New 2009 Public & Traffic Safety Rules

It's that time of year again. New laws.

As far as traffic safety goes, the legislature has come up with the following new laws:

1. Text Messaging (SB 28/Simitian) This new law makes it an infraction to write, send, or read text-based communication on an electronic wireless communication device, such as a cell phone, while driving.
2. DUI Probation License Suspension (AB 1165 Maze) A change in the driving under the influence (DUI) law creates a new authority for DMV to administratively suspend the driver’s license for one year under a zero tolerance standard. The new law authorizes law enforcement to issue a notice of suspension and impound the vehicle of a person who is driving with a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 percent or greater while on court-ordered post-DUI probation.

(taken almost verbatim form the California DMV's website).

Maybe by 2010 they'll think to specifically prohibit emailing, playing with your iPhone's GPS feature, video games, and taking photos of the marquis which warns against texting while driving...uh, while driving. None of the above, perhaps STILL legal activities, are adviseable, irrespective of the absence of artfully worded legislation and legislative foresight.

More to follow after I assign my law clerk to research Proposition 9 and other laws affecting the public safety and the rights of the accused.

Off topic: Or is it? Trains... Yes, Trains!

Having recently traveled in Germany (a country with a wonderfully developed public transportation network; including an excellent train network), and having spent time with my 4 year old boy (who LOVES trains), I am convinced that trains are the answer to much of what ails us as a society. I'm dead serious. We are a society run amock with cars. Cars are an extremely inefficient, polluting and dangerous way to get around compared to trains. I say this at the risk (admittedly astronomically small) that I may suffer economic losses associated with a massive societal transformation toward mass transit over personal automobiles. Why? Well, because a good deal of my earnings have to do with driving; mostly driving under the influence of intoxicants; principally alcohol. If mass transit were competent to get people home after a night out where they may have tipped at least one too many, then I would suffer a serious economic hit. However, I would be happy to if it meant that our society were to do what Western Europe and parts of Asia have done already; pour money into public transportation and leave our domestic auto industry to either adapt themselves to that, or go bankrupt.
The benefits of a conversion to mass transit over automobiles would be limitless. Less dependence on foreign oil (clearly), less air pollution (clearly), fewer traffic fatalities (clearly), incerased productivity (particularly in today's society where work can get done with a PDA or laptop; not while driving an automobile), and, perhaps, better relations among divergent economic and ethnic groups (as is seen in large cities) due to the fact that people from all walks of life sit and stand side by side, as equals, in close quarters on trains and buses instead of, as here in California, whizzing by one another in their cocoons, never to share space, or a conversation, with someone who is not just like them. What's the downside? Those who love cars and driving would still have the opportunity to do so, in fact the roads would be less congested. Support all bond measures and politicians that move us, and our public funds, in favor of mass transit. We'll be better for it.

Absolutely BRILLIANT planning!

I've got a GREAT idea! Let's cancel our practice of having rows and rows of port-a-potties at the biggest drinking-fest this side of Mardi Gras! Yes, Santa Barbara County authorities have made the stunning choice of not having port-a-potties available for the 20,000+ Halloween revelers that will be milling around Isla Vista, drinking copious amounts of alcoholic beverages, starting tomorrow night. Hmmmm.... What might this lead to? Well, in addition to a lot of very full bladders, it will lead to public urination of epic proportions. And, because some will find relieving themselves on the street, in front of hundreds of spectators, an unacceptable activity, there will be those that will try to do so in private, as in on private property, without permission, and not necessarily in a bathroom. I can imagine fights breaking out over people who have crossed various boundary lines in order to relieve themselves.

This is my foundational post for a forthcoming "I told you so" post next Monday or Tuesday after I hear about how an already out of control event became even more so given all the disorder created by the population of full-bladdered people with no way to correct the problem in a civilized manner.

Absolutely brilliant!

Does "Parental Notification" violate privacy?

UCSB is the only UC campus, but not the only UC, that endeavors to notify parents when a student has gotten in trouble with the police for drinking or doing drugs. More specifically when a UCSB student is either cited or arrested for any alcohol or drug related offense in Isla Vista (not the UCSB campus, interestingly) two letters will be mailed. The first will go the student expressing concern and making mention of counseling resources available. Then, about a week or two later, a second letter will be mailed to the "Permanent Address" of the student informing the presumed Parent/Guardian living there of the fact of the arrest or citation. This, of course, adds a whole other dimension to getting busted. For those of you who try to keep secrets from your parents, take notice that, when you get busted, not only must you be accountable to the Court, but in many cases you might have some explaining to do to your parent as well. Many students have expressed grievances about this "Big Brother" policy in effect, remarking that their misfortunes while out partying are not their parents' business nor concern. Naturally, parents and University officials feel differently. It could very well be that this program serves as a deterrent to the undesirable conduct. Binge drinking and drinking under age can have devastating consequences (separate from, and more serious than, an arrest or citation). It is NOT a violation of your privacy, legally speaking, as the information reported is public record. The University is certainly behaving in an officious way, but it does not amount to an actionable Privacy rights violation where the reported information is both part of the public record and true. Sorry.

