Transcript 2

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION, CRIMINAL PART MONMOUTH COUNTY

INDICTMENT NO. 09-11-2182 – A.D. #  _

 

 

TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, vs ALLEN HEIGHT, Defendant.

 

Place: Monmouth County Courthouse

71 Monument Park, Freehold, New Jersey 07728

Date: April 19, 2011

 

BEFORE:

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY: FREDERICK P. SISTO, ESQ.

 

APPEARANCES

Assistant Prosecutor, Monmouth County Attorney for The State

Attorney for Defendant Xiomara Gonzalez

FREDERICK P. SISTO, ESQ.

Attorney for Defendant Allen Height

 

 

Transcriber:    Traci D. Esposito, AD/T #609 Agency: KLJ Transcription Service

P.O. Box 8627

Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 (201) 703-1670

(201) 703-5623(fax)

 

Audio Recorded by Operator: N.W.

 

Perez – Cross / Perez – Cross

 

him, that’s about what he’s going on.    I mean, if he saw those bags after the fact when I left, because he stayed there, I can’t — I can’t testify on that.

:    No more questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT:    Mr. Sisto?

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. SISTO:

Q    Detective, you testified that when you approached the car that some bricks had spilled out of the bag, that’s what you first saw?

A    Yes.

Q    And you’d agree that there’s nothing in your reports about anything spilling out of the bags; correct?

A    There’s nothing there.

Q    That’s correct?

A    That’s correct.

Q    And you’d also agree that there is nothing in your reports about Ms. Gonzalez wanting to reach into her pocketbook when you approached the vehicle; correct?

A    No, the – – other than the fact that I told him that she was very nervous and she’s trying to reach over to grab something on the passenger side, but I nothing specific.

Q    So, that’s a no, there’s nothing in your reports about her trying to reach into to her bag; correct?

A    No.

Q    And there’s also nothing in your reports about you having a fear that she may have been reaching for a weapon; is that fair to say?

A    That’s fair to say, yes.

Q    Now, you testified that you didn’t write a narrative report because you wanted to keep the fact that you were on loan to the DEA a secret?

A    Yes, I’ve been there for approximately four and a half years and, you know, not knowing how long this investigation would take as far as the wiretap I’m referring to, we wanted to keep this motor vehicle pullover as secret as possible for the possibility of this investigation keeping, you know, going out further.

Q    But, sir, you could have included a narrative regarding what occurred without mentioning the wiretap; correct?

A    It was agreed at the time with my – – my sergeant and myself that he would do the actual report.

Q    So, yes or no, could you write a report, but – – about what happened on the side of the Parkway without mentioning that there was a wiretap?

A    Yes.

Q    Yes.    And could you write a report regarding what happened on the side of the Parkway without mentioning that you were on loan to the DEA?

A    Yes, I could.

Q    In fact, your reports that you did write don’t mention the existence of a wiretap; correct?

A    Correct.

Q    And the reports that you did write don’t mention the fact that you were on loan to the DEA; correct?

A    That’s correct.

Q    Now, this Camry that was pulled over on the side of the Parkway, this was the focus of the investigation; correct?

A    I’m not the primary on the investigation, all I was given was that – – that information that this vehicle was to come by, pick up what evidence – – I mean some product which we call CDS, or – – or drugs, and transport it back to somewhere in Asbury Park somewhere.

Q    On the scene on the side of the Parkway, your focus would have been the Camry; correct?

A    Oh, yes, yes.    Yes, sir.

Q    And Sergeant Whitaker was right behind you when you approached this Camry; correct?

A    No, not – – behind our vehicle.

Q    Yes.

A    Not necessarily behind me, yes.

Q    So, Sergeant Whitaker, he’s your superior officer; correct?

A    That’s correct.

Q    And we’ve established that this Camry was the focus of the investigation on the side of the Parkway; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    And it’s your testimony that your superior officer, although he was somewhere behind you, never bothered to look inside of this vehicle that was the focus of this investigation on the side of the Parkway?

A    At the time I was there, no. What happened after, I have no clue.

Q    What was Sergeant Whitaker doing while you were there on the side of the Parkway next to this vehicle that was the focus of the investigation?

A    Our star — the standard operating procedure would be back — as a backup unit, just in case something went wrong, he’s there to take over as well.

Q    It was clear at the time of the motor vehicle stop that Ms. Gonzalez was the only occupant; correct?

A    Yes, at this time, yes.

Q    And there was perhaps half a dozen armed officers on the scene; correct?

A    At the time, yes.    Once we pulled her over, yes.

Q    And she was removed from the vehicle and detained in the back of a police car; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    Yet at this point, Sergeant Whitaker was so focused on her and backing you up with regard to any threat she may present that that’s the reason he never looked inside the vehicle?

A    I  — I can’t test – –

[Prosecutor]:    Objection as to what – ­

THE COURT:    All right.    Excuse me.

[Prosecutor]:    I object to what Sergeant Whitaker’s thoughts were and his reasons for what he did or didn’t do. I don’t think this detective can testify to that.

THE COURT: The objection is sustained.

BY MR. SISTO:

Q    He was there to back you up for your safety; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    Once Ms. Gonzalez was removed and handcuffed, it was also clear she was the only person on the scene outside of law enforcement; right?

A    That’s correct.

Q    So, as backup officer, she would have been his only focus; correct?

A    Yes, and her behavior and us being there, yes.

Q    Now, you testified on direct that it was Sergeant Whitaker’s reports that you reviewed in preparation for your testimony here?

A    Yes.

Q    And you also testified that his reports contained erroneous information with respect to the location of the evidence?

A    Yes, once I reviewed to prepare for the for the case, I realized that the location that I originally had had the evidence at, which was behind the driver’s seat was actually wrong on the report, which he had put in the front passenger seat.

Q    And – – and everything that we’re here for today surrounds this evidence; correct?

A    That’s correct.

Q    So, his report was long – – was wrong with respect to the location of the evidence that’s at issue here; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    And it was his reports that you reviewed in preparation for your testimony; correct?

A    That’s correct.

Q    And quite a bit of time has passed, it’s more than two years since these events unfolded; correct?

A    That’s correct.

Q    Have you ever the phrase “garbage in, garbage out”?

A    Maybe you could clarify a little.

Q    Well, just yes or no. Have you ever heard the phrase used–

A    No.

Q    – – before. Okay. Does it make sense to you that if erroneous information is reviewed that erroneous information is going to be spit back out?

A    No, I don’t know where you want to get to this.

