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.

No on Measure S

If we build it, they will fill it.  That's the slogan that says it all.  Some of you will go into the polls buying into the dogma that we need a new jail.  Granted there are some problems with the current situation, but spending tens of millions of dollars to increase, dramatically, the number of jail bunks is not the way to go.  As any proud liberal would, I would urge that we spend the same money on the public schools, job training, mental health services and drug rehabilitation.  If we did, we wouldn't need to boost our penal system.  We would be a better, more productive and more utopian society.  We wouldn't have to warehouse our fellow community members, and pretend as though that actually solves any problem.  Incarceration may prevent the rare act of violence by a dangerous person, and act as a deterrent of crime for those of us who fear going to jail, but it creates as many problems as it solves.  Jail should be a place for violent people who are not mentally ill, and that is a very small population; well beneath the number of jail beds that are currently available.  And this is the point:  If we have more jail beds to fill, the authorities will fill them up fast; guaranteed.  People will be going to jail, and serving longer sentences, for the pettiest of crimes.  I used to work in as a public defender in Santa Cruz, a place where there were many more jail beds per capita.  There, as compared to Santa Barbara, people frequently went to jail for misdemeanors such as driving on a suspended drivers license for lengthy periods.  In other words, the County would do the dirty work for the DMV and take what were very often poor people on their way to work and throw them in the slammer for six months to a year.  I don't know about you, but I would rather not pay to house such people.  Nor do I particularly want to live in a community where we treat our fellow human being in such a cruel and unforgiving fashion.  

If you doubt my motive/agenda at all, consider that when people start facing longer jail sentences, my services will be in much higher demand.  I stand to economically benefit if the measure passes.  I would rather it didn't.

Quiet, I'm driving!!!

In June of 2008, I issued my "final" warning that the hands-free (i.e., don't drive while talking on the cell phone) law would lead to more traffic stops.  Well, that ended up being true.  Police officers are handing out lots tickets.  What I didn't predict was that traffic accidents would be reduced as the result of it.  And, well, to the extent it has been studied, there is no evidence that the law has had any such effect.  Maybe that's because there is no evidence that the use of cell phones while driving has led to more serious traffic accidents.  To find proof of this, look no further than the number of traffic fatalities in the United States over the last 15 years.  This is the same 15 years during which the use of cell phones in moving vehicles went from near zero to nearly everyone.  There has been no increase in traffic fatalities per capita.  So, who are the gainers from the law?  Well, as predicted, Blue Tooth, motorola, and the cell phone industry who saw no decline in sales of phones but a sharp increase in sales of ear-phone type accessories.  I, for one, must have purchased about 20 such gizmos in the last few years, and I still can't find one that is altogether convenient.  The Government also gains by imposing fines for now unlawful activity.  And, let's not forget about the cell phone etiquette police.  These are the same folks who wish that talking on a cell phone in a public place at the top of your lungs because the connection is weak (and/or because you are so self-absorbed and inconsiderate that you can't imagine that those around are extremely annoyed) ought to be illegal.  Okay, I admit it, I'm one of them.  Now the act of driving with a cell phone pressed to your ear, which I admit I did plenty of before it became unlawful, is all the more irritating.  When you see someone doing it you can't help be hit with thoughts like, "this person is oblivious to what is going on around them" and a new one, "this person is disregarding the law (at my personal expense!)".  These, of course, are the emotional responses to the conduct, but the statistics do not prove that it is anything more than bad manners.

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.

Huge win for truth and justice

Yesterday, in a Supreme Court case called People v. McNeal, the California Supreme Court ruled that competent evidence of variability of alcohol vapor in breath to blood alcohol content across the population may be admitted in cases where there is minimal showing of impairment. This has huge ramifications for innocent people. For years I have been telling people the sad story that there is no justice in California for DUI arrestees who happen to produce more alcohol vapor in the breath and were blind to this reality (of course) when they choose the more convenient method of blood alcohol testing: breath (not blood). Driving with any amount of alcohol in your system is to be avoided. However, convicting people 21 and older of misdemeanors who have not actually driven with a .08% BAC or greater, who are not impaired by alcohol, cannot be tolerated. At long last the Supreme Court is on board. Kudos to the brilliant lawyers who brought about this change!

Observation of marijuana use does not justify entry...

A California appellate court recently held that officers violated the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution where they entered an apartment against the consent of the legal occupant after they smelled a "distinct odor" of burnt marijuana and saw an individual inside putting a pipe to his lips. People v. Hua (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1027.

If you find yourself in this predicament, the word to the wise is:

"Just say no [to the cops]". And, as I always do, I will caution anyone who believes that their Constitutional rights are being violated that they can't hope to win a motion to suppress evidence in the field. While being clear about the fact that you are not waiving your Rights is important, nothing about that suggests that you should kick the officer in the shins (or even be impolite to him or her). One audible, intelligible "No Thanks" should suffice. Screaming "no!" repeatedly in anger and/or frustration promises to bring on more unpleasantness and possibly new and different criminal charges. Just submit to their color of authority and wait until your day in court to seek the remedy to which you are entitled.

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