The Curious Case of the Three Suppression Orders (Part 3) [Frog Gravy Legal Case

Written by Masoninblue and published full-text here with permission. However, I chose the music for the post. To listen as you read, simply click on the video;you do not have to watch it. By the way,if you are a judge and you are following this case,and you have seen anything like this,please emailme privately with the citation;I would like to see it. My email listed in the About section of this site. Thank you,Rachel, aka Crane-Station.

The Curious Case of the Three Suppression Orders (Part 3)

Author’s Note: Judge Clymer surprised us with a third suppression order that he issued out of the blue 3 days after the trial concluded. He did not inform us that he was considering modifying his second order and he did not schedule a hearing, request any input or allow any discussion or objections. He simply mailed it out as one might do with a letter bomb.

The order consists of the judge’s personal opinions set forth as findings of fact in a transparent effort to strengthen his order denying suppression by making stuff up and characterizing it as “unusual, suspicious, and disturbing,” even though Deputy McGuire never uttered those words at the suppression hearing. He even uses the word appellant, instead of defendant, obviously anticipating an appeal.

During my 30 years representing clients charged with felonies in state and federal courts, I never had a case in which a judge did this and I never heard of a case in which a judge did something like this.

3. The Third Suppression Order Issued Post-Trial on January 28, 2008.

In his third suppression order, the supplemental suppression order, Judge Clymer modified his first finding of fact in the second order (that correctly quoted what the caller reported to 911) by eliminating the quote and replacing it with the following statement.

The 911 dispatcher received a call from an identified public citizen, Vernon Wilkey, who reported that a white female driving a dark blue LeSabre with Washington State license plates made unusual and disturbing statements about heroin in his neighborhood.

(Finding of Fact 1)

Finding of Fact 2 states,

911 called deputies, and alerted them to the woman, her vehicle, and her suspicious drug activity.

Finding of Fact 3 characterizes the appellant’s driving and states,

The vehicle was travelling slowly in the right traffic lane of Highway 60 with the left-turn signal activated for an unusually long time for no apparent reason. The vehicle did not turn left, but continued on straight, which all appeared unusual and suspicious to the deputy.

Finding of Fact 4 (mis-numbered as a second 3) states,

The vehicle then pulled to the right side of the road and stopped without any signaling to do so by the deputy. This demonstrated additional unusual behavior by the appellant. The deputy then pulled in behind the appellant’s vehicle and activated his roadstop lights. By the time the deputy stopped, he had reasonable grounds and reasonable suspicion to approach the driver. He exited his cruiser and walked to speak to the driver.

Finding of Fact 5 (mis-numbered as 4) states in part,

The appellant failed all HGN tests. She also gave unusual responses to instructions given to her by the deputy; she appeared somewhat confused; she appeared nervous; and she appeared to the deputy to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Finding of Fact 6 (mis-numbered as 5) states,

The appellant admitted to the deputy that she was on a number of medications, including Clonazepam. Clonazepam is a strong anti-psychotic medication which interferes with motor performance, including driving a motor vehicle. Clonazepam also causes abnormal eye movements.

Finding of Fact 7 (mis-numbered as 6) states,

The deputy had reasonable grounds and probable cause to arrest the appellant for DUI.

Finding of Fact 8 (mis-numbered as 7) states,

The appellant was transported to the hospital for the taking of a blood test. At the hospital a suspicious baggie was found next to the appellant’s watch in the back seat of the deputy’s patrol car. The deputy knew that the patrol cruiser did not have the suspicious plastic baggie or a watch before the appellant was placed into the back seat. The appellant admitted losing her watch. The deputy had probable cause and exigent reasons to seize the baggie. The baggie appeared to contain crack cocaine. The deputy had probable cause to arrest the appellant for tampering with evidence and possession of cocaine.

Conclusion of Law 1:

The caller who reported the appellant’s unusual interest in heroin was identified. Such a report is considered more reliable than an anonymous tip.

Conclusion of Law 2:

The deputy had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make an investigation stop and search of the appellant and her vehicle.

Conclusion of Law 3:

Discovery of the suspicious plastic baggie in the back seat of the deputy’s cruiser was based on plain view discovery. The appellant and her vehicle had previously been detained based on the circumstances described above which proceeded (sic) the discovery of the baggie.

