State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 15115) – (5 Counts) Felony Furnishing Harmful or Obscene Materials to a Minor – Reduced to Solicitation with Probation and Zero Days in Jail – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2017-001634):

The Mesa Police Department was running an undercover sting on Craigslist. They discovered an ad where it appeared an individual was looking to have contact with underage females. The Undercover Agent contacted Mr. M on-line and put in the subject line that she was “15 years old.” A phone number was provided and a text string began.

At some point during the texts, the Detective stated “You’re not sending me pics!!!” At this point, Mr. M sent two pictures of his penis, along with a masturbation video. The Undercover Detective started asking about money for sex acts, and Mr. M said he would think about it, but then passed on it later. He later sent two more pictures of people having sex and a picture of his penis. He was ultimately arrested by the Detectives and he admitted that he did put the ad on Craigslist, but he believed he was role playing with the person on the other end of the text string. He was then arrested and charged with 5 counts of Felony Furnishing Harmful or Obscene Materials to a Minor per ARS 13-3506. He then hired us and we became involved in the case.

We pointed out to the Prosecutor that the statement by the Detective of “You’re not sending any pics!!!” was potential Entrapment. It also appeared that the Detectives were trying to Entrap him into Child Prostitution by offering him money for sex acts. We then provided materials on Mitigation regarding Mr. M’s good character and lack of criminal priors. Ultimately, they agreed to reduce all 5 felony counts to a Solicitation with Probation and Zero Days in Jail. Originally, Mr. M was facing the possibility of over a decade in prison.

State v. Mr. R (DMC No. 15042) – Felony Child Prostitution- Reduced to Child Abuse with Probation and Zero Days in Jail – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2017-135355):

Mr. R was a 60 year old man who was leaving the Maryvale Hospital when a 16 year old girl struck up a conversation with him. He agreed to give her a ride and later offered to help her get a job with the government. He dropped her off at her apartment complex and she provided him with her phone number and agreed to meet on the following day. She then claimed that the next day, Mr. R started offering her money for sexual acts.

The Police then set up a confrontation call in which the alleged victim “confronted” Mr. R on the phone. He apologized for saying anything about sex, and he just wanted to help her out so she can have a job and go to college after she graduates high school. The Police then came in and arrested Mr. R and interrogated him. He indicated that the alleged victim told him that she was 18 years old when he gave her a ride in the past. We were then hired and brought into the case.

The Prosecutor’s Office filed a 404 allegation, which involves “prior bad acts.” They claimed that approximately 14 years earlier, Police reports were prepared against Mr. R based on stalking a young girl outside of a CVS and offering her money to model for him. When he was contacted in that case, he denied stalking, and stated that he only had given the girl a ride. Obviously, this was very bad information for our case, because it appeared that he had been engaging in this activity for years. However, we were able to pull up information on the alleged victim in our case which showed that she had a criminal history, and had lied in the past on multiple occasions. Ultimately, the Prosecutor agreed to reduce the charges down to a single count of Child Abuse which included Probation and Zero Days in Jail. Originally, Mr. R was facing 7 to 21 years in prison if he were to be convicted.

State v. Ms. C (DMC No. 13362) – Massage Involving Exposed Breasts, Touching Genitals, Viewing Genitals, Client Exposing Genitals & Failure to Maintain Massage Log – Reduced to Massage Act in an Arousing Manner with Zero Days in Jail – Scottsdale City Court (Case No. 2015-018819):

Scottsdale Detectives were doing an operation to discover prostitution at various massage parlors within city limits. They inspected a business by the name of E Spa, and found Ms. C was there with a client. They pulled the massage client out of the room and began pressuring him. They made promises that he would not be charged with Prostitution “if he cooperated.” He then told the Detectives that Ms. C had masturbated him and exposed her breasts, and that she had done this one time in the past.

Instead of charging Ms. C with Prostitution, they decided to charge her with various City Code Violations of 16-221 et.seq. They claimed that she did not maintain a proper log, that she massaged a client who was not covered, that she exposed her breasts, that she touched his genitals and that she viewed his genitals intentionally. They also stated that she provided a massage with the intent to arouse. We then became involved in the case and we showed the prosecutor that the count regarding failure to maintain a log falls on the massage facility licensee, not on the actual masseuse. As to the other counts, we showed them that this was “hearsay” that the client was pressured due to the intimidation of being forced to “cooperate.” Lastly, the claim that she had a short skirt and a plunging blouse was also fairly weak evidence. Ultimately, the Prosecutor Reduced the Charges down to a single count which included Zero Days in Jail.

