Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Kinzinger continues wowing the news media
Next Post: 4,156 new confirmed and probable cases; 71 additional deaths; 2,735 hospitalized; 532 in ICU; 4.3 percent average case positivity rate; 5.4 percent average test positivity rate; 38,738 average daily doses
Posted in:
* One major lesson I learned from cannabis legalization is that the police too often rely on gross exaggeration (or worse) to make their case against bills they oppose. Remember when they were falsely claiming that hundreds of drug-sniffing dogs would have to be euthanized?
There was the Downstate sheriff who warned that drug cartels would buy up houses in Christian County to grow pot if the state legalized home-grown. And then there were all the goofy, hyped up “studies” they used to justify their position against the legislation. The sky did not fall. The world did not end. (OK, it kinda did, but that had nothing to do with legal weed.)
* And so it goes with the criminal justice reform bill. For instance, I keep seeing this argument pop up…
Some of the provisions in the new law are difficult to interpret or, in the guise of being lenient, lay the groundwork for individuals to be charged with a more serious crime than they otherwise would have.
One provision relates to “obstructing or resisting a peace officer.”
It says “a person shall not be subject to arrest … unless there is an underlying offense for which the person was initially subject to arrest.”
That scenario apparently contemplates a situation where a person arrested for one offense commits the additional offense of resisting the arrest.
But what about a situation where a third party intervenes when police are making an arrest?
If that third party obstructs the arrest or helps the primary suspect resist the arrest, is that third party subject to arrest for resisting or obstructing?
The law appears to say the answer is no. But, alternatively, can that third party instead be charged with a more serious offense like aggravated battery to a police officer or mob action?
I checked with the Senate bill sponsor Elgie Sims. He said the above analysis is wrong. If you physically intervene to prevent somebody else’s arrest, that’s enough to be charged with obstructing an officer.
The whole idea of the language, Sen. Sims said, is to prevent the police from arresting people who, for instance, say something harsh about the police while somebody else is being arrested.
Now, maybe Sen. Sims is wrong. But the moral of the story here is reporters ought to remember the old City News slogan: If your mother says she loves you, check it out.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 12:31 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Kinzinger continues wowing the news media
Next Post: 4,156 new confirmed and probable cases; 71 additional deaths; 2,735 hospitalized; 532 in ICU; 4.3 percent average case positivity rate; 5.4 percent average test positivity rate; 38,738 average daily doses
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rich, “They” didn’t say that police dogs would have to be euthanized.
One goofball canine trainer/officer from Decatur did.
I’m a former canine handler. No one was going to euthanize their canine partner over decriminalization. And all of us cringed when that officer said that.
Comment by Occasionally Moderated Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 12:44 pm
You already can’t be charged with “obstructing or resisting an officer” if you’re a third party who is just heckling or verbally abusing the police. That’s elementary First Amendment law and any such arrest would be dismissed by the courts very quickly.
Comment by yeah... Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 12:47 pm
People can also obstruct an officer by providing false names and dates of birth in an attempt to have the officer miss warrants, orders of protection, and suspended/revoked driver’s licenses. Illinois courts have held that such actions amount to obstructing an officer, making it an arrestable offense by itself. (People v. Munoz, Ill: Appellate Court, 2nd Dist. 2010, citing People v. Meister, 289 Ill. App. 3d 337, 342 (1997); giving false information or telling others not to speak with police executing lawful duty while investigating crime constituted obstructing officer). But under the existing bill language it appears that will no longer be true unless the officer has grounds to make an arrest on another charge. Nice gift to Illinois criminals by the Legislature.
Comment by thisjustinagain Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 12:48 pm
As young assistant state’s attorney, I was trained to look suspiciously at arrests for resisting with no underlying offense, as were most of my colleagues. Seems like this just cleans up a longstanding practice.
Comment by not for nothing Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 12:48 pm
The Big Lie Trump and most of the GOP told about a stolen election reminded me about the disgusting lies police and sheriffs told about the dangers of legal weed. I don’t believe we should treat them any differently and they need to be called out at every stop.
Comment by Hot Taeks Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 12:56 pm
===You already can’t be charged with===
Right, but people are still arrested for it a lot.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 1:05 pm
= Nice gift to Illinois criminals by the Legislature.=
Did you read the part where Rich debunked the misinformation? It is the entire point of the post.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 1:11 pm
Or officers could just chain a person to a bench in the station for 7 hours as they did for the retired State Rep last year. Was paperwork required for chaining that guy to a bench?
Comment by Froganon Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 1:12 pm
Would be nice if the Taylorville News would circle back and see how many Chinese Drug Cartel operations are buying up houses n Christian County and their white hot housing market.
On a side note, I looked at the post that you linked to from May of 2019. First comment was from Wordslinger. I miss that guy.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 1:15 pm
=== Nice gift to Illinois criminals by the Legislature.===
Seemingly every piece of reform is a “gift to criminals”
Reform is necessary, but seemingly making reform another way to try to paint things as a “gift to criminals” won’t help where reform needs the strong to stand up.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 1:17 pm
I just went back to the original post.
Best Headline Ever!
misterjayem and I killed it that day if I say so myself. (fka freezeup)
Comment by Occasionally Moderated Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 1:37 pm
“Democrats are soft on crime because most Black people are criminals and Democrats need Black votes to get elected.”
This has been dogma in the Republican Party for 60 years now.
QAnon did not invent racist conspiracy theories, Mr. Kinzinger.
Comment by Ferris Wheeler Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 1:59 pm
JS Mill,
If the ensuring Chinese Drug Cartel real estate boom increased ad revenue for the Taylorville News, it would happily support the trend.
Comment by Third Reading Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 2:07 pm
Reminds us of noise on first body bill or video tape confessions. Police groups said those bills would be end of world. Not true then or now. Remember most of this is two or more years away.
Comment by Annonin' Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 2:13 pm
Any cop who can not endure “harsh’ comments is ill suited for the job…harsh words are not sticks or stones.
Comment by Dotnonymous Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 2:19 pm
=== This has been dogma in the Republican Party for 60 years now.===
Not quite. It was after the Dixiecrats finally came over to be Republicans did the wholesale “one party” racist thinking take hold, even as a “silent majority”
It’s not quibbling, it’s understanding that the GOP on one hand helped pass the Civil Rights Act, and the other that those Dixiecrats felt betrayed, so they joined a party that would embrace them, even as that same party helped pass the legislation that flipped them.
Racists were looking for a home, not a political ideology, and that home had to be … not in a restructure… and that’s what happened eventually in the Democratic Party.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 2:39 pm
This is great, because police love to tack on obstruction charges anytime they can, and the obstruction charge is often more serious than the initial offense, if there was one at all. And obstruction can’t be expunged.
Comment by TheUpperRoom Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 3:18 pm
If the cops come and ask me where my friend John The Suspected Drug Dealer is and I tell them he’s next door when, in fact, he’s chilling in my spare bedroom, or I otherwise lie to protect John The Suspected Drug Dealer when I’m not guilty of a crime, that’s obstructing police, and I can be charged. Under the new bill, doesn’t sound like I could be charged. That’s what we’re talking about here, and that’s why cops are saying it’s a license to lie to the police.
Comment by Just The Facts, Ma'am Friday, Jan 29, 21 @ 5:10 pm