Tales from the Brown Desk

Tales from the Brown Desk - Episode 24 - IMPD's Oversight Board, "Trial Penalty", Q&A, & Florida Man

October 20, 2020 Rigney Law LLC Season 1 Episode 24
Tales from the Brown Desk
Tales from the Brown Desk - Episode 24 - IMPD's Oversight Board, "Trial Penalty", Q&A, & Florida Man
Chapters
Tales from the Brown Desk
Tales from the Brown Desk - Episode 24 - IMPD's Oversight Board, "Trial Penalty", Q&A, & Florida Man
Oct 20, 2020 Season 1 Episode 24
Rigney Law LLC

Weekly Criminal Law Podcast, Tales from the Brown Desk, brought to you by Rigney Law LLC. Tales from the Brown Desk is a free flowing conversation involving two foul-mouthed attorneys. It may include graphic descriptions of sexual activity, violence, and traffic law. It may not be suitable for children. Listener discretion advised.

Episode 24. In this episode, Indianapolis criminal defense attorneys, Jacob Rigney and Kassi Rigney, talk about Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department's new Oversight Board, the "Trial Penalty" and the Sixth Amendment Right to Trial, answers to some commonly asked criminal law questions, and the latest Florida Man news.

Show Notes Transcript

Weekly Criminal Law Podcast, Tales from the Brown Desk, brought to you by Rigney Law LLC. Tales from the Brown Desk is a free flowing conversation involving two foul-mouthed attorneys. It may include graphic descriptions of sexual activity, violence, and traffic law. It may not be suitable for children. Listener discretion advised.

Episode 24. In this episode, Indianapolis criminal defense attorneys, Jacob Rigney and Kassi Rigney, talk about Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department's new Oversight Board, the "Trial Penalty" and the Sixth Amendment Right to Trial, answers to some commonly asked criminal law questions, and the latest Florida Man news.

Podcast Transcript

Jacob Rigney - It's Friday morning, not the afternoon because I have afternoon court an hour away from here. And we've locked the door, because it's the easiest way to keep the cheeseburger guy from delivering the cheeseburgers. Yummmm. Cheeseburgers. And also because it's time for another edition of our weekly podcast, Tales from the Brown Desk. I'm Jake Rigney of Rigney law LLC. With me as usual as my law partner, wife, and my future cause of death, Kassi Rigney, Teri Ulm is our host, topic selector, Florida Man monitor, and scream mail, email screener. Just leave that mistake in. It's fine. Everyone I love it. Friendly reminder, Tales from the Brown Desk is a free flowing conversation involving two foul mouthed attorneys. It may include graphic descriptions of sexual activity, violence, and the imaginary altercations between two Supreme Court justices fighting over the last benae at a tea party. Who writes this? Oh, I do. Shit. It may not be suitable for children, everyone else, no one else, our collective consciousness, or the invisible man that my dad told me was always watching me wherever I went back when I was a little kid. That is real and serious. My dad told me there was an invisible man in the room with me. It was not at all creepy. Listener discretion is advised. Here's Teri.

Teri Ulm - Hello, everyone. Hi, Jake. How are you this morning?

Jacob Rigney - I am no longer afraid of the invisible man that lives in my room with me, Teri. How are you?

Teri Ulm - I'm good. I'm glad you aren't afraid. We'd have to have a discussion about that.

Jacob Rigney - Nope. I'm good now.

Teri Ulm - Good. Hey, Kassi. How are you?

Kassi Rigney - Hi, Teri. I'm fine. Thank you.

Teri Ulm - Good. So last week, we talked about Operation Legend, stacking charges, and about a very important Indiana Supreme Court opinion that changed the controlling law in Indiana, when it comes to double jeopardy.

Jacob Rigney - Which I still haven't read.

Kassi Rigney - Did we? We didn't finish that discussion, though we talked about it, but.

Teri Ulm - Yeah, we talked about it.

Kassi Rigney - I think what we could concluded that when the issue comes up, we have some research to do.

Teri Ulm - Exactly.

Jacob Rigney - That's what a good lawyer would do, though.

Kassi Rigney - Exactly.

