Maricopa County Detention Officer swipes a document from an attorney’s file in court

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This outrageous story has been circulating among Arizona trial attorneys for the past several weeks, but CNN's Rick Sanchez CNN.com – Transcripts recently shined the spotlight on a Maricopa County Detention Officer swiping a document from an attorney's file in court – right in front of the judge! (sorry, the video I found was disabled).

The reporting on this story comes from HeatCity.org in Phoenix Detention officer tries to explain why he swiped attorney's file – Heat City

A Maricopa County detention officer tried to explain Friday why he and a fellow sheriff's office employee swiped a document from a defense attorney's file in a bizarre scene that was caught on courtroom videotape. (Here is the videotape)

Detention officer Adam Stoddard sputtered nervously through his testimony at a hearing in Maricopa County Superior Court, where he was ordered to give reasons for taking the document. For every reason he gave, however, he retreated just as quickly, contradicting himself throughout the two-hour hearing.

The whole thing surrounded a scene that took place in a Maricopa County courtroom on Oct. 19, all caught on a courthouse security tape.

The tape shows Stoddard walking to the defense table during a sentencing that day. He leans over the table and begins reading from a document in the file of defense attorney Joanne Cuccia, who was speaking before the judge and had her back turned to the table.

Stoddard can then be seen motioning to a fellow sheriff's employee, deputy Francisco Campillo, and the two men pull the document from the file. Campillo leaves the courtroom with the document, then comes back moments later and places the original back in the attorney's file. Cuccia quickly figures out what is going on and brings up the issue with the judge.

On Friday, Judge Gary Donahoe, the highest-ranking criminal court judge in Maricopa County, held the hearing to determine whether Stoddard and Campillo had the authority to take the document from the file.

Under state law, an officer can seize evidence or make an arrest if he sees a crime taking place. Essentially, that's what Stoddard said he saw — or at least what he thought he saw — at the sentencing of Antonio Lozano on that day.

The detention officer, however, had a hard time sticking to his story.

Heat City was the only media outlet in the courtroom to watch Stoddard get picked apart by veteran Phoenix defense attorney Craig Mehrens and Maricopa County legal defender Maria Schaffer. The two were representing, respectively, the Cuccia and her client, Lozano, whose rights may have been violated by the Maricopa County Sheriff's employees.

At first, Stoddard testified that the document he yanked from the file — a handwritten letter — contained "keywords" that led him to believe Lozano was some sort of security risk. Later, however, the detention officer admitted the document had been reviewed by court or sheriff's officials beforehand and was quite literally given a stamp of approval.

"I guess, yeah, he would be legally entitled to have whatever he had on him," Stoddard said, adding that the letter had been "date stamped by a notoriety [sic notary] or the sheriff's office."

Stoddard also said he thought the document might have been somehow illegally passed between Lozano and his defense attorney. But later in the hearing, he admitted that there was really nothing unusual or illegal about a handwritten letter being passed between attorney and client.

* * *

But Stoddard later said this wasn't an issue in the case because the paperwork that Lozano brought to court that day had been searched beforehand for drugs or other contraband. Sheriff's officials had found nothing.

And so it went. Stoddard would say one thing to defend himself and then backtrack soon after. On several occasions, he told the court that pulling the document was "standard procedure." Then later, he said it was the first time he had done it during his five years on the job.

By the end of it, it was unclear why Stoddard had really pulled the document.

One of the complication's of the hearing was Donahoe's decision that the handwritten letter falls under attorney-client privilege. Because of that, no one was allowed to talk about the contents of the letter, including the supposed "keywords" that possibly provoked the seizure.

This, Donahoe said, made it impossible for Stoddard or Campillo to mount a defense against a possible contempt of court charge. Donahoe said he would not even consider holding the sheriff's employees in contempt for the seizure unless Lozano waived his attorney-client privilege.

"Unless you're going to let these gentlemen fully defend against it, I'm not going to hold them in contempt," Donahoe said.

Mehrens and Schaffer discussed it, but did not come to a decision. The waiver appeared unlikely.

Donahoe stopped the hearing after two hours, saying it would pick back up again next week [continued to November 7.]

At the subsequent hearing, HeatCity.org reports Officer tells which 'keywords' made him take attorney's document – Heat City

Maricopa County detention officer Adam Stoddard was back in court Thursday to explain why he sneaked a document out of a defense attorney's file behind her back a few weeks ago, stunning attorneys nationwide after the whole thing was caught on a courtroom videotape.

JJ Hensley of the Arizona Republic was at the hearing and wrote Friday that Stoddard continued to defend his actions as a legal search because he believed a crime was perhaps taking place. Stoddard was also finally allowed to tell the court which "keywords" he saw on the document that sent him into action. Hensley wrote:

"Going to," "steal" and "money."

Those four words, grouped in the same sentence, prompted a Maricopa County sheriff's detention officer to remove documents from a defense attorney's file last month, according to court testimony Thursday.

Officer Adam Stoddard testified that a handful of factors contributed to his decision to position himself behind the defendant, Antonio Solis Lozano, during Lozano's Oct. 19 sentencing hearing. And while Stoddard was there, his eyes "glazed over" a document with the four words that caught his attention.

The revelation of those four keywords likely means that Lozano, the defendant, has waived his attorney-client privilege regarding the handwritten letter Stoddard took from the file.

* * *

The Republic also reported that Donahoe at some point during the hearing ordered the packed courtroom cleared for an hour while he spoke to attorneys representing the various sides. It's not clear why it did this, but it adds to the mystery of the entire situation. Last week, Donahoe also ordered transcripts of the ongoing hearing, as well as the videotape of Stoddard's original actions, sealed from public release.

Despite the orders, though, the video was already public. And after Heat City posted it online, it ricocheted across the nation, appearing on CNN and the website of Reason Magazine, where it earned the home of Phoenix the nickname of "Marikafka County." It also went viral on YouTube, garnering about 60,000 views in four days.

Scott Greenfield, a criminal defense attorney in New York who runs the law blog Simple Justice, called Stoddard's actions "blatant, outrageous and yes, illegal." He explained the situation this way:

Court officers provide security for the courtroom. As such, they are entitled to check everything that comes in for any dangerous objects and contraband, and that includes a defense lawyer's file. That means that they may properly scan the file to do their job, but reading the contents of papers within a file is entirely outside the scope of their authority. A staple may be considered a weapon. The words on paper is none of their business.

Donahoe has still not decided whether Stoddard's actions were legal or whether it will affect Lozano's case. At the time the documents were taken, Lozano was about to be sentenced for attacking another inmate last year. The sentencing was put on hold, however, when Lozano's attorney figured out what was going on.

The hearing to decide what to do with Stoddard and the rest of the case is scheduled to continue Tuesday [November 10.]

At the November 10 hearing, HeatCity.org reports Judge says he's walking 'a line' with officer who took attorney's file – Heat City

Maricopa County Judge Gary Donahoe … scanned the courtroom and shrugged. "There is a line here that I have to balance," he said. Then he asked the two sides what he should do.

* * *

Stoddard's actions that day soon set off an uproar that has ricocheted across the nation in legal circles about the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege.

Many attorneys who watched the video of Stoddard taking the file say it doesn't matter what he saw; the law prohibits him from reading any private communication between an attorney and her client.

That's precisely the issue that Judge Donahoe has been exploring during the series of hearings in recent weeks. Did the officer really think a crime was taking place, and if so, did he even have a right to secret away the document while no one was looking?

Final testimony wrapped up Tuesday with Cuccia saying she was concerned about her reputation. An attorney for 10 years with a spotless record with the bar, Cuccia said she felt like she was being accused of a crime herself. "I've never been accused of wrongdoing before," she said.

Craig Mehrens, a high-profile Phoenix lawyer who is representing Cuccia in the matter, asked her: "Other than your reputation, what else do you have as a lawyer?"

"Nothing," she said.

After hours of testimony during the hearings, Donahoe turned to the packed courtroom and said he hadn't yet figured out what to do with the case. He admitted he was in a tight spot.

One of the highest-ranking judges in Maricopa County, Donahoe oversees the criminal courts. He told the attorneys Tuesday he must to keep in mind that the sheriff's deputies – whose practices were under scrutiny in the hearing – are assigned at the courthouse to protect the public, the attorneys and judges, too.

"I don't want to unnecessarily hinder or prevent deputies from carrying out security in the courtroom," Donahoe said.

But Mehrens argued the judge has a greater duty to protect the attorney-client privilege, a sacred right in the legal world.

"I would argue that's exactly your job," Mehrens said.

Any attack on that is harmful to the entire legal system, he said. He asked Donahoe to hold not only Stoddard, but also the entire Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, in contempt and to fine the people involved personally.

Later, Donahoe said he did not have the authority to hold Stoddard in "direct criminal contempt" because the offense had not taken place in front of him or even in his courtroom.

If anything, Donahoe said, he could decide to hold the detention officer in "indirect civil contempt," which carries much less weight. Even then, Stoddard has already given the documents in question back to the defense attorney, so Donahoe said he was unsure what order the contempt citation could carry.

* * *

The attorney for the sheriff's office, deputy county attorney Tom Liddy, said the detention officer could have handled the situation better or differently. However, he argued that Stoddard was still within his rights to seize the document because he thought a crime was taking place.

"It is not the position of the sheriff that that was the right thing to do," Liddy told the judge. "It's the position of the sheriff that he had a good-faith basis to do so."

* * *

Donahoe said he would take everything under consideration but made no ruling.