6 18 12 0204 62337 60838 107 Pages 12-18963 Filed Motion For Leave To File Opposition To SCR 117 Petition. Nos. 60838 and 60975

1
2
3
Electronically Filed
Jun 18 2012 09:25 a.m.
Tracie K. Lindeman
Clerk of Supreme Court
4
5
6
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
7
8
9
10
11
In Re Matter of:
ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No: 9473
)
)
)
) Supreme Court No: 60838
)
)
12
13
14
15
16
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION
17
18
COMES NOW, ZACHARY BARKER COUGHLIN, ESQ., and files the above named
19
document and moves this Court for the relief requested herein. This filing is further based upon the
20
papers and pleadings on file herein and in the case in the trail court and the appeal in the District
21
Court and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities submitted herewith and any oral argument this
22
Court may desire. Alternatively, Coughlin requests that the Court set aside his temporary suspension
23
24
pursuant to SCR 111(7) and refuse to countenance the SCR 117 Petition as well. By way of the
25
showing of good cause Coughlin attempts to set forth herein. Beyond any mitigating factors, the
26
good cause is this: for the law to work, there needs to be environment where bullying opposing
27
counsel still have to earn their victories, rather than leverage committees, clubs, forces, and enforcers
28
- 1/94 -

Docket 60838 Document 2012-18963
to put points on the board for them through innuendo, nanny-stating, abuse of process, etc., etc. This
case is a lot more important than me. I know I am an insignificant cog in this sphere, but what is at
3
4
5
6
7
stake here is the perception and the reality as to whether a cliquish tyranny overrides the principles
upon which the black ink in this Court's opinions flow.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The undersigned (Coughlin) submitted to the Supreme Court of Nevada's electronic filing system
8
9
an Opposition to Bar Counsel's petition on or about May 24th, 2012, as an original matter given the
10
online system would not allow filings in the case itself (60838). The Clerk's Office refused to file,
11
mark as received, or, apparently, in any way make the Justices of this Court away of the Opposition.
12
Only after the undersigned reputation has been sullied by news outlets far and wide (an article
13
appeared in papers in at least three different cities, separated by the vast expanse of our state) did the
14
15
Clerk's Office allow Coughlin to file something in an attempt to tell his side of the story here and
16
avoid the prejudice that would be done his child custody, foreclosure defense, bankruptcy, and other
17
other clients should Coughlin's law license be suspended, even temporarily.
18
NRCP RULE 5. SERVICE AND FILING OF PLEADINGS AND OTHER PAPERS....NRCP
19
20
5(e), Filing With the Court Defined: The filing of pleadings and other papers with the court as
21
required by these rules shall be made by filing them with the clerk of the court, except that the judge
22
may permit the papers to be filed with the judge, in which event the judge shall note thereon the filing
23
date and forthwith transmit them to the office of the clerk. A court may by local rule permit papers to
24
be filed, signed or verified by electronic means that are consistent with technical standards, if any,
25
26
that the Judicial Conference of the United States establishes. A paper signed by electronic means in
27
compliance with the local rule constitutes a written paper presented for the purpose of applying these
28
rules. The clerk shall not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented for that purpose solely
- 2/94 -
because it is not presented in proper form as required by these rules or any local rules or practices.
NRCP 5(e).
3
4
Further, NRCP 5(e) holds that: "(e).. The clerk shall not refuse to accept for filing any
paper presented for that purpose solely because it is not presented in proper form as required by these
rules or any local rules or practices."
With regard to the WDC filing office/ eFlex staff refusing to file papers submitted for filing,
8
9
please consider:
10
11
12
13
Sullivan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and For County of Clark, 904 P.2d 1039, 111 Nev.
1367 (Nev., 1995): This proper person petition for a writ of mandamus seeks an order from this
court directing the Eighth Judicial District Court to file petitioner's application to proceed in forma
14
15
pauperis and his civil complaint. 1 On July 25, 1995, we ordered the state to file an answer to this
16
petition. The state's answer was filed on August 11, 1995. 2 Documentation submitted by petitioner to
17
this court establishes that petitioner submitted to the clerk of the district court for filing an application
18
to proceed in forma pauperis and a civil complaint on May 15, 1995. Although the application for
19
20
21
22
leave to proceed in forma pauperis was in proper form and was sworn to under penalty of perjury, the
clerk of the district court did not file that application. 3 The failure to file the application was in
violation of the clear statutory mandate that such an application be filed. NRS 12.015(1) provides that
23
"[a]ny person ... may file an affidavit [seeking leave to proceed without payment of fees]." Further,
24
we have repeatedly instructed the clerk of the Eighth Judicial District Court that such documents must
25
26
27
28
be filed. See Bowman v. District Court, 102 Nev. 474, 728 P.2d 433 (1986) (clerk has a ministerial
duty to accept and file documents if those documents are in proper form; clerk must not exercise any
judicial discretion); Barnes v. District Court, 103 Nev. 679, 748 P.2d 483 (1987) (prisoner's right of
- 3/94 -
access to court cannot be denied on basis of indigency); Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 810 P.2d
1209 (1991) (clerk must create an accurate record of all pleadings submitted for filing, whether or not
3
4
5
6
the documents are actually filed); Whitman v. Whitman, 108 Nev. 949, 840 P.2d 1232 (1992) (clerk
has no authority to return documents submitted for filing; instead, clerk must stamp documents that
cannot be immediately filed "received," and must maintain such documents in the record of the case);
Donoho v. District Court, 108 Nev. 1027, 842 P.2d 731 (1992) (the clerk of the district court has a
duty to file documents and to keep an accurate record of the proceedings before the court); Grey v.
9
10
11
12
Grey, 111 Nev. 388, 892 P.2d 595 (1995) (clerk of district court admonished for failure to keep
accurate record of documents submitted for filing).
Petitioner alleges that the district court has refused to file his application and has returned it
13
with directions to provide more information regarding employment. Indeed, petitioner has attached to
14
his petition for a writ in this court his original application as it was returned to him. Attached to the
15
top of the document is a "post-it" note with the handwritten notation: "application denied incomplete
16
info-employment currently." 4 The state informs us that the note was written by "the chief judge." In
17
18
addition, petitioner alleges, and the allegation is apparently true, that along with his "denied"
19
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, his civil complaint was returned to him unfiled.
20
Finally, petitioner alleges, and has attached documentation to support the allegation, that judges' law
21
clerks often return to prisoners unfiled motions along with letters purporting to rule on the legal
22
sufficiency of those motions. The state argues in its answer to this petition that "petitioner's
23
24
application ... was denied on the basis that the address of the Petitioner which was later given to the
25
Court by Petitioner ... did not appear to be a jail and that such information was contrary to the
26
information shown in the application which stated that the Petitioner was in prison. The 'out of jail'
27
address suggested an ability of the Petitioner to be employed." This vague reference to an "out of jail"
28
- 4/94 -
address is not explained in the documents before this court. Nevertheless, the state's assertion that
petitioner's application was denied is incorrect. The handwritten notation on petitioner's unfiled
3
4
5
6
application clearly does not constitute a proper judicial disposition of that application. Further, the
action of the clerk of the district court in returning petitioner's application and civil complaint to him
unfiled is in direct violation of this court's instructions to the clerk of the district court in Whitman v.
Whitman, 108 Nev. 949, 840 P.2d 1232 (1992). This court has several times confirmed the absolute
obligation of the district courts to file documents submitted to them and to preserve the right of
9
10
11
12
citizens to access to the courts, whether indigent or not. Barnes v. District Court, 103 Nev. 679, 748
P.2d 483 (1987); Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991).
Indeed, in Donoho v. District Court, 108 Nev. 1027, 842 P.2d 731 (1992), a case directly
13
analogous to this case, we held that the clerk of the district court violated the rights of an indigent
14
party when she neglected to file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for
15
relief from a default judgment. Specifically, we stated: "[T]he clerk [of the district court] had an
16
absolute duty to file the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to clearly stamp the date of
17
18
receipt of the other documents on the documents. Further, the clerk had a duty to keep an accurate
19
record of the case pending before the district court." Id. at 1029, 842 P.2d at 733 (citation omitted;
20
emphasis added). Thus, petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be filed.
21
If, on subsequent review of the application, the district court determines that petitioner has not shown
22
he is indigent, the district court may order petitioner to provide further information or may deny the
23
24
application in an appropriately filed written order. If, on the other hand, the district court grants the
25
application, the district court must then proceed to require the filing of petitioner's other documents
26
and to consider them in due course. Donoho, 108 Nev. at 1030, 842 P.2d at 733. Of course, for statute
27
of limitations purposes, the complaint would have to be considered filed on the date of actual receipt
28
- 5/94 -
by the clerk of the district court. To continue the analysis, with respect to petitioner's civil complaint
which he is attempting to file concurrently, the district court clerk had an absolute obligation to stamp
3
4
5
6
the document "received" and to record the date on which the document was in fact received at the
courthouse. See Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991). This the clerk of the district
court did. However, the clerk then had a duty to maintain a copy of the received document in the
record of the case, whether or not the document is ever filed. Whitman v. Whitman, 108 Nev. 949,
840 P.2d 1232 (1992).
9
10
11
12
This, the clerk neglected to do. While Huebner dealt with the timeliness of a notice of appeal,
the rationale compelling this court's ruling in Huebner, that all documents must be marked received
and dated, applies with equal force to a party's submission of a complaint. "The legal rights of the
13
parties to litigation, whether acting in proper person or through counsel, often turn on the date of
14
receipt by the clerk of the district court of documents and pleadings." Huebner, 107 Nev. at 330, 810
15
P.2d at 1211. Although the clerk of the district court stamped the notice of appeal "received" on
16
December 30, 1991, the clerk did not file the notice of appeal. Instead, the clerk of the district court
17
18
returned appellant's notice of appeal to appellant because it was not accompanied by a filing fee and,
19
although the notice was accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis,
20
appellant's affidavit in support of that motion was apparently not signed. Consequently, there is no
21
record of the submission of appellant's timely notice of appeal. We note that the clerk of the district
22
court filed appellant's motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis on the date of receipt,
23
24
December 30, 1991, and that the district court eventually granted that motion. We have previously
25
stated that "it is extremely important that the clerk of the district court keep an accurate record of the
26
date of receipt of every document submitted to the clerk, regardless of whether the document is in the
27
appropriate form. Indeed, it is a gross dereliction of duty for the clerk of the district court to neglect
28
- 6/94 -
this ministerial duty." Huebner v. State, 107 Nev. 328, 330, 810 P.2d 1209, 1211 (1991) (footnote
omitted). In this case, the clerk of the district court has failed to keep any record of the date of receipt
3
4
5
6
of appellant's notice of appeal; instead, the clerk stamped the document "received" and returned it to
appellant. The clerk of the district court had no authority to take such action.
Although the clerk of the district court had no duty to file appellant's notice of appeal before
appellant paid the requisite filing fee or was relieved of the duty to pay the filing fee by order of the
district court, see NRS 19.013(2), the clerk had a duty to receive the document and to keep an
9
10
11
12
accurate record of the case pending before the district court. Particularly in this case it was essential
that the notice of appeal be retained in the record, because we have held that a notice of appeal is
effective on the date of receipt by the district court clerk. See Huebner v. State, [108 Nev. 952] 107
13
Nev. 328, 810 P.2d 1209 (1991). Rather than returning the notice of appeal to appellant, the clerk of
14
the district court should have retained the notice of appeal in the record, and should have informed
15
appellant by letter of any perceived deficiencies in the document. 4 Appellant could then have taken
16
whatever action was appropriate to pursue his appeal. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that
17
18
appellant timely submitted to the clerk of the district court a notice of appeal from an appealable order
19
of the district court, and that appellant's timely notice of appeal is not contained in the record due to
20
the inappropriate action of the district court clerk. Accordingly, we grant appellant's petition for
21
rehearing, and we proceed to address the merits of this appeal. Id. At 1232-1234. See, also, Barnes v.
22
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State of Nev., In and For Clark County, 748 P.2d 483, 103 Nev. 679
23
24
(Nev., 1987). Footnote 3 in In Re Noel Gage seems to suggest (and that is an unpublished opinion,
25
and so, hopefully it is not a violation to mention it hear, rather than cite to it under SCR 123...) an
26
Opposition may be allowable. It would be nice to get a chance to give my side before 10 different
27
news outlets tell the tawdry tale of the attorney who allegedly shoplifted a candy bar and some cough
28
- 7/94 -
drops. None of them called me for a quote. Newspapers and television outlets aren't the only ones
with a voice anymore, though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGChf8l3eKo
2. In the trial court matter in Reno Municpal Court, Wal-Mart associate, Thomas Frontino,
4
5
testified that the accused ate the chocolate bar (and that personally eyewitnessed Coughlin take it off
the shelf in the candy isle) while the accused was shopping for and paid for $83.82 of other sundries.
However, the UPC of the chocolate bar from the receipt in question shows it was an ice cream bar,
meaning it wouldn't have been in the candy isle, but rather the refrigerated/frozen food isle. Thus,
9
10
11
the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applicable to that criminal case appears not to have been met
where, amazingly, the multimillion dollar establishment, Wal-Mart, with literally hundreds of
12
cameras placed strategically throughout the store, claimed in the trial court that no video footage
13
exists or ever existed of any of the events testified to at trial beyond the 2 videos propounded of the
14
15
16
17
interactions between the accused and Wal-Mart loss prevention staff and Reno Sparks Indian Colony
police in a 5 by 8 by 12 interrogation room utilized by Wal-Mart. Oddly, the video from the
interrogation room show the RSIC Officers being handed a CD or DVD by the Wal-Mart loss
18
prevention associate upon their exiting the interrogation room. So, the only evidence being the
19
alleged eye witness testimony of the Wal-Mart loss prevention associate, his credibility undermined
20
21
by the fact that he testified, under oath, that he personally saw the accused select the chocolate bar
from the candy isle, then consume it while walking throughout the store shopping. Again, the UPC
22
23
from the wrapper of the chocolate bar item allegedly stolen clearly reveals that the UPC belongs to a
24
refrigerated item, an ice cream bar, therefore undermining the Wal-Mart associates claim to have
25
witnessed the accused select it from the shelf in the candy isle, which is not refrigerated. See Exhibit
26
1.
27
28
- 8/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
3. Further, the only other piece of allegedly incriminating evidence was the fruit of an
impermissible search. RSIC Officer Kameron Crawford testified that he only made an arrest, and
therefore conducted a search incident to arrest in light of the accused's alleged refusal to provide his
driver's license. However, the two videos of the detention and search in the Wal-Mart interrogation
room clearly reveal the accused providing that same RSIC officer his driver's license and the Officer
radioing in the driver's license number to run a routine check, and the arrest report clearly contains the
driver's license number of the accused and other information culled from the RSIC officer's review of
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
the driver's license. Further, the partial contents of a cough melt package was found in the accused
pockets. However, the receipt for the $83.82 worth of groceries and sundries the accused purchased
immediately prior to the arrest bares andentry with the exact same UPC of the cough melts found in
the accused's pocket.
4. Then, the Wal-Mart witness admitted, under oath while testifying, that he could not hear whether
or not the accused told the cashier ringing up the some $83.82 worth of items purchased whether the
accused had or had consumed a certain a quantity of the Duract Cough Melts while shopping. The
18
Wal-Mart loss prevention associate further testified that it was a common and accepted practice at
19
Wal-Mart for shoppers to inform cashiers of the number or quantity of a certain item they were
20
21
purchasing rather than have the cashier ring up each of the duplicative items one by one. Further, the
Wal-Mart and Indian Colony Officer testified that on the receipt for the items the accused did pay for,
22
23
the UPC of the type of cough medication melts they say the accused stole did not appear, however, a
24
review of that receipt clearly shows that that UPC for cough melts is an entry on that receipt. Also,
25
amazingly, the Wal-Mart loss prevention associate testified that he could glean, from 30 yards away,
26
each and every item the cashier rung up for me and that those items did not include such a box of the
27
cough medication melts. However, the accused showed in court and in exhibits that the receipt for the
28
- 9/94 -
items the accused purchased did have one item with the same UPC as the exact type of cough
medication melts. So the Wal-Mart loss prevention associate admitted neither he nor anyone at Wal-
3
4
5
6
Mart could say that they could hear whether the accused told the cashier a quantity to ring up for the
cough medication melt box with the same UPC as the ones Wal-Mart alleges were stolen or
consumed while shopping.... Further, the Indian Colony Officer testified that he only arrested the
accused and conducted a search incident to arrest because the accused didn't provide the accused's
driver's license to him. However, the video of the Wal-Mart interrogation room interview clearly
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
shows the accused giving the officer the accused's driver's license and him radioing it in to his
dispatch and him taking down the driver's license number and other information off of it.
5. Lastly, the undersigned reported the conviction in the trial court, while an appeal was
pending in District Court to Bar Counsel. The undersigned reported the conviction to Bar Counsel on
his own and, as far as the undersigned knew at the time, prior to Bar Counsel being aware of the
conviction. Further, depending upon how the length of time between the rendition or notice of entry
of the conviction and when the undersigned reported the conviction to Bar Counsel is measure, the
18
undersigned arguably timely complied with the within 30 days dictate of SCR 111 (only introduced
19
in 2007, and perhaps somewhat difficult to find given that the Rules of Professional Conduct might
20
21
seem a more apt place to look for such a reporting requirement...), and if not, then the undersigned
was only a few days beyond the within 30 days requirement, all while filing an appeal and litigating
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a contentious summary eviction from the undersigned former home law office.
6. At Trial, at 2:52:25 pm, in the audio transcript submitted into evidence by Coughlin in the
Record on Appeal (ROA) in the form of a cd of the audio recording, Frontino testified under oath as
follows with regard to what he and Coughlin discussed upon Frontino instructing Coughlin to go with
him back to the asset protection interrogation room:
- 10/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
City Attorney Pam Roberts: What specific information did you ask of Mr. Coughlin?
Thomas Frontino: Identification, his name birth date, social security number.
City Attorney Pam Roberts: And did he provide any of that information to you?
Thomas Frontino: No, he did not.
City Attorney Pam Roberts: Based upon his unwillingness to provide that information did you take
any further action?
Thomas Frontino: Yes, we called the police, the Reno Sparks Indian Colony Tribal Police
Department. They usually arrive within ten minutes, I believe my statement reflects it was less than
that.
However, it was not long before Frontino contradicted that testimony, becoming
uncomfortable with Coughlin's line of questioning.
7. Here is an attempt at making a transcript, since the RMC chose not to prepare one and forward it
on to the District Court in the Appeal (CR11-2064) as required under Nevada law, within 10 days of
11
12
the filing of a notice of appeal. Judge Elliot managed to excuse that by citing to a civil statute, but he
13
also applied NRCP 6(e) for the computation of time in a criminal appeal for the purposes of
14
calculating the deadline to file a notice of appeal, so it was kind of a wash.
15
16
LEGAL ARGUMENT
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NRS 171.1255 Arrest by officer or agent of Bureau of Indian Affairs or police officer
employed by Indian tribe.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, an officer or agent of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs or a person employed as a police officer by an Indian tribe may make an arrest in obedience
to a warrant delivered to him or her, or may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) For a public offense committed or attempted in the officer or agents presence.
(b) When a person arrested has committed a felony or gross misdemeanor, although not in the
officer or agents presence.
(c) When a felony or gross misdemeanor has in fact been committed, and the officer or agent has
reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
(d) On a charge made, upon a reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony or gross
misdemeanor by the person arrested.
(e) When a warrant has in fact been issued in this State for the arrest of a named or described
person for a public offense, and the officer or agent has reasonable cause to believe that the person
arrested is the person so named or described.
- 11/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
(f) When the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has
committed a battery upon that persons spouse and the peace officer finds evidence of bodily harm
to the spouse.
2. Such an officer or agent may make an arrest pursuant to subsection 1 only:
(a) Within the boundaries of an Indian reservation or Indian colony for an offense committed on
that reservation or colony; or
(b) Outside the boundaries of an Indian reservation or Indian colony if the officer or agent is in
fresh pursuit of a person who is reasonably believed by the officer or agent to have committed a
felony within the boundaries of the reservation or colony or has committed, or attempted to commit,
any criminal offense within those boundaries in the presence of the officer or agent.
For the purposes of this subsection, fresh pursuit has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS
171.156.
10
NRS 171.136 When arrest may be made:...
11
2. If it is a misdemeanor, the arrest cannot be made between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.,
except:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
(b) When the offense is committed in the presence of the arresting officer;
(c) When the person is found and the arrest is made in a public place or a place that is open to the
public and:
(1) There is a warrant of arrest against the person; and
(2) The misdemeanor is discovered because there was probable cause for the arresting officer
to stop, detain or arrest the person for another alleged violation or offense;
(d) When the offense is committed in the presence of a private person and the person makes an
arrest immediately after the offense is committed;
Sec. 8.10.040. - Petit larceny.
It is unlawful for any person to take or carry away the property of another with the intent to
deprive the owner of his property therein, in any value less than $250.00, and for his conviction
therefor, he shall be fined in an amount not more than $1,000.00 and/or be incarcerated not more
than six months. In addition to any other penalty, the court shall order the person to pay restitution.
The arrest in this matter fails on every element of NRS 171.126(2)(b)-(d). Further, while it
is quite questionable to infer evidence of guilt based upon the fruit of an impermissilble search of
Coughlin's pockets (which allegedly revealed one half of the contents of one package of Duract
Cough Melts (6 melts in a foil sheet), especially where Coughlin had just paid for (and the receipt
27
for $83.82 confirms this) a package of the exact product allegedly consumed, the Duract Cough
28
Melts (UPC 073221630093). This is particularly true where there was not evidence in the record or
- 12/94 -
testimony offered that the contents of Coughlin's shopping bag from the $83.82 worth of items paid
for, did or did not include an opened and or half full package of those very Duract Cough Melts).
3
4
5
6
To the extent that RMC Judge Howard refused to let Coughlin testify on his own behalf at trial,
such an utter paucity of evidence to support the allegations, combined with the myriad instances
where the testimony of Wal-Mart's Frontino and that of RSIC Police Officers Crawford and
Braunworth, is particularly troubling, especially to the extent that the City of Reno and the Reno
Municipal Court arguably have a vested interest in limiting the costs associated with providing
9
10
11
12
defense counsel to indigent parties (Coughlin was denied his Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
under Argersinger, where, as here, even the possibility of jail time exists- and Coughlin served 3
days in jail in connection with this trial court matter City Attorney Pam Roberts: Argersinger v.
13
Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)) and collecting the fines associated with convictions. This first offense
14
allegation of shoplifting, for some $14.00 of merchandise, resulted in a $400 fine and 3 days in jail,
15
all with no Sixth Amendment defense counsel costs attendant to the prosecution.
16
17
It would be false to say the Wal-Mart loss prevention associate Thomas Frontino made an
18
arrest himself, and especially dubious to assert that Frontio met the requirement of . There was no
19
allegation of that at the trial. The RSIC Officers Crawford and Braunsworth made the arrest, as
20
21
such, NRS 171.126 is inapplicable. Even if it were applicable, Wal-Mart's Frontino's testimony was
so rife with unsupported, contradictory, and disengenous statements as to vitiate any support for
22
23
any allegation that Frontino was entitled to arrest Coughlin, under NRS 171.126(1) for a public
24
offense committed or attempted in the person's presence.(he personally witnessed Coughlin take
25
a refrigerated ice cream bar off the shelf in the candy isle and consume it was shopping for other
26
items? Frontino could see (he admitted he could not hear what was said between Coughlin and the
27
Wal-Mart cashier, whom Wal-Mart feigned an inability to locate or determine the identify of) every
28
- 13/94 -
item rung up by the cashier and off the top of his head know that none of those items bore a UPC
with the same number as the Duract Cough Melts Frontino alleged Coughlin consumed while
3
4
5
6
shopping?...Further, Frontino's testimony about how he personally witnessed Coughlin consume

the cough drops while shopping is inconsistent with his testimony that Wal-Mart policy did not
permit Frontino to follow Coughlin into the restroom at Wal-Mart and that, therefore, Frontino lack
a basis for making further attempts to investigate any suspicion he had with respect to the Duract
Cough Melts, therefore leaving Wal-Mart and Frontino to hinge their hopes of leveraging the RSIC
9
10
11
12
Police to conduct an unlawful search of Coughlin. To the extent that Frontino admitted neither he
or anyone Wal-Mart may have sought to testify at trial could hear what was said between Coughlin
and the cashier, Frontino's vantage point does not meet the in the person's presence standard
13
required by NRS 171.126(1), though Frontino still signed the Criminal Complaint swearing that he
14
had such a basis for making his allegations.
15
16
NRS 171.126(1) : Arrest by private person. A private person may arrest anotheCity Attorney Pam
Roberts: 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in the persons presence.
17
18
RSIC Officer Crawford's written report demonstrates a profound lack of appreciation for the
19
probable cause requirement, while at the same time, displaying a cunning, and crafty approach to
20
spinning the nexus between probable cause, detaining a suspects, citizen's arrest, fourth amendment
21
exceptions, and NRS 171.123.
In his written report (included in the attached Exhibit 2, a
22
23
collection of the discovery propounded by the City of Reno, finally, well over one month after the
24
arrest and after Coughlin had made numerous attempts to get a copy of such materials, from, and in
25
person and by writing, the RSIC Police force (meeting with Sargent Avansino and being refused
26
such documentation), the Reno Municipal Court, the City of Reno City Attorney's Office-on
27
approximately September 15th, 2011 Coughlin spoke with Deputy City Attorney Christopher
28
- 14/94 -
Hazlett-Stevens and inquired as to the availability of such witness statements, police reports, or any
other materials from Wal-Mart, the RSIC, or anyone else and was told by Hazlett-Stevens that the
3
4
5
6
City Attorney's Office had not and would not receive such materials until after the arraignment in
this matter, which was set for some 30 days after the arrest (September 9th, 2011 to October 10th,
2012)...Coughlin pleaded with Hazlett-Stevens to just double check and ask everyone else in the
office if any such discovery or documentation had been provided to the City Attorney's Office and
Hazlett-Stevens indicated he would, and thereafter confirmed to Coughlin that no such items had
9
10
11
12
been received, and further, that Coughlin had not right to them prior to the arraignment, in any
event, either from the City Attorney's Office, the RMC, or the RSIC Police Department. However,
the fax headers and dates on the discovery later provided by the City Attorney's Office certainly
13
seems to indicate that such materials were faxed to the City Attorney's Office by the RSIC Police
14
Department on September 13th, 2011, however, the page numbers and page counts would seem to
15
indicate some materials were not propounded).
16
17
In his Arrest Report and Declaration of Probable Cause from September 9th, 2011, RSIC
18
Officer Crawford writes:On 9/9/11 at about 21:21 hours I responded to 2425 E. 2nd St., Reno, NV
19
89502 for a Petit Larceny. Upon my arrival I met with Asset Protection Associate Thomas
20
21
Frontino, whom made a citizens arrest for Petit Larceny. Frontino was in possession of the stolen
items. Frontino's testimony at trial, however, clearly indicated he had only asked Coughlin to meet
22
23
with him, not that Frontino had immediately made a citizen's arrest right after the commission
24
of the alleged crime. Further, if Frontino had made such a citizen's arrest and was in possession
25
of the stolen items, then why did it take five minutes of interrogation by the RSIC Officers and a
26
pat down before the technical point of arrest by Crawford, and why did Crawford need to explain
27
his decision to arrest, and conduct a search incident to arrest, and basis for probable cause finding to
28
- 15/94 -
do so, upon some alleged failure by Coughlin to provide his driver's license? The discovery
propounded a month later still did not have any Magistrate or Judicial Officer's signature approving
the probable cause finding, despite the 48 hour requirement that such be issued.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
However, in his Incident Report, made a day later, RSIC Officer Crawford writes:
On 9/9120 11 at approximately 2 121 hours, Officer Braunworth and I were
dispatched to 2425 East Second Street Reno, NY 89502 for a report of a petit
larceny. Upon our arrival we met with WaI-Mart Asset Protection Associate
Thomas Frontino who stated, he observed a white male adult, identified as
Zachary Coughlin, walking through the store opening various items and
discarding them in the garbage can. Frontino stated, he also observed
Coughlin eat a candy bar while walking through the store. Coughlin passed all
points of sale inside of Wal-Mart and exited. Coughlin was then detained by
Frontino for petit larceny. Please refer to Frontino's Statement for further
infonnation. Officer Braunworth asked Coughlin if he had any weapons on his
person and Coughlin stated, he did not. I asked Coughlin if I could have
permission to search his person for weapons. Coughlin gave me consent, but
stated do not go into my pockets. l searched the outer clothing of Coughlin and
found no weapons on him. I then proceeded to ask Coughlin questions pertaining
to issuing him a citation for petit larceny.
Coughlin however, refused to answer my questions relating to a citation and
became uncooperative. Coughlin was then placed under arrest for petit larceny. I
began my search incident to arrest on Coughlin and found cough drops still
wrapped in his pockets. Frontino was able to confirm they were the same cough
drops that came from the opened cough drop boxes from inside the store that were
unpaid for. At approximately 2200 hours, I transported Coughlin to the Washoe
County Detention Facility and booked him for Reno Municipal Code 8.10.040
petit larceny. At approximately 2122 hours, I cleared the incident with no further
incident
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Officer Crawford testified at trial that Coughlin refused to provide his driver's license,
however, this Incident Report merely mentions Coughlin allegedly refusing to answer my
questions pertaining to issuing a citation? Why the remix come trial time? Could it be thata
suspect's allegedly failing to provide an Officer a response to his querry of whom do you work for
does not quite justify the older I had to arrest him under NRS 171.123 because I couldn't be sure of
his identify approach, especially where the Officer was given the suspect's driver's license, and ran
- 16/94 -
a NCIS check on it by calling his dispatch, wrote the driver's license number down on his
contemporaneous Arrest Report and Declaration of Probable Cause, and where the Officer is clearly
3
4
5
6
seen being handed the driver's license by Coughlin in the Wal-Mart interrogation room video? Any
why is it that no other video exists to support any of Wal-Mart and Frontino's allegation of
Coughlin consuming this or that or opening this or that, or throwing this or that away. If this had
been a slip and fall case you can bet Wal-Mart would have videos from more angles than a replay of
a great catch in the Super Bowl, with their stores having literally hundreds of those ceiling mounted
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
camers evenly dispersed throught the store and clearly visible to all. Oh, and, suprise, surprise,
there is no audio on either of the Interrogation Room videos provided by Wal-Mart, despite their
loss prevention associates carrying around recording devices throughout the entire incident, and the
RSIC failed to provide any such recordings as well and indicated none exist.
How exactly was Frontino able to confirm they were the same cough drops that came from
the opened cough drop boxes from inside the store? Did these cough drops' have a serial number
attached to them? Maybe the inference is that these cough drops were of the type one would find
18
in a box with the UPC that appears on both receipts in Exhibit 1 (the receipt for $14.72 containing
19
the entries for the items allegedly consumed while shopping for any paying for the entries on the
20
21
receipt for $83.82), however, at trial, testimony was the unsupportable and disengenous position
that Frontino knew they were the exact cough drops that were formerly in the boxes that Frontino
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
had gathered, and not from the box of the same Duract Cough Melts (again, bearing the same UPC)
that appeared on Coughlin's $83.82 receipt.
Lacking any real probable cause to arrest, especially for the alleged misdemeanor not
committed in the Officer's presence, after 7 p.m., (see, below, NRS 171.124(1)(a))), RSIC Officer
Crawford, a trainee being overseen by Officer Braunworth, who could barely remember his own
- 17/94 -
name on the witness stand at trial, was left to the dubious at best allegation that he had to make an
arrest because Coughlin failed to provide his driver's license( this assertion was dubious at best, and
3
4
5
6
fraudulent police misconduct done under color of state law best, considering this occurred at a retail
property owned by the same entity, the Reno Sparks Indian Colony, that owns and runs the RSIC
police force, and which partners with and rents to land on which this Wal-Mart sits, to its business
partner, Wal-Mart, considering that the interrogation room videos propounde by the City of Reno
itself, and filmed by Wal-Mart clearly show Officer Crawfor being handed Coughlin's driver's
9
10
11
12
license by Coughlin and Crawford's written report has, in Crawford's own handwriting, the exact
driver's license number belonging to Coughlin on the suspects information portion of the report,
in addition to other information taken directdly off of the driver's license Coughlin provided to
13
Crawford). Further, Coughlin's attempts to obtain the dispatch calls and records and any 911 calls
14
made by Wal-Mart, where met with contradictory responses and obfuscation. Nonetheless, upon
15
information and belief, such records would show what the interrogation room video shows, ie,
16
Officer Crawford using his radio to call into dispatch and run a check for priors on Coughlin
17
18
utilizing Coughlin's drivers license number. Indeed, the NCIS reports and records likely are
19
required to show when such a report was run and by whom, and Officer Crawford's subsequent
20
mincing assertion on the witness stand that the Washoe County Jail provided him Coughlin's
21
driver's license number is not only counter to privacy laws and Washoe County Jail policy and
22
procedure, it is also blatantly false and a pathetic attempt to game the system under color of state
23
24
law. To the extent that City of Reno Deputy Prosecutor Pamela Roberts, Esq., was in possession of
25
these interrogation room videos and continue to facilitate Officer Crawford's apparent perjury, or, at
26
least, glaring mis-rememberance, it should mitigate any anger or retaliation made against
27
Coughlin for attachign as an exhibit to a pretrial motion the various law reviews related to
28
- 18/94 -
prosecutorial misconduct that former prosecutor, RMC Judge Howard, seemed to find so offensive
and offputting.
3
4
A minute by minute chronology reveals that the $83.82 receipt was issued at 21:14 on
September 9th, 2011. The $14.74 receipt that Wal-Mart created to support its valuation of the items
allegedly consumed while shopping but not paid for was created some ten minutes later at 21:24
(military time, 24 hour clock). The RSIC Police Officers Cameron Crawford and The time
stamping on the two Interrogation Room videos provided by Wal-Mart indicate the interrogation
9
10
11
ran from 21:17 to 21:39. Coughlin provided RSIC Officer Crawford his driver's license at
approximately 21:23 (the 6 minute 49 second mark of the Interrogation Room video). Crawfords
12
Incident Report indicates he transported Coughlin at 22:00 to the Washoe County Jail. The
13
Interrogation Room videos made by Wal-Mart (the one's where Frontino is seen high fiving a Wal-
14
15
16
17
Mart cohort, and seen giving the RSIC officers a cd/dvd, despite the fact that later on both WalMart's Frontino and the RSIC Officers Crawford and Braunworth testified that other than the two
Interrogation Room videos, no other videos were provided to the RSIC PD, nor was any other
18
relevant action caught on video from that night. Wal-Mart's Thomas Frontino's Supplemental
19
Witness Statement Form is dated September 9th, 2011 with a time of 22:13 and lists his Residence
20
21
Address as 2425 E. Second St., Reno 89502, which is the address given for the Wal-Mart as well,
in violation of the Sixth Amendment Right of Confrontation.
22
23
24
Wal-Mart's Thomas Frontino, Loss Prevention Associate's Supplemental Witness Statement

Form of September 9th, 2011, with a time completed handwritten in as 22:13 (10:13 p.m.) reads:
25
26
27
28
On 09/0912011 at about 8:45 PM I noticed a male customer who I had

previous encounters with who we had followed for suspicious activities in
the past. As I followed him around the store he made his way back and
forth across the store. He selected various items such as candy and cough
medicine and some various other food items. He opened two packages of
- 19/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
cough drops and concealed the contents inside his pockets. He then threw
the packaging to the cough drops in two different garbage cans in the
store. One in the candy aisle and one in the soda aisle.
He also selected a chocolate bar which he proceeded to open and eat
throughout the store. When he was finished shopping he went to register
17 and paid for the rest of the merchandise that he had selected. He did
not however make any attempt to pay for the chocolate bar and cough
drops he had selected. He concealed the wrapper to the candy in the cart
and covered it with sanitizer wipes. He then exited the facility via the
grocery doors.
Once completely outside the facility, I approached him with Stanley
Cunningham and identified myself as Wal-mart asset protection and
informed him that I needed him to reenter the facility so that we would be
able to complete our investigation. He was compliant at this time and
followed us to the office. At this time became non compliant. The police
arrived on scene and took over the investigation. When asked by the
officers if he would consent to a pat down he complied. Also after he was
placed under arrest by the officer his belongings were emptied from his
pants pockets and we were also able to recover some of the cough drops
that he had concealed on his person. He then became very non-compliant
with the officers questioning. He was arrested and removed from our
facility. He was also tresspased at this time from all Wal-Mart facilities.
Video evidence will also be compiled.
NRS 171.124(1)(a)):Arrest by peace officer or officer of Drug Enforcement
Administration.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3 and NRS 33.070 and 33.320, a
peace officer or an officer of the Drug Enforcement Administration designated by
the Attorney General of the United States for that purpose may make an arrest in
obedience to a warrant delivered to him or her, or may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
(a) For a public offense committed or attempted in the officers presence.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of

criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations.
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters
under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is
committing or is about to commit a crime.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain
the persons identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the persons
presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself or herself, but
may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
- 20/94 -
1
2
3
4
NRS 171.1231 Arrest if probable cause appears. At any time after the onset
of the detention pursuant to NRS 171.123, the person so detained shall be arrested
if probable cause for an arrest appears. If, after inquiry into the circumstances
which prompted the detention, no probable cause for arrest appears, such person
shall be released.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal behavior
or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations.
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under
circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is
about to commit a crime.
2. Any peace officer may detain any person the officer encounters under circumstances
which reasonably indicate that the person has violated or is violating the conditions of the
persons parole or probation.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain the persons
identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the persons presence abroad. Any
person so detained shall identify himself or herself, but may not be compelled to answer any
other inquiry of any peace officer.
4. A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the
purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes. The detention must not
extend beyond the place or the immediate vicinity of the place where the detention was first
effected, unless the person is arrested.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 535; A 1973, 597; 1975, 1200; 1987, 1172; 1995, 2068)
NRS 171.1231 Arrest if probable cause appears. At any time after the onset of the
detention pursuant to NRS 171.123, the person so detained shall be arrested if probable cause
for an arrest appears. If, after inquiry into the circumstances which prompted the detention, no
probable cause for arrest appears, such person shall be released.
Wal-Mart's Frontino's sworn Criminal Complaint, however, fails to make any indication of
just how he knew or why he believed Coughlin violated RMC 8.10.040. To the extent that Frontino
22
23
writes, in his own hand, that the items taken or carried away (despite Frontino, if not the various
24
news outlets covering this case, actually testifying that he watched Coughlin consume the chocolate
25
bar while shopping) included a chocolate bar when the UPC of the receipt for the allegedly stolen
26
items, provided by Wal-Mart, actually reveals that UPC to belong to a Magnum Double Caramel Ice
27
Cream Bar, the Complaint fails to pled with the sort of specificity necessar to sustain a prosecution,
28
- 21/94 -
much less the temporary suspension of one's law license. Attorney's conduct in continuing to cross-
examine police officer after judge had ruled that police log was not admissible was not contempt
3
4
5
6
where attorney claimed that he was trying to impeach witnesses' memory, not lay foundation for
admission of log, so that his conduct could not be said to be willful. United States v Giovanelli (1990,
CA2 NY) 897 F2d 1227. Resort to summary disposition of criminal contempt proceeding under Rule
42(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, is permissible only when express requirements of rule are
met and when there is compelling reason for immediate remedy or when time is of essence. Thus,
9
10
11
12
attorney's conviction for criminal contempt in pursuing line of questioning forbidden by court would
be reversed, since record showed that there was no compelling need for immediate remedy provided
by Rule 42(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and that trial court, by its own actions, did not
13
consider time to be of essence; trial court should have observed "normal" procedure" of notice and
14
hearing, provided by Rule 42(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. U.S. v. Moschiano, 695 F.2d
15
236, 12 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 124 (7th Cir. 1982). See United States v Turner (1987, CA11 Ala) 812
16
F2d 1552, 14.
17
18
19
NRS 171.102 Complaint defined; oath or declaration required. The

complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the public
offense charged. It must be made upon:
20
1. Oath before a magistrate or a notary public; or
21
2. Declaration which is made subject to the penalty for perjury.
22
23
24
In his testimony during the November 30th, 2011 trial, Thomas Frontino apparently
realized that he needed to say something to the effect that he personally witnessed Coughlin
25
consuming the cough drops in the store. So, Thomas Frontino testified, under oath, the he
26
personally witness Coughlin consuming the cough drops throughout the store (He opened two
27
packages of cough drops and concealed the contents inside his pockets...). However, in his
28
- 22/94 -
Supplemental Witness Statement Form, Frontino does not say that. There is no mention of seeing
Coughlin consume any cough drops throughout the store. In fact, at trial, Frontino slipped up and had
3
4
5
6
to admit that official Wal-Mart policy prevented him from following Coughlin into the restroom
while he was shopping, which was unfortunate, according to Frontino, because he wanted to see if
Coughlin did anything with the cough drops in the restroom, but could not. At trial, Frontino decided
it would just be more expeditious and accomplish his goals quicker to say that he personally eye
witnessed Coughlin consuming the cough drops while shopping.
9
10
11
Frontino then goes on to indicate that Coughlin also selected a chocolate bar which he
proceeded to open and eat throughout the store. At trial Frontino took great care to make clear that
12
he personally eye witnessed Coughlin select that exact chocolate bar from the candy isle.
13
Frontino was nonplussed when, on cross examination, it was pointed out to him that the UPC for the
14
15
16
17
chocolate bar from the candy isle was actually the UPC for an ice cream bar from the
refrigerated/frozen food isle.
Frontino then indicates that Coughlin did not however make any attempt to pay for the
18
chocolate bar and cough drops he had selected. However, at Trial, Frontino had to admit that he was
19
too far away from Coughlin and the cashier to hear whether or not Coughlin made any attempt to pay
20
21
for either the chocolate bar or the cough drops. Frontino was sure to attest, under oath, at trial,
that he was absolutely sure and completely able to tell from his vantage point some approximately 30
22
23
yards from register 17 where Coughlin paid for the items he selected while shopping to ascertain that
24
none of the items the cashier rang up had the same UPC as, say, the cough drops. However, Exhibit 1
25
clearly shows that Frontino was, wrong about that given that both the receipt for $14.72 and the
26
receipt for $83.82 have an entry for the same Duract Cough Melt cough drops (containing 12
27
28
- 23/94 -
lozenges (2 separate foil sheet with 6 lozenges on each sheet) with 30 mg Dextromethophan HBr
(DXM) in them.
3
4
5
6
Wal-Mart's Frontino then writes that He concealed the wrapper to the candy in the cart and
covered it with sanitizer wipes. However, Frontino then testified that there was absolutely no video
evidence supporting that accusation, despite the fact that the areas around cashiers are typically
subject to particularly high video scrutiny. Frontino testified that he review the video from all
cameras wherein Coughlin appeared in the store that day and that nothing was captured on video.
9
10
11
12
Frontino cannot be said to have made an arrest immediately after the alleged infraction
occurred where, in his Supplemental Witness Statement he writes: informed him that I needed him
to reenter the facility so that we would be able to complete our investigation. He was compliant at this
13
time and followed us to the office. At this time became non compliant. The police arrived on scene
14
and took over the investigation.
15
16
Frontino's written statement is noticeably devoid of any assertions concerning the questioning
by the RSIC Officers and the probable cause analysis and inquiry attendant thereto. Frontino
17
18
19
20
21
22
's written Statement concludes by noting that video evidence will also be compiled. Indeed, in the
Interrogation Room video Frontino is seen handing a cv/dvd to the RSIC Officers.
With respect to these Duract Cough Melt cough drops... So, each package would contain
360mg of DXM, which, if ingested rapidly would give one's brain the dissociative effects attendant to
drinking an entire large bottle of cough syrup, however, given the fact that such Duract Cough Melts
23
24
are a candy like lozenge that literally dissolves in second, the method of delivery of such a high
25
dosage of DXM could potentially result in severe incapacitation and or mental impairment, of a
26
dissociative nature, quite rapidly, so much so, that this sort of item was pulled from the shelves
27
several years ago when Zicam originally manufacture and distributed them. DXM is used in clincial
28
- 24/94 -
trials to treat patients with conditions ranging from fibromyalgia to PTSD, and is included in the class
of medications known as dissociatives that Campral is in as well. Campral (acamprosate) is a
3
4
5
6
medication prescribed to alcoholics that is intended to lessen or curb the phenomenon of craving
associated with alcoholism. Acamprosate is thought to stabilize the chemical balance in the brain that
would otherwise be disrupted by alcoholism, possibly by antagonizing glutamatergic N-methyl-D-
aspartate receptors and agonizing gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) type A receptors. Williams,
SH. (2005). "Medications for treating alcohol dependence". American Family Physician 72 (9):
9
10
11
12
17751780. PMID 16300039. http://www.aafp.org/afp/20051101/1775.html.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextromethorphan
(Dextromethorphan has also found other uses in medicine, ranging from pain relief to psychological
13
applications....DXM is also used recreationally. When exceeding label-specified maximum dosages,
14
dextromethorphan acts as a dissociative hallucinogen. Its mechanism of action is via multiple effects,
15
including actions as a nonselective serotonin reuptake inhibitor[3] and a sigma-1 receptor[4][5]
16
agonist and the action of its major metabolite dextrorphan as an NMDA receptor antagonist,
17
18
producing effects similar to those of the controlled substances ketamine and phencyclidine (PCP),[6]
19
as well as the active metabolite 3-methoxymorphinan, which produces local anesthetic effects in rats
20
with a potency above dextrorphan but below dextromethorphan itself. Hou, C; Tzeng, J; Chen, Y;
21
Lin, C; Lin, M; Tu, C; Wang, J (2006). "Dextromethorphan, 3-methoxymorphinan, and dextrorphan
22
have local anaesthetic effect on sciatic nerve blockade in rats". European Journal of Pharmacology
23
24
544 (1-3): 106. DOI:10.1016/j.ejphar.2006.06.013. PMID 16844109...Uncompetitive NMDA
25
receptor (PCP site) antagonist...During the 1960s and 1970s, dextromethorphan became available in
26
an over-the-counter tablet form by the brand name Romilar. In 1973, Romilar was taken off the
27
shelves after a burst in sales because of frequent misuse, and was replaced by cough syrup in an
28
- 25/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
attempt to cut down on abuse. See, White, William. "The DXM Experience".
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/faq/dxm_experience.shtml. Retrieved December 21,
2010; AJ Giannini. Drugs of Abuse--Second Edition. Los Angeles, Practice Management Information
Corp, 1997.) See, also: http://www.uspharmacist.com/content/d/feature/i/1500/c/28282/ Jamero, D.
The emerging role of NMDA Antagonists in Pain Management. US Pharmacist. 2011. Jobson
Publishing. Posted to Medscape.com on 6/22/2011.
Coughlin has provided the State Bar of Nevada's Bar Counsel (though Mr.Susich and Mr.
King's recent SCR 117 petition do not seem to acknowledge that, and further misstate a number of
very material facts, like this suddenly new allegation that the locks to Coughlin's former law office
were broken when Coughlin was arrested for criminal trespass in the quasi basement under the house,
13
a basement which never had any locks....but in the SCR 117 King and Susich make it sound like the
14
locks to the interior of the former home law office had been broken into, which has never been
15
alleged previously or supported by any factual allegations or specifics), and his father, Dr. Timothy
16
D. Coughlin, MD, (a family practitioner based in Reno, NV, with a practice emphasis on addiction
17
18
medicine and a former President of the Nevada Health Professionals Assistance Foundation and past
19
President of the Nevada Academy of Family Physicians, and various impaired physician's diversion
20
programs) with a complete certified prescription history dating back to late 2007 which shows that
21
Coughlin did not fill his Buproprion/anti-depressant prescription both in April 2009 (when Coughlin,
22
a former domestic violence unit attorney for legal aid non-profit Washoe Legal Services, and WLS
23
24
parted ways) and that Coughlin stopped filling his Buproprion prescription in August 2011, and that
25
subsequently Coughlin was twice charged with petit larceny within a period of 19 days (first on
26
August 20th, 2011 by the Reno Police Department, for which Coughlin spent roughly 7 days in jail
27
awaiting a release on his own recognizance) and against in the matter underpinning this filing, the
28
- 26/94 -
arrest at Wal-Mart on September 9th, 2011. Coughlin's domestic partner of four and half years and he
parted ways sometime in June 2011 and Coughlin became aware of several months rent allegedly
3
4
5
6
being own their neurosurgeon landlord, Dr. Matthew J. Merliss, MD, sometime in mid-August.
While in jail incident to the August 20th, 2011 arrest (for, essentially, possession of lost or
mislaid iPhone as petit larceny, a matter for which Coughlin asserts his innocence and for which a
video fo the arrest and exculpatory evidence has been available all year on youtube.com) Coughlin
was served with a No Cause Summary Eviction Notice for his former home law office. NRS 40.253
9
10
11
12
explicitly forbids utilizing summary eviction proceedings against commercial tenants unless the nonpayment of rent is alleged and a Non-Payment of Rent Eviction Notice is served. Landlord Merliss,
and his attorney's Richard Hill, Esq., and Casey Baker, Esq., decided to proceed with a No Cause
13
eviction Notice rather than be required to litigate the habitability issues for which a paper trail exists
14
and for which Merliss failed to address issues related to apropriately served 14 day notice to cure
15
habitability issues complaints and other matters.
16
Coughlin has attended Lawyer's Concerned for Lawyers since early 2003 and is active in the
17
18
recovery community, though there has been some difficulty in straddling the line between the old
19
school hard line AA'ers and those in the psychiatric community who recognize the danger in say, not
20
treating adult ADHD with anything other than a 12 step program, and instead facing the risk of self
21
medicating via abusing substances not necessarily indicated as appropriate treatment modalities and
22
outside the setting of a trained professional such as Coughlin's current psychiatrist, Dr. Suat Yasar,
23
24
whom took over Coughlin's treatment from Dr. Mujahid Rasul, whom passed away in September
25
2010, and whom Coughlin has made aware of his various arrests and difficulties this year and whom
26
takes an active role in seeing that Coughlin continues progressing his recovery from what has
27
admittedly been a disappointing and regrettable year.
28
- 27/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
Coughlin regularly receives treatment from Dr. Suat Yasser and has resumed the treatment
modalities that were yielding efficacious results prior to the unexpected money troubles that resulted
in Coughlin not being able to afford either of his medications beginning in early August 2011.
Coughlin, at that time, did make several inquiries with Nevada Adult Mental Health (NAMHS) but
one of the medications Coughlin takes was not one for which NAMHS would be able to provide
anything in the way of financial help given budget constraints, and the other medication was not so
expensive such that it seemed all that worthwhile to go through a somewhat invasive and privacy
9
10
11
12
13
threatening intake process at NAMHS rather than to attempt to continue to pay out of pocket for that
medication (which incidentally and inexplicable, tripled in price shortly thereafter despite our sagging
economy and its long off patent statuts).
Coughlin maintains his innocence with respect to the August 20th, 2011 petit larceny charge
14
(iPhone found on ground by man, man threatens to throw a phone he picked up in the river if
15
someone doesn't claim it right away, Coughlin thereafter attacked by a gang of skateboarders
16
claiming the iPhone to be theirs), and will shortly face trial in that matter, given the intransigence
17
18
displayed by the District Attorney's Office and the Mental Health Court vis a vis some of the issue
19
explicated above and despite the fact that the iPhone's owner, a Cory Goble, 24, of Reno, NV,
20
recently battered Coughlin with a lit cigarette in a parking lot where Goble had accosted Coughlin,
21
unexpectedly, and despite the fact that a multitude of video evidence exists tending to indicate that
22
Goble and his associates lied on numerous occasions to 911 operators and the police in order to have
23
24
Coughlin arrested where, quite arguably, Coughlin did not commit a crime. While spending 7 days in
25
jail beginning August 19th, 2011, and returning home to an impermissible summary eviction from his
26
former home law office (a commercial tenancy explicitly allowed under the Lease Agreement in
27
question) may have created a set of circumstances making it tempting to shoplift food or necessaries
28
- 28/94 -
from Wal-Mart, Coughlin maintains that he is not guilty of the alleged petit larceny from Wal-Mart
and is currently pursuing an appeal of the matter with the Nevada Supreme Court in case number
3
4
5
6
60630.
With respect to matters which may bring into doubt the validity of the conviction in the trial
court judgment in RMC 11 CR 26800: In the appeal to the District Court in CR11-2064, Judge Elliot
utilized a civil statute in excusing the RMC from its failure to forward to the District Court a copy of
the transcript of the audio recording of the trial and to forward such to the District Court within ten
9
10
11
12
days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal. Further, Coughlin made numerous attempts to order such a
transcript and was thwarted in his attempts to do so by the RMC's express dictate that only the RMC's
transcriptionist of choice, Pam Dongoni, would be permitted to perfrom the transcribing duties, and
13
Ms. Dongoni hung up the phone on Coughlin and refused to provide information related to where and
14
in what method of payment Coughlin could pay for the transcript and assure its production. Further,
15
the RMC refused to timely provide Coughlin a copy of the audio recording of the trial until well after
16
the deadline for filing tolling motions or a Notice of Appeal had passed, and further, the RMC failed
17
18
to notate in the certified docket (which is not available to litigants during these matters, and attempts
19
by Coughlin to so obtain such a docket has resulted in the City of Reno Marshals threatening
20
Coughlin and forcing him to leave the courthouse and writing disengenous letters to Bar Counsel.
21
The RMC Marshals were also involved in a scenario wherein Coughlin's smartphone was booked
22
into evidence for 37 days (and returned with all the data previously on it wiped clean, with the
23
24
interim seeing various contradictory statements regarding the chain of custody of the phone and data
25
thereon between the RMC, WCSO, and City of Reno Marshals, and Washoe County District
26
Attorney's Office) incident to a five day incarceration of Coughlin, stemming from a summary
27
contempt committed in the presence of the Court in a traffic violation Trial, 11 TR 26800 (3 moving
28
- 29/94 -
violations were issued to Coughlin upon Coughlin being told by the Reno PD to leave the office of
opposing counsel in the eviction from his former law office (Richard G. Hill, Esq., opposing counsel
3
4
5
6
to Bar Counsel King recently in the Milsner v Carstarphen decision of this Court issued in March
2012, and whom filed a grievance with Bar Counsel in a letter to King dated February 14th, 2012
wherein Hill details an arrest of Coughlin that had not proceeded to trial, much less a conviction for
which Coughlin would be required to report under SCR 111, and in which Hill makes baseless
accusations of ghostwriting by Coughlin for one for whom Coughlin was listed as attorney of
9
10
11
12
record. Further, the recent, and extremely prejudicial and inaccurate confidential SCR 117 Disability
Petition by Bar Counsel and or Mr. Susich is seemingly largely cribbed from Hill's Motion for
Attorney's Fees incident to the appeal of the summary eviction from Coughlin's former home law
13
office (a wrong site surgery of the courtroom variety Hill litigated on behalf of his Californian
14
Beverly Hills neurosurgeon client, wherein Hill proceeded with a summary eviction against a
15
commercial tenant where the non-payment of rent was not alleged nor was any eviction notice
16
provided other than a No Cause Eviction Notice). In that Motion for Attorney's Fees, Hill somehow
17
18
attempts to at once claim Coughlin's filings in the appeal in CV11-03628 were at once so baseless as
19
to be sanctionable, yet, also, at the same time, apparently well founded enough to require Hill to run
20
up some $43,000 in attorney's fees charged to Merliss (for the period of time following the November
21
3, 2011 filing of a Notice of Appeal of the Order of Summary Eviction in RJC 2011-001708), on top
22
of the $20,000 in attorney's fees Hill and Baker sought to recover (mistakenly citing to an attorney's
23
24
fees in a landlord tenant context statute related only to situations where a tenant was manufacturing
25
controlled substances at the rental, rather than admitting that NRS 69.030 forbid Hill and Baker from
26
getting attorney's fees in a landlord tenant trial court matter, much less a summary eviction, much less
27
$20,000 worth of them). Bar Counsel King displayed a particularly troubling resistance to
28
- 30/94 -
countenancing any of the grievances against other attorneys Coughlin then asserted, yet steadfastly
continued to devote Bar resources to addressing Richard G. Hill, Esq.'s dubious basis for filing
3
4
5
6
multiple grievances against Coughlin, contributing one of the legs to a four part quadruple jeopardy
approach Hill took, wherein Hill filed Motion for Orders to Show Cause before Judge Sferrazza in the
Trial Court, before Judge Flanagan on Appeal, filed a TRO with Judge Schroeder in Justice Court,
and had Coughlin arrested for jaywalking and criminal trespass (the trespass arrest on November 12th,
2011 resulted in the resetting of the Trial in the RMC case resulting in the petit larceny conviction
9
10
11
12
involved in the SCR 111 Bar Counsel Petition (where Coughlin was not told to leave or warned to
leave the former home law office and where the Washoe County Sheriff's Office lied in a sworn
written affidavit in attesting to have personally served Coughlin the Order of Summary Eviction
13
(Deputy Machem, November 7th, 2011 Affidavit on file) only to later have WCSO Supervisor Liz
14
Stuchell admit that her office considers it personal service for Deputy Machem to tape a document
15
to one's door when they are not home. NRS 40.253 requires either personal or constructive service.
16
The court may thereupon issue an order directing the sheriff or constable of the county to
17
18
remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the order... is inapplicable to this situation, where
19
an Order Granting Summary Eviction was signed by October 27th, 2011. That language is only found
20
in situations inapplicable to the current one. NRS 40.253(3)(b)(2), and NRS 40.253(5)(a) are the only
21
sections of NRS 40 where this within 24 hours language occurs, and those situations only apply
22
where, in:
23
24
25
26
27
28
40.253(3)(b)(2): 3. A notice served pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 must: ...(b) Advise

the tenant: . (2) That if the court determines that the tenant is guilty of an unlawful
detainer, the court may issue a summary order for removal of the tenant or an order
providing for the nonadmittance of the tenant, directing the sheriff or constable of the
county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the order
and,
40.253(5)(a): 5. Upon noncompliance with the notice:
(a) The landlord or the
- 31/94 -
landlords agent may apply by affidavit of complaint for eviction to the justice court of
the township in which the dwelling, apartment, mobile home or commercial premises
are located or to the district court of the county in which the dwelling, apartment,
mobile home or commercial premises are located, whichever has jurisdiction over the
matter. The court may thereupon issue an order directing the sheriff or constable of the
county to remove the tenant within 24 hours after receipt of the order.
The way these summary eviction orders are being carried out and served in Washoe County
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
presently shocks the conscience and violates Nevada law. There is not basis for effectuating a
lockout the way WCSO's Deputy Machem did in the case of the undersigned's former home law
office. The above two sections containing the within 24 hours of receipt language are inapplicable,
10
as those situations do not invoke the present circumstances, where the Tenant did file an Affidavit
11
and did contest this matter to a degree not often seen. To require Nevada's tenants to get up and get
12
13
out within 24 hours of receipt of the order (what does that even mean? The use of terms like
rendition, rendered, notice of entry, pronounced, is absent here, and this receipt of the
14
15
order language is something rarely found elsewhere in Nevada law-see attached DMV statutory
16
citations, and in employment law litigation where one must file a Complaint within 90 days of
17
receipt of a Right To Sue Letter, a situation which follows NRCP 5(b), and NRCP 6(e) in imputing
18
receipt of such a letter, when actual receipt is not shown, by applying a constructive notice
19
standard that relies upon the days for mailing extension of time for items served in the mailing, etc.).
20
21
In Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, 553 F.3d 114 (1st Cir. 2009), the record did not
22
reflect when the plaintiff received his right-to-sue letter. The letter was issued on November 24,
23
2006. The court calculated that the 90-day period commenced on November 30, 2006, based on three
24
days for mailing after excluding Saturdays and Sundays. In order to bring a claim under either Title
25
VII or the ADA, a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies and sue within 90 days of receipt of
26
27
28
a right to sue letter. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1). See Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown,
466 U.S. 147, 148 n.1, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984)(granting plaintiff an additional three
- 32/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
days for mailing pursuant to Rule 6).

With respect to any mention of 24 hours and the applicability of the JCRCP to cases like
these, NRS 40.400 Rules of practice, holds that :The provisions of NRS, Nevada Rules of Civil
Procedure and Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure relative to civil actions, appeals and new trials,
so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of NRS 40.220 to 40.420, inclusive, apply to
the proceedings mentioned in those sections. As such NRCP 6(a),(e) applies to the Order of
Summary Eviction that WCSO Deputy Machem alleged, under penalty of perjury, that he "personally
9
10
11
12
served" upon me on November 1, 2011.

ATTEMPT AT PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
Here is the undersigned's attempt to type out, word for word, the beginning of the proceeding
13
in this matter (Coughlin's indigency has prevented securing the production of a certified transcript and
14
hopefully it is obvious to the reader the points at which the undersigned interlineates commentary or
15
analysis within the transcription itself, typically always set offf by parenthesesis. Further, the For The
16
Record version of the audio of the petty larceny trial is available for free download here, as are the
17
18
two Interrogation Room videos of the September 9th, 2011 arrest at Walmart and the discovery
19
produced by the City Attorney and the receipt for $83.82, showing the UPC for the cough drops did
20
appear on the receipt, contrary to Frontino and Officer Crawfords testimony.):
21
https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=43084638F32F5F28!921
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Beginning of audio transcript at 2:12 p.m.)

Marshall: all rise department for the Reno Municipal Court staff session the Hon.
Judge Howard:presiding
Hon. Judge Howard: Be seated everyone
Roberts: Your Honor last cases is City verses Zachary Coughlin: 11 CR 22176 Mr.
Coughlin would you step forward please?
Hon. Judge Howard: all right this is the time and place set for trial in regard to a
petit larceny alleged to been committed on September 9 of this year complaint alleges
that said defendant on or about September 9 2011 at Wal-Mart 2425 E. 2nd St. city of
Reno state of Nevada did take carrying away Wal-Mart property valued at less than
- 33/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
$250 with the intent to deprive Wal-Mart of said property said property consisted of
cough drops and a chocolate bar, Mr. Coughlin, is that your understanding of the
charge?
Coughlin: I believe so Your Honor
Hon. Judge Howard: all right part both parties ready to proceed at this time
Robert: Yes, Your Honor
Coughlin: no Your Honor I'm not ready to proceed
Hon. Judge Howard: why not
Mr. Coughlin: Well, there is a variety of reasons, Your Honor
Hon. Judge Howard: you have to speak up if you want me..
Coughlin: yes sir Your Honor, there's a variety of reasons, sir, I would say chief of
which is that it unlawful rent distraint is currently being applied to my files that are
necessary to defend this case I was evicted in justice court case REV2011-001708
recently, besides having an impermissible rent escrow deposit applied to me in that
case.
Hon. Judge Howard: what does that have to do with this case?
Coughlin: recently I have been affected all my files
Hon. Judge Howard: right
Coughlin: all my files incident to the defense of this case are currently being withheld
under in an impermissible rent distraint in violation of NRS 40.253 and 118 a.460
Hon. Judge Howard:what else you have other than this what else you have, as a basis
for not being prepared?
Coughlin: I made numerous attempts to contact the Reno City Attorney's office and
Ms. Roberts in attempts to discuss this matter
Hon. Judge Howard: Ms. Roberts
Coughlin: and I have not been able to reach her
Hon. Judge Howard: or that sound basis for a continuance maybe she doesn't speak to
she is not required to
Coughlin: further there's a good deal of discovery that needs to be undertaken in this
regard Wal-Mart has been obstructive, as well as (unintelligible)
Hon. Judge Howard: what items of discovery
Coughlin: well I'd like to take some depositions as well have them respond to some
subpoena duces tecums I had served on them
Hon. Judge Howard: what else?
Coughlin: the same could be said for the Reno Sparks Indian Colony and this is a
complex case in terms you have the Indian colony renting property to Wal-Mart while
employing the same police patrolling the property on which they have a financial stake
in whether make an arrest there's Fourth Amendment issues involved in this case as
well is 42 section 1983 abuse of process's and police misconduct in terms of attempting
to obtain consent to an impermissible search through coercive means this is not a
simple case...civil recovery abuses are being alleged on the part of Wal-Mart attempted
state actors.. also, and I probably can't put into words, Your Honor, how truly
disruptive this eviction has been... I was evicted from my home office. I am an
attorney in the state of Nevada my client files are currently, I don't even know if I
28
- 34/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
should call them my files or my client's files are being withheld under an impermissible
rent distraint. Also, I was sexually assaulted by a bailiff in court the other day
Hon. Judge Howard: in this court
Coughlin: in Justice Court
Coughlin: all of these matters contribute to an unduly burdensome environment in
which my ability to defend this case has been unduly prejudiced in the extreme
Hon. Judge Howard:I am going to deny the request to continue I guess whether this is a
complex case is in the eye of the beholder, I don't typically find that these matters are
as complex as you've indicated they are on that as well that much of the argument that
you made here relating to sexual assault of a bailiff and another court your inability to
possess control your client files have no relevance in my mind to proceeding with the
charges and petty larceny alleged to have occurred at Wal-Mart on September 9
Coughlin: not just my client files or materials needed to defend this case are being
withheld
Hon. Judge Howard: I interrupt you sir, don't interrupt me.
Coughlin: Yes, sir.
Hon. Judge Howard: Additional note that the last hearing November 14 the city was
present with three witnesses the matter was continued, and we initially indicated that
we would note Mr. Coughlin's failure to appear we ordered a bench warrant and $1000
cash bail only to discover, unfortunately for Mr. Coughlin, that he was in custody so
the matter was reset. I think there's been sufficient time to prepare for trial in this
matter so we will proceed with trial all witnesses please stand and raise your right hand
so you can be sworn please
Coughlin: if I can just make my objections for the record, Sir?
Hon. Judge Howard: standing objections
Coughlin: Ms. Roberts has agreed to a continuance submitting a written agreement to
the continues this matter
Howard:Ms. Roberts
Roberts: he initially had asked for a motion to continue sometime ago I went was for
the 14th and I did not object at that time am I think you sent me an e-mail after the 14th
and I said I would not object but Your Honor so at that time I did not object he has
filed additional motions with additional allegations that I think should be stricken and
not considered by this court and I'd like to withdraw my lack of opposition to
continuance
Hon. Judge Howard: will in any event this court is not going to agree to the stipulation
if there was a stipulation to continue with witnesses here for second time they're ready
to proceed this is case going forward, and we will swear in the witnesses
Marshall: I swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth
Witnesses: Yes, sir.
Marshall: They've been sworn.
Hon. Judge Howard: All right Mr. Coughlin do I need to go over the procedure here
today?
Coughlin: Yes, sir.
Hon. Judge Howard: the city has a burden of proof and as such will allow Ms. Roberts
to proceed with its case in chief initially she can do so by calling one more witnesses to
the witness stand you have an opportunity to cross examine each of those witnesses
- 35/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
once she has completed she can also offer any physical or documentary evidence that
she feels is relevant obviously subject to any objections that you might have to
relevancy. Once the city has concluded its case you will have an opportunity to present
a defense. I highlight the word opportunity because I think you understand there is no
requirement that you present any evidence whatsoever and should you choose not to
testify this court there's no inference as to your guilt or innocence based on your
decision not to testify on the other hand you have an absolute right to offer testimony
in the form of witnesses including yourself realizing that each of those witnesses will
be subject to cross-examination by the city attorney in fact if you have any additional
evidence physical or documentary that you would like me to review in most
circumstances I will do so subject once again to any objections that the city attorney
and he might have to that evidence once the two of you have submitted your respective
cases I will allow both of you to make closing arguments once concluded this court
will render a decision as your guilt for your innocence do understand?
Coughlin: I do have a question, Your Honor. You mentioned that I would be able to
present evidence if that evidence is being withheld from me at this point and it's
pending the resolution of a motion for return of personal property in Justice Court I
would be precluded from action accessing that evidence?
Hon. Judge Howard: I've ruled on that already, have I not?
Coughlin: It sounded like you said it didn't matter.
Hon. Judge Howard: I don't find that it's relevant to go forward with the trial today.
Coughlin: so if I have video evidence of retaliatory intent by Wal-Mart?
Hon. Judge Howard:you should've brought it with you today.
Coughlin: but if it's being withheld impermissibly under the law?
Hon. Judge Howard: we are going forward today I have addressed the issue you can
bring it up on appeal if you feel that the decision of the Court is improper, understood?
Coughlin: Yes, Sir,Your Honor.
Hon. Judge Howard: Mr. Coughlin, lets you and I have an agreement today that we
will be respectful of one another you can tender any objections that you may have I do
not want you to be repetitious if you made an objection or a presentation and I've ruled
on it except that and let's move on. Do we have an understanding?
Coughlin: I do however to the extent that you've told me that my life and career are not
worth a continuance because it might cost a Wal-Mart associate another trip to the
court house I don't see where we are being respectful of me,Your Honor.
(2:27 PM)
Hon. Judge Howard: Very good, please proceed.
Roberts: Your Honor, can I invoke exclusionary rule asked Thomas Frontino.
Coughlin: Your Honor, may I just interject and address a couple preliminary motions
in limine and exclusionary motions?
Hon. Judge Howard: What?
Coughlin: I ask that any of the discovery that there Reno City Attorneys provided be
excluded under them motion in limine/ exclusionary rule and that we fully brief the
issues there and if before any such such discovery is admitted into evidence.
Howard: What is your motion in limine?
Coughlin: to exclude the the written statements of Mr. Frontino and the
- 36/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Hon. Judge Howard: On what basis?

Coughlin: that the search was violative of the Fourth Amendment.
Hon. Judge Howard: City, a response?
Roberts: I think he needs to articulate how they invoke the Fourth and Fifth
aAmendments rather than just make bald assertion that they've violative.
Hon. Judge Howard: Well, I am going to deny your request.. NRS 170.4125 motions
are required to be made prior to trial you failed to do that in written form and I am not
going to consider them at this point in time because there have the obvious effect of
continuing this preceding today and I think that's what you're going after.
Coughlin: and I'll just interject an objection.
Hon. Judge Howard: I don't want to hear anything further, its denied.
Coughlin: I need to enter my objections for the record.
Hon. Judge Howard: Mr. Coughlin, I have given you fair warning if you continue to
persist in this line of performance I'm going to hold you in contempt (2:29 PM)
Coughlin: I won't be bullied into not entering my objections on the record.
Hon. Judge Howard: This matter will be continued because you're going to be placed
in custody now, you've been given fair warning, let's proceed.
Coughlin: Your Honor may I enter my objections in the record to preserve them for the
record on appeal?
Hon. Judge Howard: Go ahead.
Coughlin: It seems as though you've just told me that I may not because you just told
me you are going to have to be arrested if I do so I am a little scared to do that at this
point Your Honor and I move for your recusal from this case on that basis
Hon. Judge Howard: denied.
Coughlin: Okay,then can I enter my objections for the record and state the basis for my
objections for the motions in limine?
Hon. Judge Howard:Mr. Coughlin: let's proceed, make your objections on the record
now, go ahead.
Coughlin: Okay, I don't mean to provide a reason to get angry.. Those motions were
submitted, I believe I have submitted those motions in writing.
Hon. Judge Howard: and they have been denied.
Coughlin: well it seemed as though a second ago Your Honor said that they had not
been submitted in writing
Hon. Judge Howard: All right! (pounds fist on desk making very loud sound,
courtroom microphone malfunctions with feedback for a period of time )
(2:30:06: p.m.)
Coughlin: further there is a coercive attempt to procure consent to a search based upon
not consenting. Probable cause was buttressed upon a failure to not consent to search
which as you stated earlier, Your Honor, asserting one's Fifth Amendment or Fourth
Amendment right cannot be used to infer evidence of guilt or to buttress a probable
cause finding for a search, particularly for a search that occurs prior to arrest.
Hon. Judge Howard: anything further?
Coughlin: I do.. I am terribly shaken by what you said to me, Sir, and it's affected my
ability to concentrate right now and defend my case given the 0 to 60 in one second
approach that I have witnessed you take with me today in terms of threatening me with
contempt upon the first attempt I believe I made to preserve and objections for the
- 37/94 -
1
2
record further I believe my motion for reconsideration the denial of appointed counsel,
but it was never ruled on. There is a Sixth Amendment right to counsel where the
possibility of jail time is.
3
4
5
6
Hon. Judge Howard: your initial motion has been previously denied. I'll deny it
again in regard to motion for counsel I'll deny it again for the record that is founded
upon Scott versus Illinois which held that where an indigent individual, as you claim
you are, is not going to be sentenced to jail time, there is no requirement of the
appointment of counsel.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2:47:33 pm
Roberts: After you identified yourself as Wal-Mart asset protection what did you say to him
Thomas Frontino: I identified myself as asset protection and that I needed to talk to him about some
items that he had taken from our facility.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: And did he say anything to you at that time:
Thomas Frontino: He pretended...He did not say anything, however he did come with us back into the
store
2:48:33 pm
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Did you place Mr. Coughlin in custody, did you place handcuffs on
him at that time?
Thomas Frontino: No, we did not touch him in any way, He was simply following our directions at
that point.
2:49:31
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: When you were walking Mr. Coughlin back to the AP Office was
he in handcuffs?
Thomas Frontino: No, he was not.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: and were you escorting him in any way, did you have your arm
around him in any way?
Thomas Frontino: No, we did not.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Once you were in the AP office, did you ask him any question or
have further discussion.
Thomas Frontino: I asked him about the items he concealed and he refused to cooperate any further
with our investigation....He just continued to say that he didn't do it when I asked him about the candy
bar and cough drops.
25
27
2:50:47
Zach Coughlin: Objection, Best Evidence Rule, why rely on Frontino's vague recollections rather than
use any of the video tape.
28
2:51:19:
26
- 38/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Did you ask Mr. Coughlin any more questions relevant to this
situation?
Thomas Frontino: I asked him for his information so we could enter it into our system.
2:52
argue about exclusionary rule regarding witness, Hazlett-Stevens in there watching, mention Howard
made a woman leave earlier, all witnesses are male, etc.
2:52:25 pm
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: What specific information did you ask of Mr. Coughlin?
Thomas Frontino: Identification, his name birth date, social security number.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: And did he provide any of that information to you?
Thomas Frontino: No, he did not.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Based upon his unwillingness to provide that information did you
take any further action?
Thomas Frontino: Yes, we called the police, the Reno Sparks Indian Colony Tribal Police
Department. They usually arrive within ten minutes, I believe my statement reflects it was less than
that.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Were you present when the Officers decided to put handcuffs on
Mr. Coughlin
Thomas Frontino: Yes.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Prior to placing the handcuffs, did you observe the Officers place
their hands in Coughlin's pockets?
Thomas Frontino: No.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: What were the items you believe Mr. Coughlin had taken from
Wal-Mart?
Thomas Frontino: chocolate bar and two packages of cough drops.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: were you able to recover those items.
Thomas Frontino: Uh, he consumed the chocolate bar and he consumed some of the cough drops as
well but we were able to get the packaging to everything.
Zach Coughlin: Objection, foundation
Hon. Judge Howard: Denied,
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Did you recover the packaging for the cough drops?
Thomas Frontino: Yes, I did.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: So you were able to tell what type of cough drop it was?
Zach Coughlin: Objection, foundation.
Hon. Judge Howard: Overruled.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: did you recover the candy bar wrapper that was associate with the
candy bar you saw Mr. Coughlin consume?
Thomas Frontino: Yes, I did, and prepared a receipt to indicate what they value of those items are by
taking the exact wrapper of the item and preparing a traning receipt so we can get the exact value of
what they sell for in Reno
- 39/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
2:56:59
Zach Coughlin: Objection hearsay
Hon. Judge Howard: Overruled! Did you hear me, Sir? Did you hear that?
2:57:17
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Did you actually conduct the scanning of those items to creat the
training receipt
Thomas Frontino: I don't have a cashier number so I go with them and stand with them and watch
while they scan the items to create the receipt (check the tape to see).
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: So you actually observe them going through the motion of
scanning the items and preparing the receipt?
Thomas Frontino: Yes, I do.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Wish to enter as Exhibit 1 the receipt
Zach Coughlin: Objection: foundation and authentication, best evidence rule
Hon. Judge Howard: denied.
Thomas Frontino: identifies it as a training receipt with a list of items which he consumed or removed
from the facility, including the chocolate bar and the cough drops, I have the actual receipt with me
and that photocopy is consistent with it.
Zach Coughlin: objection basis of lack of foundation, authentication, best evidence rule, he is not
qualified to testify with regard to the business practices of his employer in this particular
circumstance, relevancy, to what extent is this probative.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
? Anything from Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: on jurisdiction? Indian Colony land, anyone with
a drop of tribal blood must be tride in tribal court.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: He personally observed this document being produced by the
maching and saw the items that he saw consumed or stolen by the defendant scanned into the register.
Hon. Judge Howard: Objection overruled, admitted.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: no further questions of this witness
Cross of Frontino: 3:01:00
Zach Coughlin: Mr. Frontino will you state your social security number for the record.
Hon. Judge Howard: he doesn't have to provide that.
Zach Coughlin: Your Honor, I do not believe you are practicing law on behalf of the City Attorney's
Officer he.
Hon. Judge Howard: before he speaks his ssn into the record...I am going to prevent it
Zach Coughlin: objection to the court's sua sponte practicing law on behalf of the city attorney's
office.
Zach Coughlin: Mr. Frontino didn't you have a social security number on a piece of paper with my
name on it prior to the police arriving? (3:02:07)
Thomas Frontino: I do not recall.
C:So in you LP room did you have any piece of paper with what you thought was my name, social
security number, or other personally identifiable information already filled out.
Thomas Frontino: At the time you had only given us your name, that was it.
- 40/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zach Coughlin: Objection, non responsive.

