[00:00:03]
IT'S A FULL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
[1. Roll Call]
WOULD YOU CALL IT ALL? YES, SIR.JOHN SMITH PRESENT SHARON LEWIS, GERA, EXCUSE ME.
JOSHUA DARA, ROB MORRISSEY, BRANDON WILLIAMS. PRESENT.
AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO OFFER IT TO THE, UH, ANYBODY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS OR NONE.
COULD YOU COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS? PERFECT.
ARE YOU DOING MR. COLE? THANK YOU.
HOW ARE YOU DOING TODAY? YES, I'M JOEL GAVI TRAINING OFFICER FROM THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
UH, I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BATON ROUGE FIRE DEPARTMENTS, UH, REALLY FULL NEGLECT.
UM, MS. WE ONLY HAVE TWO MINUTES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
SO WILL THAT BE ABLE TO TAKE PLACE IN THIS TWO MINUTES? YES, SIR.
IT SHOULD BE VERY, VERY QUICKLY AND NEGLECT FOR PUBLIC LAWS.
UH, WHEN IMPORTING PERSONNEL AND THIS PACKET I GAVE YOU WILL GIVE YOU ALL THE INFORMATION, THE LAWS, THE STATUTE, THE UNION CONTRACT, ALL THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN BROKEN WHEN, UH, THEY APPOINT PERSONNEL, UM, TO DIFFERENT POSITIONS.
UM, AND AS A, AS, AS A CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEMBERS, I'M SURE Y'ALL WILL TAKE THIS INVESTIGATION SERIOUSLY.
IT IN READING THIS, YOU'LL SEE IT EVEN HINDERS Y'ALL'S ABILITY TO DO Y'ALL'S JOB CORRECTLY.
UH, SO I WILL LEAVE IT UP TO Y'ALL AND I WOULD APPRECIATE, UH, UH, A GOOD INVESTIGATION AND HONEST OUTCOME.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL TAKE THIS AS INFORMATION.
I'LL TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT.
[Additional Item]
NEXT, UM, ITEM IS W W WE'LL HAVE A, UH, UH, CHANGE OF THE AGENDA.WE'RE GOING TO ADD AN ITEM TO THE AGENDA, MR. SMITH.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THAT ITEM IS? YES.
UH, THE CHIEF REQUESTED THAT WE REQUEST THE STATE EXAMINERS OFFICE TO CREATE A JOB DESCRIPTION FOR CHIEF OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES.
UH, THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL, GOT APPROVAL FOR THE FUNDING, AND NOW THE NEXT STEP IS TO GO TO THE STATE AS ERA'S OFFICER AND REQUEST A JOB DESCRIPTION, BE CREATED.
UH, I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO THAT NOW, OR WHAT WOULD IT REQUIRE A 30 DAY POSTING BECAUSE HE'S, WE GOT TO CREATE A JOB DESCRIPTION.
FIRST, NEXT MONTH, WE'LL COME BACK HERE AND APPROVE THE JOBS BOOST, AND THEN WE'LL POST IT BETTER TODAY.
SO YOUR MOTION IS TO CREATE THE CROWD DESCRIPTION.
MY MOTION IS TO REQUEST THE STATE EXAMINERS OFFICE TO CREATE THE JOB DESCRIPTION.
THAT, WELL, WELL, FIRST MAKE THE MOTION TO CHANGE THE AGENDA.
WELL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADD REQUEST THE STATE EXAMINERS OFF.
CAN WE CALL FOR A ROLL CALL, VOTE AND THEM? YES, SIR.
NATALIE MISSPOKE, MOTION PASSES ITEM IS ADDED TO THE AGENDA.
SO, UH, WITH THAT BEING SAID, THERE IS THERE, DO WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION ON THE FLOOR? I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REQUEST TO SAY EXAMINERS OFFICE.
YOU CREATE THE JOB DESCRIPTION FOR CHIEF OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
THE FIRST AND THE SECOND CAN BE A ROLL CALL.
[00:05:01]
OKAY.[6. Schedule Appeal Hearing]
UH, CHANGE OR ITEM NUMBER SIX.AND I WILL, UH, IF, UH, JOSHUA WOULD BE SO KIND AS TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE AMENDED YEAH, JUST SIMPLY ON ITEM, NUMBER SIX OF THE AGENDA.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE PARTIES HAVE COME TO AN AGREEMENT.
SO INSTEAD OF SCHEDULING THE APPEAL HEARING, THERE WILL BE A, JUST THE ADOPTION OF THEIR CONSENT DISCIPLINE.
SO WE NEED A MOTION TO, EXCEPT THAT ARE ADDED TO THE AGENDA OR IS THERE A SECOND? YES, SIR.
MOTION PASSES SO THAT I AM SUCCESSFULLY AMENDED AND CHANGED ON THE AGENDA.
[2. Approve March 28, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes]
NOW WE MOVE INTO, UH, APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 28TH MINUTES.DO WE HAVE TO ACCEPT MEN IN THE GENDER? WE DID.
WE'RE ASKING TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 28TH MEETING.
I MAKE A MOTION OR MOTION BY MR. SMITH.
I THINK WE HAD ANOTHER HAND ON THAT WAY.
[3. Approve Applications]
THE CHIEF, LIKE TO COME UP, YOU FALL, YOU FALL.ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH, UH, MS. TIFFANY SMITH WHO RESIGNED ON NOVEMBER 5TH AND, UM, DEPARTMENT IN GOOD STANDING.
IS THAT AN ITEM YOU GUYS WANTED TO PLACE ON THE AGENDA? YES, SIR.
WE LIKE APPROVAL TO REHIRE, UH, HER TO STILL SOME PROCESSES THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH, BUT SHE DID SUBMIT A LETTER REQUESTING TO COME BACK TO BE A POLICE OFFICER.
UH, SHE DID RESIGN FROM THE DEPARTMENT IN GOOD STANDING AND REALIZED THAT HER HEART IS STILL HERE AND SHE WANTS TO SERVE THE BATTERY'S COMMUNITY.
SO RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR APPROVAL TO HIRE.
WE ADDED TO THE AGENDA WHERE AT, ON THE AGENDA.
WHY AM I JUST MAKE A MOTION? WE ADDED TO THE AGENDA.
YOU GOTTA SAY WHERE I WANT TO TAKE IT UP RIGHT NOW.
NO, BUT WE CAN ADD IT AS ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.
UM, IT CAN BE SEVEN B BLOOD ADAM EVERYDAY.
SO YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO ADD TO THE AGENDA AND THEN WE'LL TAKE IT UP IN 7, 8, 7 B.
YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
AND THE ITEM HAS BEEN APPROPRIATELY MIDDLE TO ITEM SEVEN BEAT, WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF REHIRE.
UM, WOULD THAT BEING SAID, WE'LL MOVE A PETITION.
WE ADD THIS PETITION TO THE BOARD, OUR INVESTIGATION AT A BATTERY'S FIRE DEPARTMENT.
WAIT, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? ADD THIS PETITION OR INVESTIGATION? A BATTERY FIRE DEPARTMENT.
SO ITEM SEVEN C WOULD BE ACCEPTING THE PETITION
[00:10:01]
PETITIONED TO INVESTIGATE BANNERS, FIRE PLUMBING, VETERANS FIREWALL TO ME.NO ONE, EXCEPT THAT ALWAYS SAYS, DON'T WANT TO RECEIVE IT.
I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED IT.
SO WE DON'T KNOW IF WE WILL ACCEPT IT AT THIS POINT OR NOT JUST MAKE A MOTION TO ADD IT TO THE AGENDA.
WE CAN DISCUSS IT WHEN WE GET THERE.
SO ITEM SEVEN C IS TO ACCEPT THE PETITION TO INVESTIGATE THE FIRE IS TO ADD IT TO THE AGENDA.
SO, AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT WHEN WE GET ON THE AGENDA.
SO MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD JUST CALL IT, DISCUSS PETITION FOR INVESTIGATION, GOES ON THE FLOOR PETITION FOR INVESTIGATION.
VERY CALL FOR THE VOTE AND SPENDING GOOD PRESS.
ARE THERE ANY MORE ITEMS TO BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA? WOULD THAT BEING SAID, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 28TH, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES.
I MOVE, WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES.
I MEAN, UH, JOHN, SECOND, SECOND BY PRESS ALL IN FAVOR.
SO MOVING ON INTO ADMINISTRATION, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.
WE, UM, THE APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS, WE HAD, UH, FOUR FIRE COMMUNICATION OFFICERS.
TWO, WE HAD SEVEN OR FIRE COMMUNICATIONS, OFFICER THREE, WE HAD ONE OR DISTRICT FIRE TREIF WE HAD, UH, 46.
COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT ONE PLUS ONE PAYNE? YES.
IT WOULD BE GLAD TO WHEN I WAS IN THE OFFICE THIS MORNING, WHEN IT COME IN A LIGHT FRIDAY AFTER I LEFT THE OFFICE.
SO WE HAVE 46 NOW AND SHE FIRED INVESTIGATOR.
WE HAVE ONE AND ASSISTANT HAZARDOUS MATERIAL, CHIEF.
I MOVE, WE APPROVE THE, UH, APPLICATIONS.
[4. Call for Examination]
MOVING ON TO ITEM.NUMBER FOUR, WE HAVE A CALL FOR EXAMINATION.
WE HAVE FORENSIC SCIENTISTS, UH, WHICH WE HAVE ONE, ONE PERSON, UH, MOVE WE CALL FOR THAT EXAMINATION.
ALL RIGHT, THEN, UH, ITEM NUMBER FIVE,
[5. Results of Examination]
WE HAVE THE RESULTS OF THE EXAMINATION FOR CRIME STATISTICIAN.YOU HAVE THAT, MS. PENNY? YES, SIR.
IT WAS 1, 1, 1 ELIGIBLE, BUT, UM, I MOVED THAT.
WE APPROVED THE RESULTS OF THE EXAMINATION THERE.
NUMBER SIX, WE HAVE A SCHEDULE APPEAR HEALER HEARING.
COULD WE GET THE FIRE CHIEF TO COME UP? RIGHT? WE, UM, WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CONSENT DISCIPLINE.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO SAY ON THIS MATTER? NO, SIR.
SO YOU'RE IN, YOU'RE IN LINE WITH THE YES, SIR.
WE'RE ALL IN AGREEANCE ON THAT.
THE PARISH ATTORNEY AND HIS ATTORNEY, UH, ULTIMATE, UH, THIS, UH, AGREEMENT LOW IS THE AGREEMENT.
THE AGREEMENT WAS TO A 60 DAY SUSPENSION IN BACK PAIN.
WELL, THAT BEING SAID, WE HAVE A, UH, IS THERE A MOTION WE ACCEPT, UH, PRESS.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. PEREZ.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY MR. SMITH.
[7. Schedule Appeal Hearing: Jason Ogle]
TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, WE HAVE THE SCHEDULED APPEAL HEARING FOR JASON OGLE.LET'S SEE OUR CALENDARS INCLUDED IN THIS.
SO IF WE MOVE ON TO JULY 25TH,
[00:15:04]
YEAH, WE HAVE AN ALVAREZ.I THINK IT SAID 20 DAYS, OCTOBER 25 DAY.
UM, NOT UNTIL OCTOBER, NOT AS WE HAVE A CANCER, THE DATES DON'T MATCH UP.
SHOULD IT BE THE 26TH? MS. PENNY? WE HAVE MONDAY AS JULY 25TH, BUT ON HERE, IT'S SHOWING UP AS A TUESDAY NIGHT.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE JUST NEED TO SEE WHAT THE 25TH IS.
IS IT A TUESDAY OR MONDAY? YOU JUST HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR 25TH JULY.
THAT'S THE 25TH OF THE MONDAY.
SO I'M GETTING THE PARTIES HERE.
UM, I ACTUALLY, MR. OVAL CALLED, UH, INQUIRE ABOUT THE DATE OF HIS, UH, APPEAL.
AND I DID LET HIM KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE CLOSER TO JULY.
UH, SO HE KNOWS IT'S GOING TO BE IN JULY AND I GUESS THE FIRE CHIEF, UH, ARE YOU GUYS OKAY WITH JULY? OKAY, SO WE'LL MOVE TO SCHEDULE IT ON JULY 25TH, 26TH, 26TH.
AND, UH, DOES HE EVER ATTORNEY? NO.
BUT IS THERE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR SOLO? WE HAVE MOVED IN MS. MS. PENNY, KIM, CALIFORNIA VOTE.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? AND THEN Y'ALL NEED A ROLL CALL.
NOW WE MOVE ON TO ITEM SEVEN B, WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF THE REHIRE OF TIFFANY SMITH.
IT'S BEEN LONGER THAT WE PROBABLY, WE HAVE A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
THEN WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN C IS TO DISCUSS THE PETITION FOR INVESTIGATION.
UH, AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THAT MEANS.
THIS BOY HAS NO PERSONNEL TO DO INVESTIGATIONS AND WE CERTAINLY ARE NOT EQUIPPED TO DO THAT.
UH, UM, I'M NOT SURE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE OUGHT TO BE DOING, BUT WE ONLY HAVE A WAY TO INVESTIGATE ANYBODY.
OH, YOU'RE INVITED TO DO THE INVESTIGATION AND WE'RE CERTAINLY NOT EIGHT DO INVESTIGATIVE BODY.
WE ARE A DELIBERATIVE BODY, BUT NOT AN INVESTIGATORY BODY.
SO I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD, UH, TAKE THIS UP AND OUT.
MY FIRST IMPRESSION IS NO, BUT I LIKE TO HEAR SOME COMMENTS FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
IF YOU WON'T JOKE WHAT, OH, YOU SAID YOU WERE INVESTIGATING SOME OVERSIGHTS ABOUT A FIRE DEPARTMENT.
HOW WAS THAT WAS WHEN Y'ALL TO INVESTIGATE.
UH, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THAT IS PART OF Y'ALL'S DUTIES.
IF WE DO HAVE, UM, IT DOES SAY WE CAN INVESTIGATE.
AND ALSO IT'S BASED ON HOW WE SEE FIT.
IT ALSO INCLUDES THAT TERMINOLOGY IN THERE AND WHAT, WHAT HE WAS ALLUDING WITH, WHAT PRESS WAS ALLUDING TO IS OUR ABILITIES TO INVESTIGATE AND BASED UPON PERSONNEL.
AND SO, UH, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I THINK I, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS.
I THINK THAT WE JUST NEED TO LOOK OVER THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET AND UNDERSTAND WHERE WE DON'T NEED SO MUCH COLOR AND INVESTIGATION.
WE JUST NEED TO CALL IT A REVIEW.
OH, I KNOW HE'S ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION AND I MAY HAVE USED THE WRONG TERMINOLOGY, BUT YEAH.
[00:20:01]
I, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, WE JUST REVIEWED THIS INFORMATION AND EXCUSE ME FOR A SECOND.I WANT TO BE CLEAR BECAUSE HIS STATUE THAT HE, OKAY, GO AHEAD.
SO, UM, LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTE, TITLE 33, POLAND, 24 77.
IT IS THE BOARD'S DUTY TO INVESTIGATE MATTERS OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION IF UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, THE CHIEF CAN BRING UP, UH, AN INVESTIGATION.
OTHER PEOPLE, A CITIZEN CAN BRING UP A INVESTIGATION IN THAT SITUATION.
HOWEVER IT HAS TO BE SUPPORTED WITH JUST CAUSE.
SO HAVING JUST RECEIVED A FAIRLY THICK PACKET, UH, IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS WANT TO JUST FURTHER REVIEW BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY TAKE AN ACTION ON IT.
NOTING THAT THE STATUTE DOES, UH, DIRECT THAT THE MATTER BE DONE WITHIN 60 DAYS.
CAN WE JUST TAKE IT DOWN? YOU WANT TO SCHEDULE THIS, BUT NEXT MONTH WE CAN REVIEW THAT.
CAN THE CHIEF COME UP THE FIRE CHIEF? YES, SIR.
IS THIS A MATTER THAT YOU CAN INVESTIGATE AND BRING BEST INFORMATION BACK IN 30 DAYS, MR. WILLIAMS, THIS IS THE FIRST I'VE HEARD OF ANY OF THIS AS THIS MORNING.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS INVESTIGATION, NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT IS IN THIS PACK, BUT OKAY.
OH, AT THIS POINT, WHY DON'T WE JUST TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT? WHAT AM I VISITED DEALING WITH? THE BATON IS FIRE DEPARTMENT.
WE WILL DEFINITELY LOOK INTO IT, BUT AGAIN, THIS WAS JUST BROUGHT OUT THIS MORNING AND IT'S PUBLIC.
MAYBE I THINK THAT'S A, THAT'S A FAIR POINT.
SO WHAT COULD BE DONE TO, UH, MR. SMITH'S POINT IS WE TAKE UNDER ADVISEMENT AND MR. ROBINSON'S POINT TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING, UH, THAT WILL GIVE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TIME TO REVIEW THE PACKET.
AND IF THEY HAVE A RESPONSE, UH, WE CAN DEAL WITH IT AT THAT POINT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT, UH, THERE IS JUST CAUSE, UH, IT WILL BE SOMEWHAT HAMSTRUNG FOR TOM, BUT WE CAN GET WE'LL GET IT DONE IF WE NEED TO.
THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.
SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION? ARE WE GOING TO TABLE IT TO NEXT MONTH? YES.
BUT YES, I MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS MATTER TILL NEXT MONTH'S MEETING BOOK, WHAT KIND OF DO YOU THINK THIS IS A MATTER OF WE CAN TAKE THEM NEXT MONTH? WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACTUALLY INVESTIGATE IT AT THE MEETING.
WE'LL JUST MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE AN INVESTIGATOR.
THE NEXT MONTH IS PRETTY PACKED.
IT HAS TO, TO A POLICE APPEALS AND I'VE HEARD THOSE CAN BE QUITE LENGTHY.
I MEAN, IT'LL, IT'LL BE A BUSY DAY.
WE DO HAVE A MONDAY INTO TUESDAY SCHEDULED NEXT WEEK, BUT THE NEXT MONTH W WHAT ABOUT THE FOLLOWING? THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THEN IT STARTS TO PUT US OUTSIDE AT 16.
WE'LL HAVE TO PUT IT ON THE, FOR THE NEXT ONE.
SO AGAIN, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SO SHE WOULD JUST WILLIAMS JUST MAKE SURE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL INVEST IN, LOOK INTO THIS, OR DURING THE UNITED ASKING, WE'RE NOT ASKING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO INVESTIGATE IT, BUT CERTAINLY IF THEY HAVE A RESPONSE TO MR. GOUDY'S PACKET, I MEAN, MR. GALLAGHER, MR. GALLERIES, GOOD ENOUGH TO GIVE US THE PACKET BEFOREHAND, TO LOOK INTO IT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THEM RECEIVING? IT'S A PUBLIC DOCUMENT NOW.
SO WE'LL REVIEW THE FINDINGS OF NEXT MONTH.
IT'LL BE ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MONTH HERE.
WELL, IT'S A MOTION MADE WHEN HE VOTED ON IT YET, CORRECT? WHAT'S THE MOTION TO ADD THIS TO THE NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA TO 23RD.
WELL, THE FIRST AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ARE WE ADDING IT TO THE MAY 23RD ON MAY 24TH AGENDA THE 23RD, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THE TWO DAYS YOU THINK ONE IS, WELL, WE HAVE SOMETHING MY WAY WOULD COME ALOE ON THAT DAY.
THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE CAN MELLOW APPEAR APPEAL.
IF WE GET THAT FAR, I KNOW WE HAVE THE DISPOSITIONS TODAY IS GOING TO TAKE TWO DAYS BASED ON WHAT THE ATTORNEYS ARE TELLING ME.
CAUSE IT IS THREE SEPARATE MATTERS, BUT I GUESS IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHICH DAY YOU PUT IT ON.
OKAY, WELL WE'LL, WE'LL KEEP IT ON THE 23RD.
SO WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
WE HAVE A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR.
[00:25:01]
ALL RIGHT.[8. Request for Appeal Hearing]
ITEM NUMBER, UH, EIGHT, EIGHT, WE RECEIVED A POTENTIAL OF PETITION FOR APPEAL FROM EMPLOYEE TROY LAWRENCE.UM, THE DISCIPLINE IS A 20, 25 DAY SUSPENSION.
MS. PENNY, CAN YOU, UH, CONFIRM THE PATIENT PETITION WAS RECEIVED TIMELY? YES, SIR.
IT WAS, I HAVE A DATE STAMP IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IT.