Jacob Rigney - Like if one of my clients called me up and said, hey, how's my case going? And I said, I don't know. I had to read a bunch of meaningless, not meaningless, but I had to read a bunch of Court of Appeals opinions that don't apply to your case. So sorry. I didn't have time to get to it. He'd be like, what the hell, man? And I'd be like, sorry, Chad.

Teri Ulm - Sorry.

Jacob Rigney - But that's no. We have we have work to do. Reading opinions is our job sometimes. It is not what we usually are getting paid to do.

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department's New Oversight Board with Civilians

Teri Ulm - Yes. So this week, we're going to talk about IMPD's new Oversight Board.

Jacob Rigney - Okay.

Teri Ulm - The "Trial Penalty" and the Sixth Amendment right to trial.

Jacob Rigney - The trial tax.

Teri Ulm - Yeah. And the answer some commonly asked criminal law questions.

Jacob Rigney - Okay.

Teri Ulm - So WishTV8 reports that the Indianapolis City-Council will overhaul IMPD's Oversight Board giving civilians greater control over police. The proposal creates a seven person General Orders Board to help write policing policies and rules for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. It will add four civilians to the current three law enforcement officers on the previous General Orders Committee.

Jacob Rigney - Right.

Teri Ulm - Now, the reason behind adding civilians is to provide accountability and other perspectives to IMPD policy. The mayor, the council, and the police chief, will each appoint two members to the civilian board, and the Fraternal Order of Police will appoint the final member. Supporters of the plan say it's an important step to hold officers accountable, while opponents worried that it will hurt police morale, and that the new plan will essentially strip the police chief of his authority over internal decisions. What do you think about this new plan?

Jacob Rigney - I think that it is a very positive development for the police department in general. I think that there are certain police officers and certain other people around law enforcement who will pitch a big fit about it and who will complain about it. But the truth is that good, hard working, reasonable police officers who simply want to keep people safe and do their job, are going to have no problem with a civilian oversight. It wouldn't matter who their boss was, right? It could be the mayor, it could be the police chief, it could be 73 civilians who look at things and try to decide, and it would be fine. Because most police officers are decent, normal folks trying to do a job who don't want to hurt people and they just want to protect and serve their community. This Oversight Board will have no impact on their job. Now, there are certain police officers who live in fear and who want to insulate themselves and pretend that there's this thin blue line between them and everyone else, and that no one else understands what their job is like no one else can support them. And those people will act scared. But what they really want to do or what they do, what their fear allows them to do, is create space, insulation and space for bad things to happen. And that's what the point of this is, to eliminate some of that space, eliminate some of the ability for bad police officers to do bad things, and get away with it. And it's not surprising after what we saw in Minnesota, and how many times that guy had been in trouble. And he was still out on the beat, still walking around, still allowed to arrest people.

Teri Ulm - And training people.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah, and training people. Absolutely. So it's not surprising that we're going to move to that. And it is probably not going to end there. But I think that that's a good step for the police department, and for most police officers, it won't matter.

Kassi Rigney - I agree. I think further additional transparency to the police departments is important and would help build confidence in what they do. My experience as a former prosecutor, I felt like that those protections and secrecy allow bad things to happen allow in the name of where the good guys start bending the rules and pushing the law. And it was always my opinion that the prosecutor was supposed to be the check and balance there. And sometimes that's not happening. So it sounds like maybe we need to expand that realm of view.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah. Somewhere along the way, as a society, we kind of got okay with the idea of secret police. Right. Which is weird, because when when you just hear the word secret police, you think that's not something I want in my community. But the truth is, in this community, and in pretty much every community in the United States that has police officers, there is secrecy involved. They do things that they will fight to prevent from letting the public know. And I know this because Kassi and I worked with them for a long time. And sometimes we helped them keep those things secret. In particular, confidential witnesses and things like that. We helped them do that for a while. They will always want to keep some things secret. And that is secret policing. That is having secret police. When you think about it like that, whether you really want that or not, sometimes it causes you to sort of re examine how okay you are with the way we do these things. And I know that that was one of the reasons why my mind has changed over the last 10 or 15 years about how I feel about the police a little bit. Not about most of them. Most of them are like I said, hardworking people who just want to serve their community and perform their job. But there are some of them who believe in this Us v. Them insulated sheep dogs v. the wolves world where they're good, and everyone else is bad. And you know, that's a real bad thing.

