Four Cops Implicated in Breonna Taylor's Death Now Face Federal Charges
So far no one has been held criminally liable for the disastrous drug raid, which was based on a flimsy and falsified search warrant affidavit.

The U.S. Department of Justice today announced federal charges against four current or former police officers who were involved in the drug raid that killed Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old EMT and aspiring nurse, at her apartment in Louisville, Kentucky, on March 13, 2020. With one exception, this is the first time that any officers have been charged in connection with the deadly operation, which was based on a flimsy and falsified search warrant affidavit that relied almost entirely on Taylor's connection to a former boyfriend, Jamarcus Glover, a suspected drug dealer.
Former detective Joshua Jaynes, who wrote that affidavit, is charged with willfully violating Taylor's Fourth Amendment rights under color of law by seeking a warrant without probable cause. The Justice Department says his affidavit "contained false and misleading statements, omitted material facts, relied on stale information, and was not supported by probable cause." Because the resulting search warrant led to Taylor's death, Jaynes could face up to life in prison if convicted.
Sgt. Kyle Meany, who approved the affidavit and is still employed by the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD), faces the same charge. He is also charged with making a false statement to federal investigators by claiming that police sought a no-knock search warrant for Taylor's apartment because the LMPD's SWAT unit had requested it. That offense is punishable by up to five years in prison.
Jaynes also is charged with falsifying records in a federal investigation and with conspiracy for "agreeing with another detective to cover up the false warrant affidavit after Taylor's death by drafting a false investigative letter and making false statements to criminal investigators." The other detective, Kelly Goodlett, likewise faces a conspiracy charge, for "conspiring with Jaynes to falsify the search warrant for Taylor's home and to cover up their actions afterward." The obstruction charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, and the conspiracy charges are punishable by up to five years.
The one defendant who was previously charged, former detective Brett Hankison, is accused of violating constitutional rights under color of law by blindly firing 10 rounds through "a covered window and covered glass door," thereby endangering Taylor, her boyfriend Kenneth Walker, and three neighbors. Last March, a state jury acquitted Hankison of "wanton endangerment" based on the same reckless conduct, which had resulted in his dismissal. The federal charge is somewhat different, since it is based on willful civil rights violations and names Taylor and Walker as victims along with their neighbors.
"Breonna Taylor should be alive today," Attorney General Merrick Garland said. But for Jaynes' fraudulent search warrant affidavit, she would be.
The indictment laying out the charges against Jaynes and Meany says they "knew that the affidavit used to obtain the warrant to search Taylor's home contained information that was false, misleading, and out-of-date; that the affidavit omitted material information; and that the officers lacked probable cause for the search." They also "knew that the execution of the search warrant would be carried out by armed LMPD officers, and could create a dangerous situation both for those officers and for anyone who happened to be in Taylor's home."
The Justice Department notes that Jaynes falsely claimed he had "verified through a U.S. Postal Inspector" that Glover was receiving packages, which Jaynes suggested might contain drugs or drug money, at Taylor's address. Acting Police Chief Yvette Gentry likewise emphasized that misrepresentation when she fired Jaynes. "Detective Jaynes lied when he swore 'verified through a US Postal Inspector,'" she wrote. "Detective Jaynes did not have contact with a US Postal Inspector….Having an independent, third party verify information is powerful and compelling [evidence]. The inclusion of this in the affidavit as a direct verification was deceptive."
Jaynes later told local, state, and federal investigators the information about the packages actually had come from Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly, who supposedly told Jaynes "nonchalantly" that Glover "just gets Amazon or mail packages there." According to the indictment, that was not true either. After the raid, it says, Jaynes called Mattingly to "try to get [him] to say that he had previously told [Jaynes] that [Glover] had received packages at Taylor's apartment." But in reality, Mattingly had told Jaynes "in or around January 2020" that "he had no information showing that [Glover] received packages at Taylor's apartment," a point he reiterated during the conversation after the raid.
Jaynes included the claim about packages in a letter to investigators that Goodlett reviewed. "Knowing that the statement was false, [Goodlett] failed to change the statement or object to it," the indictment says. "[Goodlett] later signed the letter, which included this false statement."
Jaynes also told investigators he "was able to verify through CLEAR, a law enforcement database, that as of February 20, 2020, [Glover] used [Taylor's address] as his residence." The indictment says Jaynes and Goodlett "both knew at the time that this statement was misleading because, as they knew, [Glover] did not live at [Taylor's apartment] in February 2020." They "knew that the letter contained false and misleading information that purported to link Breonna Taylor to [Glover], and that the letter omitted information that would have undermined the claim of an ongoing connection between Taylor and [Glover]."
Although the indictment does not mention it, Jaynes' justification for a no-knock warrant was even thinner. "Affiant is requesting a No-Knock entry to the premises due to the nature of how these drug traffickers operate," he wrote. "These drug traffickers have a history of attempting to destroy evidence, have cameras on the location that compromise Detectives once an approach to the dwelling is made, and a have history of fleeing from law enforcement."
Aside from Taylor's association with Glover, Jaynes had presented zero evidence that she was one of "these drug traffickers," let alone that she posed a threat to the police. Jaynes noted that both Glover and his alleged partner in drug dealing were facing gun charges, which suggested they might be armed. But he offered no evidence specific to Taylor that would justify a no-knock warrant for her apartment.
During the raid, Hankison's indictment notes, he fired 10 rounds "through a window
and a sliding glass door, both of which were covered with blinds and curtains." Even "after there was no longer a lawful objective justifying the use of deadly force," Hankison "fired five shots through a bedroom window that was covered with blinds and a blackout curtain," thereby endangering Taylor and Walker. He also "fired five bullets into the living room…through a sliding glass door that was covered with blinds and a curtain." Several of those bullets penetrated a neighboring apartment, endangering the three people who lived there.
Hankison therefore faces two counts of violating people's Fourth Amendment rights under color of law. Since both "involved the use of a dangerous weapon and an attempt to kill," Hankison, if convicted, could be sentenced to "any term of years or for life."
The federal defendants do not include former detective Myles Cosgrove, who fired the bullet that killed Taylor. After the cops serving the warrant that Jaynes obtained broke into Taylor's apartment around 12:45 a.m., Walker responded to the terrifying tumult by grabbing a handgun and firing a single round at the intruders, striking Mattingly in the leg. Cosgrove and Mattingly then fired 22 rounds down a dark hallway, where Taylor was standing near Walker.
Walker, who reported a break-in that night during phone calls to police, his mother, and Taylor's mother, has always maintained that he did not know the intruders were police officers. Although the cops claimed they identified themselves, Walker said he and Taylor heard no such announcement. Neither did the neighbors, except for one man who initially concurred but later changed his story to fit the official account. Walker was charged with attempted murder of a police officer after the raid, but prosecutors dropped that charge two months later, implicitly conceding that he had a strong self-defense claim.
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron concluded that Cosgrove and Mattingly likewise had acted in self-defense, meaning that criminal charges were not warranted. But in a December 2020 termination letter to Cosgrove, acting Police Chief Yvette Gentry said he failed to "properly identify a target" when he fired his 16 rounds.
"The shots you fired went in three distinctly different directions, demonstrating that you did not identify a specific target," Gentry wrote. "Rather, you fired in a manner consistent with suppressive fire, which is in direct contradiction to our training, values and policy." Cosgrove—who, like Hankison, mistook police gunfire (Mattingly's) for shots fired by Walker—later said he was not even consciously aware that he had used his gun.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Two years, but that's better than never. I don't this state+federal double jeopardy, but the state declined to prosecute, leaving it wide open.
I agree. I'm not a fan in principle of the double-charging, but it does seem necessary in this case.
You're not a fan in principle. You're a fan in practice.
I made $17k in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money on-line by:-
Reading this article:>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
I mostly don't support feds policing states in this manner. It gives them leverage for state directed powers and is easily corruptible.
The feds don't have the resources to investigate every single police action so their choices are based on political decisions.
If the state declines that should be their prerogative accept in the most egregious abuses. Questions on correctness of warrants is especially glaring given all the bullshit claims feds have made over the decades.
