Posted by Orin Kerr:
Update on the Naked Prosecutor:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_11_19-2006_11_25.shtml#1164225779
I [1]posted last month on the strange case of Scott Blauvelt, an Ohio
state prosecutor who was charged with public indecency after being
seen on videotape walking around the office naked late at night. The
[2]latest news in the case is that Blauvelt was fired from his job,
and his criminal case was recently dismissed without prejudice. It
seems likely that new charges will be filed, however:
Charges of public indecency were dropped Tuesday against an
ex-city prosecutor because of a paperwork problem.
But officials said they would re-file the case against Scott
Blauvelt, who has been accused of walking through public buildings
after hours in the nude.
"A technicality is causing us to re-file the paperwork," Butler
County Sheriff's Chief Deputy Anthony Dwyer said Tuesday.
Blauvelt's lawyer, Mike Gmoser, railed against some officials'
use of the term "technicality," and hung up on a reporter who
sought more information.
Blauvelt had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to two
counts of public indecency in Municipal Court, where he worked from
March 2005 until he was fired last month. A judge dismissed the
charges Tuesday after authorities acknowledged they were filed
under an outdated section of law.
A city computer system printed out the old law when charges were
filed in Blauvelt's case, Dwyer said, and sheriff's Capt. Katie
McMahon didn't notice the problem at the time.
Under an update of the law last year, the offense of public
indecency must occur in "physical proximity" to another person who
is unrelated to the suspect, officials said. Therefore, Gmoser
argues, it is insufficient for a suspect to be caught on videotape,
as Blauvelt allegedly was.
Dwyer said sheriff's officials feel confident that the current,
updated law applies to Blauvelt's case. Sheriff's officials
reviewed the correct section of law when deciding what charges to
lodge, he said.
I wonder if Dwyer is telling the truth, and the the decision to
charge was based on the proper version of the offense. It's certainly
possible: officials will often file an information based on a "go by,"
an example used in a prior case, and someone just may not have checked
to see if the law was updated in the form that was filed. On the other
hand, it's also quite possible that the Sheriff's office just goofed
from the beginning, and that charges were filed based on a mistaken
understanding of the law. Stay tuned.
References
1. http://www.volokh.com/posts/1160514336.shtml
2.
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061122/NEWS01/611220426/1077/COL02
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
