Senior Federal Judge Busted Behind the Wheel after Using Coke (Not Charged with DUI)

Screenshot from the Atlanta Journal Constitution

Retired federal judge Jack T. Camp is facing some torrid allegations involving the classic combo of "hookers and blow".  Judge Camp was recently arrested by FBI agents after allegedly purchasing sex and drugs including cannabis, cocaine, and other illegal substances. According to blog posts, Judge Camp was harsh on those accused of drug crimes, stating in open court that he was a big believer in the prison system. 

If the allegations are true, Judge Camp may soon be finding out just what a raw deal the taxpayers are getting from modern America's penal industry.

One has to wonder whether Hon. Judge Camp really started using coke and weed at 67 or whether he has been using whatever substances he liked while sentencing people for buying or selling the same drugs he was using. 

It remains to be seen what will become of this allegedly criminal jurist.  His arrest has provoked a number of fascinating questions, such as why we are not drug testing judges, how many other federal judges are using substances, and why we prohibit drugs if you can use them and still be mentally competent to be a judge?

Actual Excerpt from the FBI Report

One issue of interest to those who follow impaired driving cases is the facts involving a vehicle.  According to the feds' report in this case, Camp and a stripper that was a confidential informant snorted some coke at a "titty bar".  Afterwards the informant was in Camp's passenger seat while he was in the driver seat (with a gun!).

While the report does not describe any driving behavior on the part of the judge, it seems perfectly safe to assume that Camp drove away after snorting coke.  For some reason, there has apparently been no outcry from MADD or any state prosecutors resulting in charges for what could have been an instance of driving under the influence of an illegal substance.

This turn of events challenges my normal adminition that we could do away with DUI by using breath activated ignition interlocks.  But we have to remember that for every alcohol impaired driver out there, we may be missing someone in charge of punishing folks in the war on drugs that is too high on coke to get behind the wheel.  We wish the best for Judge Camp, as he may simply be the victim of a rogue informant who has fabricated evidence against him.  If so, and he is exonerated, we hope he will joing us in speaking out against the war on people who are impaired and other punitive measures that are too harsh and designed to fail.

Former Football Star Bruce Smith Headed for NFL Hall of Fame; Also Headed to Court on 3rd DUI Charge

Meet Bruce Smith. The former star Defensive End for the Buffalo Bills and Washington Redskins was a career leader in sacks on the field. He also has been recognized for service on the boards of St. Jude's Hospital and Operation Smile, and was a member of the Board of Visitors at Virginia Tech, his Alma Mater. In February, he was honored by the Virginia General Assembly, receiving a standing ovation for his career and volunteer work. Last week he was arrested for DUI, his third such charge according to the media.

Of course, Smith was in very good company in the General Assembly, which has had numerous members convicted of DUI, and even more who have driven under the influence but were not convicted. By the time he made it to the House and Senate, he had already been arrested on DUI charges twice, but the charges didn't stick either time. All those politicians that suck up to MADD and take their money must have been suffering from amnesia when they cheered on this multiple DUI arrestee.

Of course, we should all keep in mind that Smith may have been innocent of the charges all three times. But it does go to show what MADD and the DUI crusaders really stand for. They have invented a system where lots of people drive drunk, but only celebrities and wealthy people have a good chance at acquittal on DUI charges. The best DUI defense attorneys are expensive. Add the cost of expert witnesses, court reporters, and independant investigators and you are talking about a lot of money. Of course, the DUI conviction can be even more expensive, but the conviction takes money from defendants over a long period. It is a financial death by a thousand cuts, such as VASAP fees, increased insurance, and fine payments that can be spread out.

Newspaper Discovers that DUI is Still Quite Common; Police Shocked, Plan on Using Overtime Pay to Think of Solution

A recent article in the Virginia Gazette has uncovered a (not so) shocking fact: DUI cases are extremely common. In fact, the newspaper provides a statistical analysis showing that in 2007, 28,787 DUI convictions were recorded in Virginia Courts. This gives us an average of over three DUI convictions per hour!

Of course, that doesn't even count the cases in which people were charged with DUI but acquitted or found guilty of a lesser charge. More importantly, it doesn't include the great majority of drivers under the influence who make it home safely without police "assistance" or kill themselves in a DUI accident and thus are never charged.

Of course, the article never questions our current approach to drunk driving, nor does it acknowledge that each arrest represents a failure to keep intoxicated drivers off the roads. The reason we still have DUI is very simple: that's the way the government wants it. We could stop DUI today by mandating ignition interlocks on every new car. But that would result in a whole lot of cops being out of work, not to mention lawyers, judges, etc.

The DUI system is a scam. It is a racket designed to punish a tiny minority of offenders to create an illusion that it is effective in preventing their luckier counterparts from engaging in the same behaviour. Don't fall for it. If you are on a jury, scrutinize the evidence carefully. If you are a defendant, fight the charge. If you are a legislator, demand that the billions in bailout funds come with a safety benefit in the form of mandatory ignition interlocks. It may be your own life that is saved.

A DUI Lesson from MADD Award Recipient James Tragesser of the Smithfield VA Police

Meet SGT James Tragesser of the Smithfield Police Department. He is a pretty distinguished guy with a record that includes service in the Navy during the first Gulf war as well as a 2003 award from MADD for his DUI arrests. He also got arrested for DUI this weekend.

It's what I call the MADD curse. I frequently read about cops who have received an award from MADD getting arrested for DUI. Why is this? Well, it turns out that these police have been getting drugs from their bosses! These drugs cause the officers to lose their judgement while simultaneously gaining false confidence in their driving abilities. Then the drugs lead to impaired driving, close calls, or even accidents like the one that led to Tragesser's arrest.

You have probably heard of the drugs that the bosses are selling to these cops. Popular examples include Budweiser, Boone's Farm, and Aristocrat. Yes, I'm talking about alcohol. Every cop works for the government, whether it is the federal, state or local government. And all of these governments are selling alcohol and getting revenues from those sales.

I think SGT Tragesser should get credit for the good judgment he displayed. Rather than blow into their conviction machine and give his fellow cops a number to hang around his neck (which sometimes includes a mandatory minimum jail sentence), he declined. Good luck SGT Tragesser! I hope you find an aggressive and experienced DUI attorney who will provide you with a strong defense and help you keep your job.

My Favorite Mother Against Drunk Driving - Ann McGuigan

Unfortunately today's big DUI story in Virginia involves a tragic loss of life. Back in December, 19 year old Matthew Shobe was killed in a single vehicle accident in Augusta County. The driver of the vehicle, 17 year old Brennan J. Daly, was charged with DUI after allegedly providing a breath sample that registered 0.09% BAC - barely over the 0.08% limit for adult (21+) DUIs in Virginia , but well over the 0.02% limit for a "baby DUI".

Matthew Shobe's mother was understandably heartbroken over the loss of her son, as any mother would be. Although the devastating result of this DUI resulted in tremendous pain and suffering for her, she has exhibited notable moral courage in response. Rather than calling for her son's friend to be locked up and institutionalized in one of our stellar (?) juvenile incarceration facilities, Ms. McGuigan sought lenience from the court rather than revenge.

In a letter to the Court, she stated "I do not want anymore lives hurt because of this accident.” Her approach should be commended. Rather than taking the vengeance based path endorsed by MADD, she has taken a compassionate approach. In my opinion, MADD is devoid of moral courage. I feel that the organization is nothing more than a business that seeks to profit from the misery that can be caused by drunk driving. I'm sure Ms. McGuigan knows that Mr. Daly will always carry the guilt of his friend's death. Even though his passenger provided the alcohol that contributed to this fatal accident, it will follow him throughout the rest of his life and affect him long after any jail sentence would have ended.

I wish more mothers against drunk driving had the character displayed by Ann McGuigan. She has displayed the ability to forgive another mother's child. Regardless of how many people we lock up for drunk driving, the consequences of mixing alcohol and cars will be with us until we start installing ignition interlocks on every new car. Isn't it time to use our brains rather than our emotions to stamp out drunk driving?

This Week's Big Virginia DUI News Story... Former U.S. Congressman Vito Fossella Going to Jail

This gentleman is former U.S. Congressman Vito Fossella. He's been serving the people of New York for 12 years. This weekend he'll be serving time in a Virginia jail. That's because he blew a 0.17% BAC after running a red light in Alexandria, just across the river from Washington D.C. His DUI contains some very important lessons for anyone charged with DUI in Virginia.

First, it is worth noting that this guy is going to jail. This in and of itself is amazing, and it demonstrates the tremendous odds in favor of the prosecution here in Virginia. You can be certain that Vito is not a poor man. He could afford the best criminal defense attorneys in Virginia. But despite their presentation of the most compelling evidence they could come up with, he is still going to serve the mandatory minimum sentence of 5 days in jail (although he gets a day of credit from being locked up when he was arrested).

His defense team was prepared to argue that his breath test was inaccurate due to a Purell hand sanitizer containing alcohol that he had used 9 hours earlier (sounds kinda dubious). Also, it was claimed that the breath testing machine was inaccurate because of radio wave interference (not normally a great argument, but the machine allegedly misspelled the cops name on the certificate - a great argument). But the problem they ran into was the Virginia jury sentencing rule.

In most states you can try a DUI case to a jury, which gives you better odds than trial before a judge. But if you do that in Virginia, juries that convict also impose a sentence. Which makes this outcome understandable. You never know what a jury will do as demonstrated by the OJ Simpson acquittal and subsequent conviction. His defense tried to make it sound like Vito decided to plead guilty because it was the right thing to do in the wake of the recent tragic death of LA Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart. I think his true motivation was the thought of spending a year in jail. That's the maximum sentence, but this was an aggravated DUI, and with Virginia juries, you never know.

The second point of interest was the fact that Mr. Fossella is getting weekend time. My experience with Virginia courts is that mandatory minimum time is always straight time - no weekends and no work release. That means I'll be citing this case from now on in every mandatory minimum case if the client is convicted. No longer are Virginia's judges shackled to any sort of unofficial policy on such sentencing options.

The third point of interest is Vito's fatal flaw. If you know you are drunk and the police want a breath sample, you are less likely to serve time in jail (especially on a first offense) if you refuse. When you provide a breath sample, you never have any idea what will result. Will it be 0.14 (no mandatory minimum sentence), 0.15 (five days), or 0.20 (ten days)? If you don't know, you probably shouldn't blow. Of course, the refusal carries a 12 month hard suspension with no restricted driving privileges. So if you prefer jail to a hard license suspension, feel free to take your chances.

Here's what I want to know: how many bills did this guy vote for that ratcheted up the penalties for DUI? I wonder how he's going to feel about those votes as he sits in jail this weekend? Also, how much money did MADD get from the federal government while this guy was serving, and will they return a pro rata share of those funds? Could it be that MADD is really all about money rather than taking an ethical stand on drunk drivers?

Another Cop Busted for DUI!!!

Probably no big shock here, but the government's plan to use police to stop Drunk Driving has backfired. This time it was 3 year veteran of the Chatanooga Tennessee Police, Josh Turner, who ran into a pole in his 2004 Mercedes. I wonder if he bought the Mercedes with overtime pay earned prosecuting DUI cases. Officer Turner's actions resulted in the pole falling and hitting the windshield of another vehicle. Fortunately there are no injuries that have been reported as a result. This serves as another great example of why the DUI laws constantly fail: they are meant to fail.

If the people we are counting on to stop drunk driving are getting DUI's, how can the system ever work? The secret key to this mystery is the nature of alcohol. Many people overlook the fact that alcohol is a drug. When used in the intended manner, it causes reduced judgment. People feel sober and believe they will be able to make it home safely. They also feel that even if they are close to the limit, they will drive well enough not to get caught.

This problem can easily be solved by a little machine that attaches to the ignition and ensures that the driver is sober before the car can be started. Why don't the manufacturers put them on every new car and stamp out DUI? Is it because they enjoy the profit from selling a new car every time an old car gets wrecked in a DUI?

Latest Cop Busted for DUI: Yakima Washington's Tarin Miller

Well folks, it looks like it's happened again. Everybody knows that alcohol is a drug. And when it comes to the distribution of narcotics, no cartel in the world can compare to the United States Government and it's political subdivisions, the states. Billions in revenue are derived by these governments through the sale of alcohol, the most pervasive substance of abuse in the Western World.

It's ironic that the states sell this drug, and then expect that people who use their product as intended will make good decisions. Officer Tarin Miller allegedly blew a BAC over 0.16% alcohol, which is more than twice the legal limit! Why do law enforcement officers keep getting arrested for DUI? Don't they get exposure to the constant barrage of warnings against drinking and driving? Don't they hear the alcohol manufacturer's warnings to "drink responsibly"?

Wait a minute. How can you drink responsibly? When people drink, their inhibitions and judgment are reduced. Can people abuse recreational substances responsibly? Or is this just a false plea from the dealers who really don't care whether you are responsible, as long as you keep drinking and they keep profiting? The truth is that cops are just like the rest of us. Nobody wants to drive drunk. But the government keeps selling us recreational drugs and allowing the manufacturers to advertise these substances on our airwaves.

I hope the allegations are somehow false and Tarin Miller is actually innocent. Perhaps a good DUI lawyer can keep her out of jail. But on the other hand, one has to wonder why the state of Washington allows people to drive cars without ignition interlocks. If nobody could drive drunk, there would be no DUIs, no injuries, no deaths, and tremendous tax savings from the reduced need for police resources. Could it be that the state actually wants continued DUI problems in order to keep selling more alcohol to drivers, to keep employing more police, and to keep getting more DUI fines? Hmmmm.

You can Beat the Ignition Interlock... Meet the Rental Car Booze-Bandit

According to this article, what seemed like a way around the interlock system proved to be a way into a telephone pole. A man from Long Island with a history of intoxicated driving attempted to beat the system, only to wind up in more trouble than before. Marvin Rice, Jr. had rented a brand new Volkswagen Jetta, allegedly to avoid driving his own vehicle, which is equipped with a court-mandated Interlock breathalyzer system.

It seems as if the gentleman had a few cocktails and decided to take the wheel. Some have suggested that Mr Rice, realizing his own vehicle would not offer such opportunities, decided to use an alternative mode of transportation. Upon acquiring the Jetta, the 27 year-old embarked upon a journey that landed him first in the hospital, then in jail. To be totally fair, Mr. Rice's brother went on record in a subsequent article and said that Marvin had been forced to rent the car because his own vehicle had been wrecked in a snow related crash - not just to avoid his car's ignition interlock.

At around 6 a.m. on February 15, the allegedly intoxicated driver smashed the rented vehicle into a telephone pole, breaking both of his legs as well as his pelvis, and totaling the brand-new car. Upon being cut out of the mangled car, police issued a DWI, and the gentleman was airlifted to the hospital. Giving Marvin the benefit of the doubt, he might have been innocent of the charges, and has not yet been tried. I'd like to know exactly what evidence they have on the DUI charge. Did they draw blood at the hospital? Or are they relying on a cheap handheld breathalyzer?

Will we start seeing some changes in the application/approval process for renting vehicles? Certainly the rental car companies would fight this - they want to rent as many cars as possible. Insurance will cover the damages when a drunk totals the car. How about putting ignition interlocks in all cars? Wouldn't we all be better off if nobody could drive drunk?

MADD would fight that tooth and nail. Their model of dealing with the problem is guaranteed to fail - and it is intended to fail. MADD takes a fascist approach - they want to punish people who drive drunk to teach them a lesson and to provide an example to the rest of society: see what happens when you drive drunk?!

If their approach worked, people would "learn their lesson". DUI defendants would feel the pain of their penalties and never drive drunk again. The rest of society would see them get punished and realize that they will get caught if they drive drunk and the penalties will be steep. Of course, this is circular logic: people won't drive drunk because they will know penalties are steep because they will see the punishment of the people who drive drunk. MADD's model of stopping drunk driving depends on continued drunk driving. It doesn't work because it is not meant to work. It makes the laughable assumption that people under the influence of alcohol are going to make a good decision about taking the wheel!

Whenever you see a model of government action that does not work, you can always figure out why by following the money. MADD is the only organization in America that tries to set policy on DUI laws. They have a practical monopoly. In order to keep getting contributions and paying themselves massive salaries, they have to have people continue to get caught driving drunk. They have to have people getting injured or killed so that the sympathy is generated that brings in continued donations.

But don't take my word for it. Call MADD yourself and explain that you like to take advantage of your legal right to enjoy alcohol and ask them to provide you with an ignition interlock for your car so that you can make the right decision every time. They have millions of dollars, and they supposedly want to stop drunk driving, so it should be no problem, right? Wrong. They will say no. They would rather spend their money ratcheting up the penalties for those who involuntarily keep them in business (people who have been caught driving drunk) after the damage has already been done.

Why MADD doesn't really have any intention of stopping drunk driving

Well, for starters, how about $46,959,181? That's the amount that MADD paid out in total salaries and benefits during fiscal years 2002-2004 according to a review of their tax filings by getmadd.com. If you were receiving big fat paychecks in exchange for exploiting the pain and suffering of the victims of drunk driving, would you want to put a stop to all that income? Not likely if you were making over $200,000 per year, which was the fantastic salary pulled down by at least one MADD executive during several reported years.

MADD no longer puts corporate tax returns on their website according to the report. Huh? Corporate return? Do you mean MADD is a corporation? Yep. Just like GM, AIG, and Brown-Forman (maker of Jack Daniels). All of these corporations benefit financially from drunk driving and would earn less if drunk driving were eliminated. So one really has to ask the question, how hard would it be to eliminate drunk driving? As it turns out, not very.

Some time ago, a little device was developed that would be attached to the ignition of a car. In order to start the car, you would have to blow into the device. If you were drunk, the car wouldn't start, but if you were sober, it would operate normally. Ingenious huh? So why don't we put one on every new car sold in America? Simple. That would affect the paychecks of all the people who profit from drunk driving, and that's one heck of a lot of people.

Take me for example. Lots of folks hire me to defend them on DUI charges, and they have to pay me good money for that service. That's simple enough, but what about General Motors? How do they profit from DUI? That's actually pretty simple too. What do you think happens when someone wrecks their car in a DUI? They go out and buy a new one in accordance with the terms of their insurance. This happens every day due to the magic of actuarial science.

But aren't the insurance companies losing money from DUI because they have to pay out claims? No, they actually make even more. Huh? The insurance companies bring in more premiums to cover the cost of damages caused by DWI. More premiums means more profit. Obviously the alcohol and restaurant industries profit from a system that allows and encourages people to have a few drinks with dinner and drive home. Even MADD isn't really looking to prevent drunk driving (and give up their big fat salaries) - just to punish drunk drivers after the crime has already been committed and it is too late to stop them.

Don't believe me? Try this. Call MADD headquarters and explain that you sometimes like to enjoy a glass of wine or two with dinner or a couple of beers at the ballgame. Then ask them if they would foot the bill for an ignition interlock for your car. The answer will be no. How do I know? I tried it. I'd love to have a car that couldn't be driven under the influence. And of course I've never intentionally driven under the influence, but nobody ever plans to drive under the influence. When you drink, your judgment is reduced and your inhibitions are lowered, so how are you supposed to be able to tell whether you are under the influence or not?

MADD knows that punishing drunk drivers will only have a marginal effect on drunk driving without eliminating their paychecks. In a recent report, MADD claimed to have "partnered with leaders in the traffic safety and auto industries to further explore the possibilities of eliminating drunk driving through... advanced vehicle technologies" such as "Advanced breath testing... for alcohol in the vehicle" Hmm. Sounds like a pretty cozy partnership. It's worth noting that these technologies are proclaimed as a panacea by MADD when they get legislation passed requiring ignition interlocks for convicted drunk drivers. Six states passed such laws to kick off 2009. But don't count on MADD getting these devices installed in every new car any time soon. "It's amazingly inconvenient," according to David Malham, of the Illinois chapter of MADD. As Upton Sinclair once said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."