INTRADEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Assistant Chief J.D. Hill
FROM: Lieutenant T. E. Bailey
SUBJECT: Summation
REFERENCE: Improper Conduct
DATE: 04-20-00
COMPLAINANT: Sergeant D. J. Boymer, 5166, F, W, Community Affairs
MEMBERS:
B. L. Sharp, 5010, M, W, Patrol East Zone 3 C. 0. P. S. Unit
S. J. Spates, 5570, M, B, Patrol West Zone 5 C. 0. P. S. Unit
R. L. Garrison, 5666, M, W, Patrol West Zone 5 C. 0. P.S. Unit
G. W. Evans, 6198. MW, Patrol Fast Zone 5 C. 0. P.S. Unit
J. A. Weeks, 6777 M, W. Patrol East Zone 3 C. 0. P.S. Unit
B. F. Hougland, 7018, M, W, Patrol East Zone 5 C. 0. P.S. Unit
During the search Sergeant Boymer observed Officer B. L. Sharp and Officer J, A. Weeks stack personal items to the ceiling in one room, and leave them there.
Officer B. F. Hougland deliberately, she feels, broke two figurines
during the search. When the sergeant entered the room Officer Hougland
was searching, she observed a broken statuette. She asked the officer how
it had gotten broken. He stated that he had accidentally broken it. When
the sergeant turned to leave the room she heard a crash and turned back
to the officer. Officer Hougland, who had just dropped another figurine,
said, "Oops, another accident."
Other conditions the sergeant found were as follows:
The garbage was dumped onto the kitchen floor and left.
Cotton swabs were dumped onto the dining room floor.
Lawn tools and other items were thrown out the back door and left.
On 01-24-00, Sergeant Boymer received a phone call from Chief Bryan Hensley of Community Services (630-3616) who had received complaints from his code officers regarding the search techniques. The complaints indicated the residence being searched was condemned due to the condition the officers left it in.
Please see the VHS video taken by the D. A. R. T. team showing the condition
of the residence after the search. (Included in packet)
Once the house was secure he went to the front of the residence where
Sergeant Spates released him. He left the area before the search started.
I asked Mr. O'Donnell to give me his opinion of the search conducted
by the police officers on the occasion mentioned above. He replied that
it would have made a good cartoon. He observed officers holding up negligees
and modeling them. He and his partner were on the front porch
Mr. O'Donnell stated that the residence had been condemned because of
a fire hazard caused by junk and clutter inside. I asked him if the 'junk
and clutter" mentioned was a direct result of the officers' search techniques,
and he said it was. He stated that the residence was fairly neat and clean
before the search.
I asked Mr. Gomez if he remembered the search of the residence at the above location. He said that he did. It was referred to around his officer as the '~perfume fight". He stated that he was on the porch waiting to go in the residence when two officers ran out the front door. Mr. gomez jumped out of the way to avoid being run over by the officers. The officers startled him because he thought the officers were running from something "going down" inside the residence. That was the only improper act Mr. Gomez observed, but he could hear several incidences (two or three) of glass breaking inside the residence.
Mr. Gomez entered the residence at the approximate half-way point of
the search. He was able to determine the appearance of parts of the residence
prior to the search. On a scale of one to ten, he rated neatness and cleanliness
as a 7. After the search the contents of the residence was strewn around
everywhere. As a matter of fact, the residence was condemned because of
the fire hazard created by the officers.
I asked Officer Donker what his job consisted of there. He replied that he was there to provide security for the I). A. R. T. team while they inspected the residence. When he arrived the searching officers had secured the residence; however, the search was still in progress. Officer Donker was not asked, nor did he offer, to assist in the search. He did video tape the residence.
I asked the officer if the residence was condemned solely due to the
clutter caused by the officers. He stated that the electrical inspector
had condemned it also.
The officer said he did see officers "playing", running out of the residence as if chasing each other. However, he could not identify which officers they were. He heard items being broken but did not see them.
Officer Donker stated he also observed a nine foot stack of articles left on one of the beds and trash strewn about on the floor.
Officer Donker was asked how many D. A, R. T. searches he had been a
part of. He replied he had taken part in approximately one hundred searches.
I then asked how he thought this house looked after the search, compared
to others. He advised the search was, "a little worse" than the normal
search. He further advised that with as much stuff as was in the residence,
it would have looked bad anyway.
On 01-21-00, at approximately 10 AM, Sergeant Spates briefed the following
officers concerning the service of a search warrant at 1410 West 15th Street.
Prior to the service of the warrant, a mock run was performed.
Sergeant Spates had a perimeter post. But once entry was made and the subjects detained, the sergeant entered the residence. He observed no damaged property. He described the residence as "basically orderly with the exception of having a large quantity of assorted furnishings and household items throughout the residence".
Sergeant Spates observed Officer Hougland moving some of the heavier
items in the storage area. No damage was being done at that time. Later,
however, Officer Bronson came to the sergeant with concerns as to how Officer
Hougland was carelessly tossing items out the back
Sergeant Spates toured the residence, observing the bulk of the search, and observed no incidences of unlawful or unethical activities. He he&d no breakage while he was at the scene. He saw no officers chasing each other.
The sergeant stayed at the scene for approximately ninety minutes, then left after the D. A. R. T. team arrived, taking some of the officers back to their vehicles.
Sergeant Spates was later called back to the scene by Officer LaValley due to a burglary of the residence after the officers had left the residence. (see CCR#55999).
After reviewing the video of the residence Sergeant Spates stated that
the residence was messier than when he was there.
I asked the officer if he remembered the incident. He stated that he did. His job on the entry team was to breach the door. He did so with a ram. Once inside the residence his responsibility was to search the closet in bedroom #1. During the search Officer Oliver heard what sounded to him like "horseplay and things being dropped... or someone falling". There was also some~e running around in the residence and someone laughing.
The condition of bedroom #1 was cluttered. Many things were kept on the floor. He advised the resident prior to the search that he would stack all items on the bed.
With him in bedroom#l were Officers Sharp and Weeks.
After Officer Oliver concluded his portion of the search he observed Officer Sharp joking around and chasing Officer Hougland in front of the residence, by the street".
The officer advises that after the search there were items left lying wound on the floor that were not there prior to the search. Officer Oliver stated he thought the search was "a little messier than most" because of the amount of items stored in the residence.
A short time after the search was concluded Officer Oliver was called
to a burglary in progress at the same location.
5
Officer Mesh advised that at the pre-search briefing for the above search she was assigned the outside perimeter, near the rear door of the residence. Once the premises was secured she was called inside to search a female subject. The female had been subdued in the kitchen, but Officer Bronson and another unidentified officer moved her into the living room area to be searched. Officer Mesh searched the female there. Officer Bronson was present. During the search Officer Mesh heard breaking noises in the kitchen area. Officer Hougland was in the kitchen at the time. On her way out of the residence, Officer Mesh observed Officers Oliver Sharp, and Weeks searching a bedroom. The bedroom was cluttered, but the officer did not observe any unusual activities going on.
Officer Mesh advised she did see civilian D. A. R. T. members passing around the resident's night clothing, but did not remember which members.
Officer Mesh stated that while she was inside the residence, Officers Oliver and Garrison were in the living room. She did not recall Officer Hougland being in the living room.
After reviewing the video of the search I asked Officer Mesh if she
thought the condition of the residence ~. was in the "normal" condition
after a search. She advised she thought it was "pretty messy"
I asked Mr. Smith if the residence was condemned solely for the condition of the contents. He said that it was not. There were enough electrical deficiencies to have condemned it.
When asked about unprofessional behavior, Mr. Smith did state that he saw an unknown officer was spreading "K-Y" jelly on some of the resident's personal property. He asked the officer why he was doing that and the officer replied, "Don't know." He neither saw nor heard any breaking glass. He did smell a strong odor of perfume, but did not observe any officers chasing each other with it. There was a flask of alcohol opened, and Mr. Smith could smell that also. He stated that he saw nothing further He does not pay attention to officers on these inspections.
Mr. Smith stated that this inspection was a little messier than normal
due to the amount of items in the residence. He also stated that it was
common to find the contents of drawers dumped on the beds during these~
inspections.
6
At that time I asked the officer if he remembered the incident. He did. He said that he had been requested by Officer Garrison and Officer Oliver to assist in the execution of a search warrant in Zone 5. After a briefing and a couple dry runs, the officers served the search warrant at 1410 West 15th Street. Forced entry was used. Although he was on the entry team, Officer Sharp did not remember the exact force needed to enter the residence. He does remember that he was one of the first officers to enter the residence. Once inside, Officer Sharp observed a black male sitting on the bed in bedroom #1. The officer drew his service weapon and told the black male to get on the floor. The black male continued to sit on the bed. Officer Sharp once again told him to get on the floor. At that time Officer Weeks physically took the black male to the floor and handcuffed him. After searching the black male Officer Weeks put him back on the bed.
When the entire residence was cleared Officers Sharp, Weeks, and Oliver began searching bedroom #1. Officer Sharp stayed in that bedroom the entire time, except for a break, when he walked around the residence to see what the other officers were doing.
I asked Officer Sharp if he found any drugs in bedroom #1. He said that they found some prescription pills, but does not remember if any controlled substances were found. They did find paraphernalia.
I asked if the black male was arrested. The officer said he was. I asked for what offense. The officer could not say.
Officer Sharp heard neither glass breaking nor loud noises from the kitchen area.
I asked Officer Sharp if he thought the house would have been condemned for the condition it was in prior to the search. He said he did not know, but that the residence was full of piles of clothing on the floor before the search.
I asked Officer Sharp if he knew any of the civilian members of the D. A. R. T. team there with them. He replied that he recognized one member, Ross Greco; no one else.
I asked the officer if he thought the search was done in a thorough and orderly fashion. He thought it had been.
I asked Officer Sharp if he were involved in the incident in which officers
were chasing each other with perfume. He said, "Yes and no. No, I did not
spray anyone with perfume; but, yes, while moving a large quantity of perfume,
some was discharged." Officer Garrison, who was in the bedroom at the time,
said, "Are you spraying me with perfume?" Officer Sharp said that he was
not. At that point Officer Garrison laughed and picked up another bottle
of perfume and postured as if to spray Officer Sharp with it. Officer Garrison
did not spray the perfume, however. Officer Sharp walked out of the room,
and Officer Garrison followed. No one ran. Officer Weeks was not involved
in the incident with the perfume .~at all.
I asked Officer Sharp if he considered the search properly and professionally
done. He said it was done the same way it had been done for years.
Officer Weeks stated that he had had the chance to read the complaint, and remembered the incident. He said that the Zone 5 C. 0. P.S. unit had requested that three Zone 3 officers assist them execute a search waraant at 1410 West 15th Street. Sergeant Spates gave a briefing at the Reed Center. And a couple dry runs were done prior to the actual execution of the warrant.
Officer Weeks was the second man on the entry team. Officers Garrison and Oliver did the pick and raw. Officer Weeks and Sharp went in behind the other two. Information from a previous search at the same location indicated that drugs were found in bedroom #1. Officers Weeks and Sharp entered bedroom #1 and encountered a black male on the bed (or close to the& bed). The officers gave the black male a command to get on the floor. He did not respond. The officers took him to the floor. And handcuffed him. They briefly searched him and placed him back on the bed. Once the situation had stabilized, the officers did a better search, and Mirandized the black male. Officer Garrison took control of the black male and arrested him for possession of crack cocaine. I asked Officer Weeks if any cocaine had been found on the male. None had been found.
Hearing that another suspect had attempted to run, Officer Weeks went to search for drugs along the path she had taken. He saw that another officer was already doing that, so he returned to search the bedroom.
I asked Officer Weeks if he found anything in the bedroom. He stated that he recovered some paraphernalia and money.
When Officer Weeks finished searching bedroom #1 he searched a tool storage area on the front porch.
The officer heard no breaking glass or other odd noises during his search.
I asked Officer Weeks about the allegation~that he and Officer Sharp
were chasing each~ other around the residence with bottles of perfume.
He stated that while he was searching bedroom #1, two officers left the
room and Sergeant Boymer came in. Officer Weeks heard her tell someone
to 'knock it off', but it was not him. Officer Weeks did not know what
she was telling them to stop doing.. Officer Weeks did not chase anyone
around the house with anything. I asked him if he knew who was chasing
each other around the house. He said he did not know at the time, but,
since then, Officer Sharp had told him it was~ Officer Sharp and Officer
Garrison.
when asked about the clutter in the residence, Officer Weeks stated that it was actually easier to walk around in the residence after the search than before.
I asked Officer Weeks if he thought the search was done in a through and orderly fashion. He did not believe the search was thorough enough. A lot more time should have been spent on the front tool area, but the D. A. R. T. team was waiting. He thought the bedroom search was orderly.
I asked Officer Weeks if he made any comments regarding the resident's
clothing. He said that he did holdup some of the clothing and make a joke
to Sergeant Boymer about them.
I asked Officer James what his duties called for at that address. The officer replied that he was on the perimeter team. His job was to watch the side of the residence where the bathroom was. He was further charged with breaking out the bathroom window with a fire extinguisher and spraying the bathroom with it. This is done, according to the officer, to distract the subjects in the residence and to prevent them from flushing the drugs down the toilet. Officer James stated that he did break the window and spray a good amount of C02 into the bathroom. Officer Garrison later told him that the resident was in the bathroom at the time, and that she had run toward the back door when he sprayed the room. Officer James did not see the resident.
After the two subjects in the residence had been subdued Officer James went to the front of the residence, near the door, and kept watch over the two people detained there. There, he observed Officer Garrison read the search warrant to the subjects. Officer James remained at that location until the subjects were secured in a police vehicle.
He did enter the residence and observe Officers Sharp:and Weeks searching the first bedroom. He observed clothing items stacked upon the bed, but nothing else out of order. I asked if he could see the living room. He said he could. He saw many figurines there. He further stated that he thought the resident must have collected them. There were items stacked all around; otherwise the house was fairly neat.
Officer James was still at the front of the house when the D. A. R. T. team arrived. A few m,inutes after they arrived Officer Bronson came out of the. Residence and asked Sergeant Boymer if she could come in and ask "them" (unknown officers) to pick up some of the items thrown out the back door.
Officer James left a little later when Sergeant Spates took him, along
with Officers Bronson and Mesh, back to their marked police units.
I asked the officer if the figurines in the living room were arranged in a manner, which would cause an officer to accidentally knock them off the shelf. His reply was that most of them were too small to hide anything under.
After showing Officer James the D. A. R. T. video of the residence,
I asked him if it was customary to leave a residence in that condition
after a search. Re stated that it was not unusual to leave the beds stacked
up with articles of clothing, but that the floors should not have been
that cluttered.
Officer Garrison read the complaint and advised that he remembered the incident. He explained that he had worked a drug complaint at 1410 West 15tb Street, and, on 12-21-99, had executed a search warrant at that location. The suspect, Glenice Coats, was not there at the time but her son was. Crack cocaine was found, and other evidence of the sale of controlled substances was observed. A week later Officer Garrison received information that Ms. Coats had returned from Atlanta with a kilo of cocaine. Another controlled drug buy was completed at the West 15th Street address; and, on 01-21-00, the second search warrant was executed. This time the D. A. R. T. team was requested to inspect the residence.
Officers from the Zone Three C. 0.P. S. unit were used on the second search warrant due to a shortage of manpower. Officers Sharp and Weeks were contacted during a Christmas luncheon, where the search warrant was discussed. Both offices appeared "Real Gung-Ho" and offered to assist in the execution of the warrant.
Officer Garrison advised that both warrants were "No-Knock" warrants because of officer safety reasons. The first search produced various types of ammunition but no firearrn. The officer assumed that the suspect had the firearm with her during the service of the first warrant, and that the weapon was back in the residence when they searched the second time.
When entry was made on the 01-21-00 search warrant the suspect was in the bathroom of the residence. A C02 fire extinguisher was sprayed into the bathroom as a distraction device. The suspect attempted to flee out the back of the residence, but was captured and searched. Cocaine and cash was recovered from her person. A second suspect was found lying in bed in bedroom #1 and was taken into custody. Officer Garrison brought both suspects out onto the front porch where he read them the search warrant and their Miranda Rights.
The residence was big and "packed to the hilt". Officer Garrison realized
that the search would be a lengthy one, as it bad been the first time.
He told Ms. Coats that if she told him where the
Officer Mesh searched the suspect's person and recovered drugs and money.
Officer Garrison then placed Ms. Coats in the rear of a police vehicle with the second suspect and taped their conversation. After listening to the tape Officer Garrison made the decision that there were more drugs in the residence. A search was conducted, but no other drugs found.
Officer Garrison did no searching on his own. His task was to interview the suspects and to record the findings of the other officers. Officers Sharp, Weeks, and Oliver searched bedroom #1. Officer LaValley searched bedroom #2. And Officer Hougland searched the rear porch area. Officer Garrison was called into the residence when each officer found something to be recorded.
After the search was completed and the house secured, the officers left. Then the Sheriff's Office was called back to the residence due to a burglary there. Officer Garrison advises that this is common after a search warrant is executed. The suspect of the burglary was captured and arrested.
At that point I advised Officer Garrison that one of the officers had identified him as one of the officers who were chasing each other around the residence spraying the resident's perfume on each other. He replied that he could hear Officer Weeks and Officer Sharp clowning around in bedroom #1. This is also commonplace during a search warrant, according to Officer Garrison. Officer Garrison walked into the bedroom where the officers were and felt someone spray perfume on his back. He turned around and observed Officer Sharp standing there, looking around and whistling like he had done nothing. Officer Garrison turned his back on Officer Sharp and was sprayed again. Officer Garrison told Officer Sharp to knock it off. Officer Sharp sprayed Officer Garrison a third time. Officer Garrison thinking, "There is no way to get a guy like that to stop", picked up a perfume bottle and threatened to spray Officer Sharp in return. Officer Sharp ran out of the room, and Officer Garrison put the perfume bottle back where he had found it. Officer Garrison advised that he neither sprayed the perfume nor ran after Officer Sharp. When asked if it were he and Officer Sharp who had run out the front door, startling the D. A. R. T. team members, Officer Garrison stated that it was not. That particular incident was Officer Hougland and Officer sharp. They chased each other out the front door and out in to the street.
Officer Garrison Was not present when any items were broken.
I asked Officer Garrison if the Zone Three officers performed as expected. He said that they did. "They were very thorough. The horseplay did not seem to slow them down."
I asked Officer Garrison if he thought the residence could have been searched in a neater manner. His response was, "If great care had been given.. I suppose, but I really don't see any other way of searching that house thoroughly".
I asked Officer Garrison if he had observed any of the civilian personnel
engaged in horseplay. He said they were 'screwing around" but were not
unprofessional.
I asked Officer Garrison if he had any final comments regarding the
search. He replied that, in this particular case, you have three officers
who, separately, are good officers. But, when they are together, are like
high school kids, with whom everything is a joke
I had Officer LaValley read the complaint and then asked him if he remembered the incident. He said that he did. On Friday, 01-21-00 he assisted on a search warrant at 1410 West l5~ Street. His specific job was to search the rear bedroom (bedroom #2 in the diagram). while doing so he heard noises that "concerned" him coming from an adjacent room. The officer did not leave his assigned post to investigate the noises. Officer LaValley flipped the bedding up against the wall to search the materials under it. There he found a butcher knife among articles of clothing, shoes, and trash. He left the bedding against the wall to better search the remainder of the room. There were numerous large bags of clothing in the bathroom and bedroom area.
While in the bedroom Officer LaValley heard Officer Hougland break something glass out on the rear porch area. He also remembers smelling perfume from two officers spraying it at each other. Office LaValley thinks one of the officers was Officer Garrison, but does not know who the other officer was. He thinks he may have even told the officers to "settle down". Officer LaValley again heard noises coming from the rear porch area. He looked and saw Officer Hougland throwing large objects (lawn mowers, bicycles, etc.) out the back door.
When asked about glass breaking in the living room, the officer stated that he did not hear that. Neither did he see anyone modeling the resident's negligees.
when he exited the residence he noticed that the contents of the kitchen cabinets were strewn about the kitchen floor.
While standing outside the house and talking to Officer Weeks, Officer LaValley heard a loud crash. At that point Officer LaValley told Officer Weeks, "That is the kind of stuff that gets you in trouble."
I asked Officer LaValley if he thought the search was thorough. He said his part was.
I asked if he thought the search could have been done in a neater manner.
He replied that he did not think so considering the amount of stuff in
the residence.
Officer Bronson states that on 01-21-00, he was assigned to secure the perimeter of the residence. Once entry was made he and Officer Mesh were called inside to take control of the female suspect. While inside the residence Officer Bronson heard "what sounded like items being thrown out of the back door of the house". When he went to investigate he observed Officer Hougland leaning over near the back door recklessly throwing one item after another out the back door. After seeing this, Officer Bronson reported the behavior to Sergeant Spates. I asked the officer why he reported it to his sergeant. His reply was, "Because that.. (damaging property)... is not what we do." Officer Bronson stated that he had never seen that kind of behavior at a search warrant before.
Officer Bronson went back into the residence after speaking with the
sergeant and assisted Officer Mesh escort the suspect to a police vehicle
where he stood by for approximately 45 minutes to one hour. He heard no
glass breaking and saw no other improper behavior.
When asked why it had taken so long for him to return my call, he advised me that he was not the type of person who got pleasure out of "rafting" on people. When asked about the incident he said that he did not condone the behavior of the officers. He went on to say that the officers' behavior was "inappropriate.. uncalled for". Mr. Greco has been on over 100 D. A. R. T. inspections and that the search techniques used by the officers at 1410 West I5~ Street was not common. He further stated that the officers "trashed" the house.
I asked Mr. Greco if he could name any of the officers involved in the misconduct. He said he could not. He knew them by face but not by name. He was able to tell me that the officer chasing the second officer with the perfume, inside the house, was the same officer who gave the pre-search briefing. (Officer Garrison gave the briefing.) Mr. Greco said that this same officer Is one of the two offices Sergeant boymer verbally reprimanded. I asked Mr. Greco if Sergeant Boymer was in a position to see both officers. He said that the sergeant was standing with him at the time, and she saw them.
I asked Mr. Greco's why it took a call to his supervisor to get him to return my phone call. He told me that the people in his office had talked with Sergeant Boymer, and she seemed to be worried that the accused officers might retaliate. This worried the witnesses from his office too. Even after assurances that the accused officers would not retaliate, Mr. Greco would only answer direct questions.
I asked Mr. Greco if he heard glass breaking from the living room He
said that he was outside when that was going on, but that he heard it plainly.
He said it was not the sound of glass falling and breaking, it was more
of an explosion; as if the glass was being thrown against something forcefully.
The witness stated that one of the officers was holding up the resident's
underwear, wiggling and making fan of them. He did not know the officer's
name.
I asked Mr. Greco if he would pick out the officers from a series of
photos He stated that would. Arrangements were made to meet after I obtained
the photos. (The photos were obtained from the Internal Affairs Office)
Mr. Greco further identified Officer Weeks as the officer who "wiggled", holding up the resident's red underwear (red with black fir trim).
Mr. Greco could not identify who was searching in the kitchen area. He did say, however, that items there appeared to have been "slung on the floor". There were items from cabinets everywhere.
Mr. Greco did say that the house was not darted solely because of the
condition the offices left the house in. There were electrical problems
also.
Mr. Gomcz stated that his eyesight was too bad to recognize any of the
officers.
14
Sergeant Boymer could not remember saying anything of the kind to the
men. She did state that she might have told her officers that the accused
officers could make life miserable with their practical jokes, e-mails,
and phone calls. And that those officers might have said something to the
men in Mr. Greco's office.
On 03-30-00, at 12:05 PM, I interviewed Ms. Latasha Jones at 1416 West
15th Street. Her's is the residence beside, and to the west of; 1410 West
15th Street. Ms. Jones stated that she had moved into the residence at
the end of January, after the search warrant was served next door. She
had no knowledge of either the officers' activities or the whereabouts
of Ms. Coates.
The damage was so severe that the carpet had to be removed. The frozen meat was allowed to remain on the carpet until it thawed, staining the carpet beyond repair.
Ms. Coates said she did not understand why the officers did this to
her residence. She had told the officer where to find her drugs when he
asked.
She was then placed on the porch with her hands handcuffed behind her back. Her jeans were left open at the fly, exposing her stomach; while her shirt was pulled up, exposing her midriff. She said she complained, but the officers would not let her straighten her clothes. While sitting there she heard the officer(s) breaking her property.
The officers took $800.00 from her, $700.00 of which, she states was taken from the bank to pay her monthly bills. She had a further expense of $300.00 to pay someone to help her clean out the residence. Cleaning took three weeks.
Ms. Coates was also subjected to the embarrassment of having the officers make pictures of her with the officers' arms around her shoulders. They would laugh and make her say "Cheese".
Mr. Coates stated that he unlocked the burglar bar door when the officers announced themselves, but that they forced the door open anyway. However, the officers did bend the door back into place when the left.
When the officers entered Mr. Coates sat down on the bed. The officers told him to lie down on the floor between the bed and the dresser. When he did one of the officers stepped onto his back and handcuffed him. The officer then stood up on Mr. Coates' back and stepped onto the bed where he opened the window.
Mr. Coates later had to be admitted to a hospital because of his blood
sugar level. Ms. Coates feels this is a direct result of the officers breaking
the insulin regulator.
At that time I asked Sergeant Evans if he was aware of the incident described above. He said that he was aware of it. He further stated that during a luncheon given for the C. 0. P.S. officers in December, Officer Sharp approached him in reference to assisting the Zone 5 C.O. P.S. unit with a search warrant they were planning to serve in January. The sergeant was told that some of the officers had never participated in a search warrant before. So, for training purposes, and to assist the Zone S C. 0. P.S. unit, Officers Sharp, Weeks, and Hougland were allowed to assist in the execution of the warrant Sergeant Evans advised that was all the contact he had with the incident.
Sergeant Evans knew Sergeant Spates would be the leader of the search
tearn, but did not know Sergeant Spates' level of training. Sergeant Evans
felt Officers Sharp, Weeks, and Hougland had enough experience in the execution
of search warrant procedures to successfully complete the search.
I asked Sergeant Evans what search warrant training he and the three officers involved had been exposed to. He advised that he and his officers had attended a two-day search warrant school put on by Sergeant Cooper, Sergeant white, and Sergeant Davis, at the Academy. The school included development of confidential informants, completing the appropriate paperwork, and quite a bit of search technique training, including dynamic entry training. This training was administered in early 1999 (exact dates unknown).
I asked Sergeant Evans how many search warrants he and his officers had participated in as a group since that training. He estimated they had executed twenty search warrants as a group. All but one were in Zone 3, and all those in Zone 3 were in sector 0.
I asked Sergeant Evans if he was aware of the amount of damage done daring this search. His response was that he had heard a couple figurines had been broken. At that point I read the sergeant the list of damage described in Ms. Coates' statement. After each item I paused to ask if that were normal search technique. His response to most items was that it was not normal search technique. He did respond that there are times when personal paperwork is dropped on the floor and gets walked upon. Sometimes a latch gets broken on a trunk if a key is not available. And, all needles are usually confiscated, even if they are for insulin. I asked the sergeant why he thought all that damage had been done. He stated, "I have no intelligent answer for that."
I asked Sergeant Evans if this type of behavior was typical for these three particular officers. He said that it was not, that all the previous searches had been professionally done. The sergeant further stated that he would not allow that type behavior, and that it would not happen on a search warrant that he was in charge of.
I asked Sergeant Evans if he had gone by the scene of the search warrant on West 1 5tb Street, He said that he had not. He further stated that he had no idea where the residence was.
I asked Sergeant Evans if he had knowledge of any pictures his three officers might have taken at the scene. He advised he had not heard mention of any pictures they might have taken.
I asked Sergeant if; other than hearing of the complaint, he had any involvement in the search. Had he any involvement in the planning of the search? No input at all? The answer to all these question~s was no.
I told Sergeant Evans what bothered me was that the officers thought
some of these techniques were proper. Of particular concern was the piling
of clothing and other items in a pile that reached the ceiling, and then
left there. I asked if that were not excessive. The sergeant advised me
that searching for drugs is different from. other searches. Drugs can be
secreted anywhere. Once the bed is cleared clothing items are taken from
drawers and closets, their pockets gone through, and the item placed on
the bed. Then other items are pulled out and searched. The bed provides
a collection area for items already searched. There is less confusion as
to what has been searched that way. The sergeant advised that, since he
was not there, he could not determine if that particular scene was excessive.
.1 then asked if it was normal practice to leave
I asked Sergeant Evans if he thought the three officers involved in the above incident might feel they have more leeway or are under less restrictions in these maffers because of the environment (C. 0. P.S. unit) they work in. His response was, "I don't think so. I have never had a problem with them when they are under my direct control. Maybe it was because they were loaned out to another unit."
I asked Sergeant Evans a second time if he, at any time, went to the residence where this search was conducted. He replied that he did not.
I asked Sergeant Evans if he considered any of the three officers (Sharp, Weeks, or Hougland) as wild. He replied that all three were aggressive and make, virtually, all the drug arrests the squad makes. He went further to say, "The type of work we do in this unit requires a more well- rounded officer than Patrol does. They must possess varied skills. To answer your question, directly, I don't think any of these officers could be classified as loose canons or overly aggressive; but they do require strong supervision."
I asked the sergeant if he thought his type, or mode, of supervision is what the three offices need. He said, "Possibly they do need more stringent supervision than I have provided. However, regarding search warrants we have done, I feel my supervision has been adequate."
I asked Sergeant Evans what to do to prevent this from happening again. He had two suggestions. First, further training in searching techniques. Second, have the watch commander on scene, at least during part of the initial phases of the search warrant execution, with a walk through at the conclusion. I then narrowed the same question to the three of his officers involved in the above incident. His reply was, "All these officers know how to do the job right. They've been on many search warrants. Two or three were on SWAT and received more extensive training than regular patrol officers or C. 0. P.S. officers. But I can only reiterate that training in the latter stages of search warrant techniques needs to be reemphasized to them."
I asked the sergeant if he thought negative discipline would be an appropriate preventative tool for these three officers. He said, "I believe it would be appropriate if it is administered across the board". I asked him to explain. He went onto say, "The incident was originally against my three officers and no others. I don't know why that happened. You told me there were other officers. It seems my three were being singled out, when the misconduct involved more officers."
I told Sergeant Evans I still did not understand why Officer Hougland; if, in fact, it was he who did the damage; would have done it. The sergeant said that it was totally out of character for the officer.
I asked Sergeant Evans if he could offer any comments that would help me to better understand this complaint. He responded,
19
I asked Sergeant Evans if he felt that the close relationship between
him and his officers might make the officers feel they could take liberties
in the execution of a search warrant, as was apparently the case in this
instance. He said, "Only if I were not there, maybe".
At that time I advised the sergeant that I was interviewing him a second time in regards to his duties and responsibilities at the scene of a search warrant, and at the search warrant described above in particular.
I asked Sergeant Spates if he remembered the incident. He advised that he did.
I asked Sergeant Spates to describe the training he and his officers had been exposed to in relation to search warrants. He advised that he and his squad had taken the one day course on search warrants given by Sergeant T. 3. Cooper during the "Advancing C. 0. P.S." training last year. The training emphasized entry techniques and officer safety. Weapons training, relative to search warrants, was also taught. I further asked if Sergeant Cooper's training addressed search techniques, specifically, procedures for taking items out of drawers and what you look for and how you look for it? Sergeant Spates advised that those techniques were not part of the agenda. There was mention of stacking items on the bed during the training, but that was not taught.
I asked Sergeant Spates how many search warrants he had supervised. He stated that his squad had done approximately twenty last year, and fifteen since the first of this year.
I asked the sergeant why he was not on the entry team of the search
warrant on West 15' Street. He advised that sometime he is on the entry
team and sometime he is on the perimeter, depending on the amount of manpower
available. He told his officers to assign him wherever he was needed. I
told the sergeant that I thought the sergeant~ was always the last person
on an entry team to make any last minute adjustments of manpower once inside
the residence. I asked the sergeant if he had been told that before. He
said he supposed it could be beneficial, but that this particular search
was not a high profile or a high-risk search warrant. He stated that he
had been on both entry and perimeter teams before. Either way, he is inside
the residence as soon as it is cleared. His assignment is not strictly
limited to the perimeter.
I asked Sergeant Spates what quantity of drugs they were expecting to find. His reply was, "Well, you never know. I mean, they're always looking for a big hit, so to speak." He advised that the woman there had between ten and fifteen rocks on her at the time. The information the officers had was that this was a major house for cocaine sales. I told the sergeant that Officer Garrison had mentioned a kilo cocaine. I asked the sergeant if that was found. He said that it was not.
I began reading a list of damaged property to Sergeant Spates. He interrupted me to say that he never encouraged or condoned the breaking of items daring the service of a warrant. He stated that if something did get broken they documented it. The sergeant stated that he did not know of most of the items mentioned. He went on to say that he would never, ever approve of some of the damage I mentioned. He reminded me that there was a burglary to the residence after the original search, indicating that some of this damage might have been done then. He stated that serving a search warrant draws a crowd of neighbors. Once the resident is taken away by the police their residence is a target. I asked the sergeant if; when he went back to the residence after the burglary, he went inside the residence. He said he did not. He said the suspect was captured at the window of the residence. He did not know, however, if the suspect was going in or coming out. I asked if any of his officers went in the residence after the burglary. He said no one mentioned going in. I asked Sergeant Spates who the last officer in the residence was. He could not advise. I asked the sergeant if anything on the list I read him was normal done on a search warrant. He said that none of the damage was normally done. He further stated that he had not seen anyone on any of his search warrants that would do that sort of thing. To his knowledge, none of the listed damage was done before he left. He said that he could not testify~ that a figurine was not broken while he was there. He stated that he tries to monitor the whole house, but that he cannot be in every room at the same time. He felt he did a pretty fair job of making sure he looked in every room.
I asked Sergeant Spates when Officer Mesh left the scene. He advised Officer Mesh left with him and two other officers. I followed up on the question by stating that Officer Mesh's statement was that she heard glass breaking while she was searching Ms. Coates. That was in the early stages of the search. If Officer Mesh heard the glass breaking, why couldn't you? The sergeant said that he could not tell me where he was at that time, but that he did not hear glass breaking.
I asked Sergeant Spates if he were responsible for the actions of the
officers at the scene? He replied, "Yes." I asked him if would care to
expound on that. He stated that as a supervisor, that was his role. He
would be the first to take responsibility for anything he was responsible
for. He reiterated that none of the things, alleged to have happened, did
so in his presence. He would not have allow it. He reminded me that once
Officer Bronson advised him of the incident with Officer Hougland, he took
corrective action. I asked the sergeant if he felt what action he took
was sufficient intervention. The sergeant felt Officer Hougland responded
adequately to his request. The officer returned the items after the search
was complete. There was no apparent
I told Sergeant Spates I knew that he had left before the search was
over to transport several of the officers back to their vehicles. I wondered
if that was such a good idea. The sergeant told me that he felt totally
comfortable with leaving, especially since there was another supervisor
(Sergeant Boymer) there. He went on to say that they have done approximately
ten search warrants since then, and their protocol has changed. Now the
D. A. R. T. team does not arrive until the search is over. I asked the
sergeant if he told Sergeant Boymer that he was leaving, and that she had
supervision of the search. Sergeant Spates said, "No, not formally" He
stated that he assumed if anything went wrong she would call him. He did
tell her that he was leaving to take the officers back, and that he thought
everything was under control. Since the incident, Sergeant Spates has made
every effort to stay at the scene of a search warrant until it's completion.
They now, also video tape the scene before and after the search; so that,
if any allegations come out of the event, they will have documentation
as to the condition of the scene.
I asked Sergeant Spates if he had any parting comments that would better
help me understand the incident and help him in the future. The sergeant
stated that he was apologetic that this had happened to the residents,
and that they did not want to make the residents victims. The officers
had wanted to do a good job, that their intentions were good. He constantly
talks with his squad about doing things professionally. He further stated
that he did not know what went wrong that time, but he has taken steps
so that it would not happen again. Sergeant Spates said that he took fill
responsibility. If this was due to his lack of supervision he will take
whatever punishment comes with it.
I asked Officer Hougland if he had any opening statements to address the complaint he had just read. He first apologized for the "whole thing" stating that it had apparently gotten blown out of proportion.
I asked Officer Hougland how he had become involved in the search. He responded that Officer Weeks and Officer Sharp had asked him to assist the day before the search.
