IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE DAVID CHASE Plaintiff, V. Case No. GLENN R. FUNK, KATRIN NOVAK MILLER, personally and in their individual capacity as of?cers of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, and THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, JURY OF TWELVE DEMANDED Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES COMES NOW Plaintiff, David Chase (?Chase) by and through his undersigned counsel, and hereby re??les this Complaint against Defendants GLENN R. FUNK, KATRIN NOVAK MILLER, personally and in their individual capacity as of?cers of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, and THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, and states as follows: I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff is an adult resident of the State of Tennessee. 2. Upon information and belief, all individual defendants are adult residents of Davidson County, Tennessee, and all are and were at all times relevant, employed as the District Attorney I General and as an Assistant District Attorney General with the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, (respectfully and collectively, the ?Defendants? or and 1 Ease 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1 3. Defendant The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County ("Metro") is a consolidated municipal and county government of the State of Tennessee. 4. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over this cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 as this action substantially arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including, but not limited to, Amendments IV, V, VI, and XIV of the US. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 i U.S.C. 1988. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367, this Court may further exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related causes of action arising under the Constitution and laws of the State of Tennessee and the common law of Tennessee, which claims and causes of action form part of the same case or controversy over which this Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Tennessee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391, inasmuch as a substantial portion of the transactions and occurrences giving rise to this action occurred in Davidson County, Tennessee, and these Defendants reside and can be found in the Middle District. 11. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5. This is a ?companion case? to Case No. 3:15-cv-00631 against Police Of?cers of the MetrOpolitan Nashville Police Department, and Plaintiff would incorporate by speci?c reference and adopt the backgrounds facts as alleged therein, and which the current Defendants would have speci?c and detailed knowledge of. That complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit (1 6. Mr. Chase was alleged to have physically assaulted a Ms. Lauren Bull on Sunday, June 08m,2014. 7. After multiple court appearances in the General Sessions Court for Davidson County, Mr. Chase?s cases for Vandalism, Aggravated Assault, Domestic Assault, and interference with emergency call were bound over to the grand jury. 8. On June 05th, 2015, Mr. Chase ?led a Civil Rights violation Complaint against the of?cers 2 . Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 12 PageID 2 i involved in this alleged assault. 9. While the Lawsuit against police of?cers was pending until July 01?, 2016, Mr. Chase and his attorney presented continuous, multiple, and undeniable evidence that the alleged victim of the assault was lying, and had planned, and executed a conspiracy to extort millions of dollars from Mr. Chase. 10. However, even after knowing, seeing, and hearing a litany of evidence that showed Ms. Lauren Bull was continuing to commit aggravated perjury and fraud upon the courts, The District Attorney, Glenn F. Funk and his Assistant District Attorney, Katrin Miller, refused to dismiss any charges against Mr. Chase. 11. The details of any and all of the aforementioned are detailed in the Notice of Dismissal eventually ?led by the State. The Notice of Dismissal is attached hereto as Exhibit (2). 12. Upon information and belief, the Defendants knew or were reckless, will?il, and] or malicious in in continuing to prosecute said charges that they knew were false and inaccurate. 13. Upon information and belief, in addition to the aforesaid actual knowledge of the falsity of such charges, the Defendants willfully, maliciously, and intentionally or recklessly failed to perform any investigation to corroborate Bull's allegations or to exonerate Mr. Chase. 14. Knowing that these were false allegations and certainly knowing that they absolutely lacked any lacking probable cause, and with knowledge that the charges were false or inaccurate, the Defendants improperly and unlawfully continued to prosecute Mr. Chase for these alleged crimes. 15. Upon information and belief, the Defendants knew or were reckless in failing to discover that said charges were false and inaccurate, and it was left to the Plaintiff to do their job for them. 16. Mr. Chase had, inter alia, the following clearly established rights at the time of the 3 'Zase 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 3 of 12 PageID 3 complained of actions by the Defendants: a. the right to be secure in his person and his Home from unreasonable entry, searches, and seizure under the Fourth Amendment; b. the right to bodily integrity and to be free from excessive force by law enforcement under the Fourteenth Amendment; c. the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment; (1. the right to exercise his constitutional rights of free speech under the First Amendment and his right to be free from unlawful entry, search, and seizure without retaliation under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment; e. the right to be free from malicious prosecution under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and f. The right to a fair and impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment. 17. At all times relevant, the Defendants were aware of or should have been aware of said rights. 18. The Defendants, acting in concert and under color of law, undertook and did in fact subject him to false and malicious prosecution. 19. Defendants, acting in concert and under color of law, further violated Mr. Chase's constitutional and other protected rights, including his aforesaid rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, and under the Tennessee Constitution and state law. 20. Said actions were taken willfully, intentionally, maliciously, recklessly, or with conscious indifference. 4 A :ase 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 4 of 12 PageID 4 21. In addition, the Defendants were acting in ?thherance of their employment by Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, so as to give rise to respondeat superior, as may be permitted under law. 22. Upon information and belief, Metro was aware of, or was reckless in ignoring, the falsity of Bull's allegations and approved of or acquiesced to the unlawful actions of the Defendants. 23. Upon information and belief, the Defendants must lack adequate training with regards to their duties as Prosecuting Attorneys. 24. Defendant Funk was, at all times relevant, policymaker for the Attorney General?s Of?cer for Davidson County, Tennessee, and in that capacity established policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices for the same. 25. Upon information and belief, Defendant Funk developed and maintained policies, procedures, customs, and practices exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of citizens. These policies, procedures, customs and practices proximately caused the violations of Mr. Chase's constitutional and federal rights as set forth herein and in the other claims. These policies, procedures, customs, and practices resulted in a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action, from among various available alternatives. 26. Upon further information and belief, Defendant Funk failed to properly train and/or supervise Defendant Miller and other employees in a manner amounting to its deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Mr. Chase and of the public. 27. In light of the duties and responsibilities of those of?cers of the court that participate in prosecution of alleged crimes, the need for specialized training and supervision is so obvious, and the inadequacy of training and/or supervision is so likely to result in the violation of constitutional and federal rights such as those described herein that the failure to provide such specialized 5 Zase 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 5 of 12 PageID 5 training and supervision is deliberately indifferent to those rights. 28. The deliberately indifferent training and supervision provided by Defendant Funk and Metro resulted from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action from among various alternatives available to Metro and were moving forces in the constitutional and federal violation injuries to Mr. Chase. 29. As a direct and proximate result of all of Defendants' said acts and omissions as aforesaid, Chase has suffered damages to his person, his reputation, his business, and otherwise financially. In addition, Chase has suffered wrongful arrest, imprisonment, detention, prosecution, and embarrassment. Mr. Chase has further suffered special damages including attorneys' fees, expert fees, and costs of defending the false and malicious prosecution. 30. Even after being presented with undeniable and uncontroverted evidence of Ms. Bull?s conspiracy and continued aggravated perjury, the Defendants refused to dismiss charges against Mr. Chase and vowed to continue to maliciously prosecute him unless he dismissed his civil rights lawsuit against the police of?cers involved in this matter. 31. Mr. Chase was faced with potential and further deprivation of his liberty, felony convictions, and a prison sentence if he did not dismiss his rightful claims against those of?cers involved. 32. Under duress, certainly not voluntarily, and literally facing a possible prison sentence, Mr. Chase was forced to dismiss his Federal Lawsuit. 6 Ease 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 6 of 12 PageID 6 COUNT I (Violation of Civil Rights Pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. ?1983) (General Violation of Mr. Chase's Civil Rights) 33. Mr. Chase hereby reasserts the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of his Complaint. 34. In committing the acts complained of herein, Defendants acted under color of state law to deprive Mr. Chase of certain constitutionally protected rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States including, but not limited to: a. The right to be secure in his person and his Home, free from unreasonable entry, searches, and seizure under the Fourth Amendment; b. The right to bodily integrity and to be free from excessive force by law enforcement under the Fourteenth Amendment; 0. The right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment; (1. The right to exercise his constitutional rights of free speech under the First Amendment and his right to be free from unlawful entry, search, and seizure without retaliation under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment; 6. The right to be free from malicious prosecution under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and The right to a fair and impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment. 35. Defendants violated Mr. Chase's rights as set forth above and other rights that will be proven at trial. In so doing and at all times, Defendants acted under color of state law. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the violation of Mr. Chase's constitutional rights by the Defendants, Mr. Chase suffered general and special damages as alleged in this Complaint and is entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C ?1983 and 1988. 7 Zase 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 7 of 12 PageID 7 37. The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive and/or reckless, or taken with deliberate indifference and was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed on the Defendant Of?cers in their individual capacities, in an amount commensurate with the wrongful acts alleged herein. COUNT II Violation of Civil Rights Pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. ?1983 (Failure to Implement Appropriate Policies, Customs and Practices) 38. Mr. Chase hereby reasserts the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of his Complaint. 39. Metro and Defendant Funk implicitly or explicitly adopted and implemented careless and reckless policies, customs, or practices. 40. The failure of Metro and Defendant Funk to adequately train and supervise its subordinates amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of Mr. Chase to be free from violations of his Constitutional and other rights, as aforesaid, and from harm and injury. 41. The failure of Metro and Defendant Funk to adequately train and supervise the Defendant Miller, other Assistant District Attorneys and other employees amounts to deliberate indifference to the constitutional and other rights of Mr. Chase. 42. As a direct and proximate result of this deliberate indifference to Mr. Chase's rights, the Mr. Chase suffered general and special damages as stated herein, and is entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. ?1983 and 1988. 8 'Iase 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 8 of 12 PageID 8 COUNT Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act Pursuant to T.C.A. ?29-20-101/Tennessee Common Law (False Arrest and Imprisonment) 43. Mr. Chase hereby reasserts the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of his Complaint. 44. Mr. Chase avers that the Defendants breached a duty of care owed to him, so as not to deprive him of his personal liberty, by intentionally and maliciously continuing to prosecute the Plaintiff without probable cause, lawful justi?cation, and due process of law. 45. Mr. Chase avers that the Defendants, without probable cause, will?illy, maliciously, and unlawfully seized, detained, restrained, and imprisoned him against his will through use of threats of continued malicious prosecution force for a period of several hours over two occasions. 46. Mr. Chase avers that the Defendants are liable to him for false imprisonment. 47. As a direct and proximate result of the willful, malicious and criminal false arrest and imprisonment by the Defendants in their individual capacity, Mr. Chase suffered general and special damages as stated herein. Count IV Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act Pursuant to T.C.A. Common Law (Defamation) 48. Mr. Chase hereby re-states the preceding allegations of his Complaint. 49. Defendants willfully and maliciously published false and defamatory statements concerning Chase, as aforesaid. Said defendants knew such statements were false at the time made or they made such statements with reckless disregard for their truth or with negligence in failing to 9 Zase 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 9 of 12 PageID 9 ascertain the truth of the statement. 50. As a direct and proximate result thereof, Mr. Chase has suffered damages to his reputation, his business, and otherwise ?nancially. In addition, Chase has suffered wrong?il arrest, imprisonment, detention, prosecution, and embarrassment. COUNT Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act Pursuant to T.C.A. Common Law (Negligence) 51. Mr. Chase hereby re-states the preceding allegations of his Complaint. 52. Defendants owed a duty of care to Mr. Chase in connection with their acts and omissions described herein. 53. Defendants negligently, recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally breached said duty of care. 54. As a direct and proximate result thereof, Mr. Chase has suffered general and special damages, including damages to his reputation, his business, and otherwise ?nancially. In addition, Chase has suffered wrongful arrest, imprisonment, detention, prosecution, and embarrassment. COUNT VI Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act Pursuant to T.C.A. ?29-20-101/Tennessee Common Law (Negligent Supervision) 55. Mr. Chase hereby re?states the preceding allegations of his Complaint. 56. Metro and Defendant Funk negligently directly and indirectly supervised the their Assistant District Attorney Generals and also failed to provide proper framing and outline proper procedure. 57. In committing the aforementioned acts or omissions, Metro and Defendant Funk 10 ese 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 10 of 12 PageID 10 negligently breached said duty. 58. As a direct and proximate result, Mr. Chase has been damaged as alleged herein. COUNT VII Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act Pursuant to T.C.A. Common Law (Civil Conspiracy) 59. Mr. Chase hereby re?states the preceding allegations of his Complaint. 60. The Defendants acted with common design through a concert of action to carry out the aforesaid willful, malicious, criminal, and tortious acts and violations of Mr. Chase's rights. 61. Each Defendant participated in the conspiracy, which conspiracy proximately and actually caused Mr. Chase general and Special damages as aforesaid. AD DAMNUM WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, Mr. Chase, prays for the following relief: A. That process issue and that Defendants be required to appear and answer this Complaint within the time prescribed to them by law; B. For judgment in his favor and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be proven at trial; C. For punitive damages; D. For attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this matter, as may be recoverable; and 11 ase 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 11 of 12 PageID 11 E. For a jury of 12 to decide all issues which may be determined by a jury; and F. Such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate. John M. Boucher, Jr. (TN 022446) 713 Market Street, Suite 100 Knoxw'lle, Tennessee 37902 Telephone: (865) 321-8872 Facsimile: (865) 321-8875 jlnpoucherlaw@gmail.com Attorney for Plaintiff 12 ase 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 12 of 12 PageID 12 1N THE STATES BESTRECT COURT ma THE BESTRECT OF TENNESSEE AT CHASE, mgmi?, v. Case Ne}. K. SCOTT F. EULL, JEFFREY S. BROW, JAREN C. EREECE, ALAN T, DEGRUENFOLO, JOHN B. JR, GREGORY WEDRO REVERA CHAPPARO, JAMES LA RRY CAHELL, am? JOE-EN- OOE, perganaiiy in their im?v?duai capac?ies arm in ?le-i3" capacity as; of?cers 0? Me?mpo?tm Gavemmem 9f Nashvi?e am} Dav?dsan Cwmy, ?Eenmssec, ?0?icc Depaa??ment, anti THE OF NASHVILLE ANE) DAVEOSON COUNTY, JURY OEMANDEB Oefendaa?. COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff, David Chase (?Chase?) by and through his madersign?d cmmsei, and hereby files this Complaint agains?? Defendants MATTHEW K. WHITE, SCOTT F. HULL, JEFFREY S. BROWN, EAREN C. BREECE, ALAN T. DIGRUTTOLO, JONATHAN SCHMIDT, JOHN B. HATCHER, JR, GREGORY PEDRO RIVERA CHAPPARO, JAMES JORDAN, LARRY CAHILL, JR, and OFFICER JOHN DOE, perscmaiiy is? @398? Willi F'Ft??dl?gl?dlia ?4 115 and as of?cers of the Mettepolites Government of Nashville and Devidsen Ceunty, 'l?etstessee Peliee Department, and THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE. AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, and states as follows: E. PARTSIES, JURESBICTEQN, AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff is an adult resident efthe State of Tennessee. 