Tales from the Brown Desk

Tales from the Brown Desk - Episode 1 - Panhandling in Indianapolis, Undercover Cops, Court of Appeals Opinions

March 07, 2020 Rigney Law LLC Season 1 Episode 1
Tales from the Brown Desk
Tales from the Brown Desk - Episode 1 - Panhandling in Indianapolis, Undercover Cops, Court of Appeals Opinions
Show Notes Transcript

Weekly Criminal Law podcast, Tales from the Brown Desk, brought to you by Rigney Law LLC. Tales from the Brown Desk is a free flowing conversation involving two foul-mouthed attorneys. It may include graphic descriptions of sexual activity, violence, and traffic law. It may not be suitable for children. Listener discretion advised. 

Episode 1 - Discussion about Indiana Senate Bill 335, Indiana Court of Appeals opinions: Davis v. State of Indiana & Carter v. State of Indiana, Undercover cops, Indiana Man, Florida Man, & Maryland Man.

Jacob Rigney:   0:05
It's Friday afternoon. We've turned off the phone and thereby guaranteed that no one will call us in the middle of an arrest for disorderly conduct, because it's time for another edition of our weekly podcast Tales from the Brown Desk. I'm Jake Rigney of Rigney Law LLC. With me, as usual, is my law partner, wife and zombie aficionado Kassi Rigney.

Kassi Rigney:   0:29
Hello. Ha ha ha.

Jacob Rigney:   0:30
Our host is Teri. That was very convincing. Laugh. Good job. Everyone is convinced that I am now hilarious. Excellent work. Thank you. I appreciate that. Our host is Teri Ulm. Friendly reminder Tales from the Brown desk is a free flowing conversation involving two foul mouth attorneys. It may include graphic descriptions of sexual activity, violence and traffic law. It's almost certainly unsuitable for children. Listener, discretion is advised. Here is Teri.

Teri Ulm:   1:06
Hello, everyone. Hello, Jake and Kassi.

Jacob Rigney:   1:09

Kassi Rigney:   1:10

Teri Ulm:   1:11
So today we're gonna talk about some things that are going on in Indianapolis and what the city is trying to do to resolve some issues that it sees. We're gonna talk about some Indiana Court of Appeals opinions, encounters with the police and how they go bad. So the first thing that we're gonna talk about is Senate Bill 335 which deals with panhandlers. Is it currently against the law to panhandle?

Jacob Rigney:   1:41
Yes. Yes, it is. Now, I have not read the panhandling statute in quite a while, so this is gonna be really informative, because I'm way up to date on it. But there are a lot of laws about panhandling and there occasionally found unconstitutional. It is illegal, I think, to do it within 20 feet of like a bank. Um, and I've read they're trying to make it even harder to panhandle.

Teri Ulm:   2:12
Yeah, the Senate bill that trying to be passed right now will extend the 20 feet to 50 feet and also include other places such as public monuments, businesses, public parking garages and parking meters. When I think about all the parking meters and downtown in the garages, I'm not sure where the panhandlers would go to ask for help.

Jacob Rigney:   2:38
Ah, yet, like so alleys basically like the crossroad of two alleys away from where anyone will ever walk. That's where they can still panhandle.

Kassi Rigney:   2:48
I would suggest institutions like Wheeler  Mission.

Jacob Rigney:   2:53
Right, but even that's... You can't panhandle outside.

Kassi Rigney:   2:57
No, I meant, though that is what you do instead of panhandling is use the resources available to you.

Teri Ulm:   3:03
Some people think that this bill would further criminalize poverty. Do you agree with that stance, or do you think that it'll benefit the panhandlers in the city?

Jacob Rigney:   3:17
It certainly won't benefit the panhandlers in the city. You know, it doesn't criminalize panhandling like, not technically rare, does a criminalize poverty. Not technically right, because it doesn't say if you're poor, you can't do this, that or the other. Basically just says you can't ask anyone for money in these places. It doesn't matter if you're rich or your poor. Of course, rich people have no reason to go ask you for money, so it disproportionately effects poverty... people who are poverty stricken. There's no question about that. I suspect if you asked the legislators who wrote the bill, they'll tell you that, you know, well, of course it's because all the poor people asking for money can see. Kassi, what do you think? Should we should we make it harder on those folks? Or, uh

Kassi Rigney:   4:08
I mean, I would like to see you know, institutions and resource is and you know things to go to fixing the problem instead of ah, pushing it under the rug, which is ultimately what I think it does. You have this, you know, whitewashed city. Um, for all the nice white people to come and spend their money, Um, and ignore the fact that we have serious problems that we need to invest our resource is in to fix because limiting their ability and moving them out of the way doesn't fix the problem.

