When a Cop’s FALSE Testimony Turns an Unlawful Arrest Into a DISASTER!

An anonymous phone call. That was all it took. Someone called the police about a car and within the hour Gloria Serrano was in handcuffs, arrested for drunk driving. No one saw her drink. No one saw her drive badly. There was no breath test, no blood test, no failed roadside test.

The entire case rested on one officer and what she claimed she saw that night. On November 8th, 2025, Officer Laquisha Wilkins of the Colorado Springs Police Department arrested Serrano for DUI. She wrote in her report that Serrano had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and was unsteady on her feet. Under oath, she swore to all of it.

Then the defense attorney pulled out her own paperwork. He simply took the officer’s own report, her own signed affidavit, and her own body camera and laid them next to what she just said under oath. What you are about to watch is an officer get caught, line by line, until a judge says the words almost no officer ever hears, that the court cannot believe a single thing she says.

For over 30 years, I sat on the bench. An officer’s word carries weight in the courtroom, but that word has to match the paper they signed and the camera they wore. Watch what happens when it does not.

“So, I do have Gloria Serrano 25T8516. She’s present with counsel, Mr. Callaway. We’re set for a motions hearing. Yes, so filed I think June 25th, Mr. Callaway motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights.”

“Yeah, that’s right, Your Honor.”

“Okay. And it’s the one motion, right? There’s I’m not missing anything. Okay. And I believe you’ve had your discussions and we’re ready to just get started with the hearing. Is that correct?”

“The defense is ready, Your Honor.”

“We’re ready, Your Honor.”

“Okay. How many witnesses do the people have?”

“Two witnesses, Your Honor.”

“Okay. If you want to call your first witness, we’ll go ahead and get started. Thank you.”

“Call your witness.”

“If you’ll come in front of me, I’ll swear you in. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of perjury the testimony you’re about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Go ahead and have a seat.”

“Good afternoon.”

“Good afternoon.”

“Um could you go ahead and spell your name for the record, ma’am?”

“Um yes, it’s Officer Lekisha Watkins. L E K I S H A W I L K I N S.”

“Great. Thank you for joining us. Uh Officer Watkins, glad to have you here. Um and uh who do you work for currently, Officer Watkins?”

“Um the Colorado Springs Police Department.”

“Great.”

“Just speaking with Miss Serrano, got um an odor of an unknown alcoholic beverage. Um just her speech appeared like slurred and just her demeanor um seemed kind of”

“Anything about her eyes?”

“Um yeah, her eyes were um like watery, bloodshot.”

“Mhm. So at this point you were initiating a DUI investigation.”

“Yeah.”

“And did you make a decision to detain um Miss Serrano at this time?”

“Um not right at that moment.”

“When did you make that decision?”

“Um believe I stepped to my vehicle to grab some documents and then after I came back, um we spoke with her and then I think it was at that point we placed her um told her she was detained and not free to leave.”

“What did the defendant say at this point about arrest?”

“Um she said if she didn’t agree to the voluntary roadside test, then she would be arrested.”

“And was that accurate?”

“No.”

“Did you explain that to her that um the tests were voluntary?”

“I did explain that they were voluntary.”

“And and she could refuse them.”

“Yes.”

“And uh then what actions did you take?”

“Um at that point we uh placed her in custody for DUI.”

“Okay. Were there any other observations that you, um, recall from the interaction with her that, um, led you to, um, make that arrest?”

“Uh, no, just the other ones that we had, um, spoke about before.”

“Okay. Got you. How did the, um, the original call to service uh, factor into your decision to arrest her?”

“Um, not too much because it was just a reporting a third-party reporting party, um, giving information, so I had very little to go on, um, at that point, so, um, just my observations in person, uh, is what led to her decision to, um, investigate for DUI.”

“You did not receive a report that she was unsteady on her feet.”

“No.”

“You did not receive a report that she smelled like alcohol.”

“No.”

“No one reported having seen Ms. Serrano consume alcohol.”

“No.”

“No one reported seeing any alcohol containers on or around her person.”

“No.”

“Or inside any vehicles that were reported.”

“No.”

“No witness told you that Ms. Serrano had just left a bar.”

“No.”

“Or a liquor store.”

“No.”

“Or a party.”

“No.”

“Okay. Officer Watkins, there are 24 cues of impaired driving that you’ve been trained on, correct?”

“Yes.”

“Okay. Which of those 24 cues did anyone report observing with respect to Ms. Serrano?”

“Um, the RP, um, said that she saw her drive away in the vehicle.”

“Is driving away in a vehicle a cue of alcohol impairment according to your training?”

“No.”

“Okay, so I’m going to ask you again. Which of those 24 cues you just looked at, did anyone report observing with respect to Ms. Serrano?”

“None.”

“None. So, before you arrived, you had no report of bad driving.”

“Correct.”

“You had no report of any Nystagmus of impaired driving, right?”

“Correct.”

“You received information about a vehicle.”

“Yes.”

“You received the license plate number for that vehicle.”

“Correct.”

“A license plate number identifies the vehicle, right?”

“Correct.”

“It does not identify the driver of that vehicle.”

“No.”

Start with what this officer actually had before she arrived. A phone call about a vehicle, a license plate. That is it. There are 24 recognized signs of impaired driving that every officer is trained to look for. Weaving, drifting, near collisions, all of it.

The defense attorney just walked through them and asked how many were reported. None, not one. And a license plate tells you which car. It does not tell you who was driving it. There were two women on that scene. So, before she said a single word to Glorious Serrano, this officer had no report of drunk driving and no idea who was even behind the wheel.

Everything that led to this arrest came from the officer’s own eyes. So, the defense attorney is about to test those eyes against the one thing that cannot change its story, her own signed report.

“And before arriving, you had not personally seen either of the two females driving.”

“No.”

“In fact, at no point did you personally see anyone driving?”

“No.”

“You received no information from dispatch regarding which female was preparing to drive away, did you?”

“Um I believe that information was in the call screen.”

“So, if you saw the call screen, then you’d be able to recognize that, right?”

“Yeah, I should. Go.”

“And it’s your testimony that a specific female was described as being the driver. Is that your testimony?”

“Yes, if I remember correctly.”

“May I approach, Your Honor?”

“Yes.”

“Officer Wilkins, do you recognize the document I just handed you?”

“Um, yes, it’s the call screen.”

“Call screen notes, okay. I want you to point out for me where it says Gloria Serrano drove away. The call screen notes, which you’ve already said is what you were the only information you had before you arrived, does not specify which female was getting ready to leave, does it?”

“No, they did not know.”

“All it says is that a female is preparing to leave, correct?”

“Correct.”

“And again, there were two females on scene.”

“Yes.”

“And to be clear, it’s your testimony that Officer Upton contacted Ms. Serrano while she was sitting inside of her vehicle. Is that your testimony?”

“Yes.”

“May I approach, Your Honor?”

“Yes.”

“Officer Wilkins, I just handed you a copy of the report that you wrote in this case, right?”

“Yes.”

“You know that’s your report because it’s your name at the bottom, correct?”

“Correct.”

“And it has your badge number?”

“Yes.”

“Okay. Do you see the section where it says officer statement?”

“Yes.”

“You wrote that section, didn’t you?”

“Yes.”

“Okay. Let’s look at the first paragraph of that statement. I’m going to read it, I want you to tell me if I read it correctly. Officer Upton arrived first and contacted the driver later identified as Glorious Serrano with her date of birth who was standing outside the vehicle. Did I read that correctly?”

“Yes.”

“So in total there were three marked patrol cars on the scene.”

“Yes.”

“And three fully uniformed police officers present.”

“Correct.”

“At no point during your contact with Ms. Serrano did you tell her she was free to leave?”

“No, I didn’t tell her she was free to leave.”

“You didn’t tell her that she didn’t have to answer your questions.”

“No, I didn’t.”

“You didn’t tell her, ‘Hey Ms. Serrano, we’re just trying to figure out what’s going on. You can walk away if you want to.'”

“No, I didn’t say that.”

“And if Ms. Serrano had tried to walk away, you would have stopped her, wouldn’t you? Ms. Serrano was not free to leave, was she?”

“Uh she wasn’t detained at that point, so if she wanted to leave, I hadn’t told her she couldn’t.”

“So your testimony is that if she wanted to leave, that would have been fine with you.”

“Um I at that point I hadn’t contacted her specifically, so I hadn’t picked up on any indicators.”

“Okay. Do you remember testifying at a Department of Revenue hearing?”

“Yes, I do recall.”

“That was in January of this year.”

“Yeah.”

“You were there.”

“Yes.”

“I was there. You remember that?”

“I remember the call.”

“And I asked you questions. Right?”

“Yeah.”

“And you answered those questions.”

“I did.”

“And at that hearing, you were placed under oath, weren’t you?”

“I was.”

“And you swore to tell the truth, correct?”

“Yes.”

“The whole truth. Correct?”

“Yes.”

“Under penalty of perjury.”

“Yes.”

“Officer Wilkins, at that Department of Revenue hearing where you testified under oath, I asked you specifically if Ms. Serrano would have walked away, you would have stopped her. Do you remember that?”

“Objection. Uh Ms. States uh the context of this answer from what I just saw.”

“Sorry, what was the question? I’m just going to tell you guys to stop making objections, period. I will determine what weight to give the things, and I’ll make my own objections from here on in. Um you can ask this. It sounds like you’re trying to get to some impeachment, but um if we can keep going, I will set my official record.”

“Officer Wilkins, I asked you at that hearing if Ms. Serrano did try to walk away, you would have stopped her, right?”

“Yes, I see that.”

“And your answer was correct.”

“Yes.”

“One of the things you focus on in the DUI investigation is the person’s eyes, right?”

“Yes.”

“And you’re trained that bloodshot eyes can be an indicator of alcohol impairment, right?”

“Can be, yes.”

“Did you observe Ms. Serrano’s eyes to be bloodshot?”

“I did, yes. And watery.”

“Say again?”

“Bloodshot and watery.”

“Bloodshot and watery.”

“Yes.”

“Okay. You completed an express consent affidavit in this case, right?”

“Yes.”

“You signed the bottom of that?”

“Yes, I did.”

“Your signature represents that you swear under penalty of perjury that the information in the affidavit is true and correct.”

“Yes.”

“And you’d recognize that affidavit if you saw it today.”

“I would, yeah.”

“And to be clear, your testimony is that Ms. Serrano had bloodshot eyes.”

“Yes.”

“May I approach?”

“Yes.”

“Officer Wilkins, that’s the express consent affidavit you filled out, isn’t it?”

“It is, yes.”

“There’s a section on there for you to indicate what you observe with respect to someone’s eyes, correct?”

“Yes.”

“On the box that says bloodshot, you did not check that box, did you?”

“There’s no check to know.”

“Officer Upton during his conversation with you asked what you got from Ms. Serrano’s eyes, didn’t he?”

“Uh I don’t recall.”

“Would watching a portion of your body worn camera refresh your recollection as to what Officer Upton asked you regarding your observations of Ms. Serrano’s eyes?”

“Sure.”

“Officer Wilkins, you just heard Officer Upton ask you what did you get with respect to Ms. Serrano’s eyes, correct?”

“Correct.”

“And you said I didn’t really get anything.”

“Yes, I did.”

“Then he asked you specifically did you see any bloodshotness, right?”

“Yes, yes.”

“And your answer was what?”

“I said no, I didn’t get that either.”

“You said no.”

“Yeah.”

“So you did not see bloodshot eyes.”

“Well, I guess not, no. I guess that was a mistake.”

Watch this fall apart in real time. A few minutes ago, under oath, she told the court that Serrano’s eyes were bloodshot and watery. She was certain. But look at the affidavit she signed that night under penalty of perjury. The box for bloodshot eyes is blank. She never checked it.

