Sigg trial begins

A jury was expected to decide today whether Iolan Mitch Sigg’s actions during a traffic stop involving his son nearly two years ago warranted a disorderly conduct charge.
Sigg contends he was within his right to question authorities because his son was mistakenly being arrested.
County Attorney Jerry Hathaway, representing the prosecution, and Sigg’s defense attorney, Linus Thuston, wrapped up their respective sides of Sigg’s disorderly conduct trial Tuesday in front of Judge Gary House and a six-person jury in Allen County District Court.
The jury was to return to the courtroom this morning to hear closing arguments and final judge’s instructions before conferring privately in order to arrive at a verdict.
The charge stems from a traffic stop involving John Sigg, Mitch Sigg’s son, the evening of Feb. 2, 2013, when Sheriff Deputy Jarod Tingley initiated the stop because the younger Sigg was driving with a faulty headlight.
The car was owned by Mitch Sigg’s car lot east of Iola.
A computer check indicated — mistakenly, it turned out — the car’s registration was expired, and Tingley noted Sigg had no current proof of insurance for the car.
That, too, was a mistake, Thuston noted, because as a vehicle in his father’s dealership, the 2008 Chevy was considered insured as long as the operator had a valid driver’s license.
Tingley testified he was unaware of the dealership insurance provision, and had been following his training at the Law Enforcement Training Center when he ordered the younger Sigg to sign a citation for not having insurance. Refusing to sign the ticket, Tingley warned John Sigg, would result in his arrest.
John Sigg hesitated in signing the ticket, at which time Tingley directed him to exit the vehicle because he was under arrest.
Tingley told the jury under cross-examination from Thuston that refusing to sign a ticket for not having insurance — a misdemeanor — was considered more serious than not signing a ticket for lesser infractions, such as speeding. In those instances, drivers aren’t required to sign.

ONE OF THE case’s centerpieces, a 25-minute video captured by Tingley on his body camera during the traffic stop, was utilized extensively by both sides in their respective arguments.
Hathaway used it to illustrate Mitch Sigg’s behavior as he arrived on the scene, shortly after his son was placed handcuffs.
“What the f__k are you doing?” the video shows Mitch Sigg shouting as he arrives. “What the f__k are you doing, idiot?”
Tingley directed reserve deputy Jason Kegler to put Mitch Sigg in handcuffs almost immediately upon his arrival at the scene, noting he was unaware of Sigg’s intentions. Tingley said he was concerned for the safety of everyone at the scene.
Hathaway noted Mitch Sigg’s tirade lasts for 7 1/2 minutes — with repeated cursing, as well as referring to the deputies as “morons” and “clowns” — long enough to warrant the disorderly conduct charge.
Thuston disagreed, contending Tingley’s arrest of the younger Sigg was improper, and that anybody putting themselves in Mitch Sigg’s shoes would have reacted in a similar manner if they saw their son in handcuffs.
Law enforcement personnel, Thuston stressed, is trained to have “thicker skin” than others, and sometimes being a cop includes “taking a good cussing.”
Mitch Sigg testified he was not proud of his language, but his actions were that of a protective dad.
Thuston referred to three cases in recent years in which charges were dismissed against defendants after they had been arrested for cursing at law enforcement officers. Such acts are considered free speech, Thuston declared.
His request to have Judge House dismiss the charges following Hathaway’s presentation was denied.

TESTIMONY began after attorneys took about three hours seating the six-member jury.
Doing so was easier said than done, because many of the prospective jury members noted they personally worked with, knew or were otherwise had dealt with members of the Allen County Sheriff’s Department.
Likewise, eight of the 12 original prospective jurors said they had purchased vehicles from Mitch Sigg. Two were in the process of buying and admitted owing money to Sigg might cloud their judgment as they hear the case. Those two were dismissed from the jury pool.

The Sigg trial also is central in a pair of federal lawsuits filed last week by Mitch and John Sigg, alleging their constitutional rights were violated during the stop.
John Sigg’s petition alleges his Fourth (dealing with illegal search and seizure) and 14th Amendment rights (equal protection of laws) were violated. Mitch Sigg’s petition alleges his First (free speech), Fourth and 14th Amendment rights were violated.
Both are seeking $1 million in damages.