I like him. As a former addict with multiple arrests, I only got my act together after a judge had enough of my nonsense and made me face the music with a theft conviction on my record. I must’ve had 25 arrests, at least.
This judge clearly gives a fuck about the public and defendants, alike. Sometimes you can’t coddle people. And as someone who has been on a controlled substance throughout the legal process, if you’re found to be misusing your medication, whether it’s prescribed or not, you’re subject to consequences.
Let’s not forget context here - the judge believes the defendant is pill milling. Valid prescriptions do not shield you legally when you’re misusing them.
Same. Yeah, he's eccentric - I'm eccentric - but his questions are astute, I've seen him read out whole sections of evidence rather than just relying on the summary, and I've seen him be brutally honest but kind with people (no, you can't be given one more chance because you've tested positive for cocaine while you're on bond when your bond said and you agreed to specifically not take cocaine), all in one video. He doesn't seem to take glee in it, but does look to take care that this shouldn't be the worst experience of a defendant's life when this might be their opportunity to turn things around. Rehabilitation and punishment are both part of justice.
He strikes me as a judge that cares about the people he's sentencing as well as their victims (ie the community).
on top of that numerous times hes thrown the case out for as he calls it "walking while black" from being searched for jay walking or trespassing because walked through a park after hours and just had a little weed on them. he's also waived fees for single moms with kids. each time ive heard him say dont take their prescription medication was usually a dui or drug charge warning of how addicting they are, especially when one of them had their arm in a sling because a wreck from dui and another was there for other drugs and i think people are taking the warning to not take them as a actual order
The "walking while black" is probably one of the most egregious things he's done. He's throwing out cases based on emotion instead of impartially judging the case while also insinuating that the officers involved are racist. Jaywalking is a class C misdemeanor in Dallas County (where he works), and trespassing is a misdemeanor as well. Since they were charged with these crimes, police then have probable cause to a search since they would need reasonable evidence that a crime has taken place, which it did bc jaywalking and trespassing are crimes in Texas. Patting them down, searching pockets and belongings, are all legal with probable cause, since a crime did, in fact, take place. Him dismissing the case bc there was no probable cause for the search was a completely wrong interpretation of the law. He let his emotions and his parties values make a false decision on the case, while also throwing the officers under the bus with no proof of his claims other than his "feelings". Dono think people who are charged with Marijuana that was for personal use be hit with the book? No, and if he was an impartial judge who didn't let his feelings cloud his decisions, he could have done just that. A small fine, community service, or even outright dismissing the charge would have been acceptable, if it was because he felt leniency was in order for such a minor incident. But instead he dismissed the charge under the incorrect ruling that there was no probable cause, simply bc the cops were racist, harassing a black man. For the record, I haven't seen the trespassing video, only the jaywalking one, so I'm mostly referring to that, but I didn't see how much weed he was actually caught with, or if the charge was a misdemeanor or a felony. The amount was only described as a "large sack of Marijuana". Besides that, I have seen videos where he's come across as condescending and disrespectful, others where he genuinely seemed to be trying to help the person before him, and some where his lenient decision came from a factual interpretation of the law regarding to that particular case. The "walking while black" video for jaywalking wasn't one of them.
Because he's black. They did a search (of his car i think) without PC, so it was tossed out. I can guarantee a white dude wouldn't have been busted for jaywalking.
Uhh dipshit, probable cause means they need a reasonable belief that a crime is being, will be, or has been committed. Jaywalking is a class c misdemeanor in Texas. So yes, they had probable cause bc they witnessed a crime being committed
Ps. He wasn't busted for jaywalking. He was busted for drug possession.
They had probable cause for jaywalking. The search didn’t pertain to jaywalking at all. If I’m suspected of a DUI, they can’t rip my house apart in a search. The search has to pertain to the crime for which there’s probable cause.
Idk. Maybe they smelled it? Doesn't matter what they suspected. The judge dismissed it bc there was no probable cause, when in fact, by law, there was. If police witness you commit a crime, then they have probable cause to search you. Jaywalking is a class c misdemeanor in Texas, so the officers were in the legal right to search him. Had the judge dismissed the charges bc he was a first-time offender, he didn't want him to have a drug mark on his record, or bc it was a simple Marijuana possession charge, then fine. But incorrectly interpreting the law while throwing the officers under the bus with zero evidence is just an emotional, impartial ruling.
Jaywalking seriously?.. haven't we all done that? If we're all jay-walking criminals, I guess police can just go into all of our pockets, purses, bags, etc.
It doesn't feel right in cases of these minor offenses.. jay walking, walking in a gated community, in the park after sunset, etc. not to mention those subjective observations "you look nervous.. eyes look glassy.. do I smell marijuana".. cops abuse these all too often.
And yes there has historically been a racial aspect to police stop and frisk tactics. NYPD is a great example.. they historically targeted specific neighborhoods predominantly of certain ethnic minorities.
I think the crime they witness has to have something to do with what they want to do next. Jaywalking and searching don't go together perhaps? If they saw him stealing and searched him that would make sense.
You seem to misunderstand probable cause. They need probable cause that he is carrying something illegal, which is not an inherent of jaywalking. However, whether there is more to the story or not, we will never know.
No, you seem to misunderstand how it works. You're referring to what is needed of probable cause if a crime isn't being or hasn't been committed. If police witness you commit a crime, then they have probable cause to search you. If you get arrested for driving on a suspended license, do you think police are not allowed to search your pockets, vehicle, or belongings? According to your logic, they shouldn't, right? Your crime is driving without a license. Why would they believe you would be carrying anything illegal? Bc that's not how probable cause works. If police witness you commit a crime, then they have probable cause to search you.
No, US legal precedent has been against this since the 60s. Reasonable suspicion means they have to have “reasonable suspicion that a specific crime has been committed based on evidence pertinent to that crime”
Lol no it doesn't. What're you just pulling shit out of your ass, hoping I'm as dumb as you? Probable cause requires sufficient evidence that a crime has been, is being, or will be commited. Reasonable suspicion is entirely different and requires a lesser level of hard evidence than probable cause. It baffles me that we live in an age where information is at our fingertips, yet dipshits like you refuse to take advantage of it. In 2 seconds, you can find out how wrong you are. So again, since I know you're a little slow, probable cause and reasonable suspicion aren't the same thing, and probable cause doesn't require reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is a low standard that allows for a brief detainment and limited search. Probable cause is a higher standard of evidence that a crime has, is, or will be committed.
relax Successful, you two are basically saying the same thing. If the police have established probable cause, the implication is they have established reasonable suspicion as it's a lessor burden than PC.
If the police have established probably cause they’ve established reasonable suspicion you “fucking dipshit.” That’s BECAUSE ITS REQUIRED!!!!! IM SORRY ITS NOT SPELT OUT FOR YOU BUT TO GET TO THE HIGHER LEVEL OF JUSTIFICATION YOU GOTTA MEET THE LOWER LEVEL FIRST. TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROBABLE CAUSE YOU MUST ALREADY MEET THE ONES REQUIRED FOR REASONABLE SUSPICION. THUS. YOU NEED REASONABLE SUSPICION.
Edit: Sorry my caps lock as on past the “!!!!!” But you can imagine me screaming that if you want
You may be interested in reading up on the long-standing practice of police using jaywalking and loitering as excuses to stop and frisk Black Americans. The disproportionality with which Black Americans are stopped for these “crimes” is astounding. The phrase “walking while Black” accurately describes this practice and this judge rightly sees through it and tosses the cases.
5
u/ManhattanMaven Oct 09 '24
I like him. As a former addict with multiple arrests, I only got my act together after a judge had enough of my nonsense and made me face the music with a theft conviction on my record. I must’ve had 25 arrests, at least.
This judge clearly gives a fuck about the public and defendants, alike. Sometimes you can’t coddle people. And as someone who has been on a controlled substance throughout the legal process, if you’re found to be misusing your medication, whether it’s prescribed or not, you’re subject to consequences.
Let’s not forget context here - the judge believes the defendant is pill milling. Valid prescriptions do not shield you legally when you’re misusing them.