Valley Interview : Prosecutor Tells Why Taggers Earn Sentences Fit for Felons

Since December, the Van Nuys bureau of the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office has filed three cases of felony vandalism against adult taggers, including a 19-year-old Calabasas student who last week was sentenced to nine months in County Jail and 100 hours of graffiti cleanup and was ordered to pay $34,000 in restitution.

It is believed to be one of the stiffest sentences ever imposed on a tagger in the county.

A 21-year-old North Hollywood man who pleaded guilty to felony vandalism in December was sentenced to nine months in jail, 100 hours of cleanup and $12,000 in restitution.

The third case is pending against a 21-year-old Agoura man accused of causing $7,800 in damage.

Sacramento lawmakers have decided that vandals responsible for graffiti damage of up to $5,000 can be prosecuted for either felony or misdemeanor crimes. And even damage under $400 can carry a county jail sentence of up to six months as well as a $1,000 fine.

Graffiti damage of between $5,000 and $50,000 can bring a state prison sentence of up to three years and a $10,000 fine. And for damage greater than $50,000, convicted graffiti vandals be ordered to serve a maximum of three years and levied a $50,000 fine.

Philip H. Wynn, head of the district attorney’s Van Nuys office, said the three most recent cases in Van Nuys courts are a coincidence, rather than the result of a concerted effort to get tough with taggers. He discussed the tools available to prosecutors fighting graffiti vandalism.

Question: People generally think of taggers as juveniles. Is that accurate or are there more adults involved.

Answer: I don’t think that age is a particular requirement for tagging. You can have people 18, 19 and into their 20s who are tagging. I would be surprised if that wasn’t happening.

Q: Was there something particular that stood out about the cases that you have decided to prosecute as felony crimes?

A: Every case stands on its own based on the facts and the evidence, and we review them accordingly. These cases involved large losses in terms of the costs of the graffiti.

The Legislature has laid out the guidelines to be used in assessing whether it will be a misdemeanor or a felony, and if it is over the amount for a felony, then we look at the amount of damage, how many times has this taken place, does the person have prior convictions to determine whether it should be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony.

Q: But prior to determining whether someone should be prosecuted for a felony or misdemeanor crime, doesn’t it require a decision to pursue more than one incident--since it usually takes several instances to push the damage amounts over the $5,000 threshold?

A: Yes, in a general sense that is correct. We have to start with the premise that the investigation is done by the appropriate agencies that respond to a complaint. They pursue their investigation wherever it takes them. If the type of graffiti is unique and they can tie it to one individual with a particular type of paint or signature characteristic, a moniker, and they are able to establish that it is the same individual who has done this several times, that is more likely the type of case we would handle at the felony level.

We don’t have a set guideline. If it’s $5,001, for instance, that doesn’t mean that we automatically rubber-stamp a prosecution and say we’ll prosecute as a felony. If the person does not have a record whatsoever and has come in and is remorseful or started to clean it up or paying to clean it up . . . there are a lot of factors to weigh in a decision to prosecute as a felony or misdemeanor.

Q: So your office is not necessarily trying to send a message to taggers that they face serious punishment in the most recent cases?

A: Well, it was a conscious decision to file these cases as felonies because they should have been filed as felonies. And I hope that the message has been getting out there. Neighborhoods, business people are really much the worse because of vandalism and graffiti. It is an extremely costly crime. The taxpayers pay for it, private homeowners, insurance companies . . . the list goes on and on in terms of the cost. It’s not just a simple kid prank in many instances. In some instances it might be a little something that happened just once, kind of an acting out. But when organized groups are seeing how many places they can deface and how much damage they can do, that is very serious.

But we did not specifically say, ‘Let’s go out and make an example of some people.’ That was not our intent. The cases were ones that should have been prosecuted at the felony level. The public was interested, and the press was interested, and I’m pleased that they were, and I hope that the word does go out that these cases can be prosecuted at the felony level and they are not just childish pranks, and you can go to jail for a considerable amount of time.

It’s quite easy to take out a spray can and go out, somewhat cowardly, in the middle of the night or someplace deserted and deface someone’s property. What isn’t so easy to do is to clean it up. We encourage the courts as part of any sentence to make the cleanup a part of it. What may go on in two minutes may take four hours of hard elbow grease to remove. Sometimes that is an effective way of teaching a lesson.

Q: So you see the requirement of 100 hours of graffiti removal in the two cases being just as important as the nine months in jail?

A: They both have their importance, the cleanup provision because it is an object lesson.

Q: How do you respond to criticism that scrawling graffiti is not so serious a crime that it merits a state prison sentence?

A: Every class of crime is unique. There is no question that tagging is not as serious as a murder or assaulting a person. But in a way you have victims that have been beat up economically by this. The Legislature has seen it fit to make it a felony under certain circumstances. It’s a form of theft because they are stealing from people by defacing property and making either them or the insurance companies pay. It’s important to the community that we look at these cases seriously--and we do. The overwhelming majority of these cases are handled as misdemeanors.

But when the damage is over $5,000, we would like to look at those cases and consider filing felony charges.

Q: Has your office felt any pressure from the community or politicians to crack down harder on taggers?

A: It’s not a pressure situation. . . . It’s just like many other things that the district attorney does to try to create a better community for all of us.

Q: How difficult is it to put together a felony case against a tagger?

A: It would be nice if they would not only leave their moniker, but their name, address and phone number, and say, ‘If you want to arrest me, I’ll be home between 8 and 10 tomorrow morning.’ It doesn’t happen that way. Even though you may see something that looks similar to some other graffiti two blocks away, it’s not that easy to determine who is responsible for it.

Q: But does it require an eyewitness to prosecute?

A: Not necessarily. There are any number of ways to make a case. If law enforcement gets a tip, maybe it’s a particular type of paint or marker, and with a search warrant you find in the suspect’s room pictures of all the monikers around the county that the person has done. In the December case, we came across some pictures of his markings.

Q: Is there a general profile of an adult tagger?

A: No, it could be anybody. I don’t think that tagging has anything to do with lifestyle or race or gender. They are just people who are choosing to do this.

Q: What about the perception that taggers come from poor neighborhoods?

A: That perception is not mine. I have been a prosecutor for nearly 26 years. I have found that criminals come in all sizes and shapes. Economic upbringing isn’t the deciding factor if a person is going to commit a crime. It doesn’t matter if you are from the most affluent area or the most disadvantaged.