2. Upon inl?ermetien anti belief, all individual defendants are adult residents 01? Davidson Tennessee, and all are and were at all times empleyed as police of?cers with the Metropelitsn Gesemment 0f Nashville and Davidson County Tennessee Felice Department (respectively and collectively, the ?Defendants? 0t ?Of?cers,? and ?Metro 3. Defendant The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (,?Metre?? is a consolidated municipal and county government efthe State This Court has federal questien jurisdiction over this cause pursuant to 28 USS. 1331 as this action substantially arises under the Constitution and laws {if the United States, including, but not limited to, Amendments IV, V, V1, and XIV of the US. Constitution, 42 USE. 1983 and 42 USC. 1988. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367, this Court may further exercise jurisdiction over the related causes of action. arising. under the Constitution and laws of the State 0f Tennessee and the cemmen law of Tennessee, which claims and causes ef action. form part Of the same ease or controversy over which this Court has original jurisdiction pet?susm to 28 U.S.C. 1331. Venue is proper in the Middle. District of Tennessee pursuant to 28 USC. 1391, inasmuch as a substantial portion of the 'tz'ansaetiens and occurrences giving rise. to this action occurred in Davidson County, Tennessee, and these Defendants reside and can be in the Middle District 2 ems El. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5. At approximately 4:00 51.111. 011 Sunday June 8, 2014, Lauren Bull, (?Bull?) entered the apartment belonging to Chase, located at 2312 EllistonPlaee in Nashv?lle (the ?Chase?s Home?). 6. Said entry was lntenticnsl and without eensent, license: or ether legal justi?cation. 7. Bull was accompanied by another woman named Kayla Hewell. 8. Despite repeated demand by Chase, Bull repeatedly refused to vacate Chase?s Home. 9. Ultimately! Bull vacated Chase?s Home. 10. She then called 91} and intentienally and falsely reported that Chase had assaulted her. ll. Ms. lvlewell was presets at the tlme and has since testi?ed at a hearing on May 29, 2015, concerning the facts of the incident and that she never witnessed any assault or other such touching ofBull by Chase. l2. At the time sf said incident, Bull- was neither a resident of Chase?s Home 2303* were she and Chase in a domestic relationship. l3. Shortly there after, Of?cers arrived. 34. Upon informatics and belief, Bull may have prevleusly known one at mere {If the responding Of?cers. l5. Without any investigation or attempt. to contact Mr. Chases one or more 3f the Of?cers teak Bull to the police station in order to obtain an arrest warrant. 3 ?l?l??dl?t?fs 16. At least one Of?cer then went up to Chase?s Home and violently banged on the door, rousing Chase from his bed. l7. The Of?cer demanded that Chase open. {he door to his home. However, despite request by Chase. the Officer refused to ideniify himself, present credentials, or to even Show himself {0 Chase through the peephole. l8. instead, the Of?cer threatened and berated Chase in an effort to coerce him to open the door. i9. Not knowing whether the individual hanging on his door was indeed a police of?ees or just some friend or accomplice of Bull?s, Chase refused to open the door. ?20. Mr. Chase advised she individual (who turned out to be an Officer), that if he was indeed a police of?ce: he needed to obtain and present a proper warrant before Chase would he willng to open the door. 2l. Upon information and helieli, with she aid and knowledge of certain of the Officers? or through the Of?cers? recklessness: Bull intentionally and falsely swore ea: 21 wanant for Chase?s arrest for charges relaied to dozifiestio assaoli. 22. Upon information and belief, the Officers knew or were reel-(less, willfid, arid/ or malicious in failing to discover that said charges were false. and inaccurate. 23. Upon infermaiion aod belief, in addition to the aforesaid actual knowledge of the falsity of such charges, the Officers witnessed no injury on Bull nor did they witness any part of The alleged incident Furthermore: they willfully, maliciously, and intentionally or recklessly failed to perform any investigation to corroborate Bull?s allegations or {o exonerate Mr. Chase? 4 C??s?e??ge?oild?l F?iel?fdla?ii?fe including, but. not limited to, photographing Bali, inspecting, hot cellphone, or attempting to locate any witnesses, including Ms. Howell. 24. Lacking probable cause, aaci with knowledgo that the chargos woro false or inaccurate? the Of?cers improperly and unlawfully obtained an arrest. warrant for Mr. Chase for misdemeanor domestic assault. Stash warrant was based only on the swom and false testimony of Bull. Upon information and boliot: certain of the Officers prepared, in their own words, Ball?s sworn statomont in support of tho arrest warrant. 25. Upon inlomatioo and belief, the Of?cers willfully and maliciously obtained the uniawl?ol warrant, rather than just is criminal Slimi?llODS: in retaliation for Chase?s rotissal to open his door in exercise of his constitutional right to be free of unwarranted searches and seizures and to be socuro to his Home. Upon further iol?omtation and belief, the Of?cers further obtained the unlawful warrant is an effort to knowingly and intentionally cloak their unlawful actions with color of law. Additionally, upon information and ooliot?, certain of the Officers may have participated for purposes offurthei'ing personal agendas rotating to Bull. 26, Alto: having obtained the arrest warrant, certain of the Of?cers returned to Chase?s Home, bringing Boll baol; with them, at approximately 6 am. on that. same day, Sunday Juno 8, 2014. 27. Without request for entry} notice, knock, or announcement, the Officers willfully, maliciously, and criminally kicked in the door to Chase?s Home and, with guns dram}, forcibly and violently rousth him from sloop in his bed anti handcuffed him on the floor. 28. At that time} Ono ot?the Officers shouted at him ?Here?s your fucking warrant!? or words to similar effect, while slamming a piece of paper down on Chase?s kitcl?zon counter. 5 c?assesst?ficsyotstol Doesmaantll ?lohqo?mm Wssfabmoam 29. The Of?cers then arrested and forcibly, willfully: maliciously, and criminally removed Chase from his home, refusing his repeated requests to be able te gather any personal effects, including his cellphone, wallet, keys, and presci'ipticn eyeglasses or centects. 30. The Of?cees perfermecl no crime scene investigation and did not secure the alleged crime scene or Mr. C'liasels .l-?leme. 31. instead: the Of?cers gave Bull Mr. Chases house key and left her alenc in Ms. Chase?s l-i'eifne immediately after they seized and arrested. Mr. Chase. After some time, she apparently left Chase?s Home. 32? Chase was released later that teeming June 8, 2014, and returned to his apertn?iem. 33. Llnbelinownst to him, Bull had obtained the key to his apartment. frem the Of?cers and had returned to Chase?s Home again upon receiving notice of his release {rem Metro. 34. As a result 0f the Officers" willful, malicieus, and criminal acts anal emissions, Bull lay in wait in Chase?s Home. Again, Defendant Bull?s entry was intentienal and without consent, license, or ether legal jusei?cation. 35. When Mr. Chase arrived at home, he again immediately and repeatedly demanded that Bull leave. 36. Bull refused t0 leave. 37. Insteecl, Bull physically assaulted Mr. Chase, causing him serious physical injuries, leaving scatters of blood both within and outside Mr. Chaseis Home. 38. Bull?s assault was without consent or legal prevecatien er justi?cation. 6 eieseemms Wewfamemmees 39? in addition, Bull intentionally (imaged. Chase?s property, including attempting to kick is the door to Chase?s bathroom, wherein he ha? looked himself in an effort to use his cellphone. 40. At the time of the assault, Chase?s cellphone was ?looked out? due to Bull?s repeated unsuccessful efforts to hack into it While she was left alone in Mr. Chase?s Home by the O't?tieers. Mr. Chase was unable to call 911. 41. Eventually Boll vacated Chase?s Home long enough for Chase to escape her essauit. 42. Bull again contacted 911 and intentionally and falsely reported that Chase had assaulted her a second time. 43. Bull again intentionally and falsely swore out a ?torrent for Chase?s arrest for charges related to felony domestic. assault, alleging that Chase lied choked her until she lost consciousness and had destroyed tier cellphone. in fact, some of that occurred. 44. Upon infomiation and belief, with the aid and knowledge of certain of the Of?cers, or through the Officers.? recklessness, Defendant Bull intentionally and falsely swore out a warrant for Chase?s arrest for charges related to domestic assault. 