December 2014 Term

Grand Jury, Special Presentment

Officer-Involved Shooting of September 18. 2014
Dear Judge Bass:

',:: 5FE3 2:3 P.t111: I ~

//1
,

6~0Jf7'_'i ru~

\...iLl, LiU, u,
We, the Grand Jurors ofthe December 2014 Term, recommend the Dr~f~[tt.1,:A CCX;:'~ i '(
Attorney's Office pursue no further criminal inquiry against Officer David Jannot of
the Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police Department in regards to a shooting he
was involved in on September 18, 2014. We found the evidence collected by the
Georgia Bureau of Investigation and presented to the Grand Jury by the District
Attorney's Office on February 19, 20 and 23, 2015, does not support the filing of
criminal charges against Jannot.
J._

The Grand Jury found Jannot used justifiable force in defense of self or others in
shooting the man in custody, Charles Smith, because the physical evidence supports
the following conclusions:
Smith had a gun in his hand upon exiting the window of Jannot's patrol car

and the gun belonged to Smith. This is based upon the amount of Smith's

DNA present on the grip on the gun and the base ofthe magazine. This DNA

evidence was from skin cells and not from blood that could have been

transferred to the weapon as Smith bled out following the shooting. No

blood was found on the gun. The gun r

d clear of Smith's body and

hands-and thereby any of his b od-up n his hitting the ground as a result

of the shooting. The significant a u

g
sidue found on the

inside and outside of Smith's clothing, including sections 0 c 0

un 1 ely

to have been contaminated by the bullet that entered Smith's body in the left

buttock, also supports this conclusion.

Only one officer, David Jannot, fired his weapon during the incident. This is

based on an inventory of the rounds present in the weapons of all the officers

on the scene, examinations of their weapons to determine if the guns had

been fired, and the number and positioning of the spent shell casings

collected at the scene. Jannot's weapon was the only gun with fewer rounds

than the gun is designed to hold, the only weapon that showed evidence that

it had been fire the only one the shell casings match. Furthermore, Jannot is

r, based on testimony from multiple eyewitnesses, in a position

e
that matches where the shell casings landed.

Only one officer, a driver, was present in each of the two marked police cars

involved in the incident. This is based on police logs and video evidence.

Furthermore, photographs taken at the scene by a Georgia Bureau of

Investigation agent showed Jannot had several items, including his lunch,

positioned and secured by a seat belt in the passenger seat of his vehicle.

There was no room for a second officer to be present in Jannot's car.

Furthermore, police logs showed the officer several eyewitnesses alleged

was part of the incident, Officer Walp, was working in the Sandfly area at the

'JI

(JI

time of the incident and was actually conducting a traffic stop in Sandfly just

minutes after the shooting incident occurred in West Savannah.

Jannot's account of the incident matches the findings of the GBI investigation.

This is based on the autopsy findings, particularly where the bullets struck

Smith, and the positioning of the spent shell casings. Furthermore, the

medical examiner testified four of the five bullet wounds to Smith would not

have incapacitated him or, in all likelihood, prevented him from continuing to

move and/or fire his weapon at Jannot or the officer, Star Corporal Maurice

Collins, driving the patrol car behind Jannot's. This supports Jannot's

testimony that he continued to fire at Smith until the gun-wielding Smith was

no longer a threat to himself or Collins.

The Grand Jury found Jannot used justifiable force in defense of self or others in
shooting the man in custody, Charles Smith, because it is reasonable based on the
evidence that:
Jannot felt threatened by Smith's actions and his history. This is based on

video evidence of Smith resisting Jannot's fellow officers during his arrest

moments earlier at the U.S. Foods store; Smith kicking out the window of
Jannot's car; Smith moving his handcuffed hands from behind his back, a fact
supported by video evidence, to in front of his body; Smith holding a gun in
his hands as he exited the window of the patrol car; the police department's

advanced knowledge, based on police communications prior to their

confronting and arresting Smith at U.S. Foods, that Smith was known to carry

a weapon.

Jannot felt threatened by Smith's erratic behavior. This is based on video

evidence that Smith alternated between reSisting and being compliant during

his arrest, during his being placed in Jannot's patrol car, and during his ride

between U.S. Foods and the scene of the shooting. Physical evidence, a drug

screen, revealed Smith had a mix of stimulants and depressants in his system

at the time of his death. The screen showed Smith had ingested bath salts,

cocaine and marijuana in advance of the incident.

Smith posed a threat to public safety. This is based on Smith not

surrendering his weapon while in police custody, his exit from Jannot's police

car while wielding his weapon, and Jannot's testimony that Smith pointed the

weapon as if to fire it while on a public street upon his exit from the patrol
car.
The Grand Jury was made aware that there were several citizen eyewitnesses who
refused to come forward during the presentment hearing, specifically several
witnesses under subpoena to be there. The Grand Jury heard taped statements,
provided by the GBI and an attorney representing Charles Smith's family, from
several of those subpoenaed eyewitnesses. However, parts of those taped
statements directly contradict the physical evidence presented. And without those
witnesses on hand at the presentment to clarify their accounts, the Grand Jury had
to discount some or all of that testimony. The District Attorney's Office should be

I
I
I

I
t

II
t

I
I
I

commended for presenting those statements-none of which would be admissible

as evidence at trial-to the Grand Jury in its efforts at transparency. The Grand Jury
thanks those citizen witnesses who did testify at the presentment.
The evidence outlined in the presentment left every member of the Grand Jury
concerned about procedures exhibited by the law enforcement agencies involved.
Those concerns included the following:
Many Grand Jurors were appalled that the police did not find Smith's gun
despite the fact at least three officers are seen on video frisking him. We
understand the difficult jobs police officers perform, that situations such as
this are fluid, and that there are certain areas of the human anatomy most of
us would rather not touch. Yet when the police are taking someone into

custody who is known to carry a weapon, we would expect them to conduct a

thorough search to include the crotch and groin, both for the safety of law

enforcement and the safety of the public. We recommend the Savannah

Chatham Metropolitan Police Department examine their procedures for pat

down searches and, if necessary, make changes and implement training.

The Grand Jury recommends the Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police

Department examine their transport procedures. We understand why the

police officers on the scene decided not to wait for a transport van, and we
also realize that waiting for that van and placing Smith inside that vehicle as
opposed to a patrol car does not mean Smith would not have threatened
police with his gun at some point. Yet transporting a dangerous criminal such
as Smith in a patrol car elevates the chance he could escape and/or threaten
public safety. Furthermore, the Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police
Department should examine installing window cages in all patrol cars that
could potentially be used for transport to lessen the chances that the person
under arrest might break a window and escape.
The Grand Jury recommends the Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police

Department evaluate the feasibility of installing video cameras focused on

the inside of transport vehicles. These cameras would have provided

invaluable evidence in this case. Body cameras for police officers would also

have been of benefit.

The Grand Jury recommends the Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police

Department examine its procedures for identifying and holding potential

witnesses at the scene of incidents. Two eyewitnesses to this incident

testified an unidentified police officer told them to leave the scene in the

moments after the shooting. To their credit, those eyewitnesses contacted

law enforcement later and provided testimony. Telling eyewitnesses to a

potential crime to leave without at least collecting contact info is not only

poor police work but harms the credibility of the police department in a case

such as this one.

The Grand Jury recommends the Georgia Bureau of Investigation examine its

process for releasing information to the public about its investigations. The

GBI erred in putting out a press release that stated incorrect information,

I
f

I
f

,~
f

Ii
~

specifically that a gun had been found underneath Smith's body, in the hours
that followed the shooting. Smith's gun was found beside his body, inches
from the hands in which he held the weapon, and not underneath his body.
This misstep potentially harms the GBI's credibility with the public, which is
unfortunate given the thoroughness and professionalism the organization
showed in every other facet of this investigation.
The Grand Jurors would like to express our sympathy to the families impacted by
this incident. Our hearts go out to all parties involved in this tragedy and hope the
weeks that follow can be a period of healing for the entire Savannah community.
We would also like to voice our concerns about the gun violence in the Savannah
community. This presentment underscored the notion that carrying a gun is almost
a lifestyle choice for some Savannah citizens. We have noted, both in this case and
numerous others we've reviewed during this Grand Jury Term, the number of
convicted felons who are released from prison only to be arrested for new crimes
while illegally carrying or using firearms. We challenge law enforcement officials,
elected officials and the community at large to condemn this behavior as intolerable
and unacceptable.
In closin& the Grand Jury requests that, pursuant to Georgia code, this general
presentment be published in the local legal organ, the Savannah Morning News, and
that the transcript of the proceedings taken by the court reporter be made available
for public review in the Office of the Clerk of Superior Court within a period of no
longer than 60 days.
Respectfully submitted,

