DURHAM — Police and a Foster’s Daily Democrat photographer , charged with two misdemeanors after photographing a University of New Hampshire student being bitten by a police dog, have reached a tentative resolution that will be “satisfactory” to both sides, said several people involved in the case.
Aaron Rohde was charged with disorderly conduct and later with willful interference with a police dog shortly after taking a series of photos of a state police dog biting a UNH Junior University of New Hampshire student.
The incident occurred shortly after thousands flooded Main Street Oct. 28 to celebrate the Red Sox World Series Championship.
The resolution will be filed in Durham District Court Feb. 17. Neither police nor Rohde’s attorneys would comment on the wording of the resolution or what it would determine. A hearing for motions to dismiss the case Thursday was postponed and both parties spent nearly three hours at the Durham Police Department negotiating the case.
Durham police are prosecuting the case, though a State Police official was on hand at the negotiations as was Durham Town administrator Todd Selig, who would not say why he was involved in the legal matter of a criminal case.
“Really, I’m leaving all the comments to the police so you should touch bases with them,” Selig said while leaving the police station Thursday afternoon.
Police would not say whether they plan on dropping the case against Rohde.
“We anticipate both sides will be satisfied with what is presented in court on the 17th,” said John Teague of Upton and Hatfield, representing Rohde.
State Police Executive Major Barry Hunter would not comment on the state police involvement in the case, as Durham is prosecuting it and has been prosecuting it all along, he said. Durham Police chief Dave Kurz had initially said that State Police were handling the prosecution of the case.
“In effect we were temporally working with but to some extent for them.” Hunter said about working crowd control the night of the incident.
He said the resolution is “what’s in the best interest of this matter” while leaving the negotiations on the criminal charges.
Foster’s Executive Editor Rodney G. Doherty, also in attendance at the meeting, said he was pleased with the concept of the resolution to be finalize by the attornys involved.
“Obviously,” Doherty said, “we never felt the charges were warranted. But the discussion was positive and productive.
“Sometimes conflicts offer opportunities for new ideas and solutions to problems,” Doherty said, “and I think that might be the case here.”
Rohde was arrested for disorderly conduct shortly after taking a series of photographs of State Police Trooper Mark Hall’s dog, “KAI”, biting University of New Hampshire student Alex Klotz. Klotz had claimed that Hall refused to give his name when he asked and he was unable to identify the trooper, as Hall was lacking required name identification on his uniform.
Klotz walked away from Hall after having been bitten twice, he said. Rohde said he approached Hall and also asked for his name but that Hall again refused. Rohde then started taking photographs of the trooper and his dog and was arrested after being ordered to back away.
Durham police added a charge of willful interference with a police dog a month after the initial arrest and recently amended the disorderly conduct charge to show that he was arrested initially for willful interference with a police dog. The initial charge simply stated that he failed to follow a lawful order to move from a public place. A person must be committing or about to commit a crime in order to be charged with disorderly conduct.
Hall’s name was disclosed to the press after the photos of his dog biting Klotz were published. Klotz has since filed a complaint in regard to the incident.
Attorneys for Rohde, Upton and Hatfield, filed several motions to dismiss the case, arguing the charge of disorderly conduct was an attempt to thwart Rohde’s right to gather news and document possible police misconduct. They also argued the willful interference charge was too broad and could allow police to exercise “unfettered discretion,” arresting individuals for direct criticism of police actions or for documenting misconduct.
Durham prosecutor Thomas C. Dunnington Jr. objected to the motions, arguing that Rohde was required to obey the law to the same extent as any citizen when ordered by police and that the law governing willful interference with a police dog does not give police “unfettered discretion.”
Upton and Hatfield also argued the defense of competing harms, which states that even if Rohde is guilty his actions in documenting the incident helped to avoid future harm to students and the public that night and in the future. Had he not documented the incident, the motion said, the incident would have never come to light.
Klotz said he was only able to identify the officer after the photos were published. Also, in an statement, Hall said his dog “KAI” had “apprehended” several other students that night. Initially in his statement he identified Rohde as the person being bitten by the dog, but said he realized the individual was Klotz after the story and photos on the incident were published.
Rohde’s attorney’s also requested more information on the case, such as training records for Hall and “KAI” as well as policy and procedures for crowd control. Dunnington also objected to the requests, arguing the information had no bearing on whether Rohde was committed the crime in question.
The resolution will be filed Feb. 17 in Durham District Court and the hearing on the motions to dismiss as well as the trial are both indefinitely postponed.
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.