Woman disembarking DCL Dream arrested

[NYGirl1002]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/robin-hall-22-year-old-cigarette-shoplifting_n_2525578.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl22%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D260149

 

I think this was pretty unfair. She's going to end up staying in jail until she can be transferred.

[Shmoo here]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/robin-hall-22-year-old-cigarette-shoplifting_n_2525578.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl22%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D260149

 

I think this was pretty unfair. She's going to end up staying in jail until she can be transferred.

 

What's so unfair? If she had taken care of this 21 years ago, there'd be no problem. She didn't, so she got arrested.

 

Any cruise that you go on uses their passenger manifests to look for security threats. One of the things that will show up is outstanding warrants.

 

This can happen on any cruiseline.

 

:)

[UATLB]

What's so unfair? If she had taken care of this 21 years ago, there'd be no problem. She didn't, so she got arrested.

 

Any cruise that you go on uses their passenger manifests to look for security threats. One of the things that will show up is outstanding warrants.

 

This can happen on any cruiseline.

 

:)

 

X2 if she didn't break the law she wouldn't be we're she is now

[Loonbeam]

The only issue for me is how much more than the $85 she owes is it costing them to hold and transport her...

[wildcatlh]

What's so unfair? If she had taken care of this 21 years ago, there'd be no problem. She didn't, so she got arrested.

 

Any cruise that you go on uses their passenger manifests to look for security threats. One of the things that will show up is outstanding warrants.

 

This can happen on any cruiseline.

 

:)

 

While I agree that this can happen on any cruiseline, citing "well, she broke the law, she has to be punished!" is generally a patently ridiculous line, and even more so here.

 

1. If they're looking for security threats, why would they pull up a decades-old warrant on a petty misdameanor?

2. There's a point at which the punishment far outweighs the crime. I think having her sit in jail is pretty obvious here.

 

Give her an appearance ticket and let her go on her way. Or have her pay the $85 on the spot. Or have her pay the $85 plus interest. Any of those options is infinitely better than what happened.

[Shmoo here]

While I agree that this can happen on any cruiseline, citing "well, she broke the law, she has to be punished!" is generally a patently ridiculous line, and even more so here.

 

1. If they're looking for security threats, why would they pull up a decades-old warrant on a petty misdameanor?

2. There's a point at which the punishment far outweighs the crime. I think having her sit in jail is pretty obvious here.

 

Give her an appearance ticket and let her go on her way. Or have her pay the $85 on the spot. Or have her pay the $85 plus interest. Any of those options is infinitely better than what happened.

 

I've been reading about this on another board, and, it seems that what may have happened was she missed a payment on a fine at the time. Because of the missed payment a bench warrant may have been issued. I'm not sure that what the warrant was initially for would have come up, only that she had a warrant. Homeland Security turned the matter over to the local authorities. Along the lines of "we know where someone with a warrant is, and she's within your authority". Then the local authorities decide if they have to time/inclination to pursue it. Apparently they felt they wanted to do this.

 

Again I'll say, if she had taken care of this in the first place, there'd be no problem. And I'm speaking with some experience in making sure that all your papers are filed and all your fines are paid. At that time you can put it behind you.

 

:)

[wildcatlh]

I've been reading about this on another board, and, it seems that what may have happened was she missed a payment on a fine at the time. Because of the missed payment a bench warrant may have been issued. I'm not sure that what the warrant was initially for would have come up, only that she had a warrant. Homeland Security turned the matter over to the local authorities. Along the lines of "we know where someone with a warrant is, and she's within your authority". Then the local authorities decide if they have to time/inclination to pursue it. Apparently they felt they wanted to do this.

 

Again I'll say, if she had taken care of this in the first place, there'd be no problem. And I'm speaking with some experience in making sure that all your papers are filed and all your fines are paid. At that time you can put it behind you.

 

:)

 

She was arrested for a petty crime in 1991 (stealing a pack of cigarettes) and was assessed an $85 fine. Being young and stupid, she blew it off. Obviously forgot about it in later years until she was arrested for it coming off the ship.

 

I have some experience with that too, in that I found how (some) police really don't pay attention to much. I was once nearly arrested for non-payment of a fine related to a traffic accident. It turned out that the city had failed to realize I had fought the ticket, won, paid court costs, and that was the end of it. If not for an officer that was willing to check on those things, I may have ended up in the same position as this woman.

 

Regardless, it's just plain silly to spend thousands of dollars in both court and housing costs over this. Somebody wanted to make an arrest so they could show their higher-ups that they're doing something useful, and this woman got caught up in it. It's far better for everyone that she be allowed to go on her way.

 

(besides, what in the heck is Homeland Security looking for in the first place when it comes to passenger manifests? I mean, if you want to search the manifest for people getting ON the ship, that's one thing, but what exactly are they searching for when people get OFF the ship? What's the point?)

[Shmoo here]

She was arrested for a petty crime in 1991 (stealing a pack of cigarettes) and was assessed an $85 fine. Being young and stupid, she blew it off. Obviously forgot about it in later years until she was arrested for it coming off the ship.

 

I have some experience with that too, in that I found how (some) police really don't pay attention to much. I was once nearly arrested for non-payment of a fine related to a traffic accident. It turned out that the city had failed to realize I had fought the ticket, won, paid court costs, and that was the end of it. If not for an officer that was willing to check on those things, I may have ended up in the same position as this woman.

 

Regardless, it's just plain silly to spend thousands of dollars in both court and housing costs over this. Somebody wanted to make an arrest so they could show their higher-ups that they're doing something useful, and this woman got caught up in it. It's far better for everyone that she be allowed to go on her way.

 

(besides, what in the heck is Homeland Security looking for in the first place when it comes to passenger manifests? I mean, if you want to search the manifest for people getting ON the ship, that's one thing, but what exactly are they searching for when people get OFF the ship? What's the point?)

 

They're not searching the people getting off the ship. The passenger manifests are submitted at embarkation, the theory being that anyone on a cruise is going to be easily accessible if something is found. It gives them the time to do the checks while the people are gone. If something is found, they grab them getting off the ship. I think Homeland Security is looking for anyone who may be on their "bad guy" list. For whatever reason.

 

:)

[Tonka's Skipper]

They're not searching the people getting off the ship. The passenger manifests are submitted at embarkation, the theory being that anyone on a cruise is going to be easily accessible if something is found. It gives them the time to do the checks while the people are gone. If something is found, they grab them getting off the ship. I think Homeland Security is looking for anyone who may be on their "bad guy" list. For whatever reason.

 

:)

 

 

As always Shmoo..your right on the mark.

 

While I do agree it was a waste of police and court time for $85.00, the woman didnt take care of this back in the day. Being young and stupid does not release her from what she should have done.

 

Homeland secuirty looks at many issues in their back ground searchs, criminal records is one and any outstanding warrents will pop up.

 

AKK

[Loonbeam]

To be more specific , there are several levels of checks. The first level is the no-fly list pretty much, that usually occurs before departure. They are looking for people who shouldn't leave the country (for example, someone on parole with a travel restriction) with that search as well, hence the warrant check. Failing these will result in an active apprehension, i.e. they will come find you as you try to board.

 

Secondary checks are performed by systems while the ship is at sea and looks for items like outstanding minor warrants, even child support judgements, these return an email and their passport is flagged. These are passive apprehensions as in no one is dispatched for the purpose of the arrest, if the flag is caught they are turned over to local authorities on site. If a local police officer hadn't been there, the ICE officer may have just warned her.

 

BTW both of these depend on accurate information being fed to DHS. Hah.

 

And once turned over to local LEO,its their policy that takes over..

 

 

They're not searching the people getting off the ship. The passenger manifests are submitted at embarkation, the theory being that anyone on a cruise is going to be easily accessible if something is found. It gives them the time to do the checks while the people are gone. If something is found, they grab them getting off the ship. I think Homeland Security is looking for anyone who may be on their "bad guy" list. For whatever reason.

 

:)

[wildcatlh]

Did you know that you're all felons? And so am I? Every single one of you?

 

This thread makes you a felon.

 

Under interpretations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violating a website's terms of service can be considered to be a violation of that Act. There is a rule against political discussions on this board, and this thread is at least arguably a political discussion.

 

The fact that Homeland Security would even be looking for this kind of thing scares me to death. It's mission creep of the worst kind.

[grand isle joe]

As always Shmoo..your right on the mark.

