EXPERT REPORT OF M ICHAEL D. LYM AN, PH.D.
Re: Tonya Morrison versus Muskingum County Sheriff Robert J. Stephenson, et. al. Case No.
C2:06-cv- 283; United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division
August 15, 2007

Introduction
The opinions set forth in this report are based on m y analysis of docum ents and testim ony
provided to m e in this case and as inform ed by m y form al training, education, independent
research, and experience gained over a collective 33 years as a law enforcem ent agent, crim inal
investigator, police trainer and educator.
I have been a college professor teaching and researching in the area of policing for over 20 years.
I have also authored num erous articles and books dealing with different aspects of police

2
operations for the last 20 years. In the latter capacity, I have becom e nationally recognized in the
areas of police procedure, crim inal investigation, drug enforcem ent and related areas. Prior to
becom ing an educator, I was a certified generalist police instructor for three years, training police
officers and police officer candidates in various police techniques and procedures.
Before entering the field of higher education, I was em ployed as a special agent/crim inal
investigator working in both Kansas and Oklahom a for a collective period of eleven years. In that
capacity, I conducted crim inal investigations, m ade m isdem eanor and felony arrests, conducted
interviews of suspects, testified in state and federal crim inal courts and had considerable
experience in the developm ent of police policy and procedure.
Qualifications
My form al education includes an undergraduate and m aster’s degree from W ichita State
University in the Adm inistration of Justice. In 1992, I received a Ph.D. from the University of
Missouri-Colum bia in Higher and Adult Education. My previous police training includes basic
police academ ies certified through the Council on Law Enforcem ent Education Training (CLEET)
in Oklahom a City, Oklahom a, and the Kansas Law Enforcem ent Training Academ y in Hutchinson,
Kansas (KLETA).
During m y years as a crim inal investigator, I accum ulated in excess of 2000 hours of form al, inservice, police training. This training was sponsored by organizations which include the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcem ent Adm inistration (DEA), the United States
Custom s Service, and num erous state and local law-enforcem ent organizations. Training included
firearm s qualification, shoot-don’t shoot scenarios, practical sim ulations involving felony arrests,
search and seizure, interview and interrogation, vehicles stops, building searches and crisis
intervention.
I served for three years as a full-tim e, certified police instructor em ployed by the Law Enforcem ent
Training Institute in Colum bia, Missouri. I held generalist certification issued by the Missouri
Departm ent of Public Safety and in that capacity was awarded Police Instructor of the Year in
1989. As a police instructor I trained literally thousands of law enforcem ent officers serving in all
levels of professional law enforcem ent. As a police trainer, I have taught by lecturing as well as by
utilizing com puter-based sim ulations, videos and professional writings by law enforcem ent officers
in the field. My 20-year publishing record has also contributed greatly to m y understanding of
police procedures and I have brought m uch of that research into the police training environm ent.
I am currently employed as a tenured faculty m em ber of the Colum bia College Departm ent of
Crim inal Justice and Social W ork in Colum bia, Missouri, and have been on the faculty since
August 1989. My rank is that of Full Professor. I also serve as the Director for Graduate Studies
for the Master of Science in Crim inal Justice degree program and the advisor for the Bachelor of
Science in Forensic Science degree program .
Between August 1989 and Novem ber 2000, I served as the departm ent chairm an overseeing a
faculty of seven in a departm ent representing over 250 crim inal justice m ajors. Between 1985 and
1994 I was a Visiting Professor for the University of Oklahom a teaching on a part-tim e basis
during the sum m er and winter intercessions. In 1985 and 1986 I taught graduate classes at the
University of Central Oklahom a.
Since 1987, I have authored seven books dealing with various areas of policing. These have been
published by both nationally and internationally recognized publishing houses which include
Prentice Hall (Upper Saddle River, NJ), Anderson Publishing (Cincinnati, OH), CRC Press (Boca
Raton, FL), and Charles Thom as Publishing (Springfield, IL). The research required for these
books necessitates a close working relationship with law-enforcem ent officers on local, state, and
federal levels as well as a working knowledge of the available literature on policing.
My investigative experience includes an appointm ent as a Special Agent assigned to the Special
Services Division of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. This unit functioned as the special

policereview@gmail.com

3
investigations unit for the State of Kansas and its m em bers are involved in crim inal investigations
involving drug trafficking, organized crim e and related offenses.
I have also been em ployed as a Senior Agent in Oklahom a, assigned to the Enforcem ent Division
and the Intelligence Division of the Oklahom a Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control
(OBNDDC). In each of these units m y responsibilities were to conduct intelligence, crim inal and
internal affairs investigations. In this capacity I also served on num erous hiring, shooting and
disciplinary boards. W hile em ployed with the OBNDDC, I wrote the Standard Operating Procedure
Manual for Conducting W ire Taps for the Bureau.
My responsibilities in both Kansas and Oklahom a required m e to conduct crim inal investigations,
internal affairs investigations, assist in the establishm ent of agency policy and procedures in
num erous areas, provide training, work closely with other law enforcem ent agencies on all levels
and work closely with other public safety organizations as they related to m y duties.
I currently m aintain professional affiliations with The Academ y of Crim inal Justice Sciences
(ACJS); the Am erican Society of Crim inology (ASC); the Textbook Author’s Association; the
Police Executive Research Forum (PERF); the International Association of Chief’s of Police
(IACP); the Am erican Academ y of Forensic Science (AAFS); the International Association for the
Study of Organized Crim e (IASOC) and the Am erican College of Forensic Exam iners International
(ACFEI).
The docum ents and testim ony from this case, upon which m y opinions are based, include police
reports, depositions, court records, interrogatories, training records, professional articles, books
and policy-based research in the area of police procedure.
The inform ation that I have reviewed and considered in this case is the type of inform ation that I,
and others in m y field, reasonably rely upon in exam ining, analyzing, and determ ining causation,
as well as rendering opinions on proper police conduct. The body of knowledge that I have
reviewed over the years includes texts, research, journals, periodicals and other publications,
along with m y personal research, experience, training, interaction with colleagues, discussions,
interviews and training with law enforcem ent officers, police supervisors and com m and staff, as
well as m y academ ic studies, teachings and nationally-recognized, peer-reviewed research all
form the foundation for m y opinions. As a result, m y opinions, and basis for m y opinions, are
provided with a reasonable degree of law enforcem ent and police certainty.
Background
I have been asked by the law firm of Rourke & Blum enthal to review the case of Tonya Morrison v.
Muskingum County Sheriff Robert J. Stephenson, et. al. and render independent professional
opinions. The following is m y written report regarding the above referenced case as of the date of
this report. My opinions are based on the docum ents provided to m e in this case to date as well as
m y training, education, experience and research in the field of policing. I realize that the discovery
process is ongoing in this case and reserve the right to am end or m odify m y opinions based on
additional inform ation that is provided to m e, including additional deposition testim ony and/or
docum ents.
As with m ost cases in litigation, there are at least two accounts of the facts and circum stances in
question. In this case, a num ber of allegations are m ade by Tonya Morrison and m ost of these are
denied by defendant police officers. For the sake of fairness to the record and context, this expert
has m ade efforts to identify differences between Morrison’s account of the incidents and versions
as told by Defendant officers. Because Defendant officers deny m any allegations, the accounts of
the facts and circum stances of those incidents rely to a great extent on statem ents m ade by
Morrison. To the extent that any allegations, including those that are uncontested, can be
supported by evidence in the record, that evidence is also identified and discussed in this report.

policereview@gmail.com

4
The sum and substance of Morrison’s claim s in this case relate to events that occurred or
allegedly occurred after Muskingum County Sheriff deputies took her into custody in the early
m orning of April 3, 2005. The events and circum stances leading up to her arrest are not the focus
of this report and as such will not be discussed. W hat is relevant, however, is that at the tim e
Morrison was arrested, so were three other persons who were accom panying her at the tim e.
These persons were Morrison, Angela Quinn and Morrison’s business associate Trinda W alter.
Morrison, Quinn and W alter were arrested by Deputies Mathew W ilhite, Anthony Angelo and
Justin Thom pson. Once in custody, they were transported to the Muskingum County Jail in a van
driven by Deputy Erin Inm an. Also being transported was another arrestee nam ed Pletcher who
was in custody for an unrelated charge.
Inm an delivered Morrison, W alter and Quinn to the Muskingum County Jail at approxim ately 4:00
a.m . Other em ployees present at the jail included Deputy Mark Hendershot, Corporal Joshua
W hitem an and Corrections Officer Stacy Ford. 1
The record shows that Inm an brought them inside one by one. 2 Quinn was taken first followed by
Morrison. Deputy Foster patted down Morrison, W alter and Quinn.3 Morrison, who said she was
not yelling or scream ing at any of the deputies,4 turned around and saw W ilhite standing about 4
feet away.
Morrison stated that she was escorted back to the next location in the jail. Morrison stated she
didn't m ake any statem ents to W ilhite or Inm an.5 She stated that as she was walking to her cell,
un-handcuffed and before she was booked, W ilhite cam e up from behind her and Tasered her
underneath the left side of her rib cage, causing her to collapse to the ground.6 Note that W ilhite
denies this allegation.7
Morrison stated that Inm an was also present and observing when she was being Tasered.
Morrison stated that after she collapsed, Inm an pulled her back up to her feet and continued
escorting her to her holding cell. Neither Inm an nor W ilhite said anything to her after the Tasing.
Morrison was placed in cell 116; Quinn was placed next to Morrison in cell 115 and W alter in cell
106.8
Morrison stated that after being Tasered she couldn't get a deep breath and thought she was
having a heart attack. She said her whole body was trem bling and shaking and that she could not
get control of herself.9 Morrison, who was in the cell alone, stated that she called out for
som ebody to help but her request for m edical assistance was ignored.10 Furtherm ore, Inm an
allegedly told her repeatedly to "Shut the fuck up.” 11 Morrison stated that she also asked for
som eone to call 911 and Inm an responded by stating, “W e are 911.” 12 Note that Morrison’s claim
that she was asking for m edical help is supported by Angelo who stated that he heard Morrison
state that she had a heart condition and was on m edication and that she wanted to m ake a call.
Quinn also stated that she overheard Morrison’s requests to m ake a phone call. 3 1
Morrison, while requesting m edical assistance, also called out to Quinn and W alter and told them
if they had a chance to m ake a phone call to phone her father so that he could bring her
1

H endershot deposition, p. 17
Inm an deposition, p. 83-84
H endershot deposition, p. 98-99
4
M orrison deposition, p. 164
5
M orrison deposition, p. 163; 166
6
M orrison deposition, p. 168
7
W ilhite deposition, p. 141
8
H endershot deposition, p. 125
9
M orrison deposition, p. 173
10
M orrison deposition, p. 174-175; 178
11
M orrison deposition, 175-176
12
M orrison deposition, p. 178
13
Quinn deposition, p. 39
2
3

policereview@gmail.com

5
m edication. Note that Morrison stated that at this tim e she was not using profanities nor was she
banging on the walls of her cell or the door.
The record shows that after Morrison was placed in her cell, W ilhite and Angelo went down to the
dispatch area. Shortly afterward, Corporal W hitem an called and requested that they com e back up
to assist in placing Morrison in the restraint chair.
The record shows that Inm an, W ilhite and Angelo entered Morrison’s cell. Morrison stated, “They
both cam e in with Tasers.”14 She also said W ilhite said they were going to show her what they do
to people that hit cops. Inm an acknowledged that W ilhite said he was going to shock her if she did
not get into the chair.15 Morrison, fearing that she was going be shocked again m oved to the
toilet/sink attachm ent in the left back corner of the cell and held onto it.
W ilhite and Inm an tried to rem ove Morrison’s grip from the sink during which tim e Inm an allegedly
struck Morrison's left hand with her Taser while W ilhite attem pted to pry Morrison’s finger’s off of
the sink. 16 W ilhite stated that the officers continued their attem pts for “…no m ore than 2 m inutes”
and decided that they weren’t m aking any progress.” 17 W ilhite deployed the Taser to the lower part
of Morrison’s back and she fell to the floor.18 He stated that the Taser was applied for a full fivesecond cycle.19
Inm an pulled Morrison out of her cell at which tim e she was strapped into a restraint chair which
W hitem an had placed in the open area between cells 115 and 113.20 Note that, Morrison was
placed in the chair at 4:43 a.m . She was in cell 116 for 44 m inutes before being rem oved.21
After being placed in the restraint chair, Morrison stated that the officers began yelling and
scream ing at her. According to Morrison, without any warning, W ilhite began to Taser her
repeatedly and that all three deputies, W ilhite, Inm an and Angelo were laughing at her. 2 2
Specifically, on the third occasion, W ilhite Tasered in her lower left backside, above the buttocks.
She stated, W ilhite "held it in and then it was m oved and then he held it in again."23 This allegedly
occurred while Morrison was strapped to the chair and it occurred about 10 m inutes after she was
Tasered in her cell.24 Morrison said that she continued scream ing and crying out for help as her
body started shaking. She went into convulsions and began foam ing at the m outh. She stated that
she eventually passed out. 25
Morrison claim s that W ilhite Tasered her at least two additional tim es while she was in the
restraint chair. The deputies continued to laugh at her. These occurred only about 10 seconds
after the third application.26 Morrison stated that she was begging them to stop at that point
because she thought they were going to kill her.27 Morrison stated that Angela Quinn was within
her eyesight during this tim e and she could hear Trinda scream ing for them to stop.28 Note that
W ilhite denied using the Taser on Morrison when she was in the restraint chair, and stated that he
never observed Inm an or Angelo with a Taser that night.29

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

M orrison deposition, p. 181
Inm an deposition, p. 104
W ilhite deposition, p. 145-146
W ilhite deposition, p. 156-158
W ilhite deposition, p. 141-143; Inm an deposition, p. 127
W ilhite deposition, p. 141
W ilhite deposition, p. 143
Inm an deposition, p. 83-84
M orrison deposition, p. 140; 195
M orrison deposition, p. 191-192
M orrison deposition, p. 193
M orrison deposition, p. 191
M orrison deposition, p. 195
M orrison deposition, p. 197
M orrison deposition, p. 196
W ilhite deposition, p. 141-142

policereview@gmail.com

6
After rem aining in the restraint chair for an estim ated 26 m inutes, 30 Morrison, who had now been
m oved back into cell 116, was awakened by Deputy Mark Hendershot. She was still strapped in
the restraint chair. Hendershot said he was going to untie her and let her out of the chair, but as
Morrison was getting out of the chair, Hendershot reportedly kicked her in her right thigh.31
She was then m oved into Quinn’s cell where she sat on a cot. Inm an allegedly cam e into the cell
with the Taser and backed Morrison into the corner and asked her if she wanted m ore of it. She
then crawled up into a ball against the sink and began crying and said "No!" 32 Inm an then asked
Quinn if she wanted som e. Inm an did not apply the Taser to either Morrison or Quinn during this
encounter.
Morrison was perm itted to have her first phone call at 10:00 a.m . (Sunday). She phoned her
father. Attorney Herb Baker was contacted and cam e in on his day off to observe the m arks on
Morrison's body. Morrison rem ained in the jail until Monday m orning during which tim e she was
taken to the dorm where the m ain population of fem ales were housed. She stated that she was
booked in but never inform ed as to her charges.33
Twelve days later, Morrison and W alter cam e to the Sheriff’s office to file a com plaint about her
treatm ent on the day of her arrest. The investigation, headed by Captains Joe Miller and Mark
Ross, was term inated by Colonel Hoover the following Monday (three days after Morrison filed the
com plaint).
Opinions: Basis and Reasoning
All of m y opinions are stated within a reasonable degree of certainty within m y field. My opinions
and the basis for m y opinions are based on the totality of m y specialized knowledge, skill,
education, research, literature, training and inform ation I have reviewed. My opinions and basis for
m y opinions are based on sufficient facts and data reviewed; are the product of reliable law
enforcem ent principles and m ethods; and I have applied these law enforcem ent principles and
m ethods reliably to the facts and circum stances of this case.
There is a body of knowledge and literature about the practice and standards to which m odern,
professionally adm inistered police agencies should adhere. These standards and accepted
practices have evolved over tim e in the interest of fostering and m aintaining police agencies that
are professional, effective and whose practices and policies are observant of the law. The
standards have evolved, in part, as a response of reported cases of police m isconduct and as
tools to lim it police discretion and ensure that police behavior is within acceptable professional,
legal and constitutional lim its.
There is a substantial body of literature and knowledge regarding the types of causes of police
m isconduct. I am well fam iliar with and have contributed to the literature and body of knowledge
regarding the types and causes of police m isconduct. W ithin the broad range of crim inal justice,
m y area of study and practical experience is and has been police m isconduct and its relationship
with police policy, procedure, training, and supervision and accountability m echanism s. I am
currently an active m em ber of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Academ y
of Crim inal Justice Sciences (ACJS) the Am erican Society of Crim inology (ASC) and the
Am erican College of Forensic Exam iners International (ACFEI).
Summary of Opinions
OPINION #1: It is this expert’s opinion, based on a reasonable degree of professional certainty,
that if Morrison’s account of Tasering’s 1, 3, 4, & 5 is to be believed, as well as the account of her
being kicked by Deputy Hendershot, that the use of the force by both deputies was unnecessary,
unreasonable, excessive and served no objectively reasonably purpose. Accordingly the use force
30
31
32
33

