Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/8/2006 2:42:04 PM EDT
Baltimore Grand Jury Calls For Number of Arrests To Be Cut In Half


Updated: March 8th, 2006 04:31 PM EDT


Baltimore Sun, The (KRT)
The Baltimore Sun


Mar. 7--A Baltimore grand jury is calling for the number of city arrests that fail to result in criminal charges to be cut in half, saying such arrests erode public confidence in the Police Department, according to a report released yesterday.

"If the staggering number of arrests is to be validated, the percentage of arrests without merit must be drastically reduced," the report says. The jurors also said that frequent police stops of residents is an approach "bordering on violating a person's constitutional rights."

The panel of 23 grand jurors that met from September to January was asked by a Baltimore Circuit Court judge to "address the lack of confidence that exists between many members of the public and law enforcement."

The grand jury appears to have done its research by reviewing media reports and arrest statistics, as well as speaking with each other and with "several" residents, though the report does not say how many. Grand jurors talked to one person from the Police Department, the head of education and training.

The report gives about two dozen recommendations, but few are specific. One example: "Improve the quality of narcotics arrests." One recommendation was to reduce "arrests without merit" - an apparent reference to arrests that don't result in charges - by at least 50 percent before the end of this year.

The report cites a state Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services report that 21,721 African-Americans in Baltimore were arrested but not charged between April 2004 and March 2005. Grand jurors said this number shows that "countless people ... have been harassed."

Lt. Paul M. Blair Jr., president of the city police union, had not read the report, but he said that the recommendation to make fewer arrests conflicts with what officers hear at neighborhood meetings where residents complain about quality-of-life issues.

"Can they tell us which neighborhoods we should stop making arrests in?"
Blair asked. "It sounds like it was a waste of paper if that's all they came out with."

Matt Jablow, a Police Department spokesman, said the phrase "without merit" does not make sense. "Officers are not allowed to make arrests without merit," he said. "There has to be probable cause, and that is merit." Exactly. A DA's decision to not file charges does not mean it was an unlawfull arrest. It can mean anything from the case lacks jury appeal to not having enough evidence for the beyond a reasonable doubt standard needed in court. Police work in the probable cause business, which is a much lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the grand jury is referring to reducing the number of arrests that fail to result in criminal charges, Jablow said, "we share that sentiment." He said the department has taken steps to improve training and report-writing.

The percentage of arrests that fail to generate charges has decreased from 23 percent in December to 14 percent last month, said Kristen Mahoney, chief of technical services for the city Police Department, referring to public safety statistics.

The main function of a grand jury is to decide which criminal cases warrant indictments. Among the cases handled by this grand jury were the indictments of three Southwestern District officers. One officer is accused of raping a woman brought to the station house in handcuffs, and the other two are accused of doing nothing to stop it.

The grand jury is forbidden to discuss individual cases it hears, so those indictments are not mentioned in its report, nor is a public hearing in early January at which the police commissioner and mayor were criticized for what residents called aggressive tactics.

Circuit Judge Joseph P. McCurdy assigned the topic in September, on the heels of a Sun report about two judges saying in open court that they didn't believe police officers who were testifying in two particular cases.

"This is something the community as a whole needs to address," McCurdy said at the time.

Five years ago, another judge assigned a grand jury to study whether the public was losing confidence in the Police Department. This latest grand jury report was intended to build on those findings, which found distrust, McCurdy said. The judge did not return phone calls yesterday.

The jurors - 21 women and two men - devoted 20 pages of their report to McCurdy's topic, touching on everything from media coverage to the number of arrests. Several recommendations were made for each topic.

Some examples:

* Police officers should be "retrained to use better judgment and common sense in determining if an individual is actually involved in criminal activity."

* Increase neighborhood patrols and build relationships by having officers participate in programs such as the Police Athletic League and school programs.

* Create a public service announcement "emphasizing the progress that the [Police Department] has made."

