The Nanny Assembly

In a previous post, I suggested that every time a new law is enacted, we should unenact another one. The California State Legislature doesn't read all of my posts, apparently. Nine new laws regulating driving are being proposed. My personal not-so-favorite is Senate Bill 1361, introduced by Louis Correa, D-Santa Ana (Orange County!? Who would have thought?!). The Bill would require those convicted of a dui (just one dui) to install an ignition interlock device in their vehicles. In this unique circumstance, I'm going to side with the Republican, Assemblyman Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) who said, concerning another related Bill, "We're a state that gets around by car. We are a car culture...Couple that with legislators who think government is the answer to everything, and you end up with the perfect storm". Amen. This bill, and others, like the one that prohibits driving with a live animal in your lap (no joke), are an example of the government run amock. Incidentally, driving with dead animals in your lap is going to remain legal; not to worry.

Cars are dangerous objects, weighing mostly between one and two tons, traveling through space at often unreasonably fast speeds; within inches of (and sometimes containing) our children. And there are millions of these objects all around us at all times. People get hurt. People die. It's tragic. However, lets look at the core issue: We shaped a society around cars, and we need, therefore, to confront the basic truth that there are going to be car accidents no matter what. And many of these are going to have life-changing consequences for those involved. So, what's to be done? You mean besides funding public transportation (i.e., the only change that is going to make a dent in the numbers of accidents)? I'm not sure. But what I am not in favor of is enacting law after law on false promises that doing will make us any safer. The quote of Benjamin Disraeli, "lies, damned lies, and statistics", came to mind when I read that the CHP reported that 128 accidents in the state last year were caused, in part, by inattention due to an animal in a vehicle. Oh my! Let's see, how many acts of driving were there last year in the State of California? (33 million (vehicles) times 365 (days in a year) times 4 (excursions per day)) = 48,180,000,000 (aka 50 billion). So, roughly speaking, the chance of being in an accident caused, in part, by inattention due to an animal in a vehicle is one in 376,406,250. But, hey, who said the Legislature isn't working hard to make a real difference in our lives? What will they think of next?

Word to the wise...

It happens that innocent people are charged criminally every day. Note that I didn't say that the majority of criminal charges are unfounded. However, don't think that just because you didn't do something illegal, you won't get accused of doing something illegal. Having said that, I wouldn't want to cause a law abiding person to stay up at night imagining that they are going to be whisked away to jail in the middle of the night by the SWAT team. That's called paranoia, and it's not what I'm trying to engender... Here's what I am asking you to worry about: If you are hanging around people that are up to illegal conduct, you are at far greater risk of being criminally charged for something you didn't do. Consider the plight of 96 young men arrested at San Diego State for alleged drug sales. Are all of them guilty? The truth is, I don't know. However, based on my experience, I would guess it is likely that some of the arrests were made largely by association. Whether it was membership in one of the fraternities targeted and/or being a recipient of a group text message or an email by a drug dealer concerning drug sales, it is not unlikely that at least a few of those 96 never sold drugs, nor did anything in furtherance of drug sales. If a large scale sting operation can happen at San Diego State, it can certainly happen at UCSB (and probably already is happening). So, aside from quitting your fraternity, and disassociating with drug users (which may have its advantages), what else can you do to protect yourself from being falsely accused? Well, first read about what happened at San Diego State. Young looking cops working undercover befriended fraternity members by showing up at parties and acting like college kids.

Ask yourself if you really know the people you are hanging with. What is it about them that would cause you to conclude that they couldn't be a cop? What you shouldn't ever think is that they are not a cop because you saw them get drunk, get in a fight, rent an apartment in IV, get high, buy drugs, share drugs, or sell drugs. You should neither rely on any statements that they make that tend to suggest that they are not cops (including, but not limited to, "no, I am not a cop", "I hate cops", "cops are pigs", etc.) The thing to understand is that cops are not only capable of lying, but lying is part of their day to day professional life. They lie frequently when they work under cover, and even in uniform they lie when they are investigating crime. They do so with the complete approval of their department when it is done for an approved purpose. In fact, they are trained to lie. Unlike any other set of professionals, they may lie with absolute impunity. What other group in society can say that about? None. Even used car salespeople (and most certainly lawyers - sorry, lawyer haters) face negative consequences if they are caught lying.

