Ridiculous laws of the week - Pt 2

Here's another bad law:

750.505 Punishment for indictable common law offenses.

Sec. 505.

Any person who shall commit any indictable offense at the common law, for the punishment of which no provision is expressly made by any statute of this state, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 5 years or by a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both in the discretion of the court.

How many people who aren't attorneys know what common law even is? It's judge made law. Law in Michigan is based on the English Common Law system. Common law is modified by judges when there is no statutes. Criminal law statutes are often based on common law and codified. That's good so people can supposedly know when they are breaking the law. Common law is often used in torts, contracts, and property cases. That's nothing unusual and the common law is often based on old customs to reduce surprises. In criminal cases, this is bad because theoretically, we need to be sure what the law is so we don't end up in prison.

This law was actually attempted to be enforced against the late Dr Jack Kevorkian. I'm not a fan of Dr Death at all, but this was a ridiculous attempt by the prosecutor's office in Oakland County. This ended in acquittal, likely a case of jury nullification, which is not always a bad thing.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian today was found not guilty of violating Michigan common law against assisted suicide, closing two cases that his lawyers said were by far the most significant of the five acquittals he has won at three trials.

The 1994 Supreme Court, much more liberal than the current court due to the Blanchard and Milliken judges, said that "assisted suicide" wasn't a right (which is understood) but also a "common law crime based on custom" opening this up. Common law crimes federally were abolished in 1812 although things vary among the states.

Crimes need statutes, penalties, and jurisdiction. The old saying is that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but it shouldn't take an attorney to understand if one is breaking the law, especially for a felony. Just because something isn't usually enforced does not mean it isn't on the books and could be enforced at a later date if prosecutors are out to get someone.

Ridiculous laws of the week - part 1

Back when I was in undergrad, one of my favorite websites was a sports related site called "Jerk of the Week." The site is no longer with us and covered the major sports and gave "jerk points" for every action that made it. I thought about a jerk of the week for politicians, but instead decided on focusing it on one of my biggest sources of political related heartburn - bad laws.

Those who have read Atlas Shrugged know this quote.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

One of the biggest problems with this country and state is the fact that there's too many laws. Many are archaic, or not even needed in the first place. A lot of those laws are also administrative regulations and not even statutes. I said last year that you are probably a criminal and don't even know it. It is Atlas Shrugged coming to life. This is the fault of both parties equally to get to this point.

Here's the first law I'm going to start with. It's one that almost everyone has broken at some time or another.

750.314 Winning at gambling.

Sec. 314.

Any person who by playing at cards, dice, or any other game, or by betting or putting up money on cards, or by any other means or device in the nature of betting on cards, or betting of any kind, wins or obtains any sum of money or any goods, or any article of value whatever, is guilty of a misdemeanor if the money, goods, or articles so won or obtained are of the value of not more than $50.00. If the money, goods, or articles so won or obtained are of the value of more than $50.00, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00.

If you win a $50.01 bet, you can go to jail for a year and be fined $1000. On the other hand, you can go to the Casino or play Keno at the bar after five glasses of whiskey and it be perfectly legal. You can play the Lottery, and it's legal. You go to a friend's house for a game of poker, and it better be for chips.

I understand the push to limit actual gambling dens, but do you really need to ban a friendly game of poker? I'll answer it. No you don't. Stop making criminals of good people.

There's plenty more where that came from.

Yet another new law we don't need

Politicians want to make it look like they are doing something in the name of safety, so they are about to create a new law that isn't needed. We have laws against careless and reckless driving. We have laws against crossing the double yellow line. We have laws against felonious driving, tailgating, speeding, and everything else. If someone is dumb enough to text and drive, he'll be breaking some other law at some point.

From the Detroit News

Lansing -- Michigan is closer to outlawing texting at the wheel with the Senate's passage Thursday of a no-texting law-- but the House and Senate remain divided over how to enforce a ban.

The House passed a ban on texting while driving as a secondary offense, meaning police could only enforce it if drivers are pulled over for something else -- like speeding or an illegal turn.

The Senate amended the House bill to make it a primary offense, meaning police could pull a driver over for texting at the wheel without another offense. It's up to the House to agree to the change, or the two chambers will have to work out a compromise.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100325/POLITICS02/3250476/1409/metro#ixzz0jaY1LvDv

This is the interesting part. Primary v secondary.

