Penal Code 647(F) While on My 10 Acres

I would be very careful here.

You could avoid a public intox charge and trade it for a false 911 pretty easily.

I would suspect that the actions taken by the OP would be seen as either a criminal act of some sort or the action of a person that is in need of a couple of days of observation in a safe place. Not sure which you would prefer.


I would suggest that if the did dispatch the helicopter to assist, what was expressed to dispatch was worse than what you are saying here. It costs $$ to run the thing and there is a huge liability with operating a helicopter. I don't imagine they take them out without a reason.

Quote:

---

"Public place" means open to public use and will depend on all the particular facts. (Cruz (2008) 44 Cal.4th 636, 674--a person found in a vehicle parked on the dirt shoulder of the highway outside a residential fence was in a public place; compare White (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 886--fenced front yard, containing three dogs, was not a public place; R.K. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1615, 1621-1622--woodshed located 10 to 15 feet from side of a house was not a public place.)

---

I believe that really supports my contention more than yours, especially the fenced front yard. The dirt shoulder of a road is a public place. It is most likely within the highway ROW. Fenced yard: not public. woodshed: not a public place.

that tends to support the claim of private property is not considered a public place. I have no doubt you could come up with a better citation to support your claim. We all have discussed this from time to time. It always ends up: California does some things I do not like.:)

as to him being in a public place at some time: he did go to the neighbors house.;)

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

I would be very careful here.

You could avoid a public intox charge and trade it for a false 911 pretty easily.

---

True.

I'd plead to the "f" as it is far more likely to have a diversion program than the PC 653x ... though the state would have to prove the intent to annoy or harass.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

True.

I'd plead to the "f" as it is far more likely to have a diversion program than the PC 653x ... though the state would have to prove the intent to annoy or harass.

---

Wouldn't calling the police and demanding help and then running away and hiding qualify?

Not to mention the whole belligerent thing?

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Wouldn't calling the police and demanding help and then running away and hiding qualify?

Not to mention the whole belligerent thing?

---

They have intentionally made the burden of proof for this rather high. I believe it is in order to NOT inhibit anyone from calling 9-1-1 if they THINK there might be a leigitimate need.

653x. (a) Any person who telephones the 911 emergency line with the
intent to annoy or harass another person is guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000),
by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than six months, or by
both the fine and imprisonment. Nothing in this section shall apply
to telephone calls made in good faith.
(b) An intent to annoy or harass is established by proof of
repeated calls over a period of time, however short, that are
unreasonable under the circumstances.
(c) Upon conviction of a violation of this section, a person also
shall be liable for all reasonable costs incurred by any unnecessary
emergency response.

The burden of proof is pretty high, as you can see.

The infraction is a little easier, but you must still show intent, and a written warning is required:

653y. (a) Any person who knowingly allows the use or who uses the
911 telephone system for any reason other than because of an
emergency is guilty of an infraction, punishable as follows:
(1) For a first violation, a written warning shall be issued to
the violator by the public safety entity originally receiving the
call describing the punishment for subsequent violations. The written
warning shall inform the recipient to notify the issuing agency that
the warning was issued inappropriately if the recipient did not
make, or knowingly allow the use of the 911 telephone system for, the
nonemergency 911 call. The law enforcement agency may provide
educational materials regarding the appropriate use of the 911
telephone system.
(2) For a second or subsequent violation, a citation may be issued
by the public safety entity originally receiving the call pursuant
to which the violator shall be subject to the following penalties
that may be reduced by a court upon consideration of the violator's
ability to pay:
(A) For a second violation, a fine of fifty dollars ($50).
(B) For a third violation, a fine of one hundred dollars ($100).
(C) For a fourth or subsequent violation, a fine of two hundred
and fifty dollars ($250).
(b) The parent or legal guardian having custody and control of an
unemancipated minor who violates this section shall be jointly and
severally liable with the minor for the fine imposed pursuant to this
section.
(c) For purposes of this section, "emergency" means any condition
in which emergency services will result in the saving of a life, a
reduction in the destruction of property, quicker apprehension of
criminals, or assistance with potentially life-threatening medical
problems, a fire, a need for rescue, an imminent potential crime, or
a similar situation in which immediate assistance is required.
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), this section shall not apply
to a telephone corporation or any other entity for acts or omissions
relating to the routine maintenance, repair, or operation of the 911
or 311 telephone system.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

that tends to support the claim of private property is not considered a public place. I have no doubt you could come up with a better citation to support your claim. We all have discussed this from time to time. It always ends up: California does some things I do not like.:)

as to him being in a public place at some time: he did go to the neighbors house.;)

---

That depends ... was this big backyard fenced off? If not, then the stronger claim may well be for the public place argument. That is why the highlighted portion from Cruz. Like probable cause, an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances must be evaluated. And, of course, an argument can be made that he HAD been in public because he had been at the neighbor's house likely causing a scene and acting rather out of control. If they had to launch a copter to look for him because he was in such a panicked or manic state, that seems to indicate that someone articulated something that indicated he was unable to care for himself.

Quote:

---

=cdwjava;445680]

That depends ... was this big backyard fenced off? If not, then the stronger claim may well be for the public place argument. That is why the highlighted portion from Cruz. Like probable cause, an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances must be evaluated.

---

and that is why I said what I did. You most likely can provide support for your point. I simply prefer to acquiesce. It still doesn't mean I think it is right but then, I don't live in California so it doesn't affect me anyway.

Quote:

---

And, of course, an argument can be made that he HAD been in public because he had been at the neighbor's house likely causing a scene and acting rather out of control.

---

and that was the point of my last sentence.;)

Quote:

---

If they had to launch a copter to look for him because he was in such a panicked or manic state, that seems to indicate that someone articulated something that indicated he was unable to care for himself.

---

my suspicions as well. Seriously, who asks a neighbor to call the ambo and then runs to the back of his property due to the sirens.

Seriously not trying to make fun of you SARmedic. I understand what you said about the agoraphobia thing. Merely trying to show why the police thought there was something more than you are expressing here. What you did would be seen as either playing a game (resulting in criminal charges), or more likely, they believed you were having some severe psych problems and they were concerned of the outcome.

I would guess that due to the alcohol on your breath and your actions at the time, the officer felt is was more of the criminal situation.

I suspect that due to the totality of the circumstances, no one felt safe leaving you out there running about and acting oddly. As such, they had two options - take him to the hospital (which you refused) or arrest him to keep him safe. They apparently had no choice but to do the latter.

Had they NOT arrested him and something later happened to him, it is very likely that he or his heirs would sue the county for NOT assisting him.

I don't see it,when the police arrived he was in the back.They forced him to the front apparently near a road that if really stretched might be considered in public view.The police had to search for him.They never saw him off his property.In Florida they can't arrest for misdemeanor unless they witnessed the crime.

It would seem to me the intention is to be able to prosecute things like flashing passers by out of your home windows.
Is the officer a doctor now.If a person gets drunk and starts having heart palpations then they don't deserve medical treatment unless they can call from behind closed curtains.
What the heck ever happened to logic and proportion.
Jeesh have some compassion.This officer is a being a bully.

Quote:

---

Quoting greenmancan

---

I don't see it,when the police arrived he was in the back.They forced him to the front apparently near a road that if really stretched might be considered in public view.The police had to search for him.They never saw him off his property.In Florida they can't arrest for misdemeanor unless they witnessed the crime.

---

He was not IN Florida, he was in CA. And he WAS observed in public by the other caller, and, unless his backyard is fenced in or otherwise separated from the rest of the world, it is arguably in public.

Quote:

---

What the heck ever happened to logic and proportion.
Jeesh have some compassion.This officer is a being a bully.

---

Hey, if California weren't the most litigious state in the nation, I might agree. But law enforcement and medical services get sued here every day - even for their failure to act. So, I GUARANTEE that had they NOT acted, and he had been injured after everyone cleared, they would have sued law enforcement and EMS for failing to take action.

In this instance, the person was acting so outrageously that apparently someone felt the need to call the medics and even to launch a helicopter. They don't do that if they just have someone acting a little out of sorts ... he must have been acting WAAAAY off base for them to go through that expense and effort to come check him out.

I apologize for using Florida law but I havn't had time to study Ca. law.I only bring it up because something similar may be found in Ca law and is worth throwing out there in case someone overlooked it.

I don't know how else to mention this either except to refer to something I know exists in Fl.,but I don't know if Ca. has a similar version.The baker act,if he is a threat to anyone or himself he MUST go to the hospital or mental facility for 72 hour observation.
I agree that he needed to go to the hospital because in his state of mind he needed help.Not to be further traumatized by police that are angry about having to use their helicopter.
The police here would be sued for taking him to jail.Here he would have found compassion.Unless a bully responded.
I find it difficult to believe that Ca has such a draconian attitude toward it's citizens.

Would they arrest a women who was drunk in a bar,then raped and thrown in an alley.Because it sounds like they would(this actually happened in Tamp Fl. because she had an outstanding misdemeanor warrant).And if she came here to ask if it was legal would she get any understanding at this forum or would you tell her how stupid she was for being drunk?