[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Best Probable Cause Statement Ever (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 8/8/2007 6:15:55 AM EDT
|
Don't know if this is real or not, but are Lt. passed it out at roll call. Wonder if he would have signed off on it? INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT > >FOR PUBLIC RELEASE > >CASE REPORT: 07-0104431 > >INCIDENT: 584 PUBLIC INTOXICATION > >INVOLVEMENT: SUBPOENA OFFICER #1 > >LOCATION: E 62ND ST/N COLLEGE AV > >GEO ZONE: 259011 > >AREA: MND BEAT: ND52 > >OCCURRED: 07/08/2007 03:26 TO 07/08/2007 04:00 > >ARRESTS: 1 > >INJURED: 0 > >DEAD: 0 > >VEHICLE TOWED: 0 > >PERSON: 1 > >PERSON INVOLVEMENT: ARR ARRESTED > >PERSON NAME: MCGRATH,JAMES A > >RACE: W WHITE > >SEX: M MALE > >DATE OF BIRTH: 01/22/1982 > >AGE: 25 > >ADDRESS: 8318 BENT OAK DR > >CITY, STATE, ZIP: INDIANAPOLIS IN 46236 > >HOME PHONE: (317)826-0710 > >DATE OF ARREST: 07/08/2007 > >ARREST LOCATION: E 62ND ST/N COLLEGE AV, INDIANAPOLIS > >CHARGE: 07.1-0005-0001-0003 PUBLIC INTOXICATION/MB > >NARRATIVE: > > > > > >ON 07/08/07, AT APPROXIMATELY 0326 HOURS, I WAS TRAVELING NORTHBOUND IN THE >6100 BLOCK OF N. COLLEGE AVE. IN MY FULLY MARKED IMPD POLICE VEHICLE AND >IN FULL UNIFORM. I HAD MY WINDOWS ROLLED DOWN. I HEARD A MALE VOICE >CALLING FOR A PIG, HE WAS SAYING "SUEY, PIGGY, PIGGY" I LOOKED OVER AND >OBSERVED THREE WHITE MALES AND A WHITE FEMALE WALKING SOUTHBOUND ON THE >EAST SIDE OF N. COLLEGE AVE. ONE OF THE WHITE MALES WEARING BLUE JEANS >AND A LIGHT COLORED BUTTONED UP SHIRT LOOKED DIRECTLY AT ME WITH RED GLASSY >BLOODSHOT EYES AND SAID, "SUEY PIGGY, PIGGY." I WAS CONCERNED THAT THE MAN >HAD LOST HIS PIG AND THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ROAMING AROUND IN THE BROAD >RIPPLE AREA SO I DECIDED TO STOP AND ASSIST HIM, BECAUSE I KNOW HOW >DEVASTATING A LOST OF PET CAN BE. I IDENTIFIED THE WHITE MALE SUBJECT FROM >AN INDIANA DRIVER'S LICENSE AS JAMES ADAM MCGRATH, DOB 1/22/82. WHILE I >WAS SPEAKING WITH MR. MCGRATH ABOUT HIS POSSIBLE LOST PIG, I SMELLED A >STRONG ODOR COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON HIS BREATH AND >PERSON. HIS SPEECH WAS ALSO SLIGHTLY SLURRED. I PLACED MR. MCGRATH UNDER >ARREST FOR PUBLIC INTOXICATION AND HE WAS TRANSPORTED TO THE APC BY A >MARION COUNTY JAIL WAGON. I SEARCHED THE ENTIRE BROAD RIPPLE AREA AND >UNFORTUNATELY WAS NOT ABLE TO LOCATE ANY LOST PIGS. I HOPE I FIND IT >BEFORE THE GUY AT DICK'S BODACIS BARBECUE DOES. ALL OF THE ABOVE OCCURRED >IN MARION COUNTY, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA. > >OFFICER: X0807 SICKELS,CHRISTOPHER L IMPD > >OPERATOR: 07/08/2007 06:12 28010 BURNETT,SUELLEN IMPD > > > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
 How come these guys are never around when I get pulled over? 
|
 www.indygov.org/eGov/IMPD/Crimes/home.htm I'm guessing it's real... I went to IMPD's website, there's a program link on their website called Crime View Community, lets you plug in an intersection and see what calls have been within 1/4 mile or so of it within the last X number of days. I found this... the time, location and report number matches!  |
Brilliant! What a good officer to offer to assist the man. 
|
|
Seems like some of you are or were LEO. I have a question. I am not really a drinker. I rarely drink beer, and may have one drink at a wedding or something. Every once in a great while a rocks glass with Crown over ice. (I have had the bottle for a year now and it's over 3/4's full..... Anyway, I don't understand what this person was doing that was illegal. Obviously he was chiding the officer with a stupid remark, but other than that, what offense does one have to commit to be guilty of "public intoxication", and why is this illegal in the first place? I can understand if he was blocking traffic, or breaking something, or driving a car, but what harm is there in being "intoxicated" while in a public place? Does this mean I can't go shopping at a 24hour convenience store after leaving the bar at 2:00am? Just because I "smell like alchohol" and my "eyes were bloodshot"? I don't see how this can be a valid charge. Please school me as to why this law even exists, other than as a "probable cause" excuse for a search? 
