Dirty Cops Make a FAKE Arrest — Get DESTROYED by Their Own Bodycam! - video Dailymotion

Audit the Court

Cops Make a FAKE Arrest — Get DESTROYED by Their Own Bodycam  I'm Jason. After 30 years in the justice system, I break down real cases so you can see how the law actually works.  Today's case is City of Detroit v. Malcolm Talley, a case about two rookie officers who arrested a man for talking back - and recorded the proof on their own body camera. On June 2nd, 2025, Malcolm Talley was working as a licensed security guard in downtown Detroit when a flashlight on his rifle briefly swept toward a police van. The two officers drove closer and started talking. On their own bodycam, one of them said "we didn't think it was intentional or anything." Then Talley got argumentative - and within minutes he was in handcuffs, charged with felonious assault on a police officer. They took his rifle, his pistol, his CPL, his body armor, and his radio. His livelihood disappeared that night. This is the suppression hearing where their own words, their own camera, and their own testimony on the stand exposed exactly what happened - and what the judge did next ended the case on the spot.  DISCLAIMER The content on this channel is for educational and informational purposes only. Nothing here is legal advice, and nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. I share my interpretation of publicly available court records, statutes, and case law as of the time each video is made. Laws change, rules vary by state, and every case depends on its own facts. If you need legal advice, talk to a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. I do my best to get everything right, but I make no guarantees that every detail is complete, current, or applicable to your situation.  FAIR USE This video is protected under fair use. The original courtroom footage has been edited and combined with legal commentary and analysis for educational purposes. The commentary changes the purpose, character, and value of the original material. This channel is not a substitute for the original recording and is intended to educate, not to replace it

Transcript

00:00:00On June 2nd, 2025, Malcolm Talley was doing his job. He was a licensed security guard in downtown

00:00:07Detroit, legally armed with a concealed pistol license, body armor, and a radio. Just after

00:00:14one in the morning, while getting ready for a shift near his SUV, a flashlight mounted on his

00:00:19rifle briefly swept across the street. It was not aimed. It was not intentional. Two officers in a

00:00:26police van saw the light. They did not get out. They did not take cover. They did not call for

00:00:32backup. They drove closer and talked from their seats. Then Talley talked back and everything

00:00:38changed. Within minutes, he was in handcuffs. They took his rifle. They took his pistol. They took

00:00:44his license, his body armor, his radio, everything he needed to work. They charged them with felonious

00:00:51assault on a police officer. A man doing his job lost his livelihood because he raised his voice.

00:00:57What the officers did not know was that their own body camera had already recorded the sentence that

00:01:03would end their case. We didn't think it was intentional or anything. Malcolm Talley was

00:01:09charged in the 36th District Court in Detroit with carrying a concealed weapon while under the influence.

00:01:16His attorney, Dennis Witte, filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the arrest itself was

00:01:22unlawful and every piece of evidence that flowed from it should be thrown out. The hearing was held

00:01:28before Judge Malaika Ramsey-Heath, with Tamika Horn appearing for the city. What you are about to watch

00:01:35is two officers try to explain an arrest that their own camera already contradicted. For over 30 years,

00:01:43I sat on the bench. An officer can think you are rude. He can think you are difficult. He can

00:01:49think

00:01:49you are the most unpleasant person he has met all night. None of that is probable cause. Watch what

00:01:56happens when a judge has to tell two officers exactly that. Ticket number P1634806, which is City

00:02:05versus Malcolm Talley. We'll go through the facts in a moment, the procedural facts. And then I've got

00:02:12P1786185, which is also City versus Malcolm Earl Talley, both having to do with the charge of

00:02:19carrying a concealed weapon while under the influence. Appearances, please.

00:02:23Yes, Your Honor. It's Amigo Horn on behalf of the City of Detroit, P70303.

00:02:27And good afternoon, Your Honor. Dennis Witte, P79560. On behalf of Mr. Talley,

00:02:31please state your full name for the record. No, Talley. Thank you. Good to see you as well,

00:02:34Mr. Talley. All right. Are we having Mr. Whitey go first as he's requested the hearing? Or do you

00:02:39want to? Judge, I don't need to argue the motion. I know generally when we file a motion to suppress,

00:02:44the government puts on their witness to show that there's probable cause. And then, you know,

00:02:49they get the first shot. They ultimately have to show the probable cause. They get the first shot

00:02:53at making their case. Okay. Thank you. All right. Ms. Moore, your first witness.

00:02:58The people will call Officer in Charge, Officer Stearns. Thank you. Good afternoon, Officer

00:03:04Stearns. Good to see you. Yep. Go ahead and have a seat. Thank you. Hi. All right, Officer

00:03:11Stearns, I'm going to have you state your name for the record, please. Officer Stearns,

00:03:15bench 4512. Thank you. And please raise your right hand. Swear to affirm that everything you're

00:03:19going to tell the court today is the truth. Thank you. Ms. Moore. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you,

00:03:24Officer Stearns, for your duneful service. At this time, Officer Stearns, where are you currently

00:03:30employed? The Detroit City Police Department. Okay. And how long have you been serving with

00:03:35the Detroit City Police Department? A little over a year. Okay. And how long have you been a police

00:03:39officer altogether? A little over a year. Okay. All right. And what kind of training have you

00:03:44received in the time that you've been serving? Great training to the state of Michigan for practice

00:03:49enforcement. And what are some of the things that you noticed as a result of your training in

00:03:57narcotics enforcement and any other training you've received with the Sea of Detroit? Let's see. Law

00:04:04enforcement, any traffic training? Oh, yes. Quite a bit of traffic, yeah. Okay. And as far as any training

00:04:12as to narcotics, what are some of the things that stand out for you as a police officer? It depends

00:04:19on

00:04:19the population. We're doing trafficking in regards to a motor vehicle. Most people, I mean, all depends

00:04:27of what we're looking at. Okay. And as far as your knowledge about guns, what do you know about guns?

00:04:36I served six years in the United States Army. Okay. Thank you for that. And on June 2nd, 2025,

00:04:47at approximately 1 or so a.m., were you on duty? Yes. And were you on duty in the area

00:04:54of East Larnett

00:04:55and Bobin Street? I was. And what brought you to the area? We were stationed there for security. Okay. And

00:05:01what kind of security was needed for that particular area? Um, the night before they had a company with a

00:05:06clock switch coming to the parking lot, so they want to heighten security. So my partner and myself

00:05:11over there, uh, NPO band, it's called neighborhood police officer band. Okay. I think you have to

00:05:17speak. Yeah. Yeah. Or you can even hold it. Yeah. Just speak as loudly as you can,

00:05:23if you don't mind. I know I feel like I'm yelling in here a lot. So we were

00:05:26stationed over there, um, due to, uh, an incident at night before. Okay. And, uh, what, um, brought your

00:05:33attention, uh, to the, this, this particular incident? What were you doing at the time? So my partner

00:05:39and I were just watching traffic drive by. It was kind of a slower night and we saw three gentlemen

00:05:43standing over by, uh, I believe it was a black, like SUV, and we were just watching them. And then

00:05:48the middle, I believe it was the middle gentleman, Mr. Talley, he turned around and we watched the,

00:05:53uh, what appeared to be an AR style white mounted light flash up. And what's an AR style?

00:05:59An AR style. So like M, you know what M4 is? Kind of like a... Yeah, it's like a rifle.

00:06:04Okay. Similar to a rifle.

00:06:05Okay. And, um, what was, uh, you noted something about the, um, the rifle. What, uh, what was

00:06:12distinguishable? It had a white mounted fighter on it. Okay. And, uh, when a weapon has a light on it,

00:06:18uh, where is it usually placed? It's placed in the picnic rail. And where's, what... The picnic rail follows the

00:06:23barrel.

00:06:23Okay. And it's, uh, you're saying that you observed the light? Yes. And what, uh, where was the light

00:06:30pointing? At us. Um, directly at you? It's swinging. So if you're looking at our van, which was also

00:06:35captured on green light camera, swing up, cut right back down, and then immediately Mr. Talley turned

00:06:40around, put the rifle back in the back seat. And at that point, what did you do? We went over

00:06:45and started

00:06:45talking to him. It's a big conversation with him. Okay. And, um, is that person who you approached in the

00:06:51courtroom today? Yes. And can you identify something about what this person has on?

00:06:56Mr. Talley right there has the, uh, like, white jacket on. Okay. Um, your honor, may the record

00:07:01reflect that the officer has identified the defendant. The record will still reflect. Okay. Thank you,

00:07:05your honor. And, um, what did you say to him once you approached? Basically, I was, I was just trying

00:07:10to

00:07:10have a civil conversation with Gabe. Like, did you point a blade? You know, what weapon that is? You know,

00:07:14I explained him what weapon on blade. At first, it was kind of like back and forth. And then, you

00:07:18know,

00:07:18I think it was the fifth exact time, but he told me, he's like, yeah, I do have a rifle,

00:07:22a 300 blackout. And I was like, does it have a light on it? At this point, we pulled over

00:07:25and got out

00:07:26of the van. It just went from a civil conversation to Mr. Talley kind of become an irate. And I

00:07:30was like,

00:07:30eh, I don't want it to escalate. Let's get out and talk to him. And at that time, did you

00:07:35have any, uh, camera,

00:07:38uh, capability, uh, uniform on? Body worn camera, yes, ma'am. Okay. And was it on at the time?

00:07:43Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Okay. And, um, after that, what happened?

00:07:47Uh, my partner, Mr. Talley actually retrieved the weapon, passed it to my partner. Um,

00:07:52and then Rock 6-0 showed up. And, uh, Lieutenant Revere and, uh, another Lieutenant made our scene.

00:08:00At that point, we became Mr. Talley and, uh, retrieved his weapon. He had, uh, another weapon on his

00:08:04waistband as well. And did he disclose the weapon, um, at the time you initiated conversation that was on

00:08:11his waistband? And you, how did you discover it? And, uh, after that, uh, what happened was Mr.

00:08:20Talley, as far as any police custody? Yes, Mr. Talley was placed in the back of a transport vehicle.

00:08:24Was he arrested at the time? He was being placed in the back of a transport vehicle. Okay. And, uh,

00:08:31I would object and ask for clarification. The prosecutor asked, was he arrested at that time?

00:08:35The witness did not answer. I think we deserve an answer. The objection is sustained. Okay. Thank you,

00:08:39Your Honor. Uh, would you, was he arrested at the time you put him in the back of the police,

00:08:43uh, van?

00:08:44It was not free to go. I'm sorry. It was not free to go. Okay. Um, and so when they're

00:08:49not free to go,

00:08:50when you're investigating, what is that called? What's that? What is that called? It would be

00:08:54arrested. Okay. So, um, you state he was arrested? Detained. Arrested. Okay. He's not free to go at

00:09:00that time, but he was, he was placed in the back of a transport van. Okay. And, um, at that

00:09:06time,

00:09:06um, uh, had you read any rights when he was put in the van? No. And, um, would it be

00:09:12safe to say

00:09:12you're saying detained? Yes. Okay. Or you said he was under police custody. Yeah. He was not free

00:09:18to go. He was not free to go. Uh, his rights were not written. Correct. Not by me. Okay. Was,

00:09:27may the court ask a question of clarification. Was Mr. Talley handcuffed at that time? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank

00:09:33you. Thank you,

00:09:33sir. And at that time, during the investigation, um, did you talk about anything else that you were

00:09:41concerned about? Uh, just he had a, uh, radio on him, bulletproof vest, stuff like that. I mean,

00:09:46nothing crazy. I mean, he definitely was under the influence. I mentioned that to, uh, Lieutenant

00:09:50Rabier. Um, and at that point, he was administered PBD by Sergeant, uh, Sergeant Willie, I believe. Okay.

00:09:57Thank you. Um, and we'll leave that there. And what made you suspect that he was under the influence?

00:10:03Once I got, once I got my lipids retrieved wallet, I might stand corrected on that. But once I got

00:10:09him

00:10:09out, I smelled it. And I was like, man, like, he's definitely got the, you know, the order of

00:10:14alcohol in his breath. Thank you. And, um, at that point, um, after that part of the investigation,

00:10:21where, uh, Sergeant Rabier dealt with him, uh, what happened after that? One more time. After Sergeant

00:10:27Rabier dealt with him with the testing of what we were doing there, um, what happened thereafter?

00:10:33He was transported to the Detroit Detention Center. And, uh, did you accompany them to the Detroit

00:10:37Detention Center? No, ma'am. Okay. If you recall, officers did, uh, accompany him. Yes, ma'am. Sergeant

00:10:43Cox. I'm sorry. Uh, Officer Cox and, uh, the other officer's name. Okay. Okay. Thank

00:10:48you, Your Honor. No further questions at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Attorney Lighty. At

00:10:52what point was my client under arrest? I would say, once the handcuffs were put on,

00:10:57he's not free to go. The defense attorney just asked the simplest question an officer should be

00:11:03able to answer. When was this man under arrest? And listen to how long it took to get there.

00:11:09First it was, he was not free to go. Then it was, he was being arrested. Then it was, detained.

00:11:16The

00:11:16officer gave three different answers to one question. And that matters because if you cannot

00:11:22tell a judge when the arrest happened, you cannot tell a judge what crime justified it. The attorney

00:11:28is not done. He is about to walk this officer through every possible charge and take them away

00:11:34one by one. Okay. So he was arrested, um, on the scene prior to be placed in the police van,

00:11:42correct? And what was he placed under arrest for? FAPU. Okay. Fulness assault on a PO. Any other

00:11:49charges he was arrested for at that point? At that time? No sir. Was he ever under arrest for brandishing

00:11:53a firearm? No sir. Was he under arrest for, um, uh, being under the influence, I'm sorry, being 0.08

00:12:01or

00:12:01more blood alcohol content while being in possession of a firearm? He did not go over 0.08. Okay. So

00:12:11he

00:12:11was an additional charge. Okay. Fair enough. So it's fair to say that the, uh, the only charge that,

00:12:17uh, he was placed under arrest for at that scene, uh, was for fulness assault on a police officer,

00:12:23correct? My initial charge, yes, sir. But the additional charge would be carrying concealed

00:12:27while under the influence, yes, sir. Okay. So that was the additional charge,

00:12:31correct? The carrying concealed under the influence? Yes, sir. Okay. And are you stating that that was a

00:12:36misdemeanor? Or are you stating you were, you, that's just the civil rights? Well, again,

00:12:41with our system, it prints off as a misdemeanor, sir. So that's why we had a patient ticket. Okay.

00:12:47When he was placed in the van and then transported to the Detroit Detection Center,

00:12:52um, you also believed he was under arrest for having a bodily alcohol content of 0.08 or more

00:12:57while possessing a firearm? No sir. I said he was arrested for that may be owed an additional charge

00:13:03of carrying weapons. Okay. I understand. So I just saw him personally, but the only charge you

00:13:08arrested him for was F.A. or felonies assault on a police officer, correct? Yes, sir. Also known as,

00:13:13in Michigan, assault with a dangerous weapon under 750.82, correct? Okay. Fair enough. Okay.

00:13:20Uh, I believe he stated that you and your partner were in a scout car, correct? You're in a work,

00:13:25uh,

00:13:25MPO, sir. A van. Okay. And you were the driver? Yes, sir. Okay. And you initiated a conversation

00:13:30with my client. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Did you initiate, uh, with, uh, with anybody else?

00:13:35Or there's two others that were going to do? Okay. Did my client tell you he had a, uh, CPO?

00:13:39He never disclosed that, sir. Oh, he never said he had a CPO? No. Someone else later on in the

00:13:43investigation, they say he has a CPO. Okay. He actually refused to identify himself. Yeah. Yeah.

00:13:48Okay. And you asked his identity after you arrested him. Is that correct? Once we did change it. Okay.

00:13:53I believe he stated he, he's not answering any questions. Is that correct?

00:14:00Fair enough. Okay. And fair enough to say that, uh, well, let me back up. I'll just go do the

00:14:05incident. Uh, so after you and your partner get out of the car, you continue conversation with my

00:14:09client. Is that correct? Correct. And then I believe he stated even two commanders, uh,

00:14:14showed up, a Sergeant Honeycutt, as well as two lieutenants. Is that yes? Yes, sir. Okay. And, um,

00:14:19you discussed the incident with them. Is that right? Yes, sir. And one of them actually said,

00:14:23that's FAPO. He's good to go. Something of that nature, correct? I believe so, sir. Now, at that

00:14:28point, uh, did my client reach, retrieve the rifle out of a vehicle? Yes, sir. And he was directed by

00:14:34an

00:14:35officer to do that. Is that correct? I do not know that. Fair enough. Ah, because you're talking

00:14:39the command officers probably. What's that, sir? Because you were talking command officers. Okay.

00:14:42Fair enough. And what's going on? Okay. That makes sense. You had, uh, a Sergeant Robinson

00:14:47come to the scene. Is that correct? Uh, Sergeant Robinson of the traffic unit came to the scene

00:14:52of PB2 with the PBT. That's a preliminary breath test, correct? Correct, sir. And, um, uh, Sergeant

00:14:57Robinson had, uh, uh, asked my client to, uh, take a test, uh, the PBT test, correct? I wasn't there,

00:15:05sorry. I can't do this. Okay. Fair enough. Fair enough. Um, were you ever made, actually, fair enough.

00:15:10I'll leave. You weren't there. Fair enough. Um, now, my client is placed in handcuffs and then in the back

00:15:15of

00:15:16a transport van, correct? Yes, sir. And it's at that point that you were asking for his ID and his

00:15:22wallet, correct? Either that or just before, sir. Okay. Um, but didn't you and the other officers

00:15:29have to let him out of the van and retrieve his wallet from his pocket? He said he had it

00:15:33in his

00:15:33hand, sir. In his hand, that's correct. Um, he also had an unfundum. Is that right? No, he had the

00:15:37mace now.

00:15:38Mace, that's right. Mace. Um, and that was on him when he was placed in that vehicle, correct? Correct.

00:15:42Now you did the pat down to find a firearm on my client prior to that, correct? Right.

00:15:47You didn't find the mace? I thought it was a lighter, sir. Oh, I thought it was light. Okay.

00:15:50Fair enough. And the wallet, you just left on him for that time. I didn't feel the wallet. Okay.

00:15:55Fair enough. Uh, is the Detroit police department policy to remove, um, all weapons from a person

00:16:01prior to placing them in a transport van? Yes, sir. Uh, also remove all lighters. Is that correct?

00:16:06Yes, sir. And that just, it was busy. That wasn't done, correct? Okay. Actually, um, when you address

00:16:12the, um, odor of toxicants or alcohol, uh, you did, did you state to the charge not to wrap things

00:16:19up,

00:16:19but he smells of alcohol? Yes. Okay. So that goes to support. It was a secondary inquiry. Well, yeah,

00:16:25my first, my first part of my investigation was if there was a potential threat to make sure that

00:16:31threat to safety number one. Okay. So, okay. Fair enough. Didn't you state, well, actually,

00:16:37I'm going to, I'm going to bring you back into when you're in the, um, police van with your partner,

00:16:42and you first, uh, pull up to speak to my client, uh, during that discussion, didn't you tell him,

00:16:47um, we didn't think it was intentional in reference to pointing the firearm, correct?

00:16:52True. Is that yes? Yes. And there it is. The arresting officer just confirmed with his own body camera

00:16:59recorded in the first minute of this encounter. We didn't think it was intentional. That one

00:17:05sentence ends this case because felonious assault in Michigan requires intent, not suspicion, not

00:17:12discomfort, intent. The officer who made the arrest just told this court there was none, but he is not

00:17:19the only officer who took the stand that day. His partner is next, and what he admits about the

00:17:25rifle is going to make it worse. Okay. So there was a pistol, a rifle, CPL license, and, um,

00:17:35his handheld radio. His handheld radio. Okay. All right. Fair enough.

00:17:39I'm sorry. I said that was all placed on evidence. Okay. Fair enough. Nothing further,

00:17:43Josh. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Any redirect? At the time that you detained the defendant,

00:17:47um, very quickly, you would not have known the, uh, alcohol, blood alcohol content from the DDC results

00:17:54at that time, would you? Um, so you wouldn't have known whether he was over 0.05? No. Or, and

00:18:01you

00:18:01wouldn't have known whether he was over 0.08? No. Is that correct? Correct. Thank you. Just one follow-up

00:18:07on

00:18:07that. Uh-huh. Uh, but you did know that a preliminary breath test was taken, correct? I believe it was

00:18:12mentioned. Okay. And you did know that it was not a 0.08, the result, correct? I don't recall that

00:18:18number offhand. Okay. Fair enough. Nothing further, Judge. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Officer

00:18:23Stearns then is excused. Um, as the officer in charge, you're welcome to remain at the table. Okay. Thank

00:18:28you. All right. All right. All right. Next witness? Uh, Jacob Ellis, Your Honor. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Thank

00:18:35you, Officer Stearns. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm going to ask you once, uh, to once again state your name,

00:18:41badge number for the record, please. Jacob Ellis, badge 413. Thank you. And please raise your right

00:18:45hand and swear affirm that everything you're going to tell the court today is the truth. Thank you. You

00:18:50may put your hand down. Ms. Horne, you're direct. Hi, um, Officer Ellis. Thanks for showing up today,

00:18:55and I appreciate your testimony. Um, I'm going to ask you a couple questions about, um, the incident that

00:19:01we're here for. Um, Officer Ellis, um, where are you currently employed? With the city of Detroit. And how long

00:19:09have you

00:19:09been with the city of Detroit? Uh, coming up on two years this June. And, um, is that the Detroit

00:19:17Police Department? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And, uh, what kind of training have you received, uh, as being a

00:19:23police officer with the Detroit Police Department? Other than the state, uh, federal laws, local laws,

00:19:31firearms training, rifle training. And have you served as a police officer at any other agency? No. And, uh,

00:19:38on June 2nd, 2025, were you on duty? No, I wasn't. And were you in the city of Detroit? Yes,

00:19:44ma'am. Um,

00:19:45and the location would be, uh, eastbound Larner and Bobian Street? Yes, ma'am. And at that time,

00:19:52why were you, uh, about one o'clock a.m.? Roughly, yes. Okay. And we did establish that in the

00:19:57earlier

00:19:57testimony as well. Um, and, uh, at that time, uh, what were you doing on duty at that time? Uh,

00:20:04we were

00:20:04assigned, my partner and I were assigned to a downtown detail because we're a town 505 Adam,

00:20:10just securing it. Okay. And who was your partner that, that morning? Officer Stearns. And, um,

00:20:21did you observe anything that, uh, brought you to the attention of, that brought this particular

00:20:26incident to mind? Yes. Yes. At the corner of my eye, I observed a light flashing near people's feet.

00:20:33And as I notified my partner to look over there, that's when the light then faced us.

00:20:41And when the light faced you, uh, what kind of light was it?

00:20:45It appeared to be a weapon mounted light. And a weapon mounted light, um, what does that generally

00:20:49look like to you? So a light that has like a, either a Picatinny attachment or some, some other way

00:20:57to

00:20:57attach a light to a pistol rifle. And was it dark at the time? Okay. And once you, uh, saw

00:21:06this light,

00:21:06what did you do? Notify my partner. And did you have one body more cam at the time? At the

00:21:14time,

00:21:14uh, we had to turn them on. Oh, and, uh, at that time, did you speak with anyone with your

00:21:21partner,

00:21:22um, who was involved in this incident? Yes. Okay. And who did you speak with?

00:21:27I spoke to Mr. Talley and I believe his court. And, um, as when you say Mr. Talley, um, uh,

00:21:34do you see

00:21:34that person in the courtroom right now? Yes. And can you identify, uh, something that that person is

00:21:39there? I believe that's a black, gray, and white. And your honor, for the record, um, this witness

00:21:48has, uh, identified the defendant. Also going forward, so it's not cumulative, your honor,

00:21:53we'll say that we've identified him. All right. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Talley's been

00:21:58identified. Record will also reflect. Thank you. Thank you, your honor. And, um, I'm going to place, uh,

00:22:03I want to play body-worn cam. Do you have any objection to playing in the courtroom? No. Okay.

00:22:09And I'm, this will be the body-worn cam of officer Jacob Ellis. All right. Thank you.

00:22:17Before we even go back, what's the, what's going on? I just walked up by the end of the conversation.

00:22:23What's going on? So we're sitting over there for most of the night and he pulls out his rifle, right?

00:22:32Okay. And then he brings it over this way, points it up. And the only reason we noticed it was

00:22:38again

00:22:38because of the light on the end of the barrel. Right. Right. So of course we're going to make

00:22:42contact. So why is he waving the gun over here? Right. Why is he waving it at all? Right. Where's

00:22:47the

00:22:47rifle at? Pardon? Where's the rifle at? What rifle? Your 300 blackout that you told me that you had.

00:22:54Why? So I can see it. So you can see it? Yeah. I'm going to, I'm going to run the

00:22:57serial numbers on it. You got a

00:22:58CPL. Why do you want to run the serial numbers on it? Because now I'm confirming that it's yours.

00:23:02It's not stolen. Yada, yada, yada. You have any other weapons in there or any?

00:23:23My man, step away from that phone. Appreciate it. He just asked me to grab my gun. Next time,

00:23:42this is date of birth, 423 90. Yeah, that was his. Hey boss, when's your birthday? Hey,

00:23:48he doesn't have a cage. Hey, hey, hey. Stearns. No cage. There's no cage. Behind you.

00:23:58When's your birthday, boss? When's your birthday, boss? Sir, I'm not answering no more questions. I need

00:24:06to call my attorney. Well, your attorney, that has nothing to do about your, your birthday. It does.

00:24:11Y'all taking my firearms, y'all taking me in custody. Okay. All right, fine. Well, he's not,

00:24:15he's not giving us that, so. It's where he's got his, um. And, um, uh, officer Ellis failure to

00:24:21identify oneself to an officer upon, um, request. Is that legal? At this point, no. Say it again. At this

00:24:30point. No. Okay. Thank you. All right. I, can I get a clever name? It is legal or not legal

00:24:35for what

00:24:36my client did. For purposes of during this investigation, officer, should he have identified

00:24:41himself to you? Yes. And is that by law? Yes. Thank you. Officer, I noticed at one point,

00:24:47uh, my client retrieves, uh, a rifle out of the backseat of the SUV. Is that correct? Correct. Did

00:24:53you direct him to do that? I asked him to do that. Okay. Is it common police protocol to tell

00:24:58a potential

00:24:58suspect who pointed a gun at a police officer to go ahead and retrieve that firearm and give it to

00:25:02me? Not usually. The officer just admitted under oath that he told the man, a man he claims pointed

00:25:09a rifle at police, to reach into a vehicle, grab that same rifle and hand it over. No cover, no

00:25:17distance, no one positioned behind him. Just go get your gun for me. If this officer believed for one

00:25:24second that Malcolm Talley had aimed a weapon at him, that request does not exist. You do not hand

00:25:30a threat back his weapon. You do not turn your back while he reaches into a car. Everything about

00:25:36that moment tells you the same thing the body camera already said. They did not feel threatened.

00:25:43The defense attorney saw all of it. Now watch what he does with it. Okay. So you felt comfortable

00:25:50enough that he wasn't a threat, like he was going to try to shoot you or anything, correct?

00:25:53I didn't want to escalate the situation. Okay. Fair enough. Fair enough. But if you're telling

00:25:57somebody to obtain a firearm, you do not believe that at that point, at that point, that he's a

00:26:01threat to you, correct? I'm sure. Okay. So normally if somebody, um, if there's a firearm,

00:26:09uh, that say a Detroit police officer comes across in the middle of an incident, say a fight,

00:26:14a domestic, we'll say domestic, and they say there's a firearm over there in that dresser

00:26:18drawer. Would you tell that person to get the firearm or would you go over and get it?

00:26:22I would ask them. You would ask them to put their hands on the firearm and then give it to

00:26:26you.

00:26:26Your Honor, objection to this line of questioning is not exactly what's going on here. That's an

00:26:31example of speculation of what an officer would do in another type of situation. Fair enough. Fair

00:26:36enough. I can move on. He answered. I can move on. I made my point, I think. Now, throughout your

00:26:41investigation, um, did you come to know that Mr. Talley was working security at one of those

00:26:45establishments? Yes. Okay. So he was actually, uh, working, um, security that evening from your

00:26:54understanding? I'm not sure. Okay. But you did receive information that he was working security,

00:26:59correct? That he was employed there. Employed. Okay. Um, now I noticed, um, that you register,

00:27:05or you wrote down the serial number to this rifle. Um, did you subsequently run that through the law

00:27:10enforcement information network? I did. And did that rifle come back registered to my client? I did.

00:27:15It's fair to say that my client was placed under arrest when he was, uh, placed in handcuffs.

00:27:20I didn't place him in handcuffs. I understand that. What I asked is when he was placed in

00:27:23handcuffs, was he under arrest? I would assume he'd been detained at the time. Well,

00:27:28you're assuming that, but what I'm asking, you're the police officer. You're on the street.

00:27:31I keep asking an assumable question. Um, this officer did not place him under handcuffs. Um,

00:27:36he was on a separate detail at the, at that time. So he would not have personal. Let me build

00:27:40foundation. You know, I'll back up. Okay. Uh, did you see my client placed in the handcuffs?

00:27:45No. Okay. Were you the arresting officer or was your partner technically?

00:27:49My partner. Now, uh, when you asked my client for, uh, his date of birth, uh, do you remember

00:27:55that testimony where the prosecutor asked you if that was lawful or not? Is that correct?

00:27:59Correct. Uh, you agree with me though, that when you asked that question,

00:28:02my client was already under arrest, correct? He was detained. Okay. So he wasn't under arrest?

00:28:09Like I said, I'm not sure at that time. Okay. Um, who detained him then?

00:28:17Okay. So you'd rely on whatever your partner stated was the time of arrest would be the time of

00:28:21arrest. Yes. Okay. Fair enough. And fair enough to say that when you asked for that date of birth,

00:28:26that my client was already in handcuffs. Yes. Uh, when this interaction started,

00:28:31um, you were the passenger in the, um, police van, is that right? Correct. And, um, you noticed

00:28:37the light in the firearm and then went to speak to my client, correct? Correct. And you stayed seated

00:28:42in the car? Okay. And that interaction lasted at least two minutes, correct? I'm not sure.

00:28:48Okay. Um, so for an officer, if you feel under threat, you want to get on your feet. You want

00:28:54to

00:28:54get out of the car, correct? I would assume so. Okay. But, and that's fine. In this case though,

00:28:59you didn't feel that threat where you want to get out of the car to make sure you're on your

00:29:01feet

00:29:02when you first spoke to Mr. Taylor, right? Correct. We can rewind the video if we need to,

00:29:06but I'm just trying to speed it up. Um, while you're sitting in the car, um, did you or your

00:29:12partner say, even say to my client, look, we don't think it was intentional what you did.

00:29:16You just act like an idiot. So I don't recall. Okay. Fair enough. As your partner was the arresting

00:29:22officer. Um, you agree. He decided the charges and what to move forward with. Is that correct?

00:29:27Yes. And of course, that was in consultation with a lieutenant who started to describe.

00:29:31Correct. Nothing further, Judge. Thank you. Thank you. Any redirect, Ms. Horner?

00:29:37No, do redirect, Your Honor. Um, for Officer Ellis, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your

00:29:42appearance, Officer Ellis. You're excused. We'd like to call our next witness, which would be

00:29:45Officer Alex Smalley. He wouldn't have been the intoxilizer. Thank you. Judge, I would object to

00:29:52this witness this time. The intoxilizer is back at the DDC. The purpose of this hearing is whether

00:29:57it's probable cause to arrest. That comes way after an arrest. And so I don't think it'd be necessary

00:30:02for this, um, probable cause determination. Thank you. Um, did Officer Smalley, uh, administer the PBT

00:30:13on the scene or are we talking about the intoxilizer back at the station? The intoxilizer back at the

00:30:18station, but we do have Sergeant Ray Bjorn who did administer the PBT, Your Honor, if that will be

00:30:22admitted by the Board. All right. Thank you. I think that would be relevant to this determination. All

00:30:27right. Thank you. I would agree. Um, I think the PBT testimony is relevant to the determination today.

00:30:33Okay. I'm not sure the intoxilizer is, um, and so I'm going to sustain the objection

00:30:37on that one, but the PBT I do think is relevant. But of course, Judge, if we're moving to

00:30:43when this is done, if we're moving to the civil fraction hearing, obviously, she might be that

00:30:46way. I don't want her to excuse him. They want to be objected to if you need him for a

00:30:51potential

00:30:51civil fraction hearing. Keep him on standby. Oh, yes, absolutely. Okay. And I think, um, what we have,

00:30:57I believe that Sergeant really, he's the one who did the PBT. I think I kind of smoothed through that

00:31:03because I didn't think that the court would allow PBT to come into testimony. Um, not sure if that's the

00:31:08same for evidentiary or trial, but was it? No, in all fairness for a PBT, in this case,

00:31:16I'm judging, or I'm, I'm going to argue that there's no probable cause of time of arrest. The

00:31:20PBT even came after that arrest, even though potentially trial, it may be an issue. Um, and

00:31:25obviously from our discussions and we know from discovery that that would have led to probable

00:31:30cause cause it wasn't at least a point of weight on the seat. So I have no problem if she

00:31:33doesn't have

00:31:33to testify. And I think for now, um, for purposes of probable cause, uh, we're going based on the

00:31:40civil infraction as amended. And, um, if the council has any further argument, the people at this time,

00:31:46we do believe we met our burden, uh, by preponderance of an evidence of the evidence

00:31:50that there was probable cause to arrest Mr. Um, Talley. Uh, it was, um, found they believed that he had

00:31:57brandished the gun to point right at them. This was, um, testified by officer, uh, Stearns and officer

00:32:03Ellis. And in addition to that, um, uh, it was, uh, determined at that time based on the smell of

00:32:10alcohol that he may have been under the influence. How many, how much BAC? We're not sure. Blood

00:32:15alcohol, alcohol, we wouldn't know, but officer Stearns did testify credibly to the smell of alcohol,

00:32:21on the scene at that time. I think it's this time, um, the people, uh, believe that we've proven

00:32:27at least our smaller burden, not beyond a reasonable doubt, but the civil burden that there was probable cause

00:32:33and also to continue with formal hearing on this time. All right. Thank you.

00:32:39And your honor, uh, obviously we oppose that. Um, let's just look at what we heard in this hearing.

00:32:45We heard Mr. Talley, assuming everything's true that the prosecutors presented all the witnesses are

00:32:52completely true. Let's take it all at their word, exactly at their word. We still win. First, basically,

00:32:59they're saying Mr. Talley was finding a firearm. He's being an idiot. Basically, it was not good.

00:33:03It wasn't the safest thing to do. And I get that. I understand that. But what's very clear in this

00:33:09whole case is, was there probable cause to make an arrest? Let's look at things. First, the two

00:33:14officers are in a car. They pull up to these subjects. They don't get out of the car. They

00:33:19don't get on their feet. They sit there for, well, he doesn't recall how long they have a conversation

00:33:27on their tushies or on their butt, basically in a car. If officers under threat that they're going

00:33:32to get shot at, they're getting on their feet. Now, of course, I'm not an expert in this by any

00:33:37means, but in my 15 years, you get on your feet. They did not feel threatened by Mr. Talley at

00:33:43that

00:33:43point. They were just trying to have a discussion. What made them upset was when my client

00:33:48gets argumentative. That makes them mad. And I get that. I watched the video. I was an officer.

00:33:52That teed me off, too. Right? I'm just trying to, like, make a point and move on and be done

00:33:58with

00:33:58it. That's what they were doing. And I'm not faulting them for that. But that doesn't make

00:34:03it a crime. When it becomes a crime is when they're upset and say, hey, look, they're not

00:34:07getting my point. I get where they're at with that. I do. Then they say, we're going to look at

00:34:14this

00:34:14a little bit further. Pull the fan over. They get out. Then they start having a discussion with

00:34:18Mr. Talley. What does Officer Ellis do? He actually has my client retrieve the firearm

00:34:25from an SUV. So if an officer feels under threat, they're not going to say, hey,

00:34:30go put your hands on that firearm, sir, and then go ahead and hand it to me.

00:34:33They're going to retrieve that firearm themselves. I found it interesting, though,

00:34:37that the officer testified before the objection came out and I'd moved on. He said if it was a

00:34:42domestic situation and the gun was in a dresser drawer, he would probably ask them to go get it.

00:34:48Okay. Fair enough. That's him. I understand that. You are not feeling threatened by any means.

00:34:53Okay. So that's the facts we have. Later on, there's a PBT. It was pulling some teeth for the

00:34:59officers to admit when my client was under arrest. They seem to be very afraid and skittish around that

00:35:04issue. Both of them. When was he under arrest? We're trying to work around this because their

00:35:08case is weak. There is no probable cause. Now, let's look at that. The second one,

00:35:12Officer Ellis testified. He relied on his partner's decision. He was the primary officer. He's the

00:35:16arresting officer. It's his decision. Fair enough. I understand that completely. But let's look at what

00:35:22we have. We have the first statement within a minute of this incident. And from that chair,

00:35:27the officer in charge admits, we didn't think it was intentional or anything. He says it,

00:35:33or he states that he stated on that date and he confirms it under oath, which I get it. They

00:35:39didn't feel threatened. Totally understand that. But then I go over every possible charge that could

00:35:44have arrested him on. What charge did you arrest him on? Filonious assault? Filonious assault against

00:35:48a police officer. Fair enough. Filonious assault. So let's take that. We know that filonious assault

00:35:54under 750.82 is required as a dangerous weapon and an assault. What is required for any assault in

00:36:01Michigan's common case in law? Intent. The officer said on the video and confirmed under oath,

00:36:08we didn't think you intended to do it or anything. There goes their case. Gone. It's over.

00:36:15I went through every other charge they tried to post-hoc come up with. Well, you know,

00:36:20he's intoxicated. Well, we didn't have the PBT at that point. Well, this and that. Now,

00:36:25nothing to show a PBT shows a point of weight, which is what's required to make intoxication

00:36:30while in possession of a firearm. It's to make that charge you need .08 or more. They said,

00:36:35well, we think he's under the influence, which I get. They smell alcohol and he comes back with

00:36:38something. And then later at the station, there's something. But now, no, there's no testimonies

00:36:42of points that are right. So let's take that charge. That's what the ticket was written for

00:36:46originally. That's gone now. We know that. That's gone. That was a defect. It doesn't even...

00:36:52The government had to dismiss that or amend, which we had no problem with,

00:36:55amend it to a civil infraction because they have to admit there's no probable cause on that.

00:36:59Let's go to the third one, what was mentioned today. Let's also look at what was mentioned

00:37:03in the people's response. It says, well, they had probable cause because it's brandishing a firearm.

00:37:08Okay. Just because you have probable cause of one thing, you could have it for something else,

00:37:12which I get. But brandishing a firearm in Michigan, was it required? Intent. And actually,

00:37:24I'm just going to quote from the jury instruction, brandishing a firearm. Michigan criminal

00:37:27jury instruction, 11.25A, defendant is charged with a crime of brandishing a firearm. To prove

00:37:32this charge, the prosecutor must prove the following. First, defendant possessed a firearm

00:37:36or had control of a firearm. And of course, it defines a firearm as a weapon that will shoot

00:37:40out a projectile by explosive action, is designed to shoot out a projectile by explosive action,

00:37:44or can readily be converted to shoot out of a projectile by explosive action. Okay. Cool

00:37:49enough. Fair enough. Possessed. They got it. Cool. I'll give them that. Probable cause. They got it.

00:37:53Second, that while possessing or controlling the firearm, the defendant was in a public place.

00:37:57Give it to him. We're sitting here and learning it, right? No problem. That's on public. Third,

00:38:03while possessing or controlling the firearm in a public place, the defendant delivered and pointed it,

00:38:07waved it about, or displayed it in a threatening manner. Okay. I don't think we can even say

00:38:13it's threatening given their testimony, but it's okay, judge. We can actually give them that one,

00:38:17too. Let's go to the last one, though. Fourth, that when the defendant pointed, waved about,

00:38:21or displayed the firearm, he did so intending to cause another person or persons to be fearful.

00:38:28Intent is required. What is the statement from the grand arresting officer? We don't think there is

00:38:34intent or anything. And he confirmed it under oath. We went through every possible charge

00:38:39that they could have had for probable cause to make an arrest. I even nailed it down several

00:38:46different ways and said that was the only charge was baloney's assault, correct? Yes. There's no

00:38:52disputing that. There is no probable cause to arrest my client. Would there be cause potentially to write

00:38:59him a citation on the alcohol thing? Yes. But that's not for arrest. So I'm asking this court to rule

00:39:06that

00:39:06there was no probable cause to arrest my client. Therefore, anything that was taken fruits of that

00:39:12unlawful arrest, such as an intoxilizer 9000 at a station, would certainly be suppressed. That is

00:39:19governmental action. Now, of course, as an officer of the court, that's a civil infraction. So the

00:39:23rules get a little bit looser for civil infraction with respect to the exclusionary rule. But this is

00:39:28considered quasi-enforcement. This isn't code enforcement for your grass is too long and I took a picture in the

00:39:33backyard when I trespass. This is an arrest where he's deprived of his freedom, not only that night,

00:39:38until the next day. And so, Judge, we believe that any evidence of intoxilizer 9000 would be suppressed

00:39:44too. But first and foremost, there's no probable cause. And so we would ask that this court make

00:39:49that finding. I think it's not even a false call in this situation. Thank you, Judge. Thank you.

00:39:53I will allow rebuttal if you have any. Do you have any other statement you wish to make to the

00:39:57court?

00:39:59And closing for the people, I believe there is probable cause here. He was suspected of being

00:40:04under the influence of alcohol during this investigation. He was in possession of a firearm.

00:40:10And I believe that is the probable cause necessary to prove this ticket on the civil infraction that he

00:40:16was under the influence. He smelled of alcohol. He did test his alcohol at PBT at that time for .06,

00:40:22I believe, and at the DBC. Now, what's going on at the DBC is not necessary at this hearing today,

00:40:28but for purposes of this civil infraction, he was above a .02, Your Honor, under the influence.

00:40:34And not only did he have the rifle that he allegedly pointed at the officers, he also had several,

00:40:41uh, another, uh, gun or firearm that he had failed to disclose to the officers altogether until a pat-down.

00:40:48Um, this community deserves better, Your Honor. Anything further, Mr. White?

00:40:52It does deserve better. It deserves a better investigation and deserves better enforcement.

00:40:56I don't fault these officers one day. I did that job. I don't fault these guys. They're trying to be

00:41:01safe. I get it. They're under tough circumstances, but it still doesn't rise to the level of probable

00:41:06cause in the situation. It just isn't there. If you want to talk about the reason for an arrest could

00:41:11be under the influence. There's nothing in this record to say there's a .08 on a PBT or otherwise.

00:41:17And even later, there's, well, we're not even at that point. So there just isn't probable cause here.

00:41:25I'm not attributing ill will towards these officers and that they were trying to do anything evil by

00:41:29any means. I think they were trying to educate Mr. Talley. That didn't go so well. And so they

00:41:33made their point another way. False. But that doesn't rise to the level of probable cause.

00:41:37Right. Thank you. There's a reason that we have a probable cause standard. And that standard is that

00:41:42it must be based upon a reasonable suspicion that a particular crime has occurred or is about to occur.

00:41:48Here, it's obvious that the particular crime that was being alleged was the use of the firearm,

00:41:57a felonious assault, the use of a firearm in the felonious assault of a police officer. I will say,

00:42:03I find the officers to be credible, um, in this case, as I watched, um, although it's not part of

00:42:11the record, you know, the both attorneys and the court have watched officer stern's, um, body cam video,

00:42:17as well as now, uh, officer Ellis's. What occurred to me in watching that video was that given the

00:42:23number of officers that converged on the scene, it became almost like a game of telephone, where the

00:42:31first person to encounter says one thing and that starts to balloon out something else. What seemed

00:42:38to be communicated by officer stern's, who was one of the first on the scene, certainly it's not as

00:42:45clear to me from officer Ellis, but that the firearm was being handled in some way. And in the handling

00:42:51of that firearm sounds like from the testimony today that the light was initially pointed at feet,

00:42:58came up and around as it was being placed back in the vehicle where Mr. Talley had to retrieve it

00:43:04from.

00:43:04That's borne out in the officer's statements that they did not believe the aiming of the firearm

00:43:10at them to be intentional. However, on the scene, things started to change because now the allegation

00:43:17is going through various officers and it starts to kind of take on a life of its own. And Mr.

00:43:23Talley then

00:43:24ends up in handcuffs, arrested on suspicion of felonious assault on a police officer pointing

00:43:30a gun at them, even though both of the officers first on the scene said that they did not believe

00:43:34there could be an intentional aiming. But he ends up in handcuffs, not free to go as officer

00:43:39stern's testified in a van. And what this court finds to have been under arrest, officer stern's

00:43:47said that he would have considered it to be under arrest because he was not free to go.

00:43:51And officer Ellis said, well, whatever officer stern says, if he says that's when it occurred,

00:43:56that's when it occurred. So clearly here, the arrest was for the felonious assault on a police

00:44:03officer. I know that there were some other cases running along with this. The court has had trouble,

00:44:08quite frankly, making sense of them because the register of actions contain all kinds of different

00:44:13weird dates about the date of offense. But what we did pull was that it would appear, although it

00:44:21contains a different date of offense, I don't know why, that there was initially a charge for

00:44:26fingerprinting refusal as to Mr. Talley. Don't know if that was the same case. Okay. But that one was

00:44:31dismissed for compliance. I then had another case where Mr. Talley was charged with, looks like an

00:44:40assault and battery, found not guilty by a jury. Again, I can't make sense of the offense date in that

00:44:48file.

00:44:48And then I have another case from 2025, where I can't even tell exactly what the disposition is here.