Adam an Brimmer, Foreperson

Carrie-Anne Wester, Pro Tern Foreperson
Kenisha Mobley, Secretary
December 2014 Term
Eastern Judicial Circuit
Cc:

Dan Massey, Superior Court Clerk

Fellow members of the December 2014 Term Grand Jury
State Legislative Delegation for Chatham County
Edna Jackson, Mayor, City of Savannah
Al Scott, Chatham County Commission Chairman
Joseph Lumpkin, Chiet Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police Department
Vernon Keenan, Director, Georgia Bureau of Investigation

NOTICE OF CIVIL INSPECTION AND INVESTIGATION ;.... t,

BY GRAND JURY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CHATHAM
STATE OF GEORGIA
In Re:

i:

f'

~,M II:

CO~

ilJ

iJc;) CU\ SUr:'i:E:(~l

GH;\TI-!L\~A

CI

CDUN! Y GA

Investigation
of

Savannah Chatham Metropolitan

Police Department

Use of Deadly Force on September 18, 2014

Chatham County Grand Jury

Proceedings, December, 2014

Term

TO:

Hon. Joseph Lumpkin, Chief

Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police Department

NOTICE OF CIVIL INSPECTION AND INVESTIGATION

Comes now Adam J. VanBrimmer, Foreperson of the Chatham County Grand Jury for the
December, 2014 Term of the Superior Court and shows:

1.
On December 1,2014, this Grand Jury was empaneled as provided by law.

2.

Under the provisions of O.C.G.A. 15-12-71, this Grand Jury is authorized to inspect and
investigate the Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police Department.

3.
On January 14, 2015, in accordance with O.C.G.A. 15-12-71 (b) (2), eight or more of
the members of the Grand Jury voted that it was necessary to conduct an inspection and
investigation of Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police Department. In accordance thereof
the Grand Jury has appointed all of the members of the Grand Jury as a committee of the
whole to conduct said inspection and investigation.

4.
The scope of this inspection and investigation is to examine the use of lethal force used by
an officer of the Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police Department on September 18,
2014 during which Charles Manor Smith was killed. It is the intent of this Grand Jury to
conduct a full and fair inspection and investigation in this matter in accordance with all
applicable laws.

5.
The Grand Jury has requested that the District Attorney meet with you on February 19,
2015 and from day to day thereafter in the Grand Jury room in the Chatham County
Courthouse to begin the inspection and investigation.

II
[

6.

,
!

You will be provided the opportunity to appear before the Grand Jury and to testify under
t

oath concerning this matter.

In addition, you will be afforded the opportunity to review

the findings and conclusions of the Grand Jury prior to their submission as a General
Presentment to the Superior Court and to submit any response which you may wish to

I!
I

make to the Grand Jury's findings and recommendations.

Any response which you submit

will be appended to the General Presentment which the Grand Jury submits for publication

It
r

in accordance with O.C.G.A. 15-12-71 (b) (3) and 15-12-80.

t
,

,i
Respectfully Submitted, this 14th day of January, 2015

"

---Adam J. Van Brimmer, Foreperson

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have this date served the below-named individual with a copy of the above

NOTICE OF CIVIL INSPECTION AND INVESTIGATION BY GRAND JURY by:

~ depositing same in the United States Mail in a properly addressed envelope with sufficient
postage thereon to:
Joseph Lumpkin, Chief
Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police Department
201 Habersham St.
Savannah, GA 31401

ThiS~day of January, 2015.

Jf)+~

zo~n~
Legal Assistant IV

District Attorney's Office, EJ.C.

Office of District Attorney
Eastern Judicial Circuit
PO Box 2309
Savannah, GA 31402
912652-7308

, :- ,-" ~ -'. ' i ~-

\ ; ,,;'

December 2014 Term

Grand Jury Presentments

'- J

'I

F\fl

II ... 20

d~,~fX"Cj~
/

Dear Judge Bass:

~":.~

; );_1.

\..,...'Ll\ ~>.jt-. Ci~\';_/ll

L
CO' j\j i ',;' G;\

'> l'T, 1\"1

We, the Grand Jurors of the December 2014 Term, would like to express our
appreciation to you, District Attorney Meg Heap and the taxpayers of Chatham
County for the opportunity to serve as panel members. The lawyers of the district
attorney's office and the law enforcement officers who presented cases for our
review are to be commended for their exemplary professionalism.
The Grand Jurors ofthe December 2014 Term performed duties from December 3,
2014 through February 25, 2015. Our responsibilities included:
Hearing and considering the probable cause evidence relating to criminal

presentments and deciding on a "True Bill" or a "No Bill" for each case.

