I have not taken the time to do the research, but my guess is that this is the first time in the history of Pennsylvania that an alleged instrument of crime is a dead catfish. Normally, instruments of crime are things like tools used for burglaries or breaking into cars, but the definition of this crime is actually broad enough to cover just about any object, including a dead catfish. Pursuant to Section 907 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, an instrument of crime, is "anything specially made or specifically adapted for criminal use," or "anything used for criminal purposes and possessed by the actor under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for lawful uses it may have." According to media reports, Waddell vacuum sealed the catfish and smuggled it into the arena in his compression shorts. He then pulled out the catfish in the restroom and hid it inside a promotional t-shirt handed out to fans as they entered the venue. Thus, Waddell specially modified the catfish for a criminal purpose, and he did not use it for the lawful purpose of cooking or feeding it to a fish-eating pet. Possessing an instrument of crime is a first degree misdemeanor punishable by a maximum penalty of 2.5 to five years of incarceration and a fine of up to $10,000.
Disrupting meetings is a rather obscure crime defined by Section 5508 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code as disturbing or interrupting a lawful meeting or gathering with the intent of preventing it or disrupting it. Waddell was unable to prevent the Pens 5-3 victory, but he did disrupt it for a short time until the dead catfish could be removed from the ice. This offense is a third degree misdemeanor punishable by a maximum penalty of six to 12 months of incarceration and a $2,500 fine.
Lastly, Waddell is charged with the summary offense of disorderly conduct pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. 5503(a)(4). Disorderly conduct takes various forms, with Subsection (a)(4) defined as creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose. I doubt that a Pittsburgh judge would be open to the argument that throwing a catfish onto the ice served the "legitimate purpose" of bringing good luck to the visiting Predators. A disorderly conduct conviction carries a maximum penalty of up to 90 days in jail and a $300 fine.
I have to give the Pittsburgh Police credit for being creative enough to charge possessing instruments of crime and disrupting meetings. When I watched the crime unfold live in the comfort of my living room, I thought Waddell would only be charged with disorderly conduct, which is the usual charge associated with inappropriate fan behavior at Pennsylvania sporting events.
All joking aside, I doubt Waddell is looking at any jail time for his stunt. In fact, if he has no prior criminal record, he may be able to avail himself of Pennsylvania's ARD (Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition) program, which allows criminal charges to be dismissed and expunged after a defendant fulfills certain obligations. Usually, a defendant is required to perform community service, pay court costs and in some cases, undergo drug and alcohol counseling or anger management classes. Given the fact that Waddell is neither a Caps nor Flyers fan, he should be a good ARD candidate if he has not prior record.
Matt McClenahen is a criminal defense attorney in State College, PA, and a Pittsburgh Penguins fan. http://www.mattmlaw.com/About-Attorney-McClenahen/
]]>The police allege that a witness saw a suspicious man enter a barn and then leave a short time later. Armed with a description of the vehicle and the license plate, the police were able to track down Wagner, who then allegedly admitted to entering the barn to have sex with a miniature horse. This confession is a classic example of why most suspects should keep their mouths shut when interrogated by police without a lawyer present!
Strangely enough, sexual intercourse with an animal is only a second degree misdemeanor in Pennsylvania, punishable by a maximum penalty of one to two years of incarceration and a $5,000 fine. Most people convicted of a second degree misdemeanor can expect probation if they have no prior record. By contrast, burglary of the barn at a time when no person is present is a second degree felony punishable by a maximum penalty of five to ten years of incarceration and a $25,000 fine. A defendant with no prior record could usually expect a sentence of probation or county jail followed by a period of parole, if convicted of this type of burglary.
Some may be surprised to learn that sex with an animal is not a SORNA offense in Pennsylvania, meaning that a person convicted of this offense does not have to register as a sex offender. SORNA stands for "Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act," and it replaced the older Megan's Law. Like Megan's Law, SORNA determines which offenses require one to register as a sex offender and for how long. For whatever reason, the drafters of SORNA did not deem sex with an animal to be as bad as a 19 year old high-school janitor having sex with an 18 year-old student. The 19-year old janitor in this scenario would be required to register as a sex offender for 25 years if convicted of institutional sexual assault!
Pennsylvania has a long history of absurd laws surrounding sex. In fact, this is the state, which once accidentally legalized bestiality for a period of time. You can read about it in this blog post: http://www.mattmlaw.com/blog/2013/07/sex-offenses-bestiality-was-legal-in-pennsylvania-from-1995-to-1999.shtml
Matt McClenahen is a criminal defense attorney in State College, Pennsylvania. http://www.mattmlaw.com/About-Attorney-McClenahen/
]]>Believe it or not, kegs were once allowed in the Penn State dorms until 1984, or so I have been told. And in my Penn State undergrad days, kegs were a staple of every frat and apartment party. Yet kegs in State College are now relegated to house parties and bars, as apartments eventually joined the university's keg ban in a misguided effort to discourage excessive drinking. Likewise, Penn State has since imposed an outright ban on all alcohol in the dorms, even for those over 21.
These policies have backfired, just like they did during Alcohol Prohibition, our nation's only public policy blunder to fail more miserably than the War on Drugs. Students are not going to stop drinking alcohol because it is banned or restricted. Alcohol is simply too engrained in our Western culture, coupled with the fact that the most socially acceptable time to party is in one's youth. During Prohibition, bootleggers smuggled hard liquor because it takes up less space than beer and wine. The same thing now repeats itself on the Penn State campus. It is a lot easier to smuggle in a handle of vodka than a case of beer, and it is a lot easier to dispose of one empty bottle than 24 empty bottles or cans.
When Penn State students drink now, bad things are far more likely to happen than in the past. The overwhelming majority of underage drinking and public drunkenness cases I see these days arise from hard liquor. My clients tell me that a lot of parties do not even have beer; there is only hard liquor. And after two or three years of drinking hard liquor underage, these students will have been trained to drink hard liquor instead of beer once they turn 21.
Off campus, the keg ban has completely changed the Penn State drinking culture for the worse. If you cannot have kegs, then the only feasible and economical way to serve a lot of people is through hard liquor. Go to the Hamilton Street State Store Thursday through Saturday, and you will see young men in Greek-letter shirts filling up shopping carts with cheap hard liquor in plastic bottles, destined for the mouths of lightweight freshmen, who will be doing shots and guzzling jungle juice, instead of drinking cheap beer like their Nittany Nation ancestors.
As everyone knows except American college freshmen, no one should ever drink hard liquor unless they have had experience with training-wheel drinks like beer and wine. That is precisely why the drinking age in Germany is 16 for beer and wine, but 18 for hard liquor. That is the kind of law you get from a people known for Mr. Spock-like rational thinking, an obsession with safety and a love of drinking.
In my undergrad days, we had a beer-based drinking culture, and the alumni even older than me will tell you the same thing. Of course people got drunk, but hospital trips were rare. This is because it is incredibly difficult to overdose on beer, while hard liquor can pose a challenge to even the most seasoned boozers. And this is why beer drinking should be encouraged! If young people are going to drink, and we know they will, then they should be drinking beer.
Obviously, Penn State cannot actively encourage beer drinking, but it could at least stop inadvertently encouraging hard liquor consumption by discouraging beer drinking. I would have no problem with banning hard liquor in the dorms, while allowing beer and wine. The keg ban in the frats and downtown apartments must end. Until Penn State returns to its drinking culture of yore, we will continue to see irresponsible drinking, which creates a negative externality for the entire community.
Matt McClenahen is a Penn State alumnus and criminal defense lawyer in State College, PA. He is a beer snob who rarely imbibes in the hard stuff. http://www.mattmlaw.com/Criminal-Defense-Overview/Alcohol-Offenses-DUI.shtml
]]>First of all, a local government does not have the authority to completely decriminalize marijuana, because a local government cannot override state criminal laws. Marijuana and drug paraphernalia remain crimes under the Pennsylvania Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. The new State College Borough marijuana ordinance gives the State College Borough Police the option of charging a defendant with a summary offense local ordinance instead of the conventional, criminal charge, which leads to fingerprints, photographs and a criminal record with the Pennsylvania State Police and FBI.
The borough ordinance carries a fine of $250 for possessing less than 30 grams of cannabis and a $350 fine for smoking marijuana in public, while possession of a small amount of marijuana under state law carries the following maximum penalties: a fine of up to $500, incarceration or probation not to exceed 30 days and a six month driver's license suspension. Additionally, a conviction of any drug possession offense renders one indelible for federally-subsidized student loans. A person convicted of the borough ordinance would not face jail time or probation, a driver's license suspension or student-loan ban. An ordinance violator would also not be fingerprinted and photographed at the Centre County Correctional Facility.
Contrary to what at least one local media outlet reported, the decriminalization ordinance does NOT make possession of marijuana in State College Borough the equivalent of a parking ticket! If you pay a parking ticket on time, there is absolutely no record of it for anyone to find, not to mention the fact that potential employers are not going to look at a parking ticket the same way as marijuana possession charge. Even though a person charged with an ordinance violation will not be in the FBI and State Police criminal record data bases, he or she will have a record, which anyone with internet access can see. The docket sheet will be freely available on the AOPC (Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts) website, just like every crime from underage drinking to homicide.
Most background checks used by employers and landlords are not done by the FBI and State Police. Rather, most background checks are performed by private companies, which will pull a background check on prospective employees and tenants for a small fee. These background check services rely upon publicly available records on the Internet, such as the docket sheets on the AOPC website. Thus, if you plead guilty to marijuana possession under the borough ordinance, it is going to show up on most background checks, and I doubt that the typical employer is going to care whether you were charged with a borough ordinance or a crime when the underlying conduct is exactly the same.
That being said, the decriminalization ordinance will likely make very little difference for the thousands of cannabis consumers in Happy Valley. The State College Police already de facto decriminalized possession of a small amount of marijuana years ago by making it the lowest law enforcement priority, an approach common in American cities where there is "real crime" to deal with. In other words, the State College Police are not actively pursuing marijuana smokers, but they do still actively pursue cannabis sellers through time-consuming investigations. When State College Police respond to a noise complaint in an apartment building and happen to smell weed, they usually ignore it. This is because they are already overwhelmed with disorderly and violent drunk people, who negatively impact our community. By contrast, marijuana smokers are not bothering anyone.
This is not to say that State College Police never charge anyone with small amount of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. They do file such charges, albeit at a small fraction of what we see from the Penn State Police. Most commonly, this involves a "collateral damage" scenario, where the police get a search warrant for a house or apartment after a resident sold drugs to a confidential informant or undercover cop. If the subsequent search reveals that roommates had marijuana and/ or drug paraphernalia for personal use, these collateral damage roommates will normally be charged with misdemeanors, while the guy who sold drugs will be charged with felonies. Additionally, those brazen enough to toke in public or in parked vehicles should not expect the State College Police will look the other way.
I am curious to see whether the State College Police will start handing out borough ordinance citations for marijuana possession in cases, which would have been completely ignored in the past. It takes a lot less time and resources to file a citation than to file criminal charges, which require a mandatory court appearance for the police officer.
The Penn State Police take a very different approach to marijuana than their Borough Police brethren. The Penn State Police do actively enforce the marijuana laws. They do not ignore the smell of weed emanating from dorm rooms. In fact, they will even wake up a magisterial district judge at 3:00 a.m. to get a search warrant, if a student denies permission to search his or her dorm room. Consequently, almost all the small amount of marijuana and drug paraphernalia charges we see are filed by Penn State Police. And the Penn State Police do not file borough ordinance citations, even if an offense occurs on the parts of Penn State's campus, which are technically in the borough. If you are caught with marijuana on campus, you will still be charged criminally.
It is important for members of the Penn State and State College cannabis community to know that the new ordinance has not significantly changed things. You should not suddenly become brazen and carless about your cannabis consumption, especially if you live on campus. And if you live off campus and are charged under the new ordinance, you absolutely, positively should not plead guilty under the mistaken belief that it is just like a parking ticket! You should first talk to a criminal defense attorney, who may be able to help you avoid a conviction, which could negatively affect your future job prospects.
Matt McClenahen is a Penn State alumnus, State College criminal defense lawyer and member of the NORML Legal Committee.
]]>First of all, a local government does not have the authority to completely decriminalize marijuana, because a local government cannot override state criminal laws. Marijuana and drug paraphernalia remain crimes under the Pennsylvania Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. The new State College Borough marijuana ordinance gives the State College Borough Police the option of charging a defendant with a summary offense local ordinance instead of the conventional, criminal charge, which leads to fingerprints, photographs and a criminal record with the Pennsylvania State Police and FBI.
The borough ordinance carries a fine of $250 for possessing less than 30 grams of cannabis and a $350 fine for smoking marijuana in public, while possession of a small amount of marijuana under state law carries the following maximum penalties: a fine of up to $500, incarceration or probation not to exceed 30 days and a six month driver's license suspension. Additionally, a conviction of any drug possession offense renders one indelible for federally-subsidized student loans. A person convicted of the borough ordinance would not face jail time or probation, a driver's license suspension or student-loan ban. An ordinance violator would also not be fingerprinted and photographed at the Centre County Correctional Facility.
Contrary to what at least one local media outlet reported, the decriminalization ordinance does NOT make possession of marijuana in State College Borough the equivalent of a parking ticket! If you pay a parking ticket on time, there is absolutely no record of it for anyone to find, not to mention the fact that potential employers are not going to look at a parking ticket the same way as marijuana possession charge. Even though a person charged with an ordinance violation will not be in the FBI and State Police criminal record data bases, he or she will have a record, which anyone with internet access can see. The docket sheet will be freely available on the AOPC (Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts) website, just like every crime from underage drinking to homicide.
