NEW JERSEY STATE LEGISLATURE OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES IN RE: ) TRANSCRIPT ) OF SENATE JUDICIARY ) ELECTRONICALLY COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION ) RECORDED DEPOSITION ) OF ) RONALD SUSSWEIN TAKEN BEFORE: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY, 00 **************************** JAMES V. BOWEN, Notary Public of the State of New Jersey, for the Offices of J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC., a Certified Transcription Agency, at the Office of Legislative Services, State House Annex, Trenton, NJ 0, commencing at : a.m. A P P E A R A N C E S: ********** Senate Democratic Staff By: JO ASTRID GLADING, ESQ. DOUG WHEELER, ESQ. Latham and Watkins By: MARK GOLDBERG, ESQ. SCOTT LOUIS WEBER, ESQ. One Newark Center Newark, NJ 0 0ffice of Attorney General By: JEFFREY MILLER, Assistant Attorney General Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex W. Market Street Attorney for Mr. Susswein Transcriber, Patricia A. Kontura J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC. Evergreen Avenue Hamilton, NJ 0 (0)- FAX NO. (0)- Audio Recorded
Examination - Susswein 0 MR. WEBER: Good Morning, Mr. Susswein. On behalf of the Committee, we appreciate you coming back to conclude your deposition today. You were previously sworn in on February th, 00 and unless you object and you want me to swear you in again, we ll treat the oath as still applying today, if that s okay with you. MR. SUSSWEIN: No objection. MR. WEBER: Before we start, why don t we just have everyone identify themselves for the record, please. We ll start with Mr. Wheeler. MR. WHEELER: Douglas Wheeler, Assistant Counsel, Senate Democratic Office. MS. GLADING: Jo Astrid Glading, Staff Counsel, Senate Democratic Office. MR. MILLER: Jeffrey Miller, Assistant Attorney General, counsel for Mr. Susswein. MR. SUSSWEIN: Ronald Susswein. MR. BOWEN: Jim Bowen, Court Reporter. R O N A L D S U S S W E I N, PREVIOUSLY SWORN MR. WEBER: Mr. Susswein, we left off on Tuesday, February th with a discussion about the provision of materials by Lieutenant Gilbert to Mr. Zoubek on March th,, do you remember that discussion? THE WITNESS: Yes. Examination - Susswein 0 MR. WEBER: Okay. And I show to you two documents. For the record they are GC00 and OAG00. Both are March th memorandums to file. One is for Mr. Zoubek, one is for Mr. Verniero. Both of those memorandums indicate that for the first time a packet of documents from the State Police regarding analyses and compilations of statistics regarding racial profiling was produced. And I m just going to hold these up. You saw these documents on the th, correct? THE WITNESS: You showed them to me. MR. WEBER: Okay. And we discussed them on the th. Let s pick up then from that point in time and we also discussed in some detail the undated memo from Sergeant Gilbert which is GC00 through GC0000, which sets forth the analysis of consent to search data from Moorestown and Cranbury and makes a comparison between the New Jersey numbers and the Maryland State Police numbers. And you remember we showed you that document, correct? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. MR. WEBER: And we discussed that document. Let s now fast-forward just a bit to April th or April th of. You participated in a
Examination - Susswein 0 meeting, and it was either April th or April th,, with Colonel Dunlop, Lieutenant Colonel Fedorko, Mr. Zoubek and Detective Sergeant Serrao on either of those two days, correct. THE WITNESS: If that was the Power Point presentation -- MR. WEBER: Correct. THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. WEBER: Okay. Do you remember if it was April th or April th? MR. WEBER: No, I don t. THE WITNESS: Okay. MR. WEBER: I will represent to you that Detective Sergeant Serrao testified yesterday and he placed that meeting on either April th or April th,. Does that sound about the right time frame? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. WEBER: Okay. Were you aware prior to that meeting that the State Police were conducting a comprehensive analysis of arrests, consent to search and stop statistics for calendar years and? THE WITNESS: I don t recall being aware that they were doing that. MR. WEBER: Okay. So why don t we just refer to it as the April th meeting. Examination - Susswein 0 THE WITNESS: Fine. MR. WEBER: For convenience sake. Was the April th meeting the first time you became aware that Detective Sergeant Serrao and others at the New Jersey State Police had conducted such an analysis? THE WITNESS: If by analysis you mean their Power Point presentation, the information -- MR. WEBER: Yes. THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. WEBER: Prior to the April th meeting, were you involved in any either meetings or telephone calls with Colonel Dunlop or anyone else at the State Police in which this issue was discussed? And this issue, I mean the analysis -- or the Power Point presentation, were you aware of that from any prior telephone conversations? THE WITNESS: No. MR. WEBER: How is it that you were invited to the April th meeting? THE WITNESS: I m not sure. I would have been asked, I guess, by Paul Zoubek to come to the meeting. MR. WEBER: Did he explain the purpose of the meeting?
Examination - Susswein 0 THE WITNESS: That we were going to meet with State Police representatives and they had some information they wanted to give us. MR. WEBER: What sort of information did Mr. Zoubek describe that they had for you? THE WITNESS: I really don t remember how he described it. He just told me to show up to a meeting. MR. WEBER: Did you have an understanding that the meeting would somehow involve a presentation of statistical analyses that the New Jersey State Police conducted? THE WITNESS: Some kind of presentation they wanted to make to us. MR. WEBER: Okay. And as best as you can recall, who was at the meeting, the April meeting? THE WITNESS: I believe Colonel Dunlop was at the meeting. I know Paul and I were at the meeting. I m not sure who was actually running the Power Point. MR. WEBER: Had you previously met Detective Sergeant Steven Serrao before this meeting? THE WITNESS: I m not sure that I have. I m not sure that I would recognize him now. MR. WEBER: Okay. How -- MS. GLADING: Before this meeting, did you have any information about analytical work that the Examination - Susswein 0 State Police were conducting? THE WITNESS: No, I knew we were collecting things from them and Chris Boyle was compiling information for me. MS. GLADING: Uh-huh. Mr. Zoubek never indicated that the State Police was doing its own study? THE WITNESS: No. MR. WEBER: How long was the presentation? THE WITNESS: Maybe about a half hour, something of that nature. Maybe a little less. MR. WEBER: What information was presented at the presentation? THE WITNESS: I recall it was a Power Point presentation, so there were some slides. I recall that there were charts. I think there were pie charts. And I believe at one point there was a -- I m not sure what the correct word you call it in Power Point, there was a diagram or a depiction of the Eastern Seaboard. It was an attractive professionally put-together Power Point presentation. MR. WEBER: What was the substance of the presentation? THE WITNESS: My impression was that these -- was that the numbers for New Jersey State Police were
Examination - Susswein 0 not inconsistent either with what other jurisdictions were experiencing, or with -- I think one of the major themes was that the numbers reflected a reality. MR. WEBER: What reality? THE WITNESS: That minority citizens are stopped or arrested disproportionately because they commit offenses disproportionately. MS. GLADING: Beg your pardon? I m sorry. THE WITNESS: In other words, the stop numbers and the consent numbers reflected the extent of criminal activity, actual activity as opposed to some other explanation such as police bias or police profiling, racial profiling. MR. WEBER: There s been testimony that one of the statistics that was presented at that -- well, let me step back first. Was it your understanding that the parameters of that presentation involved an analysis of calendar years and? THE WITNESS: I really don t -- I haven t seen the table since, so I don t recall. MR. WEBER: Do you have any recollection that that presentation concerned an analysis of consent to search information, stop information and arrest information? THE WITNESS: My recollection is that it Examination - Susswein 0 involved all of them. MR. WEBER: Okay. MS. GLADING: Beg your pardon? THE WITNESS: My recollection is that it involved all of them. MS. GLADING: All of them -- I m sorry? THE WITNESS: I m sorry. Stop, arrest, consent. MR. WEBER: To search. THE WITNESS: To search. MR. WEBER: Okay. Do you have any recollection of there being a statistic presented that for calendar years and, the stop data reflected that 0 percent of the individuals who were stopped on the Turnpike were white, and 0 percent of the individuals who were stopped on the Turnpike were minority drivers? THE WITNESS: To this moment I don t -- no, I don t recall that. Are you sure it was black or minority? Because we had a discussion during that meeting and following the meeting on how they were grouping the different categories. And my impression was that they had African-American and white. They didn t account for Hispanic. MR. WEBER: Let s step back for a second.
Examination - Susswein 0 Prior to this April th meeting, and we discussed this during our last session together, there was the receipt of documentation from the New Jersey State Police, more specifically from Sergeant Gilbert. And we know that from these two March th memos to the file in which there was statistical data presented to the Attorney General s Office that apparently had not been previously presented. And some of that data we discussed at your last deposition concerned the consent to search data and Sergeant Gilbert s analysis that the consent to search numbers in New Jersey basically mirrored the consent to search numbers of the Maryland State Police. Do you remember that discussion last time we met? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. MR. WEBER: Okay. Now, let s go to the April th meeting. Was there anything in the April -- any information presented in the April th meeting that contradicted or was different from the data that was received on March th, in connection with the consent to search issue? THE WITNESS: We were told that those -- what I ll refer to as the Gilbert numbers, the numbers were inaccurate and they were providing different numbers. MR. WEBER: In what way were they inaccurate? Examination - Susswein 0 THE WITNESS: Well, it was said they were inaccurate and that they had more up-to-date numbers, which we checked into. MS. GLADING: You were told by whom? THE WITNESS: It was at the meeting. MS. GLADING: Who said it? THE WITNESS: I don t recall whether it was Colonel Dunlop or someone else at the meeting. MR. WEBER: Okay. Let me show you a copy of the April 0th, interim report and direct your attention to Page, Footnote Number. Does that refresh your recollection that the presentation on April th concerned an analysis of calendar years and? THE WITNESS: Yeah, I m assuming this is an accurate statement. MR. WEBER: Okay. And someone advised you at the April th meeting that Sergeant Gilbert s numbers on the consent to search data were somehow inaccurate, correct? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. WEBER: Okay. Let me put in front of you a copy of Sergeant Gilbert s undated memo which has been marked in Sergeant Gilbert s deposition, but it s GC00 through GC0000.
