austindefender

January 30, 2009

Field Sobriety Tests – Walk and Turn

Filed under: law — Lance Stott @ 1:45 pm

When I was a younger (actually not that long ago, but getting longer every year) I was selected to take part in a DWI training class.  It was the same one police officers take, although this one happened to be attended mostly by other lawyers.

My role, difficult as it was, was to be a test subject, get drunk, and then take the tests again.  It was a tough job, but somebody had to do it.

I’m a little bit clumsy by nature.  I didn’t listen to the instructions all that well, and performing the tests in front a group of people gave me a case of nervers.  Long story short: I bombed.

I took the wrong number of steps, started before I was instructed to, did the turn improperly, and I think I stepped off the line, as well.  There are 8 clues on the walk and turn, and I think I got them all.

The second time around, I did much better. I began when I was supposed to.  I took the right number of steps.  I touched heel to toe, and I even did the turn more or less the way you’re supposed to.  (By the way, nobody ever does the turn right.)

What happened?  Well, after my trip to the bar, I wasn’t the least bit nervous anymore.  More importantly, this was my second time around.  I’d had a bit of practice, and this time I knew what they were looking for.

What’s the moral of all of this?

Well, it’s certainly true that drinking affects your balance.  But the walk and turn tests a lot of things that have nothing to do with alcohol.  For one, it tests your memory, and how well you listen to, and follow instructions.  It also tests how nervous you are, and possibly, how tired.

The bottom line, though, is that the walk and turn is a test that’s designed to make you fail.  That’s part of the reason the officer performs the test (or part of it) on camera, before he tells you to start.  He’s done it hundreds of times before, and he knows the instructions by heart.  He doesn’t have to stand in an unnatural, awkward position, while listening to a complicated set of instructions that have to be performed just right.  And perhaps most importantly, he’s not wondering whether he’s about to be arrested.

There is, unfortunately, even more to it than that.

Shoes count.  You want to be wearing something with a wide, heavy sole, and preferably something that laces up the ankle, well.  Something, in fact, that’s a lot like the boots a lot of police officers wear.

Heels are deadly.  You could never ever do the test in those.  But second worst is barefoot, which is often the only other choice women have.  Aside from the fact you’re doing it on the side of a highway, or in a parking lot, that’s littered with bottle caps, tiny sharp-edged rocks, and who knows what else, it’s simple much easier to keep your balance in a pair of shoes, than barefoot.  (Try it sometime, and see.)

Comparing someone trying to perform the tests barefoot, to someone wearing a pair of boots, is comparing apples to oranges.

One other thing you’ll notice, if you watch a lot of DWI videos, is that the officer will usually demonstrate the test perpendicular to the camera, while instructing the suspect to walk toward, and away from it.

Not to be cynical, but there are a couple of reasons, I believe, that officers do it that way.  One is that the side of the highway, or the shoulder, is on a grade.  If you’re trying to balance on a grade, you want to be facing uphill – not parallel to the slope, as the officer will direct you to do.  The other is that facing the camera will tend to highlight any side-to-side motion, while standing perpendicular will tend to hide it.

The bottom line is if you’re out of shape, clumsy, or wearing high-heeled shoes, you might want to consider refusing the tests, which, like I said, are designed to make you fail.

January 28, 2009

Yuan vs. Dollar

Filed under: economics — Lance Stott @ 1:43 pm

The other day Timothy Geithner, Obama’s new Treasury secretary, accused China of manipulating its currency, and caused a minor kerfuffle.

Here’s the thing, though.  There’s no debate that China manipulates its currency.  Of course it does.  The question is whether it’s good or bad for us.

China, like the US, has the ability to make unlimited amounts of its own currency.

Suppose it decides to use some of that currency to purchase somthing of ours – American currency, for example, or US Treasury bonds.  What is the effect of that?

It increases the demand for US dollars while simultaneously increasing the supply of Chinese yuan.  That makes the dollar rise, and the Yuan fall.  That’s good for Chinese exporters.

Not only does it make Chinese products cheaper, China effectively manufactures demand for its products by selling yuan into the market.  Because the yuan is ultimately good for only one thing – buying Chinese goods and services – every yuan must eventually find its way back home.  When it does, it creates jobs for Chinese workers.

