- RELATED ARTICLES
- > Kabot's Attorney Says Lawsuit Will Be Filed Soon Jun 1, 2011 12:47 PM
- > Kabot's Attorney Says Westhampton Beach Police Violated Her Civil Rights May 11, 2011 10:18 AM
- > Former Supervisor Linda Kabot Files Suit Against Westhampton Beach May 4, 2011 2:15 PM
- > Jury Verdict In Kabot Case: Not Guilty Of DWI Feb 8, 2011 4:44 PM
- > Westhampton Beach Police Officer Takes Stand In Kabot DWI Trial Feb 2, 2011 11:36 AM
more
Former Southampton Town Supervisor Linda Kabot’s pre-trial hearing for her DWI arrest last year will extend into next week.
After hearing two days of testimony from two Westhampton Beach Police officers, Riverhead Town Justice Allen Smith on Tuesday scheduled the hearing to resume Monday, July 19, at 2 p.m. and continue Tuesday, July 20, at 2 p.m. at the Riverhead Town Justice Court.
Ms. Kabot was arrested and charged with DWI in the early morning hours of Labor Day, September 7, 2009. Her attorney, William Keahon, has argued that she was targeted by police the night of her arrest.
On the first day of the hearing, July 8, the tape of her arrest in Westhampton Beach was played in public for the first time. The video was recorded by a camera mounted on the dashboard of a police cruiser. Arresting office Ryan Lucas testified on Thursday that he shut the camera off to review the tape and check the time of the traffic stop, which occurred a few minutes before midnight on Sunday, September 6, 2009. Some audio is also missing from the tape, and Officer Lucas said that occurred because, at some point during the arrest, he had removed his external microphone.
The purpose of the hearing, in part, is to determine whether the tape of Ms. Kabot’s arrest last September—which is missing an estimated four minutes of video and some audio—will be admissible as evidence during her upcoming trial. It will be up to Justice Smith to decide on the admissibility of the tape.
You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.
Already a subscriber? Sign in
However, what is giving this more importance is the fact that there is no breathalyzer data, thus no "proof" Kabot was drunk. There is only a cop's boilerplate allegation that her "eyes ...more were red and glass and smelled strongly of an alcoholic beverage." A video of an obviously drunk Linda Kabot is the ONLY other potential piece of evidence to render a guilty verdict. It's the lynch pin of the prosecution's case. If that tape shows her coordinated and lucid or is thrown out all together, she'll walk.
All things being equal...
So what? Has nothing to do with this matter.
>> A public defender will not go to this extent.
It takes money to "go to this extent."
By the way, a person has no rigtht to refuse the test, or eses your refusal would not be able to be used against you, unlike the right to remain silent, which cannot be used against you. If you have a "right" in the criminal justice system, exercising that right cannot be used against you.
BUT, there is just so much that "stinks" here, it "Tain't funny, McGee". Not only were the police allegedly unprofessional, the officers involved acted rather suspiciously. And, exaclty why is there video evidence "missing"? She ain't Jodie Foster, and this sure as he** ain't "Contact".
Though sometimes, however, it does feel like some people get to live on another planet...
More likely, Kabot was the victim of police ...more doing their job, even more so between the hours of midnight and 4 AM. I wouldn't doubt there were certain members of the PD who got a early call about the arrest, but that was nothing more than plain gossip.
If Kabot was innocent, take the intoxilyzer test, or better yet demand a blood test from a registered nurse in addition to prove it. If I was guilty, the last thing I would do was submit to an intoxilyzer. Take the immediate suspension. Any lawyer will tell you that.
My opinion, the odds will be 60 / 40 in favor of a conviction!
In the wee hours of September ...more 7th, 2009, this soon-to-be washed-up politician was on the verge of losing her incumbency. The second to last blow to her already suffering sense of worth was not being placed on a pedestal after being pulled over by two police officers merely doing their job. The officer's failure to turn a blind eye to an alleged shnockered Town Councilwoman enraged her to the point of no return; so she decided to play dirty. The cops were overzealous, she exclaimed!
Her defense is reliant upon passing the buck. Of course she is not to blame! It was all a set-up! A couple of cowboy cops in the back pocket of the Southampton Town PBA pres, waiting to pounce on a cop-hating Councilwoman. That’s the conspiracy, right? Well, if you believe that, I’ll shower you with unicorn tears.
Kabot incriminated herself by refusing the Breathalyzer. For the life of me, I cannot see how anyone could believe her to be innocent for that very reason. Unless, of course, you are a friend, or anti-cop--in which case you would subscribe to that farfetched conspiracy theory. I'll bet you believe President Bush orchestrated 9/11 too.
Since "driving is a right and not a privilege," you can certainly refuse the test. It's not a crime and the only penalty you pay is getting your license suspended, which is administrative and ...more NOT judicial or penal. HB90 knows enough legal lingo to be a cop, but not enough to be a lawyer. If a cop's observations are "legally sufficient," they why do we have breathalyzers and the like? And no one said Kabot had slurred speech. If you're trying to enforce a LAW that distinguishes between drunk, impaired, under the influence, etc., you better have more than what you use to spot a stumbling drunk frat boy.
Mr. Salazar lays out what he calls the "facts," but it's these very facts that are in dispute. If they weren't, there would be no trial. Every single sentence is only alleged. We don't know why they pulled her over, what the sobriety tests were, how they were judged, or whether Kabot truly failed them. The tape can shed light on these things, but only if it is even allowed to be admitted as evidence.
Her defense doesn't "rely" on anything because it doesn't need to. Remember, the state has the burden to prove **beyond a reasonable doubt** she was DRUNK. If they can't do that, nothing else matters. The more they bring up the fact she refused the test, the more they remind the court they have no data to prove her guilt, only speculation. Instead, the only objective thing they have is a tape that was made in violation of department protocol, and which may be inadmissible.
Put your chips on Kabot: she's walking away from this.
Some have even earned the privelege to hold a CDL, with various endorsements, such as air brakes, tank, and even hazardous materials.
Thankfully, a license is not handed to just anyone!!!
Your thinking on this is seriously skewed.
Your Driver's License -- ANY license, pilot's, handgun, captain's, DEA, etc. -- is a rescindable privilige.
2. The question is whether she was treated differently AFTER she was stopped. Some will argue she wasn't and that Linda wished she was granted favored treatment; others will argue she was treated differently, and wish she wasn't. (This is setting aside the question of what would have happened if the person stopped was a police officer.)
3. Whether irregularities by the police ...more in handling this case result in an acquittal, or conviction of a reduced charge, it does not change the fact that these irregularities must be scrutinized, regardless of the outcome. False sworn statements by Sleepy, missing or destroyed video recordings shouldn't be acceptable to anyone
Whew! Glad SOMEONE jumped on that!
2. Refusal to submit to a chemical test can result in the suspension of a license, but a field test is not a chemical test.
3. An Officers allegations may be legally sufficient, it depends on what those allegations are.
4. DWI stops / arrests / convictions are common, but that does not mean we move to a presumption of guilt.
5. The conduct of the police is ...more relevant, and it should be a concern no matter what the outcome.
When the video is turned off or a portion of the recording is deleted, it is fair to examine the circumstances. That is what is happening in this case.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
It is important to be vigilant. The DWI part ...more of this case will work itself out, the more demanding aspect of the case is to carefully examine police conduct.
"a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions."
It is a PRIVILEGE, which must be earned, and treated with respect to retain said PRIVILEGE.
If it was a right, ANYONE could get behind the wheel of a tractor trailer...
We do not grant police officers authority that will be unexamined or unrestrained, that would be a grant of absolute power. This country is founded upon the recognition that power can and will be abused and there must be checks on any grant of authority.
We simply can not assume the opposite, that ALL officers are honest and dutiful. The only way to discern the good from the bad is to do pretrial hearings, and then do the best we can to assess the case.
My understanding from everything which has been reported in the various media and a Beach Blog entry, http://www.whbqt.info/template_permalink.asp?id=1167, by Officer McManus himself, there was one (1) section of the video "missing," and why.
If Mrs. Kabot's attorney is going to try to make something sinister and damning about this, the prosecution may need to have a representative of the company which makes the ICOP video system appear to testify ...more that what have been entered into evidence is accurate and uncorrupted.
It was the police who were under ...more control of the arrest and collection of evidence. When video evidence is missing the police are simply saying "trust us." It will only be through a very careful examination of the remaining evidence that a jury will be able to conclude whether it should just trust the police in this case.
I thought not.
At a minimum, there are legitimate questions here about the propriety of the arresting office turning off the tape in violation of the Chief's directive, and also about his motives for doing so.
You seem like a bright man.
Wake up please.
Yes, the burden of proof is most certainly on the WHBPD, but consider for a moment an assertion uttered here in comments at various times, but which I cannot find documented in any of the news reports here, in The Press proper or in Newsday, that Chief Ray Dean had issued a directive about not turning off the video camera, PRIOR to the Kabot arrest.
I believe that came following her arrest last Labor Day. It's a minor point in the legal proceedings, but a major one here ...more with the conspiracy theorists.
So, SC, I question whether these "are the facts as admitted."
PBR, you known damned well the ICOP representative cannot "tell us what would have been on the tape during the missing time period," but he can testify as to whether the video record can be altered or edited.
For the initial report of these hearings here last week, the extant portions of the video record show Mrs. Kabot failing two of three field sobriety tests (probable cause to administer the next step in testing) and then refusing further, and more definitive, tests.
ON THE LAW as written, she would be guilty -- all the rest is misdirection on the part of the defense and the Kabot supporters/police haters.
If her attorney can obfuscate that clear and compelling evidence, and knock out the video in this pre-trial hearing or win her an acquittal at bar, then I want his number on speed dial if I am ever arrested for anything.
Not saying he may pull it off -- successful ADAs are like Keahon in big bucks private practice. The ones who are still ADAs, are at best on the next level.
And PBR, as for "his motives for" turning off the video recording, urge that you not let your recurring fears of black helicopters obscure what is already reported here: the officer who made the stop said he wanted to check the "time stamp" on what had already been recorded, and subsequently the senior officer is seen to move the junior officer out of the line between the camera and Mrs. Kabot.
Now, was this a gaffe? Perhaps. But how do you impugn his motives from that?
Mr. Keahon is simply pointing out what ...more is obvious, and undisputed. The question is whether, in spite of these clear violations of department policy and in spite of Sleepy Gonce's testimony, the prosecution will be able to carry its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for the crime charged or some lesser offense.
Lawyer Keahon's strategy predicated on a great deal of sizzle -- the steak is the video record of Mrs. Kabot failing two field sobriety tests and refusing the breath-alizer test.
On the law, she's guilty!
BTW: I thought that in the WHBPD, "Sleepy" was reserved for the head of their PBA.
In stopping the tape, and examining the time stamp, was the officer going to "correct" the time stamp from his vehicle in the field?
No Way!
Why are you buying into this logically impossible "explanation" for what is, at best, a "gaffe" as you say, and perhaps worse.
Even if there was no directive ...more by the Chief never to stop the video, the explanation offered by the arresting office is total nonsense!
Put yourself in his shoes at that time:
"Yo, I am in the middle of a really important and politically charged drunk driving stop here, and I am going to turn off the tape for four minutes to make sure that the time stamp (which I should have checked when I went on shift) is correct."
Even if the time stamp was incorrect, the correct and logical procedure would have been to note this in some other way, not by turning off the camera.
You are kidding us, right?
Frankly, Get Wheeler!
And I trust that you did not include the superfluous "Yo" simply because that officer is black.
What do you imagine might have transpired in that 3½-4 minute "gap" which could prove ...more so damning to the prosecution?
The real "smoke screen" is being generated by lawyer Keahon -- and it might prove effective.
And you have not answered the questions posed.
How could the arresting officer have done ANYTHING to change the time stamp on the video EVEN IF his motive was innocent?
Please, give me more rope here!
[I will ignore many other issues raised, in deference to your contributions to may forums here, and to your intelligence. Please do not "Make My Day!"]
PS -- I have never ...more had any clue about the racial identity of anyone involved in this incident, or of any of these forums. The "Yo" comment was just an incidental Sunday superfluity. If you want to challenge this, then please confirm.
Subtract the beef and anger, please.
Thank you.
If the prosecution cannot handle this, pierce the smoke screen, and overcome, the result is called Due Process of Law and Justice.
Freedom Shall Prevail!
He doesn't have to -- all he needs to do is raise reasonable doubt. If Justice Smith sees through this and allows the video into evidence, such doubt may play very well with a petit jury of Mrs. Kabot's peers.
2. The concurrent representation of a DWI defendant accused by members of the Westhampton Beach PD, and the representation of 2 Officers who ...more have also been accused of misconduct by that same Westhampton Beach PD is NOT a conflict of interest. In fact it is quite the opposite, all three have an interest in the airing of all the department's dirty little secrets. It seems that the department is not going to have much fun as it happens.
3. How many more dirty little secrets will be out before this is all over? Remember Verbeck ?
Mr. Wheeler repeats that the accused in the DWI case failed two sobriety tests. Did Mr. Wheeler see the video? By what objective measure did the accused fail ?
The Presumption of Innocence should be respected until the prosecution has sustained its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; if it can carry that heavy burden on the work product of this department.
It's called "Discovery."
> "Did Mr. Wheeler see the video?"
Wasn't it on YouTube?
The video is potential evidence to be sure, but will it ever be admitted into evidence given the missing 4 minutes? Why would the officer turn off the video just to check the time stamp? Really, please post a plausible explanation for this apparent gaffe or slip up.
You say "my clients" -- are you an attorney?
Thank you.
karma is indeed a bitch !!!
What do YOU posit might have occurred during that 3½-4 minute blackout which prove so damaging to the arresting officers?
I have no idea what may be on the missing minutes of the tape, of course.
I do know this:
One of the primary responsibilities of an officer at a crime scene is to preserve evidence, in this case the tape.
Only the most exigent of circumstances would justify destroying (or in this particular case, preventing the accurate accumulation of CONTINUOUS evidence). In this sense the missing minutes have been "destroyed."
What was ...more the exigent circumstance here? To make sure the time stamp was correct?
Give us all a break !!!
I asked this a few days ago, and you have not answered the question;
If the time stamp was wrong, was the officer going to put the arrest on hold and go into the video camera to correct the time? By what, a minute or two?
There was some other motivation for turning off the camera IMO, and you are both bright enough to wake up and realize that you are blowing smoke here IMO.
Thje officer's choice to turn off the recording ENSURED that we will never know what happened during the missing time period.
Please provide a logical reason for doing this. Thank you.
Remember Nixon's tapes?
Get Wheeler!
PS -- new article just posted. Link not yet above. Tape admissibility TBD.
Although it is hardly your intention, PBR, you argue against your position.
I have no idea of what Officer Lucas' history in such situations might be, but checking a time stamp might have seemed important to him at that point.
You ask what he could do if the time stamp was incorrect? One obvious thing is to make contemporaneous note of the inaccuracy ...more at the point in time it was discovered.
While I cannot speak for Ms. karmasabitch, refuse to be dragged into your paranoid speculations, and I don't appreciate your personal directives to "wake up."
It is YOUR nightmare, not mine, and the only smoke being blown here is by Mrs. Kabot's defense counsel.
The irrelevant Nixon reference involved 18 minutes of missing audio tape which a little research reveals was NEVER explained by the woman involved, Rosemary Woods. No excuses, no rationales. Apples and oranges.
Oh, and I repeat, one cannot "destroy" that which never existed.
http://www.27east.com/story_detail.cfm?id=290638&town=Southampton&n=Kabot%20hearing%20concludes%20with%20no%20decision%20on%20arrest%20tape