[column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]
When we report on arrests and ongoing cases in the criminal justice system, we often are left with an incomplete picture of what actually happened. But occasionally there are situations in which we can safely assume we know what happened – and why it happened – after reading an article on a particular case.
The article we’d like to discuss concerns what would appear to have been a rather ordinary occurrence, this one taking place last week at Bushmaster Park in Flagstaff. For those of you who don’t know, Bushmaster is a 20-acre community park with tennis and volleyball courts, picnic areas, a dog park, and other facilities. Over the years, however, it has gained a reputation as a place where so-called “street alcoholics” go to panhandle and do whatever it is street alcoholics supposedly do.
In any event, several days ago police were called to the park to investigate a claim that people were drinking and “being loud.” When police arrived, they say a woman in the group began walking away, and disregarded their instruction for her to stop. At that point, it is alleged that a bottle of liquor (specifically, Fireball Whiskey), dropped out of her coat and shattered on the ground. When the officer asked the woman her name, she said it was “[expletive] you.” Well, apparently that wasn’t her name, since she is now charged with giving a false report to a police officer. In addition, she is charged with criminal littering, and having a glass container in a city park.
It doesn’t take a lot to understand that the most important aspect of this case is the apparent anger of the cops over the woman’s belligerent attitude. So what does the officer do? He tries to find what he thinks is a way to punish the woman for her loud mouth, and charges her with false reporting. We’re familiar with the applicable statute, A.R.S. 13-2907.01, and we think it’s safe to say that a report such as the one in this case (i.e., “[expletive] you”) was not designed to mislead anyone, nor was it intended to cause official action or inaction, nor did it place anyone in fear of injury. In short, the woman cursed at the cop. In the absence of additional facts, our conclusion is that his reaction – to “show her” – was to charge her with an offense that has nothing to do with reality. Way to go, Flagstaff!
Law Offices of David A. Black
40 North Central Avenue #1850
Phoenix, AZ 85004
(480) 280-8028
[/column]