Twisting and contorting by the pool

Just when you thought the courts had injected some sanity into the DWI "crisis," an appellate court finds a way make it go away. Take State v. Geiss for instance.

This time we go to Florida where Mr. Geiss was stopped for failure to maintain a single lane. Mr. Geiss declined the officer's request to perform coordination exercises on the side of the road. Then Mr. Geiss had the audacity to decline the opportunity to blow into the state's breath box at the station.

Of course, Mr. Geiss' failure to provide evidence voluntarily that might incriminate himself could not go unpunished. The arresting officer obtained a search warrant to draw blood from Mr. Geiss:

"for the purpose of collecting property from the person of Gregory G. Geiss, to wit: two blood samples . . .." It further alleged that "[s]aid property was used to commit the offense [of DUI] . . . a violation of section 316.193(1)(a), Florida State Statutes, Driving Under the Influence 2nd offense."

In response to Mr. Geiss' motion to suppress, the trial court threw out the blood test results on the grounds the warrant violated Mr. Geiss' right to privacy under the Florida Constitution, violated the state's implied consent law and violated the state's warrant statute.

This blow for individual liberty in the face of the overwhelming power of the state could not be allowed to stand. The 5th Court of Appeals in Florida acted swiftly in righting this "wrong."

The appellate court found that a search pursuant to a warrant trumped the individual's constitutional right to privacy in Florida. Then the court decided that even though the state's implied consent statute gave a motorist the right to say no, it didn't preclude the state from making an end-run around that pesky little issue by obtaining a warrant. The court pointed out that there were circumstances in the statute that permitted the police to obtain blood forcibly. Said the court:

However, Florida's implied consent statute does not expressly prohibit obtaining blood by search warrant, or otherwise indicate any intent to invalidate judicial authority to issue a warrant as authorized in section 933.02, Florida Statutes. If the legislature had intended the implied consent statute to modify the warrant statute, it easily could have said so.

The appellate court did, however, find that the language of the state's warrant statute prohibited the state from obtaining a search warrant to draw blood in a misdemeanor case since a warrant can only be used to obtain "property...used as a means to commit a crime." Had Mr. Geiss been charged with a felony at the time the warrant was issued, though, the statute would have permitted a warrant to draw the blood.

It would appear that Mr. Geiss had won after all.

But we all know that the court couldn't leave it there. The judges then contorted themselves to find that the officer executing the warrant was acting in good faith and that it wasn't his fault that he didn't know that blood was not property used as a means to commit a crime.

Our lesson is, as always, ignorance is not excuse for breaking the law... unless you wear a badge (then it's encouraged).

It's only coercive if I say it's coercive

co·erce

 [koh-urs]

–verb (used with object), -erced, -erc·ing.

1.

to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coercedhim into signing the document.

2.

to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.

3.

to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.

Supposedly the idea behind implied consent is that when someone applies for a driver's license, he is giving his consent to provide a breath or blood sample upon demand should a law enforcement officer request one following an arrest for driving while intoxicated. But that same motorist has a choice when, and if, that moment actually arrives. A motorist is "rewarded" for blowing over a .08 by having his license suspended for a shorter time period than someone who decides he'd rather not blow into the little black box.

Consent must be given voluntarily by the motorist. The police are not allowed to coerce him into blowing. To prevent the appearance of coercion, officers are required to read a piece of paper with a warning from Section 724.015 of the Texas Transportation Code -- the so-called statutory warning. Should the officer fail to keep to the script he runs the risk of a judge throwing out a breath test result.

Of course what one person perceives as coercive may very well differ from what someone in law enforcement, for instance, might find coercive. The statutory warning informs the motorist that should he choose not to blow into the breath machine, that refusal might be used in a subsequent criminal prosecution. So much for innocent unless proven guilty, huh? And anyone who's ever tried a DWI has heard the prosecutor tell the jury that their client had the opportunity to prove his innocence but chose not to - because he knew he was guilty.

So much for lack of coercion.

Then we had the evolution of Screw the Constitution No Refusal Weekends in which prosecutors lined up judges who were more than willing to rubber stamp search warrants authorizing forced blood draws on misdemeanor cases. They even found judges who were willing to make a complete and total mockery of the Fourth Amendment by accepting "affidavits" by fax - so they wouldn't be inconvenienced by actually having to listen to an officer recite why a blood draw was so necessary in a case that began with a routine traffic stop.

But I digress...

The publicized threat of being strapped down and having a needle jabbed in one's arm just because Officer Bob smelled alcohol on your breath might be seen as having a coercive effect on motorists' decisions whether or not to blow in the black box. In fact, the Texas Municipal Courts Education Center told judges who attended a seminar that

"If a suspect consents to a blood test in the face of a threatened warrant, the voluntariness of the consent may be an issue."

And that's from an organization whose mission is to assist municipal court judges, court staff and prosecutors in screwing defendants "maintaining professional competence."

The Texas Legislature, however, doesn't view it the same way. In its neverending quest to put everyone in the state under court supervision, our brilliant lawmakers in Austin decided to amend the statutory warning provided to anyone arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated to include the threat of a forced blood draw as a means of coercing motorists to blow.

SB 1787, which goes into effect on September 1, 2011, adds the following language to the statutory warning:

If the person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen, the officer may apply for a warrant authorizing a specimen to be taken from the person.

State Sen. Dan Patrick (R-Houston) authored a bill because he was worried that some judge might find the threat of a forced blood draw to be coercive. Apparently in Mr. Patrick's world, a coercive statement's not coercive if the government says it isn't. This comes from a man who claims to be a champion of limited government. Mr. Patrick's idea of limited government seems to be limited to how much the state can tax or spend but not how much the government can intrude when it comes to law enforcement.

Mourning the loss of the Fourth Amendment

Mr. Alex Kozinksi, the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and his law clerk, Stephanie Grace, penned an article on Axis of Logic mourning the death of the Fourth Amendment (which also seems to be an ongoing theme here).

“We are gathered here today to mourn the loss of a dear friend, the Fourth Amendment. Born on the freedom-loving soil of early America, the Fourth Amendment will be remembered as the bulwark of the liberty we once called privacy. For ye, we mourn.”

As you can see, we’re working on a eulogy for the Fourth Amendment, the part of the Constitution guarding against “unreasonable searches and seizures” — in effect, a privacy provision.

When did the Fourth Amendment die, you ask?

Judge Kozinski's thesis is that we are to blame for the death of the right to be left alone by our own actions of convenience. We have eroded our reasonable right to privacy by using cellphones that track our movements -- either through the use of GPS or from cell tower signals.

Through our enrollment in supermarket loyalty programs we have created a trail of purchases that los federales have access to through the use of subpoenas. Our increased use of debit cards creates electronic records of our purchases.

If you think police have turned a blind eye to this wealth of information, guess again. Without the protections of the Fourth Amendment, the police are free to mine the commercial databases storing our personal information without any suspicion whatsoever. Consider the case of Philip Scott Lyons in 2004: Police arrested the firefighter for arson after discovering he purchased a fire starter with his Safeway Club Card. The charges weren’t dropped until someone else confessed; not everyone will be so lucky.

As I have written before, we have handed over some of our right to be left alone on a silver platter in the name of "security." We have allowed courthouses to become fortresses rather than buildings where people seek justice. We have restricted access to the people's buildings - erecting metal detectors and placing armed guards in the lobby of the state capitol building in Austin.

But there's more to the story than that. While we have certainly contributed to the demise of the Fourth Amendment by waiving our reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic communications and the like, the police, judges and legislators are the ones who struck the death blow.

Once upon a time it meant something that warrantless searches were unreasonable. Once upon a time the requirement of probable cause prevented the long arm of the state from intruding upon its citizens. But, just as if you place a frog in a pot of cold water and gradually heat it up, the frog will sit there and die without knowing what happened, we have stood and watched as the courts attacked the right to be left alone at the margins.

Terry stops. Searches incident to arrest. Protective sweeps. Exigent circumstances.The PATRIOT Act.  Implied consent. No Refusal weekends. Little by little. Bit by bit. By the time anyone caught on to what was happening, it was too late. Before you knew it, the Fourth Amendment lay dying on the ground, streams of blood trailing behind.

The Fourth Amendment died the death of a thousand cuts.