All language subtitles for Justice.on.Trial.S01E06.1080p.WEB.h264-EDITH

This isn't good.

Don't say a word.

Let me handle this.

License and registration.

It's a... it's a rental.

Mr. Turriago from Manhattan.

Long way from home.

Uh, yeah, just doing a
construction job for my father.

Well, you seem to be
in an awful hurry.

-Uh...
-Mind if we look in the back?

Look, we're just trying to get to
the job site before our shift starts.

Step out of the vehicle.

But... why?

I'm not gonna ask again.

Spread your legs.

He's clean.

Either you show us what's
in the back of the truck,

or everyone's going
to jail right now.

Okay, okay.

I got nothing to hide.

John, secure those other two.

Out of the car, now!

We haven't done anything wrong!

Out! Get out of the car, now!

Hurry up!

You see? Just
construction equipment.

What's in the trunk?

Uh, just some clothing.

Open it. Now. Let's go, come on.

The key's bent.

Damn it, open the trunk!

There's a body
in the trunk! He's running!

On the ground, now!
Hands on your head! Now!

You're under arrest for murder.

I'm Judy Sheindlin.

Before I was a judge on TV,

I was a judge in New
York City for 15 years,

and a lawyer for 17
years before that.

While serving on both
sides of the bench,

I learned that justice doesn't
always end up feeling...

just.

Sometimes, the impact of one
decision by a police officer,

a lawyer, or even a judge, can
change the way justice is delivered.

We're going to demonstrate
this by taking landmark cases

from actual crimes
committed by real people.

And we'll recreate them
with our trial lawyers

and yours truly as
the trial judge.

While we're not going to
recreate the trials verbatim,

all the court's ultimate
decisions are accurate.

It will be up to you to decide
whether the case was fair

and the outcome just.

Real
cases, actual lawyers,

surprising verdicts...

Justice on Trial.

This episode of Justice on Trial
seems pretty open and shut.

A traffic stop led to the
discovery of a dead body.

And Leonardo Turriago
was arrested for murder.

As you will see, he
even confessed to it.

So, why are we
examining this case?

It's a legal concept called
"fruit of the poisonous tree."

You see, the Fourth
Amendment to our Constitution

protects us against
unreasonable searches

and requires probable
cause to exist

before the police can search
your person or your property.

But what if there
isn't probable cause?

Then any evidence
discovered by that search

is considered "fruit
of the poisonous tree"

and is not admissible
at the trial.

The question here is, was
this search reasonable?

Watch and see what you think.

The Defendant is on
trial for murder.

The Prosecution intends to introduce
certain inculpatory statements

as well as physical
evidence at the trial.

The Defendant moves to
suppress that evidence,

alleging that the police misconduct
violated his constitutional rights.

Mr. Bakman, note your
appearance, please.

Good morning, Your Honor.

Larry Bakman on behalf of the
People of the State of New York.

-Thank you.
-Good morning, Your Honor.

For the Defendant, Leonardo
Turriago, I'm Dan Mentzer.

Thank you. Mr. Bakman, call
your first witness, please.

Your Honor, the People
call Trooper O'Leary.

-Would you swear the witness, please?
-Yes.

Raise your hand, please. Do you swear to
tell the truth in these matters today?

-I do.
-Thank you. Have a seat.

You may inquire.

Trooper O'Leary, can you tell the
court your profession or occupation?

I'm a State Trooper for
the state of New York.

And turning your attention to
the night of November 20th.

-Were you working that evening?
-Yes, I was.

Were you alone or
were you with a partner?

I was working with my partner, New
York State Trooper James Van Cura.

And what was your
assignment that evening?

We were on routine patrol,
but we do also enforce

the state's environmental
conservation laws,

especially during
hunting season.

And November 20th, is that the
start of their season, sir?

Yes.

So, on November 20th,

are you focused on looking for
particular types of vehicles

because of the start
of deer season?

Yes, we are. Uh, box
trucks, larger trucks, vans.

Vehicles that will
hold larger animals.

And November 20th, did that date
hold a certain significance for you?

-Yes, it did.
-Why is that?

We pulled
over a box truck

driving at approximately 70
miles per hour on Route 17.

The van was driving at 70 miles
per hour. What is the speed limit?

The speed limit on that stretch of
the highway is 55 miles per hour.

Thank you.

And so, did you conduct
an enforcement stop?

-We did.
-When you conducted that enforcement stop,

did you make contact
with the driver?

Yes, I did.

-Is the driver present in court?
-Yes, he is.

Would you point him out, please?

Indicating the Defendant.

And when you made
contact with the driver,

did you have a conversation
with him at the driver's window?

Yes, I did.

And did you ask him any
particular questions,

such as asking for his
identification and registration?

Yes, I did. The driver
provided me with a driver's license,

and he also provided me with the
rental agreement for the box truck.

And after you were provided
with the identification,

did you ask you ask
the driver anything?

Well, I informed him that it was
the second day of hunting season,

and I simply asked him
if he would allow us

to take a look in the
back of the vehicle.

-And his answer was?
-Sure.

Was that the word
he used, "sure"?

Yes, he did use the word "sure."

Okay.

And did you ask him to
step out of the vehicle?

I did, yes.

Did he voluntarily
step out of the vehicle?

Yes, he did.

And when he
stepped out of the vehicle,

what did you then ask
him to do, if anything?

I patted down his pockets
to ensure he had no weapons

in the interest of
officer safety, of course.

And when you asked
him to pat him down,

what was his response?

He said, sure, no problem.

And at that point
in time, did you then proceed

to the back of the truck
with the Defendant?

I did not. My partner
Trooper Van Cura

proceeded to the back of the
truck with the Defendant.

I stayed up front and spoke
with the other passengers.

There were two other
passengers with the Defendant.

And so, Van Cura actually traded
places with you, is that correct?

That is correct.

And did you observe Van Cura make
entry into the cargo area of the truck?

-Yes, I did.
-And at some point in time later,

did you observe the Defendant
running from the truck?

Yes, I did.

Was an arrest
made of the Defendant?

Yes.

And did you understand
that a body had been found?

Yes, a deceased
body was found in a trunk

in the back of the box
truck, at which time

the Defendant and two other
individuals were arrested for murder.

-No further questions.
-Mr. Mentzer.

Thank you, Your Honor. I want to
make sure I have this correct.

In the early morning
hours of November 20th,

you and your partner
were on routine patrol

in Orange County,
New York, right?

That is correct.

You pulled over my
client, Leonardo Turriago, correct?

Correct.

You asked Mr. Turriago for his
driver's license and his registration.

-Correct.
-License appeared in order.

Nothing illegal from what
you could see at that time.

It appeared to be
at that time, yes.

So, every question
you had asked, he answered.

Yes.

And everything seemed
to be legal, right?

Everything seemed to be
legal at the time, yes.

-He was not evasive with you?
-Not evasive.

-He was cooperative with you?
-Indeed.

And it appeared to you at that
time that no criminal activity

from what you could see had been engaged
by my client or the passengers, right?

At that time, we had no idea.

So, you told us on
direct examination

something about hunting
regulations, right?

Yes.

Well, you have participated in
other enforcement activities

with the Department of
Environmental Conservation, right?

Yes.

Where you stop cars with the Department
of Environmental Conservation,

and you ask the drivers whether they
wouldn't mind if you searched, right?

Yes.

This wasn't that
type of an operation, was it?

No, it was not. But we are
always on the look out...

No, you've answered the question. It
was not that type of an operation.

Because the Department of
Environmental Conservation

wasn't with you
that night, right?

They were not, no.

So, that wasn't the type of protocol
that you were doing that night.

Besides, let's be honest, there
was nothing about these guys

that indicated to you that they
could've been hunters, was there?

No.

They weren't dressed in
hunting gear were they?

-No.
-There were no rifles,

bullets, blood, anywhere in the cab
area of that car that you saw, right?

True, correct.

So, there was no evidence to believe
that they were hunters at all,

let alone illegal hunters?

Correct.

What you really wanted
was to search that van

after you saw these
three Hispanic men

from New York City
driving up in your area.

Whether or not they were Hispanic
has no bearing on anything, actually.

But you know that you need
to have a valid legal reason

to search the car, correct?

We asked his permission to search
the back of the vehicle, sir.

You mind if we look in the back?

And it is your testimony to this
court that this man right here,

who ultimately had a
dead body in the back,

told you no problem, when
you asked him to search.

That is exactly what he said.

We were surprised ourselves,
to be honest with you.

You don't have any video evidence of
him consenting to the search, do you?

No.

It is just your word that when
you asked Leonardo Turriago,

a man trying to dispose of a dead
body in the back of that truck,

whether you can search
the back of that truck,

he said, "Sure, no problem."

