55-CR-21-4148

Filed in District Court

State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

1
1 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
CRIMINAL DIVISION
2 COUNTY OF OLMSTED THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT FILE NO. 55-CR-21-4148
3 __________________________________________________

4
STATE OF MINNESOTA,
5
Plaintiff,
6
vs.
7 CONTESTED OMNIBUS

8
JIMMIE LEE CAMPBELL,
9
Defendant.
10

11 __________________________________________________

12

13
The above-entitled matter came before the
14
Honorable Lisa R. Hayne, Judge of District
15
Court, at the Government Center, Rochester,
16
Minnesota, at 1:30 p.m. on March 16, 2022.
17

18
APPEARANCES:
19

20 Michael DeBolt, Esq., Assistant Olmsted County

21 Attorney, appeared on behalf of the State of

22 Minnesota.

23 A. L. Brown, Esq., Attorney at Law, appeared

24 on behalf of the Defendant, who was personally

25 present.
 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

2
1

2 I N D E X

6 WITNESS PAGE

8 BROCK JAMES NEUMANN

9 Direct Examination by Mr. Brown....... 14

10 Cross Examination by Mr. DeBolt....... 44

11 Redirect Examination by Mr. Brown..... 54

12

13

14

15 E X H I B I T S

16

17 Exhibit 1 Bates-stamped 1 - 293

18 Police Reports 11

19 Bates-stamped 294

20 Medical Examination 12

21

22

23

24

25
 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

3
1 THE COURT: We are on the record, State

2 of Minnesota versus Jimmy Lee Campbell, Court File

3 55-CR-21-4148. The State is represented by Mr.

4 DeBolt.

5 And, sir, your name?

6 MR. BROWN: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

7 A.L. Brown, on behalf of Mr. Campbell.

8 THE COURT: Thank you. And you are Jimmy

9 Lee Campbell?

10 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.

11 THE COURT: Mr. Campbell, what is your

12 date of birth?

13 THE DEFENDANT: 6-30-65.

14 THE COURT: Is your mailing address still

15 P.O. Box 600701 in St. Paul?

16 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.

17 THE COURT: I have a phone number of

18 651-224-2167.

19 THE DEFENDANT: No, ma'am.

20 THE COURT: What's your phone number?

21 THE DEFENDANT: 651-592-2924.

22 THE COURT: And then an e-mail

23 jimmiecampbell@gmail.com.

24 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

25 THE COURT: We're here for a contested

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

4
1 omnibus. A motion to dismiss was filed.

2 Mr. Brown, you were stating that you don't

3 believe that there is probable cause?

4 MR. BROWN: That is correct, Your Honor.

5 THE COURT: Okay, and do you want to be

6 more specific on where you feel probable cause is

7 lacking?

8 MR. BROWN: Respectfully, throughout. I

9 don't want to overstate my concerns with probable

10 cause, but I think it's just about on every element

11 from approximate cause to the whole of the

12 complaint. And I could preview the issue in more

13 detail if that's helpful to the Court.

14 THE COURT: I think if I just understand

15 where you think the main issue is, that would be

16 helpful. I'm assuming we're going to have

17 testimony, Mr. DeBolt. Or are we just going to rely

18 on the police reports?

19 MR. DeBOLT: Your Honor, typically the

20 State would submit police reports. We'd brief based

21 on those.

22 I have as subpoenaed Investigator Brock

23 Neumann at the defense's request, but typically I

24 don't take any testimony in this sort of posture.

25 THE COURT: Okay. So your plan was just

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

5
1 to submit police reports and, Mr. Brown, you would

2 like Investigator Neumann to testify?

3 MR. BROWN: That's fine by me. I thought

4 the State was going to have him testify and I cross,

5 but I'm fine doing it direct and getting to it

6 either way.

7 There is an issue about I guess what some

8 jurisdictions refer to as a Florence packet that

9 counsel and I have talked about briefly, and we can

10 talk about that at the beginning of this hearing or

11 at the end, or wherever the Court wants.

12 THE COURT: Why don't we deal with that

13 now.

14 MR. BROWN: Very well. My understanding

15 is that the State intends to produce for the Court

16 its entire investigative file. I think that's

17 inconsistent with Rule 11's import of 18.05, that

18 the State only produce evidence during an omnibus

19 hearing that would likely be admissible at trial.

20 And so we talked briefly about the best way to

21 handle that. I suppose some level of briefing might

22 be required or helpful to the Court and we're happy

23 to do that.

24 But the question goes, who goes first? And

25 from the defense's view, because the State would be

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

6
1 the proponent of the evidence seeking admissibility,

2 that they would state why they believe it's

3 admissible and then the defense would respond.

4 Otherwise we're kind of shooting down theories that

5 maybe the State hasn't even considered as a basis

6 for admissibility.

7 I'm not quite sure that we resolved that

8 issue. I just know that we had an amicable

9 discussion about it. But I think where we left it,

10 it was we'd leave it to the Court, as all things, to

11 make that decision.

12 THE COURT: Mr. DeBolt, do you have

13 anything further to say on that issue?

14 MR. DeBOLT: Well, Your Honor, I think my

15 position is that it's all relevant. And if we were

16 at trial, I would be offering evidence. And if an

17 individual has an objection to that, they would

18 voice that objection.

19 Your Honor, I think what's contested here,

20 without really litigating the entire trial at a

21 pre-trial stage, I think the defense's chief concern

22 is that we have an overdose and a purported drug

23 transaction that takes place at a certain time. And

24 then Mr. Campbell is located by law enforcement in

25 St. Paul days or weeks later.

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

7
1 There's certainly things that happened when

2 Mr. Campbell is being located, arrested, and

3 evidence found at that time that the State believes

4 is relevant. Summarizing, it would be behavior

5 consistent with drug trade and locating drugs on Mr.

6 Campbell's person.

7 I believe the defense's position is that that

8 would be improper character evidence, that just

9 because he's engaging in drug dealing at a certain

10 time doesn't mean he engaged in drug dealing at a

11 different time.

12 There's obvious exceptions to the general bar

13 against character evidence. Again, without getting

14 into the weeds of this, we have a victim who

15 overdosed on fatal doses of heroin and fentanyl.

16 We have evidence of at least behavior

17 consistent with drug dealing by Mr. Campbell

18 immediately prior to that. And then we have Mr.

19 Campbell continuing to engage in drug dealing and

20 being in possession of drugs that are consistent

21 with the toxicology of our victim.

22 So although it is painting Mr. Campbell in a

23 negative light, it certainly goes to identifying who

24 the individual was that supplied our victim with the

25 fatal dosage of controlled substances.

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

8
1 I think if Mr. Campbell was engaged in another

2 sort of bad act, assaulting an individual when

3 officers came upon him, manufacturing

4 methamphetamine, something that didn't show up in

5 Mr. Kavitz's toxicology, certainly those are things

6 that paint him in a bad light, would be improper

7 character evidence, and there's no connection to the

8 behavior that's being charged.

9 But what we have is heroin and fentanyl

10 dealing, shedding light on what occurred in weeks

11 prior. So that's why the State would propose to not

12 only present evidence in our so-called Florence

13 packet of information about the alleged sale that

14 led to Mr. Kavitz's death, but also the information

15 they learned about Mr. Campbell thereafter that

16 provides further context.

17 My proposition would be that in our briefing,

18 if there are objectionable items in this Florence

19 packet, that parties can object and certainly voice

20 concerns on admissibility at that time.

