Skip to main content

Former Wyoming Highway Patrol Trooper Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison for Depriving Motorist of Civil Rights by Kidnapping

The Justice Department announced that U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson sentenced former Wyoming Highway Patrol Trooper Franklin Joseph Ryle Jr. to 15 years in prison today for depriving a man of his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizures by kidnapping the man and for using his firearm in relation to the crime.

Ryle had pleaded guilty to the crimes and admitted that while working on duty as a Highway Patrol trooper on the night of Jan. 8, 2009, he stopped a Wal-Mart truck with the intent to murder the driver and stage an accident with the truck that would either injure him or kill Ryle’s wife. As part of the scheme, Ryle intended to seek a monetary settlement from Wal-Mart.

"This officer abandoned his law enforcement role and engaged in a bizarre scheme to target innocent victims for his own personal gain. Officers who abuse their power in this way will be prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows," said Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez of the Civil Rights Division.

Ryle stopped the driver on an isolated stretch of Interstate 25, a few miles southeast of Douglas, Wyo. After collecting his license, Ryle falsely told the driver that there was a warrant for his arrest. Ryle arrested him, handcuffed him and locked him in the back seat of his patrol car in a cage designed to carry persons under arrest. Ryle drove away from the scene with his prisoner and into Douglas where he unsuccessfully sought help with his scheme from his unwitting wife and two law enforcement officer friends. Ultimately, Ryle released the driver after he determined that the scheme would fail due to the presence of GPS equipment in the truck.

The investigation was conducted by Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation agents Mike Carlson and Darri Cregger, and FBI Special Agent Richard Fanelli. Civil Rights Division Trial Attorneys Edward Caspar and Christopher Lomax prosecuted this case for the United States. The Wyoming U.S. Attorney’s Office was recused from the matter.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more