Sunday, April 29, 2007
Terrible law
The recent Washington State Supreme Court case involving Lakewood is a call to action. The state high court overturned a Lakewood police practice. The court ruled that Lakewood police were wrong to check motel registers for criminals in our motels.
Lakewood 0, Meth community 1.
Well, this ruling sure woke me up about the Washington State Supreme Court. Perhaps many of us are guilty of not realizing the damage the justices can do to a city like Lakewood. We need to arm ourselves with information.
I don't know about you, but the biggest challenge I face in voting does not involve races like Congress or county or city council. Most voters know the feeling of getting to the ballot and seeing a bunch of names we don't recognize. There are often long lists of judges and judicial candidates whose names I may hear from time to time, but who I am otherwise unaware of. We don't know much about our judges.
The Supreme Court's ruling shows that it's important that we keep track of our judges. Surely, a reasonable opponent of crime might think that this one police procedure is legally wrong. Don't let any of this ex-editorial writer's inflammatory language make you think that I disrespect civil liberties. Reasonable people disagree. That's where you come in.
Some readers will have knowledge about these judges involving other cases that you have, or will in the future, keep track of. Please share your knowledge by clicking on the link that follows. Perhaps you can help me look for trends so we can think in terms of who to vote for in future elections. We need to know if someone consistently favors crime more often than not.
If you have information about the record of these judges, let me know, and I will share regular reports.
Ok, first off, the people who invalidated the Lakewood police process:
Justice Bobbe Bridge was the author of the opinion invalidating the Lakewood police procedure. What else do you know about her record? We know that Justice Bobbe Bridge admits to having driven while drunk. Good for her for at least admitting it and confronting the issue publicly; has there been a pattern of support in her court record for crime?
The question seems particular relevant because of what she wrote. Let me explain. The three opinions involved in this case all involved a reasonable difference of opinion about what should happen after someone signs a motel register. But toward the end of Justice Bridge's opinion, there are some disturbing comments that purport to be encouragement and advice.
We are not insensitive to the difficulties facing law enforcement in ensuring our motels and hotels remain relatively crime-free, but as a practical matter our holding does not unduly restrict the investigative powers of the police. Random, suspicionless registry checks are but one part of the Lakewood Crime-Free Hotel Motel Program. Law enforcement may continue to randomly run checks of the license plates of cars parked at the motels, provide training to motel owners, and encourage motel owners to be watchful of behavior evincing criminal activity. Reports of such observations may engender the requisite individualized suspicion that is notably missing from current program techniques. (bold lettering is mine)
"Notably missing?" Oh, how cute. The justices pretend to praise the program. But then the justices offer a slap saying the police are not allowing for "individualized suspicion" right now. If only the police applied some common sense, eh? How seemingly wonderful of the justices to share their crime-fighting knowledge. They want to show that freeing criminals has given them the ability to give advice to the cops who risk their lives on the streets.
But the language would be more clever if it had the force of accuracy. The language actually has the force of anti-law enforcement prejudice. In fact, Lakewood police work closely with business owners. The police I know bend over backward to involve business owners in crime prevention. Business owners are trained in many ways to be alert for crime, and report its possibility.
But here's a reasonable question: what would judges know about fighting crime? Do they know everything they should know? By signing this opinion, a majority of our Supreme Court justices show they seem to have missed any law school class where the professor revealed that criminals sometimes hide their activity.
Now again, the justice's error is understandable. Not all criminals do hide their activity. In whatever enclaves the justices can afford to live in, the most significant crime may well be drunken driving. Their biggest problem might be someone like, oh, a Supreme Court justice, going for a spin. This is where the wording of the ruling makes sense.
Motel owners (like anyone else) can observe someone like a state Supreme Court justice staggering around before or while driving. You could absolutely expect a motel owner to let police know if a potential drunken driver is around. No motel owner wants their kid mowed down dead by a drunken Washington State Supreme Court justice, or anyone else who is driving. Fair enough.
But the crimes that have traditionally plagued South Tacoma Way in Lakewood involve people who usually try to hide their activities. These are people who do not necessarily weave on the road. The crimes involve drug users, drug manufacturers and prostitutes bringing customers to the motels.
And, in some cases, the owners and/or operators of the motels actually encourage the illegality - or simply turn their back on it - in order to get paying tenants. In those few cases, the motel owners and/or operators may be accomplices. But of course, in the low-crime paradises where Supreme Court justices apparently live, they don't see that kind of crime. I bet the hotel owners in their areas are not accomplices. Good for the justices. It's a shame their lack of experience with crime hurts Lakewood.
Judge Bridge's "advice" is misguided at best, and patronizing at worst. Lakewood police have knitted together a masterful program to combat motel crime that is recognized in this state as a model; for judges outside the city to take it apart is just wrong factually and morally.
It's all the more galling because the comment was not necessary. If the justices want to free up criminals, it's the right they earned by cozying up to the governor that appointed them and/or supporters who give them campaign cash. But criticizing our Lakewood police is just cheap.
