• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Delegate Jackson Miller: HB681 - Arrest at will

Repeater

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

TFred wrote:
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
Click to expand...
The Chairman also referred to this 2009 Budget Amendment:
A. For any fiscal impact statement prepared by the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission pursuant to § 30-19.1:4, Code of Virginia, for which the commission does not have sufficient information to project the impact, the commission shall assign a minimum fiscal impact of $50,000 to the bill and this amount shall be printed on the face of each such bill, but shall not be codified. The provisions of § 30-19.1:4, paragraph H. shall be applicable to any such bill.
​
What this means if that, even if they cannot decide what the specific cost would be for the Miller bill, for fiscal impact purposes, it would cost at least $50,000.
 
Thundar

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

I sent my own e-mail to the entire committee via theVCDL link. This bill, if passed,is really a severe blow to freedom and liberty in Virginia. Open Carriers will be in the sights of anti-gun LEOs and agencies all over the Commonwealth. (I kmow most LEOs are on our side, but it doesn't take many bad apples to rot the whole barrel.)

Fight this OCDO. This gives the anti a tool that is overbearing and unnecessary. If this passes we will have significant issues. Remember, any county, city or town can pass laws that are class 1 or 2 misdemeanors. Do you really want to face the arrest wrath of Manassas or Norfolk???
 
Repeater

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

Thundar wrote:
I sent my own e-mail to the entire committee via theVCDL link. This bill, if passed,is really a severe blow to freedom and liberty in Virginia. Open Carriers will be in the sights of anti-gun LEOs and agencies all over the Commonwealth. (I kmow most LEOs are on our side, but it doesn't take many bad apples to rot the whole barrel.)

Fight this OCDO. This gives the anti a tool that is overbearing and unnecessary. If this passes we will have significant issues. Remember, any county, city or town can pass laws that are class 1 or 2 misdemeanors. Do you really want to face the arrest wrath of Manassas or Norfolk???
Click to expand...
Thundar is right. One way to fight this is to bring some bad incidents to the attention of Republicans, who seems all too inclined to supported police-state bills like Miller's.

An excellent source of such information is the War on Guns blog.

This incident is all to typical:

We're the Only Ones Social Networking Enough
“The police officer was chatting on Facebook,” said Brown. “I think that’s wrong.”

So Brown took out his cell phone and took a picture. That’s when he claims the officer arrested him.

“Pulled me out of the car, grabbed my phone, and I said I don’t think I’m breaking the law here … I’m not under arrest,” said Brown.

Brown said the officer then said “Well, you’re under arrest now.”

Brown said the officer handcuffed him, took the phone and hauled him off to jail.

Brown claims he was never read his rights and the officer wouldn’t give him his name. As for that picture, Brown said when officers returned his phone, the picture was gone. [More]​
Hmmm--how to prove it?

I'd think a subpoena to Facebook would confirm activity at the time being alleged...and if it turns out to be a case of "Only One" citizen abuse as a method of CYA, he should be unfriended and introduced to another "social networking group".
 
user

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
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...


I don't know... I wonder whether that delegate understands the legal effect of the changes he's proposed. By saying, "arresting officer may[/i] take the name and address of such person and issue a summons or otherwise notify him in writing to appear at a time and place to be specified in such summons or notice.", it gives the cop more discretion to simply let someone go without issuance of a summons - it does not give the cop discretion to make a full custodial arrest. And where he says, "However, if any such person shall fail or refuse to discontinue the unlawful act, the officer shall[/i] proceed according to the provisions of § 19.2-82. ", well, that would require that every person subjected to custodial arrest be taken to a magistrate immediately - which is not now the case. It would not change the conditions under which a cop can place a person in custody.

I have to say, I'm in favor of it, unless I'm missing something.
 
Repeater

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

user wrote:
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...


I don't know... I wonder whether that delegate understands the legal effect of the changes he's proposed. By saying, "arresting officer may take the name and address of such person and issue a summons or otherwise notify him in writing to appear at a time and place to be specified in such summons or notice.", it gives the cop more discretion to simply let someone go without issuance of a summons - it does not give the cop discretion to make a full custodial arrest. And where he says, "However, if any such person shall fail or refuse to discontinue the unlawful act, the officer shall proceed according to the provisions of § 19.2-82. ", well, that would require that every person subjected to custodial arrest be taken to a magistrate immediately - which is not now the case. It would not change the conditions under which a cop can place a person in custody.

I have to say, I'm in favor of it, unless I'm missing something.
Click to expand...
Well, interesting observation. Still opposed.

Although the patron's explanation would be interesting.

What questions would you ask of the patron?
 
Thundar

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

user wrote:
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...


I don't know... I wonder whether that delegate understands the legal effect of the changes he's proposed. By saying, "arresting officer may[/i] take the name and address of such person and issue a summons or otherwise notify him in writing to appear at a time and place to be specified in such summons or notice.", it gives the cop more discretion to simply let someone go without issuance of a summons - it does not give the cop discretion to make a full custodial arrest. And where he says, "However, if any such person shall fail or refuse to discontinue the unlawful act, the officer shall[/i] proceed according to the provisions of § 19.2-82. ", well, that would require that every person subjected to custodial arrest be taken to a magistrate immediately - which is not now the case. It would not change the conditions under which a cop can place a person in custody.

I have to say, I'm in favor of it, unless I'm missing something.
Click to expand...
shhhhh user. Maybe they will enact this as is. If they "fix" it then we are in for a rough patch.
 
Repeater

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

Predictably, Miller's bill passed by a wide margin in the House:

YEAS--Abbitt, Albo, Anderson, Athey, Barlow, Bell, Richard P., Bell, Robert B., Bulova, Byron, Carrico, Cleaveland, Cline, Cole, Cosgrove, Cox, J.A., Cox, M.K., Crockett-Stark, Edmunds, Garrett, Gear, Gilbert, Greason, Griffith, Howell, A.T., Hugo, Iaquinto, Ingram, Janis, Joannou, Johnson, Jones, Kilgore, Knight, Landes, LeMunyon, Lewis, Lingamfelter, Lohr, Loupassi, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G., Massie, May, Merricks, Miller, J.H., Miller, P.J., Morefield, Morgan, Nixon, Nutter, O'Bannon, Oder, Orrock, Peace, Phillips, Pogge, Poindexter, Pollard, Purkey, Putney, Scott, E.T., Sherwood, Stolle, Tata, Villanueva, Ware, R.L., Wright, Mr. Speaker--68.

NAYS--Abbott, Alexander, Armstrong, BaCote, Brink, Carr, Dance, Ebbin, Englin, Herring, Hope, James, Keam, Kory, McClellan, Morrissey, Plum, Scott, J.M., Shuler, Sickles, Spruill, Surovell, Torian, Toscano, Tyler, Ward, Ware, O., Watts--28.

ABSTENTIONS--0.

NOT VOTING--Comstock, McQuinn, Rust--3.
 
Repeater

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

I'm linking the strip search topic, relevant to Jackson Miller's bill for this session, here:

Remember Mike's original alert from Mon Feb 12th, 2007 on the original Miller bill? Among other things, he warned that persons arrested for minor misdemeanors and taken to jail could be subjected to strip searches. Horrors!

Do you recall some accused Mike of excess, exaggerating fears, being hyperbolic?

Well, guess what, it seems the 9th Circuit court of appeals agrees with Mike; thus his fears are not at all exaggerated. From FourthAmendment.com:

CA9: SF jail strip search policy constitutional because of jail showing of seizure of contraband and weapons in jail

The San Francisco jail’s policy of strip searching incoming inmates to control weapons and contraband coming into the jail is constitutional under Bell v. Wolfish. Bull v. City & County of San Francisco, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2684 (9th Cir. February 9, 2010) (en banc) (6-5), panel opinion Bull v. City & County of San Francisco, 539 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2008):
In sum, because the circumstances before us are not meaningfully distinguishable from those presented in Bell, the balance between the need for the San Francisco strip search policy and “the invasion of personal rights that the search entails” must be resolved in favor of the jail system’s institutional concerns. Id. at 559. While strip searches are invasive and embarrassing, and while this type of security measure “instinctively gives us the most pause,” id. at 558, we must conclude that under Bell, San Francisco’s strip search policy was reasonable and therefore did not violate the class members’ Fourth Amendment rights.

​
The dissent is important:
The majority sweeps away twenty-five years of jurisprudence, giving jailors the unfettered right to conduct mandatory, routine, suspicionless body cavity searches on any citizen who may be arrested for minor offenses, such as violating a leash law or a traffic code, and who pose no credible risk for smuggling contraband into the jail. Under its reconfigured regime, the majority discards Bell’s requirement to balance the need for a search against individual privacy and instead blesses a uniform policy of performing body cavity searches on everyone arrested and designated for the general jail population, regardless of the triviality of the charge or the likelihood that the arrestee is hiding contraband. The rationale for this abrupt precedential departure is founded on quicksand. Indeed, the government’s entire argument is based on the logical fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc— happenstance implies causation. The government argues that contraband has been found in the San Francisco jails. Thus, the government reasons, individuals who are arrested must be smuggling contraband into the jail. Therefore, the government concludes it must body cavity search everyone who is arrested, even those who pose no risk of concealing contraband, much less of trying to smuggle contraband into the jail.

This reasoning finds no support from the record in this case. Although there is evidence of some arrestees attempting to conceal contraband during their arrest, there is not a single documented example of anyone doing so with the intent of smuggling contraband into the jail. More importantly, for our purposes, there is not a single example of anyone from the class defined by the district court who was found to possess contraband upon being strip searched. Not one.

Indeed, and ironically, the record shows that most of the individual plaintiffs who were body cavity searched were never actually placed in the general jail population at all. Because they were never housed with other detainees, these individuals posed absolutely no risk of “smuggling” contraband into the general jail population. They were body cavity searched anyway, simply because they were classified for potential placement in the general jail population.

​
If HB681 becomes law, perhaps Virginians could be similarly subjected to strip searches after being arrested and taken to jail for a minor misdemeanor offense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top