Original subtitles

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.