Four Jones County Deputies, who are being sued in Federal Court for Civil Rights violations, are now formally accused in Jones County Court of committing perjury and fabricating evidence in order to justify the alleged unlawful search of the home of Angelia Stevens and the alleged unlawful arrest of her son, Deshon Bayless. The incident occurred in January of this year. Both have since filed a federal civil rights lawsuit for $5 million against Jones County, the sheriff, and the deputies.
The Jones County Justice Court prosecution of Mr. Bayless for Disorderly Conduct and Failure to Comply garnered much public attention (see first video below) after his conviction by Justice Court Judge Sonny Saul. HPNM previously published video of testimony (see below) in the justice court prosecution of Mr. Bayless. (Click #JonesCountyJeopardy for related reporting and videos on Facebook.) One deputy, Andrew Yates, actually pled the 5th when under cross examination by Matthew Lawrence. Nonetheless, Judge Saul, who was once a Mississippi Highway Patrolman before being elected judge and has never had a law degree, found Bayless guilty. Justice court judges are the only judges in Mississippi who are not required to be attorneys.
In Combined Motion to Quash, which was filed in the appeal to Jones County Court on behalf of Mr. Bayless by legal counsel Matthew Lawrence and Michael Cory, three deputies are accused of perjury and fabricating evidence in order to cover-up their alleged unlawful search and arrest. Defense council requested a “Franks Hearing” to hear arguments about the conduct of deputies and that motion was granted. The hearing will occur at 2:30p.m. tomorrow in Jones County Court. HPNM was previously approved for media coverage in the case, and the hearing will be streamed for supporters.
“Quash” is defined as, “1. to put down or suppress completely; quell; subdue. to quash a rebellion. 2. to make void, annul, or set aside (a law, indictment, decision, etc.)”
In the January 10th, 2023 video below, Mr. Bayless can be seen sitting in his car, in his mother’s back yard, when Deputy Andrew Yates and Deputy Chase Smith entered the property without a warrant. They then entered the home before realizing Mr. Bayless was in the vehicle. Mr. Bayless was asked to get out of his vehicle, which he did, and was quickly thrown to the ground by Deputy Andrew Yates. Later in the video, Captain Vince “7 Finger” Williams can be seen on top of Mr. Bayless saying, “I’m gonna tell you who the fuck I am. You heard of seven finger? That’s fucking me. You hear me? Now say something stupid again.” He then says, “Tell you what. You going to jail for disorderly conduct.” He then places Mr. Bayless under arrest for Disorderly Conduct Failure to Comply.
FROM THE COMBINED MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT
When the conviction was appealed from justice to county court, Jones County Prosecutor Risher Caves recused himself, and special prosecutor Curtis Bates from Wayne County was appointed. Jones County Judge Wayne Thompson also recused himself from presiding over the appeal from justice court, presumably since he signed the search warrant in question. Special Judge John Price was appointed by the Mississippi Supreme Court to preside over the appeal. In the Combined Motion to Quash Lawrence and Cory state,
“6. The Search Warrant used to justify the deputies’ actions was illegally obtained after the fact.”
“7. The Underlying Facts and Circumstances sworn to by deputies and used to obtain the Search Warrant also contains false statements. Specifically, deputies falsely claimed (1) that the 4737 University Avenue residence was “directly tied to” Patrick Francis who was a known drug dealer; (2) that this connection was confirmed by “information obtained by other Narcotic Agents;” (3) that an informant notified Agent Driskell that Mr. Bayless was a friend of Patrick Francis and tied to his drug distribution activities; and (4) that throughout three days of surveillance Mr. Bayless was in the yard of Patrick Francis.”
“13. The altered narrative falsely states that an MBN Agent knew the person who turned out to be Mr. Bayless to be involved with Patrick Francis. However, MBN was not investigating Mr. Bayless and did not have any evidence linking Mr. Bayless to the drug activity of Patrick Francis.”
