Dallas County DA - going a bit too far?

Great Debates
1

So the local district attorney here in Dallas County published an open letter describing the guidelines for his office during his term.

https://www.dallascounty.org/Assets/uploads/docs/district-attorney/messages-from-da/Official-DACreuzotPoliciesLetter_April2019.pdf

Outside of the stuff that needs to be done (bail reform), he’s implementing a bunch of progressive-sounding stuff that also sounds like he’s basically letting people off the hook for committing minor crimes, because the poor segment of the population gets disproportionately impacted. It’s kind of questionable, and has lots of politicians in a lather.

For example, he’s instructing his office to not prosecute theft below $750, unless they have evidence it was for resale.

Another thing he’s doing is basically discontinuing prosecution/penalties for driving with your drivers’ license suspended.

The final one that’s kind of odd is that his office isn’t going to prosecute criminal trespass cases unless there’s actual intrusion or it involves a residence.

So basically he’s saying that his office won’t handle homeless or mentally ill people being nuisances, he’s saying that if someone steals stuff worth less than $750, that they basically get away with it unless they are shown to be trying to resell it, and that you can get your license suspended and drive all you want.

Now I understand the idea that these policies may disproportionately impact the poor, but that would seem to indicate that they should be reformed, not just discontinued.

What he’s saying seems absurd- the implication might be that I could just walk into a retail store and walk out with ANYTHING under $750, and they wouldn’t prosecute me, as long as I intended to keep it for myself. Or that property owners have no recourse against homeless people who come and hang out on their place, driving business away and abusing the facilities, etc…

Am I misunderstanding? Is this really what the Democratic party wants? I voted for this guy, but now I’m thinking maybe that was a mistake.

2

I’m generally okay with his memo/guidelines. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

I’m troubled by the suggestion that they won’t prosecute driving with a suspended license. I’m not sure what it’s like in Dallas, but in Washington State, many people who are driving with as suspended license are not “just to poor to pay off the traffic fines,” but have had their license suspended because of DUI. Maybe that’s something different in Texas.

Personally, I would keep prosecuting misdemeanor theft charges, but not ask for jail time upon conviction (or pre-trial confinement). However, this guy is closer to the situation and I assume knows more about what will work and won’t won’t than I do.

3

I’m assuming you meant to put this in Great Debates.

You can still call the cops and get them to leave, they’re just not going to be prosecuted.

4

In what way is it possible that allowing theft under $750 will “work”? What definition of “work” are you using?

Seems like the natural response to allowing that is an increase in thefts under $750.

For example, knowing that Samsung has many tv’s for less than $750, the natural reaction to this new approach is for anyone that feels like it to go to Costco and walk out with a $500 tv. I doubt the lady checking receipts at the door will be able to stop you.

5

A quick scan through the document shows me that he is moving towards something pretty similar to what we have in the UK:

Bail, for example; bail here does not usually involve money, it does give the police the power to arrest a suspect who fails to turn up at court. There may also be other conditions like turning up at the police station daily.

Trespass; we don’t have a criminal trespass law here. If you walk on my front lawn, I do not have the right to shoot you or to use any physical force to remove you beyond the minimum. If you refuse to leave when asked, I can call the police who will physically remove you; resist them and that is another offence altogether. If I am determined to keep people off my lawn, I can put up a fence.

Marijuana use and possession is still illegal here, but get caught with a baggy in your pocket and you will lose it and get a warning that is recorded. This applies to a lot of minor crimes. Bear in mind that you can only be a ‘first offender’ once.

Driving while suspended, however, will quite possibly result in a prison sentence.

6

These aren’t laws, they’re guidelines. The guideline about theft is labeled “Necessary items.” Even if it’s under $750, that’s not a necessary item.

7

I think most people don’t steal stuff because they believe it’s wrong, not out of fear of prosecution. Anyway, as you’ll note, I said I wouldn’t make that change if I was in charge, but I assume this guy has his reasons. I’m just willing to keep an open mind.

8

Sure, but the text of the paragraph below says “personal items”. There’s a lot of latitude there- even if it means food and toiletries, that still means someone can go jack a bottle of Creed Aventus cologne (~$400) with impunity.

I mean, I know I’ll be PISSED if someone steals stuff of mine worth less than $750 and the cops just say “Oh well, we can’t prosecute them. You’re just SOL.”

9

Since the memo refers to " a diversion program that will result in charges being dismissed for defendants who clear their drivers’ licenses " , I assume he is talking about people whose licenses were suspended for not paying parking or traffic tickets, rather than those who have suspended licenses as a result of a DUI.

In NY , you can get your license suspended for many reasons. Some of then are for a definite period of time - too many points, DWI or refusing a breathalyzer will result in a suspension for a definite period of time and you won’t get the license reinstated before the time is up. Other suspensions are indefinite- for example, failure to pay tickets, child support, or state income taxes, . For an indefinite suspension, your license will be reinstated once you pay the tickets/taxes/child support. It seems that Texas might have the same sort system.

10

Of course, these are guidelines, not laws, and the guideline says “will not prosecute… unless”

No thief in this district will be able to point to this memo and say “you can’t prosecute me, I only stole $749 worth of stuff.”
I’m OK with most of this. It’s insane the number of people we have sitting in jail because they didn’t or couldn’t write a check.

11

Moderator Action

The OP has some factual aspects, but overall I think this calls for opinions and some debate on the topic.

Moving thread from GQ to GD.

12

The policy seems pretty reasonable to me. I’m surprised the threshold for dismissing theft charges is as high as $750 but even that amount is only half of what Texas considers misdemeanor theft. It also seemingly applies only to “necessary items,” and excludes thefts for economic gain, which suggests it only covers people stealing to survive. I’m betting “economic gain” will be interpreted more broadly than just stealing for resale. The policy doesn’t stop the police from recovering the items and returning them to their rightful owners. Homeless people have been arrested for theft on the basis of charging their cell phones in public places. Charging a cell phone doesn’t cause any economic loss and no one benefits if the homeless guy goes to jail. There is no reason to prosecute a case like that. Dallas won’t prosecute them any more.

People above have already noted that the driving license one only applies to people who can cure their license suspension. That means people will avoid jail only if they pay off their fines and get their license back. So the policy will increase traffic fine payment rates and reduce jail costs. It’s a win-win. It doesn’t quite do enough though because people too poor to pay off the fines won’t suddenly have the money they need but the policy is a good start.

Did you also know that homeless people get arrested for trespassing in places like public parks and bridge underpasses? Police can still remove homeless people from businesses where they are unwelcome but those homeless people won’t then be jailed or convicted of trespassing for being poor. The homeless person will instead get a referral for services. This isn’t ideal because the police aren’t fully trained as social workers for the homeless but this is better than jailing people just for extreme poverty. Nothing in this policy will prevent business from taking private actions against the homeless people if it’s really worth the cost to the business of doing so.

13

I recall the old line, “You might beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride”. That is, sure, they won’t prosecute someone under these conditions, but that’s not the same as not doing anything. They’ll likely still get arrested, and the cops will at a minimum make them give the stuff back.

So they’re not quite SOL.

14

It is also insane the number of people sitting in jail because they broke the law AND didn’t or couldn’t write a check.

15

I am not clear on how the “not arrest for driving on a suspended license” works. So I am driving in Dallas County, and I get a ticket for $150, which I then blow off. The traffic judge issues a bench warrant, which I ignore. Then he suspends my license. I get another ticket. If they don’t arrest me, then I get another ticket, which I also ignore. Or maybe they do arrest me, but I get referred to a diversion program, where I do community service or something. Which I then ignore. I assume at some point enough has to be enough and I will get some sentence or my car confiscated to pay my fines or something.

