Althouse: The police can't stop a driver for weaving, as long as he stays in his own lane.

May 23, 2007

The police can't stop a driver for weaving, as long as he stays in his own lane.

Here in Wisconsin.

7 comments:

Methadras said...: "Court records said that the five-time drunken driver had a blood-alcohol level nearly three times the legal limit when he was stopped."

How is this even possible in the state of Wisconsin? Five times? This is why a lot of people are having a very bad reaction to the law in general when a state supreme court can throw out a conviction of a person like this on a technicality and that's what it is, a technicality of the law. It isn't about justice or law enforcement, it's about bureaucratic CYA. The guy should have been in jail for his second DUI offense, but 5 times? I'm just shaking my head over here.; 5/23/07, 5:28 PM
Gordon Freece said...: Weaving? What about knitting?; 5/23/07, 6:31 PM
Tibore said...: Sorry to pick a nit, methadras, but:

"... the court upheld Post's conviction, noting that not only was he weaving widely, he was partially in the parking lane."

It was the state appeals court that threw out the conviction, not the Supreme Court. But yes, I do agree that this does seem silly. Weaving might have a completely innocent explanation, but you'd think that they'd want to leave latitude for the police officer to determine whether weaving is just dumb driving, or cause to investigate a potentially dangerous situation (as this one was). Apparently not.

Then again, we're all missing detail, so I'm reluctant to criticise strongly until I know more.; 5/23/07, 6:44 PM
Methadras said...: Tibore said...

Sorry to pick a nit, methadras, but:

"... the court upheld Post's conviction, noting that not only was he weaving widely, he was partially in the parking lane."

t was the state appeals court that threw out the conviction, not the Supreme Court.

Ah, thanks for the correction and not a big picknit at all :D.

Either way, I read five time DUI'er and I more mentally stopped at that point simply because the fact that this guy should be rotting in a cell somewhere for his flagarant dismissal of the law. Weaving in your own lane might be innocent enough if you are only doing it for a short distance and then simply correct yourself for whatever reason, but simply saying that weaving in the your own lane regardless of distance as not warranting a police action and then having the appeals court toss out the conviction on that technicality is nonsense, plain and simple.

It's just further evidence for me that common sense has either lost it's place with regards to the law and how it's applied, especially in the higher court system. Or that the law, in and of itself is so woefully disregarded as a means to define behavior and what constitutes lawful and unlawful actions is seen fit to be nitpicked to death to strain for meaning that it losses it's meaning(s) in the face of a case like this.; 5/23/07, 7:42 PM
jeff said...: My lane is my lane. As long as I stay within it, I havent broken any laws. Someone that runs 5 times over legal is going to do something else that will bring the cops.; 5/23/07, 8:14 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree with jeff. If you're going to give tickets for not driving a straight line, we'd all be walking. They don't require it in the test.

That said, the system is more interested in lawyers with clients that can pay large amounts of money to have points taken off than in fair enforcement of penalties.

I rounded a corner California style and wound up in class (whatever KC called it at the time). In walks a guy with an obviously multiple hundred dollar sweater and hands the instructor a note. His lawyer got his points reduced to zero with a fine and he didn't have to take the class, of course.

One of those who had to stay asked why this was allowed and the instructor had the stones to actually tell us it was the guy's seventeenth ticket and that the system hits everyone where it matters most, in his case money.

The entire class groaned and laughed at the guy. It was such an obvious pile of crap.; 5/24/07, 6:46 AM
zdwyatt said...: To further nitpick: the supreme court actually reversed the court of appeals finding that the stop violated Post's rights. So while they refused to adopt the weaving-alone-is-enough rule, they didn't "throw out the conviction" either.; 5/24/07, 8:51 AM