You may remember that after much Sturm und Drang, the McHenry County criminal case against the owners of a hemp processing facility in Lakemoor was dismissed at the request of the State’s Attorney’s Office.
Here’s the email, obtained through a Freedom of Information request, that Defense Attorney Robert Hanlon sent to the State’s Attorney’s Special Prosecutor Bill Bruce which preceded the decision to drop the case:
Bill:
This is the first case we have had together. I’m glad we are communicating. I doubt you know much about me other than what you see in this case or likely told by others that have not had cases with me. I have spent over 20 years dealing with complex litigation. I even served as a SA for a while, but I enjoy being myself way more than holding public office. I have even represented former SA’s, judges and one AUSA, and served as a special prosecutor for a different county. I tell you that only so you know I’m not all evil.
To answer your question directly, I have Lakemoor BWCF from the raid earlier in the day by Lakemoor police where police including both Lakemoor and LCMEG conducted a search. Prior to the earlier raid, a LCMEG officer instructed Lakemoor PD to deactivate their BWCs. The BWCF with the instruction to deactivate was obtained from a FOIA request for Lakemoor Police public records. It’s admissible as a public record exception to the hearsay rule and under the Officer Worn Body Camera Act. Additionally, since MEG officers are involved, that instruction ties into the adverse inference motion under advisement to be decided after the evidentiary hearing. With or without your agreement, I think it comes into evidence because it is relevant to the question of missing body camera footage and relevant to the motives of Behan and LCMEG, not to mention character. I’ll send you the clip assuming my client agrees to tender the footage, at this time. She doesn’t like your office because Randi’s promise to me was not kept before the charges were filed and the arrest ensued. Frankly, I was disappointed with that failure, to say the least. It may have conditioned my approach to this case.
The only portion of the Spoerry BWCF I care about is towards the end where a discussion of Milk and Honey having a hemp license and that someone was verifying it with IDA.
Mujahed’s report says that he verified it with IDA. That was around 4:00pm. His disclosure to Behan was before 5:00pm.
As you know from our last hearing, I have photographic evidence that LCMEG officers were equipped with BWCs. I gave you a copy of one of several photos showing as much. I even have sufficient facts to believe they activated one of those cameras at least once on 11/1/24, which I believe I can prove at the hearing. Moreover, I believe the testimony will prove out that the BWC seen on the photographs was paid for and issued by the police. (I suspect that LCMEG is being disingenuous with you, given your representation to the court last time that Mujahed had told you no MEG officer was issued with a BWC. That makes me wonder why the State’s Attorney’s office is placing itself in a poor light because Police are not being honest with you.
In an earlier e-mail to you I asked for a stipulation that the Milk and Honey Coop LLC Hemp licenses were tendered to police three times on 11/1/24. You said no. At that time, I was lax in my specificity and I confused a few names. My apologies. However, you now know from my last response (with supporting exhibits), the following facts are true and I can prove each of them anyway. So I’m asking for a stipulation to the following facts to make efficient use of the court’s time, and limit the burden on the subpoenaed witnesses at the franks hearing:
- Behan is the LCMEG officer who submitted the Complaint for Search Warrant.
- At or about 1:10 p.m. on 11/1/24, Sinnott received Milk & Honey Coop LLC’s hemp licenses and at least 2 Certificates of Analysis while present in the industrial building located at 303 Herbert Road, Lakemoor, Illinois and that was visible on her BWCF.
- At or about 2:00 p.m. on 11/1/24 LCMEG Deputy Director Shaw received Milk & Honey Coop LLC’s hemp licenses.
(Reasoning – Shaw’s report says that he observed the Milk & Honey Hemp licenses on Coleman’s phone. However, video surveillance cameras say paper copies delivered – You can see in the still photo I previously provided of Shaw talking to Coleman, the paper folder is present – although you can’t see what was inside the folder. Accepting Shaw’s report as true, he observed the Hemp licenses and told Behan of them whether it was from her cell phone or on paper. Coleman departed around 2:00 p.m. shortly after the interaction per Vargas affidavit and Shaw’s report doesn’t identify the time but it is consistent with the time stamped photograph and his report.)
- At or around 3:30-4:00 p.m. on 11/1/24 or thereabouts ISP Special Agent Mujahed received Milk and Honey Coop LLC’s hemp licenses and COAs from Vargas.
- Sinnott, Shaw, and Mujahed each informed Behan that Milk & Honey Coop LLC had a valid Hemp license, but Mujahed contended it was not valid at the Lakemoor location.
- Behan was aware of the Milk and Honey Coop LLC’s Hemp Licenses when he requested the Search Warrant
(Behan’s own report acknowledges he knew of the Milk and Honey Hemp Licenses).
- Behan acknowledged watching the Sinnott BWCF in the Complaint for Search Warrant.
- The Milk and Honey Coop LLC hemp licenses are visible on Sinnott’s BWCF reviewed by Behan.
- The Certificates of Analysis issued prior to 11/1/24 are true and accurate copies of the certificates issued by Steep Hill Lab. (the stack attached to the field affidavit)
- The Milk and Honey Coop LLC Hemp Licenses are true and accurate copies of the licenses issued by the State of Illinois Department of Agriculture.
- Steep Hill Labs is authorized by the Illinois Department of Agriculture to test hemp for compliance purposes.
We could save much of the hearing time (plus or minus 4 hours) if we stipulated to these obvious and easily proven admissible facts. Hence, I am asking you to save the court and both of us time with a stipulation to the aforementioned facts. Please let me know if we can streamline some of the hearing with a stipulation on these facts? If there is something you want me to stip to, feel free to ask. I routinely stiped to facts that could be proven, when I was prosecuting and I personally had on average 12 felony convictions per month, with a significant number of those involving DOC sentences in the cases I personally handled when I served as a SA (the county was small enough for that). Similarly the AUSA’s I deal with routinely stip to facts easily proven. For any request you may have, I will ask why and what support.
Setting aside the above request, it appears to me that the police likely pushed Mr. Miller into advancing the charges first and thinking second, if at all. I can’t even contemplate why politically your office is hellbent to lose this case. Even the confining issue is actually a home run for the Defendant.
I have alerted you on several occasions that this prosecution is malicious. The State’s continued pursuit of these baseless charges has its own consequences that are purely under your control. I have always been transparent and clear about our defense and will attempt to maintain such transparency within the limits of the Rules.