DO YOU WANT TO READ IT INTO THE RECORD? YES.
BE GLAD TO PETITION OF APPEAL.
THE PETITION OF OFFICER TROY LAWRENCE JR.
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE FOLLOWING TO WIT UH, HE RESPECT, HE SUBMITTED HIS PETITION OF APPEAL VIA HIS ATTORNEY.
WE RECEIVED IT APRIL 1ST, 2022 IN A TIMELY MANNER.
MR. DARR DOES A PETITION GIVE YOU A BASIS FOR THE APPEAL? YEAH, I'VE REVIEWED THE PETITION AND IT DOES STATE THE BASIS FOR APPEAL.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT APPEAL.
THOSE WHO OPPOSED HAVE THE RIGHT SAME RIGHT.
LET'S TALK, SCHEDULING THINGS.
ANDREW, WHEN YOU HAVE A DATE IN MIND THAT YOU LIKE THIS TERM, EVERYBODY CAN TURN TO THEIR CALENDAR OR YOUR BINDER.
WHEN'S THE NEXT AVAILABLE? IT LOOKS LIKE OCTOBER.
I GUESS THE ATTORNEYS LOOKING FOR THAT'S OCTOBER 21ST.
THIS, THIS, UH, APPEAL HERE IS FOR CHARLIZE SENIOR OR JUNIOR JUNIOR.
MOVING ON TO HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIONS.
[9. Motion for Summary Disposition]
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, MR. CAMARILLO.GENTLEMEN, I THINK THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON MR. CAMILA.
UM, I GUESS WE'LL TAKE THEM UP ONE AT A TIME.
UH, THE CHAIRMAN TOLD ME TO ASK YOU GUYS TO LIMIT THE ARGUMENT TO 20 MINUTES PER SIDE.
UH, SO WE'LL, I GOT ONE BETTER FOR YOU.
HOW ABOUT I, UH, UH, I'M GONNA MOVE TO CONTINUE THAT TILL NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA.
OBVIOUSLY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT HERE.
UM, I'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT HE HAD, HE'S UNABLE TO BE SWORN IN BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL IN THE MIDST OF DOING A BACKGROUND FAG BAIN, THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT INVOLVES A POLICE EMPLOYEE WITH ISSUES THAT ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO POLICE EMPLOYEES.
I THINK THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE SHOULD BE HERE TO HELP THE, UM, PRESIDE OVER, UM, THESE MOTIONS OPPOSITION.
FROM THE OTHER SIDE, WE HAVE A QUORUM HERE.
UM, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE COULDN'T MOVE ON AND HAVE A HEARING.
YOU HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT HERE, THE MOTIONS AND IT'S SCHEDULED FOR TODAY.
NEXT MONTH WE HAVE THE HEARING ON THE MERITS SCHEDULED.
SO I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WOULD NOT WANT TO HAVE THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION HEARD ON THE SAME DAY AS THE MERITS, BECAUSE THAT WOULD MEAN THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GET READY FOR A MERITS HEARING, UH, IN THE EVENT THAT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION WASN'T GRANTED.
SO, AND I WOULD ASK THAT THE MERITS HEARING BE PUSHED OFF.
I WANT THIS NEXT MONTH, AND THEN WE CAN PUSH OFF THAT MARRIAGE HEARING.
WELL, SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE STATEMENT.
WE DO HAVE A NEW APPOINTMENT, UH, W WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS.
WE, AS OF AUGUST OF LAST YEAR, WE HAVE A NEW PROCESS, UH, TO WHERE WE HAVE, THEY HAVE TO VET THE NEW MEMBER.
AND, UH, THAT REQUIRES, UH, A BACKGROUND CHECK, WHICH TAKES ON IT.
BUT WE DO HAVE A MEMBER WHO IS HERE, WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE, UH, UP UNTIL THE POINT THAT THE BOARD HAS REPLACED WHEN THEY DECIDED NOT TO BE HERE.
SO THAT OPTION WAS AVAILABLE, BUT THEY DECIDED NOT TO TAKE IT.
AND THEN WE SAY WHAT THE, UM, IT RESULTS TO A MISSING MEMBER.
THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT IT IS AND WHETHER THE MEMBER WAS A FIRE AND POLICE, I DO UNDERSTAND THE MAIN TO YOUR POINT,
[00:30:01]
BUT THEY DID HAVE THE OPTION TO BE HERE.WELL, THAT MEMBER THAT WAS HERE THAT WAS VOTED OFF WELL, STEPPED DOWN.
HE STEPPED DOWN, HE WAS ON AND WE HAVE A NEW MEMBER WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED.
AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE ONLY REASON WHY HIS BACKGROUND CHECK IS NOT COMPLETED BECAUSE HIS PAPERWORK WAS SUBMITTED LATE TO THE BOARD.
SO THE THIRD, THE BACKGROUND CHECK, IT COULDN'T EVEN START UNTIL AFTER THE PAPERWORK DONE.
SO, BUT LET ME JUST GO BACK AND CORRECT YOU, THE BOARD MEMBER RESIGNED AS BOARD CHAIR, BUT HE DID NOT RESIGN FROM THE BOARD UNTIL HIS REPLACEMENT WAS INSTALLED.
THAT WAS, IT WAS NOT RESIGNING FROM THE BOARD.
IT WAS RESIGNING FROM THE BOARD CHAIR.
AND THEN WHEN, WHEN THE PERSON WAS INSTALLED, HE WOULD RETURN.
AND IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT HE W HE DID NOT KNOW.
I MEAN, IT WAS ALL ASSUMED BECAUSE THE NEW REPRESENTATIVE WAS ELECTED OVER A MONTH AGO.
AND SO THE OLD BOARD MEMBER ASSUMED THAT THE NEW BOARD MEMBER WOULD BE SWORN IN TODAY AND BE ABLE TO RESIDE.
THIS IS JUST ALL, THIS IS ALL NEW, AND IT'S NO FAULT OF EITHER THE POLICE EMPLOYEES, UM, OR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S REPRESENTATIVE ON THIS BOARD.
I MEAN, IT'S ONLY FAIR TO HAVE THAT PERSON HERE TO HAVE THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HERE TO PRESIDE OVER THIS HAS BEEN PENDING FOR QUITE A WHILE.
SO WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES ANOTHER MONTH MAKE ANYWAY, TH THE DIFFERENCE OF ANOTHER MONTH, IF WE'RE, WE'RE ALREADY, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A, TO, UH, KIND OF SATISFY THE BACKLOG THAT WE HAVE, WHERE EVEN GOING TO TWO DAYS A MONTH, INSTEAD OF ONE, THAT INDICATES THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, W WE HAVE A BACKLOG.
SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS TO PROCEED, UM, TO CLEAR THIS, OUR DOCKET, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AND THIS FURTHER, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, KIND OF CLOUDS OUR ABILITY TO DO THAT, THAT'S MY PROBLEM WITH IT.
AND, BUT, BUT I DO SEE THAT WE DID HAVE A RELIEF AS IT WAS MADE KNOWN TO THE, THE NEW POLICE PERSON THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO, UH, ATTEND OR PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING THAT GAVE RISE TO THEM, HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH THE PERSON THAT WAS STILL IN PLACE TO BE ABLE TO DO IT.
I JUST THINK THAT THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SATISFY THAT AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM YOU? I MEAN, WE CAN MAKE IT AS A MOTION FROM THE BOARD AS TO WHETHER WE PROCEED OR NOT.
I WOULD MOVE THAT WE PROCEED TODAY.
ALL RIGHT, GENTLEMEN, REMEMBER 20 MINUTES PER SIDE ON EACH MOTION.
SO DO WE WANT TO TAKE UP, UH, ONE MOTION AT A TIME? ME ARGUE HE USES OUR APPLY, FINISH WITH THAT, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT.
UM, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ADDRESS JUST THE ONE DEALING WITH THE ONE MATTER? UM, FIRST? OKAY, WELL, I'LL DO THAT.
UM, SO ON BEHALF OF, UM, SERGEANT CAMELO, I HAD FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION CONCERNING INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE NUMBER 0 1 3 DASH TWO ONE.
UM, DOES EVERYONE HAVE THAT MOTION AND MEMO? UM, THE TITLE SHOULD BE IN RAY SERGEANT, KENNETH CAMELO FILE NUMBER 0 1 3 DASH TWO ONE LAURA AND STUFF.
WELL, HE'S GOING TO GIVE IT TO US ANYWAY.
YOU GUYS LISTEN TO WHAT HE IS TODAY.
SO THE GIST OF THIS MOTION IS THAT I'M DEALING WITH A POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS, UM, THAT THE STATUTE TAUGHT A 40, UM, TOUCHING 25 31 REQUIRES AN INVESTIGATION TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN A 60 DAY PERIOD.
AT THE TIME THAT THIS THAT THIS INVESTIGATION OCCURRED IS NOW BEEN AMENDED TO MAKE IT 75 DAYS.
AND THERE'S BEEN SOME OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE STATUTE, WHICH ARE
[00:35:01]
ALSO CRITICAL OR KEY TO MY ARGUMENT TODAY.THE, BUT AT THE TIME IT WAS A 60 DAY TIME LIMIT.
AND IN THE STATUTE, THEY DEFINE WHAT THE TERMINATION OR THE END OF THE INVESTIGATION IS.
AND IT SAYS UPON NOTICE TO THE, TO THE POLICE EMPLOYEE, THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR A PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, UM, IN THIS INSTANCE, WHAT THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED TO SHOW THAT THEY COMPLETED, THE INVESTIGATION WAS A LETTER THAT IS NOT SIGNED BY SERGEANT CAMELO.
SO THEY, THAT LETTER DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE DATE THAT THIS INVESTIGATION TERMINATED.
UM, HOWEVER, SERGEANT CAMELO I'VE SUBMITTED A, UM, AN AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF HIM SAYING, LOOK, I WAS, UM, I WAS OUT, I WASN'T AT WORK.
UM, AND I GOT IT LATER ON IN THE WEEK OF MARCH 16, BUT IT WAS, IT WAS AFTER THEIR DEADLINE.
IN THIS CASE, THE DEADLINE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE, UM, ON MARCH 14 AND SERGEANT CAMPBELL, WHO SAYS IT WAS AFTER THE 16TH, WHENEVER HE RECEIVED THE, UM, THAT PRE-DISCIPLINARY LETTER.
UM, SO WHAT TRADITIONALLY, AND THIS IS GOING BACK TO POLICE EMPLOYEE WAS HERE.
HE COULD TELL YOU THE TRADITION HAS BEEN FOREVER, OR AT LEAST AS FAR BACK AS I CAN REMEMBER, THEY CALL THE EMPLOYEE IN A COM.
WE HAVE A PRE-DISCIPLINARY LETTER SETTING THIS FOR HEARING FOR YOU, COME IN AND SIGN THE LETTER.
AND Y'ALL PRESIDED OVER THESE.
THERE'S ALWAYS A SIGNATURE LINE FOR THE OFFICER TO SIGN OFF ON.
WELL, WHEN IN THE INSTANCES WHERE THAT HAS FAILED, WHERE THEY, FOR SOME REASON DIDN'T GET THE EMPLOYEE SIGNATURE, THEY WOULD SEND IT VIA EMAIL WITH A RETURN RECEIPT REQUEST SO THAT IF THE OFFICER OPENED UP THE EMAIL AND VIEWED IT, THEN THEY WOULD GET A RECEIPT SHOWING, OKAY.
UM, IN FACT, YOU KNOW, SERGEANT KEMBLA DIDN'T GET IT TILL HE CAME BACK AT WORK.
I WANT TO SAY THAT THE DEADLINE WAS ON A MONDAY.
HE DOESN'T COME BACK TO WORK TILL TUESDAY, AND HE DIDN'T EVEN GET HIS LETTER UNTIL FRIDAY OF THAT WEEK.
SO SEVERAL DAYS AFTER THEIR 60 DAY DEADLINE, UM, THE SO, AND HE STATES I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT.
I DIDN'T GET NOTICED HE WAS OFF.
UM, HE WAS NOT WORKING AT THAT POINT IN TIME FOR, WELL, IF YOU'RE SAYING WITHIN THE 60 DAYS, HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT, CORRECT.
HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT A DISCIPLINARY THAT PRETEST PLENARY NOTICE HAD BEEN DRAFTED.
HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT HIS HEARING WAS SAID, UH, HE FINDS OUT ABOUT IT AFTER IT COMES BACK TO WORK.
BUT WHEN HE COMES BACK TO WORK, IT'S AFTER THE 60 DAY DEADLINE.
AS THE, THE DOCUMENTS THAT I ATTACHED SHOW THAT THEY, THEY HAVE THEIR DEADLINE AS MARCH 14, EXCUSE ME.
AS MARCH 14, HE DIDN'T COME BACK TO WORK, I BELIEVE UNTIL THE 16TH AND KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IT.
AND ON THAT DAY, HE CALLED THE, UM, INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATOR WHO SAID, OH, I GOT THIS LETTER FOR YOU.
I'LL JUST GET IT TO YOU SOMETIME THIS WEEK.
AND HE DID, HE WENT AND GOT IT LATER ON IN THE WEEK.
BUT ONCE AGAIN, THE 60 DAYS HAS ALREADY PASSED.
UM, YOU KNOW, SO, AND HE WAS NOT AT WORK, SO THERE WAS NO WAY THEY DIDN'T GET IT TO HIM.
NOW, WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS HOW WILL WE EMAILED IT TO HIM? WELL, THAT DOESN'T SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE ACTUALLY RECEIVED IT.
UM, JUST BECAUSE THEY SENT IT.
NOW, THERE'S TURN TO THE EMAIL, THE SPECIFIC EMAIL THAT GENERATES A RECEIPT.
I'M SORRY, YOU, YOU SAID THAT THEY ARE ONE WAY OF NOTIFYING THEM WAS AN EMAIL AND IT SHOWS THAT HE OPENED IT, WHICH WAS NO, THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST, IN OTHER CASES, RIGHT? WHENEVER THEY WERE UNABLE TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE OFFICER, THEY WOULD SEND IT THE NOTICE VIA EMAIL WITH A RETURN RECEIPT.
SO IF THE OFFICER OPENED UP THE EMAIL, THEY AT LEAST KNOW THAT, OKAY, HE GOT IT.
WE HAVE A RETURN RECEIPT SENT TO US VIA THE, UM, WHETHER IT BE YAHOO, WHATEVER IS THAT ACCEPTABLE AS A, WELL, THAT COULD BE ARGUMENT ARGUED, ARGUED AS WELL.
BUT THE THING IS WE DON'T HAVE A, IS THAT ACCEPTABLE IN LAW IS SAYING THAT 60 DAYS WHEN THEIR NOTICE OF PREVIOUS BONAIRE HEARING IS ACCEPTABLE TO DELIVER IT BY EMAIL, OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE HANDLED LIVERED AND SIGNED FOR, ARE BROUGHT INTO THE OFFICE? WELL, AND RIGHT.
SO AT THE TIME BEFORE THEY AMENDMENT TO THE STATUTE, IT WAS UPON NOTICE AND IT COULD BE IN WRITING ORALLY OR IN WRITING.
UM, SO I WOULD THINK THAT AN EMAIL WOULD SUFFICE IF THE PERSON RECEIVED IT AND THERE'S PROOF THAT HE RECEIVED IT, BUT LET'S THINK OF IT LIKE THIS.
[00:40:02]
UM, YOU'RE AT WORK FRIDAY ROLLS AROUND AND YOU LEAVE THAT YOU LEAVE TWO O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON.ONE OF YOUR COLLEAGUES COMES AND PUTS A NOTICE ON YOUR DESK AFTER YOU LEFT.
WELL, I'LL PUT IT ON HIS DESK.
HE GOT NOTICED, BUT YOU DON'T COME BACK TO WORK FOR ANOTHER WEEK.
DID YOU GET IT? DID YOU ACTUALLY GET IT RIGHT? SO, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
UM, I KNOW THAT SERGEANT HILL MADE ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT HIM, BUT, UH, SERGEANT CAMPBELL WAS UNABLE TO BE REACHED WASN'T AROUND.
I THINK HE WAS OUT OF TOWN AND WAS UNABLE TO COME IN AND GET THIS LETTER.
UM, BUT ONCE AGAIN, THEY HAD 60 DAYS TO GET IT TO THEM.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT YOU WAIT UNTIL DAY 59, THAT'S NOT ON HIM OR 60.
THAT'S WHAT THAT SAYS THE STATE OF THE LAW.
SO WHAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ARGUED IS THAT, WELL, IT DOESN'T SPECIFY WHAT UPON NOTICE MEANS.
SO WE'RE GOOD ONCE AGAIN, HOW DO WE KNOW THERE'S NO PROOF THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY DELIVERED? THERE'S NO PROOF THAT HE ACTUALLY GOT IT.
IN FACT, HE SAYS HE DIDN'T THAT HE DIDN'T GET THAT LETTER.
THEREFORE HE DID NOT GET NOTICED.
THEY JUST HAD THIS LAW, UM, AMENDED LAST YEAR.
AND THEY WROTE THAT IN THERE THAT, OKAY, WELL NOW YOU CAN SEND AN EMAIL TO THE OFFICER AND THE FACT THAT WE, THE DEPARTMENT SENT IT TO HIS DEPARTMENTAL EMAIL ADDRESS AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS SENT, AND THEY CAN PROVE THAT IT WAS SENT.
THEN NOW THAT'S CONSIDERED NOTICE, BUT THAT WAS NOT THE WALL WHEN THIS HAPPENED.
UM, AND IN FACT, THAT SHOULD SHOW YOU WHAT THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT WAS, BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN THERE BEFORE THAT WASN'T THE LAW BEFORE THEY FELT THE NEED TO GO BACK AND PUT THIS IN THE LAW, BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT THE STATE OF THE LAW AT THE TIME THIS WENT DOWN.
SO, UM, THEY, THEY CANNOT, THEY CANNOT PROVE THAT THEY COMPLETED THEIR INVESTIGATION WITHIN THE 60 DAY TIME PERIOD, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOTTA BE NOTICE OF THIS, THIS, THIS NOTICE, BUT DELIVERY OF THE NOTICE TO HIM AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, BUT THEY'VE GONE TO HIS RESIDENCE AND DROPPED IT OFF.
COULD THEY HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY HE TRIED CALLING THEM AND THEN THEY SENT THIS EMAIL, BUT THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
AND THAT DOESN'T DO THE TRICK.
SO THIS UPON NOTICE, THE WAY THE STATUTE WAS WRITTEN, THAT WAS IN PLAY UNTIL AUGUST 1ST OF LAST YEAR.
UM, THEY PUT THAT UPON NOTICE IN THAT LANGUAGE, THE 60 DAY TIMELINE THAT WAS DONE IN 2007.
WELL, THAT'S AT A TIME EVERYBODY HAD EMAIL ADDRESSES.
SO IF THEY WANTED, IF THEY INTENDED FOR YOU TO SEND THEM AN EMAIL, UM, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THEY WOULD HAVE WRITTEN IN LAW AT THAT TIME, BUT THEY WAIT UNTIL 2021 TO ENACT THAT INTO THE STATUTE.
SO THAT WAS NOT THE LAW AT THE TIME.
THEY'RE JUST SENDING AN AML, DOESN'T FIGURE UP WHAT, UM, WHAT HAS OCCURRED HERE.
SO THE FIRST CONTACT WITH, UH, SERGEANT CAMPBELL WAS THE FRIDAY AFTER SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE 60 DAY DEADLINE, IS THAT CORRECT? UM, HE COMES BACK TO WORK ON A TUESDAY.
THE DEADLINE WAS A DAY OR TWO PRO WAS ON THE SUNDAY.
SO THEY HAND DELIVER IT TO HER FRIDAY.
SO SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE DEADLINE WAS ON THE PRIVATE, THE DEADLINE WAS ON THE SUNDAY, BEFORE HE CAME BACK TO WORK.
HE COMES BACK TO WORK ON TUESDAY IS TOLD THAT, HEY, WE GOT THIS LETTER FOR YOU.
AND THEN HE IT'S GIVEN TO HIM SEVERAL DAYS LATER ON FRIDAY.
AND THAT'S AN EMAIL, AN EMAIL RECEIPT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT HE WAS INFORMED OF A WELL, THERE'S NO PROOF THAT WE PERCEIVE.
UM, THEY ONLY HAVE, THEY'VE ONLY SHOWN THAT, OKAY.
BUT THEY SAY THEY SENT IT, BUT HE SAYS, I DIDN'T GET IT.
