mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> > mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>
> >> >> Like, say, the McMartin case?
> >>
> >> > In any case, but of course I am referring to cases in which the claimant was the
> >> > victim.
> >>
> >> So, you're not interested rights of the victim,
>
> > In the case of false accusation, the only situation you seem to care about, yes, the
>
> No, but it IS *a* situation the founding fathers cared very much about.
>
> Again, which specific parts of the Constitution do you object to?

As if you do not know or remember from years past, why should criminals be able to try to
avoid discovery of their crime, capture or punishment, by pleading the Fifth, or to rely
upon the Fourth Amendment (against illegal search and seizure without specific warrant),
or to have lawyers keep them from revealing practically any information, relevant or
irrelevant, such as, Police officer: "Were you drinking tonight?" Drunk, driving
suspiciously: "I don't have to answer that." or "I want to call my lawyer"? Why must the
State be forced to waste its time and money doing all the work of investigation and
trying to prove a case, when it is the intent of many criminals specifically to avoid
discovery, capture or punishment? Attorney: "He burped during the breathalyzer." "An
attorney was not present during questioning." and having such valuable evidence not
allowed? If someone (who had not done so in a deliberate effort to have it invalidated)
were so afraid of burping during the breathalyzer, they should have their blood or urine
tested for alcohol or controlled substances for the "real" result.

If the law (or an authority like an employer or possible employer) wants to know about
something I've done, I'll damn well tell them, even if it was something wrong or
suspicious.

Real story: One night before I ever came to Japan, I was stopped by a police officer on
my way home from a hotel nightclub, drinking and dancing with friends. You see, it was
this simple: unlike in Japan, where I am perfectly comfortable driving at flow of traffic
speed even if it is 50 kph above the limit, with radar traps and highway cameras often in
plain sight, or even drive over the limit for fun, I hardly ever drive over the speed
limit at home, and usually take care to check my speedometer regularly, precisely because
police at home are more capable of finding people driving illegally; but I was
deliberately driving over the speed limit of 25 on a long straight stretch along the
resort beach area. I do not recall very well, but perhaps I was simply trying to get home
quickly. It was not one of those cases where I was driving fast for fun.

Anyway, sure enough, a police car was parked on the side of the road in the dark, with a
radar trap. I was stopped. The exchange went like this:

Officer: "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Me: "No." (True, but over the speed limit, I knew.)
[Shows me radar gun] O: "You were driving 44 mph, and slowing when you saw me." (I didn't
know the exact figure, but true.)
O: "Have you been drinking tonight?"
Me: "Yes."
O: "How many?"
M: "I had four drinks."
O: "Over how long?"
Me: "Three hours."

I was then asked to get out of the car, get out on the road and perform some dexterity
tests. The officer claimed that I wobbled when doing the 180 degree turn on heel after
the toe/heel steps, thus I had failed.

Now here's where it gets bizarre: the officer let me go, because he said (despite his
claim I failed the physical impairment test) that four drinks over three hours (true) was
enough time, and because I was on my way home (true, about four miles away).

The officer had no clue how many drinks I'd had, where, with whom, or over the actual
pace of my drinking. What if I'd had the four drinks just before leaving and were
definitely over the limit and impaired? (No, it was kind of evenly spaced over three
hours.) He just believed what I told him (which was truthful). He did not even ask about
any other controlled substances, such as illegal drugs (I do not use drugs), nor did he
bother to have me checked out. He had no clue what my blood alcohol level was or what
else I had in me. He should have checked, particularly if as HE claimed, I failed the
physical test. The officer had no clue where I was headed, though I went straight home
like I said. He did not check the inside of the car, visible or otherwise (it was dark)
to see whether or not I had an open bottle or anything else such as drugs or a weapon (I
had none, but if he claimed I failed the test, he should have checked).

What if I had simply lied about everything in an effort to avoid trouble or being caught
(as some people might), or were a drunk or drug user on my way to cause the death of a
family on the highway at 2 a.m.?

And anyway, the officer definitely had me as a speeder but let me go.

Police would be fortunate if everyone they encountered in suspicion of a crime were as
cooperative as myself, who always tell them to the best of my knowledge, everything they
ask about. If every suspect were this way, it would make investigation, and "proving"
crimes so much simpler, so criminals could be properly caught and punished, and the
public kept safe.

But for some reason, this officer let me go that night. I do not want to be ticketed as a
speeder or taken in as a "suspected" DUI, but police should not be so lax as that, or as
lax as police in Japan, where I and others can drive practically any way we wish with
little fear of being caught or punished.

PS, when I tell employers or other people I am a criminal or have been arrested, it has
nothing to do with driving, and I most definitely did what was claimed.