Hearing and considering the probable cause evidence relating to one civil

presentment and recommending that the district attorney "Seek Criminal

Charges" or "Take No Further Action."

Reviewing reports submitted by the Superior Court, Eastern Judicial Circuit

of Georgia; the District Attorney, Eastern Judicial Circuit of Georgia; the

Sheriff of Chatham County, Georgia; and the Probate Court of Chatham

County, Georgia.

Touring the Chatham County Detention Center, including expanded parts of

the facility.

We, the Grand Jurors ofthe December 2014 Term, learned much in performing our
duties. We were, generally speaking, disturbed at the level of domestic violence and
illegal drug activity happening in our community. We encourage the District
Attorney and the many law enforcement agencies operating within the county to be
proactive in investigating and prosecuting cases related to these acts. Chatham
County residents would do well to stand behind and support the criminal justice
system.
The members of the Grand Jury were discouraged by the number of dated cases,
many of them with evidence that, at best, could be considered circumspect,
presented for our review. We would encourage you and your peers on the bench to
work more closely with prosecutors in deciding which old cases, particularly those
with a vocal victim, should be expedited. To be frank, we heard several cases so
dated that prosecuting them could be considered a waste of public resources and
taxpayer money.

,~/

We were also disappointed in the lack of professionalism, due largely to an apparent

lack of training, shown by several corrections officers at the Chatham County Youth
Detention Center as it related to the State v. Eric Smith, Damian Minter and Quincy
Davis (Case No. 14CHM03530). An investigator with the Department of Juvenile
Justice testified officers used outdated and/or inappropriate tactics to subdue an
inmate who forced his way out of his cell and into a sealed hallway. Testimony by
the officers revealed they had received no or inadequate training on how to bring an
inmate under control once that inmate has fallen to the ground. We recommend the
appropriate organization, be it the Sheriff or the Department of Juvenile Justice,
institute more comprehensive training courses and implement them as soon as
possible. The three officers who stood accused should be put in those programs
immediately upon their implementation. While the grand jury found the officers'
actions failed to rise to the criminal level, the officers clearly exercised poor
judgment in their reaction to the situation.
The aforementioned reports we received from Superior Court, the District Attorney,
the Sheriff and Probate Court were informative and appeared correct.
Several Grand Jury members toured the Chatham County Detention Center on
February 4,2015. We were impressed with the cleanliness of the facility and the
professionalism, enthusiasm and overall knowledge of the staff. We viewed several
cell blocks, the pre-booking and video visitation area, the medial unit and the video
conferencing equipment for conducting court hearings within the jail complex. We
visited with the female inmates participating in "Operation New Hope," a program
that involves training unadoptable rescue dogs. The inmates' appreciation for the
program and their love for their charges was obvious. We encourage the sheriffs
office to continue with this initiative and grow and/or develop additional programs
that might have a positive impact on inmates following their release from the
detention center. We did note two areas of concern: First, that the x-ray room in the
medical facility is used as a break room; and second, that the rape hotline postings
were not present in all the cell blocks we toured. In regards to the x-ray room that
doubles as a break room, we would encourage the Sheriff to choose one use or the
other and not mix them for sanitary reasons. In regards to the rape postings, we ask
the Sheriff to ensure those signs are posted clearly in all cell blocks.
The Grand Jury understands a fee increase has been approved and we applaud that.
We would also encourage you and Chatham County to consider allocating money in
order to provide a light snack to the Grand Jury, particularly when the docket
exceeds 30 cases and pushes the hearings and deliberations well past lunchtime.
In closing, the Grand Jury requests that, pursuant to Georgia code, this general
presentment be published in the local legal organ, the Savannah Morning News, and
that the entire presentments be made available for public review in the Office of the
Clerk of Superior Court.
Respectfully submitted,

Adam Van Brimmer, Foreperson

Carrie-Anne Wester, Pro Tern Foreperson
Kenisha Mobley, Secretary
December 2014 Term
Eastern Judicial Circuit
Cc:

Dan Massey, Superior Court Clerk

Fellow members of the December 2014 Term Grand Jury
State Legislative Delegation for Chatham County
Al Scott, Chatham County Commission Chairman
Al St. Lawrence, Chatham County Sheriff