Deputy Steals Defense Lawyers File

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    And gets caught on camera. The judge appears rather clueless to their act and doesn't order their arrest. What a shame. Then again it is Maricopa County and they are Sheriff Joe's boys.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIoyJ-LyAaE"]YouTube - Maricopa County Sheriff's employee takes documents from defense attorney[/ame]

    Edit to add..The heading should read Deputy
     

    2ADMNLOVER

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    May 13, 2009
    5,122
    63
    West side Indy
    I'd love to know why the judge didn't investigate it right then and there .

    Why give the deputies any more time to hide anything ?

    Why would the deputies take anything from her without asking first ?

    Why is it that if I do that it's called STEALING ?
     

    The Spud

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 28, 2008
    149
    18
    Hoosier in Exile
    I'd love to know why the judge didn't investigate it right then and there .

    Why give the deputies any more time to hide anything ?

    Why would the deputies take anything from her without asking first ?

    Why is it that if I do that it's called STEALING ?

    I'd call that obstruction of justice. But, there are two sides to every story. It will be interesting to hear why the deputy felt compelled to do this. He had to have known there were cameras in the room.

    Well, upon further review, here is a link that explains some of story:

    Arizona court officers help themselves to defense documents

    Detention officer tries to explain why he swiped attorney's file - Heat City
     
    Last edited:

    mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    I'd love to hear part 2 of this story.
    So let it be written, so let it be done. There was a freelance journalist there for pt 2.
    From Heat City

    A Maricopa County detention officer tried to explain Friday why he and a fellow sheriff's office employee swiped a document from a defense attorney's file in a bizarre scene that was caught on courtroom videotape.
    Detention officer Adam Stoddard sputtered nervously through his testimony at a hearing in Maricopa County Superior Court, where he was ordered to give reasons for taking the document. For every reason he gave, however, he retreated just as quickly, contradicting himself throughout the two-hour hearing.
    The whole thing surrounded a scene that took place in a Maricopa County courtroom on Oct. 19, all caught on a courthouse security tape.
    The tape shows Stoddard walking to the defense table during a sentencing that day. He leans over the table and begins reading from a document in the file of defense attorney Joanne Cuccia, who was speaking before the judge and had her back turned to the table.
    Stoddard can then be seen motioning to a fellow sheriff's employee, deputy Francisco Campillo, and the two men pull the document from the file. Campillo leaves the courtroom with the document, then comes back moments later and places the original back in the attorney's file. Cuccia quickly figures out what is going on and brings up the issue with the judge.
    On Friday, Judge Gary Donahoe, the highest-ranking criminal court judge in Maricopa County, held the hearing to determine whether Stoddard and Campillo had the authority to take the document from the file.
    Under state law, an officer can seize evidence or make an arrest if he sees a crime taking place. Essentially, that's what Stoddard said he saw -- or at least what he thought he saw -- at the sentencing of Antonio Lozano on that day.
    The detention officer, however, had a hard time sticking to his story.
    More at the source.
     

    JetGirl

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    May 7, 2008
    18,774
    83
    N/E Corner
    Did she honestly just defend them saying "They have quite a lot of leeway to do what they think is necessary"?
    Wow. That is effed up.
     

    Boilers

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 20, 2009
    3,440
    36
    Indianapolis
    I for one think our legal system and to some extent the law enforcement thereof, if Fd. That judge is just a ditzy idiot or in on it, or too chummy with civil servants. The LEOs look like they think they are totally above the law. And judges in general have way too much power to make rules as they see fit.
     

    Hotdoger

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 9, 2008
    4,903
    48
    Boone County, In.
    My daughter was in traffic court in Lafayette this week. She tried to hand the judge pictures of school zone sign hidden up in some trees.
    Lady prosecutor grabbed the pictures from her hand. Told her they needed time stamp on them . Any lawyers out there that can confirm that?
     

    Indy317

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 27, 2008
    2,495
    38
    My daughter was in traffic court in Lafayette this week. She tried to hand the judge pictures of school zone sign hidden up in some trees.
    Lady prosecutor grabbed the pictures from her hand. Told her they needed time stamp on them . Any lawyers out there that can confirm that?

    I know of a few cases in Marion Co. where defendants have taken photos into court. Such photos are evidence, and must follow the rules of evidence. The one case I know, a guy claimed he had photos. The judge asked the officer if he would allow those photos/submit to them being introduced as evidence. Since the officer had no idea what/where/when/why/how the photos were obtained, the officer objected and the judge refused to accept the photos as evidence. In another case, the defendant took in photos. I don't know if the officers or the state were asked if they were OK with them, but I know the photos were entered into evidence....and they ended up convicting the driver...as they clearly showed the signs in which the driver violated.

    I think in your daughter's case, the prosecutor makes a valid claim about the time the photos were taken. If you can get a time stamp on them, or bring in the camera with a laptop and use that to show the photo information, then why should a judge take that into consideration? Even if the photos were admitted, they could mean nothing unless this was the _first_ time your daughter drove to through this school zone on that road, or the school just opened that day and the sign was put up the day before, etc. etc.. Any admission by your daughter that despite the tree branches, she still knew there was a school there, and that there had be unobstructed signs in the past is likely going to get her found guilty. Think of it this way, if a speed limit sign on the interstate falls off, does that mean the speed limit is now 150MPH, or whatever the driver decides, until the driver hits the next sign that is still standing?
     

    Scutter01

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 21, 2008
    23,750
    48
    Think of it this way, if a speed limit sign on the interstate falls off, does that mean the speed limit is now 150MPH, or whatever the driver decides, until the driver hits the next sign that is still standing?

    No, but if you were ticketed for doing 65 in a 55 and there was no sign, you could make a reasonable argument that you thought the speed limit was 65, especially if the other nearby interstates are all 65. I-465 springs immediately to mind. I'm not saying you'd win, just that you'd have a reasonable argument.
     

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis
    My daughter was in traffic court in Lafayette this week. She tried to hand the judge pictures of school zone sign hidden up in some trees.
    Lady prosecutor grabbed the pictures from her hand. Told her they needed time stamp on them . Any lawyers out there that can confirm that?

    Off the top of my head, the foundation you normally lay to admit photos is that you took them and they are a true and accurate representation of the scene at the time the incident took place. You get a bit more leeway if a photo/diagram is admitted solely for demonstrative purposes. A time stamp is helpful but by no means required. You can lay the foundation for the time they were taken by your own testimony. Not legal advice, just my opinion.

    If the ticket was written when the leaves were off the trees but the photo taken when they were on, you are going to run into issues with the "true and accurate description" part.



    Joe
     

    Timjoebillybob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 27, 2009
    9,363
    149
    I think in your daughter's case, the prosecutor makes a valid claim about the time the photos were taken. If you can get a time stamp on them, or bring in the camera with a laptop and use that to show the photo information, then why should a judge take that into consideration?

    Think of it this way, if a speed limit sign on the interstate falls off, does that mean the speed limit is now 150MPH, or whatever the driver decides, until the driver hits the next sign that is still standing?

    Does having a camera imprinted time stamp really mean anything? On my camera I can set the time/date to just about what ever I want. Would you believe I had a time machine if I were to show you a picture stamped 2 weeks from today? I could use a newspaper shown in the picture to prove that it was taken on or after that date but that would be about it.

    No, but if you were ticketed for doing 65 in a 55 and there was no sign, you could make a reasonable argument that you thought the speed limit was 65, especially if the other nearby interstates are all 65. I-465 springs immediately to mind. I'm not saying you'd win, just that you'd have a reasonable argument.

    Or if your driving down the interstate and the speed limit drops from 65 to 55 and the sign is missing. Or driving down a country road where the speed limit drops from 55 to 45 etc. Or in my town there is a sign for a school zone that says the speed limit is 25 when light is flashing, but the light is half a block down from the sign. :n00b: On a bright sunny day unless you know where to look for it (and sometimes even then) it is hard to see. Heck for a while I thought the sign was messed up and there was no light. I just did 25 when I figured there would be children around.
     

    Indy317

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 27, 2008
    2,495
    38
    No, but if you were ticketed for doing 65 in a 55 and there was no sign, you could make a reasonable argument that you thought the speed limit was 65, especially if the other nearby interstates are all 65. I-465 springs immediately to mind. I'm not saying you'd win, just that you'd have a reasonable argument.

    I-465 is a no win example. State law sets speed limits, so even if the signs are down, you must revert to the state law. Just because things aren't posted doesn't mean one can get away with it. When you sign for your license, you sign that you will follow the laws of the state.

    IC 9-21-5-2 Maximum speed limits

    There might be a requirement somewhere in the code that the state/municipality has to post speed limit signs, which in that cause a person might have a chance at winning.

    A really funny example of this in traffic court was when a lady told the prosecutor before court that the officer wrote her for 71ish in a 45 or 50 MPH zone. She complained saying she had proof the speed limit was 65 MPH in the area she got pulled over in. The prosecutor told her, that is all good and well, but the officer has you down doing 71MPH, there is no 71MPH in Indiana. She didn't get it and requested a trail. I left prior to her trial, but clerical errors, for the most part, won't get you off. It is like going to court to defend against one crime by admitting another...you can get arrested for the crime the state didn't know about. This lady was going to admit to doing 71MPH on a road back when the top speed limit in the state was only 65MPH.

    Does having a camera imprinted time stamp really mean anything? On my camera I can set the time/date to just about what ever I want. Would you believe I had a time machine if I were to show you a picture stamped 2 weeks from today? I could use a newspaper shown in the picture to prove that it was taken on or after that date but that would be about it.

    I get your point, but the fact remains that the more you do, the more likely the judge may find in your favor. In these cases, the burden is 50%+1, so trying to get your side to get the +1 is the goal. Obviously people can lie, but that doesn't keep the courts from labeling every defendant a liar, or even every cop a liar during testimony. It is just something that is an extra part of your case, and going the distance with such might help make your case for you. Obviously the cop can say you are lying, but then you could turn around and say the cop was lying.

    Or if your driving down the interstate and the speed limit drops from 65 to 55 and the sign is missing. Or driving down a country road where the speed limit drops from 55 to 45 etc.

    Remember, certain speed limits are set by state law. As long as you are doing _that_ speed limit, you should be OK. If a municipality enacts their own speed limits (which change from the state), then they have to post it. If their sign falls down, and you are doing the state max, then you should be able to fight it. However, if their 25 MPH sign falls down, and the state max is 30 MPH, and you are doing 35MPH, then you are guilty. The only way around this is if you can prove that the last speed limit sign you passed said 35MPH...that might get the ticket tossed.

    If you folks want a good laugh, go to traffic court, if allowed, and sit in on the preceding. Some of the excuses people make are just silly. I saw a teacher argue she shouldn't have gotten a speeding in a school zone for the sole fact she _worked_ at the school...like that gives her a free pass. Guilty..$500.
     

    Scutter01

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 21, 2008
    23,750
    48
    I-465 is a no win example. State law sets speed limits, so even if the signs are down, you must revert to the state law. Just because things aren't posted doesn't mean one can get away with it. When you sign for your license, you sign that you will follow the laws of the state.


    Sounds like you missed my point.
     

    Indy317

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 27, 2008
    2,495
    38
    Sounds like you missed my point.

    If the point was to just have something to argue, then yea...I guess. But if the point was you had a valid argument, or even a possible valid argument, I disagree. You said:
    No, but if you were ticketed for doing 65 in a 55 and there was no sign, you could make a reasonable argument that you thought the speed limit was 65, especially if the other nearby interstates are all 65.

    No, you can't make a reasonable argument. For starters, I don't know of any 65MPH speed limit on any interstate where it connects to I-465. The ones I know already have lower speed limits. So to make that argument, the signs on those interstates would have to be down, as well as the one on I-465. Secondly, state law is clear,

    IC 9-21-5-2 Maximum speed limits
    Sec. 2. Except when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with section 1 of this chapter, the slower speed limit specified in this section or established as authorized by section 3 of this chapter is the maximum lawful speed. A person may not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of the following maximum limits:
    (1) Thirty (30) miles per hour in an urban district.
    (2) Fifty-five (55) miles per hour, except as provided in subdivisions (1), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7).
    (3) Seventy (70) miles per hour on a highway on the national system of interstate and defense highways located outside of an urbanized area (as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101) with a population of at least fifty thousand (50,000), except as provided in subdivision (4).
    (4) Sixty-five (65) miles per hour for a vehicle (other than a bus) having a declared gross weight greater than twenty-six thousand (26,000) pounds on a highway on the national system of interstate and defense highways located outside an urbanized area (as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101) with a population of at least fifty thousand (50,000).
     
    Top Bottom