Tenant who came with the duplex purchase, filed bankruptcy 2x to avoid eviction(both dismissed) was re- served eviction complaint. Paid 1x in 5 months. Last night saw on our camera (aimed at parking lot only) her removing an appliance out of the property (it's not hers). Called the police. After they left, she screamed a threat directly to the camera of coming to my house to snuff or stuff me. Called the police to our house and showed the video. Their Sargeant on duty said that's her freedom of speech.

Why can't they take action on that? She yelled my address in her threat. Besides my personal safety I'm concerned nothing will left when she leaves. And we're trying to sell the property because it sucks being a landlord in vineland nj.

What you don't understand is that the Police only investigate and report in cases where there is no immediate danger.

If anyone is to do anything, it is the District Attorney, and thats the one (the only one) that is going to help you (if, indeed, anyone is going to help you).

The DA probably will decide that you are not really in any danger, and will not care to prosecute.

But, DA's have others powers other than actual prosecutions (e.g., DA hearings) and that might provide you with some measure of protection. If you wanted something like that, then you went about it all wrong. First, you "called the Police to your house", instead of going to theirs. Next, you accepted the Sergeant's explanation that it is freedom of speech (its not; threats against personal safety are not protected speech). The sergeant just didn't take the threat seriously (maybe he is right). Then, you made a verbal report instead of a written one and finally, you went to the wrong people. If you want any action, then write a careful and logical letter to the DA, certified, explaining with good reasons why you think that your personal safety requires SOME KIND of law-enforcement response.

Don't expect that nothing will left when she leaves is going to get you any action by the police. Thats a separate and civil matter and the Police don't deal in that.

Your complaint about your particular jurisdiction reminds me of RobertJ. Your problem is that you just don't understand the fundamental necessary response by a businessman to a problem: You have a problem, figure out who has the power to do anything about it, then figure out how to get that person-in-power to do something for you.

Tonia, is your experience the same as that of Yurbridge?

Did you make he same mistakes?

"I filed written police reports". Who wrote the reports? The Police? or YOU? How were they filed?

You "filed" for "threats". What kind of threats? Specific credible threats of danger to your person?

You say that the Police "didn't investigate". I don't understand that. If you actually FILED Police reports of threats to your person, and there was no investigation at all, then the Police erred and should be held accountable. I expect that there is report of investigation, but investigation did not produce any evidence of credible danger to reportee.

So the ex-tenants "took action" [unspecified] which I guess was not enough to warrant prosecution and all you got out of it was an eviction. [Just what is "abusive behavior" and how was it related to the Penal Code?]

The relationship between Civil offenses and actual Criminal behavior seems to be very misunderstood on this site. So is the role of Police with regard to tenant behavior. I am not a fan of Police in this regard, but I would suggest that you avoid provoking tenants. Professionally, Police are aware of human behavior, and they know very well the difference between idle threats and Penal Code violations, and how people get excited over threats to deprivation of their homes and making counter-threats.

As usual, Moshe is speaking outside of his area of expertise and providing bad advice.

The police can do many things. First off, they could and should do a wellness check on a mentally unstable person. Second, they can and should have issued her a No Trespass order for your house while they were doing a well check. Finally, after the well check and delivering the no trespass, they should have arrested her for terroristic threat. This is straight out of New Jersey code of criminal justice section 2C:12-3 concerning Terrorist Threats "A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he threatens to commit any crime of violence with the purpose to terrorize another"

I don't know about NJ.

Here's how it would work in L.A.:

" wellness check on a mentally unstable person"

Who is unstable and needs a wellness check on a mentally unstable person? Tonia? Yurbridge?

Who can ask for one? Police are usually pretty liberal about that for friends, especially relatives, but usually not just anyone without a serious connection. They have pretty good computer records about addresses.

"No trespass ORDER"

Police don't issue No Trespass Orders in L.A.. It takes the Court to do that. And, in CA, its a Civil Order, so that it would need a plaintiff to file and request one. And, no such order would be valid until a judge signs off on it, and it is served.

"I would swing by the police station on Monday and talk to the Desk Sergeant and insist that they charge her, refer him to the code above."

The desk is usually staffed by a rookie. You can talk to the Watch Commander, if he will see you (the rookie will probably have to tell him what it is about). But he will tell you that he is the wrong guy, not the guy with power to do anything for you. The desk sergeant (or the Watch Commander) can't charge anybody. The DA has to do it. You can cite your NJ code, but is this really a "terrorist threat"? Or, just a minor neighborhood squabble that requires civil court, not officers with guns? You can insist all you want, but the Police just don't have power to charge anyone. Its the DA who charges, and no one is in immediate danger, certainly won't be on Monday.

Yes, Police (together with DAs) have more ways of dealing with situations than arresting everyone that doesn't salute, but the DA makes the decisions and he is independent. And he (or she) and the Police will have the backing of the

City Councilman long before you even find the address of City Hall.

Its not just a question of laziness, its also a question of the 4th Amendment.

It's terroristic threat not terrorist threat, geesh.

Not everyone lives in LA where the ultra liberal DA is more interested in protecting the lawbreakers from the law abiders nor have a bent to completely eliminate the police by defunding them.

Even in CA what was done meets the definition of terroristic threats under the state's PC22(a), I copied the definition below. If you aren't going to enforce the laws then why have them? I also found where a new law starting in 2024 allows CA residents to provide a notice to police to arrest someone who trespasses. This was signed by Newsome last year. Part of that process as I read is that most Police departments will provide warning to not trespass to an individual. Again, LA's off the wall DA has probably told them not to follow that new state law. Why you people put up with a DA that won't enforce the law is beyond me, that was part of the job he was hired to do.

I can't speak for LA but in most parts of the civilized world, the desk is managed by one of the Senior Sergeants. I have found this true in the dozens (if not hundreds) of police organizations I interacted with in my former job. Usually it's an older/experienced guy who is good with the public and at deescalating, often it is the guy who doesn't want to sit in a squad car and chase bad guys on foot. If he won't solve it why would you go straight to the watch commander and bypass the 2-3 layers of management between the guy on the desk and the senior on-duty person? It is customary to work up the chain of command. The next level up would be a Lieutenant as I suggested above.

It's not a question of the 4th amendment, it's a question of enforcing the laws that are on the books.

Here's what's considered a terroristic threat in CA:

Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, is guilty of criminal threats.

So, “Not everyone lives in LA where the ultra liberal DA is more interested in protecting the lawbreakers from the law abiders nor have a bent to completely eliminate the police by defunding them.” Do you really think that is true?

Or, do you suppose that there may be something more subtle and complex going on, that you may not understand?

I very hastily read the CA law that you mentioned last night, but I don’t think that it says that. Maybe I read it too fast, but it seems to me that the law says that requirements of the law require certain kinds of posting, not that it authorizes notice to police to arrest someone who trespasses. I don’t think that the police can be “noticed” to arrest someone. There is a required process to go through before anyone can be arrested (4th Amendment) and I don’t think that a citizen can do that.

Los Angeles had a Police crisis about 10 years ago and they hired a guy name Bratton to change the whole culture of LAPD. I retired very shortly after he came aboard and he was one of my first consulting clients. Among things that he changed is an emphasis on youth, education and ability and responsibility.. I recognize a lot of leadership techniques as similar to those of the Israeli army: emphasis on youth and education, rapid promotions, early delegation of responsibility, up or out rule, early exposure to wide variety of responsibilities and very careful choice of police candidates. I heard that a college degree earns more points toward promotion that military experience. The up-or-out rule forced a lot of Police Officers to retire, to be replaced by younger, better educated and smarter, but less experienced officers. I haven’t seen any older, overweight, single-minded bureaucratic police officers on the streets in decades.

Rookies are assigned to the desk PRECISELY so that they get early experience in variety of assignments, working with he public, learning about how procedures work successfully. They are trained for that in the Academy. The Watch Commander IS a lieutenant acting as training officer. Most non-emergency complaints are required to be filed by email.

But it seems that your main issue seems to be: If you aren't going to enforce the laws then why have them?

Most of those laws are there so that they can be USED to solve problems when needed. The Police, the District Attorney, the Courts are all focused on solving problems, not on putting people in jail. You mentioned de-escalation, and that’s what the Police, DA, Judge are all there to do: Laws that provide punishments are meant to help solve problems, to be used as potential sticks, in case that carrots doesn’t work. I once wrote on this forum about a tenant who threatened to burn my house down if he didn’t get his whole security deposit back. The DA “invited” him to a D.A.’s hearing which has no basis in law or court procedure, but terrified him into thinking that he was in big trouble.

Sorry that I can’t finish this, but I have to run off to the doctor.

So if you have experience working with police forces then you should understand the extensive research around broken windows policies. It is an undeniable scientifically studied and confirmed fact that criminal and civil disorder increases when you allow broken windows (antisocial behavior) in your neighborhoods. This is what happens when you try and use laws as a carrot on a stick rather than consistent enforcement. The disobedient simply continue to push the limit of what they can get away with further and further to the left until society has had enough and then they tend to go far to the right and want to lock everyone up. Couple a good implementation of broken windows policy with a community policing efforts and the results are even better.