A ROLLISON GOOD TIME
On the night of November 17, Deputy Alex Flores was called to the scene of the alleged crimes that became familiar to Bridgeport Courthouse this past Tuesday in the preliminary hearing of People v. Gregory Rollison.
Quite familiar, given that the hearing, which started at 1:30 p.m., didn’t end until 8:30 p.m.
Rollison, a felon with a history of crimes dating back to the 1980s, has lived locally for about a decade. And has tried to recast himself as an upstanding businessman and partner of Jenny Bowman’s in the landscaping/nursery business.
But this case cast doubt into how much a leopard can change its spots.
Back to our story.
At 9:07 pm of that night last fall, while out on patrol, Deputy Flores received information from dispatch regarding a domestic violence incident alleged between Rollison and his girlfriend, Marissa Tierney. The incident had occurred on Highway 395. Specifically, it was up in Topaz—the report being made from the California Agricultural Inspection Station, and border crossing across the Nevada Stateline into Mono County. Deputy Flores and a training officer, Deputy Matthew Guntert, responded to the call. California Highway Patrol Officer (CHP) Jonathan Nyland soon followed.
At the same time, Deputy Sheriff Christopher Walston and CHP Sergeant Henderson responded to the residence of Rollison at 238 Larson Lane in Coleville—a property which Rollison co-owns with Bowman. It was presumed that Rollison had fled the scene of the crime and returned home.
Guntert relayed to the court the content of Ms. Tierney’s initial statement:
“She said that herself and Rollison were at the Topaz Lodge, having some drinks. They started getting into an argument and were asked to leave … They took a left out of the parking lot, onto Highway 395. Rollison was driving the vehicle at that time, and pulled over to the southbound shoulder of the roadway, next to the Nevada Stateline sign,” said Guntert.
Then, Tierney was forcibly removed from the vehicle. A white Dodge 1500. She doesn’t remember how. She does remember waking up on the pavement.
“‘It happened so fast,’ she said,” according to Guntert, who explained that the vehicle then headed southbound, abandoning Tierney. She’d sustained impact injuries to the back and to the head.
Upon receiving the call, Flores began a quick investigation into Rollison’s past. He found several charges “including robbery and domestic violence.”
At District Attorney Lauren Ryerson’s probing, Flores explained that Rollison’s history had involved offenses with firearms; that Rollison is a convicted felon.
Deputy Sheriff Walston stationed himself in his police vehicle, facing southbound, on Larson Lane. Sergeant Henderson was nearby, following at a distance. Walston recalls seeing the headlights and red taillights of a vehicle, headed toward the long driveway at the residence at 238 Larson Lane. Walston started after it, before the vehicle turned quickly—what he recognized to be the “white Dodge pickup,” matching the description of Rollison’s reported vehicle.
Before the intersection of Larson Lane and Eastside, Walston attempted a felony stop to dissuade the Dodge. Turned on his red and blues. He did not activate his siren. Walston opened the door to get out of his vehicle. It was at this point that the Dodge, in front of Walston’s car, made a U-Turn. Started heading back toward Walston, head on. It drove past Walston’s driver’s side door by a few feet, narrowly missing, says Walston “squishing his legs inside the doors.” Walston identified the driver to be Rollison.
Henderson pursued the car, which he estimates was driving 115 miles an hour down the highway. He executed a pit maneuver during the chase—a move by which the pursuing vehicle pulls up to the target vehicle, and forces it to spin out in order to stop the driver.
Henderson was able to handcuff Rollison who he says was combative: “extremely angry, cursing, telling me to ‘fuck off.’”
Rollison was placed in the back of Henderson’s patrol car by the time Nyland showed up to the scene—who Rollison promptly kicked in the groin.
(In response to Ryerson’s question as to whether the blow had hurt him, Nyland responded “it didn’t feel… good.”)
