Speaker 1: You're listening to bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
Speaker 1: six forty.
Speaker 2: And this is KFI AM six forty bill Handle here
Speaker 2: on a Monday morning, September ninth. Hopefully this is the
Speaker 2: last day of this insane heat wave as Amy has
Speaker 2: been reporting. Tomorrow it starts cooling down and then I
Speaker 2: think by Wednesday we're actually going to get to reasonably
Speaker 2: normal temperatures here in the Southland one hundred and eighteen
Speaker 2: degrees in Woodland Hills.
Speaker 3: The last couple of days, my daughter. I call my
Speaker 3: daughter up and she's so parched it's unbelievable.
Speaker 2: And she was bitching and moaning about the air conditioning,
Speaker 2: how expensive it is, what her utility bill is like.
Speaker 2: Full Blast twenty four to seven. Also, tomorrow night is
Speaker 2: going to be the big one. It's going to be
Speaker 2: the most anticipated debate in a very very long time.
Speaker 3: This is going to be interesting stuff.
Speaker 2: One of the most difficult parts that Kamala Harris or
Speaker 2: any candidate debating Donald Trump has to figure out is
Speaker 2: which way is he going? She has to prepare two
Speaker 2: different debates effectively. And one of the reasons is I
Speaker 2: don't even think Donald Trump knows which way he's going.
Speaker 2: That's what's going to make it so interesting, whether he's
Speaker 2: going to do personal attacks for the most part, policy accusations,
Speaker 2: how far he's going to go in that.
Speaker 3: And as a matter of fact, let me take it
Speaker 3: from there, because what.
Speaker 2: You're going to hear not only from former President Trump
Speaker 2: tomorrow night, but also from Republicans that are running all
Speaker 2: over the country is all the problems with the United States,
Speaker 2: and particularly with California, are the fault of the Democrats.
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris being a California Democrat having effectively destroyed California.
Speaker 2: And by the way, it's hard not to argue that
Speaker 2: to California in many ways has gone into the toilet.
Speaker 2: Look at our housing, look at our homelessness, look at
Speaker 2: the cost.
Speaker 3: Of living here.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's all gone very very south. Look at
Speaker 2: our political our political view in terms of liberalism. So
Speaker 2: she is being portrayed as a homegrown radical, even a communist.
Speaker 3: Destroyed San Francisco as.
Speaker 2: The DA destroy the entire state, as an attorney general,
Speaker 2: will turn the whole nation into a hellhole like California,
Speaker 2: and the Democrats are being blamed for it. And here
Speaker 2: is the problem. And if you happen to be a Democrat.
Speaker 2: Refute this one. Okay, look at the problems we have
Speaker 2: in this state. Who controls the state, who has a
Speaker 2: super majority of both sides of the legislature, the Senate
Speaker 2: and the Assembly, can do virtually anything they want, and
Speaker 2: a liberal Although you know, we talked last week about
Speaker 2: the new bill that would give undocumented the ability to
Speaker 2: work in the UC system like anybody else. Remember we
Speaker 2: talked about that and that was fairly controversial. I said
Speaker 2: it's going to pass Newsom vetoed it straight out, vetoed it.
Speaker 2: There was some sense of reality there somewhere in his
Speaker 2: mind at that point. But the Democrats are being blamed.
Speaker 2: It's far far more difficult than what is going on.
Speaker 2: Of course, it's more nuanced than that, naturally it is.
Speaker 2: But I do believe that Kamala Harris, not only in
Speaker 2: the debate tomorrow night, but in the campaign because while
Speaker 2: I think a lot of the allegations are crazy, right,
Speaker 2: she's an anti Semi, she's married to a Jew. She
Speaker 2: will destroy Israel single handedly, talks.
Speaker 3: To the Jewish community.
Speaker 2: She is a communist that will add solowly destroy the
Speaker 2: economy of the country. Yeah, you know, I mean I
Speaker 2: don't know how much that makes sense, but I'll tell
Speaker 2: you what does make sense. She is a Democrat and
Speaker 2: has been in the democratic hierarchy in the state for
Speaker 2: many years, both as attorney general, as senator, as district attorney.
Speaker 2: And look at California, look at the mess that it's
Speaker 2: in and who controls the state. By the way, every
Speaker 2: word of that is true. Our homelessness problem is worse
Speaker 2: than any other state. Look at what Neil and Amy
Speaker 2: are going to do to help the homeless situation, you know,
Speaker 2: the uh And we'll be talking about that a lot.
Speaker 2: They're doing an event where they're jumping off the Universal Hilton.
Speaker 3: It's going to be fascinating stuff. And you too.
Speaker 2: If you want to jump off with them, you can
Speaker 2: pay one thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: And you're repelling Bill.
Speaker 3: Okay, repelling jumping there.
Speaker 2: It's all the same to me, and you'll be hearing
Speaker 2: a lot more about that later on. But the point
Speaker 2: is it's all about homelessness, which is a huge problem,
Speaker 2: and the issue of insane property prices. That's not the
Speaker 2: case in other parts of the country. And the Democrats
Speaker 2: are in charge. And here's what happens when things go
Speaker 2: to hell. In a handbasket, who gets blained, who's ever
Speaker 2: in charge?
Speaker 3: Guaranteed? And that is a real problem that's going to
Speaker 3: have to.
Speaker 2: Be overcome big time. I think you're going to be
Speaker 2: hearing a lot about that tomorrow night. How it's a
Speaker 2: democratic world that's destroying the United.
Speaker 3: States and got a way.
Speaker 2: You look at California and you go, there's the example,
Speaker 2: and it's kind of hard to argue that it's not.
Speaker 3: California is not the same place. It was not at all.
Speaker 2: I mean in my twenties when I started, when I
Speaker 2: bought my first house, I could afford it and I
Speaker 2: was not making a ton of money. Try doing that today.
Speaker 2: All right, Now, let's talk about something that is a
Speaker 2: little closer to home, and that is your next door
Speaker 2: neighbor's dog eating you, or eating one of your kids,
Speaker 2: or munching your dog and having a dog for snacks,
Speaker 2: depending on how big it is. There is not a registry,
Speaker 2: there is no database. There is no dangerous dog database.
Speaker 2: And you would think, wait a minute, don't you want
Speaker 2: to know? And by the way, it's easy to determine
Speaker 2: what a dangerous dog is. You report it to animal control.
Speaker 2: They come out and they'll investigate or not. And then
Speaker 2: there are laws. If your dog has been deemed a
Speaker 2: dangerous dog, I mean, there is such a thing, and
Speaker 2: here are the rules.
Speaker 3: You have to muzzle that dog in public.
Speaker 2: You cannot walk that dog in public without a muzzle
Speaker 2: on its face.
Speaker 3: God, don't you wish.
Speaker 2: They did that for married people? You know, that would
Speaker 2: be terrific. That's it a dangerous spouse database. Okay, never mind,
Speaker 2: that's in a whole different direction. You can keep on laughing. So,
Speaker 2: and there are some big consequences if your dog has
Speaker 2: been deemed and that's an official designation, it has been
Speaker 2: deemed a dangerous dog. Then there are fines like crazy.
Speaker 2: And then eventually I think they can take the dog away.
Speaker 2: And let me tell you what they do with dangerous dogs, right,
Speaker 2: They don't keep them around and move them over to
Speaker 2: no kill shelters. I mean, they can do some serious
Speaker 2: damage to these dogs, especially.
Speaker 3: The bigger ones. So now let's talk about a database.
Speaker 2: There are places that do have database where you can
Speaker 2: actually let's say you move into a new place and
Speaker 2: you start looking under that database.
Speaker 3: You know, do your neighbors have one?
Speaker 2: It's almost like the databases for child molesters that of
Speaker 2: course you want, you want to know if they're living
Speaker 2: next to you. Now, obviously this is not to that level,
Speaker 2: but it certainly isn't fun. I don't know if you've
Speaker 2: ever been bitten by a dog or seen someone's been
Speaker 2: bitten by a dog. That is no fun at all,
Speaker 2: none at all. And I get the matter of fact,
Speaker 2: I get calls on handle on the law a bunch
Speaker 2: I was bitten by a dog.
