1 out of 4 Americans have a criminal record!

[haha]

For example. But, find yourself a partner and engage in sexual activity out in the public eye, and it's called Lewd Conduct (class A).

Would this include getting it off in a car at night in a rest stop?

 

[BLS53]

Would this include getting it off in a car at night in a rest stop?

I think so. Back in the 70's, before the privacy of VCR'S, cable, and internet porn, there was a drive-in theatre in Jacksonville FL, that showed X rated films. Undercover police would go in there looking for violators.

 

[Leonidas]

Would this include getting it off in a car at night in a rest stop?

Not sure what you mean when by "getting it off", but I'm fairly certain that the statute covers it. And it's not just public places, you can be prosecuted for doing acts of sexual contact or intercourse someplace other than a public place, if you are, "...reckless about whether another person is present who will be offended or alarmed..." So, if you're in Texas, and want to invite the neighbors over for a little show it's best to make sure that they're into that before the big unveiling.

If you're talking about two folks doing the nasty in a car out in some public place (rest stop, side of the road, etc.), then the answer is "most def." It's a great charge to reduce citizen complaints regarding street prostitution. And even when it's not about prostitution, who wants to walk down the street with their mom or daughter and subject them to seeing Lorraine the secretary hopping up and down on Bob the IT guy's hard drive?

Edit to ad: Here you go Nords, one for the book:

So I just made up the scenario above, but it reminded me of a true story. One of my offices was in a federal building in the high rent district. We leased almost the entire building, but it was a single agency that didn't want to advertise it's presence. Very nondescript place with no signage other than the address. They even had the Federal Protective Svc cops wearing generic security guard uniforms.

Being a federal building, everyone was usually on super-secret high alert every April 19th. And on a particular April 19th. I came back to the building and saw the FPS guys with a freaked out looking couple they were taking into the building in cuffs. The guy was a business man with his tie undone, shirt untucked, pants barely on, and a very confused look on his face. The woman was even more upset, and kept screaming, "what is this place? who are you people?"

They were a couple of office workers who had been driving down the freeway nearby when their smoldering passion erupted into flames. Unfortunately, they picked the wrong parking garage as their love den. The FPS guys knocked them off as the van drove into the garage and quickly became suspicious when nobody exited. What followed before long was three FPS guys pointing their M-4's into the van and screaming "let me see your hands".

 

[Texas Proud]

There's a difference between habitual "career" stupid/criminal behavior and a one-and-done stupid non-violent mistake committed in one's youth. IMO, it really sucks that we've become such a scarlet letter society that one dumb, nonviolent transgression from decades ago that someone has learned from and never repeated stays with them as a scarlet letter for life. What incentive is there for people to learn from a mistake and better themselves if there are no second chances any more? Seems like we're making crime and reoffending a more attractive option by doing so.

Frankly, I think nonviolent first offense misdemeanor conviction records should be sealed after about 7-10 years, and never again disclosed to potential employers, insurers or credit providers unless someone offends again.

On you last statement... I would agree.... but once it is out in the public, it will always be out in the public somewhere... just having gvmt not disclose is probably not going to get you there....


On you first thoughts.... I work for a small software company and we have rejected LOTS of people on their criminal background... I was surprised how many people would say they had nothing and then a DUI would show up... the problem is that it could have been when they were 18 to 20 and did not know any better... (heck, one person who works for me said she had a DUI when she was 18... her background check did not catch it since it was in a different state... if it had she would not be working for us... she also was a single teenage mom.... but now in her 40s has not had any problem for decades... and a productive member of society)...

Maybe we should stop the criminalizations of a lot of these under 20 things... now, if you do it again and again... all bets are off... but one and done... let's fix...

 

[Texas Proud]

The law is the law, and having law breakers enforce laws would seem - silly.

Heck, a good percent of the Houston cops that I met when I knew one (in a bowling league) would have been arrested for DUI.... they drank beer like it was water and had not problem getting behind a wheel...

As you say... having law breakers enforce laws would seem silly... but we have them doing it all the time....

 

[RetiredGypsy]

As you say... having law breakers enforce laws would seem silly... but we have them doing it all the time....

Seems even sillier to have law breakers making those laws in the first place, and yet here we are.

 

[Leonidas]

Heck, a good percent of the Houston cops that I met when I knew one (in a bowling league) would have been arrested for DUI.... they drank beer like it was water and had not problem getting behind a wheel...

As you say... having law breakers enforce laws would seem silly... but we have them doing it all the time....

We hire people from the same general population that everyone here lives in. And there is an apparent abundant supply of people therein who are foolish makers of poor decisions.

So, other than the fact that I am still trying to figure out how "knowing one" transfers over to, "a good percentage", I am not surprised by your observation. (HPD has 5,300 cops, how many work friends did this guy bring by the bowling alley?)

Going back to the original point, if you are shocked that anybody, including cops, would break the rules and do something wrong, I would ask you what it's like living under that rock. But you don't really live under a rock, nor are you actually shocked by what you report. I suspect you had a point to make, but I'm not going to play guessing games with you.

But I will reiterate my original point, because it seems to be lost on you. I merely clarified for another poster that law enforcement agencies ask questions about applicants' sex-lives because past criminal behavior is pertinent when considering the qualifications. We don't hire people who ever committed a felony, or a class a misdemeanor, or recent lesser misdemeanors. And still every day people who have done those things show up and ask to be hired. Some even lie, deny and hide their past criminality in an attempt to get the job. A few even get past the polygraph and background investigation.

