Comments on: November 28 roundup

By: SPO

SPO — Thu, 29 Nov 2018 20:56:17 +0000

Regarding the “drug whisperers,” particularly snort-worthy (or toke-worthy) is the idea that the cops are better than the tests.

By: captnhal

captnhal — Thu, 29 Nov 2018 03:48:14 +0000

In reply to SPO. Unless there is some punitive action against those responsible for the extended incarceration, what is the incentive for the DA to immediately release the wrongly incarcerated? I suggest that an equally long incarceration for the DA might do the trick, or at least the next time there'll be a sense of urgency.

By: SPO

SPO — Wed, 28 Nov 2018 22:54:41 +0000

In reply to Parkhorse. Wow!! Good one.

By: cecil

cecil — Wed, 28 Nov 2018 20:12:44 +0000

Doesn’t “among the several states” modify “regulate commerce”? I.e. there is no constitutional authority to regulate any commerce within a states borders. I posit that depositing money in a bank, regardless of source, is not in fact “commerce” and even if it were, the source of those funds is outside the scope of the constitutional authority of the federal government unless they are being deposited or withdrawn as part of an interstate transaction under the full control of thee depositing or withdrawing party. I.e. if the bank deposit it to the U.S. Treasury, that transaction is not stimulated by the depositor, but by the Fed thru regulation.

And if you are still with me dear reader, the point… Drug funds from such states as Ca, CO, etc should have no trouble being deposited in financial instutions within those states as proceeds of intrastate commerce.
Just saying

By: Parkhorse

Parkhorse — Wed, 28 Nov 2018 17:58:50 +0000

In reply to SPO. Perhaps, "we were determining whether there was evidence sufficient to charge her with possession of a counterfeit controlled substance, and moved for her release once it was determined there was not."

By: SPO

SPO — Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:56:20 +0000

RE: Georgia woman. Here is the thing that would infuriate me if I were the federal judge:

“But in March 2017, GBI lab tests came back to say that the substance in the bag was not an illegal drug.

The charges against Fincher were dropped four weeks later, in April 2107 [sic].”

So basically, she spent extra time after an illegal stop AND the lab tests were negative? How is this remotely ok in a free society. I get it that people are busy, yada yada yada, but prosecutors offices should have systems set up whereby negative tests translate into instant action. The prosecutor’s office had knowledge that the factual basis for the continued incarceration was non-existent, yet nothing happened for weeks. There is simply no excuse. Perhaps if prosecutors themselves faced jail time for nonsense like this, it wouldn’t happen.

The only answer a prosecutor would have in this situation if the judge asked: “Well, what about the continued incarceration after your office knew?” would be: “Well, it didn’t violate her constitutional rights.”