Court Opinion

ID: 9633929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 12:08:04.54374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:45.606454
License: Public Domain

NELSON, Judge,
dissenting.
While I agree with the majority that the State has a legitimate interest in legislating against fraudulent and deceptive conduct, the Legislature simply has not legislated *179against the kind of deceptive conduct engaged in by the appellant in this case.
On two separate occasions, in an effort to harass his ex-wife, appellant called the Phoenix and Tempe Police Departments, giving them the following messages:
“This is Russell Howe [sic]. Will you send a police officer to * * * ? I just shot my wife.”
“This is John McClure speaking. Send some officers to * * *, there is a family disturbance going on.”
Both the names he gave, as well as the information requiring a police response, were false.
As reprehensible as appellant’s conduct was, it simply is not controlled by this statute. As stated above, the statute was taken from California before statehood, Penal Code of Arizona, § 432 (1901). It is found in our current Code, in Chapter 2, Forgery and Counterfeiting. Its language is absolutely clear. It makes unlawful the transmission of a false message by telephone or telegraph, purporting to be from a telegraph or telephone office, or from any other person. It does not punish the giving of false information to the police, whether by telephone or not, unless that information is alleged to come from the Telegraph Office, the Telephone Office, or any other person.
This statute was passed at a time when access to telephones and telegraphs was severely limited. They were used much more to relay information than to communicate it directly. This statute was to control the relaying of that information and imposed severe penalties (up to five years in prison) for the abuse of that responsibility. While the majority is correct in stating that the California court in People v. Rand, supra, cited no authority in holding that the statute’s purpose is as I suggest, it seems to me that the statute is clear enough on its face to permit such a decision.
Appellant’s conduct in this case should be proscribed, and indeed is, in one of the jurisdictions here involved (City of Phoenix, Arizona, Code, Art. IV, § 2-122 (1969)). See also: A.R.S. § 13-945, supra. The statute in question, however, has not done so. The judgments in these cases should be reversed with directions to dismiss the complaints.