Attention Drunken Drivers: You’ve Been Warned!: MyFoxHOUSTON.com

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The new changes in the surcharge program are intended to allow drivers an opportunity to pay off the surcharges at a reduced amount and in some cases rescind the driver’s license suspension. There are three different types of programs that were approved by DPS: amnesty program; indigency program; and the incentive program. These programs are going to be “phased-in” over the next year or so. More details of the program are provided in the link below.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/public_information/pr102110.pdf

View video link to ABC13 Houston Story regarding this story:Montgomery County Brings Back Sobriety Checkpoints

Yet, further illustration of the government and law enforcement officials violating privacy and constitutional rights (althought the U.S. Supreme Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals have basically ruled in favor of these blantant violation of our constitution). Let me say, that I am in no way supporting or condoning driving a motor vehicle while being intoxicated (notice how I didn’t say “drinking and driving”, since it’s not illegal to drink and drive, but to be “intoxicated” while driving), but I also don’t support the government being able to violate my rights and invade my privacy. I don’t trust the government when they stick their hands in my life or wallet, so why in the hell would I trust them when they are sticking a needle in my arm to draw blood as evidence to be used against me to prove the government’s case!!! Allow the government to keep taking away your rights and soon you want have any!

Posted using ShareThis

Above is a link to an article regarding a decision by a Florida judge ruling that red-light cameras are unconstitutional. Hopefully, the same result regarding red-light cameras will take place here in Houston, TX. Houston criminal defense and traffic ticket defense, Paul Kubosh, has started a petition drive in Houston to get the issue of red light cameras placed on the ballot for the upcoming general election. The public and not government officials would be able to decide either for or against red-light cameras. Letting the people decide what a noble concept! Red-light cameras are not about safety, it’s about cities looking for ways to increase revenues. They increase revenue by making these offenses civil, instead of criminal. As any good criminal defense or traffic ticket lawyer knews when you make an offense civil, an individual no longer has a right to a jury trial or another of the constitutional rights that are afforded a person accused of a criminal offense. It costs local governments money to conduct jury trials for individuals accused of traffic offenses such as “running a red light”. In addition, the accused individual now has the burden of proof in the civil/administrative hearing. What this means is that most people are going to held liable for paying the ticket even if the State offers no “real” evidence that it was in fact that person who was the violater or that the red-light camera was even working correctly. Furthermore, cities know that by placing cameras at these intersections, that they can reduce the number of traffic enforcement officers monitoring these intersections. Once again, saving the city money by reducing costs for traffic enforcement officers pay. It’s not about safety, it’s about money. Several studies illustate that it’s not really about safety, so don’t let the local governments fool you into thinking otherwise.

The other danger regarding government use of red-light cameras and other similar tactics is the issue of decriminalization. Red-light cameras are the government’s first steps in a fight to potentially decriminalize other violations as well and make them civil in nature. Once again, an individual does not get the same constitutional rights and protections in civil/administrative proceeding that a person would have in a criminal proceeding.

So I ask that you please join the fight here in Houston and sign the petition initiated by Paul Kubosh against red-light cameras and decriminalization.

I applaud the Napa DA for not pursuing a case that it felt ultimately could not be proven by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I wonder if Tom Cable was not the head coach of the Oakland Raiders, if he would not have been charged and facing prosecution for assault in this matter? In Harris County, I’ve seen situations where the State had far less evidence to prove its case than what the Napa DA’s Office possessed and yet still pursued prosecution. Makes you wonder if prosecutors at least in some instances are really “seeking that justice be done” or seeking something else. Just a thought!