# Dallas County DA - going a bit too far? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 16, 2019, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622 "2019-04-16T14:13:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2019, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/21 "2019-04-16T22:45:38Z")
I don’t necessarily disagree with the DA’s policies but publishing it openly in public is a terrible idea. Why advertise in public the fact that thefts of under $750 are unlikely to get prosecuted now? it invites small-yield theft. ---
**Author:** ![rsat3acr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a3d4f5/32.png) [@rsat3acr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsat3acr)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/22 "2019-04-17T00:09:19Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > 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. No, I didn’t miss the point. Of course it wouldn’t matter if they were rich or poor if they didn’t break the law. It isn’t a function of justice it is a function of being a law abiding member of society. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/23 "2019-04-17T00:16:53Z")
> [@bump](#): > > … 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. I’m going to go with “no”, “yes”, and “definitely”. Sounds like Dallas is well on its way to becoming the next Seattle. Good luck. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/24 "2019-04-17T00:34:34Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > … 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. I think it would be naive to assume that this won’t affect police behavior. If they know that the people they arrest for certain crimes are going to be turned loose again without any punishment, they’re likely to stop arresting people for those crimes, and perhaps even investigating them. That’s one of the takeaways I had from the “[Seattle is Dying](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw)” video. You could just watch the bit from 14:30 - 22:00. “I just started stealing last Monday … I don’t feel like I’ll ever be arrested again … I have conquered the criminal justice system.” - homeless guy with 34 criminal cases in 4 years ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/25 "2019-04-17T00:35:59Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m going to go with “no”, “yes”, and “definitely”. Sounds like Dallas is well on its way to becoming the next Seattle. Good luck. Hey, some of us like Seattle. I certainly prefer it to Dallas. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/26 "2019-04-17T06:24:52Z")
> [@bump](#): > > 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](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. It sounds a lot like the criminal justice reforms places like San Francisco and Seattle implemented. Expect petty theft, including breaking into automobiles, to skyrocket. Like it did in the preceding places mentioned. I don’t think you’re right about not being prosecuted, de jure—offenders IIRC receive a citation and a summons to appear in court—but de facto, it’s not a deterrent to those crimes. I guess you can pick them up for FTA later. Good luck. It’s a horrible idea. Looks like we get to relearn all of the criminal justice lessons from the 1970s all over again. EDIT: I’d no shit move over this, Bump. I don’t think things will get better, and it’s unlikely you can get more rational representation in the C.J. system. Too bad, Craig Watkins was great for the city in the D.A. slot. Doubt he’d have pushed for this. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/27 "2019-04-17T06:31:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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 You’re not including the periodic warrant amnesties, or deals that happen. You can get a lot of those failure to appears, or driving w/o financial responsibility tickets cleared off in one fell swoop. Basically encourages people to play keep away more than they already do. As for the lack of prosecution for theft you mention, it really makes it hard to discourage vigilantism against suspected thieves. Though I suspect the C.J. system will actually prosecute in those cases. Glad my inlaws moved from Dallas. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/28 "2019-04-17T10:59:17Z")
I read the letter in full. I was wrong. It’s not like San Francisco’s. It’s worse. To totally decline prosecution for theft under 750 unless the theft was for economic gain—good luck proving that by the way—is absolutely insane. You’ve essentially decriminalized theft, not just made it really convenient to do Did you all know you were electing a leader of the proletariat when you guys voted him in? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/29 "2019-04-17T11:23:51Z")
Gray Ghost, they don’t have to “prove” it was for economic gain. The prosecutors office is choosing, using their discretion, to not prosecute certain thefts. They don’t have to prove to anyone but themselves that a particular theft met or didn’t meet their guidelines. ---
**Author:** ![Smitty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Smitty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smitty)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/30 "2019-04-17T12:37:11Z")
In Texas, deadly force is justified to prevent robbery. I think that there is a very good chance that if store owners know that the prosecutor won’t bring a charge, we will see this go up. And yes, I know that robbery = theft PLUS bodily harm/threat of bodily harm, but it’s pretty easy for me to claim that the guy stealing from me threatened me if he’s dead. Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.31. Self-Defense (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.  The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used: (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;  or © was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, **robbery** , or aggravated robbery; ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/31 "2019-04-17T12:54:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think it would be naive to assume that this won’t affect police behavior. If they know that the people they arrest for certain crimes are going to be turned loose again without any punishment, they’re likely to stop arresting people for those crimes, and perhaps even investigating them. Police behavior, and, as mentioned, the behavior of the public as well. Shoplifter steals $200 worth of stuff. Shopkeeper catches him and calls the cops. Cops arrest him. DA declines to prosecute and lets him go with a warning or something. Lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually either the cops or the shopkeeper is going to figure out that nothing much is going to be done. Sooner or later, the tendency is going to be “well, if you aren’t going to do anything to protect my interests, I will” and they set up a neighborhood watch. I hear George Zimmerman is available. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/32 "2019-04-17T14:35:12Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > 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. The way the law reads, criminal trespass isn’t for bums just hanging around, but rather for people who are on private property univited, AND who have been asked to leave or otherwise notified that they’re not welcome - signs count. Here’s the main part of the statute, minus all the definitions, exceptions and penalties. > [@](#): > > Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person: > > (1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or > > (2) received notice to depart but failed to do so. So basically if there’s a skanky homeless guy somewhere, and they’re notified in some fashion that they’re not welcome, the cops have the option to arrest them for criminal trespass. Now, with this refusal to prosecute, what legal basis do the cops have to detain the guy or even forcibly remove him if he’s not being otherwise disruptive except for his very presence? Seems to me that this will result in cops engineering offenses for the same purpose- lots of failure to obey a police officer I suspect. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/33 "2019-04-17T14:39:00Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > Did you all know you were electing a leader of the proletariat when you guys voted him in? No… it was more a reaction to two things- the batshit insanity of the Republican party as of late, and the resignation of the batshit insane Republican DA and her unelected successor (appointed by the Governor). My personal expectation is that this will piss enough people off in the state government and Legislature, which is still in session, may well outlaw that kind of thing before it gets off the ground. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/34 "2019-04-17T15:21:33Z")
The police will have the same legal basis to arrest people that they’ve always had. Prosecutorial discretion doesn’t change the law. The fact that very few people get pulled over for going 5 mph over the limit doesn’t mean that it’s legal to go 5 over. But it makes sense to me for police to focus on the cars going 25 over, or the ones going 5 over, plus driving recklessly. (Here, police discretion used by analogy.) Prosecutorial discretion is a decision aabout how the DA chooses to expend resources. I would be interested to know where this DA intends to focus the resources saved by this policy. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/35 "2019-04-17T15:21:46Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > 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. Agreed, most people don’t steal stuff because it’s wrong. Also, another poster pointed out it’s for necessities, so let’s continue with those two constraints, here are some things I would expect t be in the necessities category: food/water medicine clothes (could probably put utilities in here also, but we’ll leave them out) Also, let’s speculate that 95% percent of people don’t steal because it’s wrong. I personally think the number is much lower, but for purposes of this thought experiment we’ll keep the number high. So the 5% of people (or whatever the percent is) that have a different moral compass than the average joe are allowed to steal items that are necessities under $750. I can see one result: increased theft. In what way does that “work”? If the goal is to make sure people that are in need get their basic necessities, doesn’t it make more sense to provide them using some alternate method so you don’t open the floodgates for the people that would abuse it? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/36 "2019-04-17T15:49:10Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Now, with this refusal to prosecute, what legal basis do the cops have to detain the guy or even forcibly remove him if he’s not being otherwise disruptive except for his very presence? I think it’s this: > [@](#): > > Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person: > > (1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or > > (2) received notice to depart but failed to do so. Whether or not an ADA brings the complaint to a grand jury 2 months later doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not a cop can arrest someone for trespass. ---
**Author:** ![dba\_Fred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@dba\_Fred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dba_Fred)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/37 "2019-04-17T16:22:57Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > \ > Prosecutorial discretion is a decision aabout how the DA chooses to expend resources. I would be interested to know where this DA intends to focus the resources saved by this policy. His reelection bid? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/38 "2019-04-17T16:54:57Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I think it’s this:Whether or not an ADA brings the complaint to a grand jury 2 months later doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not a cop can arrest someone for trespass. Isn’t the whole point of arresting someone so that they can be charged with a crime and prosecuted? Cops can’t go around arresting people for violating laws that don’t exist, and in large part, if the DA decides they’re not going to prosecute a crime, that law ceases to exist. I mean, if I was a cop, I think that would discourage me something fierce, if the DA basically said that even if you do arrest someone for it, they’re not going to follow through and prosecute them. So why arrest them in the first place in that situation? You’re taking a non-trivial risk that the person is going to react violently and hurt you or your colleagues, or that they have some disease, etc… And for what? So that you can haul them in, and they’ll be let go somewhere else because the DA won’t prosecute them. And I seriously, seriously doubt that criminal trespass cases go to a grand jury. It’s only a mid-level misdemeanor with a fine up to $2000 and/or up to 180 days in jail. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/39 "2019-04-17T17:48:21Z")
The point is that rather than putting these skanky homeless guys in jail for 30 days, then putting them back out on the street as-is, they should be directed to a program that helps them not be skanky homeless guys stinking up the local McDonalds. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622/40 "2019-04-17T17:54:56Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > The point is that rather than putting these skanky homeless guys in jail for 30 days, then putting them back out on the street as-is, they should be directed to a program that helps them not be skanky homeless guys stinking up the local McDonalds. What programs are you referring to? What’s their success rate? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dallas-county-da-going-a-bit-too-far/832622.md?page=3)