 

While I do agree it was a waste of police and court time for $85.00' date=' the woman didnt take care of this back in the day. Being young and stupid does not release her from what she should have done.

 

Homeland secuirty looks at many issues in their back ground searchs, criminal records is one and any outstanding warrents will pop up.

 

AKK[/quote']

 

 

Second that Tonka!..............

[Tonka's Skipper]

Did you know that you're all felons? And so am I? Every single one of you?

 

This thread makes you a felon.

 

Under interpretations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violating a website's terms of service can be considered to be a violation of that Act. There is a rule against political discussions on this board, and this thread is at least arguably a political discussion.

 

The fact that Homeland Security would even be looking for this kind of thing scares me to death. It's mission creep of the worst kind.

 

 

Interesting interpretation, but that is all it is, not a ruling.

 

Not to mention,this is not a polical discussion, its a discussion of a arrest and how it happened. If that is deemed againist the sote rules all they could do is remove the posts and us.

 

Lastly, the 1st amendement trumps it all.

 

AKK

[Shmoo here]

Interesting interpretation' date=' but that is all it is, not a ruling.

 

Not to mention,this is not a polical discussion, its a discussion of a arrest and how it happened. If that is deemed againist the sote rules all they could do is remove the posts and us.

 

Lastly, the 1st amendement trumps it all.

 

AKK[/quote']

 

 

:)

[ducklite]

They're not searching the people getting off the ship. The passenger manifests are submitted at embarkation, the theory being that anyone on a cruise is going to be easily accessible if something is found. It gives them the time to do the checks while the people are gone. If something is found, they grab them getting off the ship. I think Homeland Security is looking for anyone who may be on their "bad guy" list. For whatever reason.

 

:)

 

Yup. Don't break the law and you won't have a problem. Seems pretty simple to me.

[wildcatlh]

So what's the line, people? At what point do you not justify being taken to jail for a week?

 

It's obviously below non-payment of an $85 fine, because you're justifying that.

 

Parking tickets?

Speeding tickets?

Looking at an officer the wrong way?

 

We are all felons. Every single one of us (see: http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx). The only question is whether you get caught. Or whether you've been caught without knowing it.

 

It's terrifying to me that in the United States, we have justifications of this kind of behavior from police officers because, well, since somebody committed a crime, they deserved it. For all of your sakes, I hope there is a line, and I hope that you don't get caught up in it.

[ducklite]

So what's the line, people? At what point do you not justify being taken to jail for a week?

 

It's obviously below non-payment of an $85 fine, because you're justifying that.

 

Parking tickets?

Speeding tickets?

Looking at an officer the wrong way?

 

We are all felons. Every single one of us (see: http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx). The only question is whether you get caught. Or whether you've been caught without knowing it.

 

It's terrifying to me that in the United States, we have justifications of this kind of behavior from police officers because, well, since somebody committed a crime, they deserved it. For all of your sakes, I hope there is a line, and I hope that you don't get caught up in it.

 

I disagree that we are all felons. Why didn't she just pay the fine when it was due? It's not like it was a parking ticket that might have blown away--I'd give her the benefit of the doubt on that--and so does the law. (They won't put out a warrant, just refuse to renew your license or registration, same with a speeding ticket unless it's "aggravated" in which case it becomes a crime.)

 

She should be thankful that she wasn't arrested as she boarded and at least got to take her cruise. Personally I hope the State of Florida charges her room and board and transportation fees. It ticks me off that I'm paying for her three squares because she's a thief.

[Tonka's Skipper]

So what's the line, people? At what point do you not justify being taken to jail for a week?

 

It's obviously below non-payment of an $85 fine, because you're justifying that.

 

Parking tickets?

Speeding tickets?

Looking at an officer the wrong way?

 

We are all felons. Every single one of us (see: http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx). The only question is whether you get caught. Or whether you've been caught without knowing it.

 

It's terrifying to me that in the United States, we have justifications of this kind of behavior from police officers because, well, since somebody committed a crime, they deserved it. For all of your sakes, I hope there is a line, and I hope that you don't get caught up in it.

 

How about when you don't steal and then be so young and dumb that you can walk away from it.......

 

As I have said before this is a wadte of police and court time.,but she needs to step up and handle her crime.

 

AKK

 

AKK

[truck1]

Interesting interpretation' date=' but that is all it is, not a ruling.

