Be heard, Isla Vistans!

Don't wait until you're in jail to complain about the proposed Social Host Ordinance.

Here's an email in circulation that I will do my part to publicize because I agree with it wholeheartedly:

Help Protect Residents of IV TODAY!

Ask SB County Supervisors to Vote NO on the proposed Social Host Ordinance (i.e. Law)


WHAT: Board of Supervisors Hearing re: proposed Social Host Ordinance
WHEN: Tuesday, April 21, 2009; if you can’t attend, send them an email NOW! (talking points and email addresses below)
WHERE: Board of Supervisors Hearing Room (105 E. Anapamu Street, 4th Floor)
Background:
1. The ordinance is meant to address underage drinking. It would apply county-wide, including in Isla Vista (which already has a similar, but less intrusive, ordinance).
2. Any time at least 5 people are together, and at least 2 are under 21, the gathering can be subject to the ordinance.
3. If a minor at one of these gatherings has alcohol, regardless of whether the host of the event knows or should know the minor has alcohol, the ordinance is violated.
4. When there is a violation, law enforcement can disperse the gathering, and fine anyone who lives at the residence or is responsible for the gathering.
5. Multiple offenders can be held responsible for the cost of law enforcement response, up to $500.
6. A person is a repeat offender, and therefore subject to increased fines, if the ordinance was violated at the same property within 12 months, regardless of whether the violation was from previous tenants or property owners.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
1. Call and email your Supervisors

2. Pass this email on to as many residents of Santa Barbara County (which includes IV) as you can

3. Attend the 4/21 Board hearing. Call 568-2240 on or after 4/15 to confirm exact time
Urge the Supervisors to:

Vote No on the Proposed Social Host Ordinance

Talking Points:

· The ordinance is a bad idea because it gives law enforcement too much power to unfairly target students who are behaving in a responsible manner.

· Also, because the ordinance allows for holding hosts responsible for law enforcement response costs, people will be discouraged from contacting law enforcement or paramedics when serious incidents occur at parties or other gatherings where alcohol is present.

· Finally, because the County already has sufficient means to dissuade underage drinking through laws already on the books, the ordinance is unnecessary.

1st District: Salud CarbajalPhone: (805) 568-2186E-mail: SupervisorCarbajal@sbcbos1.org
2nd District: Janet Wolf, Vice Chair Phone: (805) 568-2191E-mail: jwolf@sbcbos2.org
3rd District: Doreen FarrPhone: (805) 568-2192 E-mail: dfarr@countyofsb.org
4th District: Joni Gray Lompoc: (805) 737-7700E-mail: jgray@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
5th District: Joseph Centeno, Chair Santa Maria: (805) 346-8400 E-mail: jcenteno@co.santa-barbara.ca.us

Policy on Drunkenness in Isla Vista has Changed

A source at the Santa Barbara District Attorney's Office has informed me that the policy affecting those facing their first stand-alone Public Intoxication charge, who are under 21, has officially changed. The year-long experiment has, apparently, revealed that the heavy-handed approach will not serve the greater ends of justice. It appears that numerous jury trials, tried by me and my public defender colleagues, made the point. So what's the point? Well, there are actually several: People are willing to stand up for their reputations as law-abiding citizens. They are not, always, going to lie down and take it, just because that's what the Government wants or expects them to do. They have a right to a jury trial, and are willing to assert it in order to answer to aggressive Government conduct. Out of the five Public Intoxications which were tried by jury since the change in the long-standing policy of leniency, only one resulted in a guilty verdict.

The costs of the "experiment" were huge. Among the costs were the human costs incurred by those who were needlessly criminally charged, the reputational cost of criminal convictions (affecting employability, academics, etc.) , the loss of driving privileges, the legal fees incurred by the defendants, the costs to the community of some 20 or more days of jury trial time (conservatively, $80,000 in salaries, and other costs associated with running a courtroom; not to mention the cost of significant time borne by hundreds of jurors and potential jurors).

I will, however, give credit to the District Attorney's Office for having both the courage and wisdom to change their minds and draw a curtain on the policy. The old practice of allowing first-offenders to take classes as a means to wash out the criminal taint and driving privilege loss associated with a Public Intoxication arrest made, and will make, a lot of sense. The hammer has its uses in the courthouse, but not when we are talking about a single instance of drunkenness while in college. The arrest, a night in jail, a hang-over, and some classes should [but doesn't always] resolve the problem. Now we should look ahead toward installing a sobering center in Isla Vista.

They Didn't Read Me My Rights!

Nary a day goes by when I don't hear this phrase at least once. Thanks to Hollywood, nearly everyone believes, or at least wants to believe, that the sine qua non of lawful and ethical police conduct is where they initiate any arrest with the famous preamble, "you have the right to remain silent yada yada..." It should flow from the police officers' lips as fluidly as those who are paid to say, "welcome to McDonald's, may I take your order please", shouldn't it? The answer is "no". Yes, I am a criminal defense lawyer, and the answer is still "no". Sorry. This deeply ingrained belief, held by nearly everyone, is a powerful example of how the mass media misleads the public. So, was the Miranda Rule contrived by Paramount pictures? No. It was actually written into law by the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, in the landmark decision Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. It is one of the most, if not the most, significant Supreme Court actions to deter police misconduct. It was designed to do one thing and one thing only. It was designed to prevent the police from forcing people against their will (regardless of their guilt) from confessing to crime. However, it has not, as was intended, put an end to coercive interrogations by the police. But it may have deterred a great number of them. It has brought about some unintended changes and not all of them are positive ones.

Yes, innocent people sometimes confess to crimes they did not commit and guilty people are often led by the police to worsen their circumstances in a way which violates the spirit of the constitution. So, by dampening the polices' temptation to spend hours upon hours grinding someone down through a coercive interrogation, fewer innocents will confess, and fewer guilty people will be forced, against the spirit of the constitution, to be witnesses against themselves. Like many well-intended efforts, the Miranda v. Arizona ruling did not achieve all that it set out to achieve. In my view, its most positive contribution is that it made a few important constitutional rights reciteable, if not precisely understood, by practically every member of our society. It did not put an end to coercive conduct by law enforcement; not by any stretch of the imagination. This is due to the fact that police still feel quite justified in using their inherent power to intimidate, and otherwise manipulate, people into confessing to their crimes, and are not going to let some phony baloney technical rule (written by lawyers, no less!) get in the way of solving a crime. Yes, they do, on occasion, read the advisement, as required by law, but not surprisingly, it has not put an end to confessions. People still confess. And what they don't necessarily appreciate while they are doing it, is that they are destroying every chance they might otherwise have in getting favorable treatment in court.

Confessing is seldom, if ever, going to help someone get a better deal in court. One operating fallacy is that you won't get credit for early acceptance of responsibility if you wait to talk to a lawyer first. That is simply false. The other operating fallacy is that you will make the police angry if you don't confess, and will therefore worsen the outcome. Firstly, if a police officer is angered by someone exercising their constitutional right to remain silent, they ought to strongly consider a change in professions, if not citizenship. The constitutionally guaranteed right against self-incrimination is as American and mom and apple pie! Secondly, your goal is not to make friends with the police officer. Rather, your goal is to avoid incriminating yourself. Let them be angry. That, in and of itself, probably helps you more than it hurts you. Let their emotions get the better of them. And keep your mouth shut. Do honor to our great constitution by not incriminating yourself!

It appears that the Miranda advisement, when read, is not understood as anything more than a familiar police ritual. While the police are saying,

"you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have a lawyer present while being questioned. If you cannot afford a lawyer, the court will appoint a lawyer to represent you...",

the listener is most likely thinking something along these lines,

"Crap! I'm really in trouble now. I guess they aren't going to let me go with a warning after all! They believe I did it! I'm screwed no matter what! What can a lawyer do to help!? How am I going to get out of here?! Maybe if I cooperate with them, and tell them what they want to hear, which is that I did it, they will appreciate that and maybe let me go home...or at least stop scaring me"

The most negative impacts of Miranda v. Arizona are as follows:

1. That police think that, by reading the Advisement, they are thereby rendering their arrest "by the book". It gives the police an easy (and cookbook recipe-like) way to legally sanitize the encounter without necessarily honoring the spirit of the constitution.

2. That arrestees believe that the police are supposed to read the Advisement every time they arrest someone and that they must do so early on in the encounter. Because the advisement, if it is read at all, is read late in the encounter, the arrestees form the opinion that they are being mistreated due to the fact that police aren't, according to their Hollywood-based understanding, following the one rule of police conduct of which they have become aware. Accordingly, the individuals develop a bad attitude toward the officers. This bad attitude can hurt the arrestees chances of getting a good deal in court, and also tends to validate negative views police carry toward the larger population. It widens the "us" (the police) versus "them" (the rest of society) gap which, I strongly believe, is the root cause of nearly every instance of police misconduct.

So, when do they have to read the Advisement, you ask? Only when you are in handcuffs or are otherwise confined and they happen to want (or need) you to confess to something.

Arrests and Citations in Isla Vista so far...

While the Halloween festivites continue, there is a growing toll of both citations and arrests in the community of Isla Vista.

See MSNBC's article reported as a top story by KSBY News, entitled
"Thousands fill Isla Vista to celebrate Halloween weekend; hundreds arrested"
for numbers on those in attendance and those with legal trouble.

So far, not so scary...

Compared with years past, this Halloween on Del Playa is somewhat subdued, so far, according to the Indy and other sources. Apparently, 90 people were arrested and 150 citations were issued on Friday. Thankfully, there have been no major injuries reported. The celebrations will likely continue, but as the Indy points out, last night was probably the climax of the several day event, drawing as many as 20,000 people to the streets. Wednesday night shouldn't see as many arrests nor cites. Again, be safe.

Foot Patrol's Favorite Halloween Talking Point

I sincerely hope that the ongoing Halloween festivities are moving along safely and enjoyably for the celebrants and the 160+ law enforcement officers in attendance. If you're like me, you have heard the Foot Patrol say the following over and over again (for years, actually): It's not the local residents that we are concerned about, it is the out-of-towners that cause the majority of the problems. Uh, okay, then are we to expect that the 160+ officers will be arresting and handing out citations only (or even mostly) to visitors? Doubtful. If this year is anything like years past, the majority of arrests and citations will involve the local college-aged population (mostly SBCC and UCSB students). Without a doubt there will be some visitors cited and arrested, but they will be in the minority; as there are far fewer of them AND, not all of them are monsters (although I'm sure some will be wearing monster costumes). Many are friends, relatives, girlfriends, and boyfriends of locals; not criminals. Well, at least, not until they have been dealt with by the Foot Patrol. After all, we are all no more than a court date away from being rendered a criminal; no one is immune... Especially not the locals.

Be sure to read my last post (immediately below) for tips on how to avoid problems with the police. Also, visit my website at http://www.ivlawyer.com/ for more relevant information.

Again, be safe.

P.S. Another talking point heard less often, but which is similarly designed to communicate to the locals (for public relations purposes) that they are not going to be treated unfairly by the police for engaging in myriad fairly ordinary college activities (read: drinking alcohol), is that "90 % of it will be citations" (implying no jail, no crime, no big deal). It is important to point out that more than 50 % of the 90 % may cause the person cited significant penalties with longterm negative effects (e.g., year-long drivers license suspensions).

Arrest that (wo)man!

On an unrelated note: I invite anyone to send me a photo of them dressed up, for Halloween, as an upside-down beer cup. I may post it on this blog, depending on its quality. Let's hope, as well, that you will then be ignored by the IVFP, as they promise. This upside-down beer cup myth is getting big. I just read about it on edhat.com of all places.

Okay, now onto my latest gripe: Women getting arrested because they are women. Yes Isla Vistans, look outside between midnight and 3 a.m., it's happening at an alarming rate. Women who are walking around after midnight are getting arrested, at least in part, because they are women. Is this the "official policy" of the IVFP?? They will deny it. However, various of their members have been heard to say, by several arrest subjects, that they are being arrested for their own safety. After all, a lot of sexual assault occurs in Isla Vista. Uh, okay, thanks for arresting me! How thoughtful! Is this just another form of sexual assault? Probably not; especially if the officers are not touching and grabbing the arrest subjects for purposes of sexual arousal. And we can assume that only a small percentage of our law enforcement friends are actually that warped and desperate. However, the non-arousing arrest amounts to discriminatory enforcement in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. This can be illustrated by a simple question: Are men getting arrested, or even contacted by the police, at similar levels of intoxication? In fact, don't men actually have to be drunk, or at least rowdy, to get arrested for public intoxication (647(f) PC))? The fact is, we, as a society, are less protective of our young men than our young women. BUT, is that a valid reason to criminalize the women and make them spend the night in jail, etc., when we let men get so drunk that they end up passed out and snoring in the street? Hey IVFP, listen up! Where is it in your training manual that says you can't, or shouldn't, simply offer the young lady a ride/walk home. Isn't that truly in her best interests?

Is Being Drunk a Crime?

Well, that depends. You can be drunk in places that are not open to the public (such as your apartment, your friend's condo, your grandmother's house, etc.) Now, I didn't say that you would be encouraged to do anything of the sort. In fact, getting drunk is a highly over-rated activity. As far as those high-minded achievers that set out to get drunk...well, the best you can say about them is that they will, most likely, accomplish their mission. That's because it takes a pretty weak stomach, and a complete lack of imagination (as in none) to have any difficulty getting there. And, as they probably know, they're going to regret it; at least temporarily. Yes, I'm talking about the hangover. It's nature's way of punishing them for what is essentially a bad all-around idea. The depressing truth is that the euphoria associated with drinking a large quantity of alcohol lasts for only a short while compared to what will follow. In many cases, blackouts, belligerence, sexually aggressive/inappropriate behavior, vomit, passing out, and hang-overs will be the heavy price you will pay for that initial feeling of artificial contentment with life, your surroundings, and your company. But I digress...back to Grandma's house... Whether it is a crime to be drunk outside of your grandmother's house in California is largely up to the police officer. And, no, I'm not saying that "it's his word against yours". Not this time. What I am saying is that the police officer who believes someone is so intoxicated (in public) that they cannot care for themselves may arrest them criminally (647(f) PC)) or civilly (647(g) PC)). Penal Code section 647(g) reads as follows:

(g) When a person has violated subdivision (f), a peace officer, if he or she is reasonably able to do so, shall place the person, or cause him or her to be placed, in civil protective custody. The person shall be taken to a facility, designated pursuant to Section 5170 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, for the 72-hour treatment and evaluation of inebriates. A peace officer may place a person in civil protective custody with that kind and degree of force which would be lawful were he or she effecting an arrest for a misdemeanor without a warrant. No person who has been placed in civil protective custody shall thereafter be subject to any criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceeding based on the facts giving rise to this placement. This subdivision shall not apply to the following persons:
(1) Any person who is under the influence of any drug, or under the combined influence of intoxicating liquor and any drug.
(2) Any person who a peace officer has probable cause to believe has committed any felony, or who has committed any misdemeanor inaddition to subdivision (f).
(3) Any person who a peace officer in good faith believes will attempt escape or will be unreasonably difficult for medical personnel to control.

So, you ask, if you fit within the above criteria, why did you get taken to jail and why are you now charged with crime? Well, one question to ask is whether there is a "sobering center" facility in the immediate area with a contract with that municipality to offer a safe (alcohol free) environment for you to hang out while you inch toward sobriety; and, no, it doesn't usually take 72 hours before they will decide to let you go. Four to six hours is more ordinary. In the City of Santa Barbara, there is such a facility. In other parts of South Santa Barbara County there is not. Accordingly, if you are arrested in Isla Vista for Public Intoxication (a nightly occurrence), you are going to jail. There is talk of installing a sobering center in Isla Vista, but until that happens, being drunk in public in Isla Vista (and other parts of Santa Barbara County) is a crime.

Fall in Isla Vista - Arrest Season

Yes, it's that time of year again: Isla Vista Arrest Season. While the rest of the Northern Hemisphere may look forward to cooler temperatures, shorter afternoons, football games, and raking leaves, Isla Vista can expect an increase in arrests as the Foot Patrol is now out in force issuing citations for MIP, Drunk In Public, Open Containers, Furnishing Alcohol to Minors, and myriad other disorderly conduct law violations; and the UCSB students haven't even returned from Summer Vacation yet. Responsive to the up-tick in arrests, I am introducing a new website http://www.ivlawyer.com/ This site, although new and still developing, is intended to provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQ's) by those arrested and cited for the above law violations, and to provide an easy means to contact me (24/7) concerning such problems. It might even prevent an arrest or two by passing on some insights on arrest avoidance; although with the numbers of police now patrolling I.V. with newly printed citebooks, and an ever-present mandate by the local community and the University to "get tough" on rowdy behavior in I.V., don't count on it.

AN EXCERPT FROM WWW.SANTABARBARASBLOG.COM
POSTED AUGUST 7, 2007
_____________________________________________________________________

Crime Down over Fiesta (except for a shooting)

Apart from the officer-involved shooting, Fiesta 2007 was absent any other major crime problems, according to a police report. Here are tentative results of police activity through late Saturday, including a comparison to Fiesta 2006:

• 21 felony arrests; a 34% decrease
• 97 misdemeanor arrests; a 4% increase
• 274 criminal citations; a 6% decrease
• 282 traffic citations; a 53% increase
• 18 DUI arrests; a 20% increase

PS: If you are included in the numbers above… go see Bill _______________________________________________________________________

CRIME IS UP AND DOWN.

Every so often the media, on a slow news day no doubt, will read the temperature of the "crime problem". What does it mean? Am I safer or less safe? Am I more or less likely to be arrested? Is humankind becoming more unruly? Most likely, none of the above. More people means more crime. So, we keep hiring more cops. More cops means more arrests. As long as the hiring of cops out-paces the population growth, the busier I will be.

If crime is not actually on the rise (beyond the modest increases one expects as the population grows), more conduct is deemed criminal and cops become more "sensitive" to criminal conduct. For example, it used to be "drunk driving", now it is "driving under the influence" (read: however slight). It used to be "drunk and disorderly conduct", now it is "public intoxication". What does that mean? Well, one cop (still out there) told me "it depends....could be as little as .01". Yes, consuming a third of a beer, according to this cop, is possibly a forfeiture of your freedom and a one-way ticket to the drunk tank. Think about that the next time you are trying to decide between an import or a domestic...

More Sounding Off...

Jeramy Gordon of the Daily Sound decided to print as many of the 144 would-be secret photos as he could in today's issue. Gordon said his motive in printing the photographs is two fold, to prove to the public that there is nothing worth hiding, and to avoid fines that could potentially bankrupt the small paper. http://blogabarbara.blogspot.com/ Nothing worth hiding?! Uh, what was he fighting for, originally, if there is nothing worth hiding? If I'm not mistaken, he reprinted, very prominently, a photo of the accused teenager sitting under arrest in hand-cuffs (which is what he believed motivated Karen Atkins, Esq., to "attack" him in the first place) near the top of his rant about the First Amendment. Nevermind that parading a teenager in the public square in an inculpatory light is an affront to the presumption of privacy owing to minors accused of crime and an unnecessary taint of the jury pool. No, this is about getting even with Ms. Atkins and her client (and, less direclty, the Court). Is Mr. Gordon Santa Barbara's mini-McCaw?