Unlawful Arrest

[emmettgolf]

What is the name of your state? CA

What is the name of your state? California.

On Wednesday of last week, the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s department, in conjunction with other agencies conducted a drunk driving assembly at Live Oak High School which was covered in the Saturday 10/23-25 edition of the Morgan Hill Times. A Special Ed student who is handicapped and suffers from emotional and learning disorders. The true account of the incident backed up by teacher, staff members, and student witnesses is as follows.

As the Grim Reaper entered the Special Ed student’s classroom unbeknownst to the teacher and all but two of the students, he approached the Special Ed student’s desk, stared at him for about 15 seconds, and then went to the back of the room and called a couple of kids to the back with him. After a few moments, the Grim Reaper went towards the door stopping again by the Special Ed student's desk again to stare at him for another 15 seconds. The only thing that Special Ed student could see was the Reaper's mustache under his mask and he thought that the Reaper was a PE teacher teasing him who he joked around with on a regular basis and who had encouraged the Special Ed student to throw his handball at him previously. As the Reaper turned his back walking towards the door, the Special Ed student, while sitting at his desk, tossed his handball over his left shoulder, striking the Reaper in his right shoulder. His intent was to tease his PE teacher back as opposed to causing harm. The classroom erupted in laughter further adding to the Grim Reaper’s mood. A handball is hollow inside and struck with the hand against a wall repeatedly by players in a handball match. It is not a hard rubber ball. It turned out, to everyone’s surprise, that the Reaper, who was not injured at the time, was a Deputy Sheriff on campus to do a skit in an assembly about drunk driving. The students, teacher, or most of the staff did not know this. After being struck, the Sheriff turned and asked, "Who threw that". The student stood up. The Sheriff said, "I am a police officer. You are under arrest. Come outside." A City officer was called over at the point and they took the student into a gym to decide what to do. Ignoring all apologies and groveling by the Special Ed student, advice to the contrary from the arresting Morgan Hill police officer, school staff, and teachers, the Reaper insisted that the Special Ed student be arrested, handcuffed, taken to jail, booked, and charged with battery. The Special Ed student was very cooperative and the arresting Morgan Hill police officer who is the resource officer for the school and knows the Special Ed student well, told the Special Ed student that he was a nice kid and should not be arrested for this. The Deputy Sheriff asked the Special Ed student if he had a record and when told no, he said, "Well, you will now and it's going to follow you around the rest of your life". While on campus, the Deputy Sheriff, who was laughed at, called names, and ridiculed by a number of students, also confronted other staff members and students who complained that any benefits from the assembly were compromised by the Deputy’s challenging and inappropriate behavior. The Special Ed student has no history of disciplinary actions at the school, gets good grades, and is scheduled for graduation in December. Teachers and counselors at the school have called the arrest “bogus” and are signing a petition to have the charges dropped. The Deputy Sheriff began claiming injury the day after complaints were filed with the Mayor, City Council members, and police chief.

The Special Ed student, who has fought long and hard against his handicaps in order to get an education, as the Deputy Sheriff desires, will have a record, which will show up when he applies for college, applies for jobs, applies for credit, or tries to get into the military.

The Deputy Sheriff was outside of his jurisdiction as evidenced by his involvement of the city officer. The student was at no time given his Miranda rights by any police officer. Did the announcement by the deputy that the student was under arrest constitue an arrest? Was this an unlawful arrest? Did the Sheriff have the authority to remove the student from his classroom? If not, was this kidnapping? Were the student's civil liberties violated? If this was an unlawful arrest and kidnapping, how can charges be files against the deputy?

A complaint has been sent to the Sheriff's Headquarters in San Jose. It has been referred to Internal Affairs for investigation. I, the students father, am scheduled to talk to the Internal Affairs Investigating officer on Monday. Should I go to this meeting?

 

[TYRIS]

What is the name of your state? CA

What is the name of your state? California.

On Wednesday of last week, the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s department, in conjunction with other agencies conducted a drunk driving assembly at Live Oak High School which was covered in the Saturday 10/23-25 edition of the Morgan Hill Times. A Special Ed student who is handicapped and suffers from emotional and learning disorders. The true account of the incident backed up by teacher, staff members, and student witnesses is as follows.

As the Grim Reaper entered the Special Ed student’s classroom unbeknownst to the teacher and all but two of the students, he approached the Special Ed student’s desk, stared at him for about 15 seconds, and then went to the back of the room and called a couple of kids to the back with him. After a few moments, the Grim Reaper went towards the door stopping again by the Special Ed student's desk again to stare at him for another 15 seconds. The only thing that Special Ed student could see was the Reaper's mustache under his mask and he thought that the Reaper was a PE teacher teasing him who he joked around with on a regular basis and who had encouraged the Special Ed student to throw his handball at him previously. As the Reaper turned his back walking towards the door, the Special Ed student, while sitting at his desk, tossed his handball over his left shoulder, striking the Reaper in his right shoulder. His intent was to tease his PE teacher back as opposed to causing harm. The classroom erupted in laughter further adding to the Grim Reaper’s mood. A handball is hollow inside and struck with the hand against a wall repeatedly by players in a handball match. It is not a hard rubber ball. It turned out, to everyone’s surprise, that the Reaper, who was not injured at the time, was a Deputy Sheriff on campus to do a skit in an assembly about drunk driving. The students, teacher, or most of the staff did not know this. After being struck, the Sheriff turned and asked, "Who threw that". The student stood up. The Sheriff said, "I am a police officer. You are under arrest. Come outside." A City officer was called over at the point and they took the student into a gym to decide what to do. Ignoring all apologies and groveling by the Special Ed student, advice to the contrary from the arresting Morgan Hill police officer, school staff, and teachers, the Reaper insisted that the Special Ed student be arrested, handcuffed, taken to jail, booked, and charged with battery. The Special Ed student was very cooperative and the arresting Morgan Hill police officer who is the resource officer for the school and knows the Special Ed student well, told the Special Ed student that he was a nice kid and should not be arrested for this. The Deputy Sheriff asked the Special Ed student if he had a record and when told no, he said, "Well, you will now and it's going to follow you around the rest of your life". While on campus, the Deputy Sheriff, who was laughed at, called names, and ridiculed by a number of students, also confronted other staff members and students who complained that any benefits from the assembly were compromised by the Deputy’s challenging and inappropriate behavior. The Special Ed student has no history of disciplinary actions at the school, gets good grades, and is scheduled for graduation in December. Teachers and counselors at the school have called the arrest “bogus” and are signing a petition to have the charges dropped. The Deputy Sheriff began claiming injury the day after complaints were filed with the Mayor, City Council members, and police chief.

The Special Ed student, who has fought long and hard against his handicaps in order to get an education, as the Deputy Sheriff desires, will have a record, which will show up when he applies for college, applies for jobs, applies for credit, or tries to get into the military.

The Deputy Sheriff was outside of his jurisdiction as evidenced by his involvement of the city officer. The student was at no time given his Miranda rights by any police officer. Did the announcement by the deputy that the student was under arrest constitue an arrest? Was this an unlawful arrest? Did the Sheriff have the authority to remove the student from his classroom? If not, was this kidnapping? Were the student's civil liberties violated? If this was an unlawful arrest and kidnapping, how can charges be files against the deputy?

A complaint has been sent to the Sheriff's Headquarters in San Jose. It has been referred to Internal Affairs for investigation. I, the students father, am scheduled to talk to the Internal Affairs Investigating officer on Monday. Should I go to this meeting?

-Regardless of whether your son percieved or belived the Deputy was someone else, the fact that he threw the handball and struck another subject intentionally is in fact a battery (242 PC) within the law. I was not present during the incident so i will not "monday quaterback" decision although I myself would have probably handled it differently.

I have been involved in the past with the "fifteen minutes" program and as far as i am aware, every teacher was aware of when it was to occur and who was involved. There were also flyers sent home with the students advising the parents of the demonstration.

The Deputy was not out of his jurisdiction to the fact that in California, every peace officer is able to effect an arrest in any part of the state.

Your son was arrested. That in itself allows the arresting officer to remove him from anywhere they are, including schools, the school resource officer has no jurisdiction to supercede another officers arrest. Now whether the District Attorney's Office file on the charges or not is up to them.

From what you have posted, I don't see any technical violations of the law or any civil rights violations and therefore I doubt you could file any charges against the Deputy. You filed a complaint with his Department and they will conduct a thorough investigation.

As I said before, I and other Officers may have handled the situation differenlty, but under the letter of the law the Deputy was within the bounds of the law.

Tyris

 

[emmettgolf]

Thank you Tyris for your opinion and clearing a few things up for me. I have always tauight my children that the police are their friends. I also think that the 15 Minutes Program is a good program and appreciate the Sheriff's Department and other agencies involved taking the time to present it at the schools. I lost another son in 1988, and while it was not drug, alcohol or crime related, I know the pain that a parent feels when he loses a child.

However, in this case, neither the teacher in the classroom or the students other than the two participating students knew what was going on.

This incident was covered in the San Jose Mercury yesterday at http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/10035447.htm

 

[CdwJava]

Not much to add to Tyris' comments other than to echo the comment that what the deputy did may not be what I would have done.

The Deputy Sheriff was outside of his jurisdiction as evidenced by his involvement of the city officer.

As Tyris stated, in CA we are peace officers throughout the state.

The student was at no time given his Miranda rights by any police officer.

Only required under federal case law when the suspect is in custody and being interrogated. Under CA law (W&I 625(a)) Miranda must be read to a juvenile as soon as practical once they are taken in to custody, but failure to do so has no penalty under the law and is not a violation of anyone's rights as it is simply a statutory procedure and without a prescribed penalty.

Did the announcement by the deputy that the student was under arrest constitue an arrest?

Sure.

Was this an unlawful arrest?

No.

Did the Sheriff have the authority to remove the student from his classroom?

Yes.

If not, was this kidnapping? Were the student's civil liberties violated?

No and No.

If this was an unlawful arrest and kidnapping, how can charges be files against the deputy?

See above - not applicable.

A complaint has been sent to the Sheriff's Headquarters in San Jose. It has been referred to Internal Affairs for investigation. I, the students father, am scheduled to talk to the Internal Affairs Investigating officer on Monday. Should I go to this meeting?

Well, not keeping the appointment would certainly remove any options you might have. But, I don't see where the officer did anything wrong. Perhaps his efforts were a little overzealous, but they were seemingly lawful, and likely within policy.

Unless a violation of law or policy can be established, there will be no grounds to discipline the officer. Being overzealous might get him a talking to by a supervisor regarding using a little more common sense when evaluating intent, but in this case I don't see anything overtly "wrong".

- Carl

 

[okamsrazor]

CDW-

I agree there is not a legal recourse such as a lawsuit, but considering a Sheriff is an ELECTED position, do you REALLY think that officer will not be forced to publicly apologize? Especially considering this was in the local news?

If the officer is not forced to apologize, the charges dropped, and the arrest expunged, this Sheriff will not be seeing another term

 

[CdwJava]

CDW-

I agree there is not a legal recourse such as a lawsuit, but considering a Sheriff is an ELECTED position, do you REALLY think that officer will not be forced to publicly apologize? Especially considering this was in the local news?

If the officer is not forced to apologize, the charges dropped, and the arrest expunged, this Sheriff will not be seeing another term

It would take a lot more than this to keep the sheriff from being re-elected, I imagine.

The officer is not likely to apologize for making a lawful arrest. if the sheriff wants to express his opinion that the arrest was ill-advised, that's his choice. But there is no way he could effectively force the deputy to apologize unless he violated some law or policy. And while there may be a detail here that puts it in to that category, I don't see it in what you have written.

The crime of battery was committed in the officer's presence and he made the arrest. Just what will he be forced to apologize for?

And while I might not have made an arrest in the same circumstance, it does not mean that the arrest was either unlawful or out of policy. Making someone apologize for an unpopular arrest is not going to garner points with the rank-and-file deputies, and is not going to stand on appeal if he is disciplined. So, unless the deputy agrees to it for whatever reason, I just don't see it being forced upon him.

And charges are NOT the option of the sheriff's department. Once filed - which they almost certainly would have been - that is the job of the DA and then the court. The DA can choose to drop the charges, but the Sheriff has no real say on the issue.

Then, the court could be petitioned to expunge the arrest, but that would be a seperate matter.

- Carl

 

[okamsrazor]

So you are saying that the Sheriff has no say in keeping a deputy on the payroll? That the Sheriff is not responsible for the deputies actions??