I MEAN, I DIDN'T GET IT BEFORE I RETURNED TO WORK.
AND THEN I FOUND OUT ABOUT IT.
IT DON'T MATTER BECAUSE AT THE TIME, LIKE YOU ALREADY, YOU JUST, NOW IT WASN'T ACCEPTABLE IN 2007 WHEN THEY PASSED THAT STATUTE.
IT WASN'T UNTIL AUGUST OF 21 THAT IT BECAME ACCEPTABLE TO SEND AN RECEIVED FOR DISCIPLINARY HERE.
AND NOW THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS THE WAY THE LAW IS.
THE FACT THAT THEY SEND IT TO HIS DEPARTMENTAL ISSUED ADDRESS, THAT SUFFICES HAS NOTICE WHETHER HE RECEIVED IT OR NOT NOW JUST THE ACT OF SENDING IT, SUFFICE IT TO NOTICE.
BUT THAT WAS NOT THE CASE WHEN THIS HAPPENED, WHICH WAS SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE.
SO WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY GIVE YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR INVESTIGATION, THAT STARTS THE 60 DAY PERIOD.
[00:45:01]
NO.UM, IT STARTS WHEN IT'S GIVEN OVER TO, WELL, USUALLY IT STARTS WHEN IT'S GIVEN OVER TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS TO INITIATE THE INVESTIGATION, BUT THERE COULD BE INSTANCES WHERE THE WAY THE LAW IS THE WAY THE LAW IS INTERPRETED IS WHENEVER AN INVESTIGATION BEGINS, WHENEVER THE EFFORTS OF SOMEONE WHO'S IN AUTHORITY THAT CAN CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATION AGAIN.
SO I'VE SEEN CASES WHERE, YOU KNOW, A SUPERVISOR MIGHT'VE STARTED LOOKING INTO SOME ACTIVITY ON BEHALF AND THEN REALIZE, OH, THERE'S SOMETHING HERE AND THEN TURNS IT OVER TO IAA.
BUT UNDER THE LAW, YOU KNOW, IT'S WHENEVER THE SUPERVISOR OR SOMEONE WHO'S IN A POSITION TO ACTUALLY ENFORCE DISCIPLINE BEGINS LOOKING INTO THE MATTER.
SO WHAT WAS THE CASE ON THIS, THIS PARTICULAR, IT WAS GIVEN OVER IT TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS.
A, UM, IT WAS GIVEN TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 20, 21 AND 60 DAYS WOULD HAVE BEEN ON.
AND THEY HAVE THEIR 60 DAY DEADLINE AS MARCH 14, SUNDAY, MARCH 14.
AND THEY HAND DELIVERED IT TO HIM, WHICH WAS THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE FORM OF RECEIPT.
WELL, HE HADN'T RECEIVED IT PRIOR TO JANUARY TO MARCH 14.
IN FACT, IN MARCH 16, HADN'T ACTUALLY GOTTEN IT YET.
IT WAS WHEN IT WAS, HE WENT AND SIGNED FOR IT.
WELL, OBVIOUSLY HE DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T, UH, IT WAS JUST GIVEN TO THEM AND YOU CAN SAY THERE'S NO SIGNATURE, NO DATE.
LIKE THEY NORMALLY HAVE, UM, THAT HE, HE WENT AND GOT IT.
I GUESS THAT WOULD BE LIKE ON THE 19TH.
MY QUESTION WAS, WHEN YOU MADE NOTICE TO THE REVISION MADE PRIOR TO 2007, YOU SAID NOTICE, UH, AND YOU SAID, NOTICE IS NOT CONSIDERED.
EMAIL IS NOT CONSIDERED NOTICE.
IS THAT YOUR INTERPRETATION OR IS THAT THE EMAIL IS NOT NOTICE? THAT'S JUST A QUESTION THAT I HAVE, IT'S NOT SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE.
HOWEVER, CASE LAW IS WHEN THE LEGISLATURE CHANGES A STATUTE, CHANGE THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, THEY MEANT TO CHANGE THE LAW.
AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
THEY CHANGED THE STATUTE TO ADD IN THE SENT EMAIL BEING NOTICED.
NOW THAT WASN'T THE LAW BEFORE.
SO THE LACK OF IT, YOU KNOW, THE BACK THAT IT WASN'T ENOUGH LAW BETWEEN 2007 AND 2021, THEN NO, THAT'S NOT JUST THE FACT THAT YOU SENT IT NOW.
WOULD I AGREE WITH YOU IF IT'S EMAILED TO THEM, AND THEN THERE'S A RECEIPT, A RECEIPT WHERE SHOWING THAT THE OFFICER ACTUALLY OPENED UP THE EMAIL, THAT'S IT? EVEN THOUGH IT'S ARGUMENT ABOUT, WOULD SAY, YEAH, THAT'S NOTICE THAT I ACTUALLY RECEIVED IT, THAT HE ACTUALLY GOT THE NOTICE, BUT HERE, ALL WE HAVE IS THEIR EFFORT TO GET NOTICE, BUT NO NOTICE THEIR EFFORT TO GIVE THE NOTICE, BUT WITHOUT THERE BEING ACTUAL PROOF THAT NOTICE WAS GIVEN.
AND WHAT IS, WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY ABOUT THE DISLIKE OF COMPLETING THE INVESTIGATION WITHIN THE 60 DAY PERIOD? IT'S AN ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE, RIGHT? ANY VIOLATION OF THE POLICE OFFICER, BILL OF RIGHTS IS AN ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE.
SO WITH THAT, I MOVED THAT WE BOTH, WE HAVE TO HEAR THAT WE GOT THERE, WE GOT TO, I LIKE WHERE YOU'RE AT, BUT YEAH, WE HAVE TWO, THERE'S ALWAYS THREE SIDES TO EVERY STORY.
YO IS MINE AND THE RIGHT ONE MORNING MORNING, JIM RAINS ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT.
UM, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT HERE TO ACTUALLY LOOK WHAT THE LAW SAYS, BECAUSE WHAT YOU JUST HEARD WAS AN INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW, BUT IT'S AN INTERPRETATION THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE LAW.
WHAT DO YOU CALL IN TWENTY FIVE THIRTY ONE, B SEVEN.
I'M JUST GOING TO GO TO THE IMPORTANT PART HERE IN THE INVESTIGATION SHALL BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE UPON NOTICE TO THE POLICE EMPLOYEE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER UNDER INVESTIGATION OF A PREDISPOSED HEARING, OR A DETERMINATION OF AN UNFOUNDED OR UNSUSTAINED COMPLAINTS.
UM, YOU WERE AT, OR THAT YOU ASKED ABOUT WHETHER THE OFFICER WAS AWARE OF THE CASE.
WELL, YEAH, HE WAS AWARE OF IT OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE HE, UH, GETS NOTIFIED THAT THERE'S A CASE OPENED AGAINST HIM.
HE PARTICIPATES IN AN INTERVIEW.
HE CAN RECEIVE THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE, WHICH HAS THE DEADLINE ON IT AT THE TIME.
UM, THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT WROTE MARCH 14 AS THEIR DEADLINE.
OFTEN THEY'LL PUT IT A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THE ACTUAL DEADLINE SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE SURE THEY GET IT DONE ON TIME.
UM, UNDER OUR CODE OF PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 50 59 A, UH, YOU DON'T
[00:50:01]
COUNT THE INITIAL DAY AS PART OF YOUR COUNTING.AND SO THE DEADLINE WOULD HAVE BEEN MARCH 15TH.
NOW WHAT I DETAIL IN MY BRIEF AND WHAT SERGEANT KAMALA DOES NOT TALK ABOUT IS THE ATTEMPTS OF THE CASE AGENT ON THIS MATTER TO CONTACT SERGEANT CAMELO.
AND THAT WAS KYLE HILL ON MARCH 12.
AND LET'S BACK UP A LITTLE BIT WHEN THEY'RE GIVEN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE.
LIKE I SAID, THE DEADLINE IS ON THERE.
WELL, THE WEDNESDAY BEFORE THE DEADLINE WAS APPROACHING, SERGEANT CAMPBELL TOOK OFF AND THEN HE TOOK OFF THE REST OF THE WEEK.
UM, INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATOR KYLE HILL, AND BEGAN ATTEMPTING TO CONTACT SERGEANT CAMELO AND MR. CARCERAL ON MARCH 12TH IN AN EFFORT TO SCHEDULE A TIME WHERE THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, UH, NOTICE TO BE DELIVERED TO HIM AS MR. CARL RIGHTLY NOTED, IT WAS THE PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT TO HAVE THE OFFICER COME IN AND SIGN OFF ON THEIR RECEIPT OF THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
NOTICE THAT IS THEIR PRACTICE.
I JUST READ YOU THE LAW THAT IS NOT IN THE LAW.
IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL COME UP THERE AND SIGN AND RECEIVE A NOTICE.
IT'S NOT PART CURRENT LAW, OR IS THAT THE LAW AT THE TIME THAT THE TIME LAW AT THE TIME, UH, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF THAT AT ALL.
IN ADDITION, THERE IS NO SPECIFICATION ON HOW THE NOTICE MUST BE DELIVERED TO THE OFFICER WHERE THEIR UPDATES TO THE LAW RECENTLY TO AVOID SOME OF THE GAMES.
SO NOW, UH, WHETHER THE, WHETHER THE OFFICER, WHAT WERE THE UPDATES TO, TO IT SPECIFIC, I DON'T HAVE THE UPDATED LAW IN FRONT OF ME, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS IS THE MANNER IN WHICH IT CAN BE DELIVERED.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS IN WHICH IT CAN BE DELIVERED TO THE OFFICER AND SPECIFICALLY SPELLS OUT DOES HE DOES THE OLD LAW, DIDN'T SAY THAT IT COULDN'T BE DONE THIS NEW LAW, JUST SPECIFIES MANNERS IN WHICH IT CAN BE DONE.
UH, THE NEW LAW ALSO EXTENDS THE TIMEFRAME FOR THE INVESTIGATION FROM 60 TO 75 DAYS.
THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE THE MAIN CHANGES ON MARCH 12 WAS THE INITIAL ATTEMPT OF, UM, KYLE HILL TO CONTACT BOTH SERGEANT
THOSE RECORDS ARE IN, UH, THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO OUR OPPOSITION BRIEF, UH, ON MARCH 12TH, 2021 AT 10 36.
HE SENT A TEXT TO SERGEANT CAMELO, HEY, SARGE, CALL ME WHEN YOU CAN.
UM, HE ALSO EMAILED SERGEANT CAMELO AT HIS OFFICIAL BRP D EMAIL ADDRESS ON MARCH 12 AND IN THAT'S ATTACHED.
AND HE HAD A COPY OF THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING NOTICE THAT WAS SENT TO HIM ON MARCH 12, ON MARCH 13, AFTER NOT RECEIVING A RESPONSE FROM SERGEANT CAMPBELL, HE CONTACTED MR. KERSHAW BY TEXT MESSAGE.
UM, AND THEN HE HAD TEXT MESSAGES WITH HIM ON MARCH 13 AND MARCH 15, UH, IN AN ATTEMPT TO REACH OUT TO MR. KERSHAW TO GIVE THEM NOTICE.
UM, HE DID NOT RECEIVE AN, UH, RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE BACK FROM MR. CARCERAL UNTIL MARCH 15 AT 7:16 AM.
AND HE TOLD THEM THAT HE'S OFF OF WORK AND POSSIBLY OUT OF TOWN.
SERGEANT CAMELO DID NOT RESPOND TO A CORPORAL HILL UNTIL MARCH 16TH.
THE DAY AFTER THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED AT 9 56, HE TEXTED, SORRY, I MISSED THIS.
I'VE BEEN OFF SINCE WEDNESDAY.
SO CORPORAL HILL ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT SERGEANT
UM, IT'S UNDISPUTED THAT NOTICE WAS DELIVERED TO HIM ON MARCH 12TH, 2021, BECAUSE THAT EMAIL IS ATTACHED TO THE INFORMATION THAT WE SENT YOU.
NOW, THE REPRESENTATION THAT IT WAS NOT RECEIVED EVER, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S HOW I HEARD THAT.
I'LL JUST MAKE THAT CLEAR ENOUGH.
BUT WE, WE ATTACHED TO OUR BRIEF, THE RESPONSE OR THE NOTIFICATION WHEN SERGEANT CAMELO READ THAT EMAIL AGAIN, IT WASN'T UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 16TH.
AND THEN HE RESPONDED IN TO THAT EMAIL ON MARCH 17.
I SENT YOU A TEXT YESTERDAY, BUT DIDN'T HEAR BACK FROM YOU, JUST ALL AWARE I NEEDED TO RESPOND TO THE EMAIL AS WELL.
SO HE STARTED, KAMOW RECEIVED THAT EMAIL ON THE 16TH, RESPONDED TO IT ON THE 17TH.
THE STATUTE DOESN'T SAY THAT DELIVERY OR NOTICE IS WHEN THE OFFICER DECIDES TO OPEN THE EMAIL OR TO RESPOND TO THE DEPARTMENT.
OTHERWISE YOU COULD HAVE OFFICERS PLAYING
[00:55:01]
GAMES, RIGHT? THEY COULD TAKE OFF THE LAST WEEK.WE CAN'T FIND THEM AND YOU CAN'T GET NOTIFICATION TO THEM.
THAT'S NOT THE INTENT OF THE STATUTE.
THE STATUTE STATUTE JUST WANTS US TO NOTICE THEM THAT WAS DONE IN THIS CASE.
AND IN FACT, EXTENTS EXTENT, EXTENSIVE EFFORTS WERE TAKEN BY A CORPORAL HILL AT THE TIME TO GET THAT NOTIFICATION TO BOTH SERGEANT CAMELO AND TO HIS ATTORNEY, THE FACT THAT THEY IGNORED THOSE EFFORTS AND DID NOT RESPOND TO THEM UNTIL AFTER THE 60 DAY DEADLINE SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED.
ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS NOTICE.
IS IT NOTICED THAT HE RECEIVED IT? DOES IT SAY THAT IN THE STATUTE, WHAT DOES IT SAY AGAIN, THE INVESTIGATION SHALL BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE UPON NOTICE TO THE POLICE EMPLOYEE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER UNDER INVESTIGATION OF A PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
SO HE ASKED TO BE NOTIFIED OF THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY, WHICH IS WHY HE RECEIVES THAT PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING NOTICE.
THAT'S WHAT WE CALL IT, BUT IT'S JUST THAT LETTER.
AND IT'S GOT A DATE FOR THE HEARING, AND THAT WAS WHAT WAS SENT TO HIM BACK ON THE 12TH.
NOW, DID HE COME IN AND SIGN LATER? YEAH, BUT THAT'S, HE WAS ALREADY AWARE OF IT PRIOR TO THAT TIME.
WELL, THE INTENT TO RE VIES THE STATUE TO INCLUDE EMAIL AND ALL THE OTHER FORMS OF, UH, DELIVERANCE STATE IS MEANING THAT IT WASN'T INCLUDED IN 2007 WHEN IT WAS ROLLED OR REVISED.
SO NOW THAT THEY'RE, THEY REVISED IT LAST AUGUST IN 2021 AFTER THIS, WHICH MIGHT'VE BEEN THE INTENT OF, UH, TO COME UP WITH THIS STATUE OR REVISE IT, BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY OF PROVING THAT YOU GOT AN EMAIL OR THAT THERE WAS, HE WAS SERVED HIS PAPERS FOR THE PRE DISCIPLINARY HERE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, UH, PICKING UP WORDS HERE, YOU KNOW, BUT, UH, AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE DO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT STATUTORY INTERPRETATION.
UM, JUST BECAUSE YOU MODIFY A STATUTE, DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE PRIOR STATUTE MEANT SOMETHING ELSE.
IT'S HARD TO LOOK BACK AND IN RETROSPECT AND SAY, WELL, BECAUSE THEY ADDED THESE OTHER DELIVERY METHODS, THOSE METHODS WERE EXCLUDED THE FIRST TIME STATUTES, THE WORDS THEMSELVES.
WE HAVE TO READ THEM AS THEY ARE.
AND SO THERE IS NO PRECLUSION OF USING EMAIL DELIVERY OR, UM, IN THE FIRST VERSION OF THE STATUTE, NOR DOES IT SAY THAT THE OFFICER, IF THE OFFICER DOES NOT RECEIVE IT AND CHOOSES NOT TO OPEN IT, THEN THE 60 DAY DEADLINE, IF IT EXPIRES, THEN THE CASE IS OVER WITH, I BELIEVE THEY REVISED IT TO KEEP ARGUMENTS LIKE THIS FROM KEEP GOING ON.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? DID THEY VERY WELL MAY HAVE BEEN DONE TO PREVENT THIS KIND OF THING IN THE FUTURE? YES.
AND TO MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE CLEAR, UM, I'M NOT A LEGISLATOR.
SO I CAN'T TELL YOU, BUT, UM, UH, BUT I AM INVOLVED IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION A LOT.
AND JUST LIKE KYLE IS, AND, UM, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE FENCE HERE.
I BELIEVE YOU DON'T REWARD, UH, SOMEBODY, AND, AND, AND IN THIS INSTANCE FROM IGNORING THE EMAILS, IGNORING THE TEXT MESSAGES, IGNORING THE CALLS, THE STATUTE SAYS WHAT IT SAYS.
IT SAYS UPON NOTICE TO THE POLICE EMPLOYEE.
HE GOT THAT NOTICE DAYS BEFORE THE 60 DAY DEADLINE, KYLE HILL'S EMAIL IS IN THE RECORD AND IT SHOWS THAT ON THE 12TH, SAY THAT ONE WEEK IT WAS EMAILED, IT, IT DIDN'T CALL HILL'S GUY MAIL.
DELIVERING THE NOTICE OF THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING IS IN, IS AN ATTACHMENT TO OUR OPPOSITION BRIEF, AND IT SHOWS IT WAS DONE ON THE 12TH.
AS A, AS A MEANTIME, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. KERSHAW, DID YOU RECEIVE THE TEXT MESSAGE ON THE 13TH WHEN THE PARTY? YES, SIR.
IF THAT'S WHAT'S IN THERE, AM I DON'T DISPUTE WHAT THEY PUT IN THEIR MEMO AS FAR AS TEXT MESSAGE ME, UH, AS A MATTER OF LEGAL, IS IT AS ARE RESPONDING TO A CIVIL OR A SOUP LIKE THAT IS RECEIPT OF ATTORNEY.
WILL THAT BE, OR NO, NO, NO, BUT THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO DUTY.
AND ON THAT QUESTION, HERE'S HOW TO RESPOND.
UM, PHOTOS, CIVIL PROCEDURE ARTICLE, UM, I'VE BEEN IN EVERY STATE, 1232 DEALS WITH SERVICE, A PROCESS.
SO THAT'S WHEN OUR, YOU, YOU S YOU SUE ME.
UM, TH THIS ARTICLE REQUIRES YOU TO EITHER PERSONALLY SERVE ME OR SERVE ME UPON SOMEONE AT MY DOMICILE, BECAUSE THEY ARE ASSUMING
[01:00:01]
FAMILY LIVES.THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THOSE THERE, MAYBE THE HUSBAND'S OFF AT WORK, OR, YOU KNOW, MY WIFE MIGHT BE AT HOME.
SHE CAN ACCEPT THAT YOUR LAWSUIT ON MY BEHALF.
THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THERE FOR THE ATTORNEY, BECAUSE THIS IS A NEW, I GUESS, A NEW CIVIL MATTER.
SO EVEN THOUGH I MIGHT'VE PARTICIPATED IN THE INTERVIEW PROCESS WITH DR.
CAMPBELL, CYPRESS ON ME DOES NOT SUFFICE.
UM, SO THE NOTICE IS, I MEAN, WHAT IS NOTICE AND WHAT IS IT? WELL, IT'S WHENEVER YOU ARE NOTIFIED OF SOMETHING.
BECAUSE I SEND SOMETHING INTO YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS.
IF I SAID SOMETHING TO YOU EARLIER THIS MORNING, AND YOU DIDN'T CHECK YOUR EMAILS YET, HAVE YOU BEEN NOTIFIED? YOU'RE NOTIFIED WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT.
NOW I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THE REQUIREMENT IS, CAUSE WE'RE GONNA HAVE A SERIOUS, UM, FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ISSUE.
IF SOMEONE WHO IS OFF OF WORK IS REQUIRED TO DO WORK AND NOT GET PAID FOR IT.
AND THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT THE CRUX OF THEIR ARGUMENT.
HE SHOULD'VE BEEN CHECKING HIS, HIS WORK EMAILS AND HE'S OFF OF WORK.
WHAT, WHERE'S THE, HEY, WHEN I GO ON VACATION, GUESS WHAT? I DON'T CHECK.
I DO NOT CHECK MY WORK EMAILS CAUSE I WANT TO BE AWAY FROM IT.
I DON'T GO ON VACATION SO I CAN DO WORK.
SO WHEN HE'S HIS THAT'S SACRED, TIME OFF IS SACRED AND IT SHOULD BE, I THINK EVERYBODY SHOULD, UM, IT FEELS THE SAME WAY ABOUT THAT.
AND SO THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR HIM TO CHECK HIS WORK EMAILS WHEN HE IS NOT WORKING.
UM, SO JUST ONCE AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE FACT THAT THEY, THEY MAY HAVE SENT THEM AN EMAIL, THAT'S NOT NOTICE TO HIM AND IT'LL GO BACK TO THAT EXAMPLE.
I GAVE YOU, YOU LEAVE WORK AT TWO O'CLOCK ON A FRIDAY.
SOMEBODY COMES IN AT THREE O'CLOCK DROP SOMETHING ON YOUR DESK.
HAVE YOU BEEN NOTIFIED? ARE YOU, ARE YOU ACTUALLY NOTIFIED WHEN YOU ACTUALLY COME BACK TO WORK AND SEE IT ON YOUR DESK? AND I MEAN, COME ON, LET'S BE TRUTHFUL ABOUT IT.
IF YOU'RE TRUTHFUL WITH YOURSELF, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO KNOW WHAT NOTICE IS WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU ACTUALLY ARE NOTIFIED, NOT JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE MADE EFFORTS TO NOTIFY YOU.
THAT'S NOT A VACATION NOTIFICATION IS WHEN IS WHEN YOU ARE ACTUALLY NOTIFIED.
UM, I WILL SAY THIS, YOU KNOW, HERE, AS FAR AS CHANGING THE LAW, WHEN THE LEGISLATURE CHANGES THE WORDING OF A STATUTE, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE, AND YOU WERE ASKING WHAT ALL CHANGES, THEY MADE NUMEROUS CHANGES TO THE STATUTE.
OKAY? BUT IT SAYS WHEN THE LEGISLATURE CHANGES THE WORDING OF A STATUTE, IT IS TOO, IT IS PRESUMED TO HAVE INTENDED A CHANGE IN THE LAW THAT IS, AND THAT'S SWAT 24 BOARD VERSUS BOND.
SO THAT IS A STATE OF THE LAW WHEN THEY CHANGE IT, THAT MEANS THEY INTENDED WELL, THEY CHANGED THE WORDING OF THE STATUTE.
THEY INTENDED TO CHANGE THE LAW, BUT THE FACT THAT THEY ADD THIS STUFF, YOU KNOW, THEY CHANGE UP SEVERAL THINGS.
FOR INSTANCE, UM, THEY REDUCED THE TIME PERIOD FOR A LAW, FOR AN OFFICER TO OBTAIN REPRESENTATION FROM 30 DAYS TO 14 DAYS, THEY, UM, INCREASED THE INVESTIGATION TIME FROM 60 DAYS, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE HERE TO 75 DAYS.
THEY, UM, AND THEY ADDED IN THERE THAT NOTICE CAN BE GIVEN ORALLY IN WRITING OR ELECTRONICALLY.
WHAT TONICALLY WAS IN EXISTENCE.
WHEN THEY WROTE THE STATUTE, YOU GOT TO FIGURE IT WASN'T INCLUDED IN 2007 BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE, THEY DIDN'T INTEND IT TO BE INCLUDED.
I HAD EMAIL BACK IN 2000 PROBABLY BEFORE THEN.
SO IT WASN'T THAT IT WASN'T AN EXISTENCE.
EVERYBODY WAS USING IT BACK THEN.
SO THE FACT THAT THEY LEFT IT OUT, SHOWS YOU WHAT THEIR INTENTION WAS THAT THAT'S NOT NOTICE.
UM, AND THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER CHANGE TO THE LAW AS WELL, DEALING WITH, UM, KEEPING SOMETHING ON FILE FOR 10 YEARS, BUT THEY MADE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE STATUTE AND THAT THOSE CHANGES EVIDENCE, THEIR INTENT TO CHANGE THE LAW.
AND LIKE I SAID, THE LAW WAS NOT, YOU CAN SEND IT ELECTRONICALLY THAT WASN'T WRITTEN IN THERE BEFORE.
UM, AND THE WAY B RPD HAD ALWAYS DONE THIS AS FAR BACK AS I CAN REMEMBER, HEY, COME ON IN AND GET YOUR NOTICE.
AND YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL DAY 59 OR 60 TO GET THEM IN, WELL, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ROLLING THE DICE THAT THAT PERSON MIGHT BE OFF OF WORK.
OR MAYBE YOU NEED TO CHECK AND SEE, MAKE SURE HE DIDN'T JUST TAKE OFF WORK.
HE WASN'T SCHEDULED TO WORK WELL, DID THIS? WELL, I THINK IT'S, IT'S KNOWN TO THIS POINT, BUT I THINK WE'D LIKE TO TAKE ALL THIS INFORMATION UNDER ADVISEMENT AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT MOST.
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE ON IT, GOING TO DO IT AFTER WE'RE GOING TO DO IT AFTER.
[01:05:01]
DON'T THINK WHAT'S CLEAR FROM WHAT MR. RAINS INSTEAD HE SAYS, WE RECEIVED THAT, THAT THIS DOCUMENTATION I ATTACHED WITH THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS FOLLOWING, I DON'T GET THAT UNTIL AFTER THEY SET IT FOR HEARING.SO ON MARCH 12 ON MARCH 16, WHATEVER DATE YOU WANT TO USE THERE, I DIDN'T THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS HOUSE.
SO I DIDN'T HAVE THE DATE THAT THE INVESTIGATION IS SUPPOSED TO BE COMPLETED.
THAT, THAT FORM THAT I ATTACHED HERE THAT COMES AFTER THE FACT AFTER I SAY, I NOTIFY THE CHIEF, HEY, I'M GOING TO BE REPRESENTING HIM AT THAT PREVIOUS SPLINTER HEARING.
AND YOU GET ME A COPY OF THE ENTIRE INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE, THEN MOVING ON TO, UH, FILED ANOTHER, UM, MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, UM, PERTAINING TO ALL THREE OF THE MATTERS.
AND IT REALLY HAS TO DO WITH DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS.
AND, UM, AND WHAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT, WHAT SERGEANT CAMPBELL WAS ACTUALLY NOTIFIED OF.
BUT BEFORE WE EVEN GET INTO THE MERITS OF THAT, WE GOT TO ADDRESS, UH, AN ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM BY THE DEPARTMENT.
SO WE WERE HERE ON AUGUST 23RD OF LAST YEAR, AND WE WERE SCHEDULED FOR HEARING, BUT THEN WHAT ENDED UP OCCURRING WAS Y'ALL HAD DISCUSSED THE VALIDITY OF THE ACTUAL DISCIPLINE, THE SUSPENSION DAYS THAT WERE OF PANTS THAT WERE HANDED DOWN TO SERGEANT CAMPBELL, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE AGGREGATE OF 200, IT WAS IN EXCESS OF THE 90 DAYS, WHAT'S THAT THERE WAS AN EXCESS OF THE 90 DAYS.
SO, UM, INSTEAD OF OVERTURNING THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN, YOU, YOU VOTED TO SEND IT BACK TO THE CHIEF FOR RECONSIDERATION.
UM, NOW WHAT I, I FILED A PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BASED ON AN ALLEGED, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD DIDN'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT IT DID.
AND MY, MY, UM, POSITION IS THE BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR A CASE AND YOU CAN SUSTAIN THE VIOLATION AND UPHOLD THE ACTUAL DISCIPLINE.
YOU CAN NOT SUSTAIN IT AND OVERTURN THE ENTIRE DISCIPLINE, OR YOU CAN AMEND THE DISCIPLINE.
YOU'VE GOT, YOU HAVE AUTHORITY TO DO THREE THINGS, BUT Y'ALL DID A FOURTH THING, WHICH IS, HEY, GO SEND IT BACK TO THE CHIEF TO RECONSIDER THE DISCIPLINE, UM, THAT HE, UM, HANDED DOWN AND GAVE HIM THAT.
SO I FILED A PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, VERY LIMITED TO THOSE ISSUES.
HEY, THE BOARD DIDN'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
NUMBER ONE AND TWO, YOU CAN'T DO A 200 AGGREGATE DAYS.
UM, YOU CAN'T DO IT LIKE THAT.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE UP ON APPEAL.
THE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR OPPOSITION SAY, WELL, ARTICLE 20, 88 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, TAZ THAT BECAUSE THIS AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, WE DON'T, THE BOARD DOESN'T HAVE JURISDICTION.
THEY'RE CALLED, WHAT'S CALLED DIVESTING OF JURISDICTION MEAN, AND NOW THE DISTRICT COURT HAS SOLE JURISDICTION.
Y'ALL, DON'T, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS NOW.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CODE ARTICLE SAYS AT ALL.
IN FACT, THEY, THEY LIST OUT SEVERAL THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THE COURT STILL HAS JURISDICTION OVER, BUT THEN THEY SAY THERE WAS CASE LAW THAT I CITED SAYING, WELL, THAT'S JUST THAT LIST IS MERELY ILLUSTRATIVE.
AS LONG AS THE, THE CRUX ISSUE IS, IS ISSUE THAT, UM, THE ISSUE BEING PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S ALSO UNDER REVIEW BY THE DISTRICT COURT WHEN THE ANSWER IS NO, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THAT, THAT IT'S VERY LIMITED.
WHAT'S BEING CONSIDERED OVER THERE.
THEY DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO SEND IT BACK TO THE CHIEF AND DID THE CHIEF HABIT DOROTY TO GIVE 200 DAYS, UM, AGGREGATE SUSPENSION.
SO WE GOT TO GET THAT ISSUE OUT OF THE WAY FIRST, UM, DUDE, AND SAY THAT YES, Y'ALL DO ABSOLUTELY MAINTAIN JURISDICTION OF THESE MATTERS BECAUSE THESE AREN'T MATTERS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED BY THE JUDGE IN THE, UM, IN THE APPEAL AT DISTRICT COURT.
DO YOU WANT ME TO ARGUE MY WHOLE MOTION OR YOU JUST WANT TO, WE GOT TO KIND OF DEAL WITH THAT ONE FIRST.
IT DEPENDS ON WHERE Y'ALL WHAT Y'ALL, UM, RULE ON THAT.
YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
WHAT'S THAT THE WHOLE MOTION? YES.
SO, SO THAT'S THE FIRST ISSUE.
AND LIKE I SAID, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE LAW THAT STATES Y'ALL CAN'T IN FACT, IT SAYS COMPLETELY OPPOSITE.
I KNOW THAT AS LONG AS IT'S NOT AN ISSUE ON A REVIEWABLE ON APPEAL, THEN THE TRIAL COURT THAT'S Y'ALL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THOSE ISSUES TO, TO BE ABSOLUTELY SURE.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THE ISSUE I'M GOING TO REVIEW BY THE
[01:10:01]
JDC.YOU WERE TELLING US THAT WE STILL HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, EVEN WHILE THE SAME AS 86.
IT'S NOT THE ISSUES AT THE 19TH JDC.
BUT THAT'S THAT NONE OF THOSE ISSUES ARE WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY.
UM, AND IN FACT, YOU KNOW, AS I STATE IT AND WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THE NEXT ISSUE DEALING WITH, WE GOTTA DECIDE ANOTHER DECISION, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE HER.
SO, SO Y'ALL BACK IN AUGUST, Y'ALL SENT IT, YOU ORDERED THAT OUR CHIEF RECONSIDER.
AND IT'S THE SAME IN PRINCIPLE, SAME NUMBER OF DAYS, BUT NOW THEY'RE ALL RUN CONSECUTIVE AND IT STILL ADDS UP TO THE AMOUNT OF DAYS THAT HE INTENDED TO, UM, SUSPEND SERGEANT CAMLIN.
THE THING IS HE DIDN'T JUST DO THAT.
HE COMPLETELY REWROTE THESE LETTERS.
I MEAN, ADDING IN ALL KINDS OF INFORMATION AND IN MY MEMO, I SAY, WELL, IT'S FUNNY.
IT WAS RIGHT ON THE HEELS OF THE, UM, THE CASE INVOLVING SAYA CREEL, UM, OVER IN DISTRICT COURT WHERE THE JUDGE SAID, HEY, THIS LETTER DOESN'T PROVIDE ADEQUATE NOTICE, THEREFORE, THIS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS.
SO HE KICKED OFF THE ENTIRE, UH, DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN IN THAT MATTER.
SO, AND THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON I EVEN BRING UP THE CREEL MATTER IS BECAUSE OF THE TIMING, THIS, THEY REWROTE THESE LETTERS, I MEAN, WITHIN A WEEK OR SO OF THAT RULING FROM THE DISTRICT COURT.
AND I KNOW WHEN OUR AUGUST 23RD MEETING ACTUALLY AT NIGHT, BUT IN AN AUGUST 23RD MEETING, REMEMBER Y'ALL DISCUSSED THE CREOLE THOUGH THAT DECISION BY JUDGE MOORE IN THE CREEL MATTER.
SO THAT WAS VERY AS ONE OF THE TOP OF EVERYBODY'S MINDS.
SO WHAT THE DEPARTMENT DID THEN WAS COMPLETELY REWRITE THE LETTERS AND ADD IN ALL THESE THINGS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL LETTERS.
UM, SO YOU GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION AND ONE OF THE POINTS I BRING UP, YOU CAN'T CONSIDER THOSE NEW LETTERS.
I MEAN, THE DISCIPLINE IS ONE THING, THE NUMBER OF DAYS, BUT THE NOTICE WAS ALREADY SENT OUT THAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION, UM, TO ARTICLE, UH, ARTICLE 10, SECTION EIGHT AND THE 33 20 TITLE 33 SECTION 2,500 REQUIRES A, UM, THAT YOU CAN'T, UH, UH, A CIVIL SERVANT IN A PERMANENT PERMANENT STATUS CANNOT BE DUMB.
NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION CAN TAKE PLACE ELSE EXCEPT WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF WHAT THE VIOLATION IS AND WHAT THE DISCIPLINE IS AND WHAT THE FACTS ARE.
AND THE, IN FACT IT SAYS THE COMPLETE REASONS, THEREFORE, SO IN THIS END, THE CASE LAW AND A PSYCH CASE ALL IN THERE WAS BOTH THE FIRST CIRCUIT, THIRD CIRCUIT.
AND THERE'S EVEN A CASE THAT THE BELL CASE, WHICH WAS, I THINK IT WAS A SUPREME COURT ANYWAY, THEY POINT TO, OH, YOU CAN'T.
THAT MEANS THAT THE NOTICE HAS TO BE GIVEN BEFORE THE EMPLOYEE AND START SERVING OUT ANY OF THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
IT HAS TO BE GIVEN BEFOREHAND.
AND THE THIRD CIRCUIT CASE, THE JONES CASE GOES INTO GREAT DETAIL AND WHY IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IS THE WHOLE, IT'S THE BEGINNING OF THE WHOLE CASE, YOU KNOW? SO THEY GOT TO KNOW, CAUSE THEY GOT TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE APPEALING.
THEY GOT TO KNOW ALL THE ISSUES THAT SAME NOTICE NEEDS TO BE SENT TO Y'ALL.
SO Y'ALL HAVE TO KNOW ALL THE ISSUES.
SO THEY'VE WHAT THE COURTS HAVE HELD WAS.
WELL, THAT NOTICE, LIKE I SAID, IT NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION ACTUALLY BEGINS.
THOSE SECOND LETTERS, THE REVISED LETTERS, THE REWRITTEN LETTERS DIDN'T COME.
TWO OF THEM, HE HAD ALREADY FINISHED SERVING THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
AND THE THIRD ONE, HE, I MEAN, IT WAS DONE.
IT WAS GIVEN TO HIM MAYBE A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE DISCIPLINE WAS COMPLETED.
SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THOSE LETTERS INTO CONSIDERATION, WELL, THAT'S AN ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE.
AND THEN THE WHOLE THING GETS THROWN OUT.
SO YOU YOU'RE IN A POSITION TO, YOU CAN, IF YOU WANT TO ACCEPT THEM, WELL, THEN THAT'S POTENTIALLY GOING TO THROW THE WHOLE THING OUT BECAUSE IT WASN'T GIVEN TO SERGEANT CAMPBELL AT TIMELY OR YOUR ALTERNATIVE IS DISREGARD THE NEWLY WRITTEN ALL THE FACTUAL SCENARIO IN THE NEWLY WRITTEN LETTER AND JUST IT'S DISREGARDED.
AND THEN THE FACTUAL FACT PATTERN WILL BE RELEGATED TO WHAT IS IN THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE ORIGINAL LETTERS THAT WERE WRITTEN.
THEN LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THOSE FIRST LETTERS.
UM, YOU KNOW, I'VE TOLD YOU, YOU READ THE LETTERS, ALL IT IS IS, YOU KNOW, YOU MEANING SERGEANT CAMERA, YOU SAID THIS, YOU SAID THAT.
AND SERGEANT KAYLA, DIDN'T GO IN THERE AND SAYING, HEY, I DID THIS.
THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED AT ALL.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE THESE APPEALS GOING.
AND YOU READ THE LETTER, I INVITE YOU TO READ THEM.
[01:15:01]
MOTION BECAUSE THE FACTUAL PATTERN GIVEN IN THOSE ARE JUST, IT'S PO IT'S ALL POSITIVE FOR SERGEANT CAMELO AND NONE OF THE LETTERS, DOES IT SAY THAT HE DID ANYTHING WRONG? IT JUST SAYS, YOU SAID THIS, YOU SAID THIS, YOU SAID THIS.UM, AND THE FOLLOWING DISCIPLINARY MATTERS ARE ARTICLES MAY HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.
THAT'S IT? SO I, YOU KNOW, THE DEPARTMENT FILES HER OPPOSITION SAYING THEY DID EVERYTHING THEY GAVE THE NOTICE.
THEY DON'T POINT TO A SINGLE FAT BECAUSE THAT FACT DOESN'T EXIST.
AND THE FACT BEING IN THAT, IN THEIR LETTERS, IN THEIR NOTICE LETTERS, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO FACTUAL PATTERN THAT YOU CAN SAY, OH YEAH, THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE COMMITTED TO IT WITH THIS DISCIPLINARY ARTICLE.
YOU CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE THERE'S NO FACTS THERE FOR YOU TO RELY ON THE JUSTIFIED.
SERGEANT CAMPBELL ALONE ACTUALLY SAID WHAT THEY SAID.
AND IS THERE A DOCUMENTATION THAT HE SAID THAT HE SAID, UH, IT WAS RECORDED, UM, THAT HAVE TO BE ON ONCE AGAIN, PLEASE OFF TO BUILD THE RIGHTS.
BUT WHAT I'M SAYING, LET'S GO LOOK AND SEE WHAT HE SAID.
NONE OF IT'S I VIOLATED THIS POLICY OR ABOUT, HE DOESN'T GIVE ANY, IT'S QUITE THE JUNK, QUITE THE LEAP FOR US TO LOOK AND LOOK AT THAT LETTER AND SAY, YEAH, HE WAS, HE WAS ADVISED AT WHAT HE DID WAS WRONG BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT LOOK AT THOSE LETTERS.
THEY DON'T TELL HIM THAT HE DID ANYTHING WRONG.
THEY JUST, THEY SAID THAT THEY BASICALLY IT'S, IT'S A REGURGITATION OF WHAT HE ATTESTED TO AT HIS DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
AND IF THAT'S IT, THEN IT WAS ALL POSITIVE.
WHAT HE SAID WAS ALL POSITIVE FOR HIM.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN READ THAT AND SAY, HE DIDN'T SAY THAT HE VIOLATED, HE DIDN'T GIVE, UH, ANY KIND OF FACTUAL SCENARIO THAT WOULD CAUSE A VIOLATION HIS VERSION.
SO BE THAT AS MAY SAID, THAT THE STATUTE SAYS THAT YOU HAVE, UM, THAT THE LETTER HAS TO HAVE THE COMPLETE REASONS, THEREFORE FOR THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION, THOSE LETTERS ARE DEVOID OF ANY OF THAT.