The other is the homeless person who they won’t prosecute for trespass, just because he was sleeping in a dumpster or stinking up the library or panhandling in front of the McDonald’s or something. Instead, he gets a referral to some kind of social services. OK, that sounds good - how much social service is available, and does it keep him from sleeping in your doorway or the park where you take your children even for a night? Does that mean they can’t do anything about homeless encampments in the parks or public grounds?

So there’s some schizophrenic drunk sleeping on the park bench next to the playground. Is referring him to social services better than the old-fashioned cop whacking him good and solid on the sole of his foot and telling him to “move along and don’t come back”?

The problem with nuisance crimes is that they are nuisances. If they’re not going to prosecute the guy because he only stole $200 worth of merchandise from my store, then “what do I pay taxes for?” is kind of a hard question to answer.

Regards,
Shodan

16

Of course they broke the law, that’s a given.

The point, if you missed it, is that for the same crime poor people sit in jail and non-poor people go home. It isn’t that the poor people represent a danger to society, and need to be locked up away from the rest of us for our safety, it’s that they don’t have enough money to buy their freedom.

Justice should not depend on the depth of your pocketbook. Whether or not you’re in jail should depend on whether or not you represent a risk to other people.

17

Or whether you’re a risk for not showing up to court. That was the original purpose of bail- you’d put up a sum of money that the court would keep if you didn’t show up.

18

It looks like an attempt to make prosecutorial discretion more equitable. Prosecutorial discretion works in favor of those in power so strongly that it can be hard to notice it. But it’s there.

How often are office workers prosecuted for theft for taking home office supplies, or major slacking off, misusing company property, etc.

How many prosecutions are there for common ways of cheating on taxes? Or for taking a hotel robe. How many sting operations are there setting up an opportunity to cheat the hotel minibar? Etc.

And lots of trespassing is let off with a warning or no action taken at all, if you’re the right sort of person. Straight white adults who obviously have income who are seen in a park after hours might not be disturbed at all, or are likely to be told to leave, with no other consequences. If a homeless person is in the park, and there are consequences of that that cause a nuisance, what is wrong with trying to deal with the nuisance part, and treating the trespass the same?

19

According to the document, the diversion program will result in charges being dismissed for those who clear their licenses. By implication, that means prosecution will continue for those who don’t clear their licenses.

What does telling him to “move along and don’t come back” have to do with prosecution? I’ll tell you what - you don’t tell someone to “move along and don’t come back” if you are arresting and prosecuting them.
Nothing in this document precludes the police from moving people along. In fact, it doesn’t preclude the police from anything- the police are still free to arrest someone who steals a $2 loaf of bread and they will still be arresting people who are driving on a suspended license ( that’s how they enter the diversion program - after an arrest) They are still free to arrest someone who is in the park after it is officially closed. The only people the DA can control are the prosecutors - and he is directing them not to prosecute certain cases. Just like the police have a great deal of discretion regarding who to arrest, who to give a ticket and who to let off with a warning, so do prosecutors have a great deal of discretion in deciding whether to prosecute or decline prosecution.

20

Yes, but if it’s “necessities” as the memo says, like food or clothing, even if the cops make them give them back, they are now worthless.

As a store owner, I don’t dare put that item of food back on sale again.
Even if they’re in individually sealed packages, like a box of wrapped Twinkies, the thief will have torn open the box and eaten one – i can’t sell that torn-open box to anyone. At best, I can put it in the break room for my employees to eat. But it’s still a loss to my business, both of the profit on that box, and probably the profits on all the other boxes in that case. I’m out the money no matter what.

And I can declare them no longer welcome in my store, and have them arrested for trespass if they come back. But now they won’t prosecute for that, either. What’s a store owner to do? Might be better to do as the Mafia did in Vegas: never call the cops, just have your employees take the troublemaker out in back and beat hell out of them. They won’t try again, and the word would soon spread to not mess with your store.