Arshad Majid (AM-4477) MAJID S: ASSOCIATES, 309 Rnbro Drive, Suite 112 Hauppauge, New York 11738 (63 1) 582-5558 Attorneys for Plaintiffi IN THE UNITED DISTRICT couar EASTERN DISTRICT or NEW YORK RAHEEM CREWS (l11dividually and as Parent of SHAHEEM CREW S). NANCY GILYARD, PATRICK GILYARD and SHAMEEKA DAWSON (Individually and as Parent CREWS) - . . Plaintiffs, -against . mscounrr on NASSAU. and DOES 1-15" representing as yet unknown and unicl_entified' employees of Nassau County (ell individually and in their offieial capacities as employees of Nassau County), THE NASSAU COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, . NASSAU COUNTY POLICE COMMISSIONER JAMES H. LAWRENCE, FIRST DEPUTY POLICE COMMISSIONER ROBERT BISHOP, JOHN ASST. poucs coMM1ssIoNEa- DAVID MACK. ASST. POLICE COMMISSIONER DENIS MONETTE, ssj; CHIEF OF DEPARTMENT RAYMOND CRAWFORD, CHIEF OF DETECTIVES HERBERT DEPUTY CHIEF OF DETECTIVES PAUL INSP. DET. LT. ANDREW FAL, DET. LEMMA, HOLLAND, DET. MESSE, LT. JOSEPH BARBIERI, P.O. RONALD ANNARUMMA. and AND JANE DOES l6-30" representing as yet unlmoiwvn and unidentified members ofthe Nassau County Police Department (all individually and in their official capacities as' employees of the Nassau County Police Department), THE NASSAU COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF EDWARD REILLY and - AND JANE DOES 31-45" representing as yet unknown and unidentified rnembens of the Nassau County Sheriff's Department (all individually and in theinofficial capacities as employees of the Nassau County Sheriffs Department), THE OFFICE OF THE NASSAU COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, NASSAU COUNTY DISTRICT DENIS DILLION. DISTRICT MATTHEW LAMPERT, ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY KEVIN HIGGINS, ASST. -DISTRICT ATTORNEY ELISE MGCARTHY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY GREG MADEY and AND JANE DOES 46-60" representing as yet unknown and unidentified members of the Oflice "of the Nassau County District Attorney (all individually and in their official capacities as employees of the Office of the Nassau County District Attomey), Defendants. CASE NO.: COMPLAINT I DEMAND - TRIALBYJURY figs -J.-, . see to .2 ii-I ?5.23. i in A A Case Document 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 89 PagelD 46 EAO 440 (Rev. 310!) Simmons in a Civil Action': .. . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, A I District_ of New vonx HAHEEM CFIEWS (Individually and as Parent of SHAHEEM CREWS). NANCY GILYARD at. al. - SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION. v. I . THE COUNTY OF NASSAU et. al. TO: (Name and eddies: ofbefendant} THE coumv OF NASSAU. THE mssau coumv POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE NASSAU oouu-rv - THE OFFICE or THE uassm coumv mssnu coumv DISTRICT Arronmev news DILLION. et. al. One West Street Minaola, New York 11501 YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve on PLAINTIFF (name and address) Arshad Majid MAJID ASSOCIATES. RC. 300- Fiabro Drive. Suite 1 12 Hauppauge. New York 11788 (631) 582-5553 an answer to the complaint which is served on you with this summons, "within 20 days after service of this summons on you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Any answer that you serve on tho parties to this action must be filed with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable. period of time after service. DATE an 4" '1 Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, MAJID ASSOCIATES, P.C., complaining of the defendants, 311 upon information and belief, respectfiilly allege: JURISDICTION 1. The Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343, 42 U. s.C. 1981, 1933 and 1935, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and pendent claims under the constitution and laws of the State of New York. 2. That all times herein mentioned all Defendants were acting under color of law. 3. Plaintifls demand a trial by jury on each and every claim made hereunder. VENUE 4. Plaintiffs Raheern Crews Nancy Gilyard MOTHE Shaheem Crews JNFANT and'Pa1ricl( Gilyard were and are Afiican American residents of the County of Queens, State of New York. -5. Plaintiff Shamilca Dawson is an Afi-ican American resident . of the County of Nassau, State of New York. 1 . 6. The allegations herein arose within this judicial district and are therefore within the jurisdiction of the court. PARTIES 7. mt all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs Raheem Crews cnansam"), Nancy Gilyar-d Shaheem Crews INFANT soar) and Patriclc Gilyard were and are Afi-ican American residents of the County of Queens, State of New York. I 9 8. That all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff Shamika Dawson is and was an African American resident of the County of Nassau, State of New York. 9. That upon information and belief,-at all times herein mentioned, the defendant, County of Nassau was and still is a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. It is authorized by law to maintain a Police Department, a County A . . Document 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 3 of 89 PagelD 47 176 Filed 05/23x06 Page 4 of 89 Pagoto it: 48 Sheriffs Office, a Correctional Facility and a District Attomey's efiice all of which act as its employees and agents in the area of law enforcement and all for which it is ultimately responsible._ 10. AND JANE DOES 1-15" areiwere COUNTY EMPLOYEES employed by defendant COUNTY and working for defendant COUNTY as employees and agents thereof. Tliroughout the events hereinafter-described, defendants COUNTY EMPLOYEES were acting in the course of their duties and functions as COUNTY EMPLOYEES of and for defendant COUNTY. Defendants COUNTY EMPLOYEES are sued in both their official and individual capacities. 11. . Upon information and belief, all defendant cormrr EMPLOYEES were and are still citizens and residents of the State of New York. . 12." Their residence and citizenship lead to their conduct being constrained and governed by federal and state laws and professional standards relating their duties and eniployment. - 13. Upon information and belief, the identities of all defendant COUNTY EMPLOYEES are known particularly by defendants coomv and/or the personnel and supervisory personnel of the additional defendants named and listed herein, including uniformed and non--unifonned COUNTY I EMPLOYEES, who were present at the place of occurrence and/or have knowledge of the facts herein. 14. That upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the defendant, The Nassau county Police Department was and is an agency and/or subdivision of Defendant COUNTY. I 15. Defendants Police James H. Lawrence First Deputy Police Commissioner Robert 'Bishop DEPUTY Deputy Police Commissioner John Haviken Assistant Police Commissioner David Mack Assistant Police Commissiorier Denis Monette Chief of Department Raymond Crawford Chief of Detectives Herbert Faust Deputy Chief ofDetectives Paul Tully CHIEF Inspector Patrick O'Cof1nor Detective Lieutenant Andrew Fa] Detective Lemma Detective Honsnd Detective Messe Lieutenant Joseph Barbieri' Police Officer Ronald and unknown individual Police Officers and Detectives of Nassau County AND JANE DOES 16- 30") are/were DETECTIVES, POLICE OFFICERS moron SUPERVISORS employed by Defendants COUNTY and/or DEPARTMENT, woddug for defendants OOUNTY andfor DEPARTMENT as supervisors, employees andlagents thereof. Throughout the events hereinafter described, defendants DETECTIVES, POLICE omcsas ANDIOR SUPEIWISORS were acting in the course of their duties and functions as' Supervisors, Detectives and Police Officers of and for defendants COUNTY and/or DEPARTMENT and' as supervisors, employees and agents of defendants COUNTY and/or A A A A Case Document 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 5 of 89 Pageni) 49 DEPARTMENT. Defendants DETECTIVES, POLICE OFFICERS AND SUPERVISORS are sued in both their ortieial and individual capacities. 16. Defendants COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. cIiI_sP DET., INSP., and DET. LT. ateiwete officials appointed by defendant COUNTY, with final government authority to establish lnunicipalpolicy who personally selected, supervised, had direct knowledge of, participated in and were directly responsible for the actions of all employees andfor agents of defendant DEPARTMENT as alleged herein. I 17. Upon information and belief, all defendant DETECIIVES, POLICE OFFICERS sUPaRvIsoRs were and are still citizens and residents ofthe State of New York. 18. Their residence snd.citizensl:lip lead to their conduct' being constrained and governed by s. federal and state laws and professional standards relating to their duties and employment. 19. Upon information and belief, the identities of all defendant DETECTIVBS, sUPIiRvlsoRs are known particularly by defendants comm"? and/or DEPARTMENT supervisory personnel, including lmiformed and non'-uniformed COUNTY and/or DEPARTMENT employees; who were present at the place of occurrence and/or have lcnowledge of the facts herein. . . 20. That upon infonnation and belief; at all times herein "mentioned, the defendant, the Nassau County Sheriffs Department was and is an agency and/or subdivision of defendant COUNTY. . 21. Defendants Sheriff EDWARD REILLY and AND JANE DOES 31-45" . arefwere SHERIFF, DEPUTY SI-IERIFFS, CORRECTIONS, OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS employed by defendants SHERIFF andfor COUNTY and/or DEPARTMENT, working for defendants -SHERIFF and/or COUNTY andloi DEPARTMENT as corrections offioers, supervisors, employees and agents thereof. Tllroughout the events hereinafter described, defendants CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, SHERIFF, DEPUTY SHERIFFS, SUPERVISORS were acting in the course of their duties and functions as corrections officers, supervisors, employees and agents of and for defendants COUNTY and/or DEPARTMENT andlor COUNTY SHERIFF. Defendants COUNTY SHERIFF, CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, SHERIFF, DEPUTY SHERIFFS, SUPERVISORS are sued in both their official and individual capacities. . 22. Defendant SHERIFF islwas a county appointed by defendant COUNTY, with final government authority to establish municipal policy, who personally selected, supervised, had direct knowledge of, participated in and was directly responsible for the actions of all employees and/or agents of defendant COUNTY SHERIFF as alleged herein. an A Case Doottrcent 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 6 of 89 Page|D 50 23. Upon information and belief, defendants DEPUTY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, SIJPEKVISORS and JOHN AND JANE DOES 31-45 were and are still citizens and residents of the State of New York. '24. Their residence and citizenship" lead to their conduct being constrained and governed by federal and state laws_ and professional standards mlafing to their duties and employment. 25. Upon information and belief, the identities of defendants DEPUTY SHERIFFS, CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, SUPERVISORS and JOHN AND JANE DOES 31-45 are known particularly by defendants COUNTY, COUNTY SHERIFF and DEPARIMENT supervisory personnel, including imifomied and non-unifonnecl COUNTY, COUNTY SHERIFF and DEPARTMENT employees, who were present at the place of occurrence and/or have knowledge of the facts herein. 