Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
ARCEO v. CITY OF JUNCTION CITY
January 17, 2002
PETE ARCEO, PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF JUNCTION CITY, KANSAS, JEFFREY CLARK, J.M. WARREN, AND SUZANNE LUEKER, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marten, District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on the separate motion of each
defendant for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed a single response
addressing all four summary judgment motions. The City of Junction City
("City") and all defendants have replied. On that record, the court
considers this matter fully briefed and ripe for determination. For the
reasons set forth below, the court grants the motion of each defendant.
I. Statement of Uncontroverted Facts
Plaintiff, Pete Arceo (hereinafter "Arceo"), brings three causes of
action: 1) a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by malicious prosecution
and false arrest/imprisonment; 2) a violation of state law by false
arrest/imprisonment; and 3) a violation of state law by malicious
prosecution. Specifically, paragraph 14 of Arceo's complaint states, in
pertinent part: "The defendants Clark, Warren and Lueker conspired
together to violate the civil rights of Arceo and to charge, imprison,
and convict him of a crime which he did not commit and which the
defendants should have recognized he did not commit." With Arceo s claims
as a backdrop, the court will set forth its findings of material fact.
The court assumes that the parties made every effort to focus the
pleadings in this case on the actual facts in controversy. Still, the
record is extensive and frequently duplicitous. To draft a comprehensive
and comprehensible order, the court sets out a single recitation of facts
incorporating the positions of all parties. The court cites to the record
only where necessary to clarify its findings as to facts allegedly in
The court's findings include facts taken from various defendants' grand
jury testimony. Defendants object to the use of grand jury testimony as a
basis for a summary judgment record. The court overrules those objections
for the reasons set forth below.
A. Structure of City, JCPD, and Geary County Attorney's Office
The City of Junction City is organized as a City of the First Class
pursuant to K.S.A. § 12-1036b et seq. Pursuant to K.S.A. §
12-1014, such cities are overseen by a City Manager who is generally
responsible for ensuring that the City's laws and ordinances are
enforced. The statutes do not directly state whether the City Manager has
the authority to instigate, facilitate, or terminate a police
investigation. The parties dispute whether the City Manager or the Chief
of Police has final authority as to investigatory decisions. The City
Commission, which the public elects, appoints the City Manager. City's
Employee Handbook, City's Memorandum in Support, Exhibit 54A, Bates No.
1227. The Employee Handbook states that the City Manager's
responsibilities include the "exercise and control over all departments
and divisions that may be created by the
City Commission." Id. at 1230. The Handbook further indicates that
"[e]ach Department Head is responsible to the City Manager and the City
Manager is, in turn, responsible to the City Commission for the efficient
operation and maximum provision of service." Id.
Defendant Warren was the City's Chief of Police from October 7, 1996
through January 4, 2000. Warren testified that he was a department head,
he was responsible to the City Manager, and the City Manager had the
right to hire and fire him. Warren Deposition, City's Memorandum in
Support, at 20. At Warren's deposition, be discussed section 1.3 of the
City's Employee Handbook, which states:
The [Handbook] shall not be construed as limiting the
power and authority of any Department Head to make, or
cause to be made, any rules and regulations governing
the conduct and performance of department employees.
Depart mental rules and regulations shall not conflict
with provisions of these rules and shall be approved
by the City Manager. Such rules and regulations, when
approved, published and distributed, shall have the
force and effect of rules of the department and
disciplinary action may be based upon breach of any
such rules and regulations.
Employee Handbook, Exhibit 54A, Bates No. 1231. Section 1.4 of the
Handbook provides that the City Manager is responsible for the
"administration of these rules and regulations." Id. In considering these
Handbook sections, Warren stated the following:
Q: Did the city manager reserve the right, from time
to time, to look into the operations and effectiveness
of any rules and regulations that you promulgated for
Q: In other words, would you say, then, that the city
manager — insofar as the operation of your
department, the city manager was the final authority,
he could review anything that was done within your
Q: All right. So in that sense, since he had that
power of review, he was the final authority?
Warren Deposition, at 23. Based on this deposition testimony, the City
contends that "Warren did not have any control over investigations that
was not subject. to change, modification, or reversal by the [City
Manager]." City's Reply, at 21, ¶ 8 (see also ¶ 5). On the
other side, Arceo relies on the testimony of Jeffrey Clark who stated
that Warren had the authority to terminate investigations. Clark
Deposition II, Arceo's Response, at 238-239.
