close
close

The Arizona Court’s decision protects the employees of Scottsdale, who fiercely claim that the pistol was directed to them – the Republic in Arizona

The Arizona Court’s decision protects the employees of Scottsdale, who fiercely claim that the pistol was directed to them – the Republic in Arizona

Play

  • The Arizona Court of Appeal ruled that the “absolute privilege” defends the victims of crimes, including police officers, from court cases related to false statements made during investigations.
  • The footage of the camera’s camera contradicts the officers’ claims, showing that the man had never raised his gun, which led to an agreement on a legal basis for less accusation.
  • The court expressed concern that providing employees of such broad protection could stimulate false reporting.

Two Scottsdale police officers who have falsely accused a man of pointing a gun at them, were protected from his case of gross negligence for their status as victims of crimes, the Arizona Court of Appeal ruled.

“We are unlikely to believe that an absolute privilege is applied to the statements made by the employees of Peace in this case,” writes Juniya Jennifer B. Campbell in a decision annexed by the presiding judge Brian J. Furuy and Judge Maria Elena Cruz, appointed to appoint to appoint Judge Brian J. Furuy and Judge Maria Elena Cruz, who was appointed January 29 at the Arizona Supreme Court by governor Katie Hobbs.

The absolute privilege is a legal standard that protects people in legal and government conditions to be tried for false statements. In Arizona, the victims of crimes receive an absolute privilege, as otherwise it will “contradict crimes, the pursuit of crime and the defense provided to the victims” under the ARizona Victim’s Rights Bill, which is part of the state constitution, says In the decision.

The judicial precedent provides casualties to police officers, the same defense as civil crimes victims, and the statements of the employees-Victim are protected, even when these statements are in official written reports prepared while the employee fulfills his investigative duties, says

In August 2017, Jeffrey Mason and Cynthia Mason were arrested after a dispute with a neighbor who led to police.

Scotsdale Matthew Voice and Michael Claire employees responded to the call.

Jeffrey Mason did not recognize the two men approaching as officers, according to court records. Neither Glass nor Clore identified themselves before Jeffrey Mason exit, holding a gun pointed out, Records said.

Voice and Clor wrote in their police reports and testified in court that Jeffrey Mason raised his gun at them. The footage of the camera’s camera denied this claim.

Initially, Jeffer Mason was accused of an aggravated attack on an officer for pointing a gun in police and disorderly conduct with weapons. Following the examination of the body’s camera frames, he accepted an agreement on a legal basis only on the charge of breach of behavior.

Cynthia Mason was initially accused of refusing to follow the officers’ instructions. Employees said they told her not to enter the home and that she ignored commands, but the frames of the body’s camera show that she had never participated in the House. Later, the fee was dropped.

In 2018, the Masons filed a case against Scottsdale.

The court panel of the Court of Appeal acknowledged the threat of holding employees created by applying an absolute privilege in the circumstances.

“We note with concern that providing greater protection for employees of employees can encourage employees to describe themselves as victims in order to avoid responsibility for making exaggerated claims-or completely incorrect statements,” writes Campbell in the opinion to the court.

The Scottsdale Police Department did not conduct an internal investigation into employee statements, a spokesman said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *