The constitutional rights afforded to all American citizens sometimes work in favor of the criminal element of our society. If we let law enforcement trample these rights, they’ll trample them when it comes to this criminal element; they’ll also trample them when these rights should protect you.
For years, I have observed with aversion certain judges systematically rubberstamp the testimony of law enforcement officers. Pragmatism tells me that cops are more likely to vote than criminal defendants… and every few years, judges are up for reelection. Now, some appellate courts are finding that the problem has become so epidemic, that it is now a serious cause for concern.
An appellate court cannot reverse a factual finding made by the trial judge… yet it can let the trial judge know in so many words that he is either naïve, unfairly bias, and/or an imbecile, as the District Court of Appeal did in this case. Here are the two testimonies made part of the record:
POLICE TESTIMONY:
The detectives drove their unmarked car into the parking lot of the complex. They got out of their car and “nonchalantly” or “casually” approached Ruiz. One detective “calmly” asked Ruiz his name and he “calmly” replied that it was “Freddie” and that “he had his identification in his apartment, if [the officer] would like to see it.” One detective said that he wanted to see it and Ruiz led the two law enforcement agents up to his apartment. Ruiz went inside and “motioned” or “nodded” at the detectives to enter, so they went inside. Ruiz walked through the living room into the bedroom; one detective followed and waited at the entrance to the bedroom. From this vantage point, the detective saw a scale and silver spoon with cocaine residue in the scoop part of the spoon. The detective asked Ruiz if the substance was cocaine, and Ruiz admitted it was. The detectives then “detained” Ruiz and read him his Miranda rights.
Ruiz was most cooperative-he told them that additional cocaine was located in a Barbasol shaving cream can and “weed” was inside his dresser drawer.
DEFENDANT TESTIMONY:
Ruiz also testified at the suppression hearing.
His version of events differed substantially from that of the detectives. Ruiz was on his way back from the store when three officers stopped their vehicle in front of him, jumped out with their guns drawn, and told him not to move. Ruiz did not think he was free to leave. One officer frisked him and asked for his identification. Ruiz said he did not have any identification and the police said they would arrest him if he could not produce some identification. Ruiz said that his identification was in his apartment. The officers escorted him to his apartment. After he opened the door, the officers went inside and searched through everything. Ruiz did not give the officers permission to enter his residence.
Following these two statements, “The trial judge found the officers “very credible” and Ruiz's “testimony” “not credible.” Based on the “totality of the circumstances,” the court found that “this was a citizen's encounter” where Ruiz allowed” the police to “come in” to his apartment.”
Here is what the 4th DCA is telling the good Judge Andrew L. Spiegel: “The profusion of consent cases requires trial judges, the gatekeepers of the Fourth Amendment, to critically evaluate the testimony given at hearings. Cases like this one call into question the fairness of some trial court proceedings. On the pages of the record, the story told by the police is unbelievable-an anonymous informant gives incriminating information; police surveillance uncovers no criminal conduct; the defendant is “nonchalantly” and “casually” approached by the police on the street; the defendant cooperatively leads the police back to his apartment to obtain his identification and invites the police inside, where a detective sees contraband in plain view, a fact certainly known to the defendant when he issued the invitation; after his arrest, the defendant tells the police about all the hidden drugs in the apartment.
Yet, as an appellate court, we must defer to the express finding of credibility made by the trial court. We were not there. We did not see the witnesses testify. If believed, the detectives' testimony supports the court's ruling. This case demonstrates the importance of an independent judiciary. This case involves the search of a person's home, but were the factors bearing on the voluntariness of the consent scrutinized “with special care?” Without an unbiased and objective evaluation of testimony, judges devolve into rubber stamps for law enforcement. The judge may have punctiliously performed the duties of his office in this case, but, when considering the large number of “consent” cases that have come before us, the finding of “consent” in so many curious circumstances is a cause for concern.”
I summarily Googled the good judge’s name and the search returned little information. Just a few tidbits which I found worthy of reporting:
1: It appears according to JAABLOG that Siegel’s wife is a Broward Sheriff’s Office deputy.
2: In his courtroom, a mouthy defendant in handcuffs and shackles was Tasered, and
3: On 4/27, four days into the trial of a Broward Sheriff's Office deputy charged with falsifying reports and official misconduct, he dismissed the more serious offenses, concluding that prosecutors couldn't substantiate the charges. (Reported by Wanda J. Demarzo and Nikki Waller)
For whatever reason, Judge Siegel was unable to determine which testimony was to be believed. Making intelligent and fair factual findings is the one most important quality expected from a trial judge, as the application of the laws comes after the factual findings are made. If Siegel does not have the ability to make an intelligent and fair factual finding in such a clear cut case, does he qualify to continue to adjudicate people’s lives? I think not! He is not fit to be a judge!
And to the judges above politics, whose purpose is to remain the gate keepers of our Fourth Amendment and to enforce our Constitution (and they know who they are), I thank you and I respect you.
Westlaw_Document_03_23_08
No comments:
Post a Comment