Opinion ID: 202406
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Testimony contradicted by other police officers

Text: 66 In at least two ways relevant to the question of whether Kominsky's testimony about Henderson's seatbelt was accurate, Kominsky's testimony was contradicted by other police officers. As the government points out, the district court did not explicitly resolve these contradictions. However, these contradictions are relevant to our inquiry, and, with respect to at least one of them, the district court did, in effect, reject Kominsky's account. 67
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
71 Kominsky also was contradicted on the important question of whether his shift supervisor on the night of Henderson's arrest, who considered himself Kominsky's mentor, provided Kominsky with an opportunity to fabricate his recollection that Henderson was not wearing a seatbelt. As we discussed above, Kominsky testified that he made a statement about the purported seatbelt violation while talking to Henderson at the scene. As already noted, the district court rejected this account. No other witness testified that Kominsky said anything about a seatbelt violation before returning to the police station. Oliveira testified that Kominsky said nothing about a seatbelt to him at the scene. Kominsky did not actually write a seatbelt citation until he returned to the station. The district court expressed interest in this sequence, telling defense counsel: I told you that I'm interested in knowing what happened back at the station and whether there was any discussion about the ticket. Ordinarily, I don't call witnesses. But don't you want to ask [his shift supervisor] that? 72 Philip Tuck, who was Kominsky's direct supervisor on the night of Henderson's arrest, testified at the second suppression hearing, largely at the district court's urging. Defense counsel said: I do not have any intention of calling Sergeant Tuck, immediately before the remarks by the district court above. After the district court again asked: do you want to call Sergeant Tuck? defense counsel agreed to call the witness, responding: I'm happy — yes, your Honor, I'll put him up on the stand. In the end, after some questioning by both counsel, the district court examined Tuck itself, at some length. 5 73 Tuck said that he felt a certain fondness for Kominsky and watched out for him. Tuck testified that when Kominsky returned to the station with Henderson, he asked him why he had stopped Alford's vehicle and why he had asked Henderson to get out of the car. We reproduce that testimony in part: 74 THE COURT: When Mr. Henderson was arrested, did you have some discussion with Mr. Kominsky about the law with regard to when you could properly ask a passenger for identification? 75 TUCK: I believe I asked him his reason for having Mr. Henderson get out of the vehicle. 76