A fancy way of saying you can't leave

Lately I've noticed that I write a lot about things criminal and I got to wondering why?

I mean, there's a lot of stuff out in legal land I could be writing about but all this criminal stuff keeps popping up (and it's so easy to write about).

Take, for example, James McCoy Taylor.  You remember him, right (yeah, I didn't either)?  A bachelorette alum, Mr. Taylor was relatively recently arrested for assault and unlawful restraint.  Seems the girl he was with didn't want to be with him and she tried to walk away.  When he restrained her, she screamed, police were called, and now he's not such a happy guy.

Or how about Richard and Nora Ramirez of El Paso, Texas?  Court documents say on that the El Paso Police Department received a call from a witness, stating a 15-year-old boy was not eating and was being locked up in his room by his adoptive parents. Nora admitted to locking the boy in his room from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. but that he was being home schooled.

Or how about Archie Banks of Naperville, Illinois.  Mr. Banks was arrested and charged with two counts of Armed Violence (Class X Felony), one count of Attempted Aggravated Vehicular Hijacking with a Firearm (Class 1 Felony), two counts of Aggravated Battery (Class  3 Felony), one count of Aggravated Kidnapping While Armed with a Firearm (Class X Felony), one count of Armed Robbery with a Firearm (Class X Felony), one count of Aggravated Vehicular Hijacking with a Firearm (Class X Felony), and one count of Aggravated Unlawful Restraint (Class 3 Felony) in conjunction with a carjacking. 

What do all these people have in common?  That's right - they were all charged with unlawful restraint.  Before we get to far into this, what is unlawful restraint?

"Unlawful restraint" is a criminal offense that generally refers to intentionally restricting another person’s freedom of movement without legal justification. It’s a lesser offense than kidnapping, but it still involves interference with someone’s liberty.  

What we're looking at is:

• Locking someone in a room against their will.
• Holding someone down physically so they cannot leave.
• Threatening someone with harm if they try to move away.
• Taking a person somewhere against their will (without rising to the level of kidnapping). 
• Telling someone “you can’t leave until you pay me back” and blocking their exit.
• Pretending to be law enforcement and saying, “You’re under arrest, you have to come with me,” when you don’t have that authority.
• Luring someone into a space (like a basement) and then locking the door behind them. 
• Keeping a child somewhere without a parent’s consent (not quite kidnapping, but still unlawful restraint).
• A caretaker tying down or excessively restraining an elderly or disabled person without medical or legal justification. 

So, how might this look in real life?

1. Leal Garcia v. Texas, 564 U.S. 940 (2011) – A man was convicted of unlawful restraint for preventing his girlfriend from leaving their apartment by holding the door shut.

2. People v. Dominguez, 39 Cal. 4th 1141, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575, 140 P.3d 866 (California, 2006) – The defendant was convicted of unlawful restraint after forcing a victim to remain in his car against her will, even though she wasn’t abducted a long distance.

3. Michigan – Tent Captivity & Sexual Assault (2025)

A 21-year-old woman was allegedly held captive in a tent for a week by a homeless man, William Paul Thompson (22), in Mount Pleasant, Michigan. During her confinement, she was repeatedly sexually assaulted and threatened with a weapon. She escaped and reported the ordeal to investigators, leading to Thompson’s arrest on multiple felony counts, including criminal sexual conduct and unlawful imprisonment. The case is now with the Isabella County Prosecutor’s Office.

4. State v. Elbaz (2025) – Attempted Abduction, Restraint & Physical Assault

In New Haven, Leran Elbaz (43) violated protective orders by confronting a woman at a daycare, physically assaulting her, and attempting to force her daughter into his car. A good Samaritan intervened. Elbaz now faces a long list of charges including attempted kidnapping, unlawful restraint, strangulation, and child endangerment.

5. Texas (Houston) – Child Tied Up and Caged (2024)

Rose Anderson (55) was charged with unlawful restraint and injury to a child after allegedly tying a 7-year-old girl to a cage next to a Christmas tree using zip ties, denying her food, water, or bathroom access for hours. The child even urinated on herself, and Anderson reportedly kicked her and taped her mouth shut.

6. Rutecki v. Rensselaer City School District (2025)

Parents filed a lawsuit claiming their autistic son was improperly restrained by school staff at Van Rensselaer Elementary on February 9, 2024. The incident, captured on video, allegedly resulted in a brain injury, concussion, and lasting trauma. The family asserts the restraint was unlawful, as the student did not pose an imminent threat.

7. Illinois (Alton/Bethalto) – Domestic Restraint Charges

Multiple domestic violence incidents in the Alton area led to several individuals being charged with unlawful restraint. One 21-year-old in Bethalto was charged after allegedly detaining a relative and causing physical harm.

8. West Virginia – Grandmother Arrested After Grandchild Escapes

Laura Southworth (54) was arrested after her granddaughter fled the home with a handcuff still on her arm. The 13-year-old told authorities she had been handcuffed by her grandmother as "punishment" for stealing food, and had been restrained for about 13 hours. Southworth was charged with child neglect and unlawful restraint.

9. Workplace Detention – Unlawful Restraint in an Office

In Champaign, Illinois, a franchise owner of an elder care company allegedly detained a care worker in an office during a dispute over company property. Video posted to TikTok shows the owner blocking the worker from leaving for about eight minutes. The worker described feeling “trapped,” and authorities served the owner with a notice to appear for unlawful restraint.

10. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) – Eighth Amendment Challenge

In Hope v. Pelzer, the U.S. Supreme Court examined the use of a “hitching post,” where inmates were handcuffed in painful, sun-exposed standing positions for extended periods. Though the guards were ultimately granted qualified immunity, the Court acknowledged that this method was cruel and unusual, raising constitutional concerns related to restraint.

11. State v. Watson, 191 Conn. App. 1 (2019) – Nine-Hour Apartment Restraint

A Connecticut appellate court ruled that restricting a victim in an apartment for approximately nine hours—blocking the bathroom, taking away phones, preventing exit, and grabbing her sweatshirt hood—constituted unlawful restraint, even separate from related assault charges.

12. Police/Medical Restraint & Death

• In the U.K., Joy Gardner died after police gagged and restrained her with handcuffs and straps during an immigration raid, leading to asphyxia. The case sparked civil rights outrage.
  

• In California, Max Benson, a 13-year-old autistic student, was held in a prone restraint for over 90 minutes by school staff. He suffered catastrophic injuries and later died. This tragedy led to “Max Benson’s Law,” banning prone restraints in California schools.
  

• In the U.K., Olaseni Lewis, restrained by police in dangerous positions, lost consciousness and died due to restricted breathing and mistreatment.

Yep, there's a whole lot of crazy out in legal land.  If you don't want to land in the pokey (or be a subject of my blog posts), you might I suggest you steer clear of things unlawful.

Word of the Month for September 2025: Interfering with Police

Lately, I've been on a roll finding off the cuff situations to blog about.  One topic that keeps popping up (and, which happens, to be a hot topic) is people being charged with Interfering with the Police.

Of all the things people can be arrested for, this one seems a bit sketchy and subjective and which might lead to a lawsuit (against the po po) if not used judiciously. 

So, how might interfering with the police play out in real time?  Well....

On July 31, 2024, Trooper Myron Jackson of the Kentucky State Police initiated a traffic stop in Franklin County, Kentucky, alleging that the vehicle operated by Christina Calvert had expired license plates. Calvert, upon being pulled over, drove into her daughter, Christen Johnson's, driveway.  As Calvert engaged with the officer, Johnson exited her home and was instructed by Trooper Jackson to return inside (actually the cop flipped out and screamed at her to go back inside her house). 

Despite complying initially, Johnson reappeared moments later, recording the interaction on her phone. Trooper Jackson then flipped out again (I guess he didn't want any evidence against him arresting an old lady) and arrested Johnson for alleged interference with the traffic stop. The entire incident was captured on body camera footage. 

Following the arrest, Johnson faced charges of obstructing governmental operations and resisting arrest. However, in April 2025, a judge dismissed these charges, citing the absence of probable cause.