But back to the subject - is there a pattern of assuming police are wrong without the facts, and that criminals are right? What do you want to share about Judge Bridge's record? Let me know and I will digest the factual information I get and share it with you. The same question goes for the other judges who signed Bridge's opinion:
Chief Justice Gerry Alexander
Justice Tom Chambers
Justice Mary E. Fairhurst
Justice Susan Owens
Justice Richard E. Sanders
Three other justices shared two different written opinions. Taken at face value, these opinions come out against crime, but disagree about the lawfulness of the Lakewood police procedure.
Quite frankly, Justice James M. Johnson comes off the best of anyone on the court in this one case (but remember my limitations in this opinion. As I wrote above, I am very much not an expert on the court as a whole. that's what all these postings are about - looking to you for help)
The reason I say his ruling impressed me is that Justice Johnson's opinion resists extremes. The justice writes that he believes that the Lakewood practice was not legal, but that it would take only a simple change to make it legal. His suggestion is that motels who want to participate alert customers that anyone signing their name should know that it may be made available to police. In that case, the customer could not then later claim his or her privacy rights were violated.
So here we have a guy who suggests a practical alternative to something which, in all honesty, may very well be illegal based on the opinion of seven judges. I really admire people who are constructive. I could not find any cheap shots in his ruling directed at Lakewood police, which shows he has more class than the majority. But what do you know of Judge Johnson's record? Share your comments.
And the same request is true for two justices who wrote a dissenting opinion that supported the Lakewood anti-crime program. Obviously, in this case, they believe a police tool against crime was lawful. But what else should we know about them related to positions on crime?
Justice Barbara Madsen wrote the opinion that would have validated the Lakewood program, so obviously in this case law-abiding Lakewood residents and business owners owe her thanks.
Justice Charles Johnson voted in support of the anti-crime opinion, and here again, in this case law-abiding Lakewood residents and business owners owe him thanks.
I should, by now, apologize for the length of this post. I experimented with dividing it into different posts and sections, but those ended up at different spots on the page. I want to quickly close with links for more information, if you want to know more about the case. Here are some news accounts, and primary sources.
The News Tribune account
The Associated Press account
Here is the opinion, written by Judge Bobbe Bridge and signed by five other justices, that supports crime in Lakewood
(oh, did you want me to say that in a more subtle way? Send me a note and I will share your opinions with my win-win implementation consensus study team)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=768005MAJ
Here is the opinion by Justice James M. Johnson that says the Lakewood program was not legal, but that a modification would allow law enforcement to prevent crime:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=768005Co1
Finally, here is the opinion by Justices Barbara Madsen and Charles Johnson that agrees with the trial court and first appellate court in upholding the Lakewood program:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=768005Di1
Forward this post
Lakewood 0, Meth community 1.
Well, this ruling sure woke me up about the Washington State Supreme Court. Perhaps many of us are guilty of not realizing the damage the justices can do to a city like Lakewood. We need to arm ourselves with information.
I don't know about you, but the biggest challenge I face in voting does not involve races like Congress or county or city council. Most voters know the feeling of getting to the ballot and seeing a bunch of names we don't recognize. There are often long lists of judges and judicial candidates whose names I may hear from time to time, but who I am otherwise unaware of. We don't know much about our judges.
The Supreme Court's ruling shows that it's important that we keep track of our judges. Surely, a reasonable opponent of crime might think that this one police procedure is legally wrong. Don't let any of this ex-editorial writer's inflammatory language make you think that I disrespect civil liberties. Reasonable people disagree. That's where you come in.
Some readers will have knowledge about these judges involving other cases that you have, or will in the future, keep track of. Please share your knowledge by clicking on the link that follows. Perhaps you can help me look for trends so we can think in terms of who to vote for in future elections. We need to know if someone consistently favors crime more often than not.
If you have information about the record of these judges, let me know, and I will share regular reports.
Ok, first off, the people who invalidated the Lakewood police process:
Justice Bobbe Bridge was the author of the opinion invalidating the Lakewood police procedure. What else do you know about her record? We know that Justice Bobbe Bridge admits to having driven while drunk. Good for her for at least admitting it and confronting the issue publicly; has there been a pattern of support in her court record for crime?
The question seems particular relevant because of what she wrote. Let me explain. The three opinions involved in this case all involved a reasonable difference of opinion about what should happen after someone signs a motel register. But toward the end of Justice Bridge's opinion, there are some disturbing comments that purport to be encouragement and advice.
We are not insensitive to the difficulties facing law enforcement in ensuring our motels and hotels remain relatively crime-free, but as a practical matter our holding does not unduly restrict the investigative powers of the police. Random, suspicionless registry checks are but one part of the Lakewood Crime-Free Hotel Motel Program. Law enforcement may continue to randomly run checks of the license plates of cars parked at the motels, provide training to motel owners, and encourage motel owners to be watchful of behavior evincing criminal activity. Reports of such observations may engender the requisite individualized suspicion that is notably missing from current program techniques. (bold lettering is mine)
"Notably missing?" Oh, how cute. The justices pretend to praise the program. But then the justices offer a slap saying the police are not allowing for "individualized suspicion" right now. If only the police applied some common sense, eh? How seemingly wonderful of the justices to share their crime-fighting knowledge. They want to show that freeing criminals has given them the ability to give advice to the cops who risk their lives on the streets.
