1A Intelligence Desk

← Back to search results

Transcript Details

Detective Fabricated A Crime To PUNISH Cop Watcher! Deposition

What did you charge the plaintiffs with? >> False report to induce an emergency response. >> Your testimony is that because Rankin walked around with a firearm openly, which is legal in Texas, and because someone called 911, that must have been what he wanted to have happen? >> It is possible. >> Based on what? >> Based on when they got there, the plaintiffs had their phones out ready to record the police when >> Was it your impression that the intent was to charge these individuals to stop their conduct of filming police? Are you aware of what the conversations were between Chief Parrish and the city of Corrigan police chief about First Amendment auditors? When you arrived on the scene, did it appear that there was chaos? >> No. >> Was there panic? >> No. >> Did you independently have any concerns about whether the factual circumstances of that incident met the elements of false report to induce emergency response? >> No. >> [music] >> Hey, what's up, guys? Sean Paul Reyes with Long Island Audit here, back again with another video. In today's video, we are going to be watching the federal lawsuit deposition of Livingston, Texas, Police Department's Detective Barker. He is the detective who charged cop watcher Matthew Rankin with false report to induce an emergency response because while Matthew was legally open carrying a firearm in public, an individual called law enforcement because they were apparently offended. Yes, you heard me correctly. Keep in mind, this is the same police department that charged cop watchers Matthew, Melanie, and Brandon with organized crime for recording law enforcement in public. We covered the police chief's deposition a couple weeks ago. If you haven't seen that deposition, I will leave a link to it in the description below the like button. Let's get into it. >> Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right, Detective [snorts] Barker, uh good good morning. >> Good morning. >> Your role is a detective? >> Yes. >> Okay, what what did What do you do as a detective? >> Uh we review offense reports that come in from the officers and determine uh criminal elements and offense reports that equal uh criminal offenses and we draft arrest warrants, we draft search warrants. Uh we request subpoenas, work with the DA's office uh in submitting cases to the DA's office. Those types of things. More of a investigatory response to calls. >> Do you make uh final charging decisions on on these cases? >> Uh yes. >> Okay. Do you ever uh and I guess you provide a supplement uh do you do you provide supplement reports uh to the incident reports? >> Yes. >> Okay. And then do your reports get reviewed by anybody? >> Yes. >> Okay, who is that? >> Uh our lieutenant the patrol lieutenant. Well, he's a he's a title is patrol lieutenant, but he's a lieutenant over everybody. >> Okay, and what's uh his name? >> Uh the current one is David Mitchell. >> Okay, but at the time of this incident it was uh Lieutenant Marty Drake. >> Yes. >> Prior to February uh 2022, had you had any interactions with any of the plaintiffs? >> Um no, I had not except for Miss I don't know is it McRory or or Trimble now? Uh I knew her as McRory. Um I don't know specific interactions with her. I just knew her from just being around the city where I worked and see her maybe on call. I don't know exactly where I just recognized her, but I don't know of any specific interactions we'd had. >> Okay. Uh would she ever uh film you? >> No. >> Okay. Uh prior to February 2022, were you familiar with um I what I've seen uh police and others describe as auditors? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh you've seen that in Livingston. >> I have, yes. >> Okay. Um but not with the plaintiffs. >> Um bef- prior to February, I was aware of incidents involving Brandon White and our officers, but I had never witnessed them in person. >> Okay. How did you become aware of those incidents? >> I believe it was Chief Paris that told us that that that about Mr. White going around and and filming the police officers in the city. >> Okay. >> of to make us aware that well, that's what was going on, not to be alarmed that you know, it's not just some guy walking around with a phone. >> Okay. And so, uh he said to not be alarmed. Was there any other instruction? >> No. >> Okay. Um Were were there any questions or anything about how to handle those circumstances? >> No. >> Okay. Uh was were was there any uh discussion or guidance to suggest that what uh Brandon White or others were doing was illegal? >> No. >> Okay. Uh February in February 2022, what was your understanding of an individual's right to film police? >> Uh it was legal all you know, certain limitations apply of course, but it was legal as long as they didn't interfere with your your investigation. >> Okay. Uh did you understand uh any of the plaintiffs in this case to be interfering with any investigation by filming? >> No. >> Uh what was your understanding of uh an individual's right in the state of Texas to open carry firearms? >> Uh they are allowed to open carry firearms. >> And I asked a number of questions uh earlier to uh the sergeant. Uh what is your understanding of an officer's a Texas police officer's uh right to uh inspect uh paperwork concerning a suppressor? >> Uh I'm not aware of any paperwork needed for a suppressor. That's not something that I have knowledge of. >> Okay. You uh you drafted the uh the arrest affidavit, the arrest affidavits and uh concerning the first let me back up. I'm going to call the first incident uh the one that involved Sergeant Bogany at Ms. Trimble's apartment. >> Okay. Uh concerning that interaction, you prepared uh the arrest affidavit, correct? >> Yes. >> And you presented that to a judge. >> Yes. >> Okay. Did you prepare that affidavit by yourself? >> I did. >> Okay. Was it reviewed by anybody? >> No. >> Okay. >> Other than the judge. >> Okay. You didn't make the decision uh to charge the plaintiffs. Did you? >> No, that was the district attorney at the time. >> Okay. Well, prior to the district attorney, uh who made the decision to present that information to the district attorney? >> Uh that would have been Lieutenant Drake and Chief Harris. >> Okay. And then you were instructed to basically package it all up together. >> Correct. I was instructed to to charge the individuals with the the charge they were charged with and then present it to the district attorney's office for prosecution. >> Okay. Is that normally what happens? >> Uh rephrase. >> I'm not sure. Uh so, you testified a couple of moments ago that you generally uh have authority to charge individuals. >> Yes. >> Okay. And that you make the decision to charge them. >> Yes, typically. >> Typically, but with plaintiffs here, you did not make that decision. You were instructed to charge them. >> Correct. >> Is that normal? >> Uh yes. There are certain times uh if the lieutenant or the chief is aware of an incident that occurred and I'm either off duty or I'm not around. Uh if they know that there's a charge to be filed, they can come to me and say, "Hey, this while you weren't here or while you were unavailable, this is what we discovered and here it is." And then I will, you know, review it and make sure. >> Okay. but you weren't for this particular incident, you weren't involved in any discussions with the police chief or the district attorney concerning charging these individuals. >> was not. >> Okay, but you were instructed to go ahead and draft up a uh warrant and present it to the judge. >> Correct. >> And in so doing uh you didn't speak with uh Sergeant Bogany at all. >> No. >> You didn't speak with uh Officer Paskey. >> No. >> You were actually out on the scene, right? >> Yes. >> Okay, but you uh by the time you came out at the scene, what is it that you observed? >> Um when I arrived uh Sergeant Bogany and Officer Paskey were already at the door to Miss to Melanie's apartment. Um they were speaking to an individual at the door I didn't recognize. Um Well, let me back up. When [snorts] I got there, I think they were they were approaching Melanie's apartment. I don't think they had actually made contact with anybody yet. And I went around to the back of the apartment. >> Okay, what were you doing going around back? >> Uh it's not uncommon for people when the police knock on the front door that they sometimes run out the back door um in an attempt to evade the police or hide or whatever the reason is. Um but that didn't happen in this situation. >> Okay, at any point while you were on the scene, did you think uh a crime had been committed? >> No. >> And this uh February 4th was a Friday. Um At some point you had meetings with uh the police chief and the lieutenant on uh February 8th, so a couple of days later. >> I believe yes, the Tuesday after. >> Okay. >> with the Lieutenant Drake. >> What what was the gap in time with the meetings? >> Uh yes, I was this weekend I was off and then I was I'm off on Monday. So that was when I returned to work on Tuesday. >> Okay, so basically you show up to the incident on uh February 4th and then uh you take a couple of days off, you come back, you're meeting with, uh, Detective Middleton at one point, right? >> Yes. >> And then, you're meeting with, uh, the chief and the lieutenant. >> I don't believe I ever met with Chief Parrish. I believe it was just Lieutenant Drake. >> Okay. And your understanding was that, based on another meeting that the lieutenant and chief had with the prosecutor, that you were to charge the plaintiff in this case. >> Correct. >> Okay. Did you do any investigation yourself? >> Um, the extent of what I did, I reviewed the offense report prepared by Sergeant Bodine and the supplemental report by, uh, Officer Paskey. Uh, and I reviewed the body camera footage, and then, just based on what I had seen at the scene, is is what I did. And I only collected the 911 calls that were made to our agency. >> On February 4th, you weren't dispatched to the location. >> No. >> You just heard the dispatch call, and you decided to go out there yourself. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, what were you doing at the time you heard the dispatch? >> Uh, I'm not sure exactly what I I was in my office, and I don't know what I was working on at the moment, but I usually have, uh, my police radio on, and for situations like this that I think they may need help or something, I'll usually go try to help or assist if I need to. >> Okay. On February 4th, 2022, do you know how big the Livingston Police Department was? >> Uh, I don't know the exact number of employees. >> What is that? 10? How many peace officers? >> Uh, at that time, I think, 15, 20. >> Okay. And obviously, they were split up in shifts. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yes. And then, there were additional officers that are assigned to the school district. >> Okay. And so, uh, you heard dispatch was sending units. Uh, did you notify dispatch that you were going out to the scene? >> Uh, I don't specifically remember in this case, but normally, I will tell this that I'm going to the scene as well. >> Okay, and is there a is there some kind of code or something that for example an officer could relay to dispatch as to whether or not more units are needed or less units are needed? >> Uh you can just ask. I mean that we don't really use codes much anymore. It's more plain speak. And so if you if you need somebody or don't, you can relay that to dispatch and she'll broadcast it. >> Okay. And so you understood there was a call about a man in the housing authority carrying a gun and going into an apartment. >> Correct. >> Okay. And so you were like, you know, let me go see what's going on, see if there's help needed basically. >> Okay. Once you exit your vehicle, it says I heard someone state the suspect had exited a black car. There was only one black car in the area. >> Correct. >> So who did you hear that from another officer or from someone else? >> I don't know I don't recall where I heard that information from. >> Okay. And then at some point you I guess you contacted Lieutenant Drake to tell him about the situation. >> Yes. >> Did you do that by phone or by text or how did you do that? >> phone telephone call. >> Okay. And what did Lieutenant Drake tell you? >> He told us as long as everybody was, you know, okay and there was no uh current pressing issue, just go ahead and leave the scene and we would review what had happened and determine if the offense had occurred. >> Okay. So uh and this is based on the information you provided the lieutenant. >> Yes. >> Okay. And of course before having that call with the lieutenant, you had already spoken to the officers on the scene. >> Uh I'm not sure. >> So you were able to identify uh one of the individuals inside the apartment as Brandon White. >> Yes. >> And your supplement says, quote, I am familiar with White as he runs a YouTube channel titled America First where he posts videos of law enforcement officials he records with his cell phone. >> Yes. >> Okay. And this is based on uh I guess information that Chief Paris previously told you. >> Yeah, he had explained to us about Mr. White when and posting the videos to YouTube and I had went to YouTube and managed to find a video of him interacting with one of our officers and I don't I don't specifically remember which video it was but and that's how I became aware of him. >> Okay. Did you have any concerns with the way Mr. White his conduct was in that video? >> No. >> Okay. And then your supplement goes on to say quote I also noticed a cell phone that was propped up inside a window next to the front door that appeared to be filming our interaction as well. >> Yes. >> Okay. Is it illegal to have a cell phone propped up inside a window? >> No. >> Why why did you think it was recording? >> Because it was attached to a power cable and I assumed that unless the phone needed power it wouldn't if that's where they wanted to put it that was fine but if it was doing an action then it was going to need power so it was plugged up for that reason. >> Okay, so you you saw that it had a power cable. >> Yes. >> Okay, did it look like that was a permanent fixture then? >> No, it didn't appear it was permanent. >> Okay. You were the detective assigned to this incident. >> Yes. >> Did you ever obtain a search warrant to collect that cell phone? >> I did not. >> Why not? >> I did not believe the cell phone would still be there. I wasn't sure where it would be. >> Did you ever go back and look? >> No. >> Okay. Is this because you weren't instructed to get a search warrant? >> No, I was not instructed to get a search warrant. >> Did you think that so that that video could have been helpful to your investigation? >> Possibly. >> And you said earlier the extent of your investigation is that all you did is that all you did just discussing with the Lieutenant Middleton reviewing the incident reports, collecting the 911 calls. Did you do anything else such as look for whether any videos were actually did you do anything else such >> the video that I believe it was Brandon's video that was posted to YouTube of of the video but I can't for sure say it was his video. I know there was a video that I did see that was filmed from inside the apartment. I just don't know who the who was filming. >> Okay, and the video was not the one that was propped up on the window. >> No. >> It was someone holding the video. >> Yes. >> Right? And it started filming from the time the officers had approached the front door. >> Yes. >> Okay. So there was no video there there is nothing in that video suggesting any kind of plan or anything that you saw. >> That I saw, no. >> And would you agree it appeared that the the crux of the video was about uh about the right to carry a firearm with a suppressor. >> Say it again, I'm sorry. >> Did it appear that the crux of the video was about uh an individual's right to carry a firearm with a suppressor? >> Yes. >> Did you hear any commentary in the video at all about this was a test of police officer response? >> No. >> And you put in in your supplement that quote, "I explained to the male individual who had the gun on his hip that someone was offended by him carrying the gun and they had contacted law enforcement." >> Right. >> So uh just because someone's offended it doesn't mean it's a crime. >> Right. >> People get offended I'm sure every day. >> Yes. >> And uh if I also understand correctly, uh did you have a body worn camera that day? >> I did not. >> Okay. Is that because uh you were a detective? >> Correct. Yeah, detectives are are not assigned body worn cameras and I believe at that time we were having issues with our body worn cameras. Um some of them I don't know if they were out of date or the software was malfunctioning or what the case was but we didn't uh we only had so many available and they were assigned to the patrol division. >> Okay. So, there's I'm I'm sure you heard the questions I was asking the sergeant about um the fence portion of the the instant report being filled in. You recall me >> The what part? >> The in the instant report under the offense category. >> Yes. >> Uh do you know how the offense was inputted into the instant report? >> Uh I changed it from incident to the charges on there now. >> Okay. Do you know why uh it lists 199 instead of your PDID? >> No, I don't I don't know. >> Okay, but you were the one that made that change. >> Yes, I did change it. Yes. >> Okay. And I guess that would have been on or after February 8th. >> Uh it would have been after the discussion I had with Lieutenant Drake. >> Okay. Did you uh so so when Mr. Rankin informed you uh and other officers that uh he didn't need to show any paperwork, uh did you take any additional steps to uh to determine whether that was correct or not? >> About the silencer? Or the suppressor? No, I did not. >> Okay. Did you instruct anybody to to look into it further? >> No. >> Okay. Did uh the lieutenant instruct anybody to look into that issue? >> I'm aware of. >> And then afterwards, uh you then called uh Lieutenant Drake again? >> I called him one time from the scene. >> Okay. So, that and and the reason I ask is because uh for that February 4th incident, the last statement on your narrative is, quote, I spoke to Lieutenant Drake again, and it was determined that Sergeant Bogany and Officer Pasky would complete a report over the incident, and it would be reviewed. >> Yes, that was in person. That was an in-person discussion. >> Okay, and that that was back at the department? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, what what was the discussion then you had with Lieutenant Drake at the department? >> Uh I went back and just briefed him on what had happened and what we had observed. And then uh he just told me that he would have them do an offense report and we would review it and and see if it turned into an offense or not. >> What did you understand had happened? >> Uh I understood that somebody had witnessed a man with a gun and they were concerned for their safety as well as safety of the neighborhood they were in. Um and we had responded and located the male. >> And you told him that it was uh that it was uh Mr. White was there. >> Told who? >> Lieutenant Drake. >> Yes. >> And that it appeared they were filming. >> Yes. >> Okay. At what point did you find the video on YouTube? >> Uh I I can't recall how long it was. It wasn't It wasn't long after that. >> Okay. You didn't You didn't reference the video at all in your affidavit, right? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Okay. So, you're You're viewing that video. Would you include that as part of your investigation in this case or did that come after? >> Uh it I don't know exactly when I watched it. Okay. Or when I found it. >> So, then you uh you take the weekend off, take Monday off, uh you come back on Tuesday. >> Yes. >> February 8th. And then uh you meet with Lieutenant Drake again. >> Yes. >> Okay. And what was the substance of that meeting? >> Uh he explained to me there had been a meeting with the district attorney, Lee Hon. Um I believe there was another prosecutor, Tammy Pierce, in the meeting along with what was described to me as department heads from agencies throughout the county. I don't know who all was in attendance. Um but the offense report Sergeant Bogany had completed was taken and reviewed by Mr. Hon and it was determined that these charges would be filed. >> Okay. Uh was it your impression that the intent was to charge these individuals to stop their conduct in filming the police? No. Okay. Are you aware of what the conversations were between uh Chief Parish and the uh City of Corrigan Police Chief about First Amendment Auditors? No. And then you met with uh Detective Middleton because you understood he was assigned a uh to do uh to charge the plaintiffs on a separate incident. Yes. Okay. What was the substance of that discussion? Um, Detective Middleton uh advised me he was able to identify the person that had the gun. No, that was it. Yeah. Okay. And then at that point on February 8th, you went back to listen to the uh 911 calls. Yes. Okay. Were you able ever able to identify uh who made those calls? Uh, it was Megan Ross and an unidentified individual. Okay. Did you make any attempts to identify that individual? No. Okay. And dispatch would have had the number that that individual called from, correct? Uh, it was possible that they did, but I didn't I didn't get the phone number that they called from. Did you speak to dispatch about it? No. Okay. Did you go talk to Ms. Ross about it? I did not. Okay. So, other than in to be clear, uh the lieutenant did not make the scene, right? No, he was not on scene. Okay. And Detective Middleton did not make the scene. No. Okay. So, who did you actually speak to uh in your investigation that was actually present on the scene? Who did I speak to? Yes. Um, about the incident? Yes. On February 8th or later? Uh, had a brief discussion that day with Sergeant Bogany, Officer Pasky. Um, and then when I got back to the office, I spoke to Lieutenant Chief about what had happened. Okay. Was that on February 8th or back on February 4th? Okay. So, when you spoke to Bogany and Pasky, that was out on the scene? >> Uh it was either there or back at the office, I'm not sure. Or maybe both. >> Okay, and then you said when you got back to the office, you had spoken to the chief as well? >> Yes. >> Okay, was this the same conversation with the lieutenant? >> Yes, he was in the room as well. We were in the actually the chief's office. >> Okay. And uh so the two individuals you for sure had identified was was Melanie and Brandon White. >> Yes. >> Okay, uh what were the chief's comments? >> Uh he wanted to pull the 911 calls so we could see what the caller had said, and so we listened to the 911 call in his office. >> Okay. But when you went out to the scene, you didn't have the information from the 911 calls. >> No, I just only what dispatch had broadcast. >> Which was man with a gun walking into the apartment. >> Yes. >> [snorts] >> And uh when you arrived on the scene, did it appear that there was chaos? >> No. >> Was there panic? >> No. >> Did you uh was there any discussion at all uh to get a search warrant for this incident? >> No. Not that I was part of. >> Okay. Were you aware of what the was there any discussion that the DA would seek a high bond amount in this case? >> Not that I was aware of. >> What did you charge uh the plaintiffs with? >> Uh false report to inducing an emergency response. >> Okay. And uh did you independently go look up the elements of that offense before you charged it? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. And uh what do you understand those elements to be if you recall? >> Uh I don't know the actual uh at the moment. I don't have it memorized, but if we wanted to look it up and read it out loud, I can. >> Okay, so the first would be if a person uh and I'll just skip to the part that I think is probably relevant to your inquiry. >> Okay. >> If a person causes a report of a criminal offense or an emergency to be made to a peace officer law enforcement agency 911 service. >> Yes. >> Okay. And the person knows that the report is false. Right? And the report causes emergency response from a law enforcement agency or other emergency responder. And in making the report or causing the report to be made, the person is reckless with regard to whether the emergency response etc. etc. may direct result in bodily injury to another. Does that sound about right? >> Yes. >> Did you have any concerns with whether the factual circumstances as you understood them met the elements of this offense? >> Uh rephrase it again. I'm sorry. >> So, you were instructed to charge the plaintiffs with false report to induce emergency response, right? >> Yes. >> And your understanding was you would charge you charge it the prosecutor would prosecute it. >> Yes. >> All right. Did you independently have any concerns about whether the factual circumstances of that incident met the elements of false report to induce emergency response? >> No. >> Is it true that Texas is an open carry state where citizens can legally carry firearms in public? >> Yes. >> Okay. Was plaintiff Rankin's firearm holstered as far as you saw it? >> Uh in the house it was. >> Okay. Matter of fact, you didn't collect any witness statements from anybody that suggested otherwise. >> Correct. >> Nobody collected any statements suggesting otherwise. >> Correct. >> And so, is your position that legally carrying a firearm even with a suppressor constitutes knowingly initiating a false report? >> Objection, form. >> No. >> Okay. So, what conduct [snorts] did Rankin or other plaintiffs do that would have constituted the causing of filing a report. >> And walking around in the residential neighborhood with a gun on either on his hip or out of the holster, I'm not sure which it was. Um and walking around and caused a someone to contact the police. >> Do you know when Texas became a quote constitutional carry state? >> I do not. >> Okay, do you understand what I mean by that? >> Yes. >> All right, what do I mean by that? >> What What >> Constitutional carry. >> Yeah, so they can carry without a permit. >> And that honestly, a lot of people may not know this, but that's actually a recent development. I think 2021 time frame. >> Sounds sounds I can >> Or maybe a little earlier. >> Yeah, I don't know the exact time. >> So, have you had to deal with calls before where people are concerned about people walking around with firearms? >> Uh it's possible. I can't think of any off that right now, but it's very possible. >> Okay. And in those circumstances, you just have to educate that hey, that's there's nothing illegal with that. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, in this circumstance, and I just want to be sure I'm clear on this. Um initially, you said that Texas is open carry state. >> Correct. >> Where you can walk around with a firearm. And then you later said that the the conduct that Rankin was doing was walking around the housing authority with a firearm. >> Objection, Your Honor. >> Right? >> Yes. >> Objection, Your Honor. >> So, what is uh what activity was Rankin doing that you thought was illegal? >> So, I should have clarified earlier. He walked around with the firearm openly displayed or in his hand or in the holster, however it was, where others could see it. He's in a residential neighborhood. There's playgrounds built throughout the area. There's commonly children out there playing, other people walking around doing whatever they do outside. Um and in an attempt to get the police come over so that they could be filmed. >> Okay, let me talk about that attempt. Based on what? >> What's that Is that >> You So, so you said what Rankin did that was wrong was I'm summarizing. I'm not going >> Right. >> We got your exact words. Uh, but but essentially, and correct me if I'm wrong, essentially, what Rankin did was he walked around a housing authority where children could be, right? >> Yes. >> And that other people didn't like it or they were offended by it. >> Sure. >> Right? That was your word in the report. Offended. >> Yes. >> So, uh, is that part is that illegal? Walking around a housing authority with a firearm. >> No. >> And then your second part of your testimony, again, I'm summarizing, is that you said, uh, it was done in an attempt to cause people to call 911. Right? >> Yes. >> Where was that Where Where did you get that from? >> Because we received a 911 call from an individual that saw it. >> So, because So, and please clarify if I'm wrong. So, your testimony is that because Rankin walked around law with with a firearm openly, which is legal in Texas, and because someone called 911, that must have been what he wanted to have happen. >> It is possible. >> Based on what? >> Based on when they got there, they plaintiffs had their phones out ready to record the police when they showed up at that residence. >> Okay, so, but that But you weren't there during the initial response from law enforcement officers. >> No. >> Okay, so you don't know if they started recording after law enforcement knocked on their door. >> I don't know exactly at what point the video started or if it was altered or I don't I don't know. >> Okay. And you could have figured this out if you had spoke to the responding officer. >> I Yes. >> If someone calls 911 about a person's lawful activity, does that make the person engaged in the lawful activity guilty of making a false report? >> What's that? Say it again. >> If someone calls 911 about a person's lawful activity, >> Okay. >> does that make the person engaged in that lawful activity guilty of making a false report? >> No. >> Did you investigate whether Ms. Ross had a history of calling 911 on people? >> No. >> Isn't a false report about the lawful activity the responsibility of the person making the report and not the person engaged in the activity? >> Objection form. >> Say it again, I'm sorry. >> Isn't the crux of the charge of of uh I don't want to mess it up here. Isn't the crux of the charge is you under if not clarify. Uh that false report to induce emergency response is focused on the responsibility of the person actually making the report and not the person engaged in lawful activity? >> Well, it would be the person's intent that they wanted someone to call 911. Whoever is engaged in whatever activity they were engaging in. >> Did you watch the Did you watch the body worn camera camera's from this incident? >> I did. >> Okay. And you also saw the report from Ms. Ross as well. The or not Sorry, not report, but her statement. Okay, would you agree that her uh her concern was about her ex-boyfriend's uh wife? >> Uh I remember that that was mentioned, but I'm not entirely sure I don't recall what the statement said exactly, but I know that was mentioned in it. >> Okay, and she thought that possibly uh she didn't know if if Rankin was involved in that whole situation. >> I believe that's correct. >> Okay, but you never went and got any follow-up uh statements from her. >> No. >> Do you know if the lieutenant uh or chief had uh discussions with her? >> I do not. >> Okay. So, if I'm driving the speed limit and someone calls 911 to report me for speeding when I'm not, would I be guilty of making a false report? >> Objection, form. >> No. Could I be arrested for making a false report? >> Objection, form. >> No. Do you know in in I I know there's no expectation for you to, but I think I saw somewhere uh No, it was actually a call recording, but are are you are you personally aware of any case law interpreting uh this this statute that you charged the plaintiffs with? >> You said case law? >> Yes. >> No, I'm not. >> Okay. What evidence do you have that plaintiffs intended for anyone to call 911 when Rankin was legally carrying his firearm? >> Uh the 911 and then the the videos that were posted to YouTube and uh the body worn camera that we collected the footage from Sergeant Bogan's camera and Officer Pastie's camera. >> Okay. But, was there any any of those things uh suggested that the plaintiffs intended someone to call 911? >> Objection, form. >> Yeah, they were cuz they were waiting at the house with their cameras ready to film the officers when they arrived. >> So, you're saying that there's video of the plaintiffs filming before the officers arrived? >> No, as they were approaching the residence. >> You mean after they knocked on the door? >> I don't know what point they began recording. >> Okay. But, they weren't they weren't out there they weren't filming before the officers arrived. >> Objection, form. >> I don't know that. >> You don't know. Okay. Before filing your affidavit, did you consult with anybody in the department about whether engaging in lawful activity that someone else misinterprets uh satisfies the elements of the offense? >> Objection, form. >> Is it your understanding then that if anyone is legally carrying a firearm in a public place that they could be charged with the crime if somebody reports them? >> Objection, form. >> I'm sorry, say it again. >> Is it your understanding that if anyone is carrying legally carrying a firearm in public in Texas that they could be charged with the crime if someone reports them? >> No. >> Objection, form. >> If I misinterpreted what you were doing right now is a crime and I called 911 on you, could you be charged with the crime? >> Objection, form. >> No. >> [snorts] >> So when you were on the scene you actually understood uh Well, did did you understand that the reason they were filming was uh for accountability? >> Objection form. >> I was not aware why they were filming. >> Okay, they didn't you didn't make a statement to them about uh somebody has to watch the watchers. >> I made some type of statement about that, yes. >> Okay, why would you make that statement? >> That was just off the cuff moment I just that I replied with. Just a comment I replied with. >> Okay. But you understood it was because you knew why they were filming you all. >> I knew in the past Mr. White had just filmed just to film. He didn't He didn't inter- intervene or get in the way. >> Did you eventually understand what uh plaintiffs were doing in Ms. Trumble's apartment? >> No. >> Okay, so you didn't know that they were uh gathering and making signs to go protest in the city of Corgan. >> Objection. >> No, I did not know that. >> Okay. Did you have any uh meetings yourself with the district attorney about the charges in this case? >> No. >> So, separate from uh the lieutenant telling you uh to charge these individuals, uh did you establish probable cause yourself for each plaintiff? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh let's start with uh Rankin. >> Okay. >> All right. What What is your probable cause uh that Rankin uh committed the offense of false report to induce emergency response? >> Uh he walked around in the neighborhood with a uh firearm in plain view. Um someone was offended by it and called and he went back into the residence and told Melanie that the neighbor had saw him and that the police were probably on the way and then they had their phones ready to record the officers when they arrived. And I also saw the phone propped up in the window that was plugged into a power outlet that seemed to be recording. >> Okay, did Rankin film? Did Did he >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Okay. Did you get a Did you Were you involved in the seizure of Rankin's uh phone? >> No. >> Okay, so there was no search warrant to get any of those videos or anything? That you know of? >> That I'm aware of, no. >> Okay. And so, if uh if the neighbor had not seen him, uh would there have been a uh crime? >> If the neighbor had not seen him? Yes. It would still be a crime even if it it was unseen. >> Okay. And what would the crime have been then? >> It'd be the same crime, just nobody witnessed the act to report it to the police. >> Okay. And so, was the report itself uh that there was a man with the gun, was that false? >> No. >> Did the uh Do you think the plaintiffs did anything to escalate the situation? >> Other than being argumentative with Sergeant Bogany and Officer Spaski. >> Other than being argumentative? >> No. >> Okay. And it's not against the the law to be argumentative. >> No. >> Okay. Okay, what what's your probable cause for uh Melanie Trimble uh We're good. What probable cause did you have to charge Melanie Trimble with false reports and induce emergency response? >> Uh Rankin entered back into the house and he explained to her that the neighbor outside and saw him and she seemed alarmed that she was probably going to call the police and then she had a phone out ready to record when the officers arrived. >> Okay, is it and just to be clear they had their phones inside the residence? >> Yes. >> Okay, is it is it illegal to film police from inside the residence? >> No. >> Okay. Okay, so by the mere fact that Rankin came in to talk to Melanie and then she had her phone that's probable cause in your opinion to charge her with false reports and induce emergency response. >> Yes. >> Okay. How about for Brandon White? >> It's the same. He was in the house when Rankin walked in and told him the same thing that he told Melanie. And he had his phone out also ready to record when the phone officers arrived. >> [snorts] >> So, you prepared four affidavits in this case, correct? I'm sorry. >> Three. >> Three affidavits. One for White, one for Rankin, and one for Trimble. >> Yes. >> Okay. All three affidavits are uh uh the language contained in them is the same. >> I believe so. >> Okay. You didn't You didn't accuse any plaintiff of doing anything differently than the other in the affidavit. >> Objection, form. >> Okay. So, the exact same information that you wrote for Rankin, you also wrote for Trimble. >> Yes. >> And the same information for White. >> Objection, form. >> Okay. Did you do any um Were the affidavits reviewed by any supervisor? >> No. >> Did you use a standard template for the affidavits? >> Yes. >> Okay. What kind of template did you use? >> Uh it's just the the blank uh affidavit that we have from previous affidavits that we drew up. >> So, you wrote but you wrote the narrative piece by scratch. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, the the top part there comes from the text of the charging manual. >> Okay. >> And you just change the information to reflect the offense that you're charging. >> Okay. So, the portion where you say I have good reason to believe and do believe based upon the following information, you wrote all that in yourself. >> Yes, that the larger paragraph at the bottom, yes. >> Okay. Why was an identical language used for all three plaintiffs? >> Uh usually in cases where there's multiple defendants, it's easier to just have a summary of the incidents instead of going through and putting different actions for each defendant. Unless there's something that needs to be addressed that the others weren't aware of. >> And you watched uh Sergeant uh Boganese's uh body worn camera when he was interviewing uh Ms. Ross. >> Uh yes. >> Okay. And there was no inquiry uh with Ms. Ross about the exact conduct of Mr. Rankin. >> No. Not that I'm aware of. >> Okay. And so, do you think that would matter? >> W- What would matter? >> The figuring out exactly what Rankin was doing. >> Of course. >> Okay. So, for example, um So, you put in these affidavits that uh Where does it add? So, a filing would show a 911 caller stated the male was walking with a gun in his hand and the entire neighborhood was going crazy. >> Yes. >> Right? Uh but you didn't state in there that no one identified this male. Right? >> Right. >> And uh no one attempted to contact this individual. >> Correct. >> As a matter of fact, nobody uh Well, but you would Let me back up. Do you know if the dispatcher would have had this individual's phone number when they called into 911? >> It's possible. >> Okay, and the dispatcher would often have that information. >> Occasionally they do, sometimes they don't. >> When you heard one of the 911 calls was Ms. Ross calling in and then hanging up, right? >> Yes. >> And the dispatcher actually reported, "Hey, Ms. Ross just called back and hung up." So, she knew it was Ms. Ross. >> I I don't recall that. >> Okay. You didn't So, you didn't hear all the calls related >> Objection, form. >> What's that? >> So, you didn't hear all the 911 calls related to that. >> Objection, form. >> I heard the ones that I was supplied with. >> Okay. So, um When you got to the scene, was the entire neighborhood going crazy? >> No. >> Okay. But, and you didn't include that in your affidavit. >> No. >> Okay. Do you think that information would have been important for a judge to evaluate whether probable cause existed? >> It's possible. >> And then it said a fine it would also show it a second 911 call was also received by this department, but then you don't include any information about that call. Do you? >> No. >> And then it says a fine it would show due to the nature of the call, five additional officers left their normal duties in order to respond. Right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Who told those officers to respond to the call? >> I think they took it upon themselves to show up. >> Okay. Nobody dispatched them to go out? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Okay. and Sergeant Bogney didn't he was the individual dispatched to the scene. >> Yes. >> He didn't call for any backup. >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Okay, did you collect statements from these five officers to talk about them leaving their normal duties to go respond to the call? >> I did not. >> Did you collect any statements from them generally? >> No. >> So, how do you know that the officers left their normal duties in order to respond? >> Because they assisted the patrol division with the call and all those other officers are school-based officers that would have had other duties at the school. >> But, are you assuming or do you know? >> Do I know that they work for the school? >> No, do you do you know that they had other duties going on at that time? Or are you assuming that? >> I don't know what the duties were, but I know that they're assigned to the school and they were doing duties for the school. >> So, you knew they were assigned to the school, right? >> Yes. >> And you knew that they had responsibilities, I guess, with that assignment. >> Yes. >> But, at the time they responded to the call, what were they doing? >> I'm not aware of that. They were not assigned to patrol. >> Okay, and they weren't dispatched to go, either. >> No. >> Would that information have been at helpful for the judge to evaluate probable cause? >> It's possible. >> Do you know if there were any prior discussions with the with the judge prior to these affidavits being submitted to him? >> No. >> When you took this these affidavits to the judge, uh did you say anything to him? >> Did I say anything to the judge? >> Yeah. >> Other than I had some warrants for him to review. >> Okay, then he read he read your statement. >> I gave him a brief synopsis of what happened and then he read the probable cause affidavits. >> Did you tell him you were out at the scene as well? >> Um I I so, but I'm not certain. >> Okay, did the judge ask you any questions? >> No, he did not. >> Okay, how long did it take for the judge to review this and sign all four? >> Uh, a few minutes. >> And uh, did the judge is the judge the one that wrote in the recommended bond amount? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, what was the discussion concerning bonds? >> There was not one. >> There was not >> a discussion about the bond? >> Like it was the prosecutor present? >> No, it was just the judge and I. >> Okay. And the judge just wrote in the bond amount. >> Yes. >> Okay. When the judge signed the affidavits, uh, did you relay that information to the or when the judge signed the warrants, did you relay that information to the chief? >> Uh, yeah, I went back to the police department with the warrants uh, and advised Lieutenant Drake that the warrant had been issued. >> Okay, then that information was shared with the department. >> Yes. >> Okay, do you know how the city of Corrigan found out about the warrants? >> No, I did not. >> Were you surprised by the amount of the war- uh, the bonds? >> Uh, no, I I honestly don't remember what they were. >> $105,000. >> Okay. >> Does that seem >> Objectionable. >> I don't I don't remember. >> And then you put in there as well that uh, find would [snorts] show there was cell phone that served cropped up in the window that faced the front door while Sergeant Bogney and Pasky were standing. Uh, but you don't even know if that cell phone was recording. >> No. >> And you didn't make any effort to go collect it. >> No. >> So, why do you think it was important to include that information in here? >> Because it was part of the reason we believed a crime had occurred. >> Did you relay anything to the judge about about the fact of how you knew Brandon White? >> It's possible, but I don't recall any specific conversation I had regarding that. >> Wait, what do you So, you didn't include anything about Brandon White here, but you think it would have come up as a judge saying this is what >> It's possible that that just know this guy from what he's been doing in Livingston, but I don't don't know if we had that conversation or not. >> Did that Did that fact matter to you that Brandon White films police? >> No. >> Okay, but it might have been important enough to to say to the judge you just can't remember. >> Objection, form. >> Just so let him know that they were local individuals cuz sometimes the judge would the judges will ask if it's a local person or if it's a person that came to Livingston from somewhere else. >> Okay, and then you put in here, too, that the individuals refused to comply with the demand identify themselves. >> Correct. >> Was there a requirement for them to identify themselves? >> Not at the time, no. >> Okay, and you didn't but you didn't make that clear in this affidavit, either, did you? >> No. >> Objection, form. You also put in here, too, that Rankin was the suspect in his possession of a handgun and refused to show any paperwork in regards to the silencer. Right? >> Yep. Mhm. >> Was he Was he required to provide that paperwork? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> And you didn't put any information in your affidavit about that. >> Objection, form. >> Right? >> No. >> As a matter of fact, you didn't you could have you didn't do any research at all about that issue. >> No, I did not. >> Or not research, but investigation. >> As far as the firearm, no. >> Do you know what the Do you Do you know whether or not you're allowed to rely on a 911 call if you're unable to identify the individual who made the call? >> I'm not sure I understand. >> Well, like if just some random person calls 911 and says, "Hey, this guy at the bus stop has drugs on him." Is that deemed reliable for purposes of probable cause? >> Objection, your honor. >> It is? >> Mhm. >> Even if the individual doesn't identify themselves? >> The caller? >> If the caller just says some random guy has drugs, are you allowed to Not reasonable suspicion. I'm talking about probable cause. Are you allowed to use that information to then arrest and charge that >> Oh, no, no, no, no, no. >> Okay. And so, you don't make clear in your affidavit that one of these 911 callers is unidentified, right? >> Correct. >> Why not? >> It was a oversight. >> Oversight or did you Or did you want to frame the affidavits as plaintiffs were were criminals >> Objection, your honor. >> law enforcement resources? >> No. >> Sitting here today, do you personally think uh Do still today everything that you've seen or whatever I Matter of fact, let me back up. What did you do to prepare for today's deposition? >> Uh reviewed the offense report, um that's already bargaining in ultra basic prepared. And then the supplements that went along with it. >> Okay, and that was it? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um >> [snorts] >> Did you have any discussions with the chief at all about your deposition? >> No. >> Did you have any discussions with anybody about plaintiff's depositions yesterday? >> No. >> All right. So, uh sitting here today, is it still uh your impression uh that plaintiffs uh engaged in criminal activity of false reports into the emergency response? >> Yes. >> Okay. Are you aware that those charges were dismissed? >> I was not. >> You aware that the judge had originally uh quashed the indictments uh for failing to state a for failing to assert any actual crime? >> Objection, form. >> No. >> Did you give any testimony before any grand jury regarding this case? >> No. >> Did you have any communications with prosecutors about the grand jury process? >> I did not. >> Do you know if there were grand jury proceedings against plaintiffs? >> No. >> Uh did prosecutors talk to you at all about a potential re-indictment process? >> No. >> Are you aware that the prosecutors, rather than re-indict, then turn around and dismissed the case? >> Objection, form. >> So, you don't know why the charges were ultimately dismissed? >> No, I didn't know they were dismissed. >> What is the Living Sentinels Police Department's procedures for reviewing and approving arrest warrant affidavits? >> Uh typically with the detectives will issue the arrest warrants and they will go to the judge. They aren't typically reviewed. >> So, there's no review process by like uh supervisor or district attorney's office, just straight to the judge? >> Yes, straight to the judge. >> Is that what happened in this case? >> Yes. >> How many discussions did you have with the police chief uh from the time you were told to charge the case and before going to the judge? About what? >> None. None with the chief. >> How many with the lieutenant? >> Maybe two or three. >> And was that discussion concerning uh the circumstances of what had occurred? >> Yeah, it was the discussion about the meeting they had had and then once I obtained the warrants and told him that they were issued. >> Was the purpose to go after plaintiffs because uh uh because they were filming? >> No. >> Okay, so the goal so you don't know if the goal was to uh stop plaintiffs from engaging in similar activity in the future? >> No. >> All right. Were you you were generally aware, I guess, that White had some prior interactions with Livingston's officers in filming them, right? >> Yes. >> And you were also aware that he was uh filming police officers in the city of Corrigan? >> I I didn't know about the Corrigan incident. I knew that he had filmed officers in Livingston. >> Okay, but okay. Were you familiar with Chief Parrish's uh press release about this incident? >> Yes. >> Did he talk to you before he uh before he uh wrote it? >> No. >> Did you have any involvement in the drafting of the press release? >> No. >> So, the press release states, quote, "Officers determined there was no threat to anyone and these individuals had created the panic in the residential district to have police respond so they could be recorded for their social media channels." Uh did you observe any panic in the residential district? >> I did not. >> Okay, you just understood uh that at least one person, Ms. Ross, uh thought that an individual with the firearm was related to her uh ex-boyfriend's wife. >> Objection, form. >> Right? >> Uh yeah, I just knew that she was offended somehow. I'm not exactly sure why. She was offended that he was walking around with a gun in the housing authority. >> Okay. So, had uh and I had uh had the plaintiffs not filmed the police responding to their property, to to their Ms. Trimble's apartment, uh is it your understanding that uh they would have still engaged in the false report to induce an emergency response? >> Objection, possible. >> But is that to you a pretty big factor? >> Objection, form. That is what part pretty big factor? >> That they were filming. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you knew prior to February 4, 2022, uh of Mr. White's propensity to film police. >> Yes. >> And you knew uh that Ms. Trimble uh would also film police. >> I did not know she did. >> Okay. >> Not till that day. >> Did you know what her relate that she had a relationship with White? >> I don't believe so. >> Okay. But you recognized Mr. White on February 4, 2022. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you didn't include that in your uh arrest warrant affidavit either. >> No. >> But and you may or may not have told the judge about that. >> Uh it's possible. I don't I don't remember. >> [snorts] >> What knowledge What knowledge of the evening incident Let me back up. Evening incident, I'm talking about the traffic stop with Officer Simmons later that day on February 4th. Okay? >> Okay. >> What knowledge of that incident of the evening incident do you have involving Officer Simmons and the plaintiffs? >> Uh I just knew that they had followed Officer Simmons around Livingston. Um and that eventually they followed him back to the office and where they went over to the bank and and sat and were watching our our back door to our office. >> Okay, is this just based on discussions you had internally or is this based on something else? >> No, just what I had heard when I came back to to work. >> Okay, is this something that Lieutenant Drake would have told you? >> It's I don't remember who told me. >> Okay, did you review any of the body cam footage from those stops? >> No. >> Did you discuss the case with Officer Simmons or Officer Reyes? >> No. >> Uh did you make any assessment at all about whether probable cause existed for their arrest from the evening incident? >> No. >> Were you involved at all in the seizure of any of the plaintiffs property? >> No. >> What's the uh department policy on returning seized property? >> Uh if there's no evidentiary value to an item, we can return it to the owner. Or if it's not illegal to possess. >> Were you involved in the decision to keep the plaintiffs phones for uh nearly 2 years? >> No. >> So, I guess if you didn't know the case is the charges were dismissed. You didn't have any discussions with any of the officers about the dismissals? >> No. >> Were there any changes in the department policy as a result of this case? >> No. >> If you could go back in time, would you handle this case differently? >> No. >> Other than carrying a firearm in the housing authority, is it your understanding that Rankin did something different did something else? >> Objection, form. >> What do you mean? Well, if I understand your position correctly, it was Rankin's intent to provoke a 911 call by walking around with with a firearm. >> Objection, form. >> Is that your >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Objection, form. >> So, if uh if he's allowed to carry a firearm, was there some other act or conduct that Rankin did uh other than carrying the firearm? >> Objection, form. >> I'm not aware of any. >> Okay. Just need a quick second. You don't want to go off the record, just >> [snorts] >> Stop it. >> Sorry. >> Have you ever uh Have you ever uh arrested anybody for false report and do some emergency response? >> Uh I don't recall, but it is possible I have. >> Okay, but uh Is that information easy for you to to locate if you've ever arrested anyone for that offense? >> Uh we should be able to. This might take a while. >> No, and and I'll make it really easy for you. This act passed in uh uh September 1, 2021. So, have you arrested anybody since September 1, 2021? >> Objection, form. >> Uh I don't recall. >> Okay. But you've only been with the Livingston Police Department since that time. >> Since when? >> Uh you're since at least September 1, 2021, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, you knew uh your your statement said that you understood that the suspect was in a black vehicle. Uh did you understand that to be Rankin was in a black vehicle? >> Yes, that he had went out went to that vehicle from the house in the back. >> Okay, so he actually went so so there was a purpose for him being outside. >> Objection, form. >> Possible. >> He went to the vehicle, right? >> Objection, form. >> Based on your own testimony. >> Correct. >> Do you know why he went to the vehicle? >> Nope. >> Did you ever get a search warrant to search the vehicle? >> Nope. >> Uh do you have any evidence or information uh to say suggest that Rankin was doing uh wasn't Do you have any information or evidence or statements or anything to suggest that Rankin wasn't just simply walking uh from his vehicle? >> Objection, form. >> Do I have any evidence that he was doing anything other than walking to his vehicle? >> Right. >> No. >> So, from his vehicle to Ms. Trumble's apartment. >> No. >> Okay. Do you know if the plaintiffs' phones were uh ever searched? >> No, I don't know. >> Okay. Were you ever able to find any communications between plaintiffs indicating they planned to induce a 911 call? >> No. >> Did plaintiffs on the scene uh whether you heard personally through statements or on body worn camera ever make any statements suggesting they intended to cause Ms. Ross or anyone to call 911? >> No. >> So, uh you also mentioned the uh cell phones propped up in the window. Isn't it true that many people use security cameras in their homes? >> Yes, they do. >> Okay. And this device could have been installed long before this incident. >> Uh it's possible. >> Cuz you saw a power cable to it. >> Yes. >> Okay. And sitting here today, did you ever learn that those cameras actually were installed previously? >> Objection, your honor. >> No. >> Okay. >> So, did you investigate whether the device in the window was installed specifically for this incident or was preexisting? >> No. >> [clears throat] [snorts] >> Thank you for your time at pass. >> Yeah. >> Uh I've got a couple of follow-up questions. Um opposing counsel was asking you about the recommended bond amount that was set uh regarding the false report to induce emergency response. I'm going to show you defendant's 000022. Um that's the arrest warrant pertaining to uh Brandon Michael White. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And the recommended bond amount isn't $105,000, is it? >> No. >> Um what is the recommended bond amount? >> $5,000. >> And who came up with that recommended bond amount? >> Judge Wells. >> Okay. Did you suggest in any way what the bond amount would be? >> No. >> Okay. Do you know how Judge Wells determined that bond amount? >> not. >> Okay. Uh now I'm going to show you defendant's 000020. And that's the arrest warrant of Melanie Renee McCrory. Is that right? >> Correct. >> And it's on the false report to induce emergency response. >> Yes. >> And what's that recommended bond amount? >> $5,000. >> Okay, so it's not the $105,000. >> Correct. >> And again, did you suggest any amount to Judge Wells? >> I did not. >> Okay. And then I'll show you defendant 00018. Uh the That's an arrest warrant for Matthew Ranken, is that right? >> Correct. >> On the charge of false report to induce emergency response. >> Yes. >> Um and what is that recommended bond amount? >> $5,000. >> Who came up with that recommended bond amount? >> Judge Wells. >> Did you suggest to him what it should be? >> No, I did not. >> Okay. Um I want There's another big issue that I want to clarify because opposing counsel was asking you several almost hypotheticals. Um and although I believe them to be inappropriate, I do want you to tell me uh a little bit about probable cause. So, how do you How do you determine probable cause? What do you look at? >> Uh when an officer believes an offense has occurred or is about to occur. >> All right. Are you looking for one specific facts? Do you look at the totality of the circumstances? What specifically are you looking at? >> totality of the circumstance. >> Okay. So, I think that Mr. Graybill used the example of an unknown 911 caller and asked if that in and of itself would be probable cause. Um and I think your answer was no. Was that right? >> Right. >> Okay. Um could that fact in the total or that could that call in the totality of the circumstances give rise to probable cause? >> Yes. >> All right. >> [snorts] >> So, here any one fact in isolation of the plaintiffs may not give rise to probable cause. >> Correct. >> However, when you looked at the totality of the circumstances, there was probable cause for the charge. >> Yes. >> I have no further questions with this witness and I'll reserve the balance until the time of trial. >> So totality of circumstances that also means you're not allowed to disregard other facts, right? >> Correct. >> Okay, so for example, would it be relevant in your opinion to probable cause whether the identity of the second 911 caller was known? >> No. >> It wouldn't matter. >> No. >> Okay. What if the second 911 caller was Miss Ross's guest in her apartment? Does that make a difference? >> No. >> Okay. And so collecting that individual's statements uh or name and whether or not they have a history of just making false 911 calls that wouldn't matter? >> But it's possible, yes. If you had that information, yes. >> Okay, and how do you know that the 911 call was even related whatsoever to this particular incident? >> Which 911 call? >> Well, the second 911 call about the residents going crazy, right? That individual didn't identify the location, did they? >> I'm not entirely sure. I haven't listened to it recently, so I'm not sure exactly what he said. >> But the call was only a couple of seconds long, right? >> Sure. >> Objection, form. >> And so they didn't identify who they were. >> Objection, form. >> Do you want to listen to the call right now? Would that help? >> Sure. >> I'm going to play defense defendants exhibit 257. >> Just Bates number 257. >> 257. 