Delegate Jackson Miller: HB681 - Arrest at will

imported post

Jackson Miller, a cop and a Delegate, is trying again to allow LEOs to arrest anyone for any Class 1 or Class 2 misdemeanor.

More bad LEO encounters await!

HB681

HB 681 Discretion of law-enforcement officer to arrest or issue summons for a jailable offense.

Patron: Jackson H. Miller

Summary as introduced:

Discretion of law-enforcement officer to arrest or issue summons for a jailable offense. Gives a law-enforcement officer discretion to arrest or to issue a summons to a person in his custody for having committed a Class 1 or 2 misdemeanor.

Currently, the officer must issue a summons unless the person refuses to cease his criminal activity, is a danger to himself or others, or indicates he will disregard a summons.

imported post

Repeater wrote:

Jackson Miller, a cop and a Delegate, is trying again to allow LEOs to arrest anyone for any Class 1 or Class 2 misdemeanor.

More bad LEO encounters await!

HB681

HB 681 Discretion of law-enforcement officer to arrest or issue summons for a jailable offense.

Patron: Jackson H. Miller

Summary as introduced:

Discretion of law-enforcement officer to arrest or issue summons for a jailable offense. Gives a law-enforcement officer discretion to arrest or to issue a summons to a person in his custody for having committed a Class 1 or 2 misdemeanor.

Currently, the officer must issue a summons unless the person refuses to cease his criminal activity, is a danger to himself or others, or indicates he will disregard a summons.

Click to expand...

This one is difficult to follow. The full text simply toggles one instance of the two words "may" and "shall".

TFred

imported post

TFred wrote:

Repeater wrote:

Jackson Miller, a cop and a Delegate, is trying again to allow LEOs to arrest anyone for any Class 1 or Class 2 misdemeanor.

More bad LEO encounters await!

HB681

HB 681 Discretion of law-enforcement officer to arrest or issue summons for a jailable offense.

Patron: Jackson H. Miller

Summary as introduced:

Discretion of law-enforcement officer to arrest or issue summons for a jailable offense. Gives a law-enforcement officer discretion to arrest or to issue a summons to a person in his custody for having committed a Class 1 or 2 misdemeanor.

Currently, the officer must issue a summons unless the person refuses to cease his criminal activity, is a danger to himself or others, or indicates he will disregard a summons.

Click to expand...

This one is difficult to follow. The full text simply toggles one instance of the two words "may" and "shall".

TFred

Click to expand...

A repeat of:

Anti-liberty bills introduced by Delegate Jackson Miller!!

imported post

seems like a backwards route to all-crimes-are-felonies thought. Keep it up and eventually you can be shot for double parking. This is an attempt to extend the persuasive powers of authority some officer's think they actually possess. You have no power but what the people give you. Attempting to have such dominion removes the power from the people and grants it to a privileged class.

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

seems like a backwards route to all-crimes-are-felonies thought. Keep it up and eventually you can be shot for double parking. This is an attempt to extend the persuasive powers of authority some officer's think they actually possess. You have no power but what the people give you. Attempting to have such dominion removes the power from the people and grants it to a privileged class.

Click to expand...

A Custodial Arrest can also be a form of punishment. Maybe, in the mind of the LEO, you are guilty of 'contempt of cop' -- you need to be taught a lesson.

What are you going to do about it? Too many opportunities for abusive treatment.

imported post

VCDL opposed this nonsense last year.

Lets hope this sort of over reach is again defeated.

imported post

I led a team that met with him 2 years ago.

He's on my list this year, too.

Should be [another] interesting conversation.

Any respectful advice as to what to say in opposition to this when he states that it's for the protection of the police as he has before?

imported post

Glock27Bill wrote:

I led a team that met with him 2 years ago.

He's on my list this year, too.

Should be [another] interesting conversation.

Any respectful advice as to what to say in opposition to this when he states that it's for the protection of the police as he has before?

Click to expand...

When Miller first tried this in 2007, he claimed it was to undo the Virginia Supreme Court opinion in Commonwealth v. Moore. So, if he was telling the truth, it was about the Exclusionary Rule.

His bill died in Committee.

In 2009, SCOTUS overruled the Virginia Supreme Court. so Miller can no longer use the Exclusionary Rule as his rationale.

Miller has made it very clear he does not respect the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You could ask him why.

imported post

I fail to see the feasibility of Miller's bill. Virginia CC 19.2-74 is a practical law when it comes to offenses and police resources. Except for certain misdemeanor offenses that pose a threat to society such as DUI, Assault and Battery - Domestic Related, brandishing a firearm (actually pointing a weapon at someone without just cause), misdemeanors are not serious crimes.

