Federal Claim 3 - Pgs. 1-6
The Following Federal Claim 3 owes its creation to Officer Krupar's misinformation about the Rick Tanner incident that connected me to the doorknob rattling of Rick Tanner's apartment. This led to the illegal search and seizure of my van without probable cause prior to my arrest, and it was only after entering my van that they claim they saw a brown coat matching the description given to them by Rick Tanner, and other incriminating evidence (small amount of marijuana in billfold, toolbox, clothing, etc.). In addition to Officer Krupar's false information about the doorknob rattler, the fruits of this first search gave them probable for my stop and arrest which led to the searches and seizures of my person and additional searches of my vehicle, which led to me being held incommunicado and interrogated for 18 hours without the right to counsel.
It was during the 18-hour interrogation that Officer Krupar and Officer Richardson knowingly and intentionally made false statements of fact in three search warrant affidavits. If the magistrate would have been aware of the false statements of fact and the omitted information, and that Officer Krupar's and Officer Richardson's probable cause for the issuance of the search warrants was founded on the "Fruits of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine violations (See Federal Claims 1 and 2) the magistrate would have ruled they lacked probable cause to have the search warrants issued.
FEDERAL CLAIM 3:
Reason 7: John Halpern failed to: 1. Challenge Officer Krupar's and Officer Richardson's veracity in their affidavits of support for the three search warrants. 2. Challenge Officer Krupar's and Officer Richardson's probable cause for the issuance ofthe three search warrants. 3. Challenge that the search warrants were founded upon "fruits of the poisonous tree" doctrine violations: (The first illegal search and seizure of my vehicle prior to my arrest; the illegal stop and arrest; the illegal search and seizure of my person and vehicle following my arrest; the illegal interrogation(s) and Miranda violations, etc.).
Statement of Facts:
Because the facts are so closely entwined, I will argue them together. John Halpern failed to challenge the veracity of the three search warrant affidavits that would have shown that Officer Krupar and Officer Richardson lacked probable cause to have the search warrants issued.
A. Officer Krupar's False Statements in His Affidavit for the 1st Search Warrant.
Officer Mark Krupar knowingly and intentionally made false statements of fact in his affidavit for the first search warrant when he swore:
(1.) "Tanner described the man at his door wearing a gray-hooded sweatshirt and brown boots." (PC Ex. 3-4).
Response: Rick Tanner told investigator Pete Moursund that the suspect at his door wore a brown jacket, and that he did not see a hat or hood or what the person was wearing under the brown jacket. Further, he could not tell if the person was wearing shoes or boots because the baggy pants covered the footwear (PC Ex. 50-51, 53).
(2.) "Tanner told me that it appeared to him the suspect was using some sort of tool or instrument to enter his apartment, but the instrument did not appear to be a large one." (PC Ex. 4).
Response: Rick Tanner told investigator Pete Moursund that he did not see the person's hands, or the suspect using a tool (PC:Ex. 48).
(3.) "That Rick Tanner told him that the suspect at his door ran northbound on High Street, and he ran after the suspect and saw the suspect enter a white over green Volkswagen van." (PC Ex. 3).
Response: Rick Tanner told investigator Moursund that the suspect fled south down a walkway and that it
Pg. 1 of 12 Federal Claim 3
seemed to him that the man just went away (PC Ex. 49). After getting dressed he went outside (3-5 minutes later) and at that time saw a person walking northbound on High Street who looked like the man who had been at his door, (but the man was not wearing the identifying clothing) and he followed that person to a VW van (PC Ex. 50). Rick Tanner did not chase this man from his door. The man did not run northbound on High Street, and Rick Tanner did not run after him until he saw the person enter a white over green VW van (PC Ex. 51-52).
(4.) "I ran the license plate in the Eugene Police Computer and the vehicle was registered to John Paul Schroeder who lived at 76566 Davis Street, Oakridge, Oregon." (PC Ex. 4-5).
Response: The DMV responded that 1 lived at 4788612 W. First, Oakridge, Oregon (PC Ex. 70, 71, & 72).
Note: There isn't a Davis Street in Oakridge, Oregon, but there is a Davis Road, and the 76566 Davis Road address belonged to a Marvin Jonas (PC Ex. 221).
(5.) "Officer Avalos observed a suspect matching the description of the burglar." (PC Ex. 5).
Response: Officer Krupar's affidavit stated that the person at Rick Tanner's door was 6', 200 pounds, brown shoulder length hair (Emphasis Added) and beard and wore a brown coat, gray-hooded sweatshirt, jeans and brown boots (PC Ex. 3-4). Further, the suspect had a pale complexion and his appearance was dirty and ragged (PC Ex. 57 & 62) (Emphasis Added).