Q    And you testified that you don’t usually give a toll running because there’s other agencies that are empowered to do; correct?

A    That’s correct.

Q    But you’re still empowered to give a ticket for running a toll if you wanted to; correct?

A    I’m not sure.    I would have to look that up. I — I don’t – – I never in my career that I’ve been on the job, never given out a ticket for not paying a toll.

Q    But the toll running was the basis for your stop; correct?

A    No.    The actual erratic driving, the light, careless driving, unclear plate, all those things together was — was the reason I pulled this vehicle over as well, yeah.

Q    So, the toll running had nothing to do with this motor vehicle stop?

A    That’s part of it, yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Q    So, that was part of it?

A    Um-hum.

Q    Now, sir, you testified that the evidence that you seized was wrapped in magazine paper; correct?

A    Yes. They’re all individually wrapped. It’s not like one big bundle —

Q    And —

A    – – or box. It’s little small – –

Q    That’s a yes, it was wrapped in

A    Yes.

Q    – – magazine paper?

A    Um-hum.

Q    And you would agree that magazine wrapping can be used to package many different items; correct?

A    Sure.

Q    And heroin’s often packaged in things other than magazine wrapping; correct?

A    Im my experience, the predominantly paper used would be magazine paper. I’ve also seen it in newspaper, and also copier paper, but it in very, very small of the time. Very, very rarely, I could say that.

Q    Aside from the three different things you just mentioned that heroin you’ve seen packaged in

A    Um-hum.
Q    — isn’t it also common in your training and experience for heroin to packaged in balloons?

A    Not in my direct town that I work in. Very rare, in fact, I have not made one arrest in — in balloons.

Q    You’re aware from your training and experience that balloons are common contraband, if you see that, that should throw up a red flag for you; correct?

A    Oh, yes. Yeah.

Q    And you’re also aware that these individuals who were under investigation, they weren’t from your town; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    So, isn’t it also common for heroin to be packaged in plastic wrap?

A    Yes, I would be aware of – – of all this – these things you’ve mentioned to me, that would cause my suspicion to rise as – – as I observed them as well.

Q    Then it wouldn’t surprise you that people from outside of your town and area use different methods than the people that you’re accustomed to inside your town and area; correct?

A    Not at all.

Q    Heroin’s also packaged in notebook paper; have you seen that before?

A    No.

Q    In your training and experience, have you learned that heroin’s packaged in notebook paper?

A    It could possibly be any type of paper. I mean, it’s just wrapping, a wrapping of — of the actual glassine envelopes, so I guess whatever they could get their hands on.

Q    It could be packaged in any type of paper – –

A    Right.

Q    Anything to cover it up.

A    Whatever’s cheap, whatever’s available.

Q    On the day in question, you were aware that stationary surveillance units were watching the vehicle that Ms. Gonzalez was driving; right?

A    Yes.

Q    And you and the officers in your unit were also aware that a wiretap was being conducted at the time; right?

A    Yes.

Q    And Sergeant Whitaker, who you’ve spoken about, he read, classified and approved your police reports; correct?

A    No, we have a – – Sergeant Constantino, if you can look at the – – the report on the bottom, he would be the actual person who classifies and signs off on the actual report, being that Sergeant Whitaker was the author of the actual or narrative, if you want to call it.

SISTO:    Your Honor, may I have this marked for identification?

THE COURT:    Sure.

COURT CLERK:    DH-3 for identification)

(Exhibit DH-3 marked for identification)

SISTO:    Thank you.

COURT CLERK:    You’re welcome.

SISTO:    Let the record reflect that I’m showing opposing Counsel what’s been marked DH-3 for identification. And Counsel for the Co-Defendant, DH-3 for identification.

Your Honor, may I approach the witness?

THE COURT:    Yes.

 

BY MR. SISTO:

Q    Officer, I’m showing you what’s been marked DH- 3 for identification.

A    Um-hum.

Q    Please take a look at it.

A    You’re missing the narrative. You’re missing the actual incident report.

Q    Well, we can – – we can get to that.

A    Okay.

Q    But these are the reports that you generated personally regarding the day in question; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    Now, I ask you to look at the very first page.

A    Um-hum.

Q    In Box 72, that indicates that Sergeant Whitaker read, classified and approved your police reports; correct?

A    Oh, yes.    Yes.

Q    All right.    Now, you just testified that it was a different sergeant that read, classified, and reviewed your reports and that Sergeant Whitaker did I not; correct?

A    I just said that, yes.    This goes to a – – the actual desk boss, which is Sergeant Constantino at – time.

Q    You’d agree there’s nothing in — in any of the Newark police reports about the wiretap; correct?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And on the date in question, you were getting information regarding surveillance from Detective Scott Samis by cell phone; right?

A    Yes.

Q    Would you also agree that you testified multiple times on direct that Special Agent Crowe was your only contact on the day in question?

A    Well, at the time, he had the phone in his hand and he was — he was next to Detective Samis, so he was relaying any information directly to me.

Q    When you say “he,” who was it, Detective – –

A    Detective Samis.

Q    So, Detective Samis was relaying information to you?

A    No.    Agent Crowe was relaying the information Detective Samis was giving him.    I could just – – I could hear him right there next to him, they were standing side by side.

Q    So, it was sort of like they both had their ear to the phone together; is that your testimony?

A    I don’t know where — I wasn’t in the car when the phone call was — was in, but I assume that that’s not the case.

Q    You didn’t mention anything to direct about this intermediary in the relay of communications; correct?

A    Say it again, I’m sorry.

Q    What you said on direct was that Special Agent Crowe was your only contact on the day in question.

A    Right. Just I was speaking directly to Agent Crowe.

Q    Yet you just testified that you were getting information from Detective Samis; correct?

A    Which was right next to him; I could hear him in the background giving him information.

Q    So, Detective Samis was giving the information to Special Agent Crowe; correct?

A    And he was telling me, one on one.

Q    And that’s different from Detective Samis giving the information to you directly; correct?

A    I directly spoke to Agent Crowe during this whole encounter, relaying information from Detective Samis as best as possible as he could.

Q    So, you never spoke directly to Detective Samis?

A    I can’t recall if I did or didn’t. I know most of the conversation went to Agent Crowe.

Q    Now, it’s most of it, but on direct you said that Special Agent Crowe was your only contact on the day in question.

A    Well, no.    We – – we’re talking about a span of hours here.    I’m — I’m not sure if I spoke to Detective Samis at the end or — or towards the end of our paperwork or not, but during the time I did the pullover, I was just speaking directly to Agent Crowe, which is the – – the interrogation, which is what you were asking on originally.