Sounds good, right?  China gets to accumulate dollars, while creating employment for its people.

Here’s the problem, though.  The US just like China, can create unlimited amounts of its own currency.  And the US dollar, like the yuan, is ultimately good for only one thing – purchasing goods and services from its country of origin.

Imagine, for a moment, that that wasn’t so – that dollars don’t have to make their way home.  What happens to them then?  Do they sit in China forever?

And if so, wouldn’t that be a pretty good deal for us?  I mean, dollars cost us nothing to create (paper currency costs a bit, but the kind that sits in bank accounts is free – it’s just zeros and ones on a hard drive somewhere.) And we can create an infinite supply of them.

As long as we knew the Chinese would always be content to accept dollars for actual real goods and services, we could all retire, and live off of them instead.

Of course, that’s not going to happen.  At some point the Chinese will realize they’ve accumulated enough dollars, and that they need to start buying stuff with them.

When that happens, the dollar will fall, the yuan will rise, and the Chinese will become buyers of American products – putting American workers back to work again.

In other words, we’ll be working for them, instead of them working for us.

The weird thing about it, though, is that that because they’re manipulating their currency, the price they’re paying for US dollars is more that what it should be, or more than what it otherwise would have been.  (That’s the point of doing it.)  In other words, they’re paying too much for what they’re getting.

Not only that, but when they go to sell, they’ll get less than what they should get, simply because they’ve accumulated so many of them.  (Think in terms of a ‘dollar glut’.)

So despite all the rhetoric, it’s not at all clear that their manipulation of their currency hurts us.  In fact, they’re arguably getting the raw end of the deal.

Stimulate This

Filed under: Uncategorized — Lance Stott @ 12:45 pm

“Skeptics,” writes James Surowiecki, of Obama’s stimulus plan, “worry that most people will save the rebate rather than spend it.”  Everybody seems to think if we put the money in the bank, it will be wasted. Strangely, they also all think we don’t save enough.

But what happens to money when it’s saved?  You might think it sits in a vault and gets moldy.  But that’s not how it works.

Money saved is money lent.  Banks don’t sit on your deposit, they lend it out to somebody else.  That’s the magic of banking – they take the same dollar, and make it appear in more than one place at a time.

And money lent is money spent.  (Why else would you borrow?)

It looks a little like this:

Yes, this post was an excuse to play with MS Paint.

So if your stimulus money is going to make its way into the economy, regardless of whether you spent or put it in the bank, why are people worried?

January 27, 2009

Masters of the Universe

Filed under: economics — Lance Stott @ 11:59 pm

Maureen Dowd:

In an interview with Maria Bartiromo on CNBC, Thain used the specious, contemptible reasoning that other executives use to rationalize why they’re keeping their bonuses as profits are plunging.

“If you don’t pay your best people, you will destroy your franchise” and they’ll go elsewhere, he said.

Hello? They destroyed the franchise. Let’s call their bluff. Let’s see what a great job market it is for the geniuses of capitalism who lost $15 billion in three months.

John Thain, if you remember, was the guy at the helm of Merrill Lynch, who spent a million dollars redecorating his office while his company was going broke.

Ever wonder how you spend $1.2 million on an office?

Apparently it involves spending $35,000 for a commode.

Something for Nothing

Filed under: Uncategorized — Lance Stott @ 11:19 pm

The financial crisis, according to Newsweek, was caused by ordinary Americans, not just tycoons.

“None of this would have happened,” writes Justin Fox, “If millions of us hadn’t come to believe we could get something for nothing by taking on debts we couldn’t repay.”

“Thanks to the Panic of 2008,” he continues, “we can count on nobody making this mistake again, at least not for a while.”

A piece in today’s WSJ, though, shows why Justin Fox is wrong.

“Jae and Frank Shin bought a three-bedroom home in 2006 for about $280,000, and played it safe by making a 20% down payment… But [their mortgage broker] recently provided an estimate of the home’s current value: $180,000 to $190,000.”

So now they’ve lost their life savings, and they can’t sell their home, or buy another one.

So what was their mistake?