45? Upon information and belief, the Gl?iioers knew or were reckless in failing to discover that. said Charges were false and inaccurate. 46. Upon infonnstion and belief, in adalitiozi to the aforeseici actual knowle?ge of the falsity ofsoch charges, the Officers witnessed no injury on Boll, nor did they witness any part of the alleged incident. Furthermore, they intentionally and maliciously, and! or recklessly failed to perform a reasonable investigation to corroborate Bull?s allegations, or to exonerate ML 7 Basements smeomme Chase:a including, but not limited in: Bull, inspecting her or taking it intc custody, testing blood found a: scene, attempting in locate any witnesses, cc lawfully scarching ci? the scene of the crimc. 47. Despite claiming that she had been choked until unconscious; and violently assaulted, "Bull dcclincd any mcdical attention. Additicnally, the Of?cers nc physical injuries to Bull ccnsistcn?l with her charges. 48. Lacking probable cause, and with that the charges were falsc cr inaccnraic, or will} at least recklessness and indifference, the Of?cers willfully, maliciously, improperly and unlawfully obtained one or more arrest warrants for Mr. Chase for domestic assanlt and other serious crimcs. Such warrants were again based. only cm the and false tcstinicny Upon and bclicf, certain of the Of?cers prepared, in his own Bull?s sworn statement in cftlic wrest warrants. 49. As a direct and proximate rcsult, Chase was arrested a second time: on .lunc 9, 2015, after peaceably surrendering. 50. Upcn further information and belief, certain of the Of?cers may have?: willfully, maliciously, and criminally hid} or evidence of a rclalicnship or communications with Bull, or other evidence material to the allegations. 5 l, On June 16, 2015, based upon the. false charch assertcd by Bull and the falsc and cr reports of iihc Oliliccrs, Metro a seven page lcl?zci? Ec Judge Higgins. That false and defamatory statements concerning Chase, his actions, and the surrounding his arrests. Metro pnblishcd said falsc and dclcinalcry Chase to numerous including {he prefss, and 8 Willi macaw/56 Paage'3836f2903lagg?w?i820 the letter was ultimately published in full in the Tonnessean as "well as other news outlets! The published false anti defamatory statements were further circulated throughout national and international news due to Mr. Chase?s prominence as a real estate developer previously lauded for securing a prominent development deal in Nashville. 52. Upon information and belief, Defendants published further defamatory and false statements concerning Mr. Chase. 53. Upon iofom?iotion amt belief, Defendants published said false and defamatory statements for the purpose of clothing the Officers? unlawful and reckless actions with credibility, and. in an effort to negatively in?uence public opinion against Judge Moseland and Mr. Chase While bolstering Metro reputation for being tough on domestic violence. 54. Upon information and belie? Defendants knew that said statements were false when made, or. they were reckless or negligent in failing to ascertain the truth of said statements. 55. As a direct and proximate result of said defamatory and false statements, Chase?s reputation and many of his business and personal relationships have been ruined or signi?cantly harmed. Additionally, My. Chase has been deprived of his right to a fair om} impartial jury in Davidson County? where he is cursootly being prosecuted. 56. After the false arrests, Of?cer Caliill took primary sespoosibility for investigating the charges against. Mr. Chase. 57. Of?cer Caliill did not interview Bull until lune 12, 2014. At that time he took photographs of her nook and eyes anti other body parts. His photographs likewise failed to document any evidence of physics] injury consistent with Bull?s allegations. 9 woiocwoqseol Roosem?boaos?weezl :3 8. In addition, at that time.;. Officer Cehill took photographs of certain images from Bull?s cellphone These images svere previously taker: by Bull herself and likewise failed to portray any evidence of physical injury consistent with Bull?s allegations. 59. Despite taking certain photographs of pictures and screen shots off of Bull?s cellphone, Of?cer Cahill failed to further investigate or secure that cellphone, He further failed to request Bull?s previous cellphone from the time of the incident until maoy months leter, after Chase was indicted and much of the information was inaccessible or had been deleted. 60. At no time did Officer Cehill attempt to secure witnesses, including Kayla iiowell. Of?cer Cahill undertook no other investigation between J1me 1.2, 2015, end Chase?s indictment in October 2014. 61. Officer Cohill?s conduct was reckless or intentional, willful} malicious, and criminal. As a direct and proximate result, Chase was and is being falsely and maliciously prosecuted. 62. Mr. Chase had, inter (die, the following clearly established rights at the time of the complained of actions by the Defendants: a. the right to be secure in his person and. his Home fzom unreasonable entry, searches, and seizure under the Fourth Amendment; is. the right to hodily integrity and to be free from excessive force by law enforcement under the Fourteenth Amendment; e. the right not to be deprived ofliberty without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment; d. the right to exercise his constitutional rights of free speech under the First Amendment and his right to be free from unlawful entry, search, and seizure without retaliation under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment; e. the right to be free from malicious prosecution under the Fourth and 10 Whirl Frescpeosoea Foartcenth and f. The right to a fair and impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment. 63. At ali times relevant, the Of?cers were aware of or should have boon aware of said rights. 64. The Of?cers, acting in concert and under color of law, undertook and did in fact assault and arrest Mr. Chase, and subject him to false and malicious prosecution. 65. Dcfcadants, acting ia concert and under color of law, further violated Mr. Chase?s constitutional and othcs protected rights, including his aforesaid rights uncicr the Fourth, Sixth} and Fourteenth Amendments, and under 42 U.S.C. i983 and i988, and under the "l?coocssce Constitution and state law? 66. Said actions were take-a willfully, intentionally, maliciously, recklessly, or with conscious indifference. 67, la addition, the Officers and other employees of Metro were acting in of their employment by Metro, so as to give rise to respondem szgacrior, as may bc poi?mittcci under law. 68. Upon information and bciicf, Metro was aware of, or was in not knowing, the falsity of Bull?s ailcgations and approved of or acquiesced to the unlawful actions oftlic Officers. 69. Upon information and belief?, the Officers lacked adoquaic training. 70. Metro was, at all timcs relevant, policymaker for the Motto PD, and. in that capacity established policies, proccdarcs, customs, and/or pcacticcs for same. 71? Upon information and belich Metro developed and maintained policics, ll Willi procedures, customs, and practices exhibiriog deliberaie indifference to the constitutional rights of cirizeos. These policies? procedures, customs and practices proxioierely caused the violations of Mr. Chase?s constitutional and federal rights as set forth herein and. in the other claims. Tireer policies, procedures, cosiomsa and practices resolrcd a conscious or deliberaie choice ?io follow a course of action; from among serious available alternatives. 72. Upon fumher information and belief, Metro failed to properly {rain sod/or supervise Metro FITS officers and other employees in a manner amounting to its deliberate indifference to the constitutional riohts of Mr. Chase and of the public. 73. In. light ofihe duties and responsibilities of those police of?cers that participate in arrests and preparation of police reports on alleged crimes, the need for specialized training, and supervision is so obvious, and the inadequacy of training and/or supervision is so likely to result in the violation of constitutional sod federal rights such as those described herein that the failure to provide such specialized training, and supervision is deliberately indifferent to those rights. 74>. The deliberately indifferent training and supervision provided by Metro resulted from a cooscioos or deliberate choice to follow course of acriori from among various alternatives available to Metro and were moving forces in the constitutional and federal violation injuries to Mr. Chase. 75. As a direct and proximate result of all of Defendants? said acts and omissions as aforesaid, Chase has suffered damages to his person, his reputation, his business, and otherwise financially. In addition, Chase has suffered wrongful arrest?, imprisomneiitP deremioop prosecution, and embarrassment. Mr. Chase has further soffered special damages including erroroeys? fees, expert fees, and. costs ofdeiendiog the false and malicious prosecution. 