Appendix — Slater v. New Jersey
Supreme Court brief2011
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
VRE
THE
mi TPR I
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
CUMBERLAND TRIAL REGION
14 EAST COMMERCE STREET
BRIDGETON, NEW JERSEY 083
856) 453-1568
SUPERIOR COl
NEW JERSEY
LAW DIV. - CRIMINAI
UMBERLAND COUNT’
ROBERT LANE, and
CHRISTOPHER SLATI
Defendants.
IRDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTIO!
SUPRESS EVIDENCE
= + 4 ‘
© LLIIALUL' ici
nn defendant’s motion to suppress and the court
\aving considered the papers submitted, testimo1
presented, arguments of counsel and for good ca
hown: |
IT IS ON THIS 17 DAY OF JUNE , 2009
YRDERED that defendants’ motion to suppres:
evidence seized
rRANTED
FILED JUNE 18, 2(
SUPERIOR COURT
OF CUMBERLANI
,OUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
LAW DIVISION -CRIMINAL PART
State of New Jersey ) Indictment No: 08-11-001055-I/A
) Term: July 2008
| ) Session: November 2008
Christopher D. Slater)
and Robert Lane
INDICTMENT
THE GRAND JURORS of the State of New
Jersey, for the County of Cumberland, upon thei
oaths, present that:
COUNT ONE
Possession Of A Controlled Dangerous' Substance:
Third Degree)
CHRISTOPHER D. SLATER and ROBERT LANE
on or about the 30th day of April 2008, in the City of
Millville in the County of Cumberland aforesaid, and
within the jurisdiction of this Court, did knowingly or
purposely possess a controlled dangerous substance, to
wit: Cocaine, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A.
2C:35-10(a\(1), and against the peace of this State, the
government and dignity of the same.
COUNT TWO
Possession Of A Controlled Dangerous Substance With
Intent To Distribute-Second Degree)
CHRISTOPHER D. SLATER and ROBERT LANE
on or about the 30th day of April 2008, in the City of
Millville in the County of Cumberland aforesaid, and
within the jurisdiction of this Court, did knowingly or
purposely posses a controlled dangerous substance, to
wit: Cocaine, in a quantity of one-half ounce or more,
including any adulterants or dilutants, with intent to
distribute same, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A.
2C:35-5(b)\(2), and against the peace of this State, the
government and dignity of the same.
COUNT THREI
ynspiracy - Second Degi
CRISTOPHER D. SLATER and ROBERT LAN
m or about the 30th day of April 2008, in the City of
Millville in the County of Cumberland aforesaid, an:
within the jurisdiction of this Court, did conspire v
each other to commit the crime of Possession of :
Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to
Distribute, to wit: Cocaine, in a quantity of ons
ounce or more, a crime of the second degree, in
violations of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(2), contrary to tl
provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2(a)(1) and (2), and agai
the peace of this State, the government 1 dignit
:
e Same
tONALD J. CASELL
CUMBERLAND COl
PROSECUTOR
LLED NOVEMBE]
UPERIOR COURT
UMBERLAND COl
STATE OF NEW JERSE’
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
IND NO. 08-11-1055-I/A
A.D. |
ol New Jersey A
Plaintiff TRANSCRIP
VS OF
Christopher Slate MOTION TO SEPARATE:
and Robert Lane ) MOTION TO SUPPRESS &
Defendant(s). ) MOTION TO DISMISS
lace: Cumberland Co. Courthou:
Broad and Fayette Street
Bridgeton, NJ 08302
April 8. Z009
BEFORE
The HONERABLE ROBERT P. BECKER
J.5.C
TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY
CATHRYN E. WILSON, Assista1
APPEARANCES:
CATHRYN E. WILSON, Assistant Prosecuto)
Attorney on Behalf of the State of New Jersey
CHARLES SANDILOS, Assistant Deputy Publi
Defender
Attorney on Behalf of the Defendant Slater
THOMAS CONNELLY, ESQUIRE
Attorney on Behalf of the Defendant Lane
THE TYPE-RIGHT-ER
Carol H. Vendzules, AD/CT!
State of New Jersey, #268
Phone (856) 881-2422
Fax (856) 494-7806
Recording Operator
M. Rainear
INDEX
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT
RECROSS
STATE
DET. HAROLD DUFFII
By- Ms. Wilson
By- Mr. Connelly
3y- Ms. Sandilo:
EXHIBITS [IDENTIFICATIO VIDENE
DEFENSE
D-1S Copy of Complaint
D-2S Copy of Complaint
Colloquy
THE COURT: All right. Let me call the matter then
of State vs. Christopher Slater and, let me make sure I ge
this right, Robert J. Lane, both under Indictment 08-11
1055. Counsel, your appearances, please.
MS. WILSON: Good afternoon, Your Hono!
Cathryn Wilson on behalf of the State.
MR. CONNELLY: Good afternoon, Your Hono:
Thomas Connelly on behalf of Christopher Slater.
MR. SANDILOS: Charles Sandilos for Robert Lane
THE COURT: Okay. I've been -- we're here today on
this matter. There's three Motions that have been filed.
One; Motion to Conduct Separate Trials. The other
a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment and the other for a
Motion to Suppress the evidence seized by law
enforcement.
I would like to hear the Motion to Suppress first
That's the one that's testimonial. And we'll go from ther
if everybody agrees.
MS. WILSON: Fine, Judge.
MR. CONNELLY: Yes, Your Honor. That's f
May I have a water at the counsel table, Judge?
THE COURT: Sure
—
COwoOOnN DW DWN
—
—
i
20
NIN RO
Cd KD
RO RO
in & ¢
26
COOnnuwd Wr
H. Duffield - Direct - Ms. Wilson
MR. CONNELLY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. You are ready to proceed?
MS. WILSON: Yes, Judge, I am.
THE COURT: Sir, could you put your left hand on
the Bible there and raise your right hand?
DET. HAROLD DUFFIELD, JR., STATE’S WITNESS,
SWORN
THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Could I have your
full name?
THE WITNESS: Harold Duffield, Jr.
; THE COURT: Could you spell your last name for
me:
THE WITNESS: Duffield, D-U-F-F-I-E-L-D
THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Ms. Wilson?
MS. WILSON: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WILSON
Q. Officer, where do you work?
A. I work for the City of Millville Police
Department.
2. And how long have you worked for
Millville?
A. It'll be 12 years June 2.
(). And what is your present assignment in
Millville?
A. I'm assigned to the Narcotics Unit as a Detective
Q. How long have you been in Narcotics?
H. Duffield Direct - Ms. Wilson
A It's six years and four months.
Q. nd while you've been in Narcotics, have
you received any special training in narcotics?
A. Yes, I have. Other than the police academy, ye:
[ have.
Q And what did you learn in the police
academy about narcotics specifically?
, Sasicaliy, the identification. General things
about the possession of drugs, possession with intent,
the manufacturing and drug paraphernalia.
(). And were there certain types of drugs that
were shown to you?
A Yes.
Q). And you were shown how -- were you
shown how to identify --
MR. CONNELLY: Objection; leading
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. CONNELLY: Leading; objection.
THE COURT: You've got ic stand up when you
make an objection.
MR. CONNELLY: I'm sorry. I object to the form
of the question as stated.
S. WILSON: Judge, it's background but I’]]
rephrase.
) ‘
Aiil
MR. CONNELLY: Sorry
[ EXAMINATION BY M
\ At the police
~ 43
> > noc n 1wuicsy
Lit LY pre S of an
Yes, | was
" Ane
a ANG
+44,
] LILY Cé
iv is
A «
11 1 \
lal
\ 7
an
Chrou mt
nLroite } Y) j tr }
‘ iT it i A A I
‘\
Ay
¥ Ail
? 4 Tr
. + &
ALA LA y \
i have six ot
\ ike me t
yy Yeah. You cal ju
uu attended on the record
Drugs for patrol officers, Top Gu naudibl
hool, DEA drug school, marijuana eradication throu
New Jersey State Police and cannabis indoor grov
Q And with specifically the marijua |
did you learn at those schools’
Basically, identification. Once again, the s1
her it be in raw form, burning form. How it's
Q Now, in your six years as a narcoti
tective, how many times do you estimate y:
ither raw marijuana or burned marijuana
Over 50 times
Y Now, have you recel
tective prostitution activity
No advaend training but experience «
Yes, that's part of -- actually, we're the Narcoti
Unit however, we do a lot of the street
Prostitution is included in that
q And how many
—_
BMI PRY RO RO AD
mam WN
H. Duffield - Direct
can you estimate for us
Between five and eight
Q. And whi it types of things do you
when you re doing a prostitution investigation?
A. It depends if you're looking for the johns |
actually trying to pick up the actual oaks
themselves.
Q. Now, 1n your training has there been spe
behaviors that you would observe ‘when you were looki
at different activity regarding prostitution?
A. Yes. As far as the johns attempting to ]
prostitutes.
MR. CONNELLY: ['‘m going to ob yect He testifir
: A :
there was no formal tr: uning 1n p rostitution detectio
MS. WILSON: He's t: alking : ibout his experien:
Judge. His training in the field.
MR. CONNELLY: You asked -- the questi
asked was, in your training.
THE COURT: Excuse me. Excuse me, sir. Wi
going to do this in an order. Listen, you object. You
your comment. She makes her comment.
When she's done, if you want to go again but
don't interrupt her while she's talking. We w
clear record; okay? Just calm down we’rt
H. Duffield Dire ct
i're going to be able to talk
MR. CONNELLY: Yes, ‘sit
MS. WILSON: Judge, for
question.
THE COURT: Does that sat
object to the rephrased question?
MR. CONNELLY: That's -
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WILSON
Q. In your experience conducting t] se five
eight prostitution investigations, is there certain behav
you have observed in the past regarding prostitutes
johns?
A Yes
Q. And what types of
in these types of experiences?
A. Some of the behav iors, as in this case. The b1
lights flashing as they drive by the prostitutes. The
prostitutes waving.
The johns honking their horns as they drive by
Driving by and pulling over right away . Stepping. W:
Q Ok: iy. Now, I want to turn your atte wine |
April 30 of 2008. Do you recall if you were working o1
oa <
~
a =
me
— Bi
ne
+ —~
~~ Sa
=
—_— ~~
~ 7 )
J -
aa COS
~~
aon
f
onl aol =
- ~~
Oa s~
kee
ae
tn eet
CL us
. —
A
‘ (, uo
—— 4
- nee -
4 +/
- >
oe, -
. +
/ oo i A
a , 1
—- a ~*~ ad
. > oa] >
—— - ms f
7 a
~~ 4
pmo MEL 2
oe ~~ _
+. >
© ee Gene — >
— me oe 2) >
-~ -_ 4
— é ~~ ¥« 7
——t — se en
~ * aT ..
“ —s
4 De a -
_ — of wt
— — et -
ew av’ md en pd —
— VY if ~~
me TU Corre v
14 Co —~
mY a. nae pt -
‘ 3 Nw
a + / b-
me " @ +
pa
~ aed pte
a et
bene oo
— 4/
~” ~/ A
- ~ r 4
~— eat
. potine
— + ‘4
4 ee... ~
< oe
— ° “
a og
" b
« dowd J
f
4 j
7 4 m™ rv = T
H. Duffi
at that time?
Yes. Yes, during the
mself as Robert Lane
Q. And this dt
urtroom ioe ay?
Yes, he is.
Q Can you p
wearing to the Court?
A slack male seated next to Mr. Sandilos. Bla
clothing, red and black sweatshirt that says Echo
Unlimited. He's actually seated to the left of Mr. Sar
THE COURT: May the record reflect that th:
tness has identified the Defendant, Robert Lane
Q. Now, when you were speaking with M
1e, was there anybody else in the car?
Yes
Q
ant W
Yes
O, And who w
Chnstopher Slater
Q And is he here
H. Duffie
es, he iS
Q And «
vhat he's wearing?
A At lack male qresst
Mr. Connelly.
ry. And where wa 12 SITTING in tne ve!
He was in the --
THE COURT: The record will reflect that t!
witness has identified Christopher Slater, Defendai
(
And where was he seated in the vehic!l
He was sitting in the front passenger seat
Q. Now, as you were speaking to the di
hat if anything did you notice at that time?
W hile speaking, attempting to find out w!
‘e doing, I smelle d an odor of raw m: irijuana
(
meg Slater
Q And is that something you smelled
a ee
a4 ha
Q. And at that time, the
\arijuana, what did you do?
At that time, [ asked Mr. Lane to step out of
Q And in the meantime while this is going |
iny other officers arrive on the scene?
4
Kh A
NM NI RO RY RO
UI & W AD e
‘on
H. Duffield - Direct - Ms. Wilson
Yes. An Officer Jason Vinzinski (phonetic) arriv:
“4 And what does Jason Vinzinski do?
A He's our neighborhood crime prevention unit. H
has a bicycle. They ride the bicycle.
Q. SO he was not in a car?
A No, ma'am.
Q. Okay. And can you describe before we go a
further; what were you wearing that night and what w
the other officers wearing?
A. I was in plain clothes. Exactly what I had on, I
can't tell you that. The other officers were in their bicy:
uniforms.
. Now, when you're wearing plain clothes
you have any kind of police identification on you?
A. My badge around my belt. I keep that visibly -- kee
that visible.
Q. Okay. And so when you -- you had asked Mr
Lane out of the car. Where was Mr. Slater at that time’
A. He was the passenger.
= 5 Now, did he remain in the car?
A Well actually, once I smelled it and had Robert
Lane step out, Officer Vinzinski was there maybe seco!
prior ris fe had Mr. Slater step out, also.
H. Duffield - Direct - Ms. Wilson
. Q. And at that time, what if anythin
happened?
A. Detective Farabella, Sergeant Farabella saw
bag -- two little baggies on the center console of the
vehicle, which is between the passenger and driver's si
’. Now, was that in plain view?
A. t was in Sergeant Farabella's plain view
It was nght on top of the console.
o So--
MR. CONNELLY: I'm going to object
going to object to his testimony and what
etective Sergeant Farabella was able to see
THE COURT: Yeah, it does sound like he
me. Sustained.
MS. WILSON: That's fine.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WILSON
Q Now, as -- what if anything was for
car at that time?
A Two bags of crack cocaine
Q. And after the crack cocaine was located, o1
what you believed to be crack cocaine, what did you do a
that time? |
A. I ultimately recovered it from inside the vehicle
> w . —
placed Robert Lane under arrest. _
Q. And did you search him?
H. Duffie
Yes. I did. |
Q And what, if anythi
A He had $181 cash on * im
MS. WILSON: Okay. Judge, at this |
ve any further questions for the detective
THE COURT: Any cross?
MR. CONNELLY: Yes, Your Honor. Thank
-ROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNELLY
Q. Detective Duffield, you were here in court tl
last time this case was listed as a hearing. Is that nght?
A Yes
Q And do you recall me approaching you
while your attorney was present and asking if I coul
you a couple of que sstions?
A "es.
Q Do you recall that 1
long those lines the last time?
A I remember meeting with you, yes
Q. And your attorney told you
questions. “ that right?
\ No, I — belie ve she said that
Q Well, what's vour recollect
\ k |
Ci olloquy
MS. WILSON: Judge, I'm just going to object
cause this has nothing to do with the direct exan
THE COURT: Let me try to figure this out now
You're -- Mr. Connelly, you're saying that last time you
were in court, you asked the Prosecutor to s] peak wit!
detective?
MR. CONNELLY: That's correct
THE COURT: Okay. And th: at some how has
something to do with what occurred on the d: of t
search?
MR. CONNELLY: We wr: “ may You know, it n
have something to do with anot s) tion or appeal
this Motion.
Because I requested an opportunity to interview
detective while he was here the last time around and t
Prosecutor wouldn't permit that
MS. WILSON: Judge, can we approach
THE COURT: Yeah. Got me aso wie d
THE CLERK: Off the record or on”?
THE COURT: On.
4
Whereupon a sidebar discussion commenced at this tin
MS. WILSON: We were here. We went into a rot
nd if -- I told them it was up to them if they
WOOn DW HW NH ke
ee )
9)
Sidebar
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MS. WILSON: I'm sorry, Judge. He advised that hi
wanted to speak with him. I asked them if they had a
problem with it. They said fine, as long as you're there so |
said fine.
We all went into a room and that's when they said they
didn't want to answer any -- they started tb answer
questions but they didn't feel comfortable doing the
Motion in the room.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. WILSON: And that's basically what happened
THE COURT: All right. I don't know why that had
to be off the record. If that's what happened, that's what
happened. You're shaking your head yes.
That's pretty much mwey h ened?
AR. CONNELLY: Well. except that counsel
instructed him not to discuss it and --
' THE COURT: Well, that's your testimony though
yut --
MR. CONNELLY: Right. I mean, I can put it ina
letter, too, but I wanted to get his version of it, too,
because he's an eyewitness to that.
THE COURT: But what does that have to do with
this Motion that I'm handling right now?
Sidebar
MR. CONNELLY: Not a lot but I think the
objection was to relevance.
THE COURT: Well, that's what she did. She said it
was -- that's what she objected to. That's exactly what she
objected to. Mr.--
y
MR. SANDILOS: I wasn't there so I don't know.
THE COURT: Okay. I just thought you — if you had
-- | wanted to make sure you didn't have a —you wanted --
MR. CONNELLY: While we're at sidebar, can I
(inaudible) Cassidy is reporting to court. The court has
(inaudible). The Prosecutor has a copy of it. The last time
we were here (inaudible).
MS. WILSON: Judge, again, I don't have a problem
with that. I just don't see -- I'm going to argue it's not
relevant. I don't think (inaudible).
THE COURT: Well, I don't -- you know, I don't
know anything about the report so --
MR. CONNELLY: Well, (inaudible) Cassidy was on
a scheduled vacation so I didn't want to burden the
Court with a postponement.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CONNELLY: So based on us having discussed
the report the last time and the Prosecutor's agreement
]
3
yp
—y
Owomonnuvi
i"
CON DW RW NR
Se)
a ere —
24
Sidebar
questions for (inaudible).
THE COURT: Oh. You just want the report —you
want the Court to review the report?
MR. CONNELLY: (inaudible).
THE COURT: You going to have any objection t
that, either of you?
MS. WILSON: I don't have an objection to that,
Judge. I would just object to its relevance to this
proceeding.
THE COURT: Okay. Again
MS. WILSON: (inaudible) when the time comes to
THE COURT: Okay, that's fine.
MS. WILSON: I don't have an objection to the
report being reviewed by the Court.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CONNELLY: Yeah, I can certainly provide
(inaudible) .
THE COURT: Okay. Again, what I'm trying to do is
keep things in logical order here; all right? So let's finish
as to what this officer can testify to about the incident on
- let me make sure my notes are -- April 30, 2008.
(Whereupon sidebar discussion concluded at this time)
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Connelly
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNELLY:
Detective, how far was -- when you initially
observed Mary Bowen allegedly walking towards the
Defendant's vehicle, how far was she from that vehicle?
A. Well, as she was walking I passed by her at least
once, maybe two times before I became stationary. So the
roadway, 20, 30 feet that I passed by. Do you want to
know when I was stationery how far she was from me?
My question was, how far was she from the
vehicle? You said that the vehicle
A. Oh, oh, oh.
). -- once it was parked and you decided that
this was a solicitation of prostitution in the works, how far
was the Defendant's vehicle from Mary Bowen?
A. Fifteen, twenty feet by the time we got behind
their vehicle. She was about 15, 20 feet away. .
Q. And by that, are you saying by the time you
parked you -- and you were driving the undercover
vehicle; nght?
A. Yes. |
Q. By the time you parked, she was already in
motion?
A. Yeah. We let her leave. Once they drove by, circled
around, drove by again and pulled in the lot,
WwOnNHAUDWN
26
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Connelly
amount of time as she got closer to the vehicle.
And that's when we left our spot and came around
and parked behind theirs.
So you were actually in motion yourself when
you observed the flashing of the brake lights, as you
mentioned?
A. No, no. No.
; Well, now I'm confused. Can you give --
explain this to me. Where are you parked? Or are you
stationary or are you parked when you observed the
flashing of the brake lights?
A. m stationary.
Okay. Where?
A. The 500 block of Columbia Avenue.
, How far are you at that point from the
Defendant's vehicle?
A. Oh, 50 yards maybe, 40 yards.
tow far is Mary Bowen from the
Defendant’s vehicle?
A. She was -- when we first saw her --
nA What -- at that point in time -- I'm trying to
freeze the frame right here. At that point in time when
you saw the brake lights flash, you said you were 30 yards
away.
A. From her, parked.
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Connelly
Q Parked on Columbia Avenue, you in your
car?
A. Correct. Parked from her.
Q. How far were you, okay, from the subject
vehicle’
A. Between 30 and 40, I -- 35 yards, I guess, or 40
yards.
9. Okay. Final question.
A 'm not understanding you. How far -- at that time
when they parked in that lot, you're asking me how far at
that time was | from, from their car? You're asking me --
No. My -- no. My question was when they -
aa yea brake lights on the subject vehicle were flashed -
f ‘kay.
a. -- as you call it
A Okay
, where were you? How far
A. Thirty yards.
a. __ =- from the subject vehicle?
A Thirty yards. | .
Q. -And were you in motion, you
No.
And then at that point in time when the
brake lights were flashing, how far was Marv Bowen from
the
1
2
3
4
>
6
7
8
)
10
—
—
NR Re Re ep pp
Ow ON DUB WW
NIN
No
NI NO
> W
WON DU & WP we
ee SS ly ee ~ Ae ewe
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Connelly
subject vehicle?
A. Well, she remained there. She remained ther
Q. Okay, fine. Wherever she is --
A. -- as they drove by.
herever she is, how far away is she from
the vehicle, the subject vehicle?
A. I don't know.
THE COURT: You got me confused now. You're ar
you talking about his vehicle or the black vehicle that
went by?
MR. CONNELLY: I'm talking -- I said subject
vehicle because I thought that would be shorthand but |
had been referring to the Defendant's vehicle.
- ] mean, I'll call it whatever you want. What do you want
me to call the vehicle that you eventually stopped, just so
it's clear? What do you want to call it?
THE COURT: Well, let's call it the subject vehicle
before the arrest, the Defendant's vehicle after the arrest
How about that?
MR. CONNELLY: Okay, sounds good.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNELLY:
You testified just now about where you were
when the brake lights were flashing?
A. Correct.
———
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Connelly
Q. Okay. And then you told us where Mary
Bowen was with reference to the subject vehicle, at th:
time the brake lights were flashing.
Now, my question is how far was Mary Bowen from the
subject vehicle at the time the brake lights were flashed?
Were making a triangle here, one side of a triangle.
A. The width of a road is only 40 feet max. They wers
on the far side going south. Twenty feet.
A.
Q. Was she in motion or was she stationary?
She was stationary.
Now, you moved your vehicle after that point,
at some point; is that right?
A. At some point, yes.
@. When did you move the vehicle after you saw
the brake lights flash, your vehicle?
A. When it ultimately pulled into Morris View
Plaza parking lot and parked. And like I said, after a short
amount of time, as she started walking towards — in other
words, ones Vine Street onto the other corner or
Morris View Plaza parking lot.
As she started walking across Vine Street is when -- you
know, as she got within -- I don't know. By the time we
started moving, she was probably 25 feet away
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Connelly
Q. Okay. So at the point when you pull uy
behind the subject vehicle, she's 25 feet away?
A. She's about 10 or 15. We started moving when shi
was about 25 feet.
ki Okay. So when you actually pulled behind
them, she was about 15 -- 10, 15 feet?
A. Ten, fifteen feet, yeah. I'd say ten, fifteen feet
2: And what does she do when you pull up?
A. She stayed right there. She stopped. I mean,
Detective Hoydis went to her. I went up to the driver’:
window and spoke to Mr. Lane.
Q. Jkay. She basically -- what do you mean
she stopped? You Just -- did she see you?
A. Hid she? I'm sure all of them saw us. I mean, ws
yulled right behind the vehicle. She was right there.
‘heir car was right here.
Q. Okay. And so even though you unmarked
car, your recollection is that you were the police right
away, as soon up?
A. I don't know. were in an she realized as you pull:
Q). Well, you said she stopped; right?
A. Yeah, because Detective Hoydis, who is a detectiv:
went to her and what transpired there, I
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Connelly
don't know. Yeah, ultimately she stopped. I mean, w]
else? I don't know.
Q. So she stopped as soon as Detective Hoyd!
explain it
A All three were (inaudible) at the same tim:
Q). Simultaneously?
A Correct.
Q. As soon as you stopped your
A Yeah
Q). You jump out of the car?
A Correct.
Q. Okay. And at that point, she's 15 -- 10
feet away from the subject vehicle; Mary Bowen?
A. That's accurate, yes.
— ©. Now, let me go back for a second. You were
stationary when the subject vehicle first went by. Is that
“ght? ;
nght'
A Yes
). So you had a good Iook at the driver of t!
vehicle; didn't you?
A, No.
Q. Well, how far were they when you -- at t
closest gg from your car?
Oh. within feet. We were on the same side, thi
A
inside the vehicle a
Vutheld - Cr vir. Connel
»o why didn't you se¢ . the driver
n't know why | didn't see the driver
ae e bv. I didi
ta
al
N
)
\
(Corre CT
(). You testified a few minutes ago tl
a clear view of the vehicle “ the w:; Ly through t to
point when it's 30 yards away. Is that right? Wher
pulle d into the (inaudible)?
When the brake lights came on
b Didn't oe tently earlier that you h
1en the Prosecutor aske d you, ol the ven
As it drove by the female, ye:
Q And also when it pulled
That 1s correct
Q [sn't that n
That is correct
\ So vou had acl
ho was driving. Is that r testimol
H. Duftreld - Cross - Mr. Connel
ld not see who w padrytst ter Tha it
uldn't « ell if they
i, yliie
ICal aUit i
\) But you ad i!
In 1 Opinion of ti! ven
Q
veren 1 yous
4 No. That's my job. I do 40 hours a week. I \
plain clothes and I drive an unmarked vehicle 40
ie week
Do were we pretty much, we generate ou
work. We don't get assigned cases. We generat
type of work
( And
Z' iveéa bnef?
, No. If we do
Q A mission brief
23 operations, we do, ye:
24 q You do? Did you have one that
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Connelly
three of us
N} So you didn't have one that day?
A INO
Q. Okay. You said earlier that one of the signal
in your seven or eight arrests for prostitution, that some o!
the signals are hand waving or honking. Is that right?
A. Between the five on eight operations that we'v
conducted, several arrests during each operation, yes
Q. Okay. So excuse me. In the eight, tops
investigations you've done en prostitution
A Rcpatienn: yes.
(). Operations. Okay. But nobody honked in tI
case; did they?
A No, they did not.
NF Nobody waved?
A 0.
Q). Is it fair to say, the only indication that you
had that there was some sort of prostitution transaction
going on were that some brake lights would flash and the
subject vehicle pulled into a parking spot?
A. That would be fair to say. That was part of the
whole investigation, yes.
THE COURT: How close did Mary Bowen vet to
he
Hi. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Connelly
the vehicle when you pulled up behind the vehicle?
THE WITNESS: She was within 10 to 15 feet, Yo
Honor.
THE COURT: But she never got to speak to
anybody?
THE WITNESS: That's correct
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNELLY
4. Now, you said earlier and ultimately, |
objected to it. You can answer now. You said that there
were drugs found that were first observed by Detective
Sergeant Farabella in the center console of the vehicle?
A. On top of the center console, yes.
Q. What's the center console? What do you
describe that to me.
A. It's basically an armrest
"i An armrest?
That's correct.
(). And SO did you h ippen to notice whether
was a onag ip Spee or just
A No, I did not.
A
(). Okay. In your experience, is it typically a
compartment that opens up, as well as an armrest?
A Some are, some arent. | mean, some just fold up
» J
N W ¢ did not [ y VW ( (
Wh owas tne registered ownel
back to in Aaron Cavanaug!
sie adie ee registered
d drugs in it
To fur ther Seal
1 Dialn VIEW, |
YY An d 5
ipelia gave tne!
rrect? (inaudible
\ No. Detective Hoyd S DeCcauUSst
ruy that actual lly transported, with Officer Re¢ dden., |
ibjects back to the px lice st atior » Detective H
Q. Let me actually go back before |
to miss a point. I think it's in iportal
THE COURT: Sir, stop that, okay
MR CONNELLY Okay
S-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNI]I
Q Did -- so you guys are in an un
i
nici There's three of vou in the vehicle. You 1
behind the subject vel if and M y B
It eet aw ay
Detective Serg
r Mary Bowen?
I believe it was Detective Hoyd
OY All nght. And then so you
if the vehicle and then Detect .
proaches tne passenger sid
t that shows ul
\ | don't know. Ther:
Officer Redden showed up to do
Ei ateelel « ye *.
Vinzinski showed up, w )
th one or two other guy
On bikes
tell] .* Wi
-you approached the
‘t vehicle?
\
t was afte!
' ™
LiicCu 7
1e conversat curred betwes
. UC
driver of t}
the odor «
= ¢
A 4 i |
in addition
re driving, at the tin
dered raw r
Yes
oY, And then how
es the marked police
I can't give you a
+ 4 —— |
+ : >
1?) ; '
‘ Nn al i
IAC it
ba . }
unit Show up for tral
+17
+
CONNE
ATD
riry
+
An Investigatory Stop, SUSDII wWhateve
That's the first issue. And then whether the c: n duct of the
officers thereafter, leading up to them ses laving thi
two individuals exit the vehicle and an officer see
yntraband in the vehicle
Whether that was reas
re we are on this Motion?
MR. CONNELLY: Prec
THE COURT: eg!
MR. CONNELLY: That's where I'm going
THE COURT: Well, so -- and then -- but the ps
who had it in their pocket doesn't matter becaust
iat ; wae be fruit of the enna tree because an arr
eady made
The time period we're talking about is 1
see the vehicle drve by, or the investigation of
prostitution, the vehicle drives by. It wasn't
vestigatory Stop
f I'm wrong, tell me. And then were the
orrect in lieu of everything, the totality of the
ircumstances, to have the
because apparently tl
couldn't see the narcotics in the vehicle until they
f the vehicle
W as 1t rl to have them come out, cet
le? And then you have plain view and th
Colloquy
irrest. And everything tl! at follows there:
part of this -- I can't see , part of this Suppression M
\m I wrong on that? If it's not, tell m«
MR. CONNELLY: You're absolutely right, Ju
Where I was going was, it's Defendant's position tha
fficer could not have detected marijuz ~ i
That was ultimately located in th 4. issenger sid
the vehicle in a plastic baggie, inside a
was worn by another indiv idual
That is a super human feat of olf
it it's just not --
THE COURT But which baffles the ¢
uite frankly, since you're bringing tha
seen smell raw marijuan:
To my estimation, raw manjuana is tough
ickKeTt pocket Lf
Ais LUUL TI ULLICs
you have a great amount and unless you're, you know
canine. But w ay you wouldn't search the vehicle. But
that's not to this Motion either
| have the s: ame question you jo but it h
I TT)
Li 4 a/la Aw il
o do -- | mean, if you're going to -- if the que stion
guess, whether the officer's testimony that he
marijuana was reasonable
Then J think it's proper to ask wher
discovered in that context
LAs, 4
STFi¢
H. Duffield Cross Conne
MR. CONNELLY: That's precisely my ]
‘HE COURT: Do vou disagree, Ms. Wil
MS WIL SON: No. ljudoe
THE COURT: Okay. So I'll
it reason then
ROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNELL"
Where was a marijuana recover
| 1e jacket pocket of Christopher Slate
\ And you said he was seated whet
nd said you smelled marijuana, he '
e passenger seat?
|
Yes, he was
Q And yi
if tis correct
$
4 ¢
\/ 5" 4
was tin
lf .
\/ It Was I i Vids
was a plastic b
a
was ultimately a plast
Q A Ziploc bag?
)
Without being able
« 1 } }
| a f
\ nt recal
Q {nd the pock
t lid lt have no |
a. rs } + +
i WN i j \ I
tC KNOW
THE COURT: Were
ijuana found or just ons
THE WITNESS: Just
THE COU RT. Onc
MR. CONNELLY: Ons
THE COURT: How
THE WITNESS
ts but it was quite a bit
THE COURT: Okay
1k WITNESS q
1
r ECOURT.:
{
art Later’
ui ee ‘ aggie?
. WITNESS: I believe it »
‘I
H
a quarter
TH
THE COURT Okay
THE WITNESS
Your Honor
THE COURT: All rng
rr
;*}
A
Correct. Um-hu
ny. And ae as K¢
S.WILSON: Judg
THE COURT: eres
MS. WILSON: Okay
MR. CONNELLY: I'm s
THE COURT: Go ahead. |
want to he vent question before s
MS. WILSON: That's f1
Mi CONNEI } }
dibility of the st: atements I
_- ;
THE COURT: | ihead. As}
MR. CONNELI The credibility of
and the ceanes © t the officer
idible) make to that
MR. CONNELLY: You asked about lrus
found in the coat pocket; didn't you, of Mr. S!
MS. WILSON: Judge, I'm going to object
it's a Miranda Motion and that's not while we
that's an issue, he can file an appropmate moti
But I think we're just here for the stop and v
is recovered as a result of the stop, not what hapy
r the stop
MR. CONNELLY: Judge, I'm goin
have the tapes. They're very short interv1
ked about the drugs that are in the pocket
He gets an explanation as to those dru
ket, my client's pocket th of ti
nts, both Defendants
T HE COURT. Yeah, bu
MR. CONNELLY: He d
> (7¢
SHUI DWN
> CO
Colloquy
those drugs.
That goes to the credibility of the statement that
the drugs are there in plain view. Because a diligent poli
officer is going to search the vehicle.
A diligent police officer is going to — when he has
opportunity, he's got the cat in the bag, as it were. He's
got the -- the Defendant's giving statements.
THE COURT: That maybe so but that doesn't
I mean they can't make the decision not to.
MR. CONNELLY: That's true but it's incredibl
is incredible.
THE COURT: He's already -- and he's already
answered the question that he didn't search the vehicl:
MR. CONNELLY: | understand, Judge
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CONNELLY: But then my --
THE COURT: And the fact that he didn't ask about
the CDS on the console, which was not marijuana, has
nothing to do whether there was a smell out of that CDS
or not.
MR. CONNELLY: I agree but it had some a
I lot to do with whether their -- our position is that
I the drugs were not in plain view. They were not In
Colloquy
plain view on the console.
And here's the theory. The theory is they wert
in plain view. They were concealed in the vehicle and
that's why it wasn't an issue.
Because the vehicle came back to a difference
registered owner and they couldn't -- they knew that they
weren't going to be able to prove, unless they were going
to misstate the facts in some fashion.
That these drugs in the console were constructive
ossessed or actually possessed by one of the two
Jefendants in this case. It's -- it is critical evidence.
And if. it were true, they would have been asked
about the drugs in the console in the interview, which was
not done. Any officer with six years experience is going to
make that investigation.
And I agree, they would also search the vehicle but
I -- that is evidence that the statements that are in the
police report about the drugs being in plain view and that
the marijuana was smelled, is evidence.
THE COURT: I hear you but I don't under -- you'r:
going to have to explain to me again how that relates to
why -- to tell the Court that it was not in plain view
l
3
4
ir
ui
OV
WW 0 ~
2?
16
18
20
Colloquy
MR. CONNELLY: Because the officer, the only
reason that we -- the only way we know it's in plain
view is based on the statements of the detective and the
other officers that were there.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. CONNELLY: Okay. They're in the police
report. That's one statement that the officers made. They
stated that the drugs were in plain view on the center
console. He's reiterated that today, Judge.
My suggestion is that I'm trying to elicit evidence
now that undermines the credibility of that statement,
which I think is --
THE COURT: Ask the -- I'm going to allow the
question to be asked. I mean, go ahead. I just -- I'm
intrigued by how that has anything to do with it. Go
ahead, ask the question.
MR. CONNELLY: All right.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNELLY:
Q. You didn't ask any questions of the
Defendants when you interviewed them back at the
station about the drugs that were found in the console;
did you?
A. Your Honor, I haven't had a chance to review the
-- | don't want to prematurely -- I don't know. I don't
remember the exact -- I don't have a transcript
Colloquy
in front of me for me to review. So I don't know
exactly what was asked and what wasn't asked.
Q. But you agree, if it's important enough to
put in a police report, it's probably important enough to
inquire of the alleged --
THE COURT: But he said he doesn't know so your
inquiry is over for this stage; okay? Without the statement
being here.
MR. CONNELLY: Well, I mean, all right. I'd like to
play the tapes.
THE COURT: Well, it has nothing I don't find it has
anything to do with whether this was a valid --
MR. CONNELLY: Well, I'll use it to refresh
recollection, Judge. I mean --
THE COURT: It has -- but it still has nothing to do
with whether they saw it in plain view or not.
MR. CONNELLY: Well, I disagree. Your Honor
wants -- that's fine.
THE COURT: You're saying if they didn't it -- the
reason they didn't see it in plain view is -- let's assume for
a minute the officer did not ask about -- him any questions
about who possessed or owned the drugs on the center
console; okay?
WomonHsnU & WN Re
56
Solloquy
doesn't make sense. There's two answers to that question.
THE COURT: All right. I understand what you're
Saying in that regard but again --
MR. CONNELLY: Either it's not true, which is
what I'm trying to show, or he's not very good at detecting
narcotics crimes or prostitution crimes.
I mean, either way it's damning evidence to the
State and that's wholly relevant.
MS. WILSON: Judge, this isn't even the officer
who's going to testify as to what he saw. That question
was objected to because he wasn't the actual officer who
observed in plain view the narcotics.
So that officer hasn't even testified yet so I don't
know where we get here.
THE COURT: I'm like, let's just stop this line. I'm
not going to allow this line of questioning. I just-- again,
you're talking about evidence that was Sunil.
I you have a question, Mr. Sandilos, ask it. I don't
mind. Straighten me out here. Straighten us out. Do you
have something to add?
MR. CONNELLY: I yield to Mr. Sandilos on this
I matter, if he does.
MR. SANDILOS: I think what he's trying to get
1
7
©
Colloquy
at, and I'm not going to be that much more eloquent about
this. But maybe he's trying to get at the fact that,
especially about the questions that were asked later on.
As to what -- as to the officer's ability to be lawfully
in the viewing area, to have seen what they had seen.
And especially with regard to the odor of raw
marijuana and I think that's where Mr. Connelly is trying
to go with this.
THE COURT: Yeah, I fully understand that.
MR. CONNELLY: That's not really it.
THE COURT: But how does it relate to the
evidence of -- I take it, it was cocaine or heroin or
whatever? I don't remember what it was.
MR. CONNELLY: The --
THE COURT: On the center console.
MR. CONNELLY: Because logically and based on
this officer's testimony about his training and experience
in detecting narcotics crimes.
A detective with that training and experience, if
given the opportunity to interview the suspects, would
ask about possession of the drugs that they're alleging
they possessed, in an interview and it just 1s not there.
1
2
3
4
>
6
7
8
’
Colloquy
THE COURT: But you're not saying they don't
exist. You're saying they exist. They were either found on
top or on bottom. So whether they asked about them or
not doesn't matter.
MR. CONNELLY: Right. But it impeaches -- my
view and the Defendant'-s view, it’s an impeachment of
this officer's credibility and the credibility of the officers
that state that they were in plain view.
- THE COURT: That he didn't ask the question at
all’
MR. CONNELLY: That no questions were asked
when an opportunity arose to ask the Defendants about
the drugs 1n the console or on the console. I mean, they're
talking a taped statement.
They asked about the drugs in the pocket and they
ot the answer. They got answers consistent from both
efendants.
They weren't asked about the drugs in the console.
What does that indicate to Your Honor? Does that make
sense?
THE COURT: It indicates --it may indicate that
they decided it was -- belonged to both of them. It
belonged to everybody in the car because everybody
saw it on the center console so it belonged to everybody.
59
Colloquy
That could be what they decided it means. It doesn't
mean anything to me that they didn't ask the question. It
means -- I get your issue about the baggie and whether
they could smell and whether they coat it.
I mean, you could take judicial notice — I could tak
judicial notice of whether you could or you couldn't, I
guess. I don't have an expert here.
I know that if you have a half -- 50 grams of
marijuana in a baggie sealed up, you're “an going to smel!]
it in the motor vehicle that's closed up. You're just going
to.
I mean, I went through the same training. It's just a
fact, you're going to smell it. I don't know whether he
aclied it that day or not. I have to go by, like you're
saying, the credibility of this officer. |
And that credibility goes to a lot of different issues,
like you're saying. You know, whether in fact they -- why
they didn't search the vehicle.
' But because they didn't ask questions about the
stuff that's in -- on the center eaaet
who owns it, I don't think makes a
e, if they didn't ask
1
2
3
4
>
6
7
8
9
60
Colloquy
Because they may have decided, may have decided
that it belonged te both of them. They both had it between
them. Both of them could see it. It's both, it's theirs; okay?
I just don't see the issue and it's too far, to my
mind, beyond where we are in this Motion.
MR. CONNELLY: I'm going to beat a dead horse,
Judge.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CONNELLY: Let me just respond just very
one sentence. One sentence.
THE COURT: Well, you're whipping it pretty good.
MR. CONNELLY: [ know. I know. I’know. It's
beyond dead. It's decomposing. If that were the case,
wouldn't they have asked the question of both and then
they've got them nailed on constructive possession?
THE COURT: I don't know. The point is, wouldn't
they -- I don't know.
MR. CONNELLY: Right.
THE COURT: That officer's not here, that I can -- to
tell you what -- I mean, I haven't heard that they -- that
the officer say he found it. This officer's saying he -- he's
the one that picked it up.
He’s saying after the other officer said, I
61
Colloquy
see it, he went and retrieved it from the location. Which I
think is as good as, except we might need the other officer
here to testify that he actually saw it.
MS. WILSON: And he's here, Judge.
MR. CONNELLY: Right. But he didn't interview
the Defendants. I mean, the officer that saw the drugs
in plain view didn't interview the Defendants.
THE COURT: And I just told you; I don't know that
that's going to make --
MR. CONNELLY: That's right. I understand.
THE COURT: -- a difference to the Court's
determination. Because there could be a plethora of
reasons why you wouldn't ask the question.
MR. CONNELLY: I just want it to be clear that |
THE COURT: Not -- none of them lead to the
conclusion, in my mind, of anything I believe that you told
me, that could lead me to the conclusion of well, the
officers were lying.
They really found it in the -- under the console
instead of on top of the console.
MR. CONNELLY: That's fine, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay?
MR. CONNELLY: And I would just like to note
WOON DU DW DN
Colloquy
the witness with extrinsic evidence and/or refresh his
recollection with the statements.
THE COURT: I[ understand.
MR. CONNELLY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Officer, let me ask you a question.
You see the vehicle pull into the parking lot; right?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Brake lights are biinking before it
goes around the block; right?
THE WITNESS: Prior to, yes.
THE COURT: You stop the vehicle. You get you
don't even stop the vehicle. The vehicle was already
stopped.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: You got behind the vehicle?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: You walked up to the vehicle and you
asked him what he was doing and the gentleman said,
dropped my cell phone. I'm trying to find it.
Would not the fact that he dropped his cell phone
conceivably be a reason he's touching the brakes, reaching
for his cell phone if it's at his feet?
THE WITNESS: That would be reasonable. Yes,
Your Honor.
63
Colloquy
THE COURT: Okay. So my point is, there could
have been some other reason that they’re blinking their
lights, except for the fact that they were signaling a
prostitute?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that would be a possibility,
THE COURT: Okay. Second thing; you know she
was walking up to the vehicle. Did you see her do —her or
they do anything other than blinking lights, go around
and stop, that would have led you to believe and | think
you've already -- that there was a prostitution deal going
on?
THE WITNESS: At that point, no. With the
precursors, did I believe? Yes.
THE COURT: I understand. You had the precursor
but you understand that when you pulled up there, she
turned around and walked away.
So then nothing else could have occurred, which
could have heightened your expectation or suspicion that.
there was actually a prostitution deal going down?
THE WITNESS. That is correct, sir.
THE COURT: So at the time you went up to the
car, you were going to ask them and expected them to
admit that they were?
yes.
16
20
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos
THE WITNESS: I would say yeah. I mean, I was
soing to go out and find out what they were doing. I mean
believed what I believed. I believed that he was going
there.
So yeah, I was roing to pre tty much ask question:
find out what they're ¢ ie it at's going on.
THE COURT: Okay
THE WITNESS: Fatiline policing
THECOURT: I understand.
MR. CONNELLY: Nothing further, Judge. Than!
THE COURT: Mr. Sandilos?
MR. SANDILOS: Thank you, Your Honor
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SANDILOS:
Now, Officer, when you saw the -- when you
saw Ms. Bowen and you said she was walking on Vine
towards Columbia. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And she had reached a corner. She was
walking. Were you able to describe what she was wearing
at that time?
you.
A No, sir. | do not remember what she was wearing
Q. Okay. And likewise, you didn't place that in
the report as to what she was we aring. Is that righ ht?
60
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos
A That is correct.
(). Okay. You also, in your report and when
was the last time that you reviewed your report?
A Today.
Q). Okay. Was it prior to coming into the
testimony today, to -- starting your testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. You also didn't -- would it be fair to
say that you also didn't put in there how fast she was
wi alking or the style of walk that she engaged in. Is that
correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And let me be a little more specific. That
you dont have in there that she was walking quickly o1
that she was in a slow and deliberate walk or anything
like that. Is that correct?
A. That is not in there. That is correct
not in
Q. Would it be fair to say, because it's
there, you didn't make those observations as to how shi
walked?
A. Can you repeat that one more time?
Q. Sure. Would it be fair to say that, because
you didn't have those observations in your re port, that you
didn't in fact make those observations? Is that right?
HE WITNESS
‘LJ » | ‘ a rT’
THE COURT: Ok
" , . ~ TTs\ ~
S-EXAMINATION BY
‘
) Detective, l'm ¢
. »c , 7k } 1) _
z*
~ \ l tf that would retresn \
I is to the address of Mr g
\ 517 Columbia A’
ce L SSaVs 01 / OLUTIDIa AVE
Ss Ul t he gave tnat particular nlg
i fy) + "
ae Okay. Now, I think Mr. ¢
} } 4 4
rout WNnat the distance Was De : I
lumbia and the area that
king lot. Is that correct
> 7. .
, i dont think he had
ple aie eae ‘
King !ot. li ai & te K
1} 7 © |
YQ. All \
Know the
¥ 5 |
\V it Es K ] b
AT] r yf i [ in Lad ‘
> + nr
~
r WY
} 4 y ’
i if i j
|
bh \\
.
} { ) ;
Q Kay
~ 117 hast
¥ , a)
I Wt I e1lgnt [ uste may ve r :
1. l. y ie
Q So that -- the block that -- since 4
10 block of Columbia, then he would liv
s that moht? He wit I
|
| ."
4
t ’ +
) V1
QY ithin K Mr. © elly
yUeSTIONS concerning that there
; ‘ . i :
irking lot at night. Is that right
\ MM ro —s }] > . 8 |
\ inere usuallyv a;©rte yean
&rK in that tot, ves
) ae T ‘ ae. See Gee: ee
Q Okay. Is it your understanding, based
tne Knowilead
people who
A
ge and your experience
ive in that area tend to
from that area, that
park their cars in
J ~
‘ r >» > : f met
-
: — , on.
r ’
/ + oa { J
ye
_ or, Do @ & Tt phe we
> 4 | oe J
. ~ Sf os beg
oo 4 ; 4 f
, Lr me. a J, /
4 f) nme
F r / p >
+ —_ “
- “a - . ~
“4 ; a= 4
- ” c ~~
"4 a_i eo a hae .
4 ) ee . ~~ +
4 =
f ad ped og
> 4 > > we §
ne we
+ ~ oe
«/ , = ~ — —_ _~ > amd
4 > = 4 fae +
- ve _ 4
~ 4
- 7 , J > c — od
¢ _ { Cs
- / { . > - e —
t Z , A) i 4 “a ws ~~
4 _ = .
’ ~
”) 6 ee a - = a “ ° * -
Z on - y ' a > ¥ ~~ -
. ( " ‘ / 4 '
. a _ “ - | ame |
a b a — a2 rr on
~— - — of a /
~~ badd » f 7 ~~ 4
j Sy | - 4 P 4 an 4
~ 4 Y ° +
L Z 4
—— - 4 ww + ” “
; ~_ - - ~ e ‘ ra
4. -<f a y—~ —t J D) / r
4 ) rT s 4 4 m ¢ - : eet a a
- re ad fig cs °° i be
J ~ PO a= ”” o - Wnt ~~ dP yp ont Z. — am Sad
° L. / } ?
4 - oe = ay >» re ai 4 — -_ L. 4 J 4 4 al + —_— aw
+ 4 ~/
_ - = ‘ ane 7 | 4 ll
oo > “ - — A a
orm ne 4 ' i~d a
‘ Aus 4 b
a = r 4
f -— 4
2 ; > y at
, > ’ daw ‘
y s 4 . A) rt | a | 7 i Z ) ‘ 4 Y «J J 'e) CO dW [™
me |
m 10 00
b bed tad &
-—
a> bet 6
—“Iiouw Bm W AY
Co chy a 4
THE COURT: Well, let's talk about it. If you don’t
mind, let's go back and --
MS. WILSON: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: -- have just a conference quick and
we'll see where we're going with this and then { ll pick u
yn the Motions, if you want.
MR. CONNELLY: Sure.
THE COURT: Sorry about that.
MR. CONNELLY: That's fine, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. I'm going to take a break
and conference this matter.
(Whereupon off the record at this time and th
return to the record as follows)
THE COURT: Okay. Back on the record with
Christopher “Slater and Robert Lane. Okay. Officer
Duffield was in the middle of cross at the time we left back
yn April 8. Am I correct on that?
MS. WILSON: Yes, Judge
THE COURT: Okay. Officer, you want to take the
stand again, please? You know you're still under oath,
Officer, but I'm going to swear you in again because of th
time, the passage of time.
If you would, put your left hand on the Bible ar
raise your mght hand.
DET. HAROLD DUFFIELD, JR., STATE'S
Colloquy
WITNESS, SWORN
THE COURT: And your full name for the record
again?
THE WITNESS: Harold Duffield, Jr.
THE COURT: And you recall, Officer, that yor u gave
testimony here back on April 8, 2009, in this matter?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And you give -- we had completed
direct examination and we were in the middle of cross
when we moved the matter until today?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Counsel?
MR. CONNELLY: Thank you, Judge. Judge, for the
record -- I'm sorry -- briefly, Thomas C onneily for
Christopher Slater. I have a witness I need to escort out «
the courtroom. He'll be testifying.
THE COURT: All n sht. Yeah, anybody who is going
to be giving testimony in this matter must leave the
courtroom. Be sequestered, as it were. Continue.
MR. SANDILOS: Thank you, Judge. Judge, I don't
know if I entered my appearance but C harles Sandilos on
behalf of Robert Lane.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SANDILOS:
©. Detective, I think that the last time I left
WOON DW RWN Pe
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 6
off with you, I was basically asking about some of your
observations concerning while you were up at the window
or the vehicle. Is that correct? Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Before we resume today, do you
remember whether or not -- or strike that. Do — have you
been provided a copy of the transcript of the hearing that
took place on April 8, 2009?
A. No, I have: not.
Okay. Did the Prosecutor provide you with
any type of a transcript or anything?
A. Yo. I haven't been given a copy. No.
Q. Okay. All right. So you haven't seen any of
the prior testimony that happened back then. Is that
correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. NOW, I know that I'd asked you about your
report back on April 8 of 2009 and I think that you had
testified that you had reviewed it prior to your testimony
that day. Is that correct?
A. Yes. | Tee
— Q. Now, did you also review it prior to your
testimony for today?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And by that, I mean that you looked at it
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 7
either this morning or shortly before we all appeared here
for court?
A. That is correct.
Now, when I asked you about some of your
observations concerning what you saw through the
window of the vehicle, you were looking turough the
vehicle.
Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Or looking through the window. Is that mght?
A. Of my vehicle, yes.
l All nght. And I think that the last -where
[ had last left off was your view of Mr. Lane and
Mr. Slater. Is that nght?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. And I think that your testimony then was
that you hadn't seen anything while you were looking
through the window. Is that nght?
A. At the tore talking once we were there?
: ight.
A. I believe you asked me if I could see through. At that
point talking, other than speaking to Mr. Lane, no I did
not observe anything else in the vehicle at the time.
—
OwWOnN AW LaWNH
. H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 8
: And IJ think the last time we were here, we
established that there was a console in the middle of -
- between the two seats of the vehicle. Is that mght?
A. Yes. Or an arm -- it was an armrest, a console
armrest, yes.
All right. And that's, again, where the gear
selector was; correct?
A, I believe I could not recall whether the gear selector
Zs believe it was down there. It wasn't it was up a little
vit, yes.
Q. Okay.
It wasn't --
Q. You don't remember seeing it --
A. attached.
" ¢: -- on the column or anything?
A. No.
THE COURT: Excuse me. Who's this gentleman?
Okay, I just wanted to make sure. I don't like people
coming in after I start a hearing because I worry about
“ uestration issues. I don't know who youre going to be
calling so --
MR. SANDILOS: Judge, I don't intend to call his
father. I think his father's just here to watch.
THE COURT: Okay.
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 9
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SANDILOS:
Now, one of the other things I think that you
had established then was that you weren't able to —you
didn't see the console. Is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. All right. And the reason you didn't see the
console was because of Mr. Lane and Mr. Slater. Is that
right?
From my side, it would be definitely, yes,
Mr. Lane.
Q. Okay. When you had approached the vehicle,
I think you testified that you had pulled up behind it.
Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. The car parked. You pulled up behind it and
at that point, did you make any observations of the
occupants of that vehicle?
A. Other than them sitting in it, no. Nothing more
than I remember.
Q. Okay. So you didn't notice any movement or
anything; what sometimes in the business is called furtive
movements. Is that mght?
A. Correct.
You didn't see them trying to hide anything.
You didn't see them trying to -- you didn't see them
NR RRR RR eRe PR
OwWmonnanuwkhPwnNrrPRPoOowwonanamnhwnhd Re
MR RO RO RO RO
Wm & WNP
Woon na UW ha W NR
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 10
acting nervous or anything like that? Is that correct?
A. That's correct.
You didn't see them trying to move anything
nside of the vehicle. Is that right?
A. That's correct.
And the other thing that you didn't see was
you didn't see them handing anything to each other. Is
that night?
A. orrect.
Okay. So when you pulled up to the vehicle,
all you Just saw was the two occupants; right?
Yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell me, how was the vehicle
situated? You indicated the vehicle stopped in a parking
lot.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: Were they facing going out or going
into the parking lot?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, when they
(inaudible), they pulled in one of the driveways and
actually pulled into a parking spot facing Columbia
Avenue.
. THE COURT: So they could have pulled out on
Columbia Avenue?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. They could not have.
