# Appendix — Slater v. New Jersey > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386006_0976%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 2011 - **Citation:** 563 U.S. 988 ## 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 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... ~ 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. -» 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 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 ~ 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 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 tha [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386006_0976%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.