In December, a California appellate court ruled that the 10-year-old law banning possession of body armor by anyone with a violent felony conviction was unconstitutional because the “average person” wouldn't be able to tell which types of bulletproof vests were prohibited. Scarcely two weeks after the court struck down body armor ban, the real world provided yet another example of the absolute necessity of the law.
Maybe Ezra Hooker Sr., a felon with a lengthy criminal record (19 arrests and four convictions), had heard of the decision before he led LAPD officers on a high-speed chase on several freeways on January 4, 2010. After all, during the chase he threw a sawed-off rifle out the window of his car, which he doubtlessly was aware he was prohibited from possessing. He was likely fleeing police because he was also aware that (allegedly) pointing said rifle in a woman’s face was a violation of the law. But with the highly publicized court ruling weeks earlier, Hooker didn’t need to worry about discarding his body armor since possessing it wouldn’t add to his rapidly mounting legal woes.
As we – and the dissenting judge – pointed out in our sharp criticism of the court ruling, the original law did not leave violent felons in a state of confusion about what constituted body armor.
Felons with a history of violence who are allowed to wear body armor and are possessing weapons are a lethal threat to public safety. Case in point – Ezra Hooker. Fortunately for the responding officers, Hooker discarded his weapon during the chase and was unable to put up any resistance after crashing his car into a wall. However, had things gone a little differently, officers would have been facing a violent armed felon who, by wearing body armor, would have escalated his lethality in a potential shootout.
This latest case further underscores the message that we have been hammering home the past few months – that felon parolees released early from prison pose an avoidable danger to our communities. Hooker wasn't wearing body armor because he was going to visit his mother or look for a job. He was armed and wearing body armor because he was again engaged in his chosen profession of criminal activity.
While it is troubling enough that a person with as many felony convictions as Hooker was free to drive around our streets, we see a bigger problem taking shape. Combine the invalidation of laws tailored to lessen the danger that felons can pose once they are released with the budget cuts, court orders and legislation giving felons additional “good time” credit, and we are going to see thousands of Ezra Hookers on the streets.
The California Senate has already passed SB 408, Senator Alex Padilla’s urgent legislation reinstating the ban on the possession of body armor by violent felons. It is now in the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee. We urge the Governor and Assembly to pass and sign Senator Padilla’s bill as quickly as possible. Ezra Hooker is only the latest exhibit of the need for such a law.
