Charges dropped & now case reopened!?

[throttlehog]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

On May 12th, about 11:30 pm, my son and a friend of his were walking home from a party. They had been drinking and decided not to risk driving home. While they were walking past an apartment complex a police officer pulled alongside them and pointed his spotlight at their faces. He then stopped his vehicle, got out, approached them and asked them what they were up to. When they explained they were walking home from a party, the officer told them they were both under arrest and ordered them to put their hands behind their heads. While handcuffing them he said that if he saw so much as a twitch from one of them he'd slam 400,000 volts into their body and then proceeded to verbally taunt them like he was trying to get a rise out them. It wasn't until backup arrived that my son was told for what he was arrested - receiving stolen property and conspiracy. It seems that earlier the PD had received reports of an individual(s) breaking into cars at the apartment complex they were walking past and they just happened to walk by not long afterwards. The cop put 2 and 2 together and got 75... Both boys were booked into the county jail. My son bailed out the following day and the following day he heard from his friend who had been released because the charges were dropped. When my son's court date came around, we went to the courthouse and could not find his name on any of the dockets, so we headed over to the clerk's office and were told the charges had been dropped. Cool. Now, two months later, he receives a letter from the court stating that a complaint has been filed against him by the State of California and they are charging him with 496(a)-PC (17PC) Receiving Stolen Property, and below that an appearance date is listed. My question is, what gives? Is this a common practice? Other than the fact that he did not receive stolen property, is there any recourse?

 

[Eekamouse]

Unless your son is under the age of 18, this is not your problem, which is good since you weren't there and have no idea what really happened anyway. You don't know what was said to the cops. You don't know that the cops taunted them. You only know what your child told you occurred. I imagine the cops would relate an altogether different version of the encounter.

 

[CdwJava]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

On May 12th, about 11:30 pm, my son and a friend of his were walking home from a party. They had been drinking and decided not to risk driving home.

How old were they?

It seems that earlier the PD had received reports of an individual(s) breaking into cars at the apartment complex they were walking past and they just happened to walk by not long afterwards. The cop put 2 and 2 together and got 75.

Or, he got 4. Since you were not there, you do not know what happened or even what the officer(s) knew or believed at the time.

Now, two months later, he receives a letter from the court stating that a complaint has been filed against him by the State of California and they are charging him with 496(a)-PC (17PC) Receiving Stolen Property, and below that an appearance date is listed. My question is, what gives? Is this a common practice? Other than the fact that he did not receive stolen property, is there any recourse?

PC 496(a) is typically a felony. What subsection is listed after the PC 17? If it is 17(b) then that should mean the charge has been filed as a misdemeanor and NOT a felony.

What sometimes happens is that the District Attorney is not prepared to proceed at arraignment so they drop the charges until some future date. For felonies they generally have 3 years to file, and for most misdemeanors it is 1 year. Over the last few years DA's offices have seen drastic cuts so many non-violent cases get set aside for a time and if the arraignment cannot be made on time, or if additional information is needed, the DA will set the matter aside until he or she can look into it again. Apparently they decided to file now.

At this point in time he should speak to a criminal defense attorney and ONLY to said attorney. Anything he tells you is NOT a confidential communication and you can - in theory - be subpoenaed to speak on what he tells you. At this point you are not a witness so there would be no great reason to call you to the stand to testify.

Ultimately, it will be up to the state to prove the elements of the crime. That means that the state will have to show that he received or was found in possession of property he knew or reasonably should have known was stolen. Unless you have read the police reports, you honestly do NOT know what the police know and it is possible that they DO have a case. Sometimes kids - young adults and teenagers - do stupid things ... even more often when they have been drinking. So, try and keep an open mind that they may have done something to bring this down around them. It may not have been this crime, but it is possible that they did something to land in this predicament.

 

[betachains]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

On May 12th, about 11:30 pm, my son and a friend of his were walking home from a party. ..*****QUOTE]

Most cops aren't stupid enough to send a felony charge to the DA without good evidence, I suspect that your son did a heckalot more than reported to you.

Help him find (and fund) a good criminal lawyer.

 

[throttlehog]

Unless your son is under the age of 18, this is not your problem, which is good since you weren't there and have no idea what really happened anyway. You don't know what was said to the cops. You don't know that the cops taunted them. You only know what your child told you occurred. I imagine the cops would relate an altogether different version of the encounter.

