Monday, November 19, 2012
After 39 months Ex-SBPD Officer Brian Sawicki Gets Only 10 Days in Lewd-Conduct Case. Did He Use his Police Computer to View Child Pornography, That Question Was Never Answered.
Since 2006 I have shared my many concerns with the Santa Barbara District Attorneys office and the inconsistencies in how the law is applied when prosecuting their criminal cases. In regards to this case against former
police officer Brian Sawicki I just do not understand why it took almost 39
months to come to a conclusion. Are you aware that on average 83% of all California
Superior Courts misdemeanor cases filed are concluded with in 120 days? Based
on that data it took the Santa Barbara Santa Barbara district attorneys
office almost ten times longer than the rest of , WHY? California
That data below can be found on page 18 of this link @
Criminal Cases. MISDEMEANORS: Case processing time for misdemeanors: 63% in 30 days, 79% in 90 days, and 83% in 120 days.)
Now I don’t want to beat this story to death but I just feel the public has been duped again because there were other serious issues besides his alleged lewd acts that seemed to have been pushed under the rug. The issue of whether or not Mr. Sawicki had used his police computer to view child pornography or who did was never answered. So if it was not former officer Sawicki who was it and what has happen to that officer? The fact that it is even possible for a law enforcement offer to watch child porn at work without some type of alert being forwarded to management really bothers me.
To make matters worse were you aware that the
sheriff’s sergeant charged with overseeing the Sawicki investigation has also
been accused of viewing child pornography on his own computer. I wish I was
kidding but I am not. Here is the link to the April 14th 2012 article
I found @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47048702/ns/local_news-santa_maria_ca/t/defense-says-porn-was-not-former-officers/ or you may go to Santa
Maria Times @ (http://santamariatimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/defense-says-porn-was-not-former-officer-s/article_8ceb886e-85f5-11e1-b0d0-0019bb2963f4.html Santa Barbara County
S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!
police officer convicted
of destroying evidence and resisting arrest in a lewd-conduct case was
sentenced Friday to 10 days in jail. Brian Kenneth Sawicki also was fined
$2,000 and placed on three years probation by Santa Barbara Superior Court
Judge Kay Kuns during the hearing in Santa
Barbara . Sawicki will be allowed to apply to the
Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program (SWAP), which involves being assigned to
work sites throughout the county in lieu of spending time behind bars. Santa
Last week, a Santa Maria jury returned a mixed verdict on charges stemming from a 2009 incident during which Sawicki, 36, allegedly exposed himself to two teenage girls — and engaged in unlawful electronic peeping —at Refugio State Beach. Sawicki was acquitted of three misdemeanor charges — annoying or molesting a child, lewd conduct in public, and unlawful electronic peeping. He was convicted of misdemeanor counts of destroying evidence and resisting arrest.
The case centered on the events of Aug. 10, 2009, when two 13-year-old girls told authorities they thought a man was following them along a trail on a secluded area of Refugio beach. They testified that they later saw him naked and masturbating on the beach as they approached. The girls alerted an on-duty state park ranger, who tried to approach Sawicki before he allegedly ran away. He was later caught and arrested. After hearing his sentence Friday, Sawicki sat emotionless, sporting a trial-long attitude that Kuns said had prompted her to choose the harsher end of punishment.
Sawicki, who resigned after his arrest, faced a maximum of two years in jail and $2,000 in fines for the two charges he was convicted of. Kuns sided with all of Deputy District Attorney Brook Gerard’s sentencing suggestions, even saying that she would’ve granted further punishment if the prosecution had asked for it. Kuns granted stay-away orders that stipulate Sawicki cannot have contact with the two teenage girls or their families. Sawicki must also stay away from
, and was ordered to
turn over his stealth camera, digital camera and high-tech binoculars. Refugio
While Sawicki’s attorney, Michael Scott, conceded that Sawicki did delete an erotic video from his camera and ran from a park ranger, he said Sawicki has already been punished.
“This case had nothing to do with interest in underage girls,” Scott said. “He’s basically been on three years probation since this began. He’ll never work in law enforcement again. His savings are pretty much gone. “What did he do? He made a mistake. It was a three-minute pursuit; nobody was harmed. He lost a great deal because of his decision to not stop for the ranger.” Scott said Sawicki had no intention of contacting the girls, but he questioned whether he should have to turn over his electronic devices. Gerard countered that Sawicki was at a beach that park rangers testified is an area where families often go. “The defendant resigning his position is not a punishment,” she added. Kuns agreed, noting that she was also considering Sawicki’s actions in charges that he was acquitted of, as allowed by law. “The court finds that there were some aggravating circumstances,” Kuns said. “The notion and circumstance of the conduct in this case were disturbing to say the least. The conduct itself was disturbing.”
The judge also said she didn’t believe Sawicki’s testimony was completely truthful, and was upset by the fact that Sawicki so willingly evaded an officer. “I wasn’t very impressed with Mr. Sawicki’s attitude at times,” Kuns said. “Mr. Sawicki was a police officer. He was going up a hill with a backpack… He would’ve been gone. There was no change in his attitude… I think if Mr. Sawicki wants to sunbath, he’ll have to find a beach much further south or north.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47048702/ns/local_news-santa_maria_ca/t/defense-says-porn-was-not-former-officers/ or you may go to Santa Maria Times @ http://santamariatimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/defense-says-porn-was-not-former-officer-s/article_8ceb886e-85f5-11e1-b0d0-0019bb2963f4.html
Defense says child porn was not former
police officer Brian Sawicki’s. Santa Barbara
Someone other than Brian Sawicki was using his computer to view teen pornography, his attorney contends, because dispatch records show Sawicki, then a
police officer, was out responding to service calls at the time. The records,
which defense attorney Michael Scott, said recently surfaced, prompted Scott to
file a motion asking Superior Court Judge Kay Kuns to reconsider a ruling
denying the defense’s motion to exclude the pornography sites accessed on
Sawicki’s computer from evidence. Santa Barbara
Sawicki, 36, has been charged with five misdemeanors after he allegedly committed lewd acts in front of two teenage girls on Aug. 10, 2009 at
while he was off duty from the Santa Barbara Police Department. Refugio State Beach
On Friday, Kuns asked Scott during a hearing in
to find out whether Sawicki was
ever off duty and possibly home on occasions the teen pornography websites were
visited on his desktop computer. Kuns then put off ruling on the defense’s
motion until a later date. Santa Maria
The prosecution opposes the defense motion, and Deputy District Attorney Brooke Gerard argued in court Friday that Sawicki could have stopped at home during his work shift to visit the websites. “It wouldn’t be unheard of for the defendant, who lives in
to go by his house,” she added Santa Barbara
Scott countered that the person accessing the sites during Sawicki’s shifts spent hours browsing them under Sawicki’s screen name, and couldn’t have been Sawicki. Also addressed on Friday was another motion filed by Scott, this one sealed for privacy, asking Kuns to let the jury in Sawicki’s upcoming trial know that the sheriff’s sergeant charged with overseeing the Sawicki investigation has also been accused of viewing child pornography on his own computer. Kuns denied the defense motion on the grounds that the sergeant was not accused of tampering with the Sawicki investigation. “If he was a primary witness, this might be another story entirely,” the judge added.
That sergeant was not criminally charged, and his name has not been made public. According to Scott’s statements in court Friday, the person has since left the Sheriff’s Department “under a cloud” of accusations. “This individual was very integral in this investigation,” the attorney added. Gerard argued before Kuns’ ruling that the sergeant in question had no time to interfere with the initial investigation at the scene of Sawicki’s alleged crimes on Aug. 10, 2009 before others arrived.
“As a sex crimes prosecutor, it makes me desperately sad to say there are hundreds of thousands of people out there looking at this kind of material,” Gerard said. Sawicki, who is free on bail, is charged with annoying or molesting a child, lewd conduct in a public place, unlawful electronic peeping, destroying evidence and resisting, and obstructing or delaying a peace officer. He no longer works for the Santa Barbara Police Department.
's Department has reported that
two teen girls were walking along a trail near the beach around 3:20 p.m. on
Aug. 10, 2009 when they noticed a man walking behind them The girls
walked back toward the campground, and saw the man lying down and masturbating,
according to sheriff’s officials. They ran to the campground and alerted a
state park ranger. While being interviewed, they saw the man and pointed him
out to the ranger. Seeing the ranger approaching, Sawicki allegedly took off
running. After a foot chase, he was caught and arrested. county Sheriff
Sawicki is due back in court on May 3, at which time motions in the case will be addressed. He is slated to start trial on May 30.
Malicious Prosecution is a Common Practice by the
District Attorneys Office! Santa Barbara County
S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!
Posted by Magic at 7:34 PM