DURHAM — The state recently rebutted motions to dismiss charges of disorderly conduct and willful interference with a police dog filed against Aaron Rohde, a Foster’s Daily Democrat photographer.
Rohde was arrested initially on disorderly conduct shortly after taking several photographs of a police dog biting University of New Hampshire junior Alex Klotz. The incident occurred around midnight Oct. 28 when over 2,000 people filled Main Street while celebrating the Red Sox World Series championship.
The objections filed Jan. 14 in Durham District Court focus on several motions to dismiss filed by Rohde’s attorneys, Upton and Hatfield, in December. Their motions said the charge of disorderly conduct was an attempt to thwart Rohde’s right to gather news and document possible police misconduct. Also, they argued that the willful interference charge was too broad and could allow police to exercise "unfettered discretion" and arrest individuals for direct criticism of their actions or for documenting misconduct.
Durham police prosecutor Thomas C. Dunnington Jr. responded in the objections to the motions, saying Rohde was required to obey the law to the same extent that any other citizen would. Also, he argued, the statute governing willful interference with a police dog is narrowly drawn and does not leave police with "unfettered discretion."
"The defendant was creating a dangerous situation by crowding the police officer and his dog, blinding the officer and his dog with flash photography, and thereby agitating the dog after it had bitten a student in the crowd," the prosecution’s objection to the motions said.
Rohde approached Trooper Mark Hall shortly after Hall’s K-9, Kai, bit Klotz. Rohde said he asked for the trooper’s name, but Hall refused to divulge it. Klotz also said Hall refused to give his name, though Hall disputes this in his statement, saying Klotz never asked.
Hall and other members of the State Police Special Emergency Response Team were not wearing name identification that night, a violation of state law.
Rohde’s attorney’s had also filed a competing harms defense, saying even if Rohde were guilty, his actions sought to avoid harm to the students and members of the public in the future by documenting and informing them of questionable police actions. Had he not been there, the motion said, conduct on part of the police and the specific officer may have never come to light. Klotz only learned of Hall’s identity after Foster’s published Rohde’s photos of the incident and police released Hall’s name to the press.
In response, the state’s objection said Rohde could have documented events without breaking the law.
"Instead, the defendant disregarded lawful alternatives, ignored lawful orders of the trooper and interfered with a police dog. Such actions were not urgently necessary to prevent imminent harm to anyone," the prosecution’s objection said.
Also, the objections seek to rebuff several requests for more information, such as one request for any incident reports police are required to file if his or her dog bites a person. In his statement, Hall said his dog "apprehended" Klotz and other subjects throughout the night, as the subjects were too close to him.
Other requests the prosecution objects to include one for training records for both Hall and Kai, crowd control policies and procedures, and a request to depose Hall. In several cases, the requests are called "irrelevant" and as they do not apply to whether Rohde committed disorderly conduct that night.
"Simply put, even if arguendo (for the sake of argument), the police did not follow procedures concerning crowd control before the defendant confronted Trooper Hall, such a fact is not relevant to whether the defendant committed disorderly conduct and interfered with a police dog when he refused to move and began activating his flash toward the dog and his handler," the objection said.
Also, the state filed an amended charge against Rohde on Jan. 18. Initially, Rohde was charged with disorderly conduct because he refused to comply with a "lawful order of a law enforcement officer to move from a public place." In their motion to dismiss in December, Upton and Hatfield questioned whether it was a lawful order.
In order to be arrested for disorderly conduct, a person must either be about to commit a crime or committing a crime. The initial charge does not state the crime Rohde was allegedly about to commit, and the willful interference charge was added weeks after the initial charge.
The amended charge states that Rohde’s actions "made his commission of such an offense imminent" and that he was arrested for disorderly conduct "in an effort to prevent him from committing willful interference with a police dog."
No decision has been made on whether the case will be dismissed and a hearing has not yet been set.
Both charges are Class A misdemeanors and Rohde faces a combined two years in prison if convicted. His trial is set for Feb. 3 at 10:30 p.m. in Durham District Court.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.