home

Stupid Citation of the Week

By TChris, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:04:08 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The police in Scranton, PA apparently have so little crime to address that they've taken to citing people who use bad language in their own homes.

"It doesn't make any sense. I was in my house. It's not like I was outside or drunk," [Dawn] Herb told The Times-Tribune of Scranton. "The toilet was overflowing and leaking down into the kitchen and I was yelling (for my daughter) to get the mop." Herb does not recall exactly what she said, but she admitted letting more than a few bad words fly near an open bathroom window Thursday night.

Would the police have bothered with this if the neighbor who called to complain hadn't been an off-duty cop?

< Mukasey Confirmation Hearing | Buy Me a Drink Day >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Stupid Citation of the Week | 28 comments (28 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The root problem here is.... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    habitual dime dropping.  It's an epidemic.

    People don't just call the police to report crimes anymore...they call to report inconveniences too.  They even had to come up with a seperate number here in NY for the inconvenienced rats because so many of them were calling 911 with noise complaints, etc.  

    I worry about people, I really do.....it's a free country, suck it up and deal with some inconvenience...its well worth it.  If you can't deal with it, then knock on your neighbors door and settle it like adults....but for heavens sake, don't call the fuzz.  I learned in kindergarten that nobody likes a tattle-tale...half the country must have missed that lesson.

    I agree, (none / 0) (#3)
    by Pancho on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 02:25:41 PM EST
    but can we please apply the same concept to tort/civil law as well?

    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#7)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 04:20:15 PM EST
    Why would you you want to surrender your last shred of resistance to corporations who do not give a rip about what happens to you as long as they make money while it does?

    Parent
    So in other words, (none / 0) (#8)
    by Pancho on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 06:03:17 PM EST
    you support suing for "inconveniences"? Does that only apply to ruthless corporations or would you sue your neighbor for inconveniencing you?

    Parent
    No "other words" (none / 0) (#13)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 08:32:57 PM EST
    You don't need try to make me say something I didn't.  I write clearly enough, and if I said it was okay to sue for "inconvenience," why don't you point out where I did that.

    I have never sued anyone in my life.  I have been sued myself one time, when the parking brake on a rental truck failed and the truck rolled into another vehicle.  The plaintiff lost.

    Parent

    Then don't put words in my mouth. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Pancho on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:00:21 PM EST
    Holy crap, you're arrogance is astounding. Kdog referred to calling the police when inconvenienced and reasonably suggested that this was pushing the limit too far. I merely suggested that we shouldn't sue when we are merely inconvenienced. Somehow you turned that into me wanting to give up all my rights to corporations.

    Parent
    tell me something, (none / 0) (#17)
    by cpinva on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:20:53 PM EST
    does being seriously injured, or killed, by a defective product, or environmental hazard, constitute an "inconvenience", not be considred serious enough grounds to sue the responsible party for?

    contrary to what the republican party would have you believe, there is little frivilous civil litigation in the courts, and very few multi-million dollar awards, that's why they make the news.

    kind of the "man bites dog" scenario.

    Parent

    No, (none / 0) (#19)
    by Pancho on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:24:07 PM EST
    it doesn't. Did I say it did?

    Parent
    But you missed this key part (none / 0) (#20)
    by glanton on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:19:42 PM EST
    contrary to what the republican party would have you believe, there is little frivilous civil litigation in the courts, and very few multi-million dollar awards, that's why they make the news.

    Pancho, won't you join me in refusing to stay alert, and refusing to stay with Fox?

    Parent

    I don't think there is a legislative solution... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 09:25:33 AM EST
    to habitual dime-dropping or frivolous lawsuits.

    We can only hope people will try to be righteous for righteousness' sake and deal with the pikers.

    Parent

    Welcome (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jen M on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 01:20:49 PM EST
    to the land of the free and the home of the brave.

