Should “Undue Hardship” Trump Rule of Law?

By John W. Lillpop

Just when one thinks one has heard it all, a quick browse of the local paper reinforces the notion that sheer stupidity is an infinite commodity.

This is especially true in a Sanctuary City such as San Jose, California, where moon bats and lunatics with far too much idle time on their hands seek to interpret the law as an item of fickle, subject to the needs and wishes of the underrepresented, under served, and under intelligent.

As reported in the San Jose Mercury News, in part:

“Opponents of police vehicle impoundment practices are hitting the streets, intent on warning motorists of police checkpoints in Santa Rosa and Petaluma.

“Protesters holding signs in Spanish will continue to show up at checkpoints to protest 30-day impoundments of vehicles operated by drivers without valid licenses, said Alicia Roman, a Santa Rosa attorney who is a member of the Committee for Immigrant Rights.

“The cost of reclaiming an impounded auto, typically $2,000, places an "undue hardship" on low-income people, including Latino immigrants, she said.
"People are upset this is going on," Roman said.”

An urgent message from Earth to Roman, NOT in Spanish:

People are also upset that drivers (Latinos included!) are breaking the law by driving while drunk, without a license, and without insurance. Citizens are also enraged that illegal aliens are even on our roadways, given the fact that they have no legal or moral basis for being in America!

The referenced report continues:

“Police officials, who have discussed the issue with Roman's group and American Civil Liberties Union representatives, say the checkpoints are both legal and appropriate.

"I believe it is an effective strategy for making the streets safer," said Santa Rosa Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm.

"There are consequences for not following the law," he said, regarding the impoundments and cost of getting the car back.

“Petaluma Police Sgt. Ken Savano, who coordinates checkpoints, acknowledged that the protesters are exercising their First Amendment right of free speech and may do so as long as they do not obstruct sidewalks or get in a roadway.

“But he also suggested that the protests might enable alcohol-impaired drivers, "who could kill any one of us," to evade the checkpoints.

“Roman said the checkpoint protests are intended to warn Spanish-speaking drivers, including illegal immigrants whose status prohibits them from obtaining California driver's licenses.

"We are not out there to help drunk drivers," she said.”

Urgent message 2 to moon bat Roman:

It may not be your intent to help drunken drivers, Ms. Roman, but that may, in fact, be the result of your actions.

Are you and your group prepared to accept liability for anyone killed or injured by a drunken driver that was warned off a check point by your reckless actions?

As one who alleges to be interested in advocating on behalf of the poor and immigrants, why do not act responsibly by advising your clients NOT to drive with out a license or insurance, or while under the influence?

With all due respect, Ms. Roman, the problem is with those who break the law, not with the law.

As a legal professional, you should be presenting a responsible message to your constituents, rather than shielding them from the law which will eventually catch up with even the cleverest of miscreants!

By the way, using Spanish signs in the manner described seems to be a type of racial profiling!