Judge denies Sharif Vaughn's motion to quash; trial will proceed after pretrial rulings

A judge denied a motion to quash and a related motion to suppress evidence in the case against Sharif Marquis Vaughn, and ordered that the trial proceed after resolving several pretrial motions.

The ruling came at a pretrial hearing in which the state called Corporal Scott (Jeffrey) Clark and Drug Task Force agent/detective Ronald Tilley to testify about an August 30, 2022, disturbance reported at an Exxon gas station. Vaughn faces charges listed in the indictment as simple assault, false imprisonment, disorderly conduct and public intoxication.

The court said the state’s evidence showed probable cause. “The court finds that there was in fact probable cause that a crime had been committed at the time the officers took the defendant into custody,” the judge said, and denied the motion to quash or dismiss. The judge added that the reported incident began at the Exxon and continued, according to testimony, at an Advanced Auto Parts parking lot where officers later encountered the defendant.

Why it matters: The ruling clears the way for a jury trial on the listed criminal counts and resolves multiple discovery and procedural disputes that had delayed proceedings. The judge also addressed a series of defense motions asking for access to materials and records the defense said were necessary to prepare for trial and appeals.

What the court heard: Corporal Clark testified he responded to a priority call of a disorderly male and encountered Vaughn and a woman later identified in testimony as Jennifer Dozier. Clark said Vaughn smelled of alcohol, was “irate,” and, according to Clark’s report, told officers he had held a door shut at the Exxon after an argument. Clark also said a canine alerted on the vehicle and that an ID bearing Vaughn’s name was located inside the vehicle; no narcotics or other contraband were found.

Detective/agent Ronald Tilley (handler of a dog named Nina) testified Nina is certified through the United States Police Canine Association for odor detection (marijuana, cocaine and heroin). Tilley explained that a canine alert provides probable cause to search a vehicle because the alert indicates the odor of narcotics, though an alert does not guarantee contraband will be recovered.

Defense arguments and evidence issues: Vaughn, representing himself, argued there was no video or witness proof to corroborate officers’ accounts, that body‑worn camera footage was not provided and that the lack of breath or field sobriety testing meant public intoxication was unproven. He also sought copies of publicly posted courtroom videos and other materials he said were necessary to prepare complaints and appeals. The judge denied the request to compel court livestream/YouTube video transfers to the defendant, stating those videos were public but not in the state’s possession for discovery under Rule 16.

Other rulings and directions: The court denied a motion to bar the state’s witnesses and found the state had complied with discovery obligations for the case at hand; it denied a motion for a bill of particulars, concluding the indictment and statutory language sufficiently identified the alleged offenses; and it denied the defendant’s request to force the state to provide YouTube courtroom recordings or to transmit them to him in a downloadable form. The judge instructed that written discovery for the current docket had been provided and that any outstanding issues in other pending dockets would be addressed separately.

Scheduling and next steps: The court set jury selection to begin at 1:00 p.m. and ordered a short recess in the hearing transcript. The court directed the clerk/transcription staff to prioritize transcripts and asked that transcripts requested be completed by January 25 if possible, to support appellate and trial preparation.

Context and limits of the record: The judge emphasized that suppression hearings permit the state to present hearsay and other preliminary proof under Rule 104, and that the court’s findings followed the evidence permitted in that context. The court denied the suppression motion on Fourth Amendment grounds based on the testimony and the state’s representation that the defendant admitted holding the door. The transcript shows the state presented witnesses and the defendant cross‑examined them; it also records the defendant’s repeated objections about missing recordings and discovery access.

The case will proceed to trial on the indicted counts following the court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to quash and the completion of pretrial tasks the judge outlined.