    Well, not really.

    i note (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 03:17:14 PM EST
    that the ACLU has opined on the issue. of course, they didn't cite her for swearing, they cited her for "disorderly conduct". i'm not sure i'd want to be the ADA prosecuting this, or the citing officer, were this to actually go to trial.

    judges tend to be funny about their court's time being taken up with idiotic matters.

    can you even be cited for disorderly conduct, in your own home? if so, what's the point of having your own home, if you no longer enjoy the prerogative of being disorderly in it?

    geez

    I don't think so (none / 0) (#11)
    by txpublicdefender on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 07:38:45 PM EST
    I don't know about Pennsylvania law, but my understanding of disorderly conduct is that it has to be in a public place.  I don't think you can be convicted of disorderly conduct for something you did in your own home.  I would be surprised if the prosecutor doesn't dump this ASAP.

    Parent
    a really stupid law (none / 0) (#28)
    by TChris on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 08:06:00 PM EST
    Welcome to Wisconsin, where the statute prohibits disorderly conduct in a private place, including your own home.

    Parent
    F*** (none / 0) (#5)
    by Peabody on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 03:24:01 PM EST
    The Police. They are all useless.

    To be fair.... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 03:43:41 PM EST
    there's not much the cops can do in a case like this.  Legislatures pass laws against making noise or the catch-all "disorderly conduct", and the cops are duty bound to enforce them, especially when a whiner calls to complain.  Sure, we'd all like for cops to use more discretion, but that's a double-edged sword and we might not always like the results.

    The fault here lies with the drop-a-dime neighbors.  The cops wouldn't have come if they weren't called.

    Parent

    true enough, (none / 0) (#18)
    by cpinva on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 10:22:29 PM EST
    but they are allowed to exercise discretion, with respect to actually issuing a citation. these police made that decision on their own, they weren't forced to.

    they exercised poor judgment in this case.

    Parent

    Of course.... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 09:32:27 AM EST
    no citation should have been issued.  

    The a-hole neighbors put the wheels in motion though.

    Parent

    I was once swearing at my beater truck in public (none / 0) (#25)
    by Pancho on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 09:57:15 AM EST
    and an old guy (my age now) came up to me and calmly told a story that was basically summed up by saying "when you're young you have to live with S**t sometimes", I've never forgotten the brilliant way he calmed me down without confrontation. I could have easily gone off on him had he been an A-hole.

    Parent
    Didn't I say that Disorderly Conduct was (none / 0) (#9)
    by Michael Gass on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 07:10:44 PM EST
    one of, if not "the", most abused statute?  

    Pennsylvania law

    The charge of disorderly conduct can cover a wide variety of circumstances that the police may choose to regard as criminal behavior. Under Pennsylvania criminal law, disorderly conduct is defined in the statute as intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof.

    Examples of behavior that might result in a disorderly conduct charge include fighting, unreasonable noise, obscene language or gestures, or any offensive or hazardous act that "serves no legitimate purpose".

    So, does anyone believe that the person INTENDED to cause public inconvenience or annoyance?

    Not that I agree with this application of the law (none / 0) (#10)
    by Patrick on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 07:18:42 PM EST
    So, does anyone believe that the person INTENDED to cause public inconvenience or annoyance?

    But yeah, I believe the person intended to cause a public inconvenience when the neighbor went over and asked her to knock it off, and she's still yelling enough to cause him to call the cops.   That's a lot of swearing at an inanimate object.   And of course we don't know the history to say one way or another.  But Michael, I will agree that this is potentially an example of abuse of a law, of course an example does not a theory make.

    Parent

    I've done a LOT (none / 0) (#12)
    by Pancho on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 07:43:51 PM EST
    of swearing at inanimate objects, so I'm something of an expert on the subject. If a neighbor ever asked me to keep it down, I would be extremely embarrased and would cool it immediately

    Parent
    A few months ago (none / 0) (#14)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 08:35:08 PM EST
    I sprained my ankle badly on the curb in front of my house.  I sprayed the neighborhood with the f-word.  No one called 911.

    Parent
    And if (none / 0) (#16)
    by Pancho on Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 09:01:52 PM EST
    your neighbor had asked you to cool it, would you have continued?

