Attorney CATCHES Cop in a Lie — Then CALLS Him OUT in Court!
Attorney CATCHES Cop in a Lie — Then CALLS Him OUT in Court!
Defense Exposes State Trooper’s Omitted Federal Lawsuit in High-Stakes Suppression Hearing
Preview
Defense counsel confronted an Indiana State Police sergeant during a rigorous court hearing, revealing that the officer failed to disclose a pending federal civil lawsuit involving an alleged unconstitutional cell phone search during his deposition. The defense argued this omission constitutes a major constitutional disclosure violation, threatening the validity of a crucial suppression ruling.
The Discrepancy and the Deposition
The legal confrontation centers on testimony provided by Indiana State Police Sergeant Jeremy Bryce regarding evidence recovered from defendant Andrew Kosis’s cell phone. During an October 2025 deposition, Sergeant Bryce was asked whether any formal complaints had been filed against him during his tenure as a sworn officer. He answered negatively, stating he had received no formal complaints.
However, the defense later uncovered that Bryce had been named as a defendant in a 2023 federal lawsuit brought by an inmate, Steven Hecky, which directly involved allegations of an unconstitutional cell phone search. Although Bryce participated in the federal litigation by reviewing the complaint, answering interrogatories under oath, and submitting a signed declaration, he did not mention the lawsuit during his deposition. Furthermore, after reviewing the written transcript of his deposition, he submitted no corrections.
Arguments on Impeachment and Brady Obligations
During the court proceedings, defense attorney Mr. Schmid argued that the concealment of the federal lawsuit severely prejudiced the defense during a pivotal November 2025 evidentiary hearing. Because Sergeant Bryce served as the state’s central witness to establish the “plain view” exception for data found outside the initial search warrant, his credibility was paramount.
The defense maintained that knowledge of the federal lawsuit would have provided powerful impeachment material, allowing them to effectively challenge the officer’s version of how he inadvertently encountered the restricted digital files. Characterizing the omission as an egregious violation of constitutional disclosure duties, the defense requested sanctions ranging from outright dismissal of the remaining criminal charges to striking the officer’s testimony entirely.
The Prosecution’s Response and Next Steps
The state countered that the omission was an honest misunderstanding, with Sergeant Bryce explaining that he interpreted the deposition question narrowly as a reference to internal affairs investigations rather than external civil filings. The prosecutor also noted personal unawareness of the federal lawsuit until brought to light by the defense.
Recognizing the complexity of the timeline and the weight of the testimony, the judge elected to take the matter under advisement, confirming that a formal written ruling on the motion would be issued on or before June 1st.