State v. Ms. V (DMC No. 13545) – Felony Unlawful Sexual Conduct with an Inmate- Not Charged- Eloy Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXX7)  & Pinal County Attorney’s Office Investigated:

Ms. V was employed as a Correctional Officer for the Corrections Corporation of America in Pinal County. A relationship began to form with her and an inmate who was serving time for Voluntary Manslaughter and Assault with a Deadly Weapon. Third party correspondence began occurring between them through another friend, who was a Corrections Officer in Florida. When the corrections officer in Florida realized that the issue may be criminal, she turned it over to the warden’s office in Arizona.

When Ms. V was contacted by the Warden, she stated that the relationship had started because the inmate had overheard her talking about her personal problems. He had numerous conversations with her and then tried to kiss her one time. That was followed up by him grabbing her around the waist and kissing her on a separate occasion and telling her he loved her. He also pulled out his penis on one occasion, and he claimed that she kissed it. She denied ever having any sexual contact with the inmate.

She was terminated and then we became involved in the case. We contacted the Detectives in order to discuss their attempting to charge Ms. V with ARS 13-1419(a), which is Sexual Contact with an Inmate. That charge is a Class 5 Felony and can carry over 3 years of prison time. Ultimately, we cut off all further contact between the Investigators and Ms. V. We also had contacted with the Pinal County Attorney’s Office, and they ultimately decided to not proceed with charges due to the lack of cooperation of witnesses, and the fact that there was questionable “sexual conduct” between Ms. V and the inmate. Ultimately, she was Never Charged with anything and she has a clean criminal record.

State v. Ms. S (DMC No. 12420) – Felony Failure to Report Child Molestation – Not Charged – Mesa Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX8):

The Mesa Police Department became involved in a case when an 8 year old girl alleged being molested for the previous 3 years by her 14 year old biological brother. This included both penial and anal penetration. When this had occurred, the daughter claimed she disclosed this to her mother, and the mother merely told the brother to stop molesting his sister.

We were then hired by the mother in order to defend her against the felony charges of Failure to Report Child Molestation per ARS 13-3620. This is a Class 6 Felony, which can carry mandatory prison time. It was alleged that the child had told her mother about this on 4 separate occasions and that the crime was never reported to the authorities.

Once we became involved, we were able to show the Detectives that the 8 year old girl’s story would change routinely. She also thought she had told her father about the claimed molestation, then said that she had forgotten about it, and then she said she didn’t tell anyone because she was afraid she would get into trouble. We also did not allow the Police to interview Ms. S. Ultimately, No Charges were brought against Ms. S and she has no criminal record.

State v. Mr. G (DMC No. 11506) – Felony Incest – Not Charged – Mesa Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXX7):

Mr. J had a daughter that gave up for adoption at birth. It was alleged that he reconnected with his daughter when she was in her mid-thirties, and they fell in love. Eventually, not only did a sexual relationship ensue, but they actually married and had a child.

That child became a teenager and he was charged with molesting two young family members. While that juvenile was in therapy, a disclosure/allegation was made about his mother and father actually being father and daughter. An investigation then ensued and we were retained.

Pursuant to ARS 13-3608, Incest occurs when two people who are more than 18 years of age, and are within a certain degree of “consanguinity” with each other and they are married or having sexual relations. This can qualify as a Class 4 Felony which can carry over 3 years of prison time with it. We were able to prevent Detectives from securing DNA warrants and we prevented them from speaking with our clients. Because they were unable to collect any actual evidence, No Charges were ever brought against Mr. G or his wife.

State v. Ms. C (DMC No. 14540) – Prostitution, Sexual Massage, Massage without a License & Operating a Massage Business as a Home Occupation – Dismissed- Tempe City Court (Case No. 2016-036686)

Ms. C was accused of having a website known as MassageAnywhere.com. It was claimed on that site that she indicated she only accepted cash, that hugs and kisses were her favorite part, and that she would shave genitalia. The website also claimed that she had seen over 6,000 penises and that there was “no extra charge for an erection, it actually makes it easier to shave or trim you.”

An Undercover Tempe Officer went into her home and purchased the “Wham Bam Thank You Ma’am package.” He claimed that Ms. C offered to “play with him until he came”, and that was part of the $80 fee for the massage. The Tempe Police Officer then stated that he stayed after undressing, and only got a leg massage before he exited. This was obviously very suspicious to us when we took on the case. The Police then came in and executed a Search Warrant and arrested Ms. C. They also took $38,256 from her safe. We were then hired and became involved in the case.

Although the City of Tempe ultimately charged Ms. C with Prostitution pursuant to ARS 13-3214(A), they also stacked on various City Code Violations under 16A-166 E&F regarding sexual massage and massage without a license as a home occupation. Because of the potential embarrassment to the Tempe Police Department given the Officer’s actions, we were able to secure a Dismissal on All Charges based on some classes that Ms. C took prior to the conclusion of the case. Originally $38,000 was seized, but all that money was returned to Ms. C. She could have been facing over 2.5 years in jail, however, our Firm’s representation resulted in a Dismissal and she has no criminal record.

State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 11367) – (2 Counts) Felony Surreptitious Videotaping- Reduced to Attempt with Probation and Zero Days in Jail – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2012-155463):

Mr. S was seen at a Kohl’s department store in Ahwatukee, allegedly trying to film a woman in a dressing room in the women’s changing area. A Police Officer was called, and he came into the dressing room and looked down and saw Mr. S on his knees and elbows appearing to look up into the changing room to the east of where he was at. There was a cell phone on the floor, and Mr. S quickly shoved it into his pocket as he was taken into custody. While he was being questioned, he stated that he did not realize that the dressing room was only for women.

The Police then began questioning him about this incident, plus one the day before which involved a 14 year old girl in the same dressing room. Mr. S asked if he was entitled to a Lawyer, and the Police continued to question him. He ultimately made admissions to also taking pictures of the girl from the day before. He also handed over his cell phone to the Police.

We were then retained and began to defend the case. Due to the fact that the Police continued to questions Mr. S without a Lawyer being present, and the fact that they took his cell phone without obtaining a Warrant once he requested an Attorney, we had defenses that threated the Prosecutor’s entire case. We also presented evidence to the Prosecutor that Mr. S had never touched any children or women, and that he had sizable mitigation. Ultimately, they agreed to reduce the case to an Attempt with Probation and Zero Days in Jail. Originally, Mr. S was facing the possibility of over 5 years in prison.

State v. Mr. G (DMC No. 13691) – (6 Counts) Attempted Voyeurism – Reduced to Probation with Zero Days in Jail – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2015-137958):

Mr. G was accused of being seen in a Wal-Mart store on the wide side of Phoenix, Arizona walking through the aisles with a cell phone while attempting to film up women’s skirts. A Loss Prevention Officer for Wal-Mart stated that he saw Mr. G follow two women who were wearing skirts. The Officer stated that Mr. G bent down to get an item from the bottom shelf as he held out his phone underneath both women’s skirts and paused for a couple of seconds. There was no store security video footage to back up this claim.

The Loss Prevention Officer claimed that he went outside and saw Mr. G get into a Mustang and he wrote down the license plate number. He also took a cell phone picture of Mr. G and showed it to other Loss Prevention Officers. The next day, a different Loss Prevention Officer recognized Mr. G from the photo and began following him. He stated that he saw Mr. G crouch down behind another woman wearing a skirt and attempted to film up her skirt. He also said that he followed two other women, but was unable to crouch down quick enough before they moved. He ultimately left the Wal-Mart and the Police were summoned. This time, they claimed that they had him on videotape through the store security system.

Mr. G was contacted by Police and then got our office involved. We were able to show that they could not produce any actual images that Mr. G had taken, so they would not be able to charge him with the actual completed crime of Surreptitious Videotaping or Voyeurism. However, the Police were able to charge Mr. G with 6 counts of Felony Attempted Voyeurism pursuant to ARS 13-1424 and ARS 13-1001. We were ultimately able to get the case reduced down to Probation with Zero Days in Jail. He originally was facing over seven years in prison.

State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 14186) – (6 Counts) Felony Voyeurism- Reduced to Attempt with Probation and Zero Days in Jail – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2016-118645):

Mr. C was accused of setting up a video recorder in a bathroom and then having his 10 year old niece and her two friends enter the bathroom in order to change their clothes to go swimming. At the time, his wife had discovered the camera and asked him about it. He indicated that he was testing it because of various thefts that were occurring at his work (Home Depot). Approximately 3 years after that, his wife found thumb drives which contained the videos of the young girls in the bathroom. She then confronted him about it and also gave a copy to a relative who was a Police Officer.

An Order of Protection was filed against Mr. C, which was dismissed because the allegations were more than a year old. He had also been thrown out of his house by his wife and subsequently was arrested and questioned by Police. He invoked his Right to Remain Silent and then got us involved. We conducted a Risk Assessment and a Polygraph in order to show Mr. C was not predisposed to committing sex crimes on children. Although he was charged with 6 Counts of Felony Voyeurism, we were able to show the Psychosexual Risk Evaluation to the Prosecutor and negotiate a reduced plea to Attempt with Probation and Zero days in jail. We were also able to do this by Mr. C demonstrating his remorse and the fact that he was currently attending counseling. He originally was facing over 10 years in Prison.