Psst! Who invited the cops?!

Whether you like it or not, the County Board of Supervisors, in faithful service to their curmudgeon constituency, has invited the cops to your next social gathering.  I first wrote in opposition to the very controversial "Social Host Ordinance" (SHO) in June of 2008.  In spite of the fact that the clear majority of Isla Vistans oppose this ordinance (and maybe that's because it's widely believed that Isla Vista is the only place where the SHO will be enforced with any regularity), it was enacted into law on December 1.  As I stated previously, the police in Isla Vista and elsewhere are not without tools to suppress underage drinking.  They have numerous statutes at their disposal that enable them to detain people that are in public (or in some cases in the public view) and, at the very least, can seize and pour out the drink with impunity.  Most don't stop there, however.  The Isla Vista Foot Patrol issues thousands of tickets per year for minor in possession, open container in public, and related law violations.  Those under 21 are booked into jail for public intoxication at the drop of a hat.  And let's not forget that they were already barging uninvited into apartments and houses in Isla Vista long before the SHO was first proposed.  Accounts of frequent and deliberate Fourth Amendment violations by the Isla Vista Foot Patrol are common.

The truth is cops barge in to private spaces because they can get away with it, with or without a SHO.  Any true accountability for doing so when the sum total of damages are usually hurt feelings and the replacement value of a beer is and was non-existent.  The big difference now is that they will, under color of the SHO, have an easier time holding those accountable who are furnishing alcohol to those under 21 in smaller gatherings.  There was never really any difficulty holding the big party throwers (i.e., hosting 10 or more people) accountable for serving alcohol to minors because the cops could either walk through an open door and/or demand to speak to the host in order to enforce a noise violation and the exception to the warrant requirement would sprout up during that encounter.  Now what they are able to do, under color of the SHO, is to enter any apartment where there is any noise or other evidence noticeable from the outside that suggests there is a "social gathering" going on inside.   That's pretty broad (read "overbroad").  It doesn't have to be a raging party.  Two people sharing one beer is a party.  They could both be 21 or older but the cops are still, under color of the SHO, allowed to barge in to sniff drinks and check ID's and whatever contraband they see in plain view is fair game.  A typical reaction of acceptance of the Government over-reaching might be:  'well, even the cops understand that underage beer consumption and college are synonymous and that they will, therefore, use good judgment on deciding when to enforce this law'.  I'm sure most cops will.  However, what this law does is enable cops with poor judgment to rampantly intrude into peoples' private spaces in ways that will deter even legal conduct.  Giving that much 'unbridled' discretion to a rank and file patrol officer is disfavored by the California Supreme Court and may not otherwise withstand Constitutional scrutiny.  For example, according to the holding of the California Appellate Court in People v. Hua, police officers may not enter a dwelling absent a warrant simply because they believe that a non-jailable criminal offense is taking place inside. 

I hereby invite anyone who has a case involving the enforcement of the SHO to contact me and I will consider handling the matter pro bono.

Encouraging?

“We’re looking into reviving the idea of a sobering center in I.V.,” Farr said.

This is a quote of Santa Barbara County Supervisor Doreen Farr that appeared in the Daily Nexus today. I am glad the idea is not completely dead, but I'm not sure that this isn't simply more lip-service favoring the concept intended to passify those of us who feel very strongly that a sobering center is an absolute must. We don't need to watch another few hundred people in IV be deprived of their civil liberties this Fall; not to mention, as the article makes clear, take IV Foot Patrol officers out of service (of IV that is) for the couple of hours that it takes to process a single needless Public Intoxication arrest. Clearly they have better things to do with their time. A sobering center could save the officers thousands of hours in a year in terms of shortening the time it takes to take someone, who is not being a pain in the neck, off the street to a place of safety. It would also save the jail, the court, the d.a., and (yes) me, lots of work. And of great interest to the students and parents of SBCC and UCSB, it would help ensure that the people who are investing big bucks (and lots of time) getting their degrees wouldn't graduate with the sandbag of a criminal conviction (or a record of a booking, for that matter).

As I've written, repeatedly, Penal Code section 647(g) makes a "civil commitment", when feasible, State policy.

Like it or not, more than 90% of UC and SBCC students will drink to excess at least once (if not weekly) during their academic career. This is a societal problem that will take more than punitive tactics by local law enforcement to solve. Criminalizing our most promising societal contributors for socially acceptable (if not appropriate) conduct makes no sense and is arguably against State policy. A sobering center is a viable and practical solution to the public safety, fiscal and civil liberties questions this societal problem raises. It's time for more than lip-service.

