Here’s the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary’s public censure in the case (paragraph breaks added):
PUBLIC CENSUREMay 1, 2009
The Honorable Durwood G. Moore
Dickson County General Sessions Judge
Post Office Box 217
Charlotte, Tennessee 37036In re: Complaint of Benjamin J. Marchant vs. Judge Durwood G. Moore
Dear Judge Moore:
This shall serve as a public censure pursuant to your agreement with the Investigative Panel of this Court. This censure relates to your conduct as General Sessions Court Judge on January 2, 2009.
On this date at approximately 1:30 p.m. Mr. Marchant was a spectator in your courtroom. He had come to observe the court proceedings as he had a friend who had court business and he was there to provide that individual a ride at the conclusion of your court proceedings. While he sat in your court you observed him and ordered your bailiff or police officers in the courtroom to take Mr. Marchant into custody and to administer a drug test on his person. Mr. Marchant was neither a litigant, a defendant or a person who had business before the Court and was a citizen observer. Mr. Marchant at your direction was seized by police officials and required to provide a urine sample which was drug tested. When the drug test was revealed to be negative Mr. Marchant was released.
The ordering of the seizure of Mr. Marchant and this testing were illegal and neither statutory nor constitutional basis existed for your conduct. Your conduct in ordering a spectator to submit to a drug screen violated Canon 2A which requires a judge “to respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary.” This conduct also violates Canon 3B(2) which requires a judge to be “faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.” The conduct also violated Canon 3B(4) which requires a judge to be “patient, dignified and courteous with litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity.” This conduct also violates the due process rights of Mr. Marchant to privacy and freedom under both the United States Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution. Your conduct in this matter has detrimentally affected the integrity of the Tennessee Judiciary and undermines public confidence in the administration of justice.
This public censure represents the highest degree of judicial discipline authorized by law short of the Court seeking a judgment recommending your removal as a judge from office. In the future you are to accord all citizens who appear in your court their constitutional rights and they shall not be seized on your suspicion for unauthorized drug tests. Each individual who appears before you shall be afforded their due process rights and shall be properly charged and noticed before any adverse action is taken against
them.Sincerely yours,
Don R. Ash
Presiding Judge
Court of the Judiciary
DRA/mpm
cc: Investigative Panel
Disciplinary Counsel
The case has apparently been noted online because a lawsuit based on this conduct was just filed last week; I was at first skeptical, since the account simply reported what the plaintiff claimed, and plaintiffs claim all sorts of things. But then I tracked down the public censure document, which the Courthouse News Service report didn’t link to, and mentioned only in saying that such a censure existed “according to the complaint.”
Many thanks to Prof. Bill Poser for the pointer.
Jardinero1 says:
I bet that Judge feels really, really embarrassed about now.
January 8, 2010, 5:17 pmOff Kilter says:
And what practical negative impact does “the highest degree of judicial discipline authorized by law short of the Court seeking a judgment recommending your removal as a judge from office” have on a judge? We non-lawyers are curious…
January 8, 2010, 5:25 pmDG says:
He evidently did this all the time, not just to this guy – it was his policy and he did it based on whims.
That he wasn’t removed after doing this to who knows how many people, makes me question the judicial discipline process.
He deprived people of liberty – they were not allowed to leave until they peed in the cup for this nutcase. How is that not, in effect, kidnapping or deprivation of civil rights? Shouldn’t he have been indicted?
January 8, 2010, 5:26 pmgasman says:
It’s good to be the king.
January 8, 2010, 5:29 pmImagine if it were anyone else but a judge in the courthouse who on some fanciful whim ordered a couple armed men to escort a random visitor to the restroom to extract a urine sample under duress.
But the one guy who had the highest duty to uphold constitutional behavior and best understanding of law to know he shouldn’t do that gets off with a slap on the wrist.
ShelbyC says:
Hard to imaging there’s not a federal criminal violation here. Betchya nobody’s going to procecute it though.
January 8, 2010, 5:34 pmDG says:
I actually feel bad for the bailiffs who are being sued here – they have to trust that the judge is telling them to do things in his actual authority. What do they do? Quit? sure. Complain? complain to who? The judge? Another judge?
The judge needs to be nailed, but the cops?
January 8, 2010, 5:35 pmJMA says:
This crap always bugged the hell out of me in high school because of the administration’s habit of calling for “random” participants right after lunch–just after any responsible person has already taken care of business. And then some overpaid [censored] with a briefcase and an armload of liquid waste sitting beside him would threaten me with all of the most humiliating, physically invasive, or just plain painful ways he could force me to produce something I ran out of ten minutes prior. Being a dumb kid in high school, I was never certain at the time whether or not he was bluffing.
I despise people who do that for a living.
Let’s hope Mr. Marchant was ready to go when the High and Mighty Judge demanded it.
I would also hope that someone out there makes sure this [also censored] gets more than a slap on the wrist for his behavior.
January 8, 2010, 5:40 pmShelbyC says:
You had to take drug tests in high school? Is that typical nowadays?
January 8, 2010, 5:47 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Federal Civil Rights case, under color of authority?
Sounds like the Judge should be peeing in a cup…or rather have an untrained bailiff shove a 24french foley into him and get a ‘clean’ sample….Daily, and in front of the entire court staff as witnesses.
And so what if they have drugs in their system. Is there a law against that? Presumptively using illicit drugs? What about a person who had a beer at lunch, or is under a doctors care taking legitimate drugs?
Whats the legal limit in his courtroom?
January 8, 2010, 5:57 pmKirk Parker says:
Arrest him?
January 8, 2010, 6:04 pmShelbyC says:
Yeah. Same thing he’s supposed to do if the judge orders him to take the money out of a spectator’s wallet and pass it to the bench.
January 8, 2010, 6:10 pmMark Jones says:
Ignorance of the law, as we’re so often told, is no excuse. I seem to recall, also, that “I was just following orders” is generally viewed as a poor defense.
I agree, however, that the slap on the wrist the judge received, is far from adequate. It is, however, depressingly unsurprising.
January 8, 2010, 6:16 pmLaura Victoria says:
The judicial union protection system in most states is highly effective. It’s the SEIU of the legal profession.
January 8, 2010, 6:20 pmJavert says:
And the difference between this judge’s (unconstitutional) actions and the actions of the TSA is what, exactly?
January 8, 2010, 6:26 pmArthurKirkland says:
A “connect the dots” approach (profiling) to this problem would be to bar people named Moore from the bench, particularly in southern states.
A more sensible approach would be to prosecute this judge, take his robe and hope Mr. Marchant recovers handsomely in a civil action.
This conduct was so egregious I find it difficult to believe this Judge Moore was a first-time customer at the jumbo stupid pill stand. I would not find it difficult to believe a connection with the other infamous Judge Moore, though.
January 8, 2010, 6:35 pmChris Travers says:
Is that legal? Really? When was this?
January 8, 2010, 6:48 pmChris Travers says:
How often does the TSA order drug screening on passengers?
January 8, 2010, 6:49 pmBill Poser says:
If this were a one time event in unusual circumstances (e.g. the judge had a medical problem, had just experienced a personal tragedy, was on mind-altering medication) censure would seem adequate. In the absence of evidence of such special circumstances, and given that this was apparently one incident among many, I would think that removal would be warranted since, even if he behaves himself in this particular respect henceforth, his behavior would lead me to have grave doubts as to his understanding of the law and suitability for office.
January 8, 2010, 7:08 pmBill Poser says:
One difference is that passengers arguably consent to searches by the TSA. One can argue about whether there is a right to fly and whether their consent is therefore coerced (though to my knowledge the courts have not been receptive to such arguments), but they do consent at least in a formal sense. Another difference is that a pretty good argument can be made that the state’s interest in preventing people from boarding airplanes with weapons is considerably greater than its interest in preventing people who have ingested certain substances from entering a courtroom.