Author’s Note: We have previously discussed Deputy McGuire’s testimony under oath at the preliminary hearing in which he said he found the rock of crack under his rear seat while he was looking for Crane-Station’s watch that she had asked him to retrieve for her.

I was confident that the Court of Appeals would reverse on the suppression issue in this”unusual, suspicious, and disturbing” case, but it did not, and that is when I lost hope for an honest and judicious review of her case.

If this could happen to Crane-Station, it can happen to you. We are all lost when our judicial system ceases to function.

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) And The Frog Gravy Legal Case

Cross-posted at FrederickLeatherman.wordpress.com and republished at this site full-text with permission.

In Crane Station’s case, the Court of Appeals said,

In the present case, we hold that Deputy McGuire had probable cause to arrest Leatherman for DUI. Deputy McGuire testified that Leatherman appeared to be under the influence of something, despite his observation that she was not driving erratically or weaving. Furthermore, Leatherman failed the HGN test, which reveals intoxication by alcohol or some other drug, although she later passed the breathalyzer test. Finally, the product information for Klonopin (Clonazepam) attached to Leatherman’s brief states that patients taking that medication “should be cautioned about operating hazardous machinery, including automobiles, until they are reasonably certain the Klonopin therapy does not affect them adversely.” Therefore, the observation of Leatherman’s glassy eyes and odd behavior coupled with her admission that she was taking prescription medication that included a warning about driving was sufficient to provide Deputy McGuire with probable cause to arrest her for DUI. Therefore, Deputy McGuire’s warrantless arrest of Leatherman did not deprive her of her constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure.

As we shall soon see, this conclusion is unsupported by the evidence and makes no sense.

The Court begins its analysis of the evidence by noting that the deputy

testified that Leatherman appeared to be under the influence of something, despite his observation that she was not driving erratically or weaving.

. So, the Court concedes that there was nothing improper about her driving and it does not say that she was unsteady on her feet, smelled of alcohol, or that she exhibited any mental confusion. In other words, she exhibited no physical or mental impairment.

The Court continued,

Furthermore, Leatherman failed the HGN test, which reveals intoxication by alcohol or some other drug, although she later passed the breathalyzer test.

So, in other words, she passed the breathalyzer test ruling out alcohol intoxication. (Actually it was a portable breath test, or PBT, that the deputy administered to her at the roadside before he handcuffed her and placed her in the back of his patrol vehicle.)

Therefore, with the exception of the HGN test result that I will discuss next, the Court has conceded that the deputy did not see any bad driving or physical evidence of alcohol or drug impairment.

What about the HGN?

HGN is an acronym for horizontal gaze nystagmus. The test was described recently by the Supreme Court of Illinois in People v. McKown, 924 N.E.2d 941 (2010):

Nystagmus is “an involuntary, rapid, rhythmic movement of the eyeball, which may be horizontal, vertical, rotatory, or mixed, i.e., of two varieties.” Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1296 (30th ed.2003). The medical dictionary lists 45 types of nystagmus. For example, ataxic nystagmus is unilateral and occurs in individuals with multiple sclerosis. Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1296 (30th ed.2003). Congenital nystagmus “may be caused by or associated with optic atrophy, coloboma, albinism, bilateral macular lesions, congenital cataract, severe astigmatism, and glaucoma.” Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1296 (30th ed.2003). Gaze nystagmus, which is at issue in the present case, is “made apparent by looking to the right or to the left,” as opposed to fixation nystagmus, “which appears only on gazing fixedly at an object,” or latent nystagmus, “which occurs only when one eye is covered.” Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1296 (30th ed.2003).

The methodology employed by law enforcement officers for conducting an HGN testing as a part of field-sobriety testing is explained in detail in our earlier opinion. In brief, the officer first questions the subject to determine whether he or she has any medical condition or is taking any medication that might affect the results of the test. If not, the officer performs a preliminary test to determine whether the pupils of the subject’s eyes are of equal size and whether the eyes “track” equally as an object is moved, at eye level, from side to side. If so, the HGN test itself is performed. The officer looks for three “clues,” assessing each eye separately. The three clues are lack of smooth pursuit, distinct nystagmus at maximum deviation, and the onset of nystagmus at an angle less than 45 degrees. One point is assigned for each clue that is present in either eye. Thus, the maximum score is six, which would indicate all three clues present in both eyes. A score of four or more is considered “failing” and indicative of alcohol impairment. McKown I, 226 Ill.2d at 249-50.

After reviewing all of the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense relative to the HGN Test and whether it is generally accepted as an indicator of alcohol or drug impairment [the Frye test or standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence], the Supreme Court concluded,

1. HGN testing satisfies the Frye standard in Illinois.

2. HGN testing is but one facet of field sobriety testing and is admissible as a factor to be considered by the trier-of-fact on the issue of alcohol or drug impairment.

3. A proper foundation must include that the witness has been adequately trained, has conducted testing and assessment in accordance with the training, and that he administered the particular test in accordance with his training and proper procedures.

4. [Testimony regarding] HGN testing results should be limited to the conclusion that a “failed” test suggests that the subject may have consumed alcohol and may [have] be[en] under the influence. There should be no attempt to correlate the test results with any particular blood-alcohol level or range or level of intoxication.

5. In conjunction with other evidence, HGN may be used as a part of the police officer’s opinion that the subject [was] under the influence and impaired.” (Emphasis in original.)

(Emphasis supplied)

What exactly must a police officer do to properly administer the HGN test? The Illinois Supreme Court details the NHTSA procedure in its earlier decision remanding the McKown case to the trial court with instructions to conduct a Frye hearing. People v. McKown, 875 N.E.2d 1029, 1032 (2007):

Because alcohol consumption can cause nystagmus, police officers have been trained to check a person’s eye movements when attempting to determine if a driver has been driving while impaired by alcohol. The National Highway Traffic Safety Association’s (NHTSA) DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Instructor Manual sets forth the procedure for administering an HGN test in the field. First, the officer is required to ask the subject if he or she wears contact lenses or has any medical impairment that would affect the test results or prohibit the subject from taking the test. If the subject claims to wear hard contacts, or have natural nystagmus or any other condition that may affect the test results, the officer should note the condition but still administer the test if possible. NHTSA DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Instructor Manual, ch. VIII, at 6-18 (2002).

After these preliminary questions, the officer asks the subject to focus on an object, such as a pen, held just above eye level, about 12 to 15 inches from the subject’s nose, and to follow the object as the officer gradually moves it from side to side.

While conducting the test, the officer looks for six nystagmus “clues,” three in each eye, that, according to the NHTSA Manual, indicate impairment. If four or more clues are present, the subject is determined to have failed the test and be impaired. The clues are (1) lack of smooth pursuit; (2) distinct nystagmus at maximum deviation, meaning any nystagmus exhibited when the eyeball is looking as far to the side as possible; and (3) angle of onset of nystagmus prior to 45 degrees, meaning any nystagmus that occurs before the object reaches a point that the officer determines to be 45 degrees from the center of the suspect’s face. No measuring apparatus is used in the 45-degree test. The officer is then instructed to have the subject perform the walk-and-turn field-sobriety test and the one-leg-stand field-sobriety test, compile the results of the three tests, and then make the decision whether to arrest the subject. NHTSA DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Instructor Manual, ch. VIII, at 6-18 (2002).

How did Deputy McGuire administer the HGN test? This is how her lawyer described it in the brief she filed in the Court of Appeals:

McGuire should not have administered the test in the first place. McGuire did not testify to any clue Rachel Leatherman gave that she was impaired. She drove in compliance with traffic laws. She produced her license and registration quickly after he asked for them. Her eyes were not watery or bloodshot. Her pupils were not pinpoint or dilated. She was not scratching as some persons who inject drugs might. She did not have a runny nose as is common with some cocaine users. She did not have scabs or needle marks, also common with intravenous drug users. She was not coughing or short of breath; she was not sneezing or sweating. She did not complain of nausea or chest pains. Her face was not flushed. She was alert.

McGuire admitted at the suppression hearing that the HGN result by itself could not provide probable cause. Unfortunately, even assuming arguendo that other indicators had been present, McGuire improperly administered the test.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an administrative agency housed within the United States Department of Transportation. NHTSA oversees and regulates all matter related to traffic safety. Since 1977, NHTSA has studied various field sobriety tests in order to develop a standardized set of field sobriety tests. As a result of those tests, NHTSA warned police officers to position DUI suspects so that they do not face blinking cruiser lights or oncoming traffic because the lights can create a false nystagmus (optokinetic nystagmus). Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus: The Science and the Law, A Resource Guide for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcement.

