Cabaret seeking return of computer

By Elise Franco

The court of appeals will rule in the coming weeks on an appeal to return evidence to the Go Go.

YOUNGSTOWN — An appeals court will decide whether a computer will be returned to the Go-Go Cabaret in Austintown or retained by township police as a criminal investigation continues.

The 7th District Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the appeal by a county prosecutor regarding who should get the computer and its contents.

Judge Lou A. D’Apolito of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court ruled in August 2009 that four computers seized in a raid of the club earlier that year be returned to owner Sebastian Rucci. Three of the four computers have been returned to Rucci.

Assistant Prosecutor Ralph Rivera said Wednesday in court that the fourth computer contains evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation against the club. The police department has the fourth computer.

A nuisance action regarding the Go Go was filed by Mahoning County Prosecutor Paul Gains in May 2009 with Judge D’Apolito. Rivera said at the same time that a search warrant was issued by Judge John M. Durkin. Rivera argued that Judge Durkin’s presiding over grand-jury proceedings at the time gave Judge Durkin jurisdiction over the computers.

“Our argument was that only Judge Durkin had the authority to order and overrule on [the computers] because he issued the search warrant, which was criminal in nature,” he said. “Although some of what was found at the club was presented during the nuisance hearing, the computers were never entered into evidence.”

Rucci’s attorney Jim Vitulo disagreed.

Vitulo said the nuisance case was assigned to Judge D’Apolito because Judge Durkin was unavailable, making Judge D’Apolito “primarily responsible for the determination of every issue,” according to Ohio court rules.

Vitulo also said the police department was ready to fully cooperate until the township trustees had a news conference shortly after the club reopened in July. The Go Go is currently fully operational.

“Prior to [Trustee] Dave Ditzler’s press conference, the police department was honoring the request to return the property,” he said. “It’s a case based upon the fact of an ongoing criminal investigation, but we’ve seen no evidence of that at all.”

Vitulo said the department has shown no evidence of an ongoing investigation.

Rivera said the defense doesn’t know the details of the investigation because they haven’t been publicly discussed.

“We’ve never had to divulge our investigation because it hasn’t been before a grand jury,” he said. “There is a point in time where we have to show the investigation, but we’re not at that point yet.”

Rivera said the contents of the computer have been viewed by detectives and are “absolutely” still pertinent to their investigation.

The appeals judges will take the oral arguments under advisement and issue a decision in the coming weeks.