quincy
Senior Member
A poster named realfilm started a thread titled "Arrested for stealing electric? Really??"
This thread's sole purpose is to clarify some of the misinformation provided in that thread, so that readers are not confused as to the facts.
The Sarasota, Florida, incident a newer member of the forum (SmokeyParkCop) spoke of in realfilm's thread involved a homeless man and his arrest by Sarasota police for "theft of utilities." Smokey seemed to believe that this incident proved, in some way, somehow, that the use by others of outdoor outlets was allowable if the outdoor outlets were accessible by the public. This is a wrong belief.
In the Sarasota case, a homeless man named Darren Kersey was arrested in Gillepsie Park (a public park) for charging his cell phone at one of the Park's electrical outlets. The judge hearing the charges against Kersey dismissed the case because Kersey was charging his phone at a public charging station in a public park.
To discourage the homeless from congregating in the Park, Sarasota officials had advised the homeless to charge their cell phones and their wheelchairs at homeless shelters and the officials also, briefly, shut off power to the public charging station. But there is (generally) nothing illegal about charging a cell phone in a place designated as a public charging station. Sarasota, in contrast to the treatment of the homeless in the Park, has allowed electric car owners to charge their cars for free at public charging stations.
This disparate treatment of the poor (especially the homeless) versus the rich by officials in Sarasota was noticed by the ACLU, and Andrea Mogensen of the ACLU has filed three lawsuits against Sarasota on behalf of three homeless men (including Kersey) who the ACLU feel were falsely arrested.
Of course, the Sarasota, Florida, case of a man arrested for theft of utilities over cell phone charging at a public charging station has absolutely no relevance to the Chamblee, Georgia, case of Kaveh Kamooneh, the man arrested for theft of utilities over his electric car charging using an outdoor outlet at a school where he had been told previously he was not allowed.
The difference between these two incidents, not including the different state and different set of facts
, is that one was a permissible use of an electrical outlet and one appears to be an impermissible use of an electrical outlet. The Gillepsie Park outlets were made available specifically for use by the public as a public charging station. The school outlets were NOT made available to the public as a public charging station.
Therefore, one was NOT a theft of utility and Kersey's case was legitimately dismissed. One WAS a theft of utility, under the definition of Georgia law, Statute 16-8-2 Theft by Taking, or, possibly, Statute 16-8-5 Theft of Services, and it will be up to a court in February to determine if Kamooneh will escape his charges or be convicted.
As an additional note, Kamooneh has stated his defense as such: "I don't agree that every taking without consent is theft. I don't think the Chamblee Police Department thinks that ... cell phones, laptops are regularly nowadays charged without consent at public places or commercial places."
The Police Department, in response, has said: "A theft is a theft. [What Kamooneh has done] is no different from him pulling up in your carport and saying, 'Hey, I see an outlet.' "
edit to add: I see that permanently-banned member, Willlyjo (who has been banned from this and several other forums) has "liked" this post. Interesting. I assume this means that Willly now realizes that the Smokey-posts he "liked" in realfilm's thread were irrelevant to realfilm's legal question and concern.
This thread's sole purpose is to clarify some of the misinformation provided in that thread, so that readers are not confused as to the facts.
The Sarasota, Florida, incident a newer member of the forum (SmokeyParkCop) spoke of in realfilm's thread involved a homeless man and his arrest by Sarasota police for "theft of utilities." Smokey seemed to believe that this incident proved, in some way, somehow, that the use by others of outdoor outlets was allowable if the outdoor outlets were accessible by the public. This is a wrong belief.
In the Sarasota case, a homeless man named Darren Kersey was arrested in Gillepsie Park (a public park) for charging his cell phone at one of the Park's electrical outlets. The judge hearing the charges against Kersey dismissed the case because Kersey was charging his phone at a public charging station in a public park.
To discourage the homeless from congregating in the Park, Sarasota officials had advised the homeless to charge their cell phones and their wheelchairs at homeless shelters and the officials also, briefly, shut off power to the public charging station. But there is (generally) nothing illegal about charging a cell phone in a place designated as a public charging station. Sarasota, in contrast to the treatment of the homeless in the Park, has allowed electric car owners to charge their cars for free at public charging stations.
This disparate treatment of the poor (especially the homeless) versus the rich by officials in Sarasota was noticed by the ACLU, and Andrea Mogensen of the ACLU has filed three lawsuits against Sarasota on behalf of three homeless men (including Kersey) who the ACLU feel were falsely arrested.
Of course, the Sarasota, Florida, case of a man arrested for theft of utilities over cell phone charging at a public charging station has absolutely no relevance to the Chamblee, Georgia, case of Kaveh Kamooneh, the man arrested for theft of utilities over his electric car charging using an outdoor outlet at a school where he had been told previously he was not allowed.
The difference between these two incidents, not including the different state and different set of facts
, is that one was a permissible use of an electrical outlet and one appears to be an impermissible use of an electrical outlet. The Gillepsie Park outlets were made available specifically for use by the public as a public charging station. The school outlets were NOT made available to the public as a public charging station. Therefore, one was NOT a theft of utility and Kersey's case was legitimately dismissed. One WAS a theft of utility, under the definition of Georgia law, Statute 16-8-2 Theft by Taking, or, possibly, Statute 16-8-5 Theft of Services, and it will be up to a court in February to determine if Kamooneh will escape his charges or be convicted.
As an additional note, Kamooneh has stated his defense as such: "I don't agree that every taking without consent is theft. I don't think the Chamblee Police Department thinks that ... cell phones, laptops are regularly nowadays charged without consent at public places or commercial places."
The Police Department, in response, has said: "A theft is a theft. [What Kamooneh has done] is no different from him pulling up in your carport and saying, 'Hey, I see an outlet.' "
edit to add: I see that permanently-banned member, Willlyjo (who has been banned from this and several other forums) has "liked" this post. Interesting. I assume this means that Willly now realizes that the Smokey-posts he "liked" in realfilm's thread were irrelevant to realfilm's legal question and concern.
Last edited by a moderator: