General Categories > Laws and Legislation

My CHP appeal is heading to the NE Supreme Court

<< < (3/9) > >>

unfy:
*sigh*

Skipping the initial charges and outcome of which ya gave no details and aren't really applicable to my upcoming comment ...

Two 'from the hip' (eek, a pun! nuuuUuuUuUu) comments:

a) 3rd degree seems to imply no force was involved (given that 2nd requires injury), which as you mention can include a slap on the ass.  so... slap on the ass and ya get name dragged through mud via the registry website ? horse****  :angry:

b) the NSP and lower level court system treating the subject as taboo is b.s. in that taking a court case to the NSC aint cheap :(.  guns are taboo, rape topics are taboo, combined together just ugh.  It's like worse than 'teachers zomg' and 'think of the kids' combined.  surely a review of the case paperwork can show if there was any violence involved...

It'll be interesting to hear how this turns out.

XDHusker:

--- Quote from: unfy on August 29, 2013, 06:24:15 PM ---
b) the NSP and lower level court system treating the subject as taboo is b.s. in that taking a court case to the NSC aint cheap :(.  guns are taboo, rape topics are taboo, combined together just ugh.  It's like worse than 'teachers zomg' and 'think of the kids' combined.  surely a review of the case paperwork can show if there was any violence involved...


--- End quote ---

I think you very eloquently summed up the issues I've had up to this point during the appeal.
This should be cut and dry but it's been pretty weird from a legal standpoint.  I called the NESP before I applied for my permit and asked them what they used to determine if a crime was a crime of violence.  Their response was that they used the State v. Palmer definition where it's defined as:
“The Nebraska Supreme Court has defined “crime of violence” as “an act which injures or abuses through the use of physical force and which subjects the actor to punishment by public authority.” ?State v. Palmer, 224 Neb. 282, 294, 399 N.W.2d 706, 717 (1986).”

In my case, there was no touching at all and there was most certainly no physical force.  As I mentioned, I was just trying to cover somebody up.

During my initial appeal hearing, the only thing the state patrol introduced was the initial police report, and my background check that showed the misdemeanor conviction.  In the original police report there was an untrue accusation that I had made physical contact.  However, I went to a full jury trial and was found not guilty of having any physical contact at all.  So, my attorney argued that the police report isn't even admissible because if it were true I would have been found guilty of a more severe crime.  It is just a report and has no factual basis in regards to the final disposition of my case.  I could have been accused of murder on a police report, but if I'm found not guilty in court then that's all that matters.

So, basically up to this point the NESP and the first judge are trying to use the accusation in the police report as the basis for me committing an act of violence.  The NESP is also arguing that an attempted act of violence is still close enough to deny the permit which is also counter to the law.

I know there have been several cases that I've read about here where the NESP is using arrest reports and accusations as a basis for denying CHP permits.  Mine is no different, IMHO.  I fortunately own a business and have the financial resources to fight them, and I truly hope that the Supreme court will follow the law and create a precedent for future individuals who are denied based on accusations to get their permits.

bullit:

--- Quote from: XDHusker on August 30, 2013, 09:45:22 AM ---However, I went to a full jury trial and was found not guilty of having any physical contact at all.
--- End quote ---

If found "Not Guilty", why the below sentence?


--- Quote from: XDHusker on August 28, 2013, 06:39:33 PM ---but the judge gave me 60 days in jail which makes me ineligible for a set aside.
--- End quote ---

XDHusker:

--- Quote from: bullit on August 30, 2013, 10:27:32 AM ---If found "Not Guilty", why the below sentence?



--- End quote ---

Sorry if that was confusing.  I was originally charged with 3rd Degree sex assault (contact)  and found not guilty.  I was found guilty of attempted 3d degree as a lesser included  offense.

unfy:

--- Quote from: XDHusker on August 30, 2013, 09:45:22 AM ---I know there have been several cases that I've read about here where the NESP is using arrest reports and accusations as a basis for denying CHP permits.  Mine is no different, IMHO.  I fortunately own a business and have the financial resources to fight them, and I truly hope that the Supreme court will follow the law and create a precedent for future individuals who are denied based on accusations to get their permits.
--- End quote ---

This... is gonna go kinda weird and sideways (er, that is possibly off topic).

There was another thread here in the forum (I think from late last year ?) ... about a town (not L or O) that was pushing for using arrest reports as something related to gun stuffs.  Oh! It was that arrest reports would go on some kind of permarecord for use as just a data mining kind of thing.  Guns, immigration, whatever.

This seems related ?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version