Isaac Laquedem

Who advises citizens not to talk to the police? The police force themselves, apparently

The Knower of All Things passes along an interesting tidbit about internal investigations conducted by the Portland Police Bureau.  These include interviews with witnesses, including Portland police officers who are witnesses.  Those interviews are taped and transcribed.

The Knower says that every transcript he's read, the interviewer (himself or herself a police officer) begins by asking a question about the investigation.  The police officer being interviewed says that he or she refuses to answer.  The interviewer then says that the police officer must answer the question or risk being fired.  The interviewee then answers, and the interview proceeds.  This little ritual dance happened at the start of each interview.

The Knower concedes that he last read transcripts several years ago and doesn't know if Portland's finest still refuse to assist law enforcement unless they're first threatened with being fired.  I'm guessing that there's some historical reason for officers to insist on being forced to answer questions, but I don't know what it is.  Perhaps it will come out in the Chasse family's lawsuit.

It's embarrassing to disclose that I have nothing to disclose

The Federal Trade Commission is requiring bloggers to disclose when businesses give them cash or free goods to review their products. 

As a conservative capitalist, I'm abashed to say that in five years of blogging, all I've received free as a result was an invitation to the Sam Adams beer party put on by Mark and Dave when Sam Adams (the brewer) was complaining about their acquisition of a website name for Sam Adams (the politician).  I need to try harder.

Perhaps, as I drive home tonight in my new and luxurious (this space available) car, effortlessly financed through (this space available) Bank, and enjoy a glass of Oregon's best pinot noir from (this space available) Winery, I'll think of something.

Death to speeders? An Arkansas town says yes, sort of

Beaverton's photo radar discourages speeders, but the police of Niketown, U.S.A. have been done one better by Jericho's finest.  Jericho, Arkansas (population 157) is a speed trap.  Even though it's lost a police car and a fire truck to the repo man, it manages to support 7 police officers on the strength of its traffic ticket revenue. 

On August 27 one of the ticketed, Don Payne, came to court to protest his speeding ticket.  Mr. Payne is Jericho's fire chief.  His protest didn't go well, and when he went out to his car, he discovered that he'd been ticketed again.  He went back to court to complain.  All seven officers were present.  Things "escalated," in the demure words of the Memphis newspaper (Jericho is 15 miles northwest of Memphis, just across the state line), and one of the seven officers shot Chief Payne.  The bullet, in the best Barney Fife fashion, injured not only the fire chief but also one of the other police officers.

Chief Payne is recovering.  The police department, on the other hand, has been closed down, and the county would like to know just where all the money from traffic fines has been going.  The part-time mayor has no comment.

Wells Fargo sues to foreclose a homeowner -- and itself, also

The attorneys at the Tampa, Florida law firm of Kass, Shuler, Solomon, Spector, Foyle & Singer must have scratched their heads when Wells Fargo Bank engaged their firm to defend the bank in a foreclosure.  Wells Fargo held the second mortgage on a condominium; the first mortgage had gone into foreclosure, and the owner of the first mortgage had filed suit against the property owner and the junior lenders and judgment creditors to foreclose its mortgage.  Wells Fargo wanted Kass, Shuler to defend the bank against the foreclosure and protect its second mortgage.

One of the cardinal rules governing lawyers and law firms is that they are not allowed to represent opposing parties in the same lawsuit.  So "who's the plaintiff?" is one of the first questions that a lawyer has to ask a prospective client who's being sued.  In this case, the plaintiff trying to foreclose the first mortgage -- and the cause of the head-scratching  -- was not some other lender, but Wells Fargo Bank itself, ably represented by the Tampa law firm of Florida Default Law Group.  Here's the Fox Business story.

That's right: Wells Fargo Bank hired a law firm to sue itself, and then hired another law firm to defend the bank from its own lawsuit.  I've known people who have told a bank to go and carry out a reflexive-verb action on itself, but I've never known a bank that actually went and did it.

"My car was speeding, not me," but the judge doesn't agree

A Portland lawyer, stopped by Clatsop County for doing 76 mph in a 55 mph zone on Sunset Highway in his BMW, told the court that it wasn't his fault -- it was the car's fault for handling so well at high speeds.  The judge, however, didn't agree, and fined the lawyer $182 for speeding.