Jacob Rigney:   4:41
Yeah, that that's a really good point actually brings up an issue that kind of drives me crazy about criminal law generally, right? And it's exactly what the Legislature is trying to do here with this. They have decided to try to make it the police's problem to fix something. You know, that they've got this the situation and they're like, Okay, here's what we'll do. We'll get the police to fix it by making it illegal, making it a C misdemeanor to do X, y and Z. When the police are not in any way equipped to actually deal with this problem, right? There are hundreds if not maybe 1000 homeless dudes wandering around downtown on a given day and there's, like 12 cops, especially during the day. If you don't count all the ones in the city county building protecting the judges and everyone else, right, the people actually walking on the street making arrests, there's like 12 of them. They're never gonna catch all the panhandlers and stop them from panhandling in the first place. Even if they could, all they would do is take them to the Marion County jail, where there's no room to keep them. So what's gonna happen?

Jacob Rigney:   5:52
They're going to spend maybe 12 hours in jail getting processed, and then they're gonna get kicked right back out onto the street, downtown where the jail is, and what are they gonna do? They're gonna go right back to panhandling. The misdemeanor courts and marrying county are gonna get clogged up with pan handling cases that they don't care about and that the prosecutors don't care about prosecuting if they even bother to file them. The Legislature wants to show I don't know, Hyatt or Marriott or somebody. I don't know that they care and that they're trying to make it better, so they passed this law to make this the police's problem when the police has no realistic opportunity to do anything about it. Because the only way you're gonna stop panhandling is by helping people in their lives so they don't need to panhandle anymore. That's how you do it. You don't do it by locking him up. That's not going to stop him.

Teri Ulm:   6:47
There were a couple of entities that have voiced their support for this amendment. That's the Indy Chamber, Visit Indy, Hilton-Indianapolis downtown. They feel that panhandlers negatively affect their profits and that their customers don't like to be bothered by being asked for money.

Kassi Rigney:   7:09
Being reminded that there are poor people. I'm sure they don't.

Jacob Rigney:   7:14
Yeah, get a whole army of Marie Antoinette's out there asking whether don't just eat cake.

Teri Ulm:   7:19
So another thing that's going on in Indianapolis is there's been an increase in homicides this year compared to last year, and the city has been actively trying to combat that. Ah, one of the things that Mayor Hogsett that wants to do is he wants to increase policing in specific areas, like targeted policing. Um, what do you think about this?

Jacob Rigney:   7:47
So here's the thing about that. Uh, what's Mayor Hogsett's motivation for doing that? I don't know. You'd have to ask him. But when you increase the sort of targeted policing in a particular neighborhood, um, they usually increase their policing in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly African American. And that leads to larger percentage of African Americans getting arrested for crimes. It's part of the systemic what people call systemic racism. It's not that the police are actually going around thinking, I want to arrest a bunch of black people today and no white people. But if you put all the police in African American neighborhoods, mostly they're going to catch the African American criminals and not the white criminals. And so, unfortunately, it creates this system where African Americans get punished for their crimes at significantly higher rates. If that's what the mayor wants to do to fix it, it's only going to exacerbate that problem. Um, will it stop crimes? I don't I mean, I don't think so. The reason I don't think so is because people are not more likely to commit murder if they think they're gonna get away with it. People don't think about murder and getting caught when they do it. Usually it's a spur of the moment kind of situation and the number of murders that happened in Indianapolis that are planned and thought out where the guy's thinking about it for a day and he decides, Okay, here's what I'm gonna do and here's how I'm gonna do it. That doesn't happen very often. Usually it's just like, uh oh, crap. Bang, bang, bang. Someone's dead. Um, they don't have time to think, oh well, I wonder if there's a police patrol around shoot. They've been patrolling this area a lot more lately. So, you need to fix the other contributing factors that caused these problems. The police are. The police's job is to catch the guy who did it, not to prevent him.

Teri Ulm:   9:53
Did you have something to add Kassi?

Kassi Rigney:   9:54
No. I mean I prosecuted on the interdiction side, which is for drugs, trying to get in front of crime like intercepting things. But homicide is it's not being thought out. So it's not the kind of crime that you can necessarily interdict before it happens. Other than, you know, keeping people off drugs, you know, making sure people have an employment opportunities back to, you know, helping these communities these problems get worse, the violence gets worse, you know, as economic and social economic problems get worse their corresponding. And I don't know when we're gonna learn that a bigger stick isn't gonna fix the problem.

