Fresno police Chief Jerry Dyer’ s claims about Proposition 47 are factually baseless, critic says

There is no more tragic a crime than the senseless murder of a young person at the hand of a violent and dangerous criminal. The recent murder of 17-year-old Nick Kauls in Fresno is a prime example. We all know there is not a simplistic explanation for such an act of random violence, and it is troubling that any public safety leader would treat this tragedy as an opportunity to champion a political agenda. The irresponsible response of Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer and Fresno County District Attorney Lisa A. Smittcamp to Kauls’ death are designed to stoke fear, anger and anxiety by claiming that “but for” Proposition 47, this brutal murder would not have occurred. Not only is their excuse disrespectful of the victim and his family, it is false.

Proposition 47 did not “decriminalize” drug possession or any of the crimes impacted by the law. All the crimes identified in Proposition 47 are enforceable as misdemeanors. A police officer who observes a misdemeanor violation can make an immediate arrest and take the suspect into custody. In this case, the officers decided not to take such action. Everyone in the hotel room could have been arrested, as control and ownership of the gun, the assault rifle and the narcotics would be difficult to determine in the field.

The officers’ decision to cite and release Joseph Antonio Espinoza was authorized by California Penal Code section 853.6, which was enacted in 1959 and likely sanctioned by a Fresno Police Department policy authorized by Chief Dyer, but it is not required by Proposition 47. “Cite and Release” policy statements have been in place in police departments across California for decades. These policy statements were initially written in the early 1980s in direct response to the realities of jail overcrowding, expensive jail booking fees and the need to effectively manage the commitments undertaken by officers deployed in the field. It is important to understand these policy statements were not conceived as a response to Proposition 47.

Criminal justice reform is not an “either/or” reality as some public safety leaders would have folks believe. The voting public and those who advocate for reform of costly and counter-productive policies have never suggested, or recommended, that criminal activity should be ignored or that criminals should be given a free pass to commit nonviolent crime.

I believe the public is demanding that officers use their discretion to prioritize arrest and incarceration for situations involving the most violent and dangerous offenders among us. As an example, an encounter in a hotel room with four occupants who are in possession of a semi-automatic handgun, an assault rifle, dangerous narcotics and cash suggests that these folks are much more than a group of nonviolent offenders who should be issued a citation.

Discretion to act remains one of the most powerful and effective tools available to the police. Admittedly, an arrest in this scenario would have demanded a level of coordination, cooperation and adaptation that is unfortunately lacking in many jurisdictions. Chief Dyer is correct to suggest that under current policy guidelines arresting the offenders from the hotel might have led to a brief stay at the county jail, but this is not a consequence of Proposition 47.

More than ever we need our public safety leaders to stop trying to protect the status quo and begin to modify their policies and procedures to better reflect the overwhelming demands of the voting public for systemic change.