No Dog in the Hunt

For the record, I do not have a dog in the hunt. The Tennessean (8/14/19) published an article about a program to dismiss minor offenses involving driving violations. They largely deal with people who are charged with driving with a revoked license, often because they had unpaid fines for other violations. These multiplied fines and charges cripple the individual’s ability to secure housing and employment.

(Without commenting on the merits of the dismissal or even the fact that the individuals have been crosswise with the law for some reason and are now compounding their predicament, we will peruse the dispute between law enforcement agencies over the dismissals, called the “Steering Clear” program.)

The mayor, the sheriff, the district attorney, and the public defender all back the program. The charges are dismissed or not prosecuted. But the police have not removed the citations from the public record, thwarting the intent of the program.

And now we come to the interesting part. Reminder, this is the part of which I have no “dog in the hunt,” but which is extremely interesting. Some adherents of the program have filed suit to have a judge order the police to expunge the records. And the police have responded that they will refuse to comply with the order, stating that there is no statutory authority for eliminating the records. The mayor’s response is to make an attempt to change the state law governing public records. (Again, we will withhold comment on the wisdom of this or the slippery slope consequences that may follow. Just exactly which and how many offenses will be dismissed and erased?)

The interesting part of this brouhaha is one at-large councilman. He said, “I get that there’s a disagreement. But I don’t think resolving that involves a police chief saying he’s not going to follow a court order. He’s there to adhere to the rule of law which means you do what the judge says and follow other legal recourse, not just ignore it."

Hold on thar, Tonto! Analyze the interior logic of this statement. (Or lack of same.) The police chief, according to Councilman at-large, is to obey the law. So if a judge orders him to do something, he has to do it. “He’s there to adhere to the rule of law....” He asserts that this means that the police chief has to do what the judge says.

But, and here, even “his side,” agrees, that state law is in play. Is he demanding that the police chief acquiesce to the judge and violate state law? This is what we loved to find in a debate contest, an internal contradiction. Official X has to obey the law. Official Y rules that Official X must do something contrary to the law. And our “impartial” (not really, it seems) observer condemns Official X because he will not “obey the law” by obeying the order from Official Y, which contravenes the law. Clear?

This is what is known as “legislating from the bench.” A judge changes the law because he or she does not like it by ordering the executive to do something other than follow the legislative mandate.

The good news for Nashville, but maybe not so much for Councilman at-large, is that rational heads seem to be prevailing. Several parties have proposed and even submitted proposed legislation to change the legal basis of the program.

And, since I have no dog in this hunt, I will not have to vote in favor of some alternative,  hopefully, more logical, Councilman at-large in the next election. But it will be very interesting to watch the proceedings as time passes. Just a passing thought. If the subjects of this tempest in a teapot would resist breaking a law in the first place, they would not be in the “pickle” of not being able to pay their fines, losing their driver’s license, driving in violation of that law–a second offense–and then having further fines and sanctions.

For what it is worth.