The night she was arrested, Maria Castillo fit the description. A petite, 49-year-old grandmother and home healthcare worker, Castillo is Latina in San Jose – and that ethnicity, in that city, makes her the most likely person statistically to be charged with resisting arrest.
Latinos living in San Jose have a higher risk of being charged with resisting arrest than in any other California city, according to data recently obtained from the state Department of Justice. The data comes on the heals of a major public outcry and subsequent creation of a city-appointed task force over the suspiciously high and racially disproportionate arrest rate for another charge: public intoxication.
I first met Castillo at a raucous San Jose City Council meeting focusing on the alarming rates of public intoxication arrests that were first reported in the San Jose Mercury News in October 2008. The numbers showed 4,661 arrests in San Jose in 2007 – an arrest rate higher than any other city in California. When broken down demographically, Latinos and blacks were over-represented in San Jose arrests. In a city where Latinos account for roughly 30 percent of the population, they represented 57 percent of the public intoxication arrests in 2007.
Castillo spoke during the public comment section alongside her son and daughter. Although she wasn’t arrested for public intoxication, her testimony of being roughed up and then charged with resisting arrest was a familiar story. It was also an indication that the disproportionate arrest rate of Latinos in San Jose was a broader problem.
In response to the overrepresentation of Latinos and blacks on drunk-in-public charges, a city-appointed task force was formed to look into how the charge was enforced.
But rather than tinkering with one specific charge, Castillo’s testimony exposed the bigger issue that San Jose has to deal with—its police practices and the use of officer discretion at the time of arrest.
# # #
Anthony Boskovitch, a San Jose civil rights attorney, has filed more than 10 lawsuits on behalf of clients for unlawful arrests in San Jose since 1992, and in 2008 represented three Latinos in federal court who felt they were arrested for public intoxication because of their “attitude.” All three plaintiffs in the Cicala case contend that they were not drunk the night they were arrested, and Boskovitch is asking for an injunction against the San Jose Police Department that would require officers to arrest only if they can prove probably cause.
When asked why San Jose’s resisting arrest numbers are unusually high, he says, “Because, while San Jose police may not get the reputation of being as brutal as other cities, they are completely out of control and have no real oversight. The culture of policing here is that if you fail the attitude test, they will arrest you, regardless of actual probable cause.”
He calls resisting arrest, public intoxication, and disturbing the peace “cover charges,” meaning charges that officers use to justify invalid arrests. “Whenever I see one of those penal codes on a police report, I look very carefully. It can often times mean the officer just wanted to give someone an attitude adjustment,” Boskovitch says.
Of the three charges, he says, resisting arrest is the most reliant on police discretion. This means it is most often used to justify use of force by an officer. It also means it is extremely difficult to defend against in court, so suspects often plea to the charge.
Boskovitch, who met Maria Castillo at the public intoxication meeting, is now looking into her case for a possible lawsuit against the city. In the meantime, Castillo has become a one-woman police watch, having approached every top brass officer in the police department, as well as city officials, about what happened to her.
Ray Jayadev is founder of Silicon Valley De-Bug, a collective of writers, artists, organizers, and workers based in San Jose.
Blah Blah Blah. I see Raj and don’t even read.
Yet, you comment.
SteveO,
I saw Maria speak at the council meeting. What she did was park at the surface lot at san pedro square, then went to Spaghetti factory with her kids and grand kids. When she came out to get in her car, the police were yelling at anyone and everyone to leave. She asked why, and ending up with her face bashed onto the ground and a night in jail wondering how to replace the teeth the officer knocked out of her head.
She had not been drinking.
It must have been the SJPD racially profiling this drunk driver who happened to have an Hispanic name who caused a fatal traffic accident yesterday.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11963080?source=most_emailed
I’ve felt compelled to speak up for my generation since this issue got coverage on SJI and the Merc.
