Case l:13-cv-0G650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01ÿ13 Page l of 42

EZRA MABLE * IN THE UNITED STATES 833 Baltimore, Maryland 21201 * DISTRICT COURT FOR

Plain till, THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND v.

MAYOR AND CITY CONCIL OF BALTIMORE CITY 1 00 North Holiday Stmt Baltimore, Maryland 21 202

Serve an; George Nilson 100 North Holiday Street Baltimore* Maryland 21202 and

THE BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT 601 East Fayette Street Baltimore. Matyland 21202

ftrwfflt; Chief, Legal Counsel 242 West 29*Street Baltimore, Maryland 21211 and

ED NORRIS, Former Commissioner, in his individual capacity, Baltimore City Police Department 601 East Fayette Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 and

ANTHONY BATTS, Commissioner, in hts official capacity, Baltimore City Police Department 601 East Fayette Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 and

WILLIAM RITZ, Detective, in his individual and official capacity Baltimore City Police Department 601 Baltimore Baltimore, WILLIAM and in 601 Baltimore, STANLEY Baltimore and in 601 Baltimore, Baltimore and in KENNETH 601 Baltimore, KIRK Baltimore and in JOSEPH 601 Baltimore Baltimore, and in 601 Baltimore, HOMER Baltimore and in 601 Baltimore, his his his his his his East East East East East East East individual individual individual individual individual individual HASTINGS, Fayette Fayette Fayette Fayette Fayette Fayette Fayette City City City PHELPS, City PENNINGTON, City Maryland City Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland

POHLER, REAVES, Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 2 of 42 of 2 Page 03/01/13 Filed 1 Document 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Case JONES, Police Police Police Police Police Police and and and Street and Street and Street and Street Street Street Street official official official official 21202 21202 official official 21202 Detective, 21202 Detective, 21202 21202 Department 21202 Department Department Warrant Department Department Department Officer, Officer, capacity, capacity, capacity, Detective, capacity, capacity, capacity, Task Force, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ROSALIND and 601 Baltimore, Baltimore MARK and in Baltimore, JAMES 601 Baltimore and in 601 Baltimore Baltimore, KARL and in 601 Baltimore, SHU Baltimore in and 601 Baltimore, Baltimore D.T. and in 601 Baltimore, Baltimore in MICHAEL and his his his his his his East East East East East East RONEY, individual WALTMEYER, individual individual individual individual individual HARRIS, TAKACS, Fayette WAGSTER, Fayette Fayette Fayette Fayette Fayette City City City City Maiyland City Maryland City Maryland Maryland Maryland

Maryland Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 3 of 42 of 3 Page 03/01/13 Filed 1 Document 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Case BOWMAN, COLEMAN, Police Police Police Police Police Officer, Police and and and Street and Street and Street and Street Street Street Technician, Officer, official official official 21202 official 21202 official 21202 official 21202 21202 21202 Department Department Department Department Department Department Officer, Technician, Officer, Officer, capacity, capacity, capacity, capacity, capacity, capacity, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 601 Baltimore, Baltimore in RICHARD Police unknown and 601 Baltimore, Baltimore JOHN in unknown and Baltimore, 601 Baltimore in their their her East East East Department individual individual AND * individual Fayette Fayette Fayette Baltimore Baltimore City City City Maryland Maiyland Maryland

AND Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 4 of 42 of 4 Page 03/01/13 Filed 1 Document 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Case JANE Police Police always police. back family type Police use Kevin I Defendants. * Street Street and Street was and JANE and Supervisors, their City City of DOES any 21202 21202 official 21202 Department Department Dukes official eighteen. Department official I knew They people * have Police ROES real details. 1-20, ’ it always capacity, left. cold-blooded capacities, they names capacities, wasn * Officers, I 1- Make was So, are. 20, 7 have in me. tell alone. sure Iam * this the known COMPLAINT murder lawsuit, you not story I was * * * * * * * * * * * * one * * use who are exactly scared. of aliases. I murdered fear them murderers - * Case Ezra that as and The And Number: Mable it * they Kevin happened. never people don - they will ’t have Dukes. worry * responsible kill. kill Do been. That what about And not * If is little hold they you the the for * * * - -

Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 5 of 42

OF

&of This INTRODUCTION action onea NATUREthe most THE ACTION ( City’s shameful arisesfrom episodes of The Plaintiff, Mable, an man, police misconductor a and, for Ezra America’sat “Eddie”) history. not murder the Most Baltimore thereafter,the arrestedhea wasinnocentthat was placed in BaltimoreCity Policeleast Wanted commit. There on knew from did cold-blooded the Mable’sDepartment of clearly negligence symphony bumblingoutset involved is and conspiracy events Mr. doorstep. strongdeliberate the at were 1. the suggestion which laid hereinafter There of by Eichelberger their even the that Defendantsknew thattheyEdmond to to satisfy and, murderer alone, DukesandMablethat Mr. was cold-bloodedby Kevin chose fall place. protected Eddie’sa own circumstance to take the of And that purposes, thirty yearsMr. him his Mable did. He nearlyin sentence sentenced State’s Attorney’s bars and served decade for was City behind for his the the Office for beforeRelief Baltimore Circuit read Baltimoreself-authoredare Post-Conviction joined2. moving City Petitionrelease. , a and in forCourt so his the of a said frequency himis thatpetitions relief with It the evidence of the granted that even solar however, Defendants’post-convictionmisconductof eclipse; and, at a is overwhelming with best, criminallaw, for grade knowledge the Mr. Mable’sof ninth the Petition educationRelief wasgranted,cursory on tenth Post- coincidentally anniversary Conviction 3. Mr. for Relief,murder. the Muchoflike Mable’s Petition of thisComplaint Post-Conviction reflects Defendants’ web intentional bungling concealment throughout and exculpatory of their and Mr. Mable’s evidence all phases throughout prosecution, investigation,4. conviction, andasincarceration.to The witnesses contradicted every detaila Defendants’toprincipal eachother almost“Vehicle”); the have of they stated( that did not get observed,save thefollowing; both good incidentat claimed theythe the shooteras Kevin Dukes’ look wasexiting motorvehicle he the shooter; were illegal deals hereinafter theboth identified Eddieas offered by the Defendants, whereby not arrestboth serious drug them charges exchange Defendants would in for identifyingsomeone on , from theDefendants’ illegal deals; of theirphoto-lineup; both accepted the and oftheir descriptionsMr. the both of arguably match Eddie,but the deceased, Dukes, all the shooter undoubtedlymatch wasdescription to theclothing hewaswearing way down whenhe murdered. 5. asthe Just and the Defendants’intentionallyas malicious criminally negligent handling of the as far findingcrediblewitnesses, humanpart of investigation competently interviewing them, and following leads was abomination, their of careless upon handling physical evidencewas equally and an to is escape theconclusion was about negligent,so much so thatit impossible thatthere an intentionality Mr.Dukes’ murder innocentparty, oratleast other than pinning cold-blooded anon onsomeone Eddie, the shooter. despite vastdemonstrable evidence thatEddiewas the There were thirteenbulletsrecovered of fromMr. Dukes’body, nine which stillare unaccounted for.Likewise, only eight cartridge casings

1 Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 6 of 42

mats, floor at There the recovered, some are that under that for. that were five still unaccounted no bullets the leaving was Vehicle the the Also, aHowever,least evidence was Vehicle. theDefendants concluded exited hadnot nonetheless was the seat of the furthercrime. Ziploc™that thatwas blood the the back any Vehicle,the Vehicle, he Mr.bagDukes murdered interior found scenethere of suggesting but transported where really covered blood. rather found murdered on addition,to Mr. numerousin in Eddie’sDefendantsin just Dukes’wasfingernails and reports that Dukesa scratched blood to and received Mr. Eddie’s underfrom Mr. Dukes’ The identified murder. Defendants scratchesIn get that neck to they willfully on prior they received;however, DNA sampleneck reports Dukes’refused to the thehad Mr. conformed the from Eddie compareagainst samplerecovered under resultacts of reckless, 6. As direct Defendants’from intentional, fingernails. willful, wanton, deliberately a and omissions, Mr. Mable sustained damages, injuriesand including, of indifferent, severe distress, and bad-faith injuries, and mentalcare,anguish, others, suffering, loss amongincome, personal painillness, to humiliation,emotional inflictionof medical indignities embarrassment, emotional inadequate of and injuryof degradation, reputation, permanent loss natural psychologicalto, and forms but not diet, development, all freedom limited sleep, personal restrictionscontact, personal including, on vocational fulfillment, activity, family opportunity, personal sexual relations,educational opportunity, enjoyment, and expression. other personal is the amount 7. seeking in thirty-fivehis Mr. Mable damages of dollars theDefendants. that a jury of million the ($35,000,000.00) believes peersto Defendants, from He will that in find charges and conspired and individually, concert, confederationHe maliciously bring continue murder a the includingin him. additionally jury will that as against against were believes that find Defendants knew that thecharges baseless completely unsupported by probable cause, time they and levied him forensic again were by examination, evidence,documentary and evidence, contradicted investigativetheir to haste hold other than for Mr. and sense. Eddie accountableto common In someone the murder,the Defendantswillfully deliberately overwhelming Dukes’ of ignored andwere indifferent Mr. Mable’sactual evidence innocence. 8. of Mr. is to Defendants’ that deprived his rights Mable entitled redress forthe acts him of State of federal law,including the Constitution,and the the secured under United States laws its of but also theDefendants Maryland,including Declaration Rights.For the foregoing, because intentionallyand the City maliciously deceived theCircuit CourtforBaltimore City and Baltimore State’s Attorney’s Mable Officeinto continued prosecutions againstMr. and otherwiseintentionally to to refused prevent and denials, Mr. Mable at thehands of such deprivations causing needlessly suffer the he filesthis Defendants,from which will nevertrulyrecover, Mr. Mablehereby Complaint against partiesthe named hereafter.

2 and Baltimore charged O’Malley Norris Defendant during policing 1983. Annotated, officers is this makers is H. of I. demonstrable likely recently about murdered Mable beginning an and Baltimore, extramarital respect, agency was figured was Mr. which hopes for 14. 13. that B. employed 12. THE A. THE 11. policies 10. 9. committed and City in Norris Dukes’ a to indicted the

Courts Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 7 of 42 of 7 Page 03/01/13 Filed 1 Document 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Case the Defendant of municipal cold time end, that the DEFENDANTS then PLAINTIFF evidence out, Baltimore Police the The City THE At THE At affairs At As The that served State blood. the and he by death and as as State all all all on far another Defendant, of focused Defendants’ BALTIMORE CITY long was the Superintendent Department’s Dukes times times the times three Judicial of corporation, as with Norris of Baltimore and of as Baltimore City Maiyland, selected Eddie redress his as OF Maryland, the murder. at criminal herein herein herein family the the on guilt, Police had BALTIMORE least Commissioner Proceedings, Ed corresponding is unconstitutionally Baltimore that investigation acted made by CITY concerned, pertinent, pertinent, pertinent, Norris, he finally City six organized supplemental However, and Department, charges of New but Mr. will women. the through POLICE illegal Police a otherwise Mable citizen gets York was continue City Maryland § the the the by of the and 5-301(d)(21) he closure personal into a the Department. PARTIES The Police its U.S. City’s the Defendant, Defendant, Plaintiff, DEPARTMENT 20-year desires Baltimore account of is and existing arresting truth agents, 3 Mr. neither a to third Baltimore the Attorney State local held get that Department former Dukes’ United expenditures from follows veteran Count to away Ezra employees under responsibility they government Police. behind and City Baltimore poor Mayor pay the Mayor, City Thomas States Mable, murder is have with charged for in Police the of people Baltimore subject In bars continues this and Police the expensive laws murder. deserved of late and of Rudolph City is DiBiagio. New was Complaint. nor under City Department over America. in that for and 2003, to of servants, Department poor awaiting Police City a suit the the Council York he $20,000.00 to was catastrophic Maryland gifts, since Giuliani, willfully however, had State conduct places. under Police Two a Department, Police Additionally, who resident believes lied personal Mr. trial. of of 42 of under Department Thereafter, Baltimore Code were Maryland. on of Dukes from to ignore Department, the Defendant As U.S.C. failure the a implement of that Governor Counts mortgage he expenses, the the the police was was has Mr. § he from policy City, City In and Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 8 of 42

to 8, of tax charges 2004, Defendant Norris federal application and taxes. tosix three 9, and his to On March years corruption guilty and hoursonof Towards the of pled probation, sentenced months federaltheprison, supervised and wasto Defendant community service. the his probation, 2006, 500 in fromend OctoberDepartment’s supplemental As using City Norris hisillegally on Police admittedfund extramarital the Baltimore account 15. affairs.money asthe of Baltimore Department, City Chiefof Officer the Norris with Commissioner Police ExecutivePolice ofthe Defendant City was charged functioningdirecting and Department. and affairs of PolicePolice BaltimoreBaltimore the and City he attending the of Department, supervising operations or vested powers, rights, and privilegesrule, In was all the responsibility and with the the management directive, appropriate, (1) exercise same, where of Baltimore orderPolice other could which members regulation,notCity departmental and towas bindingat all by is to: The vested Defendant included, but Department. authority his on Norris limited appointing deputy responsibility serve the of commissioners other ranks and above in and positions captain for of and the rank the ensuring pleasure, (2)and major purpose efficient operation of of the staffing functional of effectiveCityPolice Department; and establishing (3) Baltimore for thedetermining Police classifications subdivisionsranks, gradesand the within BaltimoreCity to officers Department; positions police of determininganddesignating authority,responsibility,the duties,assignments, rights privileges rank, establishing ofand the grade and (4) order ofsuccession within orposition, positions command each attendance, conduct, City regulating of and Baltimore Police Department; the training, procedure for members theBaltimorefor discipline all of Police Department and making other rules,regulations,its as theCity of the and (5) good governance BaltimoreCityor and orders were Police Department necessaryand amending,rescinding, rule, order members; suspending, abrogating canceling any regulation, or directiveadopted or police other departmental by anyformer commissioner,to and adopting himorders as the all reasonable rules,regulations deemed enable Baltimore other to and he necessary City discharge duties. Defendant Norris his effectively its isbeing sued Police Department in individual capacity. 6. the the The Defendant, CommissionerAnthony Batts, of As is Commissioner Baltimore Commissioner,he is as Chief of 1City PoliceDepartment. charged withfunctioning the Police and Officer of theBaltimore City PoliceDepartment. directing andsupervising theoperations Executive In and of the Police Commissioner isvested the affairs Baltimore City Department, the withall powers, of rights, andprivileges attending theresponsibility managementand may exercisethe same, where orother rule,regulation, order directive, is binding allmembers appropriate, by departmental which on Baltimore Theauthority the of the CityPolice Department. andresponsibility vestedin Commissioner to: (1) to includes, butis notlimited appointing deputycommissioners serve athispleasure, and other 4 Case l:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Fifed 03/01/13 Page 36 of 42

XVI. THE DEFENDANTS LIKEWISE MADE TAYLOR AN ILLEGAL OFFER SHE COULDN’T REFUSE.

128. After coercing a positive identification from Ms, Frazier, which unfortunately for the Defendants was of Eddie and not Mr. Mabie, the Defendants interviewed Lachelle Taylor and offered her a deaf similar to the one they had offered to Ms, Frazier. In fact, the offer likewise included the promise that the Defendants would not arrest her for the possession of illegal narcotics if she made an identification. However, unlike Ms, Frazier, who Ms, Spriggs had indicated might know something about Mr, Dukes’ murder, the Defendants did not have any information that even so much as hinted that Ms, Taylor might have witnessed Mr. Dukes’ murder. She was just a woman in the Cherry Hill area with a drug addiction that was getting the best of her, and the Defendants seized upon it In so doing, the Defendants briefed Ms. Taylor on the basic facts of their theory of the case so that she herself was not shooting entirely in the dark, 129. The Defendants orchestrated a recorded interview with Ms. Taylor, and questioned her about her recollection of the evening of Mr. Dukes’ murder. Ms. Taylor stated that she was at a friend’s house, but had trouble indicating where it was, which could be explained by the comment of the police officer taking notes on her recorded interview, who stated that when Ms, Taylor was shown a photo array minutes before her recorded statement, her speech was slurred. He speculated that she was a possible drunk. It is also possible that she was high. 130. Ms. Taylor’s stoiy started out with her looking out a window. Then, her story changed to her looking out a screen door that faced north on Round Road. She stated that she observed someone parking Mr. Dukes’ motor vehicle on Round Road and not drifting down a hill as was stated by Ms. Frazier. Then, Ms, Taylor staled that she left the screen door. Less than a minute later, she claimed to have heard a series of gunshots, which made her return to the screen door “and that is when [shej saw the guy in those pictures [she] had identified running away from the car.’1’ She further commented that there were a lot of people outside before the shooting, but after, the streets were clear. 13L Ms. Taylor stated that after she saw the man get out of Mr. Dukes’ motor vehicle, “it was a real long time before the police arrived.” She then speculated that Mr, Dukes might still have been breathing if the police responded in a timely manner and estimated that it was approximately forty-five minutes before the police responded. As noted above, Ms. Graves also provided that there was likely a lapse in time between Mr. Dukes’ murder and when the Defendants arrived, but all other statements reflect that the Defendants arrived at the Vehicle in under five minutes, 132. Ms. Taylor was asked by the Defendants whether she was close enough to see what color gun the shooter was brandishing. She replied: “No, [ wasn’t that close. I was close enough to see when hts amis were swinging and see the gun in his hand." So, like Ms, Frazier, Ms. Taylor did not

32 Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 10 of 42

of and to to practice, City custom, and the Police pursuant atall or the Phelps Department, either official herein, usage City referred customs, acted the PolicetheDepartment.of Additionally, policy,times of Baltimoreunder laws, statutes, ordinances, Defendantusages of the regulations, to of the State color the and Maryland, BaltimoreCity pursuant as a theofficerCity of Baltimore, City Police policies, is suedhis authorityhis Baltimore Department.Police and Department,Phelps being police Defendanta in of capacity. a and20. all the was individual official pertinent, Defendant, servant,officer the Hastings,as police At herein Kirk of Baltimorethe CityPolicetimesDepartment, acting such agent, the and acting capacity control and employee Police Baltimore Department,was under the of City to was and in or an and usage of and direction Baltimore and pursuant the practice, the CityPolice Department, officialall custom,to Baltimore City Department. either times Hastings Police Additionally, at policy, color laws, Defendant of the of under statutes, referred herein, usages acted the of the the regulations, and State the of policies, customs, is to Baltimore, ordinances, Police his Maryland, the Baltimore pursuant authority as a officer of City and sued City Baltimore Police being his police City Department. Department,Hastings a and Defendant capacity. in official the a individual 21. Jones, officer At all of the times hereinpertinent, Defendant,Kenneth as agent, servant, City Department, and such was police and of Police capacitythe the Baltimore was acting in employee the City Police control of Baltimore Department, acting under an and andto was Baltimore City Police and either directionthe custom,to pursuant policy, or practice, and of the Department, officialat usage BaltimoreCity Department. all herein, Defendant colorPoliceof times acted under the laws, Additionally, referred Jonesof the statutes, ordinances,regulations, customs, and usagesto the of the policies, his State of theCity Baltimore, City Maryland, Police and pursuant authority as a of the Baltimore is officer Baltimore Department,Jones police CityPolice Department.Defendant being sued his in and official capacity. a individual 22. times the was At all herein pertinent, Stanley Reaves, is police the Defendant, as and officer City Police acting a agent, servant, of such capacity an and Baltimore the Department,and was of Baltimore Police under employee City andin acting the and of the Department, was ordirectionthe control BaltimoreCity Police to either policy, custom,to Department, andpursuant official practice, and the herein, usage of Baltimore CityPolice Additionally, at all timesreferred Department. customs,Defendant ofthe ordinances, regulations, and Reaves actedunder thecolor laws, statutes, policies, usages of the theState of Maryland, Cityof Baltimore, theBaltimoreCity PoliceDepartment, and pursuant to as a the Police is hisauthority policeofficer ofBaltimore City Department. Defendant Reaves being his and capacity. suedin individual official

6 Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 11 of 42

a Pohler, 23. a herein theDefendant, as the City times servant, At all Department, was was employeeof of pertinent, officerand and toacting such agent, police Police acting Williamcapacitythe an of Baltimore PoliceCity of and at the the andDepartment, in all and the CityBaltimoreDepartment, was under custom,to control Baltimore Police pursuant either policy, or practice, and the Police official direction DefendantusagePohler acted City Department.statutes, ordinances, the Additionally, to of the Baltimore laws,of the times policies, of the referred herein, and usages color of Baltimore, regulations, customs, State under City the City Maryland,a and pursuant his authority as theofficer of Baltimore City Police is his Baltimore Department,Pohler sued police Police and Department. Defendant being was 24. capacity.times a in individual officialAt herein Defendant, all as City pertinent, the a policeservant, of the of acting Michael Coleman, agent, officer Department, and Baltimore thePolice City and such capacityunder the to control employee Baltimore Department,was acting thedirection and Police was an of and the City and toin custom, practice, thePolice Department, officialatpolicy, and Baltimore City either timesor herein, usage of thePolice ofpursuant statutes,Additionally, all referred Department. ordinances, Baltimoreacted the laws, Defendantand theunder color policies, customs, of of Maryland, regulations, Coleman toState the Baltimore, usages City of the Police and authority as a Baltimore Department, his City Police Defendant pursuant his of the City policeofficer Baltimore Department. is sued being in capacity. Coleman 25. all timesindividualherein official was a officer andpertinent, D.T.Roney, police of At the Defendant, as the and a servant, City acting agent, and employee Baltimoreof Police Department, to in capacity an the Police was suchactingunder the and of City and direction the Baltimore Department, was control Baltimore City thecustom, of pursuant either or practice, the PoliceDepartment,and officialpolicy, and usage City Department. at times to Additionally, all referred herein, Roney acted Police statutes, Defendant Baltimore thelaws, regulations, and of of thecolorof ordinances, customs, usages the State under the City policies, Maryland, the of Baltimore, to a City Baltimore Police pursuant authority as Department,and his CityPolice Defendant of theBaltimore Department. being his police officer Roneyis sued and capacity. in individual official 26. timesherein theDefendant,Shu a ofthe Atall pertinent, Waltmeyer,as was policeofficer was a servant, Baltimore CityPolice Department, and actingin such capacity agent, employee an and of Baltimore City Police actingunder the of the the Department, andwas direction andcontrol Baltimore and to thecustom, of CityPolice Department, pursuant eitherofficial policy,or practice,and usage the all to Baltimore City PoliceDepartment.Additionally, at timesreferred herein, DefendantWaltmeyer the the of acted under color of laws,statutes, ordinances, regulations,policies, customs,andusages the to Stateof Maryland, theCity Baltimore,of theBaltimore City PoliceDepartment, and pursuant his

7 Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 12 of 42 as a is ofthe Waltmeyer Baltimore Department. being authority City Defendant his officerand Police police capacity. 27. alltimesofficial theDefendant, of the sued as servant, to a police officerand individual Department,pertinent,and wasacting Karl Harris, an of inBaltimore herein the wasagent,a the City actingsuch capacity of the At employeeBaltimoreof Police under or direction City Department, and the custom,and usage the Police Police eitherwasin controland Baltimore pursuant official to Harris City and at policy, practice, Department,City ordinances, herein, Defendant theacted the Department.laws, Additionally, all to of Baltimore timesreferred of Police statutes, regulations, and his State colortheof the Baltimore, the customs, under BaltimoreCity Maryland, policies, and usages authority as a of pursuant City Baltimore City Police police of the Police Department, is sueda officerand Department. Defendant Harris being his capacity. the was the individual 28. herein James official times in of At pertinent, Defendant, a Wagster, police officerand all and servant, City capacity as theemployee Police Department, was acting the agent, BaltimoreBaltimore Department,was actingtoand such under directionan control of of the CityPolice in and Baltimore City and the practice, policy, or custom, and Police eitherofficial to usage of the Department,CityPolice pursuant Wagster Department.of Additionally,at all Baltimore the the timesreferred herein, Defendant under laws,statutes, ordinances, and toof regulations, customs, usages the acted of color the of Baltimore, policies, and the City Police his State Maryland, City the pursuant asa BaltimorePolice Department,Defendant authority of Baltimore is being sued police officer City Department. Wagster capacity. his the individual and officialtimes the officer of in 29. At herein Defendant, Mark Takacs,was a all pertinent, as policeservant, and a agent, and Baltimore City acting such capacity employee Police Department, was in the an the the was under of of Baltimore Police Department,and acting direction and Baltimore City to control and thecustom, and of CityPolice Department, pursuant either official policy, or practice, usage the atall timesreferred toherein, Defendant Takacs Baltimore CityPolice Department. acted the laws, Additionally, theState under color statutes, ordinances,regulations, ofthe policies, customs,and usagesto of of Maiyland, the of Baltimore, theBaltimoreCity Police his a City Department, and pursuant authority as the City Police his officer of Baltimore Defendant Takacsis sued police Department. being in capacity. individual andofficial30. a times the Rosalind Bowman, At all hereinpertinent, Defendant, was police officer of theBaltimoreCity PoliceDepartment,and acting acapacityas agent, servant,and was in such an of the under of employee Baltimore CityPoliceDepartment, and was acting thedirection and control the either or the Baltimore CityPolice Department, and pursuant to officialpolicy, custom,practice, and to usage of Baltimorethe City PoliceDepartment.Additionally, atall timesreferred herein, Defendant