21 THE COURT: I think that is a good way to

22 handle that. So with that, Mr. DeBolt, then, you

23 may proceed.

24 MR. DeBOLT: Your Honor, I have Bates

25 pages 1 through 293 that I would offer.

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

9
1 Mr. Brown pointed out something just right

2 outside in the lobby. Investigator Neumann in his

3 reports cites directly in quotes the toxicology

4 report, the medical examiner's report. But that is

5 something that is neither in my file or Mr. Brown's

6 file.

7 What I would propose is it's something that

8 can be obtained very quickly from the Rochester

9 Police Department. We're working on it right now,

10 that that be, you know, submitted to me. Obviously

11 I would provide it to the defense in the normal

12 course of discovery. But I would also ask that that

13 be part of this omnibus file.

14 I believe that the Court could rely solely on

15 Investigator Neumann's quoting of the medical

16 examiner's report, but I think it would probably be

17 prudent for Your Honor to have the actual report to

18 consider.

19 I don't know if that comes in and Mr. Brown

20 has any objection to that being part of the file.

21 You know, I think that could be something that is

22 also addressed like other objections that may be had

23 for the record.

24 At this time I would offer Bates pages 1

25 through 293.
 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

10
1 THE COURT: Mr. Brown, to those Bates

2 stamped reports, are there any objections to those?

3 Do you want to point out objections to anything in

4 that packet, and then I'll deal with the medical

5 examiner's report.

6 MR. BROWN: Your Honor, may I remain

7 seated or do you prefer --

8 THE COURT: It doesn't really matter,

9 especially with the microphones. If you want to

10 remain seated, that's fine with me.

11 MR. BROWN: Whatever's your pleasure. I

12 just thought with the mic it would easier.

13 Can I have those Bates numbers again?

14 MR. DeBOLT: 1 through 293, that last

15 page being the last page of the Bureau of Criminal

16 Apprehension drug testing.

17 MR. BROWN: Judge, what I would request

18 is given the Court's direction on how we will

19 approach briefing the issue, that the Court receive

20 it conditionally and allow the defense to go through

21 the objections on particular documents and write

22 them out, as opposed to going through the file here

23 and saying this file versus this file.

24 THE COURT: So you don't object then to

25 the Court provisionally receiving Bates 1

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

11
1 through 293?

2 MR. BROWN: Correct, with the opportunity

3 to object through briefing.

4 THE COURT: I will admit those Bates

5 numbers with the understanding that if there's

6 particular information that Mr. Brown is objecting

7 to within those Bates pages, that he would voice

8 those objections in his brief and then the Court

9 would rule on those.

10 (Whereupon, Exhibit 1 was received in

11 evidence.)

12 THE COURT: And then for the medical

13 examiner's report, can we make that Bates 294 then?

14 MR. DeBOLT: That will be 294 through

15 however long it is.

16 THE COURT: Any objection to me receiving

17 that kind of after the fact, Mr. Brown? So Mr.

18 DeBolt will get that medical examiner's report, show

19 it to you, and I could again provisionally admit

20 those Bates-stamped pages, with you objecting if

21 there's anything within that medical examiner's

22 report that you would be objecting to.

23 MR. BROWN: No, Judge. And to my greater

24 point about the broad admissibility, the reason why

25 I would have no objection to that is found in 18.05

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

12
1 subd.1 part two, which specifically permits at the

2 OH the receipt of medical examination. So the short

3 answer is no, but I thought the explanation would be

4 useful.

5 THE COURT: Okay, so I will admit that

6 medical examiner's report after the fact. It will

7 start with Bates 294. And obviously, Mr. DeBolt,

8 make sure that you have provided that to the

9 defense.

10 (Whereupon, Bates-stamped page 294 was

11 received.

12 Okay, so with that does the State rest on the

13 issue of probable cause?

14 MR. DeBOLT: One moment, Your Honor. I

15 actually just received the autopsy examination from

16 Sergeant Boynton of the Rochester Police Department.

17 So it will include the autopsy preliminary

18 report, which is one page, the documentation of

19 death, which is two pages, and then the full autopsy

20 examination, which is 28 pages. And I'm forwarding

21 that to Mr. Brown currently.

22 THE COURT: Okay.

23 MR. DeBOLT: Other than that, I have no

24 additional evidence to put on.

25 THE COURT: Okay.

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

13
1 MR. BROWN: Presumably that medical

2 examiner's report would have a toxicology report

3 included in it?

4 MR. DeBOLT: It does.

5 MR. BROWN: Very well.

6 THE COURT: Okay. So we will admit that

7 then as soon as that is -- so are you going to print

8 out a hard copy and make that a part of the file

9 here, Mr. DeBolt?

10 MR. DeBOLT: Yes. I'll have my paralegal

11 bring that up while we're still in court.

12 THE COURT: Okay. Does the State rest

13 then?

14 MR. DeBOLT: Yes, Your Honor.

15 THE COURT: Mr. Brown, did you wish to

16 present any evidence?

17 MR. BROWN: Indeed, Your Honor. The

18 defense would like to call I believe it's Detective

19 Brock Neumann.

20 THE COURT: Okay. Investigator Neumann,

21 if you could come up to the witness stand. Remain

22 standing, raise your right hand, and we'll place you

23 under oath.

24 BROCK JAMES NEUMANN,

25 having been first duly sworn,

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

14
1 was examined and testified as follows:

2 THE CLERK: For the record, would you

3 state your name.

4 THE WITNESS: Brock James Neumann.

5 THE CLERK: Spell the last name, please.

6 THE WITNESS: N-E-U-M-A-N-N.

7 THE COURT: Mr. Brown.

8 MR. BROWN: Thank you, Your Honor.

9 DIRECT EXAMINATION

10 BY MR. BROWN:

11 Q. Good afternoon. Is it Investigator or Detective

12 Neumann?

13 A. Investigator.

14 Q. Where are you currently employed?

15 A. Rochester Police Department.

16 Q. How long have you worked there?

17 A. I have worked with the city of Rochester since 2015

18 and numerous other agencies back to 2008.

19 Q. Are you a licensed peace officer?

20 A. I am.

21 Q. And you've been a licensed peace officer since 2008?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. What other departments have you worked for?

24 A. The Hennepin County sheriff's office, Goodhue County

25 sheriff's office and Plainview police department.

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

15
1 Q. In what order?

2 A. Hennepin County, Plainview, Goodhue County sheriff's

3 office.

4 Q. Now, you're an investigator. I assume that that's a

5 rank of sorts?

6 A. Of sorts, yes.

7 Q. Can you tell me what an investigator does?

8 A. It depends on their current assignment. We have

9 property crimes investigators, major crime

10 investigators for crimes of violence. And then I

11 was a member of our criminal interdiction unit,

12 which specializes in proactive narcotic sales, human

13 trafficking, and fugitive apprehension.

14 Q. You said you were a part of. Have you since moved

15 to a different department?

16 A. Yes, sir. In January of this year I transferred to

17 our technology forensic unit.

18 Q. Now, you were an investigator in the criminal

19 interdiction unit, is that right?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. And you are an investigator in this technology

22 division as well, is that correct?

23 A. That's correct.

24 Q. Now, as an investigator in the Criminal Interdiction

25 Unit, how did you become involved in the death

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

16
1 investigation?

2 A. We typically get assigned overdose death

3 investigations after the fact. It initially gets

4 responded to by our major crimes unit, and then gets

5 transferred to the criminal interdiction unit due to

6 our extensive training in covert, physical, and

7 electronic surveillance methods and just the general

8 extensive training and how drug transactions work,

9 just the nature of a drug overdose in general.

10 Q. So it's fair to say your expertise is not

11 necessarily in death investigations but in drug

12 investigations, is that correct?

13 A. That's fair to say.

14 Q. When were you first made aware of the deceased's

15 overdose death?

16 A. The day of the overdose.

17 Q. What day was that, sir?

18 A. April 29th, 2021.

19 Q. I'm going to try to walk you slowly through this

20 file here and your investigation.

21 As a licensed peace officer, obviously you

22 know that we're here on a Third Degree Murder

23 charge, correct?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. And you would know what it would take for the

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

17
1 government to have probable cause for a Third Degree

2 Murder charge, is that right?

3 A. Absolutely.

4 Q. Is it fair to characterize you as the lead

5 investigator in this case?

6 A. No, sir. I was the assisting investigator on this

7 case.

8 Q. Who would be the lead investigator?

9 A. That would be Investigator Garrett Johnson and

10 Investigator Jason Wesley.

11 Q. Can you spell that last name for the record?

12 A. Wesley is W-E-S-L-E-Y.

13 Q. And by the record I really meant me because I needed

14 help with the spelling, but thank you.

15 All right, so when were you first made

16 aware --

17 A. The day of --

18 Q. Let me finish the question. When were you first

19 made aware of the death of the deceased?

20 A. April 29th.

21 Q. And how were you informed?

22 A. Through other investigators.

23 Q. Do you recall who in particular?

24 A. I believe Investigator Garrett Johnson.

25 Q. What was Investigator Johnson's purpose for

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

18
1 contacting you?

2 A. We assist in overdose deaths.

3 Q. And what assistance do you bring to that

4 investigation? I know you've talked about the

5 ability to observe covert activity and so forth.

6 A. Sure. My expertise lies in cellphone analysis of

7 call detail records. So analysis of cellphone

8 communications with cellphone towers, the mapping of

9 those travels, and then the analysis of what those

10 records mean when they've been combined. I've been

11 to trainings throughout the United States on that

12 through PenLink, CellHawk, and Geofence.

13 Q. So you're not brought in to necessarily identify who

14 caused the death, is that right?

15 A. No, sir, that's not right. We often are. That's

16 the end goal.

17 Q. Okay.

18 A. But a lot of times we accomplish that through the

19 analysis of cellphone extractions and cellphone

20 records since that is typically how drug

21 transactions are communicated.

22 Q. Tell the Court about what you observed when you

23 arrived on the scene.

24 A. When I arrived on the scene?

25 Q. The scene of the death.

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

19
1 A. I was not at the scene of the death.

2 Q. You never went to the scene of the death?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Okay. At some point Mr. Campbell, who's the

5 defendant in this case, came to your attention as a

6 defendant, is that fair to say? I'm sorry, as a

7 suspect, is that fair to say?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. How did that come to be?

10 A. I can lead you down the trail of bread crumbs, but

11 my reports are in excess of 40 pages each, so if you

12 want me to go through all of that I can, but I'll

13 need to reference.

14 Q. If you need to reference, we can talk to the Court

15 about anything that might help refresh your

16 recollection. I'd be happy to do that. I think we

17 can do it in an abbreviated fashion. I've read

18 through the case file quite carefully.

19 A. Okay. Would you like me to try to summarize?

20 Q. Very, very briefly, initially how did Mr. Campbell

21 come to your attention?

22 A. Through the analysis of text messages that were

23 exchanged with Mr. Kavitz and his girlfriend at the

24 time and numbers and contacts that they were going

25 to be reaching out to. Then an analysis of those

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

20
1 cellphone records, the calls, the exact times that

2 they were made and where the cellphone was tracking

3 at the time. Prior knowledge that he usually

4 purchased his narcotics in St. Paul.

5 Q. I'm sorry, and by he you mean the deceased, Mr.

6 Kravitz?

7 A. Mr. Kavitz.

8 Q. Mr. Kavitz. My apologies.

9 A. Correct. And coinciding those times with the phone

10 calls as he's traveling northbound into St. Paul,

11 along with his internet search history, which showed

12 that he was searching for tobacco shops in St. Paul.

13 Ultimately canvassing a very large area of numerous

14 tobacco shops until ultimating discovering the

15 surveillance video of Mr. Campbell arriving in the

16 parking lot driving his ex-wife's vehicle, and the

17 deceased getting in his vehicle for about 13 seconds

18 before exiting and departing ways.

19 Q. And it is in that 13 seconds that you believe --

20 well, what do you believe happened in that

21 13 seconds?

22 A. Well, in my training, education, experience, drug

23 transactions often occur in businesses such as

24 convenience stores, gas stations, tobacco shops,

25 because it doesn't draw too much attention due to

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

21
1 the short-term traffic.

2 So when you have two vehicle pull in and one

3 person gets in the other vehicle and then departs 13

4 seconds later without either of them having gone in

5 the store, that's typically indicia of drug sales, a

6 drug transaction, especially when his messages

7 indicate that that's the whole reason why he was

8 going to St. Paul.

9 Q. Do you know what happened in that vehicle?

10 A. Well, I wasn't in it so I guess I can only presume.

11 Q. Is that a yes or no? Do you know what happened in

12 that vehicle?

13 A. I know that Mr. Kavitz got in his front passenger

14 seat and an arm went over to hand him something and

15 then he departed 13 seconds later.

16 Q. Do you know what that something was?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Is there any evidence in the case file that the

19 Court will consider that will tell the Court what

20 occurred in that vehicle?

21 A. I think the totality of the circumstances, if you

22 read through the entire case file, would indicate

23 that that's what he went there to do.

24 Q. Is there any particular document that you would

25 focus the Court's attention on that would be helpful

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

22
1 in the Court identifying what occurred in that

2 vehicle?

3 A. I don't understand the question. If you could

4 please rephrase.

5 Q. Is there any piece of evidence of any sort, video,

6 audio, witness interview, any evidence of any sort,

7 that you would point the Court to that would help

8 the Court have a sense of what occurred in that

9 vehicle?

10 A. Yes, the entire police report with all of the text

11 messages, call detail records, everything that

12 indicates that they went there to purchase

13 narcotics. He was with Mr. Campbell for 13 seconds

14 and then both departed ways and he drove back, and

15 there was no further talk of trying to obtain

16 controlled substances after that transaction,

17 indicating they likely got what they were looking

18 for.

19 Q. It's clear to me, at least, that you believe that a

20 drug transaction took place based on your training

21 and experience, correct?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. I think I heard your testimony to be that you did

24 not know what drug Mr. Campbell allegedly sold to

25 the deceased, is that right?

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

23
1 A. Statements obtained from his father and aunt

2 indicated that he was in prior drug treatment for

3 chemical addiction to prescription pills and later

4 fentanyl.

5 Q. That wasn't my question. You tell us that Mr.

6 Campbell was, by your training and experience,

7 involved in a drug exchange, is that right?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. Do you know what drug Mr. Campbell allegedly handed

10 to the deceased?

11 A. They were looking for pills, according to the

12 messages.

13 Q. Different question. Do you know what drugs Mr.

14 Campbell allegedly handed to the deceased?

15 A. Well, again, I was not in the car.

16 Q. Is that a "No," sir?

17 A. No.

18 Q. No, you do not know what drugs?

19 A. No, I do not know.

20 Q. Now, we talked earlier about your knowledge of what

21 it requires for there to be a Third Degree Homicide.

22 You stand by your knowledge of that?

23 A. I do.

24 Q. One of the things that's required is that Mr.

25 Campbell -- you tell me if you disagree with this --

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

24
1 sell the drug that caused the death, is that right?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. You agree with that proposition?

4 A. I do.

5 Q. Without knowing what drug Mr. Campbell allegedly

6 sold to the deceased, there's a fair amount of

7 guessing, is there not?

8 A. I would not use the word guessing. Again, we got

9 from point A to point B with all of the totality of

10 the investigation prior, so I certainly would not

11 classify it as a guess.

12 Q. True or false, that the deceased was also looking

13 for weed that day?

14 A. No, false.

15 Q. Was his girlfriend looking for weed that day?

16 A. She said something along the lines of -- and I can

17 look this up verbatim.

18 Q. Well, if you know the answer to the question, just

19 answer the question.

20 A. "Weed or anything else," and then further discussion

21 was of "20 a P," which in my experience is $20 for a

22 pill and again, that was what his chemical

23 dependency treatment was for.

24 Q. So you'll have an opportunity, the State will give

25 you an opportunity to clean up whatever testimony

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

25
1 you want, but I'd be grateful if you just answer the

2 question I ask. If that fair?

3 A. Yes, that's fire.

4 MR. DeBOLT: Objection, Your Honor. I'd

5 ask that Your Honor give the witness those sort of

6 instructions and Mr. Brown simply ask questions of

7 Mr. Neumann.

8 THE COURT: Right. If you feel that he's

9 not answering, you can tell the Court that he's

10 nonresponsive. So far I feel that he has been

11 answering the questions.

12 So, Investigator Neumann, just listen to the

13 questions, and if it is yes and no, you can just

14 answer yes and no. And if Mr. DeBolt feels like he

15 needs any further clarification, he can get that

16 from you.

17 A. Yes, Your Honor.

18 BY MR. BROWN:

19 Q. And the girlfriend that you're referring to, what is

20 her name?

21 A. Natalie Alvey or Olvey.

22 Q. And you acknowledge that she was looking for

23 marijuana, is that correct?

24 A. Marijuana and other things or anything else.

25 Q. Fair enough. And she was also present in the scene

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

26
1 of the alleged drug exchange between Mr. Campbell

2 and Mr. Kavitz?

3 A. She was believed to be the driver.

4 Q. It's wholly possible, true or false, that to the

5 extent Mr. Campbell sold Mr. Kavitz anything, he

6 could have sold him marijuana, is that true?

7 A. It's possible.

8 Q. Did the deceased die of a marijuana overdose?

9 A. He did not.

10 Q. So in order for Mr. Campbell to be held accountable

11 for this, you'd agree that he would have to have

12 sold him, I believe it was, heroin or fentanyl, is

13 that right?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. Now, I don't have the medical examiner's report. I

16 don't have the medical examiner's report immediately

17 available, but I'll get it. But it's my

18 understanding that Mr. Campbell allegedly died of an

19 overdose of heroin or fentanyl, is that correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Do the medical examination reports say which one?

22 A. No.

23 Q. So he could have died of a heroin overdose, is that

24 fair?

25 A. That's fair.
 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

27
1 Q. He could have died over a fentanyl overdose, is that

2 fair?

3 A. That's fair.

4 Q. He could have died of a combination of both, is that

5 right?

6 A. That's right.

7 Q. And again, you don't know what Mr. Campbell

8 allegedly sold?

9 A. I do not.

10 Q. We also know that from the reports it would appear,

11 particularly your report, that Mr. Kavitz had

12 recently been released from Teen Challenge here.

13 Was it Rochester or Hastings where he was in Teen

14 Challenge?

15 A. Rochester.

16 Q. And he was there for a chemical substance abuse

17 issue, correct?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. And you mentioned that the substance abuse that he

20 was being treated for was what again?

21 A. Prescription pills and later fentanyl.

22 Q. He wasn't being treated for heroin, is that right?

23 A. Not to my knowledge.

24 Q. But there was heroin found in his system, is that

25 right?
 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

28
1 A. Again, it didn't differentiate between heroin or

2 fentanyl. It was acute toxic levels of heroin

3 and/or fentanyl, I believe was the exact wording.

4 Q. So we don't know what drug he died of?

5 A. Again, heroin and/or fentanyl. In my training,

6 education and experience, heroin often contains

7 fentanyl.

8 Q. I haven't asked a question. There was evidence in

9 your reports here that Mr. Kavitz had, by some

10 family members' accounts, been high earlier that

11 day. Do you recall those?

12 A. Following coming back from his trip to St. Paul,

13 yes.

14 Q. You don't recall there being evidence that he was

15 intoxicated beforehand?

16 A. No, none.

17 Q. You told the Court how Mr. Campbell came to your

18 attention, and what I heard you say is that you

19 essentially followed him digitally, is that right?

20 A. We narrowed down where the transaction occurred and

21 discovered the surveillance video of Mr. Campbell

22 pulling into the parking lot and driving the vehicle

23 where the transaction occurred and being the sole

24 person in the vehicle. That's how Mr. Campbell was

25 identified as a suspect.
 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

29
1 Q. Did you do the same thing for Mr. Kavitz?

2 A. In what way do you mean?

3 Q. Well, he came from Rochester, correct?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. To Hastings, correct?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. And then to St. Paul, correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. Did you track to see if he had made any stops on the

10 way?

11 A. From which point to which point?

12 Q. At any point.

13 A. No.

14 Q. What about on the way back from St. Paul, did you

15 track to see if he'd made any stops other than the

16 tobacco shop?

17 A. I made a record and analysis of his cellphone

18 records, which was the only information I had to go

19 of his travels. From the time he left the lot to

20 the time he arrived back at his father's house would

21 have been consistent without stopping anywhere for

22 any length of time.

23 Q. Well, it only takes 13 seconds to do a drug

24 transaction, is that right?

25 A. That is right.
 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

30
1 Q. So did you account for every second of Mr. Kavitz as

2 he traversed from St. Paul back to Hastings?

3 A. With the information I had, I can't account for

4 every second, if that's what you're asking.

5 Q. Fair enough. And what about from Hastings to

6 Rochester?

7 A. He was with his aunt from period on.

8 Q. Okay, the entire time?

9 A. I can't account for every second. But his mother --

10 or excuse me, his aunt picked him up from his

11 father's house in Hastings and brought him back to

12 Rochester to her residence.

13 Q. As I understand the record, his aunt then left him

14 to go take her children someplace to be safe because

15 Mr. Kavitz was clearly intoxicated, is that true?

16 A. I don't know if she took her children away from him,

17 but she separated her children from him. I don't

18 know if she left the residence and left him alone or

19 just this stemmed from seeing him.

20 Q. Let me ask the question more directly. Can you

21 testify under oath that every second of Mr. Kavitz's

22 time while he was in Hastings is accounted for?

23 A. No.

24 MR. DeBOLT: Your Honor, I just want to

25 pause real quick to give Mr. Brown the documents

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

31
1 that were referenced previously. They've been

2 e-mailed to you as well.

3 MR. BROWN: I appreciate that. I

4 acknowledge receipt of Bates No. 294.

5 MR. DeBOLT: For the record, that's 294

6 to 324, that includes, as I previously said, the

7 documentation of death, cause of death worksheet,

8 autopsy examination. And then the final page is the

9 autopsy preliminary report.

10 THE COURT: Okay.

11 MR. BROWN: Judge, may I have just a

12 second? I don't intend to read it, but I want to at

13 least --

14 THE COURT: Yes.

15 (Reviews document.)

