Today is National Empty Chair Day.
Please place an empty chair in front of your house to represent the failed policies of Barack Obama.
The Midland Reporter Telegram graciously allowed me to have a second op-ed piece for Sunday’s edition of their paper. Please take a moment to read my concluding thoughts on the matter.
By Nelson Spear
There are several good reasons why Representative Craddick’s texting bill has failed three times in the State Legislature. By being a personal witness to the debate in the most recent session, I have been able to articulate some of those reasons over the last month. What was not a matter for debate was whether or not texting and driving was a good idea. What was a matter for debate is how we as a society most effectively eliminate distracted driving.
New laws are not the answer. The city leaders have led us to believe that the current public outcry is so great that they now feel that they have to do something right now. I shared with city leaders my dismay at this “Microwave Generation” mindset. This mindset presupposes that once there is a specific law in place, that there will be an automatic or measurable decrease in that prohibited activity. As a lawyer with 12 years of prosecution experience, I can say that motorists’ reactions to traffic laws just don’t work that way.
Take Texas’ DWI problem for example. I cannot think of a more targeted prohibited activity than drinking and driving. Texas has a well-deserved reputation as one of the most aggressive states when it comes to DWI enforcement. Further, some of the nation’s best criminal deterrence programs focus on DWI prevention. However, despite enforcement and educational deterrence efforts, the numbers of DWI offenses has not diminished. As per MADD, in 2013, Texas led the nation in DWI deaths.
More government is not the answer. President Reagan once said, “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” One city leader at the July 14th city council meeting stated that “[t]he $500 fine will sure stop me from texting while driving.” At this week’s forum, another city leader stated that the increasing number of tickets issued under the new law will be a positive sign that the texting problem is getter better. These comments reflect the Microwave Generation mentality; they reflect the “government is the only solution” mentality; and, they reflect the idea that more known texting violators equates to less texting violators. Not once has any city leader mentioned anything about any non-governmental solutions to go in concert with their new law.
But, here is the real head-scratcher. The government is about to create a new revenue stream and there is no accountability for what might be done with that new revenue. Will it go to reducing the taxpayers’ tax burden? Nah, that is too obvious.
Solutions: The first step in solving any problem is to take assessment if you are a part of the problem. Some people can’t get past the fact that they may be a part of the problem. In the present case, there is the city leader mentioned above who indicated that the $500 fine is what would stop him from texting and driving. I guess he will keep doing any activity so long as it is legal. Unfortunately, it is this unaccountable attitude that is part of the problem. People’s behavior will change only when they take ownership of their contribution to this problem.
I would also like to suggest an additional solution. For certain traffic law violations, I would require mandatory, in-person court appearances for the violator. Additionally, I would give the judge discretion to order those found guilty of those offenses to do three hours of trash pickup detail.
I add these suggestions because in my experience what people do value more than money is their time. Some will do anything and everything possible to get out of a government function that requires their physical presence (like jury duty), but they will pay a fine. The advantage to giving the judge this sentencing option is that everyone who is charged and found guilty of these kinds of offenses will be equally impacted – rich and poor.
Conclusion: My frustrations about this big rush to pass this new law are multifaceted. But they can be summed up like this. I am frustrated that some believe that the government can instantly or effectively solve certain problems of the community just by passing a new law. I am frustrated with city leaders who are only focusing on one part of the distracted driving problem. I am also frustrated when city leaders make great fanfare of all that they have done for a very specific problem by only creating a new law. And, I am frustrated when I see the many expressions of hypocrisy by the city leaders who promised smaller government in their campaigns, yet they pass revenue making laws without accountability for spending.
I urge you to call your city leaders and tell them to fight all forms of distracted driving but to not do it by passing the proposed law.
Please join my fight against Midland’s proposed texting law. The next town hall meeting is August 3 at the MLK, Jr. Community Center at 6 pm. The final vote on this law will be on August 11 during the regular city council meeting.
To help persuade you in helping me, here is another article that I have just written.
By Nelson Spear
On Monday night, I attended the first of two public meetings of Midland’s proposed anti-texting law. Everyone present, those for the bill and those against the bill, were still in agreement that texting is a current problem that needs an active response to. What the real disagreement among the parties is the method and manner of that response. By the end of the evening, I found myself somewhat relieved and, thereafter, further perplexed at the manner the city leaders are responding to the distracted driving problem.
