[00:00:01]
PROBABLY MEANS WATER AND 30 MONDAY, MAY 23RD.STARTING AT THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS, I LIKED WELL FROM SERGEANT JOHN DOE AS A POLICE BREVARD.
[1. Roll Call]
SAID, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE ROLL CALL AND SPINNING.CHRIS ROBINSON, SHARON LEWIS, JOHN SMITH, JOHN DOE DA JOSHUA, DARA, BRANDON WILLIAMS. HAVE A QUORUM, SIR.
OH, BUT YOU HAVE THAT LITTLE RECORDER.
UM, SO WE'D LIKE TO GIVE THIS OPPORTUNITY, UH, OR PUBLIC COMMENT IF WE HAVE ANY AIN'T NONE I CAN MOVE ON FOR THE NEXT VISIT
[2. Review and Approve Agenda]
REVIEW AND APPROVE THE AGENDA.UH, I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE THINK OF NUMBER 13, USE THE MICROPHONE.
I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TAKE UP ITEM 13 ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING AFTER WE APPROVED THE MINUTES.
[3. Consider and Approve Regular Meeting Minutes of April 25, 2022]
ITEM NUMBER THREE.IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND THAT, OKAY.
LET'S GET CLARITY ON THE MOTION.
PRESS IS, UH, MAKE SECONDING THE MOTION TO MOVE UP.
AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. JOHN SMITH, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
UM, DO WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO ITEM NUMBER THREE THE NEXT MONTH? ALL RIGHT.
THE RESULTS ARE THE, WELL, OKAY, SO MOTION NUMBER TWO WOULD BE THAT WE MOVE ITEM NUMBER 10 FROM THE AGENDA.
UH, I'VE GIVEN THE EMPLOYEE WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE PERMIT LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTE, UH, 32 SECTION 17.
UM, A SIMILAR AGENDA WOOL ITEM WILL BE ON TOMORROW'S AGENDA.
CAN I PLEASE GET A SECOND ON THE MOTION? I DIDN'T RECEIVE A WRITTEN NOTICE.
EMAIL WHICH EMAIL? UM, I'VE LOOKED THROUGH MY EMAILS.
I DIDN'T SEE A WRITTEN NOTICE.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO LOG ON REAL QUICK, PLEASE, PLEASE REPEAT THE MOTION.
HE IS REMOVING ITEM NUMBER 10 FROM THE AGENDA TO GIVE THE EMPLOYEE 24 HOUR NOTICE OF EXECUTIVE SESSION.
IT WAS SENT AT 9:43 AM THIS MORNING.
YOU ASKED ME TO BE HERE AT NINE 30, SO I DIDN'T SEE THAT I WAS HERE AT 9 28, I GUESS.
WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT NOTICED RECEIVING IT'S BY LAW.
HOW DOES, I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT FAMILIAR.
TELL ME WHAT TO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.
I WOULD LIKE TO COUNSEL WITH MY, I WOULD LIKE TO CONSULT WITH MY COUNSEL AS WELL, AND I HAVE A MEETING WITH HER TOMORROW AFTER THE BOARD MEETING.
UM, JUST SO THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT THE CHAIRMAN OR THE BOARD GIVE THE EMPLOYEE 24 HOURS OF NOTICE.
WHENEVER THEY'RE GOING TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ABOUT THE EMPLOYEE TO DISCUSS THE PROFESSIONAL CHARACTER, COMPETENCE, ALL THOSE DIFFERENT ISSUES, UH, HEALTH, ALL THAT GOOD STUFF.
IT APPEARS THAT MR. WILLIAMS SENT, UH, AN EMAIL TO MS. PENNY AT, UH, 9 43.
BUT I THINK THAT SATISFIES THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT NOW, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF MS. PENNEY'S COUNSEL, I DON'T WANT TO COMMENT OR IS THAT AT ALL? OKAY.
AND I'M JUST NOW SEEING THIS, LET ME SEE IT SAYS, UM, LET ME READ IT TO YOU JUST TO MIND, BUT I THINK FOR THE PURPOSES OF WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW, THE ONLY DISCUSSION IS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY, THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU GOT NOTICED AS A SEPARATE ISSUE.
I THINK IT JUST SAYS ON TUNNEL MESSAGE.
AND THEN ONCE I OPEN IT, IT SAYS, NOTICE A PERIOD DOC.
AND THAT, THAT DOES SAY IT'S, UM, CCU MR. DARRA AND FROM THE BRAND AND FROM THE CHAIR, BRANDON WILLIAMS. SO AGAIN, I THINK THE ONLY THING ON THE ACTUAL FLOOR RIGHT NOW, IT'S JUST A MOTION TO REMOVE AN ITEM FROM THE AGENDA.
I THINK THAT'S AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING RIGHT NOW, WHETHER AGAIN, THE NOTICE ISSUE, THAT'S A SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW.
[00:05:01]
OKAY.AND THIS DIDN'T IT OR THE BILL THAT, UM, I GUESS IN THAT INSTANCE, YOU NEED TO START THE MEETING AT 10 40.
I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO GIVE 24 HOURS BEFORE THE START OF THE MEETING FOR
YOU CAN AMEND THE MOTION, THE MOTION, THE MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'M ON, EXCUSE ME.
I'M UNCLEAR ABOUT WHAT YOUR, UH, MENTAL MOTION IS.
IT'S JUST THAT, UM, THERE'S SOME QUESTION ABOUT WHERE THAT WAS SENT EARLIER TODAY AND I'M ASKING THAT THIS ACTION THAT WE ARE ABOUT TO TAKE, BE CONSIDERED AS NOTICE FOR TOMORROW'S EXECUTIVE SESSION.
MS. DARA, MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT WOULD JIVE WITH 42 17, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT HAS, IT HAS TO DO WITH START TIME OF MEETING.
AM I CORRECT ABOUT THAT? ACTUALLY, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I THINK THAT THIS, THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS IT'S KIND OF MOOD.
THE ONLY DISCUSSION ON THE TABLE IS THE REMOVING OF AN AGENDA ITEM.
WHETHER OR NOT SHE GOT NOTICED IS THAT ISSUE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU BRING UP AT SOME OTHER POINT, THAT CAN BE, UH, AN OBJECTION TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AT THE TIME.
BUT AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME, THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE REMOVING AN ITEM, I'M ACTUALLY NOW LOOKING AT THE EMAIL THAT I WAS CC'D ON.
IT DOES APPEAR THAT THERE WAS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE EMAIL.
I HAVE NOT OPENED UP THE ATTACHMENT, BUT IT WAS GIVEN AT 9 43.
IN THAT CASE I WAS THROWING MY OH LORD.
WHERE ARE WE NOW? SOMEBODY HELP ME OR ARE WE, SO FOR EVERYBODY'S CLARITY, THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO REMOVE ITEM NUMBER 10 FROM THE AGENDA TO BE DISCUSSED TOMORROW ON TOMORROW'S AGENDA.
WHICH YEAH, EVERYBODY THERE I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.
UM, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADD ON AGENDA AND OUR AGENDA ITEM RESCALE IS YOU LAYING OUT THE JUNE 22ND MEETING RIGHT NOW.
IF YOU MOVE TO YOUR CALENDAR, THAT'S A WEDNESDAY.
I THINK IT SAYS IT'S BEEN IN 20, 22 JUNE.
THE MEETING, CHANGING THE MEETING ON THE JUNE MONEY.
THAT'S THE CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION? NO, WE DIDN'T CHANGE.
NO, NO, WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET.
SO WHAT ARE YOU DOING NOW? WE'RE CHANGING THE, UH, SO YOU JUST WANT HIM, BUT YOU JUST WANT TO PUT THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
AND THEN YOU, WHEN YOU GET THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA, YOU GUYS CAN DISCUSS IT.
I'M MAKING A MOTION THAT WE ADD.
UH, IT'S AN ADD ON FOR THE AGENDA, A DISCUSSION OF THE RESCHEDULING OF THE JUNE MEETING, CHANGING, JUST CHANGING THE DATE OF THE JUNE MEETING.
SO I'M JUST ASKING THAT WE, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST MAKING, ASKING THAT WE MAKE A MOTION TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT AND IT'D BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA.
NOW YOU HAVE A SECOND FROM DR.
SO, UM, ALL, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
WE'RE GOING TO ADD THAT AT JOHN HAS A QUESTION, JOHN.
AT ONE POINT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SAY JOHN, SO WHO'S GOING TO BE JOHN, JOHN, JOHN, JOHN, JUST, WHAT NUMBER DID YOU ADD IT? JUST PUT IT AT THE END.
WE COULD PUT IT AFTER THE APPEAL HEARING.
AND THE GERMANS NOW WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER 16.
[00:10:01]
ON, AM I HEARING YOU CORRECTLY TO RESCHEDULE THE JANUARY WHEN HE SENT IT BEFORE? SO IT COULD BE NUMBER 13, THE LAST NAME.WE CAN ADD IT TO ITEM NUMBER 13, 13, 13.
AND ALSO WE HAVE, UH, WE'D LIKE TO CHANGE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DID YOU DO THAT ALREADY? DID Y'ALL DO THE PUBLIC HEARING ALREADY DID Y'ALL MOVE THE PUBLIC HEARING ALREADY? NO, WE HAVEN'T.
I THINK IT WAS THE FIRST THING Y'ALL DID NOT.
THE FIRST THING WE DID WAS THE NUMBER 13, WHICH IS THE PUBLIC HEARING.
NOW YOU JUST NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AGENDA AGENDA.
CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NEW AGENDA? DON'T MOVE.
ALL RIGHT, MS. PENNY, IF YOU WOULD, CAN YOU RE UH, CALL CALL-OUT OUR NEW ITEM NUMBERS AS THEY WOULD BE ON THE NEWEST? WELL, WELCOME TO ALL RIGHT.
FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 13 BECOMES NUMBER FOUR.
NUMBER FIVE IS A PRE OF APPLICATIONS.
NUMBER SIX IS CONSIDERING A PRE RESULTS OF EXAMINATIONS.
NUMBER SEVEN IS CALLED FOR WHERE'D.
YOU PUT THAT PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT'S NUMBER FOUR, COME EXAMINATION SEVEN, CONSIDER PREPARE, REJECT PERSONNEL, ACTION FORMS. NUMBER EIGHT, DECISIONS, ORDERS AND MATTERS.
NUMBER NINE, NUMBER NINE EIGHT IS DEADLINES FOR FINDINGS OF FACT ON TWO PENDING APPEALS AT DISTRICT COURT LEVEL.
MY NEW NUMBER 10 IS CONSIDERED REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION.
MY NEW NUMBER 11 IS THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH I BELIEVE YOU REMOVED.
IT'S GOING TO BE DISCUSSED POSSIBLE.
HOW INVESTIGATIONS DID THE BOARD ARE REQUIRED TO PERFORM SHOULD BE CONDUCTED? UM, 13 A IS SCHEDULED THE RESCHEDULED, THE JUNE 22ND, 2022 MEETING.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE DANGLING.
I THINK 13 SHOULD JUST BE THE RESCHEDULE.
13 IS RESCHEDULED TO JUNE 22ND, 2022 BOARD MEETING 14.
HIS APPEAL HEARING REGARDING TROY LAWRENCE 15 IS A JUROR.
WHICH MOVES US NOW TO ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.
CONSIDER IMPROVED REGULAR MEETINGS OF MINUTES OF APRIL 25TH MEETING THAT MEETINGS.
SOME BOTH CONFIRMING, THERE WAS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES I MOVE THAT.
WE GO AHEAD AND PREPARE YOUR AMANDA'S THERE A SECOND.
SO, UM, THEY MOVED IN SECOND, UM, THAT WE APPROVED THE MAINTENANCE OF APRIL 25TH.
[13. Public Hearing regarding adoption of an amendment to the class of Criminal Intelligence Analyst]
TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.SO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT DELETES THAT, UM, THE PERSON MUST HAVE TWO YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE, LAW ENFORCEMENT OR RELATED FIELD INVOLVED WITH RESEARCH, UH, COMPILATION AND AN ANALYST OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES, THE CRIMINAL.
AND THIS IS FOR THE CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS.
ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? WHAT WAS THIS? WHAT WAS THIS ABOUT? SO TH THEY, THEY CHANGED THE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE TWO YEARS OF, UH, CRIMINAL JUSTICE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OR RELATED EXPERIENCES TO APPLY FOR THIS POSITION.
BUT WE HAD A WAY WE POSTED IT PUBLICLY TO AMEND IT.
AND AT TIMES, SO THERE WAS NO PUBLIC COMMENT, UH, UM, ACID.
DO YOU HAVE ANY THING ON THIS MATTER?
[00:15:02]
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ON THIS MATTER ON THE AMENDMENT OF THE AREA? OH, NO.THIS IS FIBRO TIME CRIME CENTER, PUT AN ANALYST IN THERE TO HELP INVESTIGATE OR SUPPORT.
SO IS THERE A MOTION TO AMEND AND ADOPT? DON'T DO THAT.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND SECONDED BY MR. SMITH.
[4. Consider and Approve Applications]
THAT MOVES US TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE, CONSIDER AND APPROVE APPLICATIONS FOR POLICE FORENSIC SCIENTIST.WE HAVE WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS TWO QUALIFIED APPLICANTS.
I WILL READ INTO RECORD THEIR NAME, NICOLE AND GLORY, AND JAMIE G BAKER.
THESE ARE OUR TWO APPLICANTS I LOOKED AT.
WE APPROVE THESE APPLICATIONS.
THEY'RE SECOND SECONDED BY MR. SMITH.
[5. Consider and Approve Results of Examinations]
NUMBER SIX.CONSIDERING APPROVED RESULTS OF IN EXAMINATIONS.
PASS THOSE AROUND AND TAKE A MINUTE TO THE FOOD.
SHE'S YOU BUYING ANYTHING UP HERE? DO WE NEED READ INTO THE RECORD OR JUST LIST OR JUST LIKE WITH THE ELIGIBLE, DON'T EVEN READ THEM.
YOU DON'T NEED TO GIVE HIM YOU CAN'T OUT.
SO WE'LL JUST LOOK OVER THEM, PASS THEM DOWN.
AND THE REASON YOU SEEN THAT WELL, FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE CALLED FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE, THE RESULTS OF THE EXAMINATIONS OF, UM,
[00:20:01]
LOTION FOR MOTION BY MR. PRES SECOND BY JOHN SMITH, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, ALL OPPOSED.[6. Call For Examinations]
ON TO ITEM.NUMBER SIX, WE HAVE A CALL FOR EXAMINATION OR A POLICE CADET OR CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE ANALYST, POLICE, CRIMINAL INFORMATION SPECIALIST, ONE POLICE FINGERPRINT TECHNICIAN ONE AND POLICE COMMUNICATIONS.
OFFICER ONE SEVEN, CORRECT? YES.
I MOVE THE COFFEE EXAM SECOND.
UH, MS. SHARON, CAN WE, UM, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
[7. Consider and Approve/Reject Personnel Action Forms]
NUMBER EIGHT, CONSIDER AND APPROVE AND REJECT PERSONAL ACTION FORMS. BOOKS RIGHT HERE.SO BASICALLY WE'RE JUST GOING TO, I COULD SIGN THIS AFTER READING.
YOU'RE JUST GOING TO ASK THAT WE I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE, UH, PAS TO JOHN I'LL SECOND.
SO IT'S BEEN MOSTLY BY MYSELF, SECONDED BY JOHN ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
HE WANTS TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT JUST AS A MATTER OF, I JUST WANT TO LOOK AT IT REAL QUICK AS PAUL AGREED TO, UH, PLEASE, I'M JUST MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE ALL SIGNED, NOT APPOINTING AUTHORITY BOARD MEMBERS.
PLEASE LOOK AROUND AND SEE IF YOU HAVE THE SCORES FOR FIRE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR FOR OUR CAPTAIN FIRE INVESTIGATOR AND FIRE COMMUNICATIONS, OFFICER ONE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OFFICER.
NO, I DON'T WANT, I JUST HANDED DOWN.
WE WERE CALLING FOR THE VOTE ALL IN FAVOR.
[8. Decisions and Orders Matters]
ON TO ITEM NUMBER NINE, DECISION ORDERS AND MATTER.UM, SO THIS IS SOMETHING NEW THAT'S I GUESS, NEW ISH ON THE AGENDA.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S IN THE BOARD RULES AND IT'S JUST BE A SECTION WHERE THE BOARD CAN ISSUE ITS DECISIONS.
IT CAN ISSUE ORDERS IF IT WANTS AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME.
UM, FOR TODAY THERE'S ACTUALLY ONE, UH, PENDING APPEAL.
[00:25:01]
IT ACTUALLY INVOLVES, UH, MR. DODYSO THAT APPEAL OCCURRED BEFORE I WAS A BOARD ATTORNEY.
AND WHEN, UH, I THOUGHT WOULD BE HELPFUL AND PROBABLY LEAST PAINFUL FOR THE BOARD IS IF THE PARTIES, UH, SUBMITTED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, UM, SOMETIME BEFORE AND THEN, UH, ME AND THE CHAIR CAN GET TOGETHER AND ACTUALLY COME TOGETHER AND PUT TOGETHER A FINAL PROJECT, UH, PRODUCT.
SO I NEEDED A MOTION FROM THE BOARD, ORDERING THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, WITHIN 10 DAYS, WE GET COMMENTS ABOUT THAT FROM THE BUDDIES.
IS THERE A DISCUSSION? UH, I DO WANT TO ADD, I DON'T KNOW.
HE DIDN'T, HE DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT.
UH, SO I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND YOU MAY NOT WANT TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS AND STUFF.
I THINK MR. RAINE IS, WAS HERE.
UH, HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS, SO I THAT'S THE COMMENTS THAT I HAVE SO FAR, I SUPPOSE, OPERATING ON NO COMMENT.
WELL, ONE COMMENT AND I KNOW JACK ONE, OBJECTION, YOU KNOW, JACKSON, RIGHT ON THAT CASE, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE, UH, ASPHALT THE, THE MISSION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT WITHIN 10 DAYS WITHIN, WITHIN 10 DAYS.
IS THERE A SECOND FINDINGS OF FACT FROM THE, FROM THE, UH, PART PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT FROM THE OTHER PARTIES? YES.
ALL OPPOSED MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GOING TO VOLUNTARILY RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS PHOTO, SIR.
ACKNOWLEDGED THE EMOTION MOTION PASSES THAT MOVES US TO ITEM NINE, A DEADLINE FOR FINDING A FACT FOR TWO APPEALS AT THE DISTRICT COURT LEVEL.
SO WE, WE MOVED THAT TO EIGHT, BUT WE TOOK CARE OF ALL OF IT IN THAT.
SO WE'LL JUST TO, UH, ITEM 10, CONSIDER
[9. Consider Request for Investigation submitted by citizen, Lt. Terri Witt.]
RE REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION SUBMITTED BY CITIZEN, LIEUTENANT TERRY WIT.THAT'S WHAT? HERE IS MS. WADE HERE.
DOES THAT GO ALONG WITH WHAT WE DISCUSSED THIS MORNING? YES.
SO IF THEY'RE NOT HERE, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THAT ALONG WITH THE OTHER MATTER.
WHAT'S THE OTHER MATTER? THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BOARD INVESTIGATION, RIGHT? WE ACTUALLY LEFT THAT ON.
UM, WE, WE DIDN'T KNOW IF SHE WAS GOING TO BE HERE.
SO NOW THAT SHE'S NOT HERE WITH EVERYTHING TO TOMORROW.
UM, IS THERE A MOTION TO MOVE? UH, THOSE ITEMS NUMBER 10 AND 13, WHICH IS TO DISCUSS HOW INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE BOARD IS REQUIRED TO PERFORM SHOULD BE CONDUCTED TO TOMORROW'S AGENDA SECOND, PLEASE REPEAT THE MOTION.
THE MOTION IS TO MOVE ITEMS. NUMBER 10 AND 13, COLLECTIVELY THE ITEM NUMBER 10 IS CONSIDERED A REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION SUBMITTED BY A CITIZEN, LIEUTENANT TERRY WITT AND ITEM NUMBER 13 IS TO DISCUSS, DISCUSS HOW INVESTIGATIONS AT THE BOARD ARE REQUIRED TO PERFORM SHOULD BE CONDUCTED.
SO I THINK PROPERLY, YOU SHOULD JUST TABLE IT MOTION TO TABLE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING.
SO YOU WANT TO READ THEM ALL EMOTION? YEAH.
THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION TO TABLE.
THOSE TWO ITEMS UNTIL TOMORROW.
IS THERE A SECOND MARCH MEETING? SECOND ONE TIME.
SO WE REMOVED ITEM NUMBER 10, NUMBER ITEM, ITEM 13, WHICH COLLECTIVELY WE'LL CHANGE OUR ORDER.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO REORDER THOSE NUMBERS MS. PENNY AT THIS TIME? YES.