Inm an deposition, p.
M orrison deposition,
M orrison deposition,
M orrison deposition,

114
p. 205
p. 208-209
p. 211

policereview@gmail.com

7
by W ilhite and Hendershot failed to conform to nationally recognized standards of care and
procedural guidelines.
OPINION #2: It is this expert’s opinion, based on a reasonable degree of professional certainty,
that W ilhite’s Tasering of Morrison as described by Defendant officers in Incident #2 was
unnecessary, unreasonable, excessive and served no objectively reasonably purpose. W ilhite’s
use of the Taser, based on the account provided by Defendant officers, failed to conform to
nationally recognized standards of care and procedural guidelines.
OPINION #3: It is this expert’s opinion, based on a reasonable degree of professional certainty,
that Defendant officer in this case ignored their duty and responsibility to respond to Morrison’s
request for medical aid. Ignoring Morrison’s request for medical assistance is inconsistent with
nationally recognized standards of care and departmental policy. Failure to properly respond to
Morrison’s request for medical aid demonstrated intentional indifference to the physical and
mental discomfort being experienced by Morrison.
OPINION #4: It is this expert’s opinion, stated within a reasonable degree of professional
certainty, that the investigation into Morrison’s complaint of physical abuse was not properly or
thoroughly conducted and that evidence readily available to Ross, Miller and Hoover was ignored.
Failure to properly investigate Morrison’s allegations, by even conducting the most basic of
investigative steps is a gross departure from nationally recognized investigative protocols and
caused persons responsible for excessive force against Morrison to go unaddressed.
OPINION #5: It is this expert’s opinion, based on a reasonable degree of professional certainty,
that the improper, excessive and unreasonable use of the Taser by officers employed by the
Muskingum County Sheriff’s was widely known by the rank and file, field supervisors, command
staff and top administrators within the department. Based on available evidence in the case
record, administrators within the sheriff’s department were aware of but ignored these abuses of
use of force in general and abuses of the Taser in specific.
OPINION #6: It is this expert’s opinion, based on a reasonable degree of professional certainty,
that the failure on the part of top-level administrators within the Muskingum County Sheriff’s Office
to properly address widespread abuses of force, served to ratify ongoing conducted and abuses of
power within the rank and file. Failure to address these widespread and blatant abuses of office
ratifies the misconduct of officers and validates future abuse of use of force.
Discussion and Opinions
Of concern in this case is the level of force used by Defendant officers upon Morrison appears to
be excessive considering the degree of passive resistance offered by Morrison. It is a generally
accepted law enforcem ent practice that the level of force used against a suspect during a police
encounter m ust be only that degree that is required to place the subject under control. Based on a
careful review of m aterials provided in this case, the level of resistance offered by Morrison failed
to justify the use of force by Defendant officers.
Standards and guidelines addressing proper police use of force: Nationally recognized
standards and procedural guidelines are clear regarding the appropriateness of action by police
officers with regard to use of force. For exam ple:
Constitutional standards: Use of force: The standard of care for law enforcem ent use of force
is identified in U.S. Suprem e Court case Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 396 (1989). This case
established the “objectively reasonable” standard under the Fourth Am endm ent which m eans that
the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force m ust be reasonable and judged “from the
perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene.”
This "reasonable m an," or m ore accurately, reasonable officer standard is an objective test. That
is, it is not based on the intent or m otivation of the officer or other subjective factors at the tim e of

policereview@gmail.com

8
the incident. It is based solely on the objective circum stances of the event and the conclusion that
would be drawn by any "reasonable officer at the scene.”
This expert m akes no claim to be an expert in constitutional law, but it should be noted that
even the m ost basic police training includes instruction in case law and certain
constitutional principles and how they relate to accepted police procedure. This type of
instruction is consistent throughout the nation’s police academ ies.
Professional policing guidelines (IACP): Use of force: In addition to the constitutional
standards discussed above, professional literature in policing and police training guides
address the appropriate use of force under different circum stances. Exam ples are the
publications from the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and an
authoritative article written by John Desm edt who identifies a use of force continuum that
has been adopted by police departm ents throughout the country.
International Association of Chiefs of Police: National guidelines identifying appropriate police use
of force are found in the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Use of Force Model
Policy and Concepts and Issues Paper published in 1995. The IACP states for exam ple:
“The variety of coercive options available to police officers in a confrontational setting is
generally referred to as the "force continuum ." From options on this continuum , ranging
from so-called verbal judo and com m and presence to the use of a deadly weapon, officers
are expected to em ploy only the level of force that is objectively reasonable to gain control
and com pliance of suspects.” 4 3
The concept of "force continuum " or "escalation of force continuum " as identified by the IACP
refers to a listing of steps in the escalation of force. The use of force continua list alternatives in
steps which are ordered chronologically (i.e. which should be attem pted first, and if that does not
work, which should be attem pted next, and so forth).
It is im portant to note an officer’s escalation of force should com port with the escalation of
resistance or threat posed by the subject. Police training and professional literature are consistent
in that the continuum is not a ladder to be clim bed. That is, an officer m ay enter a situation which
m ay escalate, de-escalate, rem ain unchanged, or fluctuate quickly. Escalation of force only deals
with one of these conditions and officers m ust know when to deescalate as well as escalate their
levels of force against a subject at the appropriate tim es.
Muskingum County Sheriff’s Office use of force continuum:
The record shows that the use of force continuum is the departm ental guide for use of force by
officers within the Muskingum County Sheriff’s Office. This is affirm ed by Captain Ross who stated
that officers “go by the use of force continuum because it sets guidelines.” The continuum is
identified as the, “Action-Response Use of Force Continuum .” 35 This continuum identifies levels of
individual’s actions that correspond to officer responses to those actions. This docum ent identifies
the proper officer response to “Pulling away from officer / Refusing to leave – Dead weight” (level
2) as, “Striking m uscle groups or m uscle m asses, take downs joint m anipulation, PPC.” The use of
“electronic devices” is located a level up and the Continuum states that “W restling with officer /
Pushing officer” is the justifiable action for its use.
Under no circum stances, based on the evidence about Morrison’s actions and levels of threat or
resistance, and considering the departm ental use of force continuum , was the use of the Taser on
her justified in this case. Even given the second Tasering that occurred in Morrison’s jail cell, to
which W ilhite adm its, all parties are in agreem ent that Morrison was holding onto the sink and
sim ply refusing to let go. These actions are clearly those that fail to warrant the use of the Taser.
34
35

IAC P U se of Force, C oncepts and Issues Paper (1995)
Action-R esponse Use of Force Continuum : Exhibit 11

policereview@gmail.com

9
Professional policing guidelines (IACP): Electronic Control Weapons: One of the m ost
authoritative guidelines addressing use of Tasers was published by the IACP in January 2005
(originally published in 1996) and is titled Electronic Control W eapons. This guideline identifies
concerns and procedures recom m ended for professional and responsible use of electronic control
weapons. It should also be noted that the this guideline generically refers to ECW ’s and does not
m ake specific reference to the Taser because Taser is a brand nam e. As such, the guideline
applies to all ECW ’s, which includes the Taser brand.
W ith regard to the effects of the [Taser], the IACP states, “According to m anufacturer’s reports, in
excess of 40 subjects have died after being subjected to ECW deploym ent.” W hile the sam e
sources deny that the ECW was the cause of those deaths, it is prudent to question the extent the
use of the ECW and the 40+ deaths are m ore than a sim ple coincidence.
The IACP also cautions law enforcem ent in the use of ECW ’s such as the Taser, and identifies
circum stances under which it should be deployed. In brief, their recom m endation is to only deploy
ECW ’s against violent or potentially violent persons. For exam ple, the IACP states,
“The m odel policy prohibits ECW use against anyone unless the person dem onstrates an
overt intention to use violence or force against the officer or others or resists detention
and arrest and other alternatives for controlling them are not reasonable or available
under the circum stances. Norm ally violence, force and resistance are dem onstrated by
actions, deeds and/or words that signify the intent and ability to take such actions. W ith
these cautions in m ind, ECW ’s m ay be deployed consistent with a professionally
recognized philosophy of use of force, that is, use only that level of force that reasonably
appears necessary to control or subdue a violent or potentially violent person.” 6 3
Cautions from Taser International:
The weapon used against Morrison in this case was an X-26 Model Taser. It is com m only
characterized as an interm ediate, less-lethal electronic control weapon. Taser International (TI)
located in Scottsdale, Arizona m anufactures the Taser. The electrical output of the Taser is
50,000 volts and it “overrides the central nervous system causing uncontrollable contractions of
the m uscle tissue.” 37 Contained in their Certification Lesson Plan is a warning from TI that states:
“The Taser X26 is a less-lethal weapon. It is designed to incapacitate a target from a safe
distance without causing death or perm anent injury. W hile the extensive m edical evidence
strongly supports the Taser X26 will not cause lasting after effects or fatality, it is
im portant to rem em ber that the very nature of physical confrontation involved a degree of
risk that som eone will get hurt or m ay even get killed due unforeseen circum stances and
individual capabilities. Accordingly, the Taser X26 should only be treated as a serious
weapon and should only be deployed in situations where the alternative would be to use
other force m easures that carry sim ilar or higher degrees of risk… ” 8 3
This warning m akes it clear that the Taser can result in injury and m ay result in death. The
warning also states that the Taser is to be used “from a safe distance.” The words “safe distance”
im ply that the officer is to use the Taser to protect him or herself from harm . Im plicit is that the
Taser can also be used to protect another person from harm . If this is to be believed, then one can
assum e that the Taser is a defensive weapon, not one to be used for com pliance or corporal
punishm ent.
Further evidence that the Taser is designed as a weapon to protect rather than coerce is found in
Taser International’s own statem ent referring to the developm ent of the M26, “… the advanced

36

IAC P N ational M odel Policy C enter; Electronic C ontrol W eapons, C oncepts and Issues Paper, dated, January 2005, p.

3
37
38

Taser International C ertification Lesson Plan; bates M C O _1018
Taser International C ertification Lesson Plan; bates M C O _1003; M C O _1006

policereview@gmail.com

10
Taser M26 – the first less-lethal weapon capable of stopping focused aggressors… ” 39 Again, TI
m akes it clear that the Taser is to be used to protect. Therefore, use of the Taser to coerce,
intim idate or gain control of a non-threatening person is im proper. Use of the Taser under these
circum stances is punitive, subjective and brutal.
In sum m ary, the deploym ent of an electronic control device such as the Taser m ust be justified by
the actions of the subject on which it is being used. The United States Suprem e Court is clear that
the use of force m ust be objectively reasonable and the International Association of Chiefs of
Police (IACP) state that police can only use of the “Taser” is justified only for subjects who are
violent or potentially violent. The Muskingum County use of force continuum is consistent with the
IACP and states that the “Taser” is justified when suspects are wrestling or pushing the officer.
These guidelines m ake it clear that the use of a Taser on a subject that does not pose a threat to
an officer or anyone else is im proper. There is no evidence in this case that Morrison ever posed a
threat to officers and that the Taser was used on her because she was yelling and being
uncooperative at the very worst. There is also disturbing evidence in this case that Defendant
officers Tasered Morrison when she was tied to the restraint chair and therefore, incapacitated
and unable to protect herself. Doing so suggests that officers were needlessly inflicting pain on
Morrison without justification to do so.
A. THE USE OF THE TASER ON M ORRISON BY DEFENDANT OFFICERS W AS EXCESSIVE,
UNNECESSARY AND SERVED NO OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE PURPOSE.
A principal concern in this case is the use of force used against Morrison after her arrest. There is
evidence in the record that Morrison was Tasered by officers between four and six tim es while in
the custody of the Muskingum County Sheriff. Specifically, Morrison stated that W ilhite used a
Taser on her num erous tim es while she was confined in her cell. Morrison further claim s that
Deputy Hendershot kicked her as she was getting up from the restraint chair. There is also
evidence that not only was this use of force unjustified but other officers, including supervisory
personnel, were present and either ignored, contributed to or failed to intervene on Morrison’s
behalf after observing excessive force being used against her.
The record shows that em ployees working the m idnight shift at the jail when the incident occurred
were: Mark Hendershot, Greg Ford, Jeffery Steed, Stacy Foster, Steve Blake, Joshua W hitem an,
Donald Rice and Aaron Inm an.
Morrison has identified between four and five occasions in which Defendant officers Tasered or
assisted in Tasering her. All of Morrison’s allegations are regarding incidents that occurred after
she was arrested and while she was in custody. It is im portant to note that W ilhite adm its using
the Taser on Morrison on what is identified below as “Incident #2,” when she was in her cell (cell
116). However, he denies the other Tasering allegations m ade by Morrison.
The Tasering accounts (other than Incident #2) are in question in this case. For the sake of a
com plete record, this expert will discuss these alleged incidents but cautions the reader of this
report that they should be taken in the context of the evidence identified in the record.
Incident #1: Wilhite’s use of a Taser on Morrison while walking to her holding cell
Morrison stated that after arriving at the Muskingum County Jail and as she was walking to her
holding tank, W ilhite approached her from behind and Tasered her underneath the left side of her
rib cage, causing her to collapse to the ground.40 Morrison said this occurred before she had been
processed or "booked," that she was not yelling, fighting, kicking or threatening any officer or
anyone else at the tim e she was Tasered. W ilhite denies this Tasering of Morrison (Incident #1). 1 4
Morrison stated that after being Tasered, Inm an grabbed her and pulled her back up to her feet.
They continued walking to her holding cell. Morrison was placed in cell 116 by herself.

