Monday, October 20, 2014
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Thursday, June 26, 2014
There is certainly a time for administration of justice and enforcing punishment for those who violate the law. However, there must also be reasonableness and the exercise of judicial economy in prosecuting for minor violations. In a Washington Supreme Court Decision issued today, the court addressed whether a Pierce Transit "fair enforcement officer" (FEO) is classified as "public servant" for purposes of making a false statement to a public servant under RCW 9A.76.175.
The case itself resolved around a fifteen-year-old who was asked to provide proof of transit fare to an FEO while riding the link light-rail. The fifteen-year-old provided a bus transfer ticket, but was informed by an FEO a bus transfer ticket was no longer valid for riding the light-rail. The FEO instructed the fifteen-year-old to exit at the next stop. The FEO then sought names and identification of the fifteen-year-old and his companions. Ultimately, the three young males provided false information or otherwise did not want to disclose their identities.
The Majority of the court found that FEOs in this context did not classify as public servants and overruled the conviction. Now, surely, the distinction and definition of "public servant" was important for determining criminal liability in this case, but the bigger point may have been made by Chief Justice Barbara Madsen in dissent. In her opening paragraph the Chief Justice wrote as follows:
In a time of fiscal austerity, it is surprising that King County elected to use its resources to prosecute a young man for his apparent lack of candor with uniformed officers after being informed that Sound Transit no longer accepted bus transfers as legitimate fare. The use of considerable public resources to prosecute such a minor infraction, especially one that can easily be understood as a crime of poverty, is remarkable.
I don't believe her point could have been more poignant. This case began with a kid unable to pay transit fare, which was probably a few bucks. The kid was then interrogated and dragged through the court system. The case proceeded to prosecution, trial, appeal, and finally supreme court review. Must we really expend such time and resources seeking such punishment? Don't get me wrong, no one should get a free ride or lie, but there must have been a more cost effective solution to this case.
Posted by Jordan K. Foster at 12:33 PM
Monday, June 16, 2014
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Having grown up in Tacoma I know there are not an unlimited number of taxis in the area. You rarely see a taxi driving around, unless you're in the middle of downtown. Even then, they usually only congregate near Hotel Murano. And certainly drinking and driving is not a choice: just don't do it. But how does one get around from point A to B if you have a night out with friends.
A designated driver is always a smart choice, but that can always lead to someone being left with the short stick. Well now thanks to phone apps, that designated driver could be someone you don't know within the community. Apps like Uber and Lyft are becoming more and more popular and offer an opportunity to schedule a ride with someone. These apps connect you with someone willing to drive you around and are sometimes less than the cost of taxi - definitely worth far less than the cost of a DUI.
The rise of these apps could be a possible game-changer in drinking and driving. Check the latest story in the News Tribune regarding these apps as being possible game-changers.
App-based ridesharing a possible DUI game-changer | Regional Voices | The News Tribune
Thursday, May 29, 2014
A small group of Seattle police officers have filed a lawsuit, on their own (without an attorney), challenging the newly minted use-of-force restrictions placed upon them. The Seattle officers are alleging the new restrictions are recklessly trampling their Constitutional rights to kick ass.
For your reading pleasure you may also read the lawsuit here: Complaint. Surprisingly, the lawsuit is not written in crayon.
Posted by Jordan K. Foster at 8:08 AM