Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Slay

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

November 18, 2014

FRANCIS G. SLAY, et al., Defendants

For Stephen Jones, Plaintiff: Alex Lumaghi, LEAD ATTORNEY, Richard K. Dowd, DOWD AND DOWD, P.C., St. Louis, MO USA.

For Francis G. Slay, Mayor, in his official capacity as Mayor and member of The Board of Police Commissioners of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Bettye Battle-Turner, in her official capacity as a member of The Board of Police Commissioners of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Richard Gray, Col., in his official capacity as a member of The Board of Police Commissioners of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Jerome D. Lee, Chief, in his official capacity as a member of The Board of Police Commissioners of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Thomas Irwin, Col., in his official capacity as a member of The Board of Police Commissioners of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Defendants: Christopher R. Hoell, LEAD ATTORNEY, St. Louis, MO USA.

For Vincent Carr, in his official capacity as an officer of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and individually, Defendant: H. Anthony Relys, LEAD ATTORNEY, St. Louis, MO USA.

For Shell Sharp, in his official capacity as an officer of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and individually, Defendant: Philip Sholtz, LEAD ATTORNEY, Assistant Attorney General, St. Louis, MO USA.



This matter under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is before the Court on separate motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Vincent Carr and Shell Sharp. The motions are fully briefed and ready for decision. For the following reasons, defendants Carr and Sharp's motions for summary judgment will be granted in part, denied in part and denied in part as moot.

I. Background

This action was filed on November 9, 2012 by plaintiff Stephen Jones against the members of the Board of Police Commissioners of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (collectively the " Board") and two former St. Louis police officers, defendants Carr and Sharp. Plaintiff alleges that his federal civil rights were violated when he was arrested, convicted and imprisoned for a period of over twelve years based on false evidence manufactured by defendants Carr and Sharp. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that Carr and Sharp conspired with each other and made a false affidavit to obtain a search warrant for plaintiff's parents' apartment, falsely claimed that while executing the search warrant they observed plaintiff holding a plastic bag containing $15, 000 worth of cocaine base, stole $5, 200 belonging to plaintiff's father during the search of the residence, suppressed exculpatory evidence, arrested plaintiff and falsely testified against him at trial in order to prevent any complaints concerning the theft, as part of a pattern of illegal activity on their parts. Plaintiff also alleges that the Board had a policy, or pervasive custom and practice, of reliance on manufactured evidence, and that it failed to train, supervise, control, instruct or discipline the officers under its control in various respects. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Carr and Sharp's conduct, he was found guilty by a jury of one count of possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base and sentenced to 240 months in prison.

During plaintiff's incarceration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Missouri began to investigate Carr and Sharp " for the same illegal activities that resulted in [plaintiff's] wrongful conviction and imprisonment." Amended Complaint at 8, ¶ 24. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of this investigation, defendant Carr pleaded guilty in February 2009 to federal criminal charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, making a false statement and obstruction of justice based on facts very similar to those in the instant case, including wrongfully accusing a third party of criminal activity in order to deflect investigation into his theft. See United States v. Carr, No. 4: 08-CR-703 ERW (E.D. Mo.). Plaintiff alleges that the investigation also led to defendant Sharp leaving the police department in June 2009 " under charges" of fraudulently concocting affidavits in support of search warrants.

Based on Carr's conviction, plaintiff sought permission from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive habeas corpus motion seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The United States acquiesced in plaintiff's request and the Eighth Circuit issued an order authorizing plaintiff to proceed with his motion, which was filed in September 2010. After reviewing the evidence presented at plaintiff's trial along with new evidence concerning Carr's corrupt practices, the United States in November 2010 joined in plaintiff's motion to vacate his sentence, stating there was no credible independent evidence to corroborate Carr's testimony against plaintiff. The United States also admitted that Sharp's testimony was not reliable or credible. On November 10, 2010, this Court, the Honorable Judge Carol E. Jackson presiding, issued an order vacating plaintiff's conviction and ordering the United States Bureau of Prisons to release him from custody immediately.[1] Plaintiff subsequently sought a Certificate of Innocence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2513, which was granted by Judge Jackson on May 12, 2011, who found that plaintiff was actually innocent of the crime for which he was imprisoned for twelve years and eight months.

