Palm Springs Police Caught Trying To "Bag A F*g"

In many areas of the country, there has long been an antagonistic relationship between law enforcement and the gay community; in fact resistance to a police action in New York City in 1969 is widely regarded as the beginning of the modern gay rights movement. This antagonism has typically not been present in Palm Springs, California, but apparently that is changing. Palm Springs is now considered to be the "gayest city" per capita in California, with an estimated 30 to 40 percent of its population openly gay and lesbian. It has had multiple openly gay Mayors and current has a majority city councilmembers who are gay pr lesbian.

But recently there have been increased tensions between the police and the gay community thanks to a sting operation which resulted in the arrest of more than 2 dozen gay men for "indecent exposure" and "lewd conduct."

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Sunday:

Last summer, Palm Springs police used undercover officers to arrest 24 men in a gay neighborhood for allegedly trying to engage the officers in sex. While few in the gay community defend anyone having public sex - whether gay or straight - the anger is over the unusual charges in the case: The men are charged under Section 290(c) of the California Penal Code, making those who are convicted register as sex offenders for life, their names added to a police database.

That charge is essentially a life sentence, defense lawyers say, and has never been used against straight couples arrested for similar activity in Palm Springs.

Adding fuel to the community anger is surveillance tape shot inside a patrol car during the sting. One officer can be heard using an anti-gay slur, while another officer laughs.

The San Diego Gay and Lesbian Times broke this story more than two months ago:

All 24 men were charged with violations of Penal Code sections 314 and 647(a).

According to the defense, the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office will only accept a guilty plea from the defendants, and even then, only to a 314 violation with its sex offender designation.

Herein lies a huge issue that is being alleged in court documents. More on that in a moment.

What is the difference between the 314 and 647(a) misdemeanors?

Penal Code section 314 - California's "indecent exposure" law - has remained virtually unchanged since its enactment in 1872, despite the fact that community moral standards have changed drastically in the 138 years that have passed since that enactment.

This law prohibits publicly "exposing" a person’s naked body or genitals with lewd intent. Typically, a conviction of "simple" misdemeanor indecent exposure under this code brings a sentence of up to six months in a county jail, a maximum fine of $1,000 and a lifetime requirement to register as a sex offender, pursuant to Penal Code 290.

Section 647(a) defines "lewd conduct" as the touching or displaying of the genitals, buttocks or female breasts with the intent of achieving sexual arousal or gratification. These acts are deemed illegal under this code when done in a lewd or lascivious manner in a public place - where a third party may be offended by its viewing. Unless there are overriding circumstances, a 647(a) conviction typically does not come with a sex offender designation.

The sex offender designation, however, can cause dire consequences for a lifetime. Those convicted have trouble keeping or finding jobs and homes, and those with green cards are usually deported.

Major allegations are being raised

The Riverside County Public Defender’s Office thinks something smells fishy about this undercover sting. As a result, court documents show that the defense is making some serious allegations:

 The Palm Springs Police Department (PSPD) exclusively targeted gay men in undercover sex stings.

 Heterosexual couples get a free pass on public sex in Palm Springs and throughout Riverside County.

 A backroom deal was struck with the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office to force those arrested in the sting operations to plead to a harsher charge, requiring lifetime registration as a sex offender.

These contentions are being raised in a Riverside County discrimination motion going before a Superior Court judge in Indio on June 14.

On May 4, Deputy Public Defender Roger Tansey, who is the attorney for the defendants, and Public Defender Gary Windom, filed numerous documents related to this case.

Tansey told SDGLN in an exclusive interview that he believes this case is about “homophobia” and that the Palm Springs police are out to “get the gay guys.”

I believe this is known as "bag a f*g" in the police world, and is absolutely unacceptable. SDGLN has even more evidence showing the discriminatory nature of the proceedings:

SDGLN has obtained a copy of the court document from Thomas Hughes, who was a Deputy District Attorney for Riverside County from 2007 to 2009 and who was assigned to the Indio branch. The document – which the DA is trying to get excluded from the trial -- provides an insider glimpse into how Palm Springs initiated its 2009 undercover sting operation.

Hughes describes a 2008 sting operation conducted by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, which provides police services to the city of Rancho Mirage. As with the Palm Springs operation, the Rancho Mirage sting was directed at men who have public sex with men, not at heterosexual couples.

Hughes said the county prosecutors settled a majority of the 2008 cases for violations of Penal Code sections 647(a) or 415. Those are much less serious misdemeanor charges than Penal Code 314, which requires lifetime registration as a sex offender.

In his document, Hughes states that he was informed that the Palm Springs Police Department (PSPD) wanted to ensure ahead of the sting operation that their cases would only settle for violations of the more serious Penal Code 314.

“I have been informed and thereon believe that during spring or summer of 2009, a meeting was therefore set up between the PSPD and the District Attorney’s Office,” Hughes states in the document.

“The DA’s Office was represented by Trisha Fransdahl, a Supervising Deputy District Attorney, who met with members of the PSPD. This meeting occurred before the sting operation took place and before anyone was arrested. At that meeting, it was agreed that all of those arrested would be charged with violations of Penal Code sections 314 and 647(a). It was also agreed that Defendants would only be allowed to plead to the 314 count. Based on my experience at the District Attorney’s Office, such a meeting, before anyone is even arrested, is unusual.”

Hughes also states that the DA’s Office decided that the Palm Springs sting cases would not be subject to negotiations or plea deals.

Bolstering the discrimination claim is this statement by Hughes: “I was also in my office when I personally heard Linda Dunn, head of the Eastern Division of the District Attorney’s Office and the supervisor of Ms. Frandahl, make homophobic remarks. This occurred when I overheard Lee Roberts, one of the District Attorneys on the Palm Springs cases, express a desire to Ms. Dunn to visit the scene of the sting.

“Several times I heard Ms. Dunn make disparaging remarks about ‘those people’ as she laughingly expressed concern for Mr. Roberts’s safety if he were to visit Palm Springs. Ms. Dunn did not want Mr. Roberts to go, stating that, ‘I don’t want you around ‘those’ people, we don’t know what they’re capable of doing. If you go, be safe.'”

Unbelievable! In 2009, the Riverside District Attorney and the Palm Springs Police Department thinks they can get away with this? In a city that is 40% gay?