Comments for Ed Folsom

Comment on VEHICLE PASSENGERS, STOPS AND SEARCHES. by Ed Folsom

Ed Folsom — Thu, 23 May 2013 12:23:19 +0000

Oh, sure. Can I do it by remote or do I have to move to Georgia? Thanks, John.

Comment on VEHICLE PASSENGERS, STOPS AND SEARCHES. by JB

JB — Wed, 22 May 2013 23:01:24 +0000

Nice work. Do you want to work for FLETC?

Comment on THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS UNDER MAINE’S CONSTITUTION. by Ed Folsom

Ed Folsom — Wed, 22 May 2013 12:36:52 +0000

This provision does not purport to ban the questioning of an interpretation, it prohibits the questioning of the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms in the State of Maine. Constitutional provisions place limitations and safeguards on the extent to which government is allowed to interfere in the affairs of individual citizens. This provison says the government is not to question the right of individuals to keep and bear arms in the State of Maine. Just as it does not purport to bar the questioning of an interpretation, it also does not purport to bar individual citizens from questioning anything they care to question.

Comment on THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS UNDER MAINE’S CONSTITUTION. by Louis T. Sigel

Louis T. Sigel — Wed, 22 May 2013 10:00:55 +0000

Obviously, Section 16 in its original form AND as amended is unconstitutional. Every citizen ALWAYS has the right to question the interpretation of any right under the U.S. or Maine Constitution,and Maine never did and never will have any constitutional authority to bar ‘questioning’ of any kind. Any attorney general of Maine would be wasting his or her time attempting to defend this permanent ban on ‘questioning’. And any attempt to enforce this ban would be doomed to failure if challenged.

Comment on BEWARE: FEWER OUI ARRESTS BUT INCREASED RISK OF ARREST IF STOPPED by NTSB RECOMMENDS PER SE ALCOHOL LEVEL OF .05% OR LESS - Ed Folsom

NTSB RECOMMENDS PER SE ALCOHOL LEVEL OF .05% OR LESS - Ed Folsom — Thu, 16 May 2013 16:22:11 +0000

[...] http://edfolsomlaw.com/2012/11/beware-fewer-oui-arrests-increased-risk-of-arrest-if-stopped/, [...]

Comment on Why Is It A Bad Idea To Walk Into Court And Plead Guilty At Arraignment? by Ed Folsom

Ed Folsom — Wed, 01 May 2013 12:16:54 +0000

You have provided too little information for me to give you a definitive answer. Where is your case? When you refer to the “filed charge,” do you mean you have already entered into a filing agreement on the charge, or are you simply refering to the charge that has been lodged against you? If your case is in the Cumberland County UCD, plea discussions will take place at the dispositional conference and, yes, if a plea agreement is reached you will be expected to enter a plea day, unless there is a good reason to briefly postpone the plea.

Comment on Why Is It A Bad Idea To Walk Into Court And Plead Guilty At Arraignment? by Armida

Armida — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:40:46 +0000

I have a case disposition appearance in five days. I would like to know if I will be given the opportunity to plead guilty or not guilty that day to the filed charge.

Also, if any one can tell me what else should I expect that day, I will appreciate it.

Thank you,
Armida

Comment on THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS UNDER MAINE’S CONSTITUTION. by Harold L Cokayne

Harold L Cokayne — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:42:53 +0000

Attorney Folsom,
Thank you for the posting of this article..

Comment on THE POLICE POOCH WHO SNIFFED THE FRONT PORCH FOR DRUGS. by JB

JB — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:16:07 +0000

Enjoyed another of your writs, and this time at a decent hour. I miss having these kind of conversations with you in the hallways of justice, but this forum does just fine. I agree with all that you state, though may have drawn a focus on the elements of Scalia and the home. He is rather consistent that the government needs to stay away from it without an excellent reason for being there (I am reminded of his opinion in Kyllo, that you allude to above).

Thanks for the posts. They are fun and exceptionally readable!

Comment on MY RECENT ADVENTURE AT THE MAINE LEGISLATURE by Ed Folsom

Ed Folsom — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:54:16 +0000

The problem is that the statute does lend itself to the construction the York County Jail has applied. And, the A.G.’s Office backs that interpretation, even though no other jail in the State applies the statute that way. No lawyer is going to bring a suit on behalf of a person held in jail for an extra day when it is not at all clear that libility could be established, and if it could be established, damages would probably be a pittance that wouldn’t cover a fraction of litigation costs. No lawyer with a client who runs into this situation is going to let it persist, and let the client remain in custody to create a potential for greater damages. Instead, they will drag the case back to court for resentencing on ostensible mistake of fact grounds. If a situation were to arise like my hypothetical Mark Strong scenario, that situation would result in litigation of the statutory interpretation issue. But what if the Law Court ultimately sided with the York County Jail’s interpretation? Then, the only remedy for the unjust result would be to change the statutory language, wouldn’t it? Or, the statutory language could just be changed now, to clear up any ambiguity, express the appropriate legislative intent and cut through the clutter, couldn’t it? Answer: No, it could not.