September 24, 2009
Jack Harris
Chief of Police
Phoenix Police Department
620 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
RE: NOTICE OF CLAIM PUSUANT TO
A.R.S. § 12-821.01
Decedent: Sophia Nunez
Date of Death: April 10, 2006
Dear Mr. Harris,
This firm represents the heirs of Sophia Nunez.
This letter shall serve as a Notice of Claim pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821.01. The heirs of Sophia Nunez intend to pursue litigation for Sophia’s wrongful death against the above-named recipient of this claim letter if the following claim is not accepted.
This Notice of Claim letter contains a fair and accurate description of the recipient’s intentional, reckless and grossly negligent conduct. The full and complete facts regarding this claim are in possession of the Phoenix Police Department. This Notice of Claim will serve, however, as a reasonable foundation for representatives of the Phoenix Police Department to fully and completely investigate the circumstances of the claim and reach an informed decision about whether to settle.
This Notice of Claim letter also contains a fair, reasonable, and firm demand for compensation. Based on the particular facts of this matter and our research regarding wrongful death settlements and awards, we believe the amount demanded for Sophia’s heirs is reasonable and will be accepted if offered by any recipient of this Notice of Claim letter.
The Claimants:
The nature of the claim is a wrongful death action pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-611 et seq. At the time of her demise, Sophia was not married. Her mother, Marie Nunez will bring this action for and on behalf of herself, as Sophia’s surviving mother, Sophia’s father, John Nunez, and Sophia’s 3 surviving children, Krystal Gonzalez, age 24, Unique “Nikki” Martinez, age 20, and Gilbert Martinez, age 9.
Gilbert Martinez maintained a close and loving relationship with his mother. As he was Sophia’s only male child, and much younger than his siblings, Sophia focused her attention on the young man to the point of perhaps spoiling him. As a result, Gilbert maintained a very close and loving relationship with his mother. The loss Gilbert suffered as a result of his mother’s death has been traumatic.
Gilbert’s trauma is immense, as he discovered his mother’s remains at the family home when he was 8 years old. Gilbert witnessed the aftermath of the violent death his mother sustained, and is a memory that continues with him to this day. Imagine a young 8 year old boy trying to administer artificial respiration to the remains of his murdered mother.
Unique “Nikki” Martinez, born August 25, 1989 was 17 years old at the time of Sophia’s death, and was living with her mother in the family home. Nikki was supported by Sophia, as she was a full time student at Westview High School. Subsequent to Sophia’s death, Nikki graduated from high school and now pursues her education at Glendale Community college.
Krystal Gonzalez, born November 12, 1984 moved from the family home shortly before her mother’s death. She is a high school graduate, and while Krystal pursued her education at a local community college, she now is employed Well Fargo Bank and works full time. While living with her mother and for a short time thereafter, Krystal was supported by her mother.
Each of Sophia’s daughters maintained a close and loving relationship with their mother. Each daughter relied on their mother for emotional as well as financial support and has suffered a deep emotional loss as a result of Sophia’s untimely passing.
Maria Nunez, Sophia’s mother also had a very close and loving relationship with her daughter. Sophia called her mother daily to discuss the current family situation, and sought Maria’s counsel for all things related to Sophia’s life. Maria is not employed at this time, but maintains the family home where she raised all her children. After Sophia’s untimely death, Maria has continuously participated in grief counseling at a counseling center in Good Samaritan Hospital on a weekly basis. Maria still grieves over the loss of her daughter.
John Nunez divorced Maria some years ago, but remained close to his daughter. John and Sophia communicated frequently and each remained interested in the others activities. Even with the dissolution of the Nunez marriage, the father continued to remain close to his daughter.
While he has not participated in grief counseling, John continues to feel the loss of his daughter.
Librada “Libby” Rocha is Sophia’s older sister. Throughout their lives, the sisters maintained a close and loving relationship wherein they communicated frequently and shared their lives with enthusiasm. Libby has suffered the loss of her sister equally to the loss suffered by the other claimants.
The Decedent:
At the time of her untimely demise, Sophia was 37 years old. As described above, she had 3 children. All of those children except her oldest daughter, Krystal lived with her at the time of her death.
At the time of her demise, Sophia provided financial and emotional support to all of her children. Sophia was employed by Qwest as a manager engaged in employee training. She was employed for some years by Qwest and earned a reasonable salary of approximately $44,874 in 2005, the year before her murder. Additionally, Sophia owned a home in west Phoenix that had a listing price after the murder of $259,900. This 1,735 square foot home served as the residence to herself, Gilbert and Nikki. Obviously, Sophia was a hard working, responsible working parent supporting her children.
Sophia maintained a close emotional relationship with her children. Her children looked to her for support and comfort in their daily lives, as all children do. Sophia provided the usual routine services a mother does by providing a clean, safe, home environment and serving as an example of hard work to her children.
Obviously, all of Sophia’s relatives were and continue to be devastated by the tragic loss.
Sophia was a responsible and honest person who was brutally murdered in the family home. The loss to the dependents of love, comfort, and companionship is immense. The economic loss suffered as a result of her absence, both as a wage earner and manager of the family, is substantial.
The Facts:
Mark Goudeau
On September 20, 2005, Mark Goudeau (“Goudeau”) approached two sisters who were walking home from a city park. He held a gun to one sister’s pregnant stomach and forced the two into the bushes, where he forced them to strip and continued to hold a gun to the pregnant sister’s stomach while he sexually assaulted the other sister. Phoenix Police eventually obtained two DNA samples. The swabs were taken from one of the sister’s left and right breasts, which Goudeau licked and later rubbed with dirt in an attempt to get rid of his saliva.
At that time, police were not aware that Goudeau was responsible for the September 8, 2005 murder of Georgia Thompson outside her Tempe apartment. Goudeau shot Thompson in the head a single time. Police also did not realize that Goudeau previously committed sexual assaults in Phoenix on August 6, 2005, August 14, 2005, and September 15, 2005.
After the sexual assault on September 20, 2005, Goudeau’s crime spree continued with a September 28, 2005 robbery in Tempe and sexual assault and robbery in Phoenix, then a November 3, 2005 robbery and sexual assault in Phoenix. Goudeau was also responsible for a string of three separate robberies in Phoenix on November 7, 2005. On December 12, 2005, Goudeau murdered pre-school teacher Tina Washington, who was on her way home from the preschool where she worked. Goudeau shot Washington in the face. On December 13, 2005, Goudeau committed yet another robbery in Phoenix.
Two months later, Goudeau brutally shot Romelia Vargas and her co-worker, Mirna Palma-Roman to death inside Romelia’s catering truck in Phoenix on February 20, 2006. On March 15, 2006, he committed yet another double homicide in Phoenix, this time shooting two employees of Yoshi’s Fast Food Restaurant in the head. Goudeau was also responsible for the March 29, 2006 murder of Kristin Nicole Gibbons. As he did with multiple other victims, Goudeau shot Gibbons in the head.
On April 10, 2006, Sophia Nunez's eight-year-old son found his mother dead in her bathtub. Goudeau shot her as well. Next, Goudeau committed a May 1, 2006 sexual assault at gunpoint outside the same restaurants he robbed on November 7, 2005, and finally, he murdered Carmen Miranda on June 29, 2006 in Phoenix. Goudeau abducted Miranda from a self-serve carwash near the scene of his May 1, 2006 and November 7, 2005 crimes. He shot her in the head behind a nearby barbershop, and the murder was captured on closed circuit television. That was Goudeau’s final murder.
Goudeau was ultimately responsible for no fewer than 9 murders, 15 sexual assaults and 11 kidnappings over the span of a little less than eleven months.
The DNA Evidence
Although Phoenix Police obtained DNA samples from one of the sisters Goudeau sexually assaulted on September 20, 2005, they intentionally waited until June of 2006 to send it to the Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) for Y-STR DNA testing. DPS immediately matched both DNA samples to Goudeau, including a sample the Phoenix Crime Lab previously tested without success.
Approximately one month after securing the DNA from the September 20, 2005 sexual assault, the Phoenix crime lab performed a partial analysis of the evidence and determined that saliva was present on both of the swabs. Members of the crime lab tested one of the swabs, the one from the right breast, and decided not to test the left one, which had dirt on it. The test results showed a partial DNA profile which was insufficient to identify a suspect given the DNA technology used by the Phoenix crime lab at the time.
Despite the urgency of resolving the case, and rather than sending the swabs to the DPS crime lab where the newer Y-STR testing was immediately available, an intentional decision was made to forego testing and store the swabs in an evidence locker until such time as the Phoenix crime lab was equipped with the ability to conduct Y-STR testing. The sole reason for this intentional decision not to send the swabs to the DPS crime lab for immediate Y-STR testing was so the Phoenix crime lab could be the lab to test the swabs and obtain the results of the Y-STR DNA testing on the swabs.
At the time of the decision to store rather than test the swabs at the DPS crime lab, the Phoenix crime lab was aware the DPS crime lab had the ability to conduct Y-STR DNA testing and the Phoenix crime lab had routinely sent other items of evidence to the DPS crime lab for testing in many unrelated cases. The Phoenix crime lab could have easily sent the two swabs to the DPS lab for Y-STR DNA testing had they chose to send them.
While the Phoenix crime lab was unable to perform the Y-STR DNA test, the DPS crime lab had been conducting Y-STR DNA testing since April 2005, months before Goudeau began his crime spree. Although the Phoenix Police Department outsourced a significant amount of scientific testing work to DPS, they decided not to ask DPS for help. Instead, a decision was made to hold onto the swabs and delay testing until the Phoenix Crime Laboratory could conduct Y-STR testing itself.
The reason for the intentional delay in testing the DNA evidence was based entirely on a selfish motive. The Phoenix Police Department wanted to solve the well-publicized “Baseline Killer” case without outside help. Intentional decisions were made to withhold referring the evidence to other police agencies, notably DPS, in order to make sure all credit and accolades went to the Phoenix Police Department.
Sometime after the series of initial attacks, members of the investigative team began to believe that one individual was responsible for the series of attacks. Investigators’ concerns arose before the murder of Sophia Vargas. Only because of the public outcry and a change of management was DPS finally asked to examine the DNA evidence. Claimants believe that this Notice of Claim request was made sometime in late summer of 2006, well after the violent series of murders that included Sophia's murder had ended.
DPS not only found Goudeau’s DNA on the untested left breast swab from the September 20, 2005 sexual assault, but also on the right breast swab from which the Phoenix crime lab only obtained a partial match. After putting the DNA profile into the Combined DNA Index System, DPS matched it to Goudeau, who was immediately arrested in September of 2006. Had the two swabs been tested earlier, the murders in question would not have occurred.
Claimants believe that the above facts are a fair and reasonable description of the events giving rise to this Notice of Claim letter. The basic facts are in the possession of the Phoenix Police Department, and the above information should serve as a reasonable basis for representatives of the Police Department to investigate the allegations of this claim. See Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 152 P.3d 490 (2007).
The Claim:
The factual foundation for this claim is the intentional, reckless and grossly negligent conduct by members of the Phoenix Police Department and the Phoenix Crime laboratory that directly lead to Sophia's murder on April 10, 2006. The perpetrator of this crime is Goudeau, deemed the “Baseline Killer” by the local press. Sophia is but one of Goudeau’s many victims, and had the Phoenix Police Department and its crime lab outsourced DNA testing to DPS in a timely and reasonable manner, not only would her murder not have happened, but several other tragedies would have been avoided as well.
Throughout the fall of 2005 and for the next year thereafter, Goudeau committed a series of violent crimes on random members of the public. Goudeau committed 9 murders and 15 sexual assaults in at least 16 different violent crimes.
The Phoenix Police Department gathered 2 separate DNA samples from a victim of a sexual assault in September 2005. This evidence was from the perpetrator of the crime. Had this evidence been timely studied, the results would have ended Goudeau’s crime spree. Phoenix had reason to believe that the series of violent crimes was being committed by one person before February of 2006. However, this evidence was not subjected to testing until summer of 2006, approximately 1 year and 9 murders later.
Claimants believe the evidence will show that members of the Phoenix Police Department, including those acting in a supervisory capacity as well as managers, purposefully decided not to test the above described DNA samples for reasons having nothing to do with reasonable police practices and procedures. They were motivated by public relations and inter-agency competition. Simply put, members of the Phoenix Police Department and Phoenix crime lab wanted credit for solving the crimes. This decision not to test was an intentional act and outrageous in nature.
In the alternative, the decision not to test the DNA sample was reckless or grossly negligent, as the members of the Police Department and Phoenix crime lab knew and understood the alternative to not testing the DNA samples was that further violent crimes would lead to more injured victims and grieving families. As the number of sexual assaults and murders grew during the remainder of 2005 and continued growing well into 2006, the callousness of the decision not to test the DNA became obscene.
There is no question about the effect of testing the DNA sample. The DNA test DPS conducted immediately led to the arrest of the perpetrator of the sexual assaults and murders, including Sophia's murder. The arrest was a direct result of the testing without any discussion or professional decision as to whether the owner of the DNA should or should not have been arrested.
It is clear and undisputed that as a direct and proximate result of the Phoenix Police Department’s intentional, reckless and grossly negligent decision not to test the DNA, Sophia was murdered. But for the intentional, reckless and gross conduct of managers and supervisors at the Phoenix Police Department and the Phoenix Crime Laboratory, she would be alive today.
The Recipients:
The culpable members of the Phoenix Police Department and recipients of this Notice of Claim letter are the following.
Tracy Montgomery, Assistant Chief of Police, Phoenix Police Department: Chief Montgomery was in a position of authority in the “Baseline Killer” case and exercised management and control over the DNA evidence described above. Chief Montgomery participated in the decision to delay testing.
Brett Vermeer, Phoenix Police Crime Lab Commander: Mr. Vermeer was in a position of authority regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as he managed and controlled the Phoenix Crime
Lab and had authority to process or outsource testing of the DNA evidence from the September 2005 sexual assault. His decision not to process the evidence was made for no good professional reason.
Roger Schneider, DNA Supervisor, Phoenix Police Crime Lab: Mr. Schneider was in a position of authority regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as he managed and controlled the Phoenix Crime Lab and had authority to process the DNA evidence from the September 2005 sexual assault. His decision not to process the evidence was made for no good professional reason.
Allison Sedowski, Assistant to Roger Schneider: Ms. Sedowski was in a position of authority regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as she participated in the management and control the Phoenix Crime Lab and had authority to process the DNA evidence from the September 2005 sexual assault. Her decision not to process the evidence was made for no good professional reason.
Benny Pina, lieutenant Phoenix Police Department: Lt. Pina was in a position of authority regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as he managed and controlled the investigation of the “Baseline Killer” case and had authority to order the testing of the DNA evidence from the September 2005 sexual assault. His decision not to process the evidence was made for no good professional reason.
Andy Anderson, Assistant Chief of Police, Phoenix Police Department: Chief Anderson was in a position of authority regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as he managed and controlled the investigation of the “Baseline Killer” case as well as the Phoenix Crime Lab. He had authority to order the testing of the DNA evidence from the September 2005 sexual assault. His decision not to process the evidence was made for no good professional reason.
Jack Harris, Chief of Police, Phoenix Police Department: Chief Harris was in a position of authority regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as he managed and controlled the investigation of the “Baseline Killer” case, as well as the Phoenix Crime Lab. He had authority to order the testing of the DNA evidence from the September 2005 sexual assault. His decision not to process the evidence was made for no good professional reason.
The Claimants believe that all of the above participated in the decision not to test the DNA evidence gathered from the September 2005 sexual assault long after it was common knowledge within the department that one violent, serial criminal was committing rapes and murders in Phoenix. Claimants believe that any of the above could have decided to refer the DNA evidence to the DPS crime lab for proper testing prior to February 20, 2006, which would have prevented Sophia's death.
Damages:
The following is a description of the damages suffered by each Claimant:
Sophia earned $44,784 as an employee of Qwest in 2005. She was on track to earn an equal amount in 2006 had she not been murdered. Sophia’s life expectancy was approximately 40 additional years, during which time she could be expected to work until she was 65 years old, or for another 28 years. Over the course of her working life, Sophia could therefore be expected to earn $1,253,952.00. That money would go to support her family and her children left the family home, to continue in such support.
Furthermore, Sophia served as a caregiver for her family. She engaged in the usual household chores, such as cooking, cleaning, and providing a safe environment for her family. There is a cost to replacing this service. While there are no receipts for the replacement service, nevertheless, Claimants can calculate that Sophia provided such services for approximately 4 hours each day during the week and 16 hours over the weekend. This computes to 36 hours per week that need to be replaced. Assuming a cost of replacement of $10 per hour, Sophia’s death has a value of approximately $360 per week or $18,720.00 per year. Over the total life of the community existing with Gilbert while he remained a minor, 10 years, this would amount to $187,200.00.
There are no exact documents supporting the damage claims, as the family has stepped forward to provide replacement service providers and no heirs have sought the services of a health care provider. However, the loss of a mother or wife is profound and will be remembered throughout each heir’s life.
Damages in a wrongful death cases are subjective. Damages are for the loss of the financial and emotional support of the decedent. Here, the financial support is notable in that the mother made a stead wage but shared her money without hesitation with her children. However, it is important to note that Sophia did work hard, was very industrious, and shared her income with her family.
Each Claimant has a separate burden of proof pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-611 et. seq. Therefore, each Claimant will present a separate Claim for damages.
Krystal is the oldest of Sophia’s children. She lived continuously with Sophia throughout her minority, until shortly before Sophia’s death. Throughout her life, Sophia provided for Krystal’s financial support. Even after Krystal left the age of minority, Sophia still contributed when Krystal asked. Further, Sophia contributed to Krystal’s health and welfare by providing services for her and offering the love, comfort, guidance, and support one would expect from a loving mother. The loss has been profound for Krystal, as it has been for all of Sophia’s relatives.
There is little in the way of supporting documentation for Krystal’s claim. There are no medical bills, psychological counseling, or other such objective indication of Krystal’s loss. Rather, she has suffered from the loss of her mother, the one consistent source of love and comfort in her young life. A mother’s guidance is perhaps needed most during the time when a young adult must make decisions that will affect them over the course of their entire life. Krystal has suffered from that loss.
Assuming that she benefitted from Sophia’s income or services to any degree, there is some objective monetary value to be added to the claim. A review of wrongful death damages suffered by adult daughters for the loss of their mothers shows damages ranging from $100,000.00 to $3,000,000.00. Krystal believes that $2,500,000.00 is a reasonable and fair value to settle her claim.
Nikki is the next oldest of Sophia’s children. All that describes Krystal’s relationship with her mother also describes Nikki’s relationship with her mother. Mother and daughter had a loving and supportive relationship. The loss of her mother was also profound. Nikki also benefitted from her mother’s financial support and services. She remains a member of the family and is not to this date has only started to become a self supporting adult. Since then, she has attempted to deal with the realities of living as an adult. Now more than ever, she misses her mother’s support and comfort, as being alone in the adult world is very difficult.
As for Nikki’s damages, the same analysis for Krystal applies to Nikki. There is a large range of values for an adult daughter’s loss of her mother. However, unique to Nikki's situation, the loss came at an important time in his life. The damages range from $100,000.00 to $3,000,000.00, and Nikki believes that $2,500,000.00 is a reasonable and fair value to settle her claim.
Gilbert was 8 year old when his mother died. He is presently in Middle School and continues to miss his mother. Gilbert participates in the usual sports activities of a young man his age, but has no mother to cheer for him when he does. While the same statement of damages for the other children applies to Gilbert, he would have remained with his mother for many more years had Sophia survived.
Sophia would have supported Gilbert financially and provided services for him until well after college. This financial damage could easily be calculated to exceed $50,000.00. Furthermore, the loss of the love, comfort and companionship of his mother has a value equal to, or even in excess of, the other adult children. A strong mother-son relationship is particularly important for a maturing young man, and Gilbert was deprived of the guidance of his mother during this important time of his life. Damages for an adolescent son can range from $100,000.00 to $4,500,000.00.
However, extenuating circumstances exist in Gilbert’s case. Gilbert was unfortunate enough to have discovered his mother’s remains, and given his age, thought that artificial respiration might save her. He actually attempted to resituate his mother. Gilbert witnessed the brutality that Mr. Goudeau was capable of. Because of the value of these special circumstances, we believe that 8,000,000.00 is a reasonable and fair value to settle his claim.
Libby Rocha was Sophia’s older sister. Pursuant to A.R.S. §12-611 et seq. we believe she also has a claim. Libby maintained a close and loving relationship with her younger sister, and shared a great many things with her. Libby has suffered a loss because of the murder of her sister that could have been easily avoided. We believe her loss is between $500,000.00 to $1,500,000.00. A settlement is made on her behalf of $1,000,000.
Maria Nunez is Sophia’s mother. Her loss has been profound. Maria has sought counseling for her grief through the services of a counseling center at Good Samaritan Hospital. The loss of a child, by violent circumstances is always traumatic. We believe Maria’s claim has a value between $1,500,000.00 to over $2,500,000.00. We believe a settlement value for Maria’s claim is $2,000,000.00.
John Nunez is Sophia’s father. The loss of his daughter has been sorely felt and traumatic. While he has not sought treatment through a formal counseling organization, he nevertheless has suffered the loss of a child. We believe John’s claim has a value between $1,500,000.00 to over $2,500,000.00. We believe a settlement value of John’s claim is $2,000,000.00.
In conclusion, pursuant to Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 152 P.3d 490 (2007), we submit the following firm settlement offers:
Gilbert Martinez $8,000,000.00
Nikki Martinez $2,500,000.00
Krystal Gonzales $2,500,000.00
Libby Rocha $1,000,000.00
Maria Nunez $2,000,000.00
John Nunez $2,000,000.00
If you have any questions, we suggest you contact the legal department for the City of Phoenix. We look forward to a quick and reasonable settlement of this matter.
Sincerely,
Marc J. Victor
Cc: Gilbert Martinez
Nikki Martinez
Krystal Gonzalez
Libby Rocha
Maria Nunez
John Nunez
Friday, September 25, 2009
Law Firm Marc J. Victor Attorney for Excellence (Part 2)
Marc Victor talks about his law firm (part 2)
Friday, September 18, 2009
Help in the Baseline Murder Investigation
Marc Victor (www.AttorneyForFreedom.com) is the Attorney representing the Vargas family in the wrongful death case arising out of the Baseline Murders case. Marc is asking that anyone with information related to the Baseline Murders investigation please contact him immediately. Marc is aware most members of law enforcement involved in this case acted honorably and were not complicit with the recklessness, gross negligence and subsequent cover up in this case. Marc would like to confidentially speak with the officers and other professionals involved as soon as possible. Marc will aggressively undertake all efforts to keep the interview completely confidential.
Marc can be reached at 480-755-7110 or through email at marc@attorneyforfreedom.com
Thank you for your help in this matter.
Marc can be reached at 480-755-7110 or through email at marc@attorneyforfreedom.com
Thank you for your help in this matter.
Monday, September 14, 2009
NOTICE OF CLAIM Against Phoenix Police
September 8, 2009
Allison Sedowski
Phoenix Police Crime Laboratory
Phoenix Police Department
620 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
RE: NOTICE OF CLAIM PUSUANT TO
A.R.S. § 12-821.01
Decedent: Romelia Vargas
Date of Death: February 4, 2006
Dear Ms. Sedowski,
This firm represents the heirs of Romelia Vargas.
This letter shall serve as a Notice of Claim pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821.01. The heirs of
Romelia Vargas intend to pursue litigation for Romelia’s wrongful death against the abovenamed
recipient of this claim letter if the following claim is not accepted.
This Notice of Claim letter contains a fair and accurate description of the recipient’s
intentional, reckless and grossly negligent conduct. The full and complete facts regarding this
claim are in possession of the Phoenix Police Department. This Notice of Claim will serve,
however, as a reasonable foundation for representatives of the Phoenix Police Department to
fully and completely investigate the circumstances of the claim and reach an informed decision
about whether to settle.
This Notice of Claim letter also contains a fair, reasonable, and firm demand for
compensation. Based on the particular facts of this matter and our research regarding wrongful
death settlements and awards, we believe the amount demanded for Romelia’s heirs is reasonable and will be accepted if offered by any recipient of this Notice of Claim letter.
9/12/2009
Page 2
The Claimants:
The nature of the claim is a wrongful death action pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-611 et seq. As
Romelia's surviving spouse, Alvin Hogue will bring this action for and on behalf of himself, as
the surviving spouse, and Ms. Vargas’ surviving children, Kenia Valdovinos, age 21, Jesus
Valdovinos, age 19, Melissa Valdovinos, age 17, and Travis Silvano Hogue and Anthony
Emiliano Hogue, both age 3. A summary of each claimant follows.
Alvin, 51, married Romelia on April 26, 2003. Mr. Hogue was a Motor Transport
Operator in the United States Army from 1978 to 1985 and was then employed as a transport
operator for Arizona Materials in Phoenix Arizona. Mr. Hogue was recently placed on furlough
by his employer and at present is unemployed.
Twins Travis and Anthony were 5 months old at the time of their mother’s death.
Anthony is a special needs child; he was born with Down’s syndrome. At the present time,
Anthony is enrolled in ACCESS and receives care from Alvin, who provides for both of the
twins’ full time care. Anthony will have special needs for the remainder of his life.
Kenia was living with and being supported by Alvin and Romelia at the time of her
mother’s death. She is a high school graduate who left the family home after her mother’s
demise.
She is self supporting.
Jesus was also living with and being supported by Alvin and Romelia at the time of his
mother’s death. Jesus left the family home after his mother's untimely demise. He has his GED
and is self supporting.
Finally, Melissa lived with and was being supported by Alvin and Romelia at the time of
her mother’s death. She presently lives with Kenia and attends Greenway High School as a
junior, where she is engaged in the usual teenage pursuits.
The Decedent:
At the time of her untimely demise, Romelia was 37 years old. As described above, she
had 6 children. All of those children except her son Eric, born April 20001, lived with her at the
time of her death.
Approximately 6 months before her demise, Romelia purchased a catering truck in order
to pursue a small business opportunity. She had worked in the catering business for some years
before purchasing her own truck. Romelia’s income figures show that she earned gross taxable
income of approximately $150/day, or $750/wk, and that her business was doing well. Both she
and Alvin anticipated that her business would continue to expand.
1 Eric is not a party to this claim.
2
9/12/2009
Page 3
At the time of her demise, Romelia provided financial and emotional support to all of her
children. Although she did not earn a significant wage, she gave to her children the resources
she could, and each of the children received what money was necessary for their care and
upkeep. She maintained a close emotional relationship with her children. Her children looked to
her for support and comfort in their daily lives, as all children do. Furthermore, Romelia
provided the usual routine services a mother does by providing a clean, safe, home environment
and serving as an example of hard work to her children.
Obviously, Romelia's children are devastated by the tragic loss of their mother.
Alvin maintained a close and loving relationship with Romelia throughout their marriage.
As normal spouses, they lived, worked, and enjoyed life together. They relied on each other for
emotional love and support. Alvin’s loss is as tragic and profound as the loss suffered by
Romelia’s children.
Romelia was a good and honest person who was brutally murdered in the truck she hoped
to use to provide for her and her family. The loss to the dependents of love, comfort, and
companionship is immense. The economic loss suffered as a result of her absence, both as a
wage earner and manager of the family, is substantial.
The Facts:
Mark Goudeau
On September 20, 2005, Mark Goudeau (“Goudeau”) approached two sisters who were
walking home from a city park. He held a gun to one sister’s pregnant stomach and forced the
two into the bushes, where he forced them to strip and continued to hold a gun to the pregnant
sister’s stomach while he sexually assaulted the other sister. Phoenix Police eventually obtained
two DNA samples. The swabs were taken from one of the sister’s left and right breasts, which
Goudeau licked and later rubbed with dirt in an attempt to get rid of his saliva.
At that time, police were not aware that Goudeau was responsible for the September 8,
2005 murder of Georgia Thompson outside her Tempe apartment. Goudeau shot Thompson in
the head a single time. Police also did not realize that Goudeau previously committed sexual
assaults in Phoenix on August 6, 2005, August 14, 2005, and September 15, 2005.
After the sexual assault on September 20, 2005, Goudeau’s crime spree continued with a
September 28, 2005 robbery in Tempe and sexual assault and robbery in Phoenix, then a
November 3, 2005 robbery and sexual assault in Phoenix. Goudeau was also responsible for a
string of three separate robberies in Phoenix on November 7, 2005. On December 12, 2005,
Goudeau murdered pre-school teacher Tina Washington, who was on her way home from the
preschool where she worked. Goudeau shot Washington in the face. On December 13, 2005,
Goudeau committed yet another robbery in Phoenix.
3
9/12/2009
Page 4
Two months later, Goudeau brutally shot Romelia and her co-worker, Mirna Palma-
Roman, to death inside Romelia's catering truck in Phoenix on February 20, 2006. On March 15,
2006, he committed yet another double homicide in Phoenix, this time shooting two employees
of Yoshi’s Fast Food Restaurant in the head. Goudeau was also responsible for the March 29,
2006 murder of Kristin Nicole Gibbons. As he did with multiple other victims, Goudeau shot
Gibbons in the head.
On April 10, 2006, Sophia Nunez's eight-year-old son found his mother, Sophia Nunez
dead in her bathtub. Goudeau shot her as well. Next, Goudeau committed a May 1, 2006 sexual
assault at gunpoint outside the same restaurants he robbed on November 7, 2005, and finally, he murdered Carmen Miranda on June 29, 2006 in Phoenix. Goudeau abducted Miranda from a
self-serve carwash near the scene of his May 1, 2006 and November 7, 2005 crimes. He shot her in the head behind a nearby barbershop, and the murder was captured on closed circuit
television. That was Goudeau’s final murder.
Goudeau was ultimately responsible for no fewer than 9 murders, 15 sexual assaults and
11 kidnappings over the span of a little less than eleven months.
The DNA Evidence
Although Phoenix Police obtained DNA samples from one of the sisters Goudeau
sexually assaulted on September 20, 2005, they intentionally waited until June of 2006 to send it to the Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) for Y-STR DNA testing. DPS immediately matched both DNA samples to Goudeau, including a sample the Phoenix Crime Lab previously tested without success.
Approximately one month after securing the DNA from the September 20, 2005 sexual
assault, the Phoenix crime lab performed a partial analysis of the evidence and determined that
saliva was present on both of the swabs. Members of the crime lab tested one of the swabs, the
one from the right breast, and decided not to test the left one, which had dirt on it. The test
results showed a partial DNA profile which was insufficient to identify a suspect given the DNA
technology used by the Phoenix crime lab at the time.
Despite the urgency of resolving the case, and rather than sending the swabs to the DPS
crime lab where the newer Y-STR testing was immediately available, an intentional decision was
made to forego testing and store the swabs in an evidence locker until such time as the Phoenix
crime lab was equipped with the ability to conduct Y-STR testing. The sole reason for this
intentional decision not to send the swabs to the DPS crime lab for immediate Y-STR testing was
so the Phoenix crime lab could be the lab to test the swabs and obtain the results of the Y-STR
DNA testing on the swabs.
At the time of the decision to store rather than test the swabs at the DPS crime lab, the
Phoenix crime lab was aware the DPS crime lab had the ability to conduct Y-STR DNA testing
and the Phoenix crime lab had routinely sent other items of evidence to the DPS crime lab for
testing in many unrelated cases. The Phoenix crime lab could have easily sent the two swabs to
the DPS lab for Y-STR DNA testing had they chose to send them.
4
9/12/2009
Page 5
While the Phoenix crime lab was unable to perform the Y-STR DNA test, the DPS crime
lab had been conducting Y-STR DNA testing since April 2005, months before Goudeau began
his crime spree. Although the Phoenix Police Department outsourced a significant amount of
scientific testing work to DPS, they decided not to ask DPS for help. Instead, a decision was
made to hold onto the swabs and delay testing until the Phoenix Crime Laboratory could conduct
Y-STR testing itself.
The reason for the intentional delay in testing the DNA evidence was based entirely on a
selfish motive. The Phoenix Police Department wanted to solve the well-publicized “Baseline
Killer” case without outside help. Intentional decisions were made to withhold referring the
evidence to other police agencies, notably DPS, in order to make sure all credit and accolades
went to the Phoenix Police Department.
Sometime after the series of initial attacks, members of the investigative team began to
believe that one individual was responsible for the series of attacks. Investigators’ concerns
arose before the murder of Romelia Vargas. Only because of the public outcry and a change of
management was DPS finally asked to examine the DNA evidence. Claimants believe that this
Notice of Claim request was made sometime in late summer of 2006, well after the violent series
of murders that included Romelia's murder had ended.
DPS not only found Goudeau’s DNA on the untested left breast swab from the September
20, 2005 sexual assault, but also on the right breast swab from which the Phoenix crime lab only
obtained a partial match. After putting the DNA profile into the Combined DNA Index System,
DPS matched it to Goudeau, who was immediately arrested in September of 2006. Had the two
swabs been tested earlier, the murders in question would not have occurred.
Claimants believe that the above facts are a fair and reasonable description of the events
giving rise to this Notice of Claim letter. The basic facts are in the possession of the Phoenix
Police Department, and the above information should serve as a reasonable basis for
representatives of the Police Department to investigate the allegations of this claim. See Deer
Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 152 P.3d 490 (2007).
The Claim:
The factual foundation for this claim is the intentional, reckless and grossly negligent
conduct by members of the Phoenix Police Department and the Phoenix Crime laboratory that
directly lead to Romelia's murder on February 20, 2006. The perpetrator of this crime is
Goudeau, deemed the “Baseline Killer” by the local press. Romelia is but one of Goudeau’s
many victims, and had the Phoenix Police Department and its crime lab outsourced DNA testing
to DPS in a timely and reasonable manner, not only would her murder not have happened, but
several other tragedies would have been avoided as well.
Throughout the fall of 2005 and for the next year thereafter, Goudeau committed a series
of violent crimes on random members of the public. Goudeau committed 9 murders and 15
sexual assaults in at least 16 different violent crimes.
5
9/12/2009
Page 6
The Phoenix Police Department gathered 2 separate DNA samples from a victim of a
sexual assault in September 2005. This evidence was from the perpetrator of the crime. Had this evidence been timely studied, the results would have ended Goudeau’s crime spree. Phoenix had reason to believe that the series of violent crimes was being committed by one person before
February of 2006. However, this evidence was not subjected to testing until summer of 2006,
approximately 1 year and 9 murders later.
Claimants believe the evidence will show that members of the Phoenix Police
Department, including those acting in a supervisory capacity as well as managers, purposefully
decided not to test the above described DNA samples for reasons having nothing to do with
reasonable police practices and procedures. They were motivated by public relations and interagency competition. Simply put, members of the Phoenix Police Department and Phoenix crime lab wanted credit for solving the crimes. This decision not to test was an intentional act and outrageous in nature.
In the alternative, the decision not to test the DNA sample was reckless or grossly
negligent, as the members of the Police Department and Phoenix crime lab knew and understood the alternative to not testing the DNA samples was that further violent crimes would lead to more injured victims and grieving families. As the number of sexual assaults and murders grew during the remainder of 2005 and continued growing well into 2006, the callousness of the decision not to test the DNA became obscene.
There is no question about the effect of testing the DNA sample. The DNA test DPS
conducted immediately led to the arrest of the perpetrator of the sexual assaults and murders,
including Romelia's murder. The arrest was a direct result of the testing without any discussion
or professional decision as to whether the owner of the DNA should or should not have been
arrested.
It is clear and undisputed that as a direct and proximate result of the Phoenix Police
Department’s intentional, reckless and grossly negligent decision not to test the DNA, Romelia
was murdered. But for the intentional, reckless and gross conduct of managers and supervisors
at the Phoenix Police Department and the Phoenix Crime Laboratory, she would be alive today.
The Recipients:
The culpable members of the Phoenix Police Department and recipients of this Notice of
Claim letter are the following.
Tracy Montgomery, Assistant Chief of Police, Phoenix Police Department: Chief
Montgomery was in a position of authority in the “Baseline Killer” case and exercised
management and control over the DNA evidence described above. Chief Montgomery
participated in the decision to delay testing.
6
9/12/2009
Page 7
Brett Vermeer, Phoenix Police Crime Lab Commander: Mr. Vermeer was in a position of
authority regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as he managed and controlled the Phoenix Crime
Lab and had authority to process or outsource testing of the DNA evidence from the September
2005 sexual assault. His decision not to process the evidence was made for no good professional
reason.
Roger Schneider, DNA Supervisor, Phoenix Police Crime Lab: Mr. Schneider was in a
position of authority regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as he managed and controlled the
Phoenix Crime Lab and had authority to process the DNA evidence from the September 2005
sexual assault. His decision not to process the evidence was made for no good professional
reason.
Allison Sedowski, Assistant to Roger Schneider: Ms. Sedowski was in a position of
authority regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as she participated in the management and control the Phoenix Crime Lab and had authority to process the DNA evidence from the September 2005sexual assault. Her decision not to process the evidence was made for no good professional reason.
Benny Pina, lieutenant Phoenix Police Department: Lt. Pina was in a position of authority
regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as he managed and controlled the investigation of the
“Baseline Killer” case and had authority to order the testing of the DNA evidence from the
September 2005 sexual assault. His decision not to process the evidence was made for no good
professional reason.
Andy Anderson, Assistant Chief of Police, Phoenix Police Department: Chief Anderson
was in a position of authority regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as he managed and controlled
the investigation of the “Baseline Killer” case as well as the Phoenix Crime Lab. He had
authority to order the testing of the DNA evidence from the September 2005 sexual assault. His
decision not to process the evidence was made for no good professional reason.
Jack Harris, Chief of Police, Phoenix Police Department: Chief Harris was in a position
of authority regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as he managed and controlled the investigation
of the “Baseline Killer” case, as well as the Phoenix Crime Lab. He had authority to order the
testing of the DNA evidence from the September 2005 sexual assault. His decision not to
process the evidence was made for no good professional reason.
The Claimants believe that all of the above participated in the decision not to test the
DNA evidence gathered from the September 2005 sexual assault long after it was common
knowledge within the department that one violent, serial criminal was committing rapes and
murders in Phoenix. Claimants believe that any of the above could have decided to refer the
DNA evidence to the DPS crime lab for proper testing prior to February 20, 2006, which would
have prevented Romelia's death.
7
9/12/2009
Page 8
Damages:
The following is a description of the damages suffered by each Claimant:
Romelia earned approximately $750/wk as the owner of a catering truck. That computes
to approximately $39,000 per year. Romelia had a life expectancy of approximately 40
additional years, during which time she could be expected to work until she was 65 years old, or
for another 28 years. Over the course of her working life, Romelia could therefore be expected
to earn $1,090,000.00. That money would go to support the community existing between her
and Alvin, as well as her twin boys, one of whom, Anthony, has Down's syndrome. It can be
assumed that Anthony would require constant care up until the end of Romelia’s working life.
Furthermore, Romelia served as a caregiver for her family. She engaged in the usual
household chores, such as cooking, cleaning, and providing a safe environment for her family.
There is a cost to replacing this service. While there are no receipts for the replacement service,
nevertheless, Claimants can calculate that Romelia provided such services for approximately 4
hours each day during the week and 16 hours over the weekend. This computes to 36 hours per
week that need to be replaced. Assuming a cost of replacement of $10 per hour, Romelia’s death
has a value of approximately $360 per week or $18,720.00 per year. Over the total life of the
community, and necessarily over the span of Anthony's life, this would amount to $788,000.00.
There are no exact documents supporting the damage claims, as Alvin has not engaged
replacement service providers and no heirs have sought the services of a health care provider.
However, the loss of a mother or wife is profound and will be remembered throughout each
heir’s life.
Damages in a wrongful death cases are subjective. Damages are for the loss of the
financial and emotional support of the decedent. Here, the financial support is notable in that the
mother made little money and had to share it with her husband and 5 children, one of whom is
special needs. However, it is important to note that Romelia did work hard, was very
industrious, and shared her income with her family.
Each Claimant has a separate burden of proof pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-611 et. Seq.
Therefore, each Claimant will present a separate Claim for damages.
Kenia is the oldest of Romelia’s children. She lived continuously with Romelia until
Romelia’s death. Throughout her life, Romelia provided for Kenia’s financial support. Even
after Kenia left the age of minority, Romelia still contributed when Kenia asked. Further,
Romelia contributed to Kenia’s health and welfare by providing services for her and offering the
love, comfort, guidance, and support one would expect from a loving mother. The loss has been
profound for Kenia, as it has been for all of Romelia’s grown children. They miss their mother’s
companionship.
8
9/12/2009
Page 9
There is little in the way of supporting documentation for Kenia’s claim. There are no
medical bills, psychological counseling, or other such objective indication of Kenia’s loss.
Rather, she has suffered from the loss of her mother, the one consistent source of love and
comfort in her young life. A mother’s guidance is perhaps needed most during the time when a
young adult must make decisions that will affect them over the course of their entire life. Kenia
will miss that guidance.
Assuming that she benefitted from Romelia’s income or services to any degree, there is
some objective monetary value to be added to the claim. A review of wrongful death damages
suffered by adult daughters for the loss of their mothers shows damages ranging from
$100,000.00 to $3,000,000.00. Kenia believes that $2,000,000.00 is a reasonable and fair value to settle her claim.
Jesus is the next oldest of Romelia’s children. All that describes Kenia’s relationship
with her mother also describes Jesus’ relationship with his mother. Mother and son had a loving
and supportive relationship. The loss of his mother was also profound, and while Jesus also
benefitted from some of the financial support and services Romelia provided, he soon left the
family home to become a self supporting adult. Since then, he has attempted to deal with the
realities of living as an adult. Now more than ever, he misses his mother’s support and comfort,
as being alone in the adult world is very difficult.
As for damages, the same analysis for Kenia applies to Jesus. There is a large range of
values for an adult son’s loss of his mother. However, unique to Jesus's situation, the loss came
at an important time in his life. The damages range from $100,000.00 to $3,000,000.00, and
Jesus believes that $2,000,000.00 is a reasonable and fair value to settle his claim.
Melissa was 13 at the time of her mother’s death. She is presently a junior in high school
and lives with her sister, Kenia, who is trying to substitute as a mother for Melissa. Melissa
intends to go to college. While the same statement of damages for the other adult children
applies to Melissa, she would have remained with her mother for many more years had Romelia
survived.
Romelia would have supported Melissa financially and provided services for her until
well after college. This financial damage could easily be calculated to exceed $50,000.00.
Furthermore, the loss of the love, comfort and companionship of her mother has a value equal to, or even in excess of, the other adult children. A strong mother-daughter relationship is
particularly important for a maturing young woman, and Melissa was deprived of the guidance
of her mother during this important time of her life. Damages for an adolescent daughter can
range from $100,000.00 to $4,500,000.00. Because of the value of this special relationship,
Melissa believes that $3,000,000.00 is a reasonable and fair value to settle her claim.
Travis Hogue was 5 months old at the time of his mother’s death. He will never know his
mother. While his siblings had the privilege of knowing and learning from their mother, Travis
will never have that opportunity. Travis will wonder about his mother, ask his siblings questions
about her, and think about how his life might have been different if his mother had survived.
9
9/12/2009
Page 10
Obviously, Travis would have benefitted from the services provided by his mother for at
least 18 years, probably longer, as well as her financial support. Assuming that the value of the
income and services are split 3 ways between Travis, Anthony and Melissa, Travis's loss of
financial support and the value of the home services would be in excess of $265, 000.00.
A review of values of the loss to a newly born child of his mother ranges from
$100,000.00 to over $10,000,000.00. We believe that a reasonable settlement value of Travis
claim is $4,000,000.00.
Anthony is a special needs child. He has Downs Syndrome. He will need the financial
support and home services of his mother for either his life or the life of his mother, whichever is
longer. Assuming that Romelia’s income remains at the $750 per week for the remainder of her
life and that she allows a full 36 hours per week of home services, valued at $10.00 per hour, the
financial loss suffered by Anthony is $450,000.00.
Importantly, his mother provided a service that a skilled health care provider would have
to provide in her absence. A Down's syndrome child requires more services than what one would
ordinarily expect from someone providing home services. It is believed that the value of the
damages suffered by Anthony is actually double the amount discussed above, or $900,000.00.
The loss of a mother to a special needs newborn is huge and ranges from $1,000,000.00
to over $10,000,000.00. We believe a reasonable settlement value for Anthony’s claim is
$6,000,000.00.
Alvin Hogue was born in 1958. He only recently became the father of twin boys and lost
his wife. He has suffered the loss of her income and services to the family as well. These losses
have been described above. He now must raise twin boys, one of whom is a special needs child,
on his own. The loss of the income and support for Alvin is equal to Anthony’s loss, as the
relationship would have lasted as long as either spouse survived.
We believe that Mr. Hogue’s claim has a value ranging from $500,000.00 to over
$10,000,000.00. We believe a reasonable settlement value for Mr. Hogue’s claim is
$5,000,000.00.
In conclusion, pursuant to Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser, 214
Ariz. 293, 152 P.3d 490 (2007), we submit the following firm settlement offers:
Kenia Valdovinos $2,000,000.00
Jesus Valdovinos $2,000,000.00
Melissa Valdovinos $3,000,000.00
Travis Hogue $4,000,000.00
Anthony Hogue $6,000,000.00
Alvin Hogue $5,000,000.00
10
9/12/2009
Page 11
If you have any questions, we suggest you contact the legal department for the City of
Phoenix. We look forward to a quick and reasonable settlement of this matter.
Sincerely,
Marc J. Victor
Cc: Matthew Brown, Esq.
Adrian Little, Esq.
Alvin Hogue
Kenia Valdovinos
Jesus Valdovinos
Melissa Valdovinos
Allison Sedowski
Phoenix Police Crime Laboratory
Phoenix Police Department
620 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
RE: NOTICE OF CLAIM PUSUANT TO
A.R.S. § 12-821.01
Decedent: Romelia Vargas
Date of Death: February 4, 2006
Dear Ms. Sedowski,
This firm represents the heirs of Romelia Vargas.
This letter shall serve as a Notice of Claim pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821.01. The heirs of
Romelia Vargas intend to pursue litigation for Romelia’s wrongful death against the abovenamed
recipient of this claim letter if the following claim is not accepted.
This Notice of Claim letter contains a fair and accurate description of the recipient’s
intentional, reckless and grossly negligent conduct. The full and complete facts regarding this
claim are in possession of the Phoenix Police Department. This Notice of Claim will serve,
however, as a reasonable foundation for representatives of the Phoenix Police Department to
fully and completely investigate the circumstances of the claim and reach an informed decision
about whether to settle.
This Notice of Claim letter also contains a fair, reasonable, and firm demand for
compensation. Based on the particular facts of this matter and our research regarding wrongful
death settlements and awards, we believe the amount demanded for Romelia’s heirs is reasonable and will be accepted if offered by any recipient of this Notice of Claim letter.
9/12/2009
Page 2
The Claimants:
The nature of the claim is a wrongful death action pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-611 et seq. As
Romelia's surviving spouse, Alvin Hogue will bring this action for and on behalf of himself, as
the surviving spouse, and Ms. Vargas’ surviving children, Kenia Valdovinos, age 21, Jesus
Valdovinos, age 19, Melissa Valdovinos, age 17, and Travis Silvano Hogue and Anthony
Emiliano Hogue, both age 3. A summary of each claimant follows.
Alvin, 51, married Romelia on April 26, 2003. Mr. Hogue was a Motor Transport
Operator in the United States Army from 1978 to 1985 and was then employed as a transport
operator for Arizona Materials in Phoenix Arizona. Mr. Hogue was recently placed on furlough
by his employer and at present is unemployed.
Twins Travis and Anthony were 5 months old at the time of their mother’s death.
Anthony is a special needs child; he was born with Down’s syndrome. At the present time,
Anthony is enrolled in ACCESS and receives care from Alvin, who provides for both of the
twins’ full time care. Anthony will have special needs for the remainder of his life.
Kenia was living with and being supported by Alvin and Romelia at the time of her
mother’s death. She is a high school graduate who left the family home after her mother’s
demise.
She is self supporting.
Jesus was also living with and being supported by Alvin and Romelia at the time of his
mother’s death. Jesus left the family home after his mother's untimely demise. He has his GED
and is self supporting.
Finally, Melissa lived with and was being supported by Alvin and Romelia at the time of
her mother’s death. She presently lives with Kenia and attends Greenway High School as a
junior, where she is engaged in the usual teenage pursuits.
The Decedent:
At the time of her untimely demise, Romelia was 37 years old. As described above, she
had 6 children. All of those children except her son Eric, born April 20001, lived with her at the
time of her death.
Approximately 6 months before her demise, Romelia purchased a catering truck in order
to pursue a small business opportunity. She had worked in the catering business for some years
before purchasing her own truck. Romelia’s income figures show that she earned gross taxable
income of approximately $150/day, or $750/wk, and that her business was doing well. Both she
and Alvin anticipated that her business would continue to expand.
1 Eric is not a party to this claim.
2
9/12/2009
Page 3
At the time of her demise, Romelia provided financial and emotional support to all of her
children. Although she did not earn a significant wage, she gave to her children the resources
she could, and each of the children received what money was necessary for their care and
upkeep. She maintained a close emotional relationship with her children. Her children looked to
her for support and comfort in their daily lives, as all children do. Furthermore, Romelia
provided the usual routine services a mother does by providing a clean, safe, home environment
and serving as an example of hard work to her children.
Obviously, Romelia's children are devastated by the tragic loss of their mother.
Alvin maintained a close and loving relationship with Romelia throughout their marriage.
As normal spouses, they lived, worked, and enjoyed life together. They relied on each other for
emotional love and support. Alvin’s loss is as tragic and profound as the loss suffered by
Romelia’s children.
Romelia was a good and honest person who was brutally murdered in the truck she hoped
to use to provide for her and her family. The loss to the dependents of love, comfort, and
companionship is immense. The economic loss suffered as a result of her absence, both as a
wage earner and manager of the family, is substantial.
The Facts:
Mark Goudeau
On September 20, 2005, Mark Goudeau (“Goudeau”) approached two sisters who were
walking home from a city park. He held a gun to one sister’s pregnant stomach and forced the
two into the bushes, where he forced them to strip and continued to hold a gun to the pregnant
sister’s stomach while he sexually assaulted the other sister. Phoenix Police eventually obtained
two DNA samples. The swabs were taken from one of the sister’s left and right breasts, which
Goudeau licked and later rubbed with dirt in an attempt to get rid of his saliva.
At that time, police were not aware that Goudeau was responsible for the September 8,
2005 murder of Georgia Thompson outside her Tempe apartment. Goudeau shot Thompson in
the head a single time. Police also did not realize that Goudeau previously committed sexual
assaults in Phoenix on August 6, 2005, August 14, 2005, and September 15, 2005.
After the sexual assault on September 20, 2005, Goudeau’s crime spree continued with a
September 28, 2005 robbery in Tempe and sexual assault and robbery in Phoenix, then a
November 3, 2005 robbery and sexual assault in Phoenix. Goudeau was also responsible for a
string of three separate robberies in Phoenix on November 7, 2005. On December 12, 2005,
Goudeau murdered pre-school teacher Tina Washington, who was on her way home from the
preschool where she worked. Goudeau shot Washington in the face. On December 13, 2005,
Goudeau committed yet another robbery in Phoenix.
3
9/12/2009
Page 4
Two months later, Goudeau brutally shot Romelia and her co-worker, Mirna Palma-
Roman, to death inside Romelia's catering truck in Phoenix on February 20, 2006. On March 15,
2006, he committed yet another double homicide in Phoenix, this time shooting two employees
of Yoshi’s Fast Food Restaurant in the head. Goudeau was also responsible for the March 29,
2006 murder of Kristin Nicole Gibbons. As he did with multiple other victims, Goudeau shot
Gibbons in the head.
On April 10, 2006, Sophia Nunez's eight-year-old son found his mother, Sophia Nunez
dead in her bathtub. Goudeau shot her as well. Next, Goudeau committed a May 1, 2006 sexual
assault at gunpoint outside the same restaurants he robbed on November 7, 2005, and finally, he murdered Carmen Miranda on June 29, 2006 in Phoenix. Goudeau abducted Miranda from a
self-serve carwash near the scene of his May 1, 2006 and November 7, 2005 crimes. He shot her in the head behind a nearby barbershop, and the murder was captured on closed circuit
television. That was Goudeau’s final murder.
Goudeau was ultimately responsible for no fewer than 9 murders, 15 sexual assaults and
11 kidnappings over the span of a little less than eleven months.
The DNA Evidence
Although Phoenix Police obtained DNA samples from one of the sisters Goudeau
sexually assaulted on September 20, 2005, they intentionally waited until June of 2006 to send it to the Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) for Y-STR DNA testing. DPS immediately matched both DNA samples to Goudeau, including a sample the Phoenix Crime Lab previously tested without success.
Approximately one month after securing the DNA from the September 20, 2005 sexual
assault, the Phoenix crime lab performed a partial analysis of the evidence and determined that
saliva was present on both of the swabs. Members of the crime lab tested one of the swabs, the
one from the right breast, and decided not to test the left one, which had dirt on it. The test
results showed a partial DNA profile which was insufficient to identify a suspect given the DNA
technology used by the Phoenix crime lab at the time.
Despite the urgency of resolving the case, and rather than sending the swabs to the DPS
crime lab where the newer Y-STR testing was immediately available, an intentional decision was
made to forego testing and store the swabs in an evidence locker until such time as the Phoenix
crime lab was equipped with the ability to conduct Y-STR testing. The sole reason for this
intentional decision not to send the swabs to the DPS crime lab for immediate Y-STR testing was
so the Phoenix crime lab could be the lab to test the swabs and obtain the results of the Y-STR
DNA testing on the swabs.
At the time of the decision to store rather than test the swabs at the DPS crime lab, the
Phoenix crime lab was aware the DPS crime lab had the ability to conduct Y-STR DNA testing
and the Phoenix crime lab had routinely sent other items of evidence to the DPS crime lab for
testing in many unrelated cases. The Phoenix crime lab could have easily sent the two swabs to
the DPS lab for Y-STR DNA testing had they chose to send them.
4
9/12/2009
Page 5
While the Phoenix crime lab was unable to perform the Y-STR DNA test, the DPS crime
lab had been conducting Y-STR DNA testing since April 2005, months before Goudeau began
his crime spree. Although the Phoenix Police Department outsourced a significant amount of
scientific testing work to DPS, they decided not to ask DPS for help. Instead, a decision was
made to hold onto the swabs and delay testing until the Phoenix Crime Laboratory could conduct
Y-STR testing itself.
The reason for the intentional delay in testing the DNA evidence was based entirely on a
selfish motive. The Phoenix Police Department wanted to solve the well-publicized “Baseline
Killer” case without outside help. Intentional decisions were made to withhold referring the
evidence to other police agencies, notably DPS, in order to make sure all credit and accolades
went to the Phoenix Police Department.
Sometime after the series of initial attacks, members of the investigative team began to
believe that one individual was responsible for the series of attacks. Investigators’ concerns
arose before the murder of Romelia Vargas. Only because of the public outcry and a change of
management was DPS finally asked to examine the DNA evidence. Claimants believe that this
Notice of Claim request was made sometime in late summer of 2006, well after the violent series
of murders that included Romelia's murder had ended.
DPS not only found Goudeau’s DNA on the untested left breast swab from the September
20, 2005 sexual assault, but also on the right breast swab from which the Phoenix crime lab only
obtained a partial match. After putting the DNA profile into the Combined DNA Index System,
DPS matched it to Goudeau, who was immediately arrested in September of 2006. Had the two
swabs been tested earlier, the murders in question would not have occurred.
Claimants believe that the above facts are a fair and reasonable description of the events
giving rise to this Notice of Claim letter. The basic facts are in the possession of the Phoenix
Police Department, and the above information should serve as a reasonable basis for
representatives of the Police Department to investigate the allegations of this claim. See Deer
Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 152 P.3d 490 (2007).
The Claim:
The factual foundation for this claim is the intentional, reckless and grossly negligent
conduct by members of the Phoenix Police Department and the Phoenix Crime laboratory that
directly lead to Romelia's murder on February 20, 2006. The perpetrator of this crime is
Goudeau, deemed the “Baseline Killer” by the local press. Romelia is but one of Goudeau’s
many victims, and had the Phoenix Police Department and its crime lab outsourced DNA testing
to DPS in a timely and reasonable manner, not only would her murder not have happened, but
several other tragedies would have been avoided as well.
Throughout the fall of 2005 and for the next year thereafter, Goudeau committed a series
of violent crimes on random members of the public. Goudeau committed 9 murders and 15
sexual assaults in at least 16 different violent crimes.
5
9/12/2009
Page 6
The Phoenix Police Department gathered 2 separate DNA samples from a victim of a
sexual assault in September 2005. This evidence was from the perpetrator of the crime. Had this evidence been timely studied, the results would have ended Goudeau’s crime spree. Phoenix had reason to believe that the series of violent crimes was being committed by one person before
February of 2006. However, this evidence was not subjected to testing until summer of 2006,
approximately 1 year and 9 murders later.
Claimants believe the evidence will show that members of the Phoenix Police
Department, including those acting in a supervisory capacity as well as managers, purposefully
decided not to test the above described DNA samples for reasons having nothing to do with
reasonable police practices and procedures. They were motivated by public relations and interagency competition. Simply put, members of the Phoenix Police Department and Phoenix crime lab wanted credit for solving the crimes. This decision not to test was an intentional act and outrageous in nature.
In the alternative, the decision not to test the DNA sample was reckless or grossly
negligent, as the members of the Police Department and Phoenix crime lab knew and understood the alternative to not testing the DNA samples was that further violent crimes would lead to more injured victims and grieving families. As the number of sexual assaults and murders grew during the remainder of 2005 and continued growing well into 2006, the callousness of the decision not to test the DNA became obscene.
There is no question about the effect of testing the DNA sample. The DNA test DPS
conducted immediately led to the arrest of the perpetrator of the sexual assaults and murders,
including Romelia's murder. The arrest was a direct result of the testing without any discussion
or professional decision as to whether the owner of the DNA should or should not have been
arrested.
It is clear and undisputed that as a direct and proximate result of the Phoenix Police
Department’s intentional, reckless and grossly negligent decision not to test the DNA, Romelia
was murdered. But for the intentional, reckless and gross conduct of managers and supervisors
at the Phoenix Police Department and the Phoenix Crime Laboratory, she would be alive today.
The Recipients:
The culpable members of the Phoenix Police Department and recipients of this Notice of
Claim letter are the following.
Tracy Montgomery, Assistant Chief of Police, Phoenix Police Department: Chief
Montgomery was in a position of authority in the “Baseline Killer” case and exercised
management and control over the DNA evidence described above. Chief Montgomery
participated in the decision to delay testing.
6
9/12/2009
Page 7
Brett Vermeer, Phoenix Police Crime Lab Commander: Mr. Vermeer was in a position of
authority regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as he managed and controlled the Phoenix Crime
Lab and had authority to process or outsource testing of the DNA evidence from the September
2005 sexual assault. His decision not to process the evidence was made for no good professional
reason.
Roger Schneider, DNA Supervisor, Phoenix Police Crime Lab: Mr. Schneider was in a
position of authority regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as he managed and controlled the
Phoenix Crime Lab and had authority to process the DNA evidence from the September 2005
sexual assault. His decision not to process the evidence was made for no good professional
reason.
Allison Sedowski, Assistant to Roger Schneider: Ms. Sedowski was in a position of
authority regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as she participated in the management and control the Phoenix Crime Lab and had authority to process the DNA evidence from the September 2005sexual assault. Her decision not to process the evidence was made for no good professional reason.
Benny Pina, lieutenant Phoenix Police Department: Lt. Pina was in a position of authority
regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as he managed and controlled the investigation of the
“Baseline Killer” case and had authority to order the testing of the DNA evidence from the
September 2005 sexual assault. His decision not to process the evidence was made for no good
professional reason.
Andy Anderson, Assistant Chief of Police, Phoenix Police Department: Chief Anderson
was in a position of authority regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as he managed and controlled
the investigation of the “Baseline Killer” case as well as the Phoenix Crime Lab. He had
authority to order the testing of the DNA evidence from the September 2005 sexual assault. His
decision not to process the evidence was made for no good professional reason.
Jack Harris, Chief of Police, Phoenix Police Department: Chief Harris was in a position
of authority regarding the “Baseline Killer” case, as he managed and controlled the investigation
of the “Baseline Killer” case, as well as the Phoenix Crime Lab. He had authority to order the
testing of the DNA evidence from the September 2005 sexual assault. His decision not to
process the evidence was made for no good professional reason.
The Claimants believe that all of the above participated in the decision not to test the
DNA evidence gathered from the September 2005 sexual assault long after it was common
knowledge within the department that one violent, serial criminal was committing rapes and
murders in Phoenix. Claimants believe that any of the above could have decided to refer the
DNA evidence to the DPS crime lab for proper testing prior to February 20, 2006, which would
have prevented Romelia's death.
7
9/12/2009
Page 8
Damages:
The following is a description of the damages suffered by each Claimant:
Romelia earned approximately $750/wk as the owner of a catering truck. That computes
to approximately $39,000 per year. Romelia had a life expectancy of approximately 40
additional years, during which time she could be expected to work until she was 65 years old, or
for another 28 years. Over the course of her working life, Romelia could therefore be expected
to earn $1,090,000.00. That money would go to support the community existing between her
and Alvin, as well as her twin boys, one of whom, Anthony, has Down's syndrome. It can be
assumed that Anthony would require constant care up until the end of Romelia’s working life.
Furthermore, Romelia served as a caregiver for her family. She engaged in the usual
household chores, such as cooking, cleaning, and providing a safe environment for her family.
There is a cost to replacing this service. While there are no receipts for the replacement service,
nevertheless, Claimants can calculate that Romelia provided such services for approximately 4
hours each day during the week and 16 hours over the weekend. This computes to 36 hours per
week that need to be replaced. Assuming a cost of replacement of $10 per hour, Romelia’s death
has a value of approximately $360 per week or $18,720.00 per year. Over the total life of the
community, and necessarily over the span of Anthony's life, this would amount to $788,000.00.
There are no exact documents supporting the damage claims, as Alvin has not engaged
replacement service providers and no heirs have sought the services of a health care provider.
However, the loss of a mother or wife is profound and will be remembered throughout each
heir’s life.
Damages in a wrongful death cases are subjective. Damages are for the loss of the
financial and emotional support of the decedent. Here, the financial support is notable in that the
mother made little money and had to share it with her husband and 5 children, one of whom is
special needs. However, it is important to note that Romelia did work hard, was very
industrious, and shared her income with her family.
Each Claimant has a separate burden of proof pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-611 et. Seq.
Therefore, each Claimant will present a separate Claim for damages.
Kenia is the oldest of Romelia’s children. She lived continuously with Romelia until
Romelia’s death. Throughout her life, Romelia provided for Kenia’s financial support. Even
after Kenia left the age of minority, Romelia still contributed when Kenia asked. Further,
Romelia contributed to Kenia’s health and welfare by providing services for her and offering the
love, comfort, guidance, and support one would expect from a loving mother. The loss has been
profound for Kenia, as it has been for all of Romelia’s grown children. They miss their mother’s
companionship.
8
9/12/2009
Page 9
There is little in the way of supporting documentation for Kenia’s claim. There are no
medical bills, psychological counseling, or other such objective indication of Kenia’s loss.
Rather, she has suffered from the loss of her mother, the one consistent source of love and
comfort in her young life. A mother’s guidance is perhaps needed most during the time when a
young adult must make decisions that will affect them over the course of their entire life. Kenia
will miss that guidance.
Assuming that she benefitted from Romelia’s income or services to any degree, there is
some objective monetary value to be added to the claim. A review of wrongful death damages
suffered by adult daughters for the loss of their mothers shows damages ranging from
$100,000.00 to $3,000,000.00. Kenia believes that $2,000,000.00 is a reasonable and fair value to settle her claim.
Jesus is the next oldest of Romelia’s children. All that describes Kenia’s relationship
with her mother also describes Jesus’ relationship with his mother. Mother and son had a loving
and supportive relationship. The loss of his mother was also profound, and while Jesus also
benefitted from some of the financial support and services Romelia provided, he soon left the
family home to become a self supporting adult. Since then, he has attempted to deal with the
realities of living as an adult. Now more than ever, he misses his mother’s support and comfort,
as being alone in the adult world is very difficult.
As for damages, the same analysis for Kenia applies to Jesus. There is a large range of
values for an adult son’s loss of his mother. However, unique to Jesus's situation, the loss came
at an important time in his life. The damages range from $100,000.00 to $3,000,000.00, and
Jesus believes that $2,000,000.00 is a reasonable and fair value to settle his claim.
Melissa was 13 at the time of her mother’s death. She is presently a junior in high school
and lives with her sister, Kenia, who is trying to substitute as a mother for Melissa. Melissa
intends to go to college. While the same statement of damages for the other adult children
applies to Melissa, she would have remained with her mother for many more years had Romelia
survived.
Romelia would have supported Melissa financially and provided services for her until
well after college. This financial damage could easily be calculated to exceed $50,000.00.
Furthermore, the loss of the love, comfort and companionship of her mother has a value equal to, or even in excess of, the other adult children. A strong mother-daughter relationship is
particularly important for a maturing young woman, and Melissa was deprived of the guidance
of her mother during this important time of her life. Damages for an adolescent daughter can
range from $100,000.00 to $4,500,000.00. Because of the value of this special relationship,
Melissa believes that $3,000,000.00 is a reasonable and fair value to settle her claim.
Travis Hogue was 5 months old at the time of his mother’s death. He will never know his
mother. While his siblings had the privilege of knowing and learning from their mother, Travis
will never have that opportunity. Travis will wonder about his mother, ask his siblings questions
about her, and think about how his life might have been different if his mother had survived.
9
9/12/2009
Page 10
Obviously, Travis would have benefitted from the services provided by his mother for at
least 18 years, probably longer, as well as her financial support. Assuming that the value of the
income and services are split 3 ways between Travis, Anthony and Melissa, Travis's loss of
financial support and the value of the home services would be in excess of $265, 000.00.
A review of values of the loss to a newly born child of his mother ranges from
$100,000.00 to over $10,000,000.00. We believe that a reasonable settlement value of Travis
claim is $4,000,000.00.
Anthony is a special needs child. He has Downs Syndrome. He will need the financial
support and home services of his mother for either his life or the life of his mother, whichever is
longer. Assuming that Romelia’s income remains at the $750 per week for the remainder of her
life and that she allows a full 36 hours per week of home services, valued at $10.00 per hour, the
financial loss suffered by Anthony is $450,000.00.
Importantly, his mother provided a service that a skilled health care provider would have
to provide in her absence. A Down's syndrome child requires more services than what one would
ordinarily expect from someone providing home services. It is believed that the value of the
damages suffered by Anthony is actually double the amount discussed above, or $900,000.00.
The loss of a mother to a special needs newborn is huge and ranges from $1,000,000.00
to over $10,000,000.00. We believe a reasonable settlement value for Anthony’s claim is
$6,000,000.00.
Alvin Hogue was born in 1958. He only recently became the father of twin boys and lost
his wife. He has suffered the loss of her income and services to the family as well. These losses
have been described above. He now must raise twin boys, one of whom is a special needs child,
on his own. The loss of the income and support for Alvin is equal to Anthony’s loss, as the
relationship would have lasted as long as either spouse survived.
We believe that Mr. Hogue’s claim has a value ranging from $500,000.00 to over
$10,000,000.00. We believe a reasonable settlement value for Mr. Hogue’s claim is
$5,000,000.00.
In conclusion, pursuant to Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser, 214
Ariz. 293, 152 P.3d 490 (2007), we submit the following firm settlement offers:
Kenia Valdovinos $2,000,000.00
Jesus Valdovinos $2,000,000.00
Melissa Valdovinos $3,000,000.00
Travis Hogue $4,000,000.00
Anthony Hogue $6,000,000.00
Alvin Hogue $5,000,000.00
10
9/12/2009
Page 11
If you have any questions, we suggest you contact the legal department for the City of
Phoenix. We look forward to a quick and reasonable settlement of this matter.
Sincerely,
Marc J. Victor
Cc: Matthew Brown, Esq.
Adrian Little, Esq.
Alvin Hogue
Kenia Valdovinos
Jesus Valdovinos
Melissa Valdovinos
Could Police Have Prevented 7 Killings?
Did police miss evidence that could have led them to suspected Baseline killer Mark Goudeu before more killings occurred?
Video here:
http://www.kpho.com/video/17955057/index.html
Video here:
http://www.kpho.com/video/17955057/index.html
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Family: PD Could Have Prevented Mom's Death
A family of one of the victims of the alleged Baseline Killer is suing the Phoenix Police Department.
Video:
http://www.kpho.com/video/20816333/index.html
Video:
http://www.kpho.com/video/20816333/index.html
Allegation: PD sat on key evidence
PHOENIX - The family of a victim killed by the Baseline Killer is saying the city of Phoenix is responsible for their loved one's death. Romelia Vargas' family claims the Phoenix Police Department wanted to get all the credit for solving the Baseline killings, so they sat on key evidence instead of asking for help.
Story and video here:
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/local/phoenix/baseline_killer_lawsuit_09_09_2009
Story and video here:
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/local/phoenix/baseline_killer_lawsuit_09_09_2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Family: Police negligent in 'Baseline Killer' investigation
The Vargas family's attorney, Marc J. Victor, speaking on their behalf, believes that the Police Department wanted to achieve recognition for solving the murders of the "Baseline Killer" and wanted to wait until they had the needed DNA testing technology to do so.
Victor offers to settle the claim if a total of $22 million in damages to be paid to Vargas' family in light of the wrongful death of Romelia Vargas due to the Police Department's "intentional, reckless and grossly negligent conduct."
More Here:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/09/09/20090909abrk-baselineclaim0909-ON.html
Victor offers to settle the claim if a total of $22 million in damages to be paid to Vargas' family in light of the wrongful death of Romelia Vargas due to the Police Department's "intentional, reckless and grossly negligent conduct."
More Here:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/09/09/20090909abrk-baselineclaim0909-ON.html
Family of Baseline Killer Victim to Sue Phoenix Police
PHOENIX - The family of a victim killed by the Baseline Killer is saying the city of Phoenix is responsible for their loved one's death. Romelia Vargas' family claims the Phoenix Police Department wanted to get all the credit for solving the Baseline killings, so they sat on key evidence instead of asking for help.
"Somebody or group of people in the chain of command at Phoenix PD or at the crime lab made the decision not to test them for no reason other than we want to be the ones to break this case. If that's true I'm all over this case," says Marc Victor, the family's attorney.
More Here:
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/local/phoenix/baseline_killer_lawsuit_09_09_2009
"Somebody or group of people in the chain of command at Phoenix PD or at the crime lab made the decision not to test them for no reason other than we want to be the ones to break this case. If that's true I'm all over this case," says Marc Victor, the family's attorney.
More Here:
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/local/phoenix/baseline_killer_lawsuit_09_09_2009
Phoenix Police Brass Let Serial Killer Rampage to Protect Turf
This will be out on all major media this week, Marc let Ernie break it first on Freedoms Phoenix.
Freedom's Phoenix - Phoenix, AZ) A $22,000,000 Notices of Claim was filed today alleging intentional, reckless and grossly negligent conduct by members of the Phoenix Police Department and the Phoenix Crime laboratory that directly lead to 37 year old Romelia Vargas' murder on February 20, 2006 at the hands of the media labeled "Baseline Serial Killer," Mark Goudeau. The Notices of Claim was filed by Attorney Marc Victor on behalf of Alvin Vargas, the husband of Romelia Vargas and five of her six children. No word on whether other injured families are contacting Mr. Victor's Law Office to join in the law suit.
More here:
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/057110-2009-09-08-phoenix-police-brass-let-serial-killer-rampage-to-protect-turf.htm
Freedom's Phoenix - Phoenix, AZ) A $22,000,000 Notices of Claim was filed today alleging intentional, reckless and grossly negligent conduct by members of the Phoenix Police Department and the Phoenix Crime laboratory that directly lead to 37 year old Romelia Vargas' murder on February 20, 2006 at the hands of the media labeled "Baseline Serial Killer," Mark Goudeau. The Notices of Claim was filed by Attorney Marc Victor on behalf of Alvin Vargas, the husband of Romelia Vargas and five of her six children. No word on whether other injured families are contacting Mr. Victor's Law Office to join in the law suit.
More here:
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/057110-2009-09-08-phoenix-police-brass-let-serial-killer-rampage-to-protect-turf.htm
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Mexico Legalizes Drug Possession
Mexico decriminalizes small-scale drug possession
Mexico decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, cocaine and heroin on Friday — a move that prosecutors say makes sense even in the midst of the government's grueling battle against drug traffickers.
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/08/mexico-legalizes-drug-posession/
Mexico decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, cocaine and heroin on Friday — a move that prosecutors say makes sense even in the midst of the government's grueling battle against drug traffickers.
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/08/mexico-legalizes-drug-posession/
Friday, August 21, 2009
Baptist pastor beaten + tazed by Border patrol
Baptist pastor beaten + tazed by Border patrol . Marc Victor is representing Steve Anderson in this case of Government gone bad....if it was ever good to begin with of course.
YouTube videos about the case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJF5cUWXA_A&feature=video_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z_tDivKVcQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtsvqqq9dc4
(Below is the motion to dismiss)
STATE OF ARIZONA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEVEN ANDERSON,
Defendant.
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
COMES NOW, Defendant Steven Anderson, by and through undersigned counsel, and moves this Court to dismiss the charges against him with prejudice as they were the result of an illegal seizure of his person in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States. This Motion is supported by the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ____ day of June, 2009.
MARC J. VICTOR, P.C.
By: ______________________________
Marc J. Victor
Attorney for Defendant
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
FACTS:
On April 14, 2009, at approximately 9:50 p.m., defendant Steven Anderson (hereinafter “Mr. Anderson”) was driving eastbound on Interstate 8 near milepost 78 in Yuma County, Arizona. Mr. Anderson was driving a maroon 4-door Hyundai sedan. Mr. Anderson approached a Border Patrol checkpoint on Interstate 8 where there were signs, lights, temporary buildings, multiple marked Border Patrol vehicles, and numerous uniformed Border Patrol agents.
Mr. Anderson slowed as he approached the place to stop, where Border Patrol Agent Gomez was standing. As Mr. Anderson was creeping to the stop, he passed Border Patrol Agent Spoonamore who was standing close to the traffic lane with a Border Patrol K-9. According to Agent Spoonamore, the K-9 “alerted” to Mr. Anderson’s car so he signaled Agent Gomez to send Mr. Anderson to a secondary inspection area.
When Mr. Anderson stopped next to Agent Gomez, Mr. Anderson rolled his driver window down slightly and Agent Gomez asked “are you a U.S. citizen?” Mr. Anderson replied “May I go, am I free to leave?” Agent Gomez then directed Mr. Anderson to the secondary inspection area. When Mr. Anderson questioned this direction, he was told that he was being directed to the secondary inspection area because the K-9 had alerted to his car and it was trained to alert to “concealed humans and narcotics.” Mr. Anderson questioned whether the K-9 did in fact alert to his car and stated to the Border Patrol agents that he had a right to drive down the highway without being stopped.
The Border Patrol agents refused to allow Mr. Anderson to proceed and repeatedly directed him to the secondary inspection area. Mr. Anderson refused to go to the secondary inspection area and stayed in his car where he was initially stopped. Border Patrol agents diverted all traffic on Interstate 8 through the other inspection lane that was in operation and called Arizona DPS.
Arizona DPS Officers Jones and Mitchell arrived in about 45 minutes and each asked Mr. Anderson to proceed to the secondary inspection area. Mr. Anderson again refused. This entire time, Mr. Anderson was sitting in his locked car, was non-violent, and was videotaping the encounter.
DPS Officer Jones contacted his supervisor who instructed Officer Jones to break the car windows and use a chemical irritant spray to incapacitate Mr. Anderson while he was extracted from the car. DPS Officers Jones and Mitchell decided instead to deploy a Taser to incapacitate Mr. Anderson rather than the directed chemical irritant spray. Officer Mitchell used a small hammer to make a hole in Mr. Anderson’s car’s front passenger window, stuck the Taser through the hole, and shot Mr. Anderson with the Taser. Border Patrol Agent Spoonamore smashed out the front driver window with an expandable metal baton, allowing access to the driver door lock. Mr. Anderson was extracted from the car and handcuffed, suffering facial lacerations from the flying glass and glass on the ground where he was forced to lie for handcuffing.
Mr. Anderson was charged, via Complaint, with one count of Obstructing a Highway and one count of Resisting Order Directing, Regulating, Controlling Motor Vehicle.
Through discovery and Rule 15 interviews, it is clear that no Border Patrol agent or supervisor at the checkpoint was aware of any written policies, procedures, or guidelines for operating the checkpoint. In addition, it was clear that cars were diverted to the secondary inspection area for no reason other than the K-9 handler signaling to the primary inspection agent that the K-9 had alerted to a car.
The K-9 agent, Agent Spoonamore, stated his K-9 was trained to detect “concealed humans and certain narcotics,” but was unable to describe how his K-9 could tell the difference between “concealed humans” and “unconcealed humans.” In addition, Agent Spoonamore stated there was no difference in a K-9 alert for human scent and the scent of narcotics.
No agent could state what violation of law Mr. Anderson committed by refusing to proceed to the secondary inspection area.
LAW AND ARGUMENT:
While border checkpoints away from the actual border with another country are permitted, their scope is limited to brief questions to verify a right to be in the country. General crime checkpoints, such as checkpoints set up to interdict narcotics, are not permitted. While the checkpoint Mr. Anderson encountered looked like a border checkpoint, the manner in which it was run, coupled with the lack of written policies or procedures and unfettered discretion of agents at the checkpoint, effectively turned it into a prohibited general crime checkpoint.
Constitutional Implications.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees people to “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” A seizure occurred here when Mr. Anderson was stopped at the checkpoint. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 556 (1976) (“checkpoint stops are seizures within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”), and see Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 (1990) (“a Fourth Amendment seizure occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint.”).
The Supreme Court has, however, held that a brief detention at a border checkpoint during which all is required is a response to a brief question or two, and possibly the production of a document, is not an unreasonable seizure. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 557-558.
In this case, the stop of Mr. Anderson did not involve just a brief question or two. In fact, his car was subjected to a K-9 inspection for narcotics before any stop was made or questions could be asked.
Limitations on Border Checkpoints.
The Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with border checkpoints in Martinez-Fuerte. In that case, the defendants challenged the constitutionality of checkpoints for illegal aliens away from the actual border. The Court upheld the checkpoint, but only because of its limited scope, lack of discretionary enforcement activity, and limited intrusion.
Scope.
The permissible scope of a border checkpoint is limited to “a brief question or two and possibly the production of a document,” and a visual inspection “limited to what can be seen without a search.” Id. at 558.
Here, Mr. Anderson was required to drive close to a K-9 that sniffed his car. Before Mr. Anderson arrived at the primary inspection area, where Agent Gomez asked if he was a U.S. citizen, Agent Spoonamore had already made the decision to have Mr. Anderson sent to secondary inspection based solely on the K-9 alert. The K-9 was trained to alert to “concealed humans and certain narcotics.” Since Agent Spoonamore could not discern the difference between an alert for “concealed humans” and “unconcealed humans,” and the K-9 did not alert to every car (all driven by humans), the alert must have been for narcotics.
Since Mr. Anderson was required to slow while he drove by a K-9 sniffing for narcotics, the scope of this checkpoint exceeded that allowed by Martinez-Fuerte.
Discretionary Activity.
The discretionary activity in this case went far beyond that approved in Martinez-Fuerte.
Border checkpoints away from the actual border are allowed because they “both appear to and actually involve less discretionary enforcement activity.” Id. at 559. The discretionary activity that does occur is subject to post-stop judicial review for unreasonableness. Id.
In this case, interviews with the Border Patrol agents, the acting checkpoint supervisor, and the field operations supervisor (who happened to be at the checkpoint when Mr. Anderson arrived) revealed that none of them had knowledge of or had ever seen written policies, procedures, or guidelines for operating the checkpoint. Agent Spoonamore stated he had complete discretion as to when to deploy his K-9, when to take a break, and which vehicles in either of the two lanes to have his K-9 sniff prior to the primary inspection stop. Agent Gomez, the agent at the primary inspection stop, stated his job was to verify citizenship but could give no answer when asked what he was to do if the vehicle occupants denied citizenship. Agent Gomez stated he only sent cars to the secondary inspection area when Agent Spoonamore, or another K-9 handler, signaled him that there was a K-9 alert.
This checkpoint was run with no administrative direction known to the agents running it. No agent had any knowledge of written procedures. Complete unfettered discretion was in the hands of Agent Spoonamore and his K-9 to send vehicles for secondary inspection. This was not limited discretionary enforcement activity as approved in Martinez-Fuerte.
Intrusion.
The intrusion in this case exceeds that allowed by Martinez-Fuerte.
In Martinez-Fuerte, the defendants argued that the checkpoint was overly intrusive because some cars were sent to secondary inspection. Id. at 560. The Court disagreed because “Referrals are made for the sole purpose of conducting a routine and limited inquiry into residence status that cannot feasibly be made of every motorist where the traffic is heavy.” Id.
Here, Mr. Anderson was not directed to secondary inspection for a limited inquiry into residence. In fact, the decision to send him to secondary inspection was made before he ever stopped at the primary inspection area for Agent Gomez to ask if he was a U.S. citizen.
The Supreme Court allows border checkpoints because of the limited nature of inquiry for residence status. This case involves far more intrusion than a question or two, it involved to forced submission to a K-9 inspection before the first question could even be asked and it therefore exceeded the intrusion allowed at border checkpoints.
Why Mr. Anderson was Actually Referred to Secondary Inspection.
Mr. Anderson was actually sent to secondary inspection because the K-9 alerted to the perceived presence of narcotics in Mr. Anderson’s car.[1]
Border Patrol Agent Spoonamore stated that his K-9 alerts to the scent of “concealed humans and certain narcotics.” Agent Spoonamore also stated that he cannot tell the difference between his K-9 alerts, so he cannot tell what the K-9 is alerting to. Further, Agent Spoonamore was unable to say how his K-9 can distinguish between “concealed humans” and “unconcealed humans.” Common sense tells us that a person sitting up in a seat smells the same as he would lying down on a seat covered by a blanket. In other words, to suggest that a human’s scent changes when he conceals himself is ludicrous. Certainly, if all known occupants exit a car and the K-9 alerts to the trunk, it is reasonable to believe that he has alerted to a concealed human, but that is only because all known humans are out of the car.
Here, Agent Spoonamore’s K-9 alerted to Mr. Anderson’s car, but did not alert to every car driven by. The K-9 must have detected something about Mr. Anderson’s car that was different than every other car. Since the only other substances the K-9 is trained to alert to are certain narcotics, the K-9 must have been alerting to narcotics.
Since cars were only referred for secondary inspection for a K-9 alert, and the K-9 must be alerting to the odor of narcotics, this checkpoint was effectively turned into a narcotics detection checkpoint.
Narcotic Detection Checkpoints are Illegal General Crime Checkpoints.
While some types of checkpoints are allowed, the Supreme Court has held that narcotics checkpoints, being general crime checkpoints, violate the Fourth Amendment. City of Indianapolis v. Edmund, 531 U.S. 32, 48 (2000).
In Edmund, the City of Indianapolis set up checkpoints in high drug trafficking areas, stopped motorists to ask for a driver license and look in their car, and have a narcotics detection K-9 walk around the vehicle. Id. at 35. The Court found that the primary purpose of the checkpoints were to “advance the general interest in crime control,” and declined to suspend “the usual requirement of individualized suspicion where police seek to employ a checkpoint primarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes.” Id. at 44. Emphasizing its holding, the Court held that “Without drawing the line at roadblocks designed primarily to serve the general interest in crime control, the Fourth Amendment would do little to prevent such intrusions from becoming a routine part of American life.” Id at 42.
Here, since the K-9 alerts to some vehicles but not others, it must be a narcotics alert. Since the reason Mr. Anderson was directed to secondary inspection was the K-9 alert, this checkpoint was effectively an illegal narcotics checkpoint.
CONCLUSION:
The Border Patrol had set up what was ostensibly a legal border checkpoint. Looking further, however, revealed that it was run without direction, policies, procedures, or guidelines. Decisions were left to the complete unfettered discretion of agents who did not even know if there were written policies, procedures, or guidelines. Agent Gomez, the agent who first speaks with motorists, stated that the only time he referred vehicles to secondary inspection was at the direction of a K-9 handler. The K-9s could not possibly detect a concealed person vis-Ã -vis an unconcealed person, so they must be alerting to narcotics. Referral to secondary inspection, a procedure that is supposed to be limited to verifying residency, was turned into an area for a search for narcotics.
Narcotic checkpoints are prohibited as general crime checkpoints and are a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Anderson’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated and his detention and subsequent arrest were illegal.
The defendant moves that the Court find that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated resulting in an illegal seizure of his person. The defendant further moves that the fruits of that seizure, the criminal charges he faces, be dismissed with prejudice.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ____ day of June, 2009.
MARC J. VICTOR, P.C.
By: ______________________________
Marc J. Victor
Attorney for Defendant
Original mailed to the Court, and a
copy mailed June ___ , 2009, to:
William Katz, esq.
Yuma County Attorney’s Office
250 W. 2nd St., Suite G
Yuma, Arizona 85364
Attorneys for Plaintiff
________________________________
[1] After Mr. Anderson was arrested, his car was thoroughly searched and no narcotics were found.
YouTube videos about the case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJF5cUWXA_A&feature=video_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z_tDivKVcQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtsvqqq9dc4
(Below is the motion to dismiss)
STATE OF ARIZONA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEVEN ANDERSON,
Defendant.
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
COMES NOW, Defendant Steven Anderson, by and through undersigned counsel, and moves this Court to dismiss the charges against him with prejudice as they were the result of an illegal seizure of his person in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States. This Motion is supported by the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ____ day of June, 2009.
MARC J. VICTOR, P.C.
By: ______________________________
Marc J. Victor
Attorney for Defendant
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
FACTS:
On April 14, 2009, at approximately 9:50 p.m., defendant Steven Anderson (hereinafter “Mr. Anderson”) was driving eastbound on Interstate 8 near milepost 78 in Yuma County, Arizona. Mr. Anderson was driving a maroon 4-door Hyundai sedan. Mr. Anderson approached a Border Patrol checkpoint on Interstate 8 where there were signs, lights, temporary buildings, multiple marked Border Patrol vehicles, and numerous uniformed Border Patrol agents.
Mr. Anderson slowed as he approached the place to stop, where Border Patrol Agent Gomez was standing. As Mr. Anderson was creeping to the stop, he passed Border Patrol Agent Spoonamore who was standing close to the traffic lane with a Border Patrol K-9. According to Agent Spoonamore, the K-9 “alerted” to Mr. Anderson’s car so he signaled Agent Gomez to send Mr. Anderson to a secondary inspection area.
When Mr. Anderson stopped next to Agent Gomez, Mr. Anderson rolled his driver window down slightly and Agent Gomez asked “are you a U.S. citizen?” Mr. Anderson replied “May I go, am I free to leave?” Agent Gomez then directed Mr. Anderson to the secondary inspection area. When Mr. Anderson questioned this direction, he was told that he was being directed to the secondary inspection area because the K-9 had alerted to his car and it was trained to alert to “concealed humans and narcotics.” Mr. Anderson questioned whether the K-9 did in fact alert to his car and stated to the Border Patrol agents that he had a right to drive down the highway without being stopped.
The Border Patrol agents refused to allow Mr. Anderson to proceed and repeatedly directed him to the secondary inspection area. Mr. Anderson refused to go to the secondary inspection area and stayed in his car where he was initially stopped. Border Patrol agents diverted all traffic on Interstate 8 through the other inspection lane that was in operation and called Arizona DPS.
Arizona DPS Officers Jones and Mitchell arrived in about 45 minutes and each asked Mr. Anderson to proceed to the secondary inspection area. Mr. Anderson again refused. This entire time, Mr. Anderson was sitting in his locked car, was non-violent, and was videotaping the encounter.
DPS Officer Jones contacted his supervisor who instructed Officer Jones to break the car windows and use a chemical irritant spray to incapacitate Mr. Anderson while he was extracted from the car. DPS Officers Jones and Mitchell decided instead to deploy a Taser to incapacitate Mr. Anderson rather than the directed chemical irritant spray. Officer Mitchell used a small hammer to make a hole in Mr. Anderson’s car’s front passenger window, stuck the Taser through the hole, and shot Mr. Anderson with the Taser. Border Patrol Agent Spoonamore smashed out the front driver window with an expandable metal baton, allowing access to the driver door lock. Mr. Anderson was extracted from the car and handcuffed, suffering facial lacerations from the flying glass and glass on the ground where he was forced to lie for handcuffing.
Mr. Anderson was charged, via Complaint, with one count of Obstructing a Highway and one count of Resisting Order Directing, Regulating, Controlling Motor Vehicle.
Through discovery and Rule 15 interviews, it is clear that no Border Patrol agent or supervisor at the checkpoint was aware of any written policies, procedures, or guidelines for operating the checkpoint. In addition, it was clear that cars were diverted to the secondary inspection area for no reason other than the K-9 handler signaling to the primary inspection agent that the K-9 had alerted to a car.
The K-9 agent, Agent Spoonamore, stated his K-9 was trained to detect “concealed humans and certain narcotics,” but was unable to describe how his K-9 could tell the difference between “concealed humans” and “unconcealed humans.” In addition, Agent Spoonamore stated there was no difference in a K-9 alert for human scent and the scent of narcotics.
No agent could state what violation of law Mr. Anderson committed by refusing to proceed to the secondary inspection area.
LAW AND ARGUMENT:
While border checkpoints away from the actual border with another country are permitted, their scope is limited to brief questions to verify a right to be in the country. General crime checkpoints, such as checkpoints set up to interdict narcotics, are not permitted. While the checkpoint Mr. Anderson encountered looked like a border checkpoint, the manner in which it was run, coupled with the lack of written policies or procedures and unfettered discretion of agents at the checkpoint, effectively turned it into a prohibited general crime checkpoint.
Constitutional Implications.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees people to “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” A seizure occurred here when Mr. Anderson was stopped at the checkpoint. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 556 (1976) (“checkpoint stops are seizures within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”), and see Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 (1990) (“a Fourth Amendment seizure occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint.”).
The Supreme Court has, however, held that a brief detention at a border checkpoint during which all is required is a response to a brief question or two, and possibly the production of a document, is not an unreasonable seizure. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 557-558.
In this case, the stop of Mr. Anderson did not involve just a brief question or two. In fact, his car was subjected to a K-9 inspection for narcotics before any stop was made or questions could be asked.
Limitations on Border Checkpoints.
The Supreme Court dealt comprehensively with border checkpoints in Martinez-Fuerte. In that case, the defendants challenged the constitutionality of checkpoints for illegal aliens away from the actual border. The Court upheld the checkpoint, but only because of its limited scope, lack of discretionary enforcement activity, and limited intrusion.
Scope.
The permissible scope of a border checkpoint is limited to “a brief question or two and possibly the production of a document,” and a visual inspection “limited to what can be seen without a search.” Id. at 558.
Here, Mr. Anderson was required to drive close to a K-9 that sniffed his car. Before Mr. Anderson arrived at the primary inspection area, where Agent Gomez asked if he was a U.S. citizen, Agent Spoonamore had already made the decision to have Mr. Anderson sent to secondary inspection based solely on the K-9 alert. The K-9 was trained to alert to “concealed humans and certain narcotics.” Since Agent Spoonamore could not discern the difference between an alert for “concealed humans” and “unconcealed humans,” and the K-9 did not alert to every car (all driven by humans), the alert must have been for narcotics.
Since Mr. Anderson was required to slow while he drove by a K-9 sniffing for narcotics, the scope of this checkpoint exceeded that allowed by Martinez-Fuerte.
Discretionary Activity.
The discretionary activity in this case went far beyond that approved in Martinez-Fuerte.
Border checkpoints away from the actual border are allowed because they “both appear to and actually involve less discretionary enforcement activity.” Id. at 559. The discretionary activity that does occur is subject to post-stop judicial review for unreasonableness. Id.
In this case, interviews with the Border Patrol agents, the acting checkpoint supervisor, and the field operations supervisor (who happened to be at the checkpoint when Mr. Anderson arrived) revealed that none of them had knowledge of or had ever seen written policies, procedures, or guidelines for operating the checkpoint. Agent Spoonamore stated he had complete discretion as to when to deploy his K-9, when to take a break, and which vehicles in either of the two lanes to have his K-9 sniff prior to the primary inspection stop. Agent Gomez, the agent at the primary inspection stop, stated his job was to verify citizenship but could give no answer when asked what he was to do if the vehicle occupants denied citizenship. Agent Gomez stated he only sent cars to the secondary inspection area when Agent Spoonamore, or another K-9 handler, signaled him that there was a K-9 alert.
This checkpoint was run with no administrative direction known to the agents running it. No agent had any knowledge of written procedures. Complete unfettered discretion was in the hands of Agent Spoonamore and his K-9 to send vehicles for secondary inspection. This was not limited discretionary enforcement activity as approved in Martinez-Fuerte.
Intrusion.
The intrusion in this case exceeds that allowed by Martinez-Fuerte.
In Martinez-Fuerte, the defendants argued that the checkpoint was overly intrusive because some cars were sent to secondary inspection. Id. at 560. The Court disagreed because “Referrals are made for the sole purpose of conducting a routine and limited inquiry into residence status that cannot feasibly be made of every motorist where the traffic is heavy.” Id.
Here, Mr. Anderson was not directed to secondary inspection for a limited inquiry into residence. In fact, the decision to send him to secondary inspection was made before he ever stopped at the primary inspection area for Agent Gomez to ask if he was a U.S. citizen.
The Supreme Court allows border checkpoints because of the limited nature of inquiry for residence status. This case involves far more intrusion than a question or two, it involved to forced submission to a K-9 inspection before the first question could even be asked and it therefore exceeded the intrusion allowed at border checkpoints.
Why Mr. Anderson was Actually Referred to Secondary Inspection.
Mr. Anderson was actually sent to secondary inspection because the K-9 alerted to the perceived presence of narcotics in Mr. Anderson’s car.[1]
Border Patrol Agent Spoonamore stated that his K-9 alerts to the scent of “concealed humans and certain narcotics.” Agent Spoonamore also stated that he cannot tell the difference between his K-9 alerts, so he cannot tell what the K-9 is alerting to. Further, Agent Spoonamore was unable to say how his K-9 can distinguish between “concealed humans” and “unconcealed humans.” Common sense tells us that a person sitting up in a seat smells the same as he would lying down on a seat covered by a blanket. In other words, to suggest that a human’s scent changes when he conceals himself is ludicrous. Certainly, if all known occupants exit a car and the K-9 alerts to the trunk, it is reasonable to believe that he has alerted to a concealed human, but that is only because all known humans are out of the car.
Here, Agent Spoonamore’s K-9 alerted to Mr. Anderson’s car, but did not alert to every car driven by. The K-9 must have detected something about Mr. Anderson’s car that was different than every other car. Since the only other substances the K-9 is trained to alert to are certain narcotics, the K-9 must have been alerting to narcotics.
Since cars were only referred for secondary inspection for a K-9 alert, and the K-9 must be alerting to the odor of narcotics, this checkpoint was effectively turned into a narcotics detection checkpoint.
Narcotic Detection Checkpoints are Illegal General Crime Checkpoints.
While some types of checkpoints are allowed, the Supreme Court has held that narcotics checkpoints, being general crime checkpoints, violate the Fourth Amendment. City of Indianapolis v. Edmund, 531 U.S. 32, 48 (2000).
In Edmund, the City of Indianapolis set up checkpoints in high drug trafficking areas, stopped motorists to ask for a driver license and look in their car, and have a narcotics detection K-9 walk around the vehicle. Id. at 35. The Court found that the primary purpose of the checkpoints were to “advance the general interest in crime control,” and declined to suspend “the usual requirement of individualized suspicion where police seek to employ a checkpoint primarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes.” Id. at 44. Emphasizing its holding, the Court held that “Without drawing the line at roadblocks designed primarily to serve the general interest in crime control, the Fourth Amendment would do little to prevent such intrusions from becoming a routine part of American life.” Id at 42.
Here, since the K-9 alerts to some vehicles but not others, it must be a narcotics alert. Since the reason Mr. Anderson was directed to secondary inspection was the K-9 alert, this checkpoint was effectively an illegal narcotics checkpoint.
CONCLUSION:
The Border Patrol had set up what was ostensibly a legal border checkpoint. Looking further, however, revealed that it was run without direction, policies, procedures, or guidelines. Decisions were left to the complete unfettered discretion of agents who did not even know if there were written policies, procedures, or guidelines. Agent Gomez, the agent who first speaks with motorists, stated that the only time he referred vehicles to secondary inspection was at the direction of a K-9 handler. The K-9s could not possibly detect a concealed person vis-Ã -vis an unconcealed person, so they must be alerting to narcotics. Referral to secondary inspection, a procedure that is supposed to be limited to verifying residency, was turned into an area for a search for narcotics.
Narcotic checkpoints are prohibited as general crime checkpoints and are a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Anderson’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated and his detention and subsequent arrest were illegal.
The defendant moves that the Court find that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated resulting in an illegal seizure of his person. The defendant further moves that the fruits of that seizure, the criminal charges he faces, be dismissed with prejudice.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ____ day of June, 2009.
MARC J. VICTOR, P.C.
By: ______________________________
Marc J. Victor
Attorney for Defendant
Original mailed to the Court, and a
copy mailed June ___ , 2009, to:
William Katz, esq.
Yuma County Attorney’s Office
250 W. 2nd St., Suite G
Yuma, Arizona 85364
Attorneys for Plaintiff
________________________________
[1] After Mr. Anderson was arrested, his car was thoroughly searched and no narcotics were found.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Ask Marc Victor a Legal Question
Whether you want just to get educated about the laws and penalties or you or someone you know has been accused of a DUI, Possession or other criminal charge, don’t react until you learn all your options. Submit your question below and then listen Sunday as Marc answers your question on air (confidentially of course).
http://1015jamz.com/Marc-Victor/4899929
MARC Victor is a certified specialist in criminal law with over 15 years of proven success. A former Marine, he’ll fight to make sure your rights are not violated. Mr. Victor has provided criminal attorney representation in Chandler, Mesa, Phoenix and all of Arizona since 1994. As an attorney in Phoenix he has been consistently interviewed by the press as a legal expert. He has been quoted numerous times on television, radio and in newspapers.
Mr. Victor has presented many lectures on the criminal justice system. He has lectured to judges, prosecutors and police officers. He has authored several articles on the criminal justice system, some of which have been published nationally and recognized internationally.
Call Marc at (480) 755-7110 or visit attorneyforfreedom.com.
Also hear Marc speak personally at Shopping for Jobs event at Arizona Mills Friday August 28th from 4-7pm. This is one seminar you won’t want to miss!
http://1015jamz.com/Marc-Victor/4899929
http://1015jamz.com/Marc-Victor/4899929
MARC Victor is a certified specialist in criminal law with over 15 years of proven success. A former Marine, he’ll fight to make sure your rights are not violated. Mr. Victor has provided criminal attorney representation in Chandler, Mesa, Phoenix and all of Arizona since 1994. As an attorney in Phoenix he has been consistently interviewed by the press as a legal expert. He has been quoted numerous times on television, radio and in newspapers.
Mr. Victor has presented many lectures on the criminal justice system. He has lectured to judges, prosecutors and police officers. He has authored several articles on the criminal justice system, some of which have been published nationally and recognized internationally.
Call Marc at (480) 755-7110 or visit attorneyforfreedom.com.
Also hear Marc speak personally at Shopping for Jobs event at Arizona Mills Friday August 28th from 4-7pm. This is one seminar you won’t want to miss!
http://1015jamz.com/Marc-Victor/4899929
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Attorney argues to legalize Meth
Joe DanaArizona Nightly News
'
Criminal attorney Marc Victor knows he's in the minority. But he believes it's time for more people to support his plan. "I think there are an awful lot of people who agree with my position who don't want to come forward," Victor says. Victor has represented thousands of accused drug offenders. He says they thrive off the drug war.
"It's a real business for them. They understand the economics and they understand the fact that when a drug bust happens they can sell their product for more money. And that's what they do," Victor says. He also says history has taught us a lesson. During the age of prohibition, organized crime invaded American society. Mafia gangs and underground alcohol operations created a lucrative black market for drinks.
But Arizona House representative Mark Anderson, District 29, says meth and alcohol cannot be compared. "Meth is such a powerful, addictive drug that people who start taking see their lives devastated," Anderson says. Anderson is the sponsor of a bill that would add more money to fight the flow of meth at the border and to fund rehabilitation for addicts. "You're never going to stop it completely," Anderson says. "But just by limiting the supply, I think you're going to take a lot of people out of the market."
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/legalmeth02222005-CR.html
'
Criminal attorney Marc Victor knows he's in the minority. But he believes it's time for more people to support his plan. "I think there are an awful lot of people who agree with my position who don't want to come forward," Victor says. Victor has represented thousands of accused drug offenders. He says they thrive off the drug war.
"It's a real business for them. They understand the economics and they understand the fact that when a drug bust happens they can sell their product for more money. And that's what they do," Victor says. He also says history has taught us a lesson. During the age of prohibition, organized crime invaded American society. Mafia gangs and underground alcohol operations created a lucrative black market for drinks.
But Arizona House representative Mark Anderson, District 29, says meth and alcohol cannot be compared. "Meth is such a powerful, addictive drug that people who start taking see their lives devastated," Anderson says. Anderson is the sponsor of a bill that would add more money to fight the flow of meth at the border and to fund rehabilitation for addicts. "You're never going to stop it completely," Anderson says. "But just by limiting the supply, I think you're going to take a lot of people out of the market."
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/legalmeth02222005-CR.html
The Pot Lawyer on Defending Smokers
The smoke never seems to clear on whether to legalize weed or not.
FOX 10's Keith Yaskin talks to lawyers coming to the defense of those caught lighting up. To them, it's no joke.
Watch video:
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/only_on_fox/pot_lawyer_07_29_2009
FOX 10's Keith Yaskin talks to lawyers coming to the defense of those caught lighting up. To them, it's no joke.
Watch video:
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/only_on_fox/pot_lawyer_07_29_2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
DUI Attorney in Chandler, Arizona
DUI Attorney in Chandler, Arizona
Driving under the influence of alcohol (driving while intoxicated, drunk driving, drinking and driving, drink-driving) or other drugs, is the act of operating a vehicle (including bicycle, boat, airplane or horse) after consuming alcohol or using drugs. It is a criminal offense in most countries.
The specific criminal offense may be called, depending on the jurisdiction, driving while intoxicated (DWI), operating while intoxicated (OWI), operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OMVI), driving under the influence [of alcohol or other drugs] (DUI), driving under the combined influence of alcohol and/or other drugs, driving under the influence per se or drunk in charge [of a vehicle]. Such laws usually (but not always) also apply to boating, piloting aircraft, or driving a bicycle.
Historically, guilt was established by observed driving symptoms, such as weaving; administering field sobrietytests, such as a walking a straight line heel-to-toe or standing on one leg for 30 seconds; and the arresting officer's subjective opinion of impairment. Limits for chemical tests are specific for blood alcohol concentration or concentration of alcohol in breath.
With the advent of a scientific test for blood alcohol content (BAC), enforcement regimes moved to pinning culpability for the offense to strict liability based on driving while having more than a prescribed amount of blood alcohol, although this does not preclude the simultaneous existence of the older subjective tests. BAC is most conveniently measured as a simple percent of alcohol in the blood by weight. It does not depend on any units of measurement.
The validity of the testing equipment/methods and mathematical relationships for the measurement of breath and blood alcohol have been criticized. Driving while consuming alcohol may be illegal within a jurisdiction. In some it is illegal for an open container of an alcoholic beverage to be in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle or in some specific area of that compartment.
Marc J. Victor, P.C. has established a solid reputation for highly aggressive yet professional representation. We render our advice only after thoughtfully considering the particular circumstances of each individual case always keeping the client's goals in mind. We offer representation for all cases involving DUI.
I am not a jack of all trades attorney. My litigation practice is entirely limited to criminal law. Because of my experience and knowledge, I have been certified as a "Specialist in Criminal Law" by the Arizona state bar. I am not a timid or passive attorney who seeks to immediately "cut a deal" with the state. I truly enjoy the courtroom. Hopefully, you get the message that I am not in this business to make pals with prosecutors.
My practice is focused primarily on major felony cases. As well as DUI cases I have represented clients in matters as serious as first degree capital murder and sexual assault cases. Additionally, I routinely represent clients on drug related, aggravated assault and other felony charges. I occasionally represent clients in misdemeanor matters depending on my current case load. I will not agree to represent you if I cannot devote the appropriate time to you and your case.
Hopefully you will never need my services, but if you are ever confronted by law enforcement for any reason, please take this advice:
You should never talk to a police officer. However, if you simply cannot resist the urge, I suggest you say only the following:http://www.flexyourrights.org/busted/movie_clips#?q=busted/clips.html&q=videopreview/clips.html
Criminal Attorney Representation in the greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area Since 1994
If you need a lawyer in Arizona who regularly represents people in Chandler, Phoenix, Tempe, Scottsdale, Mesa, Tucson, Peoria, Yuma, Flagstaff or Glendale that practices in cases such as DUI, Drugs, Murder, Rape, Sex Crimes, Assault or any Felony, you need to call Attorney Marc Victor.
Marc J. Victor, P.C. • Attorney at Law • Phone: (480) 755-71103920 South Alma School Rd., Suite 5 • Chandler, Arizona 85248
http://www.attorneyforfreedom.com
Driving under the influence of alcohol (driving while intoxicated, drunk driving, drinking and driving, drink-driving) or other drugs, is the act of operating a vehicle (including bicycle, boat, airplane or horse) after consuming alcohol or using drugs. It is a criminal offense in most countries.
The specific criminal offense may be called, depending on the jurisdiction, driving while intoxicated (DWI), operating while intoxicated (OWI), operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OMVI), driving under the influence [of alcohol or other drugs] (DUI), driving under the combined influence of alcohol and/or other drugs, driving under the influence per se or drunk in charge [of a vehicle]. Such laws usually (but not always) also apply to boating, piloting aircraft, or driving a bicycle.
Historically, guilt was established by observed driving symptoms, such as weaving; administering field sobrietytests, such as a walking a straight line heel-to-toe or standing on one leg for 30 seconds; and the arresting officer's subjective opinion of impairment. Limits for chemical tests are specific for blood alcohol concentration or concentration of alcohol in breath.
With the advent of a scientific test for blood alcohol content (BAC), enforcement regimes moved to pinning culpability for the offense to strict liability based on driving while having more than a prescribed amount of blood alcohol, although this does not preclude the simultaneous existence of the older subjective tests. BAC is most conveniently measured as a simple percent of alcohol in the blood by weight. It does not depend on any units of measurement.
The validity of the testing equipment/methods and mathematical relationships for the measurement of breath and blood alcohol have been criticized. Driving while consuming alcohol may be illegal within a jurisdiction. In some it is illegal for an open container of an alcoholic beverage to be in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle or in some specific area of that compartment.
Marc J. Victor, P.C. has established a solid reputation for highly aggressive yet professional representation. We render our advice only after thoughtfully considering the particular circumstances of each individual case always keeping the client's goals in mind. We offer representation for all cases involving DUI.
I am not a jack of all trades attorney. My litigation practice is entirely limited to criminal law. Because of my experience and knowledge, I have been certified as a "Specialist in Criminal Law" by the Arizona state bar. I am not a timid or passive attorney who seeks to immediately "cut a deal" with the state. I truly enjoy the courtroom. Hopefully, you get the message that I am not in this business to make pals with prosecutors.
My practice is focused primarily on major felony cases. As well as DUI cases I have represented clients in matters as serious as first degree capital murder and sexual assault cases. Additionally, I routinely represent clients on drug related, aggravated assault and other felony charges. I occasionally represent clients in misdemeanor matters depending on my current case load. I will not agree to represent you if I cannot devote the appropriate time to you and your case.
Hopefully you will never need my services, but if you are ever confronted by law enforcement for any reason, please take this advice:
You should never talk to a police officer. However, if you simply cannot resist the urge, I suggest you say only the following:http://www.flexyourrights.org/busted/movie_clips#?q=busted/clips.html&q=videopreview/clips.html
Criminal Attorney Representation in the greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area Since 1994
If you need a lawyer in Arizona who regularly represents people in Chandler, Phoenix, Tempe, Scottsdale, Mesa, Tucson, Peoria, Yuma, Flagstaff or Glendale that practices in cases such as DUI, Drugs, Murder, Rape, Sex Crimes, Assault or any Felony, you need to call Attorney Marc Victor.
Marc J. Victor, P.C. • Attorney at Law • Phone: (480) 755-71103920 South Alma School Rd., Suite 5 • Chandler, Arizona 85248
http://www.attorneyforfreedom.com
Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney
Criminal Law
Being charged with a criminal offense often means the government is attempting to incarcerate you. When your liberty is at stake, the right attorney can be a critically important decision. The attorneys at Marc J. Victor, P.C. will represent you exactly the same way they would want to be represented themselves. We will do everything in our power to see you are a satisfied client.
To that end, we promise to be honest with you, to keep you informed of the circumstances and progress of your case, to be available to you for consultation, to explain your case to you without legalese, to promptly return your telephone calls and e-mails, to render well-reasoned and straight forward advice, and to aggressively represent you. We strive to be creative and to think outside the box at all times. In short, we will relentlessly pursue and employ all ethical means to secure the best possible results for you.
Our attorneys are not timid or passive attorneys who seek to immediately “cut deals” with the state. In those cases where a plea is appropriate, we will aggressively work to secure the absolute best plea offer possible. Some cases warrant a jury trial. We are not strangers to the courtroom. Marc J. Victor has personally tried several murder cases. If your desire is a trial, we will present your case in the best possible light to secure a Not Guilty verdict.
Marc J. Victor, P.C. accepts clients in both state and federal matters throughout the State of Arizona. Indeed, we have represented clients in matters outside the State of Arizona as well. We represent clients in matters as serious as first degree capital murder and sexual assault.
Additionally, we routinely represent clients on drug related, aggravated assault and other felony charges. Misdemeanor clients are accepted depending on caseload. We will not agree to accept your case if we cannot devote the appropriate time to you and your case. “You should never talk to a police officer. However, if you simply cannot resist the urge, I suggest you say only the following:
http://www.flexyourrights.org/busted/movie_clips#?q=busted/clips.html&q=videopreview/clips.html ”
http://www.attorneyforfreedom.com
Being charged with a criminal offense often means the government is attempting to incarcerate you. When your liberty is at stake, the right attorney can be a critically important decision. The attorneys at Marc J. Victor, P.C. will represent you exactly the same way they would want to be represented themselves. We will do everything in our power to see you are a satisfied client.
To that end, we promise to be honest with you, to keep you informed of the circumstances and progress of your case, to be available to you for consultation, to explain your case to you without legalese, to promptly return your telephone calls and e-mails, to render well-reasoned and straight forward advice, and to aggressively represent you. We strive to be creative and to think outside the box at all times. In short, we will relentlessly pursue and employ all ethical means to secure the best possible results for you.
Our attorneys are not timid or passive attorneys who seek to immediately “cut deals” with the state. In those cases where a plea is appropriate, we will aggressively work to secure the absolute best plea offer possible. Some cases warrant a jury trial. We are not strangers to the courtroom. Marc J. Victor has personally tried several murder cases. If your desire is a trial, we will present your case in the best possible light to secure a Not Guilty verdict.
Marc J. Victor, P.C. accepts clients in both state and federal matters throughout the State of Arizona. Indeed, we have represented clients in matters outside the State of Arizona as well. We represent clients in matters as serious as first degree capital murder and sexual assault.
Additionally, we routinely represent clients on drug related, aggravated assault and other felony charges. Misdemeanor clients are accepted depending on caseload. We will not agree to accept your case if we cannot devote the appropriate time to you and your case. “You should never talk to a police officer. However, if you simply cannot resist the urge, I suggest you say only the following:
http://www.flexyourrights.org/busted/movie_clips#?q=busted/clips.html&q=videopreview/clips.html ”
http://www.attorneyforfreedom.com
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Former Marine now on duty as attorney
Former Marine now on duty as attorney
By Jen Bondeson
In the late hours of the night, Attorney Marc J. Victor, P.C., might find himself talking to an inmate in a jail cell. His voicemail asks clients with emergencies to press a number to alert him, and oftentimes they do.
It’s Victor’s 24/7 approach to business that he believes gives him a competitive advantage. He says his pristine reputation doesn’t hurt either.
Victor has been serving the East Valley since 1994 and the SanTan Sun area since 2004. He is the president of his law firm, Marc J. Victor P.C. Attorney at Law, located at 3920 S. Alma School Rd., Suite 5 in Chandler.
After serving as a sergeant and squad leader in the U.S. Marine Corps for seven years and during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield, Victor believes much of his traditional way of practice relates back to his time spent as a Marine.
“I run my practice the same way I used to run the Marine Corps,” Victor says. “It’s what I call old-fashioned principles.”
These principles, he says, can be translated into one simple adage.
“I represent people the same way I would want to be represented,” Victor says. “When I am sitting here thinking about doing something for someone, I think about if I would want someone to do it for me, and then I do it for them.”
Victor, certified in criminal defense, has represented thousands of people in the Phoenix area in the past 15 years. His law firm also specializes in bankruptcy, personal injury and wrongful death and home and commercial loan modifications, among other cases.
As far back as he remembers, Victor says he knew he wanted to be a criminal defense lawyer. He graduated from Arizona State University in 1992 with a B.S. in Justice Studies, then from Southwestern University of Law with a juris doctorate in the top 20 percent of his class.
He calls his firm the “high-end, high-power boutique” of law firms because of his specialization, education, training and style.
“I’m very aggressive, and I push very hard for my clients,” Victor adds. “A former law partner used to say he knows my secret - I just keep nagging until I get what I want. I’m a pain in the butt. I don’t like taking no for an answer.”
With an interest in representing felony, death penalty and serious crime cases, Victor admits he is always looking for the most high-profile cases.
He says his team is trained to share his approach to law, too.
“I return everyone’s call the same day I receive it and everyone’s message the same day I get it,” Victor says. “I do everything that I say I’m going to do. Everyone who works here knows that’s how we do business.”
For more info on Victor and his law practice, call 480-755-7110 or visit www.attorneyforfreedom.com.
By Jen Bondeson
In the late hours of the night, Attorney Marc J. Victor, P.C., might find himself talking to an inmate in a jail cell. His voicemail asks clients with emergencies to press a number to alert him, and oftentimes they do.
It’s Victor’s 24/7 approach to business that he believes gives him a competitive advantage. He says his pristine reputation doesn’t hurt either.
Victor has been serving the East Valley since 1994 and the SanTan Sun area since 2004. He is the president of his law firm, Marc J. Victor P.C. Attorney at Law, located at 3920 S. Alma School Rd., Suite 5 in Chandler.
After serving as a sergeant and squad leader in the U.S. Marine Corps for seven years and during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield, Victor believes much of his traditional way of practice relates back to his time spent as a Marine.
“I run my practice the same way I used to run the Marine Corps,” Victor says. “It’s what I call old-fashioned principles.”
These principles, he says, can be translated into one simple adage.
“I represent people the same way I would want to be represented,” Victor says. “When I am sitting here thinking about doing something for someone, I think about if I would want someone to do it for me, and then I do it for them.”
Victor, certified in criminal defense, has represented thousands of people in the Phoenix area in the past 15 years. His law firm also specializes in bankruptcy, personal injury and wrongful death and home and commercial loan modifications, among other cases.
As far back as he remembers, Victor says he knew he wanted to be a criminal defense lawyer. He graduated from Arizona State University in 1992 with a B.S. in Justice Studies, then from Southwestern University of Law with a juris doctorate in the top 20 percent of his class.
He calls his firm the “high-end, high-power boutique” of law firms because of his specialization, education, training and style.
“I’m very aggressive, and I push very hard for my clients,” Victor adds. “A former law partner used to say he knows my secret - I just keep nagging until I get what I want. I’m a pain in the butt. I don’t like taking no for an answer.”
With an interest in representing felony, death penalty and serious crime cases, Victor admits he is always looking for the most high-profile cases.
He says his team is trained to share his approach to law, too.
“I return everyone’s call the same day I receive it and everyone’s message the same day I get it,” Victor says. “I do everything that I say I’m going to do. Everyone who works here knows that’s how we do business.”
For more info on Victor and his law practice, call 480-755-7110 or visit www.attorneyforfreedom.com.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Attorney For Freedom Phoenix
Areas Of Practice
Marc J. Victor, P.C. has established a solid reputation for highly aggressive yet professional representation. We render our advice only after thoughtfully considering the particular circumstances of each individual case always keeping the client's goals in mind. We offer representation in the following areas:
Criminal Defense
I am not a jack of all trades attorney. My litigation practice is entirely limited to criminal law. Because of my experience and knowledge, I have been certified as a “Specialist in Criminal Law” by the Arizona state bar. I am not a timid or passive attorney who seeks to immediately "cut a deal" with the state. I truly enjoy the courtroom. Hopefully, you get the message that I am not in this business to make pals with prosecutors.
My practice is focused primarily on major felony cases. I have represented clients in matters as serious as first degree capital murder and sexual assault cases. Additionally, I routinely represent clients on drug related, aggravated assault and other felony charges. I occasionally represent clients in misdemeanor matters depending on my current case load. I will not agree to represent you if I cannot devote the appropriate time to you and your case.
I charge the nonrefundable fee of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for an initial consultation (except for loan modification and bankruptcy where there is no charge). As such, our meeting will not be a sales pitch for why you should retain me as your attorney. Your payment of the initial fee is for an honest evaluation of your case. During our initial consultation, I will first ascertain whether I believe you need representation, and if so, we can discuss my anticipated fee should you desire my representation.
Should we both desire to continue an attorney-client relationship, I will offer you a choice between paying on an hourly basis, after depositing funds in our trust account, or paying a nonrefundable flat fee. I will discuss both options during our initial consultation. I look forward to working with you! - Marc J. Victor
You should never talk to a police officer. However, if you simply cannot resist the urge, I suggest you say only the following:
I refuse to consent to any search whatsoever. As such, I do not consent to a search of my premises, my person, my immediate location or any vehicle or effects. I hereby exercise my rights as enumerated by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as Article Two of the Arizona Constitution. I demand to have my attorney present prior to and throughout any questioning at all. Additionally, I wish to consult with my attorney prior to any discussion with law enforcement officers on the subject of waiver.
Serious Personal Injury and Wrongful Death
Marc J. Victor, P.C. accepts clients who have been seriously injured as the result of another person's negligence. Wrongful death cases are also accepted. No recovery, no fee on personal injury cases.*
* costs paid by client
Home Loan Modification
For more on home loan modification please go to: http:www.attorneyforloanmods.com
Criminal Attorney Representation in the Greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area Since 1994
Attorney in Arizona, Phoenix Attorney, Phoenix Lawyer, Chandler Attorney, Arizona Lawyer, DUI, Drug Cases, Murder, Felony
Marc J. Victor, P.C. has established a solid reputation for highly aggressive yet professional representation. We render our advice only after thoughtfully considering the particular circumstances of each individual case always keeping the client's goals in mind. We offer representation in the following areas:
Criminal Defense
I am not a jack of all trades attorney. My litigation practice is entirely limited to criminal law. Because of my experience and knowledge, I have been certified as a “Specialist in Criminal Law” by the Arizona state bar. I am not a timid or passive attorney who seeks to immediately "cut a deal" with the state. I truly enjoy the courtroom. Hopefully, you get the message that I am not in this business to make pals with prosecutors.
My practice is focused primarily on major felony cases. I have represented clients in matters as serious as first degree capital murder and sexual assault cases. Additionally, I routinely represent clients on drug related, aggravated assault and other felony charges. I occasionally represent clients in misdemeanor matters depending on my current case load. I will not agree to represent you if I cannot devote the appropriate time to you and your case.
I charge the nonrefundable fee of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for an initial consultation (except for loan modification and bankruptcy where there is no charge). As such, our meeting will not be a sales pitch for why you should retain me as your attorney. Your payment of the initial fee is for an honest evaluation of your case. During our initial consultation, I will first ascertain whether I believe you need representation, and if so, we can discuss my anticipated fee should you desire my representation.
Should we both desire to continue an attorney-client relationship, I will offer you a choice between paying on an hourly basis, after depositing funds in our trust account, or paying a nonrefundable flat fee. I will discuss both options during our initial consultation. I look forward to working with you! - Marc J. Victor
You should never talk to a police officer. However, if you simply cannot resist the urge, I suggest you say only the following:
I refuse to consent to any search whatsoever. As such, I do not consent to a search of my premises, my person, my immediate location or any vehicle or effects. I hereby exercise my rights as enumerated by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as Article Two of the Arizona Constitution. I demand to have my attorney present prior to and throughout any questioning at all. Additionally, I wish to consult with my attorney prior to any discussion with law enforcement officers on the subject of waiver.
Serious Personal Injury and Wrongful Death
Marc J. Victor, P.C. accepts clients who have been seriously injured as the result of another person's negligence. Wrongful death cases are also accepted. No recovery, no fee on personal injury cases.*
* costs paid by client
Home Loan Modification
For more on home loan modification please go to: http:www.attorneyforloanmods.com
Criminal Attorney Representation in the Greater Phoenix Metropolitan Area Since 1994
Attorney in Arizona, Phoenix Attorney, Phoenix Lawyer, Chandler Attorney, Arizona Lawyer, DUI, Drug Cases, Murder, Felony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