The field video shows that McGuire positioned Rachel Leatherman facing the blinking cruiser lights and the oncoming traffic. The test was neither administered properly nor documented [he never documented what he did and any of the angles when nystagmus occurred; he simply testified that “she failed all six clues”].

McGuire testified that Leatherman told him she had a prescription for Metoprolol because she had hypertension. Documentation for Metoprolol shows that a side effect can be nystagmus. Under those circumstances, McGuire finding “all six clues” should be found legally meaningless.

As if the Court had not even bothered to read her brief, it ignored her powerful and outcome dispositive legal argument without comment.

Instead, the Court focused on Clonazepam.

Finally, the product information for Klonopin (Clonazepam) attached to Leatherman’s brief states that patients taking that medication “should be cautioned about operating hazardous machinery, including automobiles, until they are reasonably certain the Klonopin therapy does not affect them adversely.”

Notice that the warning does not say that Clonazepam causes physical or mental impairment and no one who takes it in any dosage should ever operate hazardous machinery, including automobiles.

Clonazepam is a benzodiazepine that is routinely prescribed as an anti-seizure medication and to control anxiety. In other words, it is prescribed to make people feel normal so they can lead a normal life doing normal things like driving motor vehicles. The warning only applies to the initial dosage that can be adjusted if it’s too strong. There was no evidence in this case regarding the dosage or how long she had been taking it.

The Court’s refusal to mention, discuss, or distinguish her argument regarding the legally invalid HGN test and its reliance on a misinterpretation of the warning on the product insert for Clonazepam borders on mendacity.

The Court of Appeals concluded,

Therefore, the observation of Leatherman’s glassy eyes and odd behavior coupled with her admission that she was taking prescription medication that included a warning about driving was sufficient to provide Deputy McGuire with probable cause to arrest her for DUI.

Well, excuse me. Odd behavior. What odd behavior? Deputy McGuire testified at the suppression hearing that he did not witness any odd behavior, or he would have noted it in his report. There was no reference to any odd behavior in his report and he was the only witness at the suppression hearing.

Apparently, operating a motor vehicle in full compliance with all traffic laws without speeding, weaving or swerving, and quickly pulling over and stopping in the emergency lane beside the road when signaled to do so by a police officer in a marked police vehicle constitutes probable cause to arrest in Kentucky.

As we like to say in the blogosphere, the Court of Appeals has some splainin’ to do.

Author’s note: People v. McKown is an Illinois Supreme Court case and not binding legal precedent in Kentucky. I used it because it is well written and it lays out the NHTSA procedure for conducting the HGN that Crane-Station’s lawyer included with her brief, together with the NHTSA publication that explicitly warns law enforcement officers not to position suspects facing police cruiser lights and oncoming traffic. See: Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus: The Science and the Law, A Resource Guide for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcement. Kentucky follows the same rule, but the opinion is not recent and not well written.

Cross posted from my new law blog: http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com

Hearsay, Part Deaux: Frog Gravy Legal Case

Written by my husband Masoninblue, and reprinted, full-text, here with permission.

Good afternoon, class.

Now that you are experts regarding what constitutes hearsay, let’s take a look at an interesting issue in Crane-Station’s case.

The arresting officer, McCracken County Sheriff’s Deputy Eddie McGuire testified at her Preliminary Hearing that, after she was thoroughly searched at the roadside by a female officer who did not find any contraband or paraphernalia, he arrested her for DUI, handcuffed her with her hands behind her back, placed her in the backseat of his patrol vehicle, and transported her to Lourdes Hospital in Paducah for a blood draw. As he was assisting her to get out of the backseat at the hospital, she told him that her watch had fallen off her wrist during the ride and it slipped beyond her reach behind the seat. She asked him to please retrieve it, which he agreed to do.

When the returned to his vehicle after the blood draw, he unlocked the back door, pulled the seat forward, and reached beneath it to grab the watch. When he handed her the watch, he also showed her a small crumb-like object and said, “Sure looks like heroin to me.”

