September 9, 2024 • 25 mins
Are we blaming the GOP for California’s problems? San Diego County needs a dangerous dog database grand jury says. ‘Do They Have a Case’ with Wayne Resnick.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
You're listening to bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
And this is KFI AM six forty bill Handle here
on a Monday morning, September ninth. Hopefully this is the
last day of this insane heat wave as Amy has
been reporting. Tomorrow it starts cooling down and then I
think by Wednesday we're actually going to get to reasonably
(00:28):
normal temperatures here in the Southland one hundred and eighteen
degrees in Woodland Hills.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
The last couple of days, my daughter. I call my
daughter up and she's so parched it's unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
And she was bitching and moaning about the air conditioning,
how expensive it is, what her utility bill is like.
Full Blast twenty four to seven. Also, tomorrow night is
going to be the big one. It's going to be
the most anticipated debate in a very very long time.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
This is going to be interesting stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
One of the most difficult parts that Kamala Harris or
any candidate debating Donald Trump has to figure out is
which way is he going? She has to prepare two
different debates effectively. And one of the reasons is I
don't even think Donald Trump knows which way he's going.
(01:20):
That's what's going to make it so interesting, whether he's
going to do personal attacks for the most part, policy accusations,
how far he's going to go in that.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
And as a matter of fact, let me take it
from there, because what.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
You're going to hear not only from former President Trump
tomorrow night, but also from Republicans that are running all
over the country is all the problems with the United States,
and particularly with California, are the fault of the Democrats.
Kamala Harris being a California Democrat having effectively destroyed California.
(01:58):
And by the way, it's hard not to argue that
to California in many ways has gone into the toilet.
Look at our housing, look at our homelessness, look at
the cost.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Of living here.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
I mean, it's all gone very very south. Look at
our political our political view in terms of liberalism. So
she is being portrayed as a homegrown radical, even a communist.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Destroyed San Francisco as.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
The DA destroy the entire state, as an attorney general,
will turn the whole nation into a hellhole like California,
and the Democrats are being blamed for it. And here
is the problem. And if you happen to be a Democrat.
Refute this one. Okay, look at the problems we have
in this state. Who controls the state, who has a
(02:51):
super majority of both sides of the legislature, the Senate
and the Assembly, can do virtually anything they want, and
a liberal Although you know, we talked last week about
the new bill that would give undocumented the ability to
work in the UC system like anybody else. Remember we
(03:12):
talked about that and that was fairly controversial. I said
it's going to pass Newsom vetoed it straight out, vetoed it.
There was some sense of reality there somewhere in his
mind at that point. But the Democrats are being blamed.
It's far far more difficult than what is going on.
(03:33):
Of course, it's more nuanced than that, naturally it is.
But I do believe that Kamala Harris, not only in
the debate tomorrow night, but in the campaign because while
I think a lot of the allegations are crazy, right,
she's an anti Semi, she's married to a Jew. She
will destroy Israel single handedly, talks.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
To the Jewish community.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
She is a communist that will add solowly destroy the
economy of the country. Yeah, you know, I mean I
don't know how much that makes sense, but I'll tell
you what does make sense. She is a Democrat and
has been in the democratic hierarchy in the state for
many years, both as attorney general, as senator, as district attorney.
(04:21):
And look at California, look at the mess that it's
in and who controls the state. By the way, every
word of that is true. Our homelessness problem is worse
than any other state. Look at what Neil and Amy
are going to do to help the homeless situation, you know,
the uh And we'll be talking about that a lot.
(04:42):
They're doing an event where they're jumping off the Universal Hilton.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
It's going to be fascinating stuff. And you too.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
If you want to jump off with them, you can
pay one thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
And you're repelling Bill.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
Okay, repelling jumping there.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
It's all the same to me, and you'll be hearing
a lot more about that later on. But the point
is it's all about homelessness, which is a huge problem,
and the issue of insane property prices. That's not the
case in other parts of the country. And the Democrats
are in charge. And here's what happens when things go
to hell. In a handbasket, who gets blained, who's ever
(05:21):
in charge?
Speaker 3 (05:22):
Guaranteed? And that is a real problem that's going to
have to.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Be overcome big time. I think you're going to be
hearing a lot about that tomorrow night. How it's a
democratic world that's destroying the United.
Speaker 3 (05:35):
States and got a way.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
You look at California and you go, there's the example,
and it's kind of hard to argue that it's not.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
California is not the same place. It was not at all.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
I mean in my twenties when I started, when I
bought my first house, I could afford it and I
was not making a ton of money. Try doing that today.
All right, Now, let's talk about something that is a
little closer to home, and that is your next door
neighbor's dog eating you, or eating one of your kids,
(06:07):
or munching your dog and having a dog for snacks,
depending on how big it is. There is not a registry,
there is no database. There is no dangerous dog database.
