Monday, September 3, 2007
Sheriffs more likely than police departments to welcome new arrest discretion
Sheriffs are more worried about who's taking up space in the jail.
It's interesting to track which Texas counties will implement HB 2391 allowing citations instead of arrests for low-level misdemeanors - so far DAs from some counties with severe jail overcrowding problems have refused to let local police utilize the new tool, while other jurisdictions have welcomed the change.
Most of the controversy arises over provisions to give citations in marijuana possession cases. The Jefferson County Sheriff told the Beaumont Enterprise, "Philosophically, I don't like that it seems to be a step toward decriminalizing the offenses." That canard has been repeated elsewhere and deserves a stern rebuke: This bill doesn't decriminalize anything. Marijuana possession, driving with a suspended license and other named offenses are still against the law. Similarly, running a stop sign hasn't been decriminalized just because you get a ticket instead of arrested for the offense.
In Midland, local officers won't use their discretion in marijuana cases, but can issue citations in the other low-level misdemeanors included in the bill. "I believe if you have any amount of marijuana, you should be placed in jail," said Sheriff Gary Painter. (Ironically, the Midland jail administrator was one of the earliest proponents of the idea of issuing citations for B misdemeanors.)
Such anti-pot bluster masks an inconvenient truth: Lots of Texas officers around the state already use a de facto method for ticketing marijuana possession. Wrote a peace officer on the Texas prosecutor's user forum, "We already do it for small quantities of MJ, and have been for years. We cite for possession of drug paraphernalia if it's contained in some way to facilitate it's use such as in a rolled form." The main difference in that case would be that the person is charged with a Class B marijuna possession instead of a Class C paraphernalia violation. So what's the beef, I keep wondering? Quien sabe?
The Dallas News editorialized the new law "clears our jails and frees up our police to apprehend people who pose a real threat to society. We're happy (in a drug-free way) because pot smokers never belonged among the likes of rapists and muggers in our jails." No word yet on whether Dallas police will use the new law, but they damn well should given that county's ongoing jail woes.
So far, Travis is the largest county to have announced it will utilize this new authority, and the Austin Police Department is onboard, citing research that each arrest cost taxpayers $2,000 in addition to the officer's time off the street. "We like the ability to have discretion to make decisions," Austin's Assistant Police Chief David Carter said. The Hays County Sheriff and San Marcos PD have also announced plans to use the new discretion.
What's happening in Corsicana may wind up being a common outcome in the short term: The local sheriff's department will allow deputies to use their new discretion, while the local police department will not. Similarly, the Palo Pinto County Sheriff's deputies will use this discretion, but police in Mineral Wells, the county seat, will not.
I predict Sheriffs generally will adopt policies to use the new law much faster than police departments. The reason: The Sheriff's Office runs the jail, so they care more about overcrowding issues - local police departments and prosecutors frequently just figure that's somebody else's problem. Like the taxpayers'.
Email
|
Print
|
3 Comments
|
Contribute
|
-
»Fort Worth couple charged with holding Nigerian woman in domestic servitude
-
»Canyon Oaks couple fall victim to home invasion
-
»Plano named safest city in North Texas with population over 100,000
-
»Watch out for car burglaries this holiday season
-
»Fort Worth seeks non-punitive alternatives on graffiti
an event
|
a restaurant
|
a garage sale
|
a drink special
|
a movie showtime
|
local music
|
a job
|
a house
|
a deal
|
a pet
|


Clay213, says:
I would say the 'drug war' is only a generation or two away from being declared over. Once these guys who have been running the country since the 70s finally all croak and get the F out-- and we get some younger ideas-- we might finally start seeing some more sensible policies.
Then again, Mitt Romney is running for president and is probably going to be elected.
Anonymous
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
terryorze, says:
It does not really effect me, but I am shocked that it is possible to get arrested for a small amount of Marijuana. If more people knew that, I doubt it would be that way. Stats in the 70s showed that 60% of people that are now 50ish used it daily. I know that they now want it illegal, but they don't want thier kids arrested for using it.
Way early, to declare Mitt president.
There are no potential candidates at the moment to get the moral majority out to vote in either party.
Who could blame them. The Republicans promised the end of abortion and the contract with America. Bill Clinton passed 3 of the points of the contract, and George Bush with a Republican House, Senate, and judiciary repealed one and passed none. As soon as Republicans had full control they decided that public service meant serving oneself.
Anonymous
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Clay213, says:
It doesn't effect me at all either, as I've never smoked anything or used any drugs at all.
But the DARE program failed immensely at convincing me that marijuana is something people need to be jailed for.
Make'm all legal as far as I'm concerned. Punish people who get out of control. Help people who need help. The current setup, only creates organized crime, instigates murder, and ruins far more people's lives than it should.
Anonymous
2 years, 3 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal