By David Caldwell
ACCOMACK CO., Va. – Accused arsonist Charles R. Smith III appeared in General District Court yesterday for his bond hearing. Judge Gordon Vincent denied Smith's bond. According to an affidavit filed at the Circuit Court Clerk's Office, Smith said that his fiancé, Tonya Bundick "personally set 15 abandoned structures on fire" in the county in the last five months.
Both Smith and Bundick are charged with felony arson and felony conspiracy to commit arson in connection with a fire in Melfa on April 1st, when Smith was arrested.
Court documents also show that Smith's lawyer, Carl H. Bundick, filed a motion to suppress evidentiary material related to his April 1st arrest. The motion claims that Smith's search & seizure, and arrest violated his 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights. Specifically, he claims there was no probable cause for his arrest, and that "Agents of the Commonwealth" began interrogation before he was read his Miranda rights.
Some community members expressed relief since the two were arrested. Evelyn Hope, of Accomack Co., said of fellow residents "There's a feeling of relief. They're just mellowing out right now, but you know, we pray there are no more fires."
Police are "confident" that Smith and Bundick are responsible for "a majority" of the 77 arson fires set in Accomack County. Smith will return to court May 6th for a preliminary hearing.
Officials are reluctant to associate every one of the fires with Smith and Bundick, and that margin for error has other community members offering their own theories. Shannon Salazar, of Accomac, said "I think there are two more people out there and they're just hiding away, and nobody wants to tell anybody about it."
Smith will return to court May 6th for a preliminary hearing.
VIDEO/SOURCE:
3 comments:
Claiming "no probably cause for his arrest?"
I would think the fact that he was viewed by LE in the act would be sufficient probable cause to arrest him and charge him with the last arson, which at this point in time is what he is charged with.
"Specifically, he claims there was no probable cause for his arrest"
Maybe the reporter meant no probable cause to obtain the warrant since it's evidentiary material that lawyer is attempted to suppress. No probable cause for arrest makes zero sense.
Defense is throwing everything on the wall at this point in time and seeing what will stick. It's par for course.
An accused cannot be convicted solely on his uncorroborated admission or confession. While a confession is extremely helpful because then only 'slight' corroborating evidence is necessary, confessions aren't the "smoking guns' most think they are.
Post a Comment