|
The Gulag system of the Soviet Union has become primarily known as a place for political prisoners and as a mechanism for repressing political opposition to the Soviet state.
As the scenario continues to unfold in the Elsebeth Baumgartner free speech case in northern Ohio, it appears that the Gulag system has extended into the penal system of Ohio, particularly in Ottawa, Cuyahoga and Erie Counties.
 Embattled disbarred attorney and judicial whistleblower Elsebeth Baumgarter, currently serving a 120-day contempt charge for statements made in legal pleadings which are protected by absolute immunity, is scheduled to stand trial on Jan. 29 in Erie County on charges that she stole her own corporate vehicle, resisted arrest and engaged in felony fleeing.
 Throughout the more than two year prosecution  of Baumgartner, the man in the center of the malicious and convoluted prosecutions has been Daniel Kasaris (left), an assistant prosecutor in the Cuyahoga County prosecutor's office of William Mason and former assistant in the office of Kevin Baxter (right), Erie County prosecutor.
When Baxter disqualified himself in the grand theft auto case of Baumgartner, he handpicked Kasaris to prosecute Baumgartner, notwithstanding that the law says the court appoints special prosecutors if there is a disqualification, not the person with the conflict of interest.
 According to an interview Kasaris conducted with Bryan DuBois, Baumgartner's former business partner in the blog, Erievoices.com, Kasaris has known positively since December 2005 that there is no grand theft charge as DuBois, as registered owner of the vehicle, indicated that Baumgartner had permission to drive the car and had in fact, helped finance the vehicle. http://www.northcountrygazette.org/documents/duboisinterview.pdf
But more importantly, the whole case hinges on the claim by Ottawa County Sheriff Robert Bratton that there was an outstanding warrant for Dr. Baumgartner's arrest on a probation violation, a warrant which he hasn't produced. When Bay View Chief Helen Prosowski attempted to arrest Baumgartner, she claimed she had a warrant but didn't produce one.
More than 20 months later, no one has produced a copy of the purported warrant and without a warrant, there is no legal arrest. In fact, without a warrant, Dr. Baumgartner's Fourth Amendment rights were violated on May 20, 2005, when an illegal stop, search and seizure was made. Warrantless arrests are unconstitutional. http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/2007/011907WarrantlessArrest.html
 Baumgartner had retained attorney Derek Farmer to represent her but when Farmer was suspended from practicing law by the Ohio Supreme Court,Frank Gasper, her attorney in the contrived intimidation and retaliation charges brought against her in Cuyahoga County on complaint of retired visiting judge Richard Markus, appeared on her behalf on the Erie County charges.
But when Gasper failed to argue the warrant issue and was pushing for her to plead guilty, Baumgartner discharged him and sought to represent herself pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. Although she has been declared a vexatious litigator by Markus, such a designation can only legally apply to civil matters, not criminal. Under the U.S. Constitution and the Sixth Amendment, she is entitled to represent herself.
In addition to numerous questionable situations involving her incarceration at the Ottawa County Jail, it has been learned that no law library is available to any of the inmates, including Baumgartner, which is a violation of constitutional rights. All persons, including prisoners, have a constitutional right of access to the courts pursuant to Monsky v. Moraghan 127 F3d 243, 246 (2nd Cir. 1997)
Additionally, according to Baumgartner's husband, the jail is withholding prescribed medications from Baumgartner.
So far, the Erie County Court, both the first judge Richard Knepper and now retired visiting judge Ronald Bowman, 76, has stonewalled her motions to conduct a suppression hearing, raising the issue of the warrantless arrest which is grounds to dismiss all the pending charges against her in Erie County Court.
But when her husband, Joseph, tried to file her motion with the court earlier this week, it was rejected by the clerk who said that only a retained attorney could file it.
With the trial scheduled for Monday, Jan. 29, before Bowman, Baumgartner has tried repeatedly to meet with the attorney that she retained for both the Cuyahoga and Erie County charges, Richard Drucker but Drucker has thus far not met with her.
