Getting a Drunk In Public Charge Dismissed

What is the name of your state (California)?

I was arrested for allegedly violating CA Penal Code Section 647(f) Drunk in Public.

Not only was I not intoxicated, I was arrested at the police station for said charge when I went to file a complaint against the officers I had been detained by earlier.

I am strongly considering filing a civil suit for false arrest, defemation of character, etc. but understand that the courts will delay the filing of a civil suit until a criminal matter is resolved.

I cannot afford an attorney and will not plead guilty as I live by my principles. Would anyone agree that a public defender has a reasonable chance to get the charge dismissed based upon a lack of probable cause (I was clear and coherent in speaking, had no problem walking or balancing, was respectful and non-confrontational)? I had requested and was denied a blood, breath or urine test to confirm that my BAC level was equivalent to that of 16 ounces of beer.

I firmly believe that the officers were pissed off that I was filing a complaint (there had been some vandalism near the bar I was at - I was not told what was vandalized, if I fit the description of the suspect nor who the reporting party was) against them.

Thank you in advance for any advice, suggestions, etc.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

OK, I'll try to read between the lines and see if I can interpret what may have happened. Tell me if I'm close.

Lets start with the end of your post since that apparently was the beginning of your troubles.

(there had been some vandalism near the bar I was at - I was not told what was vandalized, if I fit the description of the suspect nor who the reporting party was)

Click to expand...

So you were at a bar enjoying a cold beer. The police, for a reason which escapes you, detained you because they were investigating an act of vandalism, which they believed you may have been responsible for. This vandalism occurred close to a bar where you were drinking, but you claim that you're not responsible and do not know what was vandalized.

During the course of their investigation and while you were being detained, they didn't explain to you, the reason you were being detained and basically, didn't answer any of your questions concerning the situation.

This was completely unacceptable to you and you most likely expressed this fact to them in one way or another.

Eventually, they released you, because they didn't have enough evidence to arrest you for the vandalism, even though they still may have believed you were responsible.

Although you were probably relieved by the fact that you weren't arrested for the act of vandalism, after another beer or two you started to convince yourself that they were completely out of line for shaking you down and suspecting that you would commit a crime.

The more you thought about the situation, the more it pissed you off. You eventual decided that you had to do something to let these officers know that they can't push you around, treat you like a criminal and not even tell you why they were doing so, without you taking action yourself.

That action became filing a report against them for detaining you without a good cause, or without explaining to you, what that good cause may have been

You subsequently go to the police station to voice your opinion, file a complaint and show these officers who they're messing with.

You are then arrested for an alcohol related disorderly conduct charge.

Being a man of principals, you plan on fighting this charge because you believe that with the help of a public defender, you will be found not guilty and possibly even convince the DA to drop the charges altogether.

The evidence you plan on accomplishing this legal strategy with, is the fact that the officers didn't draw blood, urine or breath from you to determine what your BAC was, although you know it would have supported your claim of having drank one 16 ounce beer.

Is this a fairly accurate rendition of what took place?

If so, I don't agree that your public defender will stand any chance of getting these charges dismissed, let alone a reasonable one.

I can provide you with several hypothetical situations of why the officers detained you and acted the way they did, but I can't come up with anything they did wrong, or in violation of your civil rights.

While I enjoy overt sarcasm quite often, please only respond if you can do so without interjecting bias. To "fill in the spaces":

I went from the cab they called [I'm aware of the difference between VC 23152(a) and (b) - no reason to incite them] directly to the police station and therefore did not go in for another drink or two or ten. I hadn't quite finished my first beer when they came in.

As for the vandalism allegation I did not find out that that was the "alleged" reason I was detained until the handcuffs were being removed.

I was escorted out of the bar, handcuffed and stood against a patrol car for 25-30 minutes without any of my politely-asked questions being answered.

Had the officers immediately advised what the detention was related to (i.e. Do you know why we are detaining you?), the matter could've been cleared up and there would've been no hard feelings on my end. There was no resistance on my part whatsoever. I'm sure it is the SOP with this department and any department for that matter with effective police management skills to quickly interview any witness(es) and suspect(s) and to collect any evidence, particularly for an alleged non-violent misdemeanor. Should I add that not one officer was interviewing ANYONE?

It was outright harassment and 4 officers and their sergeant looking for sh!ts and giggles at the end of their shift. Less we not forgot the taunting through the sally gate when two were in their civilian attire.

I still "back the badge". I believe this bunch was the exception and not the rule. LEO's are held to a much higher standard which is obvious in the scrutiny they go through during background investigations. I can understand "brotherhood" and a "code" they may live by, but turning a simple misconduct complaint into a potential civil lawsuit by falsely arresting someone isn't good policy. A refresher course on laws of arrest and ETHICS is in order.

The standard for an arrest for PC 647(f) is that a person was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, and unable to care for themself or the safety of others. The element of alcohol can be met rather easily by the odor of alcohol. The other elements are a tad more difficult. Other than the objective symptoms of alcohol inebriation, one can also be shown to be in violation of the section by causing a disturbance, a fight, or some related public display or disturbance.

There is also no law that requires the police to obtain physical evidence of your alcohol or drug consumption. Since the alcohol element of the offense requires merely that you consumed alcohol, it's a moot point as to how much you had. If you had a lot of liquor or beer, then a high BAC helps to prove the case, so from the police standpoint it is often a good idea. But, one can meet the elements of PC 647(f) even at a low BAC if they are making a scene.

You are free to make a personnel complaint and even to consult an attorney concerning a "false arrest" if you wish. Whether an attorney will agree to take the case or not is another question. Whether you have any damages to speak of may depend on what happened after the arrest at the station. If you were detained and released in short order, there are very little damages. If you were transported to jail and booked, then you might have a greater claim for damages. If no charges are being forwarded for prosecution and you were released pursuant to PC 849(b) then the "arrest" is legally considered a detention.

Potential damages can be important because an attorney will evaluate the case in its totality to determine if it is worthwhile to pursue. An obvious winner will find an attorney willing to take the matter on a contingency basis ... a case that is questionable or a dog will require you to pay up front. If it comes down to the word of four cops versus you, then it's going to be a tough case to pursue.

If you believe you have been wronged, then by all means, consult a civil attorney. First, however, I would recommend consulting a criminal defense attorney if you are being prosecuted for the 647(f) because if you lose the criminal case, then any civil suit goes right out the window.

- Carl

Thanks for the response Carl.

I did speak with several civil attorneys and in light of the fact that I was never booked they said like you did.....very little in the way of damages.

I posted my scenario the day after the worst experience in my life. So yes, I am still angry about their actions and what happened but I've realized I don't need anymore stress in my life and trying to "right" their wrong would give me an ulcer.

Would you suggest having a criminal defense attorney with me at the first hearing? The citation was marked "you may call the clerk and request night court" which leads me to believe I'll be in between small claims cases and traffic citations if I do so. From my past experiences (used to go to small claims for work ALOT at this same court), it is a judge pro tem. Although I've calmed down regarding the civil side of it, I am still adamant about aggressively fighting this. If it is dismissed, will it appear in any public record?

Last week I was mailed a "Notice of Correction" changing the violation time to the time I was released (6 hours after I was initially detained). There was also a notation that indicated "the booking required box should be checked". Does this mean I need go leisurely stroll on down to get a mugshot and fingerprinted?

Additionally, I received letters from 3 attornies today indicating that they found out I was arrested "via public record" however none of the letters listed the charge. I searched the county criminal case file online as well as the county arrest log and my name does not show up. Out of curiousity, how do they obtain this? If it's truely a public record then you wouldn't need a pay service like Lexis Nexis right?

I am 27 and have had one minor traffic citation. I do not and have not ever had a problem with alcohol. I have a drink or two once or twice a month. I'm trying to buy my first house, finish my bachelors and go out of my way to stay out of trouble. Sorry for this ranting.....

Thanks.

SL Dangerous said:

Would you suggest having a criminal defense attorney with me at the first hearing?

Click to expand...

It would not hurt, but shouldn't be required at the arraignment. You will be asked for a plea and if you need assigned counsel (a public defender).

Although I've calmed down regarding the civil side of it, I am still adamant about aggressively fighting this. If it is dismissed, will it appear in any public record?

Click to expand...

Yes. It will appear in the court records that you were charged, and it will appear as an arrest in your state criminal history (which is generally NOT available to the public). The local agency will also have a record of the detention and arrest.

There was also a notation that indicated "the booking required box should be checked". Does this mean I need go leisurely stroll on down to get a mugshot and fingerprinted?

Click to expand...

Yes. if you do not get booked prior to court, the court should order you to do so. Ultimately, your matter will not be able to be heard without the booking. (I can not recall off hand if the booking is required prior to arraignment or before the preliminary hearing ... I'll look that up ...)

Additionally, I received letters from 3 attornies today indicating that they found out I was arrested "via public record" however none of the letters listed the charge. I searched the county criminal case file online as well as the county arrest log and my name does not show up. Out of curiousity, how do they obtain this? If it's truely a public record then you wouldn't need a pay service like Lexis Nexis right?

Click to expand...

The California Government Code provides that an arrest is public record and that there are circumstances where the address of the arrested individual can be released.


- Carl