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 Daily Nexus' Police Blotter Gets It Wrong

Weekly, the Daily Nexus attempts to do what any award winning journalistic enterprise does: entertain by exploiting the hard-luck stories of persons arrested. It happens, most regularly, in the section of the paper known as the Police Blotter. Hahahaha! So funny! So funny that alcohol makes people act goofy. So funny that these arrested individuals were publicly humiliated, tethered like animals and taken to a cage. So funny that many of these individuals will have their careers and other dreams sandbagged by one or more criminal convictions resulting from a single instance of poor judgment. I just can't stop laughing. There's a word in German, schadenfreude, which is defined as the pleasure one feels while learning of another's pain. Sadly, the Nexus encourages its readership to indulge in schadenfreude regularly by going down to the IVFP and chatting it up with police to get their agenda-driven and one-sided versions of these arrests then printing them. Seldom, if ever, do we get to read the other side of the story. Often it is the rude, arrogant, over-bearing and, occasionally, violent conduct of the police that just doesn't make it into the paper somehow. Those that have been arrested, and those that witness those same arrests, I can assure you, just as often, have alarming stories to tell of unprofessional conduct by law enforcement which, frankly, just isn't as funny as it is disturbing. And what's really not funny is how these arrests may affect these arrested individuals in pursuit of their academic and career goals. I am not asking the IVFP, or any police officer for that matter, to stop enforcing the law. I am asking them, however, to stop laughing at those that they arrest, and the Nexus to stop asking its readership to join in that laughter.

UCSB is full of future law-makers, judges, and jurors. Should the Nexus consider itself a serious news organization, and not a mere puppet of the UCSB Administration and other powerful forces of the Establishment, it should stop and consider the important role it plays in influencing attitudes of our future community leaders toward police, the accused and the administration of justice. At the very least, it should endeavor to tell more than one side of any given story and stop asking its readership to take pleasure in another person's pain.

Know Your Rights!

The Associated Students of UCSB is hosting a workshop for students on how to avoid attracting the attention of the Foot Patrol and how to deal with police officers who may contact them and arrest them for any variety of charges during the Halloween festivities on and around Del Playa in Isla Vista. The talk begins at 7 p.m. in Embarcardero Hall tomorrow (10/24/07). Myself and Sheriff's Deputy Myles Davies, of the IVFP, are the featured speakers. See you there!

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?

Well, not exactly...

The Daily Nexus just published an article where I was quoted and conferred various titles. First of all, yes, I am a "self-proclaimed" Isla Vista Lawyer: which means that I am letting the Isla Vista community know that I am available for free consultations concerning criminal law problems arising in Isla Vista; just as I have been for years. I am not, however, a public defender, as is made obvious in the body of the article, not the title. I am a former public defender. In any event, those aren't the inaccuracies that merit further discussion. While the article was generally accurate and informative, it did not quote me accurately in one critical respect. I did say that a police officer does not have any more right to touch people than a non-police officer; and that is generally true. However, I said some other things that are not, for reasons unknown, included in the article. This is the rest of that quote:

1. A police officer may touch you if he does so...

(1) in self-defense*
(2) in defense of another*
(3) pursuant to probable cause to arrest (e.g., you broke a law in his presence* or if he believes you are a felon who has yet to be arrested)
(4) to effect a citizen's arrest on behalf of another (where the crime was not committed in his presence).
(5) pursuant to an arrest warrant
(6) to prevent your injury (if say you are passed out on the street)*

2. It is NEVER, and I mean NEVER, a good idea to physically resist a police officer. If you believe that they have no right to touch you, but are doing so anyway, just tell them politely that you do not consent to be touched and go along with the program. Submit to the arrest. Whatever they did wrong can be dealt with in one or more courts of law after the fact. Don't exacerbate the problem by pulling away or, even worse, physically assaulting the officer. Doing so can get you:

(1) Injured
(2) Tased (even if you say, "don't tase me bro'")
(3) Charged with additional and more serious crimes (even felonies) and/or
(4) Killed (possibly)

Having said all of that, go ahead assert your rights VERBALLY, and only within reason (in other words you don't need to repeat yourself again and again, nor shout, to preserve your rights), and just be polite. As the old saying goes, you attract more flies with honey than vinegar. IVFP aren't flies, and you aren't wanting to attract them, but you get my point.

* These are rights that all people have, not just cops.