4 ms·

I turned a traffic ticket into a constitutional trial

90 points by elberto34 10y ago

d99kris 10y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13397145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13397145
- dang 10y ago
  Thanks! We missed that one.
filleokus 10y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13397145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13397145
rayiner 10y ago
I don't agree with the Constitutional analysis. The distinction between civil and criminal law is not baked into the Constitution (although the Constitution assumes the existence of such a distinction at certain points). I.e. states have great leeway to design their legal procedure as they see fit with relatively few Constitutional limits. The main limits are due process, and the specific protections applicable to criminal proceedings. Due process does not set hard and fast rules about indictments, etc. Rather, the due-process analysis is dependent on context. Part of that context is the "amount of the deprivation." Where the deprivation is minor, the amount of process the government must provide is less. For example, courts have long recognized that there are a class of offenses such as breaches of the peace that do not require the jury trial ordinarily required by criminal proceedings: > So, also, in New Jersey, where the constitution guaranteed that "the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate," the court said: "Extensive and summary police powers are constantly exercised in all the States of the Union for the repression of breaches of the peace and petty offences, and these statutes are not supposed to conflict with the constitutional provisions securing to the citizen a trial by jury... . This constitutional provision does not prevent the enforcement of the by-laws of a municipal corporation without a jury trial." McGear v. Woodruff, 4 Vroom, 213, 217. In State v. Conlin, 27 Vermont, 318, 323, the court sustains the right of the legislature to provide for the punishment of minor offences, having reference to the internal police of the State, "with fine only, or imprisonment in the county jail for a brief and limited period." See, also, Williams v. Augusta, 4 Georgia, 509. Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540, 552 (1888). Many states have a concept of civil infractions. When dealing with such an infraction, the state is invoking its police powers (and thus does not have to show an injury to itself as would be required in an ordinary civil action), but the ordinary rules of criminal procedure do not apply. That does not offend the Constitution because due process,[1] does not require full criminal procedure for a $50 fine. [1] The word "due" literally means "warranted" or "appropriate."
- Retric 10y ago
  The courts have long ignored the constitution. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State "Within these parameters it was determined that the five year wait for this case to go trial was not in violation of the Constitution."
  - rayiner 10y ago
    That quote from Wikipedia cites Barker v. Wingo. That case involved a situation where the trial of one defendant was repeatedly continued so that a different defendant would be available to testify. The first defendant's case dragged on as the prospective witness was tried and exercised his right to appeal. The Wikipedia page for that case further explains: > More importantly, the Court determined that Barker did not want a speedy trial (a fact that Barker's counsel conceded at oral argument). The Court speculated that Barker's reason was his gambling on Manning's acquittal (the evidence against Manning not being strong as evidenced by two hung juries and two appellate court reversals), believing that if Manning was acquitted, he would never be tried (which Barker's counsel also conceded at oral argument). The Court further noted that, after Barker's counsel objected to the February 1962 continuance, he did not object to the June or September 1962 continuances; only in March 1963, after Manning's convictions became final, were objections raised to further continuances (this time brought about by the ex-sheriff's illness, which Barker conceded was a justifiable reason). As the Court pointed out, the right to a speedy trial is different than other rights because in many cases the defendant wants to drag out the process, especially if they are free on bail. I don't think it's "ignoring the Constitution" for the court to take that into account in deciding whether a Defendant's right to a speedy trial was actually violated.
    - Retric 10y ago
      The case was postponed a year after he explicitly requested a speedy trial. Basically when no numbers are provided the courts feel free to ignore anything else. Copywrite is explicitly there to promote the arts for a finite time. Yet it can be retroactively increased which barring time machines can't promote the creation of said work.
megablast 10y ago
I don't see why you aren't responsible if you lend your car to someone else. > If we are going to stop those nefarious evildoers who jeopardize the health of the republic by sliding through yellow lights when no one else is around and driving through empty streets at thirty miles per hour in twenty-five zones, then we need a way around such pesky impediments as a lack of eyewitnesses. And fuck this line. Over a million people are killed every year due to car drivers. You can make light, make it funny to speed, but one of the big problems is that people don't take driving seriously. It is incredibly dangerous. If someone invented cars today, and not a 100 years ago, they would never be allowed.
- valuearb 10y ago
  A million a year? Where? Only 30k a year in US, and driving deaths per mile traveled are a fraction of what they once were. Driving is a very safe way to travel, safer than horse-back and previous alternatives. Also are you aware its legal to drive thru a yellow light?
- danaliv 10y ago
  > I don't see why you aren't responsible if you lend your car to someone else. Are you serious? Because he wasn't the one speeding. If I lend you a screwdriver and you stab someone with it, should I go to prison?