THEIR OPPOSITION THAT THEY FILED IS DEVOID OF ANY OF THAT.
THEY DON'T POINT TO A SINGLE ISSUE OR A SINGLE FACTUAL ISSUE IN THOSE LETTERS SAY, NO, NO, NO.
IT'S IN PARAGRAPH THREE ON PAGE TWO.
I'M GOING TO CHALLENGE HIM TO POINT TO IT.
UM, LIKE TO KNOW, INSTEAD OF BEING IN THE DARK AND THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS, WHEN YOU'RE COMING TO THESE THINGS, WE GOT TO KNOW WHERE YOU WERE, WHERE THEY STAND, WHAT, OKAY.
YOU SAID YOU SET UP VIOLATED THIS POLICY.
TELL ME HOW I DID IT SO THAT I CAN PREPARE A DEFENSE FOR IT.
YOU KNOW? SO IT GOES TO MY DUE PROCESS, RIGHTS TO THE EMPLOYEE'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, BUT ALSO GOES TO, YOU KNOW, TO EDUCATE Y'ALL AS BOARD MEMBERS, TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH AND ALL RIGHT, WHAT IS IT THAT HE ACHIEVES THE LEGEND THAT HE DID SO THAT WE CAN THEN KNOW WHAT TO DO, BUT THAT THOSE LETTERS DON'T DO THAT.
UM, YEAH, ONE LETTER OR TWO OF THEM DON'T SAY ANYTHING.
AND THEN ONE OF THEM JUST SAYS THAT A JUDGE, UM, HAD SOME CONCERNS OVER HIS TESTIMONY, THAT'S IT? OKAY.
AND I CHECKED, THAT'S NOT A POLICY VIOLATION.
THAT'S NOT A POLICY VIOLATION AT ALL.
AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF Y'ALL WOULD LIKE IT IF, IF Y'ALL WERE GOING THROUGH THIS AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE MA YOU'RE MADE TO GUESS AND HAZARD A GUESS AT WHAT ANGLE THEY'RE COMING AT YOU TO, TO ENFORCE DISCIPLINE.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.
AND THAT'S WHY THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A NOTICE.
THAT'S WHY THE STATUTE STATES COMPLETE REASONS, THEREFORE, UH, PACES OUTSIDE IT IN HERE, STATE THAT NO, NO, YOU NEED TO GIVE ALL THE WITNESSES.
YOU NEED TO GIVE A FULL FACT PATTERN.
YOU NEED TO, THEY GOT TO KNOW, UM, WHAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH.
AND ONCE AGAIN, I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND IN THESE LETTERS WHERE ANY OF THAT IS BECAUSE IT'S NOT, UM, YEAH, BASEBALL IS, YOU KNOW, THEY NEED TO BE FULLY ADVISED.
AND THIS NOTICE LETTER IN THIS LETTER WITH THE DISCIPLINE BULLY BE FULLY ADVISED OF THE BASIS OF THE, THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION, BUT WITH SPECIFIC FACTS UPON WHICH THE CHARGES BASED, THAT'S WHAT THE CASE LAW SAYS THAT I'VE CITED IN HERE.
SO ONCE AGAIN, I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND THAT FACT IN THERE THAT YOU CAN SAY, YES, THAT'S A VIOLATION OF THIS POLICY.
[01:20:01]
YOU ALSO HAVE 20 MINUTES.GO FIRST TO THE, UH, THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION.
WE BRIEFED IT, UM, IN OUR OPPOSITION BRIEF, KYLE IS RIGHT IN THAT.
AND LET ME JUST GO THROUGH THE TIMING THINGS A LITTLE BIT PRELIMINARY DISCIPLINE HEARING WAS HELD ON APRIL 29TH, 2021 ON THE THREE CASES, ONE 12 AND 13 OF 21, A RULING LETTERS WERE ISSUED JUNE 14TH, 2021 ON AUGUST 23, LIKE MR. KERSHAW HAS SAID, UM, IF YOU RECALL CHAIRMAN MAROONEY, I BELIEVE MADE A MOTION AT FIRST TO DISMISS BECAUSE YOU TALKED TO THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER AND HE, IT WAS JUST HIS UNDERSTANDING OR HIS BELIEF THAT THE WAY THE NOTICE LETTERS WERE ORIGINALLY DONE, UH, WAS IMPROPER BECAUSE IT HAD EACH, EACH LETTER HAD ITS OWN DISCIPLINE.
ONE WAS, IT WAS 75 AND 60 AND 65 DAYS TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE OTHERS.
AND THE TOTAL WAS 200 DAYS, UM, AFTER THE BOARD CONSIDERED IT, UH, THE BOARD DECIDED TO REMAND IT BACK TO THE CHIEF WILL RECONSIDERATION, RIGHT? AND SO AFTER THAT, UH, WITHIN A COUPLE OF WEEKS, THE NEW RE RULING LETTERS WERE ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 7TH, 2021.
UM, ON ALL THREE CASES, THEY W THEY'RE ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE FIRST ONES.
THERE ARE A FEW SENTENCES THAT WERE ADDED.
AND I, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, CHAIRMAN ROSIE, UH, RECOMMENDED THAT WE ADD LANGUAGE TO THESE, THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY FURTHER ISSUES ABOUT THE WAY THAT THE LETTERS WERE DRAFTED BECAUSE OF THE QUILL DECISION.
SO DID WE ADD A FEW SENTENCES THERE? YES, BUT 95% OF THE LETTER IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE FIRST LETTER.
THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING NOTICES.
THE SECOND ONE WAS, WERE SIGNED BY SERGEANT CREO.
UH, CHEMO ON SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2021.
AND THAT'S THE SAME DAY THAT HE FILED HIS APPEAL ON THE DECISION OF THE BOARD TO SEND IT BACK, UH, TO SEND IT BACK DOWN TO THE CHIEF.
WHAT'S IMPORTANT THOUGH, IS WHAT RELIEF DID HE ASK OF THE 19TH JDC? UH, I, I MIGHT AGREE WITH KYLE, IF IT WERE JUST A VERY NARROW ISSUE THAT HE ASKED THE BOARD TO ADDRESS, UH, THE 19TH JDC TO ADDRESS, BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT DOES THAT RULING, WHAT IS HE ASKING THE 19TH JDC TO LOOK AT? I'M GOING TO READ FROM PARAGRAPH FIVE OF HIS PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, AFTER EXTENDED DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF THE DISCIPLINE METED OUT BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY.
IN CONTRARY TO THE LEGAL OPINION OF THE OFFICE OF THE STATE EXAMINER AND ADVICE FROM THEIR OWN COUNCIL, THE BOARD VOTED TO REFER THE DISCIPLINE BACK TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY OR RECONSIDERATION PARAGRAPH SIX PETITIONER SHOWS THAT THE BOARD'S DECISION WAS NOT MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR CAUSE BECAUSE IT WAS CONTRARY TO APPLICABLE LAW, FURTHER PETITIONER SHOWS THAT THE DISCIPLINE RENDERED AGAINST HIM IS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY.
PARAGRAPH SEVEN PETITIONER SHOWS THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE BOARD SHOULD BE REVERSED.
AND THE SUSPENSIONS AND EMOTIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE RESCINDED WITH PETITIONER BEING REINSTATED TO HIS POSITION AND AWARDED ALL BENEFITS AND EMOLUMENTS OF SERVICE, INCLUDING BACK WAGES AND ATTORNEY FEES.
IT'S NOT JUST A VERY NARROW ISSUE OF, HEY, THE DECISION TO REMAND IT BACK TO THE CHIEF.
THAT'S ALL I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT.
NO, IT'S WE WANT YOU TO LOOK AT, UH, THE DISCIPLINE THAT WAS RENDERED AND RENDERED.
THAT WOULD WIPE OUT ANY DECISION THAT THIS BOARD WOULD MAKE ON THIS ISSUE.
THE OTHER THING YOU DON'T KNOW.
SO IT'S PENDING BEFORE THE 19TH JDC RIGHT NOW.
AND IT'S BASED ON SENDING IT BACK TO THE CHIEF AND AFTER THE CHIEF GOT IT.
HE DID HIS SECOND NOTICE LETTERS.
YOU ALL DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE FIRST NOTICE LETTERS OR THE SECOND NOTICE LETTERS HE'S ASKING YOU RIGHT NOW TO ONLY FOCUS ON THE FIRST NOTICE LETTERS, BUT THE 19TH JDC HASN'T EVEN DECIDED WHICH ONES YOU SHOULD BE DEALING WITH.
SO IF HE WANTS YOU TO THROW OUT THIS CASE, BASED ON THE WAY THAT THE FIRST NOTICE LETTERS ARE WRITTEN, WELL, YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE DEALING WITH THOSE LETTERS BECAUSE YOU WILL REMAIN IT IT BACK TO THE CHIEF AND HE ISSUED SECOND LETTERS.
SO YOU KINDA GOTTA WAIT UNTIL THE 19TH JDC JONES MAKES HIS DECISION ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU DETERMINE THIS ISSUE.
SO I THINK JURISDICTION IS VESTED IN THE 19TH JDC CURRENTLY.
NOW, IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THOSE LETTERS AND DECIDE THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE WAY THE FIRST LETTERS WERE DRAFTED, THAT'S UP TO YOU.
AND YOU CAN TAKE ADVICE FROM MR. DARR ON THAT.
NOW I'M GOING TO ADDRESS IT BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT'S BEFORE YOU, OKAY.
[01:25:01]
WE DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE GOING TO RULE ON THE JURISDICTION ISSUE.SO I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS THE MERITS, THE BOTH NOTICE LETTERS.
THE FIRST AND SECOND ARE ATTACHED TO THE THINGS THAT WE FILED WITH THIS BOARD.
AND HE SAID THAT HE WOULD, UH, YOU KNOW, HE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN US POINTING OUT FACTS THAT, THAT WERE NEGATIVE IN THE FIRST NOTICE LETTERS.
SO I'LL POINT A FEW OUT FOR YOU.
UM, THE FIRST NOTICE LETTER WAS DATED JUNE 14TH, 2021.
I'M JUST GONNA FOCUS ON ONE OF THEM.
UM, I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THEM BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF FACTS IN THIS ONE TO SHOW THAT THERE WERE FACTS IN THESE LETTERS THAT WENT OUT THE FIRST TIME, FIRST OF ALL, AND I'M GOING THROUGH OH ONE DASH 21.
THE FIRST THING THAT HAPPENS IN THE RULING LETTER IS TO TELL HIM THAT WHICH CHARGES HE WAS FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF.
AND THIS ONE, IT WAS CONDUCT ON BECOMING A DIGITAL MODE, MOBILE VIDEO AND CARRYING OUT ORDERS RELATED TO WARRANTLESS SEARCHES.
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES WAS IN ALL THREE OF THESE CASES.
THAT'S THE THEME OF THESE THREE CASES.
THAT, THAT HE DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROPER PROCEDURE WHEN EX WHEN DOING THINGS IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS, GETTING INTO RESIDENCES WITHOUT A WARRANT.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE CRUX OF THESE THREE CASES.
UM, SECOND PAGE OF THE NOTICE LETTER ON DECEMBER 29TH, 2020, JUDGE BRIAN JACKSON DISMISSED A FEDERAL COURT CASE, CAPTION US VERSUS CLARENCE O'MEARA GREEN PENDING IN THE US DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.
IT GOES ON TO GIVE THE CAPTION AT THE END OF THAT PARAGRAPH AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING AT WHICH SERGEANT CAMPBELL ACTUALLY TESTIFIED.
JUDGE JACKSON STATED THAT HE FOUND YOUR ACTIONS AND TESTIMONY RELATIVE TO THIS INVESTIGATION, TO BE TROUBLING AFTER HEARING ALL EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE CASE AND YOUR TESTIMONY, HE DISMISSED THE CASE AGAINST MR. GREEN.
THERE CAN'T BE MUCH MORE NEGATIVE THAN AN OFFICER HAVING A SUPPRESSION HEARING TAKE PLACE WHERE EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL CASE AT WHICH THEY TESTIFIED IN AT WHICH THEY WERE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IS SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY THAT THEY GAVE TO A FREDEL DRUDGE WAS CONCERNING AND TROUBLING.
AND AFTER HEARING THAT TESTIMONY, HE DISMISSED THE CASE AGAINST THIS INDIVIDUAL.
SO HE THREW OUT A CRIMINAL CASE BASED ON THE TESTIMONY PROVIDED IN THAT CASE, BY SERGEANT KAMALA, THAT'S NEGATIVE.
WE START TO GET INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
I'M GOING TO LOOK DOWN AT PAGE BOTTOM OF PAGE THREE.
AND I KNOW YOU ALL WANT Y'ALL KNOW THE, ALL THE DETAILS OF THIS CASE, BUT I'M JUST GONNA READ A FEW THINGS.
UM, YOU ADVISED MR. GREEN AND THIS OTHER INDIVIDUAL WERE UNDER ARREST FOR POSSESSION OF NARCOTICS AND FIREARMS. YOU WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS NOTHING INSIDE OF THE APARTMENT THAT COULD GET THEM IN TROUBLE IN THE FUTURE.
THE YOUNGER MALE STATED HE COULD NOT GIVE YOU CONSENT TO SEARCH THE APARTMENT BECAUSE THE OLDER MALE WHO HAD EXITED THE APARTMENT EARLIER WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE APARTMENT.
YOU ADVISED THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A JUVENILE IN CUSTODY, YOU KNEW THAT THERE WERE CHILDREN IN THE APARTMENT AND HAD PREVIOUSLY HEARD A FEMALE VOICE IN THE APARTMENT, AND YOU FELT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR YOU TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE IN THE APARTMENT WAS OKAY.
YOU OPENED THE DOOR OF THE APARTMENT AND CALLED OUT, BUT DID NOT GET A RESPONSE.
YOU THEN PROCEEDED INTO THE APARTMENT.
THIS GOES ON TO DISCUSS THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT HAVE A WARRANT.
THEN HE WENT ON, TRIED TO GET AFTER THE FACT, AFTER HE WENT INTO THIS WOMAN'S HOUSE, GUNS DRAWN AFTER THE FACT, HE TRIED TO GET HER TO SIGN A WRITTEN CONSENT.
ACCORDING TO SERGEANT KAMALA, THESE ARE HIS WORDS, BUT HER KIDS INTERFERED WITH HER BY TELLING HER NOT TO SIGN IT AND SAYING THAT YOU NEEDED A WARRANT.
REMEMBER THE THEME AND THE ISSUE IN THESE CASES IS WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD A WARRANT AND WHETHER HE WAS APPROPRIATE AND DOING IN GETTING INTO THE APARTMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THAT WAS THE PROBLEM THAT JUDGE JACKSON HAD.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING HERE.
BECAUSE HE WAS FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THREE 17, WHICH IS CARRYING OUT ORDERS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO GENERAL ORDER THREE 19 WARRANTLESS SEARCHES.
SO WE WERE SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSING THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT HAVE A WARRANT THAT AFTER THE FACT, HE TRIED TO GET CONSENT IN WRITING FROM THIS WOMAN WHO OWNED THE APARTMENT AND SHE WOULD NOT GIVE IT TO HIM.
AND THEN THERE'S SOME OTHER FACTS ABOUT THE TESTIMONY THAT IN THIS CASE, THERE WERE MANY SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS THAT WERE WRITTEN, UM, AND THERE'S DISCUSSION ABOUT WHY THOSE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS WERE WRITTEN.
THEN WE GO ON TO DISCUSS WHAT, UH, SERGEANT HIS BELIEF WAS AS TO WHY HE THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR HIM TO GO INTO THE APARTMENT.
SO IT WAS HIS SUBJECTIVE BELIEF, BUT THAT, BUT HE'S TOLD, AND IN THIS LETTER THAT HE WAS IN VIOLATION OF THREE 19, YOU DID NOT FOLLOW THE WAR, WARRANTLESS SEARCHES PROCEDURE.
[01:30:01]
SO HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED.HERE'S WHAT YOU THOUGHT, HERE'S WHAT YOU TOLD US, BUT WE BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE IN VIOLATION OF THAT, THAT STAT, THAT RULE.
THAT GENERAL LORD, UH, HE'S GOING, WE GO ON TO TELL HIM WHAT POLICY VIOLATIONS, UM, HE'S FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF AT THE END, WE GO THROUGH 33 COLEMAN, 2,500 A THERE'S A BUNCH OF THINGS WE CAN CHECK OFF AS FAR AS VIOLATIONS OF THAT STATUTE.
THOSE ARE CHECKED IN THAT PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING NOTICE OR THAT RULING LETTER, UM, AND W AND IT'S SIGNED BY SERGEANT KAMALA.
I MEAN, IT'S NOT LIKE A TWO PAGE LETTER, THAT'S LIKE AN EIGHT OR NINE PAGE LETTER.
THERE ARE PLENTY OF FACTS IN THERE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT CASE AND WHY HE WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES.
UM, GENERAL ORDER PRIA WAS BROUGHT UP.
AND I KNOW I'VE ADDRESSED THIS ONE TIME WITH YOU ON PREVIOUSLY.
UH, THE CREOLE CASE WAS A DECISION BY THE 19TH JDC.
THE JUDGE ACTUALLY SAID THAT THE BOARD, UH, VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF MR. CREO AT THE HEARING, BECAUSE THE BOARD FOUND A POLICY VIOLATION THAT MR. CREOLE WAS NOT NOTICED, OKAY, THERE ARE, THERE IS NO ALLEGATION IN THIS CASE THAT THERE WAS SOME POLICY VIOLATION THAT HE WAS, THAT HE WAS FOUND IN VIOLATION OF THAT HE WAS NOT NOTICED.
AGAIN, WARRANTLESS SEARCHES IS THE MAIN THING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, BUT ALL THE DIFFERENT VIOLATIONS, WHETHER IT WAS CONDUCT UNBECOMING, A BODY CAMERA VIDEO, OR, OR THE GENERAL ORDER THREE 19, THOSE ARE ALL SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING NOTICE AS WELL AS THE RULING LETTERS.
SO THERE HAS BEEN NO ALLEGATION THAT HE WASN'T PROPERLY NOTICED OF THE SPECIFIC RULE THAT HE VIOLATED, OR THE SPECIFIC POLICY THAT HE VIOLATED.
THAT IS REALLY WHY THE JUDGE DID WHAT HE DID IN KOREA.
I CAN'T MAKE ALL, I STILL DON'T COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE RULING.
AND WE'VE APPEALED THAT UP SUSPENSE TO THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
SO THAT'S NOT EVEN A FINAL JUDGMENT RIGHT NOW, BUT I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY, ONE FINAL ISSUE TO ADDRESS.
UM, AND I TOLD YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, HE'S ASKING YOU TO DECIDE NOW THAT THE SECOND NOTICE LETTERS THAT WERE ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ARE IN VIOLATION OF LAW WHILE THAT SAME ISSUE WAS UP AT THE 19TH JDC ACROSS THE STREET, REGARDLESS AT THE TIME THAT YOU ALL SENT THIS BACK TO THE CHIEF SERGEANT KAMILAH WAS ALREADY SERVING HIS DISCIPLINE, THE DEPARTMENT CAN'T MAGICALLY GO BACK IN TIME AND MAKE THAT, NOT THE FACT, IT WAS THE FACT HE WAS ALREADY SERVING TIME AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE DEPARTMENT.
UM, ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WE RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES IS THAT INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE PAID FOR THAT TIME, IF, IF LIKE A SUSPENSION WAS RESCINDED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UM, FURTHER HE WAS, HE HAD ALREADY BEEN NOTIFIED OF AND WAS AWARE OF NOT ONLY THE SUSPENSIONS, BUT HE HAD BEEN, HE HAD ALREADY SEEN THE FIRST RULING LETTERS TELLING HIM WHY HE WAS BEING DISCIPLINED.
SO THIS IS A DIFFERENT CASE THAN A SITUATION WHERE SOMEBODY STARTED SERVING DISCIPLINE AND THEY HAD NEVER RECEIVED A RULING LETTER.
THE FIRST RULING LETTER STARTED DOING HIS TIME.
AND THEN THE BOARDS REMANDED IT BACK TO THE CHIEF.
AND HE ISSUED THE REVISED LETTERS.
THE TOTAL TIME THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE SUSPENDED AS YOU, THAT WAS NOTED BY MR. CARSWELL CORRECTLY NEVER CHANGED.
IT WAS ALWAYS 75 DAYS, EITHER WAY.