 

Not to mention,this is not a polical discussion, its a discussion of a arrest and how it happened. If that is deemed againist the sote rules all they could do is remove the posts and us.

 

Lastly, the 1st amendement trumps it all.

 

AKK[/quote']

 

 

Id be very carefull on the 1st amendment and voicing an opinion. I was on another board for a sport. On that board, a particular owner, had allegedly done something wrong that resulted in a death, and several people getting sick. It was proven later from what I am seeing that the owner/operator, did not maintain its equipment properly, and resulted in the illness and death. They changed the name of the operation to something different and resumed operations. Some one on this other board inquired about this "new" operation and it resulted in about 1500 pages of their killers, dont use them, original name was.... etc. Needless to say, that the board, 100 "John and Jane Does" along with 2 others were named in a 10 million dollar lawsuit for defamation among other things. The board and several individauls ended up being cleared of wrong doing etc. Not sure on what happened to the board members that were named as John/Jane Does. I doubt it went far with them either. Long story short, it took about a year and about 100,000 defending the suit to the point it was thrown out. I only know that the lawsuit was over and that what ever the verdict/final outcome was was never announced publicly on the board.

 

Even if you are correct in how and what is being said, it could still cost someone.

[Host Mick]

Interesting interpretation' date=' but that is all it is, not a ruling.

 

Not to mention,this is not a polical discussion, its a discussion of a arrest and how it happened. If that is deemed againist the sote rules all they could do is remove the posts and us.

 

Lastly, the 1st amendement trumps it all.

 

AKK[/quote']

 

The first amendment doesn't apply here. This is a privately owned business. You have no first amendment rights here unless the government is trying to prohibit your free speech which they are not.

"Congress shall make no law..."

[Host Mick]

Did you know that you're all felons? And so am I? Every single one of you?

 

This thread makes you a felon.

 

Under interpretations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violating a website's terms of service can be considered to be a violation of that Act. There is a rule against political discussions on this board, and this thread is at least arguably a political discussion.

 

The fact that Homeland Security would even be looking for this kind of thing scares me to death. It's mission creep of the worst kind.

 

You left out a crucial detail. The intent to defraud must be present.

Also, it's not really a political discussion yet but it's running close to being non-cruise related and board policy discussion related.

[Host Mick]

While I agree that this can happen on any cruiseline, citing "well, she broke the law, she has to be punished!" is generally a patently ridiculous line, and even more so here.

 

1. If they're looking for security threats, why would they pull up a decades-old warrant on a petty misdameanor?

2. There's a point at which the punishment far outweighs the crime. I think having her sit in jail is pretty obvious here.

 

Give her an appearance ticket and let her go on her way. Or have her pay the $85 on the spot. Or have her pay the $85 plus interest. Any of those options is infinitely better than what happened.

 

Before a ship sails, the passenger manifest is transmitted to the coast guard where the names are checked against lists of persons of interest which seems to include persons with arrest warrants issued. She's lucky that she was allowed to go on the cruise. They could have yanked her before departure. It's not just about terrorists. They're looking for anyone wanted who is leaving the country.

 

It's not as simple as just collecting the fine. The $85 ship has sailed. She has a bench warrant issued for her arrest. She needs to be taken before the issuing judge or a replacement to determine what is to be done. The police don't have the ability to override the judge's warrant. They can refuse to arrest but that's not usually a good idea.

[Musclengrace]

Thanks for the clarifications...

 

So if someone had a warrant out in Colorado, they would hold you & bring you to the issuing state? That's amazing, seems like that would cost a fortune..

[USU_Aggie]

Thanks for the clarifications...

 

So if someone had a warrant out in Colorado, they would hold you & bring you to the issuing state? That's amazing, seems like that would cost a fortune..

 

States make agreements with each other. I prosecute in Oregon and we will extradite to any neighboring state but thats it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad

[ducklite]

States make agreements with each other. I prosecute in Oregon and we will extradite to any neighboring state but thats it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad

 

The original charge was in Florida, the warrant was in Florida, there was no "extradition." They just needed to get her to the correct jurisdiction in the State.

 

PS--You wouldn't extradite someone with a serious felony (murder, rape, etc.) that wasn't in a non-neighboring state?