And then it gets worse. The defense plays her own body camera from that night. On tape, another officer asked her directly if she saw any bloodshot eyes. She said no. She told them she didn’t see it. So on the stand, she said bloodshot. On the form, she wrote nothing. On the camera, she said no.

Three different answers, one officer, and a judge who just heard all three.

“But you claim that her eyes were watery. Is that what you said earlier on your testimony? Okay. Watery eyes are not a sign of alcohol impairment according to your training, are they?”

“Uh could be.”

“Um I didn’t hear what your answer was. I’m sorry.”

“Could be. Could be.”

“Okay, well, it either is or it’s not, right? According to your training, watery eyes either are or are not an indicator of alcohol impairment, right?”

“Um I don’t know.”

“Officer Watkins, I just handed you a manual that you received as part of your training, right?”

“Yes, yes, yes.”

“And that section deals with asking the officer during a DUI investigation, what do you see? Correct?”

“Yes.”

“Okay. Point to me on there where it says watery eyes.”

“It doesn’t say that.”

“Okay. May I approach? And you claim that Ms. Serrano had slurred speech.”

“It appeared slurred to me. Like I wouldn’t know what her normal is, but it appeared slurred to me.”

“Okay, which words did she slur?”

“I cannot recall. I don’t know.”

“Well, how many words did she slur?”

“I would say multiple. I can’t pinpoint an exact number.”

“Was there a specific sentence where her speech was slurred to you?”

“I don’t recall.”

“And you’d never spoken with her before.”

“Correct.”

“You’ve no idea how she sounds normally.”

“No.”

“Did you learn that she’s originally from Texas?”

“She stated that.”

“Did you notice she had a slight accent when you were speaking with her?”

“Uh but I wouldn’t know what a Texas accent is. I don’t know.”

“So, you don’t know what a Texas accent sounds like, but you know what slurred speech sounds like.”

“I would”

“How many DUI investigations have you conducted?”

“Um I don’t know the exact number. I’d say maybe 10, 15.”

“On November 8th of 2025, had you conducted more or less than five DUI investigations?”

“Um I would less maybe.”

“Less than five?”

“Possibly.”

“Okay. So, you’ve spoken to less than five possibly intoxicated drivers.”

“Yeah.”

“And it appeared to you that way based on your extensive training in DUI investigations?”

“I didn’t say I had extensive training in DUI.”

“All right. Um please tone it down a little bit, okay? Thank you.”

“So, she was not unsteady on her feet, just so we’re clear.”

“No.”

“Okay. So, then why in the express consent affidavit did you mark that she was unsteady on her feet?”

“I that maybe I’ve gotten from the other officer’s observations. I don’t recall seeing or reporting I don’t.”

“Well, no other officer signed this express consent affidavit but you, right?”

“That’s correct.”

“And it’s your document, right? It’s based on your observations, isn’t it? And you didn’t observe unsteady balance.”

“I don’t recall. I don’t believe I did.”

“Did you just mark the box here because it was another check in the box?”

Now, every reason for this arrest gets tested, one by one. Watery eyes, she admits her own training manual does not list that as a sign of impairment. Slurred speech, she cannot name a single word Serrano slurred, cannot say how many, cannot point to one sentence. And Serrano is from Texas with an accent this officer had never heard before.

Then the unsteady box on the affidavit, she admits she never actually saw Serrano stumble and may have just checked it because it was there. One by one, every box, every claim collapses. This was not an investigation, it was a form filled out to justify a decision the officer had already made.

“The odor of alcohol indicates that someone may have consumed it, right?”

“Correct.”

“It does not tell you when alcohol may have been consumed?”

“No.”

“Doesn’t tell you how much.”

“No.”

“Doesn’t tell you whether someone’s impaired by alcohol.”

“No.”

“And it certainly doesn’t tell you what someone’s BAC is, does it?”

“It does not.”

“You testified on direct that Ms. Serrano said, ‘I didn’t move far.’ Right?”

“Yes.”

“That’s what she told you?”

“Yes.”

“She never said to you, ‘I didn’t drive very far.’ Did she?”

“I don’t believe so, no.”

“Well, you heard it. You heard the conversation the DA played like 50 minutes of it for you. You didn’t hear that, did you?”

“No.”

“Ms. Serrano did not tell you ‘I didn’t get in the driver’s seat and move my car very far.’ Right?”

“No, she did not say that. If I recall, we heard that on the body worn, if I’m not mistaken.”

“I think you are. I didn’t hear it.”

“She said I moved the car not very far, something along I don’t I’m not sure. I wrote down the exact words, but I did write something about I moved the car and it indicated a very short distance. Um that was on the body worn.”

“And that’s why I’m asking Your Honor cuz I didn’t hear that. I know Mr. Klonowski said that that’s what he heard.”

“Um I heard something about moving the car. I’m happy to try to listen to that portion again. Um ‘I didn’t move it far’ is what I wrote down as what was said. And I have it in quotes in my notes, which should mean that I was taking it from the body worn. ‘I didn’t move far,’ right?”

“Yes.”

“Okay. Did you hear that, Officer Wilkins? Did you hear Ms. Serrano?”

“I heard”

“Can you listen to it again?”

“I heard it.”

“So, the statement that Serrano gave you was ‘I didn’t move far,’ right? Four words. Correct?”

“That’s what she said, yes.”

“You did not hear any mention of a car in that statement.”

“No.”

“Or any mention of driving.”

“No.”

“Or any mention of being behind the wheel.”

“No.”

“Okay.”

Here is the last piece holding this case together. To arrest someone for drunk driving, you have to prove they were driving. And what did the state have? Four words: “I didn’t move far.” That is it. No mention of a car, no mention of driving, no mention of being behind the wheel.

The officer never saw Serrano drive. No witness reported who was driving. She had a flat tire and nobody knows how it got there. The whole case rests on four words that never once mention a vehicle. And declining a roadside test, which Serrano did, is not evidence of anything. Those tests are voluntary and refusing them is not a crime.

“Those are all the questions I have. What what are those last two cues?”

“Um inappropriate or unusual behavior and appearing to be impaired.”

“And did you see any inappropriate uh or what was the other word? Inappropriate or”

“Or unusual behavior, throwing objects, arguing, etc.”

“Did you see any of that behavior from Ms. Serrano that evening?”

“Um the arguing, like closer towards the end she got argumentative.”

“And what was the next one?”

“Um appearing to be impaired.”

“And um did Ms. Serrano appear to be impaired that evening?”

“Yes.”

“My patrol.”

“Yes.”

“Do you recall a statement from that night uh from the defendant stating ‘I have a hole in my tire and I stopped in the nearest neighborhood street’?”

“Um yes.”

“Is that statement indicative of driving to you?”

“Yes.”

“Thank you. And just uh understand uh from the body cam footage and your earlier testimony, uh we did hear that you came onto the scene investigating reports of a disturbance, correct?”

“Yes.”

“But were you investigating a DUI when you first came onto the scene?”

“No, not a”

“Okay.”

“Objection, Your Honor. She said that on cross-examination she was investigating a DUI based on the 911 call.”

“Well, according to this officer, she was investigating a report of an intoxicated driver, which apparently is different, but I’ll make my ruling. Thank you.”

“When did you begin your um investigation of a DUI? Approximately.”

“Um after”

“Honestly, unless you have something new for me, I have heard more than I need to from this witness.”

“I have just I think just a couple of questions. At the beginning of your testimony, Officer, you testified you had a description of the driver, and then it was determined that that description was not in the call report that you have access to. So, at what point in time did you get a description, and how?”

“The description of the female was in the call screen. Um I believe”

“Your Honor, may I ask that”

“That you showed her the call screen? I thought we went through all of that.”

“Go ahead. You’re going to say something. Go ahead.”