45 seconds long. Cut. >> Livingston Police Department. >> Yes, ma'am. We need a like a welfare check here. We I'm walking to my truck and I see a dude with a silencer walking through a girlfriend's house. >> out that way now. Is he Does he have it on like he he has the gun out? >> He had it in his hand. Like he he had a gun in his hand. >> Okay. >> And every everybody here is going crazy. This this is the place to call when you have >> to get somebody Yes, sir. I'm trying to get somebody out there now. Let me let you go so I can do that, okay? What Do you see him right now? >> No, ma'am. >> You don't see him now? >> No, ma'am. He he he's actively inside the apartment. >> Okay, I'll let I'll let them know. >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you. >> Okay, all right. Bye-bye. >> That sounds quite like the guy that was missed with Miss Ross, right? >> It does. >> Okay. And in that 45-second recording, uh he hasn't identified the location? >> No. >> He hasn't identified uh anything to suggest this is even remotely related, right? >> Uh he says there's a man with a silencer on his gun. I don't think there'd be too many people walking around with silencers on their gun at the same time in a small town. >> Well, but we don't operate on assumptions, either, right? >> Objection, form. >> So, how do you know that this How did you know that this call, this 45-second call, right, was related to that incident? >> Well, the >> a similar statements made as Ms. Ross's call. >> Okay, that was it, but you didn't you didn't do any independent investigation to confirm that. >> No, I did not have any information based about the caller. I didn't even have the number he called from. >> Okay. Does it change at all the fact that the call likely came from Ms. Ross's guest? >> Does it change the >> The fact that you know, you mentioned there's all these 911 calls. Does it change the fact that they came from the same residence? >> No. >> Okay. As a matter of fact, it wouldn't matter if it was one call or two calls. >> Right. >> Right. I guess based on what you're arguing they did. >> Objection, form. >> Right. >> Okay. As a matter of fact, you said no calls matter. Like it didn't matter at all if there was a call. They were still there was still probable cause for for the offense. >> Objection, form. >> I said it's possible they could be committing an offense just because they weren't seen. >> Right. And And so the 911 call, in your opinion, actually didn't matter at all whether it was made. >> Objection, form. >> It does matter. >> Okay. I want to clarify that point, right? So, earlier you said the 911 call, it it like they could still I and I I don't want to misquote myself here. Earlier your testimony was that probable cause exists for a false report to induce emergency response regardless whether a 911 call was made. >> Yes. >> Objection, form. >> Okay. Is that true? >> Yes. >> Objection, form. >> So, the fact that a 911 call was made doesn't matter for your probable cause analysis. >> Objection, form. >> It does. >> Okay. So, if there was no 911 call, do you think [snorts and clears throat] you would have had probable cause to charge the plaintiffs with false report to induce emergency response. >> No, because I wouldn't have been made aware of the incident. >> Okay. So, the 911 call was important. Just Miss Ross's or both? >> Both. >> Okay. It didn't matter who was making the 911 call then. >> No. >> Okay. And it didn't And And And so, one of the essential requirements is that the report was false. Are you aware of that? >> Yes. >> Okay. Was Miss Ross's report false? >> No. >> So, what totality of circumstances in your analysis did you make to determine that the person knows the report is false? >> That Mr. Rankin walked outside with a gun in order to alert alarm someone to call 911 and report it to the police so that they would come to the residence. >> But that's not But But you understand, right? Do you Well, let me back up. Maybe you don't. Do you understand that Let's just Let me Let me just do this cuz you you wrote the affidavit. So, I need to understand your analysis on this. So, a person commits an offense of false report to induce emergency response if they make a report of a criminal offense or right? Causes a report of a criminal offense or emergency to be made, right? >> Correct. >> So, we understand that by Rankin walking outside with this firearm that he caused apparently the report of a criminal offense or emergency, right? >> Yes. >> So, that's step one. The second thing, which is an and, there's an and requirement, the person knows the report is false. >> Yes. >> Right? So, what is your analysis that Ms. Ross's report of Mr. Rankin walking around with a firearm is false? >> Objection form. >> I interpret that as speaking about Mr. Rankin knew it was a false that there was no emergency. Well, that the report of a criminal offense is false? >> Yes. >> Objection form. >> Okay. So, so you're you're so your analysis then is on the basis that Rankin knew someone was going to call 911. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then also, I in making the report or causing the report to be made, the person is reckless with regard to whether the emergency response may directly result in bodily injury to another person. Are you aware of that element? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, what was your probable cause analysis there? >> There was no bodily injury. >> Okay. Was there anything in making the report that would have caused bodily injury to another person? >> No. >> Okay. So, you'd agree with me then that there was no probable cause analysis to support the idea that making the report or causing the report to be made uh that there could be >> bodily injury to another person. >> I agree that there was no bodily injury. >> Was That's just not the standard. Okay? I I want to be clear. It's not whether or not there was bodily injury. >> Okay. >> Right? It's whether or not the person that in making the report the person is reckless Let me back up. Do you know what reckless is? >> Yes. >> Okay. That the person is reckless with regard to whether the emergency response could cause bodily injury to another person. >> Objection, form. >> You understand that? >> Yes. >> Objection, form. >> So, is it your understanding that you have probable cause that Rankin's actions or any of the plaintiff's actions uh was reckless in regard to whether law enforcement response could have directly resulted in bodily injury to another? >> Objection, form. >> It is possible. >> Based on what was your totality of circumstances? >> Well, if it's a neighborhood and somebody walks out in front of somebody that's either moving out of the way for a patrol car or a patrol car going through, that results in bodily injury. >> So, I'm not I'm not talking about all the assumptions and speculation. I want to know the totality of circumstances, which requires specifically information available to you >> Okay. >> to make that assessment. So, what information was available to you that Rankin's conduct was reckless to the point to where law enforcement response would have resulted in bodily injury to another? >> Objection, form. >> Well, if he would have fired the gun at somebody, it would have been >> Did he fire the gun? >> He did not. >> Okay. Did he ever take it out of the holster from what you saw? >> From what I saw, no. >> Okay. Did Did you collect any written statements from identified individuals that he took the firearm out of the holster? >> No. >> Okay. And uh matter of fact, there was no response from EMS or paramedics or anybody. >> Objection, form. >> No. Okay. Would you agree that this statute was probably written more for swatting? >> Objection, form. >> I'm not familiar with that term. >> You don't know what swatting is? >> No. >> Where someone makes a fake call on 911 and says, "Hey, this person over there is uh being held hostage." And then SWAT comes in and uh you know, could accidentally hurt somebody. >> No, it's it's possible. >> Okay, so you're not familiar with swatting? >> No. >> Okay. But everything that was said, at least with respect to Miss Ross's 911 call, just to be clear, was was not not a lie. It was true. >> Correct. >> And police res- In matter of fact, you would encourage people, if they're concerned about someone's activity, regardless if it's lawful or not, uh but if they're concerned enough to report it. >> Yes. >> And then law enforcement goes out and they investigate. >> Yes. >> Right? And uh you all went out to investigate uh what occurred on February 4, 2022. >> Yes. >> And then you uh took the next 3 days off. >> Objection, form. >> Right? >> I didn't take them off. I was scheduled to be off, yes. >> And I don't mean that in a bad way. People need time off. I get it. >> Right, no, I understand, but it makes it sound like I requested time off, which I did not. >> No, but you went home. >> Yes. >> And then 3 days later, Tuesday, you show back up, and you're instructed that this that's incident is now elevated to where uh you're going to go get a arrest warrant. >> Objection, form. >> Yes. >> And you understood that Middleton was instructed to go get a felony arrest warrant. >> Yes. >> And so, even before you showed up on February 8th, you understood that the decisions were already made on what was going to happen. >> Yes. >> All right. I pass the witness. >> I have no further questions. >> Time is uh 12:41 p.m.