I expect that if I read the words “police” and “lemonade stand” in the same sentence, it will go something like this:

“Police enjoy a glass of lemonade served up by an aspiring 4 year old entrepreneur”.

I don’t expect to read this:

Police shut down little girl’s lemonade stand . . . ”

But that’s what I read in this associated press article and, once again, I’m left shaking my head.

It comes from Coralville, Iowa, where police closed down a lemonade stand, telling a 4 year old girl and her father that she didn’t have a permit.

Apparently Coralville has a bike ride, and this aspiring entrepreneur set up a lemonade stand to take advantage of the event.

But a city ordinance says that food vendors have to apply for a permit and get a health inspection. No permit . . . no stand.

Now I could understand the police getting involved if a lemonade stand was placed in the middle of the road (or somewhere else) where it was causing a danger to the public.

I’d expect they would explain that the stand would have to be moved to a safe spot, to prevent injury to a cyclist etc.

But I have a hard time understanding the police getting involved here. Closing a lemonade stand to enforce a city ordinance. Really?

I’m constantly reading about strained police resources. They don’t have enough money. They don’t have enough officers. They don’t have enough equipment. They don’t have enough time to properly investigate serious crimes.

Maybe things are different in Coralville.

Maybe Coralville is flush with cash, and the police don’t have to worry about budget constraints.

Or maybe Coralville is one of the safest places on earth, and this child represents the worst of Coralville’s community.

Other safe places include Bethesda, Maryland (where kids were fined for opening a lemonade stand to fight cancer), and Midway, Georgia (where the police shut down a lemonade stand operated by to girls, age 10 and 14).

In Georgia, city officials said it’s their job to keep everyone safe and healthy, and there can be no exceptions to the rules.

“We were not aware of how the lemonade was made, who made the lemonade, of what the lemonade was made with, so we acted accordingly by city ordinance,” Police Chief Morningstar said.

And there  you have it. Lemonade can be dangerous, and we need to be protected from unsafe lemonade production practices.

I know that tonight I’ll sleep better.

I still feel that I have to have to lock my doors. I’ll still keep my house alarm turned on whenever I’m away from home.

But I know that I have nothing to fear from an unsavoury 4 year old lemonade stand operator who is making lemonade with who knows what.

P.S.

If you live in Coralville, Bethesda or Midway, let me know if I’m correct in assuming that you are all rich and safe. I just might decide to move to one of those fine cities.

I live close to Vancouver, and I was cheering for the Canucks. I’m not a Canucks fan, but I hoped they would win.

They didn’t, and …

For the past hour I’ve been watching the police disperse people in downtown Vancouver. Why?

Because some (a small percentage) of the crowd decided it would be a good idea to turn cars upside down, and set them on fire.

Idiots!

Anyone who knows me knows that I am a proponent of lawful assembly and freedom of expression.

I want the police (and the government) to keep their big noses out of my life.

And I want to be able to freely express my opinion, even if some may disagree with it.

But when I watch scenes unfold, like the scene I just witnessed, I have to shake my head.

It has nothing to do with freedom of expression. It has nothing to do with “lawful” assembly.

And I understand why the police take some of the actions that they do.

Freedom doesn’t mean that you and I are free to do anything we want to do.

We aren’t free to do damage to other peoples property.

We can’t just set a police car on fire because our team lost the final game in the championship,

That’s an excuse, and not a good one.

And it’s a shame when something like this happens.

Because, believe it or not, it diminishes our ability to lawfully assemble.

Because many people start to associate “assembly” with trouble.

And if that happens, it can lead to rules that limit our right to assemble.

And that is very dangerous.

But what do you think?

One of the “alleged” assaults was caught on video, and you can decide for yourself how strong the case against him is.

Manter is presumed innocent until he’s proven guilty. In the meantime, the RCMP have suspended him . . . . with pay!

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, a school worker who moonlights as a porn actress gets asked for her autograph by a student.

She refuses the request, and asks the student to keep hush about her activities.

Apparently the student doesn’t. School officials find out, and she is suspended . . . without pay!

Let’s get this straight.

If you are a member of a police department, and there is an allegation that you committed a serious crime (and yes, I believe kicking someone in the head while that person is defenceless is a serious crime), you’ll be suspended but you’ll keep getting paid while awaiting trial.

That occurs even when the allegation is caught on video.

But if you engage in an act which is legal, and someone finds out because they’re surfing for porn, you’ll be suspended.

Does this make sense to anyone?

My thought is this:

If there are reasonable grounds to charge a police officer with a serious allegation, especially an allegation of violence, he or she should be suspended . . . without pay.

If, at the end of the day, the officer is found “not guilty” of the allegation, then his pay (along with the appropriate increases and interest) should be paid back.

What do you think?

The answer seems pretty obvious. At least it’s obvious to me. But what if your neighbour is a 92 year old woman?

Should that matter?

I found the story, which should be posted under the “to weird to be true” category, on “thesmokinggun.com.”

According to reports, 92 year old Helen Staudinger was denied a kiss by her 53 year old neighbor, Dwight Bettner.

Staudinger had gone to Bettner’s home to speak to him. He asked her to leave, which apparently upset her.

She went home, grabbed her gun (a very un-grandmotherly thing to do), and then shot up Bettner’s house.

Bettner wasn’t hit. But shooting up someones house is still . . . shooting up someones house.

What Staudinger is alleged to have done is a violent crime, and it could have had deadly consequences. She (and Bettner) are just lucky that she didn’t hit him.

What should happen to her now?

She’s presumed innocent, and entitled to a fair trial. I doubt it will ever get that far.

Her lawyer, whether hired, court appointed or one who decides to defend her “pro bono” (for the public good) will likely try to negotiate a deal that will keep her out of jail, away from her neighbor and prohibit her from possessing a firearm.

In this case, given what we know, that would seem appropriate.

There’s no mention of her having any prior record of violence. Any jail sentence would likely be a death sentence, given her age (by death sentence, I mean she would likely die in jail). And if she can’t possess a firearm in the future, she likely is never going to be a future threat.

But what if there was an identical crime committed, but this time it was committed by a 32 year old man? What kind of sentence should be imposed then?

If you were the judge hearing both of these cases what would you do?

Would you lock up the man, the grandma, neither, both??

Police constable Jennifer Martin, who was testifying in an impaired driving case, stated that she asked the suspect (Sang Eun Lee – pictured on the left) to remove her underwire bra over concerns that it could be used as a weapon.

Really?

It started with a pat down search of Lee, following her arrest. The search revealed an underwire bra (that must have been quite a surprise to Martin . Imagine, a woman wearing an underwire bra!).

Lee was asked to remove the bra, which she did after removing her coat and sweater and exposing her breasts. Martin turned the bra over to her supervisor, and it was returned to Lee later.

According to Martin’s un-named supervisor, it is standard practice to have female officers require all accused woman to remove their underwire bras. Why? Martin gave two reasons:

(1)     Martin has “heard” of examples of “accused persons trying to kill themselves with their bras,” and

(2)     The wire can also be removed and used to damage police holding cells and is a risk to officer safety, she said.

I’ll buy that suspects can use their garments to hang themselves.  And I get that officers have to be alert when it comes to officer safety. But was taking Lee’s bra, in these circumstances, necessary? Or is this a case of a police officer conducting an unreasonable search?

Was the search reasonable?

Lee was under arrest, and therefore subject to a police search. Police have the right to conduct a reasonable search of someone who’s “in custody.” That makes sense. Police don’t want to have someone in the police car with them if that person is carrying a gun or a knife or an ice pick.

I don’t have a problem with the police conducting a “pat down” of someone they’ve arrested. But the search in this case went much further than a pat down. This search involved having Lee remove her clothing and exposing her breasts.

What’s “reasonable” varies on a case by case basis. Strip searches may be reasonable in some circumstances (for instance to find drugs, which some suspects have concealed in body cavities). And obviously violent suspects will be subjected to a more vigorous and thorough search than other suspects (more than just a mere pat down).

Lee was arrested for impaired driving, not a crime of violence. It wasn’t likely that she had a cocktail concealed in a body cavity. Was having her remove her bra, exposing her breasts reasonable in this case?

Seizing items dangerous to the suspect:

Constable Martin is correct when she says that some people harm themselves with their clothing, for instance people have hanged themselves with their shoelaces. In this case Martin said that she was concerned because Lee was distraught during the booking process, and she was impaired.

I’d argue most people (who aren’t used to being arrested) are upset when they get arrested. That’s more the norm rather than the exception. So was Lee more distraught than normal? Should her bra have been taken from her to protect her from herself?

When Leora Shemesh (Lee’s lawyer) challenged Martin to “find one occurrence involving someone attempting to hang themselves with an underwire bra,” Martin replied:

“I don’t know specifically. I know people have tried to hang themselves with their clothes.”

But if Martin was that concerned, why not take all of Lee’s clothes. Why just have Lee remove her bra?

There’s no mention of Lee being detained past the booking process. There’s no mention of her being placed on a “suicide watch,” It doesn’t appear that the bra was taken to prevent Lee from causing harm to herself, because there doesn’t appear to be any indiction of that, which leads us to the final question:

Did the “underwire bra” pose a real threat to the officer?

Every circumstance is unique, and I don’t argue that there are cases where the wire from an underwire bra could be used as a weapon.

Where?

Take the example of  Barbara Amile, Conrad Black’s wife. When she went to visit Black in a Florida correctional complex, she had to remove the wire from her bra. That makes sense to me. Correctional institutions have to control what comes in, and there’s a very real potential that an inmate could fashion a weapon from the wire. But what about in this case?

There’s no indication that Lee had a record of violence. There’s no indication that she was violent towards the officer. She wasn’t being arrested for a violent crime.

There is nothing to suggest that the underwire bra posed any threat to the officer whatsoever.

The police have a tough job, and it can be a dangerous job. They need to be cautious.

They have the authority to search people, but it is not an absolute authority.

There are rules that govern the conduct of the police and how the police do their job, and that includes how police search individuals. Searches must be authorized by law, and they must be reasonable in the circumstances.

In these circumstances, Lee’s lawyer argues that the search was not reasonable. She’s asking that the charges against her client be dismissed. That’s the only real remedy available to Lee, and that remedy serves to protect society from unauthorized police activity. If the police were allowed to illegally search people, and convictions followed those searches, there’d be nothing stopping the police from regularly conducting unreasonable searches.

But what do you think?

Should the police have the right to ask a woman to remove her clothing and seize an underwire bra in cases where there is no suspicion of violence?

And if the search was not reasonable in the circumstances, should the charges leading to the arrest and search be dismissed?

It’s just been reported that Gibson has reached a plea agreement, which should ensure that the actor will avoid going to jail.

You might be thinking that the allegation is obviously true. Otherwise, why would Gibson agree to a plea deal. Right?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Gibson’s lawyer, Blair Berk, said that Gibson had his children in mind when he sought out the agreement. According to Berk:

“I know from almost 20 years as a criminal defense lawyer that sometimes justice can come for a client at too high a personal price. That is particularly so for Mel, whose right to due process can only be exercised in this case with an enormous media circus attached.”

In other words, Gibson might be entering a plea deal not because he assaulted Grigorieva, but because he wants to avoid having his personal life put under a microscope (again) and exposing his children to further unpleasantness.

Understandable? I think so.

I don’t know what happened between these two. Domestic situations are messy.

Mel Gibson rants, and comes off like a crazy person. Some people who see these rants say: “It’s obvious that he’s the kind of person who would assault her.”

Grigorieva is being investigated for extortion (in relation to Gibson). Some people who hear this say: “If she’s willing to attempt extortion, she’s willing to lie about him assaulting her.”

He says one thing, she says another. Who’s telling the truth? Gibson? Grigorieva? Both? Neither?

Whether Gibson assault her or not, he had a lot to lose by taking this matter to trial. Even if he won.

But what would you do? If you were charged with something that you didn’t do (like spousal assault), would you fight it all the way?

Or would you accept a plea deal to avoid the possible negative consequences (like bad publicity), even if you were eventually found innocent?

The surveillance video tells the tale of 63 year old bus driver, Dan Taylor, who had obviously had been pushed to the end of his rope.

The girl in question was seated in the front seat, across the isle from the bus driver. She stands up (in the aisle of the bus) and talks to other children who are seated behind her. When the bus driver notices this, he reaches behind him and grabs her by her backpack. He pulls her to the floor and says:

“That’s what’s going to happen if I hit the brakes. Now get in that seat and sit down.”

The girl goes back to her seat.

The bus driver then says:

“You won’t listen to me. Very dangerous you being in that aisle. I keep trying to tell you to sit down and stay in your seat. You won’t listen to me. Now, that’s gonna happen, only worse.”

It’s pretty clear from the video that the reason the bus driver pulled the girl to the ground was to teach her a lesson. But was he right in doing it this way?

He’s probably right when he tells here what could happen: if he slams on his brakes, or if he his a vehicle in front of him, anyone in the aisle will probably be worse off than if they were in their seat.

His heart may have been in the right place, but did he do the right thing?

Or did he do the wrong thing, and should be be charged with assault?

If you want to do an interesting social experiment, ask yourself those questions. If you’re under 60, ask someone who’s over 60. Do the same thing if you’re over 60. Do the responses differ? They did for me, but let me know what your experience was.

Rodrigues was convicted in 1987 on faulty scientific evidence. He was released in 2004 by a Texas appeals court.

He wasn’t re-tried for the crime. Why?

Because prosecutors cited concerns about having the victim, who had identified Rodrigues as one of the two men that attacked her, testify again. Sometimes that reason is valid. Being victimized is one thing. Having to go through a trial is another.

Criminal lawyers don’t make trials easy for victims. In fact, they often make it unpleasant.