25. Defendants COUNTY, SHERIFF, DEPUTY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, and JOHN AND DOES wercuand are still direcfly responsible for all aspects of the operation, record keeping and maintenance of the NASSAU COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY located in East.Meadow, New York. 27. That upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the defendant, the Nassau County District Attorney's Office (?'Dl9t'S was and isan agency andfor subdivision of Defendant COUNTY.- 7 i 28. Defendant Nassau County Attorney Denis Dillon is/was an elected official with final government authority to establish municipal policy who personally selected, supervised, had direct knowledge of, panicipated in and was directly responsible for the actions of all employees . andfor agents of Defendant OFFICE as alleged herein. 29. Defendants Assistant District Attomey Matthew Lampert 'Assistant District Attorney Kevin Higgins Assistant District 'Attorney Elise McCarthy Assistant District Attorney Greg Madey and AND JANE DOES 46-60" are/were PROSECUTORS SUPERVISORS employed by defendants COUNTY and/or omen, working for defendants and/or as employees and agents thereof. Throughout the events hereinafler described, defdants PROSECUTORS SUPERVISORS were acting in the course or their duties and functions as Prosecutors and/or Supervisors of and for defendants COUNTY and/or OFFICE and as -employees and. agents of defendants coumv and/or DEPARTMENT andfor OFFICE and/or DA. Defendants PROSECUTORS SUPERVISORS are sued in both their official and individual capacities. 30. Upon information and belief, all defendant PROSECUTORS SUPERVISORS were and are still citizens and residents ofthe State of New York. fix -a Case Document 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 7 Of 89 PagelD 51 '31. Their residence and citizenship lead to their conduct being constrained and governed by federal and state laws and professional standards relating to their duties and employment as attomeyts and prosecutors, including ethical standards set by national and state bar associations. 32. Upon information and belief; the identities of an defendant PROSECUTORS SUPERVISORS 'are known particularly- by defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, OFFICE supervisory personnel, including uniformed and non--uIIifomIed COUNTY, DEPARTMENT and DAIS OFFICE employees, who were present at the place of occurrence and/or have knowledge of the facts herein.>> . I I . 33. Upon information I and belief, defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, DBP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., CORRECTIONS N. SHERIFF, DEPUTY SEERIFFS, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-60, OFFICERS DETECTIVES, DA, OFFICE end PROSECUTORS ANDIOR SUPERVISORS and their respective agents/employees routinely share information reg'a1-dixag past, current and proposed criminal investigations, arrests, prosecutions and convictions. 34. Throughout the events hereinafter described, defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CI-IIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, SHERIFF, DEPUTY SIIERIFFS, JOHN AND IANE DOES 1-60, OFFICERS DETECITVES, DA. A OFFICE and FROSECUTORS ANDIOR SUPERVISORS and their respective agents/employees had access to historical information relating to the intake and discharge of past and current prisoners in the COUNTY JAIL. i OFC 35. I That on or about December 8, zoos Plaintiffs (then Claimants) caused a written Notice of Claim, to be served upon the County Attorney for defendant COUNTY, said Notice of Claim Set forth the name and post office address of Plaintiffs herein, the nature of the claim, the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim herein Sued upon arose and the item of damages or injuries claimed to have been Sustained, so far as then practicable. I . 36. That a copy of the Said "Notice of Claim, served as aforesaid, is annexed hereto, made a part hereof and incorporated by reference herein. (See Exhibit 37. That at least thirty days have elapsed prior to the commencement of this action Since the service of the Notice'of Claim on the County of Nassau, and payment thereof has been refused by I I defendant COUNTY. Fx "x till Case Document 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 8 of 89 Pagan) 52 38. That this action was Within one year and ninety days after cause of action accrued. ALLEGJATIQNS 39. Throughout: the events hereinstter described, DET. LEMMA, DET. HOLLAND, DET. MESSE, LT. BARBIERI, no. ANNARUMMA and JOHN AND JANE DOES 16-30, Shield Numbers unknown, were acting in the course of their duties and functions as OFFICERS ANDIOR DETECTIVES of and for defendants COUNTY and/or' DEPARTMENT and were employed and supervised by defendants COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DEP. CHIEF INSP. and DET. LT. "and acted as employees and agents of defendants COUNTY and/or DEPARTMENT andlotr COMMISSIONER, IRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMIBHSSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT. andt/or OFFICE. 40. Defendants OFFICERS DETECTIVES were selectively screened, employed, trained and supervised by defendants COUNTY, I FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY ASST. COMMISSIONER, ASST. COIWMISSIONER, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT. and/or OFFICE, for numerous tasks relating to their law enforcement duties including but not lirnited to investigation, - identification, arrest, detention, interrogntion, witness preparalticn and other tasks relating to the; prosecution and conviction of individuals. 41; I On or about May 27, 2005 at approxirnately 7PM, Raheem Crews 19 year o1d'African American male resident of Queens County, New York was visiting the home of fri_encl and resident of Nassau County in the town of Roosevelt, "New York. 42. On or about May 27, 2005 at approximately while in the fimltyard of his -fi:iend's home located at 15 Bennett Avenue, Roosevelt, New York, RAHEEM was approached by two or three unidentified white males in plaincloflzles who asked his name, announced that he was-being placed under srrest for robbing an unidentified person at lmifcpoint on' April 26, 2005, physically and painfiflly restrained and hsndeuried RAHEEM against his will and placed liim under arrest without a warrant on A witiiout probable esnse in violation of well established etlneel and professional standards relating to their employment in Law enforcement and rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth. Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, prii/iiegcs and imml-inities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 43. On information and belief, these two or three males were ANDIOR DETECIIVBS employed, trained and supervised by defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, 6 -- t1_ A Case .Doc:ument1-E Filed 05/2506 Page 9 di 89 PagelD'i-t': 53- COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., msn, DET. LT and OFFICE. 44, Despite RAH.EEM's repeated protests, these unidentified OFFICERS ANDIOR DETECTIVES and other unidentified employees andfor agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTNIENT, COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. and OFFICE, continued to physically and painfully restrain, arrest and handcuff without a nrarrant and without probable cause; unlawfully confined, detained and questioned RAHEEM against his will in an unmarked police vehicle and transported him to so unidentified police precinct in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and ., Fourteenth Laroendmeots of the Us. Constitution and various rights, privileges sod immunities guaranteed under the constitution and lawsof the state of New York. 45. On or about May 27,2005 at the unidentified precinct and against his will, RAHEEM was again painfully restrained, detained and interrogated by unidentified OFFICERS ANDIOR DETECITVES and other unidentified-J employees andIor- agents of defendants COUNTY. FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT. and OFFICE, without a warrant and without probable cause from approximately 8PM on May 27, 2005 until 6AM on May 28, 2005 in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and rights, privileges and 'guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifih, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments" of the US. Constitution and various rights, I privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 46; from approximately 8PM on May 27, 2005 to approximately 6AM on May 28, 2005 during said unlawful detention and interrogation, RAHEEM was illegally handcuffed and physically and painfully restrained in an attempt to prevent any exercise of his liberty by said unidentified'OFFICERS DETECTIVES and other unidentified employees and/or" agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, co1vEd1ss1oNER, FIRST: . . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT. and OFFICE, without a and nfitliout prebabld cause in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifih, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York'. - A - all A -- Case Document 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 10 of 89 PagelD 54 47. From approximately 8PM on May 27, 2005 to approximately 6AM on May 28, 2005 during said un1awl'ul detention and interrogation, unidentified OFFICERS osraclrvas and other nnidentificd employees and/or agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEF. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT. and DA repeatedly threatened that they would ensure that he -would be sentenced to a term of no less than 25 years - to life inan upstate maximum security prison facility if he did not confess to the crime of Robbery in the First Degree, a violent felony which in fact carries a maximum sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment; thereby placing RAHBEM in fear for his life and welfare and causing him fear, anxiety, panic and other emotional harm. in violation of well esteblishell ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Eifth, Sixth' and Fourteerlth Amendments .of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws oi' the state of New York.- 48. From approximately 8PM on May 27, 2005 to approximately 6AM on:M_Lay 28, 2005, unidentified OFFICERS and other unidentified employees and/or agents of defendants COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, IQEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. CHIEF, CHIEF CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT. and DA repeatedly threatened RAI-IEEM with physical harm and 25 years to life incarceration and denied RAHEEM access to his family, thereby placing him in fear for his life and welfare and cansing him fear, anxiety, panic and other emotional harm violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifih, soul: and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, -privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 49. From approximately 8PM on May 27, 20-05 to approximately 6AM on May 28, 2005 during said illegal detention and interrogation the unidentified OFFICERS other unidentified employees of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEF. CHIEF DET., LT. and DA and other urlidentified employees and/or agenls of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, DA repeatedly insisted that RAHEEM was a gang member, that they had conclusive proof that RAI-IEEM had committed the crime of Robbery in the First Degree on April 26, 2005 while robbing the victim at knifcpoint and continually threatened RAHEEM with physical harm and 25 years to life incarceration if he did not confess to the crime of Robbery in the First Degree, a violenrfelony which in fact carries a maximum sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment -. an A Case Document 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 11 of 89 PageID:$: 55 thereby placing RAI-IEEM in fear for his life and welfare and causing him. fear, anxiety, panic and other emotional harm in -violation of well established_eth1'cal and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution and Various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 50. From approximately 8PM on May 27, 2005 to approximately 6AM on May 23, 2005 during said illegal detention and interrogation, repeatedly denied any such 'gang atfiliat-ion, continually asserted his innocence and despite numerous requests was denied "any. opportunity to contact his family by unidentified OFFICERS DETECTIVES, other unidentified employees of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, DET., DEP. CHIEF oar, msn, DET. LT., DA and other unidentified employees andfor agents of defendants COUNTY, and DA thereby placing RAHEEM in fear for his life and welfare and causing lrim fear, anxiety, panic and other emotional in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, 'Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 51, Despite repeated requests, from ap'proximately'8PM on May 27, 2005 to approximately 6AM on May 23, 2005 during said illegal and unlawful detention anduinterrogation, unidentified OFFICERS DETECTTVES, other unidentified employees of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMIVIISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET. LT., mend other unidentified employees artdxor agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT and DA denied RAI-IIEIHEZM his lawful right to legal assistance thereby placing'RAHEEM in fear for his life and welfare and causing him fear, anxiety, panic and other emotional harm in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employrnent in law enforcement and rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and inununitiesuguaranteed under the and laws of the state of New York . 52. Defendants COUNTY, nsraunrsm, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., I DEP. CHIEF DET., INSR, DET. LT. and DA knew or should have known that said unidentified . OFFICERS other unidentified employees andlor agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY 9 A A in A A A Case Document 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 12 of 89 PagelD .56 COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, cams, CHIEF oar, DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., DA and other unidentified employees and/or agents of defendants COUNTY, and DA had unlawfully placed IIAHEEM under arrest without a warrant and without probable cause and that during said illegal and unlawful detention and interrogation were acting unlawfully and in violation of well established ethical and professions: relating to their employment in law enforcement and I tights, pn'viIeges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fiflh, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. - 53. Despite the fact that defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., oar. LT. and DA hnew or should have known that their agents .. andfor employees were acting unlawfully, they failed to take any action to prevent or deter said unlawful conduct in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their einployment in law enforcement and rights, privileges and inuriunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and . Fourteenth Amendments of the US. Constitution and various rights, privileges and irnmunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. I I 54. On or about May 28, 2005. at approximately HAM, RAHIEEM was arraimxed in the Nassau County Court and falsely charged by defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, OFFICE, DA, A.D.A. LAMPERT and other unidentified employees sndior agents of defendants COUNTY and/or DEPARTMENT and/or DA via a Felony Complaint withthe crime of Robbery in the First Degree in violation of New York State Penal Section a violent felony which carries a maximum sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.s. Constitution and various rights, priivileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of Near York. (See Exhibit 2). . - - I 55. The Felony Complaint upon which RAHEEM was arraigned and falsely charged resulted from intentional, malicious and/or reckless actions and activities supervised, conducted andfor condoned by defendants COUNTY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMIS SIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. our, ms1=., oar. LT., and in and unidentified employees and/or agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, DET., DEP. DET., DET. LT., OFFICE and DA and clearly identifies the crime date and time as "April 26, 2005 at about 10 r- I A A A A Case Document 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 13 of 89 Pa.ge|D 57 56. Said Felony Complaint-w'as ptepsted and/or witnessed by defendants DET. BARBIERI and PD. ANNARUMMA and other unidentified employees andlor agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY colt}llttISsIoNER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF lNsP., DET. LT., OFFICE under the 'direction and supervision of defendants COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., DA, signed-under penalty of perjury by P.o. and clearly identifies the crime date and time as "April 26, 2005 at about 57. On or about May 28, 2005 at 11AM, at the Specific request of defendants COUNTY, I OFFICERS DETECTIVES, other unidentified employees of defendants COUNTY, - COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY CDMMISSIDNER, DEPUTY - COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE, DA, A.D.A. LAMPERT _and other unidentified employees and/or agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT and OFFICE, RAHEEM was held against his will on $150,000.00 bail following and unlawfully detained in the Nassau County Correctional in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and rights, pt-ivileges and immtmities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 53. Defendants COUNTY, I DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUIY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., OFFICE, DA, A.D.A. LAMPERT and other unidentified employees and/or agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT and OFFICE intentionally requested excessive bail in order to ensure RAHEEM would be denied rights, end guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges end immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the State of New York. - 5 9. Following seid arraignment on or about 'May 28, 2005 at 11AM, at the specific request of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, OFFICERS ANDIOR DETECTIVES, other . unidentified employees of defendunts COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., OFFICE, DA, A.D.A. LAMPERT and other unidentified employees andfor agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT and OFFICE, RAI-IEEM was placed in the custody of defendants SHERIFF, CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, DEPUTY 11 Case Document 1-6 Filed Page 14 of 89 Pageili) 58 SHERIFFS, JOHN AND JANE Doss 31-45 SUPERVISORS and unlawfully incarcerated in the COUNTY JAIL in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fish, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Us. constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 60. From May 28, 2005 until his release on September 29, 2005 RAHEEM was incarcerated in the COUNTY JAIL which is used to house dangerous and violent criminals charged with violent felonies such as murder, armed robbery, rape and assault and dangerous and violent federal prisoners charged with violent federal crimes such as murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, assault and terrorism; causing RAI-IEENPS MOTHER, INFANT SON, BROTHER and to experience emotional distress, anxiety and fear for life, welfare and physical and emotional safety in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and rights, privileges -and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, stall, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments ofthe US. Constitution and various rights, privileges and guaranteed under the constitution and laws ofthe state ofNew York. 61. On or about June I, 2005 RAHEEM obtained defense edunsel. 62. On or about June. 1, 20305 defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE and DA provided RAHEEM's defense counsel with a copy 'of said Felony Complaint and official criminal history printout. Said NYSID printout also reflects a crime date of April 26, 2006; (See Exhibit 3 53. Defendants COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY colvl;~l1ssIol~lER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF oar. DET. LT., OFFICE and DA are/were solely responsible roll the information reflectedin said Felony printout. 64. Prior to RAHEEIWS arrest, alleged co--defendant Naquarn Hughlett was detained and interrogated by employees and/or agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE and DA and specifically questioned about RAHEEM's alleged involvement in the 47 crime. 55. During detention and intorrogsnon,HUoH1.sTr repeatedly asserted to agents arldfor employees of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, Daron' COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, 12 A A A A Case Document 1~6 Fileid 05/25/06 Page 15 of 89 Pagt-3iD 59 CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET. LT., OFFICE and DA that had no involvement in and was not present during the commission of the charged. 