Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Legal Briefs

Aired May 25, 2003 - 08:13   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN ANCHOR: There is a lot on our legal docket in today's legal briefs today. We are talking about a deadly police mistake, a driver's black box conviction and much, much more.
To explain this is trial attorney and CNN contributor Michael Smerconish and also Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, president of the ACLU in Miami. Thank you for being with us this morning.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Good morning.

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, PRESIDENT, ACLU-MIAMI: Good morning.

SAVIDGE: This case in New York seems extremely tragic, obviously with the death of a woman who dies, with police breaking in suspecting she's a drug dealer. What are your thoughts on this? And let me start with both of you. And pitch in any way you want. I mean how do you think this really goes down? It's a horrible mistake; a lawsuit's been filed. And it should never have happened in the minds of many people.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: I think that's right. And Michael, I'm going to jump in first here because I know you'll have something to say about this. The issue to us is these issues of the No-Knock warrants. Now, a No-Knock warrant is a warrant that allows police to enter a dwelling or home without knocking and without saying hi, this is the police open up. This No-Knock warrant was issued by a judge, but it's issued by the information provided to them by the police.

In this case the police did no homework and relied on information by a confidential informant that had proven to be unreliable in the past. In fact, this confidential informant was about to get kicked out of the confidential informant program. They did no homework, they did no research; had they done so they would have realized that this was a 57-year-old woman who was a civil servant and worked for the city.

SAVIDGE: Michael, go ahead.

SMERCONISH: Clearly, they should have done more in terms of their investigation, but the confidential informant in this case had earlier said so and so is a drug dealer and he keeps his drugs that this particular location. A couple of days there after, the police go out and they apprehend that individual and they charge him with felony drug trafficking. And it gives credibility therefore to the charges that he'd made about the location and that's how they come to this poor woman's apartment, the 57-year-old woman in Harlem. It's a bad outcome. It's a bad tragedy. They did drop the ball, but at least, there was justification for why they went to that local. And think you need to have these no-knock warrants because particularly in drug cases, it's such a dangerous environment for the cops. And you also don't want them destroying the evidence, those people who are presumably possessing the narcotics, the drugs.

SAVIDGE: All right, let's move on. We have got a black box in automobiles. I didn't even know about this. But apparently a lot of newer vehicles have this sort of technology in them, similar, but not quite the same as what you might find on an airplane. And it's been used actually to carry out a conviction in a trial.

What are your thoughts on this one? Michael go ahead, start us off.

SMERCONISH: I don't have a problem with it. Lida and I may disagree on this. It's almost as if you have a photograph of precisely what occurred at the time of a particular accident.

Now, in this case, one of the issues was the rate of speed that this individual was driving and the box said that he was driving in excess of a hundred miles an hour at the time of impact. Some might say, well, it's a self-incrimination...

SAVIDGE: Right.

SMERCONISH: ... if all of a sudden you use the box from this guy's vehicle. I don't see it that way. We measure skid marks on the roadway and we conclude how fast someone was going. If you actually know to the mile per hour how fast they were going. Why not use that information!

The Fifth Amendment doesn't extend to your vehicle; it only extends to you personally.

SAVIDGE: But do you need a warrant for this kind of information? I mean to access it?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: I would argue that you absolutely do. And here's the reason why. These little black boxes, which are the size of cigarette boxes, are a treasure trove of information for police. And the police, in this case, it was used to convict the man. And in another case, at least that we know of in Fort Myers last year, it was used to exonerate a man where the witness testimony had been that he was traveling 90 when the box showed that he was only traveling 60.

So, there's nothing wrong with the technology, it's how we use it, how we inform people about it. There's about 40 million of these things out on the road. Most people don't know that they have them. They were started in the '90s with the advent of air bags because they needed some sort of a computer in order to be able to detonate the air bag. They are not necessarily bad, but we need to regulate the information that is gathered.

SAVIDGE: Well, Michael let me ask you this, though. The automakers made the black box, but they never intended, I'm sure, that it was going to end up in a court of law. How do we know how accurate it really is for this purpose.

SMERCONISH: Martin, I think they actually developed this technology so that it would be used in a court of law. I think one of the primary objectives here was they wanted to be able to defend themselves in product liability suits. I don't think that they believed it was going to play such a dominant role in the typical intersection accident case, but they wanted to be able to defend themselves in cases involving air bags and the way in which an accident may have caused an injury or death.

I mean take the blindfold off the jury. If we know to a certainty how fast a vehicle was driving at the time of an accident, or how an impact actually occurred, why shouldn't we give that information to a jury? And if somehow it can be disputed there will be experts that can be hired who can then call it into question.

SAVIDGE: All right. Before you both go, let me just asking you hazing. We've been through this case many times before. We have got more action maybe expected today. Have they been too soft, too kind on these students as far as the ones that have been expelled but they still get to graduate although not be there in person, apparently -- Lida.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, contrast this with a couple of cases that the ACLU has handled. One out of Maine, where a ninth grader was expelled from school for taking a Tylenol and the school said that this was in violation of the zero tolerance drinking and drug policy. Or another case out of Atlanta that we handled, where a student was arrested and expelled for carrying a key chain that had a tweety bird on it when the school said the tweety bird was a weapon.

I think that we need a balance between those cases and this sort of case where students who were found drinking, who are found -- who are on videotape hitting each other, punishing each other, punching each other and land five young girls in the emergency room. We need to find a balance so that the tweety bird incident doesn't result in an expulsion and the Glenbrook incident doesn't result in a cakewalk.

SAVIDGE: But you know one of the differences here? This moment's caught on videotape. And Michael does that make a big difference in why so much is made of this case?

SMERCONISH: Oh, heck yes. I mean it's -- on the five-year anniversary, I hope to be sitting here so we can roll the videotape again and we can dissect this case one more time.

Here's what's most significant about the outcome now, Martin, it's the fact that the kids are not going to lose their ability to graduate. They may not participate in the ceremony, but they're still going to graduate on time. But here's the hook that can be attached. They cannot go out and profit. They can't write a book and sell movie rights about their sick behavior.

Here's Jayson Blair who committed the fraudulent acts on "The New York Times" and what is everybody saying? Well, he'll probably write a book. I mean it sums up so much about society that the big concern was that these kids would now go out and profit from the terrible conduct.

SAVIDGE: All right, we have to go. But I'm going to remind both of you as attorneys, you know that some other attorney is going to challenge that and say they can go out and do movies and books.

Thank you very much.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: They're already saying it.

SAVIDGE: Yes, I'm sure they are.

Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, thank you very much.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: And also Michael Smerconish, as always...

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: ... we thank you both for contributing to us. It was brief. Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired May 25, 2003 - 08:13   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN ANCHOR: There is a lot on our legal docket in today's legal briefs today. We are talking about a deadly police mistake, a driver's black box conviction and much, much more.
To explain this is trial attorney and CNN contributor Michael Smerconish and also Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, president of the ACLU in Miami. Thank you for being with us this morning.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Good morning.

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, PRESIDENT, ACLU-MIAMI: Good morning.

SAVIDGE: This case in New York seems extremely tragic, obviously with the death of a woman who dies, with police breaking in suspecting she's a drug dealer. What are your thoughts on this? And let me start with both of you. And pitch in any way you want. I mean how do you think this really goes down? It's a horrible mistake; a lawsuit's been filed. And it should never have happened in the minds of many people.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: I think that's right. And Michael, I'm going to jump in first here because I know you'll have something to say about this. The issue to us is these issues of the No-Knock warrants. Now, a No-Knock warrant is a warrant that allows police to enter a dwelling or home without knocking and without saying hi, this is the police open up. This No-Knock warrant was issued by a judge, but it's issued by the information provided to them by the police.

In this case the police did no homework and relied on information by a confidential informant that had proven to be unreliable in the past. In fact, this confidential informant was about to get kicked out of the confidential informant program. They did no homework, they did no research; had they done so they would have realized that this was a 57-year-old woman who was a civil servant and worked for the city.

SAVIDGE: Michael, go ahead.

SMERCONISH: Clearly, they should have done more in terms of their investigation, but the confidential informant in this case had earlier said so and so is a drug dealer and he keeps his drugs that this particular location. A couple of days there after, the police go out and they apprehend that individual and they charge him with felony drug trafficking. And it gives credibility therefore to the charges that he'd made about the location and that's how they come to this poor woman's apartment, the 57-year-old woman in Harlem. It's a bad outcome. It's a bad tragedy. They did drop the ball, but at least, there was justification for why they went to that local. And think you need to have these no-knock warrants because particularly in drug cases, it's such a dangerous environment for the cops. And you also don't want them destroying the evidence, those people who are presumably possessing the narcotics, the drugs.

SAVIDGE: All right, let's move on. We have got a black box in automobiles. I didn't even know about this. But apparently a lot of newer vehicles have this sort of technology in them, similar, but not quite the same as what you might find on an airplane. And it's been used actually to carry out a conviction in a trial.

What are your thoughts on this one? Michael go ahead, start us off.

SMERCONISH: I don't have a problem with it. Lida and I may disagree on this. It's almost as if you have a photograph of precisely what occurred at the time of a particular accident.

Now, in this case, one of the issues was the rate of speed that this individual was driving and the box said that he was driving in excess of a hundred miles an hour at the time of impact. Some might say, well, it's a self-incrimination...

SAVIDGE: Right.

SMERCONISH: ... if all of a sudden you use the box from this guy's vehicle. I don't see it that way. We measure skid marks on the roadway and we conclude how fast someone was going. If you actually know to the mile per hour how fast they were going. Why not use that information!

The Fifth Amendment doesn't extend to your vehicle; it only extends to you personally.

SAVIDGE: But do you need a warrant for this kind of information? I mean to access it?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: I would argue that you absolutely do. And here's the reason why. These little black boxes, which are the size of cigarette boxes, are a treasure trove of information for police. And the police, in this case, it was used to convict the man. And in another case, at least that we know of in Fort Myers last year, it was used to exonerate a man where the witness testimony had been that he was traveling 90 when the box showed that he was only traveling 60.

So, there's nothing wrong with the technology, it's how we use it, how we inform people about it. There's about 40 million of these things out on the road. Most people don't know that they have them. They were started in the '90s with the advent of air bags because they needed some sort of a computer in order to be able to detonate the air bag. They are not necessarily bad, but we need to regulate the information that is gathered.

SAVIDGE: Well, Michael let me ask you this, though. The automakers made the black box, but they never intended, I'm sure, that it was going to end up in a court of law. How do we know how accurate it really is for this purpose.

SMERCONISH: Martin, I think they actually developed this technology so that it would be used in a court of law. I think one of the primary objectives here was they wanted to be able to defend themselves in product liability suits. I don't think that they believed it was going to play such a dominant role in the typical intersection accident case, but they wanted to be able to defend themselves in cases involving air bags and the way in which an accident may have caused an injury or death.

I mean take the blindfold off the jury. If we know to a certainty how fast a vehicle was driving at the time of an accident, or how an impact actually occurred, why shouldn't we give that information to a jury? And if somehow it can be disputed there will be experts that can be hired who can then call it into question.

SAVIDGE: All right. Before you both go, let me just asking you hazing. We've been through this case many times before. We have got more action maybe expected today. Have they been too soft, too kind on these students as far as the ones that have been expelled but they still get to graduate although not be there in person, apparently -- Lida.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, contrast this with a couple of cases that the ACLU has handled. One out of Maine, where a ninth grader was expelled from school for taking a Tylenol and the school said that this was in violation of the zero tolerance drinking and drug policy. Or another case out of Atlanta that we handled, where a student was arrested and expelled for carrying a key chain that had a tweety bird on it when the school said the tweety bird was a weapon.

I think that we need a balance between those cases and this sort of case where students who were found drinking, who are found -- who are on videotape hitting each other, punishing each other, punching each other and land five young girls in the emergency room. We need to find a balance so that the tweety bird incident doesn't result in an expulsion and the Glenbrook incident doesn't result in a cakewalk.

SAVIDGE: But you know one of the differences here? This moment's caught on videotape. And Michael does that make a big difference in why so much is made of this case?

SMERCONISH: Oh, heck yes. I mean it's -- on the five-year anniversary, I hope to be sitting here so we can roll the videotape again and we can dissect this case one more time.

Here's what's most significant about the outcome now, Martin, it's the fact that the kids are not going to lose their ability to graduate. They may not participate in the ceremony, but they're still going to graduate on time. But here's the hook that can be attached. They cannot go out and profit. They can't write a book and sell movie rights about their sick behavior.

Here's Jayson Blair who committed the fraudulent acts on "The New York Times" and what is everybody saying? Well, he'll probably write a book. I mean it sums up so much about society that the big concern was that these kids would now go out and profit from the terrible conduct.

SAVIDGE: All right, we have to go. But I'm going to remind both of you as attorneys, you know that some other attorney is going to challenge that and say they can go out and do movies and books.

Thank you very much.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: They're already saying it.

SAVIDGE: Yes, I'm sure they are.

Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, thank you very much.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: And also Michael Smerconish, as always...

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: ... we thank you both for contributing to us. It was brief. Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com