voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... Hartley's Only Shot

As we wait for someone, anyone, to give us some hard facts about what really happened with John Hartley's arrest Thursday, let's assume for a minute that the incident was, as his political consultant says, an unfortunate misunderstanding.

If that's the case, what would the District 3 City Council candidate have to do to salvage his campaign from this, er, pit stop?

It's simple, he needs to start talking. Now. If he doesn't want to be a candidate anymore, fine. I don't care if he ever speaks about it. But if he wants to be a member of the City Council and this really was a "misunderstanding," he needs to shine light on what was misunderstood -- however embarrassing it is.

It seems obvious that he exposed himself, whether to urinate or do something more inappropriate in public. Or both. And yes, being in your car means being in public.

He's got to explain what he was doing. It has to make sense. This is a very accepting district in a relatively tolerant city, and I have no doubt that if he just had to go to the bathroom, found himself in a bit of a bind, nervous, there might be a way to understand it. And there is a way to understand how that process could look unfortunately like something very inappropriate.

OK, so say he does prove this was what happened. He explains it clearly. We all sympathize. He still was arrested for indecent exposure while campaigning for office. An arrest is an arrest. Rival candidates have a way of spinning those kinds of things rather negatively. For him to survive politically, Hartley's fellow candidates would need to agree that this should be a contest based on the issues. They would need to accept his explanation and ask their supporters to refrain from attacks easily generated from just the incident report. I also think this is possible.

Hartley, Stephen Whitburn, Todd Gloria, Robert E. Lee and Paul Broadway have a spirited and healthy fight ahead. The debates they are going to have will be good for the city. If Hartley really didn't do anything wrong, his rivals should make an effort to ensure he's part of the discussion -- to rise above easy attacks that can come from being arrested for something like this.

In other words, they should want to win with skill and strategy and appeal, not by unnecessary forfeit.

But let's be clear about this: We have no real idea what Hartley was doing. We will do our best to find out but it's a waste of effort in a way because Hartley already knows what he was doing. And if it was anything beyond dealing with a personal emergency that many of us might at least be able to imagine ourselves in, he is done. In that case, he'd have to simply apologize and deal with the consequences. Nobody who claims to care so much about public safety and clean neighborhoods could do anything other than that.

The nightmare scenario for the district city would be for Hartley to proclaim innocence but evade explanation. And then we'd have to wait for facts and myths to trickle out and continue the discussion days longer than the hours it deserves. The land-use, political and civic issues the candidates are set to debate spiritedly are important for us all to witness. To think the discussion could be infected by a prolonged discussion about whether this guy was urinating -- or worse -- is really upsetting.

-- SCOTT LEWIS

There will be a forum/debate among the District 3 City Council candidates at Christ United Presbyterian Church (1845 30th Street) on Monday, April 7, at 6:45 pm. Earlier this month, all candidates agreed to participate. The candidates will be asked questions concerning land use, growth, and development. There will be an open mic in the final segment, and attendees can direct questions or comments to any candidate.

Posted by D3 Resident | reply to this comment
March 31, 2008 7:10 am

I am incredulous at Scott Lewis' proposal that John Hartley "share" with us details about his recent arrest. Gandhi himself would have trouble getting out from under the kind of charge that Hartley faces. In some instances -- and this is one of them, I think -- less really IS more and silence can be golden. The best thing that can be said is what famous civil libertarian and campaign consultant Larry Remer already has admonished: a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Posted by Dazed and Confused | reply to this comment
March 31, 2008 9:43 am

It would seem so easy to explain away if Hartley was simply urinating in a cup to handle a personal emergency. Hartley isn't saying anthing yet. I have to wonder about the offended witnesses. Why didnt they and the SDPD just take Hartley's word and give him the benefit of the doubt? If something more offical "had" to happen, why not have the SDPD issue a warning ticket or a citation and let everybody move on from an ackward situation? I think I read that SDPD was on the scene for up to 3 hours. Wouldn't most guys have driven away after finishing whatever he was doing? Even after being taken to jail, why didnt somebody just release him on his own recognasense and not jail him overnight? Too many unanswered questions and I agree that Hartley needs to offer a complete explanation very soon.