And you would think, wait a minute, don't you want
to know? And by the way, it's easy to determine
(06:28):
what a dangerous dog is. You report it to animal control.
They come out and they'll investigate or not. And then
there are laws. If your dog has been deemed a
dangerous dog, I mean, there is such a thing, and
here are the rules.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
You have to muzzle that dog in public.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
You cannot walk that dog in public without a muzzle
on its face.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
God, don't you wish.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
They did that for married people? You know, that would
be terrific. That's it a dangerous spouse database. Okay, never mind,
that's in a whole different direction. You can keep on laughing. So,
and there are some big consequences if your dog has
(07:14):
been deemed and that's an official designation, it has been
deemed a dangerous dog. Then there are fines like crazy.
And then eventually I think they can take the dog away.
And let me tell you what they do with dangerous dogs, right,
They don't keep them around and move them over to
no kill shelters. I mean, they can do some serious
damage to these dogs, especially.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
The bigger ones. So now let's talk about a database.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
There are places that do have database where you can
actually let's say you move into a new place and
you start looking under that database.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
You know, do your neighbors have one?
Speaker 2 (07:51):
It's almost like the databases for child molesters that of
course you want, you want to know if they're living
next to you. Now, obviously this is not to that level,
but it certainly isn't fun. I don't know if you've
ever been bitten by a dog or seen someone's been
bitten by a dog. That is no fun at all,
none at all. And I get the matter of fact,
(08:12):
I get calls on handle on the law a bunch
I was bitten by a dog.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
That one is a big deal.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
You know, you slip and fall, eh, but you've been
bitten by a dog. All of a sudden, the insurance
companies kick in and certain dogs they won't even cover.
You have a pitball at home, you don't have home
insurance that covers it. You have a Rottweiler, a German Shepherd,
Your home insurance does not cover that dog.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
So when it eats the kid next door, you're bear.
Speaker 4 (08:41):
I got bitten by a German Shepherd when I was
about ten.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
How bad were you injured? How badly were you injured?
Speaker 4 (08:50):
It ket my my backside pretty good, but I walked
it off.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
Your dog was a dog still attached to your ass
when you walked off.
Speaker 4 (09:00):
Well, it was a big german shepherd, and I think
it came along until I left the driveway, but it
was still big dog. I mean, they should call them,
you know, the Doberman pinchers and all those big they
should call them assault dogs, military style assault dogs.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
And they are, I mean, they can be.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
You get on the wrong side of those dogs, you're
not feeling very good. You're not a happy camper. And
the point is that there are states. For example, the
state of Virginia straight out has a database of dogs
who have been deemed dangerous.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
In Florida, there's a couple of counties.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Minneapolis has a couple of counties where.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
It is deemed where they have these databases.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
And we don't keep track of how many dog bites
there are. And by the way, this is serious stuff again.
Back I go to handle on the law where people
ask me questions. Yeah, I tend to pooh pooh injuries.
Speaker 3 (10:04):
I fell down. Yeah, I'd find you're a klutz.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
And you know this happened to me, That happened to me.
I tend to say, you've got no case. I enjoy
doing that. Whenever there's a dog bite, I.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
Go, you bet, that's fairly serious.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
That's why the insurance companies are bangeling out of these
big dogs because the bite. Dog bites can be so serious,
and of course they do a great job on your
face too, and they deface you. And by the way,
that's one of the biggest lawsuits that exists out there
where your relatively the physical injuries aren't huge, huge, but
(10:39):
the awards are massive with dog bites, especially on your face,
particularly women.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
By the way, that's huge.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
You know. Now you're talking some big, big money. And
I always ask, can I go to a jury?
Speaker 3 (10:51):
Yeah? I go, well, what do you think is gonna happen?
I always ask, well, let's start with how ugly you
are to begin with? What are you talking about? Bill?
Speaker 2 (10:59):
I go, well, you're in front of a jury, right,
And if I'm defending the dog owner, I'm going to
show before and after pictures and say, you know what,
the plaintiff looks better with a dog bite than did before.
That's why I do the show, ladies and gentlemen, I
(11:19):
really do now. And and by the way, there is
some seriousness to that. If the person who is being bit,
particularly a woman, has a particular is she's particularly attractive,
the awards are astronomical, No yeah, yeah, it's it's actually true.
The better looking you are and the more important it is,
(11:40):
or the more serious a dog bite case is.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
That's true.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Actually if someone is well, you know, it depends on
how ugly you are to start with. I mean it's
considered serious, you're going to get something, but certainly not
like you know, it's it's like lack of loss of consortium.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
Loss of consortium.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Is a cause of action against a wrongdoer or someone
who's negligent that has injured your spouse or your girlfriend
or boyfriend. And it literally says I cannot have sex
with this person because of what you did. For example,
a car accident, right you've destroyed or someone can't have
(12:18):
sex because of your negligence. That party who is living
with that person who's been injured can file a lawsuit
for loss of consortium. That's a legitimate cause of action. Now,
do they go very often?
