[00:00:01]
UM, MR. JEFFERSON,[Permit and License Appeal Board Hearing on April 2, 2026.]
IF YOU'RE HERE, MIC CHECK.MS. TORRES, I DON'T SEE YOU ANYMORE.
DO WE HAVE VIDEO? MY, MY SCREEN IS ALWAYS BELOW.
I, UH, YEAH, BUT, WELL, I, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE ACTUALLY THAT LOSE UP FORM OR, OR ONE OF THEM, BUT WE, THE, THE FOUR FIVE SHE COUNT.
HUH? ALL YOU GUYS ARE BLOWING YOUR HAIR OUT.
YOU CAN SIT WHEREVER YOU WANT.
IT IS 8:38 AM TODAY, THURSDAY, APRIL 2ND, 2026.
I AM ROBERT MAGNUS, CHAIRMAN OF THE PERMIT AND LICENSE APPEAL BOARD.
THIS WEBINAR IS BEING TRANSCRIBED AND SUMMARIZED.
UH, IT IS 8:38 AM ON THURSDAY, JANUARY.
I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PERMANENT LICENSE APPEAL BOARD.
PLEASE SAY PRESENT OR VIRTUAL, OR SAY NOTHING IF YOU'RE NOT HERE.
UM, OUR, UH, NEWEST MEMBER WHO IS OBSERVING, UH, UM, MS. UH, SMITH.
WELL, YOU ARE, YOU COUNT, UM, UM, MS. THOMAS GOING ONCE.
VICE CHAIR TORRES PRESENT VIRTUALLY.
[00:05:03]
PRESENT VIRTUALLY? YEAH.MR. CILLA PRESENT? MR. JEFFS PRESENT? MR. CROW DID NOT SEE HIM.
I KNOW HE RSVP'D, BUT HE WOULD BE HERE.
SO WE HAVE A QUORUM ABSENT FOR THE TIME BEING ON MS. THOMAS, MR. CRON AND MR. QUINT, WE HAVE, WE REQUIRE EIGHT.
UH, SO THIS MEETING IS DULY CALLED.
UM, BRIEF INTRODUCTIONS, UH, FROM THE CITY.
WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF? THERESA CARLISLE BOARDS GENERAL COUNSEL FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
SO I'M FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
DONNA BROWN, BOARD MANAGER, UH, REPRESENTING, UH, THE CITY.
YOU GUYS ALL WANNA BE ON THE SAME SIDE.
AND DO YOU HAVE WITNESSES TO THAT MIKE? ON ANYTIME WE'LL GET THAT.
YOU WANT US TO REINTRODUCE OURSELVES? LET'S DO IT.
TRACY, FOR THE TRACY CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
RUDY WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY DOC, AND WE HAVE DESIGNATED, UH, TWO WITNESSES.
UH, DETECTIVE MARK MICHAELS WITH THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER GUSTAVO SIERRA, WITH DALLAS CITY TOE COMPLIANCE.
UH, REPRESENTING THE APPELLANT.
UM, DO YOU HAVE WITNESSES YOU INTEND TO CALL MR. BASRA? UH, YES.
OH, I'M SORRY TO CHECK, CHECK.
DO YOU HAVE, UH, WITNESSES YOU INTEND TO CALL TODAY? COULD YOU GIMME ONE SECOND? I HAVE A WITNESS THAT JUST CALLED ME.
I'D HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
A REMINDER THAT, UH, FOR THOSE OF YOU VIRTUALLY WHEN YOU SPEAK, UH, YOU MUST BE VISIBLE AT ALL TIMES.
IF YOU ARE NOT VISIBLE, YOU ARE NOT PRESENT, WHICH AFFECTS OUR QUORUM.
OUR GENERAL RULE IS THAT, THAT IF, UM, IF TECHNICAL ISSUES, UH, EXIST, UH, OUTSIDE OF THE CONTROL OF THE CITY'S INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT, UM, YOU TESTIFY REMOTELY AT YOUR OWN RISK, WE, WE WILL GIVE YOU A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME.
THE RECORD SHOWN MR. CRON IS PRESENT AT, UH, 8:43 AM.
CHAIRMAN, I APOLOGIZE ABOUT THAT.
UH, YOUR QUESTION TO ME WAS, DO I HAVE ANY WITNESSES? YES, SIR.
UH, I MAY, BUT, UH, THE CITY BEARS THE BURDEN ON US, SO WE'LL SEE WHAT THE CITY DOES.
UH, I, UH, DID YOU GIVE ME A NAME FOR A WITNESS LIST? YOU, YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T HAVE TO CALL EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST.
I PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED, UH, THE LIST OVER TO THE COORDINATOR FOR THE HEARING.
UH, IF I CALL SOMEONE, IT'LL BE DEB PATEL.
[00:10:01]
OKAY.UH, MS. THOMAS IS PRESENT AT 8:44 AM.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY, MS. THOMAS HAS BEEN PRESENT?
UM, MS. SANCHEZ, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK THIS MORNING? NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS.
UM, SPEAKERS MUST OBSERVE THE SAME RULES OF PROPRIETARY DECORUM AND GOOD CONDUCT, UH, APPLICABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
ANY SPEAKER MAKING PERSONAL AND PERTINENT PROFANE OR SLANDEROUS IN MARS, OR WHO BECOME BOISTEROUS WHILE ADDRESSING THE BOARD SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ADDRESSING THE BOARD.
UM, THE PERMANENT AND LICENSE APPEAL BOARD IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY.
WE ARE APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR.
UH, THE, UH, VICE CHAIR IS APPOINTED BY THE FULL COUNCIL.
UM, WE DO NOT RECEIVE COMPENSATION, UH, AND ANY DISCUSSION, UH, SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTLY WITH, WITH US.
IT SHOULD BE THROUGH MS. SANCHEZ, MR. QUINN, UH, AT 8:46 AM UM, WELCOME, SIR.
UM, UH, ALL COMMENTS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO ME.
PLEASE, UH, WAIT TO BE, UH, RECOGNIZED.
I WILL RULE ON, UH, PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS.
UM, BRIEFLY, THE, THE BOARD HAS, UH, DISCRETION, UH, OVER, UH, SPECIFIC, UH, CASES THAT HAVE SPECIFIC STANDARDS THAT WE FOLLOW.
UH, WE DO NOT LEGISLATE AND, UH, WE DO NOT MAKE CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS.
HOWEVER, IF, UH, A PARTY WANTS TO PRESERVE THE RECORD FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND MAKE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS, UH, WE WILL ALLOW IT FOR THE RECORD JUST TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD'S ABILITY TO VOTE ON IT.
UH, BUT A COURT CAN, UM, IF IT'S OKAY WITH, WITH THE PARTIES, I'D LIKE TO OPERATE THIS WAY, UH, THAT YOU HAVE A VERY BRIEF OPENING AND CLOSING STATEMENT, THREE MINUTES.
DON'T PROVIDE EVIDENCE DURING THAT, UM, WHICH WILL NOT COUNT AGAINST YOUR TIME.
UH, AND A 25 MINUTE, UH, SET OF TIME DURING WHICH YOU CAN USE TO, UH, SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD, CALL WITNESSES AND, UH, CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.
IF YOU'RE THE CROSS EXAMINER, THAT WILL USE YOUR TIME, UH, QUESTIONS, UH, FROM THE BOARD, DOES NOT GO AGAINST YOUR TIME.
UH, WE'LL KEEP IT, BUT, UH, YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF IT, THE, THE TIME.
UM, WE'LL SWEAR IN ONCE WE CALL IT.
SO, UH, THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS AGENDA ITEM TWO, WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF OUR MINUTES FROM OUR MEETING ON FEBRUARY 5TH, 2026.
UH, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THOSE MINUTES? OKAY.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SO MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION? I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED THAT, THAT DURING, UM, UH, DURING QUESTIONING FROM THE, UH, THE, THE MEMBERS, UH, THERE WILL BE A THREE MINUTE ROUND, AND THEN A, UH, MR.
[00:15:03]
SO THE MOTION IS ON, ON THE FLOOR.MR. JEFF, A MOTION TO APPROVE.
OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
FUTURE MOTIONS WILL BE ROLL CALL.
UM, THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS AN APPEAL HEARING FOR OAK CLIFF HOSPITALITY, UH, LP THAT IS, UM, A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY CASE.
I'LL ASK THE, UM, THE, UH, CITY TO STATE THE, UM, CODE AND CHAPTER THAT, THAT YOU HAVE.
WE HAVE BROUGHT THIS ACTION UNDER ARTICLE EIGHT, SECTION 27 48, UH, OF THE VIVI CRIMINAL.
AND, UM, MR. UH, BASHAR, YOU, UH, YOU REPRESENT THE, UH, OAK CLIFF HOSPITALITY, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
UM, THAT SAID, UH, THE PROCESS WILL BE AN OPENING STATEMENT, UH, BY MR. BASHAR, THEN BY THE CITY.
THEN THE APPELLANT WILL, UH, PRESENT, IF THE APPELLANT, UH, CALLS WITNESSES, THE CITY WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE.
UH, AT THAT POINT, UH, THE BOARD WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO, UH, ASK QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESS.
UM, ONCE, UH, ONCE YOU ARE, ARE DONE, THE, UM, THE CITY WILL, UH, OPERATE UNDER THE EXACT SAME, UH, TERMS. UM, UH, AND EACH OF YOU WILL HAVE A BRIEF CLOSING STATEMENT, UM, CLOSING AND OPENING.
DO NOT COUNT AGAINST YOUR 25 MINUTES.
UH, WE HAVE, UH, TWO PIECES OF EVIDENCE AND ONE, UH, THAT, THAT HAVE BEEN, UH, SUBMITTED.
UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND AS A, A PROCEDURAL MATTER, UH, THE, THE EVENTS ON THE HAVE EACH, HAVE YOU EXCHANGED, UH, EVIDENCE WITH EACH OTHER OF THE, OF THE PARTIES? YES.
AND WHEN DID YOU GUYS DO THAT? UH, SPEAKING TO THE CITY, HE COPIED MR. ROSA ON ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH SANCHEZ, AND I THINK WOULD'VE BEEN COPIED WITH THE BINDER EMAIL.
AND THE BINDER WAS, UH, WHEN, UH, WE SUBMITTED IT ON, UH, THE DEADLINE, WHICH WAS FRIDAY.
MR. RASH, YOU RECEIVED THAT? I DID NOT RECEIVE A BINDER, UH, WAS COPIED ON EMAILS.
I DO HAVE COMPUTER IMAGE FILES OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS, PRESUMABLY, UH, ALL THE DOCUMENTS, BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT DOCUMENTS ARE OTHER THAN WHAT I'VE BEEN PROVIDED.
THE DOCUMENTS, UH, ARE ON OUR WEBSITE.
UM, BEFORE WE, UH, ALLOW EVIDENCE, UH, AND DOES, DOES EITHER PARTY HAVE AN OBJECTION TO ANY OF THE EVIDENCE? UH, I HAVE AN OBJECTION BEFORE WE GET STARTED TO PRESERVE ERROR FOR APPELLATE REVIEW.
BEFORE YOU START ADMITTING EVIDENCE, PLEASE, PLEASE STATE YOUR OBJECTION TO, TO THE, UH, ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE.
MY CLIENT OBJECTS TO THE ENTIRE SCHEME THAT'S SET FORTH IN THE DALLAS, UH, CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING HABITUAL CRIMINAL AND NUISANCE PROPERTIES.
IT'S GONNA BE ARTICLE EIGHT, STARTS WITH SECTION 27 45 AND CONTINUE FORWARD.
I I DON'T WANNA GO DOWN THE MERITS.
I I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHETHER YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO, TO THE INCLUSION OF ANY OF THE
[00:20:01]
EVIDENCE? YES.WILL I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING AND YES.
I, I HAVE AN OBJECTION BECAUSE I OBJECT TO THE ENTIRE PROCEDURE, SET FORTH APPEARANCE FOR VIOLATING DUE PROCESS, DUE COURSE RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, ALSO VIOLATING THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY.
WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU ASKING ME TO RULE ON? YOU ASKED ME IF I HAD OBJECTIONS.
I'VE, I'VE, I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO RULE ON ANYTHING.
SO THE BOARD, YOU, YOU CAN SUSTAIN MY OBJECTIONS IF YOU LIKE, BUT YOU'VE ALREADY MENTIONED THIS PANEL DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO.
UM, BUT THE, THIS, WE DO HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE, UH, A AN OPEN, FAIR HEARING AND, AND TO ALLOW ALL OF THE PARTIES THE ABILITY TO ADEQUATELY ARGUE FOR THEMSELVES.
UM, WE DON'T, UH, MAKE DECISIONS ON THE MERITS BASED, BASED ON DUE PROCESS.
UM, BUT IT DOES MATTER, UH, THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE INFORMATION AND THE, THE DATA, UH, ABOUT WHICH WE'RE ABOUT TO ASK YOU TO, UH, TO REFUTE.
UH, I HAVE RECEIVED COPIES, AS I MENTIONED.
I RECEIVED COPIES OF, UH, PDF FILES THAT WERE EMAILED OVER TO THE CITY SECRETARY AS TO WHETHER THAT'S EVERYTHING THAT THE CITY IS SUBMITTING AS EVIDENCE.
I DUNNO, UNTIL I SEE WHAT THE CITY'S SUBMITTING.
BUT I PRESUME THE CITY WOULD NOT LIE TO ME AND SAY THAT THEY PROVIDED ME EVERYTHING WHEN THEY HAD NOT.
UH, IT, UH, AND, AND THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE FAILURE ON THE BOARD, WHICH IS ON ME.
UH, IT WAS NOT POSTED UNTIL TWO DAYS AGO AT ABOUT TWO O'CLOCK.
BUT, UH, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WERE COPIED, UH, PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE.
UM, SO THE EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED.
UH, WE WILL CALL THE, THE CITY'S EXHIBIT CITY'S EXHIBIT, UH, AND THE APPELLANT'S, UH, THE APPELLANT'S IS THE APPELLANT'S REQUEST.
AND, UH, SECONDLY, THE APPELLANT'S EXHIBIT.
UH, WE, WE DO NOT, WE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE FORMER RULES OF EVIDENCE.
UH, HOWEVER, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE, IT, IT MEANS THAT THE BOARD IS TASKED WITH, UH, PROVIDING ADEQUATE WEIGHT TO DIFFERENT SETS OF EVIDENCE, UM, AS THEY SEE FIT.
THE STANDARD WE USE IS, UM, IS A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, WHICH MEANS THAT THE TAKEN ALTOGETHER IS SOMETHING MORE LIKELY THAN NOT.
UM, I WOULD LIKE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO NOW READ THE CODE.
TODAY, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU AN APPEAL OF A DESIGNATION AS A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY.
IT IS THE DUTY OF THIS BOARD TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED BEFORE YOU TODAY, AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE PRESUMPTIONS IN SECTION 27 DASH 48 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE ARE OR ARE NOT SATISFIED.
THE PRESUMPTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS.
NUMBER ONE, WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS OR IS NOT TO THE SITE OF FIVE OR MORE AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN 365 DAYS IN EITHER A REPORT OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY DOCUMENTING AN, AN INVESTIGATION OF AN AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY OR ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST ANY PERSON ASSOCIATED WITH AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY.
AND TWO, WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS OR IS NOT THE SITE AT WHICH PERSONS HAVE HISTORICALLY COMMITTED AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES.
ACCORDING TO RECENT CRIME DATA, M THREE, AN OWNER OF HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY IS PRESUMED TO HAVE KNOWINGLY TOLERATED THE AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE OWNER'S PROPERTY BY FAILING TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS, INCLUDING THOSE OUTLINED IN SECTION 27 DASH 49, SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH ONE OF THIS CHAPTER AS AMENDED TO ABATE THE AVAILABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
AAT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY MEANS THOSE ACTIVITIES LISTED IN CHAPTER 1 25 OF THE TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE ADD AS AMENDED.
IT INCLUDES, UM, ACTIVITIES SUCH AS DISORDERLY CONDUCT, ARSON, DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM IN A PUBLIC PLACE, GAMBLING, PROSTITUTION, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, ROBBERY, DELIVERY, POSSESSION MANUFACTURER, OR USE OF AN ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE.
THE TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE CRIMES OF FAMILY VIOLENCE.
IF YOU DETERMINE THAT THESE PRESUMPTIONS ARE SATISFIED, YOU MUST AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
IF YOU DETERMINE THAT THE PRESUMPTIONS WERE NOT SATISFIED, YOU MAY REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
SO, PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS ONE OF OUR, UH, MORE COMPLICATED, UH, UH, KINDS OF CASE.
IT IS BACKWARD LOOKING, UH, WHICH
[00:25:01]
IS TO SAY THAT, THAT ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED AFTER THE FORMAL DESIGNATION, UH, UH, WE ARE HERE TO REVIEW THAT DECISION.UH, SPECIFICALLY, JUST SO THAT THIS IS DIRECTLY ON THE RECORD, UM, WE ARE NOT HERE, UH, TO DECIDE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LAW.
UH, UH, WE DON'T MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON DUE PROCESS.
THAT IS THE, THE REALM OF A COURT, WHICH, UH, COULD EXIST, UH, ON AN APPEAL.
UM, I WANT EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND THAT EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS DONE SINCE THE FORMAL DESIGNATION IS NOT IRRELEVANT TO THE WORLD.
BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING, IT IS, UH, IT IS NOT GERMANE TO, TO OUR DECISION.
UM, THE CITY HAS TO ESTABLISH THE PRESUMPTIONS, AND THEN AFTER THAT, THE APPELLANT, UH, HAS TO, UH, REBUT THEM, UH, IN THAT ORDER.
UM, I, I, SO I'D LIKE TO SWEAR IF I CAN, EVERYONE IN AT ONCE, UH, IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE ON EITHER SIDE, WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND AND BE SWORN.
MS. S, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL GIVE BEFORE THIS BOARD TODAY WILL BE THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.
HOW, UH, HOW DOES YOUR WITNESS, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
UH, WERE YOU ABLE TO LOCATE YOUR WITNESS OR DO WHAT YOU NEEDED TO DO? I WAS, UH, BUT AS I MENTIONED, I DON'T INTEND TO CALL ANY WITNESSES, OR I MAY CALL WITNESS DEPENDING ON WHAT THE CITY PRESENTS.
SO, UH, MR. BIHAR, THE FLOOR IS YOURS FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT.
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED.
OF COURSE, UH, MY CLIENT BRINGS CONSTITUTIONAL, UH, OBJECTIONS TO THE ENTIRE PROCEDURE IN THIS CASE, SECTION 27 48 OF THE DALLAS CODE PROVIDES PRESUMPTIONS AND READS A PROPERTY IS PRESUMED A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY IF THE PROPERTY IS THE SITE.
AND THERE ARE TWO REQUIREMENTS OF FIVE OR MORE DEBATABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN 365 DAYS, RESULTING IN EITHER A REPORT OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY DOCUMENTING IN AN INVESTIGATION OF AN DEBATABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY OR ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST ANY PERSON ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEBATABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY.
AND SECOND REQUIREMENT AT WHICH PERSONS HAVE HISTORICALLY COMMITTED AB CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES FOR RECENT CRIME ACT.
SO THE OBJECTION, UH, OR A COUPLE FOLD I MADE, THE CITY DID NOT, UH, PROVIDE US WITH EVIDENCE UNTIL FRIDAY, BUT I DID IMMEDIATELY MAKE A SERIES OF PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS, WHICH IS THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE CITY REQUIRES US TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE, UH, WHICH IS IMPROPER.
AND THAT'S THE BASIS OF ANOTHER OBJECTION FOR VIOLATING DUE PROCESS AND DUE COURSE, SPECIFICALLY, I REQUESTED, UH, THE RECENT CRIME DATA THAT WOULD SATISFY THE SECOND ELEMENT OF THE PRESUMPTION.
AND I RECEIVED RESPONSES BACK FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH DATA.
IF THERE IS NO SUCH DATA, THEN THERE'S NO WAY THE PRESUMPTION COULD HAVE BEEN MET.
UH, AND IF THE CITY ATTEMPTS TO TENDER EVIDENCE ON THAT ISSUE NOW, THEN OF COURSE IT WOULD BE TRIAL BY AMBUSH.
AND WE OBJECT IN ADDITION TO OBJECTING TO, SORRY, THIS IS WHAT I WAS ASKING ABOUT EARLIER.
DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU ARE, YOU ARE CAPABLE OF, UH, DEFENDING YOUR, YOUR CLIENT AND, UH, GIVEN THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
SO ARE YOU ASKING FOR TIME TO, TO READ IT FOR A CONTINUANCE FOR, UH, UH, THERE'S A, THIS IS WHAT I WANTED TO ASK YOU.
THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF I, I DON'T THINK I COULD, I DON'T NEED TIME TO READ IT.
WE DON'T HAVE, IT WOULD TAKE ME HOURS UPON HOURS TO
[00:30:01]
READ.UH, SO I GUESS I WOULD'VE TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE ON THAT BASIS.
BUT YOU, YOU RECEIVED IT ON FRIDAY NIGHT.
I RECEIVED SOME, SOME DOCUMENTS THAT WERE EMAILED AT FIVE O'CLOCK ON FRIDAY.
BUT WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS, PREVIOUSLY I HAD ENTERED PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS TO THE CITY, AND I WAS TOLD IN RESPONSE TO THAT REQUEST, WHICH IS GOVERNED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT, THAT NO SUCH DATA EXISTED.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THERE IS NO WAY THE PRESUMPTION COULD POSSIBLY BE MET.
NOW IF THE CITY IS ATTEMPTING TO TENDER EVIDENCE ON THAT SCORE.
NOW, I WOULD OBJECT TO THAT BECAUSE I WAS TOLD THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT REQUEST, IT DID NOT EXIST.
UM, MS. REEVES, UM, THE APPELLANT IN EVIDENCE HAS MADE MULTIPLE, UM, UH, PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS.
THIS BOARD DOESN'T ADJUDICATE THE LEGALITY OF THOSE REQUESTS.
HOWEVER, IT DOES, UM, IT DOES HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO, UH, DEAL WITH WHAT IS IN THE, THE, UH, ORDINANCE, WHICH INCLUDES THE ABILITY, UH, OF THE APPELLANT TO REBUT, UH, IT, IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST THAT CAME BACK FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS, AS YOU SAID, THAT, THAT THERE WAS NOTHING THAT RESPONSIVE WAS CORRECT? HONORABLE CHAIR? I'M NOT IN A POSITION, UH, TO MIKE.
I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO ARGUE, UH, TO AGREE OR ARGUE AGAINST THAT.
TODAY, I'M HERE STRICTLY PREPARE TO, UH, DEFEND THE CHIEF OF POLICE'S DECISION WITH RESPECT TO OFFICIAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY DESIGNATION OF 4 6 7 SOUTH HOUR DORM FREEWAY.
IF THE BOARD, UH, IF IT'S NECESSARY FOR THE BOARD TO ENTERTAIN THAT ARGUMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE PUBLIC PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT REQUEST, THEN I WOULD, UH, NEED SOME TIME TO, TO GATHER INFORMATION ABOUT THAT AND RESPOND THOUGHTFULLY AND, AND ACCURATELY.
WELL, LET ME, LET ME REPHRASE IN TERMS OF ONLY WHAT IS THE ONLY, WHAT THIS BOARD CAN HANDLE MM-HMM.
BECAUSE THE, THE REST, UH, THE APPELLANT MADE A REQUEST TO YOUR CLIENT, CLIENT SAID, AND, AND ASKED FOR THE, UH, UH, THE INFORMATION THAT, THAT THE, UH, DIRECTOR, UH, USED, UH, TO MAKE ITS DETERMINATION.
AND I'M NOW LOOKING AT 310 PAGES.
I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THAT.
WHAT, UM, IS THE INFORMATION YOU SUBMITTED ON FRIDAY THE ENTIRETY OF WHAT YOUR CASE RESTS ON? CORRECT.
I'LL, I'LL NOTE THAT, THAT, UH, YOU DID MEET OUR EVIDENTIARY FILING, UH, DEADLINE, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, ADMINISTRATIVELY, AND WAS IT ON ME, UH, WE DIDN'T POST IT UNTIL TUESDAY.
UH, SO NEITHER, NEITHER ONE OF YOU IS GONNA BE, HAVE THAT HELD AGAINST YOU.
UM, REBUTTAL ISN'T CONSTITUTIONAL.
SO, UH, SO AGAIN, SIR, I, I, I'M MR. GU.
I'M, I'M ASKING YOU NOW WHETHER, WHETHER YOU WOULD, WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE, THE BOARD TO HAVE A CONTINUANCE OR WHETHER YOU ARE ABLE TO, UH, TO GO FORWARD TODAY? I WOULD, I WOULD REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE, THE CONTINUANCE IS, IS BASED ON YOUR, UH, LACK OF ABILITY TO READ THE, UM, THE FILINGS.
IT'S, IT IS NOT BASED ON ANY OBJECTION TO, TO THE, THE LAW OR THE PROCESS.
WELL, NO, I, I HAVE OTHER CONTINUANCES ON THAT BASIS, BUT OF COURSE I HAVE TO THE ENTIRE PROCEDURE.
[00:35:01]
TWO PRONGS FOR THE PRESUMPTION FOR A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY.THE SECOND PRONG IS EQUALLY AS IMPORTANT AS THE FIRST, THE SECOND ONE REQUIRES EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPERTY IS THE SITE AT WHICH PERSONS HAVE HISTORICALLY COMMITTED DEBATABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES ACCORDING TO RECENT CRIME DATA.
I MADE THAT SPECIFIC REQUEST VIA THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT, AND NOTHING WAS RETURNED.
IF THERE'S NOTHING TO SUPPORT THAT, THEN THE PRESUMPTION.
SO NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE EVIDENCE THAT THAT WAS DELIVERED THAT YOU HAVE NOW.
WELL, YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
CHAIRMAN, I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH.
I'M SURE THE CITY DOESN'T GET TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
RIGHT? THE CITY CAN'T TELL ME NO SUCH INFORMATION OR DOCUMENTS EXIST AND THEN SHOW UP AT THIS HEARING AND PRESENT DOCUMENTS PURPORTING TO SATISFY THAT STANDARD.
WE, WE HAVE REQUESTED A, A CONTINUANCE, BUT THAT IS NOT BASIS OF MY OBJECTIONS.
OF COURSE, I'M OBJECTING TO THIS EVIDENTIARY ISSUE.
BUT WE OBJECT TO THE ENTIRE PROCESS.
WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES.
YOU JUST ADMITTED EVIDENCE ON US WITHOUT ANY AUTHENTICATION.
I'M NOT FUSSING WITH YOU, CHAIRMAN, I UNDERSTAND RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE GIVEN TO YOU, BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESS, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'RE CONSTITUTION, WE DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY.
AND, AND THEY, IF YOU, IF YOU WANNA USE YOUR TIME AND YOU'RE PRESENTED TO DO THAT, I WILL NOT STOP YOU.
I, I, IMMEDIATE QUESTION IS, ARE YOU REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE? I HAVE SAID THAT IF YOU ARE, I WILL PUT THAT TO THE BOARD AND WE WILL DECIDE.
I HAVE REQUESTED A CONTINUING SEVERAL TIMES NOW.
I I'M NOT AWARE OF, UH, YOU, I'M SORRY.
YOU, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A CONTINUE, IF YOU DID IT WITHIN 10 DAYS, WE, WE HAVE NO, THE, THE CITY SECRETARY IS REQUIRED TO GIVE THAT TO YOU.
WHEN, WHEN DID YOU ASK FOR A, A, A RESET? I'M ASKING FOR IT RIGHT NOW.
CHAIRMAN, YOU ASKED IF I WAS REQUESTING ONE AS WE SIT HERE RIGHT NOW.
I'M REQUESTING, I THOUGHT I JUST HEARD YOU SAY THAT YOU HAVE ASKED IN THE PAST.
YOU'VE A YOU'VE ASKED ME THAT QUESTION A FEW TIMES NOW, AND EACH TIME I, I'M REQUESTING A OKAY.
UM, THIS ISN'T A, A, A QUESTION THAT, THAT I SHOULD DO PROCEDURALLY ON MY OWN.
SO, UH, THIS IS, UH, I WILL PUT TO THE BOARD, UH, BEFORE WE PROCEED TO THE MERITS, UM, IF THERE'S A MOTION TO CONTINUE, IF THERE'S NOT, WE WILL MOVE ON.
ARE YOU ASKING FOR ME TO SAY THAT AGAIN? I'M NOT ASKING, UH, YOU YOUR MOTION.
I HAVE, UH, YOUR, YOUR, UM, OBJECTION OR REQUEST IS ON THE RECORD.
I'M NOW ASKING THE, UH, THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN, UH, GRANT A CONTINUANCE IS A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD.
SO I'M NOW ASKING THE BOARD WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
CAN I ASK FOR A MOTION CLARITY HERE? I'M A BIT CONFUSED.
THE POINT OF I'M GONNA ASK A POINT OF ORDER.
SO, UH, THIS IS, UH, JONATHAN SACKER, UH, SEEING THE POINT OF ORDER.
I'D JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
SO, CAN I ASK A QUESTION AND THEN SEE IF I'M GETTING THIS RIGHT, IS THAT, IS THAT PUBLIC? OKAY.
UM, SO THE APPELLANT REPRESENTATION OF THE APPELLANT WAS SAYING THAT THEY DID NOT RECEIVE EVIDENCE IN TIME TO REVIEW IT, AND THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE IT, CONTINUE THIS SO THAT THEY CAN REVIEW IT, AND THEN WHEN WE, AGAIN, AFTER THEY'VE HAD PROPER TIME TO REVIEW.
BUT IS THAT ALL WE'RE LOOKING AT, OR, OKAY.
AND, AND I THINK BOTH PARTIES HAVE, UH, HAVE TESTIFIED THAT, THAT, UM, EVIDENCE WAS EXCHANGED ON FRIDAY, WHICH IS FIVE DAYS PRIOR TO THIS, THIS HEARING.
UH, THE, WELL, I'LL JUST LEAVE IT THAT THERE, THERE OBVIOUSLY IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS, HAS, UH, SUBMITTED, UH, ABOUT PUBLIC INFORMATION.
BUT, UM, AND A POINT OF ORDER, AGAIN, THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED FRIDAY WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT.
SO IN THAT INFORMATION, DID WE INCLUDE THE DETAILS THAT THE APPELLANT'S BRINGING UP, OR NO? OH,
[00:40:11]
MY ATTORNEY CORRECTLY IS, UH, UH, TELLING ME THAT I SHOULD ASK THE CITY WHETHER YOU HAVE A, UH, COMMENT ON THE APPELLANT'S REQUEST.UH, WE DO, UH, HONORABLE CHAIR, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE DEADLINE SET BY THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE WAS ON 5:00 PM LAST FRIDAY.
WE SUBMITTED OUR INFORMATION BEFORE THAT DEADLINE.
I THINK IT WAS JUST SHORTLY BEFORE, BUT WE DID SUBMIT OUR INFORMATION IN ITS ENTIRETY.
UH, I DID NOT RECEIVE MR. BASRA'S EVIDENCE UNTIL I BELIEVE THE EMAIL SAID 11:59 PM THAT NIGHT.
TECHNICALLY, THAT INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED AFTER THE DEADLINE.
WITH RESPECT TO THE ARGUMENT, UH, UH, ABOUT THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT, THE CITY STANDS THAT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROCEDURES HERE TODAY.
THAT IS A PROCEDURE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW.
THE CITY IS ENTITLED AND IN FACT, REQUIRED TO ASSERT CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME, SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT THE EXEMPTIONS MAY BE AND WHY WE WOULDN'T HAVE TURNED OVER CERTAIN INFORMATION.
THE INFORMATION THAT WE INTEND TO PRESENT BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY, UH, WAS TURNED OVER TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE TO OPPOSING COUNSEL BEFORE THE DEADLINE SET BY THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE LAST FRIDAY.
THE INFORMATION'S IN THE BINDER.
I DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER WHETHER OR NOT OPPOSING COUNSEL REVIEWED THE INFORMATION.
UH, OVER THE PAST WEEK, I PUT A, A WHOLE BUNCH OF HOURS IN MYSELF, UH, GOING THROUGH INFORMATION, TRYING TO PREPARE IT FOR TODAY.
UH, AND SO, UH, ULTIMATELY, BASED UPON THOSE REASONS, THE CITY WOULD OBJECT.
WE CAN, OKAY, WE HAVE TO SQUARE 310 PAGES.
UH, AND, UH, THE, THE, THE DIRECTOR'S, UH, RESPONSE THAT THERE, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON CERTAIN, UH, AND, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DON'T, WE CAN'T MAKE A RULING BASED ON THAT.
THE QUESTION BEFORE US RIGHT NOW IS, DO WE FEEL LIKE, UH, CREATED A, A FAIR HEARING WHERE, WHERE, UH, THE APPELLANT HAS A CHANCE TO MAKE ITS CASE? UH, MR. CHAIR, POINT OF ORDER.
SO, SO I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND MR. BAER'S, UH, POINT OF VIEW, UM, IN THEIR, UM, EXHIBIT.
AND, AND MR. BAIER, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, DIDN'T YOU ASK FOR THAT INFORMATION FIVE TIMES? WAIT A MINUTE.
WE'RE ON STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER.
MY POINT OF ORDER IS, IS, UM, MR. BESHE IS SAYING HE DIDN'T RECEIVE CERTAIN EVIDENCE ON TIME AND IN THEIR EXHIBIT, IF I'M CORRECT, HE ASKED FOR THAT.
THE, WHAT HE IS ASKING FOR FIVE TIMES.
THE, SO IF, IF THIS IS A CHANCE TO CORRECT ME, IF, IF I'M GOING ABOUT THIS THE WRONG WAY, I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND, UH, THE PLACE FOR THAT MAY BE DURING A MOTION.
UH, BUT, UH, UH, MR. GONZALO, WE, SO LET ME COME BACK.
I DON'T THINK YOU ACTUALLY STATED AN ACTUAL POINT OF ORDER, BUT I'LL COME BACK TO MR. GONZALEZ.
HAS, HAS ANYONE MADE A MOTION? YOU HAVE A POINT OF ORDER.
AND HAS ANYONE MADE A MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR CURRENTLY? POINT OF ORDER IS WELL TAKEN.
THE WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS IS TO HAVE A MOTION AND DISCUSS.
SO, DO I HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE THAT, UM, WE, UM, DISCUSS A CONTINUANCE FOR, UH, THE APPELLATE APP BASED ON, UM, SOME OF THE LACK OF INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE APPELLATE.
UH, SINCE THAT MOTION WOULD REQUIRE A DATE, CERTAIN, UH, WAS THAT HE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO DISCUSS.
SO, MR. QUINTA, WOULD YOU MAKE A MOTION TO EITHER CONTINUE OR NOT CONTINUE? I MOVED IT.
WE DENY THE CONTINUE, AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS IT.
NOTHING, NOTHING SAYS YOU HAVE TO VOTE WITH YOU MOTION.
UM, I, I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU WANT ME TO WORD THAT.
UM, YOU COULD, YOU COULD SAY THAT,
[00:45:01]
UH, YOU MOVE TO APPROVE CONTINUANCE UNTIL, UH, A DATES OR, WELL, YOU COULD BE OUR, OUR NEXT, UH, REGULAR MEETING, FOR EXAMPLE, IF I MAY INTERJECT CHAIR.MR. ILLA HAS A POINT OF, YEAH.
UH, JUST AS MR. QUINN, IF I MAY ASSIST, IF YOU DIDN'T MIND, I MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS HEARING.
UM, AND, UH, BASED ON, UH, NEED FOR REVIEW OF EVIDENCE.
AND SO THAT'S THE MOTION HERE TODAY.
DATES AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE DATES WOULD BE MADE BY WHEN AVAILABLE.
THE BOARD IS AVAILABLE AND MEETS THE CITY SECRETARIES, UM, UH, OUR CALENDAR WITH HER OR WITH THE CITY SECRETARY, EXCUSE ME.
AND IN REGARD TO, UH, WHEN IT MEETS WITH THE, UH, PARTIES, THAT'S MY MOTION, OR THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST FOR YOU, MR. QUINN.
MR. QUINN, IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? THE FLOOR WAS YOURS.
THANK YOU, BARRISTER FOR, UH, CORRECTING IT.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
IS THERE SECOND? SECOND, MR. JEFFERSON SECONDS? YES.
UM, LET'S, UH, IF YOU WANT, RAISE YOUR HAND HERE, IF YOU WANNA DISCUSS AND, AND, UH, I'M LOOKING ONLINE OR YELLOW HAND.
SO, UH, I WAS GONNA, GONNA OPEN IT, BUT, BUT FINE.
IS THERE, UH, ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR DEMOTION? I SEE MR. CILLA AND MR. QUINT, AND NO ONE, NO ONE, UH, PRESENT.
SO, UM, UH, MR. CILLA, YOU ARE, UH, LOWER NUMBER THAN MR. QUINT.
WELL, I, I DEFER TO MR. QUINN SINCE IT WAS TECHNICALLY HIS MOTION.
SO, UM, WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THE, THE APPELLATE'S EVIDENCE, I, I RAN ACROSS, IT APPEARS FIVE EMAILS WHERE THEY DID REQUEST INFORMATION FROM THE CITY WHERE MR. BESHE SAID, WE WANT SOME LOCATIONS.
IF I UNDERSTOOD MR. BESHE CORRECTLY, AND I'M, I HA I HATE TO USE THE WORD ASSUME, BUT I'M ASSUMING HE NEVER RECEIVED THAT INFORMATION IS EVIDENCE BY HIS ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE.
I BELIEVE HE HAS STATED THAT HE RECEIVED IT ON FRIDAY, BUT I, I POINT WILL TAKE, UH, MR. CILLA.
MY, MY MERE COMMENTS ARE THAT, UM, IN ORDER TO MOVE THIS ALONG AND, AND THAT ALLOW MR. BASHER, I REALIZE HE HAS A NUMBER OF OTHER OBJECTIONS, BUT SPECIFICALLY OF WHAT WE CAN ADDRESS HERE AT THE BOARD IS TO GIVE, AND WHAT WE JUST FOUND OUT BY THE CITY, ACTUALLY, THAT MR. BASHIR DID NOT, UH, SUBMIT OR SEND EVIDENCE IN A TIMELY MANNER RELATED TO THE, TO THE, TO THE, TO THE, UH, DEADLINE, 5:00 PM ALL I WOULD SAY IS THAT THE REASON FOR AGREEING WITH THIS IS LET'S GET EVERYBODY TO RESET.
THEY CAN LOOK OVER THE, THE CITY HAS STATED THAT THE 300 AND PLUS DOCUMENTS ARE WHAT THEY'LL BE TALKING ABOUT.
LET'S RESET, LET'S GIVE EVERYBODY TIME TO LOOK AT THOSE DOCUMENTS, MR. BASHIR'S ARGUMENTS THAT HE'S PRESENTED, AT LEAST WHAT I'M HEARING, UM, AS YOU KNOW, ARE GONNA BE MATTERS THAT ARE ADDRESSED, YOU KNOW, TO, TO THE, TO A COURT SYSTEM, TO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
AND SO I THINK THAT IN ORDER FOR US TO AT LEAST HAVE A CLEAN, UM, OR, OR HEARING, LET'S LET BOTH SIDES TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT HAS BEEN EXCHANGED, AND THAT WE SET IT FOR A DATE AND WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT INFORMATION.
THAT'S THE REASON FOR SUPPORTING THIS.
I DO THINK THAT IT'S NOT UNHEARD OF FOR UNFORTUNATELY, THAT MANY DOCUMENTS TO BE GIVEN ON TIMELY MANNER OF FIVE DAYS IN ADVANCE AND NOT BE ABLE TO FLIP THROUGH 'EM.
UH, BUT REGARDLESS, UM, THAT'S MY OPINION.
WHAT I WOULD SAY IS IN REGARD TO FOLLOWING, FRANKLY, UH, EVEN THOUGH THE CITY DIDN'T ASK FOR, UM, UM, A CONTINUANCE PROBABLY WOULD BE BETTER FOR BOTH PARTIES TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT'S EVER BEEN GIVEN TO THEM IF THEY HAVEN'T IN A, IN A MORE, UM, REASONABLE FASHION.
AND TO BE ABLE TO THEN RESET AND LET'S GET A DATE ON AND, AND LET THE APPEAL, UH, HEARING GO FORWARD AT A LATER DATE.
UH, I'M LOOKING FOR, AND MR. JEFF, SO ANYONE, UH, MR. SACK.
UM, THE CITY ATTORNEY, UH, MENTIONED THAT THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THEIR EVIDENCE LATE AFTER FIVE O'CLOCK.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER BEFORE WE MOVE WITH CONTINUANCE? I RULED TO ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE ON THE
[00:50:01]
BASIS THAT, THAT WE HAVE VERY LIBERAL, UH, EVIDENTIARY.I, I, I'M, THE, THE ISSUES OF PUBLIC HEALTH ARE TOO IMPORTANT TO, TO JUST WIPE THE, TO REQUIRE SOMEBODY PURELY TO ARGUE ON, UM, UH, THROUGH WITNESSES.
YOU CAN, I SUPPOSE, IF ALL OF YOU WANNA OVERTURN, BUT BASED ON, I THINK THAT WOULD BE OBJECTIVE, UNFAIR.
BUT THAT'S WHY, UM, MY COMMENTS ARE, ARE, ARE THIS, WE HAVE A RULE THAT SAYS FIVE DAYS, AND THAT WAS MET BY THE CITY.
I, THAT RULE EXISTS IMPLICITLY, UH, BECAUSE WE, WE THINK, UH, THAT IS ENOUGH TIME TO REVIEW AND PREPARE.
UM, THAT MAY BE SOMETHING WE, WE LOOK AT.
BUT, UM, UH, FRANKLY, IF I WEREN'T LOOKING AT DIRECT PUBLIC IN INFORMATION REQUEST, ASKING FOR WHAT I'M BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER, AND FRANKLY, EVEN IF, IF WE HAD POSTED IT ON A WEBSITE, UM, YOU KNOW, ON FRIDAY, I, I THINK I COULD DEFEND GOING FORWARD.
'CAUSE I, I THINK, UM, I THINK LAWYERS WORK ON DEADLINES.
UM, SO, HOWEVER, GIVEN THOSE TWO THINGS, I WOULD NOT WANT TO HAVE TO, UH, FACE A DISTRICT COURT ON THIS.
UH, AND I WOULD JUST STATE, STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT, THAT WE'RE NOT MAKING A COMMENT ON THE PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST OR ON DUE PROCESS.
WE'RE, WE ARE SIMPLY LOOKING AT WHETHER WE CAN TAKE THAT OFF THE TABLE BY WIPING OUT ANY HARM, FRANKLY.
SO THAT'S WHY I'D SUPPORT, I DON'T LIKE HAVING EVERYBODY HERE AND THEN CONTINUING IT.
UH, BUT I THINK THESE ARE PRETTY EXTRAORDINARY FACT, MS. YEAH.
BUT I BELIEVE THE, THE MOTION IS TO THE NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULE THAT HAPPENS TO BE MAY 7TH.
SO YOU ALL KNOW MR. SAXON, SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WHEN YOU SAID, SO WE DON'T HARM ANYONE, I'M THINKING ABOUT THE FAIRNESS OF THIS AND THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE TO PREPARE FOR TODAY, SUBMITTING ON TIME, 310 PAGES, THE ARM IS THAT WE'RE THEN PUSHING THEM FOR 30 DAYS.
SO I'D JUST LIKE TO CONSIDER THAT.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT IT, WHILE, UH, THE, THE PEOPLE SITTING IN FRONT OF US WEREN'T INVOLVED IN PI WAS THAT CLIENT, UM, UH, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE IT ON THE INTERNET ON THAT, WHICH ISN'T, YOU KNOW, IT'S POSITIVE, BUT IT'S, IT JUST KIND OF ADDS TO SOME WHAT I THINK ARE PRETTY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE COMMENTS AGAINST THE MOTION.
I BELIEVE, UM, EVEN THOUGH THE, UM, DOCUMENTS WERE NOT UPLOADED TO OUR WEBSITE, UM, UNTIL TWO DAYS AGO, THAT IS STILL, UM, IT WAS TWO DAYS AGO.
AND SO FOR THE APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY TO COME THIS MORNING AND SAY THAT THEY HAVE NOT YET SEEN THE EVIDENCE OR THE EXHIBITS, UM, DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE BINDER.
THIS IS A PUBLIC WEBSITE, AND THERE IS, EVERYBODY HAS ACCESS TO THAT TWO DAYS AGO.
AND SO I DON'T THINK, UM, IT'S FAIR FOR PEOPLE'S TIME, ESPECIALLY THE WORK THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PUT INTO THIS TO SAY THAT, UH, FOR US TO GRANT A CONTINUANCE, UM, WE HAD, THE BOARD HAD OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS BEFORE THIS MORNING, UM, IN THE SAME MANNER THAT ANYBODY IN THE CITY OR ANYONE IN THE COUNTRY HAS ACCESS TO THIS WEBSITE.
AND SO, I THINK FOR THE SAKE OF EVERYONE'S TIME, WE SHOULD NOT ISSUE A CONTINUANCE.
AND, UH, ALSO TO YOUR POINT, I BELIEVE THAT IT'S, WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT, THAT, UH, AT LEAST DIRECTLY THE, UH, CITY ATTORNEY SHARED, UH, UM, ON FRIDAY.
SO I, UH, JUST TO, TO BE CLEAR, UH, CITY ATTORNEY AT LEAST FOLLOWED OUR RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT.
[00:55:01]
UH, VICE, VICE TORRES, WAS THAT YOU WITH THE YES, I GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE TWO.UM, AND I THINK I'D LIKE TO SPEAK, UM, AGAINST THE MOTION AS WELL, JUST BECAUSE ADD, MR. BASRA, UM, DONE APPROPRIATE RESEARCH IN REGARDS TO THE WAY THAT THIS HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED HAS BEEN CONDUCTED IN THE PAST, UM, MAYBE EVEN IN PREVIOUS, UM, YOU KNOW, VIDEOS, BECAUSE THIS IS ALL AGAIN, YOU KNOW, RECORDED.
UM, HE WOULD UNDERSTAND AND WHEN WE'VE HAD ISSUES LIKE THIS IN THE PAST, UM, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE HE HAS MORE OF AN ISSUE WITH HEARING IN ITSELF.
I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT ALLOWS US AS A BOARD TO ADDRESS WITH WHAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, UM, IN THE TIME THAT IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED.
SO I THINK EVERYONE HAS DONE, UH, EVERYONE IS, YOU KNOW, TIED WITH THE DEADLINES.
UM, HE, UH, SEEMS TO BE UNPREPARED.
I MEAN, I WOULD VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION.
MR. QUINT, YOU'RE ON THE FLOOR.
MR. QUINT, COULD YOU UNMUTE YOURSELF? I, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ADVOCATE IF YOU'RE, UH, IF YOU'RE ON MUTE.
IS THAT MR. QUINT? DO YOU, DO YOU HEAR ME? PUT YOUR HAND UP.
SO CAN YOU, YEAH, THERE WE GO.
NO, NOBODY, NOBODY HEAR MUTED IN THAT.
UM, MR. CLINT, INTERRUPT, UH, IF YOU GET IT, ARE THERE, THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? VICE TORRES? YOUR, YOUR HAND IS STILL UP, I ASSUME.
HOW, HOW'S IT GOING? UM, WE'RE DOING, THERE YOU GO.
I DID NOT, NO, I DID NOT WANNA SPEAK AGAIN.
UM, ARE THERE OTHER SPEAKERS? I DON'T SEE ANY, UH, MR. SACKS.
SORRY, LAST, LAST, UM, QUESTION.
SHOULD THE BOARD CONSIDER, UM, WHAT, UH, UH, MR. QUIN HAD BROUGHT UP FOR THE EMAIL REQUEST? IS THAT IN OUR PURVIEW FOR, FOR SOMEBODY ASKING FOR THAT INFORMATION? AND IF NOT, I, I WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH HAVING THE MEETING TODAY AND NOT AGREEING TO IT.
SO ARE YOU SPEAKING AGAINST, JUST BE CLEAR, AS OUR, AS OUR ROLE AS THE T LAST BILL BOARD, IS IT SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT THE APPELLANT AND THEIR REPRESENTATION HAS FOR INFORMATION THAT THE CITY DIDN'T PROVIDE? OR IS THAT JUST ANOTHER DIVISION THAT DEALS WITH THAT WE'RE NOT RULING, UH, UH, ON THE PPIA OPERATION ITSELF, THAT'S FOR SOMEBODY ELSE.
HOWEVER, UH, IT IS IN OUR ORDINANCE THAT, UH, THAT, THAT, UM, UH, THAT, THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION.
SO THE, THE QUESTION IS, UM, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE FACTS, HA HAS THE, UM, THE, THE APPELLANT HAD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD THE ABILITY TO PRESENT IT, ITS CASE.
AND, YOU KNOW, ON ONE SIDE, I, I THINK WE HAVE THE, IT WAS THERE, AND WE'RE MAKING A PRESUMPTION HERE, THAT, THAT WHAT WAS EMAILED, UH, ON FRIDAY HAS, IS A FULL AND COMPLETE VERSION OF WHAT
[01:00:01]
WE HAVE IN OUR DOCKET.UM, SO, SO THOSE ARE, IN MY OPINION, THOSE, THOSE ARE THE THINGS YOU HAVE TO WEIGH.
SO THEN THE LAST QUESTION I WOULD HAVE BASED OFF OF THAT IS IF THE CITY PROVIDES ANY EVIDENCE THAT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED THAT FRIDAY THAT WE THEN DISCUSSED BEFORE MOVING FORWARD, IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE MEETING IN THE PAST, WE'VE HAD EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE MEETING THAT ASKED BOTH PARTIES, ARE YOU OKAY WITH EVIDENCE? CAN WE PRESENT? WE WOULD TREAT THAT AS LATE EVIDENCE.
AND, UH, PROBABLY ASK ONE OF THE PARTIES WHETHER, UH, A BRIEF, UH, TIME TO, TO LOOK AT IT, UM, SUFFICES, AND THEN WE'D MAKE A DEAL.
IF THE CITY SUBMITTED BY THE DEADLINE FOR THIS MEETING TO OCCUR, THEN AGAIN, I, I WOULD VOTE AGAINST CONTINUE HAVING A MEETING TODAY, UH, BECAUSE OF THE, UM, AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY HAVE TO REVIEW IT.
UH, AND ANY EVIDENCE THAT IS PRESENTED, DATA'S NOT PART OF THAT PACK.
I WOULD, I WOULD HIGHLY SUGGEST THE APPELLANT TAKE THEIR TIME TO REVIEW IT OR MAKE A MOTION AT THAT POINT TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT WORD.
I THINK THE, THE APPELLANT HAS ASKED FOR A MOTION AND IF NEW EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED.
SO IF NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THAT TIME, I WOULD HEAR THAT, THAT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO ME.
AND IF THE CITY'S PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED FRIDAY AND NOTHING MORE, THEN I HAVE NO REASON WHY I WANNA VOTE FOR
WELL,
SO, UM, I ASKED A QUESTION EARLIER.
I NEVER GOT CLARIFICATION THAT MR. BASHEERA HAD ASKED THE CITY SPECIFICALLY FOR SOME INFORMATION FIVE TIMES, AND IT APPEARS HE NEVER GOT IT.
IT APPEARS THAT HE GOT IT ON FRIDAY NIGHT.
YEAH, I MEAN THAT AND THAT, THAT IS IN THE EVIDENCE, WHICH WE HAVE ACCEPTED.
BUT YES, I THINK THAT THAT STATEMENT IS CORRECT.
THAT HE, THAT HE, HE ASKED AND THAT HE RECEIVED IT FRIDAY NIGHT.
UH, WELL, DID HE RECEIVE THE EXACT DOCUMENTATION HE WAS ASKING FOR? I THINK THAT WAS HIS EARLIER POINT, WAS HE DIDN'T GET WHAT HE ASKED FOR.
OH, WELL, WHEN I ASKED THE CITY WHETHER, UH, THEY INCLUDED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY USED, THEY SAID YES.
PLEASE CORRECT ME IF THAT'S WRONG.
AND I WILL BRING UP, UH, JUST BECAUSE I'D RATHER BRING IT UP NOW THAN LATER.
UH, WE DO HAVE A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, UH, THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE BINDER, BUT THE EVIDENCE ITSELF IN THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION RECOMMENDATION WAS ALL MUTED.
ALRIGHT, MR. QUINT, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR YOU ARE CORRECT.
UH, YOUR STATEMENT IS, IS CORRECT.
HE DID NOT GET THE INFORMATION HE EXACTLY ASKED FOR.
WE CONTINUE ON AND HE, SO, SO IF HE CONTINUED ON, UH, IF WE CONTINUE ON AND HE DID NOT GET SPECIFIC INFORMATION HE ASKED FOR, DOES THAT SET US UP FOR HIM TO GO TO A DISTRICT COURT AFTER THIS? UH, WE WOULD PRESUMABLY BE ASKING HIM TO REACT TO EVIDENCE HE HASN'T SEEN AHEAD OF TIME.
I BELIEVE I'M HEARING THAT HE DID GET WHAT HE ASKED.
NO, THIS IS CITY PROVIDED WHAT THE CITY WANTED TO PROVIDE.
I ASKED FOR EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE THROUGH THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS, WHICH WERE MADE REPEATEDLY.
I WAS TOLD SPECIFICALLY THAT NO SUCH EVIDENCE EXIST.
MISSION, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON MR. QUINT'S, UH, QUESTIONS.
UH, THE, THE QUESTION FROM THE APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY IN HIS EVIDENCE, IN HIS EXHIBIT WHERE HE DIDN'T GET INFORMATION IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY.
WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IN THIS MOTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY HAD THE EXHIBITS PROVIDED TO HIM IN A TIMELY FASHION.
SO NOT WHAT IS IN THE EXHIBITS, BUT RATHER IF THOSE EXHIBITS WERE PROVIDED TO BOTH PARTIES AND THE BOARD IN A
[01:05:01]
TIMELY FASHION.YEAH, I, I THINK A QUESTION DOWN THE ROAD OF, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? UM, WE WOULD, I MEAN, BECAUSE WE DON'T FOLLOW THE, THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.
WE ARE IN A POSITION WHERE WE ALLOW THINGS, UH, BUT WE THEN HAVE TO DECIDE HOW VALUABLE THEY ARE AND HOW CREDIBLE THEY'RE, SO, YEAH.
UM, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE CAN LEARN? UH, CAN WE MAKE THIS, UH, CAN WE VOTE? VOTE? I'M LOOKING FOR HANDS.
UH, AGAIN, MS. MR. QUINT, YOUR HAND'S STILL UP? I'M GONNA ASSUME YOU JUST SPOKE.
I WANTED TO RESPOND TO MS. SHIN.
I WANTED TO RESPOND TO MS. SHIN'S POINT.
UM, MAYBE DON'T RESPOND DIRECTLY TO HER, BUT SPEAK TO THE BOARD.
I JUST WAS WANTING TO RESPOND TO WHAT SHE HAD SAID.
I, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE'S SAYING.
BUT AGAIN, MY POINT IS, IS IF IF THE APPELLANT ASKED FOR EXACT DOCUMENTS AND DIDN'T RECEIVE THOSE EXACT DOCUMENTS, ARE WE GONNA HAVE A HEARING AND THEN IT JUST BOUNCES TO A DISTRICT COURT BECAUSE HE DIDN'T RECEIVE WHAT HE WANTED EXACTLY.
WELL, HE WOULD PRESUMABLY MAKE THAT CASE DURING THE MERITS.
SO THE FIVE REQUESTS WERE SENT TO THE OPEN RECORDS DIVISION IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, AND HE HAS A RIGHT TO ASK FOR ANY INFORMATION THAT THE CITY MAY HAVE.
NOW, WHETHER OR NOT HE RECEIVED THEM, THAT JUST DEPENDS ON IF THE CITY HAS ANY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE REQUESTED.
SO THERE MIGHT NOT BE ANY DOCUMENTS THAT THE CITY HAS BASED OFF HIS REQUEST.
SO HE MIGHT NOT RECEIVE ANYTHING.
UM, AND WE DON'T CREATE DOCUMENTS BASED OFF OF THE REQUEST.
IT'S IF WE HAVE THEM OR NOT, THEN WE CAN RELEASE THEM UNLESS, UH, WE GO TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE TO ASK FOR AN EXCEPTION FOR THOSE NOT TO BE RELEASED.
SO THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS PRESENTED BY THE CITY, WHICH IS THEIR EXHIBIT IN WHICH THEIR CASE IS BASED OFF OF.
HE'S ASKING FOR ANY INFORMATION, UM, BASED OFF THESE REQUESTS.
AND WE DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY HAS ANY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS, UM, OR IF WE WENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT INFORMATION.
NO, I I THINK WE HAVE TO ABSOLUTELY ASSUME, UH, THAT THE CITY RESPONDED TO PUBLIC INFORM.
THE TRICK IS WE'RE LOOKING AT 310 DOCUMENTS THAT APPEAR TO HAVE ANSWERED THAT, THAT IN REQUEST, UM, THAT THAT'S THE DISTINCTION, BUT, OKAY.
UH, LET'S, UNLESS ANYBODY WANTS IT, LET'S, LET'S, I'M SORRY.
LET'S CALL THE QUESTION AND, UM, LET'S VOTE.
THE, UH, THE MOTION AT HAND IS TO CONTINUE UNTIL OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING, MAY 7TH.
UM, SO, UH, MR. SAXO, UH, I VOTE NO, I DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE.
I WOULD LIKE TO MEET MS. AYALA.
I VOTE YES, MS. SMITH, NEXT TIME YOU WILL VOTE.
UM, VICE CHAIR TOR, VICE CHAIR TORRE, WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU.
DOES THAT COUNT FOR THE RECORD? OKAY.
MS. TORRES, IF YOU CAN COME BACK AT SOME POINT, BUT I, UH, I DO HAVE YOU AS A THUMBS DOWN, BUT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE IT ON THE RING.
[01:10:05]
OH, SORRY.MR. JEFFS, UH, WILL, WILL RETURN.
UH, WE'RE GONNA WAIT FOR MR. JEFF.
THE, UM, I COUNT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 NOS, FIVE YESES.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WELL, I'LL VOTE.
UM, WE, WE EXPECT MR. JEFF IS BACK.
WE'RE NOT IN A SITUATION WHERE IF HE'S JUST CASE IT, IT EVER CAME BACK THAT IF HE DIDN'T COME BACK AND VOTE, HE WOULD BE A YES.
HOW DO YOU VOTE, SIR? I, I VOTE FOR THE CONTINUANCE.
IS THAT TRUE? UM, NO, BECAUSE WE HAVE ONE NON VOTE, SO WE HAVE 13, UH, WHICH MEANS SEVEN WOULD CARRY THE DAY.
I WAS HOPING IT DOESN'T MAKE ME SPECIFIC.
UM, I, THE FACT THAT, THAT, UH, IT WAS THERE ON FRIDAY.
UH, PRESUMING IT IS FULL AND COMPLETE, I WOULD DEEPLY REGRET THIS IF IT WASN'T, UH, I'M GONNA CHANGE MY MIND AND VOTE NO.
WHICH MEANS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 NOS.
THE NAYS HEARING THE DAY THE MOTION FAILS.
UM, MR. BASHAR, YOU ARE IN YOUR, UM, OPENING STATEMENT.
SO, I, I'M JUST SETTING FORTH THE OBJECTIONS FOR RECORD.
UH, MY CLIENT OBJECTS VIOLATIONS OF DUE COURSE, DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, RIGHT TO CONFRONTATIONAL WITNESSES RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY.
UH, YOU'RE IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, SIR.
THERE'S A PRESUMPTION THAT SUPPOSEDLY CARRIES ON THE BASIS OF FIVE DEBATABLE OFFENSES, COUPLED WITH THE SECOND PART, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY ALSO HAS TO BE A PLACE AT WHICH PERSONS HAVE HISTORICALLY COMMITTED A DEBATABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES.
ACCORDING TO RECENT CRIME THAT WE HAD THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CONTINUANCE OVER THIS, THE CITY TOLD ME THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SUPPORT THE SECOND ELEMENT.
IF THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, THEN THERE'S NO WAY THEY COULD SATISFY THE
MOREOVER, A PRESUMPTION THAT IMPOSES THE BURDEN OF MY CLIENT TO REFUTE SOMETHING AS OPPOSED TO PUTTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE CITY TO PROVE SOMETHING IS IMPROPER AND A CONSTITUTIONAL AS WELL.
UH, GOOD MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS OF KERMAN AND LICENSED BILLBOARD.
WE ARE HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT'S DESIGNATION OF 46 10 SOUTH RL GORDON FREEWAY.
AS A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY, OR HCP.
THE PURPOSE OF A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY ORDINANCE IS ULTIMATELY TO REDUCE CRIME, THEREBY MAKING PROPERTIES SAFER AND CLEANER AND RESULTING IN AN IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE FOR DALLAS RESIDENTS.
YOUR JOB TODAY IS LIMITED TO DECIDING IF THE PRESUMPTIONS OF DALLAS CITY CODE 27 48 ARE SATISFIED.
TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, YOU MUST ANSWER EXACTLY THREE QUESTIONS.
NUMBER ONE, DID FIVE OR MORE AVAILABLE CRIMES OCCUR AT THE PROPERTY IN A 365 DAY PERIOD? NUMBER TWO, IS THERE A HISTORY OF AVAILABLE CRIME AT THE PROPERTY ACCORDING TO REESE CRIME DATA? AND NUMBER THREE, DID THE OWNER KNOWINGLY TOLERATE THE AVAILABLE CRIME BY FAILING TO IMPLEMENT REASONABLE STEPS TO ABATE THAT CRIME PRIOR
[01:15:01]
TO CITY INTERVENTION ON NOVEMBER 25TH, 2025? NOW, THE CITY'S EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT OVER A THREE YEAR PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 20TH, 2022 TO NOVEMBER 20, 20, 25 18, AVAILABLE CRIMES OCCURRED AT THE PROPERTY, 15 OF WHICH OCCURRED IN THE 365 DAYS THAT ELAPSED FROM NOVEMBER 20TH, 2024 TO NOVEMBER 20TH, 2025.THE CITY WILL ALSO SHOW THAT THE OWNER KNOWINGLY TOLERATED THE CRIME AT THE PROPERTY BY FAILING TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO ABATE THAT CRIME PRIOR TO CITY INTERVENTION.
IN NOVEMBER, 2025, NUISANCE ABATEMENT, DETECTIVE MARK MICHAELS WILL DESCRIBE TO YOU A PROPERTY PLAGUED BY GUN VIOLENCE, DRUG ACTIVITY, PROPERTY OFFENSES, AND SEX CRIMES, WHOSE OWNER STOOD IDLY BY TOLERATING THE CRIME, BY FAILING TO IMPLEMENT THE MOST BASIC CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES UNTIL THE CITY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO INTERVENE AND DEMAND CHANGE UNDER THE THREAT OF LITIGATION.
SO I TOLD YOU WHAT YOU MUST CONSIDER IN DECIDING TODAY'S CASE.
NOW, I'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU MUST NOT CONSIDER, AND YOU MUST NOT CONSIDER ANY STEPS THE PROPERTY OWNER TOOK TO EVADE CRIME AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE PRESUMPTIVE HCP DESIGNATION ON NOVEMBER 24TH, 2025.
NOW, IT'S TRUE THAT SOME EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITY AT THE MANDATORY ACCORD MEETING ON DECEMBER 22ND, 2025.
BUT IN YOUR DECISION, YOU NEED ONLY TO CONSIDER THAT EVIDENCE TO THE EXTENT IT POINTS TO PRIME PREVENTION MEASURES IMPLEMENTED BEFORE NOVEMBER 24TH, 2025.
AND DETECTIVE MICHAELS IS PREPARED TO EXPLAIN IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, WHY AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE HCP PRESUMPTION AND SO HONORABLE BOARD, IT IS THE CITY'S HOPE THAT AFTER PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE, YOU WILL ANSWER YES TO THOSE THREE ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS.
I OUTLINED FOR YOU EARLIER THAT YOU DENY THIS APPEAL AND THAT YOU AFFIRM THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT'S FINAL DESIGNATION OF 46 10 SOUTH RL COURT AND FREEWAY AS HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY.
I I WANNA ASK OUR ATTORNEY A QUESTION.
I BELIEVE THE STANDARD, UH, IS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT ANYTHING PRIOR TO THE FINAL DETERMINATION.
AND, UH, IF I RECALL, THAT'S A DECEMBER DATE, IS IT NOT? UH, BUT I, I'M GONNA ASK HER WHETHER THAT'S CORRECT, BUT MAYBE YOU'RE SAYING THE SAME THING.
WELL, HONORABLE CHAIR, THE CITY'S POSITION IS THAT THE, THE ORDINANCE IS INTERPRETED THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE TO BE CONSIDERED IS THAT EVIDENCE OF MEASURES IN PLACE PRIOR TO CITY INTERVENTION.
AND THE DATE OF CITY INTERVENTION WOULD BE THE DATE THE HCP PRESUMPTION DESIGNATION LETTER WAS SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
AND THAT DATE WAS NOVEMBER THE 24TH OF 2025.
AND THEN SO BEFORE THE COORDINATE, CORRECT.
UH, I DON'T, SO TO THE EXTENT, UH, THE CHAIR RULES, I, I BELIEVE WE CAN LOOK AT, I, I, I WILL ASK OUR ATTORNEY.
I, I BELIEVE WE CAN LOOK AT, WE, WE ARE HERE TO EVALUATE THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION, UH, WHICH I, I FINAL, THE CODE ALLOWS FOR AN ACCORD MEETING AND EVEN, UH, AT DISCRETION OF THE DIRECTOR, A 30 OR 60 DAY CHECK AND SEE PERIOD.
UH, BUT I, I DEFER TO HER TO COUNCIL.
BUT IF IT'S, UH, IF YOU'RE ASKING WHAT THE CHAIR RULES, UH, THAT MY RULING IS, UM, AT THE FINAL DECISION, OTHERWISE THE REST OF THE MEETINGS, AND IT'S JUST, JUST FUN.
THERE'S NO, NO, THERE'S NO CHANCE OF ANYTHING CHANGING.
I BELIEVE IT'S AT THE FINAL DETERMINATION.
SO WE'RE ON THE RECORD THAT THAT'S THE WAY WE WILL, WE WILL PROCEED ON ADVICE OF OUR COUNSEL, BUT YOU, YOU'RE ON THE RECORD AS WELL.
DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR ME? NO, THIS IS, UH, YOUR, UH, YOUR TIME.
UH, THE CITY BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THIS.
ACCORDING TO THE RULES AS I READ THEM, THE CITY HAS THE BURDEN TO SHOW THAT THE PRESUMPTION SET FORTH IN 27 48 HAVE BEEN MATCHED.
SO, UH, I DEFER TO THE CITY AND I THE CITY IF AND WHEN THEY PRESENT SUCH EVIDENCE.
[01:20:01]
UM, ARE THERE QUESTIONS? PRESUMABLY NOT.UH, CITY'S, UH, AND, UH, ARM CHAIR, WE DO HAVE A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION THAT TRACKS YOUR TIME.
QUESTION, UH, CHAIR POINT OF ORDER.
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT JUST HAPPENED.
DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR A POINT OF ORDER? POINT OF ORDER.
UM, WILL WE AS, UH, WILL WE BE ABLE TO QUESTION, UM, MR. BURRA ON HIS EXHIBITS AFTER THE CITY THEN? OR IS HE, UM, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE'LL BE DOING? I THINK IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO QUESTION HIM, YOU SHOULD DO IT NOW.
YES, I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. CHER.
YOU HAVE HAVE THREE MINUTES, VICE TORRE.
MR. CHER, UM, UM, I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, BY YOU DEFERRING TO THE CITY, THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS MEANS THAT YOUR COLLEAGUE ISN'T BEING FULLY REPRESENTED IN THIS HEARING.
WE'RE, WE'RE NOT REALLY ABLE TO QUESTION HIS VIEW ON THIS, UM, ON THIS DECISION.
ARE YOU AWARE OF, OF THAT, MR. BORO? UH, WELL, I, I THINK YOU MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT I SUGGESTED.
THE CITY WILL PRESENT ITS CASE, AND THEN I WILL PRESENT REBUTTAL IF AND WHEN NECESSARY.
SO ASSUMING THE CITY PRESENTS EVIDENCE AND THERE'S A NEED TO REBUT IT, UH, MY CLIENT WILL PROVIDE TESTIMONY.
NOW, UM, AS BOARD MEMBERS, WE ARE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS EVEN BEFORE, JUST BECAUSE THIS WAS YOUR TIME.
SO, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE, UH, MANAGER OR OWNER.
WILL THEY BE PRESENTING ANY KIND OF, UH, E UH, TESTIMONY TODAY, PERHAPS IN REBUTTAL? OKAY.
MY, UH, OUR CITY ATTORNEY WOULD, UH, NEEDS TO, UH, CORRECT HERSELF ON HER RULING.
I DIDN'T THINK SHE WAS REALLY THAT CORRECT.
I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT MR. BAHAR IS TAKING THE POSITION THAT THE CITY HAS TO, AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO PROVE, TO PROVE SOMETHING THEY HAVEN'T YET PROVED.
AND THAT, UH, AND UH, UNTIL THEN, HE, HE, UM, UH, HE HAS NO CASE TO RESPOND TO.
I, I AM BOUND BY OUR OLD, BUT CURRENT RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING.
BUT, UH, THAT UH, STATES THAT THE APPELLANT GOES FIRST REGARDLESS.
UM, WHAT I THINK ON THAT, UM, DOESN'T MATTER TODAY.
UM, SO, UM, I I, IS THAT A CORRECT, UM, I, I THINK, I THINK MR. GHAR IS AN ATTORNEY AND A PROFESSIONAL AND, AND, UH, HAS, HAS DECIDED THAT HE HE'LL USE HIS TIME ELSEWHERE.
AM AM I CORRECT, SIR? YES, SIR.
AND HONORABLE CHAIR, IF I MAY, WHILE THE CITY ATTORNEY IS OUT, CAN WE BREAK FOR JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES? YES, PLEASE.
UM, LET'S HAVE, IT IS 9 58, AND WHEN WE GET BACK, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO MOVE AND STAY ON POINT.
UM, IS IS IF WE DO A HARD 10, HARD 10, LIKE, OKAY.
SO WE WILL RECONVENE PROMPTLY AT 10:08 AM OKAY.
[01:26:03]
[01:34:46]
[01:38:37]
HELLO.I BELIEVE WE HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE CAN START.
I WILL WAIT FOR MS. SANCHEZ TO HIT THE RECORD ONCE YOU'RE READY.
MR. SHAR, I ASSUME YOU'RE THERE.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, WE, OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE WERE WRITTEN IN 2002.
UH, WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING THEM IN PART ABOUT WHAT THE ORDER OF OPERATIONS SHOULD BE.
UH, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT I WAS FOUND BY SOMETHING OLD.
SO HAVING, HAVING, UH, DISCUSSED WITH CITY'S COUNCIL, UH, A LITTLE BIT EMBARRASSED, BUT IT'S NEVER TOO LATE TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
[01:40:02]
WE, UH, WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WHEREBY THE CITY MAKES ITS CASE FIRST.THAT WAY YOU WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO RESPOND.
IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? I THINK WHAT YOU WERE SAYING IT, THAT IS WHAT I WAS SAYING.
SO AT THIS POINT THEN, THE FLOOR IS THE CITY'S.
AND THANK YOU FOR BEARING WITH US.
BOARD CHAIR, UH, FIRST THE CITY CALLS, UH, DETECTIVE, SENIOR CORPORAL, UH, MARK MICHAELS TO THE STAND.
UM, AND CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME OKAY? YES.
UH, DETECTIVE, WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME PLEASE? MARK MICHAELS.
AND YOU'RE, YOU CURRENTLY WORK AS A NUISANCE ABATEMENT DETECTIVE WITH THE DALLAS POLICE POLICE DEPARTMENT, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
AND YOU'RE ASSIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO THE CITY'S COMMUNITY PROSECUTION TEAM? YES, MA'AM.
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN THAT ROLE? TWO YEARS.
AND HAVE YOU SERVED IN OTHER ROLES WITH DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT? UH, YES MA'AM.
I'VE BEEN ON DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT 23 YEARS.
STARTED MY CAREER IN DEPARTMENT AT SOUTHEAST PATROL THERE, I BELIEVE I, TO A SPECIAL PASSPORT FOR A COUPLE YEARS.
I WORKED SIX YEARS IN THE NARCOTICS DIVISION UNDERCOVER.
I WORKED 11 YEARS ON A DALLAS SWAT TEAM, AND MOST RECENT TWO YEARS NOW IN
CAN YOU DESCRIBE SOME OF YOUR DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN YOUR CURRENT ROLE WITH COMMUNITY PROSECUTION? UH, I WORK WITH A NEW PROSECUTION TEAM ALONGSIDE DALLAS FIRE AND CODE INSPECTORS.
AND WE RECEIVE, YES, SIR, WE DID NOT, DO I NEED TO DO ANY OF THAT OVER
UH, I, I WORK HAND IN HAND WITH FIRE AND CODE AND WE REVIEW, UH, COMPLAINTS OF PROPERTIES THAT MIGHT QUALIFY FOR HIGH CRIME PROPERTIES.
SO WE DO THOROUGH REVIEWS OF THOSE PROPERTIES TO SEE IF THEY QUALIFY.
AND YOU ARE ASSIGNED TO, UH, AND I'LL REFER TO COMMUNITY PROSECUTION AS CP IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT, EVERYONE.
UM, YOU'RE ASSIGNED TO CPS OPEN CASE AT 46 10 SOUTH R HORTON FREEWAY, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
AND, UH, CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE BOARD THE LAYOUT AND USE OF THE PROPERTY? UH, THE PROPERTY OF THE MOTEL, THERE ARE 84 UNITS IN THIS MOTEL TWO STORY MOTEL.
THE EXIT TO THE ROOM ARE INTERNAL.
WHEN LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY, IT IS LOCATED AT 46 10.
THAT'S RLP DOOR FREEWAY, WHICH IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHBOUND SERVICE ROAD OF I 35.
IT'S LOCATED JUST NORTH OF LEDBETTER LOOP 12 LEDBETTER, LOOP 12 BORDERS.
THE SOUTHERN PORTION, THAT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY IS OAK CLIFF LIFE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO THE EAST OF THAT PROPERTY IS A GREEN BELT AND A CREEK.
THE PROPERTY SITS PRETTY MUCH BY ITSELF WITH ONLY ONE BUSINESS TO THE SOUTH.
AND THAT IS A USED CAR LOT THAT AS MANY TIMES I'VE BEEN OUT THERE, THERE MIGHT BE TWO OR THREE CARS IN THAT PARKING LOT.
AND, UH, YOUR RESEARCH INDICATES THAT OAK THE PROPERTIES LP IS FOUND, CORRECT? THERE'S NO DISPUTE WITH THAT? YES, MA'AM.
AND SO, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT, UH, AT THE PROPERTY THAT LED TO CP SUPERVISION? UH, THE AMOUNT OF HIGH CRIME OUT THERE, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THROUGH AAL CITY COUNCIL MEMBER THAT THE AMOUNT OF CRIME WAS GETTING OUT OF THE END.
AND YOU EVALUATED THE PROPERTY FOR HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY DESIGNATION, DID YOU NOT? YES, MA'AM.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT PROCESS, PLEASE? WHEN WE LOOK AT A PROPERTY, WE LOOK AT THE THREE PREVIOUS YEARS OF CALLS FOR SERVICE, UH, OFFENSES THAT HAVE OCCURRED ON THAT PROPERTY.
AND WHEN LOOKING AT THE OFFENSES, I DO A BLOCKED NUMBER SEARCH AND AN ACTUAL PARCEL NUMBER SEARCH TO FIND ALL THE OFFENSES THAT DIRECTLY HAPPEN ON THAT PROPERTY.
YOU'RE VERY THOROUGH IN LOOKING AT THOSE OFFENSES TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE PROPERTY.
QUESTION HERE THAT IT, THE OFFENSE DID NOT OCCUR AS A TRAFFIC STOP AND FINDING WAY ON THE PROPERTY, OR IF SOMEBODY CALLED FROM THAT PROPERTY TO REPORT AN OFFENSE SOMEWHERE ELSE.
DID YOU EMPLOY THAT SAME EVALUATION PROCEDURE FOR THIS PROPERTY? YES, MA'AM.
AND ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY ORDINANCE? YES, MA'AM.
AND UNDER THAT ORDINANCE, DID YOU DETERMINE THAT THE PROPERTY ULTIMATELY QUALIFIED FOR THE HCP PRESUMPTION? YES, MA'AM.
UH, THE OWNER WAS NOTIFIED OF THAT IN A LETTER ON NOVEMBER 24TH, 2025, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
AND SO IS THAT DATE, UH, NOVEMBER 24TH, 2025,
[01:45:01]
IS THAT THE DATE CONSIDERED TO BE THE DATE OF THE INTERVENTION FOR PURPOSES OF HCP EVALUATION? YES, MA'AM.THAT, THAT'S THE DATE DPP CONSIDERS THE DATE OF INTERVENTION? YES, MA'AM.
AND YOU MENTIONED YOU EVALUATED THREE YEAR TIME PERIOD.
WHAT WERE THE SPECIFIC DATES, UH, THAT YOU EVALUATED WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROPERTY? NOVEMBER 20TH, 2022 THROUGH NOVEMBER 20TH, 2025.
AND DURING THAT TIME PERIOD, HOW MANY AVAILABLE OFFENSES OCCURRED AT THE PROPERTY? 18.
AND TELL THE BOARD PLEASE, WHAT SOME OF THOSE CRIMES WERE.
THERE WERE MULTIPLE AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, A DEAD WEAPON, AGGRAVATED ROBBERY, UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY A FELON, POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, DISORDERLY CONDUCT, UH, IN A SEXUAL INDECENCY REPORT, AND A, A AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILD.
AND SO, DETECTIVE, BASED UPON THAT DATA AND, UH, REFERENCING THE CP ORDINANCE, DO YOU CONSIDER THIS PROPERTY TO BE A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE HISTORICALLY HAVE GONE TO COMMIT CRIMES? YES, MA'AM.
SO HOW MANY OF THOSE AVAILABLE CRIMES OCCURRED IN THE ONE YEAR PERIOD BETWEEN NOVEMBER 20TH OF 24 AND NOVEMBER 20TH OF 25 15.
AND SO IT'S TRUE THEN THAT, UH, THE PRESUMPTION THAT FIVE OR MORE AVAILABLES OCCURRED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SATISFIED? YES, MA'AM.
AND WHAT, IN YOUR OPINION, WERE, WERE SOME OF THE MOST SERIOUS CRIMES THAT TOOK PLACE, UH, AT THE PROPERTY? SOME OF THE MOST EGREGIOUS, UH, OFFENSES THAT OCCURRED, UH, THE INFORMATION IS WITHHELD FROM THIS PACKET DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE WOULD BE THE SEXUAL ASSAULT, THE RAPE OF CHILD, AND THE INDECENCY OFFENSE.
BUT BEYOND THAT, THERE'S FOUR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON THAT OCCURRED ON THAT PROPERTY.
THERE WAS AN AGGRAVATED ROBBERY, THAT'S JUST THE NAME FIVE OFF THE TOP, THAT THREE CITIZENS, I BELIEVE YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, PART OF YOUR EVALUATION INCLUDES EXAMINING, UH, THE CALLS FOR SERVICE AT THE PROPERTY.
UH, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT? WHEN LOOKING AT THE, WE DO AN INQUIRY TO SEE HOW MANY CALLS WERE ACTUALLY GENERATED FROM THAT PROPERTY.
WE, WE LOOK AT THAT THREE YEAR WINDOW FOR ANY 9 1 1 CALLS PLACED FROM THAT PROPERTY.
AND THERE WAS A TOTAL OF 357 CALLS IN THAT ONE YEAR PERIOD.
SORRY, THERE'S A LAG IN HER POWERPOINT.
AND SO, UH, THE INFORMATION, AND I KNOW IT'S SMALL, BUT YOU'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO REVIEW THIS INFORMATION BEFORE TODAY, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
AND SO ARE THE CALLS FOR SERVICE REPRESENTED IN THAT SLIDE? AND I BELIEVE IT'S THE FOLLOWING 17 SLOTS? YES, THAT IS A COMBINATION OF THE ONE YEAR CALLS FOR SERVICE, ALONG WITH MARK OUTS, WHEN I DO MY RESEARCH TO DETERMINE IF A PROPERTY TO HELP SEE IF IT QUALIFIES, I WOULD SPECIFICALLY AT THE CALL FOR SERVICE, THE MARK OUTS, IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT, UH, A POLICE MARK OUT IS IT'S ACTUAL PATROL OFFICER SELF INITIATING ACTION ON THAT PROPERTY THROUGH AN INVESTIGATION OF SOME SORT.
THOSE ARE NOT HELD A AGAINST THE PROPERTY WHEN DETERMINED IF IT'S A HIGH CRIME PROPERTY OR NOT, BUT IT GOES TO SHOW THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES THAT ARE BEING DRAINED BY THAT PROPERTY.
WHAT WERE THE POLICE RESOURCES IN THAT AREA? AND TO SPEAK OF THAT, THERE WAS 364 MARK OUTS AT THAT PROPERTY.
AND SO COMBINED, UM, CALLS FOR SERVICE AND MARK OUTS FOR ONE YEAR PERIOD, UH, REQUIRED OVER 700 RESPONSES FROM DPD, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
AND IS IT FAIR TO ASSUME THAT'S A TREMENDOUS STRAIN ON, ON THE CITY RESOURCES? YES, MA'AM.
AND AT THIS POINT, UH, DETECTIVE, I'M ASSUMING YOU'VE PERSONALLY INSPECTED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY A NUMBER OF TIMES, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, MA'AM.
WHEN DID YOU FIRST INSPECT? UH, FIRST INSPECTION WAS ON DECEMBER 2ND.
AND SO AT THIS POINT, UH, ON THE BOARD, WE'LL, UH, BE MOVING THROUGH A SERIES OF PHOTOS AND DETECTIVE MICHAELS, IF YOU WOULD, I'LL JUST GIVE YOU THE HELM HERE.
AND WITH EACH PHOTO, YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT'S DEPICTED AND WHAT SIGNIFICANCE THE PICTURE HAS WITH RESPECT TO, UH, THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF CRIME PREVENTION MEASURE, OR THE, THE PRESENCE OF ONTOP CRIME.
IF YOU DON'T MIND ALSO, UH, DETAILING OR POINTING US TO THE, UH, THE CASES THAT,
[01:50:01]
THAT YOU, UH, ARE USING IN INSIDE YOUR 3 55, UH, DAY.SO PLEASE JUST SIGN IT FOR US.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS THE WESTERN, UH, ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY.
IT'S THE ONLY ENTRANCE THAT IS A VEHICLE GATE THAT IS UNSECURED OPEN ALL THE TIME.
THERE'S NO GATE PRESENT TO EVEN CLOSE THAT ACCESS POINT RIGHT THERE, THAT WHERE YOU'RE THE VANTAGE POINT WE'RE LOOKING AT, I 35 WILL BE DIRECTLY BEHIND YOU.
AND THAT'S THE WEST BOUNDARY LINE.
THAT'S LOOKING AT THE EXACT SAME GATE.
BUT LOOKING BACK TO THE WEST, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S A LARGE, WIDE OPEN.
AND THAT THE, THE TREE LINE RIGHT THERE IS ONE OF THE, UH, EXIT OR OFF RAMPS FOR I 35.
THAT'S ALL THAT JUST ADJACENT TO THE VEHICLE GATE ON THAT SAME WEST SIDE BOUNDARY LINE WHERE THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY BARS MISSING ON THE GATE.
AND THE SHORT TIME WE WERE OUT THERE, IT'S A COMMON ACCESS POINT TO WHOMEVER WANTS TO COME AND GO ONTO THAT PROPERTY FREELY.
THAT'S JUST SOME RANDOM CIVILIAN PASSENGER DEVELOPMENT ACTED OUT BY
THIS IS ONE OF THE EXIT DOORS.
OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT MONITORED WHATSOEVER.
SOMEONE JUST PROPS OPEN THE DOOR.
I BELIEVE THAT'S A WATER BOTTLE THAT WOULD STEP IN THERE, ALLOWING ACCESS TO THE WHOEVER WANTS TO COME INTO THE HOTEL.
UH, WHILE CONDUCTING SURVEILLANCE OF THE PROPERTY, I OBSERVED THIS GUY WALK OFF THROUGH THE OPEN PEDESTRIAN GATE ALONG THE SIDE OF THE MOTEL THERE.
THIS IS DEEPER TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE ACTUAL MOTEL WHERE, UH, HE WAS KNOCKING ON THAT DOOR AND THEN KNOCKING ON THE WINDOW JUST TO THE LEFT OF THE DOOR TO THE LEFT OF THAT HANDICAP SIGN WHERE SOMEONE MOVED THE CURTAINS TO INSIDE AND SHOOT HIM AWAY.
ALL MY TIME IN NARCOTICS, THIS IS CONSISTENT.
THE DRESS AND DEMEANOR IS CONSISTENT WITH HIM.
THE PEOPLE I KNOW, THIS IS A, A VIEW FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF THE COMPLEX LOOKING BACK TO THE EAST, AND ALL THAT BRUSH IS SO OVERGROWN AROUND THE PARKING LOT AND YOU CANNOT EVEN SEE THE FENCE LINE, THEREFORE, YOU CANNOT SEE THE FENCE IS STRUCTURALLY ATTACKED.
IF ANYBODY WANTS TO COME AND GO, THERE'LL BE NO WAY TO GO.
HERE'S JUST ANOTHER ANGLE SHOWING HOW THICK THE BRUSHES ALONG THAT CHAIN LINK FENCE.
HERE WAS A, UH, CRACK PIPE IN THE PARKING LOT.
THIS IS JUST A VIEW OF THE POOL THAT WOULD NOT BE INTENDED TO, GIVES A SAFETY RISK AND GIVE YOU A GENERAL IDEA OF THE OVERGROWN BRUSH ALONG THE FENCE LINE.
JUST ANOTHER DIFFERENT ANGLE SHOWING THE POOL THAT'S TEND TO,
[01:55:03]
ALRIGHT, THIS IS, UH, DURING ONE OF MY NIGHT CHECKS AT THE LOCATION WITH CONTRAST HERE I'M SHOWING IS THE, THE LIGHT ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING BE EMITTED FROM THE, THE PROPERTY NEAR THE FRONT WHERE THE, THE ACTUAL SALLY PORT, SALLY PORT DRIVE-THROUGH AREA IS.AND EVERYTHING TO THE RIGHT IS SHOWING HOW THERE'S NO LIGHTING WHATSOEVER AS WE MOVE FURTHER TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE COMPLEX.
ALSO, THERE WAS A BROKE DOWN, A BROKE DOWN TRUCK IN THE PARKING LOT.
THIS RIGHT HERE IS, IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN, THERE IS A, IS A DUMPSTER THAT WAS IN A PREVIOUS PHOTO.
THERE'S NO LIGHTING BACK THERE WHATSOEVER.
THE LIGHTING YOU'RE SEEING IS FROM THE HEADLIGHTS.
