CLEVELAND, Tenn., Thursday, March 10, 2022 – Jessica Hedgcock attends her 2nd encounter with the Bradley County judicial system today even though a criminal case has yet to be established weeks after her arrest — a case not established judicially as a matter of law.

By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 96.9 FM

Supported by more than a dozen supporters, Mrs. Hedgcock, mother of 5, made an appearance in sessions court ready to argue that there is no probable cause in her arrest and no cause for her arrest at Cleveland Imaging, which is part of the Chattanooga and Dalton, Ga., X-ray outfit. 

Bo Guffey, operations manager at Cleveland Imaging, demanded police arrest Mrs. Hedgcock. Cleveland imaging is owned by Chattanooga Imaging, with six area shops.

Judge Sheridan Randolph hears a demand by assistant district attorney Dallas Scott that Galen Medical Group wishes for a subpoena to be issued for a witness to testify in the case on unknown subject matter. Mr. Scott proposes a hearing two weeks out. But Mrs. Hedgcock says proposed dates won’t work because she has appointments with her special needs baby, Charlton.

So a hearing in State of Tennessee v. Jessica Hedgcock is delayed four weeks, until April 14. Mrs. Hedgcock has a right to object, but does not enter one to delay in finding probable cause, which point she is ready to argue.

Bringing Mrs. Hedgcock to the microphone, the judge says the matter is “wide open at this point” on the gateway issue of sufficient probable cause, indicating that there has not been made a determination as to whether a crime took place.

Whence probable cause? 

Judge Randolph lays out Mrs. Hedgcock’s options.

She can “waive the court” and have the charges sent directly to the grand jury for a trial “across the hall” in Bradley County criminal court. She might “have [the case] heard on the merits” on the spot by him, with a right of a trial de novo (new trial on appeal). 

Or, third option, she can have a preliminary hearing. Though feeling uncertain about the lay of the land as described by the judge, Mrs. Hedgcock says, “I’ll take a preliminary hearing” — to determine if a criminal trespass case exists. She also demands “a trial by jury,” (Const. Art. 1 § 6) with a quibble with Judge Randolph over whether his reference to “a jury trial” is synonymous (he says it is).

A preliminary hearing is the one in which the judge has a chance to make good on a routine abuse accepted in Tennessee jurisprudence. That is, violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-7-103, grounds for arrest by officer without a warrant. At a preliminary hearing, the judge “finds” probable cause in an arrest, and declares a crime probably has been committed by the defendant, so creating a criminal case finally by his judicial finding. The prelim hearing lets the judge do what by law must be done prior to and before a person is arrested. 

Arrested without warrant

Until a judge rules a crime probably has been committed, a case hangs tenuously within the personal assurance by cop or deputy that a crime has been committed.

The constitution bill of rights requires arrest only under warrant. It demands, in other words, the determination of a crime before the arrest, and the judge inks a warrant naming the defendant to be arrested by the officer. Since Bradley County and Cleveland police ignore the supreme law, and also T.C.A. § 40-7-103, the probable cause is determined judicially after the person is seized, handcuffed and bound, put into a cage in the back seat of a police cruiser and taken to the county jail.

Practice in Tennessee serves the convenience of cops and opens wide the prospect of abuse, harm, false arrest and damage to members of the public and inhabitants.

The Hedgcock confrontation arguably fails to meet the law’s requirement for “public offense” or threat of “breach of the peace” to allow for on-spot arrest. At a probable cause hearing, Mrs. Hedgcock has the right to show that the encounter at Cleveland Imaging does not rise to either of the two standards, and so is not a matter allowing for arrest on the spot, even though the incident occurred “in the officer’s presence.” ‡  

In Tennessee search warrants are universally obtained before a search, not after. Yet the protection afforded property is not afforded men and women. They are often arrested on the spot without protection of arrest warrant signed by a judge from arbitrary acts by cops without judicial authority to find probable cause.

The case is running into its third hearing because Galen Medical wants to be subpoenaed for a witness to appear. Galen Medical Group, based in Hixson, runs a variety of medical practices with a “modern approach and a caring touch,” from eyeballs to stomachs. That a party not involved in the arrest wants to be subpoenaed appears irregular.

Regarding the subpoena, Judge Randolph said “everyone wants to write their own law, and part of me was thinking, ‘Didn’t you arrest me without a warrant?’ I mean,” says Mrs. Hedgcock, “shouldn’t we just follow the constitution? The constitution says I have that right, so, I mean, he is right. We’re all just rewriting the law. We’ve gotten corrupt. We’ve built so many more bills and laws that we’re not following the constitution. And the writers of the constitution said, even if God doesn’t exist, these rights are inalienable. And they are yours to claim. And I claim it.”

Mrs. Hedgcock might be wise to file a motion for dismissal for due process abuse in the month she has before her next encounter, with a brief in support detailing with the constitutional and law requirements.

Mrs. Hedgcock has audio and video of the encounter, and audio of Mr. Guffey’s 2-minute call to 911. I have read her transcript of the office encounter, based on her phone audio.

Judging by elements of the case’s fact base — her audio of the encounter — she was arrested falsely because the conversation about masks with Mr. Guffey and the officer is not a public offense (breach of the peace) nor a threatened breach of the peace.

She has defended herself thus far without aid of a lawyer, having been unable to find one, she tells the judge. She has talked with more than a dozen lawyers.

“You’d be much better off with another attorney,” one lawyer told her, she says afterward. “‘I’m not interested in your case at all.’” She considers handling the case herself. “I guess I’m in training for something, I’m not sure what.”

Supporters seek to get into the courtroom, initially barred, in defiance of Constitution Art. 1 § Sect. 17, “[t]hat all courts shall be open.” But they promised to complain about denial of access, one by one, and were allowed in. 

‡  Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-7-103, bolds, notations added

Grounds for arrest by officer without warrant