According to Henderson and Nyland, both, Rollison exhibited clear signs of alcohol intoxication. He smelled like it, too. Upon questioning a few of the bartenders at Topaz Lodge—where Tierney and Rollison had been drinking earlier that night—Rollison had been drinking Wild Turkey. He had also been acting, according to the bartender, “like a real jerk-off.”
Rollison, after being evaluated by a medical team, was taken to jail at this point in CHP Officer Richard Marchant’s vehicle, as Henderson’s was disabled. Together, the officers conducted an inventory of the suspect’s vehicle. They found a 9-inch rifle bayonet, a 6-inch fixed blade hunting knife, and a broken bar glass beneath the suspect’s driver’s seat that smelled of alcohol.
Then, Deputy Flores and Guntert arrived on the scene with the alleged victim, Tierney. She told Henderson that the truck that Rollison had been driving was hers. That the dogs inside that truck were hers. And at home, there was a .38 caliber Ruger pistol that was also hers. It had been given to her by Rollison, but was stored in a lockbox where the convicted felon could not access it, as stipulated by law. Rollison, said Tierney had obtained the pistol from the late Ed Anderson’s estate.
More on that, later.
Flores authored a search warrant the following day on November 18, 2023, seeking out “firearms, ammunition, firearm parts, accessories, firearms, accessories to ammunition, making ammunition, lowers, weapons … anything related to weapons and ammunition,” for which Deputy Flores explained, he had explicit probable cause.
Judge Gerald Mohun granted the warrant, written by Flores, that same day.
The following day—November 19—the warrant was executed at 238 Larson Lane.
But the Ruger, as it turns out, was not stored in a lockbox. According to multiple testimonies, it was stashed atop a box of lingerie—or, as more delicately described by defense attorney Marshall, “women’s clothing.” The pistol was moved into evidence by Officer Marchant.
These facts, as presented through the prosecution’s line of questioning, worked in tandem with events that preceded the domestic violence incident on November 17.
Fifteen months prior, in May of 2022, there was a episode involving Rollison and a tree-trimming outfit from Liberty Energy while working on Larson Lane. The foreman, Jose Lira, reported aggressive behavior from Rollison that afternoon, in which the suspect brandished what appeared to be an assault rifle-type weapon, escalating the conflict. The crew left, and further conflict was avoided. But from the prosecution’s view, while there was no harm, there was foul by way of evidence of Rollison’s historically belligerent behavior and demonstration of illegal firearm use.
Ultimately, though, Judge Magit granted the defense’s motion to quash the search warrant granted by Judge Mohun against Rollison, citing a lack of recent evidence to support claims of illegal activity at the Larson Lane property.
“There certainly hasn’t been unlawful police conduct here,” acknowledged Judge Magit, but there was a misuse of historical information to justify a “relook” of the property. The sanctity of a residence must be protected, and warrants should only be honored with “at least some indication of probable cause.”
And, with the warrant quashed, that reduced the number of counts remaining against Rollison to 23. Light work.
(Sitting there and watching Rollison—during one of the few recesses called during the hearing—it is hard to imagine the violent scenes depicted by the witnesses called to the stand. These are scenes in which Rollison is the leading character.
He will, on occasion, comb his fingers through his hair, which is long. He will scribble notes with his free hand, and whisper in Marshall’s left ear. The hand is free because Marshall asked to have it so—Rollison initially appeared before the court in a waist chain and bound wrists. During one recess, Marshall and Asst. D.A. Ryerson talk of Marshall’s luck in finding a decent hotel in the area, so that he could appear to represent his client. You can feed the fish at the hotel, Marshall tells Ryerson. There’s a photo of John Wayne hanging in his particular room. Rollison nods at the exchange. Smiles at Marshall, then Ryerson. Then, at the security guards hunched on a back bench of the courtroom eating Snickers bars delivered through the doorway by their colleagues.
The stenographer groans about his long drive back to Bakersfield. Witness and investigating officer, Chris Callinan, commiserates with the stenographer in solidarity.
The atmosphere is almost congenial.)
When the proceedings continued following Judge Magit’s grant to quash the warrant, the courtroom recentered its attention to the testimonies given by those law enforcement officers called to the stand.
Sergeant Pelichowski, who was questioned by Ryerson regarding Rollison’s encounter with the tree-trimmers in 2022, was scrutinized in the defense’s subsequent cross-examination.
“And did Mr. Lira see the firearm that was referenced?” asked the defense, in reference to the foreman who had translated the day’s events to Sergeant Pelichowski, on behalf of his crew. When the answer was negative, it served to undermine the assertion that Rollison had actively brandished a weapon at the scene.
The defense also challenged the credibility of the translation provided by Mr. Lira, who only acted as an intermediary during the testimony of Spanish-speaking witnesses. They questioned the accuracy of the translation to suggest that the evidence might not be as reliable as presented:
“Sergeant Pelichowski, do you speak any Spanish at all?… You can probably ask for the restroom and order from the menu?” asked a rhetorical Marshall.
Sergeant Pelichowski agreed this was accurate. But he also testified that Lira had been detailed in his account—Rollison had allegedly been hostile to the crewman, branding an AR-15 rifle to intimidate them, and criticizing their nationality.
The tree-trimming incident became an example of a recurring motif—one deployed by the prosecution to emphasize those repeated instances where Rollison allegedly used, or threatened to use, firearms to assert dominance or control. The defense continually pointed out procedural flaws and possible overstatements or misunderstandings in the witness accounts.
And then, the testimonies pivoted to the acquisition of firearms from Ed Anderson’s estate and the subsequent domestic violence incident involving Marissa Tierney. These elements were crucial in illustrating the interconnected themes of illegal firearm possession and domestic aggression on the night of November 17.
Marissa Tierney provided critical testimony—which was more or less relayed by Chief Investigator Callinan—about the firearms acquired from Ed Anderson’s estate, linking Rollison to the possession of potentially illegal firearms. She testified that Rollison had taken several items from the estate, including firearms, which were kept in safes at their residence. Tierney indicated that she was unaware of the contents inside these safes as Rollison was secretive and protective about them. Tierney is also on the record as having recounted an episode where Rollison, in a fit of rage during a service delay from the fire department (a reported structure fire in Jan. 2022), brandished what she believed to be a .22 caliber rifle from Anderson’s estate and began shooting out windows.
It was an act of violence framed by the prosecution to link Rollison’s illegal firearm possession and his aggressive behavior towards Tierney. The defense, however, attempted to mitigate the impact of the testimony by questioning the reliability of Tierney’s accounts and suggesting that the firearms were part of the estate and not actively sought by Rollison.
At hearing’s end, it was reiterated that Count 1 (the search warrant) had been suppressed.
In deliberations regarding Count 2 (Domestic Violence), Judge Magit acknowledged that it was clear Tierney had been pushed from a vehicle. Tierney’s injuries, despite some inconsistencies in testimony, led to the decision that there was probable cause to believe the offense occurred, linking Rollison directly to the crime. Rollison will be held to answer to Count 2.
Significant attention was given to the evidence related to search warrants, especially those executed after the quashed order. Discussions clarified that a subsequent search warrant issued in January 2024 did not affect the current proceedings as it related to different allegations, indicating that Rollison would not be held to answer to Count 3.
Count 4 involved the allegation of Rollison executing a U-turn and driving towards Officer Walston. Rollison will be held to answer to the crime.
The discussion then moved to Rollison’s alleged traffic violations during the same incident. The defense argued against the claim of three moving violations, noting discrepancies in how the events unfolded and were reported by the officers. Despite these arguments, the judge found enough evidence to hold Rollison accountable for reckless driving, emphasizing willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property, as described in the officer’s testimonies. He will be held to answer.
The hearing continued with Rollison being held to answer for additional counts related to his actions during the police pursuit and subsequent interactions with law enforcement.
Of the 24 counts brought to the preliminary hearing, Mr. Rollison was excused from 8.
Arraignment is to be held on May 21, per the defense’s request.
