State vs. Peanut
At the request of a blogger, I have posted a pdf copy of the public document regarding a court case involving a peanut and its ensuing traffic stop and arrest (click here and then click the link provided on that page to upload the file). It involves a local deputy pulling over a driver for throwing a boiled peanut hull out of a window. It seems that the officer was looking for a reason to pull the driver over because he suspected the driver was DWLS. If I understand the law correctly, you can not pull someone over because you suspect their license is suspended. You have to pull them over for something else and then check license validity. Regardless, it is an interesting read and somewhat comical, but to contradict the posters argument, the State was not prosecuting for litter. A motion to suppress is filed usually on behalf of a defendant asking the judge to disallow certain evidence in an upcoming trial. I asked someone about this and what they thought and it made sense why the defense was asking to suppress the litter violation. Part of the email is below and maybe will explain why:
First of all, the premise is interesting—the attorney is arguing that peanut shells aren't litter, and if they aren't litter then Sarah Evans shouldn't have been pulled over for littering. Had she not been pulled for littering, the cop wouldn't have discovered that her license wasn't valid, and she wouldn't have been arrested for and charged with driving with an invalid license. So if peanut shells aren't litter, then her charge for driving without a license would have to be thrown out.
To me, this explains everything, but the whole explanation given by the judge is different to say the least, but maybe necessary; I don't know.
Open discussion...
First of all, the premise is interesting—the attorney is arguing that peanut shells aren't litter, and if they aren't litter then Sarah Evans shouldn't have been pulled over for littering. Had she not been pulled for littering, the cop wouldn't have discovered that her license wasn't valid, and she wouldn't have been arrested for and charged with driving with an invalid license. So if peanut shells aren't litter, then her charge for driving without a license would have to be thrown out.
To me, this explains everything, but the whole explanation given by the judge is different to say the least, but maybe necessary; I don't know.
Open discussion...
Well it certainly is interesting. But wasn't it George Washington Carver, not Booker T. Washington the researcher who explored the uses of peanuts and other things? I would hope that the judiciary in our county is as industrious on drug cases, dui cases, child molesting cases, dependency cases and many others as it appears to be describing how to eat a boiled peanut! Great post and great item on Friday to ponder over the weekend!
Reply to this
It seems like our judge must have quite a bit of spare time on his hands, to have gone to the effort of writing a treatise on peanuts.
I suppose one must do something to entertain oneself in between throwing out tickets for one's friends and family.
Reply to this
That was my thought (too much spare time) given the battle brewing between the county judge and the circuit judge since the county judge has stated that he will not handle types of cases in the future and that increases the work for the circuit judge. My feeling is they both have too much time on their hands and the jobs they have are the best parttime jobs in the county. I would like to see the leave requests and related time-off documentation on these guys and their staff!
But you have to admit the peanut essay (order) seems four pages too long. I do not know what the point in the description on how to eat a boiled peanut. What do you do if you have no teeth? Is there a thumb-four finger no teeth method? That would fit quite a few folks in our county! LOL!!!
Reply to this
I just want to point out that you are blasting a judge for somthing that was writen by a Public Defender in her case, not by the Judge. The Judge then has to read the ORDER to SUPPRESS and make a ruleing, in this case all the Judge had type on the order is last ORDER AND ADJUDGE and that was he DENIED her plea. I know we all like to jump on things and ride with them but read and do your home work on how things work I.E. this case, court procedures. And yes I think it was streching the law a bit but this Deputy new who this was and I'm sure he made the call to do this for the stafty of other drivers. Ok i'm going back in to posting retirement now. have fun.
Reply to this
The order was written by "the Judge". Ask his office or better yet call him, I am sure he is drafting another great order! LOL!!!
Reply to this
I believe you're mistaken.
Had the document been written by the attorney for the defendant, it would've argued that peanut shells were NOT litter. That's not the case; this argument was that they WERE litter, and were thus backing up the judge's denial of the motion to supress.
Remember... What we're reading isn't the motion to supress. It's the order on the motion to supress--and that's written by the judge.
Reply to this
We're actually getting off on the fact that the judge, in his denial of the motion, wrote a 4-page thesis on the human act of consuming a boiled peanut, the disposal of the husks of said peanuts, and the applicability of the definition of "litter" to aforementioned husks.
Reply to this
Maybe we should supress this discussion?
Reply to this
Sometimes you feel like a nut.....
Reply to this