Posted on 05/31/2006 7:49:33 AM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
DANBURY — In a decision Superior Court trial referee Robert Callahan "agonized long and hard over," he ruled in favor of two accused drug dealers who claimed they were stopped outside the Sheraton in Danbury in 2004 only because they were black.
In a written decision dated May 17 and received Friday by defense lawyers, Callahan said he came to his decision, which essentially guts the state's case against the men, "reluctantly" and after "soul-searching."
Lawyer James Diamond of Danbury said his client Demetere Taft, 30, of Beaver Street, is "obviously very pleased that the judge has agreed with the arguments he made."
"The judge has thrown out all the evidence against my client," Diamond said. "There's nothing left to proceed on, unless this Constitutional decision gets overturned."
"There's no basis for the police officers to search my client. There was no reason to believe he was violating the law," Diamond said.
Joseph Mirsky, the Bridgeport defense lawyer for the other client, Jamar Crawford, 29, of Waterbury, agreed there was no reason to stop the men.
"It was a very, very, very weak case for the state," Mirsky said. "So I think this decision was great. It took months and he gave it a great deal of thought."
The arrests occurred Oct. 5, 2004, when Danbury detectives went to the Sheraton on Old Ridgebury Road to look for anyone who might have had information about a fatal shooting in Waterbury that happened about 15 hours earlier.
The men were taken into custody as they left the hotel separately shortly after 3 p.m.
Crawford had more than 30 grams of crack cocaine and heroin in his luggage, according to police. He also was carrying about $1,000 in cash, police said.
Taft had 3.5 ounces of powder cocaine, more than two ounces of crack cocaine, and two handguns, according to police.
The men face multiple charges, including possession of narcotics, possession of crack cocaine and possession with intent to sell.
Diamond, who said he has never before raised the issue of race in his decade-long career as a Danbury defense lawyer, said he is not surprised by the decision.
Prosecutor David Shannon was out of the office Tuesday and could not be reached for comment. He could appeal the decision. He also could decide to drop the charges against the defendants.
Shannon's boss, Danbury State's Attorney Walter Flanagan, declined to comment.
"I'm in no position to say anything," Flanagan said.
The two detectives involved in the arrest, Joseph Norkus and James Lalli, could not be reached.
In December a Danbury police spokesman, Capt. Dan Mulvey, said he knows the two detectives who caught the two men and he doubts the arrest was based on race.
The defense lawyers aren't convinced.
"If my client was a white male walking out of the Sheraton hotel with a suitcase in his hands, he never would have been stopped and searched," Diamond said.
Diamond said he had not yet heard whether Shannon plans to appeal the decision from Callahan, who was the state's Supreme Court chief justice before becoming a trial referee after retiring in 1999.
Who did that?
The judge
Wrong; as I said, this judge merely applied a well established (albeit conceptually flawed) evidentiary principle. (Free clues: it's called the "exclusionary rule" and this judge didn't invent it.)
Do you mind if the Fourth Amendment is violated?
The Fourth Amendment is meant to protect everyone. There are certainly more innocent people than guilty.
Would you agree with your statement even if evidence was presented against you, but was made up by someone you didn't even know? Therefore, the Fourth Amendment implies there be a certain standard of judgment on behalf of law enforcement.
Truth is truth. They are guilty as sin. Judicial tyrants set them loose to prey on innocents.
After you hang the drug dealers, we can determine whether or note to prosecute anyone who actually violated the Fourth Amendment. Those deported would have no say in the matter of course.
They don't arrest and subsequently don't report on the "misses."
IOW, reward the cops and prosecution who break the law with a conviction? Let's not reward corruption, shall we?
After you hang the drug dealers, we can determine whether or note to prosecute anyone who actually violated the Fourth Amendment.
That doesn't answer the question. Do you mind if the Fourth Amendment is violated?
It was neither an unreasonable search nor seizure, except for drug addicts and their enablers. They are deeply concerned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.