Interesting piece here on the City of Portland parking patrol’s ticket writing campaign for vehicles lacking front license plates.  Apparently, our parking cops have written 3,000 high-dollar tickets on parked cars without front plates.

Assuming the report is accurate–and sometimes they aren’t–here’s the problem. While I could be mistaken, I believe that the basis of these tickets is found in the Oregon Vehicle Code violation at ORS 803.540. The problem is that the statute is makes it a traffic infraction when a person “operates” a vehicle without proper license plates. A vehicle sitting parked isn’t being operated by anyone. (ORS 801.370) So how the parking patrol can legally ticket 3,000 people in our fair is a question that occurs to me.

It’s been years since I found myself appearing in traffic court. (Talk about adventure!) So it’s possible that my take on this is off the mark. Still, I would be really curious as to whether the City is citing vehicles based only on ORS 803.540, and–if so–how they get around the “operates” requirement. They wouldn’t have illegally ticketed thousands of parked vehicles….

David Sugerman

Must be the summer heat, but today’s news annoys me to no end. Congress gave in to the Bush White House by providing it the coveted immunity to phone companies that participated in illegal wiretapping. Gutless surrender monkeys.

I’m particularly annoyed by Senator Obama’s vote with the majority. As a former constitutional law professor, he knows better. Guess he couldn’t stand up to the FOX news critique if he stood for civil liberties and protection of privacy.

I don’t know about you, but I get pretty nervous when we make it easier for the government to spy on its own citizens. Seems like it’s a quick few steps from there to really bad news. If you have doubts about the importance of civil liberties, consider the case of Brandon Mayfield, a gentle soul who was caught in the horror-net of the Patriot Act when investigators mistakenly interpreted fingerprints left at the site of the Madrid train bombing.

I know, I know. Al Queda presents a very real threat. I’m not being snarky. Daniel Perl’s horrible death and 9/11 and Madrid trains were very real terror events. But the specter of terrorist attack can’t give the government license to spy us, to torture our prisoners, and to lie about weapons of mass destruction.

Immunity means that no jury will ever consider what these people have done. No one will ever have to explain. Immunity leaves the actors free to do whatever they choose. And that is a very scary thought.

David Sugerman

By the narrowest of margins, the U.S. Supreme Court reportedly recognized that the right of habeas corpus applies to detainees at Guantanmo Bay. The opinion is not yet up on the Supreme Court’s website, so I haven’t been able to look at it first hand.

Maybe this seems distant and esoteric. While many of us question the conditions and circumstances of detentions of so-called enemy combatants, it seems like this may have little to do with our day-to-day lives. I beg to differ. When the Bush administration and Congress suspended the rights of habeas corpus, they chose expedience over a long-run vision of how our country should function.

The right of habeas corpus simply means that someone jailed has a right to have an independent  judge determine whether he or she was illegally imprisoned. This is especially important in situations–like Gitmo–where some of the prisoners reportedly have been jailed for six years without a trial.  For those of us who believe in the rule of law and the constitution, this is intolerable. Because when constitutional rights are suspended, there is no line that limits that suspension. Today it’s “enemy combatants” a new category that didn’t exist before the “war on terror.”

And for those who are critical of this ruling, I can only ask a simple question: Where does the “enemy combatants” line end? Does it include those of us who are critics of the current administration? The whole “war on terror” and “enemy combatants” things are right up there on my personal bill of particulars–along with “We don’t torture” (wrong!) and “Mission accomplished” (oops!)–as to why the current occupant of the White House really pisses me off.  But enough about me.

In the film, Life is Beautiful, Roberto Benigni plays an Italian Jewish guy who goes from carefree clown to Holocaust statistic. The story is told from the point of view of his young son who survives the camp, because of his father’s wily antics. The movie is so damned poignant and beautiful.

Toward the end, the camp is liberated by the allies–Americans, as I recall–and the survivors slowly begin walking up a sunny road into freedom. The end is filled with hope and tears and laughter. While there is no comparing our current situation to that of post-World War II Europe, I sometimes think about the last scene of that movie and hope that we walk out of these dark times in a similar moment soon.

I have been extremely critical of the Supreme Court in the past. I imagine that won’t end, as they often do the wrong thing. The reported vote here–the narrowest 5-4–doesn’t give much comfort. Still, it’s a good day and a good thing because our constitution means something, even in the hard times.

I’m looking forward to reading this opinion, as it sounds like those who would suspend constitutional rights got slapped down. And that is good news.

David Sugerman

The news report appeared during the week. My friend and colleague, Ed Johnson, did a helluva job representing a homeless woman in her excessive force claims against members of the Gresham police force.  Here’s what seems to be a less-than-accurate account of what happened.

I rarely go out of my way to call into question news reports of trials, but the story left me with the impression that the police were the victims.  We know from the result that the story is wrong, as there are two independent checks the injured person must clear to win against the police.

In federal court, juries deciding civil lawsuits must be unanimous. The jury unanimously found in favor of Mary MacQuire, the woman tasered and beaten, and even found that her harms and losses required more money than she had requested.

But there is another check as well.  The federal judge who tried the case, Judge Michael Mosman, is not inexperienced in police cases. Before his appointment to the bench, Judge Mosman served as the U.S. Attorney, the person in charge of federal criminal prosecutions in Oregon.  So he came to the bench with a lot of experience with the police. As the judge presiding over the case, Judge Mosman only submits a case to the jury if there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. He listened to the evidence and submitted the case to the jury.

I had a chance to talk to Ed Johnson both before and after the trial. He’s a great guy who works for the Oregon Law Center, representing people of modest means. The case he described to me wasn’t the same one I read about in the paper. But regardless of the reporting problem, police cases are hard. Juries typically give police a lot of leeway because they recognize the difficulties of their jobs. In my experience, most Oregon juries believe the police. Of course, Oregonians tend to be pretty level headed, such that when they hear credible evidence of a problem they do what is right to assess fault and address harms and losses.

When I spoke to him before the trial, Ed was clear-eyed about the difficulties a homeless woman faces in claiming that the police used excessive force. He was quietly committed to his case. After the trial, he was spent, as most of us are after a hard-fought case. He was also pleased with the result.

Ed Johnson and Ms. MacQuire deserve our gratitude and praise. By taking the case to trial, Ed Johnson and Ms. MacQuire demonstrated that justice can be found in Oregon. The jury and judge deserve our praises as well, because a verdict in a case like this sends a message to those who fail to heed the rules that no one is above the law. Not even the police.

David Sugerman