Hon. Judge Howard: You asked the question, you got a response, your objection overruled, denied.
Zach Coughlin: so are you lying when you say I provided you my name?
Zach Coughlin: So, just to be clear, you are stating here under penalty of perjury under oath, that prior
to the police arriving I gave you my name?
Thomas Frontino: I am saying that we did not have the evidence required... we did not have the
information required, so whether you gave me your name or not was...was not the point, you were
uncooperative and that is why we notified police.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, just a second ago you testified that I gave you my name prior to the police
arriving, now it seems you are backing off of that a little bit, Mr. Frontino...and you are smiling
smugly.
Thomas Frontino: I don't remember whether you gave me your name or not at first, I know you did
not give me the information required for us to complete our investigation, that is why police were
notified.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, so you just lied earlier when you said yes, for sure I gave you my name prior
to the police arriving and that you didn't already have my name on a piece of paper and what you
thought was my social security number written on a piece of paper right there on your desk, in the
loss prevention office? Were you lying right there, Mr. Frontino?
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Objection, complex question.
Hon. Judge Howard: Its a complex question, lets ask a question, not a series of questions in narrative
form.
Zach Coughlin: is it true that you just testified earlier that you did not have my name written on a
piece of paper in your office immediately upon bringing me back to it.
Thomas Frontino: I believe I did have your name but I do not remember conclusively whether or
not...I know that I did not have enough information to complete my investigation.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, so earlier when you testified that you didn't have my name on a piece of paper,
but then that the only way you got my name prior to the police arriving, was by me offering it, you
were lying? Under penalty of perjury? I don't know why you are smiling, Sir? There's nothing funny
about perjury.
Hon. Judge Howard: I don't see that as a smile, let's let the record be clear.
Thomas Frontino: I'm not quite understanding your question perhaps. I am saying that I did not have
enough information to proceed with my report without notifying police.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, well, I'll just write these questions down real simple.
Hon. Judge Howard: is that a question?
Zach Coughlin: I am making it a question right here.
Hon. Judge Howard: What you are doing is you are being argumentative, what I want you to do is ask
him questions.
Zach Coughlin: Were you lying when you said earlier that you didn't have what you thought was my
name
Thomas Frontino: No, I was not lying, I believe that I was making a statement that I still believe was
true...I believe you gave me your name and only your name at the time.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, so just a minute ago when you said now, I'm not sure whether you gave you
me your name or not? Which is it? The tape of this testimony right here will show that at first you
said you didn't have my nme?
Hon. Judge Howard: there is a question before him, I believe, let's see if he can address it.
- 41/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Thomas Frontino: What was the question?

Zach Coughlin: Did you already testify today that you did not know my name when you brought me
back to the LP room.
Thomas Frontino: When I brought you back to the room, no I did not have your name?
Zach Coughlin: Did you have a name that you believe might be mine?
Thomas Frontino: Yes because you gave us a...a name, but without proper identification it is WalMart policy to call the police.
Zach Coughlin: So, now you are saying I gave you a name?
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Your Honor, asked and answered.
Zach Coughlin: Its been answered in several contradictory ways...
Hon. Judge Howard: Sustained, ask another question...
Zach Coughlin: At first its you didn't give a name, then its you gave us a name then its I'm not
sure if you gave a name then its you smiling some more...
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Objection, Your Honor, he's testifying...
Hon. Judge Howard: Mr. Coughlin, I have told you that I am not going to allow you to present
argument at this time, let's get along with another line of questions..
Zach Coughlin: Okay, but I'm confused...
Hon. Judge Howard: Another line of questions, the record is clear...
Zach Coughlin: Do you recall having a piece of paper with a name that you believe might be mine, on
your desk, immediately upon bringing me into what you call the asset protection room?
Thomas Frontino: When we brought you back into the room our normal procedure is to get out our
information collection form and to get information from our suspect, we asked you your name, all of
your...
Zach Coughlin: Objection, Your Honor, I am not asking him was he was seeking to have collected
Hon. Judge Howard: What Mr. Coughlin is asking...its my understanding he's asking you if you had a
piece of paper on your desk with his name on it when he was brought back to the room? Is that
correct?
Zach Coughlin: With my name already on it.
Thomas Frontino: No....(nervous laughter from Frontino)..Absolutely not...I must have
misunderstood the question before, but absolutely no.
C:You didn't have a piece of paper, Sir, with my name and social security number on it?
Thomas Frontino: Already on it when you first entered the room? No.
Zach Coughlin: Yeah...yeah.
Thomas Frontino: Absolutely not.
Zach Coughlin: Did you have a piece of paper with my name on it?
Zach Coughlin: Something similar to my name on it?
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Objection, how would he know what name is similar to yours..
Hon. Judge Howard: Speculative...
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Speculative, yes
Hon. Judge Howard: Sustained.
Zach Coughlin: Similar in terms of one or two letters being different out of 20 or so letters..
Hon. Judge Howard: Mr. Coughlin...Mr. Coughlin...proceed with another line of inquiry.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, did you have a piece of paper with a name already on it when you brought me
into the office.
Hon. Judge Howard: Asked and answered...did you hear what I just said?
- 42/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zach Coughlin: I believe that was a different question, Sir. I didn't ask if it had my name, I asked if it
had a name on it.
Thomas Frontino: There is other people's names on the desk, so chances were, yes, there was another
piece of paper with somebody's name on it, somewhere on the desk.
Zach Coughlin: And you have video of this?
Thomas Frontino: There is video of the office at that time.
Zach Coughlin: Would have have those pieces of paper?
Thomas Frontino: There's a lot of paper...I didn't know which one you wanted me to bring.
Zach Coughlin: So, you are saying, under oath, that there wasn't a piece of paper with my name or a
name that is substantially similar to it, in the office already, at the time you brought me in there.
Thomas Frontino: When I brought you in our office there was no piece of paper with your name on it
or a name that was substantially similar.
Zach Coughlin: I will remind you that you are under oath, Sir. (3:10:37 pm)
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Objection, badgering
Zach Coughlin: Your Honor, I'm, uh...I do have respect for you, Sir. And I am not trying to waste the
Court's time with this next question, but I am trying to figure out what Mr. Frontino's final testimony
is with regard to whether I offered him my name prior to the police getting it. Mr. Frontino, is it your
testimony that I offered you my name prior to the police arriving?
Thomas Frontino: I do not remember if you specifically gave us your name at the time.
Zach Coughlin: Did you testify earlier today that I did give you my name prior to the police arriving?
Thomas Frontino: I believe you might have, but I...but I do not recall conclusively enough to say
yes, for sure you did or no, you did not give us you name before the police arrived.
Zach Coughlin: Did you think you knew what my name might be?
Thomas Frontino: Absolutely not.
Zach Coughlin: Prior to the police arriving?
Zach Coughlin: Did you testify earlier that you had had previous interactions with mean indicate so
in your written statement provided to the police?
Thomas Frontino: I had seen you previous times...
3:12:09 pm
Thomas Frontino: Yes, I had had previous interactions with you...I had never spoken to you though.
Zach Coughlin: Had you had previous discussions with any other Wal-Mart employees or
supervisors, or loss prevention or asset protection individuals?
Thomas Frontino: Yes, I have.
Zach Coughlin: Did my name ever come up?
Thomas Frontino: No, it did not.
Zach Coughlin: How did you refer to me and how did those co-workers refer to me?
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Objection, I don't know what he is talking about, when did this
conversation happen, who was he talking to?
Hon. Judge Howard: Overruled.
Thomas Frontino: We generally referred to you as the laptop switcher, um for switching RAM and
hard drives and things like that...
3:13:34 pm
- 43/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Zach Coughlin: and who made that statement?

Thomas Frontino: ap associates and electronics assocites and electronics associates.
Zach Coughlin: what are their names?
Thomas Frontino: Stanley Cunningham and there is another female who works in electronics, Jessie.
Zach Coughlin: Jessie What?
Thomas Frontino: I don't know here last name. I believe Alexis Trundy who now works t different
facility. My supervisor Anthony Rickerson.
Zach Coughlin: who is the gentlemn with shaved head, seems to be mybe Customer Service
Manager or an assistant store manger
Hon. Judge Howard: what is the relevance to this line of questioning.
Zach Coughlin: well, the Jessie, that Frontino refers to ...there was an incident where she accused me
of something nd this CSM or sernior walmart manager came over and was ble to verify that her
accusations were unfound or baseless.
Hon. Judge Howard: I don't see any relevance, and yes, its sua sponte, I m not going to allow
this line of inquiry. Lets speed up this process, ask another question.
Zach Coughlin: Yes, Sir, okay, just quickly, state the objection...He is making these accusations
that are prejudicial and to the extent I have a right to rebut them I wish to do so...
Hon. Judge Howard: I have ruled on it already ask another question.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, so you had a nickname for me but you had no idea what my name or identify
was?
Thomas Frontino: I had seen you before and I had followed you before, but, no, nobody knew your
name that I knew of.
Zach Coughlin: any nobody had a name that they thought might be mine?
Thomas Frontino: I cannot speak to what other people thought? But you can testify as to what they
told you
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: that would be hearsay your honor?
Hon. Judge Howard: sustained.
Zach Coughlin: Habit, hearsay exception, business practice, custom, or policy.
3:16:57
Thomas Frontino: on the day in question Stanley Cunningham was the only other person working for
asset protection.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, so is it your testimony that immediately upon my entering the store you began
to follow me?
Thomas Frontino: No, I did not say that. I followed you immediately upon seeing you, and followed
you for approximately half and hour to an hour and I personally witnessed you select open and
consume a candy bar and select, open, and conceal two packages of cough drops.
Zach Coughlin: Did you tell the police that night that you personally saw the accused consume the
candy bar, but you did you fail to mention anything about personally seeing anything with regard to
the cough drops?
Thomas Frontino: I did not fail to make that note to them, I stopped you specifically for the candy
bar, because after consuming the candy bar and concealing the cough drops you went into the
bathroom with the cough drops, which, per Wal-Mart policy I had to then say well I can't stop him
for the cough drops because you could have flushed the cough drops, you could have done whatever
28
- 44/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
you wanted with the cough drops, however, I stopped you for the candy bar and that is why I stopped
you... we recovered more walmart merchandise later. It did not affect the charge in any way.
Zach Coughlin: any you say this was a candy bar.
Thomas Frontino: it was a chocolate...substance, I can give you the exact item, the receipt should be
on camera view from when you entered the AP office.
Zach Coughlin: and you say you saw me select it?
Thomas Frontino: I did see you select it.
Zach Coughlin: from where?
Thomas Frontino: From the candy isle...from...the ice cream endcap and ...the candy isle.
Zach Coughlin: is it a candy isle or an ice cream isle?
Thomas Frontino: its the same...place...cuz there's the...ice cream..endcap...that has...the candy isle.
Zach Coughlin: can you be more specific in regard to where in the store you say...
Thomas Frontino: when you enter the facility its about four isles, so about 40 feet when you pass the
registers you hang a left, and that's where all of our candy-type substances are.
Zach Coughlin: The candy isle? Endcap? Was it on an endcap?
Thomas Frontino: You selected it from the candy isle, theres the ice cream endcap andthen the candy
isle, you selected it from their.
Zach Coughlin: What's an endcap?
Thomas Frontino: It caps off the end of an isle
Zach Coughlin: so you are saying it wasn't selected from the candy isle?
Thomas Frontino: I'm saying it was selected from the candy isle. There's an ice cream endcap, go
left there, and then there's the candy isle.
Hon. Judge Howard: Alright, I have heard enough, continue with another line of questioning, we have
heard repeatedly that he observed you select it from the candy isle, which is also associated with the
ice cream isle. He has explained to you what an endcap is, let's go forward.
Zach Coughlin: I believe this is very probative, Your Honor.
Hon. Judge Howard: Why? What's the relevance.
Zach Coughlin: I can tell you, Sir, but in order to
Hon. Judge Howard: I want you to explain it right now, what's the relevance?
Zach Coughlin: in Order to have my ability to impeach his testimony, Your Honor, there is some
leeway that would be helpful in order to have him put some answers on the record
Hon. Judge Howard: What is the relevance of this line of inquiry.
Zach Coughlin: I can tell you that...
Hon. Judge Howard: If you can't state it I am going to make you move on.
Zach Coughlin: I can state it, Sir, but to state it before I am able to get him put some things on the
record impairs my ability to impeach him.
Hon. Judge Howard: Finding no relevance to this line of inquiry I am not going to allow it.
Zach Coughlin: I will tell you the relevance..
Hon. Judge Howard: I am not going to allow it, move on!
Zach Coughlin: Your Honor, I didn't say I wouldn't reveal the relevance..
Hon. Judge Howard: Move On! I have given you every opportunity to reveal the relevance of this line
of inquiry...
Zach Coughlin: I don't believe you have, Your Honor...
Hon. Judge Howard: You failed to do it...I am not going to allow it
Zach Coughlin: I will state the relevance right now.
Hon. Judge Howard: No, its too late now, move on!
- 45/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zach Coughlin: Wow.

Hon. Judge Howard: We are not playing a game here.
Zach Coughlin: Wow.
Hon. Judge Howard: The next Wow that you make in these proceedings...under these
circumstnces,Sir, I m telling you now it demens the Court, I have given you every leeway possible
and you continue to push the buttons, now...either move on...ask another question.
Zach Coughlin: Yes, sir. So, the candy bar was taken from the endcap on the end of the candy isle,
you say?
Thomas Frontino: No, you took it from the candy isle.
Hon. Judge Howard: Did you understand...Hold on...Did you understand my admonishment about this
line of questioning?
Zach Coughlin: I believe so, Sir.
Hon. Judge Howard: Then why did you go right back to it and ask about the candy bar on the endcap
Zach Coughlin: I am asking him about it for impeaching him with regard to where this quote unquote
candy bar was selected from
Hon. Judge Howard: I don't want to hear anything else about the endcap or the isle, let's go forward.
Zach Coughlin: I'll just preserve my objection for the record, Your Honor, Mr. Frontino has testified
under oath that this candy bar was taken from an ice cream endcap on the end of the candy isle, but
the video evidence would suggest that its taken from somewhere entirely different, that would tend to
undermine Mr. Frontino's testimony, impeach his character, and every other factual assertion he has
made here today.
Hon. Judge Howard: Do you have that evidence here today in your possession? Answer yes or no.
Zach Coughlin: I am not sure.
Hon. Judge Howard: You don't know whether you have that evidence in your possession?
C:That's....or whether Wal-Mart will provide it
Hon. Judge Howard: Mr. Coughlin, you are telling me, I want to be clear about this, that you are
uncertain as to whether you personally possess this video tape?
Zach Coughlin: I though you said whether I possess evidence that would impeach what he said and
testified to as to where the candy bar was
Hon. Judge Howard: are you in possession of a video tape, yes or no?
Zach Coughlin: of a video tape? Sir, I am unclear on what you are...But, Wal-Mart does have
cameras all over the store, so, whether or not I am, I would think it would be fairly easy for Wal-Mart
to show where this alleged candy bar was taken from and whether that jibes with what Mr. Frontino
has just said.
Hon. Judge Howard: Mr. Coughlin, I am going to hold you in contempt at this point in time, I think
that you have derogated the authority of the Court with unprofessional conduct repeatedly, you've
been given every opportunity to have this matter expedited and proceed to trial and have a just finding
but you continue to interfere with that process. I make a finding that you are guilty of direct
contempt, I am going to hold off with imposition until this proceeding is resolved. Alright, you can
continue your line of inquiry.
Zach Coughlin: Your Honor, I need to use the restroom.
Hon. Judge Howard: I beg your pardon?
Zach Coughlin: I need to use the restroom.
Hon. Judge Howard: We will take a five minute recess, I am going to remain here on the bench.
Zach Coughlin: Sir, I will be quick. (3:26:52 pm)....
(3:35:52 pm)
- 46/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Hon. Judge Howard: We are back on the record. Mr. Coughlin has had an opportunity to use the
facilities and we will proceed.
Zach Coughlin: Thank you, Your Honor, Mr. Frontino, are you aware of whether or not you were
being tape recorded or video taped.
Thomas Frontino: Yes, I am, there's camera throughout the store and signs letting customers know
they are being tape.
Zach Coughlin: So, there's camera's throughout the store.
Thomas Frontino: There's not cameras everywhere in the store, primarily in high theft or safety
related areas.
Zach Coughlin: Was there any audio tape made?
Thomas Frontino: And, did you or anyone associated with Wal-Mart make any audio tapes in
connecdtion with this situation?
Zach Coughlin: No.
3:37:27 pm
Zach Coughlin: Did Wal-Mart provide video tape to Ms. Roberts?
Thomas Frontino: I provided evidence to Ms. Roberts
Zach Coughlin: In fact, in your statement, in the discovery provided by the City Attorney, you stated
that video evidence would be compiled?
Zach Coughlin: and what did you provide.
Thomas Frontino: I provided evidence from within the office.
Zach Coughlin: by that do you mean just video evidence from the room in which you took the
accused to.
Thomas Frontino: I took video images of the room to which I took the accused to.
Zach Coughlin: Just that though?
Thomas Frontino: just that, yes. That is all we compiled, yes.
Zach Coughlin: why?
Thomas Frontino: because the primary, the only reson...we don't generally record video for fourteen
dollr petty larceny incidents, um...we did tht specifically this time because of accustion that were
made towards the officers.
Zach Coughlin: accustions by whom?
Thomas Frontino: accustion you had made toward the officers...you had made accusation that they
were making an unlawful search of your person.
Zach Coughlin: specifically, what was unlawful about it.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Objection calls for a legal conclusion.
Hon: Judge Howard: sustained, sustined
Zach Coughlin: I am not asking it for the purposes of obtaining a legal conclusion, but merely for
him to restate what was said.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: that's not the way he asked that question, Your Honor.
Hon. Judge Howard: ask another question.
Zach Coughlin: Yes, Sir, Your Honor. Did anyone, including myself, that was in that room that time,
specifiy in any way as to what was impermissible about such a search?
Thomas Frontino: No you did not.
Zach Coughlin: so your testimony is that accustions were made that the search was impermissible
Thomas Frontino: correct
- 47/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C; but nothing more specific was said?

Thomas Frontino: no.
Zach Coughlin: was there any commentary about the impermissilbty of conditioning search based
upon the failure to consent to such search?
Zach Coughlin: well, wouldn't that contradicts what you just said with regard to whether any specifics
were said with respect to what was impermissible about the search.
Hon. Judge Howard: I'll allow it.
Zach Coughlin: Mr. Frontino, it seems though, again, that your testimony contradicts the testimony
you made not even three mintues prior. (3:40:33).
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: is that a question, Your Honor?
Zach Coughlin: I'm asking him to explain.
Hon. Judge Howard: Stop!. I will allow it. Do you understand it?
Thomas Frontino: I believe I do understand it. I can go through it from the beginning to end if you
like. There was point in time where you made an accusation that you had not given consent to
search, and it was at that time that Officer Crawford said make note, and I believe its in my police
statement, that there was notation that your pockets were searched after you were placed under arrest.
Zach Coughlin: Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is wht I just heard you say there was no
dialogue or specifics mentioned about what was impermissible about such a search, but then upon
further questioning you indicted tht there was some dialogue about how it was impermissible to
condition the search based upon the refusal to give consent for the search, to use refusal to give
consent as a basis for the search.
Thomas Frontino: You are completely misunderstanding what I said then.
Zach Coughlin: Well, I would say, of course I am because you have given three different
contradictory answers.
Hon. Judge Howard: being argumentative, let him resond to the question, go ahead.
Thomas Frontino: can you repeat the question.
Zach Coughlin: can you explain how it could not be contradictory for you to originally testify that
basing the permissibliy of the serach upon failure to give consentto the search was not discussed, and
then you testified that is was discussed, and then now you are testifying that it wasn't discussed?
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: objecdion calls for a conclusion.
Hon. Judge Howard: do you understand.
Thomas Frontino: I don't think I do.
Zach Coughlin: was there a discussion related to whether it was illegal to base the search upon a
failure to consent to a search, and you said yes.
Thomas Frontino: I will respond as best I am able to. Perhaps its best to start with they asked if they
could do a weapon pat down search, you consented to that, they did an outside pat down. After you
became non compliant, and uncooperative with the investigation and asked for an attorney, you were
placed under arrest. They arrested you put handcuffs on you, whatever they do, they then emptied
your pockets, as they do with every other person they put under arrest, at which time we then
recovered more stolen merchandise, which was the cough drops...It was at that time that you said I
didn't consent to a search, your can't, I ...I didn't give you consent to search me.
Zach Coughlin: Do you feel, Mr. Frontino, that ever time I put forth to you the inconsistency and
contradicdtions in your testimony that you respond by talking about things that are completely
unrelated.
Thomas Frontino: No, because I believe that's completely related.
- 48/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zach Coughlin: now, what did you tell the police when they arrived.
Thomas Frontino: I told the police that I had stopped you for shoplifting the chocolate item but that I
also believed you had cough drops on your person but that I also believed you had cough drops on
your person but that you had gone into the restroom but that I did not have positive evidence that you
still had some in your possession even though you had consumed some and disposed of the
packaging to them.
(here Frontino contradicdts himself from sentence to sentence. He doesn't have positive evidence of
the cough drops being what? Possessed, consumed? But by the next sentence he is attesting that
Coughlin had consumed some disposed of the packaging to them. So, where Wal-Mart policy
apparently won't let Frontino do somethig with the bathroom, Frontino attempts to leverage the
police force to do that which his employer's policy forbids?
Zach Coughlin: have you discussed your testimony her today with the two Indian Colony Officers?
Thomas Frontino: No, I have not.
Zach Coughlin: where you sitting with them for about an hour before court?
Thomas Frontino: probably for about half an hour (3:45:35).
Zach Coughlin: Were you laughing and joking together?
Thomas Frontino: Yes, we were.
C:are you close to or do you have a personal relationship with those officers?
Thomas Frontino: No, I do not, but there are very few tribabl police officers so we tend to work with
them fairly regularly
Zach Coughlin: okay, so your testimony is, here, under penalty of perjury...I don't know why you are
smiling, thats not very funny, you wouldn't apprecfiate going into an operating roomand seeing a
surgeon joking around?
Thomas Frontino: I have just been reminded several times.
Zach Coughlin: Your testimony here today is that you provided statements, both oral and written, to
the two Indian Colony officers, from the time they arrived until the time they left, that you personally
witnessed something with regard to the cough drops. Was your testimony that you told the officers
that you personally witnessed the accused doing something with the cough drops?
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: asked and answered.
Zach Coughlin: in your written statement, what did you indicate with respect to the cough drops?
H I don'tremember, if I had the statement with me maybei t would.
Zach Coughlin: when the police arrived on the scene, did you make statements to the police regarding
previous interactions with the accused?
Thomas Frontino: I believe I did make the statements that I had followed you in that past, that I had
seen you in the past select and consume a package of M&M's, that you had a long standing history
with the store, that our management had already wanted to have you trespassed but had that far failed
to have an opprotunity to do so.
Zach Coughlin: Was the reason they wanted to have the accused trespassed based upon a retaliatory
motive in conjunction with the accused's attempts to hold Wal-Mart to the Return Policy which is
incorporated into all sales they make and which is clearly and expressly displayed both in the stores
and on Wal-Mart's website.
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: I am going to object calls for him to speculate into the minds of the
managers as to why they wanted to trespass him.
- 49/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Hon. Judge Howard: Do you know anything about that?