January 8, 2010, 7:13 pmBill Poser says:
It turns out that this is not the only time this judge has been censured. He was censured twice on the same day: censure #2. The second censure is for falsely claiming that an absent attorney had attempted to substitute counsel, calling him on his cell phone, and, using profanity, demanding that he return to the courtroom.
January 8, 2010, 7:25 pmChris Travers says:
Just what does it take, short of arrest, to get a judge removed anyway?
January 8, 2010, 7:38 pmKirk Parker says:
Chris,
A dead girl or a live boy, apparently.
January 8, 2010, 7:48 pm_quodlibet_ says:
Any thoughts on whether the judge would have absolute judicial immunity for his actions here?
January 8, 2010, 7:51 pmKazinski says:
If a Judge demanded I give a urine sample when I was spectating in his court, I would be glad to comply. But to insure the chain of custody, I’d want the judge to hold the cup while I gave the sample.
January 8, 2010, 8:02 pmBill Poser says:
I somehow screwed up the link above. The other censure is at: http://tennessee.watchdog.org/files/2009/12/2009-5-1-CENSURE-Judge-Durwood-G.-Moore.pdf
January 8, 2010, 8:04 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
http://tennessee.watchdog.org/files/2009/12/2009-5-1-CENSURE-Judge-Durwood-G.-Moore.pdf
Apparently not serious enough……
January 8, 2010, 8:08 pmBill Poser says:
With regard to what it takes to remove a judge in Tennessee, some evidence is available. This site lists disciplinary actions against judges: http://tennessee.watchdog.org/2009/12/23/the-public-record-on-tennessees-court-of-the-judiciary/
January 8, 2010, 8:19 pmI looked at a case in which the judge was forced to resign, that of Judge Ronald E. Darby. He was charged with multiple counts of using people sentenced to perform public service work for his personal benefit. I find this disturbing. Surely a violation of civil liberties is more serious, at least on the part of a judge, than what is in effect mere larceny.
Ryan Waxx says:
There’s a difference between a judge ordering a bailiff to violate someone’s rights and a judge ordering a bailiff to commit a blatant crime. When was the last time a judge issued a rights-violating warrant and the receiving officer drove over and clapped handcuffs on said judge? Perhaps you think that’s the way things should work, but it is not the way things actually work.
Heck, citizens are subject to so many “voluntary” drug tests that I’m astonished that anyone thought it unusual to be ordered by a court to take one.
January 8, 2010, 8:23 pmBill Poser says:
This is very interesting. I just looked at the two censures of Judge A. Andrew Jackson on the above mentioned site. The first dealt with an occasion on which, while quite drunk, he called a black man a “nigger”, a man from Pennsylvania a “[obscenity excised in original] Yankee”, and was offensive to a woman who declined to dance with him. The second was for misconduct directed at Hispanic children of illegal aliens or who were themselves illegal aliens. It seems to me that a judge who is evidently prejudiced against black people, Hispanics, and Yankees is more deserving of removal than someone who engages in mere larceny. Why on earth has this Judge Jackson not been removed?
January 8, 2010, 8:27 pmBill Poser says:
In any other context, what the judge ordered the bailiff to do would constitute unlawful confinement and assault, would it not? It seems to me that the judge did order the bailiff to commit a blatant crime, even if we ignore the question of whether he violated 18 USC 242.
January 8, 2010, 8:31 pmRyan Waxx says:
Again, given the amount of “voluntary” drug-testing that goes on? Not so blatant at all. See my example of the warrant: Wouldn’t that be the judge causing a break-in under the color of authority? So why not clap on the irons posthaste?
January 8, 2010, 8:46 pmDisplaced Midwesterner says:
There seems to be a good argument here that the judge was acting in the complete absence of jurisdiction, which is the standard for getting around judicial immunity for arguably judicial acts. And of course, he could, in theory anyway, be criminally prosecuted.
January 8, 2010, 8:51 pmmariner says:
Kirk Parker:
I don’t think a live boy would be sufficient reason anymore.
January 8, 2010, 8:51 pmNorthern Dave says:
I’m curious. If I’m a judge sitting in session, and I see one of the spectators committing a crime what am I supposed to do?
