# Disorderly Conduct a Civil Offense w/ no arrest??



## bbelichick

This is in the Outside Sections of the Senate budget...

Civil Infraction VI

SECTION * 63. *Chapter 272 of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking out section 53 and inserting in place thereof the following section:-. 
Section 53. (a) Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than 6 months, or by a fine of not more than $200, or by both such fine and imprisonment. 
(b) Disorderly persons and disturbers of the peace, *for the first offense,* may be subject to a civil fine of $150 and *shall not be subject to apprehension pursuant to section 54 of this chapter.* On a second or subsequent offense, said person may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than 6 months, or by a fine of not more than $200, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Chapter 272: Section 54. Apprehension for certain offences, without warrant; custody

Section 54. Whoever is found in a public way or other public place, committing any offence or disorder set forth in sections fifty-three and fifty-three A, may be apprehended by a sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable or police officer or by any other person by the order of a magistrate or any of said officers, without a warrant and be kept in custody for not more than twenty-four hours, Sundays and legal holidays excepted, until he can be taken before a court or trial justice having jurisdiction of such offence.

FY2010 - SWM Outside Sections

I guess we are supposed to ask someone nicely if it is their first offense before we can lock up a guy going apesh*t at 3am?


----------



## OfficerObie59

WTF???

The whole point of a disorderly conduct/disturbing charge is so that the arrest effected quells the offensive condition at hand.

The first offense civil/second offense criminal is stupid, too. "Hey, ah, dispatch, can you run this guy? Try to find the imginary entry where he's gotten hit with a disorderly before. He's going apeshit calling other people cocksuckers and assholes and picking fights with the homeless wino; trying to see if I can hook him or not...."

Why am I not surprised? It'll be fun though; I suppose I'll just stand outside the Senate President's house and hold signs and yell and holler all night long about how the Quinn Bill shouldn't be cut.

There's some other stuff in there too, like making Operating w/o insurance a civil penalty as well:


> Civil Infraction III
> 
> *SECTION 41. *Section 34J of said chapter 90, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph:-
> Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, whoever violates this section and has not been previously determined responsible of or convicted therefore, or against whom a finding of delinquency or a finding of sufficient facts to support a conviction has not previously been rendered, on a complaint charging a violation of this section, shall be assessed a fine of not more than $500 and such violation shall be deemed a civil motor vehicle infraction*.*


----------



## Guest

Wow... Do these assholes have any ability to predict cause/effect relationships? I guess they are coming off their Question 2 victory toke, and figured they would just hit one out of the park. Add one more thing to my list of stuff I write to my rep about.


----------



## Guest

Answer your radio calls, do as little as possible, and make sure the people who demand you "do your job" instead of working paid details get their wish in the form of an "M" series citation.

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing the look on the face of the first business manager I tell that I can't arrest the lunatic who's causing a disturbance in their place of business.

After the suspect refuses to show me their identification to process a criminal complaint, I will bid them a good day, and then leave. Nothing more to see here.

Thank the Massachusetts Legislature, sheeple.


----------



## Kem25

Has this crap already passed? It looks like they are trying to take away our ability to lock people on suspended licenses as well.


----------



## dcs2244

The lemmings voted for this, let them enjoy it. Naturally, the police will bear the brunt of the blame when things go south.


----------



## LGriffin

Just photocopy the new law and leave a stack for the desk officer to pass out at the window when they come in to complain. The college cops are going to have a great time when the punks get word of this "Don't tase me, bro" amendment.

Now, look at the bigger picture here, we took a huge cut in pay and between recent foolish decisions handed down by the SJC and the Legislature, it is clear that they don't want us to work. Pretty soon, Obama will try to take away our guns. I can only imagine that our brother and sister fallen officers are probably rolling over in their graves.

Christ, if I had an Escalade, satellite TV, a new gaming system and a fridge full of lobsters, I would think I was on welfare! WTF!


----------



## CJIS

This is going to work out real well.


----------



## Kem25

Massachusetts the state where a civil fine is the solution to every one of societies problems. With these nitwits making laws I can see why cops only live an average of five years after leaving the job.


----------



## Guest

I just hung up with a staffer for my state senator; in addition to pushing for full funding for the PCIP again, I also told him what complete insanity this cluster would be.


----------



## mikey742

Kem25 said:


> Massachusetts the state where a civil fine is the solution to every one of societies problems. With these nitwits making laws I can see why cops only live an average of five years after leaving the job.


Kem25

That is not the only solution they use you forgot about Taxes


----------



## 94c

CJIS said:


> This is going to work out real well.


Sure will. If you come across someone taking a fit on the sidewalk with a crowd gathering because, he is either off his meds or can't find his last bag of crack, then...

Go to your trunk. Pull out a lawnchair. Have a seat and watch the show.