Rick Tanner specifically stated that the person he saw wore dark colored jeans***and a brown jacket, (PC Ex. 50) and he did not see any hats or hoods or what the person was wearing under the brown coat (PC Ex. 51). Mr. Tanner could not tell if the person was wearing shoes or boots because the pants were baggy and came down over the heels of the shoes (PC Ex. 53).
(Emphasis Added): When Officer Avalos' saw me walking down the sidewalk, he described the person wearing a white long-sleeve shirt, light colored levis and boots, who was 6'3" to 6'4" tall, weighing about 250 pounds (my hair was to the middle of my back, and not shoulder length like the man at Rick Tanner's door) (PC Ex. 74). My physical appearance and clothing did not match Rick Tanner's description of the person at his door.
(6.) "John Schroeder told us after his arrest that the van contained a quantity of marijuana that he had just purchased. Officer Avalos told me that Schroeder had told him that he had purchased a little over an ounce of seedless marijuana."(PC Ex. 6-7).
Response: When I was stopped, beaten and arrested, I did not say anything to anyone about marijuana. Officer Avalos wrote in his police report that I told him I had bought less than an ounce of marijuana (PC Ex. 75). Officer Avalos was the person who beat me after I was handcuffed and lying facedown on the ground. I did not make any statements to him with the exception of calling him an asshole. After the beating the other police officers kept him away from me.
Officer Avalos made numerous false statements in his police report, and he perjured himself during the motion to suppress hearing about events that did not take place. He fabricated events and conversations that did not take place to cover up the numerous constitutional violations on February 16, 1980 (See Officer Avalos' testimony in Federal Claim 6).
Note: The record is clear that Officer Krupar and Officer Avalos illegally entered my vehicle and found my billfold prior to my arrest, when the vehicle was parked at 16th and Hilyard. They admitted they read the vehicle registration that was in my wallet. It was at that time they found less than one gram of marijuana in the billfold. I did not tell Officer Krupar or Avalos that I bought more than an ounce of marijuana, less than an ounce, or a quarter ounce. I refused to tell them anything about the marijuana (See Federal Claim 6). Seven hours later at City Hall, Officer Richardson stated in her police report that I refused to tell them anything about the marijuana found in my wallet.
Pg. 2 of 12 Federal Claim 3
(7.) "We apprehended the suspect who furnished me with identification in the name of John Paul Schroeder."(PC Ex. 5).
Response: Officer Avalos' police report states that my wallet and identification was in my vehicle along with the small amount of marijuana (PC Ex. 75). Officer Avalos testified that he found my wallet and identification inside the van and not on my person after my arrest (PC Ex. 1005, Vol. I, page 95 In. 6-22). Officers Krupar and Avalos found my wallet and read the vehicle registration and my identification when they illegally searched the van prior to my arrest. I did not have my identification on me when I was arrested (PC Ex. 1005 at pg 131 In. 24-25, and 132 In. 1). Therefore, I could not have furnished them with identification in my name.
(8.) "We chased this person as he started to run when he saw us," (PC Ex. 5).
Response: Officer Krupar's police report states that only Officer Avalos saw me walking down the sidewalk (PC Ex. 65), Officer Avalos' is the only person who stated that I ran. Officer Krupar did not see me run. Officer Avalos omitted the fact that when he grabbed me from behind that I flipped him to the ground, and that he did not identify himself before grabbing my shoulder. Further, he refused to tell me why he wanted to speak with me afterwards when I asked him twice what he wanted (PC Ex. 74).
(9.) "I conducted a cursory inventory search of the vehicle before it was towed by Scott and Son's Tow Co. and***I seized the clothing from the vehicle which matched the description (not identified) of the clothing given to me by the victim." (Rick Tanner) (PC Ex. 6).
Response: Officer Krupar stated in his police report that he seized a brown ski jacket, (my jacket was white and not brown) and a gray-hooded sweatshirt prior to the inventory search and seizure (PC Ex. 67 & 149). Further, Rick Tanner did not see the doorknob rattler wearing a white ski jacket or a gray-hooded sweatshirt. Therefore, Officer Krupar did not have probable cause to seize the clothing before or during an inventory search and seizure.
