It is at 2:05 p.m. April 16, 2025. We are here for Middleton's deposition. >> Will you raise your right hand, please? You slely swear or affirm the text between the truth, the whole truth, and nothing. >> I do. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Middleton. Uh, have you been deposed before? >> I have. >> Okay. What situation? >> I think it was a traffic accident. >> So, it was a like a civil case. >> It was. Yes, sir. >> Okay. Were you uh what was your involvement in that case? >> I was just a backup officer. I wasn't the main investigator on it. >> Okay. Uh how about have you been deposed any other time? >> No, sir. >> Okay. Uh so uh give you a quick rundown on the rules. Uh everything we're saying is being transcribed by the court reporter. >> So it's important that we uh don't talk over each other because she can only transcribe one person at a time. Uh, and I say that because sometimes we want to get in the flow of a conversation and we can't. Uh, the other thing is, uh, to answer the questions affirmatively rather than just shake your head or say, "Uh-huh. Uh-uh." Because, uh, things like that are difficult for the court reporter to transcribe, and it could make the record confusing. Sure. You understand that? >> Yes. >> All right. Great. And I also ask uh bad questions. So, if you don't understand the question at all, just let me know and I'll rephrase. I would agree with that too. >> Objection to that. So the u the other thing is if you need to take a break, I'll work with you. We have plenty of time. I just ask that if there's a question outstanding on the table that you answer the question first. >> Sure. >> Okay. Um you are uh no longer with the Livingston Police Department, are you? >> That's correct. >> Where are you at now? >> I'm at the Pulk County District Attorney's Office. >> Okay. Uh are you there as a investigator? uh chief investigator. >> Okay. So, you're still is your TECL license still active? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. Uh when did you uh move over to the DA's office? >> I started January the 17th of 2023. >> Okay. Uh did you have any other involvement on on the case involving the plaintiffs uh when you were at the district attorney's office? >> No, sir. >> Okay. So, no. Once you moved over there, your involvement stopped. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Was that a um was that a voluntary transition for you to go to the district attorney's office? >> Yes, sir. I was getting ready to to retire from the police department anyway and a new DA was elected and she had came to me about going to work for her and that's how I ended up going to work at the DA's office. >> Okay. Are you familiar with issues with the past DA? >> Um, no sir. >> Okay. How long had you been a licensed peace officer? since 1994. >> Okay. And so, uh, you have I I imagine, uh, you've written, uh, plenty of arrest warrant affidavit. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Uh, when you were with the Livingston Police Department in 2022, what was your primary role? >> Uh, just detective. >> Okay. And in your role as a detective, uh, what were your what were your duties? uh anywhere from assisting patrol if you know we needed to fill in to help patrol and or my main job was to investigate cases that I got assigned to uh from our lieutenant. >> Okay. Would you determine whether or not Okay. So you were assigned cases from your lieutenant. >> Yes. >> Okay. You would not if a patrol officer prepared a report uh on an incident, would that go to you? >> No, sir. It would those go to the lieutenant first and he distributes the cases out uh on Monday mornings to everybody. >> Okay. And the reason I ask is because there was testimony uh from Sergeant Bogy who said his reports would go to a detective and then Detective Barker testified that he would get those reports and and investigate them as he saw fit. >> Well, form >> that's correct. they in the mornings when the girls get to the office, they make copies of all the offense reports that the patrol officers did over the weekend and those would go to the lieutenant. Then the lieutenant would go through there and he would email each detective a list of your cases that you got assigned for that week from the weekend. >> Okay. And would these emails be based on would it be like a list of case numbers? >> Case numbers. Yes, sir. >> Okay. Is that how you received uh the case concerning the plaintiffs? >> Yes, sir. It was just buried in a list of case numbers. >> Yes, sir. >> Was there any other meeting or anything you had? >> No, sir. >> Okay. >> You didn't have a meeting with the lieutenant or chief parish about it? >> Not till later on that later that morning. We did. >> Okay. So, you would have gotten assigned the case uh fee the incident occurred February 4th, which was a Friday. Uh the case you would have been assigned that following Monday or Tuesday >> would have been that Monday. Yes, sir. >> Okay. Now, when you are assigned cases, are you given discretion on what to charge? >> No, sir. >> Now, you're told what to charge. Well, it's when you say discretion, is it you you're talking about my discretion or is it somebody else's discretion whether or not what to charge that person with? >> Your discretion. >> Yeah, of course it is. It's based off the the facts of what that report was related to at the time. >> Okay. And then your job is also to investigate uh the information or the case, right? >> If it needs to be further investigated. Correct. >> Okay. >> Not all cases needed to be in further investigated. Some of them were already cleared by arrest. >> Okay. Um the case cases concerning plaintiffs uh however was not cleared by arrest. >> Uh correct. >> And so when you received the case, did you have discretion as to what would be charged or were you already told what would be charged and what the prosecutor would move forward with? >> I was not told until later that morning after uh the chief and them had got back from the district attorney's office on what charge to charge them with. Okay. And that was before you conducted any investigation? >> I I looked at their offense report that Mr. Simmons, Officer Simmons had prepared and I had watched the body cam videos while they were at at the district attorney's office meeting with Mr. Holland. >> Okay. So, you were not involved in that meeting at the district attorney? >> No, sir. >> Do you know uh who else was present at that meeting? >> I do not. >> Okay. Do you know if the chief of police for Corgan was there? >> I do not. Prior to um you being assigned this case, uh were you familiar with any of the plaintiffs? >> No, sir. >> So, you were you never heard of Brandon White before? >> I've heard of his name. I didn't I didn't personally know who they were. >> Okay. So, how did you hear Brandon White? >> Just from other law enforcement personnel talking about who he was. >> Okay. Specifically, Chief Parish? >> Not Not specifically. It was just other agencies that were also having issues with him as well. >> Okay. So, you were involved in discussions with other agencies about Brandon White. >> I wasn't involved in discussions. I heard people talking about what was going on in in other parts of the county >> from other officers at these other agencies. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. How about internal discussions with other living simply officers? >> No, sir. Had you ever seen a prior to February 2022, had you seen a Brandon White video on YouTube or social media? >> No, sir. >> No. >> Do you recall uh Chief Parish uh making any statements uh to you or other officers concerning uh people who film police officers? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. What would he say about that? Um, I believe that Brandon White had come through the back parking lot of the police department where we park all of our personal vehicles and patrol vehicles uh and had been filming patrol cars and and whatnot. And I believe that um they actually had signs made and erected that that was not for public access because of the uh the stuff that Brandon was doing. >> Okay. And that was at the Livingston Police Department. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, prior to those signs going up, um Brandon White would be back there filling. >> Yes, sir. >> And then in response, uh the there was a decision made to turn that parking lot into a private like a restricted area. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Who made that decision? >> Um that I don't know. >> Was it the police chief? >> I I don't know. >> Okay. Do you know if it So, just one day it's there. The signs are there? Yes. >> Okay. Uh, and the chief made statements that this was in response to Brandon White or people filming. >> I don't remember his exact response. What? I know it had to do with Brandon White. >> Okay. And this was before February 2022. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, did he make any other statements at all? >> No, sir. >> Okay. Uh, how about were there any statements made by the chief or lieutenant or any of your supervisors concerning uh auditors? Do you understand that term? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, were there any statements made by uh your leadership concerning auditors prior to February 2022? >> Not not to my knowledge. No, sir. >> Okay. What do you understand an auditor to be? >> I'm I'm assuming that would probably be somebody What? what the what they were doing was out filming uh police officers and stuff using their cellular devices. >> Okay. Do you do you see that as criminal activity? >> Um it it could it could lead to criminal activity? >> Okay. But the act of filming uh police uh in the in the manner of an auditor, >> correct? >> Uh is the act of filming alone, do you view that as criminal? No sir. >> Okay. Uh have you received when you were with Livingston Police Department, did you receive any training or guidance or instruction uh concerning auditors and filming police activity? >> No, sir. >> Okay. So, what was your understanding of how you were to respond in the event uh someone was filming a living police officer? >> I never was advised of any information like that on how to respond. Okay. So, other than the chief making comments to you that uh signs were erected in the parking lot uh because of Brandon White, were there any other uh statements that you can recall concerning filming police? >> No, sir. >> Okay. Do you know if those signs are still up today? >> I have no idea. >> All right. Were you aware of whether uh the Livingston Police Department considered uh auditing a concern at the time in February of 2022? >> No, sir. >> Okay. And what's your understanding of a a sovereign citizen? >> Somebody that thinks maybe the Texas rules and laws don't apply to them. >> Okay. Do you consider uh people who copatch uh similar to sovereign citizens? No. >> Okay. Yeah. To pause a little bit on that. Um I've seen I've seen some sovereign citizens that that we've dealt with in in the courthouse that are a little bit more I think it it could vary from individual to individual. >> Okay. >> On how they interpret things. Were you aware of any of the plaintiff's social media activities or YouTube channels uh prior to you being assigned the case in February 2022? >> No, sir. You mentioned you may have seen a video or two of Brandon White uh prior to February 2022. Uh do do you recall what video or how you would have seen that? >> Prior to >> Yeah, prior to I think you said other officers mentioned in passing. Did you ever see one of his videos? >> It would have it would have been on somebody else's phone. It wouldn't have it wouldn't have been on none of my personal devices or computers or anything cuz I'm not on social media like that. >> Okay. So, you would have probably just seen something in passing. >> Sure. >> Okay. So what uh so the incident you were assigned you said the first thing you did was uh you reviewed the incident report from officer Simmons. Is that correct? >> Yes sir. >> Okay. Uh what what else did you look at? uh watched their body cam videos of the traffic stop and the dash cam of the uh of the patrol car. >> Okay. Now, the body warn camera you saw from both officer Simmons and Officer Reyes. >> Yes, sir. >> Anyone else? >> No, sir. >> And then how about any social media videos? Yes, we did watch the social media uh media event from that that night that one of them had posted to their YouTube channel. >> Okay. Uh do you remember who posted a video? >> Um I'm assuming one Brandon and them had posted it to the YouTube channel. I don't know what YouTube channel it was on when the when the guys were watching it. >> Okay. Did you uh did you speak with Officer Simmons at all about the matter? >> I don't recall speaking to Officer Simmons cuz I think he was off that Monday if my memory serves me correct. Okay. So, you don't know what it went into office for Simmons decision to release the plaintiffs from the from the traffic stop? >> No, sir. Can you explain to me in your own words? Uh, let me back up. Uh, what did what did you charge the plaintiffs with in this case? >> I was informed to charge them with engaging in an organized criminal activity for obstruction and retaliation. >> Okay. Who informed you to charge that? >> The chief of police. >> Okay. And uh does the chief of police normally inform you what to charge individuals with? >> No. >> Okay. And uh when he told you that uh did you go and look up the elements for the crime or what did you do? >> We have a we have a charging manual that we that it's a standard state of Texas charging manual that got the elements in it. >> Okay. And it gives you like proposed language on how to write it. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. the um and so based on uh your discussion with the chief of police, the review of the body warning cameras, the dash cam footage, written reports, uh you felt comfortable uh to draft an affidavit asserting that you have probable cause to go forward with that charging recommendation? >> Yes, sir. Based off of his discussion with the district attorney's office. Yes, sir. based on Okay. So, you thought there was probable cause based on the uh the chief's discussion with the district attorney that they would, I guess, prosecute the case. >> Yes. >> Okay. Had that had you not been aware of that meeting, uh do you think you have probable cause to charge uh what you did against the plaintiffs? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, the um did the lieutenant attend that meeting? >> Honestly, I don't remember if he did and I don't recall. >> Okay. Okay. Uh can you can you explain to me in your Well, what did you do to prepare for today's deposition? Uh well, it's kind of been a long day today to be honest with you. I haven't had u much preparation today, but I've looked over some things last night, you know, as far as what all the paperwork and stuff that's been going on back and forth for the last several months. >> Okay. Like what what paperwork did you look at? >> Like um my um um my denies and my admissions and stuff like that. So, your your discovery responses? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Anything else? >> No, sir. >> Did you review your affidavit, your arrest warrant affidavit? >> No, sir. I don't have access to that stuff anymore. Oh, >> okay. Um Okay. Did you watch any videos? >> No, sir. >> Did you speak with any other defendants in the case? >> No, sir. So, in your own words, can you explain to me what engaging in an organized criminal activity means in Texas? >> Objection form. >> I couldn't I just It's been so long since I've looked at the definition of the penal code. >> Well, and I'm not asking you the penal code. I'm wondering in your own words, what is your understanding of it? >> Objection form. You have three or more persons involved in commission of a crime. >> So there's got to be an underlying criminal, I guess, offense. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, what did you understand? The underlying criminal offense was uh that plaintiffs were engaged in >> uh the stalking and threatening of the police officers. >> Okay. And that was uh that was based on uh your review of the incident reports and videos. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Did you ever get a search warrant in this case? >> No, sir. >> Okay. Were you aware that some of the plaintiff's cell phones were seized? >> I was not aware. No, sir. >> Okay. So, you don't know if um So, once you once you did the affidavits and got the arrest warrants, uh what was your involvement in the case after all of that? >> I didn't have any involvement with the case after I got the problem, the arrest warrant and affidavit signed by the judge. >> Okay. So, you got a CA you got the case on Monday. >> Mhm. And then you reviewed the information that was available to you, right? >> Yes. >> And then uh you you talked to the chief when he came back from the DA's meeting. >> Yes. >> And then a couple hours later, you were in front of the judge getting a search uh arrest warrant signed. >> Yes. >> Okay. And the particular uh the particular offense is a felony, >> right? >> Yes. >> With uh do you know what the maximum punishment is if they were convicted? >> Two to 10. >> Do you know that? >> It's been a while since I looked at it. >> Okay. Had you arrested or had you charged anybody previously uh for engaging in organized criminal activity >> related to these defendants or anybody >> prior so prior to February 2022 had you charged anybody with that same offense before? >> Yes. >> Okay. What circumstances? >> Uh it was a theft ring. U they were stealing ATVs and motor vehicles. >> Okay. So there was actual like theft involved. >> Yes. >> Okay. Any other circumstance? >> Not that I can just think off the top of my head. >> Okay. How long did that theft investigation last before you uh charged them? >> Uh they were arrested that night and We'd already had them identified. So, I mean, it it went like in the next day or two, we had we had everything we needed to meet the elements. >> Okay. But there was a there was a I guess a was there a prolonged investigation? >> Uh, it had been leading up to that. Yes, sir. >> Okay. How long was that investigation about? >> Probably about 2 or 3 days. Okay. I'm going to just continue with the exhibit numbers. So, I'm going to mark as uh exhibit 4 uh what's Bates labeled as defendants 62 and 63. Take a take a look at that. I'll represent. It's the uh arrest affidavit for Matthew Ranken. >> Yes, sir. >> You um did you draft uh did you draft this affidavit in its entirety? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Or did you use a template for any portion of it? uh the the complaint header up here uh is the template from the uh state of Texas charging manual. >> Okay. So, where it says uh everything below uh I have good reason to believe and do believe based upon the following information. You wrote that narrative? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Did you have any help with drafting the narrative? >> No, sir. >> Did uh when you wrote the narrative and before you presented it to a judge, was it reviewed by anybody? >> No, sir. Okay. So, it says uh So, it says in here that um let me see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Eight lines down of that paragraph. It says uh nope, actually I went too far. Hold on. One, two, three, four, five, six. It says, "Aiant on the sixth line down, a fiant would show that officer Chris Simmons while on routine patrol and performing his law enforcement duties observed a small four-door blue car stalking him as he drove his marked patrol car patrol unit. Do you see that?" >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Uh, where did you get the word stalking from? Uh, it's probably just my own terminology from after reviewing his report. >> Okay. Stalking is actually a it's a uh there is a Texas Penal Code offense for stalking, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, did you intend to uh imply criminality by using the word or phrase stalking? >> Not implied. I just used the word stalking because based off of his report when he said the car was driving around the convenience store, following him away from the con convenience store, I used my own terminology there using the word stalking. >> Okay. Is that terminology uh that was discussed with the chief or the lieutenant? >> No sir. Okay. So, uh, that's your terminology, stalking. What What did you mean by it? >> Following. >> Okay. At the time you wrote this affidavit, was it your understanding uh that following a marked police vehicle in the public was against the law? >> Objection form. >> It's not against the law. >> Okay. might be annoying, right? >> Yes. >> But there they couldn't be arrested for it just by following a police vehicle around. >> Objection form. >> No. >> Okay. Okay. And then uh the next sentence you wrote, "A fiant would show officer Simmons stopped at a local convenience store and the vehicle stopped adjacent to his patrol vehicle in the parking lot." Uh did you observe or look at uh video from the convenience store? >> Uh yes. >> Okay. Now, was the vehicle uh illegally parked at all? Not that I recall. >> Okay. And so was this um was parking the vehicle adjacent to the patrol unit in the parking lot uh criminal? >> No. >> But it annoying. >> Yes. And then the next statement says, "A fiant would show officer Simmons was concerned for his safety due to the recent killings and ambush of police officers while on duty. >> You see that?" >> Yes. >> Where did you get that from? >> Just from news stories. >> Okay. Did you speak to Officer Simmons about that? >> No, sir. >> Okay. Are you aware of recent killings or ambushes of police officers in Livingston? >> Not in Livingston. No, sir. >> Okay. Uh was there any kind of uh I I know police departments, right, they usually receive uh some kind of like bolo or intel reports of potential threats in the area. Correct. >> Yes, sir. Were you aware at the time of Livingston police officers receiving any kind of situational awareness report of uh threats to police officers in the area? >> Not to my knowledge. >> Okay. So, what um what specific articulable facts can you point to uh about the safety concern due to recent killings in ambusher police officers? I think at at the at the trending time it was a it was a nationwide issue that was going on across the United States. >> Okay. Like just a general uh concern. >> Sure. >> Okay. So does that um does that change the way uh that that Livingston police officers perform their duties or interact with members of the public? I think it would change any police officer, just not Livingston police officers. >> Okay. But it at least being more aware and and acting with precaution, right? >> Yes. >> Right. Especially uh would you agree that traffic stops in of themselves are probably one of the more dangerous things police officers can do? >> Absolutely. And so if there is a concern uh for safety, right, especially if it's a general concern, uh police officers anywhere probably shouldn't do traffic stops by themselves. >> Objection form. >> I mean, you look you it depends on the population and the size of the of the agencies. >> Okay. But um by the time you're writing this affidavit, you had already reviewed uh Simmons bodywning camera. >> Yes, sir. >> And you reviewed his dash camera? >> Yes, sir. >> And you know that he went and approached uh the plaintiff's vehicle by himself. >> Yes, sir. >> And uh he didn't call in for backup. >> Correct. >> Okay. And he walked right up to the vehicle. >> Yes. and he started engaging in discussion with him. >> Yes. >> Okay. But you didn't put that anywhere in your affidavit, right? >> No, sir. >> Okay. >> So, do you know for a fact that officer Simmons was concerned for his safety due to recent killings in the nation? >> Objection form. As an officer, I would I can't speak for officer Simmons, but I would I would assume that he that he would have been very cautious. Well, you put you wrote an affidavit, right, based asserting probable cause essentially speaking for officer Simmons, right? It says >> it says a fiant would show officer Simmons was concerned for his safety due to the recent killings and ambush of police officers while on duty. And once again, I could have got that out out of his offense report. I I don't have a copy of the offense report to to review that to see that's where it came from. How long had Officer Simmons been with the uh police department in 2022? Do you know? >> No, sir. >> Had you worked with him previously? >> No, sir. >> Okay. So, uh, did I guess he worked patrol? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Why didn't you attempt to talk to him prior to writing this affidavit? >> Uh, like I said, I I can't recall whether or not he was on his days off when I got to sign this report on that Monday. I don't remember. So there was a sense of urgency that you had to get this a arrest warrant in front of a judge. >> Objection form >> based off what my chief told me. Yes, sir. >> Okay. What exactly did he tell you about concerning the sense of urgency? >> Uh that whenever they got back from meeting with with Mr. Han and told me what to charge them with um told me to get it drafted up, get it to the judge. >> Okay. And the instruction was to do that that day or >> didn't say that particular day or not. >> Okay. And you didn't feel the need to that to talk to any other officers about the incident? >> No sir. Did you listen to any of the dispatch audio uh from that night? >> No, sir. >> So, do you know if Simmons would have uh reported uh the plaintiffs uh being at the gas station? >> No, sir. >> Do you know So, you don't know if he would have reported that he was so concerned for his fear that he went into the gas station to get a soda? >> Yeah. I have no knowledge of that. >> Okay. So sitting here today, do you know where the line came from that officer Simmons was concerned for his safety due to recent killings and ambush of police while on duty? >> Not without reviewing the the report that he wrote. No, sir. Okay. But you think it would be in his report? >> I honestly don't know. I'm trying to look at the report real quick because I don't want to. Okay, so he says something about I am nervous approaching the vehicle while thinking the numerous occupants were about to get out and start shooting. I see that in there. Does that sound familiar? >> I mean, it's been quite a few years. I mean, if that's what's in the report, that's what's in the report. >> Okay. But we do know Officer Simmons did get out of his vehicle, right? >> Yes, sir. uh multiple once at the gas station, right? Another time when he went to I guess the police department. >> Yes, sir. >> And then another time when he initiated a stop behind plain's vehicle. >> Correct. >> Right. And at no point uh a matter of fact, officer Simmons even indicated at one point he didn't care if they were armed. >> Objection form. >> I don't recall that statement. >> You don't recall that statement? We We'll watch the video. Okay. Come on. I only have you today. So, I I do want to give you an opportunity to review. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of his report with me. I'm going to have to show you on the uh tablet here, unless you want show. >> I have >> Okay. >> What's that? >> I mean, I have one. It has underlinings on it, so I don't know if you care if he sees that. >> I'm not going to make it part of the record. I just want to help him recollect his uh memory. I don't You don't have any handwriting or anything? >> No, it's just it's literally underlines and brackets. >> Go ahead. Take a take a second to review that and if Okay, we'll just go off the record while he's looking at that. Okay, it's 2:48 p.m. All right, it's 2:52 p.m. All right, Mr. Middleton, uh you had a you had a chance to uh to review uh Officer Simmons uh police report? >> Yes, sir. Okay. Are you able to tell me uh where you got the idea that Simmons was concerned for his safety due to recent killings and ambush of police officers? >> Uh basically the way that he wrote in his report how the blue card positioned itself and in the tactical advantage as if they were going to assault him. >> Okay. So, so, so it was the way the report described that the vehicle was parked, >> right? >> Yes, sir. And the totality of all the other things that had led up prior to this >> and we'll get to that. So, where the vehicle was parked where? At the gas station or at the bank? >> At at the bank behind the police department. >> Okay. Okay. And we'll we'll get to that in a second. But other than that statement about the way the vehicle was attacked or sorry the vehicle was parked, uh, was there other information that led you to believe that Simmons was concerned for his safety due to recent killings and ambush of police officers? >> No, sir. >> Okay. Okay. Go ahead. Get that back. All right. So, moving on. Uh but um so what message were you trying to convey to the judge by putting in uh this statement about Simmons being concerned for his safety due to the recent killings and ambush of police? Well, there just a fellow fellow officer of officer Simmons in the Livingston Police Department. And I think it was it was something that I felt was um in my opinion needed to be stressed that that we were concerned about um their activity, what they were doing, and they possibly could have could have harmed an officer by, you know, by the threats and stuff that they were making. >> Okay. And I understand the generalized concern. I don't want to take that away. I I get that. Mhm. >> But specific to this case, are there any specific or articulable facts that that you were aware of that justified a specific safety concern due to killings or ambush of police? >> Just my strictly my opinion. >> Okay. And then the next statement was uh a fiant would show no one ever exited the vehicle while it waited on officer Simmons to exit the business. So for context, because we were talking about the bank, we're still in your affidavit at the convenience store, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. and and then a viant would show officer Simmons exited the business, entered his patrol unit, and the vehicle continued to stalk officer Simmons as he exited the parking lot. >> Correct. >> So, by stalk, do you also mean follow? >> Follow. Yes. >> Okay. So, you're not accusing them at this point of uh uh violating the Texas Penal Code for stalking? objection for >> well my terminology stalking and following I mean it's pretty much the same thing >> but you're using your terminology not the Texas Penal Code terminology >> yes >> okay that's your own language that's not No one told you to use that phrase >> no sir >> okay and And uh your next statement, a fiant would show the suspect's vehicle later turned off a short time later. It was circling the police department while officers Simmons and Reyes were in the parking lot discussing the vehicle. Uh you got that from a I guess you got that from a review of the police reports? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Do you know what Simmons and Reyes were discussing in the parking lot? Um, I believe officer Simmons had wrote in the report that he had told officer Reyes that that was the vehicle that had been following him. >> Okay. And so, uh, but as far as you're aware, is it against the law to circle a police department? >> No, sir. >> Okay. It could be suspicious, right? >> Sure. >> Okay. But it's not illegal. >> No, sir. >> Okay. An defiant would show officer Reyes exited the police department parking lot in his marked patrol unit and observed a Hispanic male exit the blue vehicle, put on a ballistic body armor vest, and then entered the driver's side of the vehicle. You see that? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Uh, did you speak to Officer Reyes about his observations? >> Uh, no, sir. not on that particular um I don't think it was that morning. I think it or was it I did talk to him but I don't recall if it was that morning I can't remember if he was working night shift or day shift at the time. I don't remember. >> But you do think you spoke to him at some point? >> I think so. Yes, sir. >> Okay. And what did that what was that conversation? >> Just uh pretty much about what the encounter was that they had with him on on that night. >> Okay. Did you ask Reyes about his observations concerning a ballistic body armor vest? >> I I don't recall. >> Okay. And this would have been after you submitted the affidavit to a judge this meeting with Reyes. >> I I don't remember if it was after or before. I honestly don't. >> Okay. And the um had you ever had you seen video that was uh from earlier in the night when the plaintiffs were in Corgan? Had you ever seen any video? >> No, sir. >> Okay. So, if there was video out there that showed uh that Mr. Ring Cone had actually had a vest on even before going to Livingston, you wouldn't be aware of it. >> Objection for? >> No, sir. >> Okay. Now, uh, when it says ballistic, uh, body armor vest, what does that mean to you? >> Something that's used to stop a bullet from penetrating your body, >> right? To stop bullets. >> Mhm. And so, and you put this in here with all uh with all certainty, right, that that uh one of the individuals put on a ballistic body armor >> it's not like you said according to a police report, this is what an officer observed. >> Rejection for >> correct. And so, and you watched the uh you watched the video as well, right? >> Simmons body worn camera. >> Yes. >> Okay. Is it your opinion based on reviewing that video that it was in fact a ballistic vest? >> From what I saw in his body cam video, yes. >> Okay. Do you know what a loadbearing vest is? >> No. >> Okay. Uh, so according to what you saw in the video, it appeared to be a ballistic vest because why? >> Just the way the the way it was tactically, the way it was worn, the way it had a a um clip um in the vest that um possibly had ammunition in it and some other type of dispensing device that was was in it. I don't recall what that was. >> Okay. But so you don't know that you don't know what a loadbearing vest is? >> No. >> Compared to a ballistic vest? >> No. >> Okay. >> And uh it's not Well, let me ask. Is it against the law in Texas to wear a ballistic body armor vest >> if you're a convicted felon? >> If you're a felon. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Uh, and uh, did you see the information where uh, the license plate on Mr. Ringone's vehicle was run? >> No, sir. I didn't see that. >> Okay. Did your investigation show that Mr. Ringone was a felon? >> No, sir. >> Okay. So, uh, by itself, did you have any reason to think that Ringone wearing a vest that appear to be ballistic body armor was illegal? >> No. And when uh Reyes made these observations, uh do you know if he had his dash cam uh activated? >> Objection form. >> I don't remember officer Reyes's dash cam. >> Okay. >> I do not remember that. So if Reyes was observing someone get out of the vehicle and putting on a vest, it's just his his word. >> Yeah. It would have been strictly his if if he had dash dash cam video. >> Okay. But you can't recall if you ever actually spoke to him about this hops reaction. >> I can't recall if if I saw it or not. No, sir. >> All right. Well, if you saw any camera, but you also can't recall if you actually spoke to Reyes about his observation. >> Correct. Okay. And then you put off a fiant would show officer Reyes notified officer Simmons of what he had witnessed. And now the actions of the people in the vehicle were suspicious due to the overt action and officers felt as if they were about to commit a criminal act and cause them bodily injury and/or death. Right. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, do you understand the difference between a hunch and uh specific articulable facts? >> Sure. >> Okay. What what's a hunch? >> Just a gut feeling of something. >> Okay. And then specific articulable facts would be what? >> Something that you know personally that. Okay. So when I break down this last sentence on the first page uh of your narrative, it says that you know Reyes and Simmons are talking about what they witnessed and then now the actions of the people in the vehicle. What actions? Um, once again, the totality of of all the things that had been going on prior to their encounter with them that night. Um, the vest that he's wearing, you know, and the the way the car was positioned, they've been following the officers around. So there's a lot of things that were leading up to the to that or they never wouldn't have never would have made contact with them. >> So the actions of the Okay. So you're t the actions of the people in the vehicle. You're talking about the uh I guess what what they the vehicle was doing parking and driving around. >> Sure. >> Okay. And then the uh that's suspicious. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, do you know the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause? >> I hadn't looked at it in quite some time. >> Okay. >> If you got something to show me, I can. >> In order to stop somebody, you would need what? >> Suspicion. >> Probable cause. >> Reasonable suspicion. And then to make an arrest, you would need >> probable cause. >> Right. Do you understand the difference? >> Sure. >> Okay. And so all of their conduct together, it looks like you're suggesting what is suspicious, right? >> Objection form >> it says. And then due to the overt action, what is the overt action? I think just the way the the way they're carrying on um with what they've done prior to leading up to the stop, the way they were carrying themselves in the car, um the way that Mr. Rencon was alleging that he didn't speak English and he only spoke Spanish. Um there's just a totality of things. >> Okay. Do you understand what overt action means? something that will be alarming alarming to the officers. >> Okay, that's your understanding of it. >> Sure. >> Is so is there an overt action that you were identifying here or was it just everything? >> I think everything in a whole. >> Okay. So, everything in a hole. Officers felt as if they were about to commit a criminal act and cause them bodily injury or death. Objection. >> Yes. That's what it says. >> Yes. >> Okay. What criminal act are they about to commit? >> Well, I mean, they're they've already been following officer around. They uh have pulled up to a bank that's closed at night. They've positioned their car based on officer Simmons report that it was in a tactical position that they could have ambushed one of the officers coming out the back door of the police department. So there's a lot of red flags there and officer Ray is seeing uh one of them putting on the alleged vict uh ballistic vest as he as he stated. >> So the uh so what we talked about so far in your narrative there's nothing about vehicle parked in a tactical position. Correct. So far what we've covered >> um I think it was I think it was an officer Simmons report but on your affidavit there's nothing mentioned about >> Oh no no sir not on my affidavit. No sir. >> Okay. And so when you watch the video uh the vehicle was parked in a parking spot at the bank. Correct. >> Yes. And the bank the bank parking lot was open to the public. >> Projection. >> Yes. >> There was no gates or fences or barriers to keep people out there. >> No, sir. >> And so, uh, when, uh, a matter of fact, the parking lot in that bank actually has vehicles parking diagonally, right? That's where the lines are. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, what is your understanding of how the vehicle parked tactically? If I recall correctly, the part of the parking lot where they were actually parked, the cars are supposed to be parked this way and their car was parked this way. >> Okay. So, do you know if the vehicle was parked in the lines of the parking lot or not? >> I I don't recall if it was or not. >> Okay. We'll cover that in the video. Okay. So, what criminal act? Right? Because remember, we're not talking I don't want to know about hunch or reasonable suspicion or what I want to know probable cause. What criminal act based on your investigation and your affidavit? What criminal act were the plaintiffs about to commit? >> Objection form. It's just the the attempt of threatening the officers by driving around >> by driving around. And like I said earlier, the totality of all the other circumstances leading up to this Okay. And then and then and caused them bodily injury and or death. What specific article facts do you have that the plaintiffs were going to cause the officers bodily injury or death? >> Well, they could have had weapons in the car. You know, that was it was never discovered if they had them or not, but they could have had weapons in the car. >> So, is having a weapon in a car I'm I want to I want to get the lines of um there's a difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, right? So, I'm trying to understand you're you're presenting a probable cause affidavit >> telling a judge that there are specific article facts >> and your last statement on the first page is that um the officers felt if as if they were going to commit a criminal act and cause them bodily injury and or death. I'm not talking about hunches. I want to know what is your understanding of the specific articulable facts that my clients were going to cause bodily injury or death. >> Objection form. It's just not It's not normal for a citizen to be doing what they were doing. >> I'm not asking about normal. I'm asking about I'm ask I I get it. I understand. I'm not asking about normal. I'm talking about specific article facts for bodily injury or death. Right. Let me back up. If the officer thinks it's suspicious, that's one thing, right? I completely understand that. It's weird. It's It's not normal. It is what it is. >> Yes. >> But then to go and charge them with a felony that carries the risk of up to 20 years in prison >> based on your affidavit, I'm trying to understand what specific facts existed to say that the plaintiffs were going to cause bodily injury or death. >> Objection form. It's just the the pure threat of them following the police officers around and their totality of of their actions of what they were doing that night. That if they wouldn't have stopped them, when would it have stopped? >> Okay. And then Officer Simmons uh lets them go, right? He doesn't arrest them. >> Yes. >> Did they go and commit a crime after that? >> Objection form. >> Not to my knowledge. >> Did they cause bodily injury or death? >> Objection form. >> No. >> Okay. And so, uh, you already testified earlier that following a police officer around in a marked cruiser around the public area was not a crime. >> Objection. >> Correct. And are you aware of uh any of my clients uh making any uh verbal threats to your officers? >> Not that I'm aware of. Not to my recollection. >> Okay. You certainly didn't describe any threats in the uh in your affidavit, did you? No, and Reyes only uh was called to the scene uh to help in translation, right? Yes. >> Not for backup because Officer Simmons was concerned for his safety. >> I don't remember the radio conversation um of why he was called other than the Spanish speaking part of the of the driver, Mr. Rencon. >> Okay. I'm going to show you uh just I I want to make sure we don't mix these up, but I'm going to show you uh two other uh affidavits. I'm going to mark as exhibit five uh baits label 65 and 66. And this is going to be uh your affidavit written for Melanie Renee. Uh it says McCory, but we understand it's McCroy, who is known as Tremble. >> Okay. I think that's so that might be a typo in there, but agree with me that the narrative u for Miss Tremble's affidavit is exactly the same as the affidavit presented for Mr. Ranken. That's correct. >> All right. And then I'm going to mark as exhibit six baits label defendants 68 and 69 which is your affidavit written for Mr. White. And same question agree with me uh that the narrative uh in the affidavit written for Mr. White is exactly the same as the other two affidavit. That's correct. Okay. So, for organized criminal activity, you mentioned it uh previously, there's got to be some kind of uh combination, right? That the defendants were part of a combination >> objection form. >> Yes. >> Okay. Is that your understanding? >> Yes. >> Okay. What specific evidence or facts did you have that plaintiffs cooperated in multiple criminal activities? >> Objection form >> of following following the police officers the totality of of all the circumstances that led up to this. >> Okay. So just by virtue of being in the same vehicle? >> Yes. All of them being together. >> Okay. >> There's three or more in there. >> Okay. So, do you have any specific facts or evidence that Miss Treble, sitting in the back seat, uh, had any involvement whatsoever in the vehicle's uh, driving path? >> No. >> Form. >> Okay. How about Brandon White? >> No, sir. >> Okay. >> Did you uh investigate whether these individuals had a history of working together prior to February 4th, 2022? >> No, sir. Were you aware of whether some of these individuals might have just met that day? >> No, sir. Okay. >> What was your understanding of the uh of one of the underlying offenses was retaliation? Correct. >> Yes. >> What is your understanding of what those elements are? >> I know you can't recall that's fine. >> Yeah, I don't I don't recall. It's been too long since I've looked at that stuff. >> Let me actually pull it up. Crap. Doing okay. Okay. Um, >> do you know if it would include intentionally or knowingly harming or threatening to harm another >> objection form? >> Yeah, if that's what it if that's what it says. >> Okay. Does that sound familiar to you or no? I it sounds familiar, but without actually looking at it, I can't >> okay. >> Say specifically if that's what it was quoted. >> Do you have any specific facts or evidence showing that plaintiffs harmed or threatened to harm officer Simmons? >> Threatening. Yes. >> What's the threat? Just once again, what we've talked about, the totality of the circumstances of of their demeanor and their actions of what they were doing um that night to um to threaten them in some some way, form or fashion. >> So, it was not a verbal threat, right? Or was there >> um Not a verbal threat. I wouldn't say verbal. >> So the threat is by them following the officer around. >> Objection form. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> In my opinion. >> So when you uh you were a patrol officer at one point, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. And you would follow people around? >> Yes. >> Okay. And uh you also wore ballistic body armor. >> Uh no, not at the time. at any point in your career? >> Well, later later on it wasn't it wasn't mandated or required. >> Okay. >> It was voluntarily. >> Okay. But you would have it on. >> Yes. >> And then you also carried a firearm. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh so is that considered retaliation? >> Objection form. >> Not as a licensed peace officer. >> Okay. So you're licensed to retaliate if you're a peace officer. >> Objection form. >> No sir. >> Okay. So, uh, the plaintiffs aren't allowed to engage in these activities because they're not licensed peace officers. >> Objection form. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, even though a marked police officer is on duty receiving taxpayer dollars, uh, they're not allowed to be followed. >> Objection form. >> That's part of their job assignments. >> So, they're not So, they're not allowed to be followed. >> Objection form. >> A police officer's that's his job is to is to follow cars and stop. talking about the police officers. I'm talking about a member of the public. Your opinion is that member of the public is not allowed to follow a peace officer. >> Correct. No, I thought you was talking about the police officer following the public. I'm sorry. >> Got it. No, I'm talking about a member of the public is not allowed to follow a peace officer while they're on duty in a marked police vehicle. >> Correct. >> They're not that. >> No. >> Okay. So, did uh Officer Simmons actually state in anything you've seen that he feared uh bodily injury or death? >> Not that I recall. >> Okay. Not just and I'm not talking generalized fear like he said hey look this right because you know for example if someone pulls a firearm on you right that's a specific hey no crap I'm in trouble >> yes >> okay but are there any specific actions that the plaintiffs took where Simmons relayed to you that he was concerned that he was at risk of bodily injury or death >> objection form >> no and you'd agree with me that if he had a specific and articulable uh fear of bodily injury or death, he would not have approached the vehicle alone without calling for backup. >> Objection form. >> I can't speculate on his opinion on on that. >> You can speculate the other way though. >> Objection. >> You wrote in your affidavit that uh that that there was fear of bodily injury or death. Isn't that speculating? It's just it's my normal terminology that I use writing complaints. >> Okay. So, um and what so what's a felony stop? >> I mean related to what? I may know. >> Well, so when you uh execute a felony stop, um do you know what I mean by that? >> Yes. >> Okay. What do I mean by that? >> By like you're behind a stolen vehicle or something, you conduct a felony stop on the person that's operating the stolen vehicle. >> Okay. When you uh execute a felony stop, uh you're alerting dispatch that's a felony stop, right? >> Right. >> And you're probably calling in backup as well >> if it's available. Correct. >> Right. And you're also gonna have your weapon drawn. >> Correct. >> Right. Um and why based on your training experience, why uh would you have your weapon drawn on a felony stop? >> Cuz you don't know what that person's going to be doing in the car, >> right? And you're concerned for your safety. >> Sure. Matter of fact, you could have your weapon drawn in any circumstance where you may be concerned for your safety. >> Well, just not concerned for my safety, but the bystanders that could be around cars driving by or something, >> right? >> General public. >> And do you recall what the Livingston Police Department policy was concerning um having your firearms drawn during a stop? >> No sir, I don't. >> Okay. Is there any restriction on it that you're aware of? >> I don't know. >> Okay. And uh do you recall if Simmons during this stop had his weapon drawn? >> Not that I recall. Can we brag for just a second? >> Yeah. Yeah. 3:25 p.m. It is uh 3:31 p.m. Resuming the deposition. Right. I'm going to show you um what's been baits labeled defendants 295. It is uh officer Simmons uh dash cam video from February 4th, 2022. I'm going to start playing it from the 1 minute 45 second mark. Actually, let me see that there that way. Doing a share screen. So, I'm trying to trying to be cool with doing this without seeing it. All right, here we go. Okay, I'm going to stop it real quick. So, um I stopped it at 2 minutes 8 seconds. Uh had had you seen this video prior to today? >> Yes. >> Okay. Does it appear that the vehicle u Mr. Ringone's vehicle is parked inside of the parking spot lines. >> Yes. >> Okay. Does it appear that he's parked illegally? >> No. >> Okay. Uh would you consider the way this vehicle is parked as tactical? >> No. >> Okay. I'm going to resume playing at 2 minutes and 8 seconds. All right. Stopping it at uh 2 minutes 18 seconds. Uh do you see Officer Simmons there? >> I do. >> Okay. And you saw the way he approached the vehicle? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh he walked right up to it, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Did it appear uh based on your uh training and experience that officer Simmons was uh approaching the vehicle in a manner that suggested fear or safety >> injection form? >> I cannot see where his right hand is. I don't know if he has it on his duty weapon or not. All I can see is the flashlight in his left hand. >> Okay. So, I'm going to back it up and uh I want you to pay attention to where his right hand is because uh for the record, his left hand is holding a flashlight. Right. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So, I'm going to back it up to 2 minutes and 6 seconds and resume. And I want you to pay attention specifically to his right hand. Okay. >> One second. Griel, what bait number is that? >> 295. 2 minutes and 6 seconds. See his right hand there? >> Yes. >> All right. I'm stopping it at uh 2 minutes and 23 seconds. Uh so what was his right hand doing? >> Uh it was just right beside his body and yeah it's up on top of the the car. >> Okay. So based on your training and experience, uh did officer Simmons approach this vehicle in a manner to suggest to you uh that he feared for his safety? >> Um I can't speak for his the way he approaches in his opinion, but in my opinion, he he approached it with caution. U just like we're trained to do. >> Just any traffic stop, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. Nothing unusual. >> No. >> Okay. And he walked up uh with one hand on a flashlight and one hand hanging down by his side. >> Yes. >> He didn't have a weapon drawn. >> No. >> And he's there by himself. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And he walked right up and began uh uh and I don't think we got to that point, but you know, he ended up communicating with uh the individuals in the vehicle, right? Okay. >> All right. I'm going to switch course now. And I'm now going to play defendants 296, which is Officer Simmons uh body warning camera, and it's 17 minutes long. I'm just going to play it in its entirety because you would have seen it. uh in the manner of uh before you prepared the affidavit. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, I'm going to play from the beginning all the way through. Bates label 296. And we don't hear audio in the beginning. I assume that's because uh when you turn it on somehow there's like a delay. Yes. Okay. Oh, please for me saying you don't speak English. Okay. Well, just give me a second and I'll get a Spanish speaking officer here. >> We uh pause it real quick. >> So, I'm pausing at 55 seconds. I just want to clarify you now see the other side of the park uh parking lot line, right? >> Yes. >> So, it's your understanding uh that Mr. Rone is parked in between two traffic lines, right? Or two parking lot. He's parked he is parked in a parking lot space. Correct. Okay. Resume. >> It hasn't started. >> It did. And it Oh, there it goes. >> I think that's from >> the copy we have. >> Somebody will be here shortly. It's >> only in the beginning now. >> Just say, >> but I don't know what you're saying, but give me one second. We'll find out. They say they don't speak English. So, I'm trying to find out >> why they're here, what they're doing, why are they being suspicious. So, I'm going to pause it at >> recording. Do you have what? >> 2 minutes 15 seconds. You see officer Reyes in the screen now. >> Yes. >> Okay. And what is he wearing? >> Uh, looks like a uniform badge. Uh, glasses and >> ski mask. uh some type of >> I don't know if it's I would call it a ski mask something and to help keep his head warm due to the climate I would imagine. >> Okay. So is it in uh in Livingston does it get cold in February? >> Sure. >> Okay. So is it unusual for people to be wearing a mask over their face? >> It wouldn't be for our officers. >> Okay. How about people in the public >> over their face? I would say probably that's not something that's common that they wear it over their faces, but they wear it toboggins and stuff on their heads. >> Okay. So, it's not unusual for a Livingston police officer in Livingston in February to wear wear a face covering, but it could be unusual if a member of the public does it. Sure. >> Okay. I'm going to resume playing at 2 minutes and 15 seconds. >> I don't care if he has a weapon, but why are they following the police around? Why are they acting suspicious? >> Who are they? >> All right, I'm pausing at 2 minutes 25 seconds. You heard uh you heard Officer Simmons mention he didn't care they had a weapon if they had a weapon. >> Yes. >> Okay. You testified earlier. You couldn't recall if that was said. >> Correct. >> Okay. Does hearing it now change your u opinion as to whether officer Si Simmons uh feared for his safety of bodily injury or death? >> No, it does not change my opinion. >> Okay. Even though he didn't care if they had a weapon. >> Correct. Okay. >> And you didn't uh you didn't include that observation uh in your affidavit, did you? >> No, sir. Okay. Resume at 2 minutes 25 seconds. >> It's doing the thing again. >> It's going. >> I want a driver license. because he's suspicious. >> All right, I'm going to stop at uh 3 minutes and uh 1 second there. Are are you able to see I'm not asking you to you know I I get you can only see what's in the video, but based on what you can see on the video, does it appear that the back window uh that you can see into the back window? Um yes. >> Okay. And uh Officer Simmons appeared to be uh saying he wanted their identification because they were suspicious. >> Correct. >> In uh 2022, do you understand uh what the requirement was for whether someone had to identify? >> I couldn't couldn't begin to tell you. >> Okay. So you don't know if it required a arrest or not? >> No sir. >> Okay. What is your understanding of uh even if you're detaining somebody right to investigate? What's your understanding of whether they have to identify or not? >> Well, if they're being detained for an investigation, they're not free to go. So they would need to present their ID. It would be fed ID. >> Okay. Had you seen before? Are you familiar? Okay, let me do this. Apparently, I only have one mouse. Okay. Are you familiar with the uh Texas Penal Code 38.02? 02 which is failure Teddy. >> No, I'm sorry. No. >> Okay. >> So, it states a person commits a offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth uh to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested identification. Does that make sense? Objection form. >> Yes, that's what it what it states there in the bill code. >> Okay. So, it requires an actual arrest. >> Objection form. >> Were you aware of that? >> Objection form. >> I mean, if that's if that's what the penal code says from 2022. Yes. >> Okay. And then uh separately though, a person would also commit an offense if when asked to provide a name, they provided a fictitious name. >> Correct. >> Right. Regardless, so were you aware that the requirement is uh if you're under arrest, you have to give a name and other you otherwise cannot give a fake name. >> Correct. >> Objection form. >> But s prior to me reading that out loud, uh you were not aware of whether somebody was required to actually identify themselves just for being detained. >> Yeah, I don't recall. >> Okay. And as far as you know, uh, none of the plaintiffs were actually charged with, uh, failure to identify. >> That's correct. >> Okay. All right. I'm going to resume playing at 301. >> Stop. Anybody? Is that >> It's moving, but we have no sound. >> Oh my gosh. >> Let me back. >> It's like it's buffering. I don't know what's going on. >> Let me do this. I um I actually have it on the device. Let me play it that way. I was trying to be fancy, but it's not it's not working. It said 296, right? >> Yes, sir. Then I'm going to resume it from 3 minutes for two three minutes two seconds. What are we saying? >> So, I'm telling him not to move his hands like that. If he he doesn't have a gun, obviously he has ammo. So, indicated. So, what's what's going on? What do you What do you want to do? >> His law says if you're acting suspicious in a suspicious place, I can get I can ID you. I can stop you. and find out what you're doing. So that's what I want to know. What are you doing? Okay. Okay. Give me a license or get out of the car. Why are you >> I just told him he's suspicious. Step out of the vehicle >> or give me your license. One of the two. Which one are you going to do? Right now you're failing to ID, so I'm about to arrest you for that. >> Hey, jackass. Ever heard of 382? You dumb >> Hey, so again, give me a driver's license. >> Give me a driver's license or step out of the vehicle. All right, so step out of the vehicle. >> So fell on me. >> Step out of the vehicle. >> I'm going to tell you something. Okay, I'm going to tell you this. So obviously >> you're not going to tell me what the law is. I know what the law is. >> Failure to ID requires an arrest. >> Okay, then that's what I'm about to do. What? >> For being suspicious, for failing to ID. >> Failure to secondary charge. Take a second, bro. Obviously, >> there's no notches. Listen. Okay. Okay. it. So, whenever they went over there, I was going to stop and talk, ask them if they were okay, they need any help or anything. >> No, no, they've been following me around. They're suspicious as far as I'm concerned. I don't know if they got partners that are committing crime somewhere else and they're keeping an eye on our location. So, you're going to give me your ID or I'm going to arrest you for fail to >> All right. So, I'm pausing it at uh 6 minutes 38 seconds. Uh did you ever are uh discover any uh specific facts that uh they had another team out there committing crimes? >> No, I did not. >> Okay. And so it sounded like that might have been a hunch or speculation. >> True. >> Okay. And I'm also going to mention as well, Reyes, from what you can tell, officer Reyes, uh, he didn't have his weapon drawn or anything either, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. Mayor, resume playing >> and you're going to go to an FBI federal >> and that's fine. >> You're going to be committing a federal felony. >> Okay. So, you're either going to do it or that's what's going to happen. >> Class A misdemeanor. So, you're knowingly committing a class A state misdemeanor on a federal felony. >> Okay. >> That's what that's what's at jeopardy for you, sir. >> Okay. >> You are in jeopardy. >> Okay. So, are you of going to jail right now if the driver doesn't ID? >> Hey guys, this is That's okay. Okay. Okay. So, right now you're failing ID. Give me your license. saying, "What's the reason why you ask him?" >> He's suspicious. >> I want to know who he is. And why is he at Huh? He is detained. >> No, he said it has to be a crime for him to show you his >> No, it doesn't. He has to be legally detained by the police. That's it. So, you're legally detained by the police. Show me your ID. >> Your detective may not give false identity. When arrested, you must identify straight up or question. Okay. Okay. Do you have any any firearm on you? Okay. >> It doesn't matter if they have a firearm. >> I mean, I'm not saying that it matters. Obviously, I'm going to assume that they do. >> All right. So, I'm pausing at 9 minutes 24 seconds. You just heard Officer Simmons uh state again that he didn't care whether they had a firearm. >> Objection form. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then I believe it was Reyes who said he's going to assume they do anyway. >> Yes. >> Okay. But that didn't change the way the officers approached the the stop from what you can tell. >> Objection. >> Correct. >> Let me resume claim. >> What's that? >> All right, buddy. Hold on. Let me talk to him. He's a driver. I was talking to him. I wasn't talking to you about it. Okay. >> Talking to the guy. >> Well, I don't know about that. Give me a second. Let me talk to you. >> I just want a license. >> Officer Simmons. earlier. I think it was earlier. Yeah, it was earlier. They were over there on Bank Street. >> They've been following me around on that. >> I just remember we're on Bank Street and like these two back here. I think they got there that American. >> Okay. >> With Mr. White. >> Sure. >> And obviously that's what they're doing. breakfast time trying to pull you drowning in. So I remember whenever I >> you're still failing the ID. >> I remember when I f you know there there that communication or whatever you know obviously try and get a bit that's all I'm trying to tell you. >> I'm pausing at 10 minutes 32 seconds. Did you hear Reyes make reference to uh that's Mr. White? Uh he goes around filming police. >> Yes. >> Okay. And he mentioned uh some kind of communication with the lieutenant. >> Yes. >> Okay. Do you were you involved at all or do you know what communication that would have been? >> No. >> Okay. But it seems clear that Reyes was uh trying to supply uh information to Simmons based on some prior communication with the lieutenant. >> Yes. >> How many uh in 2022, how many lieutenants did building Sim Police Department have? >> Just one. >> And that would have been >> Marty Drake. >> Drake. >> Okay. >> I'm going to resume playing. >> Okay. So again, you're a suspicious person. I need your ID. >> Tito, you going to lose the next 5 years of your life in court. Bro, >> are you going to give me your license or I'm going to arrest you for failed ID? >> Which one is it? Are are you of equal rank? >> Kill him. If he didn't give me his license, >> are y'all of equal rank? >> Yes, we are. We're both officers. >> Just so you know, if you let him do this, you're in jeopardy also for failing to intervene. So, you don't >> listen to me, okay? You don't know our communication. You don't You don't know what I just said. >> I know the law. >> Listen, you don't know what I just said. And like I said, I was talking to him. Okay? >> It doesn't matter. If you let me all you want to say, Frank, if you let him do it, he's not your superior officer. you get a failure to intervene. So that's up to >> Listen to what I'm trying to tell you. I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to this guy, right? He's the driver. I already told him I'm communicating and I'm already communicating with him. >> I don't have to tell you what I've communicated to him. Okay. >> Not asking what you communicate to. I'm fully understand the risk of what you're doing. >> Okay. I still have ID. Monday. No, no, no. Okay. Well, I'm the supervisor. There you go. It doesn't matter what you need. You need to give me your license. >> What is he saying? >> Not that doesn't matter. >> That's what he's saying. Exactly what he's saying. >> Okay. Give me your license or step out of the vehicle. Which one are you going to do? He's asking why would he get out? What's the >> cuz I'm going to ID him. >> What has What has >> I am going to ID crime he committed is what he >> he's being suspicious person in a suspicious place. >> Therefore, I have every right to ID him. >> You have every right to make contact and investigate. That's it. >> I'm know what you're doing. I know what you're saying. And I'm not saying I disagree with you, you know, but >> you don't scare you. >> No, I'm not. It's not bad, dude. There's that reason. What's your reasoning? >> I just told you they've been following me around town. >> And so now >> and and they it could very well be somebody watching us to uh have another team commit. >> Determined right now. We already know who they are and what they're going to do. >> Do we know who they are? >> Yeah. >> Who are they? >> Huh? >> Mr. White back there. America first. That's what they call the media. >> Oh, so we do know who they are then. >> Okay. >> You determined that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I did not realize that was Mr. White back there. Who's Mr. White? >> So, I'm stopping at 14 minutes 50 seconds. So, uh, you saw you observed in the video Reyes, officer Reyes questioning officer Simmons about the development of his reasonable suspicion. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then when he Reyes then proceeded to try to figure out, you know, well, what do we have right now before they realize at least Officer Simmons realized Mr. White was in the vehicle. >> Correct. >> Okay. And you didn't include uh you didn't include any of that information your affidavit, did you about uh officer Reyes questioning uh whether reasonable suspicion existed? >> Objection form. >> No. >> Do you recall watching this video though? >> I do. >> Okay. I'm going to resume. >> Which one? Mr. Popular right here. >> How you doing, Mr. White? >> Did I get some phone calls? >> No. No, man. >> Yes, sir. That way I can see through this window. >> And and obviously he he >> Well, now I know who you are. So, I will be happy to let you go. But I Huh. >> Let him explain to you why he's what he's telling you. >> I already explained it to him. >> I already told him that when I walked up to the window. >> No. What I'm trying to say is the reason why he needs to identify you is because he doesn't know who you are. I know who Mr. White is. >> Okay. >> And you could be a and you could be a team radioing to another team to commit a crime. >> What's that? >> No, it doesn't. But good luck with that. >> Say what? >> All right. Well, y'all be safe. Okay. Like I said, I didn't know if you were lost or not. >> I don't know what he's saying. Take the light off. It's nice. It's right there on the dashboard. >> Like I said, if you if you're gay and y'all just recording for the media purposes like y'all said, like Mr. White says, >> we're done here. >> Did you understand the law, though? >> I do understand the law. >> He's the reason I'm I'm doing this job. Then you are not. >> You know 382? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I know all kinds of stuff. >> Hey, by the way, your English got real good. Tuesday. Be advised, that's going to be uh the guy that goes by the name of Mr. White. He's driving around videoing uh police action back in here. >> Okay, I I'm stop at 17 minutes and 7 seconds. So based on uh uh your investigation uh the individuals in that vehicle uh you have probable cause to think that they were committing a felony >> um >> objection form >> based off of what the district attorney's office stated that they would accept the charge for. Yes. >> Okay. So, if the district attorney's office uh was not going to accept the charge, would you have moved forward with charging it? >> Uh, it would have been whatever my superiors told me to do at the time. >> Okay. And, uh, matter of fact, it didn't matter what the district attorney's office did. Uh, the chief directed you to file the charges >> after he met with the district attorney. Correct. >> Okay. And so, regardless of that meeting, you would have you would have done what the chief told you to do. >> Correct. >> Okay. Uh but let me ask uh now that we went through that video here uh today u if you were the one making the decision uh would you have charged them uh in the manner that you did? >> Objection. >> Yes. >> Okay. And uh what's your uh do uh citizens have the right to uh criticize police? >> Sure. >> Okay. Uh do they have a right to argue with police? >> Yes. >> Okay. And they have a right to uh to follow uh police cruisers around. >> Yes. >> Um they have a right to film police performing their duties. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh and they have uh individuals have a right to openly carry firearms as well. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, and we acknowledge that unless you're a felon, you're also allowed to uh wear any kind of uh vest you want. >> Correct. >> Uh but uh your understanding is that taking all of these things together uh it it's more than just suspicious, it's criminal. >> Correct. And um okay, never mind. I think I already asked you. You you uh prior to submitting your affidavit to the uh to the judge, did you get a chance to talk to Officer Simmons at all? >> No. >> Okay. So, do you have personal knowledge of the facts presented in the affidavit? >> Personal knowledge is based off of what Officer Simmons wrote in his report. >> Okay. So, you were just going based on what was in the report. Correct. >> Okay. But you didn't um you didn't go and collect any specific information yourself? >> No, sir. >> Okay. So, uh when you uh you presented the the arrest warrants to the judge yourself. >> Yes. >> Okay. How long did that process take? start to finish, probably maybe a couple hours if I can recall. >> So, how did you submit them to the judge then? I'm talking about actual presentation to the judge. >> Uh, after I drafted the complaints and the arrest warrants, I walked them over to the courthouse to the judicial building. >> Okay. And you weren't over in the judicial building for a couple of hours. >> No. No. >> Okay. So, once you got to the courthouse, how long did that process take before you had a signed warrant in your hand? >> Oh. Less than 10 minutes. >> Who went with you? >> Nobody. >> You went by yourself? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Did the judge ask you any questions? >> No, sir. >> Was the prosecutor, anyone from the DA's office there? >> No, sir. >> Okay. Did it seem like the judge was anticipating the uh warrant? >> No, sir. >> Okay. So, Officer Simmons on the scene uh declared that now I know who you are, I will be happy to let you go. That was his onseene determination. >> That was his statement. That's correct. >> And that's not included in your affidavit. >> That's correct. Okay. And would you agree with me uh that the officer's actual behavior as depicted in the video, the videos we just watched, uh it's different than how you described uh the officer's fear in the affidavit? >> Objection. Could you repeat that question? >> Right. So, the officer's actual behaviors in the video was that officer Simmons walked up uh to the he he got behind the vehicle by himself, right? >> Yes. >> And he walked up to the vehicle without calling in backup. >> Yes. >> He didn't have his weapon drawn. >> Yes. >> He didn't seek cover. >> Right. and he walked right up and he started uh engaging in communication with the occupants of the vehicle. >> Yes. >> And then uh once he saw that one of the individuals spoke Spanish, he called officer Reyes. >> Yes. >> Officer Reyes uh also walked right up to the vehicle. Right. >> Right. >> He didn't have his weapon drawn. >> Correct. >> Okay. And uh so this behavior of the officers was not depicted in your affidavits. >> Correct. >> So that's different from when uh you state in the affidavits that quote officers felt as if they were about to commit a criminal act and caused them bodily injury and or death. >> Objection form. Correct. >> And also uh there there's nothing in your affidavit about how not once but twice officer Simmons uh declared he did not care whether the occupants of the vehicle were armed. >> That was his statement. Correct. and um the vehicle as well. Um the use of the phrase dark tinted windows uh did they appear to be uh tinted in a manner that was illegal? >> It's hard to tell by the video and the flashlight glaring on the windows. I I can't elaborate on that. >> Okay. But you could see that uh at least in some manner the back seat was visible in some manner. >> I really wasn't focused watching that part of it >> and the officers never asked them to roll down the back window. >> Correct. >> Okay. Matter of fact, Reyes when he walked up, even with the back windows rolled up, he was able to identify Brandon White in the back. That's >> what he stated. Okay. Did it appear that either officer uh took any kind of defensive positions? >> No. >> Would you consider the manner in which Mr. Ringone parked the vehicle that it was tactical? >> I wouldn't refer to it as tactical. wasn't it wasn't perfectly parked within >> I'm OCD. Okay. So, it wasn't really straight between the lines. All right. It was at an angle, but but it was within the parking space lines. >> Like, it's not it's not like they'd get a parking ticket for the way. >> They just didn't do it >> evenly within. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Would you agree? I understanding there's limits, so I'm talking generally. Would you agree that filming uh police activity is a constitutionally protected conduct? >> Do you know? >> I don't know. Okay. Your affidavits also uh omit uh the fact that the officers recognized uh one of the occupants in the vehicle as a as a cop watcher or first amendment auditor. >> Objection form. >> You're referring to Mr. White, >> right? Your >> to ask a question. Your affidavit omits any reference to the fact that the officers recognized Mr. White during that interaction. >> Correct. >> And that they knew that Mr. White uh engaged in a practice of filming police. >> Yes. >> Do you know why your affidavits failed to mention that point? because it's his name is already mentioned up in the in the in the charging part of the affidavit of who his identity was at the time. >> Do you think it uh changes your probable cause and let me back up. So probable cause you're taking totality of circumstances in right. >> Yes. And would you agree with me that your affidavit is presenting this argument uh that these uh unknown individuals are driving around suspiciously following police? Right. >> Yes. >> And so do you think it would be important to that analysis if it turned out that the two of the officers that responded to the tra to the stop identified Mr. White as a first amendment auditor? Just as they identified him, period. It doesn't matter if he's a first amendment auditor or not. >> But that would be important to the analysis, right? >> Not in my opinion, it would. >> Okay. So, if you know an individual goes around and films police, that's not important. >> Not to me. Okay. Did you testify before a grand jury in this case? >> No, sir. So, after you obtain the uh the arrest warrants, uh did you have any communications with Chief Parish about the plaintiffs or the charges? >> No, sir. >> How about any communications with Lieutenant uh Drake? >> No, sir. >> Any communications with the DA's office? No sir. >> Any communications with any other Livingston police officer? >> No sir, not to my recollection. >> So basically once you got the warrants, you were you were hands off? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Were you involved at all in the uh the actual arrest of the plaintiffs? >> No, sir. >> Did Did you uh did I see you ended up uh questioning one of them post arrest? Uh, I went with Officer Barker to the jail to uh when he was going to interview Melanie in the jail when she was arrested. >> Okay. Do you recall uh Melanie asking uh for an attorney? >> Uh yes, I do. >> Okay. And then the question continued, right? >> Objection form. >> Uh it did it did continue and then she uh she voluntarily invoked her or she invoked her right first then she voluntarily signed it over saying that she didn't want to talk. >> Okay. And uh do you know what's usually supposed to happen when someone asks for an attorney during custodial questioning? >> Yeah, the interview is supposed to stop. >> Okay. But that interview with Melanie didn't stop, did it? >> It there was no interview being conducted at the time. It was just a talk across the table at the time. >> Was she in Was she in cuffs? >> Uh I don't recall whether or not she was in handcuffs or not. >> Was she free to leave? No, she was in custody. >> Are you familiar with the uh press release that uh Chief Parish uh released in this matter? >> No, sir. >> Are you aware of any department policies written or unwritten regarding citizens filming police? >> No, sir. How about uh first amendment auditors? >> No, sir. >> And do you recall receiving any training concerning citizens filming, please? >> No, sir. >> Were your personal opinions about citizens who film police? >> Objection for not interfere with the officer's duties to perform their obligation to protect the community. That's Do you think uh based on the officer Simmons body war and Cameron, did it appear to you that those individuals were interfering with the officer's duties? >> I do. >> Okay. By filming, >> in my opinion. >> Okay. How so? >> Just because of what they had led up to that night when he encountered them. >> Okay. So, uh they What duties were the plaintiffs interfering with >> while he was trying to conduct his his investigation on their suspicious activity? and who they were. >> Is there a requirement for individuals to assist police officers with their investigations? >> Um, I don't remember. >> Okay. So, your opinion is that uh I don't want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong, but your opinion is that they should have uh they should have freely answered the officer's questions and complied with the request to produce identification. >> Yes. >> Objection. >> Anything else? >> No. >> Okay. Did it seem like to you that the uh police chief and lieutenant took a special interest in this case? >> Not anything that out of the ordinary, officer. >> Well, and I earlier you testified um that you were giving clear instructions from the chief on how to charge these individuals and that was out of the ordinary. >> Objection form. I don't remember that statement. I think what I said is I know they had met with the district attorney in regards to um in regards to what they were doing. >> So is it usual for a police chief to tell you specifically how to charge individuals? >> No, but he is my superior chief. >> I understand my obligation not to be in subordinate to my chief. >> Okay. So uh you would rather not be subordinate than u concern yourself with whether the charge is supported by >> correct >> objection form. >> So other than this >> finish this question and listen the whole thing please. >> Other than this circumstance right have there been occasions when the chief of police tells you directly how to charge an individual? >> No. Okay. Did you uh purposely leave out uh information from the affidavit that would have uh lessened the appearance that the plaintiffs were threatening? >> No, sir. And is there any review process that you're aware of that the Livingston Police Department had uh concerning the re review of affidavit before they were presented to a judge? >> No, sir. >> Were you aware that the uh the charges were resol uh uh dismissed against the plaintiffs? >> Yes. >> Okay. How do you become aware of that fact? >> Uh I was made aware that the uh that the grand jury indictments was quashed. >> Do you know why? >> No, I do not know why. >> Okay. There were you aware that there was a initial intent by the district attorney to reindict >> objection? >> No, I'm not aware. >> But they were going to change the underlying charge. >> I'm not aware of that. >> Okay. Did anyone from the DA's office approach you about rewriting your affidavit? >> No, sir. Okay. Does it surprise you that the charges were dismissed? >> Yes. >> Why? Why does it surprise you? >> Because I felt like that there was a good probable cause for the arrest for the charge. >> Okay. And you understand that the uh just so I understand the underlying right because engaging in or in organized criminal activity requires an underlying offense, right? >> Yes. The underlying offense uh that you understood was uh I guess the retaliation, >> correct? >> Okay. And so you thought there was probable cause in your opinion uh to support the retaliation. >> Yes. >> Okay. Were you aware that the judge uh had quashed the indictments because it quote does not allege facts that constitute the underlying alleged offense of obstruction retaliation >> form? >> No, I'm not aware of that. How simply uh following an officer in a vehicle and filming police constitutes uh obstruction or retaliation? >> Objection form. >> I think it's just threatening harassment by filming. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Objection form. So your opinion is that uh individuals that uh film police officers performing their duties in public uh should be charged with crimes that carry up to 20 years in prison. >> Objection form. He has not said that and that is not his >> Well, that's what I'm asking. >> No. >> Did you recommend the $100,000 bond for each defendant? >> No. >> Sorry. Pliff, >> would you agree that $100,000 is typically reserved for uh people accused of violence? >> Objection form. >> I don't set bond amounts on individuals. Well, but you go and part of your job at the time was to go get arrest warrants, right? >> Yes. >> And the arrest warrants themselves would actually have a recommended bond amount on them. >> No, the judge judges put those on their own. There's their their own. >> Okay. So, you wouldn't see that the time the judge signed the warrant? >> Yes, I would see it. >> But all of all of our warrants had recommended bond in parentheses on on the line, blank line. That that is strictly left up to the judge's decision. >> Okay. Would the judge make that decision at the time of signing the arrest warrant? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, you would see when you get the arrest warrant what the number is? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Is that the number that the judge is actually setting or is that the number that's being recommended? >> That's just that's the what judge's recommended bond is. >> Okay. So, the judge writes that number in. >> Correct. >> Okay. And so, uh, during your time with the Livingston Police Department, how many arrest warrants did you go get signed by a judge? >> Every Thursday, we got warrant signed. >> So, it was a common occurrence. >> Yes. >> And every single arrest warrant had a recommended bond amount. >> Correct. >> So, how often would you see a bond amount that was $100,000 or more? >> Depends on the judge. Well, would you see it at least once a week, once a month? >> It would it would vary. >> Okay. But $100,000 usually would mean that it was a serious crime, right? >> Objection form. >> You don't have any opinion on >> I don't have an opinion on that. >> Do you know how long the uh plaintiffs ended up uh spending in jail as a result of that bond amount? >> No, sir. So, what uh let me ask this. Would you agree that a $100,000 bond amount uh is usually for more violent crimes? >> Objection form. >> Once again, I don't set those bonds for the nature of the offenses. That's strictly a I can't elaborate on that. >> Okay. But um >> I've seen high bonds set on misdemeanor charges. It it depends on the judges. >> Okay. But you would never you'd get the warrant and the bond amount didn't matter. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Would you also characterize news reporters who follow police officers to crime scenes as stalking them? >> Objection form. >> Yes. So, if um if they were plotting to harm the officers, why would knowing Mr. White's identity suddenly make them no longer dangerous? >> Objection form. >> Repeat that question again. So, if you recall, once the officers, Simmons and Reyes, identified Mr. White, Simmons uh said, quote, "Now I know who you are. I will be happy to let you go." >> Correct. So, as I understand your affidavit, the narrative being presented is that these uh individuals, my clients, were plotting to harm these officers. So, why would knowing Mr. White's identity make them less dangerous? >> Objection form. >> Could have been something that elaborated later on in the end of the night. Who knows? Because they they stopped once once that initiation was off, Simmons went back to police department, right? >> Correct. >> And nothing else happened. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, let me ask it this way. Your affidavit describes a conspiracy so dangerous that the officers feared for their lives. >> Objection form. >> Yet when the officers discovered who they were, they let them go without arrest. >> Objection form. >> How do you explain that contradiction? >> Objection form. >> That's so ridiculous. Like, don't even answer that. I mean, we could we could come back. >> That's not what his affidavit says. So, >> I'm I'm allowed to present my case. He can answer the question and you can object and we could take it up. If you're going to instruct him not to answer, I will stop the deposition right now and go get a court order to resume this >> objection form because that's not what your affidavit says. It's not what it describes. >> Let me do this. Your affidavit describes a conspiracy, correct? between three or more individuals. That's that's the wording in the Texas um charging manual to conspire to commit the offense. So your affidavit agree with me then that your affidavit alleges a conspiracy in the charge >> that you wrote not in the probable cause but in the top part of the complaint. >> So let me ask it this way. Did you accuse my clients of committing a conspiracy? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, and your affidavit also suggests conduct of potentially causing harm to include bodily injury or death to officers. Right. >> Yes. Yet what we actually saw in the video was that once officer Simmons and Reyes identified at least Mr. White, they let them go. >> Yes. So, how do you explain that contradiction >> objection form >> between a contra? How do you explain the contradiction in your affidavit where you're saying these individuals are conspiring to cause bodily harm or death to police officers to officer Simmons and Reyes letting them go once they identify them? >> Objection formed. >> There's nothing on the law says they have to arrest him right then. If the investigation needs to be continued. Okay. Let me get those uh get those exhibits from Yeah. Want to keep them in order. >> Here's four. >> Four. Okay. There's number five. There's six. Thank you. I'll just put these there. That way we don't mess up. Did you uh did you did do you know if uh Chief Parish used any of your information to present uh or to draft his press release on February 11th, 2022? No, sorry. I have no apology of that. Uh, one of the one of the statements in the press release is that um officers again realized that this was a staged event to record the officer's response and for individuals to post on their social media pages. Upon realizing this, officers disengaged with the individuals. Does that sound correct? >> I never saw press release. I had no idea. >> Well, I'm asking about the uh the substance. Is it your understanding that the officers uh Simmons and Reyes quote realized that this was a stage event to record the officer's response and for the individuals to post on their social media pages? Well, that could have been the incident that occurred earlier in the day before this incident. I don't >> I don't know what he's referring to in his in his >> statement. Okay, fair enough. I'm going to show you page two of exhibit three. Uh just read that uh first paragraph there >> at the top up here. >> Just the the whole paragraph. The top paragraph. Yes. Okay. A paragraph. Had you had you not seen this press release before? >> No, sir. I have not. >> Okay. So, that paragraph, you'd agree with me uh specifically pertains to uh the incident we've been talking about all afternoon, right? >> Yes, it does. And so, uh, you saw the the last sentence where it says, uh, that the officers quote realized this was a stage event to record the officer's response and for the individuals to post on their social media pages. >> Correct. >> And then, quote, upon realizing this, officers disengaged with the individuals. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, and was that your finding as well from your investigation that this was a staged event just to film and post on social media? >> That's strictly my opinion only. >> I'm sorry. Was that your opinion or No, >> that was my opinion that they that staged this whole thing. Yes. >> Okay. To to film a uh police response? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh why was that not included in your affidavit? It's >> because that's my opinion. Okay. But the Did you know that the chief shared your opinion? >> I did not know. >> Okay. Was >> How I'm kind of confused. How's the chief sharing my opinion? >> Well, you the document you read at exhibit 3 is a press release issued by Chief Parish on February 11, 2022. So, you read a paragraph prepared either by or at the direction of Chief Parish. Did you know that? No, I was not. >> Okay. So, is it also then your opinion that this was a staged event to record the officer's response and to post on social media? >> I don't know if it was to post on social media or not, but I think it was a staged event >> to film. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh why was that uh why was this uh analysis not in your affidavit? >> I just didn't write it in there. >> Okay. Uh is it your understanding uh that Chief Parish wanted to send a message uh to plaintiffs uh that that staging events and filming police activity and posting on social media uh would not go without consequence? I can't speculate what his opinion would be as far as that goes. >> Okay. And so you said it was your opinion that this was staged to to film the officer's response, but you didn't include it. Is that because you didn't have any uh I guess specific articulable facts to back up that position? >> No. >> Okay. You didn't have the evidence or that's not correct? >> No, it's not correct. I had the evidence. >> Okay. So, why didn't you include that in your affidavit? >> I just didn't didn't include it. >> Okay. Do you think it would change the uh probable cause analysis as to whether or not plaintiffs are engaged in a felony if their actual intent is to film police? >> Objection form. >> No. Um, thank you for your time at pass. >> Yes. >> Can we take a >> Yes. >> Time is 4:40 p.m. >> All right. >> 4:47 p.m. >> Um, Mr. Milton, I have a few questions. Uh, do you know back in February of 2022, there were some questions, let me back up. There were some questions regarding just kind of like a national police concern and then uh for officer safety and then specific as to the Livingston area, but do you know if in Texas there were bolos that had gone out regarding officer safety in Texas uh related to ambushings and officer assassinations? Yes, I believe there was. >> Okay. I mean, do you know one way or another? I'm not trying to put you on the spot. >> Not positively. No, ma'am. >> Okay. So, do you know back in February of 2022 if um Officer Simmons uh was aware of any of that information? >> I'm not aware. >> Okay. Uh, had you reviewed or did you have knowledge of any statistics back in February of 2022 regarding an increase to officer ambushes or officer uh, assassinations? >> No. >> Um, and that statistic specifically relating to Texas? >> No. >> Okay. And then I want to go back to Officer Simmons report and I don't have a clean copy, but it's the same one that he saw earlier. I did put a couple of asterisks. um and arrows just to kind of help us along here. And so I'm showing you Simmons report from the February 4, 2022 incident. It's defendants 210. Um if you look at the first paragraph up here and you start with uh the sentence about halfway through that says, "I sat in my patrol vehicle." Will you read that sentence to yourself? Okay. >> Uh, does that sentence um in Officer Simmons report, does it identify any concerns regarding assassinations of police officers? >> Yes, it does. >> Okay. Uh would that indicate to you that officer Simmons is aware of a height necessity to be vigilant for officer safety? >> Yes. >> And then in the last paragraph on that page, last full paragraph on that page, uh there's a another sentence that starts uh I am nervous approaching the vehicle. Okay. >> Will you read that to yourself? Okay. >> And again there is he concerned that uh the occupants might come out shooting come out of the and he's referencing coming out of the vehicle. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Uh if he's concerned about occupants coming out of the vehicle shooting, uh would that indicate to you that officer Simmons was worried about officer safety? >> Yes. >> Uh do you think he at that point then would have concerns about bodily injury and or death? >> Yes. >> Um in the video that you saw, I believe it was the dash No, not the dash cam. the body camera video. It was bait number 296. It was defendants bait number 296. Um, did you ever hear officer Reyes instruct the driver to not move his hands? >> No. >> Okay. Um, did you hear him relay to Simmons? Simmons asked what he said and Reyes said something to the effect I told him not to move his hands because clearly he may have weapons. Do you remember that? >> Okay. >> I do not remember that statement. >> And I'm sorry I'm trying to quickly move. We're close to 4 o'lock. I mean, sorry, five o'clock. I know. I'm going to start bait number 296. It's defendants 296. It's the uh body cam footage of uh Chris Simmons from that evening of February 4. I'm starting at 1354. >> I know what you're doing. I know what you're saying. And I'm not saying I disagree. You know, >> that's the wrong Since I'm here. Hold on. That was the wrong section. But since I'm here, uh, Mr. Greyelhood asked you a question, uh, regarding Officer Simmons asking Um, officer, sorry, officer Reyes asking officer Simmons about what's his uh reason for probable cause. And I want to look at that again and ask you some questions. So, I'm going to start back at I'm just Let's do this at 1356 on uh 296. Space number 296. >> I'm homic. I know what you're doing. I know what you're saying. And I'm not saying I disagree what you would, you know, but >> did you hear officer Reyes state that he does not disagree with Officer Simmons? >> That's what he said. >> Okay. And at the time that at the time that officer Simmons was followed by who we now know to be uh Ismael Rencon in the blue car. >> Yes. >> By the time uh when officer Simmons was followed by Rencon and the occupants with the plaintiffs inside, right? Stopped at the gas station. Followed again. circled the police department. Okay. And then came and parked facing the police department. Is there any evidence that Officer Simmons knew who the driver and occupants of the vehicle were? >> He did not. Okay. Based on the video you saw earlier where you could see the direction of uh the blue vehicle in which the plaintiffs were the occupants. Um do you know which way it was facing? Could you tell >> when it was parked at the bank? Yes, >> that would have been facing the souththeast a little ways. >> Okay. So, where was the um door to the police department in relation to the vehicle >> in the same direction in southeast? >> Is it possible that based on the location of the car that the plaintiffs could have used the vehicle for a tactical advantage if they were going to ambush officers coming out of the backside of the police department? Yes. >> Okay. So, is it reasonable that officer Simmons could have perceived the car to be parked in a tactical position? >> Could have. >> Is it reasonable for him to believe that? >> Sure. If an officer is talking to an occupant and advises them not to move their hands uh because he's concerned he might grab a weapon. Uh does that indicate to you that the officer um is concerned about officer safety? I'll >> object. >> Yes. When an officer uh when when an officer is concerned for officer safety, do they always have their weapon drawn? >> Not always. Okay. Um, and do officers go around telling suspects when they're scared? >> No. >> So, if if a officer's scared for officer safety or bodily harm or death even, they're not going to tell the suspect, "Hey, leave me alone. I'm scared." >> Correct. >> Okay. I pass the witness >> on every interaction with the public. Officer safety is always a priority, right? >> Yes. But so so you agree with me that there's a difference between uh being aware for officer safety and an officer fearing for his life. I kind of look at it as in my opinion to be the same as an officer. >> Okay. So every stop then an officer h has a actual fear for their life in your opinion? >> Absolutely. I would >> okay >> I would consider that. Yes. >> So when you put that the statement about fearing for bodily injury or death in your affidavit, that's something legitimately you could put in every affidavit. >> Sure. >> Okay. Uh in your timeline of events based on your investigation, when exactly did officer Simmons first express fear for his life? >> Objection form. I think from I think from the time it started at the store up until the time that he actually made contact with him. Okay. And uh >> are you asking about a specific affidavit? Is that what you're asking? >> No, I I've moved on from it. Um I I'm talking about his investigation because you were responsible for investigating this incident uh the same day you got the case and were required to prepare an affidavit. Correct. >> Yes. How many hours were you able to investigate the matter? >> Objection form >> probably that that midm morning 4 hours. >> Okay. And that day uh the morning you got assigned to the case. That was the first you heard of it. >> Yes. >> Okay. And so uh you were able to uh read officer Simmons two-page incident report. >> Yes. You watched the uh 17 18 minute video. >> Yes. >> And you also had discussions with uh um Captain Sorry, Chief Parish. >> No, >> not in the morning, but later that day. >> Later that day. >> Okay. How about >> later in the morning? It was still morning, but it was later in the morning. >> Okay. So, um All right. Now, Officer Simmons, uh, other than generally asserting a concern for, uh, his concerns of whether or not there was going to be a shooting, uh, there wasn't anything specifically detailed in his report, was there? >> No. >> There wasn't any indication about uh, specific actions that the def that the plaintiffs took uh, to suggest that officer Simmons was about to walk into a firefight. >> Objection form. Yeah, he did state some facts in his report >> that he was about to walk into a firefight. >> No, that the subjects could have got out shooting at him. >> Okay. There's a difference between a hunch, right? We talked about this hunch and specific articulable facts. >> Objection, >> right? >> Yes. >> What specific articulable facts existed that plaintiffs were going to get out and shoot at Officer Simmons? articulable facts in his report. >> Period. Yeah. In his report, in your investigation, what specific article facts existed that the plaintiffs were going to get out of the vehicle and shoot at officer sentence? I don't guess I'm following the question you're asking in regards to Officer Simmons. >> Well, sure. So, would you agree that officers could have a uh reasonable fear, right, over anything? >> Sure. >> They could also have a unreasonable fear over something, right? >> Sure. And then they could also be uh presented with a situation that is occurring or unfolding that actually puts them in actual risk of bodily injury or death. >> Sure. >> Okay. So there's hunches or gut feelings as you described them earlier, right? >> And there's uh perceptions of what's going on or what could happen, right? >> Mhm. >> Yes. And those perceptions could be reasonable or unreasonable. >> Correct? >> And so in order to understand it, we need to know what the facts were available to the officer. Right? >> Yes. >> Okay. So what facts were available based on your investigation. Just I'm not asking you to read officer Simmons mind. I'm asking for the information that you know for a fact was available to officer Simmons to suggest that the plaintiffs were going to get out of the vehicle and shoot officer Simmons. objection form. Well, I would say there was no articular facts as far as them going to going to shoot at him, but once again, it's the totality of all the events that led up to the encounter of what he had to do in order to um try to find out what they were up to. >> Understand? And again, there's a difference between hunches, suspicion, and probable cause, right? Yes. >> Okay. So, if Officer Simmons truly feared for his life, would you have expected that to be documented with specific facts in his incident report? >> I mean, yes, I would, but every officer writes reports differently. But officer Simmons report does not provide article specific facts indicating why exactly it is he feared for his life with respect to plaintiffs. >> Objection. >> I I don't remember without sitting here looking at it. >> Yeah. He said what his uh what his hunch was, right? Is that right? >> Yes. >> And >> objection form. >> So, and matter of fact, uh after he identified uh Mr. White, uh he didn't proceed uh to write him a ticket or to arrest him on the spot. Right. >> Correct. A matter of fact, he didn't make any decision whatsoever uh in the charging or arrest of those individuals. Correct. All right, I passed the windows. Jessica, >> um, Mr. Graham keeps asking you about hunches versus suspicions versus other things. Um, do you think it was a hunch or suspicion that the blue car that plants were occupied in followed Simmons? >> For that was that was real. >> Okay. Um, in the report, was it documented that that car stopped at the Stripes convenience store? >> It was. >> Okay. Was that a hunch or was that real? >> That was real. >> Um, from the Stripes convenience store, did it the car with the plaintiffs inside continue to follow Officer Simmons? >> It did. >> So, was that a hunch or was that real? >> That was real. >> Did the blue car continue to circle the PD, the police station while Officer Simmons was outside? >> That was real. >> Okay. That wasn't a hunch, was it? >> No. And was that located in Officer Simmons report? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, in officer Simmons report, did it state that uh, Officer Reyes witnessed the driver of the vehicle go to the trunk of the car and put on a ballistic style vest? >> That's correct. >> Okay. That wasn't a hunch that Simmons came up with. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And then in his report, is it communicated um does it state that officer Reyes communicated that to officer Simmons? >> Yes. >> Okay. So that wasn't a hunch that Simmons came up with. >> Correct. >> All right. And then after officer Reyes told officer Simmons that the driver put on a ballistic style vest, did that vehicle come back and park at the back entrance of the Livingston Police Department >> injection form? >> Yes, it did. >> Okay. Um, it parked in a bank parking lot. Is that right? >> Correct. >> Well, on the street. >> Correct. um that faced the entrance of the Livingston Police Department. >> The employee entrance of the police department. That's correct. >> Okay. So, who uses that employee entrance? >> Officers and dispatchers. >> Okay. Was that a hunch or was that real? >> That was real. >> Okay. >> You passed. >> I passed the witness. >> All right. Just to clarify, uh you weren't present during any of the events on February 4th, 2022, were you? >> I was not. >> Okay. So all of these uh about hunches and real you're just going based on is it real that was written in the report. >> Correct. >> Right. Because you didn't actually uh you didn't speak to Reyes about his observations about a ballistic vest. >> No sir. >> Matter of fact, a ballistic vest was never even seized, was it? >> No, sir. >> Okay. And uh you also didn't talk to officer Simmons about his observations. >> No sir. >> And you actually just testified a couple of minutes ago that officers don't usually write the best reports. >> Objection form. >> I said officers officers reports vary. I didn't say they didn't write good reports. >> Well, they vary, but that means that you can't rely on them. >> Objection four. >> Are they admissible in the court of law? Do you know? >> Objection four. >> Yes. >> Police reports are do you know? Um, >> okay. Well, let me ask you this. Um, was it real or was it a hunch that Officer Simmons approached the vehicle directly without backup? >> That was real. >> Was it a real or a hunch that Officer Simmons approached the vehicle without his weapon drawn? >> That was real. >> And was it uh real or was it a hunch that he didn't call for backup before approaching the vehicle? >> That's real. >> Okay. And uh based on your training and experience, officers should maintain a safe distance and seek cover if they are genuinely fear if they genuinely fear for their safety or life. >> Objection form. >> That is totally an officer officer by officer call. Everybody approaches cars differently. >> Okay? >> Whether and they're in fear or they're not in fear. >> I'm not talking generally. I'm talking about a genuine fear that someone is about to get out of the vehicle and start shooting at them. The you are trained as a police officer in the state of Texas with the TCO license to maintain safe distance and seek cover. Correct? >> Objection form. >> Yes. >> Okay. That didn't happen in this case, did it? >> No. >> And just for clarity, none of the individuals got out of the vehicle and started shooting at the officers. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And none of the individuals threatened the officers uh verbally uh with any kind of uh bodily injury or death. >> That's correct. >> All right. All right. I pass the witness. All right. >> Time is 509 here.