Not Happy With These Two Incidents
I wonder if this sort of thing goes on up here?
An Alcoholic Beverage Control agent cites a guy for a city ordinance prohibiting alcoholic beverages in parks. The guy supposedly wasn't drinking alcohol. The fine is $100. He can contest the fine but only after paying a $200.00 fee.
Sounds bogus to me. Even the supposed fix they refer to sounds bogus: No fee if you win your appeal. Pay both fees if you lose. Both ways would tend to encourage a person to just accept guilt and pay the $100 fine to cut their losses.
As an aside, I wonder about the ABC agent supposedly saying his professionally trained nose told him the beverage was alcoholic. When I went through the police academy back in '84, we were taught that alcohol is odorless and that, when testifying in court, we were to testify we smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage (beer, wine, etc.).
I'd say if the agent can't say what kind of alcoholic beverage the guy supposedly was drinking, the guy should get off. Heck, since the agent refused to give him a test for alcohol the guy should get off.
Not sure I like this one, either. I know we're supposed to be happy when bad guys are captured but I'm not sure I like them saying they're going to give someone amnesty just so the guy or gal will show up so they can be arrested.
Don't have a problem with the way they used to do it, though, when they'd contact a fugitive and tell him he won something, then bust him when he shows up to pick up the prize.