Teri Ulm:   10:37
Hopefully soon.

Jacob Rigney:   10:38
It's a very rational response to a very irrational problem. Um and so that's why I'm kind of skeptical about it.

Teri Ulm:   10:49
So next we're gonna talk about Indiana Court of Appeals opinion. It is in a case of Davis v. the State of Indiana. His case is interesting because he went up on appeal because he was, um he was claiming that he was sentenced with double jeopardy. Can you explained to the listeners what double jeopardy is?

Jacob Rigney:   11:11
Yeah, so in Davis? Because Davis is the drug dealer, right? In Lafayette?

Teri Ulm:   11:16

Jacob Rigney:   11:16
Yeah. Um, so I guess starting from the beginning, the the double jeopardy clause in the U. S. Constitution prohibits the government from convicting you twice for the same crime essentially. It's a way to prevent the state from hacking the system right, because otherwise what they could do is they convict you of, pretend you murdered someone for example, they convict you of reckless homicide and then when you get out they try you again and, uh, convict you of voluntary manslaughter. And then if you get out after that, they just charged with a new crime and convict again for murder and just keep sending you back for the same crime over and over again. Founders wanted to make sure that this state didn't try to do some dirty shit like that. So they put this in the Constitution so that you can't try someone twice for the same crime. Um, the other thing that prevents is that prevents the state from trying you again if you win the first trial, right? So if you go to trial and the jury finds you not guilty without that, the state could just filed the charges again, get a new jury, take another shot at it, try over and over again until they ah, you know, until they get their conviction and get to send you to prison. Double jeopardy clause prevents you from doing that. It's been interpreted in ways that apply well beyond what I just described and includes sort of using the same evidence to convict you of two different crimes and then run those crimes consecutively, or the sentences for those crimes consecutively. Um, I think in Davis's case, what they ended up deciding was that because Davis went on a long spree, he was a, based on the description in the Court of Appeals opinion he was a mid level drug dealer. So he was selling methamphetamine and, um, heroin, both in sort of street level transactions, but also in larger amounts. I mean, sometimes thousands of dollars of methamphetamine in a single transaction. Uh, and he got convicted of dealing heroin, dealing meth, and conspiracy to deal at least one or both of those as well. And he's like, you can't convict me of conspiring to deal the thing that I also got convicted of dealing, and the Court of Appeals eventually was like, yeah we can. Um you were a drug dealer for a long time there, bro. Um, he went years selling all these different illegal substances and selling them to the police and undercover, to civilians who didn't realize they were working for the police, and all sorts of other things. But the Court of Appeals did say that it was inappropriate to run his sentences for all those crimes  consecutively, because they have a rule essentially, when we're talking about dealing, where the police have essentially instigated the situation, they can't run those consecutive. The police can't just, like, go back and buy more heroin from you over and over and over and over again and get another 10 years tacked onto your sentence every time. Because they know you're doing it if they they just arrest you after the first one and be done with it.

Teri Ulm:   14:40
Because that's kind of what happened in Davis's case, where he was enticed by police to make these controlled drug deals numerous times. How many times does a cop need to do that to arrest him. What was the purpose of doing it again and again and again and again?

Kassi Rigney:   14:58
Well, they can do it just once. I mean, it's to ensure to ensure conviction. Um, but that's it. I mean, they could do it once.

Jacob Rigney:   15:09
Right, and sometimes I think they do that so that defense attorneys can't come in and argue later: Well, look, it was a one time thing. He just you know that the guy was like, Can you get heroin? And he was like, yes. So he went and got him some heroin and he didn't even mark it up. Sometimes defense attorneys will try to minimize dealing by claiming it was just once and it was his first time ever and you caught him. Come on. But, you know, obviously when they do a years long sting, um, on a guy, he can't argue that.

Teri Ulm:   15:44
Yeah. So one of the things that I noted was through the numerous controlled buys, Um, the police used an undercover officer and unwitting informants. What happens to those informants? And how do they fine them?

Kassi Rigney:   16:00
To be honest, if they wanted to, they could charge them with the dealing, straight dealing themselves. 

