Scottsdale restaurant owner Randon Miller just wanted to cut down on police activity in his restaurant’s parking lot. But as a new Goldwater Institute report explains, he ended up a police target, and the city court system rubber-stamped the treatment.
The latest entry in Goldwater Institute National Investigative Reporter Mark Flatten’s series of reports on political influence in city court systems, City Court: “Outrageous” Police Conduct Not a Concern for Scottsdale Judge explores how the Scottsdale police and judges beholden to the city council targeted a local business owner and effectively denied him a truly impartial hearing. In the previous reports in his City Court series, Flatten looked into city councils’ influence over courts, told the story of a Vietnam veteran who was hit with criminal charges for bogus zoning violations, and how direct election of judges sets Yuma’s city courts apart.
The parking lot outside Randon Miller’s restaurant had become a popular spot for police to conduct traffic stops—ultimately hurting business in his restaurant. After Miller lodged a series of fruitless complaints to the Scottsdale police chief and to a member of the city council, Scottsdale police targeted him for arrest in two separate operations.
In January 2013, police set up a bogus traffic stop in the restaurant parking lot in an attempt to “incite” him into losing his temper. After coming out of his restaurant and shouting to the officers that they were on private property, police tackled and arrested him. Nearly one year later, police targeted him again by staging a liquor inspection. His presence wasn’t required for the inspection; he directed authorities to his manager, attempted to leave, and was arrested again.
All told, Miller was hit with more than a dozen criminal misdemeanor charges, all of which went to Scottsdale city court. Miller’s lawyers argued that targeting him for arrest because he’d complained about the police operations violated his First Amendment rights and were “outrageous” government conduct. Judge Monte Morgan disagreed and concluded there was no police misconduct or retaliation against Miller in either case. Morgan found Miller guilty of various charges, imposing jail time, fines, surcharges, and court fees—which added up to just a fraction of his attorneys’ fees.
“Miller’s case shows the close relationship that exists between police, prosecutors and judges on city courts, which makes it hard for anyone to get an impartial hearing,” Flatten explained. “They are all city employees who work closely together. And ultimately they answer to the same bosses: the city council and not the people. Unless city courts are accountable to the public instead of political officials, they can’t be truly independent and immune to outside pressures.”