My child is over 18, and no it is not my problem; however, I will help my son in any capacity that I can - no matter what his age - he will always be my little boy. Although I was not there, I do know what the cop said and did because my son managed to record everything with his cellphone, which he sent to me, before it was taken from him. And the cop's behavior was HEINOUS, to put it mildly, but that is a separate issue entirely and not one I will discuss here. Up until the point he started recording, I obviously have no idea what transpired and I'm not the type of foolish mom who believes everything her boys tell her - I was 20 years old at one time too and prone to mischievous, sometimes illegal, activities. I was certainly not the most forthcoming or honest with my folks either. At this point in his life the only parenting that's left for me to do is to support him when he needs it and offer advice or assistance when he asks for it and hope that some things I taught him during his first 18 years actually "stuck". I posed the question to hopefully get a clearer picture of the situation and what could possibly happen in order to prepare myself emotionally.

 

[betachains]

Get a criminal defense lawyer. Unless your son truly is innocent (doubtful) or there is something wrong with the arrest and charges, the lawyer can plead down to a misdemeanor. Or not.

He needs a lawyer. Immediately.

 

[CdwJava]

My child is over 18, and no it is not my problem; however, I will help my son in any capacity that I can - no matter what his age - he will always be my little boy.

I have four boys - three of which have had contact with the law and one with a juvenile detention (i.e. taken home). There is a difference between being supportive and being blind to the possible truth. The former is preferable to the latter as it can allow you to be a compassionate parent without condoning criminal or self-destructive behavior.

Although I was not there, I do know what the cop said and did because my son managed to record everything with his cellphone, which he sent to me, before it was taken from him. And the cop's behavior was HEINOUS, to put it mildly, but that is a separate issue entirely and not one I will discuss here.

Also keep in mind that you may not have the encounter or conversation in context - recorded or not. I have seen a great many recordings that provided a much different than they might have when the entire scene was set including what had transpired before and after.

But, the officer's attitude is a personnel matter (if an issue at all), not a legal one.

If the reference to PC 17 in the charges you posted are for for 17(b) then it appears he is being charged with a misdemeanor for possessing or receiving stolen property. That's better than a felony. Depending on the facts and the programs available in your jurisdiction, his attorney might even be able to work out a deal to keep this from being on his record a few years down the road should a guilty plea be the best course of action.

 

[RedemptionMan]

Most cops aren't stupid enough to send a felony charge to the DA without good evidence,

Yes, they are, happens all the time and they over charge to get more things to stick or plea to a lesser charge.

 

[CdwJava]

The police don't need "good evidence," they need only "probable cause" in order to send a complaint to the DA. It is up to the DA to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to overcome the burden of reasonable doubt. The police are often obligated to send complaints to the DA and let the DA make the charging decision. Call it CYA, or whatever, but that's how it works.

 

[Proserpina]

Are such recordings legal in CA?

(I'm assuming the Cop in question wasn't aware he was being recorded)

 

[CdwJava]

Are such recordings legal in CA?

(I'm assuming the Cop in question wasn't aware he was being recorded)

Yes. There is no presumption of this interaction being a confidential communication. That being said, the matter hasn't been litigated (to my knowledge), but I can't imagine given the status of the law here in other respects that any court would see that this recording was unlawful.

I'm a little perplexed how he got the recording unless he had a phone that he could switch to audio record and put it in his pocket. I know I don't allow detainees to fiddle with cell phones - or anything else, for that matter - while I'm dealing with them. But, I know there are phones that have quick record buttons that can be hit and then set aside, so I am assuming that's what happened.

In any event, the attitude thing is almost certainly unrelated to any criminal allegation.

 

[Proserpina]

Yes. There is no presumption of this interaction being a confidential communication. That being said, the matter hasn't been litigated (to my knowledge), but I can't imagine given the status of the law here in other respects that any court would see that this recording was unlawful.

I'm a little perplexed how he got the recording unless he had a phone that he could switch to audio record and put it in his pocket. I know I don't allow detainees to fiddle with cell phones - or anything else, for that matter - while I'm dealing with them. But, I know there are phones that have quick record buttons that can be hit and then set aside, so I am assuming that's what happened.

In any event, the attitude thing is almost certainly unrelated to any criminal allegation.

Thanks for explaining

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Though foolish, you could send your son to be interviewed again and request "Good Cop". Seriously, heinous means the officers was doing his job attempting to elicit facts and a confession. He gets paid to do it.

 

[CdwJava]

Though foolish, you could send your son to be interviewed again and request "Good Cop". Seriously, heinous means the officers was doing his job attempting to elicit facts and a confession. He gets paid to do it.

There is a method of interrogation that requires confrontation and bluster in an attempt to keep a subject off guard and to seek to elicit an emotional response to queries (which are often more honest than thoughtful contrived ones). People tend to REact when confronted with hostility, and sometimes the spontaneous truth vomits forth. Whether this was the case here, who knows? But, all because the officer was rude and accusatory does not mean anything improper occurred ... as you correctly point out.