Hypothetically, say I see a spectator remove a wallet from the person in front of them while that person doesn’t notice.
Don’t I have an obligation to order the criminal searched?
I don’t see the difference between this and ordering someone obviously blitzed out of their mind tested.
Maybe I’m missing something.
The second censure I find more serious. Slandering (or libelling if in the court records??) a court official seems to me a very, very serious charge.
Does anyone know if Tennesee has a protocol for censure leading to removal (3 strikes? 33 strikes?). Maybe this is his second strike and they are just moving the paper trail along….
January 8, 2010, 8:52 pmBill Poser says:
Northern Dave@
I didn’t see anything in the record to the effect that the spectator showed obvious signs of being on drugs. In any case, I’m not sure that there is any offense that the judge might have observed that would justify drug testing. If the offense is something along the lines of public intoxication, presumably the behavior alone is sufficient and the test would be unnecessary. Crimes associated with prohibited substances are possession and trafficking. Being high on a prohibited substance is not in and of itself a crime, is it?
January 8, 2010, 8:59 pmNorthern Dave says:
I’m not familiar with Tennessee substance laws either……..why other than observed behaviour would the judge do what he did? – unless a psychiatric exam is in order?
January 8, 2010, 9:13 pmJavert says:
I don’t recall the words “drug” or “screening” in the Fourth Amendment. It’s a statement of principle, meant to cover all particular cases. It covers all cases of searches and seizures without probable cause, whether the search is for drugs in one’s body or liquids in one’s suitcase.
January 8, 2010, 9:30 pmBill Poser says:
The plot thickens. I just noticed that the lawyer representing Marchant (the guy who was forcibly tested), in his suit against the judge, one R. Todd Hansrote, is the lawyer the abuse of whom led to Moore’s other censure. I bet he’s enjoying this.
January 8, 2010, 9:33 pmuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Reddit by smartasswhiteboy: Drug testing effectively abolished the 4th amendment….
January 8, 2010, 10:06 pmChris Travers says:
My reading is different than yours. I guess I was naive that it required SEARCHES to be reasonable and required probable cause and particularity where warrants were concerned (for example to search a home).
But then I am just not a lawyer.
January 8, 2010, 10:23 pmApperception says:
I thought you wanted someone to point out differences…
Yep, there it is.
January 8, 2010, 11:24 pmStormy Dragon says:
Let this sternly worded letter be a lesson to you!
January 9, 2010, 12:13 amSoronel Haetir says:
Because he let the power of being a judge go to his head? The whole the process is the penalty business.
Although I find it hard to believe that he has ordered such in the past and only now gets censured over it and only regarding one instance.
January 9, 2010, 12:20 amRicardo says:
Is there any state where 1) being under the influence of drugs is itself a crime and 2) drug testing of an ordinary civilian not involved in a car crash or other suspected violation of the law can be justified on the opinion of one person who has not received training in recognizing the tell-tale signs of illegal drug use?
I’d be pretty surprised if this was the case anywhere. This censure certainly seems to indicate it is not the case in Tennessee.
January 9, 2010, 12:50 amTHESMOPHORON says:
Re: an (absolute?) right to fly — There is a right to travel between the states. One state and several territories are unreachable by land. Another state is unreachable by land without going into another country. If there’s some kind of constitutional right to fly, it would seem grounded there.
A counterargument would be that the right to travel (as I understand it) is a right enforceable against the states. It’s rooted in the privileges and immunities clause (not the privileges or immunities clause) prohibiting states from discriminating against people who move in from out of state. Are there right-to-travel cases where federal governmental action has been held unconstitutional for violating the right to travel embodied in P&IC?
Of course, even if there is a federally-enforceable right to fly inherent in the right to travel, that doesn’t necessarily invalidate TSA screening. Fourth Amendment protections are criminal procedure protections; I’m not sure they operate for pure safety screening. For example, Mr. Marchant (we’ve established) had every right to be in the courtroom. That same right would exist in Federal court, where it is constitutionally mandated and always has been constitutionally mandated that trials be open to the public. And yet metal detectors at courthouses do not infringe on that right.It seems to me that the key difference is between a search for evidence of criminal wrongdoing, versus a screening for safety reasons.
