United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Mentally Ill Homeless Man Severely Beaten By Police Because His Beach Umbrella was Too Big
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/me ... ten-police-beach-umbrella-big/
Published: Apr 24, 2015
Author: Cassandra Fairbanks
Post Date: 2015-04-24 08:56:07 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 7447
Comments: 47
A video released on Wednesday captured eight Los Angeles police officers beating, tasing, and hogtying a mentally ill homeless man as he tried to enjoy the simple pleasure of a day at the beach. The man and his lawyer say that this abuse at the hands of the LAPD has been a pattern over the past year, and his hospital records show it. They are now calling for a federal investigation of the violations of his civil rights. In the video taken on August 7, 2014, eight officers are seen brutalizing Samuel Calhoun Arrington, 52, who suffers from bipolar disorder. The incident began when he reportedly refused to sign a citation for “items placed on (the) city beach” and “property outside of designated space.” What horrible items could have had on the beach, you ask? A chair and umbrella, which everyone else brings to the beach all summer long without being targeted for assault. “To me, what they did in full view of every person on Venice Beach was to strip a homeless man, someone mentally ill, of their last shred of humanity,” Cleo Battle, Arrington’s sister told local news outlet KTLA. According to the police report, Arrington had lunged at officers and attempted to grab one of their belts. Nazareth Haysbert, the attorney representing Arrington, told KTLA that the report stated his client “immediately broke the officer’s hold by aggressively moving his arms forward and then pulling his arms toward his body.” In the video, we see the unarmed Arrington lounging in his chair, entirely non-aggressive, and doing nothing like what is described from the report as the gang of officers begin to assault him. The officers also wrote in the report that there was no video taken of the incident. This is in spite of the witness video that was released which clearly shows LAPD’s Sgt. Skinner recording the assault on what appears to be her cell phone in a red case. The woman filming the video can be heard saying, “they know that he’s not going to sign it because he didn’t do anything, but that’s what they’re hoping so that they can take him.” She begins to explain to other witnesses that the man was being cited for the umbrella and asserts it was just because they wanted to get rid of him. As the officers begin to tase the defenseless man, she screams at the officers repeatedly that they do not need to tase him. “NO, YOU NEED TO STOP! I’M ALREADY HERE, DON’T YOU DARE PUSH ON ME!” she screams at an officer who attempts to push her away from filming their abuse. Another woman in the background can be heard screaming that the officers are evil. The woman filming berates the officers for being in the wrong by putting their hands on her as well as on the man that they are assaulting in front of her. A large crowd gathers to watch the assault and shame the officers for their disgusting behavior. “The man is bleeding from head to toe, this is what our police do, in the United States. Instead of getting the criminals, they’re harassing-” she begins, “now they’ve got him like a slave back in the 30’s and 40’s and 50’s and they’ve got him- they’re carrying him like an animal!” The crowd can be heard yelling obscenities at the police, as Sgt. Skinner, who is still filming, attempts to get the brave and bold woman who is filming to give up her information. At this point, others jump in with their cameras filming Skinner, and she gives up on her attempts at getting the witness to identify herself. Eventually, the disgraceful police walk away from the screams of angry witnesses. Arrington was ultimately charged with resisting arrest despite there being no lawful cause to arrest him in the first place. “He was hospitalized and later charged with felony resisting arrest and remained in county jail for over one month on the charges,” Haysbert wrote in a letter to the FBI. To throw salt on wounds, the callous officers also left the man’s few personal possessions on the beach and never recovered them, including his clothing, bicycle, bookbag, and medical card. Haysbert has also stated that Arrington was brutalized by the officers on two other occasions that year. On January 5, Arrington was tased and beaten by LAPD officers. Several months later, on July 29, less than two weeks before the incident seen in this video, he was hospitalized with neck, back, and shoulder injuries. His lawyer claims these were the very same officers seen on video in the August assault. “Arrington was beaten by LAPD officers so badly that he needed 18 staples to close a large wound on his head,” Haysbert told KTLA regarding a third incident which occured on June 27, 2011. “He was hospitalized and then jailed for over 18 months where he suffered repeated episodes of fainting, severe headaches and syncope.” His lawyer Haysbert believes that collectively, these assaults show a pattern of deprivation of his client’s civil rights. His family asserts that this pattern of abuse has worsened Arrington’s illness. “The video recording raises concern that the LAPD officers intentionally fabricated and, or withheld crucial evidence that may have resulted in the dismissal of criminal charges against Mr. Arrington,” Haysbert stated. “The willful concealment of this evidence holds criminal implications for these officers.” This disgusting display of abuse MUST be investigated. You can contact the Department of Justice via Twitter to demand justice for Samuel Arrington by including the Twitter handle @civilrights.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-6) not displayed.
.
.
.
#7. To: misterwhite (#6)
I will admit that I didn't watch the video. My sound is broken. From the description in the article is what I based what I said on. Free speech though.
You record me (as a private citizen) in public without my permission and I'll beat you into a coma. And doctors will have to surgically remove your cellphone from your ass. So there. Listen to her video. She was doing more than simply recording. She was a) interfering and b) yelling loud enough to hopefully encourage others to join her.
Interfering? By speaking loudly? By calling the cops "evil"? By shouting “NO, YOU NEED TO STOP! I’M ALREADY HERE, DON’T YOU DARE PUSH ON ME!”? Uh - no - it's not interfering. Not a big fan of citizens having rights, are you whitey? ...yelling loud enough to hopefully encourage others Encourage other to what exactly, record the altercation? As much as it chaps your ass paulsen, photography is NOT a crime. Neither is yelling or speaking out in public. You really have a difficult time grasping this whole free speech thing, don't you?
Cops performing their duties in public are not considered "private citizens". You might want to get some counseling for your sociopathic anger issues big guy.
What about retard in the lawn chair being arrested? What about his privacy? You think he wants that posted all over the Internet? What about the other people in the video besides the cops? What about their right to privacy? F**k you. You don't care about them. Just get the cops on record and screw everyone else.
She was encroaching on the scene and a cop had to push her back. You can hear the blood-curdling scream, "DON'T YOU DARE TOUCH ME!!! THAT'S ASSAULT!!! Yet you insist she wasn't interfering? What an idiot. "Encourage other to what exactly, record the altercation?" No. Sing Kumbaya.
WTF is wrong with you? You don't give a flying fuck about the mentally challenged man being beaten and tased by the cops, but you are concerned about his "privacy"? Yeah, that really makes sense - we should ban the use of cameras and recording cops' criminal actions because of the victim's privacy. You are really one messed up excuse for a human being.
The cops were nice and police, explaining the law to him and asking him only to sign the document. He refused and resisted arrest. You tell me. What were the cops supposed to do?
I listened and watched the video. She did absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever. And while cops should ideally always be video and audio recorded when being paid public funds for public service, even private citizens cannot object to being recorded when in a public area. Police used to exist to stop criminals from victimizing private citizens. Now they victimize private citizens over allenged minor regulatory issues, and that's not even considering the accusation in this case that these cops have a history of maliciously targeting this particular man. I was glad to see so many people protesting strongly protesting this heavy handed police action. Maybe the message that these police are NOT acting in the public good will discourage similar future actions, and make these goons think about what lack of public service they did on this day.
She got awfully close to being arrested for "doing nothing wrong", huh? "Now they victimize private citizens ..." Maybe you'd be happier if the police selectively enforced the law? Arrest you, but let me go for the same act? That make you happy? "Maybe the message that these police are NOT acting in the public good" THEY WERE ENFORCING THE LAW. What is wrong with you? You don't like the law? Fine. Change the f**king law. Don't blame the police for enforcing it. Geez Louise.
Laws are selectively enforced or ignored all the time.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
You say that as though that's perfectly acceptable to you. Well, in this case, they enforced it. Still OK?
You sound like the SS.
Did the SS advise the people to change the law if they didn't like it?
There are laws on the books that haven't been enforced in probably 100 years, like "It's illegal to eat chocolate on a public conveyance". So if it's irrelevant I have no problem with it being ignored. Laws against having umbrellas and chairs on the beach are irrelevant to me. In fact the person who drew it up should be castrated so the shallow end of the gene pool will be a few inhabitants fewer.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I believe you. But, unfortunately, your views on the matter are irrelevant to the LAPD. It's not like this was a felony where the guy was going to be arrested and thrown in prison. All he had to do was sign a citation. That's it.
You know what. I was at the Beach the other year. They had some foreign chaps as life guards. I didn't like no foreigner blowing his little whistle trying to tell me how far I could go out. Foreigners can't tell Americans what to do. Also screw the law if its stupid. They don't follow it. The LAPD is actually illegal. Only the Sheriffs are legitimate and constitutional.
Judge Rules LAPD Violated the Constitutional Rights of Skid Row Homeless with Unlawful Searches Posted on April 24, 2007 Print PrintPrint Looks like the LAPD needs to be sued again. https://www.aclusocal.org/judge-rules-lapd-violated-the-constitutional- rights-of-skid-row-homeless-with-unlawful-searches/ LOS ANGELES – U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson ruled Monday that the Los Angeles Police Department has been engaging in unconstitutional searches of the homeless on Skid Row. As part of it’s effort to stop the criminalization of homelessness in the city of Los Angeles, the ACLU of Southern California, civil rights attorney Carol Sobel, and the law firm Hadsell & Stormer petitioned a court last December to extend a 2003 injunction that prohibits LAPD officers from indiscriminately stopping and searching the homeless without adequate justification.
That maybe true... but officers still must follow policy and procedure... and not use excessive force. Only the level of force needed to obtain custody of said person. I didn't watch the video... I have no clue what happened... but I'll tell you the same thing I've told Deckard. If you want to leave comments with any level of credibility, you must be able to condemn illegal activity by both civilian and officer as it applies. Deckard doesn't possess the ability to objectively see criminals ever doing wrong or cops ever doing right... you seem to be inflicted with the same disease but opposite symptoms. There are over 1.9 million officers in this country. Most officers average between 6 and 10 calls a day. Do the math.... that's millions of police calls daily that cops respond too. It's inevitable that some officers are going to do a bad job, have a bad day, make a bad decision... or just outright abuse their powers. Pretending that it doesn't happen by defending every cops actions reported in a Deckard posted article is ignorant. I'll agree most of his shit is slanted yellow bullshit... but a few are actual piss poor police performances. I can't talk sense to him, but I'm hoping to talk sense to you. Don't feed the troll. Defend the officers that deserve it... condemn the ones that do wrong... and soon all Deckard can do is preach his hatred to the same choir.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Yawns....
