HOMER – Charges against a former Atlanta Hawks player arrested with his brother on Interstate 85 in Banks County in 2016 have been dismissed by a judge.
James Michael “Mike” Scott and his brother, Antonn Imhotep Scott, were arrested after what Banks County Sheriff’s Office officials said was a brief chase on I-85 on July 30, 2016.
During testimony in the case, Antonn Scott’s testimony was that he was driving a rented Chevrolet Suburban northbound on I-85 in Banks County the day he and his brother, James Michael Scott, were arrested, court documents show.
Deputy Sheriff Brent Register said he stopped the vehicle for following too closely, but before it stopped the vehicle accelerated and fled.
Testimony heard during the case disputes that.
“He [Antonn Scott] denies that he was following any other vehicle too closely,” court documents read, noting Scott did observe two law enforcement vehicles parked in the median of I-85.
“A short time thereafter, an officer pulled behind him,” court documents state. “Once he noticed the police vehicle behind him with lights and sirens on, he checked the right lane to determine if it was safe to switch lanes. He then moved to the right lane and immediately pulled off to the side of the interstate. He denies accelerating to 98 mph, or leading Deputy Register on any chase.”
In his ruling, ordered April 28 and filed Tuesday, May 2, Banks County Superior Court Judge Currie M. Mingledorff II stated numerous contradictions in testimony caused “serious damage to Deputy Register’s credibility”.
That testimony also involved Register’s employment history.
“Extensive testimony was given at the suppression hearing about Deputy Register’s history at multiple police and sheriff’s departments, including reasons why he left those departments,” the ruling states. “On multiple occasions during the suppression hearing, Deputy Brent Register, the State’s key witness, gave testimony that was in contradiction to admitted documentary evidence. While such contradictions were especially noteworthy concerning Deputy Register’s employment history, there were also inconsistencies in his testimony as compared to other evidence.”
Mingledorff’s ruling states the following conclusions of law:
· “Sufficient articulable suspicion did not exist to uphold the stop of the Scott vehicle.
· “Probable cause did not exist to justify the arrest of the Scott brothers;
· “The search of the vehicle was not proper.
· “The methodology employed by the Banks County Sheriff’s Office Criminal Interdiction Unit does not trigger the exclusionary rule under the Equal Protection Clause.”
Mingledorff points out the lack of what in many cases is considered standard equipment for law enforcement.
“In an era in which police conduct is so carefully scrutinized, the Court finds it both surprising and concerning that there is no video evidence of the stop and subsequent activities, which are the subject of this case,” the ruling states. “The record is indeed ‘the friend’ of lawful police conduct. In the absence of a video record, the Court is left to determine facts based solely on the credibility of the witnesses themselves, by observing their demeanor and manner of testifying, considering exhibits presented during the hearing, taking into consideration the extent to which, if at all, a witness’s testimony has been impeached, and generally gauging witness credibility as the factfinder observes it to be.”
Further, Mingledorff’s ruling states the Scott brothers were not treated the same as any other person would have been in the same situation.
“These officers, in an age when dashcams, bodycams, radar and laser speed detection equipment is so readily available, had no equipment issued to them which could have created an objective, real-time record of their work patrolling I-85,” the ruling states. “On the contrary, they testified that all their stops were based on alleged offenses that were entirely discretionary. The Court does not believe that the Banks County Sheriff’s Office Criminal Interdiction Unit enforced the law in a racially neutral manner when interacting with the Scott brothers.”
The Banks County Sheriff’s Office, on Thursday, released to AccessWDUN a written response to the ruling.
“Our agency is conducting an administrative review of the court records that we received this [Wednesday] afternoon,” Sheriff’s Lt. Carissa McFaddin wrote. “Until we have concluded this review, we will refrain from discussing personnel matters. We want nothing more than to serve the public with ethical and professional standards.”