The First Search warrant was issued by Judge Alderson at 5:35 pm, on February 16, 1980, (PC Ex. 1) and executed by Detective Melinda Richardson that evening (PC Ex. 9)
After excising Officer Krupar's false statements in the 1st search warrant affidavit: i.e. (See 1 through 9 above), and including the information known but intentionally omitted by him, he lacked probable cause to have the first search warrant issued. Officer Krupar's intent when he applied for the first search warrant was to create a pretext to allow Detectives Richardson and Mary Ann Vaughan to search for evidence of sex crimes rather than burglary tools and marijuana (See Federal Claim 4).
B. Officer Melinda Richardson's False Statements in her Affidavit for the 2nd Search Warrant:
It was the issuance and the execution of the first search warrant on my vehicle by Detectives Richardson and Vaughan (a pretext search and seizure) and the fruits ofthat search gave Detective Richardson probable cause to have the 2nd search warrant issued. Detective Richardson based her probable cause, in part, on Officer Krupar's false statements of fact in his affidavit for the 1st search warrant, and upon the "Fruits of the Poisonous Tree" violations that occurred prior to the issuance of the search warrants (See Federal Claims 1 & 2).
Officer Richardson then knowingly and intentionally made false statements of fact in her affidavit for the Second search warrant ,¥hen she swore:
(1.) "The following case summaries are based upon my direct interviews with participants and/or witnesses, my conversations with other investigative law enforcement personnel and my review of police reports specifically identifying witnesses and victims." (PC Exhibit 12, In. 13-16).
Pg. 3 of 12 Federal Claim 3
Response: Officer Whitney swore in his affidavit of support, three weeks earlier on January 26, 1980, that he was the preparer of the summaries listed in the search warrant affidavit (that Richardson claimed was hers) to search Howard Huntington's vehicle and residence. Compare Officer Richardson's summaries (PC Ex. 13-23) with Officer Whitney's summaries (PC Ex. 82-92). Also See Attorney Mike Phillip's Affidavit about Officer Richardson's false statements (PC Ex. 213-14).
(2.) "That Mr. Tanner said the suspect at his door wore a "gray hooded sweatshirt and brown boots."(PC Ex. 25 In.5-6).
Response: Rick Tanner specifically told investigator Pete Moursund that he did not see what the person was wearing under the brown coat, nor did he see any hats, hoods or boots (PC Ex. 50, 51, & 53). See Mike Phillips Affidavit (PC Ex. 214 In. 14-18). Officers Krupar and Richardson intentionally lied about Rick Tanner seeing the man at his door wearing a gray-hooded sweatshirt in an attempt to connect me to the Karen Evan's incident that took place 15 to 25 minutes after my arrest and six blocks away.
(3.) That "Entry was attempted by means of some sort of tool." (PC Ex. 25 In. 6-7).
Response: Rick Tanner told investigator Moursund that he did not see the suspect's hands or any tools (PC Ex. 48). See Mike Phillips Affidavit (PC Ex. 214 In. 19-21).
(4.) That "A check with the Motor Vehicle Division indicated it (my vehicle) was registered to John Paul Schroeder of 76566 Davis Street, Oakridge, Oregon." (PC Ex. 25 In. 15-17).
Response: The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) informed both Detective Richardson and Officer Krupar that license plate number KRE 185 belonged to John Paul Schroeder who resided at 47886-1/2 W. 1st Street, Oakridge, Oregon (See PC Ex. 70-72) and not 76566 Davis Street. The 76566 Davis Street (Road) address belonged to a Marvin Jonas (PC Ex. 221). Officers Krupar and Richardson intentionally lied to the magistrate in hope they would locate evidence at the incorrectly and unspecified Davis Street (Road) residence that would connect me to Officer Richardson's grocery list of crimes in her affidavit.
(5.) "Schroeder was later seen by Krupar and Avalos while attempting to flee the area in the van. Schroeder ditched the vehicle." (PC Ex. 25, In. 18-19).
Response: Officer Krupar stated in his police report that he and Officer Avalos were questioning two other suspects when I drove away in my vehicle (PC Ex. 64). Officer Krupar swore in his affidavit that he found my van parked and unattended in an apartment complex parking lot (PC Ex. 5). Officer Avalos stated in his police report that he located my van parked in the parking lot (PC Ex. 74). Officer Krupar testified that neither he nor Officer Avalos made a call-in to the police dispatcher about a vehicle chase (PC Ex. 1005, Vol. I, page 56 In. 23-25). He also stated that he located my van in the parking lot and I had already departed (PC Ex. 1005, Vol. I, page 25 In. 2-30). Also See Attorney Mike Phillips Affidavit (PC Ex. 214 In. 17-19). Officer Krupar's affidavit is silent about a vehicle chase (PC Ex. 5). During the motion to suppress hearing Officer Krupar perjured himself when he swore that I fled in my vehicle and that he found my vehicle abandoned dead center in the alley (Emphasis Added) (PC Ex. 1005, Vol. I, page 24 In. 20 through page 25, In. 13). His lie was to give the appearance I abandoned my vehicle.