That is exactly what he said.

Thank you, Officer.

Thank you very
much. You're excused.

Before we get
back to the trial,

I'm going to call a
bit of a time out.

I think it's important to
understand the stakes here.

If Turriago's motion to suppress the
evidence from the search is upheld,

he will likely go free.

Because everything the police found
would be fruit of the poisonous tree,

as we've discussed.

That also includes
the confession he made

once State Troopers took
him to the police station.

And this is what he
confessed to doing.

That's two kilos, like usual.

Looks a little light to me.

No?

You believe this guy?

You don't like the count,
you can leave with nothing.

Your choice.

Calm down, calm down.

I'm not questioning the weight.

I'm just saying you're
cutting this too much.

My customers are complaining.

Look, I gotta make a
profit, just like you.

Yes, but you aren't
making anything

without my guys selling
this on the street.

So, when I say that people are
complaining, that's a problem

for you.

I think you might want
to rephrase that, dude.

All right. I'm sorry.

Call off your dog.

I got the cash right here.

This is
how it's gonna be.

Believe it or not...

this is your lucky day.

From now on, we're partners.

Between your supply and my guys
selling this on the street,

we're gonna make
a lot more money.

And if I refuse?

Let's see, if I decide
not to shoot you now,

there's gonna be a lot more guns
pointed at you in the future.

What do you think, Ed?

I don't think this
partnership's gonna work out.

Die!

What just happened?

We're gonna need some duct tape

and a lot of plastic wrap.

I call Officer Van Cura.

You may inquire.

Thank you. Officer, can you tell the
court your profession or occupation?

I'm a State Trooper for
the state of New York.

And directing your attention
to the evening of November 20th.

Did a particular box truck catch
your attention that evening?

Uh, yes, it did.

And what was the
reason it caught your attention?

It was speeding.

And at the time of the enforcement
stop, did you hear your partner

ask the driver to step
out of the vehicle?

Yes, I did.

Was it an ask,
or was it a demand?

It was an ask.

And did you hear your partner
ask the driver for consent

to search inside the cargo
area of that vehicle?

Uh, yes.

And was that an
ask, or was that a demand?

That was an ask.

That's sort of a conclusion.
Did you hear what he said?

-Yes.
-What did he say?

He asked him to step outside of
the vehicle. Uh, asked, not told...

No, just a... He asked him
to step out of the vehicle?

Yes, ma'am.

Would you tell me what words
either you or your partner used

to ask about the driver's permission
to look in the back of the truck.

I'd like to hear those words.

I specifically asked the driver if I
could look in the back of his vehicle.

You mind showing us
what's in the back?

And he said yes.
Actually, he said "sure."

Okay. Go ahead.

And so, when you were at
the back of the vehicle,

did you ask the Defendant
to open the truck up?

Yes, I did.

What did
you see inside?

I saw a cardboard
box and a steamer trunk.

Was the trunk locked?

Yes, it was.

Did you ask the Defendant
to open the steamer trunk?

-Yes, I did.
-Did he open it?

-Yes, he did.
-What did you see?

He struggled to open the
trunk at first with his keys.

Once he got the trunk open
and the lid popped up,

I saw what appeared to be human
legs protruding from the trunk.

And when
you saw that body,

what did you see
the Defendant do?

Once the lid popped open and
the human legs were visible,

the Defendant ran. I then gave chase
and I apprehended the Defendant.

Did you place
him under arrest?

-Yes, sir.
-For what?

Murder.

And did you take the
Defendant back to the police station?

Yes.

At the police station, sir, did
you Mirandize the Defendant?

Yes, I did.

After Mirandizing
the Defendant, sir,

did he tell you what
happened to the victim?

-Yes, he did.
-What did he say?

He said he shot the
victim in the face five times

with a 25-caliber gun
over a drug dispute.

Once he realized that the victim
wasn't dead, he then took a hammer

and struck him in the head with
it three times to finish him off.

Two accomplices then took the body,
wrapped it in cellophane and duct tape,

and then stuffed it
in the steamer trunk.

Thanks for
helping with this.

Leo's not going to forget it.

That's what friends do.

We do this quick,

and if anyone from his crew asks,
he never showed up for the buy.

And we're just a couple of guys
on our way to a construction job.

Yes, here's my hammer.

Did he tell you where you
could find the murder weapon?

Yes, he did.

According to Turriago's
confession, he didn't even live here.

This was just a place used
to distribute cocaine.

Yep. I got a white
powdery substance here.

Maybe it spilled
during the struggle.

Blood splatter over here consistent
with the table being overturned.

If this matches the murder
victim and the recovered hammer,

Turriago's done.

We have a bullet casing. Looks
like a little 25-caliber.

Probably why he shot
the guy so many times.

I love it when a good
confession comes together.

Always makes life easier.

Well, lookie here.

Drinks on me, boys.

Where did he tell you
you could find the gun?

He said he discarded the gun and
threw it in the Hudson River.

Did he give you the location
where he threw it into the Hudson?

-Yes.
-And to your knowledge,

-was it later recovered?
-Yes, it was.

No further questions.

You may inquire.

Thank you, Judge.

Officer Van Cura, at about
2:00 AM on November 20th,

you and your partner, O'Leary,
were on routine patrol?

That's correct, yes.

And you were parked about three quarters
of a mile from the Woodbury tollbooth?

Yes.

Now, you say
that this box truck

who had just stopped at
the Woodbury tollbooth,

had already accelerated to the point
it was traveling 70 miles an hour

within three quarters of a mile?

That's the way it happened, yes.

You're
saying that this man,

who was driving with a
dead body in the back,

is just tearing out of this tollbooth
right in front of you guys, right?

Yes, that's the way it happened.

Now, at some point, you walked
around to the back of that box truck

-to the cargo area, correct?
-Correct.

And there you saw
my client Leonardo Turriago.

-Correct.
-You asked Mr. Turriago

-to open the back of the cargo area, yes?
-Yes.

He opened it up.
You saw a cardboard box

-and a steamer trunk in the back.
-Correct.

You asked Mr. Turriago what
was in the cardboard box.

He told you that it was some clothing
and some construction equipment.

-Right?
-Correct.

You ask him to open up the cargo to see
if that was true, what he had told you.

-Correct.
-It turned out it was true.

He had some clothing
and a hammer, right?

Correct.

At that point, every answer
he gave you appeared to be truthful.

Yes.

You had no reason, at that point,
to think he was lying to you.

-Right?
-Correct.

And at that point, you
had no reason to think

he had been engaged in any
criminal conduct at all.

-Right?
-Yes.

You didn't just issue him a ticket
and send him on his way, did you?

-No.
-You didn't run his license.

-Right?
-Correct.

-You kept pressing further.
-Correct.

When you asked him to open
up that steamer trunk,

which you later learned
had a dead body inside,

he said, sure, no problem.
That's your testimony?

Yes, that's what he said.

And then, it was only after
you got back to the precinct

after you found the dead body,

after you arrested these
three men for murder,

-that you ran his license.
-Correct.

Even though you pulled
him over for speeding,

you didn't even run his license
until he gets back to the precinct.

-After you arrest him for murder.
-Correct.

You don't even
issue him a speeding ticket

-until after you found the body.
-Yes.

You were covering your
tracks, were you not?

-No.
-'Cause you knew you needed some reason

to have stopped this car
in the first place, right?

-No.
-You don't?

We needed a reason, but
the reason was speeding.

That was our reason.

-Let me ask a... Just a second.
-When you...

-When you pull a car over for speeding...
-Yes, ma'am.

...as part of any normal
process, am I correct

that you usually take the
license and/or registration...

-Mm-hmm.
-...and you go back to your car.

I know my husband's been stopped
for speeding a couple of times.

I've never been
stopped for speeding.

They take the license and they go
back and run a check on the license

if you're stopped for
speeding. Correct?

Correct.

You had not done that, at that
point, prior to finding the body.

-Is that correct?
-That is correct.

So, I ask you again, up until
the time you got back to the precinct,

nothing you did was consistent

with an officer that pulled
someone over for speeding.

-Correct?
-Yes.

No further questions, Judge.

I have a couple
of questions on redirect.

So, based on
Mr. Mentzer's question

about whether you knew
at some point in time

you'd be asked about why you
obtained consent to open the truck.

Based on that question,
Officer, let me ask you this.

Did you manufacture probable
cause out in the field?

-No.
-No further questions.

While you didn't manufacture
probable cause out in the field,

you certainly did
manufacture probable cause

once you got back to the precinct
after finding the body, didn't you?

Objection, argumentative.

It is argumentative.

There's no suggestion,
Mr. Mentzer,

that evidence was manufactured
back at the precinct.

Judge, if I might.

Mr. Bakman asked the question, did
you manufacture probable cause.

In the field.

How can I be deprived
of the right to ask,

"Did you manufacture probable
cause back at the precinct?"

Because there's no probable cause
necessary back at the precinct.

They found a dead
body in the car.

And that's probable
cause to bring him in.

The basis for the stop in the first
place, I'm suggesting it was pretextual.

That they covered their tracks
when they got back to the precinct

and realized they had no reason
to have stopped this car.

They ended up writing a speeding
ticket claiming he was speeding to...

Oh, well, that's
a little complicated.

It encompasses, did you
manufacture evidence.

You want to ask a specific
question as to whether or not

because they didn't have evidence,
they manufactured probable cause

at the precinct by
issuing a speeding ticket.

-Yes.
-I will let you ask that question.

But you can't ask
an overall question.

Didn't you in fact manufacture
evidence back at the precinct?

-Okay. Yes.
-Ask him that question.

Once you got back
into the precinct,

and you realized you had
to come up with a reason

for having stopped this
van in the first place,

that's when you manufactured
the probable cause

by writing the speeding
ticket, didn't you?

We did check the license at the
station, yes, not in the field.

Thank you.

Okay. Witness is excused.
Thank you very much.

-People rest.
-People rest.

Mr. Mentzer.

If I might, the Defense
calls Leonardo Turriago.

Raise your right hand, please.

Do you swear to tell the
truth in these matters today?

-I do.
-Have a seat.

-You may inquire, sir.
-Thank you, Your Honor.

Now, I want to call your attention to
November 20th at approximately 2:00 AM.

Where were you on that
date at that time?

I was driving to
Binghamton in a rental van.

Why were you driving up to
Binghamton that night, Leonardo?

We were trying to dispose of a dead
body that was in the back of the truck.

Did anything
unusual happen to you

while you were driving up
toward Binghamton that night?

Yes. We were stopped by the
police after leaving a tollbooth.

Before being stopped
by the police, were you speeding?

No, we had just
left the tollbooth.

Is there
any other reason why

you were not going over the speed
limit that particular night?

Well, we had a dead body
in the back of the van.

Now, when the
Trooper pulled you over,

did the Trooper ask you for your
driver's license that night?

Yes, I gave him my
driver's license and rental agreement.

What did the Trooper do
when you handed him your license

and the rental agreement
for that rented box truck?

He looked at them. He
gave 'em back to me.

And then, he told me
to get out of the car.

-And what did he do next?
-He searched me.

Then he asked me what was
in the back of the truck.

What did you tell that Trooper?

I told him that I had
construction equipment in the back

because of a job I was
doing for my father.

What did the Trooper do when you said you
had construction equipment in the back?

He told
me to open it up.

Did he ask you for permission to
open up the back of this truck

before you did so, or did he
tell you to open up the back?

No, he
told me to open it up.

Show us what's in the back of the truck
or everyone's going to jail right now.

-Did you?
-Yes.

Now, these were armed uniformed
New York State police officers?

That is right.

Did you feel you
had to do what they told you?

Yes.

Did he ever ask for your
consent to open up this trunk

-that you knew had a dead body in it?
-No.

Damn it, open the trunk!

Did you feel like you had
any choice other than to do

exactly as these uniformed armed
police officers told you to do?

No. I knew I had to do
what he told me to do.

Thank you, Leonardo. I
have no further questions.

Any other questions?

Oh, yes. So, Mr. Turriago,

let me see if I have
your story straight, sir.

On the night of November 20th,
you're driving to Binghamton,

and you've got a dead body in the back
of the truck you've rented, correct?

Yes.

And lo and behold, you get
stopped by State Troopers

on the way to Binghamton.

-Correct?
-Yes.

And you think you're a
pretty smart guy, don't you?

Yes.

And you thought that you
would outsmart the officers

by playing Mr. Cooperative
that night.

-Correct?
-Yes.

And so, in order to avert
suspicion on yourself, sir,

and your accomplices,

you decided,
anything they ask me,

I'm gonna cooperate,
I'm going to say yes.

-No.
-So, the first thing they asked you

-was identification. Correct?
-Yes.

And you knew when you gave
them the license, Mr. Turriago,

-that it was suspended. Correct, sir?
-Yes.

But you didn't tell them
that. You were deceptive with them.

-Correct?
-Yes.

