Are you familiar with the Fourth Amendment, by the way? Vaguely. What crime did you have probable cause to believe that Ms. Berquist committed? Have you ever read anybody the Miranda rights? No. You've never read anybody their Miranda rights? No. Have you ever arrested anybody? No. Other than Ms. Berquist? No. She's the only person you've ever arrested? Yes. This video contains the deposition of a lieutenant involved in a wrongful arrest. Amanda Berquist routinely photographed and recorded her surroundings, and for years it had never been a problem. This changed in 2018 when she was recording the courthouse in Cook County. Berquist was surprised when she was approached by Lieutenant Donald Milazzo, who asked her who she was and what she was doing. The questions confused Berquist, who did not believe she was doing anything wrong. She refused to give her name or explain what she was doing. Milazzo was concerned. There was always the risk that someone was using her to plan a shooting or other attack, and her unwillingness to answer his questions only set off more red flags in his mind. He chose to bring her in for investigation, a choice which Berquist believed violated her constitutional rights. She brought charges against the department and all the officers involved. We are going on the record at 11:26 a.m. on January 15th, 2019. Please note that the microphones are sensitive and may pick up whispering, private conversations, and cellular interference. Please turn off all cell phones or place them away from the microphones as they can interfere with the deposition audio. Audio and video recording will continue to take place unless all parties agree to go off the record. This is media unit number one of the video recorded deposition of Lieutenant Donald Malazzo taken by counsel for plaintiff in the matter of Amanda Jane Bergquist versus Lieutenant Donald Malazzo, Jennifer Jennifer Larson, James I'm sorry. Barbaro I'm sorry. That's okay. Lieutenant Donald Yep, Malazzo Jennifer Larson James Barbaro at all filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois bearing case number 18 CV 03619. This deposition is being held at 10220 South 76th Avenue, Bridgeview, Illinois. My name is Craig Sennett from the firm Veritex and I'm the videographer. The court reporter is Suzanne Burke from the firm Veritex. I am not authorized to administer an oath. I'm not related to any party in this action nor am I financially interested in the outcome. Counsel and all present in the room and everyone attending remotely will now state their appearances and affiliations for the record. Solomon Radner on behalf of the plaintiff Miss Amanda Bergquist who is present and seated to my right. Assistant State's Attorney Michael Gorman on behalf of the defendants. Will the court reporter please swear in the witness? Do you want to raise your right hand and be sworn, please? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the I do. Do you recognize the young lady seated to my right? Yes. And who is she? Amanda Bergquist. And when did you come to know her? March of last year. And how did you come to know her? We observed her outside. We stopped her and detained her. Why did you detain her? For suspicious activity. What crime did you suspect her of committing? We suspected her of violating the judicial order. Videotaping in and around the building. And did you say and around the building? Yes. Mulazzo sounds slightly hesitant about his reasoning for detaining Berquist. Does the judicial order actually say the words and around or is that your own words? That was what we were told at the time. Who told you that? I don't recall. Well, it's very important to know, so I need you to really dig deep and try to remember who told you that the policy is to detain people taking pictures outside of the building, please. I'm going to object. He was just asked. He was just answered. He said he doesn't remember. What could you do to help us to to help yourself remember? Objection vague. I'd like an answer. I don't know. Are there any emails you could look through? Not that I can recall. Text messages? No. Facebook messages? This is the standard pers- policy dating back to after 9/11. So you received some sort of training or was it a phone call? How is it that you first learned after 9/11 that you're supposed to detain people taking pictures outside of the building? That was the policy that we were told back then. Back when? After 9/11. Okay, so you you were told this in 2001? Approximately. And you haven't been told that since? Not that I can recall. How many other people that you can think of have been detained for taking pictures outside of the courthouse since 2001? I couldn't answer that. Any that you can think of? There have been other reports done, yes. Okay. Um when's the most recent one that you can think of? I don't know. All right. And your testimony is that you were w- told there was a a written policy? How is it that this policy was conveyed to you that you're supposed to detain people outside of the building taking pictures? It was just a standing policy we had. Did you hear my question? Can you repeat it? Sure. How is it that you became aware of the policy? Did somebody tell you? Did somebody post it? Was it in an email? If I just back I remember it would have been the chief deputy, Robert Beavers. Okay. And when would that have been? After 2001. Where is Robert Beavers now? He's dead. When did he die? I don't recall. Uh-huh. Did he only tell you or did he tell other people also? The only person Lo Russo can think of to back up his claim is dead. This is a question he knew he would be asked and he should have prepared a better answer. I recently released another highly intense video on my Patreon, an explosive altercation between two cops where tension escalated so quickly resulting in a drawn gun and a devastating gunshot in a mere 26 seconds. Witness the events unfold as two officers engage in a fight that turns deadly. Watch this video and more at patreon.com/stranger stories plus. No, it was in Um I don't think we're out of a meeting or something like that. I don't really recall. But you definitely recall that however it is he told you he included that you're supposed to detain people taking pictures outside of the building. Right? If they were, yes. All right. Um, was there anything in in writing about this? I don't recall. All right. Have you discussed this case with anybody else in preparation for today other than your lawyer? No. All right. Have you reviewed anything? Just my offense incident reports. You didn't review the actual policy or the judicial order that you referred to? No. Milazzo is poorly prepared. He is relying on being able to use being unable to remember as an excuse. But that can only be used so often before it looks like he is deliberately avoiding giving an answer. Okay. Have you looked at the judicial order since uh March? Yes. All right. When did you look at it? From the time, well, okay. You arrested Ms. Bergquist on I think it was March 28th, 2018, right? Correct. Okay. Um, after you arrested her, did you look at the order that day? No. How soon after the arrest did you look up the order to see what it actually said? I don't recall. Okay. Was it Was it very soon after? Was it only after you got served with the lawsuit? Can you help me out at all? Cuz it's almost a year later. Again, I can't recall when we when I looked at it. Do you remember if it was hot or cold outside? I don't. Do you remember where you looked it up? I don't recall. Did you ask somebody to bring it to you or did you look it up yourself? I believe it was sent to us by our main offices. So, when you say it was I'm sorry. By a chief of courts office. What's What's that person's name? At that time I think it would have been Eddie Avant. And he sent it to you by way of email, text message. How did he send it to you? I don't recall. Is it documented somewhere? Is what documented? That he sent this to you. Is there a note somewhere indicating that he sent it to you? Is there a text message, a phone call, an email, anything that would point to him actually sending you this judicial order? And again, we're talking after Ms. Berkowitz was arrested. I can't answer that for sure. Okay. Uh you've had a chance to review the order since the arrest? I read it back then, yes. Okay. And does it say in and around the building? It does not. Right. It says in the building, right? Yes. Right. Because in the building is where the order pertains to, right? Correct. Outside of the building is public and anybody could take pictures there all day and all night, right? Correct. In fact, Ms. Berkowitz could go outside right now and do exactly what she was doing back on the day that you arrested her. And if you saw her doing it, what would you do today? I'm going to object. Calls for speculation. Can't answer it if you understood the question. We probably would not have detained her. Would not have detained her. So if you would have actually known the law, you would not have detained her, right? Well, right now we would know what she was doing out there. But at the time we didn't know if she was videotaping people coming out, videotaping witnesses, videotaping people who were involved in domestic violence, videotaping inside the door where the post were. We didn't know that. Any of those examples you just gave, if that's what you thought she was doing, would you arrest her then? Then? Now. Would you arrest her now? Now I know who she is and I know what she's doing. Forget her. Let's say somebody else is outside. We get done with the deposition, you walk outside or you look outside your window and you see somebody filming the building. Are you going to go over and detain that person