66. Despite repeated assertions that RAHEEM had no involvement in and was not present during the commission of the crir'ne(s) charged, unidentified agents and/or employees of defendants COUNTY, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., DA refilsed to investigate, 'preserve or provide to R.AHEEM's defense counsel any such exculpatory information in violation of Bmafvv. Maryltind. well established ethical and professional standards relating tothetr employment in law enforcement and various rights, -privileges and guaranteed by First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,' Eighth and Fourteenth Amendrnents of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York.' . I 57. Despite repeated assertions had no involvementvin and was not present during the commission of the crime(s) charged, unidentified agents andfor employees of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., ohr. LT., OFFICE and DA rethsed to investigate, preserve or provide to the court any-such exculpatory information in violation of Brady v. Maryland and in violation of well established ethical and professional standards' relating to their employment in law enforcement and rights, privileges and imtnunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment? of the US- Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state or New _York. I . . 63. Defendants COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., SI-IERIFF, OFFICE and on knew that HUGHLETT had repeatedly asserted to agents ahdror employees of said defendants that RAHEEM had no involvement in and was not present during the cormnission of the criine(s) charged and that the actual date of the incident in question was in fast March 25, 2005 and not April 25, 2005 as alleged in the Felony Complaint filed with the court. However, this exculpatory information was not provided to RAHEEM's counsel in violation of Bro-I132 v. Maryland and 1 A in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and variods rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 1 Brady Maryland, 373 US. as (1963). pm - Fx A -- Case Docurine-nt 1-6 Filed Page 16 of 89 P_agelD 60 69. Defendants COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMIVIISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., SHERIFF, and DA knew that bad repeatedly asserted to agents andlor employees of said defendants that RAI-IEEM had no involvement in and was not present during the commission of the ct-ime(s) charged and that the actual date of the incident in question was in fact.March 26, 2005 and not April 26, 2005 as alleged in the Felony Complaint filed with the court. However, this exculpatory information was not provided to the court in violation of Brady in Maryland and in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and inimtmities guaranteed by the First, Fourth,'Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities' guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New_Yorir. 70. Throughout arrest and prosecution, unidentified agents andfor employees of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTIMENT, COLIMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CI-IEEF DET., om. CHIEF DET., DET. LT.-, OFFICE and DA refused to allots to plea bargain his criminal. charge unless to implicate RAHBEM in the commission of the crime(s) charged." 71. refused to -give any such false statement. 72. On er about June 9, 2005 during a conference with A.D.A. HIGGINS, defense counsel inquired as to the specific facts of the criminal charges filed against RAHEEM as specified in the COMPLAINT by agents and/or employees -of defendants COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COIVIMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE and I DA. 73. A.D.A. HIGGINS is a senior PROSECUTOR ANDIOR SUFERVISOR personally selected for employmentby defendant DA and employed by defendants COUNTY, OFFICE and DA, while under the direct supervision of defendant DA had the 'ability to influence final government policy and was assigned by defendant DA to investigate and prosecute criminal case. 74. As a senior employee and/or agent of defendants COUNTY. OFFICE and DA, A.D A. HIGGINS had the ability tO'dBtB1'l1'lIl'I6 the final disposition of all cases assigned. 75. On or about June 2005 during said conference A.D.A. HIGGINS informed RAHEEM's defense counsel that RAI-IEEM, acting in concert with alleged co-defendants Lorenzo Miller and a third co-defendant had robbed the victim at lcnifepoint on -April 26, 2005 at approximately I - 14 A. in A Fl . Case Document 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 17 of 89_Page|D #1 61 . 76.' on or about June 9, 2005 during said conference, _AD.ite HIGGINS informed RAI-IEEM's defense counsel theta knife hadbeenrecovered followingthe crime. 77,. on or about June 9, 2005 during said conference HIGGINS inroimed RAHEEM's defense counsel that MILLER had been arrested on or oboirt May 31, 2005 and that a fourth defendant named "Jamel Baldwin" also had been implicated in the crime but had not yet been arrested. 78. A.D.A. HIGGINS and all PROSECUTORS SUPERVISORS employed by defendants COUNTY, omcs and DA wete personally selected for employment by Defendant DA and selectively screened, employed, trained aridusupervised by defendants COUNTY, OFFICE and DA rot nurnerous tasks -relating to their law enrotoeineot duties including but not limited to the initiation, supervision and compliance of investigations, identification, at-rest, detention, interrogation, witness preparation, Grand Jury presentation, pre-trial trial preparation and other tasks relating to the investigation, prosecution and conviction of individuals. 79.' Acting in a non-judicial and jnvestigatory function, A.D.A. HIGGINS and all PROSECUTORS ANDIOR SUPERVISORS employed by defendants COUNTY, OFFICE and DA routinely initiate end supervise investigations during which they control and direct the actions of OFFICERS ANDIOR DETECTIVES and other agents and/or employees of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER. FIRST A DEPUTY DEPUTY COMIMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET.., DET. LT., OFFICE and DA. 80. Acting in a and investigatoiy function, A.D.A. HIGGINS and/or other PROSECUTORS ANIDIOR SUPERVISORS were involved in the supervision of key aspects of investigations relating to the crime for which RAHEEM was charged, during which time A.D.A. HIGGINS and/oi SUPERVISORS enipioyed by defendants COUNTY, OFFICE and' DA acting in a non-judicial and investigatoiy function controlled and directed the' actions of defendant' OFFICERS DETECTIVES and other 'agents _and/or employees of 'defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, comnssionss, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. OFFICE and DA. 31. At no time during said conference on June 9, 2005 did A.D.A. HIGGINS in.-ionn the court that the oi-it-he date for which RAHEEM had been arrested, 'charged, arraigned and imprisoned was any date other than April 26,2005. 82. At -no time during said conference on June 9, 2005 did A.D.A. HIGGINS inform. counsel that the crime date for which RAHEEM had been arrested, charged, arraigned and imprisoned was any date other than April 26, 2005. 15 It A A . -x Case Document l~6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 18 of 89 Page|D 62 33. Prior to June 9, does, defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENF, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., SHERIFF, Dies OFFICE DA and ADA. I HIGGINS and other agents andfor employees of said defendants knew that the actual crime date was in fact_._March 25, zoos and not April 26, zoos and that RAI-IEEM had no involvement with the crime in question but failed to inform the court of these exculpatory facts in violation of Brady' v. Maryland and in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and immunities by the First, Fourth, Fiflh, Sixth, Eighth and 'Fotuteenth'"Amendn1ents of the US, Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state ofNew York. . 34. Prior to June 9, 2005, defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., SHERIFF, OFFICE DA and A.D.A. HIGGINS and other agents andlor employees of said defendants knew that the actual crime date was in fact March 26, 2005 and not April' 26, 2005 and that RAHEEM had no involvement_ with the crime in question but failed to inform counsel of these exculpatory facts in violation of Brady v. and 'in violation of well established ethical and' professional standards relating to their enrployment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifih, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments ofvthe Constitution and various rights, privilegesand immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 35. Defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE, DA and ADA HIGGINS andlor other PROSECUTORS SUPERVISORS, OFFICERS DETECIIVES and other agents and/or employees of said defendants thereby intentionally, maliciously and/or recklessly misled the court, violated right to due' process and attempted to deny RAHEEM his lawful right to legal assistance in violation of Brady v. Maryland and in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' of the U-.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. I so. Defendants COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DEP. CHIEF DBT., INSP., DET. SHERIFF, OFFICE, DA and A.D.A. HIGGINS and/or other 16 A -5 Case Document 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 19 of 63 PROSECUTORS ANDIOR SUPERVISORS, OFFICERS DETECTIVES and other agents and/or employees of said defendants thereby intentionally, maliciously andfor recklessly misled defense counsel. in an attempt to prevent counsel fiom adequately preparing a defense for RAI-IEEM, thereby violating right to due process and attempting to deny RAHEEM his lawfill right to legal assistance in violation of Brady Maryland and in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcernent and various rights, privileges and giisiantoeti by the First, Fourth. Fish, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 87. Defendants COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., 1NSP., DET. SHERIFF, and DA knew or should have known that. said agents and/or employees of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., -DET. LT., SHERIFF, OFFICE and -DA and other unidentified employees andfor agents of defendants. COUNTY, DEPARTMENT and DA were intentionally, maliciously and/or recklessly misleading the court in an to prevent counsel from adequately I preparing a defense for RAHEEM, thereby violating right to due process and attempting to deny RAHBEM his lawful right to legal assistance in violation of at-soy V. Maryland and in violation of well established ethiml and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various and guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York; however they failed to take any action to prevent or remedy said unlawfulhconduct. i 33. Defendants COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMIVIISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF Dsr.,lNsF., DET. LT., SI-IERJFF, and DA knew or should have known that said agents and/or employees of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET-., DEP. CHIEF DET. Lr., SHERIFF, olsiircli and DA and other unidentified 'employees and/or agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT and DA were intentionally, maliciously 'and/or recklessly misleading defense counsel in an attempt to prevent counsel fi'om adequately preparing a defense for RAI-IEEM, thereby violating right to due process and attempting to deny RAHEEM his lawful right to legal assistance in violation of Brady v. Maryland 17 Pt A A 9' *5 Case Document 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 20 of 89 Pagelf) 64 and in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and guaranteed by tltesnst, Eouttlt, Fifth, sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution and various rights, privileges and inuntmities guaranteed under the constitution -and laws of the state of New York; however they failed to take any action to prevent or remedy said unlawful conduct. 89. Following arrest, RAHEI-3M's alleged co-defendant Lorenzo Miller was detained and interrogated by employees and/or agents of Defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY . COMIVIISSIONER, DEPUTY. -COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE and DA and specifically questioned about involvement in the crime. 90. During detention and inten-ogation, MILLER repeatedly asserted to employees of defendants COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., OFFICE and DA that RAI-IEEM had no involvement in and was not present during the commission of the crirno(s) charged. 91. Despite repeated that RAI-IEEM had no involvement in and was not present during the cornrnission of the crime(s) charged, defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., OFFICE and DA refused to investigate, preserve or provide to the court any such exculpatory information in violation . of Brady 12. Maryland and in violation of well established ethical and professions] standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and inlmunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and guaranteed under the eonstitntion and laws of the state of New York. 92. Despite repeated assertions that RAI-IEEM had no involvement in and was not present during the commission of the orime(s) charged, Defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., OFFICE and DA refused to investigate, preserve .or providoto RAHEEM's defense counsel any such exculpatory I tnronnatlnn in violation otsrady v. Maryland and tn violation or niell established ethical and professional standards relating to their ernploymerlt in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of -New York. I- Pt on -5 case 1-6 Filed 05/25105 Page 21 of so Pagezo as 93. Subsequent to of counsel and throughout prosecution, defendants COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DBT., DEP. DET., 1NSP., DET. LT., OFFICE and DA refiised to allow MILLER to plea bargain his criminal charge unless MILLER agreed to implicate RAHEEM in the commission of the crime(s) charged. 94. MILLER refused to give any such statement. I 95. Defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, OFFICE, DA and A.D.A. HIGGINS were awme of the fact that MILLER had repeatedly asserted to agents and/or employees of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CI-IIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., OFFICE and DA that had no involvement in and was not present during the - commission of the erirne(s) charged. However, this exculpatory information was not provided to the court in violation of Brady v. Maryland and in violationof well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. I I I . 9o. Defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, omen, DA and A.D.A. HIGGINS were aware of the fact that co-defendant MILLER had repeatedly asserted to agents and/or employees of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COIVIIVIISSIONIEIR, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., -DET. LT., OFFICE and DA that RAHEEM had no involvement in and was not present during the commission of the crime(s) charged. However, this exculpatory information was not provided to RAHEE-2M's counsel in violation of Brad); v. Maryland and in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcenient and various rights, privileges and humanities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. I I "97. Prior to said conference with defense on June 9, 2005, defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. SHERIFF, A.D.A. LAMPERT, LEMMA, DET. HOLLAND, DET. MESSE, LT. BARBIERI. P.O. ANNARUIVIMA, JOHN ANDOJANB DOES l-60, OFFICE, DA_and A.D.A. HIGGINS knew that the actual date ofthe alleged crime was March 26, 2005 and not April 26, 2005 as falsely represented. 19 AI Case -Document 1-6 Filed 0525/06 Page 22 of 89 PageiD'#: 56 by defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMNIISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COIVIMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., SHERIFF, OFFICE, DA and other unidentified employees andlor agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT and OFFICE in the Felony Complaint filed with the court. However, this exculpatory information was not provided to the court in violation of Brady v. Maryland! and in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US. constitution and visions rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 98. . Prior to said conference defense counsel on June 9, 2005, defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, CONIMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, DET., CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE, DA and A.D.A. LAMPERT knew that the actual date of the alleged crime was March 26, 2005 and not April 26, 2005 as falsely represented by defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER. FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., OFFICE, DA - and other unidentified employees and/or agents of defendants coUN'rv, DEPARTMENT and OFFICE in the Felony Complaint filed with the court. However, this exculpatory information was not provided to RAI-1EEM's counsel in violation of Brady v. Meiyiomi and in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and irnrnunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth - Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 99. By filing and maintaining said false and erroneous Felony Complaint with the court while lknowing or having reason to know that the actual date of the alleged crime was March 26, 2005 and not April 26, 2005 as represented by defendants COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., OFFICE, DA A.D.A. LAMIPERT and other unidentified employees and/or agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT and OFFICE defendants DET. LEMMA. DET. HOLLAND, DET. P. o. ANNARUMMA, . A.D.A. LAMPERT and A.D.A. HIGGINS committed perjury in violation of various sections of the Penal Law of the state of New York and to well established" ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement. -- 20 A ,1 1% an' Case Document 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 23 of 89'Page!D 67 .100. Defendants. COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., SHERIFF, OFFICE, DA, LAMPERT, A.D.A. and other unidentified employees and/oinagents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF and OFFICE thereby subomed, aided and abetted in the comrnission of said perjury and intentionally, maliciously andfor recklessly assisted' in the prosecution of an innocent in violation of Brady v. Maryland and in violation of well' established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and'FouIteenth Amendments oftlre U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and imrnunities under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 101. These intentional, malicious' andfor reckless actions were specifically designed to prevent RAHEEM and RAHEEM's defense counsel fiorn preparing -an adequate defense and to secure an unjust and tmtawtui prosecution and conviction in violation of Brady v. Maryland and in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Eomth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth ntmendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 102. Defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DEP. DET., INSP., DET. LT., SHERIFF and DA knew or should have known that that their agents and/or employees were intentionally, maliciously and/or recklessly committing perjury and intentionally, maliciously and/or recklessly assisting in the prosecution of an innocent person in violation of Brady v. Maryland and in violation of well established ethical and professional Standards relating to their employment in law enfordement and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifih, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York; however they failed to take action to prevent or deter Said unlawful conduct. 103. Snot to RAKE-1EM's uulawfiil arrest and prosecution, defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DEP. CHIEF DET. A LT., SHERIFF, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-60, OFFICE, DA and their respective agents and/or ernpioyees created and/or tolerated a long standing policy or custom of deliberate indifference to the civil rights of minorities evidenced by the fact that they have repeatedly failed to adequately discipline their respective agents andfor employeesvfor' perjury and/or for assisting in the prosecution of innocent persons . S21 :5 Case Document Filed 05/25/06 Page 24 Of 89 Page|D '68 and have failed to adequately train' and supervise their respective agents and/or employees to that they are truthful and do not allow,-. condone or assist in the prosecution of innocent persons in -violation of . Brady v. Maryland and in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and inmnmities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth of the U.S. Constitution-and various rights, privileges and inummities under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 104. Prior to unlawful arrest and prosecution, defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 'Asst'. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. - LT., SHERIFF, JOHN AND JANE DOES I-60, OFFICE, DA and their respective agents ontrot employees had numerous state and federal civil rights suits filed against them for said long standing .. policy and custom of deliberate indifference; for their repeated fitilurc to adequately discipline their respective agents/employees for perjury andior for assisting in the prosecution of innocent persons; and their repeated failure to adequately train and supervise their respective to assure that they are truthful. and do not allow, condone or assistin the prosecution of innocent persons in violation of Brady v. Maryland and in' violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their I "employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and ilnmunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the us. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 105. Prior to R.AHEEM's unlawful arrest and prosecution. defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, Assr. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-so, OFFICE, DA and their respective agents/employees settled numerous civil rights lawsutfi arising from their long standing policy and custom of deliberate indifl':'erencc; for their repeated failure to adequately discipline their respective "agents/employees for perjury and/or for assisting in the prosecution of innocent persons; and their repented failure to adequately train and supervise their respective agents/employees to assure that they are truthfitl and do not allow, condone or assist in the prosecution of innocent persons. 106. Prior to RAI-IEEM's unlawful a.nest- and prosecution defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST A COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., SHERIFF, JOHN AND JANE DOES mo, OFFICE and DA knew to tnoral that their agents andfor employees would confront situations (such as the instant case) where being untruthfitl would result in lmlawfully depriving individuals of their civil liberties and violate rights, privileges and 22' Case Document 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 25 of 89 Pagel-D #2 69 ilrununities guaranteed by the Us. Constitution in violation of well established ethical end professional standards relating to their employment in law enforceinent and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by' the First, Fourth, Fiftln, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US. Constitution and various rights, privileges and in1nmniti_es.guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York; however they failed to adequately train and supervise their respective agents/ernployees to I . assure that. they are truthfill and do not allow, condone or assist in the prosecution of innocent persons. 10?. Defendants DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP, CHIEF DET. LT., JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-60, mos OFFICE and DA knew or had reason to know that their sgents andlor employees had a history of being untruthful and depriving individuals of their civil liberties and violating rights, privileges and inununities e. guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various lights, privileges and ilnmunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various - rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York; however they failed to adequately train and supervise their respective agents/employees to assure that would be truthful and did not allow, condone or assist in the prosecution of innocent persons. 108. Defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., SHERIFF, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-60, and DA knew or should have known that the wrong choice by their agents andlor employees with regard to being truthful would result in unlawfully depriving individuals of their civil liberties and violate rights, privileges and immunities by the 11.8. Constitution in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and iznrnunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York; however they failed to adequately train and supervise their respective . agents/employees to assure that they would be and would not allow, condone or assist in the prosecution of irmocent persons. 109. on or about June 9, 2005 during said eonreten?e with A.D.A. HIGGINS, RAHEEM's defense counsel informed A.D.A. HIGGINS that following a conference with family, counsel had learned that on April 26, 2005 item approximately 4PM until IOPM (the date and time' defendants coumv, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF. cuter DEP. CHIEF DET., 23 A fl'\ :5 1% Case Document 16 Filed 05/25/06 Page 26 of 89 PageiD INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE, DA and HIGGINS had.represe.:nted and continued to maintain - to both the court and to RAI-IEEM's counsel the alleged crime had occuired), RAI-IEEM was at the home of his fiancee for a family gathering, and that both RAHEEM's FIANCEE and her mother were with RA1-IEEM at that dstesnd time. 110. On or about June 9, 2005 during said conference with A.D.A. HIGGINS, RAHEEM's counsel provided A.D.A. HIGGINS with the name, address and telephone numbers or both RAI-IEEM's FIANCEE and her mother and was assured that acting in a non-judicial and function, A.D.A. HIGGINS would conduct and supervise an investigation to confirm this April 26, 2005 alibi information as soon as possible. 111. On or about June 28, 2005 counsel was informed by A.D.A. HIGGINS that under me direction and supervision of defendants OFFICE, DA and A.D.A. HIGGINS, agents andfor employees of defendants COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMIVHSSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. OFFICE and DA were actively in the process of investigating the previously slqziplied April 26, 2005 alibi information and that currently no plea offer or further information was available for defense counsel. - -- 112. On or about June 28, 2005, during said 'conference A.D.A. HIGGINS advised RAI-IEEM's counsel that" based on a furtlier investigation conducted underthe direction and supervision "of defendants OFFICE, DA and ADA. HIGGINS, and in conjunction with other agents and/or employees of defendants DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., OFFICE and DA, the original assertion by defendants CDUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY i coMn_dIssIoNEIz, DEPUTY ASST. coIvIMIssIoNEIts, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT-., OFFICE, DA and HIGGINS that possessedn knife "during the commission ofthe crime on April 26, 2005 was erroneous. i 113. A.D.A. HIGGINS then advised RAHEEM's "counsel that the previously arrested i HUGHLETT (and not KAI-IEEM as originally claimed) had possessed a knife during the commission of the crime and that the origins! assertion by defendants COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY ASST. CHIEF, CHIEF DEP. DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE, DA and ADA. HIGGINS that a_ fourth defendant named "Jamel Baldwin" had been implicated in the crime was also erroneous. 114. On or about July 13, 2005 during a conference wifo A.D.A. counsel inquired if any decision had been made regarding the April 26,2005 alibi information previously 24 Case Document 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 27~of 89 Page!D 7'1 provided to the DA's otnoe. Counsel wasinronnod by A.D.A. MADEY that A.D.A. HIGGINS was on - . vacation and therefore unavailable and that there was "no offer or further information at this time." 115. ADA. MADEY is a 'senior PROSECUTOR SUPERVISOR personally I selected for employment by defendant DA, employed by Defendants COUNTY, OFFICE and DA, under the direct supervision of defendant DA, with the ability to influence final government policy and was assigned bv defendant DA to investigate and prosecute criminal case. I us. As a senior employee and./or agent of defendants coumv, OFFICE and DA A.D.A.- MADEY had the ability to deterniine the final disposition of all cases assigned. 117. A.D.A. MADEY and all PROSECUTORS SUPERVISORS employed by defendants COUNTY, oars OFFICE and DA were selectively screened, employed, trained and supervised by defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, OFFICE and DA for numerous tasks - relating to their law enforcement duties including but not limited to the initiation, supervision and compliance of investigations, identification, arrest, detention, interrogation, witness preparation, Grand Jury presentation, pre-trial hearings, trial preparation and other taslm relating to the investigation, prosecution and conviction of individuals. 118. Acting in a non-judicial and _iuvestigatory function, A.D.A. MADEY and all Fnosscuross SUFERVISORS employed by defendants COUNTY, OFFICE and DA routinely initiate and supervise investigations during which they control and direct the actions of OFFICERS DETECTIVES and other employees andfor agents of defendants COUNTY and/or and/or COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY- COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DEF. CHIEF DET., DET. Lr., OFFICE and DA. - i i 119.. On or about July 15, 2005 under the direction and supervision of defendants FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CI-IIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. 1:11, OFFICE, DA and ADA. HIGGINS, entpinyees and/or agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP, DET. LT., OFFICE and DA interviewed and took statements firom 's FIANCBE and her mother at their hoine, thereby confirming whereabouts on April 26, 2005. 120. During said interview on on about July 15, 2005 defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DBT., DEP. CHIEF DET. LT., OFFICE and DA confirmed the fact that on Anni 26, 2005 from approximately SPM to 10PM (at the date and time 25 A A A 1% Document 1-5 Filed 05/25/05 Page 28 of 89 PagelD 72 ;9 PK 'Case defendants COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, Emsr DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY -COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF. DET., INS-P., DET. LT., OFFICE and DA represented end continued to maintain to both the court and to .RAI-IEEM's counsel the crime had occurred), RAHEEM was with FIANCEE and her . mother at their home for a family gathering.' 121. On or about July 26, 2005 having receivedflno plea offer or any fi'om defendants COUNTY, DEPAEIMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, am DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., DA or A.D.A. HIGGINS or A.D.A. MADEY, RAHEEM's counsel waived RAI-IEEM's case to the Nassau County Grand Jury. I 122. Despite repeated requests for information, from June 28_, 2005 to August 15, 2005 - defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEF. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. .LT., ounce and DA refirsed to provide exculpatory information in their possession to the court in violation of Braciv v. Maryland and in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of' the U.S. Constitution and various rights. privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 123. Despite repeated requests for infonnation, from June 28, 2005 to August 15, 2005 defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY I DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. -COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., Discs and DA refused to provide exculpatory information in their possession to RAHEEM's counsel in violation of Brady v. Maryland and in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their einployment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and irnmuuities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.s. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. I 124. on or about August 15, 2005 RAI-IEEM's counsel was informed by A.D.A. HIGGINS that defendants COUNTY, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., CHIEF DET., I DET. LT., omen, DA and A.D.A. HIGGINS had completed their investigation regarding the April 26, 2005 alibi information previously provided by counsel but that "it no longer mattered" due to the fact that the crime date listed on the Felony Complaint prepared by and for defendants '26 A A A A A A Case Document 16 Filed 05/25/06 Page 29 Of 89 7'3 DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE and DH and filed with flte court "was wrong" and that the actual ctime date was in fact March 26, 2005. . - I25. On or about August 15, 2005 RAHEEM's counsel requested that 'defendants COUNTY, DEPARIMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET. LT., OFFICE, DA and ADA. HIGGINS provide both the court and counsel with amended documentation reneettng this "new" crime date of March 26, 2005 and was informed by A.D.A. HIGGINS that no such paperwork would be provided by defendants COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., OFFICE, DA and HIGGINS in violation of Brady v. Maryland and in violation of well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fitth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth nrnendrnents ofthe US. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the State of New York. 126. to August 15; 2005 defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEF. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE, DA and A.D.A. HIGGINS 1-mew that the crime date was in fact March 26, 2005 and not April 26, 2005 as Stated in the Felony Complaint upon which RAI-IEEM was.arraigTIed on May 23, 2005 and which was filed with the court but A failed to notify the court in violation of Brady v. Maryland and in violation of well established ethical and professional Standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth,'Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution' and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of - the State of New York. 127. Prior to August 15,2005 defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER. FIRST DEPUTY COMMIS SIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE, DA and_A.D.A. HIGGINS knew that the actual orhne date was in fact March 26, 2005 and not Imps-II 26, 2005 as stated in the Felony I Complaint upon' which RAHEEM was arraigtaed On May 28, 2005 and which was filed with the court but failed to notify RAHEEIWS counsel in violation ofBraafy v. Maryland and in violation of. well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement-and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourtneenth 27 7R- Filed 05/25/06 Page 30 of 89 Pagr-31D 74 Amendments of the US. Constitution andvarious rights, privileges andinlmunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. I 128. On or about August 15, 2005 counsel contacted RAHEEIVPS family to determine his whereatiolits on lvisten 26, 2005. - I 129. On ot about August 17,' 2005 RAHEEM's counsel received a fax from the Chief of the A Felony Screening Bureau for defendants COUNTY, OFFICE and DA stating that the matter would he presented to the Nassau County Grand Jury on August 24, 2005 by defendants (See Exhihit4). 130. a senior PROSBCUTOR moron SUPERVISOR personally selected by defendant DA, employed by Defendants COUNTY, OFFICE and DA, under the diteet of defendant DA'and with the ability to influence final government policy and direct access to - defendant DA. 131. As Chief of the Felony Screening Bltreau rot defendants COUNTY, Dais OFFICE and DA, A.D.A. and all PROSECUTORS nun/on SUPERVISORS employed by defendants COUNTY, OFFICE end on were selectively sot-eened, employed, trained and supervised by defendants COUNTY and/or andlor DABS OFFICE and BA for numerous tasks relating I to their law enforcement duties including but not limited to the initiation, supervision and compliance of investigations, identification, arrest, detention, interrogation, wfiness preparation, Grand Jury presentation, pro-trial hearings, trial preparation and other tasks relating to the injvestigation, prosecution and conviction of individuals. I 132. Acting in a non-judicial and investigatory A.D.A. and en PROSECUTORS SUPERVISORS employed by defendants COUNTY, OFFICE and DA routinely initiate and supervise investigations during which they control and direct the actions of OFFICERS ANDXOR DETECT IVES and other employees andfor agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY I COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE and DA. I33. Acting in a non-judicial and investigatory function A.D.A. MCCARTHY was involved in the supervision of key aspects of investigations relating to the crime for which RAHBEM was charged, during which time A.D.A. and/or other PROSIECUTORS SUPERVISORS employed by defendants COUNTY, OFFICE and DA acting in a non-judicial and investigatory function controlled and directed the actions of Defendant OFFICERS DETECTIV ES and other employees and/or agents of defendants COUNTY, DECFARTTGIENT, COMMISSIONER, 28 Case 1:5 Filed 05/25/06 Page 31.01' 89 75 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEFUN COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHJEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. OFFICE and DA. 134. On or about August 17, 2005 RAI-IEEM's FIANCEE inrottned RAHEBM's counsel that RAI-IEEM could not have the alleged crime on 26, 2005 due to the fact that RAHEEM had been under the custody and control of defendants counw, DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF and JOHN AND JANE DOES 31.45 while detained at the Nassau county" Correctional Facility from immediately. approximately March 20, 2005 until March 31, 2005 due to a clerical R.AHEEM's counsel then asked RAJ-IEEM-'s FIANCEE to attempt to confirm the exact dates and 'contact counsel's office 135. On or about August 17, 2005 (via A.D.A. HIGGINS), RAHEEM's counsel informed defendants COUNTY, OFFICE and DA that RAHEEM. could not possibly have committed the . alleged crime on March 25, zoos due to the fact that RAHEEM had been under the custody and control of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF and JOHN AND.JANE DOES 31.45 while detained at the Nassau County Correctional Facility from approximately March 20, 2005 until March 31, "2005 due to a clerical error, that RAHEEM's was in the process of attempting to find documentary evidence to this effect and that should also confirm this information. 136. In response to said communication, on-or about Atrgust 18, 2005 RAHEBM's counsel received a fax from the Chief of the Indictment Bureau for Defendants COUNTY, OFFICE and DA instructing. RAHEEM's counsel to disregard the previously sent correspondence dated August 17, 2005. (See Exhibit' 5). . 137. As previously alleged, A.D.A. is a senior PROSECUTOR sorenvxsos personally selected by defendant DA, employed by Defendants onus OFFICE and on, under the direct supervision of defendant DA and with the ahility to influence final government policy and direct access to defendant DA. I 138. As Chief of the Indictment Bureau for defendants COUNTY, OFFICE and DA, and all PROSECUTORS SUPERVISORS employed by defendants COUNTY and DA were selectively screened, employed, trained and supervised by defendants COUNTY and/or DEPARTMENT andfor OFFICE and DA for numerous tasks relating to their law enforcement duties including but not limited to the supervision and compliance of investigation, identification; arrest, detention, witness mcpamfihn, Grand Jury presentation, pro-trial hearings, trial preparation and other tasks relating to the prosecution and conviction of individuals. 139. A.D.A. and an PROSECUTORS moron SUPERVISORS employed by defendants COUNTY, OFFICE and DA routinely supervise investigations during which they control and direct the actions of defendant OFFICERS DETECTIVES and other employees 29 flu is A A Case Document 1-6' Filed 05/2506 Page 32 of 89 Pagelli) 76 tmdior agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMNIISSIONER-, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEB. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE and 140. Acting in a non-judicial and investigatcry function A.D.A, was involved in the supervision of investigations end/or presentations relating to crime for which RAHEEM was charged, during which time A.D.A. I andfor other PROSECUTORS I SUPERVISORS employed by defendants COUNTY, OFFICE and DA controlled and directed the actions of defendant OFFICERS ANDIOR DETECTIVES and other employees and/or agents of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEF. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE and DA. .. 141. On or about August 23. 2005 RA.HEEM's counsel received a fax fi'om A.D.A. on _behalf of defendants COUNTY, and DA stating that the matter would be presented to a Nassau County Grand Jury on August 31, 2005 by Defendants OFFICE and DA. (See Exhibit 6). - 142. On or about September 8, 2005 's counsel was informed by the Nassau County Clerk's Office that RAIEEM had been indicted by 21 Nassau County Grand Jury following presentation. and testimony' by agents . and/or employees of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY -COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE and . DA. Counsel was then asked to select a date to flrraigll RAHEEM on the Indictment. 143. On or abotil: September 3, 2005 RAHEEM's counsel attempted to have RAHEEM's arraignment scheduled for September 12, 2005 but was informed by the Clerk that the week of September 12, 2005 through September 16, 2005 was "unavailable''. Therefore RAHEEM's counsel selected the next available date, September 22, 2005. 144. On or about Septetriber 8, 2005 counsel requested a copy of the -Indictment from the Nassau County Clerk and was informed that the Clerk did not have the authority to send any such copy to counsel and' that counsel should request a copy of said Indictment from the District Attorney's Office. . I45. The Nassau County Clerk is an employee andfor agent of defendant COUNTY. "On or. about September 12, 2005 counsel spoke with defendant A.D.A. HIGGINS, informed A.D.A. HIGGINS of the arraigtment date and requested a faxed copy of the Indictment. Despite the fact that A.D.A.. HIGGINS agreed to fax a copy of the Indictment to RAI-IEENAPS counsel, no such copy was ever received. 30 run pun an -H Case 2:0o--cy-o2sI0--JFs-ORE Document 1-6 Filed 05l25/06 Page 33 Of 89 PagelD 147. Said Indictment resulted from the intentional, malicious and/or reckless actions of -defendants -COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT.-, SHERIFEDET. LEMMA, DET. HOLLAND, DET. MESSE, LT. BARBIERI, no. ANNARUMMA, IOI-IN AND JANE DOES 1-so, OFFICE, DA, A.D.A.- A.D.A. HIGGINS, A.D.A. MADEY and who acting in a non-judicial function, inttionally and/or maliciously and/or recklessly provided the Nassau County Grand Jury with erroneous, misleading andfor false evidence andfor testimony in violation of applicable federal and state laws, well established ethical and professional standards relating to their enlployment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the-First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and irnmunities s. guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York.' . I 143. Defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., SHERIFF, DET. LEMMA, DET. HOLLAND, DET. MIBSSE, LT. BARBIERI, P.O. ANNARUMMA, -JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-60, OFFICE, DA, A.D.A. LAMPERT, A.D.A. HIGGINS, A.D.A. MADEY and ADA. knew or should have known they were illtjentionallyandfor maliciously and/or recklessly providing the Nassau Colmty Grand Jury en-oneous, misleading andfor false evidence and/or testimony in violation of applicable federal and . state laws, well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and-various rights, privileges and imnlunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifill, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. . 149. Despite the fact that defendants COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY. CONIMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., SHERIFF, DET. LEMMA, DET. HOLLAND, DET. MESSE, LT. BARBIERI, P.O. JOHN JANE DOES 1-60, OFFICE, A.D.A. LAMPERT, A.D.A. HIGGINS, A.D.A. MADEY and A.D.A. knew or should have 1n1o\Ivrl-tllat they were intentionally and/or nlaliciously suevor recklessly providing the Nassau County Grand Jury with erroneous, misleading and/or false evidence and'/or testimony in violation of applicable federal and state laws, well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in 3 See; 712 F.2d 757 (2d Cir. 1933). 'In 31 A A . Case Document 1-6 Filed - Page 34 of 89 Page?D 78 law enforcement and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US. Constitution and variousrights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laivs of the state of New York, they failed to take any action to prevent or said unlawfiil conduct. I i 150. on or about September 22. 2005 and prior to seitedsied alraignment, RAHEEM's counsel was informed by A.D.A. MADEY that A.D.A. rntjionis was no longer handling the case. When questioned by counsel as. to why this matter had been presented to the Nassau County Grand Jury notwithstanding the alibi" information previously provided to defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUIY COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSPL, DET. OFFICE, DA and HIGGINS, A.D.A. MADE-Y indicated that following consultation with defendant DA, the decision to present the one to the Grand Jury had been made by defendant DA and other senior members of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, DA and OFFICE with fmal policy making ability. 151. It is well lmown within the minority community counrv, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., SHERIFF, OFFICE and DA have and/or tolerated a long standing policy or custom of deliberate indifference to the civil rights of minorities, often abusing the considerable power of the Grand Jury by providing false and/or misleading information landfor testimony to secure unjust and prosecutions which serve to deprive individuals of their civil liberties and assist in covering up the misdeeds of agents and/or employees of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE, Dir and SHERIFF in violation of applicable federal and state laws, well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, 3 Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth' Amendments of the and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York; however defendants have repeatedly failed to adequately train and supervise their respective agents/employees to assure' that they would not promote or condone perjury and/or' assist in the prosecution of innocent persons. - 152. It is well known within the minority tbet. defendants COUNTY. DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST I DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET. 32 I in A A A A - Case Document 1-6 -Filed 05/2506 Page 35 of _89 Page?D 79 LT., SHERIFF, OFFICE, DA and their agents andior employees have had numerous state and federal civil rights suits filed against them for said long standing policy and custom of being deliberately indiffiment to the civil rights of minorities, often abusing the considerable power of the Grand Jury by providing false andfor misleading information andlor testimony -to secure unjust and unlawful prosecutions which serve to deprive individuals of their civil liberties and assist in covering upthe misdeeds of agentn andfor employees of defendants couurv, DEPARTMENT, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CI-DEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., nvsn, DET. L11, on and EHEEIFF in violation of -applicable federal and state laws, well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US. Constitution and various rights, t. privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York; however I said defendants have repeatedly failed to adequately train and supervise their respective agentslemployees to assure that they would not promote or condone perjury and/or assist in the prosecution of innocent persons. A I 153. It to well known that defendants couurv, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIEF, CHIEF DEF. DET. LT., OFFICE and DA have settled 'nurnerouscivil rights lawsuits arising train their long standing policy and custorn of being deliberately' indifferent to the civil rights of minorities, often abusing the considerable power of the Grand Jury by providing false and/or misleading information and/or testimony to secure unjust and unlawful prosecutions which serve to deprive individuals of their civil liberties andassist in covering up the misdeeds of agents andlor employees of Defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMIMIISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. cominssrouaas, CHIEF, I CHIEF DEP. CHIEF DET., DET. LT., OFFICE, DA and SHERIFF in violation of applicable -federal and state laws, well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employmentin law enforcement and various rights, privileges and irnmunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S.- Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed_undt_er the constitution and laws of the state of New York; however defendants have repeatedly failed to adequately train and supervise their respective agents/employees to - assure that they would not promote or condone perjury and/or assistuin the prosecution of innocent persons. 154. Defendants COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY -COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., 33 r- all A A A A Case DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. SHERIFF, OFFICE and DA knew to a moral certainty that their agents and/or employees wouldyconfront situafions such'as_the instant case when-. abusing the considerable power of the Grand July and providing false and/or misleading information andlor testimony "would result in unlawfiilly depriving individuals of their.civil' liberties and facilitate covering up the misdeeds of agents of defendants COUNTY, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. OFFICE, Dr'; and SHERIFF in violation of applicable federal and state laws, well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law and various rights, privileges and irnintunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the us. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York; however defendants have repeatedly failed to adequately train and supervise their respective agents/employees to assure that they would not abuse the power of the Grand Jury, promote or condone perjury and/or assist in the prosecution of innocent persons. . 155. Defendants COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., IDEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., mus optics and DA knew that their agents sntvot employees have a history of abusing the considerable power of the Grand Jury and providing false and/or misleading information and/or testimony in a manner that has unlawfully deprived individuals of their civil liberties and facilitated covering up the misdeeds of" agents and/or employees of defendants COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE and SHERIFF in violation of applicable federal and state laws, well established ethical and professional I standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth,' Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities. guaranteed under the constitution and laws of state of New York; however defendants have repeatedly failed to adequately train and supervise their respective agents/employees to assure that they would not abuse the power of the Grand Jury, promote or condone perjury andfor assist in the prosecution of innocent persons. 156. Defendants comrrv, DEPARTMENT, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE and DA knew that the wrong choice by their agents and/or employees to abuse the considerable power of the Grand Jury and provide false andfor misleading information andfor testimony would frequently cause the unlawful. deprivation of individual civil liberties 34 Document 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 36 of 89 PagelD 80 . A "5 Case Document 1-6 Filed 05/25/06 Page 37 of 89 Page?D 81 and "facilitate covering up the misdeeds of agents and/or employees' of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHJEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., LT., OFFICE SHERIFF in violation of applicable federal and state laws, well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and iimnunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fiflh, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York; however defendants have 'repeatedly failed to adequately train and supervise theirrespective agents/employees to assure that they vsiouid not abuse the povver of the Grand Jury, promote or condone perjury andior assist in the prosecution of innocent persons. 157. On or about September 22, 2005, RAHEEM was arraigned on the unlawfully obtained Indictment on one count of Robbery in the Second Degree andone count of Robbery in the Third Degree by defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST I DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., INSP., DET. LT., OFFICE and DA in violation of applicable federal and state laws, well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law and various 'rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifih, Sixth, Eighth -and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution and various rights, privileges and immtmities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 158. On or about September 22, 2005, unlawfully excessive hail of $150,000.00 was continued at the specific request of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER, FIRST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASST. COMMISSIONERS, CHIEF, CHIEF DET., DEP. CHIEF DET., DBT. LT., OFFICE and DA in violation of applicable federal and state laws, well established ethical and professional standards relating to their employment in law enforcement and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and various rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed under the constitution and laws of the state of New York. 159. On or about Septen1ber'22, 2005, upon RA.HEEM's on said Indictment, a . copy of the Indictment bearing a crime date of March 26, 2005 and the signature of defendant DA on behalf of defendants COUNTY, DEPARTMENT and was given to RAI-IEEM's counsel. (See Exhibit 7). 160. On or about September 22, 2005, upon RAI-IEEM's arraignment A.D.A. MADEY provided RAHEEM's counsel with Voluntary Disclosure Forms (VDFs) bearing a copy of the Felony Complaint upon which RAHEEM was arrested,-arraigned and detained. (See Exhibit 8). 35 A an. <E Ea ioasaafi 5: has 3 mafia Ea E33 3333 .32 as . acne." ozaznau .3 gauge? a amsfi E3 55.. ?3 3333 2 Rae: 3. 3 Ea Eon; 3:35 . . 5 . . .3985 8.. MMQQ zmon Ea fig .mz5m.E. . .Hmm.?Eq .49 .moEmo .0 .Em=mm