Jacob Rigney:   16:06

Kassi Rigney:   16:07
Dealing is only the transfer of possession from one person to another. I actually knew a prosecutor who, drug prosecutor who had it in his head that he wanted to charge everybody in a circle of individuals that were found smoking a joint with dealing marijuana. Technically under the law, they could. And luckily, even within the narcotics prosecution division, the other prosecutors were inclined to tell him that that was that was being excessive. But no, those people are are dealing. And they could have been charged and prosecuted to the same extent that Davis was. You don't have to get money you don't have to, you know, get anything of value.

Jacob Rigney:   16:55
Yeah. I mean, all those unwitting, um, informants essentially took care of when and handed it to a police officer. That's all it takes to prove dealing. People are lot of times confused. They think that you have to, you have to trade it for money. Um or, you know, you have to turn a profit on it. Um, you know, like, well, if I just bought it for 50 and I give it to the guy and he gives me 50 that's not dealing because I didn't make any money. Wrong. In fact, you can lose money on the deal. You could buy it for 50 and then sell to somebody for 30.

Teri Ulm:   17:27
Could you give it away and be considered dealing?

Jacob Rigney:   17:30

Kassi Rigney:   17:31
Transfer of possession. That's all it takes to get it from me to you.

Jacob Rigney:   17:35
The legislature has made it really easy to prove dealing so that they could make it easier for police officers to arrest people for dealing.

Kassi Rigney:   17:44
I guess I wanted to come back around to why the police would have done such a long investigation when they only needed one. Another reason, I suspect, um, and you can tell us the weights go up is that they were probably trying to build a big enough case. One, you know, secure conviction, hopefully avoid trial. Even if you can undo one or two of the deals, they've got five of them. And you know, it doesn't do any good to convict him with more than one anyway, as far as stacking. But they were probably trying to get enough to go up the food chain because they ultimately they want a bigger and bigger fish. And it would not surprise me if at some point they approached Davis and wanted him to then buy on their behalf as well. Particularly on the time frame that this case was over. That was a particularly long investigation, in my opinion.

Jacob Rigney:   18:39
Yeah, they were. They ended up doing a couple of deals that were worth, I think, a few $1000. And they found five figures worth of money. I think in Davis in a car Davis was attached to. So overall, they took several 1000. More than 10,000 maybe even more than $20,000 from him. Those are the kind of levels that could get you charged federally, but they don't have to. And so it's entirely possible. They were also trying to build a Fed case against him. Or, like Kassi said, they were trying to get enough so that they could scare him with a Fed case into making him work for them so that they could then get the bigger supplier, the upper middle management of the drug supply chain. Um, but Davis apparently didn't want to go down like that. So he went to trial and lost.

Teri Ulm:   19:36
I think this Court of Appeals opinion mentioned that the police listened to a jail call and in the jail call Davis said that he had some money stashed in the car. Is it common for police to listen to jail calls?

Kassi Rigney:   19:53
Kind of Depends. Tippecanoe. Yeah. Uh, when I was a prosecutor, I never did. That was something an intern I would have an intern do if I was interested in somebody. Um, so I think it's prosecutor/prosecutor. There are other prosecutors in Marion County they listen all their jail calls. I hated him. They're terrible to listen to.

Teri Ulm:   20:14
Do they also read their mail? Like is there any communication someone in prison can relay to another and it not go through someone else's ears or eyes?

Jacob Rigney:   20:24
Not definitely. Um, so you have to understand sort of how the system works, especially with jail calls, but also with mail and everything else. It is all subject to monitoring and recording, um, and in... in the situation of jail calls, they are all recorded. So it's all on a server somewhere, you know, being kept. But that doesn't mean anyone actually went and listen to it. They do not always live monitor your phone calls from jail. There are too many of them. And there's too many people in jail and not enough people to listen to all, but they can go search them. And they can search them through all sorts of different means, by phone number called, by inmate, by, um, a lot of other ways. So, if they think that something interesting is going to be in a call or is about to be made in a call, then they could go listen to them, and that could be the basis for a search warrant. It can add additional evidence to your case, it can and cause all sorts of problems for a defendant, if they don't heed the warning. There's a warning at the beginning of every call.

Teri Ulm:   21:48
So another Indiana Court of Appeals case that I wanted to get your opinions on is a case, Carter v. State of Indiana. This is another instance of defendant claiming double jeopardy where he was sentenced for a crime with the same evidence. One of the things that stood out to me when I read this opinion was how swift the cops were to make the arrests after a hostile crowd gathered. Is that a reason to arrest somebody? If a crowd is gathering??