AAA Michigan, Allstate and other auto insurers have called for a texting ban. Officials with the Michigan State Police have said they would prefer that texting be a primary offense

Of course they want a primary offense classification. More money for the coffers. This is not about safety, but more tickets.

The votes in the house (secondary offense) is 105-2, with Geiss and Bledsoe voting no. Geiss voted no because he thought it should be a primary offense. The senate bill passed. 22-10. The no votes are Bishop, Jansen, Nofs, Sanborn, Brown, Kuipers ,Patterson, Stamas, Garcia, McManus, Richardville. I think the only controversey within the group is primary v secondary. I hope it doesn't pass, because new laws aren't needed.

Texting while driving. We don't need more laws.

This is in the Argus. Good intentions, but I don't support it.

Reading, writing or sending text messages while behind the wheel of a moving vehicle would be banned in Michigan under legislation approved by a House committee this morning.
Responding to concerns about the potential for overly-zealous enforcement, however, the legislation was scaled back from its original version and would not allow police officers to base a traffic stop on suspected texting alone.

Violating the prohibition would be a civil infraction, punishable by fines of about $100 and would not result in penalty points on an operators license.

Rep. Lee Gonzales, D-Flint, said Michigan needs to move quickly to join nearly two dozen other states which have banned texting while driving, a practice he said is “worse than drunk driving.”

I can't support this. I'll give Gonzales some credit for scaling this back from being a primary offense and points so it isn't as bad as it was, but we have too many laws as it is. The problem in today's society is that too many people, especially on traffic matters say that there ought to be another law. Both parties are equally guilty in this area.

Texting while driving is dumb. I don't do it, and don't think others should do it. However, should it be illegal? Or should dangerous driving be illegal - which it already is. Current laws already rectify the problems that can be caused from texting and driving.

Reckless Driving:
1) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway or a frozen public lake, stream, or pond or other place open to the general public, including, but not limited to, an area designated for the parking of motor vehicles, in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.
(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.

Felonious Driving
257.626c Operation of vehicle on highway or public place; conduct as felony; penalty.
Sec. 626c.
A person who operates a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, carelessly and heedlessly in willful and wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property resulting in a serious impairment of a body function of a person, but does not cause death, is guilty of felonious driving punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

Careless Driving
257.626b Careless or negligent operation of vehicle as civil infraction.
Sec. 626b.
A person who operates a vehicle upon a highway or a frozen public lake, stream, or pond or other place open to the general public including an area designated for the parking of vehicles in a careless or negligent manner likely to endanger any person or property, but without wantonness or recklessness, is responsible for a civil infraction.

Tailgating.
(1) The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the highway.

Turn Signals are the law. Impeding traffic is against the law.  Crossing the double yellow line is against the law. All these things are common when drivers are texting instead of looking at the road. We have enough laws. We don't need more laws.

Annoying laws

Everybody does it....

That's the response from the City of Brighton. They cited some similar ordinances from Fowlerville and Green Oak, among other places.

From the Argus:

Brighton gained national notoriety for making amendments to its harassment ordinances, which were dubbed its "annoyance ordinances," but it's certainly not the only place with such rules.


Seventeen other communities in Michigan have similar rules, including Fowlerville and Green Oak Township in Livingston County.

Fowlerville has an ordinance identical to that of Brighton, and it states, "No person shall insult, accost, molest, or otherwise annoy, either by word of mouth, sign, or motion, any person in any public place."

Green Oak Township's harassment ordinance says it is unlawful for a person — with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person — to "engage in a course of conduct, or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose."

Although the laws are on their books, law enforcement officials said the rules rarely result in actual tickets being issued for civil infractions. Typically, police officers only have to show up to get compliance.

One common saying among gun owners is that there are over 20,000 gun laws on the books. One other saying is that everybody breaks the law every single day. Part of the reasons for that is that there are hundreds of thousands of laws on the books that are unknown, vague, unenforced, but still there.

That does not mean that we should ignore them. If it is a bad law - REPEAL IT! The POTENTIAL of a current law on the books being enforced in arbitrary situations that are vague, hard to define, and hard to defend, is bad enough. I don't care if it is "only a civil infraction" and I go irate when it is "only a misdeamenor." Misdeamenors are a very big deal for me. I do not have and can not get them on my record. I can go to jail for misdeamenors, and even civil infractions cost over $100 when court costs are figured into the matter.

Chetly Zarko, an Oakland County political consultant, covered this is depth on his site, Outside Lansing. There's some good reading there.

Green Oak's officials are going to get a call or visit from me real soon about this. Harassment I can understand. Annoy or Alarm are tough to define, and tough to defend against.

These "catch all" laws are ridiculous, especially when there is adequate laws for the real problems. Disturbing the peace has solid definitions. Disorderly conduct (Drunk and disorderly in some other states) despite it's vague sounding to the public, has solid legal foundations through statutes defining the conduct on the state level, as well is common law foundations and precident.

The City of Brighton continues to dig a hole with there comments.

First, from the Cops.

He said these rules help people resolve neighborhood disputes that aren't of a criminal nature. As a civil infraction, he said, police have more opportunity to use these rules to deal with problems "that seem to not be resolving themselves."

Civil Infractions are a ticket. Is this a budgetary measure turning law enforcement officers (LEO's) into revenue enhancement officers? (REO's) Tickets are rarely contested in court as well, since it often costs less to pay the fine rather than go to court and hire a lawyer to fight this. (And I never recommend being a fool for a client).

That doesn't account for the laws already on the books. Disorderly Conduct. Disturbing the peace. Etc.

Kinaschuk pointed out the rules are necessary today because society has changed.

"We don't go and talk to our neighbors, and we don't know our neighbors as we used to," he said.

Officer, who is "We?"

A more reasonable comment comes from Fowlerville, although they have the ordinance.

Although the laws are on their books, law enforcement officials said the rules rarely result in actual tickets being issued for civil infractions. Typically, police officers only have to show up to get compliance.

Fowlerville Police Chief Tom Couling said the harassment ordinances are "very infrequently" enforced with a ticket. He said cases typically involve neighbor disputes over noise or barking dogs.

Noise ordinances are constitutional, and dogs certainly can qualify. Those are different than these vague "annoyance" statutes. The more telling quote is that they rarely result in actual tickets being issued. That shows that frankly, this law is not needed.

It's time for the City of Brighton to man up and admit it did something stupid in following Royal Oak's annoyance law and repeal it.

NCAA betting pools soon to be legalized?

One thing that really chafes at my libertarian side is the laws against gambling here. Basicaly, all gambling outside of the casino or government run lottery is illegal unless you give government their cut (license). It's protection money against prosecution.

If you go to the casino, it is legal. If you buy a lottery ticket, it is legal. If you go to Cleary's Pub and play keno, it's legal. If you are at a friendly poker game, you are a criminal. If you are involved in a Super Bowl wager - you are a criminal. If you are in an NCAA betting pool, you are a criminal. The penalty is $1000 fine and up to a year in the county lockup. Government can't get their cut that way...

The Argus has a story out about an attempt to decriminalize the NCAA betting pool. Personally, I'd go much further than that and legalize most gambling (even though I'm not a big gambler), but this is a good first step.

“What makes March Madness unique is that all kinds of people and sports fans of all levels fill out their brackets and enjoy the tournament,” Rep. Kim Meltzer, R-Clinton Township, said in a statement. “It’s a crime we consider that a crime, and I want to change it.”

Meltzer plans to introduce legislation that would decriminalize participation in an NCAA tournament office pool.

(snip)
Her proposal would exempt NCAA college basketball tournament brackets from the definition of gambling under Michigan law. The maximum allowable entry fee would be $20 and the pool could not exceed 100 people. The revenue from the pool could be divided only among its participants.

NCAA tournament office pools are increasingly popular in Michigan and elsewhere in the U.S. NCAA surveys suggest more than 10 percent of Americans participate in them.

A few years ago, the FBI estimated that more than $2.5 billion is wagered on the tournament each year. The vast majority of the wagering is outside of the legal Nevada sports books.

I'm not sure this will pass because all of the Chippewa and Detroit Casino interests, along with the Michigan Lottery will certainly oppose having to deal with this for competition, even though a large number of people break the law on this anyway. I hope it passes. We have too much government in this state, and this is one major example of it. This is a good first step at repealing stupid laws. I'd go further, but I'll take what I can get. Kudo's to Kim Meltzer (R - Macomb County) for a good first start.