On the subject of giving thanks, I would like to thank each and every one of you who cast a vote for me in this November’s election. I am very grateful for your trust and confidence. The final official count was 12,757 votes. It was a surprising result for a first time, third party candidate, with a low profile campaign.
I learned that I still have much to learn about the election process. One must start somewhere. I also want to thank the Green Party for the opportunity to be a judicial candidate. Thanks everyone, and have a great Thanksgiving.
That’s right, I am actually a judicial candidate in this mid-term election, the Green Party candidate for County Criminal Court at Law 13. Some folks from the Green Party asked me to be a candidate late last year and I accepted the offer. I believe that third parties are a healthy tonic for the political process; that they broaden the debate beyond the polarizing positions of democrats and republicans.
You can read more about me and all the other candidates in the League of Women Voters Guide at http://lwvhouston.org/
In truth, I am not much of a politician myself and I don’t believe that judicial candidates really should be. I am a lawyer and scholar first (as well as a writer among other things). I do follow affairs of state and government with great interest. Remember that the judicial branch is intended to be a check and balance on the legislative and executive branches of our government. My role is to protect and defend the Constitution.
I discourage straight ticket voting in general and in judicial races in particular. I contend that the public interest is better served if voters take time learn about the judicial candidates and choose the person best suited for the task, regardless of party affiliation.
Thanks for voting.
“The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things, in the broadest possible sense of the term, hang together, in the broadest possible sense of the term.”
Professor Wilfred Sellars, Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man, Published in Frontiers of Science and Philosophy, edited by Robert Colodny (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1962): 35-78. Reprinted in Science, Perception and Reality (1963).
Stay tuned, more to follow…
“I’m not talking. That’s what I’ve got to say.” The Yardbirds, 1965
“Deputy Dan has no friends.” The Firesign Theater, 1970.
“No good ever came of talking to the police.” Mark W. Bennett, 2009.
As a lawyer this is one of the topics that I am most often asked questions about.
Whether you are in custody, or detained, or restrained, or none of the above, you do not have to talk to the police or answer any questions beyond what the law requires. The key is knowing what to do in each situation, what to say and what not to say, and how to recognize which situation you are in.
Under present Texas law: “A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.” [Texas Penal Code, Section 38.02(a)].
But wait there is more. “A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has: (1) lawfully arrested the person; (2) lawfully detained the person; or (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense. [Texas Penal Code, Section 38.02(b)].
And there is another important consideration. “In this chapter:
(1) “Custody” means:
(A) under arrest by a peace officer or under restraint by a public servant pursuant to an order of a court of this state or another state of the United States; or (B) under restraint by an agent or employee of a facility that is operated by or under contract with the United States and that confines persons arrested for, charged with, or convicted of criminal offenses.
[Texas Penal Code, Section 38.01]
What actually happens out on the street though is not always so clearly defined
Police and Citizen Encounters
Let us turn to Justice Baird’s opinion in Francis v. State (922 SW 2d 176 at 178, Tex. Cr.. App., 1996) for a concise exposition.
“There are three recognized categories of interaction between the police and citizens: encounters, investigative detentions and arrests.
The Fourth Amendment is not implicated in every interaction between police officers and citizens. Terry, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868. An encounter is a friendly exchange of pleasantries or mutually useful information. Id., at 13, 88 S.Ct. at 1875-76. “As long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person’s liberty or privacy as would under the Constitution require some particularized and objective justification.” United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 555, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 1877, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980). In an encounter police are not required to possess any particular level of suspicion because citizens are under no compulsion to remain. Hawkins v. State, 758 S.W.2d 255, 259 (Tex. Cr.App.1988); Daniels v. State, 718 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). However, in order for investigative detentions and arrests to be legal, particular levels of suspicion are required.
Furthermore: “The controlling distinction between an encounter and either an investigative detention or an arrest is whether there has been a seizure. A seizure occurs when a reasonable person would believe he or she was not free to leave, and whether that person has actually yielded to the officer’s show of authority. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 628, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 1552, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991); Johnson v. State, 912 S.W.2d 227, 235 (Tex. Cr.App.1995) (plurality opinion). In short, interaction without a seizure is an encounter.”
