Questions Remain in Wake Of Easter Arrests in Fairfax

The Washington Post


April 28, 1984, Saturday, Final Edition


Questions Remain in Wake Of Easter Arrests in Fairfax


BYLINE: By Charles Fishman, Washington Post Staff Writer


SECTION: Metro; B1


LENGTH: 758 words


Fairfax County court officials maintained yesterday that the only error they made in arresting a Falls Church area man on Easter Sunday was apologizing for the arrest four days later. But an investigation by court officials into another Easter arrest, that of a Falls Church woman, failed to clear up the question of who was responsible for her being taken into custody three days after a judge quashed the arrest warrant.And Fairfax County police, who suspended serving certain arrest warrants as a result of the two incidents, conducted their own investigation and announced that they will resume serving warrants on Monday.About all that could be agreed on yesterday after two courts and the Fairfax County police had looked into the disputed arrests was that the culprit originally blamed by everyone--the Fairfax Courthouse computer--was innocent.


Mary Ryder and Claude Lineberry were arrested on bench warrants and jailed in the controversial Easter incidents after they failed to appear in court on an assigned date. Such warrants are issued routinely by judges.Lineberry, 43, president of a small Tysons Corner consulting firm, was arrested Sunday on a warrant that was issued after he failed to appear in Fairfax County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court on April 12 for a hearing in his divorce/child support proceedings.He was jailed briefly and released on bond. On Thursday, Chief Judge Thomas A. Fortkort apologized to Lineberry in court for the arrest, which he said had been the result of clerical or computer error.Lineberry and his attorney, Robert Vaughn, said they were under the impression they were supposed to appear on April 26.Yesterday, however, juvenile court services director Vincent Picciano said his investigation indicated that "everything went according to plan"--that Lineberry had been scheduled to appear in court on April 12, did not show up, and was arrested as he should have been.Fortkort, the judge who apologized, declined to comment on the matter. However, Picciano said Fortkort "indicated he did apologize, but that that was based on information he received from Mr. Vaughn"--information Picciano and Fortkort now say is contradicted by the court record.Vaughn said yesterday, "They're wrong." He said that at a hearing before Fortkort in January, he, the judge and a second attorney agreed on the April 26 date. Sometime in February, Vaughn said, he received notice that the hearing was scheduled for April 12 "and called the court , explained the situation, and they agreed that apparently it was an incorrect date."But when Lineberry failed to appear on April 12, officials tried unsuccessfully to call him, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.Picciano said yesterday that all written and computer records indicate the court date was April 12.Albert Kassabian, the other attorney who was at the January hearing where the date was set, is no longer involved in the litigation, and said yesterday he would not say what date his calendar showed for the scheduled hearing."I don't think it would be proper for me to get involved in this," Kassabian said.Court officials agree that Mary Ryder, who was arrested by Falls Church police in front of her three young children on Easter, should not have been arrested. But, while officials from Falls Church and Fairfax County have apologized profusely for the mistake, they cannot say precisely why it happened.An arrest warrant was issued, but it was revoked three days before the Easter arrest by a Fairfax County General District Court judge. Somehow, court officials said, word of the revocation never was transmitted to Falls Church police.Catherine Ratiner, clerk of the General District Court, said that at some point "the system broke down," but she said the court was not exclusively to blame.The motion to revoke the arrest warrant was unscheduled, "and so it didn't follow normal channels," she said. She added that an unusually high number of motions and an unprecedented day-long computer breakdown created enormous clerical problems late last week.Ratiner said she has reviewed all the court's procedures since the incident "and I haven't come up with anything better than what we do now, anything that could guarantee 100 percent accuracy."Fairfax police said yesterday they have looked into the incidents "and we're satisifed that the system . . . is fine," according to Col. Alan L. Barbee.Barbee said police serve about three such warrants a day, and will resume serving them Monday.