Huffing And Puffing (But Not Trying To Burn Down The House) Draws Reproval In California

A misdemeanor conviction for resisting or obstructing a police officer drew a private reproval by the California State Bar Court Hearing Department. 

On May 18, 2016, respondent and his wife (now respondent’s ex—wife) received a letter ordering them to vacate their home of 13 years by May 26, 2016. Upon receipt of the letter, respondent got upset and began drinking, because the lender previously had agreed to a May 31, 2016 foreclosure date. Consequently, respondent, relying on the May 31, 2016 foreclosure date, made arrangements for new housing and for a U-Haul.

When respondent read the lender’s letter, respondent became extremely upset and began drinking. Soon thereafter he grabbed a can of lighter fluid and left the house with his wife. His wife called the police and told the police that when respondent left the home, he had said that if he could not have the home, no one could have it and that he was going to burn the house down. As police officer Patricia Varozza (Varozza) was in the area, she responded to the wife’s call. When Varozza saw the person, who she believed to be respondent, she surmised that he was very upset and angry. She called out his name and began talking to him. But, she was unable to engage respondent as he started to jog away from her and toward his home. Varozza told him to stop on numerous occasions; but, respondent did not heed her calls.

Within three to five minutes Varozza caught up with respondent, who had reached the front yard of his home. Respondent squirted the light fluid toward Varozza; but, it did not touch her. Varozza used her taser on respondent, although it did not appear to have any effect on him. However, another officer, Marcus Frank (Frank), who had arrived on the scene, deployed his taser, which hit respondent twice on the back. Frank testified that the only knowledge he had regarding the lighter fluid, was based on the statement of respondent’s wife. Frank said he noted that respondent’s eyes were watery and he had a moderate odor of alcohol. But, respondent was calm and compliant.

Varozza described respondent as being completely different after being tased. She testified that it was as if respondent were a completely different person. He became compliant, seemed very calm, and was polite. Varozza testified that although respondent had a lighter with him, she never saw him light it. Varozza credibly testified that respondent was never disrespectful. When paramedics arrived on the scene, respondent was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that he had 0.27% blood alcohol content.

As to sanction

Clearly, respondent and his wife were involved in a disastrous marriage, which resulted in an extremely contentious custody dispute. At the same time the lender notified respondent that the agreed upon foreclosure date was being accelerated. Yet, despite this series of unfortunate events, respondent even in his inebriated state, somehow found the emotional strength to withdraw from the brink of disaster on May 18”‘. He did not burn any property; and he calmed himself down and interacted with the police officers in a calm and respectful way.

Thereafter, respondent entered therapy, divorced his wife, won the custody dispute, and moved 50 miles away from his wife in order to avoid the stressors of what clearly was a toxic relationship…

Respondent’s conduct on May 18, 2016, appears to have been the result of a singular lapse in judgment, which occurred when respondent was emotionally distraught due to the overwhelming family and emotional problems confronting him. Moreover, respondent has since taken steps to eliminate the possibility of being once again overwhelmed by eliminating many of the stressors that caused him to feel beaten down. As noted, respondent changed his residence to a location, which is 50 miles away from his ex~wife’s residence. He obtained sole custody of his child, and he has entered therapy. Considering and balancing all of the relevant factors, the court has determined, and orders, as outlined below, that respondent receive a private reproval with reproval conditions attached.

(Mike Frisch)