Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discovery Noncompliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge Grants Multiple 3.1(b) Motions; Camera‑ticket and photo‑enforcement Cases Dismissed for Lack of Discovery
Summary
During the July 21, 2025 infraction calendar, the court granted numerous defense motions to suppress and dismiss after prosecutors did not provide requested discovery under court rule 3.1(b), affecting multiple photo‑enforcement and camera‑ticket cases.
On July 21, 2025, County Court Judge Stu Grant granted a string of defense motions to suppress and dismiss several camera‑ticket and photo‑enforcement cases after prosecutors did not produce requested discovery. Defense counsel argued they had filed timely discovery requests and received no materials; the court cited its prior ruling on discovery obligations and dismissed the cases.
Defense attorneys across multiple matters filed 3.1(b) motions to suppress and dismiss and told the court they had requested discovery on dates such as May 29 and June 11. Judge Grant repeatedly granted motions "pursuant to my previous ruling on 3.1," dismissing cases where no discovery had been provided.
Several attorneys made the motions on the record: Greg Sarkisian, who stated he had not received discovery on a camera matter; Ken Ciprin and others made similar motions. Defense counsel Roberto Irenella told the court his office had requested discovery on June 2 and had not received a response; the court granted his motion.
The prosecutor present told the court that, on camera tickets, the office "isn't sending out discovery right now," and in some matters the city indicated it had a standing objection but nonetheless did not provide materials. The court nonetheless granted suppression and dismissal where discovery was absent.
Examples of case numbers where the court granted motions on the record include: 250171645, 250174771, 250187435, 250178277, 250179895, 250187476, 250172072 and 250179895 (defense counsel filings appear in the transcript and the judge granted dismissal). In one matter the court cited the defense's June 12 discovery request and granted dismissal on 3.1(b) grounds.
Why it matters: The rulings show a recurring procedural failure to provide discovery in camera/photo enforcement cases and resulted in dismissal of charges in multiple matters. Those outcomes affect the defendants and the city’s ability to prosecute similar enforcement tickets without producing required materials.
The court's orders were entered on the record; defense counsel and the clerk confirmed the dismissals during the calendar.
