Visiting Lassen County Superior Court Judge Linda R. Clark didn’t accept Lassen County District Attorney William Ross Helmbold’s exclusionary rule arguments in the case of Westwood’s Anthony Kauwe, who recently faced more than two dozen felony charges and potentially 22 years in prison if convicted.
Clark granted a defense motion to suppress evidence seized in the case including; “Any and all statements made by the defendant after arrest or in custody based upon that arrest — 55.9 grams of methamphetamine and a digital scale with white residue seized from the defendant’s person on Feb. 24, 2024; and one live .9 mm cartridge, one live .223 caliber cartridge and one expended .357 caliber casing seized from the defendant’s person on Feb. 24, 2024.”
According to the judge’s ruling, “The evidence establishes without conflict that on Sept. 28, 2022, a criminal protective order was issued … restraining the defendant from any contact with the protected party, Angelina Abney, and that the protective order was modified on Jan. 23, 2024 to remove the no contact provisions and allow peaceful contact … On the record, it is clear that the arrest for a violation of a no-contact order was made without a warrant and without probable cause.”
The judge also ruled while Lassen County Sheriff’s Deputy Traetz’s actions could be covered by the exclusionary rule (relying on incorrect information from CLETS), “the situation is complicated by the actions of Deputy Falchetta, who was present and knew or had reason to know that the CLETS information was wrong.”
Based upon Clark’s ruling suppressing the evidence, Helmbold then asked the judge to dismiss the case.
Lassen County Sheriff John McGarva declined to comment on the matter, but he did say an investigation into the case has begun.
Witness credibility findings
The judge called the credibility of the deputies’ testimony “a significant issue” in this case.
The judge found Traetz to be credible, but she found Falchetta “appeared very nervous and frequently volunteered information that was non-responsive and self-serving in that it deflected responsibility for critical aspects of the investigation and arrest to Deputy Traetz … Deputy Falchetta’s testimony was often inconsistent with earlier statements he had made … and sometimes changed throughout the course of his appearance … Because of the number and nature of those inconsistencies, the inherent implausibility of his testimony in important matters and his attitude and demeanor, this court is not persuaded that his testimony regarding this case is reliable in many respects.”
The judge also noted Falchetta failed to appear pursuant to a subpoena at 8:30 a.m. Jan. 6, at 1:30 p.m. Jan. 6 after rescheduling, at 8:30 a.m. Jan. 7 “although he had confirmed receipt of the subpoena and his scheduled appearance with the district attorney … It was only after his commanding officer was contacted, deputies were sent to his home, numerous efforts were made by the district attorney and Deputy Traetz to contact him, and after this court’s ultimate indication that a body attachment was going to issue, did he finally appear at 10:30 a.m. on Jan. 7. He offered no explanation for his failure to appear.”
The judge also questioned Falchetta’s actions — “Under these circumstances, any reasonable and objective deputy in his situation would have believed that the CLETS entry relating to the CPO in this case was erroneous, meaning no probable cause to arrest the defendant and would have taken additional steps to ensure its accuracy … On the entire record, however, this court concludes Deputy Falchetta actually manipulated the situation in a way that virtually guaranteed Deputy Traetz would arrest the defendant that night … He never told Deputy Traetz that he had confirmed the original CPO was modified to peaceful conduct but never updated in CLETS. He didn’t mention multiple incidents in which it was determined that the CLETS entry had not been modified over several months, or that he had never taken any steps to have it corrected or to confirm it had been updated. These actions and omissions by Deputy Falchetta are the moving force behind the constitutional violation here … The reasonable conclusion drawn from all the evidence is that Deputy Falchetta knew that the order was for peaceful contact only, knew it had not been corrected in CLETS and that he could and did nonetheless effectuate the arrest and search of the defendant by another deputy who was not aware of all the facts. In doing so, Deputy Falchetta acted with conscious disregard of the rights of the defendant and engaged in the type of grossly negligent or deliberate law enforcement conduct that the exclusionary rule was developed to address.”