Another thing a UCSB student might do to avoid getting roped in with those who are up to no good is avoid people who are not affiliated with UCSB. It is true that a lot of City College students live in IV, and are, perhaps, planning to transfer to UCSB next fall. However, if you don't go to school with them (i.e., see them in class, etc.), do you really know that they go to City College? And can't anyone, including a cop or someone who is up to no good enroll in one class at City College at a minimal cost and hassle in order to "fit in" in IV? Of course they can.

The best thing you can do to avoid being arrested is to obey the law. And to greatly limit the possibility that you will be accused of something you didn't do, you should must those who are breaking the law.

A Graceful Parting

Judge Joseph Lodge (1932-2008), a pillar of the local criminal justice system, passed yesterday. He was the longest seated judge then on the bench in California (49+ years!). I knew him to be a highly intelligent and creative thinker, with a keen and personalized sense of justice who possessed a wealth of knowledge on a variety of topics, including medicine, psychology and, specifically, drug addiction. You never knew exactly what to expect from him on the bench, and I believe that's the way he wanted it. I thought I would publish the obituary he wrote himself, because I certainly can't say it any better than he can...and, what's more, he wouldn't want me to write it...of that, I am 100% certain!:

As fits with my character, I have written my own obituary. I was born February 21, 1932, in St. Paul, MN, and now I have died in Santa Barbara, CA. My peace in life was my wife, Sheila, and my dear children.
My journey, from my 1950’s days as a philosophy major at the University of Michigan, has been the exploration of all the great cosmic questions surrounding our lives. For some years I have felt at peace with the answers and insights I have found. I wish I could pass them on to those I love. It cannot be done. Each of us must find our own pathway through the density and darkness to at last find that you are "back in Kansas", standing where you were, so to speak, with everything so clear and obvious as to make you even question whether in fact you did "journey”.

I now end this with a deliberate (and important) misquote from Dylan Thomas -- I "DO go gentle into that good night".

No longer a lone voice in the sobering wilderness

I'm very pleased that the Daily Nexus wrote an article on something that I think should be at the top of the agenda for realistic change in Isla Vista and UCSB in the near future. Namely, a sobering (aka "sobriety") center in I.V. It works on State Street in Santa Barbara and can work even better in Isla Vista. I completely disagree with IVFP Lieutenant Brian Olmstead who said we already have a sobering facility: the County Jail. Nice. With this cunning observation, Olmstead flippantly ignores the huge financial and emotional costs incurred by criminalizing an event as mundane as a night of too much alcohol. The unspoken truth is that virtually all of the police officers, judges, correctional officers, university officials, alcohol and drug abuse counselors and d.a.'s got drunk when they were between the ages of 16 and 24; and I'm guessing that more than just a few of them got drunk last weekend and/or have plans to do so next weekend. What am I saying, exacly? I'm saying that there is more than an ounce of hypocrisy under-girding the "get tough on college drunkenness" mentality. The good intentions are over-shadowed by the hypocrisy. Yes, getting drunk and stumbling around in the street is different than doing it in the privacy of your own home, or at a friend's home. However, morally speaking, they are about the same. Someone that is drunk really can't be trusted to make good decisions about where they are going to be drunk. One thing that should make us all feel safer is that many in the Isla Vista community live without ready access to cars. Unfortunately, you can't say that about the rest of the local drinking population.

A sobering (or "sobriety") center in Isla Vista would save everyone money. It would save the taxpayer all of the many costs incident to booking someone into the county jail. The costs per arrest, to the taxpayer, can reach into the thousands. On average we're talking about hundreds of dollars per arrest. Consider the cost of two police officers spending about two hours between the initial contact and returning to IV or UCSB per arrestee. For wages, insurance, equipment costs, and the attending support staff costs (e.g., dispatch), this may range from about $200 to $400. Then there are the costs of booking and housing for up to 24 hours. This can also cost hundreds of dollars. Then, should the person end up in court (and most do), there are the wages of the many court personnel that are involved, including lawyers and judges. And these are all costs on the taxpayer (yes, some are off-set by fines and fees). However, should the person exercise their right to a jury trial and/or decide to initiate a lawsuit and complaint against the police and their employer, the sky is the limit on costs. We are talking about thousands of dollars in those cases, easily; all on the taxpayer. Notice I haven't even mentioned yet the costs on the individual in terms of legal fees, fines, reputational harm, as well as physical and emotional injury. These costs are unacceptable to most.

It is definitely time for a sobering center.

