On paper, David Holzbach, 52, would appear to have reached an ideal position in life. The married prosecutor with 24-years experience had a secure $129,000 a year job with the Danbury State’s Attorney’s office. However, this year he was fired after an investigation in bizarre conduct photographing women in office and outside his office, including surreptitious photos in courtrooms using a spy pen.
Holzbach was accused by an unidentified women who said she spotted him using the spy pen from “compromising angles toward females who are in the courtroom.” Holzbach admitted that he used a video camera in his car to record women in his office coming to work — primarily focusing on their legs.
None of the pictures were “up the skirt” shots which are normally the subject of criminal charges. Indeed, it does not appear that he has committed any crime. The problem is that the women were in public without an expectation of privacy that they would not be subject to photographs or recording. Indeed, in and around a courthouse, the expectations are that you are being monitored and photographed. That creates problems under the Connecticut voyeurism statute:
Sec. 53a-189a. Voyeurism: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of voyeurism when, with malice or intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of such person or any other person, such person knowingly photographs, films, videotapes or otherwise records the image of another person (1) without the knowledge and consent of such other person, (2) while such other person is not in plain view, and (3) under circumstances where such other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
That presents an interesting employment case if he was engaged in lawful conduct. The difference is the alleged courtroom shots and the creation of a hostile work environment for women. As an officer of the court, he is subject to more strict expectations and conditions regarding his conduct.
Notably, news reports state that he was warned on at least two prior occasions about this conduct. That history could expose the office to lawsuits and questions of why it allowed Holzbach to continue as a prosecutor for so long. His previous boss, Walter Flanagan, said that he reviewed “several complaints” about Holzbach from female staffers at the courthouse concerning Holzbach and at least one former colleague has come forward to say that she complained about him.
It is not clear if Holzbach will challenge his suspension and termination. It does not appear that he resigned, which is often a recommended course to preserve pension and benefits if they are available. What is clear is that he is likely to be under considerable scrutiny from judges and lawyers alike if he starts a private practice that brings him to court. There is also the question of state bar charges, though again the lack of criminal allegations will benefit him in such proceedings.
Source: News Times
ItsMichaelnotMike, I like your sense of humor. I’m a craps player. I play blackjack @ the end of the night to decompress. I’m also a horse player and got my ass kicked @ Arlington Park on Saturday.
Nick, I have been known to bet on an event or two, but my secret is not a secret at all, I only bet on sure things. I reserve gambling to the blackjack tables.
Given our past with Vitter, Spitzer. and others, I too would not bet on this being the end of his legal career. To be sure, I assume he has SOME talent and skills and something to contribute to society. But even if he escapes criminal jeopardy and keeps his law license, there’s certain career paths no longer available to him.
If I were to post a C Note wager on his future:
– I doubt he can can or should continue as a prosecutor. (The only reason for my waffling, there’s nothing to stop him from running for district attorney. And if he gets elected, well congrats to him for pulling that off, I guess.)
– I doubt that he can get hired by anyone where the boss’ reputation matters, those employers in “high profile positions,” as the depiction goes.
– His days as a govt. employee are over, I assume.
– And certain legal specialties are out.
The problem for Mr. HMF (“Here’s My Fetish”) is the creep factor. Here in San Francisco this guy’s behavior and the story would NOT make it to page six of the local flea market paper. Anywhere else his conduct has the ewww factor and is considered by most as extremely offensive, even if not criminal.
But he did not keep things “in the bedroom” and for that there’s severe, career-changing consequences, including his position as a powerful government official. (IMO there’s no way this guy should remain a prosecutor, nor in a position of public trust, which arguably leaves out just about anything a litigator does, being an officer of the court.)
Given a year or so I am sure he knows people and has friends who might employ him, or perhaps a business needs an in-house counsel (after all, even Larry Flynt’s enterprises need in-house counsel).
And there’s always the ultimate fallback, he can switch sides and become a criminal defense lawyer, who specializes in flasher and peeping defense.
It’sMichaelNotMike, I have a C Note that says his career as a barrister is not over. Of course, we won’t know for maybe a few years. However, I hope to be around that long and I do honor my bets. Do you?
This looks like a pretty cut and dried employment case. he made people in the office uncomfortable with non-work related activities, he was warned twice, he did it again. I wouldn’t take that case to arbitration.
I administered GED tests for awhile. I was a bit of a pain to the proctors who had been having it easy – doing puzzles, long breaks out of the room, sitting instead of walking around, etc. I instituted no-cell-phones in the testing area, standard pens, and proctors walking around the room with a bit more regulation for short breaks. There is a thriving business in copies of the tests. Spy cams in pens can copy tests for resale; cell phones can be used for texting for answers and photos of the tests. This was a few years ago. The spy cams are more ubiquitous now. So glad I’m retired, again.
