Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SDPD Takes Heat For Attempt At Interview: Contact with Westerfield called shocking(van Dam suspect)
Union Tribune ^ | March 8, 2002 | Greg Moran

Posted on 03/08/2002 7:54:30 AM PST by FresnoDA

Detectives take heat for attempt at interview

Would-be contact with Westerfield 'shocking'

By Greg Moran and Joe Hughes

March 8, 2002

Two San Diego police detectives who tried to contact David Westerfield in jail last week violated what legal experts said is a long-established principle in the law.

While San Diego police officials termed the detectives' actions inappropriate, others in the legal and law enforcement community were stunned and outraged.

Experts cited a landmark decision in commenting on the officers' attempt to talk to Westerfield on Feb. 28. He is being held without bail on charges of kidnapping 7-year-old Danielle van Dam from her Sabre Springs home and killing her.

Detectives Mark Keyser and Michael Ott tried to visit Westerfield in County Jail downtown two days after he pleaded not guilty to the charges and three weeks after he hired defense attorney Steven Feldman.

They did not seek permission from Feldman. Westerfield turned them away and called his attorney. Feldman cited the incident in court papers in support of his request for a gag order in the case. A judge is scheduled to hear it today.

Keyser and Ott are part of two homicide teams that were involved in collecting evidence in the van Dam case. They interviewed Westerfield several times in the days after Danielle was reported missing from her home Feb. 2.

Officials who asked not to be identified said the two detectives are still on the investigation.

San Diego criminal defense attorney John Cleary, who is not involved in the case, said the actions of the detectives were "clearly inappropriate" under the law.

In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that once formal charges have been filed and a defendant appears in court, the defense attorney must be present if police seek an interview, Cleary said yesterday.

"The cops have to back off, and if they want to talk to the guy, they have to go through his lawyer," Cleary said.

Capt. Ronald G. Newman, who heads the van Dam investigation, issued a terse statement regarding the incident.

"We are aware this happened," Newman said. "It was inappropriate; it should not have happened and we are handling it internally."

Police officials refused to say whether they knew why the two detectives attempted the contact and why they did not advise their immediate supervisors, the District Attorney's Office or the defense attorney, all of whom were apparently unaware of the actions.

Neither Keyser, 43, nor Ott, 41, could be reached for comment. Both have been on the force for 16 years. Prosecutor Jeff Dusek also declined to comment, citing the hearing this morning at which Feldman will try to persuade a judge to order everyone involved in the van Dam case not to talk about it. Feldman did not respond to a request for comment yesterday.

Courts have ruled that talking to a defendant after "adversarial proceedings" have started – in other words, when a prosecutor has filed charges – violates the constitution's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Any statements or evidence that police glean from such a contact would be inadmissible in court, said Knut Johnson, an attorney also not involved in the case. He is president of the San Diego Criminal Defense Bar Association.

Johnson called the incident "a boneheaded maneuver" and said the law is well established.

"Once adversarial proceedings have begun, it is illegal for police to try to initiate a conversation with you about that crime," he said. "That is something they teach all police officers, and that any detective knows."

Police Chief David Bejarano was unavailable for comment. Other department officials refused to either discuss the incident or speak unless their names were not used. Privately, however, some were aghast.

"What were they thinking?" asked one official.

"I guess we didn't learn anything from Stephanie Crowe," said another.

Stephanie was the 12-year-old girl found stabbed to death on her bedroom floor in Escondido in 1998. Escondido police originally arrested her brother and two high school friends based on statements they made during intense interrogations.

A judge ruled most of the statements inadmissible because they were illegally obtained.

Charges against the teen-agers were dismissed after police discovered Stephanie's blood on the sweat shirt of a transient who was briefly questioned at the time of the killing, then released. No one has been charged, and the case remains unsolved.

Juliana Humphrey, the chief deputy public defender for the county, said incidents like last week's are rare. She said it was "even more egregious because Mr. Westerfield had been represented for weeks, so there is no way anyone can claim ignorance."

"This was pretty shocking," she said.

Police and defense attorneys interviewed yesterday said it is not unusual for officers to contact defendants in jail before a lawyer is hired or appointed. They can do so only if the person agrees to talk, waiving the rights to consult an attorney and against self-incrimination. But once the case moves to the courtroom, the rules are different.

"That is the bright line that indicates we are in an adversarial situation," Cleary said, "and the action takes place in the court system, not at the police station or in the interrogation room."

Keyser and another officer were tried on charges of assault under the color of authority in the arrest of a drug suspect in September 1988. A jury acquitted them.

Both officers were accused of kicking and beating a man before and after he was handcuffed. The arrest took place in Greenwood Cemetery after a chase through the southeastern part of San Diego.

Jurors said after the verdict that they found Keyser and Officer David Nellis not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they had assaulted Keith Anthony Beals, 19.

TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: billofrights; donutwatch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 381 next last
SDPD will have a lot of e'splaining to do on this one.....
1 posted on 03/08/2002 7:54:30 AM PST by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: golitely;spectre;Amore;Bigg Red;Travis McGee;BunnySlippers;Doughtyone;Hillary's Lovely Legs...
2 posted on 03/08/2002 7:55:11 AM PST by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
Ain't THAT a "Homer 'DOH!!' "??!!!!
3 posted on 03/08/2002 7:59:17 AM PST by VikingsRazeAVillage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
Westerfield turned them away, and did not speak with the dectectives. So it is "no harm, no foul." The cops get reprimanded, suspended, fired, or whatever, under an internal investigation, but there should be no effect on the case against Westerfield.

If Westerfield had been really, really smart, he would have talked to the cops for a few hours, confessed to the crime,directed the cops to some damning evidence, and THEN called his lawyer and said "These guys came in here and threatened me."(Of course, I am here assuming his guilt.) The court would have to supress any evidene that could be linked in any way to the illegal interview.

4 posted on 03/08/2002 8:10:18 AM PST by San Jacinto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VikingsRazeAVillage

( 03-08-2002 ) - Attorneys for the man charged with Danielle van Dam's death are heading to court Friday morning.

David Westerfield's attorney Steven Feldman is again asking the judge to issue a gag order in the case.

Feldman originally made the request during Westerfield's arraignment, but the judge said it was too early to make such a call.

The defense argues a gag order is needed for a fair trial.

Meanwhile, Westerfield got a jailhouse visit from two detectives, and it's causing a lot of trouble.

The visit was neither authorized nor ethical according to legal experts.

In a six-page motion filed by defense attorney Steven Feldman, he accuses the two San Diego detectives of "outrageous, impermissible conduct."

"Let the case be tried in the courtroom not on the streets of San Diego," said Feldman to a crowd of media outside Westerfield's February 26 arraignment.

Last week Feldman criticized the media, saying that all the news coverage would hurt his client's chance at a fair trial. Now, Feldman is attacking the cops, and it appears he has every right to do so.

San Diego police admit two of their detectives tried to visit David Westerfield in jail without asking for Feldman's permission. In fact they didn't even ask prosecutors if it was okay.

"It's a clear violation of the United States constitution," said Defense Attorney Bill Nimmo.

Bill Nimmo is a well-known defense attorney in San Diego. He's not involved in the Westerfield case, but he feels police blew it.

"Whether their mistake was a rookie mistake or whether it was some calculated intent we don't know but it was certainly wrong and it is going to come back to haunt them the law enforcement end of this at the trial stage."

In a written statement, Captain Ron Newman, the man in charge of the detectives on the case said, "It did happen. It is inappropriate once someone is represented to make contact with him. We will have no further comment and it is something we have handled internally."

Police admit they messed up, but they say their detectives didn't even talk to Westerfield. Meaning the slip up won't effect the strength of their case.

Nevertheless, Feldman is taking a whack at their credibility. He demands the courts "prohibit further outrageous governmental misconduct."

David Westerfield is scheduled to be back in court Monday, March 11 for a preliminary hearing.

5 posted on 03/08/2002 8:10:55 AM PST by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: San Jacinto;golitely;spectre;Amore;Bigg Red;Travis McGee;BunnySlippers;Doughtyone...
San Diego police admit two of their detectives tried to visit David Westerfield in jail without asking for Feldman's permission. In fact they didn't even ask prosecutors if it was okay.

Hmmm...wonder if these two detectives have ever stopped for burgers and fries at Dad's Cafe?  Let's hope there is a closer look, to see if they have been to any late night pizza parties in Poway??

6 posted on 03/08/2002 8:13:56 AM PST by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: San Jacinto
>If Westerfield had been really, really smart, he would have talked to the cops for a few hours...

In some stories of past cases involving pedophiles, especially where there are allegations of organized kiddie sex activity, I've read that there are rumors of contacts and info leaks from within local police forces.

Could this be the way "fellow travelers" in that world give each other a hand (so to speak). That is, some guy gets caught, but one or two cops who might share his proclivities will happen to have a "lapse of judgement" which is just a blot on their record, but could cause a serious flaw in the case against the guy on trial?

It would be interesting for some talented private investigator to reconnoiter the homes of those two cops who had made the gaffe and see if they had any material similar to what was found at Westerfield's house...

Mark W.

7 posted on 03/08/2002 8:19:26 AM PST by MarkWar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Howlin, Mrs.Liberty, rolling_stone, wirestripper, UCANSEE2, Jhoffa_,Valpal1, GummyIII, Luis Gonza
Can you spell... *ignorant!*

I can't imagine what those two clowns were thinking. Maybe since the guy has a 'desertion charge against him, they consider him convicted/sentenced hands down?

8 posted on 03/08/2002 8:21:01 AM PST by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
"Let the case be tried in the courtroom not on the streets of San Diego," said Feldman to a crowd of media outside (on the streets of san diego) Westerfield's February 26 arraignment.
9 posted on 03/08/2002 8:22:59 AM PST by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MarkWar
I was thinking along the same lines. They couldn't be screwing up this case more if they tried. Are they trying?
10 posted on 03/08/2002 8:30:40 AM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
Maybe Feldman wants a "gag order" so the "third party" will stay in the dark concerning the "evidence" that may lead to DW's innocence?


11 posted on 03/08/2002 8:33:08 AM PST by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
SDPD will have a lot of e'splaining to do on this one.....

It seems to me that this jibes almost perfectly with your theory that there is more to this case than meets the eye. From all the reports we've seen [Danielle's blood in Westerfield's motor home, child porn on Westerfield's computer, Westerfield's inability to account for his whereabouts beginning at exactly the time - 9:30AM Friday morning - that the Van Dams discovered Danielle missing], the SDPD and the DA have more than enough evidence to nail Westerfield. The only possible reason these detectives would want to re-interview Westerfield is that they don't believe he's the perp - or that they suspect that he was not working alone.

12 posted on 03/08/2002 8:35:13 AM PST by SlickWillard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
I wonder that myself!! And I wonder if some of these cops were ever participants in the garage trysts.
13 posted on 03/08/2002 8:36:03 AM PST by hsmomx3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
What these cops did was undermine the case, showing a prejudice against the defendant..and lack of impartiality and disregard for the law..the credibility of evidence they collected will be brought up, a defense attorney will chew them up and spit them out, if they did something this stupid could they have done something else??? IMO it is worse than bonehead...looks like one of the cowboys has been in the rodeo before...

I am curious about the desertion charge, which I can only speculate wildly on..based on westerfield's age it may have to do with the Vietnman Conflict which President Ford granted limited amnesty in 1974. There were between 500,000 and 1,500,000 desertion or AWOL people during the conflict.and numerous draft dodgers..Amnesty

Best I can figure is a 5 year statute of limitations unless desertion was during time of war and there is no statute of limitations...since Mr. Westerfield was arrested for DWI in 1996 his fingerprints would have gone to the FBI and I would think they would have been a "hit" on them for desertion, unless of course since his recent notoriety someone "ratted" him off....then again it may be a BS charge. nothing in the papers about this-why?....Monday should tell a tale at the prelim hearing..regards...

14 posted on 03/08/2002 8:39:37 AM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SlickWillard
One of the threads (I forget which)had an article that quoted westerfield's attny as saying that child porn was not found on the puter..but they did find explicit photos of minors/adolescent.. I forget the exact wording. I'd say that the pics are still child porn--what else could they be called?.
15 posted on 03/08/2002 8:41:09 AM PST by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hsmomx3;golitely
If (as alleged) the VD's were as active at throwing pizza parties as is being noted....then the circle of "friends" could be larger than anyone imagines. Remember, the purpose of VD's trips to Dad's was recruitment. It was all about finding new "friends" to share pizza's with......CODE WORD DECIPHER/OFF!!
16 posted on 03/08/2002 8:41:40 AM PST by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
I think some of us early on wondered if there might be 'swinging' friends in high places. This kind of raises those questions all over again. It's not as though this was their first day on the job. After all those years on the force, they "don't know" or "forgot" the rules? Pul-leeze.
17 posted on 03/08/2002 8:45:45 AM PST by MizSterious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: goldenstategirl
I agree with you and Markwar. I can't believe policemen could be that deliberately stupid. I hate to be the suspicious type, but.......
18 posted on 03/08/2002 8:45:46 AM PST by tippytoes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
Holy mackerel, I can't believe these two detectives did that, and both with 16 years' service. What's more unbelievable is that they're still investigating the case!! YO! SAN DIEGO,....WAKE UP!!!
19 posted on 03/08/2002 8:49:09 AM PST by silver fox two
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
That's interesting!! The article you linked to said that in order to be given amnesty, they had to perform a 2 yr community service...maybe he didn't comply with the requirments? But like you mentioned, if he didn't get caught during that dwi charge..this is kind of weird. I too wonder what it hasn't been ''explained'' could it be a bogus charge?

wrt;the 2 investigators..since nothing was gained except more media coverage, probably nothing will happen more than a slap on the wrist.

20 posted on 03/08/2002 8:50:07 AM PST by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 381 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson