Reginald Scurry is a captain with the Jupiter police department. It is alleged that on June 12, 2010, Scurry committed a battery or, as supported by the facts, an aggravated battery on his spouse. It resulted in an injury to her head. All the eyewitnesses but one Jenna Mitchell, either work under Scurry, or their spouse works for Scurry. Curiously, yet expectedly, Mitchell’s account of what happened appears to have been the more factual, candid, honest, and undiluted of all. She said that Scurry yanked his wife by the wrist and dragged her across the yard. As he dragged her, she fell; and Scurry who was very angry at his wife told her “get up fucker, get up.” Jessica Tyson, another witness, yelled to Reggie to stop. The females who were up front helped Mrs. Scurry to get up. It appears that the fall resulted in laceration(s) to her head, which required stitches. Blood was later found in her car. At the hospital, Mrs. Curry, under pressure, told Nurse Haley that her husband did it, and made other several damaging statements, which I am confident, would have been admitted at trial under some theory.
The rest of the very thorough investigation shows a series of well documented obstructions, tampering, and false statements made by law enforcement personnel. With these facts, and all the others outlined in the attached PDF memo, ANY REGULAR JO would have been arrested, and likely charged with felonies.
SCURRY; January 12, 2011; Memo from Chief Assistant Elizabeth Parker to Scott Richardson and Michael McAuli...
I disagree with the opinions that the facts did not support a battery or aggravated battery charge, as I have seen hundreds of batteries charged with much less evidence than the evidence developed in this case. Batteries are regularly proven without the help of the victim.
More concerning is the pattern of tampering, which it appears, will remain unaddressed by McAuliffe, Palm Beach State Attorney. Is ignoring the problem condoning the behavior?
And still more concerning is the fact that the officers involved in this pattern of deception, dishonesty and tampering will be the same people who will continue enforcing the law, and that is a creepy thought.
Even though I disagree with Chief assistant state attorney Elizabeth Parker’s opinion that the State could not proceed with the battery charge, she at least, recommended that Scurry be charged with providing law enforcement with false information. (F.S. 837.055. Whoever knowingly and willfully gives false information to a law enforcement officer who is conducting a missing person investigation or a felony criminal investigation with the intent to mislead the officer or impede the investigation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.)
Being well aware of the inner working of state attorney’s offices, I will speculate that Ms. Parker had already been constrained in her ability to do the right thing when she wrote her memo.
Now five days later, January 17, 2010, one page memo , written by First Assistant Scott Richardson and addressed to Chief Assistant Parker emerges. It adds insult to injury.
SCURRY; January 17, 2011, Memo from First Assistant Scott Richardson to Chief Assistant Elizabeth Parker ad...
Then, Richardson writes: “Your analysis of the potential charge of perjury was detailed. However, it failed to address the critical requirement that a perjury charge must be based on a false statement under oath.” Au contraire! Ms. Parker’s memo dated January 12 reads on page 16: “…These statements were not given under oath therefore, perjury cannot be charged.” Did Richardson read Parker’s memo?
The last part of Richardson’s memo, is some kind of legal contortion which fails to justify the State’s conclusion that it would not pursue the false information charge. In doing so, Richardson also takes a low blow in belittling Ms. Parker for her failure to consider or include in her memo the legal fantasies the former dreamed up. Here they are:
1. Scurry’s statements were unrelated to his duties as a police officer. (Absolutely nothing to do with the statute.)
2. The statute Ms. Parker recommended was only recently enacted. (Is there a new Palm Beach policy requiring some kind of ripening of newly enacted statutes before they can be enforced? Please!)
3. There are no cases interpreting the statute. (The statute is quite clear, and that may be why… Many statutes are used to charge people every day, which have not been reviewed by appellate courts.)
4. The statute requires that the false statement be made during a felony investigation. Domestic battery is a misdemeanor. (And aggravated battery and tampering with evidence are felonies).
Did the Palm Beach state attorney’s office ever use the good old F.S. 843.02. ? (Resisting officer without violence to his or her person. Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.)
In conclusion, let me briefly opine. The State Attorney is an elected employee. Law enforcement is an important electoral force for the position. Sadly enough, this appears to be more important to McAuliffe than ethical behavior. The system is corrupt, and corruption must be exposed.
No comments:
Post a Comment