State v. Mr. W (DMC No. 14072) – Felony Sexual Abuse on a Minor – Not Charged –  Scottsdale Police Department Investigated.

Mr. W was friends with another family who had children. While he was in Prescott, their 13-year old daughter kept flirting with Mr. W and attempted to kiss him. He told her to stop and to go to bed. After that time, she kept continually flirting with Mr. W and sending him various text messages. This disturbed Mr. W because he was 37 years of age.

He eventually told the girl’s father about what she was doing and the girl’s father told him to “not worry about it.” Shortly, thereafter Mr. W received a call from the Scottsdale Police Department to discuss the issue. He then contacted our office and we became involved. First thing of note was that Scottsdale Police Department was investigating an allegation that supposedly took place in Prescott. That would make his case a Yavapai County case, and not a Maricopa County case, for purposes of jurisdiction. We let the Detective know that we were representing Mr. W, and that we would be following up with him in the near future.

We then had contact with the girl’s family, and she admitted that she had made everything up because she was “mad.” She wrote a letter basically stating that she lied, and this was sent to the Detective. The Detective received this letter and no charges were ever brought forward against Mr. W. If they had been brought forth, Mr. W very well could have done jail time, been forced to Register as a Sex Offender and lost his job. However, no charges were brought against Mr. W and he has no criminal record.

FELONY SEXUAL ABUSE NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 11566) (Scottsdale Police Department DR No. 15-04050): Allegations were made against Mr. B stating that he had Sexually Abused a young (over 18 years old) female clerk at a dry cleaner’s store by forcing his hands into her clothing and touching her on her vagina and breasts. At the time of these allegations of Sexual Abuse per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-1404, Mr. B was a 50-year-old, married businessman in Scottsdale, Arizona. The complaining party was a clerk at a dry cleaners in Scottsdale frequented by Mr. B. The young woman stated that Mr. B had talked with her in times past and had told her that he worked in the modeling industry and wanted her to model for his agency. The complaining party indicated that she was interested in the opportunity and communicated with Mr. B through text messaging. She stated that Mr. B requested that she take photos of herself and send the photos to him through text messaging. She then claimed that Mr. B offered her $100 in exchange for a photo of her breasts.

The complaining party stated that Mr. B came to pick up his dry cleaning and she was alone at the shop with Mr. B when said he wanted to see her breasts in the context of evaluating her for modeling purposes. She claimed that she lifted her shirt and her bra to expose her breasts for him to see. She then claimed that he offered her $600 in exchange for sex. She claimed that she rejected that offer and that Mr. B then grabbed her hand and pulled it toward his groin.  She  then  claimed  that  he unbuttoned  her pants  and  reached  his  hand  into  her pants  and  beneath  her underwear. She claimed that he touched her vagina without any penetration occurring and that he also reached under her shirt and bra and touched her breasts. She claimed that she repeatedly told him to stop doing that.

She said that as he left, he threw a $100 bill on the counter and called her a slut. She claimed that she texted him later that evening stating “that was really wrong.” She said that he responded saying that he knew it was wrong but couldn’t help himself saying, “I’m sorry I made you feel uncomfortable, I just wanted you.” She then stated that she told a friend who worked at the shop who then immediately contacted Mr. B to come to the dry cleaning shop to pick up his clothing. There was a heated exchange between Mr. B and the friend. Mr. B then came to the dry cleaning shop to pick up his clothes where there was another heated exchange between Mr. B and the friend. Mr. B purportedly told the friend that he was a police officer and showed her a badge.

The complaining party stated that she was worried that Mr.  B would deny everything and, somewhat contradictorily, that she had deleted the text messages between the two of them. Detectives then attempted a couple of “confrontation calls” to Mr. B without success. Eventually they were able to contact Mr. B directly and conducted an interview with him. In his interview, Mr. B denied touching the complaining victim on her breasts or vagina, however he did admit to asking her how much he could get for $100. He also admitted that at one point in time, the young lady had disrobed partially for him, at his request, so that he could determine whether she was suitable for modeling. Mr. B also admitted to sending and receiving texts with the young lady in which she sent to him numerous photographs of herself in revealing clothing.

After retaining our office, our Pre-Charge team began to take immediate steps to head the case off. We immediately sent a letter of our representation to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, along with the request that should the case be presented to a grand jury, our client wished to be present and to testify. We also immediately reached out to the Scottsdale Police Department and advised

them that we represented Mr. B. Upon contacting the Detective, we advised that Mr. B was represented will not make further statements. The Detective requested that we provide copies of any photographs, emails, or text messages that were exchanged between the two. We declined to provide such information. We advised the Detective of our belief that this allegation was being driven by the young woman’s girlfriend who had seen some of the text messages and photos between the complainant and Mr. B. We also advised the Detective that Mr. B was not the initiator of the conversations, the physical contact, or the request for nude photographs. It was clear that the young woman had deleted the messages and photos to prevent her girlfriend from seeing any more of them. Shortly after our contact, the case was closed and the status was changed to an “inactive status.”

2 COUNTS SEX ABUSE NOT CHARGED– State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 8689) (ASU Police Department DR No. 08-0607, DR No. 08-0584): Mr. M was an ASU student who was accused of groping females at several of the buildings at ASU. When police questioned him, he briefly answered questions and then invoked his right to remain silent. We were able to speak with Detectives and pointed out that they had bearing flaws with the photo line ups shown to 4 different ASU students. In addition, we also presented some evidence of alibi indicating that Mr. M was not present at one of the building when this so called sex abuse took place. Ultimately, the Detectives agreed that they did not have enough evidence to move forward with charges.

 

SEX ABUSE OF A MINOR INMATE NOT CHARGED– State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 6881) (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office DR No. 06-196157): Mr. M was a Detention Officer working at the Durango Street Juvenile Jail when he was assigned to a suicide watch of a young male inmate. The inmate made allegations to the Doctors at the hospital that Mr. M had touched his buttocks several times, said that he ”loved him” and  tried to kiss him. After the Officer was put on paid leave, we became involved. We brought in Mr. M to be interview by Detectives, and we also agreed to submit to a lie detector test. We also presented them with a copy of a past polygraph test which we had independently administered. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office ultimately declined to press charges and Mr. M later went and honorably served in the United States Army.