The following is from a presiding justice’s dissenting opinion in a Pennsylvania appellate decision affirming a DUI conviction:
I must vigorously dissent from the well-written opinion of the majority, as it seems we are coming perilously close to turning a blind eye to questionable conduct by our police officers. While I acknowledge that our police officers are charged with the awesome and sometimes onerous responsibility of protecting the public, I cannot sanction the whisperings of the majority that that protection comes at the deprivation of the constitutional rights of citizenship. We do not want a police state, and it seems we are on the precipice of becoming one, in the name of DUI. I suggest that the Court, and the police, can ill afford to sanction this type of conduct.
(Emphasis added.) Fortunately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed this lower court ruling a few days ago and, in so doing, agreed with the dissenting justice’s comments. Comes the dawn?
(Thanks to Fred Slone and Troy McKinney.)