Opinion ID: 202406
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Testimony disbelieved by the district court

Text: 50 The district court disbelieved Kominsky on at least two important points-relating to his initial encounter with Henderson, and on another matter relating to Kominsky's ability to testify accurately about his conduct and motivations during vehicle stops. 51
52 The district court disbelieved Kominsky on the question of whether he requested or demanded that Henderson write down his identifying information. Kominsky testified that I observed that the passenger, who turned out to be Mr. Henderson, wasn't wearing a seat belt, and asked him if he had any identification on him .... He said `no, I don't have any ID on me' . . . . I then asked him if he would mind writing down [his] name, date of birth, and Social Security number on a piece of paper ... [which] he did. Kominsky said that when Henderson asked why he had to write down his identifying information, he said: You're not wearing your seat belt, sir. At that point, Kominsky said, Henderson voluntarily complied ... He picked up a piece of paper. He used my pen. He wrote down his information. Kominsky later clarified that he did not even think that there was a legal way for me to force a passenger in a stopped car to write down his identifying information in order to be cited for a seatbelt violation. 53 Alford contradicted Kominsky both as to whether he mentioned anything about a seatbelt violation to Henderson and as to whether Kominsky merely requested — rather than demanded — Henderson's information. She testified that when Henderson asked Kominsky why he needed to write down his social security number and date of birth, Kominsky responded: Just write your fucking information on the paper before I snatch you up. Alford's testimony on this point was consistent. However, Alford related Kominsky's profanity only reluctantly, after the district court told her that she was required to state Kominsky's words accurately, even if it's language we wouldn't ordinarily use. In its written findings, the district court said that after Henderson `told Kominsky that he did not have a license or any identification, 54 Kominsky instructed Henderson to write his name, date of birth, and social security number on a piece of paper. Henderson asked Kominsky why he had to provide that information. Kominsky did not answer the question, but insisted that Henderson give him the requested information. 55 Henderson I, 229 F.Supp.2d at 37 (emphasis added). The district court indicated that this finding was significant. In talking to counsel after the second suppression hearing, the district court noted its findings on these points before saying: back on [sic] October, I didn't believe everything that Mr. Kominsky said and I still don't. 56
57 On the important question of whether Kominsky said anything about a seatbelt violation while speaking with Henderson and Alford, the district court also specifically sided with Alford's testimony over Kominsky's. Kominsky testified that he told Henderson, after he asked why he had to write down his information, You're not wearing your seatbelt, sir. 58 The district court found, to the contrary, that when Henderson asked Kominsky why he had to provide that information[,] Kominsky did not answer the question. Later, speaking to counsel, the district court summarized the testimony on this issue and its finding: Mr. Henderson says: `Why do I need to give you that?' And according to Kominsky he says `because you're not wearing a seat belt.' You don't find that in my [first decision on the motion to suppress]. On an issue directly relevant to Kominsky's insistence that Henderson was not wearing a seatbelt, the district court's finding was contrary to Kominsky's testimony. 59
60 The government avers that the district court made no finding as to whether Kominsky actually used the profanity Alford ascribed to him. However, the district court orally indicated that it found Alford's testimony more credible than Kominsky's on this point as well, stating after hearing Bellas's account of Kominsky's language at the second suppression hearing that my sense [is] that Officer Kominsky, you know, was not, well, was not likely to have been, you know, quite as polite in talking to Mr. Henderson as he [] described in his testimony. Whether or not the district court credited every word of Alford's quotation of Kominsky, the important point is that the district court again rejected Kominsky's credibility on an issue closely related to his insistence that Henderson was not wearing his seatbelt. 61
62 The district court also disbelieved Kominsky's account of his interactions with Bellas, the high school student who testified that he had twice been stopped by Kominsky while driving on Plain Street from his school in Brockton to his home in East Bridgewater. According to Bellas, the first time he was stopped, Kominsky approached the car and said: I smell marijuana. And he asked me how much marijuana had I smoked in the nighttime. Bellas denied having smoked marijuana. There is no indication that he had. Kominsky did not even perform any kind of sobriety check. Bellas testified that Kominsky then ordered him out of the car, told him that he was going to jail if he did not say where he was hiding marijuana, and then searched him in a very physical manner. Kominsky took off Bellas's shoes and unbuckled his pants, and did the same to Bellas's friend, a young man named Carlos Gomes Pereira, who was riding as a passenger. Then, Bellas said, Kominsky ransacked the car, throwing his schoolbooks and homework into the street, and pulling up the carpet. Lieutenant Rogers, the second-ranking officer on the West Bridgewater Police (subordinate only to Kominsky's father, the Chief), later confirmed that Bellas's belongings had been thrown into disarray and that the carpet had been dislodged. After completing his search and finding no contraband, Kominsky left Bellas's belongings in the street and told him he could go. Bellas went home, and the next day his parents took him to the police station and filed a complaint. Rogers, who investigated, told Bellas and his family that he had been the victim of a profile stop. Noting Rogers's comment and documents in evidence indicating that Kominsky stopped minority drivers at a higher rate than their proportion of the local population, Henderson argued to the district court that the profile remark suggested Kominsky's possible motive in stopping their vehicle and in investigating Henderson. Henderson and Alford are African-American. 63 Kominsky also pulled Bellas over a second time in the same area, purportedly to cite him for having a muffler that was too loud. The car was towed for unrelated reasons. Rather than giving Bellas a ride home, Kominsky made Bellas walk. When Bellas's father complained again to Rogers, Rogers went to the tow yard with Bellas, found that the car's muffler was not loud, and voided the citation that Kominsky had issued. Kominsky admitted that he had stopped Bellas and searched him, and that he had not given Bellas any citation pursuant to the first stop. But Kominsky denied that he had been unduly aggressive during that stop or that he had asked about marijuana instead of asking Bellas for his license and registration. 64 The district court found Bellas's testimony more credible than Kominsky's. In its oral remarks after the second suppression hearing, after calling attention to the fact that it didn't believe everything that Mr. Kominsky said, the district court stated: in fact, I'm not inclined to believe his rendition of events with Bellas either. If I had the Bellas case in front of me it wouldn't be that hard. In its written findings, the district court stated that: the court finds Christopher Bellas's testimony concerning Kominsky's conduct when Bellas was stopped to be more accurate than Kominsky's version of events. Henderson II, 265 F.Supp.2d at 116. Again, the district court discredited Kominsky on an important issue even though the only evidence contrary to Kominsky's testimony was the testimony of a driver whom he had stopped. 65