16 BY MR. BROWN:

17 Q. I think where we left off was on the point that you

18 can't account for all of the time, I would say, that

19 Mr. Kavitz was in the city of Hastings before he

20 came back to Rochester, is that correct?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. And you can't account for the time that he was in

23 St. Paul before he got to Hastings, is that right?

24 A. Are you referring to every second that he was in St.

25 Paul?
 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

32
1 Q. Outside of what you can observe on the video and by

2 cell towers.

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. And it's possible that a vehicle could stop and

5 still ping from the same cell tower, do a drug

6 transaction, and keep going?

7 A. That is correct.

8 Q. And that would not be reflected in your cell tower

9 reports? It would look just the same, is that

10 right?

11 A. For a short transaction, yes.

12 Q. It is also clear, at least to me, from the reports

13 that Mr. Kavitz and his significant other had

14 multiple sources for drugs, would you agree?

15 A. I would agree.

16 Q. Did you check to see if they had stopped at any of

17 the other sources of drugs that were mentioned?

18 A. Can you rephrase the question? I don't understand

19 what you're getting at.

20 Q. That's absolutely fair. If you don't understand a

21 question, I'm happy to do that.

22 At some point Ms. Alvey, his significant

23 other, indicated that she had time constraints, is

24 that right?

25 A. No, Tyler had time constraints, not her.

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

33
1 Q. Very well. One of them had time constraints, is

2 that right?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. And at some point one recommended that they go to a

5 different drug dealer because that drug dealer was

6 closer to them, is that right?

7 A. Yes. I believe it was the one that ultimately led

8 us to Mr. Campbell and not the other ones due to

9 that time constraint.

10 Q. What was the answer to the question?

11 A. Can you rephrase?

12 Q. Judge, can I have the court reporter to repeat the

13 question?

14 (Question read back.)

15 A. Closer to them? I don't believe that that's what it

16 was. They were going back and forth with several

17 different names. Well, two other additional names.

18 One was too expensive. The other one was further

19 way. And then Ms. Alvey ultimately suggested a

20 contact that she knew under the name "D."

21 Q. Who is Oso?

22 A. I'm sorry.

23 Q. Oso.

24 A. Oso?

25 Q. Yes.
 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

34
1 A. That was a contact that she had mentioned.

2 Q. Oso is a drug dealer, correct?

3 A. That would be presumed.

4 Q. Well, you're an expert in drug dealers. From this

5 conversation on Bates stamp 47 of this record,

6 applying your expertise, would you have any reason

7 to doubt that Mr. Oso or Ms. Oso, I don't know, is a

8 drug dealer?

9 A. Again, you're asking me to guess. It's something

10 that you're then asking me to guess that Mr.

11 Campbell is as well, so I guess I can only speculate

12 that he would be a drug dealer, but I certainly

13 don't know.

14 Q. You would apply that same grace to Mr. Campbell,

15 correct?

16 A. Yes, I have, correct.

17 Q. Very well. But from your training and experience,

18 it would look to you as Mr. Oso, without

19 guaranteeing it --

20 MR. DeBOLT: Objection, Your Honor.

21 We're asking Investigator Neumann to speculate. I

22 believe he's answered the question as best he can.

23 THE COURT: I agree. And I think you've

24 made your point, so you can move on.

25 BY MR. BROWN:
 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

35
1 Q. So the couple we're looking for had multiple drug

2 sources?

3 A. It appears that way.

4 Q. And did you investigate whether they had stopped by

5 any of those other drug sources to make a purchase?

6 A. I don't know how I would know if they did or didn't.

7 Q. Well, did you follow the cellphone towers and the

8 text messages as you did with Mr. Campbell?

9 A. No, because they didn't decide on those. They

10 decided on Mr. "D" and which led to us Mr. Campbell,

11 as indicated in their text messages.

12 Q. Have you tried to identify these other drug dealers?

13 A. We tried to identify them, who they were. We did

14 not subpoena any of their cell records.

15 Q. Why not?

16 A. They weren't the strongest leads. The text messages

17 indicated that, "Let's just go with D," and then we

18 ran all the information with "D's" cell towers and

19 it indicated that he was likely the source that they

20 were communicating with.

21 Q. Well, how do you know that Mr. Campbell was "D"?

22 A. I don't think Mr. Campbell is "D."

23 Q. Okay. Well, how do you know they didn't get the

24 drugs from "D"?

25 A. "D's" phone was purchased exactly one mile from

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

36
1 where the transaction occurred at the tobacco shop.

2 It was a burner phone, indicating there's no

3 subscriber information available other than where it

4 was purchased, which was one mile from where the

5 transaction occurred. It had a Minneapolis/St. Paul

6 area code phone number. But his phone was actually

7 in Miami at the time that he was communicating with

8 Tyler. After that time he made multiple phone calls

9 to approximately seven others, all area code

10 Minneapolis/St. Paul phone numbers, to me indicating

11 that he's telling somebody else to go meet Tyler to

12 sell him the narcotics. I would presume that one of

13 those numbers was Mr. Campbell.

14 Q. Which one?

15 A. We don't know. It's been my experience that drug

16 dealers don't keep their phones for any significant

17 amount of time, and they also carry multiple

18 cellphones on them, as Mr. Campbell did at the time

19 of his arrest.

20 Q. Fair enough. You don't know which phone number was

21 Mr. Campbell's phone number, is that your testimony?

22 A. You can't have subscriber information on prepaid

23 phones, so yes.

24 Q. That is your testimony, that you do not know which

25 phone number was Mr. Campbell's phone number?

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

37
1 A. I only know that Mr. Campbell's phones that he had

2 on him, all three of the four phones were

3 communicating with "D." He had "D's" number in his

4 phone as the name Usher, and then two of the other

5 phones as JB, same exact phone number.

6 Q. On the phone belonging to either the deceased or his

7 girlfriend, can you identify "D" as Mr. Campbell?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Let me break that question down. And the phone

10 number associated with Mr. Kavitz's phone, you did

11 search his phone, yes?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Can you identify Mr. Campbell to any phone number?

14 Can you tie him to a phone number?

15 A. We don't need to tie him to a phone number that --

16 Q. Sir, my question is can you tie him to a phone

17 number?

18 A. The communication wasn't with Mr. Campbell, it was

19 with "D," and then "D" to Mr. Campbell, is my

20 belief.

21 Q. I respect that. But my question to you was in the

22 phone belonging to Mr. Kavitz, can you tie Mr.

23 Campbell's phone number to any phone number in Mr.

24 Kavitz's phone?

25 A. No.
 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

38
1 Q. Okay. The same question now for Mr. Kavitz's

2 girlfriend. Can you tie Mr. Campbell to any phone

3 number in the girlfriend's phone?

4 A. No.

5 Q. And so when you say you tracked the cell towers,

6 you're referring strictly to the cell towers

7 associated with the phone number of the deceased, is

8 that right?

9 A. That is correct. Other than where Mr. -- excuse me,

10 where the contact that was in Tyler's phone labeled

11 as "D" was, during his communications with Tyler,

12 those records were analyzed and mapped.

13 Q. Did you track the cellphone records of his

14 girlfriend, Mr. Kavitz's girlfriend?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And were they in alignment?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And when I say they, I'm referring to Mr. Kavitz's

19 cellphone and his girlfriend's, they were in

20 alignment?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. With no separation between the two?

