Don’t dangle it there
The radicalization of the world continues apace. Now Michigan is considering legalizing fuzzy dice:
A Michigan state Senate committee voted unanimously on Wednesday to advance legislation that would legalize the hanging of fuzzy dice and air fresheners from rearview mirrors. State Senator Ron Jelinek (R-Three Oaks) introduced Senate Bill 276 to repeal the statute that allows police to pull over motorists using objects dangling from a mirror as a pretext. Existing law makes driving with a “dangling ornament” punishable by a $100 fine and up to ninety days imprisonment.
Ninety days for an air freshener? Migod, people will be planting them on people they don’t like.
As you might expect, there’s a reason for bringing this up now:
The law became controversial after the January 13, 2006 arrest of Lonnie Ray Davis outside Detroit. Westland Police Officer Pat Griffin pulled over Davis for the crime of driving with a “Tweety Bird” air-freshener hanging from his rearview mirror. Griffin testified that he had no other justification for the traffic stop. After searching Davis’s vehicle, Griffin found drugs, a gun and a bottle of Hennessy cognac. Davis appealed his conviction before a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that in December found the Michigan law unconstitutionally vague because it did not define what kind of dangling objects might “obscure” a driver’s vision.
The court subsequently amended its decision to remove the reference to vagueness. As for Davis, his conviction stands.
Under the amended text of SB 276, it would only be a crime to drive with obstructed vision and the reference to dangling ornaments would be deleted. The measure now moves to the full Senate for consideration.
I assume this would legalize fuzzy d20 dice as well, assuming a short-enough attachment cord.
Mark Alger »
15 October 2009 · 10:32 pm
Now, lemme get this straight…
It’s no longer a crime to hang objects from your mirror (specific), but it is one to drive with “obstructed vision,” which is surely as subjective and vague as a safety standard can get. One man’s obstructed vision is another’s really deep tint and all that.
Of course, waiting until something bad happens and actually punishing — you know — real harm to another human being… that surpasseth all comprehension to a legislator.
M
CGHill »
15 October 2009 · 10:39 pm
Unless, of course, it’s the legislator who is harmed, in which case something marginally useful might actually be done.
Which is not an argument for “Pass This Bill Or I’ll Shoot This Senator.” Not a complete one, anyway.
McGehee »
16 October 2009 · 7:18 am
There have been occasions where I was nearly in an accident because my rearview mirror obstructed my vision.
Jessika »
16 October 2009 · 8:44 am
If they have the little green tree fresheners, I’d be suspicious. There’s one in every car…
miriam »
17 October 2009 · 4:33 pm
Um, what about a plastic Jesus? Wouldn’t that be considered Constitutionally protected religious speech?
CGHill »
17 October 2009 · 4:36 pm
Those usually don’t hang from the rear-view mirror.
Now if someone comes up with a plastic Flying Spaghetti Monster — well, maybe we shouldn’t go there just now.