Plaintiff asserts federal civil rights claims against Carr, Sharp and the Board pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and supplemental state law claims against Carr and Sharp for malicious prosecution, wrongful imprisonment and abuse of process.[2]

II. Legal Standard

The standards applicable to summary judgment motions are well settled. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a court may grant a motion for summary judgment if all of the information before the court shows " there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

The initial burden is placed on the moving party. City of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa v. Associated Elec. Co-op., Inc., 838 F.2d 268, 273 (8th Cir. 1988) (the moving party has the burden of clearly establishing the non-existence of any genuine issue of fact that is material to a judgment in its favor). Once this burden is discharged, if the record shows that no genuine dispute exists, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party who must set forth affirmative evidence and specific facts showing there is a genuine dispute on a material factual issue. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

Once the burden shifts, the non-moving party may not rest on the allegations in its pleadings, but by affidavit and other evidence must set forth specific facts showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Herring v. Canada Life Assur. Co., 207 F.3d 1026, 1029 (8th Cir. 2000); Allen v. Entergy Corp., 181 F.3d 902, 904 (8th Cir. 1999). The non-moving party " must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is " genuine" only " if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Herring, 207 F.3d at 1029 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). A party resisting summary judgment has the burden to designate the specific facts that create a triable question of fact, see Crossley v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 355 F.3d 1112, 1114 (8th Cir. 2004), and " must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in the plaintiff's favor." Davidson & Assocs. v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630, 638 (8th Cir. 2005).

As a threshold matter, the Court notes that in response to defendants' Carr and Sharp's Statements of Uncontroverted Material Fact, plaintiff responded as required by Local Rule 4.01(E), [3] and in addition submitted his own Statements of Additional Material Facts supported by citation to the record.[4] Defendants object to a number of plaintiff's additional facts as being legal conclusions, opinions, irrelevant and/or argumentative. Some of defendants' responses are insufficient under Local Rule 4.01(E) because they fail to articulate how a fact is disputed or do not contain a sufficiently specific reference to the record.

The Court is mindful that in reviewing a motion for summary judgment, it must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, give the non-moving party the benefit of any inferences that can logically be drawn from those facts, Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, and resolve all conflicts in favor of the non-moving party. Robert Johnson Grain Co. v. Chemical Interchange Co., 541 F.2d 207, 210 (8th Cir. 1976). For purposes of resolving instant motions, the Court largely adopts plaintiff's statement of additional material facts, although many are controverted by the defendants.

III. Facts

With the foregoing standards in mind, the Court accepts the following facts as true for purposes of resolving this motion for summary judgment.

Facts Based on Defendants Carr and Sharp's Statements of Facts

1. On October 29, 1997, defendant Carr applied for and obtained a state search warrant to search for cocaine base in a two-story, two-family residence located at 2802 Missouri Avenue (" 2082 Missouri") in the City of St. Louis. Sharp Ex. A at 1.

2. The target of the search warrant was an individual named Sherrod Greenlaw. Sharp Ex. A.

3. On October 29, 1997, five officers of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (" SLMPD"), including defendant Carr and his partner, defendant Sharp, executed the search warrant at 2802 Missouri. Sharp Ex. B at 7.

4. The police found and seized guns and money during the search and found a bag containing three clear plastic bags that contained crack cocaine. Sharp Ex. B at 9, Sharp Ex. C at 18-19.

5. Plaintiff Stephen Jones was inside his father's apartment in the residence at 2802 Missouri when the police executed the search warrant. Carr Ex. D, Jones Dep. 49-50.

6. The police detained plaintiff on the couch during the search on October 29, 1997. Jones Dep. 67.

7. Defendants Carr and Sharp took plaintiff to the police station after the search on October 29, 1997, and released him about an hour later the same day. Jones Dep. 76-77, 84-85; Carr Ex. B at 10.

8. On October 31, 1997, defendant Carr drafted the report detailing the incident. Sharp Ex. B at 11.

9. On December 15, 1997, a federal warrant was issued for plaintiff's arrest. Carr Ex. D.

10. On or about December 24, 1997, plaintiff was arrested by a police officer from an unknown St. Louis County jurisdiction. Jones Dep. 90-91.

11. Plaintiff was indicted by a federal grand jury and charged with possession of the illegal drugs allegedly found inside the residence at 2802 Missouri. Jones Dep. 95.

12. Defendants Carr and Sharp testified at plaintiff's criminal trial in February 1998. Transcript of Trial and Sent. (" Tr.") 112-57, 160-79.

13. Defendants Carr and Sharp each testified they had seen plaintiff holding the drugs in his hand when they entered the premises at 2802 Missouri on October 29, 1997. Tr. 124-28, 163-64.

14. Plaintiff did not testify at his criminal trial, but his attorney argued to the jury in closing argument that defendants Carr and Sharp had lied about having seen plaintiff holding drugs in his hand. Tr. 262-67

15. The only exhibits offered at plaintiff's criminal trial were the drugs allegedly recovered from 2802 Missouri and the search warrant, affidavit, and return and inventory. Tr. 4, 116-19, 129-31.

16. Defendant Carr took photographs of the scene on October 29, 1997, but he claims that the photographs were lost between the time he conveyed them to the SLMPD forensic lab and the time of plaintiff's criminal trial in February 1998. Tr. 151; Ex. B at 10.

17. No documentation exists to verify that Carr took the photographs to the forensic lab. The police report Carr prepared contains chain of custody documentation for the seized guns and drugs, but not the photographs. Ex. B at 12-20.

18. The jury convicted plaintiff and he was sentenced to 240 months in prison.

19. On November 10, 2010, U.S. District Judge Carol E. Jackson of this Court vacated plaintiff's sentence, and plaintiff was released from federal prison shortly thereafter. Carr Ex. G.

20. On or about March 22, 2011, plaintiff applied to this Court for a certificate of innocence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2513. The United States subsequently joined in the application, and Judge Jackson granted it on May 12, 2011.

Facts Based on Plaintiff's Additional Statement of Facts

21. On February 27, 1998, plaintiff Stephen Jones was convicted by a jury in this Court of one count of possession with intent to distribute 79.49 grams of cocaine base. Pursuant to sentencing guidelines, plaintiff was sentenced to 240 months in prison, a punishment the Court stated at the time of sentencing was " a draconian sentence, considering the facts of this case." Pl. Ex.1, Tr. 303.

22. Detective Carr's affidavit formed the basis for the search warrant of the Jones apartment at 2802 Missouri. In the affidavit, Carr stated the confidential informant had provided information that had proved reliable and resulted in three prior arrests; the confidential informant had advised Detective Carr that Sherrod Greenlaw was selling cocaine base out of the Jones apartment at 2802 Missouri; the confidential informant had been inside the Jones apartment within 18 hours of the execution of the affidavit and had observed a " large amount of cocaine base" inside the residence. Sherrod Greenlaw was seen using his cell phone on plaintiff's father Samuel Jones' front porch by the investigating Detectives. Sherrod Greenlaw was the sole subject of the search warrant. Pl. Ex. 2, Carr Aff. in Support of Search Warrant.

23. Sherrod Greenlaw was detained by Carr and Sharp and brought to 2802 Missouri at the time of the execution of the search warrant. Ex. 3, Police Report, JONES 1500-1501.

24. During the time period around plaintiff's arrest, Sherrod Greenlaw, the subject of the search warrant, had constant access to the keys to Samuel Jones' apartment because Greenlaw was dating Samuel Jones' daughter, Monica Jones. Greenlaw would babysit Monica Jones' children while she was at work at the U.S. Post Office. Greenlaw came and went from the Jones' home on a regular basis to pick up and drop off the children. Ex. 4, Aff. of Samuel Jones (" Jones Aff.") ¶ 4.

25. Samuel Jones believes the cocaine base belonged to Sherrod Greenlaw and that Greenlaw was using Jones' home as a " safe house." Jones Aff. ¶ 4.

26. Stephen Jones did not live at his father's apartment. Jones Aff. ¶ 3; Jones Dep. 32-34. Samuel Jones' home at 2802 Missouri was a two-bedroom apartment. Jones Aff. ¶ 2. Plaintiff's father, Samuel Jones, and his mother Doris Jones, a bus driver, lived in one bedroom of the home. Id. ¶ 2. Samuel Jones' granddaughter Kiihandra Jones and his grandniece Taquita Wren shared the other bedroom. Samuel Jones' brother-in-law Michael Wren was living in the basement. Id.

27. On the date of his arrest, October 29, 1997, Stephen Jones was primarily residing at an apartment, at 2506 Lafayette in the City of St. Louis with his girlfriend Loukeena Dixon. Jones Aff. ¶ 3; Jones Dep. 32-34.

28. According to the police report prepared by Carr, on October 29, 1997, " Upon entering the residence, Detectives Carr and Sharp observed a black male run toward the rear of the residence holding a plastic bag in his right hand. Detectives Carr and Sharp gave chase after the male into the kitchen, where he dropped the plastic bag onto the kitchen floor and attempted to open the rear door of the residence, " when he was detained by Carr and Sharp. Pl. Ex. 3, Police Report, JONES 1501.

29. According to the police report prepared by Carr, the bag containing the crack cocaine was found on the kitchen floor. Pl. Ex. 3, Police Report, JONES 1501-1502.

30. There was no physical evidence gathered or disclosed in the underlying criminal proceeding, such as fingerprints or photographs, that linked Stephen Jones to the cocaine base. Tr. 149:11-22; 151:20-22.

31. There is no indication in the police report and no testimony at trial to the effect that any of the other detectives on the front porch saw Stephen Jones in possession of the freezer bag or pursued Stephen Jones into the kitchen where Carr and Sharp alleged he ran. Pl. Ex. 3, Police Report.

32. The police report prepared by Carr states that " [p]hotographs of the scene and seized items were taken by Detective Carr." Ex. 3, Police Report, JONES 1503. However, the photographs allegedly taken by Detective Carr of the freezer bag where it was allegedly recovered in the kitchen were not provided to prosecutors because " somehow they got lost" by the forensic lab, according to Detective Carr. Tr. 151:20-22.

33. Stephen R. Welby, the Assistant United States Attorney in charge of the prosecution of Stephen Jones, reviewed Carr's police report and discussed both Carr and Sharp's testimony with them before calling them to testify. Mr. Welby relied on what Carr put in the police report as well as what Carr and Sharp told him in pre-trial interviews in prosecuting Stephen Jones. Ex. 6, Aff. of Stephen R. Welby ¶ ¶ 2-3.

34. Without Carr's police report and the information provided in Carr and Sharp's pre-trial interviews, Mr. Welby would not have prosecuted Stephen Jones. Welby Aff. ¶ 4.

35. Kiihandra Jones and Curtiz Prago testified at plaintiff's criminal trial that Stephen Jones himself opened the front door for the police. They testified that the police immediately cuffed Stephen Jones when they entered the apartment and seated him in the front/living room with the others who were present in the apartment while the apartment was searched. Both witnesses denied that either Stephen or the officers ever ran down the hallway and into the kitchen, and testified that after the police searched the apartment, the police showed everyone in the living room the bag of cocaine base. Tr. 236:18-237:5, 247:6-16.

36. Kiihandra Jones testified at trial that a police officer first showed the freezer bag to her while that officer was in the apartment's middle room, which was her and Taquita Wren's bedroom. Tr. 239:17-20.

37. Plaintiff's father, Samuel Jones, testified that after he arrived home Detective Sharp told him that the officers had actually found the freezer bag of cocaine base in the dresser by the window in the middle bedroom. Tr. 221-22.

38. On the date of plaintiff Stephen Jones' arrest, his father Samuel Jones had $5, 200.00 hidden under the insulation/lining of a winter boot in the back of his closet. Mr. Jones had hidden cash in his closet ever since his family settled a wrongful death case arising out of the death of his mother, Lillie Mae Jones, from which he received approximately $10, 000.00. The money that Samuel Jones had hidden on the date of his son's arrest also came from his employment as a handyman, gardener and running errands. Samuel Jones had never used a bank and routinely kept cash in his home. Jones Aff.

39. Samuel Jones arrived home while the police were still at his apartment with Stephen Jones in custody. After learning of the search he asked to go search the closet to see if the money was still there. The police would not let him look. After the police left he looked and discovered that the money was no longer in the boot. Jones Aff.

40. Thereafter Samuel Jones called Detective Carr and told him about the missing money. Samuel Jones told other police officers, as well as Stephen Jones' criminal defense attorney, Peter M. Cohen. Samuel Jones told members of the press, including Betsy Bruce, about the missing money " every chance that [he] got." The press always told him to " bring us proof" because, as they said, it was otherwise Mr. Jones' word against the police. Jones Aff.

41. Attorney Peter M. Cohen represented Stephen Jones in this Court at the trial of the criminal case. Mr. Cohen avers that he was advised at the time by Samuel Jones and Stephen Jones as to each of the circumstances set forth in Samuel Jones' Affidavit. Ex. 7, Aff. of Peter M. Cohen.

42. Mr. Cohen states that Samuel Jones told him about the missing money, but it was decided not to use at trial the issue of money being stolen from the apartment, because it was Mr. Jones' word against the police and because " it could look to the jury like a desperate act and an attempt to shift the focus of the case to an irrelevant fact." Cohen Aff.

43. Defendants Carr and Sharp detained Sherrod Greenlaw a second time on October 29, 1997, at 7:30 p.m. In the police report prepared by Defendant Sharp, Sharp alleges that after receiving " complaints about suspected narcotics sells, " Sharp witnessed a hand-to-hand transaction involving Greenlaw. The officers pulled over Greenlaw's vehicle and arrested him after he attempted to discard crack cocaine under the vehicle. Ex. 3, Police Reports, JONES 1513.

44. According to the SLMPD's incident reporting system, the police report of Greenlaw's arrest and the police report of plaintiff Stephen Jones' arrest were both prepared on the same day, October 31, 1997, two days after the search of 2802 Missouri. See Ex. 3, Police Reports, JONES 1494 and 1507. However, the report prepared by Carr does not reference the fact that Carr was involved in detaining Greenlaw again later on the same day. The report prepared by Sharp relating to the second arrest of Greenlaw merely states that Greenlaw " was early [sic] detained by the detectives in a narcotic investigation." Id. at 1514. The report does not state where or when Greenlaw had been earlier detained, nor does it refer to plaintiff Stephen Jones.

45. In Carr's deposition testimony, when asked if the police report, or a supplemental report, should have disclosed that Greenlaw had been arrested later that same day for selling cocaine, he stated that it should have been included if it were " pertinent information" and that he " probably would put a statement in there reflecting back to that police report." Carr Dep. 65-67.

46. Former Assistant United States Attorney (" AUSA") Stephen Welby does not recall being aware that Sherrod Greenlaw had been arrested again later on the same day as the execution of the search warrant and arrest of Stephen Jones, or that Detective Shell Sharp prepared a separate police report stating that Greenlaw was arrested later on in the same day for doing sales of crack cocaine on the street. Welby Aff. ¶ 6.

47. Stephen Welby believes that had he known these facts, he would have disclosed the report of the subsequent arrest of Greenlaw to defense counsel in the prosecution of Stephen Jones. Welby Aff. ¶ 7.

