Senator files to have DUI charges dropped

[yossi]

Article

He was pulled over after a trooper caught him going 20 miles over the speed limit and then subsequently failed field sobriety tests and blew a .088 on a breathalizer. Claims to be "privileged from arrest" because of a clause in the Kentucky constitution. There's more info in the article.

Thoughts? Should he be exempt from jail time?

 

[Que]

No he should not be exempt, and yes, he probably is. Legislators are fond of carving out protections for themselves. Insider trading was legal for information unknown to the public but known to congress until very recently.

 

[yossi]

I guess what bothers me most is, would he be asking for this exemption if someone had died because of his reckless driving? It's not like he was performing some crucial role for the good of the country.

And I had no idea about the insider trading. Interesting.

 

[Mr Noone]

I guess the question is: where did he get so drunk? At the statehouse?

“The members of the General Assembly shall, in all cases except treason, felony, breach or surety of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance on the sessions of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other place.”

If he stopped at a bar or friend's house after the session, then he was not "returning from" the session. You can understand the logic behind the law: in the old days (1891), it wouldn't be inconceivable to say "go arrest Billy Bob so he don't vote against us tomorrow". Clearly, this defence violates that spirit.

 

[Sean]

I guess what bothers me most is, would he be asking for this exemption if someone had died because of his reckless driving? It's not like he was performing some crucial role for the good of the country.

And I had no idea about the insider trading. Interesting.

Wouldn't that be a felony? According to your link, felonies aren't exempt.

 

[yossi]

Wouldn't that be a felony? According to your link, felonies aren't exempt.

Oops, yes I guess it would. Apologies.

 

[richard_daily]

The rich and their servants (politicians) feel that the laws are written for everyone else. This case is just an illustration of that.

 

[eyer]

Article

He was pulled over after a trooper caught him going 20 miles over the speed limit and then subsequently failed field sobriety tests and blew a .088 on a breathalizer. Claims to be "privileged from arrest" because of a clause in the Kentucky constitution. There's more info in the article.

Thoughts? Should he be exempt from jail time?

Section 43 of the Kentucky Constitution, which is still on the books and states:

“The members of the General Assembly shall, in all cases except treason, felony, breach or surety of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance on the sessions of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other place.”

Driving under the influence in the Commonwealth of Kentucky when over the limit of 0.08 is prosecutable as a misdemeanor - which is dismissed by Section 43's "felony" requirement.

Kentucky's legislative session opened earlier that day - so, the "attendance" and "going to and returning" requirements certainly do cover all state senators during the period of "attendance" and if they are, in fact, participating in "attendance".

The police say the state senator blew a preliminary 0.088 at the scene - which is just 0.008 over the legal limit, and that he refused another breathalyzer test once taken into custody.

The penalty for refusing to incriminate yourself by doing so in the Commonwealth of Kentucky is automatic suspension of your driver's license.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky's Constitution specifically exonerates the senator from any prosecution in this matter...

...so your's is really an issue of following the law, or breaking it and just going with what the mob feels.

I am not a citizen of the state of Kentucky and its judicial branch already seems to have the matter well in hand, so what puzzles me about you posting this piece is what is it about it that makes you start a thread...

...but then I see your source is www.dcclothesline.com and it makes perfect, gossipy sense.

And/or, is it simply that since you love a man to beat and bruise you so much...

...you think the man should automatically ruff up everyone else, too?

 

[eyer]

I guess what bothers me most is, would he be asking for this exemption if someone had died because of his reckless driving? It's not like he was performing some crucial role for the good of the country.

What got your attention most is that the senator is a Republican and white...

...if he was a Democrat, a Democrat female, or any other progressive combination/color, you would've never started this thread.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

I couldn't possibly tell the difference in 0.008% What is that in alcohol? A drop?

 

[yossi]

I couldn't possibly tell the difference in 0.008% What is that in alcohol? A drop?

Well, he failed the sobriety tests according to the trooper, so he's impaired whether it's by a drop or a bottle. I'm just bothered by the fact that he's trying to circumvent the court process when his actions could have cost him and others their lives.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Well, he failed the sobriety tests according to the trooper, so he's impaired whether it's by a drop or a bottle. I'm just bothered by the fact that he's trying to circumvent the court process when his actions could have cost him and others their lives.

Everybody tries to circumvent the legal process. That's why there is a bazillion lawyers in the country.

 

[Balladeer08]

Article

He was pulled over after a trooper caught him going 20 miles over the speed limit and then subsequently failed field sobriety tests and blew a .088 on a breathalizer. Claims to be "privileged from arrest" because of a clause in the Kentucky constitution. There's more info in the article.

Thoughts? Should he be exempt from jail time?

Driving at excess speed is an common to being just over the legal blood alcohol limit. They feel like they are awesome. Driving very slowly is common to those WAY over the limit, who are so impaired even they are aware they are impaired.

Speed kills. The slightly drunk high-speed drivers are more dangerous.

That he wants the charges dropped is no big deal. Anyone here ever WANT to get punished for something you did wrong?

I see this as two questions, maybe three.

1st, was he under the protection the statute grants?

2nd, should there be a statute that protects drunk officials who are to cheap to call a cab or hire a driver?

3rd, do the voters who elected him want a drunk representing them?

The third question is one for the voters of his district. They can wait until the next election, or try impeachment.

The second question is one for the voters of that State.

And the first question is one for the District Attorney/City Attorney who will be filing and prosecuting the case.

Which probably excludes almost anyone on this board. Certainly it excludes me.

 

[someoneyouknow]

3rd, do the voters who elected him want a drunk representing them?

Knowing Kentucky, it's very likely the voters who elected him were drunk when they voted so that would answer your question.

 

[tactful]

Ah, Political Immunity, got love those Special People, just wants to make you go out and re-elect them.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Remember Kennedy?

(Not Teddy)

He used the same damned defense...

 

[Ishmael]

Article

He was pulled over after a trooper caught him going 20 miles over the speed limit and then subsequently failed field sobriety tests and blew a .088 on a breathalizer. Claims to be "privileged from arrest" because of a clause in the Kentucky constitution. There's more info in the article.

Thoughts? Should he be exempt from jail time?

No he should not be exempt, and yes, he probably is. Legislators are fond of carving out protections for themselves. Insider trading was legal for information unknown to the public but known to congress until very recently.

Yes, he's going to get away with it. And "No", he shouldn't. But I doubt they're going to change the Constitution over this.

The law is not really a carve out and the same law applies to Federal legislators. The reason the law exists at all is to prevent political opponents from arresting legislators on trumped up charges in the effort to prevent them from voting on key legislation during a congressional session. This tactic was regularly employed by the Europeans and during the early colonial period. So that is why the law exists.

Ishmael

 

[Bert Notorius]

everyone knows that senators have a higher tolerance for alcohol.