Opinion ID: 202406
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Kominsky's language during the arrest

Text: 68 Oliveira contradicted Kominsky as to whether Kominsky used profanity while arresting Henderson. When the suppression hearing was opened for the final time, the parties informed the district court that Oliveira would testify that Kominsky used profanity during Henderson's arrest. (He did so testify at the second trial.) Kominsky, on the other hand, testified that he was polite throughout the encounter. The government now argues that this matter is immaterial because Oliveira's testimony did not occur until after the final decision on the motion to suppress. This argument is misleading. The district court knew that Oliveira would contradict Kominsky before it finally denied the motion. In fact, defense counsel presented the district court with the government's e-mailed statement that: Oliveira stated [in a pretrial conversation with the government] that he recalls in essence that Officer Kominsky used some form of the f___ word when asking Mr. Henderson to get out of the vehicle. 69 The district court declined to hear Oliveira's testimony in person before reconsidering the suppression motion for the final time because I don't need to hear any more to have a low regard for Officer Kominsky as a law enforcement officer. 70