The applicable law has been cited by the DA in the charging documents and in the DA's 19-page response to 67-page request for dismissal from Amman Asfaw's legal team. You can find more details and document links (via the references) at the following local article url. Judge won’t drop charge against SLO County activist in BLM protest that blocked Hwy. 101 https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article257891688.html I will note one correction on my part -- he is charged with misdemeanor false imprisonment -- not a felony.
Lack of scienter is the answer to your long list of bad analogies. They knew they were doing wrong in this case.
I will note that Amman Asfaw was not the only one charged. There are several others. https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Depart...ttorney-Files-Criminal-Complaints-Agains.aspx "Ms. Tianna Isis Aratawentworth is charged with thirteen misdemeanor counts including: one count of unlawful assembly, one count of disturbing the peace, six counts of obstruction of a thoroughfare, and five counts of false imprisonment." Six more charged in Tianna Arata Black Lives Matter protest https://keyt.com/news/crime/2020/10/16/six-more-charged-in-tianna-arata-black-lives-matter-protest/
Yeah, thanks, I was just about to mention this. As I didn't see felony being mentioned after reading it a second time.
Penal Code 236 PC – California False Imprisonment Laws https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/236/ Penal Code 236 PC is the California statute that defines the crime of false imprisonment. People commit this offense if they unlawfully restrain, detain, or confine a person against his/her will. A violation of the law can lead to either misdemeanor or felony charges with penalties as severe as three years in county jail. The language of PC 236 reads, “False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another.” Examples grabbing a spouse by his/her shoulders during an argument and preventing the person from leaving a room. locking a person in a closet. a police officer arresting and detaining a suspect without a warrant and with no legal authority. Defenses Criminal defense lawyers draw upon several defense strategies to contest false imprisonment charges. Some of these include showing that: the accused had legal authority to restrain the alleged victim, the “victim” consented to the imprisonment, the defendant was acting in self-defense, the shopkeeper’s privilege applies, and/or the accused was exercising his/her parental rights. Penalties Many violations of California Penal Code Section 236 are charged as misdemeanors. The potential penalties include: custody in county jail for up to one year, and/or a maximum fine of $1,000. But a prosecutor could charge the crime as a felony if a defendant restrained someone while using violence or menace. Felony false imprisonment is punishable by up to three years in jail. Our California criminal defense attorneys will highlight the following in this article: 1.How does California law define “false imprisonment”? 2. Are there common defenses to Penal Code 236 charges? 2.1. Legal authority to restrain 2.2. Consent 2.3. Self-defense 2.4. Shopkeeper’s privilege 2.5. Parental rights 3. What are the penalties? 4. Are there related offenses 4.1. Kidnapping – PC 207 4.2. False imprisonment of a hostage to avoid arrest – PC 210.5 4.3. California’s child abduction law – PC 278 5. Can I sue someone for false imprisonment? 1. How does California law define “false imprisonment”? California’s false imprisonment laws set forth two forms of false imprisonment. These include: misdemeanor false imprisonment, and felony false imprisonment. A prosecutor must prove the following elements to successfully convict a defendant of misdemeanor false imprisonment: the defendant intentionally and unlawfully restrained, detained, or confined a person, and the defendant’s act made that person stay or go somewhere against that person’s will.1 For felony false imprisonment, a prosecutor must prove the following to secure a conviction: the defendant intentionally and unlawfully restrained, confined, or detained someone by violence or menace, and the defendant made the other person stay or go somewhere against that person’s will.2 A few definitions here are helpful: an act is done “against a person’s will” if that person does not consent to the act. In order to consent, a person must act freely and voluntarily and know the nature of the act.3 “violence” means using physical force that is greater than the force reasonably necessary to restrain someone. Violence may include forms of domestic violence.4 “menace” means a verbal or physical threat of harm, including the use of a deadly weapon. The threat of harm may be express or implied.5 Note that false imprisonment does not require that the person restrained be confined in jail or state prison.6 2. Are there common defenses to Penal Code 236 charges? Defendants have the right to contest a charge of false imprisonment by raising a legal defense. Five common defenses include: legal authority to restrain. consent. self-defense. shopkeeper’s privilege. parental rights. 2.1. Legal Authority to Restrain This defense is often raised by police officers or law enforcement personnel in false imprisonment cases involving unlawful arrests and detainments. There can be no false imprisonment if a person has the legal authority to restrain another person. For example, a police officer will not face PC 236 charges if he stops and arrests a person while acting pursuant to a valid arrest warrant. 2.2. Consent It is always a valid defense for a defendant to show that the so-called victim consented to the restraint, detainment or confinement imposed by the defendant. Helpful evidence to demonstrate consent may include: video or audio recordings, written communications (such as text messages or email), and eyewitness testimony. 2.3. Self-defense California law allows people to use proportional force in defense of themselves and others if they reasonably believe they are about to sustain immediate or great bodily injury. This means self-defense is a valid legal defense to false imprisonment charges involving threats to a person’s bodily harm. 2.4. Shopkeeper’s Privilege This defense is available to store owners and shopkeepers that have probable cause that a customer is guilty of shoplifting. The privilege allows these parties to detain the suspect in order to investigate. The investigation, though, must be carried out for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner.7 “Reasonableness” will be determined by the facts of a specific case. 2.5. Parental Rights Parents have the right to discipline their children in ways that restrict their freedom of movement such as “grounding” them or imposing “timeouts.” As long as the children don’t sustain injuries or undue suffering, a parent confining their children against their will is perfectly legal. This is also provided that the parent is not acting with any criminal or malicious intent. 3. What are the penalties? California Penal Code 237 is the State’s statute that sets forth the penalties for false imprisonment. Under this section, false imprisonment is a type of wobbler offense, meaning that it can be punished as either a California misdemeanor or a felony. Misdemeanor false imprisonment, which is false imprisonment accomplished without violence or menace, is punishable by: a fine not exceeding $1,000, and/or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year.8 False imprisonment will be charged as a felony when the crime is affected by violence or menace. Felony false imprisonment is punishable by up to three years in jail. 9 Note sentencing enhancements do apply to this crime. This means that that any of the above penalties can get enhanced if a false imprisonment victim is either: an elder person, or a dependent adult. 4. Are there related offenses? There are three crimes related to false imprisonment. These are: kidnapping – PC 207, false imprisonment of a hostage to avoid arrest – PC 210.5, and California’s child abduction law – PC 278. 4.1. Kidnapping – PC 207 Per Penal Code 207, kidnapping is the crime where people move a victim a substantial distance, using force or fear to do so. As with false imprisonment charges, an accused can contest a kidnapping charge by showing that he/she acted with the “victim’s” consent. 4.2. False imprisonment of a hostage to avoid arrest – PC 210.5 Per Penal Code 210.5, false imprisonment of a hostage is the crime where people: falsely imprison another person to avoid an arrest, and/or use another person as a human “shield.” Unlike with PC 236, charges under PC 210.5 are always filed as a felonies. The crime is punishable by up to eight years in jail. 4.3. California’s child abduction law – PC 278 Under Penal Code 278, child abduction is the crime where people maliciously take a child away from his/her legal guardian when they have no right of custody over the child. Like false imprisonment, child abduction is a wobbler where a prosecutor can charge it as either a misdemeanor or a felony. 5. Can I sue someone for false imprisonment? Yes. While false imprisonment is a criminal offense, it is also a tort under California law that may give rise to a civil lawsuit. In a civil suit involving false imprisonment, a person sues another party to recover damages that a false imprisonment caused. Possible damages that a plaintiff may recover in these cases include: loss of time, physical discomfort or inconvenience, any resulting physical illness or injury, business interruption, and/or damage to reputation.10
Again, the drivers weren't bound. They could have left their cars. They weren't imprisoned. They weren't restrained, detained, or the other thing. You can't change the facts. It happened in 2011 in Chicago: Empty cars litter Lake Shore Drive By ABC7 Wednesday, February 2, 2011 February 2, 2011 (CHICAGO) Chopper 7 HD flew overhead around 10 p.m. to see crews hard at work. At this point, it's not clear when the Drive will reopen. Motorists who have left vehicles should call 311 to recover their relocated vehicles. All the cars and buses stranded north of Fullerton were cleared by late Wednesday night. Michelle Reed was among the hundreds stuck on Lake Shore Drive. "The worst thing was not knowing what was going on," said Reed. "We didn't see anybody until like around midnight, like, no cops, no firemen. No rescue workers. No one to tell us what was going on and help us out." The city was towing abandoned cars all day from the Drive. Some ended up on city streets or lakefront lots. Wednesday night, some motorists who found their vehicles still couldn't leave because of car trouble. In the daylight it was easy to see the problem: Hundreds of vehicles in the northbound lanes abandoned in the snow during Tuesday night's blizzard. Motorists and their passengers were caught on Lake Shore Drive for hours before they opted to evacuate or officials told them to evacuate. They had been trapped by accidents ahead of them and traffic behind during the worst of the snow storm. More: https://abc7chicago.com/archive/7934385/ Again: you are not imprisoned because you are stuck in traffic.
Irrelevant. The DA can charge if it fits the language of the statute, which it arguably does. The onus is on you to find a California case that is exculpatory. Good luck.