VIOLATION OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY EVIDENCE RULE BY LAWRENCE KANSAS POLICE IN YELLOW HOUSE CASE LAWRENCE KANSAS

Get free hit counter code here.

In violation of title 42, USC section 14141, it is unlawful for any state or local law enforcement officer to practice misconduct that deprives a person of his/her constitutional rights.

According to the rules for the chain of custody, each item of property or evidence seized must be recorded. When describing the property the officer should make sure to include a description of the item or material, and note any markings placed on the property. Accountability for the item must be maintained from the time it is seized until it is released by proper authority. Ie: chain of custody forms. Every time the item(s) seized are moved, or handled by different individuals, the name(s) and the time and date must be noted.

This accountability begins with officers taking the item being seized. When releasing property each person receiving and releasing property will enter his/her signature plus the name and address of agency. It is imperative that the person receiving the personal property sign the chain-of-custody form in the "released to" block. lawrence police also take a photo of the item being returned along with the person in reciept of it.

This letter is claiming that the chain of custody has been corrupted due to outrageous government conduct. In regards to the search warrant EXECUTED Dec 2, 2005, upon the property located at 1104 Andover, Lawrence, Kansas. From the beginning the chain of custody in this case has been corrupt!

No items were individually or properly listed on the inventory of property seized and receipt for same document. Causing concerns regarding the integrity of the evidence.

see list:

Twelve Guns from a high end gun collection were seized but only eleven listed, only 10 GUNS were photographed at the time of the seizure. One gun alone in the collection was a rare custom made gun over 30 years old that had never been fired and had an estimated value of $18,000.00

TWELVE guns were discussed in a pre-indictment hearing with Federal U.S. Prosecuting Attorney Marietta Parker. This is documented in our attorney's notes taken during the meeting and currently available as evidence. Also attending the meeting were IRS Agent Rob Jackson, Police officer J. Bialeck, Police Officer Mickey Rantz, Postal Inspector David Nitz, Defense Attorney Sarah Swain & Aaron McKee, Carrie & Guy Neighbors.

The home owners were not provided any documentation in regards to the gun seizure. Guns were not individually listed.

No serial numbers,

make,

model or descriptions were provided.

A number of older Bicycles were seized, they were not counted, they were not itemized, and no makes, models, or serial numbers were provided. Bike boxes collected by the defendants from the trash were also seized, and later reports by officers were worded to look as though these old bikes were new Trek bikes in the boxes.

Expensive ipods were seized and defendants were not provided with the number of ipods taken or any description thereof. Computers were seized, no itemized list, number of computers seized or descriptions provided. Other items seized from the home without individualized documentation, detailed receipt, or accountability was the home owner’s expensive Diamond and gold jewelry valued at over $1,200 that included family heirlooms taken from the Armoire located in the master bedroom.

The owners were not provided with any kind of list or number of valuable pieces taken.

EVIDENCE MISSING FROM EVIDENCE ROOM!

In July 2006 Officers invited Guy and Carrie Neighbors along with attorney Sarah Swain, to come down to the police station and recover some of the seized items. Also in attendance were several uniformed officers, the city attorney, and Jay Bialek.

During the meeting the Neighbors requested several used high end laptop computers should also be returned. Officer Bialek at first stated that they did not have the computers, then after looking through his notes he stated “here it is I cant even read my own writing”. Guy and Carrie stated the fact that the one computer could not be proven stolen property and should not be held as evidence. They also stated that they had the original receipt from Best Buy and were personal friends with the original owners of the computer. At this point officer Bialek instructed another officer to go retrieve the one computer from the evidence room. After repeated trips to the evidence room and about 10-15 minutes of searching it was determined that the laptop computer could not be located. In violation of the Lawrence Police Procedure Manual pg. 43 section 00-16(a)(c)(e) Officer Bialek at that point assured the Neighbors the computer would be found and returned to them within two weeks. Failure to do so was in violation of Police procedure Manual section 00-16 (G).

EVIDENCE TAKEN DURING SEARCH NEVER TURNED INTO EVIDENCE CUSTODIAN!

Oct. 19th, 2006, Investigation team Officer's Bialek and Rantz stopped into the Yellow House store to question the Neighbors, absent of their attorney about some details of the investigation, in violation of the terms of the proffer agreement stating that the defendants have the right to counsel during questioning.

They also had with them a Sony cyber-shot DSC-P200 7.2 megapixel digital camera valued at $350, that had been seized during one of the 2005 search warrants.

Officer Bialek stated that the officers had failed to properly document the camera and log it into evidence, therefore forgoing any need for customary paperwork or documentation involving the return of the item. In violation of the chain of custody law. (This entire incident is video taped on the stores surveilliance system.)

In conclusion we feel the acts of Law enforcement during the course of our ongoing investigation, have been unlawful, and were capable of infecting the proceedings as abusive of the Courts process. Thus amounting to a deliberate violation of Guy and Carrie Neighbors right to legal privilege were such an affront to the integrity of the justice system, and therefore the rule of law, that the prosecution was rendered abusive and ought not to be countenanced by the Court.

Concluding the illegal conduct of the police has undermined the rule of law itself. Instigating a need for a full investigation into this matter focusing on a full disclosure of where the abuse of process application has been made.