DUANE SHERRILLEditor

While Tullahoma Alderman Kurt Glick lost his attempt to have official misconduct charges thrown out during his Sept. 11 hearing before Special Judge Bart Stanley, his defense has won in a battle in the ongoing war as the judge has found any evidence that might be found on his seized phone will not be admissible.

The determination is an about-face from the judge’s earlier ruling which let stand law enforcement’s seizure of Glick’s phone outside the Coffee County Courthouse following his booking on official misconduct charges last year. Special Prosecutor Chris Stanford maintained Glick had given permission earlier for the phone to be taken and therefore he could not revoke that approval. The defense maintained Glick’s attorney had advised him not to turn over the phone and that lawmen had no right to seize the device by allegedly placing Glick in a headlock to forcibly remove the phone from his possession.

In Judge Stanley’s recent order released after listening to the defense’s motion to reconsider, the judge did exactly that.

“The defendant’s phone was not on his person when he was arrested,” the judge ruled. “The defendant consented to give his phone to law enforcement but before he retrieved the phone, the defendant withdrew his consent that was his right to do. Any search of said phone without a warrant would be unconstitutional and will be suppressed.”

Presently the question of evidence, if any, on Glick’s phone is moot since forensic investigators have been unable to hack into the alderman’s iPhone as he has not given them the passcode. He remains a member of the city council while facing charges stemming from his voting as an alderman on matters pertaining to the suspension of former HR Director Casta Brice. Prosecutors say he abused his power in voting or not declaring his conflict given his age discrimination lawsuit against the city in which Brice was a potential witness. The defense contends Glick is immune from such charges as he is an elected official, noting no one has ever been charged with a criminal offense for simply voting as an elected official.

While the two sides differ on whether or not Glick committed a crime in voting, the case is still set for trial next September. However, also in Stanley’s order was the granting of an interlocutory appeal which is the appealing of a point of law while a case is still working its way to trial. Depending on how the appeal goes, the case could be terminated should the result come back against the prosecution.

“There is a controlled question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion,” Judge Stanley ruled. “Further, immediate appeal of the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of litigation.”