Thomas Frontino: I can speak to some of it, from my side, technically there are two different
operations in the store, there are operations that deal with customers, and there is asset protection
which we are technically field asociates, so we had our own reasons for wanting to have you
trespassed from the facility based upon our own dealings with you, we meaning my manager Anthony
Rickerson, Sean who is another assitant manager who is aware of you, Alodia, who is another
assistant manager who signed your trespass form.
Zach Coughlin: When you say we, are you just referring to individuals who work with you in your
particular AP group or in your particular Wal-Mart store?
Thomas Frontino: We do communicate between stores via email, we all have access to the same
database called apis A P I S.
Zach Coughlin: Did you communicate about me with other stores or did anybody else at your store?
Thomas Frontino: not to my know knowledge.
C:, so if the West 7th St. Walmart made a retaliatory threat to the accused in conjunction with the
accused pointing out that the managers, who had been there for over ten years, seem to conveniently
forget the Return Policy whenever the numbers don't work out in a way that makes them happy, is
that something you would have never been informed of
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: objection , relevance
Hon. Judge Howard: what is the relevance of this?
Zach Coughlin: retaliatory motive, specifically for frontino or others to lie
Thomas Frontino: I get paid...
Hon. Judge Howard: Hold on, hold on. Objection sustained. I have given you a great deal of latitude.
We have had this witness testify for over an hour. We are going ot get through this trial tongith. The
court has a perogative to expedite this proceeding. In the future if you inquire into matters that are
not relevant, whether or not the city objects, I am going to cut you off.
Zach Coughlin: are you aware that an ap associate from Walmart made threats to the accused that he
would retaliate against they accused for trying to assert his rights under the Return Policy that
Walmart puts forth to customers, by having him banned from all walmarts and or maliciously
prosecuted.
Thomas Frontino: no, other than previous to court that several things were mentioned before that, no.
(3:53:47 pm)
Zach Coughlin: so you never communicated about the accused with any other walmart.
Thomas Frontino: we don't communicate directly through Apis its simply a database. I have never
receive a picture or an email about you.
Zach Coughlin: have you felt any pressure from your managers to retaliate against someone, maybe a
documentary filmmaker who is investigating
Hon. Judge Howard: you don't have to answer that question, that is irrelvant to this proceeding.
Another question.
Zach Coughlin: Do you believe your employer retaliates against individuals who shine light on their
employers failure to abide by their own Return Policy?
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: objection Relevanace
Hon. Judge Howard: sustained.
Zach Coughlin: so the issue of whether his employer is pressuring him to retaliate is not relevant
Hon. Judge Howard: thats right, I don't find it relevant, ask another question!
Zach Coughlin: so stanley cunningham was on break?
Thomas Frontino: yes, he was on lunch break.
- 50/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Zach Coughlin: so, right when the accuse came into the store, you began tailing him, was anyone
watching the filmwhile you were tailing?
Thomas Frontino: no
Zach Coughlin: so nobody's watching the video/film?, its just being recorded?
Thomas Frontino: its being recorded so if its need we can go back to it and acquire it, in larger stores
with high theft that have pan tilt zoom cameras.
Hon. Judge Howard: We are just concerned with what is going on here!
Thomas Frontino: okay.
Zach Coughlin: your store does not have pan tilt zoom cameras?
Thomas Frontino: no, sir.
Zach Coughlin: did you watch any or attempt to watch any video of watch you allege was done with
the cough drops?
Thomas Frontino: no, I did not.
Zach Coughlin: why not?
Thomas Frontino: because I generally don't based upon $14.00 dollar petty larceny.
Zach Coughlin: but if your employer could get sued for wrongful arrest or damge to ones'
professional repution couldnt it become bigger issue thn fourteen dollar petit larceny
Hon. Judge Howard: he has answered the question as to why he did not review the video tape:
Zach Coughlin: and I am asking a follow up question.
Hon. Judge Howard: ask another question!$##$%#$%! I am not going to allow that question! It has
no relevance!!!%^&*##$%#
Zach Coughlin: do you have any duty to ascertain whether or not the allegation you make and
whether any arrests you make are based in fact or supported by admissible evidence
Thomas Frontino: absolutely.
Zach Coughlin: does that duty not include bothering to look at the video?
Thomas Frontino: it did not have anything to do with bothering to look at the video, it had to do more
with looking at the places where I knew you had selected to conceal items, there not being specific
video evidence down those isles, because we don't have a lot of slip incidents in the candy isle,
walmart elects not to put a video camera in that isles.
Zach Coughlin: where do you alleged each item was specifically selected, opened, and then
concealed.
Thomas Frontino: The candy item you selected, opened, and consumed while walking around the
store.
Zach Coughlin: it was selected from an endcap you said from the candy isle
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: objection, that was not his testimony.
Hon. Judge Howard: that was not his testimony.
Zach Coughlin: I'm sorry, could I.
Hon. Judge Howard: no, its asked and answered, if you don't remember it you can review the
transcript later. Go forward with another question.
Zach Coughlin: oh, I'll be reviewing the transcript later. Where was the candy bar selected?
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Your Honor, asked and answered.
Thomas Frontino: in the candy isle.
Zach Coughlin: so not on an endcap, but somewhere within the isle itself.
Zach Coughlin: the candy bar was. Was it...and what item was that? You say it was a candy bar?
28
- 51/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Thomas Frontino: It was a...yes, it was a chocolate item, I believe...I believe it had caramel inside it, I
didn't inspect it, it had already been consumed. I have a picture of the wrapper.
Zach Coughlin: and we have a number for it, a number for the bar code
Thomas Frontino: the UPC, yes, the bar code, the number on the receipt, yes, that's correct.
Zach Coughlin: would it be correct to say on the receipt its the third item down, magndblcrml number
007756713282
F: Yes, that is correct
C: okay, but you don't know what exact item that is.
F: Um, its the item that I have a picture of right here, based upon the UPC code usually I can discern
them
C: He's not entering that into evidence at this point I don't believe so, I don't know, if the Court's
accepting it
H; it hasn't been offered yet\
c: the bailiff took it from the witness and gave it to the judge, I'll note for the record
f: no, he has the receipt
r: no he didn't, that's not the correct record, the document the Judge has is Exhibit 1.
C: Hh, I'm sorry that was not the picture my mistake, I'm sorry, you were talking about the picture so
it seemed you were
F: no, it was not the picture
3:59:55
4:00:00 p.m.
Zach Coughlin: okay, so this was taken from somewhere in the middle of the candy isle, you
personally witnessed that, right, you just testified to that correct?
Thomas Frontino: that you took it from the candy isle, yes, I couldn't tell you how far down exactly I
didn't pace it out.
Zach Coughlin: Oh...but, oh...okay...you said you personally eye witnessed this
Thomas Frontino: yes, but I don't take measuring tapes afterwords....or...
C:okay but generally you could say right on the edge of the isle or somewhere closer to half way.
Something like that, right? Because you...you are telling us...
Hon. Judge Howard: do you know exactly where it was? (4:00:33)
Thomas Frontino: Yes, I do...it was from....it was from...the candy isle.
Zach Coughlin: okay, but its not about where its from...wer're saying under penalty of perjury you
are saying that you personally eye witnessed the
Hon. Judge Howard: is there a question?
Zach Coughlin: yeah.
Hon. Judge Howard: where is it?
Zach Coughlin: I want to verify, where did he personally eye witness it.
Thomas Frontino: I was standing at the end of the isle and you selected it.
Zach Coughlin: was I standing right next to you?
Thomas Frontino: Of course not.
Zach Coughlin: okay then, well could you please be a little more specific.
Hon. Judge Howard: Could you be more specific as to where he picked up the item?
Thomas Frontino: All of our...I believe it was one of our nicer chocolates, it wasn't a Snickers or
anything, and it was selected in that first 4 to 8 foot section, because each section itself is four feet, so
it was selected from in there.
Zach Coughlin: from the candy isle?
- 52/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Thomas Frontino: Yes, you selected several items from the candy isle, some of which you purchased,
some of which you left at the cash register.
Zach Coughlin: And you are saying you then saw me...that particular item whose bar code whoe
barcode we just entered into the record, you saw me open that and then consume it.
Thomas Frontino: I am saying yes, I saw you open it and consume it. You had a stack (4:01:35 p.m.;
Frontino starts to realize his is totally effed here) of....of....candy bars and other food items, that you
selected a bunch of items and put them in your cart, and then you.... then....sumbh....
(4:01:44 pm Frontino trips all over his thoughts and words and utters some quasi word while he
tries to think his way out of the shitpin he just walked himself into)
...t selected that one item out of your car, and you opened it and consumed.
(4:01:49 pm)
Zach Coughlin: Okay, and if that item is a refrigerated item, would it make any sense for it to be in
the candy isle, where there is no refrigeration?
(4:01:58 pm)
Thomas Frontino: There...there is on the endcap. (OH, GREAT POINT FRONTINO, TRY TO
BRING THE OLD ENDCAP BACK INTO NOW THAT YOU NAILED YOURSELF INTO
THE FIRST 4 BY 8 FOOT SECTION SPECIFICITY YOU REACHED FOR
EARLIER!)...that, that....that...that's my point...you selected a lot of items and put them all down.
Zach Coughlin: But your testimony under oath, under penalty of perjury was that you saw the accused
take that particular item, not from the endcap, but from the first 4 to 8 foot section of the candy isle,
which is not refrigerated, right?
Thomas Frontino: Correct.
Zach Coughlin: So, if that item, if we pulled up that item and that bar code and its shows its a
refrigerated ice cream chocolate caramel confection, would that indicate you were inaccurate in what
you were telling the court?
Thomas Frontino: You could have easily picked it up from the candy isle?
(4:02:45 p.m., hear Frontino's lying voice crack when he says the word isle, not even able to
summons a halfway convincing delivery of his sad attempt to crawl out of the quicksand)
Zach Coughlin: The ice cream bar from the candy isle? Wouldn't it be melted, wouldn't you think?
If it hd been sittin' there in the cndy isle?
Hon. Judge Howard: Is that a question? Is that your question?
Zach Coughlin: I am asking, does that make sense to you, if this item, if it is established this..
Thomas Frontino: I am saying you selected...
Zach Coughlin: I am not finished with my question, Sir.
Hon. Judge Howard: You are finished! You're done! Go ahead and respond.
Thomas Frontino: I am saying you selected several items and placed them all into the cart, um...yes, I
may have been mistaken, because you placed them all into the cart and then you did not proceed to
directly open the package after you selected it, you put it into the cart and selected it from various
other items that were put into the cart.
Zach Coughlin: So, if that item was an ice cream bar that would melt if it wasn't refrigerated and it
was selected where you say it was selected...that would be somewhat unusual wouldn't it, for a
refrigerated item to be selected from an isle that doesn't have refrigeration?
(4:03:50 p.m.)
F: to be completely honest? At a Walmart? No, no, it wouldn't be that unusual.
- 53/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(4:04:12 p.m.)
Zach Coughlin: Would it be possible to review the video from that date in question and the isle in
question to see if the item in question...
Thomas Frontino: There are no video evidence of any of the refrigerated isles or the candy isle,
however, per Walmart policy you would have had to subpoena that information.
Zach Coughlin: And the litigation hold notice I placed you on at the time of the arrest? You didn't
respond to that?
Thomas Frontino: Well, uh..I ...I don't know of a litigation hold notice?
Zach Coughlin: Wherein you were informed of your duty to maintain....
Thomas Frontino: I was never informed:
Reno City Attorney Pam Roberts: Objection, Your Honor. This is an A.P.A. That doesn't know...
Hon. Judge Howard: Sustained, sustained. Yes, go forward, another question.
Zach Coughlin: So...you...destroyed all the video evidence?
Thomas Frontino: No, I did not destroy the evidence, it is automatically recorded over after several
months.
Zach Coughlin: has it been several months?
Thomas Frontino: I would have to check back with my store to see its still on there or not, it
automatically after time records over itself
Zach Coughlin: Please do, and I will note for the record that I am hereby informing you and
requesting...
Hon. Judge Howard: Ask another question! Ask another question!!!
Zach Coughlin: So you don't know whether...you are saying there are no cameras above the candy
isle?
Hon. Judge Howard: Asked and answered!
Zach Coughlin: Okay. Is there something that looks like a camera above the candy isle?
F: I believe there might be one at the action ally, but I can't be sure that there is. There is another one
that actually points toward the meat department, but not down towards the candy isle
C: did you make any attempt to ascertain whether or not any of these selecting, opening, or
concealing acts were caught on tape?
F: I did look iin the soda isle to see if I could see you throwing and opening and throwing away the
coguh drop package and there waw not video there, the other package you threw away in the candy
isle and there's not video there.
C: there's not video there?
F: correct
c: meaning?
F: there...no...video...there.
C: okay so your saying its not a case of there's video but it doesn't show anything, its a matter of
there's just plain no video
f: correct there's not an image of that area that recorded.
C: so your store doesn't record the candy isle?
4:06:42
H: Asked and answered. He's testified repeatedly that there's no video on the candy isle, ask another
question.
C: what are those things on the ceiling at Walmart that look like, like, uh, I mean...I always assumed
they were cameras...they are like these little round orbs with a kind of little black pupil type look
- 54/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
surrounded by maybe a white plastic ring and they are interspersed all throughout the store they
would seem colloqually surveillance video, most people think or loss prevention cameras? What are
those things there are robably several hundred throughout Walmart
F; those are video cameras for the better part...some stores have false cameras that are simply the
pupil as you described..um..
c does your store
f my store I do not believe has any false cameras
c so if ther's cameras approximately every isle
r objection theres no testimony that there cameras approximately every isle
h i'll allow the question go ahead
c; is there cameras just about aove every isle
f as I have said before, no, pretty much down the netire grocery isle there is not one camera shing
down any of the actual isles thaty have the meat department produce deli and alcohol. Other than that
there is not a camera in any of the grocery isles'. We have camerass shining down the action allies, so
on the sides, but non of them shind down the isles
c okay, so...do any of these trash cans...are any of them...you alleged something with regard to the
trash cans and the cough drops, is that correct
f: yes, you through the packaging to the cough drops into two separate trash cans.
Z and your're saying with regard to the cough drops is it accurate to say that you testified that you
personally witnessed the accused select the cough drops from some point in the store?
F yes, you selected them from the shelf in the pharmacy department
c where...where abouts is that
f um it was cold medicine it was in the cold medicine part of pharmacy its actually the first isle in
pharmacy right past the isle with femine hygeine and condoms on the right, on the right side, on the
right side of the isle we have all of our cough drops and cold medicine. That is where you selected
the cough drops from.
C does it seem c urious to you that your store appears to have a couple hundred cameras interspersed
thorought it yet neither you nor your employer have managed to gather any of the video evidence
which might support your testimony?
F no, for the same reason that I gave earlier, we don't generally complile video evidence on such a
minor incident, and incident we wouldn't have even called the police had you cooperated with...its
that minor
c: are you saying you conditioned your calling the police based upon a lack of cooperation
f yes I am
f such as?
F not cooperating
c: but could you be more specificallyf I had detained you for shoplifting you maintained yoru
innocence, which is acceptable, however without information to pursue our case against you we have
to also call police so that they can assist us.
(Around 4:10:55 Frontino tries to say the wouldn't have called the cops if suspect had
cooperated, but then he defines cooperating I a way that enables walmart to proceed with their
ase against one and mentions that they would call the police to accomplish that...more
contradictory stuff. So, which is it, Frontino? Would you have let the suspect go if he had
provided the information you desired and cooperated or did you need to information
and cooperation to pursue your case against the accused? Talking out fo his ass again.)
- 55/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
c your testimony is that the accused made some statements maintiaing his innocence? Is that
correct?
F yes, thats correct?
F; yes that's correct?
C is that consistent with yoru written statements
f: I don't know whats in my...i would have to look at my written statement, I don't know if I put
that in my written statement or not.
C and your saying.. some, uh, other candy items were selected and purchased
f correct
c do you have the receipt of the items that were purchase
f; no I do not.
C; did you ever have it
f no, it is still in the walmart's database.
C were you able to verify whether or not those other items were purchased? Those other candy
items or whether in fact the receipt has other candy items
f we watched you rign up all of your items, at no time did you present...
c who is we?
F Stanley Cunningham and I, because Stanley..by the time you were at the register, Stanley was
now with me to make our apprehension because as policy we have two people so as he came back
from lunch you were at the register and he was with me. So perhaps it better if I say I witnessed
your transaction
c the truth is best, so rather than saying you and Stanley the chaning it to I, just say the
truth.
H Mr. Coughlin I have repeatedly advised you against arguing with the witness. Makign the
facial expressions which you just did, which you previously chastized Mr. Frontino for. I am
going to once again admonish you and warn you against such further actions. I have done so
repeatedly. Go forward.
C Yes, sir
H; with cuation
c Mr. Frontino it seems to me that you have just testified that you and Mr. Cunningham
witnessed the accused ring up the items and then you changed your testimony to indicate that
Mr. Cunningham was actdually not there to witness that.
R; objection thats not what he testified to You Honor
f: thats not what I am saying I'm saying I cannot speak to what he saw even though he was
standing next to me watching you
c did you did you just say
f; but he is not here to say that so I will say that I witnessed you
c well did you just testify that he wasn't back from break yet? From lunch?
f no that is not what I testified. I testified that he was back from break at the time you were at
the register.
C so when you said perhaps it better if I just say I witnessed, why did you make that
statement?
F because I was assuming that you were going to again question me about the using we
because I can't speak for we
28
- 56/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c okay an dyou didn't make any statement to the effecdt that you should only say I because
Mr. Cunningham had not actually returned from lunch yet?
F no I did not make that statement.
C and if we reviewed the tape that won't be shown? The tape of this hearing?
r objection, I don't understand the questionable
h I don't understand either. Sustained. Ask another question.
C so where did you see the cough drops? You say you saw them selected in the pharmacy isle?
F correct
c then at what point did you see them...where you personally witnessed them being opened?
F you opened one item in the candy isle and discarded the package and you opened the second
package in the soda isle and discarded the package.
C so was it a case of opening the package and discarding it right away?
F on both cases you did not open them both at the same time. You opened one in the basket
discarded the package, you pretended to blow your nose with the paper towel that was above
the garbage can, pulled down the paper towel, you then put the package inside the paper towel
and then placed both items together the paper towel concealing the cough drop package into the
garbage can.
C and you personally witnessed this?
F I personally witnessed this
c not on video...but with your own eyes?
F with my own eyes.
C how close were you?
F at that point I was standing on the endcap and you were standing just inside the isle
c nd this would be the candy isle?
F: so how many feet away would you say you were
f A few feet maybe...
c I don't know what a few feet means, does that mean less than ten would you say?
F definitely less than ten it was probably somewhere around 3.
c you were three feet away, you were at the endcap and the accused was where?
f I was at the endcap and were just inside the isle at the garbage can. Would you like...uh.
C and you weren't obscured in any way?
F no I was not
c you were in plain sight
f uh, I was hiding, I was not standing next to the garbage can.
C okay, so you said you were not obscured and then you said you were hiding
f my line of sight was not obscured, my body was obscured from your vision
c okay, and how is that possible was there some hole in the isle you peered through
f theres, theres the endcaps that have shelves so what we will do is we will either crouch down
or we will stand stall and look wherever we need to look through the gap and we get close
enough to it and the props in the shelves don't obscure our vision at all and alls the people that
were really looking for us they would see is our eyes, but that's if they were really looking for
us.
C so there's no products on the shelves that would impede your view of that?
F there are products on the shelves and there are times when there are products that could
obscure our vision, however, we don't choose those isles...we don't choose those endcaps to look
through as it obscures our vision
- 57/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c well are there situations where you don't have a choice with respect to which endcap you look
through
f No.
c so, how is that possible, are you able to arrange where people take things
f We simply do not catch everyone.
C: and you say there was no attempt made to pay for the chocolate bar or the cough drops?
F: correct?
C: And how were you able to ascertain that?
F You did not attempt to pay for them, you concealed the items...the packaging that had the
UPC's in garbage cans, you also concealed the packaging to the wrapper underneath cart
sanitizer wipes in the corner of your cart.
C did you hear any discussions between the cashier and the accused?
F No, I did not.
C Did anybody that you know of at Walmart
R Your Honor, calls for speculation
H that you know of
f That I know of? No.
C Did you make any efforts to ascertain whether the accused and the cashier had any
discussions with respect to the items
f No
c Is there ever a situation where an individual at Walmart selects and item and its damage or
something is wrong with it and they don't purchase it?
F Yeah, but they don't eat it also.
C Is there ever a situation where someone takes a bite of something and finds it tastes bad or
maybe an Odwalla drink has a rotten taste to it
H what is the relevance of the question?
C Well, Mr. Frontino is asserting that this items were opened.
H It was a package...did you indicate an olive?
C: No, I was referring to what he's...
H what item were you referring to in your question specifically, what was it?
C All. all three items... the cough drops and the candy bar which...or what Mr. Frontino calls
the candy bar which, I believe the UPC actually reveals is a refrigerated item.
H What is the relevance to your inquiry
C well in order to establish all the elements of the charge, one is intent.
H Intent?
C Yes, and if there is not an intent...
H How do those other situations relate to whether you intended to conceal, consume the items in
question here?
C I am asking Mr. Frontino what he does to ascertain whether or not there was, in fact, the
requisite intent or whether or not someone who is accused of these crimes might have sampled
something and found it to be unsaleable?
(4:20:42 p.m.)
H It has no relevance to these proceedings, it has no relevance.
C Okay, and I'll just preserve my objection to that for the record, I do believe it goes to...
H You keep talking over my rulings, and I have warned you about that haven't I. I have
indicated that you have an opportunity and you've expressed your understanding of your right
- 58/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to appeal. The next time that you talk over one of my decisions or rulings, I am going to hold
you in contempt again, you have fair warning.
C I am sorry, Your Honor, I was always under the understanding that if I did not specifically
state my objection for the record, I would be precluded from later on arguing that on appeal, I
don't mean to disrespect you, Sir.
H Ask another question. I have made myself clear, you understand it. Ask another question.
C In your written statement you stated that the accused was initialy compliant but then became
non-compliant, in what way did the accused become non compliant?
F You would not provide us with any information in regards to yourself so that we would not be
able to enter you into our database, as I have previously stated.
C Okay, but then earlier you testified that the accused offered you his name, how is that
consistent.
F As I have previously stated, whether you have given us your name or not that is not enough
information for us to complete our investigation and to enter you into our system, as I have
stated before.
C Well, okay, that's fine...but my question didn't relate to that. My question related to how you
can stand here under oath and say one thing that inconsistent with something else you've said.
To wit: you said earlier that the accused offered his name to you prior to the police arriving,
then just now, you described the accused as non-compliant, in part, because he failed to offer his
name to you. My question is: how is that non inconsistent and indicative of a lack of veracity
attendant to your testimony today, Mr. Frontino?
R Objection, Your Honor, that goes to argument.
H I am going to allow the question up to the point that it goes to veracity, which is a
determination that I make, not you, go ahead.
F as I believe I have stated earlier, I do believe you gave us your name, but I would not swear
my life on the fact that you gave us your name, however, even if you had given us your name,
you did not give us enough information for us to complete our investigation, so therefore, we
had to notify Tribal Police.
C Okay so when you say your are finding some non-compliance on the part of the accused and
the attendant consequence to that, ie, your calling in the police...what you assert was the noncompliance in your earlier testimony, was that there was a failure to give a name....but that
might not be it, apparently, according to your testimony. So, was there any other noncompliant behavior?
F You wouldn't give us your information, that was it.
C Information meaning?
F Name, address, identification, all items that you had on your person, but were unwilling to
share with us.
C So you are saying that a failure to provide those materials at Walmart will result in calling
the police?
F Anybody that fails to produce a valid form of identification will result in us calling the police.
C And...calling the police saying what...the person refused to give their identification?
F No, we call the police because at that point, Walmart pursues their right to pursue criminal
charges, and you are not on trial for not giving a name, you are on trial for petty larceny, so at
that point Walmart...
H He's answered the question, thank you.
(4:25:43 p.m.)
- 59/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
C So is refusing to allow Walmart to search the contents of one's bag or the plastic bag that
their purchases are in, is that also a basis for callign the police?
F We never search individuals, per policy Walmart does not search individuals
H His question is, is that a basis for contacting the police?
C So the well known practice of having someone stand by the door and say lets me check your
receipt against the contents of your bag...does that occur at Walmart?
F Uh, yes it does.
C Okay so if someone refuses to allow Walmart to search the contents of their platic bag and
their receipt...if someone refuses to consent to that search, what is your policy?
F To let them leave.
C So, someone can refuse to consent to that search and you let them leave?
F Correct.
C Have you ever detained someone for refusing to consent to such a search?
F If I were working and the door and failed to observed selection, concealment, and
consumption of those items, we never make stops based on those, so, if somebody's at the door,
its more of an insurance policy to check receipts...nobody is ever detained, um...
c There wasn't a lawsuit against Walmart recently
f I couldn't speak to
H What is the relevance? What is the relevance to this line of inquiry. We are speaking about,
as I understand it, loss prevention officer and his observations and a greeter and what the
greeter can do. Do you see those as exactly the same thing?
C I see them as an overall policy on Walmart's part to condition whether or not they are going
to take retaliatory action based upon whether a customer is consenting to impermissible
searches and seizures.
H Alright. I don't see them as the same or even similar. Its not relevant.
C Yes, Sir, I'll move on.
H It's not relevant, ask another question.
C You say that you overhead some discussions between the Indian Colony Officers and the
accused with regard to the accused failure to consent to a search....having a consequence of the
accused being arrested for not consent....
f; No, Sir, you were not placed under arrest until you asked for a lawyer.
C Okay, so you are saying the accused asking for a lawyer was, uh, mentioned by the Officers as
having a consequence...
r Objection, calls for hearsay
c I'm...uh...excited utterance
r Your Honor, that's not an excited utterance.
H Sustained.
C Mr. Frontino has testified as to what they Officers have said, at length, previously.
H well...uh...just because the prosecutor has chosen not to objectd at certain times and has now
