Staying In Your Lane Isn't Just About Cars

What do you think about when you're driving out and about?

Me?  I think about crazy pedestrians who jump off the curb and right out in front of me when I'm driving.

Well, at least I do now given that the other day while I was driving along listening to David Bowie sing about Modern Love, a kid on a skateboard and head buried in his cell phone jumped off the curb and into my lane mere seconds in front of my car!!!

No crosswalk and no traffic lights around for at least 200 feet.

Nope, kid just decided that specific location (which just happened to be right in front of my car) was where he was going to cross the street and were it not for my cat-like reflexes (and my brakes), that kid would have been a greasespot on the asphalt.

Yeah, I think about crazy pedestrians a lot, these days. 

The thing is, while most people think that pedestrians always have the right of way, I got to wondering if that is the case in every case?

Turns out pedestrians only have the right of way if they're following the rule of law.

Wait - rule of law?  What's that?!

At its core, the rule of law is the principle that:  Everyone—citizens and government alike—is bound by publicly known, consistently applied laws, enforced through fair procedures.

A few key pieces make that real (often discussed in constitutional law):

• No one is above the law (not even police or officials)

• Laws are clear and predictable so people can follow them

• Equal application—similar situations are treated similarly

• Due process—fair procedures before punishment

• Independent courts to interpret and apply the law

In the United States, these ideas are grounded in the Constitution especially through due process and equal protection principles.

So, what is the rule of law as it applies to pedestrians?

The rule of law doesn’t treat pedestrians as a special class that always “wins.”  Instead, it creates defined rules for everyone using the road—drivers and pedestrians—and holds both accountable.

As this all relates to pedestrians, under state traffic laws,  pedestrians have certain legal duties.  The same body of law that imposes liabilities on drivers also imposes obligationus on pedestrians such as:

• Pedestrians must yield when crossing outside a crosswalk (jaywalking laws)

• Pedestrians must obey traffic and pedestrian signals

• Pedestrians must not step into traffic creating an immediate hazard

This is the rule of law limiting pedestrian behavior.

Notwithstanding the general principle that cars (and other vehicles) must yield to pedestrians, what are some ways in which pedestrians do not have the right of way and should be looking out for vehicles?

1. Crossing outside a crosswalk (“jaywalking”)

Jaywalking is the act of pedestrians crossing a street illegally or unsafely, typcially outside of a designated crosswal, mid-block, or against traffic signals.   It is a traffic violation in many jurisdictions, intended to ensure road safety by directing foot traffic to marked intersections.  

 

For example, Utah's jaywalking statute can be found in Utah Code § 41-6a-1003(1) and states that pedestrians may not cross anywhere other than a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

 

Other similar state statutes include:

• Alabama Code § 32-5A-212 (2024): Pedestrians crossing outside a crosswalk
• § 32-5A-210: Must obey signals
• § 32-5A-211(b): Cannot step into traffic creating an immediate hazard

• Florida Stat. § 316.130: Pedestrians must yield to vehicles outside of a crosswalk, must obey pedestrian signals, and cannot suddenly leave curb into traffic.

• North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 20-174: Pedestrian must yield to vehicles outside of crosswalk and cannot walk into path of close vehicle.  

• Arizona Rev. Stat. § 28-793: Pedestrians must yield to vehicles outside of crosswalk, must use crosswalks when available between intersections, and no diagonal crossing unless allowed.

• Nebraska Rev. Stat. § 60-6,153: Pedestrian must yield right-of-way out of crosswalks, must obey traffic signals, cannot suddenly enter roadway. 

• South Dakota Codified Laws § 32-27-4:  When crossing outside a crosswalk in business/residential areas, must yield to vehicles.

2. Ignoring available crossing infrastructure

Ignoring available crossing infrastructure means a pedestrian chooses not to use a provided safe/legal crossing (like a crosswalk or pedestrian bridge) and instead crosses the road somewhere else.

This usually includes:

• Marked crosswalks (painted lines)

• Unmarked crosswalks at intersections

• Traffic signals / pedestrian signals

• Pedestrian bridges or tunnels

• Designated crossing zones (like school crossings)

For example:  Utah Code § 41-6a-1003(2): A pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing is provided must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.