Relieved: I was absolutely relieved to hear that in enforcing the new texting ban, the Midland police would not be asking for access to the cell phones of motorists in any shape, form or fashion. Prosecution for the offense of texting while driving will simply be by an officer’s subjective observation. But, more on this point below.
Perplexed: I was perplexed however at the actions and comments by the city leaders in support of the new bill. Here are but a few of the reasons why I was perplexed.
Solutions: At Monday night’s city, I suggested two solutions for the distracted driving problem. First, I suggested that city leaders direct the chief of police to start enforcing the reckless driving law when it comes to texting and driving. Second, I suggested that we need to increase the education about the dangers of distracted driving. I am not real big on public/private partnerships, but this is one area that the government and private industry can work together. There are already many wonderful local organizations that our local leaders can work with.
However, after reflecting on Monday night’s meeting, I would also add a third solution. For certain traffic law violations, like reckless driving, red light and stop sign violations, I would require mandatory, in-person court appearances for the violator. Even if the motorist planned to plead guilty, I would require that they appear before a judge and make that guilty plea in person. Additionally, in lieu of having to pay a fine, I would give the judge discretion to order those found guilty of these offenses to do three hours of trash pickup detail.
I add these suggestions because in my experience, many people and their employers treat the monetary costs of traffic violations as a cost of doing business. However, what people do value more than money is their time. Some will do anything and everything possible to get out of a government function that requires their physical presence (like jury duty), but they will pay a fine. The advantage to giving the judge this additional sentencing option is that everyone who is charged and found guilty of these kinds of offenses will be equally impacted – rich and poor.
Conclusion: I really think my frustrations about this big rush to pass this new law are multifaceted. But it can be summed up in that I am frustrated that some believe that the government can instantly solve certain problems of the community just by passing a new law. I am frustrated with city leaders who are only focusing on one part of the distracted driving problem. I am also frustrated when city leaders make great fanfare of all that they have done for a very specific problem by only creating a new law. I am further irritated when I see the many expressions of hypocrisy by the city leaders who promised smaller government in their campaigns, yet they pass revenue making laws without accountability of spending.
There is little doubt in my mind that this anti-texting bill will pass unanimously. However, when political leaders pass new, unnecessary laws without any additional plan to deal with the problems, they exemplify poor governance.
Today, I appeared before the Midland City Council and I offered my reasons why I believe that Midland’s proposed texting/driving bill is a bad idea. Let me state unequivocally that I believe that ALL distracted driving is a bad idea. However, the method of solving the distracted driving problem is an important issue to resolve.
——————————
5 Reasons Why I Oppose Any Anti-Texting Bill
By Nelson Spear
There has been a lot of discussion about the 84th Legislature’s failure to pass Representative Craddick’s HB 80. Having worked for the Legislature during the recent Session, I saw and still see the issue of texting and driving differently than Rep. Craddick. To be clear, I do not think that it is good social policy for anyone to text and drive. I think that any activity that distracts or tends to distract a driver should be removed from the driver’s area of attention while they are driving. However, the government cannot be (and should not be) the police to all social policy conduct especially in cases where it is not clear that a government solution outweighs the infringement of personal liberties. In support of this last statement, I have accumulated several reasons why 13 of 31 Texas State Senators opposed HB 80.
1. Police have limited abilities to prove that a driver was texting while they were driving. This question may sound too simplistic, but how will a police officer prove that you were texting while you were driving? Imagine a scenario where a Midland police officer sees someone that they “suspect” of texting while they were driving. Under current law, an officer can pull someone over based upon mere observations of what they believe to be illegal conduct. Once stopped, the officer should inform the driver of the reason for the stop. If the driver denies the accusation of texting while driving, how does the police officer prove the offense? Is the phone in plain view so that the officer can clearly see that the text screen is open? How does the officer know when the last message that they now clearly see was the one sent while the driver was driving the car? How does the officer know when any message a cell phone was sent, much less received, much less read? The officer’s only options are to either illicit a legal confession from the driver or to search the cell phone records of the driver.
