[Music] [Music] yo what's up YouTube it's bpcast back again with another video and another reaction and in today's video is day two of the State of Florida versus Calvin Riley um the incident that I was uh covering for the past few days this is the end of the trial so uh I'mma watch it get my reaction let me know what y'all think about and what y'all think about the verdict I'm going to be also skipping through but I will be like showing y'all the pinpoints and let's get into the video officer m is your testimony here today that you did not use the vodka bottle as evidence are you asking if I used it as evidence to arrest him I am asking you if you used it as evidence it was Discovery after he was already placed under arrest officer Mose you testified previously at a pre-trial hearing she's got to get her information out overruled at this time you testified previously at a pre-trial hearing yes you were under oath at that hearing yes you swore to tell the truth yes there you were asked in counceling court it's page 40 lines 27- 28 continuing on to page 41 lines 1 through 3 question and in that report you mentioned that a vodka bottle was found in a pouch on the driver's seat is that correct answer correct question and you mentioned that because it was evidence answer yes that's inconsistent with your testimony today okay you're you asked me about the vodka bottle and I thought you meant it played into his evidence in his arrest at the point the vodka bottle was found but you had automatically assumed that that vodka bottle was what was used and put in that cup yes which was a mistake on my end and you thought that even though the bottle was sealed and had never been opened I never examined it and again you confirm that he's only under arrest for driving well license suspended that's what I told him I thought he would infer that he was also under arrest for DUI because he had just refused the field sobriety exercises at that point you were only charging him with driving whe license suspended no he was placed under arrest for dwlsr and DUI that's your testimony here today yes you had a body warn camera on objection asked and answer sustained we've been through this no your honor it's a different point in time okay go for it overruled can I just breef the sidebar not yet let her finish her questions to see if there's another objection the state was just curious this to whether or not this is the one that was entered into evidence or if it was the other one yeah if you could use the uh video from exhibit 4 okay man one thing about court bro it'd be so damn boring man I I swear I would fall asleep not even lying to skip through [Applause] this at that point you were only charging him with driving a license suspended no he was under arrest for DUI and dwlsr that was not my question at that time you were only charging him asked and answered sustain she just said he was under arrest for D and dwsr this you're not the same thing your honor let's go sidebar so you can explain it to me you go back to speak with Mr Riley yes he's upset that you claim to smell marijuana I never smelled marijuana officer Oliver did he's upset that officer Oliver said that she smelled marijuana yes but you never never smelled marijuana correct you never found any evidence of marijuana correct you just bro I swear they both said they they smelled uh marijuana like they both were saying it and I don't know bro I swear they just use marijuana as excuses to search the car cuz I swear she said it too describe him as extremely irate and belligerent yes you indicate in your report that he attempted to exit your car while I was reading implied consent yes he never moves his feet he leaned forward towards me he leans into your body worn camera he leans his body towards my body I don't know what he's going to do he wasn't trying to escape I can't speak to that again at this point you have only told him that he is under arrest for driving while license suspended um and then start Smith comes on the scene uh there's a point where you're discussing what to do with his car yes officer Oliver suggests moving it to the parking lot yes but you disagree yes I said we should tow it and you want to tow it because to you he done nothing to meet you all in the middle yes that's what I said now I wanted to say something on that I I feel that's that's just a ho ass thing to do bro like the fact that they they could have just like put that on the side but since oh you know he ain't working with us we're just gonna make him cost more money you see what I'm saying it's like that's just that's just like being like so like I mean like as an officer you do deal with a lot of things you do deal with a lot of like BS people but you shouldn't like make their life harder by let let's tow us so he pay this and all this you know what I'm saying just because he ain't agreeing with y'all like I don't know but at that point I'll just call a supervisor when Sergeant Smith is there you discuss the surge yes and when he first asks you if there's anything in there you indicate no I thought he had uh meant the marijuana then you say well okay so he had a bunch of alcohol stashed in there yes he specifically asks you nothing open or anything yes and you say yes it was opened yes that there was a mixed drink in the center console yes here explained to Sergeant Smith that he was mad and then Mr Riley was mad the officer Oliver smelt marijuana yes that is why you searched the car uh we searched the car for her plain smell of marijuana and then the search for uh the DUI Sergeant Smith asks if you're still alive I can't speak to what Sergeant Smith said I believe he said he was still alive and that means that your body camera is still on yes specifically he asks you did you find any evidence of marijuana yes and you say no yes and this is when officer Oliver walks up yes she asks you if you got all the same indicator she did yes you are still discussing this arrest yes you are still discussing this case yes you are still investigating we're discussing and then you turn off your body warn camera yes but first you ask her if she still got her body Waring camera on yes she shakes her head now I believe she did and then yours cuts off and your next body warn camera turns back on 3 minutes later yes there are 3 minutes at that at this exact same time where you all have your body worn cameras off yes the first time you tell him he's going to jail for DUI is when he's already in the car on his way to jail yes and that's after you've searched the car yes a moment to confir your honor yes nothing further your honor any redirect briefly your honor officer I want to start from the beginning of where U Miss Goodfellow asked you questions about um why it were you called to the scene uh to investigate a DUI okay um was that because you were a helping officer Oliver I was so she had been on the squad for a little bit and she wanted to learn how to do DUI so and that's another point that I wanted to point out this the officer Oliver the one that poured out the liquor bottle she never did Du cuz she was like still new and so she was like wanted to I guess show her how to do DUI or whatever you know to search for alcohol and that's another thing that bothers me you know that she's new but she poured it out and it claimed that it was open so how many other people has she did that too before you know like despite with this situation cuz they're going to I know for a fact they're going to go off and say well you know he left the bar and all this and that but it's just the fact that she poured out the lur ball and said it was open like who else she probably did that to and like they got wrongfully arrested but that's just my thing on that I was helping teach her so we talked about or Miss Goodfellow talked about a signal one investigation can you tell the jury a little bit about what a signal one investigation is uh signal one is just our code for DUI investigation um so does a single one or DUI investig ation does that start from the moment you make contact with the individual yes does it extend all the way until the very end of the investigation yes so when you were conducting a search of the vehicle were you still in a single one investigation yes what about when you're reading implied consent yes okay um what about when you ask the defendant to do field sobriety exercises yes now we also talked about field spiy exercise I Believe Miss Goodfellow actually brought up the fact that there was field spriet exercise as request can you tell the jury what the defendant did when he was asked to do Fieldy exercises your objection is sustained move on defense Council also asked you about how officer Oliver said she knew that the or the defendant knew he had a driver's license suspension did Officer Oliver tell you about the notices that were sent to his po. box uh I believe she said they were sent to The Bard Street address box but did she tell you that there was notices sent yes um can you explain to the jury what notices being like when notices are sent what that means for an investigation for somebody who's driving with a suspended license uh they objection call for here saying over I'll ask the question again can you just tell the jury a little bit about what not when notices are sent to an individual from the DHS SMB objection Beyond scope overruled officer can you please tell the jury when notices are sent to an individual and dhsmv tells you about that in the internal system what does that mean for your investigation for somebody who's driving with a suspended license uh dhsm will send this suspension notice to their primary residents um and in this case they sent this suspension notice to his primary residence and it updates in our system with the address that the notice would have been sent to permission to publish States exhibit one what already been ented yes let me know when you can see it okay I can see it now I'm directing your attention to right here where it says uh right up here at the corner he tells where this document's from uh it looks like the Florida dhsmv now I'm directing your attention to the subheader that says mailing address can you tell the members the mailing address for the defendant you want me to read the address yes please uh PO Box 11184 Tallahassee Florida 32302 officer if that was the address listed um for if that was the defendant's mailing address listed with the dhsmv would that have been where his notices were sent objection Beyond scope sustain now I want to transition over into another section of questioning that the defense asked you about um when you place the defendant under arrest for DUI did you believe you had probable cause to arrest him for DUI yes did you believe you had probable cause to arrest him for driving with a suspended license yes let's take those one by one when you arrested him for DUI can you tell the jury why you believed you had probable cause at that point objection your honor over can you tell the jury why you believed you had probable cause to arrest him for DUI at that point uh based on the totality of the circumstances officer Oliver had observed poor driving patterns um and then my own personal observations with the thick slur speech watery bloodshot eyes he had said he was leaving a bar and said that he would had consumed a couple of uh two beers there now I want to transition into the second charge can you tell the jury why you believe do you have probable cause for the driving with the suspended license the suspension notice had been sent to his primary residence officer after you play the defendant under arrest did you also search his vehicle yes okay so can you explain to the jury do you when you search Somebody's vehicle or are you allowed to search Somebody's vehicle automatically when you place them under arrest no there has to be uh it depends on what they're under arrest for and there has to be certain things typically in DUI investigations are you able to yes okay um when you decided to search the vehicle did it have anything to do with the smell of marijuana uh we could search on officer Oliver's observation of the planes of marijuana and um but we could also search for the DUI I really feel like she doesn't want to say that yeah we searched the car basically because she smelled marijuana like just say that that's what y'all search the car for that's clear as day but they don't want to lose their job in DUI investigations um actually strike that I want to be clear was marijuana what you suspected the defendant to be under influ the influence of no can you tell the jury what you suspected him to be under the influence of alcohol was alcohol your primary concern throughout your investigation yes now I want to transition also to the breath test um that you asked from the defendant um opposing Council asked you a bit about um how the defendant was leaning towards you can you describe to the jury what it was like when he was leaning towards you as you read the implied consent form objection relevance can you tell the jury what it was like as he leaned towards you when you read the implied consent form sure so I was just trying to read the implied consent form like I said said it was one of those procedural things for a DUI and he was yelling at me the whole time and then when he was leaning towards me I didn't know what his intentions were um so that's why I shut the door and then I continued reading implied consent through the open window I thought he might if I had kept the door open I thought he might try to exit the vehicle or uh try to I guess calls for uation sustained officer can you just give us a visual estimate with your hands about how far away he got to you or how close he was to you when he lean towards you uh I would say probably that close no further questions all right does this witness need to be retained I guess your honor you can step down but please do not leave the courthouse thank you um I still have the paperwork that and then that was like the that was offer me that was the the other officer that was there that they was interviewing and then this the next person was the uh superintendent and he pulled up I think like 20 minutes or so after uh they stopped him and so this is them um interviewing him about the incident not interviewing but in court could you please introduce yourself to the members of our jury yes my name is Brian Smith I'm a sergeant with the city of tal police department and for the record purposes can you spell your last name yes it's s SM I Sergeant Smith I want to talk about your experience as an officer for for starters yes ma um could you tell us I know you said you work for the Tallahassee Police Department when did you start working for them in December of 2008 okay so for a total of how many years at this point it's 15 so during the 15 years at Tallahassee Police Department did you receive any training related to DUI investigations I did not specifically no ma'am okay have you ever responded to DUI investigations yes ma'am are you usually backup or can you give us a little insight into what your involvement usually is typically it's as a backup officer so it would just be for um while the officer is conducting their investigation I would just be there for safety purposes or to assist with traffic control just depending on the situation okay so I want to transition over to the in this case um do you recall if you were on duty the early hours of May 7th 2023 yes I was um were you called to a scene of a traffic stop around 2: a.m. yes ma'am I was can you tell us what your understanding of your involvement was that morning um initially they just asked for for me to respond um when I got there I was informed that uh Mr Riley was um have been combative and I just needed assistance getting him from um officer Oliver's vehicle to officer M's vehicle um do you recall what time you arrived at it was right around 2:25 2 26ish in the morning so when you arrived at the scene did you end up speaking with the defendants at all yes ma'am I did did you have your body warn camera footage on yes ma'am I did if I showed you a copy of that would you recognize it yes ma'am permission to approach yes the record Shing Council was been premark States a CH and I am [Music] now CD and did you premark to stat Sergeant I've just handed you what premark to States exhibit G can you tell us what that is it's a CD with my signature on it what's on this CD to your knowledge um it's actually my body War camera from the the night of the incident did you have an opportunity to review that before today yes ma'am I did were you able to confirm if this was a fair and accurate copy of your body camera yes ma'am it is has it been changed your altered in any way since you last seen it no ma'am the state moves into evidence with been pre-marked at States exhibit GS States exhibit 6 any objection we would object and ask to approach on one brief t and this it be so long pauses in cour bro I would fall asleep sorry ladies and gentlemen you need to take another break uh this is going to be a very short one I just need to listen to something and rule on it outside of your presence oh there so they're taking a break off right here continue defense is okay with that I'm we're okay to just mute it it it's it was relating to the breath test that you were asking about sure explain to the jury want here breath test yes ma'am I did could you just explain to the jury what your interaction was relating to the breath test that you were asking about sure um Mr R was upset about the whole situation so I just explained to him that he'd be afforded the opportunity to provide a breast sample um if all this was a misunderstanding So when you say to the defendant if this is all just a misunderstanding to take a breath test can you tell the jury how he reacts and responds um it from my interpretation he was not interested in in in that um Avenue would you classify it as a refusal it wasn't explicitly stated but um in my opinion he was refusing no further questions cross examination yes sir good morning good morning so you showed up after the fact yes sir kind of there to keep every everything levelhead and if I'm correct I think this is Calvin's attorney or one of them yes we to move him from one vehicle to to the other and so by the time you showed up he had already been arrested yes sir he had and he was in officer Oliver's car when you arrived yes sir he was and then he was subsequently transferred to officer M's car correct yes sir he's Cooperative when you transferred him yes sir he's able to walk on his own to the car yes sir didn't trip the scope over he didn't fall no sir he did not he didn't stumble no sir he able to get in the vehicle with no issues yes sir you helped Mr Riley make a call after that point yes sir I did while he was in the vehicle yes sir objection outside the scope over R he was able to call someone and explain what was happening yes sir and he was cooperative while you were helping him do that yes sir he was his hands were cuffed behind his back yes sir he's seated yes sir he's seated he Maneuvers his handcuffs kind of over to the side yes sir opens his phone yes sir and types the numbers correct yes sir calls his family and he was cooperative with you up until officer MTH and officer Oliver returned yes sir he was okay and after that point he declined any further communication correct he he did not want to speak okay he say it several times he was not talking to you guys yes sir and after ending the conversation with Mr Riley you spoke with officer M about the search of Mr Riley's car yes sir I did you asked her if she found anything yes sir she says she had a bunch of alcohol stash in there objection outside the scope overr yes sir so she she did say she had a bunch of alcohol stash in it correct yes right she did and you when you're the supervising officer take their the officer's work on that yes sir you didn't do any uh you didn't check for yourself to see if it was open or half poured out or anything like that I did not check sir no sir kind of rely on on them being truthful with yes sir and then um you guys ended up discussing with officer Oliver the evidence that you had you believe supported a DUI charge uh they may have have gone over some things yesterday I don't recall exactly what the specifics were and during that discussion where you discussed charges uh all three of you had your body camera off is that correct uh honestly I'm not sure what we discussed after the camera was turned off okay can't remember that part sir do you can't remember remember that part correct okay you didn't write any reports in this case I did not okay I mean that's kind of odd like to turn off the body cam footage and not remember like what y'all was talking about I don't know that that's just that's just really odd to me and that I don't I I feel like turn off body cam footage should be like low key illegal uh I don't know if they like if different police agencies or whatever have different rules on that but me personally I feel like they should never turn it off like it should just stay on and never be turned off until like that until like you got to take that uniform off like when you put the uniform on it's on and when you take the uniform off is off I feel like that's better than for them to be able to have the option to turn it on and off that's just my opinion though no further questions any redirect no redirect owner all right let me step down does it need to be retained no your honor here you go thank you sir thank you I'm sorry um I know the defense had the defense all right does the state wish to have retain the defense wish have okay so if you're still under speak it from the defense you're don't leave the confident substantial evidence as to element three Florida statute 322.34 and this is a c's attorney right here subsection two provides how the knowledge element may be satisfied it reads the element of knowledge is satisfied the person has been previously cited as provided subsection one or the person admits to knowledge of the cancellation suspension or revocation or suspension or revocation equivalent status or the person received notice as provided in subsection 4 there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the knowledge requirement is satisfied if a judgment or order as provided in subsection 4 appears in the Department's records for any case except for one involving a suspension by the department for failure to pay a traffic fine or for financial responsibility violation additionally 322.34 subsection 3 does that in a proceeding regarding a violation of the section that the court may consider evidence other than those specified in subsection 2 that the person knowingly violated the section the St has presented a Serve by driving record which shows Mr Riley's driver's license was suspended on May 7 2023 the record provides the basis for the suspension as personal injury protection property damage liability commonly just simplified and abbreviated as pip pip is a financial responsibility violation which was suspended pursuing 3 2402216438 34 subsection 3 which allows the court to consider other evidence in this case the state has presented testimony from officer Oliver that the nose is sent to PO Box however she also admitted that she previously testified under oath that the notices were sent to 429 West bravard those are exactly contradictory your honor they did not present any evidence in the matter from anyone who actually knows where the notices were sent further the state has presented a current driving record director did not represent his driving record at the time noted by the inclusion of suspensions in September 202 3 which was after this incident also the driving record provided includes two addresses a residential address and a mailing address which are different I'd like to present the court with two cases your onor okay may I approach yes may have copies for the state and basically um they're talking about you know his license because he didn't know that it was suspended and they're trying to basically whenever talking about like The Mailing and all that they're trying to say that they mailed it to the wrong address or something like that for him to get a notice that his license was suspended so that's basically what they're going over right now and it's saying that it went somewhere they have not presented any evidence by anyone who actually knows where these documents went if they went anywhere so that's basically their argument on that and then after that they went on like on a long lunch long like y'all want to see this I'll put the the Linked In the description you want to see like the entire case but this thing is like I think this is I think this whole yeah it was like six hours long yeah it was six hours long I'm trying to cut this into like not an hour but like 40 minutes um but then they come back from lunch and they took like a lot they took a lot of breaks so I'm going to play um where the defense and then the attorney the uh state had their closing arguments on on everything and then I'll play like the verdict and everything like that not influence then we'll go your verdict must be based on that is necessary defense so this is the state right here this is the state whoever you know represent it please the court I'm not that good at core man okay so y'all before y'all get in the comment section say oh BP I'm not a core person bro I would get so bored and I'll fall asleep man I'm not lying to y'all defense and members of the jury it was 2 a.m. and the defendant was driving down South Monroe Street with no headlights whatsoever we learned in today's trial that it wasn't just as simple as him forgetting the lights he didn't notice that his headlights were off for at least 5 and half miles he didn't realize and when he was finally stopped by law enforcement his words tell us all that we needed to know from the start of course I've been at the club had a couple of drinks I've been at that I've been at that club I've been at Pockets Pool and B his words are all we need the statement of Love Now pause for a moment suain I want to pause for a moment and thank you just hold on a second miss hery the state has just misstated the law for what it's needed for driving Under the Influence please use the jury instructions that I presented to you as your instructions on the law you may proceed I wanted to pause for a moment and just say thank you to everyone for being here I know we spent Tuesday all together going through jury selection and deciding who would be a best fit for our jury and throughout this process you've all been great we went through Friday and of course there were some delays and of course you also had to take time out of your dayto day which was not expected and to say the least we couldn't have gotten through this process without you so I commend you all for that and I'm beyond grateful for that so what I wanted to talk about is what the law is in this case and what we have to look to to see whether or not the state has met its burden as the judge just instructed us the defendant in this case he's charged with driving Under the Influence now driving Under the Influence has two individual elements that the state had to prove to you here today first the def the the judge told us that the first element that the state needed to prove is that the defendant drove or he was an actual physical control of a vehicle now members of the jury I don't think this is something that's in dispute in this case we've seen the body warn camera we've seen testimony from two officers who told us here today that when they first encountered the defendant he was driving his vehicle down South Monroe Street the body warn camera footage that we saw on the televisions that are in front of you showed the defendant inside his white Mercedes from law enforcement approached him they showed him in the driver's side seat behind the steering wheel and he was the only person in that vehicle so when we look at the evidence and the facts in this case we know that the state has in fact established the first element that he was driving a motor vehicle so that brings us to the second element and this is the second element that you really are here today to decide see as the judge judge just told us while driving or an act the state must prove that while driving or an actual physical control of the vehicle Kelvin Riley the defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired now that element is a bit lengthy so I want to break it down into two separate parts starting with under the influence of alcoholic beverages we learned throughout today's trial that the defendant was oued under the influence of alcohol there was multiple things that we learned that through we learned that through his own admissions when officer MTH approached the vehicle let's go side park and then they they going to sit there and discuss it this what I mean bro this sh I will fall asleep in Court K me out your statement so as I was previously stating the first element or the first part of this second element that we have to prove is that the defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages now when we look to the facts and the evidence in this case we know that there's several signs or several statements from the defendant that point us to the conclusion that he was under the influence that night for starters he admitted to officer m at the scene that he had had a couple of drinks that night he told officer MTH that he was at a bar that night that he was out at a club how do we know he was out at a club well we saw The Wristband on his wrist that cooperated that statement we know he was out drinking that night we know that he was out there and he left around the time the bars Clos it was 2: in the morning so when we look at that element we would assert that it's been proven and if that's not enough we can also look to other things we can also consider whether or not his normal faculties were impaired and that's the second part of element two as the judge just instructed us normal faculties include multiple things it includes our ability to see so when we're talking about the defendant's ability to see that night there's several things that officers noted that were concerning so let's talk through those so basically what the state is trying to say that this dude's an an alcoholic not alcoholic maybe but it's basically trying to play that he was drinking at the club and he or at the bar and that you know he was driving drunk and that's why I was saying that when he told officers that he had a couple beers you don't have to tell them anything like and it kind of concerns me I don't understand why he just did didn't um do the I just don't understand like why he just didn't do like the blood test because he I think he refused it and I feel like if if he was really Under the Influence that would have just killed this whole case and completely and he would have been good but since he didn't do the blood test and all that it's like they basically have to apply that look look look you know he's doing this and that and just she she just basically saying like it's it's pretty obvious that he was drinking here and doing this and that he was driving Under the Influence they're not mention about the mod see that's what they're not trying to like mention at all is about like the evidence cuz that's what the uh his attorneys in there were trying to tell the officers that did yall use that for evidence that they never said it they just said that it was like a I guess a add-on or not add-on but just adds on to the suspicion starting with officer Oliver officer Oliver told us here today that when she first saw the defendant he was driving down the road in his white Mercedes And as he was driving down the road he didn't have his headlights on like I mentioned earlier he was driving nearly 5 and a half miles with no headlights and he couldn't see that it's dark outside it's 2 a.m. and you can't tell that you're driving down in the road in the dark what does common sense and reason tell us see when we look at the jury instructions we see that when somebody's normal faculties are impaired it means that impairment is or impairment means that those normal faculties are diminished in some material respect and when you can't even tell that your headlights are off I think it's safe to say that your ability to see has been diminished and if that's not enough there's another part that we should talk about because when officer Oliver tried to tell the defendant about his head being off he didn't believe her he asked her are you sure about that I believe those were his words are you sure about that it took officer Oliver debating with the defendant about having his headlights off that she finally had to reach inside his vehicle and show him the Turning knob to turn them on he still didn't believe her until she finally clicked the knob to the right and showed him that they were off and it wasn't until the lights on his headlights finally illuminated that he finally widened his eyes and then turned to officer Oliver and still questioned her judgment and her ability to see that his headlights were in fact off it's not reasonable and the reason that we know that his sight was impaired was because of his admissions to drinking alcohol that night so that brings us to another normal faculty that I wanted to discuss with you we listen to the defendant talk about or one of the additional normal faculties that we should consider during deliberations is the defendant's ability to talk that night now don't get me wrong here the video was sometimes a little hard to hear but other times we know he was clearer he was shouting he was yelling those times it was crystal clear and when we watched those videos here in court today it was clear that there were times that he was slurring his words he was not making sense for example when officer Oliver stopped him in his vehicle he said why you slow me down is that a statement that makes sense no but that was what was running through his head at that time why you slow me down so we have to look at his speech in the I mean I ain't going to cap on that I have heard a lot of people actually say that like when you get stop like why'd you slow me down like and some people actually mean like why why you stop me it's not she she just trying to make it seem like he drunk out his mind and I'm not trying to say that I could Don any drinking and driving you drinking and driving like you got to go to like you know that's wrong regardless but she trying to make it seem like he's like plastered out like he was like falling and stuff when I have heard people say use that term before those moments and whether or not we think based on his speech that it was diminished in some material respect so let's talk about another one now the defendant's ability to judge distances members of the jury this is a big one and I encourage you to remember the demonstrative that I showed during the testimony of Officer M so I want to turn that on for you guys this is a map of the defendant's route that night and it sadly doesn't show because if you ever did jury duty I have before it only shows a jury it doesn't show anybody else but I think she's showing like the map of the location that they was at uh in um Tallahasse in the town that they was at based on his own admissions like I originally stated when he was first stopped by Officer Oliver first he says oh I'm just going home I'm going to West Bard Street well that didn't make sense because as officer Oliver told us on the stand yet on Friday he was heading the opposite direction so are you really going home if you're going completely the opposite direction I think not so now let's look at the other perspective because after after after all officer Oliver gets to the scene officer M as she told us went and did her own independent investigation she told us here today that she went up to the defendant and asked him where are you going where were you planning on going he said he was going home and when she asked where are you coming from she said I was come he said I was coming from po or pockets and as we learned in today's trial pockets is a local bar here in Tallahassee located on the North side so when you look at that map that we showed you during today's trial you can see that the route just doesn't make sense and his ability to judge distances was materially diminished right before law enforcement stopped in that night it's not clear but it clearly and that's finally where they stopped him and who knows how much further he would have gone before law enforcement stopped him that night it's not clear but it clearly wasn't in the direction of his home because if he was heading home he would have to turn all the way around and go the exact same way nor back to his [Applause] adress so members of the jury when we're talking about the defendant's ability to judge distances is we know that his ability to do so was diminished in some material respect absolutely the jury instructions also say that normal faculties include your ability to drive an automobile that's another thing that we heard about in today's trial not only the lack of headlights but also officer Oliver told us about his driving pattern when she went to stop him he was speeding down South Monroe Street at least 10 miles who knows maybe potentially more we don't know because officer Oliver didn't have a speed gun to tell us exactly how far but based on her training and experience she was able to assess that he was speeding that night now he wasn't just speeding he was speeding past two police these cars with one of them that at least had their headlights on does that make sense to drive over the speed limit as he's passing a police car with are not credible to I ain't going to lie her her a little too long man I'mma go and Skip to his uh attorney now but y'all basically get what uh she's trying to tell the jury though as far as you know he he's he's too G and you know so let's go on with the his um attorney now Calvin Riley is innocent you have every reason to question every single thing these officers testified about they are not credible officer Oliver lied to you under oath and she lied over and over from the second she pulled Mr clamator and misstatement of the law over and over from the second she pulled Mr Riley over until the second she got off that witness stand officer M lied to you about what she placed Mr Riley under arrest for and she lied to her s Sergeant about what she found in the car these officers are making things up these officers are laughing these officers are asking each other if their cameras are on these officers are turning off their cameras these officers are taking an oath to swear to tell the truth and then these officers are lying they did it right there in front of you when you apply the law judge Jones instructs you on with the conflicts and the evidence and the complete lack of evidence you have seen over these two days it is clear Calin Riley is not guilty officer Oliver opened a ball of vka a bottle that had never been opened before you hear her break the seal pour it out and then put it back in the car then she used that evidence against him she and officer MTH told her Sergeant they found a bunch of alcohol stashed in his car and that the bottle was open this is simply not true there is nothing in that cup which if if you watch the video closely has a lid on it and the vodka bottle that was opened by Oliver members of the jury these officers want you to believe that they only turned off their cameras because they weren't investigating anymore yes they were the sergeant on scene asks if they're live officer moov asks if they're alive Oliver shakes her head no Sergeant turns his off and moose turns hers off they are all still investigating your jury instructions tell you that you were all to get you all get to decide what is reliable nothing that these officers testify to is reliable let's start from the very beginning Oliver and moth are at a completely different traffic stop Oliver says she notices Mr Riley's car going by without headlights and at a high rate of speed she doesn't have a radar gun that's just her word which we know is not believable she tells you that he was swerving none of that is captured on her camera there is no camera footage of it it's just her word which we knew which is weird because doesn't most like um police cars they have dash cams so like cuz aloki wanted to see that too to see if he was actually like swerving and they didn't have that they didn't have that video of that everything didn't get start recording until uh they turned their body cam on is not believable she tells you that she noticed his eyes were glossy through his glasses and on Friday for the first time she adds that they're bloodshot she's been under oath twice before as well as written a statement that was also under oath and none of those three times did she ever say there were bloodshot the first time was on Friday members of the jury you can see Mr Riley's Eyes on Camera at one point he leans into officer M's body camera his eyes are not glossy his eyes are not bloodshot again her word is not believable she tells you that she smelled an odor of alcohol but in her camera footage the first thing she tells officer m is that she can't really smell anything she tells you that she smell marijuana again after telling MTH that she can't really smell anything and there is no marijuana paraphernalia or anything regarding it nothing found in the car and let me take a moment to point to something out here because the state is making a huge deal about Mr Riley yelling the officers call him belligerent and I rate members of the jury he's completely cooperative and polite up until she says she smells marijuana that's when it all changes at that point he knows exactly what they're trying to do and yes he is absolutely upset and he was very to be he's being falsely accused for something and he is mad about it he's completely justified in acting the way he did and also remember how he interacts with MTH at first Cooperative with turning off the car Cooperative with taking the keys out Cooperative with getting out of the car remember how he interacts with Sergeant Smith completely cooperative and respectful it is only when officer Oliver says that she smells marijuana after saying she couldn't smell anything that he gets upset and it is completely understandable so now Mo gets on scene Oliver asks her to verify Mr Riley's address as 429 West Bard Street but when asked Mr Riley said it was a family house he never said that that was his residence that was something that AER M just assumed and remember at this point it's two officers there with Mr Riley Oliver wants M to see if she thinks this is a DUI and is excited to watch her conduct an investigation officer Oliver promises that she'll do the next one the state wants to believe that the evidence tampering and the lying about it doesn't matter because he was already under arrest test for DUI but that is not true when they order him out of the car which he does cooperatively they arrest him handcuff him and tell him it's because his license is suspended and again when they're and that is um actually true because when they did put him in hand Cod they did say because your license is suspended we're going to put you in handos they didn't mention about the DWI or alcohol or anything they didn't mention only thing they actually mentioned was weed and yeah he did turn up when they when they mentioned that we he turned up like really quickly cuz he knew that they were lying just just to search his car they're searching his car they indicate that they're going to charge him with driving a license suspended they say dwlsr which means driving while license suspended or revoked they are telling him that he was only under arrest for a suspended driver's license but now they want to believe they want you to believe that he was under arrest for DUI their testimony was that he should have inferred that he was under arrest for DUI but members of the jury the law does not allow you to make inferences that is reasonable doubt the very first time that anyone tells him that he is under arrest for DUI is when they're taking him to jail that the first time they tell him that and that is after they've already searched his car and used that bottle of alcohol as evidence against him and this is also very important distinction members of the jury remember at this point all the police need is probable cause to arrest someone that's a very low standard versus what you must today here in the trial when a man's Liberty is at stake the law is clear the state must convince you of every element Beyond and to the exclusion of every single Reasonable Doubt and there is overwhelming doubt in this case now Mr Riley is in the back of the police car he is under arrests and again at this point he is just justifiably and understandably upset but members of the jury listen to him listen to his speech and his articulation and his communication with the officers he is not slurred he is not confused he is just mad that he is being falsely accused and then after her cuz it it went on for a minute and then the state came back basically like I said the same thing trying to convince the jury on this that you know he Li bottle that was found in the focus on this entirety of this trial in fact majority of their closing argument focus on this sealed liquor bottle that was found in the defendant's vehicle I don't want to mention that during my initial closing argument because as I briefly stated it's not evidence during this trial it's just not see members of the jury the defense is saying the the words that law enforcement manufactured evidence does opening a bottle of vodka sound like manufacturing evidence does it sound like this law enforcement officer went to the store and bought a bottle of alcohol just to put it in his vehicle now you've seen the video in this case you've seen the body warn camera footage that shows us that when they searched the vehicle it was already in the defendant's car officer Oliver never once went to officer MTH or Sergeant Smith and said hey I found an open bottle of liquor she didn't and what but yes she said that it was open but um after that argument they went off for like I ain't lie I push this video a little bit longer than what I should have I think I might break this up or I probably I might post a full thing and then just break clips of it so it don't bore you but basically after like damn near an hour uh they came with a vert right [Applause] here Madam clerk please public in the matter of the State of Florida versus Calvin Riley case number 2023 c854 we the jury finds as follows as to count one of the information driving under the influence the defender Riley is guilty so say we all this 8th day of April 2024 you may be seated does either side wish to have the jury ped State no you're honor yes you're honor all right Madam cler can you please pull the jurors J number one is this yes two is this your verdict yes number three is this your verdict yes number four is your verdict yes number five yes number so ladies and gentlemen I wish to thank you for your time and consideration of this case I also wish to advise you on some very special privileges enjoy by jurors no juror can ever be required so they were he was found um guilty of it and I think he got sentenced it will be up to you to decide whether to preserve this what he talk about his sent or what he's going to get may be seated we're going to talk about [Applause] it on this J you are um can I just have a moment required mandatory minimums under okay state would be asking for 12 months probation with as a special condition 10 days jail in addition to other required mandatory minimums under the DUI statute that's the DUI is any are there any prior du no you're okay so DUI level one the 50 hours of community service 10day Vehicle Impound the 6mon DL suspension I don't have a standard plea form in front of me do you remember what the other standard DUI firsts are yes you're on our 50 hours Comm service um the victim awareness panel and I $500 relevant criminal history um your honor he was previously convicted for two felony batteries um the offer from the state guilty to the Lesser offense of n driver's license lesser offense of reckless driving andate guilty to the Lesser offense of no Val driver's license with no probation no conditions already by taking the minimum ad abil to DUI with the minimum per statute it's already a trial tax the state is now asking for much higher at this point it seems vindictive based on the publicity so we' be asking for a du guilty DUI with just the minimum condition right thank you any response yes dror on on top of that we would just like to also add the cost of prosecution um in response to that um as Miss Goodfellow is aware this this case is like when when the original free offer was extended I had not yet quite looked into the entirety of The Facts of the case I was relying on the defensive board alone at that point and I was having good faith basis to believe that but my concern at this point is we've gone through this entire process we perpetuated testimony of a pregnant officer who is actively having labor pains and then additionally we've also come to trial with additional facts and evidence that we're not discovered a month ago when that plea offer was made so given the facts and the evidence of this case he's not willing to accept responsibility for his actions and the consequences that they can bring and that's why the state is is basing our request for this specific sentence Mr Riley please rise do you have anything you wish to say before I pass sentence icept responsibility for getting upset and let my emotions get over my judgment of just being a person and staying calm like I stated before I was only going through this emotional stuff because the past I've been through a law enforcement and what I started going through that night with these officers it was just a repeat of what I experienced gr up here and it made me very upset and angry and if anyone was hurt in that moment I apologize but the same time I was hurt too and I'm still dealing with it and that pce that the state is talking about I was unaware of that until like they came on board and I had a new lawyer I all this stuff was brought to my attention TW last morning and things started changing so I I don't have time to process all sub need I don't know what else to say okay thank you you don't you didn't have to say anything but I appreciate you speaking all right I'm going to adjudicate you guilty as I did before sentence you to six months probation as a condition of that probation you'll do 10 days in a leyon county jail you'll also have to attend and complete DUI level one school and any counseling as uh recommended 50 hours of community service your vehicle if you own one will be impounded for a period of 10 days if you no longer own a vehicle you just need to get a certification from the dhsmv saying that you no longer own the vehicle and that can be waved your driver's license will be suspended for a period of 6 months you'll need to attend and complete a victim awareness program you will have alcohol conditions with random breath test once per month and your probation can terminate early at the halfway point if you have completed all of your conditions and Madam clerk if you could please announce the standard fines and court costs and would the defense like them to be itemized so yeah he he got found guilty had 10 days in jail and six months probation license man that's that's kind of weird with the car thing considering that this was over a year ago I even think they would I mean I guess but I seen a lot of people say that they feel like race played a factor in this and I'm never never been the type to use a or use a race car or anything but I kind of I'm not saying that I feel like race was a factor I just definitely feel like him talking [ __ ] definitely made them not want to work with him at all but as far as the uh cing goes what do y'all think do y'all think that the sing was fair or do you think like the system failed us again like I said I really felt like he shouldn't have told him where he was coming from because you don't have to tell him anything but it's also weird that they didn't even get a blood test cuz a blood test would really would have killed all this but I guess since he refused to do it or maybe he I don't know if he ref I know he refused to do the the the test as far as on the road and the breath sample but if it's true he only had like one or two beers I mean no one's not going to get drunk off that and that usually you know P be fine but I don't know man how the state was coming they were trying to make it seem like this dude was like an alcoholic and he was swerving there was no video of him driving as far to even prove that fact this is all really just off all words and just putting the scene together cuz how the state was trying to put is that he left the bar too and then this and that so he had to have a lot of drinks they were trying to paint that narrative you know his uh attorneys and them were trying to paint like well you know they dumped out the liquor bottle and they tried to use that as evidence so it it's really this is a real mess man I'm not it's just everything is just off words like nothing there's no proven fact the bottle was clearly closed there's no bread flash test no blood test nothing this is all off words so this is what the jury decided and I mean it took the jury like damn I I believe took the jury like almost yeah almost an hour before they came up or 50 minutes or so 51 minutes and then they came out so they were really like talking about it and I don't know man I I I was really I was really hoping he was going to get not guilty because the cop was clearly lying about that but I really want to know what that what officer all ol's track record is if she ever did this before or who other anybody else she ever arrested because this just for her pouring that out and unsealing it just to like kind of get some evidence is just really grimy to me like cuz she knew it was closed and they never poured out his uh his cup that he had in there so I don't know man y like I said y'all let me know what y'all think about this whole verdict this whole trial and everything I'm really sorry for this pushing over an hour I was really trying to minimize it like I said this whole entire thing is like 6 hours so I link the video in the description y'all want to see it I also might chop up some clips and then post it out there too so y can see different um everybody's different um statements and everything that happened at cor this is just like the longer version of it if y'all just don't want to see them small Clips so and like I said I really do appreciate the love y'all been giving all the like and supports like I said y y'all new to the channel man please subscribe like and all that stuff man I really appreciate y'all and like I said just let me know what y'all think about the State of Florida versus Calvin Riley y'all do y'all believe that he was guilty y'all believe he was not guilty and y'all have a wonderful day and I'll catch y'all again in the next video