or not? I'm going to object again. Calls for speculation. I'd like an answer. Uh unless I instruct you not to answer, you can still answer. I just So again, the question just so that we have it question answer and the objection is noted. If you look outside your window right now, today, January 15th, 2019, and you see somebody standing there taking pictures of the building, taking video of the building, what would you do? We're still going to approach them to find out what they're doing. And what if they don't want to tell you? What would you do then? Well, again, we would handle it in case-by-case incident. Okay. Is there any situation in which the person just says, "I'm not talking to you." and you would detain them now, now that you know the actual order? I'm going to object again. It's calling for speculation. You can answer if you understand. I can't say. All right. Well, let me let me ask you this. Are you armed right now? Yes. Are you going to pull out your gun and shoot me right now? I would to object. That's That's argumentative. That's harassing. Let's not do that. Although Mulazzo's lack of solid answers has to be frustrating, the lawyer is not helping matters by introducing a hypothetical question that is so disproportionate to the situation. Are you telling him to not answer that question? No, he can answer it, but I'd like an answer to do that. What was the question again? Right now, are you going to pull out your gun and shoot somebody? Yes or no? I'm going to object to the form foundation. What What is the question? You're going to pull out your gun and shoot someone? it. And the reason you wouldn't do it is because it's illegal, right? Correct. asking you to speculate about what you would do? You're asking me to speculate on what? Whether I would shoot you or not? Yeah, you were able to answer that question very quickly and easily. Without your attorney objecting Excuse me. I'm going to object. Excuse me. Again. Excuse me. This is harassing. Without your attorney objecting that I'm that I'm asking you to speculate. There are specific determinations on whether or not I can use deadly force. Okay, excellent. Now, let's go back to my example. You look outside the window, you see somebody pointing a camera at the building, just like Amanda was in March of 2018, and videoing the building. Are you going to detain that person or not? I'm going to again object. It's a call for speculation. Right. Speculate. In that situation, there are no determinant prerequisites or ways to know whether or not we would do that. Doesn't say if they videotape this, you can do this. If you don't, you can do this. With lethal lethal force, it's all documented. Excellent. Okay, now it's documented for this also, isn't it? You get to detain people if they're recording in the building, right? Yes. Is there a policy that tells you when you're allowed to detain somebody outside of the building? If suspicious activity, yes. Did you hear the question? Did you hear my answer? Did you hear my question? I'm not going to answer your questions today. Okay, then I'm not sure. You're going to have to repeat your question. My question was, do you know the policy that tells you if and when you're allowed to detain somebody taking pictures outside of the building? I'm going to object. It was just asked and answered. I'd like an answer, please, this time. Repeat your question again. Do you know if there is a policy that tells you when you are allowed to detain somebody for taking pictures outside of the building? If it falls under suspicious activity, there is procedures to follow. Okay. What constitutes suspicious activity under this policy? Well, we're responsible for a lot of people here and safety of this building. So, if we feel that somehow it's it could be a safety risk, we can detain. And what wouldn't there have to be something other than just taking pictures for you to decide that it's suspicious and you need to detain the person? What how would we know that they were doing anything other than that? Well, what I'm asking you is, why do you get to detain somebody unless you do know? I'm not following your question. Okay, I'm asking you a very, very simple question. Let me ask it this way. Okay. Are you allowed to detain people for taking pictures outside of the building, yes or no? If it falls under suspicious activity, then we can detain people and find out what they're doing and who they are. And is that a policy, a Cook County Services Department policy? Suspicious activity, yes. Yeah, policy 172, right? Correct. Suspicious activity reporting, right? Is that the policy? Correct. Can I have have a few markers, please? The entire case hinges on whether or not Mulazzo would be able to detain or arrest someone in those circumstances, and he is not going to give a definitive answer. Suspicious behavior is a very broad term and has the potential to be abused. I'm all set. Yeah. All right, thank you. I'm going to hand you what's been marked as exhibit one. And I'd like you first to identify this document, please, and for For record, this is Bates stamped CCSAO Bergquist 000013. Is that the policy that you're talking about? Yes. Okay. Please I'm going to hand you my highlighter. I'm going to ask you please to highlight the portion there where it tells you that you're allowed to detain people for taking pictures outside of the building. Okay, excellent. So, I see that there's something on the first page that you highlighted. Two things on the second thing on the second page that you highlighted. And well, the third page is mainly blank, so nothing highlighted there. All right. Now, the first thing that you highlighted is, and I'm going to read exactly what you highlighted, "Examples of suspicious activity may include, but are not limited to Did I read that correctly? Correct. Okay. Where does it say there that you get to detain people? And I'm going to hand it back to you so you can show me. And this time highlight please where it says you get to detain people. It does not say it in that paragraph. Excellent. Where does it say it? Use the highlighter. Down under reporting and investigation. Okay. So, now we're moving to the second page. You highlighted two things. One thing over here says that the responsibilities of the respective department head include, but are not limited to Um then the next thing is 172.4 reporting and investigation. You highlighted these words. "Any member receiving information regarding suspicious activity should take any necessary, immediate, and appropriate action." And that's the end of the highlighting. And your testimony obviously is that this authorizes you to detain people who are acting in a way that you feel is suspicious, right? Yes. And just so that I understand this correctly, if right now we can go back in time and replay exactly what happened on the day that you arrested Ms. Bergquist. So, now we're back to that moment where you don't know her and you don't know what she's doing. But, you do get to to go back and decide if you're going to arrest her. Are you going to arrest her or not? I'm going to object again. This uh calls for speculation. You can answer. Since Molazzo believes that he has a right to detain Berkowitz, he sees no reason why he would change his decision. And before we continue, I just wanted to say thank you for watching. Today's video has no sponsor. So, if you could subscribe to the channel, that would be extremely appreciated. You're asking me if it happened tomorrow, what would I do? That's what I asked you. Okay. If you could go back in time to the day that you arrested her, would you still arrest her? So, you're asking me if I can go back in time? Yeah. I don't know how I could do that. Okay. Did you understand my question? I did, and you're asking me to suppose whether or not I can go back in time. I can't. So, you can't tell me if you would still arrest her? I can't tell you what would happen on that day if I went back in time, no. Okay. Um are you Is this an attempt to be funny? Not a bit. Are you trying to answer my questions? I'm trying to answer your questions. You really can't figure this out because you can't wrap your head around time travel. I'm going to object again. I mean, uh I'm going to object. This is getting to be harassing again. I mean, is this what the question is? Hypothetical time travel backwards? Is that really how you interpreted the question? Is that what you're asking? If you could go back in time, would you do it differently? Is that not what you're asking? Yeah, that is what I asked him. Okay, well I don't think that asked him to do time travel. It's asking him to speculate. Okay. So, I'm objecting So, I'm objecting to speculation. And I'm objecting that it's harassing as well. Excellent. I'm harassing. Thank you. If you could go back in time and not arrest her, would you arrest her or not? I can't say what I would do. Okay. Do you feel that the arrest of her was proper or not? The detainment was proper. The detainment was proper. What What information did you receive regarding suspicious activity? I'm not sure what the question means. Okay. part that you highlighted here says, "Any member receiving information regarding suspicious activity should take any necessary, immediate, and appropriate action." What I'm asking you is what did Ms. Berquist do? Or what information did you receive regarding suspicious activity? The fact that she was videotaping the building and possibly inside the doors we is suspicious. Okay. Is it against the law to do that? Not necessarily. Is it ever against the law to do that? No. Thank you. So, if you detain somebody for doing something which is not against the law, isn't that an unlawful detainment? Not if we're required to do a