Sartell Newsleader • www.thenewsleaders.com
6
Our View
First debate in Sartell was resounding success
It’s to be hoped the interesting debate that took place in Sartell City Hall Nov. 20 will not prove to be an anomaly. (See related story in today’s paper.) The debate was the first of what organizers hope will be an entire series of ongoing debates every other month or so well into the future. The debate was not a city-sponsored idea. It was organized by a group of residents, some of the them involved as professors at the College of St. Benedict/St. John’s University. The topic of that debate sounds facetious, at first: “Be it resolved that chickens should be allowed to roost in residential areas?” But, in fact, the debate was very interesting and touched upon many of the ongoing questions and conflicts in modern urban societies, such as: At what point does your freedom impinge upon someone else’s? How can we best define what constitutes a neighborhood nuisance? Should any rural or agricultural-animal land uses be allowed in urban neighborhoods? How can people, so removed from their food sources, establish familiar contacts with what they eat? There were two people debating in favor of allowing chickens in urban areas, and two arguing against it. The debate was expertly moderated by Patty Candela of Sartell. About 70 people attended the debate, a very good turnout considering it was the first event of its kind. Besides the issues thoughtfully discussed, there were moments of humor, too. Both sides of the debate made their points articulately, persuasively and passionately. It was so refreshing to witness a good, lively, civil debate – so unlike the mudslinging, nasty verbal bouts indulged in by too many of today’s brand of politicians. The audience, too, was civil and keenly attentive to the points made by each side. Watching that debate was actually revelatory because it was an amazing reminder of the “lost art” of rational, civil debate. It’s something sorely lacking in our society these days – days of hype, of shouting, of meaningless noise and commotion. Even presidential debates can deteriorate into attack-mode exercises with both sides playing loose with the “facts.” The audience at Sartell City Hall clearly enjoyed that hour-long debate. Their pleasure was proof-positive of the hunger many have for such civil and enlightened discourse. Their enthusiasm is a good omen that similar, excellent debates will continue in Sartell. Kudos to those who organized this series. We encourage others to attend future debates. The topics and dates will be announced, as they become known, in the Sartell Newsleader.
Fairness and ethics
Newsleader staff members have the responsibility to report news fairly and accurately and are accountable to the public. Readers who feel we’ve fallen short of these standards are urged to call the Newsleader office at 363-7741. If matters cannot be resolved locally, readers are encouraged to take complaints to the Minnesota News Council, an independent agency designed to improve relationships between the public and the media and resolve conflicts. The council office may be reached at 612-341-9357.
Friday, Nov. 29, 2013
Opinion Hillbillies descend from hills everywhere The other day, while channel-surfing, I glimpsed a scene from that old series, “The Beverly Hillbillies.” I watched it for a few moments. It reminded me vividly of how, once upon a time, everyone in our neighborhood would tune into that show every week, without fail, and laugh our fool heads off. That was then; this is now. Time has not been kind to that series, so brimming with its corn-pone humor. Still, the scene I watched did amuse me a bit because it reminded me of real “hillbillies” I have known in my life. Like the family from the wilds of Arkansas who moved into an apartment next to mine in the 1970s. They loved to eat jalapeno peppers, raw. They told me they were surprised at the lack of outdoor toilets in Minnesota. And one of the sons burst over to my apartment one day to ask me if I knew Paul McCartney used to be in a band called The Beatles. “No!” I said. “You gotta be kidding.” “No kidding!” he said. “It said so just now, right on the radio.” They grew up in rural Arkansas, without any conveniences. They were fun neighbors, and I still miss them. When I was in grade school, Dad would often take our family on Sunday trips to some godforsaken place in the boondocks of central Minnesota. One of his good friends, a fellow musician, lived there in an underground “basement house,” as they were called. He and his nearly toothless wife had a swarm of kids (13 of them!) who would swirl around our Studebaker like happy savages when we pulled up to their weedy lot. The littlest kids, drooling and grinning, waddled
Dennis Dalman Editor around diaperless. Piles of garbage were stacked by the tar-paper top of their “buried house.” My brothers and I had a lot of fun playing outdoor games with those kids, but we had to hide our chuckles about their hillbilly ways. Queen Elizabeth II of England is – or at least was – a big fan of “The Beverly Hillbillies” show. I heard that when I was studying in London 33 years ago. I used to imagine her watching that show and laughing at her crude American “cousins,” that nation of colonial upstart hillbillies who made the mistake of overthrowing the British king. But I would always laugh with vengeance when I’d think of all the English “hillbillies” I’d see in the streets of London, the rabble mixed in among dapper gents with pinstriped suits, bowler hats and umbrellas. I even met English-style hillbillies in a concert hall. One evening I attended a performance of Richard Strauss’ “An Alpine Symphony” at Royal Festival Hall. As the orchestra tuned up, there was a commotion to my right. A bumpkin family – an older couple and their Li’l Abner sons – were scuffling, bickering over where they were going to sit. The parents looked, for all the world, like Ma and Pa Kettle blown in from the Ozarks. The two “growed-up” sons looked like giant hulks
of dim creation who fisticuffed each other and laughed like braying mules. The symphony began; heads in the audience turned, perturbed by the noise. I surmised the family was down from north England to take in a little culture in the big city. They sat down next to me, the Pa to my right. “This is gonna be a loud one,” he said to me. “They got one of them wind machines down there.” During the performance, Pa played with his fingers and slurped noisily on peppermints. He chattered to his wife, who riffled through the program. One of the strapping sons began waving his arms, furiously “conducting” as he aped the orchestra conductor. His twin mountain of insensibility just sat there, his jaw agape in a kind of thunderous stupor, as if struck by lightning. Faces in the rows ahead kept turning around, hissing like snakes. “Ssssh!” I whispered to the family. The wife, her budget feathers ruffled, gave me a dirty look and stuck her beak in the air. When the symphony came to an end, Pa turned to me and said, “That sure was noisy!” I felt like saying, “Yes, you sure were.” As they left the lobby, the sons were punching each other and guffawing about the “dull” music. Every time I hear the word “hillbillies,” I see that family as vividly as yesterday. They are an example of hillbillies as a universal phenomenon, not restricted to the American South but descended from remote hills everywhere.
From the Bench:
Are all drunk-driving convictions now invalid? “Judge, is it true that all drunk driving convictions are now invalid?” I was recently asked that question, which was prompted by a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that got media attention. In State of Missouri v. McNeely, the Supreme Court decided last April the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires, in the absence of “exigent circumstances,” a search warrant be obtained to authorize the drawing of a blood sample from an impaired driving suspect who has refused to take such a test. The sample is usually drawn as possible evidence of blood-alcohol content in a DWI prosecution. This actually is not a new legal development. In Schmerber v. California, decided in 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a warrantless blood test of an individual arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol because of a reasonable belief by the law-enforcement officer that any delay to get a search warrant would have resulted in the loss or destruction of evidence. The Schmerber case created an “exigent circumstance,” an emergency exemption to the Fourth Amendment requirement that law enforcement authorities obtain a search warrant in the face of someone refusing to allow the search. This exception to the Fourth Amendment got expanded throughout the years to the point where some states were claiming no search warrant was necessary for law enforcement to obtain a blood-alcohol test from a DWI suspect.
From the Bench
Frank Kundrat District Court Judge In fact, the State of Missouri argued in the McNeely case that since alcohol dissipates quickly in the blood system, there is too little time for a law-enforcement officer to get a search warrant to collect a BAC sample from a DWI suspect, and all blood BAC tests should be exempted from the search-warrant process. The U.S. Supreme Court found the lack of time or some other emergency might excuse the need in some situations to get a search warrant, but not all. In McNeely, the record showed the police had ample time to call a judge to get a search warrant prior to the end of a two-hour test window for DWI charges. However, the police did not take any steps to get a search warrant after the driver refused the blood test. The Supreme Court ultimately decided in McNeely that since the police had enough time in that specific instance to obtain a search warrant from a judge, the warrantless BAC test was illegally obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. That made the test results inadmissible as evidence in the subsequent prosecution of the driver for a DWI violation. The U.S. Supreme Court recently sent a Minnesota case back to the state courts
for reconsideration in light of the McNeely decision. Minnesota makes it a crime for a driver to refuse to submit to a chemical test for blood-alcohol content. The U.S. Supreme Court has given a strong signal that such a law may be unconstitutional in that it puts undue duress on a person in forcing that person to give up a constitutionally protected right (a search warrant) under the threat of being charged with a crime. The issue thus arises as to whether warrantless blood, breath or urine BAC tests taken from defendant-drivers were legally obtained. This is important to the admissibility of the BAC test results as evidence in a DWI prosecution. The Minnesota Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments in mid-September for the case in question, State v. Brooks. As a result, many hundreds of DWI cases are backing up on our busy state court calendars, awaiting the outcome of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Brooks. At last count, I had 45 such cases on my docket. While constitutional issues and potential changes may be swirling around the DWI laws of Minnesota, one principle of law remains very clear: it’s still illegal to be driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or other substances in Minnesota. That will not change. Frank Kundrat is a District Court Judge chambered in St. Cloud. He welcomes your comments as directed to the editor of this newspaper.