90 points by elberto34 10y ago

d99kris 10y ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13397145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13397145

dang 10y ago
Thanks! We missed that one.

filleokus 10y ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13397145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13397145

rayiner 10y ago

I don't agree with the Constitutional analysis. The distinction between civil and criminal law is not baked into the Constitution (although the Constitution assumes the existence of such a distinction at certain points). I.e. states have great leeway to design their legal procedure as they see fit with relatively few Constitutional limits. The main limits are due process, and the specific protections applicable to criminal proceedings. Due process does not set hard and fast rules about indictments, etc. Rather, the due-process analysis is dependent on context. Part of that context is the "amount of the deprivation." Where the deprivation is minor, the amount of process the government must provide is less. For example, courts have long recognized that there are a class of offenses such as breaches of the peace that do not require the jury trial ordinarily required by criminal proceedings: > So, also, in New Jersey, where the constitution guaranteed that "the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate," the court said: "Extensive and summary police powers are constantly exercised in all the States of the Union for the repression of breaches of the peace and petty offences, and these statutes are not supposed to conflict with the constitutional provisions securing to the citizen a trial by jury... . This constitutional provision does not prevent the enforcement of the by-laws of a municipal corporation without a jury trial." McGear v. Woodruff, 4 Vroom, 213, 217. In State v. Conlin, 27 Vermont, 318, 323, the court sustains the right of the legislature to provide for the punishment of minor offences, having reference to the internal police of the State, "with fine only, or imprisonment in the county jail for a brief and limited period." See, also, Williams v. Augusta, 4 Georgia, 509. Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540, 552 (1888). Many states have a concept of civil infractions. When dealing with such an infraction, the state is invoking its police powers (and thus does not have to show an injury to itself as would be required in an ordinary civil action), but the ordinary rules of criminal procedure do not apply. That does not offend the Constitution because due process,[1] does not require full criminal procedure for a $50 fine. [1] The word "due" literally means "warranted" or "appropriate."

Retric 10y ago
The courts have long ignored the constitution. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State "Within these parameters it was determined that the five year wait for this case to go trial was not in violation of the Constitution."
- rayiner 10y ago
  That quote from Wikipedia cites Barker v. Wingo. That case involved a situation where the trial of one defendant was repeatedly continued so that a different defendant would be available to testify. The first defendant's case dragged on as the prospective witness was tried and exercised his right to appeal. The Wikipedia page for that case further explains: > More importantly, the Court determined that Barker did not want a speedy trial (a fact that Barker's counsel conceded at oral argument). The Court speculated that Barker's reason was his gambling on Manning's acquittal (the evidence against Manning not being strong as evidenced by two hung juries and two appellate court reversals), believing that if Manning was acquitted, he would never be tried (which Barker's counsel also conceded at oral argument). The Court further noted that, after Barker's counsel objected to the February 1962 continuance, he did not object to the June or September 1962 continuances; only in March 1963, after Manning's convictions became final, were objections raised to further continuances (this time brought about by the ex-sheriff's illness, which Barker conceded was a justifiable reason). As the Court pointed out, the right to a speedy trial is different than other rights because in many cases the defendant wants to drag out the process, especially if they are free on bail. I don't think it's "ignoring the Constitution" for the court to take that into account in deciding whether a Defendant's right to a speedy trial was actually violated.
  - Retric 10y ago
    The case was postponed a year after he explicitly requested a speedy trial. Basically when no numbers are provided the courts feel free to ignore anything else. Copywrite is explicitly there to promote the arts for a finite time. Yet it can be retroactively increased which barring time machines can't promote the creation of said work.

megablast 10y ago

I don't see why you aren't responsible if you lend your car to someone else. > If we are going to stop those nefarious evildoers who jeopardize the health of the republic by sliding through yellow lights when no one else is around and driving through empty streets at thirty miles per hour in twenty-five zones, then we need a way around such pesky impediments as a lack of eyewitnesses. And fuck this line. Over a million people are killed every year due to car drivers. You can make light, make it funny to speed, but one of the big problems is that people don't take driving seriously. It is incredibly dangerous. If someone invented cars today, and not a 100 years ago, they would never be allowed.

valuearb 10y ago
A million a year? Where? Only 30k a year in US, and driving deaths per mile traveled are a fraction of what they once were. Driving is a very safe way to travel, safer than horse-back and previous alternatives. Also are you aware its legal to drive thru a yellow light?
danaliv 10y ago
> I don't see why you aren't responsible if you lend your car to someone else. Are you serious? Because he wasn't the one speeding. If I lend you a screwdriver and you stab someone with it, should I go to prison?