report and we can't justify what they were doing there. Okay. So, are you familiar with the Cook County Sheriff's Office Strategic Operations Center Informational Bulletins? Do you know what those are? Yes. There's one that's titled Photographing Exterior of County Facilities. Are you aware of that? Yes. Okay. I'm going to hand you what's been marked as Exhibit 2. And this is Bates-stamped CCSAO Berquist 000 016 and 17. Give me that. Find a spot that it doesn't obstruct any of the words and I'm going to ask you to take this document. I'm also going to give you my highlighter again. Tell me if there's anything there that allows you to detain people for taking pictures. All right. You highlighted date of information June 20th, '18 and date of report June 20, '18. Did you understand my question? I did. Okay. So, I'm going to hand it back to you again. Okay. And the question is, is there anything in here that allows you to detain people for taking pictures outside of the building. Okay, the answer to it is this bulletin came out after the fact. So that you what you're saying is that this modified the county's policy. I did not have this bulletin in my hands in order to make a decision. Did you hear my question? I don't know if it modified their policy or not. All I know is I did not have the bulletin in my hands on March what is it? 28th to make a decision. Does exhibit two, the informational bulletin, contradict in any way the suspicious activity reporting policy 172 that's marked as exhibit one? Okay. And I'll give them both back to you. Sure. All right, you just highlighted something else on exhibit one. This says the policy was issued on June 1st, 2018 and shall become effective upon issuance. Okay, you must not be understanding my question. What I'm asking you is exhibit one, suspicious activity reporting, your testimony is that this allows you to detain people taking pictures outside, right? Correct. Okay. Exhibit two, does this allow you to take picture detain people of taking pic Does exhibit two, the informational bulletin, allow you to detain people for taking pictures outside of the building? What I'm saying is that both of those bulletins came out after the fact. I did not have those at the time to make a decision. I didn't ask you that. Did you hear the question? What was the question? You want to know if it has the information in there that you're looking for. No. Okay. So let me explain the question. Question is very simple. Is there anything in exhibit two that gives you the authority to detain people for taking pictures outside of the building? You have my highlighter, please highlight the part that talks about that. The deposition has become less about answering questions and more about how Milazzo can creatively avoid them. So, if I understand your testimony correctly, exhibit one gives you authority to detain people for taking pictures outside. Exhibit two does not give you authority to do that, right? Correct. Don't they contradict each other in that regard? Okay. Yes. They do. Okay. So, if if they contradict each other, then which one should we look at? Which one Which one do we listen to? Exhibit one or exhibit two? The bulletins are just bulletins. The other ones are policy. Is it possible that you're just not understanding the suspicious activity reporting? When you think that it tells you that you get to detain people for taking pictures? Okay. So, you're asking my interpretation of it? Yeah. Okay. My interpretation is yes, I can detain. Okay. I'm asking you, rather than saying that we have two opposing documents here put up by the same county, isn't it possible that really they don't contradict each other? And the explanation here is simply that you don't understand exhibit one. The suspicious activity reporting policy. Okay. And again, both of those came out after the fact. I did not have those to go back and utilize to make a decision. What question did I just ask you? Okay. Your question My answer to your question is I don't know. Okay. What question? What question are you saying you don't know the answer to? You wanted to know Can you repeat the question, please? Do you not know the question? Repeat it. Okay. Fine. The question is very simple. Isn't it possible that exhibit one and exhibit two don't contradict each other, and that the explanation for why you think they do is that you don't understand exhibit one? No. It's not possible. Rather than risk looking ignorant, Milazzo refuses to entertain the possibility that he did not understand the policy. It's not possible. Okay. Because in your mind, exhibit one, suspicious activity reporting policy 172, allows you to detain people taking pictures outside if you believe that it's suspicious. Correct. Okay. Is there any objective component to that, or is it only subjective? Subjective. Completely subjective. So, if I'm standing outside taking a picture, and you feel that my shirt is suspicious, you can detain me for that. My to object again. Calls for speculation. What kind of shirt are you wearing? Regular blue button-down shirt. Okay, I don't find anything suspicious about that. you do? Then you're allowed to detain me, right? I'm going to object again. Calls for speculation. Do I get an answer? You want to know if I would object to your shirt? No, that's not what I asked you. I asked you I'm trying to use it as an example, but it doesn't have to be an example if you don't want it to be. If there's something your testimony is that it's completely subjective. It's up to whichever officer is looking if that officer subjectively believes that's suspicious, you get to detain that person. That's your testimony, right? If we feel that it somehow it could interfere with the security of this building and the people in it, yes. Did Did you again, did you hear my question? That was my answer. Okay, so I'm going to ask you another question. Is there any objective component to it or is it strictly subjective? Explain the difference. Okay. Do you know the difference between objective and subjective? I'd like to hear what you what you're asking me. Do you not know the difference between objective and subjective? Okay, can you ask the question? I don't have to answer your questions today. Okay. I asked you a question. Do you know the difference? understanding your question then. Okay, do you know the difference between objective and subjective? Yes. Okay, what is the difference in your own words? One is concrete and one is um I can't think of another word for it. Which one is concrete, objective or subjective? Okay, so objective is concrete. All right. Subjective is how you personally feel about something, right? Perception. Perception. Your own perception. Right? Correct. Not based on any objective evidence, but based on your own subjective opinions and beliefs of what's happening, right? Okay. Okay. So, what I'm asking you is, and I just want to make sure I understand this cuz you're a lieutenant, right? Yes. How many ranks are there above lieutenant in Cook County? Ranks? Actual merit ranks? Yeah. How many How much higher do we get? It's the It's the last merit rank. So, you're the highest? Yes. Congratulations. So, as a lieutenant, you're telling me that these policies that I'm looking at allow a police officer to detain anybody who they subjectively believe is acting suspicious. Well, first of all, those aren't both policies. Okay. Did you hear the question I just asked you? Yes. Can you please answer it? I did. They're not both policies. Policy 172 is the policy we have to follow. The informational bulletin you don't have to follow? It's just informational. Who writes the informational bulletins? I have no idea. But you don't have to follow them. They're just for information. Did you hear my question? We follow the policies. Do you have to follow them? Do you have to follow the informational bulletins? No. We're ordered to follow the policies. What does U / / L E S stand for? Do you know? No. Do people have the right to uh, photograph the outside of the building? This building, this Cook County Courthouse? Yes. Okay. Um, if I understand your testimony correctly though, if they're doing that, and any police officer subjectively believes that they're acting suspicious, that person could be detained. That's your testimony, right? Yes. So, even if they're not actually doing anything suspicious, if there's something that they're doing which the officer subjectively believes is suspicious, he gets to detain that person, right? Yes. Okay. Are you familiar with the Fourth Amendment, by the way? Vaguely. What does it say in your own vague terms? Uh, no illegal search and seizure. Right, unless there's probable cause. Or That's about all I know. Okay. All right, good enough. You said that's about all I know. All right, um, now, there was somebody else who asked you the same question that I just asked you about your familiarity with the Fourth Amendment, uh, who's in this room right now. Do you know who that person was? My client, Ms. Bergquist asked you that, didn't she? I don't recall. She asked you, "Are you familiar with the Fourth Amendment?" You don't remember that? No. Okay. Did you watch any videos to prepare for today's deposition? No. Um, since the lawsuit was filed, have you watched any videos? Yes. Which videos have you seen? Uh, the video that was posted, uh, mine, and Sergeant Larson's body cam. Excellent. And on that video, you don't remember you asking Ms. Bergquist, I'm sorry, you You remember Ms. Bergquist asking you if you're familiar with the Fourth Amendment? I don't recall. All right. If I tell you that your answer was, "Oh, great. Why do we always get the crazies?" Would you dispute that? No. Does that sound like something you would say to