Montrose - Daily Press

Katharhynn Heidelberg

Daily Press News Editor

MONTROSE — An Olathe teacher was sentenced to additional jail time after County Court Judge John Mitchel found he tried to get around a court-ordered drug test.

Advertisement

Jon Dickerson was before the court Friday for a show-cause hearing initiated by his estranged wife’s allegations he’d failed to show up for mandated drug testing.

Emmarae Garcia failed, however, in her bid to have Dickerson held in contempt for allegedly failing one of the tests and for allegedly contacting her by telephone when a civil no-contact order was in effect.

Mitchel ruled she and her attorney had presented insufficient evidence to support those allegations and granted Dickerson’s motions for acquittal.

He agreed, however, that Dickerson had failed to provide a urine sample Aug. 24, 2006. Dickerson had also perpetrated fraud against the court and the community by attempting to circumvent testing methods through use of a hose placed in his pants, Mitchel said.

“I cannot let it go,” he said. “I can’t. It’s an egregious kind of situation. This is a very widespread problem of people sabotaging drug testing.”

He acknowledged Dickerson had made significant improvements since his legal troubles began, but sentenced him to one additional day in jail.

According to public court records, Dickerson was previously sentenced to 10 days in jail for his plea to disorderly conduct-display weapon in a 2005 case. He had also pleaded guilty violating a protection order in a 2006 case. He was also sentenced to probation for these misdemeanor offenses. The sentencing order indicated he was to undergo drug testing.

Dickerson’s 2006 charge of second-degree burglary was dismissed under plea agreement and his original 2005 charge of felony menacing was amended to the weapons charge, according to court records.

Friday, Garcia’s attorney, Brent Martin, argued that Dickerson should be held in contempt on four incidents concerning drug testing and alleged contact with Garcia. He wanted Dickerson to serve an additional day in jail for each alleged violation.

Dickerson’s attorney, Bill Richardson, successfully blocked much of the evidence Martin sought to enter into the record and also successfully objected to Martin’s questioning methods as “testimony from the podium.”

But he couldn’t convince the court to disregard all of the testimony from drug-test provider Ryan Fox.

Fox testified Dickerson was “nervous” when he arrived for testing Aug. 24, 2006, and appeared to be in a hurry. This was enough for Fox to require an observed collection.

Fox testified he saw tubing sticking out of Dickerson’s groin area and that a rubber band fell to the floor. “He was trying to obscure my vision with his shirt,” Fox said.

Fox said Dickerson told him he couldn’t produce a sample and left, promising to come back later, but did not. Without a specimen to test, Fox said he had to note a “no-show” for Dickerson.

Richardson asked Fox whether he’d agree that it’s not easy to provide a sample when someone is watching. Fox said he did not agree, but acknowledged some people do have that difficulty.

He admitted he hadn’t attempted to confiscate the alleged apparatus and had thrown away the rubber band. Under redirect from Martin, Fox also said nothing changed the fact that Dickerson had not provided a sample as ordered by the court.

Richardson argued the contempt allegations should all be dismissed. “Mr. Dickerson did appear for the testing and was unable to provide a sample,” he said, adding that his client’s school schedule that day was tight, which would explain why Dickerson seemed to be in a hurry.

“He still failed to provide the sample pursuant to court order,” Martin countered. “It seems sketchy that he’s relying on the assertion that he couldn’t go at that time.”

Though Mitchel granted all other motions of acquittal, he agreed with Martin’s argument concerning the Aug. 24 drug test. A court order from one week earlier made it clear weekly testing was a requirement, Mitchel said.

“It leaves little to the imagination to consider the direct observation of Mr. Fox...to conclude Mr. Dickerson obviously did not produce a sample,” Mitchel said. “He was ordered to test. He didn’t do it. Moreover, I think it is obvious there was a definite attempt at substitution.

“The bottom line is Mr. Dickerson did violate the protection order.”

Richardson pleaded to keep his client out of jail or at least, let it be concurrent with his 10-day sentence rather than consecutive. He said Dickerson had turned his life around. “I don’t think Mr. Dickerson would ever be a problem to the court again,” he said.

Dickerson apologized and said his experience helped educate and humble him. “I now view myself as a fallible man and a man able to learn from his mistakes,” he said. “I’m not sure what more I need to learn.”

Mitchel said the purpose of punishment wasn’t purely about education, but is also intended to send a message. He imposed an additional day in jail, to be served consecutively.

Comments