BREAKING: Paris Hilton Out of Jail!!!
Well, this kind of thing is apparently what drives the L.A. Times web traffic, so if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.
It’s certainly much more important news than, say, quotes from air marshals about air security, or discussions about the consequences of the failure of ICE to do its job prosecuting illegal re-entry cases.
UPDATE: Paris is being ordered back into court tomorrow to determine whether she will stay out of jail.
More comments on this than on my post quoting the air marshals. Sigh.
Instead of incarcerated Paris Hilton is now acessorized.
So L.A.
David Ehrenstein (295692) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:57 amIt does indicate your legal system in LA, California is not serious.
In that sense, yes, it’s important.
Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:03 amLots of ammunition for the “what if she was a poor black girl” view of blind justice.
huey (76a6ac) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:14 amPaterrico,
If not for the Paris Hiltons, past and present, Los Angeles would be a second-rate San Antonio, Texas.
nk (c66fe9) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:17 amyeah, i saw this in the times. the judge sentenced her to 45 days in jail, but after five days, she gets to spend the rest of it at home, against the stated terms of the judge’s order. apparently, somebody put a little bug in this judge’s ear and he sent a secret order to the jail. one of patterico’s colleagues who was handling this could have objected, but it’s only crickets we’re hearing from that office now. what a crock of shit. $$$ talks.
assistant devil's advocate (dfeba5) — 6/7/2007 @ 8:01 amPerhaps not, as they’re claiming some sort of medical necessity.
Yes, indeed.
Pablo (99243e) — 6/7/2007 @ 8:28 amI look forward to the imminent hunger strikes at the LA jail(s). On the bright side, Paris doesn’t have to abandon her core belief that if you whine enough you eventually get your way. That would have been awful for her.
Justin (747191) — 6/7/2007 @ 8:31 amI believe this was a city case, not a county case, so Paterrico’s collegues would have nothing to say about it. Also, once the mittimus is issued the judicial branch loses jurisdiction and the prisoner becomes the property of the jail. The City Attorney would probably have to sue the Department of Corrections to reverse this.
nk (c66fe9) — 6/7/2007 @ 8:40 amParis told ICE that she was an illegal alien and as standard policy, they arranged to have her immediately released from custody.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 6/7/2007 @ 10:23 amThe “medical emergency” was that she was stressed. The “5 days” was 79 hours.
Vatar (bb1678) — 6/7/2007 @ 10:52 amNarcissism is a medical condition? Really?
Thanatopsis (e6ee71) — 6/7/2007 @ 10:52 amPerhaps not, as they’re claiming some sort of medical necessity.
Yeah, her medical condition was that she wasn’t eating the food and she was crying all day long. I read that she refused to eat the hotdogs they served her. I believe this is the first time this woman has had any aversion to wieners.
fngJD (8109f6) — 6/7/2007 @ 10:54 amI believe this is the first time this woman has had any aversion to wieners.
Thanatopsis (e6ee71) — 6/7/2007 @ 11:05 amHahahaha!! Stop, fngJD, you’re killing me here!
I would also be curious about the decision by the County which seems to directly contravene the stated order of the sentencing judge. He specifically ordered that she be incarcerated.
In the federal system, home detention is an alternative to incarceration, but it must be ordered by the judge — its not something the Bureau of Prisons can select on its own once a judge has ordered incarceration.
Is the County subject to a potential Order To Show Cause from the Court?
It really is a huge black-eye from the stand point of the public’s perception of the system.
I’m embarrassed for LA. What do 99.99% of the defendants who beg for probation because of a medical condition get in response from the judge and prosecutor???
They have medical treatment available in the jail. It may not be what the defendant is used to — is not Promises or the Mayo Clinic — but if you have a legitimate medical need that requires immediate care, you’ll get it.
This just looks like Baca being an idiot.
WLS (077d0d) — 6/7/2007 @ 11:20 amJustice is blind, but only for the middle class and the poor.SHAME ON YOU.
Vic (226243) — 6/7/2007 @ 11:24 amThis woman got more than enough opportunities to straighten up. Most people would have been arrested the SECOND time they were stopped while driving on a suspended liscense. Then she shows up 10 minutes late for court? I hope the judge steps in and sends her back to jail. I don’t think the Sheriff has any right to change his orders… does he? If Ms. Hilton can’t pend 23 days in jail, imagine how she’ll react to a few years when she kills someone while drinking and driving. She didn’t learn her lesson. I’ll give her another year before she gets arrested again.
fngJD (8109f6) — 6/7/2007 @ 11:35 amWell, look at it like this: The judge/system has made it abundantly clear that should she screw up this time (read: When she screws up) it’s automatically, instantly a revocation, and 90 days.
I give it till friday before she’s in the news doing something retarded…
Seroiusly. Stupid rich bitch cried and did wanna eat the icky food. Tough shit. If that’s what it takes for LA to kick you to home arrest, it’ll be an epidemic.