19.2-74 needs to stay in place as it is. It won't help me. It won't help you. It won't help the police.

imported post

Repeater wrote:

SNIP A Custodial Arrest can also be a form of punishment. Maybe, in the mind of the LEO, you are guilty of 'contempt of cop' -- you need to be taught a lesson.

What are you going to do about it? Too many opportunities for abusive treatment.

Click to expand...

Yes, too many opportunities for abusive treatment.

Many people fail to understand the very serious consequences of an arrest: lost time, legal fees, an arrest record,expungement efforts, incomplete expungement, permanent addition to federal data bases.

One book I've read, How to Arrestproof Yourself, is written by a cop-turned-attorney. He gives some examples of employers not hiring people simply because that person had an arrest--too risky, why bother when there are qualified candidates without an arrest record.

An arrest is huge in today's electronic society. The consequences can be very serious, even leaving out a conviction.

Jackson Miller's proposal needs to be shot down again.

imported post

Companion bill in the Senate just showed up, patron is W. Roscoe Reynolds:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+sum+SB643

Full Text

Discretion of law-enforcement officer to arrest or issue summons for a jailable offense. Gives a law-enforcement officer discretion to arrest or to issue a summons to a person in his custody for having committed a Class 1 or 2 misdemeanor. Currently, the officer must issue a summons unless the person refuses to cease his criminal activity, is a danger to himself or others, or indicates he will disregard a summons.

imported post

My group was one who got to speak with Miller. He is VERY pro-gun.

However (comma) his two bills give me pause. One directly attaches criminal intent to butterfly knives because of gang-related activities in his home jurisdiction. My argument to him was, from a libertarian POV, that if they codify butterfly knives into the statute, what's to stop them from furthering it next time to include 4" collapsible folders... and then 3"?

Nothing.

To the OP, he explained that certain misdemeanors like "peeping toms" are presently not arrestable by statute and this gives officers the discretion to arrest. Of course, our concern is overzealous officers arresting for non-crimes and violating rights.

He said that a corrupt cop is going to do that anyway, so it was moot.

It doesn't prevent the person from being harassed in the first place.

He says it changes the code section from "shall" to "may".

After further thought the group consensus was that, while the idea held some merit, it might be better to change the status of certain crimes to reside outside the protection of class 1 and 2 and be made arrestable offenses to begin with. Rather than give the officer in the field the authority to make the decision, make the laws more clearly defined and punishable.

2¢

imported post

Ironically enough, this bill may have a better chance of passing the House this year, because of the increased Republican majority. I spoke with Joe Morrissey about the bill, and he was very much against it. Many Republicans will see this as a pro-law enforcement bill, without giving any consideration to our concerns. That's where we come in - it is our responsibility to share our conccern and reasons!

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

To the OP, he explained that certain misdemeanors like "peeping toms" are presently not arrestable by statute and this gives officers the discretion to arrest. Of course, our concern is overzealous officers arresting for non-crimes and violating rights.

He said that a corrupt cop is going to do that anyway, so it was moot.

It doesn't prevent the person from being harassed in the first place.

He says it changes the code section from "shall" to "may".

After further thought the group consensus was that, while the idea held some merit, it might be better to change the status of certain crimes to reside outside the protection of class 1 and 2 and be made arrestable offenses to begin with. Rather than give the officer in the field the authority to make the decision, make the laws more clearly defined and punishable.

2¢

Click to expand...

His "Peeping Tom" example is his same, tired hypothetical that he uses every year. If there were a real problem with the current law, why doesn't he present real examples?

As for "corrupt cops" - does he care? What solution would he offer to prevent harassment or abuse?

"Shall issue a summons" is superior to "may arrest" because too often "may" equal "will."

imported post

Repeater wrote:

wylde007 wrote:

To the OP, he explained that certain misdemeanors like "peeping toms" are presently not arrestable by statute and this gives officers the discretion to arrest. Of course, our concern is overzealous officers arresting for non-crimes and violating rights.

He said that a corrupt cop is going to do that anyway, so it was moot.

It doesn't prevent the person from being harassed in the first place.

He says it changes the code section from "shall" to "may".

After further thought the group consensus was that, while the idea held some merit, it might be better to change the status of certain crimes to reside outside the protection of class 1 and 2 and be made arrestable offenses to begin with. Rather than give the officer in the field the authority to make the decision, make the laws more clearly defined and punishable.

2¢

Click to expand...

His "Peeping Tom" example is his same, tired hypothetical that he uses every year. If there were a real problem with the current law, why doesn't he present real examples?

As for "corrupt cops" - does he care? What solution would he offer to prevent harassment or abuse?

"Shall issue a summons" is superior to "may arrest" because too often "may" equal "will."

Click to expand...

His comment about corrupt cops would do it any way is anattempted misdirection.

