Radley Balko posts about another arrest, forced by the hand of a potentially vicious woman who refused to obey the reasonable order of a police officer who feared for his life. And her name was Greenfield. Melissa Greenfield.
When a deputy sheriff began questioning Melissa Greenfield’s boyfriend at a Delaware County truck stop, she began recording video with her cell phone.
She never thought that she, or her phone, could be viewed as a danger as she documented the activities of public employees in a public place.
“I’m a 115-pound, 20-year-old girl wearing a cervical collar with nothing but a cell phone. I was not going to harm any officer,” Greenfield said yesterday.
As if every police hater announces their intentions beforehand. Of course this Greenfield woman says she’s harmless. They always do. But then, what about the weapon?
Sgt. Jonathan Burke wrote that he repeatedly ordered Greenfield to place the “unknown” object in her pocket and keep her hands free. When Greenfield refused, she was arrested and charged with obstructing official business and resisting arrest.
Burke wrote in his report that he feared that Greenfield could have been holding a dangerous object such as a “cell-phone gun”…
“Not knowing what the item in her hand was and having prior knowledge of all types of hidden weapons, including a cell-phone gun, I asked her several times to place it in her pocket and to keep her hands free,” Burke wrote.
Perhaps Sgt. Burke should have waited for the muzzle flash before taking reasonable precautions to protect himself? Sure, why head off a deadly threat beforehand when you can wait for the slug to approach your chest?
The Columbus Dispatch carries the rest of the defendant’s beef:
After Greenfield got her phone back, she said, the video she took of the deputies at the Flying J truck stop at I-71 and Rt. 37 on July 9 had been deleted, along with a couple of vacation videos.
Deputies did not delete any video, Davis said. A warrant would have been required to search the phone, and one was not obtained, he said.
Obviously, since there was no warrant obtained, the police couldn’t have had any connection with Greenfield’s video mishap. But then, as we are all well aware, it’s a cellphone, not a video recorder. It was never made for that purpose in the first place, and it’s really beyond the pale for this Greenfield woman to expect there to be no malfunction. It was like begging for trouble, something she apparently does on a regular basis.
In Delaware Municipal Court on July 13, Greenfield’s public defender deemed it “ridiculous” that she might have had a cell-phone gun. Greenfield, who lives in Poway, Calif., pleaded no contest to obstructing official business. She was fined $20 and released with time served: three days in jail. The resisting-arrest charge was dropped.
Naturally, her lawyer called Sgt. Burke’s very real fear for his safety “ridiculous”. After all, what would a public defender care if a cop’s life was lost to a cellphone gun? But you’ll notice how tucked away at the back of that paragraph is a little detail, that the Greenfield woman pleaded to obstructing official business? Why, was there a cellphone gun to her head? So we have another admitted criminal trying, after the fact, to smear the hard-working police officer who wants only to survive long enough to make it home for dinner. Wow, doesn’t that make him evil.
It should come as no surprise that the criminals are trying to hide the old videotaping the cops claim, while our police officers continue to work the streets to keep us safe and protect themselves from that old terrorist favorite, the cellphone gun. And naturally, this criminal is some gal named Greenfield.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
She pleaded nolo contendere, rather than guilty. It’s an important distinction on one level, because under most states’ laws (including, I believe, Ohio) that would preserve her right to sue the Sheriff and his deputy for malicious prosecution and false arrest.
Of course, on the level that concerns us, her attorney should be shamed and disgraced for letting his client plead anything except “not guilty” to such a ridiculous charge.
Ah, you failed to notice my artfully omitted word. I don’t know whether a “no contest” plea in Ohio carries any legal benefits (any Ohio lawyers around?), but she says it’s a plea of convenience, and given that she spend three days in jail, it’s not surprising that she took the quickest route home. It may have been a bail versus plea option, or just a visceral reaction to her surroundings.
And let’s hope that her lawyer didn’t urge her to cop to the “no contest,” plea, and that it was her choice to forego putting the prosecution to the test.
Sir, this could be the first time in history that a police officer was quoted admitting to ordering someone to place an object perceived to be dangerous ‘into’ their pockets. Or was Deputy Barney Fife the first?
