Date of Offense
Statement
PUBLIC COMPLAINT FOR INCLUSION ON THE IDAHO BRADY LIST
Complainant: Robert Emanuel Wilkins Jr.
Date of Incident: September 14, 2022
Time of Incident: Approximately 9:11 A.M.
Location:
Joe Momma's Breakfast Eatery
3510 N Eagle Rd
Meridian, Idaho 83646
https://joemommaseatery.com/
Subject Officers:
* Andrew Herscowitz, Meridian Police Department
* Kenneth Caygle Kohring, Meridian Police Department
* Robert Young, Meridian Police Department
* Lane Ahl, Meridian Police Department
* Marc Riggs, Meridian Police Department
Additional Officials Referenced:
* City of Meridian
* Ada County Prosecutor's Office
* Charles Hunterson Smith, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
* Judge Cynthia Yee-Wallace, Fourth Judicial District
COMPLAINT SUMMARY
I respectfully submit this complaint requesting that the conduct of the above-named officers be reviewed for inclusion on the Idaho Brady List and for any other appropriate disciplinary, administrative, or criminal investigation.
I allege that on September 14, 2022, while lawfully present and eating at a restaurant located at 3510 N Eagle Road in Meridian, Idaho, I was subjected to discriminatory treatment, an unlawful detention, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and a subsequent prosecution that relied upon evidence derived from those alleged constitutional violations.
I further allege that I was targeted because I am a Black man present at a predominantly white establishment and that the actions of law enforcement officers were motivated, in whole or in part, by racial bias and racial profiling.
ALLEGATIONS
1. Abuse of Authority
I allege that the involved officers exceeded their lawful authority by initiating contact, detaining me, investigating me, and searching my property without reasonable suspicion or probable cause as required by the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution.
2. Unlawful Detention
I allege that officers detained and seized my person without reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity. The detention was not supported by objective facts sufficient to justify an investigative stop.
3. False Arrest
I allege that the officers arrested me without lawful justification and without probable cause, resulting in a deprivation of my liberty and constitutional rights.
4. Illegal Search and Seizure
I allege that officers conducted unlawful searches of my person, vehicle, and property. I further allege that the subsequent impoundment and inventory search were unconstitutional and not supported by lawful authority.
5. False Statements
I allege that officers made false, misleading, incomplete, and/or materially inaccurate statements in police reports, affidavits, testimony, and other official documents in order to justify their actions and support criminal charges.
6. Racial Profiling
I allege that I was singled out and treated differently because of my race. I believe that my race was a substantial motivating factor in the decision to initiate contact, detain me, investigate me, and pursue enforcement actions against me.
7. Bias and Supremacy-Based Conduct
I allege that the actions of the involved officers reflected discriminatory bias and unequal treatment. I further allege that the conduct demonstrated a disregard for my civil rights and equal protection under the law.
8. Misconduct
I allege that the officers engaged in misconduct by violating department policies, constitutional standards, and professional obligations. Such misconduct includes unlawful detention, unlawful searches, inaccurate reporting, and improper evidentiary practices.
9. Body-Worn Camera Violations
I allege that officers intentionally obstructed, muted, or otherwise interfered with body-worn camera recordings during critical portions of the encounter. If confirmed, such conduct raises serious concerns regarding transparency, accountability, evidence preservation, and compliance with departmental policies.
10. Verbal Abuse
I allege that officers engaged in disrespectful, hostile, intimidating, and/or abusive conduct during their interactions with me.
11. Malicious Prosecution
I allege that criminal proceedings were initiated and continued despite the existence of constitutional violations and despite evidence undermining probable cause. I further allege that prosecutorial actions resulted in repeated prosecutions after dismissal of the original case.
12. Criminal Conduct Under Color of Law
I request investigation into whether the conduct described above constitutes violations of state law, departmental policy, or federal civil rights statutes, including but not limited to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 2000a, 2000a-1, 2000a-2, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242.
REQUEST FOR REVIEW
I respectfully request:
1. A full Brady/Giglio review of each involved officer.
2. A determination whether any officer made false statements, omitted material facts, or engaged in conduct affecting credibility.
3. Review of all body-worn camera footage, reports, affidavits, testimony, dispatch records, and investigative materials.
4. A determination whether racial bias or racial profiling contributed to the officers' actions.
5. Review of whether officers complied with constitutional requirements governing investigative detentions, arrests, searches, seizures, impoundments, and inventory searches.
6. Referral for administrative discipline, decertification proceedings, or criminal investigation if warranted.
7. Disclosure of any findings to prosecuting authorities as required under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States.
DECLARATION
I submit this complaint in good faith based upon my personal knowledge, court proceedings, officer testimony, body-camera evidence, and records associated with my criminal case. I request that the allegations contained herein be thoroughly investigated and that appropriate corrective action be taken.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Emanuel Wilkins Jr.
Additionally:
Statement of Facts and Allegations
On September 14, 2022, at approximately 9:11 a.m., I was subjected to unlawful and discriminatory treatment by the City of Meridian and the following Meridian Police Department officers: Andrew Herscowitz, Kenneth Caygle Kohring, Robert Young, Lane Ahl, and Marc Riggs, each individually and in their official capacities as police officers for the Meridian Police Department.
I contend that I was targeted because I am a Black man dining at a predominantly white restaurant. I allege that the actions taken against me violated my federally protected civil rights, including but not limited to:
42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Equal Rights Under the Law);
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights);
42 U.S.C. § 2000a (Prohibition Against Discrimination or Segregation in Places of Public Accommodation);
42 U.S.C. § 2000a-1 (Prohibition Against Discrimination or Segregation Required by State Law or Action);
42 U.S.C. § 2000a-2 (Prohibition Against Deprivation of, Interference With, or Punishment for Exercising Protected Rights);
18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights); and
18 U.S.C. § 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law).
I further allege that I was seized, detained, and investigated without reasonable suspicion, articulable suspicion, or probable cause, in violation of my rights under the United States Constitution and applicable law.
According to my understanding of the proceedings, Judge Cynthia Yee-Wallace of the Fourth Judicial District Court determined that the officers violated my constitutional rights. However, despite that determination, the prosecution was allowed to continue. I believe this demonstrated bias against me and adversely affected the fairness of the proceedings.
My criminal case was initially dismissed. Thereafter, Ada County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Charles Hunterson Smith (Idaho State Bar No. 9922) refiled the case and pursued prosecution on two additional occasions.
I characterize these events as a form of "legal lynching." By that term, I mean a legal process that appears to follow formal judicial procedures but produces an outcome that is unjust, biased, or predetermined. In my view, legal lynching occurs when due process protections are undermined, guilt is presumed, and the legal system is used to impose punishment based on racial, political, or social hostility rather than credible evidence. It is my contention that the proceedings against me reflected these characteristics.
During the investigation and prosecution, I further allege that the involved officers intentionally obstructed accountability by blocking and muting their body-worn cameras. Additionally, the officers testified under oath and, according to my interpretation of their testimony, admitted their involvement in the initial contact, detention, seizure, searches, impoundment, and inventory search conducted in this matter.
I contend that the initial contact, detention, seizure, searches, impoundment, and inventory search were unconstitutional and that the impoundment and inventory search constituted a flagrant violation of constitutional protections. In support of these assertions, I rely upon the following authorities, among others:
State of Idaho v. Robert Emanuel Wilkins Jr.
State of Idaho v. Deven Lequint Sauve
State of Idaho v. Kellen Alexander Grewell
United States v. Jonathan Anderson
United States v. Duarte
State of Idaho v. Chadlen Dewayne Smith
State of Idaho v. Ramos
State of Idaho v. Plata
State of Idaho v. Dorff
State of Idaho v. Hollist
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
State of Idaho v. Howard
State of Idaho v. Randall
State of Idaho v. Couch
State of Idaho v. Cohagan
Rodriguez v. United States
Florida v. Jardines
United States v. Jones
Arizona v. Gant
Florida v. J.L.
Arizona v. Hicks
Brown v. Texas
South Dakota v. Opperman
Mapp v. Ohio
Weeks v. United States
Based on the foregoing, I maintain that my constitutional and civil rights were violated.
Furthermore, I contend that the court ruled that evidence obtained through unlawful means could nevertheless be admitted if the State invoked the inevitable discovery doctrine or the independent source doctrine. In my view, this reasoning improperly allowed allegedly fabricated evidence and evidence derived from unconstitutional contacts, detentions, seizures, and searches to be considered despite the underlying constitutional violations.
I respectfully request that the relevant case files, hearing transcripts, officer testimony, prosecutorial statements, and judicial findings be reviewed in their entirety, as they contain the factual basis for my allegations and claims.
I also believe that my case bears similarities to the following civil rights and wrongful prosecution cases:
Thompson v. Clark;
Limone v. United States;
Smith v. City of Oakland;
Trezevant v. City of Tampa; and
Loggervale v. County of Alameda.
I assert that the actions taken against me constituted unlawful discrimination, unconstitutional detention and seizure, violations of due process, malicious prosecution, and deprivation of rights under color of law.
message:
Even the mightiest empire will crumble before a greater authority,
no kingdom, no matter how grand, can outlast the plans of an eternal judge,
Justice, though sometimes delayed, remains inevitable.
No weapon or works formed against me shall prosper.
