The Malicious Citation Against Joseph Lathus: A Case of Misuse of Authority
Background and Context
On March 27, 2023, Joseph Lathus was cited by the Apache County Sheriff’s Office for allegedly obstructing a public thoroughfare by locking a gate on County Road N3543. The subsequent events and the manner in which the citation was issued raise serious questions about the fairness and legality of the actions taken by the Sheriff’s Office, the prosecution, and the judicial authorities involved.
Instant Access by Sheriff’s Deputies
The incident began when Christopher McHenry reported that the road leading to his cabin was fenced off and locked. Deputies arrived at the scene at around 5:00 PM and, within minutes, lifted the gate off its hinges to gain entry. The simplicity and speed with which they accessed the property underscored that the gate did not pose any significant obstruction. This act was repeated the following day, further demonstrating the ease of access.
Legal Precedents and Statutes
In the case of **Mack v. Phoenix City Prosecutors Office, Real Party in Interest/Appellee (2014)**, the Court of Appeals of Arizona emphasized that for an act to constitute obstruction under Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2906, it must create an unreasonable inconvenience or hazard. The court specifically noted:
- Mere Inconvenience Insufficient: Mere inconvenience, which does not substantially hinder or pose a danger, does not typically qualify as obstruction under the statute.
- Lack of Hazard: There must be evidence that the alleged obstruction creates a hazard. In Mr. Lathus’s case, there was no such evidence. The deputies were able to remove the gates without difficulty or danger, and there were no reports of accidents or injuries caused by the gates.
This legal precedent directly supports Mr. Lathus's position. The actions of the deputies, who easily lifted the gates off their hinges, clearly demonstrate that the gates did not create an unreasonable inconvenience or hazard. Therefore, the citation issued for obstruction was unfounded.
Detailed Chronology and Evidence
- **March 27, 2023:** Deputies arrived at approximately 5:00 PM and lifted the gate off its hinges within minutes.
- **March 28, 2023:** Deputies returned, found the gate locked again, and once more lifted it off its hinges to gain access.
- **Narrative Reports:** The reports from Deputies Thomas Pacl and others clearly state that they lifted the gate without any significant difficulty.
Given this context, the decision to issue a citation appears not only unnecessary but also malicious. The actions of the Sheriff's Office, along with the prosecution's decision to pursue charges, and the judicial authority's handling of the case, suggest a gross misuse of authority.
#### The Unreasonable Citation
The issuance of the citation despite clear evidence of non-obstruction raises critical questions:
- **Why was a citation issued when deputies themselves demonstrated easy access?**
- **How does this align with the legal standards set forth in Mack v. Phoenix City Prosecutors Office?**
- **What was the true intention behind pursuing charges against Mr. Lathus, a cancer patient, for an act that did not meet the legal definition of obstruction?**
The case highlights a potential pattern of targeting and misuse of authority by local law enforcement and judicial entities. The deputies' ability to access the property within minutes and the absence of any substantial inconvenience or hazard should have been sufficient grounds to dismiss the citation. Instead, the prosecution and the judiciary's continued pursuit of the case against Mr. Lathus reveals a troubling disregard for legal standards and fairness.
#### Conclusion
The case against Joseph Lathus exemplifies a misuse of authority and a failure to adhere to established legal standards. The actions of the Apache County Sheriff's Office, the prosecution led by Brett Rigg, and the judicial oversight by Judge Butch Gunnels at the Round Valley Justice Court reflect a disturbing pattern of behavior that undermines the principles of justice and fairness. This case should serve as a reminder of the importance of judicial prudence and the need to ensure that legal actions are based on substantial evidence and adherence to statutory definitions.
