9386 Transcript of Feb 1, 2008 at Linn County Kansas in the case of Richard Wilson. This document is http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/9386.html http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/9386.pdf and http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/9386.wpd
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINN COUNTY, KANSAS
STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff
vs. Case No. 06TR947
RICHARD D. WILSON, Defendant
TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL TO THE COURT
PROCEEDINGS had before the Honorable RICHARD M. SMITH, Chief Judge of the Sixth Judicial District of the State of Kansas, at Mound City, Kansas, on the 1st day of February, 2008.
APPEARANCES
Plaintiff, State of Kansas, appeared by and through MR. JOHN S. SUTHERLAND, Linn County Attorney, 315 Main Street, P.O. Box 350, Mound City, Kansas 66056.
Defendant, Richard D. Wilson, appeared in person pro se.
*.*.*
*.*
*
JUDY JECK
Official Court Transcriber
Sixth Judicial District
i n d e x
WITNESS FOR STATE: Page
PAUL FILLA
Direct Examination by Mr. Sutherland 14
Cross-Examination by the Defendant 23
Redirect Examination by Mr. Sutherland 47
Recross-Examination by the Defendant 49
WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENDANT:
TOMMY TUGGLE
Direct Examination by the Defendant 52
Cross-Examination by Mr. Sutherland 54
STEVE JOHNSON
Direct Examination by the Defendant 57
Cross-Examination by Mr. Sutherland 60
HARVEY TAYLOR
Direct Examination by the Defendant 60
JACQUELINE I. TAYLOR
Direct Examination by the Defendant 62
STATE’S EXHIBITS:
1. Defendant’s driving record
Offered 21
Admitted 21
DEFENDANT’S EXHIBITS:
A. Photocopy of arrest report
Offered --
Admitted --
B. Photocopy of newspaper ad
Offered --
Admitted --
*.*.*
*.*
*
P R O C E E D I N G S
(Hearing commenced on the 1st day of February, 2008, at the Linn County Judicial Building, Mound City, Kansas.)
THE COURT: The next case on the Court’s docket is Case No. 06TR947, styled State of Kansas v. Richard Wilson.
Mr. Wilson, would you come forward, please.
Would counsel please enter his appearance.
MR. SUTHERLAND: State appears by County Attorney John Sutherland.
THE COURT: The Court will note that Mr. Wilson appears in person pro se. This matter is scheduled for purposes of trial.
Is the State ready to proceed?
MR. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I note -- I don’t know if the State was served a copy of Mr. Wilson’s most recent pleading. I note that on Page 1 towards the bottom there is the statement, “I demand that the trial date be vacated until all the pretrial issues are resolved.” I would read that to be a request for a continuance of this trial setting.
Is that a correct analysis of that request, Mr. Wilson?
THE DEFENDANT: First I’d like you to rule, Your Honor, on getting the e-transcripts. It’s something that’s very important to me. I need ‘em to work with my counsel. There’s no rule against ‘em. I’ve been provided ‘em before and I see no good reason why I shouldn’t be able to get them.
THE COURT: Mr. Wilson, I have actually already ruled on that request and you have my ruling on that.
THE DEFENDANT: And so you’re saying that we can’t be in the 2008 age, we have to do everything by paper?
THE COURT: Mr. Wilson, here’s the only thing I can tell you and that is that the word processing program that my court reporters as state employees have don’t have any way of encrypting an emailed transcript so that it cannot be modified. I think you can appreciate the concept that that’s supposed to be a verbatim accurate transcription of the record. And the issue we have with that is, and this is not you, personally, it’s we don’t provide them to anyone because we don’t have the software capability of encrypting them so that they can’t be modified and changed and then printed again and appear like they are the original transcript. And because of that fact and the fact that they would then be subject to manipulation in that kind of a format, we don’t provide email transcripts and -- I mean, I’m familiar with some court reporting firms, private firms, that have encrypted programs or I have a case where a private court reporter took it down, I was provided a pass code where I can go onto their website and view through the internet the transcript of the proceedings; but we don’t have any of those capabilities.
THE DEFENDANT: But, Your Honor, I was provided with ‘em before and, as a simply fact, Miss Bruner did this on her personal computer with --
THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Wilson, I -- I -- I’m really done debating this with you. The official court reporters of this district do not email transcripts. Now, this really begs to other issues. One is that the transcripts of the prior proceedings don’t have anything to do with the trial or an evidentiary motion to suppress. Those are all things that’ve just happened in court and they’re totally irrelevant to the proceedings I have scheduled today. Okay?
The second thing is, and you mentioned this, about getting it to your lawyer. Your lawyer’s disbarred. This person that you’re dealing with in California through the internet is disbarred in California. He’s not authorized to practice law in Kansas and he has not entered his appearance in this case as your attorney.
THE DEFENDANT: He’s not practicing law for -- for -- He’s not entered anything into court --
THE COURT: Then he’s not your attorney. Then he’s not your attorney.
THE DEFENDANT: He’s my counsel, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, in any event, Mr. Wilson, I don’t have any obligation to provide a transcript to a third party somewhere else.
THE DEFENDANT: I’m not asking for that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You were provided the transcripts, Mr. Wilson, and all you had to do, if you wanted to solicit the assistance of this person, would be to photocopy them and mail them to him or send him your copy that you were given.
THE DEFENDANT: And all that the court reporter needed to do, Your Honor, was press basically three keys on her computer.
THE COURT: You didn’t listen to me. We don’t do that because of the fact that the transcript’s subject to manipulation and could then be printed off with changes and then appear as an original. Therefore, we don’t do it. That’s my answer. So that’s the answer to that issue. I ruled on that several months ago, so you have my ruling.
THE DEFENDANT: Thank you, Your Honor, and then there’s the issue of the verified complaint.
THE COURT: And I’ve ruled on the verified complaint and you have the ruling. I denied your motion to quash the prosecution and I’ve listened to your argument and I have ruled. I’m not going to do it again.
THE DEFENDANT: And, Your Honor, you gave me a case to look up, State v. Graham. I had great difficulty in doing that and the state that you got --
THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Wilson, that’s irrelevant. The bottom line is on that issue I have ruled. Now let’s go on. I’m not going to repeat my rulings over and over, Mr. Wilson.
THE DEFENDANT: But, Your Honor, --
THE COURT: I’ve given you the chance to argue and I’m being very patient about this, but you only get to bring up an issue once, then you have my ruling and then that establishes the law on that case and then we go on. You have the right to appeal.
THE DEFENDANT: But, Your Honor, Kansas statutes require -- In that case it says Kansas statutes require a complaint to be verified. The right to challenge the lack of verification of the complaint can be lost through inaction. I did not do inaction.
THE COURT: I know. I know. And your complaint and the facts about the verification in that case are significantly different than what was done in this case. Irrespective of that fact, I have ruled on that, so you have preserved that issue for appeal. If I’m wrong, you have every right to get the appellate court to tell me that I’m wrong. I have no problem with that. I just -- I’m not going to readdress it over and over again. I made my ruling. I think we’ve made more than an adequate record on it so that you’ve preserved your argument. You have not waived that argument. I have ruled.
THE DEFENDANT: Thank you, Your Honor. I’m preserving my argument and I --
THE COURT: I -- And I -- And -- And if -- if there’s any concern about this, Mr. Wilson, if there’s something that the record might reflect that it’s vague about whether or not I’ve ruled on it, I have no problem clarifying the record, cause I -- The one thing I don’t want to do is deny your right to appeal any decision that I’ve made. To my knowledge, you’ve waived none of these issues. I think they’re preserved for appeal. To the degree there needs to be more articulation of those facts for the purposes of an appeal on the record, I’m more than happy to accommodate you on that. I’m just not goin’ to readdress the issues again.
THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, the entire system is based upon verification, people that are willing to say I will go to jail if these facts are not correct. I was there. I witnessed it. Other people witnessed it. The facts are not correct.
THE COURT: And that’s what this is all about, Mr. Wilson. You have preserved your argument about whether or not the complaint’s defective; but the whole question as to whether or not the facts are correct is what we’re here for today and that’s for me to determine what those facts are.
THE DEFENDANT: I object to goin’ forward on the trial, Your Honor. That’s all I have to say. Maybe I can preserve that objection also.
THE COURT: Well, and -- and I wanted to make sure because I -- You know, going through this document and, no offense, but there’s a lot of frivolous nonsense in this document, also; but I’ve tried to ferret out the things that would be real issues that I think we need to make sure, because I don’t even think the appellate court’s goin’ to be able to decide for some of this stuff. Mr. Palishcett’s (phonetic) biography, where he basically takes credit for inventing nuclear submarines, and things like that I don’t think are very relevant.
But I did see the request for the continuance of the trial setting. Okay? I haven’t ruled on that yet. That’s as far as we really got. I saw that and I asked you if that was a request. And now you’re saying you’re objecting to proceeding, which I assume is your request for additional time.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, I suppose, to get a writ from the superior court on the ruling of the verification.
THE COURT: I doubt if you can do that, Mr. Wilson, until there’s a final judgment in this case and the case is ripe. The court’s don’t take piecemeal appeals. You can’t take an interlocutory appeal. You have to wait until the case is final and then the issues are ripe, because the appellate courts, for whatever reason, have decided that they like to take up all the issues at once, not over and over and over again one at a time. And so you’re more than welcome to try to do that and it’s -- it’s possible that they can do that, but I sincerely doubt if they’ll accept it.
But I’m going to go forward and at least hear from the State on your request for a continuance before we go any further, okay, because I don’t know what the State’s position is. All right? So why don’t you sit down and relax.
Mr. Sutherland, what’s the State’s response to the Defendant’s request for -- for additional time?
MR. SUTHERLAND: I would just state that I would voice the opinion also that it would not seem to be ripe for an appeal on that particular issue and that we are present and ready for trial presently then.
THE COURT: And what’s your position on the Defendant’s request?
MR. SUTHERLAND: We would object to that.
THE COURT: Mr. Wilson, why do you need additional -- Can you articulate for me why you need additional time?
THE DEFENDANT: Because I did not have the e-transcripts, Your Honor. I -- I sent the --
THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Wilson, that -- that’s not goin’ to go very far with me because e-transcripts are merely transcripts of the proceedings we’ve had so far in the case. They don’t have anything to do with the facts on this case. Okay? Nothing. They’re prior rulings on legal issues that we have tried to address, all right, and you have actually had transcripts, not e-transcripts, admittedly, but you’ve had transcripts of those things.
THE DEFENDANT: Had both, Your Honor. Had both.
THE COURT: But those were all legal issues that have nothing to do with the facts of the case, itself, which is what’s set for trial today. Okay? I’ve given you notice of the trial setting. In fact, this case has been set for trial a number of times. I’ve given you a number of opportunities to file pretrial motions of a substantive nature that go to the facts of the case. You haven’t done that. We’re now at the trial date. This is an ’06 criminal case and a misdemeanor at that. We’re way beyond the supreme court guidelines for the disposition of a misdemeanor case. In other words, I’ve given you more time than we regularly give people on cases like this, okay, and I have I set for trial. I need to know why you were unprepared to proceed to trial today.
THE DEFENDANT: Because without a verification, without someone bein’ able to be held responsible for the so-called facts that they state, it’s -- and pursuant to the Kansas statutes, it doesn’t seem like the Court would have jurisdiction to me.
THE COURT: And you’ve made that argument. I’ve ruled I do have jurisdiction. I did that several months ago, by the way. And that still doesn’t go to your trial preparation.
THE DEFENDANT: I don’t understand what the issue is in making someone sign a complaint as required by the statute.
THE COURT: And I’ve ruled that the signature, absent whatever defects you pointed out and assume that they’re even true, still constitutes a valid complaint. I’ve made that ruling. I could be wrong, Mr. Wilson. It’s possible for that to be true, but I’ve made that ruling. I’m talking about the facts of the case.
THE DEFENDANT: Well, I -- I -- I entirely do not understand how a court can move forward when they don’t have a verified complaint, Your Honor. I -- I do not understand that.
THE COURT: Maybe you can’t, but here’s where we’re at: I have the case set for trial and we’re going to proceed unless you can explain to me why over the course of this very long time period you’ve been unable to prepare for trial.
THE DEFENDANT: Because the facts seem to keep changing, Your Honor, and until someone swears to ‘em, I think that they’re going to keep changing.
THE COURT: Mr. -- Mr. Wilson, that’s not an argument for whether or not you’re prepared to go to trial. The State is bound by the allegations that’re contained in that complaint and that’s what I have jurisdiction over, in my opinion, at least, is the allegation in the complaint, that specific allegation, and that’s it. The only thing I can tell you is that absent -- with a major deviation from the allegations in the complaint -- Well, I -- I don’t need to get into pre-rulings on that, but they’re bound by what they say happened. Okay?
THE DEFENDANT: I hope so.
THE COURT: Okay. All right, then we’ll proceed.
Mr. Sutherland, so you wish to make an opening statement?
MR. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you wish to make an opening statements, Mr. Wilson?
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah, Your Honor, since we’re proceeding against my objection, I will make an opening statement and the statement is that the officer, Deputy Filla, had ulterior motives to -- to the actions that he took on the 26th of December, and they were political in nature and I believe what the officer was trying to do was keep me from going to commissioners meetings, political meetings. The reason I say that -- I have reason to believe that because other people told me that there would be people to get me and the statement had been made by several people over the years at different times. And on the morning that this happened, without getting into the facts, I did see Officer Filla. He did lie in wait for me. He did go under the highway in disguise and act under color of law. And I think these are all facts that’ll be able to be shown out.
THE COURT: Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Sutherland, you may call your first witness.
PAUL FILLA,
called as a witness on behalf of the State, after being duly sworn by the Court, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SUTHERLAND:
Q. State your name, please.
A. Paul Filla.
Q. And where are you currently employed?
A. Linn County Sheriff’s Department.
Q. And how long have you been so employed?
A. 2001.
Q. And what position do you have there?
A. Deputy.
Q. And are you a law -- certified law enforcement officer for the State of Kansas?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And were you on duty December 26th of 2006?
A. I was.
Q. And were you in uniform and in your patrol car?
A. I was.
Q. Do you -- Prior to that date, had you met Mr. Wilson?
A. Yes.
Q. And under what circumstances?
A. I don’t remember the exact dates. It was two or three years prior to that. They -- they had a cow that had been mauled by a pit bull and I went to their home and met with Mr. Wilson and his wife and took the report on -- on -- on the -- The ear was mauled pretty severely by a pit bull.
Q. And as part of your report, you ran the records of the victims reportin’ also?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And at that time, what’d you learn about Mr. Wilson’s driving record?
A. That his driver’s license had expired in 2000.
Q. So you knew as far back as --
A. I could look the date up. It’s two or three years, two years prior to that, probably.
Q. In 2003, 2004, along there?
A. Yeah.
Q. And had you had any dealings with Mr. Wilson from that time until he was stopped on the 26th of December?
A. Not that I recall, no.
Q. Let’s fast forward just a little bit. After this incident, did you have a conversation with his wife?
A. Subsequent to the car stop.
Q. And what was that conversation consisting of?
A. It -- It -- Ms. Wilson stated that, you know, I -- I lied in wait for him and -- And I explained to her that, you know, I’ve known since that incident with the cow that he has been without a license and I -- and I mentioned that I’m pretty sure he comes home 1077 and drops Jason Nickell off and goes home from there and, if I really wanted to, I could’ve been sittin’ out there and waitin’ for him, but I haven’t done that.
Q. So you’ve known for a long time that he’s been having an expired license?
A. Yeah, for some time, yeah.
Q. Now, on this particular day, December 26th of 2006, was this in the morning hours that you came upon Mr. Wilson?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. What -- What were you doing?
A. I was -- Well, at that particular time, I was -- I was startin’ to leave Mound City and I got a phone call and I pulled into the carwash there and --
THE DEFENDANT: Objection, Your Honor. I don’t believe those are facts that’re in Mr. Filla’s report. Not the one I was supplied, anyway.
THE COURT: Response, Mr. Sutherland?
MR. SUTHERLAND: Whether it’s in the report or not, he can certainly testify as to what he remembers about the incident. He’s testifying of his own recollection.
THE COURT: What were you supplied, Mr. Wilson?
THE DEFENDANT: Basically, I was supplied the Kansas standard arrest report and, basically, in that I could read what his statement is.
THE COURT: Or you can let me, whichever you prefer.
THE DEFENDANT: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yeah, you may. Let’s go ahead and mark it. No, we will, Mr. Wilson. Yeah, we’ll mark it.
THE CLERK: As Defendant’s?
THE COURT: Yeah.
Do you have exhibits already marked?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: Okay, cause I didn’t want to mark anything the same that you might have already marked. I’m goin’ to give you this back. You’re going to need this, for what I --
I’m goin’ -- I’m goin’ to allow the testimony, but I’m goin’ to rule that Mr. Wilson’s objection goes to weight and credibility. Based upon the report I just read, Mr. Wilson will be able to use the report for purposes of impeachment.
MR. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. (By Mr. Sutherland) I think you were saying you were about to take a phone call. What happened then?
A. I was headin’ east and I got a phone call just -- and I pulled in there because I knew if I went around the corner I’d lose -- I’d lose reception. And after the phone call, I -- I pulled back out and Mr. Wilson was -- was pullin’ down the roadway going west and I got in behind him about -- There was cars between Mr. Wilson and myself. And then Mr. Wilson pulled into the Food Fair parking lot and that’s when I activated my lights and -- and started my discussion with Mr. Wilson.
Q. As you were about to pull out of the carwash lot there, about how far from you would Mr. Wilson’s vehicle have been?
A. Twenty, 30 feet, about the width of -- Well, yeah, 20, 30 feet, I guess.
Q. Okay. Could you clearly tell that it was him?
A. Yes.
Q. And what type of vehicle was he driving at that point?
A. Pickup truck.
Q. And when you came upon him at the Food Fair, all this being within Mound City, Linn County; is that not correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Were you able to determine whether the pickup truck that he was driving was properly tagged and insured?
A. Yes.
Q. And was the tag in Linn County or --
A. Yes.
Q. -- were the tags in Kansas, at least?
A. It was tagged in Kansas, yes.
Q. So no citations were written for tag violation or anything like that?
A. No. Everything was --
Q. Appeared to be valid?
A. Yes.
Q. And this was a standard Fort pickup as far as you could tell?
A. Yes, as far as I could tell, yes.
Q. And I believe you said a ’95 model?
A. I believe that’s what it was. I don’t have it in front of me.
Q. When happened then when you talked to Mr. Wilson there at Food Fair?
A. Asked Mr. Wilson for his driver’s license and -- I don’t recall exactly what was said. It was words to the effect that I don’t need a driver’s license to ride on the roadways. And my retort to that was that he’s correct as long as he wasn’t driving. And then I said, “But you were operating the vehicle.” And there was a discussion that he wasn’t operatin’ the vehicle; and I said, “Well, we have a differing opinion of that.” And I asked him again and he -- I don’t really recall whether he said he didn’t have it, but he said he didn’t need it. So I placed him under arrest and took him to Mound -- or to the sheriff’s office.
Q. Now, the roadway that you saw him operating a vehicle on, that was 52 Highway?
A. K-52.
Q. Through Mound City?
A. Mound City, westbound.
Q. A public highway.
A. Public highway.
Q. And was he alone in the vehicle?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Behind the wheel?
A. Yes.
Q. You could actually see him driving the vehicle?
A. Yes.
Q. Operating it. When you -- At that point, did you leave the vehicle at Food Fair then?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Took Mr. Wilson to the sheriff’s office?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the Mr. Wilson that you saw operating this Ford pickup on 52 Highway present here in court today?
A. Yes, he is?
Q. Point him out, please.
A. It’s the gentleman right here in the suit and tie to your left.
MR. SUTHERLAND: Your Honor, I’d ask that the record that he’s identified the Defendant, Mr. Wilson.
THE COURT: The record will so reflect.
Q. (By Mr. Sutherland) When you got to the sheriff’s office, then was he basically booked in to the sheriff’s office?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that time, he gives information for the booking card?
A. Yes.
Q. And from that information, did you write out a ticket on that --
A. Yes, I did.
Q. -- particular day?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you run his driving record?
A. Yes.
Q. And what’d it come back as?
A. It showed that the driver’s license had expired, I believe, and I don’t know the month, 2000.
Q. And from that booking card, you got his birth date and other indicators?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Hand you what’s been marked State’s Exhibit No. 1, and the indicators of Richard Wilson, birth date, these are the indicators you got from the --
A. Yes.
Q. -- booking card?
A. Yes.
Q. Although at that time --
A. We had the date from his -- his -- his 27, which is his drivin’ record that we get off the computer.
Q. On the booking card, he actually gave a Centerville address at that time.
A. Ingram -- Yeah, Ingram Lane, I think it is, yeah.
Q. And since that time he has provided the Court with information of an Olathe address.
A. That’s what his driver’s license -- His -- His 27 showed an Olathe address, yes.
MR. SUTHERLAND: I would ask to introduce State’s Exhibit No. 1.
THE COURT: Any objection, Mr. Wilson?
THE DEFENDANT: None to that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It’ll be admitted.
THE DEFENDANT: What exhibit is that, Your Honor?
THE COURT: State’s Exhibit 1.
THE DEFENDANT: Exhibit 1.
Q. (By Mr. Sutherland) And these were all, as you said, the correct indicators for Mr. Wilson then?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And it was his driving record that has been introduced?
A. Yes.
Q. You have any other conversation with Mr. Wilson there at the sheriff’s office then?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. What was -- did that consist of?
A. It consisted of -- When I presented him the citation, I was gettin’ -- tryin’ to get his signature so -- On a misdemeanor, we get the signature and advise him of his court date and everything; and he -- he said he wasn’t goin’ to sign it and we had just a brief discussion, non-confrontational or anything like that. It was regarding driving is a privilege. I agreed driving was a privilege in the State of Kansas. His opinion was that you couldn’t charge for a privilege, and that was about it, I think. We may have discussed a few other things but, like I say, it wasn’t -- it was non-confrontational.
Q. And that was basically the sum total of the conversation you had at that time?
A. There may be a little bit more than, but it -- That was the -- the gist of it. He wouldn’t sign the ticket and he mentioned that -- He asked me if I believed driving was a privilege and I said yes. He said, well, it was his opinion that you can’t charge for a privilege and --
THE DEFENDANT: Objection, Your Honor, requires a legal opinion. I think he needs some foundation there.
MR. SUTHERLAND: Your Honor, I think he’s just relating the conversation at that time.
THE COURT: I’ll note your objection. I’ll allow the testimony. He’s repeating a conversation that he’s relating that occurred, not the -- I’m having a hard time articulating this.
THE DEFENDANT: I think I understand what you’re saying, yeah.
THE COURT: Yeah, he can relate -- he can relate what he heard, but his -- Yeah, he’s not --
THE DEFENDANT: It’s not his conclusion.
THE COURT: Correct.
MR. SUTHERLAND: No other questions of this witness, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Cross-examination, Mr. Wilson?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY THE DEFENDANT:
Q. What were the conditions that morning, Officer?
A. Clear.
Q. Clear?
A. Clear, as far as I could tell.
Q. Normal, you’d say?
A. I would say.
Q. Was I conducting myself in an orderly and decent manner?
A. Oh, absolutely.
Q. Was I interfering with or disturbing anyone else’s rights?
A. No.
Q. Did you attend college?
A. Yes.
Q. Where? Which -- which one?
A. National University of San Diego.
Q. Did you attend law school?
A. No.
Q. Are you a member of the Kansas Bar?
A. No.
Q. Where’d you get your legal training at?
A. As far as law?
Q. Obviously you have to make legal determinations. I mean, you didn’t just pull ‘em out of the air and --
A. K.L.E.T.C., Kansas Law Enforcement Training Center, Hutchinson, Kansas.
Q. So they taught you how to read the statutes and how to interpret them and differences between rights and privileges and --
A. The statutes as they relate to traffic and criminal acts, yes.
Q. On the morning of the 26th of December, 2006, what time did you come on duty?
A. Probably 8:00.
Q. Were you in uniform that day?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you first came on duty, where did you -- what did you do first thing that morning?
A. Probably went to the office. I don’t know right offhand.
Q. Were you in the commissioners’ room that morning?
A. I think I may have stopped in for a minute. I don’t know. I can’t remember exactly, but I probably did.
Q. Did you see me there that morning?
A. I don’t -- I don’t recall seeing you, no.
Q. You see my wife?
A. I actually don’t remember who I saw that morning at this point. I -- I -- I don’t recall seeing you. I guess we’ve had that discussion. I -- I just don’t recall.
Q. Has the sheriff ever asked the deputies not to go to the commissioners’ meeting while on duty or in uniform except for official business?
A. He has subsequent to that occasion, yes.
Q. And you were at the commission meeting that morning with your uniform on; is that your --
A. I was.
Q. Okay. What was your official business there?
A. Nothin’. I didn’t have official business there.
Q. You just stopped by?
A. Just stopped by.
Q. Okay. Did you talk to anyone while you were there?
A. I don’t recall whether I did or not. I may have. Probably did. Probably said hi or somethin’ to somebody. I don’t recall.
Q. But you don’t recall who you talked to that morning?
A. No.
Q. Okay. How long did you stay at the annex?
A. I don’t believe very long. I -- I don’t recall. I mean, it was -- I didn’t -- I didn’t sit down. I don’t believe I sat down or anything like that. I think I probably just popped in and -- and, like I say, popped out.
Q. Where did you go when you -- Where’d you go when you left the annex then?
A. Well, back to my patrol car. Between the time I left there and the time I -- you know, the incident with yourself, I -- I don’t recall -- I don’t recall havin’ a call. I don’t -- I don’t know where I went exactly, but I --
Q. So you were just out driving around?
A. Just patrollin’ around, right.
Q. Patrolling around?
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay. You were in a county-owned patrol car at the time?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Have you discussed this case with anyone outside of the prosecutor?
A. Well, yeah, sure.
Q. Do you recall who you might have discussed it with?
A. I know we’ve discussed it in the office, you know. Outside of that, I don’t know.
Q. Did you tell anyone that you called Sheriff Stites and asked him if it was okay to pull me over?
A. No, I don’t -- I don’t recall that, but I -- I wouldn’t have called -- I -- I did call. I called somebody about that, but it wasn’t Sheriff Stites.
Q. That -- That morning you called someone and asked if it would be all right to pull me over?
A. Yes.
Q. Who did you call?
A. The undersheriff.
Q. The undersheriff. And who would that be?
A. Jeff Staton.
Q. And Jeff Staton was in the office at this time?
A. Yes.
Q. You didn’t put that in your report, Deputy Filla; did you?
A. I -- I didn’t think it was relevant, cause all I did was call him and ask him if I needed any additional P.C. other than the knowledge that I knew you had an expired license to pull you over. Just wanted to make sure I was on solid foundation.
Q. All right. Now, this knowledge you had about this expired driver’s license, --
A. Uh-huh.
Q. -- you said you acquired that through a police report --
A. Yes.
Q. -- over some cattle that were killed; correct?
A. When I came to your house and met with you and your wife.
Q. And that was in 2004, I believe, September of 2004. Does that sound correct?
A. It could be. I don’t know the date. A year or two prior to -- to -- It could’a been two or three years. I don’t remember the day I came to your house. It’s a matter of record.
Q. And what did you do once you acquired that information? Did you let anybody know that this was expired or just kept it to yourself, or did you put it in your report or --
A. Oh, no, I -- All I was gettin’ was your name and your -- and the pertinent information about you and your wife for the report.
Q. Okay. You do know the proper protocol for doing background checks and investigating people and things like that; do you not?
A. Yes.
Q. After you found out that this license had expired, did you call my wife and let her know that?
A. I don’t recall that.
Q. After that investigation, did you do any subsequent investigation?
A. With regards to what?
Q. Me, background checks?
A. No.
Q. Never?
A. No.
Q. Not any?
A. No.
Q. The record wouldn’t reflect that any other background checks --
A. Not a Triple I, no.
Q. -- that were run by you?
A. No.
Q. Okay. You didn’t do one a month later?
A. No.
Q. Six months later, a year later?
A. On you?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Two years later?
A. Two years later, when we got you to the office, yeah.
Q. Okay. So prior to pulling me over that morning on the 26th, you’d not done any -- your testimony is you’d not done any background checks, you’ve not called in anything other than this one phone call.
A. I had -- I had -- I had no reason to. I don’t have any reason to do a Triple I on you, if that’s what you’re asking.
Q. Okay. So other than this phone call on the 26th, on the morning of the 26th to Undersheriff Jeff Staton -- S-t-a-t-o-n? Would that be correct?
A. I think that’s correct.
Q. You had no reason to investigate anything about me, call in and do any background checks or -- I don’t know what you call ‘em or anything like that.
A. No.
Q. On that morning when you called Mr. Staton, what was that conversation?
A. I asked him if I -- did I need any other P.C., probable cause, to pull you over other than the knowledge that I knew your license was expired since 2000. He said no.
Q. Well -- Well, you knew that on -- And I have that report.
THE DEFENDANT: One moment, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Take your time.
THE DEFENDANT: This is not my profession.
THE COURT: No problem.
Q. (By the Defendant) That was on September 18th, 2004.
A. Yeah.
Q. That’s when you did that check; correct?
A. If that’s what you’ve got there, that’s -- I have no reason to doubt it.
Q. That’s -- I’m reading off the Kansas standard offense report.
THE DEFENDANT: Any objection?
MR. SUTHERLAND: No.
THE COURT: You want to mark --
Q. (By the Defendant) Is that an accurate report of --
THE COURT: Mr. Wilson, do you want to mark that?
THE DEFENDANT: I don’t think it’ll be necessary, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What was the date again, please?
THE DEFENDANT: That was nine -- or 25 September, 2004.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Q. (By the Defendant) So on the 26th of September, 2004, you didn’t run a report then; did you, Officer?
A. Is that the date of that one?
Q. Yes. That would be the day after you wrote this report. You didn’t -- You didn’t do another -- I think you’ve already testified you’ve not any more.
A. What -- What I -- You know, I may not have wrote that report that day. I don’t know. I took the information that day. I may have wrote the report two or three days later. I don’t know.
Q. Okay.
A. But whatever day I wrote that report’s the day that I ran the information necessary to complete it.
Q. Well, let’s jump ahead one -- You surely wouldn’t have written the report one year later. Let’s jump to 18 September, 2005. You didn’t -- You didn’t run any background check then; did you?
A. I think -- I don’t think I’ve had any dealings with you other than the -- other than the cow and the --
Q. So you’ve never seen me in a vehicle, you’ve never seen me at commission meetings or anything like that, just this -- all this other time?
A. Oh, I’ve seen you. I’ve seen you. I mean, I’ve seen you around at the -- at the Republican meetings, commissioners’ meetings. I’ve never seen you driving.
Q. Okay. Now, on the -- on the morning of -- Let’s go back to this morning with this call to Mr. Staton. The only thing you said to him is you just asked if you had enough probable cause to pull me over?
A. I guess that’s basic -- Basically, did I need anything additional other than the knowledge that I knew your license was expired to pull you over.
Q. So, basically then, it was your sole decision upon information you had from September 18th, 2004, that I had an expired driver’s license.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, when you called -- When you pulled in behind me in the Food Fair parking lot, --
A. Uh-huh.
Q. -- did you run the tag?
A. Yes.
Q. You did? And you called that tag in?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that a matter of record?
A. Yes, should be.
Q. Okay. Did I have insurance on the vehicle?
A. I believe I asked you for that, yeah. I may not have. I don’t know. I don’t --
Q. Okay. At that time, did you -- did you Mirandize -- Mirandize me?
A. No.
Q. Did you tell me that --
A. No.
Q. No. You didn’t tell me you were conducting an investigation or anything like that then; did you?
A. No.
Q. Let’s go to your arrest report here, Officer.
THE DEFENDANT: Shall I read this into the record, Your Honor, or is it --
THE COURT: I can’t help you, Mr. Wilson, I’m sorry, although I don’t know that you need a lot of help. The -- The proper way would be to show him the report and ask him if this is -- was what the report says.
THE DEFENDANT: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. (By the Defendant) This is Defendant’s Exhibit A. Is that your report?
A. Yeah, it looks like it.
Q. It looks like it?
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay. That’s not signed by you?
A. No, we don’t sign ‘em.
Q. You don’t sign ‘em?
A. No.
Q. So this is not sworn to?
A. No.
Q. There’s a place on here that says all events described here occurred within Linn County, Kansas, subscribed and sworn before me this, and it’s blank. So you don’t -- There’s -- But you do --
A. I -- I don’t know back then whether -- With every arrest or every misdemeanor charged that -- or citation that we write, we do an affidavit to the county attorney on a separate document; and I don’t know whether we started that back then or whether -- whether we did it subsequent to that. But if -- if that’s the case, that would be a matter of the record.
Q. And that separate document that I didn’t -- I don’t have any copy of that or anything.
A. And I don’t know if we were givin’ it back then. We -- We’ve -- We do it today. It’s a -- It’s a cover to that.
Q. Would that -- Would the document you’re talking about, would that possibly be the complaint and information?
A. I don’t think that’s it.
THE DEFENDANT: May I approach?
A. That’s not it.
Q. (By the Defendant) That’s not it?
A. No. I can see it from here.
THE COURT: Mr. Wilson, there is some leniency given pro se litigants. A lawyer would know this, it’s in the court file. That’s actually a confidential portion of the court file because it’s the affidavit and those are still maintained -- That’s not part of the big court file, you know, the file here, but that’s -- but that’s been in there. I don’t know that you were given access to that. I mean, I can’t say you were denied access, either. I don’t know. But just to be sure --
THE DEFENDANT: I don’t see Mr. Filla’s signature on here anywhere, unless this is it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I don’t know because I -- If you’ll notice, there’s a notorial statement there, so I can’t tell you whose. I’ll give you a second to take a look at that. You want a minute to take a look at that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Why don’t we take -- Let’s -- We’ll take a brief recess. It’s about time to take a recess, anyway, Mr. Wilson. Let’s break for about 10 minutes. Court’ll be at recess for about 10 minutes.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken, after which the following proceedings were held in open court:
THE COURT: You may continue your inquiry.
THE DEFENDANT: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. (By the Defendant) Deputy, in the -- You’ve been on the Linn County Sheriff’s Department approximately six years?
A. Since 2001, I think’s when I started.
Q. Since 2001?
A. Right.
Q. Seven years?
A. Yeah.
Q. In that time period, how many people have you arrested for expired driver’s license?
A. Oh, I have no idea.
Q. More than one?
A. More than you.
Q. Less an a hundred?
A. Oh, less than a hundred, yeah, for sure.
Q. How many people have you handcuffed, taken to jail, fingerprinted and done all that for an expired driver’s license?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Would it surprise you if I told you none?
A. Yeah, it probably would.
Q. How many other -- Do you have any knowledge of anyone else being arrested, handcuffed and taken to jail for an expired driver’s license?
A. Has it happened?
Q. Do you have any knowledge of it?
A. Of it happening before, yes.
Q. For expired driver’s license?
A. Yes.
Q. Not suspended, expired driver’s license.
A. Yes.
Q. Would it surprise you in looking through the jailer’s logbook that we found none in probably a two-and-a-half-year period?
A. That -- There may have been other reasons. You mean just strictly for expired --
Q. Expired driver’s license.
A. No other -- No other --
Q. That -- That is the charge. I believe you gave me this statute, handed it to me in the sheriff’s department here.
A. Right, uh-huh.
Q. It’s 8-235, license required.
A. To answer your question, I -- I don’t know. Would that surprise me?
Q. Yeah.
A. Probably.
Q. It would surprise you that you’ve never arrested anybody, taken ‘em to jail for an expired driver’s license other than myself?
A. Yeah, I think so.
Q. Okay. Have you ever read this statute?
A. Yes.
Q. And in it, you know that it says no person, comma, except those expressly exempted, comma. So on this morning when you gave Deputy Stanton a phone call -- Staton, I’m sorry, how did you contact him?
A. By cell phone.
Q. By cell phone.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. You didn’t put that in your report, Deputy Filla.
A. It’s not important. It doesn’t impact what I did.
Q. That’s a material fact. I’m entitled to discover it. If you made that phone call, there would be a record of that; wouldn’t there, bein’ that you did it on your cell phone, you stated?
A. Yep, uh-huh.
Q. Don’t you think that would go a long way to impeaching the testimony as to whether you called Deputy Staton or not?
A. I called him for the reason I told you I called him.
Q. But you didn’t put it in your report; correct?
A. I did not.
Q. Now, when you activate your lights on your patrol car, doesn’t the video recorder and audio recorder come on?
A. It does.
Q. Have you every told anyone that there was video and audio tape of this?
A. I have.
Q. Did you tell people that I was very belligerent?
A. Never have said that at all.
Q. Cause that -- that -- I -- Was I belligerent that day?
A. Not at all, very cooperative through the whole process.
Q. So you have seen this video tape, then?
A. I have.
Q. Would it surprise you when I tried to get that video tape in discovery that it had been erased?
A. That’s not true.
Q. Well, all that I know is what the sheriff tells me.
A. It -- It is -- I’ve got a copy of it, but we’ve been unable to access it with any soft -- When that first happened, those were brand-new cameras to us and in the download process of that there was -- you know, we were havin’ difficulty with it. At the time I downloaded it, I was able to look at it. I’ve got a copy of the CD, but there’s -- We haven’t even with the -- the guys over there familiar with it. We haven’t been able to make it come up and show again based on your request to the office.
Q. So you’re aware that I made a request for this video tape.
A. Yep, yes, sir.
Q. And I was denied that; wasn’t I, Deputy Filla?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You have no knowledge of that?
A. I don’t have any knowledge of you bein’ denied that, no.
Q. You have any knowledge of me bein’ told that the tape was -- was not able to be seen, that it was useless, that there wasn’t anything on it? Do you have any knowledge of that?
A. I -- I know it’s -- We weren’t able to view it when we tried to make a copy of it for you. I know that. What you were told, I don’t know.
Q. But you’ve seen a copy of it?
A. When I first downloaded it, yes.
Q. Is there a copy now?
A. There is -- There is a file out there that says Wilson car stop, yes.
THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, am I entitled to that evidence? What do I need to do to get it? I’ve put the request in for it.
THE COURT: Well, first off, let me ask Mr. Sutherland for a response.
MR. SUTHERLAND: We don’t have it. It can’t be seen. It’s apparently useless at this time. Even with their own equipment that recorded it, they can’t even do anything with it. It is just -- It is not available. It is -- There’s nothing they can do with it. It’s -- It’s not -- It just isn’t there.
THE COURT: In the interest of time, why don’t we just table that issue, Mr. Wilson, and we will come back and readdress that before there’s any judgment entered in this case.
THE DEFENDANT: I think I’m entitled to --
THE COURT: Well, actually -- actually, let me rephrase this. That issue will be readdressed before any judgment is entered in this case to your prejudice.
THE DEFENDANT: I thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You’re welcome.
Q. (By the Defendant) But you do remember make statements to people that you have viewed this video tape?
A. Yes.
Q. Deputy, have you ever run for the position of county commissioner?
A. Yes.
Q. You did?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever signed a petition for the recall of the elected official that you ran for the position for?
A. Yes.
Q. You’re aware that I was very opposed to that recall; are you not?
A. I think I was aware you opposed it, yes.
Q. I mean, surely in the local paper you’ve seen some of the articles I’ve written.
A. Yeah.
Q. I mean letters to the editor. I didn’t write articles, letters to the editor and things like that laying out my position as to why that commissioner shouldn’t be recalled.
A. Yes.
Q. And why did you want him recalled?
MR. SUTHERLAND: Your Honor, at this point, I think this is irrelevant as to any issues in this particular case, whether Mr. Wilson was operating a motor vehicle on this particular day in Linn County and whether he had a valid license.
THE COURT: Response, Mr. Wilson?
THE DEFENDANT: It goes to the probable cause to pull me over, Your Honor, and the credibility of the witness as to what he will and will not say.
THE COURT: I don’t know that it goes directly to probable cause. But on the second point about goes to weight and credit of this witness’s testimony, the objection’s overruled. You may proceed.
Q. (By the Defendant) Why did you want that commissioner recalled? What were your reasons for wanting him recalled?
A. I’m not goin’ to answer that unless I’m directed by the Judge.
THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, could you direct the witness to answer the --
THE COURT: Actually, Mr. Wilson, I -- I -- that would be -- Voting and that kind of stuff is privileged. It is privileged. You -- I -- You will be able to ask him if he was in favor of the recall, cause I think that goes to this issue of credibility you’re talking about and may be prejudice against you. His reasons behind that, his thought process for voting, is privileged and I can’t even instruct him to do that.
THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, the reasons for the recall are very, very specific and they’re stated on the petition.
If -- If he --
THE COURT: Oh, trust me, Mr. Wilson, I’m familiar with those issues.
THE DEFENDANT: If he had ulterior motives for that, then he should’ve not signed this petition, because it goes to the two charges that’re on the petition.
THE COURT: But what I’m saying is that I -- what you do, your thought process behind voting, is privileged. It is. I’m sorry. I mean, that is true. I wouldn’t let anybody ask you that question, either, why you felt like it’s a particular way. The only reason I’m really letting you get into his position generically is because this is a criminal case where you’re charged with a criminal offense. Therefore, I think you’re entitled to at least establish that he would have a reason to be prejudiced against you. That -- that -- that you can do, but the reasoning behind it I -- I --
THE DEFENDANT: But -- But the -- the charge -- This petition states out very plainly, Your Honor, that there are two reasons that you should sign this petition. Everything else is irrelevant how you feel about the person. The acts -- the violations that were committed or supposedly committed, whatever you -- however you want to say it, are spelled out on the petition. If those are not the reasons that the deputy signed something, then he basically did it for an ulterior motive and probably shouldn’t have signed it.
THE COURT: Well, that may be true and that may go to that issue, but I don’t think it goes to the issue in the criminal case. You know what I’m saying? I understand what you’re saying.
THE DEFENDANT: I think I can let that slide, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yeah. Well, it -- But I -- But the general thing, I think you’ve established the credibility issue.
Q. (By the Defendant) Have you ever seen the ad that was published in the Linn County News?
THE DEFENDANT: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may. I think we ought’a mark -- That needs to be marked if you’re goin’ to ask him to identify it. So let’s -- Actually, Mr. Wilson, the way to do this -- That’s okay. Just carry it around to Karla and she’ll -- and you can see what it’s marked. You can read it into the record.
Q. (By the Defendant) Have you ever seen that ad in the Linn County -- published in the Linn County News?
A. Oh, yeah, I’ve seen it, yeah.
Q. Did you ever have this ad with other officers and describe this as a hit list?
A. No, never.
Q. Never?
A. Never.
Q. So anyone that had testimony, any other officers or anyone that had testimony to the contrary, that would be incorrect?
A. Absolutely.
Q. When you became a deputy, did you take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the State of Kansas?
A. I forget what the words were in the oath, but I took an oath, yes.
Q. You -- You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the State of Kansas. Have you ever read the Constitution of the State of Kansas?
A. No.
Q. But yet you took an oath to uphold it?
A. I took an oath. Don’t recall what the words of the oath were.
Q. But yet you maintain that driving is a privilege which is basically conferred by the State; correct?
A. Yeah, we had -- we’ve had that discussion. It’s a privilege.
Q. That’s -- Is that what your training is?
A. Yes.
Q. Would it surprise you in the Kansas Bill of Rights, Section 19, “No hereditary emoluments, honors or privileges shall ever be granted or conferred by the State;” does that surprise you?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, how does that reflect in your oath? You took an oath to uphold that document; did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. But you made a legal determination that I was required to have this privilege issued by the State; did you not?
MR. SUTHERLAND: Your Honor, at this time I think he’s trying to get this witness to make a legal decision which he does not have to make. He’s only upholding the statutes that he was bound to uphold.
THE COURT: I’m going to rule this -- this does -- this -- this does call for a legal conclusion that so far, at least, I haven’t heard any foundation testimony to suggest the witness is qualified to answer. So that objection’s sustained.
THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, did the officer not make a legal determination on the 26th of December?
THE COURT: Well, what I’m saying is that’s a legal argument, Mr. Wilson. I’m not cuttin’ you off from making that argument. I’m just saying in terms of presentation of witness testimony from this witness, which is where we’re at here at this point, is that he’s not qualified to testify about the interpretation of the Kansas Bill of Rights as it relates to the concept of driving being a privilege or a right.
THE DEFENDANT: I understand that’s a question for you.
Q. (By the Defendant) Deputy Filla, are you aware that in the motor vehicle driver’s license act that the legislature has provided for -- the purpose of this section is to make nonresidents and unlicensed drivers subject to the same driving sanctions as licensed residents? Are you aware of that?
A. No, Mr. Wilson, I’m not.
Q. And that’s actually codified in Section 8-252a, which I believe you -- If you would’ve looked a little further from 8-235, you’d have seen that I get no special privilege for not having a driver’s license. The legislature has made the Department of Motor Vehicles -- as my driving report will testify, that I get the same -- If I get a ticket, it’s the same on my record as it is a licensed driver. So the legislature has made a provision for unlicensed drivers.
I’m goin’ to come back one more time to make perfectly clear that the information on which you relied upon on the morning of December 26th, was from September of 2004, not from that morning.
A. Whenever -- Whenever I was at your house or a few -- few days subsequent to that, whenever I did the report.
Q. So the day before, you didn’t run a background check?
A. Oh, absolutely not.
Q. You did not?
A. No.
Q. Did -- When you called Officer Staton, did he run a background check?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Did he give you any information that he had ran a background check and --
A. No.
Q. He did not?
A. No.
Q. So as far as you knew on the 26th of December, 2006, I had a driver’s license.
A. Say that again.
Q. You hadn’t checked after -- after the date -- Let me go back to the exact date.
A. Between the day I was at your house and the day I stopped you.
Q. You never checked after that?
A. Not that I ever recall. I had no -- I don’t --
Q. But that’s your test -- That’s your sworn testimony.
A. Yeah, I don’t -- I don’t recall ever having -- I don’t have --
Q. So then on that morning, you were relying on two-year-old information or longer.
A. Yes, yes.
THE DEFENDANT: I have no further questions for this witness, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any redirect, Mr. Sutherland?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SUTHERLAND:
Q. Upon stopping Mr. Wilson and running the record, you found that to be accurate, though; was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Information that you had received some two years prior?
A. Yes.
Q. And at the time of stopping Mr. Wilson, basically, the reason was that you felt you had a duty to stop, inquire and arrest someone who was committing a misdemeanor that you actually saw with your own eyes?
A. Yes.
MR. SUTHERLAND: No other questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any recross, Mr. Wilson?
MR. SUTHERLAND: Your Honor, I do have one -- one more question.
Q. (By Mr. Sutherland) And Mr. Wilson was a resident of Kansas at that time --
A. Yes.
Q. -- by his -- from the information he gave you?
THE DEFENDANT: Objection, Your Honor, requires a legal determination.
MR. SUTHERLAND: I’ll rephrase the question.
THE COURT: Yeah, cause it’s obviously also outside the scope of Cross-Examination.
Q. (By Mr. Sutherland) The record -- As we indicated before, the booking record indicated a Centerville, Linn County, Kansas, address?
A. Ingram Lane, yes, Centerville, Kansas, yes.
Q. And what he was driving was not a farm tractor or implement?
A. No.
Q. It was an actual ’95 Ford pickup?
A. Yes.
Q. Legally registered and titled in Kansas?
A. Yes.
MR. SUTHERLAND: Okay, no other questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, recross?
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY THE DEFENDANT:
Q. Is one required to have a license for a tractor or farm implement?
A. No.
Q. Which do you think would be more difficult to operate, a great big farm tractor or an automobile?
MR. SUTHERLAND: Your Honor, I don’t think this witness is --
THE COURT: Yeah, that’s not relevant, Mr. Wilson, although your point’s pretty well taken considering some of the combine activity I’ve seen on the highway before. But that -- Let’s go on.
THE DEFENDANT: I lost of my train of thought there, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That’s okay.
Q. (By the Defendant) So in making your legal determination, then, that I was committing a misdemeanor, you relied on information from 2004.
A. Right. At the time, your license had been expired four years, yes.
Q. And prior to making that determination, you had no other information other than that check from 2004?
A. Yeah, I can’t ever recall having to do -- asking the -- never having gone to your house before, never having stopped you before, no. You’re right, in other words, yeah.
Q. If I asked you today do I have a valid driver’s license, what would you -- what would be your response?
A. My guess is you don’t.
Q. Is that a guess or is that what you know?
A. Well, from 2000 -- or from 2000 -- When I saw -- saw you at your house in 2004, was it, your license had already been expired four years and -- and subsequent to -- subsequent to that, it was still expired. So my guess is today it is probably still expired.
Q. How long does it take to get a license?
A. Not very long.
Q. About five minutes, I’d say; wouldn’t you?
A. Yeah, right.
Q. So at any time in the two-year period, I could’ve gotten a license.
A. You sure could have.
Q. Any time since this ticket I could’ve gotten a license.
A. You sure could have.
THE DEFENDANT: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down. Thank you.
(Whereupon, the witness left the stand.)
THE COURT: You may call your next witness, Mr. Sutherland.
MR. SUTHERLAND: Have no other witnesses. We’d ask the Court to take judicial notice of the court file, that Mr. Wilson does list 211 East -- 2111 East Santa Fe, Olathe, Kansas 66062, as his residence which also is on the driving record.
THE DEFENDANT: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
THE DEFENDANT: I’ve never said that was my residence.
THE COURT: What he’s asking me to do, Mr. Wilson, is just take notice that that’s what this says. I don’t think anybody’s ever said that that’s what you say, so --
THE DEFENDANT: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay, State rests?
MR. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Wilson?
THE DEFENDANT: I would like to call Tommy Tuggle at this time, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Tuggle, would you come forward, please?
TOMMY TUGGLE,
called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant, after being duly sworn by the Court, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY THE DEFENDANT:
Q. Mr. Tuggle, were you in Linn County on the 26th of December?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And where’d you happen to be on that day?
A. I was at the commissioners’ meeting at the annex.
Q. Did you see me there that day?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you see Officer Filla there that day?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see what he did there?
A. I seen him come in during a break.
Q. Did he talk to anybody or do anything?
A. I seen him come in and as we were -- The commissioners had took a break around 10 or a little after and I -- He -- he talked to Harvey Taylor and Jackie Taylor.
Q. Was he in uniform that day?
A. Yes.
Q. After he talked to Mr. and Mrs. Taylor, what did he do then?
A. He left.
Q. Did you by any chance see Deputy Filla after that?
A. Later, yes.
Q. And when you say later, where -- where were you when you seen him?
A. Steve Johnson and I were headed -- We were goin’ to Pleasanton, and we’d left the parking lot and drove around through the carwash. He was parked there facin’ -- The car was facin’ north and he was sittin’ in the car.
Q. So he had a good view of the annex parking lot, would you say?
A. Yes, I would say, yes, sir.
Q. Were you in the parking lot that day?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Mr. Johnson there?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Was I there?
A. Yes, you were.
Q. How long were you in that parking lot?
A. I don’t know, 15 minutes maybe. Outside the annex, about 15 minutes, probably.
Q. And what were you and Mr. Johnson and I doing that day?
A. Talking.
Q. Mr. Johnson had -- What was Mr. Johnson doing other than talking?
A. Well, he got in his truck and his truck wouldn’t start, and we had to boost his truck. And then that’s why we were goin’ to Pleasanton.
Q. So we had been in that parking lot for some time then.
A. Right.
Q. Would it be fair to say 20, 30 minutes or better?
A. Yeah, probably. I -- I don’t know exact, but I know we was there at least 15, 20 minutes.
Q. And when you left the parking lot, you drove out through the carwash; correct?
A. Right, right.
Q. And when you went through the carwash, you seen -- your testimony is you seen Deputy Filla there sitting the rear of the carwash.
A. Along the north side of the annex building next to the carwash there, and his vehicle was facing the north.
Q. Not facing to the south or 52 Highway, facing to the north --
A. Right.
Q. -- in full view of the annex parking lot.
A. Yes.
Q. And then you and Mr. Johnson got in and you went to Pleasanton.
A. Yes.
Q. How did you hear about this incident?
A. Somebody called me that afternoon, 3:00 or 4:00, and said you’d got arrested.
Q. It wasn’t me that called you; was it?
A. No, no, no.
Q. I’ve never asked you to come and testify or anything; have I, Mr. Tuggle?
A. No, sir.
THE DEFENDANT: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Cross-examination, Mr. Sutherland?
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. SUTHERLAND:
Q. You weren’t present when Mr. Wilson pulled out of the lot?
A. No, I -- I was present when he got into his vehicle.
Q. And you saw him in the vehicle?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Was he starting to leave at that point, then?
A. We all were goin’ to leave and -- and he was leavin’ and Steve and I were leavin’.
Q. Did you leave first or did he leave first, or do you know for sure?
A. We pulled around through the carwash there, and I think he was still comin’ out to the road there, so we left first.
Q. Okay. So he was on, what, the street there between the church and the commissioners’ office --
A. Yes.
Q. -- operating his vehicle?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was the ’95 Ford pickup?
THE DEFENDANT: Objection.
THE COURT: Hold on. He made an objection.
Go ahead.
THE DEFENDANT: Testimony -- No one was operating the vehicle, Your Honor. I was in a vehicle, but the Prosecutor said I was operating a vehicle. That was not Mr. Tuggle’s testimony.
THE COURT: Actually, it’s a legal -- There’s a case defining operation of a motor vehicle. It’s not in the context of this. It’s in the context of a DUI and it -- it’s not really -- I’m not real hung up on it.
You can rephrase your question.
THE DEFENDANT: Sitting’s not driving, Your Honor.
Q. (By Mr. Sutherland) Was Mr. Wilson driving the vehicle?
A. Not at the time, no, but, now, he got in his vehicle. I do know that.
Q. Okay. And you saw the vehicle between the church and the commissioners’ office?
A. And the -- He was in the street there on -- by the -- between the church and the commissioners’ -- the parking lot.
Q. Okay. And he was in the vehicle by himself?
A. Yes.
Q. And you saw that it had moved from the original parking place into the place between the church and the commissioners’ office?
