1/4/2008 1:02:00 AM Protesters make feelings known at Dibor Roberts hearing in Prescott
Courtesy Barbara Litrell
As many as 30 protesters from the Verde Valley show their support on the Prescott courthouse steps for Dibor Roberts, a Cottonwood woman charged with resisting arrest and flight from an officer for failing to stop, worried about a police impersonator.
A court appearance for Dibor Roberts in Prescott Monday drew a crowd from the Verde Valley.
The case management, or scheduling, conference on the new charges against the Cottonwood woman established a three day trial April 29 and a pre-trial hearing Feb. 4 in Judge Janis Sterling's courtroom.
About 30 men and woman attended the session to protest the charges against 48-year-old Roberts, a nurse's aid at Sedona Winds assisted living center in the Village of Oak Creek.
She is charged with two felonies alleging unlawful flight from a law officer and resisting arrest.
In a demonstration of support on the courthouse steps after the court conference, the group raised signs warning that any woman could face the same treatment. One of the signs said, "Women Beware. This Could Happen to You!" Supporters believe the officer used unnecessary and excessive force, violating the Yavapai County Sheriff's Office Code of Ethics.
A Sheriff's sergeant Jeff Neunum attempted to stop Roberts late one night in July for speed as she was returning to Cottonwood from her job in the Village of Oak Creek. She was southbound on Beaver Head Flats Road when she saw the flashing lights.
Roberts is an African native, born in Senegal, but is now an American citizen married to a professional photographer. Roberts and her husband, Merrill, had recently talked about a case of police impersonation on Phoenix newscasts and he had warned her about such situations.
Though she slowed for flashing lights, she was reluctant to stop until the cars had reached a well-lighted public location. On Cornville Road, the officer pulled in front of Roberts to force her to stop. He then reportedly smashed her window as she was calling 911 to check his identity.
Judge Janis Ann Sterling earlier agreed with a defense motion to strike the original indictment, which also alleged assault of the sheriff's sergeant, and return the case to the grand jury. She ruled that a "fair and impartial presentation" was not made to the grand jury. Specifically, the prosecutor failed to tell the body about two misdemeanor statutes for failing to stop for a peace officer and resisting arrest.
Posted: Thursday, September 10, 2009
Article comment by:
Burt
You've all clearly illustrated the problem with the Police. All of us Citizens are "Criminals" first. The Police treat us like we are going to do them harm, but we must forget that they constantly break the law, legally lie and abuse us. When a cop pull up behind us, we are supposed to say, oh there is Andy Griffin from Mayberry, how nice.
Posted: Thursday, September 10, 2009
Article comment by:
Burt
You've all clearly illustrated the problem with the Police. All of us Citizens are "Criminals" first. The Police treat us like we are going to do them harm, but we must forget that they constantly break the law, legally lie and abuse us. When a cop pull up behind us, we are supposed to say, oh there is Andy Griffin from Mayberry, how nice.
Posted: Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Article comment by:
beneficii
Savataba,
Let us remember that, in all criminal cases, the defense gets the benefit of the doubt. Moving from there:
"The fact that she failed to stop, failed to acknowledge the officer when he pulled along side of her and the fact that she pressed the accelerator, running over the cop's foot, should be more than enough evidence that she intended to flee . Knowledge, recklessness, and negligence can all be proven. Which covers 3 of the 4 levels of mens rea."
Recall that the first one was explained by her already--she was trying to drive to the nearest town, because she didn't want to be pulled over in the middle of the night in the dark by someone she wasn't sure about. For the second one, "failing to acknowledge," could be explained that she had slowed down when the officer came behind her, and she continued to keep a steady course heading for town (she didn't pull wild maneuvers or anything while the officer was still following her). Where does "running over the cop's foot" come in?
"fleeing: to run away often from danger or evil.
She did not stop. Her continuing to move away from the site of first contact would, and should, be considered fleeing."
What does this mean, "site of first contact"? She slowed down when the car came behind her and flashed its lights, and kept a steady pace. From what I see, she did not try to get out of the deputy's sigh, she did not try to attack him (at least prior to officer's maneuver to force her to stop). If she made no moves or attempt to get out of the deputy's sight, but simply to drive to the next town for safety reasons, then how can she be fleeing?
"The interesting part of this case will be when the defense requests the on board video, if there is one, and all dispatch reports. That will tell us exactly how fast she was going and possibly if the officer thought she was a threat before pulling in front of her."
Yes, because I think that the deputies should give a lot more and better evidence than this (and we don't know the whole story), because otherwise I think the jury will have to acquit.
Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Article comment by:
Savataba
beneficii: "Doesn't there have to be mens rea in these cases, where they need to prove she intended to flee?"
The fact that she failed to stop, failed to acknowledge the officer when he pulled along side of her and the fact that she pressed the accelerator, running over the cop's foot, should be more than enough evidence that she intended to flee . Knowledge, recklessness, and negligence can all be proven. Which covers 3 of the 4 levels of mens rea.
"How can an officer perceive her as "fleeing" in that case?"
fleeing: to run away often from danger or evil. She did not stop. Her continuing to move away from the site of first contact would, and should, be considered fleeing.
The interesting part of this case will be when the defense requests the on board video, if there is one, and all dispatch reports. That will tell us exactly how fast she was going and possibly if the officer thought she was a threat before pulling in front of her.
Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Article comment by:
beneficii
Savataba,
I understand your perspective on this too, the only issue is, other than speeding, what crime has this woman committed? She is currently charged with fleeing police and resisting arrest. I guess the 2nd charge fits in with the first, but from every reading of the case, the 1st charge, whatever the perceptions of the officer, doesn't stick.
Doesn't there have to be mens rea in these cases, where they need to prove she intended to flee? I don't think she intended to flee the deputy. By that alone, she is not guilty.
Also, the part about acknowledging the officer; there may be things the police would want you to do to indicate that, but you may be unaware of what those things are. She did slow down to 5 under the speed limit when the deputy's car came up behind her and keep steady. How can an officer perceive her as "fleeing" in that case?
Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Article comment by:
The Pirate
{Picked this one up from lewrockwell.com}
Jack-booted THUGS!
This 'officer' is a disgrace not only to the local authorities, but the community at large and the human race as well...
Welcome to the United Socialist States of Amerika!
Posted: Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Article comment by:
Savataba
Janice, Yavapai county will do the right thing and convict her of the crimes she committed. No one has bothered to look at this from the officer's point of view.
It was dark, the car was speeding. The car failed to pull over. Thus a chase began. How was the officer to know it was a female, male, family, drug runner, or otherwise? The facts about how or where the car stopped is still sketchy, but when the car did, the officer only knew that the person(s) failed to stop.
I'm sure the officer followed procedure and asked the driver to stop the car and get out of it. And his on board camera should attest to such.
The driver refused to do such.
We have all seen those mid-day TV shows that show cops having to smash windows to pull the bad guy out of the car when he didn't want to comply.
Well it shouldn't be much of a shock that when the driver refused to stop the car and get out the officer had to act as if the driver was hostile.
I would assume pulling what ever is in the driver's hands, be it keys, cell phone, gun, knife, purse, or other object that might be used as a weapon is for the safety of the officer and possibly the safety of the suspect.
Up until that point in time the officer had no clue it was a woman drive the car.
Should we toss out the evidence of a crime when we learn of the person's race or gender? Would that mean if she was a drug runner and the cop realized such, he should ignore the fact that she didn't stop and let her be on her way?
Yavapai County is in the right and the charges should stand. Other wise it will be a beacon for criminals to use race and/or gender as an excuse to commit crimes.
Posted: Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Article comment by:
hjcreary
Amazing! How can an Arizona sherriff be so sadly mistaken, in America, today? Perhaps his office would prosecute Senator McCain for being taken prisoner back when it was not so popular! Unbelievable! How can a woman be prosecuted for following norms advanced by the Sherriff's Office for women's safety when they travel alone? Isn't there a whiff of double jeopardy here too? (This is being written in Westchester County, N. Y., where the news of this proposed trial has reached already)
Posted: Saturday, January 05, 2008
Article comment by:
Ken creary
It is not clear to me why this case was refiled after it was already dismissed. What is clear to me now is, despite it's earlier statements to the contrary, the Yavapai County Sheriff's Department now understands the concern citizens (especially women) have when being stopped by police vehicles - marked or unmarked. That is good. The YCS now even endorses a procedure similar to the one used by Mrs. Dibor Roberts in August 2007 which led to her subsequent arrest.
Perhaps there is a need to clear the air surrounding the actions of the deputy in the incident, but it seems quite peculiar that virtually the same case was refiled with no new information coming to light. It hardly seems fair to pursue the case against Dibor Roberts knowing the action she took is recommended by most law enforcement agencies in the country. It appears there may be another agenda at work in this case.
Posted: Saturday, January 05, 2008
Article comment by:
Judy Lawson
It appears to me that Mrs. Roberts was well within guidelines for personal safety as presented in earlier news publications re: the danger of officer impersonation. I know both Mr. & Mrs. Roberts through our art group membership. Ms. Roberts has always presented appropriate behavior and decorum in all our meetings! I cannot imagine that she acted with any maliciousness or aggression - that any behaviors to the contrary were misinterpreted by the officer - no doubt because he was over anxious. I believe Mrs. Roberts behavior and action was because of fright and concern for her own safety- what woman would have acted any differently? And now, if she is convicted, we must all add this terrible miscarriage of justice to our greatest of nightmares!!
Posted: Friday, January 04, 2008
Article comment by:
Janice Pendarvis
There are so many people all over this country who are watching this case. It's important for women everywhere that this case be resolved in Dibor Robert's favor. How can she be guilty of anything more than trying to stay safe? There's nothing wrong with that. Americans everywhere should support Dibor Roberts. Everyone I know here in New York who has heard about this situation agrees with me. Yavapai, the world is watching. Are you going to do the morally right thing?
