Penal Code 647(F) While on My 10 Acres

My question involves criminal law for the state of: CA

Long story but I will try to summarize it as best I can. The other day some friends and I spent the day "rock crawling" out in the desert near my place. After we returned I realized, after my friend left, that I had left my pack with my cell phone, car and house keys, in his car. He lives 30+ miles from me and only a few of us in town know him, so getting in touch was a huge problem.

We had been drinking, no doubt about that. The problem happened when I got a ride home and tried to get into my house. I have severe agoraphobia so my house is my "safe" place. I broke a window in order to get in for lack of any other option. After a short while my agoraphobia really kicked in because I had no phone (or landline, that's how remote my place is), no car, nothing, and that is really bad for somebody with this condition. (even if I don't need it at the time, I have to know it's there)

I started to freak out and walked to my neighbors place and asked him for some help and he called 911. I asked him to have them respond code 2 (I am a paramedic myself and know you can request that) because I can't have that much attention, it just makes it worse. Well, I heard the sirens 5 miles off and asked him again to ask dispatch to reduce the response with no avail. I said if they kept responding I would walk into my backyard and I didn't want help. (I live on 10 acres with BLM land behind my place.)

I walked up to the south end of my property and just wanted them to leave, I couldn't take that humiliation. Well, that didn't work at all. Somebody decided to get the helo out to look for me, which wasn't hard because I was just sitting up on the south end of my property. They walked me back down and the medics looked at me and I refused transport. (I had small cuts from getting in my house.) At that point, the sheriff said "Fine, you are going with me." and arrested me in back of my house for public intoxication.

Sorry, but it really was complicated.

• I was ALWAYS on my very remote property.
• I never said or did anything disrespectful.
• I never got a breathalyzer or field sobriety test.
• She said she was going to take me to the hospital after we left, but we ended up at the jail.

Sure, I was drinking earlier in the day but it was my panic disorder that really got to me, not the alcohol. I'm really confused about this whole thing, and I've worked with the Sheriff's Dept. and EMS for well over ten years. (Hence, I would never disrespect an officer.)

Any thoughts? I know it is a lot to take in, but thanks for any responses.

when you are drunk and call the authorities on yourself, you can expect them to charge you with any crime they observe.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

when you are drunk and call the authorities on yourself, you can expect them to charge you with any crime they observe.

---

OP's point is he was not "in public" but on his own property.

It looks as if you were in a publicly accessible place off and on throughout this incident and that is about all that is required for public intoxication.

The elements would include being in a place open to the public (even if private property, if generally open to the use of passersby then it can arguably fit this definition), as well as your being unable to care for yourself or others due to being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Apparently your behavior and your condition gave the officer reason to believe you fit the bill.

Most often these cases are not prosecuted and are considered settled by the arrest. In the event that you are prosecuted, you can likely get some sort of diversion. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.

In the great scheme of things this is not a big deal. But, you might want to consider some of your actions in the future since you are aware that you have these little quirks that can cause you - and others - some concerns.

Carl, I understand your statement but something within that code jumps out at me that "in public" is not properly applied as long as he is actually on his own property.

In the first section of 647, it addresses lewd behavior and it specifically calls out public property, property accessible to the public and in the view of the public:

Quote:

---

(a) Who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or
dissolute conduct in any public place or in any place open to the
public or exposed to public view.

---

while in the section cited, it clearly states only "in any public place". How would you interpret that to include both a public place and a place open to the public (such as you spoke of in your post) especially given that the other terms are used within the same statute and as such, would show that there is in fact a limitation to what section (f) would actually be interpreted to be?

Quote:

---

(f) Who is found in any public place under the influence of
intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any
combination of any intoxicating liqu

---

SARmedic; it would appear the charge is actually disorderly conduct and not public intox:

Quote:

---

647. Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty
of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:

---

I don't know if that makes any difference to you.

It was charged as (f) and I don't think they can change what they are charging you with on the fly to suit their needs.

I was in my backyard, nothing but my house and BLM land in the background. I was fully able to care for myself but was having a severe panic episode. If anything I should have gone to the hospital.

The other thing is, they never took a breathalizer or field sobriety test. (Not to mention never reading my rights to me.) How are they supposed to prosecute this if there is no evidence of intoxication?

P.S. Thanks for all the replies.

P.P.S. My driveway is 0.5 miles from the main road, I have one neighbor remotely close to me.

I was down near my second house in this pic. The terrain is very rugged and most people cant even see it. It is marked Private no matter which way you approach the property. I thought a visual may help to show how remote this is. South of my second house, there is nothing for at least five miles, easily.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...c/property.jpg

The shaded area is the rough area of my ten acres.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Carl, I understand your statement but something within that code jumps out at me that "in public" is not properly applied as long as he is actually on his own property.

---

Not true - at least not true in CA. If it is publicly accessible, it is arguably in a public place.

A judge would have to decide whether the back acreage was public or private. And if it was private, does a disturbance upon the property still constitute "disorderly conduct?"

647. Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty
of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:
(f) Who is found in any public place under the influence of
intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any
combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, controlled substance,
or toluene, in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care
for his or her own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of
his or her being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any
drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any
intoxicating liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructs
or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public
way.

And considering that the OP appears to have run from front to back, he does not get to call "home base" by running into his backyard.

Note that "public place" does no automatically mean that it must be public property.

"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.)

Much of the law on the issue has to do with accessibility. Ultimately, it would be up to a court to determine whether or not he was in a public place at any point during his little episode. From the description, I would think it pretty clear that it can be articulated he was in a public place during some part of it.

Quote:

---

Quoting SARmedic

---

It was charged as (f) and I don't think they can change what they are charging you with on the fly to suit their needs.

.

---

Huh?

Nobody said anything differently. I simply mentioned that that is not a public intoxication charge but a disorderly conduct charge. The main section is 647, which is what I posted. The individual lettered sections are the various elements required for a given situation to be charged within this disorderly conduct charge.

All good arguments.

Everything being equal, I don't know how they could possibly prosecute this without a breathalyzer or field sobriety test.

(And I didn't run to the back of my property, I walked when I heard them five miles out. I was there long before they arrived, not that it really matters. I wasn't fleeing.)

Quote:

---

Quoting SARmedic

---

All good arguments.

Everything being equal, I don't know how they could possibly prosecute this without a breathalyzer or field sobriety test.

---

It's done all the time. A specific measurement is no required. All they must show is that alcohol or drugs were involved (generally pretty easy to determine alcohol as you likely emanated an odor of an alcoholic beverage from your person). Plus, as I said, many counties simply deal with the issue as settled by arrest. In those that don't there are usually ways to enter diversion to keep it off your record.

Next time, if you don't want the medics and the cops, don't call them. If someone calls the medics and there is a possibility they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the cops are coming along, too.

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?

Quote:

---

Quoting greenmancan

---

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.

---

We have a similar statute here simply referred to as W&I 5150. However, one who is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol is not generally subject to placement in a mental health facility so they would not even likely respond to such a situation.

Quote:

---

The police here would be sued for taking him to jail.Here he would have found compassion.Unless a bully responded.

---

They DO have public intoxication laws in FL. I think you over exaggerate a tad. They would not be sued for making an arrest pursuant to probable cause, and taking him into custody until he sobers up may well have been the best and most compassionate act available at the time. The alternative would be to leave a guy acting whacked running around the desert and possibly putting himself at even greater risk. Had he simply remained at home, none of this would have happened. Obviously he was not in a state of mind to care for himself and since it was apparently induced or exaggerated by the use of alcohol, and he refused medical treatment, the authorities had little choice but to arrest him.

Quote:

---

Would they arrest a women who was drunk in a bar,then raped and thrown in an alley.

---

Probably not. But, then, we are not talking about anything even remotely similar so the analogy is pointless.

But, the woman is drunk in public, that's a crime,case closed.

Without a breathalyzer or blood test how would the police know.It could be a mental or physical impairment or psychosis.I would think taking him forcefully to the hospital would have been the proper action.

Quote:

---

Quoting greenmancan

---

But, the woman is drunk in public, that's a crime,case closed.

---

I guarantee that a rape victim would not be charged with public intoxication. Having dealt with drunken victims before I can say with certainty that as long as there is some legitimacy to a claim of being the victim of a greater crime, the drunken victim is highly unlikely to be charged and prosecuted. I'd say it would NEVER happen, but I cannot discount the possibility that it might have happened somewhere at some time in CA.

Plus, CA is not a "letter of the law" state pursuant to statute:

4. The rule of the common law, that penal statutes are to be
strictly construed, has no application to this Code. All its
provisions are to be construed according to the fair import of their
terms, with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice.

Quote:

---

Without a breathalyzer or blood test how would the police know.

---

Oh, you know, that aroma of alcohol emanating from his person ... shall I go into detail how alcohol ie expelled from the body? I'm suire that even you can tell when a person has been drinking, right?

Plus, if no prosecution is desired, no test will be necessary.

Quote:

---

It could be a mental or physical impairment or psychosis.

---

Sure, it could be ... though the officer is not going to make that determination. The defendant can raise mental defect as a defense should he be charged and can find a doctor to make such a claim on his behalf.

Quote:

---

I would think taking him forcefully to the hospital would have been the proper action.

---

But, given the circumstances, almost certainly unlawful in my state.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

. . .
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. . . .

---

The reason they took out the helicopter is because they need to use all the helicopters they have or they start losing helicopters. So they start sending out helicopters on small stakes calls like this. Then when the helicopter finds the person they have to charge because they used the helicopter, and they don't want to say they used a helicopter merely to sort out a cancelled 911 call.

I am really surprised they didn't charge him with worse.

Anyway, the good news is that his county is likelier to keep all the helicopters it has even as social services budgets shrink. That is good news for anyone who does not need welfare, but does spend time scurrying on rocks in the middle of nowhere in the hot sun.

First, it is doubtful that the county has a plan in place to bill anyone for the use of the helicopter. This was not a search and rescue operation.

Second, the helicopter is an outstanding if expensive tool. It saves time, and it can save lives. In areas where they do not have helicopters, they occasionally request them from those agencies that do.

They are invaluable for locating suspects and people in need of aid in rural areas (like mine) and for tracking suspects and vehicles in urban areas. Such tracking saves lives as it can prevent the need for high speed pursuits.

We can all hypothesize why this unnamed agency launched a chopper for this call, but I suspect it had to do with the bizarre actions of our OP and the perception that he needed to be located before he ran off into the desert somewhere. The helicopter can get their faster than ground aid, and can also locate and vector in ground resources. Yes, there can be a "use it or lose it" mentality as well, but that goes with any resource. If you cannot justify a need to the bean counters, even if it saves lives or money when you DO use it, they cannot justify the ongoing expense if it is not used with some frequency. Sadly, many politicians do not look forward or look at risk management, they look more towards what do I get from it today.

Quote:

---

Quoting Buddy Hinton

---

I am really surprised they didn't charge him with worse.

---

There was probably nothing "worse" they could charge him with.

And, as a note, we very often still respond to "cancelled" 911 calls ... there are reasons for that which should be obvious.

Quote:

---

Anyway, the good news is that his county is likelier to keep all the helicopters it has even as social services budgets shrink.

---

Since the funding for the helicopter would not come from the same source of funds as social services, you could be right. Money for social services does not generally come from the same source of funds that would also pay for helicopter services. In other words, the helicopter should not take away one welfare or service program.

However, given the current funding sources and levels in CA it is far more likely that the helicopter will lose funding before social services unless or until the feds and the state decide to stop funding those social programs.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

First, it is doubtful that the county has a plan in place to bill anyone for the use of the helicopter. . . .

---

I wasn't clear. Wasn't trying to suggest that the OP would be "charged" with a bill for services, but rather that he needed to be "charged" crimininally to cover the fact that they sent a helicopter out on a cancelled 911 call.

It is understood that some cancelled 911 calls require follow up. Whether the OP's cancelled 911 call required any sort of follow up (doubtful), it did not require follow up by helicopter visit. However, what might look like a greedy error in judgement from a public safety perspective becomes easier to justify if they stick the OP with a criminal charge -- so they did. It could have been worse -- if the first helicopter had accidentally crashed when responding to the OP's cancelled 911 call, then he probably would have had a lock of JonBenet Ramsey's hair discreetly tucked into his pocket on the frisk incident to arrest when the second heli finally found him.

The point is that they need to do what they need to do in order to make a good showing on those heli's. Tax money is tax money, and the socialist elites are always looking to grab up any spare dollars. So, in this case it was important to take a "criminal" off the "street." Hopefully, if the OP sees it this way he won't feel too bad by looking at the bigger picture of law enforcement needs.

Yes, tax money may be tax money, but funding is not quite that simple. Cutting out a helicopter is not going to add a quarter million to the social services budget, it will simply save the general fund a quarter million that will be spent on additional officers or equipment ... or cut out entirely to the detriment of all. It might also increase response time and expense for search and rescue ops, and increase the risks to the public - thus expensive civil liability - for pursuits or serious critical incidents. Larger, more rural agencies, and large urban agencies have a great need for choppers. Smaller ones, not so much. Many agencies cannot afford them so they help out with regional resources. In San Diego we used the SDPD chopper, the SDSO chopper, the Customs chopper and the CHP chopper. Each had different capabilities, and usually at least one of them was available. They are a fabulous tool and I only wish they were less expensive so we could have more of them.

In rural areas as the OP describes, the utilization of a helicopter would not be uncommon and is a very useful tool. I am sorry that you feel them to be a waste of money, but I have had them save my butt more than once so I love 'em!

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

. . . I am sorry that you feel them to be a waste of money . . .

---

I never said they were a waste of money -- I just said that they need to be justified and that that can lead to unintended consequences (as in the story of this thd). As long as the OP keeps his job and doesn't have to go to prison, I guess no big harm done. When I lived out in Wonder Valley I only had 5 acres and one house, so, to me, the OP seems well off and can hopefully get the legal help he needs.

Depending on what county he is in, I doubt he'll need any legal help as public intox cases are rarely filed in many counties. It does sound like he needs some other manner of professional help, though.