Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Political news today is like reading the police reports or watching an episode of "Cops."
Last week's domestic dispute between Rep. Daniel Patterson (D-Tucson) and his estranged girlfriend led to assault charges being filed this week. Assault charge lodged vs. Patterson:
Democratic state Rep. Daniel Patterson of Tucson has been charged with four misdemeanor counts of domestic violence in relation to disputes with his girlfriend.
Patterson could not be reached for comment Thursday but his attorney, Joe St. Louis, says Patterson is innocent and plans to claim legislative immunity.
Patterson plead not guilty. A pretrial hearing is scheduled for Patterson on March 15.
Say it ain't so, Joe. You know the assertion of legislative immunity is bullshit. As Phoenix attorney Dan Barr explained to the Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) Patterson charged with 4 counts of domestic violence – Arizona Capitol Times:
Phoenix attorney Dan Barr says St. Louis’ interpretation of the immunity clause is incorrect.
“He’s wrong,” Barr said.
The immunity clause has its roots in similar language in the U.S. Constitution, which in turn borrowed language from English law that was enacted in 1770. The U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled – once in 1908 and again in 1934 – that the federal legislative immunity applies only to an arrest in a civil suit.
“A member of the Legislature doesn’t have immunity from committing crimes during the legislative session. That’s crazy,” Barr said.
Tucson City Prosecutor Baird Greene isn't buying it either. Patterson's Attorney Calls for Legislative Immunity | The Range:
Regarding legislative immunity, Greene said his office is prepared to argue against that based on how it is defined in the state Constitution: "Members of the legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, and they shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement of each session. (Article IV, part 2, section 6.)."
Domestic violence could fall under the "breach of peace" category. Greene said that during the hearing St. Louis never explained why domestic violence is an exception.
The House Ethics Committee on Friday scheduled a meeting for March 13. The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports Ethics Committee to meet on Patterson complaint – Arizona Capitol Times:
The House Ethics Committee will meet March 13 to consider an ethics complaint against Tucson Democrat Daniel Patterson after an ex-girlfriend claimed he physically assaulted her.
“We are going to take stock of where we are and talk about the way ahead for the committee,” said Rep. Ted Vogt, the Tucson Republican who chairs the panel.
The ethics complaint was filed Feb. 27 by Rep. Katie Hobbs, a Phoenix Democrat. . . The complaint was signed by every member of the House Democratic caucus except for the two Democrats who sit on the Ethics Committee, Steve Farley and Debbie McCune Davis.
Patterson was also asked to resign by House and Senate Democratic leaders, as well as by the Arizona Democratic Party.
* * *
Vogt said Patterson has been given the opportunity to submit a written response to the ethics complaint, but has not done so. He said one of the issues that the committee will discuss on Tuesday is how long he should be given to file his response.
Patterson declined to comment on the Ethics Committee hearing, but said he would discuss it March 12.
Typically the Ethics Committee will take the position to delay taking any action on the ethics complaint until the criminal case is concluded so as not to interfere in an ongoing judicial matter. In the recent Scott Bundgaard ethics complaint for a domestic violence charge, Bundgaard accepted a plea deal which ended his court case and allowed the committee to proceed with an ethics trial, during which Bundgaard resigned from office.
In other news. . . Rep. Richard Miranda (D-Tolleson) abruptly resigned from the legislature a few weeks ago, citing family and health reasons.
There were rumors of an IRS investigation suggested in some media reports at the time. Those reports turned out to be correct. Court hearing set for ex-lawmaker Miranda:
A court appearance for what could be a plea agreement in a yet-to-be-filed criminal case has been scheduled for a former state representative who suddenly resigned from the Legislature recently.
The docket for the U.S. District Court in Phoenix lists a Wednesday hearing for an initial appearance, arraignment and change of plea for Tolleson Democrat Richard Miranda.
* * *
The case number listed for Miranda's appearance includes a designation that indicates it involves a waiver of indictment.
A lawyer for Miranda, Jose Montano, confirmed Friday that the appearance is for the former legislator and said he arranged it. Montano declined to elaborate.
* * *
Miranda abruptly resigned from the Legislature on Feb. 16, citing family and health concerns.
Since then, The Arizona Republic has reported that the Internal Revenue Service had requested Miranda's financial-disclosure reports for the past six years. Legislators file those reports annually with the Secretary of State's Office.
Details of the plea deal will be reported after Wednesday's hearing.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.