County Supervisors' Bully Posturing with San Francisco DA About Fentanyl is Disingenuously Misplaced

From Michael Acosta/May 5, 2022, 7:21 a.m.

No doubt, the weaponized use of fentanyl should be charged as murder, where there is malice and a homicide results. But it makes no sense that Humboldt County law enforcement, having witnessed “open air” transactions in the Tenderloin, allows the shipment of fentanyl to be transported several counties back to Humboldt when they could just as well bust the buyer and, more importantly, the San Francisco seller, in the Tenderloin. Humboldt County Drug Task Force officers, while on duty, are peace officers under state law and have sufficient jurisdiction to effect an arrest in the Tenderloin of crimes committed in their presence. Optimally, out of respect and an expectation of reciprocity, they would coordinate with San Francisco law enforcement agencies. But regardless of coordination, it clearly makes more sense to effect an arrest for the purchase, sale, and/or transportation of fentanyl immediately upon witnessing the transaction rather than allowing the shipments to come back to Humboldt County for the following reasons:

1) The cost of prosecution and incarceration of the crime would be the responsibility of San Francisco County, and would save Humboldt County thousands of dollars. One case of transportation of fentanyl across non-continguous county lines can carry a sentence of up to 9 years. With a local eligible prison sentence under AB109 and 50% 4019 credits, that’s 4 1/2 years in Humboldt County jail, at a cost of $100,000 per year. So a $450,000 price tag potentially for housing the offender, not including the costs of prosecution.

2) Failing to pursue and arrest the suppliers of fentanyl in the Tenderloin in order to pursue the purchasers of fentanyl all the way back to Humboldt County is like spilling the champagne to catch the popped cork. Are they serious about cutting the supply off or not?

3) It is negligent to not effect an arrest at some point along the way back to Humboldt when it is foreseeable that many individuals who drive down to purchase fentanyl in the Tenderloin will at some point use the fentanyl on the way back. The risk of dui and potentially dui-related fatalities is therefore enormously increased by not effecting the arrest as soon as possible. If Humboldt County law enforcement officers have witnessed the crime essentially occur in San Francisco, then our officers are risking the lives of Marin, Sonoma, and Mendocino County residents and travelers by allowing fentanyl purchasers to travel back to Humboldt County.

4) Probable cause for the crime of possession with intent to sell and/or the crime of transportation of fentanyl does not get stronger by allowing a purchaser to travel back to Humboldt County; it simply qualifies the purchasers for an aggravated form of the transportation charge, which is the added element of crossing noncontiguous county lines.

5) If this issue is within the purview of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, then why is the letter from them not directed to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. The answer is that it is simply a gratuitous political attack on a reform-oriented District Attorney. The letter by the Board of Supervisors, therefore, quite disingenuously misplaces the responsibility for this epidemic on the San Francisco DA’s office, who can only prosecute cases if an arrest is made in San Francisco County.

6. Finally, the dog and pony show displayed before the Board of Supervisors on this issue is self-promoting propaganda and in no way constitutes a “shot across the bow” at the San Francisco DA’s office, which is an unfortunate phrase to use because it sounds like a terrorist threat. First of all, if litigation is being seriously contemplated, County Counsel would have been the first entity to be consulted and the matter would have been discussed under the Brown Act in closed session, as all other potential litigation is discussed. Second, the term “precedent” means a successful previous case, not a failed previous attempt. And if the County of Humboldt were to sue, it would sue the County of San Francisco, as represented by San Francisco’s County Counsel, not the San Fransisco DA’s Office. This is precisely why you don’t see Ms. Fleming sending a threatening letter to the San Francisco DA, nor to the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors.

So this non-issue is just another meaningless proclamation from our beloved “Where’s Waldo” Supervisor, just like “Lemonade Day,” “Constitution Week,” or, my personal favorite for its pure narcissism, “Rex Appreciation Day” (which we celebrate in just 2 more days!)

I think the phrase “Less Filling, Tastes Great.” had more meaning.

And Thank You to the sensible Supervisors who attempted to keep this display of Gratuitous Special Interest Bullying in check.

I will finally take this moment to remember the diplomacy of Mr. Jimmy Smith, with whom I worked, albeit on the opposite side, in the matter of the Bear River Casino liquor license, which was heard before an administrative law judge of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control years ago. Mr. Smith, our former First District Supervisor was always certain of his political posture, but was never a bully. He was eternally diplomatic, especially to those with whom he disagreed. HE should have a Day; I appreciate him now more than ever.