Pardon my spacing errors everyone. My keyboard space bar is acting up. When I press the bar a space is not entered.
So I need to get off my lazy butt and use compressed air to blow out the cat and dog hair (two dogs and a cat will cause these kinds of problems, asmany ← LOOK, it happened just now — of you know).
Yes, as with many things in life, I am blaming the dogs. It is not my problemthey ← 🙁 can’t talk, can’t sing like canaries, nor tell you the truth: that’s not animal hair under my keyboard keys. There are croissant crumbs, almonds fromthe ← yummy hot fudge sundae I inhaled last week, Almond Roca debris, and toasted French bread sliver-ettes (a “sliverette is smaller than a sliver,or so I’m told).
Bonus Comment: I do think this pic of a recent interrogation does reveal whether I am guilty, or my dogs.
http://litigationuniverse.com/WhoPeedOnCarpet.jpg
Malisha 1, August 10, 2012 at 6:12 pm How much does that spy camera cost? Was it purchased on the office account?
____________________
Like anything electronic, the quality goes up and the price down, in the case of spy cameras, way down. So I doubt he used an office account or “petty cash” to make this kind of purchase.
He may have done that a few years back, when these sun glass camcorders were $500. But leave it to enterprising individuals in China to come up with a $20 model, including shipping! Yeah, they are total junk, but at $20 that’s the price of a sandwich and beverage that’s gone in 15 minutes.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=camcorder+glasses&LH_BIN=1&_osacat=0&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313&_nkw=camcorder+glasses+hd&_sacat=0
– Look on eBay under “spy camera pen.” A high resolution HD pen camcorder (that saves video on a microSD card, up to 32 GB) is about $30 for a Chinese model that is OK.
– A quality model might cost $100. Quality models have a better picture, longer battery life, and higher time recording capacity. Even el cheapo models are now in color.
– eBay also has a full range of “spy cameras” that by the seller have been inserted into any item one can think of (stuffed animals, books, wall outlets, appliances, clocks, toys, food containers such as Pringles, etc.
– There’s thousands of “spy cameras” for sale, no larger than a dime or quarter, that can be inserted (aka hidden) anywhere, limited only by your imagination or need for subterfuge.
ItsMichaelNotMike,
Very informative … thank you for taking the time.
Well, this one is simple. Lawyers such as Mr. Turley and myself understand how easy it is to dispose of this matter, in the short term.
— For the benefit of the accused, lay people and lawyers who might browse this article, permit me to discuss Mr. HMF’s exposures (that’s what I am going to call him, “Mr. Here’s My Fetish”). Some I will discuss include criminal, “bar card,” and private practice.
1. As Mr. Hurley notes, and I agree, there does not seem to be criminal exposure here, at least not under the State’s voyeurism statute, mainly due to Mr. HMF’s video subject and the objects of his fetish not having an expectation of privacy.
Privacy, lack of: I forgot the statistic, but on one news channel it said there’s BILLIONS of cameras in the world watching our every move. The news guy (aka “investigative journalist”) conducted a test where he walked to a bank to use the ATM. He counted something like 26 cameras recorded his actions,including traffic light cameras, transportation monitors, building entry cameras that focused partially on the sidewalk, and of course the ATM camera. And this does not even count all the vehicles nowadays that have dash cams (even on road bikes riders are mounting Go Pro type cameras that record a lot of action on city streets).
So nope, no expectation of privacy, except maybe our bedrooms and bathrooms. But even THOSE goings on are monitored audibly by neighbors. 🙁
Video Subject: I admit, I’m an a$$ man. If I want to visit the beach and shoot video of bikini/thong clad women, I mean of the beautiful blue water, that’s not illegal.
So Mr. HMF is lucky he has a leg fetish and not upskirt shots. (A few years back there was a California lawyer (SF Bay Area) who did like upskirt shots. He mounted a WiFi camera under female employee’s desks to capture upskirt video. His fetish got him fired, disbarred and sent to prison.)
2. As Trump Would Say: “You’re Fired!: I don’t know how things work where Mr. HMF is a prosecutor, but here in California (where I was a prosecutor for a couple years. Sheesh, is there any lawyer who has not done THAT?!) DDAs (“deputy district attorneys”) as “licensed professionals” serve at the pleasure of the DA.
While some prosecutors belong to civil service unions, in most jurisdictions it is quite easy to fire DDAs. When fired they are entitled to some due process rights (e.g., a hearing) but it is still easy to sheetcan them.
(If difficult to fire him, the DA could demote Mr. HMF to processing traffic intakes in a windowless basement office. This was done to a high-level railroad official who refused to resign, so they put him ito work in a small,windowless wood shack that was a few feet from the tracks. The appellate court said that was akin to firing him so he could sue for constructive wrongful termination. I digress, forgive me.)
Even if he has some type of “tenure,” Mr. HMF has a bigger problem. For something like this there’s few in the legal community who would get in the way of his termination. While his conduct may not be illegal, it is creepy and he got caught. It is something that could have got out of hand and/or reflects poorly on the DA’s office.
Out-of-hand example: What if a husband of one of Mr. HMF’s video subjects caught him filming and decides to go ballistic on him. What if the enraged husband storms the DA’s office with a gun, looking for Mr. HMF, but then gets in a shootout with police.The parades of horribleness are limited only by the amount of time you have to flip channels to watch Law & Order reruns.
Reflects Poorly: I don’t know of any DA who would allow a DDA to represent the Office: in court, to the police, and in the community. This just looks bad, plain and simple. And it has brought shame, scorn and ridicule on the DA’s Office. The image employees project is an important component in forging a department’s and leadership’s reputation: in court, the legal profession, and in the community.
On this basis alone the guy at the minimum should be fired.
3. License-B-Gone: Some state bars (that regulate attorneys) have strict rules on what it takes to discipline, suspend, or disbar lawyers. For example, in some states only when convicted of certain crimes will that result in possible “automatic” disbarment.
If you have NOT committed a crime, but have engaged in conduct that calls into question your morals, ethics, or fitness to be a member of the bar, a state bar could take action.
Where I see Mr. HMF has a problem is his ability to effectively represent clients (aka the public/consumer) has been severely diminished. As Mr. Hurley discusses, when this guy appears before Judges or makes arguments to opposing counsel, what will they really be thinking about this guy?
Although a state bar may not have jurisdiction over Mr. HMF due to his not being convicted of a sexual crime, could the Bar nevertheless require him to reveal in retainer agreements and discuss with prospective clients his actions and this controversy?
Since a state bar’s raison d’être is to protect the public from incompetent or dishonest lawyers, seems to me a Bar would feel these disclosures are necessary so the prospective client can make an informed decision on whether or not to retain him.
4. Would YOU Hire This Guy: This is my last point, but certainly there is other exposure to Mr. HMF.
Assume the State Bar required Mr. HMF to reveal the above information, because obviously it would effect one’s retaining decision. Would YOU even feel comfortable visiting this guy’s office? I sure wouldn’t.
And I would not retain him because I would doubt that he has credibility to the Court nor to opposing counsel. Heck, I might even think he would always be late for court (and jeopardize my case by getting it dismissed) because courthouse security know who he is and they are compelled to take extra time to make sure he does not have any spy cameras attached to his lapel, briefcase or water bottle.
Conclusion: This guy’s career as a lawyer is over. If it is not, it should be.
Malisha, Those cameras are cheap..under $200. Good question about who paid for it. Those small cameras used for surveillance evolved from arthoscopic cameras, for whatever that’s worth.
How much does that spy camera cost? Was it purchased on the office account?
Creepy to say the least. I was kind of shocked that this guy was making Six figures as a prosecutor.
Having been cross examined many times by plaintiff’s attorneys on video surveillance and privacy, Mr. Turley of course is correct. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy if you’re in public. And, since this guy didn’t take measures to shoot up the skirt, that should not be an issue. There are gray areas. I believe courts have ruled that a person standing in their house in front of a picture window has no reasonable expectation of privacy. However, I know juries and I know they don’t generally like surveillance. A lot depends on the jurisdiction. I worked a case where a gentleman, who claimed to be totally disabled, took an outing w/ his wife. It was early December and I followed him to a Christmas tree farm. I videotaped him cutting down the tree[in deep snow], dragging it to his car, tying it up on top of his car, and then unloading it @ home. He then put it up in his picture window and got up on a step stool to do the high ornaments. That footage inside would have been pertinent, but I didn’t shoot the activity in his house.
When I began doing surveillance it was w/ 35mm cameras. I have used the entire array of video cameras from the shoulder mounted w/ an attached vidoe recorder “The Beast” to the small cameras and pinhole ones today. But when cross examined in recent years it became increasingly easier to convince juries about being in public and the reasonable expectation of privacy. I would simply look and speak to the jurors saying, “On your way to court today you were videotped numerous times by webcams, security cams, ATM machines, etc. And those were shot randomly. My shots were specific and specifically for this purpose. They are not available to all on the internet like the ubiquitous webcams located everywhere.” With few exceptions juries get that.
Hard to legislate against, but sadly easy enough to believe.
Mespo said it best.
Hard to legislate against creepiness.
At the very least he certainly was not performing his job duties while he was videotaping women.
Lack of criminal charge aside, I would agree an employee exposing his/her employer to civil liability and embarassment would be grounds for termination, especially after being forewarned.
I can’t see a prospective future employer wanting to take a risk in hiring Chester here.
He was overpaid.
Sometimes that quirky little amygdala warps our better judgment, making loonies out of us.
Now what did he do wrong?…… He was/is a prosecutor……. I thought they were next in line to be the gods they work for….