The "Trial Penalty" and the Sixth Amendment Right to Trial

Teri Ulm - It is. So now we're gonna move on to our next topic, and that is the Sixth Amendment right to trial and the trial penalty. In 2018, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers published a report titled: "The Trial Penalty, the Sixth Amendment Right to Trial on the Verge of Extinction, and How to Save it". The report examines specific cases data and statistics to explain the decline in the criminal trial and the steady rise in plea deals. The report found that over the last 50 years, defendants choose trial in less than 3% of state and federal criminal cases. Compared to 30 years ago, when 20% of those arrested chose trial. The remaining 97% of the cases were resolved through plea deals. With 97% of criminal cases being resolved by plea in a constitutional system predicated upon the Sixth Amendment right to trial, the fact of imbalance and injustice in the system is self evident. Guilty pleas have replaced trials for a very simple reason. Individuals who choose to exercise their Sixth Amendment right to trial face higher sentences if they invoke the right to trial and lose. The trial penalty is now so severe and pervasive that it has virtually eliminated the constitutional right to trial. To avoid the penalty, accused people must render their fundamental rights, which are essential to a fair justice system. The report's solutions, they have many recommendations. Which include providing defendants with full discovery, scrutinizing plea bargains, and repealing mandatory minimum sentences. What are your thoughts on this report and the recommendations?

Kassi Rigney - My initial reaction, seems to presume that all pleas are bad, and that somehow pleas, giving up your right to discovery, as a practical standpoint, that's something I do before I would even begin negotiating. So the the point the that it's indicating that defendants are not getting discovery, I take issue to that. I know that there are problems, but I'm not sure you get it right.

Jacob Rigney - It hasn't been our experience that typically on a lot of cases we are making decisions about plea agreements before discovery, unless a client comes to us and says, hey, I'm guilty. Let's just get this worked out. And that happens sometimes. But more often than not, what I tell people at the start of my consultations with them is, let's get a look at the discovery and see whether they've got a good case against you, a bad case against you, or something else, and then we'll figure out what we want to do next. We don't have experience in every jurisdiction. And maybe we work with better prosecutors than normal, than average, I don't know. But discovery or lack thereof is not typically a problem for us on a large scale.

Repealing Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Teri Ulm - What about the recommendation of repealing the mandatory minimum?

Kassi Rigney - It's one of those things that there's anecdotal problems with minimums and without minimums. It's tough. And, as an attorney, I know each cases, when it gets in front of court, in front of the judge, handled by competent attorneys, that issue is vetted, and it's judged, according to the law, and based on its facts and evidence available in that case. Now within the law, we can argue within that, but we trust the process. And they're good, and they're bad, and further evaluation could be justified. But I don't think that just a hard line across the board is the right answer.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah. For those who aren't familiar with what mandatory minimum means, there are certain crimes in certain jurisdictions where you are required to receive a prison sentence. You cannot receive a suspended sentence. A certain portion of your sentence must be served in prison. They changed it, but back before they changed it in Indiana, for example, armed robbery carried a mandatory minimum sentence of six years in prison. If you were good while you're in prison, you'd get out in three. Now you got credit for time served too, so the time you sat in jail while you were waiting counted, but still a mandatory minimum prison sentence. Mandatory minimums bring up sort of an interesting office, philosophical problem that I dealt with when I was a supervisor at the prosecutor's office a little bit too. When you have somebody who makes a mistake, or breaks a rule, or does something stupid, even if it's not a rule? What do you do in response? Do you make an office wide rule? Or do you just sanction the person that offended in a way that makes sense, right? Pretend what they did was, here's the classic, they cooked fish in the microwave. Right? In the office, you got the guy who cooks fish in the microwave, right? For those of you who've never smelled what fish smells like when you cook it in the microwave, it's wildly disgusting. It is terrible. It smells like dead fish, basically. And it travels too. The smell travels it. It's not like just around the microwave. Within a minute, it's 40 feet down the hall into people's offices. So you've got the guy in your office who cooks fish in the microwave, right? What do you do? You can either make a rule, no one cooks fish in the microwave, period. And then you start trying to figure out, well are crab fish? Are snails fish? Then you got to figure out all sorts of other more complicated questions that apply to that rule. Or do you just tell Steve, hey, like don't cook your fish in the microwave. Chad. Sorry. Tell Chad don't cook fish in the microwave. Right? And then if Chad does it again, maybe he gets a worse sanction. This same sort of problem applies to criminal cases, right? Do you punish everyone? Do you make a rule that punishes everyone the same, or do you just deal with the person as they come to you? And what the legislature had done for a long time was they just created rule for the whole office, right? They just said, no one cooks fish in the office and you get fired if you do. Although it was no one should commit armed robbery, if you do you go to prison. There's been quite a movement to pull back on mandatory minimums and simply deal with cases on a case by case basis. But as Kassi points out, that also has drawbacks. Because, for example, when you don't have mandatory minimums, a person like Brock Turner in Ohio doesn't get prison time for raping a girl. That was a situation where he didn't have a mandatory minimum, and the judge decided the white college swimmer from Stanford deserved to not go to prison despite doing some pretty dreadful things to a girl. So that's the downside to mandatory minimums. How we sort those issues out is one of the most difficult questions that legislators deal with when they're dealing with criminal law. And I don't think there's a good answer, but it always depends on the case. Because as soon as you make mandatory minimums, there will be a defendant out there who you think well, that guy really probably shouldn't go to prison for that.

Kassi Rigney - Are reheating fish sticks cooking fish?

Jacob Rigney - Right. Because they're like fish sticks that are just made to be cooked in the microwave. I don't know.

Kassi Rigney - I shouldn't get the same problem as Chad.

Jacob Rigney - Now you get fired, just like Chad.

Kassi Rigney - But they were fish sticks!

Is Waiving the Right to Trial Considered a Mitigator at Sentencing?

Teri Ulm - So in past episodes, we've touched on a little bit about mitigators and aggravators, that a judge would consider at sentencing. I walked away from one of the episodes thinking that if a defendant waived their right to a jury trial, it was considered a mitigator at sentencing. Because trials cost a lot of money, they take up a lot of time. So the person was kind of given credit for not taking up that time. Is that right? Is waiving the right to a jury trial, or even a bench trial, a mitigator at sentencing?

Jacob Rigney - No. By the statute, waiving your right to a trial is not a mitigator. Accepting responsibility for your actions is and typically they go hand in hand as part of a plea agreement. But the statute also says you can argue pretty much anything you want is an aggravator, or mitigator. And it's up to the judge to decide. So you can defense attorneys do argue sometimes that if a defendant waived jury trial and had a bench trial instead, then they saved the state time and money, and that that deserves some mitigation. And I think that that argument is sometimes accepted by judges, although I don't think that you will ever go to court and hear a judge say that. You will also never go to court and hear a judge say I'm giving you a worst sense because you went to jury trial. Because they're not allowed to do that. Although in practice, my belief is (and people can disagree with me and judges can deny it, and that's fine), my belief is that people do receive harsher sentences for going to jury trial, even though a judge will never say that on the record.

What Constitutional Rights Would I Waive by Pleading Guilty?

Teri Ulm - Now we're gonna move on to some commonly asked criminal law questions. And the first question is, what constitutional rights would I waive by pleading guilty?

Kassi Rigney - Generally there's a whole page of those. Your right to trial, right to be proven guilty, right to remain silent, right to confront and cross examine witnesses, right to have the court assist you in compelling witnesses on your behalf and producing evidence.

Jacob Rigney - And the right to appeal.

Kassi Rigney - Hey.

Teri Ulm - Nice.

Jacob Rigney - We give this speech... We tell people about those rights a lot.

Teri Ulm - Probably. I mean you're criminal defense attorneys.

Kassi Rigney - Well, now I'm disappointed myself that I forgot to appeal.

Jacob Rigney - It's okay. Kassi. I forget one of them sometimes, too. That's why they're written down in a plea agreement. So we never have to figure out whether or not we told them later. In fact, usually they have little blanks for initials next to them. And you have the defendant initial just to prove he read them all. He knows that he's waving them.

Teri Ulm - Now, if someone plead guilty, even though they weren't, is there anyway they can fix that later on?

Kassi Rigney - Not through that. Not by coming back and saying that they lied in their guilty plea. There may be other avenues to attack the conviction.

Jacob Rigney - It depends on what they plead guilty to and how they plead guilty to it. In Indiana, and probably in just about every place in the country, you do not just stand up and say: I plead guilty and then you get sentenced. Typically the judge will require some type of summary of the evidence. Which the defendant then has to waive his right to remain silent and admit to happening. Now, in certain places, there are no contest, pleas, which are a little bit different. But they don't have that in Indiana. And in Indiana, every defendant essentially has to admit that they committed the crime. Now, if there was some mistake with that presentation during the guilty plea and sentencing hearing, that can cause a guilt, a conviction to get overturned in a post conviction relief proceeding, a PCR. So the normal way, I shouldn't say the normal way, but the most common way I've seen that judges do this in guilty plea and sentencing hearings, is they have the state summarize their evidence, and then they asked the defendant whether that's what happened or not. So if there was some error in what the state said, if they left one of the elements of the crime completely out, by the way, then the defendant never actually plead guilty because he never admitted to a crime. And that could cause it to get overturned. But assuming all that went correctly, it is very difficult to get out of a guilty plea. Although it is possible through a PCR proceeding. And there are a multitude of different ways you can try to do that. Most of them do not work. It is pretty rare that that happens. But it has happened before and it will happen again.

Can a Defendant in a Criminal Case Change Their Lawyer in the Middle of the Case?

Teri Ulm - Now, can a defendant in a criminal case, change their lawyer in the middle of the case, at the beginning? Can they change their lawyer? Can they get a different one?

Kassi Rigney - Certainly. They can change their lawyer. Now, they can pick what public defender they get assigned. Generally, the agency gets assigned, and then they dole out what attorneys. But if they have the money to hire somebody, they can hire somebody almost at any time in the case. It wouldn't really be advisable to swap out in the middle of a trial. But I want to say I had actually seen that happen as a young prosecutor. That somebody hired somebody in the last minute to sit at that trial table. But you can hire somebody whenever you want. The question is, how much time is the court gonna give that person? The trouble can be if you try to hire someone new, like on the morning of trial, and that person's going to try and continue the trial. If that is perceived as a delay tactic on part of the defendant, you could potentially be denied, or at least denied the continuance, maybe.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah, that can happen. There are a couple of judges in Marion County in particular, who will get very annoyed if a private defense attorney enters their appearance right before the trial and then asks for a continuance. And oftentimes, they will not grant the continuance and say, it's going to trial. Get ready. You knew it was set for trial when you entered your appearance. So get ready.

Should a Guilty Defendant Tell Their Lawyer the Truth?

Teri Ulm - Should a guilty defendant in a criminal case, spill their beans to their lawyer? Tell the lawyer the truth?

Kassi Rigney - Guilty or innocent, if you hire an attorney, you're going to get the best advice by being honest. So you should. Your attorney is in their best place to help you if you tell them everything. And you have the confidentiality, there's no reason not to. In my opinion, you're only harming yourself and your defense by denying your representative all of the information.

Jacob Rigney - That can be kind of a tricky situation, right? Because I think that some defendants feel like if they admit they committed a crime, their attorney won't work as hard to help them. And I can see their point. I can imagine that there are some attorneys who that is the case with. They think well, he's guilty anyway. I've got other things I need to work on. At the same time, an attorney is generally only as good as the information that they're given. If you give them bad information, then you're probably you're a lot more likely to get a bad result. Because if they don't know everything that you can tell them then they can't anticipate the problems that that information can present. And as a as a defense attorney, if I believe my client has a defense, or if I know... When I know exactly what happened, not only do I know where to look, I know where not to look. Because if I know I'm going to focus on one element of the state's case that is weaker or maybe problematic, and I know that the other areas are strong, I don't look into those strong areas. Because all I'm going to find is more evidence for the state. And I don't want to do that, because that hurts my client. So when I have all the information, I know where to look but also where not to look. And that's sometimes just as important.

Florida Man - Brought to you by the U.S. Constitution

Teri Ulm - Now we are going to cut to a short commercial break and when we come back, we will bring you the latest Florida Man news.

Kassi Rigney - Today's update on Florida Man is brought to you by the United States Constitution. Remember that old dusty thing? You know, it's the document that everyone in your Facebook feed is an expert on. Despite the fact they've never read a word of it.

Jacob Rigney - Commerce clause! Article three! I don't know what any of that shit means. I will quote the shit out of them meaningless preamble just as long as it tells me the same thing my pastor said last Sunday. And if you quote some other part of it that contradicts me, well, you should spend some time reading Hunter Biden's emails so you can get the real story.

Kassi Rigney - Thank you for reminding me why I put a personal one hour limit on my social media, Cletis.

Jacob Rigney - You are very welcome.

Florida Pedestrian Hit and Killed, When Deputies Respond, They Hit the Pedestrian Too

Teri Ulm - News Channel 8 in Florida reports that pedestrian Florida Man was struck and killed by a car. When two Florida deputies responded to the crash, both in separate cars, they each hit the body still laying in the road.

Jacob Rigney - Oh. I mean, I feel bad, but I assume that he didn't suffer.

Kassi Rigney - Well, and it makes me think that maybe he was in a really bad place. I mean, like clearly people were not seeing him there.

Jacob Rigney - I think maybe that intersection needs some more lighting.

Teri Ulm - Definitely.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah.

Teri Ulm - Now in situations like this, when a vehicle hits a pedestrian and kills them, is that a crime?

Jacob Rigney - Well, it can be. Yeah. It depends on... Mainly it depends on their state of mind. So if you intend to, or knowingly run someone over, that can be (and it kills them) that can be murder. Absolutely. If you do it in a sudden rage, you're probably talking about voluntary manslaughter.

Kassi Rigney - Well, remember, we've previously discussed about vacationing in a recreational marijuana state and returning to your home state of Indiana. You can be driving around, speed limit, seat belt, watching the road, person steps out in front of you, and you hit and killed them. You may have done nothing wrong, but your blood will be taken because you were involved in a serious bodily injury. And if you test with metabolites, they will charge you for that as a crime.

Jacob Rigney - So if they're doing their job, they will, in Kassi's explanation, they will only charge you with operating with a metabolite in your blood. Not operating with a metabolite in your blood, causing death. But if you did anything wrong while you were driving with that metabolite, then you might get charged with with causing death. You can also get charged with reckless homicide. If you're driving just crazy. If you're going 30 or 40 miles an hour over the speed limit and you run over somebody in a in an intersection, you can get charged with reckless homicide in that situation. Then there's the criminal recklessness statute, which has like seven different levels and you can potentially get charged with any one of them. So there are a lot of different ways you can get charged in car crashes beyond sort of the obvious OWI situations. Even if you're sober. If you're going 30 or 40 or 50 miles an hour over the limit, and you kill somebody, you're probably going to get charged with a pretty serious offense.

Florida Men Duo Named Dumbest Thieves of the Week - Leaves Wallet With ID at Scene

Teri Ulm - CBS 12 in Florida reports a Florida Men, Florida Men duo, are named the dumbest thieves of the week. Two Florida Men earned this distinction because the Marion County Sheriff's Office in Florida had little trouble arresting them after a string of burglaries and thefts. According to investigators the two Florida Men were breaking in the stores, stealing cigarettes and lottery tickets.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah. What else would you steal if you're a Florida Man?

Kassi Rigney - Got to get those scratchers.

Teri Ulm - The two Florida Men left a few things behind during their crime spree.

Jacob Rigney - Their IDs.

Teri Ulm - Like a shoe and tools, and one Florida Man he left his wallet with his driver's license.

Jacob Rigney - Yeah. I saw that one coming.

Teri Ulm - Yep. So, deputies went to his home, and knocked on the door, and Florida Man confessed to at all.

Jacob Rigney - Then he confessed. So in case anyone was wondering, admitting that you committed crimes to the police is usually not a good idea. It often does not help you. If you are going to do it, make sure you talk to a lawyer first and potentially the lawyers there with you.

Florida Woman Blames a Windy Day for Blowing Cocaine into her Purse

Teri Ulm - Boldie reports that Florida Woman blames a windy day for blowing cocaine into her purse.

Kassi Rigney - I like it. I like it. It's an improvement from the not my pants defense.

Jacob Rigney - Force of nature defense.