"Mostly".
Yes. I'm generally against a powerful federal government. Need me to go slower for you?
Not in this case you aren't.
You're having trouble with understanding what "mostly" means?
Oh here comes the contrarian Jesse, ready to defend assholes and criminals (so long as they're on his side) at every turn.
I think it’s fine when the state fails to bring any charges. I dislike it when it’s stacking, or doing and end-around double jeopardy. There was no original jeopardy here, so it seems legit…except for recharging the one officer already convicted.
I said a long time ago that the people who got the warrant needed to face consequences, and it’s finally happening.
Nothing like politically motivated corrupt prosecutions to make the left libertarians salivate at the possibility of vengeance
Relax, they’re probably just trying to incite a riot. So the pigs might get off.
You'll need to explain how this is a corrupt prosecution. If there's a case to be made, make it. If police lied and faked details on a warrant, then prosecuting them based on the fall-out of a bullshit warrant is called for.
If that was the extent of who they were going after you'd have a point but it's not what is going on and you know it. They're charging everyone up and down the line and even going after people already acquitted. But hey, we're seeing lots of supposed libertarians all on board for stalinist show trials so why should this be different.
Sad
nice post
Florida has banned no knock raids because of all the shootouts between citizens and cops at the wrong address.
The cops should just wait until the perps come out to do their morning routine.
And grab them as they open the car door.
Or follow them and do a traffic stop.
Then go to the house and get the drugs.
That would however not allow the cops to imitate home invaders and kill people.
How sad that these fine, brave officers may have their lives disrupted simply because of minor, administrative, paperwork mistakes or oversights.
What percentage of these warrants have false info? I'd guess 80%. Most of them don't get scrutinized like this one. The judges who sign off sure don't care.
>>making a false statement to federal investigators ... is punishable by up to five years in prison
we kicked England's ass so the Feds can gulag us for their lack of diligence. love it.
When one sees the consequences that can flow from such false statements, 5 years is not necessarily inappropriate.
one-source testimony seems a pitfall.
"Lying to investigators" is such an airy concept that it can be easily abused to punish people when the investigators cannot find sufficient evidence to convict on more substantial charges.
Ah, close enough for government work.
The Justice Department says his affidavit "contained false and misleading statements, omitted material facts, relied on stale information, and was not supported by probable cause."
Shame. Gets you promoted in the DoJ or FBI.
FINALLY! Back when Beelzebub's brewsky was the Satan-scolders' "assassin of youth," the Hoover-Anslinger Administration saw to it that all dry killers got off scot free--until hunted down by the private sector.
Yet the left hounds Rand Paul to 'say her name' instead of hounding the Democrats to move his bill (named after her) forward.
Illegal double jeopardy prosecutions can be emotionally satisfying in cases like this, but they're still wrong and unconstitutional.
I don’t know, I don’t expect the crowd here give a flying rats ass that She was a mule forher boyfriend was a violent drug dealer
Who likely did shoot first. Most of you would not give a damn I don’t blame you (much).
But seriously double Indemnity being supported libertarians. This saddens me.
Because the sentence for being a mule isn't being gunned down in the middle of the night at home. If you have evidence she's a criminal, then arrest her.
But they weren't even there for her.
This.
It wouldn't actually matter if her house was stacked from floor to ceiling with bricks of cocaine. The presence of drugs (or lack thereof) isn't the problem here. The false warrant is bad, but it's not the central problem here. The real big elephant in the room is the no-knock warrant execution in the middle of the night. Unless there's an active hostage situation or a bomb threat or or some clear and present physical danger, there's no reason for police to ever execute a surprise no-knock warrant (also known as a "raid"), much less in the middle of the night.
Compare the aggression of these no-knocks with the police sitting on their thumbs for 90 minutes when dealing with ONE psycho who has a gun. (and is actively killing children!!!)
I agree with you being angry about the Texas thumb twiddlers, I didn’t mention the no knock warrant,
My point is double indemnity scares the shit out of me, far more than Gestapo tactics of false warrants and increasingly military swat team arrest. Our justice system is getting more and more…. Crooked, off tracks, political, lottery like, with takebacks…. I remember the last time you some guys were talking about taking plea deals because that’s just what you do, no matter how guilty or innocent you are, That’s some scary shit. The justices system feels arbitrary and unreliable and it’s not getting better, perhaps I’m alone and thinking that’s a major problem.
But sure let’s get worked up over police brutality because that’s not getting enough spotlight. Maybe we can we can retry all the people we don’t like until the cases go the way we want, and they’re all in jail. That sounds libertarian. What could go wrong.
Unless somebody has a serious reason there was a misstrial that hasn’t been brought up on the board yet?
You seem you seem confused. These cops have never been charged before, aside from the one guy already convicted. And I do have problems with that, but not the other cops who should have been charged a long time ago.
This isn’t a case of them getting tried again after getting acquitted. This is a case of the feds taking them to trial for the first time. And that’s good.
"The real big elephant in the room is the no-knock warrant execution in the middle of the night."
They knocked and announced themselves. Neighbors verified that.
One single neighbor who was supposedly already outside walking his dog corroborated it. Nobody else heard them. They didn't make themselves heard loudly enough before breaking down the door.
possibly he couldn't hear them identify themselves due to their pounding on the door at the same time (this apparently happens a lot)
Yeah, that too. So their self-serving statements claiming they identified themselves don't really mean a lot to me-did the people inside have a chance to realize you were police before you broke the door down? What good does identifying yourself do when you're serving a 1 am warrant and the people inside are asleep and can't hear you?
Someone somewhere for some reason appears to be misrepresenting "the facts" - if there is such a thing circa 2022. I have read before from multiple source that BT WAS at one time an "EMT" BUT at the time of this incident she was NOT employed as an EMT or anything, rather just living with her presumed drug dealing boyfriend. True or not? Further many "news accounts" conveniently ignore that the police did NOT fire first, i.e. the boyfriend fired at them first from within a dark room. This hardly sounds like the grossly inappropriate response, not that it was perhaps and ideal response. BIASed reporting rots the ability of the MSM to have a positive influence on the national psyche stoking racial and anti-police animus in this case.
LOL they can't smash down somebody's door in the middle of the night and then use the ensuing fire to justify the action. They created the danger in the first place by busting in. Think this dude starts blasting away at the cops who knock at 5 pm in uniform? Why would he? He wasn't involved in ANY of that shit. He was protecting his family unit.
Oh, and her job at the time that she was killed is completely irrelevant. But you know that.
You people are just fucking disgusting.
It doesn't matter if she was an EMT or not and of course you'd fire back if someone was breaking your door down in the middle of the night.
Fuck off with your defense of criminals (ie. the fucking police in this instance.)
C'mon man, You can't say things like that. The truth is much too inconvenient for the whiners.
Taylor lost her former job as an EMT because she was caught pilfering certain drugs for her boyfriend to sell. (Another inconvenient truth)
The fact that she remained with this POS boyfriend even though she must have come to some realization that sooner or later this would come down.
I have no sympathy for either of the two.
Based on RussiaGate, falsified court affidavits include zero penalty whatsoever.
Even the most fiscally-conservative Republican would have to admit the “War on Drugs” a complete failure on every level.
While there is no perfect solution, taxpayers have spent over $1.5 trillion - over 50 years - and today we have MORE illegal drug use.
Taxpayers are also funding the world’s largest prison population for things like simple marijuana use.
When we lock up non-violent Americans in prison for petty offenses, those citizens are not employed - they don’t pay payroll taxes or benefit the economy in any way.
America being the world’s top jailer is a public welfare program.
Absolutely. And you can see the difference in cities like Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and other cities that provide shooting galleries, free needles and crack pipes and even the drugs those libertarian drug addicts need.
Yes sir, those cities are doing just fine. Swell places to visit.
Just don't leave your car unattended. Or carry any cash, or walk alone or visit those areas, unless you don't mind stepping over used needles, human excrement and dead and dying drug addicts.
Swell places to be sure.
--Aside from Taylor's association with Glover, Jaynes had presented zero evidence that she was one of "these drug traffickers," --
So, aside from the fact her live-in boyfriend was a drug dealer who shot at police because he thought they were rival dealers stealing his drugs, zero evidence?
Jesus Christ, the misinformation. Her EX-BOYFRIEND was a drug dealer. The boyfriend at her place, Kenneth Walker, was not a criminal. Cops were under the belief she was still holding stuff for her ex and didn't know about Walker, nor expect him to be in the apartment. There's no signs that Kenneth Walker has or ever has had a criminal record.
Couple of questions...When is the Dept. of Justice going to pursue charges against the judge who signed off on a "flimsy and falsified search warrant affidavit"? Is it not the job of the judge to ensure there is evidence enough to require the warrant? Is it not the responsibility of the judicial branch to be a "check and balance" on the executive branch? Or does the judicial branch exist only to rubber stamp what the executive branch wants to do? Why even require a judge's signature if a judge just signs their name on anything put in front of them?
Both boyfriends were drug dealers. Calling Walker "innocent" is mistaken. He is just a different drug dealer than the cops were looking for evidence on. They found evidence on him about his sales of pills and pot to people, and bragging about how well he prepares before he robs someone.
Walker initially claimed that it was Taylor who shot at the cops first.
Also, he said initially that “She asked 10 times, ‘who’s at the door?’”. That implies that there was much more knocking and time than is now being claimed.
As much as I oppose these kinds of warrants, this whole thing seems like a political stunt, motivated more by the looming midterms than by any sort of justice.
Although these prosecutions might serve to discourage shoody warrants in the future, I suspect the real result is that fewer people will decide to be cops, as there will be a threat that federal authorities are going to pore over their every action, and that even years later, the threat of federal prosecution will hang over their heads.
Defunding the police is less effective than just tormenting them until they all quit. If you don't like the police these days, you are going to really dislike the vigilantes and gangs that will replace them.
Do you have a source for the evidence against Walker? Or is this another case of bad cops slandering the victim?
You're ignoring the evidence of cops lying to obtain the warrant. Is that because you're as stupid as you sound, a lying bootlicking fascist apologist, or a lying criminal cop yourself? That lying is obstruction of justice, and it puts every document these cops ever signed and all testimony they ever gave in question. And _this_ time it became felony murder.
I agree that this is a political prosecution. It's sad and terrifying that the only time perjurious cops get prosecuted is because the case became political. Firing and prosecution for lying on a warrant application, on any other signed official documents, or in court ought to be automatic, but it isn't. And lying cops frequently back each other up. Therefore, if I am ever on a jury, I will have to assume that any cop testifying has got away with perjury before and can't be believed without supporting evidence that did not originate with a cop and could not have been tampered with by his co-conspirators in the cops and prosecutors office.
Seems pretty arbitrary and capricious to single out a couple of cops just for lying and murdering. Don't they all do that all the time?
What the fuck. Did Reason purge a shitload of posts from this thread?
Someone else's feelings of entitlement to you or your property is your fault? Obviously he wasn't welcome to come and go; hence the shooting.
If someone tries to break into your home at 1am and gets shot before you have time to fully realize it was a cop that's entirely on them, not you. The cops are 150% in the wrong for breaking into the house. There is simply no room for anything close to that being any shade of acceptable. Walker, on the hand, was 150% justified in shooting at the intruders. Had he shot and killed one of them it would have been completely justified self defense.
The boyfriend wasn’t shooting at the cops. He was shooting at unidentified intruders.
He lives in a high crime area. And he surely knows that her ex boyfriend is a convicted felon with an active drug business. Then he hears someone breaking into the apartment after midnight. He has a right to use his weapon in self defense. It’s not a screwup if the cops didn’t do a good job of identifying themselves. And just shouting “Police, open up!” Is something you can do even if you’re not a cop.
They’re not prosecuting the cops who returned fire (aside from the one dumbass who was blind firing at the window). They’re prosecuting the assholes who lied to get a warrant. And I say, good for them.
I’m not a fan of double prosecuting that one cop, so it’s not ideal, but 75% of this sounds great to me, and should have happened sooner.
Is the danger that someone might (not is) destroy evidence of a crime reason to escalate to surprise death squads? Regardless of how bad drugs may be (and they are bad), they are not an imminent threat to anyone. No one will die if the police wait until daytime to execute their warrant. And besides, if they have enough evidence to get a warrant for someone's arrest then they don't need drugs present at the location to secure that arrest. There's no "valid only if you find them with some dope" condition on warrants and last I checked you can't flush a suspect down a toilet.
Yup. And as I said, it’s a high crime area and there’s a potentially violent, definitely criminal ex boyfriend in the mix. I’d have fired at unknown intruders, and I’d likely have not stopped at one shot.
Then why execute the warrant at 1am if not to surprise people out of their sleep? The entire point was "shock and awe" and no one disputes that. Expecting people to recognize a police raid from a home invasion within seconds of waking up is beyond unreasonable.
They weren't there to get drugs. They were there to get a person. You can't flush a suspect down a toilet.
Gee golly, I guess we'd better use the gestapo, then! Otherwise we'll never stop people from selling these things to people who want to buy them!
I mean, if police are constantly forcing dealers to flush drugs down the toilet, they're getting drugs off the street, aren't they? So is the goal to do that, or is it to arrest more people?
"The boyfriend wasn’t shooting at the cops. He was shooting at unidentified intruders."
Cops identified themselves, in spite of it being a no-knock warrant.
Cops weren't justified in breaking into the apartment in the first place. They were justified in returning fire. That's why the cops who returned fire haven't been charged and the charges against the boyfriend were dropped-both were justified in shooting.
But other cops have the moral and legal culpability from creating the situation, and if cops had died, that's on them also.
No sympathy for cop instigated ambushes that end in Them dying especially while conducting a failed and fraudulent Drug War raid.
End the Drug War now.
Any home invader can claim to be the "police" which carries a life or death risk when complied with. Comply and die. Yeah, that's about right for copsuckers.
Identified themselves not loud enough for anyone to hear.
let's assume he didn't hear them identify as cops (this is likely, drug dealers mostly shoot at each other)
so on the one hand, shooting at unknown intruders at 1A is reasonable and lawful... for an innocent person
on the other hand, a drug dealer shooting at unknown intruders at 1A can't really make that argument, since both cops and other dealers breaking in at 1A are simply a normal occupational hazard for drug dealers (which is why so few neighborhoods tolerate them)
But nothing in any of the trials indicated the cops didn't identify themselves.
What trials are you talking about, again? There's been one. Police found one single witness who heard them identify themselves-that doesn't mean that Walker and Taylor heard them. He didn't know they were police and has no moral responsibility to assume people breaking into his apartment after midnight are police officers.
they pounded on the door for 30 seconds according to the guy who shot at them
he either didn't hear them or didn't believe them
"No knock warrant doesn't mean they don't identify themselves. It means they don't knock and ask permission for entry."
You dishonest motherfucker. It means announce yourself on the way in while sneaking in or ramming the door and yelling chaotically over each other as Them enter.
yes, but people in the drug trade have reason to expect both
also, they did knock, quite loudly
if there are defects in the warrant they should be taken as seriously as, say, the fake FBI FISA warrants used to spy on Trump
someone remind me again how many people are in prison for that coup attempt?
He wasn't a drug dealer. Stop talking out your ass about this story. Kenneth Walker was not connected with the drug enterprise of Breonna Taylor's ex-boyfriend. The police were there because of her EX boyfriend, Jamarcus Glover, and believed he had drugs stashed in his ex-girlfriend's place.
An innocent man who knows his girlfriend previously dated a criminal who might be violent? Perfectly justified in firing at people breaking into the home.
Not all outcomes can be perfect.
The police forcefully broke into an innocent person's home in the middle of the night and gunned them down in cold blood. Jesus fucking christ. "Not all outcomes can be perfect"? Listen to yourself. That's absolutely batshit insane. How could it possibly have been handled worse? If these are the eggs you can't worry about cracking then you need to reevaluate the fucking omelette sir.
Nobody in the apartment was in the drug trade. If you are too lazy to read the article or too stupid to understand it, don't comment on it.