Thursday, October 22, 2015


To put this into context, Pretrial Diversion is nearly the same as having your case dismissed.  Saenz is using it in a coercive way to promote his office for purposes of reelection.

"We are thus faced with the question of whether the State may constitutionally require an individual to participate in the dissemination of an ideological message by displaying it on his private property in a manner and for the express purpose that it be observed and read by the public. We hold that the State may not do so. [430 U.S. 705, 714]   - "

See, Wooly v. Maynard

Lawyers are reporting that as a condition of pretrial diversion defendants must agree to place on the cars bumper stickers promoting DA Saenz's office, and thereby Saenz himself during this contested election period.

There is no dispute that probationers have some diminished rights as a condition of probation and the constitutionality of those diminished rights are reviewed under the lower standard of rational basis. However, when conditions of probation touch upon speech and in particular political speech, then strict scrutiny applies instead of a rational basis.  What is happening here is, if the probationer wants the benefit of pretrial diversion they must agree to promote the DA's office through a bumper sticker on their car, and thereby in effect the reelection of Saenz. 

I suggest someone create a counter bumper sticker for these probationers saying - "I oppose this unconstitutional compelled speech by the corrupt DA Luis Saenz." 

The Supreme Court clear has been clear, when the legitimate ends of the state concerning probation interact with compelled speech the standard of review is compelling state interest.  DA Saenz will lose this issue if the lawyers would just stand up to him.


DA Saenz is using taxpayer money to run his reelection.  He is placing large billboards all over the county promoting his office.  Now, as if that were not enough he is compelling probationers as a condition of probation to promote his office, which in effect means promoting him.

It is axiomatic that in First Amendment cases, especially involving criminal cases, a party may run to federal court to stop the compelled speech.  Any lawyer willing to do the research will have no problem getting into federal court subjecting Saenz to federal review.  Our federal judges are not stupid.  They will see what is happening.  They will see the abuse by Saenz of using taxpayer money to run his reelection campaign, and now probationers to promote his office and thereby himself during a contested election.  Saenz will lose the case.

The question is, is there an attorney in Cameron county willing to stand up for the probationers and file the federal lawsuit to stop this unconstitutional compelled speech?

If not, lets make sure every pretrial diversion defendant gets a counter bumper sticker which says:

 "I oppose this unconstitutional compelled speech by the corrupt DA Luis Saenz." 


Anonymous said...

Every pretrial recipient can put a large window sign of Carlos Masso for D.A. on their car....this will send a message to Luis Saenz.

BobbyWC said...

While I love creativity and your idea is very creative and I like it a lot - it would make Masso appear soft on crime. Sorry - but I have to agree very creative and thanks for the time to post and think of the idea

Bobby WC