These are the musings, ramblings, rantings and observations of Houston DWI Attorney Paul B. Kennedy on DWI defense, general criminal defense, philosophy and whatever else tickles his fancy.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Bend over, please
As Scott Greenfield pointed out yesterday, Justice Anthony Kennedy informed the public that the Supreme Court is "in no position to second guess the judgments of corrections officers..." This is the same Court that has told school districts to admit all students regardless of race, the same Court that has told states they cannot kill an inmate if they can't follow their own protocols, the same Court that has told legislators that their latest law is unconstitutional. But, despite that, this Court feels the need to show deference to the guards at the county jail.
And, because the Supreme Court feels it cannot substitute its judgment for the judgment of a jail guard, anyone arrested for any offense, no matter how trivial, is now fair game for one of the most humiliating things a person can be subjected to - a strip search. Make no bones about it, getting arrested is one of the worst experiences a person can go through. Feeling the cuffs lock against the wrists, being forced into the back of a squad car, having to beg a friend or relative to post a bond.
The majority of arrests are for non-violent offenses. There's not much danger of a motorist arrested for driving while intoxicated shoving a weapon or dope up their butt in the few seconds before the officer comes to the window. The person arrested on an outstanding traffic warrant is not likely to be hiding any contraband in a body cavity. Yet, in the name of not missing the chance to humiliate anyone under arrest, the Supremes have declared that the jail guard can order those folks to strip, bend over and spread their cheeks.
It's bad enough watching the Supreme Court blindly accept a police officer's rationale for why he decided to infringe upon the bad guy's Fourth Amendment rights. It's obvious that the members of the Court are out of touch with what really goes on in the streets and parking lots of this country.
But what else should we expect from a government that says it's okay for the airport equivalent of mall cops to scope and grope people who want to board a plane? If it's okay for Joe Businessman then it's okay for the person who got pulled over after having a couple of drinks. It's all a downward spiral and we're just waiting to see who can make it to the bottom first.
Of course this decision certainly makes waiting on the Supremes' proclamation on the Affordable Health Care Act an interesting exercise. If the Court is going to defer to jail guards when it comes to strip searching everyone who's brought against their will into the county jail, how on earth will they justify striking down the individual mandate to purchase health insurance?
The jail guards aren't elected officials. Hell, some of them are fresh out of the academy. They haven't a clue as to what's constitutional or why. But, dammit, they know more about jail than the justices on the Supreme Court.
A cynic might say that the Supremes decided on the outcome of the case and then scrambled to figure out a rationale. And, it would appear that the only rationale the five in the majority could come up with was deferring to the experience of the jailers.
Nothing short of pathetic.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Staggering dockets won't relieve jail overcrowding
There are 22 district (felony) criminal courts and 15 county courts-at-law (misdemeanor) in the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center. There is a "holdover" cell in each courtroom that is supposed to hold no more than 19 inmates. As they would say across the pond, that guideline is honored more in the breach than in the observance.
There is a giant holding cell in the tunnel between the county jail and the courthouse that can hold roughly 250 inmates. Now do the math. Thirty-seven courts with 19 inmates is a bit more than 250. The overflow inmates are lined up in the tunnel where they wait.
What is one to do?
Sheriff Garcia decided to stagger the times he has inmates delivered to courtrooms.This means that an attorney may walk into a courtroom and have no idea when his client might be brought over.
The problem with Sheriff Garcia's plan to alleviate overcrowding is that it doesn't. His plan only treats the symptoms, not the disease.
The way to reduce jail overcrowding in Harris County is to find a way to get those people in jail awaiting trial out of jail. Every person brought into the county jail is innocent unless proven guilty. To force someone to stay behind bars due to the arbitrariness of the county's bail schedule is a crime.
The first blog post I wrote dealt with the need to increase the number of personal bonds issued. Every person without a prior criminal record arrested for a non-violent offense should be released with a personal bond. The only reason to keep them behind bars is to coerce a plea out of them. Just wave that offer of time served in front of their face and they will gladly plead guilty to something they didn't do just to get out of that hellhole.
The other way to reduce the jail population in Harris County is to issue citations and summonses for non-violent misdemeanor drug possession cases. Confiscate the goods, issue the person a ticket along with a summons ordering them to appear in court on a certain day at a certain time under threat of arrest.
We need to do away with this notion that anyone charged with domestic assault must be held without bail until such time as he can see a magistrate so a temporary protective order can be issued. If we can find judges who are more than willing to hang around the courthouse (or by a fax machine) at all hours of the night to sign fill-in-the-blank warrants authorizing forcible blood draws, certainly we can find a judge or two who can sign an emergency protective order on short notice. It's not like they're going to read it or set a hearing to determine whether it's necessary or not.
Sheriff Garcia's plan addresses none of these issues.
Monday, May 2, 2011
One lump or two?
Nevermind the fact that voters in Smith County (hardly a liberal stronghold) have said "thanks, but no thanks" on four previous occasions. Nevermind the debt the construction project would impose on county coffers. Nevermind the fact that it costs Smith County less to house a few inmates in other counties than it would to pay for a new jail. Nevermind that the majority of folks being housed in jails across this state are being held for nonviolent crimes.
In other words, nevermind the fact that the Teabaggers proclaim themselves to be champions of limited government. The same folks that tell the world we need less government, not more, have no compunction about lobbying for restrictions to be placed on the constitutional rights of those accused of criminal activity. The same folks that tell the world we need less government, not more, have no compunction about creating new crimes or harsher penalties because of one bad incident that occurred. The same folks that tell the world we need less government, not more, have no compunction about allowing the police to intrude more and more into the lives of ordinary citizens -- whether it be through "back-dooring" our e-mail or cell phone communications or fondling people boarding planes.
You want to reduce the cost of incarcerating our fellow citizens? How about personal bonds for folks charged with minor nonviolent offenses who have no prior criminal record? How about allowing police officers to issue tickets for possession of trace amounts of marijuana instead of hauling someone off to jail? How about more pretrial diversion programs for folks without criminal records? How about reducing bonds so that defendants don't have to sit around in jail until their cases are disposed of?
The problem with those ideas, though, is that they're logical.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Welfare, Harris County-style
Friday, August 21, 2009
Inspection turns up problems in the city jail, too
• • The frequent use of “interlocking,” a controversial restraint technique in which a person's hands are cuffed behind the back and connected to shackled legs in a way that forces an inmate to lie on his stomach or side on the floor. The report says interlocking has been discontinued by many law enforcement agencies across the country because of “concerns about it being degrading and potentially medically harmful.”
• • Inadequate investigation of a death in custody in November 2008 in which police behavior was examined but not any potential problems in the jail.
• • Food that was improperly cooled in refrigerators in a kitchen area that had been cited by the city health department for unsanitary conditions and gnats.
• • Inmates who had stayed in the jail for days without being arraigned.
• • “Unacceptable” delays in following up on inmate medical care.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
The new capital punishment