8 Roes as Maryland, City the under City as City supervisory officials virtue as Maryland, being City under Department, Police Department, ignorance Baltimore Bowman pursuant Bowman usages agents, supervisors custom, police Police of Police Police 1-20 the sued of the Department, Baltimore, of 32. 31. of the color to color is officers’ servants, are the the as acted City the the in Department. Department,

practice, Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 13 of 42 of 13 Page 03/01/13 Filed 1 Document 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Case Department. officials, her being Plaintiffs and were to their being State City City of Baltimore of Police of their authority At under pursuant the At the sued the and/or acting of of individual and of of all and sued all and true Baltimore some the laws, Baltimore, laws, Baltimore, Maryland, Department, times the current times in employees were Additionally, and Additionally, usage in in Baltimore the as City names. her color to within statutes, their statutes, such a were herein either Baltimore acting and herein individual police Police ignorance of City of the individual a John the the official the acting the capacity the of official are pertinent, City ordinances, under pertinent, Police Baltimore officer ordinances, City Baltimore Department the State Baltimore at and at laws, being City all and Police under all as State capacities. of the Jane policy, of Department as and times of to times statutes, Baltimore, Police official sued the Maryland, direction agents, their the the of the City City Does Department. official regulations, City regulations, Defendants, Maryland, and referred referred Defendants, Baltimore or by direction Department, 9 true Police Police capacity. ordinances, the Police 1-20, fictitious its servants, the and capacities. and names. officers, the custom, to to Department, police Department, Baltimore control its Department, and City policies, City Defendant herein, City policies, herein, John Richard officers. names and and control Richard regulations, of practice, of are Police officers and employees of Baltimore, Baltimore, Richard John pursuant customs, being City customs, by the and Jane John and Defendants of and Department. virtue were and and Baltimore of and Police the sued Jane pursuant Does pursuant and the and policies, Jane to Jane State acting usage and of and/or and and/or of either Roes Baltimore by Jane Jane the Department, the 1-20, Roes usages Does usages fictitious Richard of City of Baltimore to in Defendant to Plaintiffs Roes the 1-20, Does customs, the official Maryland, the their such members their 1-20, 1-20 Police Baltimore Baltimore of of City Baltimore 1-20 supervisory 1-20 and the a authority names the authority acted policy, and capacity and City Police current Jane State acted State are the of by the or of of Case l:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 14 of 42

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 33. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States; the Constitution of the State of Maryland; 42 U.S.C, § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1988{b); and Maryland common law,

34. This court has original jurisdiction OVCT Mr. Mable’s constitutional and federal law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1943 and 28 U.S.C, § 1331. This court has supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Mablc's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they are part of the same ease and controversy described in Mr. Mable’s federal claims. 35. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Maryland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §l391(b)(t) and (2) because all of the Defendants in this action reside in Maryland, the action can be brought in a “judicial district where any defendant resides," and a substantial part of the events giving rise to Mr. Mable's claims occurred in the Northern District of Maryland. PRESUIT REQUIREMENTS 36, Although the Plaintiff maintains that there is no applicable immunity for Stateof Maryland statutory or common law claims and/or those arising under Federal law, including United States Constitutional claims, this Complaint nonetheless complies with the Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act (Maryland Code Annotated, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, §§ 5-301, et seq). The Plaintiff submitted notice of his claims via United States Postal Service certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to the Baltimore City Solicitor cm November 8, 2010. The Plaintiff further asserts the City of Baltimore’s good and sufficient actual and/or constructive prior notice of all claims. NON-WAIVER OF DEFENSES 37. The Plaimiff's compliance with applicable Stale of Maryland and City of Ba Itimore notice requirements notwithstanding, the Plaintiff makes no waiver of defenses against applicable notice requirements for any Stateof Maryland statutory or common taw tort claim brought forth in the United States District Court venue or for any claim arising under federal law,

10 Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKBALLEGATIONS Document 1 Filed ALL03/01/13CLAIMS Page 15 of 42 TO

COMMON OF

GOVERNOR DEFENDANT I. O’MALLEY’S BALTIMORE CITY CAMPAIGNTHATPATTERNS,MAYORPRACTICES, PROVIDED BLUEPRINT FOR NORRIS HAVE ANDCUSTOMSATO ENCOURAGED AND/ORSHOULD FOLLOWED CREATING REQUIRED POLICIES AVOIDTHAT of ANDthe of at POLICEMISCONDUCT. The public thesafety people,any I of people, is security “DNA would highestpriority government any municipal,9, 38.argue,county, state,national. the level; hisSeptember our our to 2009 Governor O’Malleyat themade aboveof during A the declaration of & O’Malley’s Government Works.” students University Baltimore, the of that the titled granting Mr. Petition presentationIronically, Governor theheels the Mable’sof To cameirony, for presentation on need only presence blood Post-ConvictionMr. to Relief. the one Mr. justunder understandthe received consider Eddie’s Defendants scratched prior Dukes’Dukes’fingernails,murder, thetips that Dukesto neckthat the that Eddie DNAhis Mr. the Defendants’they a analysis were with confirmationand Defendants’ had scratches neck consistent tips received, refusal comparing under to a oforderEddie’son DNA. was fingernailsto sample of the collected O’Malley’sMr.Dukes’ it no the Baltimoreans,while blood from highest test to safety And Defendant Governor priority O’Malley’s as doubt DNA ensure hereinafter, departure Governor Norris’ dramatic thefrom for of Blueprint Success,Baltimoredescribed Defendant specific that Cityduring many constitutionalthe violationsCity plagued illuminates as Baltimore tenure of Commissioner O’Malley’sPolice Department. Norris’ 39. appreciate to for fully Governor the Police To blueprint Baltimore City of clean streets, is to to policies Baltimore’s it necessary Department’sutilization constitutionalduringpolicing tenureupon back GovernorO’Malley’s Council, travel time 1996, the of where after former of Baltimore City “cooking” accusing Mayor Schomoke hegainedinpublic notoriety Baltimore City the of rates. the Kurt Mayor New Rudolph accounting crimereduction same time, former of York City, two-year City’s crime Giuliani, reporting underhis reign, 1994, serious was that starting NewYork dramatically it in However, be escaped according to ratehad 'At unfortunately cannot that a independent studies, Mayor Giuliani’spolicing policies disturbingly departedfrom system numerous decreased.2 arrests closely of thatencouragedconstitutional andmore resembledunconstitutional policing poor poor those independent not even the of the peoplein And studies did scratch surface stops police victims unconstitutional by New York City officersthat never reported or the places.3 1 ’s Smith, O Stay Van Martin’Malley Failed PromiseAs Him, No Wins Governor’s2 Balt. Paper, Baltimore Mayor Will With Matter Race, 3 City http://www2.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=12855.’s 7, Who , The Martin O’Malley, pg. 1 With Change IsHope: A for Future, 999. 26, Andy Newman, Therein UnitBlueprintCase Baltimore of N.Y. Times,Jan. 2001 at Ruling Street Crime CouldExpand ListPlaintiffs, B6. 11 * 9 1 6 5 system that A one Department. second unconstitutional Baltimoreans’ not drug months making to neighborhood,” crime policing.”4 Baltimore’s mission” documentation. unconstitutional Id. Id. Id With Id. Id. Blueprint become atpgs. at at know bound “it market” Change 6-7. 5. by operates.”7 is in of 42. it 41 40. time as to is command, 8, a . being with

Mayor Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 16 of 42 of 16 Page 03/01/13 Filed 1 Document 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Case safer for that Mayor much 12. murders There he for well-settled Baltimore office a As soon a and Social As stating: Three while In patterns, elected was stops place. green a building of as His Is August Mayor, Giuliani’s part new so Baltimore Defendant 40% Hope, standing had be to solution he short by psychologists breaking . cover of “My ,”5 and mayor bring broken... 's increased, was practices, New - his constitutional is of supra, just Future. I In years by name broken will 1996, and the New campaign, in about the York was to City his two Norris, more and at superhero one change the later, same actively second York is and/or pg. In to Governor New years on City long and and nine Martin other windows cure unrepaired the 3. the would, on speech, Governor rights City. police left York the police overdue others after introduction policies term June street “Broken lead bound that O’Malley. way unrepaired, O’Malley Governor unbeknownst City through its costs in officers 23, Governor officers could these like comer we window change with reforms.9 office, 12 and O’Malley 1999, had Windows it nothing. police reclaim to efforts “things customs a the I of tend gained went where O’Malley blue believe the twenty all in Governor O’Malley what is intentional and enforcement to green to the a authored on cover and Syndrome.”8 Baltimore of misconduct Governor signal national agree within he reform rest more.6 what I Baltimore can later use considered booklet, - O’Malley promised of titled that he that implementation turn a the the the What noted the recognition booklet City’s would priorities O’Malley, Baltimore if no Baltimore tainted way power With He Governor windows City’s a Governor about to announced a one window explained: streets, later our “high made Change make arrestees’ past” of cares, to for criminal his abrogate call City will quality City the O’Malley crime up of the in his reducing trip O’Malley within a There of his Police around “open-air “fact soon-to-be that two charging justice of campaign six Is life “while states finding parts serious Hope: by did - Case 1:13-cv-00650-J KB Document 1 Fifed 03/01/13 Page 17 of 42

43. Governor O'Malley proposed five reforms to “improve the quality of life in Baltimore City.” 1) streamlining the booking and charging process; 2) expanding citation authority, 3) creating an arraignment court at Central Booking; 4) utilizing CompStat, a computer tracking system utilized in New York City for compiling statistics about crimes; and 5) using existing mandatory penalties to prosecute repeat violent offenders.10 He added: While the City Council has had the power to spotlight these issues and make these recommendations, only the Mayor of Baltimore City has the power to actually order the change in enforcement priorities and thereby force reforms on a reluctant system.1’

Governor O'Malley elaborated, stating that “as Mayor, I will secure the support necessary to give our officers the flexibility they need...or I will have the City Council enact local ordinances.”1* He further elaborated that he would “increase funding for the Stale's Attorney's Office as long as it stays committed to the path of reform., .”13 44. Governor O’Malley correctly noted that "there is nothing more harmful to law enforcement, and more devastating to the morale of law abiding citizens and law enforcement officers, than police misconduct.”11 Recognizing that some Baltimoreans were skeptical of his proposed policing policy, Governor O’Malley acknowledged, “from examples of other cities” that had implemented similar policing policies, that “when the police are encouraged to be more assertive, government must become more assertive and open in its policing of the police.”’* “(A]ftcr all ” he stated, “[they] are only human.”14 45. The logical check and balance on law enforcement, as the case may be, is a citizen review board. To that end, Governor O’Malley stated: A citizen review board will only have power if the Mayor of this City truly wants to root out police corruption and misconduct...we must open the Baltimore City Police Department's internal investigation process to assure the public that police problems are not being swept under the rug by colleagues ‘complacency.

As demonstrated hereinafter. Governor O’Malley's legitimate concerns about the enforcement of policing policies and his checks and balances to ensure that the Baltimore City Police Department was operating in observance of both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of

10 Wat 15. "At 12 Wat 17. "At 14 Wat 22. 15 W at II. 14 W 17 Wat 22. 13 Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 18 of 42

a to the for the Norris Maryland what Defendant should have give attempting toameliorate of the at effects least provided horrific done appearance of blueprint that theunconstitutional policing patterns, Baltimore AND NORRIScustomsAND PATTERNS,Department. practices,II. policies City and/orDEFENDANTPOLICIES he imposed CREATEDAND Police IN AND/OR and PRACTICES, INTENTIONALLYARRESTEDTHAT REQUIRED MANNER MR.TO upon IMPRISONED SAME MABLECUSTOMS ENCOURAGED BALTIMOREANSTHAT BE FALSELY ARRESTEDAND THE IMPRISONED.and Governor O’Malley WAS FALSELY to 46. the of took City not of year. Mayor office was stepsBaltimore as policies that December elected also 1999 on Immediately,the he took implement policing he only same up streets believed steps of but the were,in heenvisioned them, wouldHisclean firingtheBaltimore City, oftaking BaltimoreCity the Commissioner of Police value constitutional. includeddays office for with Department, 60 asGovernor Daniel’sdisagreeing aboutO’Malley of Ronald Daniel, Baltimore City. within theMr. aggressive a constitutional policing of place,Governorhim and one of 20-year New City Defendant Norris, in veteran In York Police the appointed the continued enforcement DepartmentGiuliani’s at thehelm of implementation and of policing noted above, O’Malley Mayor people which, as theGovernor acknowledged police misconduct policies, of would if monitored closely by the City’s “ownbreed not 47. withCommissioner Police. Armed brains York and theirpolicing policies procedures, Norris New O’Malleyand behind set motion Governor Defendant into of However, O’Malley’sbrand and “stacked Defendant Norris departed from Governorradicaltheory... visionbroken-windows a of his unconstitutionalsoon policing an 7th efforts on distorted and application combining The with atargeton extraordinarily aggressive arrestpolicy disadvantaged emphasis of arrest were for arresting“theseasmany as anything they Defendant policiesthere poor people possiblewould, Norris’ because were the street,there to could on them a on of people” according policing.”18 if less on the pinDefendant Norris, corresponding how crimes in many committed future. of reduction neighborhoods.”19were in 48.be As toalter part DefendantNorris’ efforts the patterns,practices, and/orpolicies and theBaltimore CityPolice customsthatwere effectwhen hebecame Commissioner of Department, he in City’s police retrained. This at conducted had Baltimore officers training, least in part,was by Mayor Giuliani’s York City Police Defendant staff, and New Department“prey and Norris’former led Baltimore City’s to the that were a police officers people they to protect,” like Mr.Mable, upon very sworn to a One such ofDefendant Norris’ that is the poorperson in poor example retraining relevant

18 : a Crime Strolling While Broken PolicingCreated New in 14 place.20 ReedCollins, J. Poor,Pol’yHow Windows Baltimore, Geo. PovertyId Law & 419,421 (2007). 19 20 City in Matthew Dolan,Two Police OfficersAccused Robbery, Extortion ofDrug Suspects, The Balt.Sun, March 2006.15, 14 Case l:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Fifed 03/01/13 Page 36 of 42

XVI. THE DEFENDANTS LIKEWISE MADE TAYLOR AN ILLEGAL OFFER SHE COULDN’T REFUSE.

128. After coercing a positive identification from Ms, Frazier, which unfortunately for the Defendants was of Eddie and not Mr. Mabie, the Defendants interviewed Lachelle Taylor and offered her a deaf similar to the one they had offered to Ms, Frazier. In fact, the offer likewise included the promise that the Defendants would not arrest her for the possession of illegal narcotics if she made an identification. However, unlike Ms, Frazier, who Ms, Spriggs had indicated might know something about Mr, Dukes’ murder, the Defendants did not have any information that even so much as hinted that Ms, Taylor might have witnessed Mr. Dukes’ murder. She was just a woman in the Cherry Hill area with a drug addiction that was getting the best of her, and the Defendants seized upon it In so doing, the Defendants briefed Ms. Taylor on the basic facts of their theory of the case so that she herself was not shooting entirely in the dark, 129. The Defendants orchestrated a recorded interview with Ms. Taylor, and questioned her about her recollection of the evening of Mr. Dukes’ murder. Ms. Taylor stated that she was at a friend’s house, but had trouble indicating where it was, which could be explained by the comment of the police officer taking notes on her recorded interview, who stated that when Ms, Taylor was shown a photo array minutes before her recorded statement, her speech was slurred. He speculated that she was a possible drunk. It is also possible that she was high. 130. Ms. Taylor’s stoiy started out with her looking out a window. Then, her story changed to her looking out a screen door that faced north on Round Road. She stated that she observed someone parking Mr. Dukes’ motor vehicle on Round Road and not drifting down a hill as was stated by Ms. Frazier. Then, Ms, Taylor staled that she left the screen door. Less than a minute later, she claimed to have heard a series of gunshots, which made her return to the screen door “and that is when [shej saw the guy in those pictures [she] had identified running away from the car.’1’ She further commented that there were a lot of people outside before the shooting, but after, the streets were clear. 13L Ms. Taylor stated that after she saw the man get out of Mr. Dukes’ motor vehicle, “it was a real long time before the police arrived.” She then speculated that Mr, Dukes might still have been breathing if the police responded in a timely manner and estimated that it was approximately forty-five minutes before the police responded. As noted above, Ms. Graves also provided that there was likely a lapse in time between Mr. Dukes’ murder and when the Defendants arrived, but all other statements reflect that the Defendants arrived at the Vehicle in under five minutes, 132. Ms. Taylor was asked by the Defendants whether she was close enough to see what color gun the shooter was brandishing. She replied: “No, [ wasn’t that close. I was close enough to see when hts amis were swinging and see the gun in his hand." So, like Ms, Frazier, Ms. Taylor did not

32 Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document“the 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 20 of 42

to the to that review added open to process investigationthe to police problemsHe to colleagues’must complacency. board however,have few internalswept Defendantrug ensure into be by be publicwould, surpriseAs very would thatunderoff Norris that City peoplenot learn review It Baltimore as internal a citizenpublic. the coming andgrowclosed prevented 51.of being the investigationsBorrowingthe for»29 board thefromsaying goes, small contextual soil. his from things in right in of O’Malley Broken Windows Policing, ofadvanced during campaignof at theories alone, by Governor Baltimore toward units disorder, Mayor City, the“hasproject rests the left moving order negative or to generate bigtheyon premise that feel worse condoned, results.of Miscreants undisturbed willtrouble signs Because empowered, perhapseven inspired, make toto leastbreaking fun,” see disorder. and when windows always been want foster the deterrence deliver. orderneed that communities that power.28 these and intact windowsthe Applying of Defendantarrests, Norris’ unconstitutional messagepolicing and corresponding principalsfalse false to rights imprisonments,to policies massivedaynumberhis to minorities every reign, malicious that under to Mr.prosecutions occurred civil violations poor Mablethat appeared behave be Norrisjust area comparable like windows. may trivial Defendant broken deemed intolerable; as might the may destructive, thus, broken window deserve Both of and efforts, rights the City Department attention law enforcement violations Baltimore Police civil in also THE Norris’ CITYHowever, Norris give somuch as a IV.fix.Defendantfact,BALTIMOREwas therepair.onewho POLICEthe Defendant did themQUOTA warranted he cast PROHIBITEDeven In DEPARTMENT’Sstone. not SYSTEM. quick first

law enforcementagency A (1) Prohibitedor not: may the a for law establish formal officers quota enforcement or law enforcement informalof or agency (2) the agency; the of as a law or citations issued by use numberofficer arrestssolemade enforcement orthe or for promotion, dismissal, of theprimaryofficer. criterion demotion, §transfer Code, Maryland PublicSafety, 3-504. arrests,the all the tothe 52. Instead ofencouraging rank and file up constitutional way of theBaltimore City Police Norris, Commissioner Department,Defendant gave formaland informal to the quotas designed increasearrest numbers further, the whileknowing that would even all result be Mr. falsely and thatmoreinnocent Baltimoreanslike Mable wouldbe arrested, falselyimprisoned,

28 O’Malley, at 22. 29 supra, Id. 16 Unconstitutional, 30 31 Dukes Defendant V. Vehicle. help, this in Defendant hopefully practices, justice arresting commented imprisoned, Baltimore that was maliciously probable Edwin Id. connection Complaint did characterized at had be least 56. KEVIN Ericson, 55. 54. 53. not people cause and/or will done” Norris just City

Norris’ Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 21 of 42 of 21 Page 03/01/13 Filed 1 Document 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Case at emphasize and prosecuted. with with aid a started believes, Police Balt. Mr. to Jr., Countless These arbitrarily their You At legislative the from compared from for DUKES All and maliciously policies became the in make unconstitutional by Mr. City around crimes Dukes’ patrol City the program that have transportation the each distributing arrest Department, parking statements Dukes’ quantity State capture an as In Paper, she and Baltimore Commissioner AND Baltimoreans, district officers with do hearing officers... without arrest so just story the ’s prosecuted would customs. numbers. doing, many Attorney was murder, http//ww2.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=l to HIS citations averages over same and or begins were get drugs were that policing stating: enforced. probable competing of not City not, of prosecution DRUG were the quality. your time, Mr. Patricia This the echoed that “the be There’s reassigned... pursuant to approximately i.e. quotas of Police including to from a required people street numbers Dukes’ the while Complaint patterns, quantity [Baltimore an party DEALING cause.”30 ..the felony This Jessamy with their by Baltimore Officer’s internal rewarded of dealers going to Eddie interviewed to former system 27 body 17 Mr. Mr. Defendant to up. each squads arrests. “tram[ing] not practices, lowest She Asserts tally demands Mable, a Dukes’ City to from was memorandum in quality. ENTERPRISE. year Union State’s City officers was other, explained the be and their Police in The performing wherever At before described by Police Cherry Norris’ pressure were and/or all real the as redress Hearing shifts. Attorney One officers the enforcement irrespective probability officer’s being Constitution.”31 Department] cold-blooded needlessly that Baltimore his Department. such policies Hill unconstitutional [On was he for as That to murder a 1331. she worrying officers Patricia was “punishment” area system follows: Mr. a make intercepted numbers “took Police typical the of and statistics really falsely of City Mable’s and was whether killers. shooter, Baltimore that At Jessamy, - customs arrests an Arrest about three Police six day] increasingly murdered that oath are arrested, was policing - months from experience The to there Tactics time, he to implemented and Department any who City. likely author see within was to Mr. falsely officers patterns, before Are that the had with of the Case l:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Fifed 03/01/13 Page 36 of 42

XVI. THE DEFENDANTS LIKEWISE MADE TAYLOR AN ILLEGAL OFFER SHE COULDN’T REFUSE.

128. After coercing a positive identification from Ms, Frazier, which unfortunately for the Defendants was of Eddie and not Mr. Mabie, the Defendants interviewed Lachelle Taylor and offered her a deaf similar to the one they had offered to Ms, Frazier. In fact, the offer likewise included the promise that the Defendants would not arrest her for the possession of illegal narcotics if she made an identification. However, unlike Ms, Frazier, who Ms, Spriggs had indicated might know something about Mr, Dukes’ murder, the Defendants did not have any information that even so much as hinted that Ms, Taylor might have witnessed Mr. Dukes’ murder. She was just a woman in the Cherry Hill area with a drug addiction that was getting the best of her, and the Defendants seized upon it In so doing, the Defendants briefed Ms. Taylor on the basic facts of their theory of the case so that she herself was not shooting entirely in the dark, 129. The Defendants orchestrated a recorded interview with Ms. Taylor, and questioned her about her recollection of the evening of Mr. Dukes’ murder. Ms. Taylor stated that she was at a friend’s house, but had trouble indicating where it was, which could be explained by the comment of the police officer taking notes on her recorded interview, who stated that when Ms, Taylor was shown a photo array minutes before her recorded statement, her speech was slurred. He speculated that she was a possible drunk. It is also possible that she was high. 130. Ms. Taylor’s stoiy started out with her looking out a window. Then, her story changed to her looking out a screen door that faced north on Round Road. She stated that she observed someone parking Mr. Dukes’ motor vehicle on Round Road and not drifting down a hill as was stated by Ms. Frazier. Then, Ms, Taylor staled that she left the screen door. Less than a minute later, she claimed to have heard a series of gunshots, which made her return to the screen door “and that is when [shej saw the guy in those pictures [she] had identified running away from the car.’1’ She further commented that there were a lot of people outside before the shooting, but after, the streets were clear. 13L Ms. Taylor stated that after she saw the man get out of Mr. Dukes’ motor vehicle, “it was a real long time before the police arrived.” She then speculated that Mr, Dukes might still have been breathing if the police responded in a timely manner and estimated that it was approximately forty-five minutes before the police responded. As noted above, Ms. Graves also provided that there was likely a lapse in time between Mr. Dukes’ murder and when the Defendants arrived, but all other statements reflect that the Defendants arrived at the Vehicle in under five minutes, 132. Ms. Taylor was asked by the Defendants whether she was close enough to see what color gun the shooter was brandishing. She replied: “No, [ wasn’t that close. I was close enough to see when hts amis were swinging and see the gun in his hand." So, like Ms, Frazier, Ms. Taylor did not

32 Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 23 of 42

As the a shirt, and the hereafter, jeans, 911caller’s blue had haircut.Dukes, explained fully that the suspect most closely small She bush more headed north resembles deceased. was Then, at Mr. just added description 67.Spellman Road. a exactly 5:56 to no toward the a a phone was further911 caller that another vehicle. Therecall came into dispatch, wherein stated to shot gold call information 91 to anonymouscaller the the p.m.,was the that because 1 dispatcher call. 911 dispatch been provided 68. informed in the had already reference manthe a and same incident terminated received 69. 3300 of in As Defendant Round Road. he crowd of Back Reaves the blockthe approached the scene,to approximatelythe fifty crime alone foundsouthbound of side of peoplestandingRoad.ObserversVehicle, was parked the and the Roundside around which on Vehicle upon openingtimes, 3300 door, Defendanta Reaves . directed multiple blockdriver’s seat, Reavesthe male shot Defendant the that had been sitting in the console black side. driver’s slouched foundtowardCOPS GALORE over passenger 70. Very the with the of areathe flooded ofthe and, thereafter, the 71 soon was cops. investigation scene balance Supervisinginto Mr. murder,crime and Defendant who investigation Dukes’ were cold-bloodedfor to, were Defendantof Ritzsubordinate Hastings,which directly police both responsiblenot theactions and inactions their officers, but were Defendant included, Pennington, Phelps, Defendant Jones, Reaves, limitedPohler, Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Waltmeyer, Defendant Coleman, Roney, Defendant Harris, Defendant and Defendant Takacs, Bowman. Defendant Wagster, 6:20 72. Ataround Defendant Ritz Defendant relieved Defendant p.m., and Hastings Reaves of asthe and responsibility temporaryprimary Defendant Hastings then his investigator. DefendantalsoRitz their laboratorytechnicians arrived. preliminary The began investigation. the was Defendant that crime scene 73. Ritzand Defendant Hastingshastily decided the was tothe and confined Vehicle laboratory techniciansobserved that Mr. Dukes found deceased and to clothed, a with his right, resting fully seated semi-upright position, head slumped over the between the andin seats. driver passenger The Vehiclewas for evidence Defendant Ritz,Defendant 74. processed physical by their Miscellaneous ballistic was Hastings, subordinates,and thelaboratory technicians. evidence that plain theright seat, the front floor area, the recovered was in view front passenger in right andon on the rear cartridge one rear seat, two right passenger seat.Six9mm caseswere recovered; from passenger seat, the floor. One from the front passenger and threefrom frontpassenger 9mm bulletand onebullet the of seat. as fragment wererecovered from dashboardin front the driver’s Mysteriously, the report 19 someone the Road, not Beverly Vehicle shooter subordinates, through in despite recovered subordinates, Dukes’ autopsy multiple completed, Reaves handgun specifically would the Vehicle see Ms. dashboard or have the 82. was 8 body 80. Harris 79. with a 78. 77. had was 76. 75. to 1 gunshots that hear window . from Graves presence get and

perhaps Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 24 of 42 of 24 Page 03/01/13 Filed 1 Document 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Case recklessly such states been scheduled negative was and and had anything, of out walk the By Defendant The Additionally, Despite Mr. seated indicated Based believed Defendant A area 33 intimate the subjected, the stated written been and to that of cursory 9: back 1 Defendants he of Dukes’ towards 1 his 5 a laboratory in laboratory results. 5 aiming the a Round car Mr. knew in on to used front p.m., that the and seat 9mm head, before the be that only that knowledge the Coleman, in examination Dukes’ Ritz apparent yet remains in she Natela performed of more the right Spellman of there however, at Road, automatic chest, crime the two the ballistic the very Mr. and technicians began technicians someone saw ballistic Cherry THE front victim about body was other Vehicle victim Ellis Dukes, Defendant A who thereafter, were and little a scene impulses of interviewing BIZARRE black Road. Defendant SEARCH evidence the was no passenger the Hill in handgun analysis of the leg murders stated was positioned taken blood broken was the next and 3323 was were in to type done shooter areas. male area, She a of shot declare Vehicle, Hastings’ knocked evidence that to place later day. present shot of Defendant Round Defendant able of of the was PHENOMENON wearing added FOR likely glass seat Reaves 20 the by gun people the she Mr. too? in identified same to that inside Office that used. of an the casings WITNESSES there used where in was Road, on identify because Dukes, that reports the located assailant had would the Mr. blue driver’s in week several Ritz It Ritz at she before the vehicle. of were the was Vehicle, located bullets who Dukes home as jean and the which and reflect as and didn’t she in crowd have vehicle. within having later a doors seat that the Chief possibly also bullets, ballistic shorts multitude was Defendant Defendant at could was Joella been revealed Cherry and think the discovered that: of that would did the so blood in Medical the murdered This and time a Defendant impossible the have not accustomed had being analysis Graves vehicle, Ziploc™ that Vehicle Hill of have a inside. neighborhood, that see Hastings, Hastings, of evidence assembled white exited gunshots it Examiner, bullets the that area. was or of he in been was it hear from murder, Reaves’ bag 84 t-shirt to the had this is the strange to If 1 even hit then- were their Vehicle, Defendant to that seeing anything. sustained Bethune around Vehicle was any even where which get reaching but was located report for angle. the out drug if did the and same an Mr. the of Case l:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 25 of 42

deals that were made on the fly. Roughly twenty minutes later, she noticed that Mr. Dukes was slumped over in his car, the same way the Defendants found him. Importantly, Ms. Graves never heard any gunshots. S3. This is the first whilTthat there might he something seriously amiss with some of the witnesses' stones. While Ms. Graves' story is substantially in league with the story of the first 911 caller insofar as the direction that the shooter traveled and the clothes that the shooter was wearing, Ms. Graves not only did not hear any gunshots, much like Ms. Harris and Ms. Ellis, but also provided that the shooter was walking towards Spellman Road and that twenty minutes elapsed between when the man reportedly seen by the 9 1 1 callers alighted from the Vehicle and when Ms. Graves discovered Mr. Dukes

slumped over* The time between when the 9 1 1 callers stated that Mr. Dukes was shot and when Defendant Reaves claims to have responded was just under five minutes. VII. THE BALTIMORE SUN REPORTS THE BASIC FACTS OF KEVIN DUKES1 MURDER.

Anne Arundel Man Fatally Shot Inside Car in C ferry Hill

An Anne Arundel County man was fatally shot yesterday inside a car in the Cherry Hill section of southern Baltimore.

Kevin Dukes, 28, of the 6400 block of Miami Avenue in Glen Burnie was found about 6 p,m. [on August 30, 2000] by officers responding to a report of gunshots in the 3300 block of Round Road, said Detective Bill Ritz. He said Dukes, who died at the scene, had been shot more than once and was slumped behind the steering wheel of a gold-colored 1991 Acura.

The Baltimore Sun August 31, 2000

VIII. THE DEFENDANTS RECEIVED MULTIPLE TIPS THAT EDDIE WAS THE SHOOTER.

84. In the days following Mr. Dukes' murder. Defendant Ritt and Defendant Hastings, as well os their subordinates, received multiple tipsand reports that Eddie was Mr. Dukes' shooter, and did not receive any tips naming anyone other than Eddie as the shooter. FEMALE CALLER IDESTIFIES EDDIE AS THE SHOOTER 85. On August 31, 2000, the day alter Mr. Dukes' murder, 9 1 1 dispatch received a call from an unidentified female caller that stated: "I know who shot someone in Cherry Hill and his name is Eddie,1' The Baltimore City Police Department's Southern District sent a detective to the Crown™ Station, where 91 1 dispatch determined that the call had been placed from a payphone. However, the

2J confronted in believed Eddie murdering police block “Eddie the Dukes’ Eddie, murder. Southern caller when an Defendants altercation of bragging the was report who was 91. 90. cold-blooded 89. 88. 87. 86. that Spellman District information Kevin never

Eddie Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 26 of 42 of 26 Page 03/01/13 Filed 1 Document 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Case going was Eddie reflects MR. DUKES about were It Mr. MR. Ms. On with As On known located about Dukes.” for was to Road, EDDIE was communicated September DUKES’ September Dukes’ Spriggs kill that Maty DUKES Mr. investigation. murder, murdering she reported ’ the EDDIE’S to responsible him FAMILY because when “Ms. Dukes communicated frequent Spriggs incident. WAS good also for FRIEND BELIEVED he Moody 5, he to 4, just Mr. his informed communicated seventeen BRAGGING 2000, friend, 2000, the came NECK MEMBERS above, and the for drugs.” prior Dukes. Defendants stated Cherry the Mr. CONFRONTS Defendant the upon Brian was WAS to the his cold-blooded THAT Dukes Dukes’ minutes Among when that a Defendants dispatched friends Hill George, ABOUT person SCRATCHED IDENTIFY to a by EDDIE family 22 Eddie Banks area, the person good the had numerous that known Defendants EDDIE communicated people MURDERING elapsed was murder friend, murdered to was were informed he known WAS the EDDIE was responsible to patrolling sources BY who informed Baltimore ABOUT Prunell him between of GOING trying as that MR. Mr. him the communicated Eddie AS as to her that Defendants Dukes Jessie in to Carter. DUKES MR. the THE for that THE the when TO City cold procure son, had Eddie’s Cherry Mr. Defendants DUKES in KILL Moody. SHOOTER and MURDER Police been blood. she Keith the Dukes’ that a that this days placed Hill HIM neck bragging handgun Department’s Spriggs, Defendant he a information area cold-blooded just that was person had the in prior he scratched because about call heard 2700 named Banks’ to and to Mr. Eddie assailant. fingernails rather City from of belonged as from City IX. his follows: Police Mr. Police Mr. had watch, from 96. 95. 94. d) c) a) b) 93. d) c) a) b) 92. HIM. DUKES’ HAD LABORATORY Mr. And, Dukes’ Dukes’ sustained on

