The summary of ‘The Deposition of Cook County Lieutenant Donald Milazzo’

00:00:00

In this part of the video, the deposition of Lieutenant Donald Malaz is initiated at 11:26 a.m., on January 15th, 2019. The proceedings involve Amanda Jane Burquest as the plaintiff against Lieutenant Malaz and others. Craig Senate from Veritext acts as the videographer and Suzanne Burke from Veritext is the court reporter. The participants present state their appearances, with Solomon Rner representing the plaintiff and Assistant States Attorney Michael Gorman representing the defendants.

Lieutenant Malaz testifies about detaining Amanda Burquest in March the previous year for suspicious activity, suspected of violating a judicial order. However, it is clarified that the judicial order from Cook County applies only inside the Leighton courthouse and not at the Bridgeview Courthouse where she was detained. Malaz admits he learned about the policy of detaining people for taking pictures outside the building after the events of 9/11 but could not recall specific details or any written documentation regarding the policy. He last reviewed the judicial order shortly after the detention and confirms it pertains only within the building and not outside. Consequently, if he had known the law correctly at the time, he acknowledges that they would not have detained Burquest.

00:10:00

In this segment, the discussion revolves around the procedures for detaining individuals who are taking pictures or videos outside a building. The questioning targets a specific situation where someone is seen recording from outside, and the protocol officers should follow. The officer explains that they would approach the individual to ascertain their intentions, and if the person refuses to explain, it would be handled on a case-by-case basis. The officer mentions that detaining individuals is permissible if the action falls under “suspicious activity,” as defined by the relevant policy. The debate includes scrutinizing the policy document to identify where it specifies the authority to detain and the conditions under which such actions are justified. The segment emphasizes the criteria for suspicious activity and the procedural steps an officer might take in response.

00:20:00

In this part of the video, an intense questioning session takes place focusing on an officer’s decision to detain a person for suspicious activity, which involved taking pictures outside a building. The interviewer inquires if the officer would have acted differently if he could hypothetically go back in time. The officer insists he cannot speculate on such hypothetical scenarios. Attention shifts to specific policies and informational bulletins about detaining individuals for photography. The officer acknowledges perceived contradictions between the policies (Exhibits 1 and 2) but explains his actions were based on his understanding of suspicious activity reporting. The interviewer presses on whether the detainment was based on subjective judgment rather than objective evidence, establishing that the officer’s decisions were significantly subjective.

00:30:00

In this segment of the video, a lieutenant from Cook County is questioned about police policies and actions regarding detentions and arrests. The main points include the officer explaining the difference between official policies and informational bulletins, noting that only policies need to be followed. The lieutenant acknowledges that officers can detain individuals based on subjective suspicion and concedes limited knowledge of the Fourth Amendment beyond the prohibition of illegal searches and seizures. The questioning further reveals that the lieutenant could not recall specific events or statements from a prior interaction but admits to calling someone “crazy.” He struggles to justify the lawful basis for demanding ID, detaining, or handcuffing an individual, reiterating that actions were for “officer safety” and based on subjective suspicion. The discussion concludes with clarification about arresting versus detaining and the requirement of reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The segment highlights issues of lawful authority, procedures, and training within the police department.

00:40:00

In this segment of the video, the discussion revolves around the legality of detaining Miss Burquest for taking pictures outside a building and not identifying herself. The speaker clarifies that taking pictures outside was not covered by the judicial order. The legality of Miss Burquest’s detention and the deletion of her pictures is questioned, but definitive answers are not provided by the person being interrogated. They admit to detaining her for the pictures and not for another reason. The handling of her personal belongings, such as her purse, and whether the process was respectful is also scrutinized. Additionally, the segment delves into whether it is a crime for officers and non-officers to handcuff individuals without lawful basis, exploring scenarios based on gender, race, and other factors.

00:50:00

In this part of the video, a conversation takes place involving an officer being questioned about a detainment and subsequent search. The key points include:

1. The officer acknowledges searching a purse for ID during a detainment.
2. The questioning reveals the officer’s uncertainty about the legality of the search if the detainment was unlawful.
3. Discussions about Miranda Rights highlight the officer’s lack of knowledge about advising detainees of their rights.
4. The officer admits to not reading Miranda Rights or arresting anyone other than the person in question.
5. The officer struggles to recall specific actions and communications regarding the detainee and the legal processes followed, such as informing the judge about the detainee’s actions and handling the recording prohibition in the building.
6. The accuracy and timing of the officer’s report on the events are scrutinized for clarity and consistency.

01:00:00

In this part of the video, the discussion revolves around an incident where an individual was admonished for recording in and around a courthouse building. The key points include:

– The testimony confirms the individual was warned about recording.
– The suspicious nature of photographs taken—such as railroad yards, secure areas, and police stations post-9/11.
– The difference between “suspicious activity” and “reasonable suspicion” in relation to the Fourth Amendment.
– The questioning of the officer’s perception of suspicious activity, indicating anybody recording without clear reasons could be deemed suspicious and detained.
– It is discussed whether internal policy allows detaining individuals based on subjective suspicious behavior.
– The officer could not recall specific statements about detaining the individual for 90 days.
– A notable exchange where the officer does not remember the answers to various procedural and situational questions.
– The ultimatum given to the individual – provide identification and be released, or face potential detention.

01:10:00

In this part of the video, there is an interrogation focusing on the conflicting statements and actions of an officer regarding the detainment and search of a woman. Key points include the officer’s vague recollections and contradictions about whether the woman was obstructing their duties, the legality of the search, and the officer’s decision-making process. The officer repeatedly mentions that he was following the chief judge’s orders, which required bringing the woman in front of a judge, despite initially stating that she could leave after showing her ID. There is significant back-and-forth questioning to clarify the timeline and rationale behind the officer’s actions and decisions.

01:20:00

In this segment, the discussion revolves around a situation where a woman was given the option to show her ID and leave but refused. After that refusal, instructions were given to bring her to the judge, upon which her ID was found in her purse. The supervisor confirms that the other officers involved would have been disciplined if they disobeyed his orders. He also confirms that no one else handled the camera except him until the SD card was handed to the judge. The reason for detaining the woman stemmed from her recording outside the courthouse and not identifying herself when asked. It is noted that filming outside the building could show inside through the entrance, which could be seen as a violation of a Judicial order prohibiting filming inside the building. The supervisor acknowledges that recording the exterior is allowed under the First Amendment, but emphasizes the potential security concerns justified their actions.

01:30:00

In this segment of the video, a supervisor explains their actions in approaching and detaining an individual taking photos near a courthouse. They clarify that the concern was primarily due to potential security risks, given the sensitive nature of the courthouse environment involving domestic violence cases, trials, jurors, and witnesses. The individual refused to provide identification, raising further concern. The supervisor explains that they were acting based on orders about suspicious activity and videotaping prohibitions, although they did not have the specific order in hand at the time. The procedure involved detaining the person, which included handcuffing for officer safety, until the investigation concluded. The session wraps up with this clarification and notes on the detention process.