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 1]
THE COURT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: I mean, if they went over the curb,
yes, Your Honor. .As far as a driveway, no, they could not.
THE COURT: Where did you park when you — so
they couldn't drive forward but they could back up?
THE WITNESS: No, I pulled behind them.
THE COURT: So you -- but you --
THE WITNESS: So essentially, they couldn't back
up. If they went forward, they would go aff the sidewalk
and the curb.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SANDILOS:
. Would it be fair to say that your report that
you had reviewed and that you wrote, didn't mention
anything about Mr. Lane or Mr. Slater, for that matter,
trying to conceal anything. Is that correct?
A. That is correct.
; And since it's not contained in your report, it
would be fair to say that it would be something that you
didn't see. You didn't make those observations; correct?
A. That is correct.
When you a
proached the vehicle, Mr. Lane
rolled down his window. é that right?
A. Yes.
—
Owomon nau hWN Re
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 12
Q. Or did he do that voluntarily or did you have
to order him to rol! it down?
A. I don't remember exactly --
Okay.
A. -- how it went down. Ultimately, he rolled down th:
window, yes.
All right. He rolled down the window. You
were clearly identifying yourself as a police officer because
you had your badge on your belt?
A. A badge. That is correct, yes.
Q. So it wasn't something that you were tryin;
to hide. Am J right?
A. That is correct.
And you had made some Inquires wit!
regard to Mr. Lane. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was at the end of those inquiries that
you began to detect some -- an odor of what you called raw
marijuana. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the Prosecutor also had gone through
some questions to you, outlining -- eee os -Or
outlining your experience as a police officer. And one of
those was your familiarity with raw marijuana.
Is that bead be:
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos
A. Correct.
Q. And you had testified that you had gone through
some courses or some training as a police officer, in being
able to detect raw marijuana. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And also to determine whether -- what smell:
like burned marijuana. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you eventually found what appeared to
to yourself, to be marijuana. Is that right?
A. Ultimately, yes, marijuana was found on
Mr. Slater. Yes.
Q. All nght. And I think that the last time we w
here, you thought that what you had found — or you
couldn't remember that it was in a Ziploc baggie.
Is that right? Or what kind of packaging that it was in
A. I believe I testified that it was a clear, plastic bag
but correct, I could not -- I did not know if it was a Ziplo«
or just a tied plastic bag.
y
;
Q. kay. If I were to show you the notes of the
Lab Report. would that refresh your recollection as to the
4 '
type of bag’
A. Yes.
Colloquy 14
Q. Okay. And also, if I were to --
A. It should. | mean --
a. Okay. And if I were to also show you the, |
guess what would be called the form that you do the
submit -- the submissions to the State Police Laboratory.
Niles a that also refresh your recollection as to the type of
ag’
A. It should. You've got to understand, too, when we
submit evidence to our evidence officer, she in turn,
Your Honor, she in turn does her own form and submits it
electronically
So I'll definitely look at these forms and let you know if
they are mine or our evidence officer's.
! Okay.
A, So I may have put one thing. She may have
interpreted it as another. I'm not sure.
THE COURT: The forms you're talking about
dealing with the alleged evidence that was in the console;
right? On the console? marijuana.
MR. SANDILOS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: Oh. I thought you said the
MR. SANDILOS: Well, yeah. I'm talking about the
marijuana. It's got all the --
Collogquy ~° 15
THE COURT: The marijuana in the jacket, though
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: -- allegedly. So how does that have
any do -with what we're doing right now?
. SANDILOS: Well, I think it has a lot to do
with it because one of the reasons that the police officer is
able to get these -- the a but of the car is that
he's — that he smells marijuana.
o I think how it's packaged goes to some way to
testing his credibility on that.
S. WILSON: That's fine.
MR. SANDILOS: Now, if he doesn't remember that
THE COURT: Well, I'll let you continue but I don't
- I see -- I don't see that as being relevant but I'll let you
try to show me how it is. It's more relevant whether they
saw anything on the console or not.
Do you know, Officer, when you pulled up behind the
vehicle, were there other -- was yours the only vehic!
there? |
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I don't remember. |
believe that was one of the questions asked. I don't
remember. As far as police vehicles or other parked
Colloquy 16
vehicles?
THE COURT: No, pelice vehicles.
THE WITNESS: Okay. Actually, one other one.
[t was a patrol vehicle, which was -THE
COURT: A marked unit?
THE WITNESS: Correct. Which was the transport
THE COURT: That -- when did that arrive?
THE WITNESS: After the arrest, Your Honor
THE COURT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: There were bicycle units there,
which I believe there were three.
THE COURT: At what times?
THE WITNESS: It was -- I don't have exact time,
but it was close to when we got -- they must have heard it
over the air. I'm not sure but it was within close -- less
than a minute.
THE COURT: Okay.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SANDILOS:
Q. [‘ll show you what's marked as D-3 and ask
"i to take a look at that and see if you recognize that
orm.
A. This would be the form that's generated by our
evidence officer.
Q. Okay. Did you review that at all?
unit.
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 17
A This? No.
Q. Okay. There are certain items that are listed
on that form. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And some of those items list what was seized
by you and the other officers. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And it seems that there are three items that
are seized are those items that are I guess described as a
white substance, a white rock-like shalante in a plastic
bag. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And then I think it's item number two
is described as a greenish vegetation that's in a plastic
bag. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that describe the type of plastic bag
A. Like | test -- a clear, plastic bag. It does; a clea
plastic bag with green-brown vegetation.
4 Okay. Now, I'll show you what's marked a:
D-4 and represent to you that that’s the notes of the
laboratory chemist that tested the -- now, on there again,
item number two would be the marijuana that was later
found. Is that correct?
A. This is the first I've ever seen this type of
COOnN OUD WN
Colloquy 18
form. It's saying number two, item number; clear, plastic
sandwich bag containing vegetation.
Q. egetation usually would be what was
what people would suspect to be marijuana. Is that
correct?
A. Yeah. You would -- that was how you would
describe it, yes.
It also lists a weight in there. Is that right?
A. Of item number two?
A. Pes. _—
; Okay. And what -- if I'm not mistaken, it's
27.796 grams. Is that correct?
A. 27.96 grams, yes.
Q. Okay. Now, when you had testified about the
marijuana, you testified that you thought that it was more
than 50 grams. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Okay. Would this refresh your recollection
that it was not 50 grams? That it was substantially less
than 50 grams?
A. At the time, we did not have a lab sheet in front of
me and yes, I did believe it was over 50 grams.
However, if this is a true lab examination, which it's the
first time I'm ever seeing this type, it's saying
Colloquy 19
es.
Specimen number two, which was the vegetation, was
27.796 grams.
& Okay. On the top there, it also lists number
two. It says sandwich bags and then it says — it looks like
me o you know whether or not that stands for
Ziploc?
Sir, I don't know. That's my -- and this isn't
certified.
MS. WILSON: I'm going to object. This isn't even
his notes. This was the chemist notes that he has never
seen before.
THE COURT: And I don't see the relevance. |
mean, I'll take judicial notice. I mean, I've had training
and if you opal smell raw marijuana through Zip bags.
That's not even taking into consideration that it's in and
out of a ‘tap with a jacket. So I don't find it entirely or
especially relevant, the whole line of questioning.
MR. SANDILOS: Judge, it is relevant. First of all
THE COURT: Well, if you were sitting here, maybe
it would be but to me, it's not. I'm more concerned about
the -- whether this was a field
16
19
19
20
Colloquy 20
inquiry.
How -- whether they felt they could leave or not.
And whether there was anything in plain view when they
first walked up to the vehicle.
MR. SANDILOS: Well, Judge, with all due respect,
you don't have the right to limit our cross-examination,
to the issues that are involved in the -- as to what you
think are relevant.
THE COURT: But I think you would be
MR. SANDILOS: What is relevant also -
THE COURT: I think it would be instructive to you
when you tell -- when I'm telling you what I'm looking at.
MR. SANDILOS: Okay.
THE COURT: But if you want to go off in your own
direction, do it. record.
MR. SANDILOS: Judge, [ have a right to make a
THE COURT: You certainly do. Go ahead.
MR. SANDILOS: Thank you. | intend to.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SANDILOS:
Q. Now, the -- this vegetation that was found
was just in the plastic bag. You don't recall whether or not
it was a Ziploc bag. Is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Colloquy 21
Q. All right. And again, you would agree with
the amount of weight that I showed you, with regard to
the Exhibit D-4 that I showed you?
A. According to that paper you showed me, item
specimen number two, without me looking at the evidence
or a certified lab report from a chemist.
According to that i an you gave me, that is correct. The
clear, plastic bag with vegetation showed
27., | believe, 796 grams of marijuana.
: Are you aware, as to the amount of -- as to
what it would be 1n ounces or how much that converts to
the English weight?
HE COURT: How's that relevant?
MR. SANDILOS: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: How's that relevant?
MR. SANDILOS: Well, I think it gives us an idea,
because it does convert to just under one ounce, .96
ounces.
THE COURT: And I take judicial notice of
MR. SANDILOS: Thank you. Thank you. As long
Court is willing to take judicial notice of
And I can give the Court the exact weight, if okay.
THE COURT: That's fine.
16
19
20
16
20
24
Colloquy 22
MR. SANDILOS: Actually, Judge, what I can give
you is that 28.35 grams equals one ounce. So we can agree
that that was -- that the amount was a little bit less
THE COURT: Than an ounce.
MR. SANDILOS: -- than an ounce.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SANDILOS:
Q. At the time that you said that you had
smelled raw marijuana, you had -- did you tell the other
officers that you had smelled the raw marijuana?
A. I don't recall if 1 told anybody. At one point, yes.
When I asked Mr. Lane to step out, I don't know if I yelled
across the car but yes. Once he was asked, you know, out
of the car, whoever was there, of course, yeah.
THE COURT: Why did you ask him out of the car?
THE WITNESS: Because of the smell, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: When did you smell it? Did you smell
it when you were retrieving the other?
THE WITNESS: NO, sir. I smelled it while talking
to him.
THE COURT: From outside the car?
THE WITNESS: That is correct.
Hi. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos
THE COURT: Okay.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SANDILOS:
Q. Did any of the other -- at this point, you're
‘eg at the driver's side window; correct?
A. es, I was.
Q. Netective Farabella was there. Is that right?
A. Yes.
s) And he was standing where?
A. e was on the passenger side.
I
®. On the passenger side?
A. orrect.
Q And do you recall whether or not that
window was open?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Okay. Now, there was a third officer there, a
well. Is that correct?
A. There were a few officers there. Yes, sir.
- Okay. There were other officers?
es.
A.
Q. And where were those other officers
standing?
A. I mean, who do you want to know? | don't know
exactly--
Q. Well, there was an officer
A. --where each one--
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 24
* Oka
CHE COURT: How many officers were there tot il
at the initial field inquiry, what I'll call a field inquiry?
THE WITNESS: The in~tial field inc uiry would
have been three. That tina # have been -- Deiccins
Hoydis would have been the third.
THE COURT: Your car was parked behind their
vehicle?
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: You're at the driver's side.
There's another officer that's at the passenger side.
And where's the third officer?
THE WITNESS: Detective Hoydis, I'm not sure.
He was with the female.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SANDILOS:
Q. There was also an Officer Vinzinski. Is that
right?
A. Which carne -- the initial pull-behind and get out,
he was not with us. It must have been heard over the air.
He carne there within a short amount of time. I mean, |
don't know if they were just in the area but he did
ultimately corne there, also, yes.
Q. So you said Detective Farabella was on the
passenger side and you were on the driver's side--
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 25
A ‘ Yes.
s -- with the open window. Detective -- or
Officer Vinzinski carne a little bit later. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. At the time that he carne, was Mr. Lane out
of the car already?
A. | don't remember.
Q. Your report doesn't reflect that at that point.
Is that correct?
A. That's correct. | don't remember.
Q). You -- do you remember where Officer
Vinzinski was standing?
A. Iie was on the passenger side.
a He was on the passenger side?
A. ith Detective Percieda.
4 Okay. And were there other officers with you
on the driver's side?
A. I don't remember anybody else, other than myself,
on the driver's side.
Q). Okay. So you're the only there; correct?
A. Yes.
(). So -- and you're the only one that can testify
as to whether or not you smelled anything. Is that correct?
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 26
A. Yes.
(). You announced
A. From my side.
Q. On your side.
A. Yes.
Q There were no other officers that told you
that they had smelled any raw marijuana. Is that correct”?
A. Nobody told me, no.
". Okay. So you were at that point the only
officer that had made that —that datetted an odor. Is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that point, you told the other officers
about what you believed you had detected. Is that correct?
A. Correct. I don't know how I did it but yes, that is
correct.
Q. Well, they're on the other side. Did you
A. [ don't know if [ yelled or
Q. Did you yell?
A. [ don't remember how but yes, I did advise everyone
there.
q). All nght. And when you told them that you had
made that -- detected an odor of what you said was
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 2
marijuana and at that point, you then began to order Mr
Lane out of the car. Is that right?
A. Did I tell them first and then pull him out? I don't
know. Did I pull him out first and then tell them? I can't
answer that.
Q. Okay.
A. [ don't know when exactly but ultimately, yes, tl
were told.
Q. All right. If | showed you your report, would
that help clear anything up?
A. [ can take a look at it.
Q. All right. Detective, I'm going to show you
what's marked as hs and ask you if you recognize that
exhibit.
A. Yes, | do.
Q. Is that your report?
A. Yes, it Is.
Q. Do you -- is -- as to whether or not you had
announced the fact that the -- what you detected or pulled
Mr. Lane out of the -- or requested Mr. Lane to get out of
the -- ordered Mr. Lane to get out of the car. Would it
refresh your recollection to review that report determine --
to determine what order it happened?
> WN
~~ UW
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 28
A. No, this doesn't help me.
(). Okay. Is that because it's not in the report?
A. Yeah, that's not in the report. That is correct.
Q. So as we stand here today, we can't make a
we don't know what came first; either making the
detection or ordering -- announcing?
A. It could have been -- yeah, I don't know. It could
have been simultaneous. I don't know.
THE COURT: Officer, at the time you pulled up
behind the vehicle and you get out and the other two
officers get out of the vehicle, was your intention just to
ask questions or were you doing an investigation:
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I was attempting to
find out what was going on with the circumstances that
[ had leading up to it. And yes, I was just going to ask.
THE CO IRT: If they could have pulled out, would
they have been allowed to pullout and leave?
THE WITNESS: Well, with out car behind them,
I'd probably have to move my car or they'd have —
THE COURT: But would you have if he'd have said,
I don't want to talk to you? Or would you have gone
forward?
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 99
THE WITNESS: I don't know, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SANDILOS:
Q. Detective, when Mr. Lane finally got out of
the -- he cooperated with your request. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. He didn't heBitate. He didn't protest or
anything like that. Is that right?
A, That's correct.
Q. SO that when you did order him out of the
car, you didn't make any observations once he was out of
the car. Is that correct?
A. Incorrect.
THE COURT: Making observations of what?
MR. SANDILOS: Well, I'll make the car — the
question more specific
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SANDILOS:
Q. When you ordered him -- and I'll withdraw
that question. When you ordered him out of the car and he
eventually, he did get out of the car; correct?
A. Yes.
When he got out of the car, you looked inside;
did you not? | | .
A. My main focus was on him so | did not look in the
car right away, no.
19
24
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 30
? Okay.
A. With the smell of marijuana, of course he's asked to
step out and actually, when they asked the other, the
passenger to step out, was when the cther detective --
a Well I'm just talking about what you did.
A. Okay. Did 1?
Q. Did you look inside the car? When I had him
step out, at that time, no.
Q. So you never at that point looked inside the
car to see what was in the car at that point. Is that mght?
A. No. My main focus was on Mr. Lane.
A. How -- where did you take Mr. Lane at that point?
A. He was escorted back a little bit from the driver's
door.
Q. Did you handcuff him?
A. No, sir.
Q. You just, you held him and moved him back.
Is that correct?
A. That is correct.
THE COURT: Are those pleas ready? Those two
leas are ready?
JINKNOWN SPEAKER: Almost.
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 31
i THE COURT: Let me know when they are. Go
ahead.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SANDILOS:
So it would be fair to say that when you
removed Mr. Lane from the car, you didn't make any
observations as to the interior of the car at that point. Is
that nght?
A. hat is correct.
Q. Now, when you were removing Mr. Lane
from the car, you had asked him to get out of the car. Is
that mght?
AX
a
es.
Q. Did you touch his arm or shoulder to help
him out of the car? . . ; |
A. I don't remember if I assisted him out or — I believe
he came out voluntarily but I don't know.
Q. Okay. And the only reason I ask this is |
don't mean there was any force or anything like that.
A. Correct.
Q. | just mean that, did you help him out of the
car because at that point, he was maybe not under arrest
but you wanted him to go to a certain place. You wanted
him to move away from the car. Is that mght?
A, Away from the driver's door, yes.
MP ewoonnaun kh wre
— >»
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 32
Q. All nght. So do you remember if you had
done that?
A. I don't remember if I helped him out, no.
3 Okay.
A. 1ere was definitely not force.
Q. Okay.
A. Did I grab his arm? I don't know that for a fact.
That's fine. I understand that. I'm not saying
there was. When you ordered him out of the car, did you
bend down ‘nto the car to ask him to get out of the car?
A. No.
You moved him away from the vehicle and do
you remember how far away you moved him?
A. Towards the rear trunk area.
Of his car?
A. Yes.
Q. And Detective Farabella and the other
officers were still in their same positions, that you saw. Is
that right?
A. ell, it was pretty much simultaneous. When I
escorted Lane out of the car and walked him back, I mean,
that's when everybody knew I smelled the marijuana.
So essentially that's when they -- the other side
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos a3
asked Mr. Lane [sic] to get out of the vehicle.
So it was within the same time frame.
I think they -- the Judge had asked you about
the number of officers. I don't think you had a number. Is
that right?
A. don't have an exact. I can tell you who I know
definitely that were there. I[ didn’t have an exact number
for him. No, sir.
| Okay. And we do know that it was you,
Detective Farabella and Officer Vinzinski; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And were -- do you know the other — any
names of the other officers * ioe were there?
A. Detective Hoydis and Patrolman John Redden.
THE COURT: And they were -- again, you're
confusing me with the questions and the answers.