39
40
41

Taser International C ertification Lesson Plan; bates M C O _1020
M orrison deposition, p. 168
W ilhite deposition, p. 141

policereview@gmail.com

11
Discussion: Given Morrison’s account of her first Tasering, she was in the process of walking from
Inm an’s van to her holding cell at the tim e she was Tasered by W ilhite. Nowhere is there evidence
that she was posing a threat to officers or anyone else or was otherwise acting in a fashion that
would justify the use of a Taser. It is instructive to note, however, that there is evidence that this
Tasering did occur, based on photographs of m arks on Morrison’s body and Captain Ross’s
statem ent that he observed m arks under her ribcage. Considering the requirem ents, guidelines,
policy and cautions regarding use of force as set forth above, assum ing this incident occurred,
W ilhite’s use of the Taser on Morrison was objectively unreasonable.
Incident #2: Wilhite’s use of Taser on Morrison in holding cell 116
There is no dispute in this case that Morrison was Tasered by W ilhite while she was in her cell.
Therefore, this incident will include accounts provided by Morrison, W ilhite and others
knowledgeable about the incident.
The record shows that after Morrison was placed in holding cell #116, Officers Mathew W ilhite and
Anthony Angelo along with Sergeant Brady Hittle went down to the dispatch area and started on
paperwork regarding her arrest. 42 Corporal W hitem an telephonically contacted Hittle who was in
the dispatch area and told him that he needed help placing Morrison in the restraint chair because
she was being unruly.43 In response, W ilhite and Angelo returned the booking area, “to assist Cpl.
W hitem an and Dep. Erin Inm an.” 44
W ilhite stated that when com ing into the booking area, “I could im m ediately hear Tonya Morrison
subject scream ing obscenities and being belligerent and banging around in the cell.” 45 Angela
Quinn, who occupied cell 115 next to Morrison’s, stated that she heard Morrison calling out that
she wanted her heart m edication and stuff, and she wanted them to give her an alcohol and drug
test… ”Just test m e.” 46
Inm an was the first to enter Morrison’s cell followed by W ilhite and then Angelo. Trinda W alter,
who was in an adjacent cell, stated that she heard Inm an say, “That’s it” before she (Inm an)
entered Morrison’s cell. Morrison stated that Inm an and W ilhite cam e into the cell both with Tasers
in hand. Angela Quinn, who was also in an adjacent cell, stated that she could see partially into
Morrison’s cell and that she rem em bered seeing a Taser in a lady’s hand.47
It should be noted that im plicit in statem ents m ade by W ilhite, Inm an, Angelo and W hitem an that
the initial reason they entered Morrison’s cell was because she was yelling. It is also known that at
least W ilhite was arm ed with a Taser upon entering her cell. This suggests a predisposition to use
the Taser on Morrison because of her yelling. Lieutenant Dum olt stated, “It is inappropriate to use
a Taser on som eone sim ply because they are com plaining or yelling out.” 8 4
W ilhite also allegedly told Morrison that they were going to show her what they do to people that
hit cops.49 Morrison, fearing she would be shocked a second tim e, m oved over to the toilet/sink
attachm ent at the back of the cell and held onto it. Quinn stated that she overheard Tonya say not
to use that thing on her again.50 W ilhite and Inm an stated that they tried to pull her off of the sink
as Angelo stood in the doorway area of the cell. Inm an allegedly struck Morrison's left hand with
her Taser and W ilhite attem pted to pry Morrison’s fingers off of the sink.51

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

Angelo (bates 1201)
W ilhite’s narrative report dated 4/3/05; p. 3
Ibid
Ibid
Quinn deposition, p. 42
Quinn deposition, p. 31-32
D um olt deposition, p. 40
M orrison deposition, p. 181
Quinn deposition, p. 32
W ilhite deposition, p. 145-146

policereview@gmail.com

12
W ilhite stated, "at first we tried to pull on her and… tried to pull her away from the sink. W e
realized… or at least I realized that we weren't getting anywhere with it. At that point I drew m y M26 Taser, advised her to let go of the sink or I was going to Tase her. She didn't let go and I
adm inistered a 5-second “drive stun” to the lower left part of her back… she im m ediately let go." 2 5
W ilhite stated that he cycled the Taser for the full five seconds and it was still cycling after
Morrison released her grasp of the sink.53 He further stated “I tried to keep m y Taser on her
constantly until she landed on the ground...the cycle ended when she cam e to rest on the ground.”
Assum ing the reason for Tasering Morrison initially was to force her to let go of the sink, this
expert sees no legitim ate operational purpose for W ilhite to continue shocking Morrison after she
released her grasp of the sink. W ilhite knowingly allowed the Taser to cycle for the full cycle even
though W ilson stated that it could have been discontinued before the end of the five-second cycle.
W ilson stated, “A single trigger pull will cycle for five seconds but you can get a shorter cycle by
discontinuing it with a thum b switch.” 54 Conversely, a Taser can also deliver a shock longer then
the 5-second cycle. For exam ple, the Taser International Certification Lesson Plan states, “holding
the trigger continuously beyond the 5-second cycle will continue the electrical cycle until the
trigger is released.” 55 W hile W ilhite stated, “I didn’t hold the trigger in,” 56 there is no way to verify
this. Accordingly, if it is to be believed that W ilhite did hold down the trigger, this extended
application would register the sam e as a 5-second cycle on the Taser download.
The IACP states that officers should cycle the weapon, “no m ore than reasonably appears
necessary to accom plish legitim ate operational objectives.” 57 This is consistent with Muskingum
County Sheriff’s Office Use of Force Policy that states, “It m ust be noted that when an officer
em ploys any of the responses noted in the charts, that the situation and the circum stances
surrounding it m ay change. This would require the officer to reassess the incident and adjust his
responses accordingly.” 58 Im plicit in this statem ent is that once the situation is under control,
further use of force is inappropriate.
It was not reasonable nor was it necessary for W ilhite to shock Morrison under these
circum stances. This dem onstrates W ilhite’s intent on causing Morrison pain and discom fort absent
any appropriate police objective. Based on W ilhite’s statem ent, it is clear that his use of the Taser
was to gain Morrison’s com pliance and not for his or anyone else’s protection. In fact, when asked
if officers could use a Taser against a 130-pound fem ale who was being uncooperative about
getting into a restraint chair, Lieutenant Dum olt stated, “The Action/Response Use of Force
Continuum would suggest that it is not appropriate to use a Taser under those circum stances.” 9 5
After Morrison fell to the ground, Inm an dragged her out of her cell; a distance of “three feet at the
m ost,” according to Inm an.60 She was then strapped her into a restraint chair. The chair was
located in an open area between cells 115 and 113 and had been placed there by W hitem an. 1 6
The record shows that Morrison was placed in the restraint chair at approxim ately 4:43 a.m .,
about 44 m inutes after first being taken to the holding cell.62
Morrison’s account of Tasering Incident #2 is consistent with statem ents m ade by W ilhite, Inm an
and Angelo who agree that she was not harm ing herself or attem pting to harm herself. W hat is
52
53
54
55
56
57

W ilhite deposition, p.
W ilhite deposition, p.
W ilson deposition, p.
Bates 1046
W ilhite deposition, p.
IAC P N ational M odel

129-130
147-148; W ilhite narrative report dated 4/3/05; p. 4; Angelo narrative report dated 4/3/05; p. 3
25-26
134
Policy C enter; Electronic C ontrol W eapons, C oncepts and Issues Paper, dated, January 2005, p.

2
58
59
60
61
62

Bates, M C O _1183
D um olt deposition, p. 30-31
Inm an deposition, p. 120
W ilhite deposition, p. 143
Inm an deposition, p. 83-84

policereview@gmail.com

13
disputed is that Defendant officers stated that Morrison was yelling and banging on the walls and
door of her cell. Morrison denies doing so.
Another consistent point in Tasering Incident #2 is that Morrison was not threatening any officers
or anyone else at the tim e she was Tasered by W ilhite. It is clear that upon Inm an’s, W ilhite’s and
Angelo’s entry into Morrison’s cell she retreated to the rear of the cell and held onto the sink.
Morrison’s actions at the very worst could be characterized as uncooperative because she didn’t
want to go to the chair. Even Defendant officers failed to characterize her actions as threatening.
For exam ple,
·

W ilhite: W hen asked if Morrison "kicked anyone, hit anyone, bit anyone, or even tried to do
any of those things toward any deputy" W ilhite replied, "No she did not." 3 6

·

Inm an: Inm an stated that Morrison, "Never caused m e any physical injury of any kind, she
never punched m e, she never kicked m e, she never balled up her fist and took a swing at m e,
or bit m e, or any sort of violence of that kind."64 Inm an further stated, that Morrison's "hanging
on to the sink in the corner was sort of her way of staying in the room and refusing to go." 5 6

·

Angelo: Angelo acknowledged that while the officers were in Morrison’s cell she was not
taking aggressive or violent actions toward them and that she was not kicking or punching
him … ”she was never violent, she didn’t want to go in the direction of the restraint chair.” 6 6

Taser instructor, Lieutenant Dum olt agreed that the use of a Taser against a subject who is not
slapping, kicking or biting is inappropriate. 67 W ilhite’s use of a Taser on Morrison under these
circum stances is a concern in this case. Tasering a non-violent subject not only violates nationally
recognized standards and guidelines but is also a clear violation of the Muskingum Sheriff Office
use of force continuum .
It is also a concern that three officers were unwilling to continue efforts to physically m ove
Morrison to the restraint chair without resorting to strikes to her hand or the use of the Taser.
Reasonable officers would attem pt to m ove Morrison through grip strength and without resorting
to weapons. In fact, Angelo acknowledged this very point by stating, “The three of us deputies had
a great weight advantage in total over Tonya Morrison and she was never violent… ” 68 Angelo
further stated that it was possible for the deputies to have rem oved Morrison from the cell without
using the Taser… ”I don’t know why W ilhite actually did it [referring to W ilhite’s use of the Taser on
Morrison].”69 Consistent with Angelo’s statem ent, when asked if he thought that three deputies
could have m oved Morrison from the cell into the restraint chair without using a Taser, Colonel
Hoover stated, "I would think that would be an option, yes." 70
If Angelo didn’t know why W ilhite Tasered Morrison when she was not violent and was m erely
holding onto the sink, then one m ust wonder why he didn’t intervene to stop W ilhite. Both Angelo
and Inm an had a shared responsibility in this regard but ignored it. Accordingly, W ilhite’s use of
the Taser on Morrison is consistent with acts that are punitive or at the very least suggest that
W ilhite was taking the “path of least resistance” by not having to exert any m ore energy to fulfill his
duties than necessary. W ilhite’s use of the Taser in Incident #2 was im proper, unnecessary,
excessive and unreasonable. Regardless of W ilhite’s m otivation, he along with Inm an and Angelo
all played a m ajor contributing role in the needless m istreatm ent and abuse of Tonya Morrison.

63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70

W ilhite deposition, p. 161-162
Inm an deposition, p. 71
Inm an deposition, p. 67
Angelo deposition, p. 116-117; 122
D um olt deposition, p. 39
Angelo deposition, p. 121-122
Angelo deposition, p. 130-131; 132
H oover deposition, p. 127

policereview@gmail.com

14
Discussion: There is agreem ent in the record that W hitem an m ade the decision to place Morrison
in the restraint chair and that he dispatched W ilhite and Angelo to assist in doing so. There is also
agreem ent that Inm an, W ilhite and Angelo entered cell 116 and that Morrison m oved to the back
of the cell and held onto the sink and all three officers were present. There is further agreem ent
that at the tim e W ilhite Tasered Morrison, at the very worst she was refusing to get into the chair.
A concern is that there is no evidence in the record that suggests that Morrison posed a threat to
any of the three officers at the tim e she was Tasered. Absent an articulable threat, the use of the
Taser is inappropriate, excessive and unreasonable. There is also no evidence that Inm an or
Angelo m ade any attem pts to stop W ilhite’s use of the Taser on Morrison, and if anything,
assisted him .
It is also disturbing that Defendant officers would attem pt to justify the Tasering of Morrison in
Incident #2 as protecting her. For exam ple, W ilhite stated that Morrison was Tased for her own
good, to protect her from hurting herself. Inm an acknowledged that Morrison was shocked in
order to protect her from harm or pain. 1 7
A five-second shock of 50,000 volts and then perm itting her to collapse to the floor is
unconvincing. Furtherm ore, if Defendant officers were so intent in safeguarding Morrison’s
physical wellbeing, the repeated striking of her fingers to rem ove them from the sink (as reported
by Inm an) is also inconsistent with that goal. Furtherm ore, nowhere does the record show that any
of the three officers in this incident, observed or tried to docum ent any injuries or bruising from
Morrison’s alleged hitting the cell walls nor did they contact m edical personnel to exam ine
Morrison to determ ine whether she had in fact, injured herself. Failure on the part of W ilhite,
Inm an and/or Angelo to docum ent or investigate possible injuries that Morrison m ight have
suffered as a result of hitting the walls of her cell suggest that their concern for Morrison’s wellbeing was disingenuous.
It is this expert’s opinion that W ilhite’s use of the Taser on Morrison while in cell 116 was
unnecessary, excessive and served no objectively reasonable purpose. In fact, there is evidence
in the record that W ilhite’s Tasering of her was punitive subjectively m otivated. Nowhere is there
evidence that she was posing a threat to officers or anyone else or was otherwise acting in a
fashion that would justify the use of a Taser.
Even if one is to accept that incident #2 was the only incident in which Morrison was Tasered,
given the defendant’s own accounts of what occurred, doing so was unnecessary, excessive and
served no objectively reasonable purpose.
Incident #3: Use of Taser on Morrison by Wilhite while being strapped in the restraint chair
The record shows that Morrison was placed in the restraint chair at 4:43 a.m ., on April 3, 2005. 2 7
She stated that after she was strapped in the chair, W ilhite continued to shock her with the Taser.
She stated that officers started yelling and scream ing at her but she could not rem em ber exactly
what was being said. Then, without warning, W ilhite began to Taser her repeatedly at which tim e
Morrison began to call him a sick bastard.73 Morrison stated that W ilhite Tasered her in her lower
left backside, above the buttocks. She stated that W ilhite "held it [the Taser] in and then it was
m oved and then he held it in again." 74 This allegedly occurred while she was strapped to the chair
and after she was Tasered in her cell.75 Morrison also said that after W ilhite’s third application of
the Taser, all three deputies were laughing at her.76 Morrison rem ained in the restraint chair for a
total of 26 m inutes. 7 7
71
72
73
74
75
76
77

