ll? .1 aerate-pt [rotor ANDERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE OCONEE COUNTY COURTHOUSE Po. Box 3002 El 415 SOUTH PINE STREET ANDERSON. so 29522 ANDE ICIQUNTIES WALHALLA. so 29591 TELEPHONE 854-260-4046 TELEPHONE assess-4294 FAX 854?260-4137 - FAX 554-638-4295 T. ADAMS soucnoa October 26, 2015 Capt. Robbie Hendrix South Carolina Law Enforcement Division 37 Villa Rd, Ste. 402 Greenville, SC 29615 Dear Captain Hendrix: After reviewing the entire SLED file regarding the Officer involved shooting in Seneca, the facts do not warrant charges being filed against Seneca Officer Mark Tiller in State Court. It is my understanding that federal authorities are still evaluating this matter in order to determine if any federal charges, not available under State law, would be appropriate. I commend Senior Special Agent Scott Sorensen and Special Agent Michael Collins for their hard work and thorough investigation. They have remained focused and extremely professional during this process. Because of the unique circumstances of this case, including all the rumors, innuendo, and false information that has been reported, I feel it necessary to go into more detail than usual in this letter in order to clearly explain to you why I do not recommend that State charges be filed. The facts as provided by your agency revealed that on July 26, 2015, a trooper with the South Carolina Highway Patrol received a text message. The text message came from an unknown individual who went by the name of ?Tori?. The investigation revealed that the text was sent by Tori Morton using Zachary Hammond?s cell phone and that the Trooper?s number was only one digit different than Morton?s intended recipient who went by the name of The text message Offered to sell cocaine and marijuana and discussed price. The message said that Morton had a gram of ?the good? (street slang that is used interchangeably for methamphetamine and/or cocaine) for $60 and also some ?loud? (street slang for marijuana) for $15 a gram. I have attached the relevant text messages between the Trooper and Hammond?s cell phone for your reference. Due to the criminal nature of the message, the Trooper contacted Seneca Police Department (SPD) Narcotics. The SPD set up a meeting by having the Trooper respond to ?Tori? through text messages. Your investigation revealed that Hammond and MortOn arrived in the rear Hardee?s parking lot to commit felonies by selling cocaine and marijuana. There is no indication that Hammond and Morton had any legitimate reason to be at Hardee?s. Hammond and Morton had already purchased ice cream at the McDonald?s in Seneca and had it with them atthe time of the incident. Hammond and Morton also parked in the absolute rear of the Hardee?s parking lot, passing many Open Spaces before pulling in next to the undercover officer, Sgt. BJ. McClure. Sgt. BJ. McClure of the Seneca Narcotics Division did not plan to complete the drug transaction that had been set up through text messages. The plan was for Sgt. McClure to identify the car in the parking lot and then radio its tag to marked units to perform a traffic stop on the highway. McClure was aware that the intended targetls) would be driving a Honda Civic based on the exchanged text messages. This plan was abandoned when Hammond parked his vehicle directly next to McClure. According to McClure?s statement, he perceived Hammond and Morton (identities unknown to him at the time) were about to exit the vehicle and approach him. There is a sense of urgency in McClure?s voice on the recordings provided in your case file. Lt. Tiller was then called in over the radio by McClure as backup. Tiller responded, he was in uniform and in a marked vehicle with lights and sirens activated. Visibility and conditions were clear. The dash cam video shows Lt. Tiller pulling his vehicle behind Hammond?s parked car. Hammond can be seen on video subsequently putting his car in reverse. Hammond is able to reverse and maneuver his vehicle between Tiller?s patrol car and McClure?s car. Tiller quickly approaches Hammond?s car on the driver?s side with his gun drawn and repeatedly orders Hammond to stop and to show his hands. Hammond ignores Lt. Tiller?s clear instructions to stop and Show his hands. Hammond then puts his car in drive in order to attempt to flee the scene. Hammond then turns the car hard left toward Lt. Tiller resulting in Lt. Tiller being face to face with Hammond at the driver?s window. The dash cam video shows Hammond?s vehicle veering toward Lt. Tiller and accelerating rapidly. Tiller back pedals a few steps