 

Other related state statutes include:

• Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.48: If there’s a designated crossing nearby, you can’t just cross anywhere you want.

• California Vehicle Code § 21955: Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic signals or police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway except in a crosswalk. 

• Washington RCW 46.61.240 & RCW 46.61.235: Pedestrians crossing outside crosswalks must yield to vehicles. Where adjacent intersections have signals, pedestrians must use crosswalks.

3. Crossing against traffic signals

Crossing against traffic signals means that when a pedestrian enters or continues crossing a roadway when the traffic control signal says they should NOT cross the street.  While covered in related sections (e.g., pedestrian signal laws), the general rule is:  Where a pedestrian is crossing on a “Don’t Walk” signal, the pedestrian is violating the law and they have no right of way.

 

Related state statutes include:

 

New York Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1112 states that when the sign says:

• “Walk” → pedestrian may proceed

• Flashing “Don’t Walk” → may finish crossing, but should not start

• Steady “Don’t Walk” → must not enter the roadway

Massachusetts Gen. Laws ch. 89, § 11: Where traffic signals exist, pedestrians may only cross in accordance with them.  Entering on “Don’t Walk” = unlawful crossing.

Indiana Code § 9‑21‑17‑2 notes that:

• Flashing or steady “Walk” → a pedestrian may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal, and vehicles must yield.

• Steady “Don’t Walk” → a pedestrian may not start to cross the roadway in that direction.

• Flashing “Don’t Walk” → a pedestrian may not start to cross; if already crossing on “Walk,” they must proceed to the sidewalk or safety island.

4. Stepping into traffic suddenly (immediate hazard)

Stepping into traffic suddenly (immediate hazard) means a pedestrian leaves a place of safety (like a curb) and enters the roadway so abruptly that a nearby driver cannot reasonably stop or avoid them.  

 

In that situation, the pedestrian is violating the traffic laws and typically must yield the right-of-way because they created a dangerous, unavoidable condition. 

 

Utah Code § 41-6a-1002(1)(c) states that a pedestrian may not suddenly leave a place of safety and enter the path of a vehicle that is too close to stop.  Even in a crosswalk, this can remove right-of-way protection.

 

Related state statutes:

Oregon Revised Statutes § 814.040:  says a pedestrian commits a traffic offense if they:

(a) Suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and move into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard
(b) Fail to yield to vehicles when crossing outside crosswalks
(c) Fail to yield the right-of-way generally

Montana Code Annotated § 61‑8‑502 states:

When signals are not in place, drivers must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, but a pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the operator to yield

Rhode Island General Laws § 31‑18‑3 provides:

Drivers must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks when signals aren’t operating, but no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

5. Crossing where crossing is restricted

“Crossing where crossing is restricted” means a pedestrian enters or crosses a roadway at a location or in a manner that the law specifically prohibits, such as between intersections with traffic signals, on highways, or in areas marked “No Crossing.” Violating these restrictions removes the pedestrian’s right-of-way and can be treated as a traffic violation. 

 

Utah Code § 41-6a-1003(3)–(4): provides that pedestrians are not permitted to cross between signalized intersections except at crosswalks and no diagonal crossing unless allowed by signal

 

Related state statutes include:

Mississippi Code § 63‑3‑1105 states that:

• A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection must yield the right‑of‑way to all vehicles.
• A pedestrian crossing where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead crossing is provided must yield the right‑of‑way to vehicles.
• Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross except in a marked crosswalk. 

Arkansa Code § 27‑51‑1204: provides that between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.  

Michigan Comp. Laws § 257.613:  

• Pedestrians facing traffic control signals may only proceed within a marked or unmarked crosswalk when the signal permits, and cannot legally start crossing outside of that.

General Michigan pedestrian rules (public guidance)

• Pedestrians are expected to use crosswalks at signalized locations and not cross in unsafe, unmarked mid‑block areas when signalized crossings are available.

6. General principle: pedestrians only have "conditional" right of way

Even where pedestrians usually have priority (like crosswalks), the law still limits them and:

• Drivers must yield only when the pedestrian is lawfully in the crosswalk

• That duty disappears if the pedestrian acts unpredictably, violates crossing rules, and creates an immediate hazard

I guess the moral to this story is pedestrians do NOT have the right of way when they:

• 🚫 Jaywalk

• 🚫 Ignore signals

• 🚫 Step into traffic suddenly

• 🚫 Cross where prohibited

• 🚫 Fail to use designated crossings

 

But drivers should still probably try to avoid collisions and can still be partially liable if they run over people in the roadway.

Too bad, that. 

 

 

Word of the Month for June 2026: Exploitation

So, I was wandering through social media land the other day and I came upon a video where a stranger says hello to a child (young female) who is holding her mother's hand.

Mother asks, "do you know that man?" to which Child says no - I don't.  Mother looks back at stranger with a grimmace.

Later, another stranger wishies Child a happy birthday.  Child is confused and,...well, why don't you have a looksee at the video and see if it doesn't hit home with you?

Why this got my attention is what with all the talk about Jeffrey Epstein, I would think posting pictures of your kid(s) and other details of their lives online is just another form of child exploitation.  Before we get any deeper into this, let's define what we're talking about as it relates to exploitation.  

EXPLOITATION is a form of abuse where an individual or group takes advantage of an imbalance of power to manipulate, coerce, or deceive a person into performing acts—or being used for acts—that benefit the exploiter, usually in exchange for something the person needs or wants, such as affection, money, or food.  This abuse is fundamentally about the power imbalance, meaning that even if a person appears to "consent" or initiates the interaction, they are still considered a victim.

The problem is that under U.S. law, parents generally control the legal rights of their minor children, including decisions about publicity and privacy.  That means a parent usually has authority to share photos of their child.

There is no general federal law prohibiting parents from posting pictures of their children on social media. Most laws instead regulate companies or explicit exploitation.

Two key federal laws show the focus:

• Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)

  • Regulates websites collecting data about kids under 13.

  • It controls companies, not parents posting pictures.

• Child Pornography Prevention Act

  • Criminalizes sexual or exploitative images of minors.

  • Innocent family photos normally do not fall under it.

So legally speaking, the system assumes parents are acting in the child’s best interests.  Even though posting photos is usually legal, it does becomes illegal in certain circumstances.  

A. Sexualized or exploitative images

If an image is sexualized or intended for exploitation, it can violate federal child-exploitation laws.

Relevant laws include:

• Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

• Federal child pornography statutes

  Under 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (Sexual exploitation of children), a person commits a federal crime if they: employ, use, persuade, induce, entice, or coerce any minor to engage in… sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct.

  18 U.S.C. § 2252  (Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors) criminalizes knowingly transporting, receiving, distributing, possessing, visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

  18 U.S.C. § 2252A (Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography) criminalizes distribution, receipt, possession, access with intent to view child pornography using computers or interstate commerce (internet).

  18 U.S.C. § 2256  (Definitions for Chapter 110) Defines Explicit Conduct to include: 
  (i) sexual intercourse
  (ii) bestiality
  (iii) masturbation
  (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse
  (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area.

  That last phrase is where courts apply the Dost test (under United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986)).

• State exploitation laws

  Every state has parallel statutes criminalizing sexual exploitation of minors.  Here are a few examples:

  Utah Code § 76-5b-201 (Sexual exploitation of a minor):  A person commits sexual exploitation of a minor if they: produce, possess, distribute, or view material depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.  Utah treats this as a second-degree felony or higher. 

  Caifornia Penal Code § 311.4  (Use of a minor in producing obscene matter): Criminalizes employing or coercing a minor to participate in sexual conduct for visual material.

  Tex. Penal Code § 43.26  (Possession or Promotion of Child Pornography):  Criminalizes knowing possession or distribution of visual material depicting a minor engaged in sexual conduct.

  N.Y. Penal Law § 263.05  (Use of a Child in a Sexual Performance): Criminalizes employing or inducing a child to engage in sexual conduct for visual depiction.

Why these statutes matter for a social-media scenario is because in the vast majority of family-photo situations, these laws do not apply, because:

• the images are not sexually explicit

• child are not engaged in sexual conduct

• there is no intent to create sexual material.

However, they can apply if someone posts images that meet the statutory definition of:

• lascivious exhibition

• sexual conduct

• sexually explicit performance

even if the image originally came from a family setting.  Courts evaluate these situations on a case-by-case basis using the United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986) factors.

