Friday, June 29, 2007

As I went to court this morning, I was asked to handle a case for a colleague who couldn't make it today. It was a case against a guy accused of impersonating a police officer as part of a road-rage dispute. Now with my police background, I couldn't pass that case up so I agreed to take it. I hate wanna-be, fake cops.

My victim stated that the guy had a red light on the dashboard of his car and told him to pull over, only to begin berating him for his driving in an obscenity-laced tirade. The victim drove away but the perpetrator pursued, passed him and two other cars, then cut all three vehicles off and forced them to stop. He got out, approached the victim--this time wearing a badge hanging from a chain around his neck and a hat with a star on it--and threatened to arrest the victim. When the victim got out of his vehicle, the perp ordered him to get back into his vehicle and put his hand to his hip as if to draw an object out from under his shirt. The victim returned to his vehicle and drove away again, but the perp followed him for another mile until the victim spied a crowd in a store parking lot and pulled in, hoping that the presence of witnesses would deter the crazy man following him. The poser followed him into the lot, got out of his car again, approached him with his badge out, and told him that he was going to arrest him. The victim was by this time on the phone with 911--calling the real police--and when he told the poser who he was talking to, the bad guy fled.

Based on the description that the victim gave, police recognized the soon-to-be defendant as a local nutter who has a history of acting as if he's somehow connected with law enforcement. They drove to his house, found the car that he'd been driving, and as they inspected it, the suspect himself exited his house and challenged them, wanting to know why they were looking at his car. He admitted having "a discussion" with the victim, and a pat-down of the suspect revealed that he was carrying pepper spray, two pairs of handcuffs, and a collapsible police baton known as an ASP. They also took from him a badge--still on a chain around his neck--that identified him as a "bail enforcement officer", or a bounty hunter.

Come the trial, he denies claiming to be a police officer, and offers the claim that he's a professional bounty hunter as the reason for his possessing the items seized. Both the ASP and pepper spray are illegal in this jurisdiction for anyone other than a law enforcement officer. He insisted on testifying in his own defense, even after his attorney basically threw him to the wolves by stating on the record that he'd twice advised his client against doing so. Now my witnesses had been good. I put the victim on as well as the two police officers who interviewed the defendant and arrested him. And they were all credible. But the case was lost for the defendant as soon as he was cross-examined. After he'd boasted during direct exam about his qualifications and credentials as a professional bounty hunter who "worked with the FBI and INS", I got him to admit that:

--He had no license in our area or any other state authorizing him to possess or carry any weapons.
--He had no credentials issued by any state or the federal government which conferred any police powers upon him at all.
--His only business license was for a home improvement business that he and his brother ran out of the brother's house. They have no office or staff for that business or the alleged bounty hunting business.
--He was not actively pursuing a fugitive, yet he was wearing a badge and a hat with a police logo on it and carrying the ASP, pepper spray and handcuffs for no reason.
--The alleged "school" that trained him to be a bounty hunter has no campus, no faculty members that he could name, and apparently no physical presence other than an Arizona post office box. He took his "classes" by mail.
--Bounty hunters are not issued badges by any government agency and he in fact bought his from an internet supply store.
--He was unaware of the fact that INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) no longer existed, having been replaced by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) in the wake of 9/11.

It was brutal, and if he hadn't been so cocky and arrogant--to the point of wearing lapel pins with little National Bail Bondsman Alliance logos on them--I might not have hammered him so hard. But I kept on him until finally the judge reminded me that we were approaching the end of the court day. So I wrapped up with a strong closing argument describing how even though he had never expressly claimed to be the police, that by acting like a police officer--stopping cars, approaching drivers, giving orders such as a police officer would, and threatening to arrest people, all while wearing a badge and a hat with a police logo and driving a car with a red flashing light--that he had fraudulently held himself out to be a police officer and had intended to convince others that he was a police officer with actual police authority. I also offered that it appeared from his actions and the testimony of the police officers that he'd been doing this sort of thing for quite some time.

And the judge agreed, finding him guilty. I asked for a month in jail followed by a term of probation and that's exactly what he got. He saw the court officer step behind him and begged to be allowed to report to jail on Monday instead of immediately. I pointed out that he had a residence in another state and ties to Arizona as well and the judge denied his request, sending him right to the jail. He then asked for "protective custody" claiming that people he'd arrested might recognize him. The judge rolled her eyes, but ordered it. All it really means is that he will spend his month locked up 24/7 in a solitary cell instead of being allowed out into the yard or for meals. I suspect that he'll come to regret that. But I felt good, and my victim thanked me, telling me how he came to court expecting the guy to walk free and how surprised and happy he was when he watched the guy being placed in handcuffs and escorted into the jail holding area. This is what being the People's Attorney is all about!

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

I had three cases today where a judge had issued a stay-away on defendants in pending cases but the defendants went back into those areas and got caught.

For those not in the know, a "stay-away" happens when a judge outlines a specific area and tells the defendant that as a condition of pre-trial release, they can't go there. The area could be a particular business that they've stolen from or a few block area where they've engaged in prostitution or sold drugs. They're generally small areas and the defendants still get the whole rest of the world to be in. Yet today I had three who got caught violating the orders and were charged with Contempt of Court. Of course it wouldn't be a big deal except for the fact that now they each get to wait in jail until their trial dates come up. No more bond since they screwed it up.

