ASU Professor Arrest & Federal Investigation

[halfback20]

First of all, not mad or upset at all and sorry if it came off that way. I'll type another reply to #26 soon that hopefully clears up what I was trying to say. In general, I think we're both on the same page on most stuff that either of us realized/realizes.

 

 

Secondly, the way I read the ASU website, I thought that they were at least loosely affiliated, but still had more police powers than what you usually think of when it comes to campus PD. I go to a private now, so maybe it's different, but our officers basically only write tickets and anything else needs to be passed on to the SAPD. I'll link the full report from ASU's website at the bottom of this, but it specifically mentions working closely with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

 

On the ASU site, I read the things like "ASU police officers are state certified and have the same powers as any police officer in the State of Arizona" and "mutual aid agreements with the city of Tempe allow officers to give appropriate secondary attention to traffic control and enforcement on the streets that run through or are contiguous with ASU properties" to mean that they were under the same umbrella. I could be completely wrong on that one too, but it was just how I read it (mutual aid could be meant to imply separation as well though). Here's another link on their jurisdiction, that adds, "the authority of officers of the ASU Police Department may extend to any place within the state under State law".

 

I know the ASU police department was probably created by their Board of Regents and has separate agency characteristics as well too though, so maybe I'm just reading too much into the ASU site's statements in terms of how closely they actually are affiliated.

 

ASU Police: http://www.asu.edu/police/PDFs/Campus_Security_Policy_edited.pdf

 

All it means is they have full police powers and exactly what it says...They work closely with them. Doesn't mean they are affiliated in any way. Most city police departments and sheriff's offices are sworn in by the state....doesn't mean they work for the state police though.

[Bluegrasscard]

 

Looking at the pictures, I think that the officer’s statement which you listed about her nearly being hit while “walking in the middle of the road” could be taken a few different ways. It is probably going to lose some credibility. How fast could someone really be driving down a closed street like the one in the pictures below?

 

 

Do you think that the fact that she was originally charged with damaging a police car, a charge that has already been dropped, is going to help the officer's image or make him look like someone bent on charging her with any and everything he could?

 

 

Interesting. I agree that that is no ordinary street and walking it was not the hazard I envisioned when I heard the audio of the front end of the encounter. It does call into question why she was originally detained and asked for ID.

[Clyde]

I am always amazed at people who think a debate has commenced when an officer tells you to put your hands behind your back.

 

Heck, even I would comply at a DUI checkpoint without trying to make a point or take a stand.

 

Nothing good comes out of the desire to debate an officer.

[halfback20]

As for the reason that the officer stated for stopping her, if true, then yes, it was deserved and is seemingly very different from the type of jaywalking that seems to be commonplace in the video. It even would explain why the officer said, “do you know this is a street?” to her, and I would honestly rather that be the reason the woman was stopped than if she were stopped for other reasons. However, looking at the pictures of the street, you see that it is closed at one end and at the other, there is a sign saying that the street is closed but open to local businesses (8 are listed on the sign). I’ve attached pictures below.

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]45560[/ATTACH]

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]45561[/ATTACH]

 

 

Looking at the pictures, I think that the officer’s statement which you listed about her nearly being hit while “walking in the middle of the road” could be taken a few different ways. It is probably going to lose some credibility. How fast could someone really be driving down a closed street like the one in the pictures below?

 

 

Do you think that the fact that she was originally charged with damaging a police car, a charge that has already been dropped, is going to help the officer's image or make him look like someone bent on charging her with any and everything he could?

 

Do you think it's going to help or hurt the case when ASU's police report has mention of her saying that she was just trying to cross "in the same fashion as others", and that she's consistently maintained that others were doing the same thing but weren't cited, yet the Department itself isn't offering any statements that say she was the only one and/or that others were cited?

 

 

After seeing the pictures, I think maybe more people might understand why some might find the egregious “jaywalking” charge to be an instance of profiling or am I just grasping at straws (and it's fine if you think I am)???

 

I don't think that the Marciopa County’s DA would particularly want this kind of case right now either.

 

 

Like I’ve said, if I were the officer and it were up to my discretion, and even though I felt I was completely justified, I wouldn’t take a chance on dropping a lit match on a powder keg by pursuing a felony charge because some professor I'd stopped her for jaywalking and later arrested for not showing me ID immediately had been mouthy and kicked me in the shin while she was handcuffed, her dress was up, and my hands were in that area. I'm more likely to think, eh, maybe this one could end up getting really ugly, but, hey, that’s just me.

 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court because it's now gotten to the point that there's no "un-ringing the bell" now.

 

Earlier article you posted said he was going to another call so it's possible he almost hit her driving to that call. Clearly he didn't just pick her out of the phone book and start harassing her...that makes zero sense. His explanation of why he came into contact with her leads me to believe it was not profiling. Then again there's no evidence of profiling so I never thought it was.

 

Of course she says she was crossing like everyone else. I'm sure everyone else was kicking police that night too. People complain because she was the only one they stopped...That's probably because they almost hit her...and when they asked for her information she refused and then apparently became belligerent. A simple...sorry I'll move probably would have kept her off the ground and out of jail with no felony charges. They said in their report they didn't even intend on citing her.

 

No offense, but there are probably good reasons you aren't an officer...and being intimidated out of charging someone with a felony who assaulted you is one. He clearly feels like he did the right thing (so far based on evidence I agree) , so he's not going to let a potential law suit from some entitled professor scare him out of charging her. The simple fact that it was recorded, had a911 called and that she got thrown to the ground means you should probably arrest her for something. Can't throw someone to the ground and then get them up and dust them off and send them on their way...that would have looked much worse imo.

[halfback20]

Btw those pics would help more if they were the exact location where this occurred. Other wise they are useless. They turned onto the road from another street....She was walking in the middle of the road and they almost hit her. Pretty good reason to stop and talk to her imo.

[Bluegrasscard]

I am always amazed at people who think a debate has commenced when an officer tells you to put your hands behind your back.

 

Heck, even I would comply at a DUI checkpoint without trying to make a point or take a stand.

 

Nothing good comes out of the desire to debate an officer.

 

A former Federal officer told me - 'never argue with a bureaucrat. They will always get the last word.' Police officers fit that definition in a way. And we see it did not go well!

[halfback20]

So, to try and clarify what I was meaning by the convictions: I was only saying that it is the job of officers to legally collect the evidence needed and to do so in a way that it secures a conviction. If the end goal isn’t a conviction, then what is the purpose of an arrest? If an officer has enough instances where a case is dismissed for lack of evidence/isn’t charged, then they’re leaving themselves open to being sued.

 

No officer worth their salt would ever get on the stand and say, “well, I knew we didn’t have evidence to get a conviction at the time I made this arrest, but I did anyway because that’s not my job”. That’s all I was getting at. If the charge is going to stick, the officer’s probably could to be needed to prove it up.

 

After re-reading your statements, I think I better understand what you were going for with the officer “not thinking of that at the time” but I’m hoping you still mean that they’re doing things that will ultimately lead to a conviction (or, better yet, just a brief interaction between the parties and both going on their way).

 

Look, I’m sure I would think of it differently if I were an officer. I know I can’t fully appreciate what it’s like to be in that situation like others can because I’ve never had that experience. By the same token, having seen the other side of it, I’ll also say that, similar to me, others might have a different opinion if we’d flipped roles.

 

I don’t take felony assault of an officer lightly either, but I’m not sure we share quite the same idea of what felony assault and the range of punishments for it would actually entail. From my perspective, I was just saying that, if I were the officer and I were given discretion, I personally wouldn’t have charged the felony assault (which is basically why this case is news anyway), even if I felt I was completely right in my actions.

 

For one, there’s the whole 911 call, two there’s going to be a ton of media involvement, three, there is a chance that (as we’re seen come to fruition) the defense will play up the kick as a response to my reaching for the dress and that overtones (or even outright accusations) of sexual harassment will be implied, and finally, there’s the whole profiling thing while it’s a hot button topic in the area as is.

 

Not saying it’s right, not saying the woman didn’t deserve to go to jail, not saying she can’t be proven guilty, just that if I’m the officer and it’s left up to me, I don’t want to take a chance whatever might come out from the charge when it comes to trial.

 

 

I can’t speak to the 911 situation in Kansas City because I have no details, but I will say that it seems as though the case with the ASU professor is not very a similar “struggle” to the one in KC that ended in a shooting.

 

I will say that, if you are an officer and you get put on the stand in a situation like this where there’s already a powder keg and then say something like, “the 911 caller has no clue what’s going on”, or even “the day an officer worries about what some random person thinks about their actions during a struggle is the day they should quit” (in implying that you, who as a cop are likely going to be perceived as a fit, muscular person “struggling” with a woman), and you’ve qualified it with by telling the jury that “that person’s 911 call means nothing at the time and it will mean nothing if they have any common sense”, you’ve probably just lost your case. You might even find yourself in a second one. The jury is made up of those “random people”, many of whom, for various reasons, do not trust officers (and whether those reasons are justified or not is beside the point). Right or wrong, if you tell a Judge that they have no common sense if they decide to give any “meaning” (or weight) to the citizen’s 911 call, then you’re probably on your own with that one.

 

Wow thanks for telling me about an officers job....:lol2: see how that looks?

 

You always take every thing I say like I'm implying they should get on the stand and say it. I've never even implied that. I know you always look at things from the attorney perspective but I'm not. If I'm taking about saying something on the stand...I'll say that. I've made my point about convictions about as clear as I can. At that moment...during the arrest...he's not worried about convictions. He's worried about making the arrest. The investigation afterwards is obviously going to help regarding convictions.

 

Not charging her would look more suspicious to me. That looks like you are scared and nervous about something snd you are trying to sweep it under the rug.

 

Your are right in that this isn't a similar struggle. This officer had backup and took care of business and hand cuffed her. The KC officer who bystanders also thought was taking an "aggressive stance" got flipped on his back in a matter of seconds and his life was in danger. My point is that people standing around watching ate clueless to the situation.

 

Again...I never said the officer should say any of that in the stand so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up.

 

As for the jury not trusting officers...how do you explain that 95% conviction rate? Obviously some won't trust them...

[75center]

I am always amazed at people who think a debate has commenced when an officer tells you to put your hands behind your back.

 

Heck, even I would comply at a DUI checkpoint without trying to make a point or take a stand.

 

Nothing good comes out of the desire to debate an officer.

 

Agreed, the time to debate is if it goes to court. On the street do as you're told.

[Twotoplace]

CNN points out that this story made the evening news in Iran.

[JokersWild24]

Btw those pics would help more if they were the exact location where this occurred. Other wise they are useless. They turned onto the road from another street....She was walking in the middle of the road and they almost hit her. Pretty good reason to stop and talk to her imo.

 

 

Wow thanks for telling me about an officers job....:lol2: see how that looks?

 

You always take every thing I say like I'm implying they should get on the stand and say it. I've never even implied that. I know you always look at things from the attorney perspective but I'm not. If I'm taking about saying something on the stand...I'll say that. I've made my point about convictions about as clear as I can. At that moment...during the arrest...he's not worried about convictions. He's worried about making the arrest. The investigation afterwards is obviously going to help regarding convictions.

 

Not charging her would look more suspicious to me. That looks like you are scared and nervous about something snd you are trying to sweep it under the rug.

 

Your are right in that this isn't a similar struggle. This officer had backup and took care of business and hand cuffed her. The KC officer who bystanders also thought was taking an "aggressive stance" got flipped on his back in a matter of seconds and his life was in danger. My point is that people standing around watching ate clueless to the situation.

 

Again...I never said the officer should say any of that in the stand so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up.

 

As for the jury not trusting officers...how do you explain that 95% conviction rate? Obviously some won't trust them...

 

 

 

Yes, I see how that works. It's kind of like when two people get in a peeing contest to start off posts like saying "Look, police don't work in an office" or "sounds like a something a lawyer would say" and the other person responds with barbs of their own. How about a gentleman's agreement to drop that unnecessary part from the intros, since it's good debate without that?

 

 

As for the pictures, I found those on a webpage that had represented them as being the ends of the street in question, and it wasn't blocked off on both ends, but it would appear that it was only open to local businesses. In the news report, I'm seeing two cars (both traveling slowly and in the same direction, going by in the news report and nothing going toward the end that was blocked.

 

If you want, and those are incorrect, you can PM me a link to the actual ones and I'll gladly post them in the original comment I made, as well as write a comment both there and later apologizing for the error. Those pictures didn't look any different than the one that appears in the news report with the raw video. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and that's fine, it won't be the first or the last time I was. Send the pictures and I'll correct it. I even tried looking on Google maps but couldn't get an image.

 

 

 

I'd explain the conviction rate being so high for a number of reasons. One, they aren't based solely on the officer's testimony, 2. the rights to a jury trial can be waived, 3. many cases won't make it to trail before dismissal or the DA declining to charge, and 4. more times than not, people will deal or plead down.

 

 

I'm not saying I wouldn't personally believe an officer on the stand, I'm just saying that, from my experience, there are a lot of people who wind up as jurors who don't really trust everything that's given in testimony just because it comes from an officer. I think one reason for this is that sometimes, these are people who don't know the in's and out's of getting out of jury duty that others do, and have their qualms with the "system". Those views could be be something that's wholly illogical, it might be an instance where they got a traffic ticket and were mad about it, or they may just not like them in general, but I've seen it action.

 

I've seen some officers who are great witnesses that really connect with people and I wouldn't want to go against even if I were the best attorney around; literally, I've seen some officers who are better witnesses than expert witnesses there to testify on medical records.

 

Regardless, and maybe it's different in smaller towns (that I don't have as much exposure to and experience with) where you are more likely to know people by name, etc., but everyone in the box doesn't view officers like they would the 80 year old nun or the . It's not like I have anything against officers. I'll readily admit that people trust attorneys even less (and it's probably with good reason). I'm just saying that's been my experience and observations, and it's something that seems to happen. I've even had some teachers who've gone as far as to confirm such when talking about trial strategy like dealing with a witness, etc. Maybe that's just a Texas thing, because the political climate is definitely different than in Kentucky (if you can imagine a place more Conservative than Kentucky, then Texas might be it... you've probably got at least 4 jurors already mad that they can't open carry into the Courthouse).

[halfback20]

I think we've gone about as far as we need to with this one. It's been fun. Btw, I don't have the pictures...because Im not there. It might be the best pics available I don't know. Also...I know some people don't trust police. I'm not naive. I don't trust some police officers myself. Police are people and some people are evil.

[JokersWild24]

Earlier article you posted said he was going to another call so it's possible he almost hit her driving to that call. Clearly he didn't just pick her out of the phone book and start harassing her...that makes zero sense. His explanation of why he came into contact with her leads me to believe it was not profiling. Then again there's no evidence of profiling so I never thought it was.

 

Of course she says she was crossing like everyone else. I'm sure everyone else was kicking police that night too. People complain because she was the only one they stopped...That's probably because they almost hit her...and when they asked for her information she refused and then apparently became belligerent. A simple...sorry I'll move probably would have kept her off the ground and out of jail with no felony charges. They said in their report they didn't even intend on citing her.

 

No offense, but there are probably good reasons you aren't an officer...and being intimidated out of charging someone with a felony who assaulted you is one. He clearly feels like he did the right thing (so far based on evidence I agree) , so he's not going to let a potential law suit from some entitled professor scare him out of charging her. The simple fact that it was recorded, had a911 called and that she got thrown to the ground means you should probably arrest her for something. Can't throw someone to the ground and then get them up and dust them off and send them on their way...that would have looked much worse imo.

 

 

None taken. It's all good. No hard feelings.

 

I know what you're saying about declining the charges, but, from my perspective, and again, it's just an opinion, I think that the whole thing is being blown up like it did because of the felony charge. I'd say good luck finding a decent lawyer who'd represent you on a jaywalking and failure to identify if you are a client who has intentions of going to the newspapers with the whole thing over two misdemeanors.

 

As to the last statement, and don't take this the wrong way, because I do mean it earnestly as part of the debate, but that's exactly the kind of story that one of our professors, who was one of the primary advisors to a major metro police force (i.e., an area of over 1 million) would come in and open class with as a "face palm" story (that's what he'd do to himself... older guy so it was kinda funny), but he'd talk about his days working there. He'd say, "I had officers come to me and ask me if you could get sued for 'unarresting' someone, and after I heard their stories, it'd usually end with me saying, 'well... in this case, you definitely can because you didn't...' ".

 

I think I understand what you are getting at, but personally (and this doesn't apply to the lady's situation), I'd think there are plenty of people who'd be happy not to sue and move on if they didn't wrongfully go to jail but who would shred someone in a suit after they'd been through the whole thing wrongfully, then when talking to their lawyer on that charge, everyone figures out that it's obvious that one mistake became two or three.

 

People are different, and I get what you were saying, but I know personally, I'd rather dust myself off and get over it in a day than spend a night in jail, have a mugshot online, and have to report everything to an employer, etc.

Edited July 4, 2014 by JokersWild24
Fixed Quote

[JokersWild24]

Interesting. I agree that that is no ordinary street and walking it was not the hazard I envisioned when I heard the audio of the front end of the encounter. It does call into question why she was originally detained and asked for ID.

 

 

Between those pictures, the "obstruction of a public thoroughfare" charge, and already having the DA declining to charge on the damage to the police car, the whole story going viral with ASU opening an independent review shortly after it blew up, this really could turn into a bloodbath.

 

 

On June 2, the 9th Court of Appeals upheld a nearly $1 million verdict against the Maricopa County Sheriff. Here's one of the statements the Defendant made after the ruling, "All of this happened because I stood up to Joe Arpaio and fought against his racial profiling policy. And if I could go back in time, I would do the same thing--I would still fight that racial profiling policy. Because it’s wrong--just like the federal courts have said."

 

Here's a link to the news story about the original suit:

 

"Maricopa County will have to pay former County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox and her husband $975,000, according to a federal appeals court ruling issued Monday. Wilcox — who is now running to succeed retiring U.S. Rep. Ed Pastor in Congress — sued the county over a criminal investigation and indictment brought against her in 2009 by Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

 

Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas alleged conflicts of interest by Wilcox in some of her board votes. The case never progressed and finally was dismissed, and Wilcox joined a number of Arpaio foes in suing the county and the sheriff for damages."

 

 

The County Attorney being sued in the above case had resigned at some point, so there's a new DA having to handle this one in the aftermath of that. Like I said, potential BLOODBATH.

[halfback20]

None taken. It's all good. No hard feelings.

 

I know what you're saying about declining the charges, but, from my perspective, and again, it's just an opinion, I think that the whole thing is being blown up like it did because of the felony charge. I'd say good luck finding a decent lawyer who'd represent you on a jaywalking and failure to identify if you are a client who has intentions of going to the newspapers with the whole thing over two misdemeanors.

 

As to the last statement, and don't take this the wrong way, because I do mean it earnestly as part of the debate, but that's exactly the kind of story that one of our professors, who was one of the primary advisors to a major metro police force (i.e., an area of over 1 million) would come in and open class with as a "face palm" story (that's what he'd do to himself... older guy so it was kinda funny), but he'd talk about his days working there. He'd say, "I had officers come to me and ask me if you could get sued for 'unarresting' someone, and after I heard their stories, it'd usually end with me saying, 'well, you can could definitely because you didn't...' ".

 

I think I understand what you are getting at, but personally (and this doesn't apply to the lady's situation), I'd think there are plenty of people who'd be happy not to sue and move on if they didn't wrongfully go to jail but who would shred someone in a suit after they'd been through the whole thing wrongfully, then when talking to their lawyer on that charge, everyone figures out that it's obvious that one mistake became two or three.

 

People are different, and I get what you were saying, but I know personally, I'd rather dust myself off and get over it in a day than spend a night in jail, have a mugshot online, and have to report everything to an employer, etc.

 

She didn't wrongfully go to jail. Not even close. And the prosecutor went forward with felony charges right? So apparently they're confident enough to do that...

[halfback20]

Between those pictures, the "obstruction of a public thoroughfare" charge, and already having the DA declining to charge on the damage to the police car, the whole story going viral with ASU opening an independent review shortly after it blew up, this really could turn into a bloodbath.

 

 

On June 2, the 9th Court of Appeals upheld a nearly $1 million verdict against the Maricopa County Sheriff. Here's one of the statements the Defendant made after the ruling, "All of this happened because I stood up to Joe Arpaio and fought against his racial profiling policy. And if I could go back in time, I would do the same thing--I would still fight that racial profiling policy. Because it’s wrong--just like the federal courts have said."

 

Here's a link to the news story about the original suit:

 

"Maricopa County will have to pay former County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox and her husband $975,000, according to a federal appeals court ruling issued Monday. Wilcox — who is now running to succeed retiring U.S. Rep. Ed Pastor in Congress — sued the county over a criminal investigation and indictment brought against her in 2009 by Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

 

Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas alleged conflicts of interest by Wilcox in some of her board votes. The case never progressed and finally was dismissed, and Wilcox joined a number of Arpaio foes in suing the county and the sheriff for damages."

 

 

The County Attorney being sued in the above case had resigned at some point, so there's a new DA having to handle this one in the aftermath of that. Like I said, potential BLOODBATH.

 

You keep bringing up the Sheriff. Do you not understand that's a completely different agency? He has nothing to do with the ASU PD.

 

And prosecutors drop smaller charges off all the time when there are much bigger charges attached. They still felt confident enough to move forward with felony assault charges and several others.