Baumgartner also argues that her speedy trial rights have been violated in that the matter wasn't taken to trial within a year. Additionally, although there was a trial date scheduled for early September, the trial wasn't held with Kasaris failing to show. He didn't cancel the date and in essence, failed to prosecute Baumgartner, dictating the dismissal of the charges.
Prior to the beginning of the scheduled trial on Monday, Bowman has agreed to conduct a suppression hearing and to hear a motion to dismiss the charges.
The Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Suppress which so far the court has refused to allow Baumgartner to file, raises issues which apparently the State doesn't want in the court record.
The legal filing follows:
"On May 24, 2006, Defendant persona propria at the time filed a Motion to Suppress all evidence in this case as the result of an unlawful stop, pursuit and arrest on May 20, 2005.
On June 1, 2006 Defendant demanded a hearing on said motion prior to trial, scheduled from that date but was denied and held in direct summary contempt of court by Retired Visiting Judge Richard Knepper and sentenced to 45 days in jail in a closed proceeding from which the press and Defendant's family and supporters were barred. Defendant fully incorporates the earlier Motion to Suppress and the transcripts of June 1, 2006 and July 17, 2006 as if fully rewritten herein.
On Aug. 21, 2006, Defendant's bond was revoked without hearing or notice by Retired Visiting Judge Richard Knepper and defendant was again incarcerated for 46 days until Oct. 5, 2006. Judge Knepper had recused himself on the record in this case on 8-18-06 and thus was without jurisdiction in case 05-CR-257 on 8-21-06. Judge Knepper's act to revoke Defendant's bond occurred in State v. Elizabeth Ohlemacher Case No 06-CR-310 during a hearing at which Defendant had been subpoenaed as a witness by Public Defender Richard Gavand. Thus not only did Defendant's arrest violate basic procedural safeguards, Defendant was absolutely immune from arrest per O.R.C. 2317.29. (Transcripts from 8-18-06 and 8-21-06 incorporated herein).
The mutually agreed trial date of Sept. 5, 2006 came and went without any effort of the State or Court to protect the constitutional rights of defendant who was held without bond hearing or judge assigned to this case. No continuance of trial date was ever filed and the court despite the availability of 3 general division judges and at least two magistrates held a United States citizen without bond or hearing on a defective warrant until Oct. 5, 2006.
On or about Oct. 10, 2006, defendant appeared with her counsel Derek Farmer and it was agreed that the defense would be granted leave to file motions in this case including another motion to suppress. Defendant was informed by her counsel that the State acknowledged it has no case for grand theft auto (the State has known this since June 2005 as the titled owner of the vehicle Bryan DuBois published at www.erievoices.com that his business partner, the defendant, herein had authority to use the company vehicle and he had never reported the car stolen). Also the State made a plea offer to a reduced felony, which Defendant rejected.
Finally, counsel reported that an Erie County Common Pleas Court judge familiar with this case told him that the State has no case, and that a misdemeanor plea offer would be forthcoming.
On or about Nov. 3, 2006, Defendant was contacted by Attorney Frank Gasper of Cleveland, Ohio, and was told that Mr. (Daniel) Kasaris stated he knew Defendant's counsel would be suspended from the practice of law shortly and that Defendant would need new counsel. Defendant was dismayed as she had paid Mr. Farmer $25,000 to take the case to trial after spending $12,000 on attorney Loretta Riddle who was, and continues to, refuse to account for her fees and return unearned fees.
The following week, Mr. Farmer was suspended and defendant agreed to hire his wife Sandra Finucane to file the motions only, recognizing she was not a trial attorney. Ms. Finucane filed a combined motion to dismiss due selective prosecution and suppress on or about 11-13-06.
On Nov. 15, 2006 Defendant entered into an oral plea agreement with the State of Ohio in Cuyahoga County based on the following representations by Mr. Kasaris, Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, and Defendant's counsel Frank Gasper and Mike Peterson.
Defendant would plead no contest to the two indictments in Cuyahoga County with a promise of probation and an appellate bond. On Nov. 15, 2006, Judge Saffold stated in a side bar and in earshot of Defendant that she could not send defendant to prison, as she was a professional woman. Defendant's counsels confirmed this representation to Defendant and it induced Defendant to enter into the plea. Defendant was confident that this case would be reversed on appeal on First Amendment grounds if she were free to pursue the appeal without fear of incarceration.
Defendant would enter a no contest plea in this case if her pending motions were denied and would be guaranteed a stay pending appeal. Defendant notes it makes no sense to agree to plea in Cuyahoga without the same guarantee in Erie.
As further indictment, Mr. Kasaris claimed he would direct Ottawa County Prosecutor Mark Mulligan to drop drug charges against Defendant for having unlabeled penicillin, amoxicillin etc. in her home and offer a plea deal to her husband of one misdemeanor for the same counts.
Defendant countered to drop the counts against her husband and give her the one misdemeanor but Mr. Kasaris claimed this was impossible and screamed that Defendant didn't care about her husband. Defendant responded that Mr. Kasaris was a "thus" and if this removed him from her life she would agree to plea deal as represented to her.
Defendant sought assurances from Mr. Kasaris that any actions in a pending contempt matter in Ottawa County would also be stayed but Mr. Kasaris claimed he had no influence with Mr. Mulligan on the contempt matter but only in the drug case. The contempt matter and Cuyahoga County indictments both sought to criminalize defendant's speech critical of the retired visiting judge system as promotion judge shopping, pre-judgment, an appearance of pay to play, influence peddling and unconstitutional due failure of the Chief Justice to abide by US and Ohio Constitutional Requirements and Ohio Code Requirements in the appointment of retired visiting judges. In fact both matters originated due complains of retired visiting judge Richard Markus that Defendant's complains about his alleged misconduct should be criminally punished in violation of U.S. law dating back to the found of the nation.
On Nov. 28, 2006, Defendant appeared for sentencing in Ottawa County Common Pleas Court on 27 criminal contempt of court citations filed by Judge Markus. Retired visiting judge David Faulkner sentenced Defendant to 120 days in the Ottawa County Detention facility and denied a stay pending appeal. On Dec. 11, 2006 Defendant applied for an appellate bond. On Jan. 12, 2007 Defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus/Procedendo or in the alternative Habeas Corpus at the Ohio Supreme Court to compel the Sixth District Court of Appeals to rule on Defendant's notion for bond. It should be noted that Defendant is held in maximum felony confinement for what are unclassified fourth degree misdemeanors. Further, in response to Defendant's statements that she acted in the public interest as a pro bono Christian attorney following Jesus Christ and Martin Luther to protect the oppressed and seek social justice, Prosecutor Mulligan stated "who knows what Elsebeth's Rice Krispies say to her each morning."
Thus, Defendant is incarcerated by (Ottawa) Sheriff (Robert) Bratton the proponent of the allegedly sham bench warrant for an alleged misdemeanor probation violation/failure to appear that led to the charges in the instant case on May 20, 2005.
On Jan. 5, 2007, Defendant was transported to Erie County Common Pleas court for the hearing on her motion to Dismiss/Suppress filed by prior counsel. Defendant believed attorney Richard Ducker of Cleveland would defend her in this case as attorney Frank Gasper has prior relationships as special prosecutor with Erie County Prosecutor Kevin Baxter's office. It was agreed to continue the hearing to Jan. 29, 2007.
On Jan. 12, 2007, Defendant met very briefly with Attorney Gasper at the Ottawa County Jail and gave him her thoughts on motions to be filed and witnesses to be subpoenaed. Again, Defendant was disappointed because the trial lawyer she believed she hired wasn't available to prepare for trial.
On Jan. 15, 2007 Defendant sent a letter discharging Mr. Gasper in this case and noticed this court that she is without counsel.
Defendant is severely hampered in her ability to defend herself because the Ottawa County jail has no law library and denies inmates access to the materials such as pens necessary to accessing the courts.
Nethertheless, Defendant through friends and family has learned of the following legal authority, which compels this court to suppress all evidence in this case as the result of an unconstitutional warrantless arrest.
ARGUMENT
On June 30, 2005, one month after Defendant filed a motion to dismiss this case in Sandusky Municipal Court due an unconstitutional arrest, the Sixth District Court vacated a conviction in this court due a warrantless unconstitutional arrest. See State V James Michael Young, 2005 OHIO 3369, Appeal NO E-04-013, Trial Court NO 2002 - CR-410.
Young represented by Attorney Robert Reno of Sandusky, Ohio argued the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress all evidence because the police did not have probable cause to stop his vehicle and arrest him as required by U.S. Constitutional Amendment IV. As in the instant case, the police did not have an arrest warrant and no cause to stop Young as they observed no criminal activity.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits warrantless searches and seizures, rendering them per se unreasonable unless an exception applies. Young at P18 citing Katz v. United States (1967) 389 US 347. Section 14 Article I of the Ohio Constitution contains nearly identical language to that of the Fourth Amendment, "and its protections are coextensive with its Federal counterpart." State V. Kinney (1998) 83 Ohio St 3d. 85, 87. ID.
While an investigative stop or Terry stop is a common exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement (See Terry v. Ohio (1968) 329 US 1, 20) if a vehicle or person is stopped for the purpose of effectivating an immediate warrantless arrest, police must have probably cause for the arrest. Probably cause exists when a reasonable prudent person would believe that the person arrested had committed a crime. See ID at p21 citing State v. Timson (1974) 38 Ohio St 2d 122, 127, (emphasis added)
A warrantless arrest done without probable cause is unconstitutional. Id citing Timson paragraph 1 of Syllabus. Likewise any search incident to that arrest in unconstitutional and any primary or derivative evidence obtain subsequent to and as a result of the illegal arrest and search becomes "fruit of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed." Id citing Timson paragraph 2 of syllabus. Statements made after a defendant is illegally arrested must also be suppressed as illegal "fruits of the poisonous" tree even if the defendant was Mirandized. Id citing Wong Sun V. United States (1963) 371 US 471.
If after being arrested the Defendant asserts that probable cause was lacking at the time of arrest, the State bears the burden of proof on the issue of whether probably cause existed for a search and seizure. Id citing Xenia V. Wallace (1988) 37 Ohio St 3d 216.
The record in this case is undisputed and taken from Defendant's Motions to Suppress filed May 24, 2006 and in November 2006 as well as discovery materials from the state and public record material reported in the News Herald, Sandusky Register, North Country Gazette and Erie Voices.
On Jan. 30, 2004, the Ottawa County Municipal Court issued a bench warrant for Defendant for an alleged probation violation of misdemeanor conviction for which defendant has already served 231 days. The bench warrant issued without an Affidavit in support of probably cause and was due Defendant's arrest for entering the Erie County Courthouse on 1-26-04. During the arrest, Defendant's head was smashed into the brick wall by Lt. Eric Longbrake and her rotator cuff injured by Longrake and Ed Wimmer.
On Nov. 23, 2004, the Honorable Judge Erich O'Brien dismissed the misdemeanor charges in Sandusky Municipal court based on a motion to dismiss prepared by Defendant and filed by Bryan DuBois. Mr. DuBois, editor of Erie Voices, an Internet journal published the motion online and reported that Don Ichman, law director, advised Defendant should file a motion to quash the Ottawa bench warrant, as there was no basis for it.
On Nov. 24, 2004, Bryan DuBois accompanied by Defendant's husband, Joe Baumgartner, tried to file a motion to quash in Defendant's Ottawa Municipal Court case No 02-CRB-025 and were blocked and threatened with arrest by Jody Royster, the bailiff and probation officer who caused the improper warrant to issue. Mr. DuBois paid a visit to Sheriff Robert Bratton, gave him a copy of the motion to quash and reported that Bratton confirmed there were always questions about that warrant. Again the motion to quash and interview were published on Erie Voices.
Defendant learned that the obstruction at Ottawa Municipal Court was due an order filed by Retired Visiting Judge Richard Markus at request of Prosecutor Mark Mulligan barring Defendant from defending herself in her criminal case. From Nov. 24, 2004 through Dec. 31, 2004, Erie Voices published court documents and interviews demonstrating there was an intentional effort to prevent Defendant from appearing and defending herself in civil case 01-CVC-136 before Judge Markus so that Defendant's evidence of $1.4 million in illegal contracts and child abuse in the Benton-Carroll-Salem local schools would not be introduced at trial.