to avoid being knocked down by Hammond?s car and is seen pushing off the vehicle as it veers towards him. The dash cam video shows Tiller?s feet going underneath the car at the approximate time the shots are fired. This can also be seen in the still photos provided by the FBI lab. Two shots are fired in rapid succession. The first shot can be heard almost immediately after Tiller pushes off the car and when his body is still exposed to danger from the vehicle. The second shot immediately follows. The car accelerated with such force that a concrete curb was damaged as well as Hammond?s front passenger side tire. Tiller is heard on the dash cam video seconds after the shooting saying Hammond tried to hit him with the car. The situation rapidly unfolded and, as evidenced by the dash cam video, Tiller was forced to decide whether or not to ?re his weapon in less than three seconds. In viewing the enhanced slow motion version of the dash cam video from the FBI lab, the shell casings can be seen coming from Tiller?s weapon indicating the exact moment the shots were fired. The video shows, and our forensic pathologist would testify, that the first shot was the fatal shot. It entered Hammond?s left lateral chest in the mid axillary line and fractured the ribs, lacerating the lungs and the left and right sides of the heart before exiting. The video shows, and our forensic pathologist would testify, that the second shot entered Hammond's left posterior shoulder and was not fatal. Toxicology for Hammond showed that he tested positive not only for cocaine, but also for Levamisole, the cutting agent that is commonly used in cocaine. Your forensic analyst would testify that Hammond had consumed cocaine within 3-6 hours of his death and that he was actively under the influence of cocaine at the time of his death. Furthermore, cocaine packaged in a manner consistent with distribution was found in Hammond?s front left shorts pocket. Marijuana packaged consistent with distribution was found near Hammond?s seat in the vehicle. Hammond also tested positive for marijuana and, again, your forensic analyst would testify that Hammond had consumed the marijuana within 3-6 hours of his death. Scales consistent with the illegal drug trade were also found in Hammond?s vehicle, The United States Supreme Court case of Graham v. Connor, 490 US. 386, 396?397 (1989), sets the legal standard to be used in determining whether use of force by an officer is justified. The Court stated: 2 The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The law prohibits viewing Lt. Tilier?s decision to use deadly force from the perSpective of a "Monday morning quarterback?. When viewing the video we have the benefit that Tiller did not have: we have hours to watch the video and question Tiller?s decision to ?re his weapon. Lt. Tiller had seconds to make this decision. The video viewed at full Speed, standing alone, is troublesome. However, when the video and the totality of the investigation is evaluated and the laws of our State are applied, it is clear that Lt. Tiller broke no State laws. The evidence from this investigation corroborates and supports Lt. Tiller?s belief that he was going to be run over. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be rendered is that deadly force was justified. As far as criminal responsibility is concerned, the question is not did Lt. Tiller have to fire his weapon. The question is not would Lt. Tiller have been killed if he had not fired his weapon. Those are not the legal standards for criminal charges. The legal standard requires looking at the situation from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at the time. Lt. Tilier?s impressions at the time according to his statement were: "The driver turned his head and looked me in the eyes and I observed his right hand turn the steering wheel to the left (towards my direction) and I heard the car?s engine accelerate, attempting to hit me with the car. The car came close enough to me that i had to push off the car with my left hand to keep from being struck. Knowing the driver was attempting to run me over, I fired two shots into the driver?s chest area to stop the threat.? Lt. Tiller also states that he was trained to fire in quick succession. He further states "The driver was operating the vehicle in a fairly empty parking lot and could have easily reversed his vehicle once past me in order to attempt to run me over again.? In court, the slow motion version of the dash cam video and still photos could be admitted. Those items support Lt. Tiller?s version of the