Recent events in Portsmouth have caused me some amount of concern. A police officer developed a case that he felt warranted charges against 3 Department of Social Services personnel and a private citizen effectively charging them with “elder abuse”.

The officer felt the care that was being provided by a volunteer
caretaker was inadequate and placed the life of the elderly person in
danger. A Magistrate agreed.

The cases against the Social Services personnel were nolle prosequi;
Latin for not to pursue. The Commonwealth’s Attorney did the same
with the charge against the private citizen.

Note 1: This is done before a judge hears any evidence in the case.
Note 2: The Commonwealth’s Attorney for a locale is an elected
official. Read that as politician.

There are very few instances, where a police officer can make a
warrantless arrest. In most situations, the police officer must
witness the crime being committed before he can arrest someone without a warrant issued by an officer of the court; i.e. a Magistrate (in Virginia).

In this case, the officer appeared before a Magistrate and presented
evidence to establish probable cause. The Magistrate agreed and
issued the warrants.

Definition of Probable Cause: A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992).

The Magistrate is not a law enforcement officer and is not a judge.
The Magistrate can not determine guilt or innocence. They simply
stand in as a prudent person and evaluate the facts as the officer
presents them.

The Commonwealth’s Attorney decided in this case that the Magistrate
and the police officer were incorrect in seeking and issuing the
warrants and nolle prosequi the charges before they could be heard by
a court.

While the charges can be brought back against these people, either
through another warrant or an indictment by a Grand Jury, it is
unlikely.

Why did the Commonwealth’s Attorney refuse to let our judicial system
work? He intervened in the case prior to the evidence in the case
being presented, to a judge and ultimately to a jury of peers if that
was the route being taken.

Opinion

This maneuver is politically motivated. The Commonwealth’s Attorney,
Mr. Earle Mobley, has had an axe to grind with the Portsmouth Police
Department for a while now.

He has called the department corrupt and gone on record with words
expressing disdain for the men and women of the department. Not
specific officers, but generally. He’s brought up incidents where
officers have fallen short of expectations and have been charged and
prosecuted for crimes. In my opinion, this speaks HIGHLY of the
Portsmouth Police Department.  The department does not tolerate officers
breaking the law, and they keep the bar high on expectations for the
officers.

For whatever reason, Mr. Mobley felt it was more important to save
face with another Department within the city rather than ensure the
safety of a citizen and see that justice was served and presented to
our judicial system for the system to draw its own conclusion based on
evidence. Mr. Mobley is playing favorites and making sure his bases
are covered for the next election. In this case he played judge and
jury and decided the case.

I don’t have a dog in the fight in the election of Portsmouth’s
Commonwealth’s Attorney. I don’t vote in Portsmouth. But I feel that
Portsmouth and the Commonwealth are being short changed by an elected prosecutor who fails to allow the justice system to function as it was designed.