Speaker 3: That one is a big deal.
Speaker 2: You know, you slip and fall, eh, but you've been
Speaker 2: bitten by a dog. All of a sudden, the insurance
Speaker 2: companies kick in and certain dogs they won't even cover.
Speaker 2: You have a pitball at home, you don't have home
Speaker 2: insurance that covers it. You have a Rottweiler, a German Shepherd,
Speaker 2: Your home insurance does not cover that dog.
Speaker 3: So when it eats the kid next door, you're bear.
Speaker 4: I got bitten by a German Shepherd when I was
Speaker 4: about ten.
Speaker 3: How bad were you injured? How badly were you injured?
Speaker 4: It ket my my backside pretty good, but I walked
Speaker 4: it off.
Speaker 2: Your dog was a dog still attached to your ass
Speaker 2: when you walked off.
Speaker 4: Well, it was a big german shepherd, and I think
Speaker 4: it came along until I left the driveway, but it
Speaker 4: was still big dog. I mean, they should call them,
Speaker 4: you know, the Doberman pinchers and all those big they
Speaker 4: should call them assault dogs, military style assault dogs.
Speaker 3: And they are, I mean, they can be.
Speaker 2: You get on the wrong side of those dogs, you're
Speaker 2: not feeling very good. You're not a happy camper. And
Speaker 2: the point is that there are states. For example, the
Speaker 2: state of Virginia straight out has a database of dogs
Speaker 2: who have been deemed dangerous.
Speaker 3: In Florida, there's a couple of counties.
Speaker 2: Minneapolis has a couple of counties where.
Speaker 3: It is deemed where they have these databases.
Speaker 2: And we don't keep track of how many dog bites
Speaker 2: there are. And by the way, this is serious stuff again.
Speaker 2: Back I go to handle on the law where people
Speaker 2: ask me questions. Yeah, I tend to pooh pooh injuries.
Speaker 3: I fell down. Yeah, I'd find you're a klutz.
Speaker 2: And you know this happened to me, That happened to me.
Speaker 2: I tend to say, you've got no case. I enjoy
Speaker 2: doing that. Whenever there's a dog bite, I.
Speaker 3: Go, you bet, that's fairly serious.
Speaker 2: That's why the insurance companies are bangeling out of these
Speaker 2: big dogs because the bite. Dog bites can be so serious,
Speaker 2: and of course they do a great job on your
Speaker 2: face too, and they deface you. And by the way,
Speaker 2: that's one of the biggest lawsuits that exists out there
Speaker 2: where your relatively the physical injuries aren't huge, huge, but
Speaker 2: the awards are massive with dog bites, especially on your face,
Speaker 2: particularly women.
Speaker 3: By the way, that's huge.
Speaker 2: You know. Now you're talking some big, big money. And
Speaker 2: I always ask, can I go to a jury?
Speaker 3: Yeah? I go, well, what do you think is gonna happen?
Speaker 3: I always ask, well, let's start with how ugly you
Speaker 3: are to begin with? What are you talking about? Bill?
Speaker 2: I go, well, you're in front of a jury, right,
Speaker 2: And if I'm defending the dog owner, I'm going to
Speaker 2: show before and after pictures and say, you know what,
Speaker 2: the plaintiff looks better with a dog bite than did before.
Speaker 2: That's why I do the show, ladies and gentlemen, I
Speaker 2: really do now. And and by the way, there is
Speaker 2: some seriousness to that. If the person who is being bit,
Speaker 2: particularly a woman, has a particular is she's particularly attractive,
Speaker 2: the awards are astronomical, No yeah, yeah, it's it's actually true.
Speaker 2: The better looking you are and the more important it is,
Speaker 2: or the more serious a dog bite case is.
Speaker 3: That's true.
Speaker 2: Actually if someone is well, you know, it depends on
Speaker 2: how ugly you are to start with. I mean it's
Speaker 2: considered serious, you're going to get something, but certainly not
Speaker 2: like you know, it's it's like lack of loss of consortium.
Speaker 3: Loss of consortium.
Speaker 2: Is a cause of action against a wrongdoer or someone
Speaker 2: who's negligent that has injured your spouse or your girlfriend
Speaker 2: or boyfriend. And it literally says I cannot have sex
Speaker 2: with this person because of what you did. For example,
Speaker 2: a car accident, right you've destroyed or someone can't have
Speaker 2: sex because of your negligence. That party who is living
Speaker 2: with that person who's been injured can file a lawsuit
Speaker 2: for loss of consortium. That's a legitimate cause of action. Now,
Speaker 2: do they go very often?
Speaker 3: They do not.
Speaker 2: Do they go for jury trials rarely because there's always
Speaker 2: some old guy on the jury or.
Speaker 3: Some guy says, I haven't been laid in ten years.
Speaker 3: You think I'm gonna give him money for that or
Speaker 3: her money for that. By the way, that is legitimate.
Speaker 2: Handle on the law every Saturday morning, eight to eleven
Speaker 2: o'clock right here on KFI.
Speaker 3: Okay, I think we'll endit at that, what do you think? Sure? Sure?
Speaker 2: All right, it is time. Do they have a case
Speaker 2: with Wayne Resnick and me? Hello Bill Wayne?
Speaker 5: The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Amongst many other things that
Speaker 5: they have done, like making inmates wear purple underwear pink underwear.
Speaker 3: Live that's Joe R.
Speaker 5: Pile, Yes, the live streaming from inside the jail to
Speaker 5: try to humiliate the inmates. Another thing they do is
Speaker 5: they have a webs called mugshot look Up, and if
Speaker 5: you get arrested, they put your mugshot up there with
Speaker 5: quite a lot of information about you, whether or not
Speaker 5: you're ever even charged with a crime. So here comes
Speaker 5: a guy named Brian Houston. He's arrested and charged with assault.
Speaker 5: They put his picture up. They've got his full name,
Speaker 5: is date of birth, his sex, height, weight, hair color,
Speaker 5: eye color, and the charge of assault. It was up
Speaker 5: there for several days, during which time it was scraped
Speaker 5: by a bot service that then puts it up on
Speaker 5: privately run mugshot websites, and he was never charged. They
Speaker 5: dropped it the prosecutors looked at what happened, he dropped everything.
Speaker 5: So he sues the sheriff's office. He'd likes to be
Speaker 5: a class action on behalf of everyone, saying that it's
Speaker 5: violating his rights against due process, that they are putting
Speaker 5: the pictures up there as a punitive measure and without
Speaker 5: a legitimate public reason.
Speaker 1: The sheriff's office says.
Speaker 5: Oh, we have a great public reason, transparency.
Speaker 1: It helps transparency. Hmm.
Speaker 5: Do you really need to know things like his weight
Speaker 5: in order for there to be transparency about how the
Speaker 5: sheriff's office is run. Also, you don't put anything up
Speaker 5: about who the arresting officers were, which district of your
Speaker 5: office made the arrest, whether or not he's got a
Speaker 5: pending court date, which jail that he is held at.
Speaker 5: It doesn't really seem like a lot of transparency about
Speaker 5: the sheriff's office.
Speaker 1: We say it's punitive and you can't do that.
Speaker 5: So the lower court the sheriff's office wins, as you
Speaker 5: probably are not surprised, but it goes up to the
Speaker 5: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Brian Houston says there's
Speaker 5: no legitimate basis to do what they're doing here to
Speaker 5: put that much information about me and no information about them,
Speaker 5: And it hurts my reputation to be on a website
Speaker 5: that can be accessed by anybody in the world to
Speaker 5: see this stuff, not only for what they put, but
Speaker 5: for what they don't put, Like no charges werever filed.
Speaker 5: I would like some money, and also I would like
Speaker 5: anybody else who's had their mugshot put up there to
Speaker 5: become part of.
Speaker 1: A class action. So the class action.
Speaker 5: Parts maybe not as interesting, but it was part of
Speaker 5: the case. Does he have a case though they should
Speaker 5: not be doing.
Speaker 3: This, Yeah too, I can.
Speaker 2: The only justification I can think of by putting up
Speaker 2: a mug shot prior to a even a conviction, just
Speaker 2: on the basis of arrest, is if they are looking
Speaker 2: for him. If they are looking for him, that is
Speaker 2: logical that a mug shot is put.
Speaker 3: Up after that.
Speaker 2: Man, I think that that is it seems it seems
Speaker 2: punitive to me, only because today with the Internet and
Speaker 2: the ability to share it with virtually everybody, it's I
Speaker 2: think it's reached the level of punitive. I think technology
Speaker 2: and just the way it's being used. Yeah, I would
Speaker 2: agree with him that it's punitive, even though there is
Speaker 2: a history of mugshots being put up, my favorite one
Speaker 2: being Nick Nolty. If you remember that wonderful shot of
Speaker 2: his when he was arrested for trunk driving. I thought
Speaker 2: that was spectacular. So I'm saying he wins.
Speaker 1: Now before I tell you if you're right or not.
Speaker 5: Do you think they had in the back of their
Speaker 5: mind all the other crazy stuff that Maricopa County has
Speaker 5: done with arrestees and inmates, or that they really just
Speaker 5: looked at the legal questions on this specific issue.
Speaker 2: You know what, I would guess that the judges would
Speaker 2: be objective enough to not look at that. However, they're
Speaker 2: human beings and it's hard to look at Maricopa County
Speaker 2: without looking at the crazy crap that went down. So
Speaker 2: i'd be let me put it this way, I would
Speaker 2: be surprised if the court bought.
Speaker 3: The transparency argument. That's how I feel you are correct.
Speaker 1: They said a lot of what you just said.
Speaker 5: They really kind of hand it to the Sheriff's department
Speaker 5: in this decision, going through why everything the department's saying
Speaker 5: about why they should be allowed to do it is bogus.
Speaker 5: And as to that issue, if did they look at
Speaker 5: other stuff?
Speaker 3: They did.
Speaker 5: In one sense, there was already a federal case about
Speaker 5: the live streaming of the inmates. There was a lawsuit
Speaker 5: against the Sheriff's department, and the Ninth Circuit said about that.
Speaker 5: You can't do that and broadcast these people in jail
Speaker 5: to the world. There's no purpose for that. And so
Speaker 5: because Maricopa County already got dinged once for this kind
Speaker 5: of thing, basically publicizing worldwide the people under their control,
Speaker 5: they already had a basis on which to conclude the
Speaker 5: mugshots are.
Speaker 2: No good makes sense to me because today, well not
Speaker 2: only is there no sense of privacy anymore, but still
Speaker 2: under those circumstances, the authorities going way too far, And
Speaker 2: then the argument of transparency is complete.
Speaker 3: Crapple.
Speaker 1: All right, have you ever seen the vehicle known as
Speaker 1: a SnowCat?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 5: Question, They're huge, right, they're big. So the cops are
Speaker 5: looking for a stolen SnowCat. This particular model is eight
Speaker 5: feet wide, seven and a half feet tall, and sixteen
Speaker 5: feet plus long. They think this guy has hidden it
Speaker 5: in the garage at his mom's property. So they go
Speaker 5: over there to look for it, and they think they
Speaker 5: see someone in the house. So they ring the doorbell
Speaker 5: and nobody answers the doorbell, and they don't really see
Speaker 5: the SnowCat. So they go get a search warrant and
Speaker 5: they come back two hours later, and because the mom
Speaker 5: was a registered firearm owner, they decide this is going
Speaker 5: to be a dangerous warrant service. So they lobb tear
Speaker 5: gas into the house and then they bust down the
Speaker 5: door and in they go, and nobody's home. And also
Speaker 5: the SnowCat is not in the garage, so uh. The
Speaker 5: women sues them for violating her Fourth Amendment rights and
Speaker 5: also for using excessive force by you know, damaging the
Speaker 5: heck out of her house. And the cops say, hey, man,
Speaker 5: you can't do nothing to us qualified immunity. We were
Speaker 5: serving a valid warrant. We had a reason to be
Speaker 5: concerned about safety. It is well established that if the
Speaker 5: cops beat down your door to get in that you
Speaker 5: can't do anything about it. And she says, of course,
Speaker 5: her lawyers they say, wait a minute, there were no
Speaker 5: exigencies when you came to the house. Yes, the cops
Speaker 5: can kick down the door if there's an exigency, if
Speaker 5: they think you're hiding evidence, or there's danger, you know,
Speaker 5: somebody's being inside. There was nothing like that. In fact,
Speaker 5: nobody was home. There couldn't have been.
