Disclaimer - Results depend upon factors unique to each case and that results in one case do not predict similar results in others.

DISMISSED – Disorderly Conduct- State v. Mr. H. (DMC No. 9801)

DISMISSED – Disorderly Conduct- State v. Mr. H. (DMC No. 9801) (Tempe City Court No. 2010-035486): Mr. H. was at the Big Bang Bar in Tempe when he got into an argument with some bouncers. Police walked up and claimed that Mr. H walked at them aggressively. They then took him to the ground and he was arrested for disorderly conduct. We were able to show that this was all a misunderstanding fueled by alcohol, and that the case should be dismissed upon completion of some alcohol classes. Because Mr. H was a U.S. Airways employee, this result saved his job.

DISMISSED – Disorderly Conduct, State v. Mr. C. (DMC No.7238)

DISMISSED – Disorderly Conduct, State v. Mr. C. (DMC No.7238) (Surprise Municipal Court No. CR07-00026): Mr. C. had come home from a fishing trip and had said hello to his neighbor. He had had previous police contacts at his house before. The neighbor would not acknowledge him, and Mr. C. became upset and began yelling, “Are you too good to say hi to me?” The yelling continued and his neighbor then called the police. Although Mr. C. was charged with Disorderly Conduct, we were able to show the prosecutor that this was not truly disorderly behavior and that his speech was protected by the First Amendment. The prosecutor agreed and all charges were dismissed.

DISMISSED – Disorderly Conduct, State v. Mr. H. (DMC No.7301)

DISMISSED – Disorderly Conduct, State v. Mr. H. (DMC No.7301) (Surprise Municipal Court No. CR07-00386): Some neighbors had called regarding Mr. H. riding around on a recreational vehicle in a reckless manner up and down the neighborhood streets. When police arrived, they saw Mr. H. arguing with his neighbor. Mr. H. then walked to the back yard and began punching a shed and then arcadia door with his bare fist. His knuckles were bleeding and he appeared to be intoxicated. He was subsequently arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct. We were able to convince the prosecutor that a person cannot be disorderly in their own backyard with their own property without other neighbor’s peace and quiet being disturbed. The State agreed and all charges were dismissed.

DISMISSED – Assault/Disorderly Conduct, State v. Mr. H. (DMC No.7286)

DISMISSED – Assault/Disorderly Conduct, State v. Mr. H. (DMC No.7286) (Scottsdale Municipal Court No. CR-2006030863): Mr. H. lived in a house with several college roommates. He had been out drinking with his roommates when they arrived back at their house and encountered another roommate who had been drinking. Mr. H. began wrestling and fighting with that roommate, and police were called. Because Mr. H. was roommates with the gentleman he fought with, he was charged with a Domestic Violence Assault. We were able to show that this simply an argument between roommates, and the alleged victim no longer sought to proceed with charges. The case was then dismissed on the day of trial.

DISMISSED – Assault/Disorderly Conduct, State v. Mr. H. (DMC No.7286)

DISMISSED – Assault/Disorderly Conduct, State v. Mr. H. (DMC No.7286) (Scottsdale Municipal Court No. CR-2006030863): Mr. H. lived in a house with several college roommates. He had been out drinking with his roommates when they arrived back at their house and encountered another roommate who had been drinking. Mr. H. began wrestling and fighting with that roommate, and police were called. Because Mr. H. was roommates with the gentleman he fought with, he was charged with a Domestic Violence Assault. We were able to show that this simply an argument between roommates, and the alleged victim no longer sought to proceed with charges. The case was then dismissed on the day of trial.

DISMISSED – Disorderly Conduct/Resisting Arrest/False Information

State v. Ms. A. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. A839517CR): Mr. A. was at a house party on the reservation when police arrived. They entered and arrested her brother’s friend, when she intervened and began asking numerous questions of the police. The officers became frustrated and arrested her, claiming she was obstructing a criminal investigation, committing Disorderly Conducting, Resisting Arrest, and Providing False Information. We were able to talk to the assigned prosecutor on the case, and he “furthered” the case back to police for more information. Ultimately, the prosecutor made the decision to dismiss all charges.

DISMISSED – Disorderly Conduct with a Gun

State v. Mr. C. (Maricopa County Superior Court No. 2002012644CR): Mr. C. was at his house when renters let his ex-girlfriend in. She began taking some of Mr. C.’s belongings, and he waved a gun on the back patio. Neighbors called the police, who subsequently arrested Mr. C. We were able to demonstrate that he was justified in his defense of property, and all charges were dismissed.

DISMISSED- Disorderly Conduct – State v. Mr. V.

(Kyrene Justice Court No. JC2006131746): Mr. V. was at Axis/Radius nightclub in Scottsdale when a fight broke out. As all parties were being escorted from the club, police claim that Mr. V. was seen shouting profanities and attempting to push his way towards others involved in the fight. He eventually used profanity towards the officers, and she was shot six to eight times with a pepperball gun by police. He was then taken to the ground and handcuffed. We were able to show the prosecutor that Mr. V. was actually trying to protect his brother, who had been beaten up by other patrons, and he was acting reasonably in the situation. We also questioned the officers’ version of the facts. The prosecutor then dismissed all charges.

DISMISSED- Threatening & Intimidating – State v. Ms. R.

(University Lakes Justice Court No. JC2006161187): Ms. R. was a student at ASU. She had gotten into an argument with her dorm roommate, who claimed that Ms. R. was threatening her without specifically stating she would do physical violence. The case was set to bench trial, and on the day of trial the State had not subpoenaed their necessary witnesses. The State attempted to continue the case, and we objected. When the State moved to dismiss so they could merely re-file the case on a later date, we asked the judge to dismiss the case “with prejudice.” That motion was granted. The State then moved for a motion to reconsider and they were denied. Ms. R. was facing a possibility of up to six months in jail.