(6.) "During an inventory search of the vehicle, Krupar saw and seized a brown quilted jacket and a gray hooded sweatshirt." (PC Ex. 25).
Response: Officer Krupar's pre-inventory search and seizure police report stated that prior to the actual inventory search he seized a brown (white) jacket, a gray hooded sweatshirt that was worn by Rick Tanner's doorknob rattler (PC Ex. 67). Officer Krupar did not list my white jacket, gray hooded sweatshirt in his inventory search and seizure list (PC Ex. 93). His police report states he seized my jacket and gray hooded sweatshirt when the vehicle was parked in the apartment complex parking lot prior to me being transported to City Hall (PC Ex. 149). Officer Avalos testified that he was at the scene of the van when
Pg. 4 of 12 Federal Claim 3
the sweatshirt and its contents were seized (PC Ex. 1005, Vol. I, page 96 In. 8-9, and page 96 In. 25 thru to page 97 In. 8) (It cannot be emphasized enough that Rick Tanner did not see the person at his door wearing a white jacket or a gray hooded sweatshirt).
(7.) That "Prior to the arrest of John Paul Schroeder, Karen Evans*** reported to police that she was accosted ***by a white male*** with facial hair***" (PC Ex. 26).
Response: Karen Evan specifically told Officer Green that the man who grabbed her arm at 9:30 am (emphasis added) on February 16, 1980, wore a gray-hooded sweatshirt and tennis shoes and had a mustache only [no beard](PC Ex. 94-96) (Emphasis Added).
Officer Krupar's and Officer Avalos' police reports and their testimonies factually show that I was seen by them five to six blocks from Ms. Evan's apartment between 9:05 and 9:15 am, depending upon which of their stories is believed (PC Ex. 64 and PC Ex. 1005, Vol. I, page 24 In. 18). Therefore, I was arrested fifteen to twenty-jive minutes prior to the Karen Evan's incident.
Officer Krupar testified that after an alleged foot chase that lasted between 5 and 15 minutes, I was arrested between 9:00 and 9:15, and/or between 9:25 and 9:30 am, 5 to 6 blocks from Karen Evan's apartment, (PC Ex. 1005, Vol. I, page 58 In. 1-5). I was not wearing a gray-hooded sweatshirt, tennis shoes and I had a 4 to 5 inch long full beard. Therefore, I was seen by the police between 09:05- 9:15 am, and my clothing and physical appearance did not match the man who grabbed Karen Evan's arm. In fact, Karen Evans told one of her quad mates it looked like the man who used to live next door to her. Karen Evan's gave exonerating statements about the time the incident took place and the description of the person who grabbed her arm. Further, a Mr. Folkes substantiated Karen Evan's story when he told investigator Pete Moursund that he saw the suspect between 9:25 and 9:30 am, prior to Ms Evan's arm being grabbed, and the man had a mustache only (PC Ex. 98). See Attorney Mr. Phillip's Affidavit (PC Ex. 214In.21-24).
Note: Karen Evans testified during my last trial that her assailant had a mustache only, (PC Ex. 99 In. 21 22) and that if the person would have had a full beard like my 4" to 5" full beard, she would have seen it, and she adamantly stated that the man did not have a beard (PC Ex. 100 In. 3-12).
(8.) "During the course of executing that search warrant [1 st search warrant](PC Ex. 1) I observed ***a reddish, yellow and green flannel shirt similar to that described in the *** February 12, 1980 crime." (PC Ex. 26).
Response: Officer Richardson did not observe a reddish, yellow and green flannel shirt similar to the one worn by the February 12, 1980, assailant in my vehicle. The shirt Officer Richardson described was listed as being a brown, white and green plaid shirt (See PC Ex. 39, item 38; and PC Ex. 40 In. 12-15). The shirt seen by Officer Richardson during the execution of the first search warrant was not similar to the one worn by the assailant in the February 12,1980, crime (See PC Ex. 24 In. 4 and PC Ex. 162 and Mike Phillips affidavit PC Ex 215). Also See PC Ex 1005, Motion To Suppress Hearing, State's Exhibit #3. When the February 12, 1980 victims, were impermissibly allowed to testify during my last trial they swore that the shirt Officer Richardson seized was not the one worn by the assailant.
(9.) "On June 22, 1979, Leta Bowen *** reported to the police that *** a white male adult, with long hair and beard***assaulted her." (PC Ex. 28).
Response: Officer Richardson knowingly omitted facts from her affidavit about the Leta Bowen assailant. She knew that Leta Bowen's assailant had red hair and beard, and had acne scars and pock marks on his face, (PC Ex. 31 & 33) phyical characteristics I do not have. Officer Richardson also knew and omitted:
1. That Ms. Bowen's assailant had 0 positive blood typing; and that she knew I had A positive blood type from reading my Veteran's Medical card in my wallet at the Eugene Police Station during her interrogations before she typed her affidavit for the second search warrant (PC Ex. 102). 2. That I did not have red hair and a red beard (Officer Richardson spent approximately four hours, face-to-face with me
Pg. 5 of 12 Federal Claim 3
during the interrogations, before she made her second search warrant affidavit) .•
(10.) "On February 16,1980, John Paul Schroeder stated to police that he had Type A Positive blood." (PC Ex. 28).
Response: Again, on February 16,1980, without consent, a search warrant or probable cause, Officer Krupar and Officer Avalos searched my vehicle, seized my billfold and read the contents of the wallet when the van was parked and unattended at 16th and Hilyard; and later at City Hall during the interrogations, Sgt. Cline, Agent Underwood and Detectives Poppe, Davis, Richardson, Schuessler, Vaughan and other John Doe officers searched through and read the contents of the wallet including my Veteran Administration Medical card that listed my A+ blood typing (PC Ex. 75, 101-102).
The Second Search Warrant was issued by Judge Alderson at 2:25 am on February 17, 1980, (PC Ex. 10) and the execution of it by Detective Richardson began at 4:00 am on February 17, 1980 (PC Ex. 40).
After excising Officer Richardson's false statements in her 2nd search warrant affidavit: i.e. (See 1 to 10 above), and including the information known but intentionally omitted by her, she did not have probable cause to have the second search warrant issued to search my person, (nude photos of my body, gel teeth casts, exemplar cheese bites, etc.) my vehicle or the Oakridge residence.
In addition to Officer Krupar's false statements about the Rick Tanner incident, and his false swearing in his search warrant affidavit, Officer Richardson knowingly made false statements about the shirt she saw during her execution of the 1st search warrant to connect me to the February 12, 1980 incident. She also knowingly and intentionally made false swearing in her affidavit to connect me to Rick Tanner, Karen Evens, and the June 22,1979, crimes. She further lied about the DMV giving her the 76566 Davis Street address as being my residence. Therefore, Officer Richardson lacked probable cause to connect me to any of her listed crimes or to have the second search warrant issued.
C. Officer Richardson's False Statements in Her Affidavit for the 3rd Search Warrant:
It was Officer Krupar's false swearing for the first search warrant and the issuance and the execution of the 1st search warrant that gave Officer Richardson probable cause for the issuance of the 2nd search warrant. Officer Richardson then knowingly and intentionally made false statements in her affidavit for the issuance of the 2nd search warrant. Further, her probable cause, in part, for the issuance of the 2nd and 3rd search warrants was founded upon "Fruits of the Poisonous Tree" violations that occurred prior to the issuance of all three search warrants (See Federal Claims 1 & 2).
Officer Richardson again knowingly and intentionally made false statements of fact in her affidavit for the issuance of the third search warrant when she swore:
(1.) That "Ms. Bennett stated that several months ago Schroeder suddenly appeared in possession of about six to eight silver dollars. He claimed he won them playing pool***her description of the coins matches that of the ones stolen on September 28,1979***" (See Post-conviction Exhibit 42 Ins. 19-25).
Response: Ms. Bennett told the police on February 17, 1980 that I had eight silver dollars (not six) and that I had them for more than one-year [not four months] (PC Ex. 104). Therefore, I had my eight silver dollars nine months prior to the time that the six silver dollars were stolen on September 28, 1979 (PC Ex. 21 In. 25 through Ex. 22 In. 1). Further, Officer Richardson intentionally lied when she swore that Tammy Bennett told her I won the silver dollars playing pool. Ms Bennett told them I bought the eight silver dollars from a man who recently returned from Las Vegas for $10.00 (PC Ex. 107-108).
(2.) Officer Richardson falsely swore for a 2nd time that she seized "A red, yellow and green flannel shirt (she) recovered (from my vehicle) * * *described as being worn by the burglar, rapist and sodomist during
Pg. 6 of 12 Federal Claim 3