objected to what the Officers have said based upon hearsay, you still have to get over that hurdle, and
she may have even indicated relevance, once again, but in any event, I am sustaining her
objection.
C Can I just enter, respectfully, Your Honor, a pattern and practice argument, habit, hearsay
objection?
H Move on!
28
- 60/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C So, just to be clear, Your Honor, I can ask Mr. Frontino about what he heard the Officer say in
regard to whether or not they were conditioning arrest upon failure to consent to..
r Objection, calls for hearsay
H If you can, if you can...provide me with a hearsay exception, number one, and number two provide
me with a relevance as to why that's relevant, yes, absolutely, so go forward.
C I feel it is relevant, Your Honor, because the results of the search, the fruit of the poisonous tree,
factor in heavily in the Reno City Attorney's case, without that...their case rests on...I don't know
what.. and whether or not these cough drops..
H So, before you go on, your argument is the fruit...I take it...what are the fruits here?
C Well in their arrest report they mention that the search incident to arrest yielded some cough drops,
not cough drops in a container or some packaging, but just some cough drops..and...
H So, if you were succesful and you Got that thrown out, on what basis would the case fall?
C Well, its....
H As fruit of the poisonous tree?
C Well, I believe the actus reus would be lacking...the property itself...the physical evidence, would
not be there to the extent its alleged to be physical evidence, that would not be available
H Alright, I understand...now give me the response to the hearsay objections
c: I believe one is that its a statement against interest to the extent that this Walmart is rented out by
those Officer's employers to Walmart, the property Mr. Frontino testified earlier, that there is a close
working relationship with these Indian Colony Police, so much so that they are able to sit and have
jovial conversation and laughter for approximately 45 minutes prior to trial. They all may potentially
face a giant liability for a 1983 cause of action for a wrongful arrest, as such, there is a possibility that
they are acting in concert and that any statements made by Indian Colony Police are necessariliy
imputed to Walmart and therefore are a statement against interest.
H; Okay, alright, any response from the City?
R First of all, Your Honor, Mr. Frontino testified that he witnessed the defendant, I believe, consume
some of the cough drops, and regardless of whether there were any cough drops found in his pocket,
that that observation is not negated...we may not be able to ascertain the value of the cough drops
because we wouldn't have the package... in addition, even if the cough drops and the evidence related
to the cough drops was excluded that would not apply to the candy bar or the chocolate item that Mr.
Frontino referred to. Regarding the hearsay exception, I don't believe the fact that he may be even
best friends with one of the Officers makes or meets the hearsay objection, it doesn't meet any of
exceptions under the hearsay rule, there is no such thing as fear of liability and the Officer is not a
litigant in this matter, maybe a future litigant at some poitn with Mr. Coughlin, it certainly is not the
case today.
C: Your Honor,
H No, nothing further. I haven't found any hearsay objection, nor do I find this particularly relevant,
its sustained ask another question.
C: Alright, Your Honor, and I will just preserve the objection for the record that its not being
offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that it does hae indicia of reliability given the
contemporaneous nature of the statement, particularly with regard to it being a performative
utterance.
26
27
(Oh, man, did that half court shot at the buzzer piss Judge Howard off, to the point where he
has to bash someone just for having the industry to leverage technology)
28
- 61/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
H: Ask another question! I gave you every opportunity to give me your argument. What you have
done now it say well, you know what? I have gone to my little laptop and I've got some additional
information that I want to present... and I have repeatedly indicated to you: one shot, I make the
ruling, we move on....and ONCE AGAIN, you've gone behind my ruling and added additional
information. Ask the question, Sir!
C: Okay, and also just to the extent that commands are not hearsay. Mr. Frontino, did you make
any statements to the accused that you would bargain with the accused and that if he gave you back
this or that item you would let him go...
f No, I did not.
C Do you ever make such statements?
F I believe you are referring to the fact that after I had already had the police there I had said that had
you cooperated then they would not have been involved. Per policy, we could have allowed you
leave the facility upon putting your information into our system.
(4:36:26 p.m. Note: Frontino uses the word choice allowed you to leave, which clearly
indicates the accused not being there entirely voluntarily)
C How is that different?
F How is what different?
C It seems as though my question was: Did you make any statements that, if you cooperate and you
gives us this back, we will let you go... and you said, no, and then you said, basically, no, I told you
if you would have cooperated, we would have let you go and it seems as though you are saying those
are different thing...
f had you not removed stuff from our facility we wouldn't have detained you? Its a if you hadn't
done this, we wouldn't have...
H: stop, stop, stop... Go ahead.
C My question to you, Sir, is: can you explain to me how there's fundmentl difference between your
assertion that you did not say If you cooperate and give the stuff back then you'd let the accused
go, and your subsequent assertion that they accused was only arrested because he didn't cooperate
and give the stuff back?
R Your Honor, that's not what he said.
H I'll let him respond. Overruled. Go ahead.
F So, what I...uh..I believe your question was asking me if I tried to bargain with you...and I never
tried to bargain with you...the difference to me was that I was stating the fact that had you done
this...had you simply given us identification, per Walmart policy under the...under what we had in
front of us...we could have allowed you to leave our facility by just putting you into our system...
C And did you also make the statement that had you simply given the items back
f I don't believe I made the statement that had you simply given the items back...no...I believe I was
pretty explicit by stating that had you cooperated...we wouldn't have given a rat....
c By cooperated did you mean both: give your identification AND given the items back?
F Um...I...primarily just wanted your information...
f: I am not asking you what you wanted, Sir, I am asking you what you said.
F Um.... cooperation means cooperation in whole...um...had you not given the items
back...it wouldn't have changed....
(4:38:52 p.m )
c Okay, that seems incongruous... cooperation...
- 62/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r Well, objection, Your Honor, how's he going to give the items back that he's already eaten?
So, I mean, I think its a ridiculous line of questioning anyway
H It's not relevant, but he continues on this path, ask another question!
(4:39:03 p.m. OH, ITS PRETTY RELEVANT, THOUGH....One, the big smoking gun,
allegedly, in the police report is that the fruit of the poisonous tree, the one foil sheet of 6 Duract
Cough melts, exacty one half of a package like those sold at Wal-Mart, was culled from the
Fourth Amendment violating search of Coughlin's pockets...a search which -Frontino admits
only took place immediately after Coughlin indicated he wanted an attorney. So, crafty vet
Pam Robert's non-sequitur about how what's the point if he already at the stuff anyways,
aside, clearly, Frontino wanted some Duract Cough Melts back. And Judge Howard was only
to eager to chime in with his assessment that Roberts point was such a good one, despite the fact
that pretty much the prosecutions whole case came down to one sheet of 6 Duract Cough Melts
being found in Coughlin's short's pockets. Further, the search extended to all sorts of cargo
pockets, arguably well beyond the scope allowable for such a search incident to arrest. There
has to be a line somewhere. A body cavity search would have been impermissible, right? Then's
there's Frontino's whole... I was primarily wanting to get the identification...tip toeing around
whether he bargained with the old give us the stuff back, and it's all good and especially
wanting to stay away from the whole, let us coerce a confession out of you, under the guise that
we will let you go, only to reneg on the deal once you incriminate yourself....Then Frontino trips
up by admitting he views cooperation to mean cooperation in whole, ie, giving the
identification and giving the stuff back, or at least, giving a confession. Clearly, with Frontino,
anything less than confessing, consenting to a search, and giving something back is tantamount
to being non-compliant, and failing to cooperate...at which point he calls his buddies on the
Tribal Police Force ot come in and do the impermissible searching)
c So do know whether or not the items that were on the receipt the accused got upon paying for
items what was on that receipt?
F I believe I already told you no.
(4:39:39 p.m.)
C I believe you did, Sir. So my question is, so you don't know whether or not three, four, or five
boxes of cough drops were on it.
F Um...there was no cough drops rung up because I was in plain sight.
C There was no cough drops rung up on the receipt? I am not talking about the receipt of the
allegedly stolen items...I am talking about the receipt for somewhat for $70 or $80 around there,
for the items the accused paid for.
F I couldn't speak for every...
H Stop! You have already answered the question, I know it. Asked and answered, ask another
question.
C Okay, he just said there was no cough drops on the receipt, that's correct?
f: Cough drop...
H Stop! I have ruled! Ask another question.
C Okay...Do you know whether the accused made any statements to the cashier which resulted in the
cough drops being put on the receipt?
F She would have had to hand key them in, so type in the receipt, so...in terms of verbal
communciation I would not have been able to hear, but she would have had to hand key in the
- 63/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
items...um...based off of a UPC that she would have had to have memorized or that you would have
had to have memorized..
(4:40:41 p.m.)
c Okay, but if she had rung up one package of cough drops, she could have just...if one had have
been purchased and rung up, and then, say the accused said, oh, there was a couple more,
then she could have just hit the times 2, times 3 button for quantity...
f Um...I don't believe the cash registers....whether or not they still allow that or not...its against
policy for them to do that though.
C Okay, so you say whether they STILL allow that...so does that indicate that, to your
knowledge that, in the past, such a practice had occurred?
F Yes, they could.
F For instance, if someone bought four packages of diet cokes, 12 packs, and they didn't want to
lift each of those heavy packages up, they say: I had four of these, then the cashier could scan
one of them and they could say: okay, and there's three more and cashier would hit quantity
times 3 or something like that...?
f Yes, they could, but not in that order, but yes they could...
c And your testimony today is you do not know whether any such statements were made
regarding
f No, I was not in earshot of the communication that you guys had, as I stated earlier...
c Oh, I didn't realize that is what you stated...so you are saying that you were not within earshot
of the transaction between the accused...
H He testified to that previously, MOVE ON!
C Okay, was anybody that you are aware of at Walmart...?
R Not, asked and answered...
H Not...asked and answered and its not relevant, 'nother question!
(4:42:40 p.m., man, Judge Howard certainly is helpful to prosecutor Roberts, constantly
chiming in with objections of his own like the above relevancy objection, although, its hard to
understand how that would not be relevant, given it could potentially go directly to whether or
not the accused made an indication to the cashier as to the quantity of cough drops purchased,
etc....).
c Do you know whether the accused not only bought a package of the very cough drops that are
alleged to be stolen here but also made statements to the cashier with respect to an additional
quantity of the same item being purchased?
H Now, he indicated that he could not hear the discussion between you and the cashier? Do you
recall that testimony? Yet, you turn right around and ask him that question once again...
c Because, I see...
h Ask another question!
C Your Honor, its because I see..
H Ask another question!
C Did you earlier say you could hear what was said between the cashier and the accused?
F No, I did not.
C Okay, so a review of the tape won't show that.
F No.
c So, is it possible that...and just to clarify...you said you don't know what's on the...let's clal is
the $80 receipt...you don't know what items were on that?
28
- 64/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
F on the receipt for the $80 of items you purchased at the facility, no I do not know what items were
on that
(4:43:54 p.m. Oh, man, here Judge Howard sees it coming and really, really wants to try to
stop it from happening....must try to bully defendant out of pointing out another in a line of
salient incongruities in Frontino's testimony, here, it concerns the fact that Frontino testified
earlier that he knew no cough drops were rung up by the cashier, yet just above he testified that
he didn't know what items were on that receipt...only to turn around and assert that his spidey
vision or whatever enable him to discern from the women's clothing section each and every
item rung up)
c So you don't know whether or not there is
h He doesn't know what items are on the receipt
c Okay, but earlier he testified that he knew that the receipt didn't have an entry for a box of
cough drops
H Ask another question! ASK ANOTHER QUESTION!!#@$#@$#@4
C Okay, earlier, did you testify that you knew a box of that same UPC for those cough drops was
NOT on the $80 receipt?
F I watched your transaction and I did not see the identical cough drops rung up on your
receipt..
c You watched the transaction...you were able to see it closely enough...yet you weren't able to
hear any of the transaction?
F That is correct?
C Do you have some hearing problems?
F No, I do not.
C Do you have super powerful vision?
F I can simply see farther than I can hear people speaking at normal voice.
C About how far where you from the point of ringing up the items on the $80 receipt?
F Uh...probably about thirt feet behind you....behind the registers...
c Okay, so, where you....when you say behind the registers, is that...would that put you closer to the
back of the store or the front of the store?
F Um...the front of the store..
c Near the entrance...
f Uh...no, by back of the store/front of the store, your talking about front to back its not relevant to the
exits.
C I guess its...is it fair to say the front of the store is where the exits are?
F Yes.
C Entrance and the exits at the front of the store/
f Yes.
C Okay, so, can you give me some indication where you were located at the time the items were
being rung up?
F at the time you were specifically being rung up, I was standing in women's apparel, which is
directly behind the registers, its about twenty feet away from the registers...
c You said you were about thirty feet away
f Correct, I was in women's apparel.
C So...but then you said twenty feet?
28
- 65/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
R Your Honor, he's really being argumentative, he explained where he was, that then...um...he's
splitting hairs...the women's department was twenty feet away, but then he said he was thirty feet
away, there's no inconsistency...I don't think there is either...here's the deal, Mr. Coughlin, we started
the testimony of this witness at approximately 2:40, and not it is approximately 4:44 pm, I want you
to expedite your cross examination, which has been quite extensive, and the court's granted you a
great deal of leeway, and I want you to move towards wrapping this up. I don't want to hear
questions that have already been addressed previously, with that you may proceed.
C I'm sorry Your Honor, would it be possible to help me find my place on whether the last objection
was ruled on...oh yeah, I remember is was about twenty to thirty feet I was seeking clarification with
regard to
H the objection was sustained.
C Mr. Frontino, from your vantage point from, in your words, about thirty feet away from where this
was being rung up, when you were located in the women's apparel section compared to the register
number 17, maybe...
f Uh...I believe it was 17 because it was the cigarette isle if I remember correctly..
c You were saying you were able to discern each and every item that was rung up on that $80 receipt
and verify to yourself that none of those items had the same UPC as the cough drops or the candy
bar...
(4:48:31 p.m.)
f I couldn't tell you that every single item was verified, however, I had the packaging to the
cough drops, and I was specifically looking for the cough drops beign purchased...um...I didn't
care if there was other candy items being purchased because they did not match the cough
drops that I had in my hand...
c So you say you were not able to discern every item purchased, while at the same time you
were able to discern that none of the items purchased had the same UPC as the cough drops?
F None of them had the same packaging therefore I could make the observation that they could
not have the same UPC, so...no I could not read the UPC but they were not the same items as
they one's I had...
c Okay, so if the accused was able to present the $80 receipt and it had the exact same UPC as
the cough drops, that would directly contradict what you are saying, wouldn't it, Sir?
F Yes, it would.
(4:49:35 p.m.)
c So, just to be clear, you have testified here today, that you are absolutely sure that the $80
receipt does not have the item with any entry with the same UPC and therefore the same
packaging, as the cough drops, and that if such a receipt is presented, with the same UPC, then
your testimony would necessarily be impeached
r Objection, that's now calling for...uh...legal conclusion regarding whether he's impeached or
not.
H Sustained.
C Withdraw that aspect with regard to whether he is impeached or not...Then...your testimony
would be inaccurate?
F I would say if you were able to provide a valid receipt from that exact transaction, then, yes, it
would
c And do you know who the cashier was on that transaction?
F I do not know who the cashier was, no.
28
- 66/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
C Do you or anyone you are aware of at Walmart ask that cashier whether any statements were
made by the accused with regard to whether there were a quantity to add on any purchase?
F Not to my knowledge, no.
c Did you make any attempts to query that cashier in that regard?
F No.
c And, nobody else, to your knowledge, at Walmart did?
F No.
C Does that seem reckless to you?
(4:51:28 p.m.)
r Objection
H Sustained
(Judge Howard rules on the objection before Roberts even state her basis, again and again, in
her favor)
C Just a moment ago you said, with respect to your discerning from thirty feet away in the
women's clothing isle, what
was purchased at a particular cash register, from behind a six foot four, two hundred and fifty
pound man, where you were standing...you were able to see?
f I was not behind, um...um...is there a question...um I was behind the cash register, I was not
behind you... I was standing in women's apparel, so unless you were standing on the conveyor
belt, you wouldn't be blocking my view..
(4:52:09 p.m.)
c So would you say you were directly behind the conveyor belt?
F I would say that I was...probably not 90 degrees behind it...I didn't measure, but I was behind
it, and I could see the items that were being purchased...
c Each and every one of them
f Yes
c And you were able to remember each and every one of those items for which and $80 receipt
was made?
f Absolutely not. I...I...I am not saying that I remember currently every item that you
purchased...I know that you did not have items that our purchased that matched the items you
selected and consumed.
C Well, that brings up, earlier you said that I didn't discern or verify whether you had
purchased the same candy items, I was focused on making sure you hadn't purchased an item
with the same UPC as the cough drops...that's what you said earlier, correct?
R Uh...um...uh...Objection, again, he's not restating the testimony accurately.
H Is that what you testified?
F I testified that I watched and I was primarily only looking for the items that I had seen you
select and conceal or consume
C Isn't it accurate to say that your testimony earlier was that you were primarily only looking
for the cough drops...and then you made a statement about not caring whether the candy...
H Is this a complex question once again? ASK A QUESTION.
C Okay, earlier your statements with regard to what you were primarily concerned with, did
they not specifally limit your concerns to the cough drops?
F They were primarily concerned with the cough drops because the chocolate item was still left
and hidden in the cart.
28
- 67/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C I am just asking you, Sir, about your earlier testimony, not your state of mind about what
you, what you feel about the events or your recollections, just what you testified to earlier...is it
fair to say that what you testified to earlier was that I was primarily only concerned about
making sure that the cough drops or an item of the same UPC was not being purchased...to
the exclusion of not caring whether or not similar candy items were being purchased? Did you
not say that on the record today?
F I believe that I said earlier that I was concerned with the items that you had selected and
consumed...um....the cough drops were a primary concern, but, you also did not ring up
anything that included the chocolate item.
C Yet, earlier, didn't you testify that a number of candy items were selected and later
purchased?
F Yes.
C But, now your are saying, that your were somehow able to verify and discern from thirty feet
away that that particular candy item was not...the UPC for that, was not also included on the
$80 receipt.
F I was primarily only concerned with the cough drops, I was watching for the candy, the
wrapper...the candy was still in the cart.
c And that's where I have an objection, non-responsive.
H Are you done?
C No, Sir, I am not, I just objected to the fact that he didn't answer the question I asked. Everytime he
gets cornered he starts talking about irrelevant stuff.
(4:55:43 p.m.)
H If your tendering that objection to the Court, its overruled.
C Were you able to verify, from your position of some thirty feet away, that the candy item
alleged to have been stolen...and the UPC for that candy item, was not included on the $80
receipt?
F I was unable to verify, other than the fact, that it was not hand keyed in, it was never
presented for scanning...
c Okay, but similar to the cough drops, you were not able to verify that the same item was key
in, or an item with the same UPC was key in, and upon that a quantity number was added to
the receipt to reflect the purchase of the item, the chocolate item, you are alleging was stolen?
F You selected two packages of cough drops and one candy bar, and...and... one of that identical
chocolate item, and no more, so had...there where no other items for her to be able to ring up
(4:56:56 p.m.)
c Well earlier you testified that a number of chocolate items were purchased?
F Those specific ones.
C Well you also testified that you had no idea, specifically, what was on the $80 receipt?
F Correct, I do not know what was on your $80 receipt.
C Well, I think its geometry or something from high school, the transitive property of this and
that would suggest that how could he not know whats on the
H ITS ARGUMENTATIVE!
C Well, I am asking him..
H ITS ARGUMENTATIVE!%^#$%$#@%
c Sir, how can you know something was not on the receipt if you testified that you don't know what
was on the receipt?
F Because I saw how many of the items you selected.
- 68/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
C Okay, can you give us a specific number now and specifically identify in some way what those
items were?
(4:57:59 p.m.)
F you selected the two packages of cough drops that I have pictures of an a receipt for, and you
selected the chocolate item.
(NOTE: he says two packages of cough drops...BUT WOULDN'T THAT MAKE 3 BOXES IF
YOU ADD THE ONE ON THE $80 RECEIPT?)
c Okay, and then theres was...I selected another $80 worth of stuff?
f You selected other candy items, yes, and you paid for some of them and you left some of them
at the register.
C Okay, and how do you know that amongst those paid for was not an item with the same
UPC?
(4:58:20 p.m BAM JUDGE HOWARD SLAMS SOMETHING DOWN ON HIS BENCH)
H Asked and answered a hundred times. I don't know why you continue to beat this horse, I
really truly don't. Ask another question. Mr. Coughlin, you have ten minutes remaining in the
cross examination of Mr. Frontino. I think that's where you are headed in any event. Argue it
on appeal. And currently let the record reflect that it is now five minutes to five and that five minutes
after five Mr. Coughlin's testimony, or cross examination, rather, will be terminated.
C Okay. Did you make any statements to the Officer about... we...I guess you said we and then
we speculated about whom you meant by we about how we've been watching the accused, and we
first became aware of, or worried...took notice of him...when he took a photograph of a television,
and... then you named specifically a manager, a blond haired lady in her late forties...Did you make
such statements?
F Never have I made such statements.
(5:00:25 p.m.)
c Did you make statements to the Indian Colony Officers with respect to previous interactions with
the accused that elicited your consternation?
F Uh...watch does consternation mean?
C It means your were suspicious of him, so you were watching him?
f Yes.
C Can you specify in detail what those statements were?
F That we had had issues with the Defendant in the past that...we had been hoping to trespass him for
suspected activies in the
store for suspected hardware swapping with laptops and things of that nature...I had previously seen
you and followed you before, but did not detain you because I was honestly hoping for more...I was
hoping there would more than a package of M&M's. So, I had my own reasons to follow you before
the incident in question.
C Okay, so you're saying you made no statements to the Indian Colony Officers with respect to
suspicion being aroused by either you or someone you work with at Walmart including a Manager
who is a female related to the taking of a photograph of a flat-screen television?
F I personally know nothing of the photograph. This is the first thing I have heard of it.
C I am not asking you what you know about the photograph, I am asking you about the statements
you made to the Indian Colony Police.
(5:02:13 p.m. Check to see Police were asked about the photograph)
f Uh...no, I did not make a statement about a photograph.
28
- 69/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C Okay, so if someone had been tape recording that interaction between you and the Indian Colony
Police, and it revealed that you did make such a statement, would that mean that you are lying now?
F Yes, if that was the case, if there was video evidence, that would be the case.
C Or audio, okay....So, you say, at some part of the store, you witnessed not only the cough drops
being opened, but then concealed?
F Correct.
C Did you ever witness the cough drops being consumed?
F Some of them were consumed in the store.
(5:03:10 p.m.)
H And his response was some of them were consumed in the store.
C Which doesn't specify whether he witnessed them...it might be speculation...its a curious way to
phrase it
h Did you observe him to consume the items within the store?
F Yes, Sir, I did.
C So, to be clear, you are not saying, that you observed the accused consumed the cough drops
in the store?
(5:03:38 p.m THIS IS THE FIRST TIME FRONTINO DECIDES TO SAY HE WITNESSES
THE COUGH DROPS BEING CONSUMED. AT ALL OTHER TIMES HE STOPPED
SHORT OF SAYING CONSUMED AND INSTEAD WENT WITH SELECTED AND
CONCEALED, WHEREUPON HE ALSO MADE MENTION OF THE ACCUSED
ENTERING THE RESTROOM AND HOW WALMART POLICY DID NOT ALLOW FOR
HIM TO FOLLOW IN TO THE RESTROOM)
c So, to be clear, you are now saying that you observed the accused consume the cough drops in the
store?
F Yes, Sir, I am.
C Where did that occur?
F Throughout the store.
C Specifically, where?
F You were....in....um...household cleaning chemicals...electronics....you were throughout the store
domestics...you were throughout the store...consuming food.
C Okay, now you are saying consuming food
(5:04:08 p.m.)
f Cough drops. You were consuming cough drops... you were consuming the chocolate.
C Are you sure which was being consumed? It sounds as though...
f I am sure both were being consumed.
C And how are you sure?
F I watched you do it.
C How many were consumed?
F I didn't count.
C So you were able to watch, but you weren't able to discern how many?
R Objection, he said he didn't count, Your Honor.
H Sustained.
C So, how many cough drops were recovered?
F Uh....part of one package...it was approximately six out of one of the packages that were recovered?
C Okay, so how many are in each package?
(5:04:59 p.m)
- 70/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
F I would have to look.. I don't recall how many were in each package...They were attached...they
were in blister packs
c. Not enough to make two packages?
F No, not enough to make two packages?
C Well then how are you able to assert that two were stolen?
f Because you opened two, and you concealed the contents of two.
C And your store's policy is...what? You said something about a bathrooom and not being able to...
h Asked and answered...go on
c Okay, so, is it your store's policy that if you aren't able to recover the items, you still assert and
affect an arrest charging that the items were stolen?
F Will you ask the question again?
C Yeah. How do you know two packages were stolen if you only recovered part of one?
F I made an assumption that both were stolen.
C And did you have any evidence of that assumption?
F You selected and concealed the contents of two packages...that was my assumption. The
packages were thrown in the garbage, which would render us unable to account for them...
(5:06:27 p.m. THIS IS INTERESTING BECAUSE HERE FRONTINO CLASSIFIES HIS
TESTIMONY AS BOTH AN EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT OF COUGH DROPS BEING
CONSUMED, ONLY TO THEN CHARACTERIZE THE DECISION TO CHARGE FOR THE
COUGH DROPS AS TO BE PREMISED UPON HIS ASSUMPTION THAT HE MADE, THAT
THE COUGH DROPS WERE CONSUMED IN THE RESTROOM...SO, WHICH IS IT,
FRONTINO, DID YOU ACTUALLY PERCEIVED THE CONSUMPTION WITH YOUR OWN
EYES, OR DID YOU HAVE TO ASSUME THEY WERE CONSUMED WHILE THE SUSPECT
WAS IN THE RESTROOM?)
16
17
18
19
(5:06:50 p.m.)
c Well, if the contents of two packages were stolen, even if some of them were consumed...surely you
would have recovered some wrappings or something that would add up to two packages incident to
the impermissible search, wouldn't you? Yet, you didn't. How is that possible to say two were
concealed, yet only part of one was recovered upon a full search.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(5:07:11 p.m. NEXT, IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT FRONTINO SAYS WHETHER