B. Sharing private information

Posting identifiable details can create legal problems if it crosses into:

• harassment

• stalking

• doxxing

• publication of private facts

For example, revealing address, school location, or personal data could lead to civil liability in some circumstances. 

C. Commercial exploitation of children

This is the fastest-growing legal area.  “Family influencer” accounts sometimes earn large amounts of money from videos or photos featuring children.  Some states now regulate this.

Example:

• Utah H.B. 322 (2025), codified primarily in Utah Code Title 34A (Labor in Private Employment)  
• Requires parents earning significant income from monetized content featuring a child to set aside a portion of earnings in a trust for the child.
• Allows a person who appeared in social-media content as a minor to request deletion or editing once they reach adulthood

• Illionois 820 ILCS 205/1–22 (Illinois Child Labor Law amendments); enacted by SB 1782 (2023). 
• Applies when a child appears in 30% or more of monetized online content.
• Requires a percentage of earnings to be placed in a trust account for the child.
• Allows children to sue parents for unpaid compensation after reaching adulthood.  

• Minnesota H.F. 3488 (2024) amending state child labor statutes.
• Requires compensation and trust accounts for minors appearing in monetized social-media content.
• Children under 14 cannot appear in certain monetized content work.
• Grants the right to request removal of content later in life.  

• Arkansas. Code Ann. § 11-6-101 et seq. (amended by Act 396 of 2023).
• Expands child labor laws to include minors appearing in monetized digital content.
• Requires recordkeeping and compensation protections similar to child-performer laws.

• Montana Code Ann. Title 41 (Child Labor).
• Requires earnings derived from minors appearing in monetized content to be preserved in trust accounts.
• Provides financial protections modeled after child-actor statutes.

• Hawaii Revised Statutes § 390-2 (child labor law). 
• Includes online content creation within the definition of theatrical employment.
• Requires earnings protections similar to the Coogan law.

For point of reference, the Coogan law is named after child actor:  Jackie Coogan.  He was a famous child star in the 1920s who appeared in the film The Kid (1921) with Charlie Chaplin.

Coogan earned millions as a child actor, but when he became an adult he discovered that his parents had spent nearly all of his earnings.  He sued his mother and stepfather in 1938.  The public outrage from that case led California to enact a series of statutes protecting child performers' earnings.

In recent years, a new concept called “Sharenting” has sprung up.  Sharenting (referring to a blend of "sharing" and "parenting") is the practice of parents regularly posting photos, videos, or detailed personal information about their children on social media and internet platforms.  

Sharenting is a widespread phenomenon driven by pride, community, and documenting milestones, but it raises significant concerns regarding child privacy, safety, and long-term digital footprints. 

A few legal issues that arise from Sharenting include: 

• Children cannot consent to a permanent digital record 
• Predators may collect images 
• Identity theft risks 
• Reputational harm later in life

A related phenomenon called Digital Kidnapping has also arisen where strangers take a child’s photos and pretend the child is theirs online.

The core legal problem is this:  Parents have a constitutional right to raise their children, and courts are reluctant to interfere with ordinary parenting decisions.  To criminalize ordinary photo sharing, a government would have to overcome:

• First Amendment speech issues
• Parental rights doctrine
• Enforcement problems

So lawmakers usually regulate extreme cases, not normal family behavior.

OK, that's all well and all but where might the law go in the future? As it turns out, there is a growing movement to treat children’s online exposure more like child labor in entertainment.

• Possible future regulations being discussed include:
• Digital consent rights for children
• Limits on monetized family content
• Mandatory earnings trusts (like child actors)
• A child's right to erase online childhood content

Some European countries have already recognizing stronger “child digital privacy” rights.

I guess what all this boils down to is parents really need to get a grip and know that while they say they are looking out for their kids, 'rents need to realize that EVERYTHING they post online is seen by everyone.

NOTE: that's EVERYONE as in not just the intended audience (friends and family), but potentially any person or system that can access, copy, intercept, store, or redistribute the image at any stage of its existence on the internet. 