|
I'm sure you can differentiate between someone who has been drinking but is not intoxicated and someone who has been drinking and is intoxicated. The more intoxicated one becomes, the more obvious it is. Here's the cliffs notes The reason the story is funny is that excessive alcohol use leads to impaired judgment. The sort of judgment one might use to decide whether or not it's a good idea to yell "SUEY SUEY PIGGY" at a passing police car. Indiana Code reads:
If you make note of the forum in which this thread was posted, you'll see why your first assumption is correct. |
Yeah, I noticed that after I posted. So, in itself, drinking and being in public may not be a crime, but if I start acting the fool, then there is cause for me to be possibly arrested. I get that. However, where does one draw the line as to what is appropriate and what is not? I have a feeling that because the officer did not like being ridiculed by the heckler, that he sought some acute justice. But, does that make it OK? I think that the right to free speech trumps the officers wanting to not be offended. As a matter of fact, it trumps anyones not wanting to be offended. It is not illegal to offend someone. As an example, G.W. Bush probably gets somewhat offended that people call him an ass, and say that everything he has done is wrong. Does that make it illegal for them to say those things? Absolutely not. But if that same person happens to be drinking ::GASP:: Alchohol ::/GASP:: then they are somehow "publicly intoxicated". Even though, the moment before, they were just as "intoxicated" as before, but now they said something to offend someone..... I'm not trying to harp on anyone in particular, or stir up a shitstorm, this is just one of those laws that never made any sense to me, and seems to be enforced whenever an officer wants to "teach someone a lesson" or something... I can see some of the other arguments in the code such as (1) Blocking or otherwise interfering with traffic on a highway or public vehicular area, or (2) Blocking or lying across or otherwise preventing or interfering with access to or passage across a sidewalk or entrance to a building, or (3) Grabbing, shoving, pushing or fighting others or challenging others to fight, or (4) Cursing or shouting at or otherwise rudely insulting others, or (5) Begging for money or other property. But I believe that these laws are handled by other codes. I see "publix intox" as a catchall that can be slapped to just about anyone.... What say you? |
I say if you can handle your alcohol like a man and not act like a fool, then there shouldnt be a problem. |
|
alittledablldoya, While most on this thread will not receive your post warmly, I think I understand what you are trying to get at. I agree that merely drinking and then being in public is not a valid reason for arrest. What is in question is how you define "intoxication." I will start by saying that being intoxicated in public makes a person a hazard. When people are intoxicated their judgement is impaired. This leads to all manner of foolish acts that can, whether intentionally or not, lead to endangering the intoxicated person or others around them. In this particular case, I cannot speak to how intoxicated the arrestee was. Regardless, I have no problem with this arrest and here is why: If this person is foolish enough to chide a Police Officer while committing a criminal act (ie public intox) then he deserves to be arrested. If the Officer did not make the arrest, he would be setting up the next Officer for failure. If a person commits a criminal act AND is disrespectful to the Officer he is dealing with and no action is taken, he will become more bold next time. That is what leads to fights with Police. I support the Officers decision based on what little facts are available. |
|
Too funny. Section 13A-11-10 Public intoxication. (a) A person commits the crime of public intoxication if he appears in a public place under the influence of alcohol, narcotics or other drug to the degree that he endangers himself or another person or property, or by boisterous and offensive conduct annoys another person in his vicinity. (b) Public intoxication is a violation. (Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §5545.) |
According to which state you are in, those are not true statements. Freedom of speech does not trump all statements, noise made or gestures. Being offended can very much be against the law. Profanity, obscene gestures, loud noises, etc. can all be against the law and people are arrested for those charges all of the time. |
I have grown up, and I am able to form multiple syllabled words and form them into sentences that are longer than two words. I seriously think the arresting officer did the right thing, I was merely asking how it can be that there is a law against something and be so very vague as to allow any number of reasons to be arrested. Now, alorten formed a perfect response to my questions, and articulated his point very well. I agree with his position (as I did from the start) that this idiot deserved what he got. You really shouldn't mess with a LEO and not expect something... I also see that I was wrong and that it is illegal to offend people sometimes in certain places. You learn something new everyday. Thank you to all who responded with intelligent answers. |
You have a strange way of wording your posts if you actually think the arresting officer did right, as you claim. I explained, very clearly, in my first reply to you why the guy got arrested. That led you to question it even more. Drunk is drunk and just having had a beer or two doesn't make you drunk. "Had a couple beers" and "intoxicated" are two completely different things. If you can form multiple syllables, you ought to know the difference. If you think the public intoxication law is vague you will go ape-shit trying to figure out what "disorderly conduct" is. "In public" + "Intoxicated" = in violation of that law. It's pretty simple. Stop playing up the naive citizen role as your excuse to troll the thread. A drunk idiot got arrested. Get over it. 
