Roadside crosses are usually put up because somebody died there due to a drunk driver accident. Sometimes the crosses are decorated with all sorts of stuff like artificial flowers, teddy bears, etc. and mini-shrines. These are put up without permission on public road r-o-w's. They belong in a cemetary not on a roadside. They're morbid. They're distracting to drivers. They're ugly. I've removed quite a lot of them right along with all the other bandit signs. Truly, you can't say these should be let alone.
That your information is extremely dated. 1995/1998 vs 2001.
For a clear and concise ruling specific to Colorado, Please refer to the case of: The people of the state of Colorado, Plaintiff, v. Rodney Lyle Scott, Defendant.
County Court, County of Adams, State of Colorado Criminal Action No. 00-M-2096 The hearing in this matter commenced on the 5th day of April 2001, before the honorable Jeffery L. Romeo, Judge of the County court, Division VI.
The last sentence in the last paragraph of the ruling reads:
“Therefore, the Court finds as a matter of law, this roadside memorial is not a venerated object. Therefore, the Court must grant judgment of acquittal”
#33. "RE: Roadside Crosses" In response to Reply # 31
>"http://www.madd.org/news/0,1056,2611,00.html >You were saying???" > >That your information is extremely dated. 1995/1998 vs 2001. > >For a clear and concise ruling specific to Colorado, Please >refer to the case of: >The people of the state of Colorado, Plaintiff, v. Rodney >Lyle Scott, Defendant. > >County Court, County of Adams, State of Colorado Criminal >Action No. 00-M-2096 >The hearing in this matter commenced on the 5th day of April >2001, before the honorable Jeffery L. Romeo, Judge of the >County court, Division VI. > >The last sentence in the last paragraph of the ruling reads: > >“Therefore, the Court finds as a matter of law, this >roadside memorial is not a venerated object. Therefore, the >Court must grant judgment of acquittal” > >A link to the web page for the entire ruling may be seen at >this site: >http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2001/junejuly01/colorado.html
The information may be "dated" but I felt that it represents the general attitude that MAD has regarding this issue. I don't think the posters comment was specific to Colorado.