“Your Honor, um we can um provide the call screen as an exhibit if you would like. Yeah, my bad.”

“I can just show the witness since you’re asking her. Or I can just answer your question.”

“But we went over that.”

“I did, and I asked her if the 911 call screen notes described who was driving the vehicle.”

“Oh, okay.”

“And the answer is no.”

“There’s a description of a driver, but not who it was?”

“No, there is a description of the females, but not which of those females as described was driving.”

“I did.”

“And how did she respond?”

“Um she said ‘I’m not taking your test,’ if I recall correctly.”

“Uh were her words perhaps more colorful than that?”

“Yes.”

“Roadside tests are voluntary.”

“Correct.”

“No one has to perform them.”

“Correct.”

“You can’t compel someone to perform them.”

“No.”

“Okay. And declining to perform roadside tests is not an indicator of impairment according to your training, is it?”

“No.”

“No further questions.”

“Okay. All right. Is Officer Wilkins free to go?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Thank you so much for your testimony. You are free to go.”

“Mitchell Upton, M I T C H E L U P T O N.”

“And uh who do you currently work for?”

“I currently work for the Colorado Springs Police Department.”

“And how long have you done that work?”

“Um I’ve been with Colorado Springs for almost 5 years. The decision, I believe, was I know that from my end of it, I could smell alcohol um on Ms. Serrano. Um after that, I basically let um Officer Wilkins take over the investigation portion of that. Yes.”

“And do you think it was enough to place her under arrest?”

“I don’t think this witness is qualified to do that. He wasn’t part of the arrest. All he did was talk to her and pass it over to the other officer who was the primary officer. So, his opinion is not relevant for my decision today.”

“Yes, ma’am. Okay.”

“Thank you.”

“Thank you. Is there any doubt in your mind that she did drive that evening?”

“No.”

“Why not?”

“Um her statements indicated that she was at least driving the vehicle when she got the flat tire.”

“Thank you so much. Miss Serrano told you that she got a flat tire. Those were her words. Right? You just listened to it.”

“Yes.”

“Okay. Miss Serrano did not say to you, ‘I got a flat tire while I was driving.’ Did she?”

“She did not say that she got a flat tire while she was driving.”

“Okay. All she said to you was, ‘I have a flat tire.'”

“That’s correct.”

“Okay. You don’t know how that flat tire occurred.”

“Uh I would say that I have a pretty good idea of how that flat tire occurred.”

“You did not observe the RAV4 strike an object.”

“I did not observe a striking object.”

“You did not observe whether anyone may have punctured that tire with an object.”

“Uh in my experience that did not look like a puncture.”

“Okay. My question was you did not observe anyone puncture that tire with an object.”

“No, I did not observe anyone puncture the tire.”

“If you observed tire damage, you don’t know when that damage occurred.”

“Um not necessarily.”

“Of the three people that you saw on the scene, you don’t know which of them drove the RAV4 that morning, do you?”

“Uh no, I do not.”

“Okay. You were asked what observations you made of Miss Serrano, and one of those was the odor of alcohol.”

“That’s correct.”

“That’s the only observation you made.”

“That’s correct.”

“And you let Officer Wilkins take over the investigation. Right?”

“Yes.”

“At no point during your interaction with her did you tell her she was free to leave. Right?”

“No.”

“You didn’t tell her she could walk away and go about her night?”

“No, I did not.”

“I think those are all the questions I have.”

“Thank you, Mr. Calloway. Mr. Klonoski, any redirect?”

“I think we heard enough from him.”

“Okay.”

“28 to 32 minutes of direct observations of numerous factors and conduct by the defendant demonstrating impairment and the defendant’s own concessions and statements that implicitly demonstrated that she had driven that evening. We would ask the court to therefore dismiss in its entirety the suppression motion, excuse me, deny in its entirety the suppression motion from defense counsel and allow this case to proceed to trial. Thank you, Your Honor.”

“You don’t know. The defense is asking the court to enforce a simple constitutional sequence. Police may investigate first and detain second, but they may not detain first and then investigate until the missing facts appear, and that’s what happened here. And again, probably one of the most notorious cases we know of, People v. Roybal, recognizes that the odor alone is not enough. And in fact, in Roybal, there was an accident plus an odor. And the court said that’s not enough. So, if an accident plus an odor of alcohol wasn’t enough in Roybal, then how is no bad driving whatsoever plus only alcohol enough here? It’s just not.

The probable cause theory in this case requires stacking assumption on assumption. Assume that Ms. Serrano was the driver. Assume that she was impaired. Assume that any impairment existed at the time of driving. And assume that the tire damage had something to do with alcohol. That’s not probable cause, Your Honor. That’s hindsight. Here, the prosecution is asking you to approve the reverse sequence. Detention first, facts later. Arrest first, certainty later. The reporting party gave the police a reason to show up.”

“I believe defense counsel stated that there’s no bad driving in this case. Uh here we had the defendant um implicitly acknowledging that she’s driving down the street on a flat tire. I do think that that type of driving is”

“She said she got a flat tire.”

“Yeah, I”

“She was stopped.”

“And I moved it down the street. Yes, Your Honor.”

“Well, because the other person told her to move.”

“Yes, Your Honor.”

“That’s what the testimony showed.”

“Yes, Your Honor.”

“The reporting party didn’t want them there anymore.”

“Yes, Your Honor. I agree. There’s, as we said, indications uh from the NHTSA manual, at least two of them, uh inappropriate or unusual behavior, as well as appearing impaired, that justify that probable cause determination beyond what Roybal says. Again, we would ask Your Honor to uh deny the motion to suppress uh in its entirety. Thank you.”

“Motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights. I’ve heard the testimony of the two witnesses, heard arguments of counsel. There are a couple different issues, I think initially, the reasonable suspicion issue, uh whether or not this started as a consensual encounter, um and reasonable suspicion was developed, uh or whether it was non-consensual to begin with and then the issue of probable cause.

So, I am finding that that initial contact with Officer Upton was consensual. He then gets a couple of things from Ms. Serrano. He smells an odor of an unknown alcoholic beverage and she’s next to the vehicle that was identified. She makes some statements about this is her vehicle. She had a flat tire. Um and I believe she said, ‘I parked it here.’ There was a discussion about moving the vehicle. And based upon those comments, I’m finding that then reasonable suspicion was developed to look into this further.

You have someone who has indicated a concern about an intoxicated driver. Then there’s the odor. Then there’s some comments that could be interpreted as that person drove. So, there’s reasonable suspicion to continue. Officer Wilkins comes in. I am not finding Officer Wilkins’ testimony incredible as a matter of law, but I’m finding it incredible for purposes of this hearing.”

This is a moment you almost never see. The judge just declared the officer’s entire testimony incredible, not believable, and said she cannot consider a single thing the officer told her. Think about how rare that is. Judges give police the benefit of the doubt as a matter of routine. This judge did the opposite. She threw out the officer’s testimony completely.

And once you remove everything this officer said, what is left? An odor of alcohol and maybe somebody drove. The judge says it herself. That is not probable cause. It is barely reasonable suspicion, and you cannot arrest someone on barely.

“She had numerous inconsistencies, and quite frankly, um very concerning statements. I don’t know if it was simply that she’s inexperienced, maybe she didn’t recall, maybe she didn’t prep um for this motions hearing properly. But, to say that she saw bloodshot watery eyes when she clearly didn’t, um is a real problem. Um to put in that someone was unsteady without remembering why she put that in, potentially she heard that from the third officer that I didn’t hear from, but the two officers who testified didn’t see um any unsteadiness.

And I don’t find her credible that Ms. Serrano was slurring because and I typically give great deference to officers at motions hearings because they’re right there. But, usually what happens is that they’re seeing something that we can’t quite see on a body worn. I could hear Ms. Serrano, I could understand Ms. Serrano, and there was absolutely no slurring, and I don’t know how this officer could have testified that way. So, I really can’t consider anything she says.