When you're driving around about on your daily business. Do you like it when a cop gets behind you?
Doesn't bother me, but I'm sure it would bother the average motorist. I personally don't like officers that tailgate for whatever reason. I wouldn't allow it from my subordinates if I saw them do it. When I rode double on patrol, I wouldn't allow my partner to do it. That subject has been a topic of argument between me and many partners.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
You don't fucking get it, do you dipshit? I detest the bad cops.
A citation he shouldn't have gotten but you have to remember it's Leftards you're dealing with. To them it means they get better pay and retirement benefits just by enforcing BS laws. It's all about them, not serving and protecting anybody. If it was about S&P then they would be in "Da hoods" taking out the trash and sending them back to South America and/or to prison. But oh wait that's too dangerous so they pick on beach people instead. One of these days this will all come back to haunt them, it always does. When the SHTF it will be in all the big Leftard Ghettos across the country and a lot of them will end up dead. I won't have any pity for them either they don't deserve it.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
And if YOU want to leave comments with any level of credibility, you need to watch the video. The cops were over-the-top nice to this guy. They kept their distance, didn't raise their voice, and carefully explained to him what was going on. HE was the one ranting and yelling gobbledygook. They asked him to sign the citation and he refused. He then resisted arrest. So watch the video then you tell me how the situation should have been handled differently. Should the cops have just walked away? Because that's the only alternative I see.
Well, I'm sure you'll agree he deserved the citation -- you're just saying it shouldn't have been issued to him. Why not? Why shouldn't the law apply to him like it does to the rest of us?
You're not suggesting that's what happened here, are you?
I don't need to watch a video to know that 4 or 5 officers can place a resistor in custody without badly hurting him because of all the extra hands and strength a group can obtain. One or two officers fighting with a resistor may have to resort to kicking, punching and choking to get a resister under control... but a group of officers doesn't. If you haven't noticed, the news media has found a new draw for ratings... police corruption videos. Officers are being watched from many camera angles. I have no doubt the officers started off professional and I'm sure this subject started and finished as an asshole... but the officers still must find a way to get him in custody without any excessive or unneeded injury or force.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Four Swedish Cops on Vacation in New York Just Showed Americans What REAL Policing Looks Like
For having an umbrella on a beach? LOL... Talk about a totally irrelevant law just like the one about eating chocolate on a public conveyance. Whoever (Leftard) thought up, wrote and got that law passed is the criminal here, not the bi-polar guy who is just having a fun day on the beach. Some peoples lives just suck so much that can't stand to see anybody else have any fun, hence the stupid laws from stupid people.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
It appears that Samuel Arrington was arrested for 69 Obstruct/Resist Executive Officer. From the video, it appears he was surrounded by seven (7) officers and it is difficult or impossible to tell exactly what is happening. It appears he was tased and there was blood, but I could not see what resistance he offered, or if he made no attempt at resistance. The cops story is that they went by about 45 minutes earlier and gave him a warning about a code violation. One officer claimed to recognize Arrington from a previous arrest (resisted) about a month previous and returned with backup. Arrington had not moved and the arrest on the video ensued. I did not identify the mentioned umbrella violation. It may be that the umbrella is lying on the beach and not fixed in the sand, and constitutes a safety hazard in case of wind. As for the notice, the person is required to sign it, or to provide a fingerprint if unable to sign it. The alternative is being taken in and booked. Consider i (7) and (8) below: [...] (8) The person arrested demanded to be taken before a magistrate or refused to sign the notice to appear. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=853.5-853.85 www.laparks.org/venice/pdf/lamc63.pdf (Added by Ord. No. 153,027, Eff. 11/16/79.) I found nothing of any particular interest in these regulations. Arrington was allegedly severely beaten on June 27, 2011, which alleged beating is the subject of the Federal civil action Arrington v. County of Los Angeles, CAWD 2:12-cv-04698 (2012), currently listed as CLOSED, STAYED. Docket entry #8 of 09/24/2012 states, "ORDER STAYING ACTION PENDING STATE COURT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS by Judge Margaret M. Morrow. The Court STAYS this action pending the resolution of the criminal charges against plaintiff. Plaintiff shall file status reports regarding hiscriminal cse every 45 days, and shall promptly notify the Court once his criminal charges are resolved. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with his Section 1983 claims after the criminal proceedings against him have concluded, he shall file, within 30 days of the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, a motion to lift the stay, which will be determined by the Magistrate Judge. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz)(Entered: 09/25/2012). The last docket entry is #9 which is a NOTICE of Change of Address by Arrington entered on 02/28/2013. The COMPLAINT, by Arrington pro se (acting on his own behalf) was sent from the Los Angeles County Jail. It would appear Arrington had the assistance of a lawyer, jailhouse lawyer, or some legal knowledge of is own. DOCKET REPORT Samuel Calhoun Arrington v County of Los Angeles, CAWD 2-12-cv-04698 (30 May 2012) - - - Samuel Calhoun Arrington v County of Los Angeles, CAWD 2-12-cv-04698 (6 Jun 2012) COMPLAINT - - - Your link has a stray space and does not work. For more: http://ktla.com/2015/04/23/video-captures-homeless-man-being-punched-hogtied-by-lapd-attorney/ http://laist.com/2015/04/23/lapd_venice_assault.php http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/4/24/police-attack-homeless-LA.html http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-lapd-arrest-20150425-story.html [LA Times link - do not bring any quotes back to LF]
I was at the Beach last year. A big storm came up. They took all the umbrellas out of the sand. So they wouldn't blow away.
Could you say that again, using Proper English. Edit: Who is they?
See Spot run.
I would like to see someone smash the skull of the nosy and intrusive bitch recording the incident and interfering with police business. --- misterwhite Then you are a piece of shit. People are on a public beach and free to record. If I was recording and you tried to take my camera. I would beat you into a coma. ---- A K A Stone You record me (as a private citizen) in public without my permission and I'll beat you into a coma. And doctors will have to surgically remove your cellphone from your ass. --- So there. ----- misterwhite Wow!! Little did we know that misterwhite was such a violent psycho. If you happen to be visiting in Illinois, watch out for any funny old guys who may be in the background of any pictures or videos you take! And if possible, be carrying....
Maybe I shouldn't say stuff like that because you might think I'm serious. But I wouldn't let someone stop me recording if I could help it.
The first "They" was these really hot skinny chicks. The second "they" was also these really hot skinny chicks.
Wow!! Little did we know that misterwhite was such a violent psycho. If you happen to be visiting in Illinois, watch out for any funny old guys who may be in the background of any pictures or videos you take! And if possible, be carrying.... No sweat, I didn't think you were serious, -- but Paulsen? You betcha he means it.. Me neither. -- What's weird here is misterwhites overreaction. What the hells the big deal about being recorded without permission? In public?
I will take that as the people at the beach took their umbrellas out of the sand so the umbrellas would not blow away. Question: did they fold the umbrellas up? Arrington's umbrella was wide open and a strong gust could have blown it along the beach. I found no regulation on it for Venice Beach.
http://www.aclu-il.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Alvarez_ruling.pdf [PDF, 66 pp.] No. 11-1286 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ILLINOIS, Appeal from the United States District Court No. 10 C 5235—Suzanne B. Conlon, Judge. ARGUED SEPTEMBER 13, 2011—DECIDED MAY 8, 2012 Before POSNER, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. SYKES, Circuit Judge. The Illinois eavesdropping statute makes it a felony to audio record “all or any part of any conversation” unless all parties to the conversation give their consent. 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/14-2(a)(1). The statute covers any oral communication regardless of whether the communication was intended to be private. Id. 5/14-1(d). The offense is normally a class 4 felony but is elevated to a class 1 felony—with a possible prison term of four to fifteen years—if one of the recorded individuals is performing duties as a law-enforcement officer. Id. 5/14-4(b). Illinois does not prohibit taking silent video of police officers performing their duties in public; turning on a microphone, however, triggers class 1 felony punishment. The question here is whether the First Amendment prevents Illinois prosecutors from enforcing the eavesdropping statute against people who openly record police officers performing their official duties in public. More specifically, the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois (“ACLU”) challenges the statute as applied to the organization’s Chicago-area “police accountability program,” which includes a plan to openly make audiovisual recordings of police officers performing their duties in public places and speaking at a volume audible to bystanders. Concerned that its videographers would be prosecuted under the eavesdropping statute, the ACLU has not yet implemented the program. Instead, it filed this preenforcement action against Anita Alvarez, the Cook County State’s Attorney, asking for declaratory and injunctive relief barring her from enforcing the statute on these facts. The ACLU moved for a preliminary injunction. Faced with so obvious a test case, the district court proceeded with some skepticism. The judge dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, holding that the ACLU had not sufficiently alleged a threat of prosecution. The ACLU tried again, submitting a new complaint addressing the court’s concerns. This time, the judge held that the ACLU had cured the original defect but had “not alleged a cognizable First Amendment injury” because the First Amendment does not protect a “right to audio record.” The judge denied leave to amend. The ACLU appealed. We reverse and remand with instructions to allow the amended complaint and enter a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the eavesdropping statute as applied to audio recording of the kind alleged here. The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts a medium of expression commonly used for the preservation and communication of information and ideas, thus triggering First Amendment scrutiny. Illinois has criminalized the nonconsensual recording of most any oral communication, including recordings of public officials doing the public’s business in public and regardless of whether the recording is open or surreptitious. Defending the broad sweep of this statute, the State’s Attorney relies on the government’s interest in protecting conversational privacy, but that interest is not implicated when police officers are performing their duties in public places and engaging in public communications audible to persons who witness the events. Even under the more lenient intermediate standard of scrutiny applicable to contentneutral burdens on speech, this application of the statute very likely flunks. The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests; as applied to the facts alleged here, it likely violates the First Amendment’s freespeech and free-press guarantees. [snip] The U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant cert and hear an appeal of the case, letting the decision of the 7th Circuit stand. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-638 CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
630. The Legislature hereby declares that advances in science and
technology have led to the development of new devices and techniques
for the purpose of eavesdropping upon private communications and that
the invasion of privacy resulting from the continual and increasing
use of such devices and techniques has created a serious threat to
the free exercise of personal liberties and cannot be tolerated in a
free and civilized society.
The Legislature by this chapter intends to protect the right of
privacy of the people of this state.
The Legislature recognizes that law enforcement agencies have a
legitimate need to employ modern listening devices and techniques in
the investigation of criminal conduct and the apprehension of
lawbreakers. Therefore, it is not the intent of the Legislature to
place greater restraints on the use of listening devices and
techniques by law enforcement agencies than existed prior to the
effective date of this chapter.
- - - - -
631. (a) Any person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or
contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any
unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically,
acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or
telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line,
cable, or instrument of any internal telephonic communication
system, or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to
the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts
to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report,
or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any
wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place
within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner,
or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so
obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any
person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done
any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is
punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one
year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170,
or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or pursuant to
subdivision (h) of Section 1170. If the person has previously been
convicted of a violation of this section or Section 632, 632.5,
632.6, 632.7, or 636, he or she is punishable by a fine not exceeding
ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the county
jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to
subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and
imprisonment.
(b) This section shall not apply (1) to any public utility engaged
in the business of providing communications services and facilities,
or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts
otherwise prohibited herein are for the purpose of construction,
maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and facilities of
the public utility, or (2) to the use of any instrument, equipment,
facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a
public utility, or (3) to any telephonic communication system used
for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and
county, or city correctional facility.
(c) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of
this section, no evidence obtained in violation of this section shall
be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other
proceeding.
(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1994.
- - - - -
632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among
the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph,
telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the
county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine
and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of
this section
or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by
imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the
state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) The term "person" includes an individual, business association,
partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity, and
an individual acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any government or
subdivision thereof, whether federal, state, or local, but excludes an
individual known by all parties to a confidential communication to be
overhearing or recording the communication.
(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any communication
carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the
communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes
a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial,
executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect
that the communication may be overheard or recorded.
(d) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of
this section, no evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon
or recording a confidential communication in violation of this
section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative,
legislative, or other proceeding.
(e) This section does not apply (1) to any public utility engaged
in the business of providing communications services and facilities,
or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts
otherwise prohibited by this section are for the purpose of
construction, maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and
facilities of the public utility, or (2) to the use of any
instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used
pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility, or (3) to any telephonic
communication system used for communication exclusively within a
state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility.
(f) This section does not apply to the use of hearing aids and
similar devices, by persons afflicted with impaired hearing, for the
purpose of overcoming the impairment to permit the hearing of sounds ordinarily
audible to the human ear.
This happened in 2006 during a horse race. The umbrella was owned by the track and used on picnic tables. A swirling gust of wind caused this to happen. It was a close call and no one was injured. Here is the accompanying story:
"your hatred of anyone exercising their First Amendment rights by recording cops" Next time you watch that video, turn on the sound. She was doing more than simply recording.
#8. To: A K A Stone (#4)
"People are on a public beach and free to record."
#9. To: misterwhite (#8)
She was a) interfering and....
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#10. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#8)
You record me (as a private citizen) in public without my permission and I'll beat you into a coma...
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#11. To: Deckard (#10)
"Cops performing their duties in public are not considered "private citizens".
#12. To: Deckard (#9)
"Interfering?"
#13. To: misterwhite (#11)
(Edited)
What about retard in the lawn chair being arrested? What about his privacy?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#14. To: Deckard (#13)
"You don't give a flying fuck about the mentally challenged man being beaten and tased by the cops"
#15. To: misterwhite, AKA Stone (#8)
Listen to her video. She was doing more than simply recording. She was a) interfering and b) yelling loud enough to hopefully encourage others to join her.
#16. To: Pinguinite (#15)
"She did absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever."
#17. To: misterwhite (#16)
THEY WERE ENFORCING THE LAW. What is wrong with you? You don't like the law? Fine. Change the f**king law. Don't blame the police for enforcing it.
#18. To: CZ82 (#17)
"Laws are selectively enforced or ignored all the time."
#19. To: misterwhite (#16)
THEY WERE ENFORCING THE LAW. What is wrong with you? You don't like the law? Fine. Change the f**king law. Don't blame the police for enforcing it.
#20. To: A K A Stone (#19)
"You sound like the SS."
#21. To: misterwhite (#18)
#22. To: CZ82 (#21)
"Laws against having umbrellas and chairs on the beach are irrelevant to me."
