Court Security Swipes Papers

Anyone else see this disturbing video from a Maricopa County Courtroom?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIoyJ-LyAaE


I think the part where the Judge says the officers have a lot of leeway in performing their duties is extremely disturbing.

What are your thoughts on this vid?

Do we know WHY the officer took the letter? While no legal justification comes immediately to mind, there might be. Could the letter have been a solicitation for an illegal act that was immediately visible as the deputy passed? Did they have some prior intel that gave them indication of some issue? We don't seem to know.

It is certainly worth investigating, and it may very well be a big problem for the deputies.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Do we know WHY the officer took the letter? While no legal justification comes immediately to mind, there might be. Could the letter have been a solicitation for an illegal act that was immediately visible as the deputy passed? Did they have some prior intel that gave them indication of some issue? We don't seem to know.

It is certainly worth investigating, and it may very well be a big problem for the deputies.

---

I wish we had an update on what happened!

Hey, Carl, what do you think of that defense attorney? She's a hottie! :D

I read a news article where there was a hearing on the matter but it was a catch 22 ... the officer apparently alleged that he caught some key words on a handwritten note that lead him to feel that it involved court or jail security. The defense attorney alleged she received the letter through the normal inmate mail. I guess they cannot charge or discipline the officer without admitting the letters into evidence against him, and the attorney won't do that because they are privileged. Therefore, there is no evidence against the officer's involved.

Now, MOST of the news articles are by bloggers or people with a beef. The only "real" media source I read had very little real info (likely because there is a lot of opinion but little hard "evidence" at the moment).

While I'd say it is a stretch to argue a security exception, especially when the officer had to move papers to read it, I wonder if he was acting on some other intel ... it seems odd that he would just wander over and start reading through the papers.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

While I'd say it is a stretch to argue a security exception, especially when the officer had to move papers to read it, I wonder if he was acting on some other intel ... it seems odd that he would just wander over and start reading through the papers.

---

"Stretch"? It obviously was not "key words on a handwritten note" that inspired him to flip through the file, because the document he took was deep within the file. If he had some "secret intel" that caused him to believe there was cause to root through the defense lawyer's file, he should have taken the "intel" to the prosecutor.

I can only go on what the articles spoke on. And while I cannot conceptualize a good justification to do what he did, that does not mean there is no legal justification.

But, as it appears, the catch-22 may prevent anything but internal discipline from occurring - if that.

if it was a security concern, it should have been addressed immediately. Apparently it was not of immediate concern and as such, the deputy should have not have touched anything in the attorney's files. It apparently could have been addressed later.



I think the guy screwed up big time. I wonder if the paper is required to prosecute. His action alone is criminal unless he has supportable proof of the exigency of the seizure and if there was such an exigency, the attorney would not be able to use the attorney client privilege to prevent legally seized evidence from the court purview. Yes?




plus, if there was a known security concern, the proper actions, as Carl always states, is to obtain a search warrant unless a case of exigency can be made. Obviously there was none in this case, especially considering the fact that any "intel" would have provided advance notice with which the courts could have obtained proper methods for searching the brief.

Apparently he IS arguing an exigency, but, without the letter itself, it appears that no prosecution is possible. There was a closed door hearing from what I read, but because privilege was not waived with regards to the document, it cannot be admitted as evidence of malfeasance. So, the officer may skate as a result.

In all honesty, I believe the officer was acting according to direction he had received. He is not passing by and looks down and notices something. He comes over specifically to look through the papers. I find it extremely far fetched to believe he did that without some outside direction to do so.


Equally disturbing to me is that the Judge apparently watched the whole thing. I would think that two security officers moving to a position directly behind the defendant and his counsel, would obviously draw the Judges attention. She then tries to offer some feeble excuse for the officers actions.


As far as the PD not turning over the documents potentially preventing prosecution of the officers, that sounds like a whole lot of back scratching going on. There really needs to be an external investigation.

But, if the defense attorney releases her client's letter as an official court record to be used against the officer, it becomes a public record. I am assuming that the letter may contain some rather incriminating information. Or, the attorney is standing on principal in not turning it over.

None of this prevents the agency - if it is willing - from conducting its own investigation. But, it will make it tough to uphold any discipline on appeal without the letter. If the letter is held back, then the most that can likely be done is to tell the officer (and/or anyone who gave him direction to look, if that happened) not to do that again.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

But, if the defense attorney releases her client's letter as an official court record to be used against the officer, it becomes a public record.

---

Not necessarily the case. If the information was prejudicial to a party not involved in the officers prosecution, the court could, and should, seal the record. Remember the Dale Earnhart autopsy photos? Are autopsy photos a public record? Yes. Is that public record sealed? Yes.

Quote:

---

I am assuming that the letter may contain some rather incriminating information.

---

So what if it does. It cannot be used against the defendant in that case; it is a work product protected by the Attorney Client privelege.

Quote:

---

Or, the attorney is standing on principal in not turning it over.

---

Or, she is having her back scratched.

Quote:

---

None of this prevents the agency - if it is willing - from conducting its own investigation. But, it will make it tough to uphold any discipline on appeal without the letter. If the letter is held back, then the most that can likely be done is to tell the officer (and/or anyone who gave him direction to look, if that happened) not to do that again.

---

Reeks of corruption. An external investigation should be initiated.

I wonder if theft charges could be filed against the officer?

An external investigation requires evidence. If the document is privileged, not much evidence to be had.

Autopsy photos are a different issue.

If they hope to penalize the officer involved, then they will have to make the record public or choose NOT to punish him. AZ uses much the same rules as CA with regards to personnel investigations. And, an external investigation would require those items as well.

At this point, it depends on what the lawyer or the defendant want to do. if they do not choose to press it, and the agency does not choose to press it,then it's done. It's a scandal, but it'd be done.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

If they hope to penalize the officer involved, then they will have to make the record public or choose NOT to punish him. AZ uses much the same rules as CA with regards to personnel investigations. And, an external investigation would require those items as well.

---

Again, I respectfully disagree with this. Those documents can, and should, be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution against everyone who was involved in their seizure. The information contained therein, if prejudicial to an uninvolved party, could, and should be sealed.

Quote:

---

At this point, it depends on what the lawyer or the defendant want to do. if they do not choose to press it, and the agency does not choose to press it,then it's done. It's a scandal, but it'd be done.

---

One that would set a terrible precedent. Should be investigated by the States Attorney General, if not the U.S. Attorney Generals office.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

I wonder if theft charges could be filed against the officer?

---

Absolutely should, and anyone else who was a party to this seizure.

Quote:

---

Quoting Joshuadeuce1

---

Again, I respectfully disagree with this. Those documents can, and should, be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution against everyone who was involved in their seizure. The information contained therein, if prejudicial to an uninvolved party, could, and should be sealed.

---

It is NOT that easy. It would be an open court record. Can you think of a case of a state prosecution where the case against the defendant was sealed after a conviction?

Plus,how do you seal something once it gets released into the public domain? It would have to be presented at a trial (assuming this is a criminal act) and once that cat is out of the bag, you really think it could be reigned in?

Plus, it is not release to the public that the attorney is probably concerned with, it is likely the fact that whatever is contained within the document could be prejudicial against her client... perhaps convict him.

The hearing that has already apparently occurred saw the attorney refuse to release the document. That means there would be no direct evidence. Unless there is a criminal act that can be made for looking through the defense attorney's papers (and I do not know if there is or not), there may be nothing more to do. Besides, if the defense tried to argue a necessity defense, they could be right back where they started.

It is a quandary. If the status quo remains, the most likely end result will be that the sheriff's office simply tells their people to knock that off (assuming there was not something else in play here).

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

It is NOT that easy. It would be an open court record. Can you think of a case of a state prosecution where the case against the defendant was sealed after a conviction?

---

I did not say seal the case. I said seal the parts of the document(s) that would be prejudicial to an uninvolved party. I believe some of the documents from the Timothy Mcveigh trial were sealed.

Quote:

---

Plus, how do you seal something once it gets released into the public domain?

---

The information need not ever reach the public domain.

Quote:

---

It would have to be presented at a trial (assuming this is a criminal act) and once that cat is out of the bag, you really think it could be reigned in?

---

The piece(s) of paper are the evidence, not the information on them.

Quote:

---

Plus, it is not release to the public that the attorney is probably concerned with, it is likely the fact that whatever is contained within the document could be prejudicial against her client... perhaps convict him.

---

Just like she says in the video, it is a work product stemming from the attorney client relationship. Certainly it's unlawful seizure cannot be used against her client. This was a sentencing hearing, he had already been convicted.

Quote:

---

The hearing that has already apparently occurred saw the attorney refuse to release the document. That means there would be no direct evidence.

---

So I call backscratching. Need external investigation.

Quote:

---

Unless there is a criminal act that can be made for looking through the defense attorney's papers (and I do not know if there is or not), there may be nothing more to do.

---

Provided there was no warrant (guessing no), or exigent circumstances (what would they be? I can't think of any). What I saw was theft by a Court Officer, in a Courtroom, with a Judge as a witness.

Quote:

---

Besides, if the defense tried to argue a necessity defense, they could be right back where they started.

---

That would have to be exigent circumstances, can you think of any that are reasonable?