Inm an deposition, p. 121-122
Exhibit 18: C om puter screen im age with W hitem an identified
M orrison deposition, p. 190; 195
M orrison deposition, p. 191-192
M orrison deposition, p. 193
M orrison deposition, p. 195
Inm an deposition, p. 114

policereview@gmail.com

15
There is evidence in this case that support’s Morrison’s claim about Tasering Incident #3. For
exam ple, Quinn stated that while she didn’t observe Morrison being Tasered, after Morrison was
placed in the restraint chair, she heard her call out, “Don’t use that thing on m e… this is unfair.”
Im plicit in this request is that Morrison was being threatened with the Taser and fearful of being
shocked with it yet again. Further evidence is that Quinn also stated that she observed Inm an
shake a Taser in Morrison’s face and state, “If you don’t shut the fuck up, I am going to use this
fucking thing on you… ” 78 The record shows that Morrison was rem oved from the restraint chair at
5:09 a.m . 79 According to Quinn, once Morrison was placed in Quinn’s cell, she stated that she had
been Tased while she was in the restraint chair.80 This statem ent is contem poraneous and
consistent with the events as told by Morrison.
Discussion: This expert acknowledges that Incident #3 is in dispute and that the decision as to
whether it occurred is within the purview of the trier of fact in this case. Statem ents m ade by
Quinn, however, are consistent with Morrison’s account of this incident. If it is to be believed that
Morrison was shocked while strapped in the restraint chair, one can infer that it was unlikely if not
im possible for her to pose any threat to officers or anyone else at the tim e she was shocked.
Lieutenant Dum olt agreed by stating, “Shocking som eone who is fully restrained in the restraint
chair does not m eet the criterion for the use of the Taser or any other electrical device.” 81 Captain
Ross m ade a sim ilar statem ent when he stated that if the allegation is true, it is an indication of
im proper use of force.82
As such, if it is to be believed that Morrison was Tasered while in incapacitated the restraint chair,
doing so is abusive, excessive and unreasonable. Furtherm ore, it is consistent with actions that
are punitive and subjectively m otivated.
Equally egregious is the fact that Inm an, Angelo and W hitem an failed to intervene to stop W ilhite’s
application of the Taser to Morrison, who was totally helpless and incapacitated. Their failure to
intervene to help Morrison is also consistent with Morrison’s accounts that the officers were
laughing at her at the tim e. If this is true, then one can only infer that they were am used by
Morrison’s discom fort. In any case, failure on the part of Inm an, Angelo and W hitem an to
intervene and stop W ilhite’s Tasering of Morrison is tantam ount to assisting or facilitating his use
of the Taser. Considering the guidelines, recom m ended policy and cautions regarding use of force
as set fourth earlier in this report, the use of the Taser on Morrison in Incident #3 was punitive and
objectively unreasonable.
Incident #4/5 (and possible subsequent incidents): Use of Taser on Morrison by W ilhite
It should be noted that Morrison claim s to have been in and out of consciousness while being
shocked in the restraint chair. It is therefore difficult to know exactly how m any tim es she was
Tasered. For exam ple, Morrison said that she kept scream ing and crying for help and her body
actually started shaking and she went into convulsions and foam ing at the m outh and eventually
passed out.83 Morrison stated that about 10 seconds after the third Tasering (Incident #3), without
warning, W ilhite applied the Taser a fourth tim e while she was still in the restraint chair. The
deputies continued to laugh.84 This deploym ent represents the fourth tim e Morrison was Tasered
by W ilhite. Note that there is som e confusion regarding whether the fourth application was the
final one rem em bered by Morrison as she stated that the fourth was the last one, but there was a
fifth application that caused her to foam at the m outh. 5 8
Morrison stated that the only deputies she could recall being present were W ilhite, Inm an and
Angelo. Morrison said that Angela Quinn was within her eyesight during this tim e and she could
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85

Quinn deposition, p. 48; 50
Exhibit 19: C om puter screen im age with W hitem an identified
Quinn deposition, p. 55
D um olt deposition, p. 36-37
R oss deposition, p. 40
M orrison deposition, p. 191
M orrison deposition, p. 195
M orrison deposition, p. 197

policereview@gmail.com

16
hear Trinda scream ing for them to stop. Morrison stated that after the fourth application, she was
begging the officers to stop because she thought they were going to kill her.86 She stated that she
was Tasered a total of five tim es with the first application up under her ribs, the second one down
lower and the last three were in the back. 7 8
Discussion: Incidents #3-4-5: Morrison stated that after being pulled from cell 116 and strapped in
the restraint chair she was Tasered by W ilhite at least three tim es. She stated that W ilhite applied
all Taserings.88 Deploym ent of a Taser against a subject who is totally incapacitated in a restraint
chair is excessive force that borders on the outrageous. Even if Morrison was verbally abusive,
the fact that she was physically incapacitated reduces her threat level to near, if not absolute zero.
One can therefore infer that if Morrison is to be believed, W ilhite’s use of the Taser on her was
punitive and subjectively m otivated.
Also of concern in this case is the assertion that while Morrison was being Tasered, Deputies
Inm an and Angelo were present and failed to intervene by stopping or even attem pting to stop
W ilhite. W orst yet, the assertion that they were laughing is consistent with their indifference to
Morrison’s health, safety and well-being. Furtherm ore, this expert is concerned that supervisor
W hitem an, who was present in the area (at least to sum m on W ilhite and Angelo and to position
the restraint chair), was m ost likely present in the area and therefore aware of the Taserings by
W ilhite. Failure on the part of Inm an, Angelo and W hitem an to attem pt to intervene is tantam ount
to their support and facilitation of W ilhite and his im proper use of force against Morrison.
It is this expert’s opinion that the repeated use of force against Tonya Morrison by W ilhite, while
assisted or facilitated by Deputies Inm an, Angelo and W hitem an, are not only inconsistent with
nationally recognized guidelines and standards of care but are actions that are blatantly
excessive, punitive and unreasonable.
Incident #6: Hendershot allegedly kicking Morrison after she was Tasered
Morrison also stated that after she passed out, she awakened back in her holding cell still in the
restraint chair. Deputy Hendershot woke her up and said he was going to untie her and let her out
of the chair. As Morrison was getting out, Hendershot kicked her in her right thigh.89 Morrison
stated, “As I was scooting out of the chair he kicked m e… right in m y hip area… ” 90 Morrison stated
that after being kicked, she was taken to the cell with Quinn. Even though Hendershot denies
kicking Morrison 91 evidence exists, in addition to Morrison’s assertion, to support this. For
exam ple, this expert has been provided photos depicting a large bruise on Morrison’s leg.92 It is
difficult to say with certainty that this bruise resulted from Hendershot’s kicking of Morrison, but it
is consistent with and supportive of her account of the incident.
Discussion: If the trier of fact is to believe that Hendershot kicked Morrison in the leg/hip as she
was stepping out of the restraint chair, then this expert sees no objectively reasonable purpose for
doing so. In fact, kicking Morrison for no reason is yet another unnecessary punitive action
consistent with her alleged treatm ent by W ilhite, Inm an and Angelo. Nowhere does the record
show that Morrison was aggressive or threatening toward Hendershot. In fact, Morrison stated that
she was “… still very shaken… ” at the tim e, from being in the restraint chair. Under these
circum stances, the kicking of Morrison was punitive, subjective and unreasonable.
In sum m ary, a review of the Taserings in this case show that two things are not in dispute in this
case: (1) that Tonya Morrison was not being violent when the Taser deployed on her, and; (2) she

86
87
88
89
90
91
92

M orrison deposition, p. 197
M orrison deposition, p. 210; 199
M orrison deposition, p. 194
M orrison deposition, p. 205
M orrison deposition, p. 205
H endershot deposition, p. 150
Photo of M orrison’s leg/hip (uprt.jpg)

policereview@gmail.com

17
was Tasered for the purpose of gaining com pliance. Both facts m ake the use of the Taser against
Morrison unreasonable. 3 9
Ø

OPINION #1: It is this expert’s opinion, based on a reasonable degree of professional
certainty, that if Morrison’s account of Tasering’s 1, 3, 4 & 5 is to be believed, as well as the
account of her being kicked by Deputy Hendershot, that the use of the force by both deputies
was unnecessary, unreasonable, excessive and served no objectively reasonably purpose.
Accordingly the use force by W ilhite and Hendershot failed to conform to nationally
recognized standards of care and procedural guidelines.

Ø

OPINION #2: It is this expert’s opinion, based on a reasonable degree of professional
certainty, that W ilhite’s Tasering of Morrison as described by Defendant officers in Incident #2
was unnecessary, unreasonable, excessive and served no objectively reasonably purpose.
W ilhite’s use of the Taser, based on the account provided by Defendant officers, failed to
conform to nationally recognized standards of care and procedural guidelines.

B. DEFENDANT OFFICERS IGNORED M ORRISON’S REQUESTS FOR M EDICAL
ATTENTION
Morrison stated that after being Tasered and placed in her holding cell she called out for m edical
help but was ignored. She stated that after being Tasered she thought she was having a heart
attack because she couldn't get a deep breath. Her whole body was trem bling and shaking and
she could not get control of herself. 94 After being placed in the cell alone, she yelled out for
som ebody to help her because she thought she was having a heart attack.95 Instead of receiving
m edical attention, Morrison was told repeatedly by Inm an to "shut the fuck up."96 Specifically,
Morrison asked Inm an to call 911 and Inm an replied "W e are 911."97 Morrison stated that at this
tim e she was not using profanities nor was she banging on the walls or the doors. Morrison called
out to Quinn and W alter and told them to call her father if they had an opportunity to m ake a
phone call.
Angela Quinn, who occupied the cell next to Morrison’s stated that she heard Morrison calling out
“that she wanted her heart m edication and stuff.” This is supportive of Morrison’s claim that she
requested m edical attention. 98 In fact, the record shows that both Ross and W hitem an heard
Morrison’s request for her m edication. For exam ple, W hitem an stated, “She stated that she had
m edication and that she needed her m edication… ” 99 Quinn also stated that after Morrison was
placed in her cell, she continued to request her heart m edication but was ignored. Quinn stated,
“She was m aking requests for m edication the whole tim e… she said she needed her heart
m edication… I need to call m y husband; he will get it for m e.” 100
Also consistent with Morrison’s claim that she called out for m edical attention is Deputy
Hendershot who stated, “Later on she said that she needed m edication for her heart, but I don’t
rem em ber hearing her saying that while she was in that cell.” 101 He further stated that it was when
Morrison was in the restraint chair that she had a heart condition and that she needed her
m edication.102 Note that Quinn stated that she heard Morrison ask for her heart m edication and
asked for a breathalyzer test. She also heard Morrison stated, “she was like crying not to use that
thing on m e. She was telling them that she had a heart condition and she was telling them that it
was torture, they couldn’t do this to her… ” 103
93

N ote also that the M uskingum C ounty Sheriff C ode of Ethics states, “… jail staff shall not… em ploy corporal punishm ent
or unnecessary physical force… [or] subject prisoners to any form of physical or m ental abuse (M C O _0863)
94
M orrison deposition, p. 173
95
M orrison deposition, p. 174-175; 178
96
M orrison deposition, p. 175-176
97
M orrison deposition, p. 178
98
Quinn deposition, p. 42
99
W hitem an deposition, p. 113-114
100
Quinn deposition, p. 57
101
H endershot deposition, p. 114
102
H endershot deposition, p. 144; 149-150
103
Quinn deposition, p. 42; 45-46; 54-55

policereview@gmail.com

18
Angelo stated, “… I rem em ber her yelling about m aking a phone call, contacting her dad, I
rem em ber her saying som ething about having a heart condition and m edication, she sounded as if
she was upset… I saw Sgt. Hittle go over to the holding cell while she was scream ing… I saw him
have a conversation with her… ” 104
The record shows that both W ilhite and Angelo stated that they thought Morrison was intoxicated
by virtue of her actions and behaviors, but neither could sm ell the odor of alcohol on her. For
exam ple, Angelo stated, “She appeared to be under the influence to m e.” 105 W hitem an stated that
he suspected that Morrison was drunk but in spite of this, he inform ed Morrison that because she
was not arrested for a drug or alcohol offense, she couldn’t be tested. 106 A reasonable officer
would know that Morrison’s intoxicated-like behavior was indicative of a m edical problem . A
prudent response to Morrison’s request would be to contact m edical personnel to determ ine
whether she was in fact experiencing health problem s. It would also have been appropriate to give
her a breath breathalyzer test to help determ ine whether she was intoxicated or not. In fact,
Morrison requested that a breath test be adm inistered but her request was ignored. At the very
least, ruling out intoxication would suggest a m edical episode that m ight be in need of m edical
attention. These signs were ignored by W ilhite, Inm an, Angelo and W hitem an.
Muskingum County Sheriff Policy: The Muskingum County Sheriff’s Office Policy dealing with
“Medical Services – Em ergency Medical Care” addresses “serious Breathing Difficulties” as
described by Morrison, and states, “The jailer confronted with a m edical em ergency will
im m ediately notify the shift supervisor on duty and request assistance…” 107
Failure on the part of Defendant officers to respond professionally to Morrison’s request for
m edical assistance is not only a violation of departm ental policy but violates even the m ost basic
ethical and professional codes of conduct. It further dem onstrates Defendant officers’ indifference
to Morrison’s health and well-being.
Ø

OPINION #3: It is this expert’s opinion, based on a reasonable degree of professional
certainty, that Defendant officer in this case ignored their duty and responsibility to respond to
Morrison’s request for medical aid. Ignoring Morrison’s request for medical assistance is
inconsistent with nationally recognized standards of care and departmental policy. Failure to
properly respond to Morrison’s request for medical aid demonstrated intentional indifference
to the physical and mental discomfort being experienced by Morrison.

C. M USKINGUM COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE FAILED TO CONDUCT A PROPER INTERNAL
INVESTIGATION INTO M ORRISON’S COM PLAINT
On April 15, 2005, about 12 days after her initial arrest, Tonya Morrison, while accom panied by
Trinda W alter, cam e to the Muskingum County Sheriff’s Departm ent to file a com plaint. Morrison
was initially referred to Captain Miller who m et with her in the waiting area on the second floor.
Miller interviewed Morrison at approxim ately 1:20 p.m . Once he determ ined that her com plaint
involved a road deputy, he asked Captain Ross to join him in an interview with her. Miller had
responsibility for internal com plaints against any of the jail staff and Ross had sim ilar
responsibilities for road deputies. Both stated that they had not heard of Morrison’s allegations
before that Friday.
A tim ely and thorough adm inistrative response to a citizen com plaint, especially one where
physical violence by an officer or officers is alleged, is a good indicator as to a departm ent’s
integrity, professionalism and willingness to learn the truth about potentially problem em ployees
and practices.

