Factual
summary:
Marlene L. Grant is a 60-year-old
African-American woman. Ms. Grant is a retired corrections officer. Ms. Grant
receives food stamps and monthly living support. She lives in a retirement
community. Mrs. Grant volunteers at a local church community center. Ms. Grant
has no history of drug use and she had no criminal record until the incident
described in this report. Ms Grant was on her way to volunteer at a "help the homeless," event at church nearby when she was approached by Officer Carole Romero.
On March 24, 2012 at approximately
9:00 AM Ms. Grant left her home to walk to the nearby church located
approximately 1 mile away. She was unarmed with the exception of a small pocket
knife she carries to assist her with her task at the community center and at
home. As Ms. Grant crossed through the Georgia Health Sciences campus she was
approached by a police officer later identified as Carole Romero. According to
Ms. Grant and police reports the officer made contact and began to question Ms.
Grant. According to police affidavits Ms. Grant was uncooperative and refused
to answer the officer. In my interviews with Mrs. Grant she reports that the
officer stopped her three times never providing a reason for the stop. Ms.
Grant assumed she was free to go and she continued walking. According to Ms.
Grant she was not attempting to break any laws. She was simply exercising her
right to leave the area as she had committed no crime and she was late for an
appointment at the local church where she was scheduled to do volunteer work
for the homeless.
According to Officer Romero, Ms.
Grant became combative and had to be subdued with the assistance of the second
officer named Zizzamia. The officers claimed that Ms. Grant resisted arrest and
bit Officer Romero. Ms. Grant was arrested for obstructing justice and assault
on a police officer. Mrs. Grant disputes the officer’s account of the incident.
In a series of interviews she explained that she never attacked the officer but
only continued walking. She said that Officer Romero attempted to tackle her
and with the assistance of Officer Zizzamia, she was thrown to the ground and
body slammed. She also reports being tasered multiple times while on the
ground. She was knocked unconscious by the assault of the officers.
Analysis
I have been asked to review
available records and assess the arrest and the use of force by officers Romero
and Zizzamia. My assessment will be based on my experience as a police officer
and patrol supervisor. I have made more than 300 arrests. My experience as a
detective will also be used to assess the conduct of the officers as it relates
to Ms. Grant. My assessments will also be inclusive of International
Association of Chiefs of Police standards regarding subject stops, use of force
and field interviews.
Opinions and conclusions
After reviewing police affidavits,
medical reports witness statements and other records it is my opinion to a
reasonable degree a professional certainty that there are problems with this
arrest and that the force used appears to be excessive.
Citizens are entitled to freedom of
movement. Police officers may engage citizens for questioning when there is a
legitimate law enforcement concern or a public safety matter. Short of that,
police officers must have a good reason for contacting or detaining anyone. My
review of the available records demonstrates that the officer made several
errors in this contact. The most obvious concern is that there appears to be no
underlying crime. Though Marlene Grant was arrested for obstruction and illegal
possession of a weapon (a pocket knife), she was perfectly within her rights to
walk through the MCG campus so long as she did not disturb anyone or enter a
restricted area. An officer who is curious about someone's activities must
first have probable cause basis for detention. There appears to be no basis for
the contact Officer Romero initiated with Marlene Grant. Though the officers
later learned that Ms. Grant had a pocket knife they did not know that when
they approached Mrs. Grant initially. What the officers found later is
irrelevant to the basis of the stop. Inquiring about Marlene Grant’s status as
a student is not demonstrably tied to any legitimate law enforcement function
in the officer’s report. Was there a crime in the area? Did someone
impersonating a student do something that caught the officer’s attention? These
questions are unanswered by the officer’s police report and subsequent
affidavits. It appears that Marlene Grant was a stopped purely based Officer
Romero’s concern that she was not a student. There is nothing else supporting
this contact in the officer’s police report. Moreover as an officer it is my
experience that in such a circumstance Marlene Grant would be entitled to
continue walking until told that she was being detained or placed under arrest.
According to Ms. Grant she was never given a reason for being stopped. Indeed,
Ms. Grant believes that she was the target of racial profiling.
According to Ms. Grant and the
police report there was no crime that Ms. Grant was suspected of committing
when Officer Romero approached her. The time of day, 9 AM is not normally
associated with high rates of criminal activity. Indeed it was broad daylight
and there was no reason to assume Ms. Grant was doing anything but walking. She
had no obligation to submit herself to a stop without some probable cause
described by the officers. There appears to be no probable cause laying out
justification for this contact in the officer’s affidavits.
I've investigated more than 8000
complaints of police misconduct. Based on my experience police officers often
charge citizens who they have hurt or injured with assault or resisting arrest.
The charge protects the officer from allegations of excessive force. If the
officer was defending himself or herself from attack whatever force they used
will likely be justified. Marlene Grant reported being tasered nearly a dozen
times in her buttocks area. She had injuries sustained all over her body from
the attack by the officers. According to witnesses the assault by the officers
has had a dramatic impact on Ms. Grant’s health. The coordinator at the church
who was waiting for Ms. Grant said that she has suggested that Ms. Grant
discontinue volunteering or reduce her community service substantially because
of her injuries. The church volunteer coordinator told me that prior to this
assault Ms. Grant was a healthy and vibrant woman. After her assault by the
officers and her jail incarceration for five days Ms. Grant is a diminished
woman physically and mentally. The coordinator told me that Ms. Grant is unable
to perform many of the tasks she was able to do prior to the attack by the
officers. I have included this witness’s account because it is consistent with
what Marlene Grant told me about the severity of the assault by the officers.
Use
of force
Police officers are entitled to use
force to overcome resistance and to secure public safety. If an officer is
threatened, or if the suspect is resisting, officers are trained to use force
sufficient to overcome the resistance. Police officers are not entitled to use
more force than is necessary. In this matter, Marlene Grant was walking through
an area legally when she was confronted by Officer Romero and later a second
officer named Zizzamia. Given Marlene Grant's age and other facts, it is my
opinion that two police officers using the amount of force described under the
circumstances were improper. There is nothing in the officer’s affidavits to
support the use of the Taser on a 60-year-old woman in the manner described by
Marlene Grant. The fact that there was no crime being committed prior to the
assault by the officers makes the use of force more doubtful. Moreover, the
claim that a sixty year old woman on her way to volunteer at church attacked
two police officers for no reason is dubious. It is my opinion that the charges
made against Ms. Grant may be inflated to protect the officers from criminal or
civil liability for their actions.
Based on the information contained
in the officers affidavits Marlene Grant's testimony and my interview with
witnesses it is my professional opinion based on my training and experience as
a police officer that the force used against Marlene Grant was excessive and
that the police officers had no basis to contact Ms. Grant.
Materials Reviewed
In
preparing my report, I reviewed the following materials which are commonly
examined in any area of expertise and rendering professional/expert opinions on
police practices.
Police
reports
Previously
Obtained Witness Statements
Private
Investigative Report
Photographs
of the arrest location
Route
Traveled by the complainant
International
Association of Chiefs of Police Model Policies in the following areas:
Use of
Force
Subject
Stops
Field
Interviews
General
Standards of Conduct
Opinions
and Conclusions
After
reviewing the aforementioned records, court testimony, law enforcement policies
and witness statements I am prepared to render a professional opinion. It is my
professional opinion based on my training and experience as a police officer
that probable cause did not exist to make a subject stop, search and arrest.
Again, I
reserve the right to amend or supplement this report should any other relevant
information become available to me.
Cases I
have been retained as an expert in past 5 years:
Lateef
Al-Saraji and Theresa Al-Saraji V. City of Dallas, Police
Carney V.
City of Raynham
Feliciano
V. Suffolk County
Additional
Evidence:
Evidence video covering my review of evidence approximately 15 minutes
Evidence video covering my review of evidence approximately 15 minutes
Compensation:
$7500 Expert Opinion
I charge a fee of $750.00 per day for trial testimony excluding travel fees
I charge a fee of $750.00 per day for trial testimony excluding travel fees
The officers reports
