Search warrant affidavit details case against Ann Arbor pediatrician
A search warrant affidavit unsealed this week provides new details in the case against an Ann Arbor pediatrician accused of watching out his bathroom window as a 12-year-old neighbor got changed in her bedroom closet.
Weinblatt
Dr. Howard Weinblatt, 65, who is on leave from IHA Child Health - Ann Arbor, is facing four counts of surveilling an unclothed person and two counts of window peeping.
The affidavit by Ann Arbor police Detective Amy Ellinger was used to establish probable cause to search Weinblatt's home Nov. 22 and seize four computers, a hard drive and thumb drive.
It says the investigation began Nov. 7, when the girl's parents met with detectives at the police station to share concerns about Weinblatt "inappropriately looking" at their daughter, who also was his patient.
The girl's mother told detectives that she saw Weinblatt watching out his second-floor bathroom window on three occasions in 10 days as her daughter got changed in her walk-in bedroom closet. On at least two of the occasions, the affidavit says her daughter was getting ready for school.
A window in her daughter's closet is "covered with a sheer curtain" and her home is 11 feet from Weinblatt's home in the Burns Park neighborhood.
Weinblatt's bathroom window has blinds on it and the lower portion is frosted for privacy, the affidavit says.
On Oct. 18, the girl's mother was sitting in a chair near large windows in her daughter's bedroom, the affidavit says, when her daughter turned on a light in the closet as she got changed for school. Soon after, a light in Weinblatt's bathroom went on, the affidavit says. The woman "could see Weinblatt looking through a small space about mid-height of the window, above the privacy glass and below the window blind" at her daughter's closet window while her daughter got changed. The affidavit doesn't say the time the alleged incident occurred.
Three days later, at about 7:45 a.m., the girl's mother again claims she "observed Weinblatt looking out his bathroom window" at her daughter's closet window while her daughter got changed for school. The affidavit doesn't say where the girl's mother was at the time.
Seven days after that, the girl's mother put an iPad against a window in the main area of her daughter's bedroom, facing it toward Weinblatt's house in order to record a video. According to the affidavit, she could see that "Weinblatt was looking out his bathroom window" at her daughter's closet window while her daughter changed.
The affidavit does not mention a fourth incident. Weinblatt is facing four counts of surveilling an unclothed person.
Ellinger watched the video and saw Weinblatt looking out the bathroom window between the privacy glass and blinds, the affidavit says. He appeared to be masturbating which "is visible through the frosted window glass."
The affidavit was reviewed by Washtenaw County Assistant Prosecutor Amy Reiser and signed Nov. 21 by Judge Elizabeth Hines.
Ann Arbor police spokeswoman Lt. Renee Bush declined to comment Wednesday on whether investigators have examined the computers that were seized, saying the investigation is ongoing. Weinblatt's attorney, Tom O'Brien, declined to comment on the affidavit. By law, the affidavit was sealed for 56 days.
Weinblatt is scheduled to return to court Jan. 26 for a preliminary hearing.
Lee Higgins covers crime and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached by phone at (734) 623-2527 and email at leehiggins@annarbor.com.
Comments
Jim Osborn
Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 12:41 p.m.
What this site calls "attacks" is so one sided. Someone cannot say anything about one side, who is an adult, while the other person is accused multiple times of a sexual act with no evidence, save "I think that he appears…" It makes it impossible to defend this doctor. It is little different from a kangaroo court or something in China or the old USSR, with only the prosecutor being able to present their case and the defense muted.
justcurious
Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 1:53 p.m.
How can we defend the Doctor when we don't know the intricacies of the case, and whether he is guilty or innocent? Common sense would dictate that all anyone can say is they like him, or he is a good doctor.
Jim Osborn
Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 1:07 p.m.
I meant to say, "to defend this doctor, who could be innocent, on this forum."
Jim Osborn
Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 12:35 p.m.
All homes that have windows that are 11 feet from each other should have window shades to avoid any potential future "problems". As others have stated. People have routines. He very likely uses his bathroom at the same time each day. I look out my windows and see the weather. I also have blinds.
kpgj
Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 4:13 a.m.
I am really sad to see this. I have known Dr. Weinblatt since I was 9 years old. I lived down the street from him in the Burns Park area. He was friendly to the neighbor kids and always completely appropriate. I worked for his wife's business and babysat his kids. Later, he was also my son's pediatrician. He is an excellent and caring doctor. Nothing about this case makes any sense. There is no way I believe he did what was alleged. I also know that the houses in the Burns Park neighborhood are very close together and it would be very easy for this to happen by accident. As a kid, my bedroom window happened to line up perfectly with the neighbor's bathroom window. After accidentally seeing something I shouldn't have in the neighbor's window, my parents quickly made sure a proper shade were in place in my bedroom window. My thoughts go out to Dr. Weinblatt.
justcurious
Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 1:50 p.m.
