Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: 30 Indecent Exposure Dismissals

State v. Mr. C (DMC 15410) – Animal Abuse – Reduced to 5 Days in Jail – Phoenix City Court (Case No. 5306674):  Mr. C was seen by people pulling his SUV over on the side of the road, retrieving a cat from the passenger side door, and throwing it over a fence.  The cat the scrambled off and hid underneath a car and was almost struck by Mr. C as he left the scene.  The witnesses then took the cat to the Humane Society and had it nursed back to health at a cost of almost $900.  Mr. C was ultimately tracked down and charged with Animal Cruelty.  We were able to present evidence that the cat dug his claws into Mr. C’s arms while he was attempting to remove it from the car, and that it then ran away after he flailed his arms due to the pain.  He had not abandoned the cat, nor had he tried to harm the cat.  Because of the strength of the witness’s testimony, the State was seeking a significant amount of jail time.  Although he was facing up to six months in jail, we were able to reduce the ultimately sentence to only five days.

State v. Mr. H (DMC 15877) – Felony Tampering with Evidence – Dismissed (with Classes) – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2018-138288):  Mr. H had been arrested for misdemeanor DUI and had been taken to the police station.  After the police had drawn two vials of his blood and packaged them both in a single box, they informed Mr. H that he could get an Independent Test of his blood if he wished to challenge the State’s results.  He was also told that the second vial would be available for him to get tested.  Mr. H became confused, and thought that the box with both vials of blood contained his own sample to take with him.  He put the box in his pocket and left with it when he was released from the police station.

Ultimately, the police contacted him and informed him that he had taken their samples of blood.  They claim that he had denied that he had taken the blood samples, and then they produced videotape evidence showing that he had.  He was ultimately arrested and charged with felony Tampering with Evidence.  We were then hired by Mr. H to represent him on the felony, and not on the underlying misdemeanor DUI (in which he already had an attorney).  Ultimately, we were able to have the Prosecutor agree that this was a mistake and that they could lose at trial.  They then allowed the case to be Dismissed upon successful completion of classes for alcohol consumption by Mr. H.

State v. Ms. E (DMC 15445) – Felony Arson and Felony Criminal Damage – Dismissed – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2018-151423):  Ms. E had suffered from PTSD and was on various medications.  She had taken two of those medications together and went to sleep, when she awoke was panicked because she thought her dog was locked inside of the car.  She smashed the car in order to get into it, and realized her dog was not there.  She then called her husband, who informed her that he had the dog.

During this ordeal, she had somehow set the car on fire.  We were able to show the prosecutor that she was having a medical episode, and that her husband (the co-owner of the car) did not wish for charges to be pressed.  Ultimately, the State agreed to Dismiss charges against Ms. E.  Originally, she was facing a large amount of prison time.

State v. Mr. F. (DMC 15474) – Felony Possession of Marijuana and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia – Teaching License Reinstated at Board Hearing – Arizona Department of Education (Case No. C-2017-697R):  Mr. F had been charged two years prior with Felony Possession of Marijuana and Felony Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.  We were able to negotiate a resolution that involved classes, which, upon successful completion, would result in a Dismissal of all charges.  As Mr. F was a school teacher, he was informed that pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute 15-534.02, that he would lose his license for a period of five years.  We requested a hearing in front of the Arizona State Board of Education, which was ultimately granted.

During the hearing, we provided numerous witnesses that showed Mr. F was doing a good job as a substitute teacher.  We also showed that he was not an immoral person, and the reason that he had used marijuana was due to back pain.  His lack of a medical marijuana card was merely an oversite.  He had since obtained a medical marijuana card, which allowed him to legally use the drug.  We also showed that Mr. F worked with special education children, some who had Downs Syndrome who were non-verbal.  Because of his knowledge of sign language, and his specialized training, he was a very valuable teacher.  Ultimately, the Committee agreed to Reinstate Mr. F’s Teaching License.

Indecent Exposure DismissedState v. Mr. V (DMC No. 13381) (Mammoth Justice Court CR2015-023): Mr. V was inside of a convenience store when he asked if he could use a restroom.  He was pointed to the restroom by a female employee.  After he came out of the restroom, he bought a Monster energy drink at the cash register, and then he left. The person behind the register accused him of having his penis exposed while he was standing at the register.  He was then charged with Indecent Exposure per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1402.

There was no surveillance video in the store which showed this (due to the angles of the cameras line of sight), however, the Police still executed a search warrant at Mr. V’s home.  When we became involved in the case, we also determined that the alleged victim in the case did not want to continue seeking prosecution. Although there had been allegations out of other jurisdictions, the charge in the Mammoth Justice Court jurisdiction had “proof problems”.  Ultimately, the Prosecutor agreed with us and Dismissed all charges.

