LATER: Finally back. As above found guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. We appealed. Now the fun discovery begins. The DA doesn't want to talk about the road-rage guy who fingered me and we still can't even find out his name although that's the basis of their probable cause. Discovery will tell us that and more. Hearing will probably now be sometime in July.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Back to court at 1:30 PM Central. Update: "Zero Tolerance" means the prosecutor wouldn't move. Guilty of the charge, now we appeal.
Say another prayer. (At least I got some posts done.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Mike,
What happened to "confronting your accusers?" It is so, the rule of law doesn't apply here, nothing to see... Why didn't the DA and/or the judge ask why the so called witness of this alleged road rage be there to offer testimony? Seems like a cover-up to me... The lying puke dog excrement of the law nowadays. Some of us here in South Dakota are pretty peeved I tell ya, you have our prayers and our condemnation of the powers that be.
Kevin
SD Bob
A cell awaits, you criminal.
What was the activity that led to the charges against you, Mike? Carrying without a permit? Sounds like you're being set up. Price of being a well-known patriot. Just keep 'em running.
Mike, if this class A misdemeanor does not prohibit you from getting your Concealed Carry Permit I recommend that you get one just for this kind of B/S.
I know a citizen "SHOULD NOT" have to get permission to carry a gun, but back in the real world a CHL/CCW would have avoided this B/S charge in the first place.
Dennis
III
Texas
God, what is up with these Anonymous pussies? Melson, show yourself!
What's the antonym of a "crime of moral turpitude"? Reckon that's what you committed. Did you get your gun back yet?
When did it go to trial? Did you have a trial with (petit) jury or just a hearing before a(n entirely impartial) judge? Did you pleade guilty or did a judge "find" you guilty?
In case anyone is wondering, here's what I found online about class A misdemeanors in 'Bama.
The fines in Alabama are:
Section 13A-5-12
Fines for misdemeanors and violations.
(a) A sentence to pay a fine for a misdemeanor shall be for a definite amount, fixed by the court, within the following limitations:
(1) For a Class A misdemeanor, not more than $6,000
Section 13A-5-7
Sentences of imprisonment for misdemeanors and violations.
(a) Sentences for misdemeanors shall be a definite term of imprisonment in the county jail or to hard labor for the county, within the following limitations:
(1) For a Class A misdemeanor, not more than one year.
Did the judge assess your fine? Any jail time? (Hard Labor would likely damned near kill you)
Also, did you get to call any witnesses? Or was this just your basic civilian equivalent of a "drum head court martial"?
Dennis, a felony conviction permanently disqualifies someone from getting a CHL in Texas. A class A or B misdemeanor conviction disqualifies someone from getting a CHL for 5 years after the action is complete (fine paid/time served).
Couldn't find the disqualification criteria for Bama but I DID find this tidbit:
Alabama does issue carry and conceal weapon (CCW) permits. Alabama is unusual in that the county sheriff has broad discretion on the issue of CCW permits. I figure that would pretty well guarantee the local Sheriff would nix Mike's application. Probably laugh his ass of just READING the application.
Bad Cyborg X
P.S. Dutchman, how about linking this to the original post about how you GOT into this deplorable situation in the first place.
A fitting article on cops. Beware all cops. Of course, some are still Peace Officers, but the number is diminishing.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/peters-e/peters-e32.1.html
Good luck on your appeal. Be sure and set up a legal fund. Many of us will contribute.
Bob Katt
<>
"...before police may briefly detain a person, there must be reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and before police may pat down for weapons, there must be a reasonable belief that the suspect is presently armed and dangerous.
The initial question with which any analysis of this case must begin, therefore, is whether the police officer had grounds for reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot..."
"...When police receive an anonymous call alleging that a person of a particular description is carrying a gun at a particular location and the police broadcast this information to radio patrol cars, neither the police dispatcher nor the officers in the cars know whether the information is reliable. It may be a prank call..."
"...a stop and frisk may be supported by a police radio bulletin only if evidence is offered at the suppression hearing establishing the articulable facts which support the reasonable suspicion. To hold otherwise would be to sanction police interference with citizens upon less than the reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity required by Terry..."
"... since there is no gun exception to the Terry requirement for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, in the typical anonymous caller situation, the police will need an independent basis to establish the requisite reasonable suspicion..."
There was also an ALABAMA case that COULD be related: In Alabama v. White, there was also an anonymous tip - but in this case it was VERY specific.
The tip indicated that a woman named X, would leave from a house at address Y, carrying a brown briefcase full of cocaine, get in a brown station wagon with a broken taillight and proceed to address Z.
The cops' surveillance found every single one of those points to be correct - and with the veracity of the "tipster" thus established, had "reasonable suspicion" for a stop and search -- which found the cocaine and justified the arrest.
In short, *ANY* tip - anonymous or not - is *NOT* necessarily justification for a stop-and-frisk. It is ONLY justification if the cops have a clear reason to justify suspicion - based on things they know INDEPENDENT of the tip!
So... If the cops searched you based on some anonymous call, odds are it was an illegal search. Even if the call WASN'T anonymous, they'd need to have some history with the caller to know he's a reliable tipster, or have seen enough corraboration to justify beleiving!
HTH...
DD
Sounds like the DA thought you were going to just spread you cheeks and take it... To a DA the request of discovery in a case like this is not particularly enjoyed.. Like a kick to the balls. I love doing this over traffic tickets...
Mike, you should have asked for a jury trial and then had the case moved to a more friendly local.
You may have gotten a quite III% on the jury and screw them good.
Post a Comment