Fucking pansies.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/7/2007 @ 11:47 amMust have had a GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card
krazy kagu (b3aac5) — 6/7/2007 @ 12:07 pmStress-induced contact dermatitis, aggravated by dehydration and low blood sugar, is my guess. She may be a fool, but she’s leading them around by the nose like a piglet on a leash.
htom (412a17) — 6/7/2007 @ 12:16 pmI’m sure being tied up at home (no pun intended) will not be that much of a deterent for Hilton. She’ll be back to her stupid spoiled whore antics before too long.
Stress-induced contact dermatitis, aggravated by dehydration and low blood sugar, is my guess.
A medical research team could take advantage of this situation, killing 2 birds with one stone, and see if that ailment can be relieved by massive amounts of semen ingestion.
Trickish Knave (5d5969) — 6/7/2007 @ 1:30 pmI thought I was tough. Thought I had seen something. But then I saw the green wieners they’re serving at the LA jail.
papertiger (c639d3) — 6/7/2007 @ 2:06 pm“medical emergency”
Did Paris have the shakes from alcohol withdrawal?
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 6/7/2007 @ 2:17 pmMost everyone angered really advocates the gang rape, beating, or continual threats of violence against Hilton. This is a penny ante rap. I only know two attorneys really well but both say that this was a five day beef with six months probation for just about anyone in LA who isn’t Paris Hilton. No other judge would have sent her to the slammer. She didn’t injure anyone, hurt anyone, kill anyone, assault anyone, steal from anyone, or anything else. It’s a nothing beef. BTW Handel (a local talk show host and attorney) has also said this is a minor beef.
Howard Veit (4ba8d4) — 6/7/2007 @ 3:30 pmPat:
I read that the Judge had stated in the sentencing order that she could not be let out early, home detention or furloughs. Under State law can the Judge find the Sheriff in contempt?
Jim Allan (7c6935) — 6/7/2007 @ 4:01 pmI bet you that Baca gets some really nice campaign contributions from people who have utterly no connection with Paris Hilton.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 6/7/2007 @ 4:24 pmI’m kind of curious about medical releases.
Do they do this because they don’t have the facilities to deal with the problem, are afraid it’s contagious, or for some other reason? If this case is special, is it because they were worried Hilton would bring public scrutiny to the conditions at the jail?
Eric (09e4ab) — 6/7/2007 @ 4:28 pmAt the very least, someone should make
kishnevi (7a9e8b) — 6/7/2007 @ 5:01 pm“Free Scooter” t-shirts.
http://operabouffe.wordpress.com/2007/06/04/meglio-cambiare/
This is a penny ante rap. I only know two attorneys really well but both say that this was a five day beef with six months probation for just about anyone in LA who isn’t Paris Hilton.
I’m not sure probation is the proper punishment for a probation violation. Some people go to jail for their first DUI. She got a DUI, then was stopped twice for moving violations within a couple months, the last time for 70 in a 35, no lights after dark, and suspended license. Then to top it off she couldn’t be bothered to show up on time for court.
Vatar (085be7) — 6/7/2007 @ 5:10 pmFirst of all, fuck you.
Second, I don’t hear a single person here (or anywhere else) saying that she should be beaten, or raped, or anything. I don’t know if you’re projecting your own shortcoming as a human being, but don’t pin it on us, whatever it is.
No, it’s a probation violation rap. When you fuck up on probation twice, they tend to toss you in jail.
For the original DUI, maybe. First time you can get a pass if you aren’t an ass during the arrest/appearances. But when you get that pass (as Paris Hilton did) and you get nailed twice for violating state law (driving with a suspended is a misdomeanor state-wide, right?) and one of those times doing at least double the posted limit at night with no headlights, you get the book thrown at you. You have demonstrated a wanton disregard for the rules, so now you get to deal with crappy food and shitty sleeping arrangements. Them’s the rules… If violating probation didn’t have any consequences, why even have it at all? You have to have some way of enforcing propper, law-abiding behavior.
As a guy that has a DUI (or two, who’s counting) lemme tell you something bubba…
A DUI is damned fucking serious. I didn’t hurt anyone either when I was nailed. No damage to anything what so ever. Didn’t even puke on the cop’s shoes (tip: they hate that, I’m told). I was on my way home, doing the posted speed limit.
She could have very easily killed not only herself, but any number of people. And then, when she got her free pass and her probation, she ignored it, and drove at LEAST twice that we know of (she only got arrested twice, and her claim of “i didn’t know I couldn’t” suggests VERY strongly she drove WAY more than twice.
She broke the law, and willingly, and knowingly turned down probation by doing that. She deserved the full 90, since usually when probation gets pulled, you go in for the full amount. Instead the judge was nice and gave her 45 days, reduced to 23. Again, she got off EASY.
And now she’s at home because she’s a lil baby who can’t function without a flock of primper and preeners and groomers and cooks and maids and stylists.
I’m not entirely sure if anyone ever told you, but jail isn’t supposed to be a nice place. You are supposed to hate it there. You are supposed to leave and think “Gee, that wasn’t so bad. I think I wouldn’t mind going back…”
No, you’re supposed to walk out thinking “Jesus fucking shit, I don’t EVER wanna go back to jail again!”
