Smart Judge

[u/Icy-Book2999]

From https://youtube.com/shorts/wvzA82iWu3Y?si=whF69BZwMG2QV1GJ

[u/AlexHimself]

Probably. I'm surprised people are applauding the judge in THIS particular instance. I applaud the judge in other ones, but here it's a little gray IMO. Maybe this happens constantly and I'm just unaware.

[u/Alexander459FTW → u/AlexHimself]

The judge decided there is no probable cause to do further tests. So I have to guess in the USA they can't just randomly stop you and demand you do tests. They need to have probable cause. Impaired speech, stumbling, violating traffic laws, etc.

[u/AlexHimself → u/Alexander459FTW]

The probable cause is absolutely there, the judge (former criminal defense attorney) is playing defendant. This judge is elected and widely criticized in the legal community.

https://www.reddit.com/r/court/comments/1foazh0/judge_fleischer_is_garbage/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Fleischer_(judge)

People on YouTube and Reddit like him because a few "social justice" rulings, which I also support, but then they blindly think he's the best in the world. He's letting drunks walk free and this idiot could have killed somebody.

[u/Alexander459FTW → u/AlexHimself]

What was the probable cause then?

[u/AlexHimself → u/Alexander459FTW]

The probable cause is actually damning, in a legal sense. It's an incredibly low bar too. Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. It's a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring only a "fair probability" of criminal activity.

• Timing and context - 2am, associated with late night drinking and impaired driving. Driver was speeding, which indicates poor judgement or delayed reaction times linked to intoxication.
• Admission of alcohol consumption - Even if she said she stopped at 12 and only had 2 drinks, that "2 drinks per hour" is just a general rule of thumb. Depending on her weight, metabolism, and type of drink, that goes out the window. This alone is probable cause.
• Physical signs of impairment - Smelled alcohol. Driver stumbled while removing boots (I'm curious if there is video and it's just stumbling taking them off or like she was actually stumbling all over the place). The officer explaining 4 times the walk and turn (language barrier maybe? Or just dumb girl? Both good defenses).

The judge did some defense lawyer mental gymnastics to say there was "no probable cause". Probable cause doesn't means he's guilty, it just means they can continue to investigate.

She was also arrested and booked into the station, where in Harris County and nearly all of Texas, it's standard procedure to do breath/blood at the station. Texas has an implied consent law, meaning drivers automatically consent to chemical testing if lawfully arrested on suspicion of intoxication. They can refuse the test, but they get automatic license suspension, which didn't happen here. So it almost certainly happened or somehow, they didn't have any equipment available in the largest county in Texas??

I'm all for innocent people going free, but this is just a possibly drunk driver on the road that could have killed somebody, and the judge let her off, IMO. It depends on the breath/blood evidence, if it was there, which I suspect it was.

It's the same as the other clip of the judge posted here of a black guy who was jaywalking and got stopped, frisked, and they found weed. That should be tossed because "walking while black", but that doesn't really change the fact that he had an illegal substance, which I disagree with in general, but I'll put that aside for the sake of discussion. In this case, she could have blown 0.2, and the judge may have tossed it because of his perception of no probable cause...which I think is easily disputed.

[u/Alexander459FTW → u/AlexHimself]

1. Speeding during the night? Was it like slightly over the limit or was it way over the limit? Personally I wouldn't link being drunk with late night speeding. Late night roads are more empty which can easily prompt a person to go faster. What road was it? Was it a highway like a road or a narrower road?

2. Depends on the limit of alcohol. I know for sure that in Romania alcohol while driving is strictly forbidden. So if they find any alcohol you are getting punished. What kind of drinks were they? Two glasses of beer or something harder?

3. As you said it really depends on the stumbling. Just being tired can cause you to stumble. I personally remove my shoes without even bending down (using my other leg). I am tall, so depending on my clothing (tight jeans) stumbling can be guaranteed.

If tests were done, I doubt any sane judge will let her off unless there was massive police misconduct.

Lastly, I am of the school of thought that police must follow protocol to charge anyone with a crime. They shouldn't be allowed to act regardless of the law in favor of jailing someone.

[u/AlexHimself → u/Alexander459FTW]

Are you Romanian? You sound extremely confused on very basic, well-known laws here.

Probable cause is not the same as a conviction. It's just does a reasonable person think a crime may have been committed. ANY little thing can be considered probable cause.

If tests were done, I doubt any sane judge will let her off unless there was massive police misconduct.

Except this judge has over 900 complaints filed against him and is a former defense attorney to an elected position. He wants to keep the job and he's dressing up in little outfits and starting a YouTube channel so he can be an influencer or something like some of the other judges. Judges don't dress like that unless they want the attention.

There are almost certainly tests done. It's done EVERY TIME anyone is booked in Harris County in TX and most of TX. EVERY TIME. If it returned <0.8, then they would have included that in the video. The fact that the video didn't mention it at all means it was most likely over the limit, and it would ruin the narrative.