So how do you find out what sort of situation you are in?
Ask the officer? The pitfall here is that the police are not obligated to tell you the truth. That’s right. In fact, police officers routinely lie to suspects in order to gain information, admissions, and confessions. Remember that “Deputy Dan has no friends.” No matter how friendly he may seem or what he may say.
You can technically be in custody although you have not yet been formally arrested. Ask yourself this question: Would a reasonable person in these circumstances feel free to leave? Do you feel free to leave? Some have suggested asking the officer “Am I being detained?” While that’s not too bad, bear in mind that the subjective intent of the officer plays no role in the analysis of whether or not you are in custody for Miranda(1) or 38.22(2) purposes. My suggestion is to cut to the chase and simply ask the officer “Am I free to leave?” And if he or she says “NO,” then tell them you refuse to answer any more questions and STOP TALKING.
1. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 1966
2. Chapter 38, Article 38.22, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
(Note: That is my translation but I did study Latin. And I do like blank verse.)
Enjoy a safe and happy Labor Day Weekend.
Yes, it sounds like a headline from the Onion, but it is true. I first found the story on the BBC, so it gained international attention. That story can be found here, (while the link remains active). By the way, they refer to marijuana as cannabis in the UK and always have. Now, if you are found in possession of less than an ounce or 28 grams of weed in Washington D.C., you will be issued a civil citation and fined a whopping 25 bucks. Nonetheless, you can still get jail time for selling marijuana or smoking it in public; which in contrast does seem a bit silly.
Back in 2007 here in Texas, our legislature decided that police officers could have the option of issuing a citation to persons found in possession of less than 2 ounces of marijuana. This was in lieu of arresting them and hauling them to jail. I can say that since that time I have not received a single call from someone who was issued a citation for possession of marijuana, but I have handled numerous cases for people who were arrested with small amounts of the stuff. Most of the time this occurred incident to a routine traffic stop for something like a brake light out, or an expired registration sticker. If a police officer in Texas (and just about anywhere else) smells the distinctive odor that he or she knows from their training and experience to be that of marijuana, they are going to start asking questions, and they can also search your car for evidence at that point. So, two important points can be derived from this. 1) Do not smoke weed in your car. 2) Do not drive around with expired tags, or any obvious maintenance issues, like faulty lights. or a noisy exhaust. If you’re going to smoke, do that in your own backyard. You’ll be glad you did.
My office has officially relocated as of June, 2014. The new address is:
As you can see there is a spacious parking lot for clients and visitors. The office phone is now 281-815-2371. It is monitored 24/7 and forwards calls and messages to my mobile phone. I’m on the fourth floor just behind the elevator. More detailed information is below the photograph.
The Gulf Freeway is also known as Interstate 45. If you are travelling South, take the Monroe exit and stay on the service road until you see the building on your right. If you are travelling North, take the Monroe/Bellfort exit and make a U turn under the freeway overpass. If you’re coming from out of town, fly Southwest Airlines to Hobby Airport and hail a cab.
“Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?”
Capt. John Yossarian
When I read the opening paragraphs of the first news story from the New York Times that surfaced on Google news about Judge Richard J. Leon’s opinon in Klayman et al. v. Obama, et al., “Federal Judge Rules Against NSA Phone Data Program” I felt vindicated and relieved. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/us/politics/federal-judge-rules-against-nsa-phone-data-program.
When the Edward Snowden/NSA leak story first appeared in the Guardian I wrote a short piece about the classified FISA Court opinion that was published there and then re-posted that document. I did so in the event that might disappear from the Guardian site without notice for a number of reasons. I believed that this was a document that people needed to see and it should receive the widest possible circulation. Although no longer secret, the opinion was technically still classified. What was happening here was clearly illegal in my estimation. I took the view that to classify and hide what is unlawful is also an unlawful act. I saw the FISC Order that allowed the bulk collection of phone records as being closely analagous to a general warrant.