somebody? That's something I did say that day, yes. So, you remember saying that? Yes. Okay. Do you remember saying that in response to the question, "Are you familiar with the Fourth Amendment?" No, I just remember saying it. Why is it that you felt she was one of the crazies? Well, when people act in a way that is not in their best interest. How was she acting that was not in her best interest? Well, at any time all she had to do is identify yourself, we could have done our report, and everything could have gone the own And if if somebody were to threaten you that unless you comply with their demands, they're going to put you in handcuffs, would you automatically necessarily comply with their demands? Yes. would? That's pure speculation. He was able to answer. So, so you would? So, even if even if there's somebody who is acting as a law enforcement officer giving you an unlawful order threatening you with detainment or arrest or 90 days jail if you don't comply with their unlawful demands, you would still comply? Yes. All righty. Is that what you expected her to do? To comply? Yes. What lawful basis was there for you to demand her ID? Identification. You're right. We were looking for identification, find out why she was there and what she was doing. Did you hear the question I just asked you? I That was my answer. What question did I just Did you just answer? What justified asking for her ID? What lawful basis was there for you to ask for her ID? I don't know. What lawful basis was there for you to demand her ID? I don't know. What lawful basis was there for you to put her in handcuffs in response to her not giving you her ID? I don't know. Was there one? I don't know. Doesn't there have to be a lawful basis for you to put somebody in handcuffs? If we're detaining them for investigation, then we're going to put them in handcuffs for officer security, yes. For what lawful basis? What lawful basis was there for you to put her in handcuffs? I don't know. Okay, well, let me ask you this. Would you agree with me that the only time you get to arrest somebody is if you have probable cause that they committed a crime. Yes. Okay, excellent. What crime did you have probable cause to believe that Ms. Burke was committed? At the time we we I believe she was violating the judicial order. At the time and was acting suspiciously and for that reason I detained her to for further investigation. Okay. Um I'm not sure you understood my question. My question was what crime did you have probable cause to believe she committed? At that time I believe she was violating a judicial order. Mulatos struggles to come up with a good reason why he found Burke's behavior suspicious. We believe she was acting suspiciously and we detained her for further investigation. Okay, well, you arrested her, right? Detained. You didn't arrest her? We detained her for investigation. You didn't ever at any point arrest her? We never processed any arrest, no. I didn't ask you that. I asked you if if you at any point arrested her. I didn't ask you about processing arrests. Well, that judge calls for a legal conclusion. Did you arrest her? We detained her. Did you hear my question? I did. Did you arrest her? It's a yes or no. No. What's the difference between arrest and detain? I don't know. Okay. So, even though you don't know the difference between detain and arrest, your testimony here today is that you detained her but did not arrest her? Yes. Is there any training required to become a to become a lieutenant in Cook County? It's a yes or no. Yes. That's good. What training did you get before you had to become a lieutenant? Well, actually, let me strike that question and ask you this one. As a lieutenant, you are a supervisor to other people, right? Yes. Okay, because you work in in the Cook County Sheriff's Office, right? Yes. And that's a paramilitary organization, isn't it? Yes. Okay, so there's a rank, right? Yes. And uh there's a chain of command. Yes. And lieutenants are pretty high up on that chain of command, right? Yes. Okay, so how many people at any point would you say you have control over in that chain of command? In this facility? Anywhere in Cook County. Well, that would vary by what facility I was in. How many people answer to you in this entire county? Just this facility. Let's say just this facility, sure. 55. Okay, so 55 people answer to you. What would you do if one of those people said to you, "What's the difference between arrest and detain?" What would your answer be? We'd call legal. Mr. Gorman, seated to your left? No. Sheriff has their own legal. Oh, okay. Their own legal who helps them understand things like the difference between arrest and detain? Yes. Got you. Was there a lawful basis to handcuff her? Yes. Okay, what was that lawful basis? Officer safety. Got you. Okay, now the the in order to detain somebody, would you agree with me that you need reasonable suspicion that the person is committing a crime? Yes. Okay, great. What crime did you have reasonable suspicion to believe Ms. Berquist was committing when you detained her? We believe she was violating a judicial order for the building. The judicial order which said you're not allowed to take pictures in a building. Yes. Because you thought it said in and around the building. Yes. But in reality, taking pictures outside the building is not included in that judicial order, is it? Found out that later. Is it? It's not. No. Good. So, was your detainment of Ms. Berquist lawful or unlawful? I would object to that. It calls for a legal conclusion. I can't make a lawful conclusion. You can't answer that question? answer that question. I just want to make very certain about this. I'll give you an opportunity to take a break and confer with your counsel before we proceed. I don't want to get another answer at trial. I want to make sure that your answer I get today is the same answer I hear at trial. Okay? So, do you want to take a moment to confer with your attorney before you answer that? No. Okay. So, your answer is you don't know. Yes. Was Ms. Berquist for taking pictures? Yes. And for not identifying herself. Right. Is there a law that requires people to identify themselves when requested by law enforcement? I don't know. Okay. Did you delete her pictures? No. Who did? Identifying yourself is not required, but it is still seen as suspicious. Don't know. You don't know who deleted her pictures? No. Mulazzo doesn't even know who deleted the photos from Berquist's camera. Another fact he should have researched before the deposition. By the time you got in front of Judge Peter Felice, they were deleted, weren't they? As far as I know, they were still on there. You grabbed her camera Yes. away from her outside, did you not? Yes. From that point until you were in front of Judge Peter Felice, did she ever hold her camera again? No. Okay, so you had it the entire time. Yes. Didn't Judge Peter Felice talk to you about whether the pictures had been deleted? He asked for the the memory thing so he could delete them. Did you hear what I asked you? Yes. What did he tell you about deleting the pictures? I don't recall. Okay. You just said that he asked you for the memory card because he wanted to delete the pictures. Is that your testimony? Yes. Okay. And if he were to testify at some point in time that he absolutely, categorically did not delete those pictures, then would you want to change your answer as to whether you or one of your people did? I'm going to object. Calls for speculation. No one had custody of the camera but me. Okay. So you had it, you gave it to Judge Peter Felice. Yes. Judge Peter Felice ultimately gave it back to Ms. Bergquist. Yes. Okay. So, if it was deleted from the time she was outside until the time she got it back by Judge Peter Felice, it was either deleted by you or by the judge, right? Yes. Okay. Would it have been lawful for you to delete her pictures? I don't know. Well, what do you think? Are you allowed to go over to people's pictures and delete them? No. Without a court order? No. Right. That would be a violation of which amendment, do you know? No. Which amendment is it that prevents you from seizing people's property without a lawful basis? Fourth Amendment. Exactly. So, uh do you know or not if uh you'd be violating the Fourth Amendment by deleting her pictures without a court order or a lawful basis? No. All right. You mentioned at some point in time something about a DHS memo. Remember that? No. You never said DHS memo to Ms. Bergquist? I don't recall. Is there a DHS memo that you can think of that has any relation to this situation? Not that I can recall. Okay. Just so that we're crystal clear about this, her detainment was at least in part because she was taking pictures, right? Correct. And it was to stop her from taking pictures, right? It was to find out why she was taking pictures. Right, but it was also to stop her from taking those pictures, right? Correct. Okay. Uh you also looked through her purse, did you not? Yes. In fact, when you emptied out her purse, um how high off the desk, or the counter rather, did you lift it before you turned it upside down? Do you know? I don't recall. Well, let's say you Do you like to treat people's property respectfully or disrespectfully? Respectfully. Okay. So for example, if if it's your bag for example, and and somebody had to flip it over for some reason, you wouldn't want them to lift it up 3 ft off the counter and then flip it upside down and let everything crash down onto the counter, would you? No. So you wouldn't do that to Ms. Bergquist, would you? No. Okay. So so you did not lift up the purse 2 or 3 ft and flip it upside down, did you? I don't recall. Is it possible you did? I remember dumping out the contents, yes. Right, but I mean you could you could you could dump over contents and you can dump over contents, right? I mean depending on how high over the counter you're holding the purse, right? Okay. I don't recall how high I was holding the purse. Okay. Well, let me ask you this. Would it be respectful to people's property to hold the purse 2 ft off the counter and just dump it upside down onto the counter? No. Would that be respectful or disrespectful? Disrespectful. So you would not do that, right? No. Right. Cuz you don't like to disrespect people's property. Correct. Let me ask you this. Is it a crime to put somebody in handcuffs without a lawful basis to do so? I don't understand the question. Is it a crime for somebody to put somebody else in handcuffs without a legal basis to do so? For somebody? Are you referring to officers? Wait, anybody. Doesn't matter. Yes. Okay, what's the difference? Explain your answer. Tell me for an officer and tell me for a non-officer. Okay. For an officer, if we're detaining somebody, we're going to cuff them for officer security. That's procedure and policy and training. So, even if it's an unlawful detainment, you're saying it's not a crime to do so because they're an officer. His facial expression shows that Molazzo knows that he has backed himself into a corner. Are you asking me for this situation? Let me ask you this. If an officer If an officer detains somebody because the person's uh a woman, is that legal or illegal to I'm going to again object. This calls for speculation. I would hope he knows the answer to this. The answer is detaining them because they're a woman? Yeah, that's the reason. No. Okay. How about How about because the person's a man? No. How about because the person's white? No. Very good. How about because the person's black? No. We agree. Okay, so let me ask you this. If an officer If you see a non-officer put somebody in handcuffs and he says out loud that he's putting the person in handcuffs because she's a woman, would you arrest that person for unlawful imprisonment? Or for some other crime? Assault, perhaps? It's possible. Okay. Uh tell me why you would not. You said it's possible. I'm assuming that means you might you might not. Tell me why you would not arrest that person. It would be depend on the facts behind it. Got you. Okay. All right, now let's say that person is an officer. So, the person is an officer and says, "This person is taking pictures and I subjectively feel it's suspicious because the person taking pictures is a woman, therefore I am going to put her in handcuffs." Would you arrest that officer for putting her in handcuffs? No. Why not? Not even a maybe? Just a no? No. In any circumstance would you arrest an officer for unlawfully putting handcuffs on somebody? No. Is it lawful to put handcuffs on somebody unlawfully? Again, if you're doing it for officer safety, then no. All right. Why'd you flip her Why'd you look through her purse? We were looking for ID. And why were you allowed to look for ID? What lawful basis was there to do so? Well, we had detained her. We wanted to identify her and do our report. All right, so just so we're very clear about this, what gave you a lawful basis to search her purse was the detainment, right? Yes. If the detainment was unlawful and I'm not saying it was. I'm just saying theoretically. If a detainment's unlawful, the subsequent search is also unlawful, right? Yes. I What do you do if somebody says they want to talk to a lawyer and you have them in handcuffs? We allow them to call a lawyer. Do you Do you keep Do you keep asking them questions? Depends on the case. Oh, I got you. Okay, tell me the case in which you would continue to ask questions of somebody in custody after they ask for a lawyer. If we're doing an investigation, we're going to ask. I got you. Okay. Do you know which amendment it is that allows people to demand a lawyer? Do you have any idea? No. Have you ever read anybody their Miranda rights? After nearly 25 years on the force, it is impossible to believe that Milazzo had never arrested someone before this. No. You've never read anybody their Miranda rights? No. Have you ever arrested anybody?" No. Other than Ms. Bergquist? No. She's the only person you've ever arrested? Yes. And that was a detainment. Right, but you also said it was an arrest earlier. Remember? Do you not remember that? Okay. Do you remember or not? No. Okay. Well, was it an arrest or a detainment? We detained her. Right. And And again, just so we're very clear about this, you're making that distinction, but you don't know the difference between the two. Correct. Then how do you know it was a detainment and not an arrest? Because we weren't planning on doing any paperwork or any charging her with any crimes. Oh, okay. So, is that the definition of detainment as opposed to arrest? We were detaining her for investigation, yes. Got you. Okay. Um and uh And you don't know the Miranda rights. Not offhand, no. All right. Um When you arrest somebody, do you have to advise them that they have the right to remain silent? Yes. Do you have to advise them that they have the right to an attorney? Yes. Do you have to advise them that if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to them? Yes. Okay. Um Now, what if somebody says, "Yes, I want to talk to an attorney"? Do you get to keep asking them questions? Or do you have to call a lawyer for them before you want to ask any more questions? I don't know. You don't know? You don't know if you're allowed to keep asking questions of somebody in custody after they ask for a lawyer. No. How long have you been employed under at Cook County Sheriff's? 27 years. 27 years. I imagine you only became a lieutenant recently? No. How long ago did you become a lieutenant? 22 years ago. You've been a lieutenant for 22 years and you don't know the Miranda rights? Yes. Did Ms. Berkowitz ever ask for a lawyer? I believe she asked to call if she asked if she could call her lawyer. Yes. And after she did that, did you continue to ask her questions? I don't recall. Would it be lawful for you to continue asking her questions after she asked to call her lawyer? I don't know. Did you tell Judge Felice that she was recording in the courthouse or outside the courthouse or you weren't specific? I don't recall. I don't believe we told her she was inside the courthouse. Are you sure? I don't know why we would have. Well, I don't know either. That's why I'm asking you. Are you 50/50? I don't recall telling Judge Felice that she was filming inside the building. All right. When you wanted to advise the court that there was somebody who needed to be held in contempt, you did at some point advise the court that there was somebody who you had to bring in front of them, right? Yes. And how did you do that? Phone call, email, text message? Phone call. Okay. Who did you call? I called the presiding judge's office. And who was the presiding judge that day? Um he was not in. Who was the presiding judge that day? Uh Jackowski. Jackowski? And he was not in? He was not in. So, who'd you call after that? I didn't. I talked to his assistant and was informed to bring her in front of Judge Felice. Did you talk to Judge Peter Felice's chambers or to Judge Peter Felice at all? No. Okay. Um so how did you advise Judge Peter Felice's chambers that you had somebody you had to bring in front of him? I didn't. Who did? I do not know. Did you tell somebody to? No, I was told to bring her in front of Judge Felice. Okay. Did you What I asked you was did you tell anybody to tell Judge Peter Felice's chambers that you were bringing somebody his way? No. Any idea how Judge Peter Felice knew that you were about to bring somebody up to her to him? Mulatto doesn't remember hardly any details of the case even though it was very short and straightforward. I'm assuming it went through the presiding judge's office. You don't know? I do not know. I don't want you to assume anything. I don't know. Your lawyer probably doesn't either. So you don't know the answer? No. When you brought her in front of Judge Peter Felice, you walked into the courtroom and and what did you do? Where did you take her? Where did you go? We went up in front of the bench. We or you? Well, myself Miss Bergquist and Sergeant Larson, I believe. Didn't Miss Bergquist not go up to the bench? First you went up by yourself, right? You don't remember? I don't remember. So what did Judge Peter Felice What was the first thing said in court about Amanda's case? I don't recall. There's a report, which is signed by Lieutenant Don Malazzo. Was that you? Yes. It's uh S018-00027356, right? Yes. Bates stamp is CCSAOBerquist000021 for the record. Um What did Judge Felice admonish Ms. Berquist about? Uh as far as I can recall, about videotaping in and around the building, and if you ever caught her again, he would hold her in contempt. When you see the word in, do you just automatically assume that the word and around is there, too? Or is that special for this case? That is what Judge Felice said. Okay. I'm going to hand you what's marked as exhibit three. That's your report, is it not? Yes. Please read out loud your words of what Judge Peter Felice said, which I highlighted. Okay. Regarding photography in the building and the security issues involved. And you wrote this. Yes. And you wrote this much more recently than than now. Now it's 10 months later, right? I don't understand your question. When did you write this? Did you write this yesterday or last week? Or did you write this in March when this happened? March 28th. March 28th, the same day that it happened. Right? Yes. Okay. So, your memory of what happened in front of Judge Peter Felice was probably better in March 28th, 2018, than it is on January 15th, 2019, right? Yes. And what you wrote in your report was that Judge Peter Felice admonished her about recording in the building, right? Yes. Why would he admonish her about recording in the building and not around the building or outside the building? Any idea? I I recall. Maybe because you told him that she was recording in the building. Is that possible? No. Why would Why would you write this then? Why would I write what he told her? Why would he admonish her only for recording in the building? I recall him admonishing her for in and around the building. You recall that clearly now, sitting here today? I recall the judge telling her that she could not videotape in and around the building. Was this recorded? It would be probably on the court transcripts. I I would indicate for defense counsel I've been trying to get that transcript or the recording. I don't know if it exists. Obviously, I'd like to hear it or see it. So, your testimony sitting here today is that you recall specifically that Judge Felice admonished her about recording in and around the building. Yes. Okay. Even though your report says that he only admonished her about recording in the building. Yes. You told Judge Felice about the suspiciousness of the pictures and and the video camera, right? Yes. Why did you tell him that? Because of There was pictures of railroad yards, um, secure areas. There was pictures of uh buildings, secure entrances. There was pictures of police stations. So, those were all suspicious. Buildings, railroad yards, secure entrances, and police stations are suspicious? When Yeah. Exactly. Bergquist had various pictures of entrances to different buildings and refused to give her name or tell the police what she was doing. Although her actions were not illegal, it isn't surprising that they were considered odd enough to look into. When what? In all the training that we received after 9/11, those were the things we were told to look out for. Got you. And that creates reasonable suspicion of a crime? Suspicious activity, yes. Did you hear my question? You You like to say the word suspicious activity. I'm focusing on words that are actually included in the law. In our Constitution. Okay. Okay. So, let's talk about this term reasonable suspicion. Have you ever heard that term before? Do you know if that term has any relation to the Fourth Amendment? Yes. Does the term suspicious activity have any relation at all to the Fourth Amendment? I don't know. Okay. Then let's talk about sus- reasonable suspicion for a minute, okay? Did you have any reasonable suspicion that Ms. Bergquist was engaging in any sort of criminal offense? No. Can I ask you what was suspicious about Ms. Bergquist uh taking pictures outside of the courthouse? What about her was suspicious? Well, we didn't know why she was there. Okay. And we didn't know if I said if it had any involvement with a current case that was going on, with a domestic situation that was going on, with uh security procedures, any of those. We didn't know what she was doing there. All right. So, I'm not asking you what you knew and didn't know. I'm asking you what was suspicious about it. Because we didn't know what she was doing there. So, what was suspicious about it? Because you didn't know. Who cares what you know? What was suspicious? Well, the fact that she was trying to videotape the building. We didn't know what she was videotaping. And the fact that she refused to identify herself. Okay. So, if I understand what you're saying, you're saying that unless you know why somebody's videotaping the court, it is automatically suspicious. Yes. Okay. So, anybody recording the building, unless you know why, is acting suspiciously, right? Yes. And you can detain them, right? Well, we can stop and ask them what they're doing. And then if they refuse to provide ID, then you can detain them. Yes. Okay. And after this lawsuit was filed, have there been any internal um discussions other than with legal counsel about that policy? Just the policy they put out in June. Exhibit two. Yes. The informational bulletin. I'm sorry. No, you're talking about policy 172. The one that you believe allows you to detain people based on the subjective belief that they're acting suspiciously, right? Correct. Did you ever tell her that she was going to go to jail for 90 days? I believe we informed her that judge could hold her in contempt throughout the 90 days. But you never told her matter-of-factly that she's going to go to jail for 90 days if she doesn't give you her ID. I don't recall that, no. Well, did you or did you not? Or do you not know? I do not recall that. Is that something that you would do and say? No. Okay. So, is it fair to sit here today and tell us that you did not tell her that? I said I didn't recall. I know, but what I'm asking you is you I asked you is that something you would say and you said no. Isn't that what you said? Yes. Okay. So, if that's not something you would say, then is it fair to say that you didn't say it? I don't recall. Uh-huh. So, it's possible that you did tell her that she would go to jail for 90 days matter-of-factly. I don't recall. Did you ever tell her that she has choices? And those choices are to either show you an ID or to go to the judge who will hold her in contempt. And then he can hold her for as long as he wants. Did you ever say that to her? I don't recall. Is that something you would say? That's a possibility, yes. Is that something that's true or is that something that's false? Could the judge hold her in contempt for an undetermined amount wants. An an undetermined amount of time? As far as I know. Really? A judge can hold somebody for as long as he wants? Under contempt? Yeah. As far as I know. After you you went into your office and Larson stayed by the counter with Ms. Bergquist, right? Yes. And then after some time you came back out and you said to Larson that the judge is going to hold Ms. Bergquist in contempt and put her in jail for 90 days. Do you remember saying that? No, I don't recall that. Malazzo is very careful to say he doesn't recall exactly what he said. Not only is he trying to avoid being held accountable, but if he is caught lying, he could be charged with perjury. Is that something you would do or say? No. Okay. Then, right after you said that you turned to Ms. Bergquist and said, "Is that okay with you?" Do you remember that? No. Guess what her response was to you. Do you know? I don't recall. Her answer was she's going to remain silent. Do you remember that? I don't recall. When was the last time you watched Larson's body cam footage? I don't recall. Uh within the past month? I don't think so. Okay. Uh in December of 2018? Again, I don't recall. Uh could it have been before it got cold? I don't recall. Uh you then told her after she told you she was going to remain silent, you said to her, "You realize you're going to Cook County Jail for 90 days." Do you remember saying that to her? I don't recall. Is that something you would say to her? I don't recall. Mhm. Then, you told her she has an option. Do you remember saying that? No. Do you remember what the option was? I do not recall. Do you have any idea what that option could have been? I do not recall. What option could you have given her that that would have made sense? Do you know? I do not know. All right. You told her that all she needs to do is show you an ID, so that you can do your report, and then you'd let her go on her way. Remember saying that to her? At some point during this Yes. Okay. So, you did say that to her at some point. At some point. Okay. She was detained, and all she had to do was show you an ID, and you would have let her go on her way, right? Yes. Would you have let her keep her camera and her footage? Yes. But, wasn't it suspicious and had to be taken in front of a judge? But, we would have had a documented record of it. But, she would have still had the pictures, right? Yes. You then told her that she was obstructing and she's in contempt. Do you remember saying that matter-of-factly? No. No? You don't remember telling her, "Right now you're just obstructing and you're in contempt"? I don't recall that. Is that something you would say? No. Can you think of a reason why you would say that? No. You don't get to hold people in contempt, do you? No. And she wasn't obstructing anything, was she? No. Okay. In fact, she asked you, "What am I obstructing?" Do you remember that? No. And your answer was that, "You're obstructing us from doing our job." Do you remember that answer? No. Okay. Is there any truth to that To that type of answer? Yes. Okay. So, she was obstructing you? Yes. Okay. But, maybe 30 seconds ago I asked you and you said she was not obstructing. Okay. Which one is it? Was she obstructing or not? She was preventing us from doing our report, yes. Was she obstructing or not? Yes. Okay. She told you repeatedly she did not consent to searches, right? Yes. Okay. The only basis you had, we already talked about this, but I just want to make sure the record's clear. The only basis you had to search her purse was the detainment, right? Yes. And if the detainment was not lawful, then the search was not lawful, right? That's legally, yes. Thank you. You after you dumped out her purse on the counter, you looked through her wallet, right? Yes. And you found an ID. Yes. And what did the ID say? What state did was she from? Do you remember? Minnesota. You're right. You said and you said that on video that she's from Minnesota. Do you remember that? No. Okay. And uh So, you knew who she was at that point. Right? Yes. Why couldn't you let her go then? Cuz at that point the chief judge had already told me to bring her in front of Judge Felice. Well, then