Decency: A person’s ability to conform to standards of propriety, good taste, and morality.

Many of you may have heard about the plight of Edwin McFarlane. He is the 14 year-old boy who helped a lost three year-old girl find her mother at a Burlington Coat Factory store.

But somehow the Orange County Sheriff’s Office got involved and arrested Edwin for False Imprisonment. The facts that they arrested him on are not in dispute, as the beginning and end of the entire episode was caught on Burlington Coat Factory’s surveillance video. When combined with the undisputed witness statements, here is what happened.

Edwin and his mother drove from Lake County to buy some clothes at a Burlington Coat Factory in West Orange County. After entering the store Edwin saw that the three year-old looked lost (because she was). Edwin remembered seeing three women walk outside and thinking one of them was the child’s mother, he offered to accompany her outside to reunite her with her mother.

Approximately a minute later you see the child’s mother go outside, see her daughter, and bring her back in. Edwin walks in shortly after, meets up with his mom, and they continue shopping. End of story, right?

Wrong. The Orange County Sheriff’s Office was called during the commotion. So once they arrived, they detained Edwin (who was still shopping) and then “investigated” the call by watching the surveillance video and speaking to all of the witnesses.

One would think they would commend Edwin for doing a good deed, but instead they managed to determine “there is PROBABLE CAUSE to arrest Mr. Edwin McFarlane for False Imprisonment.” (The detective’s all-cap emphasis, not mine.)

The next think Edwin knows, he is handcuffed and paraded before a swarming media looking as if he had just surrendered to the SWAT team after a 24-hour standoff. (Did I mention Edwin was 14 years old, shopping at Burlington Coat Factory with his mother?)

Very quickly it became clear to almost every major media outlet that not only was no crime committed, but that the child was likely the victim of a “mistaken arrest.” A chorus of public sentiment erupted for Orange County Sheriff Jerry L. Demings to request an Administrative Expunction on behalf of Edwin. Sheriff Demings’ response? He defends the arrest.

Enter WFTV’s crack(pot) reporter Kathi Belich and her sidekick, “legal expert” Bill Sheaffer.

The day before the first status hearing in the case, WFTV reports to have learned “Edwin McFarlane failed a lie detector test and that he’s been disciplined by the Lake County School District for sexually charged conduct, which some say should have been reported to law enforcement.” (WFTV Learns Arrested 14-Year-Old Failed Lie Detector Test.)

Now this whole report is based on an interview between Belich and Sheaffer, where Belich desperately suggests that Edwin is a budding sexual predator to Sheaffer based upon leaked school disciplinary records and an alleged failed lie detector test. (Raw Video: BILL SHEAFFER: Analysis of New Info About Arrested Teen.)

Sheaffer’s response? He launches into a defense of law enforcement by referring to this leaked information as “facts we now have learned” (his description, not mine) and validates the actions taken by the Orange County Sheriff’s Office. WFTV then quotes him as saying “we cannot dispute there was probable cause to arrest him and we wouldn’t be having this conversation if he were an adult.”

Actually Bill, we can dispute that there was probable cause. Because even if Edwin had been an adult (meaning he was old enough to drive, vote, serve in the military, and sign a legal document) the law regarding probable cause is the same.

You see, “probable cause exists when the totality of circumstances demonstrates that a prudent officer would believe a person has committed a crime.” Kuehl v. Burtis, 173 F. 3d 646 (U.S. 8th Cir. 1999). And “an officer contemplating an arrest is not free to disregard plainly exculpatory evidence.” Id. Moreover, “law enforcement officers have a duty to conduct a reasonably thorough investigation prior to arresting a suspect.” Id.

But most important to Edwin’s case, is that probable cause to arrest someone is determined based upon the information in law enforcement’s possession at the precise time the person is arrested. See Sibron v. New York, 392 US 40 (1968) (Officer could not seize someone without probable cause and justify seizure after-the-fact because heroin was ultimately found.) This means you cannot arrest someone on a hunch and then justify the arrest simply because you found incriminating evidence after the fact.

What this means in Edwin’s case is that Bill Sheaffer’s legal analysis is completely wrong. The rumors of disciplinary conduct or his failing a lie detector test have absolutely no relevancy to whether there was probable cause to arrest Edwin; because that information (if true) was not obtained until AFTER Edwin was arrested.

When the Story is More Important than the Law

And while we are on the topic of the law, I think we should discuss the leaked educational records that Belich and Sheaffer mention so gratuitously. Interestingly, all educational records in Florida, including disciplinary reports are confidential under Florida Public Records law. See F.S. 1002.221, which incorporate by reference 20 U.S.C. s. 1232g.

The only exception would be if the alleged victim made an independent report to law enforcement outside of school (since the school apparently took no action). But based upon Belich and Sheaffer’s discussion, it is clear that the disciplinary allegations were not reported to law enforcement.

So this begs the question? Why aren’t Belich and Sheaffer concerned in the least bit with this obvious violation of Florida law and intrusion into a 14 year-old’s privacy. Because all they care about is the story, 14 year-olds be dammed.

Polygraph This!

And then there is the polygraph test that Belich refers to like a Parrot on cocaine. I will begin by pointing out that it was proven that Belich was completely wrong because the Orange County Sheriff’s Office does not even use a polygraph test, they use what is called a “Voice Stress Test” which is about as reliable as “flipping a coin.” (Orlando Sentinel: Claim that 14-year-old failed lie detector is bogus.)

But even if they had used a Polygraph, Sheaffer’s assertion that a polygraph has some legal significance is ludicrous.

First and foremost, polygraph results have been inadmissible in Florida courts for the last 60 years. See McKenzie v. State, 653 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4 DCA 1995). And since we have already established that Edwin was arrested before the Voice Stress Test was administered, it would have no bearing on determining whether there was probable cause to arrest. Rather, the results were released solely to taint public perception of Edwin and (hopefully) the judge’s independent analysis of the case if it were to proceed to trial.

Second, polygraphs are not considered reliable when administered to juveniles because many experts believe that a juvenile’s lack of attention span and unfamiliarity with the concept of a crime (versus bad judgment) makes them unreliable in detecting deceptive responses in juveniles – especially in juveniles under 14. (See “Survey Regarding Testing of Juveniles by Law Enforcement.”)

Decency?

Having thoroughly examined Belich and Sheaffer’s interview and resulting story, it is clear that the two of them single handedly turned public perception of Edwin McFarlane from that of a Good Samaritan who was falsely arrested, to that of a sexual predator who prays on little girls.

And based on what evidence? Not a single police report, not one witness has come forward. Based completely off of complaints found within a 14 yerar-old’s school records. Complaints apparently so unfounded that they were not even acted upon by school administrators.

And this is interesting, because you may remember a man by the name of Roy Kronk. He is the meter reader in the Casey Anthony case who the defense team has attacked with accusations of past misconduct and supported with actual affidavits from his wife. He is the person who actually had a police report filed against him by his wife.

How did Belich and Sheaffer respond to the defense team’s actions?

Well Belich featured Sheaffer in her story lambasting the defense’s accusations and Sheaffer stated he “deemed these tactics as despicable.” And went so far as to warn the defense against repeating the “unsubstantiated allegations [] outside of court, [because] they could be sued.” (WFTV: Casey’s Defense Interviews Kronk’s Ex-Wives).

But Mr. Sheaffer was not done, apparently he was so appalled he penned a blog post titled Does Casey’s Defense Have No Sense Of Decency? and claims “people are angry that these lawyers would drag this man through the mud and find this tactic appalling in its manner and approach. One expects a vigorous defense from an attorney, but not at the expense of an innocent witness in the case.”

Well Mr. Sheaffer, I too am angry. I am angry that you and Kathi Belich have needlessly dragged Edwin McFarlane’s name through the mud based upon unsubstantiated allegations apparently found in a child’s educational records that are supposed to be confidential under Florida law.

You then allowed Kathi Belich to repeatedly imply that this child was some type of sexual predator who had committed lewd acts on other children.

Well let me warn you Mr. Sheaffer, your legal analysis is not afforded the same type of qualified protection that allegations made in court filings are. Your analysis was not only wrong; it was made with reckless disregard for a 14 year-old child’s life and reputation.

I can only hope that Edwin’s mother finds a qualified civil attorney and not only sues law enforcement for violation of her child’s civil rights, but then sues you and Belich for defamation.

In your own words Mr. Sheaffer:

As an officer of the court, have you no sense of decency? Stop these tactics. Our system of justice, its participants and the rest of the citizens observing Edwin’s case deserve better.