Posted by J from 92115 | reply to this comment
March 31, 2008 11:28 am

An Arrest is an Arrest John Harley's Alleged Indecent Exposure Scott Lewis has touched a nerve with that comment. You don't need to be black, brown or yellow to be arrested unfairly. You just have to be different. My son had dreadlocks when he was a teenager, not common in white middle-class University City, and was arrested simply for that reason. For Lewis to cite an arrest as a problem regardless of whether it is justified makes me cringe. Get real Scott and try to get the police to tell their story instead of putting all the onus on Hartley to tell his.

Posted by Ian Trowbridge | reply to this comment
March 31, 2008 11:38 am

A few weeks ago, Hartley knocked on my door and asked if I had any concerns in the neighborhood (Univ. Heights). I told him I had already committed to another candidate, but that since he asked, I had noticed a huge spike in displaced transients and transient-related crimes.. open hard drug use, canyon dwellers roaming the neighborhood, and just that past Sunday some bum peeing on a streetlight post in full view at 9am. I think Hartley only heard the part about "already commited to another candidate" and then stopped listening. The irony.

Posted by Christopher | reply to this comment
March 31, 2008 12:15 pm

Ian, I'm sure your son appreciates you telling everyone he has a record. And your naivete shines blazingly through with the fact that you believed him when he told you, "Dad, they just arrested me because of my hair!" Exactly what penal code section is that?

Posted by D | reply to this comment
March 31, 2008 2:57 pm

Ian, from looking at the charges and incident report on the VOSD site, Hartley was arrested by a private citizen not SDPD. He was charged with a misdemeanor for indecent exposure, as well as other charges which would have been listed on page 2 of the arrest report. It also appears that photos were taken at the scene, evidence was impounded and statements would be required from the person who arrested Hartley. It takes a lot if time to conduct a proper investigation. As to your son being arrested, you don't get arrested for having a certain hair style. You either have probable cause for an arrest or the officer can look forward to an eventual bad day in federal court.

Posted by J.T.J | reply to this comment
March 31, 2008 3:50 pm

In America a person arrested is innocent until proven guilty. In the press and most peoples minds the person is guilty until proven innocent. Sad but true. The police when pressed by the press for details of an arrest will at times give the basics. Seldom if ever in the event of a misdemeanor. The arrested person need not be tried in the press. I know, Hartley is a "public figure" because he is seeking election. So, everyone has a "right" to know everything about him and every event he is associated with. No wonder we can't find "normal" people to run for elected office. Hey Ian; what was the "charge" when your son was arrested? There is no Penal or Vehicle Code section for dreadlocks. Care to share the bookable charge? What was the outcome? The truth will set you free. John Hartley; this applies to you also.

Posted by Sparky | reply to this comment
March 31, 2008 5:58 pm

I suspect that John has actually visited a majority of doors in the district. It is not unbelievable or incredible that the man could get stuck out in a neighborhood with the need but not the civilized means to pee. This seems to happen to me on a weekly basis on the golf course...luckily that course is littered with semi private oak trees. If this is the case, I agree with Scott that John needs to come out and tell us. The district is forgiving.

Posted by RBurgundy | reply to this comment
April 1, 2008 7:17 am

You might say Hartley only answered the call of nature, but if he has no more common sense or better judgement than to whip it out in public on a city street, is that who you need making decisions re the City of San Diego and/or his district? This isn't a case of taking a whiz in the woods while hiking.

Posted by Jean | reply to this comment
April 1, 2008 7:18 am

Jean: Urinating into a cup in a closed truck cab is not the same thing as "whipping it out in public on a city street". Get a grip, unless your real goal is to help with the political hit job being done on Hartley. Are you actively supporting Todd Gloria or Whitburn? If so, let the readers know.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
April 1, 2008 10:51 am

4. Ian Trowbridge wrote on March 31, 2008 12:38 PM: "An Arrest is an Arrest John Harley's Alleged Indecent Exposure Scott Lewis has touched a nerve with that comment...... This is VERY true. The fact is the police falsely arrest people every single day all across America. There is no probable cause at all, just a bad decision by a cop that has very low levels of education and even less knowledge of criminal law and procedure. If you want to challenge a false arrest you must file a federal civil rights lawsuit and spend 10's of thousands, and in some cases hundreds of thousands (and even millions) of dollars. An areest MEANS NOTHING. Any cop can arrest ANYONE for no reason-it would be upon the arrestee to prove otherwise, and for 99.9% of the population that is impossible.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
April 1, 2008 3:11 pm