Clark's testimony on this topic is not highly persuasive, but the court
nonetheless finds the City's position to be unsupported by the record.
The City's Handbook. sections 1.3 and 1.4, clearly outlines the authority
structure relative to promulgated rules and regulations, specifically,
personnel rules and regulations. Warren, during his deposition, discussed
the City Manager's authority to review, set aside, etc.' such promulgated
rules and regulations. Counsel then continued the questioning by
discussing a broad or general "power of review" and the concept of "final
authority." The context of the deposition, coupled with the text of the
Handbook, reflects the logical premise that the City Manager could
oversee the generation and application of personnel and policy rules and
regulations. Now, the City argues that Warren's broad statements suggest
that the City Manager likewise had the authority to terminate or
otherwise control police investigations. The record instructs such a
conclusion only if one takes Warren's deposition statements out of
The City's position may very well be accurate, but on the basis of the
record before the court, the possessor of final authority over police
investigations within the City's power structure is a matter in
controversy. The court does find, however, that the City Manager has the
final authority to review and set aside any promulgated policies and
procedures which the Chief of Police might generate.
The Junction City Police Department ("JCPD"), at all relevant times,
was divided into three sections: 1) uniformed patrol, including K-9 units
and animal control; 2) administrative services; and 3) investigation,
including detectives, the Drug Task Force, and laboratory services. The
Chief of Police is responsible for all three divisions. Captain Winter
and Lieutenant Royce Rasmussen supervised the investigation division and
were the immediate supervisors of all JCPD detectives. When the
investigation division receives a call for service, the call is assigned
a case number and where investigation is necessary, it is also assigned a
detective. The officer s observations generally govern further activity.
The JCPD handles an average load of 20,000 cases per year. The City is
authorized to have 55 sworn officers, but during the relevant periods,
the department's average size was 45-50 officers. Due to the size of the
department and caseload, the Chief of Police does not know the details of
every case. Chief Warren is certain, however, that the JCPD does not
expressly or impliedly authorize or permit an arrest without probable
Chief Warren attended and graduated from the Kansas Law Enforcement
Training Center ("KLETC") at Hutchinson, Kansas, thereby becoming
certified by the State of Kansas as a law enforcement officer. All of the
officers, including defendant Jeff Clark were certified by KLETC or by
other states which had reciprocal agreements with Kansas. All JCPD
officers had training in probable cause analysis, arrest procedures,
reports to prosecutors, and working with prosecutors.
As required by state law, the JCPD also has a specific policy ("Geary
County Domestic Violence Policy") instructing officers on appropriate
ways in which to deal with domestic violence situations. The JCPL)
regards domestic violence calls as dangerous investigations, with the
danger extending to both responding officers and the parties involved.
When a JCPD officer responds to a domestic violence call, the JCPD policy
instructs the officer to listen to both sides of the dispute, to look for
signs of abuse or physical damage to the surroundings, and to interview
any witnesses who remained at the scene, including children and
neighbors. The policy requires an arrest if probable cause exists based
on information given by any single witness or a combination of several
Police officers, through the division commander, forward investigations
to the county or city attorney. The prosecutor then makes any
prosecutorial decisions. Police officers do not make any decision as to
which cases to prosecute. In this case, the Geary County Attorney's
office made all relevant decisions pertaining to the prosecution of
Arceo. That office refuses to prosecute approximately 20 percent of the
reports it receives from the JCPD. Generally, the refusal to prosecute is
due to insufficient evidence.
B. Arceo/Lueker Connection and Events Giving Rise to Case No. 98-2050
The apparent impetus of the situation giving rise to this suit is a
failed relationship between Arceo and defendant Suzanne Lueker. Lueker is
currently a 23-year-old Kansas State University student. Arceo is a
30-year-old individual currently employed by the Central National Bank of
Junction City as a file clerk. He is also a member of the Army Reserve.
Lueker is not now and has never been an employee of the State of Kansas
or any subdivision thereof. Arceo and Lueker entered a relationship in
the fall of 1995 when Lueker was 17 years old and Arceo was 24. During
the relationship, Lueker and Arceo lived together for approximately two
years at a residence in Junction City. According to Arceo, the
relationship officially ended on April 8, 1998, during a counseling
session. Before the demise of their relationship, Arceo and Lueker had
obtained a marriage license in anticipation of impending nuptials.
On February 16, 1998, Arceo and Lueker had an argument regarding the
proper ownership of some personal property. The argument resulted in Arceo
"spanking" Lueker in order to "put her in her place." Arceo Deposition.
at 28. Arceo contends that Lueker initiated the physical contact, but
fails to cite any portion of the record to support that contention.
Arceo's Response to Lueker's Statement of Fact No. 12. The court has
perused the relevant portions of Arceo's deposition and recognizes that a
police officer asked him about some marks on his person. Arceo
Deposition, at 33. However, this does not support a conclusion that
Lueker initiated the violence. At any rate, after the "spanking," Arceo
left the residence and contacted Officer Nimmo of the JCPD to report the
incident. Arceo acknowledged to the officer that he had struck Lueker.
Nimmo and several other officers investigated the incident and arrested
Arceo for battery.
On February 17, 1998, Arceo was charged in the Municipal Court of
Junction City, Kansas, with "striking in the neck and face with his hand
and fist Suzanne Lueker," in violation of section 220.150 of the Code of
the City, i.e., battery. Complaint, Case No. 98-2050, Exhibit 4, City's
Memorandum in Support. The action was initiated on the basis of an
affidavit from Officer Nimmo. On the same day, Arceo pled guilty to the
battery charge. On February 19, 1998, the municipal court fined Arceo
$200 and sentenced him to sixty days confinement but granted him parole
for a period of one year. During his period of parole, Arceo was not to
contact Lueker in any manner and was to obtain counseling at his own
expense with written verification to the court within ten days and with
counseling to continue until released by the counselor with a final
report to the court.
As noted above, on April 8, 1998, during the course of a court-ordered
counseling session with counselor James Smith (a licensed LMSW), Arceo
determined to terminate his relationship with Lueker. At some point
subsequent to that time, Arceo noticed an affidavit from Lueker on his
sergeant's desk at his reserve unit at Fort Riley. The affidavit
described three incidents where Arceo had physical contact with Lueker,
occurring on March 21, 1998, March 27, 1998, and April 3, 1998. Lueker
drafted the affidavit on April 9, 1998 after a discussion with the City
Attorney on April 8, 1998. All three of the incidents occurred at Arceo's
residence after Lueker
had moved out. Arceo knew that Lueker retained a key to his residence and
did not object to her visits. Arceo states that the Army "flagged" him,
which means he could not obtain any career advancement, could not handle
weapons, could not take part in combat training, and was restricted to
the unit. Arceo could not testify, however, that the "flagging" was a
direct result of the Lueker affidavit.
On April 22, 1998, the City Attorney issued to Arceo a notice to appear
on a motion to revoke parole with a hearing date of May 7, 1998. The
notice was based on Lueker's April 9, 1998 affidavit, indicating that
Arceo had physically abused her on several occasions. On May 7, 1998,
Arceo appeared with attorney Doug Thompson and the parole revocation
hearing was reset for June 3, 1998. On June 3, the municipal court heard
the motion, Arceo was found to have violated a term of his probation as
set in Case No. 98-2050. The municipal court revoked his parole and
committed Arceo to serve 60 days. Arceo served two days and was released
on parole for a period of one year. Arceo was also fined and instructed
to refrain from any further contact with Lueker.
C. Development and Disposition of Case Nos. 98-821/98-829
On June 8, 1998, upon application by Lueker, the Geary County District
Court entered a Temporary Order of Protection against Arceo with a
hearing date of June 22, 1998 with the restraining order effective until
that date. No further action appears to have been taken on the Temporary
Order of Protection. Temporary Order of Protection, Exhibit 6, City's
Memorandum in Support. See also Complaint, 98-CR-821, Exhibit 7, City's
Memorandum in Support.
Instead, on June 22, 1998, the date the restraining order expired,
County Attorney Biggs filed a criminal complaint against Arceo in the
Geary County District. Court, Case No. 98-CR-821, charging Arceo with
criminal threats, violating the terms of a protective order, and
aggravated intimidation of a witness. The complaint was based on a
probable cause affidavit submitted by Officer Charles Leithoff. which set
out that Arceo had threatened Lueker by phone and had "egged" her car.
