Posted by Orin Kerr:
Man Arrested for Calling 911 Over Botched McDonald's Order:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_24-2009_05_30.shtml#1243572295
An [1]Oregon man named Raibin Raof Osman was arrested and charged with
a misdmeanor for calling 911 to get the police to resolve a dispute
over a botched fast food order. Osman ordered food, took it home, and
then concluded when he was home that the order was wrong (including
missing some orange juice, apparently). So he went back to the
McDonald's with his receipt, but the manager said that the order was
given correctly. Osman refused to leave without his orange juice, and
the manager threatened to call the police. Osman said to go ahead.
When the police didn't arrive, Osman called 911 and asked for police
assistance. Osman apparently did not misrepresent his identity or
describe his situation inaccurately: He just thought it was ok to use
911 to get the police to come and get them to resolve the problem. You
can listen to the 911 call [2]here.
The 911 operator dispatched the police, and when the police arrived,
they explained that it was wrong to call 911 over a dispute like that.
Osman didn't see the problem. The police then arrested Osman for
improper use of 911, a misdmeanor. The statute, O.R.S. §
165.570(1)(a), states:
A person commits the crime of improper use of an emergency
reporting system if the person knowingly . . calls a 9-1-1
emergency reporting system . . . for a purpose other than to report
a situation that the person reasonably believes requires prompt
service in order to preserve human life or property.
What do you think -- should the charges stick?
If you're curious, there has been only one Oregon case interpreting
the statute. In In re Strickland, 339 Or. 595, 124 P.3d 1225 (Or.
2005), bar disciplinary proceedings were brought against an attorney
who had made a bogus 911 call as part of a broader fraud scheme. The
lawyer had been charged and convicted of violating § 165.570(1)(a),
and the Supreme Court of Oregon was considering the consequences of
his conviction for whether he had committed professional misconduct.
The court commented:
A criminal defendant acts �knowingly� when he �acts with an
awareness that [his conduct] is of a nature so described or that a
circumstance so described exists.� ORS 161.085(8). In other words,
the accused's conviction demonstrates, at a minimum, that the
accused understood that he was using the 9-1-1 system to report
activities that he did not reasonably believe required prompt
emergency service �in order to preserve life or property.� ORS
165.570(1).
Given the facts as stated above, has Osman violated the statute?
References
1.
http://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2009/05/aloha_man_calls_911_over_botch.html
2.
http://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2009/05/aloha_man_calls_911_over_botch.html
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
