Woman gets 30 days in jail after friend's cell call outside home (WTF??)

[Occulus]

(I'll only post a snip because the article is pretty short)

EASTPOINTE, Mich. (AP) — A 23-year-old woman ticketed by police after a friend was talking on a cell phone outside her home following a barbecue has landed in jail for violating the city's noise ordinance.

Judge Norene Redmond (bio) (Google search) of 38th District Court last month sentenced Carmen Granata to 30 days in jail after she pleaded guilty to the violation. A petition signed by neighbors complained that the home was the site of frequent parties.[br />
full article

So... in Eastpointe, you can get a jail sentence for something someone else is found doing? :freak:

This judge seems to have a funny thing with her dogs, too.

Is it fascism yet?

[PistolSteve]

1. I'm fine with it - no problem at all

Look, they didn't give her 30 days in jail because her friend was simply chatting in front of the house. They likely gave it to her because her friend was screaming and the owner had been warned about noise NUMEROUS times.

I HATE it when my neighbors don't give a shit about making as much noise as they can with their huge parties at 2am on a Tuesday morning. The cops can't guess who is being loud...

The government punishes people all the time for others actions - when they are in a position to control them (the woman could have kicked her loud friend out of the party).

[bloom]

3. Why not jail the person who was actually making the call at 4 am.?

[PistolSteve]

17. If they were screaming I have no problem with giving that person a ticket

But I would only jail them if they had been issued numerous tickets/warnings - which is why this person was jailed.

[ThomCat]

2. For talking on a porch?

Since when can the police arrest you if someone is talking on your porch? :wtf:

That is seriously fucked up. That city needs to get sued. It sounds like that woman is being targetted.

[PistolSteve]

5. Do you really think that is the only reason? Seriously...

No court would do that - the woman went to jail because she repeatedly had parties and made far too much noise. This was the straw that broke the camels back.

[ThomCat]

10. You can't (or shouldn't) get convicted

because of history. If the charge was a pretense for convicting her based on "history" then they should definitely sue. Either that friend talking on the porch was violating the law or she wasn't. That is what the charge was for, and that's what should have been judged.

And if having a friend talking on your porch is enough to get someone 30 days in jail then the local laws are seriously messed up.

[HereSince1628]

Maybe not convicted on history, but sentencing on history is common.

Really common. As common as getting sentenced based on your skin color and occupation.

[ThomCat]

15. Very true.

x(

[JacksonWest]

43. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

However, the courts have to look at history in sentencing for a felony. A misdemeanor is typically at the discretion of the judge(for most offenses). However, history of convictions plays a huge role in any offenders sentence.

It sounds like she didn't anticipate this sentence. She has no grounds to sue-unless she withdraws her GUILTY PLEA-which I don't believe you can do after you've been sentenced.

She plead guilty people. Her Lawyer didn't anticipate the judges sentence. She, legally, doesn't have a lot of ground to stand on. A judge can't be called to the carper for actually sentencing someone to the maximum amount of time for a misdemeanor. Sorry. It sounds like she could have beat this charge if she went to trial. Either past experience or counsel told her to take the plea and pay the fine. This Judge must not have been impressed with her.

Also, in MIchigan, disturbing the peace can be charged against a host. You are responsible for all noise emanating from your property-or arriving and departing as this court interpreted.

[PistolSteve]

14. Well of course the friend was being too loud - that's obvious

There is no way the friend was quitely chatting and the cops were called.

[jhrobbins]

25. Explain this concept to me - that of 'history'....

I cannot for the life of me understand why history isn't allowed as an element in determining one's guilt or innocence. We watch Law and Order a lot (I suppose it somewhat resembles our system of jurisprudence) and I don't understand why when McCoy asks for previous behaviors of an individual to be allowed that the judge says No, it would unduly prejudice the jury. I just don't understand why if a person has killed/robbed/raped etc before that that cannot be allowed to be heard - not if the person had been arrested for a particular crime, but if they had been convicted. I have never been a victim of a serious crime, but I would be royally pissed off if someone did something to someone I loved and they got off because the jury wasn't allowed to know that they had done it to 5 other people as well.

[ThomCat]

27. When you get charged with a crime

only the evidence of that crime should be admissible. If you weren't charged with it, then they can't present evidence of a crime you weren't charged with just to give you a larger sentence for something else. That would be a clear violation of due process.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. It's very simple - a person is charged with a particular crime.

Conviction for that crime depends only upon evidence for that crime. Double jeapordy prevents them from being charged a second time for the same crime they'd already been convicted of. If he was suspected, but never previously convicted, it obviously can't be allowed, as you noted. Each case must be tried on its own merits. Otherwise, you'd have the police going out and rounding up the "usual suspects" and pinning it on the first person who didn't have a decent alibi, guaranteeing that somewhere along the line there would be innocents convicted and guilty left walking free. If the jury is given enough evidence to overcome a reasonable doubt, then the accused MUST be aquitted, regardless of previous history. It't to make the police and DA dot the 'i's and cross the 't's. You may not have been the victim of a serious crime, but I suspect you've also not been accused of a serious crime, either. You don't want the police taking shortcuts in that circumstance. It protects the public, the innocent, the police and the society.

Now in sentenceing, previous history CAN weigh in, because a kid with no record convicted of burglary may learn his lesson upon his conviction, but a serial felon with 14 burglaries behind him obviously did not, so the kid may get off with the minimum and the felon get the maximum.

[Marrah_G]

35. and not always in sentencing

A year ago september my 14 year old cousin was riding his bike with two friends and a drunk driver hit him and sped off leaving him to die on the pavement. He stayed the night in a hotel and turned himself in after the alcohol was out of his system. He had MANY drunk driving convictions but NONE could be used during the sentencing. Not long after Mass finally changed the law and can now use past drunk driving conviction in sentencing for vehicular homicide.

It came a little too late. The asshole that killed him only got 2.5 years. At least there is some cofort that the next time one of these repeat offenders kills someone they will be spending alot more time away from the general public.

[JacksonWest]

45. You can almost always get history into a case

If a person testifies(the defendant). This is why defendants rarely testify. However, a past conviction is considered to predjudicial for a jury. Remember-innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutors are not suppossed to charge a crime based on history. Every crime has to be charged based on evidence collected that points to a person. A jury then has to have no reasonable doubts about that person's guilt.

If a defendant does testify-the prosecutor can bring up convictions(depending on what the rules of evidence are in that state).

Here's the federal rule:

Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime

(a) General rule.

For the purpose of attacking the credibility character for truthfulness of a witness,

(1) evidence that a witness other than an accused has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted, subject to Rule 403, if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted, and evidence that an accused has been convicted of such a crime shall be admitted if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused; and

(2) evidence that any witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment, if it readily can be determined that establishing the elements of the crime required proof or admission of an act of dishonesty or false statement by the witness.

(b) Time limit

[bloom]

6. I agree. nt

[HereSince1628]

9. I suspect it's more about flaunting the previous police notice

to move everyone at the party inside. You know you just must do what the troopers say whether they are right or wrong. We have to teach this obediance at every level of offense. No disrespect for uniformed authority can be tolerated.

I hope she has one HELL of a party when she gets back home!

[ThomCat]

13. You're right. Anything less that complete and total obedience

to arbitrary authority needs to be stomped out. It's her own fault for thinking she had a right to have friends in her own home and yard. :eyes:

[rinsd]

41. She has a freedom to keep her neighbors up?

I just went thru this a weekend ago.

New tenants in my building had people over(we have an opne outside entrance bldg because its San Diego). Well that's fine and good even late in the evening as we as a building certainly enjoy ourselves. But when said party begins at 3am to blasting music and repeated requests in person to turn it down are flat out ignored, what exactly should I do?

What is so wrong with respect for one's neighbors?

[PistolSteve]

19. Glad you're not my neighbor.... nt

[HereSince1628]

26. I guess that goes without saying...

I've lived in a neighborhood where neighbors are known to complain about the colors and brightness of Christmas lights and more than two cars per family.

[soothsayer]

33. flouting : )

[Bandit]

36. She plead guilty

She did not have to do that if she felt she was in the right...:shrug:

[ceile]

4. Why was she given 2 years probation

with breathalizer tests and random drug tests? What does that have to do with a noise ticket?

[PistolSteve]

8. That's standard for all probation...

...she should have known that before throwing numerous loud parties and ignoring her neighbors.

[ceile]

18. right.....

[Cerridwen]

7. Flag on the play - 10 yd. penalty - selective "snipping"

Conditions surrounding the situation; quotes and emphasis for context:

A petition signed by neighbors complained that the home was the site of frequent parties.

Granata was ticketed after her friend was talking on her front porch about 4 a.m. Nov. 5. Police in the Detroit suburb had been to the home twice in the previous 12 hours and at 1 a.m. had told people to go into the home.

<snip>

Sounds like a lot of previous problems with noise and "disturbing the peace" issues.

30 days seems excessive; but constantly ignoring your neighbors' and police's complaints ain't cool. Maybe she should take a class in "neighborlyness" (sic) instead?

edit to add: reading the article gives more complete picture

[PistolSteve]

11. Exactly - and I understand the neighbors complaints

I am a college student so I can put up with a lot, but sometimes it gets out of hand.

I called the cops 7 times in one day on my neighbor for noise. They kept turning off the music when they saw the cop car coming so finally the genius cop decided to walk up to the house instead of drive.

$400 fine for them... woohooo! (it wasn't their first one)

[SoCalDem]

20. We have next door neighbors who SCREAM at the top of thier lungs

They go onto their porch and yell at each other. No in an angry way, mind you...they just never talk in a normal tone of voice.

They are nice people, but./.sheesh.. I cannot even keep my front doors & windows open, unless I want to hear them over everything else..

I "innocently" asked once if their grandpa who lives with them is hard of hearing.

[Cerridwen]

24. I can't count the times I've heard neighbors' arguments

and family disputes and the kids being "corrected" and...and...over the years - I've moved a lot and there always seems to be one family on the block or in the complex who doesn't care who hears what.

I like your "innocent" question. :D

The one thing I learned early on about being a good neighbor - when having a party, invite the neighbors. Sheesh. Easy enough. They know you're going to have a party and they now know you so they can come over and say, "please, keep it down a bit" and nobody has to call the cops; in theory.

[seriousstan]

12. She sounds like a drunken louse that needs to live in the country

where her drunken friends and she will only bother the cattle.

[HereSince1628]

21. Why punish rural people? We already live with the damned beer

parties for suburban HS brats in our corn fields and their f'ing drag racing, and deliberate running down of our mailboxes and flattening of old headstones in remote cemetaries.

NO THANKS you can keep em.

[WI_DEM]

16. the problem with a lot of these types of threads is that they don't give

the entire story.

[Occulus]

31. And the problem with a lot of these articles is that they're so short

If I had quoted four paragraphs (and I was going to until I read the whole thing and saw how short it was) I would have been quoting half of the article. Moral = follow links.

The part I object to about this is the drug testing and breath testing. By the way, it was daily breath testing; the only time I've ever heard of these devices being used is for drunk driving. It's done by remote; the PO phones in to the probationer's home and the breathe into a thing connected to the line.

Daily breath testing, random drug testing, AND 30 days in jail- for a noise ordinance violation? Something tells me she'd never heard of anyone going to jail for this, and pled out thinking it was going to be a fine (which it should have been). Tis is the sort of thing repeated drunk drivers have to deal with; I live in a colege town, and have for ten years, and I don't think anyone has ever once gone to jail over noise complaints- if they had, half the student population would have spent time behind bars by now.

Given that this judge has defied orders to stop bringing her dogs to court (!), I think we have a bit of a loose cannon here- and it's not the one who was sentenced.

[Ian David]

22. So, if I make a cellphone call from in front of the judge's house... the judge goes to jail? n/t

[ThomCat]

28. It might be cool if that were true.

But shit like this only happens to certain people. x(

[Dora]

23. The police had been there twice in the previous 12 hours.

"Granata was ticketed after her friend was talking on her front porch about 4 a.m. Nov. 5. Police in the Detroit suburb had been to the home twice in the previous 12 hours and at 1 a.m. had told people to go into the home."

If I have a party that warrants police intervention for noise not once, but twice, then it is MY RESPONSIBILITY AS HOST to tell my guests to shut the fuck up. If later on one of my guests starts screaming into her cell phone at 4:00 a.m., then it's also my responsibility to tell her to shut the fuck up. If I don't, and my neighbors are pissed and calling the cops in, that is a direct consequence of MY IRRESPONSIBILITY.

Seems reasonable to me. Ms. Granata sounds like a selfish snot. And having once been a selfish snot who really liked to host parties once upon a time, I am speaking from experience.

Thou Shalt Not Impose Thy Partytude On Thy Neighbor.

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. IMO, a serious fine would have made the message.

30 days for a guest's misbehavior is way out of line.

[Occulus]

34. Now, here's a question for you

I'm just curious because this situation applies to me every day, and I think I'd like to know what people think. I work afternoons, you see, and my 'evening after work' starts after many people go to bed. All these years, I've had to take care that I'm not 'too loud' according to someone else, and I never know quite how loud that is.

How loudly do I get to play my stereo after I get home from work? Oh, and my 'Saturday' is actually Tuesday. Do I get to comport myself in a manner consistent with how others do on the real Saturday, or do I have to not even have a party of any sort because 'people have to work in the morning'?

All these ordinances and laws regarding noise are passed to the benefit of 9 to 5ers, but... does that mean if your spouse has the TV turned up at noon, or has loud kids playing out in the yard in the middle of the day, and it wakes me, I can file a noise complaint and (per this article) maybe get him/er thrown in jail? Or are the rules for me and not for thee?

These rules generally don't swing both ways, I've found. I can't get the garbage trucks to come later in the day, so I get more than three hours of sleep before getting awakened, but I bet people 'who work in the morning' would be able to get something done if that same truck came at 11PM.

Do you see what I'm getting at, why I'm a little less sympathetic than I could be for the people complaining about noise?

[Dora]

44. Prior warnings make the difference

It doesn't matter if it's Tuesday or Saturday night. If the police come over because you're making (or hosting) too much noise, and yet you continue to make (host) noise, then there will be consequences. It's that simple. Yeah, it can be a drag that your workweek is different from M-Fers, but in my experience neighbors are either tolerant or they're not. In other words, if Mrs. Hazelwood hasn't complained about the noise on Friday nights, she likely won't complain about the noise on Tuesday nights (our own Mrs. H hasn't). I know that these issues are compounded for apartment dwellers who must deal with shared-wall issues. I don't miss my apartment days.

I guess there are pros and cons to working a workweek (or a night shift) different from M-Fers caught in the 8-5 velvet rut. You may not be "allowed" to have raucous parties on Tuesdays, but we don't get to go to the post office (or do any other M-F business transactions) because we're chained to our desks for the same hours that the post office (bank, doctor, realtor, etc) is open.

[BlackVelvet04]

30. This part seems pretty relevant....

"Granata was ticketed after her friend was talking on her front porch about 4 a.m. Nov. 5. Police in the Detroit suburb had been to the home twice in the previous 12 hours and at 1 a.m. had told people to go into the home."

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. The ticket is not the problem.

It's the 30 DAYS IN JAIL FOR NOISE. And she was not the one making the noise. For all the info we're given, she may not have even been aware that person was outside on her porch - if there's enough ruckus inside the party, at the back of the house, she may have never heard him herself and been in a position to tell him to shut up.

You can't see the same happening to you? How would you feel?

[frylock]

39. i suppose if the cops already stopped by twice..

and asked that people go home when they visited at 1:00 in the AM, well, I suppose I'd feel pretty gawddamned stupid.

Too many people on this board want to be anti-authority for the sake of being anti-authority.

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. Not how would you feel at the moment.

How would you feel about being thrown in jail for something you had no control over?

She's likely going to lose her job, because no employer can afford to not have someone there for a full month. She's going to lose at least that month's pay, and maybe more if she does lose the job. Assuming she's a renter (being only 23) she'll quite possibly lose the place. If the landlord is really punative about it her belongings will wind up on the curb and be looted by passers-by while she is in jail.

Maybe a bit harsh for something she didn't even do herself?

BTW, the cops didn't tell people to go home. They told the people to go INTO the home. Which make my scenario of her not being away of the noisy person on the porch even more likely. That person steps out of the party to make a call, is too loaded to know how loud he is, and is yelling to be heard over the party inside. THAT person should have been ticketed, not the girl.

[BlackVelvet04]

46. I think 30 days was very harsh.....

and I wouldn't have sentenced her to that.....a hefty ticket, yes, and a warning that the next time police are called to her house it WOULD be 30 days. But I must say I feel sorry for her neighbors.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. To my mind, the noise is just one of the trade-offs you get for the

convenience of being an urban dweller. There's a couple college kids upstairs of me that keep me up to all hours with their loud parties. So? I don't lose any sleep over it.

Now, I don't know that this is urban, rather than sub-urban which can change the equation. Suburbanites are weird.

[kestrel91316]

37. I have had to put up with noisy, rude, inconsiderate

neighbors who party LOUDLY til all hours of the night for the past SEVEN YEARS. I am thrilled to hear of this sort of thing. Noise ordinances exist and they damned well ought to be enforced. NOBODY has the right to interfere with their neighbor's right to the peaceful enjoyment of their home, day or night. This woman got what she had coming.

My spoiled brat "frat house" party animal neighbors got off lightly when my complaints resulted in a $2500 fine. But it was enough to get them under control. No more loud parties in the front year of THAT house!

[Cleita]

40. It looks like we are heading towards a police state

it's seems. I hope our new Congress can reverse this trend.