WE DISCUSSED THE DEADLINES AND FINDING THE FACT THAT WAS ITEM NUMBER 10.
NOW WE'LL BE MOVED THAT WHEN THEY THOUGHT, OKAY.
AND YOU TOOK OFF ITEM NUMBER 10.
SO ITEM 10 NOW AS DISCUSSED POSSIBLE OPEN MEETING SONG VIOLATIONS.
AND CANDICE OR LENS REQUESTED INVESTIGATION, BUT WE'LL JUST TABLE THAT UNTIL TOMORROW.
SO WE TABLE 10 AND 13, 10 AND 12, 10 TO 12, 12.
[00:30:01]
TO 13.PICK THE RESCHEDULED 12, 10 AND 12.
DID THAT SOUND CORRECT? DID I GET THE REVISION, CORRECT? YES.
WE HAVE DISCUSSED UP AND POSSIBLE THE MEETING LAW VIOLATION, UH, THAT MOVES US ON DOWN IN PUBLIC HERE.
EXCUSE ME, NOT PUBLIC HEARING THE, UH, RESCHEDULED JUNE 22ND, 2022 MEETING.
AND THEN THE APPEAL HEARING THAT'S ITEM NUMBER 11.
APPEAL HEARING FOR TROY LAWRENCE.
SO THAT MOVES THIS TO THE, UM, ITEM NUMBER 10,
[11. Discuss possible Open Meetings Law violation related to last month's Personnel Actions Forms that were signed without approval of the Board]
WHICH IS DISCUSS HOW IT WAS BAD.DISCUSS THE OPEN MEETING LAW VIOLATION OF LAST MONTH PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS THAT WE'RE SAYING WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE BOARD.
WHAT WAS THAT? YOU'LL NOTICE ON THE ORIGINAL AGENDA.
THAT WAS AN ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD BY, UH, OUR, YOU NEED BOARD MEMBER, JOHN DON'T YET DO NOT SEE HIS NAME ON THE REVISED AGENDA.
AND, UH, MR. DEREK, IT'S ALL THE SAME TO YOU.
I PROBABLY WOULD DEFER TO YOU, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING OUR PRE-MEETING DISCUSSION.
I THINK YOUR BEST POSITION TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE INTENTION OF THE, UM, AGENDA ITEM WAS.
I TALKED WITH SERGEANT DODY EIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING AND, UH, ONE OF HIS CONCERNS WAS THAT WE WEREN'T APPROVING THE PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS IN THE MEETING.
UH, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW, AND IT, WE HADN'T BEEN DOING IT FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
UM, SO ME AND SERGEANT
AND I THINK WE SHOULD JUST FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, HANDLE IT THAT WAY.
SO HE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN ACTION ITEM OR NECESSARILY NO.
[Additional Item]
ITEM NUMBER 11 IS TO, UM, RESCHEDULE THE DOONA JUNE 22ND MEETING, ACTUALLY JUNE 27, JUNE 27TH.WAS THERE A DISCUSSION WHILE WE MOVIE? UM, I'LL BE OUT, I'M A JURY TRIAL STARTING ON JUNE 27TH SO WE COULD MOVE IT TO THE WEEK BEFORE.
OTHERWISE YOU'LL BE OUT OF TOWN.
I COME BACK THAT DAY, BUT IF IT MAY BE LATE, LET'S LOOK AT THE CALENDARS.
THE FOLLOWING MONDAY IS A HOLIDAY.
DID HE ENSURE THAT ACTUALLY
IF WE COULD DO THAT DAY BE BACK BY THEN.
DO WE NEED TO ASK, UH, I JUST THINK THAT SHE'S RIGHT DOWN THE PINNACLE PENDING THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ROOM WITH BOOKS STORE.
THIS IS A TWO DAY OR A ONE DAY, ONE DAY.
IS EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THE 21ST OF JUNE? OKAY.
MS.
WE CAN, UNLESS I HAVE SOME TROUBLE GETTING BACK, YOU WANT TO TAKE A RECESS WHILE SHE IS? YES, BECAUSE I HAD PLANNED TO TAKE A RECESS BEFORE THE APPEAL HEARING ANYWAY.
SO, UM, IF WE WOULD, CAN, WE CAN TAKE A 10 MINUTE RECESS AND WE HAVE VERIFIED THAT OR A MINIMAL.
[14. Appeal Hearing regarding Troy Lawrence, Jr. / 25-day Suspension (i) Executive Session, pursuant to La. R.S. 42:17(A)(1) and/or La. R.S. 42:17(A)(4)]
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE'LL MOVE ON HERE.ALL RIGHT, GENTLEMEN, WHILE Y'ALL ARE GETTING SET UP, UH,
[00:35:02]
YOU KNOW, UH, THE BOARD IS TRYING TO STREAMLINE THESE THINGS AS BEST AS POSSIBLE.SO PLEASE BE COGNIZANT OF THAT.
UH, TO THE EXTENT THERE'S GOING TO BE AN OPENING STATEMENT BY THE PARTIES.
PLEASE LIMIT THAT TO 15 MINUTES, UH, PER OPENING STATEMENT.
UH, WHEN WE GET TO CLOSING ARGUMENTS, THAT WILL BE 20 MINUTES.
UM, ONE THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT WHILE I GUESS THAT JIM'S GETTING SET UP AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF, WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS OF THESE APPEALS.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS A RIGHT TO BE HEARD AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF.
BUT ONE THING WE'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRING FROM ANYBODY WHO BRINGS A PETITION BEFORE THE BOARD IS THAT THEY ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY THOSE THINGS THAT THEY THINK WERE DONE IN BAD FAITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE.
SO THAT WAY IT DOESN'T PUT, UM, IT DOESN'T PUT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IN THE POSITION OF HAVING TO COMPLETELY RE LITIGATE THE ENTIRE, UM, DISCIPLINARY DECISION.
SO WE WILL BE ENFORCING THAT ON PETITIONS GOING FOR THAT BEAR BRAND.
WOULD THAT BE IN SAY IT, UM, IF WE HAVE WITNESSES THAT NEED TO BE SWORN IN YES.
WE'D LIKE TO DO SO AT THIS TIME, AS WELL AS, UH, THE BINDERS THAT NEED TO BE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD.
YEAH, WE WOULD, WE WOULD LIKE TO GET THOSE AT THIS TIME.
WHAT WHAT'S, WHAT'S GOING ON? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WATER DELIVERED MINOR.
WE DON'T HAVE, UH, OH MY GOSH.
YOU KNOW, WHAT DO MEMBERS DOUBLE CHECK YOUR BINDERS, PLEASE? YOU SHOULD HAVE ALL THE EXHIBITS THAT WERE PRESENTED IN A TIMELY MANNER.
OH, IS THAT IT? CAN I LOAN IT OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO KEEP IT? THAT'S FINE.
DOES THAT MAKE PERFECT DEMOND CALL? ARE THESE, UH, ALL THE WITNESSES, RIGHT? ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU GUYS ALL PROMISE AND SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD.
ARE YOU GUYS SEQUESTERING OR HOW ARE Y'ALL DOING? YEAH.
YOU GUYS ARE GONNA HAVE TO LEAVE THE ROOM UNTIL YOU'VE GIVEN YOUR TESTIMONY.
PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS THE MERITS OR ANY PART OF THIS CASE WITH EACH OTHER OR ANYONE ELSE.
OH, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S HERE.
WHAT'S YOUR FIRST SHOT YOU SENT OFF SUBPOENAS IS EVERYBODY THAT YOU SUBPOENAED HERE? YES.
SO THERE'S NO ISSUES WITH OPINIONS ON YOUR END.
UM, SO I'M LOOKING AT THESE EXHIBITS AND I MEAN, I DO HAVE AN OBJECTION TO INTRODUCTION OF, UM, EXHIBIT THREE.
SO THE, UM, IF YOU'LL NOTICE NOW SEE EXHIBIT THREE, I GUESS IT WAS DEALING WITH, UM, TO TRY TO DISCIPLINARY MATTERS.
HOWEVER, THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY PRIOR DISCIPLINARY MATTERS AND THE, UM, ACTUAL DISCIPLINARY LETTER, UM, WHICH WAS ATTACHED TO MY PETITION OF APPEAL WHERE, UM,
[00:40:02]
ALSO LAWRENCE WAS SUSPENDED FOR 25 DAYS.UM, AS YOU KNOW, THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IS LIMITED BY THE FOUR CORNERS OF THAT LETTER AT THIS PLENARY LADDER.
UM, AND WHAT'S IN THAT LETTER IS THE ONLY ISSUES ARE THE ONLY ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE PRESENTED AT THIS HEARING, UM, TO GO OUTSIDE OF THAT LETTER IS TO ALLOW ABBOTT WELL, NOT ALLOWABLE, AND BECAUSE THERE WAS NO, THERE'S NO MENTION OF ANY OTHER DISCIPLINE IN HIS LETTER, THEN YOU CAN'T HAVE EXHIBITS THAT GO OUTSIDE OF THAT LETTER EITHER.
UM, THE NO LIMITATION ON THIS, CAN YOU, A FEW CASES, YOU GOT JONES VS.
CITY OF PINE BELT, YOU GOT UNO VERSUS PEPITONE, WHERE'S THE FIRST CIRCUIT CASE.
AND THEN HE GOT, UM, DEPARTMENT PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS, STATE POLICE VERSUS RIGBY, UH, ANOTHER FIRST CIRCUIT CASE, AND BASICALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, THE PURPOSE OF THE LETTER YES.
TO A PROJECT EMPLOYEE IN DETAIL OF THE CHARGES AND TO LIMIT SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS THROUGH THE STATED REASONS.
SO, YEAH, IT'S NOT STATED IN THAT INITIAL LETTER, THE NOTICE LETTER, THE DISCIPLINARY LETTER OF ANYTHING WHATEVER'S NOT IN THERE IS OFF LIMITS FOR THIS HEARING.
THE BOARD'S LIMITED TO ONLY CONSIDER WHAT'S IN THAT LETTER AND THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN THAT LETTER AND THE LEGAL ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE IN THAT LETTER.
AND BECAUSE EXHIBIT THREE GOES BEYOND THAT LETTER, IT'S NOT.
AND OBVIOUSLY I DISAGREE WITH THAT, THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE NOTICE LETTER AND THE RULING LETTER, OR TO GIVE THE EMPLOYEE, PUT THEM ON NOTICE OF THE FACTS RELATIVE TO THIS INCIDENT THAT RELATE TO THE CHARGES THAT ARE AGAINST THEM.
THESE ARE PART PRIOR CHARGES, PRIOR CASES THAT HE HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCIPLINED ON.
SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO RE NOTIFY HIM ABOUT THE CASES THAT HE'S ALREADY BEEN DISCIPLINED ON AND WHAT WE WILL DISCUSS IN A LITTLE WHILE.
THIS IS ACTUALLY THE THIRD TIME THAT HE'S HAD A CASE IN ABOUT A LITTLE OVER A YEAR WHERE HE RECEIVED DISCIPLINE, WHERE HE RECEIVED DISCIPLINE.
AND IN GENERAL ORDER ONE 12, THERE'S A TABLE OF PENALTIES.
AND WHEN THE DEPARTMENT CONSIDERS DISCIPLINE, IT IS TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE HAS HAD PRIOR DISCIPLINE.
WE DON'T, WE NOTIFY THEM OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED.
THE RULING DOES LAY OUT SPECIFICALLY THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS INCIDENT.
IT DOES NOT RELOCATE THE ISSUES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED.
SO JOSH IS, IS THIS A VIOLATION OF, NO, I THINK THE EXHIBIT SHOULD COME IN, EVEN AT THE VERY LEAST, EVEN AT THE VERY LEAST, IT'D BE ADMISSIBLE AS IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE.
UH, WHEN YOU COME BEFORE THE BOARD, IT IS A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S CERTAINLY RELEVANT.
UM, I THINK MR. RAINS IS RIGHT ON THE POINT THAT THE NOTICE THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO RECEIVE IS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PARTICULAR DISCIPLINE.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE HEARD NECESSARILY HOW THEY INTEND TO USE THIS DISCIPLINARY, UH, NOTIFICATION.
BUT I THINK IT SHOULD, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED RIGHT NOW AT THIS POINT.
YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AT THIS POINT.
WELL, WHAT IS, YEAH, I WOULD A LOT.
ANY OTHER OBJECTIONS MR. FARRELL? YES, SIR.
WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE 15 MINUTES OR EVEN 10 MINUTES.
THIS IS A VERY BRIEF AND NARROW ISSUE.
I KNOW THAT YOU ALL ARE TO HAVING FAIRLY LONG HEARINGS WITH US TODAY IS NOT GOING TO BE BAD, THANKFULLY, UNLESS MR. KIRSHA IS VERY LONG WINDED, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE HE WILL BE.
UM, THIS INVOLVES AN INCIDENT FROM JULY 9TH, 2021, UH, RELATED TO A SERGEANT CODY GUNTER AND OFFICER LAWRENCE JR.
THEY WERE WORKING EXTRA DUTY AT TIGER LAND.
UH, PART OF THEIR DUTIES AT TIGER LAND IS ON BOB PETTIT.
[00:45:01]
ACROSS FROM WHERE ALL THOSE BARS ARE.THEY PULL THEIR CARS IN THERE TO BLOCK OFF THE MEDIAN SO THAT CARS CAN NOT PULL THROUGH.
THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WHEN BARS LET OUT AT 2:00 AM, YOU'VE GOT ALL THESE KIDS FROM COLLEGE THAT ARE CROSSING ACROSS IN THAT MEDIUM.
WELL, THEY WANT TO BLOCK IT OFF SO THAT THE CARS CAN'T PASS THROUGH SO THAT THE KIDS ARE SAFE AS THEY WALK THROUGH THERE.
UM, SERGEANT GUNTER AND OFFICER LAWRENCE WERE THE FIRST TWO TO ARRIVE IN THIS AREA FOR THE EXTRA DUTY THAT EVENING.
UH, SERGEANT GUNNER WAS THERE FIRST.
AND THEN OFFICER LAWRENCE, UH, APPEARED NEXT.
UH, OFFICER LAWRENCE PULLED HIS VEHICLE IN AND AT SOME POINT AFTER HE GOT OUT, SERGEANT GUNNER ASKED HIM, HEY, WOULD YOU MIND MOVING YOUR CAR UP A FEW FEET? UH, AND THEN HE WENT TO GO GET A DRINK AT ONE OF THE BARS, LIKE SOME WATER.
AND HE SAID, I'LL BE BACK IN A FEW MINUTES.
HE COMES BACK IN A FEW MINUTES AND OFFICER LAWRENCE HAD NOT MOVED HIS VEHICLE.
HE SAID, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GOING ON? YOU NOT UNDERSTAND.
I JUST, I JUST NEED YOU TO MOVE YOUR VEHICLE UP A FEW FEET JUST TO BLOCK THIS OFF.
UH, OFFICER LAWRENCE, HIS RESPONSE WAS, I DON'T NEED TO MOVE MY VEHICLE.
THIS IS WHERE I ALWAYS PARK IT.
UM, I'VE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM IN THE PAST.
NOBODY'S EVER ASKED ME TO MOVE IT IN THE PAST AND I'M NOT MOVING.
AND SERGEANT GUNTER WAS CONFUSED BY THAT RESPONSE.
AND HE ASKED HIM, YOU KNOW, WHY IS THIS A BIG DEAL? HE SAID, LOOK AS A SERGEANT, I'M ASKING YOU TO MOVE YOUR VEHICLE AND THE RESPONSE, AND I'M NOT GONNA USE THE WORD, BUT, UH, OFFICER LAWRENCE RESPONDED AND SAID, I'LL GIVE AN F WHO YOU ARE AT THAT POINT.
SO I HAD GONE TO HER, UH, CALLED A SUPERVISOR AND IT WAS DEALT WITH, YOU KNOW, THE COMPLAINT MADE ITS WAY, UH, BY SERGEANT GUNNER, SENDING A LETTER UP THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.
ULTIMATELY IT MADE ITS WAY THROUGH INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND THE INVESTIGATION ENSUED.
THAT IS THE ENCAPSULATION OF THE INCIDENT THAT WE'RE HERE TO DEAL WITH TODAY.
UM, NOW, ULTIMATELY THERE WAS A PRE DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
DISCIPLINE WAS RENDERED IN THIS CASE AND OFFICER LAWRENCE WAS SUSPENDED, UH, FOR 25 DAYS.
NOW, HE HAD BEEN SUSPENDED WHEN I GOT TO PRIOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASES.
UM, ONE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IT A MINUTE AGO, HIS VERY FIRST ONE, UH, WAS A TRAFFIC INCIDENT.
AND HE USED, HE LOST HIS TEMPER AND USING PROFANE LANGUAGE WITH CITIZENS WHILE HE WAS ON THAT TRAFFIC.
UM, PAUL AND LANGUAGE WAS PRETTY AND THE CHIEF GAVE HIM TWO DAYS ON THAT ONE.
UM, HE SENT A LETTER TO THE CHIEF, ASKED HIM TO RECONSIDER AND THE CHIEF DID, AND THEY ENTERED INTO A CONSENT AGREEMENT WHERE THEY DID A LETTER OF REPRIMAND.
THE COPY OF THE LETTER REPRIMAND IS WHAT'S THAT EXHIBIT THREE, SUBSEQUENT TO THAT.
UM, THERE WAS AN ISSUE AT ANOTHER ARREST, UM, OR ANOTHER CASE.
AND THERE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL IN THE BACK OF A POLICE CAR SERGEANT OR OFFICER WARRANTS.
BOSTON'S COOL WITHOUT INDIVIDUAL, UM, KARSTEN THREATENED HIM.
AND THEN HE ENDED UP GETTING A 15 DAY SUSPENSION FOR THAT INCIDENT, WHICH HE DID NOT APPEAL.
NOW, THIS IS THE THIRD INCIDENT WHERE COMMAND OF TEMPER IS AT ISSUE.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS IN A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AND JUST OVER A YEAR.
SO THIS TIME, YOU KNOW, THAT WE USE PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT, EACH TIME THE DISCIPLINE GETS A LITTLE MORE SEVERE THIS TIME HE WAS HANDED A 25 DAY SUSPENSION AND HE HAS APPEALED THAT HE SAID THAT HE BELIEVES, OF COURSE IN THE APPEAL WAS KIND OF STANDARD LANGUAGE, BUT IT WAS NOT FOR GOOD FAITH AND RECALLS.
WELL, CERTAINLY IT WAS, UM, YOU'LL HEAR THE TESTIMONY.
THERE'S REALLY NO DISPUTE THE FACTS AREN'T IN DISPUTE.
HE'S ADMITTED IN HIS PREVIOUS HEARING, I EXPECT THAT HE'LL ADMIT TODAY THAT HE DID USE THAT LANGUAGE AND HE DID REFUSE TO MOVE HIS VEHICLE.
UM, HE BELIEVES THAT THE DISCIPLINE WAS EXCESSIVE, BUT AGAIN, WE USE PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE AND THE CHIEF HAS TRIED LESSER MEANS OF DISCIPLINE AND IT HAS NOT WORKED.
AND SO HE USED A MORE SEVERE PENALTY THIS TIME, AGAIN, A 25 DAYS SUSPENSION.
UH, WE BELIEVE THAT THE SUSPENSION IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE.
UH, WE BELIEVE THAT YOU ALL WILL FIND THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO SPEAK TO YOUR FELLOW OFFICERS THAT WAY.
UM, HE WAS SUSTAINED ON THREE CLASS, TWO CHARGES, UH, AS YOU'LL SEE, AND AS WE'LL DISCUSS TODAY, UM, YOU HAVE TO CONTROL YOUR TEMPER, EVEN WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH YOUR, THOSE THAT YOU WORK WITH.
LANGUAGE IS INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT, AND WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU SUSTAIN THE CHARGES TODAY.
THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
IT SAYS AN A, YOU KNOW, NOT, YOU'RE NOT GONNA HEAR OFFICER LAWRENCE DENYING, UH, WHAT TOOK PLACE.
WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR THOUGH, IS YOU GOT SERGEANT GUNTER, WHO'S GOING TO ADMIT
[00:50:01]
HE'S OUT AT THAT SAME.THEY PULL UP AND AS MR. RANGER, SCOTT IS STILL CUT THROUGH IN THE MEDIAN AND TIGER LAND.
WELL, THE TWO CARS ARE FACING ONE ANOTHER, BASICALLY FOGGING UP THAT CUTTHROAT.
UM, WHAT YOU'RE GONNA HEAR IS SERGEANT GUNNER, IT'S OUT OF HIS VEHICLE AND WALKS UP TO HIM AND TELLS HIM TO MOVE HIS VEHICLE UP.
UM, ALSO ORANGE HAS ALREADY HEARD FROM OTHER PEOPLE WORKING THIS SHIP, SORRY, THE GUNNER DOESN'T LIKE YOU, OKAY.
IT'S HEARD FROM A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
AND SO ANYTHING THAT, UH, OFFICER LAWRENCE IS LOOKING AT WHAT'S HARD HAS DONE OR IS DOING IS PREMISED ON.
WELL, HE JUST DOESN'T LIKE ME THOUGH.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS, BUT IF SERGEANT GUNNER TRULY WANTED TO, IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE CAR AND I PULLED UP LIKE THIS, WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THAT ORDER? OTHER THAN THE, JUST MESS WITH OFFICER LAUREN, IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE HE CAN PULL IT OFF AND CALL HER UP, BUT WHAT DID HE DO? HE SAYS, NO, YOU'RE GOING TO, I WANT YOU TO GO PULL YOUR CAR UP.
UM, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM OTHER OFFICERS AT THIS IS TARGET GUNNER, EMMA, I'M A SERGEANT.
YOU'RE NOT WHO AS I SAY, NO MATTER HOW RIDICULOUS IT MAY BE, NO MATTER IF IT'S CONTRARY TO GOOD SENSE, YOU'RE GOING TO DO WHAT I TELL YOU TO DO BECAUSE I GOT THE STRIPES YOU DON'T, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE THING IS ABOUT.
HIM WIELDING HIS POWER IN AN UNREASONABLE MANNER.
IT MADE A PERSONAL AS A SERVANT PURPOSE.
HE WANTS TO SAY IT WAS TOO, UM, THE BLOCK THAT GOT THROUGH, WELL, WHEN YOU GOT TWO POLICE CARS FACING EACH OTHER IN THAT THROUGH WELL IN THAT ALREADY SERVE IN THAT PURPOSE.
SO THE PURPOSE WAS REALLY JUST TO GET HIM OUT OF HIS CAR OR GET HIM TO DO SOMETHING FOR THE MIRROR POINT OF DOING IT BECAUSE HE SAID THAT THEY WERE, THAT WAS IT.
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW ORDERS FROM THE SECURITY OFFICER, BUT WHEN IT'S, WHAT IF IT'S I PICK UP THAT TRASH? IS THAT THERE TOO? IS THAT THIS? WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE ON THIS? WHEN IT DOESN'T REALLY, YOU KNOW, IF HE, IF HE HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT, IF IT WAS A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE, THEN HE WOULD HAVE TAKEN ACTIONS INTO HIS OWN HANDS INSTEAD OF GETTING OUT OF HIS VEHICLE AND TELLING HIM TO DO IT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS MERELY A POWER PLAY.
AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR.
SO WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND THIS WILL BE COMING UP IN THE TESTIMONY VERY SOON AND CORRECT.
WE FILED THIS, YOU KNOW, WE THOUGHT, UM, THAT THIS WASN'T THE DISCIPLINE RENDERED IN THIS MATTER WASN'T OR, UM, IT MADE IN GOOD FAITH.
I AM FOR CAUSE BECAUSE IT IS A LITTLE HEAVY HANDED WAS 25 DAYS AND YOU GOT TO 25 DAYS WITHOUT PAY.
AND THAT'S A VERY SERIOUS, UM, BACK IN PAY THAT 8% OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME OUT THE WINDOW.
THAT'S NO REGULAR DUTY TO LECTURE DUTY.
I MEAN, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT, UM, SIGNIFICANT, UM, PENALTY AND HIS INCOME.
SO THAT'S WHAT THE WHOLE PREMISE OF THIS IS.
ONCE AGAIN, NOT A WHO DONE IT.
AND THEN WE, WE CAN AGREE ALL OF A SUDDEN PUT YOU OFF, GOING TO HEAR, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO SAY COMMAND AND WHERE DID HE RAISE VOICES? THIS WASN'T A SHOUTING MATCH OR ANYTHING.
THIS WAS MERELY A CONVERSATION.
AND THE CONVERSATION WAS, UH, YOU KNOW, WHO I AM.
I'M A SERGEANT WHO, AS I SAY, AND IT WAS, I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE.
YOU KNOW WHAT HE SAID, BUT THAT'S NOT A COMMAND TO TEMPORARY.
AND ALL THIS WILL BE PLAYED OUT IN TESTIMONY COMING RIGHT UP.
UM, DID THE OFFICER FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST GUNTER? DID HE HAD, HAD HE IN THE PAST FILED THE COMPLAINT PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT? NOW AT THAT POINT, IT WOULD'VE BEEN, UH, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COMPLAINT WOULD HAVE BEEN.
I, IT WASN'T A, I DON'T THINK IT, IT, ANYTHING THAT HAD BEEN DONE AT THAT POINT HAD RISEN TO A LEVEL OR A COMPLAINT, BUT ALSO YOU NEED, MOST OFFICERS DON'T JUST RUN TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND FILE A COMPLAINT ON PEOPLE THAT HANDLE IT THEY'LL HANDLE MATTERS IN THE HOUSE BETWEEN THEMSELVES.
UH, BUT THERE IS A PROCESS FOR DOING THAT WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT.
WELL, NO, THAT'S NOT WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT.
SO YES, BUT A GUNNER ADVANTAGE OF THE PROCESS, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE THERE TODAY.
[00:55:01]
GOTCHA.GUESS CALL YOUR FIRST WITNESS.
UM, I'LL CALL, UH, SERGEANT BEARD.
UH, WHERE ARE YOU DOING? WHICH ONE? YEAH.
UM, SO IT'D BE WEIRD IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SERGEANT ARSINE L BEER AT THE SECOND, UH, 9,000 ON AIRLINE HIGHWAY, SUITE 3,200.
AND WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT, UH, ASSIGNMENT WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT? I'M A SUPERVISOR IN OUR INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION.
AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS? EIGHT YEARS IN ASSOCIATION WITH YOUR ASSIGNMENT TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS.
UM, DID YOU INVESTIGATE A CASE INVOLVING OFFICER
IF YOU WOULD, THERE'S A BINDER IN FRONT OF YOU.
IF YOU WOULD TURN TO TAB ONE FOR ME, PLEASE.
NOW LOOKING AT THAT FIRST TAB, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE A COPY OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE IN THIS MATTER? YES, SIR.
AND IS THAT A TRUE AND ACCURATE COPY OF THAT FULL ENTIRE INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE? YES, SIR.
WE'LL OFFER THAT AS EXHIBIT ONE.
NOW IN TAB ONE, IF YOU GO ABOUT 10 PAGES FROM THE END OF IT, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE WHAT APPEARS TO BE A LETTER FROM A SERGEANT CODY GUNTER TO DEPUTY CHIEF, TROY LAWRENCE.
ARE YOU THERE? HE FOUND THAT LETTER.
NOW, IS THIS LETTER WHAT SPARKED THIS INVESTIGATION? YES, SIR.
IF YOU WOULD BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHAT IT WAS THAT SERGEANT NUTTER COMPLAINED OF IN HIS LETTER TO DEPUTY CHIEF LAWRENCE.
UM, BASICALLY HE AND OFFICER LAWRENCE WERE, UH, WORKING A DETAIL AND HE ASKED OFFICER LAWRENCE TO MOVE HIS DEPARTMENT ISSUED POLICE UNIT SEVERAL TIMES, AND ALSO LAUREN DIDN'T FOLLOW HIS INSTRUCTIONS.
AND DURING THAT INTERACTION, UH, OFFICER LAWRENCE TOLD SERGEANT GUNNER THAT I DON'T GIVE A F WHO YOU ARE.
UM, NOW THIS LETTER THAT WE SEE IN FRONT OF US IS DATED JULY 16TH, 2021, BUT THE INCIDENT COMPLAINED OF DID THAT OCCUR ON JULY 9TH, 2021 FROM SERGEANT GOMEZ LETTER? YES, SIR.
NOW CONDUCTING YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO THIS MATTER, WHAT ACTIONS DID YOU TAKE? UH, CONTACTED OFFICER LAWRENCE AS WELL AS SERGEANT GUNNER, UH, TOLD THEM THAT I WOULD NEED THEM TO COME TO MY OFFICE TO GIVE A STATEMENT, GAVE THEM THE COURTESY OF, UH, FINDING REPRESENTATIVES.
UH, AT SOME POINT THEY BOTH ARRIVED AND I INTERVIEWED THEM SEPARATELY.
THEY GAVE STATEMENTS AFTER, UH, BEING GIVEN HER GARY RIGHTS, UH, RECORDED THE INTERVIEW, UH, GOT ALL MY EVIDENCE, UH, TYPED THE REPORT, PUT EVERYTHING TOGETHER AND, UH, GAVE IT TO THE COMMANDER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS.
AND AT THAT TIME HE GAVE US THE DEPUTY CHIEFS AND THE CHIEF GOT IT IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE.
YOU LIST A NUMBER OF POTENTIAL POLICY VIOLATIONS, WHICH INCLUDED CARRYING OUT ORDERS, INSUBORDINATION COMMAND OF TEMPORARY CONDUCT, UNBECOMING AND RESPECT OF FELLOW OFFICERS.
WHEN YOU LIST THOSE CHARGES IN YOUR INTERNAL ESSAY CHARGES, BUT THOSE POTENTIAL POLICY VIOLATIONS IN YOUR REPORT,
[01:00:01]
DOES THAT MEAN YOU MADE AN ACTUAL FINDING THAT THOSE POLICIES WERE VIOLATED BY OFFICER LAWRENCE? NOT AT WELL, WHEN YOU SAY ACTUAL, UM, MR. RHINES FROM THE INFORMATION THAT I COLLECTED, I, UH, BELIEVED THAT THOSE WERE SOME OF THE POLICY VIOLATIONS THAT HE COMMITTED, AND THOSE MAY BE POLICIES THAT ARE VIOLATED, BUT ULTIMATELY, IS IT CORRECT THAT THE CHIEF WILL BE THE ONE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHICH POLICIES HE BELIEVES WERE VIOLATED IN HIS RULING? YES, SIR.RIGHT NOW, OTHER THAN SERGEANT GUNNER AND OFFICER WARRANTS WERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES OR WERE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES TO THIS INCIDENT THAT I INTERVIEWED? NO, SIR.
UM, IN YOUR INTERVIEW WITH SERGEANT, OR DID HE CONFIRM WHAT HE PUT IN HIS LETTER ABOUT HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH OFFICER LAWRENCE? YES, SIR.
WHEN YOU INTERVIEWED OFFICER LAWRENCE, DID HE CONFIRM THAT HE REFUSED TO MOVE AS A UNIT WHEN ASKED TO DO IS DO SO ABOUT SERGEANT GUNTER? YES, SIR.
UH, DID OFFICER LAWRENCE CONFIRMED THAT HE USED THE LANGUAGE THAT HE WAS ACCUSED OF USING? YES, SIR.
UH, DID OFFICER LAWRENCE GIVE YOU A REASON FOR WHY HE USED SUCH LANGUAGE, UH, AGAINST SERGEANT GUNTER? UH, AND HIS INTERVIEW OFFICER LAUREN STATED THAT HE WAS STOLEN ON ANOTHER UNKNOWN OFFICER, UH, THAT SERGEANT GLENNER MADE THE STATEMENT THAT HE DIDN'T LIKE OFFICER LAWRENCE AND OFFICER LAWRENCE TOOK THAT INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED ON JULY 9TH AS, UH, SERGEANT GUN OR BULLYING HIM.
NOW, ONCE, UH, YOU, YOU SAID THAT YOU INTERVIEWED, UH, OFFICER LAWRENCE, SERGEANT GUNTER, YOU WROTE UP YOUR REPORT AND YOU SUBMITTED IT.
UM, WERE THERE ANY OTHER ACTIONS OUTSIDE OF THAT THAT YOU HAD TO TAKE IN THIS CASE? NO, SIR.
UM, ONCE YOUR INVESTIGATION WAS COMPLETE, A PREDIS HEARING NOTICE WAS PROVIDED TO OFFICER LAWRENCE, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND IF YOU WERE TO FLIP IN MAYBE ABOUT 10 PAGES OR SO, DO YOU FIND THE PRELIMINARY PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING NOTICE CONTAINED IN THE FILE? YES, SIR.
IS IT ACCURATE THAT IT'S DATED SEPTEMBER 14TH, 2021? IT SHOULD BE IN TAIWAN JUST RIGHT, RIGHT AFTER THE, UH, THE RULING LETTER, THE ONE THAT I'M LOOKING AT, SIR, IT'S DATED MARCH.
THAT'S THE RULING RIGHT AFTER THAT WOULD BE THE PREDIS NOTICE.
YES, IT'S DATED SEPTEMBER 14TH.
AND THAT IS THE SAME DAY THAT OFFICER LAWRENCE RECEIVED IT.
AND IN THE NOTICE, UM, WHERE THE SAME CHARGES LISTED THAT WE DISCUSSED EARLIER AS POTENTIAL CHARGES, COMMAND OF TEMPORARY CONDUCT ON BECOMING RESPECT TO FELLOW MEMBERS, CARRYING OUT ORDERS AND INSUBORDINATION, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
I GOT TINDER NOW, QUESTIONS, UM, BEFORE YOU LEAVE, SORRY.
DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH.
UM, SERGEANT BEER BAR BETTER, EXCUSE ME.
STARTING TO BE HEARD RELATIVE TO SIR, GEORGIA CODY GUNTHER'S LETTER.
UM, THAT STARTED THE INVESTIGATION.
I SEE AT THE END WHERE IT SAYS AT THAT POINT, I'M SORRY.
DO YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU? I'LL WAIT FOR YOU.
IT'S ABOUT 10 PAGES FROM THE BAG RIGHT AFTER THE GUARANTEE.
I THINK IT'S THE SECOND, THE LAST SENTENCE IT SAYS AT THAT POINT I WALKED OFF AND CONTACTED LIEUTENANT S BOWMAN WHO RUNS THAT DETAIL.
WHAT HAPPENED? DO YOU SEE THAT? YES.
SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING IT, UM, OFFICER LAWRENCE WAS THERE, SERGEANT GUNTER WOULD HAVE BEEN A SUPERVISOR, BUT THE ULTIMATE SUPERVISOR WHO RUNS THAT DETAIL WOULD HAVE BEEN S BELLMONT LIEUTENANT BOWMAN.
IS THAT RIGHT? IS THAT HOW YOU READ IT? YES.
AND IF SERGEANT GUNNER WENT AND TOLD, UH, LIEUTENANT BOWMAN, WHAT HAPPENED? DO, DO ME KNOW WHAT, IF ANY ACTION, THE LIEUTENANT BOWMAN MAY HAVE TAKEN THAT NIGHT? NO, I DIDN'T CONTACT HIM BETWEEN
[01:05:01]
THE BOWEN BECAUSE I DIDN'T FEEL THE NEED TO, UH, PASS HIM ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE CLEARLY YOU HAVE A SERGEANT AND YOU HAVE AN OFFICER INVOLVED AND SERGEANT GUNNER WROTE THE LETTER.SO THAT WAS SERGEANT GUNNER WAS THE PERSON THAT WROTE THE LETTER AND INVOLVED WITH OFFICER LAWRENCE.
SO I DECIDED TO INTERVIEW TWO OF THOSE.
SO, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE UGLY TO YOU, I'M JUST, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
SO YOU MADE A DECISION THAT A POSSIBLE WITNESS IF SERGEANT LIEUTENANT BELLMAN HAD TAKEN SOME ACTION.
IF HE HAD TALKED TO OFFICER LAWRENCE THAT NIGHT, OR IF HE HAD AN OPINION ABOUT ANY OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED OUT THERE, YOU JUST DECIDED NOT TO INTERVIEW.
WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN A POSSIBLE RELEVANT WITNESS IS THAT WELL, LIEUTENANT BOWMAN, UM, I FATHERED HE TOOK ANY KIND OF ACTION THAT HE WOULD CONTACTED, UH, OUR OFFICE TO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, I VERBALLY COUNSELED BOTH OF THEM.
UH, I WROTE, UH, OFFICER LAWRENCE, UH, CONFERENCE WORKSHEET, BUT NO, AT THAT POINT, NO, I DIDN'T DEEM THAT ONCE IT GOT TO OUR OFFICE, UH, LETTER, DOESN'T SAY STATE THAT OFF, EXCUSE ME, LIEUTENANT BOWMAN TOOK ANY KIND OF ACTIONS THAT DON'T EVEN ONCE THE LETTER GOT TO OUR OFFICE, I DEEMED, OKAY.
SERGEANT GUNNER WROTE THIS LETTER, IT'S INVOLVING HE AND OFFICER LAWRENCE.
SO THOSE WOULD BE THE TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT I NEED TO INTERVIEW DURING MY INTERVIEW OF OFFICER LAWRENCE OR SERGEANT GUNNER.
THEY NEVER SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, LIEUTENANT BOWMAN TOOK SOME KIND OF ACTION.
THIS LETTER SAYS THAT LIEUTENANT BOWMAN WAS CONTACTED, BUT OBVIOUSLY HE DIDN'T TAKE ANY KIND OF ACTION BECAUSE IT WOULD NEVER CAME TO OUR OFFICE.
I THINK I'M THINKING ABOUT THE, THE CONCERN I HAVE IS, IS ALREADY BEEN MADE CLEAR.
SO I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON IT.
NOW, THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAD IS THAT, UM, YOU SAID THAT, UM, OFFICER MORIN'S INDICATED THAT HE BELIEVES AT LEAST INSOFAR AS, UM, SOME OTHER OFFICERS HAD TOLD THEM THAT SERGEANT GUNNER HAD HIS OWN PERSONAL PROBLEM WITH HIM.
AND PERHAPS THAT I, AT LEAST HE BELIEVES THAT THAT WAS THE REAL REASON FOR THIS INCIDENT.
DID YOU MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY ANY PEOPLE THAT WORK WITH OFFICER LAWRENCE TO TRY AND INVESTIGATE WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATION FOR THE TRIER OF FACT, WHICH IS THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
DID YOU MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INTERVIEW ANY OF THOSE FOLKS NOW BECAUSE OFFICER LAWRENCE, I'M SORRY.
OFFICER LAWRENCE, HIS ACTIONS HAD NOTHING TO DO.
I MEAN, IF HE BELIEVED THAT SERGEANT GUNNER DISLIKES HIM, OKAY, I GET IT.
BUT HIS ACTIONS SHOULDN'T HAVE DEEMED WHAT HE DID REGARDLESS OF, YOU KNOW, HE THINKS SERGEANT GUNNER DOESN'T LIKE HIM, THAT DOESN'T GIVE HIM THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT HE DID.
SO, NO, I DIDN'T INTERVIEW ANY WITNESSES THAT TOLD OFFICER LAWRENCE THAT, YOU KNOW, SERGEANT GUNNER SAID HE DOESN'T LIKE YOU.
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OFFICER LAWRENCE IS ACTION.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT, UM, I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT PERHAPS NOT ALL OF THE RELEVANT WITNESSES WERE CONTACTED IN THIS CASE, AND I'M JUST PUTTING IT OUT THERE FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION.
IS IT RELEVANT? WAIT, WHAT DO YOU WORK IN? WHAT EXTRA DUTY YOU WORK IN AS TO WHETHER, UH, OFFICER LAWRENCE HAD TO RESPECT THE RANK OF SERGEANT, DOES IT MATTER YOU WORK IN EXTRA DUTY OR DOES IT MATTER? IT DON'T MATTER WHERE YOU ARE.
YOU STILL HAVE TO RESPECT THE RANK OF SERGEANT, RIGHT? THAT EXTRA DUTY, UM, OVER TIME.
RIGHT? SO BEING ON THE SIDE OF THIS CLOCK NOW, WHENEVER YOU ARE RANKING OFFICER, YOU ARE RANKING OFFICER REGARDLESS OF SITUATION.
SO IS IT RELEVANT? I KNOW THAT GOT, UH, SERGEANT GUNNER INFORMS, UH, LIEUTENANT BOWMAN, UH, THAT THIS HAPPENED BECAUSE HE RUNS THAT DETAIL, BUT HIM INFORMING LIEUTENANT BOWMAN, ISN'T RELEVANT TO THIS CASE AT ALL.
LIKE IT'S NOT GONNA DIFFER THE OUTCOME, WHETHER LIEUTENANT BOWEN KNEW THIS OR NOT IS WHAT I'M.
ARE, ARE YOU NOT CONTACTED LIEUTENANT BOWMAN? ISN'T RELEVANT? IT WOULDN'T THAT IT OUTCOME EITHER WAY.
