Thursday, October 13, 2005


Bob's brother's got a blog: My Social Abstinence.

Drop by and say hi.

There's going to be a Princess Bride musical. First Spamalot and now Princess Bride? Woo-hoo.

Just for law geeks: The Law of Harry Potter. Too cool.

Going too far: Yes, most OWI laws, including Iowa's, allow you to charge someone under the legal limit, or without a breath test, because they include language prohibiting driving "under the influence" without mention of a blood alcohol level. That obviates the problem of test refusals (a Fifth Amendment right) or intoxication by some other substance. But this Washington DC situation demonstrates the problems with this:
Debra Bolton had a glass of red wine with dinner. That's what she told the police officer who pulled her over. That's what the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test indicated -- .03, comfortably below the legal limit.
She had been pulled over in Georgetown about 12:30 a.m. for driving without headlights. She apologized and explained that the parking attendant must have turned off her vehicle's automatic-light feature.

Bolton thought she might get a ticket. Instead, she was handcuffed, searched, arrested, put in a jail cell until 4:30 a.m. and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.

Bolton, 45, an energy lawyer and single mother of two who lives in Alexandria, had just run into a little-known piece of D.C. law: In the District, a driver can be arrested with as little as .01 blood-alcohol content.

As D.C. police officer Dennis Fair, who arrested Bolton on May 15, put it in an interview recently: "If you get behind the wheel of a car with any measurable amount of alcohol, you will be dealt with in D.C. We have zero tolerance. . . . Anything above .01, we can arrest."

At some point, there's going to be a backlash, guys. This and the Harry Potter thing via Concurring Opinions.

An interesting job opportunity in Alaska.

A new Stan Stankowski report up on the Legal Underground. Hey, Stan: way to go.

Daily Kos has a chart up on the waning influence of NY Times columinists since they decided to pull the editorials into "pay to view" oblivion.

While bloggers may annoy journalists, they apparently feel free to rip off the material wholesale.

The Yin Blog points out a Miers nomination poll by Professor Bainbridge. I agree it's too soon to tell, but my knee-jerk reaction is that the nomination was a complete mistake.

Iowa lawmakers don't see any problem with the segregation of sex offenders. 'Cause it's so effective, you know.

Dahlia Lathwick of Slate has an article up on the Garcetti v. Ceballos case I analyzed yesterday.

The Daily Iowan takes a look back at Duck's Breath Theater.

No comments: