Hi, How Can We Help You?

Blog

State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 13988)

FELONY SURREPTITIOUS VIDEO TAPING NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 13988) (Surprise Police Department DR No. 13-0904002): Mr. C came to our office and retained our services after a search warrant was executed on his home. During the execution of the search warrant, he learned that his ex- girlfriend was claiming that he had Surreptitiously Videotaped them having sex in violation of Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-3019. After hiring us, I met with the Pre-charge team to discuss the plan of attack. Initially, the plan was to obtain a copy of the police report and contact the Detective regarding the specific allegations. Additionally, we would send a Trebus letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s office as a precaution. After sending a Trebus letter, we immediately reached out to the Officer who was the affiant in the search warrant. After these initial steps, we also obtained a private investigator to reach out to Mr. C’s roommates at the time that this allegedly occurred, as well as his ex-girlfriend. We also discussed the potential of having our client submit to a polygraph examination and turning the results over to the Detective. Mr. C submitted to and passed a polygraph examination. The results of this were sent by way of a Trebus/Bashir letter to both the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and the Detective. It was brought to our attention that the case was transferred to a different Detective. We spoke with the new Detective who indicated the case was still under investigation, pending forensics on the computer that was seized during the execution of the search warrant. We provided a copy of the Trebus/Bashir letter to new the Detective.

After receiving information from the private investigator regarding a conversation with Mr. C’s ex-girlfriend, an Affidavit was obtained to support what her testimony would be in this case. Based on this information, a supplemental Trebus/Bashir letter was submitted to the Detective and the County Attorney’s Office.

In June 2015, we finally received a copy of the police report in a redacted format. In reviewing the report and a summary of the video, it clearly shows that the alleged victim knew the camera existed. Additionally, the alleged victim had contacted the Detectives and indicated she no longer wanted to move forward with prosecution. A year and a half after Mr. C retained our firm, the case was finally designated as “closed” by the Detective.

Call Now Button