Specifically, Leithoff's affidavit described his conversation with Lueker
wherein she asserted that Arceo had made a threatening phone call to
her, stating among other things, "you better drop the restraining order
against me or you will be a dead bitch." Jimmy Mullenaux, a friend of
Lueker's, heard the phone call and relayed the information to Officer
Leithoff. Mullenaux told Leithoff he recognized Arceo's voice because he
had known Arceo for more than ten years. Arceo denied calling Lueker in
regard to this incident. After being arrested, authorities released Arceo
on a recognizance bond, the terms of which stated that Arceo was to
refrain from any contact with Lueker. On July 21, 1998, the district
court held a preliminary hearing in Case No. 98-821. Arceo waived
preliminary examination and the court found probable cause to believe that
Arceo had committed the charged offenses. Arceo was bound over for
arraignment and trial. At this point, affidavits by both Lueker and
Mullenaux supported the charges and Russell Roe was prosecuting the
On June 24, 1998, another criminal action was brought against Arceo in
the Geary County District Court, Case No. 98-CR-829. The complaint
reflected two charges: 1) violation of a protective order in violation of
K.S.A. § 21-3843a(4) and 2) communication of a threat to commit
violence with intent to terrorize another in violation of K.S.A. §
21-3419. An Officer Rains signed the probable cause affidavit in this
case. He indicated that Lueker
told him that, while she was working at a country club, Arceo approached
her in a vehicle, flipped her off, and stated "you're a dead bitch"
Lueker provided Rains with a copy of the conditions of release on bond
ordered by the district court on June 22, 1998 in Case No. 98-CR-821.
Additionally, Lueker's statement was verified by her boss, Jennifer
Stegmeier. Arceo was again released on a recognizance bond with a "no
contact with victim' provision. Written order of the district court
confirmed the bond order on June 30, 1998. Attorney Steven Opat
represented Arceo in the case. At the same July 21, 1998 preliminary
hearing as in Case No. 98-821, Arceo waived preliminary examination in
this case (98 829) as well and the court made a finding of probable cause
to believe Arceo committed the crimes of criminal threat and aggravated
intimidation of a witness in 98-821 and criminal threat as charged in
98-829. As noted above, Arceo was bound over for arraignment and trial.
It appears that the Geary County District Court had consolidated the
cases (98-821 and 98-829) by this point. Prosecutor Roe was responsible
for both casts.
In resolution of Case Nos. 98-821 and 98-829, Arceo entered a plea
agreement on September 14, 1998. The terms of the agreement indicate that
the state would dismiss with prejudice all charges that were or could
have been raised in the course of Case No. 98-829*fn1 if Arceo agreed to
enter a plea on the charge of violating a protective order and on the
charge of simple assault as charged in Case No. 98-821 (these charges
were introduced by amendment through agreement — See Warren's
Memorandum in Support, Exhibit N). Arceo entered a plea of nolo
contendere on those charges and was thereby found guilty of a violation
of a protective order, a class A misdemeanor, and Class C assault,
resulting in a 30-day sentence with a work release program.
Additionally, Arceo agreed, as a condition of the plea and probation, to
have no contact with Lueker. The conviction in Geary County District
Court in Case No. 98-821 violated the terms of Arceo's parole entered by
the Municipal Court of Junction City, Case No. 98-2050. Thus, Arceo
agreed to serve 14 of the 58 days remaining on his parole. Warren's
Memorandum in Support, Exhibit O. The time would be concurrent with his
sentence in Case No. 98-821, and the jail time was set to commence on
September 16, 1998.
D. Incidents Triggering Investigation and Case No. 98-1424
On September 16, 1998, detective Clark was assigned to investigate
complaints that Lueker had made to the JCPD regarding a September 15-16
incident involving Arceo. Prior to Clark's involvement in the
investigation, Lueker had seen Clark on one or two occasions, but did not
know him beyond recognition of his face. At approximately 1:00 am. on
September 16, 1998, Lueker reported to the JCPD that someone had tampered
with her vehicle, a Pontiac Grand-Am, while it was parked at her
residence. Officer Loyce Smith responded and found writing on the inside
of the vehicle's windshield, stating "It's not over I told you —
you don't know what I can do to you Now your [sic] dead." The writing was
in grease paint or a similar product which the officer believed to be
military face camouflage. Smith found a military insignia sticker adhered
to the outlet of the vehicle's exhaust pipe, and also found the vehicle's
fuel tank cover open so that the filler tube was exposed. Smith could not
determine whether anything had been placed into the fuel tank. Lueker
Smith she had found a book of partially burnt matches resting on the
opening to her vehicle's fuel tank before she called police, but that she
had removed the matches before the police arrived.
Upon commencing an interview, Lueker told Smith that she believed Arceo
was responsible for the threat, stickers, and matches. She described to
Smith a long history of domestic violence involving herself and Arceo.
She indicated that Arceo had just been sentenced to 30 days in jail as a
result of domestic violence and that he was to begin the sentence later
that day, on September 16, 1998. Lueker informed Smith that she locked
her vehicle and that Arceo still had a set of keys to the vehicle. Smith
noted that the perpetrator had not forced entry into the vehicle.
Finally, Lueker told Smith that she believed the sticker on the exhaust
pipe was an insignia from Arceo's reserve Army unit. Smith's report
concluded by indicating his request that the case "be forwarded to the
County Attorney's office for review." During her grand jury testimony,
Lueker testified that, at the time Smith was conducting the interview,
she knew the handwriting on the windshield did not resemble Arceo's, but
did not mention this to the police. Lueker also told officer Smith that
she wanted her civil attorney to see the windshield as it would
constitute a violation of an existing Protection From Abuse ("PFA")
order. Officer Smith indicated his understanding, however, that Lueker
wanted to discuss the September 15-16 incident with her civil attorney
before making a statement to police. On the same day, Lueker's attorney
called the Central National Bank to give a representative of the bank an
opportunity to view the alleged vandalism.
Later, in the afternoon of the 16th, detective Clark took Lueker's
sworn statement. Lueker confirmed that the vehicle was locked and in
normal condition at 10:00 p.m. on September 15, 1998. She next saw the
vehicle around 1:00 a.m. on the 16th, at which time the tampering was
complete. Lueker additionally told Clark that Arceo had previously
threatened her over the phone using language similar to that found on the
windshield. After interviewing Lueker, Clark reviewed other police
reports pertaining to Lueker. He found that Lueker had complained about
harassment and threats by Arceo on other occasions. Clark made note of
the following reports in his first investigative report:
1) Case 98-7772, Telephone Harassment; Lueker received
a phone call on her cellular phone stating, "you
better watch out." Arceo then called, saying
"You're not home yet."
2) Case 98-7821, Criminal Threats and Telephone
Harassment; Lueker received a call from an unknown
male saying, "hope you don't have a drowning" and
then received a call from another unknown male
saying, "hope you don't have any problems at the
pool." When Lueker asked what the caller wanted,
the caller stated, "you're going to be a dead
3) Case 98-8574, Aggravated Intimidation of Witness,
Criminal Threats, and Violation of a PFA; these
incidents involve Arceo calling Lueker and telling
her to drop a restraining order or she would be a
"dead bitch" and the "egging" of Lueker's vehicle.
4) Case 98-8675, Violation of PFA and Criminal
Threats; Arceo drove to Arceo's work place and
threatened her stating, "you're a dead bitch." This
incident was witnessed by Lueker's boss, Jennifer
5) Case 98-8875, Telephone Harassment; Martha
Rombold, wife of Lueker's civil attorney, received
a harassing phone call from a person she believed
to be Arceo.
6) Case 98-11230, Defamation; Kyle Junghaus, Arceo's
friend, was upset by rumors that he was making
death threats to Lueker.
7) Case 98-11546, Criminal Threats; an unknown caller
told Lueker that Arceo was planning to harm her and
even talked of drowning her.
8) Case 98-13506, Telephone Harassment; Lueker alleged
receiving a harassing call to her home. Her "caller
I.D." indicated the call was placed from Arceo's
place of employment.*fn2
Clark continued investigating and preparing reports through October
21, 1998. At that time, his supervisor, Captain Winters. reviewed and
approved his completed reports and then forwarded them, along with any
sworn statements or affidavits, to the Geary County Attorney's office.
Prosecutor Russell Roe asked Clark to prepare an affidavit which could be
used to request an arrest warrant to arrest Arceo for the acts described
in Clark's investigation. Clark prepared the affidavit and executed it on
October 21, 1998. The affidavit essentially summarizes Clark's
investigative reports up to that date.
