Our Location

40 N. Central Ave, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004

Free Consultation

(602) 307-0808
Call Now, Open 24/7
July 21, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 38D Voyeurism Victories, 38E Surreptitious Recording Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. T (DMC No. 14313)

State v. Mr. T (DMC No. 14313) – (7 Counts) Surreptitious Videotaping and (7 Counts) Felony Voyeurism – Not Charged – Scottsdale Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX4).

Mr. T was married but had been going through a potential divorce situation with his wife when she discovered that he allegedly had been videotaping their sexual encounters on and off for over 4 months. She confronted Mr. T about this and allegedly recorded him making admissions to filming them without her knowledge. She also secured a thumb-drive with 7 different videos of them engaged in sexual intercourse. She then called the Scottsdale Police Department and filed an initial report. She then informed them that she did not want to move forward at that time, and she held off any further cooperation.

Approximately 4 years later after the divorce was finalized, they were going through a custody issue regarding where their son should go to school. She then reactivated her prosecution with Scottsdale PD. As the investigation began moving forward again, she called the Scottsdale Police Detective back. She stated that she and Mr. T were “having a disagreement over which school their son should attend and that she did not want it to appear to the court that she was only reporting in hopes for the decision to be in her favor.” She wanted to wait until after the Judge made his custody decision before proceeding forward with charges.

The Police then contacted Mr. T and he told them that he was “in the middle of a custody battle” and that he did not think he should talk to them. He told the Officer to contact his lawyer. We then became involved and informed the Officer that this was all being generated for custody battle purposes. We also pointed out that it was not definitive in the videos that this was not a consensual taping between this married couple. Even though Mr. T’s ex-wife claimed that she had him making admissions on tape, it wasn’t clear that it was admissions of him filming her unknowingly. Ultimately, no charges were ever brought against Mr. T.

July 21, 2020
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 29 Sexual Assault Reduced, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 38E Surreptitious Recording Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

State v. Mr. N (DMC 14216)

State v. Mr. N (DMC 14216) – Felony Sexual Assault and Felony Surreptitious Recording – Not Charged – Pima County Sheriff’s Office Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX4); Tohono O’odham Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX4); Pima County Attorney’s Office Turned Down Prosecution.

Mr. N had known a lady for quite some time and he invited her over to his house because he was moving to Phoenix the next day. He had a large group of friends at his house, and everyone was drinking. This woman got to his house at approximately 2 AM and was doing shots of tequila with Mr. N. Eventually, they went upstairs and appeared to have engaged in consensual sex.

The next day, people were contacting the young lady stating that she had sent them various photos of her naked and engaged in sexual activity. In one of the photos, it appeared she was asleep. One of them was sent to her ex-husband, and another one was sent to a man that she had begun dating online a couple weeks prior. She denied to the police that she had ever sent any photos like this to anybody before, and she felt she had been sexually assaulted.

We became involved in the case, and we requested that the police interview the other gentleman that she had met online and sent photos to. He told them that she had, in fact, sent him pictures in the past of her engaged in various sexual activities. Because Mr. N was an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Officer, the case was reviewed by several investigating agencies. Ultimately, it was sent to the Pinal County Attorney’s Office, who declined to proceed with prosecution. Initially, Mr. N could have faced well over a decade in prison if convicted of these charges. However, he was never charged, and he was allowed to keep his career as a law enforcement Officer.

