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.
(2 Counts) CONTRIBUTING to the DELINQUENCY of a MINOR and (1 Count) OPENED CONTAINER DISMISSED – State v. Mr. G (DMC No. 8392) (Glendale City Court CR2008-000129): Glendale Police Officers responded to an alarm call. When they arrived in the location, they saw Mr. G’s van parked with him and several other occupants inside. There were two other unoccupied vehicles parked next to his van. The Officer ordered everyone out of the van, and they discovered there was alcohol inside of the van and open containers. They did not ask where the alcohol came from, and immediately cited everybody for Open Container per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 4-251(A)(2), and the two minors were cited with Minor in Consumption. Mr. G was charged with 2 Counts of Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-3613(A).
During the course of the case, we showed that there was no evidence gathered by the Officers proving that Mr. G had furnished the alcohol. The Prosecutor agreed to dismiss all charges if Mr. G would do alcohol classes and remain law abiding for 6 months. Mr. G had no convictions on his record.
MINOR in CONSUMPTION of ALCOHOL and DISORDERLY CONDUCT REDUCED to PUBLIC NUISANCE with ZERO DAYS in Jail – State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 8098) (University Lakes Justice Court No. JC2008-112277): Mr. S attended a fraternity party for the Sigma Chi fraternity at Arizona State University. As he was leaving the party, Police were outside and they immediately grabbed and cuffed Mr. S. When he asked why he was being arrested, they stated “for throwing ping pong balls”. He was then cited for Minor in Consumption under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 4-244.40 and for Disorderly Conduct. During the course of this case, I showed the Prosecutor that they never offered Mr. S a blood test, nor did they ever ask if he had been drinking. The Prosecutor agreed to dismiss the Minor in Consumption charge. As to the Disorderly Conduct charge, that was reduced to Public Nuisance with Zero days in Jail.
MINOR in POSSESSION of ALCOHOL and FALSE ID USED to PURCHASE ALCOHOL DISMISSED – State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 6384) (University Lakes Justice Court JC2006-106815): Mr. S and his friend pulled up to a liquor store in Tempe, Arizona, and they were observed by Officers to look “very young”. After Mr. S and his friend left the liquor store with a package, they got in their car and left. The Officer’s then stopped them claiming that they had made an illegal lane change. Mr. S was subsequently cited and charged with minor in possession of alcohol per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 4-244.9 and he was charged with using a fake ID to purchase alcohol per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 4-241(C).
We argued to the Prosecutor that the stop was a “pretext stop”, and that the Officers had “no reasonable suspicion” to stop Mr. S. The Prosecutor allowed Mr. S. to complete an alcohol class and in exchange, he dismissed all charges against him.
OBSTRUCTING a POLICE OFFICER DISMISSED – State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 6620) (Chandler City Court No. 06-C-2825551): Mr. M had been arguing with his wife, when his wife called 911. She then hung up the phone. 911 called and the wife stated “I’m sorry, I overreacted.” 911 sent the Police out for a “Welfare check” anyway.
When they arrived, Mr. M opened the door and he told the Police he didn’t want to make any statements. The Officer stated “step aside” I’m going into your house. Mr. M said “No you’re not” and shut the door and began walking back into his house. The Officer opened the door, came in and charged Mr. M with obstructing a Police Officer pursuant to Chandler City Code CC11-11. We were able to convince the Prosecutor that this did not qualify as a true “Obstruction” case. The Prosecutor agreed to dismiss all charges if Mr. M agreed to remain law abiding and contributed $500 to the D.A.R.E program in the amount of $500.
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.
FAILURE to OBEY a POLICE OFFICER – State v. Mr. W (DMC No. 9452) (Phoenix City Court No. 4133695): Mr. W (an African American gentleman) was from Tennessee and was traveling with his wife in the vehicle when they were stopped by Police. The Officer asked Mr. W to pull around the corner to the right as to not block traffic. When Mr. W turned around the corner he immediately stopped because the roadway was too dark up ahead. When the Officer asked him why he didn’t pull farther around the corner, Mr. W stated that he had negative experiences with the Police in Tennessee and that his wife was scared.
The Officer became irate and charged Mr. W with failure to obey a Police Officer per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 28-622. We were able to show the Prosecutor that the Officer was abusing his discretion, and they dismissed all charges against Mr. W.