But the language would be more clever if it had the force of accuracy. The language actually has the force of anti-law enforcement prejudice. In fact, Lakewood police work closely with business owners. The police I know bend over backward to involve business owners in crime prevention. Business owners are trained in many ways to be alert for crime, and report its possibility.
But here's a reasonable question: what would judges know about fighting crime? Do they know everything they should know? By signing this opinion, a majority of our Supreme Court justices show they seem to have missed any law school class where the professor revealed that criminals sometimes hide their activity.
Now again, the justice's error is understandable. Not all criminals do hide their activity. In whatever enclaves the justices can afford to live in, the most significant crime may well be drunken driving. Their biggest problem might be someone like, oh, a Supreme Court justice, going for a spin. This is where the wording of the ruling makes sense.
Motel owners (like anyone else) can observe someone like a state Supreme Court justice staggering around before or while driving. You could absolutely expect a motel owner to let police know if a potential drunken driver is around. No motel owner wants their kid mowed down dead by a drunken Washington State Supreme Court justice, or anyone else who is driving. Fair enough.
But the crimes that have traditionally plagued South Tacoma Way in Lakewood involve people who usually try to hide their activities. These are people who do not necessarily weave on the road. The crimes involve drug users, drug manufacturers and prostitutes bringing customers to the motels.
And, in some cases, the owners and/or operators of the motels actually encourage the illegality - or simply turn their back on it - in order to get paying tenants. In those few cases, the motel owners and/or operators may be accomplices. But of course, in the low-crime paradises where Supreme Court justices apparently live, they don't see that kind of crime. I bet the hotel owners in their areas are not accomplices. Good for the justices. It's a shame their lack of experience with crime hurts Lakewood.
Judge Bridge's "advice" is misguided at best, and patronizing at worst. Lakewood police have knitted together a masterful program to combat motel crime that is recognized in this state as a model; for judges outside the city to take it apart is just wrong factually and morally.
It's all the more galling because the comment was not necessary. If the justices want to free up criminals, it's the right they earned by cozying up to the governor that appointed them and/or supporters who give them campaign cash. But criticizing our Lakewood police is just cheap.
But back to the subject - is there a pattern of assuming police are wrong without the facts, and that criminals are right? What do you want to share about Judge Bridge's record? Let me know and I will digest the factual information I get and share it with you. The same question goes for the other judges who signed Bridge's opinion:
Chief Justice Gerry Alexander
Justice Tom Chambers
Justice Mary E. Fairhurst
Justice Susan Owens
Justice Richard E. Sanders
Three other justices shared two different written opinions. Taken at face value, these opinions come out against crime, but disagree about the lawfulness of the Lakewood police procedure.
Quite frankly, Justice James M. Johnson comes off the best of anyone on the court in this one case (but remember my limitations in this opinion. As I wrote above, I am very much not an expert on the court as a whole. that's what all these postings are about - looking to you for help)
The reason I say his ruling impressed me is that Justice Johnson's opinion resists extremes. The justice writes that he believes that the Lakewood practice was not legal, but that it would take only a simple change to make it legal. His suggestion is that motels who want to participate alert customers that anyone signing their name should know that it may be made available to police. In that case, the customer could not then later claim his or her privacy rights were violated.
So here we have a guy who suggests a practical alternative to something which, in all honesty, may very well be illegal based on the opinion of seven judges. I really admire people who are constructive. I could not find any cheap shots in his ruling directed at Lakewood police, which shows he has more class than the majority. But what do you know of Judge Johnson's record? Share your comments.
And the same request is true for two justices who wrote a dissenting opinion that supported the Lakewood anti-crime program. Obviously, in this case, they believe a police tool against crime was lawful. But what else should we know about them related to positions on crime?
Justice Barbara Madsen wrote the opinion that would have validated the Lakewood program, so obviously in this case law-abiding Lakewood residents and business owners owe her thanks.
Justice Charles Johnson voted in support of the anti-crime opinion, and here again, in this case law-abiding Lakewood residents and business owners owe him thanks.
I should, by now, apologize for the length of this post. I experimented with dividing it into different posts and sections, but those ended up at different spots on the page. I want to quickly close with links for more information, if you want to know more about the case. Here are some news accounts, and primary sources.
The News Tribune account
The Associated Press account
Here is the opinion, written by Judge Bobbe Bridge and signed by five other justices, that supports crime in Lakewood
(oh, did you want me to say that in a more subtle way? Send me a note and I will share your opinions with my win-win implementation consensus study team)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=768005MAJ
Here is the opinion by Justice James M. Johnson that says the Lakewood program was not legal, but that a modification would allow law enforcement to prevent crime:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=768005Co1
Finally, here is the opinion by Justices Barbara Madsen and Charles Johnson that agrees with the trial court and first appellate court in upholding the Lakewood program:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=768005Di1