Speaker 3: And also, by.
Speaker 5: The way, there's no way that SnowCat could have been
Speaker 5: in the house. You weren't even allowed to look in
Speaker 5: the house. And the cops say, well, we had a
Speaker 5: search warrant to search the property in the house is
Speaker 5: on the property, And her lawyers say, why don't you
Speaker 5: look at the law and how search warrants work. When
Speaker 5: you have a search warrant, you have to say what
Speaker 5: place you're searching, and you have to say specifically what
Speaker 5: you're looking for. And then here's the part that we
Speaker 5: think is filled in under the law. Because you must
Speaker 5: say what you're looking for, that's the only thing you
Speaker 5: can look for. You're not allowed to look for any
Speaker 5: old thing, only the thing you put in the warrant.
Speaker 5: And that means that means you can only look where
Speaker 5: that thing could possible. If I get a search warrant
Speaker 5: on your house, bill and I'm looking for a seven
Speaker 5: foot tall statue, I can't look in your drawers, I
Speaker 5: can't look in your kitchen cabinets because it couldn't possibly
Speaker 5: be there. So even though I might be allowed to
Speaker 5: be in your house, that doesn't mean I'm allowed to
Speaker 5: look everywhere. Just because they were allowed to be on
Speaker 5: the property doesn't mean they were allowed to look anywhere.
Speaker 5: They shouldn't even have gone in the house at all.
Speaker 5: That's hurt the opinion of it. Their opinion is basically,
Speaker 5: we just didn't do anything wrong, right, And what do
Speaker 5: you think does she we have any case?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: First of all, I don't even know how they had
Speaker 2: a search warrant without specificity. That's for one thing. A
Speaker 2: general search warrant allow us to go on the property.
Speaker 2: There has they have to be looking for something. And
Speaker 2: when they tore into her, for example, medicine cabinet looking
Speaker 2: for a SnowCat, that would probably be illegal. Based on
Speaker 2: her argument, I can I can't see how she loses
Speaker 2: that one, because based on your right exigen circumstances, they
Speaker 2: weren't looking for.
Speaker 3: Whatever they were looking for was specific.
Speaker 2: You can't even get a SnowCat into a house, much
Speaker 2: less anything else. So I think they lose across the
Speaker 2: board as far as I'm concerned, and right, there is
Speaker 2: qualified immunity, but there is a point where the cops
Speaker 2: have gone past that and this is the point.
Speaker 5: Yes, the police were trying to say to the tenh
Speaker 5: Circuit Court of Appeals that we didn't violate her rights.
Speaker 5: We literally did not violate her rights doing all of
Speaker 5: these things. But you're correct, she's correct, her lawyers are correct,
Speaker 5: and the ten Circuit said, oh, you guys, totally you
Speaker 5: violated her rights by going into the house at all,
Speaker 5: and you violated them again by the way that you
Speaker 5: went into the house.
Speaker 2: And just to quick aside, lobbing teargap gas into a
Speaker 2: house destroys the house. The tear gas goes literally into
Speaker 2: the drywall. You have to bring it down to the
Speaker 2: studs to bring that house back. I mean everything is gone.
Speaker 2: Forget the furniture and everything else. I mean the very
Speaker 2: dry wall itself has to go. I mean it is
Speaker 2: no fun. And when no one's home, that's kind of ridiculous.
Speaker 2: All right, Wayne, thank you. We'll catch you again next Monday.
Speaker 2: Tomorrow morning, we start this all over again. Amy comes
Speaker 2: in at five am with wake up call. Neil and
Speaker 2: I join. Neil's giving you the big wave.
Speaker 3: Neil and I join at six o'clock.
Speaker 2: And then of course Kno and and are always here.
Speaker 2: This is KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the
Speaker 2: iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 3: You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2: Catch My Show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
Speaker 2: and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app