Jablow, the police spokesman, said the report would be "a useful tool" in the department's efforts to build relationships. "We'll do whatever it takes to make this a safer city and to improve relations with citizens," he said.

Link Posted: 3/8/2006 2:46:01 PM EDT
Reap/Sew....

repeat.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 2:49:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Goonboss:
Reap/Sew....

repeat.



"Sew"??

What's this got to do with laundry?
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 2:52:37 PM EDT
So now cops are supposed to be street lawyers too? WTF?
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 2:52:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By Goonboss:
Reap/Sew....

repeat.



"Sew"??

What's this got to do with laundry?



You know, when I "reap" my jacket, I have to "sew" it up again.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 2:57:41 PM EDT
Depends on what they are arresting people for. If I was on a grand jury and I had to listen to the DA lay out a case against everyone who got caught with a joint or was arrested for loittering (sp??) or whatever then I'd get tired of it too.

There's a flip side too though. Maybe the legislature should stop making everything illegal and maybe "neighbors" should start minding their own damn business. I'd like to know what people mean by "quality of life issues". Are these people calling the cops everytime their neighbors throw a pool party?
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 2:59:57 PM EDT
Hmmm, Grand Jury acks that police try to make prosecutable arrests.

Can't see any problems with that.

Know the laws.
Know the DA's general charging policy.

Seems pretty durn simple.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:00:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:01:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vanilla_gorilla:
So now cops are supposed to be street lawyers too? WTF?



There are two sides to every coin though. For example, in Texas last year the legislature passed a law making it legal to carry a pistol in your car without a CHL as long as you are legally able to own a gun, not a gang member and not involved in any other criminal activity at the time (other than minor traffic violations). However, some DAs and PDs have said that they are going to continue to arrest and prosecute people who are carrying weapons in their cars without a CHL. In these types of cases I think it is highly appropriate to have a judge force the police to stop making arrests.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:03:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Hmmm, Grand Jury acks that police try to make prosecutable arrests.

Can't see any problems with that.

Know the laws.
Know the DA's general charging policy.

Seems pretty durn simple.



Not prosecutable arrests, arrests that the prosecutor LIKES to go for.

[prosecutor]Don't arrest anybody that's not going to plead out.[/prosecutor]
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:04:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2006 3:11:57 PM EDT by Hank_Rearden1]
...nevermind.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:08:07 PM EDT
Let's not forget that some "crimes" require that someone go to jail if the police are called. I don't know about Baltiomre in particular, but many states have laws requiring that someone go to jail if the police are called for a domestic disturbance. Have a yelling match with your wife over the new dress she bought (or whatever)? If the neighbors call the cops then someone HAS to go to jail.

I don't know what other laws carry these stipulations, but there may be others.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:08:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vanilla_gorilla:
So now cops are supposed to be street lawyers too? WTF?



No , but they are supposed to know something of the people and the area they
police , instead of relying on PreDigested Intel.

You might be to young to remember , but the Police used to live among the "ordinary"
citizenry , not apart from them , and were respected as people and not just as Officials.

In some places this is still the case .
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:09:19 PM EDT
Let me cut and paste just the relevant points, so that otheres don't post without at least skimming the important parts of the article.

Mar. 7--A Baltimore grand jury is calling for the number of city arrests that fail to result in criminal charges to be cut in half, saying such arrests erode public confidence in the Police Department, according to a report released yesterday.

"If the staggering number of arrests is to be validated, the percentage of arrests without merit must be drastically reduced," the report says.

The percentage of arrests that fail to generate charges has decreased from 23 percent in December to 14 percent last month, said Kristen Mahoney, chief of technical services for the city Police Department, referring to public safety statistics.

If the grand jury is referring to reducing the number of arrests that fail to result in criminal charges, Jablow said, "we share that sentiment." He said the department has taken steps to improve training and report-writing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The article says 1/4 of the people arrested in December were not charge with a crime. Last month, 1/7 that were arrested were not charged with a crime. Seems to be a pretty high ratio.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:11:46 PM EDT


Mr. KnowItAll Chimes in
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:13:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By quijanos:


Mr. KnowItAll Chimes in



How nice that you announce your presence when you post now.

Here's a tip don't post if you don't have anything to add to a thread.

Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:13:30 PM EDT
Really, why bother with any arrests?

They're annoying.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:13:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:

You know, when I "reap" my jacket, I have to "sew" it up again.



Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:14:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By quijanos:


Mr. KnowItAll Chimes in



You're going to have to be more specific.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:17:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By quijanos:


Mr. KnowItAll Chimes in



How nice that you announce your presence when you post now.

Here's a tip don't post if you don't have anything to add to a thread.





What do you know about my post?

Here's a tip. Take off your badge and clan hood uniform when you are off duty and check your attitude at the door.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:19:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By quijanos:

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By quijanos:


Mr. KnowItAll Chimes in



How nice that you announce your presence when you post now.

Here's a tip don't post if you don't have anything to add to a thread.





What do you know about my post?

Here's a tip. Take off your badge and clan hood uniform when you are off duty and check your attitude at the door.



Here's a tip don't post if you don't have anything to add to a thread.

You still aren't adding anything relevant or intelligent.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:20:42 PM EDT

Matt Jablow, a Police Department spokesman


poor guy.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:21:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By torstin:

Matt Jablow, a Police Department spokesman


poor guy.



His nickname is probably "Who'd".
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:27:35 PM EDT
Maybe the DA's budget can only handle so many prosecutions. It's not THAT hard to believe in this day and age. It's the same sort of reasoning that has schools with well paid teachers and staff and infrastructure that is literally falling down around them.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:30:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2006 3:34:26 PM EDT by vanilla_gorilla]

Originally Posted By AKsRule:

Originally Posted By vanilla_gorilla:
So now cops are supposed to be street lawyers too? WTF?



No , but they are supposed to know something of the people and the area they
police , instead of relying on PreDigested Intel.

You might be to young to remember , but the Police used to live among the "ordinary"
citizenry , not apart from them , and were respected as people and not just as Officials.

In some places this is still the case .




I am young, but not that young. I live in county that routinely has about 4 LEO's to cover the entire county. We very much have the "Mayberry with methamphetamine" thing going on here.

In such a small environment, there is no "apart from the citizenry." Maybe you're thinking of somebody else <edited because I'm in a grouchy mood and shouldn't be taking my irritation out on other posters.> Perhaps that attitude does exist in Baltimore, I've never been there, but in Wakulla County FL, you don't have a choice but to be one of the populace. This ain't a big place.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:33:27 PM EDT
Relevant:
Arrests made by racist LEO's (ring any bells?) simply because of color/nationality are in fact "arrests without merit" (ring any more bells?). If you conduct yourself anything in public like you do on public forums then the above would apply specifically to you.

Intelligent:
Be advised that if your internet racism is discovered by your department, that you will likely be charged with official misconduct/oppresion. Bells?

Hows that add up, Grand Dragon?
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:35:08 PM EDT
It actually sounds like a good idea to me. Don't bother arresting people for little shit that is never going to go anywhere. Frankly, that IS the type of thing that turns people against the police.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:37:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By quijanos:
Relevant:
Arrests made by racist LEO's (ring any bells?) simply because of color/nationality are in fact "arrests without merit" (ring any more bells?). If you conduct yourself anything in public like you do on public forums then the above would apply specifically to you.

Intelligent:
Be advised that if your internet racism is discovered by your department, that you will likely be charged with official misconduct/oppresion. Bells?

Hows that add up, Grand Dragon?



Check you pill containers, I think you have missed at least a days worth of meds, mor likely several days.

I'm the one arguing against arrests that are not prosecutable.