If the officer does not illicit a confession, the officer’s only way to prove the case is by searching the cell phone records of the driver. Therein lies the problem. In the recent United States Supreme Court decision of Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer cannot search a cell phone without a search warrant. In recognition of the United States Supreme Court decision, on June 20, 2015, Governor Abbott signed House Bill 1396 into law. One of the applicable provisions of the bill is found in Section 2 that specifically provides that “[a] peace officer may not search a person’s cellular telephone or other wireless communications device, pursuant to a lawful arrest of the person without obtaining a warrant under this article.”
Further, the recently defeated House Bill 80 itself had a provision that stated “[a] peace officer who stops a motor vehicle for an alleged violation of this section may not take possession of or otherwise inspect a portable wireless communication device in the possession of the operator unless authorized by the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Penal Code, or other law.” And although recent technology allows a quicker turnaround of search warrants for an officer in the field, keeping a suspected motorist detained for this particular offense for more than an hour becomes not only an unnecessary intrusion on the motorist, but it also brings into question whether or not this is a good use of taxpayer resources.
2. Enacting another law that creates yet another traffic offense may lead to accusations of unlawful racial profiling. As most of us know, racial profiling is the practice of targeting/suspecting people of certain groups of engaging in certain illegal activities based upon that person’s race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. One area that illegal racial profiling arises is in the circumstances surrounding traffic enforcement. Minorities have been able to argue that the police have used simple traffic infractions as invented “pretexts” to stop them. These pretextual stops of police officers are used to develop further probable cause to search a person or persons inside a particular vehicle or to search the vehicle itself.
While pretextual stops are legal if there was an actual observable offense, the proof that there was an actual traffic violation becomes problematic in this case because an officer’s ability to observe a texting driver while the officer himself is in his own moving vehicle raises credibility issues. In the best of circumstances, in order for an officer to personally observe a texting while driving offense, the observable offense most likely would have to take place during the daylight hours. Even then, an officer’s personal view would have to be unobscured. If either the officer’s vehicle or the suspect vehicle had tinted windows, there would have to be a believable explanation on how the officer actually saw the infraction. Some minorities may raise the appropriateness of any traffic stop predicated solely on officer’s observation that a driver was texting while driving.
To be clear, I did not say that it would actually lead to racial profiling, but it certainly may lead to more accusations.
3. There are already laws in place to protect Texans from the effects of people who text while driving. Section 545.401 of the Transportation Code states that “[a] person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.” As a former state prosecutor, I can say that legally speaking, this is one broad statute. In speaking to other respected lawyers, they too recognize that the Texas reckless driving statute could be used to prosecute someone who texts and drives badly.
There are two main differences between the reckless driving bill and the proposed HB 80. The reckless driving actually requires bad driving; HB 80 does not require bad driving. Imagine this scenario: A person is sitting at their desk and they compose a text message but for some reason did not send the message; then, they get up and jump into their car and take off and looked down at their phone and realize that their message had not been sent. Even if a person was maintaining their lane of traffic and not causing anyone else to swerve by hitting the send button, that driver would be committing an offense by hitting the “Send” button. Under HB 80, a person just committed an offense.
What is also different between HB 80 and the reckless driving bill is the penalty. HB 80’s penalty provisions called for penalties of $25 – $99 for a first offense and $100 – $200 for each subsequent offense. The reckless driving penalty has been set the same for every offense – up to a $200 fine or up to 30 days in jail or both. Thus, for those that think that penalties will deter, they should ask their local law enforcement officers why they are not using the reckless driving law for these kinds of offenses. This leads me to once again to ask the question, “Now why do we need another law to stop bad behavior?”
4. Many times advocates of this anti-texting law quote the numbers of accidents due to distracted driving. While this information is useful, it is not conclusive that all of these distracted driving accidents are caused by people using their cell phones. I am personally aware of an attorney friend of mine who dropped his cigarette while driving and wound up having a serious accident that left him unable to practice law anymore. How many of us have seen men shaving, women putting on makeup, people eating huge burgers or even changing clothes while driving? Thus, if we are serious as a society about distracted driving, let’s ban all of the things that could be a distraction inside the car: that means no more smoking or eating while driving and no more putting on makeup while driving. Finally, I point out that there is a least one study that concludes that texting bans don’t reduce crashes.
