Royer v. Elkhart City of

• Decision Date: 13 December 2022
• Docket Number: 3:22-CV-254 JD
• Parties: ANDREW ROYER, Plaintiff, v. ELKHART CITY OF, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

ANDREW ROYER, Plaintiff,
v.
ELKHART CITY OF, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:22-CV-254 JD

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

December 13, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

JON E. DEGUILIO CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

On June 21, 2022, Defendants Vicki Becker, the Elkhart County Prosecutor's Office, and the State of Indiana (collectively, the “Moving Defendants”) filed a motion for partial dismissal. (DE 45.)^[1]For the reasons explained below, the Court will partially grant and partially deny this motion.

A. Factual Background

At the motion to dismiss stage, a court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accepts the well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Calderon-Ramirez v. McCament, 877 F.3d 272, 275 (7th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, while the allegations in the Complaint may not prove to be true, the facts set forth below assume that the Complaint's factual allegations are true and view them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Andrew Royer.

On the morning of November 29, 2002, Helen Sailor, a 94-year-old woman, was discovered dead in her apartment. (DE 1 ¶¶ 35-38.) In 2005, a jury found Andrew Royer guilty

1

of Sailor's murder. (Id. ¶ 233.) According to the Complaint, this verdict was the tragic culmination of police officers in the Elkhart Police Department and a deputy prosecutor fabricating multiple pieces of evidence, including an involuntary confession from Royer, a coerced statement from a corroborating witness, and fingerprint evidence from a witness who held himself out as a former fingerprint analysis with the FBI, but who had never trained with the FBI to conduct latent fingerprint comparisons. (Id. ¶¶ 5-12.) This improper evidence ultimately led to Royer spending nearly seventeen years of his life incarcerated for a crime he did not commit. (Id. ¶ 239.)

(1) Helen Sailor's Murder and the Initial Investigation

At 5:30 p.m. on November 28, 2002, Larry Converse and his wife dropped Helen Sailor off at the door of the Waterfall Highrise Apartments (“Highrise”). (DE 1 ¶ 35.) That night, Carolyn Hoffer, a certified nursing assistant, called Sailor about ten times between 8:45 p.m. and 9:15 p.m. to remind Sailor she was coming the next morning. (Id. ¶ 36.) Sailor failed to answer any of these calls. (Id.) The next morning, Hoffer arrived at the Highrise and tried to “buzz” in. (Id. ¶ 37.) When Sailor again failed to respond, Hoffer called the Converse family, who arrived at the Highrise with a key. (Id. ¶ 38.) After Hoffer and the Converse family entered Sailor's apartment, they found Ms. Sailor's body. (Id.)

Defendant Todd Thayer and Detective Hammel of the Elkhart Police Department led the initial investigation into Ms. Sailor's death. (Id. ¶ 43.) This investigation produced two viable suspects: Larry Wood and Tony Thomas. (Id. ¶ 41.)

Larry Wood lived at the Highrise and initially denied going into Sailor's apartment on the day of the murder. (Id. ¶ 43.) Wood later admitted, however, that he may have ridden the elevator with Sailor, walked her to her apartment, and even assisted her inside. (Id.) When

2

Detective Hammel and Defendant Thayer searched Wood's residence, they discovered a reddish substance in his apartment, as well as an oily residue, which were both similar to substances found in Sailor's apartment. (Id. ¶¶ 45, 46.) Police also found a blood stain on the inside of Wood's shoe. (Id.) When Wood was taken to the Elkhart Police Department on December 12, 2002, for questioning, he “fell to his knees and began to cry” prior to entering the interrogation room. (Id. ¶ 49.) Later, Wood also failed a truth verification exam. (Id. ¶ 51.)

Tony Thomas was the second viable suspect in the initial investigation. Thomas had previously served more than a decade in prison for murder and had been seen in the Highrise on the day of Sailor's murder. (Id. ¶¶ 52, 55.) A number of witnesses placed him in the elevator at the same time as Sailor. (Id. ¶ 53.) Witnesses also described Thomas as acting bizarrely that day, saying that he was “suspicious,” was poking his head out of the elevator and looking around the hallway, and that he seemed like a disoriented “crack-head.” (Id. ¶¶ 63, 65.) While an interview with Thomas later took place, and a truth-verification exam was potentially given, no documentation regarding this interview or exam were ever disclosed to the defense. (Id. ¶ 67.)

(2) Elkhart Police Department's First Homicide Unit and Nina Porter's Statement

In August of 2003, the Elkhart Police Department started a homicide unit, which consisted of: (1) Defendant Lt. Paul Converse; (2) Sgt. Bill Wargo; (3) Defendant Det. Peggy Snider; (4) Defendant Det. Mark Daggy; and (5) Defendant Det. Carly Conway. (Id. ¶ 69.) The first investigation assigned to them was Sailor's murder. (Id. ¶ 70.) Defendant Daggy convinced the head of the homicide unit, Detective Conway, to turn the investigation away from Larry Wood and Tony Thomas to a different individual: Lana Canen. (Id. ¶ 77.) Defendant Daggy had previously investigated Ms. Canen for a string of burglaries and suspected that she may have been involved. (Id. ¶ 74.)

