Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Case 2:O3—cv—O1892-ROS Document 225-3 Filed O1/O5/2007 Page1 0f2

35 ‘
r 14:58 1 investigation] It'& not a tort we're arguing. We·said this
2. repeatedly. Defendants are the ones that are casting it in
3 that light.
4 What-we care is that sergeant Moore recontaoted us
15:45:12 5 with July 31 I think it was, a month_after the event, and said,
6 "I'm doing an investigation.“ That investigation should have
7 included his securing those tapes and it didn't and that's what
8 we-want to show.
9 THE COURT: Se you are just, then, focusing on the
15:45:29 10 potential issue of spoliation, not the investigation. Thé
11 failure to investigate, the termination of the investigation,
12 because all of that is not admissible.
13 MR. TREGN: Okay. Notwithstanding your order —- and
14 I don't mean.to beat a dead horse--- we also had submitted that
15:45147 15 the lack of investigation of a PSB investigation was relevant
16 because of defendants' use of Commander Hynes, an in-house
17 commander, instead of allowing outside light and scurvy to
18 shine on what the officers did.
19 ·Onoe Your Honor ruled that the officers were making
15:46:03 20 inconsistent statements, we sent this correspondence to·defenSe
21 counsel and then to sergeant Tomory, the PSB investigator,
22 saying, "Your officers here are saying different things. You
23 should be investigating this," and that was part of the
24 defendants‘ motion.
1 5a:25 25 THE COURT: So 1et_me see if I understand. Is it
United States District Court
Case 2:O3—cv—O1892-ROS Document 225-3 Filed O1/O5/2007 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

Document 225-3

Filed 01/05/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS

Document 225-3

Filed 01/05/2007

Page 2 of 2