My issue isn’t really with racial profiling. I can’t say for sure if it’s occuring or not. What does seem to be the case is how excessive the police are towards young people in general of any race. I understand they have a duty to keep the peace downtown, but sometimes I feel the people they take in haven’t actually done anything wrong. I mean what can constitute drunk in public? To some of these officers it seems it can constitute having just one beer and then having a good laugh with a few friends or being “too loud”.
I admit many of those arrested downtown have it coming. I don’t dispute that there are those who go out of control. I’m also sure my comments may seem to indicate a degenerative attitude to some of the regulars here, but I found that quote about “attitude adjustments” a bit too frightening. Some people won’t be happy until downtown is completely populated by middle age people and their young children.
Some of us twenty somethings legitimately go to downtown to have fun, drink moderately, and stay within the bounds of the law.
Raj,
You left out key information necessary for readers to understand this article: what was Maria Castillo doing when she was arrested? Had she been drinking alcohol? Did she have an attitude that failed the test? Or was she at home tending to her grandchildren? Please tell.
Raj wrote: “A petite, 49-year-old grandmother and home healthcare worker, Castillo is Latina in San Jose – and that ethnicity, in that city, makes her the most likely person statistically to be charged with resisting arrest.”
This is what passes for analytical thinking in the age of multiculturalism. Exactly how many petite grandmothers does SJPD arrest for resisting? Yet Raj found her story “familiar,” so would it be wrong to conclude that he believes the cops bust lots of petite grandmothers? Or does his use of the word “familiar” have something to do with her age or job as a home healthcare worker?
From what I’ve seen in my travels about this city, forty-nine year old women are pretty much invisible to the average cop on the beat. And unless they’re crashing into a crowded business after mistaking the accelerator for the brake pedal, grandmothers also don’t seem to be turning any uniformed heads. It’s enough to make one wonder just what this little woman did to get herself locked up, except of course to those like Raj who made their minds up the moment they heard the words “cops” and “minority.” For this woman to be charged with resisting arrest I’m thinking she did more than flunk the personality test, and those missing details are certainly available both from her and the police report, but for Raj’s purposes what she did is not what’s important, only her skin color is.
Passing judgement based only on skin color is what racist’s do, thus, based on this post, in which Raj asks us to form a conclusion based on no evidence other than the arrested person’s race, I’m quite comfortable branding Raj Jayadev a racist. His omission of the details necessary to make an objective decision is not an oversight; he let his guard down and exposed the inner workings of his prejudiced, narrow mind. And this from a guy who wants to oversee our police department.
I wonder, do racists of color wear hoods?
“Drunk in public” is a bogus charge and entrapment. We cannot possibly have legal drinking establishments if leaving one exposes you to arrest. Would we rather these people jump in their cars afterward or what?
Raj=SJPD hate. Raj, worse than boring, your predictable blather about this topic is making you irrelevant. If it is not about the evil empire of SJPD we don’t hear from you…
To jj, reality, frustrated finfan, sjdowntowner 70, jmo and other undercover cops who comment on raj’s piece,
So sad that you are trapped in the narrowness of your own minds that you refuse to see what the rest of the world experience, let alone provide any intelligent counter arguments to this blog. It’s like you watch for Raj’s pieces every week like groupies and post pre-thought out comments on how you can beat him up on the keyboard. Do you all go for a beer afterwards, high-five each other, and giggle like 5 year old schoolboys too?
You’re not doing a very good job pretending to be civilians.
Yawn.
#11
Why do you think ““Drunk in public” is a bogus charge and entrapment”?
Mr. Boscovitch opined: “It can often times mean the officer just wanted to give someone an attitude adjustment.” I suppose it would never occur to Mr. Boskovitch that oftentimes those people’s attitudes needed adjusting.
JMO – What law gives police the right to adjust people’s attitudes? Maybe you should reread the bill of rights.
“Nam Turk” (#11) thinks Drunk in Public is a bogus charge and entrapment.
“Called You Out in San Jose” (#13) is convinced that everyone who doesn’t agree with him is a cop… and that they’ve got him surrounded.
“Perry Mason” (#15) heard a young-looking grandmother speak at a meeting and was ready to pass judgment on the case and indict the cops.