Speaker 3 (12:33):
They do not.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Do they go for jury trials rarely because there's always
some old guy on the jury or.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
Some guy says, I haven't been laid in ten years.
You think I'm gonna give him money for that or
her money for that. By the way, that is legitimate.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Handle on the law every Saturday morning, eight to eleven
o'clock right here on KFI.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Okay, I think we'll endit at that, what do you think? Sure? Sure?
Speaker 2 (13:04):
All right, it is time. Do they have a case
with Wayne Resnick and me? Hello Bill Wayne?
Speaker 5 (13:13):
The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Amongst many other things that
they have done, like making inmates wear purple underwear pink underwear.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
Live that's Joe R.
Speaker 5 (13:21):
Pile, Yes, the live streaming from inside the jail to
try to humiliate the inmates. Another thing they do is
they have a webs called mugshot look Up, and if
you get arrested, they put your mugshot up there with
quite a lot of information about you, whether or not
you're ever even charged with a crime. So here comes
(13:42):
a guy named Brian Houston. He's arrested and charged with assault.
They put his picture up. They've got his full name,
is date of birth, his sex, height, weight, hair color,
eye color, and the charge of assault. It was up
there for several days, during which time it was scraped
(14:04):
by a bot service that then puts it up on
privately run mugshot websites, and he was never charged. They
dropped it the prosecutors looked at what happened, he dropped everything.
So he sues the sheriff's office. He'd likes to be
a class action on behalf of everyone, saying that it's
(14:24):
violating his rights against due process, that they are putting
the pictures up there as a punitive measure and without
a legitimate public reason.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
The sheriff's office says.
Speaker 5 (14:37):
Oh, we have a great public reason, transparency.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
It helps transparency. Hmm.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
Do you really need to know things like his weight
in order for there to be transparency about how the
sheriff's office is run. Also, you don't put anything up
about who the arresting officers were, which district of your
office made the arrest, whether or not he's got a
pending court date, which jail that he is held at.
(15:10):
It doesn't really seem like a lot of transparency about
the sheriff's office.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
We say it's punitive and you can't do that.
Speaker 5 (15:19):
So the lower court the sheriff's office wins, as you
probably are not surprised, but it goes up to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Brian Houston says there's
no legitimate basis to do what they're doing here to
put that much information about me and no information about them,
And it hurts my reputation to be on a website
(15:41):
that can be accessed by anybody in the world to
see this stuff, not only for what they put, but
for what they don't put, Like no charges werever filed.
I would like some money, and also I would like
anybody else who's had their mugshot put up there to
become part of.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
A class action. So the class action.
Speaker 5 (16:02):
Parts maybe not as interesting, but it was part of
the case. Does he have a case though they should
not be doing.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
This, Yeah too, I can.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
The only justification I can think of by putting up
a mug shot prior to a even a conviction, just
on the basis of arrest, is if they are looking
for him. If they are looking for him, that is
logical that a mug shot is put.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
Up after that.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Man, I think that that is it seems it seems
punitive to me, only because today with the Internet and
the ability to share it with virtually everybody, it's I
think it's reached the level of punitive. I think technology
and just the way it's being used. Yeah, I would
(16:52):
agree with him that it's punitive, even though there is
a history of mugshots being put up, my favorite one
being Nick Nolty. If you remember that wonderful shot of
his when he was arrested for trunk driving. I thought
that was spectacular. So I'm saying he wins.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
Now before I tell you if you're right or not.
Speaker 5 (17:12):
Do you think they had in the back of their
mind all the other crazy stuff that Maricopa County has
done with arrestees and inmates, or that they really just
looked at the legal questions on this specific issue.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
You know what, I would guess that the judges would
be objective enough to not look at that. However, they're
human beings and it's hard to look at Maricopa County
without looking at the crazy crap that went down. So
i'd be let me put it this way, I would
(17:52):
be surprised if the court bought.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
The transparency argument. That's how I feel you are correct.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
They said a lot of what you just said.
Speaker 5 (18:02):
They really kind of hand it to the Sheriff's department
in this decision, going through why everything the department's saying
about why they should be allowed to do it is bogus.
And as to that issue, if did they look at
other stuff?
Speaker 3 (18:13):
They did.
Speaker 5 (18:15):
In one sense, there was already a federal case about
the live streaming of the inmates. There was a lawsuit
against the Sheriff's department, and the Ninth Circuit said about that.
You can't do that and broadcast these people in jail
to the world. There's no purpose for that. And so
(18:36):
because Maricopa County already got dinged once for this kind
of thing, basically publicizing worldwide the people under their control,
they already had a basis on which to conclude the
mugshots are.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
No good makes sense to me because today, well not
only is there no sense of privacy anymore, but still
under those circumstances, the authorities going way too far, And
then the argument of transparency is complete.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
Crapple.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
All right, have you ever seen the vehicle known as
a SnowCat?
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (19:07):
Question, They're huge, right, they're big. So the cops are
looking for a stolen SnowCat. This particular model is eight
feet wide, seven and a half feet tall, and sixteen
feet plus long. They think this guy has hidden it
in the garage at his mom's property. So they go
(19:32):
over there to look for it, and they think they
see someone in the house. So they ring the doorbell
and nobody answers the doorbell, and they don't really see
the SnowCat. So they go get a search warrant and
they come back two hours later, and because the mom
was a registered firearm owner, they decide this is going
(19:53):
to be a dangerous warrant service. So they lobb tear
gas into the house and then they bust down the
door and in they go, and nobody's home. And also
the SnowCat is not in the garage, so uh. The
(20:13):
women sues them for violating her Fourth Amendment rights and
also for using excessive force by you know, damaging the
heck out of her house. And the cops say, hey, man,
you can't do nothing to us qualified immunity. We were
serving a valid warrant. We had a reason to be
(20:34):
concerned about safety. It is well established that if the
cops beat down your door to get in that you
can't do anything about it. And she says, of course,
her lawyers they say, wait a minute, there were no
exigencies when you came to the house. Yes, the cops
can kick down the door if there's an exigency, if
(20:56):
they think you're hiding evidence, or there's danger, you know,
somebody's being inside. There was nothing like that. In fact,
nobody was home. There couldn't have been.
Speaker 3 (21:05):
And also, by.
Speaker 5 (21:06):
The way, there's no way that SnowCat could have been
in the house. You weren't even allowed to look in
the house. And the cops say, well, we had a
search warrant to search the property in the house is
on the property, And her lawyers say, why don't you
look at the law and how search warrants work. When
(21:28):
you have a search warrant, you have to say what
place you're searching, and you have to say specifically what
you're looking for. And then here's the part that we
think is filled in under the law. Because you must
say what you're looking for, that's the only thing you
can look for. You're not allowed to look for any
(21:49):
old thing, only the thing you put in the warrant.
And that means that means you can only look where
that thing could possible. If I get a search warrant
on your house, bill and I'm looking for a seven
foot tall statue, I can't look in your drawers, I
(22:10):
can't look in your kitchen cabinets because it couldn't possibly
be there. So even though I might be allowed to
be in your house, that doesn't mean I'm allowed to
look everywhere. Just because they were allowed to be on
the property doesn't mean they were allowed to look anywhere.
They shouldn't even have gone in the house at all.
That's hurt the opinion of it. Their opinion is basically,
(22:32):
we just didn't do anything wrong, right, And what do
you think does she we have any case?
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (22:39):
First of all, I don't even know how they had
a search warrant without specificity. That's for one thing. A
general search warrant allow us to go on the property.
There has they have to be looking for something. And
when they tore into her, for example, medicine cabinet looking
for a SnowCat, that would probably be illegal. Based on
her argument, I can I can't see how she loses
(23:02):
that one, because based on your right exigen circumstances, they
weren't looking for.
Speaker 3 (23:07):
Whatever they were looking for was specific.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
You can't even get a SnowCat into a house, much
less anything else. So I think they lose across the
board as far as I'm concerned, and right, there is
qualified immunity, but there is a point where the cops
have gone past that and this is the point.
Speaker 5 (23:26):
Yes, the police were trying to say to the tenh
Circuit Court of Appeals that we didn't violate her rights.
We literally did not violate her rights doing all of
these things. But you're correct, she's correct, her lawyers are correct,
and the ten Circuit said, oh, you guys, totally you
(23:47):
violated her rights by going into the house at all,
and you violated them again by the way that you
went into the house.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
And just to quick aside, lobbing teargap gas into a
house destroys the house. The tear gas goes literally into
the drywall. You have to bring it down to the
studs to bring that house back. I mean everything is gone.
Forget the furniture and everything else. I mean the very
(24:19):
dry wall itself has to go. I mean it is
no fun. And when no one's home, that's kind of ridiculous.
All right, Wayne, thank you. We'll catch you again next Monday.
Tomorrow morning, we start this all over again. Amy comes
in at five am with wake up call. Neil and
I join. Neil's giving you the big wave.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
Neil and I join at six o'clock.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
And then of course Kno and and are always here.