Q    You didn’t indicate any of this uncertainty regarding who you were communicating with on direct; did you?

A    I clearly spoke to Agent Crowe during the time I did the motor vehicle pullover.    It was me and Agent Crowe pretty much who got into the agreement of putting the key of this vehicle on the chair of the

SISTO:    Your Honor, I’m going to object to that as unresponsive.    On direct examina – –

THE COURT:    Asking what he recalls or doesn’t recall from – – from direct really doesn’t move the ball forward, but you can ask it again if you want to.

BY MR. SISTO:

Q    Did you communicate any uncertainty about which agent you were speaking with on the day in question during your direct?

A    No.

SISTO:    Your Honor, may I have these marked for identification?

THE COURT:    Yes.

SISTO:    Your Honor, these are copies of the photographs. I recall the Court mentioning before you may want them separately marked.

THE COURT:    I – – I’d prefer that. We don’t have actual copies, the actual photographs?

SISTO:    I do not.

COURT CLERK:    Judge, this is going to take a – – he handed a full stack. It’s going to take a few minutes.

(Off the record/on the record)

THE COURT:    I was just asking whether or not anyone had the actual photos.    I don’t know what you intend to do with the photocopies, but I sort of wonder what – – what the value is going to be, unless we have the original one.

SISTO:    Your Honor, what I’d like to perhaps after the testimony is finished, Mr. [Prosecutor] and I can deal with it, is I have a digital disc that was provided in discovery that contains all these photographs.

I know that Mr. [Prosecutor] has moved, I believe two glossy high color prints that are a better quality than this, but the nest quality is from the disc.

THE COURT:    Um-hum.

SISTO:    So, as long as I can get another copy of that, I’ll move that into evidence, the disc itself.

(Off the record/on the record)

COURT CLERK:    DH-4 through DH-15.

(Exhibits DH-4 through DH-15 marked in evidence)

SISTO:    Thank you.

COURT CLERK:    You’re welcome.

SISTO:    Let the record reflect I’m showing opposing Counsel what’s been marked DH-4 through DH-15. And I’m also showing Co-Counsel what’s been marked DH-4 through DH-15.

May I approach the witness?

THE COURT:    Yes.

BY MR. SISTO:

Q    Sir, I’m showing you what’s been marked DH-4 through DH-15.

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Take a moment to examine them all, please.

A    Okay.

Q    Sir, those are 12 photographs; correct?

A    Let me count them.    Yes, sir.

Q    And all 12 of those photographs fairly and accurately depict Ms. Gonzalez’s vehicle and it’s contents on the day in question?

A    Yes, I could say yes.

Q    The truth is, what you’re looking at is black and white photos; correct?

A    That’s correct.

Q    So, in reality, what you saw would have been in color; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    And it would have been more clear without the shortcomings that black and white copies have; correct?

A    Most of them, this top one here with the plate number, you still can’t barely see. I mean, I guess it’s the picture itself, but…

SISTO:    And, Your Honor, again, I’m going to ask that the disc containing these photos be moved into evidence at either the close of his testimony or after summation, whatever the Court believes is appropriate.

THE COURT:    Well, normally, I guess you could do that in your case, or is there any objection at this time, Mr.?

[Prosecutor]:    My only concern is that we’re going to be admitting something different than what’s being testified to.    If — I don’t know if that’s going to affect his testimony, the fact that they were color or not.    If it was something – – you know, I don’t know where the question is going, so it – – it may be inconsequential, it might not be.

THE COURT:    Well, that was my concern at — at the outset, and that’s why I raised the issue with regard to the actual photographs. You’re going to move into evidence something that has not been authenticated because the actual images on the disc haven’t been shown to the witness.

SISTO:    Perhaps the Court will indulge and give me two minutes.   I have a laptop computer and the disc with me.    I could have him identify that and then return just for ease of reference back to the black and white photos.

THE COURT:    As the trier of fact here, I would prefer to see whatever it is that is the best evidence. I don’t know what the purpose of black and white photocopies are if we have the actual images available, either for the Court to view on a laptop or

that can be reproduced, you know. I – – I assume Mr. [Prosecutor’s] photos came from the same disc?

[Prosecutor]: Judge, yes.    I took them off the disc and then I obviously on my particular computer, I printed them out in color, so that’s the only – –

THE COURT:    I mean, you can do whatever you want, Mr. Sisto, I’m just questioning the value of it as the trier of fact.    So, – –

SISTO:    I’ll continue with these for now. We’re going to have other witnesses that can lay the foundation it as appropriately —

THE COURT:    Okay.    And I anticipate we’re going to be taking a break in a few minutes, so – and — and in view of the fact that the Defendants will have to be taken downstairs, it may take some while, so that may give you some time to do that. But you can go ahead.

SISTO:    Okay.

BY MR. SISTO:

Q    I draw your attention to the second photo in the packet.

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And that shows a – –

 

THE COURT:    The number, may I have the number?

SISTO:    That would be DH-5.

THE COURT:    Thank you.

BY MR. SISTO:

Q    That shows a temporary license plate in the back window; correct?

A    This shows a out of state temporary license plate from New York.

Q    And the letters and numbers on that plate clearly read ZCM 1415; correct?

A    At this distance, yes, I’m pretty sure the camera was pretty close.

Q    You testified on direct that the plate was not legible; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    And in your    in your 13 years of law enforcement – –

A    Yes, sir.

Q    — you have seen temporary tags like this one before; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    And even if you can’t read every letter from a distance, a reasonable inference when you see a rectangular piece of paper like this one is that is some sort of license tag; correct?

A    Well, in the area I live in, a lot of these temp plates are being sold illegally.    Some of them might be false, you know, they might be forged —

Q    Well, – –

A    — and that’ s why we usually pull them over and make sure that they’re correct.  But, yes, I’ve encountered many of these license plates.

Q    But what you can do to check their authenticity is call in the letters and numbers to dispatch; correct?

A    At the time I pulled the car over, I — I could not see any numbers at all.

Q    Would calling into dispatch confirm the authenticity if you confirm the letters and numbers?

A    Dispatch would only be able to give me the actual dealership that issued it, if – – if even that, because the motor vehicle computer system sometimes doesn’t even give that.

Q    But, sir, isn’t it true that standard metal license plates can also be counterfeited and duplicated?

A    Yes.

Q    And would you agree that it’s more common for a temporary tag on a back windshield than it is for someone to affix a random piece of cardboard?

A    Yes, I guess so.    I guess so.