Most background checks used by employers and landlords are not done by the FBI and State Police. Rather, most background checks are performed by private companies, which will pull a background check on prospective employees and tenants for a small fee. These background check services rely upon publicly available records on the Internet, such as the docket sheets on the AOPC website. Thus, if you plead guilty to marijuana possession under the borough ordinance, it is going to show up on most background checks, and I doubt that the typical employer is going to care whether you were charged with a borough ordinance or a crime when the underlying conduct is exactly the same.
That being said, the decriminalization ordinance will likely make very little difference for the thousands of cannabis consumers in Happy Valley. The State College Police already de facto decriminalized possession of a small amount of marijuana years ago by making it the lowest law enforcement priority, an approach common in American cities where there is "real crime" to deal with. In other words, the State College Police are not actively pursuing marijuana smokers, but they do still actively pursue cannabis sellers through time-consuming investigations. When State College Police respond to a noise complaint in an apartment building and happen to smell weed, they usually ignore it. This is because they are already overwhelmed with disorderly and violent drunk people, who negatively impact our community. By contrast, marijuana smokers are not bothering anyone.
This is not to say that State College Police never charge anyone with small amount of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. They do file such charges, albeit at a small fraction of what we see from the Penn State Police. Most commonly, this involves a "collateral damage" scenario, where the police get a search warrant for a house or apartment after a resident sold drugs to a confidential informant or undercover cop. If the subsequent search reveals that roommates had marijuana and/ or drug paraphernalia for personal use, these collateral damage roommates will normally be charged with misdemeanors, while the guy who sold drugs will be charged with felonies. Additionally, those brazen enough to toke in public or in parked vehicles should not expect the State College Police will look the other way.
I am curious to see whether the State College Police will start handing out borough ordinance citations for marijuana possession in cases, which would have been completely ignored in the past. It takes a lot less time and resources to file a citation than to file criminal charges, which require a mandatory court appearance for the police officer.
The Penn State Police take a very different approach to marijuana than their Borough Police brethren. The Penn State Police do actively enforce the marijuana laws. They do not ignore the smell of weed emanating from dorm rooms. In fact, they will even wake up a magisterial district judge at 3:00 a.m. to get a search warrant, if a student denies permission to search his or her dorm room. Consequently, almost all the small amount of marijuana and drug paraphernalia charges we see are filed by Penn State Police. And the Penn State Police do not file borough ordinance citations, even if an offense occurs on the parts of Penn State's campus, which are technically in the borough. If you are caught with marijuana on campus, you will still be charged criminally.
It is important for members of the Penn State and State College cannabis community to know that the new ordinance has not significantly changed things. You should not suddenly become brazen and carless about your cannabis consumption, especially if you live on campus. And if you live off campus and are charged under the new ordinance, you absolutely, positively should not plead guilty under the mistaken belief that it is just like a parking ticket! You should first talk to a criminal defense attorney, who may be able to help you avoid a conviction, which could negatively affect your future job prospects.
Matt McClenahen is a Penn State alumnus, State College criminal defense lawyer and member of the NORML Legal Committee.
]]>With shows like "Amish Mafia" and the documentary "Devil's Playground," most "English" people are now aware of Rumspringa, a period when Amish youth are given freedom to enjoy temptations of the secular world before deciding whether or not to join the church. Thus, I doubt that anyone is really shocked to hear that Amish youth drink just like their English age-contemporaries. However, a lot of people might be surprised to learn that Pennsylvania DUI laws apply to any vehicle on a public road. You can even get a DUI on a bicycle. Most of my clients who have had bike DUIs had absolutely no clue that they could get a DUI on a bike, and likewise, I suspect that the unfortunate buggy driver may not have been aware that he could get a DUI.
Most first-time DUI offenders are eligible for a program called ARD, which stands for Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition. Successful completion of the program can lead to dismissal and expungement of the charges, but most ARD-DUI defendants lose their driver's license for a period of time. Yet the unfortunate Amish teen driver will be able to continue to drive his buggy. One does not need a driver's license to operate a horse and buggy on a public road any more than one needs a license to ride a bike.
Matt McClenahen is a criminal defense attorney in State College, Pennsylvania, with extensive experience in DUI cases. http://www.mattmlaw.com/Criminal-Defense-Overview/DUI-Defense.shtml Er kummt vun Mifflin County und kann a Bissel Pennsilfanisch Deitsch schwetze.