I asked the officer what his job was. He advised that he was on the
entry team, but did not remember exactly what position. I asked the officer
if the had any recollection of the entry; specifically the prying of the
door. He did not. I asked if the remembered what he did once inside tie
residence. He said the first couple of guys went to the left and he went
to the right. He observed a black female running through the back, in the
kitchen. When Officer Hougland caught up with her he told her to get on
the ground. She responded promptly. The officer had difficulty handcuffing
the black female because the subject had soap on her hands. She had apparently
been washing her face just prior to the~officers' entry. After handcuffing
the woman
I asked if the officer was assisted in any way with the arrest of the black female. He said that two or three other officers came to assist, to try to get her rolled over on her stomach or her back; he does not remember which. He also did not remember who the~officers were. Officer Hougland took neither drugs nor money from the woman. As soon as he got the woman standing again, Officer Hougland told the female officer to take the suspect into the front room to be searched. He was afraid that if the woman remained in the area he was about to search, that area would be compromised.
I asked Officer Hougland if, at any time, he had his picture taken with the suspect. He said he did not. The suspects were in the rear of a police vehicle the next time he saw them.
I asked Officer Hougland if he found any drugs in the area he was searching. Approximately five minutes into the search Officer Garrisons brought the female suspect back into the room with Officer Hougland. The suspect pointed out where she had concealed a bag of crack cocaine. I asked if any other drugs were found. He said no. when he got ready to search the kitchen he observed the D. A. R. T. team unit there. He felt that anything he did find would have been compromised after that, so he discontinued his search.
Officer Hougland then went into the living room to search. He immediately found two rocks of cocaine. The rocks were photographed and turned over to Officer Garrison. He found no other drugs during the search. He did pickup a glass figurine and find a baggie inside the base, but the baggie contained only residue. Officer Hougland began checking other figurines, when he picked up one that was made in two pieces. The bottom half fell onto the couch. He does not know if it broke or not. It did make a noise. Shortly after that, the officer was looking at another one and knocked it down. That one did not break because the officer stood it back up. Sergeant Boymer was standing there at the time, and Officer Hougland told her, "That was an accident". Officer Hougland stated he was not being sarcastic, or trying to be amusing when he spoke to the sergeant.
I asked Officer Hougland why he thought Sergeant Boymer felt he broke the figurine on purpose. The officer said he could think of no reason the sergeant might feel that way. He had no previous unpleasant dealings with her, even when she was his sergeant.
I asked the officer what search warrant training he had received. He replied that he had attended a couple of search warrant schools put on by Sergeant Cooper, in which Officers Sharp and Weeks had assisted as instructors. He had accumulated practical experience doing many searches with C. 0. P.S. unit. I asked if he was taught to pile the person's property on their beds and leave them there. He advised that it was the practice he was told to use. It is the only way you can cover an area without missing a spot. Officer Hougland said he likes to be very thorough. He is usually the officer who finds the drugs. I asked if he never puts things back, and he replied that he does not.
I asked how many search warrants Officer Hougland had helped serve. He advised approximately twenty, maybe twenty-five.
I asked the officer it as I was continually told, it was normal for
the officers to clown around with each other. He said that the clowning
around was a way for the officers to cope with their
Officer Hougland stated that once the Code Enforcement officers got
into the living room he ended his search and, with the other two Zone 3
officers, left the scene to return to Zone 3. On the way out of the house
Officer Hougland stepped onto a beer can he thought was empty, but wasn't.
The contents of the can sprayed over the lower portion of Officer Sharp's
uniform. Office Sharp picked up a bottle and began chasing Officer Hougland.
The officers were outside at the time and were 'lust kidding around". The
chase lasted approximately thirty seconds. Officer Hougland acknowledges
that the activity was probably viewed as unprofessional by anyone who saw
it.
The three Zone 3 officers, Sharp, Weeks, and Hougland, left the scene,
leaving the Zone 5 officers there. Officer Hougland does not remember if
the D. A. R. T. team was still there when he left. He thinks they might
have been.
I asked Officer Hougland if he had witnessed the earlier chase between Officer Garrison and Officer Sharp. He had not.
I asked the officer if he dumped the garbage onto the kitchen floor. He said he did not remember doing that.
I asked if Office Hougland dumped the contents of the kitchen cabinets onto the kitchen floor. He said he stacked some of the boxes from the lower cabinets onto the floor. He did not take cans from the cabinets and put them in the floor. Once the D. A. R. T. team came in he left the kitchen area.
I asked if Officer hougland had op~ened the box of Q-tips and spread them around. He stated that he had not.
I asked the officer why his throwing things out the back door attracted Officer Bronson 5 attention. He stated that he had no idea. When Sergeant Spates came to speak with Officer Hougland about the things he had thrown out the door, all he had to say was to make sure the items got put back inside.
I asked the officer if he had dumped any liquor on the floor. He said that he had not. He did remember smelling liquor. Several of the figurines had liquor in them, but he did not bother to check those because they obviously were not hollow.
I asked Officer Hougland if he had done any of the damage on the long list of damages claimed by Ms. Coates. He denied doing that damage. The officer offered that it may have been the burglary suspects who did that.
I asked Officer Hougland how did he account for statements made by the
Code Enforcement officers that they stood on the porch and watched you
break the figurines. His reply was that they might have seen him knock
over one and drop one, but that was all he did. In addition, Sergeant Boymer
was In the room with him. I then said another Code Enforcement officer
stated that the glass was not just breaking, it was being forcibly shattered,
as if being thrown against the wall. The officer said he never heard that.
He said, if you had checked after the search, you would not have found
any figurines that were deliberately smashed.
I asked Officer Hougland if he observed any of the other officers making
jokes about the
resident's underwear or night clothing. He did not.
I asked the officer why Officers Lavalley and Bronson stated that he was carelessly throwing items out the back door. He replied that he did toss garden tools out the back door, and roll a bike down the stairs, but he put back every item he took out. There were older fishing poles outside when he arrived that were probably the ones the resident reported stolen. He did not put them inside with the others.
Officer Hougland states that, in reading the complaint, it appears to
him that Ms. Coates is preparing to file a civil suit. He went on
to say that she, in no way, injured her knee during the
arrest. She got down on the ground herself.
I asked the officer to respond to the statement that Officer Mesh heard breaking noises in the kitchen area where he was working at the time. Officer Hougland responded that when he tried to open the silverware drawer, which was held in by a knife stuck into the cabinet, he had to pull the drawer hard enough to dislodge the knife. When he did the drawer flew open and spilled the contents. This made a loud noise. That might be the sound the other officer heard. He went on to say that, although he picked up most of the utensils, some may have been left on the floor.
I asked Officer Hougland if he observed any officer putting hair jell on the figurines or other items. He did not.
1 told Officer Hougland that I had heard of officers, once finding drugs
on a warrant, were much more aggressive in the manner In which they searched
the area. They might throw stuff around more than before the drugs
were found. I asked if he ever felt that way. He said that he had not.
But he does search more thoroughly once drugs are found.
I asked the officer why he thought his name came up so often in the
officers' and the Code Enforcement officers' statements saying they saw,
and heard, things being broken in the rooms
where he was. He reiterated the account with Sergeant Boymer and the
noise that Officer Mesh heard as the only instances where he was actually
accuse by name.
The officer stated that when he left the kitchen there was nothing broken.