Examination - Susswein 0 Mr. Susswein, correct me if I m wrong, but the analysis in Sergeant Gilbert s memo concerns time frames in the, and years, correct? THE WITNESS: This memo appears to, yes. MR. WEBER: Okay. And the Gilbert memo you have in front of you doesn t have any analysis of numbers for or, does it? THE WITNESS: This particular document does not. MR. WEBER: Okay. Well, were you provided with any other information from Sergeant Gilbert on -- or was the Attorney General s Office provided with other information from Sergeant Gilbert on March th, that had an analysis of data from or? THE WITNESS: I don t know that it was on March th. I know that Table in the interim report is based on information that was provided, provided to Chris Boyle. MR. WEBER: By whom? THE WITNESS: I don t know specifically. Someone in State Police obviously, but I don t know specifically who. MR. WEBER: Table, and I m looking at Footnote Number now in the interim report, includes Cranbury searches from January through March of Examination - Susswein 0 ; January ; March through December of ; April through February of ; and Moorestown searches from January of through April of ; December of ; January of ; March of through December of ; and April of through February of, correct? THE WITNESS: Yes, that s what the footnote says. MR. WEBER: Okay. Was there any attempt to compare the calendar year analysis of and that was conducted by Detective Sergeant Serrao with the various time periods that are set forth in Footnote Number of the interim report? THE WITNESS: I m sorry, could you -- MR. WEBER: Okay. THE WITNESS: Whose analysis? MR. WEBER: Detective Sergeant Serrao s analysis of the April th meeting. THE WITNESS: Okay. MR. WEBER: The Power Point presentation. THE WITNESS: Um-hmm. MR. WEBER: Concerned calendar years and, correct? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. WEBER: Okay. The full years, not
Examination - Susswein 0 portions of each year, correct? THE WITNESS: Right. MR. WEBER: Okay. Footnote Number of the interim report seems to indicate that there are additional time frames that were considered in putting together this Table Number, correct? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. WEBER: Okay. Was there any comparison made between the analysis that Detective Sergeant Serrao did, that s the Power Point analysis that concerned calendar years and, to the analysis that was done in connection with Table Number, which includes more than that time frame? THE WITNESS: Yes. I asked Chris Boyle -- let me be precise. I asked Chris Boyle to take the numbers that were presented to us, described to us at the April th meeting and to compare them with the numbers we had to see, in fact, if the information we had already had was inaccurate. I m not sure exactly what analysis she performed, but she did that, and reported back to me that, in fact, they were all consistent when you account for ethnicity. The presentation that the State Police made on April th merely had black and white. And the problem with that, if you re going to be talking about minorities, is that Examination - Susswein 0 the overwhelming majority of Hispanics, if you had to put them into a racial category, would tend to go into white. So the effect is, you take a minority person and you put them -- if you don t account for Hispanic ethnicity, you put them into the majority category which is misleading. MR. WEBER: Okay. There was testimony by Detective Sergeant Serrao that his presentation bore out the following statistics. That for and the consent to search data was broken up almost 0/0. Fifty percent of the whites who -- fifty percent of the people who were asked for a consent to search were white. Fifty percent of the people who were asked for consent to search were black. Do you remember that? THE WITNESS: I don t specifically recall it, but if that s what the table said, it said it. MR. WEBER: You ve been mentioning Ms. Boyle several times this morning. Am I to understand that Ms. Boyle was responsible for collecting information and conducting the statistical analysis that then resulted in Table Number in the interim report? THE WITNESS: Yes. She compiled the information and drafted, came up with Table Number. All the tables, in fact, in the interim report. MR. WEBER: She compiled the information and
Examination - Susswein 0 put together all the tables in the report? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. WEBER: Did she explain to you where she got the underlying data that she used to ultimately put together Table Number in the interim report? THE WITNESS: She may have, but I m not sure specifically from what exact sources. MR. WEBER: Did she indicate to you that she was receiving -- that she already -- strike that. Did she indicate to you whether she was having a difficult time or an easy time obtaining the data that she needed to then conduct her analyses and put together all the tables in the report? THE WITNESS: My impression is that she wasn t directly getting it from the State Police but rather through someone. MR. WEBER: Through who? THE WITNESS: I thought it was Mike LoGalbo s responsibility to be the liaison. I might be mistaken. MR. WEBER: Did you have any discussions with Ms. Boyle as to, you know, what information she should be looking to obtain in order to conduct her analysis? THE WITNESS: Well, I wanted it to be as complete as possible and the time frames involved. And Chris is very precise about dropping footnotes and Examination - Susswein 0 tables to explain the type of data and the time periods. MR. WEBER: But in other words, did you explain to her the parameters of her assignment? THE WITNESS: I suppose yes. I m not sure exactly what you mean. MR. WEBER: Well, what did you tell her she had to do? What -- THE WITNESS: Well, we were interested -- I m sorry. MR. WEBER: No. What did you tell her she had to do? THE WITNESS: We wanted as much data as possible, relevant time frames, on consent searches by station. MR. WEBER: Did you give her instructions as to analyses you wanted her to conduct on issues other than the consent to search issue? THE WITNESS: Yeah. She did all of the tables, so the same game plan, the same goal of getting as much data compiled as possible, both -- well, not both; stops, arrests and consent searches. I think that s the three types of data. MR. WEBER: At the April th meeting, was there any information presented that came as a surprise
