Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: 118 Miscellaneous Crime Pre-Charge Victories

State v. Bagdad Hillside LLC (DMC No. 15240) – (3 Counts) Felony Discharge Elimination System Violation ($950,000 Violation) – Not Charged As To Our Client Mr. G /Former Owner of Bagdad Hillside – Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. CR2017-002439).

Mr. G was a former owner of the Bagdad Hillside Mine. He had sold all ownership interest when a Complaint was brought forward by the Arizona Attorney General for Discharge Elimination System Violations. The Bagdad Hillside Mine was located adjacent to Boulder Creek. This part is of the Bill Williams River watershed and a tributary to Alamo Lake. It has been stipulated that the water is to be protected for human and animal use, including full body contact. The Hillside Mine which was adjacent to Boulder Creek had a large amount of mining tailings (which are the remains from digging out a mine). At some point in the past, the miners hit ground water and the mine started to fill up. The lowest level of the shaft was 900 ft. below and the miners put in a drainage shaft and called it an ADIT (a horizontal passage leading into a mine for the purposes of access or drainage). The drainage shaft would then continually drain water into Boulder Creek.

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) continually tested the water over several years and found that the average levels of arsenic were 200 times higher than the allowed levels to be in discharged water. The Enforcement Officer for ADEQ, testified that she had contact with the Bagdad Chief Financial Officer on numerous times and tried to correct the problem with him. She sent Notice of Violations and they worked out a Consent Order. None of these Consent Orders were followed. Ultimately, 3 Counts of Felony Discharge of an Elimination System Violation were filed and a Bench Trial was held against the corporation. Through process of the Trial, both the Chief Financial Officer and Mr. G were mentioned by the ADEQ. Although the Corporation was found guilty and was issued a fine of $950,000, Mr. G was not individually convicted of anything, nor was he responsible to pay any of that fine.

Felony Custodial Interference Not Charged – State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 13542) (Phoenix Police Department DR2014-00120362): Mr. M was friends with a couple who had a minor child.  The couple ended up getting divorced, and Mr. M was friends with the mother of the child and not the father or the paternal grandparents.  Ultimately, the father died in a car accident, and the paternal grandparents were seeking visitation rights.  The mother then fled to Canada with the child to begin a new life.

Once the mother was located with the child, an investigation began against the mother for Custodial Interference. Because Mr. M had been friends with the mother and had given her financial assistance in the past, he then became a target of the police Detectives to also be charged with Custodial Interference. We were able to show the Detectives that in no way had he provided financial aid or counseling for the purposes of fleeing the country.  We put together a packet of information which was forwarded to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, and the case was turned down for charges against Mr. M.

FELONY ESCAPE NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 6645) (Scottsdale Police Department No. 06-19488): Mr. M was pulled over in the City of Scottsdale at Thomas and Hayden Roads for allegedly slamming on his brakes at a red light. He then “peeled out” and made a right turn. Officers pulled him over and conducted a DUI investigation. He produced a BAC of .194 on a Portable Breath Test. Afterwards, as he was told he was being placed under arrest, he stated “I think I’m going to run”, and then he ran from Officers. He was subsequently tackled and arrested for DUI and Felony Escape per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2502. We were able to convince the Prosecutors to not charge the Felony Escape, and simply keep the DUI at the City Court level. Although he had to deal with a DUI, no felony charges were ever placed on his record.

CONTRIBUTING to the DELINQUENCY of a MINOR and FURNISHING ALCOHOL to a MINOR NOT CHARGED – Stave v. Mr. M (DMC No. 5265) (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office DR No. 2004-072428): Mr. M and his friend went to a Diamondbacks baseball game. An undercover Detective observed Mr. M and his friend walking with beers in the upper level of the stadium. The Detectives stopped them because he felt they “looked too young”. They were subsequently taken to the Security in the basement of the ballpark and both were given breath tests which showed a .19 and .16 BAC, respectively. Mr. M was subsequently charged with Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-3613(A), and he was charged with Furnishing Alcohol to a Minor per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 4-244.9.

Because the stop was based upon a visual estimation only, and the fact that Mr. M was almost 21 years old, we were able to convince the Prosecutor to not press charges. This was due to the fact that there was No Reasonable Suspicion to stop these gentlemen. Mr. M has no conviction on his record.

FURNISHING ALCOHOL to a MINOR and CONTRIBUTING to the DELINQUENCY of a MINOR NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 4688) (Skyline High School Resource Officer Investigated): Mr. D was a student at Skyline High School in Mesa. The principle and Security Guard had received information that Mr. D had purchased alcohol for other minors, placed the alcohol in backpacks and put it in his car. When they questioned Mr. D, he gave them permission to search his vehicle. No alcohol was found, but the Principle and the School Resource Officer had received information that other kids had gone to his car while he was in with the Principle and removed the Vodka.

We contacted the School Resource Officer and convinced him to not file charges regarding Furnishing Alcohol to Minors under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 4-244.9, nor to file charges regarding Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-3616(A). Due to the lack of physical evidence, combined with the unreliability of the other student’s statements, he agreed. No charges were ever brought against Mr. D.

NOT CHARGED | CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. P. (DMC No. 7390) (Glendale Police Department Investigated): Mr. P.’s goddaughter had a friend who he had met before.  She claimed she was 17 years old, was about to turn 18 and needed to borrow money to take a flight to Pennsylvania to visit her father.  Mr. P. was under the impression that she had permission and was also under her father’s custody.  It turned out she was only 16, had run away from her mother and did not have permission to travel.  Because Mr. P. did not get along with her mother, he was investigated for Custodial Interference.   We were able to convince the police that even though he was friends with the girl’s father he was not intentionally trying to aid in her “escape” from her mother. No charges were filed.

 

NOT CHARGED | CONSPIRACY to HINDER PROSECUTION NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. B. (DMC No. 10363) (Chandler Police Department Investigated): Mr. B. was a high ranking public official whose wife and daughter were charged with sexual conduct with a minor. In this high profile case, his wife was sentenced to over a decade in prison, and his daughter received probation with jail time. Investigators attempted to go after Mr. B. to show that he somehow tried to “hinder” their prosecution of his now ex-wife and daughter. We were able to shut down the investigation, exposing it as a political stunt, and no charges were brought against Mr. B.

NOT CHARGED | MISCONDUCT with WEAPON/TAMPERING with PHYSICAL EVIDENCE/FAILURE to COMPLY with POLICE OFFICER NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. W. (DMC No. 4437) (Tolleson Police Department DR04-0503028): Mr. W. was pulled over by police for allegedly not having a license plate light. In reality, the police were conducting surveillance on a known drug house and wanted to see if he purchased drugs. When they asked if they could search him, he said “no thank you”. He was then placed in handcuffs, taken to the ground and upon being searched a gun, knife and drugs were found. The officers alleged that he attempted to throw the knife and hide it before being placed under arrest. We were able to convince the Prosecutor to only charge the possession of drugs and allow Mr. W. to do a diversion dismissal class known as “TASC”. None of the other charges were brought, and he has no conviction on his record.

FELONY DEPOSITING EXPLOSIVES NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 10236) (Chandler Police Department DR No. 11-05-2808): Mr. S was a 15 year old High School student who made a “works” bomb out of toilet bowl cleaner with tin foil and a plastic bottle. He and his friends threw it at another friend’s house and damaged their garage door when it exploded. The explosion caused $3500 of damage. The Chandler Police Department indicated that they were going to charge Mr. S with Depositing Explosives under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-3104A. We were able to intervene and negotiate a civil settlement with the people who owned the house. Because of this, we were able to convince the Detective and Prosecutors not to proceed forward with charges.

FELONY TAMPERING with EVIDENCE NOT CHARGED – State v. Ms. L (DMC No. 10984) (Scottsdale Police Department DR No. 10-01366): Ms. L was pulled over in the City of Scottsdale and arrested under suspicion of DUI.  She was subsequently transported to an area where blood was drawn, and then she was taken to the Jail. Once the Officer arrived at the Jail, he discovered that his blood collection kit had been torn open and the blood vials had been tampered with. Ms. L admitted to tearing the box open and she stated “I was angry and didn’t know what to do”. At that time, the Officer routed the report for charges of Tampering with Evidence per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2809 to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. We convinced the County Attorney’s Office to simply proceed with the Misdemeanor DUI and not charge her with a Felony Tampering with Evidence charge.

Call Now Button