facts and his assertion that he was in fear for his life and safety the evening ofluly 26th. Current case law dictates several factors that are commonly considered in cases of this nature. Some of the factors that the courts consider are whether or not the suspect was actively resisting arrest and attempting to evade arrest by flight, whether or not the suspect is an immediate threat to the of?cer or to others, whether or not the of?cer was forced to make a split second decision, and whether or not the suspect was armed. In this case, the facts establishthat Hammond was actively resisting arrest and attempting to evade arrest by flight. Hammond chose to disobey Tillei?s commands to stop and veered his car towards Tiller in an attempt to evade arrest, making him an immediate threat to Lt. Tiller. Hammond had an active warrant out for his arrest at the time of the shooting for magistrate/municipal charges for failure to appear for court, and paperwork to that effect was found in his vehicle. Hammond?s cell phone text messages revealed that Hammond had no intention of stopping for law enforcement and no intention of going to jail for failing to appear for court. While I recognize that Lt. Tiller had no way of knowing this at the time of the shooting, Hammond?s intent not to stop for law enforcement is relevant. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals addressed a similar factual scenario in Pagotto v. Maryland, 127 Md.App. 271,287,358 (Md. Ct. Spec. App., 1999). in this case, Officer Pagatto shot and killed Preston Barnes in his vehicle while Barnes was in the process of fleeing a lawful stop. There was testimony in this case that Barnes and his friend had previously made a plan regarding how they wouid evade law enforcement if they were stopped 3 in a vehicle. The Court articulated that evaluation of the actions, intentions and movements of those inside the vehicle, especially the driver, were ?indispensable? in the analysis of the state of mind of the responding officer even though the officer was not aware of it at the time. The Court stated, Preston Barnes put into motion his predetermined tactic of attempting a vehicular getaway from the detention scene, that criminal act on his part constituted an independent intervening cause that resulted in his own death.? Lt. Tiller?s instincts and perceptions of what was happening on the evening of July 26, 2015 were not only correct but also well-grounded and corroborated by the extrinsic evidence. A total of 842 pages of text messages were recovered from Hammond?s cell phone dating from May 29, 2015 to July 26, 2015, the night of the shooting. have attached some of the relevant text messages for your reference. Hammond?s own words paint a very clear picture of his state of mind the night of his death. In addition, Hammond?s own words provide support for Lt. Tiller?s perception of Hammond?s behavior during the sequence of events that unfolded that evening. In the text messages recovered from Hammond?s phone, Hammond talks about being ?in full outlaw mode? and that he would ?go out shootin?. in fact, Hammond had the word ?Outlaw? tattooed on his left forearm the month prior to his death. Hammond talks about running a police checkpoint on June 23, 2015 with ?Kalyn?, a girl he supplied drugs to and had a relationship with, and with his mother, Angie Hammond. He talks again about running a police checkpoint on July 2, 2015 with his brother, Dylan Hammond. We confirmed Hammond had indeed fled a Clemson City Police checkpoint the early morning hours of June 23, 2015. The officer at the checkpoint saw what he believed to be methamphetamine in the vehicle and as he attempted to open the car door to detain Hammond, Hammond fled the checkpoint and was not apprehended that night. For your reference, i have attached a written statement from this officer, as it is not included in your SLED case file. Almost every text message deals with Hammond selling drugs to multiple individuals including marijuana, acid, cocaine and prescription pills. The text messages indicate Hammond was actively evading arrest by flight and evading law enforcement due to his outstanding warrant. The text messages indicate that he would disobey further attempts by police to stop him. These conversations are with multiple people. The messages indicate a pattern of aggressive tendencies toward law enforcement and an anti-authority attitude. The messages also threaten aggravated violence toward others. Just four days prior to his death Hammond refers to himselfas a ?criminal? and says he is ?like an