Do you think that bad-mouthing your spouse to your children is just venting and not really damaging? Then think again.

Experts say that "ex-bashing" more often than not leads to Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). PAS is a growing concern among therapists, child psychologists and family lawyers in Pasadena. PAS, according to R.A. Gardner, who discovered the disorder, "arises primarily in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child's campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent's indoctrinations and the child's own contributions to the vilification of the target parent." Severe cases of PAS can result in kidnappings and psychological violence, but most commonly the disorder can damage a child's self-esteem and create feelings of fear and confusion. Fortunately, if you know the warning sings and where to get help, PAS can be treated and avoided.

PAS usually puts children in the middle of divorce warfare and in highly volatile situations. Things like a disregard for the child's possessions, forcing the child to give a parent information about the other parent, threatening a child into making custody decisions and manipulating a child into feeling bad for spending time with the other parent are signs that a parent may be experiencing PAS. Other red flags include financial blame placed on another parent, refusal to be flexible with visitation and making demands that contradict court orders.

Psychologists believe that PAS is caused by unresolved feelings of anger toward an estranged spouse. The feelings are repressed and then manifest in wild and dangerous behaviors. Childhood abandonment issues and the presence of a new spouse or lover also can trigger PAS. PAS can be avoided by seeking professional help during the divorce process. If you're experiencing these thoughts and behaviors, it's vital that you speak to someone so your child does not become a victim of your erratic behavior. Also, discussions about an ex should only happen when the child isn't in earshot. On the flip side, if your ex is displaying signs of PAS, seeking psychological help for your child is a great suggestion and your family attorney should be alerted right away if PAS has disrupted court-ordered arrangements.

The old adage for children during tough times is "let them know they are loved." This is especially true during divorce. Affirmations of love and support are the only weapons kids have when it looks like their world is falling apart. With open communication, education and resources, PAS doesn't have to be a part of our children's lives.

__________________________________________________________

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 9:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The moral of the following tale? Don't hire a hit man to kill your spouse. Hire a family lawyer in Pasadena instead.

A new bill being mulled over by a California state legislative committee is seeking to remedy a dangerous loophole in the state's no-fault divorce code. As the laws stand right now, exes in California who have solicited the murder of their estranged wives or husbands still are entitled to collect financial rewards in divorce proceedings. Shockingly, the current law states that if spouses are convicted for murdering or attempting to murder their spouses, they are not entitled to a cent of the financial benefits agreed upon during divorce proceedings. But if they hire a third party to commit the act, they can still collect the victim's assets.

How this bill came about is like a storyline from daytime soap opera. The wife of Southern California police detective Bill Pomroy hired a hit man from a Las Vegas motorcycle gang to murder her husband after she had lost custody of their children. Instead of going through with the plan, the gang members called the cops. After a secretly taped phone call with the woman, she was arrested and found guilty of solicitation of murder. But thanks to the snafu in California law, the woman received $70,000 after she was released from prison as part of her divorce settlement. Sensing a severe oversight, Pomroy leaped into action to help get the new bill on the legislative floor.

In its currently considered form, the new bill hopes to put an end to financial gains for people who have tried to have their spouses murdered. Divorce laws differ in every state; in California, a couple's assets are usually split right down the middle during a divorce. Pomroy's championed bill amends the law to bar spouses who solicit the murder of their spouses from collecting any financial rewards. The assembly is set to hear this bill and others in the upcoming days.

_____________________________________

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 9:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Does it seem like all of your friends are seeking divorce advice in Pasadena? Moreover, it seems like every week a different celebrity couple is calling it quits. There may be a surprising cause for the divorce epidemic: According to psychologists and authors, divorce might just be a contagious phenomenon.

A new study conducted by political science professor James H. Fowler, a professor at the University of San Diego, along with researchers from Brown and Harvard universities, finds that like the common cold, divorce can spread like wildfire. The study found that couples that have close friends who divorce are more likely to end their marriage than ones that do not. Your decision to split may not only influences your friend but their friends, too, the study found. As Dr. Bonnie Eaker Weil, author of Make Up, Don't Break Up, explains, "Yes, it's contagious because when you see people breaking up, you start to look at your own marriage."