[01:10:01]
I FIND THAT KIND OF, I'M NOT NECESSARILY AGREEING WITH THAT BECAUSE UNLESS WE KNOW WHAT LET'S TAKE, FOR INSTANCE, THAT LIEUTENANT FELMAN MAY HAVE GONE AND SPOKEN TO, UM, OFFICER LAWRENCE AND OFFICER WARRANTS MADE SOME STATEMENT TO LIEUTENANT BOWMAN.UM, PERHAPS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RELEVANT, BUT WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T CHECK.
WE'RE ASSUMING THAT TALKING TO HIM, WOULD'VE BEEN IRRELEVANT AND THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S MY CONCERNS.
BECAUSE IF WE DID FIND OUT WHAT LIEUTENANT BOWMAN MAY HAVE SAID OR DONE OR BEEN TOLD, UM, THEN WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS RELEVANT YET.
OTHER THAN THAT, WE'RE JUST ASSUMING THAT'S MY POSITION.
WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT'S SIR POSITION, BUT LIKE I JUST STATED OFFICER LAWRENCE, HIS ACTIONS, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF I CONTACTED LIEUTENANT BOWMAN OR NOT.
BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, SERGEANT GUNNER WROTE THE LETTER, IT CAME UP THE CHAIN AND I WAS INSIDE, UH, EXCUSE ME, ASSIGNED TO INVESTIGATE, UH, I KNOW LIEUTENANT BOEHNER VERY WELL.
HE ACTUALLY TRAINED ME 20 YEARS AGO.
AND IF HE HAD ANY RELEVANT INFORMATION, HE WOULD HAVE CONTACTED ME PERSONALLY.
AND YOU CAN BRING HIM IN HERE AND HE'LL TELL YEAH.
IF I HAD SOME RELEVANT INFORMATION TO PROVIDE SERGEANT BEARD, I WOULD HAVE, THAT'S A NEW ONE ON ME.
CAN I FOLLOW UP WITH SOME COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BASED ON THE BOARD'S QUESTIONS? YES.
UH, LIEUTENANT BOWMAN WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE SCENE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND AGAIN, THERE WAS NO DISCREPANCY WHEN YOU INTERVIEWED SERGEANT GUNTER AND OFFICER LAWRENCE, THERE WAS NO DISCREPANCY ABOUT THE FACTS, RIGHT.
THEY BOTH AGREED AS TO THE FACTS OF WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT.
SO REGARDLESS OF WHETHER LIEUTENANT BELLMAN WAS TOLD ABOUT THE SITUATION, IT DIDN'T CHANGE THE FACTS BECAUSE EVERYBODY AGREES TO THIS SET OF FACTS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
YOU WERE THERE FOR THE PRELIMINARY DISCIPLINE, A PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
DID OFFICER LAWRENCE BRING ANY WITNESSES TO HIS PD HEARING THAT TESTIFIED THAT SERGEANT GUNNER HAD AN ISSUE WITH OFFICER LAWRENCE? NO, SIR.
HE DIDN'T BRING ANYONE LIKE THAT.
HE COULD HAVE, IF HE WANTED TO.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE THAT WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS YOU FREE, FREE TO GO.
UM, YOU CAN BEGIN THE QUESTION.
WHAT DO YOU WANT? YOU WANT ME TO WAIT FOR MR. DERR? UM, WE CAN, ALRIGHT.
[01:15:04]
UM, OH, WAS JUST ONE SIDE IT'S OKAY.IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
AND YOU SAID WHAT, UH, YOUR BUSINESS ADDRESS? UM, 9,000 AIRLINE HIGHWAY.
WHAT IS YOUR RANK AND CURRENT ASSIGNMENT WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT? I'M A SERGEANT IN UNIFORM PATROL, SECOND DISTRICT.
AND SERGEANT GUNNER, THE BOARD HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE LETTER THAT YOU SENT TO DEPUTY CHIEF LAWRENCE ON JULY 16TH REGARDING THE INCIDENT WITH OFFICER LAWRENCE ON JULY 9TH, 2021.
BUT I WANT TO WALK THROUGH WITH YOU THE EVENTS OF JULY 9TH, 2021 FOR THE BOARD.
BUT BEFORE YOU EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED PRIOR TO JULY 9TH, 2021, HAD YOU WORKED THE TOGGLE IN DETAIL BEFORE? YES, SIR.
HAD YOU WORKED, DO YOU RECALL HOW LONG YOU'VE WORKED THAT DETAIL AT THAT POINT? I MEAN, I THINK WE HAD IT FOR A FEW MONTHS BEFORE THAT.
I'M NOT REAL SURE EXACTLY HOW LONG, BUT I MEAN, WE WORKED IT OUT.
WE ALSO HAD IT YEARS AGO BEFORE THAT SPECIFIC DAY.
UM, TO YOUR RECOLLECTION, DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC MEMORY OF WORKING WITH OFFICER LAWRENCE AND HAVING ANY KIND OF PARTICULAR ENGAGEMENT WITH OFFICER LAWRENCE AT THAT DETAIL? NO, SIR.
UM, BEFORE JULY 9TH, 2021, HAD HE, UH, HAD HE EVER WORKED FOR YOU IN ANY CAPACITY AS AN OFFICER WORKED FOR ME? NO, SIR.
DID YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM, UH, OR BELIEVE THAT YOU KNEW HIM IN A PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL WAY BEFORE JULY 9TH, 2021, BESIDES SEEING HIM? NO, I'VE NEVER, I'VE NEVER HAD ANY KIND OF ENGAGEMENT WITH HIM THIS NOW IN THE TIGER LAND DETAIL, WHAT WERE YOUR DUTIES WITH REGARD TO BOB PETTIT DRIVE? JUST PROVIDE SECURITY IN A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE COLLEGE STUDENTS.
WELL, AND TELL US SPECIFICALLY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A, CUT-THROUGH ON THE ROAD RIGHT THERE THAT YOU ALL WERE PULLING YOUR VEHICLES INTO, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
WE WOULD PARK IN THAT CENTER MEDIAN.
YEAH, WE JUST, WELL, BEFORE AT THAT TIME, THE BRIDGE WASN'T OUT, WE WOULD PARK IN THAT WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO PARK IN THAT CENTER MEDIAN AND PUT OUR CRUISE LIGHTS ON AND WE KIND OF HANG OUT THERE AND THEN WE WOULD MAKE A PASSES WALK AROUND BEHIND THE BARS AND JUST GO WHEREVER WE WERE NEEDED.
SO YOU'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE SAFETY FOR THOSE ARE OUT THERE AND MAKE SURE NOTHING BAD HAPPENS WHILE EVERYBODY'S AT THE BARS AND LEAVING THE BARS.
WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE? YES, SIR.
AND PART OF WHAT YOU DO ON A PET IS YOU'RE BLOCKING OFF THAT CUT-THROUGH SO NO CARS PULL THROUGH.
WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND WHAT IS THE REASONING BEHIND THAT? IS IT BECAUSE YOU WANT FOOT TRAFFIC TO GO THROUGH THERE? I THINK JUST CAUSE IT'S, UH, IT'S DIFFERENT NOW BECAUSE THAT BRIDGE IS OUT.
UM, BUT AT THAT TIME, CAUSE IT'S A CENTRAL SPOT AND WHEN WE'RE THERE, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE ALL THE, ALL THE BARS AND CENTRAL.
SO IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, YOU CAN GET TO IT QUICKLY.
AND THEN OF COURSE, ALL THE COLLEGE KIDS WALKING BACK AND FORTH THROUGH THERE.
NOW, EXPLAIN FOR US WHAT HAPPENED.
JUST START WITH THE BEGINNING OF THE EVENING, WHEN YOU FIRST INTERACTED WITH OFFICER LAWRENCE YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, HE'S JUST GETTING THERE.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD WHAT HAPPENED THEN? WELL, HE WAS, HE WAS THERE IN HIS, UM, POLICE UNIT WHENEVER I GOT THERE AND THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE THERE THAT I'M.
AND SO I PARKED ACROSS FROM HIM KIND OF SOMEWHAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MEDIAN.
AND I WENT UP TO HIM AND I TOLD HIM I WAS WALKING TO THE HOUSE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE BORES THERE TO GET A WATER OR A RED BULL ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED IT, WANTED SOMETHING.
AND THEN I ASKED HIM, I SAID, WELL, I SAID, GO AHEAD AND PULL UP, UM, A LITTLE BIT TO BLOCK OFF THE MEDIAN AND PUT YOUR BAR LIGHTS ON.
AND THEN I WALKED OFF AND WENT, GET A RED BULL.
NOW, WHEN YOU ASK HIM TO PULL UP, HOW FAR DID YOU WANT HIM TO PULL UP? JUST A BLOCK.
WE WERE ACROSS FROM EACH OTHER.
SO I WAS, I HAD PULLED UP A LITTLE BIT TOWARDS THE MIDDLE.
I DON'T KNOW IF I SPECIFY 10 FEET, BUT IT JUST TO BLOCK THE CHORUS FROM PANTSING.
NOW, IF YOU WOULD HAVE PULLED FURTHER TOWARDS HIS CAR, WOULD VEHICLES
[01:20:01]
BE ABLE TO GO BEHIND YOUR CAR, CORRECT? YES, SIR.SO WAS THIS AN ATTEMPT FOR YOU TO USE TWO VEHICLES TO BLOCK THE ENTIRETY OF THAT LITTLE CUT THROUGH? YES, SIR.
UM, AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF PUTTING YOUR CRUISE LIGHTS ON? JUST TO BE SEEN VISIBILITY.
SO YOU ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED TO DRINK.
I THINK YOU SAID, AND THEN YOU WENT TO THE BAR TO GO GET YOUR DRINK.
UM, WHAT HAPPENED IS FOUND, RIGHT? UM, I WENT, I MEAN, I PROBABLY WAS GOING 10 MINUTES AND I CAME BACK AND HE WAS STILL SITTING IN HIS CAR IN THE SAME SPOT.
AND SO I JUST WENT AND ASKED HIM, I SAID, HEY, DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT COOLING UP AND PUTTING YOUR CRUISE LIGHTS ON? AND HE JUST DIDN'T REALLY SAY ANYTHING.
AND HE SAID THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO THAT.
AND I SAID, UM, WHY ARE YOU BEING DIFFICULT? HE SAID, I'M A SERGEANT.
WHY NOT JUST DO IT? I NEED, YOU WANT ME TO SAY WHAT HIS RESPONSE WAS? YOU CAN USE F BUT YES.
AND HE SAID, I DON'T GIVE A F WHO YOU ARE.
AND THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE GIST OF IT.
UM, WHEN YOU ASKED HIM TO MOVE HIS VEHICLE, WAS IT TO TAKE ON HIM OR TO HARASS HIM TO PICK ON HIM? NO.
DID YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF FEELINGS ABOUT HIM, SUCH THAT YOU WANTED TO, JUST TO MESS WITH HIM ON THAT EVENING AND TELL HIM TO MOVE HIS CAR A COUPLE OF FEET? NO, SIR.
UM, WERE YOU SURPRISED, DID IT CATCH YOU OFF GUARD THAT HE ACTED THE WAY THAT HE DID AND THURSDAY? YES.
IT, IT VERY MUCH CAUGHT ME OFF GUARD.
NOW, AFTER THE INCIDENT, DID YOU REPORT THAT TO YOUR SUPERVISOR? I LET THE LIEUTENANT WHO RUNS THE DETAIL NOW, AND THEN YOU WROTE YOUR LETTER AS WELL, IS THAT CORRECT? EVENTUALLY NOT RIGHT THEN, BUT EVENTUALLY, YES, SIR.
I THINK IT WAS A FEW, SEVERAL DAYS PASSED.
I THINK IT WAS DATED JULY 16TH, 2021.
BUT IT WAS A LETTER THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT AND UP THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.
UM, OTHER THAN WHAT WE DISCUSSED WAS DID ANYTHING ELSE HAPPEN IN THIS INCIDENT? NO, SIR.
WHO'S THE SUPERVISOR ON THIS DETAIL THAT RUNS IT.
UM, LIEUTENANT BOWMAN, SCOTTY MCKAY.
AND YOU WERE THE SERGEANT ON THIS DETAIL, CORRECT? I HAPPENED TO BE WORKING THE DETAIL AND I I'M A SERGEANT.
AND YOU BEING A SERGEANT MEANS THAT YOU IN CHARGE OF TIMES OF OTHERS THAT YOU OUTRANK.
I MEAN, IT'S, AM I IN CHARGE? UM, THE RANKING OFFICER THERE, BUT IT'S NOT IN CHARGE OF, CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME? ARE YOU IN COMMAND OF OFFICERS THAT YOU OUTRANK? TECHNICALLY, I GUESS, YES.
AND DO YOU BELIEVE IN LEADING BY EXAMPLE? YES, SIR.
UM, AND AS A LEADING BY EXAMPLE, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT, OR YOU TELL ME, WOULD YOU ASK ONE OF YOUR SUBORDINATES TO DO SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULDN'T DO? WOULD I ASK THEM TO DO SOMETHING I WOULDN'T DO? NO, SIR.
UM, SO WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THIS, UM, ON HIS DETAIL, THEY OFFICER LAWRENCE WAS ALREADY THERE THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
HOW BIG IS THIS, BUT THROUGH, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THREE CAR LENGTHS, MAYBE FOUR.
AND SERGEANT LAWRENCE IS THERE AND HE'S ALREADY, UM, ART FROM END TO END INSIDE THAT CUT-THROUGH CORRECT.
WELL, NOT END TO END IF IT'S FOR CARLOS.
HE WAS, WELL, HIS CAR IS, IS IN THERE POINTING WITH A BACKEND AT ONE END OF THE CUTTHROAT WITH THE FRONT END OR THE BACKEND POINTING TOWARDS THE OTHER END POINTING TO YES, SIR.
AND THEN YOU PULL IN AND YOU PARKED THE SAME KIND OF WAY, JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION.
UM, SO HAD YOU PULLED YOUR VEHICLE UP EVEN JUST A FEW FEET? YOU SAYING YOUR CAR COULD HAVE SLIPPED BEHIND YOU? I MEAN, I DID PULL MINE UP, LEAVING SOME SPACE BETWEEN, SAY THE BACK
[01:25:01]
OF MY CORE AND THE GRASS.UM, BUT IF I WOULD HAVE PULLED IT UP MORE TOWARDS THE MIDDLE.
WE GET ON EACH SIDE, LEAVE A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE FOR PEOPLE TO WALK, SAY, BEHIND OUR CORES, BETWEEN OUR CORES AND THE GRASS, BUT BLOCK IT ENOUGH WHERE A CHORUS CAN'T PASS.
SO YEAH, THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY FOR YOU TO PARK YOUR CAR IN THERE THAT YOU WERE AT SECOND ONE THERE THAT WOULD HAVE BLOCKED TRAFFIC FROM GOING THROUGH? NO, SIR.
NOT JUST TO EAT, NOT JUST ONE VEHICLE, TWO VEHICLES.
CAUSE HIS VEHICLES THERE AS WELL, RIGHT.
WITH TWO VEHICLES, IT COULD BE DONE, BUT YOU ASKED ME IF IT, IF I COULD HAVE DONE IT, IT WAS ANY WAY I COULD HAVE DONE IT WITH JUST MY VEHICLE.
UH, BASED ON HIS VEHICLES ALREADY THERE, BUT YOU HAVE DONE IT TO BLOCK THE REMAINING PART OF THAT BATHROOM? NO SIR VEHICLE.
SO THAT CUT THROUGH AND I'M SEEING IT A BUNCH OF TIMES.
UM, YOU'RE TELLING ME, IT'S SAY 68, 50, 60 FEET.
WHY ABOUT THREE CORE LISTS FOR CARLINA? SO MAYBE, MAYBE A LITTLE LESS THAN 60 FEET.
I MEAN, I'D HAVE TO GO AND MEASURE.
DID YOU HAVE YOUR, UM, YOUR LIGHTS ACTIVATED? YES, SIR.
SO WHEN YOU GOT OUT OF YOUR VEHICLE AND WALK TO THE BAR OR FIRST WALKED OVER TO HIS VEHICLE, YOU HAD YOUR LIGHTS ON? YES, SIR.
UM, UM, WHEN YOU CAME BACK AND YOU SAW THAT ALSO BARNES HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH YOUR, WHAT YOU HAD TOLD THEM TO DO, UM, Y'ALL HAD A CONVERSATION.
WAS ANYBODY ELSE STANDING AROUND? NO, SIR.
IN FACT THERE WERE NO PEDESTRIANS, NO CIVILIANS NOR ANY OFFICERS, CORRECT? NO, SIR.
AND IT WAS A CONVERSATION, RIGHT? IT WASN'T A YELLING MATCH WASN'T OH, NO, SIR.
I GUESS YOU TOLD HIM, WHY AREN'T YOU DOING THIS? I'M A SERGEANT.
AND THEN HE RESPONDS HOW HE RESPONDED.
NOT IN THOSE EXACT WORDS, BUT YES ARE PERFECT.
BUT ANYBODY WAS AT EVEN KEELED.
WE DIDN'T ARGUE IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
UM, HOW WAS ALL OFFICER, WHERE WAS OFFICER LAWRENCE? HIS VEHICLE.
WHERE WAS IT? IN THE MEDIAN? IN THE CUT.
IN THE CUT THROUGH WITH HIS BACK TO THE BACK OF THE UNIT WAS TO THE GRASS FACING WEST, I GUESS IT'D BE WEST.
SO HIS VEHICLE WAS TAKEN UP APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET OF THIS CUTTHROAT.
I HOWEVER LONG A VEHICLE IF I GOT IT.
UM, PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT, HAVE YOU TOLD ANYBODY WORKING THAT EXTRA DUTY DETAIL THAT YOU DIDN'T LIKE OFFICER LAWRENCE? THAT I DIDN'T LIKE HIM? NO, SIR.
IF SOMEBODY TESTIFIES THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE TELLING HIM THE TRUTH, THEY WOULD NOT BE TELLING THE TRUTH.
I DIDN'T KNOW HIM AT THAT TIME.
Y'ALL HAD NEVER, I MEAN, YOU HAD BEEN WORKING THIS DETAIL FOR A FEW MONTHS PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT, HE STATED? YES, SIR.
AND DIDN'T HE AS WELL? HE DID WORK AT BEFORE? YES, SIR.
SO Y'ALL HAVE BEEN WORKING THIS EXTRA DUTY DETAIL FOR A WHILE TOGETHER, RIGHT? YEAH.
AND HOW MANY, HOW MANY OFFICERS WOULD WORK? THIS, THIS DETAIL.
AND YEAH, THIS IS A REGULAR, I GUESS THURSDAY, FRIDAY, SATURDAY NIGHT? YES, SIR.
SO FOR A FEW MONTHS Y'ALL HAD BEEN WORKING THIS 12 TO 15 PERSON DETAIL THREE NIGHTS A WEEK? YES, SIR.
AND YOU HAD NEVER HAD ANY INTERACTIONS WITH THEM PRIOR TO THEM? NO.
INTERACTIONS LIKE CONVERSATIONS AS DOING THINGS TOGETHER? NO, SIR.
JUST SPEAKING TO ONE ANOTHER NOW, NOT THAT I RECALLED.
WHY WAS IT NECESSARY FOR HIM TO PULL HIS VEHICLE UP? IF HE WAS ALREADY PARKED, BLOCKING TO CORES, COULDN'T PASS IN BETWEEN US.
SO YOU MOVING YOUR VEHICLE UP A FEW FEET.
[01:30:01]
I DID MY, MY BACK-END WASN'T UP AGAINST THE GRASS.I DID MOVE IT UP A FEW FEET WHENEVER I PARKED IT THERE.
UM, BUT WE, THESE ARE THERE'S CONCRETE PERPS.
AND THE GRASS SITS ON TOP, RIGHT? SO THE GRASS IS WHAT THEY FLED OR SO ABOVE THE STREET LEVEL? PROBABLY NOT A FOOT.
MAYBE A CAR WOULD HAVE TO DRIVE UP ON THE CURB IN ORDER TO GET BEHIND YOU? CORRECT.
AND, UM, BUT I MEAN YOU JUST PULLING UP A COUPLE OF FEET.
WOULDN'T HAVE NO, THEY STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PASS IT BETWEEN IN THE MIDDLE.
IF IT, BOTH OF OUR BACK ENDS ARE UP AGAINST THE CURB.
EVEN IF I MOVED MY CAR UP, SAY THREE OR FOUR FEET, THERE'S STILL ROOM FOR CHORUS TO PAST.
HE WAS THERE WHENEVER I GOT THERE.
AND THEN WHEN YOU GOT BACK, HE STANDING OUTSIDE OF HIS VEHICLE.
I THOUGHT YOU MEANT IF HE WAS THERE WHENEVER I GOT TO THE DETAIL, CORRECT.
AND THEN WHEN YOU WENT TO GO GET SOMETHING TO DRINK AND COME BACK AND HE'S STANDING IN THE FRONT OF HIS VEHICLE, CORRECT? HE MAY HAVE BEEN AND HE WASN'T LETTING ANY CARS GO THROUGH.
WAS HE? UH, HE WAS STANDING THERE.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS LETTING CHORUS.
HE, DID YOU SEE HIM LET ANY CARS GO THROUGH THEM? NO.
AND IN FACT THAT'S PART OF BEING RIGHT THERE IS TO BRENT FAR FROM DOING THAT CORRECT? MARK AND OUR CORES THERE.
CAUSE WE DON'T STAY IN THERE THE WHOLE TIME.
WE HAVE TO MAKE ROUNDS, WALK BEHIND THE BORDERS.
BUT AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME, HE STANDING THERE.
OH, HE'S IN A POSITION TO PREVENT ANY CARS FROM CUTTING THROUGH.
WAS HE STANDING IN THE, I THINK HE WAS STANDING IN THE FRONT OF HIS CAR.
THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AND YOUR UNDERSTANDING, UM, AT THAT DETAIL, WOULD MR. LAWRENCE BE CONSIDERED YOUR SUBORDINATE? I MEAN, I'M A SUPERVISOR, I'M A SERGEANT AND HE'S AN OFFICER.
SO TECHNICALLY I GUESS, YES, NO, NO QUESTION.
I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH JUST TWO QUESTIONS REAL QUICK.
UM, TAKE THE WHOLE SUPERVISOR AND SUBORDINATE ROLE OUT OF IT FOR A SECOND.
IF SOMEONE TELLS YOU I DON'T GIVE AN F WHO YOU ARE THAT TAKES THE CONVERSATION IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, DOESN'T IT? YES, SIR.
THAT'S NOT A, JUST A CALM, NICE CONVERSATION.
IF I TELL THAT TO YOU, TO YOUR FACE.
AND YOU'RE THE ONLY ONES AROUND THAT RAISES THE LEVEL OF THE CONVERSATION TO A MORE CONTENTIOUS TYPE CONVERSATION, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
DID YOU FIND IT APPROPRIATE THAT HE SPOKE TO YOU IN THAT WAY, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOUR RANK IS? EVEN IF YOU WERE BOTH OFFICERS? NO, SIR.
YOU DON'T THINK OFFICERS SHOULD SPEAK LIKE THAT TO EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF RANK? WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? CORRECT.
CAUSE WE TALKING ABOUT RANK, ANOTHER SERGEANT GOT THERE AND PARKED ACROSS AND I SAID THE SAME THING TO HIM JUST ASKED HIM IF HE CAME BACK UP TO BLOCK IT AND PUT HIS CRUISE LIGHTS ON AND HE JUST, AND HE DID IT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
HOW MANY MORE WITNESSES DO YOU HAVE MR.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CHIEF WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY GO AHEAD PROCEED.
UH, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS
[01:35:01]
FOR THE RECORD.DEPUTY CHIEF MYRON DANIELS, UH, BUT A BUSINESS ADDRESS OF 9,000 HAIRLINE HIGHWAY BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 7 0 8 1 5.
AND WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT ASSIGNMENT WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT? I AM THE CHIEF OF STAFF, UH, DEPUTY CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATION.
IN ASSOCIATION WITH THAT CURRENT ASSIGNMENT, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASES AT THE DEPARTMENT? YES.
AND ARE THEY, IS THAT KIND OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS? IS THAT UNDER YOUR PURVIEW AND REVIEW? YES, SIR.
UH, DID YOU ALSO TAKE PART IN THE PREDISPOSED PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING INVOLVING OFFICER LAWRENCE REGARDING INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE NUMBER 62 DASH 21 THAT WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY? YES, SIR.
NOW WE'VE ALSO ALREADY HEARD SERGEANT BEER TESTIFY ABOUT HIS INVESTIGATION AND SERGEANT GUNTER TESTIFIED ABOUT THE INCIDENT ITSELF.
UM, I WANT TO START WITH DISCUSSING THE RULING IN THIS CASE, IF YOU WOULD TURN TO TAB TWO FOR ME, PLEASE.
UM, CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT THIS IS COPY OF THE RULING LETTER THAT WAS ISSUED TO OFFICER LAWRENCE? YES, SIR.
AND ON THE FINAL PAGE, IT'S BOTH SIGNATURES FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE AS WELL AS OFFICER LAWRENCE, JR.
WE'LL OFFER THE RULING AS EXHIBIT TWO.
UM, IS IT CORRECT THAT OFFICER LAWRENCE WAS FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED RPD POLICIES FOR COMMAND OF TIMBER CONDUCT ON BECOMING AN OFFICER AND RESPECT TO FELLOW MEMBERS? YES, SIR.
AND ARE ALL OF THOSE CLASS TWO VIOLATIONS? YES, SIR.
NOW, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE EXPLAIN, UM, WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT SPECIFIC CHARGES WERE APPROPRIATE TO BE SUSTAINED AGAINST OFFICER LAWRENCE IN THIS CASE, IF YOU WOULD JUST KIND OF WALK THROUGH THOSE THREE CHARGES.
UM, SO, UH, THE THREE, UH, THE COMMAND OF TEMPER, THE COMMAND OF TEMPER WAS BECAUSE OF HIS LOSS OF TEMPER AND THE LANGUAGE THAT HE USED DURING THE PROCESS OF OUR INVOLVEMENT WITH SERGEANT GUNNER AT THE EXTRA DUTY DETAIL, UH, THE CONDUCT ON BECOMING AN OFFICER THAT BASICALLY BALLED DOWN TO BRINGING DISGRACE OR DISHONOR UPON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, UH, DURING THAT TIME.
AND THE RESPECT FOR FELLOW MEMBERS AGAIN, WENT BACK TO THE, UH, METHOD OR THE WAY THAT HE SPOKE WITH AND, AND HAD A CONVERSATION WITH, UH, SERGEANT GUNNER.
WELL, OBVIOUSLY CHIEF IS THE ONE WHO ULTIMATELY MAKES THE DECISION REGARDING THIS POINT IN THIS, IN THESE CASES.
UM, BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT HEAD OFFICER LAUREN'S HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCIPLINED BY THE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THIS CASE, 62 DASH 21.
IF YOU WOULD PLEASE TURN TO TAB THREE FOR ME.
AT THIS POINT I'LL RECHARGE THE SAME OBJECTION THAT I HAD WHEN WE STARTED THIS HEARING THAT IT'S OUTSIDE THE FOUR CORNERS OF THAT DISCIPLINARY LETTER.
SO COULD YOU RESTATE THAT POINT? TODD RECHARGE THE SAME OBJECTION THAT I BROUGHT UP AT THE BEGINNING WITH STATING THAT ANY PRIOR DISCIPLINE IS OUTSIDE THE FOUR CORNERS OF THAT DISCIPLINARY LETTER.
THAT WAS, IF THAT IS EXHIBIT TWO AND THEREFORE IS NOT A PART OF THIS HEARING WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
AND WE'VE ALREADY RULED ON THAT THOUGH.
HE HAD THAT, UM, IF YOU WOULD REVIEW WHAT STARTS ON THE SECOND PAGE THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS CALLED CONSENT AGREEMENT, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR.
AND THIS CONSENT AGREEMENT IS RELATED TO FILE NUMBER 0 43 DASH 20.
AND WAS IT SIGNED BY BOTH OFFICER LAWRENCE AND THE CHIEF AS THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY? YES, SIR.
IT WAS ALONG WITH TWO ADDITIONAL WITNESSES.
AND WE'LL OFFER THIS AS EXHIBIT THREE.
UM, THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING RELATIVE TO THAT CASE OCCURRED ON FEBRUARY 4TH, 2021.
AND THE RULING IN THAT CASE WAS ISSUED A COUPLE OF WEEKS LATER ON FEBRUARY 17TH, 2021.
IT WAS IN THAT CASE, OFFICER LAWRENCE WAS SUSTAINED FOR COMMAND OF TEMPORARY CONDUCT UNBECOMING AND DIGITAL MODE, UH, MOBILE VIDEO, AUDIO EQUIPMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
NOW, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD, THE GENERAL ALLEGATIONS IN THAT CASE, UM, IN THIS CASE, UH, THERE WAS A RESPONSE TO A TRAFFIC CRASH, UH, DURING THAT PERIOD.
UM, IT WAS ALLEGED THAT OFFICER LAWRENCE JR ACTUALLY, UH, USED PROFANITY
[01:40:01]
IN WHICH TO DEAL WITH AND SPEAK WITH THOSE INVOLVED, AS WELL AS, UH, MUTING HIS CAMERA DURING THE PROCESS WHERE IT WASN'T AN AUTHORIZED, UH, USE TO MUTE THE CAMP.AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT HE WAS USING PROFANITY, WOULD THOSE INVOLVED, DO YOU MEAN THE CITIZEN, JUST CITIZENS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT? YES, SIR.
UM, THE ACTUAL, UH, DRIVER AS WELL AS SOME, UH, CONCERNED RELATIVES WHO MAY HAVE SHOWN UP, UH, AFTER THE ACTUAL ACCIDENT TOOK PLACE, UM, IN THE RULING RELATIVE TO THIS CASE PRIOR TO THE CONSENT AGREEMENT, UM, WHAT DISCIPLINE WAS HE GIVEN BY THE CHIEF? A TWO DAY SUSPENSION.
AND THEN IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE CONSENT AGREEMENT, WAS, IS IT ACCURATE THAT IT WAS REDUCED TO A LETTER OF REPRIMAND? YES, SIR.
NOW, IF YOU WERE LOOKING, LOOK AT THE SECOND PAGE OF THAT CONSENT AGREEMENT AND THERE'S A, B, C, D E IF YOU WOULD READ PARAGRAPH C FOR ME, EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IN THE EVENT OF A FUTURE VIOLATION OF THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES OF THE DEPARTMENT, THE DEPARTMENT MAY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EMPLOYEE'S ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION ADDRESSED HERE IN, IN MAKING A DECISION REGARDING APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
NOW, DID HE ALSO HAVE A, ANOTHER INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE BETWEEN THE FIRST ONE THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED AND THE ONE WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY? YES, SIR.
AND THEN DID THAT CASE ALSO INVOLVE COMMAND OF TIMBER? YES, SIR.
AND WAS HE SUSTAINED FOR COMMAND OF TEMPER? YES, SIR.
AND CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN BRIEFLY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THAT CASE AND LET ME OBJECT TO THIS, UM, THE FACT THAT HE WAS DISCIPLINED PRIOR ON WHAT THE ACTUAL AL THE CHARGES WERE, IS THE ONLY THING THAT'S RELEVANT HERE.
WE'RE NOT HERE TO RETRY THESE PRIOR INCIDENTS AND RELIVE THE SAME FACTS.
SO THE ONLY ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE PRESENTED IS, WAS IT, WAS HE SUSTAINED FOR PRIOR VIOLATION AND WHAT IT WAS AND WHAT HE RECEIVED NOW, I'M DISAGREE JUST TO THE EXTENT THAT IN THIS INSTANCE, SOMETIMES WHAT WE LOOK AT IS THERE A PATTERN OR A CON UH, CONDUCT OF AN OFFICER WHERE THEY HAD THE SAME CHARGE OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND HOW DOES IT OCCUR? AND HERE WE HAVE A PATTERN OF CONDUCT WHERE THE OFFICER IS USING PROFANE LANGUAGE WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF GROUPS OF PEOPLE.
FIRST, IT STARTED WITH CITIZENS.
UH, THE ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE WAS AN ARRESTEE, AND THEN WE MOVE ON TO WHAT WE'RE HEARING TODAY, WHICH IS ANOTHER OFFICER.
SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SHOW IS JUST THAT THERE WAS A PATTERN OF CONDUCT HERE THAT THE CHIEF WAS DISCIPLINING.
CAN YOU STATE THAT AGAIN? YES, SIR.
IF YOU WOULD PLEASE JUST GIVE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE SECOND DISCIPLINE CASE INVOLVING OFFICER LAWRENCE.
UH, IT HAD OCCURRED DURING AN ARREST OF, UH, TWO INDIVIDUALS.
UM, DURING THAT PROCESS, UM, THE ARRESTEES WERE TRANSPORTED TO A, ANOTHER LOCATION IN THE ATTEMPT TO, UH, RELEASE ONE TO THE MOTHER WHO WAS A MINOR AT THE TIME OR JUVENILE.
UH, DURING THAT PARTICULAR TIME, UM, OFFICER LAWRENCE JR, UH, OPENED THE REAR DOOR TO THE VEHICLE AND, UH, MADE SOME COMMENTS TO, UH, ACTUALLY INFLICT HARM, AS WELL AS USE PROFANITY DURING THAT PROCESS ON A SUBJECT THAT HAD BEEN DETAINED.
AND WHEN YOU SAY FLIGHT TIME, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A THREAT OF INFLICTING HARM? HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY INFLICT THE HORMONES.
HE, THAT IT WAS A THREAT, RIGHT? SO IS IT ACCURATE THAT THIS WAS THE THIRD SUSTAINED CHARGE OF COMMAND OF TIMBER AGAINST OFFICER LAWRENCE? THE ONE THAT I JUST JUST DESCRIBED WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SECOND AND THE ONE WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY WOULD BE THE FOURTH BEAT OF THE THIRD.
AND THE THIRD IN A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
IF YOU WOULDN'T TURN TO TAB ONE AND GO ABOUT THREE PAGES FROM THE BACK, YOU'LL SEE A TABLE PENALTIES.
I EXPLAINED TO THE BOARD WHAT, UH, THE PAY TABLE OF PENALTIES IS, OH, THE TABLE OF PENALTIES IS A, A GUY, UH, FOR, FOR SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL, AS WELL AS, UH, OUR LEVEL OF EXECUTIVE, UH, POWERS TO ACTUALLY, UM, GUIDE US IN MAKING DECISIONS
[01:45:01]
ON CASES, UH, OR VIOLATIONS AND HOW THEY OCCUR IN DURING A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME IN WHICH THEY OCCUR.AND IS IT ACCURATE THAT THE CHIEF HAS THE AUTHORITY TO GO ABOVE OR BELOW THIS TABLE? YES.
THIS IS A GUIDE, BUT BASED ON CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CHIEF CAN DEVIATE FROM THIS ACTUAL A TABLE.
SO IN LOOKING AT THE TABLE, WE'VE GOT DIFFERENT CATEGORIES AT THE TOP.
FIRST OFFENSE, SECOND OFFENSE WITHIN ONE YEAR, SECOND OFFENSE WITHIN THREE YEARS, A THIRD OFFENSE WITHIN FIVE YEARS.
UM, WHICH CATEGORY DID TODAY'S CASE FALL INTO? THAT WOULD BE THE, UH, IT'S A CATEGORY TWO, BUT IT WOULD BE THE THIRD OFFENSE WITHIN A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD.
AND THAT, UH, CATEGORY, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION IS ANYWHERE FROM A FIVE DAY SUSPENSION TO DISMISS.
SO AS A RESULT OF THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, THE CHIEF COULD, HAS, HAVE GONE AS FAR AS TERMINATING OFFICER LAWRENCE, BUT IN THIS SITUATION, HE GAVE HIM A 20 DAYS SUSPENSION.
IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO DID THE DISCIPLINE THAT WAS RENDERED TO OFFICER LAWRENCE FALL WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF THE TABLE OF PENALTIES? THAT'S PART OF GENERAL ORDER ONE 12.
YOU RECEIVED A 25 DAY SUSPEND, SO, AND REGARDLESS OF RANK, LET'S TAKE RANK OUT OF IT FOR A MINUTE.
UM, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE, UH, THE SERGEANT HAD A SUPERVISORY ROLE OVER OFFICER LAWRENCE THAT EVENING, DO YOU, DO YOU BELIEVE IT APPROPRIATE FOR AN OFFICER TO SPEAK TO ANOTHER OFFICER, UH, IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FACTS ALLEGED THAT OFFICER LAWRENCE DID THAT EVENING? NO, SIR.
SO EVEN IF THERE WAS NOT A SUPERVISORY ROLE IN THIS CASE, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT LANGUAGE OR THAT, THAT CHARGE COMMANDED TEMPORARY AND RESPECT TO FELLOW OFFICERS CONDUCT UNBECOMING WOULD STILL BE APPROPRIATE? YES, I DO.
IF IT WAS, IF RANK WAS A PART OF THE, UH, THE CASE, THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT CHARGE WOULD HAVE, WHICH WOULD HAVE FELL UNDER INSUBORDINATION UNDER OUR, OUR POLICY.
BUT BECAUSE RANK ON THAT EXTRA DUTY WAS NOT IN PLAY.
THEN THE RESPECT OF FELLOW OFFICERS IS WHERE IT FELT.
I'LL TELL YOU THE WITNESS, UH, DEPUTY CHIEF, JUST A FEW QUESTIONS YOU WERE IN THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY PROCESS.
IT'S UM, THE CHIEF AND THE DEPUTY CHIEFS SITTING IN THERE AND DISCUSSING WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED AND THEN DISCUSSING, UM, WHAT THIS ONE'S GOING TO BE RENDERED, CORRECT? CORRECT.
THEN IN THIS CASE, IT WAS ONE DIFFERENCE.
W WE ONLY HAD, UH, WE DIDN'T HAVE ALL OF OUR DEPUTY CHIEFS, ONE DEPUTY CHIEF HAD TO RECUSE HIMSELF.
BUT YOU WERE THERE, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND I JUST, JUST WANNA ASK THE, UM, MR. RAINS HAS START OFF QUESTIONING YOU ON THE THREE DIFFERENT VIOLATIONS AND I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR.
UM, SO COMMAND A TEMPER WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY THAT Y'ALL FOUND THAT HE VIOLATED THE COMMANDED TEMPER BASED ON WHAT OFFICER LAWRENCE TOLD TO, UM, OR HOW HE RESPONDED AND WHAT HE SAID TO SERGEANT GUNTER.
AND THE CONDUCT ON THE COMING, WHAT, WHAT IS IT THAT, UM, WOULD IT ALSO BE FAIR TO SAY THAT IT WAS THE, UM, WHAT HE SAID AND HOW HE REACTED TO SERGEANT GUNNER IS ALSO GAVE RISE TO CONDUCT UNBECOMING? I, I THINK THAT THE ACTIONS DID, UM, THAT, THAT PLAYED A HUGE PART IN IT, BUT AGAIN, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE ACTUAL CONDUCT UNBECOMING, IT TALKS ABOUT, UM, BRINGING DISGRACE OR DISHONOR.
DOES THAT TO THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS THE OFFICER, HIM OR HERSELF.
AND THE QUICK, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, BUT THE REASON WHY Y'ALL FOUND THAT HE VIOLATED THE CONDUCT DEALT WITH COMING WAS BASED ON HOW HE RESPONDED AND WHAT HE SAID.
I THINK THAT, UH, PROBABLY THE BETTER EXPLAIN IT.
UM, FROM MY STANDPOINT TO ME, IT WAS BASED OFF OF THE FACT THAT THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR, WITHOUT A DOUBT, WOULD BRING DYSPRAXIA AND DISHONOR TO BOTH THE OFFICER, AS WELL AS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
SO, BUT MY QUESTION IS WHAT, WHAT BEHAVIOR, WHAT, WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO THAT GAVE RISE TO THE CONDUCT UNBECOMING? UH, NOT
[01:50:01]
MOVING THE VEHICLE, UH, THE RESPONSE TO, UM, SERGEANT GUNNER, UM, BASICALLY STATING HE DIDN'T CARE WHO HE WAS, BUT IN DIFFERENT TERMS. OKAY.AND THEN, UH, RESPECT TO FELLOW OFFICERS, ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S THE SAME THING, BUT THE COMMENT THAT HE MADE TO OFFICER TO SERGEANT GUNTER BY SAYING, I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE.
I THINK IT ALSO GOES BACK THAT I THINK THAT PLAYS A PART, BUT I ALSO THINK IT GOES BACK TO THE REQUESTS, THEN THE VEHICLES NOT BEING MOVED AND EVERYTHING THAT, THAT LED UP TO THE COMMENT.
MR. MR. DANIELS, UM, I AM PARTICULARLY CONCERNED AS TO, UH, THE RESPECT FOR THE CITIZENS OF OUR COMMUNITY.
AND IF WE DO HAVE AN OFFICER WHO WAS, UH, CONTINUALLY, UH, BEING REPRIMANDED FOR COMMAND OF TEMPER, MUCH LIKE, UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF A COINCIDENCE IS, BUT THE MCDERMOTT, UH, ISSUE THAT WE HAD IN THE SAME AREA, WHY WASN'T, WHY WASN'T THERE A, UH, A PROGRAM THAT HE WAS ABLE TO GET INTO FOR THIS, BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR COMMAND OF TEMPER IS WHAT GETS US IN TROUBLE AS A POLICE, AS IT RELATES TO OUR CITIZENS.
SO WHY, WHY DON'T WE HAVE MORE ON THE FRONT END AS, UH, AS FAR AS A MEANS OF CORRECTING THE ACTIVITY AFTER THE FIRST INSTANCE? SO ACTUALLY, UM, AS, UH, ATTORNEY REIGN STATED THAT ALL OF THESE THINGS HAPPEN PRETTY CLOSE, UH, IN, IN TIMEFRAME, GIMME, GIMME A TIMEFRAME BETWEEN INSTANCES.
I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND PULL IT.
UM, THINK ATTORNEY RAINS IS PULLING THAT FOR US, BUT AS HE FINDS IT, I'LL JUST SAY THIS.
UM, WHEN THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED AT SOME POINT, UH, OFFICER TROY LAWRENCE JR WAS PLACED IN OUR EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAM AND WHILE, AND THESE INCIDENTS INCIDENTS, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY OCCURRED JUST ABOUT THE TIME HE WAS BEING PLACED INTO THAT PROGRAM.
SO DID, IF THAT BEING THE CASE, HE WOULD HAVE HAD A BREACH OF THE PROGRAM THAT THAT'S NOT IN THIS, WHERE HE ACTUALLY WAS IN THE PROGRAM.
AND HE WAS ACTUALLY, HE W HE WAS ACTUALLY REPRIMANDED AGAIN ONCE IN THE PROGRAM.
UM, I, AND I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DATES, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THIS HAPPENED JUST PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL START OF THE EARLY INTERVENTION.
I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE, WHEN HE ENTERED EARLIER INTERVENTION, YOU PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TO ASK HIM, BUT CAN WE DEPOSE HIM ALL AN OFFICER LAUREN? WELL, HE'LL BE UNDER QUESTIONING.
UH, I TELL YOU, I GIVE ME A SECOND PILE.
CAN YOU FIND OUT WHEN HE ACTUALLY ENTERED THE EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAM, UH, HE CAN CONTACT INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND FIND OUT, AND WHO WAS THIS IN THAT PROGRAM? THEY HAVE A SUPERIOR OFFICER THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR, UH, WATCHING HIS VIDEOS.
AND DO YOU KNOW WHO THAT IS? UH, I'M NOT SURE WHICH A SERGEANT OR LIEUTENANT IS OVER THAT.
THAT WOULD BE ONE OF HIS SHIFT, UH, SUPERVISOR, UH, BUT THE PERSON THAT'S MONITORS IT FROM ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT IS SERGEANT ROY OSBORN WHO WORKS IN INTERNAL FAIR.
WELL, I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT A POINT FOR THOSE SPECIAL CASES THAT WE ARE ABLE TO MONITOR IT AS IT RELATES TO OUR PUBLIC.
YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE THESE ISSUES AND IT'S REOCCURRING, THEN DEFINITELY THE NEED IS THERE FOR US TO ACTUALLY MONITOR THESE GUYS VERY HEAVILY AND MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T SPILL OUT INTO, UH, YOU KNOW, A MUCH DIFFERENT OUTCOME WHERE WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SATISFY THE REMEDY IN THIS VENUE.
I JUST LIKE YOU TO CLARIFY ONE OF YOUR ANSWERS RIGHT AT THE END, CAUSE I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD.
DID YOU SAY, UM, THAT IS THE POSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATION AT, IN THIS CASE AND I GUESS WOULD BE GOING FORWARD THAT RANK DOES NOT MATTER AT EXTRA DUTY ASSIGNMENTS, SO I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD YOU.
I HAVE, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM CLARIFYING THE WAY THAT EXTRA DUTY WORKS.
FOR EXAMPLE, UH, EVEN I, AS THE DEPUTY CHIEF WORK
[01:55:01]
EXTRA DUTY FROM TIME TO TIME, I WORKED FOR A SUBORDINATE.I WORK FOR SOMEBODY THAT'S A CORPORAL DURING THAT PROCESS, MY RANK AS NO DEALINGS WITH THAT EXTRA DUTY, THAT PERSON IS STILL MY SUPERIOR.
I HAVE TO ANSWER TO HIM DURING EXTRA DUTY.
FOR EXAMPLE, UH, EVEN THOUGH I WORKED EXTRA DUTY, I'M PROBABLY ONE OF THE YOUNGEST OR NEWEST MEMBERS TO THAT EXTRA DUTY, WHICH MEANS THAT OTHERS HAVE BEEN WORKING IT FOR LONGER THAN I HAD.
SO WE'RE ALL EQUAL AT THAT EXTRA DUTY SITE, THE SUPERVISING, OUR ADMINISTRATOR, WHOEVER THAT IS, IS THE ACTUAL THAT.
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, CERTAIN THAT I'M CLEAR BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS GOING TO COME AS A SHOCK TO PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE THAT WORKS HERE.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT MY RANK, BECAUSE I'M A SERGEANT.
IF I AM WORKING AT AN EXTRA DUTY THAT AN OFFICER WHO'S BEEN HERE ONE YEAR IS RUNNING, I AM SUBORDINATE OR EQUAL TO THAT OFFICER RELATIVE, NOT RELATIVE TO, UM, YOU KNOW, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO IN OUR EXTRA DUTY, BUT CAN I, AS A SUPERVISOR, AM I EXPECTED TO SUPERVISE? SHOULD THE NEED ARISE? WOULDN'T WOULD THE BURDEN FALL ON ME AS A SUPERVISOR OR THAT ONE YEAR OFFICER IF A NEED TO SUPERVISE ARISES.
SO TO THAT QUESTION IS PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT MORE TRICKIER THAN YOU ASKED, BUT TO MAKE IT SIMPLE, BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE WORKING IN AN EXTRA DUTY CAPACITY, YOUR NEED TO SUPERVISE IS NOT THERE.
IF IT'S AN ISSUE THAT CALLS FOR SUPERVISION, THEN THE ON DUTY SUPERVISOR SHOULD BE THERE TO HANDLE THAT CASE.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
I DO THINK THAT'S GOING TO COME AS A SHOCK TO A LOT OF OUR MEMBERS, BUT I'M GLAD WE GOT THAT OUT BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO CLEAR IT UP FOR SAFETY, DEPUTY CHIEF.
SO LET ME ASK THIS REAL QUICK JOB.
SORRY, MICHAEL, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE IS, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S A SEPARATE TYPE OF A RANK STRUCTURE AT A DETAIL, IS IT FAIR? CORRECT.
THE POSITION ITSELF, A DETAIL ADMINISTRATOR IS THE SUPERVISING PERSON OF THAT DETAIL.
NOW WHAT I'VE ALWAYS KIND OF UNDERSTOOD IS THAT NO MATTER WHERE YOU'RE AT OFFICERS RESPECT THE STRIPES, RIGHT.
SO IS THAT A PART OF, HOW DOES THAT FIT INTO THE DETAIL SITUATION? I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE A SEPARATE RANK STRUCTURE FOR PURPOSES OF THE DETAIL, BUT DOES THAT ALLOW EMPLOYEES TO DISREGARD THAT RANK STRUCTURE? THAT'S I THINK WHAT THE ISSUE IS ON THE BOARD.
SO I WANT TO SAY DISREGARD THAT RANK STRUCTURE.
UH, BUT AGAIN, WHETHER SERGEANT CORPORAL AND OFFICER ALL WORKING TOGETHER FOR A CORPORAL, THEN THEY'RE ALL EQUAL AT THAT POINT, AS FAR AS TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NO DISRESPECT.
THAT'S WHY OUR POLICY HAS RESPECT TO FELLOW MEMBERS AS WELL.
UM, BUT IF THAT SERGEANT ARE OUR LIEUTENANT OR EVEN HIGHER AS ACTING IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY ON DUTY, THEN IT APPLIES 100.
BRIEF HYPOTHETICAL, LEAVE IT ALONE.
SO LET'S SAY THERE'S A CORPORAL SUPERVISING, A LIEUTENANT AND A SERGEANT, CORRECT.
THE CORPORAL AND THE SERGEANT ARE GETTING INTO SOME TYPE OF ALTERCATION.
DOES THE LIEUTENANT HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY AT THAT POINT TO MAKE SURE THE RESPECT OF THE DETAILS IS BEING, UH, PUT TOGETHER? SO THAT'S ONE OF THE BEST THINGS ABOUT OUR POLICY RIGHT NOW WE HAVE, AND WE'VE ADDED A DUTY TO INTERVENE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
BUT YES, THEY, THAT, THAT LIEUTENANT SHOULD, SO THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE THE, THE DEPARTMENTS RANKED STILL HOLD WATER ON THE DETAIL.
AND THAT'S WHY I SAID THERE WAS A DUTY TO INTERVENE.
IT WOULDN'T MATTER IF IT WAS A LIEUTENANT OR IT, THE OFFICER THAT THAT PERSON IS ORDERED TO INTERVENE AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
SO IN THIS MATTER, SO SHOULD A OFFICER LAWRENCE HAVE TO MOVE HIS VEHICLE BECAUSE THEY, SERGEANT GUNNAR TOLD HIM TO MOVE IT.
ARE THEY ON EQUAL PLAYING GROUND ON THIS DETAIL? I THINK THERE ARE EQUAL PLAYING GROUNDS AND I, I, I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE.
[02:00:02]
I SHOW UP TO SCENES FROM TIME TO TIME AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO TELLS ME, HEY, DEPUTY CHIEF, CAN YOU PARK OVER HERE? ABSOLUTELY.WE DON'T ARGUE WITH, I GET THAT.
BUT IN SERGEANT GUNNER'S TESTIMONY, HE EXPRESSLY USED THE, HIS RANK AND TRYING TO TELL OFFICER LAWRENCE WHAT HE SHOULD DO, OR WHY IS THERE AN ISSUE HERE? I'M A SERGEANT, YOU'RE AN OFFICER.
SO THE SERGEANT, IN MY OPINION, SERGEANT LAWRENCE DIDN'T HAVE TO MOVE HIS CAR.
UM, AND, AND, UH, TELL YOU WHETHER THAT'S THE CASE OR NOT.
IT'S STILL THE BEHAVIOR THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM IS THE MAJOR CUSTODY.
OH, THAT'S MY OPINION OR MY BELIEF.
BUT SO HIM DISOBEYING A DIRECT ORDER OR INSUBORDINATION, WHICH I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ANY OF THIS.
WE, WE DID NOT FIND, WE DID NOT FIND THE INSUBORDINATION WAS ONE OF THE POTENTIAL POLICY VIOLATIONS THAT WE WERE ASKED TO CONSIDER.
AND WE DID NOT SUSTAIN THE INSUBORDINATION PIECE.
SO OFFICER, UH, SERGEANT GARDNER NOT OFFICER B, UH, HIS FINDINGS OF THE LETTER THAT WAS THINGS SAY CARRYING OUT ORDERS AND INSUBORDINATION, THAT WAS WHAT HE WROTE THIS, UH, POLICY VIOLATIONS TO Y'ALL IS ADDITIONAL REQUEST FOR BOARD INVESTIGATION.
AND WE CONSIDERED THAT, BUT AGAIN, TAKING IN THE CONSIDERATION, ALL OF THE FACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CASE, IT WAS OUR DETERMINATION THAT INSUBORDINATION AND CARRYING OUT ORDERS WERE NOT A VIOLATION.
WHAT DID Y'ALL CHARGE ME WHEN I'M TRYING TO FIND THAT IT WAS THREE, UM, THREE SUSTAINED CHARGES, COMMAND OF TEMP, COMMAND OF TEMPORARY, UH, CONDUCT, UM, A CALMING AND RESPECTING FELLOW OFFICERS.
AND I THINK WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER WAS TO STICK TO THE INTENT OF THOSE ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE PERTINENT TO WHAT THEY'RE BEING CHARGED OR, OR I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT I HAD ASKED THE QUESTION EARLIER, DOES RAIN MATTER ON A DETAIL? AND SOMEBODY TOLD ME IT WAS, AND NOW SHE, DAN IS TELLING ME IT DOESN'T, THAT'S WHAT I WAS.
WELL, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT OTHER PERSON'S, BUT I WILL SAY THAT I DID THAT EARLIER.
I WILL SAY THAT RANK, UM, AS FAR AS EXTRA DUTY GOES AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, IT'S THE VIRTUE OF THE POSITION AND NOT NECESSARILY THE RANK ON YOUR COLLAR OR SHOULDER.
I GET THAT OFFICER GUNNER WAS THE ONE THAT SAID THAT.
JUST HAVE A COUPLE, I THINK YOU SAID, BUT THE CHARGES OF INSPIRATION AND SUBORDINATION CARRYING OUT ORDERS WERE NOT SUSTAINED AGAINST OFFICER LAWRENCE IN THIS SITUATION, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND HE DID HAVE THREE CLASS TWOS THAT WERE SUSTAINED AGAINST HIM IN, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE HAD ONE CLASS TO SUSTAIN AGAINST HIM OR THREE CLASS TO SUSTAINED AGAINST HIM, LIKE HE DID IN THIS CASE, IT STILL WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN THAT BEING THE THIRD CLASS TO CHARGE THAT HE HAD SUSTAINED AGAINST HIM WITHIN A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
THEN IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE ONE VIOLATION, UH, THAT'S BEEN IN ALL THREE OF THE CASES HAS BEEN COMMANDED HIM.
LIKE IT'S A LOT MORE FREE TO GO.
MR. CHAIR, UH, JUST TO GIVE YOU A UPDATE, IT WAS BETWEEN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER OF 2021.
HE WAS PLACED INTO THE EARLY INTERVENTION SYSTEM.
HOW LONG WILL SOMEONE REMAIN IN THAT SYSTEM? UH, IT, UH, ROUGHLY SIX MONTHS.
[02:05:02]
CHIEF.IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
CHIEF MURPHY, PAUL AND BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, UM, 9,000 AIRLINE HOME.
AND DID YOU TAKE PART IN THE PREVIOUS PLANARIA HEARING INVOLVING OFFICER LAWRENCE REGARDING INTERNAL AFFAIR CASE AT 62 DASH 21 THAT WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY? I DID.
ULTIMATELY, AS WE'VE HEARD TODAY, YOU ISSUED A RULING FINDING OFFICER LAWRENCE VIOLATED THREE POLICIES OF THE DEPARTMENT CONDUCT ON BECOMING RESPECT TO FELLOW MEMBERS AND COMMAND OF TEMPER.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND YOU'VE HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF DEBBIE J J CHIEF DANIELS AS TO WHY HE BELIEVED THAT THE CONDUCT OF OFFICER LAWRENCE VIOLATED THOSE POLICIES.
WOULD YOU BE IN AGREEMENT WITH HIS ASSESSMENT OF THOSE VIOLATIONS ON A SUSTAINED VIOLATIONS? YES, SIR.
NOW, AS WE KNOW, DISCIPLINE RENDERED IS YOUR DECISION TO MAKE CORRECT? IT IS CORRECT.
AND OF COURSE WE HAD THE THREE DIFFERENT VIOLATIONS.
PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING WHEN YOU HAVE AN OFFICER COME OR ANY RANKING INDIVIDUAL COME INTO A PREDISPOSED ARIE HEARING, IF THEY BRING WITNESSES, DO YOU CONSIDER THE TESTIMONY OF THOSE WITNESSES? ABSOLUTELY, I DO.
AND IN THIS CASE, DID OFFICER LAWRENCE BRING ANY WITNESSES TO TESTIFY AGAINST THE STORY THAT SERGEANT GUNTER, UH, BROUGHT TO THE DEPARTMENT IN HIS LETTER? I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY IF HE DID, BUT IF THERE WERE WITNESSES THAT WERE BROUGHT FORWARD, I WOULD HAVE, UH, TOOK THEIR TESTIMONY, UH, INTO EVIDENCE IN CONSIDERATION BEFORE I MADE A FINAL DECISION.
SO IF THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY DID NOT APPEAR AT THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THEN YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONSIDER THEIR TESTIMONY.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO WHEN YOU MADE YOUR DECISION, DID YOU CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS BEFORE YOU, BASED ON THE INVESTIGATION AND THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING? THAT IS CORRECT.
UM, PRIOR TO THIS CASE, IF YOU'VE, AND YOU'VE HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF YOU'VE BEEN, AS YOU'VE BEEN SITTING IN HERE, UM, OFFICER LAWRENCE HAD A TWO DAY SUSPENSION THAT WAS REDUCED TO A LETTER OF REPRIMAND, AS WELL AS A 15 DAY SUSPENSION THAT HE DID NOT APPEAL.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD WHY YOU THOUGHT A 25 DAY SUSPENSION WAS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE? UM, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO ME, UH, COMMENTS FROM, UM, UH, THE, THE OFFICER, AS WELL AS HIS ATTORNEY, UH, LOOKING AT, UH, UM, PAST BEHAVIOR, UH, I BELIEVE THAT DISCIPLINE SHOULD BE PROGRESSIVE AND THAT IS THE NUMBER OF DAYS THAT, UM, THAT I CAME UP WITH AFTER LISTENING TO NOT ONLY RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT WE ALSO LOOK AT, UM, A SIMILAR TYPE DISCIPLINE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS, UM, GIVEN OTHER OFFICES IN THE PAST, NOT JUST THIS ADMINISTRATION, BUT PAST ADMINISTRATIONS AS WELL.
SO THE WAY THE PROCESS GOES INTERNAL AFFAIRS IS IN THERE, HE'LL SAY, CHIEF, THIS IS WHAT WE'VE GIVEN OTHER OFFICES IN THE PAST FOR SIMILAR TYPE CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND I TAKE ALL OF THAT IN CONSIDERATION AND LISTENING TO THE DEPUTY CHIEFS BEFORE COMING UP WITH A FINAL NUMBER ON DISCIPLINE.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR DECISION WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH? ABSOLUTELY.
AND BASED ON THE FACTS, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A CAUSE WHERE THE DISCIPLINE AGAINST OFFICER LAWRENCE? YES.
DO YOU WANT YOUR OFFICERS SPEAKING TO EACH OTHER LIKE, UH, IS ALLEGED IN THIS CASE? NO.
UH, OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T, BUT I THINK IF YOU REALLY LOOK AT THE FACTS ON THIS CASE, UM, WE WANT EVERY OFFICER TO SUCCEED, UM, AND DISCIPLINE, UH, GIVEN TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR.
SO OUR HOPE IS THAT WHEN WE DISCIPLINE OFFICERS AND LIKE IN MOST CASES, THOSE OFFICERS RESPOND TO THE DISCIPLINE, THEY RESPOND TO THE TRAINING.
AND IN MANY CASES IN MOST, I WOULD PROBABLY SAY WE DON'T SEE THOSE OFFICERS AGAIN, AS IT RELATES TO DISCIPLINE.
BUT IN INSTANCES WHERE YOU SEE AN OFFICER MULTIPLE TIMES, IS IT IMPORTANT TO INSTITUTE PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE WHERE THEY GET A HARSHER PENALTY EACH TIME SO THAT THEY FEEL IT A LITTLE BIT MORE? WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE? YES, SIR.
ARE YOU ASKING THE BOARD TO UPHOLD THE DISCIPLINE YOU RENDERED IN THIS CASE TO OFFICER LAWRENCE? I AM.
UM, SO OBVIOUSLY WHAT YOU TESTIFIED TO IN THIS MATTER, YOU FOUND THAT, UM, ALSO LAWRENCE, YOU SUSTAINED ON THREE VIOLATIONS THAT GAVE HIM A 25 DAY SUSPENSION, RIGHT? YES.
AND THE REASON WHY HE GAVE HIM 25 DAYS IS THE FACT THAT THERE WAS PRIOR DISCIPLINE, COUPLED WITH YOU HAD JUST FOUND THAT HE VIOLATED THREE DIFFERENT POLICIES.
IS THAT RIGHT? SO IT WAS PROGRESSIVE.
AND IT WAS ALSO WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF THE DISCIPLINE CHART.
THAT'S IN POLICY THAT IS AGREED UPON, UM,
[02:10:01]
WITH THE MEMBERSHIP DEPARTMENT.I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD WITH THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE DEPARTMENT.
AND THE QUESTION IS THOUGH YOU FOUND THAT 25 DAYS WAS APPROPRIATE IN THIS MATTER.
IT WAS NUMBER ONE BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN PRODUCT DISCIPLINE.
SO THAT'S THE PROGRESSIVE PART OF IT.
AND TWO, YOU FOUND THAT IN THIS INSTANCE HE HAD VIOLATED THREE DIFFERENT POLICIES.
UM, SO, AND I JUST WENT THROUGH THIS REAL BRIEFLY WITH, UM, DEPUTY CHIEF, UM, UM, DANIEL, THE COMMAND OF TEMPER.
WHAT WAS IT? HIS USE OF LANGUAGE OR HOW HE RESPONDED TO, UM, TO START AT GUNTER WHEN HE CAME BACK AND SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, I'M SERGEANT WOULDN'T YOU CALL HER? YEAH, IT WAS A COMBINATION OF ONE, HIM NOT FOLLOWING A DIRECTIVE, A LAWFUL ORDER OR A MOVING HIS VEHICLE, WHICH WAS REASONABLE AS ONE OF THE THINGS I LOOKED AT WAS THE REQUEST REASONABLE, RIGHT.
IT WAS COMING FROM A SUPERVISOR OR ANOTHER OFFICER.
WAS THAT REQUEST REASONABLE BASED ON WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO ME, THE OTHER WAS, AM ACTUALLY USING PROFANITY TOWARDS, UH, ANOTHER OFFICER, A SUPERIOR OFFICER FOR THAT MATTER.
SO, UH, I TOOK ALL OF THAT IN CONSIDERATION.
IT WAS THAT ALSO THE WAY HE RESPONDED, THE FACT THAT YOU FOUND THAT HE VIOLATED THAT THE FACTS THAT YOU BASE THAT ON, WHERE THE WAY HE RESPONDED TO SERGEANT GUNTER.
WELL, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S IT'S, THAT IS BECAUSE THAT BEHAVIOR ACTUALLY BRINGS, UM, UM, UH, UNFAIR, FAVORABLE OPINION TOWARDS THE OFFICER AND THE DEPARTMENT.
AND I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHAT'S THE EXACT BEHAVIOR YOU'RE REFERRING TO ONE HIM USING PROFANITY AND TO NOT, UM, DOING WHAT HE WAS REQUESTED OR ASKED TO DO.
AND LASTLY, THE, UM, RESPECT TO FELLOW MEMBERS WAS THAT ALSO THE F THE F THE FACT THAT YOU RELIED ON TO SUSTAIN, THAT WAS THE WAY HE, ONCE AGAIN, RESPONDED TO SERGEANT GUNTER WITH WAS A COMBINATION OF THOSE.
OF THE SAME THINGS THAT YOU JUST SAID.
GIVE ME THE QUESTION ONE MORE TIME.
SO THE FACT THAT YOU RELY ON OUR FACTUAL PATTERN THAT YOU RELIED ON TO SUBSTANTIATE OR SUSTAIN THE RESPECT TO FELLOW OFFICERS, YOU SAID THAT WAS A COMBINATION.
SO THAT'S THE WAY HE RESPONDED TO SERGEANT GUNTER? NO, THAT WAS BECAUSE NO MEMBER SHALL USE AND ASSAULTING DERISIVE OR DEMEANING LANGUAGE DIRECTED AT ANOTHER MEMBER.
SO IT WAS WHAT HE SAID TO CORRECT.
AND THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT I'M SEEING HERE.
IT IS ALL ON ALL THREE OF THESE THINGS.
IT'S BASICALLY WHAT HE SAID TO TARGET GONE THROUGH.
NOT JUST WHAT HE'S SAYING, WHAT HE DID IN THE LACK THEREOF IS TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
I THINK YOU STILL HAVE TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION THE ISSUE OF ASKING HIM TO MOVE THE VEHICLE AND THE FAILURE TO DO THAT AS WELL.
BEFORE WE PROCEED, WE TAKE A LITTLE BREAK BACK THERE.
UM, 5, 10, 5 MINUTES, FIVE MINUTE RECESS.
[02:15:25]
UM, OFFICER, WHY DON'T YOU STEP RIGHT THERE.OH, YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN SWORN IN, UH, YOU BELIEVE WE DID THE BEGINNING.
OFFICER YOU SAY, UM, WHAT IS YOUR RANK WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? I'M AN OFFICER.
AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE VENDOR'S POLICE DEPARTMENT? UH, FOUR YEARS.
AND IN YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH, UM, BR PD, YOU KNOW, OFFICER TROY LAWRENCE, JR.
AND HOW DO YOU KNOW HIM Y'ALL WORK ON THE SAME SQUAD? WE DO NOT.
HOW DO YOU, HAVE YOU, HAVE YOU WORKED WITH HIM? I HAVE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT, UH, CAPACITIES.
HAVE YOU WORKED AN EXTRA DUTY, DETAIL AND THAILAND WITH HIM? YES.
AND ARE Y'ALL, DID Y'ALL WORK ON THAT DETAIL FOR QUITE A WHILE TOGETHER? UH, YES.
HOW LONG WOULD YOU SAY? UH, I BELIEVE THEY STARTED THE DETAIL BACK UP, UH, FOR EXTRA DUTY, LIKE I WANT TO SAY MAY OR JUNE OF LAST YEAR.
AND IT WAS UNTIL A COUPLE MONTHS AGO.
UM, DO YOU ALSO KNOW SERGEANT GUNTER? I DID.
AND DO YOU WORK ON THE SAME SQUAD WITH HIM? I DID NOT.
SO YOU KNOW HIM BY WORKING THIS TITLE AN EXTRA DUTY DETAIL? CORRECT.
UM, DO YOU RECALL THIS INCIDENT THAT WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY, BACK IN JULY LAST YEAR? UH, I RECALL, UM, HEARING ABOUT IT AFTERWARDS.
PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT, DID, UM, IT, SERGEANT GUNTER TELL YOU THAT HE DID LIKE OFFICER BARNES? HE DID.
AND DID YOU WITNESS AN EXCHANGE BETWEEN THEM OR DID HE SAY WHY HE DIDN'T LIKE HIM? UM, UH, I BELIEVE THE INCIDENT WHERE HE MENTIONED THAT TO ME WAS AFTER, UH, OFFICER LAWRENCE HAD CALLED IN, THEY CARE OF HIS CHILD.
HE DIDN'T COME TO THE EXTRA DUTY, UH, THE NEXT TIME THAT HE DID COME TO EXTRA DUTY WITH CODY WORKING, UH, I BELIEVE IN CODY BEING SERGEANT GUNTER, SERGEANT GUNTER, UM, BUT SERGEANT GUNTER WORKING, UH, SERGEANT GUNTER QUESTION OFFICER LAWRENCE ABOUT WHY HE WASN'T THERE, OFFICER LAWRENCE, UM, BOLD SERGEANT GUNTER.
HE WAS TAKING CARE OF HIS KID AND LET LIEUTENANT BELL, WHEN THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY RUNS THE EXTRA DUTY ABOUT NO, HE WOULDN'T MAKE IT.
AND THEN, UH, SERGEANT GUNTER THAT, THAT HE NEEDED TO BE NOTIFIED TOO, CAUSE HE'S A SERGEANT, UH, ON THAT EXTRA DUTY.
UM, AND AT WHICH POINT, YOU KNOW, THEY KIND OF SEPARATE AFTERWARDS.
SERGEANT GUNTHER CAME UP TO ME AND ASKED ME IF I KNEW HIM, UH, OFFICER WARRANTS AND TOLD HIM, I DID SAY DIDN'T, UH, DIDN'T LIKE HIM THOUGHT HE HAD AN ATTITUDE.
UM, SO THAT WAS HOW THAT ONE, UH, THAT INTERACTION WENT.
AND YOU DISTINCTLY REMEMBER HIM TELLING YOU THAT? I DO.
SO IF HE TESTIFIED THAT HE'S NEVER TOLD ANYBODY, HE DIDN'T LIKE OFFICER LAWRENCE, THAT WOULDN'T BE TRUE.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, SERGEANT GUNTER BECAUSE OF THIS EXTRA DUTY DETAIL, RIGHT? CORRECT.
DOES HE, AS HE LIKED TO REMIND ALL, ALL OF THE OFFICERS THAT HE'S A SERGEANT, UH, HE HAS, UH, REMINDED US SEVERAL TIMES THAT HE'S A SERGEANT OUT THERE, UH, BETWEEN, UM, TELLING US, UH, HE'LL LET US KNOW WHICH PERSON IS GOING TO TAKE A REPORT OUT THERE BECAUSE HE'S THE SERGEANT AND HE MAKES THE DECISIONS.
UM, HE'S, UH, TOLD US SEVERAL TIMES THAT HE'S NOT GOING TO BE TAKING REPORTS BECAUSE HE IS A SERGEANT.
UM, SO HE, HE THROWS HIS RANK AROUND A LOT OUT THERE.
AND, UM, HAVE YOU ON THIS OCCASION WHEN HE'S, HE'S, UM, TELLING OFFICER LAWRENCE TO MOVE HIS VEHICLE UP A FEW FEET, WOULD THAT BE AN INSTANCE YOU WOULD CONSIDER AS THROWING HIS RANK AROUND? UH, I'M JACKED.
I MEAN, HE'S ASKING ME AN OPINION OF THIS OFFICER ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HE DIDN'T EVEN WITNESS.
BUT IT'S HIS OPINION ON IF HE THINKS THAT IT'S, IF IT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT HE JUST TESTIFIED TO AS TO SERGEANT GUNNER, THROWING HIS RANK AROUND, BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE INCIDENT HAPPENED.
[02:20:01]
WOULD BE KIND OF IN THE SAME LINE AS, AS WHAT I HAD PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED OF THROWING RANK AROUND AND, UM, GIVING WHAT I WOULD PERCEIVE AS A FRIVOLOUS ORDER.THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
UH, OFFICER LUCY, UM, YOU DID NOT APPEAR AT THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING FOR OFFICER LAWRENCE, CORRECT? UH THAT'S CORRECT.
SO YOU DID NOT PROVIDE THIS TESTIMONY TO CHIEF PAUL PRIOR TO HIM MAKING A DECISION IN THIS CASE, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
NOW YOU'RE NOT TELLING THE BOARD THAT YOU THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO TELL ANOTHER OFFICER.
IF YOU ARE ALREADY SAID THAT I AM NOT.
AND YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WOULD BE SEEN AS A VIOLATION OF POLICY, I GUESS I DO BELIEVE THAT IS ALL RIGHT.
ANYBODY IN THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I WANT IT, EXCUSE ME.
I JUST WANT TO INFORM YOU THAT, UH, HE'S AN IC SERGEANT ON EXTRA DUTY.
NOW YOU DO THAT TO RESPECT HIM AS A PERSON, BUT NOT TO RANK.
W UH, I'VE UH, I HAD ALREADY SPOKEN TO THE LIEUTENANT WHO RUNS IT, WHO MADE SURE THAT IT'S BEEN VERY CLEAR RECENTLY.
WHY, WHY DID YOU COME SIT HERE? UM, I KNOW I'VE WORKED AT DETAIL FOR QUITE SOME TIME, EVEN BEFORE IT WAS EXTRA DUTY WHEN IT WAS STILL OVER TIME.
SO I WAS VERY, UM, FAMILIAR WITH HOW WE RUN THINGS OUT THERE AND HOW WE NORMALLY GO ABOUT BLOCKING TRAFFIC AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
UM, LIKE I SAID, I WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE ACTUAL INTERACTION, BUT BASED ON HOW I SAW THE VEHICLES WERE PARKED IN THIS INCIDENT, UH, WHEN I SHOWED UP, WHICH WAS NOT TOO MUCH LONGER AFTER THIS OCCURRED, UM, PRETTY IN LINE WITH EXACTLY WHAT WE DO OUT THERE ON HOW WE BLOCKED TRAFFIC.
UM, A LOT OF TIMES WE WERE STANDING RIGHT THERE OUTSIDE OF OUR CARS TO EVEN DIRECT TRAFFIC.
IF SOMEONE FAILS TO UNDERSTAND THAT A BLOCKED OFF INTERSECTION MEANS YOU CAN'T GO.
SO I BELIEVE THAT WAS A BURLESQUE BECAUSE IT WAS, UM, IT WOULD'VE MADE NO REAL, NO REAL DIFFERENCE FROM WHAT I HAD SEEN WHEN I SHOWED UP TO MOVE A CAR A FEW FEET FORWARD.
UM, OR WERE YOU THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THE OFFICER AWARE THAT GOD DIDN'T LIKE HIM? I WAS GOING TO, IF I DIDN'T LIKE HIM? UH, YES.
SO YOU TOLD HIM, UM, ALSO, IS IT A COMMON PRACTICE ON EXTRA DUTY WHERE, UH, OFFICERS ARE GIVEN ARE, ARE GIVEN DIRECTIVES BY ANOTHER OFFICER? UM, NOT IN THE SENSE OF, UH, I I'M GUESSING I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE EXACT QUESTION YOU'RE ANSWERING OR YOU'RE ASKING, LIKE, IS THERE A SITUATION WHERE ANOTHER OFFICER WOULD GIVE YOU DIRECTIVES ON AN EXTRA DUTY, DETAILED? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT OFFICERS THE SAME RANK? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LIKE A SUPERIOR OFFICER, YOUR SISTER PERIOD? LET'S, LET'S JUST BREAK IT DOWN BY OFFICERS.
WHAT SCENARIOS AND WOULD YOU RECEIVE? I WOULDN'T DEFINE THEM AS ORDERS.
I WOULD DEFINE THEM AS COORDINATION BETWEEN OFFICERS.
UM, THAT'S KIND OF HOW I WOULD, UH, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT CAN BE NORMAL WHERE, UH, OFFICERS ARE WORKING THE SAME DETAIL WE'LL COORDINATE TOGETHER TO TRY AND, UM, MAKE THE BEST SITUATION AND MAKE IT TO WHERE IT'S, UM, WHERE THE EXTRA DUTY WHERE RUNS SMOOTHER.
UH, THAT'S PRETTY COMMON PRACTICE.
UM, AS FAR AS DIRECT ORDERS, UM, ON EXTRA DUTY, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE SAME RANKING STRUCTURE WHILE YOU STILL NEED TO RESPECT THE RANK.
WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THAT WHERE I, SERGEANT IS GOING TO YOU ALL OF THE CALLS AND ORDERS AND THAT, UNLESS WE HAVE A CRITICAL SITUATION SUCH AS DETECTIVES BEING CALLED OUT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT'S WHERE WE'LL RESUME, UH, RANKING STRUCTURE.
WELL, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY RESPECT THE RANK? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU? UM, I MEANING IN THAT AND THE WAY, WHAT I'M MEANING BY THAT IS, UH, HE IS STILL A SERGEANT IN CRITICAL SITUATIONS.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, RESUME THAT RANKING STRUCTURE, ALLOW HIM TO CALL DETECTIVES, CALL CRIME SCENE HANDLES, SITUATIONS LIKE THAT.
UM, SO THAT, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS MEANING BY.
IT WAS, UM, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE WERE TO HAVE LIKE A SHOOTING OR SOMETHING AND WE NEEDED TO CONTACT MORE PEOPLE OR SOMETHING
[02:25:01]
LIKE THAT, THAT'S WHEN WE WOULD RESUME AND HE WOULD RESUME A, UH, A LEADING POSITION.SO TH SO GIVEN THAT BEING SAID, IF THERE IS A PLAZA RANKING STRUCTURE, THEN, UM, YOU USE THE STATEMENT OF FRUITFULNESS ORDER.
THEN AT THAT POINT, IT'S LIVED UP TO HIM TO THE OPPOSITE, WHETHER THEY LISTEN OR NOT.
LIKE I SAID, IT'S, UM, LIKE I SAID, UNLESS FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN AND WHAT I'VE WORKED, UNLESS IT'S A CRITICAL SITUATION, THERE'S NOT REALLY LIKE THAT.
LIKE I SAID, THE RANKING STRUCTURE IS MORE OF A COORDINATION BETWEEN OFFICERS, UM, AND IT'S LESS OF LAW ORDERS, MORE OF US TRYING TO WORK TOGETHER AND CURRENT AND TRYING TO MAKE IT A, A SMOOTH RUNNING EXTRA DUTY.
I DON'T THINK YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
I'M TRYING TO, I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ACTUAL, BUT IF THERE IS A PLAZA, A RANKING STRUCTURE IN PLACE, CAN THE ALL CAN ONE OFFICER THEN DEEM A ORDER FROM, OR A SUGGESTION IS AT THIS POINT, BASED UPON WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO WORK TOGETHER.
UM, CAN THEY DEEM IT AS A FRIVOLOUS BORDER OR NOT? UM, I GUESS, LIKE YOU SAID, I GUESS I CAN BE UP TO INTERPRETATION IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.
UM, I THINK, UM, YEAH, I THINK IT CAN, SOME OF IT CAN BE, UH, UP TO AN INTERPRETATION OF WHAT YOU DEEM FRIVOLOUS.
UM, LIKE I SAID, I KNEW FROM JUST FROM THIS INCIDENT AND FROM WHAT I SAW WHEN I SHOWED UP ON THE INCIDENT AFTER IT HAD, YOU KNOW, AFTER THE INTERACTION HAD OCCURRED, UM, FROM WHAT I SEEN IT, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN A FRIVOLOUS ORDER BASED ON WHAT MY FAMILIARITY ON HOW WE DO THINGS AND HOW WE OPERATE OUT THERE.
IT WAS PRETTY IN LINE WITH WHAT I HAD OBSERVED THE, UH, VEHICLE POSITIONS TO BE.
OKAY, LET'S TAKE THAT SAME SCENARIO.
AND IN A NINE EXTRA DUTY CAPACITY IRREGULAR, IS THAT YOUR SAME UNDERSTANDING? UH, NO, IN A REGULAR CAPACITY, IF HE WAS THE ON SHIFT, SERGEANT YOUR, YOU KNOW, YOUR SERGEANT AND HE GAVE YOU AN ORDER TO MOVE A VEHICLE FORWARD AND KNOW THAT WOULD BE INTERPRETED AS A LAWFUL ORDER.
AND ONE THAT MUST BE COMPLIANT.
SO EXTRA DUTY IN YOUR OPINION GIVES YOU LENIENCY AND WHETHER TO COMPLY WITH ORDER BASED UPON WHETHER YOU DEEM IT FRIVOLOUS.
AND THAT HONESTLY, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE IT'S, IT'S W W WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME SCENARIO IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY, THE EXACT SAME SETTING AREA.
AND SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE I NOTICED IS YOU'RE GOING TO SHOW UP IN THE SAME UNIFORM, SAME CAR AND EVERYTHING.
SO IS THERE A DIFFERENT MINDSET ON EXTRA DUTY AS A POLICE OFFICER BASED UP ON YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY EVERY DAY? AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU.
SO FROM MY UNDERSTANDING WHAT, HOW I UNDERSTAND IT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REGULAR SHIFT AND THE, UH, EXTRA DUTY IS THE REGULAR SHIFT.
THEY HAVE THE SUPERVISORY CAPACITY WHERE THEY'RE SUPERVISING ALL OF THE OFFICERS ON THE EXTRA DUTY.
WE ALL HAVE THE SAME JOB, THE SAME RESPONSIBILITIES OUT THERE, UNLESS THAT CRITICAL INCIDENT WERE TO OCCUR IN WHICH WE WOULD, AGAIN, GO TO THE REGULAR RANKING STRUCTURE WHERE THEY ARE CONTACTING THE NEXT THREE PEOPLE.
THEY, UM, WE ARE ALL GETTING PAID THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT AND FOR THE SAME DUTIES OUT THERE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING, YOU KNOW, ANSWERING CALLS FOR SERVICE, DETERRING CRIME, ALL OF US ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING OUT THERE.
SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE FROM MY, HOW I UNDERSTAND IT BETWEEN THE EXTRA DUTY TO CAPACITY AS THAT EXTRA DUTY IN AN ACTUAL REGULAR SHIFT WITH SUPERVISORY RANKING STRUCTURES.
W W WHAT'D YOU JUST DESCRIBE TO ME WAS THAT, THAT WHEN, UNLESS THERE IS A CRI A CRITICAL INCIDENT, THEN IT IS UP INTO THE LEFT INTO THE OFFICER'S INTERPRETATION, WHETHER THE ORDER SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT OR NOT.
SO JUST FOLLOW ME IN YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY, IT'S FOLLOW THE ORDERS AND AN EXTRA DUTY DETAIL IT'S LEFT UP INTO YOUR INTERPRETATION UNLESS THERE WAS A CRITICAL INCIDENT.
AND THEN YOU REVERT BACK TO THE SAME THING WHEN YOU'RE IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY FROM, I GUESS, FROM LIKE, LIKE I WAS SAYING FROM
[02:30:01]
AN EXTRA DUTY, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR RANK IS, WHEN WE'RE ALL ON THAT EXTRA DUTY, WE'RE ALL HAVING THE SAME RESPONSIBILITIES.AND THAT IS TO, AGAIN, ANSWER THE CALLS.
THAT'S WHERE I WAS TRYING TO SAY IS THAT WE'RE ALL SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING IN THE SAME CAPACITY.
IF A PERSON WERE TO WALK UP TO ME, I SHOULD BE, AND I'LL MAKE A REPORT.