104

Angelo deposition, p. 99-100
Angelo deposition, p. 110
106
W hitem an deposition, p. 98; 102; 110 (N ote that W hitem an later acknowledged that it was policy for officers to
adm inister an alcohol test if they suspected an inm ate had been drinking)
107
M uskingum C ounty Sheriff’s Office Policy: M edical Services – Em ergency M edical C are (M C O _0926)
105

policereview@gmail.com

19
W hether an investigation is crim inal or internal, certain investigative and evidentiary protocols
rem ain constant and should be observed to ensure that integrity of the investigation and an
understanding of the truth. These protocols m ust be undertaken on a thorough and tim ely basis.
For exam ple, long-established investigative protocols for conducting a proper investigation include
fundam ental of steps such as, (1) obtaining physical evidence of the alleged incident. This
includes docum enting injuries or bruising resulting from the alleged incidents. This evidence
should also be carefully and thoroughly evaluated; (2) reviewing narrative reports prepared by
persons that should be knowledgeable of the incident. This step provides investigators with
knowledge of officer’s official account of an incident; (3) obtaining statem ents from all parties with
any knowledge of the incident, including the com plainant herself and any inm ates occupying or
form erly occupying cells nearby who could provide inform ation about what was heard or seen
relative to the incident;108 (4) interviews of suspect officers identified by the com plainant.
Questions for officers suspected of wrongdoing should be based on prelim inary investigative
efforts as identified in this paragraph. Lastly, and depending on the seriousness of the allegations,
should discrepancies be identified in interviews with com plainant, inm ate or officers, it would be
prudent to consider the adm inistration of polygraph exam s or voice stress analysis exam s to
substantiate the truthfulness of their statem ents. A review of the record in this case shows that
these steps, if perform ed at all, were not conducted with any degree of thoroughness expected of
a reasonable investigator conducting a proper internal investigation.
The record shows that the top ranking adm inistrators within the departm ent were aware of
Morrison’s com plaints but failed to conduct a thorough and proper internal investigation to
determ ine the extent that her allegations against deputies were truthful. Disturbingly, the internal
investigation resulting from Morrison’s com plaint lasted only three days before Colonel Hoover
m ade a determ ination that her allegations were unfounded. Hoover term inated the investigation.
Hoover’s decision to term inate the investigation was m ade knowing that a num ber of the m ost
fundam ental investigative steps that would or should have been undertaken were never
conducted.
Miller’s understanding of the internal investigative process: Captain Joe Miller was the
Assistant Jail Adm inistrator and co-investigated Morrison’s com plaint along with Captain Ross.
Miller stated that the norm al steps in an investigation about inappropriate use of force by a jailer
would be to (1) interview the com plainant; (2) collect evidence from the com plainant; (3) interview
any other witnesses...people who were in the area where the event occurred and m ight have seen
or heard parts of it; (4) interview officers… the deputies accused.109 This expert acknowledges the
steps identified by Miller are proper and form a reasonable basis for a proper internal
investigation. Disturbingly, in spite of Miller’s awareness of these steps, they were either ignored
or perform ed on the m ost m inim al level.
Ross’s understanding of the internal investigative process: Captain Mark Ross had overall
responsibility of the Road Division and, along with Miller, was assigned to investigate Morrison’s
com plaint. He was approached by Miller on that Friday and was told of Morrison’s com plaint. Ross
stated that a typical investigation of a citizen com plaint is, (1) “getting statem ents from the
citizen… then (2) review the reports filed by the officer… at that point (3) it is discussed with
Colonel Hoover if there’s any need for anything for further investigation.” 110 He further stated, “In
som e situations you will go and interview witnesses. If necessary interview the deputy or deputies
who are the focus of the com plaint… you will som etim es gather evidence, som etim es photographs
of evidence, som etim es m edical records, if they exist, videos or photographs of the incident.” 111
Again, the steps identified by Ross are consistent with those taken in a properly conducted

108

N ote that any interviews of incarcerated persons m ust be conducted in accordance with constitutional requirem ents
and restrictions.
109
M iller deposition, p. 13-14
110
R oss deposition, p. 9
111
R oss deposition, p. 10

policereview@gmail.com

20
investigation. As with Miller, however, m ost of these steps were not perform ed. W hat is known
about the departm ental response to Morrison’s com plaint is as follows:
Tonya Morrison’s interview: Miller initially m et with Morrison on the second floor of the bank
building in the waiting area. Once he determ ined that it was an incident inside the jail involving a
road officer, he asked Ross to witness the interview. It was conducted in the sheriff’s conference
room . The interview was not recorded, but Miller stated that was norm al practice. Both Miller and
Ross stated that they did, however, take notes.112
Even though Miller stated that it was his responsibility to handle these types of com plaints against
the staff he supervises, 113 he also stated that it was quitting tim e for him so he assigned the
investigation to Ross who, along with Major Newm an, interviewed Trinda W alter. Miller stated that
he didn’t do any work on the investigation that weekend. 114
It is of particular im portance to note the specific inform ation known by Miller as a result of the
interview with Morrison. Miller’s Interview Sum m ary report dated April 15, 2005 identifies the
specific inform ation provided by Morrison. Excerpts from Miller’s report include:115
1.

W hile she was strapped in the restraint chair she was Tasered six tim es. Morrison specified to
Miller that the first Tasering was by W ilhite which took place in front of her cell. She claim ed to
have been Tasered “inside of her left side, near her ribcage, slightly below her breast;”

2.

“… Hittle took a picture of this m ark that was left by the Tasing.”

3.

“The second Tasering was while she was in the restraint chair. Again, it was either W ilhite or
Hendershot. The officer straddled her while she was in the chair, and Tased her. Her doctor
told her she was Tased six tim es. She rem em bers three while in the chair.”

4.

“Three that were in the chair were to the left lower back in her hip area.”

5.

“She was Tased until she passed out”

6.

“She asked the officers to call 911 and they laughed at her and said are you ready to shut the
fuck up?”

7.

“Hendershot kicked her while she was in the chair, in the right hip. This was after she had
passed out and cam e to.”

8.

“Her friend, Angie Quinn witnessed all of this Tasing taking place.”

9.

“She will fax a copy of Dr. Butterfield’s exam to us… of the Tasing m arks on her body.” 116

The inform ation provided by Morrison to Miller and Ross on Friday, April 15, 2005 raises serious
questions about behaviors of deputies whose actions, if proven true, are physically abusing
inm ates to the point of being torturous and life threatening. Morrison’s inform ation also provided
Miller and Ross straightforward investigative leads that could and should have been followed up.
The seriousness of Morrison’s allegations would alert a reasonable investigator that a tim ely and
thorough investigation into the m atter is warranted. Disturbingly, no such investigation occurred in
this case and valuable evidence that would or should have addressed all of Morrison’s concerns
and provided answers to key questions was ignored.

112
113
114
115
116

M iller deposition, p. 11-13; R oss deposition, p. 24-25
M iller deposition, p. 8-9
M iller deposition, p. 16
M iller’s Interview Sum m ary report dated April 15, 2005
N ote that M iller stated that M orrison did in fact fax him copies of her m edical records (M iller deposition, p. 34)

policereview@gmail.com

21
Trinda Walter’s interview: In addition to Morrison, Trinda W alter was interviewed. Miller stated
that he asked Ross to conduct that interview and he also asked Major Newm an to sit in. Miller
said that he was gone by the tim e W alter was interviewed and that he never heard anything about
the investigation over the course of the weekend.
Ross stated that W alter told him that she heard Morrison asking for m edications. W alter also
heard Inm an state, “That’s it” before the deputies entered Morrison’s cell.117 W alter also said that
after she heard a crackling noise [the deploym ent of the Taser], the “officers started laughing
about this while it was going on… Tonya was yelling for them to stop and for Trinda to com e help
her.” 118
In sum m ation, both Miller and Ross were responsible for the investigation but they were
scheduled to be off for the weekend. Miller left alm ost im m ediately after Morrison arrived. Ross
was also off for the weekend but rem ained at the departm ent long enough to sit in on Morrison’s
and W alter’s interviews. Ross also had photographs taken of the Taser signature m arks on
Morrison’s body. Both Miller and Ross stated that they did not conduct any investigation into
Morrison’s com plaint over the weekend.119
Failure to interview additional key persons: Other than interviews with Morrison and W alter, no
interviews were conducted as part of the internal investigation into Morrison’s allegations. One of
the m ost disturbing shortcom ings of the internal investigation is the failure on the part of Miller,
Ross, Hoover or anyone else to interview the very officers Morrison identified as the focus of her
com plaint: W ilhite, Inm an and Angelo. Such interviews are critical to the investigative process and
m ust be conducted on a tim ely basis. Additionally, interviews should have been conducted with
any other jail em ployee on duty that day to learn what they m ight have heard or seen regarding
the Morrison incident. Evidence that key persons were never interviewed as part of the internal
investigation com es from the Defendant officers them selves. For exam ple
W ilhite: W hen asked if Colonel Hoover ever interviewed him regarding the Morrison incident, he
replied, “No.” W hen asked if any captain ever interviewed him about what happened between him
and Morrison, W ilhite replied, “No.” 120
Inm an: W hen asked if she was ever interviewed by Captains Miller and/or Ross, Inm an replied,
“No.” 121
Angelo: W hen asked if he was ever interviewed as part of an internal investigation, Angelo stated,
“No.” 122
Miller also acknowledged that he never spoke with W ilhite, who was the principal officer identified
in Morrison’s com plaint. For exam ple, he stated, “… I never spoke with Deputy W ilhite about this at
all.”123 A proper investigation should also include interviews with inm ates who m ight have heard or
seen som ething relative to the Morrison incident. For exam ple, Angela Quinn, whose cell was next
to Morrison’s, would have been an obvious candidate for an interview regarding what she m ight
have heard or observed. No such interview was conducted.
Interviews with these key persons are crucial in resolving the issue of whether Morrison was
abused by officers while in their custody. It is unconscionable that such a fundam ental
investigative step was ignored. Failure on the part of Muskingum County Sheriff adm inistrators
Miller, Ross and Hoover to interview key persons that would reasonably have inform ation about
the incidents in question suggests their unwillingness to learn the truth. If Miller and Ross have a
117
118
119
120
121
122
123

R oss deposition, p. 37
R oss deposition, p. 38
M iller deposition, p. 16; R oss deposition, p. 45-46
W ilhite deposition, p. 152-153
Inm an deposition, p. 113
Angelo deposition, p. 59
M iller deposition, p. 25

policereview@gmail.com

22
reasonable grasp of proper investigative steps, their failure to conduct these steps during the
course of the weekend following Morrison’s com plaint dem onstrates apathy and indifference
toward learning the truth.
The Taser downloads: Hoover stated that he relied on a download of W ilhite’s Taser in m aking
his decision to term inate the investigation of Morrison’s allegations. The record shows that the
Muskingum County Sheriff’s Office em ploys two Taser instructors: Lieutenants Randy W ilson and
W ayne Dum olt. Not only do W ilson and Dum olt instruct officers in Taser use but W ilson stated
that he conducts downloads of Tasers when they have been deployed. W ilson stated, that only he
and Dum olt are trained to do downloads at the Muskingum Sheriff’s Office… ” 124
Regarding his duties, W ilson stated, “If there’s been an actual deploym ent of the unit, then I will
contact that officer and do a download on his unit… just for recordkeeping.” 125 W ilson said
inform ation provided with downloads of the M-26 include, the day, date and tim e of deploym ent
and with the X-26 you also get the length of cycle, tem peratures and Celsius of the unit. Once the
downloads are com plete, W ilson stated that he attaches a copy of it to a copy of the Taser use
report and retains the original. The report then goes to records.126
The significance of inform ation contained in the Taser downloads is also questionable because it
is difficult to decipher. Taser Instructor Dum olt even questioned the Taser download and was
unsure whether it was for a m odel M-26. Referring to the download, Dum olt stated, “I have no
idea what that m eans.” 127 It is this expert’s opinion that if a Taser instructor is unsure what a
download m eans, then it could be argued that Hoover would not have an easier tim e doing the
sam e. Yet Hoover stated that he relied on the download to m ake his decision about Morrison’s
investigation.
W hat is significant, however, is that the only download Hoover considered was from W ilhite’s
Taser. Disturbingly, it is also known that Angelo had a Taser and Inm an had access to one. But
nowhere does the record show that their Tasers were downloaded – only W ilhite’s. It is this
expert’s opinion that it is conceivable that either W ilhite could have used a Taser that was not
issued to him or Angelo or Inm an also Tasered Morrison. Of course, this is not known with
certainty because a thorough investigation was not conducted in this case nor was proper
consideration given to all available evidence.
In sum m ary, what is known regarding the Taser downloads is that Hoover obtained the download
over the weekend following Morrison’s com plaint. W hile Hoover stated that he considered the
downloads in his decision, it is unlikely that he was able to decipher them properly. This is
because statem ents m ade by departm ental Taser instructors who them selves were baffled by the
downloads and were unable to understand them .
Photos of Morrison’s burn (signature) marks: The record shows that photographs were taken
of m arks on Morrison’s body after she was rem oved from the restraint chair. Sergeant Hittle,
Captain Ross and Clerk Cindy Blakely were involved in the photographing process. Angela Quinn
stated that Morrison requested that officers take photos of her. Quinn said, “and they wouldn’t take
m ore than one or two pictures because they wanted m ore.” 128 Hittle stated that before Morrison
was placed in Quinn’s cell, he photographed while being assisted by a fem ale deputy. He said
Morrison was standing outside the cell when the photos were taken and that it was policy to
photograph Taser m arks after a Tasering.129 Hittle stated that he did not recall whether anyone
else photographed Morrison.

124
125
126
127
128
129

W ilson deposition, p. 16; D um olt deposition, p. 41
W ilson deposition, p. 16
W ilson deposition, p. 16; 18
D um olt deposition, p. 47-49
Quinn deposition, p. 49
H ittle deposition, p. 51-52; H ittle narrative report dated 4/11/05

policereview@gmail.com

23
Ross stated that he requested that Cindy Blaney take photos of m arks close to Morrison’s
buttocks area.130 Blaney, however, stated that she didn’t recognize photos shown to her during her
deposition.131
The photographing of m arkings on Morrison’s body was an appropriate investigative step because
they essentially speak for them selves. In this case, the m arks photographed on Morrison’s body
are consistent with Morrison’s claim s of abuse. It is of concern, however, that little if any
investigative action was done with them . For exam ple, Ross never showed the photos to Miller,
his co-investigator. Miller stated that he never saw the photographs, even though he and Ross
were ostensibly assigned to Morrison’s investigation.132 He said, “I never did get to see four
photographs of Tonya’s side and back which were taken on the night of her arrest… I don’t recall
that I was aware that there were photographs.” 133 Miller also stated, however, that if given the
opportunity he would have looked at the photos to see if they were consistent with Morrison’s
story because the deputy said he only shocked her once, but the photos showed m ore than one
Taser m ark. This would raise other investigative issues.134
Furtherm ore, Ross never discussed or showed photos of the burn m arks to Lieutenant Randy
W ilson to get an opinion as to whether they were signature m arks that could have resulted from a
Taser. The record shows that this would have been a viable investigative step because W ilson
stated that he had experience in the observation of Taser m arks. For exam ple W ilson stated, “I
am fam iliar with those signature m arks, I have seen signature m arks caused by use of a Taser in
the drive stun m ode.” 135
Failure to evaluate Morrison’s burn m arks: Ross stated that he used a ruler to m easure the
distance between the m arks to see if they m atched the prongs. But he further stated, “I never
spoke with anyone to determ ine whether those m easurem ents were consistent with m arks left
from a Taser, and I still do not know one way or another whether that distance is consistent.” 136
The concern here is that Ross evidently recognized the burn m arks on Morrison’s body as
evidence of possible abuse and at the very least evidence that could provide an investigative lead
on which to follow up. But even after identifying precisely what needed to be done, Ross ignored
this evidence and never followed through to m ake the critical determ ination of whether the m arks
m atched Taser prongs. Ignoring critical evidence in this fashion at the very least dem onstrates
Ross’s indifference to determ ining the truth about Morrison’s com plaint and at the worst is
consistent with an effort to conceal the truth about what occurred on the night of Morrison’s arrest.
Officer narrative reports: The review of officer narrative reports is a key investigative resource in
this investigation. Neither Miller nor Ross took tim e to review narrative reports prepared by W ilhite,
Inm an, Angelo or W hitem an. Ross stated that he never spoke with W ilhite… and, ”I do not recall
ever reviewing narrative reports of any of the deputies that were involved in this incident.” 137
The record is clear regarding investigative value of the narrative reports. For exam ple, W ilhite
stated that he Tasered Morrison in the lower part of her back.138 If Ross would have read W ilhite’s
report, he would have known that the m arks observed on Morrison’s buttocks were consistent with
her W ilhite’s claim that he Tasered her on her “lower back.” However, the rib cage m arks are clear
evidence that at least one additional Tasering occurred other than the one occurring on Morrison’s
cell. This discovery is a significant “red flag” that should have been an indicator to Ross that either
W ilhite was being untruthful or failing to be forthcom ing with his actual role in Tasering Morrison.
Because of the inconsistencies between W ilhite’s account of what happened and the physical
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138