#23. To: CZ82, misterwhite (#21)
There are laws on the books that haven't been enforced in probably 100 years, like "It's illegal to eat chocolate on a public conveyance". So if it's irrelevant I have no problem with it being ignored. Laws against having umbrellas and chairs on the beach are irrelevant to me. In fact the person who drew it up should be castrated so the shallow end of the gene pool will be a few inhabitants fewer.
#24. To: misterwhite, deckard, nolu chan (#3)
#25. To: misterwhite (#22)
It's not like this was a felony where the guy was going to be arrested and thrown in prison. All he had to do was sign a citation. That's it.
#26. To: GrandIsland (#25)
Deckard doesn't possess the ability to objectively see criminals ever doing wrong
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#27. To: GrandIsland (#25)
#28. To: A K A Stone (#27)
When you're driving around about on your daily business. Do you like it when a cop gets behind you?
#29. To: GrandIsland (#25)
and soon all Deckard can do is preach his hatred to the same choir.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#30. To: misterwhite (#22)
(Edited)
#31. To: GrandIsland (#25)
"If you want to leave comments with any level of credibility"
#32. To: CZ82 (#30)
"A citation he shouldn't have gotten ..."
#33. To: A K A Stone (#24)
"that prohibits LAPD officers from indiscriminately stopping and searching the homeless without adequate justification."
#34. To: misterwhite (#31)
(Edited)
And if YOU want to leave comments with any level of credibility, you need to watch the video.
#35. To: GrandIsland, misterwhite (#34)
but the officers still must find a way to get him in custody without any excessive or unneeded injury or force.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#36. To: misterwhite (#32)
#37. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite, deckard, GrandIsland (#24)
(i) Whenever any person is arrested by a peace officer for a misdemeanor, that person shall be released according to the procedures set forth by this chapter unless one of the following is a reason for nonrelease, in which case the arresting officer may release the person, except as provided in subdivision (a), or the arresting officer shall indicate, on a form to be established by his or her employing law enforcement agency, which of the following was a reason for the nonrelease:
(7) There was a reasonable likelihood that the offense or offenses would continue or resume, or that the safety of persons or property would be imminently endangered by release of the person arrested.
853.6. (a) (1) In any case in which a person is arrested for an
offense declared to be a misdemeanor, including a violation of any
city or county ordinance, and does not demand to be taken before a
magistrate, that person shall, instead of being taken before a
magistrate, be released according to the procedures set forth by this
chapter, although nothing prevents an officer from first booking an
arrestee pursuant to subdivision (g). If the person is released, the
officer or his or her superior shall prepare in duplicate a written
notice to appear in court, containing the name and address of the
person, the offense charged, and the time when, and place where, the
person shall appear in court. If, pursuant to subdivision (i), the
person is not released prior to being booked and the officer in
charge of the booking or his or her superior determines that the
person should be released, the officer or his or her superior shall
prepare a written notice to appear in a court.
(2) In any case in which a person is arrested for a misdemeanor
violation of a protective court order involving domestic violence, as
defined in subdivision (b) of Section 13700, or arrested pursuant to
a policy, as described in Section 13701, the person shall be taken
before a magistrate instead of being released according to the
procedures set forth in this chapter, unless the arresting officer
determines that there is not a reasonable likelihood that the offense
will continue or resume or that the safety of persons or property
would be imminently endangered by release of the person arrested.
Prior to adopting these provisions, each city, county, or city and
county shall develop a protocol to assist officers to determine when
arrest and release is appropriate, rather than taking the arrested
person before a magistrate. The county shall establish a committee to
develop the protocol, consisting of, at a minimum, the police chief
or county sheriff within the jurisdiction, the district attorney,
county counsel, city attorney, representatives from domestic violence
shelters, domestic violence councils, and other relevant community
agencies.
(3) This subdivision shall not apply to the crimes specified in
Section 1270.1, including crimes defined in each of the following:
(A) Paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 243.
(B) Section 273.5.
(C) Section 273.6, if the detained person made threats to kill or
harm, has engaged in violence against, or has gone to the residence
or workplace of, the protected party.
(D) Section 646.9.
(4) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to affect a
defendant's ability to be released on bail or on his or her own
recognizance, except as specified in Section 1270.1.
(b) Unless waived by the person, the time specified in the notice
to appear shall be at least 10 days after arrest if the duplicate
notice is to be filed by the officer with the magistrate.
(c) The place specified in the notice shall be the court of the
magistrate before whom the person would be taken if the requirement
of taking an arrested person before a magistrate were complied with,
or shall be an officer authorized by that court to receive a deposit
of bail.
(d) The officer shall deliver one copy of the notice to appear to
the arrested person, and the arrested person, in order to secure
release, shall give his or her written promise to appear in court as
specified in the notice by signing the duplicate notice which shall
be retained by the officer, and the officer may require the arrested
person, if he or she has no satisfactory identification, to place a
right thumbprint, or a left thumbprint or fingerprint if the person
has a missing or disfigured right thumb, on the notice to appear.
Except for law enforcement purposes relating to the identity of the
arrestee, no person or entity may sell, give away, allow the
distribution of, include in a database, or create a database with,
this print. Upon the signing of the duplicate notice, the arresting
officer shall immediately release the person arrested from custody.
(e) The officer shall, as soon as practicable, file the duplicate
notice, as follows:
(1) It shall be filed with the magistrate if the offense charged
is an infraction.
(2) It shall be filed with the magistrate if the prosecuting
attorney has previously directed the officer to do so.
(3) The duplicate notice and underlying police reports in support
of the charge or charges shall be filed with the prosecuting attorney
in cases other than those specified in paragraphs (1) and (2).
If the duplicate notice is filed with the prosecuting attorney, he
or she, within his or her discretion, may initiate prosecution by
filing the notice or a formal complaint with the magistrate specified
in the duplicate notice within 25 days from the time of arrest. If
the prosecution is not to be initiated, the prosecutor shall send
notice to the person arrested at the address on the notice to appear.
The failure by the prosecutor to file the notice or formal complaint
within 25 days of the time of the arrest shall not bar further
prosecution of the misdemeanor charged in the notice to appear.
However, any further prosecution shall be preceded by a new and
separate citation or an arrest warrant.
Upon the filing of the notice with the magistrate by the officer,
or the filing of the notice or formal complaint by the prosecutor,
the magistrate may fix the amount of bail that in his or her
judgment, in accordance with Section 1275, is reasonable and
sufficient for the appearance of the defendant and shall endorse upon
the notice a statement signed by him or her in the form set forth in
Section 815a. The defendant may, prior to the date upon which he or
she promised to appear in court, deposit with the magistrate the
amount of bail set by the magistrate. At the time the case is called
for arraignment before the magistrate, if the defendant does not
appear, either in person or by counsel, the magistrate may declare
the bail forfeited, and may, in his or her discretion, order that no
further proceedings shall be had in the case, unless the defendant
has been charged with a violation of Section 374.3 or 374.7 of this
code or of Section 11357, 11360, or 13002 of the Health and Safety
Code, or a violation punishable under Section 5008.7 of the Public
Resources Code, and he or she has previously been convicted of a
violation of that section or a violation that is punishable under
that section, except in cases where the magistrate finds that undue
hardship will be imposed upon the defendant by requiring him or her
to appear, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited and order
that no further proceedings be had in the case.
Upon the making of the order that no further proceedings be had,
all sums deposited as bail shall immediately be paid into the county
treasury for distribution pursuant to Section 1463.
(f) No warrant shall be issued for the arrest of a person who has
given a written promise to appear in court, unless and until he or
she has violated that promise or has failed to deposit bail, to
appear for arraignment, trial, or judgment or to comply with the
terms and provisions of the judgment, as required by law.
(g) The officer may book the arrested person at the scene or at
the arresting agency prior to release or indicate on the citation
that the arrested person shall appear at the arresting agency to be
booked or indicate on the citation that the arrested person shall
appear at the arresting agency to be fingerprinted prior to the date
the arrested person appears in court. If it is indicated on the
citation that the arrested person shall be booked or fingerprinted
prior to the date of the person's court appearance, the arresting
agency at the time of booking or fingerprinting shall provide the
arrested person with verification of the booking or fingerprinting by
making an entry on the citation. If it is indicated on the citation
that the arrested person is to be booked or fingerprinted, the
magistrate, judge, or court shall, before the proceedings begin,
order the defendant to provide verification that he or she was booked
or fingerprinted by the arresting agency. If the defendant cannot
produce the verification, the magistrate, judge, or court shall
require that the defendant be booked or fingerprinted by the
arresting agency before the next court appearance, and that the
defendant provide the verification at the next court appearance
unless both parties stipulate that booking or fingerprinting is not
necessary.
(h) A peace officer shall use the written notice to appear
procedure set forth in this section for any misdemeanor offense in
which the officer has arrested a person without a warrant pursuant to
Section 836 or in which he or she has taken custody of a person
pursuant to Section 847.
(i) Whenever any person is arrested by a peace officer for a
misdemeanor, that person shall be released according to the
procedures set forth by this chapter unless one of the following is a
reason for nonrelease, in which case the arresting officer may
release the person, except as provided in subdivision (a), or the
arresting officer shall indicate, on a form to be established by his
or her employing law enforcement agency, which of the following was a
reason for the nonrelease:
(1) The person arrested was so intoxicated that he or she could
have been a danger to himself or herself or to others.
(2) The person arrested required medical examination or medical
care or was otherwise unable to care for his or her own safety.
(3) The person was arrested under one or more of the circumstances
listed in Sections 40302 and 40303 of the Vehicle Code.
(4) There were one or more outstanding arrest warrants for the
person.
(5) The person could not provide satisfactory evidence of personal
identification.
(6) The prosecution of the offense or offenses for which the
person was arrested, or the prosecution of any other offense or
offenses, would be jeopardized by immediate release of the person
arrested.
(7) There was a reasonable likelihood that the offense or offenses
would continue or resume, or that the safety of persons or property
would be imminently endangered by release of the person arrested.
(8) The person arrested demanded to be taken before a magistrate
or refused to sign the notice to appear.
(9) There is reason to believe that the person would not appear at
the time and place specified in the notice. The basis for this
determination shall be specifically stated.
(10) The person was subject to Section 1270.1.
The form shall be filed with the arresting agency as soon as
practicable and shall be made available to any party having custody
of the arrested person, subsequent to the arresting officer, and to
any person authorized by law to release him or her from custody
before trial.
(j) Once the arresting officer has prepared the written notice to
appear and has delivered a copy to the person arrested, the officer
shall deliver the remaining original and all copies as provided by
subdivision (e).
Any person, including the arresting officer and any member of the
officer's department or agency, or any peace officer, who alters,
conceals, modifies, nullifies, or destroys, or causes to be altered,
concealed, modified, nullified, or destroyed, the face side of the
remaining original or any copy of a citation that was retained by the
officer, for any reason, before it is filed with the magistrate or
with a person authorized by the magistrate to receive deposit of
bail, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
If, after an arrested person has signed and received a copy of a
notice to appear, the arresting officer determines that, in the
interest of justice, the citation or notice should be dismissed, the
arresting agency may recommend, in writing, to the magistrate that
the charges be dismissed. The recommendation shall cite the reasons
for the recommendation and shall be filed with the court.
If the magistrate makes a finding that there are grounds for
dismissal, the finding shall be entered in the record and the charges
dismissed.
Under no circumstances shall a personal relationship with any
officer, public official, or law enforcement agency be grounds for
dismissal.
(k) (1) A person contesting a charge by claiming under penalty of
perjury not to be the person issued the notice to appear may choose
to submit a right thumbprint, or a left thumbprint if the person has
a missing or disfigured right thumb, to the issuing court through his
or her local law enforcement agency for comparison with the one
placed on the notice to appear. A local law enforcement agency
providing this service may charge the requester no more than the
actual costs. The issuing court may refer the thumbprint submitted
and the notice to appear to the prosecuting attorney for comparison
of the thumbprints. When there is no thumbprint or fingerprint on the
notice to appear, or when the comparison of thumbprints is
inconclusive, the court shall refer the notice to appear or copy
thereof back to the issuing agency for further investigation, unless
the court finds that referral is not in the interest of justice.
(2) Upon initiation of the investigation or comparison process by
referral of the court, the court shall continue the case and the
speedy trial period shall be tolled for 45 days.
(3) Upon receipt of the issuing agency's or prosecuting attorney's
response, the court may make a finding of factual innocence pursuant
to Section 530.6 if the court determines that there is insufficient
evidence that the person cited is the person charged and shall
immediately notify the Department of Motor Vehicles of its
determination. If the Department of Motor Vehicles determines the
citation or citations in question formed the basis of a suspension or
revocation of the person's driving privilege, the department shall
immediately set aside the action.
(4) If the prosecuting attorney or issuing agency fails to respond
to a court referral within 45 days, the court shall make a finding
of factual innocence pursuant to Section 530.6, unless the court
finds that a finding of factual innocence is not in the interest of
justice.
(5) The citation or notice to appear may be held by the
prosecuting attorney or issuing agency for future adjudication should
the arrestee who received the citation or notice to appear be found.
(l) For purposes of this section, the term "arresting agency"
includes any other agency designated by the arresting agency to
provide booking or fingerprinting services.
SEC. 63.44. REGULATIONS AFFECTING PARK AND RECREATION AREAS.
#38. To: nolu chan (#37)
I did not identify the mentioned umbrella violation. It may be that the umbrella is lying on the beach and not fixed in the sand, and constitutes a safety hazard in case of wind.
#39. To: A K A Stone (#38)
(Edited)
I was at the Beach last year. A big storm came up. They took all the umbrellas out of the sand. So they wouldn't blow away.
#40. To: Fred Mertz (#39)
(Edited)
"Could you say that again, using Proper English."
Run, Spot, run.
#41. To: A K A Stone, --- misterwhite threatens anyone recording him, anywhere..... (#4)
misterwhite (#3)
#42. To: tpaine (#41)
Then you are a piece of shit. People are on a public beach and free to record. If I was recording and you tried to take my camera. I would beat you into a coma. ---- A K A Stone
#43. To: Fred Mertz (#39)
#44. To: A K A Stone, y'all (#42)
Then you are a piece of shit. People are on a public beach and free to record. If I was recording and you tried to take my camera. I would beat you into a coma. ---- A K A Stone
You record me (as a private citizen) in public without my permission and I'll beat you into a coma. And doctors will have to surgically remove your cellphone from your ass. --- So there. ----- misterwhite
Maybe I shouldn't say stuff like that because you might think I'm serious.
But I wouldn't let someone stop me recording if I could help it.
#45. To: A K A Stone (#38)
I was at the Beach last year. A big storm came up. They took all the umbrellas out of the sand. So they wouldn't blow away.
#46. To: tpaine, A K A Stone (#41)
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANITA ALVAREZ,
Defendant-Appellee.
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
PENAL CODE
SECTION 630-638
#47. To: A K A Stone (#43)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]