Quote:

---

It is a quandary. If the status quo remains, the most likely end result will be that the sheriff's office simply tells their people to knock that off (assuming there was not something else in play here).

---

This is just a wild ass guess on my part, could it not have been a departmental order he was following. This is why I believe an external investigation should be conducted.

You make it sound so simple to "seal" some item of evidence from public view. It is not that easy. This is not a matter of national security. Not admitting the document would likely make any successful prosecution impossible, and would make internal discipline equally as impossible. Certainly it should be looked in to, but if the document in question is held back then I do not see that it will go very far. Without the only key piece of evidence, there is no real case.

And, yes, the information ON the paper is apparently a key. The deputy is alleged to have claimed that key words on that document were visible and were what brought about the exigency. Without that paper, he cannot make a reasonable defense. Without that paper, the case goes away ...provided there IS a criminal case. I cannot think of a criminal charge for this in my state, but it is not one I have ever had to look at so there just might be one.

In any event, it appears that the matter is done for now. We'll see if it gets legs.

STOP ARGUING! DUMBASSES!

Look, the Defense attorney is a hottie. Can't y'all at least agree on that?

I'm married ... only my wife is a hottie.

[QUOTE=cdwjava;366889]

Quote:

---

You make it sound so simple to "seal" some item of evidence from public view. It is not that easy. This is not a matter of national security. Not admitting the document would likely make any successful prosecution impossible, and would make internal discipline equally as impossible. Certainly it should be looked in to, but if the document in question is held back then I do not see that it will go very far. Without the only key piece of evidence, there is no real case.

---

It was you who said, "any question that begins, can a judge..... usually the answer is yes". You did say this didn't you? If I have misquoted you I apologize in advance.

If a serial rapist kept a detailed diary of his exploits, that diary would be used as evidence against him. If some of his victims chose not to testify, their names would not be part of the public record. In fact, victim names are frequently sealed from the public record.

Quote:

---

And, yes, the information ON the paper is apparently a key. The deputy is alleged to have claimed that key words on that document were visible and were what brought about the exigency.

---

As Aaron already pointed out, that appears not to be he case as the officer clearly is looking through the stack of papers.

Quote:

---

Without that paper, he cannot make a reasonable defense. Without that paper, the case goes away ...provided there IS a criminal case. I cannot think of a criminal charge for this in my state, but it is not one I have ever had to look at so there just might be one.

---

Theft and malfeasance to name two.

Quote:

---

In any event, it appears that the matter is done for now. We'll see if it gets legs.

---

If it doesn't grow legs, and no exigent circumstances are shown, the stench of corruption will remain in Maricopa County for a long time.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I'm married ... only my wife is a hottie.

---

Yeah, ok. Are you're trying to say you've never looked at another woman since you've been married? I don't buy that!

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I'm married ... only my wife is a hottie.

---

Didn't I see you say belly dancing was a weakness of yours?:D I believe you said "I am a man after all".

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

STOP ARGUING! DUMBASSES!

---

MYOB, this is the most civil argument you are liable to see.

Quote:

---

Quoting Joshuadeuce1

---

It was you who said, "any question that begins, can a judge..... usually the answer is yes". You did say this didn't you? If I have misquoted you I apologize in advance.

---

There are specific procedures that must be adhered to to do that. And unless the judge wants to see his conviction overturned, he had better not conduct a case in a star chamber.

This is NOT a case of national security, and no judge is going to turn the process on its ear for this.

Quote:

---

If a serial rapist kept a detailed diary of his exploits, that diary would be used as evidence against him. If some of his victims chose not to testify, their names would not be part of the public record. In fact, victim names are frequently sealed from the public record.

---

That's different - the names are never brought up and they are not an issue as exculpatory evidence. This note is alleged to be exculpatory to the defense. As such, to deny it would be denying the defendant due process ... something covered in the Constitution.

Quote:

---

As Aaron already pointed out, that appears not to be he case as the officer clearly is looking through the stack of papers.

---

If there is a criminal offense for looking in papers, I would agree that it is not necessary. Unfortunately, the deputy is claiming he SAW key words on the note from where he was standing and those words gave him a "reasonable" concern for court or jail security. The contents of that letter would then be important to the defense and exculpatory.

Quote:

---

Theft and malfeasance to name two.

---

Theft requires an intent to permanently deprive ... the other officer was making a copy. Plus, if it was being seized pursuant to an exigency as evidence, then it was also not theft.

Not sure what the crime of "malfeasance" is.

Quote:

---

If it doesn't grow legs, and no exigent circumstances are shown, the stench of corruption will remain in Maricopa County for a long time.

---

I suspect it will be the aroma of a single overzealous deputy who screwed up.

But, as it is, since the defense attorney ain't apparently coughing up the letter, it's moot. Unless the defendant in the video waves privilege, the attorney has little choice, I suppose. And, unless the defendant is in for a traffic ticket, I doubt that the DA would be willing to grant the guy immunity so that he could possibly prosecute the deputy for what MAY be a misdemeanor if it is state crime at all.

Quote:

---

Quoting Joshuadeuce1

---

Didn't I see you say belly dancing was a weakness of yours?:D I believe you said "I am a man after all".

---

I didn't say I wouldn't look, but I will not acknowledge anyone but the mother of my javalets as "a hottie."

*scream!*

shut up! Both of you are acting like children!

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Not sure what the crime of "malfeasance" is.

---

I can't even pronounce the word!

Quote:

---

I didn't say I wouldn't look, but I will not acknowledge anyone but the mother of my javalets as "a hottie."

---

Thats funny. I didn't think ol' Carl had ever seen a woman naked.

Carl, I think we'll have to agree to disagree for now, it's bedtime for me.:D

You can hang a mackerel in the moonlight and it will shine like the stars, but it will still stink like fish.

Goodnight guys.

Whats a mackerel?

I didn't say that what he did was right, or that it was lawful. My only point is that you cannot hang him without admitting that letter.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Whats a mackerel?

---

A fish, typically silver

Quote:

---

Quoting Joshuadeuce1

---

A fish, typically silver

---

I only know catfish!

Couple more minutes, Roger. Sending you a PM

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

I only know catfish!

---

I caught a gigantic flathead 2 years ago on a rod and reel. Might have been a state record (presently 78lbs), but I let him go. Not, however, before I took about forty pics of the monster. I swear the S.O.B. was 49 or 50" long.
If I would not have had my elph I would have had to kill him to prove it. Watching that monster swim away was right up there with witnessing child birth.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

I only know catfish!

Couple more minutes, Roger. Sending you a PM

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Joshuadeuce1

---

I caught a gigantic flathead 2 years ago on a rod and reel. Might have been a state record (presently 78lbs), but I let him go. Not, however, before I took about forty pics of the monster. I swear the S.O.B. was 49 or 50" long.
If I would not have had my elph I would have had to kill him to prove it. Watching that monster swim away was right up there with witnessing child birth.

---

I would have cooked that bad boy!

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

I would have cooked that bad boy!

---

Oh no, 1-2lb channel cat= delicacy; mutant cyborg flathead = Sh!t.

well, through all of this, maybe after the kids sentencing and all, the attorney and her client will be able to release the contents of the letter so a prosecution can go forward against the deputy.


If nothing else, I do not see why the judge could not find him in contempt merely for his actions, regardless of what was in the letter...unless of course the judge was aware of what was going on and was intentionally condoning it. The act alone was contemptuous and as such, the judge can apply punitive actions against the deputy. It does not matter what was in the letter, simply the fact the deputy acted improperly in a court of law.

What does contemptuous mean?

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

What does contemptuous mean?

---

feeling, manifesting, or expressing contempt:p

Quote:

---

Quoting Joshuadeuce1

---

Oh no, 1-2lb channel cat= delicacy; mutant cyborg flathead = Sh!t.

---

Thats true.

Are you still a cook?

First off....the defense attorney is about as hot as any barfly after a few pitchers....and 30 minutes to closing and I don't wanna go home empty handed!

Secondly; what these two did was rifle through a (private) file, for apparently no good reason or they would've articulated that to the judge directly. That is, unless it was action(s) dictated by the judge.

My impression is that someone knew there was something in that stack of papers, the first bailiff was sent over to 'scout', then, once he found what he was sent to find, he handed off to the other (way-too-many-doughnut craver) bailiff who left the courtroom to go make a copy of it. THEN he returned the original.

I'm finding it a bit of a stretch that either the P.A. or the judge was not in on some sort of a pre-arrangement to "retrieve" something from the D.A.'s paerwork stack.

Impropriety personified IMHO!

And you're as blind as a bat! She's a lot hotter than those Missouri women! At least she has all her teeth and isn't 500 pounds over weight! You're a worthless piece of shit!

Oh... and stealing papers = bad. Don't wanna get off topic! :D

Clearly appears premeditated to me. The cherry on the top of this debacle is the prosecutor objecting to a continuance of that hearing. Hello, I don't have my file anymore, leaving me, you know, prejudiced.


I obviously don't believe the Bailiffs were acting on their own. An external investigation ought to be done.

And you're a loser myopic piece of shit. But I mean that in a nice way.....ya Texas turd-smokin' sheep molester!:D:D:D