R oss deposition, p. 28; Blaney deposition, p. 7
Blaney deposition, p. 11-12
M iller deposition, p. 30-32
M iller deposition, p. 33-34
M iller deposition, p. 32-33
W ilson deposition, p. 23
R oss deposition, p. 26-27
R oss deposition, p. 50
W ilhite deposition, p. 129-130

policereview@gmail.com

24
evidence, at the very least the investigation should have continued to resolve the issue of how
m any tim es and under what circum stances Morrison was Tasered.
The failure of Ross to notice, or his willingness to ignore the inconsistencies between W ilhite’s
account of where he Tasered Morrison and where the m arks were on her body, accom panied by
Ross’s failure to follow up to see if the burn m arks could have been m ade by a Taser is an
outrageous investigative shortcom ing. Given the im plications that an officer (W ilhite) m ight be
untruthful about his use of force, a reasonable officer would have com pleted this aspect of the
investigation.
Hoover’s termination of the Morrison investigation: On Monday m orning, April 18 th , 2005,
som etim e between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m ., Colonel Hoover advised Miller and Ross that the Morrison
investigation was ended. This was only three days after Morrison filed her com plaint.
Docum entation of Hoover’s decision is contained in Miller’s supplem ental report dated April 18,
2005 that stated,
“On this date, I was advised by Colonel Hoover to end the investigation, as this was a
false allegation by Tonya Morrison, based on her statem ents of the num ber of Tasings
versus the download record of the Taser that is issued to Dep. W ilhite.” 139
Nowhere does the record show that Miller or Ross, in spite of their knowledge of additional
evidence that m ight support Morrison’s claim s, attem pted to convince Hoover that further
investigation was needed. Furtherm ore, nowhere in the record does it show that either Miller or
Ross considered that W ilhite could have used a Taser other than the one “issued” to him . W orse
yet, Miller was told that W ilhite or Hendershot Tasered Morrison, but there is no evidence that
Hendershot’s Taser was ever downloaded. Given Morrison’s detailed account of what occurred, at
the very least Miller, Ross and Hoover should have known that num erous officers were possibly
involved and that a Taser possessed by any one or each of them could have been used against
Morrison. For exam ple, it is known that both W ilhite and Angelo had a Taser and that Inm an had
access to one. The extent that other deputies working in the jail had Tasers or access to them is
unclear. In spite of these uncertainties, only W ilhite’s Taser inform ation was downloaded.
Furtherm ore, it is unclear to this expert the extent that the Taser downloads clarify any use of a
Taser on Morrison. In fact, departm ental Taser instructor Dum olt stated that the download shown
to him didn’t appear to be an M-26 download. Yet, Hoover m ade it clear that he relied on this
download when no one else could understand what it m eant.
A reasonable investigator would question the integrity of this evidence and the propriety of
Hoover’s decision to end the investigation. This expert concludes that from an investigative
standpoint, given the advanced ranks of Miller, Ross and Hoover, this inform ation was or should
have been known. Failure to investigate these issues is evidence of and consistent with a
conscious effort to ignore Morrison’s com plaint and to shield officers from being held accountable
for their actions.
A related concern is Hoover’s statem ent that a “com plete investigation” was conducted by Miller
and Ross. Based on available m aterials, it was not. Hoover also stated that Miller and Ross were
reporting to him regarding the progress of the investigation. His statem ent regarding exactly what
Miller and Ross did during the course of their investigation is vague at best. This expert disagrees
that a com plete investigation was conducted and sees no evidence that Miller and Ross did
anything of an investigative nature over the course of the weekend. For exam ple, (1) both Miller
and Ross left for the weekend alm ost im m ediately after Morrison arrived on Friday to file her
report and; (2) both Miller and Ross stated that they conducted no investigation over the weekend
and; (3) on Monday m orning before 8:00 a.m ., they both were inform ed by Hoover that the
investigation was term inated.
139

M iller’s supplem ental report dated April 18, 2005; C ase #IA05-38

policereview@gmail.com

25
Under these circum stances, there would have been insufficient tim e for them to conduct a proper
and thorough investigation. For exam ple, when asked what the captains did in their investigation
Hoover stated, “they interviewed Trinda, interviewed Tonya, took the reports and Taser
download… the investigation to that point could not corroborate six Taser uses on Tonya
Morrison.” 140
But this statem ent is consistent with Miller and Ross’ account. Both captains stated that Tonya
and Trinda were interviewed, but also stated that they didn’t review W ilhite’s or any other officer’s
narrative reports nor were they provided a Taser download to review. For exam ple, Miller stated
that Hoover never showed him a Taser printout in this case. Rather, he just said the printouts
didn’t m atch Morrison’s accusation that she had been Tasered six tim es.141 Ross stated, ”… I do
not recall ever reviewing narrative reports of any of the deputies that were involved in this
incident.” 142
It is also a concern that Hoover stated that Miller and Ross turned reports over to him and
discussed with him the outcom e of the investigation.143 He also stated that he term inated the
investigation after receiving inform ation from one or both of the captains.144 In fact, statem ents
provided by Miller and Ross fail to substantiate this. For exam ple, Miller stated, “I did not give him
[Hoover] anything in writing that Monday m orning.”145 Based on statem ents by Miller and Ross,
other than initial interviews with Morrison and W alter and photographs taken of m arks on
Morrison’s body, Miller and Ross no additional investigation into Morrison’s com plaint because
they were both off duty over the course of the weekend. As such, there was nothing to report to
Hoover when they returned to work on Monday. Rather, Hoover notified them that the
investigation was over and both Miller and Ross m ade it clear that they followed Hoover’s
com m and and abandoned their investigation. For exam ple, Miller stated, “He didn’t give m e any
details. I didn’t inquire.” 146
There is evidence, however, that should Miller and Ross have been perm itted to continue their
investigation, appropriate investigative steps would have been taken. For exam ple, Miller stated
that if he had not been told to discontinue the investigation, he would have (1) obtained the
printouts, (2) tried to identify additional witnesses; (3) looked at the Taser use form … to gather
inform ation (4) read through any other statem ents or narrative reports, and; (5) identify any other
eye or hear witnesses to see what they had to say… and talk with any other deputies who were
witnesses to the event… and eventually com e to a conclusion about the event. 147 Miller stated,
“That would be the norm al procedure in any case” 148
In sum m ary, if one is to assum e that Hoover was only aware of the one Tasering by W ilhite
occurring in Morrison’s cell, even it was unjustified and unreasonable, based on W ilhite’s own
account. Hoover knew or should have known this. Failure on the part of sheriff adm inistrators to
conduct a proper and thorough investigation is indicative of their indifference to Tonya Morrison’s
well-being and disregard for ongoing m isconduct and im proper practices within the departm ent.
Ø

140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148

OPINION #4: It is this expert’s opinion, stated within a reasonable degree of professional
certainty, that the investigation into Morrison’s complaint of physical abuse was not properly or
thoroughly conducted and that evidence readily available to Ross, Miller and Hoover was
ignored. Failure to properly investigate Morrison’s allegations, by even conducting the most
basic of investigative steps is a gross departure from nationally recognized investigative

H oover deposition, p. 108
M iller deposition, p. 24
R oss deposition, p. 50
H oover deposition, p. 70
H oover deposition, p. 70-71
M iller deposition, p. 19
M iller deposition, p. 24
M iller deposition, p. 23
M iller deposition, p. 22-23

policereview@gmail.com

26
protocols and caused persons responsible for excessive force against Morrison to go
unaddressed.
D. TOP-LEVEL ADM INISTRATORS W ERE AW ARE OF BUT IGNORED W IDESPREAD AND
SYSTEM IC ABUSES OF THE TASER THROUGHOUT THE M USKINGUM COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTM ENT.
This case involves allegations of W ilhite and possibly other deputies using or threatening the use
of the Taser against Morrison. Use or threats of use occurred on m ultiple occasions, while absent
any threat of violence by Morrison. It is therefore instructive to consider the extent to which officers
of the Muskingum Sheriff’s Office have a history of using the Taser against other inm ates or
arrestees whose behavior was not violent or potentially violent and thus failed to m eet criteria
identified in nationally recognized standards and guidelines.
The concern is that W ilhite’s and possibly Inm an’s use of the Taser on Morrison is an indicator of
a greater, system ic practice or custom whereby the Taser is used indiscrim inately and punitively
against persons who are not posing any threat to officers or anyone else. In fact, there is evidence
in this case that the m isuse of the Taser and use of force practices within the Muskingum County
Sheriff’s Office are widespread throughout the rank and file of the departm ent. Furtherm ore, there
is disturbing evidence that supervisory personnel, com m anders and adm inistrative policy m akers
within the departm ent are aware of and even contribute to such practices.
This expert’s review of the record has revealed num erous instances of Taser abuse and
inappropriate use of force that supports this concern. Specifically, there is evidence that over a
period of years for which records were provided, officers within the Muskingum County Sheriff’s
Office used the Taser against persons who were confined in holding cells and whose actions and
behaviors were not posing a threat to the officers or anyone else at the tim e they were Tasered. In
m any cases, subjects were m erely yelling from their cells or had sim ply been uncooperative by
refusing to follow an officer’s directives. Officers report that in som e cases where persons were
only yelling, and som etim es pounding on the doors and walls of their cells, their behaviors were
characterized by officers as “fighting” or being “com bative.” This expert argues that there is a
distinction between one who is being loud and uncooperative and one who is fighting or
com bative. A reasonable officer would consider a fighting or com bative person as posing a
possible physical threat to officers whereby a loud or uncooperative person does not.
The use of a Taser to “control” a person who is confined in a holding cell, away from other
inm ates, away from officers and who is only m aking noise is an unreasonable use of force.
Equally as im proper is the use of the Taser as a so-called “com e-along hold” to coerce a subject
to accom pany an officer or as a response to disobeying an order when no threat or aggression is
exhibited by that subject. This is especially true in cases where m ore than one officer is present
and the collective use of soft hand control techniques is an option.
Based on a review of Taser use reports, the following cases illustrate the use of the Taser against
persons who are not violent or potentially violent. The reports reviewed by this expert are m ere
narrative reports and m ay lack certain details, but I am basing m y observations on the words of
the deputies them selves. These incidents suggest a regular and ongoing abuse of the Taser and
a greater, system ic problem . The following reports constitute excessive force on their face:
Bruce Young:

Ram bling in his cell (cell 116) then becam e irate and was banging on the
door. Deputies Fleegle, Miller and Inm an entered the cell. Inm an
Tasered him with darts. Occurred on 5-17-05.149

Adrian Greene:

Mentally ill – Tasered by Deputy Lecoco deployed the Taser because
Greene failed to follow orders. Occurred on 6-1-05.150

149
150

Bates: M C O _1407
Bates: M C O _1434

policereview@gmail.com

27
Nathan Ludwig:

Tasered by Deputy W inters in cell 116 for banging head and kicking door
– Tasered for not calm ing down. After being Tasered in the
– stom ach, he was placed in restraint chair “for his protection.”
Occurred on 7-15-05.151

Jerem y Hankinson:

Tasered by Sgt. Hittle for being uncooperative during handcuffing. Three
officers present. Occurred on 9-23-05 152

Lura Lentz:

Tasered five tim es by Deputy Knox for being unruly while handcuffed in
back of cruiser, and while Lentz was running. Occurred on 9-30-05.153

Justin Dunkle:

As five officers (Lang, W eekley, Gee, Angelo and Shull) entered
Dunkle’s cell, he ran in between them and was tackled to the floor.
Tasered by Lang while on the floor and a second tim e when he refused
to get up and go to the restraint chair. Occurred on 11-7-05.154

Kenneth Fletcher:

Fletcher, who claim ed he was Muslim , com plained that he was being
served pork and threw tray to “Center Range.” Lang, Paxton, Dum m el
and Rice cam e to the floor and ordered him to clean up the m ess. He
left his cell he grabbed bars on the center range and held on not letting
go. Fletcher was Tasered a total of 4 tim es. Occurred on 4-21-05.155

John Beatley:

Beatley jum ped out of a car in front of Deputy Briggs and ran. Hittle
responded and gave chase threatening to Taser Beatley who continued
to run. Hittle deployed his Taser that struck Beatley in the back.
Occurred on 9-30-06.156

Robert Bereria:

W as yelling profanities in cell 106 and hitting his door causing a
disturbance. Gee, Paxton and Lang entered the cell and was Tasered by
Lang on the back just below the neck. After officers left the cell Bereria
yelled again – three officers entered and Paxton and Gee held him while
Lang Tasered him two m ore tim es. They left and warned him that unless
his behavior changed, they would keep returning and Taser him .
Occurred on 2-6-07.157

The nine Taser incidents identified above show a pattern of inappropriate behavior on the part of
num erous deputies of the Muskingum County Sheriff’s Office. These incidents, taken from reports
generated by deputies, suggest that officers of the Muskingum County Sheriff’s Office use the
Taser against persons whose levels of threat are at the m ost m inim al levels if existent at all. They
further show that the departm ental use of force continuum addressing the use of Taser is ignored
departm ent-wide. In fact several departm ental em ployees noted in these incidents are
supervisors, e.g., Sergeants Hittle and Lang, and Corporal Gee.
It is also a concern that nowhere does the record show that any of these officers were disciplined,
reprim anded, re-trained, dem oted or term inated for their use of the Taser under non-threatening
circum stances and their ignoring of departm ent policy. This data is consistent with an institutional
151
152
153
154
155
156
157

Bates:
Bates:
Bates:
Bates:
Bates:
Bates:
Bates:

M C O _1447
M C O _1461
M C O _1530
M C O _1588
M C O _1753
M C O _1988
M C O _2053

policereview@gmail.com

28
and system ic pattern of abuse, pervasive throughout the rank and file of the Muskingum County
Sheriff’s Office.
There is also evidence that high-ranking adm inistrators within the departm ent were not only aware
of the inappropriate use of the Taser but condoned it. For exam ple, Captain Miller stated that in
2005 there were tim es when deputies would use a Taser on som eone if they refused to com ply
with an order.158 He further stated, “If [Morrison] failed to com ply with that officer’s com m ands, yes
she could be Tased…to bring her into com pliance with the order.” Nowhere in the professional
policing literature or standards of care are officers justified in using a Taser against non-violent
persons who m erely disobey an order.
Miller further stated that if [Morrison] recovered but was still unwilling to com ply, she could be
Tased a second tim e.159 Miller’s statem ent m akes no reference to any level of threat that would
cause a reasonable officer to justify his or her use of the Taser. Rather, Miller’s com m ent
suggests that officers m ay take the path of least resistance and deploy a 50,000-volt weapon
against passive and non-violent subjects, as opposed to using other techniques such as soft hand
control; pressure point techniques; or control devices such as batons used in a non-striking
fashion.
Miller’s statem ents are also disturbing because they dem onstrate either his unfam iliarity with the
departm ental use of force continuum or the fact that he chooses to ignore it. The departm ent use
of force continuum m akes it clear that electronic weapons are authorized only for “W restling with
officer / Pushing officer.” Use of the Taser against persons who do not com ply with orders and
who are not posing a physical threat is im proper and violates national standards and departm ental
policy.
Ø

OPINION #5: It is this expert’s opinion, based on a reasonable degree of professional
certainty, that the improper, excessive and unreasonable use of the Taser by officers
employed by the Muskingum County Sheriff’s was widely known by the rank and file, field
supervisors, command staff and top administrators within the department. Based on available
evidence in the case record, administrators within the sheriff’s department were aware of but
ignored these abuses of use of force in general and abuses of the Taser in specific.