They challenge what the the victim says they saw, what they say they heard. They challenge their motives, their intent, in some cases they challenge almost everything they said. Lawyers often, through their questions, attempt to cast doubt on the credibility of witness. The point of this line of questioning is to show that:

- either the witness is mistaken, or

- the witness is lying.

And for someone who’s physical integrity has been violated, that must be a terrible experience. That experience must be even worse when the victim is a child.

But for someone like George Rodriguez, a man who sat in the prisoners dock accused of a horrific crime, it’s exactly what you hope and expect your lawyer will do.

In his case, the victim was 14 years old at the time of the rape. She identified Rodriquez as one of the two men who raped her. I’m certain she was telling the truth when she testified she believed that Rodriquez did it.

She was mistaken.

It’s a great example of why a criminal lawyer would “go after” the testimony of witness – even if the witness is a young girl.

But what do you think?

What would you expect your lawyer to do for you if you were charged with raping a child, or some other horrific crime you didn’t commit?

The first is her blood alcohol level.

According to a report posted on Gainsville.com, Oberlin supplied breath samples of .234 and.239. The legal limit in Florida is driving under .o8. For those (like me) who sometimes have challenges with math, that means her blood alcohol level was almost three times the legal limit. Three times!

The second thing that makes Oberlin’s arrest interesting, is that she was the former president of a now defunct chapter of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving).

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that MADD started out as a grass roots organization with the original goal of getting drunk drivers off of the road (in my opinion, a worthy goal – who doesn’t want safer roads?). Since then, MADD has become a behemoth with (I believe) the goal of raising as much money as possible to support corporate salaries and promote abstinence. But I digress.

The point of this article isn’t to slam MADD. I’l do that in another post. The point of this article is to show that anyone is capable of slipping up. And Debra Oblerlin REALLY slipped up.

She’s charged with DUI, something that she would have called a “violent crime” while she was working with MADD. I’m sure it’s something she never thought she’d be arrested for.

For now, Oberlin’s face is all over the Internet. It’s news when someone who has held her position allegedly commits the very crime that she has spoken out against.

But let’s not forget:

Oberlin is entitled to the same legal protection that everyone else is entitled to. The charges against her are, at this time, unproven allegations. She’s presumed innocent of those charges until they are proven (she really needs to talk to a DUI lawyer at this point). IF they are proven, she ‘s going to be subject to the penalties proscribed by law. Which brings me to my question for you:

If Oberlin is found guilty of DUI, what should the court do with her? Should the fact that she was a former president of a local MADD chapter factor into the judges sentence?

Let me know you thoughts.

Let’s face it. There are some people who commit spousal assault (or other domestic violence crimes) as a means of controlling the other person.

But there are plenty of other allegations that take place because of unexpectedly heightened emotions.

And, believe it or not, they can happen to anyone. Even people who are not ordinarily violent.

Take the case of Arizona state senator Scott Bungaard.

Police responded to the scene of a reported altercation on a Pheonix area highway on Friday night. They found Bungaard and his girlfriend, who had just come from a charity “Dancing with the Stars” fundraser.

Both looked as thought they had been involved in a physical dispute. They had.

Bundgaard’s girlfriend, Aubry Ballard, accused him of “inappropriately touching” his dance partner.

Bundgaard says Ballard then started throwing his clothes, and other things, out of the car.

Ballard punched him. Bungaard attempted to stop her, and pulled her out of the car. Ballard was left with “marks on her knees”.

Ballard has been charged with misdameaner assault.

Bungaard has not been charged, because he is immune from prosecution while the legislature is in session. He says he is prepared to wave that privilege.

There’s no indication that Ballard is a violent person. There’s no indication that this has happened before.

This domestic incident started the way that many of them do. A great evening gone terribly wrong.

In Ballard’s words:

“To go from putting on a beautiful dress for a great date to a fundraiser to ending up on the side of a freeway? I don’t have another tear left to cry,” she said. “I’m still trying to get my mind around a few things: Scott’s actions, the 17 hours I spent in jail awaiting processing, my bruises, scrapes and soreness and his statements to the media.”

And it’s just the type of incident that our lawyer see all the time.

No, maybe our clients aren’t going to a “Dancing with the stars” fundraiser, but they didn’t start the evening with the intention of getting in a fight with their spouse, partner or friend either.

Most of the time something happened that resulted in similar situations to the one described above.

Someone did or said something. Emotions go out of hand, and the police got involved.

And once that happens all bets are off. Charges are usually laid, and they’re not easily withdrawn.

But let’s get back to the senator and his girlfriend.

If Bungaard was coming onto his dance parter, are Ballards actions more understandable?

What would you do if you saw your boyfriend coming inappropriately touching his dance partner?

Should Ballard be convicted if she did, in fact, punch Bungaard?

Does it make a difference to you that Ballard is a woman?