.JPG)
Maricopa County, Arizona, Detention Officer Adam
Stoddard has been ordered to apologize for taking a
document from defense attorney Joanne Cuccia's files.
(Photo: from YouTube video)
There aren't too many ways to evoke sympathy for a law-enforcement officer who was recorded stealing documents from a defense attorney, but in Arizona, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe may have stumbled on the trick. In the case of Detention Officer Adam Stoddard, who was caught by a security camera swiping documents in a courtroom from defense attorney Joanne Cuccia while her back was turned, Judge Donahoe found the offending officer guilty of contempt. But rather than slap Stoddard with an adult penalty for an adult crime, he channeled his schoolyard days and ordered the officer to make a public apology -- and probably violated his rights in the process.
The problem is, while it may lie within the power of kindergarten teachers to order their charges to voice insincere sentiments to one another as a means of settling disputes, that's not a widely accepted use of, admittedly far-reaching, judicial power. Judges can fine people and toss them in the can, but ordering them to state predetermined opinions would seem to run afoul of First Amendment protections.
In Stoddard's case, Judge Donahoe had already dismissed as unacceptable the officer's claim that the reason he grabbed Cuccia's documents and photocopied them was because he saw a few suspicious words on the page. The documents clearly were covered by attorney-client privilege, he ruled. Yesterday, he found Stoddard guilty of contempt for his sticky-fingered grab at confidential information. Penalties for contempt usually consist of fines or imprisonment.
But ... as we've come to know, judges often hold police officers to be a somewhat higher breed of human than the rest of us. That's the best guess as to why Judge Donahoe decided to get creative in this case. Rather than deplete Stoddard's bank account or subject the officer to the shoddy prisons run by his own boss, the judge ordered a public, but meaningless, display of faux regret: a press conference to be held by November 30, at which a verbal and written apology is to be expressed by Officer Stoddard. If Ms. Cuccia is satisfied, the matter is then laid to rest.
After which, presumably, milk and cookies are to be served to all.
But the judge made a big error: Adult transgressor aren't toddlers; you can't make them voice opinions they don't hold, even when trying to do so seems to constitute a much lighter penalty than the alternatives. And Stoddard clearly isn't sorry, and neither is his grandstanding boss, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has already announced that the officer won't comply with the order, saying in a press release, "My officer was doing his job, and I will not stand by and allow him to be thrown to the wolves by the courts because they feel pressure from the media on this situation." He added, "I decide who holds press conferences and when they are held regarding this Sheriff's Office."
Having stepped off on the wrong foot, Judge Donahoe is now back to what he should have done to begin with: handing Officer Adam Stoddard an adult penalty for violating attorney-client privilege and interfering with the rights of criminal defendants in the courtroom.
email J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com
You might also enjoy these
Civil Liberties Examiner is now on Facebook!
Or follow the latest civil liberties news on Twitter: Libertywriter
Comments
A more fitting penalty, short of capital punishment (which should only be applied against government officials, employees, or agents), would be to ban the "deputy" from the court in any official capacity, forever, except as a defendant.
If the judge has any testicular fortitude, he'll give the clown 30 days in Sheriff Joe's Tent City AND bar him from the courthouse for life.
Of course, that means taking on Joe's political machine....
GSR, Lets not forget who runs those jails; at most, we may be sentencing the perpetrator to report to the employee break room. But even that is looking unlikely; Thomas's office says that he will demand a jury trial. If that happens, Thomas will have oversight over the prosecution, making a conviction very unlikely.
The real problem in this county is that the County Attourney & Sheriff do not provide any kind of meaningful checks and balances on eachother. Things will only get more bizzarre if Thomas succeeds in a run for AG.
Obviously the judge has no guts. That has been shown. He tried to kiss Arpaio's ass and was rebuffed. Since Sheriff Joe has taken it upon himself to defy the court order, he can now be charged with contempt of court and jailed. He should be, right beside his thieving deputy.
However I suggest the judge is too light in the shorts to do any such thing.
I don't get this article. The judge didn't order the DO to apologize, he gave him a choice: you can make this apology, or you can go to jail. That's one more option than a lot of criminals get. Don't other judges do things like give people the option to either go to jail or stand outside with signs detailing their transgressions (e.g.: DA Higgins, Bedford, PA, 11/4/09)? Why these "unconstitutional" and "kindergarten" insults? I'd love to be offered an alternative to jail time if I were in that situation.
I agree with John. This article buys into the dishonest and misleading Arpaio spin on the story. The judge did not order the deputy to make an apology; he ordered him to jail but gave him the opportunity to purge his contempt and avoid jail if he was able to make a sincere apology. The deputy's choice; hence, no First Amendment violation. Incidentally, if the deputy still doesn't know that what he did was wrong, he needs to be fired as well as jailed, as he has in effect declared himself unable to uphold his oath.
Deputy Adam Stoddard not only gives conflicting reasons of why he committed the crimes, he and some of his comrades arrogantly thumb noses at rule of law while endangering public safety.
A more flagrant disregard for the rule of law and the rights of the people is hard to come by. No less than the founding fathers of this great country, put together the bill of rights to protect the people from these very abuses.
This will hopefully lead to Stoddard’s day in court where a jury can sort it out and he can experience the desire for his rights to be protected. The rule of law applies to all and combined with freedom of the press helps keeps us free from tyranny.
Stoddard broke the law by violating no less than 2 amendments to the constitution when he violated the attorney’s Forth Amendment right and the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right.
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, house
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!