I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:37:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vanilla_gorilla:

Originally Posted By AKsRule:

Originally Posted By vanilla_gorilla:
So now cops are supposed to be street lawyers too? WTF?



No , but they are supposed to know something of the people and the area they
police , instead of relying on PreDigested Intel.

You might be to young to remember , but the Police used to live among the "ordinary"
citizenry , not apart from them , and were respected as people and not just as Officials.

In some places this is still the case .




I am young, but not that young. I live in county that routinely has about 4 LEO's to cover the entire county. We very much have the "Mayberry with methamphetamine" thing going on here.

In such a small environment, there is no "apart from the citizenry." Maybe you're thinking of somebody else.......or you're just a smartass.



No one is trying to discourage the police from arresting people running meth labs.

But when you have 1 in 4 or 1 in 7 people who are arrested never getting charged then it sounds like the police are being a little over zealous.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:39:14 PM EDT
Make less arrests? Yeah, that makes sense.

Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:40:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By vanilla_gorilla:

Originally Posted By AKsRule:

Originally Posted By vanilla_gorilla:
So now cops are supposed to be street lawyers too? WTF?



No , but they are supposed to know something of the people and the area they
police , instead of relying on PreDigested Intel.

You might be to young to remember , but the Police used to live among the "ordinary"
citizenry , not apart from them , and were respected as people and not just as Officials.

In some places this is still the case .




I am young, but not that young. I live in county that routinely has about 4 LEO's to cover the entire county. We very much have the "Mayberry with methamphetamine" thing going on here.

In such a small environment, there is no "apart from the citizenry." Maybe you're thinking of somebody else.......or you're just a smartass.



No one is trying to discourage the police from arresting people running meth labs.

But when you have 1 in 4 or 1 in 7 people who are arrested never getting charged then it sounds like the police are being a little over zealous.




I saw that after I posted. Frankly, this is a concept alien to me anyway, so maybe they're just "out of my league." Here, nobody goes to jail unless they are being charged with something. That's the way it is. If we don't have charges, the fuckers walk, no matter if they're shitbags or not.

And my apologies to AKsrule for my rude comment.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:41:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2006 3:42:37 PM EDT by Sylvan]
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:43:29 PM EDT
Good boy,
Keep that tone racism in check. You never know who is watching.

Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:44:35 PM EDT
Having only 23% of arrests not result in charges is excellent. I read in the local paper that one local department had nearly threefold that number. It sounds like that department is already doing a good job and this is a non-issue.z
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:47:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:47:40 PM EDT
what's the problem with having a basis of fact in arresting someone? it almost sounds like they're arresting first and asking questions later. like it or not an arrest does SERIOUS dammage to a person's life, even if they are released the next day. "innocent until proven guilty" is a nice CONCEPT, but to sit there and say that if a person is released there is no harm/no foul is bullshit.

cops should make DAMN sure they have a DAMN GOOD reason before they slap the cuffs on.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 3:48:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Baltimore Grand Jury Calls For Number of Arrests To Be Cut In Half

<Snip> The jurors - 21 women and two men - devoted 20 pages of their report to McCurdy's topic,<Snip>


That's a balanced ratio.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 4:08:47 PM EDT
I think a lot of people arent looking at where the failure to charge is coming from. We arrest a good number of people for stuff like possession of stolen motor vehicles and the DA's dismiss it because the suspect says he didn't know the car was stolen (yet it had a screwdriver stuck in the iginition and he couldnt say who he got it from). Just because people are being arrested and then cahrges arent being upheld, doesn't mean the officers are just grabbing people and randomly throwing them in jail.

It'd be interesting to see the actual specifics of this.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 6:33:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:
It actually sounds like a good idea to me. Don't bother arresting people for little shit that is never going to go anywhere. Frankly, that IS the type of thing that turns people against the police.



Which is how many people feel as long as someone else is the victim. They dont feel that way when its their car or house that was broken into though.

