DUANE SHERRILLEditor

Tullahoma Alderman Kurt Glick maintains law enforcement strong-armed him when a Warren County officer placed him in a headlock and forcibly wrestled his cell phone away even as he was talking to his lawyer on the phone.

However, the court upheld the lawman’s taking of Glick’s phone as evidence when the motion was heard recently before Special-Appointed Judge Bart Stanley in neighboring Warren County.

The incident, Glick maintains in court documents, happened after he had turned himself in at the Coffee County Jail after learning he had been indicted on official misconduct charges this summer. The case is set for trial next year and Glick remains an active member of the Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen while denying the charges against him.

“After being indicted, booked, processed and released on bond from the Coffee County Jail, Mr. Glick was confronted by District Attorney Investigator Todd Rowland, who demanded Mr. Glick’s cellphone. Rowland had no search warrant,” the motion for return of property maintains, noting that Glick’s attorney, Eric Brunette, explicitly told Rowland that his client was going to retain his phone. “Notwithstanding that fact, Rowland literally placed Mr. Glick in a headlock and took his cellphone.”

Glick maintains the action was warrantless and is a violation of his constitutional rights. The motions for return of property was made to 31^st Judicial District Circuit Court Judge Bart Stanley of McMinnville, who is serving as special judge in the case.

District Attorney Chris Stanford is special prosecutor after the local judiciary recused itself since Glick is a sitting alderman and also has a pending civil case claiming age discrimination against the city of Tullahoma.

“The aggressive actions of Investigator Rowland, even in the presence of explicit legal advice, represents a glaring violation of Mr. Glick’s constitutional rights,” the motion reads, noting that anything found on the phone should be considered fruit of a poisonous tree and should not be admissible as evidence.

Glick’s attorney has added an affidavit to his client’s request for return of property stating that he told the officer that he had no right to take the phone.

“I told Investigator Rowland that my client would not voluntarily assist in a criminal investigation and he would not waive his constitutional rights,” Eric Burnette said, noting that the lawmen told him ‘It’s happening regardless, I’m taking the phone.’

Burnette then said he could hear what sounded like a scuffle and Rowland physically accosting the alderman.

The request comes as Glick’s defense asked for a bill of particulars, spelling out what the alderman supposedly did to warrant the criminal indictments against him. Judge Stanley, as he considers the mounting pre-trial paperwork before him, has warned that certain evidence such as video files cannot be released publically, placing a partial gag order on both sides.

It is not known if the alderman has gotten his phone back as the judge said he had no problem with the phone being returned once whatever evidence the prosecution was seeking was secured from the phone.