[Spencer Daily Reporter nameplate] Fair ~ -2°F  
Wind Chill Advisory
Friday, Feb. 12, 2016

Sirens

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Booked Into Clay County Jail

Heather Prange, 20, Spencer

(Photo)
Heather Prange
Interference With Official Acts

Jeffery Updike, 21, Cherokee

(Photo)
Jeffery Updike
Warrant for Failure to Serve Jail Sentence

Douglas Miles, 52, Laurens

(Photo)
Douglas Miles
Operating While Intoxicated first offense

Arrests

Jason Brown, 42, of Spencer, was arrested at 12:12 a.m. Nov. 2, in the 600 block of North Grand Avenue and charged with OWI first offense.

(Photo)
Jason Brown
Todd Daughtery, 50, of Spencer, was arrested at 8:50 a.m. Nov. 2, in the 600 block of Third Avenue SE, and charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, driving while license suspended, and operation without registration.

James Knight, 22, of Spencer was arrested at 2:51 p.m. Nov. 2, in the 700 block of 11th Street SW and charged with disorderly conduct.

Zachary Hill, 33, of Spencer, was arrested at 2:06 a.m. Nov. 4, in the 1500 block of 12th Avenue West, and charged with OWI third offense and open container.

(Photo)
Zachary Hill
Danielle Tatman, 21, of Spencer, was arrested at 12:56 p.m. Nov. 4, in the 1500 block of First Avenue West on a Buena Vista County warrant.

Zachary Zeman, 18, of Spencer, was arrested at 3:02 p.m. Nov. 4, in the 900 block of 11th Street SW and charged with fifth degree theft.

Accidents

Jonathan Thomas Donovan, 24, of Milford, was northbound in the 3100-mile of 270th Avenue, on Oct. 29, in a 2004 Ford F-150, when he allegedly swerved to miss a deer on the roadway. He lost control of the vehicle, entered the west ditch, hit a field drive and rolled, come to rest on its top.

Donovan received minor bumps and bruises. Damage to the Ford was estimated at $12,000.

Corey Lee, 16, of Spencer was westbound in the 2400-mile of 340th Street, at 8:15 a.m. Nov. 1, in a Ford pickup, owned by Kent Herbold, and allegedly became distracted before entering the north ditch.

A minor passenger received non-incapacitating injuries, and the truck sustained less than $1,500 in damages.


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on spencerdailyreporter.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

As I look at the list of arrests I remembered a comment made in the article for the Clay County Sheriffs election race. You are missing some pictures of some of the people arrested. WHY? Is this fair to the others listed?

-- Posted by FindtheFacts on Tue, Nov 6, 2012, at 7:27 AM

why do they even post pics?

-- Posted by needto know on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 10:06 AM

I like to see the pics the reporter should of did this years ago. It is for the public to see

-- Posted by a colt fan on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 9:43 PM

There are other papers that will fulfill the public's "need" to know about criminal activity in the area without ruining someone's life and reputation who is innocent until proven guilty, and who has a constitutional right to due process under the law.

They do so by saying something like, "10:08 pm Saturday night: Spencer police arrested a female driver in the 400 block of Grand Avenue and arrested her with a charge of Driving While Intoxicated. She was booked into the Clay County Jail."

or

"4:30 pm Thursday: After an investigation, Spencer police arrested three males, a female and a juvenile under suspicion of methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution at the 1200 Block of Fifth Avenue East. The four adults were booked into the Clay County Jail. One of the males was held on a warrant for Polk County. The juvenile was released to a guardian."

Citizens still know if they need to look out for criminal activity in their neighborhoods, yet the innocent stay innocent until proven guilty, and those guilty of petty crimes don't have their entire reputations and lives ruined.

I know there are some parents of young adults who would strongly prefer to keep some events in their children's lives as a private family matter, as well they should, so that their young adult could move on with his or her life after they complete their restitution and consequence for their actions. This right should be extended to all, not just a powerful few.

-- Posted by AmyPeterson on Thu, Nov 8, 2012, at 9:56 AM

Amy - As much as you want it to be private, if you are arrested it is - by definition - public information.

Everyone is still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and they all have a right to due process.

-- Posted by Sony on Thu, Nov 8, 2012, at 11:28 AM

Sony, I don't consider having one's mug shot in the paper a constitutionally sound part of due process. If an employer sees that mug shot and decides to dismiss the employee on that basis, then the employee turns out to be not guilty, where is the due process? Yes, the employee, if held in jail, would probably have to have someone call his employer to say they were not available to work.

Just an example. I think people lose a lot by having their names, addresses, and photos in the paper. I think papers with a lot more class and regard for the Constitutional rights of all citizens, even the ones not like them, are the ones who print the basic information, but don't make any assumption of guilt or innocence.

In today's Sirens, there is a repeat of a charge of interference with official acts against a young lady who was already in the last issue of Sirens for the same thing. The earlier one had the photo; this one did not, but all the same -- now we're printing it twice in case someone missed it the first time?

Wow.

-- Posted by AmyPeterson on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 8:27 AM

I don't mean this to be offensive, but in this case I don't think you understand due process or the Constitution. In very short terms, the Constitution provides people safeguards against government acts -- not acts of other private citizens.

A quick example. If the government would pass a law saying you can't say bad things about the President, that is a free speech violation. If a newspaper refuses to run a negative opinion of the President, that's not a free speech violation.

In this case, everyone is getting their day in Court, they all are allowed to have an attorney, etc. They will get their due process of the law and have an opportunity to defend themselves. You might be mad at the newspaper for running the stories, but that's not a Constitutional issue.

In other words, you do not have the right of innocence until proven guilty in the "court of public opinion."

-- Posted by Sony on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 8:58 AM

Sony, you're right with everything you say in this post. My concern is that the person will be deemed guilty in the court of publication due to press coverage, and be unable to have a fair trial if/when it comes to that, and even if found not guilty will have it hanging over their heads for a long time to come.

Without an NFL career from the '70s to fall back on, for example, (OJ Simpson - and I believe the prosecution did fail in their burden in his 1990s case and see why he was found not guilty) someone could lose his or her place in the community or even job due to guilt by association, or the fact that all people will remember without referencing The SDR online is that they were involved in something bad or shady.

A private business such as the company that owns the SDR is not required to protect an individual's constitutional rights, but I do feel it's more responsible to print general information about arrests in the paper as other papers do, unless and until they are indicted by a grand jury and go on trial. Then the trial is, for better or worse, public record.

-- Posted by AmyPeterson on Sat, Nov 10, 2012, at 5:00 PM

I don't see a need for putting the photos in the paper. Why kick someone who is already down? It is also not fair that some peoples photos are included and some are not. I've never been in trouble with the law, but God forbid if anything ever did happen I wouldn't want my picture plastered in the paper for all to see. Everyone thinks it's great until it happens to you, then let's see how great it is?!

-- Posted by Hawk4Life on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 5:16 PM

You may not like it, but other people seem to. As of the time I am posting this 4 of the top 5 "Most Viewed" stories are 'Sirens'.

-- Posted by Sony on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 3:29 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: