Calumet County, Wisconsin District Attorney Ken Kratz sent a series of sexually implicit e-mails to Stephanie Van Groll while he was prosecuting her ex-boyfriend for domestic violence. Among the statements in the e-mails were:

“Are u the kind of girl that likes secret contact with an older married elected DA?”

“I know this is wrong. I am such a honest guy and straight shooter.”

“You may be the tall, young, hot nymph, but i am the prize.”

At the time of the incident Kratz was chairman of the Wisconsin Crime Victims’ Rights Board which he helped to found and which has the power to reprimand public official who mistreat crime victims. With pressure from the State Department of Justice he resigned from the Board.

Apparently he broke no rule of professional conduct in sending the e-mails. The Wisconsin Department of Justice found no criminal violation. The Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation found Kratz’s behavior to be inappropriate but also found that it did not violate any rule of professional conduct.

While he may not have broken any laws or violated any rules of professional conduct his effect upon Van Groll and domestic violence victims in general cannot be overlooked and some have called for his resignation. Kratz has refused to resign and the only sanction available to the public is to defeat him when he runs for reelection in 2012.

One problem that domestic violence victims have is their inability to trust people, particularly men and authority figures after the incident. They have trouble developing trusting relationships with lawyers and therapists. Kratz’s actions made it difficult for Van Groll to cooperate in the prosecution ¹ of her ex-boyfriend. As Van Groll said, she had three days of hell as a result of the e-mails.

The Delaware Supreme Court upheld drug and driving charges against Brandon Hill.

New Castle County, Delaware Police conducted random vehicle registration searches along Route 273. They stopped Hill and discovered that he had a suspended license, lacked proper registration and proof of insurance. Officer Torres ran Hill’s record. It came back that he may be armed and dangerous. After a back up officer arrived Hill was pat searched. They found $390 in cash ¹ and a number of cell phones. They then requested and received permission to search the vehicle, They ordered a dog to sniff the vehicle. They found two large plastic bags filled with 32 plastic baggies containing crack cocaine and six Oxycodone pills.

On appeal Hill asserted that the police had no reason to detain him after the pat search and that everything seized after the search must be suppressed. But Hill’s counsel failed to raise this issue in the trial court and therefore the appellate court will only reverse the decision if there was plain error. The Supreme Court refused to do so. It found the officers had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based upon Hill’s driving without a license, the information that he may be armed and dangerous, ² nervous fidgeting and the finding of the money and the cell phones.

Considering all of these issues the court found that the denial of the search motion was not Hill plain error and it affirmed the conviction.