Posted on 03/09/2005 12:37:46 PM PST by Born Conservative
William Slavoski of the Secret Service was accused of threatening a cop.
WEST PITTSTON (PA) – Calling a police officer’s actions an “inexcusable use of the criminal process,” an attorney on Tuesday convinced a district justice to dismiss all charges against an off-duty Secret Service agent accused of threatening and assaulting the officer.
Attorney Barry Dyller said William Slavoski was merely venting his outrage because he believed his son was unlawfully detained by Exeter police officer Dion Fernandes. He argued Slavoski’s actions did not warrant criminal charges.
District Justice Joseph Carmody agreed, dismissing charges of simple assault, terroristic threats, disorderly conduct, harassment and criminal trespass following an approximately 70-minute hearing.
The ruling elicited a collective sigh from more than a dozen spectators who attended the hearing in support of Slavoski, including several of the 16 teenagers who were cited with Slavoski’s son in connection with an alleged underage drinking party on Jan. 9.
In separate hearings held Friday and Tuesday, Carmody also dismissed the citations levied against 13 of the teenagers involved, including Slavoski’s son, ruling there was insufficient evidence. Three cases are pending.
The gathering at the Scarboro Avenue home led to the confrontation between Slavoski and Fernandes at the Exeter Borough Building. Slavoski went to the building at about 2:30 a.m. to pick up his son, who was transported there with the other teens.
According to testimony Tuesday, Slavoski was upset because he believed Fernandes had no right to transport his son or the other juveniles, all of whom were charged with possession of alcohol, to the police station.
Speaking outside Slavoski’s hearing, Barbara Kosik Whittaker, an assistant U.S. attorney who was privately retained by Slavoski to represent his son, said underage alcohol possession is a summary citation in which police are supposed to “cite and release” the alleged offenders.
Kosik Whittaker said she successfully argued for the dismissal of the citation against Slavoski’s son because he, as well as all but one of the other teens, scored a zero reading on a breath test given them. The charges, she said, were based solely on the fact a case of beer was found inside a closet in the home. The case was broken open, she said, but no open cans of beer were found.
That information was not presented at William Slavoski’s hearing Tuesday because it was not relevant, Dyller said.
Speaking after the hearing, Dyller painted Fernandes as an overzealous officer who went out of his way to try to make charges fit. He said the issue was whether Slavoski’s actions, even if they occurred exactly as Fernandes said, met the legal criteria for the charges that were filed.
“It’s clear to me this is a case about the inability of certain law enforcement officers to accept criticism,” he said.
Contacted by phone after the hearing, Fernandes defended his actions, saying Slavoski could have avoided the situation by maintaining his composure.
“It’s just the way he (Slavoski) went about it. It could have been handled a lot differently.”
Fernandes called three witnesses to testify Tuesday in addition to himself. Each described Slavoski as being “irate.”
Fernandes testified Slavoski called him a “piece of s---- cop” who didn’t know the law. He said Slavoski told him he would “have his job,” and ignored Fernandes’ repeated orders to leave.
Fernandes said the confrontation continued to escalate with Slavoski challenging Fernandes to arrest him. Eventually, Slavoski began to walk away, but then turned into Fernandes with his shoulder, knocking the officer backward. Fernandes said Slavoski also asked him what time he was off, saying he would be waiting outside for him.
Dyller presented no witnesses, arguing the charges should be dismissed on legal grounds.
The simple assault charge was not valid, he said, because the law requires police show an attempt to cause or place a person in fear of “serious bodily injury.” Fernandes testified he was not injured in any way.
Regarding the terroristic threats charge, Dyller said appellate courts have said the threat must be serious and made with the intent to terrorize. Slavoski’s alleged comments that he would be waiting for Fernandes did not come close to meeting that standard, he said.
Dyller also argued the disorderly conduct and harassment charges should be dismissed because Slavoski’s comment toward Fernandes, though admittedly loud, did not constitute “unreasonable noise” given the circumstances.
“We heard he was loud. The question is what is or is not reasonable in challenging police conduct,” Dyller said in a closing statement.
Carmody did not offer a detailed explanation for his decision to dismiss charges, saying only that he found police had not met their burden in proving the offenses.
Slavoski, an agent in the Secret Service’s Scranton office, had been on paid administrative leave since the charges were filed. Dyller said he expects Slavoski will be permitted to return to work.
Follow up ping.
The system protecting its own.
Tho Police Officer just learned the hard way that the laws apply only to peons and peasants.
If that was a working class mn or if the kids were the children class parents, the man would still be in jail and the children would still be in the juvenile home.
had that been a regular joe who did that to the cop, he'd never see the light of day again.
Officer Dion Fernandes. Marxist fop.
Trying his or her best to accelerate the Police State.
It sounds as if they were both out of order, but the cop more than the SS agent.
The cop was out of order bringing the teens to the police station. He was also out of order charging them with underage drinking, if this report is accurate.There was an opened case of beer in a closet, but no empty cans of beer were found. Only one of the teens had any signs of alcohol when they were tested.
Salvoski was out of order if he raised his voice and threatened the cop. He was provoked, and he was right to say that the cop had behaved badly, but he should have known better than to lose control.
We almost always have an open case of beer in the house and bottles in the refrigerator. How would you like it if a cop could enter your house and haul all off the minors who happend to be there to the police station with no more evidence than that?
I think the real question is, "Which one is the bigger pr***? The cop or the USSS agent?"
I won't argue against that. But if this had been a working citizen, it would have been a case of the police are always right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.