If you dont want the police to arrest when they have PC to arrest then dont call them when you're the victim.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 6:36:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
No one is trying to discourage the police from arresting people running meth labs.

But when you have 1 in 4 or 1 in 7 people who are arrested never getting charged then it sounds like the police are being a little over zealous.



Or a lazy DA who is afraid to take cases to jury trial.

There is a simple solution. Prosecute every lawfull arrest. if the arrest is unlawfull then prosecute the cop. But dont reject cases that are based on lawfull arrests.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 6:45:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:

Originally Posted By C-4:
Make less arrests? Yeah, that makes sense.



Yeah, it sure does when 1/4th of the people you are arresting haven't committed a crime.



Nothing has indicated they didnt commit the crime. The DA is simply refusing 1/4 of the cases for a varietty of reeasons that may have nothing to do with the lawfullness of the arrest.


Don't arrest someone unless they are going to be charged.


You dont understand the role or Police/prosecutors in LE. The police make arrests based on 1. is there PC to arrest? 2. Is the arrest lawfull? The Prosecutor/DA then decides whether to prosectue each case. that decision will depend on the evidence, the case load and vague issues like jury appeal and interest of justice.

A DA deciding not to file a case doesnt mean the cops lacked PC to arrest.

For example the SCOTUS has truled if you stop a car with 4 people and a kilo of cocaine inside, and nobody owns the car and they all refuse to talk you have PC to arrest all 4 for possession. However the DA will likely refuse to prosecute becuase he lacks the evidence needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats just one example of a perfectly lawful arrest that doesnt get prosecuted.

Link Posted: 3/9/2006 6:53:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:
It actually sounds like a good idea to me. Don't bother arresting people for little shit that is never going to go anywhere. Frankly, that IS the type of thing that turns people against the police.



Sometimes you have to make an arrest or leave yourself and department open to get sued if something happens. Examples

Guy is shitfaced drunk unable to care for his safety standing in the street wanting to fight people. You have to take someone like this to jail. If you don't and he walks in front of a train or beats someone to death etc... There will be lots of questions and a lawsuit. "You were sent to 123 A street and spoke with Mr. Jones? He was falling down drunk wanting to fight everyone in sight? You got in your car and drove off? If you would have simply arrested Mr. Jones he would not be dead now would he? These drunk in public charges don't usually result in charges. The guy sobers up and gets released in 6 or 8 hours.

How about a drunk guy that wants to drive home? Let him go and he drives and kills a family of 4.......

Wife calls and says husband slapped her and it hurts. By law in California I must make an arrest. The next day she is at the District Attorney's office saying she does not want charges and will not testify in court. Charges most likely will not be filed.

These are all good, lawful arrests but nobody gets charged or convicted of anything. I do not see a problem. I think Baltimore might just have a lot of crime. So much crime that the Jails, District Attorney and Courts can not handle the volume. Some cases must be reduced to get people to make pleas and not bog down the court rooms. Others get dismissed or are never filed.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 6:54:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:

Originally Posted By C-4:
Make less arrests? Yeah, that makes sense.



Yeah, it sure does when 1/4th of the people you are arresting haven't committed a crime.

Don't arrest someone unless they are going to be charged. You have a problem with this?
Seems like the DAs office is trying to uphold the 4th amendment.



Maybe you should go to the "Sylvan Learning Center" and improve your reading comprehenshion.
Nobody said they had not comitted a crime. They were simply not prosecuted.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 6:56:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
what's the problem with having a basis of fact in arresting someone? it almost sounds like they're arresting first and asking questions later. like it or not an arrest does SERIOUS dammage to a person's life, even if they are released the next day. "innocent until proven guilty" is a nice CONCEPT, but to sit there and say that if a person is released there is no harm/no foul is bullshit.

cops should make DAMN sure they have a DAMN GOOD reason before they slap the cuffs on.



