Filing # 105640235 E-Filed 03/30/2020 07:13:08 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NUMBER: 2017 CF 826 A

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
vs.

MARKEITH LOYD,
Defendant.
_____________________/

MOTION TO COMPEL INTERNAL AFFAIRS MATERIAL FROM ORLANDO

POLICE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE USE OF FORCE INVESTIGATION AND
INJURY SUSTAINED BY MARKEITH LOYD

Defendant, Markeith Loyd, by and through undersigned counsel files this Motion to Compel
and states:

1. On January 17, 2017, the Defendant during his arrest, suffered significant injuries as a
result of deadly force used by Orlando Police Department Sgt Parker, Sgt Mongelluzzo,
Officer Hinkes and Officer Cute. Prosecutor Stacey Salmons, Chief Assistant State
Attorney at the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit office of Phil Archer, determined, in her
opinion, that each officer was justified pursuant to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law
Fla. Stat. 776.012(2) and that as a result, all four are immune from, among other things,
criminal prosecution pursuant to 776.032(1). The Defendant takes issue with her findings.
2. The Defendant has previously announced it may use as mitigation evidence that he
suffered injuries caused by the officers in the course of surrendering.
3. The Office of the State Attorney Brad King, has made clear that although it does not
object to the Defendant surrendering and turning himself in for reward money (for Ms
Dixon children), (see statement of Ric Ridgway -page 26 of May 16, 2019 hearing) it has
indicated that if the Defendant “opened the door” to the injuries, it would present evidence
justifying the actions of the officers.
4. The Defendant is preparing to rebut this evidence that the officers were “each justified in
their use of deadly force toward Markeith Loyd.” The Defendant intends to aggressively
litigate and challenge the substantiations supporting the use of force claimed by the

1
 officers should the State seek to present rebuttal to the injuries. The Defendant intends to
show that some of the evidence was manufactured by law enforcement and was created to
justify the use of force. Moreover there is direct evidence contradicting the version
portrayed in the officers’ statements.
5. Ms. Salmons account fails on multiple levels. In her page nine page report dated July 31,
2019, and throughout her questioning of witnesses, it is apparent that she distorts the facts
intent on reaching one conclusion. She completely omits that police were notified that
Loyd was overheard on a wiretap phone conversation wanting to give himself up shortly
before they all arrived at the location where he was beaten. No mention of it anywhere.
Nor does she mention other allegation of assault and battery substantiated by witnesses.
(spitting and other unlawful touching) Nor does she address a substantial allegation of a
separate battery committed on the Defendant. (SEE FDLE INVESTIGATION AND
TRANSCRIPTS OF POLICE INTERVIEWS) An examination of the video footage
completely contradicts her conclusions. They are nonsensical and contradict evidence at
her disposal.. In her report she states:
“The injuries to Mr. Loyd’s head are all localized to his face. This is important
because it demonstrates that at the time he received those injuries, Mr. Loyd’s
face was both up and facing the direction of the officers. I recognize that Mr.
Loyd was surrounded at the time of his apprehension, an argument could be
made that anywhere he looked , he would inevitably be looking in the direction
of an officer, but this argument fails to take into consideration the one place Mr
Loyd could have looked: down on the ground. Doing so would have complied
with the officers’ commands, and would have put his face in a position that it
would have been protected from a kick or strike by the officers. The fact that Mr.
Loyd’s injuries are all localized on his face is consistent with the officers’
accounts that at the time they used the deadly force at issue, Mr Loyd was on his
stomach, unrestrained and looking at them.”
6. If Ms Salmons made this finding for anyone else, she would be out of a job. Watch the
video.
7. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement sent the helicopter footage to the FDLE
Regional Operations Center Digital Evidence Section for enhancement. They created
approximately 10,000 photographs and twenty enhanced videos. How Salmons reaches
that conclusion with the footage she was provided can only be explained one way. The
Defendant on the other hand intends to use some of the FDLE material and its own
enhanced video to contradict, impeach and challenge the individual testimony of these

2
 officers. Something Ms. Salmons couldn’t find the courage to do.
8. On March 30, 2020, below counsel was provided information from Assistant State
Attorney Ryan Williams, that the Internal Affairs investigation mentioned above would be
complete in three weeks but that the chain of command would still need to review before
release.
9. The Defendant is requesting the report and all statements made by the aforementioned
officers during the investigation. In order to adequately challenge the possible rebuttal
evidence of the officers, this information is essential and material to both challenge and
cross examine the witnesses.
10. Defendant is entitled to the production of relevant material discoverable pursuant to
Florida Rule of Criminal 3.220 as well as pursuant to Article I, Sections 9 and 16 of the
Florida Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant asks this Court to enter an order
granting the Defendant’s Motion.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was served via

Efiling notification on the Office of the State Attorney on March 30, 2020.

Respectfully Submitted,

s/Terence M. Lenamon
Terence M. Lenamon, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 970476
245 S.E. 1st St.
Suite 404
Miami, FL 33131
p. 305-373-9911
f. 305-503-6973
terry@lenamonlaw.com