So, how all this works is: once a photograph is uploaded to a social media platform such as Facebook, X, or Instagram, it becomes accessible to the platform itself, meaning employees, automated moderation systems, content-analysis algorithms, and internal data-processing tools that scan images for policy enforcement, advertising signals, or machine-learning training. 

From there, access may extend to the people the parent intentionally shares it with, but also to anyone those recipients show, screenshot, download, forward, repost, or otherwise distribute the image to, whether deliberately or casually. 

Even when privacy settings limit viewing to a smaller group, any member of that group can duplicate the image instantly and send it outside the platform through email, messaging apps, cloud storage, or other social networks, effectively dissolving the original privacy boundary.

Beyond the human viewers, “EVERYONE” can also include the technical infrastructure that touches the file. The image may pass through servers, backup systems, content-delivery networks, and caching layers that store copies for speed and reliability. 

Those systems may be operated not only by the original platform but also by third-party vendors providing cloud hosting, security scanning, or analytics services. In addition, automated web crawlers, scraping tools, or malicious actors may obtain copies if the content becomes accessible beyond a strict private setting, and once a single copy leaves the original environment it can propagate indefinitely across forums, databases, or file-sharing networks without the knowledge of the original poster. 

In the most expansive interpretation, “EVERYONE” could encompass the platform company and its employees, contractors and cloud providers, the intended viewers and anyone they share the image with, unknown third parties who acquire copies through technical or social means, automated systems that index or analyze the image, and any future recipient who encounters the file long after the parent believed it remained within a limited circle. 

So, to summarize, when you post your child's photograph online so that "EVERYONE" see it, (in this case "EVERYONE" means that the potential audience is not merely a list of friends but an open-ended chain of humans and machines capable of accessing or redistributing the data once it enters the networked environment.

Paranoid yet?

So when next you go to post something about your darling younglings on social media, I hope you keep all this in mind and resist the urge to post those cutsey birthday pictures or baby's first bath or your daughter's first kiss.

Yeah, maybe keep those memories close(r) to the vest. 

 

 

But I Didn't Do Anything Wrong!

The more I interact with Internet-land, I am becoming desensitized to the complaints people have after the did something they shouldn't have done.

For instance, tugging on Superman's cape.  I mean really, the guy is fighting crime and you tug on his cape?  Or how about pulling the mask off that old Lone Ranger.  Dang but it should just be common sense of things you just don't do but then there are people out in people land that don't have much common sense.

Funny how people do things and then they start to scream and complain that they didn't do anything when they get arrested for doing the things they did but don't think they should be arrested for doing them.

What things, you ask?

1)  How about Trespass?   

Trespass is entering or remaining on someone else’s property without permission.  It can happen either by going onto private property you’re not allowed to enter, or by refusing to leave after being asked by the owner or an authorized person. Even without posted signs, staying after notice is usually enough to make it illegal.

People who are guilty of trespass might say:

• “It’s not posted!”
• “I didn’t see a sign!” 
• "Why do I have to leave?"

The problem is that (and what I see time and again is) if you’ve been told to leave (by owner, staff, or police) and don’t, that alone can be enough for an arrest—even without signs.

In People v. Brown, 236 Cal.App.2d Supp. 915 (App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1965), defendants entered a Bank of America branch (a private business open to the public) and engaged in disruptive conduct inside the premises and were told to leave.  They didn't leave and were arrested and charged under California Penal Code §602 (criminal trespass statutes).  

 

The appellate court noted that a person can be guilty of trespass when they enter property lawfully or unlawfully, AND act in a way that violates the statutory trespass provisions (including interference with business or remaining without consent).

So, if you enter a property that is not your own and fool around such that the owner tells you to leave AND YOU DON'T LEAVE, you can/will most likely be arrested.

Even if you don't think you did anything wrong, if you are told to leave a property and you don't, the time to fight the trespass is NOT when you are trespassing or when you are being handcuffed.  The time to fight a trespass is in court - at your leisure.  

If you choose to scream and fight at the time of the trespass, you're going to be arrested (and probably charged with obstruction and resisting arrest) even if you don't understand why.  

That's just the way this goes.

2)  How about Driving Under the Influence (DUI)?

Driving Under the Influence (DUI) is operating a vehicle while your ability to drive safely is impaired by alcohol, drugs (legal or illegal), or a combination of substances.  Impairment can include slowed reaction time, poor judgment, reduced coordination, drowsiness, or altered perception—even if you don’t feel “drunk.”  

What we're talking about here are pretty straight forward cases like Doyle v. State, 2002 OK CR 29, 47 P.3d 530 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002) where the defendant (Doyle) was stopped by law enforcement in Oklahoma after officers observed signs of intoxication (driving behavior + field indicators).  Consequently, defendant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) under Oklahoma law and was convicted in district court.  

On appeal, the court held that a DUI conviction may be sustained based on officer observations and circumstantial evidence of impairment, even without any legal deficiency in the arrest or proof. 

DUI laws can be triggered either by observed impairment or by exceeding legal limits (in Utah, a 0.05% BAC), and they also apply to impairment from things like prescription medications, marijuana, or other substances that affect driving ability. 

People are often genuinely surprised during a DUI stop because their mental model of “impaired” doesn’t match how the law defines it.  What many people don't realize is that DUI isn’t just about the consumption of alcohol.  Prescription meds (like painkillers or anti-anxiety drugs), sleep aids, or marijuana can all impair driving—even if legally obtained.

People often think:

• “I feel fine”
• “I only had a couple drinks”

But laws are based on blood alcohol content, not how you feel.  You can be legally impaired well before you feel drunk.  Many assume an hour or two “sobers them up,” but BAC often stays elevated longer than people think.  The time to fight a DUI is not when you are being handcuffed.  If you fight the police when you are being handcuffed, you will most certainly be arrested and things will not go well with you.  

Trust me on this one.

3)  How about Domestic Violence (arguments that turn physical)?

Domestic violence is any act (or threat) of violence, force, or intimidation between people in a close relationship—such as spouses, partners, family members, or people living together.  

Domestic violence doesn’t require serious injury; any unwanted physical contact, attempt to cause harm, or behavior that puts the other person in fear can qualify.  Laws in places like Utah treat these situations seriously, and officers often make an arrest based on probable cause even if the people involved minimize what happened.

What we're looking at here is cases like State v. Harden, 26 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) where the defendant (Harden) and the victim were involved in a domestic relationship.  Seems an argument escalated into physical confrontation.  

The victim testified that the defendant pushed or struck them during the dispute and law enforcement responded.  Harden was subsequently charged with domestic battery and a trial court resolved the case with a conviction for battery.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal noted that that when credible evidence shows intentional unwanted physical contact during a domestic argument, a domestic battery conviction will be upheld.

What trips people up is that what they're doing doesn’t look like what they imagine “domestic violence” to be:

• “I just pushed them out of the way”.  A shove during an argument—especially if it’s unwanted—can be enough.  It doesn’t have to leave a mark.
• Grabbing, blocking, or restraining.  Holding someone’s arm, pinning them, or standing in a doorway to stop them from leaving can be considered force or intimidation.
• Throwing objects (even if you miss).  Tossing a phone, plate, or anything in anger can qualify because it creates fear of harm.
• Taking or breaking a phone during an argument.  Grabbing a phone to stop someone from calling for help can be treated as both domestic violence and interference with communication.
• “Mutual” arguments that turn physical.  Even if both people are yelling—or both claim fault—police may still arrest one party based on who appears to be the primary aggressor.
• Threats that feel “in the heat of the moment”.  Statements that imply harm (“you’ll regret this,” “I’m going to hurt you”) can count if they put the other person in reasonable fear.
• Minimal or no visible injury.  You don’t need bruises or cuts. The legal threshold is often the act or the fear it creates, not the severity of injury.

 

The common thread is that the law focuses on unwanted force or fear within a relationship, not whether it seemed minor, mutual, or “just part of an argument” at the time.

People say:

• “It was just an argument”
• “I barely touched them”

The issue isn't what you think or do - it's what the other person thinks or feels.  So, maybe put yourself in the other persons shoes for a bit and think what they're going through when you're thinking of pushing them through that plate glass window.

Now, if you're are still unsure what you did to get the police's attention, don't fight it when the handcuffs are being installed on your wrists because if you do resist, you will be arrested and charnged for resisting arrest (at least) nothing will go your way from there on out.