THE REST WERE EATEN OR THE REST WERE FLUSHED IN THE TOILET... WHICH
INDICATES A LACK OF CERTAINTY AS TO WHETHER THEY WERE EATEN OR
CONSUMED...YET JUST A MINUTE AGO FRONTINO, AFTER APPARENTLY DEDUCING
THAT THE CASE WOULD BE MUCH STRONGER IF HE WOULD JUST SAY HE SAW THE
COUGH DROPS BEING CONSUMED, DID, IN FACT, TESTIFY THAT HE WAS AN EYE
WITNESS TO THE COUGH DROPS BEING CONSUMED....WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION:
WHY DOES FRONTINO THEN TALK ABOUT HOW HE MADE AN ASSUMPTION AND
THEN GO ON TO POSTULATE AS TO WHETHER THE REST WERE EATEN OR THE REST
WERE FLUSHED IN THE TOILET...WALMART LOST THAT PROPERTY....)
f Whether the rest were eaten or the rest were flushed in the toilet, Walmart lost that property.
C So, on what basis do you call the State down to arrest somebody?
- 71/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
(5:07:29 p.m. like instances like )

F Based upon the chocolate bar, I made that statement clear earlier.
C Okay, but you still charging two packages of cough drops where you have nothing but an
assumption to speak to one and a half packages worth of the contents of the cough drops.
H Question?
C Yes, do you have anything to support what was charged, that two were stolen when you only
recovered after full search what you allege to be half the contents of one?
Roberts objection asked and answered
Howard if you can respond please do
fronting no I mostly have I believe I stated earlier I assumed you had removed both from the
facility because you threw the packaging to both away and concealed both, um, you did
consumed some in the facility I didn't count how many that was
Coughlin okay were you ever made aware or have any knowledge of any arguments between the
accused and the customer service counter with respect to the enforcement of the return policy
Roberts objection relevance
Howard relevance and at this point it's 5 min. after five and so we will end cross examination you
could save that issue for appeal or make a record that this inquiry has been replete with non-relevant,
repetitious inquiry in Wigan and at this point thank you very much
Howard Call you next witness
Coughlin Can I just preserve my objection that I have more questions for the witness just dismissed
Roberts I call Ofc. Crawford as a witness
Coughlin Your Honor was my understanding court hours end at five? is that not the case nuclear to
have prior commitments
Howard we are going to continue on I think I told you earlier when I said we were can have this
matter resolved tonight
Coughlin so are we how long could we possibly be here tonight
Howard till we finish
Coughlin well I was relying upon posted court hours that say court ends at five
Howard will continue will continue
Coughlin I don't know that I can state Your Honor
Howard proceed with your case
Roberts officer Crawford please please state your full name and spell your last name for the record
Crawford Kameron Lane Crawford
Coughlin Your Honor may I use the restroom in
Howard will take it you've got until 510 don't be late
Coughlin my clock says it's a time now
Howard Sir, you better get going and you've got until five ten on this clock right here we are going to
proceed at that time the court will remain on the bench (5:10:52 p.m.)
Howard we are back on the record it is approximately 511 and we will proceed Ms. Roberts
Roberts officer Crawford what is your job
Crawford IMO tribal police officer for the Reno Sparks Indian colony
Roberts and how long have you been employed with the Indian Colongy
Coughlin just quickly I will enter my objections for the record with regard to anything officer
Crawford may wish to testify with under the exclusionary rule objections are
Howard I can't hear you sir
28
- 72/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Coughlin I am sorry Your Honor I am very light-headed and I think I need to eat something my blood
sugar is I'm having trouble I am very tired and lightheaded I probably need to eat something
Howard I can hear you now go ahead
C I was restating my objections for the record that we've gone over some link with Mr. Frontino but
now wish to apply them to officer Cameron Crawford you know all the exclusionary rule objections
Howard Sir I am having difficulty understanding what your objection is the city imposed and
requested the rule of exclusion I granted that so what is your check shims to this witness
Coughlin the city requested a role of exclusion?
Howard:
Robert Your Honor I requested
Coughlin I'm confused I which incarcerated their goals? They want a rule of exclusion?
Howard what is your objections Sir?
Coughlin well I am seeking to exclude from being entered into evidence fruit of the poisonous tree
the alleged fruit
Howard that request is denied overruled go ahead please
Roberts officer Crawford how long have you been employed by the Reno Sparks in: eight
Crawford a little over three months now
Roberts on September 9 of 2011 reviewing training
Crawford I was yes
Roberts and Hoosier training officer
Crawford officer Donnie Braun worth
Roberts and his CD officer that some hallway
Crawford yes
Roberts and were UN officer Braunworth dispatch to 2425 E. 2nd St. the Walmart located there
Crawford yes
Roberts and is that Walmart in the city of Reno (5:17:47 p.m. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE
THAT ROBERTS DOES NOT REQUEST HERE FOR THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL
NOTICE AS TO JURISDICTION, AND THERE IS A SALIENT POINT IN DISPUTE WITH
RESPECT TO WHETHER THE CITY NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT COUGHLIN HAS NO
INDIAN OR TRIBAL BLOOD OR AFFILIATION AND THAT TRIBAL COURT IS NOT THE
APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR SUCH AN ARREST, WHERE, AS HERE, IT occurred ON TRIBAL
LAND)
Crawford yes, it is.
Roberts and when you arrived there with officer Braunworth did you come in contact with the suspect
for shoplifting
Crawford yes we did
Roberts where was that suspect located when you first make contact with him
Crawford will in the Walmart security office
Robertsand you remember Mr. Fontenot was present at that time that you make
contact with the suspect
Crawford yes he was
Robert since you recognize the suspect that he made contact with on September 9 is the press in the
courtroom today
Crawford yes he is
Roberts would you please state what he is wearing and ratesetting
28
- 73/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Crawford is wearing a dark colored soup with the dark-colored shirt and a setting where the defendant
would be sitting
Howard the record will reflect that Crawford identified Mr. Coughlin
Roberts when you first make contact with Mr. Coughlin had you on was he standing sitting or what
Crawford he was sitting down on a bench
Roberts okay and it was any kind handcuffs restraints
Roberts
roberts and when you approach the suspect you have to ask him any questions or have a discussion
with him
crawford I did ask him questions
Roberts and what questions should you ask him
Crawford I advised him why I was there that Walmart had called because they suspected he had taken
property I then told him that it was my decision to either write up the citation or take him to jail and
that I would prefer to write him a citation so I didn't jam up our Boulevard with unnecessary people
going up there(5:19:28 p.m.) I asked him specific questions because he did not have ID on him at the
time I asked him questions like what Richard date of birth where do you live so I could run them
through dispatch to make sure he didn't have any warrants also to fill out the citation of he refused to
provide those provide that information
(THIS WHOLE BUSINESS ABOUT PREFERRING TO WRITE A CITATION SEEMS ALL THE
MORE PHONY IF WRITING A CITATION WOULD NOT TYPICALLY ENTAIL
CONDUCTING A SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Robert so in order to cite summonsed arrest you need out certain information to fill out the citation
Crawford guest muskrat
Roberts and what pieces of information you need to have
Crawford date of birth, Social Security number, place of employment, contact phone number stuff
like that
Roberts their full name?
Crawford their full name, yes
Roberts and did he provide any of that to you when you asked
Crawford he did provide his full name yes
Roberts so other than his full name he didn't provide you with any other information for you to fill
out the citation?
Crawford I believe he may have provided his address or the city you live I apologize may provide the
city he lived another one that he refused all questions
Roberts said there was insufficient information to issue a citation
Crawford no maam
Roberts did you or officer Braunworth conduct a search of the suspect?
Crawford officer Braun worth asked him if he had any weapons on him he said he did not we asked
him if we could go ahead and make sure that he did not have any weapons on them he said we could
Roberts okay let me ask you and let me stop you just right there, at this point you know he's there for
what type of charge
Crawford Petty larceny
Roberts and is that routine for you to ask about whether or not if you are going to take someone into
custody ask whether not they have any weapons
- 74/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Crawford yes it is
Roberts and is it routine for you to confirm assuming they consent to Pat Donna make sure that they
don't have any weapons
Crawford yes it is
Roberts and that's what you do with this particular suspect?
Crawford correctly told me not to go into his pockets but that I could search for weapons so I search
the outer clothing of his pockets to make sure he didn't have any weapons he did not have weapons
Roberts so he limited his consent
Crawford yes he did
Roberts any respect to that limitation
Crawford yes ma'am
Roberts did that happen before or after you were asking him questions concerning the information
you needed to fill out the citation?
(5:21:51 p.m.)
Crawford after
Roberts at some point did you continue to try to get information so that she could fill out a citation
Crawford I believe I asked him several times for information and tried to explain to him that the
citation would be better that it would be better to take a citation than going to jail all he had to do was
provide me this information. His argument was that it was the same exact charge and that I wasn't
helping him and all. I said well it you wouldn't have to go to jail you could go home tonight and he
still refused to answer any questions and asked for an attorney.
(5:22:11 p.m.)
( Here, Officer Crawford is lying under oath. He is attesting that he offered to simply write a citation,
and thus spare the accused the custodial arrest, if only the ACCUSED WOULD PROVIDE HIS
INFORMATION, AND SPECIFICALLY, OFFICER CRAWFORD IS INDICATING THAT HE
DID NOT PREMISE THE DECISION BETWEEN ISSUING A CITATION OR EFFECTING A
CUSTODIAL ARREST (AND, OF COURSE, CONDUCTING A SEARCH INCIDENT THERETO
THAT ARREST) UPON WHETHER OR NOT THE SUSPECT ADMITTED GUILT AS TO THE
PETTY LARCENY CHARGE. HOWEVER, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED ON
SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2011 AT WALMART. BOTH FRONTINO AND CRAWFORD
SPECIFICALLY INDICATED TO THE ACCUSED THAT IF HE WOULD ONLY ADMIT HIS
GUILT, THEY WOULD ISSUE HIM A CITATION, AND, THEREFORE, HE COULD AVOID A
TRIP TO PARR BOULEVARD AND A SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST;. THIS IS LIKELY
THE MAIN APPEALABLE ISSUE IN THIS CASE, IE, WHETHER THE POLICE CAN BASE
THE DECISION TO ARREST, RATHER THAN ISSUE A CITATION UPON WHETHER OR
NOT THE SUSPECT CONFESSES GUILT, RATHER THAN UPON SOME REASONABLY
ARTICULATED SUSPICION).)
Roberts okay so once he asked for the attorney was was your decision-making process?
Crawford I advised him that I could no longer asking any questions I mean I could have asked him
questions related to date of birth and stuff like that but I couldn't asking questions about the crime and
then placed him under arrest for petty larceny because he refused to give the information to fill out
the citation or to run his name for warrants and he was placed under arrest at the time.
28
- 75/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
(5:22:45 p.m. THE ABOVE REPRESENTS WHAT I FIND MOST OBJECTIONABLE ABOUT
THIS CASE. COUGHLIN (ACCORDING TO BAR COUNSEL PATRICK O. KING, COUGHLIN
USED TO BE AN ATTORNEY AND KING THINKS ITS JUST TERRIBLE, SAID IN A
REAL MOCKING/DERISIVE TONE BY KING TO COUGHLIN, THAT COUGHLIN IS NO
LONGER AN ATTORNEY...KING ALSO HAS MADE A GREAT DEAL OF FALSE AND
MISLEADING STATEMENT TO AND ABOUT COUGHLIN AND REFUSED TO PROVIDE
COUGHLIN COPIES OF MOST OF WHAT WAS PROVIDED TO KING INCIDENT TO THE
VARIOUS GRIEVANCES FILED BY RICHARG G. HILL, ESQ. AND JUDGE DOROTHY
NASH HOLMES (WHOSE BOUNTY OF MATERIALS PROVIDED TO KING INCLUDE ITEMS
THAT HOLME'S FELLOW RENO MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE, HONORABLE JUDGE
WILLIAM GARDNER, RECEIVED FROM HIS SISTER, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
JUDGE LINDA GARDNER, IN THE FORM OF A 3 YEAR OLD SANCTION ORDER ISSUED
BY HON. LINDA GARDNER AGAINST COUGHLIN, FOR WHICH COUGHLIN FILED A
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, AND WAS, ACCORDING TO HIS THEN
EMPLOYER, WASHOE LEGAL SERVICES, AND ITS EXECTUTIVE DIRECTOR PAUL
ELCANO, FIRED FOR, AND ONLY FOR, THE CONDUCT BEFORE JUDGE LINDA
GARDNER THAT LED TO HER ISSUING SANCTIONS AGAINST COUGHLIN IN A DIVORCE
TRIAL WHEREIN HE REPRESENTED A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INCIDENT TO
HIS POST AS A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ATTORNEY WITH WLS.)
Coughlin sorry I just would like to interject here with an objection to the extent that any information
gleaned a recovered for an arrest for a misdemeanor that did not occur within the officers present
should be excluded the actus reus involved in this crime charge is alleged to have occurred outside of
this officers presence and NRS provides that if that is the case no custodial arrest is permissible as
such any search incident to arrest any such custodial arrest should be excluded
Howard Ms. Roberts
Roberts Your Honor this officer attempted to build the issue the suspect a citation and it's his own
actions that prevented him from doing's just that because he can't fill out the citation if he doesn't
know the information that the defendant in the suspect in this case was unwilling to give to him there
was a complainant that observed the misdemeanor action and what he is doing is affecting arrest
based upon statement of an eyewitness that was right there I don't believe there was an unlawful arrest
by this police officer.
(5:24:02 p.m.)
Howard the objection is overruled Mr. Coughlin precipitated the need to arrest him by refusing to
provide the needed information for the citation, go ahead
Roberts Ofc. Crawford when you after you
Coughlin on just Internet objection that that is a factual determination that has apparently been ruled
upon prior to any counter evidence the ignited or my being given any chance to so admit such counter
evidence
Howard you will have an opportunity to cross-examine this was
Robert I just wondered how long it way before I got interrupted before I asked my next question
(5:24:05 p.m)
Roberts Ofc. Crawford
28
- 76/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
Howard let me say and this is for your benefit once again we will have a hearing in regard to content
once this proceeding is concluded so every time you engage in one of these unprofessional acts I'm
keeping count and we will address them at the end of this trial one thing has nothing to do with the
other I will make a separate and independent decision in regard to guilt or innocence but I have
already made a finding in regard to contempt with that go ahead and proceed
Coughlin and I'll enter an objection with regard to the fact that...
Howard I don't want to hear anything from you at this point time!#*&^$$&*^!$@%
Coughlin at the possibility of jail time exist I have a right to counsel
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(So, THAT MAY BE THE EVEN BIGGER APPEALABLE ISSUE HERE. FALSE
IMPRISONMENT
NRS 200.460 Definition; penalty.
1. False imprisonment is an unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another, and
consists in confinement or detention without sufficient legal authority.
2. A person convicted of false imprisonment shall pay all damages sustained by the
person so imprisoned, and, except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, is guilty of a
gross misdemeanor.
NRS 171.126 Arrest by private person.
A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for
believing the person arrested to have committed it.
City Attorney Roberts offered testimony from both Frontino and Officer Crawford
purporting to establish that Frontino did not make a citizen's arrest. However, Frontino did inform
Coughlin in an extremely hostile and authoritative tone that Coughlin had to come with
Frontino back to the loss prevention room in order for Wal-Mart to complete this investigation.
Coughlin clearly felt he had no choice in the matter and that any failure to comply with Frontino's
dictates would be equivalent to resisting a shopkeeper's privilege to make a type of citizen's arrest.
To the extent Wal-Mart and Frontino are viewed to have made the arrest, under NRS 171.104, then
Coughlin clearly (both of the Interrogation Room videos establish that Coughlin handed his State of
Nevada driver's license to Officer Crawford, despite Officer's Crawfords, sworn, express testimony
to the contrary. In so doing and providing his name and address to Officer Crawford (and
Coughlin's address is clearly indicated on his driver's license as well) Coughlin provided all the
required information set forth in NRS 171.1774 for the issuance of a citation after arrest by a
private person under NRS 171.1772.
NRS 171.104 Arrest defined; by whom made.
An arrest is the taking of a person into custody, in a case and in the manner authorized
by law. An arrest may be made by a peace officer or by a private person.
NRS 171.1772 Issuance of citation after arrest by private person.
- 77/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Whenever any person is arrested by a private person, as provided in NRS 171.126, for
any violation of a county, city or town ordinance or state law which is punishable as a
misdemeanor, such person arrested may be issued a misdemeanor citation by a
peace officer in lieu of being immediately taken before a magistrate by the peace
officer if:
1. The person arrested furnishes satisfactory evidence of identity; and
2. The peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person arrested will
keep a written promise to appear in court.
NRS 171.1774 Form and contents of citation: When issued after arrest by private
person.
1. In those instances described in NRS 171.1772, the peace officer summoned after the
arrest shall prepare a misdemeanor citation manually or electronically in the form of a
complaint issuing in the name of The State of Nevada or in the name of the
respective county, city or town, and containing:
(a) A notice to appear in court;
(b) The name and address of the person;
(c) The state registration number of his vehicle, if any;
(d) The offense charged, including a brief description of the offense and the NRS or
ordinance citation;
(e) The time when and place where the person is required to appear in court;
(f) Such other pertinent information as may be necessary; and
(g) The signatures of the private person making the arrest and the peace officer
preparing the citation.
NRS 171.124 Arrest by peace officer or officer of Drug Enforcement Administration.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3 and NRS 33.070 and 33.320, a

peace officer or an officer of the Drug Enforcement Administration designated by the
Attorney General of the United States for that purpose may make an arrest in
obedience to a warrant delivered to him or her, or may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
(a) For a public offense committed or attempted in the officers presence.
(b) When a person arrested has committed a felony or gross misdemeanor,
although not in the officers presence.
NRS 171.124(1)(b): (b) When a person arrested has committed a felony or gross
misdemeanor, although not in the officers presence was clearly violated here by Officers Crawford
and Braunworth. The charged crime, petty larceny RMC 8.10.010, is a simple misdemeanor, and
it was not alleged to have occurred in the officer's presence. Enter Officer Crawford's perjury about
Coughlin failing to provide Officer Crawford his license. Enter a nationally published Associated
Press story title Reno Attorney Suspened for Shoplifting. Enter vast damage to Coughlin's
professional reputation and personal life, including the instant temporary suspension and looming
Disciplinary Board formal hearing. Then there is the blood in the water sharks like Richard G. Hill,
Esq. prey upon, leveraging to their advantage with all the innuendo they can muster (Hill made tacky
- 78/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
allegations of finding a crack pipe and a bag of weed in Coughlin's former home law office, though
Hill never did manage to produce a picture of such items or explain what he did with them or why he
did not call the police to report the crime of possession...certainly Richard has called the Reno Police
Department or Bar Counsel at every other possible opportunity, so....But at least Hill made his false,
defamatory, and declasse allegations against one whom has put in the hard time amongst those
lawyers concerned for lawyers (and a few judges) whom have stared things down that someone of
Hill's depth would find to be an unfathomable abyss. Without the alleged crime being committed in
their presence, these Tribal Police Officers (and Officer Crawford was in his first two weeks on the
job at the time of this arrest, and still a trainee, which is obvious by the way he grabs Coughlin's
shopping bag out of Coughlin's lap at least twice prior to the technical point of arrest, as evinced on
the two Interrogation Room videos) had to attempt to game the system some by offering perjured
testimony that is clearly contradicted by the two Interrogation Room videos that prosecutor City
Attorney Pam Nifong, er, Pamela Roberts, Esq., offered to Judge Howard, despite the fact that SHE
KNEW IS WAS FALSE. WHY DOESN'T BAR COUNSEL ACCEPT MY GRIEVANCE
AGAINST PAM ROBERTS? DOES SHE PLAY WITH SOME NET THAT THE REST OF US
SOLO PRACTITIONERS ARE NOT GRANTED? IS SHE A PROTECTED MEMBER OF SOME
ESTABLISHMENT, LIKE ALL THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS WHOM ARE SEEMINGLY HELD
TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STANDARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT THAN ARE
THOSE THE SUBJECT OF THE GRIEVANCES FILED BY RICHARD G. HILL, ESQ., (on
behalf of former client's that Hill throws under the bus, no less, and of course after having extracted
some $20,000 in fees from....) and Judge Nash Holmes? Why is it that Bar Counsel Patrick King so
quickly dismisses the various grievances Coughlin filed after the inspiration provided by Hill? If
Coughlin's law license is taken away over a candy bar, allegedly stolen on a Saturday night and
nowhere near the practice of law...then what should Robert's punishment be for offering material
testimony by a police officer that she knew to be false about an incredibly salient aspect of her case
in chief?
Clearly, the overly chummy Frontino and Officer's Braunworth and Officer Crawford (all
who were palling around with each other for over 45 minutes in the hallway prior to trial and all who
remained at the courthouse until 8:30 p.m. to hear the verdict -and Frontino was done testifying by
5:10 p.m., and City Attorney Robert's invoking the rule of exclusion prevented him from passing the
time as a spectator) were gaming the system, wishing to effect a search incident to a custodial
arrest and to cover their tracks afterwards to make it all appear by the book, what with their constant
use of buzz words delivered in the least natural tone imaginable upon the witness stand in response to
City Attorney Roberts prompting (and after a good 45 minute does of coaching by City Attorney
Roberts immediately prior to trial).)
Roberts Ofc. Crawford when you place a suspect under arrest what did you physically do what are the
steps that you take to put someone in custody
Crawford once we have the suspect in handcuffs physically search them he search incident to arrest
per policy among
Roberts did you do that in this case
Crawford I did yes
Roberts and where the handcuffs put in front of them are behind him
Crawford behind him
Roberts and once you place them behind his back you did conduct a search incident to arrest?
Crawford yes
- 79/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Roberts and what is the rationale for doing that

Crawford to protect the officer it's a safety issue from him getting into the patrol car or protecting
himself in case he has any weapons so he doesn't hurt an officer or himself
(5:26:35 p.m. ITS FUNNY, BECAUSE SOME MIGHT SAY THE TERRY PAT DOWN
WEAPONS SEARCH TESTIFIED TO EARLIER SHOULD HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THE
OBJECTIVES OFFICER CRAWFORD JUST MENTIONED, BUT, GUESS NOT...EVEN
THOUGH AT THIS POINT THE DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE HIS HANDS CUFFED BEHIND
HIS BACK)
Roberts and when you conducted a search incident to arrest did you find any items related to the
nature the petty larceny that was alleged by Frontino
Crawford yes we did
Roberts what did you see
Crawford we found cough drops and a wrapper of cough drops in his pocket
Roberts okay when you are there prior to being placed under arrested the defendant make any
statements to you regarding his guilt or innocence
Crawford he did not know
Roberts did the defendant complains you about Walmart's treatment of them
Crawford yes he did
Roberts was that before or after he was placed under arrest
Crawford after the arrest long after
Roberts when you put him when you took him to their place after after you did the search incident to
arrest what did you do next
Crawford I escorted him to the patrol vehicle and placed them in the back
Roberts and where did you transport him to
Crawford Washoe County Sheriff's office
Roberts was the transport from Walmart to Washoe County Jail uneventful
Crawford uh...it was
Roberts uneventful or eventful?
Crawford or eventful I apologize you I was eventful
Coughlin objection leaving the witness obviously
Howard also state that
Roberts did anything happen on the way to the jail with a suspect in your car
Crawford before we left Walmart he kicked the window one time and was told to stop. He did stop.
(5:28:17 p.m.)
Coughlin objection coaching the witness
Howard overruled
Roberts what else to do
Crawford he started throwing himself around the back I asked him before we went to Washoe County
Sheriff's Office on or off he thought it was more comfortable to have it off even though our policy is
to put them into a seatbelt I was trying to be polite to him because we're having so many issues I
didn't actually want to have to reach across him to put on to begin with up to Park Boulevard when he
did start turn itself around the backseat of the car saying we were trashing him around
Howard apparently for the record we will indicate that Mr. Coughlin apparently found this testimony
humorous
Coughlin No, sir, that is not correct
Howard apparently found this testimony humorous...
- 80/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlin I don't acknowledge that characterization as correct.

Roberts Ofc. Crawford after he threw himself around in the back of your patrol car was there any
thing else that happens before you got the jail involving the suspect
Crawford to statements he made about us trying to take advantage of the working man's dollar in
reconstruction and colony thinks that nature just statements
Roberts I have no further questions for this witness
Howard Mr. Coughlin cross examination of Ofc. Crawford
Coughlin Ofc. Crawford you realize you're under oath center
Crawford yes
Coughlin so were you lying when you said you offered to put a seat belt on the accused
Crawford No, sir.
Coughlin You weren't lying?
Crawford No, sir
Coughlin did the accused point out to you during the freeware car ride to our on 395 at speeds in
excess of 50 miles an hour that it was negligent for you and your partner to fail to both put a seatbelt
on the accused or offer to and further negligence was exhibited in your failure to do so once the
accused requested you do if so put a seatbelt on the accused
Crawford sorry I'm confused on the question
Roberts that's a complex question
Howard is a complex question is done it repeatedly
Coughlin do you recall the accused making statements to you during the car ride to par
Crawford yester
Coughlin to the car right aren't clued a trip on Highway 395 in excess of 50 miles an hour
Crawford yester
Coughlin did he just make statements with regard to your failure to provide a seatbelt
Crawford yester
Coughlin did the accused ask if he could have a seatbelt?
Crawford Nosair
(5:31:20 p.m.)
Coughlin what statements did he make with respect to the seatbelt
Crawford devices that were being negligent with respect not providing a seatbelt even though he told
us he did want one and that it was a violation of state law and that we were violating it even though
he told a student while on
Coughlin are you aware of whether any recordings were made concerning the content of the
conversation between you your partner and the accused
Crawford no sir we do not have audio in our patrol car
Coughlin I did not ask you whether you have audio sir I asked you whether you are aware whether or
not any such audio recordings were made by you, or the State or by some punk with a smart phone
Crawford no I cannot
Coughlin and you know you're under oath
Crawford Yes, sir.
Coughlin so you're saying about the accused said something like that he didn't feel very comfortable
traveling in excess of speeds 50 mi./h on the freeway without a seat belt
Crawford I believe the accused did say that
Coughlin did you perceive the loan
Crawford Nosair
- 81/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlin why not

Crawford because it's not policy to pull over on the side of the freeway to put a seatbelt on with
Coughlin okay did you make any attempts to do so after pulling off freeway
Howard Mr. Coughlin we have been down this road before but what is the relevance with regards
your guilt or innocence on the petty larceny of whether or not you are provided seatbelt?
Coughlin I would like to
Howard sir don't interrupt how does that go your guilt or instance of the shirt of petty theft
Coughlin maybe we could ask Ms. Roberts that since she's the one who asked these questions in the
first place she's the one who brought up the seatbelt on the ride over and all the stuff ...and I didn't see
you sua sponte object to her...
Howard Ms. Roberts
Roberts grinding object to the relevance the testimony I listened from loss of star Crawford dealt with
the noncompliant nature and attitude of the defendant Mr. Coughlin also known as the accused and I
think that goes to the credibility and the consistency in the testimony of Mr. Francine who also
testified about his lack of cooperation and compliance
Howard okay Coughlin give you the last word go ahead
Coughlin who were talking about the objection here? And this is your objection Your Honor?
Howard okay the testimony is not relevant go ahead and go to another line of questioning
Coughlin well it was relevant when Ms. Roberts was asking about seatbelts and stuff okay sir you
said under oath that the accused kicked the window
Crawford I believe yes
Coughlin you believe so
Crawford he either... The accused either kicked the window or hit it with his head I'm assuming
he...he kicked it
Coughlin hit it with his head you say?
Crawford one of the two yes
Coughlin but earlier you said you were sure that he kicked the window you sat here as a man with a
badge under oath and told this court that you knew the accused kicked a window and now now it's you
believe... Might've been his head...mighta been his foot....I just don't know... is that true?
Crawford know it was his foot
(5:35:25 p.m.)
Coughlin now you're sure But which is it with his foot I believe it was his foot Earth said it was his
foot
Howard question
Coughlin Which is it?
Crawford Let me clarify. The window was kicked one time extremely hard. The second time
either the back window or the far passenger-side window was also hit and made a loud noise.
The first time it was either kicked with his foot or the accused's head. There was a footprint on
the window; however, which window was hit with his foot or his head is unknown. It was
either one of the other
(5:35:58 p.m. GOOD GAWD WAS THAT A SHAKEY DEPICTION OF THINGS THAT MIGHT
HAVE HAPPENED MIXED WITH FACTUAL TIDBITS CONNOTING CERTAINTY, DRESSED
DOWN BY INCONSISTENCY AND CONJECTURE...A Judge can only jump in with sua sponte
objections to save such floundering witnesses so much....and that's after Officer Crawford says: Let
me clarify...? Wow.)
Coughlin Do you ever have anyone else in the car whose footprint it could've been.
- 82/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlin nope I keep my car clean.

Coughlin I didn't ask you if you keep your car clean, partner. I asked you if you ever had anybody
else in the car...
Roberts objection Your Honor he has to question and then he answered in said no and then explained
Howard sustained
Coughlin okay, so you keep your car clean
Crawford yes
Coughlin what time of the day did you clean your Windows on that day?
Howard asked another question, that's irrelevant.
Coughlin okay, what hour did you clean your car on that day?
Crawford oh that depends on the day I work graveyard
Coughlin I didn't ask you about anything I said on that day
Crawford on that day what kind I clean my window
Coughlin yet
Crawford it wasn't my patrol car
Coughlin go well so you keep your car clean but this wasn't your patrol car so I guess when you say
something about your car it's kind of a non sequitur because we weren't dealing with your car here
were we so the footprint could've been from somebody else given that it wasn't your car and who
knows whether or not the person whose car it was keeps there's clean?
Roberts Your Honor is there question there? I'm objecting
Howard ask a question You are running out of time use your time wisely go ahead ask another
question.
Coughlin you said I had to be the key is footprint because you keep your car clean correct
Crawford yes
Coughlin then you said it wasn't your car
Crawford you said it was my car,
Coughlin No, no, no....your testimony was the car that was used for the arrest was not your car
correct?
Crawford yes
Coughlin so than how would you know whether or not the footprint on the window was the
accused's?
Crawford it had to of been yours
Coughlin On what basis do you say it had to of been the accused?
Crawford Because I don't remember somebody else kicking that car window within the time the
accused was arrested>
Coughlin Okay, but did you inspect the car window for footprints when you took possession of the
car that day?
Crawford No.
Coughlin So how can you be sure that there wasn't a footprint on the car window already?
Crawford I guess I'm not.
(5:38:09 p.m.)
Coughlin yeah but you just said you were and that it had to of been mine right?
Crawford you kicked it
Coughlin was it a head butt or a kick, Sir, because you didn't even seem to sure of that?
Crawford it was a kick to the driver side passenger or rear window....
(5:38:25 p.m.)
- 83/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coughlin so it's a kick now, and not a head butt?

