Comments for Minneapolis Criminal Law News

Comment on The Moral Peril of Minnesota Asset Forfeiture Laws by p. clifton

p. clifton — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 04:16:08 +0000

Police profiting is just plain wrong!!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Police-Profiting-is-Wrong/167452350013786

Comment on Underage Consumption > Do I Have to Submit a Breath Sample to Police Upon Request in Minnesota? by Thomas Gallagher

Thomas Gallagher — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 05:39:45 +0000

No fact mentioned here would support arrest of the passenger. Police cannot lawfully require a passenger to blow into a PBT, according to the Minnesota Statute authorizing PBT requests ( https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169A.41 ). It might be possible that the police officer observed some other fact not mentioned here that would justify arrest. The passenger would be in a better position to know whether or not that was the case. Although PBT evidence is not required for an underage consumption prosecution (other evidence may be used), an alcohol level of .009 is very close to .000; and, a significant percentage of the population has natural digestive fermentation that results in lifelong, low level of alcohol in their blood – even though they did not drink any alcohol. If the passenger admitted drinking alcohol, however, that could be enough evidence for prosecution (unless there is an affirmative defense: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=340A.503 ). All of this discussion relates to Minnesota only, not the laws of any other state or jurisdiction.

Comment on Underage Consumption > Do I Have to Submit a Breath Sample to Police Upon Request in Minnesota? by Sarah

Sarah — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 22:06:20 +0000

What about a 19 year old who is a passenger in a car? The driver is also 19 and is given breathalyzer and blows 00 but officer suspects is under influence and gives driver a field sobriety test? Tells the passenger he must submit to breathalyzer test or go to jail. Passenger blows .009 so is given a ticket for underage consumption. Was it legal for the officer to make psgr submit to breathalyzer or tell him he will go to jail if he refuses?

Comment on The Trial of Jesus: A Criminal Law Perspective by George E. Bourguignon, Jr.

George E. Bourguignon, Jr. — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 18:31:14 +0000

I must comment on the claim that the account of Jesus’s trial could not have happened because it did not fit with Jewish criminal procedure. First, no one is claiming that the trail did comply with Jewish criminal procedure, because it certainly didn’t. But saying it didn’t happen because, as it is written, the facts indicate procedure was not followed is not strong. Is it really that unbelievable that Jewish leaders would ignore procedures? One point that is ignored to explain why these procedures were not followed is that, as it is written (repeatedly), the Jewish leaders wanted to get Jesus but feared the masses because Jesus was popular among many of the people. He also showed he could be quite an orator, refuting his critics in public repeatedly. This supports the desire to get him “convicted” quickly, at night, and without following the procedures, and without allowing the opportunity of much light, so to speak. Jesus made the observation that the Jewish leaders had opportunity to arrest him in public but they didn’t, but waited until nightime to “find” him. Also, the proposed story in contrast to the Biblical account(s) is picking and choosing its facts from the gospels. A more general issue is that no certain people should be “blamed” if you will for the murder of Jesus, that would miss the point. The fact is he was the lamb that forgave the sins of the world.
The question was asked, what was the blasphemy. Here is was, from Matthew chapter 26:

64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

65Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

66What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death

And, I would not say that the Gospels conflict, and would not agree that they are “unreliable.”
Also, this idea that Jesus’ followers would have rioted if procedure was not followed is not supported. Just because he was popular with some people does not mean that there was this established and politically powerful group that was ready to rise up in rebelion and riot against the establishment if their leader was taken down unjustly. Further, Jesus’s message certainly would not dictate that kind of action at all. Although, his followers were willing to go to their death for the cause, I think of Andrew immediately as an example and an account that my fellow commenters might want to read.
Moving to a different subject, just one comment on the rule about witnesses in general, which is an interesting observation in comparing then to today. Was the “rule excluding witnesses” in place at the time?

Comment on Countermeasures at a DWI Stop: the Party Question by George E. Bourguignon, Jr.

George E. Bourguignon, Jr. — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:37:51 +0000

Yes, this subject matter is the topic of party conversation. Very good post for ensuring the rights of the driver late at night. What do you think the cops reaction will be be a refusalt to answer the question of whether someone has been drinking? Would it be advisable to ask what serves as the basis for the question?

Comment on Minnesota Supreme Court Rules Against Innocent Spouse under DWI Car Forfeiture Statute by Patty Hoover

Patty Hoover — Sat, 21 May 2011 04:07:45 +0000

I wonder how the legislatures would react to this forfeiture law is they new a medical condition out in the country while giving someone a ride, forced the passenger to become the driver to get the owner of the vehicle into town which resulted in him getting pulled over and sited with a .10 DUI and now the owner of the vehicle has not only medical problems but no vehicle either. Is this fair when the owner was unaware of his condition, just giving a ride.

Comment on Prostitution and Minnesota Law by John James

John James — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:00:24 +0000

Tom – excellent overview. Prohibition of gambling, small loans, drugs, prostitution and other things puts those activities into the hands of professional criminals and provides a source of economic power to them. I would rather see them broke and relegated to committing Malum in Se crimes. The religious and moral arguments are the only basis that I can think of to support the statute – except maybe “public policy” to provide stability to traditional marriage and monogamous relationships and their children. Thus a Control over male sexuality and male economic power – if you want sex Mr. Male you must conform to an approved type of relationship- usually involving committment – and a reduction or cessation of sex after time. Those relationships have historically involved a re-distribution of wealth from male to female beyond that needed for child rearing. Prostitution short circuits this society wide scheme. I would rather see sexual and economic freedom and parity for both genders.

Comment on Prostitution and Minnesota Law by Jackie Carpenter

Jackie Carpenter — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:18:50 +0000

I, too, tend to think that prostitution should be legalized. At the end of the day, you have grown people consenting to do an act. Now if you remove consent for any reason, I would not deem that prostitution, but rather rape.