January 9, 2010, 1:47 amvic says:
Why do Judges perennially behave as if they are above the law. This is not the first or last case. Why is this guy not in jail. How do we protect the citizenry from the fraternal order of incompetent power crazed judges.
January 9, 2010, 1:59 amLior says:
Indeed the rules are that the higher up you are in the legal system, the less the laws apply to you. If the Dean ordered campus security to take a visitor out of one of our seminars and test his urine, the Dean and the officers would serve long prison sentences for false imprisonment, among other crimes. A judge learned in the law does this, and somehow he isn’t even fired, let along prosecuted.
Similarly, defendants who manufacture evidence are guilty of many crimes, but prosecutors who manufacture evidence are “absolutely immune” from being held accountable.
The reason seems to me to lie in the royalist roots of the common-law system: The king can do no wrong — and the legal system acts in his name. From this spring outrages like sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and absolute immunity. It is not surprising to see that such “doctrines” are usually invented by the courts (channelling the king) and not by the legislature.
January 9, 2010, 2:11 amEH says:
Ricardo:
Is there any state where 1) being under the influence of drugs is itself a crime
I know that in California, being under the influence of heroin is a felony in and of itself.
January 9, 2010, 3:16 amKevin C. says:
Why is this discussion-worthy? Those with power have always been able to get away with breaking the rules in ways the “common” person cannot. As Thucydides noted,
Yes, Judge Moore gets away with a slap on the wrist; a prosecutor can fake evidence with impunity; that’s the way the world works, and there’s nothing we can do about it.
January 9, 2010, 4:01 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Judge Personally Ordered a Violation of the Fourth Amendment -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by marieboyer, person net au. person net au said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Judge Personally Ordered a … http://bit.ly/8FSFYa [...]
January 9, 2010, 6:26 amOctavian says:
Maybe Judge Moore can hire my cousin Vinny to represent him in these proceedings.
January 9, 2010, 7:26 amRicardo says:
Yes but that’s not enough to legally justify compulsory drug testing based on a hunch, which is what this case in Tennessee involved. If this lawyer is to be believed, here is how California cops enforce the law:
In this case, the judge certainly had no training to recognize the tell tale signs of being under the influence of illegal drugs and it appears the bailiff did not subject this individual to any such testing before collecting a urine sample. I believe the other states with “under the influence” laws are similar in requiring more than simply a hunch in order to compel drug testing.
January 9, 2010, 7:45 amPersonFromPorlock says:
Since there’s at least one obvious federal felony (18 USC 242) involved, the real question is what is the US Attorney going to do? Or better yet, why isn’t he going to do it?
But then, I suppose we all know the answer.
January 9, 2010, 7:47 amSun Tzu's Nephew says:
I feel sorry for the balliffs:
January 9, 2010, 9:14 amMichael P says:
Please, elaborate on how widespread this “voluntary” drug testing is. I do not recall ever being tested for drugs. The most common reason for drug testing that I am aware of is that many employers require their employees to submit to random or periodic drug tests as a condition of their employment. The most common reason that employers do this is workplace safety (possibly at the insistence of their insurance policy): If someone is under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs, it is possible that their work product is impaired as a result, and that may result in hazardous conditions or defective products.
Submitting to random drug tests as a condition of employment is a far cry from submitting to hunch-based drug tests as a condition of waiting in a public courtroom for an acquaintance to finish his business there. Among other differences, there is an articulable rational interest in the former.
January 9, 2010, 9:36 amFub says:
And being under influence of a controlled substance (Cal. H&S Section 11550) is a misdemeanor, not a felony. It also qualifies for diversion by participation in a drug treatment program.
January 9, 2010, 12:09 pmEH says:
Ricardo:
I believe the other states with “under the influence” laws are similar in requiring more than simply a hunch in order to compel drug testing.
That was your #2 question, I was answering #1.
Fub:
And being under influence of a controlled substance (Cal. H&S Section 11550) is a misdemeanor, not a felony
Dat junkie lied ta me!
January 9, 2010, 1:47 pmBuddy Hinton says:
The judge needs fired. So do the policemen.
January 9, 2010, 2:12 pmBuddy Hinton says:
Apparently the answer is “no.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIoyJ-LyAaE
As a matter of fact, theft in a courtroom is apparently not even a crime.
January 9, 2010, 2:21 pmJIMV says:
Sounds actionable under Title 18 USC as a civil rights violation with the Judge breaking the law under the color of his office.
Te way to deal with out of control Judges is to go after them when they break the law.
January 9, 2010, 2:52 pmdrunkdriver says:
If the judge can successfully assert absolute judicial immunity, the bailiffs may well be able to succeed in this defense as well: they were only carrying out the orders of the judge, and should not be expected to function as roving appellate courts, deciding which judicial orders do and do not pass constitutional muster.
Will be interesting to see how the case turns out.
January 9, 2010, 3:31 pmRH says:
If Judges would only order drug tests for lawyers, maybe we could seriously thin out their ranks.
January 9, 2010, 3:31 pmDraggingCanoe says:
When I was in the Army drug tests were randomly required. One morning I woke up early to urinate; a short time after that I received a phone call from the staff duty NCO to report to the company..
On arrival I was told a drug test was being administered. They gave me a cup and was told to fill it. I went to the latrine with an observer. No way could I pee in the cup..maybe a trickle.
There were many soldiers peeing in cups, but could I not. Filled my tummy with coffee and water but to no avail.
I was the last one. They assigned a guard to watch me. I was being looked at. The CO and 1SG came into the day room to have a look, whispered to one another. Have they got a druggie?
It was three hours before my kidneys could do their job. They called in a JAG officer, to observe me peeing in the cup, signing the tape on the cup.
My rank was Sergeant First Class and was new to the unit, having arrived from an overseas assignment.
The test was negative, but for a brief moment I was under the radar.
January 9, 2010, 4:11 pmDon Giannatti says:
The “Thuggification” of America proceeds, albeit at a contentious pace.
Ya just gotta wonder if this is the only time this “judge” overstepped his boundaries.
As someone who has been around for awhile I would bet NO.
Every case he has presided over should become suspect.
Unless he has a brain tumor or something… he should never be allowed to have authority over anyone anywhere anytime.
Period.
January 9, 2010, 4:18 pmDBKP FLASH Headline News » Judge Durwood Moore Censured Over Courtroom Drug Test Behavior says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy; Judge Personally Ordered a Violation of the Fourth Amendment images: * sirenschronicles.com * http://www.beal-surrealiste.com Bookmark and Share: [...]
January 9, 2010, 4:23 pmDuke says:
Here’s an opposing viewpoint. I think the vast majority of judges are reasonable and professonal, and so there’s no well established removal process because the need for it doesn’t arise too often. That’s a good thing. It may take awhile to get rid of this judge if they do, but streamlining the process too much might also take away lots of discretion from other judges who exercise it prudently but still occasionally make an honest mistake.
January 9, 2010, 4:33 pmunhuh says:
Now see, Judge Durwood is the sort of candidate for a micro predator drone hit when those UAVs become generally available on eBay sometime ahead
January 9, 2010, 4:50 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
These cases aren’t the first time (or second) that THIS judge abused his authority. It’s not even the first time he’s been censured – he got two in one day, after all, for abusing his authority; depriving someone of their civil rights (which he was well-known to do frequently), and generally being an ass towards an attorney. Guess which got him more censure from the bar?
This judge should be fired, defrocked, disbarred, impeached. He should get a 10 year federal civil rights sentence, lose his pension, his home, everything. He should NOT be given any leeway, he should be hounded from Tennessee while law-abiding citizens throw rocks at him. Why? Because he abused his authority, and only by making such practices a horrible public spectacle will the abuse stop. Judges think they can get away with almost anything because they have been treated that way: Treat them the way they treat others and the abuse will stop.
January 9, 2010, 4:51 pmSplunge says:
Since this is a public censure, I’m curious whether defendants before this guy could use it as a reason to have him removed, or strengthen their cases on appeal.
Say, some fellow is charged with a using-drug crime, and there are some Fourth Amendments questions about whether the evidence was collected constitutionally. Could the defendant’s lawyer introduce this public censure as a good reason to have the case removed from this judge? Could he use it afterwards, on appeal, along with whatever he can scare up from the trial record, e.g. intemperate or contemptuous language (“The damned druggies are destroying America!”) to argue the defendant didn’t receive his Fifth Amendment rights to a fair trial?
January 9, 2010, 4:54 pmNorthern Dave says:
Wow!…………What gives???……….
Thanks for the link….it looks like something from a bad SNL skit……..
January 9, 2010, 5:06 pmDave says:
This kind of non-punishment is the reason we have outrageous judicial behavior in the first place.
The judge should have been summarily removed and then disbarred, period. If judges knew they risked such a judicial ‘death penalty’, you can bet that they would behave themselves more properly. As it is, since they almost always get little more than a nasty-gram, we can be sure that it will happen again… soon, and often.
January 9, 2010, 5:16 pmMichael Chaney says:
As I’ve been saying for some time now, it’s interesting that we have a set of laws enshrined in the Bill of Rights for which there are no punishments. This judge broke the law – not just “the law” but, geeze, “THE LAW”, the Constitution – and his “punishment” is a letter saying “you’re bad, quit it”. Maybe a little embarrassment?
Why’s this guy not in jail? (rhetorical question)
January 9, 2010, 5:20 pmBuddy Hinton says:
There is another hearing scheduled for February 9, 2010 because the deputy refuses to apologize or admit that he did anything wrong.
Professor Kerr wrote that the incident made him “steaming mad” (IIRC), but stopped short of recommending that the deputy go to jail or be charged with a crime.
January 9, 2010, 5:38 pmDavid Baker says:
Extremely impressive, these “Canons.” Virtually ecclesiastical.
Useful against the pedestrians, though. But not so much in the courts where the cycle of power grinds such high ideas into dust, mere dust to be dealt with swiftly and severely.
January 9, 2010, 6:35 pmgus3 says:
This judge should give himself three days in the pokey, for bringing contempt upon his own court.
January 9, 2010, 6:45 pmLazarus Long says:
So what would have happened if this individual had called the FBI and accused Judge Durwood G. Moore of kindnapping?
Serious question.
January 9, 2010, 7:16 pmMark Jones says:
Because for the most part, they are? In practice, at least, whatever the law may say. Same reason prosecutors can get away with horrendous misbehavior and only rarely (Nifong) pay any real price for it. After all, if the public doesn’t like it, they can vote them out (in those jurisdictions where that’s an option). We can also vote out unrepresentative legislators–in theory. In practice, 98% reelection rates suggest otherwise.
January 9, 2010, 7:40 pmChris Travers says:
Dude… If you haven’t noticed that judges are virtually the object of a state religion (heck the titles of some are taken from the name of a pagan goddess), then…………
January 9, 2010, 8:40 pmBrian Epps says:
Looks to me like a final warning. This censure says his strikes are used up. If he screws up again, even a little, he’s going out so hard he’ll bounce.
At least I hope that is what it says. Judicial authority is so powerful that it has to be policed sternly. Crash landings like removal should be on a very light trigger.
January 9, 2010, 8:45 pmSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Rope, lamp post, thug: Some assembly required. Tolerating this sort of behavior means the system itself is unworthy of respect.
January 9, 2010, 9:25 pmShelbyC says:
That’s not the half of it. A chief judge of that court found the deputy in contempt and ordered him to appologize. Arpio ordered him not to. Sherriffs staged a sick-out and refused to provide security for the courts. The deputy was supposed to turn himself in and go to jail for refusing to appoligize, but AFAICT it’s not clear if he was ever booked. The the sherrif and DA charged the judge who issued the contempt order with some sort of crime…
January 9, 2010, 9:44 pmKirk Lazarus says:
Your could get more powerful. Homemade WMD can do that.
