Arguments in San Bernardino police "ice" case heat up

[BYNAME]By Mike Cruz and Robert Rogers
[BYSOURCE]Staff Writer
[BODY]SAN BERNARDINO -- Lawyers for three men who pleaded guilty to drug charges, in a case marred by alleged police misconduct, say the court should allow them to withdraw their pleas next month.

The three men -- Carl Edward Alexander, McKinley Tarpley and Marquis Ware -- are part of a larger case that has boiled over recently with allegations of illegal search and seizure involving San Bernardino Sgt. Bradley Lawrence.

The allegations were first raised when Sgt. Mike Desrochers alleged Lawrence illegally detained Alexander and another man on July 2 during a traffic stop that preceeded a raid at a San Bernardino apartment complex.

The allegations mushroomed at a bail hearing Aug. 1, when Desrochers and Lawrence gave conflicting accounts of the arrests under oath. Days later, after a Lawrence-led raid at a motel, another officer filed a complaint. Lawrence was then put on leave.
The case is scheduled to return to court on Sept. 26.

However, prosecutors say allegations about Lawrence's conduct have no bearing on guilty pleas the defendants entered, as part of plea bargains, on July 16.
Deputy District Attorney James Hoffman countered defense claims that Alexander, Tarpley and Ware should be allowed to withdraw from their pleas, in opposition papers he filed with the court Aug. 12.

Hoffman writes that the defendants must show good cause, with clear and convincing evidence, in order to be allowed to withdraw from their pleas. A simple change of mind is not enough.

The prosecutor also denies allegations that the District Attorney's Office withheld information from the defense that may have affected the plea bargains.

"... the prosecution in the present case in no way, shape or form was suppressing evidence," Hoffman writes. "Even defendant's attorney in his motion makes it abundantly clear that Ms. Rogan provided the information at issue as soon as she was made aware of it."

Hoffman also argues that the information at issue, regarding his arrest and Lawrence's alleged conduct, does not provide Alexander with a defense and would not help his case.
With the information in hand, Alexander's only recourse would have been to file a motion for an unduly prolonged detention, according to Hoffman's opposition papers.

"However, because there was nothing of evidentiary value taken as a result of the alleged prolonged detention, there is no evidence to be suppressed and therefore this information would not have any favorable impact on this defendant's case," Hoffman wrote.

Lastly, Hoffman argues that the defendants lack of knowledge about the Police Department's internal investigation involving Lawrence is not a basis to withdraw the pleas.

The prosecutor states it impossible to know the exact subject of the investigation because it is internal to the police department.

"To assert that it involves the activities surrounding the arrest of subjects in this case is pure speculation," Hoffman wrote. "Only the administration of the San Bernardino Police Department knows what the subject matter is.

"Further, to assert that the San Bernardino Police Department should have told the District Attorney's Office who in turn should have disclosed this fact to defense counsel is simply ridiculous," states Hoffman.

Hoffman declined to comment beyond his papers opposing the defense motion.

Deputy Public Defender Sam Knudsen, who represents Carl Alexander, argues that his client should be allowed to withdraw a guilty plea he entered July 16, before he became aware that his arrest on drug charges may have been tainted by improper police tactics.

In his motion to set aside the plea filed Aug. 6, Knudsen writes that one day after Alexander entered his plea, Deputy District Attorney Lisa Rogan suggested to Knudsen that he look to withdraw based on a newspaper article she read alleging that an arresting officer may have put people "on ice." The term, Knudsen writes, denotes "detaining them at lengh, without charges and without telephone calls pending the discovery of probable cause and/or obtaining search warrants."

Knudsen argues that a guilty plea may be withdrawn when mistakes, ignorance or other factors "overreach" a defendant's judgement.

"... there is no way the defendant could have understood the gravity of not being booked as indicated in the report. Nor could his counsel conceive of neither such blatant disregard for truth, nor the officer's blatant disregard for the law he was sworn to uphold," Knudsen wrote.