Q    And you testified on direct that you thought what you saw might have been just a piece of cardboard; correct?

A    No, I saw something there.    It could have been a license plate, and that’s why – – that’s one of the reasons of the many other reasons why I pulled this car over.

Q    Are you denying that on a previous occasion when we here that you testified on direct that what you saw might have just been a piece of cardboard?

A    Right.    It could be – – it could be a piece of cardboard.    I — I didn’t know, I couldn’t see it.  I mean, the doubt, my doubt was there.    That’s — that’s what I clearly want to express.    My doubt was there, I had no clue what it was or what it wasn’t until I actually came up, so…

Q    And was your testimony then on the previous occasion that you thought what you saw was just a piece of cardboard

A    Yes.

Q    Is it correct that once the motor vehicle stop occurred, Officer Willie Thomas (phonetic) approached the vehicle and told you that the driver was fumbling with a bag?

A    Yes, I was – – I was there next to him. I could see as well what was – – what was going on.

Q    And, again, you’d agree there’s nothing about that in your reports; correct?

A    Right.

Q    And with respect to your reports, there’s seven pages total; correct?

A    I’m not sure.    If I look at them again, I tell you the actual – – actual number.

Q    These are the reports that were previously identified, the first page being DH-3; correct?

A    Thank you.    Yes.    I have seven reports here.

Q    And isn’t true, sir, that in those seven pages of reports, you don’t say anything substantive about the circumstances surrounding the motor vehicle stop?

A    No, I don’t.

Q    Now, you’ve testified about what Officer Willie Thomas said that he observed; correct?

A    My observations as well, I was there.

Q    That’s a

A    I re – – I – –

Q    That’s a yes, you testified about what Officer Willie Thomas observed?

A    No, I don’t know what he – – I can’t – – I can’t testify to what he said or what he saw or he didn’t see.

Q    So, you’re denying that during direct examination on a previous occasion you testified about what Officer Willie Thomas said that he observed?

A    I was there next to him, I mean, whatever I said before, I actually don’t remember at this time, but he was next to me, I observed – – we talked amongst each other what was going on, and that – – and that’s how we conducted that — that report of the facts that – – that – – of that pullover.

Q    So, you — now you don’t recall what you testified to on direct at a previous occasion?

A    Technically, I — the word for word, no, I don’t remember exactly.    No, sir.

Q    And you don’t recall testifying about what Officer Willie Thomas said that he observed?

A    Whatever he relayed to me, I relayed to him, we were there next to each other.

Q    Sir, the question is do you recall testifying on a previous occasion about what Officer Willie Thomas said that he observed?

A    No, I don’t remember.

Q    And the previous occasion that would have been several months ago; correct?

A    Yes, um-hum.

Q    And you’re having trouble remembering what you swore to several months ago; correct?

A    Yes, sir.    I don’t – –

Q    And what you’re here testifying to today, what you’re asking everyone to accept are the events that occurred years ago; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    And these are events for which you personally didn’t write your own narrative reports; correct?

A    That is – – that’s correct.    Yes, sir.

Q    These are the events for which you refreshed your recollection with Sergeant Whitaker’s reports; correct?

[Prosecutor]: Objection.   Asked and answered numerous times, these questions.

THE COURT:    Is that going anywhere or is it simply asking – –

SISTO:    It is, Your Honor, but I’d ask for some leeway on cross examination.    I think the point I’m making is fairly obvious.

BY MR. SISTO:

Q    The – – you reviewed before your testimony here Sergeant Whitaker’s reports; correct?

A   Yes, I did.

Q    And you agree that Sergeant Whitaker’s reports misstate the location of the central piece of evidence to this case; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    To your knowledge, Officer Willie Thomas did not submit any police reports either; correct?

A    That’s correct.

Q    And we don’t have any police reports from Officer Willie Thomas and your report doesn’t give a substantive account of what occurred; correct?

A    That’s correct.

Q    You also testified that Sergeant Whitaker read, classified and approved your reports; correct?

A    Yes, sir.

SISTO:    Your Honor, may I have this marked for identification?

THE COURT:    Yes.

COURT CLERK:    DH-16 for identification.

(Exhibit DH-16 for identification)

SISTO:    Thank you.

COURT CLERK:    You’re welcome.

SISTO:    Let the record reflect I’m showing opposing Counsel what’s been DH-16 for identification. I’m also showing Counsel for Co-Defendant what’s been marked DH-16 for identification. May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

THE COURT:    Yes.

BY MR. SISTO:

Q    Detective, I’m showing you what’s been marked DH-16 for identification.

A    Yes, sir.

Q  Please take a moment and examine it

A    Okay

Q    You’ve examined it, sir?

A    Yes, Sir

Q    And you know that to be Sergeant Whitaker’s incident report; correct?

A    That’s correct

Q    Sergeant Whitaker was personally present on the scene; right?

A    He was there, yes.

Q    I want to draw your attention to the third paragraph of the narrative of Page 2 that begins with the words “As officers approached the vehicle.”

A    Yes.

Q    Do you see that

A    Yes.

Q    The next sentence begins with the words quote, “Once at the vehicle, Detective Thomas advised.”

A    Okay.

Q    End quote.  Right?

A    Yes.

Q    The very next sentence begins with the words, quote, “Upon looking into the passenger side of the vehicle, Detective Perez observed,” end quote. Correct?

A    Yes.

Q    The very sentence begins with the words, quote, “Based on his,” — emphasizing his – – “training and experience, he immediately identified them as bricks of suspected” – – I’m emphasizing suspected — “heroin,” end quote.    Correct?

A    Yes.

Q    Sergeant Whitaker used the term, quote, “suspected heroin,” end quote, as opposed to heroin; right?

A    That’s correct.

Q    The very next sentence discussed how you advised the other officers; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    That same sentence discusses how unnamed detectives ordered Ms. Gonzalez out of the vehicle and placed her under arrest; right?

A    What part was that?    This

Q    This would be right after the – -23 lines down, there’s a sentence that begins “At this time.”

A    Okay.

Q    After that, that same sentence discussed how unnamed detectives ordered Ms. Gonzalez out of the vehicle and placed her under arrest; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    Okay.    And the very next sentence after that of Sergeant Whitaker’s report says that, quote, “Detective W. Perez” – – that’s you; right?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Quote, “Detective W. Perez then entered this vehicle and retrieved the two plastic shopping bags, along with several bricks of heroin which were recovered on the passenger seat and floor,” end quote; right?

A    That’s correct.

Q    Sir, not one of the 12 photos that you saw depicted any brick-shaped objects in the car outside of the plastic shopping bags; correct?

A    No, not in the photos, no, sir.

Q    Then the end of that paragraph indicates that Detective Feliciano transported Ms. Gonzalez’s vehicle from the Parkway back to headquarters; correct?

A    That’s correct.

Q    So amongst other, counting if I recall, one, you, two, Sergeant Whitaker, three, Detective Willie Thomas were all on the scene of the motor vehicle stop; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    Then four and five would be Special Agent Crowe and Detective Samis; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    And between getting back to you, Sergeant Whitaker and Detective Willie Thomas, between the three of your reports, no one personally committed to seeing or doing much of anything; isn’t that true?

A    Other than myself and Detective Thomas, no.

Q    You agree with that statement or not, no one – –

A    Yes, sir.

Q    — no one personally committed to seeing or doing much of anything; correct?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And your reports we’ve covered do not say anything about you putting spilled bricks back into the shopping bags; correct?

A    No.

Q    And none of the reports you reviewed said anything about you put spilled bricks back into the shopping bags; correct?

A    No, sir.

Q    And contrary to Sergeant Whitaker’s report, which you reviewed, again, he’s your superior officer; correct?

A    Yes, he is.

Q    Contrary to your superior officer’s report, you testified on direct that you never removed the bags of suspected heroin from the car; correct?

A    Right.  Correct.

Q    And those photos that you’ve seen in front of you, they depict the shopping bags in the rear seat of the driver ‘s side; right?

A    Yes, they do.

Q    It’s true that Detective Scott Samis drove Ms. Gonzalez’s vehicle away from the scene; correct?

A    I don’t know. I wasn’t there.

Q    Well, sir, your reports that Ms. Gonzalez’s vehicle was towed from the scene at 6:15 p.m.; doesn’t it?

A    That’s correct.

Q    Yet you weren’t there, but you put that in your report; correct?

A   That’s correct.

Q    And is it still your testimony that the vehicle’s temporary license plate was not legible in the back window?

A    Based from my pullover, no, it was not visible the actual numbers.  I could see something, but not – –

Q    Well, sir, isn’t it true that your report lists the vehicle’s license plate as a New York tag bearing ZCM 1415?

A    Exactly, let me – –

Q    In Box 19 on your report.

A    Yes.

Q    So, obviously to include the vehicle’s tag and license plate on your report, you would have had to read the vehicle’s tag and license plate; correct?

A    After the pullover, yes, sir.

Q    And we covered you issued Ms. Gonzalez several motor vehicle citations; correct?

A    Yes, I did.

Q    You can refer to those citations if you need to; they’re in front of you.  Citations reflect that the road was dry; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    They also reflect that the traffic was light; right?

A    Yes.

Q    They reflect that the visibility was clear; right?

A    Yes.

Q    And they reflect that South Orange Avenue was the offense location; right?

A    That’s — yes, sir.

Q    And we’d agree she, despite your testimony, was not issued a ticket for speeding; correct?

A    That’s correct.

Q    And she wasn’t issued a ticket for running the toll we covered; correct?

A    That’s correct.

Q    Was Ms. Gonzalez asked to sign a consent to search form on the scene?

A    No, she wasn’t.

Q    Sir, did — you’ve dealt with heroin and various narcotics for approximately 13 years?

A    Eleven did plain clothes, and been involved in the narcotics investigation s.

Q    Okay.    It’s fair to say that heroin is an off white colored powdered substance; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    And it’s also fair to say that you never observed any off white colored powder substance on the scene of the motor vehicle stop; correct?

A    No.

Q    Yes, you did observe an off white powder substance?

A    No, I did not seen any off white substance.

Q    It’s also fair to say that none of those photos in front of you depict an off white powder substance; correct?

A    That’s correct.

Q    And that’s because all of the suspected heroin was wrapped in opaque magazine paper; correct?

A    They’re – – they’re first packaged in what they call glassine envelopes, which are smaller, and then from there, every 50 glassine envelopes, they put a rubber band – – I mean, I’m sorry, every ten glassine envelopes, they put a rubber band, and then they band five of those together with the – – with the wrapping paper, and that would constitute what – – what we call a brick of heroin.

Q    And on the outside, what you could see of this brick of heroin was magazine paper that you could not see through; correct?

A    That’s correct.

SISTO:    I have nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT:    Okay.    Any redirect, Mr.

THE COURT:    Mr. Sisto.

SISTO:    Just briefly.

RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. SISTO:

Q    Sir, you’ve testified multiple times now that you were concerned – – strike that.    The reason you didn’t include a – – a narrative report was out of concern to keep the wiretap investigation secret?

A    Yes, we didn’t want to give up the actual investigation.

Q    You’d agree that we’re well over a year and many months past the indictment phase in this case; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    And you know that once a Defendant is indicted, they’re entitled to all the discovery; correct?

A    Yes, sir.    Um-hum.

Q    Yet you haven’t put forth in these many months, over a year, any sort of supplemental report; correct?

A    No, sir.

Q    And you understand that when you provide the information for the first time during testimony, there’s no way for the defense to investigate it; correct?

A    That would be your job, I have no clue about what routes you — you go to as far as discovery.

Q    Well, think about it sir.    If I’m learning of information for the first time here today, while I’m speaking to you, is there any way I can go out in the field and investigate it?

[Prosecutor]:    Objection to the relevance of this questioning as to what this actual has to the fact finding.

THE COURT:    I’m – – I’ll sustain the objection.

SISTO:    Well, I just ask the Court to consider that undue surprise is a valid objection, and it’s already out there. There’s not a Jury here, so and we can’t unring the bell, but that’s the point that I’m making here, is that it goes to the credibility here if key information is coming out for the first time, and his basis for it is that he was afraid the Defendants would find out about it.

THE COURT:    It sounds to me more like argument, Counsel. I think the questions are factual, and then you can certainly argue you that as the conclusion that the Court should draw.

BY MR. SISTO:

Q    Now, sir, during redirect from Mr. [Prosecutor], was it your testimony that Sergeant Whitaker’s report references spilled bricks in the car?

A    Whatever that actual report reads, if I could see it again, I’ll actually go to that line.

Q    Sure.    But do you recall what your testimony was, did you say that it referenced spilled bricks?

A    It referenced something spilled over.  I – – doesn’t say bricks.  It’s actually at the part when I went back to the vehicle.

SISTO:    I’m showing opposing Counsel again DH-3 for identification. May I approach the witness?

THE COURT:    Yes.

BY MR. SISTO:

Q    Sir, this is DH-3 for identification, previously identified as Sergeant Whitaker’s report; correct?

A    Yes, the narrative is not here.  It’s actually, it’s in the report, we call it an 8 — 802.

THE COURT:    There’s no question pending.

SISTO:    Will the Court indulge me a moment? Your Honor, I’m showing opposing Counsel DH- 16 for identification.

BY MR. SISTO:

Q    This is DH-16 for identification; correct?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And we both just made a mistake, what I just showed you were your reports; right – –

A    Yes.

Q    – – not Sergeant Whitaker’s.    This is Sergeant Whitaker’s incident report; correct?

A    That’s correct.

Q    Going back to my original report, do you believe that his report references bricks spilled over; correct?

A    This – – you mean just read that exact location.

Q    I’ll – – I’ll read it to you, third paragraph down is where the relevant observations begin.  Do you see that, there’s a sentence three rows down that says, “Upon looking”?    Third paragraph, third row, middle of the sentence.

A    Okay.

Q    It reads, “Upon looking into the passenger side window of this vehicle, Detective Perez observed on the passenger side seat two blue medium size plastic shopping bags, partially opened, containing numerous bricks of suspected CDS.”  Correct?

A    Um-hum.

Q    It doesn’t say anything about them being spilled out; does it?

A    No, it doesn’t say anything about being spilled.

Q    And anywhere else in the report, does it say anything about them being spilled out of the bag?

A    If you give me a second, I’ll —

Q    Take your time.

A    At the bottom of that same paragraph, I have here, “Detective W. Perez then entered this vehicle and retrieved the two blue plastic shopping bags along with several bricks which were recovered on the passenger seat and floor of the vehicle and secured the same.”

Q    That’s after he referenced the shopping bags being on the passenger seat floor of the vehicle; correct?

A    That’s correct.

SISTO:    I have nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT:    We’re done?

[Prosecutor]:    Done, Your Honor.

THE COURT:    Okay.    We’ll go ahead and take our mid morning break. Officer, you can step down.

(Witness excused)

Is your next witness ready, Mr. [Prosecutor]?

[Prosecutor]:    Yes, Your Honor.

 

asked specifically about one stamp on a phone call regarding a facelift stamp.    At this point in time, Detective Samis looking at it, the answer I think is relevant to this.

SISTO:    Again, Your Honor, the — basically the stamp wouldn’t have been revealed until after a full-blown search occurred on the day in question.  This is a warrantless search here, I don’t see the relevance of it one way or another.

THE COURT:    Mr. [Prosecutor]?

[Prosecutor]:    Then I’ll withdraw the question.

I have no further questions for the detective at this time.

THE COURT:    Okay.

CROSS    EXAMINATION BY MR. SISTO:

Q    Good morning, Detective.

A    Good morning, sir.

Q    Detective, it’s correct that in light of the information you received from the wire, this motor vehicle stop was preplanned; correct?

A    That is correct, sir.

Q    And is it correct that it was you that drove Ms. Gonzalez ‘s vehicle from the Parkway to the Newark DEA office on the day in question?

A    I did, sir.

Q    The vehicle was not towed from the Parkway, but driven; correct?

A    Driven, sir.

Q    And it wasn’t driven to the Newark Police Department headquarters, but the DEA headquarters; correct?

A    That is correct, sir.

Q    And it was Trooper Burke (phonetic) that drove the vehicle from the Newark DEA office to the Monmouth County Prosecutor ‘s Office on the day in question; correct?

A    I’d have to see – – see that report, sir.

SISTO:    Your Honor, may I this marked for identification?

THE COURT:    Yes.

COURT CLERK:    DH-17 for identification. (Exhibit DH-17 for identification)

THE COURT:    Thank you.

COURT CLERK:    You ‘re welcome.

SISTO:    Let the record reflect that I’m showing opposing Counsel what’s been premarked DH-17 for identification.

Same goes for Counsel for Co-Defendant.

Your Honor, may I approach the witness?

THE COURT:    Yes.

BY MR. SISTO:

Q    Detective, I’m showing you what’s been premarked DH-17 for identification.  Could you take a look at it, please.

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Have you examined it?

A    I’m looking at it, sir, if you’d give me a second.

Q    All right.    Take your time.

A    Yes, sir.    It indicates that State Police Trooper Burke transferred that vehicle from DEA in Newark to 16 MCPO on 2/7/2009.

Q    MCPO being the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office; right?

A    That’s correct, sir.

Q    And it’s fair to say the vehicle was not towed to the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office; correct?

A    That’s correct, sir.

Q    Now, the stop of Ms. Gonzalez’s car occurred on the Garden State Parkway; correct?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And during that time, Detective Wilfredo Perez advised you that they observed two large bags placed on the backseat floor?

A    Didn’t deserve — didn’t advise me that, sir, no.

Q    Detective Perez did not advise you that they observed two large bags placed on the backseat floor?

A    He did not advise me, no, sir.

Q    I’m going to take back DH-17 for identification.

SISTO:    But if the Court will indulge me a moment.

Your Honor, may I have this marked for identification?

THE COURT:    Yes.

COURT CLERK:    DH-18 for identification. (Exhibit DH-18 marked for identification)

SISTO:    Let the record reflect I’m showing opposing Counsel what’s been marked DH-18 for identification. Same for Counsel for Co-Defendant.

BY MR. SISTO:

Q    Now, Detective, you were the lead detective in this wiretap investigation; correct?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And as lead detective in the lead of wiretap investigations, you submitted affidavits to Judges; correct?

A    Yes, sir.

SISTO:    Your Honor, may I approach the witness?

THE  COURT:    Yes.

BY MR. SISTO:

Q    Detective, I’m showing you what’s been premarked DH-18 for identification.  It’s somewhat voluminous, take your time to look at it.  Let me know

A    Do you want me to read the entire application?

Q    No, just – – just look at it for a moment, feel through the pages just to satisfy yourself as far as what it is.

(There was a pause in the proceeding)

BY MR. SISTO:

Q    Now, Detective, —

A    I’m — I’m not done, sir, I’m sorry.

Q    Okay.  Well, let the record reflect several minutes have passed.  Take your time.

A    Sir, I’m just – – you’re ask —

THE COURT:    There’s — there’s no question pending, just look through the document.

THE WITNESS:    Thank you, Your Honor.

(There was a pause in the proceeding)

THE WITNESS:    I’m ready, sir.

BY MR. SISTO:

Q    Detective, what’s been premarked give me – – DH-18 for identification, that’ s your sworn statement that you gave in furtherance of this wiretap investigation; correct?

A    One of the — yes, of the application, correct.

Q    And you were placed under oath at the time that you made that statement; correct?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Just like how you were placed under oath today before you testified; correct?

A    Absolutely.

Q    And you understand that what you said there was said until penalty of perjury; correct?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Same can be said for your testimony here today; correct?

A    Absolutely.

Q    I draw your attention to Page 47, Paragraph 29 of your sworn statement.  It reads, af — quote, “After Gonzalez ran a toll, she was stopped by officers of the Newark Police Department.”  Right, that’s what the first sentence reads; correct?

A    I’m trying to find it, sir.

Q    The — Paragraph 29, Page 47.

A    Yeah, I’m with you now.

Q    It reads, quote, “After Gonzalez ran a toll,

she was stopped by officers from the Newark Police

Department,” end quote.    Correct?

A    That’s correct.

Q    The very next sentence reads, “Detective Wilfredo Perez advised me that when the Newark officers walked up to her car, they observed two large bags placed on the backseat floor,” end quote.  That’s what that reads; correct?

A    Absolutely.

Q    Next sentence.  Forgive me.  So, I’ll ask you again, sir, during the time of the motor vehicle stop, Detective Wilfredo Perez did advise you by phone that they observed two large bags placed on the backseat floor; correct?

A    Not me, he advised Special Agent Brian Crowe, who advised me.

Q    There’s nothing about him advising Special Agent Crowe in your sworn statement, the affidavit; is there?

A    It doesn’t say specifically Brian Crowe.  It says he advised me, but I’m testifying today that the way it was relayed, Brian Crowe had direct contact with Mr.Perez, who notified me.

Q    So, you omitted Special Agent’s Crowe’s involvement in that communication in your sworn statement to the Judge for the wiretap; correct?

A    I just said it doesn’t say that, sir.  I said it says me, but Special Agent – – I got the information from Special Agent Brian Crowe.

Q    There’s nothing about Special Agent Crowe giving you that information in your sworn affidavit; correct?

A    No, it says me.

Q    Now, I draw your attention that same page, several lines down, Lines 5 and 6.  They were both at the same spot here.  So, it’s true that it was not just a search, but a, quote, “further search of those bags that revealed 270 bricks of heroin.” Correct?

A    The bags contained heroin, the bags were opened and counted as evidence as we always do, correct.

Q    I draw your attention to Page 48, sir.

A    I’m on 48, sir.

Q    Okay.  One, two, three, four, five lines down.  Do you see the sentence that begins with “A further search”?

A    A further search, yes.

Q    What you wrote in your sworn statement is, quote, “A further search of the bags revealed 270 bricks of heroin,” end quote.  Correct?

A    It says “A further search of the bags revealed 270 bricks of heroin,” period.

Q    And that’s your writing; correct?  You wrote that; correct?

A    Yes.

Q    And you’re trained in search and seizure obviously, correct, sir?

A    Am I trained in search and seizure, yeah.

Q    Right, isn’t that part of what you learn as a police officer?

A    Yes, sir.

Q    And you in particular have dealt with an extraordinarily – – strike that.    You, yourself have focused on narcotics during your long career; correct?

A    That – – that has been my expertise, yes, sir.

Q    And narcotics involves search and seizure more so than other investigative work; correct, sir?

A    It depends    it depends what kind of unit you’re in, sir.

Q    Well,    well, you were in internal affairs, you testified; correct?

A   Correct.
Q    Compared to one or the other, search and seizure would be much more relevant to narcotics work; correct?

A    Again, it depends what type of case, but you would do more those – – that type of work in narcotics, but there was cases in Internal Affairs where you would have search and seizure.

Q    I’m going to take this back, sir, if you would just indulge me a moment.

A    Yes, sir.

Q    Sir, I’m going to hand you back, again, DH-18 for identification, there is also nothing in that affidavit in particular around Page 47, where you talk about the day in question, that mentions you were near the scene of the motor vehicle stop; correct?

A    If you give me one second, sir.

Q    Sure.

A    Can you ask your question again now?

Q    Is there anything in that affidavit that would tell the issuing Judge that you were near the scene of the motor vehicle stop?

A    That was I was near it?    Paragraph 27, sir, it says, “Your affiant along with Special Agent Brian Crowe established surveillance on George Thompson’s Sporting Goods,”    – – do you want me to continue to read?    But it says that I was there at — I don’t – if that’s what you’re looking for.

Q    Well, the sporting goods store was nowhere near the Parkway; right?   Could you see the Park —

A    This is just — this is just the beginning of the paragraph, sir.  This is right before we were at 19 Ampere.  That’s has nothing to do with the Parkway. You asked if I was there, if it says if I was there.

Q    I asked if you indicate in your affidavit that you were near the motor vehicle stop.  What indicates in here that you were near the motor vehicle stop?

A    I don ‘t think it specifically states I was sitting a hundred feet or 20 feet from the motor vehicle stop, it doesn ‘t say that.    But, again, this is a paragraph for the affidavit for the phones, kind of giving an overview of what took place that day from, again, from me.

Q    The first sentence of Page 48 reads, “Detective Wilfredo Perez advised me.”  Correct?

A    I – – yes, I answered that, sir.

Q    And Detective Wilfredo Perez was directly on the scene of the motor vehicle stop; correct?

A    He was there, yes, sir.

Q   Regarding your communications with Detective Perez, before the search began, Newark P.D. was told that those two large bags were exchanged during a surveillance of a narcotics transaction; correct?

A   Can – – can you repeat that? I don’t understand your question.

Q   Before the search began – –

A   What – – what search? I don’t understand the question.

Q   The one that you refer to in the affidavit, Page 48, Lines 5 and 6. Do you see where you use the term “search” and “further search”?

A   A further search of the bags revealed 270, is that what you’re referring to?

Q   Right.

A   Okay.

Q   Before that further search occurred, Newark P.D. was told that those two large bags were exchanged during a surveillance of a narcotics transaction; right?

A   I – – I have to disagree. I don’t understand what you mean by exchange for a narcotics tran – – whose two bags were exchanged? I – – I don’t understand the question.

Q   You – – you think the language is confusing?

A    It’s confusing to me.

Q    Turn to Page 48 of your affidavit.

A    That’s the page I’m on, sir.

Q    Line 2 through 5.

A    I’m there, sir.

Q    It reads, “Should be noted that the bags were consistent with what was observed during their surveillance of the Height/Thompson narcotics transaction, and this information had been provided to Newark P.D. prior to their initiation of a motor vehicle stop for a toll violation.”

A    That’s clear now, sir.

Q    That’s what that reads; correct?

A    That’s clear, yup.

Q    Then I’ll ask you again, before the search began, Newark P.D. was told that those two large bags were exchanged during the surveillance of a narcotics transaction; correct?

A    Specifically those words, I don’t know if those specific words were used.    They – – they were observed of the surveillance of what was going on at 19 Ampere and then the surveillance, what we observed at the 256.

Q    The specific words that were used, I – – I just read to you from your affidavit a few moments ago; correct?

A    Again, sir, if I — if I said me or the or another word could have been used during that time I spoke with them.

Q    Yes or no, did I just read that correctly from your affidavit?

A    Yes, you did, sir.

Q    You testified on direct that you were present during the taking of photographs of Ms. Gonzalez’s vehicle and the evidence that it contained; correct?

A    Mr. Height’s vehicle, correct.

Q    The vehicle that Ms. Gonzalez was driving; correct?

A    Mr. Height’s vehicle, yes, sir.

Q    Okay.    And incidentally, these vehicle that you’re referring to as Mr. Height’s vehicle, that was the red Camry; correct?

A    That is correct.

Q    And you knew days in advance that that vehicle was associated with Mr. Height, based on the wire; correct?

A    I don’t know if it was days, but we were familiar that Mr.Height had just purchased that vehicle.

Q    At that time that Detective Bonanno was taking photographs, you witnessed the photographing of two blue colored bags; right?

A    Yes, the same bags that I observed Mr. Height place in that vehicle.

Q    Okay.    And is it correct that a total of 12

photographs were taken?

A    I would have to look at it, sir.

Q    Just indulge me a moment, Detective. Detective, I’m showing you what’s been previously marked and shown to opposing Counsel and yourself as DH-17 for identification.  Can you take a look at that.

A    Yeah, this is the seizure report, vehicle report, sir.

Q    Okay.    And also, after the first page, contains some of Detective Bonanno’s photo reports; correct?

A    Page 3 would be the uniform photo report.

Q    Okay.    And based on what you see in the section labeled Frame Number, in total 12 photographs were developed; correct?

A    I – – I don’t know how many photographs were developed, sir.

Q    Well, the photos, there’s frame numbers attributed to each photo; correct?

A    That’s what it says, sir.

Q    And it begins with frame number 36; correct?

A    36 to 38, so we would say it’s two; correct?

Q    Well, I would say that’s three, 36, 37 and 38.

A    Okay.

Q    Correct?

A   It could be.

Q    Then, three more after that; correct?

A   39 to 41.

Q    39, one, 40, two, 41, three; correct?

A   Okay.

Q    That would make six total; correct?

A   If that’s what Mike’s referring to here, yes.

Q    And after those six?

A   42 to 47.

Q    And that would make another six; correct?

A    So, if that’s 12, again, I didn’t count how many pictures he was taking, but from this report, if this is what he means by the frame, you could be correct, but again, you would have to ask Detective Bonanno.

Q    How many photographs do you think were taken, based on what you see there?

A    Again, sir, this is Detective Bonanno’s report. When I — when I put the frame number, I do it a different way, so you would have to ask Detective Bonanno.

Q    Those bags that you saw photographed were located on the rear driver’s side floor of the vehicle; correct?

A    Say that again.

Q    The bags that you saw photographed?

A    The blue bags containing the heroin?

Q    They were located on the rear driver’s side floor of the vehicle; correct?

A    The rear, it was located directly behind the driver’s seat, rear passenger.  So, the left rear passenger floor.

Q    That – –

A    That’s where the bags —

Q    So, that’s a yes?

A    I’m – – I’m telling — I’m answering, sir.

Q    What are you answering, yes or no?  I got confused.

A    You were confusing me.    The bags were discovered in the rear passenger, directly behind the driver’s seat, that’s where the bags were observed.

Q    On the floor; correct?

A    On the floor.

Q    Now, you did not see any photos taken of suspected heroin in the passenger seat; did you?

A    I didn’t, no.

Q    And you didn’t see suspected heroin on the passenger seat floor; correct?

A    Did I see heroin on the passenger seat floor?

Q    Right.

A    Yeah, I saw heroin on the passenger seat floor.

MR. [Prosecutor]:    Can we just have a clarification of where passenger seat, front seat passenger, rear seat passenger, driver’s side?  Just the question’s vague, I think there’s maybe some confusion.

THE COURT:    I – – I think part of the problem is we’re using seat and floor at the same time. So, maybe if you could clarify that.

[Prosecutor]:    Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. SISTO:

Q    But more — more importantly, those bags contained suspected heroin, and I’m emphasizing suspected; correct?

A    And I’m saying the bags contained heroin.

Q    Did — well, heroin is best described as an off white powder substance; correct?

A    Sometimes.  It could be off brown, it could be off white.  It – – it all depends of what type of heroin you’re buying, sir.

Q    While those photographs were taken, did you see any off white or off brown powder?

A    While the photos were being taken?

Q    Yes.

A    No, sir.

Q    Because the suspected heroin was wrapped in an opaque magazine paper; correct?

A    I believe it was magazine paper and newspaper paper.

Q    By opaque, I mean you couldn’t see through that paper; correct?

A       No.

Q    And do you recall when the photographs were that they clearly showed a temporary license plate located in the back window?

A    Do I recall there was a temporary plate in the back window, yes.

Q    Okay.

A    I believe it’s back left side of the window, the rear.

Q    Now, with respect to the information that you received that led you to preplan this stop, is it correct that several individuals had pooled their money to pay for the package that was picked up by Ms.Gonzalez?

A    Is that the information that we had that was going on; is that what you’re asking me, sir?

Q   Yes.

A    That is correct, sir.

Q   Which individuals was it that pooled their money?

A    I would have to get that report, sir.  From my recollection, I know that Jonathan Thomas was involved in it, Mr. Height, I believe Born Rush (phonetic), but the other names, if there were more, I would have to look to that — that reports — those reports.

Q    Was (phonetic) one of the individuals that pooled his money?

A    I’m not sure.

Q    Okay.    Thank you, Detective.

SISTO:    I have nothing further.

THE COURT:    Okay.    Before you begin, Mr.[Prosecutor], are you going to have redirect as well?

[Prosecutor]:    Yes.

THE COURT:    Okay.    We’re going to go ahead and take the lunch break rather than give you five minutes, Mr., and cut you off. Detective, during the lunch break, please don’t discuss your testimony in this matter with anyone. Do you understand that?