DA’s Comment Ironic and Telling at the Same Time –
Every so often in a public records request for emails, you get a nugget that is priceless beyond the scope of your immediate inquiry. The Sacramento Bee reporters who uncovered and reported on UC Davis Campus Counsel communications with the Yolo County DA’s office probably had no idea what they had just uncovered and reported.
The Bee reported yesterday that Senior Campus Counsel Michael Sweeney sought input from Yolo County’s Chief Deputy DA Jonathan Raven.
Mr. Sweeney wrote: “If he/she fails to disperse after a dispersal order, he/she is in violation of PC 409.”
He added: “I ran this analysis by the DA’s office (Jonathan Raven), and he stated that my analysis was ‘technically correct,’ although he wasn’t particularly impressed by the crime.”
There are multiple implications to the statement that Jonathan Raven “wasn’t particularly impressed by the crime.”
In fact, our first response was irony. Mr. Raven works for a DA’s office, and has defended a DA’s office that sought life imprisonment for a man who stole a $3.99 package of shredded cheese.
More ironic is that on Friday afternoon, a woman was facing felony charges for stealing $30 worth of merchandise from La Superior Grocery Store in Woodland.
The story is tragic. What she took was food. She had an EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer, from the State Department of Social Services) card, it was the end of the month, and she had just 30 cents left on it.
She is charged with a felony. Why a felony for a $30 theft? Petty theft with a prior. Her prior? Doing the same thing. She was on probation for it and ordered to stay away from grocery stores.
Defense Attorney, Public Defender Joe Gocke argued that it was just $30, it was the end of the month, when her EBT money runs out, and argued that the charge should be reduced to a misdemeanor.
The motion was denied by the judge.
It is difficult to understand how a DA would be not “particularly impressed by the crime” of failure to disperse but more impressed by charging a hungry woman, attempting to buy food for her family, with a felony for taking $30 worth of food. It suggests a different view, perhaps, of college student protest from blue collar crime.
That said, we tend to agree with Mr. Raven’s view of the alleged crime that led to the tent-clearing operation.
If one recalls previous articles and discussions on this matter, it becomes clear that the university was on thin ground in terms of their legal authority to clear the Quad.
As the Kroll investigators note, “Without the legal authority to demand that the tents be removed, the police lose the legal authority for much of what subsequently transpired on November 18, including the issuance of an order to disperse and the declaration of an unlawful assembly.”
Under Penal Code 409, the charge is refusal to disperse after being (lawfully) ordered to do so, and a key element is still that the defendant must be present at the location of “an unlawful assembly.”
Penal Code section 407 defines an “unlawful assembly” as two or more people assembled together “to do an unlawful act, or do a lawful act in a violent, boisterous, or tumultuous manner.”
As CalCrim’s jury instruction notes, the Supreme Court has held that “the proscriptions of sections 407 and 408 on assemblies to do a lawful act must be limited to assemblies which are violent or which pose a clear and present danger of imminent violence.”
It adds, “Because the assembly must in fact be violent or pose an immediate threat of violence, an assembly that is “boisterous or tumultuous” does not establish a violation of the statute.”
The question turns to whether the assembly is unlawful.
Kroll cites and ultimately dismisses three legal bases of tent removal.
California Penal Code section 647(e), provides: “Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: (e) Who lodges in any building, structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it.”
But this was problematic. Kroll argues the arrests were made in the middle of the afternoon and that it “is not clear that the arrestees were, in fact, connected to any of the tents or had in fact ‘lodged’ on University property.”
Kroll argues that this problem likely explains why the District Attorney’s office declined to prosecute the arrestees.
The second basis was that use of university property for overnight camping is prohibited by the UC Davis administrative code. Kroll writes, “While this administrative code was frequently cited by campus police, it appears to be simply a campus administrative rule.”
Kroll argues, “Enforcement of such a rule by the police, by way of arrest and criminal process, would seem legally suspect, as opposed to enforcement by way of campus administrative procedures.”
In other words, an administrative violation would not give police the authority to enforce the code.
Finally, they argue the California Code of Regulations “forbids non-affiliates from camping on university property.”
“This regulation has been cited in a letter by Campus Counsel to Kroll,” Kroll writes. “In the letter, Campus Counsel asserts that if non-affiliates refuse to comply (e.g., vacate the tent) they are guilty of a misdemeanor.”
This is why the non-affiliate discussion is important, but as Kroll writes, “The problem remains that none of the arrestees was tied to any specific tent, and of the ten persons arrested, eight were current UC Davis students.”
The Bee reports that Lt. John Pike would write in his report: “Campus legal counsel acknowledged that there was sure legal standing to conduct the operation during the afternoon hours, but there was greater legal standing to conduct the operation in the early morning hours.”
As we know from the Kroll report, the analysis seemed to be that there was a stronger and more compelling legal basis for clearing the tents in the early morning hours rather than during the middle of the day. Moreover, there were practical reasons to do so as well.
However, Chancellor Linda Katehi overruled the advice of the police and ordered the operation during the middle of the day – a serious error of judgment on multiple levels.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
So, when is the DA’s office going to bring criminal charges against the pepper sprayers?