Again, you'll just have to trust me on this. 

4) How about Shoplifting (including “accidental”)?

Shoplifting is taking merchandise from a store without paying for it, or intentionally leaving the premises with unpaid items. It also includes actions like concealing items, altering price tags, or bypassing payment systems.

 

The key difference between intentional and accidental shoplifting is intent: intentional shoplifting involves knowingly trying to deprive the store of payment, while accidental shoplifting happens when someone unintentionally leaves without paying (for example, forgetting an item in a cart or bag). 

However, even if it’s accidental, stores and law enforcement may still treat it as theft based on what actually occurred, which is why misunderstandings can still lead to legal trouble.

What we're looking at are cases like State v. Lillard, 122 Wn. App. 422, 93 P.3d 729 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).  Here, the defendant (Lillard), was engaging in conduct leading to a theft charge under Washington’s theft statute (RCW 9A.56.030 / related provisions).  The case involved taking property without permission and intent to deprive the owner and defendant was convicted at trial.  Lillard later appealed his conviction arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the theft conviction.

The Washington Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support the theft conviction, that intent to deprive can be inferred from:

• possession of stolen property
• surrounding circumstances of acquisition
• conduct inconsistent with lawful ownership

The court also noted that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove intent in theft cases, and appellate courts will not reweigh credibility or substitute their judgment for the jury’s.

 

Typical responses from people after they are caught might include:

• “I forgot it was in my cart”
• “I was going to pay for it”

The problem is that stores and police don’t have to prove long-term intent—the mere asportation or leaving the store without paying is usually enough.  

Screaming "I WANT TO PAY" or "THIS IS ALL MY STUFF" is not going to help your cause.  If you are being arrested for shoplifting, anything you do when/after handcuffs are put on your wrists will only count against you.  Bide your time and let the police do their thing because screaming and struggling will only go against you.

5)  How about Unauthorized Recording / Privacy Violations.

Unauthorized recording / privacy violations involve capturing audio, video, or images of someone without legal permission in a context where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

This can include recording conversations without required consent or filming people in private spaces like homes, bathrooms, or locker rooms.  Laws vary by state, but the core idea is protecting people from being recorded when they reasonably expect not to be.

What we're talking about are cases like State v. Kaakimaka, SCWC-22-0000690 (Haw. 2025) where the defendant used a hidden cellphone camera to record a minor showering inside a residence.  The device was placed outside a bathroom window aimed into a “private place.”  Defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with Violation of Privacy in the First Degree under HRS § 711-1110.9.

The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the defendant's conviction and explained that a “private place” includes areas where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (like a bathroom inside a home) and noted that secretly recording someone in a private place (like a bathroom) satisfies Hawaii’s criminal “violation of privacy” statute even if the recorder is outside the structure.

Where people get tripped up is the context:

• Private vs. public spaces.  Recording in public (streets, parks) is often legal, but filming inside someone’s home, a restroom, or even certain areas of a business can cross the line.
• Audio recording (consent laws). Some states allow “one-party consent” (only one person in the conversation must know), while others require all parties to consent. Secretly recording a conversation can be illegal depending on location.
• “It’s my phone, I can record anything.”  Ownership of the device doesn’t override privacy laws—where and how you record matters more.
• Sensitive situations.  Recording people in vulnerable or intimate situations (changing clothes, medical settings, etc.) is almost always illegal, even if no harm was intended.
• Posting or sharing recordings.  Even if recording itself was legal, sharing it (especially if it’s private or misleading) can create additional legal issues.

Typical beliefs that trip people up:

• “I can record anything in public”
• “It’s my phone”

Filming in certain places (bathrooms, private property, or even audio recording without consent in some states) can be illegal. 

What is imporant for people to understand is that legality hinges on expectation of privacy and consent, not just whether the recording was technically possible.

I suspect the bottom line to all this "but I didn't do anything wrong" business is to understand that just because YOU don't think you did anything wrong doesn't mean you didn't actually do anything wrong.  

Well, that and struggling with the police when you're being handcuffed almost ALWAYS ends with your face in the pavement and two cops on your back.

Just keep all this in mind when next you are being handcuffed and save the drama for the theater.

I'm just sayin.