Unfortunately, because you like this Dr., it does not mean that the charges should be dismissed. We are not privy to all of the evidence in this case. I knew two men, at different times, as friends, who were actually convicted of having sexual interest in children. None of us would ever have expected this of them. One man was very active in his church, the other was raising a young son himself. Both were the most personable mean you would ever meet. The courts must decide., not the commenters on here.
Anonymous
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 8:07 p.m.
I am truly shocked and disgusted at all the people on here totally excusing these charges. Dr. Weinblatt was our doctor also and an oustanding one at that and we loved him BUT that does not excuse these charges. It is NOT normal we are talking about a child here and I also know the victim's mother involved who referred me to Dr. Weinblatt years ago who has done nothing but praise him like we all do as a doctor and neighbor anytime I've talked to her, so imagine how shocked she is and how tough this is for their family and I don't favor one over the other. I would like to know how you would feel if it was your daughter this happened to AND no it's not the case of him just looking out his window. He was caught on video masturbating while her daughter was undressing??? Also, comments like but he was in his own home, so it makes it ok to commit a crime since you are in your own home?? They wouldnt have charged such a prominent person without the evidence to back it up. Just think about if it were you in the same situation and it was your daughter. Yes, I initially defended Dr. Weinblatt also because that's a normal thing to do when you have such an emotional involvement concerning your children, it's a hard thing to believe until I found out this actually was the case and evidence is there to prove it. I would have done the exact same thing had it been my child, and I sure would hope you all would too. It really is concerning how many here are dismissing such a serious offense because he is such a wonderful doctor. He will always be one of the best doctors but that doesn't mean that this all should be dismissed and turned around on the victim.
kms
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 9:33 p.m.
@anonymous: since you are acquainted with the family, have you seen the video yourself? Does it prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the doctor was masturbating while viewing the girl? Is the view through the frosted glass that clear? Can you see the changing girl and Weinblatt both on the video? Most commenters, like myself, only know what has been reported on these pages.
nicole
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 9:13 p.m.
Be disgusted all you want. The case is weak.
justcurious
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 8:43 p.m.
Amen. Please know that not everyone on here is excusing this as just being unfair to the doctor, even though it is not popular to comment otherwise.
Roadman
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 7:45 p.m.
There have been thousands of posted opinions on this case. But in the end only one person's opinion will matter on January 26th - Chris Easthope. Let us pray he makes the right decision.
justcurious
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 8:46 p.m.
What is the right decision?
BhavanaJagat
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 6:09 p.m.
What is human nature? This story interests me as I like to investigate and understand the term human nature. Psychologists like B.F. Skinner propose a thesis of Universal Determinism and claim that all human choices, and behavior are caused by environmental influences and conditioning mechanisms. There is an environmental condition that has caused the apparent actions of the doctor which have come under scrutiny and are being investigated. If there was no environmental cause, the doctor would not have exhibited the behavior that has aroused a suspicion in the minds of others. For that reason, I would not suggest that we need to correct the environment and remove the environmental influence. It is my understanding, man is a moral being and man by his very human nature uses discernment and formulates his actions making distinctions between right and wrong and good and evil. Man can choose to move away from the environmental influence to protect himself from making a wrong or evil choice. I had to examine the nakedness of women, and children of various ages, but I cannot have the choice of moving away them for I had chosen to provide them a service and help them in finding relief. But, I cannot be influenced by the environment and look at another person while the person could be dressing as that action is not intended to provide service or relief to that person. There is a basic moral problem or issue and it gives a concern to the parents, and to the community.
Roadman
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 7:51 p.m.
Byrrhus Frederick Skninner's School of Behaviorism. He pioneered "American" psychology as opposed to the Freudian psychoanalytic model originating in Europe. Operant conditioning and punishment shaped man's conduct.
Tru2Blu76
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 5:23 p.m.
I think only: (1) It's not good practice to second guess police investigators & prosecutors & courts before a trial has been held & concluded. (2) Likewise, it's not good practice to publish prejudicial information before a trial has been held and concluded. The only conclusion I've drawn so far is that this case will be messy business and no one will get anything positive out of it. It's very hard to see any outcome which would benefit the alleged perpetrator or their accuser or even the public interest. All comments together bring up some kind of fault or blame against all parties involved, including AnnArbor.com. Seemingly conclusive events like dismissal of a case, a finding of innocence or guilt will not "end this matter." In the movie, "Heartbreak Ridge" Gunnery Sgt. Highway uses a vulgar expression which cannot be repeated here to express his total disgust with the handling of a combat mission. I'll use a substitute phrase to express my own disgust with the handling of this case: I think this whole thing is a cluster-mess. I hope I'm wrong.
Roadman
Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 12:26 a.m.
A better comparison would be "A Few Good Men" when Jack Nicholson testifies from the witness stand "You can't handle the truth!"
MIKE
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 11:26 p.m.
Wow, you had to reach a little to get that Heartbreak Ridge reference in.
newsbee
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 5:03 p.m.
The neighbors on this street know one another from very well to quite well. This alleged incident has rocked us all. The feelling of closeness will be changed because of the neighbor vs. neighbor mentality being played out through the courts. For what it's worth, neighbors communicate to me that they are extrememly upset that Dr. W. has been charged and hope that the charges are dropped.
just sayin
Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 3:59 p.m.
@newsbee Have you considered that he may be guilty? I understand that it is an uncomfortable situation for everyone in the neighborhood, but really? drop the charges because the neighbors are upset?
justcurious
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 5:20 p.m.
This sounds like team mentality. I feel for the girl and her family.
justcurious
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 3:39 p.m.
I do not know if this man is guilty. The real question in my mind is "do we want to stop child predators before they do more harm"? How important is that to us as a society? How far do we want our officials to investigate. Is it ok for adults to be interested in children in a sexual way? I think that most of us want to feel that our children are protected. I am not saying that someone's rights should be taken away to do this. I feel that we must rely on our courts to make sure that doesn't happen.
kms
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 5:40 p.m.
Of course society wants to stop child predators before they do more harm and if the doc was lurking outside and peering into the girl's window from a concealed position as we were all lead to believe from the initial misleading police statement then we could all understand (and support) these charges. But the doctor was arrested, his house was ransacked, personal property was confiscated and his career and reputation destroyed no matter what the ultimate outcome.....all because he was accused of looking out his own bathroom window. I have a window in my bedroom closet and my morning routine frequently involves moving aside the opaque window shade to see what the weather is like outside...is it raining, snowing, windy etc....I like to know this before I get dressed. What if a neighbor saw me and misinterpreted my reasoning for looking out my window? It's chillingly frightening to me that someone could get arrested under these circumstances.
nvragain
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 2:34 p.m.
Dr. Weinblatt's civil rights appeared to have been violated and we the tax payers will end up footing the bill when Mr. Mackie is named in the lawsuit that no doubt will follow dismissal. How can one the word of a neighbor and a ipad video somehow make it possible to come in to a mans home and seize his computers? Let alone get a search warrant to begin with? Dream night club may not have a case against the city, but Dr. Weinblatt surely will.
Roadman
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 7:54 p.m.
This case reminds me of the Julian and Wendrow case in West Bloomfield that showed up on 20/20 last week. Publically humiliated in dramatic arrests, all charges dropped. Let us see what the judge does here.
greymom
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 12:16 p.m.
I was a victim of childhood sexual abuse- I didn't tell anyone until I was in my 30s. Now just a few years ago I found out the Uncle that abused me had his kids taken from him because of the same issue. The family felt it was all lies, but I finally shared with that side of my step-mothers family what in fact happened to me. Don't be so quick to judge because you truly don't know the facts, let the law sort it out. If this doctor in fact do this then our legal system will get to the bottom of it. If you feel the parent should have done something different after the first time, rest assured she wishes she would have now. Don't be so quick to judge, the folks have found guilt in both and we simply have her word against his. There are to many questions that need to be answered in this case. I just wonder why people are so quick to judge- the media, the doctor, the parent. Wait for the facts to all come out. The media is doing the best they can, and people rip them apart for everything- stop!
CincoDeMayo
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 3:37 p.m.
Good post. So much happens that people are just not aware of. There is always more to the story; things that nobody other than the people involved will ever know about - even after an investigation and trial. Thanks for the reminder for all not to be so quick to judge any of the participants.
justcurious
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 3:29 p.m.
I just don't get the mindset of posters who think that there is no possibility that this could have happened as described. The ramifications of this are very serious. Not just for the alleged victim, but for others in the community as well. We are not privy to the evidence in this case. Period.
jcj
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 1:56 p.m.
greymom Good post but don't worry too much about the media. They relish the hits and I sometimes wonder if they don't try too make themselves look incompetent because they know it will generate more hits.
gracelikerain
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 7:07 a.m.
