mike priest not guilty

I know a lot of you dont want your opinion contradicted by facts, so I will try to keep this short. It doesnt matter if he was 10-8 or 10-7. The charge has nothing to do with being on duty. The charge is that he used his position of authority in order to get sex, and that he committed a sexual battery while in control of the victim. And please notice that it doesnt say anywhere in the statute about being on duty. It is similar to Miranda warnings... it doesnt matter if the person is actually in custody, it only matters IF THEY THINK they are in custody. So if the victim in this case THOUGHT, BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES, that he was on duty, then he was. He was in uniform, in his marked car. That is "on duty" as far as the public is concerned.

Statute reads as follows just for those of you who dont believe the above.

794.011.4g

A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older without that person’s consent, under any of the following circumstances, commits a felony of the first degree
(g)?When the offender is a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional probation officer as defined by s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9), who is certified under the provisions of s. 943.1395 or is an elected official exempt from such certification by virtue of s. 943.253, or any other person in a position of control or authority in a probation, community control, controlled release, detention, custodial, or similar setting, and such officer, official, or person is acting in such a manner as to lead the victim to reasonably believe that the offender is in a position of control or authority as an agent or employee of government.

So, the next time you come home and want some from your wife you may want to think about that. She could pull the same stunt. Make sure you take off the uniform, lock the gun at the neighbor's house, hide the cruiser and get a signed consent form before you get it on. Remember, just the uniform, gun, and cruiser car would say "position of control or authority".

Last poster, you are just plain stupid. Hope I don't work with you.

I know a lot of you dont want your opinion contradicted by facts, so I will try to keep this short. It doesnt matter if he was 10-8 or 10-7. The charge has nothing to do with being on duty. The charge is that he used his position of authority in order to get sex, and that he committed a sexual battery while in control of the victim. And please notice that it doesnt say anywhere in the statute about being on duty. It is similar to Miranda warnings... it doesnt matter if the person is actually in custody, it only matters IF THEY THINK they are in custody. So if the victim in this case THOUGHT, BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES, that he was on duty, then he was. He was in uniform, in his marked car. That is "on duty" as far as the public is concerned.

Statute reads as follows just for those of you who dont believe the above.

794.011.4g

A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older without that person’s consent, under any of the following circumstances, commits a felony of the first degree
(g)?When the offender is a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional probation officer as defined by s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9), who is certified under the provisions of s. 943.1395 or is an elected official exempt from such certification by virtue of s. 943.253, or any other person in a position of control or authority in a probation, community control, controlled release, detention, custodial, or similar setting, and such officer, official, or person is acting in such a manner as to lead the victim to reasonably believe that the offender is in a position of control or authority as an agent or employee of government.

So, the next time you come home and want some from your wife you may want to think about that. She could pull the same stunt. Make sure you take off the uniform, lock the gun at the neighbor's house, hide the cruiser and get a signed consent form before you get it on. Remember, just the uniform, gun, and cruiser car would say "position of control or authority".

Evidently you are not married, if you were you would realize that ,gun badge , cruiser or uniform makes no difference to her she is the one in the position of authority

While we are on the subject, was there not a similar situation occur last year of a more clear cut incident involving a probation officer? was there a disposition to that one?
In ref to Mr priest situation(whom I don't know)......this type of thing has probably occurred before , but w/o the complainant~! Just listening to people talking.....more of a boasting....and knowing how they were...I am sure that it did~! We have a lot of power at our disposal...hell a judge cannot even arrest someone cept for contempt...he can of course sign a warrant,but that is the system of check and balances....We have to be held to a higher standard and everytime someone "Discolors it (for lack of a better term)" it lessens it for all~! nuff said just my 2 cents...take care all and take care of each other~!

3:48 PM, Jul. 28, 2011

An Escambia County deputy remains on leave without pay from his job after a jury found him not guilty Wednesday of bribery and two counts of sexual battery.

Michael Priest was arrested in April. A woman accused Priest of forcing her to perform sex acts in a a patrol car in March after he offered to give her a ride home from Pensacola Beach.

Expect the Sheriff to terminate Priest following the completion of the IA investigation.

Terminate? You've got to be kidding yourself. Morgan doesn't have a leg to stand on now because Priest was found not guilty so the sheriff will probably assign him to the open slot in SRO.

[Deputy Dooley]

First, lets be clear about the verdict. Being found not guilty does not mean he was found innocent.... just that it wasn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, not all of the information is presented at trial due to rules of evidence. We all know these things and we have all reminded ourselves of this when somebody that we knew was guilty got off at trial. No different here.

Second, even though the criminal portion was found not guilty, the IA will show what policy and ethics violations occurred. If any are sustained, he would still face disciplinary action, which could include termination.

More to come, Mike Priest's DRB is Monday!

[Deputy Dooley]

Who is on the DRB?

Another example of the patrol side being unable to police their own. This guy should have been fired.