3

Prior to this point, not a single piece of evidence implicated Royer in the Sailor homicide. (Id. ¶ 78.) However, this changed in September of 2003. On September 1, 2003, Nina Porter was pulled over for a traffic stop. (Id. ¶ 81.) Lana Canen was in her passenger seat. (Id.) Porter was on probation and believed that a violation of her terms of probation could get her sent back into custody. (Id. ¶ 81) After the stop, Porter was allowed to go home without even a traffic citation. (Id. ¶ 82.) Canen, on the other hand, was arrested and taken into custody. (Id.) Even though Porter was initially let go, on September 2, 2003, Detective Conway arrived at Porter's house, told Porter he had a warrant for her arrest, and took her into custody. (Id. ¶ 85.)

While in custody, Porter was not questioned about the warrant for her arrest, but was instead questioned extensively by Conway about the Sailor homicide. (Id. ¶ 87.) During the interrogation, Conway sat about eight inches away from her, spoke loudly, and fed her details about Sailor's death. (Id. ¶ 89.) When Porter said she knew nothing about the murder, Conway threatened to have her children taken away if she did not give a statement. (Id. ¶ 90.) Conway then showed Porter photographs of Sailor's deceased body - on the back of the photos, there were phrases written which were meant to serve as cues for Porter's statement. (Id. ¶ 91-92.) Porter recalls that one such phrase was “Thanksgiving,” which was her cue to repeat “Thanksgiving. Thanks for giving death.” (Id. ¶ 92.) Then, with the recorder off, Conway fabricated a false statement for Porter which implicated Canen and Royer in the murder of Sailor. (Id. ¶ 93.) Conway also informed Porter that if she cooperated she would receive a monetary reward. (Id. ¶ 94.)

Porter's fabricated statement eventually helped secure Royer's conviction. The fabrication, the coercion, and promises of consideration were never disclosed to Royer or his defense prior to trial. (Id. ¶ 95.) True to Detective Conway's word, after the trial, Defendants

4

Daggy and Sigsbee later paid Porter $2,000 because, according to Defendant Daggy, “she testified consistently with the statement obtained during the underlying investigation.” (Id. ¶ 97.)

(3) Defendant's Interrogation of Royer and Subsequent Charging Decision

After securing the fabricated statement from Porter, Defendants then set out to question Royer. (Id. ¶ 99.) The Elkhart Police Department took Royer in for questioning on September 3, 2003. (Id. ¶ 101.) At the time of this interrogation, Royer had the mind of a child, had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and depression, and had been prescribed multiple psychiatric medications. (Id. ¶ 100.) Defendant Conway conducted the interrogation, but Defendants Converse, Daggy, Snider, and Becker were all present. (Id. ¶¶ 104, 111.)

The interrogation began shortly after Royer arrived at the Elkhart Police Department on September 3, 2003. (Id. ¶ 112.) Defendants were already aware of Royer's psychological and emotional problems. (Id. ¶ 103-104.) Defendant Snider told Defendant Conway that the Elkhart Housing Authority had documentation showing that Royer was severely disabled and had the mind of a child. (Id. ¶ 103.) However, they took no steps to accommodate Royer's disability prior to nor during the interrogation: he had no lawyer, counselor, or family member present for his interrogations on September 3, 2003, and September 4, 2003. (Id. ¶ 105-107.) The Miranda warning provided Royer was given and documentation signed in less than one minute. (Id. ¶ 109.) Defendants also observed that Royer had great trouble understanding and comprehending what was taking place, but did nothing to limit or adapt their questioning to his known vulnerabilities. (Id. ¶ 115-116.) Instead, Defendant Conway used psychologically abusive interrogation techniques on Royer, repeatedly and strenuously accusing Royer of the Sailor murder, despite Royer's consistent denial, and feeding him intimate details of the crime. (Id. ¶ 116-120.)

5

After hours of interrogation, Defendants finally broke Royer. (Id. ¶ 121.) By this point, Royer was drifting, disabled, defeated, emotionally broken down, tired, and fatigued. Instead of terminating the interrogation, the other Defendants encouraged Conway to continue. (Id. ¶ 122.) Defendant Conway proceeded to take Royer's statement, and, at 5:30 p.m. on September 3, 2003, the police arrested Royer for the murder of Sailor. (Id. ¶¶ 123-125, 141.)

After reviewing Royer's statement, Defendants recognized that it was so factually inaccurate it could never be used to tie him to the Sailor murder. (Id. ¶ 143.) The Defendants therefore decided to manufacture another statement for...