Naked man arrested at Portland International Airport after disrobing at security
#61
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Houston
Programs: CO Platinum
Posts: 283
Since we have some many people with their panties in a wad here...
The charge in this case were reduced from a misdemeanor offense to a "violation" which is a lower class of offense. Most people would say that the reduction in charged offense is a good start.
As in the case for other minor offenses, violation do not have juries involved given the *minor* offense being charged.
In certain states, an appeal may require a trial de novo in a higher magistrate, wherein a trial by jury may be allowed. However, practically, these "violation" cases are likely to be settled in pre-trial settings. Prosecutors are not exactly giving these cases a lot of detail attention...
The applicable section of Oregon law concerning violations is here for your convenience.
VIOLATIONS
Note: Section 323, chapter 1051, Oregon Laws 1999, provides:
Sec. 323. (1) Sections 7 to 29 and 34 to 39 of this 1999 Act [153.030 to 153.121, 153.125 to 153.145 and 153.992] apply only to citations issued on or after the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act [January 1, 2000]. Any proceeding for prosecution of an offense commenced by the issuance of a citation before the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act shall continue to be governed by the law in effect immediately before the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act.
(2) Sections 57, 60 and 61 of this 1999 Act [133.066, 133.068 and 133.069] and the amendments to ORS 133.065 and 133.070 by sections 58 and 62 of this 1999 Act apply only to citations issued on or after the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act. Any proceeding for prosecution of an offense commenced by the issuance of a citation before the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act shall continue to be governed by the law in effect immediately before the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act.
(3) Any change to the fine or penalty imposed for an offense by reason of the provisions of this 1999 Act applies only to offenses that are committed on or after the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act. Any offense committed before the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act shall continue to be subject to the fine or penalty under the law in effect immediately before the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act.
(4) Any references to infractions in computer records or other records of the Department of Transportation, or in the computer records or other records of other agencies that enforce laws designated as infractions, that may exist or be generated on or after the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act shall be considered references to violations for the purposes of this 1999 Act. References to Class A traffic infractions shall be considered references to Class A violations under section 4 of this 1999 Act [153.012]. References to Class B traffic infractions shall be considered references to Class B violations under section 4 of this 1999 Act. References to Class C traffic infractions shall be considered references to Class C violations under section 4 of this 1999 Act. References to Class D traffic infractions shall be considered references to Class D violations under section 4 of this 1999 Act. [1999 c.1051 §323]
(Generally)
153.005 Definitions. As used in this chapter:
(1) "Enforcement officer" means:
(a) A member of the Oregon State Police.
(b) A sheriff or deputy sheriff.
(c) A city marshal or a member of the police of a city, municipal or quasi-municipal corporation.
(d) An investigator of a district attorney’s office if the investigator is or has been certified as a peace officer in this or any other state.
(e) An investigator of the Criminal Justice Division of the Department of Justice of the State of Oregon.
(f) Any other person specifically authorized by law to issue citations for the commission of violations.
(2) "Violation" means an offense described ORS 153.008.
(3) "Violation proceeding" means a judicial proceeding initiated by issuance of a citation that charges a person with commission of a violation.
(4) "Traffic offense" has the meaning given that term in ORS 801.555. [1999 c.1051 §2]
153.008 Violations described. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, an offense is a violation if any of the following apply:
(a) The offense is designated as a violation in the statute defining the offense.
(b) The statute prescribing the penalty for the offense provides that the offense is punishable by a fine but does not provide that the offense is punishable by a term of imprisonment. The statute may provide for punishment in addition to a fine as long as the punishment does not include a term of imprisonment.
(c) The offense is created by an ordinance of a county, city, district or other political subdivision of this state with authority to create offenses, and the ordinance provides that violation of the ordinance is punishable by a fine but does not provide that the offense is punishable by a term of imprisonment. The ordinance may provide for punishment in addition to a fine as long as the punishment does not include a term of imprisonment.
(d) The prosecuting attorney has elected to treat the offense as a violation for purposes of a particular case in the manner provided by ORS 161.566.
(e) The court has elected to treat the offense as a violation for purposes of a particular case in the manner provided by ORS 161.568.