Did they borrow too much?  Did they take on debts they couldn’t repay?

No.  Their mistake was putting up their own funds.  And failing to take advantage of easy money in a speculative market, like so many other people did.

If they’d gotten a zero-down loan, they’d be $56,000 richer today.

More importantly, if they’d put up nothing, they’d have the advantage of getting to keep 100% of any gains, while shifting losses onto the bank.  (Sort of like what banks are doing to US taxpayers today.)

In gambling, this situation is called a free roll.  Economists call it an option.

Either way, it’s an opportunity millions of Americans took advantage of.  (If somebody offers you a free roll, by the way, you should generally bet as much as you can.)

The problem, in other words, was not that people THOUGHT they were getting something for nothing, it was that they WERE.

You can feel sorry for the banks if you want, but it’s a little like feeling sorry for a casino, because it can’t calculate the odds correctly.  It’s their JOB.  If they can’t do it, what the heck are we paying them for?

January 21, 2009

Field Sobriety Tests – HGN

Filed under: Uncategorized — Lance Stott @ 2:31 pm

If you get pulled over by the police, the last words you want to hear are, “Please step out of the car.”  (With or without the “please”.)

In Austin, the police use a standardized form, which later becomes the basis for the PC affidavit, (or “Affidavit for Warrant of Arrest and Detention”) when they’re investigating somebody for DWI.

The form contains a series of boxes the officer can check off, for things like “smell of alcohol,” and “slurred speech,” but more importantly, it sets out the results of the most-used field sobriety tests, which are:

  • HGN (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus)
  • Walk and Turn
  • One Leg Stand
  • Romberg Balance

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus is the one where they wave a pencil, or some other object, in front of your eyes.  The purpose is to see whether you can track the object smoothly.  If not, that’s taken as a sign, or “clue” that you’re DWI.

Strobe lights can make a moving object appear to have stopped

HGN is rarely videotaped (though there’s no reason it can’t be done).  So you’ve got to rely on the arresting officer to tell you whether somebody’s eyes were twitchy or not.  It can be caused by a wide range of factors, including head trauma and influenza (flu) and eye strain.  It’s not supposed to be done in front of passing cars, or strobing lights (like the kind on police cars).  But it’s done that way all the time.  And even its proponents will tell you it can detect whether you’ve been drinking, but it can’t say how much.  How much, it turns out, is actually the part that matters.

Hamas Is Now Our Army

Filed under: Uncategorized — Lance Stott @ 11:51 am

“Hamas is now our army, the only ones fighting to defend the Palestinian people,” said Gaza resident Ahmed al-Sultan, standing outside the rubble of the north Gaza City home his family has lived in for 40 years. “I saw how they fight, their courage and their sacrifice, and so I’ve changed my opinion about them.”  WSJ

January 15, 2009

More bitching about Wordpress

Filed under: Uncategorized — Lance Stott @ 12:04 pm

Like a lot of lawyers, I keep a cheat sheet of frequently called numbers next to my desk, so that when I need to call (for example) probation, or County Court #4, I don’t have to go scrounging around for the number.

My cheat sheet, at this point, is several years old, tattered, and marked and re-marked as numbers have changed, people have come and gone, and new courts have been added.  So I need to make a new one.  And since I need to make a new one (I thought), why not post it on my blog, since I can’t be the only one who needs this information.

Wow.  What a mistake.

I can be like the squirrel who gets caught because he won’t let go of the nut, but he can’t get it off the tree.

After spending way too much time on it, it still looks like crap.

It’s amazing how Wordpress takes a seemingly simple task, and makes it insanely difficult.  (And I don’t mean to pick on Wordpress.  The others are at least as bad, so far as I know, and it is, after all, free.)

I put it down to a culture gap, between people who are really into computers (computer geeks), and all the rest of us.  I don’t think they’ve ever met a feature, macro, plug-in, or whatever, that they didn’t like.  And if they can figure a way to spend an hour and a half programming something that’ll save them ten minutes, they’re as happy as a squirrel with four nuts.

Of course, without them, I guess we wouldn’t have any of this stuff.

Still, I’m glad I don’t have to understand how transmissions work, in order to get to work in the morning.