It is not a matter of whether the technical arrest was legal, it is a matter of the deputies the county employs are able to show discretion in their daily duties. I have serious doubts about any officer who would arrest a mentally retarded high school kid for sometime as simple as throwing a ball. The Sheriffs duties are not to the deputies but to the public. If he can not control his officers then he needs to be voted out.

It is the DA's choice about whether or not to press charges, but unless the Sheriff stumbled into a political office, then he likely has connections to the DA and can do some convincing to have the charges dropped.

If the officer remained unapologetic I would not expect discipline, I would expect him to be terminated. Police have a bad enough reputation without allowing an officer who does not show self-discipline or good judgment to be loose in the community.

 

[CdwJava]

So you are saying that the Sheriff has no say in keeping a deputy on the payroll? That the Sheriff is not responsible for the deputies actions??

CA is not an "at will" state. To terminate a deputy he would have to show wrongdoing. And, the wrongdoing would have to be of a sufficient level to warrant dismissal - i.e. a criminal act, or serious dereliction of duty. I see poor judgment, but not wrongdoing sufficient to justify termination ... at most, this MIGHT seem to call for a documented counseling or some form of updated training on the intent of the law as opposed to the letter of the law.

But not termination.

And certainly the Sheriff can be held responsible for the actions of his officers. But, again, I have to ask, what law was broken? What policy was broken? He cannot just terminate a deputy because he disagrees with the decision. And the Deputy Sheriff's Association would certainly not stand for it.

It is not a matter of whether the technical arrest was legal, it is a matter of the deputies the county employs are able to show discretion in their daily duties.

And discretion is one of those things that can be taken away or permitted. If the Sheriff wishes to change policies forbidding discretion by his officers he can do so. Until then, the deputy has the lawful right to use his discretion so long as it is done in a lawful manner.

I have serious doubts about any officer who would arrest a mentally retarded high school kid for sometime as simple as throwing a ball.

Again, it is a matter of poor judgment and not anything unlawful nor likely in violation of policy.

The Sheriffs duties are not to the deputies but to the public. If he can not control his officers then he needs to be voted out.

I have seen much greater scandals arise and not harm a Sheriff. If the election is still 2 years away, I doubt this will have any effect. And without a serious opponent then it will certainly not have an effect.

It is the DA's choice about whether or not to press charges, but unless the Sheriff stumbled into a political office, then he likely has connections to the DA and can do some convincing to have the charges dropped.

Sure, he can get on the phone and ask, but ultimately, the Sheriff does not have any legal say in the matter once the case is filed.

If the officer remained unapologetic I would not expect discipline, I would expect him to be terminated.

And the deputy would expect to gain a huge settlement from the county for an unlawful termination AND he would get his job back.

Without a violation of law or an aggregious violation of policy (or, the last straw on the camel's back in a series of such violations), there is no lawful way that the Sheriff COULD terminate him and have even the slightest hope of success on appeal.

Police have a bad enough reputation without allowing an officer who does not show self-discipline or good judgment to be loose in the community.

It's not as much a question of "allow" as a question of what to do about it. I would expect the sheriff would encourage greater restraint in officers that work in the schools and would probably revise the selection process for officers involved in the schools and juvenile programs, but beyond that there is not a lot that can or should be done. Well, having the deputy's supervisor sit down with the deputy and discuss the finer points of discretion and the intent of the law would be a good idea ... a "back to Jesus" talk if you will. But, an apology would have to be voluntary and could not likely be compelled (without it being attached to lawful discipline).

- Carl

 

[emmettgolf]

Thank you all for your opinions. I just returned from picking my son up from school. As I was sitting there waiting for him to get out of class, a boy and girl were walking together and the boy suddenly reached over, ran his hand up behind the girl's long hair, grabbed the girl's hair, and gave it a hard yank. I started to get out of my car and probably invite more trouble for myself but, she responded by wacking the boy in the stomach with the back of her hand. They called each other dirty names and laughed. Both of these acts were far more violent than what my son did. If a peace officer had been present, would he have made an arrest? Should I have made a citizen's arrest? I think not but, then we have zero tolerance in effect here.

When a free society passes laws and arms a police force and gives them authority, it has every right to expect its police force to enforce the laws in the manner in which they were intended. It also has the right to reasonably anticipate that its police force will not overreact and use its force and authority inappropriately. This officer was performing a public service and it may have been on his own time, I do not know for sure but I have heard that he has done this in the past. While walking on campus in his Reaper outfit, a few kids made fun of him and called him names, some fairly nasty names. He, of course, did not deserve this and these were very likely the kids he was trying to help. He over reacted and did not use his authority and power to enforce the law in a manner we have a right to expect when he arrested my son and should appologize.

This event is also on the front page of in today's edition of the Pinnacle. Sorry, I do not have the URL. What I would like to see happen, even if the officer cannot "drop" the charges now, is for the officer to come to my home, shake my son's hand, and make an appology for over reacting while maintaining his position that my son should not toss balls at people no matter who they are. My son likes police officers, wants to be one at times, and would be more than willing to shake his hand, accept his appology, and have their picture taken together which I could submit for publication in an article titled, "Sheriff and Student Patch It UP!" This would re-inforce my teachings to my son that police officers are his friend and do far more good than the arrest did.

 

[CdwJava]

Both of these acts were far more violent than what my son did. If a peace officer had been present, would he have made an arrest?

Hard to say. Probably not. But, it was technically a misdemeanor committed in his presence. But without the victim's cooperation, it wouldn't likey go anywhere.

Should I have made a citizen's arrest? I think not but, then we have zero tolerance in effect here.

"Zero tolerance" is a school policy and not a law. You COULD have made a citizen's arrest, and then the police would have been compelled to accept the arrest. Would it change the ultimate dismissal? No.

When a free society passes laws and arms a police force and gives them authority, it has every right to expect its police force to enforce the laws in the manner in which they were intended. It also has the right to reasonably anticipate that its police force will not overreact and use its force and authority inappropriately.

I agree to a great extent. However, people will often disagree on what is an "appropriate" use of that authority. There are people that feel the enforcing of traffic and/or DUI laws is a waste of police authority - likewise with drug laws and even statutory rape or pedophilia. Hence the reason that the police are required to act within the scope of the law and the policies of the agency where they are employed.

If the local community wishes to alter the way their police enforce the law, they can compel a policy that forces this practice upon their local law enforceing agency (so long as it does not contradict state or federal law).

He over reacted and did not use his authority and power to enforce the law in a manner we have a right to expect when he arrested my son and should appologize.

Maybe. But that's an opinion. Legally, he was within his right and authority to have done so ... based on what I have read so far.

You can "expect" an apology, but he will be under no legal obligation to provide it - especially given the fact that within the scope of the law, the arrest met the definition of battery and was by all appearances a perfectly lawful arrest for a violation of state law - PC 242 (Battery).

What I would like to see happen, even if the officer cannot "drop" the charges now, is for the officer to come to my home, shake my son's hand, and make an appology for over reacting while maintaining his position that my son should not toss balls at people no matter who they are.

Had their not been all this publicity, that might have been the reasonable thing to do. However, now, the act would likely be seen as a tacit admission of wrongdoing, and I doubt that his legal representative (or DSA rep.) would suggest he do that so long as their is even the hint of possible departmental sanctions or legal action ... neither of which would likely prevail, in my opinion.

If I were his DSA representative, I would advise against the personal "apology". Instead I would recommend that he approach it with the "teaching moment" advocating the understanding that throwing things at someone is not appropriate under any circumstances, and that sometimes even a relatively innocent act can be taken as something much worse and can have consequences you do not expect.

But, I'm flexible ... an apology COULD be fit in there under the right circumstances. But it would be tough after the publicity.

My son likes police officers, wants to be one at times, and would be more than willing to shake his hand, accept his appology, and have their picture taken together which I could submit for publication in an article titled, "Sheriff and Student Patch It UP!" This would re-inforce my teachings to my son that police officers are his friend and do far more good than the arrest did.

Maybe it'll happen. Who knows? But, as long as it is making headlines, I doubt that it will. Frankly, he'd be a fool to do anything that might even hint that he abused his discretion in the matter. But, even a cop can be a fool.

- Carl

 

[okamsrazor]

But, even a cop can be a fool.

- Carl

I think you mean "especially". Police tend to not be the brightest bunch, and the fact they have wide discretionary powers that tend to be abused leads to their overall negative view by the public.

Personally I'd like to see the U.S. police force privatized and brought back under tighter public control. Stricter federal rules involving the selection of officers and the dissolving of the police unions would go a long way towards removing incidents such as this.

 

[CdwJava]

I think you mean "especially". Police tend to not be the brightest bunch, and the fact they have wide discretionary powers that tend to be abused leads to their overall negative view by the public.

Ah, well now we get into the realm of insulting. And of course, with no factual basis to back the statement up it is, of course, simply opinion. An opinion which I obviously disagree with.

And I suppose it depends on where these surveys are taken, but, by-and-large, the police enjoy rather wide support - especially in CA.

Personally I'd like to see the U.S. police force privatized and brought back under tighter public control.

Privatization would certainly not have that effect. Take a look at private contractors for other government activities - they do not necessarily enjoy tighter controls. You invite the profit motive and you also invite the negatives that come along with it - cutting corners, the potential for lower quality to save money, etc.

Plus, what greater control can be had then having the people that control the police under the direct control of the electorate which is as it is today? if you contract you have to go through the government agency, through the agency representative to the contractor, through the bureacracy of the contractor, and then down THEIR chain. It only lengthens and confuses the lines of responsibility.

Fortunately, privatization won't happen. And in the few experiments I know of, they have generally tended to result in some dismal failures.

Stricter federal rules involving the selection of officers and the dissolving of the police unions would go a long way towards removing incidents such as this.

Well, the rules are getting stricter all the time. And dissolving the unions? Ain't gonna happen.

I am not a big fan of unions, but even without them, police officers have rights. All employees (in CA anyway) have rights.

And "this" (the unfortunate incident involving the OP's son) will happen as long as there is discretion permitted in the law, and as long as crime of battery is defined as it currently is.

You may not like it - and I may not have reacted the way the deputy did, but even without the support of the union (if they are siding one way or the other on this) the actions of the officer sound perfectly lawful. Maybe not reasonable in the totality of the circumstances, but almost certainly lawful.

And, remember, if you remove discretion, next time something like this happens, an officer may have no option but to make the custodial arrest and NOT release the child. You remove discretion, you may get what you ask for.

The law of unintended consequences has already struck in many places ... in some places in CA the "racial profiling" paperwork required for simply warning a driver or pedestrian has become so cumbersome that officers will cite everyone they contact just to save themselves time and effort - no more warnings. THAT was not the goal of the procedure, but it is one of the consequences.

Do you really want a federal standard for policing? What if the federal standard is the minimum required for a police officer in Podunk, Louisiana? You want that as a minimum standard?

Nope. There are greater controls at the local level rather than interjecting the feds into everything. I have seen the results of federal "consent decrees" and they result in far greater problems than they solve ... that rascally law of unintended consequences again.

So, people can petition the Sheriff of Santa Clara County, argue and fuss with him about his deputy. But, understand that unless there is some piece missing from all this, there is nothing he can legally do to the officer aside from a nasty scolding if he were so inclined.

Of course, you can also advocate for a state where employers can terminate employees at will without violations of the law or of policy ... I know I don't want that. Do you?

- Carl

EDIT: I had originally and erroneously attributed the comments to Emmett and did not notice that it was Okkam until after it had been posted. Apologies to Emmett, and I edited out that which might have previously been directed to him.

 

[emmettgolf]

Carl, you are a great advocate and I'll bet that your officers enjoy working for you, assuming that you are still a cop supervisor.

I am considered to be a great parent by my son who does what I tell him to even though he is much bigger and stronger than I am. I am his advocate. I have battled the schools, sent him to therapy, sent him to doctors and stayed on his butt day and night for ten years to try to make sure that he gets an education and stays out of trouble. He failed the 7th, 8th and 9th grades. The teachers told me that he would not graduate from high school. He has a B average and is scheduled to graduate in December only one semester late and plans to go to college to study marketing. He is with me except during the time he is in school. He has had his cell phone and raquet balls taken away from him for this prank. Those are the things that he most cherishes. I would not have objected if he was suspended by the school for a few days which I think would have been more appropriate. I have told him that if he ever throws another object of any type at anyone, I will have him locked up myself.