(2) Conviction of a violation does not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a crime. [1999 c.1051 §3]
153.012 Violation categories. Violations are classified for the purpose of sentencing into the following categories:
(1) Class A violations;
(2) Class B violations;
(3) Class C violations;
(4) Class D violations;
(5) Unclassified violations as described in ORS 153.015; and
(6) Specific fine violations as described in ORS 153.015. [1999 c.1051 §4]
153.015 Unclassified and specific fine violations. (1) An offense described in the Oregon Revised Statutes that is designated as a violation but does not specify the classification of the violation is an unclassified violation. An unclassified violation is a Class B violation.
(2) A specific fine violation is any offense described in the Oregon Revised Statutes that:
(a) Is not designated as a crime or as a class A, B, C or D violation;
(b) Is not punishable by a term of imprisonment as a penalty for committing the offense; and
(c) Is punishable by a specific fine as the penalty for committing the offense. [1999 c.1051 §5]
153.018 Schedule of penalties; distribution of proceeds. (1) The penalty for committing a violation is a fine. The law creating a violation may impose other penalties in addition to a fine but may not impose a term of imprisonment.
(2) Except as provided in this section, a sentence to pay a fine for a violation shall be a sentence to pay an amount not exceeding:
(a) $600 for a Class A violation.
(b) $300 for a Class B violation.
(c) $150 for a Class C violation.
(d) $75 for a Class D violation.
(e) The amount otherwise established by law for any specific fine violation.
(3) If no special corporate fine is specified in the law creating the violation, a sentence to pay a fine for a violation committed by a corporation shall be in an amount not to exceed twice the fine established under this section for a violation by an individual. If a special corporate fine is specified in the law creating the violation, the sentence to pay a fine shall be governed by the law creating the violation.
(4) If a person or corporation has gained money or property through the commission of a violation, instead of sentencing the defendant to pay the fine provided for in subsection (2) or (3) of this section, the court may sentence the defendant to pay an amount fixed by the court, not exceeding double the amount of the defendant’s gain from the commission of the violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the defendant’s gain is the amount of money or the value of property, as determined under ORS 164.115, derived from the commission of the violation, less the amount of money or the value of property, as determined under ORS 164.115, returned to the victim of the violation or seized by or surrendered to lawful authority before the time sentence is imposed. [1999 c.1051 §6]
The charge in this case were reduced from a misdemeanor offense to a "violation" which is a lower class of offense. Most people would say that the reduction in charged offense is a good start.
As in the case for other minor offenses, violation do not have juries involved given the *minor* offense being charged.
In certain states, an appeal may require a trial de novo in a higher magistrate, wherein a trial by jury may be allowed. However, practically, these "violation" cases are likely to be settled in pre-trial settings. Prosecutors are not exactly giving these cases a lot of detail attention...
The applicable section of Oregon law concerning violations is here for your convenience.
VIOLATIONS
Note: Section 323, chapter 1051, Oregon Laws 1999, provides:
Sec. 323. (1) Sections 7 to 29 and 34 to 39 of this 1999 Act [153.030 to 153.121, 153.125 to 153.145 and 153.992] apply only to citations issued on or after the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act [January 1, 2000]. Any proceeding for prosecution of an offense commenced by the issuance of a citation before the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act shall continue to be governed by the law in effect immediately before the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act.
(2) Sections 57, 60 and 61 of this 1999 Act [133.066, 133.068 and 133.069] and the amendments to ORS 133.065 and 133.070 by sections 58 and 62 of this 1999 Act apply only to citations issued on or after the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act. Any proceeding for prosecution of an offense commenced by the issuance of a citation before the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act shall continue to be governed by the law in effect immediately before the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act.
(3) Any change to the fine or penalty imposed for an offense by reason of the provisions of this 1999 Act applies only to offenses that are committed on or after the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act. Any offense committed before the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act shall continue to be subject to the fine or penalty under the law in effect immediately before the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act.
