Bill makes fleeing a felony, penalty stiffens in chases (Florida)

[Judi Lynn]

Bill makes fleeing a felony, penalty stiffens in chases

By DEBORAH CIRCELLI
Staff Writer

Last update: 30 March 2004


Ten years have passed since a man fleeing police hit Gayle Bouie's car and killed her young daughter.

Alicyn Bouie would have been 22 this year. She might have been finishing college. Maybe she'd be married. The thought of what might have been still haunts Gayle and her husband, Al, a former principal at DeLand High School.
(snip)

Nothing will bring Alicyn back, but the DeLand family is encouraged by a bill going through the state Legislature that would stiffen penalties for those trying to flee or elude police.

The House on Monday unanimously passed the bill (HB 295), which would make fleeing and eluding a felony charge instead of a misdemeanor and carry a mandatory minimum prison sentence of three years if another person dies or is injured. It would also allow police to confiscate drivers' vehicles and suspend their licenses for one to five years -- up from the current one year.
(snip/...)

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/03AreaLEGJUST02033004.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Great moments in Republican lawmaking. This new law would make people who are already fleeing from the police only that much more determined to not be caught: more desperate.

[Racenut20]

1. The only reason this is passing

Is it allows confiscating the car and selling it. If they were concerned about the victims, they would have passed it years ago. Welcome to Jebbie & Johnny's Florida.

[DulceDecorum]

12. So I went to Salem, Massachusetts once

to see the witches.
And I found out that those who confessed to practicing witchcraft were not harmed but those who denied it were tortured until they confessed.

It turns out that the person who did the accusing got to take and keep the property of the person they accused, once that person admitted to being a witch.

Kinda like what just happened in Iraq....
and that zero tolerance drug policy....

[Kenneth ken]

2. I doubt it

" Great moments in Republican lawmaking. This new law would make people who are already fleeing from the police only that much more determined to not be caught: more desperate. "

I don't think criminals actually pay much attention to what the laws are, and what the penalties for breaking them are. Probably any criminals who bothered to read this story would be surprised the laws hadn't already said that fleeing was a felony.

Apart from that, I lean toward support of the new law, though, given law enforcement, I automatically worry that it will be an easily abused law.

What exactly would be the definition of "fleeing." I once got a speeding ticket after the officers pursued me for about twenty blocks through heavy day-time traffic. I wasn't fleeing, just wasn't checking my mirrors and didn't hear a siren. When I became aware of them, I did pull over.

[gristy]

3. I also can support this law

As far as your experience, it doesn't seem to me that you were "fleeing" by any reasonable definition of the word.

[Malikshah]

4. What about protestors?

Hmmm.. Protestors marching the streets....billy clubs appear...hmmm

Sorry-- the law sucks and is easily abused.

I truly live in a Banana republic. We need the international overseers come November

[Kenneth ken]

8. well

I did say, "...though, given law enforcement, I automatically worry that it will be an easily abused law."

I do agree with the apparanet intent of the law - to more harshly punish those (criminals) who flee with no regard for the harm they might cause innocents who happen to get in their way.

I don't think international overseers in November wil help. Our problems are much deeper than any election will fix; both major parties are corporate-owned. The bounds of any allowable change are much narrower than most acknowledge.

[tom_paine]

5. Unfirtrunately, "reasonable" has no meaning in Imperial Amerika

Law is what the Fuhrer* says. His men are not bound by it.

[LiberalFighter]

7. But who will determine the definition?

A crooked cop?
A crooked prosecutor?
A crooked judge?

How will one be able to defend their action?
By paying off an attorney to pay off the prosecutor or judge? If you have the money to do so or the connections.

[okieinpain]

17. well I don't think you can win on this one. if you don't kick butt on

this issue they will run because no one is going to chase them. if you pass a law like this they are going to run to avoid the extra penalty.

me personally I agree with the law.

[sweetheart]

6. Fleeing the police is justice

and the bill is criminal. We are in an age where the entire world
is upside down. The police and "justice" are criminal and all who
seek to escape them are doing natural justice.

Good thing the constitution is no longer in power, or this bill would
be struck down as in violation of the 8th. Fleeing injustice is only
natural and certainly no crime... "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

this goes to prove that there is no longer any REAL law in the US.

Violate it and fear the locals, but fear not God. She is on the side
of one who wishes to be free of the bush/bush dictatorship.

In heaven you will be able to shit on bush and watch him eat it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Good rant, totally untrue

The police are still out there trying to protect us in nearly all cases. Those who commit crimes and then drive 90 mph fleeing police often get off with minor sentences. This makes sure they are jailed as felons for doing precisely what they were already doing.

[sweetheart]

23. Hardly, the police are causng unneccessary public risk

by chasing. It is like in the film "first blood" when the wise
advise to the national guard is not to chase rambo, but to let him
go and pick him up in a coupla weeks without a fight when he's
working at a car wash.

The banal idea that police chases are important is based on
television views of justice. We needn't put the public at risk by
chasing. There are more subtle and effective means.

Without the 90mph police pursuit, there is no chase, and you get
him at the next gas station or exit.

come on, muddle, winning the battle to lose the war is no victory
in justice.

[alarimer]

22. Why chase?

I have often wondered why police do these high-speed chases when they know the potential for injury or death to others? In many cases, it is the cop car that hits someone, not necessarily the criminal. Why not follow them with helicopters or something?

[BiggJawn]

9. Another damn "Fur den Kinder" Law!

They gonna call it "Alicyn's Law"?

"Alicyn Bouie would have been 22 this year. She might have been finishing college. Maybe she'd be married...."

Yeah, and maybe she'd be a cracked-out Courtney Love act-alike with 3 kids, too. You can't ever tell.

These damn "For the CHILDREN" laws....

Just as bad as Illinois, where you can learn many (legal) trades in Prison, but you'd best brush-up on the illegal ones, because successions of Illini hopefuls for public office have played "Top THIS!" so much in their campaigns to seem "TOUGH on Crime" that if you learn to cut hair in prison, the law says you can't have a barber's license. You're an ex-offender, and Illinois don't give no license to no steenkin' ex cons..

I think a larger problem is Storm Troopers who get the blood-lust and can't pull off a pursuit until somebody dies. they're banking that it'll be the Perp who buys it, but it doesn't always end that way. And if the Perp doesn't die, somebody gets his ankle broken from 10-20 cops all trying to kick the guy's ass at the same time.

[fire1234]

10. Abused Law

This law is abused. My brother got arrested and charged with a felony. For choosing to stop at a lighted gas station at night. He went 6 tenths of a mile.

[AP]

13. A suggestion for people to whom this might happen: call 911 and tell

them that there is a police officer behind you but you do not want to stop until you are somewhere well-lighted because you're not sure it's a police officer (if that's the case) and you want to stop someplace safe.

The 911 dispatcher can call the cop and confirm, and if they tell you to pull over immdediately, then you do, but at least you'll have the tape recording as evidence of not having the intention of fleeing.

You can't be convicted of crimes you don't intend, and that call to 911 would prove that your intention wasn't to flee.

[Judi Lynn]

20. Excellent idea. Completely sensible, and I've never heard it. Thanks. n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Of course you can

Ever heard of involuntary manslaughter? How about killing someone in an accident on the road? You can still be charged, so your comment about intention isn't a blanket shield.

[newyawker99]

16. Hi fire1234!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DulceDecorum]

11. The Fugitive Slave Bill

just rose up out of its grave.

There have been many instances of people dressed as cops pulling women over and doing terrible things to them. It got so that it was considered OK if the lady drove into town and gave herself up in a crowded parking lot or the nearest police station.
Now that is gone?

And what about black people?
They have an unfortunate habit of turning up dead in routine traffic stops. It is referred to as DWB (Driving While Black.) That is one of the reasons James Brown gave for leading the cops through a few towns at high speed sometime in 1988. He maintains that he would not still be alive had he not done so. Fear makes for leaden feet.

The Republicans are creating two classes in America. The gunslingers, and everyone else. The oppressors and the oppressed.
For this they shall pay dearly.
Wait until they run out of cash to pay their mercenaries, then they will only be able to wish it was liberals who came to picnic on their lawn.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/03/29/rally.rove/

[depakid]

14. Yet another stupid Republican law- ripe for abuse

One of the 999+ reasons I would never again live in Florida.

First of all, aside from the usual trotting out of the victim (which I think is exploitative at best)- on what basis do these legislators believe that creating a new felony with have any effect whatsoever on injuries caused by police pursuits? Have they any evidence at all that this change would be even in the slighest bit effective? I seriously doubt it. If anything, I would guess that this new felony may make matters worse in terms of public safety- while ruining many lives in the process.

What works in cities where it's been implemented is a policy of not getting into aggressive chases in the first place over relatively minor matter. of course, there's always resentment among law enforcement for those types of policies- and I imagine Florida would hadly be an exception. These days, with radios, coptors everywhere and- guess what- license plates, I would be that most people would end up busted anyway- without the wild chase scenes.

Of course, those type of proposals make way too much sense and don't allow grandstanding by public officials and confiscation of property.

[bain_sidhe]

15. Seems sorta reasonable... but put it together with

the court case about whether you can be arrested for refusing to identify yourself...

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/student/20031112_sucher.html

Must Americans Carry Identification, or Else Risk Arrest?

This Term, in the case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court will decide a case that asks the following question: Does the Constitution permit a police officer to arrest someone simply because, when stopped under reasonable suspicion, that person fails to produce identification?

The federal judicial Circuits have split on this issue. The Tenth Circuit has upheld a similar statute in Oliver v. Woods, while the Ninth Circuit has struck another down in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board. The Nevada Supreme Court -- which issued the decision the Supreme Court is reviewing -- has already held that this type of arrest does not violate the Constitution.

It's all about giving the police state the fascist tools they need, to use at their "discretion."

[iamjoy]

18. Maybe There's A Better Way...

It bugs me that in some of these cases where police chases have led to bystander fatalities, people sue the police for chasing some one for a "minor" infraction. If this is the case I am thinking of, the chase lasted something like 10 miles. At that distance, the person had to know he was being pursued. Should the police have broken off chase? The person's fleeing gave the police reasonable cause to suspect a more serious infraction.

Yes, this is open to interpretation and abuse, but it seems logical enough to say if the person accelerates shortly after the sirens go on or engages in other reckless driving behavior - changing lanes rapidly w/no signal, turns from improper lanes, etc - they are fleeing rather than unaware of the police officer behind them.

The law should be, if police are behind you and you do not pull over and the chase leads to a fatal accident - whether you are the one who struck the car/person or not - you may be charged with second degree homicide.

There's still an element of interpretation, like if a cop got behind me with lights on, I'd be so nervous and I'm a bad driver anyway that I could change lanes improperly while trying to pull over.

So, maybe not....
:shrug: