Federal agent gets probation for smelling girl’s panties.
Just goes to show that ANYONE can be a sex offender. Teachers, coaches, clergy and law enforcement officers!
What’s confusing is the judge cited his “work as a federal marshal” as a mitigating factor. Shouldn’t the fact that he’s been in a position of authority be an aggrevating factor?
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Capt Charles. I agree he shouldn’t be put on the registry, but it’s frustrating as all hell when a piece of shit like this guy gets off with a slap on the wrist knowing he’s the kind of guy that talks about registered citizens like we we’re scum of the earth. There is a slight bit of vindication when cops like this guy have to eat from the same pot that we do!
Dan, I understand your frustration and concur with your thoughts but we must remember that it was frustration on the part of victim advocates that lead to the registries and restrictions that many RSO’s have to endure nowadays.
Ok, the guy has problems and was likely cut some slack because he was a US Marshall. But some of these comments read like the hysterical diatribes written about us! He wasn’t even charged with a sex crime and I’m reading about SO treatment, and registration, which are the very conditions we object to.
The Arizona felony trespass statute requires that he was “unlawfully” in the residential structure. He was legitimately there with a realtor. How did he enter or stay unlawfully? The prosecution may have had a very weak case for a felony and without that a “sexual motivation” aggravating factor is irrelevant. Tossing his computer is certainly suspicious, but not evidence of a crime. Gymnastics videos aren’t illegal, nor is sniffing panties.
A judge can’t impose SO conditions for a non sex crime. I think the judge and prosecutor did about all that could have been done under the law. The alternative is for the legislature to increase the scope or number of registerable offenses. Do any of us want that??!! Let’s not poison our own well.
Agent’s actions were not exactly kosher, but I concur with Ed C. Let’s not advocate for every stupid act to be put on the registry.
Tossing his computer is certainly suspicious, but not evidence of a crime. Gymnastics videos aren’t illegal, nor is sniffing panties*
1) If any of us ever tossed anything electronic, we’d be up shit’s creek for abstraction or tampering with potential evidence. And I mean only when we are initially CHARGED with a crime.
2) Although gymnastics videos aren’t illegal, let’s look at this man’s actions of sniffing those panties and ask the question: Why was he so interested in having gymnastics videos of young girls on his computer? It’s one thing to look at them on YouTube. It’s another scenario to have DOWNLOADED them onto his computer from YouTube.
3) Refer to #2.
No one here is trying to be like those who come against us for being registered or what we did to get registered. What we’re saying is that he got a slap on the wrist for being a POTENTIAL threat to young girls. The courts, LE and the registry scheme like to play mind readers and ASSUME that if we did something ONCE, we’re gonna do it again. And they’d use something as harmless as sniffing panties to say that we will eventually progress into creepazoids who lurk in the shadows waiting for the opportunity to act out our apparent fantasies.
The court didn’t see this man’s actions the same way it would see any of our actions and gave him a slap on the wrist. Meanwhile, some states make it a sex offense to urinate behind a bush. Go figure.
If someone peeing in the bushes in a public park will get you on the sex offender registry, then sneaking into a little girls room to sniff their dirty underwear should definitely get a noose around your neck.
Judge should’ve ordered eval & treatment. Why can’t she?
Thankfully, judges don’t have unfettered sentencing authority, but are limited by law. I don’t know Arizona law, but it might not be possible for a judge to order psych treatment for a misdemeanor trespass conviction. It also might have been precluded by the plea agreement.
I’m not trying to minimize this guy’s sliminess or that he was treated differently because he was LE. Many of us here had no prior record and are remorseful veterans but got no consideration. The system isn’t fair or rational, but it is what it is until we can change it. Veritas.
Eric,
Thank you for a voice of reason with a subject that hits us all deeply. Again, thank you.