23 A. No.

24 Q. The death of Mr. Kavitz, we have it at 4-29-2021, is

25 that right?
 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

39
1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. And he died in the early morning, or do we know

3 exactly when he died?

4 A. I don't have an exact time of death.

5 Q. Do we know, Investigator Neumann, how long it takes

6 to overdose on heroin and/or fentanyl?

7 A. It varies based on size, weight, age, stomach

8 contents, all of the above.

9 Q. Well, from the 13 second transaction to the time of

10 Mr. Kavitz's death, how much time had elapsed?

11 A. Again, we don't know the exact time of death.

12 Approximately 12 hours.

13 Q. Okay. Well, from the 13 second transaction to the

14 last time Mr. Kavitz was seen alive, I believe with

15 his aunt or her family, do we know how much time had

16 elapsed?

17 A. Approximately ten hours.

18 Q. And in your training and experience, do those who

19 are addicted to heroin or fentanyl hold on to the

20 drugs for an extended period of time, or do they use

21 immediately?

22 A. It depends on how much they purchased. Typically

23 they'll use a portion right away. But fentanyl is a

24 thing where if it were in a pill form, you could

25 have one pill form that has little to no fentanyl in

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

40
1 it, and the next pill could have a lethal dose in

2 it. It is literally so potent that you literally

3 cannot dilute it enough outside of a laboratory to

4 make it safe to consume.

5 Q. In your training and experience as a drug

6 investigator how long does it take to OD off of a

7 bad batch of drugs?

8 A. Again, it depends on the level of bad drugs within

9 those drugs, the level of fentanyl within it.

10 Again, the size, weight, stomach contents, all of

11 the above.

12 Q. When you searched Mr. Kavitz's property, did you

13 find any fentanyl?

14 A. I did not search Mr. Kavitz's property, but I'm

15 aware that Investigator Wesley did and he found a

16 portion of a pill, I believe two portions of a pill,

17 inside of the wallet.

18 Q. And that pill could not be analyzed because it was

19 too small, is that correct?

20 A. I don't know the answer to that question.

21 Q. Have you received any BCA reports on the pill

22 recovered from Mr. Kavitz's wallet?

23 A. I have.

24 Q. You have?

25 A. Yes.
 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

41
1 Q. What do those reports say?

2 A. I'll pull it up in front of me.

3 THE COURT: Mr. Brown, I don't know what

4 good it's doing asking Investigator Neumann to read

5 these reports because you can argue whatever you

6 think the reports show. And so if we could just

7 kind of limit the testimony of Investigator Neumann

8 to his experience, those types of questions. But

9 asking him to read a report that's already going to

10 be for me to analyze, I would ask that we kind of

11 limit our time here.

12 MR. BROWN: Understood, Your Honor, and I

13 intend to be respectful of the Court's time. I

14 didn't necessarily want him to read it, but if he

15 wanted to refresh his recollection about what they

16 said.

17 THE COURT: But how is this witness going

18 to help your issue on probable cause?

19 MR. BROWN: Because I believe that the

20 pill, the portion of the pill, could not be analyzed

21 because there was --

22 THE COURT: You can argue that in your

23 brief based on that report.

24 MR. BROWN: Very well.

25 THE COURT: So let's just limited to what

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

42
1 Investigator Neumann can help with filling in

2 whatever you want to argue in the reports.

3 MR. BROWN: Sure.

4 BY MR. BROWN:

5 Q. A person could die from a bad batch of -- well, I

6 guess every batch of fentanyl is bad if it's not

7 prescribed -- but from a fentanyl overdose or from a

8 heroin overdose within minutes, is that true?

9 A. That is true.

10 Q. Do you know when Mr. Kavitz consumed whatever drug

11 you allege Mr. Campbell sold to him?

12 A. I can only assume that because he was high when he

13 returned, that he at least took some measure of

14 something, but I can not -- obviously I wasn't with

15 him so I don't know exactly when he took it or what

16 he took or what amount.

17 Q. You also don't know if he took more after he'd

18 consumed whatever he took from Mr. Campbell

19 allegedly, correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. So it's totally possible that Mr. Kavitz went out

22 and got more drugs, is that true?

23 A. Again, I wasn't -- that's true, I wasn't with him

24 the whole time.

25 MR. BROWN: Judge, let me just look at my

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

43
1 notes quickly. I think I'm rounding the corner.

2 THE COURT: Okay.

3 MR. BROWN: Just one minute, Your Honor.

4 BY MR. BROWN:

5 Q. In your training and experience, is an overdose

6 always immediate?

7 A. I guess I'm not a medical expert. I can't use the

8 word always.

9 Q. Okay, fair enough. In your training and experience,

10 from the point of consumption to the point of death,

11 what's the longest you've seen that take place, in

12 your experience as a peace officer?

13 A. At most, 30 minutes.

14 Q. So it would be extraordinary for Mr. Campbell to

15 have sold them, the deceased and his girlfriend, the

16 lethal dose of drugs, them to have consumed it

17 because he was high when he returned to Hastings,

18 and live for hours later, is that correct?

19 A. Again, it would vary on how much he took. And

20 again, one pill could have none in it and the next

21 pill could have the lethal dose.

22 Q. Well, you don't know whether Mr. Campbell sold him

23 pills at all, correct?

24 A. Correct.

25 MR. BROWN: Judge, I don't have any more.

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

44
1 THE COURT: Mr. DeBolt, any cross?

2 MR. DeBOLT: Just a little bit, Your

3 Honor.

4 CROSS-EXAMINATION

5 BY MR. DeBOLT:

6 Q. So, Investigator Neumann, these pills that were

7 found, or at least fragments of pills that were

8 found with Mr. Kavitz when he was deceased, what do

9 you know about those pills generally?

10 A. They were two fragments of what appeared to be a

11 whole pill that was then broken into two pieces.

12 Q. Did they appear consistent with any drugs you've

13 come into contact with in the past?

14 A. They were white and of similar shape, but the emblem

15 that would have been stamped on there to give a

16 further indication of what it was, was worn off

17 because it was folded within the fabric of the

18 bi-fold wallet.

19 Q. So I guess I'll ask again, did it seem consistent

20 with the sort of drug that you had identified in the

21 past?

22 A. It could be consistent with Percocets or other --

23 MR. BROWN: Objection, that's not

24 responsive.

25 THE COURT: I think that was responsive.

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

45
1 He said Percocets.

2 BY MR. DeBOLT:

3 Q. So let's talk about Percocets, or what I think of

4 seeing referred to in your reports as Percocet 30s.

5 What are those?

6 A. Percocet is a name brand of a controlled substance.

7 Q. And on the street do you see these?

8 A. Yes, along with many other pills, including even

9 aspirin that are stamped to look as something that

10 it's not. And, in fact, they are very little of

11 what they're supposed to be, and the majority of

12 them contain fentanyl.

13 Q. Are these all legitimate manufactured Percocets?

14 A. Some of them are. Some of them aren't. The

15 majority of the ones we see through our

16 investigations are not actual prescribed Percocets,

17 but rather what we call counterfeit prescription

18 narcotics that contain fentanyl.

19 Q. Do normal Percocets contain fentanyl?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Is the chemical makeup in these counterfeit

22 Percocets consistent from pill to pill?

23 A. Absolutely not.

24 Q. One pill might have fentanyl, another pill might

25 not?
 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

46
1 A. Correct.

2 Q. So, Investigator Neumann, you were asked a little

3 bit about what you knew about what occurred in the

4 parking lot of the tobacco shop in St. Paul. You

5 testified that you knew that the deceased and his

6 girlfriend were looking for drugs?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. How do you know that?

9 A. The text messages exchanged between them before they

10 met up.

11 Q. And then you testified it was at least a perceived

12 drug transaction in the tobacco parking lot?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. And then based on everything you learned about the

15 situation, what did the deceased and his girlfriend

16 do after they left the tobacco store parking lot?

17 A. Approximately 14 minutes after they pull out of the

18 tobacco store parking lot, that timestamp was

19 verified when I pulled the surveillance video,

20 approximately 14 minutes later he received his first

21 call from -- I forget the order, but one from his

22 father and one from his aunt, during which his phone

23 was pinging off of cell towers between Hastings and

24 St. Paul. In sequence it appeared he was traveling

25 southbound on Highway 61.

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

47
1 Q. So what you could piece together is he went from

2 Hastings originally to St. Paul?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. Do you know how long he was in St. Paul?

5 A. He arrived in the gas station -- excuse me, in the

6 tobacco store parking lot I believe at 1336. I'd

7 have to refresh my memory on that. Or 1332. And

8 then departed at 1337, so approximately five minutes

9 in the parking lot.

10 Q. And then cell pings indicate that he's heading

11 southbound towards Hastings thereafter?

12 A. Correct, at 1551, and I believe 1553 received the

13 two sequential phone calls.

14 Q. And you indicated that prior to getting to St. Paul

15 there were text messages about obtaining controlled

16 substances?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. On whose phone were those text messages on?

19 A. They were exchanged between Ms. Alvey and Mr.

20 Kavitz.

21 Q. And then afterwards was there any communication

22 about obtaining controlled substances?

23 A. None.

24 Q. And then that overnight period of time after that

25 trip to St. Paul is when Mr. Kavitz passed away?

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

48
1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. You indicated that the medical examiner toxicology

3 report said that Mr. Kavitz died of a fatal dosage

4 of heroin and/or fentanyl?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. And so this is all occurring at the end of April in

7 2021, correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. When did you actually arrest Mr. Campbell?

10 A. July 21st of 2021.

11 Q. What did Mr. Campbell have on his person?

12 A. He had 23 --

13 MR. BROWN: Objection, Your Honor. I'm

14 going to object to this on the same basis as to the

15 18.05. This would ordinarily be inadmissible. But

16 if the Court wants to hear the testimony and make a

17 ruling later, I understand that as well.

18 THE COURT: I will hear. This is a

19 probable cause challenge so I will hear the

20 testimony.

21 BY MR. DeBOLT:

22 Q. Did he have heroin and/or fentanyl on his person?

23 A. Twenty-three bindles totaling 23.9 grams with

24 packaging. In my training and experience --

25 Q. Of heroin?
 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

49
1 A. Of heroin, yes. Heroin is typically sold in a dose

2 of a tenth of a gram, which would account to be 239

3 individual street level doses.

4 Q. Does that indicate personal use?

5 A. Absolutely not. It would indicate drug sales.

6 Q. Did Mr. Campbell have any substances on his person

7 that were consistent with fentanyl?

8 A. Yes. I believe the heroin bindles were tested with

9 heroin and fentanyl inside of them, and then he also

10 had ten tablets of oxycodone, seven tablets of

11 buprenorphine, three capsules of gabapentin, and

12 several small amounts of crack cocaine.

13 Q. I just want to clear up one last portion of your

14 testimony. So there were communications coming from

15 the deceased and his girlfriend about obtaining

16 controlled substances, correct?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Starting from the beginning, how does this person

19 who we've referred to as "D" come into play?

20 A. Ms. Alvey suggests that "We should just go with D."

21 Q. So what was the communication between Ms. Alvey and

22 Mr. Kavitz when that statement is made?

23 A. It initially started with him wanting to meet up.

24 Initially she said we just want -- she wanted to

25 meet up, make love. She suggested, "Should we get

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

50
1 marijuana or anything?" Then they started

2 suggesting Mr. Oso or Mr. Judge, and she ultimately

3 said, "Let's just go with D." Mr. Kavitz then had a

4 contact labeled as "D" within his cellphone. And in

5 their travels north to St. Paul he made three phone

6 calls to "D," the longest of which was only

7 59 seconds.

8 Q. Then you took that information and you tracked "D's"

9 phone number, correct?

10 A. Correct, to best that I could, yes.

11 Q. What did you learn about "D's" phone number? You

12 said something about Florida?

13 A. Sure. The phone number came back to a T-Mobile

14 Sprint-based prepaid phone, which means there is no

15 actual monthly bill. There's no address associated

16 with it other than where the device is purchased. I

17 discovered that the device was purchased on

18 January 18th of 2021 at a market on Maryland Avenue.

19 According to Google Maps it was exactly one mile

20 from where the transaction with Mr. Campbell

21 occurred.

22 Q. So where does Florida come into play?

23 A. When we pulled his communication detail records for

24 the phone number labeled as "D" at the time that he

25 was communicating with Mr. Kavitz, that phone was

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

51
1 pinging near Miami, Florida.

2 Q. So at the time right after the deceased and his

3 girlfriend say, "Let's just go with "D," they make a

4 few phone calls to this person who's in Mr. Kavitz's

5 phone as "D"?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. That phone pings cell towers in Miami, Florida?

8 A. Correct. It is a metro-based number, but he

9 appeared to be in Miami at the time that the calls

10 were made.

11 Q. Then you testified that after those short phone

12 calls occur, "D" then contacts a few additional

13 metro numbers?

14 A. Yes. Five numbers were communicated between the

15 first and last phone call with Mr. Kavitz, and then

16 two additional numbers in the few minutes following

17 that last phone call, but preceding when Mr. Kavitz

18 arrived in the parking lot of the tobacco shop. So

19 seven phone numbers of interest.

20 Q. So the idea would be you presumed Mr. Kavitz was

21 asking "D" for drugs?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. And a communication takes place with individuals who

24 are actually in Minnesota?

25 MR. BROWN: Objection, leading.

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

52
1 MR. DeBOLT: I'm cross-examining.

2 THE COURT: Yes, I'll allow it.

3 A. Yes, that was my presumption. They were in numerous

4 phone calls repeatedly to each of the numbers in

5 that short amount of minutes. All of the numbers

6 that he contacted had metro area codes indicating

7 that because he was out of town he was communicating

8 them to facilitate the transaction.

9 Q. And you don't know which one of those phone numbers

10 is associated with Mr. Campbell?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. But you are assuming that one of them is?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. And why are you assuming that?

15 A. Because Mr. Kavitz's internet searches were for

16 "Where is the tobacco shop in St. Paul? Tobacco

17 shop Maryland Avenue." And then Mr. Campbell

18 arrives in the vehicle where he meets him. And

19 there's no other text messages looking for anything

20 else other than a tobacco shop, where Mr. Campbell

21 then shows up and motions to the vehicle with the

22 window rolled down, at which point Mr. Kavitz got in

23 the front passenger seat of his vehicle.

24 Q. Were you aware of any other times after that that

25 this individual identified as "D" and Mr. Campbell

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

53
1 communicated?

2 A. Can you repeat the question?

3 Q. I'll build up to that a little bit. After you

4 arrest Mr. Campbell in July, did you obtain any of

5 his cellphones?

6 A. I did. He had four cellphones on him, three of

7 which were powered on.

8 Q. Did he have any communications with "D" at that

9 time?

10 A. He did. In fact, again, each of the phones were

11 only utilized for a short period of time, and how we

12 can find that is what we call a forensic extraction

13 of a cellphone. We can see what's called the

14 timeline of the communication or

15 power-ups/power-offs, anything that was associated

16 with the phone.

17 One of the phones in particular had 126 calls

18 exchanged between Mr. Campbell and who he had in his

19 phone as either JB or Usher, depending on the phone.

20 Those 126 calls occurred just between July 9th and

21 July 21st, so a matter of twelve days.

22 Q. And that's the same phone number that was pinged in

23 Miami?

24 A. That's the same phone number as "D." And between

25 the three phones, one of the phones had it as JB and

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

54
1 the other two phones had that same phone number

2 labeled as Usher.

3 Q. All the same number, though, correct?

4 A. Same phone number, yes.

5 Q. Any of Mr. Campbell's phones, were they active

6 during that April 2021 timeframe?

7 A. No.

8 MR. DeBOLT: I have no further questions.

9 THE COURT: Okay. Any redirect, Mr.

10 Brown?

11 MR. BROWN: Briefly, Your Honor.

12 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

13 BY MR. BROWN:

14 Q. Who "D" is, is that correct?

15 A. That's correct.

16 Q. The only basis you have to say that he was in

17 Florida was cellphone towers, is that right?

18 A. Yes, three separate cellphone pings.

19 Q. Fair enough. But cellular phone towers is the

20 exclusive basis for what you're saying that this

21 unknown person "D" was in Florida?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Is that right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. You agree or disagree that cellphone towers can be

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

55
1 thrown off by someone using various forms of

2 technology, is that right?

3 A. That is not right.

4 Q. That is not correct?

5 A. It's not right. You can spoof a number to where it

6 makes it look like a different MSISDN number, but

7 you can't trick which tower the device is

8 communicating with. That comes directly from the

9 carrier.

10 Q. Do you know if this "D" person was operating on

11 wifi?

12 A. He was not. It was communicating with the cell

13 tower. A wifi would be a completely different

14 response from the carrier. It actually labels it as

15 wifi with an IP address. This was communicating

16 with a cell tower.

17 Q. The pills that were found in or the fragment of pill

18 that was found in the deceased's wallet, you said it

19 could be fentanyl or Percocet, is that correct?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. But you don't know, right?

22 A. Right.

23 Q. Why don't you know again?

24 A. Only one of the two halves was analyzed.

25 Q. And what was the result of that analysis?

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

56
1 A. The first part contained no controlled substances

2 identified.

3 Q. Okay. So the pill was a dud, is that true?

4 A. That portion of the pill.

5 Q. Okay. Have you done any investigative work to

6 identify "D"?

7 A. We attempted to on numerous occasions, but due to

8 the fact that it's a prepaid phone, and they did not

9 retain surveillance back to January 18th when that

10 device was actually purchased at that market. We

11 did make efforts to actually go there and speak with

12 management.

13 Q. So beyond the kind of technological investigation of

14 the cellphone towers and the investigation with the

15 manager, presumably you're talking about the manager

16 of the tobacco shop?

17 A. I was speaking to the manager of the market where

18 the prepaid phone that was under the name of "D" was

19 purchased.

20 Q. Thank you. So aside from going to the location

21 where the prepaid phone was purchased that "D" used,

22 and aside from the technology of which didn't lead

23 to much because it was a prepaid phone, have you

24 made any other efforts to identify who "D" is?

25 A. Efforts, yes. Success, no.

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

57
1 Q. Okay.

2 MR. BROWN: All right, Judge. I have no

3 further questions.

4 THE COURT: Mr. DeBolt?

5 MR. DeBOLT: No additional questions.

6 THE COURT: Thank you, Investigator

7 Neumann. You may step down.

8 A. Thank you, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: Any further evidence or

10 witnesses, Mr. Brown?

11 MR. BROWN: No further evidence from the

12 defense at this point, Judge.

13 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Brown, how long do

14 you think you need to brief this issue?

15 MR. BROWN: Without burdening the Court

16 with all of my calendar issues, I do know I've got

17 an appellate brief due at the end of the month. And

18 I intend to order the transcript. So how long will

19 it take to get the transcript?

20 THE COURT REPORTER: Two weeks.

21 THE COURT: So can you get it done two

22 weeks after getting the transcript?

23 MR. BROWN: That will put us in mid

24 April.

25 THE COURT: April 13th.

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

58
1 MR. BROWN: I'm confident I can, but I'd

2 ask the Court for the 20th just in case.

3 THE COURT: I'll give you to the end of

4 that week, April 15th.

5 And then, Mr. DeBolt, do you think if I give

6 you two weeks after that, if that would be enough

7 time to respond?

8 MR. DeBOLT: Yes, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: So that would be due

10 April 29th. And then I will consider it under

11 advisement as of May 2nd, which is Monday.

12 Anything further, Mr. DeBolt?

13 MR. DeBOLT: Just the packet. Should I

14 give that to Your Honor or Madam Clerk?

15 THE COURT: You can give it to my clerk.

16 And that includes then the medical exam?

17 MR. DeBOLT: Yes, 1 through 324.

18 THE COURT: Thank you. And anything

19 further, Mr. Brown?

20 MR. BROWN: Judge, I believe I'm entitled

21 to make a speedy trial demand as well.

22 THE COURT: You will be after I decide

23 the omnibus.

24 MR. BROWN: I respectfully disagree with

25 that, Your Honor. I believe the rules --

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

59
1 THE COURT: Well, then I'm not going to

2 give you three weeks to brief this. I'll give you a

3 week.

4 MR. BROWN: Well, I can't have the

5 transcript within a week, Judge.

6 THE COURT: I mean one week from the time

7 you get the transcript. I'm not going to enter a

8 speedy demand and then me having something under

9 advisement.

10 So if you want to enter the speedy demand,

11 that's fine. First of all, this may get dismissed

12 for lack of probable cause if you get your way, Mr.

13 Brown. So if you wish to enter a speedy demand,

14 once the Court has made its decision on this issue,

15 I would consider it entered at that time, if that's

16 what you're asking me to do.

17 MR. BROWN: I'll have to consult with Mr.

18 Campbell.

19 THE COURT: Okay, you can do that.

20 (Whereupon, counsel and defendant talk

21 off the record.)

22 MR. BROWN: Judge, we will stick with the

23 schedule as it is for now.

24 THE COURT: Okay, and what will happen is

25 either the Court will dismiss it, in which case

 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3.16.22 3/28/2022 9:36 AM

60
1 there is no need for a speedy demand, or the Court

2 will put a plea hearing date in the order, and at

3 that point then you could make your speedy demand.

4 MR. BROWN: However the Court wants to

5 proceed.

6 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

7 (Whereupon, the proceeding ended at

8 2:41 p.m.)

9 * * *

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
 55-CR-21-4148
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/28/2022 9:36 AM

61
1 STATE OF MINNESOTA

2 COUNTY OF OLMSTED

4 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

6 I, Julie A. Buehler, RMR, CRR, CRC,

7 Official Court Reporter in and for the State of

8 Minnesota, County of Olmsted, do hereby certify that

9 the foregoing transcript is a true and complete

10 record of the proceedings held herein, transcribed

11 to the best of my ability.

12

13

14 Buehler, Julie
Digitally signed by Buehler, Julie
Date: 2022.03.28 09:24:50 -05'00'
______________________________

15 Julie A. Buehler
Certified Realtime Reporter
16 Registered Merit Reporter
Certified Realtime Captioner
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25