published Thursday, November 17th, 2011

Ex-EMT loses license in sexual battery case

  • photo
    Michael Lamar Johnston, 41, was charged with sexual battery and unlawful photographing in violation of privacy.

A former Hamilton County paramedic must give up his EMT license after he pleaded guilty to fondling a woman as she was being transported to a hospital.

Michael Lamar Johnston, 41, also was given a suspended two-year sentence Tuesday on a sexual battery conviction and will have to register as a sex offender, according to court records.

A judge will review his case Feb. 13 to determine whether he should be placed on probation and possibly receive judicial diversion, which would allow his crime to be expunged once probation is completed.

A presentencing investigation was ordered for Johnston.

The woman suffered from seizures and convulsions at a Fawn Drive home the day the incident took place, according to court records. It is Chattanooga Times Free Press policy not to name victims of sexual assault.

Accused of taking photos of the woman's nude body, Johnston was charged with sexual battery and unlawful photographing in violation of privacy. The photographing charge was dismissed, according to court records.

After the incident, the victim filed a lawsuit for $2.9 million against the county. No information was available Wednesday evening on the status of the lawsuit.

Johnston, who was fired on Aug. 9, 2010, had worked for emergency medical services since 1994, according to newspaper archives.

11
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Oz said...

How many other women were fondled and photographed by this idiot while being unconscious? Sick.

November 17, 2011 at 8:27 a.m.
cbarney4 said...

This makes it hard to trust anyone, WOW!

November 17, 2011 at 8:53 a.m.
jesse said...

hey barney , just because your paranoid don't mean they ain't after your a$$!!

2 yrs.susp.is no way enough punishment for this!he needs to book some jail time!

November 17, 2011 at 10:51 a.m.
shen said...

After an experience I had several years ago, I've never called an ambulance since.

If this pervert was taking pictures that means he was transporting them somewhere and to someone or someoneS. Most likely others in the profession.

This is a pervert, another predator, hiding behind a profession to feed his sickness. He should be given prison time just like any regular citizen would be given.

November 17, 2011 at 1:03 p.m.
cbarney4 said...

Oh Jesse, I am not paranoid! Sorry to disappoint, but someone that is suppose to be taking care of you is taking pictures of you? What did he do with those said pictures, they could end up anywhere!

November 17, 2011 at 3:22 p.m.
01centare said...

I'm not as concerned about the obvious predator living next door who has to register as a sex offender or has a traceable criminal record. It's the Michael Lamar Johnston of the trade who gets their records expunged and no one's the wiser when they become your next door neighbor.

November 17, 2011 at 6:11 p.m.
dennis said...

Why in the world is this pervert not in jail at this very moment. How can the courts let this predator even have the possiabilty of getting his record expunged. He is a SEXUAL PREDATOR, and you just can not cure them. Put him in jail and throw the keys away. I will be more than glad to pay what it takes to keep him in jail,if it means he can't hurt my wife or daughter or someone else's family member.

November 17, 2011 at 6:47 p.m.
jesse said...

the reason he's on the street is the a.g. office cut him a deal and the judge went along w/it!

November 17, 2011 at 7:50 p.m.
flutie said...

this offense carries 2-4 years, as set by the state legislature. under our sentencing guidelines, sentences under 8 years are presumed probabtable. First time offenders rarely servfe jail time in cases carrying less than 8 years. Had this clmt been convicted of this offense at trial, the sentence would have been the same. The sentence was proper and within the sentencing guidelines. your outrage should be directed against the General Assembly. they established these guidelines. This plea carried an agreed sentence. Judges presume the state knows the inherent strenghs and weaknesses of thie cases. as such, courts presum these offers reflect what the state believe the case is worth. Judges are not a party to plea negotiations. They can reject a plea offer but rarely do for the reasons discussed. This offender likely had no record. had he gone to trial for the same offense, the sentnece likely would have been the same. Thus, the judge didn't "go along" with anything. moreover,a court has little discretion in determining a sentence. it must follow the established guiidelines. the sentence hear satisfied the statute and was proper within the guidelines. the judge merely followed the law in accepting the plea. The result would have been the same had he gone to trial. The judge "went along" with nothing

November 17, 2011 at 11:40 p.m.
please login to post a comment

Other National Articles

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement
400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.