Opinion
0980 2:22CR00115-TOR-1
11-22-2024
Misty Leanne Beck
Honorable Dana L. Christensen, U.S. District Judge.
PETITION FOR WARRANT OR SUMMONS FOR OFFENDER UNDER SUPERVISION
Thomas O. Rice United States District Judge.
PETITIONING THE COURT
To issue a WARRANT and to incorporate the violation(s) contained in this petition in future proceedings with the violation(s) previously reported to the Court on 11/05/2024.
On August 3, 2022, Ms. Misty Beck signed her conditions relative to case number 2:22CR00115-TOR-1, indicating that she understood all conditions as ordered by the Court.
The probation officer believes that the offender has violated the following condition(s) of supervision:
Violation Number Nature of Noncompliance
2 Standard Condition # 4: You must answer truthfully the questions asked by your probation officer.
3 Standard Condition #6: You must allow the probation officer to visit you at any time at your home or elsewhere, and you must permit the probation officer to take any items prohibited by the conditions of your supervision that he or she observes in plain view.
Supporting Evidence: Ms. Beck is alleged to have violated standard condition number 4, by being intentionally dishonest with the undersigned officer on a multitude of occasions on November 18, 2024, and standard condition number 6, by failing to allow the undersigned officer to conduct home contact with her on November 18, 2024.
On November 18, 2024, at approximately 10 a.m. unscheduled home contact was attempted with Ms. Beck at her residence of record, in which it was determined that she was not home.
The undersigned officer was subsequently able to make telephonic contact with Ms. Beck, who advised that she had just arrived in downtown Spokane, but who committed to returning to her residence to meet with the undersigned officer for the purpose of home contact.
At 10:34 a.m. Ms. Beck contacted the undersigned officer and advised that she learned that she had a flat tire on her vehicle, and she advised that she had just contacted a friend to come help her, but that she was unsure of when her friend would arrive. She stated that she was therefore unsure as to when she would be able to make it home. Ms. Beck was advised to contact the undersigned officer when she was in route to her residence so that the undersigned officer could meet her there, to which she committed. Ms. Beck then sent this officer a photo of her vehicle tire, in which the tire pressure appeared to be low.
The undersigned officer subsequently waited in proximity of Ms. Beck's address, and maintained a view of her driveway. At 11:07 a.m. the undersigned officer again sent Ms. Beck a text message inquiring as to her status, in which Ms. Beck responded that she was “still waiting.” While waiting for further contact from Ms. Beck, a vehicle previously observed by the undersigned officer to have been present at Ms. Beck's residence during previous contacts was observed to drive by the residence and the undersigned officer. The vehicle has numerous features that make it easily identifiable such as front fender damage, no plates, and a handicap placard that hung from the front mirror. The driver was unable to be identified during the short period of time that the vehicle was observed in motion.
At 11:57 a.m. Ms. Beck sent the undersigned officer a text image showing the right rear fender of the vehicle that she was driving, with the Carhartt store in the background as evidence that she remained downtown. The fender of the vehicle photographed appeared consistent with the vehicle that had driven by the undersigned officer while waiting for her at her residence, and when questioned, she admitted that she had been driving the same vehicle that the undersigned officer had previously observed at her residence.
At approximately 12:15 p.m., the undersigned officer, along with the assistance of another U.S. probation officer contacted Ms. Beck downtown, and observed her vehicle to be out front of the Carhartt store as previously photographed. The vehicle was observed to have been moved since the original picture she had sent the undersigned officer, reflecting her deflated vehicle tire, and when questioned Ms. Beck indicated that she moved the vehicle briefly to see if she could drive it far enough to put air in it, but she decided that she could not and she again parked it the next block over. The vehicle was clearly the same vehicle that had driven by her residence and the undersigned officer earlier in the day. Ms. Beck maintained that she had been downtown the entire time, and had not heard from her friend who she called for assistance. Ms. Beck also advised that her phone had died, and that she had given it to a third party to have it charged. Ms. Beck apologized for not being able to meet with the undersigned officer at her residence as discussed, and indicated that she did not know what else to do.
At 3:10 p.m. Ms. Beck left a voice mail for the undersigned officer indicating that she had coincidently observed a friend downtown, who was now helping her put air in her tire, and who advised that she would be traveling home as soon as she could thereafter. At 3:18 p.m. Ms. Beck again called, and was advised that the undersigned officer was no longer available to conduct home contact with her.
On November 22, 2024, Ms. Beck reported to the U.S. Probation Office as directed, and was confronted as to her conduct. Ms. Beck adamantly denied on numerous occasions that she had driven by the undersigned officer on Monday, despite being provided ample opportunity to be honest. When notified that the undersigned officer had observed the vehicle, that which he now knew her to be driving, having driven past the residence, she admitted to the conduct.
Ms. Beck further indicated that while she did have a low tire, she did leave downtown and did then drive by the undersigned officer, without notification to the undersigned officer as discussed. Ms. Beck indicated that she then returned downtown, and did then provide an additional photograph to the undersigned officer in an attempt to deceive the U.S. Probation Office into believing that she remained downtown. Ms. Beck admitted to lying to the undersigned officer on multiple occasions on the day in question, and admitted to having failed to allow the undersigned officer to conduct home contact with her. When questioned further, Ms. Beck indicated that she was paranoid that the undersigned officer had planned to take her to jail, even though she had no reason to be fearful.
4 Standard Condition #13: You must follow the instructions of the probation officer related to the conditions of supervision:
Supporting Evidence: Ms. Beck is alleged to have violated standard condition number 13, by failing to provide income verification on a multitude of occasions and most recently on November 22, 2024, as directed.
Specifically, on October 16, 2024, the undersigned officer conducted contact with Ms. Beck at her residence. During the contact, Ms. Beck indicated that she had been awarded approximately $750 per week from the Employment Security Division to cover her cost of living while unemployed, and while working to address mental health need. As a part of the contact, the undersigned officer requested that she provide verification of the award, to which she committed.
Additional requests for income verification documentation have been made to Ms. Beck on October 22, November 4, and most recently on November 20, 2024, when she was directed to report to the U.S. Probation Office on November 22, 2024, with the documentation. On November 22, 2024, Ms. Beck reported as directed, but indicated that she had forgotten the referenced documentation.
During the time period in question, Ms. Beck has continued to acquire personal property and has continued to deny current employment. The U.S. Probation Office has continued to request the documentation in effort to excuse current unemployment.
The U.S. Probation Office respectfully recommends the Court to incorporate the violation(s) contained in this petition in future proceedings with the violation(s) previously reported to the Court, and that the Court issue a WARRANT.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Chris Heinen U.S. Probation Officer.
THE COURT ORDERS
[ ] No Action
[X] The Issuance of a Warrant
[ ] The Issuance of a Summons
[X] The incorporation of the violation(s) contained in this petition with the other violations pending before the Court.
[ ] Defendant to appear before the Judge assigned to the case.
[X] Defendant to appear before the Magistrate Judge.
[ ] Other