Examination - Susswein 0 to either you or Mr. Zoubek? THE WITNESS: Well, when they first told us that our consent numbers were wrong, we had to look into that. MR. WEBER: You touched briefly upon there being a discrepancy between your consent numbers and their consent numbers. How did they know what your consent numbers were if the report hadn t been issued yet? THE WITNESS: I m not sure, they just -- actually that s an interesting question. I don t know how they told us that the numbers -- I assume they had Gilbert s numbers. MR. WEBER: Well, did they make any reference to Gilbert s numbers? THE WITNESS: I don t recall specifically. I know that they told us that the numbers that had been provided were not as accurate and up-to-date as the ones that they were providing on April th. MR. WEBER: Okay. Gilbert s numbers, and we ll use his phrase in the undated memo you have before you, were very bad, or I think he said something to the effect We re in a very bad spot, in that the consent to search numbers were on par with the consent to search numbers in the Maryland case, Examination - Susswein 0 correct? THE WITNESS: I mean that s what it says here. MR. WEBER: That s what it says in the memo. THE WITNESS: I have no idea about the Maryland case. MR. WEBER: Okay. But that s what it says in the undated Gilbert memo, correct? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. WEBER: All right. The numbers that were presented at the April th meeting, were they similar to the numbers in Sergeant Gilbert s undated memo or did they show equal disparity, a greater disparity, less of a disparity? THE WITNESS: To be honest, I can t differentiate what I learned at that meeting or what I learned shortly after when Chris told me that, in fact, the numbers that now appear in Table are consistent with the numbers that the State Police were presenting on April th. That when you control for ethnicity, they re the same. MR. WEBER: Okay. So Ms. Boyle s position was that if you take the State Police s numbers that were presented at the April th meeting and you figure in correctly the variable for ethnicity, i.e., Hispanic
Examination - Susswein 0 0 and Asian, which had previously been lumped into the white category, if you separate them out, then the State Police s numbers presented at the April th meeting were on par with the numbers that are in Table of the interim report? THE WITNESS: Right. And the phrase that Chris used, because she drafted this footnote, were generally consistent with those reported in this section. MR. WEBER: Was there an explanation given at the April th meeting as to why in that presentation the numbers for Hispanic and Asian motorists were included in with the white motorists numbers and not separated out? THE WITNESS: To be honest with you, I m not certain that that came up at the meeting, that it wasn t Chris who s a numbers person, looking at it, identifying it, I m not -- again, this is all within the time frame of a day or so. I m not certain that I caught that, for example, and brought it up at the meeting. MR. WEBER: Anything else that was presented at the April th meeting that either you or Mr. Zoubek were surprised by? THE WITNESS: Surprised? Examination - Susswein 0 MR. WEBER: Yeah. THE WITNESS: No. MS. GLADING: Do you recall saying at that meeting these numbers don t match with what the State Police have been giving us or had already given us? THE WITNESS: I don t recall, but the numbers that were represented didn t seem to match, no. MR. WEBER: There was testimony that both you and Mr. Zoubek were visibly upset at that meeting by the information that was presented in the Power Point presentation. Would that be an accurate description or an inaccurate description? THE WITNESS: Visibly upset? Maybe -- I would not describe that as an accurate -- MR. WEBER: There s also been testimony that both you and Mr. Zoubek had expressed concern that the Attorney General s Office was for the first time being presented with such a comprehensive analysis. Would you agree with that? THE WITNESS: It s the first time we had seen that presentation. MR. WEBER: That wasn t my question. My question was, that you and Mr. Zoubek had expressed concern that for the first time the Attorney General s Office was being presented with a comprehensive
Examination - Susswein 0 analysis of calendar years and? THE WITNESS: I would not have expressed concern because I had not been dealing with the State Police and whatever their assignments were in terms of compilations. MR. WEBER: Did Mr. Zoubek express a concern? THE WITNESS: I don t recall specifically, but I do have an impression that why were they compiling information and presenting it now instead of compiling it and giving it to you throughout the pendency of this inquiry? MR. WEBER: Well, what inquiry, the State Police Review Team? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. WEBER: Okay. And that began on February,, correct? THE WITNESS: I believe so, yes. MR. WEBER: Okay. So approximately two months later this information is presented, correct? THE WITNESS: Information -- yes, that information -- the Power Point presentation was on April th or thereabouts. MR. WEBER: Did Mr. Zoubek indicate to you at anytime that on February th the Attorney General s Office requested that the New Jersey State Police Examination - Susswein 0 conduct the analysis that ultimately wound up being the Power Point presentation on April th? THE WITNESS: I really don t know what assignments were given to the State Police in terms of compiling information. MS. GLADING: Did Mr. Zoubek indicate at all that he had any conversations with anyone in the State Police about analysis that they had undertaken and were conducting during this February, March, April time period? THE WITNESS: Not that I recall. I know that information was continuously coming in. MS. GLADING: No, that s not my question. My question was, did Mr. Zoubek indicate to you that at anytime during February, March or April of, prior to the Power Point presentation, that State Police were doing an analysis also and they were looking at documents also? THE WITNESS: I don t believe him mentioning anything like that. I wasn t aware of them doing any independent analysis. MR. WEBER: Did anyone at that meeting express, the April th meeting, express concerns about the analyses that were previously conducted by Sergeant Gilbert as far as the methodology employed in those
