Police 𝐑𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 Profile Assistant US Attorney at Her Own Door – Career Over, 8 Years Prison | HO

At 7:15 a.m. on a quiet Saturday morning in Philadelphia, three police officers arrived believing they were about to execute a routine narcotics search. What they did not know—what would ultimately dismantle their careers and expose years of systemic misconduct—was that they had knocked on the door of one of the most formidable federal prosecutors in the city.

The woman who opened that door was Jasmine Carter, a 29-year-old Assistant United States Attorney specializing in public corruption and police misconduct. Within 23 minutes, the officers’ assumptions, tactics, and alleged shortcuts would unravel into a federal case that sent one of them to eight years in prison, dismantled an entire narcotics unit, and forced sweeping reforms across the Philadelphia Police Department

A “Routine” Raid Built on Assumptions

The officers—Detective Derek Mullins, Officer Chris Santos, and Officer Rebecca Walsh—belonged to Philadelphia PD’s narcotics unit. Their investigation centered not on Jasmine Carter, but on a man named Carlos Torres, a suspected drug dealer. Carlos’s only connection to Jasmine was indirect: he had once visited his brother, James Torres, who rented the downstairs unit of Jasmine’s converted warehouse home.

One visit. One gym bag. No controlled buys. No verified informants. No evidence tying drugs to either unit.

Yet the officers did what they had allegedly done many times before. They constructed a warrant application filled with exaggerations, unsupported claims, and references to confidential informants who did not exist. They submitted it late on a Friday afternoon—when judicial scrutiny is historically thinnest—and obtained a warrant authorizing a search of the entire building, despite having no specific probable cause for either residence.

It was a textbook example of what the Fourth Amendment explicitly forbids: a general warrant.

The Woman Behind the Door

When Detective Mullins saw the person who answered the door—a young Black woman in sweatpants and a T-shirt—he made an assumption that would prove catastrophic.

Jasmine Carter did not look like what Mullins expected resistance to look like. She did not raise her voice. She did not argue emotionally. She did not step aside.

She did something far more dangerous to a corrupt system: she demanded to see the warrant.

Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officers are required to present a valid warrant before entering a residence. Mullins refused. He told her she was “interfering” with an investigation—an intimidation tactic designed to silence civilians unfamiliar with their rights.

Carter responded calmly, citing constitutional law with precision.

When Mullins escalated, Carter did something no officer expects at a front door encounter:

She identified herself.

“I am an Assistant United States Attorney,” she told him. “And if you enter without presenting a valid warrant, I will have federal charges filed against you by Monday.”

A Warrant That Couldn’t Survive Scrutiny

Mullins hesitated, then slid the folded warrant under the door.

Carter read it carefully. Line by line.

What she saw was not merely sloppy police work—it was evidence of a crime.

The warrant referenced:

A confidential informant whose identity could not be substantiated

Multiple controlled drug transactions that never occurred

Broad language authorizing a search of an entire building without specifying a unit

Assertions inconsistent with surveillance records

Carter stepped into the hallway and began asking questions—specific, informed questions that exposed the warrant’s defects in real time.

When she asked which unit the officers intended to search, Mullins said both.

When she asked why, he cited the warrant.

When she explained that such a warrant violated the Constitution’s particularity requirement, Mullins had no answer.

Then she asked a final question—one that changed everything.

“Was this warrant obtained by Detective Derek Mullins?”

When he confirmed, Carter informed him she was aware of his prior internal affairs investigations related to questionable searches.

At that moment, the balance of power shifted completely.

Two Choices, One Outcome

Carter gave the officers two options:

Leave immediately and face a formal complaint and federal investigation

Execute the search and face criminal charges for deprivation of rights under color of law, carrying up to ten years in prison

The hallway fell silent.

Detective Mullins chose to retreat.

Carter seized the original warrant as evidence and made three phone calls—one to her supervisor, one to the FBI’s public corruption task force, and one to internal affairs.

By 8:00 a.m., three separate investigations were underway.

By Monday, Mullins was placed on administrative leave.

By Friday, he was under arrest.

The Federal Case That Followed

What investigators uncovered went far beyond one defective warrant.

A review of narcotics unit records revealed a pattern:

Recycled language across dozens of warrants

Fabricated informant claims

Targeting of predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods

Searches yielding no contraband yet resulting in arrests

In total, 27 warrants were flagged as constitutionally defective.

The investigation expanded. Supervisors were implicated. Judges were interviewed. Evidence piled up.

Mullins was charged with:

Two counts of deprivation of rights under color of law

One count of perjury in a warrant application

Each carried serious prison time.

The Trial

The trial lasted three weeks.

Prosecutors demonstrated that Mullins used nearly identical wording across unrelated cases. A retired magistrate judge testified about how Mullins’s misrepresentations corrupted judicial trust. Victims described armed entries into their homes that yielded nothing but fear.

The jury deliberated six hours.

The verdict was unanimous.

Guilty on all counts.

Detective Derek Mullins was sentenced to eight years in federal prison. His law enforcement career ended. His pension was forfeited. His name became synonymous with warrant fraud.

What This Case Exposed

This was not simply a story about one officer.

It was a case study in:

Racial profiling

Judicial manipulation

Institutional protection of misconduct

The consequences of unchecked police authority

It also demonstrated a rare counterforce: a prosecutor who knew the law and had the power to enforce it.

Most citizens cannot stop an illegal search at their door.

Jasmine Carter could—and did.

When One Warrant Opened the Floodgates

Detective Derek Mullins’ conviction was not the end of the story. It was the beginning of something far more destabilizing for the Philadelphia Police Department—a reckoning that exposed how routine constitutional violations had quietly become normalized inside a specialized narcotics unit.

Federal investigators reviewing Mullins’ work quickly realized that his warrant application was not an anomaly. It was a template.

Over the course of nine months, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office examined three years of search warrants filed by the narcotics unit. The findings were alarming. Language was recycled across unrelated cases. Confidential informants appeared and disappeared without corroboration. Surveillance logs contradicted sworn affidavits. Judges had been misled repeatedly.

In total, 27 search warrants were identified as potentially unconstitutional. Each represented a home entered, a family disrupted, and a constitutional protection bypassed under color of law

pasted

.

The Supervisor Who Signed Off

As the investigation widened, attention turned upward.

Lieutenant Thomas Brennan, the unit supervisor, had approved many of the warrants without meaningful review. Prosecutors concluded that Brennan either knew—or deliberately avoided knowing—that his officers were submitting defective applications.

Faced with overwhelming evidence, Brennan pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate civil rights. He was sentenced to five years in federal prison, becoming the highest-ranking officer to fall in the scandal.

The narcotics unit he oversaw was formally disbanded.

The Prosecutor Who Wouldn’t Back Down

Although Jasmine Carter recused herself as a witness due to her involvement in the initial encounter, she remained the lead prosecutor on the broader pattern-and-practice case. Her role was unprecedented: a federal attorney who had personally confronted an illegal search, then dismantled the system that produced it.

Her courtroom strategy was meticulous.

She did not argue emotion. She argued data.

Repeated phrasing across affidavits

Approval patterns clustered on Friday afternoons

Disproportionate targeting of Black and Latino neighborhoods

Searches yielding no contraband yet producing arrests

Witness after witness described armed entries, overturned furniture, frightened children—and nothing found.

The message to the jury was unmistakable: this was not policing. It was manufactured probable cause.

The Verdict That Shook the Department

When the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts against Mullins, the impact rippled outward immediately.

Within weeks:

Three additional officers were charged federally

Eight officers were fired internally

Several others resigned before discipline could be imposed

The Philadelphia Police Department was forced into mandatory structural reform, including:

Legal review of every warrant application

A 40-hour Fourth Amendment training requirement

Mandatory body-camera use during warrant executions

Quarterly audits by an independent civilian monitor

These reforms were not voluntary. They were imposed under threat of losing insurance coverage after civil settlements exceeded $18 million

pasted

.

The Cases That Collapsed

Perhaps the most devastating consequence came quietly.

Prosecutors were forced to revisit every criminal case tied to the defective warrants. In 19 cases, charges were dismissed outright. In five cases, convictions were overturned, and incarcerated individuals were released from prison.

For those families, the scandal was not abstract. It had stolen years of their lives.

The Cost of Speaking Truth to Power

As news broke identifying Jasmine Carter as the prosecutor whose doorstep confrontation sparked the case, the backlash was swift—and vicious.

She received:

Explicit death threats

Racist harassment

Messages calling her a “traitor” and “cop hater”

Law enforcement unions criticized her publicly. Police supporters accused her of targeting officers unfairly.

At the same time, hundreds of emails arrived from families who had lived through similar raids and never believed accountability was possible.

Carter required temporary security protection.

She did not step away.

A Career Redefined, Not Destroyed

Despite public pressure, Jasmine Carter’s career did not end. It accelerated.

She was promoted to Senior Trial Attorney in the public corruption unit. She began supervising prosecutors nationwide on civil rights enforcement. She trained FBI agents to identify warrant fraud. She lectured at law schools on prosecuting misconduct under color of law.

Her conviction rate remained above 85 percent.

The warrant Derek Mullins submitted—the same one slid under her door—became a teaching document in constitutional law courses, used to demonstrate exactly how probable cause fraud operates in practice

pasted

.

Where the Officers Went

The three officers who knocked on her door took different paths.

Derek Mullins: Serving an eight-year federal sentence, pension forfeited, appeal denied

Chris Santos: Resigned, later became a private investigator

Rebecca Walsh: Left law enforcement entirely, now works in social services

Each decision reflected a different response to accountability.

The Question That Still Lingers

Many critics argued Jasmine Carter should have allowed the search to proceed and filed a complaint afterward. That confronting armed officers was reckless.

But the Constitution does not require submission to illegality.

The Fourth Amendment is not theoretical. It is meant to be asserted. Carter understood the risk—particularly as a Black woman—but she also understood that silence enables abuse.

If someone with legal expertise and institutional authority refused to assert her rights, what chance did anyone else have?

A System Exposed

This case revealed how police misconduct often thrives—not through dramatic brutality alone, but through routine shortcuts that go unchallenged. Through judges overloaded with paperwork. Through supervisors who sign without scrutiny. Through citizens who do not know they can say no.

And through officers who assume the person behind the door has no power.

On one Saturday morning, that assumption collapsed.

Eight Years for One Choice

Detective Derek Mullins did not go to prison because of a single knock.

He went to prison because he believed:

No one would read the warrant

No one would question his authority

No one would have the power to respond

He was wrong on all counts.

The Legacy of 23 Minutes

Twenty-three minutes at a front door dismantled:

A narcotics unit

Dozens of unlawful convictions

Years of unchecked misconduct

It forced reforms, cost millions, and reminded a city—and a department—that constitutional rights are not optional.

This was not a story about luck.

It was a story about knowledge, courage, and enforcement.

And it proved a simple truth:
The system can work—but only when someone refuses to step aside.