SO THE REASON WHY I WAS SENT BACK TO THE CHIEF, BECAUSE HE SUSPENDED HIM TO RUN CONCURRENTLY AND THAT'S AGAINST THE POLICE BILL OF RIGHTS.
I ACTUALLY WOULDN'T HAVE A SUSPENSION TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH ANY OTHER SUSPENSION.
SO NO, IT'S, UM, IT WAS A CIVIL SERVICE RULE ISSUE, CIVIL SERVICE RULE.
LET'S TALK ABOUT IF YOU ARE SUSPENDED MORE THAN 90 DAYS IN THE CALENDAR YEAR, THEN IT FUNCTIONS AS A TERMINATION.
SO OUR DISCUSSION THAT DAY WAS, I THINK I TALKED ABOUT A FEW DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT YOU ALL HAD.
AND WHAT I SAID WAS, IF YOU WANT TO, WE SUSPENDED HIM FOR A TOTAL OF 200 DAYS.
IF YOU WANT TO SAY THAT IT CAN'T RUN CONCURRENTLY, TREAT IT LIKE A TERMINATION.
WE WEREN'T TRYING TO TERMINATE THE MAN.
SO WE SAID, THERE'S OTHER WAYS THAT YOU POTENTIALLY COULD ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.
AND AFTER THAT DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE, YOU ALL WROTE, REMANDED IT BACK TO THE CHIEF TO, TO, TO REVISE THOSE LETTERS.
UM, I THINK YOU CAN, I, IT WAS MY OPINION THAT YOU COULD HAVE KEPT THE LETTERS AS THEY WERE.
I THINK YOU COULD HAVE RUN IT CONCURRENTLY, BUT WE'RE NOT HERE WITH THAT, THAT THAT'S ALREADY DONE.
[01:35:01]
WAS IT? NO.THAT THE REASON WHY WE RECONSIDERED IT IS BECAUSE 90 DAYS WOULD ULTIMATELY RESULT IN A TERMINATION.
YOU CAN NOT GET 90 DAYS CONSECUTIVE PAID OFF.
I THINK THE MATTER WAS A CORRECT.
SO JUST REAL QUICK AND REPLY THE, UM, KIND OF PICK ISSUE THOSE LETTERS.
WHEN THEY WERE REWRITTEN, ALL THREE OF THEM PUT IN SIGNIFICANTLY MORE FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT WAS IN THE FIRST LETTER.
LIKE I SAID, I, I, I BELIEVE THAT Y'ALL ARE BEHOLDEN TO THE FIRST LETTER BECAUSE THE, UH, BEING THAT THE SECOND LETTER WAS WRITTEN THAT AFTER TWO OF THE CASES HE HAD ALREADY SERVED THE DISCIPLINE AND ONE OF THEM, HE WAS ALMOST FINISHED SERVING IT AND BEING THAT THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION, UH, LOUISIANA COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE, DEALING WITH THIS WRITTEN NOTICE, AS WELL AS THE STATUTE, 33, 2500, THAT YOU GOT TO HAVE THE NOTICE BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION OCCURS.
SO THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT THE FIRST LETTER MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WITH THE SECOND LETTER THROWN OUT.
AGAIN, IF YOU CONSIDER THE SECOND LETTER AND THAT'S OPENED IT UP TO THE WHOLE THING, BEING DECLARED AN ABSOLUTE NOMINEE, UH, DOWN THE ROAD BECAUSE OF THE TIMELINESS OR LACK THEREOF OF THAT SECOND LETTER.
UM, LIKE I SAID, Y'ALL, WHEN Y'ALL SENT IT BACK TO, TO RECONSIDER THIS ONE, IT WASN'T RECONSIDER THE FACT IT WAS, HEY, JUST, AND WE ALL KNEW WHAT WE CAUSE IT WAS ALL HAVING TO DO WITH THE NUMBER OF DAYS.
SO WHY DID, WHY DID ANY OF THE FACTS, ANY, WHY DID ANY SENTENCE, OTHER THAN WHAT THE, WHAT THE ACTUAL DISCIPLINARY TO OTHER SUSPENSION TIME? WHY SHOULD ANY OF IT HAD BEEN CHANGED? IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN, UM, NOW I, YOU KNOW, AND MR. RAINS, MIKE, AS YOU CAN SEE, HE ONLY FUCK ABOUT ONE LETTER.
HE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE OTHER TWO CASES, BUT WHY IS THAT? WELL, THE OTHER SUITCASE IS CLEAR.
DON'T MENTION ANY WRONGDOING, ANY POLICY VIOLATIONS BY THE OFFICER, THEREFORE, NO NOTICE, NO, NO COMPLETE REASONS.
THEREFORE AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE, UM, AND PACE LAW, IT DOESN'T COMPORT WITH THE RULES THAT HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE COURTS SAID, NO, NO, YOU GOT TO TELL HIM, TELL HIM WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.
ALLEN, WHAT FACTS YOU'RE RELYING ON AND TELL HIM WHY.
IT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT WHAT OCCURRED HERE, BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT IN THE LETTER THAT THE ONE LETTER THAT THAT'S AN OH ONE DASH 21 WITH THIS JUDGE JACKSON, THAT THAT'S, THAT'S A COMPLETE MISSTATEMENT OF WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
THERE WAS A SUPPRESSION DEALING WITH EVIDENCE, TRYING TO SUPPRESS SOME EVIDENCE, A HEARING TOOK PLACE A MONTH OR TWO LATER, THE FEDERAL PROSECUTOR FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THIS.
WASN'T A DISMISSAL THAT WAS HANDED DOWN, RIGHT? WHEN SERGEANT CAMPBELL GOT OFF THE WITNESS STAND NOT WHAT HAPPENED AT ALL.
THERE WAS A FULL-BLOWN HEARING WITH NUMEROUS OFFICERS, BOTH ATF AND B RPD, TESTIFYING, AND, YOU KNOW, JUDGE, AND THEN JUDGE JACKSON IN THAT DISMISSAL, HE MADE THAT COMMENT.
BUT THAT DIDN'T COME ON THE HEELS OF, OF SERGEANT TAMELA'S TESTIMONY.
BUT, UM, AND ALSO WHAT ARE YOU LEFT WARRANTLESS? WANT TO SAY WARRANTLESS SEARCH? YOU KNOW WHAT ACCEPTED A WARRANTLESS SEARCH.
IF YOU GIVE CONSENT TO SOMEONE, WHAT'S IT SAYING IN THIS LETTER, IN THE CASE THAT YOU JUST BROUGHT UP THE OH ONE DASH 21, PAGE FOUR, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH MS. GREEN GAVE VERBAL CONSENT TO SEARCH HER BEDROOM AND HER SON'S ROOM.
ONCE INSIDE THE ROOM, YOU LOCATED A BACKPACK WITH AN AR 15 AND A 30 ROUND MAGAZINE.
SO WHERE'S THE VIOLATION THERE.
IF SHE GAVE A VERBAL CONSENT, THEN WHY WAS IT NECESSARY TO HAVE A SIGNED THAT'S THEIR PROTOCOL? IT'S NOT NECESSARY.
IT'S NOT, BUT THE DEPARTMENT LIKES TO HAVE THAT SO THAT SOMEBODY CAN'T DOWN THE ROAD SAY, WELL, I DIDN'T GIVE YOU CONSENT THING IS IT'S ALL ON BODY CAMERA ANYWAY, OR SAYING LEADING THEM UP THE STAIRS, COME ON.
UM, SO W WHY, I CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY HE TRIED TO GET IT AFTERWARDS.
HE JUST, BECAUSE AT THE TOP MOMENT IN TIME, IT WAS, IT WAS KIND OF A SUDDEN THING, YOU KNOW? UM, BUT HE DIDN'T, I GUESS DIDN'T HAVE THE FORM ON HIM.
IT WAS IN HIS CAR, BUT, AND THERE'S SOME CIRCUMSTANCES WHY SHE DIDN'T SIGN IT, BUT SHE OBVIOUSLY GAVE VERBAL CONSENT.
[01:40:01]
YEAH.WELL, AND NOWHERE DOES IT SAY, SHE TOLD YOU, YOU COULDN'T COME IN EITHER.
SO THAT'S, AND THAT'S THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE.
THEY HAVE THE CRUFT, THE ONUS IS ON THEM TO SPELL OUT WHY THEY'RE TRYING TO DISCIPLINE THIS MAN.
BUT IF YOU LOOK ALL THIS, YOU SAID THIS, YOU SAID THIS, YOU SAID THIS NOT.
WE FOUND THAT THIS CONDUCT IS IN DEROGATION OF POLICY BECAUSE OF THIS FACT THAT NONE OF THAT'S NOWHERE IN HERE, IT'S NOWHERE.
AND THEREFORE THIS ISN'T NOTICE THIS ISN'T, THIS DIDN'T NOTIFY HIM IN FAITH.
WHAT'S THE CONDUCT UNBECOMING FIND IT.
THE, WHERE, WHERE DOES IT SAY? UM, DIGITAL, MOBILE VIDEO, AUDIO EQUIPMENT, UH, BODY-WORN CAMERAS SUSTAINED.
WHERE DOES IT SAY ANYTHING IN HERE THAT THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH BODY-WORN CAMERA OR WHERE DID IT SAY IT DOESN'T OKAY.
ONCE AGAIN, THE ONUS IS ON THEM, NOT HIM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE THE ONES THROWING OUT THE DISCIPLINE.
SO HE NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND HIMSELF AND HE NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT HE'S DEFENDING AGAINST.
SO THAT'S WHERE THESE LETTERS, ALL THREE OF THEM ARE LACKING.
IT REALLY IS TO SAY, IT'S A REGURGITATION.
IT'S JUST A REGURGITATION OF WHAT HE ATTESTED TO AT A DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
AND I CAN ASSURE YOU, NONE OF WHAT HE ATTESTED TO IS, IS, UM, POINTS TO HIM HAVING VIOLATED ANY OF THESE POLICIES.
UM, IF I SAID THE, I TAKE ISSUE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THESE, THESE LETTERS WERE BARELY TWEAKED A SENTENCE HERE, SENTENCE THERE.
WELL, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE DON'T NEED THEM.
I MEAN, IF THAT'S THE DEAL, IF, IF THEY WEREN'T REALLY CHANGED, WELL, LET'S JUST THROW OUT THE SECOND LETTER THEN THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO, BUT WHY DO WE WANT THE SECOND LETTER? WELL, BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO THEN KIND OF CUT THE LEGS OUT FROM, UNDER ME ON THIS NOTICE ARGUMENT.
WELL, WE LEFT THIS OUT ON THE FIRST LETTER.
SO LET'S INCLUDE IN THE SECOND LETTER.
I MEAN, THAT SHOULD BE VERY TELLING TO YOU RIGHT THERE.
THEY CHANGED UP WHAT THEY PREVIOUSLY DID.
WHY? BECAUSE THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH IT.
IT'S VERY, IT'S SIMPLE, VERY SIMPLE CONCLUSION TO COME TO.
SO, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, THROW OUT THE SECOND LETTER, JUST CONSIDER THE FIRST LETTERS AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S NO PROPER NOTICE OF THE ALLEGATIONS.
NOTICE OF THE FACTS, THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS.
THERE'S NO COMPLETE REASONS, THEREFORE, NOT IN THERE, BUT IF YOU, IF YOU'RE GOING TO CONSIDER THAT SECOND LETTER, THEN WE GOT OUT SIGNIFICANT DUE PROCESS ISSUE THAT COULD VERY WELL CAUSED FOR THIS WHOLE THING TO BE THROWN OUT AS AN ABSOLUTE NOVELTY, BECAUSE THE LETTERS WEREN'T ISSUED TOMLIN, DARREN, WHAT'S YOUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT BEING PRESENTED, WHICH PART? THE WHOLE, ALL OF IT.
WELL, UH, IF WE START WITH THE, UH, THE FIRST MOTION, THE FIRST MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, UH, RELATING TO THE 60 DAYS, UM, I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S SOME FACT ISSUES AS TO WHEN, UH, MR. CAMILO ACTUALLY RECEIVED, UH, THE NOTICE.
UH, WELL, LET ME BACK UP, I THINK THERE'S SOME FACT ISSUES AS TO WHAT CORPORAL HILL DID TO GIVE MILLA.
THE NOTICE, I DON'T KNOW, CORPORAL HILL IS HERE TO TELL YOU GUYS WHAT HE DID.
UM, I MEAN, I THINK THAT MAY HELP.
OR IF THERE'S AN AFFIDAVIT THAT ACTUALLY AUTHENTICATES THESE TEXT MESSAGES IN HERE, I DIDN'T CATCH THAT.
AS TO THE, TO THE EMAIL THING, I THINK THAT THE PREVIOUS VERSION OF YOU'D LIKE TO BRING THEM UP.
I MEAN, DID I COME UP AT THIS TIME? WE'LL DEAL WITH IT AS YOU GO, BARBARA.
UM, JUST, DOES HE GIVE HIM THE RECORD? YEAH, THAT'S TRUE.
I GUESS I NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN DONA.
UH, DO YOU PROMISE TO, DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.
UM, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE SERGEANT CAMILO INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION? YES, SIR.
UH, DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE INVESTIGATION? I CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION.
YOU WERE THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION, CORRECT.
UM, WE'RE DISCUSSING THE ISSUE OF NOTICE THE 60 DAYS, UH, FROM THE, THE BEGINNING OF THE INVESTIGATION, WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT, IF ANYTHING YOU DID TO NOTIFY
[01:45:01]
MR. CAMILO OF, UH, HIS PREDISPOSITION HEARING? UM, MY JOB IS TO CONDUCT A INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION AT THE COMPLETION OF THE INVESTIGATION.IT'S TURNED OVER TO THE CHIEF'S OFFICE.
THE CHIEF'S OFFICE MAKES A DECISION, WHETHER IT WOULD GO BEFORE DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
ONCE THAT DECISION IS MADE A FORM OF DISCIPLINARY HEARING NOTICES DRAWN UP BY THE ATTORNEYS, AND IT'S GIVEN BACK TO OUR OFFICE, IT'S MY OFFICER'S JOB TO CONTACT THE OFFICER INVOLVED AND MAKE HIM AWARE OF THAT NOTICE AND INSTRUCT HIM TO COME IN AND SIGN THE NOTICE, UM, COMING IN TO SIGN THE NOTICE OR MAKING HIM, UH, NOTIFYING HIM OF THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
IN THIS CASE, I, UH, CONTACT ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT SERGEANT CAMELO VIA PHONE, MY CELL PHONE AND THE DEPARTMENTAL PHONE.
I ALSO SENT THE EMAIL TO HIM, ADVISING HIM OF THE DISCIPLINARY NOTICE.
UH, I EXHAUSTED ALL MEANS AND ATTEMPTS TO MAKE CONTACT SERGEANT CAMPBELL, TO MAKE HIM AWARE OF THIS, UH, DISCIPLINARY NOTICE.
SO YOU SAID YOU CONTACTED HIM VIA, OR YOU TRIED TO CONTACT HIM VIA PHONE, CELL PHONE AND THEN EMAILS.
AND ALSO, UH, THAT'S INCLUDED WITH THE, UM, THE CASE FILE.
UM, I LEFT HER A VOICEMAIL, WHICH IS RECORDED, UM, WHICH IS INCLUDED WITH THE CASE FILE SCREENSHOTS OF THE TEXT MESSAGES AND THE CALL LOGS, WHERE IT SHOW WHERE I ATTEMPTED TO MAKE CONTACT WITH SERGEANT KAMILAH TO MAKE HIM AWARE OF THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND EVIDENCE.
THAT'S WHAT DAY DID YOU, UH, TEXT SERGEANT KAMILAH? UH, WITHOUT THE CASE IN FRONT OF ME, I COULD NOT ANSWER THAT.
I WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO SEE THE CASE AND KNOW FOR SURE RECORD.
THE NOTES NOTICE SHOWS ON MARCH THE 12TH, 2021 AT APPROXIMATELY 10:36 AM.
I SENT THE TEXT MESSAGE TO SERGEANT CAMELO STATING, HEY SARGE, CAN YOU GIVE ME A CALL? HE RESPONDED BACK ON MARCH THE 16TH, 2021 AT 9:56 AM.
I HAVEN'T BEEN OFF SINCE WEDNESDAY.
WHAT'S UP THE CALL LOG WHERE IT SHOWS SERGEANT CAMPBELL'S PHONE NUMBER, WHICH I WON'T SAY FOR THE RECORD.
UH, IT SHOWS THAT I MADE CAUSE BEGINNING, MARCH THE 12TH AT FOUR 1:00 PM, ANOTHER ONE MARCH THE 12TH AT 5:54 PM, MARCH 13TH AT 6:52 PM ON APRIL THE 21ST, 11:34 AM WAS OUR LAST CALL OR PERTAINING TO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
UM, I ALSO ON MARCH 13TH, 2021 AT 7:04 PM.
I CONTACTED MR. KERSHAW, KYLE KERSHAW, UM, MESSAGE READS.
HEY, MR. KERSHAW JUST WANTED TO TOUCH BASES WITH YOU.
I'VE ATTEMPTED SEVERAL TIMES TO CONTACT SERGEANT CAMPBELL REGARDING HIS DISCIPLINARY HEARING LETTER THAT HE NEEDS TO SIGN HAVE, HAVE NOT GOTTEN ANY RESPONSE FROM HIM VIA TELEPHONE OR EMAIL.
IF YOU COULD ASSIST ME WITH THIS MATTER, IT WOULD BE A GREAT LITTLE APPRECIATED.
DID MR. KERSHAW PARTICIPATE IN THE INVESTIGATION? HE WAS, UM, UM, THE ATTORNEY THAT REPRESENTED SERGEANT KAMILAH DURING THE INVESTIGATION, DURING THE INTERVIEW PROCESS AND DURING MY, YOU KNOW, MY PROCESS OF INVESTIGATING HIM WITH THIS CASE, GOING BACK TO THE TEXT MESSAGE, UH, SIR, SERGEANT CAMILA DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE UNTIL MAY SEEK THE MARCH 16TH, 2021.
DO YOU GET READ RECEIPTS ON YOUR PHONE? COULD YOU TELL THAT SERGEANT CAMILA HAD READ YOUR TEXT MESSAGE? NO, SIR.
I DON'T HAVE THAT ON MY PHONE.
SO YOU CAN'T TELL US WHETHER OR NOT SERGEANT COMMONWELL ACTUALLY SAW THAT TEXT MESSAGE BEFORE MARCH 16TH, 2021.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT DAYS YOU LEFT VOICEMAIL FOR SERGEANT CAMILA IT'S, UH, INCLUDED WITH THE FILE? UM, WOULD IT BE THAT SAME DAY TO SWAP OUT TO PULL THAT RECORD? YES, SIR.
IT WAS BEFORE THE 60 DAY DEADLINE, IT'S INCLUDED WITH THE ORIGINAL CASE FILE AS WELL.
THE SAME KIND OF QUESTION YOU CAN'T TELL US THAT SERGEANT KAMILAH RECEIVED THE VOICEMAIL, BUT YOU CAN TELL US B YOU SENT THEM CORRECTLY.
I RECORDED MYSELF LEAVING A VOICEMAIL, LEAVING THE MESSAGE ON HIS VOICEMAIL, BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU WHETHER HE RECEIVED IT OR NOT.
OR WHEN DID HE RECEIVE IT? I CAN TELL YOU THAT.
ARE YOU TYPICALLY THE PERSON THAT NOTIFIES, UH, AN EMPLOYEE WHEN THERE'S A PREDISPOSITION HEARING? IF IT'S MY INVESTIGATION? YES.
EACH, UH, DETECTIVE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING THE PERSON THEY'RE INVESTIGATING.
[01:50:01]
HAVE YOU HAD SITUATIONS LIKE THIS COME UP IN THE PAST? NOT TO THIS MAGNITUDE? NO, SIR.IT WAS ALSO JUST FOR THE RECORD WAS AN EMAIL THAT WAS SENT, UM, AT THE LOOP, UH, MARCH THE 12TH.
AND THAT EMAIL HAD THE PREDISPOSITION HEARING LETTER OR NOTICE ATTACHED TO IT.
IT'S SUBJECT RESCHEDULED, PREDISPOSED IT'S SUBJECT RE RESCHEDULE.
PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING LETTER FOR ID FILE NUMBER 0 0 1 DASH 21.
AND PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING NOTICE LETTER ID ZERO 13 DASH 21.
PLEASE RESPOND TO THE EMAIL UPON RECEIPT.