We do! We are much to busy to arrest people for no reason. We have good reason and they are good arrests. The D.A. just chooses not to file some cases.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 7:08:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 7:17:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
[You should arrest them for not "Respecting your authority"
Do you have proof that its a problem with the DA?
Or perhaps its the cost involved in prosecuting someone for Public Intoxication when there is actual crime that needs to be stopped.
If only they would stop the roller girls of the world, we could live in safety.
Maybe they are arresting people who are standing up after being told to, "Stand up."
Maybe its busting the people who won't shut up after being shot 3 times.
Nope. couldn't be bad arrests.



If they are "bad arrests" meaning lacking PC or otherwise unlawfull, then the DA should be prosecuting the cops. So either way, its a lazy DA. Either he's turning down lawfull arrests or turning a blind eye to police misconduct.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 7:24:07 PM EDT
I live there. One of the biggest problems I see with it is that people are getting arrested on questionable grounds that are hard to prove in court. Hypothetical example. X looks like he is loitering, X gets approached by LEOs, X passes a Terry search pat down, X really had 5 pounds of heroin and 2 handguns in his backpack. It is really really really hard to prove without video evidence that someone is loitering.

So X was adjudicated to have been unlawfully arrested. All they can do is confiscate his drugs and guns. X is now back out on the streets and no doubt will have 2 more handguns and 5 more pounds of junk within a week. Unfortunately, X owes some $$$ to a dealer, so X is just going to go get himself another gun and rob local businesses to pay back his dealer.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 7:53:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:

Originally Posted By sum-rifle:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
what's the problem with having a basis of fact in arresting someone? it almost sounds like they're arresting first and asking questions later. like it or not an arrest does SERIOUS dammage to a person's life, even if they are released the next day. "innocent until proven guilty" is a nice CONCEPT, but to sit there and say that if a person is released there is no harm/no foul is bullshit.

cops should make DAMN sure they have a DAMN GOOD reason before they slap the cuffs on.



We do! We are much to busy to arrest people for no reason. We have good reason and they are good arrests. The D.A. just chooses not to file some cases.


You should arrest them for not "Respecting your authority"
Do you have proof that its a problem with the DA?
Or perhaps its the cost involved in prosecuting someone for Public Intoxication when there is actual crime that needs to be stopped.
If only they would stop the roller girls of the world, we could live in safety.
Maybe they are arresting people who are standing up after being told to, "Stand up."
Maybe its busting the people who won't shut up after being shot 3 times.
Nope. couldn't be bad arrests.
Gotta be bad DAs. (I will admit that underpaid lawyers scare me a little)




Bah... not even worth it.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 5:13:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Depends on what they are arresting people for. If I was on a grand jury and I had to listen to the DA lay out a case against everyone who got caught with a joint or was arrested for loittering (sp??) or whatever then I'd get tired of it too.




Let's not forget that some "crimes" require that someone go to jail if the police are called. I don't know about Baltiomre in particular, but many states have laws requiring that someone go to jail if the police are called for a domestic disturbance. Have a yelling match with your wife over the new dress she bought (or whatever)? If the neighbors call the cops then someone HAS to go to jail.


These aren't the sorts of things that go to Grand Jury.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 10:33:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
You should arrest them for not "Respecting your authority"
Do you have proof that its a problem with the DA?
Or perhaps its the cost involved in prosecuting someone for Public Intoxication when there is actual crime that needs to be stopped.
If only they would stop the roller girls of the world, we could live in safety.
Maybe they are arresting people who are standing up after being told to, "Stand up."
Maybe its busting the people who won't shut up after being shot 3 times.
Nope. couldn't be bad arrests.
Gotta be bad DAs. (I will admit that underpaid lawyers scare me a little)



I never said it was a "Bad DA", just overworked and understaffed like us.
Not enough jail or prison space.
Not enough Judges or courtrooms.
Not enough Prosecutors.
Not enough Cops.
Too many bad guys.
Top Top