treatment of traffic ticket defendants. The rankings are designed to provide guidance to travelers who do not want their vacation ruined by speed traps, arcane laws or “kangaroo” traffic courts.

The state most likely to find its way into your wallet is New Jersey. With its toll roads, roadblocks, and speed traps, New Jersey has left almost no stone unturned when it comes to extracting cash from motorists. The state has also recently pushed through a red-light camera pilot project at a time when many states are banning the ticket cameras because they’ve proven to have a negative effect on traffic safety. Add in “driver responsibility” fees, which are ineffective and have a disproportionate effect on the poor, and you have the worst state in our rankings.

Here are the worst ten states:

1) New Jersey
2) Ohio
3) Maryland
4) Louisiana
5) New York
6) Illinois
7) Delaware
8) Virginia
9) Washington
10) Massachusetts

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the five states that treated motorists most fairly are Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, and Kentucky. The complete list of rankings and the criteria we have used can be found at the bottom of this article.

Jim Baxter, President of the National Motorists Association, said “It is not exactly a well kept secret that many traffic laws, enforcement practices, and traffic courts are more about generating revenue and political posturing, than they are about traffic safety. During holidays, like the upcoming Memorial Day weekend, we’re bombarded with messages about intensified enforcement, ‘click it or ticket,’ and horrendous fines when in fact most vacation-related traffic accidents are caused my inattention, distraction and fatigue. However, these are accident causes that don’t generate much in the way of government revenue, so instead our highways are overrun with unmarked police cars and ticket cameras.”

Baxter went on to say “The long term solution to aligning legitimate public interests with government policies is to remove the money from traffic regulation, enforcement, and adjudication. Until that happens, the focus on revenue generation will continue to trump effective traffic regulation and ethical enforcement practices.”

With this in mind, motorists who will be traveling to unfamiliar areas during the holiday may want to check out the NMA’s National Speed Trap Exchange – a listing of speed traps across the country – at www.speedtrap.org.

Today the Greene County Bar Association will meet in special session at the Fox & Hound Pub.  After a short business meeting we will embark on a journey to the Cincinnati Reds vs. Philadelphia Phillies (12:35) and then on to Argosy casino. I'll try to post some pictures of the trip if they are palatable.

Charles M. Rowland II

CALABASAS, Calif., May 20 /PRNewswire/ -- DUI Defenders, a nationwide network of DUI defense lawyers based out of Calabasas, California, ...   more »

Here is a link to a wonderful article from the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy by Susan A. Bandes.  It describes a twenty-year effort, starting in the Reagan Justice Department to overturn the exclusionary rule first articulated by the Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio.  http://www.acslaw.org/c21/criminaljustice  A description of the article is included below.

ACS is pleased to distribute "The Roberts Court and the Future of the Exclusionary Rule," an Issue Brief by Susan A. Bandes, Distinguished Research Professor at the DePaul University College of Law. Since the Supreme Court decided Mapp v. Ohio in 1961, the exclusionary rule has been the primary method of enforcing against state and local law enforcement officers the Fourth Amendment's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule had previously been applied to federal law enforcement officials, but as Professor Bandes argues, "the Court's broad expansion of Fourth Amendment protection ignited a heated debate over the proper remedy for a violation of the right - a debate that continues to this day." She discusses the objections to the exclusionary rule, which are based on the high price it imposes on the government by prohibiting the use in court of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Professor Bandes continues by explaining that, "The exclusionary rule excludes evidence that would never have been acquired if the police had obeyed the Fourth Amendment in the first place. Thus the controversial nature of the remedy has much to do with the controversial nature of the underlying right. The Fourth Amendment imposes constraints on law enforcement officials in order to protect individual autonomy and dignity."

Based on changes in police practices that followed the Court's decision in Mapp, moreover, Professor Bandes asserts that "it has become apparent that the exclusionary rule is an essential means of ensuring that law enforcement officers respect the limits the Fourth Amendment imposes on their power." She also points out that the Mapp Court itself reasoned that "the government should neither profit from its own illegal activity nor model disrespect for the law through its own actions." Nevertheless, she argues that the Roberts Court has issued decisions that have weakened the exclusionary rule and even suggested that is it obsolete and no longer needed. Professor Bandes contends that these decisions are the logical extension of an effort that began in the Reagan-era Justice Department, led by then Attorney General Edwin Meese, to launch the first frontal attack on the exclusionary rule. She concludes by observing that, "Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom served in the Meese Justice Department, are now part of a four-member voting block (with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas) that, to all appearances, is busily laying the groundwork for abandoning the exclusionary rule. They lack only a reliable fifth vote."

 

"The leading rule for the lawyer, as for the man of every other calling, is diligence. Leave nothing for tomorrow which can be done today. Never let your correspondence fall behind. Whatever piece of business you have in hand, before stopping, do all the labor pertaining to it which can be done...

Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser in fees, expenses and waste of time. As a peace-maker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough...

There is a vague popular belief that lawyers are necessarily dishonest. I say vague, because when we consider to what extent confidence and honors are reposed in and conferred upon lawyers by the poeple, it appears improbably that their impression of dishonesty is very distinct and vivid. Yet the impression is common, almost universal. Let no young man chossing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the popular belief; resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your judgement you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer."

Our values suggest that when the government accuses you of a crime you have the right (and your attorney the duty) to challenge the evidence against you.  If attorneys vigorously fight your case, the police are trained to do a better job investigating and prosecuting crimes.  Judges who hold the state to a higher standard and prosecutors who properly exercise discretion, protect the citizens from tyranny.  Being pro-law enforcement should not ever mean we give police a pass, but that we hold them to such a standard that even in the most difficult case we trust the system.  This was the philosophy of our founders and why civil libertarians fight for Miranda warnings, and privacy rights, and any of the other myriad unpopular causes wherein citizens are encouraged to choose security over freedom. The maxim that 10 guilty should go free rather than one innocent be punished express the highest esteem for law enforcement and for our system.

Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.

-Charles Darwin-

How To Calculate Your Estimated Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) Showing estimated percent of alcohol in the blood by number of drinks in relation to body weight. This percent can be estimated by: 1. Count your drinks (1 drink equals 1 ounce of 100-proof liquor, one five ounce glass of table wine or one 12-ounce bottle of regular beer). 2. Use the chart below and under number of "drinks" and opposite "body weight" find the percent of blood alcohol listed. 3. Subtract from this number the percent of alcohol "burned up" during the time elapsed since your first drink. This figure is .015% per hour. (Example: 180 lb. man - 8 drinks in 4 hours / .167% minus (.015x4) = .107 %

DRINKS Body weight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 100 lb. .038 .075 .113 .150 .188 .225 .263 .300 .338 .375 .413 .450 110 lb. .034 .066 .103 .137 .172 .207 .241 .275 .309 .344 .379 .412 120 lb. .031 .063 .094 .125 .156 .188 .219 .250 .281 .313 .344 .375 130 lb. .029 .058 .087 .116 .145 .174 .203 .232 .261 .290 .320 .348 140 lb. .027 .054 .080 .107 .134 .161 .188 .214 .241 .268 .295 .321 150 lb. .025 .050 .075 .100 .125 .151 .176 .201 .226 .251 .276 .301 160 lb. .023 .047 .070 .094 .117 .141 .164 .188 .211 .234 .258 .281 170 lb. .022 .045 .066 .088 .110 .132 .155 .178 .200 .221 .244 .265 180 lb. .021 .042 .063 .083 .104 .125 .146 .167 .188 .208 .229 .250 190 lb. .020 .040 .059 .079 .099 .119 .138 .158 .179 .198 .217 .237 200 lb. .019 .038 .056 .075 .094 .113 .131 .150 .169 .188 .206 .225 210 lb. .018 .036 .053 .071 .090 .107 .125 .143 .161 .179 .197 .215 220 lb. .017 .034 .051 .068 .085 .102 .119 .136 .153 .170 .188 .205 230 lb. .016 .032 .049 .065 .081 .098 .115 .130 .147 .163 .180 .196 240 lb. .016 .031 .047 .063 .078 .094 .109 .125 .141 .156 .172 .188 [Created from NHTSA chart, with modifications]

May not be accurate in all circumstances

If you have a credit card, a cellphone or even just a job, chances are you've already signed away your ...   more »

Today, May 1st is Law Day!  What a better way to celebrate Law Day than to look at an oldie, but a goodie, from the People for the American Way.