E. Clark's Investigation Leading to Case No. 98-1424
During the investigation leading up to the 98-1424 charges, Larry
Pacquette, the vice-president of Central National Bank, came to Chief
Warren's office to state his opinion that Arceo was innocent of the
charges against him. Pacquette told Warren he believed that two JCPD
officers, Loyce Smith and Ron Shelton, were having an affair with
Lueker, and that the affairs had affected their treatment of certain
complaints by her. Pacquette did not provide Warren with any evidence to
support his assertion. Warren then offered to allow Arceo to take a
Computer Voice Stress Analyzer ("CVSA") test. Arceo did take the CVSA
test on September 23, 1998, during which the interrogator asked him
whether he had vandalized Lueker's vehicle or knew who did such acts. The
administrator of the test reported to Warren that the test revealed Arceo
had shown signs of deception on the relevant questions. Similarly, on
November 19, 1998, after the 98-1424 complaint, Arceo underwent a
polygraph examination administered by the KBI in which he answered several
questions about the vandalism of Lueker's vehicle. The KBI report
indicates that "[Arceo] was being deceptive when answering the relevant
questions." Warren Memorandum in Support, Exhibit U.
During his second deposition, taken on September 20, 2001, Clark
testified extensively regarding the content of the October 21, 1998
affidavit. He stated that all of the criminal conduct alleged in his
affidavit occurred after September 14, 1998*fn3. However, he also
provided information relating to pre-September 14 conduct to the
prosecutor for use in determining appropriate charges. Specifically, Clark
felt the earlier activity would be relevant to determining if the
prosecutor should advance a stalking charge. However, Clark did state that
he was not aware of any post-September 14 evidence which would support a
stalking charge. Nonetheless, Clark stated that the information was
forwarded without his knowledge of the plea agreement and simply for the
purpose of allowing the County Attorney to assess the situation.
As it pertains to the vehicle vandalism/attempted arson, Clark
indicated that the evidence against Arceo was based on Lueker's statement
and other circumstantial evidence. Clearly, Lueker did not see Arceo
committing the alleged acts. As noted above, Clark had discovered
evidence to explain the phone call from Arceo's place of employment.
Further, Clark' indicated that Lueker's claims in regard to an incident
occurring in South Park, which will be discussed below, were somewhat
suspicious. In short, after investigating Lueker's report, Clark could
not determine that, after September 14, 1998, Arceo had violated a PFA,
had used a telephone to harass any person, or had threatened Lueker.*fn4
F. The Filing of Case No. 98-1424
Prosecutor Roe filed, on behalf of the State of Kansas, a
Complaint/Information against Arceo, dated October 21, 1998*fn5, in the
Geary County District Court, Case No. 98-CR-1424. The complaint was based
solely on detective Clark's affidavit. The complaint included five
counts. Counts 1 and 5 allege that Arceo attempted to damage Lueker's
Pontiac Grand-Am by means of fire or explosive, resulting in charges of
attempted arson and felony criminal damage to property. Counts 2 through
4 include stalking, criminal threat, and attempting to dissuade a victim
from making a victimization report. Roe prepared an arrest warrant and
attached evidence of probable cause and presented the package to the
Honorable Larry Bengston, Judge of the Geary County District Court. Judge
Bengston found probable cause for all five charges and signed the arrest
warrant on October 22, 1998.
1) The affidavit of Karen Pruitt which states that she
had previously been in an abusive relationship with
2) The April 9, 1998 affidavit by Lueker outlining the
three occasions of physical abuse by Arceo
(3/21/98, 3/27/98, and 4/3/98).
3) A PFA order which prohibited Arceo from contacting
Lueker in any manner.
4) An affidavit prepared by Officer Leithoff outlining
the facts giving probable cause to believe Arceo
had committed aggravated intimidation of a
witness, criminal threat and a violation of a
5) A June 21, 1998 statement by Lueker outlining a
phone call from Arceo in which he threatened her if
she did not drop the restraining order.
6) The affidavit of Jimmy Mullenaux indicating that he
had heard the June 21 phone threat and recognized
Arceo's voice because he had been friends with him
for many years.
7) Documents outlining the history and disposition of
Case Nos. 98-821/829.
8) The municipal court order wherein Arceo plead
guilty to the February 1998 battery of Lueker.
9) The affidavit of officer Loyce Smith regarding the
September 15-16, 1998 incident ...