Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 22 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Judge denies motion to toss out statements
Schwab rules they were voluntary
Published Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Freeborn County District Court Judge Steve Schwab has denied the motions made by Brianna Broitzman’s lawyer that his client’s statements to authorities be thrown out in the case of alleged elder abuse at Good Samaritan Society of Albert Lea.
In a written order filed Aug. 12, Schwab states Broitzman’s statements were not the result of custodial interrogation and that they were voluntarily given.
He defined custodial interrogation as “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”
Broitzman, 20, faces 11 charges, ranging from fifth-degree assault, criminal abuse of a vulnerable adult, disorderly conduct and mandatory failure to report suspected abuse at the nursing home during the first part of 2008. Local authorities interviewed her about the allegations on May 6, 2008.
During Broitzman’s contested omnibus hearings in May and June, the young woman’s attorney, Larry Maus, questioned the constitutionality of his client’s statements to authorities.
Schwab said in this case, Broitzman came to the Law Enforcement Center “on her own volition and at the request of her employer.”
When she arrived, she was thanked for coming in to give a statement and was told that the interview was voluntary and that she could leave at any time. She “responded to all of the questions posed to her and never asked to leave the interview,” he continues. “Following the interview, the defendant was escorted into the waiting room and allowed to leave.”
Brianna Broitzman
Maus argued that the advisory given to his client should have been recorded.
Though the interview took place at the Law Enforcement Center, an interrogation is not custodial simply because of that, Schwab said. There is no requirement that police record noncustodial questionings.
Maus argued that police believed the defendant to be a perpetrator, and because of this the interrogation was custodial.
Schwab said an interrogation is not custodial simply because the questioned person is a suspect.
Regarding the voluntary nature of Broitzman’s statements to authorities, the judge wrote that he reviewed a variety of issues that might render a statement as involuntary, including “improper inducements to confess, promises, exploitation of religious beliefs and fear produced by threats.”
Maus showed concern with statements made by the investigating officers during the interview; however, Schwab stated, “There were no improper inducements or promises made by the investigating officers. As such, the statements were voluntary and admissible.”
Steve Schwab
The defense also argued that the second statement given to Minnesota Department of Health Investigator Jolene Bertelsen on May 15, 2008, be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree,” but Schwab also dismissed this.
He said this interview was a “civil investigation conducted independently of the criminal investigation. (Broitzman’s) lawyer was present during the entire interview and it was conducted in her attorney’s office.”
Because he ruled that the statements obtained on May 6, 2008, were voluntary and were not the result of custodial interrogation, the statements the next week were not tainted either, he stated.
Lastly, regarding the defense’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause, Schwab stated there was “sufficient evidence to believe that the defendant committed the offenses charged and as such, it is fair and reasonable to require the defendant to stand trial.”
Thus, that motion was also denied.
Charges in the case came in December after an investigation into the allegations of abuse; however, details of the allegations surfaced last August after the release of the Department of Health’s report.
It concluded four teenagers were involved in verbal, sexual and emotional abuse of 15 residents at the nursing home in Albert Lea. The residents suffered from mental degradation conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.
Co-defendant Ashton Larson, who faces 10 charges similar to Broitzman’s, will come before the court today for her contested omnibus hearing on several of the same constitutionality issues.
Freeborn County District Court schedules show that a plea hearing in Broitzman’s case will be on Friday at 3:30 p.m.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by wingo (anonymous) on August 24, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you God for prayers answered.
Posted by wingo (anonymous) on August 24, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So, Peter, what exactly are you saying? It was okay what happened to the victims at Good Sam's. Talk so everyone can understand you, maybe I'm dense, but you make no sense.
Posted by chrish (anonymous) on August 24, 2009 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Couldn't have said it better myself Wingo. Peter - if you are implying that because of their age what they did was acceptable, you are way out of line. If one of your family members had been on the receiving end, I doubt you would be singing the same tune.
Then again, I am not sure what you are saying either so maybe I am misinterpreting.
Posted by anasgrammy (anonymous) on August 24, 2009 at 2:46 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by gardenmama (anonymous) on August 24, 2009 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
peterbreitholtz - She is 20 years old and should know better. She worked at the nursing home - not her parents.
Posted by chrish (anonymous) on August 24, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Peter - please don't take offense to this but are you taking medication or using a certain substance? In other words, are you under the influence of something when you are writing your posts? If you are, that is your business - I'm not judging - just asking.
Posted by SunMan (anonymous) on August 24, 2009 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Peter... just like Broitzman did at the LEC, you both talk too much. She had the option to say nothing and that would have served her better. Personally, I'm very glad she couldn't keep her mouth shut, unlike my reaction to your type first, (possibly) think later style.
Posted by SunMan (anonymous) on August 24, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Glad to see the justice system working, kudos to those public officials putting in their best efforts.
Noticeably absent are all those GOP (Grumpy Old Posters) who predicted nothing but doom, gloom, and no-justice from our judicial system and suggested more than one way of mob-action to deal with this case.
Although this case is far from over, what's the matter, cat got your tongue? Or was this a head-slap up against your hollow, vigilante way of not-thinking?
Posted by chrish (anonymous) on August 24, 2009 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@ Peter:
Huh?
Posted by SunMan (anonymous) on August 24, 2009 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You can do whatever you want, Peter.
I just know that a dim bulb can't be identified when the switch is turned off.
Posted by snowbird1 (anonymous) on August 24, 2009 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Peterbreitholtz I have no idea who you are and really don't care but I think you just like to hear yourself speak but have to do it in these comment you make. Non of it makes much sense. Your lucky they put your writings in the comment section . Mine on this subject went unpublished. I must have said something really wrong.
Posted by thinking (anonymous) on August 24, 2009 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
peter... have yoou lost your mind!!!???? how on earth can you just say "kids are kids" to begin with she IS NOT a kid she is an adult who was completly aware of what was going on & what she was doing & saying!! the way she described what she had done to those poor residents did not show she was forced into saying anything at all. besides that has anyone looked at her picture she almost looks as though she did her hair makeup & such to look good for her picture as if she was proud of herself to have done this. If that was my granparents or parents at Good Sam I would want her to pay for all she has done sures the hell not people feeling sorry for her!!! i just can't get over the fact that you would say that! you make me just as sick as she does!!!! how do you look yourself in the mirror? these were poor vulnerable innocent people who, in my eyes,she molested !!! also how could you say that her parents had any affect on her decicions...you must not have kids because I do & kids WILL make their own decicions!!! open your eyes READ alittle & get your head out of your a**!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by wingo (anonymous) on August 24, 2009 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Peter, Maybe it would be wise to read about something before making a comment on it. Just a thought.
Posted by chrish (anonymous) on August 24, 2009 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Also, if you are going to post comments, expect feedback from other posters. Heck, I have even been asked about my sexual preference since I posted support of gay marriage. But you know what? That's ok. I choose to post, I accept the comments.
Posted by Carol_nelson (anonymous) on August 24, 2009 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am following this story with great interest because 2 relatives of mine were victims of abuse. I was so excited to see that 35 comments had been left about the substance of the story - elder abuse - until I read them and sadly realized that the comments have strayed so far from what really matters. Many sweet, elderly people were not treated with the respect that they deserved from the people who are paid to take care of them, regardless of how young the employees were, that they should have known better, etc. If these employees are guilty, then they should face the consequences.
Carol, niece of 2 victims
Posted by observer (anonymous) on August 24, 2009 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
People peter is just pushing buttons trying to plug his own site. He will do and say what ever it takes to get to you check his site. He tryed this at the albertlea.com web site as well and got pretty much shot down immediately. Maybe the trib could offer an ignore button so we don't have to read his giberish. Brianna will certainly be looking to cut a deal now !!!!!!!
Posted by OldTrojan (anonymous) on August 24, 2009 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Great news! Justice at work! Glad to hear that at least one alleged abuser is not going to receive special treatment. Let the story be told! Lay the cards on the table! If the alleged did the dirty deeds that have been reported they need to pay! At some point I hope that the nursing home is held accountable. It should have known what was happening under its own roof. Again, there is alleged to be multiple incidents by multiple alleged abusers. Do not tell me that the nursing home is a caring and wonderful place if these things were really happening there.
Posted by nationalobserver (anonymous) on August 25, 2009 at 1:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It always saddens me to see that there are still those who believe that girls will be girls and boys will be boys; That because youth and peers are involved there is no accountability; That blame be placed everywhere except where it belongs, and that justice will prevail.
As to the youthfulness of the accused: These individuals knew full well what they were doing. We teach our children from the moment they are intelligent enough to understand the word, "no", that hurting another person is not allowed.
I absolutely will not accept that peer pressure is to blame, that parents are to blame, and that these people were unable to show strength and stand up for those being hurt. This was not a one time, "oops, I shouldn't have done that, and I'm sorry, it will never happen again." Each and every person involved knew it was wrong, and made the conscious decision to continue.
I believe there absolutely should be accountability. Unfortunately, there will never be a sufficient accounting for those 15 known victims. While our officials are doing their best, the laws and statutes currently in place, are horrendously short in charges and consequences, and the victims and their families will never see a proper accounting for what was done.
Lastly, a Plea Hearing has been set, which quite typically means that whatever meager consequences would have been put in place, should there have been a full trial with a guilty verdict, will be lessened by bargaining it all down.
Are there others to blame? Of course. There is plenty of blame to go around. But until people stop passing the buck; continually saying it's not MY fault, it's THEIR fault; burying heads in the sand with comments such as, "everything was done correctly,"; admitting that somewhere they dropped the ball; long term care facilities will not improve, and laws and statutes, policy and procedure and charges and consequences will not improve.
Please understand that 15 known were hurt in unthinkable ways; that the lack of respect from anyone minimizing this situation by giving an excuse for neglectful and abusive behavior is not only disrespectful, but demeaning and dehumanizing to all victims; past, present and future.
Posted by bns2107 (anonymous) on August 25, 2009 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tribune editors I belive that all of peterbreitholtz comments need to be removed. His comments are so far off topic its not even funny. He just wants people to look at him, he just posts just to post to get attention and I believe that they need to be removed immediately.
Girls will be girls and boys will be boys, but she is not a girl she is a woman of 20 years old. I am just a bit older than she is and I would NEVER EVER think of doing this to anyone EVER. It just makes me sick. My greatgrandma was in a home for years before she died at 97 and I would want major revenge if someone had done this to her. There is NO excuse, none what so ever for this. I hope she gets what she deserves
Posted by gardenmama (anonymous) on August 25, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
peterbreitholtz - You are correct in that you should take things more seriously. When this incident was first published in the newspaper, there was a site that included the interviews, charges, etc. Perhaps you should look it up and read it - very, very sad.
bns2107 - I agree with you - the comments need to be removed. He does not know what he is talking about - just talking.
Posted by Griswold (anonymous) on August 25, 2009 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
At the end of the day all any of us have is how we treat others. We have free-will and we have conscience. Our mothers are not responsible for our behavior, neither are our employers. We have all succumbed to negative influences which affect our behavior and we deal with the consequences.
In this case, if true, the behavior crossed such boundaries. Why? Because of selfish, invincible self-centeredness. Sex offenders? Hardly. Bullies? Power seeking? absolutely. Bad behavior? Some of the worst. Other victims of their bad behavior before it became criminal? just ask their peers. Consequences? Public humiliation, shunning by friends and family, formal judiciary processes, judgment..... memory.
Yes at the end of the day what we have is how we treat others, and that is all we have control over.
Posted by wingo (anonymous) on August 25, 2009 at noon (Suggest removal)
makes it hard to read without Peters comments in there, but I agree that they should have been removed.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
The Tribune encourages healthy, respectful dialogue in the spirit of community enlightenment. It's OK to disagree, but be courteous and civil. Name-calling, vulgarity and claims of criminality are subject to removal.
(Requires free registration.)