THIS IS TO SHOW YOU SOME OF THE AREAS ARE WELL LITT.
JUST ANOTHER ANGLE WITH THE HEADLIGHTS.
TRYING TO GET A REFERENCE POINT OF THAT DUMPSTER TO GIVE PERSPECTIVE ON HOW DARK IT IS BACK THERE AND MODERATELY LIT.
YOU COULD TELL THERE'S SOME AREAS THAT ARE DARK SPOTS, HOWEVER, LIGHTING ISN'T TERRIBLE ON THE FRONT.
THIS WAS DURING OUR INSPECTION ON THE INTERIOR OF THE, UH, THE MOTEL.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT'S THE APARTMENT MANAGER GIVING, GIVING THIS A FOUR.
HOWEVER, THIS DOOR HAD A PHONE NUMBER, DOLLAR SIGNS, AND AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, YOU CAN ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT.
SO THEY WERE OPEN FOR BUSINESS SELLING ITEMS, UH, FROM THAT ROOM.
BUT YEAH, THERE, THERE'S DIFFERENT DOLLAR AMOUNTS OVER THERE UNDERNEATH IT WITH PHONE NUMBER.
AND I DIDN'T CATCH IT INITIALLY, BUT IT SAID FLIP IT IN THE MIDDLE.
SO ASSUME THAT THE MENU ON THE BACKSIDE
AND SO PURSUANT TO THE HCP ORDINANCE, THERE WAS AN BOARD MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER THE 22ND OF 2025, CORRECT? YES MA'AM.
AND YOU WERE THERE AS WERE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY PROSECUTION TEAM? YES, MA'AM.
AND MEMBERS OF THE OWNER ENTITY AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT WERE THERE REPRESENTING PROPERTY OF INTEREST AS WELL? YES, MA'AM.
AND THEY DID TURN OVER SOME EVIDENCE OF CRIME PREVENTION MOTORS AT THE AFFORD MEETING? CORRECT.
UH, AND SOME ITEMS WERE, UH, SUBMITTED BY PERMISSION BY THE CITY'S PERMISSION VIA EMAIL THE FOLLOWING DAY.
AND IS THAT EVIDENCE SUMMARIZED HERE ON THE SLIDE? CORRECT.
AND, UH, HONORABLE BOARD, JUST TO, UM, JUST SO YOU KNOW, YOU'RE AT, YOU'RE AT THREE MINUTES.
UM, AND THAT INCLUDES CROSS-EXAMINATION TIME.
UM, SO, UH, JUST QUICKLY, UH, IF WE'LL TAKE EACH ONE OF THESE ITEMS AND EXPLAIN, YOU KNOW, WHY OR WHY NOT YOU'VE DONE IT SUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE HCV PRESUMPTION? VERY BRIEFLY.
REGISTRATION CARD WAS JUST A GENERIC REGISTRATION.
THERE WAS NO REAL HOUSE RULE THAT WERE SPECIFIC TO CRIME PREVENTATIVE MEASURES OTHER THAN HAVING A, A, UH, VALID DRIVER LICENSE.
MOVING ON TO THE CRIMINAL TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT, THAT'S HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
I'M GLAD THEY HAVE THAT IT'S CEASED FOR THE OFFICERS.
THE AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS WERE, THE AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS WERE JUST, THE VAST MAJORITY WERE JUST REPAIR ITEMS FOR MAINTAINING A MOTEL.
THE ONLY TWO THAT RECEIPTS IN THE STACK OF RECEIPTS THEY GAVE US THAT WERE RELATED TO CRIME, PREVENTIVE CRIME, PREVENTIVE MEASURES WERE PURCHASING LIGHTS AND SECURITY CAMERAS.
UH, THEY PROVIDED A SECURITY CONTRACT THAT WAS INCOMPLETE AND WAS VERY GENERIC, WAS MORE OF A PROPOSAL OF WHAT THE SECURITY HAD TO OFFER THAT WAS NOT COMPLETELY FILLED OUT BY MANAGEMENT WITH SPECIFIC DATES THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE WORKING.
THEY DID PROVIDE SECURITY LOGS ONLY FOR TWO DAYS, AND THEY WERE DETAILED SECURITY LOGS WITH PHOTOGRAPHS.
HOWEVER, ALL THEY COULD PROVIDE WAS TWO DATES OF SECURITY COVERAGE.
UH, AND THEY PROVIDED A TOCH TOW TRUCK CONTRACT FORM, WHICH WE HIGHLY RECOMMEND, HOWEVER BE 2022.
[02:00:01]
AND DETECTIVE, WHAT IN YOUR OPINION, UH, IS THE MOST, WOULD'VE BEEN THE MOST IMPORTANT CRIME THAT YOU MEASURED TO BE ON SITE GIVEN THE PARTICULAR TYPE OF PROPERTY AND THE PARTICULAR ISSUE TO THE PROPERTY? THERE IS NO ONSITE SECURITY WHATSOEVER.AND MANY OF THE OFFENSE THAT OCCURRED ON PROPERTY WERE MINOR DISTURBANCES THAT ESCALATED INTO EITHER GUN VIOLENCE OR PEOPLE, OR EVEN USING KNIFE TO STAB SOMEBODY IN THE NECK WITH THE PRESENCE OF ON ONSITE SECURITY.
AT THE VERY LEAST, THE DETERRENCE LEVEL OF SOMEONE BEING THERE WOULD GREATLY REDUCE THAT HAPPENING.
ALONG WITH THAT IS THERE'S NO CONTROL TO THE ACCESSING THAT PROPERTY WHATSOEVER.
ANYBODY COULD COME AND GO FREELY ON THAT PROPERTY AND NOBODY MONITORS THE GATE.
AND JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR, WITH RESPECT TO ONSITE SECURITY, DID YOU INSPECT THE PROPERTY ON A NUMBER OF TIMES, OBSERVING NO SECURITY, THE CONSTRUCTION? YES MA'AM.
AND, UH, WAS THAT EVIDENCE TAKEN TOGETHER OR EVEN SINGULARLY? WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE ACCORD MEETING OR IN THE EMAIL FOLLOWING THE ACCORD MEETING THAT, UH, LEADS YOU TO BELIEVE PROPERTY OWNER HASTED THE HCP PRESUMPTION DEPOSITION? NO, MA'AM.
UM, CROSS-EXAMINATION, MR. BAHA.
DETECTIVE MICHAELS, HOW ARE YOU? GOOD, SIR.
I JUST WANNA CLARIFY A COUPLE THINGS.
UH, ONE, YOU HAVE A LIST OF ITEMS ON THAT LAST SLIDE WE SAW OF ATTEMPTS THAT MY CLIENT HAS MADE TO, UH, DISCOURAGE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE CRIMINAL TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT, RIGHT? YES.
SO YOU DON'T DISPUTE THAT THEY'VE TRIED TO DO SOME THINGS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR COMPLAINT IS THAT THEY HAVEN'T DONE EVERYTHING YOU'VE ASKED.
FOR EXAMPLE, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE'S NO VEHICLE ACCESS GATE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU BELIEVE WOULD BE HELPFUL, RIGHT? YES.
UH, I THINK YOU SAID THERE WERE 15 DEBATABLE CRIMINAL OFFENSES IN THAT ONE YEAR PERIOD.
AND OVER THAT THREE YEAR PERIOD, THERE WERE ADDITIONAL THREE MORE, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
UM, OKAY, MEMBERS, WE'VE GOT A THREE MINUTE AND A TWO MINUTE.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS? MR. SACKER? WHO ELSE? OKAY.
WELL, MR. SAXON, YOU'RE DISTRICT ONE, YOU GO CLOSE.
DETECTIVE MICHAELS, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
UM, DO YOU FEEL LIKE THE APPELLANT TOOK REASONABLE STEPS TO ABATE THIS CRIME? NO, SIR.
THAT IS MY ONLY QUESTION FOR NOW.
UM, MS. AYALA, IS THAT YOU? UH, NO QUESTIONS.
I'M OPERATING WITHOUT GLASSES HERE.
I ASSUME MS. TORRES, UH, OKAY.
UM, SENIOR CORPORAL MARK MICHAELS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
NOW, YOU MENTIONED THERE WAS, UM, OVER 300, UM, CALLS FOR SERVICE AND 364 BREAKOUTS AT THE PROPERTY, WHICH MEANS THAT THE RESOURCES ARE BEING DRAINED, ET CETERA.
BUT CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THOSE PHONE CALLS AND THEN, FOR EXAMPLE, ONLY 15 CRIMES BEING CHARGED? UH, YES MA'AM.
I, WHEN PEOPLE CALL 9 1 1, NO MATTER WHAT IT'S FOR, WHETHER IT BE A NINE ONE ONE CALL OR A MINOR DISTURBANCE OR SOMETHING THAT WHEN THE OFFICERS ARRIVE ON LOCATION, THE ELEMENTS OF AN OFFENSE ARE NOT MET.
AND IT, AND IT IS NOT ONE OF THE DEBATABLE OFFICER THAT WE COUNT, IF IT'S LIKE BURGLARY OF A MOTOR VEHICLE OR CRIMINAL MISCHIEF, LESS THAN A CERTAIN DOLLAR AMOUNT, THOSE OFFENSES, ALONG WITH A BUNCH OF OTHER OFFICES, WILL NOT BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE AVAILABLES.
UM, NOW YOU ALSO MENTIONED THERE WAS A, A POINT WHERE YOU SHOWED SOMEONE, UM, THAT BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE YOU THOUGHT MAYBE WAS THERE TO PURCHASE DRUGS, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
[02:05:01]
THERE OTHER THINGS THAT LEAD YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THIS MOTEL MAY BE BEING USED FOR THAT PURPOSE THERE? THE CRACK PIPE IN THE PARKING LOT, POSSIBLY THE, THE CRACK PIPE AND THE S THAT THERE, THE POSSESSION PATROL SUBSTANCE ON PROPERTY THERE.AND JUST ON MY EXPERIENCE, A LOT OF DISTURBANCES THAT HAPPEN ON PROPERTY, THE ROOT OF THE DISTURBANCE IS USUALLY OVER SOME TYPE OF DRUG DEAL.
HOWEVER, SOMEONE CALLS NINE ONE, THEY SAY THAT WE WERE IN ARGUMENT AND THEN I COULD SAY WHY THEY WERE IN ARGUMENT.
BUT THERE NOT BEING AN EXPERIENCE, A LOT OF THAT IS GENERATED FROM SOME TYPE OF NARCOTIC INVOLVEMENT.
AND THEN, UM, THE APPELLANT DID PROVIDE HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF SECURITY LOGS, UM, BUT YOU ARE, IN YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU, YOU MENTIONED THAT CONFIRMED THAT THIS IS ONLY OVER A DAYS.
UM, SO THERE IS NO SECURITY ON SITE.
WHAT ARE THESE LOGS FROM? SINCE THE, OR? NO, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GONNA GET TO ABLE ASK THE APPELLANT THAT, BUT LIKE WHERE IS THESE? YEAH, WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM? UH, YES MA'AM.
THE EVIDENCE I REVIEWED UNDER TAB NINE, THERE ARE ONLY PUR LOGS FROM DECEMBER 21ST.
MS UH, DECEMBER 22ND, MS. TORRES'S TIME IS UP.
SHE, UH, CAN CONTINUE THIS, UH, NEXT ROUND IF SHE WANTS.
WELL GO, GO AHEAD AND FINISH YOUR SENTENCE.
SO THE ONLY LOGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO US WERE THOSE TWO DATES AND JUST SEND THE 21ST AND DECEMBER 22ND, THERE WAS MULTIPLE PAGES THAT SHOWED SECURITY MAKING THE ROUND TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS, WHICH IS, WHICH IS GREAT.
I I TOTALLY BELIEVE THAT THAT'S WHAT SECURITY SOME OF THEIR JOB RESPONSIBILITY ENTAIL.
HOWEVER, WHEN I WAS OUT THERE INSPECTED, THERE WAS NO SECURITY PRESENT AND IF THEY HAD LEGITIMATE SECURITY, THEY WOULD BE PROVIDING THOSE LOGS FOR A GREATER WINDOW SHOWING THAT THEY WERE OUT THERE.
I SEE, UH, DR. JACKSON AND MR. CIA, DR. JACKSON.
I, UM, VICE CHAIR PROBABLY ASKED SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I WAS GONNA ASK ALSO, BUT JUST PIGGYBACK ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS.
I SAW THAT THERE WERE 356 CALLS IN THERE IN ADDITION THAT, UM, THERE WERE 18 OFFENSES AND THOSE 18 OFFENSES.
DID THE, UM, DID THE OWNER REACT TO ANY OF THOSE, UH, OFFENSES OR HOW MANY OTHER KINDA, UM, UM, SAY SO, OR DID YOU HAVE TO IMPLEMENT ANYTHING BACK TO THE, THE OWNER REGARD TO KNOW THESE OFFENSES THAT WE RESEARCHED BROUGHT US TO THE DECISION TO ACTUALLY INVESTIGATE THE PROPERTY.
SO THERE WAS NO ACTUAL COMMUNICATION WITH ME WITH, WITH THE, IF I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY, IF I'M WITH THE, THE MANAGEMENT DURING THESE OFFENSES, THIS IS ME LOOKING BACK AT THE WINDOW IN THE HISTORY.
AND AS FAR AS THE MANAGEMENT INVOLVED, THERE'S ONE OFFENSE ON HERE THAT THE ACTUAL MANAGEMENT WAS INVOLVED IN A PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION IN THE PARKING LOT.
UM, ARE, WERE AT THAT LOCATION, ARE THOSE RESIDENTS OR ARE THEY JUST, UH, SPEAKING OF DAILY RENT? NO, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A NORMAL MOTEL.
SIX DAY, MULTI-DAY IS NOT ADVERTISED AS A EXTENDED STATE.
AND ONE, ONE LAST QUESTION TO ASK, UM, WAS, UM, THE OWNER TOLD, SORRY, WELL THE ONLY TOLD YOU TO, UH, PUT UP A FENCE AROUND THAT PROPERTY.
THAT WAS ONE OF MY RECOMMENDATIONS, MA'AM.
DR. JACKSON, IS THAT, IS THAT THE EXTENT FINISHED CUTTING OUT? YES, I FINISHED, YES.
UM, MR. CILLA PEREZ'S, ATTORNEY AND PEREN FOR THE VIDEO, THANK YOU FOR READING THE ENTIRE TOTAL, UH, TOTALITY.
[02:10:01]
THANKS FOR BEING HERE.DID YOU EVER SEE ANY OF THE CAMERAS ON SITE THAT WERE ALLEGEDLY PURCHASED? AS I READ THROUGH, UM, APPELLANT'S, UM, SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF THE 500 PLUS PAGES JANUARY 24TH, 2025, LOOKS LIKE JANUARY 23RD, 2025, IT APPEARS PAGE 27 AND 28 THAT THEY PURCHASED SOME CAMERAS.
DID YOU EVER SEE ANY CAMERAS OUTSIDE OR INSIDE? YES, SIR.
I, I DID NOT NOTE THE DEFICIENCY IN THEIR CAMERA SYSTEM.
UH, I, I, MY, I LOOKED AT THEIR CAMERAS THAT WERE IN THE LOBBY AND I LOOKED AT THE CAMERAS THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY AND THEY, I DID NOT.
THEY WERE, THEY SEEMED TO BE, UH, FUNCTIONING AS THEY, AS THEY SHOULD WITH MULTIPLE ANGLES COVERING THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY.
AND I, I GAVE 'EM CREDIT FOR THAT.
DO YOU KNOW IF THEY SAVED TAPE OR HAD ANYBODY MONITOR THEM ON A 24 7 OR ANY KIND OF TIME PERIOD DURING THE DAY? NO, NO SIR.
THEY, THEY'RE, THEY DO HAVE A, A RECORDING SYSTEM.
I RECOMMENDED THAT THEY STORE THEIR CAMERA, THEIR RECORDING FOR, I BELIEVE IT WAS AT LEAST 30 DAYS, IF NOT LONGER.
BUT I COULD LOOK BACK TO THE DETAIL, BUT WHAT I RECOMMENDED, BUT THEY DID HAVE A HARD DRIVE IN WHICH THEY WERE STORING, BUT AS FAR AS BEING MONITORED, IT WAS WHOMEVER WAS IN THAT FRONT OFFICE AREA AND THAT THEY JUST HAPPENED TO BE LOOKING AT THE LARGE MONITOR.
SO IN REGARD TO THAT, AND WE TYPICALLY HAVE HEARD IN OTHER HEARINGS, IS THERE ANY TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP THAT YOU KNOW OF THAT WAS MENTIONED TO YOU OR INFORMED ABOUT TO YOU OR YOU WERE INFORMED OF, RELATED TO THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT? YOU KNOW, NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH, BUT SOME KIND OF RELATIONSHIP THAT THE HOTEL SOMEONE THERE SHARED WITH DPD IN REGARD TO ANY KIND OF THE, UH, OF THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY THAT WAS REPORTED, WHETHER IT WAS ONE OF THESE 18 OR NOT, OR THEY WERE PART OF THE 9 1 1, DO YOU KNOW IF THEY WORKED IN CONJUNCTION WITH DPD ON HELPING THEM OUT IN THOSE TYPES OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY? NO, SIR, I DO NOT.
DID YOU ATTEND THE COURT MEETING IN DECEMBER 15TH, 2025? YES, SIR.
AND DID THEY MENTION ANYTHING BUT THE CRIMINAL TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT? MEANING SPECIFICALLY, DID THEY MENTION THE TOW TRUCK OPERATION ACTUALLY WAS STILL THERE? 'CAUSE YOU TOOK A PICTURE OF A, OF A TRUCK THAT WAS, SEEMED TO BE INOPERABLE.
UM, THAT SEEMS ODD IF YOU HAVE A TOW TRUCK AGREEMENT.
AND SO DID YOU GET ANY INFORMATION AT THE ACCORD MEETING THAT THAT TOW TRUCK AGREEMENT ACTUALLY WAS OPERABLE AND ACTUALLY, UM, WAS, UM, CURRENT OR CONTEMPORARY BEING USED? YOUR, YOUR TIME IS UP.
SO GO, GO AHEAD AND ANSWER BRIEFLY IF YOU CAN.
I AM NOT 100% SURE IF THE TOW TRUCK AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT CAME UP IN CONVERSATION DURING THE COURT MEETING IT.
THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE, THE ITEMS THAT WAS RECEIVED AFTER THE COURT MEETING.
ME, UM, SHOW ME, WALK ME THROUGH ON, ON YOUR, UM, UH, YOUR EXHIBIT, WHICH FIVE AAT EVENTS YOU ARE USING TO YES, SIR.
I MEAN, FIVE IS, FIVE IS JUST THE MINIMUM I UNDERSTAND.
I JUST WANNA KNOW WHICH FIVE YOU'RE USING.
OH, I'M, I'M USING ALL 18, SIR.
WELL, THEY'VE GOTTA BE WITHIN 365 DAYS.
WELL, UM, PICK YOUR BEST FIVE.
OH, I, I, I, I WANT, I WANNA, I WANT YOU WALK ME THROUGH IT.
YEAH, I, I, WELL, WHAT I REALLY WANNA MAKE SURE I'M SEEING IS, UM, IS, IS, UM, THAT THERE WAS, UH, AN INVESTIGATION, UM, AND A FOLLOW UP? YES, SIR.
SO THE MOST SERIOUS ONES, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WERE THE AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILD.
I REVIEWED THAT IT OCCURRED AT THE PROPERTY, BUT WE ARE NOT INVOLVED INTO DETAILS OF THAT SITUATION.
THE INDECENT EXPOSURE ALSO OCCURRED AT THE PROPERTY, BUT MOVING ON, SO I CAN GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT IT.
I, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO, HOW TO DEAL WITH, WE'RE NOT, OBVIOUSLY DON'T NEED MILLIONS.
UM, SO LOOKING AT THE AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, THERE WERE
[02:15:01]
FOUR AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS.THERE WERE FOUR AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS ON THE PROPERTY.
WHAT PAGE ARE YOU GOING? WE'RE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE, UH, UH, TAB FIVE, WHICH IS GONNA BE
SO ON DECEMBER 9TH, THE AGGRAVATED ASSAULT WAS THE LIEUTENANT AND A, UH, A PERSON WERE BASICALLY IN AN ARGUMENT IN WHICH THE SUSPECT PULLED OUT A GUN, THREATENED INDIVIDUALS WITH THE ACTUAL, THE WEAPON BEFORE LEAVING THE PROPERTY OFFICER OFFICER.
I'M, I'M, I'M JUST LOOKING FOR A, UH, A, A REPORT AND OR INVESTIGATION.
NOT, NOT JUST A CALL, RIGHT? NO, NO, THESE ARE ALL, THESE ARE ALL, SO, SO HERE WE GO.
IT'S AGGRAVATED ASSAULT ON DECEMBER 9TH, 2024.
CASE NUMBER 1 8 4 1 6 7 2 2 4.
THERE'S ANOTHER AGGRAVATED ASSAULT ON JANUARY 31ST, 2025 AGGRAVATED ROB.
AND THAT'S A AGGRAVATED ROBBERY OF AN INDIVIDUAL.
UM, SO WE NOW GO TO ROUND TWO, TWO MINUTES.
UH, MR. S OKAY, MR. SAX, YOU REMEMBER THAT? THANK YOU AGAIN.
JUST ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION FROM MY ONE PREVIOUS ABOUT, UM, DO YOU FEEL LIKE THEY TOOK REASONABLE STEPS TO, UM, REDUCE THE AVAILABLE CRIMES? UM, WHAT WOULD'VE CONSTITUTED REASONABLE STEPS, IN YOUR OPINION, FOR THIS PROPERTY, UM, TO HAVE QUALIFIED FOR THAT THIRD POINT THAT, OR KIND OF LOOKING FOR WHAT, WHAT ELSE WOULD THEY HAVE NEEDED TO HAVE DONE? SHOW ME THAT THEY HAD SECURITY ON SITE.
THAT, UH, THE PROPERTY WAS WELL LIT IN ALL AREAS THAT THE FENCE LINE WAS SECURE, VISIBLE AND GATE THE FUNCTIONING.
THERE'S NO HOLES IN THE EFFECT THAT WOULD BE
UM, SO I KNOW I ONLY HAVE TWO MINUTES.
UM, SENIOR CORPORAL, UH, MARK MICHAELS, IT IS YOUR, SO DO YOU THINK THAT THE OWNER TOLERATED CERTAIN BEHAVIORS BASED ON THEIR LACK OF, UH, CERTAIN ITEMS LIKE NO SECURITY, NOTHING IS VALID.
UM, DO YOU THINK AS A RESULT OF THAT WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THE OWNER IS TOLERATING SOME OF THESE BEHAVIORS? YES, MA'AM.
AND, UM, I ALSO WANNA CONFIRM THOSE, THERE WERE 15 AVAILABLE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE YEAR, UM, SO WAY MORE THAN THE MINIMUM, WHICH IS FIVE, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
AND THEN, UM, IN REGARDS, I'M TRYING TO PULL UP THE EVIDENCE.
I'M LOOKING FOR KNOW, THIS IS EATING INTO MY TIME.
UM, DO YOU THINK PEOPLE FEEL SAFE AT THIS PROPERTY AT THIS MOTEL? NO, MA'AM.
UM, THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WERE TOLD TO THE PROPERTY THAT WE HAD TO DO.
THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M GETTING AT.
THE, THE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE POOL, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I REMEMBER HAD TO BE, BE FIXED.
IT'S NOT BEEN FIXED YET, CORRECT? UH, NO MA'AM.
UM, AIR CONDITIONING, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL THINGS, ALL OF THESE WERE CODE VIOLATIONS.
AND TO DATE, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY PROVIDED YOU, YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE SOME OF THESE HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF? UH, I HAND, I HANDLE THE CRIME SIDE IN THERE.
OUR CODE INSPECTORS STAY UP TO DATE ON ANY KIND OF UPDATES THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF FIXING.
SO I, I NOT SPEAK TO THEM, MAAM.
[02:20:01]
OKAY.BUT AS FAR AS THE SECURITY DEVICES ARE, UH, NOT ADEQUATE, TORRES, UH, GO AHEAD AND, UH, FINISH UP IF YOU CAN BECAUSE IT'S QUICK TIMES.
I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM, AND THIS COULD BE A YES OR NO ANSWER, THAT, UH, THE SECURITY, UM, PROCEDURES, PROTOCOLS TAKEN ON BY THIS, UM, PROPERTY OWNER IS JUST NOT ENOUGH, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UM, DO YOU KNOW IF ANY OWNERS LIVE OR ANY EMPLOYEES LIVE ON THE HOTEL PREMISES DURING AN INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY, OR THERE WAS A LARGE ROOM ATTACHED TO THE MANAGEMENT'S OFFICE THAT LOOKED LIKE SOMEONE COULD BE LIVING THERE, BUT NOBODY STATED THEY ACTUALLY LIVED ON PROPERTY THAT YOU, THAT YOU KNEW OF, YOU SAID? CORRECT.
IN REGARD, HAD YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE PHOTOS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS, UH, PRODUCED IN THEIR 500 PLUS PAGES? THE ONLY, THE ONLY EVIDENCE I WAS ABLE TO REVIEW WAS BOTH PROVIDED AT THE BOARD MEETING SHORTLY THEREAFTER.
SO I'LL REPRESENT TO YOU THAT AT LEAST IN SOME OF THE FEW OF THE PHOTOS OR ONE OF THE PHOTOS, APPELLANT SEEMS TO REPRESENT THAT THERE'S A CLIFF ON ONE SIDE.
WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT IS, IN REGARD TO THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY, WOULD YOU SAY THAT IT'S THAT WAY? LIKE IS IT SIT ALMOST LIKE IN AN ISLAND OF A CLIFF OR IS IT JUST MAYBE ONE SIDE THAT HAS A PRETTY, UH, DISTINCT ELEVATION? UM, WHERE IT KIND OF GOES INTO A RAVINE? IT, IT'S PRETTY DISTINCT.
WHILE I WAS OUT THERE NUMEROUS TIMES, THEY HAD HEAVY EQUIPMENT OUT THERE CONDUCTING MAJOR CONSTRUCTION BACK THERE.
AND IT, IT'S, IT'S A MAJOR ONE GOING ON BACK THERE.
IT'S QUITE A SIGNIFICANT DROP OFF.
AND IS THAT AROUND THE ENTIRE PROPERTY OR JUST ONE SIDE? JUST ONE SECTION, SIR.
SO THE OTHER SECTIONS THAT WERE OVERGROWN WITH BRUSH, LET'S TAKE FOR INSTANCE, UH, THOSE WERE PRETTY LEVEL LAND.
PEOPLE COULD WALK UP WITHOUT A PROBLEM FROM OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY.
THE, THE BRUSH WAS SO THICK THAT YOU COULDN'T DETECT.
YOU COULD NOT DETERMINE WHATSOEVER IF THE FENCE WAS INTACT OR NOT.
SO IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO JUST PULL THE FENCE UP FROM THE BOTTOM, CRAWL UNDERNEATH IT, OR ACTUALLY CUT A HOLE, UNLESS YOU WERE GOING STEP BY STEP, PUSHING AWAY THE BRUSH AND LOOKING AT THE FENCE, YOU COULD NOT DETERMINE IF IT WAS SAFE AND SECURE.
AND IN YOUR OPINION, WE'VE HAD THIS QUESTION BEFORE.
IS CHAINLINK FENCE THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF SECURITY OR IS IT THE LOWEST LEVEL OF SECURITY? YEAH, IT WOULD BE ON THE SIDE OF SECURITY OR, OKAY.
UH, ANYBODY? 10, 11, MR. QUINT, ARE YOU THERE? OKAY.
UM, WHAT IS AN INCIDENT REPORT? AN INCIDENT OR OFFENSE REPORT, SIR? UH, WELL, I SEE INCIDENT REPORTS, UH, IN THE YES, THE, THAT'S WHAT PAGE ARE YOU ON? UH, UP AND DOWN START AT PAGE 65.
BUT, BUT, UH, THERE'S A, A
ALL THESE INCIDENT, THESE ARE THE OFFENSE REPORTS, SIR? YES, SIR.
THEY'RE LABELED INTO I, SO WHAT ARE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN THAT, I MEAN, SOMEBODY CALLED, SOMEBODY WENT? NO, THIS IS THE ACTUAL, LIKE, WE'LL START ON TAB SIX ON THE VERY FIRST PAGE.
BEYOND THAT, LOOKING AT THIS, THIS IS WHAT THE POLICE OFFICERS DO ON LOCATION WHEN THEY FIND AN ACTUAL OFFENSE HAS OCCURRED.
THE VERY FIRST ONE WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE FROM JANUARY 20TH, YOU CAN SEE UP HERE IT BASICALLY SAYS DEADLY CONDUCT UNDER THE OFFENSE.
AND THEN THERE'S A VERY BRIEF, UH, COMMENT OVER HERE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE ACTUAL NARRATIVE, WHICH IS QUITE A FEW PAGES BACK.
YEAH, NO, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ACTUALLY IT, I, IS IT A CALL OR IS IT A RESPONSE? IT'S SOMETHING AN OFFICER WITNESS.
ONCE, IT'S NOT WITNESS ONCE IT, IT CAN BE WHAT AN OFFICER WITNESS, BUT MORE, THIS IS AN OFFENSE.
THIS IS AN ACTUAL CRIME HAS OCCURRED.
SO WHERE IT IS DOCUMENTED THAT AN OFFENSE HAD OCCURRED, A LOT OF THE CALLS THAT THAT GENERATE AT A PROPERTY MIGHT NOT BE RELATED TO AN OFFENSE WHATSOEVER.
SO THIS IS THE DE EVERY AVAILABLE OFFENSE IS ATTACHED TO AN INCIDENT.
SO IF THERE'S AN AVAILABLE OFFENSE, YOU CAN LOOK UP THE INCIDENT REPORT AND FIND ALL OF THE DETAILS THAT OCCURRED WITHIN THAT, THAT OFFENSE.
[02:25:01]
SO I HAVE TO FIND, UH, BEYOND MORE THAN JUST A, A CALL FOR SERVICE OR LOG ENTRY.I, I HAVE TO FIND, LEMME GET THE, UM, YEAH, TAB FIVE AND TAB SIX WILL HAVE ALL OF THAT REPORT DOCUMENTING AND INVESTIGATION ON ENFORCEMENT ACTION, WHICH WOULD BEEN ARREST.
I SO NOT JU NOT JUST A, A CALL, BUT, BUT SOME, SOME SMIDGE OF, OF AN ATTEMPT AT, AT INVESTIGATING THE OFFICER DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AN ARREST.
NO, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE AN ARREST.
HOWEVER, THE OFFICERS HAVE TO FIND THAT THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE WERE MET AND THE THE INDIVIDUALS OUT THERE WERE CREDIBLE.
AND LIKE I, I NEED, UH, SOMETHING THAT IS, UH, THAT IS A, AN INVESTIGATION.
THIS IS THE REPORT OF THE RIGHT INVESTIGATION.
UM, ARE THERE FURTHER? UH, WELL, YOUR TIME IS UP.
UH, MR. BASHAR, YOU ARE, YOU ARE UP.
SO MAKE SURE YOU TURN ON YOUR CAMERA, PLEASE.
UH, I HAVE AN 11 O'CLOCK HEARING AS WELL THAT I'M ON THE PHONE.
UH, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO TAKE, UH, 10 MINUTE BREAK SO I CAN ATTEND TO THIS? UM, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE HERE WHO HAVE THINGS TO, UH, TO ATTEND TO AS WELL.
UM, I, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T, I DON'T SET THIS, THIS IS NOT MY HEARING, BUT I HAVE A JUDGE THAT'S WAITING ON ME.
I SAID I HAVE A JUDGE THAT IS WAITING ON ME.
I DID NOT SCHEDULE THIS HEARING.
I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA LOSE ONE OF OUR MEMBERS.
UM, CAN YOU, I MEAN, A REAL 10 BECAUSE YES, YES.
THE JUDGE CAN HEAR YOU RIGHT NOW, AND THE JUDGE SAYS HE WILL HAVE ME OUT IN 10 MINUTES.
UH, WE'RE IN RECESS TILL 1112.
IT IS, UH, 11:13 AM WE ARE BACK IN SESSION.
I WAS DISTRACTED WHENEVER YOU WERE SPEAKING TO ME, SO I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND.
I I DID NOT CATCH WHAT YOU WERE SAYING TO ME BEFORE THAT.
UH, I THINK I SAID IT IS YOUR TURN.
UM, I HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO PRESENT OTHER THAN WHAT WE'VE SUBMITTED IN THE, IN THE RECORDS.
DON'T JUST SUBMIT IT AND WAIVE TO IT THAT I'M SORRY, WHAT'S THAT? I MEAN, THE, THE, THE, WE, WE HAVE NOT FORMAL RULES OF PROCEDURE, BUT, UM, UM, BUT WE HAVE TO WEIGH THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
SO DON'T, DON'T, IF IT'S IMPORTANT TO YOU, WALK US THROUGH IT, IS WHAT, WHAT I'M SAYING.
UM, WELL, YEAH, YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT.
I'M JUST, YEAH, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT.
UH, SO THE EVIDENCE THAT WE PRESENTED SHOWS A LOT OF THINGS, BUT ONE, YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS ABOUT.
UH, HAS MY CLIENT UNDERTAKEN EFFORTS TO ABATE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
ABATE IS A VERY SPECIFIC TERM.
THIS ORDINANCE IS MODELED AFTER CHAPTER 1 25 OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE IN REMEDIES.
CODE ABATE DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO COMPLETELY ELIMINATE, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
YOU JUST HAVE TO MAKE REASONABLE ATTEMPTS TO ABATE.
AND EVEN DETECTIVE MICHAELS HAS STATED THAT, AND THE EVIDENCE THAT WE'VE PRESENTED SHOWS THAT WE'VE SPENT LOTS OF MONEY TRYING TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY, TRYING TO
[02:30:01]
DISCOURAGE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.NO ONE CAN GUARANTEE THAT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WILL NOT HAPPEN ON A PROPERTY.
BUT MY CLIENT HAS SECURITY OFFICERS, SECURITY CAMERAS, CRIMINAL TRESPASS WARRANT, UH, LIGHTING, FENCING.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE DEMONSTRATED IN OUR EVIDENCE.
THE EFFORTS THAT MY CLIENT HAVE UNDERTAKEN HAVE RESULTED IN EFFORTS.
AND, AND IT'S HARD TO SAY, RIGHT? HOW DO YOU PREDICT, HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT CRIME WAS ABATED? BECAUSE IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, YOU NEVER SEE IT.
BUT THE EFFORTS MY CLIENTS HAS UNDERTAKEN HAS BEEN REASONABLE AND IN AN ATTEMPT TO ABATE THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
SO I WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTS AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT'S GOING ON.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S REFERENCES TO THE 9 1 1 CALLS.
WELL, MY CLIENT CALLS 9 1 1 WHEN THERE'S A PROBLEM.
MY CLIENT IS MY CLIENT REPRESENTATIVES AND EMPLOYEES.
THEY'RE NOT DEPUTIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ANY MORE THAN, I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU ARE BESIDES, UH, DETECTIVE MICHAELS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO ARREST PEOPLE.
WHAT WE DO IS WE CALL THE POLICE.
AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE.
UM, SO E EVEN MR. MICHAELS STATED THAT HE WASN'T HOLDING THAT AGAINST US, NOR COULD HE, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT EVEN AN ELEMENT OF WHAT THIS PANEL IS SUPPOSED TO BE CONSIDERING.
AND FAR AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, FIVE DEBATABLE CRIMES, I DON'T KNOW, DEBATABLE IS NOT EVEN DEFINED.
HOW DO YOU PREVENT SOMETHING FROM HAPPENING? THE LARGEST, THE GREATEST ONE, WAS AN ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A CHILD.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE ALLEGATION'S TRUE.
AND YEAH, IT MAKES MY STOMACH TURN TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
NOBODY LIKES TO HEAR THOSE THINGS, BUT IT'S A, AT THIS POINT, IT'S AN ALLEGATION.
AND TWO, IF IT HAPPENS INSIDE OF A MOTEL ROOM, HOW IS MY CLIENT SUPPOSED TO ABATE THAT? WE CAN'T PUT CAMERAS IN THERE.
WE DON'T HAVE, WE DON'T SEND IN MONITORS WHILE PEOPLE ARE IN ROOMS. THAT'S COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE.
SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT MY CLIENT COULD HAVE DONE TO PREVENT THAT, REGRETTABLY.
SO THE EVIDENCE THAT WE PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIAL AND IT SHOWS SUBSTANTIAL EFFORTS BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE INITIAL NOTIFICATION AND STILL CONTINUING TODAY.
SO I, I WOULD, UH, SUGGEST THAT THE, THE BOARD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THAT.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE PART THAT NECESSITATED OUR DISCUSSION OF A CONTINUANCE, REMEMBER THERE ARE TWO ELEMENTS.
ONE IS THAT YOU'VE GOT THESE DEBATABLE OFFENSES THAT MY CLIENT DIDN'T ATTEMPT TO ABATE, WHICH THE EVIDENCE CONTRADICTS THAT.
BUT THE SECOND PART IS AT WHICH PERSONS HAVE HISTORICALLY COMMITTED ABATE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES ACCORDING TO RECENT CRIME.
EVEN DI DETECTIVE MICHAELS STATED, THERE'S 18 OFFENSES IN THREE YEARS, AND 15 OF 'EM WERE RECENT.
SO THERE'S ONLY THREE OFFENSES IN THE PRIOR TWO YEARS THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE, UH, THAT DOES NOT MAKE MY CLIENT'S PROPER SITE, WHERE PERSONS HISTORICALLY COMMIT DEBATABLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES ASSUMING THEY WERE EVEN AAT.
SO THE RELIEF BEING REQUESTED BY THE CITY IS SUBSTANTIAL.
UH, IT IS, IT IMPOSES A VERY LARGE BURDEN ON MY CLIENT, ON THE, AND I THINK THE BOARD NEEDS TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT AS YOU EVALUATE EXACTLY WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS AND WHAT IT ISN'T.
THE BURDEN IS UPON THE CITY, AND THE CITY HAS NOT MET THAT BURDEN.
AND EVEN IF IT HAD, MY CLIENT HAS DEMONSTRATED THROUGH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, WHICH IS THE MOST SUBSTANTIAL FORM OF EVIDENCE, ANYBODY CAN TESTIFY AS TO ANYTHING.
BUT YOU HAVE THE RECORDS THERE AND YOU CAN SEE THE EFFORTS THAT MY CLIENT'S MAKING.
NOW, IT HAS NOT BROUGHT CRIME DOWN TO ZERO, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IS REQUIRED OF MY CLIENT.
IF THAT WERE THE CASE, THEN WE'D BE SHUTTING DOWN, UH, THE AMERICAN AIRLINE CENTER BECAUSE
[02:35:02]
THEY'VE, THEY HAVE MORE THAN FIVE AVAILABLE OFFENSES THAT HAPPEN THERE.SO WE JUST REQUEST YOU TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT AS YOU REVIEW THAT EVIDENCE.
UM, MR. BAHAR IS NOT TESTIFYING.
SO THERE, UH, NO, UH, CROSS-EXAMINATION.
I, I ASSUME, WELL, LET ME JUST ASK YOU, DO YOU WANT TO CALL A WITNESS? NO, WE DO NOT DO.
AND THAT CASE, THE EVIDENTIARY PART OF THIS HEARING IS CLOSED AND WE MOVED TO LOING STATE CITY.
THANK YOU ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE CITY.
THANKS YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER TODAY.
I, UH, JUST BECAUSE HE DIDN'T TESTIFY, PROBABLY DOESN'T MEAN WE DON'T GET, UH, DON'T GET TO ASK QUESTIONS.
IF, IF ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS FOR MS. BAHAR, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
I SEE MR. CHAIR TORRES AS SIX.
YOU GOOD TO GO FIRST? AND I SEE MR. QUINT.
UH, MR. BURRA, UM, DO YOU THINK IT'S SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO BRING FORTH TWO TODAY'S WORTH OF SECURITY DETAILS? DO I THINK THAT'S SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE? TWO DAYS WORTH OF DETAILS FROM SOME SECURITY THAT HASN'T EVEN BEEN REALLY EXPLAINED TO US.
DO YOU THINK TWO DAYS WORTH SECURITY EVIDENCE? WELL, THERE IS, IS SUBSTANTIAL.
I THINK THAT TAKEN WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE, YES.
AND IT SHOWS THE EFFORTS THAT MY CLIENT MA HAS MADE AND CONTINUES TO MAKE.
WHENEVER WE TALK ABOUT THE STANDARD ORDERS TO CONSIDER, IT'S BEFORE YOU COME UP TO THE POINT OF THE FINAL DESIGNATION, BECAUSE IT'S A GIVE AND TAKE PROCESS, YOU MEET WITH THE CITY AND YOU VISIT WITH DETECTIVE MICHAEL.
SO DO YOU YES, I DO BELIEVE SO.
IS THERE, IS THERE OTHER EVIDENCE OUTSIDE OF TWO DAYS WORTH OF SECURITY DETAILS YOU JUST DIDN'T BRING FORTH TO THIS HEARING? WELL, I MEAN, THE CITY'S OWN EVIDENCE IT PRESENTED INCLUDED THE SECURITY CONTRACT.
YOU SAW THAT, YOU HEARD DETECTIVE MICHAELS TALK ABOUT IT.
THOSE ARE EXAMPLES OF THE SECURITY DETAIL.
I DO BELIEVE IF, IF YOU WANTED TO SEE, UH, A YEAR'S WORTH, I WOULD BE GIVING YOU 10,000 PAGES.
AND SO WHAT WE DO IS WE GIVE YOU EXAMPLES.
YOU USE STRONG LANGUAGE LIKE SUBSTANTIAL, SUBSTANTIAL, SUBSTANTIAL, IN MY OPINION, WHAT YOU GAVE US IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL.
DO YOU THINK, FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT RES RECEIPTS OF THINGS PURCHASED, BUT WITH NO REAL DESCRIPTION ASKING QUESTIONS, MR. I'M SORRY, QUESTIONS, NOT STATEMENTS.
WELL, I'M ASKING, UH, MR. BASHIR IF HE THINKS IT'S SUBSTANTIAL, THE RECEIPTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED FOR US TO MAKE A CONCLUSION THAT THINGS WERE FIXED ON PROPERTY BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
WELL, FIRST, THIS ISN'T A CO COMPLIANCE CASE.
THIS ISN'T A, A HISTORICAL, UH, OR HABITUAL NUISANCE PROPERTY.
SO PICTURES OF THE POOL BEING COVERED IN DECEMBER MAKES SENSE, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYWAY.
UM, SO REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENTS, NO, I DON'T THINK THAT'S EVEN AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT US PURCHASING SECURITY CAMERAS, WHICH DETECTIVE MICHAELS ADMITTED IN HIS TESTIMONY EXISTS, AND HE SAID HE DIDN'T FIND ANY DEFICIENCIES IN OUR SECURITY CAMERAS.
SO I DO BELIEVE THAT THOSE RECEIPTS ARE TO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS WELL.
AND THEY CORROBORATE NOT ONLY THE EVIDENCE OF THE CITY'S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, BUT ALSO THE TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE MICHAELS.
CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH YOUR SECURITY CONTRACT AND, UM, ADVISE ME ON HOW MANY SECURITIES YOU HAVE ON HAND ON A DAILY BASIS? NO, I'M NOT ABLE, I'M NOT ABLE TO DO THAT OR MYSELF.
UM, LET'S SEE, UH, DISTRICT WISE, MR. MR. CROW? YES.