“17. During the Justice Court trial, the deputies provided false testimony to support their claimed probable cause to obtain the Search Warrant for the Bayless Property. This false testimony included (1) claiming that Judge Wayne Thompson gave them verbal permission to seize the property, (2) claiming that MBN Agent Josh Stringer linked Mr. Bayless to Patrick Francis’s drug operation, and (3) claiming that they had a Search Warrant for Patrick Francis’s property. (See Justice Court Transcript).”
“18. The State has now conceded that no warrant existed for the Bayless Property when the deputies entered the Bayless Property.”
JUSTICE COURT TRIAL VIDEO
Deputy Andrew Yates Pleads the 5th.
From the Motion to Quash:
“16. At the Justice Court trial on April 20, 2023, rather than dismissing the false charge against Mr. Bayless, deputies doubled down and falsely testified against Mr. Bayless. As a result, Mr. Bayless was wrongly convicted despite one deputy asserting his Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination when questioned about the accuracy of the Officer Affidavit used to charge Mr. Bayless.”
Deputy Chase Smith VIDEO ONE
Deputy Chase Smith VIDEO TWO
Sgt. Jake Driskell
From the Motion to Quash:
U”17. During the Justice Court trial, the deputies provided false testimony to support their claimed probable cause to obtain the Search Warrant for the Bayless Property. This false testimony included (1) claiming that Judge Wayne Thompson gave them verbal permission to seize the property, (2) claiming that MBN Agent Josh Stringer linked Mr. Bayless to Patrick Francis’s drug operation, and (3) claiming that they had a Search Warrant for Patrick Francis’s property. (See Justice Court Transcript).”
From the motion:
“18. The State has now conceded that no warrant existed for the Bayless Property when the deputies entered the Bayless Property.”
Captain Vince “7-Finger” Williams
Captain Vince Williams wasn’t called as a witness in the justice county prosecution of Bayless, but he is certainly worthy of mention; since he was captured on the home surveillance video. Williams actually placed Mr. Bayless under arrest, and is also named as a defendant in the Bayless Civil Rights complaint. Williams has a history of losing his temper, with two other times being captured on video.
Williams can be seen in the below video assaulting a man at the sheriff’s department; who was simply asking for paperwork from a clerk.
Williams can be seen (off-duty) assaulting a man at a local gym when he overheard the man talking to another gym member about him. The man was arrested for business disturbance, disorderly conduct, and assault on a police officer. He pled guilty to disorderly conduct in order to get the assault on a police officer charge (felony) dismissed.
MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT
“19. The Search Warrant for the Bayless Property must be quashed because (1) it is void as a matter of law, (2) it was obtained based on false statements, and (3) it was unsupported by probable cause. Accordingly, the actions by the deputies in obtaining the Search Warrant were unreasonable and violated the rights of Mr. Bayless under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const. Amend. IV).”
“20. The law in the United States settled that a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is established correctly and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 584, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). Probable cause requires “something more than mere suspicion.” United States v. Froman, 355 3d 882, 889 (5th Cir. 2004). Probable cause exists where “given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” United States v. Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706, 710 (5th Cir. 2002). “Facts in the affidavit must establish a nexus between the [place] searched and the evidence sought.” United States v. Payne, 341 F.3d 393, 400 (5th Cir. 2003).”
“21. In this case, nothing in the Search Warrant establishes a fair probability that drugs would be found in the Bayless home (4737 University Avenue). Instead, a review of the underlying facts and circumstances for the warrant shows only three conclusory allegations.”
“22. First, deputies relied on a purported confidential informant who purportedly said that an unidentified individual [later determined to be Mr. Bayless] was living next door to Patrick Francis and drove a Dodge Charger, was a friend of Patrick Francis, and was “tied into his drug distribution.” This information is conclusory and lacks specifics. Furthermore, there is nothing that would give a reasonable deputy any basis for concluding that drugs would be found in the Bayless home. Moreover, the vehicle Mr. Bayless was driving was not a Dodge Charger.”
“23. Second, deputies claim that they observed an unknown black male “in the yard” of Patrick Francis. This claim is entirely meaningless, lacks substance, and unsupported by specific observations or facts necessary to establish probable cause. As it contains no indicia of anything illegal whatsoever, it also does not give any basis for concluding that drugs would be found in Mr. Bayless’s home.”
“24. Third, deputies claimed that “information” was obtained by other narcotic agents. This statement is even more conclusory and lacks any specifics. It also does not give any basis for concluding that drugs would be found in Mr. Bayless’s home.”
“25. These allegations fall far short of what is required for probable cause to search a person’s residence.”
“26. To the extent the Search Warrant was based on the purported statements of a confidential informant, they are subject to additional scrutiny. Concerning reliance on information purportedly provided by a confidential informant, the Court must further look to (1) whether the informant’s statements are against his own penal interests, (2) whether the information has been corroborated by independent investigation or contemporary observations of police, (3) the degree of detail of the information provided by the informant, and (4) whether the informant’s reliability is corroborated by something other than unsupported conclusions of the affiant. United States v. Fields, 182 F. Supp. 2d 575, 578–79 (E.D. Tex. 2002); United States v. Reddrick, 90 F.3d 1276, 1280 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining that an officer’s statement in an affidavit that the informant provided reliable information in the past, without more, is an unsupported conclusion which does not demonstrate probable cause).”
“27. There is nothing to show that the purported informant’s statements were against the informant’s penal interest. There is no specific information that Mr. Bayless is involved in any drug distribution operation. The informant has no detailed information about the Bayless Property being used to store or sell drugs. The informant’s reliability is not corroborated by anything other than the self-serving conclusions of the deputies.”
“28. Given (1) the conceded illegal nature of the Search Warrant, (2) the false Officer Affidavit, (2) the questionable Underlying Facts, and Circumstances, (3) the lack of probable cause, (4) the false trial testimony, and (5) the violations of Mr. Bayless’s constitutional rights, this Court must enter an order quashing the Search Warrant.”
MOTION TO QUASH ARREST
“30. For this Court to find that Mr. Bayless is guilty of violating Mississippi Code Section 97–35–7, the prosecution must prove that (1) Mr. Bayless, with the intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or under circumstances as may lead to a breach of the peace, refused to comply with an order to act; (2) the purpose of the order was to avoid a breach of the peace by Mr. Bayless; (3) the person giving the order was a law-enforcement officer; and (4) the law enforcement officer, at the time of giving the order, had the authority to then and there arrest Mr. Bayless for a violation of the law.
Mastin v. State, 180 So. 3d 732, 737 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015).
“31. As a matter of law, even if Mr. Bayless disobeyed a command by deputies, the command was not lawful because deputies had no authority to arrest Mr. Bayless. The justification given by the deputies for being on the Bayless Property was a Search Warrant that had not been issued and that was not supported by probable cause. At no time any order was given did deputies have the authority to arrest Mr. Bayless. Terry v. State, 173 So.2d 889, 891 (Miss. 1965) (holding that where “the sheriff had no right to arrest defendant unless it was evident to him at the time that some breach of the peace was being threatened or a crime was being committed in his presence”).
“32. Furthermore, Mr. Bayless cannot breach the peace as he was on his own private property.”
“33. For these reasons, this case must be dismissed. Alternatively, given the deputies’ undisputed misconduct and false testimony, and/or based on the discovery violations, this case must be dismissed.”
Mrs. Stevens’ and Mr. Bayless’ federal lawsuit is on hold under the appeal process in the arrest of Mr. Bayless is resolved. If you feel like your rights have been violated, Contact Hattiesburg Patriot News Media at 601-620-0104. Read the full motion and exhibits below.