Blog

Former Prisoner Arrested in “I Just Got Out of Prison” T-Shirt May Be Going Back

It may appear simple on its face, but this occurred in Florida, so you can’t simply assume it’s true.
Sources disclose that a man in Florida is “back in prison” following an event on December Entering an unlocked vehicle isn’t a crime unless you are not the owner (though I suppose you may be able to think of a way to do it illegally), and the report doesn’t say why the witnesses believed a crime was taking place. Of course, the witnesses may have included the car’s owner, or even friends of the car’s owner who didn’t recognize the man entering the car.

Or they may have noticed that he was wearing a T-shirt that read “I JUST GOT OUT OF PRISON.”
That’s not a crime, of course, nor is it an admission that the person wearing the shirt has ever been found guilty of any crime. It could be a joke shirt, like the one above that I created on a website dedicated to custom T-shirts. A person may purchase such a shirt after visiting Alcatraz, for example, a prison that for some reason San Francisco, of all places, preserves as one of its most prominent landmarks. New York has the Statue of Liberty in its port, and San Francisco has a prison. Okay! If a buyer were to purchase such an item, they would infer that a person who has just exited a prison is very unlikely to wear a shirt in public, and so the shirt’s wearer is most likely not, as the shirt suggests, a criminal but instead a funny person. Alternatively, the humor might derive from the idea that someone who has completed a prison sentence is unlikely to wear a shirt in public, and so the shirt’s wearer is most likely not, as its name suggests, a criminal. The right to put on t-shirts of that kind is guaranteed by the First Amendment. It’s preferable to say no (or that you should not accept the drink offered to you) than to say yes (or that you should accept the beverage that is being offered to you). It might give people the wrong impression.

In the same way as we discussed previously, wearing a t-shirt that says “What’s Mine is Mine, What’s Yours is Mine” is not a criminal violation, but it’s best not to wear it while you are walking through someone else’s house. To see “Bad Shirt for a Burglary” (Mar) On 26, 2012). At the time that this shirt could be considered evidence, not because it tends to demonstrate that the wearer regards other people’s property to be his own (it doesn’t), but because it would tend to show the burglar’s identity (if witnesses saw the burglar wearing it). On the other hand, there is a risk that a jury may incorrectly interpret the message on the shirt as an admission, so a judge might deem it unsuitable. (More recently, a bag created a similar controversy. The following text may be found: A backpack filled with drugs was purportedly discovered by the police in Fairview, NJ on Feb. 5, If you have stolen the shirt, on the other hand, then it might well be admissible evidence of the crime. See “Tips on Wearing the Clothes You Just Stole From Next Door” (May 25, 2012). The message itself would not be the issue.

Returning to the issue at hand here, the shirt-produced humor would have a different quality if the wearer had, in fact, just gotten out of prison, particularly if he was arrested while wearing a shirt saying so. Different, and in my opinion, better.
After being notified by the police, cops quickly found a man about two blocks away who was wearing tan shorts and a black t-shirt that read, “I JUST GOT OUT OF PRISON.” This matched the witnesses’ description, so cops suspected they had their guy.
Deputies tracked down the suspect about two blocks away and questioned him about the reported theft. According to their investigation, he failed to provide his identity and was detained. The following are the findings of an arrest report. Michael Gordon, 46, has been identified as the person responsible for obstruction. He continued to reject the accusations, yelling, “Call my lawyer!” The arrest notice states that he was apprehended and charged with obstruction by a person wearing a disguise. He was booked into the Pinellas County Jail.

I assume that this idiom will be on your upcoming Crim Law exam, so I advise that you use my usual disclaimer below.
The cops had probable cause to question this individual about the theft. They were suspicious that he was a member of the gang who broke into the home, and they wanted to detain him until they could do so. In Ohio, all that is required is “a reasonable amount of belief” in order to carry out a warrantless search. He was two blocks away and matched the description closely, therefore there was no issue there. Did they have probable cause to detain him for the supposed burglary? That’s less clear. Under Florida law, entering a building or “conveyance” is burglary if it is done “with the intent to commit an offense thereinâ ¦ Didn’t the guy intend to commit an offense there (like theft)? Don’t write “yes,” because it appears to me. I suspect the report indicates that the witnesses saw him take anything and that the police found him with things from the vehicle. It’s difficult to think of another explanation for why he might have gotten into another person’s vehicle, but please don’t write “yes, because I can’t seem to think of another reason” on your test. It’s not a crime to get into an unlocked car.

Well, it is, but it isn’t “burglary.” In Florida, it would be considered “trespass,” specifically “trespass in a structure or conveyance.” That’s a criminal activity if you “willfully” enter a conveyance without the owner’s permission. “Willfully” means “voluntarily, consciously, not accidentally,” and there’s no indication that he tripped and fell into the car, so it seems as if they would have had probable cause for his arrest for criminal trespass.
According to the report, the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office did not charge him with misdemeanor or felony. They charged him with the less serious offense of “obstruction by a concealed person,” as though it was a basic crime. Let us inquire further.
Florida does have the crime of “obstruction by a person in a mask or costume.” A criminal may be found guilty of this crime if he or she wore clothing that concealed their identity.

Whoever in any way conceals his or herself with the intention of obstructing the due execution of law, or with the purpose of intimidating, preventing, or harassing any officer shall be liable for a misdemeanor of the first degree.
But the report doesn’t say anything about a “disguise.” Nothing about a face mask, or a hood, or even a covering that said “I JUST GOT OUT OF PRISON.” Up over his face. What it says that he refused to identify himself and provide evidence. Refusing to self-identify is not a “disguise.” And you don’t have to take my word that it isn’t, because Florida courts have held at least six occasions that it isn’t. See, e.g., Hartley v. State, 372 So. 2d 1180 (1979) (Obfuscate means altering appearance, not giving a false name) If giving a false name isn’t “obstruction by disguise,” then giving no name is also not considered.
Even if the author of the arrest report, at the very least, seems perplexed, he needs to do more research and study more Law and Order, or to simply tell him about the Fourth Amendment. That will be faster.
It appears that they were on the verge of charging him for the serious crime of trespassing, yet they chose to file this ridiculous charge instead. I suspect they enjoy demanding that people identify themselves and that is the first thing that comes to mind, but that’s just me speculating.

The suspect here had not made it “just” out of prison-his report proclaims that he was released in March after spending a year in jail for something (it didn’t say what)-and it would be amusing if he had been apprehended while wearing an shirt that said “I HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD,” Come to think of it, there are numerous other possibilities as well. To prove an identity, relevant. Yes. Because it could exacerbate prejudice, no. It’s a good idea to wear it while committing a crime, but that’s about it.