|
That also seems like a legitimate concern for someone who is not LEO. However, you would find that there are a stack of laws just like that one that are very broad. Especially when dealing with city and township ordinances. For instance, Union Twp (Isabella Co, Michigan) it is illegal to be in attendance at a party that is a nuisance. Theoretically, 6 guys get together to drink some beers and get loud they could all be arrested and lodged. It doesn't happen because officer discretion isn't just a word. It actually happens every single day all across the country. Now if I go to that same party and one of the fellas feels like being a fool. He would most likely become an example. FWIW, I took your original post as did npd233. However, lots can be lost in type and I believe I misread the gyst of the post. Joe |
|
Quite simple, really. If you're so drunk that you're causing a disturbance or would otherwise be unsafe to allow you to stay on the streets, you're too drunk to be out. If you're that drunk in your own home, so be it. But if not, you spend the night in jail. The best part about most of the public intoxication charges that I've seen is that they are extremely minor misdemeanors, usually which only carry a fine. The reason you spend the night in jail is to sober up. I work in a college town and DIP is a great arrest. It's the best way to get a jackass off the streets and out of the public's hair so you quit having to deal with them 6-7 times a night. Bottom line, it's illegal in most places to be so drunk that you start bothering people or causing problems, or if you're stumbling around. Oh, and as far as the question about determining how drunk someone is... that's why officers have discretion. If someone isn't really causing a problem but obviously has been drinking, they may not go to jail. Useful tools like the PBT, as well as training in observing classic signs of intoxication (red, glassy eyes, odor of alcoholic beverage about the person, disheveled clothing, unstable on the feet, horizontal gaze nystagmus) allow a field officer to determine if someone is intoxicated. And the number one lesson I've learned in my short time as a police officer - YOU CAN'T REASON WITH A DRUNK. |
| I have given people who are drunk and walking home a ride home before. The reason I did was because they were not causing a problem and were respectful, so I treated them with the same respect. However, I have also dealt with drunks who were total asses not only to me but also to an average citizen so I took them to jail. Point being, almost all cops don't care if your drunk as long as you're not driving and not causing a problem. The first time you can't handle your alcohol well then too bad for you. |
You also seem to be a member of the group of people that somehow associate the police as being wrong for enforcing a law you don't agree with,or don't understand, but that was passed by the people's elected representatives. Police don't make the laws, and asking police officers why a law was passed, merely gives you some possible reasons a law was passed based on officer's experiences. Kind of like the guy who ask police officers for directons because he figures they must know where everything is at. |
Dont call me names, LOL!!! That was PRICELESS!!!
Gotta love it! Very creative!
 I think the guy was pretty clear.... and the main point was pointing out the potential for the officer to arrest him in retaliation for calling him a "pig". Granted.... the guy might have been intoxicated. He also might have just had one beer... and that was enough for the cop to take his revenge. Of course, we cant say either way... cause none of us were there. But I agree.... the point is really discussing the potnetial vagueness of the statue.... more than the officers actions. |
|
I think that was awesome, since I've had to pick up a pig, a time or two. It also took some BIG BALLS to put it on paper and be willing to stand by it, which is rare in this day and time. Dab, I know it seems like a broad range on how to apply the law to a situation and it has been abused by some, but what if the officer had just rolled on by and then this drunk ran into some other bar patrons and decided to make comments and got the snot beat out of him.... the officer was just saving him from himself. I have saved a few from themself and it has usually been the greatest entertainment I get from the job as well as the biggest headache too. |
|
If you're going to be drunk, in public, and it's illegal, then you shouldn't call attention to the fact that you're drunk in public by yelling insults at police officers. If you're going to yell insults at police officers, MAKE SURE you aren't breaking ANY laws when you're doing it. Besides... maybe the guy WAS just looking for his pig. It was Broadripple, after all! |
|
In Florida, there are several charges that fall under the category of "POP" (Pissing off the Police). These are charges which are rarely enforced, but can be used if the offender is interfering with the officer's duties or is a public nuisance. The ones I most commonly use are: Disorderly Conduct (FS 877.03) Breach of the peace; disorderly conduct.--Whoever commits such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or engages in brawling or fighting, or engages in such conduct as to constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree . . . Disorderly Intoxication (FS 856.011) Disorderly intoxication.-- (1) No person in the state shall be intoxicated and endanger the safety of another person or property, and no person in the state shall be intoxicated or drink any alcoholic beverage in a public place or in or upon any public conveyance and cause a public disturbance. (2) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. . . . Giving False Name or ID to LEO (FS 901.36(1)) Prohibition against giving false name or false identification by person arrested or lawfully detained; penalties; court orders.-- (1) It is unlawful for a person who has been arrested or lawfully detained by a law enforcement officer to give a false name, or otherwise falsely identify himself or herself in any way, to the law enforcement officer or any county jail personnel. Except as provided in subsection (2), any person who violates this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Resisting without violence (FS 843.02) Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.--Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. emphasis added reference: www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=View%20Statutes&Submenu=1&Tab=statutes&CFID=50818738&CFTOKEN=93647587 These are tools to assist in the conduct of an investigation and to keep the peace. I use discretion in when they are applied and do not abuse my power. They are all misdemeanors and must occur in my presence in order for an arrest to be made. I am sure that most, if not all, US states have similar statutes. |