NEW: The Concord Police Arrest Report

June 6, 2014 10:00 am · 10 comments

1 2 3 4

Click on each photo above to view the Concord Police Arrest Report.

Names of those arrested are not included in the report

The last two numbers in each address have been deleted to respect the privacy of any possible victim(s).

jtkatec June 6, 2014 at 10:06 AM

A busy little place, Concord be!

anon June 6, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Mayor, I know you don’t want to publish names. I’m curious as to how many times the name James, Jason, and Brian show up. My theory is they are always in high proportion to other common names. ah, oh, i hope you didn’t name your kid one of these names. There’s still time to change it though. You’ll thank me later- monk

Concord Mike June 6, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Thanks for posting this info. Could you also ask your police contact for some explanation you can post to tell the public what “arrest” really means?

I have heard an “arrest” can take place simply by requiring a suspect to sign a promise to appear in court, and often actions listed as “arrests” never involve handcuffing a person, placing them in a patrol car, or taking them to the station. I am not in law enforcement, though, so it would be good to hear from a real authority about what the term “arrest” means in Concord.

It would also be good to know about what percentage of those listed as “arrests” here actually are taken “downtown” to go through the booking process.

Go Figure June 6, 2014 at 11:27 AM

Wow! Seems like Spouse / Co-habitant injury or battery pretty much every day!

PhilthyPHRESH June 6, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Lol I’m sure the reply is that the police department is not responsible for
the prosecution of suspects, their duty is to judge a situation and distinguish suspects from victims and pass suspects on to be further judged by an appropriate agency. The definition of arrest is to seize (a person) by legal authority or warrant. Not to be confused with being detained pending investigation or being placed in handcuffs for “ones and the officers safety”.

common sense June 6, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Agreed it was good to see that some of what we all see as we drive through the city is being taken care of. Now as voters in CA we need to get some concessions from the prison guard union and start shipping long term inmates out of state. The people (who are multiple offenders) actually need to be incarcerated as they await trial – right now there is really no reason for them to stop doing what they are doing.

Dis Ease June 6, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Drugs an Alcohol, what better way to temporarily escape from ones’ reality.

@common sense June 6, 2014 at 8:03 PM

At present rate State will be closing prisons in less than a decade.

Back in 2011 democrat controlled State Legislature quietly passed and moonbeam signed AB109. It changed the sentencing on 500 crimes Preventing most convicted Felons from ever being sent to State Prison. An while they were at it those 500 crimes, any sentence given is AUTOMATICALLY CUT IN HALF.

Sentences, often multi year, for those 500 crimes are served in County Jail not State Prison. To prevent the inevitable overcrowding of County Jails because of AB109, misdemeanor criminals are shown the door.
In some cases long before their sentence should be up.

Don’t take my word for it, read the bill.

Parole violators used to go back to State Prison for a year or more, now the MAX almost all can get is 180 days County jail time …. Usually Much, Much Less.

Democrats even made Counties responsible for most State parolee supervision.

democrats quite simply voted to give Prison overcrowding to California’s 58 Counties.

Both Assemblywoman Bonilla and State Senator DeSaulnier, Voted For AB-109.

Grewah June 6, 2014 at 8:27 PM

Great addition to Claycord. Thanks for adding this.

geritol party June 7, 2014 at 1:00 AM

Jeez, how many over (or close to) 50’s were in there? Never been arrested, not about to start now (at over 40)

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: