Most Cole evidence admissible

Reynolds ruled that the only evidence which would not be admissible at trial are the telephone conversations and text messages between Cole and the girl on Oct. 30, 2009.

Phone calls and text messages between the two on Oct. 31 or Nov. 1, 2009, would be allowed, Reynolds wrote in his ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, which was filed by Cole’s lawyer, Bob Moon of Baker City.

The next step in the case will be scheduling a pretrial conference in the judge’s chamber during which a trial date will be set, said Lorri Hackney, Baker County Circuit Court judicial assistant.

Cole, a former chairman of the of the Baker County Board of Commissioners, was cited and released on one count of furnishing alcohol to a minor on Halloween night after sheriff’s deputies interviewed him and the girl while they were parked at the Pocahontas Fire Station, about two miles west of Baker City.

The deputies found a bottle of peppermint schnapps inside Cole’s Volkswagen.

After further investigation, Cole was charged with a second count of furnishing alcohol to a minor and four counts of third-degree sexual abuse. All of the charges are Class A misdemeanors.

Reynolds, who presides in Umatilla County and is overseeing the Cole case due to Baker County officials’ potential conflicts of interest, signed the memorandum of opinion on Cole’s motion Friday. It was filed Tuesday afternoon in Baker County Circuit Court.

During a May 21 hearing on the motion, Moon argued that all evidence gathered after  deputies Gabe Maldonado and Rich Kirby’s initial interview with Cole should be suppressed because the deputies stopped Cole illegally and failed to advise him of his rights.

Much of the testimony during the May hearing centered around whether the deputies turned on the flashing lights on their patrol cars on Halloween night.

The deputies maintained the lights were never activated. Cole and four other witnesses contradicted their testimony.

“The court finds the evidence that Deputy Maldonado had at some point activated his emergency lights to be more persuasive,” Reynolds wrote in his ruling.

The judge did not agree, however, that the deputies “illegally stopped” Cole.

“Clearly the officer did not stop (Cole’s) vehicle when he arrived since it was already stopped and parked at the back of the fire station when the officer arrived,” Reynolds wrote in his opinion.

He added that Maldonado was carrying out his “community caretaking role” when he met with Cole at the fire station and had no reason to suspect Cole had committed a crime.

“The court finds that his action did not amount to a stop until he asked Defendant to exit his vehicle,” Reynolds wrote. “At that time he had reasonable suspicion that the crime of minor in possession and/or furnishing liquor to a minor had occurred.”

Reynolds also disagreed with Moon’s argument that the deputies should have read Cole the Miranda warning during the interview, because Cole did not feel “free to leave” without answering their questions.

Reynolds said the deputies’ interview with Cole was “very similar in nature” to a traffic stop.

“The court does not find it compelling for constitutional purposes and the Defendant’s motion to suppress for failure to give Miranda warnings is denied,” Reynolds wrote.

In ruling that the deputies did not act illegally in questioning Cole, the judge found that Cole gave the deputies consent to search his car. Moon argued that the search of the car was illegal because the stop itself, which preceded the search, was illegal.

In granting the motion to suppress the content of phone conversations and text messages from Oct. 30, 2009, the day before the police stop, Reynolds found that Cole “has an expectation of privacy as to his messages to (the victim)” on that date and that the state had no probable cause to obtain that information.