This is KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the
iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 3 (24:51):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Catch My Show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
You're listening to bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
And this is KFI AM six forty bill Handle here
on a Monday morning, September ninth. Hopefully this is the
last day of this insane heat wave as Amy has
been reporting. Tomorrow it starts cooling down and then I
think by Wednesday we're actually going to get to reasonably
(00:28):
normal temperatures here in the Southland one hundred and eighteen
degrees in Woodland Hills.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
The last couple of days, my daughter. I call my
daughter up and she's so parched it's unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
And she was bitching and moaning about the air conditioning,
how expensive it is, what her utility bill is like.
Full Blast twenty four to seven. Also, tomorrow night is
going to be the big one. It's going to be
the most anticipated debate in a very very long time.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
This is going to be interesting stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
One of the most difficult parts that Kamala Harris or
any candidate debating Donald Trump has to figure out is
which way is he going? She has to prepare two
different debates effectively. And one of the reasons is I
don't even think Donald Trump knows which way he's going.
(01:20):
That's what's going to make it so interesting, whether he's
going to do personal attacks for the most part, policy accusations,
how far he's going to go in that.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
And as a matter of fact, let me take it
from there, because what.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
You're going to hear not only from former President Trump
tomorrow night, but also from Republicans that are running all
over the country is all the problems with the United States,
and particularly with California, are the fault of the Democrats.
Kamala Harris being a California Democrat having effectively destroyed California.
(01:58):
And by the way, it's hard not to argue that
to California in many ways has gone into the toilet.
Look at our housing, look at our homelessness, look at
the cost.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Of living here.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
I mean, it's all gone very very south. Look at
our political our political view in terms of liberalism. So
she is being portrayed as a homegrown radical, even a communist.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Destroyed San Francisco as.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
The DA destroy the entire state, as an attorney general,
will turn the whole nation into a hellhole like California,
and the Democrats are being blamed for it. And here
is the problem. And if you happen to be a Democrat.
Refute this one. Okay, look at the problems we have
in this state. Who controls the state, who has a
(02:51):
super majority of both sides of the legislature, the Senate
and the Assembly, can do virtually anything they want, and
a liberal Although you know, we talked last week about
the new bill that would give undocumented the ability to
work in the UC system like anybody else. Remember we
(03:12):
talked about that and that was fairly controversial. I said
it's going to pass Newsom vetoed it straight out, vetoed it.
There was some sense of reality there somewhere in his
mind at that point. But the Democrats are being blamed.
It's far far more difficult than what is going on.
(03:33):
Of course, it's more nuanced than that, naturally it is.
But I do believe that Kamala Harris, not only in
the debate tomorrow night, but in the campaign because while
I think a lot of the allegations are crazy, right,
she's an anti Semi, she's married to a Jew. She
will destroy Israel single handedly, talks.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
To the Jewish community.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
She is a communist that will add solowly destroy the
economy of the country. Yeah, you know, I mean I
don't know how much that makes sense, but I'll tell
you what does make sense. She is a Democrat and
has been in the democratic hierarchy in the state for
many years, both as attorney general, as senator, as district attorney.
(04:21):
And look at California, look at the mess that it's
in and who controls the state. By the way, every
word of that is true. Our homelessness problem is worse
than any other state. Look at what Neil and Amy
are going to do to help the homeless situation, you know,
the uh And we'll be talking about that a lot.
(04:42):
They're doing an event where they're jumping off the Universal Hilton.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
It's going to be fascinating stuff. And you too.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
If you want to jump off with them, you can
pay one thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
And you're repelling Bill.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
Okay, repelling jumping there.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
It's all the same to me, and you'll be hearing
a lot more about that later on. But the point
is it's all about homelessness, which is a huge problem,
and the issue of insane property prices. That's not the
case in other parts of the country. And the Democrats
are in charge. And here's what happens when things go
to hell. In a handbasket, who gets blained, who's ever
(05:21):
in charge?
Speaker 3 (05:22):
Guaranteed? And that is a real problem that's going to
have to.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Be overcome big time. I think you're going to be
hearing a lot about that tomorrow night. How it's a
democratic world that's destroying the United.
Speaker 3 (05:35):
States and got a way.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
You look at California and you go, there's the example,
and it's kind of hard to argue that it's not.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
California is not the same place. It was not at all.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
I mean in my twenties when I started, when I
bought my first house, I could afford it and I
was not making a ton of money. Try doing that today.
All right, Now, let's talk about something that is a
little closer to home, and that is your next door
neighbor's dog eating you, or eating one of your kids,
(06:07):
or munching your dog and having a dog for snacks,
depending on how big it is. There is not a registry,
there is no database. There is no dangerous dog database.
