{"active":false,"first_name":"Kenneth","last_name":"Lent","race":"White","gender":"Male","rank":"DT2","command":{"command":"DB SVD","id":"203"},"shield_no":2653,"ended_date":"2014-12-01","taxid":"906630","complaint_ids":[200310184],"command_history":[{"command":"103 DET","id":"103det"}],"appt_date":"1994-02-28","lawsuits":[{"name":"King, Kenneth vs City of New York, et al.","start_date":"2013-08-12","disposition_date":"2016-11-23","payout_amount":390000,"disposition":"Settlement","docket":"13CV04311","court":"U.S. District Court - Eastern District NY","officer_name":"Lent, Kenneth","summary":"On September 30, 2011 plaintiff was arrested, indicted, and maliciously prosecuted for attempted rape in the first degree and attempted sexual abuse in the first degree for an event that took place on September 28, 2011. On September 28, 2011, the victim was attacked in Queens. The victim looked directly into her assailant's face while being attacked and later told the police he had blue eyes and a clear complexion, though Detective Lent's initial report shows that they did not ask her about the assailant's features. An eye witness described the assailant to a sketch artist, which was drawn in black and white, and provided a written statement that did not mention eye color or complexion. The plaintiff has green/brown eyes and a pocked facial complexion. The police did not test the victim's cell phone for DNA material or fingerprints, though it was touched by the assailant. \n\nPlaintiff had a ten year old photograph in the State's database that looked somewhat like the sketch drawn by the police of the assailant. The police received tips that the sketch resembled other people but did not give orders to their supervisors to direct detectives to investigate these leads. Instead, they presented plaintiff's photograph in a photo array to the witness (but did not ask the victim to view the photos). \n\nOn September 30, 2011, Detectives Lent and Pollack went to plaintiff's home and asked about his whereabouts on September 28. Plaintiff truthfully told them he was with his grandmother in the hospital until late and then went home and slept in on the 28th. He was not near the area of the attack. Though plaintiff did not match the description of the victim or witness, detectives transported him to the 112th precinct in an unmarked car and placed him into custody without a warrant. The detectives interrogated him without reading him his rights or allowing him to call an attorney. After hours of denying that he was within the vicinity of the attack, plaintiff was ordered to sign a Miranda card, though he wasn't read or explained his rights. He was then finally able to call an attorney. When his attorney arrived to the precinct, the attorney asked detectives if plaintiff had been questioned, to which they responded \"No.\"\n\nPlaintiff was then placed in a line-up. Before the line-up, Detectives Lent and Pollack and Assistant DA Barry Frankenstein suggested to the eyewitness that plaintiff was the assailant. The eyewitness haltingly and tentatively identified him, but said \"I hope to God I am making the right choice.\" Lieutenant McDermott failed to intervene when this comment was made. The witness asked if he could take \"another look\" but McDermott did not instruct Lent to continue the line-up. Sergeant Pignataro reviewed and approved the lineup report. Notably, the victim did not participate in the line-up. \n\nPlaintiff was formally arrested and booked after the line-up on September 30, 2011. While plaintiff was imprisoned, the victim identified her assailant multiple times outside. The victim met with Assistant DA Weaver and Detective Lent and told them that her assailant had harassed her weeks after the attack. Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time so could not have been the person identified as the assailant. The defendants did not advise plaintiff's attorney of this information and continued to insist that he was the assailant. Further, the defendants collected DNA from the victim's clothing at this time but did not submit it for testing. They did not seek a warrant to get a sample of plaintiff's DNA despite plaintiff's attorney asking for a test. \n\nPlaintiff was transported to the VCB Correctional Center and stayed there for about two months. There, he sought medical treatment for back pain but was not given adequate treatment. After two months, he was transferred to Rikers, where he again complained of back pain. He finally got X-Rays which showed advanced arthritis. The DOC refused an MRI, necessary for a full diagnosis. Plaintiff continues to have such severe back pain that his dominant arm and hand are numb, and pain radiates down his leg. Plaintiff also developed a rash on his chest, for which he was ultimately provided cream. While incarcerated. plaintiff was subject to up to 20 random cell strip searches, which were observed by female corrections officers. \n\nDespite knowing that the victim identified her assailant while plaintiff was imprisoned, Detective Lent continued criminal proceedings and testified in front of a grand jury against plaintiff. Lent and the DA's Office intentionally failed to present exculpatory evidence and did not tell the grand jury that plaintiff did not match the descriptions by the victim or eyewitness. \n\nAt the Wade/Huntley hearing on March 29, 2012, ADA Weaver was present, though she had been told by the victim that her assailant was outside after plaintiff was arrested. Lent also did not inform the court of the equivocal identification in the line-up by the eyewitness. The court ordered a DNA test, which came back two months later and exculpated King after he had bene imprisoned for 241 days. The plaintiff lost his job as a result of his imprisonment and has been unable to secure employment in his profession since.","documents":[{"url":"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23718063-2016_king_13cv04311","type":"complaint"}],"url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5704616/king-v-city-of-new-york/"}],"id":"35S3","url":"https://www.50-a.org/officer/35S3"}