animal now?. Hammond also talks about being a member of a gang and even goes so far to say that the police will ?just take me one day.? The messages show a pattern of verbally aggressive and threatening behaviors. The messages also evidence that Hammond had a propensity to lose his temper and display extremely intense and contrary emotions which would have likely made him extremely reckless. Hammond?s own words are compelling, and reinforce Lt. Tiller?s perception that Hammond tried to run him over, and that Hammond was an immediate threat to Lt. Tiller and potentially others. The text messages further indicate that Hammond had been on a dangerous and destructive course for a significant period of his life. Another important factor that the courts consider in determining whether or not deadly force is justified is if the officer is forced to make a split second decision before using deadly force. Tiller?s response time to the Hardee?s parking lot was 32 seconds. From the time Tiller entered the Hardee?s parking lot to the time the shooting took place only 18 seconds had elapsed. From the time Tiller got out of his car until the second shot was fired only 5 additional seconds had elapsed. The investigation revealed that Tiller had less than 3 seconds to evaluate the threat against him and decide if it was a deadly force situation once he was outside his vehicle. The dash cam video clearly shows that Lt. Tiller was forced to make a split second decision in determining whether or not to use deadly force. Lt. Tiller is also heard on tape seconds after the shooting screaming ?he tried to hit me? and "he tried to hit me with the car.? Another factor that is considered by the courts is whether or not the suspect was armed. While Hammond did not have a gun in his possession, the courts have consistently held that a car is a deadly weapon. Therefore, Hammond, as the driver of the vehicle, would be considered armed at the time of this incident. All of these factors relate to the ?reasonableness? standard, which is an objective one. It requires a determination of whether the officer?s actions were objectively reaSOnable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him at the time. In evaluating the ?reasonableness? of this case and applying the law to the facts as given by your agents, it was concerning that Lt. Tiller chose to run up to Hammond's car instead of staying at his patrol car?s door in attempting to effectuate the stop. As a result, I felt it was important to get insight into officer training to better understand what a "reasonable" officer would do in this type of situation. We met with two experts from the Criminal Justice Academy that were referred to me by SLED Director Mark Keel. In reviewing the dash cam video with these experts, we discussed how Lt. Tiller took an improper approach and position and how control of the situation was lost. The proper position would have been for Tiller to stay behind his car door when ordering Hammond to stop the car. As you are aware, this policy is in place for the officer?s own safety in attempting to apprehend suspects in a car. We watched, in detail, the slow motion version ofthe video as well. I was told that officers, even though they are trained not to do 50, run up to cars on a daily basis. We all agreed, and case law supports, that any potential violation of policy in the approach to the vehicle in this instance does not amount to criminal responsibility. In Greenidge v. Ruffin, 927 F.2d 789 (4th Cir. 1991), the Court opined that any violation of police policy prior to making the decision to fire was not probative to the assessment of the reasonableness of the officer?s conduct. Our discussion with the Academy experts included how the urgent tone in the call from McClure to Tiller would have affected Tiller?s response. We also discussed how Hammond chose not to comply despite the officer running toward him with gun drawn yelling for Hammond to stop and show his hands. After Hammond failed to comply and the situation escalated, Officer Tiller screamed that he would shoot him. Case law indicates that, when possible, a suspect should be warned before deadly force is used. We discussed how these warnings do not equate to an intent to kill but serve as a warning to the suspect. Despite these warnings, Hammond took an aggressive move with his car placing Tiller in a position where he felt his life was in danger. in looking at the totality of the investigation, the Academy experts opined that Lt. Tiller?s actions did not rise to the level of criminal responsibility. Tori Morton, Hammond?s passenger, gave one written statement to your agents the night of the incident as well as a later written statement to the Hammond family attorneys. Both written statements were made after Morton had the opportunity to reflect en the gravity of the situation and her role in the events that led to the shooting. Both written statements contain details that are not supported by the facts as gathered by your office. Morton reported that on the night in question she was on a first date with Hammond, she had only known him for a few days, she did not know his last name, and she knew nothing about an alleged drug deal. However, the text messages recovered from Hammond's phone revealed that Morton had a prior relationship with Hammond. Even though Morton did not own a cell phone, she would borrow cell phones to contact Hammond. The text messages from Hammond?s phone also revealed that Hammond had a history of supplying Morton with drugs. Messages from July 26, 2015 which contained sexual and racial epithets revealed that Hammond and Morton had spent the night together the evening prior to the shooting. Morton reported in her written statement to the Hammond family attorneys that Hammond had not fully pulled his car into the space before Tiller came into the Hardee?s lot. However, the dash cam video shows that Hammond had already pulled into his parking spot before Tiller was called in. Morton also claimed that a gun was pointed at her through her window. The video and Sgt. McClure?s witness statement contradict this assertion as Sgt. McClure had his weapon pointed towards the ground at all times. Morton claimed that after Hammond was shot the car rolled towards the curb. The dash cam video shows that Hammond actually accelerated the car which is further evidenced by the damage to the curb and the damage to Hammond's front passenger tire. Morton reported that Tilier?s firearm was passed around the scene after the shooting. The video, as well as the written report of Sgt. Cortney Wright, contradict Morton?s written statement. Tori Morton gave an oral statement on the scene the night of the shooting to Seneca Officer Austin Watson. Morton stated to Officer Watson don?t know what?s going on, ldon?t know why he did n?t just stop, he tried to run that cop over.? Morton made this oral statement to Officer Watson at her own initiative and not in reSponse to any questioning by Watson. After Morton made this oral statement, Watson placed her in his patrol car alone where she was unaware that she was being recorded. Morton can be heard on the audio recording talking to herself. She is clearly upset at the time- Her utterances in the car support the accuracy of her oral statement as reported by Watson and show Morton?s initial belief that Hammond had attempted not only to flee from law enforcement but also to injure Lt. Tiller in the process. On the recording Morton uses such language as ?Why didn?t he get out of the car like he was supposed to.? Morton's oral statements regarding her impression of what was happening in the carwhen Hammond refused to comply with Tiller?s orders to stop are consistent with Hammond's own words in his text messages and indicative of Hammond?s intent and state of mind the evening of July 26, 2015. Therefore, the oral statement made to Officer Watson initiated by Morton and not in response to questioning, as well as the oral comments made to herself in Watson?s patrol car when she was unaware that she was being recorded, are the only reliable statements made by Morton. Hammond and Morton were in the Hardee?s parking lot to commit felonies and subsequently attempted to flee, thereby endangering the welfare of Tiller and the general public at large. Lt. Tiller was in the Hardee?s parking lot lawfully and fulfilling the duties of his job. Lt. Tiller did not have a duty to retreat. Hammond had a duty to comply with police orders. Hammond made the intentional choice not to comply with police orders which was a decision he had clearly made in advance, as evidenced by his own words in his cell phone text records. To ensure a thorough and complete investigation, the SLED Fusion Center conducted a public background and social media inquiry on Lt. Tiller. The Fusion inquiry did not reveal any noteworthy information. Your investigators also found no prior complaints for excessive use of force against Lt. Tiller. We also reviewed all use of force reports that were filed by Lt. Tiller, pursuant to Seneca Police policy. Those use of force reports did not indicate a pattern of inappropriate aggressive behavior or the inappropriate use of force in any of the reported incidents. During this investigation, your agents were faced with investigating allegations of improper conduct by Seneca Officers on the scene. There were claims officers were "high fiving? Hammond?s deceased body. This claim originated from Officer Trisha Wright who works for the Spartanburg Department of Public Safety. She gave a statement to your investigators that alleged SPD Officer Anthony Moon said he had "high fived? Hammond?s deceased body. While your investigators believe that Moon likely did make this claim, the investigation revealed that the high five itself did not occur. I have attached a copy of Trisha Wright?s statement for your reference since it was turned over to SPD for an internal investigation on 6 Moon and not made a part of your case file. Your investigation revealed that Moon was assigned to the perimeter of the scene and never came in contact with Hammond?s body. Since this incident Moon has resigned from the SPD. Videotape evidence from the scene confirms that there was no wrongdoing by any reSponding Seneca officers. Additionally, there were allegations that either Lt. Tiller or possibly another Seneca officer planted cocaine on Hammond. The video from the scene actually shows the responding officers attempted to give aid to Hammond before EMS arrived and that, in fact, nothing was planted. The Seneca officers did not search Hammond?s body. The cocaine was found by Coroner Karl Addis in Hammond?s left front shorts pocket during the exercise of his duties, as stated in his report. Hammond family attorneys requested that both SLED and the FBI interview the Barton family, who they claimed were potential witnesses to the shooting. They alleged that the Bartons were at the Ha rdee?s with their two children and saw the entire incident. The Hammond family attorneys also alleged that the Bartons were very scared and didn?t want to talk to law enforcement. Your agency and the FBI interviewed the Bartons and established they were not scared to come forward and they actually did not see the incident. The Bartons merely drove by on the highway after the shooting and saw the scene. They were never on the Hardee?s property that evening. This was independently confirmed as the Barton?s SUV is seen on video passing by the scene. A statement made by a former Seneca officer, William Wesley Moore, was released asserting that Lt. Tiller had stated that he would kill someone while in law enforcement. Moore?s statement gives no details surrounding this alleged comment made by Lt. Tiller nor does it give a time frame for this alleged comment. Moore was terminated from the Walhalla Police Department in 2003 for falsifying information. Moore?s statement also attempted to paint the Seneca Police Department in a negative light, but is in stark contrast to his 2011 resignation letter wherein he called his fellow officers and staff ?outstanding? and enjoyed being ?part of a very successful team dedicated to the service and protection of the citizens of the City of Seneca.? Moore?s most recent law enforcement position was at Westminster Police Department, but he resigned in 2014 when he was the subject of an investigation for conduct unbecoming an officer. For all of these reasons, Moore?s statement lacks credibility. it has also been reported that Lt. Tiller had resigned from Seneca in June of 2014. Lt. Tiller had accepted a position outside law enforcement and did not resign under any questionable circumstances. Less than a week after submitting his resignation, Tiller decided he would rather stay in law enforcement and withdrew his resignation. When the full speed dash cam is viewed as a single piece of evidence standing alone, it does raise questions. Those questions demanded answers and I appreciate the time and care taken during this investigation by your office to ensure my office received all the answers we needed. Every resource has been brought to bear in making the correct and most educated charging determination. Our focus and our energy now needs to be redirected toward training law enforcement officers in our State and ensuring training for situations such as this is offered on a recurring basis. It is my understanding that Chief Keel is very active in this area and I hope that SLED will be able to assist the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy in making forward progress. As the elected Solicitor for the Tenth ludicial Circuit of South Carolina, i take my duties seriously. i do not make decisions like this or without careful consideration. i have chosen to prosecute law enforcement officers in the past and will continue to do so when charges are legally supported. The 7 dispositive question that needed to be answered was, at the moment shots were fired, was it reasonable for Lt. Tiller to be in fear for his life? The SLED investigation revealed the answer to this question is yes. i asked Solicitor Kevin Brackett of York and Union'Counties to thoroughly review the complete case file and offer his professional opinion as to criminal charges. Solicitor Brackett also concluded that Lt. Tiller?s conduct did not rise to the level necessary to establish criminal responsibility under our State law. All parties who have worked on this investigation have diligently taken an opportunity to stop and think before judging this matter solely on a few seconds of videotape. I This has been'a very dif?cult case. What may seem "reasonablethe heat of the moment or at risk of losing our life is afar cry from an officer actually being in a tense situation where he or she is forced to make a split second decision while facing a criminal assailant. What happened during this encounter is a tragedy. No parent should ever have to bury their child. lam also cognizant of the fact that no officer ever wants to shoot and kill another human being. Officers are thrust into extremely dangerous situations every day and are at risk of losing their lives at the hands ofviolent criminals. When officers lawfully order citizens to stop, and they refuse as Zachary Hammond did, everyone loses. Zachary Hammond failed to comply with Lt. Tiller?s orders and as a result he lost his life. When Hammond made the conscious decision to flee a lawful stop he set in motion this tragic chain of events. it is my conclusion that under applicable law Lt. Tiller?s actions do not rise to the level of criminal responsibility. Therefore, i recommend that no criminal charges be filed against Lt. Tiller and that the case be closed on the State level. i want to thank you again for your agency?s patience and diligence in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or need additional clarification on any of these matters. Sincerely, I "l Wissy T. Adams Tenth Circuit Solicitor Enclosures: Summary of text messages forensicaily retrieved from Hammond?s phone Written statement of Trisha Wright Written statement of Ren Johnson '53 Qem Sent hey thIs too I gotta for 60 of the good (street Language for cocarne) 3:16:17 4) Inbox 7/26/3015 Read Can I meet you In a httle bIt 3:22:44 5} Sent 7/36/2015 Sent yeah whenever 3:23:29 SO Inbox 7/25/2015 Read You around seneca 3:31:20 49 Sent Sent no In prckens but I gotta go towards seneca soon 7/26/2015 anyway so I can meet there If nees me to I have some loud (street language for maruuana) for 15 a 3:323 37 (gram) too If need 46 Inbox 7/26/2015 Read What more you gomg to be there I'm droppmg somethmg off In toccoa Will be back to seneca by so: 3:39:18 4S Sent 7/25/3015 Sent It WIN be sometime around then 3:39:51 35 Inbox 7/26/2015 Read You near seneca yet 6:12: 18 34 Sent 7/35/2015 Sent Im washIng clothes sr'ry It took longer than I 6:12:57 thautht I'm coming rIght after though 33 Inbox 7/36/3015 Read 6: 13:35 31 Inbox Read I'm )ust now gettmg to westmunster should be there In t'mITy 14:41 4) L50 Sent 3/20/2015 get there that cool? 6: 15:23 29 Inbox 7/95/2015 Read Can you try to meet me closer to seven 6:16:55 2.7 Sent Sent I can tIy i can prob make It close 6:17:30 Eb Sent 395/3015 Sent Im not gonna make here by II ~730b4 6:38:44 PMUJTCA2'3 lnbox 7/26/2015 Read 6:39:17 texts to trooper Page 1 24 Sent 7/26/2015 Sent 1m jusy now omw where at in,seneca 7:17:55 '23 Inhox ?gs/2015 Read Meet me at lots I got to stop by atm 7:19:04 Inbe 7/26/2015 Read How long you gomg to be 7:25:41 2! Sent 7/26/2015 Sent im comm from pickensmatbe 20 7:26:29 20 Sent 7/26/3015 Sent maybe 20 7:26:40 19 Inbox 7/26/2015 Read 7:28: 10 16 Sent 7f26/2015 Sent be like 15 more 1 had to run somewhere nd stop fl! th t? 7:44:00 ?p a? 15 Inbox 7/26/3015 Read You close 8:06:54 14 Sent 7/26/2015 Sent yea Im like 5 out 8:07: 14 13 Inbox 7/26/2015 Read I dont have any minutes. left 8:13:23 12 Sent 7/25/2015 Sent wya Im at the old big iots answer the pkone 8:13:34 11 lnbox 7/36/9015 Read 0k i'm pulhn in what you In 8:14:25 10, Hem 7/36/2015 Sent honda cum. but ll aint big Iots nonwre a thought It 5 8:15:23 PWUTC 4) was; beside chickhla ?Lent Sent alnt been to serwca 3 mm Its a furniture store HOW 1 3:12:12 8 inbox 7/25/2015 Read Its an east north Just meet me at hardees uts halfway between us you know where that :5 7 Sent 7/26/2015 Sent yeah i do 8:18:48 :5 {nbox 3/25/2015 Read I'm the back where you at 8:25:26 5 Sent 7/26/2015 Sent I think :m besrde lol 3:26:19 texts to trooper Page 2 i I 5'51??th I . i .Pugr'roi sat-m: ?(dyl we} Wm (mu that >4 y: ..I ?cir 't on um: I 3.1mm '(?xmg run?(gnu (?319 9?0va thaughts go aw a! all I I Ialzmw have td'kmolly and lt?' liegj? .i I i av whom ICIC at) 51"14 Im ab to get a tat 5698 Inbrux innum- Hd?n Paar! Reallv? 5694 Sent 'N?f?h 5693 Sent Outlaw Io' 5:392 In'rm Anqu ?r Hope they :9 HM {hunk and II (Ives hm:- ml Sent Si?nz no I made 9:10 I .fme E3690 Read And haw" war- war! Hermes {human awe-'9 5689 Sent 3. Angm [Hammond referring to Tori Morton) 83 Inbox Kaivn Porter 7/26/2015 12:52:56 Always '14 Sent Torr Morton using Hammond's phone to send a text 71?25/2015 12:05:35 Sent hev It's tori sorry i didn't get out there iast but can i come now 73 Sent Torr Morton usmq Hammond's phone to send a text 7396/2015 12:06:06 Sent {Toy it's tori call me asap Page 10 conversations pow. {mk@9734 mum Smear? (EC 9.2 many?m Nu? SEQ Hm Hug anmzunh N?v 4m 03m 5:078 Gan EEOZM Emozm ma: me'uowv? mepfuaw?iw? Crap? mamvo?x ., mErommx gamma QV Uga gmama?m cam >76 91. Eamw?m? 1 oz 0m Ewae WE ?go?b blag/NEED EVHEHZQ >053. U.wa . QEEM Ub?a H. am 14> CC EN. EH. 555m no n2 3% 3 ?x magnum, Ba EEHSQ monogram 8353.0: 97 8% 0:8 Won won ?2.58me 35. 33.9 no" 3mm ?5.8 Ba 85328 En FR.) ma?a 5 mega. . CL MLE p0 an San?r+ rc?r} +0 023? Ni?! rm hub/32$ I. Hubs, 3. Lb 3; cm Du ?Ewwr Flu?Ninr C?r?xx pr. rvan$ru3 rDrunrl? Bx}. ?11,0th (1.3.151 . ?anxriuchn. 3% (r2. Ck (0.9.: .929 .TOKTD ?my hr?acc JLH firm. Brim. VrODwatm LP: Oh xv}.er ?Tnubrn. .79ch DZ MEJ uJ .. gain. 999+ {brim Inf 07 a ?53:?an 033qu burr.th rural. rt?b Dim ?bran ?10.11 6093 Sara 2. Think ad an?vfww 312R. Tuna 7:55 .9. Oman? ?in 1,980.1? En . Ia. Erma Cry/)0 2: (ED up mrhwu Want b?vmm nbg?b?fn (JP nanup+nu.fcrn 50 Erma! main. Dion Emu (Ln?an 0t fort in. _.3.Ln\r.2 noun .0.er on? HC p.23. ?lm, 34 Lag Fir/mam, Tin hpamwrw Df0c+5f3 nigger} {emu .M . #041 FPCUF IH F1E Lyn. PHYS {n1 33. PMCFE 3.39.: "Crayfk. Dr. 33k 500?. for} (In: hunt,? .. 06 {51 manta?, Ki Fri). 35.3w W+p?borrml 0:1 DEG 53D 5931? for; 6% l1 fa)? Fr.? (rn H- .bn?e? 33? 93.09.; +9 phaDnUrr. fzaawCrh .H. 531. .mn. +P/fytm 10?? $0.35: (Cfnir [Ha . PC. .r 8065 39m? Fax 09133 RAJ. Sn 33D Hiya. 3.3. 99.53? ECHB odpsfabibw rcka uC?k . um? 3mm nmow ammo 0m 9% $9852: nonmambm om amen 3% cm QEow won: 8% madman. mun 005,003.03. m. 33%. mag 8:5 E2 .90 W03 823m 335 Ed 35 man condor . ill-1 } Una? we an $an a?aou?mm? 34.2mm? . 238mm? . h\ 8% Em? a aobmian 83 2.9: macaw?? cm A ammo? 00 t?vnv n. no U25 8 Ill moan ?1 9.88 92. 93.03 0% So. 38 Voluntary Statement PERSONINTERVIEWED: Ran :I?oImnSon page I ADDRESS: IQSO 3) ENCI . SC 9619?? PLACE OF INTERVIEW: CIPJYISOO DATE: IDIQQJ I5 TIME I3I PERSON CONDUCTING: Emma OER PERSON BEING INTERVIEWED HAS BEEN ADVISED THAT THEY MAY CHOOSE TO WRITE THIS STATEMENT THEMSELVES AND HAS FURTHER BEEN ADVISED THAT IF THEY CHOOSE, THE PERSON TAKING SAID STATEMENT WILL WRITE IT AT THEIR REQUEST AND THE STATEMENT WILL BE FULLY REVIEWED WITH THEM. in 771M. (323. .7: M13. 6&5 3.41%! Hr?fh (ltm?bn D: {r4mwcn?I. Kevan! 054mm and (Jere. a; Saki? Pm?q-I- Calhoun ,?rul final- find (Io/or ?DDrnaCIn imhr?ec-Ahn A, dn?vor {fig/e 74u, av 5291140.ch wr?k ?xbcr #45 a Iva/?L 1114 I Aw I I. .15_ 1.. 1 16 Han .. . c4. 9mm G-I- m; and had?no} hag/4 DES licew?z. H12 4,13 5*er I H6 My] an lei-I? 338 a; Ska-ring IA) 1 01.1, mtg?If glut I?m-Earmanljan. I {Juan l._l I: a 9 .15I665) HEM E)wa mir? 33m: L. .As up; +3 hmI run/?e. hem:ng (I0dv'iurr?S lama Ono {Eluswmer ??mr baa-(CI. g-I? NHL, 0.01am and ht. ?/Aygg?gz . a/II/i? car- r?rg again. He. My; ICMJ drum ahl?f 9mm ML ran/l WITNESSW SIGNATURE OF PERSON PROVIDING STATEMENT WITNESS My.) Voluntary Statement PERSON INTERVIEWED: RUN John ?30 page QE 3 ADDRESS: 195,0 a Tag? gm 5c amps! PLACE OF INTERVIEW: [Mm Son DATE: JOIQQJIS TIME I-5I pm PERSON CONDUCTING: PERSON BEING INTERVIEWED HAS BEEN ADVISED THAT THEY MAY CHOOSE TO WRITE THIS STATEMENT THEMSELVES AND HAS FURTHER BEEN ADVISED THAT IF THEY CHOOSE, THE PERSON TAKING SAID STATEMENT WILL WRITE IT AT THEIR REQUEST AND THE STATEMENT WILL BE FULLY REVIEWED WITH THEM. habit, 95/ a (Sher?L pared? oS?Hqg. f'thn +Cf?mimrI-do ?51: Mtg, ?I'o mg, J?I?kl 05' 1m, nMcIe. rams Mme EAL was. I 0" II - Ilf .4. ?iglcanngicn; t?g was dact, In? 30mg mart IN chic/{M PATH-0.. arw wJ? vv El I ?lls? b: be?! M99 I t- Dam: ?lln I Seeing. a] Zach;er . (Zr? 25? Ly WITNESSMW SIGNATURE OF PERSON PROVIDING STATEMENT IOIQQJIS