Kassi Rigney:   22:20
I think it could be a lawful basis for the officers to relocate an investigation. Um, it sounds like they believed they had enough to do an arrest and just move on. Um,

Jacob Rigney:   22:35
Yeah, reading the case, the the officers did have, um I think probable cause to arrest. At least it was a Carter, Carter. They did have probable cause, at least to arrest Carter for public intoxication. They can arrest a person if they have probable cause to believe they committed any crime in the police's presence. So, when they approach a car and they find Carter sitting in a car in public and, you know, in a public parking lot, Um, and he's intoxicated and is in any way annoying, even to them, well, that's good enough for them to arrest him for that public intox. They ended up arresting everybody in the car because the driver had three guns on him and they saw the the other two guys in the car like pushing things toward the driver. Um, Side-note, most people do not carry three handguns. You only have two hands.

Kassi Rigney:   23:42
I think John Wick carries more than two handguns.  

Jacob Rigney:   23:46
That's true. John Wick. But the dude sitting in the parking lot of an apartment complex in Indianapolis does not have John Wick's needs.

Kassi Rigney:   23:55
Usually we're not talking about John Wick.  

Jacob Rigney:   23:58
He has neither John Wick skills nor an entire city of bounty hunters looking for him so they can collect an enormous bounty.

Kassi Rigney:   24:07
You don't know Carter.  

Jacob Rigney:   24:09
That's true. I don't know Carter. Maybe he's really John Wick and that was the... But I'm positive that's not the case because Carter got caught. John Wick would not have gone down like that. John Wick would still be floating around the city with his six handguns, and his three knives, and his machete and

Kassi Rigney:   24:28
Think that'd be limping around the city.

Jacob Rigney:   24:31
Yeah, that's true.

Teri Ulm:   24:34
So going back to the hostile crowd,

Jacob Rigney:   24:36

Teri Ulm:   24:37
When I read that, and I read it numerous times throughout the opinion, the picture that formed in my head was the crowd was hostile against the police.  

Jacob Rigney:   24:47

Teri Ulm:   24:48
What would be reasons for that?

Jacob Rigney:   24:51
Well, the status of the relationship between people in certain neighborhoods and the police is uneasy. My guess is probably a fair way to describe it. And there have been several publicized, um, instances of police kind of overreaching. Um, and the police also have a tendency to be very concerned for their safety. To certain extent, I understand that, being a police officer, especially a patrolman in the city, is not an easy job, and it is dangerous. And unfortunately, sometimes some bad things happen to them. So, they all generally have families and loved ones they want to go see every night? Uh, totally sympathetic to the idea that they need to be safe. Um, at the same time, the few bad apples that have caused serious problems in places all across the country, have caused people in some places to be very wary of the police. To record them at every opportunity, to voice their displeasure pretty regularly, and sometimes in a way that causes officers to fear for their safety. Um, so it's an unfortunate situation when that happens. I don't think that it really helps anyone when it does. It just got those guys arrested quicker.  

Kassi Rigney:   26:21
What it did do, though they didn't finish the shooting investigation. So it was, one for the neighborhood, zero for the cops. I read that. No, they said they picked up with her B misdemeanors and went on, you know, if they would have gotten shell casings, did ballistics, and who knows?

Jacob Rigney:   26:41
Yeah. I mean, Kassi has a point there that the officers were called there because of ah, alleged shots fired run. And, um, they never ended up being able to investigate who was shooting or what was going on because of that situation on that's... Kassi describes it is one for the neighborhood and zero for the cops. I wouldn't say it's a contest, but that does sound a little bit like, you know, obstruction of justice via mob, which isn't any better than what the bad apple police officers doing, in my opinion. But, um, if the police really wanted to chase down all that situation, they could have sent more than, like the two officers who had to respond to that scene, too. So sounds like it was in a pretty unfortunate situation for everyone. I'm glad no one got hurt.

Teri Ulm:   27:41
So it's not uncommon for the police to go undercover. Um, and as a lay person, I've always heard that if you ask someone if they're a cop, and they're a cop, they have to tell you, and then you're clear. Is that Is that the case?

Kassi Rigney:   27:56
Absolutely not. I always think we love just like really? Do you really think it's that easy? Really?