Neither do we allow employees to break the law with impunity. Breaking the law can lead to firing and loss of one's occupational license. Not to mention the whole going to jail thing. But some still do it, and some of them even have the audacity to try and hide their crimes.

But you, alone among all mortals, have divined the failings of your fellow human beings and decry the inherent hypocrisy.

Maybe you're hoping for utopian bliss. For myself, I prefer to continue to try and stave off the dystopian hell.

Have yourself a nice life.

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

I gotta tell you, it looks so darn easy to end up with a criminal record in this country.

So it seems to me.

 

[M Paquette]

It occurs to me that the mass criminalization of the populace is actually a very useful idea. By marking the records of a large portion of the population with misdemeanors, we can render them unemployable for the bulk of desirable jobs. This naturally reduces competition for jobs to the pool of those with clean records, while simultaneously creating an underclass of persons to perform various undesirable tasks 'off the books.' Since the very act of performing these undesirable jobs 'off the books' is itself a crime, we have created a self-sustaining perpetual underclass!

This ensures that, despite living in a society that prides itself on being free, with upward mobility for all, we will always have an abundant supply of cheap labor to bus tables, work in our slaughterhouses, shovel offal, and otherwise handle all those tasks that we can't automate yet want done cheaply.

It's an interesting social innovation, a caste system driven by criminalization for economic purposes.

 

[Texas Proud]

We hire people from the same general population that everyone here lives in. And there is an apparent abundant supply of people therein who are foolish makers of poor decisions.

So, other than the fact that I am still trying to figure out how "knowing one" transfers over to, "a good percentage", I am not surprised by your observation. (HPD has 5,300 cops, how many work friends did this guy bring by the bowling alley?)

Going back to the original point, if you are shocked that anybody, including cops, would break the rules and do something wrong, I would ask you what it's like living under that rock. But you don't really live under a rock, nor are you actually shocked by what you report. I suspect you had a point to make, but I'm not going to play guessing games with you.

But I will reiterate my original point, because it seems to be lost on you. I merely clarified for another poster that law enforcement agencies ask questions about applicants' sex-lives because past criminal behavior is pertinent when considering the qualifications. We don't hire people who ever committed a felony, or a class a misdemeanor, or recent lesser misdemeanors. And still every day people who have done those things show up and ask to be hired. Some even lie, deny and hide their past criminality in an attempt to get the job. A few even get past the polygraph and background investigation.

Neither do we allow employees to break the law with impunity. Breaking the law can lead to firing and loss of one's occupational license. Not to mention the whole going to jail thing. But some still do it, and some of them even have the audacity to try and hide their crimes.

But you, alone among all mortals, have divined the failings of your fellow human beings and decry the inherent hypocrisy.

Maybe you're hoping for utopian bliss. For myself, I prefer to continue to try and stave off the dystopian hell.

Have yourself a nice life.

You made a comment about not hiring law breakers...

Originally Posted by Leonidas
The law is the law, and having law breakers enforce laws would seem - silly.



Seeming to indicate that people that enforce the laws are not lawbreakers themselves... (ie, it is silly to have lawbreakers enforce laws)... I pointed out that I saw and heard (used to also go to lunch with some of Houstons finest... I would say I met about 200 of them) stories that indicated they were just like the rest of us... they would speed in thier own car and get away with it.... they would drink and drive and get away with it... they would hit their spouse and get away with it (that pesky domestic violence thing).....


Sure, I don't want people who are crooks to enforce the law.... but as someone else asked... what laws were being broken that you had to ask about their sex life

OH... BTW, a number of the guys talked about cheating on their wives... not against the law, but I would not want someone who lies (cheating is lying IMO) to enforce the law either... but there you go....

 

[BigNick]

I pointed out that I saw and heard (used to also go to lunch with some of Houstons finest... I would say I met about 200 of them) stories that indicated they were just like the rest of us... they would speed in thier own car and get away with it.... they would drink and drive and get away with it... they would hit their spouse and get away with it (that pesky domestic violence thing).....

An American friend of ours, a lady in her early 60s, tells of getting some advice from her Daddy when she got her first car at 18, so back in 1967/8: he said "Honey, if you are driving at night and the cops appear in your rear view mirror and signal you to pull over, just drive very slowly to the next gas station. Don't stop the car out of sight of witnesses. Bad things can happen to a girl who gets stopped at night on her own by the police".

Dad was a 20-year veteran of the local sheriff's department.

 

[Walt34]

I don't know where you live, but many states have a mandatory arrest law on domestic violence cases. That's not the law in Texas, but many departments have more restrictive policy that makes arrest mandatory. No officer is going to risk his job if the law and evidence tell him he can make an arrest and policy mandates that arrest. Some states have made laws in which the prosecution will continue even if the victim recants the original allegations and appears as a witness for the defense.

Maryland is one of those, and it gets even worse. If either partner reports an event of spousal abuse and there is any evidence at all such as a red mark, bruise, etc. then the officer must make an arrest. If he does not, and the offender (and remember he/she hasn't been convicted yet) goes on to commit another offense against the purported victim then the officer is personally liable for damages.

Under those circumstances the officer doesn't dare not make an arrest. And yes, all of them think it's stupid.

 

[Pete]

Come to L. A. on vacation...leave on probation.