Posted on 05/31/2006 7:49:33 AM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
DANBURY — In a decision Superior Court trial referee Robert Callahan "agonized long and hard over," he ruled in favor of two accused drug dealers who claimed they were stopped outside the Sheraton in Danbury in 2004 only because they were black.
In a written decision dated May 17 and received Friday by defense lawyers, Callahan said he came to his decision, which essentially guts the state's case against the men, "reluctantly" and after "soul-searching."
Lawyer James Diamond of Danbury said his client Demetere Taft, 30, of Beaver Street, is "obviously very pleased that the judge has agreed with the arguments he made."
"The judge has thrown out all the evidence against my client," Diamond said. "There's nothing left to proceed on, unless this Constitutional decision gets overturned."
"There's no basis for the police officers to search my client. There was no reason to believe he was violating the law," Diamond said.
Joseph Mirsky, the Bridgeport defense lawyer for the other client, Jamar Crawford, 29, of Waterbury, agreed there was no reason to stop the men.
"It was a very, very, very weak case for the state," Mirsky said. "So I think this decision was great. It took months and he gave it a great deal of thought."
The arrests occurred Oct. 5, 2004, when Danbury detectives went to the Sheraton on Old Ridgebury Road to look for anyone who might have had information about a fatal shooting in Waterbury that happened about 15 hours earlier.
The men were taken into custody as they left the hotel separately shortly after 3 p.m.
Crawford had more than 30 grams of crack cocaine and heroin in his luggage, according to police. He also was carrying about $1,000 in cash, police said.
Taft had 3.5 ounces of powder cocaine, more than two ounces of crack cocaine, and two handguns, according to police.
The men face multiple charges, including possession of narcotics, possession of crack cocaine and possession with intent to sell.
Diamond, who said he has never before raised the issue of race in his decade-long career as a Danbury defense lawyer, said he is not surprised by the decision.
Prosecutor David Shannon was out of the office Tuesday and could not be reached for comment. He could appeal the decision. He also could decide to drop the charges against the defendants.
Shannon's boss, Danbury State's Attorney Walter Flanagan, declined to comment.
"I'm in no position to say anything," Flanagan said.
The two detectives involved in the arrest, Joseph Norkus and James Lalli, could not be reached.
In December a Danbury police spokesman, Capt. Dan Mulvey, said he knows the two detectives who caught the two men and he doubts the arrest was based on race.
The defense lawyers aren't convinced.
"If my client was a white male walking out of the Sheraton hotel with a suitcase in his hands, he never would have been stopped and searched," Diamond said.
Diamond said he had not yet heard whether Shannon plans to appeal the decision from Callahan, who was the state's Supreme Court chief justice before becoming a trial referee after retiring in 1999.
Certainly true - it's the only way to protect the integrity of the intent of law presently.
I've heard no probable cause cited for this search
Nor have I. My best guess is that it was a field interview / stop and frisk situation that evolved into an arrest followed by a search subsequent to a lawful apprehension. There is not enough information presented in the story to make a very educated argument... But, one point that does alarm me a little is that it appears the main point of contention is the original 'stop'. It appears to be argued that if the perps were not black they wouldn't have ever been stopped in the first place, thus everything following that is tainted. I think we have to be careful of not allowing the probable cause rule to expand to overcome the reasonable belief rule; which this case may be setting a precedent for.
I really wish we knew the whole story so we could analyze it better and decide if the police botched it or if the defense just did a good job clouding the issue with a human rights violation card...
Saying that blackness is not probable cause for a search is "liberalism"?
Do you mean "reasonable suspicion"? The idea that reasonable suspicion is sufficient for a stop and search is of quite recent vintage, so reversing that would take us back to the status quo ante.
Yes, I do. Thanks for keeping me straight.
Using the color of one's skin to excuse criminal behavior is racism at its worst.
The drug dealers were guilty as sin and should have been sanctioned. Instead another liberal judicial tyrant wants to make sure they have more victims to prey upon.
No doubt there are those that applaud ...
Who did that? This judge merely applied a well established (albeit conceptually flawed) evidentiary principle.
The judge
He merely released two more predators back into the social pool to eat more fish. Some will applaud him for it.
"Just knowing" is never going to stand up in court, and it never should.
Nope, not at all. Unless you can prove that the cop in question has a long history of accurate hunches with no innaccurate ones. Otherwise, how can you prove that his hunch was correct or he just played the odds. ie, if you question 20 people on a hunch and find the goods on one, you're really just practicing illegal search and siezure and just waiting for the one time you get lucky and come across a guilty party.
It would still be illegally obtained evidence and inadmissable. The DEA doesn't prosecute possession anyway.
Wong, the judge RIGHTLY surpressed ILLEGALLY obtained evidence. That's exactly the kind of thing we should applaud.
Ok, I'll compromise. Hang those who illegally obtain evidence as well. /sarcasm
That'll insure that illegally obtained evidence is never used anyone.
Now, while that's obviously a workable solution, it's a bit harsh. So, in the absence of that, I'm sticking with what we got, which means the cops had better insure that evidence used against a citizen has been legally obtained.
Geeze, does this mean that the police have to return 30 grams of crack cocaine and heroin plus the $1,000. to Crawford and return 2.5 ounces of powder cocaine, more than two ounces of crack cocaine and two handguns to Taft?
That was criminal profiling not racial profiling.
I don't mind if illegally obtained evidence is used. I just want the truth. Hang the criminals and deport their supporters.
Hang it up, you aren't deporting anyone.
I like the hanging part but insist on the deportation option. It served us well after the War of Independence.
BTTT
There is not enought facts in this report.
The police stated the reason for going to the hotel was to interview anyone who might have had information about a fatal shooting, so what was the pretext for a search?
I had a lecture by a ADA on pretext searchs a short time ago while serving on a jury pool and fail to see the pretext.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.