What's relevant to me is who was there at the time of the
initial stop. But you're saying there was three or now five
eaividens there at the time of the initial stop?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, initially there was
three of us in the one vehicle so three of us at the
initiail stop. And then ultimately, the other officers came
shortly after the fact.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SANDILOS:
—"
OwoOon DU aRWN
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 34
Q. All right. The Judge also had asked you. A
question concerning the position of your car to the position
of Mr. Lane's vehicle. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had pulled up right behind his
vehicle, if I'm not mistaken. Is that mght?
A. Correct.
Q. And how close was your vehicle to Mr. Lane's
vehicle?
A. I don't know, sir.
It wasn't -- there wasn't enough room that he
would have been able to back out and leave. Am I right?
A. I would probably have to move my vehicle before he
could back up and leave, yes. .
Q. So that you deliberate -- you did move the car
and you did put the car into the spot. Is that correct?
Knowing that you wanted to talk to these two gentlemen.
A. I can't answer that. I don't -- why would I have
urposely blocked him in? No. Was it just a tactical thing
or myself and the safety of us getting out? We have the
vehicle to use. More than likely.
Why that particular spot behind him? I can't sit here
H. Duffield - Cross - Mr. Sandilos 35
and say why we did that. Maybe just my instincts of
being a police officer. I dent kao but that's the way it
was,
Q. And with that initial stop, again, there was
one officer on -- you were on the passenger -- or on the
driver's side and two officers were on the passenger side;
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever ask permission to search the
car?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Okay. There was no time that you turned
around and said to. Mr. Lane, may I search your car or do
you Bve qa consent to the search of your car?
A. I did not, no.
Q. Was there ever a conversation between you
and Mr. Lane concerning bringing a dog on the scene?
A. No, sir.
MR. SANDILOS: Thank you. "I have nothing
further.
THE COURT: Mr. Connelly?
MR. CONNELLY: Briefly, Judge, thank you, if |
may.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNELLY:
Q. Detective, do you recall when you were making
Colloquy 38
NDU PWN
Oo ©
MS. WILSON: And Your Honor, I'm going to object
e ‘pens playing the tape. It's not authenticated, I don't
elieve.
THE COURT: Well, this officer can tell wi. ther it's
his voice or not; night?
MS. WILSON: Right. But we also have other
communications on there.
THE COURT: All we're relevant is whether this
officer reflected --
MS. WILSON: That's fine, if the Court's going to let
him play-it.
THE COURT: Well, what I'm understanding you're
bringing it is as to whether the officer will remember
whether he called it in or not?
MR. CONNELLY: Yes, Judge.
THE COURT: Which I find to be entirely relevant
to this case, quite frankly.
MS. WILSON: That's fine.
THE COURT: It's a real narrow box I'm looking at,
quite frankly. It's what was the reason for the stop? I want
to know whether it was a -- whether it was a
substantiated field inquiry.
Whether it was a -- an actual stop, whether it was an
investigatory stop, whether it was a field inquiry.
Colloquy 39
They're -- whether there was probable cause.
I mean, those are the three issues I'm concerned with and
there's a narrow (inaudible) in time I'm really looking at.
MR. CONNELLY: I[ agree, Judge. The tape's
critical.
MS. WILSON: If the Court's going to play it, the
State's going to just put their objection on the record
because it hasn't been authenticated.
THE COURT: But the authentication issue deals
with whether this officer can recognize his voice and
whether his memory is recollect -- is any recollection of
what he did that night in that small time period.
Of when he was getting ready to either do a field inquiry
or do an investigatory stop. Is that what it's about? That's
what I'm understan ‘3
MR. CONNELLY: I agree, Judge. And I think it's a
bit disingenuous of the State to object to evidence that
they provided in discovery to us as the authentic --
THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to get into that right
now. But my point 1s, I'm not accepting it for any other
roof other than the -- to let the officer determine whether
is memory is refreshed by the -- by hearing the tape, as
to what occurred at the time of the stop.
Colloquy
2
MR. CONNELLY: I agree. I believe a foundation's
been laid and he can testify if it's his voice.
THE COURT: Yeah, I agree.
MS. WILSON: Okay. That's fine.
THE COURT: Your objection's overruled. Let me
handle this --
MS. WILSON: Are you going to cue it up to the
right spot?
MR. CONNELLY: I don't know what the right spot
is. I'm gon to Parc tape.
HE COURT: Let me explain something to both of
you, okay, right now. You talk to the Court. You don't talk
to each other. If you want to argue, you argue through
We're not going to let it disintegrate to that; okay?
ease.
MR. CONNELLY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Judge keep it nght.
MS. WILSON: Okay.
THE COURT: I'm going. to handle this search
warrant and [I'm <i. to see if these two pleas are ready.
UNKNOWN SPEAKER: They're not quite ready,
Colloquy 4]
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay, thank you.
(Whereupon off the record for a bmef recess and then
return to the record as follows)
THE COURT: -- Robert Lane and Christopher
Slater. Mr. Connelly?
MR. CONNELLY: Yes.
THE COURT: Just for the record, we've been trying
to get the disk, DVD disk or disk to play and I understan
you have an apparatus coming over that will hopefully
play it. So I've asked you to maybe go into a different line
of questo ak so we're not wasting time until it gets here.
MR. CONNELLY: Yes. And my apologies to the
Court for the technical failure.
MS. WILSON: Judge, I'm just -- I'm kind of
confused here. I thought Mr. Connelly already did his
cross. Mr. Sandilos did his cross. I thought we were on
redirect so I'm kind of confused.
THE COURT: Oh. We didn't go to redirect because |
didn't know Mr. Connelly had done cross yet.
MS. WILSON: He did.
pa THE COURT: I didn't remember since last
pril.
COnNDURWN Pe
H. Duffield - Redirect - Ms. Wilson 42
MR. CONNELLY: Well, I did most of my cross,
Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to have the
redirect now?
MS. WILSON: I just had a couple questions and
then I guess the could follow up with whatever I ask.
HE COURT: Well, I'll let you two -- if you want to
Page [ apologize. I didn't know that
Mr. Connelly had not had his bite at the apple back in
April when we left this off.
MS. WILSON: Okay.
MR. CONNELLY: [had a partial bite of the apple,
Judge.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CONNELLY: That's fine. | yield to — the floor to the
Prosecutor.
THE COURT: Okay. If you want to redirect, that’:
MS. WILSON: Okay.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WILSON:
Q. Detective Duffield, now Mr. Sandilos back in
April spoke to you about Mary Bowen and what she was
es. Do you remember that?
A. es.
Q. And he brought up the fact that in your
fine,
H. Duffield - Redirect - Ms. Wilson 13
report, you didn't note what she was wearing. Is that
correct:
A. That is correct.
Now, despite not noting .that in your report
as to what she was wearing, did you still recognize this
person as Mary Bowen?
A. Yes, I did.
9. And had you seen her on other occasions?
A. es. Yes, I have.
Okay. So was there any doubt in your mind
that this was Mary Bowen walking down the street?
A. No, there was not.
9. And now, I| just want to talk about the time
frame. | want to talk about the time frame from the time
you saw Mary Bowen walking down the street until the
ultimate arrest of the Defendants. Can you estimate for us
how long that was?
A. Ten minutes.
And when you walked up to the car, you had
testified that you parked behind Mr. tings vehicle?
A. Correct.
Q. And from the time you approached the
vehicle and asked him a question, until you smelled the
marijuana, how long was that?
A. Less than a -- less than five minutes.
20
Colloquy 44
Q. So you -- when you were asking him, it was
less than five minutes after you started smelling the
marijuana?
A. Yes. And I'm sure a lot shorter than that but that
was less than five minutes, yes.
MS. WILSON: Judge, that's all the State has right
THE COURT: So if it was five minutes of
conversation, there's no doubt you were conducting an
investigation at that point then; right?
HE WITNESS: Your Honor, I considered it a field
inquiry into the actions that I observed. The few questions
that were asked before
MR. CONNELLY: I'm going to object and move to
strike. That's a legal conclusion. The witness isn't
ualified to give that testimony. I'm sorry, Judge.
lll stand up. Objecting, moving to strike.
THE COURT: I will not take that into
consideration. Granted. But my concern was just whether
you were asking questions beyond were you going to solicit
that young lady?
THE WITNESS: Right. No, no, sir. If I could five
minutes. If I could -- it was definitely under five minutes.
The questions that I asked him, it took me no more than a
minute.
how.
H. Duffield - Recross - Mr. Connelly 15
[t was just, everything happened at once, Your
Honor, and to get an exact time frame, I -- that’s why |
said, definitely under five minutes but I'm sure it was
under, way under that.
MR. CONNELLY: Thank you.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNELLY:
Q. Detective, I want to talk to you a little bit
about your training. You testified previously that you had
some te at the police academy. Is that right:
MS. WILSON: This is outside the scope of the
redirect Judge. I'm going to object.
THE COURT: It's overruled. I'll let him answer it
briefly.
THE WITNESS:
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNELLY
Were you at the police academy?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And how long?
A, Four months.
¥ And you had some
arch 3 to July 14, 1995.
Q. And did you have training in -- when you
were there, you had training in controlled smells, as you
call them; right?
A.
H. Duffield - Recross Mr. Connelly 46
A. One of my continuing schooling was called narcotics
-- Drugs for Patrol Officers and that is when the -- all the
controlled smells and raw smells were performed, yes.
Q. And they were performed lee. Is that night?
They give you a subject substance and then they ask you
how do they work? Just tell me.
A. During the training, of course visual observation of
the drugs that you encounter on the street. And with
marijuana, the distinct smells, that was also part of the
training.
al And so what do they do? Present you with
something and then ask if you smelled anything?
A. No. They would -- the instructors would identify the
marijuana and pass it around the classroom and allow
each individual officer to -- it's called a controlled smell.
Q. Okay. So you knew -- all right. So you knew
it was marijuana. You were given marijuana and you
smelled it arid that's a controlled smell?
A. Part of that course, yes. That was part of the, yes,
the training, yes.
kay. Is that your training when you said
you had training in detecting sameniion tat time? Is that
the extent of it? Somebody gave you marijuana and
H. Duffield - Recross - Mr. Connelly 17
you smelled it? |
A. Along with my experience and all o£ my arrests.
That was the initial, yes.
Okay. Let me talk a little about your training
and doing vehicle stops. Let's assume for a second that
when you radioed back to HQ in this case, you said vehicle
stop.
Now, when you do a vehicle stop, are you trained to try
and box a vehicle in if it's possi le?
A. You're definitely trained to conduct a motor vehicle
stop the safest for you. So there is training, yes.
; Well, I think you said earlier that you pulled
up behind the vehicle and you said on other testimony
that it was your instinct that led to that, as if--
A. It may have been. I said I really didn't — |
wasn't sure why it was parked -- I parked right behind it
However,’ it could have been my instinct.
Q. _ But you were trained at the academy in
making vehicle stops with another vehicle; right’
A. es, we did.
Q. And to do that, when you do that training,
— taught to pull up behind a vehicle so they can't
y escape?
€asl
H. Dutheld - Recro Mir.
Yes. That would be correct
* Okay. And then
Well, not escape; for your safety
ry That's really a matter of semanti
A lf you're pulling behind them, they can definit
but for your safety, yes. We're trained to — on how to
conduct a motor vehicle stop.
(). Well, there's no doubt that your safety i
it's certainly got to be a concern; right? But if it was all
about your safety, you wouldn't get close to a car. You
give them plenty of room.
A. [t's always about safety and I wouldn't say pl
room. I mean, you want a little cushion for variou
reasons but
(). Why do you want a little cushion
\ Distance between you and the vehicle? *
want to be right up on them
Q. Why’
5
A Just for safety reasons? | mean, you c:
distance. God forbid something bad happen
your chances of survival, you know?
Q. [ understand but what about
You can get away from it quickly
q) why not go too far away?
oblem ther
Colloquy
\ Well, then if you're too far away and you're walkin
up, then you don't have any cover if something should ba
0 down, as your vehicle that you're making the car sto}
(). Okay.
Are you with me
q) [‘m with you
Okay.
THE COURT: I don't know if that's totally rele,
but let me ask a question that you started to hit upon
Suppose the vehicle did not pull into the parking lot and
stop. Was it your intention to Stop the peninis for this fie
inquiry? .
THE WITNESS: No, siz
THE COURT: So you wouldn't have called
ehicle to try to stop the vehicle if it didn't stop?
THE WITNESS: No, sir
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNEL!
Q. So when did you call for backup? Before |
after you smelled the marijuana?
A. I don't recall calling for backup. Like I testified t
you, it was all simultaneous. The fourth and other guys
came as it was occurring, as | was bringing Lane out of
Colloquy 50
the vehicle or shortly before.
The three guys that were on location initially were
_ myself, Detective Sergeant Farabella and Detective
loydis.
The other guys came. I never called for them.
They must have heard it over the radio and were there in
the area and that's when they arrived.
But no, if the vehicle, Your Honor, had kept going
straight, from what I observed and nothing else occurred,
the facts, no I would not have made a stop.
THE COURT: Well, | guess maybe you didn't
understand my question. The vehicle pulls in the parking
lot and stops; okay? Suppose it didn't pull in a parking
stall and stop and then BD seconds later while you're
approaching, pulls out. Would you have stopped it then?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. If -- certainly with the
female walking towards it and getting close and then us
pulling in. And then they may have, knowing our
undercover vehicle, then yes, I probably would make a
motor vehicle stop. But if they just pulled in the parking
lot and then pulled right out and nothing else happened,
the female stayed where she was?
H. Duffield - Recross - Mr. Connelly 5]
THE COURT: No. But that's -- the female did not
stay where she was. That's my point. The vehicle stops in
the parking lot, the female walks up to it, up to the car.
You start to pull in and then the vehicle just pulls away.
Would it be your intention to stop the acs at that
point?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: To continue the investigation?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I would.
THE COURT: Okay.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNELLY:
Certainly, once you got out of the car, if they
had taken off at that point once you're out of the car, you
would have gone after them? Let's say they were able to
drive away. Had they driven away, would you have gotten
back in the car and run them down at that point?
A. After I initiated a field inquiry? Then that would
raise -- that would --
Q. Well, I don't want to talk about legal
language.
A. ell
THE COURT: Don't worry about the legal
language. | understand. You don't have a jury hers
H. Duffield - Recross - Mr. Connelly
\ No, sir.
Q. [s it fair to say when you pull up behind a
car, before you get out, part of the reason you did that,
whether it's instinct or it's police training, was to prevent
this -- the -- at that point the suspects from fleeing? Isn't
that. ww
A, hat: was not what was on my mind, sir. | -- like
1 said, I testified that I was not sure why uae that
ere Saying |
way. There was no intention -- | didn't go t
I'm going to block these guys in. No, sir.
t. CONNELLY: And then -- the Court’:
indulgence for one moment.
THE COURT: I think your tape player's he:
MR. CONNELLY: Excellent.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNELLY
Q. Okay. And you're familiar with that
intersection in Millville; right?
A The one -- yes. Columbia and Vine, yes, | a1
Q. And you said you were familiar with
Mary Bowen?
A. That is correct.
Q. I think at the last hearing you believed,
based on your experience with Mary Bowen, that she w
a prostitute.
H{. Duffield - Recro
\ Yes
Q. Is that right? But at the time, you didn't
know her rap sheet. You didn't have that in your head
you?
A. Absolutely. Because I've made several arrests «
have been with guys who have made all the arrests.
~ The entire thing? You know her entire
criminal history and that's just in your brain. that it
A. [ have a lot of knowledge about people in the
streets, just based on what I| do ever de And yes.
Q. Okay. Let me ask you this. Are there art
Millville that are known for prostitution?
A. There are areas, yes.
Q. And that's one of them; right?
That would be, yes.
Q. And clearly, if you have a known prostitute
she's probably going to be in a known prostitution area
that right?
A, hat is correct. Yes, sir.
Q. In your training and experience on the stre¢
have you ever known prostitutes to solicit innocent
parties? People who have no intention of actually picking
up a prostitute?
A. I would agree with that. That is correct.
oe Ae a
Colloquy 5
Q. And if you heard testimony, hypothetical
testimony that somebody pulled into a high prostitution
area for who knows what; to pick someone aes up. A
friend, neighbors. Is it sonal that a prostitute would
come to that car and just attempt to solicit sex?
A. Yes.
MR. CONNELLY: I'd like to try and play the tape
now. That's all I've got.
THE COURT: Let me get a offer of proof. What are
you saying the tape says?
R. CONNELLY: The tape gives a definite time
line from the point that the stop is called in by Detective
Dufheld and then the other units arriving.
[t gives the timing of the arrival of the other units. At
least when they've called in. It gives us at least the
earliest point at which they are at the scene. And quite
frankly, I'm not clear -- it also tells us what Detective
Duffield said when he responded to dispatch and --
THE COURT: Well, okay. Let's try to get because
I'm not concerned with what happened even
30 seconds after the stop, quite frankly. I'm concerned
with who was there when this car was held at that 30
seconds to a minute time period.
Colloquy
MR. CONNELLY: Okay.
THE COURT: That's where you make a
determination of whether there's a field inquiry proper or
whether it's an investigatory stop proper or not, in my
mind.
MR. CONNELLY: I understand, Judge. But | mean,
a key point I think is the time when he smells the
maryuana.
And [ think it's possible that there was a third unit
and maybe a fourth unit at the scene before that was
smelled. I mean, at some point this field inquiry turns into
THE COURT: That's fine. That's why I'm allowing
MR. CONNELLY: -- a stop.
THE COURT: -- the tape to be heard. I'm just
trying to get an idea of what I'm listening to.
MR. CONNELLY: Absolutely. I also want to find
out what Detective Duffield had in his mind. Now it's a
field inquiry but I'm pretty sure | remember him saying a
vehicle stop when he called it in.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Ms. Wilson, could I
impose upon you to check with Mr. Ostrowski and see if |
they're ready on those matters?
MS. WILSON: Sure, Judge.
22
1
Colloquy
MR. CONNELLY: (inaudible)
THE COURT: Just something like |
before or no?
MR. CONNELLY: (inaudible)
MR. OSTROWSKI: (inaudible
THE COURT: All right. What I want
you're ready, just let me know.
MR. OSTROWSKI: That's fine.
THE COURT: I don't want you to think tl
whenever you're ready, you let me know.
MR. OSTROWSKI: (inaudible).
THE COURT: Well, that's a good sign. I hear
MR. CONNELLY: (inaudible) this tape. They're té
seconds each. I don't know for certain when this top was
called in. It might have been the entire long tape. There’:
really no other reports so
THE COURT: Well, again, I'm not taking any
this for evidence.
MR. CONNELLY: Okay.
THE COURT: I'm going to let the officer listen to
and then if it refreshes his recollection, he can testify to
what his recollection is' at that time.
MR. CONNELLY: Okay. Well, let me just play them all
Hi. Duffield - Recross - Mr. Connelly
THE COURT: I understand that's why you'r
playing it.
MR. CONNELLY: If I can take a moment
(inaudible) and then just ask the officer to identify, yo
know, when he hears his voice (inaudible) and stop us.
(Whereupon police dispatch tape was played for the Cou
at this time and then return to the record as follows)
MR. CONNELLY: It wasn't there. Are we on thi
record, Judge? Okay.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNELLY:
that was probably Lane. He's a co-Defen
You heard (inaudible):
A Yes.
ot Do you know v
\ That was me.
q). That was yor
A Yes.
q). Okay. And what
A. 939
q. Did the tape begin with 939
another unit?
A. There were several other units and none of the
l{. Duffield - Recross - Mr. Connelly
were me.
Q. I'm going to start that again and would you
please --
A. Urn-hum.
Q. stop me and tell me, that's my unit, as so
as you hear your voice?
A. No, I heard it. There was 1 none of them wert
me
Q. Okay
prior to tape
(). But you actuall
\ orrect. .
Q. --that I just played?
Correct.
Q. And how do you know it's yor
By numb>r and that's my voice.
Q. That sounds like a (inaudible) bi
4
Q You identify your unit number?
Correct.
Q. And you hear yourself on that tape?
MR. CONNELLY: I'd like to admit the entire
THE COURT: Well, the tape has to show -- the tape
H{. Duffield - Recross - Mr. Connelly 6]
or
doesn't do anything for me. I'm not -- it had the reason f
the tape was to see if it refreshed his recollection into
to your question.
MR. CONNELLY: That's true.
THE COURT: As to when the stop took nlace.
The tape is not evidence. It's merely -- it's like «a repor
I'm treating it like a report.
MR. CONNELLX: Right.
l
THE COURT: What does he recall? Does it refres!
his recollection, if I'm understanding the question, as to
whether he called the stop in or requested for a backup
prior to the inquiry? Prior to the stop, let's call it.
MR. CONNELLY: Yeah, that's fine.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNELLY:
Q. Let me ask the question again. We started
with a question and then we had a break and now we're
back to the initial question. Or one of them was, what d
you radio that call in as?
A. Sir, I don't remember what I radioed it in as.
That last transmission, is what you're asking me what
that was?
[ don't recall how that was after the fact so I don't know
how I called it in, whether it was called in right away
not. But that right there was after the fact
Colloquy 62
Q. So you don't even know, based on this tape?
The first time you hear your voice is you're calling in for
an ID on Robert Lane?
A. A warrant check.
Q. A warrant check?
A. Yes.
* And that's the first time you hear your voice
1at 1s correct.
THE COURT: Presumably, the stop was three t
five minutes before that.
THE WITNESS: That is correct.
MR. CONNELLY: And -- okay. So
THE COURT: The question is, does anything about
that tape refresh your recollection about what you did just
prior to the stop?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. It does not.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CONNELLY: Well, I don't know that I hav:
the complete tape.
E COURT: Sir, you're -- there's not we're in th
middle of a Motion here.
MR. CONNELLY: That's right.
THE COURT: You presented this tape because you
A.
Colloquy 63
wanted to see if it would refresh his recollection.
It has not, apparently. Just as if you're producing a police
report and saying read it; does it refresh your recollection?
That's all it was presented for.
MR. CONNELLY: I understand, Judge. But I need
to present the rest of the tape now because I need to see if
THE COURT: What rest of the tape is there? I don't
know that -- he's not testifying there was any and the
State's saying they gave you what was part --
MR. CONNELLY: In this hearing, Judge, the
detective was asked whether he could --if he could recall!
the time frame with regard to the other units arriving on
the scene. He said he couldn't remember.
He was very unclear about that. I'm going to use the taps
to refresh his recollection as to the other units because
they may be on the tape.
THE COURT: Well, did you -- do any of those
sounds on that tape indicate that a vehicle was
responding to your location --
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
THE COURT: -- that you know ot
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
MR. CONNELLY: The tape's not over
Colloquy 64
THE COURT: What's that?
MR. CONNELLY: It's not finished.
THE COURT: Well, 1 don't want to hear the rest if
it's -- if what you -- the spot we left off was him asking ID
information on Mr. Lane. Obviously, that's well after the
stop. I'm concerned with the time of the stop.
MR. CONNELLY: I understand, Judge. It's not
obvious to me that he's got a -- he testified he has a
handheld radio. He could be standing there next to
Slater, for all we know, radioing in that warrant check.
What | want to know is, when did the otherunits
arrive and that's going to be on the tape. He was asked,
when did the other units arrive? He said, I don't
remember. it could have been five minutes. It could have
been 30 seconds.
THE COURT: What part of the tape are you going
to play now?
MR. CONNELLY: The rest of it.
THE COURT: The rest of it is all
: MR. CONNELLY: I stopped it. I stopped it on track
three.
THE COURT: Oh. So you're saying there are other
tracks that go back?
MR. CONNELLY: They go forward in time.
THE COURT: Forward in time. But what's forward
in time help me? I’m concerned with --
Colloquy 65
MR. CONNELLY: The arrival of the other units.
[t may not -- they may have arrived before.
THE COURT: I'm assuming from what I'm hearing,
sir, that there were no other units on the scene at the time
of the stop. And I think he indicated that.
Do you have anything on -- my concern, is there anything
on this tape that would refresh his recollection that there,
in fact, were units to help him stop the vehicle?"
MR. CONNELLY: I believe there could be.
THE COURT: Could be? On the tape, you're telling
me that shows that?
MR. CONNELLY: Yes.
THE COURT: Play that portion but it has to b
before what you just heard; doesn't it?
MR. CONNELLY: No. Because he may have
radioed a warrant check before the other units arrived
Isn't it possible?
HE COURT: Did you?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
THE COURT: He's already testified he asked for th
WON HNDW S&B WN
Colloquy 66
that it was after. You're on a fishing expedition now.
I allowed the tape in because you told me it was
going to tell -- give me conversation at the time of the
initial stop and it might reflect his — refresh his
recollection. That was the limited purpose.
MR. CONNELLY: No, I understand, Judge.
That's fine. And that -- and
THE COURT: The tape doesn't do that apparently.
MR. CONNELLY: I'm done. I'm done with the tape.
But I am going to request on the record that the
PD provide the Defendant with a copy of that dispatch
tape that proves that -- he’s got the time that he made the
stop in the police report.
[ want the dispatch tape leading up to that time.
THE COURT: Suppose he didn't call anything in
How are the Boing to produce a tape?
MR. CD! LLY: I think it's highly unlikely,
considering his testimony about his training and
experience --
THE COURT: But you're fishing.
MR. CONNELLY: -- and experience, that he's not
calling in a stop.
Colloquy 7
THE COURT: You're fishing now. They've produced
the tape that you say you had the stop on. If you're saying
there's additional tape, then you have to ask that of them.
['m in a Motion here. I'm trying to decide this Motion on
what you're submitting.
MR. CONNELLY: (inaudible).
THE COURT: And you're submitting this tape, sir,
to tell me -- to allow me to have the witness refresh his
recollection. That was the limited purpose. Let's not forget
that. I'm not taking it as evidence. Nothing on that tape
is evidence to me. It's like the police report. It's not
evidence to me. He's using it to refresh his recollection.
Apparently, what you have here does not refresh his
recollection. It’s over as far as I'm concerned. I mean, |
wou!dn't let you read from the police report.
MR. CONNELLY: Fine. F underetind.
THE COURT: The rest of the a report.
MR. CONNELLY: But normally when you refresh
recollection, there -- the rule says that the witness has an
opportunity to hear the entire -- to read the entire
document.
MN)
nu & W
73 KJ pd ped feed pd pd fd pO ft
“SHUI BW MIR © WO CO ~ <
ph ped
Nr 2 © OO
mM Ph
Colloquy 68
THE COURT: I am only concerned, sir, with the
time period --
MR. CONNELLY: I understand.
THE COURT: -- of the stop.
MR. CONNELLY: And Your Honor, | accept
Your Honor's judgement on that issue but I object. I'd like
to play the whole tape for him.
THE COURT: Okay. That's -- the tape — from that
point on, it doesn't have anything to do wit bichagare his
recollection as to whether any on en vehicles were at the
scene or not, at the time he made the initial stop, inquiry
or whatever we're going to call it.
And I was -- for the limited purpose, based upon the
objection from the State, was to allow you to see if you
could refresh his recollection. That has not happened.
MR. CONNELLY: !'d like to present it as refreshing
his recollection on the sequence of events, after he radioe
to dispatch in regards to Robert Lane for a warrant, check.
That's all we really know. I believe there's more on the
tape. I'll leave it to Your Honor's --
THE COURT: More to show what? To show what?
MR. CONNELLY: All right. I'll withdraw it.
Colloquy 69
You've overruled.
THE COURT: Your point is, you keep talking and
you're saying there's more on the tape. I understan
there's more on the tape. The tape could go on for the next
three hours.
But the point is, that next three hours has nothing to do
with the initial stop.
MR. CONNELLY: The whole issue in this case is
when -- whether we have a stop and when
THE COURT: There we go.
MR. CONNELLY: -- so I think it's highly relevant
THE COURT: There you go.
MR. CONNELLY: That's my proffer.
THE COURT: And you're telling me that something
on the tape after he salted it in is going to say what --
anything about the stop?
MR. CONNELLY: Yes.
THE COURT: It's incongruent. You -- he's saying
when he called in the records check, he had already been
with the vehicle two to five minutes... 7
MR. CONNELLY: I understand, Judge, and that's
fine. I -- just overrule my request and it'll be on the record
and I'm fae with that, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay, got you.
WOnNAUWhWN re
Colloquy 70
MR. CONNELLY: Thank you. So the request then
to refresh his recollection with the entirety of the CD that
I've been provided, is denied?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CONNELLY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Because my whole ruling, again, was
to try to
MR. CONNELLY: I understand.
THE COURT: -- refresh his recollection as to the
time of the stop. I'm not hearing it is in evidence.
MR. CONNELLY: Which again, I would argue
respectfully, is that that
THE COURT: Well, I heard that. No.
MR. CONNELLY: -- that's the ultimate issue in this
case, Judge. So in any event, I have nothing further at
this time.
THE COURT: Okay. Are you ready?
MR. OSTROWSKI: We're ready.
THE COURT: Any redirect?
MS. WILSON: No, Judge.
THE COURT: Any recross?
MR. SANDILOS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any other
witnesses?
Colloquy
MS. WILSON: I do, Judge, but
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. WILSON: -- he can wait until the —
THE COURT: Why don't we step back and I'll take
this plea, if you don't mind. And then we'll pick up again.
THE WITNESS: Am I excused, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Just for the time being, yes.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
(Whereupon off the record to handle other matters
at this time and then return to the record in this matter
as follows)
THE COURT: Okay. If we could come in on the
Christopher Slater and Robert Lane matters. Do you want
to —_ on the door and see if Mr. Connelly can come in?
My understanding is -- back on the record in the
Christopher Slater and Robert Lane matters. My
understanding is, a were done with that officer; right?
MR. CONNELLY: Yes, Judge.
we THE COURT: And you have another witness and
that 1s!
MS. WILSON: Sergeant Farabella, Judge. It's
actually two more witnesses. I have him here and I
WOmoOnN DUS WNP
Colloquy
have Jason Vinzinski, also.
THE COURT: You have what?
MS. WILSON: I have two officers left. The one
officer is limited to just the search incident to arrest.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CONNELLY: = a witness, Judge. Okay.
Can -- are you available to maybe pick this up tomorrow
morning? Are you going to be ‘pad tomorrow’? Is he going
to be held over an (a gt gentleman?
MR. CONNELLY: Yes, Judge.
THE COURT: Are you avadiable to come in
tomorrow morning, Counsel?
MR. CONNELLY: I have to call my office. I dor
believe so.
MS. WILSON: I'm here but -
MR. CONNELLY: Maybe I'l!
[ can reschedule but I've got an
11:00 o'clock.
THE COURT: What's that?
MR. CONNELLY: I have an 11:00 o'clock i
Philadelphia tomorrow morning.
THE COURT: Okay. Because what I'd like to dois
give this an hour tomorrow and get -- are you available
tomorrow, Officer Farabella?
Sidebar
MS. WILSON: No, he's actually -OF‘¢
FARABELLA: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Are you available at 9:00 o'clock
tomorrow morning?
OFC. F ELLA: Something just popped in
head. We're executing a warrant tomorrow at
9:00 o'clock, 9:30.
THE COURT: That would be a conflict. All right.
MR. CONNELLY: Judge, can counsel approach just
briefly?
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. CONNELLY: All right.
(Whereupon a sidebar discussion commenced at thi:
MR. CONNELLY: I talked to the State and I think
she's willing just to give us back (inaudible) situation at
os time that the car pulls up behind the suspects. I don't
now --
THE COURT: Well, to tell you the truth, I'm ready
to make a decision now, quite frankly, unless the
State has anything to offer.
MS. WILSON: I was going to offer (inaudible).
HR. CONNELLY: (inaudible) but now the issue i:
(inaudible) but now the State's saying that
time)
WOON DUA WNP
Sidebar 74
THE COURT: I see the issue is whether there was a
-- whether a rope field inquiry was being conducted.
MR.S ILOS: But the State -- what I'm saying,
Judge, is the State told me that they
MS. WILSON: (inaudible).
MR. CONNELLY: They agree that it was a Terry
level stop, vehicle stop.
THE COURT: on mean an investigatory stop
MS. WILSON: Yes.
MR. CONNELLY: [nvestigatory stop.
THE COURT: Huh?
MS. WILSON: Yes.
THE COURT: You ain't going to win on that, from
what I've heard from this officer.
MR. CONNELLY: That's in their Brief.
THE COURT: I understand that. That's what
I'm getting at.
sca MS. WILSON: There's two (inaudible) in my
rief.
THE COURT: I understand. One's a field inquiry
and one's a invest -MS.
WILSON: Right.
THE COURT: And there's no field inquiries.
MS. WILSON: I don't know about that but |
Sidebar 75
(inaudible) a Terry issue.
THE COURT: If it's a Terry issue, then that means
that it was an investigative stop.
MS. WILSON: Correct. (inaudible) a Terry issue.
THE COURT: I understand that. I'm ready to hear
argument, if you want, but I don't agree. I don't think I
agree with you, is what I'm saying, based upon what I
heard from this officer. The question is whether you want
other testimony on the sooand to supplement your record
or either of you do. I'm not trying to cut you off.
MS. WILSON: (inaudible)
THE COURT: But I'm telling you, without me
hearing anything different, from het I've heard from this
officer, quite frankly, I don't believe -- and I'm going to put
it together in more concise terms.
[ don't believe there was a proper fieldingquiry. I think it
was more than that. Based upon the case law, it went well
beyond a field inquiry. And I think the officer's credible,
who I find highly credible, states that fact. Because what
he told us was, it was really an investigative stop.
And then when I get to whether it was a valid
investigative stop, I can't get there, quite frankly.
And I took that from the Briefs so that's what I was trying
to point out to counsel before to narrow it because I saw
that as the whole issue here.
Sidebar
Before he even smelled -- whether he can smell the
marijuana doesn't matter if you don't — if you can't sto]
the vehicle.
MR. CONNELLY: I agree.
THE COURT: And I thous ght | was making th:
that's what I needed to hear aenioay.
MS. WILSON: (inaudible)
THE COURT: And the officer did a great job.
He testified very truthfully, very credibly. The problem i:
for the case, what he teatified to doesn't lead me to the
fact that it was a proper investigatory stop, a basis for it
MR. CONNELLY: I (inaudible) investigator butif
ne State will stipulate to his report, that's fine.
[ don't need to call him. That does go to the issue
THE COURT: Well, the question is, do you wa:
just do argument tomorrow morning?
MS. WILSON: Well, I'd like to call Detective
“arabella, if I could.
THE COURT: Ok: ry. I don't know -- how is it going
to help you if it's contradictory to what this officer said?
Colloquy
MS. WILSON: It's not contradictory.
THE COURT: Well, if it's the same thing, |
telling you there's a problem.
S. WILSON: Okay. From my point of view, |
think there's a problem.
THE COURT: Well, I understand that. Well, it
sounds like where -- we need testimony. So he can't bi
here tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon sidebar discussion concluded at this time)
THE COURT: How about tomorrow afternoon at
1:30?
OFC. FARABELLA: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Are you going to be available the:
MR. CONNELLY: (inaudible).
THE COURT: Well, I don't -- you're talking about
ome this off. If you want me to put it off until August
ll do t
MR ‘CONNELLY: No, I (inaudible).
THE COURT: I'm trying to be fair to but I need
everybody else to cooperate, too. limited time. We've be:
A ril now werre in talking about July and August
MR. CONNELLY: I'm not talking about
LJ W © ~s Cc Jt a= VA
a }- j2
—
=> Pd fd §.
coo a OS m
Ww) oe Ue
co“
Ww & WN
Tome om me,
10
jd fed fed fed
> WN
a
=
—
fd fund
o ~
16
19
20
Colloquy 78
(inaudible), Judge. | think that it's --
THE COURT: No. It's all of us have to agree.
I can't do this alone. I can't do it without her. I can't do it
without him. So I can't -- I'm willing to do whatever,
although I'm not staying late tonight.
R. CONNELLY: Here's what I propose. The
State said in their Brief (inaudible) stipulated that it v
a Terry level seizure --
R. SANDILOS: 1:30 is fine.
MS. WILSON: (inaudible).
MR. CONNELLY: (inaudible). Just have the -THE
COURT: No. You don't understand. That's good for
you but she wants to put on more testimony.
MR. CONNELLY: I'm going to object.
THE COURT: I have to let Be ut the testimony
on, especially if I'm probably going to findagainst her.
MR. CONNELLY: (inaudible). Can I make a quic!
phone call?
Colloquy 19
I don't think he's met either standard. And I'll go over it
tomorrow. I haven't -- you know, based upon the Brief, |
think there was a problem, thats why I was trying to
push resolution of it. But what we'll do is, 1:30 tomorrow
we'll take the testimony of the officer. I'll hear argument
If we need to move it to another -- until Friday to take
argument, whatever. I'm going to try to fit it in tomorrow
because I don't think it's fair to keep this thing sitting on
for another two months and I can't schedule it; okay?
MR. CONNELLY: (inaudible) my 11:00 is a hearin
(inaudible),
THE COURT: Yeah. Well, whenever you get her
MR. CONNELLY: [ can make 2:00.
THE COURT: All right. 2:00 o'clock, Office:
OFC. FARABELLA: Fine.
THE COURT: All right. Very good.
MR. CONNELLY: thank you, Judge
THE COURT: Okay.
(Whereupon the hearing concluded for the day
this time, to be continued May 28, 2009 at 2:00 p.m
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
IND. NO. 08-11-1055
CHRISTOPHER SLATE! MOTION
ROBERT LANE,
ayes
| |
erendant'
lace: Cumberland County Courthor
Broad & Fayette Streets
Bridgeton, New Jersey 0830
ite: May 28, 2009
BEFORE
The HONORABLE ROBERT P. BECKER, JI
j.S.C.
TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY
CATHRYN WILSON
PROSECUTOR
APPEARANCES:
CATHRYN WILSON, ASSISTANT PROSE¢
Attorney on behalf of the State of New Jersey
LESLIE SNOCK, ASSISTANT PROSECUTO
Co-Attorney on behalf of the State of New Jer
CHARLES P. SANDILOS, ASSISTANT D]
PUBLIC DEFENDER
Attorney on behalf of the Defendant
ALY, ESQUIRE
{ ; 4
c Defendar :
THOMAS CONNEI
alf f
THE TYPE-RIGHT-ER
Carol H. Vendzules, AD/
State of New Jersey, #26$
Phone (856) 881-2422
Fax (856) 494-7806
Recording Operato
M. R. Rainear
Colloquy 2
WITNESSES DIRECT C ‘ROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
STATE
DET. SGT. JODI FARABELLA
By - Ms. Wilson 6
By - Mr. Sandilos 24
By - Mr. Connelly 17
EXHIBITS IDENTIFICATION EVIDENC]
DEFENSE
D-1 Report of Mr. Cassidy
D-2S Complaint Against Mr. Lan
DECISION - 53
(Whereupon hearing continued from May ‘
2009, as follows)
THE COURT: Calling the matter of State vs
Christopher Slater under Indictment 08-11-1055 and al!
Robert Lane under that same Indictment. I don't see
Colloquy
ir. C ring here.
MS ILSON: Here's here.
MR. SANDILOS: He's here, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, we're ready now
he's —— out now? I got you. Okay. Once again
Counsel, your appearances, please.
MS. WILSON: Good ‘afternoon, Your Hono:
Cathryn Wilson on behalf of the State.
MS. SNOCK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. |
apologize. Leslie Snock on behalf of the State, as wel
a I had a funeral yesterday and I wasn't
available. I am second chair in this matter.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CONNELLY: Food afternoon, Your Hon
[homas Connelly on behalf of Christopher Slater.
MR. SANDILOS: Charles Sandilos for Mr. Lan¢
THE COURT: Okay. As we left off yesterday, \
had released the first officer, Mr. Harold Duffield.
And I think the State was going to be calling anothe
witness?
MS. WILSON: Yes, Judge. We have one mo:
witness; Sergeant Jodi Farabella.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. CONNELLY: And yen Xe just before we beg
1
testimony, can I -- I've spoken with Prosecutor Wilson
° ort
I've released him. I don't feel 11
like to enter that into evidence.
THE COURT: Okay. Is that son
to review?
MR. CONNELLY: It's already with Your Honor
can provide another copy. Well, I don't know if I ever ;
i copy of it.
It may have been marked but I don't think I ever
ta copy of it. It was not entered into evidence so | wor
not have looked at it.
MS. WILSON: Right. I mean, I don't think it
vidence, Judge, but I think -- I mean, I don't have
ybjection to you looking at it
THE COURT: Well, it sounds like it's going to b
now because you're saying -- what are the pertinent parts
f ~he report that I'm supposed to take into consideration
MS. WILSON: I think --
MR. CONNELLY: Judge, the report's offered to
iow that the parking lot, the Morris View Plaza parki
it is used by local residents for overnight parking
MS. WILSON: And I think there was testimony
1 Detective Duffield that that is correct so I don’t
LO that verng
THE COURT: Okay. T!
» take out of that report
MS. WILSON: -- considered 1
THE COURT: Okay. Yeah
MR. CONNELLY: Let the re
ounsel
yc WAT ’ ,
LILIS | YV | i
MR. CONNELLY: May I mark this Defense Ex}
THE COURT: Very good. Thank y
MR. CONNELLY: And I'd move
MS. WILSON: (inaudible)
THE COURT: It'll be admitted with
MR. CONNELLY: Thank you, Your |
CHE COURT: Yes
MR. CONNELLY: (inaudible) to the ¢
THE COURT: Very good. Thank you
MR. CONNELLY: Thank you, Your Hor
THE COURT: You want to 1 k tl
a, when you get a chanc
‘HE CLERK: Yes
THE COURT: Ok
ta.
WoOnnUWI RW Ne
pad
©
Ws
OFC. FARABELLA: Very well, si
THE ‘COURT: Could you please put your left han
on the Bible and raise your righ ht hand
DET. SGT. JODI FARABELLA, STATE'S WITNES
SWORN
THE COURT: Can you tell me your full name?
THE WITNESS: Detective Sergeant Jodi Farabs
THE COURT: And spell your last name
THE WITNESS: F-A-R-A-B-E-L-L-A.
THE COURT: Okay. Your witness.
MS. WILSON: Thank you, Judge.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WILSON
Go. Detective Farabella, who is your employ
today’
A Millville Police Departme nt.
How long have you been employed by
Millville?
A A little over ten years
9. How long have you been a poli
gener al
A. Over ten years.
And what is your present assignment
().
A The Narcotics Division.
Q. How long have you worked in narcotics
A In and around narcotics for about seven years
Q Now, in your work in narcotics, have you
J. Farabella - Direct - Ms. Wilson
received any tri ining is far as identifying narcot
smelling narcotics?
A Yes, | have.
Q. And what kind of training did you rec
A. In the regular police academy, they burn
marijuana. We smelled raw mz arijuana. And just thr
my police training itself.
Now, have you had any t:
identifying certain possible CDS?
A Yes.
Q. Controlled dangerous subst
A Y es, [ h lave.
Q. And what kind of training have you h:
A. In narcotics investigation schools, unit scho
Just through those kind oF schools.
Q. And besides the police academ)
attended any Pg alized schools in narcoti
A a eesin Schools several times
Q ave you attended Top Gun
A No, I have not.
Q. Okay. Now, as far é as working
has there ever come a time where you need to
prostitution investigations?
A. Yes.
Q. And how many times over your ten y
believe that you've participated in or conducted y
J. Farabella : Dir ct
own prostitution investigation?
A. I would say I was in" probably over ten
investigations involving prosecution stings.
Now, are -- 1n your investigation, in your
training doing these investigations, is there certain types
of behavior that you would see when a john is trying to
solicit a prostitute?
A Yes.
MR. CONNELLY: I'm going to object. That calls for
a narrative.
THE COURT: Well, I don't know if that's wrong in
- it's not necessarily a reason not to ask a question;
because it would call for a narrative. You --
MR. CONNELLY: I'm going to object to it as
leading, a leading question.
MS. WILSON: I don't think it's leading, Judge
think it's --
THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead
MS. WILSON: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WILSON
Q. Is there ever -- are there certain techniqu
that a john uses to solicit a prostitute?
A Ves.
Q. And what are those, in your experience?
A Some are circling during daylight hours, circling
J. Farabella - Direct - Ms. Wilson
multiple times. At nighttime, sometimes using a headlight
or brake lights. Just mostly circling. They observe them.
The prostitute may give a signa! back and things like that.
Q. Now, do all these always occur in every sing
case?
A Not always
Q. So is it fair to say there might be some
signals that are used in certain cases and not in other:
A Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, in your training, have you eve)
and in working in Millville for the past ten years, have
you ever encountered a person named Mary Bowen’?
\ Yes.
et And who do you Know Mary Bowen to be’
She
A is one of our prostitutes in. the center in the
City of Millville.
. Q. Now, have you r arrested her f
Prostitution?
A Yes, we have
Q. How ma
irrestec her or --
A Without
\). --have been with people who arrested he:
i I
Without looking at her sheet, I'm assuming shi
een arrested over ten times
J Farabella Direct - Ms. Wilson
And that would be for Prostitutio1
OOnNDWM & W
10
WON DUI RWN eR
Ww NJ
MR. CONNELLY: I'm going to object. Calls for
speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. WILSON: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WILSON: |
| Now, I'm going to turn your attention to April
30 of 2008. Do you recall that date? Were you working?
A. Yes.
And specifically, | want to turn your attentio1
towards 11: 30 p.m. on that day. And were you working at
that time?
A. Yes.
Q. And were you working alone or with othe
officers’
A. I was with an undercover unit, with two othe
narcotics officers that day.
Who were you with?
A. etective Junior Duffield and Detective Joseph
Hoydis.
Yes And were you all in the same car?
es
Okay. Now, at that time on that date, did you
observe Mary Bowen?
J. Farabella - Direct - Ms. Wilson
Q. And where were you when you observed
Mary Bowen?
A. We were --
MR. CONNELLY: Sir, I'm going to object as
cumulative. All this evidence that he’s prepared to testify t:
has already been testified to by Detective Duffield and it's
cumulative and it's a waste of the Court's time.
THE COURT: Overruled. I want to make sure it’s the
same testimony.
MS. WILSON: Okay.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. WILSON:
I'm sorry, Officer. Where were you at the
time you saw Mary Bowen?
A. I believe at the time we were on Buck Street. We
watched Mary Bowen. We were circling the area. We
watched Mary Bowen. She was w alking west on Vine Str
1 believe, heading towards Columbia.
Now, when you observ ed this Mary Bower
were you positive it was Mary Bowen?
A. Yes.
Q. And eg seeing Ms. Bowen, what if anythi
did you decide to d
A. We decided “i circle and watch her and see where
she was going to go.
And what was the Ms. Bowen, what if
anything and watch her and see where traffic light a
at the time when you saw Mary Bowen?
J. Farabella - Direct - Ms. Wilson
A Very light
9. And while you were looking -- watching Mar
Bowen from your position, how far away were you from
MO RO RO RAO RO PR
UI & Ww
~
P)
NM Re
a pt pd pd
INU hm W
‘a N ¢
wt
PR es pt pt ps O-
Mary?
A. Very close, at one time passing her. And probably
observing her, probably 100 yards away
2. Now, while you were watching her, did
what if anything did you observe?
A. I watched -- we watched her go to the corner of
Columbia, at which time I seen a black vehicle pass her
and hit his back brakes.
Watched that vehicle circle the block, pass heragain
and then pulled into the Morris View Plaza parking lot
Now, you say that this vehicle tapped its
brake lights. Did that mean anything to you?
A. Yes. |
Q. And what did that mean to you?
A. At that time, I believed it was a signal to Mary
Bowen possibly having a john.
g. Now, after the car passed a second time,
where did the car go?
A. It went into the Marsh View Plaza parking lot
Q. Did .it -- did the car keep its engine on?
A It was parked. I'm not sure if the engine was on
2. kay. Now, at that time that you -- the car
pulled into the parking lot, what if anything did you
J. Farabella - Direct - Ms. Wilson
observe at that time?
A. At that time, we just observed Mary Bowen walking
closer to the car. And at the time, we thought it was
definitely going -- she was going to approach the vehicle
We moved in. She was probably about maybe 15 yards, 15
feet, somewhat within that range.
o That's how close she got to the vehicle?
A More or less 15 feet, I would say.
Q And then you pulled into the vehicle. Is th
correct?
\ Yes
Q. And where did you park; do you rememb«s
Directly behind the vehicle.
Q. And who was driving? Were you driving?
A Junior Duffield was.
Okay. And now, once you pulled behind the
vehicle, what if anything did you do?
A. I stepped out of the passenger side. Junior Duffield
went to the driver's side. Junior Duffield then made
conversation with the driver.
Within seconds, I believe, the bicycle unit pulled 1
Junior Duffield indicated to me that he smelled raw
marijuana and --
And upon hearing that, what did you di
anything?
J. Farabella - Direct - Ms. Wilson
de, just viewing and looking at the passenger
Q. Now, did the occupants remain in the
that time?
; Yes
' ih a :
ee a = “am ris Ar — L,
q). And at any time, did they exit the
10
A. Yes. Junior Duffield asked the driver to step out
of the motor vehicle, at which time Jason Vinzinski was
there. He's on the NCPU Unit on a bicycle.
He asked the passenger side to get out of his -the
passenger side, to step out.
And now, what were you doing at this time
while Duffield was speaking with Mr. Lane, I believe was
the driver?
A. Iwas more or less positioned near the passenger side,
just observing the two officers, what they were doing.
ow, you're observing. Did you observe
anything in particular that night?
A. Both individuals here were like kind of huddled
together in the vehicle, like crouched over the center
console are when they were in the vehicle.
Okay. So -- and then once they exited?
A. Yeah. Once both were exited from the vehicle, there
was a clear line of sight. There was, in my reason -- in my
experience, I believed it was cocaine in the front console
area in plain view.
Q. And where was it? Was it sitting on top
J. Farabella - Direct - Ms. Wilson 15
A. On top of the console.
Did you search the car at any time?
A. No. At that time, I just observed what I saw. I told
Detective Duffield, I believe there's cocaine on the console
° | And at the time you observed what you
believed to be cocaine, what if anything was done at that
time?
A. At both time, both were under arrest, placed unde!
arrest.
Q. Now, who placed Slater under arrest?
A. That would be Jason Vinzinski.
Q. And you were on that side at the tim:
correct?
A Yes, | was.
Q. And was there anything found on Mr. Slate
A. Yes, there was.
Q. And what was found on Mr. Slater, if you
know?
A. It was marijuana was found. Also some cocain¢
MS. WILSON: Okay. Judge, I believe that's all th
questions I have for Detective Farabella.
THE COURT: Thank you. Any cross?
MR. CONNELLY: Thank you, Judge.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNELLY:
Detective, you mentioned you wert
passenger side of the vehicle and that Detectivs
J. Farabella - Cross - Mr. Connelly
Duffield was on the driver's side. Where was Hoydis?
A. Hoydis was with the -- Mary Bowen, the prostitute.
Okay. She was still, at that point how many
feet away from the car? I think you said ten, fifteen?
x Fifteen feet, I would say, give or take. Somewhere in
that.
Q. In what position was she, relative to you and
Detective Duffield? Was she behind you, behind your back,
towards the rear of the car?
A. At that time she was taken to, I believe, near the
corner away from the scene, probably 100 feet away from the
scene.
Q. Okay. But you said earlier that Vinzinski
arrived yefore you pulled the suspects out of the vehicle.
that ni ht?
A. res.
Q. Okay. And when you approache d the vehicle,
do you remember, did you have your badge?
A. Yes.
~. And was it visible?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had your firearm?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you approac hed the vehicle, did you
have your hand on the firearm?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Was it unfastened in your holster?
d. Farabella - Cross - Mr. Conne lly
There's no fastening. It's just the way it's observed
today.
Q. Okay. But the -- and do you mind standing up
so I can see?
A. Okay.
Q). And were you wearing a jacket?
A Yes.
+. Okay. And was the weapon visible?
A Yes.
a. I think you said earlier that you actually
circled the block?
A. Yes.
Q. And then (inaudible) to observe Mary Bowen‘
A Just to watch Mary Bowen.
Q. Now, if somebody had been watching you circle
und Mary Bowen, could they have suspected you of
MS. WILSON: Objection.
MR. SANDILOS: -- soliciting prostitution
MS. WILSON: Speculation, Judge.
MR. CONNELLY: She's asked speculati
questions all afternoon of this officer.
THE COURT: I didn't hear the speculative they
weren't -- to me they weren't speculative. They were factua
about what he saw. Your question is _ it again, just to
make sure I'm + we our cae
NEL Let ig break it down into
WONHAUNRWNR
J. Farabella - Cross - Mr. Connelly
couple of different questions, if I may.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNELLY:
| , Detective, you said earlier today that you
circled around Mary Bowen and parked to observe her. Is
that right?
A. es.
You were in an unmarked vehicle. Is that
right?
A. Correct.
; Let's say there had been another set of
officers watching you circle Mary Bowen. Would that have
been suspicious activity, what you did in your vehicle,
aes
A. robably not because the whole department knows
what vehicle I drive.
Okay. But let's say they didn't. Let's say
they were, you know, Federal police.
A. But I didn't go by Mary Bowen and tap my brakes.
' Okay. So your position is at the time that you
were there at the stop, basically the only thing that
differentiates a -- the suspects as -- in terms of potential
johns from any innocent person on the street, is the fact
that mer -~- heir brake light? Is that right?
A. I don't understand your question.
. Well, you were --
A. uring my investigations doing this --
J. Farabella - Cross - Mr. Connelly
-- weren't looking for a prostitute; right?
Were you?
I'm sorry?
ah You weren't looking for a prostitute that
The three of you in the car, were you johns?
A. _ To be honest with you, when I come to work I'm
looking for oo and everything.
ra) o. I mean --
A. I don't know what I'm looking for.
” ,& - were you looking to hire a prostitute that
night:
THE COURT: Listen, you're becoming argumentativ:
sir. I think he's answered the question.
MR. CONNELLY: I'm sorry, Your Honor
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CONNELLY: Let me finish with this
line. Were you there to hire a prostitute that night?
MR. CONNELLY: Sir, you're being
argumentative.
MR. CONNELLY: I'll rephrase.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNELLY:
You testified earlier that you circled around
Mary Bowen. You also testified earlier that one of the
facts that you consider in identifying potential Johns,
the Defendants, was that they circled Mary Bowen
(inaudible).
A.
night.
A
WOMNODUWRWNe
J. Farabella - Cross - Mr. Connelly
The activity you also did, an innocent person. My
on is and my question is, the only thing that
indicated to you that these guys were looking for a
rostitute was the fact that they tapped their brake light?
s that correct?
A. And circling twice.
; Okay. So they circled one more time than you
did and tapped their brake?
A. Correct.
“4 And that's it; right?
A. at's all I needed to see or observe.
Q. Okay. And you just testified that Vinzinski
ee ty Bowen. Is that correct?
0.
_ .
Who stopped Mary Bowden? Hoydis. Hoydis
stopped Mary Bowen:
A. Correct.
Q. All right. So she's there obviously. And you
claim you saw a transaction for sex about to occur or in
the process of occurring. Is that right?
A. genet it was going to occur.
ecause according to you, the communication
to her was the brake lights and then she's approaching the
vehicle; right?
A. irmative. Correct.
All right. So if you're looking to bust a
prostitute for potential johns, why didn't you let that
J. Farabella - Cross - Mr. Connelly
21
transaction actually happen?
THE COURT: Sir, I -- let -- you have to stand
near the microphone. Our -- we're just -- we're not going to
ick this up. Because we've been listening to some tapes
ately and unless -- when you walk away from the table.
it doesn't pick it up.
MR. CONNELLY: You had mentioned that,
Judge. I know. I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Yeah, it just doesn't pick it up
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONNELLY:
So what -- you didn't arrest them for
Prostitution or Solicitation; did you?
A. To answer your question, once those two connect,
it might change ies investigation. It might tell that officer
that I'm a friend and then I'd want to have them separated.
That's what I wanted. I want to see if I can, through
my investigation, show that he is soliciting a prostitute. If
not Prostitution itself, I've got him Loitering for
Prostitution in. that area, in a Weed and Seed area.
‘ Well, you agree you'd be better off getting
him on Prostitution, actual Solicitation; mght? | mean,
that's --
A. I can't answer that. What -- you're telling me what's
better?
™ J. Farabella - Cross - Mr. Sandilos
Q. Well, so what you're sa ing is you would I don't
understand your answer. Why dias t you arrest Mary
Bowen for Prostitution?
A. The deal didn't go down.
| Q. It didn't go down because you interrupted it.
So my question is, why did you interrupt it? Why not let it
5° down? You're investigating prostitution. __
You're saying I'm investigating prostitution. I'm
investigating anything or anything at that time. I believed
that was -- could have been a prostitution deal.
0. l right.
A. ary Bowen is the target that we looked at. Mary
Bowen is the target of numerous criminal activity.
Q. Okay. Then let me get this clear. The reason
you stopped Defendants in their vehicle was because you
suspected --
A. Correct.
-- them of Soliciting Prostitution
A. Correct.
Q. Is that right?
A. Correct, at that moment.
MR. CONNELLY: I have no further questions
Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SANDILOS:
Detective, very briefly; when you saw the car
hit its brake lights, you then -- you saw the car then
J. Farabella - Cross - Mr. Sandilos
23
0 into the parking lot. Is that correct? |
I believe it circled maybe one more time and then
went into the parking lot.
| And when it went into the parking lot, you
followed it in. Is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And when I say you, I mean the three of you
in the police car.
A. hat's correct.
Q. And when you parked, you parked behind th.
vehicle that Mr. Lane and Mr. Slater were in. Is that
right?
A. That's correct.
Now, the amount of space that — and
Detective Duffield was driving at fiat point. Is that right
A. That's correct.
When he parked the car behind Mr. Slater
and Mr. Lane, he parked it in a way that it was fairly
close to Mr. Lane's vehicle. Is that correct?
A. I know he pulled in behind him. I don't know the
feet. You know, it was fairly close.
Q. Okay. And it was close enough where Mr.
Lane was not going to be able to back out or -- and leav:
Is that mght?
A. That's correct.
Q. In fact, the three of you got out of your
J. Farabella - Cro; Mr. Sandilo
.)
24
ehicle and Detective Duffield approached the driver
ide and you were on the passenger side. Is that corr
That's correct.
( And I think you said Detective H
o there and he was near you, as well?
Yeah. He went right to Mary Bowen
Q). Okay. And then an Officer Vin
Is that correct?
That's correct.
Q@. Now, Detective Duffield was the
or talking with the driver. Is that right?
| \ That's correct.
13 Q. Were you able to hear any of the conve!
14 between Detective -- I'm sorry Detective Duffield and
1S __ the driver?
Lt A I didn't hear much of the conversation
17 Q). Okay. Were you able to hear anything
18 Mr. Lane explaining how he dropped his telephon:
19 \ I did not hear that.
) Q). Okay. Did you hear anything else, any othe
communication between Detective Duffield and Mr. Lan
\ I did not.
Q When we had asked a series of question:
with concerning with Detective Duffield about his not}
Ms. Bowen. You noticed her, as well?
~. AA &
| Vi a7
J. Farabella - Cre
an
\) You dl
tter; did you?
No, I did not
(). Would it be fair to say that then whi
when Detective Duffield pulled the car in between her
back of Mr. Lane's vehicle, that Mr. Lane was not fh
leave. Is that correct?
At that point, he was not free to |
Q So he was in some type of
t. Is that correct?
That's correct
A) Now, d
rt today?
Yes
Q) Okay And y
this matter. Is that right?
| A What I observed was told to Junior Duffield at
19 time. I review his reports and it was factual of what |
him. I was --
q. But you didn't writ
No, I did not.
Q. Okay. .So what he put into his report
1 and po:
4 4 arvnen, a conference that he had with you
Detective Hoydis. Is that correct?
26
A With me. I couldn't say Detective Hoydis
J. Farabella - Cross - Mr. Sandilo:
26
Q. In the course of your investigation, you k
or you learned that Mr. Lane lives in the 500 block ot
Columbia. Is that correct?
A. When did I know that he lived live: I'm
Q. Well, did you learn that?
A I found out.
9: Yb, the course of your investigation
ea
A. h. I found out later he -- where he used to liv
yes
Q. Okay. And I believe the address that he li
at was 517 Columbia. Is that correct?
A. I'm not sure of the address
Q. Okay. If I show you the ¢ om pli uint in th
matter, would that refresh your recollection as to hi
address?
A Yes.
3 Okay. And I'm talking about specifically
April 30 of 2008
A. Yes.
Q). Okay. I'll show you what's marked as D
That's a Complaint charging Mr. Lane with variou
offenses. Is that correct:
A Yes, it ts.
(). Okay. And looking at that C omplaint, do
that refresh our recollection as to Mr. Lane's addre
April 30 of 2008?
J. Farabella - Cros: Mr. Sandilo
27
A When he was arrested, yes, that's the addr
Pave.
(). Okay. And it was placed in ther
his address was. Is that correct?
A Yes. It's right here.
(). In the caption. All right. So Mr. Lane
address was 517 Columbia Avenue. Is that right?
A. That's the information he gave to the proce:
officer of that address. Correct.
Q). When Detective Duffield approached the
driver's side of the vehicle, he had asked -- or did you |
him ask the -- Mr. Lane to roll his window down?
A I don't recall.
Q. Okay. Did you ever hear him -- did he
any motions for Mr. Lane to roll his window down
A [ don't recall.
Q. Did you -- do you recall whether or n
Detective Duffield asked Mr. Lane for his name?
A. It doesn't ring -- | mean, I'm sure that's the f
thing he's going to ask but I didn't hear it because [ v
on the other side of the vehicle.
y All right. Do you remember Detective
Duffield -- strike that. Did you -- | know you wer
clothes that night. Is that correct?
A. That's correct.
ory?
W he
qd I)
VM Ln i
Do you rec
| 4
t neck O1 Mr }
| »
| , T L rec | i 1 "
an
> o
/ iL W
ipp¢ nec
He might
ow, he was d
ibly doing 7 nrery
nada +} ngs re ti
Yy Did ¥
i ~~ | rte
[HE COURT: Thank
MS ‘WIL SON: JJ idge n have one qui
EXAMINATI BY MS. WILS«
fs / f I< Y | | | " ' ' ‘
MS. WILSON
se Mr. Connelly spent a lov of time
ive Sto pe “J before Ms Bowe n vot
THE ¢ OU JRT: U'll allow the questior
THE WITNESS: Yes, it's proactive |
Junior Duffield ex] lained it. We're i
id Seed area. We go to town rs a centers, «
hey re very the commissioners, we attend these
eeluings. They want us to be more proactive. Ma
she's been arrested many times for Prostitut
e just trying to be
4
hat's going to hi
MR. CONNELLY
- redirect about proacti oli
THE COURT: I know what y
1 trying to prove that I'm
rit the first four times
CONNELLY: Well
t Yt + |
IR. CONNE]
( LJK
MR. CONNELLY: |
HE COURT: Any
iS. WILSON: No. .
HE © JURT: Officer, |
HE WITNESS: Thank
MR. SANDILOS
THE COURT: O}
MR. CONNELLY
MR. SANDILOS
HE COURT: Ok
at tina?
‘ At
rOWoU |
S| > LX
ir V+
\
’ t
1 +}
1 tne ]
LI
\
:
was S|
W ¢ ] in)
t hh S } C ry ¥
q
ITV Sto] } T
? ~ ?
~ i YOCoLlY t ry
isn't a motor vehicl
} J 7
eady stopped. Lhis \
- ,
UnKINP Uf (
lin order | \ -
things. Firs | S
Line SCCOIl l ]
h
[ must De SOI
= ta '
tial interterel
by
Om tne
me sort of intrus}
i right to leave
Jow, here what we nave s Detectiv: Duthe
tective Sergeant Farabella, who together have 22
law enforcement experience. They were working
gether in a van, w: atching Mary Bowen
Who they both testified that the ‘y kn
evlous prostitution investigations, as we Il as pers
esting her for prostitution on numerous occasions
They both testified that there was no doubt in
id this was Mary Bowen. ' Is 11:50 p.1 it ni
Weed and Seed district
Which they testified
Court as to what a Weed
signi fic: os of that is
Ne WwW then the yy SCE M: iry Bowen, tl
?
vho she is. They see the Defendant's ca r drive by, t
rake lights, drive past Mary Bowen slowly. Circle t
ck, once again drive past Mary Bowen slowly
d pull into a neighboring parking lot and st
Now, then see Mz ry Bowen w: alk | towards t
£\ 3
nd they let her get within ten to fifte
tigate
lefendant's car
erry stop
Now, taken e, these facts mig!
ey might be innocent and that might be the «
at might be the case for the Court, myself or «
yuunsel. That we would think all these things
nocent acts
But how ever, glven De Li
irabella's vast experience
vell as their investigation
ostitution
As well as knowin
district they were in and the Defendant
rake lights. All together, they made ara
1at some thing was going down
They infe rre .d from what they saw and tl]
wen was involved. That these individuals, t]
> Defendants, were trying to rete ite Mary Bowen for
some sort of sex act. That's whi it they bell leve d as tral
fficers and —. what the C ourt needs to loc -
AIL CTI.
No ww, this might have bec en a com} yletel
MM ary Bowen wasn't in the equat
1at belNn
was just a normal female on the street
activity occurred, we might have a
Argument - M
erent situation here
Now, we also might
these weren't the officers involved
defense counsel were sitting 1
ame situation
Now, we might just see a
looking for a parking spot. But t
officers see. That's not the rat
from this situation
Now, they also don't
ict occurs to stop, once they
vhich they did here
Now, once they believ
suspicion, they approached t
investigatory stop.
Now, the scope of this was fairly brief. The
initially to speak with the driver. Detective Duff
testified that he spoke to the driver for under fiv:
when he noticed the smell of marijuana
That's when it escalated into a probable
to arrest at that time. They- asked them out of the
und that's when Sergeant Farabella observed in pl
ew the cocaine on the center console
Which led to the arrest of the Defendai
timate search incident to the arrest of the
Pu) fed feed bed feed bed feed bed ee fd
lefendants, which led to the result recov '
re cocaine, as well as cash on their persons
Now, this whole transaction, Detective Duffis
testified, from the sight of Mary Bowen to the end of t
when they were arrested, lasted ten minutes at the n
That's what he testified to yesterday
Now, this was a quickly escalating investigatory
stop that resulted in the arrests. Now, but for the sme
marijuana, they probably would have drived [sic] away
Now, we're speculating at that point but I don't ss
anything from their testimony that indicated they wou
have been held, but for them smelling marijuana wit!
that less than five minute time frame.
So Judge, the State's point of view is, this was
valid investigatory stop. While we might think these
are all innocent, what we need to look at and what the
Court needs to look at is whether these officers belie’
was reasonable to stop that vehicle at that time
And I believe, Judge, there's significant fact
record that there was a reason to stop this car an
investigate further. And the drugs should not be
suppressed and neither should the money. Thar
Judge.
ee ee)
. o ~ 2
+= AY ie -
> fd fed pd p
“ 4 -r ~
, 4
+
Argument - Mr. Connelly
MR. CONNELLY: Thank you, Judge. ['ll
brief. Now, on one point I think the State and I «
r agree and that is that this stop was at least a T
evel seizure of the Defendants, at least.
I would argue, Judge, that it was beyond that. Whi
uu have three armed police officers surrounding a vehi
and accosting another alleged perpetrator of crime
You have a police vehicle boxing in the subject
vehicle with no way out. You have an arrest. That's --
don't know what else to call it. They had everything but
the handcuffs on them at that point. They weren't goit
unywhere.
Anyway, as I said, I believe it was a full seizure a1
they -- but the real point in this case is, the police didn't
have justification to interfere with Defendant's privacy
rights and their rights to be left alone at any point and
any level. They had no right to accost these Defendants
And | -- and the reason is, I'll just refer Your Hon
to Detective Duffield's testimony at page 34 and 35
isked Detective Duffield on cross-examination --
MS. WILSON: He doesn't have a copy of that
MR. CONNELLY: Oh, you don't have a cop"
Well, I'll just quote it, if I may, for the record
Argument - Mr. Connelly
[he question was by me to Detective Duffield; “Is
fair to say the oaly indication that you had that th
was some sort of prostitution transaction going o1
there's a typo.
“Was that the -- that some brake lights wer«
flashed and the subject vehicle pulled into a parking
spot?" Answer by Detective Duffield; “That would be f
to say." And there's some additional but that sums it
for you, Judge
The evidence that they had, even with their
experience and training as police officers, was nothit
They had no level of suspicion that would justify any
interference with these Pichecihaiat’s rights, period, er
story.
The report that Your Honor has by Mr. Cassi
details that the Morris View parking lot is used by
residents in the area to park overnight.
Detective Duffield testified he thought thers
other vehicles in that parking lot, presumably from
private individuals at that time on the scene, He co
quite recall.
We find out, and it wasn't in the officer's head
time but we find out that in fact, Defendant Lane lives
only blocks away. And again, you heard Detectiv:
Sergeant Farabella's testimony that they circled Mary
Bowen once before they parked to surveil her
Argument - Mr. Connelly 42
My point there was that basically, the only facts the
State can point to that suggest that anything illegal is
going on, is that the block was circled, that the vehicle w
parked and that some brake lights flashed.
I haven't heard anything that would indicate to me
or I think to the Court, how flashing of the brake lights i1
yursuit of a prostitute is any different from applying the
fiaieas to slow the car down for any reason.
For example, to negotiate a curve if you're circling
block and then to park. I do it every day in Philadelphia
Detective Duffield also testified that he has seen o1
has experience where private individuals, clearly not
johns, not attempting to solicit prostitutes, will put int
parking spot in a high prostitution area.
And they'll be solicited by a prostitute. They'll bs
approached. It's not evidence but (inaudible) argument
but Mr. Cassidy had that actually happen to him in
Millville.
Somebody jumped into his car. He said; "Who ar
you?" It turns out she was a prostitute. He asked one
the residents if she knew her.
But the real point here, Judge, is you've hea
testimony today, is that they were
Argument - Mr. Sandilos
investigating -- and by Detective Duffield previously)
1e testimony is, they were investigating a
suspected transaction for sex. The strongest evidence tl
that's -- that it was that civil pretext aaa it was not the
real reason that they were -- my client was stopped and
Mr. Lane was stopped.
Is that they never arrested Mary Bowen for
Prostitution. Even if they were proactively policing «
whatever they call it, you heard Detective Sergeant
Farabella say well, the best way to prevent prostituti
to take the prostitutes off the street.
Or something to that affect. If they had left her -
her approach the car, maybe seen some money change
hands, her get into the car or them go off to an area wh
it was more private, they would have had their case
They could have arrested all three of these
individuals for Prostitution and put them in jail and th
there's another prostitute off the street. Two more johns
off the street. But they didn't do that.
They wanted a reason to take down these
Defendants. They had no idea there was -- there we
drugs in the car. They didn't have a valid reason to st
them. They wanted to find it
And they come up with these flashing brake lights
and circling post-arrest to justify their actions. Which
were, in my opinion, entirely illegal.
°}
Argument - Mr. Sandil
[hank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. SANDILOS: Your Honor, we know that tl
issues here are basically what actions did the polices
engage in?
And we also know from reading the case law out
there and especially in State vs. Davis, that we can go
from a field inquiry to an investigatory stop to an arres
And it can happen fairly quickly.
We also know that, from State vs. Davis and also
Florida vs. Royer, that engaging in a field inquiry, that
the police officer can stop a citizen on the street and ask
them what their name is.
And ask them where they live and ask them about
their business. But we also know that the person can
refuse to speak and we know -- or can refuse to answer
those questions.
nd we also know from those questions that the
person not only can refuse to answer those questions bu
is supposed to be given a way out, so that they are not
confined.
So that they are free to leave whenever they so
choose. The reason that you have the field inquiry is so
the police can -- the police officer can go up to the perso!
and ask them a question.
Going into what the Prosecutor claims happen:
was that this, there 'was no field inquiry.
Argument - Mr. Sandilos
That this was really an investigatory detention.
Means that there has to be some kind of reasonabl:
and articulable suspicion that there was some criminal
activity afoot.
he problem ts that when you listen to Det.
Duffield's testimony, you don't have that. And his
testimony -- and I think he was a credible witness. He
answered our questions. He wasn't argumentative wit]
us.
And [ think he was pretty well forthright in
answering the Court's questions, as well. The Detective
tells us that he notices this person named Mary Bowen,
who's known to be a prostitute, walking down the street.
Now, he also tells us that she's not somebody that h«
knows -- or that it's not -- as she's walking down the
street, she's not doing anything that raul arouse his
suspicion, except for the fact that she's Mary Bowen.
The second thing is, she's not dressed provocatively
or walking in a way to attract business, so to speak.
She is also not engaging in any other activity that would
arouse his suspicions, such as bend-- you know, looking fot
Cars.
NON NO
Wm bw
Nh
op)
WOn DUIS WN Re
Or standing on the corner for anyone time or
anything like that. He also then says that he claims
that Mr. Lane was driving by and that he flashed his
Argument - Mr. Sandilos
brake light.
And then pulled into -- went around the block
pulled into the parking lot. He asked Mr. when he
approached -- eventually, when he approaches Mr. Lane,
as to why he was doing that.
Mr. Lane tells he him was -- I dropped my cell phons
and I pulled into the parking lot to look for it, to pick it up
ow, that’s a fairly credible reason as to why he
pulls into the -- and I'd sa
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.