This video demonstrates Michigan criminal court procedures including pre-trial conferences where defense attorneys review discovery materials, negotiate plea deals with prosecutors, and address attorney-client communication issues; it also shows probable cause hearings where judges evaluate evidence for charges like receiving stolen property, including witness testimony about vehicle surveillance, VIN verification, and constitutional considerations regarding tracking devices.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Judge Shelia Johnson's Personal Meeting RoomAdded:
This is case number 26S 00490 SD people state of Michigan versus Herman Moriceet.
>> Morning Bernie Rosa on behalf of the people.
>> Good morning. Laura Lake who appearing on behalf of Mr. Moriceet who I believe is in the courtroom.
>> Okay. And what's your name, sir?
>> All right. And you don't mind your lawyer being on the zoom this morning, do you? Okay. All right. And so today is the date scheduled for a pre-trial on operating uh while intoxicated with persons under 16 years of age in the vehicle and a suspended license first.
So these are one year and uh 93day misdemeanor respectively. And the fines they carry are up to $1,000 and up to $500. And there are some driver's license, possible sanctions, you know, points, possible additional suspension of the license by secretary of state vehicle mobilization.
And you also uh understand that you have a right to trial by judge or by jury on these charges with your lawyer.
>> Okay. And so, council, uh this is our first pre-trial. Do you have all your discovery?
>> I don't I don't have the videos. It's my understanding that's because the prosecutor's office doesn't have them yet either. So, I was going to ask for an adjournment for a couple of weeks so I can review those.
>> Okay.
Two weeks at least.
>> Courts available July 8th at 9:00 a.m.
>> How about July 8th?
>> That works.
>> Yes, that's perfect. Thank you.
>> Okay. 78 9:00.
Mine continued.
See?
Yep. He's doing good with the testing.
Oh, yeah.
>> Ready on the next.
>> I'll do one more.
>> Oh, okay.
Okay, this is case number 240039 SD people state of Michigan versus Robin Ogden.
>> Morning people.
>> Laura Le appear on behalf of Miss Ogden.
And what's your name, ma'am? Riley.
>> And uh also your council is on Zoom for this morning's pre-trial. Do you mind that?
>> Well, would you want her to be right here with you standing next to you?
Okay. All right. Well, Miss Ako, she says, "Do you Well, let me ask you this.
Is this just going to be an adjournment?"
>> Well, I was actually We were going to um adjourn it, but there's been a breakdown of the attorney client relationship, so I was going to move to withdraw.
>> Well, what kind of breakdown is that?
There wasn't much of a relationship to begin with. Um, it was my client wouldn't really speak with me. This morning, she was saying that it was the opposite that I was the one who wasn't speaking with her. So, there's just not a meeting of the minds here.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> She wouldn't answer her. When she did speak to me, she told me that she would talk to me Tuesday before my court case.
My court case is on Friday. She spoke to me for eight minutes. I was at work the whole 16 hours and I still spoke to her.
spoke to her for the time being for the time being yet. And when I when I did ask if I could speak to her prior, she said that I was more than welcome to call, but she let me know she was very busy. And I don't I'm confused. I don't I don't know what to even call or ask.
And I feel like that should have been into consideration. I I I wasn't even trying to like make her uncomfortable.
All I asked her I don't remember what I asked her. Well, one thing that I don't like that I'm hearing is the fact that you look frustrated and scared.
>> It was scared >> because you haven't talked to your counsel enough for your satisfaction.
She even admits that it hasn't been much of a relationship there and I'm not understanding why.
So, Miss Akel, I mean, your your job, if of course you already know that, is to confer with your client, you know, prior to the hearing, and I understand if you don't have all the discovery, but I have a person >> I have a person here that is very panicked looking. Your honor, I will say that I spoke with Miss Ako about this case at least a week ago, and multiple times since then, she's been advocating on her clients to have with me. We communicated um I think three times and yesterday. Well, that's good. But if the client doesn't know that and doesn't feel comfortable with it, then the trust factor is going not going to be there.
I'm not saying it's I don't think it's totally broken, Miss Ako. I think we just have to have a little bit more communication.
So I think if she wants to make an appointment with you, busy or not, and your duty is to talk to her and make that appointment and be in the office or set aside a phone conference time for, you know, 20 minutes or half an hour, whatever it's going to take so that she fully understands what she's charged with, what the facts are, how, you know, they're looking as far as the facts are with respect to her chances of winning.
If there's any emotions or anything that you feel she needs to do, all of these things are things that she needs to kind of understand. And it's >> and I would have told her if she had spoken with me, judge. I did. I never said to her, "Oh, I can't talk to you because I'm busy." It wasn't that I was explaining to her. I didn't have all of discovery. I couldn't fully give her an opinion until after I had all of discovery. So, yes, we could speak before, but we needed a time to speak for a longer period. And I wasn't getting that from her.
>> Okay. Now you got to do your part too.
>> My She wants to speak to me Tuesday. How she spoke to me for I can >> Okay. She says you weren't even talking when she tried to speak to I don't know which day.
>> On the day she told me what the options were and she got off the phone. That was it. It wasn't wasn't nothing else. I don't >> Well, ma'am, she doesn't have the police report. Well, she didn't. And I don't know if there's audio video because this is a pre-trial for operating under the influence with occupants under 16 years of age in the motor vehicle. So that would be way more than a police report.
That might be audio visual, could be some dash cam, other kinds of footage from somewhere. I don't know. But she has to have all of that to even give you a really meaningful discussion. She has to be able to look at it, look at it with you, and then give you her opinion on things.
And you got to be ready to talk. I don't know. I mean, it sounds like there's some miscommunications here. So, I'm not going to let her withdraw. I'm going to let her do her job. And she's very good at it. I mean, I've seen her work with people before, so I'm not really sure what's going going on here.
>> Yeah. You're welcome, Miss Go. I mean, she's she's very astute. She she gets on top of things quickly.
So, you're the first person I've heard say she she wasn't counseling you enough.
>> What?
>> I'm listening to what you're saying, though. Whether she's had anybody say that before or not, I'm listening to what you're saying. But I want you to also make yourself available.
you probably shouldn't be at work.
Maybe you need to meet on some afternoon or Saturday morning or something when you're available, not working, and she has, you know, 20 minutes or half an hour time to go over these things with you.
Can Can you think you can come to a reasonable date and time to do that?
>> Tuesday would have been fine. I took a break and spoke to her. I can't do nothing about what I can't do. I can do a lot of things from up here. I can't go backwards in time though. I just can't.
So, we gonna have to leave Tuesday at Tuesday and we got to move forward to what we can do now.
So, is is the following Tuesday a day? I mean, do I need to be um scheduling this for you too, or can you two do this yourselves?
Can you can you make a date with her?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, Miss Akel, can you make a date with her?
>> Yes, we can try it again.
>> Okay, so first of all, what discovery are you looking for?
>> At this point, I have all of it. I watched the videos late until last night until 8:00 p.m., but I never got to speak with her about it because when I tried to speak with her this morning, didn't work out. Okay. So, she just got the videos. She's looked at them. She needs to talk to you. If you want to look at them, she's obliged to have to show them to you. So, I'm going to join this pre-trial for your lawyer to consult with you regarding the discovery.
Now, do we need to make a date now? Do you have your schedule, Miss Aiko? Yes, I have my schedule.
>> Okay. What's a good day for you? Let's start there.
>> To just talk to your lawyer >> in person. I want this in person.
>> Um, I'm available Monday.
>> What time?
>> Or or anytime this weekend, but I don't know. It's setting. So, Monday, I'm available all day.
>> She's available this weekend or Monday?
All day? She says >> I can meet with her on Monday.
>> Okay. What time?
>> Um, what time works for her? I know she works two jobs.
>> She says she's free all day Monday. Do you have a special time you would like?
What's so funny?
I'm lost. What? Did I hear something funny? No, I apologize.
>> Well, what? Just give me a time.
>> Oh, anytime. I'm available all day. My Monday.
>> Well, she she asked what was good time for you because she knows you have two jobs you're normally working and you laughed about that. I don't know what's off.
>> You're off. Okay. So, do you care if it's in the morning?
>> I wake up.
>> Okay. Miss Ako, uh, what's better for you then?
>> Could we do 11?
11:00 on Monday. That'll be June the 8th.
And I'm writing this down. 11 a.m. You She'll let you know where her office is if you don't have it already.
And then we're going to come back.
>> She can come back the same day, July 8th, at 9:00.
>> They're meeting at 11:00.
>> Well, Monday.
>> Yeah.
>> Come back for another pre-trial.
>> Yeah. They got to come back after they meet. Actually, your honor, I don't have an office, so it would be difficult for me. Um, we I could meet her at one of the courouses.
They allow >> Wherever you meet, uh, you can meet at a restaurant as long as you got your computer or whatever you need to show her the actual video.
>> Okay.
>> So, you all have to figure that part out.
Well, I will say, your honor, that we, as defense council said, we don't have the videos yet. Detective Jadovich, she'll be back. She just said she watched them last night.
>> This is a different case.
>> The other case, we don't have the videos yet.
>> You're right.
>> Unless I don't have all of the videos for this.
>> You stay out of it, man. Prosecutor Gee whiz.
>> I'm just gonna be quiet now.
>> Good.
Okay, Miss Aiko. So, what were we saying now?
>> Uh, as far as I know, I have all the videos for this case. It was the other case that we didn't have the videos yet for.
>> Okay. So, you're all set with the video.
So, now we know it's going to be 11:00.
You're going to decide if you know have a little booth like at a Kirby's Coney Island somewhere in the back cuz you know those kind of places might be empty at a specific time. There's little traffic around lunch for sure, but you might be able to get a place like that and just sit and talk.
Okay.
And FYI, I don't know if they still have this, but they do have um just space where you can have the conference rooms and access to that at different buildings locations. So, even if you don't, you know, uh have the office there, you can use the conference facility. So, you can look into that kind of thing, too. Not for this, but just down the road.
Okay. Okay. So, we're coming back, Madame Clerk. Where she go? There she is.
First available June 17th at 9:00 a.m.
>> Okay. Well, we're not available till June the 17th. The court is out for a couple of weeks.
June 17th at 9.
So, that's the last time I'm available before I'm now I'm out. Right.
June 17th at 9.
>> Is that good, Miss Agel?
>> Yes, that works for me.
>> Okay. And that's for an adjourned pre-trial. Kerbine is continued. He's going to give you a notice with that date on it. Okay. All right.
Okay. Here we go. Case number 25S0057 FY. People state of Michigan versus Jaylen Smith on behalf the people for the record on behalf of Miss.
>> Okay, Miss Smith, tell us your name.
Smith.
>> All right. And so today is the date scheduled for a probable cause conference on a reband of this case from circuit court. um on an assault with intent to do great boling harm less than murder or by strangulation and a felonious assault charge. And so I guess how are we going to be proceeding on this?
>> I can place that on the record.
>> Yes. The plea offer would be if um Miss Smith went and clean I believe it would be a noon test plea to an added count three domestic violence the 93day misdemeanor just in case your staff requires that MCL 750.812 um and that would be under 7694A after consulting my victim who had approved that. Um I believe she would be tendering a no contest plea um in exchange for the I think we would be dismissing counts one and two.
>> Okay.
>> But that is correct. Uh Miss's office. We have had extensive conversations regarding a resolution uh including the remand that was requested um by defense and granted by the judge and not appointed to by the people. uh and count one is a count comp two is in the alternative and I've discussed this matter with my client uh more times than I can count.
>> Okay.
>> As far as resolution, Miss um Smith, before we go there, um Judge Miss Smith, uh you and I have had an opportunity to discuss this this case um countless times. Is that correct?
And you will see that um the final reser of no contact would be added violence first offense is something that you want to avail yourself of. Is that correct?
And the judge will go through your right. So you're um giving up by tendering this plea. Are you satisfied with my total representation under this point as far as the resolution and you feel that it's in your best interest to go forward with the plea? Is that correct? Keep your voice up.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Yeah. Keep your voice up, Miss Smith, cuz we're trying to record you and none of our microphones actually amplify. So, got to kind of keep it up.
But, all right. So, you're going to be pleading to a misdemeanor count of domestic violence, maximum penalty, 93 days, $500 fine. The two um felony counts will be dismissed. So, I'm going to go over your constitutional rights.
the rights that you normally have at trial that you're getting ready to give up or wave because you're pleading today. If you understand all of these rights as I go over them, all you need to do is just say yes. If you do have a question about one of them, feel free to post a question to me. Other than that, we're going to get started >> after she finishes signing your signing.
I mean, that's all good. She Thank you. Thank you.
>> All right. So, you understand you do have a right to have a trial uh by judge or by jury in this matter with council representing you. So, you understand that you're going to be waving that. At the trial, you have the right to subpoena witnesses, which means you have the right to ask court to order and anyone you like to come forth to testify at trials through a subpoena process to make sure they get here. And you understand that you're going to be waving that right. Also, at trial, you have the right to question through your lawyer any of the witnesses that are brought against you by the prosecution here. You understand? You're waving that. You have a right to testify at trial on your own behalf. But if you choose not to testify, no one can hold it against you. You understand? You're waving that. You also have the right to be presumed innocent of any charges unless you're proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. You understand? You're waving that right. If you're on probation or parole status somewhere and you plead uh no contest here, this plea still could possibly be considered a new case and therefore possibly a violation of any probation or pro that you might be on. You understand that?
>> And you have just now read and signed up vice right form gone over that with your lawyer.
Did you have any questions about anything on that form?
I understand that if I do accept the plea today, you will not have a trial of any kind and you'll be giving up the rights on the form.
You also understand the potential penalties involved with this domestic violence charge you're pleading to >> and you still wish to plead guilty to that charge, not guilt. No, no contest.
You wish to plead no contest. Anybody force you or threaten you? Don't >> we been promised anything other than what we just stated on this record? You plead no contest freely and voluntarily.
>> All right, let's at least give me the date here. I'll let Miss Gracie tell me the facts.
Uh let's see. The date involved here was in the city of Southfield somewhere July 20th, 2025.
Go ahead.
uh Congress would stipulate a factual basis. The reason is civil liability. Um the facts would be on that date and time in the city of Southfield that um >> well, Miss Smith and the complaining witness in this matter um were having uh a heated conversation. Um and Mr. uh the complaining witness, >> James Parker.
>> Yes, Mr. Parker. um invaded her personal space and she pushed him back and so the parties would stipulate to that factual basis all the >> Were they in a dating relationship?
>> Yes. And I'm so sorry they they were in a dating relationship prior uh to that time frame.
>> Okay. People satisfied that factual basis.
>> Yes, your honor. I think it >> defense obviously is satisfied. So the court will be satisfied factual basis for the plea believe the court rules have been complied with and I'll accept this no contest plea finding that it is freely and standingly voluntarily accurately and knowingly made. We'll go ahead and dismiss count one assault was intended to do greatly harmless and murder and count two felon to immediate sentencing to someone.
>> Yeah. Just so did you find out if your complaining witness wants to make a statement?
>> His phone call is off which is rather unusual because he's he always answers his phone or calls me back right away.
Um so I have not been able to get a hold of this.
>> Well, would you do you need an adjournment to give him that opportunity?
>> Yes, please, your honor. If I would, I would just like to afford him the opportunity to make any sort of statement if he so chooses. Yes.
Normally in these type of domestic violence matters, we get pre-sentence reports, but she doesn't have any prior.
>> No, that based on the information that the court uh gleaned from not only defense council but also from this sand from prosecutor's office.
adjourn date, please.
All right. Thanks.
>> Yeah, it can be short. We just want to see if this person wants to make a statement.
>> June the 15th, 9:30.
>> That's going to be difficult judge because I have um a past circuit warning.
16.
>> That's a Tuesday.
>> Is that a uh jury trial that or bench >> just available tonight?
>> Yeah. Well, that didn't give you much time to contact the gentleman >> judge calling him in the morning.
June 12th.
>> June 12th is a Friday. Are we here?
>> We are here. Um, I can do that. Even the 10th I could do it in in the early morning, but >> uh June 12th, 9:30.
>> Yes, please.
>> Yeah, >> works for me.
>> Thank you.
>> All right, mine is continued. She'll sign her.
We're all set.
>> Thank you, judge.
>> All right. Thank you, ladies. I appreciate you. Council >> Oh, Miss Gracie, help us.
It's pretty about 144 back.
I don't know. They're not shopping.
There's nobody This is case number ready on Lawrence.
>> Uh 26S 00421 SD people state of Michigan versus Jerome Kevin Lawrence coming up.
>> All right, Mr. Uh Lawrence, you are here today for pre-trial on one counter operating with uh a high bodily alcohol content.17 or more.
And there is the second count of carrying a concealed weapon while under the influence. So the first count, the drunk driving matters, maximum penalties up to 6 months, maximum fine up to $700, not including the court cost. On the other count, it's 93 days up to $100 fine. not including the court cost and possible uh forfeite of your concealed pistons license. So it'll be revoked potentially. All right. So you understand the two charges. Okay. And of course you understand you have a right to trial by judging by jury on these charges with your lawyer. All right. So Mr. uh Sav, have you uh gotten all your discovery?
>> Yes. I uh just received a discovery.
Okay. Okay.
We need an adjournment to review discovery available June 15.
>> All right. June 15, 26, 9:30 for the journ pre-trial. Here's uh B. I believe we're going to continue that.
He just needs to wait for his notice.
This is case number 26S 00337FY.
People say the Michigan versus Damon Herbert.
And Mr. Herbert told us your name.
>> And we are back for probable cause conference. One count of carrying a concealed weapon, five-year felony, $25,000.
No, $2500 fine and forfeite of the weapon. So, all right. Where are we? PCC. We had adjourned it for negotiations.
>> Yeah. Going to be one final. You trying to twist somebody's arm over there, Mr. Bessie?
>> We're trying to get a I'm requesting a charge reduction. I think uh the supervisor has been >> has been out of busy. Okay.
>> Back up with cases. All I need is maybe another week or two. I think we can get this accomplished.
>> All right.
>> What's available June 17 at 9:30?
>> June 17.
I haven't. So, did you say 9:30?
>> Okay.
>> I have been court that day. Um, >> okay. What else we got?
>> July.
>> Yeah, cuz I'm out. Yeah.
>> July 9th at 1:30. I'm going to move out because I'll be on cruise.
>> I wish. Where are you going?
>> Little family group.
>> Nice. Yeah. Well, you deserve that. All right. When you coming back?
>> Okay.
>> Fired up on that Monday.
>> Just for punishment for being gone so long.
>> They're going to allow my client to buy.
He's got some issues with work. Uh just >> Well, it's a probable cause conference.
Yeah, I don't mind.
>> I I'll be here first, but Mr. >> Okay, Mr. Herbert. July 13th on Zoom.
Court office is going to get your blue sheet with the Zoom number on it. Okay.
uh 9:30 on July 13th and his finest continuing.
>> What? Who do you have in the story?
>> I'm uh here.
>> Oh, you Oh, okay. Well, Anderson. Yeah.
Well, guess what? That's next. That's next. You're on that?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Well, then it's case number 25S01269FY.
People state Michigan versus Anthony Anderson.
>> 44.
And then we got case number 25s 01270 FY people of the state of Michigan versus Anthony Doe's morning.
>> Good morning.
>> And what's your name? there.
>> Okay. So, both of you gentlemen are here for preliminary examinations.
The charges for both of you appear to be the same, which is count one.
Oh, wait a minute.
Yeah. No, just Yeah. Count one is a receiving and concealing stolen property $20,000 or more. And that's less well 20,000 or more is the felony count.
Count one is Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson also has count four, operating license suspended, 93 days, $500 fine. Then Mr. Do has count two, which also happens to be receiving and concealing stolen property 20,000 or more. And he also has a count three, drove her license suspended, revoked or denied. also 93 days, $500 fine. The subject matter of today's hearing is the counts of receiving and concealing stolen property 20,000 or more. So that means those misdemeanor suspended license charges are just going to trail along with it.
It's not the subject matter of today's hearing. Just the felony charges are. So we're not going to take any testimony necessarily related to the misdemeanor, but we're just hearing those felony charges. Okay. So, you understand that, Mr. Anderson?
>> Mr. Do.
>> Okay. Preliminarily, do we have any matters?
>> I'd ask for a mutual order of sequestration. I'll note that there are two individuals in the courtroom.
They're not my witnesses.
>> I need legal pants.
>> Okay.
>> No objection.
>> They don't they're not witnesses case.
>> Okay. So, I'm going to grant this mutual sequestration. So, if there's anybody in the courtroom that's going to testify on behalf of any side, prosecution or defense, please step outside. Don't discuss this matter. All right. We'll keep we'll keep watch.
>> Thank you.
>> I got this one.
>> Additionally, I have two exhibits labeled people's one and two that I believe uh we will stipulate to the admission of these exhibits for the exam opening.
>> Okay. What's exhibit one? It is a vehicle theft report from Southfield Police Department.
>> Okay.
>> And the second is a vehicle theft report from Pensacola Police Department.
>> That floor.
>> All right. So, Mr. Why are you stipulating to those one and two for purposes of the exam today?
>> Yes sir.
>> And what about you Mr. Manson?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So we'll have a stipulation and so those will be admitted.
>> Nothing further from the people.
>> Anything Mr. Dwire from your side of the defense?
>> No. Mr. Massie.
>> Okay, I'll step out here with us.
>> Okay.
Oh All right. Grace right here. You saw me square or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth. Full truth. Nothing but the truth.
>> Thank you so much. Have a seat.
>> Morning. Thank you for being here.
>> Would you please say and spell your name for the court's record?
>> Joseph Ashmore. Jo.
>> Where do you work?
>> With the South Police Department.
>> How long have you picked South?
>> Uh about 11 years.
>> What's your current role?
>> I'm the sergeant of our tactical crime suppression unit.
>> What is the tactical crime suppression unit? We do all the future apprehension for our city along with the organized crime.
Does >> organized crime sometimes include things like stolen vehicles?
>> It does.
>> I'd like to direct your attention to December 18th, 2025 around 2:30 p.m.
Were you working at this?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> What were you wearing?
>> We're a plane close unit. Um so anything from jeans to what I have on now.
>> So you wouldn't have had a uniform on?
No, we wear um tactical exterior vest and what we call battle belts, police belts.
>> Is there a body war camera on the vest or the belt?
>> Yes.
>> So, it's like civilian clothes with uh >> blank clothes, but we have we have police vests that we throw on whenever we do arrests or search warrants.
>> Okay.
>> Easily identifiable as boots.
>> Police vest.
What do Okay.
So, you did have a body warn camera on on December 18th?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Were you working with anyone else that day?
>> I was. I was working with the remainder of my team and then also open County Autotheft.
>> About how many people was that?
>> Uh, probably about 12 total. Can't remember who was on or off, but that would be what RCTs are.
>> So, 12 total people. You're not necessarily in one car working together, right? No, we all have our own surveillance vehicle.
>> So, describe how that works if you're willing to be in conjunction with each other and you're all in your own vehicle.
>> So, we all have our own surveillance vehicles that look like normal vehicles, but we all share police channel together.
>> So, you're communicating on the radio and keeping a running commentary of what you're seeing?
>> Yes.
>> What were you doing that day uh with TCSU and OKA? We are surveilling a stolen Dodge Durango out of Southfield.
>> And is that the uh 2025 Dodge black Dodge Durango with a VIN ending in 3060?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Why were you surveilling that vehicle?
>> It was just stolen out of Southfield.
>> What was the VIN number? 3060.
>> West 43060.
Was it had stolen a few days prior?
>> Yes.
>> Who was the registered owner of the vehicle?
>> Believe it was a Susan Fino or Fino pronounce her name.
>> And did she fill out a report on who stole the vehicle?
>> She did.
>> So, nobody had permission to possess her vehicle but herself. Right.
>> Correct.
>> We're approaching with what's already been admitted as people's exhibit one.
Is that the stolen vehicle report that she filled out?
>> Yep.
>> Publish.
>> Yes.
So, how did you come to find this stolen Dutch? I go on December 18th, 2025 >> through vehicle tracking. My unit was at Detroit working something unrelated that would be able to track capable for that ride.
>> What does that mean?
>> We had a vehicle tracker attached to a vehicle.
>> Okay.
>> And then how long were you conducting surveillance on >> question? Wait a minute. Nothing. I'm just a little entry. So it's a stolen car.
How did you get the vehicle tracker on the car?
Uh, you know, >> after it was stolen.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Oh, so someone located the car after it was stolen, attached a tracker to see what was going on.
>> Well, I I could give you information.
Um, I would like to not jeopardize how we were these crime groups.
>> I understand.
>> But yes, we we attach vehicle tracker after the vehicles. Okay.
All right.
And then did you say how long the department were conducting surveillance on this vehicle >> that day was between 2:30 and 7 and 8 at night? So about 5 six hours.
>> And throughout the course of your surveillance of the Dodge Durango, how many vehicle occupants were in that vehicle?
>> Just one.
>> There was always only one throughout the entire period of surveillance.
>> Correct.
>> Do you know if that single occupant was always the same person?
>> It was. How do you know?
>> Because we had constant visual surveillance of the vehicle. Never observed anyone exit or enter.
>> Did you ever have an occasion to get a good look at the driver?
>> I didn't.
>> When was that?
>> U we followed that vehicle to several locations on the west side of Detroit.
Uh one of them included a gas station, McNichols, just west of Telegraph. I believe the address was 24861.
At that location, the driver of the vehicle exited the Durango and started pumping gas.
>> And where were you located so that you could see this happen?
>> So, this gas station's right at West McNichols and Five Points. Right on the corner, the southeast corner of that intersection. There's a light there as well. So, I was stopped at the light at West McNichols and Five Points directly in front of the gas station when I observed the driver get out of the window. About how far away were you from the driver when you got out?
>> 20 yards. 20 30 yards.
>> Did you have a clear line of sight?
>> I did.
>> Did you use binoculars or anything like that?
>> I was close enough. I didn't have to.
>> What was the vehicle occupant wearing?
>> He was wearing black pants, black hoodie. He had his hood up and then he had a ski mask on. But a ski mask was tucked underneath the face part was tucked underneath his chin.
>> Okay.
>> So, you were able to see his face?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Would you be able to recognize him if you saw him again? I would.
>> Do you see him?
>> I do.
>> Would you please point to him and indicate an item of his clothing?
>> He's wearing a purple jacket. Purple pink jacket.
>> May the record reflect the witness has identified the defendant.
>> Yes. Uh the defendant. Uh let's see.
That would be Mr. uh Dove.
>> And that was going to be my next question is if you were able ever able to identify this defendant by me.
>> We were after the arrested.
>> Okay. And that was Mr. Do.
>> Yes.
Did you continue to follow Mr. Doe's at the gas station?
>> We did.
>> Where to next?
>> Uh again, couple locations, but eventually up to an apartment complex at 25500 Shywasi, which is in the city of Southfield.
>> That's in Oakland County.
>> It is.
>> Is that the Riverstone apartment complex?
>> Yes.
>> What happened there?
Uh I saw the Dodge Dragon pull into the parking lot and then started backing into a parking spot right in front of that 25500 Shyawasi um parking building.
When the vehicle started backing in, I also saw that there was a Jeep wager with it headlights on right in the middle of the parking lot um just kind of hanging out there. Once it durango back into the parking spot, I saw that same Jeep pull forward right towards the uh Durango. It kind of was parked perpendicular right in front of the foot of the Durango.
>> Okay. So, the Durango backed in. So, the Jeep being in front of the Durango was then kind of blocking that vehicle's exit.
>> Correct.
>> And what can you see next?
>> Uh after about 2 to 3 seconds, that Jeep Wager um started pulling out of the apartment complex.
Did anyone feel the Durango after that to see?
>> Yep. I asked one of uh if someone could check that Durango to make sure it was empty. Um I assume that the driver of that Durango got out of the vehicle and got a Jeep Wagon earard just based on how they parked and how the wagon ear pulled in front of it.
>> Once I did that, one of the u autotheft detectives, Detective Perkins, one of the radio said that there was no one inside the DGO at that time.
>> What did you do next? Next, we followed that Jeep Wagon earer down on the 8 mile. Did a couple loops on 8 mile and eventually pulled into a gas station at 8 mile and Shyasi.
>> And what did you and the other um units and people you were working with, what did you do at that time?
>> At that time, a couple units boxed in the wagon ear from leaving. Um, prior to that, one of the plane officers advised two occupants got out of the wagon ear and entered the gas station. So myself along with a couple of the other TCSU officers went to go uh make contact with those two occupants. When I pulled in the parking lot, I observed two guys coming out of the gas station, one of which I recognized as the same guy driver.
>> Okay. And that was Mr. Do, >> correct?
>> And by Do you remember who boxed in the wagon here?
>> I don't.
>> What happened once you pulled into the gas station and saw Mr. Do and the other person coming out.
>> Um, we ran out. We put Mr. Doze in custody, handcuffed him, and then, uh, the second gentleman that was with Mr. Do ran back inside the gas station. So, I went in there along with all of the guys, placed him in trust.
>> Were you ever able to identify that second person?
>> We were.
>> What's his name?
>> Believe it was Dante. Dante Griffin, maybe. Okay. Well, >> what happened after you placed Mr. Do under arrest? Once we placed one under arrest, we started identifying everybody. There were officers that were dealing with the wager and two occupants inside that vehicle were also identified. But that point, we were identifying people, identifying the vehicles and founding the stolen do.
>> Who were the other two people that Lord said to him?
>> It was a male and female. One was an Anthony Anderson and I don't remember what the female's name was. So that would have been a different officer that handled correct >> identifying those individuals and and processing them.
>> Okay. Cross.
>> Okay. Any cross?
>> Yes.
Good morning. Uh, is it uh, Sergeant Ashmore?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Thank you. So, I want to take you back to December 18th. U, is that when your That's the date that you uh, apprehended that.
When did your surveillance of these two vehicles begin?
under sub 18.
>> So this was all a one day surveillance of both of these vehicles, >> correct?
>> Okay. Um the judge had asked you a question u did not divulge how the tracker was placed on the Dango.
Are you required to to get a search warrant to place a tracker on the vehicle >> unless it's stolen property with permission from the victim?
So prior to determining So when you first saw the what what made you when you first saw the Durango, how did you determine that the Durango was stolen?
>> Because the vehicle tracker was tracking with it and had it broken out back window.
>> Okay. I'm taking you back prior to the vehicle tracker. Okay. prior to the vehicle tracker being placed on the Durango. Why did you suspect that the vehicle the Durango was stolen?
>> Uh my I was not the one that put the tracker on it, but um how it always works, you confirmed the VIN and it also had broken out back. No, it's just an indicator.
>> Okay. So, you're saying at some point prior to December 18th, the the the VIN was was, you know, um searching the VIN by you or someone from the team determined the vehicle was stolen.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Do you know when we've uh admitted exhibit one and exhibit one police report involving the Durango? Is that correct?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So there the the stolen vehicle report involved Durango is exhibit one.
That report was made by Mino if I grabbed the owner.
>> Yes.
>> And do you know when that report was made?
>> If I recall right, I think it was December 14th.
>> December what date?
>> 14th.
>> Okay.
>> So a few days before December 18th or >> December 14th. Okay. And when Msino made that uh uh vehicle theft report, December 14th, let's say, is that when the uh would it have been that day that the track was placed on the vehicle or >> I don't recall.
>> So, you don't know when the track was placed, >> correct?
>> Okay. And you did not place that tractor on, right?
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
And I asked you before uh and I want you to explain to me is a search warrant required to place a tracker on the vehicle.
>> It depends on what targeted investigation are. There's certain search warrant exceptions for exigency for trackers. There's stolen property exceptions especially with the uh victim's permission.
>> Okay.
>> So, so no, a search warrant is not always required for vehicle >> in this situation. Do you know if uh do you know I mean did Missino give you permission to to place a track?
>> I I don't I never had any contact with mosquito.
>> So in fact you have no information on whether there was any permission given to place a s a track on this vehicle. Is that correct?
>> I I never made contact with mosquito.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Now so you started surveilling uh just the Durango that day or both the Durango and the wagon ear?
>> Just the Durango. Okay.
>> So, what time did you start your surveillance of the Durango on December 18th?
>> I believe it was around 2:30. 2:30.
>> 2 p.m.
>> 2:30 p.m.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
>> Where did that surveillance start?
>> I don't recall the exact location. uh somewhere on the west side of Detroit is where we remain most of the day.
>> Eventually, uh that vehicle you saw at a gas station on the west side of the shirt. Is that correct?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And then you surveiled that vehicle on McNichols and Five Points.
>> That was the gas station I was talking about.
>> Okay. And was that a you remember was that a What kind of gas station was that? Okay. And you were you were uh in an unmarked vehicle at the light there.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And then you spotted this vehicle pull into the gas station.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. The vehicle was at a gas pump.
