Devinney arrested after welfare check

    POCATELLO — The average criminal defense attorney doesn’t typically talk about his client or the alleged case against that client, and Bannock County Public Defender Randy Schulthies is no exception, especially if that case is still being adjudicated.

    In the case of Manuel Devinney, however, Schulthies, did speak out last week about the charge his client is facing.

    Devinney came to the attention of police at about 12:30 a.m. on March 31 when dispatchers received a call asking for a welfare check on a man who reportedly appeared “highly intoxicated,” had just left the Denny’s restaurant and was walking toward the Walmart in Chubbuck, according to court documents.

    The Chubbuck police officer who responded to the call made contact with Devinney, as yet unidentified, and began talking with him. According to the court filing, Devinney was able to tell the officer what city he was in, where he was at in the city — the Walmart parking lot — and where he lived.

    It’s at this point where Schulthies believes the call should have ended.

    “Your caretaking function at that point was done,” Schulthies said of what he believes are the limitations of a welfare check.

    But the officer then proceeds to ask Devinney his name, something Schulthies says the officer shouldn’t have done for one simple reason, he already knew who the person was.

    Devinney does have a criminal history. In fact, he has a relatively long criminal history that includes a felony aggravated battery conviction in 2012, and several misdemeanors. Among those misdemeanors are a handful of resisting and obstructing and battery convictions. He also has numerous violations of a no-contact order from a decade ago.

    Another reason he didn’t need to ask for identification, Schulthies said, is that the officer in question, during Devinney’s preliminary hearing on April 30, said he recognized Devinney when first making contact with him.

    “He didn’t need to ask him because he already knew who he was,” Schulthies said. “Everything went down hill from there.”

    According to Schulthies, when Devinney was asked his name, he said “Manny,” a nickname for Manuel. According to the court file, the officer, Shane Manning, heard his last name being uttered from Devinney.

    That’s when Manning asked for identification from Devinney. At that point, Devinney allegedly pulled a 24-ounce can of beer from his back pocket, which he then began pouring out, is written in the court filing.

    Devinney pulled out his wallet looking for an ID, but couldn’t find one. He did find a business card that he gave to Manning, who in turn asked if the name on the card was his. Devinney allegedly said yes, but the name was not his.

    Manning said in the court filing that he waited for backup before confronting Devinney about the false name because in prior encounters with the defendant he has known him to be confrontational with officers. In that report he also says that he explained to Devinney that because he lived so far away, he couldn’t have him walking the streets in what he believed was an intoxicated state.

    Once his backup arrived, Manning and that backup officer then attempted to escort Devinney to the back of Manning’s patrol car, but they allege Devinney stiffened up and would not comply with orders to get into the back of the vehicle.

    The other officer, in the court documents, says he attempted a couple of submission moves using his knee, but was unsuccessful. That officer eventually used his Taser on Devinney, using a technique called a “drive stun,” which involves pressing the Taser against the individual rather than deploying its probes.

    Devinney was now in the back of the car. But he would not stay there. The court files show that officers had to removed Devinney because he allegedly remained combative, kicking the inside of the cruiser, including a window. The officers were looking to restrain Devinney’s feet to stop the alleged behavior.

    When forcing Devinney out of the car, however, he fell to the ground and was injured. When returning  Devinney to the back seat of the cruiser, he allegedly spit on the arm of the other officer, which constitutes battery on a law enforcement officer, a felony with which Devinney has charged.

    It’s a charge he pleaded not guilty to a week ago and for which he is set to go to trial on Aug. 13.

    “This got blown out of proportion because of police behavior and not that of Mr. Devinney,” Schulthies said. “Under welfare check duties, you go over and find out if the person is OK, make sure he is not a harm to himself or others and that is it.”

    Even more, Schulthies says further detainment of Devinney beyond what he calls the restrictions of the welfare check may be a violation of Devinney’s Constitutional rights protecting him against detention by officers without cause.

    Pocatello police Capt. Rick Capell, head of the department’s traffic division, doesn’t see the same restrictions on the welfare check. Capell, who is not familiar with the Devinney situation and was not commenting on that case or responding to Schulthies’ position, spoke about welfare checks in general.

    He said there is not standard on welfare checks, that they can consist of any number of different situations.

    “Sometimes a welfare check is, ‘I haven’t seen this guy is he sick?’ Sometimes it’s checking on someone who is threatening to harm himself, sometimes its checking on kids that a spouse thinks are neglected,” Capell said. “Once you get out there, then you have to deal with what you’ve got. If that person changes it into a criminal situation, we deal with that situation.”

    Devinney is also facing charges of providing false information to an officer, resisting and obstructing and consuming alcohol in a public place, all misdemeanors, stemming from that March 30 incident.