So, now we’re in a position where we’re moving forward with an arrest. We have no FSTs because they’re voluntary, and she said no. I’m a little concerned that it sounds like she was asked three times, and she said no three times. One should have been enough. Um and then, I have that, I have an odor. Not not really much other of a description of an odor, just an odor of an unknown alcoholic beverage. And she may have driven. There’s a flat tire. We don’t know how she got a flat tire. We can speculate, but we can’t for purposes of justice.

Um and so I’m left with an odor of alcoholic beverage and maybe somebody drove. That’s all the evidence I have left and that is not enough for probable cause. Though enough for reasonable suspicion, but not enough for probable cause. So, what I need your help with, Mr. Callaway, is in granting your motion partially, um we’re looking at suppressing anything that came at the point of arrest further. So, um remember that reasonable suspicion is a very low standard and quite frankly, I am barely finding that today.”

“And that’s what we’re left with.”

“The reasonable suspicion portion. That’s it.”

“So, and that’s what I’m struggling with is I don’t know if it was an invalid arrest because there was no probable cause, does that then negate the obstruction and the resisting arrest charges?”

“It would, Your Honor. I can’t form the basis for those charges.”

“Okay.”

“So, you’re agreeing with Mr. Callaway.”

“To, Your Honor.”

“Right.”

“And if we think about how cases originate in the first place, you have to have probable cause before charges can be brought at all.”

“Right.”

“So, if there is if the court is finding there is no probable cause to support a lawful arrest for DUI, then I think the court has to dismiss the DUI charge and I’m happy to make that motion right now.”

“That was my initial instinct and then I felt like I was going too far because you filed a motion to suppress. So, are you changing that to a motion to dismiss?”

“Based on the court’s ruling today finding no probable cause for a lawful arrest for DUI, then I am making an oral motion to dismiss the charge of DUI.”

“And Mr. Klunowski, your response?”

“You’re finding, Your Honor, that there’s no probable cause based off of the uh the testimony here today. The state does have”

“Well, you had to prove it today. That’s you know, this is where we were. And so, I and I’m sorry to be confusing. It’s just when this was filed as a motion to suppress as opposed to a motion to dismiss, that’s what threw me off and I have to rule on what’s requested and this is my ruling.

Um but my finding that there’s no probable cause in the past when I’ve made that finding, I have dismissed the DUI charges. But I had a motion to dismiss in front of me and now I think Mr. Callaway has amended that based upon my ruling today. But I think we need to address that. I honestly, Mr. Klenosky, I’m happy to hear your argument, but I don’t know how it survives when I found no probable cause.”

“And burden of proof is on the prosecution.”

“I don’t think it can. Um so, I will go ahead and dismiss counts one and two. I don’t think I can dismiss the other counts. I know it’s all interrelated. There’s no probable cause for the DUI, but I think the other three counts you’re going to have to sort that out.”

“As Your Honor said, there is an arrest even if it’s unlawful even if it’s found to be unlawful by lack of probable cause, the the actions of the defendant in reaction to that arrest are potentially still”

“I Yeah, I would Yeah.”

“Is not uh the people are not um dismissing those counts.”

“No, and I’m not asking you to. Um so, I will dismiss counts one and two. We’re left with counts two, three and four. No.”

“Three, four, five.”

“Four and five.”

“Four, five.”

“Sorry, it’s been a really long week. Um careless driving, obstruction, and resisting arrest remain and then the DUIs are dismissed.”

The DUI charges dismissed. The judge found no probable cause for the arrest and Glorious Solano walked out of that courtroom the same day. The officer was not caught by a clever argument. She was caught by her own paperwork. Every claim she made under oath, the defense answered with a document she signed herself.

The judge did not rule against the officer because the officer was rude, or aggressive, or cruel. She ruled against her because the officer’s word did not match the evidence. And in a courtroom, the word of a badge is not supposed to be worth more than the truth. This is what the inside of the justice system really looks like.