What's the worse they could do to you?


----------



## Guest

94c said:


> Sure will. If you come across someone taking a fit on the sidewalk with a crowd gathering because, he is either off his meds or can't find his last bag of crack, then...
> 
> Go to your trunk. Pull out a lawnchair. Have a seat and watch the show.
> 
> What's the worse they could do to you?


I'm just going to smile and wave as I drive by....I've seen that show enough times already.


----------



## SPINMASS

Does this start July 1, 2009 or is their still time for this to be withdrawn.

I just went back and looked over the budget and appears Timilty has redrafted EPS 426 to include a right of arrest for all the offenses listed.


----------



## OfficerObie59

Have we had any update on this?

I can't find the passed version or the amendment that was updated by Timilty. All I can find is that the section of the bill was passed along to the body of the bill in Joint Committee using the Senate language.


----------



## 8MORE

So what happens when the a/h tears the ticket up you just gave them?? Give them another?? Ma. is quickly going from a struggle to live in to being impossible to set foot in.


----------



## Sarge31

See attached from John Scheft.


----------



## 7MPOC

wow


----------



## TRPDiesel

So still arrestable but no incarcaration as a sentence for first offense. That was status quo anyhow


----------



## MetrowestPD

Here is John Scheft's interpretation if anyone is looking for it.

http://www.ledimensions.com/images/stories/2009_mptc_inst17_op_after_susp__disorderly.pdf


----------



## j809

Still arrest for Disorderly just affects courts with a $150 fine and no possibility of jail time for 1st offense.


----------



## 7MPOC

You know what is a joke, having the right of arrest for op after sus is a great tool that was just taken away. This was a great way for being able to scoop someone on a shit charge when your real intention is to get him back to headquarters for info on other crimes.. Although most pin heads have multiple subsequent offenses on the KQ so this might not be as bad as it reads......


----------



## Kilvinsky

8MORE said:


> So what happens when the a/h tears the ticket up you just gave them?? Give them another?? Ma. is quickly going from a struggle to live in to being impossible to set foot in.


The ticket was given for the FIRST offense. Tearing it, SECOND OFFENSE?


----------



## Kem25

7MPOC said:


> You know what is a joke, having the right of arrest for op after sus is a great tool that was just taken away. This was a great way for being able to scoop someone on a shit charge when your real intention is to get him back to headquarters for info on other crimes.. Although most pin heads have multiple subsequent offenses on the KQ so this might not be as bad as it reads......


I had a suspended license pop (5 surchargebale events) a short time ago that turned into a poss. w/intent when he tried to ditch drugs in the cruiser, a stolen property charge when a stolen check was found at booking and BCI pinned 3 B&E's on the clown after matching his shoes. Granted the detectives asked me to arrest this kid but that one charge led to boatload more. While this does not happen all the time the legislature has made sure it will not happen again.


----------



## EBPD240

Instead of 90/23, just write them 90/10 unlicensed operation. Then you still have the right of arrest, that will work.


----------



## MetrowestPD

This is another obvious ploy of the legislature to raise revenue. You now have a $500 ticket written for OAS and for uninsured. No more arraignments and court hearings. If they want to appeal it, it will cost them $25 for clerks hearing and $50 for the judges appeal. Lastly by making this a civil offense it lowers the Commonwealth's burden of proof from beyond a reasonable doubt to preponderance of the evidence, which means more revenue. End of story.


----------



## Adrian

interesting point by EBPD


----------



## Kilvinsky

Ok, so let's be sure on this, the Disorderly thing is PENDING? Not law as of yet? Did I misunderstand?

If so, I'll be calling my state senators TODAY.


----------



## Kem25

Kilvinsky said:


> Ok, so let's be sure on this, the Disorderly thing is PENDING? Not law as of yet? Did I misunderstand?
> 
> If so, I'll be calling my state senators TODAY.


From my understanding and what our department heads have told us Disorderly is still arrestable as before. The change comes in that a first offense now only carries a max. fine of $150 (which is fine anyways since the majority of time QDC will dismiss the charge for $100). A second offense carries a jail sentence. I am sure more guidance will be coming down but if not we will just have to wait and see what the different courts want done with these revenue enhancers.


----------



## 7MPOC

Kem25 said:


> I had a suspended license pop (5 surchargebale events) a short time ago that turned into a poss. w/intent when he tried to ditch drugs in the cruiser, a stolen property charge when a stolen check was found at booking and BCI pinned 3 B&E's on the clown after matching his shoes. Granted the detectives asked me to arrest this kid but that one charge led to boatload more. While this does not happen all the time the legislature has made sure it will not happen again.


My point exactly! Anyhow, we can still tow and complete an inventory search so anything found therein can still be good to go.

Kilvinsky, the right of arrest for disorderly still exists, someone with some sense saw how detrimental that could have been and made sure we still have that ability.


----------



## OfficerObie59

7MPOC said:


> Anyhow, we can still tow and complete an inventory search so anything found therein can still be good to go.


You must have a pretty liberal inventory policy. I can't inventory if the owner basically has the ability to take out all the items of value before his vehicle gets hooked, previously such as in a run-of-the-mill REVO/INSC incident.



EBPD240 said:


> Instead of 90/23, just write them 90/10 unlicensed operation. Then you still have the right of arrest, that will work.


I would be very careful doing that w/o legal guidance...like I said, I don't know that just because you're suspended means you per se don't have a licnese. If you get suspended from your job, do you no longer have a job? Furthermore, when it comes to suspendeds, 90/10 specifically looks to 90/23 for the penalties:


> Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, no person shall operate on the ways of the commonwealth any motor vehicle, whether registered in this commonwealth or elsewhere, if the registrar shall have suspended or revoked any license to operate motor vehicles issued to him under this chapter, or shall have suspended his right to operate such vehicles, and such license or right has not been restored or a new license to operate motor vehicles has not been issued to him. *Operation of a motor vehicle in violation of this paragraph shall be subject to the same penalties as provided in section twenty-three for operation after suspension or revocation and before restoration or issuance of a new license or the restoration of the right to operate.*


http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/90-10.htm


----------



## Kilvinsky

Thank you for the clarifications. The thought that the right of arrest was removed was terrifying.

Ok, a slight exaggeration.


----------



## CLOWN PATROL

To the citizen's of the commonwealth-Let's do some math!
You can cancel your car insurance save $1,300- If you get caught pay $500. you can drive like an asshole, then when your license gets suspended and you get caught pay $500.Your still ahead of the game by $300. If you get nabbed again, just quit your job then apply for any number of "assistance" from the state (i.e. S.S.I. disability for Asama or that nagging drinking problem) .Then apply for a free surplus state vehicle (insurance included-no more pesky civil $500 fines) and have them toss in a cell phone too.


----------



## NEPS

For what it is worth, in earlier posts I have stated that I believe 90-10 is still good to arrest a suspended/revoked operator. After looking carefully at the new law, at 90-10, at 90-21, at 90-23, and at 90C-1 (and looking at John Scheft's analysis), I have now concluded that arrest under 90-10 for a suspended/revoked operator probably is not okay. Here is why:

90-10 has two paragraphs. 90C-1 says that the _first_ paragraph of 90-10 is criminal. 90-21 says that the _first_ paragraph of 90-10 is arrestable. The first paragraph of 90-10 is about people who don't have drivers licenses. The second paragraph talks about people with suspended licenses or suspended Masschusetts rights to drive and says that they should get the same penalty as 90-23 violations.

So, paragraph two of 90-10 talks about suspended operation. Paragraph two is non-criminal under 90C-1. Paragraph two is non-arrestable under 90-21. Paragraph two refers to the penalties in 90-23 which, for a first offender, are non-criminal.

Summary: Probably best not to arrest a licensed, but suspended/revoked driver for a first (non-OUI-related) offense under 90-10.

The good news is that distrubing and disorderly are still arrestable.


----------



## Guest

NEPS said:


> For what it is worth, in earlier posts I have stated that I believe 90-10 is still good to arrest a suspended/revoked operator. After looking carefully at the new law, at 90-10, at 90-21, at 90-23, and at 90C-1 (and looking at John Scheft's analysis), I have now concluded that arrest under 90-10 for a suspended/revoked operator probably is not okay. Here is why:
> 
> 90-10 has two paragraphs. 90C-1 says that the _first_ paragraph of 90-10 is criminal. 90-21 says that the _first_ paragraph of 90-10 is arrestable. The first paragraph of 90-10 is about people who don't have drivers licenses. The second paragraph talks about people with suspended licenses or suspended Masschusetts rights to drive and says that they should get the same penalty as 90-23 violations.
> 
> So, paragraph two of 90-10 talks about suspended operation. Paragraph two is non-criminal under 90C-1. Paragraph two is non-arrestable under 90-21. Paragraph two refers to the penalties in 90-23 which, for a first offender, are non-criminal.
> 
> Summary: Probably best not to arrest a licensed, but suspended/revoked driver for a first (non-OUI-related) offense under 90-10.
> 
> The good news is that distrubing and disorderly are still arrestable.


I am not the brightest bulb in the shed, and am still trying to process that at 0200... But here is my question. How can driving outside of a license restriction be arrestable under 90-10, but suspended not? Common sense would dictate that 'Suspension' is the ultimate Restriction?

oh wait. Common Sense. I just answered my own question.

edit: Brightest bulb in the shed? Mixed Metaphors Rule!


----------