As a result it was widely known in legal and law enforcement circles that the bench warrant was defective.
On May 20, 2005, Defendant was eating dinner with her business partner, Bryan DuBois, at Terry's Tavern in Bayview, Ohio. Bryan's estranged wife Mandy called him and she was invited to join in dinner. Instead Mrs. DuBois called the Ottawa County Sheriff and advised them of Defendant's location. Importantly, Mrs. DuBois herself knew the bench warrant was invalid and admitted she called only out of a malicious desire to harm Defendant. At the time both Erie and Ottawa County officials were aware of Mrs. DuBois' alleged mental health problems and propensity to file false reports or statements. (See State v. Bryan DuBois in Sandusky Municipal Court, DuBois v. DuBois in Erie Common Pleas Court and state v. Bryan DuBois in Ottawa County Common Pleas Court.)
Bay View Police Department employs Sandusky Detective Helen Prosowski as its part-time chief of police and employs a number of officer trainees. Prosowski is presently a defendant in a lawsuit wherein she is alleged to have been derelict in the performance of her duties for Sandusky Police when she failed to properly investigate sexual assaults on a 15-year-old girl at a Sandusky Police substation by police officer James Fitzpatrick.
Sheriff Robert Bratton contacted Erie County authorities to arrest Defendant on the bench warrant from Ottawa County Municipal Court. In published news reports Bratton admitted there were questions about the bench warrant, to extending the radius on the bench warrant without court authority and to a desire to see Defendant "pink slipped" to a mental hospital.
Chief Prosowski appeared at Terry's Tavern at about 8:30 P.M. on a Friday night with at least three other officers including an off duty officer driving his own car. In effect the entire police force of the village of Bay View was called to arrest Defendant.
Chief Prosowski confronted Defendant sitting in her company's locked vehicle in the parking lot of Terry's Tavern and claimed she had an arrest warrant. Defendant asked her to produce it and Prosowski admitted she had no arrest warrant.
Defendant's company vehicle was surrounded by police and officer Brandy Adkins threatened to break the car window and hurt Defendant if she didn't submit to the warrantless arrest. Defendant advised she was leaving for her own safety due her prior history with Erie and Ottawa County law enforcement's lack of respect for constitutional rights.
Defendant called Bryan DuBois and advised she would surrender in Huron County where she would be assured a prompt court hearing.
Prosowski ordered her officers to pursue despite no warrant and the underlying allegation being an alleged probation violation for a misdemeanor. Prosowski has refused to produce Bay View Police Department's pursuit policy though on information and belief every area's pursuit polity including her employer Sandusky Police does not authorize pursuits on misdemeanors.
Defendant was stopped by Ohio Highway Patrol Officers at Rt. 4 and Rt. 20 in Huron County. Officers had guns drawn but could not advise Defendant the basis for her arrest.
Sgt. Tony Myers transported Defendant to Bay View Police Department and advised Defendant that Ohio Highway Patrol was only assisting at request of Bay View Police and that no charges would be filed by the patrol. In published interviews, Sgt Meyers stated Defendant did not jeopardize the public as she took steps to minimize harm including slowing down at intersections and driving within the speed limit. Ohio Highway Patrol's press release confirms this. The state has withheld all police incident reports from Defendant though the State did disclose them to Dr. Castle as part of a competency evaluation, which was made public by the court on 7-17-06. Oddly in every other Erie County Common Pleas Court and Criminal Case, police incident reports and arrest reports are disclosed to the Defendant.
At Bay View Police Department, a plainclothes male searched Defendant's purse and unknown to the Defendant used her Florida Driver's license to issue four complaints on advice of Erie County Assistant Prosecutor Mary Ann Barylski.
Barylaski, based on hearsay statements, advised Bay View Police to charge Defendant with misdemeanor counts of resisting arrest and failure to obey the lawful order of a police officer and a felony-three count of fleeing and eluding. A stop sign traffic ticket was also issued. The complaints were sworn to by Ptl Brandy Adkins who is no longer employed by Bay View Police and unavailable to testify. The charges were not served on Defendant instead she was turned over to Ottawa County officers on the alleged bench warrant.
Defendant was incarcerated in Ottawa County jail on May 20, 2005, and held without bond or hearing until May 25, 2005. At the hearing visiting judge John Adkins admitted there was no affidavit in support of the bench warrant but he refused to release Defendant claiming he was the complaining witness and Defendant would be served with notice at a later date.
On May 27, 2005, Probation Officer Jody Royster served Defendant notice of alleged probation violation for leaving the State of Ohio without permission.
On June 1, 2005, Defendant admitted to violating her probation by leaving the State of Ohio and was restored to probation, which was extended to five years on a misdemeanor for which Defendant had served 244 days on a maximum 180 days sentence. Judge Adkins removed Jody Royster as Defendant's Probation Officer.
Prosowski then arrested Defendant on the charges dating back to May 20, 2005 and transported Defendant to the Erie County Jail where Defendant posted $15,000 bond.
On June 2, 2005 Defendant appeared before Judge Erich O'Brien in Sandusky Municipal Court and he advised he would consider Defendant's Motion to Dismiss due defective warrant and to return the company vehicle, which was impounded at Prosowski's request in order to coerce statements from Bryan DuBois.
That same afternoon Dan Kasaris appeared before the Erie County Grand Jury as Special Prosecutor without oath of office, bond or written agreement with the Erie County Commissioners and obtained a four-count indictment against Defendant. Kasaris obtained the same three counts charged by Bay View Police plus a count for grand theft auto without anybody complaining the vehicle was stolen. Kasaris sought $150,000 cash only bond, reduced to $35,000 surety by the court, knowing Defendant was not a flight risk as she was already on bond from municipal court for the same acts and on probation in Ottawa County. Nevertheless Kasaris also deviated from court policy by issuing an arrest warrant instead of summons to the dismay of Erie County's over burdened Sheriff's Department.
Defendant posted the additional $35,000 and appeared for arraignment on 6-16-05 before Magistrate Quinn. Mr. Kasaris again sought to increase bond and have Defendant's competency evaluated. During the month of June 2005, Erie Voices published multiple stories on the lack of probably cause for the arrest and statements by Bryan DuBois the titled owner of the Kia that there was no basis for the indictment.
On June 30, 2005 the Sixth District Court reversed the conviction of James Young due to an unconstitutional arrest. Assistant Prosecuting Attorney MaryAnn Barylski, the same prosecutor who advised Bay View Police to charge Defendant lost the case. This same day Kasaris obtained a secret indictment against Defendant and Bryan DuBois in Cuyahoga County for acts related to the operation of Erie Voices and reporting on alleged judicial and legal corruption in Ottawa, Erie and Cuyahoga Counties.
State v Timson, 38 Ohio St 2d 122 is a unanimous decision by the Ohio Supreme Court holding that the arrest of a citizen by law enforcement on a bench warrant not in their possession is unconstitutional.
John Timson like Defendant was a citizen activist critical of law enforcement and the legal system in Columbus, Ohio as well as a pro se litigant. The US District Court in Columbus issues a bench warrant for Mr. Timson for contempt of courts for allegedly removing a court document. The bench warrant was issued to the U.S. Marshals for service on Mr. Timson to appear for hearing on the contempt motion to show cause. The Marshals told a Franklin County Deputy Sheriff they had a warrant for Timson's arrest and told him if he was seen to arrest and detain him. The Deputy Sheriff in turn told a Sheriff's Captain of the bench warrant and the Captain arrested Timson when he was in a Sheriff's civil office seeking a notary. During the arrest he seized a concealed gun.
The Ohio Supreme Court held that the law of arrest in Ohio is quite clear. Generally there must be a warrant of arrest issued by a proper authority before on may be arrested. An arrest without a warrant is constitutionally invalid unless the arresting officer had probable cause to make it at the time. To have probably cause, the arresting officer must have sufficient information derived from a reasonably trustworthy source, to warrant a prudent man in believing that a felony has been committed and it has been committed by the accused. ID.
The court dismissed the state's argument that a bench warrant for contempt was equivalent to knowledge of a felony to excuse the lack of arrest warrant or probably cause as Timson committed no criminal acts in the arresting officers presence. Accordingly the gun was suppressed.
The court went on to state that an individual must ever be protected in his constitutional guarantees and when a close question presents itself such must be answered in a manner to protect the individual, which individual in a given instance may be anyone of us. Timson at 131.
Finally the court in Timson found that though there was an absence of probable cause to arrest Timson, the arresting officers did operate in the good faith belief though legally erroneous that there was a valid federal warrant for Timson's arrest.
Thus, this court is compelled by controlling precedent from both the Ohio Supreme Court and the Sixth District Court of Appeals which vacated criminal convictions due the failure of the trial court to suppress evidence after an unconstitutional arrest, to suppress all evidence in this case and dismiss this case.
Chief Prosowski stopped Defendant with the purpose of affecting an immediate warrantless arrest. She then encouraged her officers to violate police policy by physically intimidating a woman and initiated a pursuit with absolutely no evidence that criminal activity was afoot. Moreover, unlike the Timson case which involved a legitimate bench warrant from a federal judge in the possession of U.S. Marshals, Prosowski was relying on misrepresentations of a small rural county Sheriff that a known defective bench warrant from a small municipal court for an alleged probation violation on a non-violent misdemeanor justified calling in her entire police force on a Friday evening and creating a pursuit that needlessly involved the Erie County Sheriff's Department and at least five patrol cars from the Ohio Highway Patrol in a controlled chase through two counties.
Indeed employees of Terry's Tavern who are no longer on the State's witness list and with good reasons, expressed outrage that police acted as though Defendant were a wanted serial killer and wasted public resources on harassing a law enforcement critic.
Furthermore, the Sandusky Register in an editorial in the past week decried Erie County's inability to serve a warrant on a California man wanted for rape of a 6-year-old girl. The newspaper reported that over 600 warrants remain unserved in Erie County including several for rape. Yet in this case the Ottawa County Sheriff was permitted to abuse the resources of three law enforcement agencies to serve a defective misdemeanor bench warrant, and escalate the pursuit conditions by improperly extending the radius (the bench warrant if valid was only good in Ottawa County) and creating a false impression that Defendant was unstable and dangerous. Not surprisingly, the Ottawa County Sheriff has refused multiple public records demands from Defendant and the media to produce the bench warrant, dispatch tapes, policies, etc. (see www.northcountrygazette.org). Indeed both Captain Sigsworth of Erie County Sheriff's Office and Lt. Gregilla of the Ohio Highway Patrol stated there was no basis for the pursuit.
After improperly creating the situation, Prosowski had her allegedly improperly trained officers charge Defendant with felony fleeing and eluding based on unobserved actions outside their jurisdiction as directed by Maryann Barylski. This felony charge was then not even served on Defendant while in custody, but instead Defendant was handed over to Ottawa County deputies. Thus, Defendant was denied a prompt hearing on the charges in Sandusky Municipal Court before a judge with prior knowledge of the improper nature of the bench warrant and instead held for 13 days without bond or hearing in Ottawa County.
Prosowski then improperly impounded Defendant's and Bryan DuBois' company vehicle as evidence of some unstated crime for over three weeks. The "victim" of the grand theft auto had to pay over $400 in impound fees to recover their vehicle improperly held by police.
Finally despite knowledge of controlling case law since June 30, 2005 that compels suppression of all evidence in this case as the result of a warrantless arrest and knowledge prior to indictment that no vehicle theft occurred as defendant had authority to drive the company vehicle, the State through its prosecutors continued to prosecute the case and incarcerated Defendant for 91 days after she exercised her rights to file a motion to suppress and notice to the court of prosecutorial misconduct on 8-18-06.
Wherefore, Defendant moves the Honorable Judge suppress all evidence as fruit of an unconstitutional warrantless arrest and dismiss this cause due bad faith prosecution".
1-24-07
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed by anyone without the express written permission of the publisher. This article is copyright protected.
© 2007 North
Country Gazette
|
