Image Image

  Nostalgia ain't what it used to be

Friday, 27 November, 2020

Katie's Law (part one of two)

Date: 15 May, 2010

By: Chief

Imageh no. Here we go again. Another tug at the heart strings by a bill being proffered by none other than the Congressman for the 2nd Congressional District of New Mexico — the one, the only (thank God for small favors) — Harry Teague.

Face it folks the silly season is upon us and because of this simple fact each and every Congressman will do anything to buy your vote for him or her. The same holds true in the Senate where 1/3 of the seats are up for grabs. Kinda just like your vote. Disgusting.

Katie Sepich

She was a Carlsbad, New Mexico native who was:

It was truly a crime of utter savagery, beyond the pale and in utter violation of all humanity. On that score I know of no one who would argue. Quoting Congressman Teague's email:

"Because Katie's body was burned, fingerprints or other evidence couldn't help find Katie's killer. There was DNA left under Katie's fingernails but because arrestee DNA collection laws didn't exist in many states there were no leads. Finally, in 2006 Katie's killer was convicted of aggravated burglary after roaming the streets for 3 years and police were able to link him to Katie's rape and murder.

"After DNA solved Katie's case, Katie's mother and father, Jayann and David Sepich, advocated tirelessly for Katie's law, requiring arrestee DNA collection and matching in New Mexico. The law was implemented in 2007. Jayann and Dave didn't stop with New Mexico — 21 other states have also passed laws requiring arrestee DNA collection" [emphasis added].

What happened to her should never happen to anyone. The death penalty works real good against slugs such as Gabriel Avilla, who was convicted of Katie's heinous murder. Hang 'em high says I.

Katie's law

New Mexico passed this idiotic law (29-3-10 NMSA) in 2007. The law reads all people arrested for allegedly or purportedly committing a felony offense shall provide a DNA sample. Here is the statute:

"A person eighteen years of age or over who is arrested for the commission of a felony under the laws of this state or any other jurisdiction shall provide a DNA sample to jail or detention facility personnel upon booking."

Well now boys and girls, that doesn't sound too bad now does it? Uh, yeah it does and it is far worse than suspected.

It is one thing for a person, arrested for allegedly or purportedly committing a felony, who is subsequently convicted for said felonious offense to be required to provide a DNA sample. It is another thing altogether for said person to be found:

And that person is still required to submit to DNA collection upon booking? It's lunacy and it is evil.

What about those people? They do exist you know. Another innocent person has just been destroyed. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I worked at a law firm for quite sometime and I factually know — from experience — that getting records expunged can be, and most often is, a bloody nightmare. Even if you have a judicial order in your hot little paws.

Do you actually think a cop shop (go ahead pick a flavor) or district attorney's office is going to adhere to a judicial order? Not on your previous existence. This is not to mention the frigging federales. A state issued judicial order is utterly worthless against the federales. Indeed, a judicial order may not be any good outside of the county that particular court resides in — dependent upon its jurisdiction.

You, the innocent party, can raise cain till who laid the rails and the only thing you will have to show for your efforts is being short of breath. Sucks doesn't it? Why yes, it most certainly does.

The great jurist, possibly the greatest, (though he was not perfect) Sir William Blackstone wrote:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer."

And this beautiful little gem:

"The public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual's private rights."

I fully agree with both. Too bad our legislatures don't — the pusillanimous twerps.

An assumption of guilt

That is the biggest problem of them all. Just because a person is arrested for allegedly or purportedly committing a felony offense does not, in anyway, prove Joe Arrestee:

committed the felony offense or offenses he was charged with. Only and I do mean only a jury can do that. In criminal cases, before a jury, this is how it works. The:

Yet, for some strange reason, several of our states have decided that a person who is arrested for allegedly or purportedly committing a felony offense is guilty upon being merely arrested. Hence, the burden of proof of guilt has shifted from the prosecution to being the burden of proof of innocence to the person who was arrested. That is the wrong fucking answer.

This is not to mention some other pesky little details such as the:

Quoting the Colorado Independent (State Senator Morgan Carroll):

" 'The only way this works is if we assume they're guilty and we havent [sic] proven it yet', Carroll said. Moments later, acknowledging the bill was likely to pass out of committee, Carroll delivered a scathing assessment of the proposed law. 'I think we have really done damage - probably permanent damage - to everything we hold dear in the Constitution', she said."

And this, quoting (State Senator Morgan Carroll):

" 'I understand that this is a valuable tool for law enforcement', said Carroll. 'But we cannot brush aside the US Constitution for expedience. We need to make sure, if we are collecting this information, that we have very good probable cause with the Fourth Amendment, that there's very serious safeguards on what is relavant [sic] and appropriate use of it, and it would be most Constitutionally protective to make sure where talking about people who have been arrested, not merely accused of a crime'."

Senator Carroll is absolutely right. And by the way, the Colorado legislature passed it's flavor of Katie's Law. Senator Carroll was the only "Nay" vote in Colorado's Senate. Governor Ritter signed the bill into law. Morons.

Let's make it the law of the land

Which is exactly what that dolt of a Congressman — yeah Harry Teague — is trying to do. However Teague and any other Congressional dolt who supports this abomination realizes all too well is — there is no Constitutional provision for such a law. There is absolutely no:

grant of power to enact such heinous legislation. None. And don't forget those amendments. It is a state only issue. Period.

As such Teague and his fellow bounders have violated the Constitution and their oath of office. Rabid curs.

Continue to part two.

(Return to the top)