Lawyer seeks dismissal of case against woman who allegedly threatened social workers
The lawyer for the Kalispell woman accused of intimidating Child and Family Services employees wants the case dismissed, saying she never directly threatened state workers.
In a motion filed in Flathead County District Court on May 17, attorney Timothy Wenz argued that Rave suggested she would kill the state employees in messages sent to her relatives, not to the workers themselves. Prosecutors, he wrote, lacked probable cause to pursue the intimidation case.
Authorities arrested Rave, 43, on Jan. 28 after her relatives alerted the social workers and turned the messages over to the Kalispell Police Department. At the time, Rave’s child was in foster care, court documents said. Rave allegedly told family members, via text, that she planned to strike back at the social workers if she failed to regain custody of the minor.
Rave allegedly wrote that she would “take out the social workers guns blazing” were the situation not resolved to her liking. The text messages also included a photo of a handgun in a holster with the image of a child in the background, court documents said.
Employees of the Kalispell office told authorities at the time that they were aware of the threats and fearful. Security at the facility was subsequently beefed up, court documents said.
Rave has since pleaded not guilty to the intimidation charge.
Wentz, though, has interpreted the state law regarding intimidation to require that the threats be made directly, in an attempt to sway action one way or the other.
“Here, the alleged ‘threat’ was communicated to the alleged victim not by the defendant, not even by a second party, but by a third party,” he wrote. “If the court allows prosecutions such as this to commence, it would open a Pandora’s Box of possible charges to others.”
Wentz also contested whether Rave’s messages constituted a “true threat.” He wondered whether threats include both plans of violence and “words written in frustration and anger with a situation, including hyperbolic statements made while venting frustration with things one feels is out of their control.”
“Even if the facts of this case are taken in a light most favorable to the state, one cannot prove that the ‘threat’ was intentionally made to the CPS workers in this matter, nor can the state prove that the language was intended to threaten those workers,” Wentz wrote.
PROSECUTORS DISAGREE. In a response, filed May 27, Deputy County Attorney Amy Kennison alleged that Rave had a history of verbally abusing social workers involved in her case and sent “berating emails” to Child and Family Services staff members.
Employees already had opted to hold meetings with Rave online instead of in-person because of her behavior, Kennison wrote.
Kennison argued that threats need not be made directly to the intended targets under state law, describing Wentz’s argument as “without merit.” She sought to undercut the assertion that because Rave might have used threatening language out of frustration, it was exempt from consequences.
“Under the intimidation statute, it does not matter whether or not the defendant actually intended to carry out the threat, only that the threat was made under circumstances which reasonably tended to produce fear and resulted in the victim reasonably fearing that the threat will be carried out,” she wrote.
Rave’s relatives felt concerned enough by her words to alert Child and Family Service employees, Kennison argued. Those workers were concerned enough to lock the office doors during business hours, she said. Rave lived nearby and a search of her home following her arrest turned up a pistol and bag of .22 caliber ammunition, according to the response.
Turning to probable cause, Kennison noted that the court had already found a basis for the filing of a criminal charge. After receiving permission to file information, “the state has ‘no further burden of proof’ regarding the charge until trial,” Kennison wrote.
As for whether Rave’s language constituted a “true threat,” Kennison circled back to the circumstances surrounding the case, namely that Rave had the means, motive and opportunity to carry out her alleged plans.
“… All threatening speech is not prohibited,” she wrote. “However, the threat was coupled with a photo of a gun, bullets and referred to a hearing that was to take place involving Rave’s child. … It was intended to induce the victims to do or not do something under circumstances that created fear in the victims.”
A PRETRIAL conference in Rave’s intimidation case is set for July 13 with a status meeting scheduled for Aug. 19. Judge Heidi Ulbricht, who is overseeing the case, has not yet ruled on Wentz’s motion to dismiss.
Were the case to go to trial, it would begin in late August.
If convicted of intimidation, Rave faces up to 10 years in the Montana State Prison and a maximum fine of $50,000.