48. A federal investigation into corruption in the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department was initiated in 2007 and eventually led to the indictments of police officers. Among the officers indicted was Defendant Vincent Carr. United States v. Carr, No. 4: 08-CR-703 ERW (E.D. Mo.) In February 2009, Carr pleaded guilty to five felony charges in this Court stemming from the investigation into his corrupt activities. These charges included wire fraud, wire fraud conspiracy, two counts of lying to Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and one count of obstruction of justice arising from Carr's misconduct and corrupt practices during a drug raid in June 2008 and Carr's subsequent attempts to cover up his actions. Carr stole money and drugs from a drug dealer, and then protected the dealer from investigation so he could keep some of the seized funds. The officers then planted evidence in order to frame another person for the crime. Pl.'s Ex. 9, Carr Amended Judgment; Pl.'s Ex. 10, Tr. of Carr Guilty Plea in Case No. 4:08-CR-703 ERW.

49. In his criminal case, Carr admitted that he obtained a search warrant for the first floor apartment of a building at 1475 Arlington Avenue in the City of St. Louis, saying he had information that drugs were sold and stored there by an individual named " Black." Carr and Detective Bobby Lee Garrett first stopped the building owner, C.C., who did not live there and who stated that any drugs on the premises belonged to the residents. Carr and Garrett then stopped the vehicle of a second floor resident, J.S., and questioned him. J.S. admitted he had crack cocaine, a firearm and $32, 000 cash in his apartment. J.S. was handcuffed and placed in the police car. Tr. of Carr Guilty Plea 9-10.

50. Carr admitted that on June 6, 2008, along with other officers called to assist, he transported both C.C. and J.S. back to the first floor residence at 1475 Arlington Avenue, where a search of the first floor premises was conducted pursuant to the state search warrant. C.C. and J.S. were kept handcuffed and seated in the front room of the first floor residence. Cocaine, marijuana, and several firearms were located and recovered from the kitchen and a back bedroom during the search of the first floor premises. Tr. of Carr Guilty Plea 19.

51. While other officers were conducting the search of the first floor premises, Garrett entered into J.S.' bedroom on the second floor on two separate occasions and recovered crack cocaine, a loaded 9mm pistol and approximately $32, 000 in cash. Garrett brought the crack cocaine, the loaded pistol, and a bundle containing $3, 710 back into the first floor premises and falsely advised the officers searching there that he'd recovered the items from a couch in the middle room of the first floor premises. Garrett kept the remainder of the currency without reporting it. Defendant Carr admitted in his guilty plea that Garrett gave him approximately $3, 300 of the currency taken from J.S.' second floor bedroom. Tr. of Carr Guilty Plea 19-20.

52. Carr and Garrett released J.S. following the search of 1475 Arlington Avenue without charging him relative to his possession of crack cocaine and the pistol, so that J.S. would not complain about and report the theft of his money. Carr and Garrett arrested C.C. and booked him for the possession of all of the illegal drugs recovered during the search of the first floor premises at 1475 Arlington Avenue as well as the crack cocaine taken by Garrett from J.S.' bedroom on the second floor at 1475 Arlington Avenue, in order to conceal the fact that Garrett had entered the second floor premises and taken J.S.' crack cocaine, pistol and money. Tr. of Carr Guilty Plea 20.

53. Defendant Carr filled out a false police report in an effort to conceal Carr and Garrett's crime. Specifically, in order to conceal the fact that Garrett had taken the crack cocaine, pistol and money from J.S.' second floor bedroom, the police report prepared by Carr failed to include the facts that the officers had stopped J.S. in his vehicle, had handcuffed and detained J.S., and had transported J.S. back to the first floor premises at the Arlington Avenue address where J.S. remained until completion of the search. Tr. of Carr Guilty Plea 21.

54. Further, the police report prepared by defendant Carr failed to include the fact that J.S. had admitted to possessing a large amount of crack cocaine, a pistol, and a large amount of United States currency inside his bedroom on the second floor at 1475 Arlington Avenue, again to conceal the fact that Garrett had taken the crack, pistol, and money from J.S.' second floor bedroom. Tr. of Carr Guilty Plea 21.

55. The police report prepared by Carr failed to include the fact that Garrett had searched the second floor bedroom of J.S. and located and recovered the crack cocaine, the loaded pistol and United States currency, in order to conceal those facts, and falsely stated that Garrett had located and recovered J.S.' crack cocaine, the pistol and a portion of the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.