March 12, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 29A Sexual Assault Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 38E Surreptitious Recording Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories, Tempe City Court / Tempe Municipal Court Victories

State v. Mr. T (DMC No. 14041)

FELONY SEXUAL ASSAULT and FELONY SURREPTITIOUS VIDEO TAPING NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. T (DMC No. 14041) (Tempe Police Department DR No. 2014-138947): Mr. T, an ASU student and member of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity, was accused by another ASU female sorority member of having engaged in sexual intercourse with her and Video Taping her without her consent. These accusations came after a party at Mr. T’s residence. During the course of the gathering at the home, Mr. T, along with another fraternity member, engaged in sexual intercourse with the alleged victim. This threesome was video recorded by Mr. T. After the sexual interaction, the parties left Mr. T’s room and went back to the party. The sorority girl left the party with her friends at that time. While she was leaving with her friends a discussion ensued causing her friends to have her transported to the hospital for an evaluation. Once at the hospital, Tempe police were called regarding an alleged Sexual Assault per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1406, and Surreptitious Video Taping per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-3019. When police arrived to the hospital they interviewed her and her two friends about what had occurred at the house. Medical staff informed the officers that they believed she had been acting precarious, as she was upbeat and joking with her friends while at the hospital, not a demeanor expected for somebody having just been Sexually Assaulted. She then indicated at this time that she did not desire prosecution.

Approximately 10 hours after the initial report was made, police were re-contacted by her, and she indicated that she had just found out that a video of the alleged Sexual Assault that occurred the night prior was being shown to a variety of pledge members in the fraternity. The Officer conducted an investigation regarding the video and interviewed one of the fraternity pledge members. He told officers that Mr. T and the other male involved in the threesome were showing the video of the sexual encounter to the pledges on a laptop. At this time, the sorority girl indicated she was willing to prosecute for the Sexual Assault and Surreptitious Video Recording.

Based on the information provided a search warrant was executed at Mr. T’s home in Tempe, Arizona. During the execution of the search warrant, Mr. T’s laptop was seized and impounded into evidence. After the police contact and execution of the search warrant, Mr. T contacted our office. Once our services were retained, I met with the Pre-Charge team and we decided to (1)  retain the  services of  a  private investigator, (2)  conduct initial Internet and Facebook research on the alleged victim, (3) contact the Detective regarding the status of the investigation, (4) obtain a copy of the search warrant Affidavit, (5) schedule a polygraph examination and forward that information to the Detective if the results were favorable, (6) obtain a copy of the police report from Tempe Police Department, (7) send a Trebus letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, and (8) retain the services of a forensic expert and submit a spoliation letter to the Detective regarding the video and computer.

Within days of being retained we retained the services of our Private investigator. Additionally, we retained the services of a computer expert in order to obtain a clone of the computer and video seized during search warrant execution.

We had constant contact with the Detective case agent. We were told by the Detective that the video seized from our client’s computer clearly showed and established the consensual sexual contact with the three individuals. However, it does not show any evidence of Sexual Assault. Additionally, the Detective indicated there would be no charges for Surreptitious Videotaping as the sorority girl clearly looked into the camera while engaging in the sex acts. Based on the fact that the video appeared to show consensual sex acts, this case was closed.

March 12, 2018
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 113 Sex Crime Pre-Charge Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 38E Surreptitious Recording Victories, 900 Pre-Charge Case Victories, Case Victories

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.

January 10, 2014
Posted on Author By dmcantor Categories 2100 Superior Court Victories, 300 Sex Crime Victories, 38E Surreptitious Recording Victories, Case Victories, Maricopa County Superior Court Victories

State v. Mr. F (DMC No. 4737)

REDUCED | SURREPTITIOUS PHOTOGRAPHING REDUCED to “attempt” with probation and zero jail – State v. Mr. F. (DMC No. 4737) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2004-010581): Mr. F. was at home one day when he heard the neighbors dog barking frantically.  When he looked over the wall, the 18 year old neighbor came outside with no clothes on.  He discovered she would often engage in this behavior, and he took several photographs of her over the next 6 months with his camera over the wall.  When he dropped the roll of film off at the local drug store, they notified police.  He openly told police he didn’t realize it was illegal because he thought she was in public view.  It was explained that because he had to peer over the wall (i.e., above eye level), it was illegal.  Although the neighbor was highly upset, we were able to secure a plea to a simple “attempt” with probation and zero days of jail. Mr. F. was not required to register as a sex offender.

Call Now Button