7. J.T.J wrote on March 31, 2008 4:50 PM: .... As to your son being arrested, you don't get arrested for having a certain hair style. You either have probable cause for an arrest or the officer can look forward to an eventual bad day in federal court....Great, we have yet another uneducated cop telling everyone about "federal court". Hey JTJ, when was the last time YOU WERE IN FEDERAL COURT???? Police make arrests without probable cause every single day in every jurisdiction in America.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
April 1, 2008 3:16 pm

BBH; your generalizations and exaggerations are pathetic. FIRST; Police Officers are required by law (penal code) to take custody of a citizens arrest for a crime not committed in his/her presence; Based on the information from the citizen making the arrest; If it "appears" a crime was committed and the citizen requests/demands an arrest be made; The Officer has little choice but to arrest. Failure to do so would subject the officer to criminal charges. SECOND; "false arrest?" How do you know? How can anyone make that judgement without being there, reading the reports or hearing the evidence? The courts will make that decision after hearing ALL the evidence. Who are you kidding when you say it could cost millions to file a false arrest challenge in Federal Court? Give us a break BBH.

Posted by Sparky | reply to this comment
April 1, 2008 7:16 pm

BBH, To answer your question, I was last in federal court in 2002. During my career, I appeared in federal court for matters related to counterfeiting, narcotic, and weapons violations. If you are as bright as you claim, I am sure you know why certain matters are prosecuted in federal court instead of state court. Matters like the willful use of excessive force and other acts of misconduct (false arrest etc.)by police can land you in federal court as a defendant. As to being uneducated, at least I can spell ARREST. Time for this welfare queen to have a nap! Sweet dreams BBH, I'll be dreaming about DROP tonight.

Posted by J.T.J | reply to this comment
April 1, 2008 8:48 pm

What is more likely, the complaining citizens are liars, mistaken about what they saw, or actually saw Hartley urinating and then masterbating in his car? What is provided here at VoSD tells us very, very little. What we do know is that he was engaging in this activity at about 4:00 in the afternoon, on a Thursday, one block from an elementary school in the residential area of Kensington. There is a Starbucks, a gas station, and several other places to urinate within 3-4 blocks of where he was "peeing in a cup". Seriously, the "peeing" excuse is the oldest in the book for these crimes. Furthermore, people really don't like reporting these crimes, but do so out of a sense of community responsibility. Oh, did I mention the elementary school within sight of Hartly? Put it together, and think for a moment. The guy's done.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
April 2, 2008 8:39 am

Giving Wil Carless credit, he did provide the fact that a DNA sample was taken from Hartley, as was a T-shirt Hartley used to cover himself. Golly Gee, I just wonder what could be on that shirt that they could compare DNA to...hmmmm. I suggest to Wil that he call back his sources now and ask what the lab says is on the shirt. Too soon for DNA comparison, but, the lab already knows what is, or isn't, on the shirt..if you know what I mean. (I have no clue, but I know for certain the lab already knows what's on the shirt). Ask!

Posted by D | reply to this comment
April 2, 2008 12:40 pm

14. Sparky wrote on April 1, 2008 8:16 PM: "BBH; your generalizations and exaggerations are pathetic. FIRST; Police Officers are required by law (penal code) to take custody of a citizens arrest for a crime not committed in his/her presence; Based on the information from the citizen making the arrest; If it "appears" a crime was committed and the citizen requests/demands an arrest be made; The Officer has little choice but to arrest. .... See, Sparky, you are Exhibit A when it comes to why PD should REQUIRE a 4 year college degree. You have no idea of what the law is. ANY COP CAN CITE RELEASE A "PRIVATE PERSON" ARREST. BTW-It is NOT a "Citizens Arrest", you do not have to be a citizen to make an arrest.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
April 2, 2008 3:25 pm

15. J.T.J wrote on April 1, 2008 9:48 PM: .......at least I can spell ARREST. Time for this welfare queen to have a nap! Sweet dreams BBH, I'll be dreaming about DROP tonight......!!.... LOL... someone tell me how to download fire fox....I need that spell checker ASAP!

