Phoenix
Officer - Not Guilty
By Craig Mehrens,
Defense Attorney
I recently completed the
representation of James Contreras, of the Phoenix PD in a criminal case.
He was videotaped, allegedly throwing someone down the stairs at the
Fiesta Latino in Phoenix. He was also charged with authorizing a false
police report concerning the incident, and thereafter lying to the
criminal investigator who interviewed him. Some of the conduct of the
police department is worth noting, so that those of you who might be
confronted with a criminal/internal investigation will know exactly how
your police department operates. Your knowledge of this might greatly
assist how you would like to proceed when confronted by a criminal
investigator.
It is policy of the
Phoenix Police Department where they believe that there is not only an
internal violation, but also a criminal one, to have the criminal
investigation proceed first. As you will see, this is done for very
specific, calculating reasons.
First, the facts. For
reasons totally unrelated to Contreras, a video camera was set up 165
feet away from the front entrance of the Fiesta Latino nightclub and was
manned between the hours of 11 p.m., to 1 a.m. The department was
monitoring the action on a five-inch video monitor, and at approximately
12:50 a.m. on March 8, 2000, they perceived what they believed to be
Contreras throwing a patron down a flight of stairs. The internal
investigators and the criminal investigators met with Chief Woodward and
she instructed the criminal investigation to proceed. Chief Woodward
also instructed the criminal investigator not to mention the videotape.
Officer Contreras was
summoned to the main police station on false pretenses and ushered into
an interview room at Homicide. Shortly thereafter, the criminal
investigator commenced his interview, first gaining Contreras’
confidence by telling him that he believed he had gone to high school
with his brother. He told Contreras that he was involved in a criminal
investigation and that he was not going to Mirandize him. He did
not tell Contreras that he was the prime suspect.
Unknown to Contreras, the
interview was being secretly videotaped. In the videotape monitoring
room was another criminal investigator and a lieutenant. During the
interview, the investigator took a break and went back to the interview
room where the lieutenant, and possibly the criminal investigator,
offered suggestions on the interrogation of Contreras. Once the criminal
interrogation was over, the lieutenant appeared in the interrogation
room and escorted Contreras up to Professional Standards, where he was
ordered to answer questions.
The purpose of this
article is to let you know that it is often, if not always, wise to
invoke your privilege against self-incrimination when being interrogated
by a criminal investigator. I know it is inherent in police officers to
feel that if they do not answer a question, they are suggesting they
have something to hide. It does not matter whether you have anything to
hide or not. The investigation is going to proceed whether or not you
answer questions, and is certainly not going to stop if you answer
questions and deny you are involved. In other words, what do you have to
gain by answering a criminal detective’s questions? The answer to that
is, absolutely nothing. More importantly, if you do have something to
gain, why not speak with a criminal defense lawyer first, and then agree
to the interview? Moreover, sometimes the criminal investigator lies
repeatedly to the officer/suspect. That was the situation in this case.
Contreras was repeatedly told (as the investigator testified at his
trial) patent lies.
My advice to my criminal
defendants has always been as follows: When confronted by a police
officer for questioning, you have three choices: You may, (1) lie to the
officer; (2) tell the officer the truth; or (3) respectfully refuse to
answer his questions until you have spoken to an attorney. Anyone who
takes the first alternative is a fool; anyone who takes the second
alternative is a fool, albeit less of a fool. The individual who takes
the third alternative, it seems to me, is protecting his interests in
the best possible way.
The Contreras story had a
happy ending. Once we were able to obtain a clear copy of the videotape,
we were able to show a jury that Contreras had not thrown anyone down
the stairs, but in fact, it was the force of the bouncer ejecting the
individual out of the club into Contreras’ arms that caused the
accident. The jury acquitted him in a little over one hour of
deliberation. The trial judge found that the evidence concerning the
false reporting/information charges (there were two of them) was so weak
that he directed a verdict of not guilty at the close of the defense
case.
I might add that the cost
of representing Contreras in this case was considerable. It was because
he was a member of Phoenix LEA and the Legal Defense Fund, that through
their support he was able to mount such an effective defense.
LDF Home Page | News
Article Index