No matter what the situation this man was/is an amazing dr. He is the reason my child is alive today. Please lets stop with all the neg attention that this is getting and wait it out until either the allegations are drooped or found to be true. I feel for him and his family deeply.
justcurious
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 3:30 p.m.
"No matter what the situation this man was/is an amazing dr." I don't understand how anyone could say this in this instance.
Polyjuce123
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 4:35 a.m.
Can the grainy video depicted from an Ipad offer us evidence of a crime? One that could have easily been thwarted by a parent who could have installed darker curtains, or informed their child to dress elsewhere? I can videotape my neighbors looking in on me all day, but if I choose to stand naked in front of the window, I am the only one choosing to let them view me.
liekkio
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 5:22 p.m.
@ justcurious: "Installing dark curtains would not change the mindset of the person 11 feet away" Goes both ways.
justcurious
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 3:31 p.m.
Installing dark curtains would not change the mindset of the person 11 feet away.
jcj
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 3:21 a.m.
If I want to see who is walking down my street at night I ALWAYS turn the lights OUT before looking out the window!
JS
Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 4:43 p.m.
Me too!
CincoDeMayo
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 3:33 p.m.
Me too!
nicole
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 2:32 a.m.
Isn't it dark outside at 7:45 am in October? If he turned on his bathroom light, he wouldn't be able to see out at all to look across at a neighbors house. This case is a joke. Drop it and get on with life.
trespass
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 12:52 a.m.
It must take some imagination to "see" through frosted glass that someone is masturbating. What was the probable cause to seize his computers? No one alleged that he had recorded the girl. Do they seize the computers of everyone who is arrested for peeping? It makes one wonder about the judicial temperment of the judge who signed the warrant. If the search warrant is a public document and anyone can go to the courthouse and get it, then why is the warrant not linked to this story?
Janet Clark
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 1:44 a.m.
There is NO probable cause to seize his computers.....incredibly overreaching by the Judge. In the end, when the dust settles, the Dr will have the basis for a round of civil lawsuits against the involved parties.
Roadman
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 1:25 a.m.
Believe it or not, judges often "rubber stamp" search warrant applications seeking computers, hard drives. disks, etc. on the chance that some proscribed activity may have found its way onto a computer record. Police departments usually have computer specialists then download and peruse everything on the computer, so if a suspect was believed to have committed window peeping and perchance he had evidence of other criminal activity on the computer, police could use that information for an unrelated prosecution. What if a suspect had his computer seized in a situation similar to Dr.Weinblatt and the suspect had ben accepting illicit betting or paid an illegal immigrant housekeeper cash and recorded those transactions on his or her computer, then police would have somthing else to investigate and proceed legally due to the prior search warrant. The information stored on a computer gives police insight to a person's entire private life.
a2grad
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 11:53 p.m.
Something doesn't add up. Furthermore, I have two questions. 1. If the glass below the shades was "frosty" how on earth could someone see that he was in fact pleasuring himself? It seems like a bit of a stretch. My grandma has those kinds of windows and you can't see anything from the outside standing just 2 feet away! 2. How do we in fact know that video she got in the window was at the time her daughter changing? I feel like she could have just left it up until she got a shot of the guy looking out his windom. God forbid I look out my own window and across the street at what is going on in the neighborhood and I end up on here! I am not saying he is innocent, nor can I say he is guilty, but I agree with many people...some things just don't add up with this story.
CincoDeMayo
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 3:32 p.m.
My point being that there are apparently different grades of "frostiness". This probably is true of the sheer curtains. Both of these subjects may have thought that they had more privacy than they actually had.
CincoDeMayo
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 3:30 p.m.
We once had frosted glass in our bathroom window. I couldn't see out of it in the daytime. I thought it was pretty opaque. Until one evening I was outside and saw my daughter clearly through the window. I was shocked at how easily and clearly one could see into the bathroom when the light was on from the outside when it appeared so opaque from the inside....
jcj
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 3:19 a.m.
theory #2 is Not likely but certainly would be a reasonable doubt for me.
annarbor28
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 11:48 p.m.
I think the fascination with this case, at least for me, is that I always cover windows up with opaque material so that no one in my house can be seen while undressing. I would not put up flimsy curtains, because someone could see in the window. So I would blame myself if someone saw me or someone in my family undressing. It appears that I have been living my entire life under a delusion that I need to buy and install thick curtains for both insulation and privacy. Having spent lots of money on thick curtains, I know that no one can see me while I am inside my house doing anything personal. That makes me feel protected from people looking in! Am I the only one who puts up thick curtains for privacy? I actually thought it was a big industry. Maybe there are counterfeit thick curtains from China, that SOPA needs to protect us against? Or will annarbor.com remove this comment, to protect the innocent, who may have bought counterfeit curtains?
Judy Freedman
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 2 p.m.
Me, too, where can I get my curtains checked?
jcj
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 3:18 a.m.
Nice end run annarbor28! I agree!
a2huron
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 11:48 p.m.
One thing is for certain: this man's life has changed forever. Hopefully the child's has not.
kms
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 3:25 p.m.
Of course the child's life has been changed forever. And if this case actually makes it to trial, I would imagine she would be called upon to testify in court.
Judy Freedman
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 1:58 p.m.
of course it will be, and as a mother I would have handled this much differently.
a2citizen
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 11:34 p.m.
Maybe he was really looking at the mother. After all, she was present in every instance. Would that change the charges?
janeqdoe
Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 12:27 p.m.
Bingo. I would state my theory on what could have happened, but the censors would certainly delete it.
thinker
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 11:16 p.m.
I certainly hope he can prove he was at work when these alleged incidents occurred.
nicole
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 11:06 p.m.
What shocks people is that you can be in your own house looking out the window and arrested for it. What you do in your house should be your own business.
JustMyOpinion
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 7:38 p.m.
If you wish to be free in your own house, then please cover your windows or move away from neighbors. Ostensibly, his vision left his own house, so he wasn't quite alone. One has obligations for what one chooses to view, be it a crime in the street or something else.
justcurious
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 11:21 p.m.
It doesn't shock me, and I am a "people".
Phyllis McDermott
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 11:03 p.m.
Based on this report, there appears no basis for the Judge to grant the search warrant. There is no mention that the Dr was using a video recording device while allegedly watching the girl change, which could have served as the basis of trying to find "evidence"....in fact, he was the one that was being recorded. Therefore there is no correlation to the alleged crime - and the rationale for seizing the man's property. An incredible and frightening example of a violation of civil rights....being arrested in your own home for looking out the window and then having your property searched and seized. Doesn't the Constitution protect us against this type of thing? This is the equivalent of being arrested for a DUI, then the police obtaining a search warrant of a private home to see if they can find drugs or evidence of some other unrelated crime. Plus, it is extraordinary to imagine being able to identify someone allegedly masturbating through a frosted window...This case stinks on so many different levels.
Terry Star21
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 10:56 p.m.
I agree whole heartily with Deb....with the exception of the Sports Department, A2.com is a joke as a news source - pathetic at best. When it comes to freedom of speech as related to comments, most of which are true responses (opinions, what they have asked for), they are so far past a joke - again pathetic at best !
NonTownie
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 10:01 p.m.
The mere fact that no one wants to believe this happened is precisely how this type of crime happens. Victims are afraid to speak out against someone loved by so many others, someone doing so many good things in the community. People in a position to put an end to something bad hesitate, concerned about the repercussions. Yes, he's innocent until proven guilty, but so is the young girl and so are her parents. Remember there is a victim here, and at least according to the police, it is not Dr. Weinblatt. Maybe she hasn't had enough time to become pillar of the community, but justice is for everyone, not just people we all want to believe are above reproach. I am a parent of children, and they have seen Dr. Weinblatt at Child Health Associates for the past 15 years. While he has been an excellent doctor, I cannot so easily dismiss the enormity of these charges.
John Spelling
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 4:38 a.m.
"enormity of these charges" and "gravity of the situation"? give me a break
justcurious
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 11:25 p.m.
Thank You NonTownie for providing some sanity in this race to say that he did nothing wrong. We do not know the facts of the case and we cannot say anyone is innocent or guilty. People are not even considering the gravity of the situation.
Phyllis McDermott
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 11:06 p.m.
There is no "victim" until it is determined in a court of law that a crime has been committed. It may turn out that the Dr is a victim....and that the child is a victim, but not by the actions of the Dr, but by those of her parents.
Jack
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 9:12 p.m.
I've go to admit I'm a little appalled at the atittude of some of the commenters. So it's okay for a physican to stare at a 12 year old while changing clothes because the curtain is a bit skimpy? And while he is apparently masturbating? Gee, forgive me, but I think there is something wrong with that. Would you have the same reaction is he were a construction worker? I wonder.
Jack
Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 4:15 a.m.
Mr. Granville - So, in your world, it is okay for a person to stand in their front window, curtains open, and masturbate? Or spouses to beat one another or their children? Or play music so loud hours on end because it disturbs the entire neighborhood? Or commit a murder as long as it is in their house? Or run a meth factory? Abuse animals? Because that is what you just said.
Robert Granville
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 9:38 a.m.
Is it okay? I have no comment on that.... but I do believe what a man does in the confines of his own home... by himself... is his business.
EyeHeartA2
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 12:41 a.m.
"Would you have the same reaction is he were a construction worker? I wonder." If there was a construction worker 11 feet away, I would have made sure my daughter didn't get dressed in front of a window. I hope that answers your question.
justcurious
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 11:27 p.m.
I agree wholeheartedly with you.
Jack
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 10:15 p.m.
"I failed to see the need for an immediate arrest of Dr. Weinblatt before the detective and prosecutors actually reviewed the results of the search and seizure pursuant to the search warrant. No arrest warrant was ever issued as to Dr. Weinblatt nor was any crime witnessed in the presence of a law enforcement officer." "No reasonable expectation of privacy in any unshaded window - therefore no crime. Period. Case needs to be dismissed." "If you are standing in front of a window and there is a house 11 feet away with windows facing yours then what are your expectations of privacy?" Unless you are splitting hairs here, the intent is clear.
nvragain
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 10:02 p.m.
I think it would be near impossible to prove he was masturbating, unless that is, a elaborate series of mirrors were in place to actually see what he was touching. Good luck Mr. Mackie in your next job.
Fatkitty
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 9:31 p.m.
@Jack, I went back and read the comments, and unless I missed something, I did not read any that condoned the behavior you describe.
obviouscomment
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 8:48 p.m.
" the affidavit says" I think they wanted to make this extremely clear. Any other comment I have to make will probably be deleted because for some reason they've been deleted on all the other articles. But basically my sentiments are: I have no pity for anybody guilty of these kind of crimes and I hope they get the max sentence.
jcj
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 3:11 a.m.
"I have no pity for anybody guilty of these kind of crimes and I hope they get the max sentence." Most here would agree totally! IF and WHEN he is found guilty!
Roadman
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 8:42 p.m.
How do we know the girl was "changing" at the very time Weinblatt is purportedly gazing out of his own window?
Fatkitty
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 9:01 p.m.
We don't. One person's word against another. And it would have been a little difficult (or impossible) to set up a video camera to capture both sides (the alleged peeper and peep-ee) simultaneously. Unless Dr. W's computer turns up some lecherous child porn, seems like this whole thing ought to get tossed out of court.
Suzanne
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 8:24 p.m.
If he was peeping at her, why did he turn the lights on? Doesn't add up...
Fatkitty
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 8:12 p.m.
Re Dr. W's bathroom - where is the shower located in relation to the frosted window, and what are the dimensions of the window?
JustMyOpinion
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 7:36 p.m.
That would be pertinent and interesting information.
Top Cat
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 8:08 p.m.
This is a reminder of why I like living out in the country and not within 11 feet of anybody.
halflight
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 7:52 p.m.
Ms. Gardner wrote: "[annarbor.com conversation guidelines] do not allow comments that seek to criticize or blame the alleged victim or her family, or to suggest that the family should have done something different." So will annarbor.com censor the testimony presented by the defense?
Unknown
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 7:52 p.m.
I'm curious about something- Does this site post all pending court cases on a regular basis as they have done with this one? Cases that aren't even in the trial phase! The prosecutor must love you guys. I wish this story would go away until it's brought to trial (if it's brought to trial) to give everyone a fair chance to defend themselves.
anonymous
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 7:46 p.m.
I just feel the need to post something I realized from using the search feature on this website: Stories about Katharine Mishler, who recently killed her husband and lied about it: 6 Stories about Dr. Weinblatt: 10 Let me also add that Dr. Weinblatt has a specific tag for his name where you can click on it to see all of the references in stories to him, and Ms. Mishler does not. Also, the coverage of the homicide case included stories from the entire court process, all the way to the end where she plead guilty. Dr. Weinblatt's trial hasn't even began yet! Disclaimer: The above post is not an off-topic comment, has no personal attacks against private individuals, is not insensitive to victims of accidents or crimes, does not presume guilt on the part of persons accused of crimes, does not use a tragedy to make a political point, contains no personal information about individuals, does not contain racist, sexist, offensive language, is not in all caps, does not break copyright law, and is not a commercial posting. Therefore, it is in accordance with your moderation guidelines and you can't delete it.
Jack
Sat, Jan 21, 2012 : 4:30 a.m.
Try doing a search on the kid who ran over the ducklings and I think you'll find there were also a lot of articles there, albeit it was a simple case that did not call a search warrant. Note also the sentiment against the young man and compare it with the sentiment here, despite the fact that this case may involve a voyeur of children by one who treats children, to boot. Almost everyone assumed the young man's guilt even prior to trial. I'm not saying the doctor is guilty. But I am saying there appears to be enough information for a warrant to have been issued. They are not issued lightly.
mg0blue
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 12:27 a.m.
Actually, this was my original posting but somehow it made it "anonymous". Yes, feel free to use my disclaimer for any postings. I'll have my attorney contact your attorney to complete the necessary paperwork.
cornelius McDougenschniefferburgenstein jr. 3 esq.
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 10:50 p.m.
anonymous,may i please use your disclaimer for my postings?ill send a release form.i dont want any plagerism issues.lol
smokeblwr
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 7:55 p.m.
I would bet a opaque window shade that this story generally gets many more "hits" than the murder case. THAT is why there are more articles. Admit it, we love reading this stuff for some reason.
Bob Katz
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 7:44 p.m.
750.539j Surveillance of or distribution, dissemination, or transmission of recording, photograph, or visual image of individual having reasonable expectation of privacy; prohibited conduct; violation as felony; penalty; exceptions; "surveil" defined. Sec. 539j. (1) A person shall not do any of the following: (a) Surveil another individual who is clad only in his or her undergarments, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you are standing in front of a window and there is a house 11 feet away with windows facing yours then what are your expectations of privacy?
JustMyOpinion
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 7:34 p.m.
In essence, I agree, but there is also some obligation on the part of the grown up doctor to keep his eyes to himself out of simple moral responsibility - one doesn't wish to invite trouble, right? The nuns used to lecture us on several topics at school, but one was that in life many things may present themselves to you but a prudent person keeps custody of their eyes and ears lest they get involved in matters not concerning them. Seems like good advice.
Roadman
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 8:13 p.m.
Bingo! "Reasonable expectation of privacy" is the key to dismissal of the charges. That term has been interpreted by thousands of courts - the most famous of which was, ironically, the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Katz versus United States in 1967. I have never understood the prosecution for bringing these charges.
pbehjatnia
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 7:42 p.m.
Dr. Weinblatt's life as well as his family's lives have been turned inside out because of the allegations made against him. The conversation guidelines annarbor.com imposes on readers are odd at best. In the incidents of assault and rape victims in Ann Arbor, there is no deletion of comments with ideas which definitely are critical of the victims. But here, where not only a personal but a hard won and worked for professional reputation are at stake, annarbor.com deletes comments not of the burn 'em at the stake variety. Comments which validly question the allegations as given. Questioning and conversing are as American as apple pie. Maybe annarbor.com should take that into consideration and get a real journalist with real ethics to rewrite your convo guidelines.
jcj
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 6:42 p.m.
While I have no sympathy for Dr Weinblatt. Could not the same law be applied to the mother for watching and taping Dr Weinblatt?
cornelius McDougenschniefferburgenstein jr. 3 esq.
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 10:41 p.m.
of course not.one cannot look out there own window while fully clothed.but if one is allegedly naked and allegedly video recording somone else in thier alleged leasehold its allegedly just allegedly fine.
golfer
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 6:35 p.m.
Something does not feel right about this whole deal. I hope it all comes out with the trial. Remember a person is innocent until proven guilty. Either way his career is ruined. I hope it ends soon. I am tired of reading about it. Let the jury decide.
Roadman
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 6:30 p.m.
Typically, search warrants and supporting affidavits are a matter of public record from the court from where they are issued. A "sealing" of those documents to shield them from public view is usually done upon request of a prosecutor upon a showing of good cause. I have seen such sealing when there is an ongoing undercover investgation and placing such matters into the public record could jeopardize the investigation. There is no "good cause" I see here becuse Dr. Weinblatt was reportedly arrested onsite during the execution of the search warrant. I failed to see the need for an immediate arrest of Dr. Weinblatt before the detective and prosecutors actually reviewed the results of the search and seizure pursuant to the search warrant. No arrest warrant was ever issued as to Dr. Weinblatt nor was any crime witnessed in the presence of a law enforcement officer. No reasonable expectation of privacy in any unshaded window - therefore no crime. Period. Case needs to be dismissed.
Roadman
Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 12:06 a.m.
@green1: That statutory section indicates that the 56-day period does not affect rights the public has under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of a search warrant affidavit from either the County Prosecutor or law enforcement authority. When the search warrant affidavit contents became an issue, annarbor.com inquired and was advised that the affidavit was under seal. They could have, like many public agencies, requested that the reporter submit a FOIA request to them or the AAPD - but did not - hence the information was not made public until over eight weeks later. To me it seems the County Prosecutor's office did not want the affidavit's contents to be under public media scrutiny - and that is sad.
green1
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 11:23 p.m.
You're wrong on this one, Roadman. All search warrants are automatically sealed in the courts for 56 days under Michigan statute 780.651. The prosecuting or investigating authority can make a motion for an additional extensions.
Michigan Reader
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 10:31 p.m.
Roadman, a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is a question for the finder of fact, either a jury or a judge.
justcurious
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 8:41 p.m.
Maybe you should contact the defendant's attorney with your information.
cornelius McDougenschniefferburgenstein jr. 3 esq.
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 6:26 p.m.
perhaps he was looking to see if a neighbor was allegedly a person of interest in the furtherance of conspiracy to attempt thiking about agrivated felonious idling 1st degree.
smokeblwr
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 6:25 p.m.
The lesson I'm taking away from this is to not use sheer curtains and frosted glass for window treatments.
Swordsman
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 7:17 p.m.
Strangely, my own comment to this effect didn't make it through, but this is ok. Naturally, I agree.
bunnyabbot
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 6:47 p.m.
totally. (every other comment I was going to submit I knew would be deleted).
deb
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 6:20 p.m.
Paula, annarbor.com stories don't even comply with your conversation guidelines, annarbor.com continually represents itself as a joke
shutthefrtdoor
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 6:19 p.m.
No matter how often this article is printed or updated...something just doesn't add up in my opinion
Paula Gardner
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 5:59 p.m.
A reminder: We welcome comments on this story, but ask commenters to comply with our conversation guidelines, which do not allow comments that seek to criticize or blame the alleged victim or her family, or to suggest that the family should have done something different. For a fuller explanation of our guidelines and how and why we are applying them to this story, you can go here: <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/about/why-we-need-to-apply-our-regular-conversation-guidelines-to-howard-weinblatt-coverage/">http://www.annarbor.com/about/why-we-need-to-apply-our-regular-conversation-guidelines-to-howard-weinblatt-coverage/</a>
manbearpig
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 11:38 p.m.
Cinnabar- i don't know if he did or didn't do it or what happened, but I don't think it is random that he appeared in his bathroom at 7:45am on the two occasions mentioned. For those of us who keep a regular schedule, like the alleged victim, who was getting ready for school, and maybe someone like a working doctor, it is common to get up at the same time each day and then head into the bathroom and drop a deuce or do something else
nvragain
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 9:32 p.m.
So you are allowed to look out your own window at your home or not cinnabar? Or only if someone has unique siding? Your reasoning is false!
cinnabar7071
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 8:25 p.m.
nvragain so you think its just random that he appears in the window when the child is changing clothes on more then one occasian? The mother didn't think it was random, and the Prosecutor doesn't feel it was random. The houses are 11 feet apart and unless they have some amazing siding on the house I feel it odd that he would ever look out that window. Not saying the mother was right in taping him, but I feel she made better decisions then I would have.
thinker
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 8:07 p.m.
Why not? You've already decided the doctor is guilty, without trial of peers, and sentenced him (destroyed his reputation).
nvragain
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 7:56 p.m.
cinnabar7071 - I am glad you find this to be very clear. You are in the minority. I have now polled about everyone in my office, which is about 60 mothers, and a few grandmothers, and they disagree with you. Also, are you "reasonable critical thinker" or a reasonably critical thinker? And you are not wondering what transpired? Why not? You must believe in some other judicial system, where one can make accusations and never have to prove anything. Either way, your thinking is flawed.
cinnabar7071
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 7:33 p.m.
KeepingItReal I for one am not wondering what has transpired. The man appears in the window often when the child was getting dressed. I too am reasonable critical thinking person and I find it very clear what was going on and I also hope the courts get this right.
KeepingItReal
Wed, Jan 18, 2012 : 6:14 p.m.
Paula. I consider myself to be a reasonable critical thinking person but there are somethings about case that is just not adding up. This man's life has essentially been destroyed and many are wondering what has transpired. I truly hope that the legal and judicial community has gotten this correct. Judge Hines in my opinion is a pretty responsible Judge. I just hope everybody gets this right.