Evanston Cops Lied About Informant In Arrest Report: Court Filing

Evanston IL

12 July, 2021

6:30 PM

Description

EVANSTON, IL — Evanston police admitted they did not have direct contact with the confidential informant they described in a police report, according to recent court filings in a federal civil rights case against two police officers and the city. Ronald Louden was sentenced to four years in prison after he pleaded guilty to unlawful use of a weapon following his June 6, 2018, arrest by Officers Ken Carter and Mikhail Geyer. He has not appealed that conviction, but about six weeks after his arrest, he filed the first version of his civil complaint against the officers that arrested him. Both Louden's attorney and attorneys representing the city and its officers have recently accused each other of knowingly making false allegations in court. In a motion for sanctions and accompanying memo filed Monday, Louden's attorney, Andrew Stroth, alleges that Carter, Geyer and city officials "have perpetuated a fraud on this Court and have abused its processes in an attempt to cover up the falsity of police reports." City attorneys deny that the reports were falsified and say Louden cannot use a federal civil lawsuit to overturn his criminal conviction in Cook County. In his investigative report describing the circumstances of Louden's arrest, Carter said he "received information from a confidential informant," or CI, around 10:30 a.m. on the day of the arrest. The officer later alleges that "while parked, Detective Geyer #244 and I received additional information from the CI," according to the report. But in a sworn statement dated June 30, Carter "states that he did not have any direct communication with a confidential informant on the date of [Louden's] arrest." Likewise, "Defendant Geyer states that he did not have any direct communication with a confidential informant on the date of [Louden's] arrest," according to another filing the same day from Assistant City Attorney Alexandra Ruggie. A composite image shows a portion of the narrative from a June 2018 investigative report and recently filed portions of discovery in a federal civil suit. (Court records) As Patch reported in April, body-worn camera videos from the incident (see below) show Louden was shocked multiple times with a Taser and suffered injuries to his face after falling onto a concrete parking bumper. Alleging that he suffered a series of injuries as a result of his arrest, Louden initially represented himself, filing a handwritten federal civil complaint from Cook County Jail. Attorneys for the city sought to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Louden's guilty plea prevented him from claiming that officers used excessive force on him. But U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso ruled in October 2019 that, even if Louden had admitted to resisting arrest, the criminal proceedings never evaluated whether the police had acted reasonably or exceeded their lawful authority. After retaining an attorney, Louden filed an amended complaint in April. In response, Corporation Counsel Nick Cummings wrote to Louden's attorneys asking them to withdraw the complaint. The city attorney said he was surprised to find that allegations in the complaint lacked evidentiary support. "While I certainly understand that allegations are subject to some embellishment or are often written from the perspective from the complaining party, in this instance we have an opportunity to actually litigate facts," Cummings said in an April 28 email. "Upon discovery of those facts, and with an opportunity to amend the complaint, it was incumbent upon you to file a complaint that is consistent with the facts," he added. "It is my hope you will withdraw the current complaint and refile with factual content so that we may work toward resolution in line with the ethical conduct we as lawyers are required to adhere to." Attorneys for the city filed a motion to dismiss it May 5, arguing that Louden's guilty plea bars from alleging excessive force, that he cannot allege the invalidity of his conviction by alleging he was wrongfully arrested and that he failed to sufficiently allege facts showing that police conspired to violate his rights. Discovery in the case resumed, and Louden's attorneys submitted a series of questions to the officers involved. In a joint status report filed last week, attorney Andrew Stroth alleged that Carter and Geyer "admit that they lied in the Investigation Report" because they did not have direct communication with the CI. "Why Defendants Carter and Geyer had a 'come to Jesus moment' and confessed to lying about the receipt of information from a Confidential Informant is a question for them to answer in the presence of their Maker," Stroth said, asking the judge to punish the city. "The answer need not be reached by this Court for the purpose considering Plaintiff's request for sanctions against Defendants Carter and Geyer." The plaintiff's attorney said that city attorneys lacked the "factual foundation from the outset of this case to take the position that a confidential informant spoke to Officers Carter and Geyer prior to the investigative stop of Mr. Louden. Police arrested Ronald Louden after getting a tip he had a gun in a white Lexus in the 2000 block of Wesley Avenue on June 6, 2018, according to police reports. (Evanston Police Department/via video) "Yet knowing this, they continued to make arguments to the Court in their Second Motion to Dismiss based on this lack of factual foundation," Stroth continued. "There is an intentionality and recklessness in the Evanston Defendants pursuits in this case that demonstrates that the Second Motion to Dismiss was presented with improper purposes." Stroth asked the judge to issue a default order in favor of Louden, arguing that imposing attorney's fees or other court costs on the city "will not sufficiently deter similar conduct by police officers who band together under the 'Code of Silence' banner—presenting knowingly false allegations against suspects they have accosted, arrested, and had charged with crimes." Cummings contends the officers' admissions that they did not have "direct communication" with the CI does not contradict the narrative on the arrest report, nor the factual basis for the guilty plea presented in court at Louden's May 14, 2019, sentencing hearing. According to a transcript of that hearing, Assistant State's Attorney Patricia Berlinsky said Carter would have testified under oath that he "had received information from a confidential informant" about Louden and that the officers "immediately relocated" to the site of the arrest. "There's no inconsistency between the way that the officers answered discovery, the incident report, or the court record — the factual basis of the plea agreement," Cummings said. "All of them say that they received information from a registered confidential informant. There was never a statement of, or an allegation, or a claim that there was direct contact, which is literally the point that they're trying to argue." Citing the pending litigation, a spokesperson for the Cook Count State's Attorney's Office declined to specify whether the office's Conviction Integrity Unit had opened investigations into any potential wrongful convictions in Evanston. But according to the unit's general guidelines, a person must assert that they are actually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. And while Louden has alleged he was wrongfully arrested and that he his constitutional rights were violated, he has not denied having possession of the gun in the car beside him, as he admitted in his guilty plea. Read more: Evanston Man Accuses Police Of False Arrest, Excessive Force