On crime and car repairs

A storm is a-brewing in Houston over the cost of auto repairs. City Council is expected to pass a new ordinance that would require repair shops to obtain a car owner's signature before they can do any work that would add $100 or more to the estimate given to the car owner.

Well, yeah, if you tell me it's going to cost X to fix my car, if you find something else wrong that's going to jack the price up, you should call me. If you see something you think needs to be replaced "while you're down there," call me. That's just good business and what most repair shops I've dealt with do.

Under the proposed ordinance, repair shops that don't get authorization before beginning work could be cited by police. The citation would be a Class C misdemeanor, much like the tickets handed out by building inspectors.

Here's the problem. The proposed ordinance would criminalize bad business behavior. Is that what we really need? Do we need to create new criminal offenses? And who would be the person cited? The owner? Manager? Service advisor?

I'm sure the proposal is well-intentioned - unless, of course, the real driving force behind it were the insurance companies hoping to stick it the body and repair shops where people take their cars for work covered by their car insurance. Hmm.

Criminal law should be used to deal with situations that are harmful to society - to discourage such behavior and to punish it when it does occur. But criminalizing the failure to get authorization to do a repair is like using a sledgehammer to drive in a nail.

I know that Class C violations are punishable by nothing more than a fine -- but there's the cost of hiring an attorney and attending court that must be taken into consideration. Then there's the odd notion that you could go to jail should you fail to appear on your court date.

We're dealing with a civil issue here. When you take your car to the shop you are entering into a contract with the shop that you agree to pay them in exchange for them attempting to fix your car. Contract law should govern any dispute between the car owner and the repair shop.

There are far too many criminal laws on our books today. This is one we don't need to create.

Coming and going

Sign outside the Inmate Processing Center on Commerce Street in Downtown Houston.

Everywhere else downtown, the parking meters are turned off by 6pm every evening and all day on Sunday. But not at the jail.

They'll screw you coming... and going.

A safer place to live

In 2006, there were 377 recorded murders in Houston. In 2011 that number dropped to 198 - the lowest per capita number since the early 1960's. The number of violent crimes in the city also declined. Interestingly enough, at the same time the murder rate dropped over 26% from 2010, the economy tanked.

Maybe there's not the relationship we thought between economic conditions and crime. What else might account for the change?

Surely it must be the deterrent effect of the death penalty. That's what the law and order types tell us. You remember the stanza - you let the state kill enough people and the rest of the riff raff will get the message that it just isn't okay to go around killing people.

Only that's not it, either. According to the Texas Execution Information Center, the number of inmates on death row has decreased over the last ten years. Texas murdered fewer inmates in 2011 than in any year since 1996.

I have no idea what accounts for the drop in the city's murder rate. I'm sure there are folks who are combing through data trying to come up with some theory to explain it. For all I know the drought caused the drop. Maybe people throughout the city were more worried about how to maintain some semblance of green in their yards than they were about offing someone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Scenes from an occupation

Tranquility Park, across the street from City Hall. The picture doesn't give the signboard justice.

The main encampment. The gentlemen with their backs to you are cleaning dishes. The group has a "grey water" recovery system.

And, what would an occupation be without agents of the oppressors?

Police union targets city official who spoke out against police brutality

It would seem that Houston city councilwoman Jolanda Jones is paying the price for speaking out against the police. Ms. Jones has spoken out repeatedly about the problem of police brutality in Houston. She also raised concerns about the way the department operated its crime lab.

Now the Houston Police Officer's Union is striking back. Union vice president Ray Hunt has sent a letter to Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos asking her office to look into whether or not Ms. Jones was practicing law without a licence last month.

This isn't the first time Mr. Hunt has been involved in lodging a complaint against Ms. Jones. He is the one who pointed out that Ms. Jones put her city office phone number on her business card. He alleged that she was using city resources to operate her private law firm. Ms. Jones was cleared of those charges when the DA's office announced there wasn't enough evidence to prove any wrongdoing.

The latest allegations stem from two legal documents signed by Ms. Jones after her license to practice law had been suspended for her failure to pay her bar dues and occupational taxes on time.

This fight isn't about Ms. Jones' ethics. This fight is about whether or not the city is going to turn a blind eye to police brutality. Earlier this year I sat with Ms. Jones at a forum on police brutality. She was the only elected city official to appear at the town hall meeting. Her willingness to speak out in such a forum spoke volumes.

Mr. Hunt and his group are involved in the classic misdirection play. Instead of focusing on the issue of police brutality, Mr. Hunt would rather throw mud at Ms. Jones in an attempt to discredit her. If you can't debate the issue on the merits, go for the dirt.

