Armstrong v. City of Greensboro

190 F.Supp.3d 450

Lamonte Burton Armstrong, Plaintiff,

v.City of Greensboro; J.F. Whitt, individually; David Spagnola, individually; and Sylvester Daughtry, Jr., individually and in his official capacity as former Chief of Police of the City of Greensboro, Defendants.

1:15CV282

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina.

Signed June 6, 2016

David C. Pishko, Law Office of David Pishko, P.A., Winston-Salem, NC, David S. Rudolf, Rudolf Widenhouse & Fialko, Chapel Hill, NC, for Plaintiff.

Alan W. Duncan, Stephen McDaniel Russell, Jr., Mullins Duncan Harrell & Russell, PLLC, William L. Hill, Frazier Hill & Fury, RLLP, J. David James, Seth R. Cohen, Smith James Rowlett & Cohen, Greensboro, NC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

OSTEEN, JR., District Judge

This matter comes before this court on the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims filed by Defendants City of Greensboro and Sylvester Daughtry, Jr. (Doc. 18). Defendants City of Greensboro and Daughtry's motion was cross-referenced and incorporated in the motions to dismiss filed by Defendant David Spagnola (Doc. 20) and Defendant J.F. Whitt (Doc. 22) (collectively "Defendants"). Plaintiff Lamonte Burton Armstrong ("Plaintiff") filed three responses in opposition (Docs. 26, 27, 28). Each Defendant filed replies (Docs. 31, 32, 33). Defendants Whitt and Spagnola's motions were addressed in a previous Memorandum Opinion and Order filed by this court on March 31, 2016 (Doc. 34), and the explanation for that denial is contained in the present Memorandum Opinion and Order. This matter is ripe for resolution and for the following reasons, this court will grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motions.¹

I. BACKGROUND

A. Parties

Plaintiff is an individual who was previously imprisoned for a crime of which he was innocent. (Complaint ("Compl.") (Doc. 1) ¶ 1.) Defendant City of Greensboro is a municipal corporation and the Greensboro Police Department ("GPD") is a department of Defendant City of Greensboro. (Id.¶ 10.) Defendants J.F. Whitt and David Spagnola were police detectives employed by Defendant City of Greensboro at the time of the investigation, arrest, and prosecution of Plaintiff. (Id.¶¶ 11-12.) Defendant Sylvester Daughtry, Jr., served as the Chief of Police of Defendant City of Greensboro at that time. (Id.¶ 13.)

B. Factual Allegations

The following facts are drawn from the Complaint and are presented in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. SeeAshcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). In this case, because the Complaint is detailed and extensive in its allegations, the facts will be summarized generally and addressed more specifically in the analysis where necessary.

The underlying criminal case in this matter arose from the investigation of the murder of Ernestine Compton in July 1988. (Compl. (Doc. 1) ¶¶ 1-2.) However, in December 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appropriate Relief in the Guilford County Superior Court that, after investigation, was consented to by the Guilford County District Attorney's Office. (Id.¶ 4.) On June 29, 2012, Plaintiff's conviction was vacated, (id.¶ 5); on March 13, 2013, the first-degree murder charge against him was dismissed, (id.¶ 6); and on December 23, 2013, Governor Pat McCrory granted Plaintiff a Pardon of Innocence. (Id.¶ 7.)

1. Ernestine Compton's Murder

In July 1988, Ernestine Compton was murdered in her home in Greensboro, North Carolina. (Id.¶ 15.) Following the discovery of Compton's body, Defendant Whitt was the lead detective assigned to the investigation and was assisted by Defendant Spagnola and various other GPD officers and detectives. (Id.¶ 18.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Daughtry was responsible for the establishment of policies, procedures, and customs applicable to the GPD and used by the officers and detectives during the investigation. (Id.)

2. The Crime Scene Search

The GPD collected a significant amount of forensic evidence from the crime scene and these items were preserved for future processing and analysis and turned in to the GPD Evidence Custodian. (Id.¶ 20.) The GPD also located in the kitchen various notes written by Compton, although these notes do not appear as an entry on related evidence control forms and were not submitted to the GPD Evidence Custodian. (Id.¶ 21.)

3. Charles Blackwell Falsely Implicates Plaintiff

News stories recounting Compton's murder include stories in the Greensboro News & Record. (Id.¶ 22.) As Compton was well known in the black community in Greensboro at that time, the community also speculated about who might be responsible for her death. (Id.¶ 24.) A July 26, 1988 story in the Greensboro News & Record indicated that the Governor's office, the police, and Crime Stoppers were all offering monetary awards for information about her murder. (Id.¶ 25.) The following day, the GPD received a tip through Crime Stoppers that identified Plaintiff as a possible suspect in the murder. (Id.¶ 26.) Plaintiff alleges that this tip came from Charles Blackwell, a street criminal who had been a GPD informant for a number of years and was well known to Defendants Whitt and Spagnola. (Id.¶¶ 26-28.)² Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Whitt and Spagnola were aware that Blackwell was not trustworthy and that the information he provided was not reliable. (Id.¶ 30.)

Based on the Crime Stopper's tip, Defendant Whitt spoke with Plaintiff over the telephone. (Id.¶ 33.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Whitt and Spagnola did not find any evidence inconsistent with what Plaintiff said in this call. (Id.) For two weeks, Defendant Whitt interviewed other witnesses and suspects, but he received no other information implicating Plaintiff in the murder. (Id.¶ 34.)

Plaintiff then alleges an extensive pattern of occurrences where Blackwell would speak with the detectives, provide inconsistent or non-specific information about the murder or fail to persuade Plaintiff to make incriminating statements or admissions, and nevertheless receive compensation or aid with criminal charges. (See, e.g., id.¶¶ 35-39.) Plaintiff additionally alleges a pattern of the inconsistencies, associated recordings, or other pieces of information being withheld from the District Attorney's Office and from the Prosecution Summary prepared by Defendant Whitt. (See, e.g., id.¶ 38.) Further, Plaintiff alleges that the detectives would make false or coercive statements to Blackwell, to induce his statements against Plaintiff, and that these statements, as well as some inconsistencies, were not included in the Prosecution Summary. (See, e.g., ¶¶ 53-65.) Other allegations by Plaintiff recount events or testimony by other individuals that should have borne on Blackwell's credibility. (See, e.g., ¶¶ 66-67.)

In February and May 1989, the FBI reported the results of its analysis of the physical evidence from the crime scene and none of the evidence matched Plaintiff. (Id.¶ 75.) Thus, Plaintiff alleges that only Blackwell's uncorroborated and inconsistent statements linked him to the murder. (Id.¶ 76.) Further, between 1988 and 1994, neither Blackwell nor Plaintiff was arrested for Compton's murder. (Id.)

4. The GPD's Policy and Practice with Respect to Informants

Plaintiff alleges that prior to Compton's death and throughout the investigation, the GPD maintained an improper policy and practice of actively encouraging detectives to rely on information from informants without regard to whether the informants were reliable or truthful and condoned such conduct when it occurred. (Id.¶ 78.) The GPD allegedly encouraged and condoned this custom, policy, and practice by posting or allowing to be posted a large board at the police station to keep track of the number of informants each detective cultivated, regardless of their reliability. (Id.¶ 79.) Detectives with the most informants had stars next to their names. (Id.)³ Plaintiff alleges that over a number of years, this caused most, if not all, GPD detectives, including Whitt and Spagnola, to frequently use questionable informants without corroborating the information provided and that their supervisors, including Defendant Daughtry, encouraged and condoned this conduct. (Id.¶¶ 81-82.)

In furtherance of this, Plaintiff alleges that GPD informants were given money or favorable treatment in exchange for cooperation and information, regardless of the information's accuracy, allowing informants to initiate contact with the GPD and trade false information for money. (Id.¶ 83.) Consequently, he alleges that Defendant Daughtry knew or reasonably should have known that on a frequent basis, GPD informants were studying local newspapers for crime details, incorporating those details into stories, and then offering the stories to the GPD, (id.), and that GPD officers were improperly cultivating and employing informants. (Id.¶ 84.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Daughtry implemented this policy and encouraged and condoned this conduct. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Whitt and Spagnola provided Blackwell with the only factual details included in his statements, despite the fact that any reasonable detective would have known that this was improper and dangerous and would cause an informant's later statements to be contaminated and unreliable. (Id.¶ 86.)

5. The 1994 Investigation

Despite the lack of new evidence, Defendant Whitt decided to re-open the investigation in 1994, allegedly due to pressure to solve the crime. (Id.¶ 88.) Blackwell was brought to the GPD and given a polygraph examination. (Id.¶¶ 89-90.) In the pre-test interview, he said that the statements he gave in 1988 were not true and he did it because he wanted help from the officers. (Id.¶ 90.) However, allegedly due to pressure, (id.¶ 91), Blackwell changed course and then stated that his October 29, 1988 statement was the truth, although his new claim had some discrepancies from his prior statement. (Id.¶ 92.) Nevertheless, Whitt did not take a new statement and...