Archive for November 7th, 2011

Important safety tip (#8 in a series).

Monday, November 7th, 2011

If you dine out, in a sit-down restaurant, where someone actually brings food to your table, you should leave a reasonable tip.

I’m generally on the side of 15% as a base, though what I do in practice is double the sales tax. (Local sales tax around Austin is generally 8.25%, so that’s actually 16.5%.) I will tip 20% or 25% if I have a good reason to. I’m not as bothered by an 18% mandatory gratuity on large parties as I used to be; if the definition of a large party meets mine (five people is not large; seven+ is) and if they go above and beyond in some way (splitting the ticket six or seven ways for a party of seven, to me, justifies at least 18%).

In any case, I strongly recommend against a 200%+ tip, especially if you’re on an expense account.

Because if you’re on an expense account and turn in a receipt that shows you tipped the waitress at Hooter’s $24.52 for a mushroom cheeseburger that cost $7.48, somebody in the accounting department is going to ask questions. And eventually they’re going to find out that you tipped the waitress $24.52 to cover your bar tab, since your city expense account doesn’t cover alcohol.

(The heck of it is, I think the city policy is unreasonable. It doesn’t bother me that much for a couple of off-duty cops dining out of town to have a beer or two with their meals, and have the city pay for it. As long as they don’t get messed up and embarrass the city, say, by having the waitress pose with their patrol rifle, I don’t get hot and bothered by adults having a beer. But if they knew city policy was otherwise, and they lied about it because they were too cheap to pay their own bar tab, yeah, fire their butts.)

(If you’re not on an expense account, the above doesn’t apply to you. Feel free to tip the waitress 200%. Or 300%. Or 500%. But keep in mind; she’s not going to sleep with you, no matter how much you tip her.)

Your rogue grand jury update.

Monday, November 7th, 2011

Previously on “As The Grand Jury Turns”, two prosecutors and two court reporters were summoned before a judge to answer contempt of court charges. Specifically, the two prosecutors are accused of obtaining transcripts of confidential proceedings from a grand jury that is investigating the DA’s office; the court reporters are (as far as we can tell) accused of being the ones who gave the prosecutors the transcripts.

Anyway, the hearing was today, and…the judge in the contempt case ended up having to recuse herself, as she may be called as a witness in the contempt case as well.

Chalk up another point for The Hon. Murray Newman.

All your GPS are belong to the State.

Monday, November 7th, 2011

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court takes up the case of United States vs. Jones. The key issue in Jones is: did the use of a vehicle-mounted GPS device, without a warrant, to track the movements of a suspected drug dealer, violate the 4th Amendment?

This may very well be one of the most significant 4th Amendment cases in years. The Ninth Circuit has already ruled, in a different case, that the subject

…couldn’t expect to have privacy in his driveway because it had no gate, no sign against trespassing and was regularly used by letter carriers, delivery services and visitors. Furthermore, the judge noted from an earlier 9th Circuit ruling, “a person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.”

The LAT has an overview of the case, and the issues involved. We’re pretty biased in favor of Jones, and in favor of our hero Judge Alex “Big Al” Kozinski, who wrote:

“The needs of law enforcement, to which my colleagues seem inclined to refuse nothing, are quickly making personal privacy a distant memory.”

There is nothing about GPS tracking that rises to the level of “exigent circumstances” that would justify giving law enforcement a pass on the requirement for a search warrant. We hope that the Supreme Court feels the same way.

(Bonus points to Carol J. Williams for opening with the story of Katz vs. United States, which we have covered previously in this space.)