Jacob Rigney:   28:04
That is, that is like the second most common misconception I get answering phone calls and from people is yeah, if it's the if they're the police and you ask, they have to tell you. That's it's just not true. Not true at all. They can lie about who they are. They can lie repeatedly. Um, and it's it's a little silly, actually, that this myth sort of persists, because if you think about it, if it were true, it would lead to just categorically absurd results. Right? So, like, if you imagine running a drug cartel, um, and in the way, you if that were true, the way you protect your drug cartel is just every time you're getting ready to talk to one of your associates, you just say you're not a cop, right? But you just start every conversation with you're not a cop, right? And then Okay. So what are we doing with the drugs today? Steve? You're not a cop, right? Okay, great. Okay, Chad, I've known you for 10 years, but you're not a cop, right? Okay. Great. And then go on with their drug dealing escapades. I mean, that's it's... Can you imagine how awful it would be to work in a drug dealing organization if you had to start every call? Every interaction with another employee with,  Chad, you're not a cop, right? Like it would be terrible.

Teri Ulm:   29:20
It would be so, um, speaking of undercover cops, um, there was an Indiana man recently, in the news, who fell victim to, ah, undercover cop, posing as a child. Um, online. And this Indiana man ended up walking. He lived in Whitestown. He walked all the way up to Michigan.

Kassi Rigney:   29:47
What do you mean? Like the state of Michigan And not like North Michigan Road?

Teri Ulm:   29:52
Actually, it's not Michigan. It's Wisconsin. The state of Wisconsin. He walked 350 miles to have sex with the underage girl who was a police. He walked and he hitchhiked 350 miles. If he walked in when it took him 120 hours to get there

Jacob Rigney:   30:11
That's like five days!

Teri Ulm:   30:12
And he sent photos of him on the way, informing the undercover cop of his progress as he was making his way up to Wisconsin.

Jacob Rigney:   30:23
Man, that's so look, here's the first thing I'm gonna say, okay? And I have no idea why having sex with underage people is attractive or interesting to a person, but I don't understand this even more. There is not a single human being in the entire world that I would walk for five straight days to have sex with. And I don't mean like, 42 year old me. I mean, like 18 year old me who would do whatever with just about anyone? Still ain't walking to Wisconsin for sex. That's never happening. What on earth is going on?

Kassi Rigney:   31:15
You can't tell me he didn't pass an acceptable piece on the way. I mean, like come on.

Jacob Rigney:   31:25
I know that the piece has to reciprocate, Kassi. But still, yikes. I mean, that's just... I hope he... Well, I hope you got to take a rest before before he had to come back and go to jail because that's just.

Kassi Rigney:   31:44
Well, he got arrested in Wisconsin, right? It was a Wisconsin sting, right. They enticed him and he walked all the way just to get arrested.  

Jacob Rigney:   31:53
Can you imagine being the cop on that? By the way, you're like, OK, I got this guy coming... Wait. Hold on. I thought he said he was gonna be... He's walking!

Kassi Rigney:   32:03
I'm sure they laughed the whole way every time. Like look, keep up with him like...

Jacob Rigney:   32:09
I mean, you can drive from Indianapolis, the Wisconsin or to Milwaukee in like, maybe five or six hours, I think. And so you think like they were like, Okay, so he's leaving from Indiana. He said he's on his way. He will be here in  6, 6, 6 and 1/2, 7 hours. We all got to get ready. Okay, here we go. We're ready. We're gonna arrest this child molester, and then six hours later, they're like, where is he? And he texts back, and he's like, I'm in Kokomo. I'm still on. They're like, are you walking? And he's like, yup.

Teri Ulm:   32:46
Well, one of the things he did text to the undercover officer who is posing as ah as, ah, underage kid was that he would like to have 500 kids with her; starting with one within the first year.

Jacob Rigney:   33:00
I don't... That guy obviously doesn't have any kids, because 500 is too many to have. Uh,

Kassi Rigney:   33:08
I mean, you stop having sex at first couple. I know what he thinks is gonna I don't think he has a good, good idea what ah, family with that many children would entail.

Jacob Rigney:   33:21
Right? I mean, the dude doesn't even have a car. How's it gonna afford 500 kids? He can't even rent a car. What you do not. How are you gonna feed five hundred kids? What are you thinking?

Teri Ulm:   33:35
So with his 500 kids, I wonder if he would do the same thing as? Ah, Florida man. Florida man fell for the same thing. He fell for undercover officer who's posing as, Ah, as a 14 year old. Um, online. Um, this Florida man left his three children at home who were 4, 5, and 7 to go have sex with a 14 year old.

Jacob Rigney:   33:59
That's not cool. Not okay with that.

Teri Ulm:   34:01
I wounder if Indiana man would leave his 500 kids at home?

Jacob Rigney:   34:06
Well, if you would walk.  

