An officer cannot generally make an arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in his presence. It would have to be forwarded to the DA for charges. There are exceptions, but this would not be one of them.
Originally Posted by Johnmelissa
Most of what you have described previously were not crimes, they were civil issues. As to why he was not charged if any crimes could be articulated, that is something you'd have to ask the local prosecutor. But, this is not a crime for which most cities would seek charges against anyone.
The perpetrator is a "sworn police officer" who has committed similar misdemeanors multiple times over the past 9 years and has NEVER been charged or otherwise held responsible for his crimes. WHY???
Because of the intent.
CA authorities purport to actively prosecute "taggers" who paint graffiti. How is this not as serious to authorities?
What was the purpose of this metal plate? To act as a ramp over a curb? Was it a plate with a number? I'm not sure what this thing was ... can't quite picture it in my not-yet-caffeine-filled mind.
And the legal definition of "malice" per PC 7 is:
The words "malice" and "maliciously" import a wish to vex,
annoy, or injure another person, or an intent to do a wrongful act,
established either by proof or presumption of law.
Even if the act might have been a knowing and intentional act of destruction, it was not meant to vex, annoy or injure the city so much as it was to selfishly do something he wanted done. It is commonplace for cities to ask for restitution as opposed to prosecution ... it is cheaper, too. Prosecution takes money ... seeking cooperation and restitution does not.