Warning to all parents and youth.  If you via mobile phone or any other means: record, film, photograph, develop or duplicate, distribute, transport, exhibit, receive, sell, purchase, electronically transmit, possess, or exchange any visual depiction in which a minor is involved in exploitative exhibition or other sexual conduct, you may be charged with sexual exploitation of a minor (the child porn statute) which carries a presumption prison term of 17 years!  Probation is not available.  A.R.S. 13-3553. 

Although the statute may be found unconstitutionally overly broad or vague, in the mean time any visual depiction that fits any of the above mentioned conduct is chargeable under Arizona law.  The Sexting fad among high school and junior high aged teenagers of taking mobile phone pictures and videos depicting anyone under the age of 18 topless (female), naked, or any other sexually suggestive depiction may be charged as child pornography.  Each image carries with it a presumption prison term of 17 years. 

Parents, if your child docks or syncs their phone with your network computer at home, guess where those images are now?  On your computer, and now you may be in violation of the statute for receiving and storing child porn.  Now is the time to educate parents and children about the devastating consequences of engaging in this type of behavior.

There are numerous registered sex offenders in Maricopa County who committed an offense during their teenage years and were charged as adults and have been stamped with the mark of sex offender even though by all known measures are a low risk to ever re-offend.  These young people have not re-offended, have passed rigorous lie detector tests over the years, and have gone through thorough psycho-sexual evaluations to determine their risk to the community.

Unfortunately, a vast majority of these people do not realize that not only can their lifetime probation be terminated, the court may also delete their requirement to register, delete community notification, and yes EXPUNGE their records!  If you or someone you know is in this situation they need to speak with an attorney with experience in this area.  Click here.

“This case shows, once again, police use of a Taser in what appears to have been a non-life threatening situation,” said Angela Wright, US researcher at Amnesty International. “There have to be ways of restraining an unarmed teenager other than using electro-shock weapons.

“Taser guns are not the safe weapons they are portrayed to be. A full investigation into their safety needs to be carried out before more people suffer the consequences of their misuse.”

How many more will die before stricter guidelines are put into place to protect the public from excessive force?

The nine year old St. John’s boy accused of shooting his father and his father’s friend entered a guilty plea today to negligent homicide.  The unknown details of the case will likely come out during the disposition or sentencing phase of the juvenile proceeding.  This result could be seen as a win/win for the boy and society.  There was a strong possibility that this young boy would be found incompetent to stand trial and in that case he would not be under mandatory treatment by the state/county.  It also appears that the plea includes keeping this young boy out of juvenile detention so that he can receive the treatment he needs.  Story here.  The defense attorneys who worked on this case appear to have done excellent work for this young boy.  No matter what the charges, it is important for juvenile defendants to seek the advice of an attorney prior to appearing in court.

Recently an Arizona rancher was found liable for assault and emotional distress but not for civil rights violations in a lawsuit brought by a group of illegal immigrants.  Story here.  Interestingly the group, or their attorney, believes 42 U.S.C. section 1983 liability extends to a private rancher and protection extends to illegal immigrants.  They may have attempted a “tie in” due to the Rancher’s lease arrangement with the federal government regarding federal lands.  Generally, private parties are not subject to section 1983 liability.  For more on civil rights click here.

Society perceives that officers who break the law are given a pass due to their positions as law enforcement officers.  Some argue that even when criminal charges must be brought against an officer, the system stretches to give the least painful punishment available.  However, these perceptions might not be accurate.  In some cases, officers are held to a higher level of culpability due to their positions of trust in society and therefore are given much harsher sentences. 

Recently an officer made the terrible decision to drink and drive.  Fortunately, the vehicle struck and inanimate object and no one was injured.  Story here.  This officer will be charged with felony criminal damage and will be fortunate to work out a plea arrangement that ends up in a misdemeanor conviction.  Just like any other defendant in a criminal case, this officer’s attorney will argue that although what he did was wrong and potentially life threatening to himself and others, he was going through a tremendously difficult year with parents dying and divorce looming.  These life circumstances are not excuses and certainly don’t justify the behavior, however, just as in other cases, the prosecutor and court will consider those factors and others in determining how this case will be negotiated and sentenced.  This type of behavior seems very much out of the ordinary for this officer’s life.

A 12 year old boy was recently adjudicated and found delinquent of 1st Degree/premeditated Murder.   Story Here.  How can a 12 year old boy formulate the mental intent to kill under the law?  We don’t let 12 year old juveniles operate vehicles or enter into enforceable contracts.  Further, when dealing with sexual crimes, a juvenile is considered a victim and unable to consent to sexual activity.  Yet, in this case that same juvenile who is unable to do the aforementioned activities, somehow can formulate the mens rea to commit a crime.

The focus of juvenile court is to rehabilitate the juvenile, not to punish him/her even though punishment may play a role in rehabilitation.  The prime consideration of the juvenile system is the welfare of the child.  If the system works, the juvenile will receive all of the opportunities to rehabilitate he/she needs.  One can only hope the 12 year old in this example gets the help he needs and doens’t spend the next 6 years in detention learning bad habits from pre-rehabilitated juveniles.

Protesters turned violent and emotional over Police shooting of an unarmed man.  Although, the anger surrounding this situation is understood, a violent protest with over a dozen new arrests and new potential crimes is not a solution to the problem. 

In additional to the excessive force and wrongful death claims, this new story has introduced hate crime as racial slurs were heard during the detention and eventual fatal shooting of this man. Story Here.

In a clear example of excessive force and police misconduct, an unarmed man was shot dead on New Year’s Day.  The man, who is the father of a four year old daughter, was pleading not to be tasered and instead was shot.  Whether accidental or intentional, the officer’s conduct is inexcusable.  There was no need to jump to lethal force in this situation.  Why did the officer unholster his gun?  Story here.

In situations like these, the victims and/or victims’ families should seek legal counsel to navigate the treacherous notice of claim waters with their statutory and case law requirements as well as the proper filing of a federal civil rights lawsuit with its accompanying state law claims.

In a tragic accident, a man in a wheelchair was hit by an SUV and later died at the hospital.  The man was crossing the road at approximately 10 pm and was not using a crosswalk.  The general public assesses these facts as a mere accident and the possibility of criminal charges are far from consideration.  However, Andrew  Thomas has a special place in his heart for vehicular crimes and guaranteed he will have the case reviewed. 

Car accidents have been charged as crimes when certain aggravating factors are present: intoxication of drivers, drag racing, excessive speed, red-light run, aggressive driving/vehicle used as a weapon.  A car is considered a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument in Arizona.  In the event that the county attorney can identify an aggravating factor, cases similar to this one may be charged as manslaughter, aggravated assault, and even second degree murder.  No aggravating factors have been identified in this story.  The driver should be safe from criminal prosecution; however, a civil case against her insurance company is likely to emerge.  Story here.