And you would think, wait a minute, don't you want
to know? And by the way, it's easy to determine
(06:28):
what a dangerous dog is. You report it to animal control.
They come out and they'll investigate or not. And then
there are laws. If your dog has been deemed a
dangerous dog, I mean, there is such a thing, and
here are the rules.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
You have to muzzle that dog in public.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
You cannot walk that dog in public without a muzzle
on its face.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
God, don't you wish.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
They did that for married people? You know, that would
be terrific. That's it a dangerous spouse database. Okay, never mind,
that's in a whole different direction. You can keep on laughing. So,
and there are some big consequences if your dog has
(07:14):
been deemed and that's an official designation, it has been
deemed a dangerous dog. Then there are fines like crazy.
And then eventually I think they can take the dog away.
And let me tell you what they do with dangerous dogs, right,
They don't keep them around and move them over to
no kill shelters. I mean, they can do some serious
damage to these dogs, especially.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
The bigger ones. So now let's talk about a database.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
There are places that do have database where you can
actually let's say you move into a new place and
you start looking under that database.
Speaker 3 (07:48):
You know, do your neighbors have one?
Speaker 2 (07:51):
It's almost like the databases for child molesters that of
course you want, you want to know if they're living
next to you. Now, obviously this is not to that level,
but it certainly isn't fun. I don't know if you've
ever been bitten by a dog or seen someone's been
bitten by a dog. That is no fun at all,
none at all. And I get the matter of fact,
(08:12):
I get calls on handle on the law a bunch
I was bitten by a dog.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
That one is a big deal.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
You know, you slip and fall, eh, but you've been
bitten by a dog. All of a sudden, the insurance
companies kick in and certain dogs they won't even cover.
You have a pitball at home, you don't have home
insurance that covers it. You have a Rottweiler, a German Shepherd,
Your home insurance does not cover that dog.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
So when it eats the kid next door, you're bear.
Speaker 4 (08:41):
I got bitten by a German Shepherd when I was
about ten.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
How bad were you injured? How badly were you injured?
Speaker 4 (08:50):
It ket my my backside pretty good, but I walked
it off.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
Your dog was a dog still attached to your ass
when you walked off.
Speaker 4 (09:00):
Well, it was a big german shepherd, and I think
it came along until I left the driveway, but it
was still big dog. I mean, they should call them,
you know, the Doberman pinchers and all those big they
should call them assault dogs, military style assault dogs.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
And they are, I mean, they can be.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
You get on the wrong side of those dogs, you're
not feeling very good. You're not a happy camper. And
the point is that there are states. For example, the
state of Virginia straight out has a database of dogs
who have been deemed dangerous.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
In Florida, there's a couple of counties.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Minneapolis has a couple of counties where.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
It is deemed where they have these databases.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
And we don't keep track of how many dog bites
there are. And by the way, this is serious stuff again.
Back I go to handle on the law where people
ask me questions. Yeah, I tend to pooh pooh injuries.
Speaker 3 (10:04):
I fell down. Yeah, I'd find you're a klutz.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
And you know this happened to me, That happened to me.
I tend to say, you've got no case. I enjoy
doing that. Whenever there's a dog bite, I.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
Go, you bet, that's fairly serious.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
That's why the insurance companies are bangeling out of these
big dogs because the bite. Dog bites can be so serious,
and of course they do a great job on your
face too, and they deface you. And by the way,
that's one of the biggest lawsuits that exists out there
where your relatively the physical injuries aren't huge, huge, but
(10:39):
the awards are massive with dog bites, especially on your face,
particularly women.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
By the way, that's huge.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
You know. Now you're talking some big, big money. And
I always ask, can I go to a jury?
Speaker 3 (10:51):
Yeah? I go, well, what do you think is gonna happen?
I always ask, well, let's start with how ugly you
are to begin with? What are you talking about? Bill?
Speaker 2 (10:59):
I go, well, you're in front of a jury, right,
And if I'm defending the dog owner, I'm going to
show before and after pictures and say, you know what,
the plaintiff looks better with a dog bite than did before.
That's why I do the show, ladies and gentlemen, I
(11:19):
really do now. And and by the way, there is
some seriousness to that. If the person who is being bit,
particularly a woman, has a particular is she's particularly attractive,
the awards are astronomical, No yeah, yeah, it's it's actually true.
The better looking you are and the more important it is,
(11:40):
or the more serious a dog bite case is.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
That's true.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Actually if someone is well, you know, it depends on
how ugly you are to start with. I mean it's
considered serious, you're going to get something, but certainly not
like you know, it's it's like lack of loss of consortium.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
Loss of consortium.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Is a cause of action against a wrongdoer or someone
who's negligent that has injured your spouse or your girlfriend
or boyfriend. And it literally says I cannot have sex
with this person because of what you did. For example,
a car accident, right you've destroyed or someone can't have
(12:18):
sex because of your negligence. That party who is living
with that person who's been injured can file a lawsuit
for loss of consortium. That's a legitimate cause of action. Now,
do they go very often?
Speaker 3 (12:33):
They do not.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Do they go for jury trials rarely because there's always
some old guy on the jury or.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
Some guy says, I haven't been laid in ten years.
You think I'm gonna give him money for that or
her money for that. By the way, that is legitimate.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Handle on the law every Saturday morning, eight to eleven
o'clock right here on KFI.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Okay, I think we'll endit at that, what do you think? Sure? Sure?
Speaker 2 (13:04):
All right, it is time. Do they have a case
with Wayne Resnick and me? Hello Bill Wayne?
Speaker 5 (13:13):
The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Amongst many other things that
they have done, like making inmates wear purple underwear pink underwear.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
Live that's Joe R.
Speaker 5 (13:21):
Pile, Yes, the live streaming from inside the jail to
try to humiliate the inmates. Another thing they do is
they have a webs called mugshot look Up, and if
you get arrested, they put your mugshot up there with
quite a lot of information about you, whether or not
you're ever even charged with a crime. So here comes
(13:42):
a guy named Brian Houston. He's arrested and charged with assault.
They put his picture up. They've got his full name,
is date of birth, his sex, height, weight, hair color,
eye color, and the charge of assault. It was up
there for several days, during which time it was scraped
(14:04):
by a bot service that then puts it up on
privately run mugshot websites, and he was never charged. They
dropped it the prosecutors looked at what happened, he dropped everything.
So he sues the sheriff's office. He'd likes to be
a class action on behalf of everyone, saying that it's
(14:24):
violating his rights against due process, that they are putting
the pictures up there as a punitive measure and without
a legitimate public reason.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
The sheriff's office says.
Speaker 5 (14:37):
Oh, we have a great public reason, transparency.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
It helps transparency. Hmm.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
Do you really need to know things like his weight
in order for there to be transparency about how the
sheriff's office is run. Also, you don't put anything up
about who the arresting officers were, which district of your
office made the arrest, whether or not he's got a
pending court date, which jail that he is held at.
(15:10):
It doesn't really seem like a lot of transparency about
the sheriff's office.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
We say it's punitive and you can't do that.
Speaker 5 (15:19):
So the lower court the sheriff's office wins, as you
probably are not surprised, but it goes up to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Brian Houston says there's
no legitimate basis to do what they're doing here to
put that much information about me and no information about them,
And it hurts my reputation to be on a website
(15:41):
that can be accessed by anybody in the world to
see this stuff, not only for what they put, but
for what they don't put, Like no charges werever filed.
I would like some money, and also I would like
anybody else who's had their mugshot put up there to
become part of.
Speaker 1 (15:58):
A class action. So the class action.
Speaker 5 (16:02):
Parts maybe not as interesting, but it was part of
the case. Does he have a case though they should
not be doing.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
This, Yeah too, I can.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
The only justification I can think of by putting up
a mug shot prior to a even a conviction, just
on the basis of arrest, is if they are looking
for him. If they are looking for him, that is
logical that a mug shot is put.
Speaker 3 (16:29):
Up after that.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Man, I think that that is it seems it seems
punitive to me, only because today with the Internet and
the ability to share it with virtually everybody, it's I
think it's reached the level of punitive. I think technology
and just the way it's being used. Yeah, I would
(16:52):
agree with him that it's punitive, even though there is
a history of mugshots being put up, my favorite one
being Nick Nolty. If you remember that wonderful shot of
his when he was arrested for trunk driving. I thought
that was spectacular. So I'm saying he wins.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
Now before I tell you if you're right or not.
Speaker 5 (17:12):
Do you think they had in the back of their
mind all the other crazy stuff that Maricopa County has
done with arrestees and inmates, or that they really just
looked at the legal questions on this specific issue.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
You know what, I would guess that the judges would
be objective enough to not look at that. However, they're
human beings and it's hard to look at Maricopa County
without looking at the crazy crap that went down. So
i'd be let me put it this way, I would
(17:52):
be surprised if the court bought.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
The transparency argument. That's how I feel you are correct.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
They said a lot of what you just said.
Speaker 5 (18:02):
They really kind of hand it to the Sheriff's department
in this decision, going through why everything the department's saying
about why they should be allowed to do it is bogus.
And as to that issue, if did they look at
other stuff?
Speaker 3 (18:13):
They did.
Speaker 5 (18:15):
In one sense, there was already a federal case about
the live streaming of the inmates. There was a lawsuit
against the Sheriff's department, and the Ninth Circuit said about that.