I asked Officer Hougland if he had any comments he wanted to make regarding
the incident. He said that certain things, such as clowning around, should
not happen, but it does, a lot. It usually does not happen in the public
eye.
STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT On 04-18-00, at 7:20AM, I reinterviewed Sergeant
D. J. Boymer by phone.
25
I asked the sergeant if she had left the scene of the incident prior to the departure of the officers executing the search warrant. She said that she did.
I also asked her if; at any time, Sergeant G. W. Evans was at the scene
of the incident. She said he was not there.
I asked Officer Oliver if the was one of the last officers to leave the scene of the incident. He said he was. He secured the back portion of the residence after the search. I read him the description of the residence provided by the Coates and asked him if the residence was in that shape when he secured it. He said that the freezer contents were not out of the freezer. But he thinks he remembers the freezer door being left ajar. Neither did he notice if gasoline had been poured on the clothing there. He saw no cabinet doors damaged or glass broken. There were a small amount of foodstuffs stacked on the kitchen floor, but none were opened and spread on the floor. No light fixture was broken. He noticed no coffee pot or cups broken. As for the broken leg on the sofa; when he searched around the sofa he noticed that someone had placed a concrete block under one comer as a base for the sofa to rest on. The leg had apparently been broken previous to the search warrant.
I asked Officer Oliver if he had an opportunity to enter the residence
later when he was called to
a burglary there. He did not. The entry was through a window and the
suspect was captured
outside the residence. The doors were still secure. He could, therefore,
not give a description of
the condition of the residence at that time.
I asked the officer if Sergeant Boymer was there until the end of the search warrant. He said that the sergeant left a good thirty minutes to an hour before the officers did.
I asked if Sergeant G. W. Evans had made an appearance at any time during the search. Officer Oliver said Sergeant Evans had not come by.
Officer Oliver volunteered that he had learned, after the search warrant,
that the residents of 1410 West 15th Street had been selling food and drinks,
including beer, out of their back door.
I asked the officer if Sergeant Boymer remained until the end of the original incident. He replied that the sergeant had remained there a good portion of the time, but she left before Officer he did.
I asked if Sergeant 0. W. Evans had been at the original incident. The officer did not recall the sergeant being there.
Officer LaValley reiterated that the only damage he had knowledge of
was the sound of glass breaking in the back room. He thinks that was the
result of Officer Hougland pushing a bicycle out the back door and breaking
a glass pane with the handle bar in the process.
He pointed out the picture of Officer Sharp as the officer running out the front door, who almost knocked Mr. Gomez off the porch. He further identified Officer Sharp as the officer who was sitting on the couch in the living room while Officer Hougland was tossing figurines carelessly away and breaking them.
Mr. O'Donnell said that a crashing sound made him lock in the living room from the porch. He did not see who broke the first piece, but he identified Officer Hougland as the officer, standing in the living room, who then carelessly tossed a second figurine aside, breaking it. Sergeant Boymer was not in the living room at the time.
Mr. O'Donnell went on to point out Officer Garrison as the officer who was making fin of the resident's negligee. The officer's actions could be seen from outside the residence by the resident or anyone else who cared to look.
Officer Hougland was also identified as the officer in the kitchen.
Mr. O'Donnell stated that sugar was spread around the floor along with
broken glass. He further said that Officer Hougland was the officer who
opened the package of Q-Tips and spread them around the room.
I asked the officer if he was in the living room of the residence when
the glass items were broken. I specifically mentioned that I was not asking
about the same incident in which Sergeant Boymer was present. He stated
that it was not him. He had no idea when that incident of breakage occurred,
or fit occurred.
27
I asked Officer Sharp if he was in the living room when Officer Hougland
broke the glass figures. The officer stated that he was not.
I asked Officer Weeks if was in the living room when Officer Hougland
broke the glass figurines. He said he was not. I asked if he was aware
that Officer Hougland broke the figurines. Office Weeks replied, '~Not
until afterwards." I asked if Officer Weeks knew who was in the living
room with Officer Hougland when he broke the glass. He did not know.
Officer B. L. Sharp,. 5010
Officer Sharp is alleged to have caused the residence to be condemned by the search techniques he used. This involves throwing all the items found in bedroom #1 on the bed and floor causing a stack of clothing that stood approximately nine feet high.
It is apparently common practice to search items in this manner, as every officer I interviewed advised tat they were trained to do that. However, that practice creates a state of disarray that would cause code violations that may not have been there in the first place. In this particular instance, however, there were enough other code violations, specifically electrical deficiencies, that would, in themselves, have caused the condemnation of the residence.
Therefore the allegation that Officer Sharp caused the residence to be condemned is UNFOUNDED: that is, the allegation was false or not factual.
Officer Sharp is also alleged to have performed acts which brought disrepute
upon the Sheriffs
Office. He is said to have chased other officers while spraying them
with the resident's perfume.
Officer Garrison stated that Officer Sharp sprayed him three times
with perfume before he
threat~ened to spray Officer Sharp back. Officer Garrison, according
to Mr. Greco, then chased
Officer Sharp from the room- There was ~o walking fast involved. Mr.
Grcco stated that the
This allegation of officer misconduct is, therefore, SUSTAINED that is the allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable conclusion of guilt. This misconduct is a violation of the following written directives:
General Order xI.6,II.C.
Members shall be responsive to the needs of the public by rendering
prompt and courteous service, and consistently conducting themselves in
a manner that encourages public respect.
General Order xI.6,1II.I.3.f.
Performing any acts or making any verbal or written statements which
may bring the Office of the Sheriff into disrepute or ridicule.
I also find that, during the investigation, Officer Sharp provided incomplete statements, intermingled with omissions of fact; causing confusion and unnecessarily delaying the investigation. When Officer Sharp was asked if he had sprayed perfume on Officer Garrison, he said that he had not. Officer Garrison testified to the contrary. when asked if he had run through the house chasing other officers, Officer Sharp said he had not. Sergeant Boymer and Mr. Greco both stated that Officer Sharp was, in fact, running.
Not only had Officer Garrison chased Officer Sharp through the residence that one time; but there was also a second chase in which Officer Sharp chased Officer Hougland through the residence, out the front door, and into the street. This was witnessed by Officer Oliver, Officer Garrison, and Mr. O'Donnell.
Therefore, to the charge that Officer Sharp failed to cooperate with this investigation, thereby interfering with another employee's ability to carry out that employee's duties and responsibilities; I find that charge SUSTAINED; that is, the allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable conclusion of guilt. This is a violation of the following written directive:
General Order XI.6,III.I.3.a.
Interfering with another employee's ability to carry out that employee's
duties and responsibilities.
A records check indicates that Officer Sharp has no past negative discipline,
Officer J. A. Weeks. 6777
Officer Weeks is also alleged to have caused the residence to be condemned by the search techniques he used. As was shown for Officer Sham, the actions of the officers did not, by themselves, cause the residence to be condemned.
Therefore the allegation that Officer Weeks caused the residence to be condemned is UNFOUNDED; that is, the allegation was false or not factual.
Officer Weeks was alleged, by Sergeant Boymer, to have performed acts
which brought disrepute upon the Sheriffs Office. He was said to have been
the office chasing Officer Sharp
For this particular act of misconduct the status S UNFOUNDED that is the allegation was false or not factual.
During the investigation it was, however, determined that Officer Weeks modeled the residents personal clothing items by holding them up in front of him while making jokes about the clothing. He was identified as the officer who did so by Mr. Greco. Officer Weeks also admitted to this.
Therefore, the allegation of misconduct is SUSTAINED that is, the allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable conclusion OF GUILT This misconduct is a violation of the following written directives:
General Order x'.6,II.C.
Members shall be responsive to the needs of the public by rendering
prompt and courteous service, and consistently conducting themselves in
a manner that encourages public respect.
General Order xI.6,III.I.3.f.
Performing any acts or making any verbal or written statements which
may bring the Office of the Sheriff into disrepute or ridicule.
A records check indicates that Officer Weeks has no past negative discipline.
Officer B. F Hougland. 7018
Officer Hougland is alleged to have caused the residence to be condemned as a result of the search technique he used. As was stated earlier, the actions of the officers, alone, did not cause the condemnation of the residence.
Therefore, the allegation is UNFOUNDED, that is, the allegation was false and not factual.
Officer Hougland is also alleged to have broken glass figurines that he was searching. Mr O'Donnell and Sergeant Boymer observed the officer breaking the figurines.
Officer Hougland is alleged to have dumped the garbage in the kitchen onto the floor. Mr. O'Donnell observed the garbage, and Officer Hougland was the officer searching the room.
Officer Hougland is alleged to have opened a package of Q-Tips and strewn them around the dining room/kitchen area. Mr. O'Donnell witnessed the incident.
Officer Hougland is alleged to have broken glass objects in the kitchen area. Officer Mesh witnessed this.
Officer Hougland is alleged to have broken "something glass" in the rear porch area. Officer Lavalley witnessed this.
Officer Hougland, in his statement, admitted to stepping on a beer can
(he thought was empty) and spraying beer around the room and onto Officer
Sharp.
Officer Hougland is alleged to have run through the house and yard while being chased by Officer Sharp. Mr. O'Donnell, and Officers Donker, Oliver, and Garrison, witnessed this.
These allegations of officer misconduct are, therefore, SUSTAINED; that is, the allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to j~ustify a reasonable conclusion of guilt. These incidences of misconduct arc violations of the following written directives:
General Order xI.6,II.C.
Members shall be responsive to the needs of the public by rendering
prompt and courteous service, and consistently conducting themselves in
a manner that encourages public respect.
General Order XI.6,III.I.3.f.
Performing any acts or making any verbal or written statements which
may bring the Office of the Sheriff into disrepute or ridicule.
I also find that, during the investigation, Officer Hougland provided incomplete statements, intermingled with omissions of fact; causing confusion and unnecessarily delaying the investigation. In his statement on 01-25-00, Officer Hougland stated that the figurine he dropped in Sergeant Boymer's presence broke. In his Statement on 04-17-00, he said the figurine did not break. When I asked Officer Hougland if he had dumped the garbage onto the floor, He said he did not remember. I asked Officer Hougland if he had opened a package of Q Tips and threw them around the room. He said that he did not. I asked Officer Hougland if he had done any of the damage included on the resident's list. The list included spreading sugar on the kitchen floor The officer said he did not. Officer Hougland said that when he left the kitchen, nothing was broken.
Therefore, to the charge that Officer Hougland failed to cooperate with this investigation, thereby interfering with another employee's ability to carry out that employee's duties and responsibilities; I find that charge SUSTAINED; that is, the allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable conclusion of guilt. This is a violation of the following written directive:
General Order XI.6,III.I.3 a.
[interfering with another employee's ability to carry out that employee's
duties and responsibilities.
A records check indicates that Officer Hougland has a written reprimand,
level one, for a chargeable traffic crash.
Officer R. L. Garrison. 5666
Officer Garrison's allegations of officer misconduct developed during
the course of the investigation, as it was determined that it was he, and
not Officer Weeks, who was chasing Officer Sharp around the residence.
Officers Sharp, Weeks, and Garrison, himself; identify Officer Garrison
as the officer chasing Officer Sharp. Mr. Greco confirms that they were
running, and not walking.
These allegations of officer misconduct are, therefore, SUSTAINED that is, the allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to justify~ a reasonable conclusion of guilt. This is a violation of the following written directives:
General Order xI.6,II.C.
Members shall be responsive to the needs of the public by rendering
prompt and courteous service, and consistently conducting themselves in
a manner that encourages public respect.
General Order XI.6,lII.1.3.f
Performing any acts or making any verbal or written statements which
may bring the Office of the Sheriff into disrepute or ridicule.
I also find that, during the investigation, Officer Garrison provided incomplete statements, intermingled with omissions of fact, causing confusion and unnecessarily delaying the investigation. When Officer Garrison was asked if he had run after Officer Sharp with the perfume bottle, he stated that he had not. He had simply threatened Officer Sharp with the perfume, but did not run after him. When Mr. Greco identified Officer Garrison, he identified him as '~the perfume chaser". Mr. Greco further stated that Officer Garrison was physically running through the residence, chasing Officer Sharp.
Therefore, to the charge that Officer Garrison failed to cooperate with this investigation, thereby interfering with another employee's ability to carry out that employee's duties and responsibilities; r find that charge SUSTAINED, that is, the allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable conclusion of guilt. This is a violation of the following written directive:
General Order XI.6,III.I.3.a.
Interfering with another employee's ability to carry out that employee's
duties and responsibilities.
A records check indicates that Officer Garrison has no negative discipline.
sergeant S. J. Spates 5570
Sergeant Spates' failings in this matter are those of his supervisory duties and responsibilities. His responsibility was that of the overall execution of the warrant. He dictated which officers were to be assigned to each position and the manner in which they performed their tasks. Most officers interviewed indicated that they had been trained to search a residence in the manner that they had searched this one. These search techniques are certainly not taught or sanctioned by the Sheriff's Office. The officers were allowed to continue their destructive search techniques uninterrupted. This indicates a lack of training and on-site supervision, both responsibilities of the sergeant.
When Sergeant Spates was made aware of Officer Hougland's rough handling
of the resident's property, the sergeant did go to Officer Hougland and
tell him to stop and to place the items back inside upon completion of
his search. But there was no other supervision or instruction given to
These failings, on the part of Sergeant Spates, have created a sanction of the officers' practices.
The charge that Sergeant Spates failed in the discharge of his supervisory duties is, therefore, SUSTAINED; that is, the allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable conclusion of guilt. This is a violation of the following written directives:
General Order VJI.2,III.A.
Supervisors are responsible not only for their own conduct and performance
of duties, but for the conduct and performance of employees under their
immediate supervision.
General Order VII.2,III.J.
Supervisors shall assist and instruct the personnel under their supervision
on the proper performance of their duties.
A records check indicates that Sergeant Spates has no negative discipline.
SERG£reant 0 W. Evans. 6198
Although Sergeant Evans was not actively involved in the execution of the search warrant, his supervisory skills and supervisory influence, as sergeant of three of the accused officers, come into play. The character and demeanor of an officer is shaped and nurtured by that officer's immediate supervisor. The sergeant is also tasked with the responsibility of properly training his officers in the proper performance of their duties. Because of this, the sergeant is responsible for the actions of his subordinates.
Therefore, to the charge of improperly supervising his officers, I find said charge against Sergeant Evans SUSTAINED; that is, the allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable conclusion of guilt. This is a violation of the following written directives:
General Order VII.2,III.A.
Supervisors are responsible not only for their own conduct and performance
of duties, but for the conduct and performance of employees under their
immediate supervision.
General Order Vll.2,IJI.J.
Supervisors shall assist and instruct the personnel under their supervision
on the proper performance of their duties.
A records check indicates that Sergeant Evans has no negative discipline.