And then, they ask you voluntarily
to step out of the truck.

-Correct?
-No, they told me to.

And we have only your word to believe
it when you say, they told me.

-Is that right, sir?
-Yes.

Then, they asked you for
consent to conduct a pat down.

-Yes?
-No, they just patted me down.

And then, they asked
you for consent

to open up the back of the truck
in order to search. Correct?

No. He told me to open it up.

And once again, we have
to believe your version.

-Objection.
-Correct?

I don't have to do anything.
That's his version.

So, the back of the
truck is opened up?

-Yes?
-Yes.

They open up the cardboard
box with your permission.

-Correct?
-No.

They open up the steamer
trunk with your permission.

-Correct?
-No.

When the
steamer trunk opened,

you took off out of the back
of the truck. Correct, sir?

-Yes.
-You knew what was in the trunk,

-Correct?
-Yes.

And at the station, you were
Mirandized by police, yes?

Yes.

You gave them a
full confession, did you not?

-Yes.
-You told them

that you had a drug dispute
with the victim. Correct, sir?

That is correct.

So, you told the officer,
sir, that you shot the victim

point blank in the face
with a 25-caliber handgun.

Not once, but five times. Yes?

-Yes.
-And he didn't die, did he?

No.

But you wanted to make
sure of his death,

so you hit him three times over
the head with a steel hammer.

-Correct?
-Yes.

So, Mr. Turriago, based on
what you told the officers

with regards to this killing,
as I understand it, sir,

you're a killer, but
you're not a liar, are you?

That's correct.

No further questions.

Okay, witness is excused.

Any other witnesses,
Mr. Mentzer?

No, the Defense rests.

Mr. Mentzer, do you wish to
make a closing argument, sir?

Yes, Your
Honor. Thank you.

Your Honor, the search of
my client's rented box truck

by New York State Troopers that
resulted in them finding a dead body,

and getting a statement
from my client,

and arresting my client and two
other people for murder, was illegal.

The Troopers who
searched that van

had absolutely no reason
to believe, at that point,

that my client was engaged
in any criminal conduct.

So, what is the reason they give
you for why they searched this car?

The oldest one in
the book, consent.

They have absolutely no written proof
of it, they have no video proof of it.

But they claim that my client,

who has a dead body in
the back of this van,

just willingly agreed,
freely and voluntarily,

for these officers to search the
back of his van. It's ridiculous.

However, it just doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter
because, fortunately,

our Fourth Amendment rights give
us all the right to privacy.

That is the right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures.

And it applies to men like Leonardo
Turriago, charged with murder,

and it also applies
to innocent people

who are driving on our
highways who get pulled over

simply because of the color of
their skin or their ethnicity.

Because that's exactly
what happened here.

Thank you. Mr. Bakman?

Thank you, Your Honor.
So, kudos to Mr. Mentzer.

He certainly gets an "A for
effort." But unfortunately for him,

the state of the law
doesn't favor his case.

This motion is easily decided.
The evidence from both officers,

this vehicle was doing 70 miles an
hour in a 55 mile per hour zone.

That is PC to conduct
an enforcement stop.

The second issue is consent.

Now, Mr. Mentzer wants you to
again believe in his client,

that consent was not given. You
heard both officers say, "I asked."

And lo and behold,
they get consent.

Probable cause exists,
consent was given.

This was a legal search.
And the rest in this case

and the motion to
suppress should be denied.

Thank you.

We will now take a brief recess,
and I will return with my verdict.

Court, come to order.

The Honorable Judge Judy
Sheindlin presiding.

Thank you.

I will now render my
decision in this matter.

This court has had the unique opportunity
to evaluate the testimony of each witness

and makes the following findings
of fact and conclusions of law.

The Troopers had every right to
stop Mr. Turriago for speeding.

They also had a legitimate
basis to be suspicious,

based upon the onset
of hunting season,

the nature of the vehicle, the
speed of the vehicle, and the hour.

They were justified in
asking for a consent search.

The Defendant voluntarily gave
that consent to the Troopers

to search the cargo area.

The body of the victim was
discovered during a lawful search,

and all other evidence following
therefrom must be admitted.

The motions to
suppress are denied.

After the evidence was allowed to
be considered at Turriago's trial,

he was found guilty of murder.

But he appealed claiming that
his Fourth Amendment rights

were violated by
an unlawful search.

This time, the Appeals Court
found in favor of Turriago.

And the case was ordered returned
to the lower court for a retrial.

However, at that retrial,

the Prosecutors wouldn't be
allowed to use any evidence

of the dead body, the
gun, or the confession,

because all these were fruits
of the poisonous illegal search.

A confessed killer was almost
certainly going to be set free.

But the state of New
York wasn't done.

Citizens joined Prosecutors
to protest the decision,

and the case was appealed
to yet another high court.

This time, they introduced
a different legal concept

called the doctrine of
"inevitable discovery."

That rule holds that if
through normal police work,

the evidence would have eventually
been discovered, it is admissible,

even if it was originally the
product of an illegal search.

Counsel, note your appearance.

Good morning, Your Honors. Larry
Bakman on behalf of the Appellant,

the People of the
State of New York.

Good morning, everybody.
Daniel Mentzer

on behalf of Leonardo
Turriago, the Respondent.

At this time, we'll take
opening arguments from counsel.

Mr. Bakman, would
you like to proceed?

-I would, Your Honor.
-Thank you.

As set forth in the
People's Appellate brief,

the issues that I foresee this
court dealing with are as follows:

One, was there voluntary consent given
by the Defendant out in the field?

Two, that this traffic stop was
the product of racial profiling.

Three, is the
Defendant in this case

entitled to the application
of the law that states

there must be a founded
suspicion of criminal activity

in order for the police
to ask for consent.

The People's position
is absolutely not.

It's the People's position that
all of those arguments are mooted.

They're nullified by the
doctrine of inevitable discovery.

Because if you take away
consent, then out in the field,

the police would
have run the driver

to see if he had a valid
operator's license.

And within a minute or
two, it would've come back

that the Defendant's
license was suspended.

The Defendant would've
been most likely arrested.

The car would've been impounded, and
there would've been an inventory search.

Once the inventory search occurred,
the body would've been found.

The hammer would've been found.

And all of the reasons that the
Intermediate Appellate Division found

to justify suppression
are taken away.

We submit that this Court
should look at that doctrine

and find that it applies
and reinstate the conviction

in this case. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bakman.
Mr. Mentzer. I ask you

if you'd like an opportunity
to make a statement, as well?

Thank you, Your Honor, I would.

The facts in this case, the
relevant facts in this case,

are really not in dispute.

Two New York State Troopers pull over a
van that had three Hispanic men in it.

They ask for information
from those men.

They gave it to 'em.
Completely cooperative.

So, the Troopers had no reason to believe
they had conducted or been engaged

in any criminal conduct at all, but
they still conducted the search.

The Appellate Division correctly
found that that was the application

of the facts to the law,
and they suppressed.

So, why are the People
continuing to appeal this case?

Well, we know the reason.
Because if you apply the law

as the Appellate Division
did to these facts,

that means that evidence of a
murder, evidence of drug dealing,

is suppressed against my client.

And when this case goes
back for a new trial,

the Prosecution will not be able
to use that evidence against him.

And the possibility exists

that someone who has confessed
to a homicide might walk.

That's the problem here. But the problem
that you face is not so significant.

Because you know that
if you allow the police

to do what they did in this case,
search three Hispanic men's car

simply because of the
color of their skin.

That means, that you're
basically telling the police,

search anyone you want. And
guess who gets searched?

Innocent people who've
done nothing wrong

for the color of their skin,
get humiliated, get harassed,

get dragged out of their cars,

and have their cars and
their property searched.

This is where our rights
pursuant to the Fourth Amendment

against unreasonable
search and seizures.

It begins right here,
not on the streets.

And I ask you to uphold the
decision of the Appellate Division.

-Thank you.
-Thank you, Mr. Mentzer.

We're gonna retire
to deliberate.

We have
reached a unanimous verdict.

Mr. Turriago murdered Fernando
Cuervo by shooting him in the face,

striking him in the
head with a hammer,

and then stuffing his dead
body in a steamer trunk.

On appeal, Defendant does
not contest the sufficiency

of the overwhelming evidence
supporting his conviction.

He did, in fact,
murder Mr. Cuervo.

There is no reason to address
whether police possessed

a founded suspicion
of criminality

prior to requesting permission
to search Defendant's vehicle.

Instead, it is the
opinion of this court

that the discovery of
Mr. Cuervo's body was inevitable,

and therefore not
subject to suppression.

Accordingly, the conviction is
affirmed. Thank you, gentlemen.