Bike-share in Isla Vista

Bike share programs have been around for decades. New programs are sprouting in major cities around the globe with high-tech anti-theft devices and pay-in programs with swipe cards, etc. I, for one, don't think these programs need to cost any real money to succeed; especially in the unique environment known as Isla Vista. Arguably, Isla Vista already has such program in effect, albeit "unofficial". Here's my proposal: (1) Have the UCPD and IVFP register all the abandoned bikes as UCPD property; (2) encourage departing residents of UCPD and I.V. to donate their bikes to the program; (3) solicit volunteers and local bike shops to repair them and paint them yellow (a nice UC color), (4) distribute them around campus and I.V., (5) make it an infraction to lock them, put them in a gated area or behind closed doors, leave them parked on a street or sidewalk, take them outside of a five mile radius or to deface them in any way. Since they would be UCPD property, it would be a misdemeanor to take them with the intent to permanently deprive its owner of them. (6) Make clear that they are to be shared in the true spirit of sharing; in other words, no crying when someone takes one that you parked outside a lecture hall with the expectation that it would be there when you got out. If it's not, walk until you see another one.

Such a program would make a dent in the bike theft problem at UCSB and I.V. At the very least it would reduce the number of people who are criminalized for taking a bike that they believe to be abandoned (which may turn out to be reported stolen). And, it would save the students money they might otherwise spend on bikes, bike locks, and gas. It could possibly reduce green house gas emissions a bit, and promote biking as a viable mode of public transportation. Reduced bike theft, and dragnets by the UCPD to crack down on them, might even mean savings for the tax and tuition payer in terms of reducing the numbers of paid staff whose responsibilities include bike theft suppression efforts.

The Hidden (and not so Hidden) Costs of a DUI

In a recent article on Mainstreet.com I was quoted on the many costs of a DUI arrest. A lot of people think of a DUI in terms of a big fine and a license suspension. This, my friends, is only the tip of the iceberg. As I have emphasized in previous posts, driving under the influence is a bad idea for non-financial reasons. It can end lives, and otherwise destroy them. Fatal traffic accidents, severe injuries (brain damage, paralysis, dismemberment, etc.) are, what should seem, the obvious effects of a person with limited coordination and judgment hurling a one to two ton metal object through a human-populated area. And don't forget about prison. But what about the financial costs, for those of you who are naive enough to believe that a horrific accident couldn't possibly happen to you, and are yet rational enough to respond to financial risks? Well, they stack up quickly. You should think about the fine ($1,500-$2,500), the school ($600-$1,000), the impound and storage fee ($300-$500), the booking fee ($115), any cost recovery due to an emergency response ($600-$2,000), any restitution owing to a victim ($1,000 - ?????), any probation fee (est. $1,116), dmv fees for license re-issuance ($250), insurance hikes($5,000 - ?????), fees for jail alternatives ($70 - $2,500), damage to your reputation (affecting your present and future employment and academic pursuits; costs: thousands), and lawyers' fees ($1,000 to $20,000). The MINIMUM cost of a dui, according to this analysis, is about $10,000. Of course it can, and often does, cost much much more depending on whether there was an accident, how much harm a dui conviction does to your particular academic and/or career standing and goals (which translates to lost income) and how much you end up paying for legal services. DUI is undoubtedly a bad, and expensive, idea. Don't do it.

The Wrong Kind of Sticker?

A couple of months ago, I cited a real world example of the usefulness of a certain sticker that I make available free at my office, and for sale on ivlawyer.com. The stickers in the photo are next to the front door of a house that was recently searched by the police pursuant to a warrant. It happens that neither the "Back the Badge" sticker, nor the American flag, deterred law enforcement from obtaining the warrant, nor executing the search. I can't say I'm surprised. On a related topic, I do sometimes wonder if the CHP's 11-99 Foundation license plate frames help lead-footed Mercedes drivers escape traffic stops and tickets. Apparently, for an $1,800 donation, you get a license plate frame and a special wallet and a badge which is perfect for handing to a CHP officer who pulls you over for speeding. $1,800!? Is this another example of rich people buying favor with the police? It is little wonder that those license plate frames are only seen on very expensive cars. Granted the organization provides assistance to the families of CHP officers in need, but is it really working toward the greater benefit of public safety and good government? If the wealthy folks who can afford to give $1,800 to the families of CHP officers (who, by the way, are already indirectly and directly compensated through pretty decent benefits packages by the California taxpayer) really care so much about the families of fallen CHP officers, can't they care, instead, in private? Or is their real motive to get out of speeding tickets by publicly displaying their support of this organization? Is their confidence that they won't get either pulled over or cited for speeding putting the rest of us at risk?