NOT GUILTY/ COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at Jury Trial/ INDECENT EXPOSURE – State v. Mr. P (DMC No. 14233) Feb. 7, 2017 (Phoenix City Court No. 5066402): Mr. P was shopping in a Hobby Lobby on 46th Street and Cactus Road in Phoenix, Arizona. While he was shopping for some items, he squatted down to pull something off of the shelf. Due to his shorts and loose underwear, his testicle fell out of his shorts. There was a female customer nearby who did not see anything. However, the Assistant Manager saw what occurred from down the aisle way. She then had Security escort Mr. P out of the store and he was arrested by the Phoenix Police Department.

At Jury Trial we presented the video tape inside the store and showed exactly what happened. We were able to prove that this appeared to be an absolutely innocent occurrence, and that he was not attempting to expose himself to anybody. Although one of the Police Officer testified that Mr. P had told him that he intentionally exposed himself because the woman in the aisle had shown her breasts, the woman denied ever showing her breasts or even seeing Mr. P in the aisle way. The Jury deliberated and returned a verdict of Not Guilty!

DISMISSED | CHILD MOLESTATION (DCAC), SEX ABUSE (DCAC) and FELONY INDECENT EXPOSURE – State v. Mr. C. (DMC No. 9750) (Maricopa County Superior Court CR2010-006442): Mr. C. was a 61 year old man who lived across the street from a family who had a 6 year old daughter. He would often babysit the 6 year old daughter, who had emotional problems. She would often take off her clothes and dance naked in his living room and he would have to tell her to stop and immediately take her home to her mother. She would also walk into his bathroom when he would be urinating and try and look at his exposed penis. The girl’s father (who did not live with her or the mother) heard accusations from his daughter that she had been touched by Mr. C. He immediately contacted the Goodyear Police Department and an investigation was conducted on Mr. C.

We became involved and allowed him to be polygraph and voice stress analyzed by the Goodyear Police Department. Although his results were “truthful” on the tests, they still felt he was not telling the truth. Approximately 3 years later, Mr. C. was indicted and charged (long after he thought this issue was closed). His charges included Child Molestation under ARS 13-1410; Sex Abuse under ARS 13-1404; and Felony Indecent Exposure under ARS 13-1402. During our investigation we exposed many flaws in the Detective’s reports, and some out right falsities attributing statements to Mr. C.’s adult children. We also filed a motion to have the Grand Jury indictment remanded based upon these flaws. Just prior to the date of trial, the Deputy Maricopa County Attorney in charge of the case filed a Motion to Dismiss all charges. Originally, Mr. C. would have spent the rest of his life in prison if he were convicted of these charges.

ALL DISMISSED | INDECENT EXPOSURE/POSSESSION of DRUG PARAPHERNALIA/TRESPASS and INTERFERING WITH AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ALL DISMISSED State v. Mr. G. (DMC No. 4380) (University Lakes Justice Court CR01-01763): Mr. G. was accused of being near a girl’s dormitory at ASU exposing himself while wearing very tight and small red shorts.  When police made contact, they discovered he had some drug paraphernalia on him for smoking marijuana.  They also cited him with trespass, interfering with an educational institution, along with indecent exposure.  When we took the case and interviewed the civilian witness, it was discovered that he was never actually seen exposing or touching himself, this was just the assumption that was made based upon his unusual behavior.  We then convinced the prosecutor that we would most likely succeed on a Motion for “no probable cause for arrest”, and “illegal search”, and the State agreed to dismiss all charges.

Mr. J. was accused of traveling through a neighborhood and committing sex acts inside of his car in front of 3 different girls. When the girls were interviewed by Detectives, they were presented with a photo of a registered a registered sex offender in the neighborhood, and they all identified this person instead of Mr. J. When that person had an alibi, they checked various vehicle descriptions and located Mr. J through his vehicle. The Detectives indicated that Mr. J confessed to all the crimes when interviewed by them. He was subsequently arrested and charged with Public Sexual Indecency under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1403(A)(1).

At Trial, we argued that the offense the girls were describing was Indecent Exposure and not Public Sexual Indecency, (since there was no actual sex act involved). In addition, we pointed out that they had identified somebody completely different than Mr. J. when shown the original photo lineup. Lastly, we argued that this so called confession by the Detectives was never recorded, as would be standard procedure, and therefore was very suspect. The Jury agreed and Mr. J was found Not Guilty of the charge.

Call Now Button