Common use of Det Clause in Contracts

Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ did not know why Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Sgt. ▇▇▇▇▇ included a paragraph asking for a no-knock entry at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ apartment. Based on the facts that Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ knew about ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and her apartment, she did not believe that a no-knock warrant was necessary. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ did not ever hear anyone from SWAT instruct Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ or anyone else to seek a no- knock warrant at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ home. • On March 12, 2020, Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ took five warrants to Judge ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ chose which judge to go to. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ had previously heard Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ make comments suggesting that he believed that Judge Shaw would not closely scrutinize his warrants. • On the evening of March 12, 2020, Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and other PBI officers met before the briefing for officers executing the search warrants. At that meeting, she learned for the first time that Sgt. ▇▇▇▇▇ wanted officers to knock and announce their presence at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ residence, even though the warrant was sworn out as a no-knock. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ observed that ▇▇▇▇▇ looked very nervous during this meeting. • After the shooting, criminal investigators with LMPD’s Public Integrity Unit asked Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ to submit an “investigative letter” that documented the information they found in their investigation. By this time, Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ knew that ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ had been killed at Springfield Drive, and that the Springfield Drive search warrant affidavit that Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ wrote and Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ reviewed would be closely scrutinized. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ sent Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ a draft of the investigative letter on April 11, 2020. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ knew that the letter contained false information, including repetition of the claim that Sgt. ▇.▇. had verified through Postal Inspectors that ▇.▇. received packages at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ apartment. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ knew that Sgt. ▇.▇. told Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ there was no evidence of ▇.▇. receiving packages at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ apartment. (Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ would learn far later that, at the time, it was not even possible for Sgt. ▇.▇. to get from postal inspectors the exact sort of package information Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ mentioned in his affidavit). But Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ had already included the false claim in the warrant affidavit, so Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ reasserted it in the investigative letter. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ never mentioned to Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ that, in the prior few days, he had talked to Sgt. ▇.▇. and two Shively Police Department officers – all of whom had told him, again, that there was no evidence of ▇.▇. receiving packages at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ apartment. • The investigative letter also claimed that detectives had verified from databases that ▇.▇. used Springfield Drive as his “residence,” which was even more false than the similar

Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ did not know why knew that Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, who was better trained and far more experienced than she was, also knew that the affidavit had to include the negative information about packages. • Around March 10 or 11, 2020, Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Sgtgave Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ included a draft of the Springfield Drive warrant affidavit for her to review. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ saw that Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ had added a paragraph asking for claiming falsely that Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ had “verified” from a no-knock entry Postal Inspector that ▇.▇. was receiving packages at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ apartmentaddress. Based on the facts that Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ knew about from her conversation with Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and her apartmentthat Sgt. ▇.▇. had actually told Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ the opposite. She also knew from conversations with Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ that Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ had never even talked to a Postal Inspector. As a result, she did not believe Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ recognized at the time that a no-knock warrant the claim Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ made about packages in the Springfield Drive affidavit was necessaryfalse. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ did also knew, based on her conversations with Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, that he knew it was false, too. Even though Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ knew the claim about packages in the affidavit was false, she failed to change the statement or to object to it. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ had been ostracized early in her career for attempting to report a fellow officer’s use of excessive force, so she decided not ever hear anyone from SWAT instruct to call Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ or anyone else out on this lie, as Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ was the lead detective on the case. • Before Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ finalized the Springfield Drive warrant affidavit, Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ told Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ that she was concerned that the draft affidavit did not have enough current information to seek a no- knock warrant at connect ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ homeapartment to ▇.▇.’s drug dealing. • On March 12Specifically, she knew that information in the affidavit about ▇.▇. making “frequent trips” to ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ home was from January 2020, at least 6 weeks before the warrant would be executed. To make the warrant appear fresher, Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ added a paragraph stating that Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ had “verified” from law enforcement databases that ▇.▇. used ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ apartment as “his current home address.” Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ took five warrants to Judge ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ chose which judge to go to. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ had previously heard Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ make comments suggesting that he believed that Judge Shaw would not closely scrutinize his warrants. • On both knew at the evening of March 12, 2020, Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and other PBI officers met before the briefing for officers executing the search warrants. At that meeting, she learned for the first time that Sgt. ▇▇▇▇▇ wanted officers to knock and announce their presence at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ residence, even though the warrant this was sworn out as a no-knock. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ observed that ▇▇▇▇▇ looked very nervous during this meeting. • After the shooting, criminal investigators with LMPD’s Public Integrity Unit asked Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ to submit an “investigative letter” that documented the information they found in their investigation. By this time, Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ knew that ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ had been killed at Springfield Drive, and that the Springfield Drive search warrant affidavit that Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ wrote and Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ reviewed would be closely scrutinized. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ sent Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ a draft of the investigative letter on April 11, 2020. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ knew that the letter contained false information, including repetition of the claim that Sgt. misleading because ▇.▇. had verified through Postal Inspectors that ▇.▇. received packages did not, in fact, live at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ apartment. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ knew that Sgt. ▇.▇. told Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ there was no evidence of ▇.▇. receiving packages had not been seen at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ apartmentapartment since January 2020. (Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ would learn far later that, at the time, it was not even possible for Sgt. ▇.▇. to get from postal inspectors the exact sort of package information also knew that Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ mentioned prepared another affidavit, to get a warrant to search a different apartment on ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Way, in his affidavit). But which he stated that he “believes that [the address on] ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ is the main residence for [▇.▇.].” Additionally, she knew that Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ had already included the false claim in the prepared another affidavit to get a warrant affidavit, so Det. to search a home on ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Avenue, and in that affidavit he stated that ▇.▇. “has [the address on] ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Avenue as his registered address with the DMV.” Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ reasserted it in showed the investigative letter. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ never mentioned new paragraph to Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ that, and he agreed to include it in the prior few days, he had talked to Sgt. ▇.▇. and two Shively Police Department officers – all of whom had told him, again, that there was no evidence of ▇.▇. receiving packages at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ apartment. • The investigative letter also claimed that detectives had verified from databases that ▇.▇. used affidavit for the Springfield Drive as his “residence,” which was even more false than the similarwarrant. •