I laughed out loud when I read this article in the Coeur d’Alene Press skewspaper today. The laughter was provoked by these lines: “Coeur d’Alene defense attorney Michael Palmer said the way the Constitution currently reads is problematic. Palmer said, “Our clients are being supervised by people who don’t have the (constitutional) authority to do it.”
So apparently Idaho’s defense attorneys and judges have been ignoring the “problematic” wording of the Idaho Constitution and worked out a deal to let the attorneys’ clients be supervised by people who don’t have the (constitutional) authority to do it.
Don’t like the Idaho Constitution? Doesn’t work for you? No problem. Just ignore it. The lawyers don’t care, and apparently the judges don’t care. It’s the Idaho way.
I’m not sure I understand what’s going on here.
Comment by Dan — October 7, 2012 @ 5:25 pm
Dan,
Under the Idaho Constitution, Article X, Section 5 as it stands today, the Idaho Department of Correction has control over all adult probation and parole. This includes not only felony probation and parole but misdemeanor probation and parole.
However at some time in the distant past, Idaho’s counties determined they should have county departments of probation rather than the State having control over misdemeanor probationers. No one, not the State and not the state courts objected apparently to the counties usurping the authority the Constitution assigns exclusively to the state. By common agreement apparently, they just decided to let the counties supervise misdemeanor probationers. Practically, this makes perfectly good sense and it should have been handled by constitutional amendment years ago. But that’s not the Idaho way. The Idaho way is just for the judges to look the other way when laws and the Idaho Constitution are violated if the violations make sense.
The proposed constitutional amendment adds the word “felony” to Article X, Section 5 to clarify that the State Department of Correction authority is limited to felony probationers and parolees.
My objection isn’t with the proposed amendment; it’s with Idaho’s (supposed) justice system being willing to ignore the Idaho constitution and laws for convenience rather than following the prescribed means of correction.
Comment by Bill — October 7, 2012 @ 7:02 pm
Exactly, that is how how I understand this change – to be one of convenience so the county is not in violation of the Constitution for doing things that they do everyday or BAU.
Smart criminals or some very smart long criminal might be figuring this out, so in order to protect government interests/liability the Constitution needs to be tweaked to grant the authority to the county, officially. Gad, this is very bad, seriously.
Nothing is changed until it starts to cost money and someone figures out their very big mistake – so then the issue is fixed to make sure ‘they’ are not liable. That is the Idaho ways and how the legal system always works here and always has – in it’s favor. They probably cannot get this shoved thru fast enough.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 7, 2012 @ 7:25 pm
long = lone oops
Comment by Stebbijo — October 7, 2012 @ 7:26 pm
And this should surprise no one, this county runs rampant in all aspects of government. This is a very corrupt county that is run by a group of whom they believe are elite, every move is made with a monetary motive to those elite few. Obtain public records requests, or should I say TRY to, once in a while you’ll find someone who will actually give you the truth on what is asked for but as a rule, you’ll find you’ll be denied, it’s always an attorney client privileged document, will be the claim so your denied the record, this county hides as much as it can from the public. Speaking of hiding why has our little city employee who once again stole from us, why is she not been arrested??? Or is this another Sandy Martinson case where the semi- elite are protected , not arrested taken to jail put on the press logs and mistreated like the common criminal, what’s the hold up??? She needs to go thru the process like anyone else who goes to jail for spitting on the sidewalk in this town, sick of favoritism to this elite bunch, they all need to spend a nite at the kootenai county jail. If for no other reason than to see how bad this jail is run…
Comment by nativetocda — October 8, 2012 @ 6:57 am
nativetocda,
One of the things I’ve learned from public records requests is that the records themselves rarely stand alone as a smoking gun. Rather, the incriminating evidence results from analysis of seemingly innocuous pieces of information, then collating them into a clear picture.
One of the biggest problems Kootenai County’s “justice” system continues to face is a prosecutor who will not aggressively investigate and prosecute crimes amounting to public corruption. It’s far easier to go after the low-hanging fruit (drug dealers, child molesters, etc.) whom everyone dislikes rather than risk aggravating politically influential supporters who have some control over his next career move by going after corrupt local officials. Closely related are some judges in the First Judicial District who are career dead-enders. Their only hope of retaining their judgeship or even elevation to an appellate level court is to keep influential locals happy by making sure controversial decisions go the “right” way.
You raised a very good question about the investigation of the alleged embezzlement by a Coeur d’Alene City employee in July 2012. What is the status of that investigation? There was a rumor circulating that the Secret Service had been asked to get involved in that investigation, but that didn’t make much sense to me unless the alleged violator forged an endorsement on a federal check. Based only on what the local skewspaper reported (to the extent it reports anything factually and completely), it sounded to me as if the FBI would have been the more logical choice if there were federal violations.
The problem with involving the Secret Service, especially during a campaign year, is that the case agent may very well be on some 21-day or longer protective assignment which would allow the investigation to languish. Also, if the alleged federal violation was limited to forgery of a government check (18 USC 510) and if the aggregate dollar value of that or those checks was relatively low, let’s say under $5K or $10K, there is a chance the US Attorney for the District of Idaho would simply decline federal prosecution. Low dollar value declination would be more likely to happen in a more active federal judicial district (e.g., Central District of California which includes LA, SLO, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Orange, Riverside and San Berdo counties) where Assistant US Attorneys routinely handle much larger and more complex cases than the District of Idaho will ever see.
Comment by Bill — October 8, 2012 @ 7:29 am
“If this (amendment) goes through, it will just be business as usual,” Palmer said. “If it doesn’t, it will raise some interesting questions.” (Cda Press).
Priceless.
Comment by up river — October 8, 2012 @ 8:10 am
up river,
That’s what I thought, too.
Comment by Bill — October 8, 2012 @ 8:12 am
So in other words it may be being swept under the rug at the local level? Oh how I’m not surprised, and as a tax paying citizen I don’t feel the Martinson thing was handled appropriately either. Everyone needs to get out and vote these crooks we elected to watch over our great city out of office. They are seriously ruining what used to be a wonderful place to live. We need new blood and new ideas from the ones who have made city/county government a career, keeping the same for too many years only breeds more corruption. The people need to take our city back from the ELITE and corrupt, let’s put someone in there that will do there job, according to the laws.
Comment by nativetocda — October 8, 2012 @ 8:17 am
nativetocda,
I think it’s safe to say that there would be some happy people if the rug got lumpier. Anything that draws unfavorable attention to Coeur d’Alene is perceived as being trivial and worthy of being swept under the increasingly lumpy Kootenai County rug. That’s a bad misperception, however. A community that outsiders including business and industry and educators perceive as being lawless or corrupt will only attract similarly oriented outsiders. But then, maybe that really is what the people here want. Some of the people in this community who like to malign others for not being “progressive” are really part of the status quo corruptus elite. Racketeers like Whitey Bulger and Bugsy Siegel would feel right at home here among friends.
Comment by Bill — October 8, 2012 @ 8:47 am