Hawaii told to be careful with DUI Hall of Shame
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
http://www.starbulletin.com/editorials/20091123
_tread_carefully_with_web_site_of_dui_shame.html
Tread carefully with Web site of DUI shame
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Nov 23, 2009
The Honolulu Police Department is risking a legal challenge by posting on
the Internet the names and photos of drivers cited but yet to be tried on
drunken driving charges. A partly similar posting by a New York county
last year was found to be unconstitutional, but the brevity of the
scheduled HPD site should put it on stronger legal ground.
HPD plans on Wednesday to launch the site consisting of the names and
photos of people arrested and charged with drunken driving. The photos
will include arrests Nov.15-21 and will remain online for 24 hours. For
the next six months of what amounts to a pilot program, the 24-hour
posting will include those arrested in the preceding Sunday through
Saturday.
The police department's Scarlet Letter site, titled "Oahu's Drunk
Drivers," is aimed at discouraging people from taking the risk of being
humiliated even before going to court. The initiative for public safety
is commendable, particularly with the holidays coming. It is a bold --
some will say brazen -- move to discourage drunken driving.
(snip)
------------------------
I don't see why this is illegal when it's routine for the press to give
names and pics of other people who are charged w crimes but not yet
convicted.
M
Maybe because the site is called "Oahu's Drunk Drivers," not
"suspected" or alleged.
Pneuma
<xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I don't see why this is illegal when it's routine for the press to give
>names and pics of other people who are charged w crimes but not yet
>convicted.
If a person is arrested for DUI and later found not guilty then they can
sue the police department. If a newspaper runs a story and they at least
attempt to get the other side of the story then they have an absence of
malice. When you read a newspaper story often the reporter discusses a
attempt or any comments by the accused or their lawyer about the arrest
and/or charges.
--
Pneuma
I'm trouble Yeah trouble now I'm trouble ya'll
I disturb my town I'm trouble Yeah trouble now
I'm trouble ya'll I got trouble in my town ~P!nk
richard
Because as a news item, it only airs generally once and is not accessible
by the public.
Such as "US Senator John Smith was arrested and charged with DUI on
Monday".
Said item can also be archived in newspapers as fair use commentary.
But this practice has been done many times in the past with no fan fare
because it is a matter of public record. Once you're booked and your
mugshot is taken, it's their in the files forever. Making it public record.
Personally, I find the postings a bit of an invasion of privacy thing.
Let's say I get charged with DUI on a Friday night. My boss finds the
posting on the website Monday morning and tells me I'm fired. So why should
that information be made public on the internet? If you want to find out
who made the list, go to the county clerks office and look it up yourself.
That is still making it public.
At least the HPD is removing the information.
richard
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:50:58 -0600, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't see why this is illegal when it's routine for the press to give
>>names and pics of other people who are charged w crimes but not yet
>>convicted.
>
>
> If a person is arrested for DUI and later found not guilty then they can
> sue the police department. If a newspaper runs a story and they at least
> attempt to get the other side of the story then they have an absence of
> malice. When you read a newspaper story often the reporter discusses a
> attempt or any comments by the accused or their lawyer about the arrest
> and/or charges.
Actually, I believe the person can not sue the department.
Unless that person can prove the officer was not doing his job properly.
Which is why they have you take a field sobriety test, then test you again
at the station and perhaps even a third time.
Chocolic
"richard" <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:1srukfmev57hd$.pr9vghbxd5xt$.dlg@40tude.net...
In my state you have to agree to a blood test after failing the field
sobriety test.
Chocolic
M
> "richard" <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1srukfmev57hd$.pr9vghbxd5xt$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:28:56 -0800, Pneuma wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:50:58 -0600, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
> >> MURDERERS"
>
> >>>I don't see why this is illegal when it's routine for the press to give
> >>>names and pics of other people who are charged w crimes but not yet
> >>>convicted.
>
> >> If a person is arrested for DUI and later found not guilty then they can
> >> sue the police department. If a newspaper runs a story and they at least
> >> attempt to get the other side of the story then they have an absence of
> >> malice. When you read a newspaper story often the reporter discusses a
> >> attempt or any comments by the accused or their lawyer about the arrest
> >> and/or charges.
>
> > Actually, I believe the person can not sue the department.
> > Unless that person can prove the officer was not doing his job properly.
> > Which is why they have you take a field sobriety test, then test you again
> > at the station and perhaps even a third time.
>
> In my state you have to agree to a blood test after failing the field
> sobriety test.
There are plenty of reasons a person might be found "not guilty"
regardless of what the evidence is. At the extreme, S.A.D.D.A.M/'s
favored psycho-rant might come into play and they could be leyt loose
by jury nullification.
Mick
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:5ab65a3d-42f6-43b0...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
Hey stupid. Nobody beats DUI. An arrest is a conviction.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:in5no9o7gqp.o5bucc91kpjv$.d...@40tude.net:
>
> Personally, I find the postings a bit of an invasion of privacy thing.
> Let's say I get charged with DUI on a Friday night. My boss finds the
> posting on the website Monday morning and tells me I'm fired. So why
> should that information be made public on the internet? If you want to
> find out who made the list, go to the county clerks office and look it
> up yourself. That is still making it public.
>
Why should it matter where your arrest is published? Internet or newspaper
- what's the difference.?
John David Galt
> "suspected" or alleged.
Bingo! But even if they use those words, it's wrong for a police agency
to be shaming people it has the duty to presume are innocent.
Let's publicize the names and pictures of drunk drivers -- AFTER they are
convicted.