To those who want to keep their legal misfortunes private from their parents, please consider that abuse of alcohol and drugs, especially when under age, is a destructive activity. Having said that, as a staunch civil libertarian, and one who generally disapproves of "Big Brother" tactics, I will say this: If you don't want your parents to get the "memo" you can ask to have the "Permanent Address" in your school file removed and/or changed. As an adult (18 years and older), regardless of who is paying your tuition, room and board, etc., the University has no right to force to you to disclose a permanent address, nor the contact information of your parents. Food for thought. My disclaimer, as always, is that the aforementioned alternative to "Big Brother" is that, if you want to be treated as an adult, act like one. Drink responsibly and don't break the law.

Mark your calendar, Isla Vistans!

This year the UCSB Associated Students' Legal Resource Center will host its annual workshop at Embarcadero Hall for those interested in learning how to have a fun, yet safe and arrest free Halloween celebration in Isla Vista this year. The event will take place on October 28, 2008, at 7 p.m. Last year myself and Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff Miles Davies shared the stage where we voiced our surprisingly similar persectives on this subject matter with a bright and inquistive audience of prospective Halloween revelers. Also in attendance were attorneys Robin Unander and David Andreasen of UCSB's Legal Resource Center. I heard that not a single one of the attendees got arrested last Halloween; thanks to us. Actually, I have no idea if that's true...

This year the event will include a Halloween costume contest. Prizes will be awarded to the best and scariest costumes as well as to the costume most likely to get you arrested. And, every legitimate contest entrant will receive a gift from the ivlawyer.com store! So, don't miss this great opportunity to show off your costume in a well lit environment of, mostly, sober people.

It promises to be the best annual workshop yet. See you there!

Open letter to Sheriff Bill Brown

Dear Sheriff Brown:

Apart from my concern that more jail space leads to stiffer penalties for petty crime, I congratulate you for getting the job done in terms of securing a $56.3 million grant to construct a new North County Jail. You are keeping your campaign promise, and are doing well to eventually reduce the health and safety hazards presented by having too few beds for the current inmate population at the Santa Barbara County Jail in Goleta.

I will remind you that part of the County Booard of Supervisors' willingness to approve of your plan was based upon your representations that there would be money spent on social programs to address substance abuse and mental illness, the two biggest factors leading to incarceration.

Although it was never promised as part of the plan, I strongly believe that the County of Santa Barbara should install a sobering center in Isla Vista pursuant to Penal Code section 647(g). It is clearly the State's policy to civilly commit individuals who are found to be unsafely inebriated in public, and not to criminalize them. Isla Vista, which claims a huge share of all public intoxication arrests, needs to afford law enforcement the option of a civil commitment. Until that happens, I would urge your agency to follow the spirit of the law (647(g)), by releasing those who are brought to the County Jail on a lone charge of public intoxication pursuant to Penal Code section 849(b), which means that they will not face prosecution. This, in effect, makes the commitment civil, rather than criminal.

Thanks to the MANY who have made our roads safer.

Traffic fatalities are at an all time low. That's great news. I am grateful for the efforts of those who have worked hard to make our roads safer and, yes, counted among them are the men and women of law enforcement. But, let's not exaggerate their contributions, especially when doing so tends to suggest that more aggressive enforcement of traffic laws is the one and only solution to the insurmountable problem presented by the inherent dangerousness of millions of large one to two ton vessels of steel and glass whooshing by each other at high rates of speed with soft-shelled humans inside. Keep in mind that more aggressive enforcement of laws leads us further and further into a police state where our privacy rapidly erodes. Losing sight of, and otherwise foresaking, the most cherished values of this great land is an insidious problem that rivals traffic fatalities. The idea that, in the name of further reducing traffic fatalities, we should look toward aggressive enforcement of traffic laws and checkpoints as the only solution to the problem of traffic fatalities is a tragedy unto itself.

Yes, law enforcement officers face risks and are paid relatively little for the challenging and vital nature of their work. No question about it. However, let's not forget the countless others who work hard to reduce traffic fatalities. A spokesperson for the CHP, Daniel Barba, perhaps without intending to do so, completely disregarded the important efforts of the auto industry for making safer cars, the traffic engineers for designing safer roads, the caltrans workers for building and clearing those roads, the EMS personnel for providing triage, the Firefighters for their vital work, the members of the medical profession for their contributions, the tow truck drivers for clearing disabled vehicles, and the many common carriers (such as cab drivers) for offering alternatives to driving. All of these folks deserve some of the credit for reduced traffic fatalties, if not a good deal of it. Nevertheless, the CHP seems quite willing to claim all of the credit where it states that seatbelt usage, speeding, and DUI are THE 3 leading factors resulting in traffic fatalities, and that they and they alone have an impact on the reduced instances of these dangerous behaviors. It is without question that law enforcement serves to deter dangerous behaviors by their ongoing enforcement efforts, and their visibility on the roadways. Their education campaigns are likely beneficial as well. And it may very well be that more of these activities will further reduce traffic fatalities. What concerns me, and hopefully concerns you, is that mindless support of aggressive law enforcement diminishes our freedom; the very freedom that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died on the battlefield to defend.