89-year-old charged with keeping kids' ball

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:53 pm

Here is a good follow up to the story... http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20081023/NEWS01/810230325

Looks like the father of the kids called the cops just to get the ball back and specifically asked them not to arrest her. The duty Sgt made the call that she needed to be arrested.

On the other hand when I was a kid we all knew there was one yard that if the ball went over the fence it was just gone. Forget about it.

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:59 am

After my knee jerk post yesterday I searched for more info on this story and found this interesting nugget today

http://www.indeed.com/forum/loc/Cincinnati-Ohio/best-neigborhoods-Cincinnati/t31095

It is about 5 sections down.
I cut and pasted the relevant section.(spelling correction made by me)

Subject:Kelly Tanis in Cincinnati, Ohio

1 day ago
Mike Redmond in Columbus, Ohio said: So where does the part about your disrespectful children who kick footballs into your elderly neighbors yard come to play? What a great example you are setting for what seems to be your already spoiled children! Calling the Police on her and having her arrested.

Kelly Tanis statement:
Might want to get your facts straight. I didn't call the police, my husband called the dispatch office at the request of Edna because we have a neighborhood liaison officer who told her she should call him whenever she has decided to take a ball. That officer wasn't available, so they sent someone else, and Edna would talk with him, but she said she'd talk to Officer Bray when he came on duty, which was the next morning. My husband said that was fine - he didn't want to upset her, he just wanted the ball back. But the sergeant apparently decided he didn't want to let it go at that and said he was adamant about getting the ball back that night. So, he came out and the two officers went into Edna's house, and then she started yelling at them and refused to give the ball back. They tried to simply give her a ticket, but she refused to sign it. They took her to the station. My husband told the officer that he didn't want her arrested and didn't want them to push her because she has bad nerves and she doesn't take her medicine. My husband was outside with my son playing ball with him, and my son immediately apologized to Edna when the ball accidentally rolled onto her property. You don't know what you're talking about so please stop making false assumptions about people you've never met in places you've never been.
end.

Man@: I saw yours as well, thanks for posting it

For what it is worth.

I am gone from this forum it has gotten too denigrative for me Confused

Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:58 am

Grumpy:

I don't understand the hate for this thread?

All:

It would appear that there is probably more to this story that we don't know. The dad appears to have called the police simply to get the ball back, and there was an officer who had a relationship with the lady that simply was not on duty.

I am a former prosecutor and we have current and former police officers on here. I can tell you from my experience it sounds like there is more to this story. The last thing most officers want to do is arrest an 89 year old lady (or anyone really) over something as silly as a ball landing in her yard. The would much rather come out and resolve the situation.

So some possibilities are (1) they thought this lady was a danger to her self (i.e. not in her right mind if she is not taking her meds) (2) bad officer or (3) they are out there every other day dealing with this lady, which might really just be (1) all over again.

I am sure there are many other secnarios that it could be.

Not that I am backing them up on their decision to arrest, but just pointing out there are probably a load of facts we don't know.

Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:47 pm

The Man wrote:

So some possibilities are (1) they thought this lady was a danger to her self (i.e. not in her right mind if she is not taking her meds) (2) bad officer or (3) they are out there every other day dealing with this lady, which might really just be (1) all over again.

(4) The sergeant is Mrs Tanis's second cousin and/or secret lover.

Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:11 pm

Nick:

You are close to "the business" these days than I am. I have been out of it for a decade Wink

Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:21 pm

Local news wrote:

and would not sign a citation

That's why she was arrested.

No different if she (or anyone) were stopped for speeding and refused to sign the ticket.

Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:27 pm

^^ The issue lies not with the arrest itself, but with the prison sentence she is facing. A trip in a patrol car is a minor and forgettable inconvenience (especially if you were asking for it). Six months in a brutal prison for a 89 year old lady over a trivial matter, however, a tad worse.

Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:56 pm

The charges have been dropped, so she's in no danger of a prison sentence at all.

Grumpy, I'm mystified as to why you should think that this forum is too "denigrative", or even what you mean by "this forum", whether it's this thread, General Chat, or the whole of Eater.

Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:37 pm

She's ready for the next ball that comes her way.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fdDj0Syzrn8

Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:58 pm

I doubt she was ever in danger if a six month jail sentence. All the news did was quote the maximum sentence for petty theft. If the charges were not dropped she could have been sentenced from anything from a $10 fine up to six months in county jail. (county jail not prison. There is a big difference in the two)

When someone is arrested, the DA doesn't automatically seek the maximum sentence. I thought it odd that it was assumed she was facing six months in jail when the case wasn't even presented to the DA yet. I figured the DA would drop it. I bet the police probably figured the same.

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:56 am

I live next to a golf course and my back yard is full of golf balls. I have never complained, but once, quite coincidentally, I heard a lawyer, talking about someone else's similar problems, explain that this is a trespass and the ball owner is the offending party. Probably why the original charges were dropped? Would love to hear a real legal opinion.

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:09 am

I don't see how causing a ball to accidentally go into someone's yard is trespassing. It's not where I am from and apparently not in Ohio. Even if it where, there are probably laws that protect (I know the father threw it this time) young children from being arrested. Especially, from accidentally throwing a ball into someone's yard.

The article doesn't say which part of her yard the ball when into. I think many are assuming it when into her fenced backyard. I don't know, maybe it did but what if it went or bounced onto her unfenced front yard? If that were the case do you still think "my yard, my ball"? I don't. Not that it matters because again, apparently that's not the case in Ohio.

I guess my point is the police are professionals and do know what there are doing. They should at least be given the benefit of the doubt. Think of it this way, If Edna Jester would have given the young officer the benefit of the doubt and assumed he knew what he was doing and just given the ball back, she wouldn't have been arrested. If she would have just signed the ticket, she wouldn't have been arrested. I know she is old and a lot feel sorry for her, I do to but I am certain the police told her if she didn't sign the ticket she would be subject to arrest. She made her choice. She must have weighed the risks against the benefits and decided it was worth it to be arrested.

If I were the cop, I would have photographed the ball, secured the photo as evidence and given the ball back to the child.

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:02 pm

Here is trespass where I am from:

Quote:

Sec. 2. (a) A person who:

(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;
(3) accompanies another person in a vehicle, with knowledge that the other person knowingly or intentionally is exerting unauthorized control over the vehicle;
(4) knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent;
(5) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the dwelling of another person without the person's consent; or
(6) knowingly or intentionally:
(A) travels by train without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent; and
(B) rides on the outside of a train or inside a passenger car, locomotive, or freight car, including a boxcar, flatbed, or container without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent;

commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if it is committed on a scientific research facility, on school property, or on a school bus or the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same property.

(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of:

(1) personal communication, oral or written; or
(2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public.

I don't think we have enough facts to determine if it meets that definition. The ball was thrown knowingly and intentionally. I suppose we could argue the father knew there was a risk it would end up in the lady's yard.

I would assume she told them to stop when the prior ball went in her yard, but maybe she just takes the balls? Since there was an officer that had apparently been involved before I am sure we can guess the folks were told not to do it.

Of course going to retrieve the ball would result in trespass....

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:59 pm

Okay...I thought you meant the ball merely going into the yard was trespassing. Yes, entering the yard to get the ball back I can see but if no one enters the property...

Quote:

(4) knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent;

Or is this what you mean by the ball alone? I somehow doubt the purpose behind the statute was to address bouncing balls. What's the law in Ohio as that would apply?

Quote:

I don't think we have enough facts to determine if it meets that definition

Also goes to my point of assuming the police knew what they were doing.

Quote:

Since there was an officer that had apparently been involved before I am sure we can guess the folks were told not to do it.

Not to play catch in their own yard?

I know a lot feel or say "when I was a kid..." well that may be the case and that is great but that alone doesn't make you right. When I was a kid we all just accepted the strange man at the corner would go out butt naked to get the morning paper. We all accepted the man down the street would get drunk, fight with his wife then drive off like a maniac every Friday night. Neither of those would or should fly today and especially not just because I accepted it when I was a kid.

I know there is a big difference between DUI and ball confiscating. If it were my kids and they kept doing it I would tell my neighbor to keep the ball. More then likely I would have already taken the ball away from them myself. However, if they were playing in our front yard and the ball occasionally went onto my neighbors unfenced front lawn then I would tell him or her to grow up themselves and get over it.

The fact of the matter is the police told her she couldn't just keep the ball and she had to give it back or risk being arrested. She chose to be arrested. We should respect her choice.

It just hits a nerve when people say cops shouldn't be wasting their time because of murders or whatever. Someone called so the police responded. If you called the police for a small matter say like loud music, would you like it if they said no because of unsolved murders?

Also the bit about the cops doing for it a promotion (from a call generated petty theft arrest?) or just to be bullies. That's just silly.

Hair too much assuming too. Like the kids being upper class snobs and such. Also, who is suing who? Where did that come from?

It's okay though, because I still love each and every <strike>one</strike> most of you. I'm not mad and I respect everyone's opinion even if I disagree. I'm not trying to pick a fight and this is not pointed at anyone in specific. What some of you wrote or thought is very common but it usually is just not entirely accurate. Very Happy

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:47 pm

Ghost:

Not that I am advocating this was or was not trespass... but first remember property in this case means real estate, land, dirt, not the ball.

I would think you could make the argument if they intentionally threw the ball into her yard that would constitute trespass.... if they were asked to keep the ball out of her yard prior to doing so.

Going into get the ball would certainly constitute trespass if she had told them to stay off her lawn, or if the yard were fenced or some other way a reasonable person would realize they were not welcome there.

That all being said the whole thing is silly. Arresting her was silly. She committed a non-violent misdemeanor and could have been summonsed to Court if charges were warranted. It is not like she was going to run.

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:57 pm

^^^I don't disagree. I know someone (okay...only a lawyer) could say or argue that she couldn't enjoy her yard as it was meant to be ball-less.

Laughing

89-year-old charged with keeping kids' ball	View next topic View previous topic