On the same topic, David @ Injustice Everywhere has info. related to the 2 or 3 states that have somehow made it illegal to photograph police (the authoriti) in public. Thanks.
Aha! Great point about the pocket.
As a Delaware County, Ohio Lawyer the No Contest doesn’t let her sue anyone. It is little different than a guilty plea. It most often used in traffic cases, because the plea cannot be used against you in a later civil case. It is also used when your Client cannot allocute to the charge.
According to the paper and my contacts the no contest plea was entered to allow her to get out of jail and go home. If she had fought the charge she was being held on bond and would have sat in jail waiting for the trial.
So yes her lawyer probably told her to take the no contest plea to go home, versus sit in an out of state jail for a month to go to trial.
A cell-phone gun? That must be why I saw a long line at the apple store a few weeks ago.
Thanks, John. As expected. The harder question, of course, is why a judge found it necessary to impose bond she couldn’t make. Did she plan on taking her cellphone and fleeing the country? And so, discretion was exercised, in the form of a no contest plea, rather than sit on principle in a jail cell.
You guys go on keep making your cell phone jokes but cell phone guns and watch laser are a real problem. In 68 percent of the James Bond movies one of these two items have been used by terrorist. Won’t someone think of the children?
I now feel ashamed of myself. Sorry children.
The suspect was shot as the officer had a reasonable fear that the suspect had exploding buttons on his shirt.
Further, the officer noted the suspects baseball cap had a frayed brim exposing a metallic looking subsurface which the officer reasonably believed was sharpened to a razor’ keenness and as such was useful as a weapon should the suspect whip it off and fling it at the officer.
The subsequent investigation absolved the officer for the shooting, and further absolved the 75 year old deaf mute suspect of the parking violation.
John, thanks for the advice. I’d like to give you a clarification, and ask for one in return.
By “allow her to sue” I meant to say that while a guilty plea forecloses a civil suit for malicious prosecution (since, by definition, malicious prosecution means the plaintiff was not guilty) a nolo plea, where guilt is not admitted but punishment is accepted, might allow her to sue for malicious prosecution. That’s the way it works in my state (I defend merchants and sometimes police from this sort of thing) and a few others of which I’m aware, generally in the south. Of course most nolo pleas (here anyway) are entered because the criminal defendant doesn’t want to go to jail, while she also wants to preserve her right to contest fault, or raise contributory negligence or another affirmative defense with some level of credibility, in a civil case that’s sure to be coming.
So my question is, in Ohio, does a nolo plea allow the criminal defendant / future civil plaintiff to deny her actual guilt in a subsequent civil case where the main cause of action is malicious prosecution?
Obviously anyone can sue over anything, but by “allow her to sue,” what I really meant was, escape certain summary judgment in a subsequent civil action as the plaintiff.
Sorry about the clumsy phrasing.
That’s very funny.
Patrick:
A no contest plea in Ohio is an admission that the facts in the complaint are true. The Court finds you guilty. It precludes either a 1983 or malicious prosecution action. In a past life I defended a number of malicious prosecution actions and a no contest plea always resulted in summary judgment for the Defendant.
As to the facts of the case the Court set bond at $1,000.00. Ms. Greenfield made bond, but still entered the no contest plea. She has a California address and was wearing a neck brace from a prior injury. I believe she just wanted to get this behind her and get out of Delaware to never come back.
Thank you, Scott. After reading this my sarcasm detector exploded.
(That’s a Simpsons reference. Us Slackoise make a lot of them)
You got it easy. Me, I’ve gotta keep explaining that I’m no relation to Uncle Julius and Aunt Ethel.
The family resemblence is striking.
Great! So the police can only detain/frisk/arrest/imprison/taser/beat/shoot people who have cel phones. I.e. 90% of the population.
OR they can just plant a Mountain Dew bottle on your person and claim they thought it was a weapon. You don’t even have to drink Mountain Dew!
…never mind, we’re all screwed.
Yup. I’m embarrassed that it hadn’t occurred to me, until he pointed it out; that’s the sort of thing that a guy who preaches the value of pocket holsters/carry should have picked up on.