Here is the scientist’s paper, which is both clear and convincing. The guy is obviously well-educated and articulate, and based on his analysis, it’s tough to disagree with his conclusion that the officer’s perception of reality did not properly reflect reality. After reading the paper and assuming the officer only had his faulty perception on which to base the ticket, no fair judge could reasonably hold the scientist responsible for the alleged violation. The appeal should have succeeded because it had merit. Had it failed, it would have been a glaringly obvious miscarriage of justice.

News media here in Arizona always seems eager to shill for authority, something their bad reporting frequently puts on display. The scientist in yesterday’s article was accused of something for which there existed no reliable evidence. He had the training and intelligence to communicate that, and he prevailed. The media, however, didn’t report on the dismissal of a bogus charge or the failings of a system that didn’t get it right until appeal. Instead, it wrote that he was able to “dodge” and “argue his way out of” the ticket, like he somehow got away something. The fact most people around here get their news from an outlet with such obvious bias toward government should be cause for concern.

H/T Xochitl

Then, things get weird. Dog owner gets cold feet. Sheriff Joe valiantly intervenes, of course. World is safe for the time being, as husband, wife, and lover must surrender their pets while on pretrial services with mandatory ankle bracelets and a curfew.

Aside from the obvious, a couple of small things really stand out. First, why didn’t they just go get a dog at the pound? Seriously. There are all kinds of freaks on craigslist. By going to the pound, they’d know exactly what they’re getting. Second, the curfew doesn’t make sense at all. Does the judge think all the super slutty dogs hang out at night? It seems to me that they should have a reverse curfew if anything. At night, dogs are safe and sound at home with their people. During the day, they’re home alone. It seems like a canine sexual predator’s dream.

All kidding aside, the story is remarkable not just for the crazy facts, but because of how the Arizona courts deal with people accused of bestiality. Most people don’t realize that bestiality is a felony in Arizona. It’s a felony if the animal is dead too, which wouldn’t be so strange if killing someone else’s dog wasn’t just a misdemeanor. Animal sex is worse than animal murder, I guess.

Because it is found in Chapter 14 of Title 13, the judge setting release conditions in a bestiality case is required to impose ankle monitoring. If convicted, an offender can be required to register as sex offender and be placed on lifetime probation. The court even has special discretion to make someone convicted of bestiality pay for a shelter’s costs caring for the animal and to undergo a psychological assessment and participate in counseling at his own expense.

It’s a strange case and we’ve got some strange laws, but it’s also pretty amusing that the sheriff’s office decided to make a sting out of the situation in the first place. I can imagine the undercover officer being briefed to play the role of the dog owner. I can just see her supervisor explaining how they have to take her off of whatever homicide or criminal syndicate case she was working and that she needs to develop a bond with the dog to pull it off, make it look real. I imagine her taking rover for long walks to prepare for the sting, giving him belly rubs and feeding him puppy treats. I hope she wore a wire when the deal was supposed down. Man what I would give to have that recording.

None of this should be a surprise, really. When you’re on hold with the sheriff’s department, instead of muzak, you hear from some lady over and over again about some award Sheriff Joe got from the Humane Society. She praises the fact his deputies arrest people charged with crimes against animals instead of just issuing a citation. She mentions Sheriff Joe’s devotion to helping not just dogs and cats, but turtles and other exotic animals too. Who knew turtle abuse was so rampant here in the Valley of the Sun?

I’m left scratching my head and wondering about Sheriff Joe’s priorities. I’m also reminded of an experience I had several years ago when I came home from vacation to find all of my belongings stolen and my house vandalized. The officer who arrived couldn’t have cared less. I could see a clear fingerprint on a metal picture frame they’d left, and despite the officer mentioning in passing that there had recently been a string of residential burglaries in my neighborhood, she seemed to have a tough time suppressing a laugh when I asked about taking fingerprints. At least she was honest, though. She said she wasn’t going to look into it and told me I’d be wasting my time filling out a victim’s rights form requesting to be notified if they caught anyone. What was I thinking? Of course they weren’t going to catch anyone! There were probably lots of turtles that needed rescuing.

It’s pretty clear where law enforcement priorities lie here in Arizona: DUI, drugs, man-on-turtle crime, and early thirties blonde ladies and the men who love them looking for puppy love on the internet. Not necessarily in that order.

Thanks to our boys in blue, we’ve caught some perps. We’ve saved a golden shepherd from having to fornicate with a lady in front of her husband and lover. A couple of Pomeranians are homeless now that the lady and the two men have had to surrender their pets. The husband, a flight attendant, can’t work because the ankle monitoring device can’t be left on during take off and landing. None of their lives will ever be the same. Arizona, previously known as the place where a local fire chief was caught trying to have sex with his neighbor’s sheep, has once again made international news thanks to a human-on-animal sex story. It’s hardly a happy ending for anyone involved, Arizona included.

H/T The Agitator and Xochitl

UPDATE:

Inspired by a comment, my experience with law enforcement…

“After 6-hour trial, Snowbowl protester still guilty,” the title reads.

It’s amazing the words “still guilty” made it through editing. I assume that the author intended to somehow emphasize that, despite what she perceives to be a lengthy trial, the defendant did not prevail. “Snowbowl protester found guilty after 6-hour trial” probably would’ve conveyed that just fine. It also would’ve avoided the frustrating misconceptions that abound from the title she actually chose.

Her title suggests the poor guy was guilty from the start. It’s like he was presumed guilty, but through some sort of legal magic he was able to suspend his obvious culpability for a moment. Now that the smoke has cleared, everyone can rest assured that he’s still guilty.

It’s as if he hadn’t entered a not guilty plea at his first hearing. It’s as if the state doesn’t bear the burden of proof. It’s as if he wasn’t legally innocent until the very moment the verdict came down. All the trial did, the article seems to suggest, was confirm what everyone thought they knew all along.

Now that I think about it, maybe the author does know a little something about the criminal justice system. That sure makes the article a lot more depressing.

Spice is apparently produced by taking chemical compounds from overseas manufacturers and spraying those compounds onto dried herbs. The chemicals bind to the same receptor in a human brain as the active ingredient in marijuana, but it’s more powerful than marijuana. It’s made with a chemical compound more potent than the active ingredient in marijuana, but people who use Spice apparently claim the chemically-enhanced high is shorter and less intense than what they experience with marijuana.

Immediately, the situation becomes clear. The government has banned marijuana, a plant that grows naturally from the earth, that has been smoked by humans for thousands of years, and that a few weeks ago we decided as a state to allow to be used for medical purposes. In place of marijuana, the ban has created something synthetic, made with chemicals from what I assume are questionable sources with lax quality control, and whose production involves spraying crap onto dried herbs. The result? Something stronger and likely more dangerous, similar but not nearly as enjoyable. Sounds like perfect drug war nonsense to me already.

Wide variations also exist with Spice because of the way it’s produced. That means consumers generally don’t know what they’re getting, and there are uncertain side effects. A Tucson legislator discussed in the article, a physician, once saw some college students come into the emergency room because one of their friends was experiencing some nasty side effects after smoking Spice; he couldn’t speak, his upper extremities were twitching and he complained of headaches and nausea. The other students were fine, though they too smoked spice. According to the article, there have been more than 2,000 calls to poison-control centers across the country because of Spice.

Disregard my statement that Spice is “likely” more dangerous; I’d say it’s undoubtedly more dangerous. Thousands of poison-control calls for something most people have probably never heard of, let alone used? I’ve never heard of anyone experiencing such terrible side effects from marijuana, and I’m perpetually amazed at how prevalent marijuana use is. Reading the article, I get the distinct impression that Spice is bad for me. I have no desire to ever smoke Spice, and I don’t think other people should smoke spice either. Unlike the powers that be, however, I don’t want it banned.

