They got $2M after fake drug arrests. Here’s what they want from Raleigh, police next.
The city of Raleigh recently agreed to pay $2 million to settle a federal civil rights lawsuit that claimed police framed at least 15 Black men for drug trafficking.
But the plaintiffs in the case — men who were arrested and others who were detained or affected — want more than money.
Now they want to make sure others don’t face unjustified charges, according to a Sept. 16 letter their attorneys sent to Raleigh Police Chief Estella Patterson and Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman.
Freeman agrees that changes to policies should be considered.
“When we end up in a situation that has happened multiple times, it absolutely does call for review of practices and determination as to whether this was an isolated incident or whether there are more widespread changes that need to take place,” she said. “So we welcome input, and certainly, we be reviewing these matters.”
Some changes, however, may be limited by local resources, she said.
The News & Observer requested an interview and sent questions about the plaintiffs’ recommendations to the Raleigh Police Department on Thursday. On Friday, police spokesperson Donna-maria Harris wrote back, saying the department is “in the process of revising the policy.”
“We are taking into consideration the recommendations that were provided,” she wrote.
The N&O asked Harris what policy she was referring to, since the plaintiffs mentioned several. As of Friday night, she hadn’t responded.
Wrongful arrests, incarceration
Wrongful arrests and prosecutions caused about 15 Wake County residents to spend a collective total of roughly 2 and 1/2 years in jail before their charges were dismissed, the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit was filed by 12 people who were arrested or affected after a confidential police informant contended people had sold him heroin, or in one case marijuana, The N&O previously reported. The drugs turned out to be fake.
Three people were added during the mediation period, according to Abraham Rubert-Schewel, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Others affected by the arrests also are expected to sue, he said.
The initial civil rights lawsuit filed in April sought policy changes and damages from the city of Raleigh; Officer Omar Abdullah, who recruited and managed the confidential informant; and seven of his colleagues, including a sergeant and a lieutenant.
“Many Plaintiffs lost their jobs, missed birthdays and funerals, others had their homes and children investigated by Child Protective Services, and others were unable to continue to pay their bills and were forced to move during the COVID-19 pandemic,” their September letter states. “All were traumatized because of their wrongful detention or incarceration and the fabricated allegations against them.”
The recommendations come from the 15 people in the lawsuit, as well as former Oakland Chief of Police Howard Jordan, who was retained as an expert for the plaintiffs.
Recommended changes include:
▪ End Raleigh police’s use of paid confidential informants.
The city, community partners and Police Department should create a working group to examine the use of confidential informants, related policies and the costs associated with the program.
▪ Improve practices for testing controlled substances and related arrests.
Officers should test all controlled substances at the scene of an alleged crime or at least 24 hours after is it obtained. Officers should then submit the substance to the city-county forensics lab within 24 hours, with results provided 72 hours later.
The fake drugs that led to the men being charged with selling drugs to the informant weren’t submitted to the lab for weeks or over a month, the letter states.
Raleigh police officers participating in confidential informant arrests should have body-worn cameras or audio recording devices, which should be activated when they meet with informants, the letter states.
Raleigh’s body-worn camera policy actually prohibits recording confidential informants unless they are the subject of a criminal investigation in certain situations.
Charges shouldn’t be brought against anyone until the results are confirmed and officers have watched the related undercover buy video. A Raleigh police supervisor and an assistant district attorney should approve warrants before they are issued.
After the arrests on false evidence became public, Freeman modified the existing notification policy to require the head of the DA’s drug division to be directly notified about testing that raises questions about the evidence.
The idea of the city-county forensics lab being able to have results in 72 hours is unrealistic, Freeman said.
Wake is faster than most when it comes to testing evidence, she said. Most counties have to wait months while the state crime lab tests drugs and other evidence. Raleigh and Wake spend millions of dollars on a local crime lab that typically gets drug tests back in about a month, Freeman said.
“That is really the fastest turnaround time I am aware of in the state,” she said.
Last fiscal year, there were 7,790 felony cases, and 30% of those were drug charges, Freeman said. Drug analysis is only done in a small number of those cases.
In 2020, 96 alleged illegal substances tested by the crime lab turned out not to be a controlled substance.
▪ Review all cases in which Abdullah was the arresting officer.
The DA’s office should re-examine evidence in his cases, submit any drugs that weren’t already tested to the city-county lab, and watch the undercover buy video and body-worn camera footage, the letters states.
“Cases where the defendants are currently incarcerated should be prioritized,” the letter states.
Freeman said officials are still reviewing Abdullah’s cases associated with the confidential informant. Once that concludes, if they find reasons to have concerns about other cases, they will be reviewed, she said.
▪ Expand policy that requires prosecutors to disclose situations that could affect an officer’s credibility, such as lying or a criminal conviction.
Wake’s current policy, which is typically known in DA’s offices as the Brady/Giglio policy, is one page and provides limited guidance on disclosing information from personnel files and internal affairs, the letter states.
Mecklenburg and Durham counties’ policies are 20 and 14 pages, respectively, the letter states.
Freeman questioned whether longer policies are more effective. Her office works hard to follow statutory and case law requirements for such disclosures, she said.
Unlike the other counties, Wake prosecutors don’t decide what to disclose on their own. Instead, Freeman said, they submit it to the court to review and decide.
North Carolina’s Conference of District Attorneys is expected to release in the next month a research paper on those disclosures, which Wake prosecutors will review and consider, Freeman said.
▪ Audit and inspect undercover funds and operations.
Police supervisors should conduct or seek semi-annual audits and inspections of informants’ files and undercover buy funds. They should also approve all payments and meetings between officers and informants.