00:44:59The latest thing I can see is an October 29th entry there of 2025, and then nothing further,

00:45:07no final disposition. I'm sorry, I am looking at an October 27th date in 2025, where there's an order of

00:45:16dismissal. So, you know, I don't know if any of those others are riding along with this one,

00:45:22given some of the allegations that were made. But given what I think is the officers, quite frankly,

00:45:30very credible testimony, I do not believe that either of the officers perceived a threat to them

00:45:38at this time, an intentional threat. Again, borne out by the statements, borne out by asking Mr.

00:45:45Talley to retrieve his own firearm, and hand it to the police, you know, and, you know,

00:45:51perhaps this is what would happen under the same circumstances. I don't know, you know, as a lay

00:45:57person, you know, familiar with the law, at least, but not an officer. Certainly, I'm not going to ask a

00:46:03person who I feel is a threat to me to go and grab a firearm. I mean, that's just a

00:46:08logic. So at this time,

00:46:10I do find that there is, was no probable cause for the arrest for felonious assault on a police officer.

00:46:16The judge just ruled, no probable cause. The arrest was unlawful, but she is not done,

00:46:22because now she has to answer a harder question. If the arrest was illegal, what happens to everything

00:46:28that came after it? The breath test on the street, the intoxilizer at the station, the charge they

00:46:34rewrote from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction. All of that evidence exists only because Malcolm

00:46:41Talley was put in handcuffs. If those handcuffs never should have gone on, then everything that

00:46:47followed is fruit of a poison tree. That is the exclusionary rule, and the judge is about to apply

00:46:54it. All right. Now, where does that leave us? As to where we go next, right? Because ultimately,

00:47:02Mr. Talley is charged now with a civil infraction, because the grant, the court granted the government's

00:47:09motion to amend the ticket to a civil infraction. It was initially charged as a misdemeanor.

00:47:14But under the statute, Mr. Talley would not have been charged with a misdemeanor. That would have been

00:47:20an improper charge. So where do we go from here? Is there fruit of the poisonous tree? Does the exclusionary

00:47:26rule apply? So what the court started trying to look at was, would there have been an inevitable

00:47:31discovery of this and under different circumstances? Here, there was some statement after Mr. Talley was

00:47:41already arrested that there was the smell of alcohol. However, there was no additional information.

00:47:50even there about, and there was extensive contact with Mr. Talley about slurred speech, about glassy eyes,

00:47:57about any of that, right? And so then we have to determine, would there have been probable cause

00:48:04to subject Mr. Talley to a PBT and ultimately an intoxilizer, given that there was not probable cause to

00:48:17arrest him to arrest him for felonious assault on a police officer. Mr. Talley was in close proximity

00:48:24with at least two other people. He was in close proximity to a vehicle where there could have been

00:48:31alcohol. And so, you know, the court is having difficulty seeing how Mr. Talley would have gotten to the

00:48:39point of a PBT or an intoxilizer absent the arrest for the felonious assault on a police officer.

00:48:49And so the court is finding that the exclusionary rule does apply and that the PBT and intoxilizer

00:48:56are suppressed, leaving no evidence of Mr. Talley's consumption of alcohol, intoxication, etc.

00:49:05And your honor, just a quick clarification. Are you stating in this case that the exclusionary rule

00:49:10is applicable to the civil matter that is currently pending as amended?

00:49:15I am. Thank you, counsel, for the question. I am. You know, I spent a long time, about five years,

00:49:23signing search warrants in DUI cases in the middle of the night, which I didn't like, but I did. And,

00:49:30you know, that is one of the things that we're looking at. Like, what is the totality of the

00:49:36circumstances that would lead to this person being breathalyized? And we are looking for things like

00:49:43glassy eyes and slurred speech and difficulty with a field sobriety test. Right now, saying,

00:49:49well, I think I might have spelled alcohol when I was talking to him. You know, with nothing more,

00:49:54I'm just not finding probable cause there to have subjected Mr. Talley to that testing.

00:49:59So again, yes, the court is finding that there was not probable cause to arrest in this case,

00:50:03that the exclusionary rule does apply, and that the evidence of the PBT and the intoxilizer is inadmissible.

00:50:11Thank you, Judge. Thank you. Given that, that still leaves us with the fire issues.

00:50:15All right.

00:50:16Uh, defense would renew its, its motion that my client filed pro se, or improper prior to my, uh,

00:50:22appointment or involvement in this matter. Uh, there is no conviction. Uh, sister counsel,

00:50:27uh, prosecutor provided their updated, uh, policy. There is no conviction. Uh, I think,

00:50:33even on their own policy, Detroit police department would agree that return, uh, is appropriate. I would

00:50:38assess that the, uh, court order that I would ask that the court, um, just kind of infinitely hold

00:50:44that show cause of the debates, because if they comply, if they should have an opportunity to

00:50:47comply, Judge, before we would deal with that. Thank you. Attorney Horn. Um, I will defer to the

00:50:53court in this matter, uh, except for, just for the record, um, the people believe in generally in

00:50:57civil cases, the exclusionary rule does not apply because it is applicable to search and seizures

00:51:02under the Fourth Amendment protections. Um, uh, but the, uh, analysis that Your Honor was speaking

00:51:10of was based on the totality of circumstances, um, by Rick Conner, and it's more likely than not,

00:51:16we're not sure whether or not Mr. Talley was intoxicated by smell alone. And that's how I'm, um,

00:51:22taking that interpretation, Your Honor. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Yeah,

00:51:25just to make sure the record's, uh, completely satisfied. It's been used in civil asset forfeitures,

00:51:29because it's quasi-criminal, um, even in some torts actions, such as, um, car accident cases.

00:51:35And, uh, in the one of one 1950 Plymouth Sedan versus Pennsylvania, 380 US, uh, 693, which,

00:51:43of course, also comes in, in report picture of $176,590 at 443 Mish 261. Of course, this isn't civil,

00:51:51uh, civil forfeiture, uh, but it has also been recognized in Long Lake Township versus Maxson.

00:51:57That's a civil context, 513 Mish 101 of 2024. Um, it did apply to some, uh, worthless blood draws

00:52:05in a negligence context, even. I think in this case, it's obviously quasi-enforcement as a civil

00:52:10infraction, and it would apply. I understand the court's ruling. I'm not arguing either way. I just,

00:52:15Sister Counsel, I want to make the record complete, and I want to make sure it was complete, too.

00:52:18All right. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification.

00:52:22Okay, now, next question is, do we know where all of Mr. Talley's property is?

00:52:28Yeah, uh, that witness would be in the hall.

00:52:30Yes, um, uh, people would ask, um, uh, the court call, uh, Captain, uh, Cameron,

00:52:37um, with properties, uh, and it should be assisted by one of the other officers.

00:52:42All right. Thank you. All right. We will consider this in a continuation of the motion for return of

00:52:46property so that we have a record to attach to the officer's testimony, too. Okay.

00:52:50Yeah, the people take a brief recess just for five minutes.

00:52:53Sure. Yes.

00:52:54So they know what procedurally has occurred.

00:52:56Yes. Thank you, officers.

00:52:58Thank you. I appreciate your appearance.

00:52:59Your first witness?

00:53:00Um, first witness, um, Officer Cameron, um, she could be the keeper of the, uh, property

00:53:05for the food approach. Um, we, I believe there will be a process,

00:53:09so we wouldn't be able to hand it over today, but as the court ordered, all property is here.

00:53:14Thank you. All right, Officer Cameron, or whoever would need

00:53:16Captain Cameron.

00:53:17Okay, Captain Cameron. Thank you, Captain.

00:53:19All right. Good afternoon, Captain Cameron.

00:53:21I'm going to ask you to go ahead and state your name and badge number for the record, please.

00:53:24Heather Cameron, I'm a captain. I do not have a badge number.

00:53:26Thank you. Please raise your right hand. Swear affirm that everything you're going to tell the

00:53:29court is the truth.

00:53:30Yes, ma'am.

00:53:30Thank you. Attorney Horn.

00:53:33Thank you, Captain Cameron, for, uh, everything and, um, appearing today. And so as to, um, um,

00:53:39the property, I am, uh, I believe has the court ruled on the property, uh, motion?

00:53:45Yes. So given, uh, the decision of the court court is ordering that the property be returned to Mr.

00:53:53Talley. The order was previously in effect. The court then pulled it back, held it in advance until

00:53:58the conclusion of our hearing. We will treat this as the, um, part of the hearing. However,

00:54:05the court has concluded, uh, that Mr. Talley's property is to be returned to him. Uh, but we will

00:54:11now just make sure that we've got it all. They're all on the same page about what property that is.

00:54:15And, uh, if you guys want to explain the process of returning it to Mr. Talley.

00:54:18Um, uh, Captain Cameron, um, uh, where are you currently employing Detroit police?

00:54:24And how long have you been with the Detroit police?

00:54:2625 years. And, um, uh, at this time, um, are, are you considered like the custodian of, uh, uh,

00:54:35forfeited firearms?

00:54:36I'm the commanding officer of the property. Okay. And what does that entail? Uh, it's one of

00:54:42several units that I am in command of. There's also a tenant to sergeants over property.

00:54:49And in this matter, um, were you able to, um, I guess, uh, take possession from evidence, uh,

00:54:56at the Detroit police department, uh, Mr. Talley's property? Yes, ma'am. Um, do you recall what items

00:55:02are included in the evidence? And if you need something for refreshment, uh, there's a long

00:55:08rifle, two magazines, a CPL permit, a handgun. Those are the items on evidence. And was there

00:55:17any other additional items that weren't on evidence that you have in your possession today?

00:55:21Um, and, uh, you heard the court's order and is there a process that Mr. Talley has to take,

00:55:28including in addition to, uh, the court order, may I present the court order to you? Yes, ma'am.

00:55:34Okay. Ma'am, uh, approach your honor. Uh, the people are presenting a, uh, a court order dated

00:55:40February 5th, 2026 that has been held in advance, um, as a reason, um, until today's hearing. Um,

00:55:46and at this time, I believe the order is going to be enforced by the court. Right. And for clarification,

00:55:52there was a period of time when the order was not held in advance. However, given the city's request

00:55:57to respond to the motion, I then pulled it back. I believe it was February the 13th,

00:56:01uh, and held it in advance until we could resolve now. Thank you, Robin. And, um,

00:56:09Catherine Cameron, uh, for the record, have you had an opportunity to review, uh, the order that we

00:56:14have been discussing? Yes. And, um, as a result of that, um, is it your understanding that, uh, uh,

00:56:20the city has to comply with the order? Yes, ma'am. And is there a process that needs to be

00:56:24taken

00:56:25outside of the written order, um, enforced by the court today to, uh, for Mr. Talley to retrieve

00:56:30these items? The court order needs to be presented to the precinct of occurrence, which in this case

00:56:35will be the third precinct. The, uh, supervisor will then review the order, complete a task in our

00:56:43tracker system, have it approved by the captain or commander of the command, which is the third precinct.

00:56:50Then that information with that information, a task number will be provided to the offender or

00:56:57sorry, the owner, uh, to the owner. And he would take that information to the property unit at 1301

00:57:05third street, provide the task number to the property officers who would then return the property to

00:57:10them. Okay. Okay. And at this time, um, to begin that process, will he present in person for that to

00:57:18the

00:57:18third precinct? Yes, ma'am. All right. Thank you, Captain Cameron. Um, I don't have any further

00:57:23questions at this time. I'm not sure if the court does or just, I want to make sure for process,

00:57:28um, when the order is presented, cause we'll get it today. We want to get it presented as soon as

00:57:33possible. Um, when we present that to, I believe he stated the commanding officer at the third

00:57:37precinct, and then it has to go through some channels. Um, how long does that take? It could take

00:57:4124 hours. Okay. We're talking in days, not months. Correct. But the property room is only open

00:57:46Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. Okay. And that's, then he'll have to go to third

00:57:52street

00:57:52to the headquarters to that with the task number to get retrieved. Correct. Okay. I appreciate that.

00:57:57Thank you, Captain. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Captain. No further questions. Can I ask just one

00:58:01question with this order? In normal cases, when we get court orders, live ammunition has never returned.

00:58:07Is that fact with this case also? Or no? No. I mean, I don't have any information that there's

00:58:15any suspicion that this gun has been used in other crimes. I don't have any suspicion that the

00:58:20ammunition, uh, was illegally obtained or illegally possessed. There is no conviction standing that

00:58:28would prevent the return of Mr. Talley's property. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to be clear.

00:58:32I appreciate it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Anything further? Uh, I think all the issues

00:58:39are resolved one way or the other. All right. Thank you. It sounds like we have established

00:58:42that the department does have all of the property in their possession. Mr. Talley has a road map to

00:58:47follow to get that property back. Sounds like it shouldn't take very long. And then if you start it

00:58:52tomorrow, you might have it within, you know, I would expect that you would have it within a week,

00:58:56um, at, at most, uh, given now the court's done a little bit of research on this too. And it

00:59:01seems

00:59:02that the only thing that should prevent the return of the property is the discovery that Mr. Talley is

00:59:06for some other reason prohibited from having a firearm. I don't have anything to indicate that. Um,

00:59:13so I would expect that the property will be returned. The order stands. Um, all right,

00:59:18I guess that concludes the case. Thank you. And can we get an order today? Absolutely. Yep. Yep.

00:59:23Thank you. Judge Ramsey Heath did not need long. She called it what it was, a game of telephone.

00:59:30One officer saw a light. By the time the story moved to the other officers on that scene,

00:59:35it had become a felonious assault. But nobody on that street corner ever believed Malcolm Talley

00:59:40pointed a weapon at them. Their own body cameras said so. Their own words on the stand confirmed it.

00:59:47And the one thing that actually made them put him in handcuffs was not a crime at all. It was

00:59:52attitude.

00:59:52The judge found no probable cause for the arrest. She suppressed the breath test, the intoxilizer,

01:00:00and every piece of evidence that flowed from the stop. She ordered every item returned. The rifle,

01:00:06the pistol, the magazines, all of it. But here is what the officers never saw, and what makes this case

01:00:13stay with you. They had a real violation sitting right in front of them the entire time. Under Michigan

01:00:19law, a rifle in a vehicle must be unloaded and in a case or in the trunk. Talley's rifle was

01:00:25on the

01:00:25back seat with a round in the chamber. A CPL does not cover rifles. It covers pistols only. That is

01:00:32a

01:00:32chargeable offense. Nobody wrote it up. Nobody noticed. Because they were not looking at what he

01:00:37actually did. They were looking at how he talked to them. And by the time they finished building a case

01:00:43around his attitude, they had missed the one thing that was actually there. This was not the first

01:00:48time this case was in front of a judge. The original charge was dismissed months earlier because the

01:00:54second officer did not show up to court. The city refiled it 17 days later, and then it fell apart

01:01:01a second time on camera in a hearing that lasted less than an hour. Two chances. Same result. So the

01:01:08question this case leaves behind is simple. If your tone of voice on a street corner is enough to lose

01:01:14your weapons, your license, and your livelihood for 10 months, and it takes two hearings and a body

01:01:21camera to get them back, what does that tell you about how much stands between a lawful citizen and

01:01:27an unlawful arrest? If there's a case or courtroom exchange you want me to break down, drop it in the

01:01:34comments below. And if this is the kind of breakdown you're here for, like and subscribe so we can keep

01:01:40building a more informed audience.

Dirty Cops Make a FAKE Arrest — Get DESTROYED by Their Own Bodycam!

Category

Transcript

Comments

Recommended