Kassi Rigney:   34:08
Makes me wonder if that guy has a misunderstanding how it works. Like maybe was he trying to say he wanted to have sex with her 500 times, and he thinks every act results in a child?

Jacob Rigney:   34:20
I don't know. It does remind me of that song now from the nineties. Remember that song?

Kassi Rigney:   34:23
I would walk 500 miles and I

Jacob Rigney:   34:27
would walk 500 more. Indiana man.

Kassi Rigney:   34:34
Florida man left her kids. Uh, yeah, that's not

Jacob Rigney:   34:37
Cool, Florida man. You could do better than that. I have faith in you.

Teri Ulm:   34:42
Well, there's another Florida man who ah, got pulled over in a traffic stop and used his baby as a shield.

Jacob Rigney:   34:51
Were the police shooting, or was it just in case?

Teri Ulm:   34:54
It was just in case.

Kassi Rigney:   34:54
Just in case...

Jacob Rigney:   34:58
You'll never take me alive coppers.

Teri Ulm:   35:03
Yeah. He used his baby as a shield, and they had to have a special team come in and rescue the child.

Kassi Rigney:   35:13
Well, and, you know, usually you follow up these stories that he has, like a driving while suspended warrant or something stupid. They tell you what the traffic stop was for or what the underlying... before he used his baby as a human shield was there another crime of equal or greater seriousness that he committed before that?

Teri Ulm:   35:36
Well, it says the police pulled him over on the interstate due to concerns regarding a child custody, Baker act issue.  

Kassi Rigney:   35:46
Oh, so they think I mean, he it was probably just short of an Amber alert kind of thing. So that's what it was. But what a great way to say, there is, in fact, concern for the safety of this child.

Jacob Rigney:   36:02
I can't wait for the custody hearing later between mom and dad over who should have custody of this child between Florida man and Florida woman. It's gonna be great, cause I'm sure she's got she's probably doing awesome, too. But Florida man is like, Yeah, well, I mean, yeah, I took I took the kid, and yeah, I tried to use it as a human shield, but ah, but no, give me custody anyway, I swear. And by the way, a police, a special police squad had to be dispatched to rescue the kid. Do you think they have a special police squad for every type of scenario, including, like this one? Like, there's five cops just sitting around like, well, gotta wait till the next time somebody tries to use the baby as a human shield. And then we gotta jump in the van and head that way. Get ready, guys. Always on alert.

Teri Ulm:   36:57
I think that would be a pretty boring job.

Jacob Rigney:   36:59
Except when it isn't right.

Teri Ulm:   37:02
Right. So, um, a Florida Police department got some headlines this week, not only Florida, man, but the police department did. They posted a post on Facebook that says, "With the rising health concerns associated with Corona virus, we're offering free testing of your drugs. Being that a large amount of narcotics come from outside of the US, we want you to be safe. Bring it to our station, and we will test the batch within minutes".

Jacob Rigney:   37:34
Yeah, this is ah, not a novel trick, Um, that the police used sometimes, and I never know if they're serious or if they just think it's funny. But then some guy or someone always falls for it and takes their drugs to the police station to have him tested. And then they get arrested for possessing drugs. It's but they're not the first police department to do that on Facebook on and sort of say, like, Hey, come get your drugs tested, make sure they're real drugs.

Teri Ulm:   38:15
So there's one other news headline that I'd like to share with you before we wrap up. Ah, it's not a Florida man or Indiana man, but a Maryland man. He was arrested after stabbing a woman with a syringe full of semen.

Jacob Rigney:   38:33
Man. We're going really gross this week.

Kassi Rigney:   38:38
Where did he stab her?  

Teri Ulm:   38:41
In her butt.

Jacob Rigney:   38:41
How did he get a semen...

Kassi Rigney:   38:42
In her butt cheek?

Teri Ulm:   38:43
Yeah, and then when she turned around and confronted him, he said, "It felt like a bee sting, didn't it"? And apparently this isn't the only person that he is stabbed with a syringe full of semen.

Jacob Rigney:   38:56
How? How does one obtain a syringe full of semen? I'm asking for a friend.

Kassi Rigney:   39:05
Well, I would assume I would hope it's his own or not. I don't know. You don't want to be anybody's, but I would. I mean,  

Jacob Rigney:   39:15
Side note. We do not choose the topics of this conversation. Teri chooses the topics. So in case somebody wants to accuse us of a hostile work environment later, Teri chose these articles. Not Jake and Kassi. We're not making her talk about syringes full of semen. Her choice. Gross. Real gross.

Kassi Rigney:   0:00
Did he say why? 

Teri Ulm:   39:38
He didn't say why he did.

Jacob Rigney:   39:44
I'm going to go with dumb.  Dumb.

Teri Ulm:   39:47
Yeah, dumb. But could, like what kind of charges can be brought against someone like this? Would this be a sexual assault because semen injection was involved? Or is it just

Jacob Rigney:   39:57
You know, that's a good question, though. So in Indiana, what immediately comes to mind is battery by bodily waste. Um, so battery by bodily waste is a felony. I am certain that seeming qualifies as bodily waste, especially after you do whatever it takes to get it into a syringe. Uh, and, um, but stabbing somebody with a syringe in a sort of non consensual, uncontrolled way is also probably battery with a deadly weapon, in Indiana. Because, I mean, get people don't realize this, but you can get stabbed in the leg and die. You have arteries and veins and your and your torso and in your growing area and in your legs where you get it a nick, you're gonna bleed out before the hospital. Will you ever get to the hospital? Um, because you have a lot of blood pumping through those large arteries deep in your legs and in your growing area. So doings that somebody like that. I mean, there's a chance you could kill him. That's that's what it takes to call a syringe, a deadly weapon. Um, in Indiana, anything can be a deadly weapon. It just depends on how you use it. Um, obviously, a knife and a gun could be a deadly weapon but a television can be a deadly weapon. Ahh. Hammer can be. It also might not be it depends on what you're trying to do with it. Um, and a syringe can be depending on what you're trying to do with it. Stabbing somebody with it... That might get it done.

Teri Ulm:   41:38
So when you say bodily waste is that, um, extend beyond humans because there was Florida Man also got himself arrested for throwing cow manure on another, this week.

Jacob Rigney:   41:51
Florida man will not stop.

Kassi Rigney:   41:53
Well first, I don't know what the Florida laws are.

Teri Ulm:   41:57
So if that happened here in Indiana.... Is it okay to throw cow manure on another?  

Kassi Rigney:   42:01
It is certainly not okay. Off the top of my head, I do not know if the battery by bodily waste is limited to human body or mammal body, but it is certainly a crime. Either way you cut it? Whether that's the one that it is, I'm not exactly...

Jacob Rigney:   42:23
Let me check my moral philosophical books from college for a minute to see if throwing poop it's somebody is amoral or not. Yes. Yes, it is. That's not okay. We're regaining law. Do not condone the use of throwing cow manure at people. Uh, but yeah. Is that... I don't know either. I don't know if throwing non human waste it is battery by bodily.... it is definitely battery, so it's, you know, an A or B misdemeanor. I can't think of any thing much more rude than throwing cow poop at someone.

Teri Ulm:   43:04
He actually put it in a bucket and then dump the bucket on someone. So is more just throwing like a handful.

Kassi Rigney:   43:11
I always think of him as like the pies that would be on my grandpa's farm. You know, like Frisbee throw it like it's someone's neck.  

Jacob Rigney:   43:21
Well, the velocity which it hits you, it does not matter.

Kassi Rigney:   43:26
Well, I mean, I'd rather be hit with a dry one. It sounds like the fluid that was collected. Before they dry up, it's pretty soupy.

Jacob Rigney:   43:37
Yeah, Florida man is just really, really gross this week. He he needs some classes or something. That's not appropriate bro.

Teri Ulm:   43:50
He does. That kinda of wraps up our Tales from the Brown Desk this week.

Jacob Rigney:   43:56
Oh, you hear that Kassi? They're playing our music.  

Kassi Rigney:   43:59

Jacob Rigney:   44:00
Time for me to go to the bank.  

Jacob Rigney:   44:04
Additional legal disclaimer. While we may discuss legal issues and provide information regarding the law to our listeners, we do not intend to create an attorney client relationship with any listener. Our advice may not be applicable or appropriate to your legal issue. Please consult with an attorney you have hired to review your legal situation before you attempt to apply anything we said today. Thanks for listening to Tales from the Brown Desk. If you need help with a criminal law issue, please contact Rigney Law 317-430-7370. If you have a question for the attorneys you'd like to be addressed on the air on our next podcast. Please email us at Teri as T E R I at Rigney Law Indy dot com. Title your email podcast question. The attorneys in this podcast do not comment on their current pending cases. None of this discussion is a comment on a current case or strategy, even if your name is Chad or Steve.