Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: 100T Prevention of the Use of a Telephone Victories

PREVENTION of the USE of a TELEPHONE in an EMERGENCY, DISORDERLY CONDUCT and (2 Counts) ASSAULT DISMISSED at BENCH TRIAL – State v. Mr. A (DMC No. 7952) (Scottsdale City Court CR2007-032630): Police had received a 911 call in which the person calling hung up the phone and did not speak, when they arrived at the location to conduct a “Welfare Check”, they contacted Mr. A’s wife. She said that she had called Police and had been arguing with her husband, and that she had been pushed down on the couch and that he had hung up the phone. Mr. A was then charged with Prevention of the Use of a Telephone in an Emergency per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2915(A)(3). He was also charged with 2 Counts of Assault and Disorderly Conduct. We argued that it was his wife who choose to hang up the phone, and that she had actually attacked Mr. A first. When it came time for a Bench Trial against Mr. A, the Prosecutor choose to dismiss the charges against him.

PREVENTION of the USE of a TELEPHONE in CASE of EMERGENCY, ASSAULT and DISORDERLY CONDUCT DISMISSED at BENCH TRIAL – State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 8204) (Apache Junction Justice Court DV2007-0291): Mr. C and his girlfriend were engaged in an argument when he was accused of slapping her on her buttocks in a hard manner. His girlfriend called Police, and then the phone was grabbed out of her hand and hung up. When Police arrived, they arrested Mr. C and charged him with Prevention of the Use of a Telephone in a Case of Emergency pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2915 (A)(3). He was also charged with Assault and Disorderly Conduct. We argued that he was not the one who grabbed the phone and hung up, but in fact it was his girlfriend who hung up the phone. There were also issues about Mr. C defending himself against his girlfriend’s attacks. When it came time for the Bench Trial, the Prosecutor choose to dismiss all charges against Mr. C.

Mr. K was having an argument with his wife, when she picked up the phone to call 911. He then grabbed the phone, threw it down and damaged it. Police responded off the initial 911 “trigger”, and saw Mr. K in his garage. When he was instructed to exit the garage, he reached for a duffle bag on the ground and Officers immediately grabbed him and escorted him outside with a “control hold”. When they searched the duffel bag they found a weapon.

Mr. K was allegedly struggling when they placed him under arrest and when he was cuffed. He repeatedly stated that he had done nothing wrong and didn’t know why the Police were there. The Police then charged him with Obstruction of a Governmental Operation under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2402 (A)(1), Failure to Obey a Police Officer under Mesa City Code 42-179; Prevention of the Use of a Telephone During an Emergency under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2915 (A)(3); False Reporting to Law Enforcement Officers under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2907.01 (A); Carrying a Concealed Weapon per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-3102 (A)(1) and Criminal Damage under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1602(A)(1). We were able to show the Prosecutor that the Statute does not qualify regarding Obstruction of a Governmental Operation while placing a defendant under arrest. Also, the False Reporting and Failure to Obey were fairly outrageous charges given the situation. As far as the Carrying a Concealed Weapon and Prevention of the Use of a Telephone, they agreed to dismiss both of those charges. Mr. K only pled to the Misdemeanor Criminal Damage due to the destruction of the telephone, and was given a minimal Jail sentence of 4 days in Jail. Originally, he could have been facing up to 2 and a half years in the County Jail.

Call Now Button