The article notes a major reason why I don’t want it banned. When they banned it in Europe, I guess it started a “rat race” where chemists tried to stay one step ahead of regulators. They kept finding new chemicals that would do the same thing but weren’t yet prohibited. From what I can tell, there’s a nearly unlimited number of things in the world that are capable of getting people high. When Spice is gone, maybe “Herbs” will take their place. Maybe some other silly brand name. In the ensuing race to get people high, some company is going to release something that kills someone. It isn’t like clinical tests are going to be done on these chemicals. The government makes everyone pretend they aren’t even intended to be consumed.

There are other problems too. After a similar ban in Germany, nearly half of the samples researchers seized contained no chemicals. According to the article, researchers thought chemical-free products were packaged and sold as Spice to capitalize on the popularity of the original Spice. Basically, people were being ripped off. Sure, the packaging has always been clearly marked with a stamp reading “not for human consumption,” but people smoked it. That was the point, and everyone knows that. People bought something expecting it was what it purported to be. They were defrauded.

The stupidity of all this makes my head spin. To summarize, the government banned the dried flowers from the Cannabis Sativa plant. As an alternate to smoking that relatively safe, naturally-occurring substance, which millions of people probably still smoke every day despite the ban, shady companies developed an untested, dangerous, synthetic version that was stronger but less enjoyable while at the same time being completely legal. Undaunted by the spectacular failure of its ban on marijuana and concerned about the danger of these new substances, which would not existed but for its ill-conceived ban on a far safer substance, the government wants to enact a new and equally stupid ban knowing that the result will either be newer and potentially even more dangerous, untested synthetic drugs in the worst case scenario, or rampant consumer fraud in the best case scenario.

Awesome!

From what I’ve read about the case, the facts sound all too familiar. An informant tells the police he has buyers who want to buy a large quantity of marijuana. Police set up a meeting where the informant meets with the buyers and establishes the terms of the deal. The buyers check out a sample of weed provided by officers and prove they have the money. Later, at the buy spot, officers arrive with the full load of marijuana. Before the transaction is over, the SWAT teams arrives and arrests everyone involved. The police and the informant go home after a long day of work. The buyers go to jail.

There’s always a lot more to the story. Informants don’t cooperate out of the goodness of their hearts. They’re usually working off their own charges. They get busted selling or transporting drugs themselves, and in exchange for a probation deal or a lesser prison sentence, they help the police find other traffickers, buyers, and brokers.

It isn’t even that simple though. Like I just mentioned, these reversal operations usually start with that felon informant telling officers someone is looking to make a big marijuana purchase. Informants can, and do, take advantage of people who are desperate. The person looking to make a large marijuana purchase may be looking to do it because the informant told him it was an easy way to make some money.

The person the informant targets may not even be the person with the cash. The informant’s target may just be a poor, desperate person who sees brokering a marijuana sale as a way to survive. In this economy, people are desperate, struggling to feed their families. Informants prey on that, turning ordinary citizens into drug buyers and drug brokers. Five or ten percent off the top of a six figure transaction is going to sound awfully appealing to someone who’s starving.

Officer Ledesma’s murder is a tragedy. My heart goes out to his family. I never knew him, but by all accounts it seems like he was a good man. Undoubtedly, he was a brave man. He was willing to risk his life, a risk that was ultimately realized.

Thinking about all my beliefs, even those most strongly held, I can’t say for sure that there’s any government function I’d personally feel was worth the risk of leaving behind a spouse and young children. People like Carlos Ledesma are probably the best and the bravest among us, but his valor was misdirected. The greatest tragedy of all is that he died in a situation that was probably created by a crooked agent of the police and where the police themselves brought the drugs.

My firm has handled these cases. Officers whose names now appear in the news are familiar to me. I’ve read their reports and prepared for interviews with them. My involvement, however, is with the alleged brokers, lookouts, and buyers. They are victims too. Their children also may be forced to go without parents; not forever, but often for years.

When the police become drug dealers, all of the rules break down. Officers put themselves in danger to do these operations and are closely involved in the subsequent criminal cases. Accordingly, the offers are especially harsh. In negotiating, some prosecutors use a twisted logic that really embodies the hypocrisy of the situation.

They say they can’t make a lenient offer, not even for someone who simply helped the broker and brought neither the money nor the drugs, because “there were guns involved.” Obviously there were guns involved. Officers brought them because these deals are dangerous. Do prosecutors really think a first-time broker coaxed into assisting with such a deal by an informant isn’t smart enough to do the same?

They say they can’t show mercy because “it was a lot of marijuana.” Of course there was a lot. The informant set the price and the quantity. The officers showed up with a van full of drugs. If they set up something involving under two pounds, it would be a lower level felony without mandatory prison. The police came with more because they decided to come with more.

I spent some time a few weeks ago talking about these cases with a seasoned defense lawyer who said the Phoenix Police did reversal operations in the 90′s but quit it because they were just too dangerous.

Phoenix woke up, so why is Chandler still doing it? Why do Chandler Police still insist on sneaking into other cities, selling drugs to dangerous criminals and leaving a trail of drug war victims in their wake? Why are they still subjecting themselves to the possibility they might eventually become victims as well?

About a year ago, a defense attorney named Jason Keller got busted smuggling heroin to inmates. The Maricopa County criminal defense bar was abuzz with talk of his supposed meth addiction and involvement with the Mexican Mafia. At the time, he represented a client named Jesse Alejandro in a murder conspiracy case. His client became his co-defendant.

A few weeks ago, another defense attorney, David DeCosta, got busted for doing more or less the same thing. Apparently, he was trying to sneak drugs to a client in court. The Maricopa County criminal defense bar has been abuzz with talk of him getting blow jobs from that client’s girlfriend. The client? Believe it or not, Jesse Alejandro.

I was pretty surprised to hear that another local criminal defense attorney decided to sacrifice his career and reputation doing something monumentally idiotic, but I was stunned to find out the same client linked them together. What is this guy doing to his defense lawyers? Is it his personality? Are his girlfriend’s “skills” really that amazing? All joking aside, I wonder how one person can get two established defense lawyers to give up everything committing a crime that’s virtually guaranteed to get noticed.

I’ve spoken with a number of defense attorneys about this, and we’ve all wondered the same thing: what happens in a client meeting with Jesse Alejandro?

Imagine you’re a defense attorney who just got appointed to a new case. You go through the security theater of one of the Maricopa County’s many jails to meet with your new client, then grab a seat in an interview room. The client approaches, sits down, and slides a photo of someone you love across the table. He tells you where the person lives and works. He knows the person’s social security number and date of birth. He tells you he’s going to have that person killed if you don’t do him a favor.

Anyone can say they’d do the right thing and report it to authorities right away, but things like that are always easier said than done. What would you do in that situation? What would the state of your personal and professional life have to be to make you give in? Can you really say you’d never do what he asked?

My guess is that Jesse Alejandro just happened to get appointed two lawyers who were desperate enough to break the law to get something he could provide them. In one case, it was drugs. In the other, it was oral sex. Lawyers are people too, and they probably had personal things going on that placed them in a vulnerable position. I’m guessing my hypothetical is far-fetched, to say the least.

I’m sure I’ll never know how much of a role Jesse Alejandro actually played in what happened with Jason Keller and David DeCosta, but I’m awfully curious.

*** I wrote this post after reading about the case in the news and hearing courthouse gossip about what happened to David DeCosta. The police reports reveal a very different set of facts, which I discuss here. ***

The law he was convicted of breaking was section 23-12 of the Phoenix City Code, “Creation of unreasonably loud and disturbing noises prohibited.” It provides that “[s]ubject to the provisions of this article the creating of any unreasonably loud, disturbing and unnecessary noise within the limits of the City is hereby prohibited.” Section 23-11(A) in the same article, “Nuisances,” explains that “[a]nything which is obnoxious to health, or is indecent, or is offensive to the senses, or is an obstruction to the free use of property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by any considerable number of persons, or unlawfully obstructs any public street, alley, sidewalk or highway is hereby declared a nuisance and may be abated by order of the City Court. Every person who commits or maintains a nuisance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

The whole thing seems outrageous to me. I’d expect that what the bishop did would at most get him a letter from the homeowners’ association. I doubt there was some kind of prior order, as he wasn’t charged with violating one. I also wonder how many warnings he received, but more than anything, I’m confused by the reaction the case has gotten. Considering the facts of the case, I don’t understand why people aren’t making a bigger deal out of this.

Why aren’t local religious leaders up in arms? Hell, why aren’t national religious leaders up in arms? Is it because he isn’t affiliated with your typical Baptist, Methodist, or Catholic church? Maybe no one here cares because other Phoenix churches don’t have bells. Maybe people don’t like the fact he uses prerecorded bells instead of the real deal.

Also, why aren’t Christian-values politicians complaining about this? Has our collective desire to have quiet little cookie-cutter neighborhoods finally triumphed over our supposed love of religious freedom?

It’s inconceivable to me that something as common and traditional as church bells could be considered a criminal nuisance. It even sounds like what he was doing was tasteful. In one video, some of the neighbors said they liked the bells. I can’t think of many class one misdemeanors where some of the victims have said they enjoyed and even looked forward to the crime. I also can’t think of many instances where I’ve seen someone convicted of a non-DUI first-time misdemeanor offense get a deferred jail sentence and a full three years of probation. That’s the maximum permissible term for the class of offense. It’s also twice as much as DMX got in his felony case involving aggravated assault on an officer. The court must have really wanted to make an example of poor Bishop Painter.

I find the court’s hand-written order to be especially problematic. There are plenty more Christian holidays than just Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Good Friday, Easter Sunday and Christmas Day. A city court judge shouldn’t be telling a church which of its holy days are suitable for bell-ringing. The court also shouldn’t be telling a church when it’s appropriate to observe its traditions. Bell-ringing is probably appropriate more often than just every Sunday from 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. Also, how did the court come up with the two-minute rule? Where did it get the 60-decibel limit?

As some articles mention, section 23-15 of the City Code provides exemptions for city vehicles, excavations or repairs by the City or State at night, the use of amplifiers or loudspeakers for noncommercial public addresses, and ice cream trucks. Specifically, the law states as follows:

None of the terms or prohibitions of sections 23-12 through 23-17 shall apply to or be enforced against:
(a) Any vehicle of the City while engaged upon necessary public business.
(b) Excavations or repairs of bridges, streets or highways by or on behalf of the City or the State, at night, when the public welfare and convenience renders it impossible to perform such work during the day.
(c) The reasonable use of amplifiers or loudspeakers in the course of public addresses which are noncommercial in character, and which amplifiers or loudspeakers are not used in connection with any moving vehicle.
(d) The use of a hand-operated device producing not in excess of seventy decibels of sound, “C” scale, measured a distance of fifty feet from the instrument emanating sound from bicycles, pushcarts, or other vehicles, or from vehicles in connection with the sale or display of merchandise; provided, that such devices or musical systems:
(1) Shall be operated only while the bicycle, pushcart or vehicle is in motion;
(2) Shall play only pleasing melodies; and
(3) Shall not be played between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., and between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m.

I was amused by the “pleasing melodies” part, but that’s another post entirely (I’m fairly sure that an ice cream truck playing Penderecki’s Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima would be illegal, but I’m on the fence about whether the court would find the melodies in Schoenberg’s Verklärte Nacht pleasing). What I wondered after reading the statute was why the judge set more restrictive times and a lower decibel level than those permitted for ice cream trucks. Was that intended to be an extra little jab? Was the court letting the church know that it respected the church’s religious traditions less than it respected the tunes played by the neighborhood ice cream truck?

I wish I had more information about what happened, but from what I’ve read, it looks like this poor guy’s rights have been trampled in all kinds of different ways. I hope his attorney made a good record at trial and that Alliance Defense Fund writes a strong appeal. In the meantime, however, at least I’ll sleep well knowing Arizona authorities have solved all the serious crimes and can focus on things like this.