The Maese Insurrection » Law and Legal Interest

The Issues at Hand.

S. Steven Maese — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:20:31 +0000

Yesterday, the Court heard oral arguments regarding my Motion in Arrest of Judgment. The Court asked only two of the nine issues be argued; the bill of particulars and jury unanimity issues. I was pleased to learn that the Court focused on these two issues because those errors seemed to affect the trial the most. The Reply Memorandum we filed, detailing arguments regarding each of the nine points we’ve highlighted, can be found here.

Due South v. DABC, 2008 UT 71

S. Steven Maese — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:10:25 +0000

The Utah Supreme Court got one right on Friday ruling that in Utah, it’s legal to get drunk. In Due South v. DABC, the central holding is:

in order to satisfy the may endanger element of the public intoxication statute, an officer must be able to articulate objective facts indicating a reasonable likelihood of endangerment based on the particular circumstances.

Due South, Inc. v. DABC, 2008 UT 71, ¶31

What this means is pretty simple. In order to be found guilty of the state crime of “public intoxication” a police officer must be able to talk about something he observed which gave him a reasonable likelihood to believe you would endanger yourself or others. No more “my experience is that intoxicated people…” or “he looked like he was falling down.” That just won’t cut it.

Score one for the good guys, you and me, and one for a free society.

Another Battle with Murray City

S. Steven Maese — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 04:00:02 +0000

Earlier this year I submitted a GRAMA request to Murray City for some records concerning sustained police discipline. To give you the Cliff’s Notes: they denied my request; I appealed; I won; Now Murray is suing me to keep the records hidden. That’s battle #1.

Battle #2 is as follows: Earlier this year I posted bail for my brother after he was arrested on a failure to appear warrant. Murray City kept almost $1400 of my money for his fines. I just filed a Petition for Extraordinary Writ to get it back. You can see my petition here.

I’m miffed about this because I had no idea they would keep my money! I doubt I would have posted the money had I know I would have to kiss it goodbye. I love my brother and all, but he could have stayed in jail for another 48 hours if it meant $1400! Hell, if I had told him I he could have had $200 dollars for staying in jail for two days he probably would have done it.

He’s a good kid, but that’s beside the point; the point is, Murray took my money and they had no right to do it. But I’m takin’ it back, I’m takin’ ‘em ALL back. Wish me luck.

Scalia in Utah

S. Steven Maese — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:07:32 +0000

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will be in Utah tomorrow at USU. If you get the opportunity to attend, I would highly recommend it.

Affirmative Defense to Drug Possession in Utah

S. Steven Maese — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 05:05:20 +0000

The Utah Supreme Court established new law recently regarding drug possession. In an interesting opinion, the Court found an affirmative defense to possession of a controlled substance deemed “innocent possession” and/or “transitory possession.” The opinion reads in part:

[W]e remand for a new trial at which Miller is entitled to the following innocent possession defense instruction: the defendant’s possession of the controlled substances found in his pocket did not violate Utah Code subsection 58-37-8(2)(a)(I) if (1) the controlled substance was obtained innocently and held with no illicit or illegal purpose, and (2) the possession of the controlled substance was transitory; that is, the defendant took adequate measures to rid himself of possession of the controlled substance as promptly as reasonably possible.

State v. Miller, 2008 UT 61

Anonymous Publishing is Constitutionally Protected.

S. Steven Maese — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:24:26 +0000

So says the Virginia Supreme Court in their Opinion here. Federal anti-spam laws cover commercial speech only, but it would be interesting to here what the U.S. Supreme Court has to say over the matter.