5. There is no proof that people’s behavior will change if there is a specific ordinance enacted that bans texting while driving. It is my observation here in Midland, Texas that traffic laws are not a deterrent to bad behavior. People still run red lights and stop signs. There may be less speeding violations simply because the speed limits have been raised in areas. We can enact more laws, but will the laws actually deter bad behavior? Do we have any proof that had any of these anti-texting laws been in place that they would have prevented accidents? In the present case, people already know that texting while driving is dangerous. But, they still do it. And, they will still do it because that is the type of society that we have become.
Conclusion: Texting and driving has caused untold grief and misery. Those who favor new laws dealing with this issue should realize two things: 1). that there is already a law on the books that deals with the issue; and, 2). that it is not always the government’s job to protect the citizens from every conceivable harm that could befall us. Again, we can have more and more laws to keep all of us absolutely safe from all of the potential harms that could befall us. However, if that were to happen, we would wind up living in a cardboard box with sides so high that we could not climb out if we wanted to. A better solution to the texting and driving problems are education and a stricter enforcement of the reckless driving law for all distracted driving not just the texters.
Friends,
Most of you know of my interest in precious metals. And, it does not normally bother me that most people don’t know or understand basic economic concepts. However, the link below shows just how ignorant some people are.
In this clip, a fellow offers people on the street a choice between a free 10 ounce bar of silver and a bar of chocolate. In the series, they all chose the chocolate. In choosing the chocolate, some question what good the silver is. Others do not even consider the silver as something that may have redeemable value. The recipients’ reactions are unbelievable.
I am left wondering if these people are so bad at differentiating items of value, how good are they at choosing a Presidential candidate. Heck, how good are they at picking any candidate?
See the video here.
What do you all think of this?
Arizona is on the way to passing a “Legal Tender” bill which allows gold and silver to be used to pay debts among private individuals.
I am attaching the text of the entire article here.
KONNI BURTON MAKES A BOLD STATEMENT ON THE FIRST DAY OF SESSION
Pink shoe drama replaced with pro-life boots
FORT WORTH- Konni Burton, got off to a bold start sporting a new pair of boots on the first day of session with the words “Stand for Life” etched into the leather.
“Senate District 10 was brought into national spotlight with a pair of shoes. It’s humbling to be allowed the opportunity to redeem that history today. As a Senator I am here to protect the rights of the citizens of District 10, life is the first of those rights.”
Konni Burton is the conservative Republican who replaced Wendy Davis in Senate District 10. She not only secured her District’s support but actually out performed Greg Abbott, Dan Patrick and Ken Paxton in District 10. Konni is a constitutional conservative who has made it clear she intends to fight for limited government and free markets in Texas.
The New York Times is reporting that the Secret Service is permitting volunteers with neither official clearance nor training to be a part of Presidential motorcades. The reason appears to be that there is a lack of resources to properly equip these motorcades. This begs the questions: 1). Are there just too many motorcades; and/or, 2). Are the local law enforcement support services unwilling to support the current President.
Regardless of the reasons, after having had two assignments with the United States Secret Service, both involving motorcades for Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush, I feel that allowing civilians to be the drivers in these motorcades is a BAD idea.
Carly Fiorina: America’s Iron Lady
A candidate for any office, especially President, must have the ability to clearly articulate their vision especially in a debate format. While most of the other Republicans running for President can debate fairly well, not all of them are good at avoiding getting rattled. Carly Fiorina can do both. She has shown that she is an articulate debater and, even when she is being verbally pushed in a debate, she is unflappable.
Being able to take an aggressive debate position is important for the Fall 2016 debates against the eventual Democrat nominee because I believe that nominee will be Hillary Clinton. There will be challenges in debating Clinton. For example, I still remember the 2000 New York Senate campaign where she and Rick Lazio squared off. The two campaigns were in a very tight race until Lazio “bully” challenged her during a debate to sign a soft money pledge. Clinton played the challenge well and feigned no offense. Although it was irrelevant that this was a race for the United States Senate and that had Clinton been a man, Lazio’s actions would have been acceptable, voters hated the fact that a male candidate would treat a female candidate that way. And it cost him the race.
Again, Carly has shown that she can stand toe to toe with anyone in a debate. In fact, she reminds me of another strong leader who happens to be a female. Britain’s former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher proved that a woman can effectively and successfully lead a world power. I believe that Carly is the best person that we have to hold the office of President of the United States. She can be America’s Iron Lady.
Please join me in supporting Carly for President.