Nam Turk seems to think that because consuming alcohol is a legal activity it is wrong to make being drunk in public a crime. By his measure, society has no right to protect anyone from the excesses or infirmities of otherwise law-abiding citizens. In other words, drunk people should be allowed to provide childcare; medically-sedated people should be able to sign contracts; and ex-convicts should be free to teach school. I don’t know if his political indoctrination can be penetrated by logic, but I suspect that if his (or that of an elderly loved one) daily path took him through a gauntlet of offensive and aggressive drunks he might change his mind.
For “Called Out in San Jose” I must tread gently, as he just might be dangerously paranoid. He sees cops everywhere, believes himself to be channeling what the “rest of the world” sees, yet cannot see that many of the bloggers he’s “called out” have challenged Raj on points of fact and his prejudice.
As for Perry Mason, all I can say is that you are a defense counsel’s dream—something that should not be confused as a compliment. Your brand of knee-jerk reasoning and crippling bias is what bottom-feeders like Johnny Cochran and John Burris counted on to make their millions; millions they used to move safely away from the scumbags and thugs they’d set loose on the little people.
There are two sides to every story and here is another one:
http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_11970081?nclick_check=1
Citizens have been interfering with Officers and investigators trying to gather evidence at the scene. No matter where you stand on this issue, this is a very sad commentary on our society today.
As Raj did not bother to tell readers what happened to Maria Castillo, let’s summarize the responses:
1) The young looking grandmother parked in the surface lot at San Pedro square.
2) She ate dinner at the Spaghetti factory with her kids and grandkids.
3) When leaving the restaurant SJPD was “yelling at anyone and everyone to leave.”
4) Maria Castillo asked SJPD why she should leave.
5) SJPD “bashed” her onto the ground and knocked her teeth out.
6) She was arrested and spent the night in jail.
To readers who still have respect for SJPD, there seems to be a huge gap between #4 and #5 that has yet to be explained. Could somebody at SJI (Tom?) give readers more information to understand why SJPD would respond in such a manner?
Where is the condemnation from Raj or his mindless herd of sheep towards the murderer of 4 Oakland Police Officers yesterday? Where is their condemnation of the crowd that gathered at the murder scene telling investigating officers collecting evidence that the cops got what they deserved?
Steve,
I’ve posted above and I am not happy with how SJPD is currently operating downtown. Especially to blacks and hispanics. But I am devastated for the 4 officers and thier fellow officers and families in Oakland.
Disagreeing with SJPD or any police force is okay; they are paid with tax payer money so they need to be accountable.
But no police officer ever deserves to get hurt or killed in the line of duty.
So this is a sad day indeed!
Perry Mason
Mr. StevoO,
The owners and operators of the surface lot should be asked that / those questions. The lot charges for nightly parking; but it ends at 12am. Leading to police sweeping it clean and leaving it safe for tow trucks to tow cars on the lot after 12 am. This is unreal and unfair to have our city allow a parking lot to do this in the downtown zone; and then get “protection” from the police to tow peoples cars.
FinFan,
I saw the “Grandmother” speak at the city hall meeting. For 49, which is very young for a grandmother, she looked even younger. She looked like many 20 and 30 something hispanics who come downtown. She was treated horribly by the police. I’m ashamed to be a citizen of San Jose when judging by our police force or farce.
You also stated: “Exactly how many petite grandmothers does SJPD arrest for resisting?” Of course your correct. The police will not bother a grey haired older person downtown. They are concerned about young hispanics and blacks!
Also, she did not look like a “grandmother”. she looked young! And she look hispanic. Which are both illegal per your police farce!
#16) Nice, well said. Hey “Called You Out”, I think I hear your parole officer calling. Time to report and test.
Fact is, if our affore mentioned Grandmama committed a crime she was arrested. The police report will eventually be public record and we can sort through the facts then or as the matter is tried. Raj, seemingly always has ALL the facts. WOW Raj, how do you do it!?
Here’s my Monday morning question for Raj: Will you be equally outraged at the four OPD officers slain by the parolee at large? Or will you run with a anti-gun, broken parole system, bad BART cops spillover lecture? Can’t watch Raj…
“Nam Turk seems to think that because consuming alcohol is a legal activity it is wrong to make being drunk in public a crime. By his measure, society has no right to protect anyone from the excesses or infirmities of otherwise law-abiding citizens. In other words, drunk people should be allowed to provide childcare; medically-sedated people should be able to sign contracts; and ex-convicts should be free to teach school. I don’t know if his political indoctrination can be penetrated by logic, but I suspect that if his (or that of an elderly loved one) daily path took him through a gauntlet of offensive and aggressive drunks he might change his mind.”
Did I say all this? No, I certainly didn’t. If a drunk person drives a car, they are arrested for driving drunk, not being drunk in public and the car is merely incidental. If you are drunk and that causes you to break windows, are you arrested for being drunk or for vandalism? Being drunk is not a crime in itself. It may be conducive to other things, but those others things are the crimes. If you’re drunk and walking down the street or sitting in your living room, what is the difference?
Sorry #20 but you are way off the mark. The SJPD does not single out anyone because of their race. The department is extremely racially and ethnically diverse, so it is idiotic for anyone to think they have some internal scheme to deal with Hispanics or Blacks. These same officers would lay down their life in a second for a total stranger of any race, just as the 4 officers did in Oakland trying to keep the rest of us safe. How about if for just one day we say thanks to these officers for doing a truly thankless job. I wouldn’t want their job for a million dollars a year.
Rodney #21,
Asked what questions? The owners of the surface lot would have nothing to do with SJPD’s alleged treatment of Maria Castillo (bashed face, broken teeth, arrest, jail). Do you really think SJPD beats up grandmothers to “protect” a parking lot?
p.s. The Spaghetti Factory closes at 11:00 PM on Friday/Saturday and 10:00 PM on other nights.
These posts here today are reminisent of the Sea Gulls rancoursly squacking and fighting over the scrap pieces of fish, left by the guys that have already secured the good fillets, and have left for home with the prize.
As I see it , the cops are not the real issue. It is the guys that rent or lease the sites where all of this violence is being perpitrated. The sheer genious of the folks that grouped all of the alcohol joints in the down town area. They run to the bank with the prize. Now that the bars are over shadowed by condos in the down town area. Guess who gets to deal with the changing demoraphics.
See City Council Policy #6-27 Approved Dated 4/26/1994. Evaluation of 24 Hour uses.
Take a step back and take a good look at the issues, here in the downtown , “It’s been said, If you don’t want Ants in your kitchen, clean up YOUR kitchen!”
I did a simple search of all the clubs in the down town, addresses, etc.
I also did a search of the players. Hispanics,Afro-Americans, Police. Guess what came up. Look up the divorce,suicide, alcoholisum rates of these 3 groups.
It has yet to be determinded who owns all of the properties that house all of these gin joints. Go for it. It’s interesting to see the Sunshine.
Anyone remember the evening game of “Kick The Can”? When you were it, You were IT!
Mexican Americans, African Americans. It’s still a game isn’t it!
Republicans? Naw! They are still in the penalty box!
Once a Sea Gull, always a Sea Gull!Some things never change.
Ten Law suits sounds like some one wants to stop being the CAN! What a KICK!
The Village Black Smith
Raj,
What happened to getting a new IPA, and how much is this costing us?
Top News
Major Research Initiative on Police Practices
March 18, 2009
San Jose today announced the initiation of a major research initiative with a leading group of independent social scientists that will look at Police Department policies, procedures, and practices. The Consortium for Police Leadership in Equity (CPLE) works to improve issues of equity in policing—particularly racial and gender equity—both within law enforcement agencies and between those agencies and the communities they serve.
For more information see: News Release, Council Memo, City Manager’s Info Memo or refer to the CPLE website (external link)
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.asp
#26
Great logic; let’s wait until someone who is drunk in public gets behind the wheel of a 4,000 pound car before intervening. Maybe your logic is the reason a drunk driver killed someone last week in San Jose. Look up California penal code 647f if you don’t know the legal difference between someone who is drunk in their own house versus the public.
And you need to recognize that the world does not run by the book.
I heard a story from the sheriff’s department about SJPD responding to a call of assault on a man in a car who got his laptop stolen from his hands after being punched several times. The perpetrator was found a few blocks away because he was homeless and had nowhere to go. The sheriff’s department (who arrived first) gave way to the SJ cops who had jurisdiction, but were disappointed to see the attacker charged with the common blanket of “drunk in public.” I guess those cases require less paper work.
I have little faith in the guidelines regarding this matter. It’s just carte blanche for cops.
#29
Since you have apparently not looked up the definition of California penal code section 647f, ie “drunk in public”, one of the elements of this crime includes someone being so drunk to the point that “the person must be so intoxicated that he/she cannot exercise care for his own safety or that of others”. If ruling with an iron fist means arresting someone who is this drunk before they have a chance to drive a car, then so be it. I would rather see that person arrested instead of some innocent family wiped out. You need to learn the difference between someone who is merely drunk, and someone who legally fulfills the elements of drunk in public. There is a big difference.
Once again. PC647f is very different from PC647(f).
The Penal Code is questions here is PC 647(f).
As a law librarian, the incorrect citation is very irritating. Plus it’s not nice to accuse a lady of violating PC647f unless it’s actually the case.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=639-653.2
28: I know you’re a fan of the iron fist, but you can’t prosecute for a crime yet to be committed or without any clear evidence that it will be. If a drunk person is carrying a blueprint for mowing down pedestrians or throwing a chair through a store window, then you might be on to something. However, just being drunk does not predispose one to mayhem.
It seems a waste of time to arrest someone who is merely drunk in public, but has committed no crime. Perhaps we should merely detain those folks. It’s not practical to follow these drunks until they actually get in a car. That could take hours.
But if we ever do get a look at the police reports on these arrests, I’d bet the large majority of those arrested were engaging in other prohibited conduct, which was the real reason for the stop and subsequent arrest. If so, those folks should be charged with what they allegedly did—assault, vandalism, disturbing the peace, theft—not with drunk in public…unless they truly fit the statutory definition. And if they are going to be charged with drunk in public, blood alcohol testing is a must.
I cannot help but think there is some racial profiling going on., only because I drive in SJ for my work all day long in SJ, and there is an African American motor cop that is always working alone., yet the caucasion officers are almost always together in pacts, they seem to be in teams, yet I have never seen the African American officer work with the Caucasion officers., it always made me feel sorry for the one officer, as if there was discrimination with in the dept. Maybe there is a good reason for this, but from appearance sake, it looks bad to me for the Dept. This is only my observation, and my personal opinion. It reminds me of the movie “Lakeview Terrace”. So maybe they feel the same towards others of a different race, who knows.
#34-Marianne,
That is a pretty big leap on your part. Have you ever considered stopping and asking the Police Officer WHY he is alone, and IF he feels discriminated against?
Raj,
Marianne’s post is a good example of the hatred and fear mongering you are creating with articles like this. You should be ashamed of yourself.
35/36 – You guys should play the Improv. Your comic stylings are classic. “Have you ever considered stopping…” – yeah, that would go over real well with the officer. You can’t be serious. If someone were really going to pursue this it would take a lot more than asking Mr. Police Officer why he is alone or is he discriminated against.
And then to blame this on Raj as if he is the only one who might have a concern about the police department. You guys make such giant sweeping responses as the spokespersons for the PD that you just can’t be taken seriously. Perhaps Raj goes too far in his direction but you folks go too far in the other direction and that leaves the rest of us with no option other than to ignore you or laugh.
John,
Well John that is certainly one way to look at it. And to correct the misinformation you just posted, Christian nor I have not now nor have we ever claimed to be a spokes person for the SJPD or anyone but ourselves.