Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9K views

    Wilkey Supplement

    Uploaded by

    Dan Lehr
    This document is a supplement to a memorandum in support of a motion for sanctions or a protective order in a civil case. It references affidavits from the District Attorney General, an investigator, and a plaintiff that provide additional context. The affidavits indicate that video evidence from some defendants' patrol cars could not be located, that the District Attorney was denied access to internal investigation files, and that one video has a limited view of search events. The document argues this suggests obstruction of the investigation by the County and supports entering a default judgment or other relief.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Wilkey Supplement

    Uploaded by

    Dan Lehr
    9K views10 pages
    This document is a supplement to a memorandum in support of a motion for sanctions or a protective order in a civil case. It references affidavits from the District Attorney General, an investigator, and a plaintiff that provide additional context. The affidavits indicate that video evidence from some defendants' patrol cars could not be located, that the District Attorney was denied access to internal investigation files, and that one video has a limited view of search events. The document argues this suggests obstruction of the investigation by the County and supports entering a default judgment or other relief.

    Original Description:

    .

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a supplement to a memorandum in support of a motion for sanctions or a protective order in a civil case. It references affidavits from the District Attorney General, an investigator, and a plaintiff that provide additional context. The affidavits indicate that video evidence from some defendants' patrol cars could not be located, that the District Attorney was denied access to internal investigation files, and that one video has a limited view of search events. The document argues this suggests obstruction of the investigation by the County and supports entering a default judgment or other relief.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    9K views10 pages

    Wilkey Supplement

    Uploaded by

    Dan Lehr
    This document is a supplement to a memorandum in support of a motion for sanctions or a protective order in a civil case. It references affidavits from the District Attorney General, an investigator, and a plaintiff that provide additional context. The affidavits indicate that video evidence from some defendants' patrol cars could not be located, that the District Attorney was denied access to internal investigation files, and that one video has a limited view of search events. The document argues this suggests obstruction of the investigation by the County and supports entering a default judgment or other relief.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 10

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE


    CHATTANOOGA

    SHANDLE MARIE RILEY, §


    § Case No. 1:19-cv-304
    Plaintiff, § Judge Travis R. McDonough
    § Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger
    ~v~ § JURY DEMANDED
    § Consolidated
    HAMILTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT, § 1:19-cv-198
    § 1:19-cv-305
    DANIEL WILKEY, § 1:19-cv-329
    individually and in his capacity as deputy sheriff § 1:19-cv-348
    for Hamilton County Government, and § 1:20-cv-16
    § 1:20-cv-17
    JACOB GOFORTH, § 1:20-cv-19
    individually and in his capacity as deputy sheriff § 1:20-cv-20
    for Hamilton County Government, § 1:19-cv-44
    §
    Defendants. §

    SUPPLEMENT TO
    MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
    MOTION FOR SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY
    SANCTIONS UNDER RULE 37 SHOULD NOT
    BE AWARDED OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
    FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

    Consolidated Plaintiffs1 (“Plaintiffs”), through counsel, in support of Motion for Show Cause as

    to Why Sanctions under Rule 37 Should not be Awarded or in the Alternative for a Protective Order

    (Doc. 143), and as a supplemental affidavit in support of their Memorandum of Law in support of their

    motion (Doc. 144) attaches the affidavits of District Attorney General Neal Pinkston, Wendi Sloop, and

    Plaintiff Aviana McKenzie.

    ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION

    1
    The undersigned represents all of the Plaintiffs with the exceptions of Plaintiffs Klaver and Jarnigan.
    ~1~

    Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176 Filed 06/29/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1332


    Plaintiffs will point to two motions filed by two defendants to illustrate the issues Plaintiffs raise

    in regard to the show cause motion.

    Recently, Defendant Brewer (“Brewer”) filed to amend his answers. Brewer specifically

    references videos from his patrol car and compares them to the videos from Defendant Wilkey’s patrol

    car as follows:

    In support of this motion, Brewer would show to the court that at the time of his
    original answer he and his counsel did not have access to the dash camera video
    from Brewer’s patrol car that shows a wide angle shot of the entire series of
    events. Wilkey’s (hereinafter referred to as “Wilkey”) patrol car dash camera
    video had a very restricted view of the events as the Plaintiff Mitchell was being
    searched on the hood of his car. Many of the events that occurred cannot be seen
    on this view. This event happened approximately six months before he was asked
    to answer this complaint containing over one hundred and fifty (150) paragraphs.
    Counsel would show to the court that being able to view the video of the entire
    series of events, search, and arrest of the Plaintiff and to conduct additional
    investigation has brought information to his attention that justifies these defenses
    being asserted. Counsel has now had the opportunity to review the video from
    Brewer’s patrol car with a law enforcement training expert and discuss the events,
    reasons for Brewer’s actions in using force on Mitchell, and the actions of
    Mitchell and whether those actions justified use of force by Brewer.
    (Doc. 1322 at PageID #: 752) (emphasis added).
    Defendant Tyler McRae (“McRae”) has also moved to amend his answers to the five minors

    who’ve brought suit in this consolidated action. In nearly each motion and memorandum, McRae

    references Wilkey’s dash-cam videos he (McRae) did not have at the time he filed his initial answer.

    (Doc. 120 at PageID #: 703). McRae also concedes that Wilkey’s video does not show the searches of

    the minors (other than Plaintiff Aviana McKenzie). (Id.).

    2
    Citations are to Riley v. Hamilton County Government, et al., No. 1:19-cv-304.
    ~2~

    Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176 Filed 06/29/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1333


    Plaintiff Aviana McKenzie has provided an affidavit and drawing to show the position of

    McRae’s videos. (Aff. McKenzie).

    Wendi Sloop reviewed videos obtained as discussed in Document 144. (Aff. Sloop). She was

    unable to located any videos from McRae’s patrol car. (Id.).

    District Attorney General Neal Pinkston (“Pinkston”) has provided an affidavit that will speak

    for itself. (Aff. Pinkston). Plaintiffs will highlight certain portions of Pinkston’s sworn statements:

    ¶ 7-9 Pinkston attempted to obtain files from Internal Affairs (Ham. Co. Sheriff) in regard to

    Plaintiff (A.O.K.)3 (Id.). On September 4, 2019, Pinkston was directed to the Criminal Investigations

    Division (CID) who notified Pinkston that there was an on-going investigation and that Pinkston could

    not have the files until completion of the investigation, and as of the date of Pinkston’s affidavit he has

    not received either the IA or CID files. (Id.).

    ADDITIONAL CONCLUSION

    Given the state of what the County has done in regard to the videos, it seems that the County has

    taken steps to obstruct an investigation by the District Attorney General. It is not a reach to conclude the

    same in this matter. Again, Plaintiff’s urge this Court to enter a default or grant the relief requested in

    their motion (Doc. 143).

    Respectfully submitted,

    3
    Abigail Knox. (Doc. 172).
    ~3~

    Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176 Filed 06/29/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1334


    By: /s/ Robin Ruben Flores______
    ROBIN RUBEN FLORES
    TENN. BPR #20751
    GA. STATE BAR #200745
    Counsel for Plaintiffs
    4110-A Brainerd Road
    Chattanooga, TN 37411
    423 / 267-1575 fax 267-2703
    robin@robinfloreslaw.com

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I certify that I have delivered a copy of this motion to all persons noted on the electronic filing
    receipt and so delivered on the date and time shown on the same receipt.

    By: s/ Robin Ruben Flores

    ~4~

    Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176 Filed 06/29/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1335


    Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176-1 Filed 06/29/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
    1336
    Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176-1 Filed 06/29/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
    1337
    Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176-1 Filed 06/29/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
    1338
    Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176-2 Filed 06/29/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
    1339
    Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176-2 Filed 06/29/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
    1340
    Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176-3 Filed 06/29/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:
    1341

    You might also like