The Constitution of the United States was written for our protection. It is interpreted in many ways, but the core elements are the same. Some Amendments are well known, such as the First Amendment which grants us Freedom of Speech and the Thirteenth which made Slavery illegal except as punishment for a crime. Interpretations of these Amendments change depending upon what the political climate is when a question of their meaning comes before a court. Fortunately, some things can never be “interpenetrated” in a way that clearly violates the core element of a Constitutional right.
During Colonial times, the King of England saw America as a resource to be exploited. The people here were his property and as such were granted little, if any, rights. This is why we rebelled against the crown, was it not? The English Crown did not trust the Colonists and King George thought Americans were smuggling in order to avoid being taxed. In order to stop this smuggling King George instituted the “Writ of Assistance” which allowed British agents to search any property that might contain contraband goods as well as torture anyone they thought might be involved in the smuggling of goods in order to force “cooperation.”
What the King didn’t realize is that the people who came to this country to found the colonies were, in most instances, people who were fed up with the crown’s brutality back in England. They didn’t come to this country to continue to be oppressed, they came to prosper. This led to an eventual rebellion that allowed the United States to be born.
The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects against unlawful search and seizures. This is a direct result of the founding fathers seeing what unlimited control of a ruling party can lead to. Theft, Coercion and Torture by the legal authorities of the land was common place before the Fourth Amendment was signed into the Constitution. It’s been challenged many times, but in the end Voltaire said it best, “Tis much more Prudence to acquit two Persons, tho’ actually guilty, than to pass Sentence of Condemnation on one that is virtuous and innocent.”
The 4th Amendment specifically provides:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Founders believed that freedom from governmental intrusion into one’s home was a natural right and fundamental to liberty.
When we received the following report, it raised our concerns that maybe the Federal Court of Illinois is not giving the Fourth Amendment, the will of the founding fathers, or the rights of the American people the attention it should.
On May 16th, 2013, Deputy Joseph “Kyle” Boomer requested, and received, a search warrant for property where Terrance Washington resided. In order to receive this search warrant Deputy Boomer stated in an official affidavit:
- That there were calls from concerned citizens concerning excess foot traffic at Mr. Washington’s apartment.
- There was surveillance of Mr. Washington’s apartment that confirmed reported foot traffic.
- That there was a controlled buy from a Cooperating Informant (CI).
- That there was a call from someone referred to as Cooperating Informant to “T” setting up the arrangements for a controlled buy.
- That there was an intermediary between the Cooperating Informant and Mr. Washington, but that they are unable to explain why they can get no evidence of this intermediary.
Normally this would be a cut and dry situation. A clear and direct path of investigation would be followed and officer affirmations used to obtain the warrant would be verified. This would have provided Deputy Boomer with enough evidence to secure a search warrant. Deputy Boomer would have executed the search warrant and items would be found that led to an arrest.
But that’s not what happened.
Deputy Boomer did make affirmations, but the supposed evidence required to prove those affirmations was never produced. Deputy Boomer provided no “notes” to verify the calls that he claimed were received. No record of the surveillance was ever found. No funds had been checked out of the department narcotics division resource department so they could make a controlled purchase. The phone call that was allegedly made from the Cooperating Informant to “T” was unverified. Finally the intermediary, as well as the Cooperating Informant, was never brought forth for questioning. In fact an email from Assistant United States Attorney Scott Paccagnini showed that no Cooperating Informant would be produced and thus could not be questioned in regards to the statements made by Deputy Boomer.
The Winnebago Department has clear regulations regarding how their officers may proceed in a case. Their policy isn’t simply a good faith regulation designed to endear the Winnebago Department to the general public. Rather, regulations are in place in the Winnebago Department and all other Departments in the United States to guard against violations of the Fourth Amendment.
When a search warrant is issued it is done so in the strictest of confidence that the grounds laid forth in the request for said search warrant are done in a manner to validate the request for a search and seizure of a citizen of the United States. If a government agent simply walks into someone’s home and finds illegal items without a warrant it becomes Fruit of the Poisoned Tree. Said Fruit cannot be used against the owner and must be done away with.
By making statements that were later unable to be verified Deputy Boomer poisoned the fruit of his search. This in and of itself invalidates the charges made against Terrance Washington. Upon further investigation it becomes clear that Deputy Boomer might have went a little too far in his zeal to get a search warrant.
If no money was checked out for the Cooperating Informant to use during the controlled buy, what money was used? When someone sells another person something, especially if the item being sold is of a questionable nature, said person expects to get paid. This means that either the Cooperating Informant purchased the narcotics with their own money and then gave them out of the goodness of their heart to Deputy Boomer, or the purchase never took place. In either instance Deputy Boomer would have committed a grave act of misconduct by either allowing someone to do something that was illegal without having control over the situation, or by making false statements on a sworn affidavit.
This then leads us to question the other materials provided in the warrant. Why were their no records kept on the concerned citizens who made the calls? Why were their no logs on surveillance taken on Mr. Washington’s premises? Why did Deputy Boomer not record the call made to Mr. Washington? Why did the Assistant United States Attorney Scott Paccagnini refuse to produce the Cooperating Informant for Mr. Washington’s attorney to question?
In and of itself this is a serious question of legality, but Deputy Boomer is no stranger questionable legality. In January of 2006, while responding to a non-emergency call, Deputy Boomer was involved in a car accident that resulted in the death of Aaron Bachman, 21, Daniel Bachman, 15, and severely injured their sister, Kori Bachman, 19. Deputy Boomer was speeding down a highway going over 100 mph when the Bachmans collided with him. Deputy Boomer failed to turn on the siren and emergency lights.
In October of 2007, more than a year and a half after the incident, Deputy Boomer was indicted charges of reckless homicide and aggravated reckless driving. At trial Deputy Boomer testified that he didn’t have his lights and siren on because he was trying to listen to radio dispatches about the battery call and the noise from the siren drowns them out. Deputy Boomer was later acquitted on all charges. Some minor form of justice eventually prevailed: In June of 2011, five years after the incident, Deputy Boomer was given a 180 day unpaid suspension.
In United States v. Washington, Mr. Washington brought forth these issues, with the exception of the homicides committed by Deputy Boomer, many times. Mr. Washington was informed by his attorney, Alan Cooper, that, “The court doesn’t like you. This is the third case I should have won. You’ll have to take this to appeal and win it there.”
Mr. Washington brought forth an appeal and sought a Franks hearing. In his argument he pointed out that, despite the requirement of the Winnebago Department to keep records pertaining to the issues cited above, neither records nor Cooperating Informant were ever produced. Instead, it was argued, that Deputy Boomer willfully made false statements in his affidavit. In response to these claims Assistant United States Attorney Scott R. Paccagnini stated, “Looking at each fact separately, defendant may be correct. Taken together, however, the facts more than support probable cause to search REDACTED.” Later, in the very same motion, Paccagnini stated, “Regardless, a report was written about the items found in the trash at REDACTED, which items were recovered before Deputy Boomer sought a search warrant. Therefore, the affiant did not make a false statement in the affidavit.”
It was finally ordered by Judge Frederick J. Kapala in United States v. Washington, 13-cr-50048 that, “an allegation that one statement in an affidavit was false does not constitute a substantial showing that the rest of the statements in the affidavit were false.”
When reviewing this case, we were very shocked at how clearly the evidence called for an official investigation of Deputy Boomer’s seeming perjury. If Mr. Washington’s allegations of misconduct were to be investigated and found true, Deputy Boomer would again face criminal charges, and Mr. Washington would have to be set free.
A full list of misconduct alleged in this case is as follows. If you wish to help by filing a request for an investigation, please contact us with the form below.
- Deputy Joseph “Kyle” Boomer stated under penalty of perjury that there were calls from concerned citizens concerning excess foot traffic at Mr. Washington’s apartment but failed to produce any reports of these calls.
- Deputy Joseph “Kyle” Boomer stated under penalty of perjury that there was surveillance of Mr. Washington’s apartment that confirmed reported foot traffic but failed to produce this evidence.
- Deputy Joseph “Kyle” Boomer stated under penalty of perjury that there was a controlled buy from a Cooperating Informant (CI) but refused to allow the CI to be questioned or known.
- Deputy Joseph “Kyle” Boomer stated under penalty of perjury that there was a call from the Cooperating Informant to “T” setting up the arrangements for a controlled buy, but no evidence of this claim was produced.
- Deputy Joseph “Kyle” Boomer stated under penalty of perjury that there was an intermediary between the Cooperating Informant and Mr. Washington, but they are unable to explain why they can provide no evidence of this intermediary.
- Assistant United States Attorney Scott R. Paccagnini refused to provide the Cooperating Informant to the Defense in order to verify or refute Sheriff’s Deputy Joseph “Kyle” Boomer’s statements.
The following report was received during our initial request for reports of misconduct.
This article was produced to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is offered with the understanding that Dishonorable Courts is not engaged in rendering legal, or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Images in this article may be subject to copyright. The usage of any image in this article is pursuant to Section 107 of the Copyright Act.