Now, in the library of curious celebrity defenses, Charles Barkley takes the cake. When stopped for drunk driving in Arizona, Barkley explained that he would not have been speeding except for the need to have oral sex as soon as possible.
The criminal indictment recalls how Barkley explained that he was in a hurry to pick up a girl who was proficient at oral sex and was rushing to a more private location to park. It is always dangerous when a client starts out by telling the police “you want to know the truth?” Of course, telling Charles Barkley that he has a right to remain silent is a bit ridiculous. It is not the right but the will to remain silent that is lacking.
Someone needs to explain to the basketball celebrity that oral sex is not like speeding where your girlfriend is about to give birth. Generally, this is not viewed as an exigent circumstance by the courts or the cops. Finally, the offer that he made to tattoo the name of an officer on his buttocks is not generally successful defense offer in these circumstances.
For the indictment, click here.
For the full story, click here.
Dear Facist:
I understand Arizona has an implied consent law punishable by a one year suspension of driving privileges if a driver refuses to submit to a blood, breath, or urine test after an arrest for DUI or any offense arising from the stop. Here the Officer claimed a strong odor of alcohol and observed a traffic violation akin to reckless driving. I suspect he had probable cause to arrest and require the test. Even if he didn’t I understand from a friend of mine practicing there that the police routinely obtain search warrants based on probable cause to draw blood to conduct the test.
In Arizona — where Barkley was arrested — the AZ Supremes only require four things from a driver: license, auto registration, proof of insurance and to step out of the car if requested to by the officer. Additionally, state law requires a person to identify himself by full name IF the cop suspects the person has, is or will (presumably acutely) commit a “crime.” Running a stop sign is not a crime in the meaning of the statues…but….
That is it. If you know you are likely to fail a legal test for sobriety you would be wise to keep your mouth shut. Indeed, most criminal defense lawyers I know would advise keeping your mouth shut regardless. For you to be required to submit to testing requires the officer to make an arrest. For him to make a criminal arrest he must have some basis for the arrest. Running a stop sign and failing to reply to questioning is not sufficient. Now the cop can lie and frequently they will. Smelled alcohol. Staggered when he got out of the vehicle. Nodded his head. Flushed face. Whatever. But the video camera is running.
So Barkley’s security guy was looking out for him, even if he failed to appreciate it. I wonder what Mr. Barkley or his daughter think about it?
If your idea of a party is living under a bridge and eating children perhaps.
I’ll bet you’re a lot of fun at parties.
Reid pressured Blagojevich not to appoint Jackson Jr. to Obama’s U.S. Senate seat
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1360191,harry-reid-blagojevich-jesse-jackson-010209.article ^
Days before Gov. Blagojevich was charged with trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder, top Senate Democrat Harry Reid made it clear who he didn’t want in the post: Jesse Jackson, Jr., Danny Davis or Emil Jones.
Rather, Reid called Blagojevich to argue he appoint either state Veterans Affairs chief Tammy Duckworth or Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times.
Sources say the Senate majority leader pushed against Jackson and Davis — both democratic congressmen from Illinois — and against Jones — the Illinois Senate president who is the political godfather of President-elect Barack Obama — because he did not believe the three men were electable. He feared losing the seat to a Republican in a future election.
Obama’s View on Power Over Detainees Will Be Tested Very Early
By ADAM LIPTAK, NYT
Published: January 2, 2009
WASHINGTON — Just a month after President-elect Barack Obama takes office, he must tell the Supreme Court where he stands on one of the most aggressive legal claims made by the Bush administration — that the president may order the military to seize legal residents of the United States and hold them indefinitely without charging them with a crime.
The new administration’s brief, which is due Feb. 20, has the potential to hearten or infuriate Mr. Obama’s supporters, many of whom are looking to him for stark disavowals of the Bush administration’s legal positions on the detention and interrogation of so-called enemy combatants held at Navy facilities on the American mainland or at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
During the campaign, Mr. Obama made broad statements criticizing the Bush administration’s assertions of executive power. But now he must address a specific case, that of Ali al-Marri, a Qatari student who was arrested in Peoria, Ill., in December 2001. The Bush administration says Mr. Marri is a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, and it is holding him without charges at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. He is the only person currently held as an enemy combatant on the mainland, but the legal principles established in his case are likely to affect the roughly 250 prisoners at Guantánamo.
Many legal experts say that all of the new administration’s options in Mr. Marri’s case are perilous. Intelligence officials say he is exceptionally dangerous, making deportation problematic.
“If they adopt the Bush administration position, or some version of it,” said Brandt Goldstein, a professor at New York Law School, “it is going to be a moment of profound disappointment for everyone in the legal community and Americans generally who believe that the Bush administration has tried to turn the presidency into a monarchy.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/washington/03scotus.html
I CAN’T WAIT FOR THE LEFT WING DISAPPOINTMENT! their messiah is actually going to have to make a decision for once!
2008 Military Times poll: Wary about Obama
Troops cite inexperience, Iraq timetable
By Brendan McGarry – Staff writer
Posted : Friday Jan 2, 2009 10:09:24 EST
When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey.
In follow-up interviews, respondents expressed concerns about Obama’s lack of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform.
“Being that the Marine Corps can be sent anywhere in the world with the snap of his fingers, nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief,” said one lance corporal who asked not to be identified.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_poll_main_122908/
By the way Mespo, if you change your avatar for whatever reason you (and others) won’t see it unless you clear your web browser cache first. (If you use IE then just click TOOLS then OPTIONS and DELETE FILES) I found that out the hard way.
mespo727272
1, January 2, 2009 at 8:52 pm
“Waynebro:
It now says I have to wait an hour”
Well I’m not sure… I’m starting to see something.
Are you a large white breasted fellow with an unusually large overbite who lives somewhere off the coast of Australia?
Waynebro:
It now says I have to wait an hour.
Roland Burris’s Monument to Me
Roland Burris, the man Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich picked to succeed Barack Obama in the Senate, might get to etch another accolade into the monument he built for himself if this appointment goes through.
You see, Burris has already charted his esteemed career path on the walls of his future grave in Chicago’s Oak Woods Cemetery (pictured here). Beneath a seal of the state of Illinois, Burris lists his accomplishments to date, and there seems to be plenty of room above the bench to mention his career in the Senate – if he has one.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1208/Roland_Burriss_Monument_to_Me.html?showall
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY INSANE! NOW WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS AND A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT IN 3 WEEKS, DEMOCRATIC GOVERNORS OF FIVE STATES WANT 1 TRILLION (TRILLION!!!!) DOLLARS IN BAILOUT MONEY!
hAAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHEWEEE! OH GOD I AM GOING TO BE SICK!!!!!!!!
Democrat U.S. governors seek $1 trillion federal assistance
Fri Jan 2, 2009
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) – Democrat Governors of five U.S. states urged the federal government to provide $1 trillion in aid to states to help pay for education, welfare and infrastructure as states struggle with steep budget deficits amid a deepening recession.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5014F120090102