She found a way to play the system. In that regard, good for her. For the rest of LA that was involved in her going to Home-Arrest, shame on you…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/7/2007 @ 5:29 pmAccording to Drudge both the judge and City Attorney were consulted and the Sheriff proceeded over their objections. In my view, the Sheriff did the right thing. His people are in the best position to know who belongs in their jail and who doesn’t.
nk (c66fe9) — 6/7/2007 @ 5:29 pmThe press conferance the guy from the Sheriff’s dept gave said the judge had been informed… He actively avoided answering the question ‘how did the judge respond?’
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/7/2007 @ 5:34 pmnk, so the courts wishes don’t matter and the jail determines who stays?
Does anyone believe there wasn’t something untoward in this decision?
The court gave very specific orders too. It reduced her sentence from 90-45 and then to 23… but also insisted she serve her sentence and ordered she not be given probation.
The court, in its wisdom or lack thereof, but certainly within its authority as I understand it, judged that the criminal in this case was not respecting the law and had to be given a custodial sentence for justice and to communicate the seriousness of the infractions and the consequences of disregarding probation terms.
The Sheriff, in flagrant disregard of the judge’s orders, took it on himself to release the criminal after only 5-days for reasons which most people would not get released for.
They would instead receive in-facility treatment or be referred to a hospital for treatment.
The judge will now hold a hearing to see whether the criminal should be returned to serve her sentence as ordered and, I gather, to determine whether the Sheriff is in contempt of court.
Let the facts come out. Good on the judge for having a set of balls and, arguably unlike the Sheriff, not being swayed by his.
Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/7/2007 @ 5:43 pmnk, so the courts wishes don’t matter and the jail determines who stays?
Does anyone believe there wasn’t something untoward in this decision?
The court gave very specific orders too. It reduced her sentence from 90-45 and then to 23… but also insisted she serve her sentence and ordered she not be given probation.
The court, in its wisdom or lack thereof, but certainly within its authority as I understand it, judged that the criminal in this case was not respecting the law and had to be given a custodial sentence for justice and to communicate the seriousness of the infractions and the consequences of disregarding probation terms.
The Sheriff, in flagrant disregard of the judge’s orders, took it on himself to release the criminal after only 5-days for reasons which most people would not get released for.
They would instead receive in-facility treatment or be referred to a hospital for treatment.
The judge will now hold a hearing to see whether the criminal should be returned to serve her sentence as ordered and, I gather, to determine whether the Sheriff is in contempt of court.
“I’ve never heard of a case where an inmate with mental problems has been released,” Remige said. “Every jail facility has a medical unit attached to it. If a medical condition arises that those units can’t handle we have a jail ward at County-USC Hospital. I find it hard to believe that the needs of one inmate could not be met by our medical services division.”
No kidding.
Let the facts come out. Good on the judge for having a set of balls and, arguably unlike the Sheriff, not being swayed by his.
Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/7/2007 @ 5:47 pm* by probation/release the criminal, of course, I mean alter the terms of her detention in express violation of the court’s direction
Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/7/2007 @ 5:49 pmSure there is. But she’s still, technically, in custody. The courts don’t run the detention facilities. This one’s all on the Sheriff.
Pablo (99243e) — 6/7/2007 @ 5:56 pmAlso, understand that she was only there for three full days, plus a few hours on sunday, and not even an hour thursday. She’s gotten 5 days credit for like 39 hours…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/7/2007 @ 5:56 pmI’m sorry… 63 hours I think was the number I heard… Sorry…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/7/2007 @ 5:57 pmBut they do get to decide where you go (probation, jail, what have you).
The judge was pretty damn clear in his ruling. Jaul, no Home Arrest…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/7/2007 @ 5:58 pmChristoph,
In the same article you linked the Judge himself expresses reservations whether he has jurisdiction to hear the City’s motion.
Look, a judge is not a king. He only has the power the law allows him (and in my opinion a good judge only exercises the power the law obligates him to exercise). Now, I don’t know California law but it is my general understanding that when a court, by writ of mittimus, surrenders a prisoner to the jailer, the court loses all control over the prisoner. The jailer proceeds under the laws that govern his conduct. So if the law allows the sheriff in this case to do what he did, it’s over. And in my opinion, well done.
nk (c66fe9) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:01 pmAnd so NK, when she fucks up this time, what then? Will you then think she should serve the full 90?
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:03 pmTo the posters who think it was a “penny ante” rap, I can introduce you to twenty or thirty families of people who were killed by drivers doing similar “penny ante” crimes(i.e., driving drunk and doing double the speed limit at night; if it’s a 35-mph speed zone it’s got pedestrians there, pardner!). I’m sure they’d have some comments on your perspective.
Second don’t shoot at Patterico’s office. They aren’t the agency handling the case. And the city attorney IS objecting, so you’re wrong anyway.
Third, NK, do you think the sheriff has the right to unilaterally disregard a judge’s order on sentencing? He doesn’t, and shouldn’t. That’s how favorites get played and rules get abused. If there’s a medical case to be made for her release it can and should be made to the judge, in a noticed motion to modify probation, where the city attorney has the right to respond and challenge the evidence. It’s called an adversary system, and it’s how everyone supposedly gets at least a reasonably fair chance. This smacks of a special deal; probably the LASD doesn’t want her in because they’re terrified of the publicity and liability if something happens to her. No disrespect intended, but most law enforcement bosses are more bureaucrat than cop, and they just want her to go away.
I hope the judge doesn’t buy it if it is this depression BS. I get depressed just going in to interview witnesses; if inmates get let out becuse they hate it the purpose is lost. And we all know a poor minority woman (or poor white one, BTW) wouldn’t have gotten out because she cried over the food.
What a sham.
John (f549b3) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:06 pmSorry, Scott, if she had harmed a child I might express a strong opinion. But mostly I’m pretty much a “but for the Grace of God there go I” kind of guy when it comes to sending people to jail.
nk (c66fe9) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:08 pmnk, perhaps if you think about dead children or their parents killed/left to live a life of disability and pain by drunk drivers who don’t obey the will of the courts, perhaps you’d see why some of us feel serving a 23-day sentence as ordered is reasonable.
Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:11 pmCrying and unable to eat? I know panic attacks, and that sounds like a panic attack to me.
I know panic attacks. I know the fear that freezes you in your tracks unable to move. I know the fear that makes you lash out, that makes you panic. Why else to you think they call them panic attacks?
Manipulating people? When did she ever get that smart? When did the LA County sherrif’s department ever get that stupid? When somebody like Paris Hilton is constantly crying and not eating, she is scared, and she is scared to death. You don’t fake that sort of things, not convincingly, and not around a bunch of hard asses like jail personnel. They know the score, and they’ve seen it tried by better actors that Paris could ever hope to be.
I know panic attacks. I know the feeling you have lost all control. I know the feeling that things are going to happen that’ll rend your soul from your body and leave you a gibbering fool for the world to laugh at. For the first time in her life Hilton lost control over her life, and it scared her to death. I hope she is taken in for an involuntary inpatient psychiatric evaluation, because she is non-functional and needs serious help. And in hospital they know how to handle someone having a panic attack.
Alan Kellogg (7df4bb) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:14 pmThe jails in LA County are under federal court orders to lessen overcrowding. I’m surprised she wasn’t released already without being ordered on home detention. I think the jail saw an opportunity to get rid of another body, but because she was Paris Hilton and she had a medical complaint, they could let her go on a medical release with an ankle bracelet to to placate the public. She isn’t being treated any differently than any other prisoner. If anything, she is being treated harsher.
sam (55ba3e) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:21 pmNK, sorry to come back but I DO know California law, and the judge DOES have jurisdiction. I don’t know why he would question it. She was AND STILL IS on probation, and when you are on probation you are always subject to the court’s jurisdiction, because you are “on probation to the Court.” (I’ve done this for 23 years and it ain’t rocket science.) That doesn’t necessarily mean that it was illegal for the Sheriff to grant a medical release; but the other posters are right that this IS special treatment. Our jail system is small compared to LA’s, and we have the capacity to handle all but a very few medical problems. Anybody else would have been blown off by the jail psych techs over this, or at most (if it appeared legit) gone to the hospital jail ward. The Sheriff’s decision here simply isn’t defensible, whatever the judge may do tomorrow. If it is, do you think every depressed inmate who hates the food (including the child molestors and murderers) should be released? Put your money where your mouth is.
There seems to be an underlying tone (may be I’m misreading you; if so I apologize) that you don’t think she did anything serious. If you don’t, I’M serious about you need to observe what DUI vehicular homicides do to a family. And she is one waiting to happen. I’ve worked straight murders for 19 years and hate DUI homicides because they are very often more devastating emotionally to the family than having a loved one the victim of a “regular murder.” I don’t know why, I’m not a shrink; but I’ve seen it over and over.
She needs to get the message before she kills herself or someone else. Driving a vehicle at speed while drunk isn’t child’s play.
Unlike, apparently, getting out of Sheriff Baca’s jail.
John (f549b3) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:24 pmAlan, you may be right about panic attacks and they’re no picnic, I understand. But an ordinary prisoner would NOT have been sent home to finish their sentence with an ankle bracelet for one. And you don’t think so either. They’d have gone to the hospital for treatment, and if they couldn’t go back to jail they’d be sent back before the judge.
This is special treatment, and it ain’t due to overcrowding.
John (f549b3) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:30 pmThat’s drivel, sam.
Even the official spokesperson for the jail denies that was an issue.
The best that could be said about it, if it were true, is the Sherrif’s office decided to mislead the public because it said this isn’t the case.
No, what happened is the Sheriff simply chose to place his will above the judge’s. If her medical condition was so extraordinary, so dangerous to her health that she simply couldn’t spend another minute in prison to wait for a hearing before the judge to request the judge consider the evidence and vary his order, then she should have been rushed to a hospital… not home.
Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:30 pmOn most misdemeanor jail sentences for nonviolent offenses, the defendant appears at the jail, is admitted and released within hours. Again, it’s because the jails are overcrowded and subject to federal orders to release prisoners.
sam (55ba3e) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:35 pmNo, it’s not drivel Christoph. I have also worked as an attorney for 23 years but unlike John, I work in LA County.
sam (55ba3e) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:37 pmThat anyone is surprised by this is humorous. Look, what it all comes down to is money and politics. Do any of you seriously think the Sheriff could forego the opportunity to release Paris early and the media that would accompany to proclaim, “See the real problem is the Sheriff just doesn’t have enough money and beds to keep everybody here that long. It’s worse in Juvi, Probation will release kids to communicate to the Sheriffs that they want money. It’s all a play for cash, that’s nothing new.
JB (955208) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:40 pmCalifornia could always raise taxes to pay for more jails.
alphie (015011) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:40 pmAs fast as they build prisons and jails in California, they are filled. We had so many new prisons built in the last 10-15 years I lost count. Yet, the prison system is also in crisis, forcing the prisons to attempt to transfer prisoners out of state. However, the prison guard union went to court to stop it. Didn’t want to lose that overtime.
sam (55ba3e) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:43 pmThen your defense of the Sherrif’s office, sam, is they lied to the public?
Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:44 pmNow, you are making things up, Christoph. How did the LASD lie? Because they didn’t include you in every detail of the decision making process? lol!
sam (55ba3e) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:45 pmSherrif’s office pointedly stating Paris Hilton’s release was not in any way due to overcrowding.
Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:46 pmI defer to Sam and John on California law. On the broader issue, I stick to my view that people should be punished for what harm they did to another person and not on what’s imagined what harm they could have done to another person.
nk (c66fe9) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:47 pmI can’t access the link. For the sake of argument they said that she was released for medical reasons. That doesn’t mean she would not have been released for jail overcrowding. I would remind you that Michelle Rodriquez surrendered at the same facility for a 60 day sentence and was released in four hours. Did she get preferential treatment? Nope. Early release for jail overcrowding is a fact of life.
sam (55ba3e) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:50 pmThat’s a sentencing consideration, nk… and she was only sentenced to 23-days, not life. Be real.
However, your opinion is fair enough. It’s a valid viewpoint.
The fact remains, she was ordered to receive a certain sentence and specifically the Sheriff’s office was ordered to not give her a different sentence (electronic monitoring).
This was the judge’s decision and I think you should respect his role in the process. It was the probation order he wrote she violated, after all.
Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:51 pmSorry you couldn’t access the link, sam. For some reason, it’s tough to open in I.E., but seems to work fine in Firefox. Don’t know why. Must be something I did wrong.
You can also find it on this page described as “Video: Watch the Press Conference.
At any rate, you can safely assume the Sheriff’s office informed the public she was released only for medical reasons. Because that’s what they said.
They said overcrowding was no part of their decision process. If the truth is otherwise, they lied.
Either way, this Sheriff sucks more than … well…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,279212,00.html
Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:54 pmUh oh. The Judge ordered Paris Hilton to appear in his Court tomorrow (Friday) morning.
DRJ (2d5e62) — 6/7/2007 @ 6:56 pmTo #57
Assuming she’s sober enough to attend (anyone care to cover that action?), and shows on time (she won’t, I would bet money on it), she’s screwed. She’s going back to jail, I would wager…
How much you wanna bet the judge already got told she violated the home monitoring?
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:18 pmDid she violate the home monitoring? How?
Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:21 pmYour air marshals never made a sex tape distributed over the internet.
Beldar (977b40) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:23 pmI stick to my view that people should be punished for what harm they did to another person and not on what’s imagined what harm they could have done to another person.
Attempted murder? Nobody actually died. Intent to distribute? Nothing was actually was sold. What about police stings where an undercover officer sells fake cocaine or pot? Those people didn’t actually but illegal drugs. Chris Hanson has a lot of apologizing to do to all those pedo’s he helped catch in those Dateline stings, ‘To Catch a Predator’, because no underage sex actually occurred.
fngJD (49df46) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:25 pm*but = buy
fngJD (49df46) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:26 pmChristopher, I have no idea…
It’s possible the judge is just nipping this BS in the bud, but with a retard like Paris, it’s hard to tell…
And to Alan:
That smart? Sorry, but the cynic in me always assumed that particular skill was hard-wired into women at birth…
As for the second question, do we REALLY wanna answer that one?
One forum suggested it was to halt the spread of Herpes amoung staff of Century Regional Detention Facility.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:28 pmHere’s my understanding about the Court hearing tomorrow AM based on reading the linked article:
The Judge scheduled a hearing on the prosecutor’s Motion, which was filed sometime today, asking the Court to hold the Sheriff in contempt of court for releasing Paris Hilton early in violation of the Court’s order of incarceration. The Judge apparently also ordered Paris Hilton to attend, presumably on the basis that she is a material witness who can testify about the factual basis for her medical release.
I don’t know about California – it’s wacky out there! – but you don’t generally see motions filed by prosecutors to hold the sheriff in contempt. It should be interesting.
DRJ (2d5e62) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:31 pmYes, Christoph, she was released for medical reasons. I said that. But the bottom line is that she would have been released early anyway, because of jail overcrowding. That the LASD did not spell it out for you is irrelevant. Defendants who have nonviolent misdemeanor jail sentence serve very little time due to jail overcrowding. That she even served as much as 5 days on her sentence is more than usual. Can’t be clearer than that.
sam (55ba3e) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:32 pmDRJ: Don’t underestimate Sheriff Baca or his position. His is the highest paid civil service position in the nation for a reason. He will have his team of county attorneys with him.
sam (55ba3e) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:36 pm“Don’t underestimate Sheriff Baca or his position. His is the highest paid civil service position in the nation for a reason. He will have his team of county attorneys with him.”
He’ll need ’em.
Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:40 pmSam, he violated a court’s order. It’s one of those “you did it, you didn’t do it” sort of things…
He’s boned…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:48 pmSam,
I don’t underestimate anyone in this case. It’s been wildly unpredictable but nevertheless fascinating. And I think your point is well-taken. The Sheriff ought to make decisions about what happens in his jails. I suspect this is just a mechanism to get the matter back in court so the Judge can ascertain the facts and enter further orders, if he so chooses.
DRJ (2d5e62) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:50 pmIf California jail overcrowding is such a big problem, maybe they should focus on something Patrick has been highlighting on this blog recently – deporting illegal immigrants, especially the felonious variety.
What a concept!
Enforce the laws. Catch the fever.
daleyrocks (906622) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:52 pmI believe she was sentenced to 45 days, but that they projected that to be 23, based on routine 1-for-1 good-time credit for each day served and on the assumption that she would behave herself. That’s presumably also why the paperwork about her release refers to her “serving” the remaining 40 days of her term — no “good time” if not in the jail, I suppose.
Beldar (977b40) — 6/7/2007 @ 7:57 pmNope… watch the press conferance that guy did… He says 5 days, due to time she was processed in, and the time whe was processed into house-monitoring…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/7/2007 @ 8:10 pmIf California jail overcrowding is such a big problem, maybe they should focus on something Patrick has been highlighting on this blog recently – deporting illegal immigrants, especially the felonious variety.
Agreed. According to the GAO:
270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time in 2003, representing 21% of the total prison population. It is estimated that currently 27% of federal prison inmates are criminal aliens, noncitizens convicted of crimes while in this country legally or illegally. Of those 270,000, almost 50% were in California prisons.
Deporting some of these people would surely free up some bunks.
fngJD (49df46) — 6/7/2007 @ 8:11 pmScott (#72), we’re talking past each other. I apologize for being unclear.
I don’t know how they calculated the five days credit that they’ve already given her. You may be right — that may be without good-time credit, but instead based on her getting full-day credit for Sunday, June 3, and Thursday, June 7 (even though she spent only parts of those two days in actual custody).
I was actually addressing Christoph’s comment (#28) above, in which he wrote “The court … reduced her sentence from 90-45 and then to 23… but also insisted she serve her sentence and ordered she not be given probation.” I, likewise, had previously assumed (in a post I wrote over on my blog, commending her for an apparent change of attitude just before she went in) that the “23 days” being discussed then was based on jail overcrowding. But I no longer think that’s correct, based on the “booking details I linked above and numerous contemporaneous press accounts consistent with the Fox News story I linked as well.
The City Attorney’s application for a show cause order argues as part of the reason for its urgency that under the relevant California statute and interpreting caselaw, she will continue to “earn custody credits” for every day she’s on electronic monitoring, notwithstanding the fact that her being on electronic monitoring is contrary to the sentencing judge’s order. But I’m just guessing above (#71) when I said she might not get good-time credit if she’s at home on electronic monitoring. I don’t know the source of taht good-time credit — whether it’s pursuant to a statute or just to a Sheriff’s Department policy. Moreover, I’m not licensed in California, and I don’t practice criminal law — so my guesses are particularly unreliable here.
I’m curious, in fact, to what extent this release was due to a request made by Ms. Hilton through her counsel. She changed lawyers after the sentencing hearing at which her probation was revoked, and the tone of the rhetoric changed very, very dramatically — from “I’m a martyr, this is outrageous, I’m being persecuted because I’m rich and famous” to “I’m not appealing, I’m going to do my time, I’ve learned my lesson and I’m going to be a better person in the future.” (Hence my approving post, which was the first thing I’d written anywhere about her or this matter.) Now I’m wondering if this release was entirely, or at least mostly, on the initiative of Sheriff Baca. There’s been a suggestion, though, from what’s probably not a particularly reliable source (i.e., a celebrity gossip website) that the decision was also based at least in part on an examination by and opinion from a psychiatrist named Charles Sophy, whose testimony was also used to secure a continuance for her in a civil trial that was scheduled for this month.
The funniest line I’ve read tonight is the quote from the judge that appears in the LA Times article Patterico linked (italics mine):
Yeah, right. As if there’s any chance of it not being a circus!
Beldar (977b40) — 6/7/2007 @ 8:30 pmHey, I see your point, but you’re not giving adequate weight to one thing.
It’s an important part of America’s founding and psyche: the idea all people are equal before the law.
Rich or not.
Americans and believers in freedom will always debate this point in the face of such unfairness.
It affects us. We are, after all, the people who are prosecuted, rightly or wrongly, by people in your position. We get no special breaks.
If we do the crime we do the time.
Certainly, I can’t ball and go home. I’d ball and perhaps be laughed at, maybe given medical treatment at best… but not sent home to my huge mansion.
Not if the judge had expressly ordered otherwise. No way.
We’re not debating too much the details of the crime and sentence although we’ve touched on it, I more than most.
It’s the special treatment. The covenant of a society based on laws that we’re all equal before it. A covenant that is frequently broken.
And that’s a matter of public interest.
Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/7/2007 @ 9:16 pmWhat do the Air Marshals think of Paris Hilton getting out of jail early?
Wesson (e7f360) — 6/7/2007 @ 9:34 pmwho bribed whom, and how?
assistant devil's advocate (0e5695) — 6/7/2007 @ 11:27 pmI would assume that the Sheriff is an elected official, so that a blatant bribe would be unneccessary. These days, it’s called a “campaign contribution.”
great unknown (1f0f07) — 6/8/2007 @ 5:22 am#79 Beldar: While a defendant is entitled to custody credits when on home detention, they are not entitled to conduct credits. Conduct credits are pursuant to state law; early release is pursuant to local policy which is based on federal court orders to relieve jail overcrowding.
sam (55ba3e) — 6/8/2007 @ 5:37 amJudge steals line from Shakespeare: “Get thee to a prison cell!“
Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 6/8/2007 @ 11:23 amScott, that is the line of the week. Wow.
Christoph (353eca) — 6/8/2007 @ 11:44 amWell lord knows if she went to a nunnery she’s burst into flames…
Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 6/8/2007 @ 11:49 amOh, and on the fox news website’s main page, there’s a link to a crying Paris as the Sheriff’s deputies take her from her home to the courthouse…
It’s getting saved on my computer at home when I get off work… It’s like candy for the soul…
Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 6/8/2007 @ 11:50 amThere could be several reasons Sheriff Baca wanted to release Paris Hilton, and I’m sympathetic to some of them. For example, Baca might not want the legal risk of being responsible for someone so insecure, whiny, privileged and represented by lawyers eager to sue. Hilton is probably also a magnet for inmates and deputies. I’m sure it required extra staff to handle and protect her.
It’s been reported that, while in jail, Hilton cried, refused to eat, and incessantly hit her emergency bell. If this is true, Baca and his staff surely tired of this behavior and perhaps he decided it was easier to let Hilton go than to deal with her, much as a parent might choose to leave the grocery store with a screaming toddler rather than deal with the tantrum. Thus, while I don’t think this was a good decision, it’s an understandable one.
Hilton’s medical condition was likely diagnosed by one or more private physicians. I would bet money that Hilton’s physician(s) insisted that incarceration would dramatically worsen her condition. Even if the State’s physicians doubted that diagnosis or conclusion, they probably can’t rule it out conclusively. Medicine isn’t that precise, especially when it pits the opinions of a treating physician against that of a non-treating physician. Baca may have been unwilling to get in the middle of a medical catfight.
Another scenario is that Baca wanted to work with or grant favors to Hilton’s influential defense attorneys. Baca may not have cared about Hilton and her celebrity but he works with prosecutors and attorneys everyday. Elected sheriffs learn to get along with attorneys but if that’s what happened here, I think Baca underestimated the response of the electorate.
DRJ (2d5e62) — 6/8/2007 @ 12:30 pmThis is absurd. Either L.A. County Sheriff can deal with full scale riots, dangerous and violent male felons awaiting trial, and effectively patrol the mean streats, or they can’t deal with one whiny socialite. If what you said was Baca’s reasoning, I think we have graver problems as to whether PH is back on the street or not.
Fritz (45e987) — 6/8/2007 @ 12:34 pmUnless there is some other information out there that we haven’t seen, the judge took out his anger at the sheriff on Paris Hilton. She was (supposedly) going to be out in 23 days; now he has ordered that she serve the entire 45.
Yet, she was released through the apparently entirely legal actions of the sheriff; unless something else is shown, the judge disagreed with the sheriff’s judgement — and, again, took it out on Miss Hilton.
In this one, my syppathies are actually for Miss Hilton.
Dana (3e4784) — 6/8/2007 @ 1:30 pmI am wondering what happened to the America that I love.
papertiger (b40a74) — 6/8/2007 @ 1:41 pmThe America I know is a place where celebrities and politicians can treat traffic laws as suggestions.
For God’s sake, does this mean NBA players won’t be allowed to shoot their limo driver on a whim?
Does this mean Kobe can’t rape out of state teenagers?
Will Halli Berry finally be forced to surrender her drivers licence?
Madness
You’re evil, Scott.
Christoph (353eca) — 6/8/2007 @ 1:42 pmAt no point have I ever claimed otherwise… 🙂
If you are just now figuring this out, you’re late to the party… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 6/8/2007 @ 1:43 pmDana,
The Judge hasn’t changed Paris Hilton’s sentence – it was and still is 45 days. She gets credit for time already served and, as I understand California law, she will also get 1 days’ credit for each 4 days served. The news reports say that she will even get to include her 1-2 days of house arrest in the 4-for-1 credit.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 6/8/2007 @ 1:44 pmDana, it isn’t a case of Sauer’s “taking it out” on the defendant. She was duly sentenced like anyone else to begin with–and then, her sentence was altered without the sheriff going through the correct channels to do so (at the very least).
The point of all this is that Hilton was sentenced to punishment she didn’t serve–and punshment for a very valid reason: breaking probation repeatedly, ignoring the terms of probation, making ludicrous excuses to the court–even dissing the court by arriving late to her original sentencing-that last a huge no-no for ANY defendant(indeed, any juror or attorney as well–just try it. Judges hate excuses, and they positively go ballistic with NO excuses).
In other words, Paris Hilton has asked for this with both hands. And the issues surrounding her early release to a home confinement she wasn’t supposed to have is murky at best.
Personally, I’d guess she wasn’t expecting for one minute that she’d be in prison for more than a couple of days. Anyway, it’s the judge’s right and prerogative to do what he did today. I’m thrilled to see such an entitled waste of the court’s time actually have to face reality. I live in Hollywood, and I can tell you that for all her many traffic stops for driving erractically, being drunk or other shenanigans there were thousands of times she drove recklessly without being cited or stopped. No pity here.
JPL (da5dfa) — 6/8/2007 @ 1:46 pmAlso, her demand to do the whole thing with the judge OEVR THE PHONE might have pissed him off a little…
“Bitch, I said come to court, so you come the fuck to court… Deputy, go get her, slap the bint in irons, and DRAG her here if need be…”
Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 6/8/2007 @ 1:53 pmI believe her tears are real–who wouldn’t be scared too at the prospect of going to jail? And, Earth to Paris, that’s why we don’t DRINK AND DRIVE!
Patricia (824fa1) — 6/8/2007 @ 3:13 pmWhile I blame the sheriff more than I blame her for her early release, she shouldn’t be getting reduced time for her “good behavior” thus far.
Vatar (bb1678) — 6/8/2007 @ 3:28 pmOh, look at lil miss “I’m so much better than you cause I don’t drink and drive”…
(/joking!!!)
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/8/2007 @ 5:26 pmWant tears?
Kill someone while drinking and driving.
Christoph (bad4f9) — 6/8/2007 @ 5:28 pmParis needs to realize the 1 day off for every 4 days served is for GOOD BEHAVIOR. If she continues to whine and abuse the emergency call button and distract staff, she will likely start to loose good behavior credits.
If she is sick, they can put her in a medical unit. If she is talking of killing or hurting herself, she can be put on a suicide watch. None of these are fun. The better she behaves the better she will be treated.
I spent 10 years working in a large correctional facility and, for the most part, it is the inmate that determines how they are going to be treated. In the whole history of jails and prisons, no one has ever won by whining.
The biggest negative is that, because of her fame, she is basically on solitary confinement. 23 hour a day lock downs are usually used for punishment. I am surprised that they don’t have a protective custody unit where the inmates are not restricted to their cells 23 hours out of every 24. That is tough time.
huey (76a6ac) — 6/8/2007 @ 6:16 pmYeah, I just curl up on a park bench and sleep it off!
Update: Apparently Paris is now in the jail hospital for her ‘mental’ condition, where she is receiving, I’m sure, lots of great drugs.
Patricia (824fa1) — 6/8/2007 @ 8:32 pmA buddy once told me what he tells new inmates (he’s a C.O.): “I can either be a nice guy, or the biggest ass you know, it’s all up to you…”
To which they usually reply “Oh yeah? what the fuck can you do??”
He then holds up a roll of toilet paper and smiles as he says “I decide if you get this or not…”
He’s got some AMAZINGLY well behaved inmates…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 6/9/2007 @ 9:28 amNEWS FLASH
The Twin Towers professional staff has positively diagnosed Paris Hilton’s condition.
Miss Hilton has been confirmed to be suffering from an advanced case of HUTAS (Head Up The Ass Syndrome). Hilton exhibits the advanced symptoms related to a patient with their head clearly up their ass. It is known that if HUTAS isn’t diagnosed and treated in its early stages, the condition suffocates the brain and leads to irreversible systemic damage. Symptoms are characterized by a lack of intelligence, muffled hysteria and blind arrogance which enlarges the head making it more difficult to cure the disease.
Treatment for HUTAS includes applying repeated and sufficient force to each side of the buttocks with one’s foot. Having the patient walking or running while their buttocks is booted builds psychological remedy for the patient and satisfaction for the treatment specialist. Most professionals agree that in Miss Hilton’s case, several hundred treatment sessions will be required to obtain full remission. Due to the expected long and arduous recovery period, it is recommended that the public at large be recruited to administer treatments.
qwkinuf (13c69c) — 6/10/2007 @ 12:51 pm