Officer Misses Court

Wizard777 · #1 11-08-2009, 08:51 PM

Nobody admits fault and a suspect goes free

The State of Maryland v. Walter Grant commenced on time and on schedule at 8:30 a.m. Oct. 28 in Room 3 of the District Courthouse on East North Avenue. Grant faced charges of taking a blue Honda Civic with keys stolen during a burglary of a home in Carney in August.

The judge was there. The prosecutor was there. The defense attorney was there. Walter Grant was there. Honda owner Matthew Crouch was there.

The only person not there was Officer Ronald J. Wilson Jr., a member of an auto theft task force who had found the missing car in September and had arrested Grant in East Baltimore.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

There is one method of notification of the trial that was not used. It's called a bench warrant. They are very effective. I actually saw a trial in which the judge issued a bench warrant for an Officer that had failed to appear as a witness. It took another officer all of 30 minutes to locate the officer and bring them to the judge. Had Mr. grant failed to appear. There is going to be a bench warrant issued. I've have even seen judges issue Bench warrants for suspect with their lawyer in court informing the judge the reason they were not there is because they were at a hospital seeking medical attention. Now if judges are going to issue a bench warrants for anyone. Issuing a bench warrant for for FTA officers that initiate this whole process should be a no brainer. Judges simply cannot continue to in so many words say, the officer has decided to quit playing this game with your life, liberty and freedom. You're free to go. That kind of freedom can be very expensive. Lawyers fees, lost wages, and parking all for what? Nothing. At the very least Judges should find the FTA officer in contempt and order them to reimburse the person for the expenses incurred in the game they quit in the middle of. The problem will never be fixed if Judges continue to allow the police to get away with not fixing it. Start hauling them into court in cuffs, taking their money to give to the people they arrested and even tossing them in jail and that problem will get fixed YESTERDAY.

Clandestine · #2 11-08-2009, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizard777

Nobody admits fault and a suspect goes free

The State of Maryland v. Walter Grant commenced on time and on schedule at 8:30 a.m. Oct. 28 in Room 3 of the District Courthouse on East North Avenue. Grant faced charges of taking a blue Honda Civic with keys stolen during a burglary of a home in Carney in August.

The judge was there. The prosecutor was there. The defense attorney was there. Walter Grant was there. Honda owner Matthew Crouch was there.

The only person not there was Officer Ronald J. Wilson Jr., a member of an auto theft task force who had found the missing car in September and had arrested Grant in East Baltimore.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

There is one method of notification of the trial that was not used. It's called a bench warrant. They are very effective. I actually saw a trial in which the judge issued a bench warrant for an Officer that had failed to appear as a witness. It took another officer all of 30 minutes to locate the officer and bring them to the judge. Had Mr. grant failed to appear. There is going to be a bench warrant issued. I've have even seen judges issue Bench warrants for suspect with their lawyer in court informing the judge the reason they were not there is because they were at a hospital seeking medical attention. Now if judges are going to issue a bench warrants for anyone. Issuing a bench warrant for for FTA officers that initiate this whole process should be a no brainer. Judges simply cannot continue to in so many words say, the officer has decided to quit playing this game with your life, liberty and freedom. You're free to go. That kind of freedom can be very expensive. Lawyers fees, lost wages, and parking all for what? Nothing. At the very least Judges should find the FTA officer in contempt and order them to reimburse the person for the expenses incurred in the game they quit in the middle of. The problem will never be fixed if Judges continue to allow the police to get away with not fixing it. Start hauling them into court in cuffs, taking their money to give to the people they arrested and even tossing them in jail and that problem will get fixed YESTERDAY.

Everloving bliss...........

Saticon3 · #3 11-08-2009, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizard777

Nobody admits fault and a suspect goes free

The State of Maryland v. Walter Grant commenced on time and on schedule at 8:30 a.m. Oct. 28 in Room 3 of the District Courthouse on East North Avenue. Grant faced charges of taking a blue Honda Civic with keys stolen during a burglary of a home in Carney in August.

The judge was there. The prosecutor was there. The defense attorney was there. Walter Grant was there. Honda owner Matthew Crouch was there.

The only person not there was Officer Ronald J. Wilson Jr., a member of an auto theft task force who had found the missing car in September and had arrested Grant in East Baltimore.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

There is one method of notification of the trial that was not used. It's called a bench warrant. They are very effective. I actually saw a trial in which the judge issued a bench warrant for an Officer that had failed to appear as a witness. It took another officer all of 30 minutes to locate the officer and bring them to the judge. Had Mr. grant failed to appear. There is going to be a bench warrant issued. I've have even seen judges issue Bench warrants for suspect with their lawyer in court informing the judge the reason they were not there is because they were at a hospital seeking medical attention. Now if judges are going to issue a bench warrants for anyone. Issuing a bench warrant for for FTA officers that initiate this whole process should be a no brainer. Judges simply cannot continue to in so many words say, the officer has decided to quit playing this game with your life, liberty and freedom. You're free to go. That kind of freedom can be very expensive. Lawyers fees, lost wages, and parking all for what? Nothing. At the very least Judges should find the FTA officer in contempt and order them to reimburse the person for the expenses incurred in the game they quit in the middle of. The problem will never be fixed if Judges continue to allow the police to get away with not fixing it. Start hauling them into court in cuffs, taking their money to give to the people they arrested and even tossing them in jail and that problem will get fixed YESTERDAY.

Dropping the charges doesn't really punish the officer, it punishes the victim and the State.
Just like the exlusionary rule does.

microg · #4 11-08-2009, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizard777

Nobody admits fault and a suspect goes free

...

You made it sound like it was the officer's fault but if you look at page 1 of the article (your link went straight to page 2)[EDIT: Poster has corrected his link to point to page 1]:

Quote:

A series of blunders, bureaucratic tunnel vision and lack of common sense conspired to keep Wilson far from the witness stand. At 8:30 a.m., as the trial commenced, he was in his eighth-floor office on East Joppa Road at the Towson police headquarters where his unit is based, ready and available but unaware that he was needed to testify.

And unfreakinbelievably this is nothing new...

Quote:

Putting a court summons in the hands of a police officer would seem like an easy task. Yet after years of top-level meetings to streamline and update an antiquated system, considering everything from e-mail notifications to automated phone calls, hundreds of officers in Baltimore each month miss court dates, forcing prosecutors to drop hundreds of cases.

This is horrible all around but as noted in the article the blame seems to be nicely embedded and spread throughout the bureaucracy that is our criminal justice system.

Clandestine · #5 11-08-2009, 10:37 PM

Well to chime in on the court issue... I've seen Officers going to court on a regular basis only to find that the Stet's Attorneys Office either Nol Pros'd or stetted the case. This happens on a regular basis because either the victim doesn't show or more often the ASA is not prepared and would make an on the spot judgement call to dismiss the case. Case in point...a suspect was arrested for breaking into a work truck. A noble witness who actually came forward pointed out the suspect to the Officer's. The witness even went to court...but guess what? Because the victim (work truck / Company) didn't show for court...the assistant stet's attorney dismissed the case. The Officer and the witness were present. The suspect did not show. He actually FTA'd. So what happend? Basically...the court system here is absolute joke. Here you have the Officer and a witness ready to testify and the ASA decides...no victim...no case. The Officer should have been looked at as a representative for the victim. But no... the wonderful Stet's Attorney's Office elected to throw the case out not only wasting the Officer's time, but wasting the time of the witness who no doubt had to call out of work to be there.

Wizard777 · #6 11-08-2009, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by microg

...

You made it sound like it was the officer's fault but if you look at page 1 of the article (your link went straight to page 2):

And unfreakinbelievably this is nothing new...

This is horrible all around but as noted in the article the blame seems to be nicely embedded and spread throughout the bureaucracy that is our criminal justice system.

The link should be to page one. I'll check it and fix it if it's not.

You didn't mention this part from Page 2.

Quote:

Even so, Burns said, Wilson bears some blame.

"He was the one who filed the charges," she said. "He received a copy of his paperwork. On the paperwork is the date of the court appearance where he failed to appear."

No the police rebutal was that the date can change several times. But niether the police nor the reporter say if that did or did not happen in this case. But I'll chalk that up to bad reporting. The reporter also says the man broke into a house with the door left unlocked.

To break into a house or B&E. You actually have to break something. Be it a door, door jam, or window. You have to actually break something. Because he actually stole things from the house. He could be charged with Fourth degree burglary even though he just walked through that unlocked door. But absent the theft. I don't think they could charge with anything more than trespassing and only if signs were posted. So if hedidn't gain entrance to the house by breaking something. The reporter is falsely accusing him of a crime he did not commit. That statement that he "broke in" should be retracted. But I digress.

I'll tell you what if you ever get charged with a crime. Don't show up for the trial and try telling the judge it's not your fault because it's someone elses responsibility to make sure you get to court and they didn't do that. You didn't even initiate the court proceedings and he would not accept that excuse from you. So it should be even less acceptable from the cop that did initiate the court proceedings.

What is the problem with mailing a summons to the officers home or PO Box just like any other witness? They can still send a notice to let the bosses know the officer does in deed have court that day. But they also need to send notices directly to the officer. Even if I tell police and prosecutors they are to have NO communications with me what so ever. ANY and ALL communications are to be directed to my attorney. I'm still gonna get a notification of trial date in the mail. But if they do not send summons directly to the officer. Everyone can continue pointing fingers at everyone else and ot will continue to be no ones fault. But if they mail the summons directly to the officer at home or a PO Box. The officer then has no one to point the finger at. The Officer becomes 100% accountable. Just like the defendant. At the very least without notification of a change in the trial date. The officer should be in court on the date on his copy of the charging document. He has no excuse for not appearing on that date. If the officer doesn't know how to read the court schedules posted on teh bulletin boards. He can go the clerks offices and say, Hi I'm Officer Doofy. Fo I have court today? They will tell him if his trial has been moved.

LadyHollman · #7 11-08-2009, 11:52 PM

Happens quite a bit. Those things come from somewhere in Annapolis and I do believe they are tasked with sending summons to every LEO & witness in the region. Some members have similar names too. People switch assignments and stuff ends up at their prior assignment ... all sorts of confusion.

I used to get summons for someone else quite a bit. [and our last names weren't even spelled the same]

Dayplay · #8 11-09-2009, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyHollman

Happens quite a bit. Those things come from somewhere in Annapolis and I do believe they are tasked with sending summons to every LEO & witness in the region. Some members have similar names too. People switch assignments and stuff ends up at their prior assignment ... all sorts of confusion.

I used to get summons for someone else quite a bit. [and our last names weren't even spelled the same]

Or get a summons a day/week after the court date...non-story, wiz thought he got the bad police again. P.S. check your burglary facts wiz, your whole "they have to break something, etc" isn't even close.

WV Orange & Black · #9 11-09-2009, 07:51 AM

Now you know the “Wiz” is looking for any and all opportunities to point to any member of LEO and shout… SEE!!!

As Dayplay noted, you may wish to open your law book to the B&E page again.

“To break into a house or B&E. You actually have to break something. Be it a door, door jam, or window. You have to actually break something.”

Wrong

Wiz, they sometimes refer to the “Breaking” element as it relates to 'Breaking' an imaginary ‘plane’. Just walking into someones house through an open door is, Breaking & Entering.

Wizard777 · #10 11-09-2009, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WV Orange & Black

Now you know the “Wiz” is looking for any and all opportunities to point to any member of LEO and shout… SEE!!!

As Dayplay noted, you may wish to open your law book to the B&E page again.

“To break into a house or B&E. You actually have to break something. Be it a door, door jam, or window. You have to actually break something.”

Wrong

Wiz, they sometimes refer to the “Breaking” element as it relates to 'Breaking' an imaginary ‘plane’. Just walking into someones house through an open door is, Breaking & Entering.

Not according to THE POLICE when I tried to have a person arrested for B&E at my home. The guy walked into the wrong damned house to rob the wrong damned home owner. His gun was a toy and mine was very real. I held him for police. What I'm telling you is word for word what THE POLICE told me. They could not charge him with B&E because he didn't break anything to enter. I did look up the laws on buglary. First through third degree burglar state a person may not break into a dwelling. Fourth degree bruglary states a person may not be in or on a dwelling for teh purpose of theft or robbery. So Minus the crimes of theft or robbery that just leave you with Trespassing.

Dayplay · #11 11-09-2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizard777

Not according to THE POLICE when I tried to have a person arrested for B&E at my home. The guy walked into the wrong damned house to rob the wrong damned home owner. His gun was a toy and mine was very real. I held him for police. What I'm telling you is word for word what THE POLICE told me. They could not charge him with B&E because he didn't break anything to enter. I did look up the laws on buglary. First through third degree burglar state a person may not break into a dwelling. Fourth degree bruglary states a person may not be in or on a dwelling for teh purpose of theft or robbery. So Minus the crimes of theft or robbery that just leave you with Trespassing.

Then you have another bad police story because if what you say is true (depends on how much smoke that day huh) then the officer was wrong. As Mr. Orange/Black stated the "break" is breaking the plane of the doorway/window etc. to enter.

Oriole-Bob · #12 11-09-2009, 09:02 AM

what a bunch of Bullcrap in this day and age of technology, there is no excuse for not being notified and showing up to court.

WV Orange & Black · #13 11-09-2009, 09:19 AM

Wiz, what you are saying or what was allegedly told to you is simply incorrect.

The crime of “Breaking and Entering” is generally defined as a person being in the dwelling or storehouse of another, without that person’s authorization, period. Understand that if you “break” that invisible plane, even by just simply pushing open a door to a home, which has been left ajar, is quite enough to constitute breaking and entering. Again, the “Breaking” can refer to that invisible plane only and there DOES NOT have to be the actual destruction of any physical property.

”Entering” that premise can even involve either physical entry by a person or the insertion of some instrument to remove property.

I’m sure others in the LE field will be happy to tell you that.

Wizard777 · #14 11-09-2009, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dayplay

Then you have another bad police story because if what you say is true (depends on how much smoke that day huh) then the officer was wrong. As Mr. Orange/Black stated the "break" is breaking the plane of the doorway/window etc. to enter.

Actually I think it had more to do with the day than how much I was smoking. That can only make things better.

This was back in the early 70's. I tried to make that exact point to the officers. But the law at that time did not support that thinking. You actually had to break or disassemble something to be charged with B&E. What I found on lexis nexus tend to support that thinking. Where you might have me, or actually them since I'm just a parrot in this, is on the CURRENT "judicial meaning" of break. They may have expanded the meaning to include that concept. I don't disagree with it if they have. But you'll have to show me the Current Judicial meaning of "Break" before I will fully concede their point as being out dated.......like Airman's Code Book.

So I can understand how they made that mistake if one was made at all.

Lawman 27 · #15 11-09-2009, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizard777

They could not charge him with B&E because he didn't break anything to enter. I did look up the laws on buglary.

Hi Wiz,

In my academy class we were taught that any suspect who comes in WITHOUT permission is breaking in. (Even if a door is unlocked, the suspect is still "Breaking the threshold" of the property and thus can be charged accordingly).

But that was back in the day when Police were allowed to acknowledge and fight crime.

________________________________________

Oh yeah...

You were talking about getting a warrant for the Officer. If a Judge is going to do that (and there are some City Judges who would love to arrest an Officer), why not just make it a "Body Attachment?"

Oh, oh yeah...

I meant to ask, and maybe someone here could tell me. Why couldn't the Judge have just granted a postponement to get the Cop? I have actually witnessed a Judge give a defendant SEVEN FRIGGIN POSTPONEMENTS (so that the poor guy could get a lawyer). Why can't the good guys get even one postponement.

Oh, oh, oh yeah...

Some defendants have learned that they should wait until after court is over before coming into their courtroom. Sure, the Judge put out an FTA warrant for them, but if the suspect makes up a good excuse, the Judge will squash the warrant and just give them a new trial date.

==>The logic to this is that if they do it several times, the witnesses will get tired of appearing and give up, thus letting the defendant walk.

Lawman 27 · #16 11-09-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oriole-Bob

what a bunch of Bullcrap in this day and age of technology, there is no excuse for not being notified and showing up to court.

OB,

Gotta tell you that as a City Cop I would routinely get a summons to court a day or more AFTER the trial had happened. (It makes it hard as heck to make court when the summons date is already passed).

And the fact that time travel has not been invented did not stop "Command Investigations" (District IAD) from wanting to know why I could not make it to court, just because I was never told.

mgofbmore · #17 11-09-2009, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawman 27

OB,

Gotta tell you that as a City Cop I would routinely get a summons to court a day or more AFTER the trial had happened. (It makes it hard as heck to make court when the summons date is already passed).

And the fact that time travel has not been invented did not stop "Command Investigations" (District IAD) from wanting to know why I could not make it to court, just because I was never told.

That excuse would never work for the defendant. I knew I guy who in CBIU and charged with FTA. When he made bail, he was detained for the FTA

Clandestine · #18 11-09-2009, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dayplay

Or get a summons a day/week after the court date...non-story, wiz thought he got the bad police again. P.S. check your burglary facts wiz, your whole "they have to break something, etc" isn't even close.

Wiz thinks he knows a thing or two about policing...

Clandestine · #19 11-09-2009, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oriole-Bob

what a bunch of Bullcrap in this day and age of technology, there is no excuse for not being notified and showing up to court.

Another one who thinks they know a thing or two about what goes on in the PD.

Wizard777 · #20 11-09-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WV Orange & Black

Wiz, what you are saying or what was allegedly told to you is simply incorrect.

The crime of “Breaking and Entering” is generally defined as a person being in the dwelling or storehouse of another, without that person’s authorization, period. Understand that if you “break” that invisible plane, even by just simply pushing open a door to a home, which has been left ajar, is quite enough to constitute breaking and entering. Again, the “Breaking” can refer to that invisible plane only and there DOES NOT have to be the actual destruction of any physical property.

”Entering” that premise can even involve either physical entry by a person or the insertion of some instrument to remove property.

I’m sure others in the LE field will be happy to tell you that.

Like I said above. As The victim I agree with that concept and tried to make that arguement to the police. But I also wonder if SCOTUS would agree. Because the law requires the trier to abandon Fact for a Legal Fiction. Legal Fictions could allow the state to place someone trial on a charge of assault and battery for stepping on a crack. Because the law says that broke your mothers back. Never mind that her back wasn't actually broken. That fact must be ignored to take up the legal fiction that her back was broken by you stepping on a crack. It could even be construed to be a violation of Article 20 of the Maryland Constitution. In the court observing the legal fiction of the invisible plane over the facts that nothing was broken or disassembled. The Person has been denied a trial of facts and the greatest protection of life, liberty and estate of the people.

Quote:

Art. 20. That the trial of facts, where they arise, is one of the greatest securities of the lives, liberties and estate of the People.

SCOTUS could find that a more appropriate remedy than the legislature engaging in the creation of a legal fiction to substantiate a burglary charge. They should instead crimialize the facts of the case by creating a felony trespassing law for dwellings and storehouses with the same penalty as the legal fiction of burglary. That felony trespassing charge would provide for a trial of facts.