NOT CHARGED

By Kevin Hogencamp

Albany City Attorney Nathan Davis broke the law earlier this year when he brought a loaded gun into the Albany police station and left it in his desk drawer.

City Manager Alfred Lott says Davis is dangerous, disturbed and should be fired.

After hearing from Lott, the Albany City Commission suspended Davis for three days.

So why wasn’t Davis charged with the crime he committed.

The person who would be responsible for prosecuting Davis said it’s because the commission opted not to prosecute Davis. But he says that Davis still could be charged.

“Under Georgia law, any citizen may appear and present to a magistrate, under oath, matters that from their personal observation (or) knowledge indicate that probably cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person presented is involved,” said District Attorney Greg Edwards, responding to an Albany Journal inquiry. “The magistrate could either issue a criminal warrant immediately after hearing the testimony or could set a ‘warrant hearing’ requiring that relevant parties appear before a criminal warrant (is issued).”

And no – not a City Commission member or even former Assistant City Attorney Nathan Davis, who discovered the gun and says she anonymously reported its whereabouts out of fear for her safety – only to be have her identity revealed by city human resources department staffers.

No one has filed a complaint with the District Attorney’s Office, either, Edwards said.

“I have not been presented with any criminal complaint, citation, or warrant regarding this issue by any parties having authority to do so and the matter was not presented to a grand jury,” Edwards said. “To my understanding an administrative consequence was applied in this matter.”

Asked to provide further details regarding the circumstances under which Davis could be charged and prosecuted, and Edwards’ potential role in the matter, Edwards provided this elaboration via e-mail.

In regard to a citizen presenting to the grand jury, there would need to be a ‘special presentment’ indictment prepared by the district attorney and offered in conjunction with the sworn testimony of the citizen to the grand jury before a criminal action would proceed. If the grand jury hears the testimony of the citizen and returns a ‘true bill’ of the special presentment, then the court would issue a bench warrant against the person indicted and the matter would carry on through the criminal process.

“It would be my opinion that City Commission and/or the Albany Police Department have jurisdiction over the Law Enforcement Center building and in this instance they have jurisdiction and standing to pursue a criminal action involving the LEC. While the building is in fact public property, it would be my opinion that an individual citizen would not have standing to bring a criminal complaint about particular infractions involving the real or physical property of the LEC per se whereas it would be my opinion that those parties noted as having jurisdiction may also have authority to permit certain conduct within or involving the real and physical property of the LEC.

“While the district attorney has authority to independently bring criminal prosecutions, I would not be inclined to do so in this particular instance because:

(1) Those parties that have jurisdiction and authority over the LEC are competent to ascertain if a crime has been committed in this instance and they have not presented the situation to me as such;

(2) As I presently understand the situation, it was not clear that there was a particular administrative policy regarding whether Mr. Davis, as the city attorney, could not have a firearm.  Moreover, as far as a criminal prosecution is concerned, the law does provide exceptions to allow several categories of persons to have firearms in public buildings.  It is my understanding that Mr. Davis does serve as a solicitor/prosecutor for City Court in his service as city attorney; thus in short, if criminally charged, he could arguably present that he is entitled to an exemption from criminal prosecution under applicable law; see OCGA 16-11-127, 16-11-127.1;

(3) Even if Mr. Davis was not exempt as a matter of law and could be found guilty, it is my opinion that the infraction is not a matter of “moral turpitude” as generally contemplated by law and I do not presently view the further criminal prosecution of this particular situation to be merited in terms of the use of court, grand jury, or this office’s resources, particularly in light of the administrative consequences that to my understanding have already been publicly imposed;

(4) I would expect that Mr. Davis would personally qualify for all available pre-trial diversion and intervention options available to any and everyone; even if a grand jury was interested in indicting him in light of and notwithstanding the administrative consequences that have been publicly announced, the responsibilities and requirements of those pretrial options have effectively already been met by those administrative consequences that have already been imposed.”