a man a reserved three minutes rebuttal certainly please proceed may please the court cheryl sinclair spent over thirty seven days in jail for a crime that she did not commit you haven't made any cla on that basis yes your honor well the claim we've made we've made two claims out of the fourth amendment a false arrest claim and a malicious prosecution cross claim both arising out of her arrest and detention and a lot of the county jail thing about failure to bring her probably for that well iran and the claims of the fourth amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures they sickly both a false arrest and malicious prosecution that she could not be boils down to a primary issue of whether or not references in a letter without any further investigation establish probable cause to charge cheryl sinclair with accessory after the fact to escape ever charged with the scape steven was steven sinclair your honor i believe that was ultimately dismissed that's not in this particular record but i happen to know that from the case that he was not charged with escape because he could not under tennessee law but that is not in the i don't want to stray from the record in this m sure this case mrs sinclair was arrested dismissed at her first court appearance thirty seven days later the legal focus that we're focusing on is that she never should have been seized she was canning peaches at  home she was grabbed she was thrown in jail the first court appearance she was dismissed so the legal question of the fourth amendment for both of our theories boils down to the issue of whether or not there was probable cause to arrest and detain her that th en in turn boils down to this one letter because there are three things that are admitted in this particular case number one cheryl sinclair is absolutely innocent she had nothing to do with her son's decision to leave the drug treatment program number two the only evidence that they had that implicated cheryl sinclair anything was this letter that is an admission in the answer the letter was it and third they did absolutely no investigation now if we think about the context of this letter we know her son stephen had been quarter to a drug treatment program he got a week impasse and rather than return only should he went spent the night with his girlfriend his girlfriend brought him back to the center of the next day two days later the program secretary writes a letter to his probation officer to inform the probation officer he's not in treatment there are two references in that letter from an unidentified source that say oh he came with his mother to see pastor rose the director and then they went to the office well the first argument is even though she had nothing to do with it even if you take those references is true they don't establish a crime an accessory after the fact escape require someone knowing that there was an escape then to aid to abet that further that person with the intent of having them avoid prosecution or punishment the problem is those references are just as consistent with perfectly innocent behavior but suppose the facts were cheryl sinclair  got a call from her son said momma really messed up i was supposed to go back to train about i went and spent the night with my girlfriend any reasonable parent would say son i'm going to go with you we're going to go try to talk to the director maybe he'll take you back you need treatment but if not you're a grown man you're going to have to deal with the consequences of it there's nothing about the references in that letter that would lead one to believe that the crime occurred secondly will they go i'm sorry but instead that they left and they to the center right and then at the center it doesn't say we don't know judge white is he was rude well well there are two things we're focusing on what cheryl sinclair did and actually hear the district court's opinion made an error because the judge's opinion says they left the center it does not say that he says they came to the office where pastor rose was to talk to him he wasn't there and then they it was reported that they went to the center which is the treatment center it doesn't say they came in the same car it doesn't say they left the center together doesn't say that they left those are the only those two naked references are the only references upon which they are charging cheryl sinclair you seem to be i'm sorry you seem to be focusing in on the question of whether she actually took him someplace after words but i'm wondering if that's even the proper focus let me ask the question this way he's supposed to be back at four o'clock the prior afternoon right yes  yes now there's you haven't mentioned this consent order that exists in this file that the investigator the detective whoever this guy is says that he consulted and that says if you don't show up you have to go directly to jail you know so we know he knows that that's what the order says from a judge right or wrong that's what the judge says any knows that he didn't do that he didn't come back to the center and he didn't go to jail it's  whether it's in the same car or not all right you're right it's says that his mother is with him when he's moving around when he's supposed to be a jail when you're out of the right it does not why not for purposes of whether she could be convicted we all agree that none of the should have happened she can't be convicted but why is that why is that not enough to justify the actions of the police officer l bet ultimately found to be incorrect first of all because with respect to cheryl sinclair there's no proof in the record i mean sure there's a question whether or not stephen had to go back to treatment but the question is whether the cheryl sinclair knew that there's no evidence in the record that she knew he had to immediately go back to the center the question is would officer newman know at the time now because remember i know there's this ok what are you the trouble some part about this is not just what happened that's troublesome but what additional obligation would you say was visited upon the police here that they failed to do i know you say they had they had to do more investigation do research what an escape is and all that but they don't seem to be cases your own well there are they have to have a quantum of evidence to leave a reason what reasonable trustworthy evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe a crime was committed why isn't the order from the judge that says what happens if somebody doesn't show up and the letter which seems to be from an authentic reliable source that says that he's seen with his mother why just tell us why isn't that enough because there's no number one there's no evidence that cheryl sinclair knew that the knew the contents of the order had ever read that order saying that the defendant had to go back to jail and the fact is she brought him back to a center how can you escape from a drug treatment center by a parent a company someone to the drug treatment center to talk to the director of the treatment center are already on escape status at that point your honor there's no if any reasonable parent knowing that their son had not returned and we don't even know that it could be somebody you have to go out and talk to them and try to divine what they're now alledge was and what their intent was maybe that would be a good idea but it's not the way it works you're going under this court steers creedence whether it's right of in ski or  under the fourth amendment before you throw somebody in jail you have to have enough reasonable reasonable and trustworthy evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe that they could have won a crime was committed and this particular person committed not only do we have that but the second issue is all of this is double hearsay remember no one talked normal rose we have a letter and the letter is reporting what other people said and the salient hearsay is from an unidentified source this court uncorroborated hearsay from an unindicted identified source with out more is insufficient to establish probable cause in a tip situation i mean you've got a letter from an institution that's been charged with  you know sort of having a custodial situation for inmates i mean it's not an unreliable source and the letter author is the wife of the guy that runs right we see that charge the brother with cocaine selling cocaine because norman rose is reporting what someone else told her that's an unidentified source and the reason we don't accept that kind of evidence is because it's untrustworthy as we see in this case was somehow a girlfriend was arrest the entire family for scapegoats grandma the brothers the sisters with not one shred of evidence and then somehow they are now insulated because this prosecutor told us to remember these officers are supposed as authentic as without any shred of evidence there was at least a shred of evidence here it's the letter from the woman at the facility now we agree was wrong but the point is at what point then did the police officer have a duty to  it's reasonable trustworthy evidence that would lead a reasonable and prudent officer to believe that a crime was committed and this person committed if a letter that had just worn here right there well there was the neutral approve did a judicial officer approve an arrest warrant that resulted in in her arrest no you are the assistant court clerk signed the warrant and they do it as a rubber stamp basis although that was not raised as a defense we would have gotten into that if we had to but the defense raised what was the proper standard is the probable cause issue because the law is if the warrant is deficient which it was you then look at what the probable cause was to begin with all right thank you thank you good morning me please the court my name is john york and i represent lauderdale county sheriff steve sanders and investigator clay newman so assuming that what this guy did was is an assumption when was that he committed according to the furlough order your honor into what the first word of the consent for a low order that allowed stephen sinclair to go to the rehab facility it required that he immediately report to the lauderdale county jail if he were to leave the rehab facility prior to completion i submit that that the exchange would have happened sometime around shortly after four pm on sunday when he was supposed to have  returned facility had given him the overnight pass his mother called that day seeking additional time and pastor rose allowed mr sinclair to stay out until four pm i believe it's not in the record but the facility is relatively close to the lauderdale county jail certainly within an hour so i would say by five pm on that sunday mr sinclair would have committed under the fur she asked for additional time yes on behalf of her son yes around in the pastor grants that yesterday he knows he had to be back at four o'clock because the pastor told her that yes your honor and there's more facts on the record that show any question about she  seems to be an argument here that she had to know that not showing up is going to be classified as a skate i don't know there's any authority for that but just out of curiosity did she know was she in court when this was transported him to the rehab facility the record also demonstrates that missing clear had made several telephone calls to the rehab facility making arrangements for her son to have this week at this overnight past timely report back to this facility with the overnight pass as well as the potential but penalties of being charged with either excuse for failure to appear if he left the facility prior to successfully completing it and not return to the lauderdale county jail but so you're saying that the crime would have been basically when he left the facility and didn't go directly to the jail yes on it ok but then what is the the letter says that she was with him before that when when they went to see the pastor and then it says that they went to the facility and so even if you would have been excused because he had not complied with the the leave permission that the facility had granted him but even if the court disagreed that that wasn't the triggering event for the exclaim it was approximately two weeks after mr sinclair didn't report back that this warrant was issued for missing clear so there had been a period of time i think we've got the dates mixed up here he was supposed to be back on sunday at four o'clock the letter says that he came to see pastor rose on monday the twenty eight my apologies your honor i know he's already been he's already failed to report back for something short of twenty four hours at that point  different result if he had come by the facility before four o'clock on sunday but this happened on monday certainly your honor if you come back at three o'clock am i don't think we would have an argument that he had committed to that point and he would have committed  back to the facility when he was supposed to and then did not report to the lauderdale county jail that was what triggered the excuse me ok i'm sorry now you're confusing me are you saying he already escaped at the point that the mother took him to see the pastor your honor he was in violation yes are you saying he escaped i don't contend that he scaped when he returned late to the facility when he returned on  on sunday yeah he was supposed to have been at one or the other he was supposed to have been either at the rehab facility by four o'clock on sunday or at the lauderdale county jail and he was at night but he was here certainly think escape on monday i believe is arguably the excuse at four o'clock on sunday when he hasn't reported and he's and neither place where he is supposed to be but certainly when he comes back to the rehab facility on monday ok and there's no probable cause to believe the mother had anything to do with this sunday escape right based upon the letter yes your honor yes the letter is about monday the letter is about monday however but the letter does indicate that the mother had had contact with pastor rose in seeking the overnight pass that the mother mr sinclair has but if you're saying that that i think you might be able to prosecute the mother of every escaped person if that's the case i mean it surely you don't you're not saying if all you was the fact that she had asked for this privilege and then he doesn't show up and then you're going to prosecute her without more that you're not saying that's probable cause are you the fact that she arrange for it honor no not that she made the arrangements for the overnight pass we can't probable cause the bit if she calls and says is my my son hasn't returned yet can you give him a little more time does that is that probable cause that's not probable cause when pastor rose says sure he can come back at four o'clock ok and when he doesn't come back at four o'clock is the mother now responsible is there now probable cause to believe that she's in excess or read to his decision not to come back under the facts of this case based upon the letter that was so what we haven't gotten to that letter yet we're still talking about four o'clock and he doesn't show up potentially your honor it's hard to say based upon the charge here that she had anything to do with him not coming back at four o'clock correct so that's what i'm trying to get at so we're really talking about monday ok so the letter says if i understand correctly that there was there was a phone call now i'm getting myself to use so the letter says the chief shows up with honor it's the same facility the next day he comes back to the facility to talk to the pastor pastor isn't there and and the letter says they presumably he and his mother then left that's the basis correctly or incorrectly of the charged of her involvement correct that's it correct your honor the u s know if stephen was ever charged with this your honor it's not in the record it's my understanding that he was charged with the exchange in the deposition of the prosecutor in this case officer who signed the affidavit charging the mother with to escape is there any evidence that he knew stephen had already been charged or was about to be charged with this no your honor the the you know only thing on the record is this parole violation i can find and if the officers knew that he was being charged for the parole violation to a state you're on of the officer didn't know that he was being charged with a parole violation at that point my understanding is that the officer understood that mr sinclair was being charged with xscape missing player which the paperwork he prepared them or that he prepared was charging the mother with accessory after the fact to scape is outside the record my understanding and based upon the district attorney's deposition in this case is that when the sinclair was brought to court well what does this mean it says he this mother came by on monday to see pastor rose but he was not a bailable it was reported that they left here and went to the center and stephen was very ugly and disrespectful it  that there were two different places it's reported they left here and went to the center what what am i missing your honor you just told me it was the same that's my understanding and that's what the record shows in this case is that the rose of sharon is a rehab facility that's on a campus if you will that has mr rose's church and a dormitory type building for people who are residents  rehab facility programs so i know all of this letter says all this letter says is that big then i will infer that they left the office part and they went to the center part and he was very disrespectful and therefore he has been dismissed yes or where does this i don't understand so weird where is it in the year that she is an accessory to escape your honor we've got the prosecutor who made this charging decision based that the sit in on the letter in that the mother it was believed we know iranian slee that the mother was with mr sinclair when he returned this doesn't even unless i'm missing something i mean this doesn't even say that he left the facility it says that he was just charged yes rahni he was discharged she was no longer a part of the program and the furlough consent order required that if he did it complete successfully complete the program he had to report to the lauderdale ok so where do you get that the mother was complicit in his not go in too big to the jail lifter that you don't even know when he left for this letter based upon the letter it's stated that he was discharged and presumably left the facility with his mother and then he never reported to the lauderdale county jail and so that's his mother is an accessory to the yes or there isn't even it doesn't all it says is that he's dismissed and it says this person is saying it's reported that they left here and went to the center and stephen was ugly and disrespected you don't even know that that you don't know what happened after that you have absolutely no idea what happened after that other than the consequence of his being ugly and disrespected was that he was just church for the program you don't know what clay newman investigator newman knew based upon what the district attorney's office had transmitted was that mr sinclair had not reported to jail as he was required to do under a court order that based upon that letter his mother was with him his mother had made arrangements for him to have the overnight pass and it was believed again erroneous lee that his mother was with him when he was discharged and left and never reported lauderdale county jail will this also this doesn't even say that that's an inference i mean it doesn't even say it says he was discharged so we don't i mean a place could have a procedure where they say you know what this we're not going to put up with you anymore and then you go through three levels of review and then the person's just charge  we don't even you don't even know who this letter when he was discharged you know my time's up can i answer you if you can still it's a question you want to i think what's important for the determination of whether there was probable cause is what investigator newman didn't know he did know that stephen sinclair had not reported to the lauderdale county jail he knew that he had been discharged from this program he wasn't in either of the places that he was supposed to be pursuant to the court order in this case and that's where the problem cost for the excuse charge for mr sinclair arises from and those statements about his mother's involvement and her presence with him when he left the facility was enough for him to face probable cause again when he was done when he was directed to prepare this warrant by the district attorney's office ok let me ask you one last question ye he was really with the girlfriend yes we know that now yes so if this letter had simply said he was with a woman with blond hair whose name was and they knew that his girlfriend had blond hair and her name was carol that's probable cause this letter itself would be probable cause to charge her with accessory to escape  girl carol carol the girlfriend he shows up with the girlfriend to see the pastor the pastor is not there and then it's reported that they then show up the center the actual center where he's supposed to be he is rude disrespectful and as a consequence he's when he's discharged that's your information that's enough to charge this woman with the century to escape if that is the only aspect of that letter that's changed that says he when he came back on monday with his girlfriend carol no i don't think that would be enough to kill what else do you have i think if you make the other changes the references to the mother in that letter to carol but that probably would change it to where there was probable cause to charges carol with accessory to excuse she if here range for the to begin with if kara was aware of when the pass the hours of the past if carol had made phone calls to the pastor seeking additional time and then if carol returned to the facility with stephen sinclair the next day hours after he was supposed to return and then left the premises with him doesn't say that doesn't say that if you have left if she had left the facility as it does say in the letter then yes i think that would know it doesn't it was reported they left here and went to the center and stephen was very ugly and disrespectful where does it say that well ok the letter comes to light thirtieth in your honor it's admitted in this record that the only evidence they've admitted there into the only evidence that they have that shows sinclair did anything was this july thirty letter that is an admission in the answer this letter as judge white this woman that is also admitted in her it was an order by the sheriff to or to arrest that he didn't know that missing cloud ever read that furlough order now it factually is true if you're saying neuman was oh the sheriff ordered the investigator to arrest cheryl sinclair is admitted in the answer because the sheriff had a sticky note that he believed was from the prosecutor wanting her to be arrested never talk to julie pillow the prosecutor i would newman be liable if he's ordered to arrest somebody because an officer that signing a warrant has to have probable cause and just as if a young lawyer signs a conclusory it doesn't seem the about the letter it just says neuman say that she committed an accessory after the fact to escape so it is a diff it's a defective affidavit of complaint it doesn't have any facts it doesn't talk about the letter that was not so but the point here is that the sheriff in fact it's page idea one thirty four is where they're still having this ok the complaint is page id one thirty four it's an exhibit is the affidavit of complain you go back to what what is ok well what what is the probable cause the only evidence they had was that letter that was the only evidence they had and they've admitted that cheryl sinclair did but what did neuman know i mean if your superiors is in effect we have evidence ok a police officer can rely on what another police officer is if your superior says to you we have evidence but this probable cause the sheriff handed some paperwork to the officer newman and directed him to arrest you because the prosecutor wanted the only paperwork the only evidence he had that cheryl sinclair did anything was the letter from the treatment center that letter in and of itself is not enough to establish a it's not reasonable and trustworthy evidence to believe that a crime has been committed on entirely accurate he was also given the consent order and he was given an analogous indictment charging another individual with escape for leaving the center those to go to whether may not be adequate in your view but there's more to it than what you do with respect to whether cheryl sinclair  two doctors may go to whether or not someone could commit an escape or commit a robbery the question is would they have that cheryl committed this crime and they've admitted in their answer to paragraph fifty three and sixty five that the only evidence they had that cheryl sinclair did anything any kind of michele's clare is this letter that letter is not enough to deprive a person of or liberty if it is then the problem then the fourth member was designed to protect innocent people like cheryl sinclair who was thrown in jail for nothing thank you right thank you case will be submitted