The judge's decision was reasonable --  the car does, after all, have a speedometer -- but he had another option open to him, which was to accept the excuse that it was the car's fault, acquit the driver, and then (since the defendant himself said that the car was to blame) sentence the car to 30 days in custody.  It's probably been a long time since the Clatsop County Sheriff's office has had the use of a Beemer for an undercover car.

What is the sound of no one leaking?

One salient feature of the attorney general's office under its new management is that information doesn't leak out.  The Knower of All Things asked about this, and was told that the new management has made it clear to his staff  -- sometimes as often as daily -- that leaking to the press, or anyone else, is inconsistent with continuing in state employment.  (That's one reason so little informed speculation about Mayor Adams's prospects appears in the newspaper.)

Elected officials often say they will stamp out leaks of sensitive information, or that they will try to, but they inevitably seem to find some benefit in leaking information themselves.  It's refreshing to see the AG's office maintain a dignified silence from the top down.

It a tree falls and Gresham is there to hear it, it costs you $34,000

Morrell & Morrell, Inc., a homebuilder, wanted to improve the view of Mt. Hood from the back decks of a house that it was building in Gresham.  The view was blocked by a large old tree.  Morrell hired a logger to cut down the tree, and the logger obligingly did so.  The developer and logger overlooked two little points, reports the Portland Tribune; first, they didn't obtain a required city permit; second, the developer didn't own the tree.  The tree belonged to the Persimmon Country Club Homeowners' Association.

The City of Gresham told Morrell that it doesn't approve of what Morrell and its logger did.  In this tree-cutting case, Gresham's bite is worse than its bark: it proposes to fine the developer and logger $34,000 for trespassing and cutting a tree without a permit.  I expect the homeowners' association will also sue for damages, which it will easily recover.  I'd like to suggest one other remedy that the City might impose: require the developer to plant and maintain, in the back yard of the house, a row of poplars -- fast-growing trees known for being very tall.  The homeowners' association might want to plant some itself, on its own property, just to make a point.

Clackamas County goes to war with Oregon City over parking

Do you detest the parking meter reader?  You're in good company: so does the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office -- at least that's what I surmise from an article in yesterday's Oregonian.  

Clackamas County's courthouse is at the south end of Oregon City's historic business district, a narrow strip of land lying between the Willamette River and one of the city's many cliffs.  The city's parking enforcement officer ticketed cars of sheriff's deputies for overtime parking, and (reports Steve Mayes of the Oregonian) some of the deputies responded by ticketing the city's parking scooter, even when it was legally parked.  One unhappy deputy sheriff paid his parking ticket last year by bringing a bag of pennies to the city.  The coins broke out of the bag, and so did an argument.

So far this year, the city has ticketed more than 30 public vehicles for unlawful parking, "including a deputy cited for parking in a space designated for the city's parking patrol."  Possibly in retaliation, a deputy warned city employees that "if he found them in violation he would get them," according to the city. 

What do the police officers think?  A website called PoliceLink, oriented toward law enforcement officers, posted the story.  Read their pungent comments here. 

Isaac provides an election law primer to Kate Brown

The main issue in the Sam Adams imbroglio isn't whether he unlawfully had sex with a minor; it's whether he violated Oregon's election laws by encouraging others to make false statements about his relationship with Mr. Breedlove.

For the convenience of any attorneys general who might drop by this obscure corner of the blogosphere, let's look at ORS 260.532, which reads in part:

(1)  No person shall cause to be written, printed, published, posted, communicated or circulated, any letter, circular, bill, placard, poster, photograph or other publication * * * with knowledge or with reckless disregard that the letter, circular, bill, placard, poster, photograph, publication or advertisement contains a false statement of material fact relating to any candidate, political committee or measure.

The statute of limitations for this section is 30 days after the election, so the time to bring an action has expired.  However, consider ORS 260.345:

(1)  Any elector may file with any filing officer a written complaint alleging that a violation of an election law or rule * * * has occurred and stating the reason for believing that the violation occurred and any evidence relating to it. * * *

(3)  Upon receipt of a complaint under subsection (1) or (2) of this section, the Secretary of State or Attorney General immediately shall examine the complaint to determine whether a violation of an election law or rule has occurred and shall make any investigation the Secretary of State or Attorney General considers necessary. * * *

(8)  A filing officer having reason to believe that a violation of an election law or rule has occurred shall proceed promptly as though the officer had received a complaint.

And now look at ORS 260.355:

If, after a plea of guilty by or verdict of guilty against a person nominated or elected to a public office in a criminal prosecution of the person for violation of an election law in regard to either the person's nomination or election, the court determines that the violation was deliberate and material, the court, in addition to any other punishment it may impose, shall deprive the person of the nomination, or, if the person was elected to an office other than state Senator or state Representative, of the office. * * *

There are some wrinkles to this, mainly involving whether ORS 260.993 provides a penalty or merely limits the penalty for violating ORS 260.532, but here's what I think the argument could be.

Willamette Week's article suggests that Mr. Adams caused to be published a false statement with regard to himself and possibly Robert Ball, at a time when Mr. Ball was at least a prospective candidate for the office and when Mr. Adams clearly was a candidate.  Was the statement material to the election?  If so, then Mr. Adams violated ORS 260.532.  Any filing officer, meaning in this race the Secretary of State, who has read the Willamette Week article may now have reason to believe that Mr. Adams violated an election law, and is obligated to start an investigation.  Any elector (meaning a person registered to vote in the City of Portland) may send a copy of the article to the Secretary of State, Kate Brown, and point out her obligations under ORS 260.345(8).  In fact, it's probably enough just to e-mail her a link to this post. 

Front license plates, part II: what exactly does state law require?

My post of July 9 about the City of Portland ticketing parked cars that display only one license plate is getting some attention, mainly because a reader posted a link to it on Bimmerfest, a site for BMW drivers, but also because some other readers have been ticketed.  It occurred to me to reread the statute about license plates.  Here are the relevant portions:

      803.525 Number of plates issued. The Department of Transportation shall issue two registration plates for every vehicle that is registered by the department except as otherwise provided in this section. Upon renewal or when otherwise provided under ORS 803.555, the department may issue stickers in lieu of or in addition to registration plates. The following shall be issued plates as described:

      (1) Only one registration plate shall be issued for a moped, motorcycle, trailer, antique vehicle or vehicle of special interest registered by the department.

      (2) Only one plate shall be issued for a camper that is registered. Stickers may be issued in lieu of a plate. [1983 c.338 §258; 1985 c.668 §12; 1989 c.43 §27; 1991 c.407 §28; 1993 c.741 §119a; 2001 c.25 §1; 2003 c.655 §114]

      803.540 Failure to display plates; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure to display registration plates if the person operates, on the highways of this state, any vehicle or camper that has been assigned registration plates by this state and the registration plates assigned to the vehicle or camper are displayed in a manner that violates any of the following:

      (a) The plate must be displayed on the rear of the vehicle, if only one plate is required.

      (b) Plates must be displayed on the front and rear of the vehicle if two plates are required.

      (c) The plates must be in plain view and so as to be read easily by the public.

      (d) The plate must not be any plate that does not entitle the holder thereof to operate the vehicle upon the highways.

      (2) [omitted]

      (3) The offense described in this section, failure to display registration plates, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §261; 1985 c.668 §13; 1989 c.43 §28; 1995 c.383 §6]

The statute requires DMV to issue two plates to most vehicles, but it doesn't require the vehicles to display two plates.  ORS 803.540(2) does say that it's a violation to operate a vehicle on the public highway without displaying two plates, if two plates are required, but neither that statute nor any other in Chapter 803 says what vehicles are required to display two plates. That is, it requires DMV to distribute the plates, but it doesn't require the owners to display them.  Bad drafting, undoubtedly, and not the legislature's highest priority for the next session.  In the meantime, anyone who gets a ticket from the City of Portland for displaying only one plate might want to ask the court what state statute requires his or her car to display two plates.