 

So, what it looks like is the police officer was angry to begin with (probably someone messed with his coffee/donut time) and was looking to exact revenge on whomever it was that had the misfortune of getting in his way.  In this case, it was a lady who was recording what Officer was doing to her mother on her property.  Huh, who'd have thought that was his trigger point?

Well, as most every knows (or should realize by now) police really, REALLY hate it when people start to record them when they are doing (or about to do) something sketchy - like arresting someone for having expired tags.

The problem I have is that is seems in every case I've ever heard of, the go to charge police file against anyone is interference.  It happens so often that it's almost a joke.

So, what constitutes “Interfering with Police?”

While every state has their own definitions and some states use different terms to refer to similar offenses, such as "resisting arrest," "interfering with a peace officer," or "hindering apprehension," INTERFERENCE generally means obstructing, delaying, or hindering a police officer’s lawful duties.  

Examples include:

• Physically blocking or resisting an officer trying to make a lawful arrest or investigation.

• Refusing to comply with "lawful orders" (e.g., to step back from a crime scene).

• Trying to stop or impede an arrest, search, or investigation.

• Providing false information or lying to police when legally obligated to identify yourself.

• Destroying evidence or warning a suspect to flee.

• Using threats, intimidation, or violence against officers.

Ok, that's clear enough but what does not count as "interference?"

• Recording police performing their duties (protected under the First Amendment).

• Verbally questioning or criticizing police conduct without threats or violence.

• Standing on your own property peacefully without obstructing police movement.

• Refusing to consent to searches (you have the right to say no).

• Remaining silent or politely refusing to answer questions beyond providing identification if required by law.

Did you happen to notice that the 2nd and 3rd item on this list is EXACTLY what Christen Johnson was doing when she was arrested for "interfering" with the Officer?  Which all makes the charge of interference sound faaaaar too subjective.

So, how have some of these interference or obstructing police charges generally pan out?

Scottie Scheffler – Louisville, Kentucky (May 2024)

• Incident: Professional golfer Scottie Scheffler was arrested during the PGA Championship at Valhalla Golf Course after a misunderstanding with Detective Bryan Gillis. Scheffler claimed the detective struck his vehicle with a flashlight, leading to a miscommunication.

• Outcome: All charges, including felony assault and three misdemeanors, were dismissed by the Jefferson County Attorney, citing insufficient evidence.

Los Angeles Protesters – Los Angeles, California (June 2025)

• Incident: During immigration-related demonstrations, several individuals were charged with felony obstruction of justice. The charges stemmed from reports by U.S. immigration officers that were later found to be false or misleading.

Vivian Augustus – South Whitley, Indiana (January 24, 2024)

• Incident: 18-year-old Vivian Augustus was arrested during a traffic stop for allegedly refusing to identify herself and resisting law enforcement.

• Outcome: All charges were dismissed by the Whitley County Prosecutor after video footage prompted nationwide calls for an investigation into the officer's conduct.

Ebony Holmes – Norfolk, Virginia (July 5, 2021)

• Incident: Ebony Holmes was charged with obstruction after alleging that a Norfolk officer struck her during a traffic stop.

• Outcome: A judge dropped the obstruction charge after reviewing the case.

Jose “Chille” DeCastro – Las Vegas, Nevada (March 2023)

• Incident: YouTuber Jose DeCastro was accused of obstructing a police officer while filming a traffic stop.

• Outcome: A Las Vegas judge overturned his conviction, stating the case concerned "First Amendment-protected conduct."

Kern – Cleveland Heights, Ohio (October 3, 2023)

• Incident: Kern was charged with obstruction of justice during a traffic stop.

• Outcome: The charge was dropped due to a lack of evidence, supported by body camera footage showing the officer apologizing for the arrest.

Rodolpho Vela Sr. – Harris County, Texas (September 9, 2021)

• Incident: Vela Sr. was charged with interfering with law enforcement after stepping outside his home during his son's arrest.

• Outcome: The charge was dropped due to lack of evidence, and a federal judge allowed a lawsuit against the deputy to proceed.

Ryan and Benjamin Brown – Colorado Springs, Colorado (September 25, 2015)

• Incident: The Browns were charged with interference after being pulled over for a cracked windshield.

• Outcome: The ACLU won the dismissal of the charges, highlighting concerns over racial profiling.

Jonathan Guessford – Delaware (March 11, 2022)

• Incident: Guessford was cited for "improper use of a hand signal" after warning drivers about a speed trap.

• Outcome: The charge was dismissed, and Guessford received a $50,000 settlement for the infringement of his constitutional rights.

Le'Keian Woods – Jacksonville, Florida (September 29, 2023)

• Incident: Woods was charged with narcotics offenses following a traffic stop and foot chase.

• Outcome: All charges related to narcotics were dropped, and he only faced a minor charge for running.

Teenager from Cromwell – Cromwell, Connecticut (June 4, 2025)

• Incident: A 19-year-old was arrested for allegedly speeding over 130 mph during a traffic stop.

• Outcome: All charges were dropped after body and dash camera footage contradicted the officer's account, leading to an apology from Connecticut State Police

Given the fact that so many drivers can be classified as "lookyloos" and "rubberneckers," it's probably no wonder so many people are charged with obstruction/interference what with everyone having to see what is going on.

I suspect, the bottom line to all this is if you don't want to be on the evening news, be cool and don't be a target.

...which sounds like blog post for another time... 

Be Careful What You Ask For

Have you ever heard the quote "tall fences make good neighbors?"  Maybe you've had a nosy neighbor who was always looking over the fence commenting on how trashy your yard looks or saw you peeing on your azaleas and makes some off handed comment about how sick it is that neighbors think because they have fences that they can do whatever they want in their backyards.

Maybe, as you're dealing with nosy neighbor, you think,...there ought to be a law to keep neighbors from looking over fences.  So you call your friendly, neighborhood congress person and say, "There needs to be a law to prohibit nosy neighbors from looking over fences.

Congress person, not having anything better to do, agrees and drafts a bill to make it a felony to look over a neighbor's fence effectively amending penal code 142.22(a) which, up to that point, had never been amended over the course of the last 110 years. 

Sound like a silly law?

So, picture it, you're eating a sandwich and as you're going about, a piece of sandwich gets lodged in your windpipe and you start to turn blue.  You're nosy neighbor hears what sounds to be gacking noises but, because it's now a felony to look over a neighbor's fence, neighbor decides to go back to drinking lemonade and watering his kudzu vines and you choke to death.

Still a silly law? 

Turns out, there a lots of laws on state and federal books that either ought not to have been drafted let alone written into law but are still on the books causing mass mayhem and carnage.

Take, for example, the "Rule of Five" law recently invoked by Rep. Chuck Schumer.  See, back in 1928 (May 29, 1928, ch. 901, § 2, 45 Stat. 996), congress created this rule (called the Rule of Five) to compel executive agencies to provide information relevant to the committee's jurisdiction.  Codified under 5 USC 2954, the Information to Committees of Congress on request law states:

An Executive agency, on request of the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives, or of any seven members thereof, or on request of the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, or any five members thereof, shall submit any information requested of it relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of the committee. 

On it's face, it's not all the problematic and pretty straight forward.  The problem is that it doesn't give any timetables in way of how long the person(s) on whom the request is made has to comply with any particular request.  

So, imagine you are an investigative body and are ripping through thousands of pages of something and you get a request from an agency that wants EVERYTHING on its desk in, oh,....say....a couple of weeks.  

Hells Bells, you haven't even gone through everything and everything is still a jumble and said agency/committee want's EVERYTHING!?

Such, I suspect, was the situation back in July 2025 when Chuck Schumer invoked 5 USC 2954 to compel the DOJ to release the ENTIRE Epstein file.  Still digging through stuff and the DOJ has to stop and put it all in a neat pile and deliver everything?  Really?!?

I'm guessing it's a ruse to obfuscate some other issue brewing.  You know - look at my right hand but don't look at what I've got in my left.  All smoke and mirrors and I'm betting someone is thinking why exactly do we need to keep 5 USC 2954 still on the books?  

In the very least, maybe the law should be modified to include a timetable - something in the way of give us some slack; we're doing the best we can and need time to get this stuff together in a readable manner.

I also suspect that once all the Epstein files have been gone over that there will be information that the requesting parties wished wasn't made public - which, I suspect is the purpose behind the request (ie to keep silent/bury that which certain parties don't want to be made public).

I'm just sayin. 

Not the brightest bulb

Have you ever come across a person who thought they knew everything about everything but what they don't know is that they don't know anything about anything but have the confidence of someone who does know what they're talking about?

As it turns out, there is a condition called the Dunning-Kruger Effect that covers this concept.  Essentially, The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities.  Basically, they don't know what they don't know but hold out that they know everything about everything.

You've seen these people.  Uncle Bob gets wasted at Thanksgiving and starts to pontificate about thing political like he's a well-versed pundit.   Neighbor Alice drones on about how to properly grow flowers despite the fact that she has a brown thumb (i.e. kills everything).

 

Still unclear?  Some other examples might help identify these types of people, for example:

• A new employee who has only a basic understanding of a task might believe they are an expert and refuse feedback or further training, leading to mistakes and poor performance aaaaand, subsequently, gets fired.
• A manager (hired as a manager because of their relationship to a family member) who lacks experience in what a company/employees actually do makes poor decisions due to overconfidence impacting team morale and productivity.
• A person who’s watched a few episodes of a cooking show decides to host a 10-person dinner party with a five-course French menu winds up making hamburgers and soggy "french" fries.
• A non-technical startup founder insists on coding the company's website using only YouTube tutorials resulting in a site that is buggy, slow, and not secure.
• A new driver right out of high school who has only driven a car in a video game overestimate their actual driving skills and take unnecessary risks.
• A new law school graduate opens a solo practice and takes on a complex case, believing it’s “just filling out forms.”

It is to this last one that our story proceeds.  Years back, I had an buddy who had a wife who had money to burn.  Acquaintance (who had just graduated from law school) convinced wife to help him open a law office complete with flashy new furniture and an impressive library (think small Library of Congress).

Nary three (3) months into his law "practice" and without any law experience, Buddy calls me (who had, at that time, about a year of legal experience under my belt) asking for help.  Seems Buddy had taken on an appeal, taken a retainer, and promised client 100% success.   

Apparently, Buddy had convinced client that by virtue of his graduating from law school AND having a fancy law office AND throwing around classic Latin terms like res ipsa loquitur, de novo, habeas corpus, and actus reas, that Buddy knew everything about how to appeal a case.  

Buddy didn't but client didn't know that (and, clearly, neither did Buddy).

I don't know if you know, but appellate cases are much harder (and more costly) to represent than trial cases for a number of reasons, including:

• Appellate law is more technical and research-heavy. You're arguing about legal principles, statutory interpretation, constitutional issues, etc.—not just facts.
• Briefs must be meticulously researched and crafted, and oral arguments involve intense questioning by a panel of judges.
• Appellate deadlines and formatting rules are rigid. A missed deadline or a procedurally deficient brief can sink your appeal, no matter how valid the issue.
• You must often identify “preserved errors”—issues objected to during trial. If something wasn’t preserved, it's often waived on appeal.
• Appellate courts only review the record from the trial court. You can't introduce new facts, so if something wasn't brought up or preserved at trial, it's gone.
• Trial strategy is often collaborative with witnesses, experts, and clients. In appeals, it’s often just the attorney and the law.
• Unlike trial, where emotional appeal and charisma can sway a jury, appellate work requires pure logical reasoning and legal precision. It's a more academic form of advocacy.
• You're persuading experienced judges, not laypeople. They will spot weak arguments instantly.
• You often start from the position of defending a losing argument (if you’re appellant) or protecting a lower court win (if you’re appellee).
• Because trial court judges don't like having their decisions overturned, they are (often) careful how the trial is conducted.  Consequently, the majority of trial court decisions are affirmed (meaning you'll often lose and look bad in front of a now angry client).

The problem here was that Buddy was clueless about how the legal process worked and needed help with his 5th amended brief (the court was kind but patience was wearing thin).  To provide added clarity, the client had started the appeal process and already had had to do 3 amended briefs before encountering Buddy.

Reaching out to me, Buddy wanted me to re-write the brief.  Now, I had never done appellate work.  In fact, the closest I had ever come to appellate court was sitting in the gallery listening to oral arguments.  So, even though Buddy was offering me $80 an hour (remember wife with deep pockets?), I was not willing to help out or put my stamp anywhere near that case.

Consequently, Buddy and the case was bounced out of appellate court and Buddy, consequent to narrowly avoiding a malpractice action with some more well-placed legal terms, quickly down-sized his law office (moving into a closet), and wound up helping neighbors and friends on more simpler cases.

The moral to this story: if ever you are in need of a legal expert, hire someone who knows what they're supposed to know.  

• Been in a car accident?  Hire an attorney with experience in car accidents.
• Need help drafting a Living Trust or durable power of attorney?  Hire an estate planning attorney.
• Having problems with the IRS?  Hire a tax attorney (i.e. someone with accounting and legal experience).
• Looking to get a divorce?  Hire a family law attorney.
• Looking to file a bankruptcy?  Hire an attorney familiar with bankruptcy in your jurisdiction.
• Looking to avoid ICE and want your very own (and legitimate) green card?  Hire an immigration attorney.
  

Now, you could represent yourself by buying a book about what it is you're trying to do from Nolo Press or looking at You Tube videos, but would you really try to build a house not knowing the difference between things electrical and things plumbing?

Yeah, me neither.

Word of the Month for August 2025: High-risk activities (that will cancel a life insurance policy)

Funny thing about going to law school, when people hear you went to law school, they tend to gravitate towards you when they have problems.  Doesn't matter if you practice law or not - they all have problems and the all seek answers.

Such was the case when I was approached by a neighbor the other day.  Seems Neighbor had been rock climbing with his familial relations and slipped injuring himself.  Ouch!

What was important to Neighbor was that somehow the insurance company that carried his policy for life insurance found out and informed him that rock climbing was one of the things that allows an insurance company to cancel a life insurance policy (high risk, and all).  Consequently, insurance company informed Neighbor that his policy was hereby cancelled and Neighbor was wanting to know if they can do that.

Turns out, they can.

Before we get into this, let's define a high risk activity.  As it relates to cancellation of a life insurance policy, a High-risk activities are ones that have a significant potential for adverse safety outcomes and which have a greater likelihood of resulting in significant harm, injury, loss, or harm as compared to standard activities.  Such activities take the form of a hobby or might be a particular line of employment.

Examples of high-risk activities might include:

• Scuba diving
  
• BASE jumping
  
• Hang gliding
• Race car driving
• Flying a plane
• Horseback riding
• Bungee jumping
  
• Parasailing
• Off-roading

Some employment falls into this category such as:

• Logging
• Aircraft pilots
• Offshore oil rig worker
• Offshore fisherman, Structural steelworkers
• Underground mining

As all this relates to Neighbor, turns out that rock climbing is also considered a high-risk activity by life insurance companies.  This is due to the inherent dangers involved, such as falls and injuries, which increase the likelihood of accidents and even fatalities.  As a result, rock climbing can impact both the cost and availability of life insurance policies.

Now, given the fact that this is a legal-related blog and may be wondering if this discussion borders on providing legal advice, it might be and probably would be were it not for the fact that most all of this information can be found via a simple Google search - which I suggested Neighbor to do after giving Neighbor some suggestions on what to look for (i.e. high-risk activities and rock climbing).

What is most interesting to me is that every state in the union has statutes related to insurance stuff.  In fact, after digging around on the Internet, I found a listing of what statutes relate to insurance stuff in each of the 50 states which can be found by visiting Fidelity Life Insurance's webpage. 

Great resource Fidelity is and so easy to find/use.

Anyway, Neighbor was satisfied and went on their merry to find answers to their most pressing needs.

Moral to this story, if ever you need help finding what you need, hesitate not a bit and seek out your local law librarian who will be more than happy to help you find what you're needing to be found.