As a result of publicly advocating this position early in the game, I was sure I was going to be labeled a “person of interest” who could now look forwad to being “selected for special screening” at the airport and having some part of my electronic life hacked as well.
Now finally there was not just another lawyer or concerned citizen who agreed with me, there was a Federal District judge on the D.C. Circuit who had issued a written opinion. And so I went in search of a copy of the opinion to download and read. What did it actually say?
Klayman I, as I will refer to it, is a thorough, scholarly, and well referenced opinion. After reading it one feels that there is not much left to be said as to the Fourth Amendment questions raised by the topic of controversy. That topic is, the NSA’s “Bulk Telephony Metadata Program.”
(Klayman et al. v. Obama et al., Civil Action No. 13-0851,filed 12/16/2013, http://www.pacer.gov/)
The Court finds that the Plaintifff’s have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the mertits of their Fourth Amendment claim. The Plaintiffs are, in the Amended Complaint, Larry Klayman and Charles and Mary Ann Strange, both on behalf of themselves and “others similarly situated,” which would seem to include every Verizon subscriber for at least the last 5 years. (In fact, by extrapolation, it could include everyone who was a cellphone subscriber during that time and up to the present.)
The Plaintiff’s constitutional claims are, generally speaking, that the Government, through the NSA’s Bulk Telephony Metadata Program, has violated their rights under the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. The primary focus of the opinion is on the Fourth Amendment issues raised by the Program, because as noted above, the court finds that the Fourth Amendment claims are those most likely to succeed on the merits. (Klayman I at 35). In addition, the plaintiff’s moved for a preliminary injuction to stop the Government from collecting and analyzing their particular phone records while the case is pending before the Court.
The headings of the opinion provide a clear roadmap of the questions considered by the Court. As a threshold issue, the plaintiff’s must have standing to challenge aspects of the Bulk Telephony Metadata Program. Without standing, the inquiry would end there. (Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013)) “Accordingly, the plaintiff’s meet the standing requirements set forth in Clapper as they can demonstrate that the NSA has collected and analyzed their telephony metadata and will continue to do operate the program consistent with FISC opinions and orders.” (Klayman I at 42)
Having found the plaintiff’s have standing, the next question is whether the NSA’s collection and analysis violates the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. The first question to be considered in that inquiry is whether or not a search has occurred. If not, then once again the inquiry would end there. If a Fourth Amendment search has occurred then the last question is whether the search was reasonable or unreasonable. A reasonable search will be found lawful whereas an unreasonable search will not. The Court frames the question in the following way at page 43 of the opinion.
“…whether plaintiff’s have a reasonable expectation of privacy that is violated when the Government indiscriminately collects their telephony metadata along with the metadata of hundreds of millions of other citizens without any particularized suspicion of wrongdoing, retains all of that metadata for five years, and then queries analyzes and investigates that data without prior judicial approval of the investigative targets. (Klayman I, 43)
The Court ultimately finds that’s the NSA’s collection and analysis of metadata does constitute a search. After very thorough consideration, the Court finds that “plaintiff’s have a very significant expectation of privacy in an aggregated collection of their telephony metadata covering the last five years and the NSA’s Bulk Telephony Metadata Program significantly intrudes on that expectation.” (Klayman I, 58 – 59.); and furthermore “…plaintiff’s have a substantial liklihood of showing that their privacy interests outweigh the Governments interests in collecting and analyzing bulk telephony metadata and therefore the NSA’s bulk collection program is indeed an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.” (Klayman I, 62).
The end result for now was that the Court granted the plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction but stayed that Order pending appeal “in light of the significant national security interests at stake and the novelty of the constitutional issues.” (Klayman, 6)
That’s basically an outline of the Fourth Amendment aspects of Judge Leon’s opinion. The full text of the opinion in Klayman et al., 0851 is a fascinating read that I highly recommend.