I do not know the deputy involved but from what I have heard and from what he was doing at the school, I think that he is a good man. I do not want him fired no matter what the press may say in the next few days. I realize that he does not have to make an appology. What he did was legal as far as I can determine and he has the authority and the law on his side. All my son has on his side is me and public opinion.

Just as my son's explanation does not excuse what he did or make it legal, the fact that the deputy's actions were legal do not excuse his over-reaction. He did not accept my son's appology but, my son will accept his and get on with his education. He is aware of everything that is going on and today he told me, "I have a feeling that me and this deputy will end up being friends."

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, you are a great advocate and I'll bet that your officers enjoy working for you, assuming that you are still a cop supervisor.

At least until I get the Chief's job.


I hope it all works out for the best in the end. My only point in all this - since I obviously have no real idea of the details - is that there is a difference between what should be done, what can be done, and what must be done. The three things may not ever cross paths. So what should have happened in a perfect world may not be allowed to happen in the litigious realities of our current one.

I wish all parties well, here. And I have to add that I think that it sounds like your son's accomplishments against adversity have been remarkable, and I am sure that it CAN be attributed directly to your tenacity on his behalf as well.

Good luck.

- Carl

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Ah, well now we get into the realm of insulting. And of course, with no factual basis to back the statement up it is, of course, simply opinion. An opinion which I obviously disagree with.

And I suppose it depends on where these surveys are taken, but, by-and-large, the police enjoy rather wide support - especially in CA.



Privatization would certainly not have that effect. Take a look at private contractors for other government activities - they do not necessarily enjoy tighter controls. You invite the profit motive and you also invite the negatives that come along with it - cutting corners, the potential for lower quality to save money, etc.

Plus, what greater control can be had then having the people that control the police under the direct control of the electorate which is as it is today? if you contract you have to go through the government agency, through the agency representative to the contractor, through the bureacracy of the contractor, and then down THEIR chain. It only lengthens and confuses the lines of responsibility.

Fortunately, privatization won't happen. And in the few experiments I know of, they have generally tended to result in some dismal failures.



Well, the rules are getting stricter all the time. And dissolving the unions? Ain't gonna happen.

I am not a big fan of unions, but even without them, police officers have rights. All employees (in CA anyway) have rights.

And "this" (the unfortunate incident involving the OP's son) will happen as long as there is discretion permitted in the law, and as long as crime of battery is defined as it currently is.

You may not like it - and I may not have reacted the way the deputy did, but even without the support of the union (if they are siding one way or the other on this) the actions of the officer sound perfectly lawful. Maybe not reasonable in the totality of the circumstances, but almost certainly lawful.

And, remember, if you remove discretion, next time something like this happens, an officer may have no option but to make the custodial arrest and NOT release the child. You remove discretion, you may get what you ask for.

The law of unintended consequences has already struck in many places ... in some places in CA the "racial profiling" paperwork required for simply warning a driver or pedestrian has become so cumbersome that officers will cite everyone they contact just to save themselves time and effort - no more warnings. THAT was not the goal of the procedure, but it is one of the consequences.

Do you really want a federal standard for policing? What if the federal standard is the minimum required for a police officer in Podunk, Louisiana? You want that as a minimum standard?

Nope. There are greater controls at the local level rather than interjecting the feds into everything. I have seen the results of federal "consent decrees" and they result in far greater problems than they solve ... that rascally law of unintended consequences again.

So, people can petition the Sheriff of Santa Clara County, argue and fuss with him about his deputy. But, understand that unless there is some piece missing from all this, there is nothing he can legally do to the officer aside from a nasty scolding if he were so inclined.

Of course, you can also advocate for a state where employers can terminate employees at will without violations of the law or of policy ... I know I don't want that. Do you?

- Carl

EDIT: I had originally and erroneously attributed the comments to Emmett and did not notice that it was Okkam until after it had been posted. Apologies to Emmett, and I edited out that which might have previously been directed to him.

Carl, no need to defend or waste a breath on this OKKAM thing. He did not come to this site to even ask a question, he is just blind to the world around him.

No need to argue with a "Una-Bomber" type personality. The world pretty well know's he cannot socially conform into public.

(I noticed you proved your point in such a friendly matter), KUDO's, as it must eat this guy alive inside.