Friends, as it turns out, are powerful influences when it comes to relationships. Folks with a divorced friend were 147 percent more likely to get a divorce than those with happily-married friends. Also interesting: Through intimate conversations that reveal martial troubles and tell of one friend's divorce, the listener may not be affected but another friend who heard of the issues second-hand is likely to be the subject of divorce.

The virus doesn't end with just friends. Siblings who witness their brother or sister go through a divorce are 22 percent more likely to get divorced than those who don't have divorced siblings. Co-workers are also a big influence on couples, Fowler says. A divorced co-worker can increase the likelihood of a fellow employee divorcing by 55 percent as opposed to an employee who works with non-divorced people. Surprisingly, people with children were less likely to be influenced to divorce by other divorced couples, the study found.

In the end, how we as individuals react to a divorce epidemic varies from case to case. "Some people can be a carrier of the disease without actually exhibiting the symptoms," Fowler says while comparing divorce viruses to the flu. "They can carry a virus but they might not get a fever or cough."

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 9:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Theirs was a love made in reality television heaven (or hell, depending on how you look at it), yet Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag have apparently called it quits and very well may be seeking divorce advice in Pasadena. The Hills stars have fought separation and divorce rumors for months, but last week things took an official turn when Montag filed for legal separation in a Santa Monica, Calif., court. After attempting to file in nearby Malibu, which does not handle divorces, Montag filled the separation paperwork, citing "irreconcilable differences" as the cause, in an effort to thwart her estranged husband from being entitled to any of her future earnings.

As always with these two, the separation is just the tip of the iceberg. The blogs are filled with rumors of infidelity, battles over money and the inevitable question of how "real" this whole separation is to begin with. And to think that it seems like only yesterday we were asking how "real" the marriage was to begin with! According to RadarOnline, Montag allegedly has hired a private investigator to determine whether Pratt has been dating other women. Pratt has fired back with affair accusations of his own, claiming that Montag has been involved with her bodyguard Cougar Zank (who recently invited the blond starlet to stay in his Malibu home; Pratt subsequently fired Zank from his guard dog duties). The legal papers seem to prove the split is legit, but columnists speculate this could be yet another ploy to keep "Speidi" in the headlines.

Meanwhile, the pair also garnished headlines for being broke. Sources say the couple's wild spending on everything from designer bags to plastic surgery has completely depleted their bank account. MTV's The Hills recently wrapped its final season, and financial prospects for both Pratt and Montag are few and far between.

Although Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt have not filed for divorce officially, a legal separation is not a good indicator that the couple America loves to hate will be staying together.

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last week's media bombshell of the separation of Al and Tipper Gore sent people scratching their heads and asking "what happened?" After all, most of us assume that when a marriage has lasted for more than 40 years, it's pretty much a "until death due us part" kind of union. Yet from Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins to Sean Penn and Robin Wright-Penn, the trend of long-term marriages ending in divorce is definitely on the rise. And everybody, it seems, has a belief as to why.

According to an article in the Detroit Free Press, family therapists cite several reasons for why marriages like the Gore's could end in divorce after decades of staying together. The Gore's children have now grown and some experts say that many couples wait for this to happen as to keep the family unit stable. Also, one of the couple's sons was injured badly in a car accident, and the stress of the event -- like the stresses of children with handicaps -- can cause couples to drift apart, according to therapists. Another factor is that people are living longer, so folks like the Gores as well as Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins -- in their fifties and sixties -- are ready to start new chapters at an age that was previously thought of as "the golden years." Many of theses couples also marry at very young ages, leaving little or no time for self-discovery, a project that now can be tackled later in life.

The simplest answer as to why long-term marriages end in divorce is that couples just grow apart. Sources say that it isn't unreasonable for a couple's needs, wants, dreams and goals to change after many years of marriage. Growing and changing are natural parts of relationships, and sometimes the parties involved do not share common goals as they get older. If you have grown apart from your spouse, get professional divorce advice in Pasadena today by giving us a call.

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 10:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As a couple, Al and Tipper Gore battled the campaign trail, the record industry, the tabloids -- even global warming. Yet it appears they were fighting a private battle that they just can't win: After 40 years of marriage, former vice president and presidential candidate Al Gore and his loyal wife Tipper have announced they are separating.

On Monday, the couple stated via email that their long marriage was over.

"We are announcing today that after a great deal of thought we have decided to separate, " the email said. "This is very much a mutual decision and a mutually supportive process of long and careful consideration. We ask for respect of our privacy and that of our family and we do not intend to comment further." Website Politico broke the news of the email and soon after spokespeople for the couple confirmed the sad and shocking news.

The split comes as a big surprise to pundits and celebrity couple watchers alike. After all, the Gore's marriage has never been wrought with scandal like John and Elizabeth Edwards' or subject to tongue wagging speculation like that of Bill and Hillary Clinton's. Furthermore, the Gores appeared to be one of Washington's most stable and loving couples. Their devotion was immortalized by a famous passionate kiss at the podium of the 2000 Democratic National Convention.

Since losing the election in 2000, Al Gore has devoted himself to environmental causes surrounding the issue of global warming. This work spawned a best-selling book and an Oscar-winning film, both entitled An Inconvenient Truth. Gore also filled his time with entrepreneurial endeavors and business ventures like Generation Investment Management, a sustainable investment program, and the co-founding of Current TV, a cable network in which he also serves as chairman. Additionally, Gore works as a director for both Apple and Google. Tipper is a photographer and briefly considered running for Senate in her home state of Tennessee when the the couple returned after living in Washington.

Al and Tipper Gore have four adult children and three grandchildren.

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The mother of Akon's child has been trying (and failing) to serve him with legal papers over child support -- so now she's gonna call him out in the L.A. Times.

The lawyer, [Patrick Baghdaserians] for [name omitted] tells us they will be taking out an ad in Monday's L.A. Times to serve Akon publicly. If he doesn't respond, they will pursue a default judgment.

But we caught up with Akon in NY -- and it's all news to him. As he told our guy, "You got a hold of me and you ain't even trying. I'm a celebrity. My schedule is on the internet. You can go on my MySpace, it'll tell you where I'm at!"

Source: TMZ

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It was difficult to tell whose smiles were brighter - the newly adopted children and their parents, or their advocates who had worked with them to get to this special day - during the recent adoption hearings at Edelman Children's Courthouse in Monterrey Park. The emotion-filled hearings marked the culmination of Adjunct Professor Amy Pellman's Children and the Law course.

A judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Professor Pellman spent the semester training her students to help complete adoptions of children in the foster care system. This year, she worked closely with Public Counsel to accomplish a goal she has had for a long time: to pair Southwestern alumni with current students to execute these adoptions. The result of that collaboration was Adoption Day 2009, in which students and pro bono attorneys from Southwestern completed the adoption process for 12 children during hearings held on April 17. In all, this year's program will place 16 children in permanent homes.

"In this process, the students have an opportunity to experience a wide range of lawyering skills," Judge Pellman said. "First, they are in the role of an associate working with a partner on an adoption. They are learning how best to interact with a supervisor. In this same vein, they could be networking with that lawyer and helping their chances for obtaining a job after law school. They are learning interviewing skills and issue spotting. When they interview the families, they are responsible for assessing the adoption benefit and deciding whether it is correct for the child's level of needs."

Casey J. Marticorena '07, who works as a family law attorney in Pasadena, co-coordinated Adoption Day 2009 with Joanna Sanchez '07 by acting as a liaison between the pro bono attorneys, students and Public Counsel. The attorneys oversaw the progress of each adoption case in order to assure timely filing of all paperwork and that each adoptive family receives the appropriate benefits.

When she was a student, Marticorena participated in National Adoption Day. "Now, as an attorney, I am able to have more of a one-on-one relationship with the adoptive parents and the children," she said. "The students were responsible for preparing the Judicial Council Forms and interviewing the adoptive parents. They were very professional during the visit to the adoptive parents' homes."

Second-year day student Arpie Jivalagian worked with Marticorena. "This has been a great experience," Jivalagian said. "It opens your eyes to a different world, and it gives you a great feel for how the system works."

Public Counsel conducted a training session during one of Judge Pellman's classes where all participating attorneys and students were present. Students then worked individually or in pairs with alumni to finalize the adoptions. They drafted letters, either met face to face with the family or had conference calls, completed the actual forms for the adoption, advocated for the AAP rate (Adoption Assistance Program) for which the child was entitled, appeared at the hearing and took the parents' testimony in court. Judge Stephen Marpet finalized several of the adoptions that day, saying, "As a judge, this is the best thing you ever do, bar none."

Judge Pellman, a former senior trial attorney with Dependency Court Legal Services and legal director for the Alliance for Children's Rights, has had a great deal of experience with adoptions on both sides of the bench, and was the recipient of the American Bar Association's distinguished Child Advocacy Law Award. During her tenure with the Alliance, a "National Adoption Day" was established to highlight the need for adoptive parents for children in the foster care system. That program has since grown exponentially so that now every state participates.

Children who grow up in foster care often have an array of psychological, physical and educational challenges, and therefore the need for competent legal assistance. "Foster parents, many of whom are relatives, need legal support in order to help the children they adopt thrive and grow into productive adults," Judge Pellman said. "The system is so large that often many social workers have been assigned to the child's case, and this invariably leads to mistakes. The students (along with the pro bono attorneys) have a huge responsibility to ensure nothing is missed at this last stop to a permanent loving home."

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 4:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The politicians are supposedly up in arms about Governor Blagojevich's appointment of Roland Burris to the vacant Senate seat. Illinois' Secretary of State - Jesse White, for example, has declared that he will not sign papers to certify the appointment. From their dramatic speeches and press conferences, it would appear these political types have taken the high ground. Think again...

This is not the first time our country has seen a politician with pending legal problems appoint someone to office. Remember when Richard Nixon appointed and fired numerous Attorney Generals while facing his problems with the law?

Unless specific legal authority exists that grants Mr. White the power to block Burris's appointment, he needs to do what he had been elected to do, which is to sign the papers.

The political process will take care of Burris and any cloud hanging over his appointment. The citizens of Illinois will decide if Burris should be their Senator, so his time and influence within the Senate is very tenable. If the citizens decide that Burris is unworthly of the position, he will be gone in a New York minute.

The real concern that people should have is that there are elected officials like Mr. White, who are openly declaring that they do not intend to follow the law. Apparently Illinois' politicians are so backwards, that even when crusading for justice, they end up committing crime. Mr. White's willful refusal to sign the certification papers is grounds for impeachment, as he would be refusing to carry out the laws he was elected to uphold.

Imagine that, another Illinois politician brought up on charges . . . .

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Join our own Donald Schweitzer on CNN's Prime News. Here he discusses the current situation in Chicago where a Sheriff has refused a court order to evict tenants of a foreclosed apartment building.

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

and...

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 11:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We join attorney DONALD P SCHWEITZER again in the studio with CNN's NANCY GRACE, as they discuss the case of the still missing Florida toddler, daughter of CASEY ANTHONY.

Intercepted phone conversations from the Florida jail reveal that family members of Casey Anthony believe she is lying about the disappearance of her two year old daughter. Listen in as Nancy Grace and Don Schweitzer discuss the incriminating phone conversations and other evidence known about this case.

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Join attorney Donald P Schweitzer in Fox New's Studio B as he discusses the potential invasive practices of your neighbors using criminalsearches.com.

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A two year old toddler is missing in Florida for more than a month before her mother makes a police report. When the police investigate the case, the mother tells them multiple lies about the little girl's disappearance. Today, the mother refuses to speak to the police, asserting her Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. What is wrong with suspecting the mother of foul play in light of these facts?

Join attorney DONALD SCHWEITZER on CNN's Nancy Grace, as he discusses the case of the missing 2 year-old Caylee Anthony. Joining Don are host JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, and CASEY ANTHONY's attorney, JOSE BAEZ. You be the judge after hearing the responses given by Ms. Anthony's attorney to Donald's cross examination. Click onto the above presentation to watch their discussion.

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 4:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Millions of lives have been sacrificed for our right to vote. The right to vote is perhaps the most precious constitutional right we have. A right that should never be taken for granted. Yet, a teenager was recently caught trying to sell his vote on e-bay. Local law enforcement officers caught the young man and he has been charged with a law that has not been used in almost ninety years. The teenager claims he was only joking. The cops are not laughing and take the position that his acts were serious enough to warrant criminal charges. Have the authorities gone too far? What would the consequences be if people were allowed to sell their votes on e-bay? Join Attorney Donald Schweitzer in Studio B as he debates this issue with criminal defense attorney John Dolan. Posted by: Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 2:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A federal court has ordered the giant of all Internet companies - Google, to hand over documents concerning YouTube's viewing data to another media monster - Viacom. Viacom and Google are currently entangled in a no-holds barred lawsuit, concerning allegations of intellectual property rights infringements. Continue reading or click onto the above video presentation for a detailed analysis of this issue.

Viacom wanted the viewing data to help it determine the extent to which YouTube's success was built on the popularity of copyrighted clips that were illegally posted to the site. Google contended that YouTube's viewing data should be kept from Viacom to protect the privacy of its users.

Unfortunately for the millions of people who view YouTube videos, the judge granted Viacom's request. The court's ruling has caused many advocates of privacy rights to cry foul.

For the following reasons, I believe the federal judge was correct in ruling against Google:

The Court's powers to access records cannot be denied.

Like millions of Americans and other people around the world I love Google. I can say without a doubt that Google has been very good to me and my family law practice. And if Google wants to be viewed by it's customers as the champion of privacy rights, so be it. But, let's get real . . . , the court's access to private records under appropriate circumstances cannot be denied.

We cannot let people hide behind their computers to commit crimes or torts. It would be absurd, for example, to give a child molester safe haven to either post or view child pornography. It would be equally absurd to give a person safe haven to infringe upon the property rights of another, to commit defamation of character, or to violate someone's privacy rights.

No right is absolute!

The fact that the federal court did not buy into Google's privacy right argument comes as no surprise to those of us who go to court for a living and who know that the right of privacy is not absolute. Our courts are vested with the power to issue search warrants and subpoenas to allow lawyers access to private records. On every work day throughout America, judges are granting motions similar to the one filed by Viacom.

Within my family law practice, for example, I serve subpoenas for personal and employment records almost on a daily basis. Personal records frequently lead to hard evidence concerning the opposing party's true income for the purpose of paying child and spousal support. Likewise, data collected from the opposing party's computer usage can also lead to damaging evidence concerning the issues of child custody, community property, or domestic violence. Thank goodness for those incriminating little e-mails. There is nothing like cross examining a perpetrator of domestic violence as to why he thought it was necessary to send 40 messages to my client concerning her new boyfriend!

In case this information is beginning to scare you, keep in mind that our legal system allows parties the right to object to invasions of their privacy. In California, for example, before a subpoena for personal or employment records can be served, the attorney serving the subpoena must give notice to the opposing party and wait numerous days before sending the subpoena out for service. In addition, there are special rules when it comes to any attempt to obtain medical records, in which case the court is usually going to scrutinize the request for said documents. So if your ex is trying to get your phone records to obtain your friend's phone numbers, there are certain hurdles that need to be cleared before the court will release such records.

Can you say . . . , "protective order?"

There is nothing new about the possibilities of an attorney or party releasing confidential information. In the cruel world we live in, people misbehave and private information is often dispensed to people who have no right to the records. I'm sorry if I've just burst your bubble, but this happens all the time, especially in divorce cases.

Fortunately, the court has a pretty strong remedy to this problem. Courts issue "protective orders" that forbid the release of private documents to third parties and impose huge sanctions on people for violating such orders. And let us not forget the fact that an attorney's license could be in serious jeopardy for intentionally releasing such information, which is a pretty strong incentive for not violating the court's order.

Again, borrowing from my experience in litigating family law cases, I often find it necessary to obtain protective orders on behalf of my clients. In one case, where my client was an attorney who owned his own law practice, his wife demanded copies of all the records pertaining to his client's files. She purportedly wanted the records to assist her forensic accountant in determining the value and cash flow of his law practice. Obviously my client was concerned about the confidentiality of his client's files, especially since his wife was on the war path to destroy him. We could not get into court quick enough to obtain a protective order, which was granted without hesitation!

What about Viacom's underlying motives?

For the purpose of this discussion, Viacom's motives are irrelevant. Viacom has the right to our system of justice as any other company or person. It is, after all, the court's responsibility to ensure that Viacom does not release the information to third parties. If Viacom violates the court's protective orders, well, look out for an astronomical monetary sanction.

Be careful!

The bottom line is that the information obtained by Viacom will be safeguarded by a protective order restricting access to the data to outside lawyers or others. The lawyers representing Viacom will probably make sure the protective order is obeyed. Nevertheless, it behooves all of us to think twice about the sites we choose to view within the privacy of our homes. After all, the right to privacy is not absolute, and you never know who may get their hands on your records.

Posted by: Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 4:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

*IF AUDIO STOPS PLEASE CLICK ON THE TIMELINE TO CORRECT THE ISSUE* On occasion California courts have to struggle with the issue of what constitutes income for the purpose of calculating child support. In a recent California decision entitled "Marriage of Rothrock," the court of appeal had to determine whether or not an uncharacterized personal injury settlement award that was paid into an annuity, constituted income for the purpose of calculating child support. In rendering its' decision, the court of appeal relied on the common law definition of income as well as a federal statute in determining that the monthly annuity did not constitute income. The court's use of the common law definition was somewhat new, in comparison to recent cases where the same issue presented itself. For a more detailed analysis of the court's decision, click onto the above presentation.

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 4:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Donald Schweitzer appears on CNN's Nancy Grace to discuss the recent trial of a Teacher in Florida who seduced three of her students and what role her gender plays in the proceedings.

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 1:00 PM | Permalink

While on Nancy Grace, attorney and former detective Don Schweitzer provides legal commentary on the investigation of possible sexual abuse of young boys within a polygamist cult in Texas. These allegations were raised after reading journal entries found on the ranch during a previous investigation in the community.

 

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 3:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 1:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This week we mourn the loss of our beloved colleague and friend, Suren Stepanyan. Although he worked with us for a brief time, he made a big impression on those of us who spent time with him day in and day out. Interestingly enough, he also made it a point to meet and befriended all of our other employees who joined the firm after he left. He was a kind soul, who always had a smile on his face, and laughter in his eyes. He was incredibly talented as a writer and attorney, and had a promising future cut short, far too early in his young life. Suren was 33 years old. He will be missed by all of us.

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 9:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Have you seen the video of the teenager who was arrested in Ft. Pierce for curfew violations? If not, please take time to view it now: Click Here

According to Officer Dan Gilroy’s report, he stopped and detained the fifteen year old girl who was out past curfew and was carrying a bag of clothing, which the officer suspected may have been stolen.  When the officer attempted to place the teenager under arrest for the curfew violation, the young lady resisted arrest while the officer attempted to place her in handcuffs. 

At some point in the encounter Officer Gilroy decided he needed to record the arrest, so he walked the young lady to his patrol car and turned on the camera.  The video tape of the remaining portion of this incident shows the teenager biting the hand of the officer.  The officer is then seen striking the teenager and spraying her with pepper spray.  He eventually gets the handcuffs on the teenager and completes the arrest.

The headline to this story has been incorrectly titled, “Dramatic arrest caught on camera in Ft. Pierce.”  After viewing the video of this incident, the correct title should have been: “Teenage curfew violator gets caught assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.” 

 

Can there be any question that this teenager was resisting arrest?  After all, how many times did the officer tell her to place her hands behind her back before he used force (I counted ten)?  And why would the officer make such an effort to get the camera rolling if he did not believe he needed to protect himself?

When a person assaults a police officer and then resists arrest, there will be force used by the officer in apprehending the suspect.  The officer has to use reasonable force necessary to effectuate the arrest.  As a former police officer, I can tell you that the biggest challenge any street cop has is using self restraint when encountering a person who refuses to be placed under arrest.  At the academy officers are trained to protect themselves, but to use no more force than is necessary for the situation. The type of force a particular officer uses will always depend on that officer’s physical skills and his perception of the force used against him.

In this case the force used by the officer may not look pretty (it never does), but it was entirely reasonable under the circumstances.

What other methods of force could the officer employed?  He could have wrestled her to the ground or used a “come along hold” (a method of twisting the suspects arm to cause compliance), or he may have choked her out with his baton.  In any case, the type of force would have caused pain and not have looked pretty.

My message to the teenager and her family:  Do not violate curfew; and when you are stopped by the police, obey their commands and you won’t have these problems. 

If you believe you were wrongly accused of a crime, hire an attorney, and fight the charges.  If you believe you were being picked on by the police, hire an attorney, and sue the department.   There are plenty of us wily attorney’s who are more than happy to take your case.  However, the last thing you want to do is bite the hand of the officer who is attempting to coax you into submission.  Unless, of course, you want to know what it feels like to have pepper spray poured in your face!

Written by Don Schweitzer

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 4:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

O.J. Simpson appears to have dug his own grave by freely speaking to the police and to the press about the details of his “sting operation,” which we all know was an armed robbery.  When a person speaks to the police or to the press without the assistance of an attorney, he or she will normally hurt whatever defenses may apply to a case.  But I, for one, will not underestimate O.J.’s ability to dodge, duck, and run ram shod over law enforcement agencies.  It was O.J., after all, who was found not guilty of a brutal double murder in a case where there was ten times the amount of evidence that is normally required to convict.

 

Let us not forget it was O.J. who Johnny Cochran once characterized as the smartest criminal defendant he ever represented.  And it is O.J. who was a criminal long before he ever stepped on a football field, i.e., he has a lifetime of experience beating the police at their own game.

Has the Las Vegas Police Department finally tackled O.J., when no other law enforcement agency within the country has been able to do so?  Again, I am not that confident.  In my mind this case is less provable than the double homicide, given that the victims in this case have shady backgrounds and at least one of them appears to have second thoughts about cooperating with the prosecution of O.J..  The media has also had a feeding frenzy on some of the key witnesses to the case which always causes problems for the prosecution.

However, there are two things about this case that may lead to a conviction.  First, this is a case in which O.J. will have multiple co-defendants.  As any prosecutor or criminal defense attorney will tell you, a defendant’s chances of beating the rap is diminished where there are co-defendants.  The biggest problem O.J.’s attorney will have is contending with other attorneys who may not be on the same page with O.J.’s defense. And there is always the strong possibility that the defendants will point their fingers at one another during the trial.

In addition, O.J. cannot pay for another dream team, Johnny Cochran and Robert Kardashian are dead, and there is a real possibility that he no longer has friends like Al Cowlings who will go to extreme lengths to help O.J. evade justice.

Stand-by, as you are about to observe, once again, a hall of fame football player and perhaps the most cunning criminal defendant in the history of this country, be the star of another trial of the century.  Whew!!

Written by Donald P. Schweitzer

Posted by The Law Offices of Donald P. Schweitzer at 2:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)