4 ms·

I don't see how he could be arrested given that none of this lockdown was implemented in criminal statute law. Fined, maybe, but even fines can be reversed by

I don't see how he could be arrested given that none of this lockdown was implemented in criminal statute law. Fined, maybe, but even fines can be reversed by courts.

clouddrover 6y ago
Here is Alameda County's public health order: http://www.acphd.org/media/572718/health-officer-order-20-10-shelter-in-place-20200429.pdf http://www.acphd.org/media/572718/health-officer-order-20-10... To quote it: "Pursuant to Government Code sections 26602 and 41601 and Health and Safety Code section 101029, the Health Officer requests that the Sheriff and all chiefs of police in the County ensure compliance with and enforce this Order. The violation of any provision of this Order constitutes an imminent threat and menace to public health, constitutes a public nuisance, and is punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both."
- kyuudou 6y ago
  This is municipal code, not criminal law. Very important distinction. Like with a traffic ticket, they can fine for not complying. They cannot arrest you, however. Where they "get" you is if you blow off the court about resolving the fine which is contempt of court, which is a criminal offense. It blows my mind how supposedly smart people know so little about the law. It's a lot like programming. The keywords are important and the logic used as well.
  - clouddrover 6y ago
    > This is municipal code, not criminal law. These businesses are facing criminal charges in Los Angeles for violating the Los Angeles county public health order: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/coronavirus-closures-los-angeles-criminal-charges-against-four-stores https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/coronavi...
    - kyuudou 6y ago
      I guess we'll find out what the judges the locals voted for and the juries summoned are made of. Even then, their decisions can be overturned by a higher court or appealed so that basically means nothing. They can say "criminal municipal code violation" and a good judge should say, no, that's not how this works. I guess it is LA, though...
    - masonic 6y ago
      In CA, municipal code encompasses both criminal and civil statutes. That link is paywalled, but the article title only refers to shutting off utilities.
      - clouddrover 6y ago
        > the article title only refers to shutting off utilities. It does not.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > This is municipal code, not criminal law No, the code cited in the order is State (not municipal or county) code giving certain authority to county public health officers, neither municipal codes nor municipal officers are involved. Also, municipal codes in California can have criminal components, so the contrast drawn is false as well as not germane to the relevant facts. > Like with a traffic ticket, they can fine for not complying. They cannot arrest you, however. Being stopped and issued a traffic ticket is a non-custodial arrest and the “fine” people pay if they don't dispute tickets is legally forfeiture of bail. But, in any case, unlike minor traffic offenses, violating a county public health order issued to control communicable disease is a criminal offense punishable by fines, jail, or both; the Alameda County order cites the relevant state criminal law. > It blows my mind how supposedly smart people know so little about the law. Indeed.
- masonic 6y ago
  Now, go read what those specific codes actually say. None are criminal statutes or encompass criminal statutes. 26602. "The sheriff shall prevent and suppress any affrays, breaches of the peace, riots, and insurrections that come to his or her knowledge, and investigate public offenses which have been committed. The sheriff may execute all orders of the local health officer issued for the purpose of preventing the spread of any contagious or communicable disease." 41601. "For the suppression of riot, public tumult, disturbance of the peace, or resistance against the laws or public authorities in the lawful exercise of their functions, and for the execution of all orders of the local health officer issued for the purpose of preventing the spread of any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease, the chief of police has the powers conferred upon sheriffs by general law and in all respects is entitled to the same protection."
  - clouddrover 6y ago
    > None are criminal statutes or encompass criminal statutes. These 60 businesses in LA county are facing criminal charges: https://www.lacityattorney.org/post/feuer-continues-filing-criminal-charges-against-businesses-flouting-safer-at-home-order https://www.lacityattorney.org/post/feuer-continues-filing-c...
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Now, go read what those specific codes actually say. None are criminal statutes or encompass criminal statutes. The criminal statutes are cited earlier in the order, at the very beginning: “Please read this Order carefully. Violation of or failure to comply with this Order is a misdemeanor punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both. (California Health and Safety Code § 120295, et seq.; Cal. Penal Code §§ 69, 148(a)(1))” HSC 120295 is the key one (the others deal with resisting arrest and interference with executive officers): “Any person who violates Section 120130 or any section in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 120175, but excluding Section 120195), is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment for a term of not more than 90 days, or by both. He or she is guilty of a separate offense for each day that the violation continued.” The most key part of Chapter 3 for this purpose is HSC 120220: “When quarantine or isolation, either strict or modified, is established by a health officer, all persons shall obey his or her rules, orders, and regulations.”
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I don't see how he could be arrested given that none of this lockdown was implemented in criminal statute law. Yes, all of it was. Or, more precisely, it was implemented under statutory authority of county and state public health officials whose orders are enforceable under preexisting criminal statutes and do not require additional criminal legislation for each new order.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- masonic 6y ago
  Which Code and Section?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Both the county and state orders thoroughly cite the relevant authority.
    - masonic 6y ago
      Actually, they don't. In fact, Newsome's Executive Orders refer only to GOV § 8567, which only refers to procurement powers of state agencies. It specifically does not create any criminal statute, which in CA happens to be a very involved process including traversing multiple legislative committees. In other words, he could trigger a process to confiscate your steel if he can establish urgent necessity for all of it, but he can't make it a crime to build a car. You're flat wrong on this.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > In fact, Newsome's Executive Orders refer only to GOV § 8567 This is both false and irrelevant; it's false because Newsom’s 39 (to date) executive orders relating to COVID-19 (they are almost daily) reference more than just that section—i.e, the first, EO N-25-20 (3/12/2020), references government code sections 8567, 8571, and 8572 [0]; but more to the point it's irrelevant because while the EOs have some importance in state COVID-19 response, they aren't the shelter-in-place order, which is a Public Health Order issued by the State Public Health Officer / Director of Public Health on March 19, 2020 [1], citing Health and Safety Code Sections 120125, 120140, 131080, 120130(c), 120135, 120145, 120175 and 120150, which pertain to the power of the Department of Public Health to issue such orders and the obligation of local officials to enforce them. [0] https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/3.12.20-EO-N-25-20-COVID-19.pdf https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/3.12.20-EO... [1] https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/COVID-19/Health%20Order%203.19.2020.pdf https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20...

I don't see how he could be arrested given that none of this lockdown was implemented in criminal statute law. Fined, maybe, but even fines can be reversed by courts.

clouddrover 6y ago

Here is Alameda County's public health order: http://www.acphd.org/media/572718/health-officer-order-20-10-shelter-in-place-20200429.pdf http://www.acphd.org/media/572718/health-officer-order-20-10... To quote it: "Pursuant to Government Code sections 26602 and 41601 and Health and Safety Code section 101029, the Health Officer requests that the Sheriff and all chiefs of police in the County ensure compliance with and enforce this Order. The violation of any provision of this Order constitutes an imminent threat and menace to public health, constitutes a public nuisance, and is punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both."

kyuudou 6y ago
This is municipal code, not criminal law. Very important distinction. Like with a traffic ticket, they can fine for not complying. They cannot arrest you, however. Where they "get" you is if you blow off the court about resolving the fine which is contempt of court, which is a criminal offense. It blows my mind how supposedly smart people know so little about the law. It's a lot like programming. The keywords are important and the logic used as well.
- clouddrover 6y ago
  > This is municipal code, not criminal law. These businesses are facing criminal charges in Los Angeles for violating the Los Angeles county public health order: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/coronavirus-closures-los-angeles-criminal-charges-against-four-stores https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/coronavi...
  - kyuudou 6y ago
    I guess we'll find out what the judges the locals voted for and the juries summoned are made of. Even then, their decisions can be overturned by a higher court or appealed so that basically means nothing. They can say "criminal municipal code violation" and a good judge should say, no, that's not how this works. I guess it is LA, though...
  - masonic 6y ago
    In CA, municipal code encompasses both criminal and civil statutes. That link is paywalled, but the article title only refers to shutting off utilities.
    - clouddrover 6y ago
      > the article title only refers to shutting off utilities. It does not.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > This is municipal code, not criminal law No, the code cited in the order is State (not municipal or county) code giving certain authority to county public health officers, neither municipal codes nor municipal officers are involved. Also, municipal codes in California can have criminal components, so the contrast drawn is false as well as not germane to the relevant facts. > Like with a traffic ticket, they can fine for not complying. They cannot arrest you, however. Being stopped and issued a traffic ticket is a non-custodial arrest and the “fine” people pay if they don't dispute tickets is legally forfeiture of bail. But, in any case, unlike minor traffic offenses, violating a county public health order issued to control communicable disease is a criminal offense punishable by fines, jail, or both; the Alameda County order cites the relevant state criminal law. > It blows my mind how supposedly smart people know so little about the law. Indeed.
masonic 6y ago
Now, go read what those specific codes actually say. None are criminal statutes or encompass criminal statutes. 26602. "The sheriff shall prevent and suppress any affrays, breaches of the peace, riots, and insurrections that come to his or her knowledge, and investigate public offenses which have been committed. The sheriff may execute all orders of the local health officer issued for the purpose of preventing the spread of any contagious or communicable disease." 41601. "For the suppression of riot, public tumult, disturbance of the peace, or resistance against the laws or public authorities in the lawful exercise of their functions, and for the execution of all orders of the local health officer issued for the purpose of preventing the spread of any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease, the chief of police has the powers conferred upon sheriffs by general law and in all respects is entitled to the same protection."
- clouddrover 6y ago
  > None are criminal statutes or encompass criminal statutes. These 60 businesses in LA county are facing criminal charges: https://www.lacityattorney.org/post/feuer-continues-filing-criminal-charges-against-businesses-flouting-safer-at-home-order https://www.lacityattorney.org/post/feuer-continues-filing-c...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Now, go read what those specific codes actually say. None are criminal statutes or encompass criminal statutes. The criminal statutes are cited earlier in the order, at the very beginning: “Please read this Order carefully. Violation of or failure to comply with this Order is a misdemeanor punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both. (California Health and Safety Code § 120295, et seq.; Cal. Penal Code §§ 69, 148(a)(1))” HSC 120295 is the key one (the others deal with resisting arrest and interference with executive officers): “Any person who violates Section 120130 or any section in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 120175, but excluding Section 120195), is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment for a term of not more than 90 days, or by both. He or she is guilty of a separate offense for each day that the violation continued.” The most key part of Chapter 3 for this purpose is HSC 120220: “When quarantine or isolation, either strict or modified, is established by a health officer, all persons shall obey his or her rules, orders, and regulations.”

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I don't see how he could be arrested given that none of this lockdown was implemented in criminal statute law. Yes, all of it was. Or, more precisely, it was implemented under statutory authority of county and state public health officials whose orders are enforceable under preexisting criminal statutes and do not require additional criminal legislation for each new order.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
masonic 6y ago
Which Code and Section?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Both the county and state orders thoroughly cite the relevant authority.
  - masonic 6y ago
    Actually, they don't. In fact, Newsome's Executive Orders refer only to GOV § 8567, which only refers to procurement powers of state agencies. It specifically does not create any criminal statute, which in CA happens to be a very involved process including traversing multiple legislative committees. In other words, he could trigger a process to confiscate your steel if he can establish urgent necessity for all of it, but he can't make it a crime to build a car. You're flat wrong on this.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > In fact, Newsome's Executive Orders refer only to GOV § 8567 This is both false and irrelevant; it's false because Newsom’s 39 (to date) executive orders relating to COVID-19 (they are almost daily) reference more than just that section—i.e, the first, EO N-25-20 (3/12/2020), references government code sections 8567, 8571, and 8572 [0]; but more to the point it's irrelevant because while the EOs have some importance in state COVID-19 response, they aren't the shelter-in-place order, which is a Public Health Order issued by the State Public Health Officer / Director of Public Health on March 19, 2020 [1], citing Health and Safety Code Sections 120125, 120140, 131080, 120130(c), 120135, 120145, 120175 and 120150, which pertain to the power of the Department of Public Health to issue such orders and the obligation of local officials to enforce them. [0] https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/3.12.20-EO-N-25-20-COVID-19.pdf https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/3.12.20-EO... [1] https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/COVID-19/Health%20Order%203.19.2020.pdf https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20...