UH, MR. BASHAR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
I WANT TO CLARIFY IN DETECTIVE MICHAEL'S, UH, TESTIMONY, HE MENTIONED SEVERAL ITEMS WHICH HE THOUGHT WOULD SATISFY A, UH, GOOD FAITH, UH, UH,
[02:40:01]
UH, PRESENCE OR GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO ABATE SOME OF THESE ISSUES.ONE WAS SECURITY ON SITE, HAVING A LIVE BODY ON SITE.
YOU SAID YOU HAVE A SECURITY OFFICER, SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
YOU CLAIM THERE'S A SECURITY OFFICER, BUT DETECTIVE MICHAEL SAID DISTINCTLY THAT THERE WAS NO V VISIBLE SECURITY PERSON ON SITE, WHICH IS IT? WELL, WE HAVE THE SECURITY CONTRACT, AND WE HAVE THE SECURITY LOG.
A A A CONTRACT HAS TO BE SIGNED RIGHT? TO BE VALID? NO, IT DOESN'T.
YOU CAN HAVE WHAT'S CALLED, YOU CAN HAVE AN ORAL CONTRACT AND EVEN WRITTEN CONTRACTS DON'T NEED TO BE SIGNED, SIR.
SO, NO, THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS NO, THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE SIGNED.
BUT YOU HAVE THE SECURITY LOGS.
WHY DETECTIVE MICHAELS DIDN'T HAPPEN TO SEE THE SECURITY OFFICER ON THE FEW INSTANCES THAT HE'S VISITED THE PROPERTY IS A QUESTION I'D HAVE TO ASK HIM.
BUT IF YOU HAVE A ROVING SECURITY OFFICER, IT MAKES SENSE.
IF DETECTIVE MICHAELS IS WALKING AROUND THE PROPERTY AND THE SECURITY OFFICER IS WALKING THROUGH THE PROPERTY, THEY MAY BE WALKING AROUND EACH OTHER.
UH, IN ADDITION, MAYBE THE SECURITY OFFICERS IN THE INTERIOR CORRIDORS.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE DETECTIVE MICHAELS WENT, SO I CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU.
BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS MY CLIENT DOES HAVE A SECURITY OFFICER THERE, AND WE PRESENTED YOU WITH EXAMPLES OF THE SECURITY LOGS.
AND ALSO LAST QUESTION, UM, UH, DETECTIVE MICHAELS ALSO SAID THAT THE LIGHTING, UH, WAS MISSING IN SEVERAL AREAS.
YOU CLAIM THAT, UH, LIGHTING IS, UH, UH, FULLY ABATED ALL.
THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH THAT? NO, I DIDN'T CLAIM IT WAS FULLY ABATED.
WHAT I SAID IS, MY CLIENT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE REASONABLE ATTEMPTS TO ABATE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
DETECTIVE MICHAELS IN ALL OF HIS CASES SAYS THAT A PROPERTY NEEDS A GATE, BETTER LIGHTING, AND THEN WE HAVE THE EXAMPLE WITH THE SHRUBBERY.
WELL, IF THE SHRUBBERY IS SO THICK THAT HE CAN'T GET THROUGH IT TO SEE IF THE FENCE IS INTACT AND TELL ME HOW ANY PERSON COULD BE WALKING THROUGH IT, IT IS A NATURAL BARRIER.
SO I DISAGREE WITH MUCH OF WHAT DETECTIVE MICHAEL SAYS, THE LIGHTING.
YOU SAW EXAMPLES WHERE HE SAID WE HAD GREAT LIGHTING.
I THINK I SAW ONE EXAMPLE WHERE HE SAID IT WAS BAD LIGHTING OVER IN A CORNER OF A PARKING LOT, AND THEN THEY HAD TWO OTHER PICTURES ILLUMINATING A DUMPSTER WITH SOME HEADLIGHTS.
COULD WE HAVE FOOTBALL STYLE STADIUM LIGHTING, PERHAPS, BUT WE'D HAVE TO GO GET THAT TO PASS THROUGH, UH, THE CITY'S ORDINANCES BECAUSE WE HAVE LIGHT POLLUTION ORDINANCES AS WELL.
WE'RE NOT ALLOWED JUST TO FLOOD AND ILLUMINATE HOWEVER WE WANT.
DETECTIVE MICHAELS HAS NOT TALKED ABOUT THAT, AND HE DIDN'T TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNTING, HIS TESTIMONY.
UH, AND MR. SATCHER, I'LL COME BACK TO YOU BY VIRTUE OF GROWING NUMBERS.
UM, MR. RA, UM, I, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
UM, WHEN YOU SAID THAT Y'ALL HAVE TAKEN REASONABLE STEPS TO ABATE WHEN YOU'VE GOT THREE TIMES THE MINIMAL AMOUNT OF, UH, ABATE CRIMES ON YOUR PROPERTY, WOULD YOU SAY THAT'S REASONABLE STEPS? WELL, UM, MR. QUINN, I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION FIRST, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR ADVOCACY.
UH, WHAT I'LL SAY IS THIS, AS I MENTIONED, THE STANDARD ISN'T, DOES NOT REQUIRE MY CLIENT TO CEASE ALL
MR. I I, MR I WANNA INTERRUPT YOU.
I, I JUST NEED YES OR NO 'CAUSE I ONLY HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME.
UM, SO THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT, THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD BY WHICH YOU JUDGE WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY.
SO I BELIEVE IT'S AN IRRELEVANT QUESTION.
UH, WELL, I I, I DON'T APPRECIATE NOT GETTING AN ANSWER, BUT I UNDERSTAND YOU MADE A STATEMENT THAT SAYS, IF YOU DON'T, IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, YOU DON'T SEE IT.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I'M NOT SURE.
YOU'D HAVE TO GIVE ME SOME CONTEXT.
IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, YOU DON'T SEE IT.
WELL, IF SOMETHING WERE NOT, THAT WAS YOUR EXACT, THAT WAS YOUR PHRASE.
WELL, I'M NOT SURE OF THE CONTEXT, BUT I'LL TELL YOU THIS.
IF SOMETHING NEVER HAPPENED, THEN OF COURSE ONE WOULD NEVER SEE IT HAPPENING BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.
WELL, THAT I, I, I UNDERSTAND, BUT THE RELEVANCE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THE CLIENT, YOU SAID YOUR CLIENT, YOU SAID YOUR CLIENT CALLS 9 1 1.
WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT THEY WERE CALLING, UH, CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF THESE 721 CALLS? WELL, YOU HAVE THE CALL LOGS.
YOU HAVE DETECTIVE MICHAELS, AND PRESUMABLY IF IT WEREN'T MY CLIENT CALLING, HE WOULD'VE TOLD YOU THAT.
BUT AGAIN, IT'S NOT MY CLIENT'S BURDEN OF PROOF ANYWAY ON THAT ISSUE.
SO, SO IT COULD HAVE BEEN SOMEONE ELSE MAKING THOSE CALLS.
[02:45:01]
ALL 721 CALLS, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE A LOT OF 'EM COULD BE BY SOMEONE ELSE, CORRECT? I I HAVE NO IDEA.I I HAVEN'T REVIEWED THE RECORDS.
I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THIS, THESE FILES.
YOU SAID THAT THE BRUSH IS A NATURAL BARRIER.
ISN'T IT POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE THEIR WAY THROUGH BRUSH? NOT AS, NOT AS DETECTIVE MICHAELS DESCRIBED IT, OR WHAT WAS DEPICTED IN THE PICTURES.
PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO BE TRAIPSING THROUGH IT UNLESS THEY HAVE A MACHETE LIKE THEY'RE CUTTING THROUGH THE BUSH.
WELL, I, I APPRECIATE IT, BUT THAT'S MORE CONJECTURE THAN FACT.
I'M, I'M SORRY, BECAUSE I I, UNLESS YOU WERE OUT THERE SEEING IT, I, I RESPECTFULLY, I I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION AND I'M, I, I'M GET CUT UP.
YOU STATED THERE WAS NO CONVICTION FOR THE SEXUAL ASSAULT.
DID YOU EVER CHECK TO SEE IF IT WAS ADJUDICATED? WELL, IT'S NOT MY BURDEN.
AND THERE SEXUAL ASSAULT WAS WITHIN A YEAR, AND SO IT'S UN HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
BUT IF IT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN ADJUDICATED AND THERE HAD BEEN A CONVICTION, PRESUMABLY DETECTIVE MICHAELS WOULD'VE TOLD US THAT.
UM, ONE QUESTION I HAVE TO START.
UM, YOU HAD BROUGHT UP THE MAIN ACTIONS TAKEN AND THE CONSIDERABLE COSTS, UM, THOSE ACTIONS, I LISTED FOUR, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THOSE WITH YOU.
UM, SECURITY OFFICER COM, UM, CAMERAS, FENCING, AND NO TRESPASS.
THOSE ARE BEFORE THAT YOU HAD BROUGHT UP AN ORDER.
UH, IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, I DIDN'T CATCH THE THIRD ONE, SIR.
I, I MENTIONED THOSE AS JUST EXAMPLES.
BUT THOSE WERE THE FOUR EXAMPLES YOU GAVE OF CONSIDERABLE COST TAKEN BY YOUR CLIENT TO, UH, AS MAIN ACTIONS TO ABATE CRIME.
WELL, I THINK I GAVE THOSE AS FOUR EXAMPLES, BUT NOT LOOK A CRIMINAL TRESPASS WARRANT AND THE COOPERATION WITH THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT ON THAT, THAT DOESN'T COST ANYTHING.
SO I, I, I MAY HAVE, WE MAY BE MIXING UP WHAT I'M SAYING.
MY CLIENT HAS EXPENDED SUBSTANTIAL SUMS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY ON THOSE FOUR ITEMS. CAN I FIND IN THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE SUBMITTED THE COST OF THE, UM, BURDEN YOUR CLIENT HAS PUT FORTH TO ABATE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, UH, YOU CAN, YOU CAN FIND, YOU CAN FIND SOME EVIDENCE OF IT.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE RECEIPTS THAT WERE MENTIONED, YOU CAN FIND IT IN THE SECURITY CONTRACT.
UH, ALSO AS A MATTER OF COMMON SENSE, UH, SECURITY GUARDS OBVIOUSLY ARE CHARGING MONEY.
AND WHEN YOU HAVE THEM ON SITE, UH, THAT'S GONNA COST MONEY ON A DAILY BASIS.
BASICALLY, WE'RE TAKING OVER THE, THE CITY OF DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT'S FUNCTION IN ORDER TO, UH, RELIEVE ANY PRESSURE ON THE CITY.
AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS DETECTIVE MICHAELS MENTIONED WAS THE DRAIN ON THE RESOURCES OF DALLAS PD.
AGAIN, THAT'S IRRELEVANT TO THE CONSIDERATION FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING, UH, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD, UH, SET FORTH BY THE ORDINANCE.
BUT MY CLIENT IS TRYING TO SHOULDER THAT AND LIGHTEN THE LOAD.
MY CLIENT IS DISCOURAGING AND TAKING ACTIONS AT ITS OWN EXPENSE IN ORDER TO PREVENT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY FROM OCCURRING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND REMEMBER, THIS PROPERTY, THAT LOCATION BEING RIGHT OFF 35, THERE'S CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ALL AROUND THAT PROPERTY.
MY CLIENT IS NOT SOME, UM, LONE ISLAND IN THAT AREA WHERE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY MAY HAPPEN.
MR. RICHARD, I, I HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT.
UM, FOR ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT THE CITY HAD BROUGHT UP AS A WAY TO, UM, QUALIFY AS, UH, TAKING STEPS TO OBEY CRIME, UM, WAS THE GATE.
AND I WAS JUST IN THE EVIDENCE PACKET PROVIDED, DID YOUR CLIENT GET A QUOTE THE GATE? WAS IT CONSIDERABLE? UH, IF IT, IF YOU DID, AND IF SO, CAN YOU POINT ME WHERE IT IS IN THE EVIDENCE PACK? I'LL, I'LL TELL YOU THIS.
DETECTIVE MICHAELS ALWAYS WANTS A GATE.
BUT REMEMBER, THIS IS A MOTEL.
PEOPLE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PULL IN OFF THE STREET IN ORDER TO GO TO THE OFFICE TO CHECK IN.
SO WHEN DETECTIVE MICHAELS PUTTING A GATE AT THE DRIVEWAY, THERE'S NO WAY THAT COULD POSSIBLY EVEN FUNCTION.
PLUS THE CITY OF DALLAS FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULDN'T ALLOW IT EITHER.
SO DETECTIVE MICHAELS SUGGESTING THAT IS WELCOME, BUT IN REALITY, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, IT'S COMPLETELY IMPRACTICAL.
AND I'VE HAD THAT DISCUSSION WITH 'EM BEFORE.
IF WE COULD PUT UP A GATE TO SATISFY BOTH THE REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS WHERE PEOPLE CAN PULL IN OFF THE ROAD TO CHECK INTO THE HOTEL, BECAUSE OTHERWISE, HOW ARE THEY EVER GONNA GET TO THE HOTEL TO CHECK IN, UH, AND THE CITY OF DALLAS FIRE DEPARTMENT ORDINANCES,
[02:50:01]
WE'D BE HAPPY TO DO IT.I'VE YET TO HEAR AN ANSWER FROM DETECTIVE MICHAELS ON HOW THAT CAN BE DONE.
UM, OF THE THINGS YOUR, YOUR CLIENT, UH, DID, UH, IN TERMS OF, OF, UH, MAKING TIME TO ABATE A DATE, UH, WALK ME THROUGH WHEN THEY WERE THERE.
THERE'S SOME EVIDENCE OF A PURCHASE OF A CAMERA IN 2025, BUT NOT EVIDENCE OF IT BEING USED UNTIL, UH, LATER.
UM, CAN YOU JUST WALK ME THROUGH THE TIMING OF THE, UM, ACTIONS YOUR CLIENT TOOK? YES.
THIS ISN'T A, THE EFFORTS IN ORDER TO OBEY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AREN'T DISCREET IN TERMS OF TIME.
IT'S A CONSTANT EVOLVING PROCESS.
SO WHEN YOU ASK WHAT, WHAT'S THE TIMELINE OF WHEN MY CLIENTS HAVE DONE SO, THEY'RE CONTINUOUSLY UNDERTAKING EFFORTS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY AND TO DISCOURAGE ANY ACTIVITY.
IT'S NOT GOOD FOR MY CLIENT'S BUSINESS TO HAVE THAT.
SO, UH, I THINK YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION IS THE CAMERAS WERE PURCHASED IN 2025, BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THEY WERE INSTALLED UNTIL LATER.
I, I'M NOT AWARE OF EVIDENCE THAT THAT SAYS THEY WEREN'T INSTALLED UNTIL LATER.
DETECTIVE MICHAEL SAID THAT THE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM WAS NOT SOMETHING HE WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT BECAUSE HE KNOWS THAT IT'S AN EXCELLENT SYSTEM AND IT COMPLIES AND THAT IS ANOTHER, UH, NO, I, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
LEMME, LEMME TRY TO CORRECT MITIGATE TEMPORALLY.
WHEN DID THE CONTINUOUS PROCESS BEGIN FOR THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT THINGS THAT, THAT YOUR CLIENT, UH, DID AND, AND THAT YOU TALK ABOUT IN, IN YOUR, UH, EXHIBIT? UH, UH, WHAT IT MATTERS, UM, FOR THE SAKE OF, OF TODAY'S HEARING.
AND FRANKLY, IT MATTERS GOING FORWARD AS, AS THE, UH, AS THERE'S A, A, THE POSSIBILITY OF A REVIEW AND, AND A, UM, RECONSIDERATION.
BUT I, I DIDN'T GET FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, AND AGAIN, I CAN ONLY SEE WHAT YOU PRESENTED, UM, MUCH OF WHAT YOUR CLIENT DID CAME POST JANUARY, FEBRUARY, BUT HERE'S YOUR CHANCE TO CORRECT THEM, UH, POST JANUARY AND FEBRUARY OF WHICH YEAR, SIR? THIS YEAR.
UM, SOME OF THOSE THINGS HAVE BEEN DONE POST JANUARY AND FEBRUARY AFTER CONSULTATION WITH, UH, DETECTIVE MICHAELS, UH, FROM THE ACCORD MEETING.
UM, A LOT OF THOSE THINGS PREDATED, AND I CAN'T GIVE YOU A PRECISE TIMELINE BECAUSE AS I MENTIONED, IT'S A CONSTANTLY EVOLVING PROCESS.
MY CLIENT HASN'T EVER NOT ATTEMPTED TO ABATE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY.
UH, WHETHER THAT'S INSTALLING THE SECURITY CAMERAS, TRIMMING THE BUSHES, INSTALLING FENCES, YES.
WE CANNOT INSTALL A GATE, UH, FOR THE REASONS I MENTIONED.
UH, THOSE THINGS ARE ONGOING AND THEY PREDATE 2025 EVEN.
SO, I, I CAN'T POINT TO YOU SOMETHING THAT SPECIFIC WHENEVER IT'S, IT'S A CONTINUOUS PROCESS.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ROUND POINT OF ORDER? POINT OF ORDER.
ARE WE GOING TO ASK THIS TO THE ATTORNEY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT, OR NOT? ONLY BERA.
SO, VICE CHAIR TORRES, YOU'RE SIX.
MR. BRARA, UM, SINCE YOU CLAIM TO HAVE SECURITY GUARDS, UM, WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME FOR YOU TO WALK ME THROUGH THE CONTRACT IN THIS, IN MY LAST OPPORTUNITY, BUT CAN YOU TELL ME HOW MUCH, UM, HOW MANY SECURITY GUARD DO YOU HAVE? UM, ON ONSITE, ON A DAILY BASIS, THERE'LL BE ONE SECURITY GUARD, BUT IT'S NOT ALWAYS THE SAME SECURITY GUARD.
IT'S STAFFED BY A THIRD PARTY COMPANY.
DO YOU THINK ONE IS ENOUGH, GIVEN THE FACT THAT YOU'VE HAD ALL THESE CRIMES HAPPENING ON THIS, UM, LOCATION, 15 AVAILABLE PLUS MORE THAT WE WEREN'T PRESENTED WITH? WELL, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, SECURITY OFFICERS IS A GREAT ATTORNEY.
AS DETECTIVE MICHAEL SAID, THE MORE SECURITY OFFICERS YOU HAVE, THE BETTER.
UH, IF WE HAD A DOZEN OF THEM, I THINK THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
THAT WOULD BE SUPER, THAT WOULD BE BETTER THAN WHAT THE CITY OF DALLAS COULD PROVIDE.
SO DO YOU, SO ONE'S NOT ENOUGH, CORRECT? NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.
I'M SAYING THAT MORE SECURITY GUARDS
[02:55:01]
SECURITY OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE BETTER, BUT THERE IS A POINT WHERE IT BECOMES UNWORKABLE.WOULD YOU LIKE 30 SECURITY GUARDS? WE COULD HAVE ONE ASSIGNED TO EACH HOTEL ROOM BOARD.
THIS IS MY NEXT QUESTION AGAIN, 'CAUSE WE'RE SO LIMITED.
DO YOU THINK IT'S REASONABLE FOR AN OWNER OF A MOTEL WHO'S HAD SO MANY, UH, 15 AT A MINIMUM AVAILABLE TO HAVE ONLY ONE SECURITY GUARD? I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A, THERE COULD BE MANY, BUT IS ONE ENOUGH? THE ANSWER IS YES, IS THE QUESTION IS YES OR NO? UH, WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION? IS ONE ENOUGH? IS THAT YOUR QUESTION BASED ON YOUR, BASED ON THE CRIMINAL HISTORY AND THIS LOCATION, IS ONE SECURITY CARD GUARD ENOUGH IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION? AND WHAT WOULD THE OWNER THINK? I MEAN, I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THE ANSWER IS NO.
I, I WOULD SAY THAT MY, MY CLIENT'S JOB IS NOT TO PREVENT A CRIME, IS TO TAKE REASONABLE CORRECT.
REASONABLE ATTEMPTS TO ABATE IT AND HAVING A SECURITY GUARD, THERE IS A REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO ABATE IT.
COULD IT BE APPROVED? EVERYTHING? ONE, WE COULD HAVE 30 OF THEM AND THAT WOULD BE BETTER.
NO, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR 30.
WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS REASONABLE ATTEMPTS.
IS ONE REASONABLE? I DON'T KNOW THAT.
SO, MR. GRIER, YOU, YOU MADE A, A, A CLAIM THAT REALLY, REALLY JUMPED OUT AT ME THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A FRONT GATE TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY.
UM, I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY PROPERTIES I GO TO THAT HAVE A BUZZER SYSTEM WITH A CAMERA.
WHY CAN'T YOU GUYS INSTALL THAT? WHERE THEY BUZZ THE FRONT OFFICE TO GET IN? UM, YOU'VE GOT THIS HUGE WIDE GAP THAT PEOPLE CAN DRIVE IN AND OUT OF WHERE YOU COULD INSTALL THAT AND THEN STOP IT.
WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE TO TURN IN OFF THE ROAD AND YOU WOULD BE IMPEDING TRAFFIC.
YOU SAW THE PICTURE WHERE THE GATE IS, YOU SAW THE PICTURE WHERE THE FENCE IS.
YOU SAW HOW LITTLE AREA THERE WAS BETWEEN THE TWO.
THERE'S NO WAY THAT YOU COULD HAVE THAT.
AND THE CITY OF DALLAS WOULDN'T ALLOW THE IMPEDING OF TRAFFIC.
YOU'D HAVE TO GET A PERMIT FOR IT AND IT WOULD MR. BESHE.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, MR. BESHE, WHEN I LOOKED AT IT, YEAH, THERE'S AMPLE ROOM FOR AT LEAST ONE CAR TO NOT IMPEDE TRAFFIC GOING ON THE PROPERTY.
IF, IF WE, IF I HAD THE PICTURE, I'D PULL IT UP.
THERE'S ABOUT TWO FEET FROM THE, ALRIGHT.
I HAVE ONE MORE STREET TO THE DRIVE.
Y'ALL HAVE CAMERAS, BUT THEY'RE NOT MONITORED.
WHY HAVE CAMERAS IF THEY'RE NOT MONITORED? ARE YOU ASKING FOR REAL TIME MONITORING? YES, SIR.