A corrupt cop can only twist evidence so far. Currently, if he can twist half-evidence of a misdemeanor into full evidence, he can still only write a summons. If the bill passes, the corrupt cop can twist half-evidence into an arrest.

And, an arrest on one's record, employment applications, and so forth is much more serious than a misdemeanor summons.

Also, I believe in negotiating--as in hardball, when circumstances call for it. If police genuinelyneed some additional authority, they have a corresponding genuineneed somewhere else to reign in abuses of authority. If police want the authority to arrest for certain misdemeanors, I want my rights better protected either here or somewhere else. For example, (just an idea to get started), any cop who makes an extra-legal ID document demand gets downgraded one pay grade.

Or maybe on this particular bill, the arrest can only happen if there is more than one piece of physical evidence. Or, maybe, at least two eye witnesses who are in no way connected to law enforcement. Maybe a constituent of someone on thecommittee can get his delegate to introduce such an amendment.

It could be sorted out if proper counter-pressure was applied, or dropped by the sponsor.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

His comment about corrupt cops would do it any way is anattempted misdirection.

Click to expand...

Yes, and we immediately recognized it but had no response prepared to counter it at the time.

I have since emailed his office and offered my perspective of improvements that might give them the "tools" they need by changing the criminal classifications of certain offenses, rather than giving the officer in the field such sweeping discretion.

We'll just have to wait and see.

On most issues he seemed like a pretty "pro" guy, but his personal law-enforcement background and experience does color his perspective somewhat.

imported post

I would think the financial impact alone would make it unlikely this bill will pass. When you start arresting people and taking them to jail - now we're talking tax dollars. Given our current state of financial affairs, I think we're much better off to write the summons and send them on their way.

imported post

Armed wrote:

I would think the financial impact alone would make it unlikely this bill will pass. When you start arresting people and taking them to jail - now we're talking tax dollars. Given our current state of financial affairs, I think we're much better off to write the summons and send them on their way.

Click to expand...

See my post on this very subject here.

Does anyone know how to find the financial impact statement for a bill? In the CoJ committee meeting, they spoke as if this was something worked up for every bill.

This bill has been to CoJ, and already assigned to a sub-committee, so it would appear that it passed Chairman Albo's criteria for no or low financial impact.

Seems that would be worth a question to the chairman.

TFred

imported post

TFred wrote:

Armed wrote:

I would think the financial impact alone would make it unlikely this bill will pass. When you start arresting people and taking them to jail - now we're talking tax dollars. Given our current state of financial affairs, I think we're much better off to write the summons and send them on their way.

Click to expand...

See my post on this very subject here.

Does anyone know how to find the financial impact statement for a bill? In the CoJ committee meeting, they spoke as if this was something worked up for every bill.

This bill has been to CoJ, and already assigned to a sub-committee, so it would appear that it passed Chairman Albo's criteria for no or low financial impact.

Seems that would be worth a question to the chairman.

TFred

Click to expand...

Miller's bill from last Session, HB 2136, in fact had a fiscal impact statement.

Curiously, his bill for this Session does not. Neither does Senator Reynolds. That seems incorrect.

These bills would certainly affect local government expenditures. That would implicate this code section, § 30-19.03: Estimates to be prepared for legislation affecting local government expenditures and revenues.

These bills would also swell the local jail populations, at least in some localities. That would implicate this code section, § 30-19.1:4: Increase in terms of imprisonment or commitment; fiscal impact statements; appropriations for operating costs.

Could Speaker Howell be playing politics?

imported post

Repeater wrote:

TFred wrote:

Armed wrote:

I would think the financial impact alone would make it unlikely this bill will pass. When you start arresting people and taking them to jail - now we're talking tax dollars. Given our current state of financial affairs, I think we're much better off to write the summons and send them on their way.

Click to expand...

See my post on this very subject here.

Does anyone know how to find the financial impact statement for a bill? In the CoJ committee meeting, they spoke as if this was something worked up for every bill.

This bill has been to CoJ, and already assigned to a sub-committee, so it would appear that it passed Chairman Albo's criteria for no or low financial impact.

Seems that would be worth a question to the chairman.

TFred

Click to expand...

Miller's bill from last Session, HB 2136, in fact had a fiscal impact statement.

Curiously, his bill for this Session does not. Neither does Senator Reynolds. That seems incorrect.

These bills would certainly affect local government expenditures. That would implicate this code section, § 30-19.03: Estimates to be prepared for legislation affecting local government expenditures and revenues.

These bills would also swell the local jail populations, at least in some localities. That would implicate this code section, § 30-19.1:4: Increase in terms of imprisonment or commitment; fiscal impact statements; appropriations for operating costs.

Could Speaker Howell be playing politics?

Click to expand...

The very strong impression I got from Chairman Albo during that first meeting on Monday was that he was acting on firm direction, and that decisions for exceptions would have to go through him.

TFred