why didn't you just look through her purse and find her ID before calling the chief judge? If she would have cooperated, that's exactly what we would have done. I don't understand. You told her repeatedly that she could simply give her give you her ID and she would be on her way, right? Earlier in the incident, yes. Okay. So, what was the what was the need to bring her to the judge? Once I contacted the presiding judge's office, I was told continues to press Milazzo over each weak point in his story, and Milazzo cannot give satisfactory answers to explain his actions. to bring her in front of the judge for this. you contact the presiding judge's office? For guidance on how to handle the situation. You knew exactly how to handle the situation. You're allowed to detain people and search them and look through their purses if they're acting suspicious, right? Wasn't that your testimony? Yes. So, you knew exactly how to handle this. Search her, look through her purse, get her ID. Now, you can do your report, let her be on her way. Why didn't you do that? Because by I had already contacted the presiding judge's office for advice, and that's what I was told. Why did you contact the presiding judge? Why didn't you just look through her purse, get her ID, write it down, take a picture of it, photocopy it, and then let her be on her way? Because as far as I know, she was violating a judicial order, which came from the presiding judge. So, you had to bring her to the judge because of what she was doing outside, right? I was told to bring her in front of the judge, yes. Did you hear what I said? You had to bring her in front of the judge because of what she was doing outside, right? I was told to bring her in front of the judge because of what she was doing outside. You were told that after you called the presiding judge. Yes. Do you see how there's something in between that? She's doing something outside, you take her to the presiding judge. In between that, you called the presiding judge, right? Yes. Okay. Why did you call the presiding judge? For I needed some type of Uh More or less for advice on what to how to handle it. Yeah, but before you called the presiding judge, all you needed was her ID. Right? Correct. And then you were going to let her go, weren't you? Correct. So, if all you needed was her ID, and then you could let her go, why call the presiding judge? Why not just look through her purse, get her ID, and then let her be on her way? Because I was already I already contacted the presiding judge. Why did you call the presiding judge? To get advice on how to handle the situation. We're going in circles here and I'm not understanding what your testimony is. You were willing to let her go if you only had her ID, right? Yes. Without bringing her in front of the judge, right? Correct. Even though she was videoing outside, right? Correct. Okay. Why did you call the presiding judge? Again, I had already called the presiding judge for information on how to handle it and I was informed to bring her in front of Judge Felice. Were you lying to her when when you told her that all she has to go do is give you your ID and she and you'll let her be on her way? Was that a lie? That was earlier in the situation, yes. Wasn't really? Wasn't really? Wasn't really? Yeah. Are you sure that you didn't say that to her after contacting the presiding judge? I don't recall. Okay, well let me ask you this. When Larson was with Ms. Bergquist by the counter and you went into your office for I don't know, 5 10 minutes, that's when you called the presiding judge, right? Yes. Then when you came back out, that's after you had already talked to the presiding judge, right? Or the the judge's clerk, right? Yes. And that's when the judge's clerk or assistant told you to bring Ms. Bergquist in front of Judge Peter Felice, right? No, I don't think they did it right away. I think they called me back. Got you. Okay. When you looked through her purse, was that before or after you were told to bring her to the to to the judge? Before. Oh, so after you searched her purse and you had her ID, you had not yet been told by the by the judge to bring her in front of the judge, right? No, I had already contacted the presiding judge and they didn't give me an answer till afterwards. Okay, but right before you searched her purse, you told her that if she gives you her ID, you'll let her go. Do you remember that? I don't recall when that happened. Do you dispute that? I don't dispute that I said that, I just don't recall when it happened in the time How would you explain that? Were you lying to her? About? If you were not yet told by the judge, if if I understand your testimony correctly, until you were told to bring her in front of Judge Peter Felice, you were willing to let her go if she showed you ID, right? Correct. Okay. What I'm asking you is, when you look through her purse and saw her ID, your testimony before was by then the judge had already told you to bring her in front of Judge Peter Felice, right? I don't recall exact time frame on that. Okay, well, it's very very important for us to know this because what I'm trying to figure out is why you had to bring her in front of the judge and your testimony was that you were ordered to, right? Okay. So, what I'm trying to figure out here is this escalated, didn't it? Correct. We started with show me your ID and I'll let you go. Correct. And it ended with even if you show me your ID, I'm taking you to the judge, right? At that point it was out of my hands, yes. out of your hands because you were already instructed to bring her to the judge, right? Yes. What I'm asking you is after receiving that instruction to bring her to the judge, that option for her to just show you ID and walk away was no longer on the table, right? The circular logic has even become confusing for Milazzo. Even with his supposed lack of memory, he isn't able to convincingly pass this off as a mistake. Correct. Okay. When you look through her purse and saw her ID, was that option still on the table that she could just show you ID and leave? I don't recall. Well, it had to have been after, right? Again, I don't recall the time frame on it. But if you saw her ID, why didn't you let her go? Was it out of your hands already? I had already made the call to the presiding judge, yes. Were you instructed? You said they called you back. call me back. Right. But before they called you back, you were ready to let her go but just by showing you ID, right? Yes. Okay. So before they made that call back, all she had to do was show you ID and be on her way, right? It was a short time frame. I don't recall. Yeah. Yeah. So uh when you told her just show us ID and you'll be on your way, were you lying to her? No. Okay, so every time that you told her just show her your ID and you'll be on your way, you were being truthful, right? Yes. Okay. And obviously every time you said that to her, it was before you were instructed to bring her to the judge, right? I don't recall. Well, would you have said that after being instructed to bring her to the judge? Would you have given her the option to just show you ID and be on her way after being instructed to bring her to the judge? No. Okay. So is it fair to say that your testimony today is that every time you offered that option to her was before you were instructed to bring her to the judge. True. Well, I mean isn't that your story? It is. Based on your call, yes. Okay. So I'm just trying to make sure I understand this. You give her the option, show us your ID and you can be on your merry way. Obviously when you gave her that option, it was before you were instructed to bring her to the judge. Isn't that what we just established? Yes. Okay. So when you looked through her purse and saw her ID, your testimony before, and correct me if I'm wrong, was "Now it's too late because you already have to bring her to the judge cuz you were instructed to do so, right?" Yes. Okay. So, just so that we're crystal clear about this, you gave her the option, "Show us your ID, you'll be on your merry way." She said no. You get the call, bring her up, and at some point after that is when you saw her ID, right? Correct. Let's take a break. Hold on. We're going off the record at 12:16 p.m. We're going back on the record at 12:59 p.m. The other officers who were involved in this, Larson, uh, Barbaro, somebody else whose name escapes me, but is, uh, Dorociak, d o r o c i a k. But, they're all your subordinates, right? Yes. They have to listen to you. Yes. If they would have at some point said, "We shouldn't do this. I'm not going to listen to you." They probably would have been disciplined. Yes. Okay. Um, do you take responsibility for their involvement in this? Yes. Okay. Now, did anybody else touch the camera from the time you took it away from Ms. Berquist to the time the SD card was given to the judge? No. Only you? Yes. At any time that you offered Ms. Berquist the option of showing you ID and being on her way, that was before you were instructed to bring her to the judge, correct? Correct. And by the time you had already looked at her ID and saw who she was, by then it was too late and you had already been instructed to bring her to the judge, correct? Correct. Mulazzo isn't sure how to answer. So far the lawyer has been able to twist his words to make them sound as incriminating as possible. Because if that's not the case, if you had not been instructed, you would have let her be on her merry way, right? After seeing her ID. If the presiding judge's office had come back and said that they didn't want to be involved, yes. That that's not what I asked you. I asked you before they told you that they you should bring them that you should bring her up. Before that, if you would have seen her ID, you would have let her be on her merry way, right? At some point in there before I contacted the presiding judge, yes. There's um there's two different things I'm focusing on. There's when you contacted Judge Degalski's clerk and there's when you got a call back telling you to bring her to the to Judge Felice, right? Or was it the same phone call? I don't recall. I believe I called them. I called my supervisors. My supervisors instructed me to call the presiding judge's office. Presiding judge's office. I believe they told me Degalski was out and they would get back to me. So at that point, I couldn't do anything. Which supervisors did you call? Believe it was uh Chief Jackson. Does he still work here? She is retired. What did you tell Chief Jackson Ms. Burquest was doing wrong? I informed her that we had observed her doing the videos. Did you say in and around the building or outside of the building? I believe outside the building. That's what you told her? Very important. Yes. And even though you told Chief Jackson that Ms. Burquest was observed recording outside of the building, she still instructed you to keep her in custody and bring her to the judge? She instructed me to contact the presiding judge to see what they wanted to do about it. And she knew that you had Ms. Burquest in custody? Yes. What's Chief Jackson's first name? Kelly. When did she retire? December. 2018? Yes. Now, just one last thing and then we'll be done. I just wanted to get back to this suspicious activity. And the suspicious activity, if I understand it, was that she was recording outside the courthouse. Was there anything else? No. And refused to give her name. Identify yourself. But before she before you had even approached her, would you have said that she was acting suspiciously? Yes. Okay, what was suspicious about it? And again, we're talking before you approached her and she refused to identify herself. Well, when I was called, she was videotaping the front doors of the building. That's suspicious? And the deputy had asked her what she was doing and she said, "I don't have to tell you." So, yes, that was suspicious. That's to to assert your rights is suspicious? Yes. Those who work for the courts are often targeted, and someone casing the building could be seen as a red flag. Others are required by law not to allow their faces to be recorded and uploaded on the internet, which is difficult to control if they are recorded without their consent. Okay. Now, what if the deputy, what about Deputy Barbaro? What could have been Would you know what was suspicious prior to him approaching her? He observed her out there for some time video taping the front of the building. What was suspicious about that? He called for a supervisor. What was suspicious about that? I don't know. If she hadn't asserted her rights Well, let me ask it this way. If she would have complied with your initial demand outside of the courthouse to identify herself, what would you have done? We would have done our report and let her go. So, you would have written down her ID, maybe taken a photo of it or something. Once you have her identification, you would have let her be on her way. Yes. Would you have allowed her to keep recording? Yeah. To keep recording? Yeah. We would ask her to move to another area away from the open doors. She was by the open doors? Yes. She was blocking the doorway? I didn't say she was blocking. I said she was by the doors. Why would you have asked her to move? Because we don't know if she's video taping people inside the building or the security posts. What's the difference? Who cares what she's recording? People, security posts. If you can see it from outside, why can't you record it? I don't know. You can under the First Amendment, can't you? Yes. And that's what she was doing. Right? Correct. All All I I I don't have anything further for this witness. Okay, so you said that under the First Amendment you could videotape the outside of the building, correct? Correct. But there's a judicial order that prevents uh the taping of the inside of the building, correct? Correct. And where you observed Ms. Bergquist videotaping she could see inside the building. Correct. Okay. So, that's the functional equivalent of taping the inside of the building, correct? Objection 4. Correct. And there's And again, and when you're looking at her when you're walking out um when you first see her videotaping uh you don't know exactly what she can see, correct? Correct. You just know that she's taping the entranceway to this building, correct? Objection 4. Correct. And what um what was the reason that you approached her at that time? Uh Deputy Barbaro had called for a supervisor. I was the only one available. And you wanted to investigate why she was taking taking these photos. Correct. And she refused to tell you, correct? Correct. And she refused to give any identification. Correct. Did that concern you? We have to do reports, and so yes, it concerned me that there may be videotape of something that could come out later on or with a court case, and we don't have a report on it. Yes, that concerned me. And there were potential security concerns that you had with her taping the entrance to this courthouse. Objection 4. Correct. What were those concerns? Well, we're responsible for the safety of all the people that are in this building. We have domestic violence cases, we have trials, we have jurors, we have witnesses. So, there's a lot of people that come in and out of this building that if videotaped could be dangerous to them. And when we were discussing this earlier, um pardon me, when uh plaintiff's counsel was asking you about this earlier, you had said that when she refused to answer your questions, she was obstructing. Is that correct? Correct. And what did you mean by that? She was preventing us from investigating what was going on and doing a report on it. Mulatto sounds more sure of himself, but it doesn't make up for his hesitancy and lack of knowledge throughout the rest of the deposition. And you testified earlier that she was only detained at this at the at this point, right? Correct. And throughout this incident, to your understanding, she was only detained for the purposes of investigation. Correct. And had she simply given you her identification or identified herself, you would have released her? Correct. I have a follow-up question. I I have a couple of very brief follow-up questions. The thing that you told her you thought she was violating was policy 172 suspicious activity reporting, or was it a judicial order? Judicial order. Okay. And the judicial order was something that was uh put in place by Honorable Timothy C. Evans, Chief Judge, right? Once we got a copy of it, yes. Right. And I'm going to hand you that. It's been marked as exhibit four. I'm also going to hand you a cut my highlighter again. I'm going to ask you to highlight, please, the portion of this that you felt she was violating. Okay. Again, we did not we did not have this at the time. It took a while to get this. Right. But this is the order that you arrested her that you detained her based on, right? We based it on what we thought this meant, yes. Okay. So, tell me what part of that you felt she was violating. Again, I did not have this in front of me to look at it at the time. If you leave it blank, that's fine. But if there's something there that you feel was the reason that you detained her, please highlight it. Okay. This is I've never even actually seen this order. Is that the order? This is not the uh videotaping camera order. There's another one that they put out. I I've never seen that one before. Okay. So, it's not exhibit four. Now, I'm going to hand you exhibit five. This is a three-page document. Is that the order? Correct. This is the order they sent us after the fact. Okay. Is this the order that you were relying on when you detained her? No. I didn't have a copy of this order. But you you mentioned it in order, didn't you? Because we knew that there was an order out there. We just I did not have a copy of it. And you had no idea what that order said? From past experience, it was that there was no recording in and around the building. Okay. So, that's what you were trained. Yes. Way back from from after 2001. Correct. After 9/11, you were trained by your you said by Chief Jackson. No, by Chief Beavers. Beavers. By Robert Beavers. Mhm. You were told by Robert Beavers that what you're supposed to do is you're supposed to detain people for taking pictures outside of the courthouse. Yes. And you had never seen the actual order at the time that you placed Miss Miss Berquist in detainment. No. All right, I don't have anything further. I would I'd like to follow up and just clarify what you mean when you say um detain. When you say that you were going to detain someone for um videotaping, uh what do you mean by that? Well, when we detain somebody for any type of investigation, we basically take them, handcuff them for officer safety until our investigation is concluded whether or not charges will be filed. Okay. Okay, I don't have any follow up. Okay, we're going off the record at 1:15 p.m. This concludes today's testimony from Lieutenant Donald Malazzo. The total meeting minutes was one and the will be retained by Veritext. Malazzo is relieved now that the deposition is over. He knows he has not presented himself well enough to get the case against him dropped. Eventually, Berquist agreed to privately settle for $15,000 and the matter was dropped. Hopefully, you enjoyed the video. If you did, there is a Patreon link in the description where you can support the channel further. Thank you for watching. I'll see you in the next one.