TWO, THE CAMERA SYSTEM IS INTENDED TO DETER CRIME BY RECORDING IT.
AND SO IF A CRIMINAL ACTOR OR SOME OTHER ACTIVITY HAPPENS AND, AND THE POLICE COME TO US, WE CAN PRESENT THAT OVER TO THE POLICE.
IT'S NOT AN ACT OF ACTIVE MONITOR.
YOU KNOW, I WHEN YOU SAY NO ONE DOES THAT, AGAIN, THAT'S CONJECTURE ON YOUR PART, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWER.
UM, ONE, ONE OF THE THINGS WE, WE HAVE TO ANSWER IN, IN THESE CASES, UH, THAT ISN'T EASY, BUT IT'S, WE HAVE TO ANSWER.
TELL ME, IT'S NOT A LEGALLY DEFINED TERM, OBVIOUSLY.
TELL ME WHAT THE LINE OR EVEN THE LINE WITH A LITTLE BIT OF, OF SPURGEON WOULD BE IN TERMS OF LIKE, WHERE, WHERE, WHAT IS A REASONABLE EFFORT? WHAT, HOW, HOW WOULD YOU COME UP WITH A DEFINITION? LIKE ON ONE HAND, I'VE GOT A THREE PAGE LIST.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A MINIMAL OR WHAT, SO I'LL LET YOU DEFINE IT 'CAUSE I HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
WELL, A GOOD EXAMPLE IS VICE CHAIRWOMAN PEREZ, WHEN SHE ASKED ME IF WE NEEDED TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE SECURITY GUARD, I SAID, SURE, I COULD HAVE 30.
AND THAT WOULD HAVE MORE OF A DETERRENT EFFECT.
IT WOULD DETERMINE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
BUT THAT'S NOT REASONABLE BECAUSE A BUSINESS HAS TO BE ABLE TO GENERATE REVENUE IN EXCESS OF ITS EXPENSES, STAY OPEN.
AND IF WE STAFF A PRIVATE ARMY ON OUR PROPERTY, THEN WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BE IN BUSINESS.
UM, THERE'S ALSO LIMITATIONS WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT SECURITY GUARDS, SECURITY GUARDS, CAN THEY DETAIN PEOPLE THERE, THERE'S LIABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AS WELL.
EVERYONE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS IS ENTITLED TO, UH, POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION.
THAT'S PART OF WHAT TAXPAYER DOLLARS GO FOR.
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S, IT FALLS UPON MY CLIENT
[03:00:01]
TO ACT AS A VIGILANTE, UH, IN TERMS OF WHAT'S REASONABLE.IT'S, IT'S AN EVER EVOLVING PROCESS.
BUT MY CLIENT HAS COOPERATED WITH AND LISTENED TO THE CITY AS SUGGESTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE.
UH, ONE EXAMPLE OF WHAT'S NOT REASONABLE IS A GATE AT THAT DRIVEWAY WHERE IT CAN'T BE DONE BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE IMPEDING TRAFFIC ON AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ACCESS ROAD.
ACCORDING TO DETECTIVE MICHAELSON, IT'S RIGHT OFF RL THORNTON.
YOU CAN'T DO THAT, SO THAT'S NOT REASONABLE.
I'D LOVE TO IMPLEMENT IT, BUT WE CAN'T DO IT.
UM, MR. QUINT, YOU'VE GONE SECOND, RIGHT? YOUR HAND'S STILL UP, RIGHT? UM, FURTHER.
AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UH, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TODAY.
CERTAINLY BEEN PRESENTED A GREAT DEAL OF, UH, INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE AND, UH, YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION IS GREATLY APPRECIATED.
UH, NOW FOR THE BOARDS THAT PAUL, THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT'S FINAL DESIGNATION OF A PROPERTY AS A HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY, THESE THREE THINGS MUST BE ESTABLISHED AS TRUE.
NUMBER ONE, THE PROPERTY MUST HAVE A HISTORY OF AVAILABLE CRIMES DEFINED IN CHAPTER 1 25 OF THE TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICING
AND NUMBER THREE, IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER KNOWINGLY TOLERATED CRIME BY FAILING TO TAKE REASONABLE SIP TO ABATE THAT CRIME.
THAT DETERMINATION CAN BE MADE BY EVALUATING WHAT REASONABLE MEASURES PROPERTY OWNER TOOK TO ABATE CRIME PRIOR TO THE CITY'S INTERVENTION, AND ALSO BY EVALUATING EVIDENCE OF THOSE MEASURES PRESENTED AT THE HCP AWARD, MEETING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
THE FACTS BEFORE YOU TODAY ESTABLISH EXACTLY THOSE THREE THINGS ARE TRUE WITH RESPECT TO 46 10 SOUTH RL THORNTON FREEWAY AND ITS OWNERSHIP.
FIRST, THE CITY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE, AND DETECTIVE MICHAELS TOLD YOU THAT 46 10 SOUTH RL THORNTON FREEWAY HAS A HISTORY OF AVAILABLE CRIME.
SPECIFICALLY 18 AVAILABLE OFFENSES OCCURRED THERE BETWEEN NOVEMBER 20TH, 2022, NOVEMBER 20TH, 2025.
SECONDLY, EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ESTABLISHED THAT IN THE 365 DAYS BETWEEN NOVEMBER 20TH OF 24 AND NOVEMBER 20TH OF 25 15, ABATE OFFENSES OCCURRED AT THE PROPERTY.
THOSE OFFENSES RANGE IN NATURE AND SERIOUSNESS FROM DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND CRIMINAL OMISSION TO MULTIPLE VIOLENT OFFENSES, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON, AGGRAVATED ROBBERY, DEADLY CONDUCT, AND EVEN SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A CHILD.
AND FINALLY, DETECTIVE MICHAEL DESCRIBED TO YOU IN GREAT DETAIL HOW BASED UPON HIS TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE AS A SEASONED DETECTIVE, HE DETERMINED THE OWNER KNOWINGLY TOLERATED CRIME OF THE PROPERTY BY FAILING TO IMPLEMENT CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES NECESSARY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS AT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
PRIOR TO THE CITY'S INTERVENTION IN NOVEMBER, 2025, WHILE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER HAD A CRIMINAL TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT ON FILE OF BPD AND THEY HAD A TOWING AGREEMENT IN PLACE.
OTHER MEASURES WERE LACKING OR COMPLETELY ABSENT ALTOGETHER.
PERIMETER LIGHTING WAS NOT IN CONSISTENT IN THE BACK PARKING, FENCING AND GATES WERE INADEQUATE.
PEOPLE WERE COMING AND GOING ON THE PROPERTY, UNCHECKED AND UNINHIBITED.
THERE WERE OBVIOUS SIGNS OF DRUG USE AND DRUG TRANSACTIONS ON SITE.
AND EXTERIOR DOORS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED WERE PROP OPEN FOR ANYONE TO COME AND GO.
THE MOST IMPORTANT MEASURE, ACCORDING TO DETECTIVE MICHAELS DURING SEVERAL INSPECTIONS WE TESTIFIED, WAS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND.
NOW, THE CITY SUBMITS TO YOU THAT WITHOUT ITS INTERVENTION, THESE TERRIBLE CRIMES WILL CONTINUE ON.
AND IT, IT ISN'T UNREASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT LIST OF CRIMES MIGHT ONE DAY DROVE TO INCLUDE, UH, SOMETHING WORSE THAN WHAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING UP THERE.
AND CHAPTER 27, THE D CITY CODE TELL US THAT THE PURPOSE OF HCP PROCESS IS TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF DALLAS RESIDENTS.
AND WHEN A PROPERTY OWNER FAILS TO FULFILL ITS ROLE IN THAT PROCESS, THAT PORTION OF RESPONSIBILITY FALLS TO THE CITY.
AND HERE, THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 46 10 SOUTH R FORTON FREEWAY FAILED TO FULFILL ITS ROLE, AND CITY HAS BEEN FORCED TO ABSORB THAT BURDEN.
DPDS FINAL DESIGNATION TODAY WILL NOT ONLY SERVE THE PROPERTY OWNER AND COUNCIL WILL MAKE THE CITY WHOLE.
UH, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT WILL FURTHER THE CRITICAL GOAL OF PROTECTING AND HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PATRONS OF THE MOTEL SIX AND RESIDENCE HOUSE AS THE WHOLE.
WE ASK THAT YOU DENY THIS APPEAL ON THE FIRM VP'S DECISION TO, UH, FINAL DESIGNATE IZATION.
THANK YOU MR. BASHAR, UH, BOARD MEMBERS.
UH, I KNOW THAT, UH, DONATING YOUR TIME TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY IS, IS NOT ALWAYS EASY.
YOU HAVE LOTS OF THINGS TO DO, BUT WE APPRECIATE YOU DOING IT.
I ALSO WANNA THANK YOU FOR INDULGING ME, UH, FOR THAT 10 MINUTE BREAK.
I, OF COURSE, UH, DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT OR WASTE ANY OF YOUR TIME, UH, WHICH IS COMPLETELY VALUABLE.
[03:05:02]
I DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE IN THIS CASE, 'CAUSE THE JUDGE, SO MY APOLOGIES ABOUT THAT.AND, UH, MY GRATITUDE REGARDING WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.
I'VE ALREADY LODGED THE OBJECTIONS, CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS, AND I REITERATE THOSE.
I KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT HERE FOR YOU GUYS TO DECIDE THAT TODAY.
UH, THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT IF NECESSARY WILL BE TAKEN UP WITH THE DISTRICT COURT.
HOWEVER, WHEN WE REVIEW 27, CHAPTER 27, OR SECTION TWO SEVEN, EXCUSE ME, IT REALLY GIVES THE CHIEF OF POLICE A VERY BROAD AUTHORITY TO TELL A PROPERTY THAT IT IS A HABITUAL, NUISANCE PROPERTY.
BUT WHAT THAT MIRRORS IS THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 1 25 OF THE CIVIL PRACTICES AND REMEDIES CODE, WHICH IS EXPLICITLY REFERENCED IN SECTION 27 45, OR NO, EXCUSE ME, 46 OF THE DALLAS CODE.
THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS IS HAS MY CLIENT MADE ATTEMPTS TO ABATE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
AND THE ANSWER'S QUITE CLEARLY, YES, MY CLIENT HAS PRESENTED EVIDENCE.
IN FACT, THE CITY PRESENTED EVIDENCE OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT MY CLIENT HAS TAKEN.
UH, REGRETTABLY, THOSE EFFORTS HAVEN'T RESULTED NO CRIME TAKING PLACE, BUT MY CLIENT IS COOPERATING, WORKING HARD.
IF THE STANDARD WERE NO CRIME TAKING PLACE, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO, UH, DECLARE AMERICAN AIRLINE CENTER, UH, HABITUAL CRIMINAL PROPERTY BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE GET ARRESTED THERE AND THEY'RE DEBATABLE NUISANCES.
HAVE YOU SEEN THE MAVS PLAY RECENTLY? OH, THEY SHOULD BE
BUT IT, IT'S UNFAIR WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT LIKE THAT.
UH, COULD WE MAKE SOME FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS? THAT'S NOT REALLY THE QUESTION FOR PURPOSES OF THIS APPEAL, THE QUESTION IS, HAS MY CLIENT MADE REASONABLE EFFORT? AND THE ANSWER IS YES.
MY CLIENT CONTINUES TO WORK WITH THE CITY.
IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S, UH, AN EVOLVING PROCESS TO DETECTIVE MICHAEL SAYS HE WANTS THINGS TO HAPPEN, AND WE GO OUT AND SEE IF WE CAN DO 'EM.
CERTAINLY THE THINGS JUST AREN'T REALISTIC.
LIKE I MENTIONED, HE WANTS THIS GATE, HE WANTS A GATE AT EVERY MOTEL PROPERTY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF HE WANTS IT AT EVERY GAS STATION TOO.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE PLACES OF BUSINESS.
PEOPLE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE PLACE OF BUSINESS, AND YOU CANNOT PEE TRAFFIC FROM THE STREET.
YOU'RE NOT EVEN, YOU'RE NOT JUST DEALING WITH THE CITY OR T STOCK, YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ACCESS ROADS ON INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS.
SO SOME OF THESE THINGS, WELL, WELL-INTENTIONED ARE MISGUIDED.
IF WE CAN DO IT, WE'RE GOING TRY IT.
AND MY CLIENT HAS DEMONSTRATED THROUGH THE EVIDENCE MY CLIENT IS MAKING THOSE EFFORTS TAKE ABOUT 10 SECONDS.
THE CITY HASN'T MET ITS BURDEN TO ESTABLISH THAT MY CLIENT KNOWINGLY TOLERATES AVAILABLE.
MY CLIENT HAS PRESENTED OF THE OPPOSITE.
THEREFORE, WE REQUEST THAT YOU REVERSE THE DECISION.
AND THANK YOU, UH, YOU ALL FOR BEARING WITH US AS WE, UH, TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT.
I, UH, UH, SHOULD HAVE CUT DISCUSSION SIGNIFICANTLY QUICKER.
I HAVE A MOTION, MOTION TO UPHOLD THE DECISION BY THE POLICE.
MR. QUINT, THIS WAS MR. QUINT? NO, UH, RICHARD CUCH.
MR. ILLA, YOU ARE YOU RECOGNIZED MOTION TO UPHOLD THE DECISION MADE BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN REGARD TO DECLARING THIS PROPERTY THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US TODAY AS A VI CRIMINAL PROPERTY? I, SECOND, SECOND, UH, MR. QUINCE MOTION.
MR. CILLO, MR. C'S MOTION SECONDED BY MR. QUINT.
I, UM, WAS LISTENING LIKE, OKAY.
MR. C'S MOTION, SECONDED BY VICE TIAL, UH, WHICH IS TO UPHOLD, UH, FIRM.
UM, IS THERE DISCUSSION? MR. UH, MR. ILLA, IT'S YOUR MOTION.
[03:10:01]
UH, SIMPLE STATEMENTS IN REGARD TO MR. BECHER'S ADVOCACY.I APPRECIATE THAT AS A PROFESSIONAL, UM, AND, AND, AND ADVOCATE IN THE SAME, UM, INDUSTRY.
HOWEVER, WITHOUT WITNESSES, WERE LEFT WITH THE 573 PAGES THAT WERE TURNED IN LATE.
AND IN REVIEWING THOSE, UH, THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PRESENTED WERE AFTER THE ACCORD MEETING.
IN FACT, WERE IN 2026 AS IT RELATES TO AT LEAST, UM, SOME TYPE OF SURVEILLANCE, I GUESS LOBBY PERSON AND OTHERS.
AND, AND SIMPLE SEEMED TO BE THE SAME COMMENT EACH TIME, BUT THEY WERE ALL IN 2026.
SO IN LOOKING AT THOSE DOCUMENTS AND RELYING SOLELY ON THOSE DOCUMENTS, IT APPEARS, AND ALSO IN REGARD TO THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PRESENTED, UH, AN EXHIBIT PRESENTED BY THE CITY, WHICH PRESENTED THEM ON TIME.
UM, AND IN RELYING ON THE LETTER THAT OBVIOUSLY THE APPELLANT RECEIVED IN REGARD TO THE DEBATABLE CRIMES THAT WERE LISTED.
AND I, AND ACTUALLY HAD, GO AHEAD, JUST FINISH YOUR SENTENCE.
I WAS JUST GONNA, AND SO THEREFORE, THAT'S MY REASON FOR BRINGING THIS UP AND AFFIRMING THE, UH, THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT'S DECISION ON US.
SO, PUTTING IT SIMPLY, OUR BOARD WAS SET TO ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING.
DID FIVE MORE AVAILABLE CRIMES OCCUR? THE ANSWER IS YES.
DO YOU DO, IS THERE A HISTORY OF AVAILABLE CRIMES? YES.
DID THE OWNER KNOWINGLY TOLERATE THIS OR, UH, FAIL TO FULLY IMPLEMENT REASONABLE CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES? IN MY OPINION, YES.
UM, THE OWNER DID NOT MAKE REASONABLE ATTEMPTS OR EFFORTS TO PROBATE THE CRIMES AT HAND.
THE STANDARD IS NOT TO MAKE THIS PROPERTY CRIME FREE.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT, AND WE WERE TALKED TO A LOT ABOUT THE STANDARD.
UM, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I STILL BELIEVE IT'S NOT, IT, IT WAS NOT REASONABLE.
UM, ALSO, THE LACK OF PRESENCE BY THE OWNER IS SOMETHING THAT, UH, I DO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION BASED ON, UM, JUST THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO REALLY GET SOME, YOU KNOW, WITNESS FROM HIM.
APPELLANTS ALSO SAY THAT THE ITEMS ASKED FOR BY THE CITY ARE MISGUIDED AND CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN BROUGHT EVIDENCE OF REASONABLE EFFORTS.
BUT IT IS MY OPINION THAT TWO DAYS WORTH OF SECURITY LOGS IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE, YES, IT WAS FROM 2026 JUST RECENTLY.
ONE SECURITY GUARD IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL BASED ON THE HISTORY OF CRIMES HAPPENING ON THIS PROPERTY.
UM, I, I, I THINK THE, THE BULK OF MR. BIHAR'S ARGUMENTS, UNFORTUNATELY, ARE NOT MEANT FOR US.
THEY ARE IMPORTANT THINGS, UH, BUT THEY'RE, UH, EXPLICITLY NOT THINGS WE, WE CAN THINK ABOUT.
UM, I ACCEPTED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, UH, SO I DID NOT, I WAS, UH, IN THE SAME WAY THAT I ACCEPTED THE CITY'S EVIDENCE, UH, I, I ACCEPTED, UH, THE APPELLANT'S EVIDENCE AT 11 O'CLOCK.
I DIDN'T, UH, THAT DIDN'T WEIGH DIFFERENTLY ON ME.
I, UM, I DO THINK, I, I HOPE WE GET A RULING FROM A DISTRICT AS TO WHETHER, UH, WHETHER IT IS OKAY TO, UH, LABEL SOMEBODY AS, AS AN HCP AND THEN ASK THEM TO FILE A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST TO FIND OUT WHY OUTTA MY JURISDICTION ON A PERSONAL LEVEL.
UH, I, I HOPE SOMEONE WHO WITH POWER WILL RULE ON THAT SO I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT.
UM, UH, THE, WHAT, WHAT'S REASONABLE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
O OVER OVER TIME, UM, THINGS WE CAN'T THINK ABOUT OR I WOULD'VE ARE THINGS LIKE SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT.
UM, UM, UM, HOWEVER, UH, UH, IF WE WERE WALKING THROUGH ON A DETAILED LEVEL, UH, WHAT IS REASONABLE? I, I WOULD BE PERSUADED BY, HEY, IT DOESN'T MEET THE FIRE CODE.
UM, ON, ON THE REASONABLE LEVEL.
I, I JUST, I THINK THERE IS A LONG WAY BETWEEN WHAT WE ARE AND WHAT IS REASONABLE.
I DO THINK THAT LONG LIST THAT GETS PRESENTED AS, AS, HERE'S STUFF YOU CAN DO, IT'S PROBABLY BEYOND REASONABLE.
[03:15:01]
THE STUFF THAT HAPPENED HAPPENED PRIMARILY, AT LEAST AS THE EVIDENCE IS WHAT AFTER, UH, THE, THE POINT AT WHICH WE ARE AS A BOARD MAKING OUR, OUR DECISION ON.SO IT PROBABLY DOES MATTER GOING FORWARD, BUT IN TERMS OF TODAY, UM, I AM A LOT MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE, UM, THE, THE AAT EVENTS.
NOT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY HAPPEN OR BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE, UH, IMPORTANT, BUT BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A, AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT IT'S NOT JUST A CALL OR JUST SOME EXTENT THAT, THAT THERE WAS A, AN INVESTIGATION OR, OR AN ARREST.
IT'S NOT WHETHER THEY WERE CONVICTED.
UH, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT MORE CLEARLY ATED THROUGH.
ANYBODY WANNA TALK SECOND TIME? OKAY.
ALL I'M GONNA SAY IS THAT JUST BECAUSE EVEN IF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT IS, IS RIGHT, I DON'T THINK IT STOPS EVERYBODY FROM SHARING EVIDENCE, OR I WOULD HOPE, I WOULD HOPE THAT, THAT EVERYBODY INVOLVED WOULD FIND A WAY TO DO THAT SO WE CAN HAVE THE, THE BEST HEARING THOUGHT.
UM, I WILL IN ONE SECOND CALL THE VOTE.
THE, THE MOTION IS TO, UH, UPHOLD AFFIRM.
I VOTE YES TO UPHOLD AND AFFIRM.
MS. AYALA, I VOTE YES TO MS. SMITH NEXT TIME YOU GET TO VOTE.
MS. THOMAS, YOU STILL WITH I VOTE? YES.
WE MAY HAVE LOST IN MR. QUINT.
AND MR. GONZALEZ HAS LEFT AS EXCUSED.
UM, FOR THE REASON I HAD TO STOP.
SO THE MOTION, UM, HOW DO WE, UH, MS. CARL? I KNOW, BUT HOW DO WE TREAT, UM, MR. CROHN'S VOTE? OH, HE IS GONE.
I, I THOUGHT HE HAD TEMPORARILY.
SO THE MOTION THEN PASSES, UH, 10 TO ONE AGNES AGAINST.
AND, UM, SO YOU WILL, YOU WILL RECEIVE A FORMAL, UM, A, A, A FORMAL ROOMING AND, UM, UH, SHOULD YOU PURSUE INTO DISTRICT COURT, YOU'LL, YOU'LL HAVE WHAT YOU NEED.
UM, THAT SAID, OUR NEXT MEETING IS IN TWO WEEKS.
UM, AS, UH, STANDS RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE THREE CASES.
UH, AND, AND I WILL, UH, WE WILL RUN A TIGHT HEARING.
UH, I MAY ASK FOR LUNCH, UM, THE THREE CASES, BUT, UM, UH, THAT'S IT.
IT IS 12:04 PM ON THE, UH, 2ND OF APRIL, 2026.
PERMANENT LICENSE APPEAL BOARD IS THANK.