Examination - Susswein 0 analyses? THE WITNESS: Not that I recall. I mean the State Police may have been saying just what you said, which is that his analyses were incomplete or inaccurate. MR. WEBER: Do you remember anyone saying that at the April meeting? THE WITNESS: I believe that there was talk about saying that the information they were now providing was more accurate. It turns out it s not different. MR. WEBER: Well, we re at April th now and the interim report is released on April 0th, a week later. Were you or Mr. Zoubek at all upset or concerned that you were being given information one week prior to the issuance of the final report and that information clearly would have an impact on the interim report? THE WITNESS: We knew we had to check up on that information, certainly. MR. WEBER: Was there any sentiment, you know, similar in substance to the following expressed, hey, you know, we re going to issue this report in a week and you re first giving this to us now? THE WITNESS: I have no specific Examination - Susswein 0 recollection. That certainly is possible. I mean we had been working with them, the State Police Review Team, have for a couple of months. MR. WEBER: Well, you were the draftsman of the report, correct? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. WEBER: Okay. So if information was presented to you as the draftsman a week before you were supposed to finish the report, clearly that would have an impact on your ability to finish the report on time, correct? THE WITNESS: Especially with respect to the consent numbers, yes. MR. WEBER: Okay. Didn t you personally as the person who had been given the task of having to draft what turned out to be -page report, have a concern that you were being given new, highly-probative information one week before your report was to be issued in final form? THE WITNESS: I knew we had to work very quickly to accommodate and account for that new information. MR. WEBER: And you didn t express any displeasure with this additional information that was going to impact your ability to complete the report on
Examination - Susswein 0 time? THE WITNESS: I would like to think I did not, but if someone says that I acted with some exasperation, I m not denying it, I just don t recall that being the issue. MR. WEBER: Well, and I don t mean to be argumentative, but you yourself had said that you don t pull any punches. And clearly some of your prior memos indicate, and I mean no disrespect by that, but you don t pull any punches, you tell people how you feel. And if you disagree with something, you have no problem stating that. Do you remember at any point in time in the April th meeting stating to the people at that meeting, in substance, why are we getting this now, my report is due in a week? THE WITNESS: That s possible that either I or Paul made a statement along those lines. MR. WEBER: But you don t have any recollection of it? THE WITNESS: Not specifically, no, but it s not inconsistent with working on a project for two months and having new information provided, which turned out not to be new information. MR. WEBER: Well, until Ms. Boyle did her analysis, it appeared that it was new information, Examination - Susswein 0 correct? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. WEBER: Okay. And Ms. Boyle, I take it, took some time to conduct her analysis. A day, two days, three days; how long did she take? THE WITNESS: Yes, I assume, yes. MR. WEBER: Okay. So it wasn t until either a day or two or three days later that Ms. Boyle conducted an analysis that at that point in time you knew that the information presented at the April th meeting wasn t really that different from the information you already had, correct? THE WITNESS: That s true. MR. WEBER: Okay. So for the period of time between the April th meeting and the time in which Ms. Boyle confirms for you that the information isn t that different, you had in your lap, for lack of a better phrase, information, statistical information, that was different than the information you were relying upon to draft this 0 plus page report, correct? THE WITNESS: Here s what I don t recall. If I was smart enough, and I m not saying that I was, if I was smart enough to have recognized the categorization error in not including ethnic -- Hispanic ethnicity, I
Examination - Susswein 0 would have not reacted one way or the other to the numbers because I would have known they re not valid yet. I don t know what they mean. What I don t recall at that specific meeting is whether I was present enough to realize that those numbers didn t mean what the State Police said that meant. MR. WEBER: Well, had you, as of the April th meeting, had you been involved with Ms. Boyle in her analysis and how she went about conducting her analysis? Had she given you any of the results yet? THE WITNESS: I believe we had tables along these lines, if not this table. MR. WEBER: Okay. Were you, as of April th, aware of the breakdowns that Ms. Boyle had delineated in her various analyses? THE WITNESS: With respect to consent searches, yes. MR. WEBER: Okay. MS. GLADING: So you knew she had broken it out in Hispanic, black, Asian, white? THE WITNESS: Oh, absolutely. MS. GLADING: Okay. So when you saw the Power Point presentation and you saw it didn t say Hispanic, black, Asian, white, other, did that ring a bell in your head? Examination - Susswein 0 THE WITNESS: This is what I don t recall, whether I generated the -- whether I recognized that methodological design issue or whether Chris first pointed it out to me. MR. WEBER: Was there anything else, any other information in the April th Power Point presentation that differed from the information that the Attorney General s Office had had as of April th,? Putting aside the consent to search data. THE WITNESS: No. The bulk of the presentation was about that the numbers were consistent with what other police agencies were doing and with a reality of criminal behavior out on the road. MR. WEBER: Well, was that -- was that an argument that you were going to adopt in the interim report? THE WITNESS: We had already -- I had already drafted the chapter called the Circular Illogic of Racial Profiling and tautological use of statistics. So clearly by this point, very early in the process because that s a very early version, I knew that you could not use, for example, arrest numbers. They did not necessarily reflect -- with respect to drug offenses, they don t necessarily reflect criminality, they reflect proactive law enforcement targeting or
Examination - Susswein 0 0 effort. It could be realty, but it need not be related to reality. MR. WEBER: So the part of the presentation on April th that dealt with a comparison of New Jersey to other states, and basically making the argument that what s happening here is anything different than is happening in other states, was that something that -- was that a concept that you had already embraced or you had already rejected? THE WITNESS: I believe that was already written in the earlier drafts. I know it s in the final one, I haven t gone through all the initial ones. That this was not an issue by any means limited to the New Jersey State Police or the New Jersey Turnpike. MR. WEBER: Okay. So for that particular bent of the presentation or that particular part of the presentation, you were basically on the same page with the State Police, correct? THE WITNESS: Yeah, if I -- let me just separate that. On the question of was State Police different from other law enforcement agencies in terms of their arrest numbers? We knew that. MR. WEBER: That they were not. THE WITNESS: They were not out of league or in any way different from -- at least along the Eastern Examination - Susswein 0 Seaboard and the I- corridor. With respect to a related, what I would call distinct issue, that those arrest numbers -- one of the points that they made was that, and this is true, the overwhelming majority of those persons who were arrested were ultimately convicted, which I will accept as a member of the bar, meaning that they were guilty. And that s true. But that doesn t necessarily mean that minorities are more likely to be engaged in drug offenses. MR. WEBER: Well, you anticipated my next question. If one of the main focuses of the interim report was an analysis of the consent to search data, and the use of the consent to search data to establish that racial profiling was real and not imagined, you would agree with me, would you not, that the arrest data is ex-post-facto information that doesn t really have any bearing on the issue of racial profiling? THE WITNESS: I agree with that completely. MR. WEBER: Okay. THE WITNESS: It might have a bearing, but it s a much more tenuous argument. MR. WEBER: Okay. And I think you would agree, because I believe we discussed this at your
Examination - Susswein 0 February th deposition, that the reason why the consent to search data is so important is because that is when a road trooper really has an ability to use their discretion in how they proceed going forward, correct? THE WITNESS: Exactly. The circumstances aren t dictated or the enforcement techniques aren t dictated by the circumstances. MR. WEBER: And if there was a point in time that a road trooper wanted to engage in racial profiling, it was really the point at which the stop has already occurred and then the trooper sees the race of the driver and then decides to go -- where to go from there, correct? THE WITNESS: That would be one point. I m not minimizing the importance of the stop decision -- MR. WEBER: Correct. THE WITNESS: -- but -- MR. WEBER: Correct, yes. But for the issue of racial profiling you ve got -- you ve got the analysis of the stop data, assuming that it s daytime and the trooper is able to see the race of the driver, they can engage in racial profiling that way, correct? THE WITNESS: Yes, that s certainly theoretically possible. Examination - Susswein 0 THE COURT: Okay. Or the technique of spotlighting was also a technique that was used in connection with the initial stop in which a trooper can engage in racial profiling, correct? THE WITNESS: Yeah, again that s theoretically possible. MR. WEBER: Okay. So we ve got that first part of it. The second part of it then is the driver is now stopped and pulled over on the side of the highway and the trooper now affirmatively sees the race of the driver and has the ability to use his or her discretion to decide whether or not to go forward and ask for a consent to search the car, correct? THE WITNESS: That s right. And that decision thus is because it s discretionary, is subject to the influence of the stereotypes given the broad definition of racial profiling that we were adopting. MR. WEBER: Okay. So if a trooper -- if a trooper was going to engage in racial profiling, it would most likely occur either at the stop stage or at the stage of asking for consent to search, correct? THE WITNESS: Well, it could occur at any -- MS. GLADING: To clarify -- THE WITNESS: I m sorry. MS. GLADING: To clarify, when else might it
Examination - Susswein 0 possibly occur? I m not sure I understand your question. MR. WEBER: Well -- THE WITNESS: Well, there s a -- MR. WEBER: -- then I ll ask you the question. Aside from the stop and aside from the point in time in which the trooper decides okay, I m going to ask the motorists for their consent to search, is there another point in time later on in that interaction that racial profiling could occur? THE WITNESS: Not necessarily later on, but it could theoretically apply to any action during -- or the sequence of steps during the stop. For example, the decision to stop, the decision to order a driver out of the vehicle, the decision to order passengers out of the vehicle, the decision to use probing questions that are unrelated to the motor vehicle violation that was the basis for the stop. We talked about the decision to request consent to search. The decision to arrest is theoretically certainly susceptible to that, although there s less discretion there. MR. WEBER: Right. I mean you have to find some evidence of criminal behavior before you arrest somebody, correct? Examination - Susswein 0 THE WITNESS: That s right. And presumably, for example, if you see or smell drugs, there s very little -- there s very little discretion that you would have at that point. MS. GLADING: Do you recall Sergeant Serrao discussing find rates during his Power Point presentation? THE WITNESS: I believe that he did discuss and there was some question over the accuracy of the find rate, whether it was 0 or 0 percent. MR. WEBER: Okay. So let s go back to my question which was several questions ago. If the Power Point -- if the main thrust of the April th Power Point presentation was to present information to show that through arrest statistics New Jersey was pretty much on par with the Northeastern Corridor states, and you principally agreed with that information, you didn t take issue with that information, was there any other information in that presentation that impacted on any other aspects of the interim report other than the consent to search data? THE WITNESS: Well, I would just add to that in terms of I think you used the word major theme, my impression of the major theme was that the conduct of the State Police, not that it was consistent with other
Examination - Susswein 0 states, that was clearly made, but that minorities are -- they were using, as I recall, UCR data for other states, all arrests. Not just road arrests, all arrests from Florida up through New Jersey, along the I- corridor, and they were using those numbers to basically say we stop or we search and we arrest more minorities because more minorities commit drug offenses. And there was an argument there and we deal with that argument. They wouldn t have had the benefit of that, I don t think, in a chapter that explains why that s not necessarily true. MS. GLADING: Did you raise that discussion, discuss the argument you had already made in the drafts of your report? THE WITNESS: I don t recall doing that. I don t think we did. MR. WEBER: But, Mr. Susswein, that argument, correct me if I m wrong, is very similar to an argument that was made by Colonel Williams in February of, which resulted ultimately in his termination, correct? MR. MILLER: Resignation. MR. WEBER: Resignation. MR. MILLER: According to the Superior Court of New Jersey. THE WITNESS: It is -- Examination - Susswein 0 MR. WEBER: We ll go back to what I used before, Colonel Williams leaving the force. THE WITNESS: It is a similar argument. MR. WEBER: Okay. And that argument was very quickly rejected by the Governor and by others, correct? THE WITNESS: I wasn t involved in that decision, but I read in the paper that he -- MR. WEBER: Well, you read it in the papers, okay. THE WITNESS: Something happened to his employment at that point. MR. WEBER: Anyone in the meeting express a concern that the State Police were relying on the very argument that resulted in Colonel Williams leaving the New Jersey State Police just a month or two before? THE WITNESS: I don t know whether it was expressed at the meeting. I know Paul and I talked about it afterwards. But in fairness, I don t believe that we took the time -- I mean I might be wrong to go through that chapter, and I don t know that anyone in that room had yet had an opportunity to have read that chapter. MR. WEBER: What did you and Mr. Zoubek discuss on this issue as far Colonel Williams and the
Examination - Susswein 0 arguments -- Colonel Williams and the arguments he made or the analysis he provided in the Star Ledger article and now it seems that just two months later the same argument and same analysis is being presented to the Attorney General s Office. THE WITNESS: We didn t talk about it in terms of Colonel Williams argument. The question was, is this a valid argument? Many law enforcement agencies throughout the country have made and continue to make that argument. MR. WEBER: What position did you take on that and what position did Mr. Zoubek take on that as to whether or not it s a valid argument? THE WITNESS: Well, it s in the interim report. I wrote that and I wrote that because I believed in that. MR. WEBER: And Mr. Zoubek -- THE WITNESS: I wasn t told to write that, that was my -- and you can see in my memos leading up to the drafts of the interim report, I earnestly believed that you cannot use non-index offenses as a measure of criminal activity. MR. WEBER: And I take it Mr. Zoubek agreed with that, otherwise it wouldn t have made its way into the final version of the interim report. Examination - Susswein 0 THE WITNESS: I think that s a fair statement. MS. GLADING: I want to ask you some questions about Table. Are you still on this line of questioning or -- MR. WEBER: No. Go ahead. MS. GLADING: Is it your testimony that the numbers in Table on Page of the interim report were the work product of Christine Boyle? THE WITNESS: Yes. She put together the tables. MS. GLADING: Okay. Is it your testimony that these numbers were the result of her analysis? THE WITNESS: Yes, her compilation, her analysis, yes. MS. GLADING: Okay. And is it your testimony that her compilation, her analysis consisted of reviewing the raw data that she had gotten from the State Police? THE WITNESS: I can t testify as to exactly the sources of her information. MS. GLADING: Excuse me, I m sorry. With all due respect, you wrote the report. THE WITNESS: Right. MS. GLADING: The principal findings of the
Examination - Susswein 0 0 report are based on these tables and these numbers. THE WITNESS: Right. MS. GLADING: So did you investigate and find out what she based her numbers on? THE WITNESS: To answer your question specifically. When you use the word raw data, that has a meaning to me. I do not know how raw her data was. MS. GLADING: You testified last week that she was going through boxes and boxes of data. THE WITNESS: At some point, yes. And at some point that stopped when we began getting compilations. MS. GLADING: Okay, so, that s my -- we re getting to my question. Do you know if she used Sergeant Gilbert s compilations in developing these tables? THE WITNESS: I do not know exactly what compilations she used. MS. GLADING: Have you ever asked her? THE WITNESS: Specifically what documents she used? No. MS. GLADING: Well, this entire report is built upon a couple of tables in here, three tables. THE WITNESS: Yes. Examination - Susswein 0 MS. GLADING: That s the evidence of racial profiling. THE WITNESS: Well, I do not agree with that characterization at all for the reasons stated -- MS. GLADING: Oh. What other evidence is there in the interim report of racial profiling? THE WITNESS: As explained in the section on the source of information, it was anecdotal information. There was an ongoing criminal investigation. Deb Stone had conducted an investigation and provided information. MS. GLADING: This is the statistical scientific evidence on which this report is based, right? THE WITNESS: That s the only empirical evidence, yes. MS. GLADING: Did you ask her -- I m looking at Footnote now. Did you ask her why the months are so random? You ve got Cranbury, January to March. THE WITNESS: They re not random. They re just missing. MS. GLADING: Beg your pardon? THE WITNESS: I did ask her why. MS. GLADING: Okay. What did she say? THE WITNESS: There were months where they
Examination - Susswein 0 were missing, that she didn t have them. MS. GLADING: So what was then her intent when she set out to do a comprehensive analysis? What years was she going to cover? THE WITNESS: The years that are listed here. MS. GLADING: Well, there s a lot of years listed here. There s, parts of. THE WITNESS: Through the present. MS. GLADING: April of through February of. So was she going to cover through February of? THE WITNESS: Yes, that s consistent with Soto up to the present. MS. GLADING: Okay. Was all of missing? I m trying to make heads or tails. THE WITNESS: I m trying to read -- let s see. MS. GLADING: Maybe we need to get Christine Boyle in here to testify to her methodology. Because the witness does not appear to have any knowledge about her methodology. MR. WEBER: Well, we ll talk about that after. MS. GLADING: That s fine. MR. WEBER: After we finish Mr. Susswein s Examination - Susswein 0 deposition. MS. GLADING: Do you know why she broke out Moorestown and Cranbury separately in her analysis? THE WITNESS: That s an aspect of being precise. They re two different stations. MS. GLADING: Okay. Do you know why she did not conduct an analysis of Newark, which is the third Troop D station? THE WITNESS: That I don t know. Whether because we didn t have the information or -- MS. GLADING: Did you ask for it? THE WITNESS: Because we did do it for Table. MS. GLADING: Did you ask for the information for Newark? THE WITNESS: I don t recall. MS. GLADING: Okay. Do you know why this analysis does not deal at all with Troops A, B, C and E? THE WITNESS: Well, this report was driven by Soto and the Turnpike. MS. GLADING: So should the title of this report in fairness be Interim Report of the State Police Review Team Regarding Allegations of Racial Profiling in the Moorestown and Cranbury Stations?