12 Decompocll Primes Haoeelezctimo?ese?mro?? gems of Civil Rights Pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. {31983) (Setters! Violation of Mn Chase?s Civil Rights) 76. Mt. Chase hereby reesserts the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of his Complaint. '77. In committing the acts complained of herein, Defendants acted under cotor of state law to deprive My. Chase of eerteio constitutionally protected rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States including, best: not limited to: a. the right to be secure in his persoo and his Home, free from unreasonable entry, seatebes, and seizure under the Fourth Amendment; b. the right to bodily integtity and to be free from excessive force by law entereement under the Fourteenth Amendment; e. the right not to be deprived of tiberty without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment; d. the right to exercise his constitutions} rights of free speech undo}? the. First Amendment and his right to be free from unlawful entry, search, and seizure without retaliation under the. Foosth and Fifth Amendment; e. the right to be free from malicious prosecution under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and f. The right to a fair and impartial. jury under the Sixth. Amendment. 78? Defendants violated Mr. Chase?s rights as set forth above and other rights that will be proven at triai. to so doing and at alt times, Defendants acted under color of state law. 79. As a direct and proximate result of the Vietation of MI: Chase?s eonstitutionei rights by the Defendants, Mr. Chase suffered general and special damages as alleged. to this 13 Complaint and is emitled to reliefonder 42 U.S.C ?1983 and 1988. 80*. The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive and/or reckless, or taken with deliberate ladil?l??renee and was of saeh a nature that punitive damages should be imposed on ihe Defendant Officers in their individual capacities, in an amount oomm'easuraee with 1Ehe wrongful acts alleged herein. CGUNT II Violation of Civil Rigl?s Format}? to Tiele 42 U.S.C. ?3983 (Failure to Implement Agoropria?ee Customs and. Practices} 81. Mr. Chase hereby yeasserta the allegations contained in the preceding parageaphs of his Complaint. 82, Metro implicitly oz? explicitly adopted and implemented careless and reckless; policies, oustems, or practices. 83. The failure of Maire to adequately train ancl supervise the Of?cers amoua?is to ?elibeeate indifference to the rights oler. Chase to be free from Violations of his Coasiitutional and othezf righ?s, a5 aforesaid, and from harm and injury. 84. The failure of Metro to adequately train and supewise the Of?cers and other employees amounts to deliberate iadifferenee to the constitutional and other rights of Mr. Chase. 85. As a direea and proximate result of this deliberate indifference to Me. Chase?s rights, the Mr. Chase suffered general and special damages as stated herein, and is; entitled lo reliefuocler?lZ U.S.C. ?1983 and 3988. P?g?elff?fz?lop??gge??fal?le {Vieiation of Civil Rights I?ursuam t0 Tiile 4:2 $983} (Use {if Excessive Farce} 86. Mr. Chase hereby 3621336113 the aliegations coniained in the: preceding, paragraphs Gi?his Compiaint. 87? The Dcibndam, hiieiro, has adopted policies, pm{haciurxags practices er cumming within the Metro that aliow, ameng: the use of force when other more reassemble anti iess (Erasiic methodg are 88. The actiens of Dai?andant Metro amount to deliberate indifference to the of Mr. Chase 10 be free of excessive fore-a and unreasmabia seizures under the Feur?i and Fmiricentii Amendmems to the C?nstituiion 0f the Unitcci States. 89. As a result of the {iaiibemie indifference to Mr. Chase?s rights by the Metro, and its ageuis, sarvants and employees, Mr. Chase suffered genera} and special damages as stated herein? and are eniiticd to relief under 42 U.S.C. ?1983 and 19881. COUNT IV (Vielatian of Civii Rights Fursuam to 42 U.S.C. ?1983) (Misc Arrest and Imprisanmem) 90. Mr. Chase hereby :?easserts the allegaiians contained in the preceding paragraphs this Complaint. in committing the aczs compiained of herein? the Of?cers acted under solar 318.15%: law by falsely arresting, seiziz?ig, and detaining Mr. Chase with no basis in fact or law 20 do Si). in ViQia?iing Mr. Chase?s right to be free from False arrest and imprisonment, these 15 63%? Willi Pagg??isnb?gdi?pag?n?iy Defsndants Vielated My. Chase?s rights under the Feumh, Fifth and Fourtsenth Amendments t0 the Constitutian 9f the United Slams. 92, As a direct and pmximate result 01? the Violation of Mr. Chase?s comstitutienal right 310 be free false arrest by the Defendants, Mr. Chase sulfates? general and special damages as stated herein; and are entitled to relief?tmde; 42 U.S.C. ?1983 and 1988. Tennessee Tort L?sbility Act .strsuam t0 YEA. Cemman Law (False Arrest and Imprisonment) 93. Mr. Chase hereby reasserts the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs sf his Complaint. 94. Mr. Chase avers that the Defendants breached a duty of care. Owed to him, so as mt t0 deprive him 0? his personal liberty, by intentionally restraining or detaining Plaintiffs without probable cause; lawful justi?cation, and due process of law. 95. Mr. Chase avers that the Defendants, without probable cause, willfully, maliciously, and unlawfully seized: dammed, restzainecl, anal imprisoned him against his will {hm-ugh use Gl? farce for a pericd of several hours over two occasions. 96. Mr. Chase avers that the Defendants are liable to him for false imprisonment. 97. As a direct and proximate result of the Will?tl, malicious and criminal false arresst and imprisonment by the Defen?ants in their individual capacity, Mr. Chase suffered general anti Sp?tl-lal damages as stated harem. 16 COUNT 'E?enmessee Governmental Tort Liabii?ty Aat RCA. e?zlessee Common Law (131533111?an Battery) 98. Mr. Chase hereby masgeris the allegations caniained in the preceding paragraphs of his Complaint. 99. The Of?cers k?awingly, willfully, intem?ionally and maliciousiy, vio?ently assaulted Mr. Chase in his heme, placing, him in fear 0f injury and touching him in an offensive and harmful manner withaut provosation or cansent, and ether named Defendams were complicit in the Of?cers acts. 100. Said assault caused Mr. Chase badin and other damages. QOUNT V11 Te?mssee Gavemmemai Tart. Mability Act Furmam ta) TEA. Cammen Law (Trespass) 101. Chase hereby re?gtates the preceding allegations of his Compiaint. 102. The Officers maliciausly, and criminaliy commde an intentional} trespaSs upen the property 0? Mr. Chase: as aforasaid. i023. Mir, Chase sustained ?amages as a direct and? praxima?tc result ei?such trazspass. 1?7 Bagumm COUNT VIIE 'fennessee Governmental Teri Liability Act Persuam TEA. ?29~20~1G1Hennessee (lemmas: Law (?Befamatiom 104. My. Chase hereby restate-s the preceding- ellege?aiens of his Cemplaint Defendanis willfully and maliciously published false and defematory statements concerning Chase} as aforesaid. Said defendants knew such statements were false at the lime made er they made such statemenls with reckless disregard for their truth er will: negligence in failing to aseeriein {he truth of the statement. 106. As a direct and presimate result thereof, Mr. Chase has suffered damages {0 his repuie?on, his business, and otherwise ?nancially. In addition, Chase has suffered wreeg?ll arrest, imprisonment, detention, presecution, and embesressmem. Tennessee Gevernmeetel Tort Usability Act Persuam te Cemmen Law (Negligenee) 107. Mr. Chase hereby re?states the preceding allegations ofhis Cemplaint. 108. {Defendants owed a duty 0f care te Mr. Chase in connection with their aeis and emissions described herein. 109. Defendants negligently, recklessly, knowingly, er intentionally breached said duty of care. 18 Willi F?eec??amee llO, As a direct and pmximaie result thersof, Mix. Chase has suffered genssai and special damagss, including damages to his reputatian, his business, anti sihsmise ?nanciaily. In, addition, Chase has suffered WE?Onngl arrest, imprisonment, distention, prasecution, and Tensessee Governmental Tort Aet Pursuant to 30A. Law (Negligem Supewisim) ll 1, Mr. Chase hereby rC-states the preceding allegations of his Complaint. 112. Memo negligently directly and indirectly supervised the Of?cers, and also failed :0 provide proper training and Outline proper pz?ocedum. 113. in commit?ing the ai?orementianed acts or omissisns, Metm negligently breached said duty. 14. As 3% direct and proximate result; Mr. Chase has been ciamagcci as alleged hersin. COUNT XE Tennessee Governmemai Tort Liability Act E?m?suant t0 Commas} Law {Civil Conspiracy) llS. Mi?. Chase hereby re?states she preceding allegations of his Compiaint. 16. The Defendants acted with comman design through a mneert of action to carry am the aforesaid willful, malicious, criminal, and torzieus acts and vialations of Mr. Chase?s rights. 19 mull Fits?cll?slSU/ia PaagelssubfZQODIaangm 117. Each Defendam participated in the. conspiracy, which conspiracy proximately and actuain caused Mr. Chase gamemi and special damages as aforesaid. AD BAMNUM WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, Mr. Chase, prays for the fallowing relief: i. That 131132233 issue and that Dafendants be required to appeaf and answsir this Campiaint within the time prescride to tham by law; 2. For in his favor and againgi Defendants, jointiy and severally, in an amount to be: proven at trial; 3. For punitive damages; 4? Fm attorneys? fees and costs incurred in this matter, as may be recovex?abie; and 5. For ajuzy 01?12 to decide all issues which may be determimd by a. jury; and 6. Such other anti further reliei?as this Honorable Cami deems; jusi and i i} I . KW aub m?ei?w Philip L. Robe?g?m (BPR, 21668) ROBERTS ON GROUP 1896 General George Patton, Suite 603 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 656?1729 Facsimile: (615) 656?1736 pmbertson?lmbartisan]icom And J. Thomas Smith, Esq. 36:3) 2020 Parkway Suite 900?264 Franklin? Tennessee 370694337 (615) 790?2150 - Of?ce ithemsmiti'i?gmaiimm Plaii?f?" 20 @Wt??l Fi??MW/?/d/ia Fagg?fmbm?iagg?mwez IN THE CRIMZINAL COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE DIVISION I STATE OF TENNESSEE F?i?gg? 7/15? 7mm? NO. 2014432484 DAVID CHASE 4 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL Comes now the State of Tennessee, by and through the of?ce of the District Attorney General, and hereby gives notice of dismissal of the above~styled indictment with prejudice. As grounds, the facts and law in this case compel dismissal. Primarily, three factors dictate this decision: 1. Lauren Bull is not a credible Witness, she has admitted to testifying falsely and independent witnesses contradict her testimony. 2. Physical evidence and phone records contradict Lauren Bull?s allegations. . 3. Evidence has been manipulated and/or destroyed by Lauren Bull. INVESTIGATION RESULTS The credibility of Ms. Bull is undermined by the following facts: 1. Dishiterested witness Kayla Howell?s statement and sworn testimony regarding the events leading to and following Count 1 completely contradict Ms. Bull?s account. (Transcript date 5-29-15, page 175). Ms. Howell testified that Ms. Bull stumbled out of the door and dropped her purse. Ms. Bull testi?ed that he dragged her out by the pony tail and threw her outside, mad threw her purse outwith her (64 9?14, page 9). 2. Ms. Bull?s prior testimony that a disinterested neighbor, Thao Vu, helped clean up her injuries and put ice on her lip and called 91l after the second incident was false and by that witness (6?19?14 page 18). 3. Ms. Bull?s claim that Mr. Chase caused a cut on. her neck is contradicted by the observations of the police at the time of the incident and the video. Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 62 PageID 33 l0. surveillance. Of?cer Schmitt and Of?cer Rivera testified they did not see a scratch on her neck. Exit and Ms. Bull?s swom testimony about how her cell phone was damaged was completely contrary to what she told the police at Mr. Chase?s apartment and the testimony of Metro Police Of?cers. ?He took it on his leg and broke it that way.? (10?244, page 65). He toolc it from nae and snapped it in half 1944, page 18), Of?cer Pedro Rivera testi?ed that Lauren Boll told him that David Chase grabbed the phone and threw it against the wall and that?s how it got broken.? (10?2?1 4, page 403?404). Ms. Bull told the police that she lived at 2312 Elliston Place in Mr. Chase?s apartment and listed this as her address on her sworn arrest warrant af?davit. This was not true. (10-2?14, page 182), Exh David Chase had given her the entire day of June 5, 20i 4 to move her belongings out. She did not do so. Ms. Bull testi?ed, she returned to Mr. Chase?s apartment to get her personal belongings, yet remained there for 4 hours without taking any steps to actually remove them. Ms. Bull remained in Mr. Chase?s apaltment even after she was noti?ed by VINE that Mr. Chase was being released. She then told the arresting of?cers that Mr. Chase ?kicked the door in.? Exh Ms. Bull later admitted under oath that that statement was not true. (6-19-14, page 65). While Mr. Chase was in jail and Ms. Bull was alone in his apartment, Ms. Bull repeatedly attempted to access Mr. Chase?s cell phone but could not correctly guess his passeode. After approximately 19 failed attempts, Mr. Chase?s cell phone became locked. Ms. Bull attempted to explain this in court, testifying that ?the phone was on the couch beside me it kept ringing. i was trying to see who was calling.? (100-14, page 1.88). Ms. Bull would have been able to see who was calling without trying to hack into Mr. Chase?s phone. Lauren Bull later testi?ed that Mr. Chase?s phone was charging in the bathroom. (10-244, pages 212?215). Ms." Bull extensively Google searched for signs of strangulation on June 18, 2014, the night before she first testified about the events of this case. Exh On June 8, 2014, more hours alter Ms. Bell swore out the warrants in this case, Ms. Bull requested that her ??iend Amber, who was with her on the night of June 7, 2014, immediately prior to Ms. Bull showing up at Mr. Chase?s apartment at 3:41 delete everything from Amber?s Facebook page, advising that she had already deleted everything from her Faeebook page. Exit The cut on Ms. Bull?s neck that Ms. Bull presented to Detective Cahill as proof of her injury from David Chase was not present at the time of arrest and 2 Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 62 PageID 34 only appeared days later. Bah In fact, Lauren Bull testi?ed she was not bleeding at the time oer, Chase?s arrest. (5-2945, page 67). ll. Ms. Boll testi?ed on October 2, 2014, that she had not spoken to a civil attorney. This statement was not true. In fact Ms. Bull had spoken to a civil attorney continuously for nearly four months at that time and even on the very morning that the testimony was given in court. Ms. Bull texted others that she expected to receive a civil settlement, that she had a civil attorney, and that she woutd be seeking three initlton doilars. Ms. Bull?s Google search history includes researching Richard Branson, the CEO of Virgin Group and Dean Chase, the founder of UP. Chase, Inc, indicating that she was seeking a multimillion dotlar windfall. Ms. Bull. even promised to share her windfall with a itiend. Furthermore, Ms. Bull engaged in text messages about the fact that she needed to keep it a secret that she was consulting a civil attorney about seeking a settlement. Buit?s false testimony about speaking with a civil attorney under oath was a clear attempt to hide the truth. (54219?15, page 13-14). Exh LEGAL ANALYSIS The District Attorney General is under an ethical and legal obiigation to retrain from prosecuting a charge that the District Attorney knows is not supported by probable cause. Tennessee Supreme CourtRule contains t?he?Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys in Tennessee. In particular, the role and responsibilities ot?a prosecuring state?s attorney is contained in Rule 13.8. '1?his rule provides: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor The prosecutor in a criininat case: (3) Shall refrain from prosecuting a. charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause. in addition, the Tennessee Supreme Court has described the duties of the district attorney general in the face of the wide discretion with Which he is empowered and that must exist to uphold his ethical duty. In State v. Superior Oil, 875 658, 661 (Tenn. 1994), the Court quoted with approval from Cooper v. State: Although there are various statutes which assign duties to the elected constitutional of?ce of district attorney general, there areno- statutory criteria, governing the exercise of the 3 Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 3 of 62 PageID 35 prosecutoriai discretion traditionally vested. in the of?cer in detennining Whether, when and against whom to institute criminal proceedings. Indeed it has been oiten recognized that the ?prosecutorial discretion in the charging process is very broad.? Cooper v. State, 847 521, 536 (?l?enn. CrimApp. 1992). he Court in. Oil, Inc, also noted, ?As a corollary ofthe Wide discretion vested in a district attorney general, it has long been recognized that the office has the inherent responsibility and duty to seek justice rather than to be just an advocate for the State?s victory at any cost.? Id. This same ethical duty has been mandated by the United States Supreme Court on attorneys prosecuting for the federal. government. in Berger v. United States, 295 US 78, 88, 55 629, 633 (1935), the United States Supreme Court stated: The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and Whose interest, therefore, in a criminal, prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very de?nite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guiit shail not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor - indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foui ones. It is as much his duty to re?ain from improper methods as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one. In the context of a potential prosecution Where the district attorney general is aware that false testimony has been given in the proceedings, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has adopted the mandates of the United States Supreme Court: in quue the United States Supreme Court, holding that the prosecution was required to correct a false answer given by a prosecution witness, stated: 4 Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 4 of 62 PageID 36 The principle that a State may not knowingly use false evidence, including false testimony, to obtain a tainted conviction, implicit in any concept of ordered liberty, do es not cease to apply merely because the?zzlse testimony goes only to the credibility of the witness. Y'Yiej-ziiy ?3 estimate of the truti?ifulness and reliability of a given. witness may well be determinative ofguilt or innocence, and it is upon. such subtle factors as the possible interest of the witness in. testi?dng ?ztsety that a defendant?s life or liberty may depend. (Emphasis in original opinion) State v. szirlock, 874 602, 617 (TennCrimApp. 1993) (quoting Napne 12. Illinois, 360 US. 264, 269, 79 1173, 1177 (1959). he Court in szirlock further held: It is a well established principle of law that the state?s knowing use of false testimony to convict an accused is violative of the right to a fair and impartial trial as embodied in the Due Process Clanse of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, 8 and 9 of the Tennessee Constitution. Id. (citing Pyle Kansas, 317 US. 213, 63 177 (1942); v. Hotolmzz, 294 US. 103, 55 340 (1935). Finally, the SpurZoc/c Court clearly mandated the duty of a prosecutor when faced with false testimony: In summary, a district attorney general has both a legal as well as ethical duty to furnish the accused with exculpatory evidence or favorable information; and he has both a legal and ethical duty to refrain from suppressing such evidence, to correct the false testimony of a prosecution witness, and to refrain from using false evidence to convict an accused. Id, At 611-612. In this case, Ms. Bell has admitted to giving false testimony on both June 19, 2014 and October 2, 2014. Other disinterested witnesses have contradicted Ms. Bull?s 5 Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 5 of 62 PageID 37 allegations on crucial issues. As a result, this Of?ce has a constitutional and ethical duty to refrain from further prosecution of this case. CONCLUSION Prosecutors are expected ?to be impartial in the sense that charging decisions should be based upon the evidence, without discrimination or bias for or against any groups or individuals. Yet, at the same time, they are expected to prosecute criminal offenses with. zeal, and Vigor within the bounds of the law and professional conduct,? State v. Galbraith, 30 309, 314 (Tenn, 2000). Based on the facts outlined above, the State has determined that although there was initially probable cause to bring these charges, the State is unable to proceed with prosecution based on prior testimony under oath on the record in this matter, The State has a responsibility and duty to seek justice rather than advocate for victory at any cost; therefore, the ethical and legal obligations of the Of?ce of the District Attorney require the State to dismiss this indictment. Respe tfully Submitted, We 27% Katrin Novak Miller Tenn. Sup.Ct.Reg.#l 0076 Assistant District Attorney General Washington Square, Suite 500 222 Second Avenue North Nashville, TN 37201-1649 (615) 862-5500 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1. hereby certify that a true and exact copy of the foregoing has been mailed to Richard McGee, Attorney for Defendant, 1308 Rosa L. Parks Bou evard, Nashville, TN 37208, on this the day of July, 2015. Katrin Noyak Miller 6 Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 6 of 62 PageID 38 Case Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 7 of 62 PageID 39 aw cu Aw? . . nexg??rw. 1 JV 3 . yi??mi. a, an, I . rim. 4O 62 PagelD 16 Case 3 3 5 . a? wfv?Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 9 of 62 PageID 41 Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 10 of 62 PageID 42 . v. .. Case 3:16-Cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 11 of 62- PageID 43 of?ioer? Thank you, Officer. You may step down. You may remain in the courtroom, sit, or you may be excused. Next witness, please. PEDRO RIVERA, was called as a witness, and having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION QUESTIONS BY MS. KIMBROUGH: Q. Officer Rivera, would you please state your name for the'reoord. A. Pedro A. RiVera. Q. What is your profession? A PoliCe officer, Metro Police Department. Q. How long have you worked for Metro Police? A. Since 2013. 2013. Q. So you?re a relatively new officer? A. Yes, ma?am.v Q. So have you met the petitioner? A. Yes, ma?am. Q. And when die you meet her? A. The incident in June. Elite Reporting Services (615)595w0073 398 10 ll 12 13 14 A. Yes. Q. And I imagine you were probably closer than you and the judge are when y?all are on the elevator. A. Yes. Q. Okay. Of-coorse, it gives you good opportunity to make any observations regarding injuries at that point, right? A. Yes. Q. You didntt see a big ole scratch mark on the left side of her neck, did you? A. No, I didnit. Q. And you didn?t even see any bruising, specifically around the neck, did you? A. No. Q. Said her face was red because she was upset; is that true? A. Yes. Q. - Okay. And then you all had a chance to talk when you are going down to the apartment looking for Mr. Chase, right? A. Yes. Q. Then y?all at some point, she even says, well, he may be at_his friend's apartment. And she leads you all down to where the friend was staying? A, That's correct. Elite Reporting Services (615)59540073 406 . . . . . case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 12 of 62 PageID 44 1 was necessary, right? Right? If you thought it was kg 2 necessary, you would have called. If you didn?t 1? 3 call, equals, wasn't necessary, correct? 5 4 A. Yes. 5 MR. R. MCGEE: Thank you. 6 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You may step 7 down. You may remain in the courtroom, sirexcused. 9 Your next witness, please. i 10 MS. KIMBROUGH: Officer Schmidt. 12 a: 13 JONATHAN SCHMIDT, 14 was called as a witness, and having first been duly 15 sworn, testified as follows: l6 l7 DIRECT EXAMINATION l8 QUESTIONS KIMBROUGH: 19 Would you please state your name for the 20 record. 21 A4 Jonathan Schmidt.. 22 Q. And have you met the petitioner before? i 23 A Yes. 5 24 Q. And what day did you meet the petitioner? 25 A I don't recall the actual date, but it was, I Elite Reporting Services (615)-59541073 413 Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 13 of 62 PageID 45 Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 14 of'62 PageID 46 Q. Do you recall anything that she told you? A. Nothing that I hadn?t said already. Did she state whether she was living at the apartment? A. i can?t recall if she said she was living there, but we did see all of.her belongings inside. Q. Did you see any scratch marks on the left Side of her neck? A. Like 1 said, I can?t recall. All I remember is the redness on her face and neck. Q. Can you point out for us where you mean? A. From around here up (indicating). Q- Around here up? A. Yeah. Q. What about the'faoe? A. Yeah. She had redness on her face. Q. I mean, where on her face? A. Her face. All over her face. Q. Her entire face was red? A. From what I can remember, yes. Q. But you don?t recall any scratches? A. I don?t, no. MR. K. MCGEE: That?s all I have. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You may steo down. You may remain in the courtroom, or you may be Elite Reporting Services (615)595?0073 420 Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 15 of 62 PageID 47 Tit?o .3 ?3 COMPLAINT NUMBER: 2014-;0544834 (38681148 Lauren Bull David Chase VICTIM: OF TENNESSEE, COUNTY OF DAVIDSON DOMESTIC 110A. 39?13% 11 Personally appeared before me, the undersigned [Select one] Commissioner MetrOpolitarr General Sessions Judge, the prosecutor named above and made oath in due form of law that [Select one] he she [Select one] a personally observed probable cause to believe that the defendant named above on os/osoom in Davidson County, did unlawfully [Select one] intentionally, koowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to the victim, a family or household member, named above OR mientionally or knowingly cause the victim, at family or household member, named above to reasonably fear hnntinenl? bodily injury; OR intentionally or knowingly cause physical Contact with the victim, a family or bouseholci member, named above and a reasonable person would regard the contact as extremely offensive or preyocetive and the probable cause is as follows: - The Victim went to her residence at 23 12 Elliston Place 513 to get her belongings out ofthe apartment. When she Went into the apt. her former boyfriend (suspect) told her to leave. The victim told her that all she needs to do is get her stuff and she would be gone. The victim stated that the suspect then grabbed her by the hair and drugged her out of the apartment and then looked the door preventing her from coming back inside; The Victim is complaining of slight bead pain in her neck. The victim stated that she Wanted to prosecute the suspect. When ot?cers went to Speak to the suspect, he refused to open the door to talk to police and told officers to return with an arrest warrant. After being told that he would be under arrest he refused. to answer the door. liSignamre Prosecutor: Lauren Bull 23 Elliston Place apt 513 Nashville, Tez'lneSSee 37203 615 854?2638 ARREST WARRANT information on oath having been made, that" on the day and year aforesaid, and in the County aforesaid, the o?fense of Assault, Domestic Bodily Injury A MISD, as aforesaid, has been committed and. charging the defectiant thereof, you are therefore commanded, in the name of the State, forthwith to arrest and bring the defen?ant before ajudge of the Court of General Sessions of Davidson County, ?l?ermessec, to aosWer the abet/e charge. Sworn to and subscribed before me on 06/08/2014 05:46 :57 Howard Taradash Judge of the Metropolitan General Sessions Cornthommissioner Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1% Page 16 of 62 PageID 48 A. ., . Case Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 17 of 62 PageID 49 ,a?pxwh- a VA AA 7? H: MPG FORM 100 incident Report ?fclrapnlimn Pnh'cc 1. MPD incident No, (Rev. 5-00) 3' A Nashville, ZONE CALEA 42.2.4. 822.1, 82.2.4 I ver3_5? 115 56.? *?zm?o?zisi part 1 incident 2. Retated Incident 2314_0544334 3. Other Police Aenc Case incident No. 4. Report TYPE 5. Report Dale/Time 6. incident Date/Time (From/To) Freeing! #1 9. Ottense CODE 10. Oifenge Description 11 Status 12. Location Type CODE 06108120141243 OBIUBIQU1410200 06/031?2034 19221) West Precinct 7. Roportingfilisoaichod Location UNK Apt No City State Zip Code 2312 ELLISTON PL TN Cross Street: 8. Address 01 incident Same as Apt No City State Zip Code 2312 ELLISTON PL 513 NASHVILLE TN 37203 Cross Street: 13A ASSAULT, AGGRAVATED COMPLETED APARTMENT 13. Weapon CODE (Emm. up to 3) PERSONAL (HANDS, ETC.) 9, Offense COEDE 10. Offense Description 11. Status 12. Location Type CODE 1? 2 290 DAMAGE PROP - PRWATE COMPLETED APARTMENT 13. Weapon CODE {Enter up to 3) PERSONAL (HANDS, ETC.) 15. Hath Crime 15. Suspeotod 1G9. Terrorism {For Bumlary) 15? (Fix 0 Gang Activity NO Suspected Forced Entry Home invasion Part 2 [3 31. Victim Type 19. (Last, First. Middie Name or Business Name) {3 mm 70554319 individuai (18 and over) BULL LAUREN A ND. ?1 2t). SSN [j on?: 21. Driver {Stage (NUmber) UNK [3 um 11 mam 33?? 3" Mm? 22. Addiess OfViCiim Street UNK A {No Ci State 21 Code E?Mait Address or incident (Stems) 2312 PL a] 513 TN 37203 UNK Cross Street 23. Sex 24. Race 25. Ethnicity 27'. County Resident 28. 008B UNK NM 29,5198 FEMALE NON HISPANIC 0 Yes 121221989 24 - Years 29. Phone Numbers I Calif HM. (5153 854?2638 WK. Pager: 30. Victim of Offenses: nA 290 (Ref Stock 32. Local Cottage Student? {iers. List Name utCotlagel?Univemity) MA 33. Empioyment (Name) [3 [a NIA (Address; (Apt No (Cross Street) (City) (State) (th Code) {Emait Address) 34- Domes? .1er3 Answor 0 tie I Was Victim Wars Chti?dwn Were 01$ turbance? Yes {ha Plifecganro No man NO (Egan [a N0 Dun'ng ND Qt 15 snags mommy? Sara Pinata? Safe Place? Incident? 35. Victim to SUSpect 1 CHASE, DAVID Relationship WAS Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 18 of 62 PageID 50 Incident Repon 128. 1. MPD. incident Nu: M-P-D- 100 Page 2 of 5 A 2014?0545302 36. Aggravated Assault/Homicide Circumstances Negligent Manslaughter 38. Juati?abfe Homicide ARGUMENT Part 3 I 92. (Last. Firsi. M3ddt0 Name) MM UNK Mm 57243570 84. SSN or Driver L33. No. Suspect #5 I ?3 CHASE DAWD A 077583025 93. Address Street UNK Apt Cily State Z?p Code 95. Phone No. UNK 2312 PL 513 NASHVILLE TN 37203 (EMS) 519-6562 Cross Street: 97. Sex 98. Race 99. Ethnicity 103003 [3 um: 101. Age [3 UNK MM. }-ieigh 105, Weight MALE WHITE NON HISPANIC om 02,28,197? 37 .. 5 2 190 308. Hair 107. Eyes BROWN GREEN 108. Scars and Other Identi?ers 109. Clathing UNK UNI-C 102. Suspected of Using [3 NA 103. Status (Enter up to 2) Alcohol YES Drugs N0 Computer N0 AT Weapon/Tod Ta 3, PERSONAL (HANDS, ETC.) 110? val-?Ck? NONE L) Seized (If seized, compieie Part 5, Memr Vehicle Section) [3 (Year) {Maire} (Model) (Style) {Color} (License No.} {812313) (Yr) part 4 ix; WA 39. Other Perso? .Type (Non-Victim} 40. (Last. First, Middle Name) Other Person #1 41. Address Street UNK Apt No. City State Zip Code 42. Piace ofEmploymenE/Schaol [3 13 Cross Street: 43. Status 44. Sex 45. Race 47_ DOB mg 46. Age [3 UNK 48. Phone HM - Numbers WK CeIUF?aner 5 WA Victim 1 BULL, LAUREN 50. Cat CODE HARDWAREISOFTWARE: COMPUTERS, Category (Other) 51. Property Description (Make) (Medan (Size) {Type} (Color) SAMSUNG BLACK TABLET 52. SeriaE ND. UNK OWner Appiisd No. NA 53. QTY 1 54. Type CODE Damaged (Non Arson) 55. Conn! CODE DESTROYED CODE (Other) 58. ESE $Value 500 57. Da?e Racbvered Recovered $Value 58. Grored By CODE Stored By (Other) Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 19 of 62 PageID 51 incidem Report 128. NLRB. Form $00 i. MP1). incident Ne; Page 3 of 5 2014-05215302 Part 5 property 479. VictintiSUSpeciNo. C1 WA Victim 1 BULL, LAUREN 50. Cal CODE GT-COMPUTER HARDWAREISOFTWARE: COMPUTERS, Caiegnry (Oiher) 51, Pmperty Descripiion (Make) (Medei) (Size) (Type) (Color) BLACK 52. Ser?ai N0. UNK Owner Appiied No. NA 53. QTY 1 54. Type CODE Damaged {Non Arsan} 55. Cond CODE DESTROYED Condition CODE- (other) 56. Est Vaiue 400 57. Date Recovered RewVered $Vaiue 58. Siored By CODE Stored By (Other) Part 6 injury [3 WA 8549mm Transport Victim BULL, LAUREN 86. ?Injury? Cede (Enter Up to 5) APPARENT 87. Describe iniury BRUTSE ON NECK, CUT ON ARM, BUSTED LIP 88. Medicai Treatment REFUSED TREATMENT 89. Transponed By NIA SE). Examining Physician NM Slams Part 7 Search By Officer Nip, 111. Search Type $12. Searched Location (Address. Area. Etc.) part 8 Other NM 113.i.D. Section Called To Scene: Units Requested Yes,f0r: Photos Prints Other Other: 114 .Other Units Caiied: Part 10 Narrative 1-20- MS. BULL CALLED THE POLICE WHILE SHE WAS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT HER POSSESSTONS FROM HER APARTMENT WHTLE HER BOYFRIEND, MR. CHASE. WAS HELD AT BOOKING. SHE WAS ADVISED THAT HE WOULD HAVE A 12 HOUR HOLD SO THAT SHE WOULD BE ABLE TO COLLECT HER THENGS AND LEAVE WETHOUT PRESENCE. MS. BULL WAS EXTREMELY WHEN HE SHOWED UP AROUND TOBGAM AFTER HE HAD BEEN BOOKED EN AROUND MR. CHASE KICKED THE DOOR THAT MS. BULL HAD LOCKED BEHTND HER. HE WAS ABLE TO GET THE APARTMENT AND RAN TOWARDS HER. HE YELLED TO HER, RUINED MY AND CONTINUED TOWARDS HER. MR. CHASE WAS ABLE TO THROW HER AROUND THE APARTMENT AND PUSHED HER DOWN ON THE BED. MR. CHASE STARTED HER AND HER HEAD AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF HER BODY. MS. BULL STATED SHE COULD NOT BREATH AND THOUGHT SHE WAS ABOUT TO DEEY SHE WAS ABLE TO BREAK FREE OF HIS GRASP AND GRABBED HER PHONE. MR. CHASE KNOC KED HER PHONE. AWAY FROM HER AS SHE ATTEMPTED TO CALL 911. HE THEN DESTROYED HER PHONE THE PROCESS AS WELL. AS HER COMPUTER TABLET. MS. BULL WAS ABLE TO RUN OUT OF THE APARTMENT Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 20 of 62 PageID 52 Incident Repori 128. 1. MRI). Incideni Ne; 50?" 100 Page 4 or 5 2014-0545302 AND WENT TO HER APARTMENT. SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS THERE FOR SEVERAL MINUTES WHILE SHE WAS ABLE TO CALL THE POLICE. WHEN POLICE ARRIVED, MR. CHASE WAS NO LONGER AT IHE SCENE. MS. POSSESSIONS WERE THROWN OUTSIDE THE 121.Repor1is Con?nued on: [3 MA (Check an mar apply) [3 Report [3 Addendum Raped 122. Signature of ReprientiAulhurizur: Refuse ID Sign Victim 1 EULL. 126. Advisory otice Issved Information Notice Will Victim Prosecuie: Viafim I BULL, LAUREN Yes an Victim/Other Person Identify SUSpeci(s}: Victim 8 ULL, LAUREN Yes Primary Investigative Unit: Reporting Agency: METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - INTIMATE PARTNER- 127. Case Status Open Cleared by Exception Cargo Theft 1?23. Repo?ing Of?cer (Firsi. MI, Last) Employee No; Agency Radio Gail Sign District 693105 113A 12? Approving Supervisor Empioyee N0. Agency HATCHER JR 225016 TNOIBOIGO Reviewer Employee No. Agency Dale BURFORD 227697 DEIOBIZOM Attachment Anachment Type 1 Comments Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 21 of 62 PageID 53 Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 22 of 62 PageID 54 .. 120 Strangling Wikipedia, the free 6/18/2014 1 Safari 2 11:45:46 5) L0 120 steps of being a strangled when do you blackout 0/18/2014 1 Safari 3 Google Search 11:45:12 5) -2 at 120 Can you just recoverfrom being strangled? 6/18/2014 1 Safari <0 4 message1979854/pg1 11:42:06 ?5 . 5) 9,3 120 steps of being a strangled when do you blackout - 6/18/2014 1 Safari 5 Googie Search 11:42:00 5} ch. being+a+sirangied+blackoo1+ 120 steps of being a strangled biackout (Boogie Search 5/18/2014 1 Safari 6 11:41:46 25 5) 120 steps of being a tangled, blackout? - Google Search 6/18/2014 1 Safari 7 11:41 :43 1: 5) 120 How long does deaih by strangulation take? Are . 6/18/2014 1 Safari ti. 8 Teohnioa OpenForum p=20836689 ?1)1:28:57 ta 5 5 120 being strangled when do die Boogie Search 6/18/2014 1 Safari 9 trangied+when+do+ 11:27:25 PMCUTO- 5? 5) 121 HowSiof?A/orks ?The Process of Dying? 6/18/2014 1 Safari (3 0 . conditions/death?dying/dying 3.111111 11:27:01 5) '3 121 how do you know if your dying while being choked 6/18/2014 1 Safari 1 Googie Search 11:26:49 (b 5) (n cu oked 121 how do you know if your dying while being choked 4 6/18/2014 1 Safari 0 2 Google Search 11:26:42 5) Case 3:16-cv-01579 Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 24 of 62 PageID 56 . .44 . I A tigers - um; ?341:12 J?v' .038 Tuwkr?tkj??(niv [e 1:139Lqrmir? 5? *2 *l I I .: ?5 1. ?kl: \h ave 1 my court A Ix 4 a i 1619 Ewe its. ?4 5 - Summan/ Oanneo?on Type Gama No, 220 sum data/lime 41212015 1:31:19 PM ?Extraction and datef?me PM if Extraction Type Log:in Extraction :o eb72d7aa is Fatse Selected Manufacturer Applo? Selected Device Name {Phone 5 WED-Physical Anaiyzer Version . 4.1.3.14 Time zone sat?ngs (UTC) (mama UTC value Casa number :4-0545302 Case name PH. 15-059 Evidence number Examiner name Del. Weaver Depanmom Meiropolitan'Nashvilla Poiice Depa?ment Location . 200 James Robertson Parkway Notes I Consent Device Information iD laureoambull Devica Lauren?s ?F?hone Name Lauren?s EPhono 0 163327876 3MB) 990003171 208198 is Faise Last Hon Time. 4/24/2014 10:25:18 LastUsod ICCID 89148000001183327826 Location Services Enabied Two Phohe Number 8 --5356 Phone Number 6152026368 Product 9 Product Version 7.1.2 So?a! Number ?dentl?or 3 memAmN-A mmawm?LO Case 3:16-cv-01579' Document 1-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 27 Of 62 PageID 59 image Hash Details (t'z'r-z Lure: 2:1? :th . Hqsihes been calcui?lec? {or projed, buLno reference daia ls'gvallablaWammp Path lPhoneBacl