The Unjust Treatment of Joseph Lathus by Apache County Sheriff’s Office
Introduction
Joseph Lathus, a resident of the Concholakeland Unit 6 subdivision in Apache County, has faced undue harassment and legal challenges due to actions taken by the Apache County Sheriff’s Office, specifically Deputy Thomas Pacl. Despite the installation of a non-obstructive gate designed to prevent livestock intrusion, Mr. Lathus has been unfairly targeted with citations and legal action. This article delves into the specifics of his case, highlighting the failures in proper investigation, potential biases, and the unnecessary stress imposed on a cancer patient.
Lift-Off Hinges: Ensuring Accessibility
The gate installed on Mr. Lathus’s property is designed with lift-off hinges, a feature that allows it to be easily removed without tools or significant effort. This design ensures that the gate does not create an unreasonable inconvenience or hazard, aligning with Arizona’s legal definitions of obstruction. Despite this, Deputy Thomas Pacl issued a citation for obstruction, alleging that the gate impeded access.
Demonstrated Ease of Access
Evidence shows that the gate in question does not obstruct access. On March 27th and 28th, 2023, Deputy Pacl and other officers accessed the property effortlessly by lifting the gate off its hinges. This quick access demonstrates that the gate does not impede free passage, thereby not constituting an obstruction under Arizona law.
Purpose and Necessity of the Gate
The primary purpose of the gate is to prevent cattle from entering the property—a necessary and reasonable measure in a rural setting. This necessity is crucial to maintaining the property’s integrity and ensuring the safety of its residents. The gate’s design allows for emergency services and lot owners to gain access easily, negating claims of obstruction.
Legal Precedents and Misapplication of Law
In the context of Mr. Lathus’s situation, legal precedents such as **R. v. Russell (1805)** and **Mack v. Phoenix Prosecutors Office (2014)** emphasize that an obstruction must create an unreasonable inconvenience or hazard without necessity. Mr. Lathus’s gate serves a legitimate purpose and does not impede access, aligning with these legal principles. Deputy Pacl’s citation reflects a misapplication of the law and a lack of proper judgment.
Harassment and Unnecessary Stress
Mr. Lathus, a cancer patient, has faced repeated insistence from Deputy Pacl that the gate constituted an obstruction, despite clear evidence to the contrary. This constitutes harassment and adds unnecessary stress to an already vulnerable individual. The citation appears influenced by personal motives and bias, further compounding the injustice.
Conclusion
Given the facts and legal arguments, it is clear that the gate and bike lock on the Concholakeland Unit 6 property do not constitute an obstruction under Arizona law. The actions taken by Deputy Pacl have resulted in undue stress and legal challenges for Mr. Lathus, who should not have had to endure such treatment. The necessity of the gate for preventing livestock intrusion and its non-obstructive design highlight the unfounded nature of the citation. It is imperative that justice is served by dismissing the citation and acknowledging the failures in the investigation and application of the law by the Apache County Sheriff’s Office.