What is a §12.45?

Filed under: law — Lance Stott @ 9:40 am

What is a §12.45?

Explaining exactly what a 12.45 is has been one of the more difficult things I’ve tried to do as a lawyer. I can quote the statute, and I can tell you what it’s not. It’s not a conviction, or an acquittal, or a dismissal.

What it is, really, is a compromise. It’s a way for the state to get rid of a case without having to dismiss it, and for the defendant to get rid of it without having to do anything extra. In other words, no additional fines, court costs, probation, or jail time.

Here’s the statute, from the Texas Penal Code:

Sec. 12.45. ADMISSION OF UNADJUDICATED OFFENSE. (a) A person may, with the consent of the attorney for the state, admit during the sentencing hearing his guilt of one or more unadjudicated offenses and request the court to take each into account in determining sentence for the offense or offenses of which he stands adjudged guilty.

(b) Before a court may take into account an admitted offense over which exclusive venue lies in another county or district, the court must obtain permission from the prosecuting attorney with jurisdiction over the offense.

(c) If a court lawfully takes into account an admitted offense, prosecution is barred for that offense.

If anyone can tell me a better way of explaining what it is, let me know.

January 12, 2009

Travis County Courts Telephone Numbers & etc.

Filed under: law — Lance Stott @ 3:17 pm

Judge Denton
Judge Denton

Judge Crain

Travis County Correctional Complex 854-4180
(Del Valle Jail)
3614 Bill Price Rd. 78617

Travis County Jail 854-9033

(Downtown)

500 W. 10th St. 78701

Pretrial Services (Personal Bonds) 854-9381

Court Administration 854-9244

Judge Breland

Judge Breland

Judge Hohengarten

Judge Hohengarten

Travis County Clerk 854-9440

Travis County Attorney 845-9415

Checks Division 854-9574

County Court #3: Judge David Crain 854-9243

Court Coordinator: July Alvarez

Office Specialist: Delia Garcia 854-3616

Court #4: Judge Mike Denton 854-9896

Court Coordinator: Vicky Padilla

Judge Barrera

Judge Barrera

Judge Earle

Judge Earle

Ofc. Sp.: Ashley Caldwell 854-9896

Court #5: Judge Nancy Hohengarten 854-9676

Court Coordinator: Kristen Meitzen

Ofc. Sp.: Rebecca Royster 854-3632

Court #6: Judge Jan Breland 854-9677

Court Coordinator: Sharon Duggan

Ofc. Sp.: Richard Nelson 854-9743

Court #7: Judge Elizabeth Earl 854-9679

Court Coordinator: Jennifer Martinez

Judge Lynch

Judge Lynch

Judge Flowers

Judge Flowers

Ofc. Sp.: Helen Dukes 854-3791

Court #8: Judge Carlos Barrera 854-7180

Court Coordinator: Marivel Garza

Ofc. Sp. 854-7182

147th District Court: Judge Wilford Flowers 854-9311

Court Coordinator: Stella Sanchez

167th District Court: Judge Mike Lynch 854-9310

Court Coordinator: Melissa Moreno

Judge Perkins

Judge Baird

Judge Baird

299th District Court: Judge Charlie Baird 854-9442

Court Coordinator: Blanca Verastegui

331st District Court: Judge Bob Perkins 854-9443

Court Coordinator: Lisa Eufracio

390th District Court: Judge Kocurek 854-4885

Court Coordinator: Virginia Vasquez

403rd District Court: Judge Brenda Kennedy 854-9808

Judge Kennedy

Judge Kennedy

Judge Kocurek

Judge Kocurek

Court Coordinator: Reese Price

427th District Ct.: Judge Jim Coronado 854-3663

Court Coordinator: Jan Cason

Travis County District Clerk (criminal) 854-9420

Travis County Court Administration (criminal) 854-9244

Travis County District Attorney’s Office 854-9400

Trial Division 854-9265

Judge Coronado

Judge Coronado

Justice of the Peace #5 854-9049

Central Warrants 854-9751

APD Warrants 974-5299

APD 974-5000

Central Booking 854-9889

Probation 854-4600 (more…)

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress