Criminal Justice

Detention officer tries to explain why he swiped attorney’s file

By Nick R. Martin | October 31st, 2009 | 12:08 am | Comments


Video shows Maricopa County sheriff’s employees sneaking a document from the file of a defense attorney.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The officer then invoked Lozano’s gang affiliation as a reason for thinking something sinister might be afoot.

“Lozano is a known associate of the Mexican Mafia,” he said. “The organization is known to operate in and out of the jails.”

He’s right. In fact, a member of the Mexican Mafia was recently accused of convincing two separate defense attorneys to smuggle drugs into the court and jails on his behalf.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donahoe stopped the hearing after two hours, saying it would pick back up again next week. At that time, Stoddard will be questioned by Thomas Liddy, a deputy county attorney representing him and the sheriff’s office in court. Campillo, the sheriff’s deputy, is also expected to testify then.

Outside of a contempt charge, it’s unclear what kind of consequences Stoddard and Campillo are facing if the judge decides they were wrong in pulling the document.

Because of the uproar, Lozano’s sentencing for assaulting a fellow inmate was delayed. It’s possible Donahoe’s decision could affect that case.

Update (Nov. 7, 12:32a): This hearing continued on Nov. 7, 2009. To see what happened, click here.

Similar stories from Heat City

Recommend [HeatCity: HeatCity]
  • dennisgilman
    Thanks for investigating this Nick. Keep up the good work. This smells really bad in my opinion. It will be another strike against Democracy in Maricopa County if Arpaio's Thugs get away with this.
  • rolomonkey
    Nice work, Nick. Is the deputy county atty you reference, Thomas Liddy, the radio talking head Tom Liddy?
  • We'll see on this one, Dennis. It's looking less likely that the judge will hand out any kind of punishment against these sheriff's officials unless the defendant waives his attorney-client rights. And it doesn't look like that will happen.
  • @rolomonkey Thank you. You know, I didn't even make the connection that the attorney was THAT Tom Liddy until I read your comment. Yes, it was him. He's a deputy county attorney in the civil division these days. Small world.
  • rolomonkey
    Thanks, Nick. Yes, indeed, it is a small world -- especially out
    their on the political edge.
  • Matt
    i think police officers should be required to provide evidence to a crime taking place before an arrest such as them having to wear some kind of recording device at all times that cannot be turned off. There is to much "wiggle" room for law enforcement to lie and extort people and the occurrences seem to be on the rise as law enforcement seem to be taking it upon themselves to "create their own laws" and follow their own opinions of the law or their own opinions and beliefs instead of following the law which they take an oath to uphold. I also feel that police officers need to be treated to the same or better standards than ordinary citizens as "we the people" pay for them to be doing what they are doing and it seems that our tax payer dollars are being used to terrorize citizens, and cause harm to citizens and support a private fraternity of hooligans who feel they are above the law. That is just my opinion though.... I know that some of this is not relevant to the situation described here but everytime i see a police officer break the law and then go unpunished or get a slap on the hand and then look at the small things that citizens do and how the police "make up" or blow things out of proportion it just makes me upset. But anyways thank you for making the public aware of this maybe someday 200 years from now something will actually be done about stuff like this (def. not in my life time)
  • blownaway1234
    What is this half-assed law you people practice down in Juarez?

    What joke.

    If this was a corporate case or the defendant had any money, Maricopa County would be making $20,000 a month payments to the defendant the rest of their natural life.
  • mliving
    Funny how the defendant must waiver one set of rights in order to have other rights enforced.

    Sound to me like Mr. Stoddard's actions should result in a miss trial and the charges against the defendant should be thrown out. PERIOD!
  • New Reader
    As noted above, "an officer can seize evidence or make an arrest if he sees a crime taking place." In order to maintain security, the officer may be in the habit of keeping a close eye on surroundings, looking for suspicious behavior of others. Knowing that the defendant allegedly was a member of an organization that snuck contraband into court, the deputy may have felt the need to look at the papers on the table. Once he saw them, he realized they weren't relevant to any security issue. Any type of officer will routinely make these quick judgment calls, and in most cases, they don't involve significant controversy. For example, here, if the materials were not privileged, there would not have been much controversy.

    Only in retrospect did it become clear to him that doing so was unnecessary, as the paperwork had already been inspected by another security officer upon the defendant's entry into the building. Sometimes decisions that can appear rational at the time, based on what a person knew or perceived then, can appear irrational in hindsight. This situation often occurs when individuals have the opportunity to spend large amounts of time scrutinizing what were quick decisions.

    While the officer should not have read the papers, I think it is unfair to hold him in criminal contempt, or to wonder why his after-the-fact explanations don't seem to make much sense.
  • Don Keefhardt
    Ah...you all are overlooking the insidious danger of "paper cuts".
blog comments powered by Disqus