[quote]So, when is the DA’s office going to bring criminal charges against the pepper sprayers?[/quote]
I would hope the answer is “never”. I would question what the motivation for this would be. It would seem that the primary purpose of protection of the community, in this case UCD students, has already been achieved by the removal of the ineffective police chief, Lt. Pike and the other directly involved officer. So what, I would ask would be achieved by bringing criminal charges other than a waste of taxpayer money and possibly a false fulfilling of the emotional desire for revenge ?
[quote]I would question what the motivation for this would be.[/quote]
There are at least two reasons.
First, non-police are tried for their crimes, period. No one decides, “oh, they’re not likely to commit a similar crime again, so I won’t charge them.” Police are supposed to act according to, and be held to, the same laws that non-police are. If the court decides to be lenient because of circumstances, they can do so, but that should be different from a determination of guilt.
Second, the legal precedent needs to be determined clearly so that it can be applied in future cases. There will be other protests and perhaps other pepper sprayings. We need to know if what the police officers did was against the law.
[quote]So, when is the DA’s office going to bring criminal charges against the pepper sprayers?[/quote]
Since Jonathan Raven said this this operation was ‘technically correct,’ the DA’s office could well bring criminal charges against itself too.
I understand that there is no word yet if they are planning to do so.
[quote]We need to know if what the police officers did was against the law.[/quote]
I agree that this is the critical issue. I perhaps responded a little too literally to the question “when is the DAs office going to bring charges” as opposed to the question, should the DAs office bring charges..
At one point, I was told that the DA would not simply make a decision but would lay out their reasoning for it. This obviously did not come from the DA’s office. But that would four or five months ago and things may have changed since then.
Yes, if they are not going to charge the officers, I would think that the public is owed reasons.
With respect to the $30.00 theft of food being charged as a felony this really shows that who you are makes a difference. Woodland Police Lt. Daniel Letamendi resigned/retired last year after admitting to embezzlement from the administrative police officers association. He was allowed to get off with a slap on the wrist, community service, and a misdemeanor charge. All this information was conveniently released after he testified in a high profile case.
Wow, lots if paths on this trail. The cops in the pepper spray were sacrificial lambs so all the cronies could say something was done. Wake up public, cops don’t get in trouble for being too aggressive, who will protect the politicians if the politicians don’t protect the cops.
DA Raven still reports to DA Reisig, even if he had an opinion, he could not say it without permission from the Supreme Leader. Reisig does not allow people around him that he cannot control. Hell Reisig’s hero is J Edgar Hoover, he probably wears a dress under his suit, so he has a file on everyone.
The lady with the prior theft is a joke. How much money was wasted on her, but we don’t waste money on charging the cops that were doing what they were told to do?
The Lt. at Woodland PD,did not take any money, there was no theft, he used association money to help an association member and it was paid back with no loss to anyone. The association, owner of the money said there was no crime and no victim, they did not want anything done and it was only a technical violation of the law so the DA took the opportunity for an easy plea deal to raise his 105 percent conviction rate.
The boys at the top keep the sheep focused on all this minor bs while they are robbing the county, cities and state with both hands. Just keep voting for the same people and re-elect them, all the problems will be fixed.
The Kroll report concluded that the decision to pepper spray was made by Lt. Pike. Are you saying that someone else in fact made that decision, and if so, what is your evidence?
This is from the Woodland Daily Democrat:
[quote]A Woodland police lieutenant has resigned after pleading no contest to an embezzlement charge.
“There are always two sides to every story and I am secure in knowing my family, close friends and a few past co-workers know the circumstances surrounding this event,” former Lt. Dan Letamendi wrote in an email to The Daily Democrat.
“At no time did I believe a crime was being committed, borrowing from (Woodland Police Supervisors Association) funds and re-paying through payroll deductions. I deeply regret my decision and the impact it has had on so many but I am thankful for the support, encouragement and help I am now receiving, on my own, for my previously un-diagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.”
Asked why he did it, Letamendi said it was because his wife had fallen ill and was unable to work at the time.
Letamendi was sentenced Oct. 11 to 500 hours of community service, according to court documents obtained by The Democrat. A September complaint filed by the Yolo County District Attorney’s office indicates the funds borrowed exceeded $950 but offers no further details.
The Democrat left phone messages with Sgt. Jason Brooks, the Woodland Police Supervisors Association President, on Nov. 17 and Monday. Officials with the department, however, cannot comment because the matter is considered one related to personnel. They referred all inquires to the District Attorney’s Office.
Guthrie said Letamendi resigned Sept. 16, shortly after being promoted to lieutenant.
Citing personnel matters, Guthrie said that he could not comment on how the department responded to Letamendi ‘s conviction.
He said the department doesn’t have a blanket policy for criminal convictions.
“With misdemeanor arrests, it’s really going to depend on what it is, and what it is discovered in a administrative investigation, and from there, it is a case-by-case basis,” he said. “Pretty much if you’re convicted of a felony, that’s the end of the road for you.”
Records show Letamendi ‘s charge was treated as a misdemeanor. [/quote]
“There are multiple implications to the statement that Jonathan Raven “wasn’t particularly impressed by the crime.”
What a bizarre statement. To bad there isn’t a list of crimes Mr. Raven is impressed by.
“Records show Letamendi ‘s charge was treated as a misdemeanor.”
This usually is not the case, especially for embezzlement.