(4) Any references to infractions in computer records or other records of the Department of Transportation, or in the computer records or other records of other agencies that enforce laws designated as infractions, that may exist or be generated on or after the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act shall be considered references to violations for the purposes of this 1999 Act. References to Class A traffic infractions shall be considered references to Class A violations under section 4 of this 1999 Act [153.012]. References to Class B traffic infractions shall be considered references to Class B violations under section 4 of this 1999 Act. References to Class C traffic infractions shall be considered references to Class C violations under section 4 of this 1999 Act. References to Class D traffic infractions shall be considered references to Class D violations under section 4 of this 1999 Act. [1999 c.1051 §323]
(Generally)
153.005 Definitions. As used in this chapter:
(1) "Enforcement officer" means:
(a) A member of the Oregon State Police.
(b) A sheriff or deputy sheriff.
(c) A city marshal or a member of the police of a city, municipal or quasi-municipal corporation.
(d) An investigator of a district attorney’s office if the investigator is or has been certified as a peace officer in this or any other state.
(e) An investigator of the Criminal Justice Division of the Department of Justice of the State of Oregon.
(f) Any other person specifically authorized by law to issue citations for the commission of violations.
(2) "Violation" means an offense described ORS 153.008.
(3) "Violation proceeding" means a judicial proceeding initiated by issuance of a citation that charges a person with commission of a violation.
(4) "Traffic offense" has the meaning given that term in ORS 801.555. [1999 c.1051 §2]
153.008 Violations described. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, an offense is a violation if any of the following apply:
(a) The offense is designated as a violation in the statute defining the offense.
(b) The statute prescribing the penalty for the offense provides that the offense is punishable by a fine but does not provide that the offense is punishable by a term of imprisonment. The statute may provide for punishment in addition to a fine as long as the punishment does not include a term of imprisonment.
(c) The offense is created by an ordinance of a county, city, district or other political subdivision of this state with authority to create offenses, and the ordinance provides that violation of the ordinance is punishable by a fine but does not provide that the offense is punishable by a term of imprisonment. The ordinance may provide for punishment in addition to a fine as long as the punishment does not include a term of imprisonment.
(d) The prosecuting attorney has elected to treat the offense as a violation for purposes of a particular case in the manner provided by ORS 161.566.
(e) The court has elected to treat the offense as a violation for purposes of a particular case in the manner provided by ORS 161.568.
(2) Conviction of a violation does not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a crime. [1999 c.1051 §3]
153.012 Violation categories. Violations are classified for the purpose of sentencing into the following categories:
(1) Class A violations;
(2) Class B violations;
(3) Class C violations;
(4) Class D violations;
(5) Unclassified violations as described in ORS 153.015; and
(6) Specific fine violations as described in ORS 153.015. [1999 c.1051 §4]
153.015 Unclassified and specific fine violations. (1) An offense described in the Oregon Revised Statutes that is designated as a violation but does not specify the classification of the violation is an unclassified violation. An unclassified violation is a Class B violation.
(2) A specific fine violation is any offense described in the Oregon Revised Statutes that:
(a) Is not designated as a crime or as a class A, B, C or D violation;
(b) Is not punishable by a term of imprisonment as a penalty for committing the offense; and
(c) Is punishable by a specific fine as the penalty for committing the offense. [1999 c.1051 §5]
153.018 Schedule of penalties; distribution of proceeds. (1) The penalty for committing a violation is a fine. The law creating a violation may impose other penalties in addition to a fine but may not impose a term of imprisonment.
(2) Except as provided in this section, a sentence to pay a fine for a violation shall be a sentence to pay an amount not exceeding:
(a) $600 for a Class A violation.
(b) $300 for a Class B violation.
(c) $150 for a Class C violation.
(d) $75 for a Class D violation.
(e) The amount otherwise established by law for any specific fine violation.
(3) If no special corporate fine is specified in the law creating the violation, a sentence to pay a fine for a violation committed by a corporation shall be in an amount not to exceed twice the fine established under this section for a violation by an individual. If a special corporate fine is specified in the law creating the violation, the sentence to pay a fine shall be governed by the law creating the violation.
(4) If a person or corporation has gained money or property through the commission of a violation, instead of sentencing the defendant to pay the fine provided for in subsection (2) or (3) of this section, the court may sentence the defendant to pay an amount fixed by the court, not exceeding double the amount of the defendant’s gain from the commission of the violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the defendant’s gain is the amount of money or the value of property, as determined under ORS 164.115, derived from the commission of the violation, less the amount of money or the value of property, as determined under ORS 164.115, returned to the victim of the violation or seized by or surrendered to lawful authority before the time sentence is imposed. [1999 c.1051 §6]
#62
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Since we have some many people with their panties in a wad here...
The charge in this case were reduced from a misdemeanor offense to a "violation" which is a lower class of offense. Most people would say that the reduction in charged offense is a good start.
As in the case for other minor offenses, violation do not have juries involved given the *minor* offense being charged.
In certain states, an appeal may require a trial de novo in a higher magistrate, wherein a trial by jury may be allowed. However, practically, these "violation" cases are likely to be settled in pre-trial settings. Prosecutors are not exactly giving these cases a lot of detail attention...
The applicable section of Oregon law concerning violations is here for your convenience.
VIOLATIONS
Note: Section 323, chapter 1051, Oregon Laws 1999, provides:
Sec. 323. (1) Sections 7 to 29 and 34 to 39 of this 1999 Act [153.030 to 153.121, 153.125 to 153.145 and 153.992] apply only to citations issued on or after the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act [January 1, 2000].
[Snip. It is right up there, go read it if you want]
The charge in this case were reduced from a misdemeanor offense to a "violation" which is a lower class of offense. Most people would say that the reduction in charged offense is a good start.
As in the case for other minor offenses, violation do not have juries involved given the *minor* offense being charged.
In certain states, an appeal may require a trial de novo in a higher magistrate, wherein a trial by jury may be allowed. However, practically, these "violation" cases are likely to be settled in pre-trial settings. Prosecutors are not exactly giving these cases a lot of detail attention...
The applicable section of Oregon law concerning violations is here for your convenience.
VIOLATIONS
Note: Section 323, chapter 1051, Oregon Laws 1999, provides:
Sec. 323. (1) Sections 7 to 29 and 34 to 39 of this 1999 Act [153.030 to 153.121, 153.125 to 153.145 and 153.992] apply only to citations issued on or after the operative date of sections 1 to 325 of this 1999 Act [January 1, 2000].
[Snip. It is right up there, go read it if you want]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
I have an idea, let's pass a state law that speech will now be called talking. The 1st amendment does not say anything about freedom to talk.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
#64
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Catania, Sicily/South Jersey (PHL)/Houston, Texas/Red Stick/airborne in-between
Programs: United Global Svs, AA PlatPro, WN RR, AZ/ITA Freccia, Hilton Diam, Bonvoy Gold, Hertz Prez, IHG
Posts: 3,540
I've seen many a traffic, or"lesser offense" trial, with 3, 5 or 6 jurors.
Not every jury trial is with 12.
For example some courts sit a jury of 5 who hear multiple cases throughout the day.
#65
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
I do find a process by which the constitution can be changed if parts of it are found to be unworkable. It does not include a panel of judges saying it is changed because they want it to be changed.
#66
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
The 4th amendment certainly applies to administrative searches. But it's always important to keep in mind that the 4th amendment doesn't ban all searches, only "unreasonable" ones.
#67
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The restraint: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ...."
The allowable exception and what makes it reasonable: "...and no Warrants shall issue,..."
The justification for the warrant: "...but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, ..."
And the restriction on what the warrant may include: "...and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Country boy, IANAL interpretation: Do not go through my stuff without a paper from a court that says there is a good reason and then you can only look at what the paper says.
The administrative search is none of that. IMO, of course.
#68
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
Also, I find it interesting that the solution to the problem of finding one jury that is acceptable to all is to throw out the jury.
#69
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
Not sure I can agree with you on that one. Think not only of the time and resources this would take in the courts (read: more taxpayer money) but also how many more thousands of people would have the pleasure of receiving a juror summons. Do you really think that twelve of your fellow citizens should lose (at least) a day of their lives because you contested a speeding ticket? If anything, that would make me more likely to convict.