He also testified that he field tested the substance after he took her to jail and it tested negative for the presence of heroin. He said he did not field test it for cocaine because “We knew all along it would be crack.”

In the trial judge’s chambers before jury selection on the first day of the trial, the prosecutor asked the trial judge to prohibit the defense from mentioning during jury selection and opening statement her statement about her watch and her request to retrieve it on the ground that the statements were inadmissible hearsay unless he offered them into evidence as an admission by a party opponent, which he did not intend to do. He also asked the judge to prohibit the defense from attempting to introduce her statements into evidence during the trial or to mention them in closing argument.

The trial judge agreed despite defense counsel’s objection.

To make matters more bizarre, Deputy McGuire changed his testimony regarding how he retrieved the watch. Without mentioning her statements, of course, he said he saw her watch and the rock together in the seatbelt crack in plain view on the seat beside her before he helped her to get out of the backseat after they arrived at the hospital.

When her attorney attempted to confront him on cross examination with the deputy’s prior inconsistent testimony under oath at the Preliminary Hearing, the prosecutor objected and the trial judge sustained the objection.

In closing argument, the prosecutor argued that she had not explained why her watch was in plain view next to the rock of crack in the seatbelt crack right beside her. Not surprisingly, the jury convicted her of possessing the rock of crack and tampering with evidence (i.e., attempting to conceal it in the seatbelt crack).

Now, let’s analyze her statements. To determine if they were hearsay, we begin by asking if the defense would have offered them to prove the truth of the matters asserted in her statements.

Answer: No, because they would have been offered to show that in response to something she said, he pulled the seat forward to look for her watch and that is when he found it, handed it to her, and produced the crumb-like substance that by his own admission he “knew all along was going to be crack.”

Notice that phrased this way, it is clear that what she actually said was not important. The point is she said something and whatever it was, it prompted him to pull the seat forward and look under it where he found her watch and the crumb-like object. That is, they were not in plain view and we know that because he testified at the Preliminary Hearing under oath that that is how he found the watch and the rock.

Whenever the actual words in a statement do not matter, as is the case here, the statement necessarily is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Make a note of this and remember it because it is very important.

Not only were her statements admissible, the deputy’s previous testimony under oath at the Preliminary Hearing was admissible to impeach his testimony about finding her watch and the rock together in plain view beside her.

The prosecutor’s incredibly sleazy closing argument commenting on her failure to explain why her watch and the rock were together in plain view, when he persuaded the trial judge to prohibit her from providing that explanation, was an atrocious improper comment on her court ordered silence.

Finally, the trial judge’s evidentiary rulings prevented her from putting on a defense in violation of her Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights.

Namaste

Cross posted at my blog and the Smirking Chimp.

Author’s Note: Due to the length of this essay, I have decided to discuss the rest of the hearsay rule in Part 3 tomorrow.

Frog Gravy Legal Case Coming Soon

For folks who are curious about my legal case, I will be writing about that as well. Issues are numerous and interesting. The case currently sits with the Kentucky Supreme Court as a Motion For Discretionary Review. I will be posting the initial 911 call, the dash-cam video, all recordings of hearings prior to the trial, all official transcripts that I have, briefs, responses, lab reports, open records requests, orders denying suppression, the order of sentencing, and the corrected order of sentencing, as well as anything else that anyone wrote or said, such as the Bill of Particulars and as much of the trial transcript as anyone can stomach before racing to the nearest porcelain receptacle. (I spoke to my attorney today and gave her a heads up.)

With my husband’s help, I will introduce relevant legal issues, binding case law, statutes, and case history.

Brush up on your Fourth, Fifth, First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Anything that is a matter of public record, in fact, will be here (or on YouTube).

I will start this process, I hope, about sixty days from now. In the meantime, I will continue to bring you the nonfiction account of incarceration, Frog Gravy.

I would like to thank my readers for stopping by this site and taking the time to read. I would also like to thank you for your patience. My notes are voluminous and disorganized, and although I have tried to make each essay a stand-alone, I realize that flow is an issue. I am attempting to fix these issues in the Frog Gravy manuscript.

If you are at this site by mistake, worry not. I post about other things also. I aim to please. Which brings me to this. Ever felt like you were not quite communicating with someone? Take a look at this: