Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

Police in Sacramento arrested a man, 55 year-old Jesse James Thomas, after he allegedly displayed signs of public drunkenness. Public intoxication arrests are a common occurrence in California, typically punishable by a fine or probation. This case is newsworthy because the man, according to witnesses and news reports, put on quite a show and probably made the prosecution's case against him easier.

The Miranda warning, which police must recite to a person at the time of arrest, includes a warning that police and prosecutors may use the person's own statements against him or her. This applies to both verbal statements and actions. Sometimes a person's behavior, demeanor, or even posture can offer evidence a prosecutor can use. If a police officer suspects public intoxication, they will observe the person's behavior. Thomas' case demonstrates this principle quite well.

In the early morning of Wednesday, March 28, 2012, around 12:30 a.m., Thomas allegedly encountered a Sacramento police officer, who suspected that Thomas was intoxicated. The officer's basis for this belief was his alleged observation that Thomas, dressed in a "dark puffy jacket" and wearing a sombrero and a single boxing glove, jumped onto the hood of the police cruiser, yelled his own name, and ran away. The officer reportedly located Thomas, after a brief search, lying in the street. Thomas was arrested for public intoxication and taken to the Sacramento County Jail, where he was booked on $1,000 bail. The story enjoyed a brief viral run on the internet. Thomas' unconventional mug shot was particularly popular.

California treats public intoxication as a form of disorderly conduct in Section 647(f) of the Penal Code. It is not the intoxicated state itself that constitutes a crime, but how a person behaves because of their intoxicated state. A person commits an offense if they are in a public place under the influence of alcohol, drugs, toluene, or some combination thereof, and their intoxicated state makes them a danger to themselves or others. It is also an offense if the intoxicated person is interfering with, obstructing, or preventing "the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way."

Continue reading "California Man Acts As Though He Is Drunk in Front of Police, Is Arrested for Public Intoxication" »

A fundamental principle of our legal system is that everyone is entitled to due process of law, no matter how bizarre or unsettling their alleged offense may be. California criminal defense lawyers, after practicing long enough, see cases that range from the critically serious to the laughably strange. As we enter a new year, it is worth taking a moment to look at the more unusual side of criminal law, and the editors of the Rancho Santa Margarita Patch have helped us by publishing their review of Orange County's strangest "minor crimes of 2011." Several common themes emerge from their list, broadly summarized as public nudity, strange threats, unusual sights, and unfortunate bathroom behavior (a topic perhaps best left alone).

Laws relating to public nudity vary from place to place in California. Generally speaking, a person does not get into serious criminal trouble unless and until their conduct causes a public disruption or nuisance, but California law treats "indecent exposure" as a misdemeanor, defined as public exposure of one's "private parts" when other people who might be "offended or annoyed" are present. Punishment could be as much as a year in prison for a first offense, depending on the circumstances. Notable cases of 2011 included a report of a San Clemente couple taking nude pictures of one another in public, and a nude middle-aged man in San Juan Capistrano watching traffic in a shopping center parking lot. The winner, however, is clearly the report of a naked man driving a Toyota Corolla up and down the street in Aliso Viejo, repeatedly turning the dome light on and off.

Making a threat to harm another person, even a very strange threat, is considered a crime if it puts the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury. For the woman in Laguna Niguel who found fish heads on her porch, a quick internet search convinced her that it was a death threat. Her fear of imminent harm was alleviated when she learned that the fish heads were intended to go to a different porch, and eventually into a soup. A woman in Mission Viejo found her house bombarded with oranges one night, followed by grapefruit the next, in an attack the Patch editors thought might be a message about her vitamin C intake.

Continue reading "Strange Crimes of Orange County: 2011 in Review" »

Willie King, age 66, of Indianapolis was on his neighbor's property when he observed police officers arresting a man. Mr. King took out his cell phone and recorded the incident. Afterwards, police officers asked Mr. King if he was recording and, then, demanded he turn over the cell phone as evidence. When Mr. King refused, he was taken to the ground and arrested for resisting arrest, public intoxication and disorderly conduct. Mr. King had never been arrested before.

On Thursday, June 30, 2011, a Marion County judge acquitted Mr. King of all charges. Indianapolis police have initiated an internal investigation of the incident.

This is getting to become a common occurrence now that everyone has the ability to record police contacts. You would think police departments across the United States would welcome the opportunity for the public to record citizen-police contacts. By viewing videos of police interactions, a department would be able to weed out those few police officers who give all police officers a bad name. Sunlight is always the best disinfectant.

Unfortunately, it seems most agencies view these civilian videos with hostility. Many agencies say that these videos unnecessarily hamper police investigations because a police officer can be distracted with the camera rolling. Granted, not every single minute of a police officer's day needs to be recorded. Also, police work can be dangerous as well as unappetizing when many of the contacts are with inebriated and profane individuals.

The problem with this line of logic, however, is why aren't the police complaining about all of the videos in police cars and in the station? Police officers seem perfectly comfortable with videos they are recording, including for that matter cop-based reality shows. Perhaps the problem is one of control. Recently, in California, a news team went to a police station and viewed the officers treating "in-custodies". The reporter who viewed this was almost in a state of ecstasy when describing the extreme kindness exhibited by the officers. Many people must have been shocked by the reporter's naiveté.

This does not mean this police station universally treats all arrestees bad but, because a camera was present, they probably were on their best behavior. Hence, video is "good" if they control it and "bad" if they can't.

Efforts to confiscate cell phones and other recording devices are often viewed by citizens as police efforts to conceal evidence. Whether a person is being arrested for a DUI, domestic violence or a drug charge, if all police officers acted as if they were being constantly recorded, there would be fewer violations of citizen's rights.