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
April 2, 2008 3:27 pm

What is it with certain voice bloggers? The topic goes out the window; dead horses are flogged; mean genes are all over the place; craziness reigns. Knock it off already!

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
April 2, 2008 7:12 pm

This is very uninteresting to me. Whether or not he is running for Council, Hartley doesn't have to say a word. Let justice run it's course. He doesn't have to answer to reporters...just to the justice system. Whether or not he has a good explanation, the damage is done. Don't see him being elected. So, hey! What's happening with the other candidates? Let's move on.

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
April 2, 2008 7:23 pm

BBH; it's all semantics.... 849b PC; an arrest/cite release whatever you want to call it.... all the same... the individual is under arrest; must go to county jail and be fingerprinted prior to court if cited and released... what's your point? The officer has no choice but to act or face trouble himself (142PC)(837PC) The reason a person is placed in jail over a cite/release is based on the type of crime and the likelihood it will continue and several other reasons... a person who is suspected of masturbating does not fit the cite and release policy... It is commonly referred to as a "Citizen's Arrest" bonehead... Split hairs since you don't have an argument. Ann is correct... Who really cares? The officers did their job as prescribed by law and policy in a professional manner regardless of what BBH says.

Posted by Sparky | reply to this comment
April 2, 2008 10:40 pm

What is more likely Rock On? That a respected former city councilman who spends endless hours campaigning for neighborhoods and various local causes in and around Kensington would destroy his political career and shame himself in the community he loves by masturbating publicly or that same individual was caught with a bladder problem a bit too far from a bathroom. I know John through my own advocacy work and am a Kensington resident and I am just saying that the idea that the man was engaging in lude behavior is far fetched. The point of this article though is that he has to make a decision on whether he is still running and if he is he's gotta say something if he wants to have a chance of winning - a chance that, admittedly, now seems similarly far fetched.

Posted by RBurgundy | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 8:20 am

RBurgandy, respectfully, your post is naive. How often do you hear people commenting on the arrest of a rapist, peeping tom, child molester, etc., say "Oh yeah, doesn't surprise me. Does it all the time." It may seem far fetched, even crazy. But, in actuality, seemingly straight and narrow people do it every day. Did he do it? I dunno. I think he did, but that's my opinion. Every day that goes by without an explanation reinforces that opinion.

Posted by D | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 9:16 am

D, I repsect your opinion, though I gotta ask if you live in Kensington. I was really just speaking to Rock On's assertion that it was MORE likely that he was doing something crazy. Out of the ordinary stuff is, by definition, not ordinary and less likely. As a Kensington resident, I have to tell you that it is VERY likely that this is an over zealous nosey neighbor blowing the situation out of proportion. I think it is unfair and irresponsible, however, to liken this situation to the heinous crimes you listed above. I obviously am thinking he didnt do anything lude, but I'll wait to see what happens.

Posted by RBurgundy | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 10:52 am

I think the alleged crime is heinous. Only a misdemeanor, granted, but it is a predatory offense. IF he did it. If the T-shirt comes back with DNA from something other than sweat or urine, then we'll know the answer for sure.

Posted by D | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 11:31 am

RBurgundy, I understand your inclination to think a man you know would not engage in this behavior, or would have too much to lose by doing so. But the report by two citizens was that Hartley was urinating AND masterbating. These are genuinely distinct actions which the witnesses specifically separated. When you've reviewed dozens and dozens of police reports involving these kinds of allegations, talk to the witnesses about what they saw, and hear the typical "urination" excuses made by the accused, it all just becomes very cliche. Hartley's response about his bladder issues may be true, but is still cliche. You'd be surprised at the people who've committed these types of acts, and I see no reason to immediately exclude Hartley. You're right, I'm not personally familiar with the guy - but I am familiar with these kinds of cases, and my experience says he's probably guilty.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 12:40 pm

As for Will Carless not getting the police report from Aguirre, well, I have to agree with Aguirre on this one. This is an open case and the police report itself really isn't admissble evidence. Releasing it could very well taint a future jury pool, so Aguirre should not release the report - letting the case play itself out where it should - in a court of law. I understand the public's desire to know what the witnesses said, etc. But it just would not be appropriate.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 12:55 pm

23. Sparky wrote on April 2, 2008 11:40 PM: "BBH; it's all semantics.... 849b PC; an arrest/cite release whatever you want to call it.... all the same... the individual is under arrest; must go to county jail and be fingerprinted prior to court if cited and released... what's your point?...RIGHT...NOT no they do not. Where do you come up with this nonsense???? Total baloney. Hey Sparky, here do this, have some one make a private person arrest on BBH, and turn me over to you, and then you book me, and see how fast I slap a lawsuit on YOU.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 1:25 pm

BBH, the section says alot more than Sparky wrote. It goes on to say the subject must be released if it is obvious no crime was committed, or the person didn't do it. However, an officer MUST take custody initially. It is a crime if he/she doesn't.

Posted by Supercop | reply to this comment
April 3, 2008 2:19 pm

A person may be cited and released on the scene with their promise to appear on infractions and misdemeanors - without being booked or fingerprinted prior to showing up for arraignment. It happens all the time. Usually, sex-based crimes are not handled this way, due to the sensitive nature of the offense, and suspects are booked into county jail. Same with DUI's, domestic violence, and many drug offenses. Whether the misdemeanor was committed in the officer's presence, or it was a citizen's arrest does not necessarily determine whether a person is taken into custody and booked into jail. Citizen's arrests with jail booking happens all the time. Could one file a lawsuit over it? Sure. Would one necessarily have any merit for a lawsuit? Nah.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
April 4, 2008 7:53 am

Sparky, the law requiring officers to accept ANY citizens arrest was amended a few years back. They now have discretion in making a misdemeanor arrest not committed in their presence. If no crime occurred, no arrest will be made. Also, the officer always has had the choice as to whether the arrestee gets a ticket or goes to jail, regardless of what the arresting citizen desires.

Posted by cranky | reply to this comment
April 4, 2008 11:07 am

READ the Penal Code BBH. I would be IMMUNE from ANY penalties for your articulated arrest. Your ignorance related to this issue raises SERIOUS questions regarding you professed occupation of "attorney". You sir have not a clue of what you speak. If I had more than 150 words I could explain further 849b as well as the other legal issues related to a citizens arrest. An officer has great latitude and discretion relative to a citizens arrest; as stated by Supercop. If no crime is articulated by the citizen the officer need not make an arrest. BUT; urinating in public and a belief by a citizen of a male masturbating (both crimes) an officer would be REQUIRED to take custody of the individual after a citizens arrest. Citing is not an option in this case. Cranky you might re-read the law. IF there is a crime they MUST take custody.

Posted by Sparky | reply to this comment
April 4, 2008 8:47 pm

If anyone wants to review posts #16 and #28 above, it would appear my predictions were vindicated. Hartley plead No Contest to both charges in court today. VoSD got it wrong about a plea deal, however. Hartley plead to the sheet, which was clearly the only way he could enter a Nolo plea. For those of you unfamiliar to criminal law, a Nolo Plea is no different than a guilty plea for purposes of sentencing. It means Hartley does not contest the charges, but isn't saying anything more. Whether he entered a "West" plea is unknown, which would be him pleading to take a deal and avoid harsher punishment later. However, that does not appear to be the case here, as he plead to everything charged. Very interesting. Now, let's see how he spins it for the public who might not know any better.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
April 7, 2008 3:04 pm

I stand corrected. The CA's office did dismiss the urinating in public charge and let him plead No Contest. Very interesting, but doesn't change my analysis about whether he did it or not. PC290 registration is discretionary, but I'm surprised the judge didn't put off sentencing to determine whether it was appropriate. Yes, very interesting.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
April 7, 2008 3:10 pm

Hartley's Only Shot

Published: Monday, March 31, 2008 6:28 AM PDT

-- SCOTT LEWIS

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.

twitter.com/vosdscott

Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (November 8): Scott Lewis and Michael Zucchet talk about the city's budget

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed

Subscribe to this RSS Feed