Teri Ulm - Yeah, Florida Woman was arrested for cocaine possession and she claimed that the wind blew that illegal drug into her purse. Florida Woman was in a car with another person in the vehicle when it was stopped. And according to local 10 News, Florida Woman's car was stopped because it was swerving. As soon as the officer approached the vehicle, there was a strong smell of marijuana in the air. The purse on Florida Woman's lap have the goods a separate bag of marijuana and cocaine. Florida Woman fessed up to the marijuana pretty quickly. However, the cocaine she tried her hardest to pass the buck to the wind,

Jacob Rigney - Right. So she couldn't say that the purse wasn't hers after she admitted that the marijuana was hers. So then she was... And by the way, how awesome would Florida be if there was just cocaine in the wind? Just take a deep breath in through your nose. And you're hooked.

Florida Man Board Game!

Teri Ulm - Yeah, the officer didn't buy Florida Woman's story, and she was arrested on one count of cocaine possession in a misdemeanor count of marijuana possession. One last little tidbit on Florida Man. Did you know that there is a board game?

Jacob Rigney - Oh. There's a Florida Man board game?

Teri Ulm - There's a Florida Man board game. Previews World has a Florida Man board game. The Gator Gazette, Florida Man which features headlines that the players have to guess if they are true or false. This game is for sale online for 20 bucks.

Jacob Rigney - Oh, we should probably order it. Play it next week. I'll tell you what, everybody send Teri an email. If you want us to play Florida Man on our... the Florida Man headline game on the podcast next week. And if you don't, just don't send her an email. If we get... What's our record for emails? Is it two

Teri Ulm - We've had more than two.

Kassi Rigney - In a week.

Teri Ulm - Oh. Probably two.

Jacob Rigney - Two and a week. So we get...

Kassi Rigney - Not historically.

Jacob Rigney - If we get three emails this week, saying we should play the Florida Man board game, I'll buy it. It's a business expense. And we'll play it on the air, the week after.

Teri Ulm - The board's really cute. It's shaped like Florida.

Jacob Rigney - Florida is not shaped cute. What are you talking about?

Kassi Rigney - You know, it's like the limp dick of the country.

Jacob Rigney - Teri clearly never thought of that, because she is now mortified.

Kassi Rigney  - It seemed obvious when I look at the map.

Teri Ulm - I'm just picturing Florida now. And I'll never look at it the same. Ever.

Kassi Rigney - It just kind of hangs out there.

Jacob Rigney - Is that all the time we have for this week? Teri is silently laughing. You can laugh out loud, Teri. It's supposed to be funny.

Teri Ulm - I'm laughing so hard, I can't laugh out loud. Poor Florida. It's not cute anymore. And that is all the time we have for the day.

Jacob Rigney - All right. Thanks, Teri. And thank you for listening to Tales from the Brown Desk. Please remember while we may discuss legal issues and provide information regarding the law to our listeners, we do not intend to create an attorney client relationship with any listener. Our advice may not be applicable to some legal issues. Please consult with an attorney you've hired to review your legal situation before you attempt to apply the things we have said dear case. Tales from the Brown Desk is produced by Rigney Law and edited by Teri Ulm. If you want to ask a listener question email Teri at [email protected], and entitle your email: "Podcast question" and we'll read it on our next podcast. If you want us to play the Florida Man board game, email Teri about that too. Same email address. Give us new content. Please. Email us with stuff. Questions. Buzzsprout says this podcast will get 26 downloads. That's an 8% increase over last week. Banging, yo.

Kassi Rigney - How did they project 8% increase?

Jacob Rigney - No. I just did the math. We went from 24 to 26. That's 8% increase.

Kassi Rigney - Do we have new listeners?

Jacob Rigney - Apparently. Yeah. Our last podcast, the newest far away listener is in Lake Stevens, Washington. Which is a northern Seattle suburb. Probably family members of mine is my guess. Distant family or not distant. I don't know. But family, probably my mom's cousins is my guess. That's the only reason I can imagine somebody from Seattle or any rational human being, for that matter would listen to this podcast. Thankfully for us, there are plenty of irrational people out there. The attorneys at Rigney Law do not comment in on their current pending cases. Nothing we've said in this podcast is a comment on a case we're currently working on even if your name is Chad, or if you worship a document that says black people are only three fifths of a person. Take it easy, everybody.