    Parent
    anyone (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jen M on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 12:24:51 AM EST
    who asks neighbor who just sprained his ankle on the curb to cool the language, deserves far worse language.

    Parent
    We are not discussing a dog-barking call... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Michael Gass on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 03:28:41 AM EST
    where the officer cannot do anything, nor are we talking about a loud party call (where there IS intent to cause a disturbance) and he can do something.  We are discussing a woman whose toilet was overflowing, leaking into her kitchen, and was upset.  The lawyers website I cite is quite correct:

    Since a disorderly conduct charge covers such a range of alleged behaviors, it's an easy charge for the police to arrest on if they wish to arrest you for some reason. Unless the arrest has some legitimate basis and substantial evidence to back it up, I will immediately ask for a dismissal.

    The officer was off-duty and hears his neighbor cussing up a storm IN HER OWN HOUSE.  Does he try to help her?  Does he try to de-escalate the situation and calm her down?  Or, did he take the confrontational approach, then, escalated the situation far beyond what it should have been by calling the on-duty shift on her?

    Who arrested her for disorderly conduct?  Her neighbor or the on-duty shift?

    PA code 234


    Criminal proceedings in court cases shall be instituted by:

       (1)  filing a written complaint; or

       (2)  an arrest without a warrant:

         (a)   when the offense is a felony or misdemeanor committed in the presence of the police officer making the arrest; or

         (b)   upon probable cause when the offense is a felony or murder; or

         (c)   upon probable cause when the offense is a misdemeanor not committed in the presence of the police officer making the arrest, when such arrest without a warrant is specifically authorized by statute.

    PA Disorderly Conduct Code 5503

    Nowhere in the statute is specific authority to arrest given to an officer who did not witness the act, which means her own neighbor arrested her for  disorderly conduct for swearing at an overflowing toilet.  What is his authority?

    (b) Grading.--An offense under this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.

    Face it... this officer is a d@ck who decided "by God the law is on my side!!! You're going to jail lady!!!! Next time I ask you not to swear at your toilet, you will do as I say!!!!"  Oh, and like I said... if they want you in jail, the Disorderly Conduct laws are vague enough you are going to jail.

    Parent

    To answer your questions... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Patrick on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 10:18:23 AM EST
    Does he try to help her?  Does he try to de-escalate the situation and calm her down?  Or, did he take the confrontational approach, then, escalated the situation far beyond what it should have been by calling the on-duty shift on her?

    We don't know if he tried to help her or what exactly was said.  All we know according to the article, which of course is accurate in every degree (Sarcasm) is that he went over there and asked her to stop.  

    Calling the cops isn't an escalation in any way shape or form on his part.   Perhaps he went over there and was very polite and offered assistance, and she went off on him too.  Perhaps there isn't even a toilet involved and it's just an excuse on her part.  The point is, there isn't enough information to make a honest jusdgement in this case.  There's just enough information to make the cops look bad, which is a tactic frequently used by T-Chris and the press.  

    Who arrested her for disorderly conduct?  Her neighbor or the on-duty shift?

    There's no need for an off-duty peace officer to make a private persons arrest as your question indicates.   Probable cause can be developed by one officer and acted upon by another.   Surely you know this.

    Nowhere in the statute is specific authority to arrest given to an officer who did not witness the act, which means her own neighbor arrested her for  disorderly conduct for swearing at an overflowing toilet.  What is his authority?

    See above.  

    Face it... this officer is a d@ck who decided "by God the law is on my side!!! You're going to jail lady!!!! Next time I ask you not to swear at your toilet, you will do as I say!!!!"

    There's not enough information to know if anyone invovled was being a "d!ck" or not.

    I don't know.... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 10:27:59 AM EST
    I think we're safe in assuming that any neighbor who would call the fuzz on their neighbor is a d*ck....exceptions being theft, assault, stuff like that.

    Parent
    Stupid Citation of the Week | 28 comments (28 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment