Charges Dropped in the Mount Hope PD Traffic Stop Case

This week, following public release of the footage showing the arrest of Brian Beckett by Officer Aaron Shrewsbury, of the Mount Hope WV Police Department, the prosecutor on the case filed a motion requesting dismissal of all of the charges, which was granted by the Court. The pending charges of obstruction, disorderly conduct, speeding, and reckless driving were all dismissed and Mr. Beckett was released from bond.

The prosecutor noted in his motion that, “A review of the evidence does not support prosecution of the case.”

This is great news. Many thanks to Mr. Beckett’s criminal defense attorney on the case, Jody Wooten, for a successful conclusion. This doesn’t automatically create civil liability in a federal civil rights lawsuit, but it does foreclose the defense from using the criminal charges, or any criminal conviction, against us in a civil lawsuit. It was also the right thing to do. Our investigation continues in the meantime, both in regards to this incident, as well as into the Nathan Nelson case, where my client had his jaw fractured in two places by the same police officer. Many questions still remain, and information received is still being examined and sorted out.

One of the interesting things I’ve learned is that the police department in this tiny West Virginia town apparently takes up around 50% of the town’s budget. I’ve received lots of tips from credible sources about multiple allegations of corruption surrounding this. So I’ll be taking a deep dive into these issues.

Here’s the dismissal motion and ensuing orders from the Court:

Charges Dropped Today Against This Perfectly Stable and Trustworthy Off-Duty Police Officer

What you see here is Bluefield West Virginia off duty police officer, James Mullins, on October 24, 2021 physically attacking multiple individuals, including a local business owner, his girlfriend, and multiple coworker police officers. He had just been involved in a shootout with multiple people in this parking lot. There are bullet holes in his car and shell casings laying around on the ground. At the end of the day, nobody was charged for the parking lot shootout, including the off duty officer. In fact, despite all the crimes you are about to see committed, only one misdemeanor charge of domestic violence resulted, for the video taped violent push of the officer’s girlfriend. And today, that charge was supposed to go to trial. Instead it was dismissed without prejudice. My original video on this was pretty long, but take a look at these few snippets, and let me know if you think the off duty officer appears to you to have committed any crimes.

For some reason, the special prosecutor assigned to the case, and the West Virginia state trooper assigned to investigate it, only saw fit to charge one count of domestic violence. Nothing for the shootout; nothing for physically assaulting the bar owner; nothing for physically assaulting the multiple police officers. 

Today that case was scheduled to go to trial. A conviction for domestic battery would have prevented the off duty officer from ever possessing a firearm again legally, and therefore preventing him from ever being employed as a police officer again in the future. But that didn’t happen. The charges have been dropped and he has been released from bond. He’s currently perfectly capable of now possessing a firearm and also to work as a police officer. Unbelievably, as far as I know he’s still certified to be a police officer through West Virginia’s LEPS subcommittee on law enforcement certification. When I previously asked them if they were going to take steps to investigate or decertify Officer Mullins, they responded that he was being prosecuted criminally, so no they weren’t. Oops. Government fails us once again. 

The reason given to the news media regarding the dismissal was that the victim was allegedly “uncooperative.” Okay, that’s common in domestic violence prosecutions. But why is that dispositive here, where the crime was caught on video? Do you even need the victim to testify? What if she doesn’t show up? Who cares. What is she going to show up and say, “nothing happened?” It’s on video. Is justice achieved if violent domestic abusers can persuade their victims to not cooperate? No, of course not. 

Now, to be fair, the dismissal documents did note on them that the charge was being dismissed without prejudice, meaning that they can be refiled at a later date, and also noting that “related” charges are going before a grand jury. So, it’s possible that more charges are coming, including possible felony charges, which require grand jury indictment. However, the expected date for the grand jury decision is October. West Virginia has a one year statute of limitations for misdemeanor crimes. So if they wait until after October 24, 2023, he’s in the clear and cannot be prosecuted for this, or any other misdemeanor arising from this incident. That does not prevent indictment for felony charges, which do not have a statute of limitations in West Virginia. 

Also, I know from past experience that the favorite way of prosecutors generally to coverup acts of police misconduct, especially shootings, is to present it to a secret grand jury where they return a “no true bill,” or a decision not to indict. This would clear the officer, and make it look like it wasn’t the decision of the prosecutor. In reality, we know that prosecutors are known to be able to indict ham sandwiches, controlling the flow of evidence and law to the grand jurors. 

Make sure you subscribe to follow along to see what ends up happening. It would be a travesty of justice, as well as a clear and present danger to the public, to allow this to fade away at this point. The public and politicians should look into West Virginia’s LEPS subcommittee on law enforcement certifications and find out why they haven’t decertified this police officer.

Original full video:

Also, let’s not forget about the fact that he appears to have been drinking from an open container in his car before and during this incident:

Justice Department Finds that Pennsylvania Courts Discriminated Against People with “Opioid Use Disorder”

The Disability Rights Section of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division sent a letter to the Pennsylvania State Court System, advising them that following an investigation, several of their county court systems were found to have violated federal disability discrimination laws. I just happened to come across this and hadn’t seen it in the news anywhere. But this seems important. This has been happening in West Virginia for years, and no doubt is happening across the country.

The Justice Department found that the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, through the actions of its component courts, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by prohibiting or limiting the use of disability-related medication to treat Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) by individuals under court supervision.

The Justice Department identified three specific individuals with OUD who had been discriminated against by the Northumberland and Jefferson County Courts of Common Pleas.  Two individuals alleged that the Jefferson County Court ordered all probationers to stop using their prescribed medication for OUD. A third individual alleged that the Northumberland County Court required her to stop using her prescribed OUD medication to graduate from drug court. The department’s investigation corroborated these allegations and additionally found evidence that multiple other county courts in Pennsylvania have treatment court policies that discriminate against individuals with OUD.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA): “OUD medication gives people the time and ability to make necessary life changes associated with long-term remission and recovery,” “minimizes cravings and withdrawal symptoms,” and “lets people better manage other aspects of their life, such as parenting, attending school, or working.” 

Methadone, naltrexone, and buprenorphine (including brand names Subutex and Suboxone) are medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat OUD. According to the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), methadone and buprenorphine help diminish the effects of physical dependency on opioids, such as withdrawal symptoms and cravings, by activating the same opioid receptors in the brain targeted by prescription or illicit opioids without producing euphoria.

Here’s the full letter:

I have to wonder what other applications or consequences this may have going forward?

Brooke County Man Arrested in his Yard for Cursing – Lawsuit Incoming

Brooke County, West Virginia Sheriff’s Department deputies were called out to a neighbor’s complaint about dogs getting out of their yard. When they approached and talked to the dog’s owner, on private property, they were asked to leave. Some swear words were utilized by the dog’s owner. The cops then protect and serve the man, as shown and described in the video.

The body cam footage features Brooke County Deputy Niles Cline (not Crane, lol). The other deputy, Shane Logston’s body cam footage didn’t survive, because the “battery was dead.” The criminal charges were dismissed with prejudice through the assistance of Attorney Alex Risovich, who in turn brought the case to me. We will now seek justice through a civil lawsuit in federal court, for the violation of this man’s federally protected civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Lackluster’s video on the same incident:

Rittenhouse Trial Closing Arguments Post-Trial Analysis

Closing arguments today in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. Post-trial legal analysis, Live at 7pm ET. Also, the firearms possession count – count 6 – was dismissed by the judge prior to closing arguments beginning. The evidence is closed and attorneys for each side gets to make their arguments to the jury. Here’s my take…. Join me Live at 7:00 p.m. ET. Freedom is Scary – Ep. 83.

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Day 8 Analysis

Some armchair legal quarterbacking following day 8 of the Kyle Rittenhouse self defense trial in Wisconsin. This is an important firearms related self defense case which illustrates the importance of attorney skill and tactics in jury trial advocacy. There’s been some surprising events so far in the trial, including the testimony of the defendant himself today. In fact, something shocking happened during Kyle’s cross examination which may itself be a constitutional violation. Join me to watch some of it and discuss…… Freedom is Scary Episode 80:

How to talk to police without a lawyer

Should someone talk to the police without a lawyer present?

  1. The criminal justice system overwhelmingly depends on people to unwittingly incriminate themselves for convictions, which they do.
  2. If a criminal suspect invokes the right to counsel, or the right to remain silent, they generally don’t incriminate themselves.
  3. A criminal suspect need only request a lawyer for all interrogation to stop. They DO NOT need to already have a lawyer – just to ask for one. Just a lawyer in general. These are magic words which stops an interrogation.

Custodial interrogation cannot take place with Miranda warnings and a waiver of the rights to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer present before and during questioning.

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

When are Miranda Warnings required to be read? Miranda warnings are required to be given when a suspect is in custody and being interrogated OR when a suspect believes that he is in custody and being interrogated. “Interrogation” includes not only express questioning but also its “functional equivalent,” namely, any conduct “that the police should know [is] reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.” When is someone in custody? That depends. Were they asked to exit a vehicle during a stop? Were guns drawn? Was force used? Were they placed in handcuffs? Were they told they weren’t free to leave?

A suspect can waive Miranda rights, but cannot waive the reading of Miranda warnings by law enforcement. Miranda warnings may need to be read again by police if too much time has elapsed in between the reading of the warnings and the subsequent interrogation.

When are Miranda Warnings NOT required to be given?

Officers can conduct general on-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime or other general fact finding without Miranda warnings. Officers can ask about the guilt of others/third parties without giving Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings don’t apply to voluntary statements made prior to interrogation. Miranda warnings don’t apply to statements of guilt made to persons other than law enforcement. Miranda warnings don’t apply if the person interrogated is not in custody.

Miranda warnings are generally not required at traffic stops. See Pennsylvania v. Bruder , 488 U.S. 9, 109 S. Ct. 205 (1988). In this case, the Supreme Court re-emphasized that ordinary traffic stops do not involve custody for the purposes of Miranda, and therefore, police do not need to inform those stopped for traffic violations of their Miranda rights unless taken into custody. Officers can generally ask any questions they want to suspects who are not in custody. See Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 333 (2009). “An officer’s inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop . . . do not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure, so long as those inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop.”

What about silence? Post-arrest silence by a defendant after Miranda warnings have been given is inadmissible against the defendant. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976). If a defendant gives a statement, however, his silence as to other matters may be admitted. Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404 (1980); see United States v. Mitchell, 558 F.2d 1332, 1334–35 (8th Cir. 1977). A defendant’s pre-arrest silence may be admitted, Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (1980) as well as silence after arrest but prior to warnings. Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603 (1982).

When can an officer not interrogate a suspect at all?

An officer may not interrogate if the suspect has requested a lawyer.

An officer may not interrogate if the suspect has in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning stated that he wishes to remain silent.

What sort of behavior by officers may render a confession invalid in court?

A confession MAY be invalid if obtained as the result of withholding food, drink or bathroom access. A confession may be invalid if obtained following threats, coercing or tricking a suspect into waiving Miranda Rights. A confession may be invalid if the interrogation is too long; or, If physical force is used; or, If promises to help a suspect if he or she confesses; or, If the officer misrepresents the body of evidence collected against the suspect