A. I don’t -- I don’t understand that. I -- The vehicle was parked there on the street.
Q. Are you saying you didn’t see it come out of the parking lot? Did you ever see it out of the parking lot?
A. The vehicle was parked on the street when I -- when I seen him get into it, so --
THE DEFENDANT: Objection, Your Honor, asked and answered. Parked on the street.
THE COURT: Well, that’s clarified, though. Actually, it wasn’t quite, so now we got --
Q. (By Mr. Sutherland) It was parked on the street. Was it in the same position as you came around the building as when you first saw it?
A. Yes.
Q. And was Mr. Wilson in the car behind the wheel?
A. Yes.
Q. Only person in the vehicle?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that point, you hadn’t seen him leave yet?
A. No.
MR. SUTHERLAND: Okay, no other questions.
THE COURT: Any further questions, Mr. Wilson?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down, Mr. Tuggle. Thank you.
(Whereupon, the witness left the stand.)
THE DEFENDANT: I would call Mr. Steve Johnson at this time, Your Honor.
STEVE JOHNSON,
called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant, after being duly sworn by the Court, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY THE DEFENDANT:
Q. Mr. Johnson, were you in Linn County on --
THE COURT: Have him state his name.
Q. (By the Defendant) State your name, please.
THE COURT: I mean, we all know who he is, but the record’s got to say who he is.
A. Steve Johnson.
Q. (By the Defendant) And you live in Linn County, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you in Linn County on the 26th of December, 2006?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you in the commission meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see Mr. Filla come into the commission meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see who he spoke with in the commission meeting?
A. Yes. He come in durin’ a break and he visited with Harvey and Jackie Taylor over in the -- the corner of the room for --
Q. And then what did Mr. Filla do?
A. Left.
Q. So he was there for a very short time?
A. Yeah, five minutes, maybe.
Q. Later that day, did you happen to see -- Well, what -- what did you do later on that day?
A. Well, the commissioners went back into session, and then a little later they had an executive session and we went out in the parking lot and --
Q. And your testimony is that you were there with -- in the parking lot. Was anyone else there?
A. Yeah, Tommy come out too, because we didn’t go back in after the executive session and we were goin’ to leave.
Q. Was I there?
A. Yes.
Q. How long would you say that we were in that parking lot?
A. Quite a while. We visited, of course, about everything that took place all morning. And then I went to get in the truck. I’d left the key on and it wouldn’t start. The battery was dead. We got jumper cables out and moved the pickup to come around and jump mine. I told Tommy, I said, “I got to go to Pleasanton to get a battery,” cause it’s -- It shouldn’t’a went dead. We got it started and he got in with me and we left.
Q. I believe Mr. Tuggle told you about drivin’ (indiscernible); didn’t he?
A. Yeah, but I didn’t listen.
Q. And then you drove out to the carwash next to the annex there; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you see?
A. Saw Paul Filla, who was in the deputy’s car, settin’ there facin’ north where he could look at the parkin’ lot, watchin’ us.
Q. And when you went through the parking lot, you got on 52 Highway and --
A. Went east.
Q. Did you see me after that?
A. I didn’t, no. I don’t -- I didn’t. No, after we said goodbye there, I didn’t ever even look again.
Q. But you did see my vehicle parked on the street?
A. Yeah, it was parked on the street.
Q. Not in the parking lot?
A. No.
THE DEFENDANT: No further questions, Your Honor
THE COURT: Any questions, Mr. Sutherland?
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. SUTHERLAND:
Q. You didn’t see Mr. Wilson in the vehicle at that time?
A. No, I didn’t look over. No, I was driving. I didn’t look anymore when I left the carwash.
MR. SUTHERLAND: No other questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any further questions?
THE DEFENDANT: No, I don’t.
THE COURT: You may step down. Thank you.
(Whereupon, the witness left the stand.)
THE COURT: You may call your next witness.
THE DEFENDANT: I think I will call Harvey Taylor at this time, Your Honor.
HARVEY TAYLOR,
called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant, after being duly sworn by the Court, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY THE DEFENDANT:
Q. Would you state your name for the record, sir?
A. Harvey Taylor.
Q. You’re a resident of Linn County?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you in the commission meeting on the 26th of December of 2006?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Did you see me in the commission meeting that morning?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you see Deputy Filla in the commission meeting that morning?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did he speak with you?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Did you call Mr. Taylor (sic) to the commission meeting?
A. I do not think I did, no.
Q. So your testimony would be that no cell phone record would exist that communication between you and Mr. Filla at that time --
A. I don’t believe so. We talked later on in the afternoon.
Q. And what was the context of that conversation?
A. In the afternoon?
Q. Uh-huh.
A. He told me that -- what had transpired between you and him.
Q. Why do you think he would tell you that?
A. We were talking about other things. We work on several committees together and it was just in the conversation. It came out that he run into this situation. We work a lot of cases together. We work on several committees.
Q. Okay. But you’re -- you’re friendly with Deputy Filla, then?
A. I am.
Q. Okay. You know him quite well?
A. I know him very well.
THE DEFENDANT: I don’t think I have any other questions for this witness at this time.
THE COURT: Any cross, Mr. Sutherland?
MR. SUTHERLAND: No questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down. Thank you.
(Whereupon, the witness left the stand.)
THE DEFENDANT: I think I would call Jackie Taylor to the stand.
JACQUELINE I. TAYLOR,
called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant, after being duly sworn by the Court, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY THE DEFENDANT:
Q. Your name, ma’am?
A. Jacqueline I. Taylor.
Q. Are you a resident of Linn County?
A. Yes.
Q. I take it you were in the commission meeting that morning, --
A. I was.
Q. -- 26th of December, 2006?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see me in the commission meeting that morning?
A. I believe so. The room was packed. I believe you were there.
Q. Did you see Officer Filla there that morning?
A. I believe he came in.
Q. Did you speak with Officer Filla that morning?
A. I think I said, “Hi”.
Q. Did you summon Officer Filla to the commission meeting that morning?
A. No.
THE DEFENDANT: I don’t think I have any further questions of this witness, Your Honor.
MR. SUTHERLAND: No questions.
THE COURT: You may step down. Thank you.
(Whereupon, the witness left the stand.)
THE COURT: You may call your next witness, Mr. Wilson.
THE DEFENDANT: That’s it.
THE COURT: You rest?
THE DEFENDANT: Defense rests.
THE COURT: Any rebuttal evidence on behalf of the State?
MR. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Arguments?
(Whereupon, closing arguments were made on behalf of the State by Mr. Sutherland.)
THE COURT: Mr. Wilson?
(Whereupon, closing arguments were made by the Defendant on his own behalf.)
THE COURT: The State is entitled to some degree of notice with regard to a motion to suppress and the issue that is before the Court is the question of probable cause the -- precipitating the stop. I think it would go without saying that, absent the evidence after the stop, there isn’t any evidence of a crime.
Therefore, Mr. Sutherland, the Court will grant the State the opportunity to present additional evidence on Mr. Wilson’s motion to suppress. If you don’t have any additional evidence, then all I’m goin’ to want is argument. My concern --
And, Mr. Wilson, this is a point that I have been trying to make is that if you raise the motion to suppress -- And you can do that, by the way, during the course of a trial to the Court. I was hopeful that, so that we might be able to get this all resolved in one setting, that you would file the motion and make it clear what that motion is sufficient to put the State on notice, cause they’re entitled to notice as to what that argument’s going to be in advance to determine whether or not they’re -- they’re going to be required to put on evidence besides the conviction of the crime, evidence that goes to the suppression motion. Okay?
So, Mr. Sutherland, does the State have any additional evidence it wishes to present on the issue of probable cause for the stop?
MR. SUTHERLAND: I don’t believe so, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Then here’s what I’m going to do: I can rule on some of these issues.
In all deference, Mr. Wilson, and I -- I -- I will -- I’m goin’ to make two points before I make some of these rulings and -- and -- and two -- these two points are -- And they’re not meant to be out of school, so to speak, but for a pro se litigant, you did a pretty good job; and that always impresses me, frankly, cause I think it’s a difficult thing to do, as I’ve been trying to tell you.
THE DEFENDANT: Very difficult, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I understand. Especially if you’re not trained in it and -- and -- and have some experience in it.
The second thing is I -- I want to express my appreciation for your respect for the Court, because that’s something I also don’t usually see in pro se litigants, and that’s kind of impressive.
Here’s what we’re going to do, though: The case -- And -- And I don’t have all the case law, cause I didn’t take a look at it. But this issue about the -- The section of the constitution that you’re quoting, the key term in that is hereditary rights. That means that we don’t have any kinds, queens, duchesses, dukes or other people that inherit rights just because they’re who they are by virtue of family lineage.
The question of whether or not the State has the right to control driving was answered by the supreme court. One of the cases, and I don’t have the cite, is called Manzenares v. Bell and, frankly, the trial court’s in no position to overrule the supreme court about whether or not there is a right to regulate drivers on the roadways and prescribe criminal penalties for the violations of the rules and regulations. And many of these constitutional arguments, frankly, were addressed in that case. I don’t want to be completely wrong about this, but I’m thinkin’ that case is late 60’s, early 70’s, somethin’ like that and was well after the Swift case where we had electric cars and buggies and wagons up and down the road, but the -- So I don’t have any problem with ruling that the law in the State of Kansas is, in fact, that we have -- we, as the government, have a right to regulate driving. There are criminal sanctions for violating that, that it is viewed as a privilege that can be revoked by the State by violating those and there’s criminal sanctions for not following the rules and regulations of the road as prescribed by the legislature.
This issue about probable cause, though, is different. What I’m going to do is this: I’m going -- Because the State has the burden of proof once you raised the issue of suppression to prove that there is probable cause. So since there’s no additional evidence to be presented, I will presume that then the evidentiary record is closed. I’m going to give the State 20 days to brief the issue of whether or not there was probable cause for the stop.
Mr. Wilson, I’ll give you 20 days to respond to the State’s brief.
If the State chooses to file a reply brief, that will be due in five days after the date Mr. Wilson files his reply brief.
I will then rule on the issue of probable cause. I don’t really think there’s much dispute. It’s not really controverted. The evidence is pretty clear Mr. Wilson was driving and that the record establishes the fact that his driver’s license was expired by virtue of State’s Exhibit No. 1. Therefore, if the Court denies the motion to suppress, it would be reasonable to presume that the Court would probably make a finding of guilty. If the Court grants the motion to suppress, it will be equally as predictable that the Court will enter a judgment of acquittal.
So in the event that I do grant the motion to suppress, the journal entry will simply reflect that ruling. If I do find that the officer had probable cause for the purposes of the stop based upon the evidentiary record, if I then conclude the Defendant is guilty, I will schedule the matter then for sentencing hearing. And just in case that does happen --
And I’m not prejudging the case, Mr. Wilson, so don’t have an anxiety attack over what I’m about to say. This is an admonition I give people, no matter how it turns out. In the event I do find you guilty, the case isn’t ripe for appeal until I pass sentence. Then you’ve got 10 days from sentencing to file your appeal. And, in fact, if you can’t afford an attorney to perfect the appeal and you can then demonstrate indigency, the Court can even appoint an attorney to perfect that appeal. I just want to get that on the record somewhere, cause I don’t think I’ve ever said that before.
But that’s all begging the question of my ruling on the suppression issue, which I will rule on after I’ve received the briefs from the parties regarding whether or not there’s probable cause for the stop.
Mr. Wilson, if 20 days turns out to be an insufficient time period for purposes of filing your reply brief, similarly if -- because Mr. Sutherland knows these rules, too, if he can’t because of other pressing business get his brief done in 20 days, I will grant the parties a reasonable extension of time to do that.
I would prefer not to revisit this issue about the e-transcripts because I’ve ruled on that. If it -- you think you want -- need a transcript of these proceedings in order to do the brief, or if the State does, that’s going to completely change this briefing schedule because then even I am then at the mercy of the court transcriptionist for her to produce that record. So if the State chooses to go based upon their recollection of the evidence and you decide after the 20-day period that you want a copy of the transcript, I’m automatically goin’ to grant you additional time so that you can see the transcript before you have to prepare your brief. This is just how this works in criminal court across the board, so this is --
THE DEFENDANT: Thank you for the information.
THE COURT: Like I told you at the very beginning, I’ll treat you just exactly like I would any other litigation, so, I mean, this is how we do it.
Whoever orders it, absent an agreement by the parties to split the cost and go ahead and do it, whoever orders it gets to pay for it. So that’s just the way that works.
And then after the brief have been filed, I’ll have a chance to review the legal authorities on the issue of probable cause. This is what this case is -- I think there is an issue there. I’m just goin’ to say that. There’s an issue there and I want it briefed and I’ll give you guys some authority to -- This is an opportunity to cite me authorities on whether or not that’s -- that was sufficient probable cause. Considering the time frame, I know what Mr. Wilson’s argument’s goin’ to be. I think the record’s pretty clear.
I don’t know that you all really need the transcript, because I think -- I don’t think there’s much of a dispute. The pivotal facts are that the officer -- I don’t want to get the wrong date. In September --
Help me, Mr. Wilson.
THE DEFENDANT: The 18th, I believe, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, what’d we say, September 18th or -- or 19th, whatever, within those two or three days, the officer ran a driver’s license check and found that your driver’s license was expired. The evidentiary record is equally clear that there was no other investigation of your driving record between then and the date of the stop. So the issue is as a matter of those -- on the basis of those facts as a matter of law is that sufficient probable cause for the stop, and that’s the issue. That’s why I don’t -- I hate to see you all waste money on the transcript, cause that is the issue, so -- And I don’t think there’s a disagreement about the facts. I don’t think it’s a situation where you need to get the transcript and argue about what the facts were. Those were the facts. So based upon that set of facts and circumstances, I look forward to your legal arguments as to whether or not that constitutes sufficient probable cause for the stop.
THE DEFENDANT: This was recorded today, then, Your Honor, and I --
THE COURT: Oh, yes, it always is, always is.
THE DEFENDANT: I would be able to get probably Mrs. Jeck to --
THE COURT: You got it.
THE DEFENDANT: She sends it to me, though?
THE COURT: And if she’s got some way of sending it to you and --
THE DEFENDANT: She does. She sends it to me, so that -- that would be preferable to me to get it.
THE COURT: Well, sometimes maybe it’s better that I don’t have a live court reporter. I -- I don’t have my own court reporter and I know everybody -- I’m probably the only chief judge in the State of Kansas who doesn’t have their own court reporter.
THE DEFENDANT: So, Your Honor, I could -- I could actually wait -- This is goin’ to be an expensive transcript. I could actually wait and see what the prosecution does and then --
THE COURT: That’s why I was suggesting -- or even if -- Well, I don’t know if you want to do this or not, cause I don’t know that there’s other arguments you want to make on this suppression issue other than the one I pointed out, which you’re free to do, I suppose. But I think that’s -- In my opinion, based upon what I heard this morning, that’s the pivotal issue; and based upon the fact that I don’t think that there’s a disagreement about the facts, I don’t think we need the transcript. We know what the facts are. Now what’s the law? But you do whatever you choose to do. That’s why I was trying to make the point of trying to maybe save somebody some money. I think that’s the issue. Now, if there’s somethin’ else in the transcript you need to point to or if there’s facts you can allude -- that you want to make clear in the record that you think based upon your recollection of the testimony, as long as there’s not a dispute as to what the testimony was, I probably won’t need the transcript in order to reconcile a difference in what you two might argue what the facts are, cause that just established the factual basis for the trial and the motion. So absent a request to entertain additional evidence on that, and I gave the State the chance to do that, it sounds like we’re just going to go on the basis of what we heard this morning.
THE DEFENDANT: And what about the video, Your Honor? That’s something that I think I --
THE COURT: If I -- I’m -- I -- I will probably have to address that issue if I deny the suppression motion. But I don’t even have to get to that issue if I grant the suppression motion. Frankly, if I grant the suppression motion and suppress it and enter a judgment of acquittal, it’s over.
THE DEFENDANT: Well, a lot of things have been said about me, Your Honor, and I think that would go a long way in proving what was done and what wasn’t done.
THE COURT: Mr. Wilson, if I can give you some personal advice, a lot of things have been said about me that aren’t true, too, so --
THE DEFENDANT: But a lot of ‘em are pretty good, too, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Some of it’s -- Some of it’s -- When we draw attention to ourselves, we need to learn to have thick skin and take it. We’re in a small town where rumors abound. I know how you’ve acted in court and I know, in the for-what-it’s-worth category, I think the record speaks for itself how you’ve conducted yourself in court, at least.
But irrespective of that issue, I’m not goin’ to get to that and worry about making -- The Court doesn’t rule on moot issues; and if I grant the suppression motion, that issue’s moot. Okay?
MR. SUTHERLAND: Your Honor, if we -- Since we just had this today, if we do find additional testimony is needed, would we do that within -- a motion within 20 days?
THE COURT: I will consider a request to do that. I’m not goin’ to say I’m goin’ to grant it. But if you -- If you’re goin’ to make a request to supplement the evidentiary record, the request has got to be filed in 10 days, then I’ll decide, but I -- that’s it. I don’t think I want to say anything else, cause I think it’d be coaching.
Court’ll be at recess.
(Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
STATE OF KANSAS )
) SS:
COUNTY OF LINN )
I, JUDY JECK, Official Court Transcriber for the Sixth Judicial District of the State of Kansas, do hereby certify that the within and foregoing transcript contains all the evidence requested to be transcribed by me, and the rulings of the Court thereon, from the proceedings had in or at the Trial to the Court held February 1, 2008, in the foregoing cause in said court; that said transcript is a complete and correct transcription of the evidence requested to be transcribed from the official tape recording made at the time of the proceedings, as indicated by the files and records of this court; that the cost of said transcript is $225.00. (Computation: 75 pages @ $3.00 per page.)
Dated this 27th day of February, 2008.
___________________________
JUDY JECK
Court Transcriber
I, RICHARD M. SMITH, Chief District Judge for the Sixth Judicial District of the State of Kansas, do hereby state that the tape recording from which this complete transcript was prepared is the official record made at the time of the proceedings had in the foregoing cause in said court; and that said tape recording, constituting the official record, has been at all times in the custody and under the control of the Linn County District Court.
Dated this 27th day of February, 2008.
Original signed by:
RICHARD M. SMITH ___ RICHARD M. SMITH
Chief District Judge