>> It was.
>> Okay. This was December 18th, which you agree was cold out.
>> Yeah. Should be.
>> Okay. And you indicated that you saw someone coming out of the vehicle uh what appear to be had been wearing uh the way you described it a ski mask. Is that correct?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. So the ski mask, was the ski mask over the person's face or was it uh uncovered?
>> It was uncovered. He had it over his forehead, but it was tucked under there underneath his chin. Okay.
>> And this was mid December, correct?
>> Correct.
>> All right. And then did you see the individual pumping gas or what did you see him do once they pulled in the gas station?
>> He started pumping gas, I pulled off and another officer maintained surveillance.
>> Okay. So after he started pumping gas, you left the area, correct?
>> Okay. And then another officer took over surveillance, correct?
>> Okay.
At some point, uh, you indicated that Durango pulled into the Southfield at the Riverstone apartment. Is that correct?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. How long after the the gas station did you spot it on Shayawasi?
>> Uh, maybe a couple hours. I think it pulled up the gas station around 5.
Okay. We arrested him around 7. So, >> okay. A few hours after.
>> Okay. So, maybe around 5:00 is when we spotted this vehicle over at the Riverstone Apartments itself. No, no.
Closer to 7:00.
>> Closer to 7:00.
>> 5:00 was at the gas station on McNichols.
>> Okay. Your your surveillance you indicate began about 2:30 p.m.
>> Correct.
>> And then around 5:00 you responded at the gas station on West McNichols.
Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And then a couple hours later it was at Shia Was Southfield around 7 p.m.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
You indicated you saw the dragon go back into a parking spot. Is that correct?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And that you had seen a Jeep Wagon earir uh in that area as well.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Did you see the Durango? Did you see the J the Wagonir? When the Durango pulled into that parking spot?
>> Yes, it was already in the parking lot.
>> Okay. Where was the wagon parked?
>> Uh probably four or five spots away from it, but it wasn't parked. It was sitting in the middle. There's parking on each side of the parking lot. And then there's, I guess, a main drag, as you would call it. It was sitting in the main drive with the lights on. Okay.
>> So, it was not in a parking spot.
>> Okay. So, was that wagon ear a few spots away from the Durango?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. So, the wagon ear was not blocking the Durango.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And when the Durango pulled in, did you see the individual come out of Durango?
>> No.
>> Okay. So, after that Durango back in the wall spot, you didn't see who was in the Durango. Is that correct?
>> Correct. We maintained surveillance on the Durango. Once the Jeep Waggon pulled away, we checked to make sure that the vehicle was unoccupied. So the driver got out of the Durango.
>> Okay.
>> So let me ask you, so you you said Yeah.
You said once the the Durango pulled in, you saw the wagon ear, then you started maintaining surveillance on the wagon ear >> and the Durango as well.
>> And the Durango, but you did not see anyone coming out of the Dang.
>> I could not because the wagon ear was blocking my view.
>> Okay.
>> So you didn't see who came out of the Durango. Correct.
>> Correct. Okay. At at that point, did you start following the wagon here?
>> Oh, I I did. Our unit did, correct?
>> Your unit started following the wagon did. Okay.
>> Did you did anyone from the unit approach the Durango at the Riverside apartment?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And did they take anyone in custody that you know at the Riverside apartment?
>> No.
>> Okay. And then you surveiled the wagon and you followed that wagon u to another gas station. Is that correct?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And that gas station was where it at?
>> 8 miles shywasi.
>> Okay.
>> How far away is that from uh the Riverside Apartments? Oh, >> it's right down the road maybe.
>> Okay. And then you indicated, are you the one you saw individuals coming out of that wagon here?
>> No.
>> Okay. So, you didn't see anyone coming out of that wagon?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Uh at some point uh did you did you arrive at that gas station on 8 miles southwest yourself?
>> I didn't.
>> Okay.
When you got there, there was no one in the vehicle at that point.
>> No, there were people that were here.
>> Okay. But you didn't see anyone come out?
>> I didn't.
>> But you were not doing the building.
Okay.
>> At some point you had contact. You identified my client Mr. Do here. But when did you first have contact with Mr. Dose?
>> When he was coming out of the gas station.
>> Okay. Out of the gas station.
>> At Shaiasa.
>> A Shaiwas. Correct.
>> So by the time you arrived, he had already been in the gas station.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. You didn't see him come out of the wagon here yourself?
>> No. To uh I'm asking you.
>> Correct. I did not see him. Correct.
>> Okay.
>> And then you saw Mr. Do come out of the gas station by himself or with another individual?
>> With another victim.
>> Okay. And who was that the second individual? I believe it was Dante Griffin.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> And Dante Griffin is not in the courtroom. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. So, at that point, Sonic goes and this Dante Griven come out. Did you approach to to make an arrest?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Did you have help or did you do that yourself?
>> No, I had.
>> Okay. So, you took my plan into custody at that point?
>> I I believe uh one of the guys in my unit did officer Lang. We approached them together. He placed him in custody inside looking for Dante.
>> Okay. So after your partner, one of the other individuals from the unit placed Mr. Do in custody, then you went back into the gas station looking for Griff.
>> Had he gone back in?
>> He did.
>> Okay. And did you arrest Mr. Griff?
>> I placed a handcuff to detain him.
>> Okay. After these two individuals were arrested, were there other arrests made that day?
>> There were. Um, I didn't I didn't have anything uh any direct contact with those individuals.
>> So, do you know if uh uh uh and Anthony Anderson was arrested that day?
>> He was.
>> Okay. You had nothing to do with that though, correct?
>> Yeah, I did speak with them, but I wasn't over there with the wagon.
>> Okay. And you said that you had uh there was a female there that day as well, >> I believe. So, >> okay. And would that have been estrizy?
Do you recall that name?
>> I think so. else. Okay. You had nothing to do with arrest.
Okay.
>> Your honor, I have enough proof. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> The task force that you described earlier and all of those I think the 12 people that were involved. Um was it your understanding that there was continual and constant surveillance by task force members of the Durango from the time it left the gas station? You know, I'm going to object. That's a leading question.
She's saying, you know, she can ask him what he did, but she's saying, is it your understanding? That's what that's a leading question.
>> Okay. You can rephrase.
>> Was there continual?
>> That's good. The real direct.
>> Yes. As I mentioned earlier, we maintain constant surveillance from the time we located vehicle at 2:30 when it was mobile until the time of arrest.
>> And there was only ever one vehicle occupied. Is that right? Correct. Okay.
Nothing.
>> All right, then you can step back.
>> People call Detective Elg.
>> While we're waiting for him, take a real quick recess.
Check things.
All right. In recess, Yes.
satisfying.
Okay.
Oh Jesus. Jesus.
people. That would be nice.
for the vibrations.
Wow.
Okay.
And it was really that helps for >> Yeah. But I just got such a killer, but at least I get to get it done and not work on it too much over a week.
It's not the right Make some sound.
It's very busy.
Thank you.
usually.
>> Yeah.
But for sure.
Did you call this morning familiar? Um he wasn't still sleeping at all.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, they're not people working.
Yeah.
Just chill out.
Okay, we're back. Let's see if you back in session. See what our Johnson is acting.
>> May be seated.
All right. Uh, we're still on the record. I believe Uh, call your next witness. Detective Algridge.
Come on up, detective. Raise your right hand. Solomonly swear. Affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth. Whole truth is nothing but the truth. Thank you. Have a seat. Just before I begin testimony. Um, it's it's come up through conversation during the break that maybe perhaps one of the individuals that was previously in the courtroom was present at the scene at the time of the arrest. They're no longer in the courtroom, but I'd ask the court just to ask them to identify themselves by name if they do come back if that would be all right.
>> Why? Well, they they're not a witness.
>> We're not going to record on this. It's because her officer says he identified this person.
>> Arrested that night.
>> Oh, the person that was sitting.
>> Yeah. So, it's it's not that person.
>> Oh, they're not bad, right? I don't know if I already haven't spoken with either of those ladies, but okay.
>> Just so the record is clear on who was it.
>> Was it a man or a woman?
>> There was that one.
>> Ma'am, could you tell us what your name is?
>> Dear who?
>> Oh, okay.
All right.
She's not a witness. Okay.
>> Whenever you're ready.
>> Thank you. Would you just say and tell your name for the first record?
>> Uh, Detective Aldridge. Last name is A L D R I V G.
>> Where do you work?
>> Uh, for the Oak County Sheriff's Office.
Currently assigned to the Autotheft Task Force.
>> How long have you worked for the Oak County Sheriff's Office?
>> I've been with the Sheriff's Office for about 13 years.
>> And you said you're currently assigned to the task force. Do you have a role within that task force or >> uh yes, an investigator for uh autotheft related investigations.
>> And how long have you been working in that capacity?
>> For about just under four years.
>> I'd like to direct your attention to December 18th, 2025 at around 2:30 p.m.
You working?
>> Yes.
>> What were you wearing at that time that you worked?
>> Uh clothes.
Did you have on a bodywn camera on that day as you worked?
>> Uh that day I had on a vest that identified myself as a police officer as well as uh there was a body cam that was a fixed to the vest.
>> Was that Were you wearing that consistently throughout the day?
>> Uh not consistently throughout the day.
No.
>> And were you driving a vehicle as you worked that day? Uh yes, I was driving a vehicle in capacity of work.
>> Is that an undercover vehicle?
>> Yes.
>> So there's no patrol car?
>> No, there is none.
>> On December 18th, 2025, were you working with TCSU and OKAP doing surveillance on a Dodge Durango that had been stolen on the Sunfield?
>> Yes. Okay.
>> And at some point, did you learn the name of the individual who had been driving the Dodge Durango?
>> Yes.
>> What was his name?
>> Uh Anthony Do. And were you present at the Snowco gas station where uh Mr. Dose was arrested?
>> Yes.
>> Where is that gas station located?
>> I'd like to I'd like for you to describe your observations upon arrival at that gas station.
>> Uh when I arrived at the gas station, uh we conducted a takedown on a brand on a wagon ear.
that wagon air was operating >> shift to the use of the word we >> yeah can just tell us what it is that you know you personally saw or did >> you can go ahead >> there was a wagon there at the gas pump I approached the wagon and observed Mr. Anthony Anderson driving that wagon here.
>> Okay. Let me pause you right there. As you approached the wagon here, were other officers also present?
>> Yes.
>> And you were able to see them?
>> Yes.
>> And they were working with you in um taking down the wagon ear as you described it?
>> Yes.
>> Did you know anything about the wagon ear at this point in time when you first arrived?
>> The only thing that I know about that wagon air, it was used to pick up Mr. Dos from the solar.
So what happened after you um did the take down of the wagon?
>> I made contact with Mr. Anderson who was operating the wagon ear.
>> He was the driver.
>> Yes.
>> Did you ever see or meet Mr. Anderson before that date?
>> No.
>> Would you be able to recognize him if you saw him again?
>> Yes.
>> Do you see him?
>> I do.
>> Would you please point to him and indicate an item of his clothing?
>> Uh a black t-shirt.
May the record reflect the witnesses identified Mr. Anderson.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. He's only want the black t-shirt.
>> Now, you said Mr. Anderson was the driver of the wagon ear. Did he make any statements to you about that Jeep Wagon ear? Originally he told me the wagon there belonged to him and then he made another statement that it was a rental with his girlfriend's name.
>> How much time elapsed between the first story and the second story?
>> It was almost instant >> within the same conversation.
>> So did you do further investigation into that Jeep Wagon air that Mr. Anderson was driving?
>> I did. walk us through your investigation and what you found.
>> On the driver's side, I noticed the federal door stickers were peeling.
>> What is a federal door sticker?
>> It's a sticker that's on the frame that comes from the manufacturer that indicates the VIN number for the vehicle that is being uh driven.
>> And how did that appear to you as it was peeling?
>> If the federal door sticker is peeling, usually it's some type of uh throw.
And what else did you observe?
>> I noticed the license plate that was attached to the rear of the vehicle was plastic.
>> Our license plates in the state of Michigan or or any state items. So they typically plastic >> and they use metal.
>> And so what did this plastic license plate indicate to you based on your training and experience >> that this vehicle is being concealed and possibly what we call a retag stolen vehicle?
>> Was the license plate legitimate?
No, it was not.
>> What else did you find, if anything?
>> There were two other license plates that were located inside the trunk.
The one was an intransit plate and the second license plate was also another plastic plate.
>> So that other plastic plate was also fraudulent.
>> Yes.
>> And what about the intransit plate? The intransit plate I believe came back to a business came to a business plate.
>> So the that license plate was legit.
>> That license plate was legitimate.
>> But it because being a transit plate, it would belong to anyone car. Is that correct?
>> Yes, it belongs to a shop.
>> Anything else that you noticed with the wagon here? the two uh license plate came back registered to a 2025 wagon ear that was registered to FCA out of the notorious >> that was the >> falsified plate that came back to that manufacturer.
>> Yes.
Anything else that you noticed about the wagon earer?
>> That's all I can recall at this time.
>> Was there a tire sticker?
>> Uh, that was part of the uh federal door stickers as well as the tire pressure sticker that was on the door frame.
>> Okay. So, they're both in the same location.
>> Yes.
>> And did they both appear to be peeling?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Okay. And what else did you observe about those stickers, if anything?
>> There was a different partial bin on the uh tire pressure >> different than the bin you were observing >> than the public bin that was indicated on the windshield of the vehicle.
>> Okay. How many bins do vehicles have?
Usually, >> usually there's three public bins. Are they all the same number?
>> They're usually the same number. Okay.
When it comes back to >> And so what did the different numbers on the VIN for the tire sticker indicate to you based on your training experience?
>> Indicated that the partial bin belonged to a different vehicle.
>> And that sticker would then have belonged to a different vehicle.
>> Yes.
>> Is there such a thing as a true vin?
>> Yes.
>> What is a true vent?
A true VIN is a uh secondary VIN to identify a vehicle.
>> And where is that typically located on a vehicle?
>> Usually the secondary VIN is a hidden VIN number.
>> And did you do anything with the true VIN?
Uh, I ran the partial van that was on the tire sticker and got a return on a stolen wagon ear out of Florida.
>> The stolen wagon ear out of Florida. Um, did you determine if that was in fact the vehicle that you were dealing with?
>> Yes, it was determined that was the vehicle that we were dealing with.
>> With all of these falsified stickers, how were you able to determine that that was the correct vehicle that was in front of you?
Uh, I had Detective Mack complete a vehicle inspection uh once it was safely able to do that.
>> Okay.
>> And at what point did you learn this vehicle was stolen out of Florida?
>> Uh, once Detective Mack fully completed a vehicle inspection, we determined that this in fact was the stolen vehicle out of Florida.
And I'm approaching with what has been previously admitted as people's exhibit 2.
>> What is it that I've just handed you?
>> Uh this is the report for Florida uh indicating that vehicles report is stolen.
>> And so that report um is for the Jeep Wagon earier that you located in the gas station.
>> Yes.
>> To publish the report. Yeah.
What happens to the wagon ear and the Durango after the individuals were arrested?
>> Did you do any further investigation after impound?
>> Uh we had that's when we had detective uh Mac complete uh vehicle inspections.
>> But you yourself didn't do any further investigation at that point. No, not on the vehicle.
>> Nothing further for this witness.
>> That's going.
>> Thank you.
>> Detective Aldridge, you say that you um did have a body camera on your breast.
Was it on?
>> No, ma'am. I cannot act.
>> Why not?
>> I work in a undercover capacity, so I do not have to have my body cam activated in certain incidents.
>> And what are those circumstances?
>> Usually the body cam is activated during search warrants. This incident happened kind of fast and by the time I put on my vest and we did a takedown, uh the body cam was not activating.
>> Okay. Uh do you have incar videos?
>> No.
>> Okay. Do you Why not? because I work in an undercover capacity.
>> So the plane the the planes vehicles being planned for no car um they don't have incar video.
>> Go ahead.
>> Um these are vehicles that are used routinely >> for our job.
>> Right. So in your unit the vehicles that you use are typical vehicles used in investigation.
>> Yes.
>> And that type of vehicles you use or vehicles typically used during investigation?
>> Yes.
>> Is it important sometimes to have an incar video to observe and record uh individuals that you are talking to and or see uh at certain locations.
I think it's important if we're talking to them to have incar video.
>> What about by interviewing them?
>> Yes.
>> Out on the street or >> during a situation is if during a takedown, you're interviewing someone, do you usually have a body camera on?
>> If I'm officially interviewing someone, I have a body camera.
>> Okay. Now, you said that you spoke with Mr. Anderson. Was he in handcuffs?
>> No. Um, and he was standing by the side of the car.
>> Yes.
>> Do you recall what he was wearing?
>> Top of my head. I want to say he had on like a black sweatshirt.
>> Okay.
And um do you know did you ever look to see if you had your body warning camera reporting um as off other officers did?
Uh, whatever body cam was available should have been uploaded.
>> Okay. Now, were you aware that other officers had activated their body warn camera?
>> I'm sure other officers had their body camera activated >> despite being in a undercover capacity.
>> Uh, well, there's two different units that were working that were operating that day.
>> And you were with Oak, >> correct?
>> And other than Southfield.
>> Yes. Okay. Um, now you said that um, when you were speaking with my client, he originally said that she belonged to him and then said it was a Roblox. Did you put him into cuffs at that point?
>> I did not put him in cuffs at that point.
>> Okay. But you searched the car.
>> Did I search >> You searched the Jeep?
>> Uh, I did not search the Jeep at that time.
>> Oh. Well, who recovered the plastic license plates in the Jeep?
>> The ones that were in the truck.
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, I eventually am the one that recovered those >> on the scene, right?
>> Yes, that was my son.
>> And at that information when you went into the G, the information you had was your interview with Mr. Anderson.
>> Yes.
>> And what other information? the fraudulent stickers, the tap ring of the public vin, and then the license plate that was affixed to the rear of the Jeep. All indicated concealing of a stolen vehicle.
>> Okay. And at that point, you decided to search the interior of the Jeep.
>> Uh yes, to see uh how we can further identify the vehicle at that time.
>> Okay. Um when you say that you um observe Mr. Anderson to be the driver. Why do you say that?
>> Did I Why did I say >> Why did you say you observed him to be the driver?
>> Cuz he Cuz I saw him driving with the Jeep.
>> Okay. Cuz when you testify, you said the first approached him on the side of the car.
>> Correct.
>> When I approached him on the side of the car, right?
>> Or were you asking me was he on side of the car when I was speaking with him?
>> Okay. When you approached him, where was he standing?
>> By that time, he was out of the vehicle >> on the side of the car >> or in the doorway.
>> Okay.
>> Yes.
>> But you spoke to him on the side of the >> Yes. When I spoke to him, it was on the side of the car. Okay. It was not while he was in the vehicle.
>> Okay. So, individuals who are present during a takedown have the freedom to walk around the vehicle during a takedown of that vehicle. are from officers.
>> No, I'm talking about the the people who are inside the wagon air.
>> Okay.
>> During a takeown, are they free to walk around the pond?
>> No.
>> Okay. They're frozen, right? Stand still. Police, right?
>> Yes. So, we control the situation. Okay.
Okay. While we seen this blown up for years, >> how there were other officers who followed the jeep directly out of the apartment building while others stayed to work with the Durango. Were you one of the units who followed the Jeep from the apartment building?
>> Yes.
>> And what there were other vehicles with you, correct?
>> Yes.
>> How many vehicles were in front of you?
I don't recall.
>> Okay. And um do you recall how many were behind you?
>> I don't remember.
>> When you entered the gas station, did all of you enter from one direction?
>> No.
>> Okay. So, some units had what? Gone around to enter from a different direction?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, were other units in the parking lot before you?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Do you remember how many units were there already? I don't recall.
>> Okay. Was there more than one?
>> Uh, yes.
>> Were there more than two?
>> Yes.
>> Were there more than three?
>> I don't think there was more than three.
>> Okay. So, possibly possibly three or not three.
>> I'm just object to the form of the question.
What's the form?
>> She just said three or not three.
>> I'm not sure what's wrong with the form.
>> It just seemed to be not clear to me, judge, but >> the witness is comfortable.
>> And he answers. So, go ahead.
>> So, um >> Okay, Mr. Mass.
>> Detective Aldridge. Yes, I am so good.
That would be good.
>> I guess I have a couple questions here as it relates to my client. So, you did you end up you were one of the the officers on the team that arrived at the apartment building on Southfield, the the Riverside Apartments. Did you ever >> uh Yes, I I was over there. Yes, sir.
>> So, you were you were part of that team that arrived there as well, correct?
Yes. Last >> on December 18th.
>> Yes. It was in the evening.
>> Yes. Okay.
>> When you arrived there, there were other vehicles there. Is that correct?
>> You saw the wagon ear. Is that correct?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. The wagon ear was parked sort of in front of that Durango. Is that correct?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And uh um you would agree that it was blocking that view of the Durango the way it was parked, the way it was pulled up.
>> Well, I can only talk from my perspective.
>> Okay. Um, I did not have the eye what we call I did not have the direct eyesight for that. Okay.
>> I was the one that was >> Okay, that's that's correct. So, you had no direct eyesight of of the the the director. Correct.
>> Yes, I did not.
>> Okay.
>> At some point the surveillance continues and you spot the wagon near you. Were you one of the the team members who followed that wagon over to the gas station on Shai West in 8 mile?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. When you arrived at Shadow in 8 mile, you indicated that's when you saw uh M. Did you see Mr. Dose in the in the wagon ear?
>> Did I?
>> Yes.
>> No, I only deal with Mr. Anderson.
>> Okay. So, you saw Mr. Andy. You didn't see my client coming out that time?
>> I didn't deal with your client.
>> You did not deal with Mr. Phillips, correct? Okay.
And you said you had no uh clear uh uh clear eyesight when you were at the Riverside Apartments as well. Correct.
>> I did not have the direct uh pocket.
That's fair. Thank you. Um Detective No, not >> Thank you.
>> Give me a question.
>> Just one question.
>> Did you ever see Mr. Anderson behind the wheel of the wagon?
>> Yes.
>> When was that?
>> When we followed him to the gas station.
>> Okay. Yes.
>> Nothing further.
No, I'm sorry. Of course.
Okay.
So, uh that's it. You may stop down people back.
Thank you back calls in the stand swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth truth and nothing but the truth.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you.
Please silence your phones and make sure they're totally off.
>> Thank you for being here. M would you please say and spell your name for the report's record?
>> Uh Detective Carl Mack D.
>> Where do you work?
>> I work for the Detroit Police Department, but I'm assigned out to Oakland County Sheriff Auto.
And what do you do with the Oakland County Sheriff Auto theft team?
>> I identify vehicles and participate in uh daily activities.
>> And that is a task force that investigates stolen vehicles, right?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> I'd like to direct your attention to December 18th, 2025.
Were you working that day?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> And was it with the task force?
>> Yes, ma'am. Did you eventually find yourself at a gas station on Shiny Was in the city of Southfield?
>> Yes.
>> And did you have the opportunity to investigate a couple vehicles that were impounded as a result of that investigation?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> What vehicles were those?
>> There was a Dodge Durango and Jeep Wagon.
With regard to the Dodge Durango, could you just briefly tell us what you found in your investigation?
>> Uh, the Dodge Durango uh came back as a stolen motor vehicle and uh Wager came back as a sto >> I can't hear you. I'm sorry.
>> Sorry. She Wagon ear came back as a stolen what we call a retag vehicle after I identified it.
after you identified it. Yes, ma'am.
>> Is that what you said? Okay. Um, what was the value of the Dodge Durango?
>> Uh, that value runs from 35 to maybe 36,000 36 $37,000.
>> And then with regards to your investigation into the Jeep Wagon Ear, um, please tell us how you investigated that vehicle.
Well, we use uh different methods to plug into the computer system on the vehicle and that computer system will tell us exactly that what that vehicle is, when it was made, what VIN number comes from that vehicle, and then it'll identify every part on that vehicle. if it's a part that's stolen or not. If it comes back to that stolen vehicle, then that's what I identified when the wager came back to a stolen vehicle.
>> Would that be the true VIN?
>> Yes, that's what you call a true VIN of vehicle.
>> And that true VIN led you to a police report uh from Florida?
>> Yes.
>> And did you have an opportunity to evaluate the value of the wagon ear?
That particular wagon runs from about 66 to $68,000.
>> No further question, >> Mr. So, you know, I'm looking at a um exhibit that's been I think it's exhibit one and it >> probably it says the value of dragon 30,000.
>> Do you have any reason not to believe that?
>> Yeah, the local value uh can go back and forth period of time. But um but you know people who recognize the car the car rental place who gave you a vehicle value isn't that based on their information regarding the vehicle rather than just uh an opinion through the blue book objection to speculation.
>> Do you know?
>> Yeah, maybe he knows. I don't know if he knows. Let's find out.
Well, it it depends on the miles of the vehicle and it depends on year of vehicle and condition of the vehicle.
You're a personal seller of that vehicle and you have put a lot of miles on this vehicle and you don't take care of this vehicle and it has dents and things and maybe the interior don't look so good, then it'll be rated at a at a much lower barrier >> and and that would be what the owner of the vehicle would give is that value.
That's that owner's opinion. But if a professional person from Blue Book Value or or a dealership looks at that vehicle and takes it in and does an inspection on the vehicle, then they can rate it at a different price.
>> Okay. First of all, you don't have to be professional to look at a blue book value, do you?
>> No, you book value. They'll rate it from A to Z on the value of the vehicle, meaning of how what condition the vehicle is in.
>> Okay.
based on your >> based on Kelly Blue opinion.
>> Okay. Based on your opinion of the condition of the car. Correct.
>> If I looked at a condition of the car as a personal seller, then it would be my opinion what I want to try to sell the car for.
>> All right.
Um the um you said that that blue book opinion is based on a professional automobile location rating the value of that car.
Did this car go to such a professional auto uh retailer or wholesaler prior to the car being returned to its owner?
>> Yes. They're going to look at it and rate that vehicle on on what it what's the style, what type of motor condition of the car. They're going to go through the whole thing.
And this, excuse me, but this third party, this other automobile dealership does all that before the car has been turned to AIS rental car.
>> I'm not understanding.
>> The owner of the car is AIS car rental.
>> And you said that you base your loop evaluation on a third party um automobile wholesaler rating the car for you? No ma'am. I'm I'm telling the Kelly blue book value of the people.
>> Okay. Which is based on your opinion of the you know the condition of the car.
Correct. Okay. No.
>> Detective M. Sir, >> I just have a few questions for you. Um you were were you involved in this entire surveillance with the team here uh on December 18th?
>> Not but the whole survey. So okay.
>> At what point did you get involved?
>> I got involved with the identification of the vehicle.
>> So that would be at the end you arrived then uh to assess the vehicle at the gas station on 8 and Shia was that correct?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Prior to that, you were not involved. Is that correct?
>> No, I I was called while the surveillance was going in and I was on my way in. So, I wasn't part of the whole surveillance.
>> Okay. And you're employed with Beach Police Department, correct?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And also, you were signed out to OKAT in Oakland County, correct?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. Um, besides you, uh, was uh, Dino Detective Aldridge was also assigned to OKAD?
>> Yes, sir. Okay.
Now, in uh discussing the the the value here that you're testifying to, let's just take a Dodge Durango. Okay. Um regarding the Dodge Durango, you said that vehicle came back as stolen, correct?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Now, in determining the value of the vehicle, the the I guess factors that would be involved. First of all, this was not a new vehicle. Is that correct? Correct.
It was not what you found on the street that ran the lean on did not show as a brand new vehicle just came out of dealership. Is that correct?
>> Correct. Okay. So, we would agree that this was a used vehicle. Correct.
>> Yeah. Okay. It was owned by someone else. Correct.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And you don't know if it was owned by another person before that the owner of the reporter stole, do you? I would have to check my notes on that. Okay.
Off the top of your head, you don't know that. Is that correct? I would have to check my notes on. Okay. Meaning your notes uh with the police, did you have police support with that referral with me with um with our investigation on it? Who who put the pulled the lane? Okay. Make it work. Okay. Did you did you prepare a police report yourself in this investigation?
>> Um I No, I did not. I just did the uh investigation of the vehicle and it was added into that.
>> So, so of the time you're not sure. Is that correct?
>> Uh like I said, I would have to look at those notes. Okay, that's fair. And and you don't know how many miles. Is that correct?
>> Uh no, I don't know exactly how many miles >> and mileage would be important in terms of val vehicle. Is that correct?
>> Yes. I would have to look at my notes to see the okay about the the mileage on the vehicle.
>> Okay. And you don't know if there was uh any appraisal done on the vehicle. Is that correct?
>> No, not exactly.
>> Okay. And you've estimated though the value of this vehicle 35 to $36,000 without knowing any of this stuff that brought from the value and from what the year the vehicle was. That was the estimate value of that being. So the way the blue book value, the Kelly blue book value works is you put in some information over the computer and you get a result of an estimate. Is that correct?
>> I'm asking is that how it works?
>> No. Okay. You put in different information. So it depends on how many miles is on the car, the condition of the car, what size motor on the car, and they give you all these different opinions on what the value of the vehicle is. That's why the range went from 35 to 37.
>> Okay. So again, when you're getting the Kelly Blue Book value, it all depends on what information you provide to Kelly Blue Book. Is that correct?
>> All the information. So if you said that this Durango, if you're going to find the value through Kelly Blue Book, you said that this Durango is 2026 Durango brand spanking new. Okay. You would get a much higher value. Isn't that correct?
>> Yes. You would go by what the whippership and what if it's a brand new vehicle, you would go by the sticker on the window and the appraised value of the new vehicle.
>> Okay. And if it's a used vehicle, depends on what information you put in regarding the vehicle. Correct.
>> Yes. After you look at the vehicle, see what size motor, see the contextual, put all that in and it'll tell you what the blue value of that vehicle is.
>> Okay.
>> And again, off the top of your head, you don't have to check my notes on there, sir.
>> That's fair. Your honor, I had nothing.
Thank you.
>> No further questions. All right. Thank you all. You may step down, >> detective.
>> Any witnesses or um Mr. Anderson?
>> No.
>> Any for Mr. D?
>> No question.
>> Okay.
See what we got, please.
So, we've got two accounts of the receiving and concealing stolen property, one for each of the cars. So, go ahead and make your motion.
>> Thank you, honor. People move to bind over as charged for both defendant Anderson and defendant Bills. Michigan Criminal Jury Instruction 26.1 identifies four elements that people must prove by a probable cause standard in order to bind over on that charge.
First, some property must be stolen.
Second, the defendant possessed the property. Third, the defendant knew or had reason to know that the property was stolen. And fourth, that the fair market value exceeds uh $20,000. The testimony here today from the people's three witnesses as each of those elements in addition to the police reports that were admitted as people's exhibits one and two showing that those vehicles were stolen for >> any regard to Mr. Bills. So we we've heard the testimony there from the uh three officers who testified. Uh you know the the officer surveilling with respect to Durango. They were surveilling this vehicle. At some point, uh, I think it was, um, the prosecution's first woman, Sergeant Bashmold, who saw my client of the vehicle over on West McNichols. Uh, when we first spotted him, we might be able to.
And then they end up uh seeing him at the location of 8 mile where there was no >> there was no what?
>> There was no rhino at that location. So, When Durango apparently named the Riverside Apartments, the wagon ear had driven off to the gas station on 8 mile.
That's when the take down.
>> That's when Mr. Rose and Mr. Anderson were both arrested.
>> So, was it okay? So, the Riverside Apartments, was that the place where there was some testimony that uh the car backed in and then the wagon there was kind of sitting there with the lights on and kind of went across where the Durango was and couldn't tell who got out, but when they looked, there was nobody in the Durango. They look there's no one in the direction, >> but neither officers testified that they saw my client coming out of that Durango at the Riverside.
>> Well, they said they had constant surveillance on him and they never saw him leave. They >> they had constant surveillance. They didn't >> and they identified him as the driver earlier on.
>> So, the their their vision was blocked at that point. They didn't see who came uh out of that car. Um, and the issue here is obviously the prosecutor has present sufficient evidence regarding the Durango of my client's intent or his knowledge that that vehicle was stolen or she he should have known that it was stolen.
Uh, if you recall, I think it was Sergeant Ashmore who testified that they started the court question too. They had started the Durango. They placed a tracking device on the Durango. However, there's been no evidence that they had a right to trace that track on that Durango.
>> Yes, it was.
>> Well, no. He said he said generally >> he said we have >> he said we have permission from the owner.
>> No, he didn't say we had permission.
>> He did. He wrote it out. Not not not that I remember because I I I asked them if he had permission and he says he did not have contact with the owner and did not have any permission and and wasn't sure if anyone got permission. He did not testify that he had permission.
>> Okay.
>> The prosecutor had not presented any witness to testify that they were given permission to place that tractor on the vehicle. The prosecutor just wants us to believe that they had the the permission. Okay. But there's no evidence in the record.
>> I know. I heard him say, "Yeah, you know, when you asked the question uh about that, I know I at least heard him say, yeah, you know, we have permission from the owner, we can do that." Like it was an exception to if they needed a warrant because you were asking about warrants. He the way I recall the testimony is >> we would have to have permission from the owner to do that. Okay. But he indicated he had no contact with the owner and he didn't know if there was any permission actually given to the owner. He didn't have any information there >> and there was no witness that was presented to give us that information.
Uh the the three witnesses testified none of them testified regarding the GP at the tracker that was placed on that vehicle. Now, the vehicle we know was reported stolen. Okay. But there's no evidence that my client knew was stolen or that uh that he should have known the vehicle was stolen. Um when he was arrested, he was arrested again coming out of the gas station uh in the the wagon here. So, I don't believe there's been sufficient evidence first of all that >> we don't know how your client got the vehicle.
that I mean, you know, who's to say that someone uh didn't steal that vehicle and then have my client drive it? I mean, you know, in every receiving concealed stolen property case that comes here, particularly involving vehicles, the court is just to assume that the defendant had knowledge. But where's the evidence even in a probable cause standard that he had any knowledge?
>> You got to have something in it. At least you can infer he would have had knowledge >> like the broken window or something.
Which car had a broken window?
>> Not not the Durango.
>> His other car.
>> I'm thinking was it Durango? I don't >> There was some testimony about the fact that the car had a broken Let me find it cuz I wrote it down.
cuz they're asking about why it was stolen. It could have been the fact that he had a report. How did you know it was stolen? I think was the question. And it could have been based upon the report and the fact that it had a broken window.
Who said that? Let's see.
Yeah.
He confirmed the VIN number and the car had a broken out window. That's how he knew it was stol.
That was testimony >> from that was on your cross exam of uh Serge of of Joseph Ashmore, police offic.
>> Okay. Even if we're during the fact that he didn't have that broken window.
>> I mean, again, if someone drove that vehicle and and allowed my client to drive it, you know, how would he know that this is a stolen vehicle? I mean, that would be a leap for the court to to make that uh conclusion without anything else tying my crime to the to the vehicle and to the theft of this vehicle. So, I don't believe >> Yeah. I mean I mean I I I hear you. Not a whole lot tying him to the fact of the of the car other than he was driving at this particular day. I think my you know when I when I asked uh Sergeant Ashmore regarding the tracker my notes indicate and maybe they differ from the court that he did not say that he knew. He said generally that there are exceptions to the to the search warrant requiring these situations there. You know, he would have been given permission, but he did not know if he was given permission.
And there's no one that's testified that indicated they had permission to actually place a tracker on that vehicle. I believe that would be required here, but there's no >> So, what do you argue? Some kind of what?
>> Constitutional violation. that that's a fourth amendment search violation asks the court to suppress uh the the the um testimony regarding the surveillance of this vehicle without uh uh evidence or information showing that they have the right to to place a track which I believe the US Supreme Court has indicated is a is required for a surgical vehicle.
Well, that all that testimony would have come from Joseph Ashmore, first witness, because he was the one that testified to Miss Veno's report and the fact that he found the car through vehicle tracking.
And that's when I interrupted and said, cuz I'm wondering to myself, well, if the car is stolen, that means it's gone.
How you get a tracker on it? And he said, well, after um the car was stolen, then I guess the tracker is placed on somehow and then they surveile it after that.
So, I'll have to listen back and see what was actually said as to on cross exam when you asked questions about it cuz he said he didn't know when the tracker was placed on the car and what officer put it on the car. He did say that.
What argument you want to make a response to that? Your >> honor, the record is the record. Um, again, >> what let's ask specifically other than the fact that defendant do had the car was driving it. What specific evidence do we have on that element that he knew the vehicle or had reason to know that the vehicle was stolen? because that's jury traction 26 let's see 26.1 yes your honor we had testimony from Sergeant Ashmore both that the vehicle window was broken out but I think what's more important uh to be considered here is that the vehicle was stolen only 4 days prior in the city of Southfield so that short time for >> how does that relate to this guy. He There's nothing saying he was there 4 days prior when the car was stolen, which I would give you. That'd be a good connection.
There's nothing connecting him to that.
He's only connected to 4 days later. And anything could have happened in 4 days.
How do we know he knew it was stolen, at least for probable cause purposes?
Because it says, um, I mean, you got the car was stolen.
That's your first element. Your second element is that the defendant bought, received, or possessed or concealed or aided in concealment the property. Okay.
Well, we know he possessed the property.
Third, that the defendant knew.
I don't see that how he knew or had reason to know or reason to believe that the property was stolen. Now granted, there's nothing there connecting him specifically to it other than he was driving it. I don't know if he had the keys. I don't know if the the column was broken. None of that was brought out.
All we know is it was a broken window.
That in and of itself doesn't mean the car was stolen for purposes of the officer investigation. That might lead him to believe it because he has a police report and a VIN number that he's tracking and looking at. So, I can understand why that meant something to him. But for your average person, if your friend gave you a car and said, "Here, dry this." And the part of the window was broken, you might not necessarily think it was stolen. You might just think he didn't fix it.
>> That's true, your honor. But we do have the burden to show by a probable cause standard that there was at least some evidence that would suggest that the defendant knew that the >> What was it?
>> We don't have the >> You don't have it.
>> Can I please finish my sentence? We don't have the counter story yet at this point in the the >> But don't you need something >> because we haven't had any testim Yes.
Can I can I please just finish my my thought?
>> Well, I can talk about what we have. But first, before I talk about what we have, what we don't have is any testimony to even indicate that there's a question of fact or here that uh with competing testimony. So, what we have in the undisputed testimony so far is that the car was stolen 4 days prior that the car was reported stolen by the vehicle owner. Um, so the police were aware and that nobody had permission to be driving that car. That the back window of the vehicle was busted out of the vehicle.
>> I don't know. He just said the window.
He didn't say back window >> and then the window was broken out. I believe he said back window, but that could be my mistake. That Mr. dose was the only vehicle occupant throughout the entire period of surveillance. Um, several hours was the testimony. Um, additionally, when they got to Southfield, your honor, another car being the wagon ear came and pick up picked up Mr. Doe's and that car was also stolen. This is circumstantial evidence. I will say that. But for purposes of probable cause, it is sufficient to suggest that the defendant knew or should have known that this vehicle was stolen, which knowledge is a question of fact for the try of fact.
Your honor, >> I got to have something. And you're telling me because another car picked him up. That's that's it. Another car came and picked him up from a location that he parked and that car happened to be stolen. So, he should have known that car was stolen, too. And his car was stolen. And that's the connection for probably >> listed out all of the evidence that we have that is all circumstantial.
>> The fact that the car was actually stolen is what you told me. The car was actually stolen 4 days before.
>> And it was under surveillance and Mr. Joe's was the only >> Yeah. And and when did they start the surveillance? The same day.
>> The same day. But >> not the day that it was stolen, which would have helped me. They start the surveillance the 18th and they arrest him on the 18th. And there wasn't that much going on on the 18th other than what they said they saw, which was him driving the car, went to another location, parked the car, went to a gas station in another vehicle and then was arrested.
Your honor, it's a question of fact for the trier fact. the >> it is a question of fact but where's the evidence on this element >> that the vehicle was stolen out of the city of Southfield that the back window was broken that the vehicle was identified as a stolen vehicle that Mr. doze was associating himself with another stolen vehicle and another person that was in possession of another stolen vehicle. Okay.
>> And the short time frame here suggests that there was not time for an interim it it suggests of course there's never any certainty but for probable cause there was only 4 days between when this vehicle was stolen and when Mr. Doze was found in possession of it. So, we don't have any sort of vehicle purchase records or anything like that to indicate that there was a third party that broke this chain. Uh, but Mr. Dose was in possession of this vehicle.
>> Yeah. But just because you're in possession of it, does that mean you've made the element? That's the assumption you can't make. It's just because you're in possession of it that you had to know it was stolen.
>> I believe it's a question of fact or the finder fact.
>> It's never going to be. is always going to be if if that's the standard that you're in a stolen car so you should have known it was stolen.
>> Knowledge on whether the vehicle was stolen is a question of faith. You >> got to have something though.
>> And I listed out those things that we pro we provided in evidence and it is a pro probable cause standard.
>> I get it.
I you know prosecutor wants to argue that on this element it's a question of fact but she still needs evidence.
>> You have to have something. That's what I just said. She thinks she has evidence because of the fact that the car was actually stolen and there was a broken window in the car.
>> That's what I >> and it was 4 days later. It wasn't the same day.
>> We had we had >> it was four days later and then he associated with Mr. Anderson who allegedly was in the wagon air which was allegedly stolen. So therefore he had to know this other car was stolen.
>> And what I would argue is we have here 14 witnesses that are listed here, you know, before the prosecution on this complaint. And if the prosecutor decides she wants to call two That's her call. The first person on this is the owner who resides in South.
She decides not to call witnesses who might be able to shed some light on how the tracker was placed on the car.
>> Yeah. She didn't even talk about the >> even know there was a tracker on the car. So I my my >> Well, you heard it.
>> You heard it here today. So >> he's argued that this exam I don't think is evidence about what was on the record that I'm just knowledge >> and I'm not I'm not I'm not faulting him. I'm just saying as the prosecutor she has a burden to prove present evidence of probable cause. I don't believe she's none of that. Okay. She hasn't shown us any evidence that my client would know or should have known that this car he was driving was stolen.
How would he know if he's allowed to drive the car? We have no evidence whether he was given permission to drive his vehicle if he was a secondary person.
>> We did have testimony from Sergeant Ashmore that the the owner of the vehicle stated nobody had permission to drive.
>> Well, we know that we know that was stolen and no one should have had the car. The question is, does this guy, his client, Mr. Dos, have any indication that the car could have been stolen?
at all. Normally you got something like, well, you know, like I said, the steering column might have been messed up or he done had a key. He hotwired maybe something or or or some other facts that I can't think of off the top of my head that could possibly show, but he knew it was stolen. I mean, we got guilt by association. I would >> the the circumstantial evidence that we're relying on.
>> Okay. Your circumstantial evidence is guilt by association.
>> Part of it is because you're telling me that because he may be with somebody or in another vehicle that was stolen, that means he had to know the one he was in was stolen. How you make that jump?
>> Because he also was driving a vehicle with a busted out back window. because he also was driving a vehicle that was stolen only 4 days prior. Because he also was driving a vehicle all by himself throughout the entirety of that day as the task force surveiled him.
Because he also was associating himself with another stolen vehicle and another person with that stolen vehicle that had falsified documents and license plates and stickers inside the vehicle.
>> My girlfriend is a criminal and I don't know it.
So, I got to be arrested and charged with something simply because she had done something.
>> That is a question for the finer of fact, but for >> No, no, that's Well, then I'm then I'm in the wrong business in this United States of America. That's supposed to be a democracy. If that's all it takes.
>> That's the That's the people's evidence that's on the record, your honor. can't change what's on the record, but we have met our burden by >> I'm getting ready to I'm getting ready to um I want to know what your responses to the tracker being a violation, too.
>> There was no testimony that the tracker was a violation. We all learned about >> He argued it. He argued it was a constitutional violation >> based on nothing. No evidence that was on the record. I I don't have >> But that's what he said. There was no evidence on the record that that in fact anybody had any permission to put a tracker on the car. The officer did say you got to have a warrant and there is some circumstance such as when you have permission from the owner.
He says he never said he had permission from the owner and that might be true because I do have in my notes. He said I don't even know when the tracker got on there and who put it on >> because he's not the officer at charge.
the testimony was that he personally did not have communication with the vehicle.
>> Right. So, who gave the permission who got the permission from the owner to put the thing on the car? There's no evidence that it was on there correctly.
>> Your honor, if the if the court would appreciate that evidence and would be willing to adjourn the case for a second day, I could bring in the officer in charge or the correct witness to provide that testimony. I was unprepared to provide that today because I don't believe the best of my recollection that a tracker had mentioned >> nothing was said in a police report.
>> Yeah.
>> But I do believe we have met our burden on the elements of the crimes charged here for probable cause standards and I believe Mr. Messi has a great argument for trial but based upon the circumstantial evidence when seen together the people have provided enough.
>> I'm all for looking at the big picture of everything. Well, I have a great argument for probable cause. It's why they're slacking.
>> Yeah, I think you do, too.
>> Besides, >> and I'm not a pushover, and I bind over many things, but when I don't see it, I don't care. I'm not going to bind it over.
That's how I roll here.
And I'm looking for the big picture cuz I have bound things over on threads of probable cause, but I can find a thread on the element. I'm looking for a thread on this element that he knew or had reason to know or to believe. And what she's telling me is look at the fact that he knows that another car. He knows someone that has another car. Nothing's no evidence he knew the other car was stolen.
There's nothing on this record that says Mr. Do knew the wagon air was stolen.
There is an element of he's associating with someone who may have a stolen car.
Is that alone enough? No. Cuz last I heard there's no such thing as guilt by association.
You got to have some knowledge that the other car was even stolen. There's nothing that says he knew it was stolen, that he was associating with the guy.
>> Whether it alone was enough, but when taken together, >> I haven't finished. Dad, you argue a lot, which is what you're supposed to do, but let me talk now.
You know, can't win everything.
you win most of the time and do a good job, but sometimes something's lacking. And I don't mind zealous advocacy. I don't.
He's giving it to me. You're giving it to me. Now I got to analyze it in my way.
So I got that one thing. That alone isn't enough to me. There's no guilt by association.
There's even no evidence that by association, Mr. knew that the wagon air was stolen.
So, that's just one thing out there.
That doesn't really mean a lot. The other evidence that I was told to look at is the fact that the car was actually stolen 4 days before this incident.
All right, that's true. Got a police report that says it. Got an officer testified.
knew it was stolen cuz he checked the VIN numbers. This was the stolen car.
And he said, "And the window, he didn't tell me back window." He just said window. The window was And I I'll listen to it. But the window was broken. So here we got Now we know the car was actually stolen and that no one Miss Feno said no one had permission to have a car.
And there was a window broken on the car, which I guess the inference could be made that the window was broken due to the alleged theft of the car.
There's no evidence of who stole the car the 4 days before this date. There's no evidence linking the defendant to the stolen car 4 days before.
The only thing we have is defendant in the car on the 18th, 4 days later, with a window broken and him being with somebody else who allegedly had a stolen car.
There's no testimony of conversation or collusion between the two defendants about stolen cars or anything. There's just nothing there where I could infer, well, Mr. Do really knew that Mr. Anderson was involved with stolen cars. They didn't talk about it.
They just got in a car and rode. Well, I might get in a car and unwittingly it's a stolen car and I don't know, but she's arguing. Let's add all that together.
The fact that it was 4 days.
Okay. Well, I'm not sure how that helps us.
Um, it's not the same day. It was the same day. It would seem like that would be more pressing to say, "Well, geez, this girl just stolen. How did you get it that fast?"
And you had a broken window. Blah blah blah.
This is 4 days later.
We don't know obviously what happened in those four days and we don't know how the defendant got the car.
We do know somehow at some point at some and I guess on the 18th because that's when all the testimony says that this surveillance started. So it must have been tracked somewhere on the 18th and we do know the defendant Doze was the only one seen in the car.
So, he's the only one seen in the car on one day.
Not numerous days, one day.
and from what I could hear, didn't go anywhere or do anything that would lead you to believe that he knew the car was stolen by just parking it in an apartment complex and going to a gas station with somebody another car.
Okay, I think that's all all we said that we have here. I don't think I missed anything as a totality of circumstances.
Not looking at each one separately, but looking at the major overview of everything, he had to know it was stolen.
I have a real problem with this because I understand he's with somebody else that's stolen car, but there's no connection other than the fact he got in the car. There's nothing else to say, oh, you know, they're running a chop shop or one said or did something to connect the two cars together. they get ready to do something with them. It's just you got in a car where somebody else has a stolen car. So that means you must have known your car was stolen.
We got the element of property was a motor vehicle fair market value. Well, you know, there's a lot of questions about that, but I don't have a problem with that because everybody was saying it's over $20,000 depending on who blue book you're looking at or somebody in the police report.
So, the issue is, did this defendant know or have reason to know that the property was stolen and that he possessed it?
knowing it was stolen.
I just don't see it dismissed.
Bound over as to every uh the misdemeanor is going to stay here.
uh bound over as to defendant Anderson on the count of receiving concealing stolen property as well as his misdemeanor count is going to go in circuit court for trial.
>> All right. What do you want to do with the misdemeanor?
>> We could set it for a pre-trial judge.
This might end up being appeal rewritten.
>> I don't care. You know, I don't care. Go ahead. Do what you got to do. My client would probably tender today.
>> Did he want to?
>> Yeah.
is conducted and over 26 Okay.
Your honor, your honor. Um, my client wishes to plea today to the then if the court wants to present the report, I don't object to that, but I think it's a driver line suspended. I'd ask the court to allow him to tender a plea and I I request immediate sentencing.
Okay.
Well, fill out a plea form.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Here's your file if you'll take that downstairs. I'm going to give her her documents back and yeah, your client's free to go. His bonds continued and you can get your bind over date from downstairs.
>> Okay.
>> That's that's the prosecutor.
>> Wasn't she need something then?
>> That was No, she doesn't. She just says to go downstairs. She's Charles has the fire.
>> No, no, thank you.
Uh, but >> you know what too, I want to add on to that record on on the claim of um, >> and the prosecutor just stepped out, but on that claim about the violation, I'm finding that the testimony was that there could be an exception, but I don't recall him saying that he had permission to put the tracker on the car, too.
>> There was no evidence.
No, no evidence >> that there would be any exception to the warrant requirement. So that would be another basis for the uh count to be dismissed as to that vehicle because it was an illegal search.
So both >> Yeah, I forgot to say that and I wanted to say it. So I just did and it's on the record.
Did you not record?
>> Mr. Anderson couldn't go. It doesn't affect him.
>> And where's the prosecutor? Can you go get him? Yeah.
Miss Rosen, uh, I added something when you stepped out, so I'm willing to make sure you heard it that I added as far as the dismissal of the count one. I also added that I find that this uh tracking was illegal because there was no testimony that said this that showed that there was an exception to um the search for a warrant requirement because of the fact that no one testified that they had obtained any viable permission from the owner of the car, the um lady Miss Dina. He just said that there was an exception. And so that's another basis for dismissal because all of the surveillance was based upon what I deem to be illegal surveillance under those >> subject to the use of the word illegal based on the record. Record was that this witness himself did not speak with the vehicle owner, but that he was working with a team of 12 individuals.
And I can only go by what is on this record.
>> But there was no evidence to show that it was illegal. It there I would not object to you writing in your order that there was no evidence presented to say that it was legal, but there also was no evidence to say that it was illegal.
There's a lack of evidence.
>> Okay. Lack of evidence is the same thing as far as I'm concerned.
>> The legality of the search, >> right? So if we don't have any evidence that the search is legal, then it's not legal. So that's another basis to dismiss it and that should be all in the transcript. Okay. All right.
So we're going to take a plea now.
>> Yes. My clients will be pleading to count to driving license. And your honor, I've been instructed just to make a record that despite the defendant's plea to the driving while license suspended that there are other facts that obviously that arise out of the incident where the defendant was driving the the vehicle that we do intend to pursue the case um going forward regardless of this. So, >> well, okay. That's just what I have.
>> You want to you want to judge your client based upon whatever she just said cuz I didn't fully understand it. But something about they're going to fully pursue a case regardless of the plea.
>> They want ad but he's can take a lead.
>> Okay. All right. So sir, let's go over your constitutional rights that you're getting ready to wave on the driving charge. And of course, this could affect cuz it now puts you under the wheel of operating a vehicle on this particular date. So it could affect whatever goes on if the case moves forward on appeal.
At least you're putting yourself under the wheel of a vehicle on this particular date. So you understand that?
Okay. You don't have a problem going forward with this.
All right. All right. So, uh, you certainly have a right to have a trial by judge or by jury on this charge of suspended license.
>> Yeah.
All right.
>> Okay. So, after uh um I'm muted. I know I'm muted over here.
>> It says we're >> okay. So after pre bench conference um rather and I know the prosecutor is going to rewrite the matter and possibly bring some additional evidence potentially. um it doesn't make sense to have this case number out here with a suspended license matter and then a new case number and the defense has withdrawn their intent to plea to the suspended license right now so that we just have one case pending with the one misdemeanor and the other case with the felony. I'm going to go ahead and I think all parties agree to just dismiss the misdemeanor and prosecution will just rewrite uh everything.
So that'll be what we'll do.
All right. So, both counts are dismissed. Bon at least at this point is cancelled.
I don't know that he has any money here.
Oh, it's a shy. Yeah.
So, we'll cancel the shity and just be on the lookout for the rewrite.
And Mr. Mezy, you got to be back on it, sir.
>> Yeah, you got to ask him for it because nobody knows this like you. Okay.
All right. Have a great Okay.
Related Videos
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
Jury seated in the Frisco Track Meet stabbing trial — opening statements set for tomorrow
Wfaa8
343 views•2026-06-03
Monkton family worries husband who murdered wife could inherit all of her assets
WMAR2news
152 views•2026-06-02
ترمب وأسواق المال الأميركية.. كيف أنعش "رأسمالية المطلعين"؟ - شرق غرب
AsharqBusiness
282 views•2026-06-04
They Dismissed Every Black Juror in the Karmelo Anthony Trial — Every Single One
Tim_Black
406 views•2026-06-04
Crashes involving e-bikes can mean gray area regarding insurance coverage
fox31
210 views•2026-06-05
Detroit Put Him on Trial
Off-LimitsAmerica
121 views•2026-06-05
