Sen. Wendy Rogers likes voters to believe she is a commanding, in charge person. But that was not the impression a Flagstaff judge and thousands of online court observers saw Wednesday.
Rogers (R-Flagstaff) was in a Flagstaff court to argue in favor of keeping in place an Injunction Against Harassment (IAH) she was granted last month against Camryn Sanchez, a reporter for the Arizona Capitol Times. The IAH, which is a type of restraining order, barred the reporter from having any contact with Rogers and from going onto the senator’s three residential properties.
Justice of the Peace Amy Criddle granted the IAH on April 19 based only on information from Rogers. To keep the order in effect, Rogers had to prove four elements, the first being that a “reasonable person” would have felt “alarmed, annoyed, or harassed” by Sanchez’s recent unannounced daytime visits to two of Rogers’ homes in Maricopa County.
Justice of the Peace Howard Grodman, who presided over the May 10 hearing, said he believed a reasonable person who was not as “sensitive” as Rogers would not had the same reaction under the circumstances of the case.
Those circumstances involve the fact Rogers knew Sanchez began investigating the senator last month in connection with questions of whether Rogers has inappropriately claimed mileage and per diem expenses. And that was critical, as one of the four factors involves whether Sanchez’s actions involved a legitimate purpose.
“I understand that you were genuinely feeling annoyed, harassed, violated by this,” Grodman said of the visits and prior contact with Sanchez. “But it doesn’t meet the reasonable person test to me and there was a legitimate purpose. Investigative reporting is a legitimate purpose.”
Grodman also rejected suggestions by Rogers and her attorney, William Fischbach, that Sanchez somehow acted unethically by going onto a property without an invitation.
The judge noted reporters “are allowed to knock on doors,” while harking back to Rogers’ own sworn testimony that she had, as a candidate for various elected offices, knocked on “tens of thousands” of doors without first being invited.
“Unless there’s a sign that says no trespassing or unless there’s a homeowner that says you must leave, then you’re allowed to knock on the door and try to engage in conversation,” Grodman said as he issued his ruling from the bench.
Sanchez could, however, face criminal trespass charges in the future, as she was formally put on notice during the hearing that she is unwelcomed at all of Rogers’ residences.
Rogers represents Legislative District 7, which covers parts of Coconino, Gila, Navajo, and Pinal counties.
Sanchez’s attorney, Christopher Hennessy, suggested during the hearing that Rogers misrepresented the facts of her interactions with Sanchez in order to get the IAH issued last month. The attorney also pointed to critical evidence Rogers never mentioned to Criddle, including the reason Sanchez visited Rogers’ two Maricopa County homes on April 18.
According to Sanchez’s testimony, she was investigating Rogers’ continued claim that her official residence since 2015 has been an 800-square-foot mobile home installed on a small Flagstaff city lot.
Sanchez’s visits were prompted by the discovery of property records in which Rogers and her husband, Harold Kunnen, claimed to reside at a $665,000 home in Tempe. The records were filed with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office in connection with the couple’s purchase in January of a $750,000 home in Chandler.
Court evidence shows Sanchez attempted to ask Rogers about the residency issue on April 17, using the Senate’s communications director as a go-between. When she was stonewalled by Rogers, Sanchez made daytime visits to both the Tempe and Chandler properties on April 18.
The visits, which were captured by Ring video doorbells, were part of the job of a reporter investigating a story, Hennessy argued. Instead, Rogers retaliated by seeking a court order which initially asked that Sanchez be barred from the entire Senate building, even when Rogers was not there.
Hennessey argued that Rogers understood “what my client was doing” with the home visits but withheld the information from Criddle when seeking the IAH. Instead, the senator took a law intended to be a shield to protect people and used it “as a weapon” against a reporter simply doing her job, he argued.
This included, according to testimony, the fact Rogers initially asked Criddle to word the IAH in such a way that Sanchez could not be in the Senate building even when the senator was not there. In the end, Cripple ordered Sanchez to have no contact with Rogers, whether at the Senate or at the senator’s three known residences.
Grodman also quickly shut the door when Rogers’ attorney suggested during Wednesday’s hearing that Sanchez committed trespass – something which could lead to criminal charges.
“This doesn’t come close to trespassing,” the judge said.
Questions about Rogers’ claims of mileage and other per diem payments will likely continue in light of the senator’s testimony. Rogers testified Wednesday that she considers the mobile home on a Flagstaff city lot as her “primary” residence.
“One has to have two homes” when serving in the Legislature due to travel issues, Rogers testified under oath. Although she was not questioned in depth about her housing arrangement, Rogers did testify that the per diem payments based on a Flagstaff address “helps” cover her expenses even though she implied she lives much of the time “near the Capitol.”
There is a significant difference in payments for lawmakers living in Maricopa County versus those who do not.
READ MORE:
Rogers’ Use Of Court System To Keep Reporter From Doing Job Raises Questions