Utah Great-grandmother Charged with Resisting Arrest and Lawn Abuse
[Guest post by DRJ]
Orem, Utah, resident Betty Perry is not your typical criminal defendant:
“A 70-year-old woman arrested in a dispute over her brown lawn pleaded not guilty Tuesday, then stood by as a Los Angeles lawyer waved handcuffs for the cameras outside court. “I ask the citizens of Orem: How many of you would like to have your great-grandmother taken from her home with bruises and blood and placed in handcuffs for failing to water her lawn?” attorney Gloria Allred said. “Let’s bring sanity back to law enforcement,” she said.
Betty Perry is charged with resisting arrest and failing to maintain her landscaping, both misdemeanors. She was arrested July 6 after failing to give her name to a police officer who visited her home. During a struggle, Perry fell and injured her nose. She spent more than an hour in a holding cell before police released her.”
There’s no great-grandmother exception for resisting arrest and there shouldn’t be, but I don’t think it should be a criminal offense to have a brown lawn.
— DRJ
Does that seem like a rational choice, living without water?
It certainly did not surprise me to see Allred involved. Good Allah, is there a camera anywhere in the world that she will not preen in front of?
Resisting is resisting, and like was mentioned, there is no exception due to gender or age.
JD (f6a000) — 9/18/2007 @ 9:09 pmDRJ:
“…but I don’t think it should be a criminal offense to have a brown lawn.”
Many communities charge Code-Enforcement with enforcing those areas of the Municipal Code that requires home-owners to maintain landscaping on their front and side yards, the parkway, and to maintain the cosmetics of the house structure. Failure to do so is a violation of the Muni Code, and is prosecuted as a misdemeanor.
I personally feel that requiring a home-owner to install and maintain landscaping (that satisfies the sensibilities of the suits at City Hall) on the parkway – which is City property – is a violation of the home-owner’s rights under the 13th Amendment.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 9/18/2007 @ 9:21 pmShe’s 70 years old and a great-grandmother. She has lived long enough. She should take her deer rifle and give an objects lessons to all pigs in blue who think that their badges and guns make them gods.
nk (474afa) — 9/18/2007 @ 9:24 pmAD,
Thanks for a rational and thoughtful response. I know there are ordinances like this – my community has them plus I live in an area with deed restrictions (which are probably not worth anything) that cover appearance. I’m fine with civil penalties but not so much with criminal sanctions unless there is a threat to public health and safety, e.g., a lot that is overgrown with weeds or filled with debris, etc.
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/18/2007 @ 9:31 pmShe was arrested July 6 after failing to give her name to a police officer who visited her home.
I do believe that if any police officer comes unto my property and asks me my name I have a Fourth Amendment right to say: “Do you have a warrant, officer? No? Then get the hell off my property!”
nk (474afa) — 9/18/2007 @ 9:38 pmNK,
My guess is the police relied on a plain view exception. That may be a silly guess but this seems like a silly situation.
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/18/2007 @ 10:04 pmfunny, if we have a water emergency (and it looks like another drought year) we get in trouble for a lawn that isn’t brown.
Andrew J. Lazarus (a774bc) — 9/18/2007 @ 10:43 pmWow NK I suppose you wouldn’t give your driver’s license and registration to a cop if you were pulled over too?
Its nice to see the intelligence of some people.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 9/18/2007 @ 11:14 pmNK I am puzzled.
voiceofreason (51498b) — 9/19/2007 @ 1:19 amYou seem to desperately want to mow down unarmed people who commit what is a misdemeanor by crossing the border.
Yet you don’t have the fortitude to take out a 70 old woman committing a misdemeanor….
DRJ #6,
Or “open fields”. For information that would lead to issuance of either a search or arrest warrant. Even the cops who gunned down Kathryn Johnston knew they needed a blue-backed paper to do it at her home and lied to get one.
Thomas Jackson #8,
Big difference, in law and practice, between driving a car on public streets and minding your own business on your own property.
Voiceofreason #9,
I’m not up on my federal law but I hope that smuggling 600 lbs. of marijuana is more than a misdemeanor.
nk (474afa) — 9/19/2007 @ 4:23 amNK
You said
“First off, thank you for another excellent post, DRJ.
Second, well … I am still bothered that we cannot shoot invaders on sight.”
Sounds to me like you are advocating “shoot all the brown people, no exceptions”
So when do you start shooting grandma?
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 9/19/2007 @ 5:11 amGrandma was not an invader. The cop was the invader. And where did you see the “brown people” in my comment? I am on record that I don’t like bullies in blue who victimize old women and skin color has nothing to do with it.
nk (474afa) — 9/19/2007 @ 5:38 amCodewords are a wonderful thing. I understand all too well what it is you are advocating.
“Sir, there is a young girl and boy and older woman crossing the border. What are your instructions?”
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 9/19/2007 @ 5:44 am“Shoot to kill”
“But they aren’t armed, let alone appearing to have intent or opportunity to hurt us.”
“They are invaders damn it. Shoot them”
The racism card has been played against border enforcement advocates for a long time now. Believe what you like, voiceofreason. I have no interest of talking you out of anything that I did not talk you into.
nk (474afa) — 9/19/2007 @ 5:52 amIf you are going to call yourself the Voice of Reason, you really ought to consider acting, you know, reasonable. Codewords, and accusing conservatives of racism are tired, yet predictable responses for people that think in sound bites. Apparently, you fancy yourself a mind reader too, with the ability to understand nk’s intent all too well. You might want to get that checked out, because it is failing you, miserably.
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 5:55 amJD,
Plain and simple, NK said shoot invaders coming across the border. That is a fact based on his post.
Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. That is a fact.
Misdemeanors are not an executable offense in our country. That is a fact.
The majority of people coming across the border are of Hispanic background. Again Fact.
Is it racist or not? that is opinion.
But the fact is that NK advocates killing unarmed people for committing misdemeanors. So yes or no, do YOU agree with what NK stated in a different thread that we should just shoot invaders?
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 9/19/2007 @ 6:01 amVoice of Babble – It might be racist if the statement was “let’s shoot all the brown invaders”. However, all you have is a beef about the appropriate level of punishment for violation of a sovereign nation’s borders. nk takes this issue a might be more seriously than you.
Personally, I think shooting them is a bit draconian. I would put up an 2000 V electric fence. Sure, a few drunk students might accidentally run into it in Tiajuana, but it would quickly stop the coyotes.
Or, we could annex Mexico, lease it to Disney, and call it Disney del Sur. They could clean up the country and the economy in no time flat.
In short, crying racism where it does not exist weakens actual instances of racism. It dilutes the effect, and in no way makes the point you are attempting to make. In fact, it makes you an ass.
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 6:13 amNever mind, JD. Voiceofreason is a public school teacher looking to become a principal. I imagine he needs to document a number of instances of leftist political correctness.
nk (474afa) — 9/19/2007 @ 6:33 amYou are kidding, right? Do you know what school district, so I can avoid it like the plague? Was that racist of me? Is plague some kind of codeword?
I am still trying to keep from tapping my foot while dropping a deuce. All of these codewords and secret signals have my head spinning.
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 6:44 amThomas Jackson,
The difference between pulled over by a cop and having an officer knocking on your door is: in the 1st case, you are in public space and have the duty to respond to police inquiry, and in the second, the officer is entering your private property, and as far as I know, you are within your full rights to tell him to bugger off if he doesn’t have a warrant. If Orem, Utah has different law regarding police entering private property, I’d like to know.
YC (5b361b) — 9/19/2007 @ 6:47 amJD #19,
I am still trying to keep from tapping my foot while dropping a deuce. All of these codewords and secret signals have my head spinning.
Heh! I’m thinking of putting on a Depends when I travel but then I might be charged with stalking an astronaut.