Now, I think municipalities issuing things like jaywalking tickets (like LA) is akin to armed robbery and I find the practice disgusting but I still don't think that jury trials in such cases are the solution.
Now, I think municipalities issuing things like jaywalking tickets (like LA) is akin to armed robbery and I find the practice disgusting but I still don't think that jury trials in such cases are the solution.
That wouldn't matter to me as a juror. I'd greatly resent having to spend multiple hours of my time (the minimum any trial can take) deciding if somebody should be fined $100. Even if later that day I was asked to decide something more momentous. And it would be very unlikely to be able to have the same jury sit on two different cases since the questioning and requirements for each would almost always be different.
Up here in MI, I'm hearing that speed infractions (which can greatly impact insurance rates, for years) are being contested by the threat of a jury-trial, and being pled/negotiated down to a non-moving infraction (usually with a higher fee). Yet the legal fees and pled violoation is less then the insurance costs increase, so it's a financial decision to fight that way.
Guess the point is, my perception is that jury-trials (whether to ask for one, or actually get to that point after asking for one), is about strategy, not tactics or operations.
#70
Join Date: Oct 2011
Programs: Ham Sandwich Medallion
Posts: 889
I do not doubt that and it seems reasonable. However, I can not find that in the text of the constitution nor can I find permission to do so in the constitution.
I do find a process by which the constitution can be changed if parts of it are found to be unworkable. It does not include a panel of judges saying it is changed because they want it to be changed.
I do find a process by which the constitution can be changed if parts of it are found to be unworkable. It does not include a panel of judges saying it is changed because they want it to be changed.
Typically, I'm against judicial activism. In that case, though, it was the only decision that made sense considering the circumstances surrounding it.
*Edit to add: while it does set kind of a frightening precedent to allow the Court to effectively nullify parts of the Constitution, it's one that the Court has, wisely, never employed.
#71
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Typically, I'm against judicial activism. In that case, though, it was the only decision that made sense considering the circumstances surrounding it.
*Edit to add: while it does set kind of a frightening precedent to allow the Court to effectively nullify parts of the Constitution, it's one that the Court has, wisely, never employed.
This applies to almost every case in which the clear language of the constitution is bypassed by carving out exceptions. No matter how trivial it may seem and how necessarily expedient it may appear, neither justifies actions against the language of the constitution as there is nothing in the constitution that permits doing so.
The administrative search that some of use bemoan on this forum was originally carved out so that building inspectors could search for code violations in an apartment building without the owner of the building being present or the inspector having to get a warrant for the search. At the time it made sense considering the circumstances.
That decision is the original basis for the TSA putting its hands in out pants and performing law enforcement type pat downs without the benefit of probable cause. Once an exception is made, it is continually expanded to cover more and more situations.
#72
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LIS/ATL/other
Programs: UA 1K, Avis PC, Hertz PC, Sixt Plat, Marriott Gold, HH Silver
Posts: 1,983
Wow. Just wow.
Love your argument. I can use it too.
The cost of maintaining and operating the TSA is higher than <insert value of an aircraft and lives per decade>--far, far higher--and it is a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars to do so.
The cost of a jury trial is far higher than $20--far, far higher--and it would be a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars to do so.
The cost of maintaining and operating the TSA is higher than <insert value of an aircraft and lives per decade>--far, far higher--and it is a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars to do so.
#74
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Right. There is definitely the opposing school of thought. The argument against it is that the word "Warrant" was a generally-understood term at the time which applied to a specific British practice and that the term doesn't precisely mean what we now call a "search warrant". And, of course, administrative searches aren't the only ones that don't require a search warrant. Other exceptions are things in plain sight (perhaps one could argue that it's not a "search"), situations where there's no expectation of privacy (e.g., one's front porch or discarded trash), a search incident to an arrest, a Terry stop, "exigent circumstances" (e.g., somebody calling for help), and so on.
#75
Join Date: Oct 2011
Programs: Ham Sandwich Medallion
Posts: 889
Upholding the Seventh Amendment, something the Supreme Court opted against roughly 150 years to do, would have crippled the Reconstruction-era courts and allowed for more frivolous lawsuits that we can even dream of in today's "if you don't like the answer, sue" society.