NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — Testimony during a preliminary hearing this week at the Harbor Justice Center raised questions about evidence documentation and the lack of corroborating footage in a case involving alleged possession of methamphetamine and fentanyl discovered after the accused person was transported between facilities.
The hearing took place before Judge Gregg L. Prickett, where three Newport Beach police officers testified about transporting the accused from Newport Beach Jail to Orange County Jail following an earlier arrest connected to activity at a high-end retail store identified in court as Neiman Marcus.
According to testimony, one of the officers said that after arriving on scene and seeing the accused being detained, a small baggy containing an illegal substance, later believed to be methamphetamine and fentanyl, was found during the initial search at the scene. The officer further claimed the accused acknowledged the drugs at the scene.
The officer stated the incident began with an alleged bag-swinging or tripping incident that was then connected to the discovery of the substances. The matter began after the store manager reviewed security footage and recognized the accused in a potential grand theft that allegedly occurred earlier this year, according to the deputy. After confirming the accused as the suspect, he said the individual ran northbound.
According to the officer, the suspect reached under his stomach into his waistband, claiming he had a gun. After apprehending the individual, officers found a Magna tool along with other tools that the witness claimed are “used for burglaries” and were found in the handbag on the suspect’s person.
When the suspect was placed in handcuffs and searched, no firearms were found on his person or in his bag. The public defender asked whether the witness had seen the surveillance footage himself, and he said he had not. The public defender also asked where in his report he documented that the suspect had yelled he had a gun, and the officer acknowledged that statement was not included in his report.
Regarding the small baggy of substances, the public defender asked whether the officer knew how much methamphetamine and fentanyl had been recovered, and the officer said he had not weighed the baggy. The public defender then presented what appeared to be an image from the officer’s body-worn camera footage showing the substance. When asked whether it was his own footage, the witness hesitated before stating, “It appears to be,” seeming unsure of what he was viewing.
After the suspect was transferred to the hospital before arriving at Newport Beach Jail, none of the clothes worn at the scene were on his person during the hospital stay. Officers had previously searched portions of the accused’s clothing, including zip-off pant legs, before returning them without locating contraband at that time. The officer also confirmed he was not present when a second bag of methamphetamine and fentanyl was reportedly discovered, limiting his direct knowledge of that portion of the evidence recovery.
Another officer who testified said he saw the individual run into the store, arrive on the second floor, pass the bags and glasses, use two of the tools to steal the items, run into the bathroom and then exit with a “bulge in his pants.” The same officer then claimed the alleged bag-swinging or tripping incident that occurred after the theft was not captured on video.
A third officer who was present during the transfer from Newport Beach Jail to Orange County Jail testified that a second bag of substances was found in the accused’s pockets. When the public defender asked whether that discovery had been captured on body-worn camera footage, she said Orange County Jail does not allow officers to have their body cameras activated.
The public defender then asked whether the officer remembered the name and badge number of the officer who found the bag. The witness said she did not remember that information. When asked whether that information was required in the report after the arrest, the witness responded, “Only if its relevant.”
When the public defender replied, “Is it not relevant if the deputy found the meth and fent?” the witness responded, “it depends,” prompting laughter before questioning moved on.
The testimony highlighted several omissions related to the discovery of the alleged narcotics, including the lack of verification through body-worn camera footage, uncertainty about the weight of the drugs and the inability of one officer to recall the name of the deputy who allegedly recovered the second bag. Despite those deficiencies in the documentation, the alleged drugs remain central to the prosecution’s case against the accused person.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
