What was the prior DA doing?
Can we get a cop’s input here? Does the average cop keep track of people they arrest for low level offenses and find out what happened to them?
actually the theft thing is something similar to what the la county da did in the recession in the early 90s … my area was hit with waves of bad checks for petty items and the used video game shop i worked for was one of them … we inquired about what to do and the official response was "stop taking checks because the la county das office had decided that anything under 500 (it later went up to 1500 dollars) wasn’t worth the time money or effort to go after "
and if they did catch up with anyone they just were fined and sent to classes on how to manage money
i dont think they do all that much for shoplifters either … just fines and probation unless you have a repeated thing going on or its over 1500$
I was being a bit facetious with the “batshit insane” part, but the elected one(Susan Hawk) did actually resign for mental health issues. The appointed one (Faith Johnson) seems to have been relatively uncontroversial, and something of a unicorn, in that she’s a black woman Republican.
I’m not a cop, but when I worked in an area with a lot of panhandlers and street people, I got to recognize a lot of them. I expect a cop would tend to remember people after they arrest them a few times.
As far as “find out what happened to them” - if they are back on the street, that’s what happened to them.
Back (I believe) in the 90s the NYC police targeted nuisance crimes like jumping the turnstile in the subway, because a lot of the folks who did that had outstanding warrants or were carrying guns or drugs, and could be busted for that. That is not necessarily the reason why the crime rate dropped - that is disputed - but it was visible and at least made it look like it was helping. Of course, it also led to things like what happened with Eric Garner, who died from resisting arrest for selling loosies, and Garner had a long criminal history for offenses minor and not-so-minor.
Regards,
Shodan
You would think so, but it’s not necessarily the case. First of all, it’s my guess that a lot of these cases result in time served anyway- I know it happens in my jurisdiction all the time. A cop arrests someone Thursday for a minor charge like trespass and they stay in custody until sometime Friday when they are arraigned, plead guilty and get sentenced to “time served”. The DA’s decision about prosecuting is irrelevant if the judge is going to give them time served.
Here’s an example of where the police didn’t care about wasting their time https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/nyregion/new-york-city-agrees-to-settlement-over-summonses-that-were-dismissed.html You would think the police wouldn’t bother writing summons they knew would be dismissed - but they didn’t care. Maybe they didn’t care because they needed to meet quotas, maybe they didn’t care because they were content with causing a hassle to the people who received tickets* ( some of whom did not find out the tickets were dismissed until they showed up for their court date) I don’t know what the reasons are- but I know that the officers continued to issue summonses even though only 27% resulted in a conviction https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/nyregion/new-york-city-to-transform-the-summons-process-for-courts-and-recipients.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer and I know that any police officer should understand that you can’t write a summons for “obstructing vehicle traffic” without explaining how. Unless ,of course , you want the case dismissed.
- I have actually heard this from some cops- they don’t think the offense deserves a fine or jail time but they want to inconvenience the person , so they write a ticket ( which takes some time and causes inconvenience ) in a way that the officer* knows* will result in a dismissal.
The cop will know the arrestee is back on the street if the cop arrests them on Sunday and they are back on the street on Saturday - but the cop won’t know why. Did the DA decline to prosecutes because of a policy or because there was something wrong with the arrest? Did the arrestee plead guilty and get sentenced to something less than 7 days? Did he make bail or get released on his own recognizance and the case is still continuing? The cop is not going to know why he’s back on the street without making it a point to check.
I find it difficult to believe that the cops would not know about this change in policy by the DA. Therefore if they notice, or think they notice, that the revolving door is revolving faster, it would be natural to attribute it to the new policy.
And if I, as a shopkeeper, notice that the thief that was arrested for stealing $100 is back in front of my store within a day, I am apt to inquire of the cops and/or of the city government “howcome” and if they say “oh, the DA doesn’t prosecute cases like that” I am going to make the same attribution.
Shopkeeper: “Say, Officer Friendly, that same homeless guy you busted yesterday is back panhandling in front of my store and scaring off my customers! Can’t you do anything?”
Cop: “The DA won’t prosecute those kinds of cases, and they get down on us if we bust them because it just wastes time. They will just refer him to social services and he will be back tomorrow. Sorry.”
Shopkeeper: “If I pepper spray him, will the DA prosecute me?”
Cop: “That’s probably just a misdemeanor. You would be released without bail, and get, maybe, six months probation.”
Shopkeeper: “Hmmm.”
Regards,
Shodan
Is this DA technically committing “dereliction of duty”?
I wouldn’t think so. Inherent in the role of prosecutor (indeed, one of the key obligations) is the discretion to determine which cases to bring and which not to bring. No reason you can’t do that through a blanket policy. If the people don’t like it, they can vote you out… or move.
What they think and what they know aren’t necessarily the same thing. I’m sure the cops will know about the change in policy - I’m sure they won’t know about the outcome of each individual arrest unless they make it a point to check. What I don’t know is whether the change in policy leads to a practical difference in terms of how quickly arrestees get released - if the current practice is that most people arrested for shoplifting are released the next day ( either ROR’d or bailed out or sentenced to time served) the new policy wouldn’t lead to a noticeable change in how quickly they are back on the street.
However, regarding the theft charges, the DA is going to have to either refine or better publicize the details regarding the theft of “necessary items”. I saw another article where he clarified that it was meant to apply to food or formula , not clothing . I’m going to assume there are other factors he intends to consider, even if they only exist in his mind. And he had better publicize them soon. I am about 100% certain he didn’t mean to say if someone dined and dashed on a $500 dinner for 2 he wouldn’t prosecute - but I can’t imagine what $750 necessary item he could be talking about unless it was a prescription medication. And if the $750 limit is meant for that, and his actual threshold for food would be much lower , he needs to let people know that.
I’m hoping you will respond to this post, I’m struggling to understand how it wouldn’t just increase theft.
That’s probably true. Part of my point is that it is likely to lead to a perception, by cops and by the public, that repeat offenders - the “frequent flyers” notorious in jails, emergency rooms, and drunk tanks - are back on the streets faster than they used to be. Also that the cops encounter pushback, either from their supervisors or from the DA’s office, not to waste time arresting them/transporting them/booking them/arraigning them because they aren’t going to be charged anyway. Maybe that’s unfair, maybe there isn’t a lot of difference in the revolving door - but it may appear that way, and thereby erode the public trust in law enforcement, or the DA’s office, or both.
My impression, and it is no more than that, is that the policy is aimed at people who steal (for instance) high-demand items like baby formula, and either use for their own children, or sell it. So if you steal it for your own baby, no charges, but if you “possess with intent to sell” then you will be charged.
How they will determine if you wanted it for your own baby/your nephew/your neighbor’s baby vs. selling it, I don’t know. Maybe they will treat it like drugs - possession of over a certain amount makes you a dealer. But if $750 is the limit, that’s a hell of a lot of baby formula.
I used to work in a department store, and we were targeted by organized groups of shoplifting rings. What the shoplifters were after was mostly jewelry, or expensive clothes. I can see defining jewelry as not a necessity of life, but what about the lady who goes into the changing room with five pairs of $100 jeans, and comes out carrying three pairs and the other two are under her old jeans? And then she tells the DA that clothes are a necessity of life.
Regards,
Shodan
I guess by “work” I mean there’s an argument that small increase in theft is less destructive to people and society then the current system of prosecuting people who steal “necessities.” Again, I’m not advocating for this. When I defended misdemeanors for a living (long ago and far away) we didn’t have that many small theft cases, although obviously there were some. Defendants’ lives weren’t ruined, few went to jail, and lessons learned. Courts and prosecutors were willing to look at the circumstances of each case and try to do the right thing. As I said, Dallas in 2019 might be a lot differnt than what I saw on Seattle in 1988. I’m willing to keep an open mind and give this guy the benefit of the doubt that he knows more than I do and that he’s put some thought into this.
Where I’m a bit disturbed is that as the DA, he’s putting concern and rights of a relative few individuals ahead of the County’s obligation to provide law and order for ALL the citizens of the county.
I mean, is it more important that we let a few people steal necessities who really need them, even at the cost of more theft overall and “innocent” people getting robbed, or is it more important that the law enforcement/courts apparatus of the County try and minimize ALL theft, even at the cost of possibly hurting those who are stealing through necessity?
That needs of the individual vs. obligation to the community dichotomy seems to be at the root of a lot of these sorts of things- I’m starting to wonder if a thread about that w.r.t. liberal/conservative viewpoints would be fruitful?
I assume he thinks that in the long run, helping out these “relatively few individuals” will make all of us safer, or cost us less, or whatever.
I don’t doubt that such a thread would gather a lot of responses.
I expect that a lot of it is liberals thinking the poor are like Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread to keep from starving. And conservatives thinking that $750 is a lot of bread. Especially when not a lot of poor people seem to be starving.
Regards,
Shodan
Generally speaking (although I certainly can’t speak for this DA) , policies like this have less to do with letting people who need necessities steal them and more to do with the costs of arresting and prosecuting them. Let’s say for example that someone steals a can of powdered formula that goes for about $50. They stole only one can, so it’s unlikely to be for resale. He or she is arrested and prosecuted and spends a few days in jail for the offense. How much does that cost? I know in my city , the jail charges over $200 per day for detaining people for other jurisdictions because that’s how much it costs them. And the police officer who is processing the arrest and comes to court may be on overtime for part of it. Even if it’s not overtime, that’s time taken away from his or her other duties. And that’s not even accounting for other costs - maybe some family member loses their job because the person in jail can’t provide child -care anymore and so on .
I don’t agree with everything as written in that document ( especially the $750 theft thing) - but it’s also somewhat ridiculous to spend a few hundred to prosecute someone and jail them for a few days because they stole something worth $3.
The DA’s thinking may be sound, but his mistake is publishing the fact. He could have just circulated this policy as an internal memo, but instead broadcast to the public at large that thefts of under $750 would not be prosecuted.
The DA serves the public. The police serve the public. Having them operate in the shadows seems more problematic to me.