A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Difference between revisions of "Blog:Main"

From OCDLA Library of Defense
Jump to: navigation, search
(Blanked the page)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:DUII Release Conditions -- The New Prohibition}}
+
 
This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating ''Sexson v. Merten'', 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "'''an alcohol problem''', as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine '''whether''' your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually '''always''' worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of ''Sexson'' and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying ''Sexson'' have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of ''Sexson'': to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.
+

Revision as of 13:18, June 12, 2013

A jury selection irregularity

by: Ryan Scott • June 6, 2018 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

New SCOTUS opinion on auto exception

by: Ryan Scott • May 29, 2018 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

Oregon Supreme Court - April 26, 2018

by: Rankin Johnson IV • May 15, 2018 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

Significant Forensic Cell Phone Search at Border

by: Ryan Scott • May 14, 2018 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

Key Fob search opinion

by: Ryan Scott • May 14, 2018 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

Rental Car. Driving not on rental agreement. Reasonable expecation of Privacy?

by: Ryan Scott • May 14, 2018 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

When the Lawyer Concedes Guilt Over Defendant's Objection

by: Ryan Scott • May 14, 2018 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

Race and Traffic Stops: A Remarkable (Unpublished) Federal Opinion

by: Ryan Scott • April 26, 2018 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

Warrantless Seizure of Vehicle's Black Box: 4th Amendment Violated

by: Ryan Scott • April 24, 2018 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

Foundation, Foundation, Foundation

by: Ryan Scott • April 24, 2018 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

A new way of looking at DCS within 1000 feet of a school

by: Ryan Scott • April 9, 2018 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

Oregon Supreme Court - March 15, 2018

by: Rankin Johnson IV • March 16, 2018 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

Cross-Enforcement of the 4th Amendment

by: Ryan Scott • March 15, 2018 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

Applying the right mental state to the material elements: a quick summary and something you probably didn't know

by: Ryan Scott • March 11, 2018 • one comment

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

Notable Petition for Cert: Can the state seize internet traffic info without PC?

by: Ryan Scott • January 24, 2018 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

Cell Phones, Residences and Search Warrants

by: Ryan Scott • January 22, 2018 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

Orin Kerr: If Carpenter is Going to Win, This is How the Case Should Be Decided

by: Ryan Scott • January 2, 2018 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

Crime keeps on dropping in NYC

by: Ryan Scott • December 28, 2017 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

A couple of notable petitions for cert

by: Ryan Scott • December 22, 2017 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

Analysis Of Today's US v. Carpenter Oral Argument

by: Ryan Scott • November 29, 2017 • no comments

This morning Judge Henry Kantor was handling Multnomah County misdemeanor arraignments in JC4 (Justice Center courtroom #4). Most Multnomah County judges at DUII arraignments will say, "standard DUII release conditions." That phrase traditionally means (1) "No Driving without a valid license and insurance," and (2) "No use of any intoxicant when operating a motor vehicle." A minority of judges had replaced item (2) with "No possession or use of any intoxicant." The word "intoxicant" is problematic and worthy of its own post (what about prescription medications? prescription pain-killers?), but here I'll deal with whether Prohibition is an appropriate release condition for every run-of-the-mill DUII. As the question implies, it of course is not. I made a brief record relating Sexson v. Merten, 291 Or 441 (1981), a case that required -- for a Prohibition condition to be imposed -- "an alcohol problem, as would appear from the record" in the individual case. 291 Or at 450. Here's the rub: not everybody who picks up a DUII has an alcohol problem. In fact, the state has an army of evaluators ready to determine whether your client has an alcohol problem or not. In my case today, it was not a battle worth taking up on mandamus. So what is the right case? It should (a) be DUII Diversion eligible; (b) involve a relatively low breath test, .05-.07% BAC is ideal, but even up to .14% would be OK -- at .14% and under evaluators do not presume an alcohol problem. In any event, it is virtually always worth making a record about. Why? First, someday a client will want to mandamus. Second, some judges will back down after a discussion of Sexson and the exculpatory facts in your particular DUII case (first arrest, never in trouble with the law before, low breath test, coming back from religious observance or other socially acceptable drinking scenario [Oregon State Bar function?]), and impose a less onerous condition. I'd suggest: "No use of alcohol in connection with the use of a vehicle." Finally, I should note that the release statutes underlying Sexson have been amended since 1981 to include more explicit protection for victims as part of the victim rights rounds of legislation -- but I don't believe those amendments affect the logic of Sexson: to impose a Prohibition condition, you've got to have a demonstrated alcohol problem based on the facts of the case or the defendant's history. In other words, blanket Prohibition for all first-time DUII arrestees does not pass muster.

« newest ‹ newer 20 ... oldest »