The problem with Mr. Hunt's tactics is that the cat is out of the bag now. We've seen the videos. We know that  the police beat suspects for no reason. They do it because they can and because they think they can get away with it. And for a long time they did. The city turned a blind eye to the problem - as long as it could be made to go away.

Mr. Hunt is playing the public like a little child. We all know the punishment for contempt of cop. I've had clients who have been punched, kicked or tased multiple times. If there was no video camera or eyewitness willing to testify, it was just a perp's word against a police officer. And guess who judges and juries believed.

Maybe Ms. Jones has skirted the rules. Maybe she hasn't acted ethically. Maybe she did practice law without a valid license. Those are issues with which Ms. Jones must deal. But none of that changes the fact that the police beat suspects and Ms. Jones called them out on it.

Don't fall for the misdirection play. Keep your eye on the ball.

A more efficient way to ration water use

To combat the lack of rainfall in Houston, Mayor Annise Parker has decided that it's the right time to ration water use. As of last week half the city can water their yards on Sunday and Thursday and the other half can water on Wednesday and Saturday.

But is that the best way to handle the situation? Rationing forces people to do things at times when they wouldn't ordinarily do them. It is an inefficient use of resources and will cost more money to try to enforce. After all, someone has to drive around and cite people.

It also treats all yards the same. Some yards are big, some are small. Some have elaborate landscaping and some have none. Some have automatic irrigation systems and some have hoses and sprinklers. Some have lots of grass and some have decks and pools. Some yards are shaded better than others.

A more efficient mode of rationing the use of water would be to raise the marginal cost of each additional gallon used. Determine what the average water usage for a house in Houston is during a typical (that is, when it actually rains) month and raise the price of each additional unit of water above that figure.

That way those who need additional water can get it and those who don't need it aren't affected. A homeowner could look at the cost of watering his yard and determine whether or not the benefit of watering is worth the extra cost.

Such a scheme wouldn't require sending folks around in city-owned cars to write citations to citizens trying to keep their yards from turning brown. Such a scheme would allow for the more efficient use of water during drought conditions.

Of course, since it makes sense, it'll never happen.

Flipping-flopping the night away

Houston Mayor Annise Parker flipping and flopping about what to do with the red light cameras. 

First she cut them off. Then, faced with breach of contract, she turned them back on. Now, with an election approaching she's asking City Council to turn them off.

Classic politics, that is. If the city shuts them down and ends up writing a check to ATS, Mayor Parker can blame City Council. If the city leaves the cameras up and running, she can tell the voters that she wanted to turn them off but City Council wouldn't listen.

Come on, Mayor Parker, go down to the Medical Center and get a spine replacement. Try being a leader for once.

Mayor Parker to voters: "Screw you!"

In response to residents who voted to get rid of red light cameras, Houston Mayor Annise Parker announced that the cameras will being generating citations at 12:01am on Sunday. In doing so, Mayor Parker is giving residents the middle finger because she's more concerned about a contract with an out-of-state vendor than she is with the will of the voters in Houston.

It gets even worse, however. Police Chief Charles McClelland told the Houston Chronicle that the city would put up more cameras in the future. This despite a study showing that intersections with cameras saw an increase in the number of accidents after the cameras were installed.

Here's hoping that voters will remember how the mayor disregarded their decision on red light cameras come November.

Today on candid camera...

I guess sometimes the ol' eyes in the sky work to the benefit of the folks getting arrested.



Angela Horton, who was relieved of her duties as a police officer for the City of Houston, said she regrets hitting a suspect in the face while he was handcuffed. Ms. Horton's attorney said she let her emotions get to her when she slugged the suspect in full view of the camera in a news helicopter. Of course, she also wants us to know that  police officers must make split-second decisions out on the street.

I'm not sure that hitting a defenseless man in the face is one of those decisions.

Now for anyone who doesn't think police officers succumb to high levels of adrenaline following a chase, think again. For anyone who doesn't think that suspects are beaten by police, think again.

Judges, juries and prosecutors don't want to believe that the boys (and girls) in blue ever cross the line in doing their jobs. Judges, juries and prosecutors are wrong. It's just that most of the time it happens off camera. And if there's no video -- no one believes the defendant.

We are trained from a young age to trust the police. And, no matter what anyone on the panel says, jurors are going to give more credibility to the word of a police officer than to your client. We all know it. But we play the charade that something's that been burned into someone's brain can be erased by the judge saying a few words.

No one should be shocked by what Officer Horton did that night. We should only be shocked that someone got it on camera.