January 9, 2010, 9:44 pmRich Rostrom says:
THESMOPHORON:
All parts of the U.S. are reachable without traveling by air. One can travel by land, or else by water. (Note that except the Virgin Islands, all U.S. territories were acquired before air travel was possible.)
If one wants to travel by air without passing a search or drug screening, one can get one’s own airplane. One may not pilot a plane in an intoxicated condition, but one can certainly ride in one.
January 9, 2010, 10:34 pmreadery says:
Whether the judge personally benefits and is doing something for personal benefit makes a big difference. Sentencing someone to ten years more in prison than appropriate under sentencing guidelines matters much more to the person sentenced than any of these things. Yet if based on a simple error of law, it is not a matter warranting censure at all, and mistakes in applying sentencing guidelines happen all the time.
The judge who ordered the spectator to undergo a drug test and who inappropriately insisted a lawyer appear in person was not obviously doing these things for the judge’s personal gain, while the judge who ordered people to do “community service” by doing housework for him clearly was. Tennessess was being quite sensible in seeing a difference between the two situations and handling the private gain situation more seriously.
January 9, 2010, 11:22 pmHastur says:
I remember being drug tested in college by the NCAA. It was probably one of the weirder experiences I’ve had. There was absolutely no privacy, as the drug tester was watching you intently. I’m still not sure it was necessary for a 1AA Non Scholarship Program.
January 9, 2010, 11:55 pmmarkm says:
“Qualified immunity” means that for police officers, ignorance of the law is an excuse. “Absolute immunity” means that judges and prosecutors get away with deliberate lawbreaking. Ignorance of the law is no excuse only for us peons who aren’t drawing government pay to know and execute the laws.
True, this applies only to civil lawsuits – but in reality, civil lawsuits are almost the only thing law-breaking police, prosecutors, and judges have to worry about as long as their crimes are not committed against other members of the privileged classes or for personal gain. They are more likely to be struck by lightning than prosecuted by their buddies for violating the rights of the non-privileged. In Virginia, the penalty for a cop accidentally shooting and killing a non-violent suspect when there was no reason to have a finger on the trigger or be pointing the gun at him was three weeks suspension. Nifong merely lost his job and law license. Arpaio is still running the Phoenix PD as if he’s an especially megalomaniac medieval king. And on this judicial turd’s third strike (or more), all the disciplinary committee did was warn him that they’ll seek to fire him next time.
January 10, 2010, 1:58 amdwight says:
http://tennessee.watchdog.org/2009/12/23/the-public-record-on-tennessees-court-of-the-judiciary/
This is a really interesting page. One of my favorites is Judge Ronald E Darby. He had 11 people who were on probation in drug court, who had to community service or whatever, so he said to them all ‘come to my personal office, my home, and my rental property, and do all my refurbishments for me.’
What a classic.
Now his career is over. Hope he got his “money’s worth”.
January 10, 2010, 8:57 amJMA says:
In reply to: “is that normal nowadays?” and “is that legal?”
Surely one of you guys remembers a court case over the whole testing thing circa 1998-2002 or so. Then again, I suppose it may have been overshadowed by some other court case from around the same time where I was growing up. Let’s just say whatshisname was somewhat litigious. >.>
An upperclassman actually filed suit over the whole thing while I was in school, but it was never overturned. It’s been awhile, but I think basically it was decided that it was ok based on the fact that it was only required for people who signed up for extracurricular activities.
I suppose it’s possible that the practice was done away with after I graduated, but I try not to keep up with that kind of thing.
Should it bug me that things considered acceptable by authorities where I grew up always seem to strike people here as being of questionable legality? -.-
January 11, 2010, 11:44 amDan Weber says:
Arpaio is a grade-A scumbag. Here’s some more recent news from him. Probably the worst sheriff in America.
January 11, 2010, 3:45 pmBuncy says:
He does not have immunity. Under 18 USCA 242 he may even be prosecuted in the federal courts for deprivation of Constitutional rights under color of law.
August 27, 2010, 2:09 pm