You can't do that and broadcast these people in jail
to the world. There's no purpose for that. And so
(18:36):
because Maricopa County already got dinged once for this kind
of thing, basically publicizing worldwide the people under their control,
they already had a basis on which to conclude the
mugshots are.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
No good makes sense to me because today, well not
only is there no sense of privacy anymore, but still
under those circumstances, the authorities going way too far, And
then the argument of transparency is complete.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
Crapple.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
All right, have you ever seen the vehicle known as
a SnowCat?
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (19:07):
Question, They're huge, right, they're big. So the cops are
looking for a stolen SnowCat. This particular model is eight
feet wide, seven and a half feet tall, and sixteen
feet plus long. They think this guy has hidden it
in the garage at his mom's property. So they go
(19:32):
over there to look for it, and they think they
see someone in the house. So they ring the doorbell
and nobody answers the doorbell, and they don't really see
the SnowCat. So they go get a search warrant and
they come back two hours later, and because the mom
was a registered firearm owner, they decide this is going
(19:53):
to be a dangerous warrant service. So they lobb tear
gas into the house and then they bust down the
door and in they go, and nobody's home. And also
the SnowCat is not in the garage, so uh. The
(20:13):
women sues them for violating her Fourth Amendment rights and
also for using excessive force by you know, damaging the
heck out of her house. And the cops say, hey, man,
you can't do nothing to us qualified immunity. We were
serving a valid warrant. We had a reason to be
(20:34):
concerned about safety. It is well established that if the
cops beat down your door to get in that you
can't do anything about it. And she says, of course,
her lawyers they say, wait a minute, there were no
exigencies when you came to the house. Yes, the cops
can kick down the door if there's an exigency, if
(20:56):
they think you're hiding evidence, or there's danger, you know,
somebody's being inside. There was nothing like that. In fact,
nobody was home. There couldn't have been.
Speaker 3 (21:05):
And also, by.
Speaker 5 (21:06):
The way, there's no way that SnowCat could have been
in the house. You weren't even allowed to look in
the house. And the cops say, well, we had a
search warrant to search the property in the house is
on the property, And her lawyers say, why don't you
look at the law and how search warrants work. When
(21:28):
you have a search warrant, you have to say what
place you're searching, and you have to say specifically what
you're looking for. And then here's the part that we
think is filled in under the law. Because you must
say what you're looking for, that's the only thing you
can look for. You're not allowed to look for any
(21:49):
old thing, only the thing you put in the warrant.
And that means that means you can only look where
that thing could possible. If I get a search warrant
on your house, bill and I'm looking for a seven
foot tall statue, I can't look in your drawers, I
(22:10):
can't look in your kitchen cabinets because it couldn't possibly
be there. So even though I might be allowed to
be in your house, that doesn't mean I'm allowed to
look everywhere. Just because they were allowed to be on
the property doesn't mean they were allowed to look anywhere.
They shouldn't even have gone in the house at all.
That's hurt the opinion of it. Their opinion is basically,
(22:32):
we just didn't do anything wrong, right, And what do
you think does she we have any case?
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (22:39):
First of all, I don't even know how they had
a search warrant without specificity. That's for one thing. A
general search warrant allow us to go on the property.
There has they have to be looking for something. And
when they tore into her, for example, medicine cabinet looking
for a SnowCat, that would probably be illegal. Based on
her argument, I can I can't see how she loses
(23:02):
that one, because based on your right exigen circumstances, they
weren't looking for.
Speaker 3 (23:07):
Whatever they were looking for was specific.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
You can't even get a SnowCat into a house, much
less anything else. So I think they lose across the
board as far as I'm concerned, and right, there is
qualified immunity, but there is a point where the cops
have gone past that and this is the point.
Speaker 5 (23:26):
Yes, the police were trying to say to the tenh
Circuit Court of Appeals that we didn't violate her rights.
We literally did not violate her rights doing all of
these things. But you're correct, she's correct, her lawyers are correct,
and the ten Circuit said, oh, you guys, totally you
(23:47):
violated her rights by going into the house at all,
and you violated them again by the way that you
went into the house.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
And just to quick aside, lobbing teargap gas into a
house destroys the house. The tear gas goes literally into
the drywall. You have to bring it down to the
studs to bring that house back. I mean everything is gone.
Forget the furniture and everything else. I mean the very
(24:19):
dry wall itself has to go. I mean it is
no fun. And when no one's home, that's kind of ridiculous.
All right, Wayne, thank you. We'll catch you again next Monday.
Tomorrow morning, we start this all over again. Amy comes
in at five am with wake up call. Neil and
I join. Neil's giving you the big wave.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
Neil and I join at six o'clock.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
And then of course Kno and and are always here.
This is KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the
iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 3 (24:51):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Catch My Show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.