Crawford possibly ahead but to the passenger side rear win in our windows are tinted you can't see
very well
Coughlin okay did you take any photographs of this phone footprint
Crawford neurosurgeon were not church registration property nor did any destruction of property
that's when the photographs were taken
Coughlin okay seven session the relevancy of this
Howard I don't find it relevant debated dead horse go ahead and write if you will you're beating a
dead horse go and ride it but you have a limited amount of time that cut you off so that once again
repetitive questions nonrelevant questions so you go ahead
Coughlin surgeon you make statements the a in Fiji and consents to the search that he would be
arrested
Crawford Yes, sir.
Coughlin you are under Oath, Sir.
Howard you have asked and he answered the question ask another one
Coughlin did you make any statements to the accused that there was some scenario under which he
would not be arrested
Crawford I did I advised him that he can have a citation instead of being arrested I think that is what
you are asking...so yes.
Coughlin so what were the conditions for that?
Crawford I just need your personal information so the court would have proper contact information
and date of birth and stuff to get ahold of you.
(5:40:16 p.m. So, here, Officer Crawford testifies that Coughlin failed to provide his date of birth and
the citation was not possible however the interrogation videos clearly show Coughlin providing his
Nevada drivers license to Officer Crawford, and all drivers license have the drivers date of birth listed
clearly on them and the arrest report filled out by Officer Crawford clearly lists Coughlin's date of
birth, just as it is listed on Coughlin's driver's license. Further, Crawford Arrest Report and
Declaration of Probable Cause clearly have cribbed other information from Coughlin's driver's
license, such as hair and eye color, height, and weight.)
Coughlin's you're saying that the accused did not provide that information?
Crawford yes I am saying that.
Coughlin so how did you get the accused name?
Crawford Uh... you gave it, Sir.
(5:40:20 p.m. Here, Officer Crawford continues his astounding streak of contradicting himself and
his stated certainty from one sentence to the next by indicating that the accused did not provide that
information only to then, one sentence later, admit that Officer Crawford got Coughli's name from
Coughlin himself. What is the obvious subtext here is that Wal-Mart's Frontin is using 'cooperate
and non-compliant in much the same way that these two Tribabl Police Officers are using provide
your information for a citation...ie, confess your guilt, or we will have you arrested and search.
One must confess their guilt to be cooperative, compliant, and to be said to have provided the
information necessary to issue a citation, period. Frontino could be seen throwing buzz words and
carefully coached/crafted phrases around earlier in his testimony when he took care to point out that it
is acceptable for the accused shoplifter to maintain their innocence. Well, good. Well good)
Coughlin did Mr. Frontino tell you the accused name
- 84/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Crawford he might have, yeah, I don't recall really, but he might of, yeah, if he already had it
(5:40:25 p.m.)
Coughlin do you recall whether he had a name that was the excuse
Crawford Jennifer Corbett
Coughlin Junior: and Mr. friend tonight in a paper brought his desk
Crawford yes he did have stuff on paper
Coughlin what was said
Crawford I think it was just his notes on times and things like that and a copy of the receipt of what
the accused had potentially took but of now I'm not too sure
Coughlin today included in personally identifiable information like the accused's name?
NOTE: the Trial in 11 CR 22176 in RMC goes on for about 2 more hours, though they are
largely devoid of substantive content, mostly just Officer Braunworth struggling to remember
anything about anything that every happened ever.
10
11
With respect to the upcoming criminal trespass matter and some other matters brought up in
12
the SCR 117 Petition (which, would seem to of had a highly prejudicial pall cast over the instant SCR
13
111 Petition). Coughlin has repeatedly been harassed this year by Nevada Court Services, which may
14
15
16
17
be committing the unauthorized practice of law in the eviction services context. NCS lists Lew Taitel
as its Staff Attorney and indicates he is associated with their business organization. Incidentally,
Mr. Taitel is also employed by the Reno Municipal Court as an in house public defender...which is
18
interesting because he was appointed to represent Zach Coughlin, Esq. (recently suspended from the
19
practice of law and the subject of an SCR 117 Petition instigated by Bar Counsel Patrick King and
20
21
Richard G. Hill, Esq (King and Hill were opposing counsel together on a recent high profile case,
Milsner v Carstarphen, a published decision of the N. S. Ct.). Hill's practice focuses on collections
22
23
law, similar to Taitels. King has steadfastly refused to provide Coughlin an opportunity to even view
24
or review (much less obtain a copy) of the voluminous materials provided to King by Judge Dorothy
25
Nash Holmes (whom apparently gave Bar Counsel King Linda Gardners Order after, by his own
26
admission, Judge William Gardner got the Order form his sister Linda and gave it to Judge Nash
27
Holmes. Hon. William Gardner informed Coughlin in April that he "couldn't remember" if he was
28
- 85/94 -
aware of Judge Nash Holmes letter to the State Bar of Nevada concerning Coughlin. Judge Nash
Holmes sentenced Coughlin to 5 days in jail for summary contempt. Coughlin was never provided a
3
4
5
6
copy of the Order Judge Nash Holmes allegedly issued on on March 28th, 2012, until Coughlin found
it attached to a SCR 117 Petition. Judge Nash Holmes allegedly delayed the start of Coughlin's traffic
ticket Trial in 11 TR 26800 to meet and confer with Biray Dogan of the Washoe County Public
Defender's Office and Zach Young, Esq. of the Washoe County District Attorney's Office Hill signed
a criminal complaint for criminal trespass and had Coughlin arrested at Coughlin's former law office
9
10
11
12
(from which Coughlin was subject to a wrongful summary eviction from a commercial tenancy,
instituted just prior to Coughlin's arrest and conviction for petit larceny of a candy bar from a WalMart, a story which was picked up by the associated press and has run in newspapers as far away as
13
Indiana. Hill and his associate Baker tried to steal the "rent escrow" of $2,275 which Judge Sferrazza
14
forced Coughlin to deposit in a summary eviction proceeding, in direct contravention to NRS
15
40.253(6), and totally illegal under Nevada law, in that JCRCP 84 requires the Reno Justice Court to
16
publish and get the Nevada Supreme Court to sign off on such a rent escrow in summary eviction rule
17
18
like JCRLV 44 prior to contravening the express dictates of a statutory scheme like that found in NRS
19
40.253. where the nonpayment of rent was not alleged and the only Notice served was a No Cause
20
Eviction notice, see NRS 40.253).
21
22
Anyways, Coughlin has an upcoming criminal trespass trial in Reno Municipal Court in case
RMC 11 CR 26405, to be presided over by Judge William Gardner, whose sister is Judge Linda
23
24
Gardner, with whose April 2009 Order for Sanctions under NRS 7.085 Patrick King has only just
25
recently use to form the basis of a grievance against Coughlin, though King refuses to divulge who
26
submitted or filed or why such an old Order for Sanctions, received by the Bar on March 15th, 2012.
27
Further, Judge William Gardner refuses to recuse himself from Coughlin's Criminal trespass
28
- 86/94 -
trial, set for June 18th, 2012, (and the spectre of Judge Gardner sentencing Coughlin to an extended
incarceration is somewhat necessitating this filing, which is not as polished as it would be otherwise)
3
4
5
6
even though he has a familial relation with Judge Linda Gardner, whom Coughlin filed a Mandamus
action against in response to the April 2009 sanctions by Judge Linda Gardner against Coughlin.
Further, Judge William Gardner worked for the City of Reno as a prosecutor as recently as two years
ago and Coughlin has a pending litigation, anticipated future litigation, and or a past matter wherein
the City of Reno and the City Attorney's office are arguably parties thereto:
9
10
11
12
13
http://www.ccwashoe.com/public/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=P&case_id=CV1103126&begin_date=&end_date=
CV11-03126 - ZACH COUGHLIN VS. MATT MERLISS, M.D. et al.
Filing Date: Wednesday, October 26th, 2011 Type: GC - GENERAL CIVIL
14
But, certainly, the Reno Justice Court is listed as a party, and Nevada Court Services is listed
15
16
as a party, and Lew Taitel is listed as Nevada Court Services's "Staff Attorney" and "associated with"
17
their company, shares a fax line, apparently a receptionist, and an address and office space. When
18
Coughlin was arrested for jaywalking while peacefully filming Richard G. Hill, Esq.'s contractor's
19
20
21
crew throwing away his heirlooms, the owner of NCS, Jeff Chandler, drove over to the site of the
arrest and watched
Moet Further, and Judge William Gardner is aware of this an has failed to take any action, the
22
23
24
the and
RMC public defender appointed to Coughlin, Lew Taitel, Esq., received Coughlin's
confidential discovery and was listed as Coughlin's attorney of record, only to mysteriously have
25
26
Roberto Puentes, Esq., substituted in as counsel (until Judge Gardner granted his withdrawal because
27
the case was "hard"), and despite the fact that Taitel violated RMC Rule 5 when he failed to file a
28
motion in writing requesting his withdrawal as attorney of record.

- 87/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
Judge Nash Holmes has recently copied and pasted pretty much the entire contents of the
Rules of Professional Conduct into an Order in 11 TR 26800 (a traffic citationtrial) wherein she
alleges she has found Coughlin in "criminal contempt", and stopped the proceeding pending her
sending the State Bar of Nevada boxes of materials she feels indicate Coughlin's "decompensating",
materials that included filings from the criminal trespass matter Judge William Gardner is presiding
over involving Coughlin, wherein Richard Hill signed the criminal complaint, 11 CR 26405. Again,
Judge William Gardner "couldn't remember" if he knew anything about his RMC co-judge Judge
9
10
11
12
Nash Holmes, sending anything to or communicating with the State Bar of Nevada about Coughlin's
alleged "decompensating". Judge Nash Holmes did scream at Coughlin in open court that she would
have Coughlin arrested if he said Richard G. Hill, Esq.'s name one more time, despite the fact that the
13
issue of RPD Sargent Tarter retaliating against Coughlin for Coughlin pointing out to him that just
14
days before an Reno Police Department Officer Chris Carter had, perhaps in jest, indicated that he
15
takes bribes from Richard G. Hill, Esq. in exchange for "doing what Richard Hills says to do and
16
arresting who he says to arrest". Judge Nash Holmes exclaimed, on the record, in 11 TR 26800, that
17
18
she doesn't "care about retaliation, or bribery, or police misconduct" (the RMC has refused to provide
19
a copy of the audio of that Trial to Coughlin despite at least 3 written request and attempts to pay
20
being made by Coughlin and the State Bar of Nevada Bar Counsel Patrick King, whom was providing
21
a copy of that audio, has similarly rebuffed Coughlin's requests to even review, much less, copy the
22
audio of that Trial, which is a "public record".
23
24
Incidentally, at that Trial, Judge Nash Holmes suddenly demanded of Coughlin, following a
25
restroom brake wherein she refused to allow Coughlin to take his yellow legal pad with him to the
26
restroom, as to whether Coughlin has a "recording device" and whether he was "recording" at that
27
time. Pretty much immediately thereafter Judge Nash Holmes, in perhaps a pretextual effort to effect
28
- 88/94 -
a search incident to arrest and allow herself to be absolutely sure of all that was on Coughlin's person
and whether it may have included a recording device that was recording at that time, decided that
3
4
5
6
7
8
Coughlin had committed summary contempt in her presence, and sentenced him to 5 days in jail,
beginning right then, and denied a stay. Judge Nash Holmes also kept a $100 bond from Coughlin's
mother despite the fact that the Washoe County Jail did not release Coughlin prior to the expiration of
the 5 days.
RMC Marshall Scott Coppa, whom was in the party transporting Coughlin to Washoe County
9
10
11
Jail with the smart phone and micro sd card that seemed to disappear for quite a while and travel back
and forth between the jail, the RMC, and, perhaps the WCDA, and maybe some others places, only to
12
finally make its way back to Coughlin some 37 days later with all the data wiped...that Marshal
13
Coppa, sent the State Bar of Nevada a letter complaining that Coughlin wanted to see the docket in a
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
RMC case and that Coughlin was "asking questions" and stuff and just, generally, not getting the
whole police state thing Marshall Coppa and Harley, et al, like to get on with down there at the RMC.
Coughlin,'s Public Defender, Biray Dogan, Esq., and his boss, Jeremy Bosler and Jim Leslie,
have refused to respond to Coughlin's inquiries as to why and whether Dogan met with Reno
Municipal Court Judge Dorothy Nash Holmes (whose staff could not locate her for a good 40 minutes
while Coughlin and RPD Sargent John Tarter waited for the 1:00pm Trial to start in 11 TR 26800,
wherein Tarter had issued Coughlin three traffic tickets immediately after telling Coughlin to leave
23
Richard G. Hill's office, where Hill was withholding Coughlin's state issued identification (driver's
24
license) and Coughlin's wallett and client's files, as well has computer hard drives (at least one hard
25
26
27
28
drive was accessed during the 6 weeks it and Coughlin's client's files remained in Hill's possession
(Hill had to go on vacation for 6 weeks, so, despite the dictate of a hearing within 10 days of
Coughlin's November 16th, 2011 filing of a Motion to Contest Personal Property Lien under NRS
- 89/94 -
40.253(7)-(8), a hearing was not held until December 20th, 2011, at which time Judge Sferrazza made
Coughlin pay $480 for "storage fees" of his personal property, despite the fact that its was only stored
3
4
5
6
for 17 days and would fit in a 10 x 30 storage shed that would normally cost about ($100 per month)
and despite Hill having admitted that the site of Coughlin's former law office was burglarized on
December 12th, 2012, and that Hill was not sure what you like this girl hot all was stolen, except that
he did notice the 62 inch DLP HDTV was missing as well as some other flat screens, high end audio
equipment, and that the law office looked completely torn asunder.
9
10
11
12
With Coughlin's conviction by Judges Gardner and Nash Holmes' Reno Municipal Court cojudge, Judge Kenneth Howard (whom also sentenced Coughlin to 3 days in jail for "summary
contempt, though apparently, unlike Judge Nash Holmes, not contempt of a "criminal" nature) in
13
RMC 11 CR 22176, the incident to the Wal-Mart "candy bar and cough drops" petit larceny matter
14
for which Coughlin was convicted and had his law license suspend recently, making it into a story by
15
the Associate Press (AP), published in locales as far away as Indiana, it will be interesting to see
16
whether any of the above makes a candy bar look a little de minimis.
17
18
Finally, the undersigned acknowledges that this submission is rather lengthy, however, the
19
undersigned's and his family's lives were negatively affected in the extreme back in 2002 when he
20
21
took the advice of the Character and Fitness Committee and went with one of the three pro bono
attorney's we will provide you the names of... (only one name was provided, it cost $5,000, there
22
23
exists a transcript of the hearing he attended wherein he mentions that his representation was pro
24
bono, then fails to clarify that he was actually getting paid $5,000, and thereafter passed off the case
25
to his first year associate, whereupon it promptly languished until, allegedly, this Court decided to
26
grant Coughlin a license in September of 2004 (as the recent SCR 117 Petition states), however, due
27
to that attorney's negligent representation, an angry sounding letter from the Chairman of the
28
- 90/94 -
Character and Fitness committee in January 2003 essentially telling Coughlin to quit being a squeaky
wheel, and perhaps another instance of the Director of Admissions deciding not to forward on some
3
4
5
6
key document provided her to this Court for review (as she did at the end of this Court's deferment
period in September 2003 in connection with Coughlin's application for a license to practice
law...)...so the undersigned submits the materials herein in an effort to demonstrate his competence as
a professional, and extreme desire to remain a licensed member of the State Bar of Nevada, and to
have the temporary suspension set aside.
CONCLUSION
10
11
12
13
The undersigned asks this Court, respectfully, to consider setting aside its temporary
suspension of his law license and to allow the undersigned additional time to supplement this
Opposition and heavily edit and proof read it, and respectfully apologizes for the rough draft quality
14
15
of this work, but points to the exigencies present requiring that it be submitted so...
AFFIRMATION Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
16
17
18
19
20
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document does not contain the social security
number of any person.
Respectfully submitted this: June 18th, 2012,
21
22
/s/ Zach Coughlin, signed electronically
23
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
24
PO BOX 3961
25
Reno, NV 89505
26
Pro Per Attorney
27
28
- 91/94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
DECLARATION OF ZACH COUGHLIN IN SUPPORT OF THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT

1. This Declaration is made pursuant to the provisions of NRS 53.045, I am presently in the State of
Nevada and I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, subject to the
caveat that this filing needs much more proof reading, however, the exigency of the undersigned
criminal trespass trial within a matter of hours and the spectre of Hon. Judge Linda Gardner's brother
Hon. Judge William Gardner incarcerating the undersigned at length presents a situation wherein this
filing is somewhat rushed. Coughlin wishes for this to apply to the SCR 117 petitoin as well.
2. Declarant is the Attorney in the above titled action.
3. Declarant avers that the factual statements set for above in the foregoing document are, to the
best of his knowledge and understanding, accurate.
4. I, Zach Coughlin, am available to testify, if necessary, as to these matters. I declare under penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this June 18th, 2012
10
11
12
13
/s/ Zach Coughlin

Zach Coughlin
Pro Per Attorney
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 92/94 -
Proof of Service:
1
2
3
On this date, I, Zach Coughlin electronically served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document to all registered electronic filers, and to those whom are not I placed a true and correct copy
of the foregoing document in the usps mail on this date:
4
5
6
Patrick O. King, Esq. Assistant Bar Counsel

9456 Double R. Blvd Suite B
Reno, NV 89521
7
8
Susich, Esq.
9
10
Dated this June 18th, 2012
11
12
13
/s/ Zach Coughlin

Zach Coughlin
Pro Per Attorney
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 93/94 -
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
2
3
4
1. Exhibit 1: The two Wal-Mart receipts from September 9th, 2011, one for $83.82, representing items
selected and paid for and one for $14.72, representing items allegedly consumed while shopping and
not paid for, and proof of the exact item represented by the various Universal Parcel Codes (UPC)
indicated on the respective receipts; four (4) pages.
5
6
7
8
2. Exhibit 2: Discovery propounded by the City of Reno City Attorney's Office in RMC 11 CR
22176, including RSIC Officer Crawford's Arrest Report and Declaration of Probable Cause and
his Incident Report and Wal-Mart's Thomas Frontino's signed, sworn Criminal Complaint; seven
(7) pages.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 94/94 -

EXHIBIT 1
nOTE:
UPC No.:732216300932 APPEARS
ON THIS RECEIPT FOR $83.82 AS WELL AS ON THE NEXT RECEIPT FOR
$14.72, DESPITE WAL-MART'S FRONTINO
AND OFFICER CRAWFORD TESTIFYING
UNDER OATH THAT THAT UPC ONLY APPEARED
ON THE RECEIPT FOR $14.72.
NOTE: this is a "receipt" for the allegedly stolen or consumed items

propounded in discovery by the Reno City Attorney
Magnum Ice Cream Bar Nutrition Information | ShopWell
Scan foods to get your nutrition info at home or in the store!

Get Free iPhone App
No thanks
http://www.shopwell.com/magnum-ice-cream-bar-s-doubleSign In
caramel/ice-cream-popsicles/p/7756713282
Sign Up
ShopWell
Browse Foods
Download iPhone App
NOTE: the URL listed above for this page ends with
the UPC of this "Magnum Double Caramel Ice Cream
Bar", 7756713282 (the "zero" at the start of that
number on the $14.72 Wal-Mart receipt is
traditionally left off of UPC notations, as here).
This frozen or refrigerated item would not be
found in "the candy isle" as Thomas Frontino swore
that he "personally eye witnessed"
Coughlin select it from "the candy isle"
and also swore that none of Wal-Mart's
oz
legion of cameras captured any of that
activity on video...
Magnum Ice Cream Bar

S, Double Caramel 3.38
Share on email
Tweet
Ingredients:
Ice Cream: Milk, Cream, Sugar, Whey, Mono and Diglycerides, Locust Bean Gum, Vanilla Bean Specks,
Carrageenan, Natural Flavor, Annatto Extract (Color), Caramel Color, Belgian Milk Chocolate Coating: Sugar,
Chocolate Liquor, Cocoa Butter, Milk, Milk Fat, PGPR (Emulsifier), Soy Lecithin (Emulsifier), Natural Flavor,
Caramel Sauce: Water, Sugar, Corn Syrup, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Nonfat Milk Solids, Coconut Oil
Modified Corn Starch, Caramel Color, Salt, Mono & Diglycerides (Emulsifier), Carrageenan, Soybean Oil
Sodium Citrate, Potassium Sorbate (Used to Protect Quality), Natural Flavor, Chocolatey Coating: Coconut
Oil, Sugar, Cocoa, Soy Lecithin (Emulsifier), Vanilla Extract.
Personalize this Nutrition Label
Nutrition Facts
Serving Size 1.0 bar (95 g)
Servings Per Container 1
file:///D|/...20ie%20and%20firefox/7756713282%20magnum%20double%20caramel%20single%20ice%20cream%20bar.htm[6/11/2012 3:07:34 PM]
UPC
View Shopping Cart
UPC
Have a question?
Add to Shopping Cart
NOTE: THE UPC IS LISTED IMMEDIATELY BELOW AND MATCHES THAT FOUND ON
BOTH THE RECEIPT FOR $14.72 AND THE RECEIPT FOR $83.82, DESPITE
FRONTINO AND THE RSIC OFFICER CRAWFORD TESTIFYING UNDER OATH THAT THIS UPC
ONLY APPEARED ON THE RECEIPT FOR $14.72
$8.39
UPC
UPC No.:732216300932 Mfg. Item No.:221010 Duract Max Strength Cough 8 Hour 30 mg 12Ea
Cherry Item No :C4394672 Ndc 73221630093 Generic Name Dextromethorphan Hbr.As per
California's Law SB 514 (Simitian), you must be over 18 to buy this product. This Regulation of
Dextromethorphan-Containing Products prohibits the sale of products containing dextromethorphan to
a person under the age of 18 in an over-the-counter sale. Trade Name Duract Max Strength Cough
Additional Description
Duract Max Strength Cough Cherry 8 Hour 30 mg 12Ea Buy 3 and Get Free Shipping
www.AmericanOTC.com > Allergy, Cough, Cold, Sore Throat & More > Duract > Duract Max Strength Cough Cherry
8 Hour 30 mg 12Ea Buy 3 and Get Free Shipping
Refund Policy.
Valley Medical Pharmacy Since 1986
www.AmericanOTC.com
url: http://www.prestostore.com/store.php?
seller=AmericanOTC&pd=4593480 as of 6/11/2012
Site Map
file:///D|/downloads%20ie%20and%20firefox/Duract%20Max%20Strength%20Cough%20Cherry%208%20Hour%2030%20mg%2012Ea%20Buy%203%20and%20Get%20Free%20Shipping%20073221630093.htm[6/11/2012 3:07:43 PM]
Chestal (2)
Chest Rub (1)
Cherry Syrup (2)
Cheracol (1)
Cetirizine (5)
Cepastat (2)
Cepacol (22)
Capital
Pharmaceuticals (1)
Broncosan (3)
Brez Nasal Strips (3)
Breathe Right (17)
Breathe Clear Nasal

Strips (4)
Blairex Saline
Solution (3)
Benzodent (2)
Benzedrex (1)
Benadryl (19)
Banophen (2)
Ayr (12)
Altamist (1)
Allerest (1)
Allegra OTC (8)
Alka-Seltzer Cold (1)
Alavert (5)
Airborne (8)
Afrin (12)
Advil Cold (2)
Shop!
Shipping Policy.
Allergy, Cough,
Cold, Sore Throat &
More
All Items
New Search:
Home
Professional
Associations
Duract Max Strength Cough Cherry 8 Hour 30 mg 12Ea Buy 3 and Get Free Shipping
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 2

6 18 12 0204 62337 60838 107 Pages 12-18963 Filed Motion For Leave To File Opposition To SCR 117 Petition. Nos. 60838 and 60975

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 18 12 0204 62337 60838 107 Pages 12-18963 Filed Motion For Leave To File Opposition To SCR 117 Petition. Nos. 60838 and 60975

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

other clients should Coughlin's law license be suspended, even temporarily.

NRCP RULE 5. SERVICE AND FILING OF PLEADINGS AND OTHER PAPERS....NRCP

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

rules or any local rules or practices."

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

840 P.2d 1232 (1992).

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

with a voice anymore, though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGChf8l3eKo

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

calculating the deadline to file a notice of appeal, so it was kind of a wash.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

NRS 171.136 When arrest may be made:...

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

shopping?...Further, Frontino's testimony about how he personally witnessed Coughlin consume

had such a basis for making his allegations.

exceptions, and NRS 171.123.

In his written report (included in the attached Exhibit 2, a

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

indicate some materials were not propounded).

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

Wal-Mart's Thomas Frontino, Loss Prevention Associate's Supplemental Witness Statement

On 09/0912011 at about 8:45 PM I noticed a male customer who I had

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

F2d 1552, 14.

NRS 171.102 Complaint defined; oath or declaration required. The

1. Oath before a magistrate or a notary public; or

2. Declaration which is made subject to the penalty for perjury.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

witnessed Coughlin consuming the cough drops while shopping.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

and took over the investigation.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

of medications known as dissociatives that Campral is in as well. Campral (acamprosate) is a

17751780. PMID 16300039. http://www.aafp.org/afp/20051101/1775.html.

applications....DXM is also used recreationally. When exceeding label-specified maximum dosages,

including actions as a nonselective serotonin reuptake inhibitor[3] and a sigma-1 receptor[4][5]

Lin, C; Lin, M; Tu, C; Wang, J (2006). "Dextromethorphan, 3-methoxymorphinan, and dextrorphan

544 (1-3): 106. DOI:10.1016/j.ejphar.2006.06.013. PMID 16844109...Uncompetitive NMDA

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

habitability issues complaints and other matters.

admittedly been a disappointing and regrettable year.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIS OPPOSITION TO SCR 117 PETITION

40.253(3)(b)(2): 3. A notice served pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 must: ...(b) Advise