In April, the Arkansas Times reported the
story of North Little Rock resident Tracy Ingle, who was shot in
January 2008 by a North Little Rock Police Department S.W.A.T. team
executing a no-knock search warrant on his East 21st Street home.
Though the search of Ingle’s residence and Jeep uncovered no drugs or
drug-making supplies — only a digital scale and some baggies that other
family members say belong to them — Ingle stands accused of several
felonies, including possession of drug paraphernalia and two counts of
aggravated assault, for pointing a non-working gun at two North Little
Rock police officers who smashed through his bedroom window in the
middle of the night, waking him from a sound sleep.

Those officers, later identified in
court filings as Wesley Honeycutt and Steven Chamness, riddled Ingle’s
bedroom with bullet holes and shot Ingle five times, including one
bullet that pulverized his left femur. 

Advertisement

At the time of the story’s publication,
NLR police and the office of Traffic Judge Randy Morley had been unable
to produce for us the affidavit that was presented by police to obtain
the warrant on Ingle’s house.

An attorney for Ingle was able to
obtain that affidavit, however, and a recent filing based on details
found there seems to raise even more questions about the case.

Advertisement

In the affidavit, included in a motion
to suppress evidence filed on Sept. 8 by Little Rock attorney John
Wesley Hall Jr., NLRPD investigator James Franks states that on Dec.
20, 2007, a confidential source purchased methamphetamine at Ingle’s
house from a white female known to the informant only as “Kate.” The
informant told Franks that “Kate” almost always carried a gun. In
addition to the informant’s warning about the suspect being potentially
armed, Franks made the case for a night-time, no-knock raid — used only
when there would be considerable danger to officers — because Ingle’s
house is on a dead-end street, and because evidence could be destroyed
if the police were to announce their presence before entry. 

Hall points out that while the search
warrant was signed by Judge Morley on the afternoon of Dec. 21, 2007,
police did not act upon the warrant until Jan. 7, 2008 — more than 17
days later. “Any possible probable cause dissipated between the
issuance of the search warrant at 2:19 p.m. December 21 and 7:40 p.m.
January 7,” Hall wrote. “(T)he unreasonableness of delay in execution
made it stale.” 

Advertisement

Arkansas law states that a search
warrant must be executed “within a reasonable time,” but not more than
60 days after it is issued.

Even though a drug sale by a woman
named “Kate” was central to obtaining the search warrant on Ingle’s
residence, details about the woman and the drugs she sold are sketchy
in the affidavit. By the time of the raid, “Kate” had apparently never
been detained, questioned or even identified beyond a first name by
North Little Rock police. “What does this affidavit say about the nexus
between ‘Kate’ or the drugs and the premises which would tend to
indicate that drugs would be found there at the time of the search?
Nothing; not a word,” Hall wrote. “Is she a long term guest, short term
guest, occasional visitor, defendant’s girlfriend or just passing
through, co-tenant, sole owner, trespasser, meddler? Nothing is said …
For all the affidavit for the search warrant shows, there was no effort
to determine who ‘Kate’ was and whether ‘Kate’ was associated with the
premises.”

Continuing on the theme of the
vagueness of Franks’ affidavit and the connection between ‘Kate’ and
Ingle, Hall wrote: “Did the drugs for that sale constitute a mere
1/10th of a gram and it was all she had on her? Did it come from a
larger stash or out of a pocket? Did ‘Kate’ say anything about there
being more drugs? Apparently not, because any effective police officer
certainly would have included a reference to it to bolster the effort
at showing probable cause.”   

John Hout is handling the case for the
Pulaski County prosecuting attorney’s office. He said that ethical
rules prevent him from discussing the particulars of the case —
including the issue of whether or not a search warrant can go “stale”
if not executed promptly — but added that he would be filing a response
to Hall’s motion in the near future. Hout said that because of
scheduling conflicts and other concerns, Ingle’s trial would likely be
postponed until late 2008 or early 2009.

Advertisement