Examination - Susswein 0 THE WITNESS: It would not be inaccurate to add that to the title, that s why we label tables very precisely. MS. GLADING: Okay. When Mr. Serrao made his Power Point presentation according to his sworn testimony yesterday, he said that he provided data that was generated from the CAD system, the Computer Aided Dispatch or Computer Assisted Dispatch system which had come online over the past couple of years. Do you recall that? THE WITNESS: Not specifically. I don t disagree with that, but -- MS. GLADING: Did you ever make an inquiry as part of developing this report on whether or not there were computer information available, digital information available on State Police stops? THE WITNESS: I did not, no. MS. GLADING: Okay. When Mr. Serrao made his presentation, he said that he covered for Troopers A, B and C. And this was based upon availability of CAD data. THE WITNESS: Um-hmm. MS. GLADING: His presentation included stop data for Troops A, B and C for all of. It included the last three months of for Troop D and Examination - Susswein 0 he thought, he was unsure, but it included possibly six months of for Troop E. After you realized that this information did not -- that his presentation did not break out Hispanic, did you call him and say can you rerun those numbers, those computer-generated numbers to break out Hispanics for the analysis of stop data that you did? THE WITNESS: I did not, I don t know whether Chris reached out to him or whoever. MS. GLADING: Did you ask Chris if she did? THE WITNESS: She had to get some -- well, she had to get some information to make the statement to me that the numbers that they were presenting were generally consistent. MS. GLADING: You testified earlier that you gave her the presentation, right, you gave her a copy of it? THE WITNESS: I didn t testify to that. MS. GLADING: No? I m sorry. Did you testify on whether -- THE WITNESS: I really don t know whether I had a copy of her -- those tables. I guess I did. I don t know whether I gave them to her or not. They were just pie charts. They were not the kind of data that she would have been able to do any kind of
Examination - Susswein 0 comparison with. MR. WEBER: Well, did you have any concern that it -- MS. GLADING: Comparison of what? THE WITNESS: Comparison with -- here is the question again: Are the numbers that we now have in Table, are they inconsistent with the information that was now being provided via the April th meeting? The answer is they re not inconsistent. MR. WEBER: Well, how could you say they re not inconsistent if -- MS. GLADING: Wait, one second, no. Inconsistent, you had brand new information about Troops A, B and C according to Sergeant Serrao s testimony. THE WITNESS: All right. One of the major themes of this report is that the racial profiling problem is intimately related to the war on drugs. The I-, the New Jersey, is a major drug courier route, was a major focus of drug interdiction activities. And by the way, the different stations have different aspects because of different road patterns and traffic patterns that make drug interdiction possible. Any attempt to combine data, and this is a major flaw in many reports, the GAO points this out all the time. Examination - Susswein 0 When you do not isolate, for example, station or troop and you combine data, you lose precision. Our hypothesis here and our conclusion was that the racial profiling problem was real, not imagined, and that it was closely related to the question of drug interdiction. MS. GLADING: Okay. Well, I m looking at Table -- THE WITNESS: And that is a Turnpike phenomenon. MR. WEBER: Okay, but -- MS. GLADING: Sir, I m looking at Table now. Now, you ve got a breakdown of Cranbury and Moorestown for stops on Page of your report. THE WITNESS: Yes. MS. GLADING: Now, you ve been presented at this presentation, according to Mr. Serrao s sworn testimony, with A, B and C, Troop A, B and C stop data. THE WITNESS: Were they combined all together? I really don t -- I haven t seen that presentation in two years. MS. GLADING: It s computer information. THE WITNESS: But they didn t provide us with -- MS. GLADING: Computer-generated information.
Examination - Susswein 0 THE WITNESS: -- computer information. MS. GLADING: Excuse me -- THE WITNESS: They showed us a Power Point presentation. MS. GLADING: According to Mr. Serrao s -- MR. WEBER: But before we go any further -- before we go any further, hold on. In all fairness to the court reporter, I m not assessing blame on anyone, but the court reporter ultimately will type up a transcript and can t take two people talking at once. MS. GLADING: I will shoulder the blame. MR. WEBER: Okay. But let me just respectfully request to everyone, Ms. Glading, you ask your question, Mr. Susswein, you answer the question. Ms. Glading wait until the question is answered before you ask the next question, please. MS. GLADING: Sergeant Serrao -- Lieutenant Serrao -- MR. WEBER: It s Detective Sergeant Serrao. MS. GLADING: Detective Sergeant Serrao s sworn testimony was that one of the reasons Mr. Zoubek was extremely upset at this presentation was because he had never seen, according to what he said, the CAD data. So apparently according to his sworn testimony there was some discussion at this meeting about the Examination - Susswein 0 fact that some of this was computer-generated information. THE WITNESS: It s possible. MS. GLADING: You do recall that? THE WITNESS: Not specifically, no. MS. GLADING: Did you ask Detective Sergeant Serrao whether or not this was aggregate Troop A, B and C information for or not? THE WITNESS: You mean his Power Point presentation? MS. GLADING: Um-hmm. THE WITNESS: No and I don t recall whether it was labeled that way or not. MS. GLADING: Okay. You had -- you were operating, according to your testimony, under a hypothesis that there was an I- drug corridor, drug interdiction connection to the racial profiling problem, is that correct? THE WITNESS: Yes, that s one of the major themes in the report. MS. GLADING: Wouldn t it be essential in proving that hypothesis to compare the stop numbers for Troop D with the stop numbers for Troops A, B, C and E? THE WITNESS: That s an interesting hypothesis. Yeah, one would --