When Years Can Equal Anuses in a Court of Law
Do you have 21 anuses?
How would you feel if a police officer asked you that?
Well that’s what happened to a super drunk Spanish speaking driver.
A man gets pulled over because the cops on the case find him suspicious of driving under the influence (DUI). When they pull him over, they find out that he can only speak Spanish. So they call over another officer that speaks Spanish. He shows up and reads the driver his Miranda rights and they give him a breathalyzer.
The dude is completely blasted off his mind drunk.
So the cops think, ok this is a done deal, he’s going to jail for DUI. We have our case sealed and this guy is going down with a definite conviction. But a twist in the case comes in. The driver’s attorney submits a motion to void the results of the breathalyzer. His lawyer says that the drunk driver of the car didn’t really understand his rights before he was administered the breathalyzer test. The police officers are dumbfounded because they even read everything off a card to make sure they got everything right in Spanish.
The defense lawyer then displays the card that’s in Spanish which the officers used. In the card, there’s a section in which the officer is supposed to ask the suspected drunk driver if he is 21 years old, which is translated to, “Tienes veinteuno años?”.
However, there was a small problem with that.
There was no tilde over the n, resulting in, “Tienes veinteuno anos?”
Big difference.
In Spanish, años means years. But anos translates to anus.
Yes, the driver thought they asked him, “Do you have 21 anuses?”
The weirdest part of it all? The defendant answered, “Si.” (Yes.)
To top it all off, once they’re all in court, the defense attorney won’t even use the word “anus”. He instead calls it “the back region”.
So remember, if you’re ever in danger of DUI, use the Anus Defenseâ„¢. In fact, we are trademarking the phrase. All royalties must be directed to me. Paypal accepted. Rates are negotiable.
Scream at Your Toilet and Get Fined or Put in Jail
Apparently it’s illegal to scream at an overflowing toilet.
Dawn Herb, a woman in Scranton, Pennsylvania, was cited for disorderly conduct and could face up to 90 days in jail and a fine up to $300.
“It doesn’t make any sense. I was in my house. It’s not like I was outside or drunk,” said Ms. Herb. “The toilet was overflowing and leaking down into the kitchen and I was yelling (for my daughter) to get the mop.”
She admitted to using some profanity near an open bathroom window.
The big problem for Dawn is that her next door neighboor was a police officer. He asked her to keep it down, she didn’t, so he call the cops on her.
“You can’t prosecute somebody for swearing at a cop or a toilet,” said Mary Catherine Roper, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Philadelphia.
The thought now comes up: is this really against the law? Is getting pissed off at your toilet a crime? Is toilet-screaming now illegal?
The quick answer to this bathroom brawl? No.
This is the text of 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a), which is Pennsylvania’s prohibition on disorderly conduct:
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
   (1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
(2) makes unreasonable noise;
(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
Was Dawn engaging in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior? Not unless you count toilet-warfare as violent, no. Was she making unreasonable noise? Let’s remember the statute says “with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof”. She definitely didn’t do that. Did she use obscene language? Well yes she did but, again, keep in mind she didn’t do it “with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof”. And we can pretty much throw out the “creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.”
Our main point that we should take from this is not to let others dissuade you from having a good time under the guise of “disorderly conduct”. I can’t tell you the amount of times people have tried to use that excuse to prevent people from doing a fun, non-violent, legal activity that may produce some noise. Remember, disorderly conduct goes hand-in-hand with public unruliness which may lead to disorder and tumult. Just noise does not break the public peace! Yes it can piss off people that may want to go to sleep. Yes, 91 year old people who like their “peace and quiet” may throw their walker at you. But noise in-and-of itself does not cause the crime of disorderly conduct! It is not meant as a catch-all condition for any little thing that can disturb or annoy someone.
In this case, Dawn was in her home and her neighbor seems to be the only person that was disturbed by this. Her neighbor may have a right to be pissed off. He may have the right to not talk to her again. He may have the right to not bring fruitcake to her house in the Holidays. But disorderly conduct? You sir, are the one out of order.
Get Caught Stealing and Face Public Humiliation
Filed under: Courts of Law, Criminal Law, Judges, Weird Laws
Imagine carrying a sign in front of the local courthouse that reads: “I stole from a local store.”
Imagine doing that at 12pm. Under the hot beating sun. With sweat dripping down your forehead. For two hours.
If you get caught stealing and you end up in Putnam County Judge Peter Miller’s courtroom, that just might be your punishment.
”It is better than going to jail, but it’s not fair,” said Rashane Lewis, who was arrested for being the lookout in a Wal-Mart while a friend of hers took some children clothes.
Over the past twelve years, Judge Miller has sentenced over 600 people to these unusual punishments either outside the courthouse or at the store where the incident took place. Walking around with an embrassing sign is his preferred method to deal with shoplifters.
According to the administration of the Putnam Count probation system has said only three of Judge Miller’s sign carriers has repeated their offense. He, along with other judges around the United States believe that public penitence, involving some sort of public humiliation works to rehabilitate convicted offenders.
‘If you see someone marching up and down in front of a store, you may think twice before stealing. I’m not going to say it is going to prevent it, but it will stop the one who did it from doing it again,” said Judge Miller.
He gives the offenders an option. Take a 30-60 day jail sentence or endure two hours of public embarassment. Along with their choice, they must perform 25 hours of community service, they have six months of probation and they are fined $294.
Like I mentioned earlier, Judge Miller isn’t the only judge in the U.S. to have these unusual and creative sentencing ideas.
Take Ohio Municipal Court Judge Michael A. Cicconetti in Painesville for example. Teens had yelled “Pigs” to some local police officers. He had the teens stand on a busy street corner with a pig and a sign reading, “This is not a police officer.” He had three men who were arrested for soliciting prostitution wear chicken suits and carry a sign with them that read, “There is no chicken ranch in Painesville.” He also sentenced a couple who stole a baby Jesus statue from a manger to dress up as the Virgin Mary and Joseph and walk around Painesville with a donkey at their side.
In Harris County, Texas Judge Larry Standley had a man who hit his wife take yoga classes as a form of anger management.
In San Francisco, a man convicted of mail fraud was sentence by a judge to walk outside of a post office with a sign reading, “I stole mail. This is my punishment.”
“We don’t like it, but what he does is legal,” says Assistant Public Defender Mack Brunton. “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that this is his way to encourage them not to do it again. It seems to work fairly well.” When defendents are given the option of either jail or carrying a sign, most people “cringe.”
“They hate it. They would rather jump off a cliff than carry the sign. They would pay more money. They would swim the English Channel,” says Mr. Brunton.
There is precedent for these public humiliation sentences in history, so don’t think this is anything new. Back in colonial times, those that broke the law were made to sit in stocks, which consisted of a frame in which the culprit’s hands and/or feet were confined while the offender remained seated. Villagers would taunt these people and throw rotten fruits and vegetables. And yes, they would sometimes even throw excrement. That’s when you know your neighbors really don’t like you.
A Connecticut professor at the Quinnipiac University School of Law named Quilliam V. Dunlap has researched cases that end in an usual sentence. He hasn’t come across any studies that reveal anything about whether jail time or public humiliation is a better crime deterrent.
”They don’t amount to cruel and unusual punishment. They are unusual, but most of them as not as cruel as sending someone to jail or prison,” said Mr. Dunlap.
Even though it may be preferable to jail time, those that have to undergo the humiliation don’t seem to like it. “This is just a humiliating stunt,” said Wal-Mart shoplifter Rashane Lewis.