How dumb can you get, anyway?

Friday, June 15, 2007

Today I was scheduled for trial with two different drug possession cases made against the same defendant. Each case was made by a different officer on different days, but both were officers from my old department so this case was of particular interest to me. Then I looked at the defendant's LONG criminal history and realized that I had actually arrested him several years ago. Now I really looked forward to getting a couple more convictions on him and sending him to jail.
But alas, come this morning, neither of my officers were present due to a mistake (not made by me)with the subpoenas. Aw, Hell! I'd put some time into prepping these because I wanted to slam this guy, and here someone in another office had doofed my cases by not sending out the subpoenas. Damn it! I even tried to call the officers at home to arrange an emergency appearance but couldn't get them.
So I finally just sat and waited for the trial call, getting ready to admit that we weren't ready and accept the dismissal of both cases.
However when the judge finally called the cases, the DEFENDANT was absent. He'd been out on bond and hadn't shown up. YES!!! Now instead of a dismissal, a bench warrant has been issued for the defendant and I now have another shot at this. When he gets picked up on the warrant, he'll sit in jail until I can get a new trial date and arrange for new subpoenas. If he'd just shown up in court his cases would have dropped, but by not showing up, he gave me another crack at him, and I won't blow this one. That's a promise.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Today I took a plea on a misdemeanor gun case. In my mind it should have been kept as the felony case that it was filed as, but the powers that be saw fit to knock it down to misdemeanor court and offer a nice plea deal to boot so I got the case for the plea.

The defendant was the target of a Narcotics Team raid, and when the police knocked and announced at the door of his apartment, he ran to his bedroom and threw a gun and ammunition out of the window onto the lawn below. Fortunately the police had someone there to recover any tossed evidence so they got it, and they also found the defendant alone in the apartment and in the room that the gun had been tossed from. During a search of the place they found another gun and body armor. If I haven't mentioned it yet, I firmly believe that possession of body armor by anyone other than police officers or other public safety employees should be a criminal offense in itself. I'm going to have to send a memo to the city council on that one.
But the plea deal was an offer one count of Carry a Pistol Without a Permit, and they took it so I was stuck on this one. However when it came time to allocute for the appropriate sentence, I went for a jail sentence, stressing the fact that the defendant had not only had these weapons and the body armor along with some drug packaging materials (but no drugs, darn it!), but that he'd created an unreasonable danger to the community by throwing the gun out where any kid could have found it but for the diligence of our police officers who had the foresight to station an officer under that window. The defendant pleaded for mercy and claimed that he was trying to turn his life around and had just started working. (I hope that the judge didn't see me rolling my eyes--I've got to learn to quit doing that) But the judge wasn't swayed by his BS and he got two months in jail. While not nearly the time that he should have gotten, it was definitely better than seeing him walk free.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Lost one

Well this sucked. I had another trial today. It should have been a slam-dunk based on the facts and testimony. Instead it was my first defeat.

The case facts were that a guy had just come out of a courtroom in this same courthouse a couple of months ago. Apparently upset, he was cursing and ranting in the hallway when a police officer who was in court on another matter walked up and asked him to calm down. The swearing, ranting guy turned on the officer and graphically threatened to injure the officer if the officer didn't get out of his face.

Court security responded and took the guy down to the lobby, where he was placed in custody and charge with making threats, a misdemeanor.

I talked to the officer and he was pretty convincing and absolutely certain as to what had occurred. we started the trial and the defense attorney stated in opening arguments that his client was not upset and ranting over his court case but was instead angry at this particular officer for allegedly pulling him and his girl friend over a few months prior. When I put my officer witness on the stand, I asked him if he'd ever seen the defendant before. He denied it.I asked if he'd ever stopped the defendant or dealt with the defendant during a traffic stop. He said no. We went through the events that led to the charge and the officer came across as level and articulate, at least to me. The defense attorney tried to get the officer riled during an aggressive cross-examination but the officer kept his cool.
Next, the defense put the defendant on and he again claimed that he was just upset at the officer over a prior stop and while he admitted that he'd sworn at the officer and called him names, he denied making any threats.
On cross, I asked the defendant where he'd seen the officer before. He mentioned a general area of the city. I asked for the specific location, but he claimed that he couldn't remember because he was intoxicated. He also claimed that he couldn't remember the date. Finally, I asked him if he was aware of the fact that the officer worked in a precinct that was no where near the area of the city that he claimed to have seen him in. By this time, the defendant was visibly angry, balling his fists and responding with rudeness and rising volume. It was a clear contrast to the officer's calmness and in closing I mentioned this disparity as well as pointing out that the defendant had obviously either lied or been mistaken as to the circumstances around the alleged traffic stop. I highlighted the fact that the threats in this case were made in public, in front of many people in this very court building and that such behavior deserved a harsh sanction. I was going to try to get ten to fifteen days for this guy just because of his actions and his serious criminal record that extended back over two decades. It seemed like a lock.
But then the judge said that while he believed that the defendant had acted inappropriately in the courthouse, since I only had one witness--the officer--that there was not enough testimony to provide the requisite proof beyond a reasonable doubt regarding the threats. The defendant was acquitted and walked out grinning from ear to ear while I wrote a big "WTF???" on my note pad.

And so endeth my streak...