There’s good news and bad news for the two
Springfield Police detectives who have spent the past few months on paid
administrative leave. The good news is that Jim Graham and Paul Carpenter
have been exonerated by SPD’s internal affairs investigators in at
least one complaint filed against them; the bad news is that a pending
court motion could force Carpenter to identify one of his regular
informants. Both detectives remain on paid leave while Illinois
State Police investigators continue investigating allegations of
misconduct. They were exonerated last week by SPD on a complaint
filed by Thomas Munoz, a parolee the detectives arrested in December for
attempted burglary of a Rochester church [see Rhodes, “To tell the
truth,” May 5, 2005]. That arrest allowed the detectives to question
Munoz about another incident in which they considered him a suspect —
the Dec. 21 beating of Monsignor Eugene Costa in Douglas Park. The
detectives quickly determined that Munoz was not involved in the beating;
two other people subsequently confessed to the crime. But because Munoz was
on parole, the arrest sent him back to prison. He was finally released 70
days later when the attempted burglary charge was dismissed. Munoz has filed a lawsuit against Graham, Carpenter,
and another SPD detective, Rick Dhabalt. More questions about Graham’s and
Carpenter’s tactics were raised this week in a motion filed Wednesday
in a case involving two brothers accused of a shooting at a house on East
Cedar Street. No one was injured in the Feb. 15, 2005 drive-by. Police
arrested Ryan Roberson and his half-brothers, Micah and Stanley Morgan, but
later dismissed charges against Roberson. The Morgans face charges of
aggravated discharge of a firearm. Carpenter obtained a warrant to search Micah
Morgan’s home based on the word of an unnamed informant. In his
affidavit requesting the warrant, Carpenter described the informant as
someone who had provided him information at least once a week for about two
years. Carpenter described this informant as “truthful” and
“a very reliable source of information,” and credited the
informant with helping SPD obtain “numerous arrests and
convictions.” For all this service, the informant had never received
any compensation, Carpenter said. Bruce Locher, attorney for the Morgan brothers, has
filed a motion requesting the name of this informant, along with
information on other arrests or convictions based on this informant’s
word. According to the motion, “the Defendant
believes that Carpenter has lied in these affidavits . . . .”
Questions about Carpenter’s use of confidential
sources, or informants, had previously been raised by former SPD narcotics
supervisor, Ron Vose. In a lengthy memo submitted to Chief Don Kliment more
than a year ago, Vose outlined problems he had noticed with the
detectives’ search warrants. Vose’s memo has never been made
public, but the general tenor of his allegations has been revealed in other
court documents. Those allegations include a complaint that Carpenter and
Graham obtained search warrants based on information from informants who
had not been properly registered by SPD. According to the department’s general orders,
officers who use confidential sources must keep on file each
informant’s identifying information, including a physical
description, photograph, fingerprint card, criminal history, phone numbers,
addresses, and vehicle registration, plus a similar inventory on all known
associates of each informant. Carpenter’s relationship with one informant
came under scrutiny when the detective provided a phony time card to
officials in another state in an apparent attempt to help the source
complete his public service requirement [see Rhodes, “Something
doesn’t add up” March 2]. The time card indicated the
probationer had done volunteer work every day except one for a month,
including 16 hours every Saturday and Sunday.
This article appears in Apr 6-12, 2006.