Department

an Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 27 of 42 of 27 Page 03/01/13 Filed 1 Document 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Case Department’s or Dukes’ altercation his SCRATCHED as the It The Despite human Dukes’ human edge human human Defendant a ten a eleven In left body: “Generation” is sample left communicated FINGERNAILS, a fingernail such fingernail highly human laboratory of shooter, hand, hand blood fingernail blood for blood blood right the the an on of Trace safe REPORTS Bowman’s probable underside injury however, were Mr. blood the possibility hand; clippings was was was there was clippings keeping EDDIE’S silver evening report Dukes’ Analysis clippings above, not identified identified identified from identified samples were that from and were of CONSISTENT examination directed from CONFIRMED Mr. from in that blood; three he no the the black anticipation Unit NECK from incidental submitted was from samples on Dukes on in his on the Mr. Defendants blood of a the the to watch. communicated murdered, right two Mr. small the blood Dukes’ the 23 Defendant crystal backside just JUST results, samples nails of retained Dukes’ hand. tip to splatter area of prior WITH the recovered THAT the edge right had a from of PRIOR in contained DNA fingernail of of Evidence to retained left Mr. from Ritz, which been of brown hand; Mr. of Mr. shooting that THE THERE hand; Dukes’ his test. the Mr. Dukes’ Defendant by TO Dukes’ informed he she and own substance from in clippings underside REPORT Control Defendant Dukes’ used the WHEN him. retained watch WAS blood watch. the left same his by Bowman watch underside Section hand; face; on from fingernails of BLOOD when numerous EDDIE the laboratory THAT Bowman the the and following face, Mr. tip he of three of of MURDERED the MR. UNDER was the the to sources Mr. report, might fingernails scratch Baltimore underside Baltimore shot, evidence DUKES Dukes’ have were MR. that but an at claiming his “skull nourished, Examiner, boxer-type able XL Mr. yielded bullet and thorough interior parked X. a body distance Dukes the to fragment. cap”). explain. b) a) on 101. 100. THE dashboard 99. the 98. 97. subsequent HEADQUARTERS. TWO VEHICLE was to processing Round wherein underwear, black

was have Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 28 of 42 of 28 Page 03/01/13 Filed 1 Document 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Case recovery of discovered. Importantly, MEDICAL greater The Gunshot There surrounding downward. wound separate Gunshot the There Mr. And An executed Together, ADDITIONAL Two As How seen male, Road near right it communicated Dukes autopsy search with bullet of of was was Mr. ballistic was additional than white path. the included fully the AT fragments Wound ear. eight Wound good while Dukes’ preliminarily an EXAMINER’S an the exited and sustained Sparse passenger two that Vehicle the EVIDENCE The A socks, was entrance entrance clad evidence cartridge search as reason; large THE entrance feet: was to seated to six path 9mm the performed shooter, CARTRIDGE noted gunpowder the of the in above, brown at cartridge performed caliber, thirteen left copper side of of a gunshot Right gunshot Head the because in cartridge managed white noted casings the above, the wound lateral BALTIMORE OF the door the all work Baltimore REPORT. : wound Upper Vehicle deformed, jacket gunshots on the driver’s casings, MR. that stippling ballistic t-shirt, wound wound and it chest at concentrically this shoes, from Mr. way isn’t to casings 24 the Mr. CASINGS DUKES’ Back. and was one get is for City Dukes’ in 9mm blue down present side one on to Baltimore possible. evidence and Dukes’ the copper-jacketed was lead under on right the ballistic his the were projectile, Police the of a jean same medial bullets, present to were body EXECUTION CITY black right to body on the the front the up body WERE left, recovered recovered shorts, the City description Department’s evidence driver’s to Vehicle recovered and temporal clothes nylon axillary at on driver’s one %” back was right and limbs, Police the the POLICE bullet a in 9mm RECOVERED cap that one to upper side brown Mr. is skin diameter. Office from during when line. scalp, front, from side a most (commonly given Department’s suspected of and Dukes bullet, feat floormat headquarters, No back. the a under it leather the above of and of well-developed, a that was by Vehicle DEPARTMENT’S which more the was and all a bullet no of on floor referred belt, Chief wearing FROM one the the one rigorous headquarters Round were when one fragment. Vehicle mat. witnesses blue-grey suspected has Medical fired to on when it well- Road THE been as was and the if a h) g) f) e) d)

c) Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 29 of 42 of 29 Page 03/01/13 Filed 1 Document 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Case entrance of path (radial There Gunshot Gunshot There right bullet present stippling Gunshot chest, There recovered entrance The stippling Gunshot from There downward. 1 was arm. Gunshot of There surrounding was There A Gunshot path to bullet 1/8” soot deformed, a 2 was wound large present W’ no to The of the or was was located was was side). was or x was deposition up left, soot the wound. in Wound 3/4”. bullet Wound Wound left wound. to or top or Wound Wound bullet wound caliber, from an to an a an diameter an an the wound soot An path soot back on superficially deposition No to the of 1 entrance entrance large entrance 14 entrance entrance fragments %” Left right, the ovoid the the fragments to to bullet to entrance deposition depositions was V” to to path to or copper-jacketed from the the was the caliber, skin chest head. the the Upper front, surrounded gunpowder below slightly back area was gunshot Left gunshot or Right Right wound gunshot Left gunshot Right right or the laterally wall. No bullet were perforating wound. and gunpowder were from of to Chest: Forearm: copper-jacketed the around entrance Upper were Arm: to Upper bullet front, gunpowder right Upper on upward. There recovered. top wound wound left, fragments wound wound recovered. right the stippling to the present to 25 Bach bullet of either or and the Chest: entrance front Chest: of was left gunshot left to the bullet stippling on to entrance Sparse on on the upward. left, the were stippling upper and head. to wound. the no on on The the were the Sparse wound. bullet back, fragments back evidence right the wound. the left downward. wound left right gunpowder wound recovered Fragments chest, present recovered. wound, There skin skin posterior to upper and was anterior gunpowder and anterior front, on surrounding surrounding located path of downward. recovered. was soot were on which back. the gunpowder from No stippling of and the upper forearm The was no deposition upper right recovered. gunpowder lead 10 stippling Fragments skin evidence the measured wound from 7/8” arm. upper The were There chest. the left the was No up gunpowder Mr. Vehicle fragments leaving recovered Dukes nine 102. m) never 1) k) j) i) of by were

stippling, Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 30 of 42 of 30 Page 03/01/13 Filed 1 Document 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Case of one the contacted the Importantly, stippling Gunshot (anterior fragments There back wound. distal no Gunshot There right on fragments downward. surface There Gunshot fired entrance deposition The 29 There Gunshot surrounding evidence above wound The Gunshot other, Defendants thirteen soot the /2” wound was to were finger, from phalanx. was was was was skin above the front deposition of path and Mr. Wound surface), Wound present Wound wound. Wound an Wound of were the likely were a left a an bullets an or his surrounding There path atypical grazing which two transverse soot Dukes’ was of the and the gunpowder entrance entrance left when heel. right No the recovered. recovered. to to entrance on to fired to was to bullets downward. left right deposition calf, measuring was unaccounted bullet or the injured the the thirteen the the the No side gunshot body they gunshot heel. gunpowder front from to no Palm Distal gunshot Posterior 10” gunshot Medial gunshot Left skin bullet the were and or left, stippling wound. soot examined or No The the to The above a bullet entrance Thigh: bullets or surrounding of There wound limbs. most 1 distance wound back front Right or bullet recovered base deposition Left gunpowder 7/8” the gunshot wound for, wound wound wound bullet Left stippling the fragments 26 of and Left to present Thigh: that was of 5th more Also in to or the on wound. them, Calf. left back, the greater length. Finger: present fragments the path located right on bullet Hand: wound the contacted no Vehicle the by of heel. or if fingernail the on thenar stippling on soot and left based the was gunpowder the to importance, were wound. fragments the than the distal No on on No left. was upper bullet deposition upward. Office right skin were region skin bullet on the the recovered. on Mr. bullet two There left surface and on Round the posterior-lateral medial thigh, to and surrounding surrounding Dukes’ recovered. feet the of to or were stippling fractured left of There all or absence was right, fragments the bullet or skin the from bullet of of located and Road, There upper gunpowder recovered. Chief no the left body the was slightly Mr. present soot of the The 5th the hand bullets the thigh, no was 25” along soot and Medical recovered Dukes’ limbs, deposition that with body. Examiner, contacted from one possible This was and the Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 31 of 42

shots at were were side fired he they the that Mr. all undisputedly proves and whilenot the Vehicle, if by Dukes seated TO PATROL likely was fired from passenger WERE who was the Vehicle. AFTER DEFENDANTinsidein QUESTIONINGRELEASE OFFICERS someone DETAININGTHAT HAD ON XII. EDDIENOTING DEFENDANTINSTRUCTED BY FOR RITZ NECK FOR HIS HAD WERE INVOLUNTARILYINFLICTED DURING EDDIEPHYSICAL ALTERCATION HEAFTERTHAT WITH DUKES JUST PRIORRITZ DUKES’HIM SCARS LIKELY TO MR.THEa the MR. MURDER. were area 16,2000, of and Defendant Banks the 103. Septemberthe theyDefendant “I a of Road male black t-shirt when observed Roney On steps wearing Bethune of Road. long-sleevedin 800block pantssitting 861 black and Bethune the black Defendant to City 104. on as the athat Roney Mr.recognized Eddie Baltimore Police Department murdered at Dukes. Eddie conductman which 105.believed time Eddie Defendant Roney“Lamont a thatto approached officer wasfield interview, Another contactedfor... his was Defendant with advised Eddie’s identity. Smith.” later, officer arrived with of Roney ablea namehis the pictureby Eddiesister to verify Minutes toldand wasme to request Eddie, thereafter, stated: this verify identity. what is not here the to knowfor and my were waspolice the me.” down because looking Police Southern come 106. City Department’s Eddie transported his Baltimore was not Districtas a spoke with who advised Eddie Roney superiors, that where Defendant and Eddie him his wanted the Ritz advised that neck to suspect. the wascontacted had consistent with Defendant was his just had thatEddie scratched onneck prior murdering Mr. reports Defendants received onscars a Dukes. However, Ritz, to Eddie Defendant after acknowledging that there was witness thatstated that was Mr. just tothe scratched neck prior shooting, Roney release the by Defendant was Dukes advised Eddie there anyDNA test Eddie. in questioned and wasnever ordered. THEnever CRIME TECHNICIANS TO XIII. DEFENDANTS WITH LAB EDDIE’SENSURE THAT DNA FOUNDCONSPIREDUNDERNEATH AND MR.DUKES’FINGERNAILS DNA NEVERTESTED. WERE 27,2008, the a 107. September JustinFenton of Baltimore broke story On “BaltimoreSun Newspaper that homicide, assault, cases, at nine sexualto and police detectives in least burglary instructed not follow found at scenes.” It is that the crime labtechnicians up on DNA on evidence crime believed were to tohide the the given technicians fact that wrongperson instructions an effort had been This also in that Police were arrested. correspondingly means Baltimore City Department detectives forthe knowingly and intentionally arrestinginnocentpeople mostserious crimes chargeable under to Maryland lawandthereafter subjectingthem falseimprisonment.

27 -

Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 32 of 42

match, 08. at which the The crimes test issue to probable that Defendants taken the that would the they was not similarly with technicians makes samplespursued a conspiredunder the it DNA crime lab ensurethe that from Mr. fingernails. Thefact same the or is clear of of DNA samplethat demonstrationDukes’ never present this 1 the presence misconduct plagued identified 09. crime lab being case. 1 at the belief, Defendants in Mr. the lab of under andcrime and that were aware misconductinformation DNA the aforementioned to conspiracy Uponwas yet the Dukes’ also followed on, profile collected indifferent fingernailsand up and/or willfully ignored this evidence.not A were deliberatelyfrom exculpatory HATCHED DEFENDANTS PLAN. XIII. the Eddie reportsto shooter, the that THE110. the Despite wereconsistent the thatnumerous that Eddiewas confirmationsustainedof a that Eddie his Dukes just scars witnesses reported scars with blood, lack an had on neckMr. prior themurdering in to in cold thecomplete evidence altercationthat with suspect, Defendants and anyone else be willfully, intentionally, for their could investigate him he was ownwho refused that and the ulteriormurdered purposes Eddie the statements Mr. and to that they numerous person Dukes. murder 111. Recognizing had linking anyone Mr. Dukes’ otherthan no no evidence the noto the no Defendants, with Eddie eyewitness, physicalevidence,no confession, and the a to motive new Norris, encourage two witnesses,of turned ofcoercion it,fromthe support Defendant months Mr. But as identifications only two half after use Dukes’ murder. fate and was would person identified have that positively Eddie. AND was DISREGARDED THE DEFENDANTS XIV. FOR PRESENTATION OF THE OFFICIALPOLICY PROCEDURE MUG BOOKS AND TO - CONSPIRED THE AFALSE § MANUFACTURE IDENTIFICATION.

evidenced MarylandCode,to Public the City 112. As by Safety, 3-506, Police hasa Baltimore writtenpolicy relating eyewitness identification thatcomplies the Department with United States forobtaining accurate ofJustice standards eyewitness identifications, which provides Department in pertinent part: II. Booksand Section Mug Composites

A. MugBooks Preparing “Mug may Note: (i.e., of of persons) books ”in collectionsin photosa previously arrested investigative which notyet been and other maybe usedcases suspecthas determined leads, have been This reliablesources exhausted. technique provide but resultsshould be evaluated withcaution.

28 _

Principle:

Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 33 of 42 a a of may enablethe to a book witness Policy:Non-suggestive composition mug and lead no suspect has been provide Summary:beenwhich determined other case exhausted. reliable sourcesThe such a in have in not the thatinvestigator/mug mug individual photos arepreparersuggestive. book shall compose manner to book in Mug yield leads be that mustcourt.objectively investigative books compiled in for 1999, “Eyewitnesswill admissible Law be Guide A October United States of Justice. Evidence: Enforcement.” As Department hereinafter, the Baltimore the completely disregardedof City113. communicated the Defendants Police written policy and States of the Department Justice Standards and obtainingcustomsDepartments’ and file United patterns, and/orprocedures accurate eyewitness favor of practices, the identificationsand officers, which by OF includingFRAZIER’SDefendantMOTOR VEHICLE supervising ILLEGAL OFFER Norris, IN encouragedinstituted THE OVER HER of THE NIGHTin and falsely rank PULLEDprocedures outrightcoercion identifications. XV. suggestiveDEFENDANTSDEADidentification positiveSHE COULDN’T REFUSE. AND MADE AN to 14. the furtherance of Dukes’ murder 1 the conspiracy Defendants' Cherrypin Mr. onsomeonecoerce into other than soughtout the Hill could Eddie,In people area that they Defendants Dukes’ other anidentification Mr. shooter,in any than Eddie making of identification of anyone the ofbeing clearly,evenif and false. would all absolutely, undeniably have 115.indicators the Early on investigation, MarySpriggs the that informed Defendants some Mr. shooter.Two and a Fraziermight havein about later, the information she Dukes’ meeting half months Defendants Frazier, but was notinterested with and, contacted Ms. in them. 116. the days thatfollowed, theDefendants repeatedly Ms. Frazier when the phoned to it becameIn ignoring attempts, they stakeout clear thatMs.Frazier was Defendants’ began her 1 residence. 17. out residence, the Defendantswere able to her Eventually, staking Ms.Frazier’s pull motorvehicle to the acold, over the sideof road pitch-black,mid-November night.Upon information for on a and any evidence and recovered of illegal belief, theysearchedit incriminating to quantity narcotics. is,however, the of Ms.Frazier whether the It unclearwhether quantity narcotics belonged or her motorvehicle their search. Defendantsplanted themin during illegal 118. On theside of theroad,asthenight was quickly turninginto thenext day,Ms. Frazier mugshots a of and white of men’s was presented with in photo bookfull black copies black faces. She 29 Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 34 of 42

she or a choice, of the Mr. was book Dukes’ be she identify as shooter given could photo the also someone recovered motor arrestedeitherforthe Frazier illegal of vehicle. information possession narcoticsher in fromvehicle,her would belief, she children her which Uponbe were motor seized andand herthat arrested, Services Defendants by119. Ms.take had her.the Social warning the would upon childrenif Department away at she would in was her notified Defendants’ coercionfromdirected Ms. Frazier answered affixed above The Mable, hair. atwhen 14, sheMr. who of short That was the face ten 2000. black of 10:59 who chubby had later,on ten name signed another his was However,chubby, the picture minutesp.m. November lighter, was not black noticeably extended beyond ears, and years Thathad hair that she man he the thanMr. Mable. the was approximatelyshooter. older The was a and statementas“veryto 120. secondMs.Frazier Eddie was sure was Police day, the Baltimore made notes TheCity fact, wasnextto man taking tocoached.” police recorded slow Departmentofficer that by officer talkative, then Frazier’sdescribedcomment thatMs.police indecisive.same Ms.went on Frazier that answer, were was whoknew the most In so very 5’7”, even minuscule amount about Mr.statedDukes’ basic anyone of recollections have up murder could with story. “I 121. thata she the a Ms. Frazier statedcome Augusther20, down was driving 2000, 3300 shorts and she on male, wearing blue jeanblock we Road when observed the the of Roundwhitet-shirt, black medium thecomplexion, Road. Round to see running toward on 3300 blockofthe Here another who playgroundDukes’ hill the shooter, right witness Mr. as in description down his gave that the the Ms. further adescription to from “IVehicle. Ms.Frazier clothing. stated running described the Frazier suspectwas a that: saw the get hill before stop. a thenstated shooter Vehicle asdrifting down coming She the a didn’t out side vehicle “they, get look.” a of of gold but good “Itas passenger Ms. other the 122. that: area, named named Frazier stated dealers he guy Eddie for murder.” Shecontinued,in he was beingresponsible Mr. Dukes’ heard got locked and to this up that: interviewed go.”She the of and stuff they let with author Complaintto “theyhad dohim agrees was than and to this Somehow, Frazier able add that: be one robbery.” Ms. robbed more hisperson a The the there,” of weed money. police retrieved off when police got him and not his money him to of City’s thetraining Baltimore police officers, referenced suggesting possible connection to of herein above King’s during hisown trial, rob dealers their Officer testimony criminal drugs. andin for TheDefendants intentionally, reckless disregard 123. maliciously,and with to and complete totherights of Mr.Mable or to indifference anyone else,chose not conduct anyinvestigation confirm fact, to verify Ms.Frazier'sstory. any wereexculpatory anynotion that Mr. Mable or In statementsthat State’s the mightbe theshooter wereignored and concealed from the Attorney’s Office, Circuit Court Baltimorefor City,and Mr. Mable’sattorney. Forexample, Defendant Ritztestified before agrand jury

30 Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 35 of 42

of a two Mable, Frazier. did witnesses not not was Ms. she didn’t that make a identified Mr. one which However, Frazier Mr. Mable, she only Ms. the had to rather stated that get shooterMr. of but three the othersgood were identification These look at State’s exculpatory positiveandMable’s Eddie nonetheless. Office,the statements and Ms. Frazier never Attorney’s made or identified Circuit for by Court attorney.disclosed Baltimore City, 124. the of theto crafted her under Frazier story who Ms. thatthe guidance knewtoor it if Defendants, were deliberately Ms.Frazier Eddie, would knowing,and of the identify other indifferent notunreliable,of able befalse, arrangementsomeone than in product werefor secret arrestto the for for narcotics Defendants’ not Frazier an they present possession illegaland the State’sexchange Office, Mr. Ms. Court Baltimore City the Attorney’s identification could the pinning to as Circuit 125. Ms.Frazier was the Mable intoshooter. onlyin thatthe witness attempteda makingto identification, identificationof Defendants coerce an despite as not to going of knowingand motivated by desire avoid of jail.As part this using the practice waswouldwitnesses,be to the testimony Taylor,pattern hereinafter. coerceddone Defendants the described theAs respect Taylor,used Mr. Ms. Frazier’s Ms. of the from with Eddie,Defendantsother Mable’s of identification attorney details of withheld outto to with Frazier, the exculpatory of of their Ms. their coercioninformation arisingFrazier illegallycommunicationsher an and details 126. Ms. compel is make identification. illegal It a basicto as law enforcementpractice police engage that coercerecognized that officersa should not witness law identify individual photographic or lineup. tactics anare a a live basic to a training, that a single officers taught showingof photograph of In in enforcement police in an the orlikewise a identification individual witness, questioning their are tactics that suspect, improper bias witness can andresult in falseidentification. results 127. knewor TheDefendants were deliberatelyto in notknowing that the of an Ms. Frazier, the indifferent the coercing identificationfrom say least, and tainted identificationprocess werea to which have a of other contrary standardpolice practice, false anyone The wouldFrazier’sresulted identification Defendants thatMs. ofMr. thanEddie. in Dukes’ killer really knew the description the was of Mr. Nevertheless, multitude of problems description Dukes. Defendants intentionally ignored notto to with Ms. account andchose investigate Ms. recollection ofwhat claimed Frazier's Frazier's she the the of tohave have evening Mr.Dukes’murder and exactly she seenon when claimed witnessed she her of and events described recorded statement.Instead followingstandard police procedures in to Ms. recollections the Frazier’s subjecting Frazier’s aggressive analysis, Defendantsmanufactured Ms. Mr. statements of case, recollections of Dukes’ murder andmade these false thecenterpiece their only against Mable, the neither Ms. to Mr. despite factthat Ms. Fraziernor Taylorwere able positively him Eddie. andboth positivelyidentified

31 Case l:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Fifed 03/01/13 Page 36 of 42

XVI. THE DEFENDANTS LIKEWISE MADE TAYLOR AN ILLEGAL OFFER SHE COULDN’T REFUSE.

128. After coercing a positive identification from Ms, Frazier, which unfortunately for the Defendants was of Eddie and not Mr. Mabie, the Defendants interviewed Lachelle Taylor and offered her a deaf similar to the one they had offered to Ms, Frazier. In fact, the offer likewise included the promise that the Defendants would not arrest her for the possession of illegal narcotics if she made an identification. However, unlike Ms, Frazier, who Ms, Spriggs had indicated might know something about Mr, Dukes’ murder, the Defendants did not have any information that even so much as hinted that Ms, Taylor might have witnessed Mr. Dukes’ murder. She was just a woman in the Cherry Hill area with a drug addiction that was getting the best of her, and the Defendants seized upon it In so doing, the Defendants briefed Ms. Taylor on the basic facts of their theory of the case so that she herself was not shooting entirely in the dark, 129. The Defendants orchestrated a recorded interview with Ms. Taylor, and questioned her about her recollection of the evening of Mr. Dukes’ murder. Ms. Taylor stated that she was at a friend’s house, but had trouble indicating where it was, which could be explained by the comment of the police officer taking notes on her recorded interview, who stated that when Ms, Taylor was shown a photo array minutes before her recorded statement, her speech was slurred. He speculated that she was a possible drunk. It is also possible that she was high. 130. Ms. Taylor’s stoiy started out with her looking out a window. Then, her story changed to her looking out a screen door that faced north on Round Road. She stated that she observed someone parking Mr. Dukes’ motor vehicle on Round Road and not drifting down a hill as was stated by Ms. Frazier. Then, Ms, Taylor staled that she left the screen door. Less than a minute later, she claimed to have heard a series of gunshots, which made her return to the screen door “and that is when [shej saw the guy in those pictures [she] had identified running away from the car.’1’ She further commented that there were a lot of people outside before the shooting, but after, the streets were clear. 13L Ms. Taylor stated that after she saw the man get out of Mr. Dukes’ motor vehicle, “it was a real long time before the police arrived.” She then speculated that Mr, Dukes might still have been breathing if the police responded in a timely manner and estimated that it was approximately forty-five minutes before the police responded. As noted above, Ms. Graves also provided that there was likely a lapse in time between Mr. Dukes’ murder and when the Defendants arrived, but all other statements reflect that the Defendants arrived at the Vehicle in under five minutes, 132. Ms. Taylor was asked by the Defendants whether she was close enough to see what color gun the shooter was brandishing. She replied: “No, [ wasn’t that close. I was close enough to see when hts amis were swinging and see the gun in his hand." So, like Ms, Frazier, Ms. Taylor did not

32 Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 37 of 42

to a the view all. the the was,however, adamant that the to at Shedoor, Mr.of motorgood of the shooter the claim have shooterdriver’s which who was of the impossibleexited Dukes’ vehicle throughDukes,“Mr. side driver’s Vehicle,required the Mr. wassure seatwould have climbing side. stark over task theover Ms. Frazier shooter slumped contrast, seated that from passenger the passenger side Vehicle. this Taylor’sin exited the of 133. In At the theI arrayEddie, Ms. identification from photo should a point, just to shooterthe photo of, not surprise: of set and be other DukesBethune killed, him, to the “Eddie dudesbe was selling guy identified the to supplied out further on Mr. Mable,Defendants Taylor falsify weed.” clear: coerceand and herRoad response,of Ms. [Mr. In which she was pressure two an identification Mr. are differentMs.people.” that exit Mable] the did notsee Dukes’ motor 134. Taylor she Mr.Mablearrest ratherWhen still Ms. for the maintained Taylor vehicle, but Eddie, resumed threatening Taylor of DefendantsThe with and avoid arrest she narcotics.Mr. again suggested that couldprosecution possessionthat illegal Defendantsa exiting at Ms. When to saying Mr. the she by had that a motorall, vehicle. repeatedly seen Mablewith Dukes’ told the or Defendants she saw Mr.gunMablewith Defendants continued her,neverand gun badger angry. threaten a became for a Ms. and 135. truth, the Taylor total disregardexit Defendants reportedthat told Withfact Mr. Mr.the to them she motor with gun. TheDefendants that did in see Mable Dukes’ vehicleto to deliberately the her, her fact that they had say that she suppressed apprehended to lied get her had Mr. had seen pressured makean of the shooter, Dukes’ shooter, her whichTaylor unfortunatelyhadfor and coerced to Eddie, reportthat Ms. theDefendants happened be identificationandlied in their positively identified Mr. Mable. The to Ms. 136. Defendants that anyreference Taylor that Mr. knew identification by of the Mable in Mr. false and was Dukes’ anuntrustworthy.Defendants shewere aware involved murderonlywas the at she thatMs.Taylor shooting and, had, possibility not did not witness if that had high also all or nonetheless Eddie as knew Ms. Taylor identified theshooter. Defendants that was eitherdrunk their thesame the during with her and that itwas probable she to on high ofinteractions that was condition the The of in other evening shooting. also and condoned each assist the Defendants knew in deliberate to suggest, alter Ms. Mr. Dukes’murder efforts coerce, and Taylor’srecollection of the evening of by the her, her that she Mr.Dukes’ shooter providing her with of apprehending instructing saw by details the the of and Vehicle,andby threatening herwith arrest for possession illegal narcotics she murder a if of The or have did not makepositiveidentification Mr.Mable. Defendants knew should known that this of other false. conduct would renderMs. Taylor’sidentification anyone than Eddie unreliable and the Any reasonable,prudent, andwell-trained investigator wouldknow that Defendants’ conduct was

33 Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 38 of 42 to

“solve” Eddie Mr. utterlythe to any about Mable and that resulting or anyone other twotheir than unlawful statement thanwas that Mr. the Eddie, worthless.DefendantsHowever,a rush Dukes’ murder the other to women attempt to him.Yet, to resolved focus with pickedinon Mr.Mable positively someone nonetheless entirelycase Defendants their or did identified truth inMr. investigation thison and not determine solve Dukes’ murder make truthful case, actuala and an facts. desire quickly for their develop based Motivated ait. abused arrest authority to a the byfit theory, thenthis was that investigation and the DefendantsThe adopted criteria highlyand, publicized to and in up construct case most important Eddie WITH have been not filingof this Complaint, respect they RESPONDED that successful.AND XVII.be until OF MS. FRAZIER prosecuted AFTER THEMS.DEFENDANTSTHAT THE FURTHERin BOTHMISCONDUCT THEY REALIZEDTAYLOR BOTH OF AND EACH WERE COERCED THE INCONSISTENTSTATEMENTSWITH THE CASE OTHER. FACTS the their after focusing 137. Quicklythey a flaw exclusively Mr.Mable, investigation DefendantsTaylor that with theirtheory case: Ms. Ms. had critical case,the Frazier and a Eddie. realizedmaterially of of of on had for as disagreedabout most thefacts the except boththeir identifications of any competent positive suspect Ms. investigator reevaluated Eddie given Nonetheless, objectiveFrazier and wouldthe have However, that Ms. and Taylor to the Defendants as shooter. not only both out and this identified him they set misrepresent exculpatoryMs. key evidence, deliberately intentionallyignored concerning andFrazier Ms. Taylor’s of fabricate evidence Mr. and to positive Eddieby of Mable his identifications manufacturingidentificationsMs. arrestand and secureTaylor’s conviction. shooter 138. Frazier positive of Eddie as the and Despite that identifications theirother Ms. different, the contortedMs. Frazier statements were materially Defendants purposefully Ms. Taylor’s made a of Mable and and they to Mr. as descriptions reported that both waspositive identifications theshooter. This to evidence deliberate twist intentionalmanipulation ofkey attempt andfabricate Mr.Mable. of Thisdeliberateand false alteration and Taylor’s evidence frame to Ms. Frazier Ms. at Attorney’s becomecentral the Defendants’ and the State’s case identificationswould investigation trial. The the 139. thensuppressed any evidence for Defendants andall exculpatory from Circuit Court Mable’s the Baltimore City, the State’sAttorney’s Office, Mr. attorney, multitude and including of made as shooter, the Eddie statements thatexpresslyimplicated Eddie the evidence that hadbeen the DNA under the that scratchedon neck, the evidencefound Mr. Dukes’ fingernails, and reports neck just toEddie Eddie’s had been scratchedby Mr.Dukes prior killinghim. 140. Defendantscontinued theintentional of Ms.Frazier The fabricationand manipulation and of the the Ms. Taylor’spositive identifications shooterandsuppressed exculpatoryevidence described hereinthis Complaint from theCircuit Court forBaltimore City, the State’s Attorney’sOffice, 34 specifically for Plaintiff, disregard for terminated without justice Defendants the the One the and agreements, fully 1983. and and (Against the improper, criminal Plaintiff Plaintiff continuing Mr. imprisonment Defendants herein. truth or 147. 146. 145. legal 144. 143. 142. 141. Mable’s not for, securing all

in Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 39 of 42 of 39 Page 03/01/13 Filed 1 Document 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Case in initiated in without on prosecutions understandings, by justification, illegal, his and Defendants the Violation instituting criminal charges a The The There The The The Each did favor. belief attorney deliberate body the of Count Count and any in Count Count Count and Mr. of conviction was fact, of including Rights that prosecutions and continued the belief unconstitutional legal against except this Mable. throughout knowingly, One no One One One One under the indifference paragraphs or Conspiracy probable Complaint. proceedings that under meetings Defendants charges Defendants Defendants In Defendants Defendants the the of murder. the their against he a Mayor Plaintiff against guilty color the willfully, was 42 cause of had individual CAUSES to of U.S.C. arrest, purposes to this the guilty against the of were acted the and commenced conspired are any person. Violate Federal COUNT the for were law, Plaintiff Complaint Plaintiffs minds “persons,” City and charging, factual § Plaintiff any of motivated intentionally, 1983 and OF 35 the instituted including, initiate the wantonly Fourth Council of Claims among by ONE Plaintiff ACTION and official crimes or the - and constitutional entering on Malicious is detention, legal and as all criminal in incorporated charges and continued for and themselves that but evidencing the the for capacities continue and with merit a Fourteenth the not term pursuit charges purpose which into evidenced prosecutions actual Prosecution prosecution, that Baltimore limited or express is the rights. criminal that he for included by used of a levied other criminal malice complete was criminal the the probable to, Amendment a in and/or City Plaintiff those reckless than charged. purpose prosecutions against the conviction, the and murder. proceedings Police text charges and Count bringing implied outlined cause ill him as and of of will, utter Additionally, The Department) if initiating 42 One existed, callous were sentencing, against restated against him and disregard U.S.C. more Count against to but the § spite, than arrest, Defendants' Court to maliciously favor criminal purpose probable agreement body fully U.S.C. seizure, deprivations relates to trial. Frazier (Against arrest obtain State bringing herein. ill-will, of of of prosecution, to § 1 154. 153. 152. this 151. other the in the 150. secured Maryland 149. 148. proceedings 55. cause, 1983. warrants of the all an and conduct instituting

Plaintiff. Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 40 of 42 of 40 Page 03/01/13 Filed 1 Document 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Case Plaintiff Complaint. Maryland to and the Defendants concept attempt than understanding That his As legal That That Each The The by Upon Plaintiff wonton for bringing in conviction, alleged liberty, the that and the conduct Count justification, the against the an to of of Baltimore and/or information Fourth Claim convince attempt the seizure prosecution the Count the Count except disregard to including more One the paragraphs justice. Plaintiff Count the continuing of to and and of Plaintiff Two Two In and the maliciously to the Plaintiff Defendants specifically City. Malicious them or their Fourteenth incarceration. secure and Two for Count To-wit, Mayor violated of Defendants, Defendants post-arraignment excuse was Further, the to the belief, of individual to Defendants the with unreasonably offer the this One Plaintiffs justice. Plaintiff and the criminal falsified and Prosecution prosecute COUNT in the Plaintiffs State Amendments actual the Complaint is Defendants the City peijured Count in Plaintiffs acted was within Count All and 36 body an Claims was Council were rights malice, their proceedings a attempt TWO of Two and the intentionally, official direct and arrest. the testimony instituted One of the and is in Plaintiff official post-conviction right by as this Defendants undeservingly scope incorporated to a criminal improper and Defendants and aforescribed conspiring unique to Conspiracy the capacities Complaint, to inflict the against foreseeable reports of with United at be as in Baltimore their the position proceedings free alleged motivations, concert, malice injury, demonstrated Plaintiffs by to intimidated the States and employment of subjected caused deprivations, to there manufacture the unreasonable Plaintiff more Maliciously consequence offered that or instituted City and Plaintiff Constitution was for the have they specifically prospective ill in Police to a Ms. no actual peijured Plaintiff in will confederation purpose indictment, and abused terminated as and the probable as and Taylor and Prosecute and his Department) of without if malice, Circuit continued and restated the to testimony liberty unlawful for other by criminal in and suffer 42 cause the a in by Ms. Case 1:13-cv-00650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 41 of 42

as and to manipulate more the of this thatwas to the falsethatthemisleadingfalse specifically and evidencethe and body Complaint,to knowledge would advance the alleged used against misleading evidencehis convictionbeinand perpetuatewith156.upcriminalThe Plaintiffs Defendants'Plaintiff, leading motives and/or Two to and incarceration. efforts of Count their to actual the further fully the thisprocess misconduct malicethe judgment, rush improper as as allegedabove. Plaintiffs included in cover a157.concealThe and Complaint, to and rights stated body Defendants legal morethe Plaintiff compromise no against for Twobring to prosecutions or Count thejustice maintainedthere the otherthan him institutedandknewand that that proper for and CLAIMS, and was probablemade chargesagainst charges basisfalse purpose initiating maintaining JURY when causeand were him maintained. DAMAGES DAMAGES the of of AND civil 158. The 24 his rights federal law,actions Defendants deprived under Maryland and ofthe Mr. Mable of and including 26 Maiyland Rights the Fourteenth Articles States Declaration Fourth and Constitution,respectively. and Mable’s The of theUnited of Amendments acts the constituted violations Mr. 159. the unlawfulandreckless Defendants of rights Declaration of Rights under Maryland statutory law, under Maryland torttheory and the any herein.and common including encompassed innominateThe facts pleaded Mr. and the distress,160. unlawful byof reckless actions caused Mable emotional humiliation,and embarrassment, and Defendantsother severe for damages, hesuffering and includingwithout limitation, for damages pain monetaryrelief. whichthe lostwages, is entitled 161. All acts for liability is committed by Defendantsdescribed herein which claimed of intentionally, maliciously, recklessly said acts were done wantonly, and/or and meet all for unlawfully,of the punitive damages. standards impositionAs these the 162. a of acts, the others, result Plaintiff damagesincluding, among suffered following: andsuffering; anguish; distress; of personal injuries;pain severe emotional loss mentalcare; indignities income; of illness;inadequate infliction physical to medical humiliation; and severe embarrassment; of degradation;injury reputation; loss natural psychological development; permanent to, contact, ofall of freedomincluding, diet, sleep, personal restrictions forms personal but not limited vocational and personal educationalopportunity, professional opportunity, athletic opportunity, fulfillment, relations, movies, travel, sexual activity,family reading, television, enjoyment and expression.

37 Case l:13-cv-0Q650-JKB Document 1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 42 of 42

WHEREFORE, Ezra. Mable prays as follows: A. Thai the Court award compensatory damages to him and against the Defendants, jointly and/or severally, in the amount of Thirty-Five Million Dollars ($35,000,000,00), which exceeds any and all jurisdictional requirements of this court that may exist, and that Defendant Mayor and City Council be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees wherein appropriate;

B. That the Court award punitive damages to Mr. Mablc, and against the Defendants, jointly and/or severally, that will deter such conduct by the Defendants and members of the Baltimore City Police Department in the future;

C. For a trial by jury;

D. For interest on said judgment, recovery of Mr, Mable’s costs, including any and all allowable attorney's fees; and

E For any and all other relief to which Mr. Mablc may be entitled.

Dated: February 27, 2013 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/

Charles H. Edwards The law Office of Bany R. Glazer, P.C. 1010 Light Street Baltimore, Maryland 21230 Phone: (410) 547-S56S Fax: (410)547-003 Bar Roll No., 29977

38