Just send 'em down the road

Who'da thought there might be homeless people living in and around downtown Houston? I mean, that's just got to be a complete and total shock to anyone and everyone. That, and trash, noise and the other assorted sins of the inner city. What a horrid awakening for anyone from the suburbs or the wealthy enclaves within the city limits.

Well, the folks who paid a big ass chunk of change to move into lofts on the east end of downtown (not the, shall we say, nicest part of town) are now having to deal with the realities of urban life. I'm sure it was just an oversight of the real estate agent not to mention these things we all take for granted to the oblivious yuppies looking for the "next big thing."

Residents in East Downtown (across the freeway from the ballpark) must have been taken aback when they found out just how gritty their (supposed) yuppie wonderland was. They've banded together, however, to "take back" their neighborhood (from the people who were there long before they left the land of three-car garages). The residents have asked the city to ban homeless folks from sitting or sleeping on the sidewalks in a 220 acre area.

Councilman James Rodriguez is spearheading the effort to expand the city's "civility code" to the neighborhood in hopes of attracting new developers (and forcing the homeless to go to someone else's neighborhood -- most likely where no one has enough money to make themselves noticeable to local politicians). Mr. Rodriguez says local churches and charities who provide food for the homeless are to blame for the situation.

Under the "civility code," folks who set up camp in a neighborhood and don't leave when demanded requested by police could face fines of up to $200 - or, more likely, time in the city jail because they don't have the money to hire an attorney or pay the fine).

Laws such as these seek to criminalize the poor because they are, after all, poor. How about we look to address the real problems underlying homelessness in this country? We need to find a way to provide access to medical services, including mental health care, for the poor. We need to figure out how to provide these men and women with a source of income and a bed to sleep in. We need to address structural unemployment in this country.

The City of Houston and Harris County gladly pony up money to help billionaires build private playhouses for their sports franchises. The city will gladly declare eminent domain over property whose owners won't sell for the price developers are offering. As a nation we seem to have no problem burning billions of dollars a year to send young Americans to their deaths to satisfy the ego of whomever sits in the White House. We seem to have no problem criminalizing more and more types of behavior and putting more and more people under the supervision of the courts.

And, instead of trying to find a solution to a problem, we just want to pack it up and send it down the road a bit so someone else can be bothered.

Damn the public, full steam ahead!

So much for the will of the voters. Mayor Annise Parker has announced that the red light cameras are being turned back on.

Of course the mayor is wringing her hands because the public made its opinion of the cameras known and she certainly doesn't want to upset the very people she'll be asking to re-elect her in November. She seems quite upset about having to turn the cameras back on and she was very happy to let us know that the city is asking the court for permission to appeal its ruling on the legality of the referendum.

And we all know the city had nothing at all to do with ATS' claim that the referendum was not authorized by law. We know the city attorney would never have lain in bed with ATS to figure out a way to get around the vote.

This is nothing but a farce. They city never wanted to turn the cameras off in the first place. The entire federal lawsuit with ATS was nothing but a sham from the beginning. The legality of the referendum had nothing to do with whether the city was in breach of its contract.

Mayor Parker and her buddy, David Feldman, orchestrated this charade in order to defy the voters and still say the matter was out of their hands.

Let's just hope that in November voters in Houston are more concerned about what a candidate will do in office than with how many boxes he or she can check off on a census form.

Houston Motion to Certify Permissive Interlocutory Appeal

The return of the red light camera?

On Friday, US District Judge Lynn Hughes ruled that last November's ballot initiative to repeal Houston's red light camera ordinance was invalid.

The court held that the referendum was held after the time limit to repeal city ordinances had expired.

Mayor Annise Parker said she will consult with her lapdog, city attorney David Feldman, about the city's next move. With budget shortfalls to deal with, it's a pretty good bet that the city is going to do everything it can to get the cameras rolling once again.

“We lost on the issue of the validity of the charter amendment, so what the court is saying, okay city, now decide what you’re going to do with the contract. We need to decide how we’re going to move forward, and what position we’re going to take with the contract in light of the fact he’s declared the charter amendment invalid.’’ -- David Feldman

Judge Hughes' ruling does raise a question or two. First, if the ballot initiative was invalid because the time for repealing the ordinance had passed, why did election officials certify the initiative on the ballot?  If this is an argument the city is raising for the first time, why didn't city officials challenge the placement of the initiative on the ballot last November? Why was a federal court issuing a ruling regarding a city ordinance?

I understand why the matter was in federal court. ATS, the manufacturer of the red light camera system was suing the City of Houston for breach of contract over the city's cancellation of the contract as a result of the referendum. It would appear that there was never an adversarial relationship between the company and the city and that the purpose of the litigation was to void the result of the referendum.

The question still remains however? Why was Judge Hughes making a ruling about a local ballot initiative? The only question before the court was whether the city had breached its contract with ATS - not why the city cancelled the contract. The reason behind the city's decision had nothing to do with whether or not the city breached any contract.

Judge Hughes had no reason to enter any ruling regarding the ballot initiative. By doing so he involved himself in a dispute that is a local, not a federal, matter.

Time for a little rain dance

According to the SciGuy over at the Houston Chronicle, there is hope here in Houston for some of that wet stuff falling from the sky.

Eric Berger, the Chronicle's science blogger notes that it has been a record 144 days since (Bush) Intercontinental Airport recorded as much as a half-inch of rain. The previous record was 93 days.

Fred Schmude at ImpactWeather says that conditions seem to be ripe for rain next Wednesday through the weekend. Over at the Weather Channel, they are predicting rain beginning next Tuesday.

We average about 53 inches of rain a year. The average rainfall for June is 6.25 inches. To date, Houston has received 7 inches of rain this year - a third of what we typically average.

Accident rates decrease after red light cameras taken down

You'd never know it if you relied on the Houston Chronicle's website, but splashed on the front page of yesterday's paper was an article announcing that the removal of red light cameras has resulted in fewer traffic accidents at the 50 intersections where the cameras were mounted.

According to data released by HPD, the number of traffic accidents at those intersections has declined by 16% in the five months since voters rejected the cameras. The data compared the number of accidents in the five months prior to the removal of the cameras (June 15-Nov. 14, 2010) and the number of accidents between November 15, 2010 and April 16, 2011.

According to the Chronicle:

The drop in accidents surprised Houston police administrators who say a possible explanation is the unusually dry weather during recent months has made driving conditions safer. They also wonder if years of electronic monitoring have made Houstonians better, if not more cautious, drivers.

Maybe it never occurred to the police that accidents increased at the intersections due to the number of motorists slamming on their brakes as they approached yellow lights.

Assistant Chief Brian Lumpkin said he had assumed accidents at those intersections were increasing since HPD is still receiving raw data from the camera vendor indicating motorists were running lights with much greater frequency at many intersections. The HPD records show accidents decreased at 32 intersections, increased at 21 and stayed the same at 17.

Well, Mr. Lumpkin, the conclusion is quite obvious -- place officers near those intersections and stop motorists who run red lights. We all know the most popular pastime in Houston is seeing how many cars can get through an intersection when the light's yellow. We all know the number one rule of driving in Houston is you don't take off at the intersection when the light turns green - you wait for that one last car to go through the red light.

The other thing that Mr. Lumpkin's analysis doesn't take into account is the number of red light camera tickets that officers rejected upon review before issuing the civil citations. Estimates are that HPD monitors rejected almost 40% of the proposed violations.

On Nov. 14 soon after a referendum to shut down the system passed, the city stopped issuing violations but was ordered by the courts to keep the cameras and road sensors up. HPD took an immediate $10 million hit from the department's anticipated share of ticket revenue for the remainder of this fiscal year, as the city ended a lucrative system that issued nearly 800,000 tickets and collected almost $44 million in fines since going online in September 2006.

The red light camera scam was never about increasing safety on Houston's streets. It was always about increasing revenues without having to pay for officers to patrol the intersections. The latest data is pretty damning proof that the original premise behind the cameras was faulty.

Driving while black remains a reality in Houston

New data released by the Houston Police Department shows that black motorists are more likely to be stopped by police than any other ethnic group in the city. While blacks make up 23% of the city's population, they made up 33% of all traffic stops in 2010. Latinos, who make up 44% of the city's population, made up 32% of all traffic stops. White motorists accounted for 30% of the stops.

According to the Houston Chronicle, "experts" discount driving while black as being the cause of the disparity.

Clete Snell, who chairs the criminal justice department at the University of Houston-Downtown, said many minority residents feel they have been singled out because of the number of stops in their neighborhoods. 

"Police tend to patrol more frequently in African-American neighborhoods, and in minority neighborhoods in general, and tend to make more stops in minority neighborhoods,“ Snell said.

Apparently Mr. Snell is not concerned that there are a disproportionate share of blacks in the criminal justice system and that the vast majority of defendants who cannot afford to post a bond tend to be black or Latino.

Surprisingly enough, Gary Blankinship, the head of the Houston Police Officer's Union, denies the existence of racial profiling and former HPD Chief, and current city councilmember, C.O. Bradford blames it on a few "bad apples."

Racial profiling, like police brutality, is not an individualized phenomenon. It is bred into the culture of police departments all across this country. Police brutality comes from a culture in which the questioning of "authority" is considered a sign of disrespect. Maybe that's how it works at the police station -- but that ain't reality on the street. But police culture doesn't account for such subtleties.

Racial profiling has always played a role in police work - going back to the days of Jim Crow when the police were used to enforce the laws of segregation. The primary role of the police was to keep whites and blacks separate, or, more accurately, to keep blacks on "their side" of town. That ethos still holds true today as large swaths of our cities and towns are segregated.

Until we examine the role that law enforcement has played in preserving inequality in this country, police brutality and racial profiling will continue to endure - no matter how much sensitivity and diversity training we require of the boys in blue.

Confronting police brutality

Tuesday was the day to speak out against police brutality at the weekly meeting of the Houston city council. As I was scheduled to appear in court down on the island, I was unable to attend the meeting. My colleague, Robert Fickman, past president of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, was on hand, however, and provides us with this guest post.

I attended today's City Council Meeting along with my officemate Vivian King. Altogether I am sorry to report that the meeting left me largely disappointed. However, my resolve to fight police brutality has never been stronger. 

First,  I had called upon our fellow members of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association to attend. I thought that some of our 500 plus members would want to join us in speaking out against police brutality. 

I was mistaken. Vivian and I were the only two members of the Defense Bar there.

 I have worked for a number of years to build HCCLA and  the voice of the defense bar. I am disappointed  that some of our leaders  think it's not our place to speak out against police  brutality.  Additionally, the membership's  apathy toward police brutality is also disappointing. Our clients are the victims of the brutality. HCCLA, in my opinion, is currently adrift, rudderless,  which makes me quite angry. 

There  was a large turnout at City Hall. Those, like myself, who came to speak out against police brutality were made to wait until more important topics like historic preservation and sewers were discussed. After an hour or so they finally got to us.  Reverends Dixon and Coffield were quite forceful in their presentations. Minister Muhammed was eloquent and warned that if the City did not take serious steps to end police brutality the community reaction would only get worse. Each of these men and others presented compelling arguments urging the city to take action. Quanell X was sick an unable to attend. His voice was missed. 

Unfortunately, with few exceptions mostly what we heard from Council was semi- patronizing lip service and statements about how they had done all they could do. Council Members Bradford and Jones seemed to be the only two on Council who were in touch with the community outrage. Curiously Councilwoman Wanda Adams spent much of the meeting, posturing  on her desk phone.

I spoke. I told the Mayor and Council that the Harris County District Attorney's Office were largely responsible for the problem. I pointed out that  except for rare occasion the District Attorney's Office had failed for three decades to prosecute police brutality. I urged the Mayor to contact the Attorney General of the United States and ask him to form a special task force to investigate and prosecute police brutality in Houston.

In response to my call for federal intervention,  City Attorney David Feldman pointed out that the City had already contacted the Justice Dept regarding the Holley case and  they were taking a wait and see position. I  think they  missed my point. I was not speaking about the Holley case. I was speaking about  all police brutality cases in Houston. Having pointed out the historic failings of the DA's Office on these cases, I was calling on the Mayor to call on the feds to form a task force to handle all police brutality cases in Houston. I pointed out that it took the power of the federal government to end segregation, and I believed it would take the power of the federal government to end police brutality. 

I intend to follow up with my own letters. HCCLA's leadership, members, and Council may choose to stick their collective heads in the dirt while our community suffers daily police abuse; I will not. I will not be silent on the issue of police brutality. We need strong deterrents and punishments to stop the abuse.  The longstanding history of murderous rogue cops needs to end on Our Watch. 

I don't know what the solution is. A civilian review board sounds nice - but in reality, do they really do any good? The boards tend to be made up of politically-connected folks who don't really want to go out on a limb. Even if you give the board subpoena power, what would you accomplish? Would the board be tasked with seeking out the truth - and forgoing criminal prosecution? Would the board's job be to uncover evidence and turn it over the the DA's office? Would members of the board have any idea what they were doing?

A "rogue" grand jury that was interested in investigating complaints of police brutality might be the best opportunity to bring these matters to light. Of course, since the Harris County DA's Office would then be in charge of any criminal prosecutions, it's very likely that nothing would change under that scenario. The DA's Office has shown its complete indifference toward police brutality over the years. The last thing that Ms. Lykos wants is for those sitting on jury panels to realize what happens to a person when they've pissed off a cop.