THIS WAS SENT MARCH THE 12TH, 2021 AT 2:15 PM.
THE TEXT MESSAGE ON MARCH 12TH.
UH, THE ONE THAT YOU REFERENCED, I BELIEVE SAID, HEY, CALL ME BACK.
WERE THERE ANY TEXT MESSAGES THAT SAID, HEY, YOU'RE PREDISPOSED OR YOUR HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR WHATEVER DAY? NO, SIR.
I DOCUMENTED THAT IN THE EMAIL, NOT THE TEXT MAN.
AND THE EMAIL WAS SENT BEFORE THE DEADLINE.
MARCH THE 12TH, MARCH THE 12TH, 2:15 PM.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CORPORAL HILL? I JUST WANT, WELL, I WANT YOUR INTERPRETATION OF BEING NOTIFIED OR ATTEMPTS TO NOTIFY.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING HERE TOO.
SO THE, THE LEGAL QUESTION THEN IS WHEN YOU SEND ELECTRONIC NOTIFICATION, DO YOU GET A NOTIFICATION WHEN IT'S SENT, WHEN, WHEN YOU ACTUALLY RECEIVE IT AS A LEGAL MATTER? I THINK, UH, MR. KERSHAW BROUGHT UP, BROUGHT UP, BROUGHT UP THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, WHICH I MAY NOT HAVE BROUGHT UP SIMPLY BECAUSE THE BOARD IS NOT NECESSARILY BOUND BY ALL THAT STUFF.
BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT STUFF IS RELEVANT, THERE IS A CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ARTICLE.
I THINK IT'S 13, 13 THAT TALKS ABOUT ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION.
IN THAT CASE, WHENEVER YOU SEND ELECTRONIC ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION TALKING ABOUT, UH, EMAILS REALLY, RIGHT.
IT'S DEEMED, UH, IT'S DEEMED TO BE EFFECTIVE WHEN IT'S SENT, UNLESS THE SENDER FINDS OUT LATER ON THAT THE PERSON NEVER RECEIVED, THEN IT'S GONE.
13, 13 DEALING WITH POST DARVIS OF DISH.
SO THE ARTICLE THAT HE BROUGHT UP WAS ABOUT SERVING A PETITION.
I CAN'T, I CAN'T MAKE THE LEAP AND SAY SERVING A PREDISPOSING NOTICE AS THE SAME SERVING A PETITION.
I MEAN, I THINK I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT TO THE EXTENT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SERVING A PETITION, I'D PROBABLY SAY THAT'S THE INITIAL NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION.
I WOULD THINK THAT'S PROBABLY MORE AKIN TO THAT.
SO THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION, I MEAN, CORRECT.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING, MY POINT IS THAT TO THE EXTENT WE'RE EQUATING SERVICE TO ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE INITIATION OF THE INVESTIGATION, IN MY OPINION, EVERYTHING ELSE AFTER THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO 13, 13, TO THE EXTENT WE'RE BOUND BY IT, WHICH WE'RE NOT, IT'S JUST KIND OF GUIDANCE AT THIS POINT.
AND I THINK SOMEONE BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT HE DID EVENTUALLY RECEIVE IT.
CAUSE HE, HE ACKNOWLEDGED IT ON MARCH 16TH, FIVE DAYS AFTER THE DEADLINE.
UM, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NEW RULE.
THE NEW RULE WAS ACTUALLY, FIRST OF ALL, OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT REALLY GERMANE TO THIS, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CHANGED IT, IT WAS REALLY TO MAKE THINGS EASIER TO INVESTIGATE POLICE OFFICERS IN THE WAKE OF ALL THE STUFF THAT WAS HAPPENING.
OH, IN 2020 AND 2021, THAT'S REALLY WHY I GOT CHANGED YOUR SPORTING THE TIME FOR POLICE OFFICERS TO GET EMPLOYEES, YOU EXTEND THE INVESTIGATION TIME LIMIT, UH, AND THEN TO AVOID THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE ABOUT WHAT IS NOTICED, RIGHT? THEY, THEY OUTLINED THAT, HEY, LOOK, IF YOU SEND IT TO THE DEPARTMENT, BUT THEN THAT IS THAT'S THE EFFICIENT, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THOUGH THAT WHAT THEY HAD BEFORE LIMITED IT IN ANY WAY.
I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT THAT'S THE CASE.
IT WAS THE OTHER THINGS THAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT AS IT RELATES TO THIS ON, UH, WHICH PART THE FIRST ONE, THE FIRST 60 DAYS WE HAD THE FIRST 60 DAYS, YOU HAD A COUPLE OF OTHER QUESTIONS YOU WANT ME TO MOVE ON TO
[01:55:01]
OTHER MOTIONS? YES.UM, NOW IT'S TO THE OTHER MOTIONS, I TEND TO AGREE WITH MR. CARUSO, THAT THE BOARD STILL HAS JURISDICTION OF THE MATTERS, NOT REVIEWABLE ON THEM THAT ARE NOT UP FOR REVIEW.
ACCORDING TO MR. CURSE, ALL THE ISSUES ON APPEAL OR DOES KEN THE BOARD OF REMAND, RIGHT? THAT'S ONE ISSUE.
SECOND ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT CAN YOU, CAN YOU HAVE, UH, AN AGGREGATE OF 200 DAYS, THOSE ARE THE ISSUES.
AND I THINK ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THOSE ISSUES, YOU GUYS STILL HAVE JURISDICTION HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A DECISION ON THAT.
BUT MY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HE'S ASKING HIM MORE THAN JUST THOSE TWO ISSUES IN HIS APPEAL.
HE'S ALSO ASKING, UM, SEVERAL OTHER THINGS IN THE EARLY APPEAL AND THE APPEAL TO THE DISTRICT COURT.
SO IT'S NOT JUST LIMITED TO THOSE TWO ISSUES.
I THINK AT THAT POINT, YOU GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHICH ATTORNEY YOU, BUT YOU BELIEVE WHETHER IT'S KERSHAW OR MR.
WELL, MR. RAY IS, I THOUGHT, READ TO US WHAT THE ACTUAL APPEAL SAID, MR. RAY, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT FOR US? UH, MR. DARA, THIS MAY HAVE BEEN, WHEN YOU STEPPED OUT, THERE WAS, I WENT THROUGH JUST A PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.
THAT'S PENDING AT THE 19TH AND JUST READ THREE OF THE PARAGRAPHS.
UM, AND I'LL READ THEM BRIEFLY.
THIS IS STARTING, UH, MIDWAY THROUGH PARAGRAPH FIVE OF THE PETITION FOR JUDICIAL JUDICIAL REVIEW AFTER EXTENDED DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF THE DISCIPLINE METED OUT BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY AND CONTRARY TO THE LEGAL OPINION OF THE OFFICE OF STATE EXAMINER AND ADVICE FROM THEIR OWN COUNSEL.
THE BOARD VOTED TO REFER THE DISCIPLINE BACK TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY OR RECONSIDERATION PARAGRAPH SIX DISH PETITIONER SHOWS THAT THE BOARD'S DECISION WAS NOT MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR CAUSE BECAUSE IT WAS CONTRARY TO THE APPLICABLE LAW OR THE PETITIONER SHOWS THAT THE DISCIPLINE RENDERED AGAINST HIM IS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND AN ABSOLUTE NOVELTY.
PARAGRAPH SEVEN PETITIONER SHOWS THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE BOARD SHOULD BE REVERSED.
AND THE SUSPENSIONS AND EMOTIONS FROM THE BEN RIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE RESCINDED WITH PETITIONER BEING REINSTATED TO HIS POSITION AND AWARDED ALL BENEFITS AND EMOLUMENTS OF SERVICE, INCLUDING BACK WAGES AND ATTORNEY FEES.
THE LAST PARAGRAPH IS PROBLEMATIC.
I WOULD SAY THAT HE IS PUT, UH, THE ENTIRE DISCIPLINE IN AND OF ITSELF AT THE DISTRICT COURT, UH, WHETHER THAT'S PROPER OR NOT AS ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT THAT'S WHERE IT'S AT THIS POINT.
AND MY FURTHER POINT IS THAT SUCCESS INCLUDED AND IS IN A JDC.
WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE ANY DECISION UNTIL AFTER WE LEARNED WHAT THE SEASONAL JDC IS GOING TO BE.
I WILL POINT OUT THAT THE, UH, JDC IS NOT SCHEDULED TO HEAR THIS UNTIL JULY.
WELL, WITH THAT BEING SAID, UH, SINCE NOW THE WHOLE DISCIPLINE FOR THE FIRST LETTERS IS UP ON APPEAL.
I DO THINK THAT AT THIS POINT WE DON'T HAVE THE JURISDICTION ANYMORE TO, TO MAKE A RULING ON THAT.
UH, TO THE EXTENT, THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION DEALS WITH THE SECOND LETTER, WHICH AGAIN, KIND OF PUTS US IN THAT FUNNY BUSINESS THAT, UM, MR. RAINES WAS TALKING ABOUT.
WE DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE WE'RE ACTUALLY DEALING WITH UNTIL THE JUDGE MAKES A RULING.
I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU TABLE THAT, OR YOU COULD POTENTIALLY DOUBLE WORK YOURSELF.
SO IS THERE A MOTION TO TABLE, A DECISION ON THIS TILL AFTER WE RECEIVE SOMETHING FROM THE DISTRICT COURT? I WAS LOW TABLE.
WE HAVE TWO, ONE IS KIND OF TIED UP WITH TWO WITH, YES.
IT'S ALL, IT'S ALL ON APPEAL TO JDC.
SO WE'LL HAVE TO, WELL, YOU COULD, YOU COULD PROBABLY MAKE A DECISION ON THE FIRST MOTION, THE SECOND MOTION PROBLEM WITH NOT THE FIRST MOTIONS OR PROCEDURAL 60 DAY KIND OF ISSUE.
YOU CAN, IF YOU WANT TO, WHAT WOULD YOUR MOTION PRESS TWO DELAY UNTIL WE HEAR FROM THE JDC ON BOTH
[02:00:01]
ON BOTH.NOW ARE WE GOING TO, WE CAN'T SCHEDULE IT UNTIL WE, WE RECEIVE, UM, THE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE CHUBBY 17.
SO THE DEAL IS SCHEDULED FOR MAY 25TH, 26TH OR SOMETHING.
YEAH, A L A CLEARLY WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A DECISION FROM JULY AND MAY, SO WE PROBABLY WANT TO KICK THE MAY PEEL NOW.
ACTUALLY WE WANT TO TRY AND REACH OUT TO SOMEBODY AND SEE IF WE GET JUGGLE THOSE POSITIONS.
IF WE GO TO THEIR SCHEDULE AND SEE, WHAT DO WE HAVE IN JUNE, WE JUST SCHEDULED A POLICE PERSON TODAY.
YOU WANT TO PUT THEM IF WE COULD, HOLD ON.
MR. RYAN'S, WOULD YOU GUYS BE OPEN TO MOVING MR. LAWRENCE? HIS APPEAL TO MAY, SINCE WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE, UH, SERGEANT KOMLOS APPEAL.
LAWRENCE IS GOING TO GO TO MONDAY, MAY 23RD.
CAN WE TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED CAMIOLO FOR OCTOBER, JUNE? THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING.
WELL, W WE CAN TENTATIVELY PUT THE PROMO I'M HEARING ON THE 24TH.
AND IF SOMETHING COMES UP, YOU, ARE YOU WILLING TO HEAR IT SOONER THAN THAT? IF SOMETHING COMES UP IN THE MEANTIME, IF WE HAVE AN OPENING.
SO WE'RE MOVING KAMALA TO OCTOBER 24TH.
UM, UNLESS WE HEAR SOMETHING FROM THE, UH, THE CORE BEFORE THEN, AND Y'ALL DO OCTOBER 24 AND 25 MINUTE.
THERE'S THREE CASES INVOLVING WITH SERGEANT CAMPBELL.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO GET THAT HE WANTS TO DO THE TWO DAYS.
ON THE OCTOBER, CORRECT? SORRY.
I THINK MS. PENNY WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE AVAILABILITY OF THE VENUE.
SO WE WON'T SCHEDULE THAT, BUT WE WILL UPDATE YOU AS SOON AS WE FIND, FIND OUT.
AT THIS POINT, I'D LIKE TO MOVE FOR A FIVE MINUTE RECESS IF WE WOULD, THE WATER AND, UH, UM, MEANING BACK TO ORDER.
AND FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE A SECURE, THE LOCATION, THE VENUE ON THE 25TH, THAT 25TH OF OCTOBER AS WELL FOR THE SECOND DAY.
[10. Motion for Summary Disposition:]
UH, CHIEF, HAVE YOU COME UP? SO WE HAVE THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON JACOB COWARD, BUT YOU HAVE RESOLVED THAT MATTER.SO, AND IT RESULTS IN A CONSENT DISCIPLINE.
UNLESS ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS, YOU MAY HAVE A DISCUSSION.
PROBABLY WE DID DISCUSS ON, UH, LAST MEETING TO RECEIVE, UH, THAT, THAT WOULD WORK IN THE FORM OF THE PAF OR THE CONSENT DISCIPLINE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AS A, WHAT THE OFFICIAL NOTICE IS TO THE BOARD.
THAT IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT WE SAID? YES.
BUT, UH, TO MR. ROBINSON'S QUESTION, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE DISCIPLINE WAS? YES.
UH, AS YOU, WELL, HE WAS TERMINATED AND PART OF THE CONSENT AND DISCIPLINE, HE WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO RESIGN IN LIEU OF TERMINATION.
UM, AND I BELIEVE THERE WERE, UH, TWO POLICY VIOLATIONS THAT HE ASKED FOR CONSIDERATION, UH, IN THE, UM, CONSENT DISCIPLINE.
AND WE AGREED TO THAT SO THAT HE CAN RESIGN AND MOVE FORWARD.
WE MOVE, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT SECONDED BY MR. SMITH.
[11. Requests for Two (2) Investigations by Sgt. Dauthier]
WE HAVE THE REQUEST OR TWO INVESTIGATIONS BY SERGEANT[02:05:01]
UM, TO CONSIDERED THE CORRESPONDENCE FROM SERGEANT DELVY REQUESTING WITHDRAW.MS. PENNY, CAN YOU READ THAT INTO THE RECORD? THAT'S FINE.
UM, DATED APRIL 13TH, 2022, ADDRESS TWO BOARD CHAIRMAN BRANDON WILLIAMS. WITH THIS LETTER, I AM WITHDRAWING MY TWO REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE ACTIONS OF CHIEF MURPHY, PAUL.
HOWEVER, I RECOGNIZE THAT THE EVIDENCE I'VE PROVIDED IS EXTREMELY COMPELLING.
THEREFORE THE BOARD NECESSARILY RECOGNIZES A DUTY TO CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATION I AM AVAILABLE TO YOU.
SHOULD I BE NEEDED AS A WITNESS AGAIN? DAY-TO-DAY APRIL 13TH, 2022.
IT'S BEEN READ INTO THE RECORD.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? YES.
UH, THE CHIEF DOESN'T HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE, BUT THE MANNER IN WHICH IT'S DISMISSED AS IMPORTANT TO HIM, WE HAVE TWO PENDING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, ONE ON EACH OF THE DIFFERENT INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE REQUESTED BY SERGEANT
UM, SO HE WOULD ASK THAT WE BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THAT BRIEFLY TO YOU, UH, PRIOR TO DISMISSAL, YOU WANT TO DO THAT NOW? OR IS MR. DODY? I HEAR NO, HE ISN'T.
WOULD YOU PRESENT IT? I'M READY TO PRESENT THEM.
IF, IF THE BOARD IS UP TO THE BOARD, IF YOU WANT ME TO ALLOW ME TO DO THAT UP TO THE BOARD, IF Y'ALL WANT TO HEAR MR. RAINS, IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT, UH, THE BOARD HAS, UH, THE MOTIONS IN FRONT OF THEM.
IS IT SOMETHING THAT THEY NEED, IS YOUR EMOTION SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO FOLLOW WITHOUT THE ACTUAL MOTION IN FRONT OF? I BELIEVE SO.
UM, YOU COME TO THE BRIDGE, MR. DARRELL, I BELIEVE WE EMAILED A COPY TO YOU.
SO YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD THAT, UM, DO YOU THINK THERE, ARE YOU OKAY WITH US GOING FORWARD WITH IT? YOU OKAY.
MOVING FORWARD? I SURE DO APOLOGIZE.
I THINK WE'LL PUT THAT IN THERE.
AS YOU'RE AWARE, THERE'S TWO REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATION THAT WERE REQUESTED BY
UM, THE FIRST IS A REQUEST WHICH SEEKS TO HAVE THE BOARD INVESTIGATE CHIEF PAUL FOR THE CHIEF'S DECISION, NOT TO INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION, FOLLOWING THE COMPLAINT, FILED BY MR. SERGEANT DOOFY REGARDING OTHER OFFICERS WITHIN THE CRPD.
UM, THAT REQUEST WAS MADE DURING THE CONTEXT OF A PRIOR DISCIPLINE CASE THAT SERGEANT DOSSIER HAD.
UM, THE CHIEF IN THAT INSTANCE BELIEVED THAT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE MADE IN THAT COMPLAINT COULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT DISCIPLINE CASE AND DID NOT NEED TO BE A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION.
UM, THE SECOND CASE, UH, THAT HE FILED WITH THE BOARD SEEKS TO HAVE THE BOARD INVESTIGATE CHIEF PAUL FOR ALLEGEDLY PROVIDING FALSE TESTIMONY IN A, AN AFFIDAVIT IN A CASE BEFORE THIS BOARD.
AND THAT RELATES TO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU RECALL THAT WE HAD TWO DIFFERENT REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATION THAT WE HEARD REGARDING SERGEANT DOSSIER LAST YEAR, THE FIRST ONE, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY WAS IN JUNE.
AND, UH, THIS ONE RELATES TO THAT, THAT JUNE HEARING BEFORE I WAS COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT, THERE WAS ANOTHER ATTORNEY THAT WAS, UH, INVOLVED IN THESE CASES.
AND THAT SPECIFIC CASE HAD BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE I THINK 2019, HE HAD FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION IN THAT CASE AND IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION, UH, HE HAD AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE CHIEF.
THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE SECOND COMPLAINT.
SO I'LL ADDRESS THE FIRST ONE FIRST AND THEN WE'LL DEAL WITH THE SECOND ONE SECOND.
AGAIN, THE FIRST ONE IS THAT, UM, THE CHIEF, THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE CHIEF VIOLATED THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS, UM, WHEN HE FAILED TO AND CHOSE NOT TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION THAT WAS REQUESTED BY SERGEANT
UM, AND REALLY IT'S JUST ABOUT AN INTER MISINTERPRETATION OF REVISED STATUTE, 40 COLON, 25 31.
AND I'M GOING TO READ THAT, UH, THERE'S A LONG PARAGRAPH B SEVEN AND THE BEGINNING OF IT SAYS WHEN
[02:10:01]
A FORMAL WRITTEN COMPLAINT IS MADE AGAINST ANY POLICE EMPLOYEE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE POLICE, OR THE CHIEF OF POLICE, OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION WITHIN 14 DAYS, UH, OF THE DATE, THE COMPLAINT HAS MADE OUR WHOLE POINT BEHIND.THIS IS THE LAW ENFORCEMENT BILL OF RIGHTS IS TO PROTECT THE OFFICER, RIGHT, IS TO PROVIDE THEIR RIGHTS.
NOW, SERGEANT DOSSIER, THIS THERE'S THIS CASE.
IT'S NOT ABOUT HIM BEING INVESTIGATED.
SO THERE'S NOT REALLY A RIGHTS FOR SERGEANT DUFFY.
HIS BELIEF IS THAT AN INVESTIGATION HAD TO HAVE BEEN OPENED WITHIN 14 DAYS.
IT'S CLEAR FROM CASE LAW THOUGH.
IT SAYS THAT, UH, THE PURPOSE OF THE LONG SOURCE ENFORCEMENT BILL OF RIGHTS IS TO PROTECT THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHO WERE UNDER INVESTIGATION WITH A VIEW TO POSSIBLY POSSIBLE DISCIPLINARY ACTION, DEMOTION OR DISMISSAL.
SO THE PURPOSE OF THAT SPECIFIC STATUTE, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE 14 DAYS IS TO LIMIT THE CHIEF AND HOW MUCH TIME HE HAS TO INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION.
IF ONE IS TO BE INITIATED AT ALL.
NOW YOU CAN IMAGINE A BUNCH OF ABSURD CONSEQUENCES.
IF THE CHIEF WAS REQUIRED TO OPEN INVESTIGATION EVERY TIME ANY COMPLAINT WHATSOEVER WAS RECEIVED.
AND I'LL TELL YOU, THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVES A LOT OF COMPLAINTS THAT DOES NOT END UP IN A FORMAL INVESTIGATION.
AND THIS ONE DID NOT BECAUSE SERGEANT
UH, YOU CAN IMAGINE A CITIZEN JUST MAKING A BIZARRE ALLEGATION AGAINST SOMEONE, SOMETHING THAT CLEARLY ON ITS FACE.
IT SHOULD NOT BE INVESTIGATED.
WELL, IF YOU READ IT AS SERGEANT DOSSIER SUGGESTED THE CHIEF WOULD BE REQUIRED TO USE DEPARTMENT RESOURCE TO RESOURCES, TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION.
UM, IF EVERY TIME AN OFFICER, IF WE OPENED AN INVESTIGATION, UM, AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE AGAINST AN OFFICER, AND THEN HE, UH, WERE TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PERSON THAT WAS INVESTIGATING HIM, THAT COULD END UP WITH SOME ABSURD CONSEQUENCES.
IT WOULD TIE UP THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT TO AN EXTENT THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THEIR JOB.
UM, THIS IS, AGAIN, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT THE CHIEF BELIEF COULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT CASE.
AGAIN, ALL THE STATUTE REALLY REQUIRES AS IF THE POLICE CHIEF EXERCISED HIS DISCRETION TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION.
AND IF HE'S GOING TO DO THAT, WHEN HE RECEIVES A COMPLAINT, HE HAS TO DO THAT WITHIN 14 DAYS.
SO WHAT IS THE STATUTE SAY? YEAH, IT SAYS AT HIS DISCRETION OPEN UP AN INVESTIGATION WHEN A FORMAL WRITTEN COMPLAINT IS MADE BY ANY, AGAINST ANY POLICE OFFICER OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE POLICE, OR THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL INITIATE THE INVESTIGATION WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE DATE, THE COMPLAINT IS MADE.
IT SAYS, SHALL OPEN AN INVESTIGATION WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE DATE, THE COMPLAINT IS MADE IS MADE.
AND THE POINT IS, IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE 60 DAYS, RIGHT? SO HE'S GOT TO DO IT WITHIN THAT 14 DAYS.
AND ONCE THEY RECEIVED THAT COMPLAINT, HE'S GOT 14 DAYS TO OPEN THE, YOU KNOW, THE INVESTIGATION, IF HE DOESN'T DO IT THEN RIGHT.
IT CAN RESULT IN A ABILITY AS WE KIND OF, WE DEALT WITH THAT ARGUMENT IN THE LAST ONE DEALING WITH THE 60 DAYS.
SO THIS IS INITIATE ONE AT ALL.
IT SAYS, SHOUT, IT DOESN'T SAY HE HAS A, HE SHALL INITIATE IT WITHIN 14 DAYS.
SO THE POINT IS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT, YOU'VE GOT TO DO IT WITHIN THE 14 DAYS.
JUST LIKE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO AN INVESTIGATION, YOU GOT TO DO THAT WITHIN 60 DAYS NOW, 75.
BUT YOU KNOW, WE JUST HEARD THAT ARGUMENT ON THE LAST CASE THAT IT HAD TO BE DONE WITHIN THE 60 DAY.
UM, AGAIN, AS WE SAID, IT COULD LEAD TO ABSOLUTELY ABSURD CONSEQUENCES.
IF HE, IF HE WAS REQUIRED TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION EVERY TIME, EVERY TIME THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A COMPLAINT, BECAUSE I CAN TELL, SHALL OPEN AN INVESTIGATION WITHIN 14 DAYS, YOU'VE GOT TO READ THE WHOLE SENTENCE THOUGH.
WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE COMPLAINT, YOU JUST SAID IT WOULD BE CRAZY IF THEY INVESTIGATED EVERY SINGLE COMPLAINT, IT SAYS THEY SHALL INVESTIGATE EVERY SINGLE COMPLAINT.
WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE COMPLAINANT, THEY'VE GOT AN OPEN IT, LIKE THEY START THE INVESTIGATION WITHIN 14 DAYS.
YOU'VE GOT 14 DAYS TO DO THAT ONCE YOU RECEIVED THAT COMPLAINT.
BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THE CHIEF HAS DISCRETION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE OPENS AN INVESTIGATION, A FORMAL INVESTIGATION TO THAT OR NOT.
HE DOES, I HAVE DISCRETION IF HE OPENS IT UP UPON ITSELF.
WELL, WE MEAN, AND THIS WASN'T ON, THIS WAS NOT ABOUT HIMSELF.
WELL, THIS WAS ABOUT A DIFFERENT THOUGHT ABOUT, UH, THE WAY IN WHICH THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS, UH, INVESTIGATION
[02:15:01]
WAS CONDUCTED.THAT'S THE EASIEST WAY TO DESCRIBE IT, BUT HE DIDN'T OPEN THE INVESTIGATION.
NO, BECAUSE HE, AND HE INFORMED THE OFFICER THAT, UH, SERGEANT DOROTHY, IN THIS CASE, UM, THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THE INVESTIGATION TO HAVE A PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
AND IT'S IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PREDISPOSED HEARING THAT IF HE HAD ANY DEFENSES, HE COULD HAVE RAISED THOSE.
IF HE HAD AN ISSUE WITH A WAY THAT IT WAS ADDRESSED, HE COULD HAVE ADDRESSED IT.
THERE ULTIMATELY HE WAS EXONERATED IN THAT CASE.
AND THERE WAS NO, NO DISCIPLINE OFFENDER, BUT, UM, HE FILED THIS, HE FILED THIS AFTER, CORRECT.
HE FILED IT AFTER AND IT WAS HIS BELIEF THAT A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE.
THAT IS THE ALLEGATION THAT HE MADE.
HE COULD HAVE BROUGHT IT UP AT HIS PREVIOUS PRELIMINARY HEARING SAME ALLEGATION, CORRECT.
AGAIN, UM, THAT'S REALLY THE FIRST ARGUMENT RELATED TO THAT SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION.
THE SECOND IS WE ARGUED THE 60 DAY RULE A LOT TODAY.
UM, THIS REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION WAS INITIALLY RECEIVED BY THIS BOARD A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO.
UM, AT THAT TIME YOU ALL HAD 60 DAYS TO CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATION.
THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN WITHIN THE 60 DAYS.
UM, SO I, I BELIEVE THAT THE BOARD IS WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE FORWARD AND INVESTIGATE IT ANYWAY.
UM, BUT I THINK FROM A MERIT STANDPOINT, BASED UPON OUR FIRST ARGUMENT, YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO REALLY GET TO THE PROCEDURAL STUFF BECAUSE THERE'S NOT JUST CAUSE TO GO FORWARD WITH AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE CHIEF ON THIS ISSUE.
UM, I'LL BRIEFLY ADDRESS SAY THAT AGAIN, JUST CAUSE TO GO FORWARD TO THE INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE CHIEF.
I I'M SAYING OUR ARGUMENT IS WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE'S JUST CALLS AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE TO GO FORWARD WITH AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE CHIEF, BASED UPON JUST THE FACE OF THE REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION FROM SERGEANT DOSSIER, THE ALLEGATIONS THAT HE MADE, DON'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF SOMETHING THAT NEEDS A FULL INVESTIGATION BY THIS BOARD OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
LET ME ADDRESS REQUEST NUMBER TWO.
WELL, SO NUMBER TWO AND NUMBER ONE, BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATION WAS NEVER OPEN.
NUMBER TWO, IT WENT PAST 60 DAYS.
SO WE RAISED A 60 DAY ISSUE ON BOTH OF THEM.
SO I THINK PROCEDURALLY, IS THERE A REASON WHY YOU COULD DISMISS IT? SURE.
UM, YES, BUT W WE, WE'RE ASKING YOU TO ALSO LOOK AT THE MERITS OF WHAT WAS FILED AND DISMISS IT ON THAT BASIS AS WELL.
UM, THE SECOND ONE WAS THAT THE CHIEF, UH, PROVIDED TO THE BOARD PERJURED TESTIMONY WHEN HE SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION THAT WAS FILED BY THE ATTORNEY THAT WAS REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE ME.
UM, AND I THINK THAT WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IS YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE, UM, AND WE'VE GOT IT IN HERE.
AND IT HAS A DIFFERENT BOUNCE, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY A 60 DAY THINGS DIFFERENT.
AND MR. RYAN'S JUST REAL QUICK, THE 60 DAY ISSUE IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT 60 DAYS.
THE 60 DAYS THAT, UM, MR. KERSHAW WAS ARGUING ABOUT WHAT, THE 60 DAYS WITHIN THE POLICE OFFICER BILL, RIGHT.
THE 60 DAYS FOR THE INVESTIGATION IS IN A DIFFERENT PART OF THE, UH, THE, THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW.
THEY HAVE DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES.
SO YEARS AGO, UH, THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS DID NOT SPELL OUT A CONSEQUENCE.
IT DID NOT SAY WHAT HAPPENED IF YOU VIOLATED THE 60 DAYS AS A MATTER OF FACT USED TO BE, IF HE VIOLATED THE 60 DAYS, NO BIG DEAL.
EVENTUALLY THE LEGISLATURE CAME IN AND SAID, NAH, IF YOU D IF YOU MISS THE 60 DAYS, THERE'S A PENALTY.
SO IT WAS ABSOLUTELY MELODY THAT'S RIGHT, RIGHT.
SO THAT'S, AS IT RELATES TO THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS.
SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE OTHER PART OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW, THE QUESTION IS, WELL, IF THEY FIXED IT FOR THE POLICE BILL OF RIGHTS, WHY DIDN'T THEY FIX IT FOR 24 77? AND THAT'S THE OPEN QUESTION.
SO EVEN THOUGH IT DOES SAY SHELL, IT DOESN'T REALLY, UH, POINT OUT WHAT THE CONSEQUENCE WILL BE.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU CAN IMMEDIATELY JUMP TO IT'S AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SAY THAT.
UH, SO THAT'S MY FIRST POINT, PIGGYBACKING TO THAT 14 DAY ISSUE THAT YOU AND MR. RYAN'S WERE DISCUSSING AGAIN, SAME DEAL.
IF YOU VIOLATE THE 14 DAYS, THE QUESTIONS, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE ISSUE.
UH, THE ISSUE THEN IS THAT FOR THE OFFICER UNDER INVESTIGATION,
[02:20:02]
IT'S AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY, RIGHT? NOT NECESSARILY THAT SOMEONE GETS IN TROUBLE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IT'S JUST FOR THE OFFICER WHO WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION.AND THERE WAS NOT AN INVESTIGATION STARTED WITHIN 14 DAYS.
I WANT TO CLARIFY THOSE TWO POINT.
SO IF, IF ANYBODY OPENS UP A COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE CHIEF OR WHOEVER, AND HE CHOOSES NOT TO DO THE INVESTIGATION, THERE'S NO REPERCUSSIONS OR ANYTHING, NOT UNDER THE POLICE.
I WOULDN'T SAY THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, THE POLICE OFFICER, BILL OF RIGHTS, OR THE RIGHTS FOR THAT EMPLOYEE UNDER INVESTIGATION, I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY CALLED THE MINIMUM STANDARDS WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION.
SO IT'S, IT'S FOR THE OFFICER UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR THE PERSON WHO MAKES THE COMPLAINT.
I MEAN, PROBABLY THEIR REPERCUSSION OR THEIR REMEDY PROBABLY IS PROBABLY MORE PROPER IS IT, THEY FILE A COMPLAINT ON THE PERSON WHO DIDN'T START THE INVESTIGATION, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING, BUT NOT WHO WELL, UH, DEPENDS ON WHO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IF THE, I GOT, LET'S SAY, AND WE'RE SPEAKING, HYPOTHETICALLY, LET'S SAY IT'S THE CHIEF, WHILE YOU WOULD FILE A COMPLAINT TO SOMEONE ELSE, BUT PROBABLY, UH, THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR, WHOEVER APPOINTED CHIEF, THAT'S WHERE YOU FILE YOUR COMPLAINT.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE THERE YET, BUT I MIGHT AS WELL SAY IT.
I MEAN, IT DON'T REALLY MATTER CAUSE WE'RE GOING TO DISMISS HIM BECAUSE OF HIS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED.
I MEAN, WE JUST HERE IN THE MERITS ON THE CASE, WE ALREADY KNOW THAT WHOSE RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED THE POLICE CHIEF WITH THE 60 DAY RULE AND THE 14 DAY RULE DON'T APPLY BECAUSE HE DIDN'T OPEN UP AN INVESTIGATION.
SO IF THE BOARD HAD DISCIPLINARY JURISDICTION OVER THE CHIEF, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU.
BUT IT, DOESN'T NOT AT THIS POINT.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT HIS RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED.
UH, NOW HIS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 60 DAYS TO START THE INVESTIGATION.
THE BOARD DID NOT START THE INVESTIGATION, BUT THE IT'S AN OPEN QUESTION AS TO WHAT NOW, RIGHT? YEAH.
SO I THINK FOR THE PURPOSES OF TODAY, YOU'RE HEARING THE MERITS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO DISMISSAL ON THOSE, ON THE MARRIAGE THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, NOT NECESSARILY CAUSE THOSE PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? UH, I WOULD APPRECIATE THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD THAT HE HAD THE SAME RIGHTS AS ANY POLICE OFFICER FIREFIGHTER.
THE INVESTIGATION WENT PAST THE 60 DAYS.
SO BY LAW, THAT NEEDS TO BE DISMISSED.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY COMPLETE.
I THINK THAT ACTUALLY, I THINK THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS DOES APPLY HERE AS WELL AS THE 60 DAY RULE THAT APPLIES TO SPECIFICALLY TO THIS BOARD, THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS, UM, PARAGRAPH C THERE SHALL BE NO DISCIPLINE, DEMOTION, DISMISSAL, OR, OR ADVERSE ACTION OF ANY SORT TAKEN AGAINST THE POLICE OFFICER OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, UNLESS THE INVESTIGATION IS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINIMUM STANDARDS PROVIDED FOR IN THIS SECTION.
ANY OF THAT THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE IS AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY, RIGHT? SO THE QUESTION WOULD BE TO MR. RYANS, WHAT DISCIPLINE, IF ANY, COULD THE BOARD ACTUALLY INSTITUTE ON THE CHIEF? NO, EXACTLY.
SO POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS CANNOT APPLY IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE BECAUSE WE CAN'T DISCIPLINE THE CHIEF.
THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE.
THE 60 DAYS AT ISSUE IS THE 24 77 60 DAYS, WHICH THERE IS NO PENALTY.
AND THAT'S THAT SUPREME COURT CASE IN MARX, SERGEANT DODY PRESENTED THAT IN HIS OPPOSITION.
I AGREE WITH SERGEANT DODY HIS ANALYSIS ON THAT POINT.
BUT I THINK THE QUESTION OF TODAY IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE THAT BASED ON THE FACTS THAT HE'S PRESENTED, THE, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE ON DOES THE CHIEF HAVE DISCRETION, WHICH I AGREE WITH THAT.
I THINK THE CHIEF HAS DISCRETION.
WHETHER OR NOT HE SHOULD BE OPEN TO AN INVESTIGATION.
HE CAN'T BE FORCED TO OPEN UP AN INVESTIGATION EVERY TIME SOMEONE COMPLAINS, BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE THEN THE PROCEDURALIST I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IF, AND WHEN THIS THING GETS APPEAL, WHERE WE'RE UP ON THE RIGHT RIGHT BASIS, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
SO I WOULD STICK TO THOSE ISSUES AND NOT THE EASY OFF RAMP OF THE 60 DAYS AND ALL THAT STUFF.
SO I'LL, UM, I'LL FINISH BRIEFLY ADDRESSING JUST THAT SECOND REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION, WHICH WAS THE, THE AFFIDAVIT.
UM, THIS IS THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THE CHIEF SIGNED IN SUPPORT OF THAT MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
UM, AND AGAIN, WELL JUST KIND OF REMIND THE BOARD, NOT EVERYBODY WAS ON IT WHEN, WHEN THIS HAPPENED.
UM, SERGEANT
[02:25:01]
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CHIEF, WHEN I GOT HIM ON BOARD, WE ENDED UP DISMISSING THIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION THAT HAD BEEN FILED TO ALLOW THE MATTER TO GO TO TRIAL, WHICH IT DID.IT WENT TO HEARING, BUT HERE'S WHAT THE AFFIDAVIT SAYS.
UM, PARAGRAPH ONE SAYS I'M A PERSON FULL AGE OF MAJORITY OF SOUND, MIND, AND CAPABLE AND COMPETENT TO MAKE THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS AFFIDAVIT, WHICH I SWEAR ARE TRUE AND CORRECT.
THE STUFF IN THE AFFIDAVIT IS CORRECT.
HERE'S WHAT THE ONE SENTENCE THAT STARTED WITH YOU TOOK ISSUE WITH, I VERIFY THAT THE LETTER OF CAUTION DATED SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2019, AND SIGNED BY SERGEANT DOROTHY ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2019 IS BEING MAINTAINED.
MY CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE FILES.
IT WAS NOT PLACED AND WILL NOT BE PLACED INTO SERGEANT DOROTHEA'S PERSONNEL FILE.
WHAT ARE WE PUT IN THE BRIEF IS THAT WHEN SERGEANT, UH, WHEN THE CHIEF WAS TALKING ABOUT AS CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE FILES, HE BELIEVED, I MEAN, IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN UP TO THE DEPARTMENT, UM, CHIEF'S OFFICE OFFICES ON THE THIRD FLOOR, ACROSS THE HALL, YOU GET OFF THE ELEVATORS, YOU GO THIS WAY, YOU GO TO THE CHIEF'S OFFICE, YOU GO THIS WAY, YOU'RE GOING TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS.
HE'S THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY.
IT'S HIS BELIEF THAT THE FILES THAT OUR INTERNAL AFFAIRS OR HIS FILE, OKAY.
THOSE ARE MAINTAINED IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT AND IT'S LOCKED.
NOT JUST ANYBODY GO BACK THERE AND LOOK AT THE FILES.
SO WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE CO UH, THE CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE FILES, THAT'S WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.
IT'S REALLY A MANNER OF A MATTER OF SEMANTICS.
HE, WASN'T TRYING TO DECEIVE THE BOARD WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT IS CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE FILES.
THAT'S WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.
SO HE EXECUTED A NEW AFFIDAVIT IS IN SUPPORT OF OUR MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION THAT WE FILED WITH THIS BOARD EXPLAINING JUST THAT, UM, WHEN I TALKED ABOUT CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE FILES, I WAS TALKING ABOUT MY INTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, THE LOCKED STUFF THAT WE PUT OVER THERE, UH, WE DO NOT PLACE AND DID NOT PLACE, UM, THE, THAT RULING LETTER IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE PERSONNEL FILE IS KEPT IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PLACE.
THAT'S EITHER WITH ACCOUNTING OR IT'S WITH HR AT THE CITY, BUT IT'S THAT LETTER D DIDN'T GO IN THERE.
THAT, THAT LETTER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
SO THE WHOLE REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION HAS WRAPPED AROUND THAT SENTENCE.
AND THE CHIEF EXPLAINED TO YOU, I WASN'T TRYING TO MISLEAD YOU.
UM, SERGEANT
IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF SEMANTICS THAT, UM, THAT HE'S UPSET ABOUT.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU DISMISS REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION.
NUMBER TWO, JUST BASED ON ITS MERITS AS WELL.
DO WE HAVE A DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD? SO IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE AN EMAIL SITUATION HERE.
WE EITHER TAKE SIGNED DOSSIERS REQUEST TO WITHDRAWAL ALL WE DISMISS BASED ON THE CHIEFS WOULD QUEST AM I CORRECT IN THAT? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S FAIR.
MS. FAM AND I WOULD, UM, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE DISMISS BASED ON THE CHIEF'S REQUEST.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'M SHARON, UM, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
ALL IN, ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION PASSES.
IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE IN DOING IT EITHER WAY? IT'S THE RESULT WILL BE THE SAME, THE RESULT, THE RESULT IS THE SAME.
UM, INSTIGATION, THE MISERABLE.
IT'S GOING TO JUST DISMISS THE INVESTIGATION.