E. ADM INISTRATORS W ITHIN THE M USKINGUM COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE RATIFIED
THE CONDUCT OF DEFENDANT OFFICERS BY FAILING TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE
FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
Ratification of m isconduct, whether the m isconduct as a violation of policy, procedure, training
curriculum , directives, Law, or the United States Constitution, is a strong indicator of the
orientation, custom s, and practices of a departm ent. Police adm inistrators throughout our nation
acknowledge that a law enforcem ent agency is controlled not only by the law, written and verbal
directives, and training curriculum , but also by the custom s of the departm ent.
Adm inistrators within the Muskingum Sheriff’s Office dem onstrated their unwillingness to address
indiscretions that were clearly m ade by officers on duty creates a venue for continued m isconduct,
but it also sends a clear m essage to rank and file officers that such behavior is acceptable and
that punishm ents for violations are m inim al of not entirely absent.
In this case it was or should have been apparent to adm inistrators within the sheriff’s departm ent
that a proper investigation of Morrison’s com plaints was proper and that if her com plaints were
substantiated, disciplinary action against any officers involved was appropriate.
Ø

158
159

OPINION #6: It is this expert’s opinion, based on a reasonable degree of professional
certainty, that the failure on the part of top-level administrators within the Muskingum County

M iller deposition, p. 38-39
M iller deposition, p. 38-39

policereview@gmail.com

29
Sheriff’s Office to properly address widespread abuses of force, served to ratify ongoing
conducted and abuses of power within the rank and file. Failure to address these widespread
and blatant abuses of office ratifies the misconduct of officers and validates future abuse of
use of force.
This concludes m y report at this tim e.

Fees and Previous Experience
This report contains the opinions I am prepared to express at trial in this m atter. My fees in this
case are at the rate of $200 per hour and an initial retainer of $3000. I charge $2300 per day plus
expenses for depositions and any work conducted out of town.
I have testified as an expert witness on fifty-seven occasions including hearings, depositions and
trials. These are listed in Appendix #2.
Respectfully subm itted,

Michael D. Lym an, Ph.D.
August 15, 2007

policereview@gmail.com

30

APPENDIX #1 – M ATERIALS REVIEW ED
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.

Com plaint and Jury Dem and
Deposition: W ilhite
Deposition sum m ary: W ilhite
Deposition: Angelo
Deposition sum m ary: Angelo
Deposition: Inm an-Fuller
Deposition sum m ary: Inm an
Deposition: W hitem an
Deposition sum m ary: W hitem an
Deposition: Hendershot
Deposition sum m ary: Hendershot
Deposition: Morrison
Deposition: Stephenson
Deposition sum m ary: Stephenson
Deposition: Foster
Deposition sum m ary: Foster
Deposition: Miller
Deposition sum m ary: Miller
Deposition: Paterson
Deposition: Lang
Deposition sum m ary: Lang
Deposition: Newm an
Deposition sum m ary: Newm an
Deposition: Hoover
Deposition sum m ary: Hoover
Deposition: W ilson
Deposition sum m ary: W ilson
Deposition: Gee
Deposition sum m ary: Gee
Deposition: Thom pson
Deposition sum m ary: Thom pson

policereview@gmail.com

31
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.

Deposition: Patterson
Deposition sum m ary: Patterson
Deposition: Blaney
Deposition of W ayne Dum olt
Deposition sum m ary of W ayne Dum olt
Deposition of Cindy Blaney
Deposition sum m ary of Cindy Blaney
Deposition of Doug Sm ith
Deposition sum m ary of Doug Sm ith
Deposition of Trudy Shull
Deposition sum m ary of Trudy Shull
Deposition of Jim Paxton
Deposition sum m ary of Jim Paxton
Deposition of Robert Vandyne
Deposition sum m ary of Robert Vandyne
Deposition of John W inters
Deposition sum m ary of John W inters
Deposition of Angela Quinn
Deposition sum m ary of Angela Quinn
Deposition of Sergeant Shane Stephenson
Deposition sum m ary of Sergeant Shane Stephenson
Deposition of Captain Mark Ross
Deposition sum m ary of Captain Mark Ross
Deposition of Derek Terrell
Deposition sum m ary of Derek Terrell
Deposition of George Moses
Deposition of Darla Donaldson
Deposition of Randy Donaldson
Deposition of Todd Ludwig
Deposition sum m ary of Todd Ludwig
Deposition sum m ary of Hittle
Stephenson's Answers to Interrogatories
Responses of Defendant Stephenson to First Set of Interrogatories
Letter to McNam ara dated March 20, 2007
Muskingum County Sheriff's Office Policy and Procedure Manual
Defendant Stephenson's Answers to Interrogatories
Personnel Action Notice: Hendershot, dated July 6, 2006
Action -- Response Use of Force Continuum
Muskingum County Sheriff's Office m iscellaneous paperwork: Inm an docum ents: application
for em ploym ent; application release form ; statem ent of understanding: reserve deputy
Muskingum County Sheriff's Office m iscellaneous paperwork regarding W hitem an
Muskingum County Sheriff's Office m iscellaneous paperwork regarding Angelo
Jail cam era placem ent plan: first floor
Jail policies
Muskingum County Sheriff's Office Supplem entary Report: Hittle
Person -- Property Supplem ental Report: Morrison
Defendant W hitem an's Answers to Plaintiffs First Interrogatories
Answer of Defendants
Responses of Defendant Stephenson to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories
Color photocopies of photographs (10)
Letter to Michael Rourke from Jam es Reardon dated August 14, 2006
Responses of Defendant Angelo to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories
Correctional Officer Basic Academ y Training Manual
Index to Morrison docum ents
Muskingum County Sheriff's Office policies

policereview@gmail.com

32
86. Miscellaneous Morrison docum ents: supplem entary reports; narrative reports; photograph
identification records; taster international paperwork; inm ate interaction reports; Intoxilyzer
5000 reports; air Taser use reports; vehicle tow reports; use of force reports; general case
reports; photograph identification records
87. Photos (3) of Morrison’s thigh
88. Volum e I: Tonya Morrison Records Produced by Defendants, Bates: 0001 -- 0189
89. Volum e II: Tonya Morrison Records Produced by Defendants Bates: 0190 -- 0662
90. Volum e III: Tonya Morrison Records Produced by Defendants, Bates: 0663 – 1192
91. Volum e IV: Tonya Morrison Records Produced by Defendants, Bates: 1193 – 1380
92. Volum e V: Tonya Morrison Records Produced by Defendants, Bates: 1381 – 2066
93. Volum e VI: Tonya Morrison Records Produced by Defendants, Bates: 2067 – 2373
94. Volum e VII: Tonya Morrison Records Produced by Defendants, Bates: 2374 – 3024
95. International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), National Law Enforcem ent Policy Center:
Electronic Control W eapons Concepts and Issues Paper, dated January 2005
96. International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), National Law Enforcem ent Policy Center:
Electronic Control W eapons Model Policy
97. International Association of Chief’s of Police (IACP), Use of Force: Model Policy, August,
2001
98. International Association of Chief’s of Police (IACP), Use of Force: Concepts and Issues
Paper: Originally published: February 1989; Revised: Decem ber 1995.
99. International Association of Chief’s of Police (IACP), National Model Policy Center; Lockups
and Holding Facilities, Concepts and Issues Paper, dated, October, 1996
100.
International Association of Chief’s of Police (IACP), National Model Policy Center;
Investigation of Em ployee Misconduct, Concepts and Issues Paper, dated, July, 2001
101.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 396 (1989)
102.
MS CEO policy sign up sheets, MCO_3425 -- 4372; Jail inspection records, 2003 through
2006, MCO_4373 -- 5283; internal affairs com plaint form , MC0_5284; W hite House file,
MCO_5285 -- 5367; Joshua W hitem an use of force, MCO_5368 -- 5371; W ayne Dum olt
Taser and use of force file, MCO_5372 -- 5394; Randy W ilson's file, which includes: 2005 use
of force log and reports, MCO_5395 -- 5542; 2006 use of force log and reports, MCO_5533 -5661; 2007 use of force log and reports, MCO_5705 -- 5748; February 22, 2005 training
session m anual, MCO_5823 -- 5897; March 13, 2007 training/recertification session m aterial,
MCO_5898 -- 5996; Taser inventory, MCO_5997 -- 6006; Taser download printouts,
MCO_6007 – 6104
103.
Morrison docum ents from Defendants sum m ary (stam ped 1381 -- 2066) (received 3/7/07)
104.
CD: policies
105.
Morrison docum ents from Defendants sum m ary (stam ped 0663 -- 1192) (received
1/12/07)
106.
Morrison docum ents from Defendants sum m ary (stam ped 1194 -- 1381) (received
1/29/07)
107.
Morrison Taser docum ents from Defendants sum m ary
108.
Use of force policies in effect on date of Morrison incident sum m ary
109.
Sheriff/Jail policies -- Bates stam ped pages 699 –1002
110.
Internal investigation m em o: Miller
111.
Action Response Use of Force Continuum
112.
Stipulation of all parties regarding portions of the expert disclosures under rule 26
113.
Supplem entary report regarding Morrison: by W hitem an
114.
Mem orandum from JDM dated Septem ber 22, 2006 Re: Docum ents Served by the
Defendants Upon the Plaintiff on Septem ber 21, 2006
115.
Com puter printouts: in the MCO_2067; MCO_2068
116.
Morrison docum ents from defendants sum m ary (stam ped 1381 -- 2066) (received 3/7/07)
117.
Morrison docum ents from defendants sum m ary: (stam ped 1194 -- 1381) (received
1/29/07)
118.
Defendant Stephenson's Answers to Interrogatories
119.
Responsive Defendant Sheriff Robert Stevenson to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories
120.
W hitem an's Responses to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Docum ents

policereview@gmail.com

33
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.

140.
141.
142.

Muskingum County Sheriff's Office policy and procedure m aterials
Defendant Stephenson's Answers to Interrogatories
Personnel Action Notice m aterials
MCSO policy sign up sheets, MCSO_3425 -- 4372;
Jail inspection records, 2003 through 2006, MCO_4373 – 5283
intern's com plaint form , MCO_5284
W hitehouse file, MCO_5285 – 5367
Second Am ended Com plaint and Jury Dem and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Am end Com plaint
Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Com pel
Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Com pel Ex 2
Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Com pel Ex 3
Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Com pel Ex 4
Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Com pel Discovery
Motion to Am end 2 nd Com plaint
Stipulation Regarding Expert W itness Disclosures
Joshua W hitem an use of force file, MCO_5368 – 5371
W ayne Dum holt Taser and use of force file, MCO_5372 – 5394
Randy W ilson's file, which includes: 2005 use of force log and reports, MCO_5395 –
5542; 2006 use of force log and reports, MCO_5543 -- 5661; 2007 use of force log and
reports, MCO_5662 -- 5704; Taser instructors m aterial, MCO_nifty 705 -- 5748; February
22, 2005 training session m aterial, MCO_5749 -- 5822; March 12, 2005 training session
m aterial, MCO_5823 -- 5897; March 13, 2007 training/recertification session m aterial,
MCO_5898 -- 5996; Taser inventory, MCO_5997 -- 6006; Taser download printouts,
MCO_6007 – 6104
Muskingum County Sheriff's office policy/directive review m aterials and CEO_4065 –
MCO_4571
Miscellaneous reports; MCO_4572 -- MCO_5378
Miscellaneous reports: MCO_5379 -- MCO_6103

policereview@gmail.com

34

APPENDIX #2 – EXPERT TESTIM ONY
Depositions given:
1.

Frenzen, et al. vs. Grady County, et al. U.S. District Court – W estern District (Case # CIV-001089-A)
For defense
Investigative practice / inform ant m anagem ent
Deposition: 8/01

2.

Helen Eves vs. Anaconda-Deer Lodge County U. S. District Court – District of Montana, Butte
Division (Case # CV-00-17-BU-CCL)
For defense
Forseeability
Deposition: 3/03

3.

Aiels v. City of Cedar Rapids; Havlicek; and Keiller, U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Iowa Cedar Rapids Division (Case # C01-76MJM)
For plaintiff
Use of force
Deposition: 3/03

4.

Ernesto Acevedo Guerra vs. Montgom ery County, Maryland, et al.
The Circuit Court for Montgom ery County, Maryland
Case # AW -02-CV-1995
For plaintiff
Use of force
Deposition: 3/03

5.

Debra Sm ith, et al., v. Jam es Allen Barber, et al.,
United States District Court For the District of Kansas,
Case No. 01-2179-CM
For plaintiff

policereview@gmail.com

35
Inform ant m anagem ent / Use of force

Deposition: 4/03
6.

Mary Jane Blossom vs. Jeff Yarbrough et al.
Northern Oklahom a U.S. District Court. Case # 2002-CV-373
For plaintiff
Use of deadly force
Deposition: 6/03

7.

Richard Molina et al vs. County of Pim a et al. CIV02-078-TUC-W DB (Case # C20015392;
State Court, Tucson)
For plaintiff
Arrest / Pat down / Use of force
Deposition, 8/03

8.

Estate of Floyd W ayne Houston et al v. Tom Mosley; City of W ilburton Police Departm ent; and
City of W ilburton Defendants (Federal Court, 10 th Circuit: Tulsa)
Case # CIV-01-323-S
For plaintiff
Use of deadly force
Deposition: 6/04

9.

Estate of Roger D. Owensby, Jr. v. City of Cincinnati, et al
Case # 01-CV-769; S.D. Ohio
For plaintiff
Use of force
Deposition: 3/04

10. Dom inic Corigliano and Andrew Corigliano v. Polk County, Iowa, Jay Evans and Jeff Funaro;
U.S. No. 4:02-CV-20422 (Federal Court: W est Des Moines, IA)
For plaintiff
Use of force
Deposition: 8/04
11. Irasem a C. Gom ez v. State of Arizona et al
Case # C20025939
For plaintiff (State Court: Tucson)
Forseeability / Training
Deposition: 7/04
12. Erick Dunn, a m inor by his adoptive parents, Linda Rivera and Jam es Rivera v. City of
W alsenburg, et al (Colorado Springs, CO)
Case # 01-B-1820
For plaintiff
Investigative procedures
Deposition: 6/04
13. Hastings v. Barnes, et al
(US District Court for Northern District of Oklahom a)
Case # 03-CV-538 EA (M)
For plaintiff
Use of deadly force
Deposition: 6/04
14. Hester et al v. W al-Mart Stores, Inc.

policereview@gmail.com

36
Case No. 2:03-cv-02447-JW L-JPO (US District Court for the District of Kansas)
For defense
Arrest
Deposition: 7/04
15. State of Iowa v. Jared Jam es York
Case #FECR05-402
For defense (Iowa District Court in and for W ashington County)
Investigative procedures / Interview & interrogation
Deposition: 9/04
16. Sigley v. City of Parm a Heights (OH)
Case # 1:03CV0595
For plaintiff
Use of deadly force
Deposition: 10/04
17. Steven Manning v. Gary Miller, et al,
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case
No. 02 C 0372;
For plaintiff
Investigative procedures / Inform ant m anagem ent
Depositions (2): 11/04
18. Sallenger v. City of Springfield, et al. U.S. Dist. Ct. Central Dist. Of Ill, Springfield Division.
Case # 03-3093
For plaintiff
Use of force
Deposition: 01/05
19. Deborah Golder et al v. City of Corpus Christi. Cause No. 04-771-E (US District Court: Corpus
Christi, TX)
For plaintiff For Plaintiff
Use of deadly force
Deposition: 3/05
20. Jack W hitaker v. Dan Bowers, United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois,
Springfield, Illinois
Case No. 03-3133;13822
For plaintiff
Use of force
Deposition: 11/04
21. Cynthia Jones v. City of Clearwater, et al. Circuit Court of the Sixth District in and for Pinellas
County, State of Florida. Case No. 8-03-CV 501-T-26EAJ
For plaintiff
Retention / Supervision
Deposition: 3/05
22. Maria Guadalupe Nevarez et al vs. the County of Finny County, Kansas et al (Federal court,
Kansas City)
For plaintiff
Use of deadly force
Deposition: 10/05
23. Neil Miller v. City of Boston et al. Case No. 03-10805-JLT(Federal Court, Boston,
Massachusetts)

policereview@gmail.com

37
For defense
Identification procedures/investigative process
Deposition: 1/06
24. Robert E. Rohrback v. Jorey Bailey et al. No. LACV064930, Iowa District Court in and for
Johnson County
For plaintiff
Use of force
Deposition: 3/06
25. Tim othy Michael Fry, Deceased by and through his heirs at law and Tam m y Lynn Fry, et al, v.
City of Galena, Kansas; No. 05-2248-JW L (10th Circuit)
For plaintiff
Use of deadly force
Deposition: 4/06
26. Joseph D. Am rine v. George Robert Brooks, et al. Case No. 04-4300-CV-C-NKL. U.S. District
Court for the W estern District of Missouri Central Division
For defense
Investigative process & procedure
Depositions (2): 6-9-06
27. Hoffm an v. Sm ithfield City et al, Case No. 1:05CV00072 DB U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah, Northern Division
For plaintiff
Use of force
Deposition: 6/06
28. Alicia Mendez, Adm inistratrix v. W al-Mart Stores, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 04-C-442, Circuit
of Berkley County, W V
For plaintiff
Investigative process / dealing with m entally ill
Deposition: 7/06
29. Cheri Bruce and Robert Bruce v. City of Sunset Hills, et al; In the Circuit Court of the County
of St. Louis of Missouri, Cause No. 05CC-004007
For plaintiff
Pursuits
Deposition: 11/06
30. Jam es Saville v. Maricopa County, et al, No. CV2004-010518; Superior Court of the State
of Arizona; County of Maricopa
For plaintiff
Investigative process / inform ant m anagem ent / undercover operations
Deposition: 11/06
31. Dean Rickabaugh Sr. and Jackie Ashley husband and wife, Individually and As Next Friend of
Dean Rickabaugh v. W al-Mart Stores et al, In the Iowa District Court for Polk County; Law No.
CL100555
For defense
Forseeability / Physical security
Deposition: 12/06
32. Marion J. Ashley and Leanna Ashley v. City of Poughkeepsie et al; United States District
Court Southern District of New York, 03CIV 9360 (CLB)
For defense

policereview@gmail.com

38
Use of force
Deposition: 12/06
33. Lawrence B. Tirreno et al v. Barbara Mott a/b/a Barbara’s Bail Bonds; Case NO. 3: 03 –CV1322 (RNC). United States District Court, District of Connecticut
For plaintiff
Search and seizure
Deposition: 1/07
34. Jam es Elliott and Teresa Guiler v. City of Clarksville et al, United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee Nashville Division, Case No. 3:05-0138
For defense
Investigative practices / search and seizure / use of force
Deposition: 1/07
35. Estate of Kyle W asson v. W arkentin, City of North Liberty, Iowa U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Iowa, Davenport Division 05-104
For plaintiff
Use of deadly force
Deposition: 5/07

36. Ralph H. Cloaninger v. John T. McDeavitt, et al W .D.N.C. ; Case No. 1:06-CV-00135
For plaintiff
Use of force
Deposition: 6/07
37. Alicia Beckett-Crabtree v. Robert Hair & W ashington County Sheriff’s Departm ent; United
States District Court Case No. 06-CV-683-CVE-FHM
For plaintiff
Use of deadly force
Deposition: 8/07
38. Louise Jones and Fred Jones v. Van Deusen, et al., Case No.: 0616-CV16131; Division
Three; In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri at Kansas City
For plaintiff
Use of force/Arrest
Deposition: 8/07
Hearings:
1.

State of Arizona vs. Jam es Bryan Saville. Case # CR2002-006589 (State Court: Maricopa
County, AZ)
For defendant
Inform ant Managem ent / Investigative Procedures

2.

Deborah Golder et al v. City of Corpus Christi. Cause No. 04-771-E (US District Court: Corpus
Christi, TX)
For plaintiff
Use of deadly force
Deposition, 3/05

3.

State v. Kelvin Sm ith (State Court: Fulton County, GA)
For prosecution
Use of force
Grand Jury, 3/05

policereview@gmail.com

39

4.

Hum phrey v. Ronnie Leatherm an, et al. Case No. 04-CV-339 (C) Tenth Circuit
For plaintiff
Use of force
9/05

5.

Illinois v. Aubrey D. Tucker; Lawrence County Case 05-CF-19
For defense
Interview and Interrogation
Motion hearing: 1/07

Trial testim ony:
1.

Brooks v. Maury County et al
1983 action: Federal Court, Colum bia, Tennessee
For plaintiff (defense verdict)
Use of deadly force
Trial date: 9/03

2.

Aiels v. City of Cedar Rapids; Havlicek; and Keiller. U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Iowa Cedar Rapids Division (Case # C01-76MJM)
For plaintiff (defense verdict)
Use of force
Trial date: 2/04

3.

Jonathan W hite v. State of Mississippi. NO. 03-10, 129 (3) (State Court: Pascagoula, MS)
For defense (prosecution verdict)
Road blocks
Trial date: 10/04

4.

Steven Manning v. Gary Miller, et al, United States District Court Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, Case No. 02 C 0372
For plaintiff (plaintiff verdict)
Investigative procedures / Inform ant m anagem ent
Trial date: 01/05

5.

State of Iowa v. Jared Jam es York. Case #FECR05-402 (Iowa District Court in and for
W ashington County)
For defense (prosecution verdict)
Investigative procedure / Interview & interrogation
Trial date: 2/05

6.

Ferrym an v. United States. Case No. 3:03-cv-1030-J-20TEM (US District Court: Jacksonville,
FL)
For plaintiff (plaintiff verdict)
Arrest tactics / Investigative procedures
Trial date: 9/05

7.

Hester et al v. W al-Mart Stores, Inc. Case No. 2:03-cv-02447-JW L-JPO (US District Court for
the District of Kansas)
For defense (defense verdict)
False arrest / racial profiling
Trial date: 10/05

policereview@gmail.com

40

8.

Georgia Fuston-Lounds and Lula Lounds as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of
Alford Lounds vs. Frank Torres, et al. Case No. CIV-03-1519-T (United States District Court,
W estern District of Oklahom a)
For plaintiff (defense verdict)
Use of deadly force
Trial date: 3/06

9.

Arvin Carsell McGee, Jr. v. Randy Lawm aster, et al., Case No. 03-CV-704(H) (C), filed in
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahom a.
For plaintiff (plaintiff verdict)
W rongful conviction / investigative process / photo lineups
Trial date: 3/06

10. Alicia Mendez, Adm inistratrix v. W al-Mart Stores, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 04-C-442, Circuit
of Berkley County, W V
For plaintiff (defense verdict)
Investigative process
Trial date: 8/06

11. Lionel Trepanier v Cook County Forest preserve District, et al; United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division
For plaintiff (defense verdict)
Use of force
Trial date: 9/06
12. Naluan v. City of Philadelphia, et al, Civil Action NO.: 05-CV-6186, IN the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
For plaintiff
Use of force
Trial date: 9/06
13. Dean Rickabaugh Sr. and Jackie Ashley husband and wife, Individually and As Next Friend of
Dean Rickabaugh v. W al-Mart Stores et al, In the Iowa District Court for Polk County; Law No.
CL100555
For defense (defense verdict)
Forseeability / Physical security
Trial date: 12/06
14 State of Alaska vs. Shawn W . Rogers; Case NO. 3KN-S04-1762-CR
For defense (prosecution verdict)
Investigative practices
Trial date: 3/07

policereview@gmail.com

41

APPENDIX #3 - CURRICULUM VITAE: M ICHAEL D. LYM AN, PH.D.
CURRENT POSITION
Rank:

Professor of Crim inal Justice
Service from : August 1989 to Present
Colum bia College of Missouri
1001 Rogers St.
Colum bia, Missouri 66216
Office (573) 875-7472

Responsibilities:
·
·
·
·
·

Departm ental Liaison of the Master of Science of Crim inal Justice
Program Director of the Forensic Science degree program
Departm ent chairm an from 1989 to 2001
Developed the curriculum for the Master of Science in Crim inal Justice (MSCJ) program and
the curriculum for the Bachelor of Science in Forensic Science program
Undergraduate courses taught include Introduction to Crim inal Justice; Policing in Am erica;
Crim inal Investigation; Managem ent of Crim inal Justice Agencies. Graduate courses taught
include: Developm ent of Standard Operating Procedure; Police Developm ent and Evaluation;
Current Issues and Future Directions in Crim inal Justice
PREVIOUS EM PLOYM ENT

Certified Generalist Instructor - The University of M issouri-Columbia
Law Enforcem ent Training Institute - School of Law
321 Hearnes Center
Colum bia, Missouri 65211
From - 7-15-86 to 8-15-89
Responsibilities:

Instructed police office recruits in police academ y in the
areas of crim inal investigation, interviews & interrogations,

policereview@gmail.com

42
inform ant m anagem ent, use of force, felony arrests,
professional ethics Police academ y program
coordinator keynote speaker at academ y graduation
cerem onies
Sr. Agent - The Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (state police bureau)
4545 North Lincoln Blvd.
Oklahom a City, Oklahom a 73102
Phone (405) 521-2885
Position - Sr. Agent, Intelligence Division / Sr. Agent, Training and
Education Division
Responsibilities:Originated and m anaged large-scale crim inal investigations
throughout the State of Oklahom a; testified in crim inal court
on both the federal and state level; m ade arrests; served
search warrants; conducted interrogations; served on
personnel hiring boards; disciplinary boards; shooting review
and prom otion boards; conducted background investigations
of prospective recruits and conducted num erous internal
affairs investigations as Sr. investigator;
testified in two congressional hearings.
I also served as training and field training officer (FTO) for new
recruits for over four years.
From - 10/1/81 to 7/9/86
Special Agent - The Kansas Bureau of Investigation (state police investigative bureau)
1620 Tyler
Topeka, Kansas 66612
Phone - (913) 232-6000
Position -Special Agent, Intelligence and Organized Crim e
Division (IOCD) / Special Services Division
Responsibilities:Originated and m anaged large-scale crim inal investigations
throughout the State of Kansas; testified in crim inal court on
both the federal and state level; m ade arrests; served search
warrants; conducted interviews and interrogations; conducted
num erous internal affairs and pre-em ploym ent background
investigations.
From - 6/75 to 10/80
Agent – City County Investigative Squad (Johnson County, Kansas)
Johnson County Courthouse, Olathe, Kansas (Kansas City
Metro Area) Task Force concept utilizing officers on loan
from 13 jurisdictions. This unit is no longer in existence as it
operated on grant m oney which was depleted during the
early 1980s.
Responsibilities:Initiated full-scale crim inal investigations at the direction of
the unit Manager; enforced the laws of the State of Kansas; assisted in
conducting arrests and serving search warrants; developed and m anaged

policereview@gmail.com

43
inform ants; testified in crim inal hearings and trials; conducted interviews
and interrogations.
From - 6/74 to 6/75
PUBLICATIONS
Textbooks:
Lym an, M. D. (2008). Crim inal Investigation: The Art and the Science, 5 th
ed. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Lym an, M. & G. Potter (2007). Organized Crim e, 4 th ed . Prentice Hall:
Upper Saddle River, NJ
Lym an, M. D. (2007) Practical Drug Enforcem ent, 3 rd ed. CRC Press:
Boca Raton, FL
Lym an, M. D. (2005) The Police: An Introduction, 3 rd ed. Prentice Hall:
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Lym an, M. D. (2003). Drugs in Society: Causes, Concepts and Control, 4 th
ed. Anderson Publishing: Cincinnati, OH.
·

Articles / Essays:
Lym an, M. (2004). The Decision to Chase: Revisiting Police Pursuits and the
Appropriateness of Action. The Police Forum Journal.
Lym an, M. (2003). “Transnational Organized Crim e.” An essay for The
Encyclopedia of Murder & Violent Crim e; Eric Hickey Editor. Sage
Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lym an, M. (2003). “Dom estic Organized Crim e.” An essay for The
Encyclopedia of Murder & Violent Crim e. Sage Publications: Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Lym an, M. (2004). “Drug Enforcem ent in the United States.” An essay for
The Encyclopedia of Law Enforcem ent, Sage Publications: Thousand
Oaks, CA. (will be in production in m id-2004).
Lym an, M. (2004). “Undercover Operations.” An essay for The
Encyclopedia of Law Enforcem ent, Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks,
CA. (will be in production in m id-2004).
AW ARDS
·

2004 Com m unity Partner Award presented by the Colum bia Missouri Police Foundation,
February 2004.

·

Police Instructor of the Year Award presented by the Missouri Departm ent of Public Safety,
Peace Officer's Standards and Training (POST). Presented April 1989.

·

Meritorious Award for Independent Study Course presented by the National University
Continuing Education Association. April 1989.

policereview@gmail.com

44

ACADEM IC BACKGROUND
Doctor of Philosophy (1992) Higher and Adult Education and Foundations. University of MissouriColum bia, Colum bia, Missouri
Master of Science in Adm inistration of Justice – Police Agency Managem ent (1979) W ichita State
University Graduate School, W ichita, Kansas
Bachelor of Science in Adm inistration of Justice (1977) W ichita State University, W ichita, Kansas
CONSULTING
·

Served as consultant for the Federal Research Division of the U.S. Library of Congress and
the Director of Central Intelligence Crim e and Narcotics Center in W ashington DC (in January
2003.)

·

Conducted police training sem inars for the Public Agency Training Council located at 5101
Decatur Blvd. Ste. L., Indianapolis, IN. Topics included: crim inal investigation; undercover
operations and inform ant m anagem ent (in Colum bus, OH (1989-1991).

·

Have testified in over 250 crim inal trials and hearings. Have been a litigation consultant for
approxim ately three years involved as an expert witness reviewing cases for both defense
and plaintiff.

·

I have been the lead investigator in cases involving num erous crim es. These include but are
not lim ited to: m urder, extortion, arson, drug trafficking, corruption, rape, burglary, robbery,
assault, organized crim e investigations.

·

In this capacity I have been involved with inform ants, witnesses, victim s, newspaper reporters,
federal agencies and working undercover with crim inals. Duties have included surveillance
operations, interviews of witnesses, interrogations of suspects, arrests, searches & seizures,
etc.

·

I have been asked to review police policies for law enforcem ent and m ake recom m endations
for im provem ents.
ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATIONS
·
·
·
·
·
·
·

The International Association for the Study of Organized Crim e (IASOC)
International Association of Chief’s of Police (IACP)
Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)
Academ y of Crim inal Justice Sciences (ACJS)
Am erican Society of Crim inology (ASC)
Am erican Academ y of Forensic Science (AAFS)
Am erican College of Forensic Exam iners International (ACFEI)

policereview@gmail.com