And no, I don’t know Voiceofreason’s school district and I only mentioned his job because he, himself, put up a long post about it a while back.
nk (474afa) — 9/19/2007 @ 6:51 amJD,
Draconian. That’s all I was asking. As to the seriousness of the border issue; it is a misdemeanor. If people think that is not enough change the law. But thanks for answering.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 9/19/2007 @ 6:56 amNK,
No not a school teacher. Got me mixed up with someone else.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 9/19/2007 @ 6:59 amSorry. My apologies, also, to the innocent blogger I confused Voiceofreason with.
nk (474afa) — 9/19/2007 @ 7:08 amAnyway guys, I’d love to continue this discussion but I have to go and water my mother’s lawn. 😉
nk (474afa) — 9/19/2007 @ 7:15 amVoice of reason–I am PERFECTLY fine with shooting the grandma and the kids who are coming into our country illegally. And you are not because why? Oh let me guess–you have a trust fund, so your trying to assuage your guilt on the backs of the rest of us. Nice.
TheManTheMyth (9a7d6a) — 9/19/2007 @ 7:15 amTheManTheMyth,
No trust fund here. Just a simple and accurate observation that a misdemeanor does not warrant lethal force. If you don’t like it then change the laws regarding it.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 9/19/2007 @ 7:27 amI’ll go out on a limb and guess that you are not “real keen” on having the second amendment impacted through various gun laws and/or that the fairness doctrine is offensive to you on first amendment grounds.
Same logic different issue.
No, voice of reason, you were not asking for draconian, you were asking for racist. There are miles separating the 2 concepts.
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 7:41 amI am not real keen on imbecile Legislators passing laws in direct contravention of the 2nd Amendment either. Why is it that everybody fights so fiercely for the 1st Amendment, but just kind of shrugs their shoulders when the Congresscritters muck with the 2nd Amendment?
What do you consider to be the proper punishment for violating the border of a sovereign nation?
I know, maybe we should just adopt the standards in place in Mexico.
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 7:43 amJD,
You keep bringing up the racist angle. Not me.
As to proper punishment.. I think if the focus is on punishment it is the wrong focus.
Focus on two things (1) better border controls (fence, cctv, more border patrol personnel) (2) go after the businesses and individuals who employ illegal aliens. This is the best way to deter people from coming across the border – no jobs, no point in paying someone a years salary to sneak them across the border.
I don’t really care what Mexico does at its southern border. And I rather doubt that you prefer that we begin to act like them.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 9/19/2007 @ 7:51 amvoiceofreason – Let us not forget your own elegant words on this topic, from this very thread. Apparently, you do not pay attention to your own writing, so why should we?
Now, who keeps bringing up racism?
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 8:03 am2,000 V electric fence is good with me.
The whole punish business meme is something that in theory, I do not have a problem with. Certainly enterprising Americans are the root of the problem. It could never be due to a corrupt and broken government in Mexico. Once they are here, the Dems want to give them tuition breaks, and access to our social safety net, so not giving them jobs seems to address only one aspect of the problem.
Annexing the country and creating Disney del Sur still seems like a great idea to me. If we are going to be imperialists, at least we can do something to deserve the moniker.
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 8:15 amVoice of Reason – Where did I mention their southern border? Our laws should simply mirror theirs in enforcement and severity. Have you ever tried to get on a plane in Cancun after losing your passport while doing body shots off an entire midwestern sorority house at Senor Frogs or Carol & Johnny’s ?
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 8:16 amJD,
You mentioned adopting the standards in Mexico as apply to border enforcement. Their stricter enforcement methods are only used in the south – not too many people escaping from the US to go to Mexico.
As I mentioned beef up our physical controls and manning and dry up the flow by penalizing US companies who hire them.
You seem to think I’m for giving them lots of bennies once they are here illegally. I’m not. But I am not advocating we round up the 12 million or so already here unless as Patterico suggest it is the hard core criminals.
In order to do that some system for “going to the back of the line” will need to be devised if the goal is to really have a better awareness of who is in country.
You keep going back to the racist angle. You jumped into a discussion between NK and I. If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.
If you lost your passport in the manner you described it’s hard to be sympathetic. However, wouldn’t you want the authorities in all countries to be tough on letting people on planes headed to the US?
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 9/19/2007 @ 8:42 amVoice of reason – you introduced the racist angle to this in comment #11, and have continued on doing so despite the inanity of that being pointed out to you repeatedly.
At the very least, you insinuated that nk holds racist views, based on absolutely nothing, except his political views. Since you were not speaking to me, directly, it should not bother me? I think such bastardization of language and devolution of the meaning of words should be pointed out and mocked every time it rears its ugly head.
It is possible to disagree without imputing bad faith to the other side. You, apparently, are not capable of doing so. That is on you, not anyone else.
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 9:01 amJD,
Do you seriously believe that saying “I am still bothered that we cannot shoot invaders on sight” is a political view?
What NK and now you are doing is using the Coulter tactic. When you get caught in a sandtrap you play victim and pretend someone is calling you a racist. You keep doing it over and over to cover up the fact that someone advocated a position that is not in keeping with what our country is about and the manner in which it was suggested or phrased is what one would expect to find on a hate site run by Aryans or by Jihadists.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 9/19/2007 @ 9:09 amI’m not. But I am not advocating we round up the 12 million or so already here unless as Patterico suggest it is the hard core criminals.
We should just run one of those stings they pull occasionally for outstanding warrants. Advertise a signup for a greencard lottery or somesuch at a dozen locations around the country on a given day. Deport everyone stupid enough to show up.
Taltos (c99804) — 9/19/2007 @ 10:48 amTaltos,
I’d recommend they do stings on businesses that employ illegals. It is kind of like the old police tactic of “not on my beat”. A city gets tough on the employers, the workers quit coming there and move to a different city. Eventually enough cities are doing it that a marked decrease in the flow across the border begins to take hold.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 9/19/2007 @ 11:24 amSo they go and arrest 70 year old grandmother for not keeping her lawn green is this what the eco-wackos want SCREW THE GREENS she should be aquited and the stupid law thrown out
krazy kagu (e08c0e) — 9/19/2007 @ 12:02 pmVoice of Reason (what a bullshit name)
I am not playing some victim, nor is nk. You brought up race, and you accused nk of being a racist. I simply called you on it. nk was enough of a gentleman to flippantly dismiss your ramblings, which is what I will do from here on out. You have shown yourself to be a mendacious liar in this thread.
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 1:44 pmI love how off-topic VoF has taken the conversation. Someone shoot the racist teacher already.
Josh (d2f516) — 9/19/2007 @ 2:07 pmBack on the subject, I believe the officer acted illegally from the beginning. The Fourth Amendment requires warrants unless the circumstances give rise to one of the Court-created “warrantless exceptions” and the search and/or seizure is reasonable. We don’t even need to reach reasonable although I’d be glad to argue it. But let’s answer this question first: What exception to the warrant requirement was there?
nk (474afa) — 9/19/2007 @ 2:11 pm#21
If a cops knocks on your door and asks you questions about a crime committed in front of your house and you refuse to answer or respond citing the need for a warrant demonstrates both your lack of knowledge of the law and civics. You could be charged with obstructing an investigation, there is no requirement for a warrant to knock on your door jor e=ven to enter your home under certain circumstances as has been decided several times by the Supreme Court.
Are you suggesting if the police saw a man who commited a crime and entered your house they wouldn’t be able to enter your home without a warrant?
Please your eduction is showing.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 9/19/2007 @ 2:21 pmJD,
Embrace your bias my friend. You and NK have shown it proudly today. Maybe Anne will sign a book for you….
voiceofreason (51498b) — 9/19/2007 @ 2:32 pmI now pronounce you and NK VOD (Victims of the Day)! Happy?
Sigh.
nk (474afa) — 9/19/2007 @ 2:35 pmI am certainly no victim. You on the other hand, are a mendacious crap weasel.
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 3:07 pmJust be happy JD that voiceofreason isn’t addressing you in German … as you know, that’s the height of his wit.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/19/2007 @ 3:33 pmI will leave the fucker alone. Sorry folks.
Robin and nk – Was I out of line ?
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 3:37 pmNot in my opinion, JD, based on voiceofreason’s conduct in this thread and others.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/19/2007 @ 3:48 pmNo, you were not, JD. Thank you for defending me. I was running around all day taking care of business including, actually, my 79-year old mother’s, although not her lawn today. I’m sorry that I mistook the *bleep* for someone else who blogs under hte name A Voice Of Reason and is on my blogroll and showed him the deference I did to begin with, in this and other threads.
nk (474afa) — 9/19/2007 @ 3:58 pmThomas #43,
I have “made law” on Fourth Amendment issues. There are published opinions out there where I was sole counsel. Granted, they involved drugs and machine guns and not seventy-year old women but I think they may count for something.
And NO, the police do not have the right to enter your home without a warrant except in EXIGENT circumstances. And NO, you are not guilty of obstruction of justice by refusing to tell a police officer anything, anytime, anywhere. Just don’t lie. There’s a way the government can compel you to talk to it and it’s called a subpoena.
nk (474afa) — 9/19/2007 @ 4:16 pmThen plead the 5th… 🙂
Oh, and Absence of Reason, I do believe that NK was referring to invaders of private property…
But I also support shooting anyone who enters this country illegally, be they brown, black, white or yellow.
Come in through the front door and sign the guest book as you do so, or stay out.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 9/19/2007 @ 4:25 pmThanks, nk. For a moment, I thought I may have been out of line, but then I went back and re-read the entire thread, again (try that Voice of Reason, it is educational) and saw that he called you, and by extension, anyone that agreed with you a racist in his second post. I have little time for that kind of juvenile name calling, but at the same time, I think those types of accusations need to be met head-on. Much like accusations of bad faith in a negotiation, or claims of homophobia because you support civil unions. Those types of accusations simply should not be allowed to stand unanswered.
JD (f6a000) — 9/19/2007 @ 4:58 pmJD,
The person who can only reply in profanities is one step removed from being a total ignoramus. You are a victim now.. be happy. Maybe you can file for some benefit.
Scott Jacobs,
You support shooting people (unarmed or not) for a misdemeanor is called excessive force. As JD would say “by extension” this means that any misdemeanor offense in the US become punishable by death?
Robin, I told you before to quit stalking me. It’s unseemly.
voiceofreason (51498b) — 9/19/2007 @ 11:19 pmHardly, absenseofreason. I was very clear when I stated that I support the right of land owners to shoot invaders.
Perhaps you are confusing “invading” with “random crossing” or “acceidentily on the land”.
If you try to come into my home, or show me hostile intent when coming onto my property, I should be allowed to shoot you.
I also am not against using firearms to stop the illegal entry of persons unknown to us. People with unknown background or intent. It should not be tolerated.
How you can then say that I support shooting anyone for a misdemeanor? Are you trying to become the physical embodiment of a lack of any logic?
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 9/20/2007 @ 5:17 am“How you can then say that I support shooting anyone for a misdemeanor?”
To cross the border is a misdemeanor offense. That is why. What part of that do you not understand?
Our law enforcement and military personnel must have clear and specific reasons (opportunity, capability and intent) before using deadly force. Therefore the only people who could shoot on sight are the vigilante types, who would be doing so illegally and deserve to be tried, and imprisoned if convicted of that crime.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 9/20/2007 @ 5:38 amSo when I specifically state one, you apply it to all.
So you’re an idiot. Got it.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 9/20/2007 @ 5:46 amNo, you are someone that WANTS to shoot border crossers, regardless of the law. You HOPE they cross onto your land so you can finally legally kill someone so you can feel like some kind of action hero.
Put your hood back on and be quiet.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 9/20/2007 @ 5:54 amDoes VOR remind anybody else of another three other bombastic truth-trimmers?
nk (474afa) — 9/20/2007 @ 6:05 am“You on the other hand, are a mendacious crap weasel”
-JD
Hahahahahahahahahahahhahaha
THAT is an awesome insult…
Leviticuss (b987b0) — 9/20/2007 @ 6:07 am“Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.” – Rousseau
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 9/20/2007 @ 6:13 amThank you, Leviticus. I was trying to be nice.
voicesinyourhead – So, when you tell Scott to put the hood back on his head, that is either – A) calling him a racist with a KKK reference, which is certainly an insult, and by your own standards, makes you wrong, or B) an insult, which by your own standards, makes you in the wrong.
So, are you calling him a racist or insulting him? Either way, you are wrong.
JD (f6a000) — 9/20/2007 @ 6:32 amOh JD, my young friend. Smoke and more smoke to hide what is actually being said. Bottom line is that there are some in this thread who have no qualms about shooting illegal aliens crossing the border despite the fact it is a misdemeanor.
Lots of cute insults and the like only hide the truth from those who can’t look in a mirror and admit it.
As to the hood comment, someone who seems to be eager to kill illegals has a bit of a problem. Not your garden variety conservative to be sure.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 9/20/2007 @ 6:43 amWTF does someone trying to cross the border have to with this lady not watering her damned lawn?
Why is it that you fricken ppl have to always debate another issue in a different post that has nothing to do with what the topic is at hand?
I read KKK,racism,hatred,shooting cops,and wonder who it is that should locked up? Sure as hell isn’t this elderly woman that’s for sure!
Some of you ppl really do need to get outdoors more often. The stale air that your breathing indoors has certainly skewed your ability as a human being to see things clearly.
The real issue here is the training that some of these officers have received in the past has led them to see all individuals as terrorists. Their ability to discern the difference between a elderly person who hasn’t watered their lawn and a person holding a weapon pointed at them.
You don’t handcuff a person who refuses to tell the officers her name, refuses to water their lawn. Has our nation turned into a police state or what?
aka me (9b4529) — 9/20/2007 @ 6:51 amSo when we use a broad brush to paint VOR, we’re using “smoke and mirrors”, but when he does it, it’s valuable insight into our innermost feelings.
I should be shocked, but somehow, I’m not…
You imply that I’m a racist, when I explicitly stated that race had no bearing, and ANYONE who entered illegally should be shot at if found during the attempt.
The fact that most illegals are hispanic is coloring you own perceptions. There are many, MANY illegal entries by europenas and chinese, in addition to africans.
Now, the chinese and africans yeah, that would add weight to your claim that I’m a racist…
But the fact that I care just as little for whites illegally entering this country would suggest that perhaps you’re wrong.
I welcome anyone (save a terrorist) who would come to this contry legally. Anyone who wishes to abide by our laws and become part of this country is someone I’ll call brother, no matter what they look like, who they love, or who they worship.
COme here illegally, and I hate you, and wouldn’t mind it if you died in a fire.
It’s a pretty simple distinction.
Unless your VOR.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 9/20/2007 @ 6:56 amAll those words to cover up the fact that you advocate shooting and killing someone for a misdemeanor offense….
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 9/20/2007 @ 6:59 amScott – As I said before, I am no advocate of shooting, but see the issue as being one of, if not the most pressing security issues of our time. VOR would let them all in, and then go after American employers. Essentially, after intentionally pouring milk all over the floor, he would then blame his cat for trying to lick it up.
Simple fact is that VOR exists to call people racists. That is the full extent of what he/she/it has brought to this discussion, which says much more about he/she/it than it does everyone else.
JD (f6a000) — 9/20/2007 @ 8:14 amvoiceofreason, your act – including that hypocrisy where you get all prissy about insults while rushing to employ them yourself – got old long ago. It becomes rather obvious when repeated as much as you’ve done, that this is just a way that you can make yourself feel better about yourself by convincing yourself that everyone who disagrees with you is morally inferior. Saves you that extraordinary effort of actually having to bother to write a coherent argument.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 9/20/2007 @ 8:23 am