I SHOULD BE DOING THAT SAME THING OF IF A SERGEANT OR LIEUTENANT IS OUT THERE WORKING AT YOUR DUTY AND SOMEONE WALKS UP TO THEM, THEY SHOULD BE TAKING THE REPORT, HANDLING THE CALLS FOR SERVICE AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN ON SHIFT WHERE IT'S, WELL, SERGEANTS CAN DO IT.
WE TYPICALLY TRY TO KEEP SERGEANTS FROM HAVING TO ANSWER CALLS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
WE'D USUALLY TRY TO TAKE THOSE REPORTS FROM THEM SO THEY CAN HANDLE THEIR SUPERVISORY DUTIES AND KEEP THEMSELVES CLEAR IN CASE THEY ARE NEEDED, UH, SOMEWHERE IN A SUPERVISORY CAPACITY.
SO AT ANY POINT IN THE THREE SCENARIOS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, DID YOUR RESPONSIBILITY LEVEL CHANGE MY RESPONSIBILITY AND LEVEL NOW? I DIDN'T THINK SO.
SO WHAT, WHAT IS THE DECIDING FACTOR TO WHERE SOMETHING BECOMES FRIVOLOUS AND THAT BASED UPON YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES, BASED UPON YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY UPON WHAT, WHAT CHANGES TO WHERE YOU CAN SAY THAT I AM NOW ELIGIBLE? UH, CAUSE I ASSUME THERE'S NO POLICY THAT RELATES TO THIS.
OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T BE DISCUSSING IT, BUT WHAT, WHAT, WHAT CHANGES WOULD YOU SAY? OKAY, NOW I CAN IMPLORE THE ABILITY TO DEAN A ORDER FRIVOLOUS OR NOT THE RESPONSIBILITIES CHANGED BECAUSE HE'S ON DUTY ON IT.
AND THEN HE'S ON DUTY ON, ON, UH, UH, EXTRA DUTY OR DIFFERENT.
THAT'S HOW THE RESPONSIBILITY TO AM ON DUTY.
HE'S A SERGEANT OR AN OFFICER ON EXTRA DUTY.
THEY'RE ALL DOING THE SAME JOB.
SO ONE EXTRA DUTY YOU GET TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT ORDERS YOU FOLLOW AMONGST EACH OTHER.
UM, LIKE I SAID, NO, IT'S ON EXTRA DUTY.
IT'S, IT'S BEEN A LOT LESS OF, IT'S NOT SO MUCH DIRECT ORDERS.
CAUSE I'VE WORKED WITH THE GUY WHO ACTUALLY RUNS THE EXTRA DUTY MANY TIMES OUT THERE.
IT'S A LOT LESS OF DIRECT HIM GIVING, YOU KNOW, DIRECT ORDERS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
IT'S MORE OF HIM HELPING HIM COORDINATE SO WE CAN RUN THIS EXTRA DUTIES EFFICIENTLY BECAUSE THAT IS A VERY, UH, HIGH, UH, INTENSITY I SHOULD DO.
IT'S A LOT MORE INTENSE THAN MOST EXTRA DUTIES ARE ON THE AMOUNT OF CALLS AND THE AMOUNT OF, UH, THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO HANDLE OUT THERE.
IT TAKES A LOT OF COORDINATION TO DO.
HAD YOU HAD ASKED THEM TO MOVE HIS CAR, YOU ASKED TO MOVE HIS CAR AND HE TOLD YOU F YOU, I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOU.
WOULD YOU FEEL THAT BECOMING OF AN OFFICER EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE EVEN KILLED? UH, NO, I DON'T.
I WOULD NOT THINK IT WOULD BE BECOMING OF AN OFFICER.
SO SHOULD THEY BE TOLERATED EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE EVEN KILLED NO ONE IN AUTHORITY? UH, NO.
I ALSO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION AS A CLIENT, IF I WERE EMPLOYING YOU TO, UM, ACT AS MY SECURITY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT I'M GETTING THE POLICE FORCE, RIGHT.
AND EVERYTHING THAT COMES WITH IT, FROM WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME, I'M NOT, UH, THEY DEFINITELY, THEY DEFINITELY ARE GETTING EVERYTHING THAT COMES WITH THE POLICE FORCE RESPONSIBILITY, OR I GUESS OUR RESPONSIBILITIES IS WE, WE HANDLED THE CRIME THE WAY THEY HANDLE CALLS FOR SERVICE OUT THERE.
WE HELP DETER CRIME BY DOING PROACTIVE PATROLS.
UM, I MEAN, YOU GET EVERYTHING THAT COUNTS WITH THE POLICE FORCE OUT THERE.
WE HAVE, UH, PLENTY OF YOUR PHONE NUMBERS TO BACK UP THE LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE AND WE'RE DOING OUT THERE.
WELL, I I'M JUST FROM WHAT I'M BEING TOLD THAT BY YOU, THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHEN YOU'RE ACTING IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND WHEN YOU'RE ACTING AS EXTRA DUTY, THERE'S JUST AS A DIFFERENCE IN DUTIES LIKE RESPONSIBILITIES.
IT'S NOT, YOU DON'T GET THE FULL POLICE FORCE.
IF YOU ON DUTY, ARE YOU WORKING THAT EXTRA DUTY? YOU STILL GET THE SAME PRODUCT.
SO TO SAY, RIGHT, OH, HE'S JUST, EVERYBODY'S GOT TO DO THE SAME JOB.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY.
IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN SUPERVISORY DUTIES? IT'S LESS OF IT, LESS OF A SERGEANT HAVING TO MANAGE AN ENTIRE SQUAD OF PEOPLE AND HAVING TO MAINTAIN, LIKE, BE ABLE TO BE CALLED UPON ANYONE AT THE SQUAD TO HANDLE ANYTHING ABOVE WHAT THEIR CURRENT RANKING STRUCTURE ALLOWS THEM TO DO.
[02:35:02]
A SERGEANT IS GETTING PAID THE SAME EXACT AMOUNT AS US.IF THE SERGEANT IS BEING TOLD THAT THEY HAVE THE EXACT SAME RESPONSIBILITIES AS US, NO MATTER WHAT THE RANK IS, UH, THE LIEUTENANT WHO RUNS IT WHEN HE COMES OUT THERE AND WORKS THAT HE DOES IT, THE EXACT SAME THING THAT I DO.
AND HE EXPECTS EVERYONE OUT THERE, NO MATTER OF RANK TO DO THE EXACT SAME THING.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCES JUST ON WHAT THE NORMAL CAPACITY OF A SUPERVISOR VERSUS ON DUTY VERSUS EXTRA DUTY WOULD BE.
BUT YOUR CONDUCT BEEN CHANGED.
I MEAN, YOU'RE AN OFFICER YOU'RE HERE, YOU'RE HERE TO HAVE A TAG, BUT NO MATTER WHAT THE PASSAGE YOU WERE IN YOUR CONDUCT OF BECOMING THE OFFICER OF YOUR STANDARDS DID NOT CHANGE REGARDLESS OF WHO'S IN RANK.
SO THAT RESPECT SHOULD BE ALWAYS GIVEN.
YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS WAS AT ONE POINT OVER TIME.
AND, UH, BEFORE COVID THIS WAS A, UH, OVERTIME DETAIL THAT WAS USED DURING, UM, THE FOOTBALL FOOTBALL GAMES, UH, JUST FOR AD INSECURITY OUT THERE, THE HIGH VOLUME OF PEOPLE THAT WAS OUT THERE WHEN IT WAS OVER TIME.
UH, WAS IT SENT, WAS IT STRUCTURED THE SAME? YES.
WE'VE WHEN IT MOVED FROM OVERTIME TO EXTRA DUTY, UM, PRETTY MUCH THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGED WAS, UH, THE WAY THAT WE GOT PAID, WHETHER IT BE THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT VERSUS THROUGH AN EXTRA DUTY CHECK WHEN IT WAS OVERTIME, WAS THERE THE NORMAL RANK STRUCTURE OR WAS IT A DIFFERENT RANK STRUCTURE? IT WAS W IT, IT WAS RUN PRETTY MUCH THE EXACT THE SAME AS IT WAS NOW, WHEREVER, WHEN HE WAS WORKING OUT THERE, IS THEY OVERTIME IT'S EXPECTED TO DO THE SAME EXACT JOB AS EVERYONE ELSE WHO WAS OUT THERE WHO WAS IN CHARGE WHEN IT WAS OVER TIME.
IT WAS THE SAME PERSON THAT LIVED IN AN APARTMENT.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTION.
UH, I'LL SWAP YOU STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND RANK FOR THE BOARD PLEASE.
MATTHEW WALLIS DETECTIVE IS MY POSITION WITH THE STREET CRIMES UNIT.
UM, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? I'VE BEEN WITH THE DEPARTMENT FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS NOW.
AND IN YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, HAVE YOU COME TO KNOW, UM, OFFICER LAWRENCE? YES, SIR.
AND HAVE YOU COME TO KNOW SERGEANT GUNTER? YES, SIR.
AND IS IT BECAUSE YOU WORKED ON THE SAME SQUAD WITH THEM? NO.
UM, I'VE MET TROY, UH, DUE TO HIM WORKING WITH A STREET CRIMES UNIT HERE AND THERE.
UM, AND, UH, CODY I'VE MET THROUGH EXTRA DUTY AS WELL AS I USED TO WORK FOR A SECOND DISTRICT, UH, WHERE CODY IS ALSO A SERGEANT AT.
AND, UM, DID YOU WORK THE EXTRA DUTY DETAIL AND TIGER LAND? YES, SIR.
IN JULY OF LAST YEAR? YES, SIR.
AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU WORKED AT DETAIL? UH, I'D BE LYING IF I TOLD YOU AN EXACT TIME ESTIMATE? UH, PROBABLY A COUPLE MONTHS.
AND THAT COUPLE OF MONTHS PRIOR TO THIS JULY INCIDENT OR A COUPLE OF MONTHS TOTAL, UH, TOTAL, IT WAS, UM, YEAH, IT WAS DURING THIS TIME AS WELL AS BEFORE AND AFTER I RECENTLY STOPPED WORKING TO, UH, DETAIL.
SO PRIOR TO THIS JULY INCIDENT, HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN WORKING THAT EXTRA DUTY DETAIL? UH, JUST, UH, THAT I HAD SAID MAYBE TWO, THREE MONTHS MAYBE.
AND, UM, DURING THAT TIME PERIOD, YOU'RE WORKING WITH OFFICER LAWRENCE? YES, SIR.
AND WHEN SERGEANT GUNTER ON THAT DETAIL THAT ENTIRE TIME BEFORE THE JULY? UH,
[02:40:01]
I WOULDN'T SAY SO.THE WAY IT'S WORKS IS BASICALLY THEY HAVE DIFFERENT OFFICERS AND WORKING AT DIFFERENT TIMES DIFFERENT DAYS.
SO, UM, ONE SHIFT YOU MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT, UM, SET OF OFFICERS ONE DAY NEXT DAY, YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT SET, SOME WORK SEVERAL DAYS, SO IT ROTATES, BUT, UH, AND ALL THERE WAS OUT, THERE WAS TIMES WHERE MYSELF WORKED WITH TROY AS WELL AS CODING.
UM, SO WHEN YOU'RE S YOU'RE SPENDING SEVERAL HOURS OUT THERE ON A GIVEN NIGHT, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE, HOW MANY OTHER OFFICERS ARE THERE? UH, VARIOUS, UH, SOME NIGHTS THREE, SOME FOUR, UM, SOME NIGHTS, A LITTLE EXTRA, DEPENDING IF IT'S A FOOTBALL GAME VERSUS ALABAMA VERSUS LSU, FOR EXAMPLE.
UM, SOMETIMES IT'S DIFFERENT IF THEY HAVE SOME MAJOR EVENT THAT GOES ON AND THERE'S GOING TO, THEY'RE PLANNING ON HAVING A HIGH CAPACITY OF PEOPLE OUT ENTIRELY.
DO, UM, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, DO YOU GET TO KNOW PRETTY MUCH ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WORK ON THIS DETAIL WITH YOU? OH, YES, SIR.
Y'ALL HAVE INTERACTIONS DURING THIS WHOLE TIME, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'VE BEEN ON THERE FOR SEVERAL MONTHS.
UM, SO SERGEANT GUNTER, WHAT'S, WHAT'S, IT'S LIKE WORKING WITH HIM ON THAT DETAIL.
WELL, I'M WORKING WITH SERGEANT GUNTER IS, UH, IT'S DIFFERENT, IT'S DIFFERENT.
AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS I'VE WORKED WITH NUMEROUS OTHER OFFICERS AND SERGEANTS IN THE PAST HAVE HAD SOME AWESOME SERGEANTS, UH, AND THEN WORKED WITH A COUPLE THAT WEREN'T AS GREAT AS THE ONES THAT HAVE HAD, UH, WORKING WITH CODY IS BASICALLY, I GUESS, UH, WHAT I GASPED FROM HIM WAS HE DOESN'T REALLY LIKE TO HANDLE CALLS, UH, WHERE OTHER SERGEANTS AND ME SERGEANT POSITION IS INCLUDE A LEADERSHIP POSITION, UH, GUIDANCE.
UM, WHENEVER YOU DON'T KNOW WHICH WAY TO TURN, TO LOOK FORWARD TOWARDS THEM AND SAY, HEY, WHAT SHOULD I DO FROM HERE? I DON'T, I'M STUCK.
UH, OR IF IT'S A SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE LIKE, UH, NEEDING A SERGEANT OR A HIGHER RANKING PERSON WHERE THEY HAVE MORE EXPERIENCE, YOU LOOK TOWARDS THEM.
UM, AND I WOULD HAVE TO SAY FROM KNOWING BOTH SIDES OF SERGEANT SIDE, WOULDN'T LOOK TO HIM TOO MUCH FOR ANY ADVICE JUST BECAUSE, UH, HE GOES OFF AND SITS IN HIS UNIT MAJORITY OF THE TIME, IF HE'S NOT SITTING AT THE HOUSE, THE BAR, UH, INSIDE THERE'S NUMEROUS TIMES WHERE, UH, ALL THE OTHER OFFICERS, INCLUDING OTHER SERGEANTS WHO WORK, UH, WOULD WALK AROUND THE PROPERTY, UM, PERFORM PATROLS, TAKE REPORTS, UM, YOU KNOW, ROTATE, MAKE SURE IF WE HAD, IF I HAD A FILE NUMBER AND TROY DIDN'T HAVE A PHONE NUMBER, THEN TROY WOULD TAKE IT.
YOU, IT WAS MORE, IT WAS MORE LIKE A TEAM EFFORT, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE MAKES SURE THE WORK WAS SPREAD.
THE WORK LOAD WAS SPREAD IT OUT EQUALLY, UH, CODY WASN'T.
SO IT WAS BASICALLY IF HE COULD GET OUT OF A PHONE NUMBER, HE WOULD, YOU KNOW, HE WOULD TRY TO PASS IT OFF TO SOMEONE ELSE IN ORDER TO MAKE HIS SITE HIS NIGHT MORE RELAXING, I GUESS YOU WOULD.
SO, UH, THAT'S THE TYPE OF, I GUESS WORKER, HE IS, UH, FROM MY EXPERIENCE WITH WORKING WITH HIM, THERE'S TIMES THAT HE WOULD JUST GO MIA AND I WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW WHERE HE WOULD BE AT.
AND DID HE BE QUICK TO REMIND YOU THAT HE WAS A SERGEANT AND YOU WEREN'T AT TIMES? YES, SIR.
AND HE WOULD TRY TO GET YOU TO, OR ASK YOU TO DO THINGS BECAUSE HE WAS A SERGEANT AND HE WOULD GIVE YOU A, OH, HE WOULD BASICALLY MAKE IT KNOWN THAT WHEN A FALL NUMBER COMES OUT, THAT IT'S BASICALLY, HEY MAN, YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS, YOU KNOW, UM, UH, WHICH, WELL, I MEANS THE PEOPLE THAT WE'VE WORKED WITH, UH, OUT THERE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH TAKING A FILE.
WE'RE ACTUALLY AT POINT IN TIMES, WE WOULD BASICALLY GO BACK AND FORTH TO SAY, HEY MAN, I'M GOING TO TAKE IT NOW, I'M GOING TO TAKE IT.
CAUSE IT WAS A LOT OF GOOD WORKERS THAT WORKED OUT THERE.
SO REALLY IT WASN'T A, A DISAGREEMENT OR BATTLE OR DEBATE YOU WOULD SAY, UH, TAKE A PHONE NUMBER, BUT CODY WOULD DEFINITELY REMIND YOU LIKE, HEY, LOOK, I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS FALL.
INSTEAD OF BEING LIKE, HEY, I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS WHEN YOU TAKE THE NEXT, YOU KNOW, WOULD HE EVER, DO YOU RECALL, DID HE EVER TELL YOU TO DO SOMETHING THAT IT NEEDED TO BE DONE JUST BECAUSE HE WAS A SERGEANT AND YOU WEREN'T? UH, YEAH, HE, HE WOULD SAY BASICALLY WOULDN'T MAKE A PATROL, UH, WALK AROUND THE PROPERTY, UH, BEING THE HEAD, A LOT OF VEHICLE BURGLARIES, UH, GOING AROUND AND TIGER LANE AS WELL AS THEY HAD MULTIPLE SHOOTINGS.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD OCCASIONALLY, UH,
[02:45:01]
PAIR UP IN TWOS AND WE'D START WALKING THE PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY BEHIND THE BAR AREAS WHERE A LOT OF THE VEHICLES WERE GETTING BROKEN INTO.UM, HE WOULD BASICALLY WOULD JUST MAKE A LITTLE PASS AND THEN HE'D COME BACK AND BE LIKE, HEY, Y'ALL NEED TO MAKE ANOTHER PASS.
AND VERY RARELY YOU WOULD SEE HIM LEAVE THAT SPOT FROM HIS UNIT.
AND IF HE DID, HE WOULD JUST GO TO ONE LOCATION AND JUST HANG OUT THERE.
UH, SO HE'D JUST BASICALLY COME BACK AND SAY, Y'ALL NEED TO MAKE ANOTHER PATROL IF THAT DOES HAPPEN.
OR IF YOU SEEN HIM THAT NIGHT.
OH, HE WOULDN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE PATROLLING.
HE WOULD GET YOU Y'ALL TO DO IT.
HIS PATROL WOULD BASICALLY BE FROM HIS UNIT TO THE HOUSE BAR, WHICH IS THE, UM, SOUTH EAST CORNER OF TARGET LAND UP, UH, CLOSER TO NICHOLSON OFF ABOUT PETTIT.
AND THEN BACK TO THIS UNIT, OCCASIONALLY GO TO MIKE'S AND COME RIGHT BACK.
BUT HE WOULD NEVER MAKE A PATROL AROUND THE PROPERTY FOR VEHICLES OR ANYTHING ELSE LIKE THAT.
AND HOW LONG, HOW FAR OF A DISTANCE WAS THAT? I MEAN, YOU COULD BASICALLY THROW A ROCK FROM WHERE, WHERE YOU SIT AND HIT THE BARS AT ANY ANGLE, BUT HE WOULDN'T WALK IN TOO FAR.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR YOU, MAN.
OH, WELL, LET'S GET A FEW THINGS CLEAR.
YOU WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE INCIDENT BETWEEN SERGEANT GUNDER AND OFFICER LAWRENCE.
SO ALL OF THIS THAT YOU JUST TESTIFIED ABOUT, YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT SERGEANT GUNNAR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON JULY 9TH.
YOU DID NOT SHOW UP FOR THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING OF OFFICER LAWRENCE WHEN THAT HAPPENED AT THE, AT HEADQUARTERS, CORRECT? NECESSARILY BECAUSE I WAS NOT SUBPOENAED.
UM, YOU'RE AWARE THAT A, AN OFFICER HAS THE ABILITY TO CALL WITNESSES IF THEY WANT YOU TO TESTIFY ON THEIR BEHALF.
AND YOU WERE NOT CALLED BY OFFICER LAWRENCE TO COME TESTIFY ON YOUR BEHALF OR YOU? NO, SIR.
SO EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE SAID HERE TODAY WAS NOT SAID BY YOU AT THE PREVIOUS MINARY HEARING OF OFFICER LAWRENCE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND THIS WAS COMPLETELY NEW INFORMATION AND YOU'RE AWARE THAT THIS WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE CHIEF, CAUSE IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN CAUSE YOU WEREN'T THERE.
CAN YOU RESTATE YOUR QUESTION AGAIN? I SAID, YOU'RE AWARE THAT THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE JUST TESTIFIED TO WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE CHIEF BECAUSE IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T THERE, YOU DIDN'T GIVE THE TESTIMONY.
THIS WAS SOLELY TO ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS ASKED TO ME ON MY BEHALF OF MY ACKNOWLEDGE OR, UM, GATHERING KNOWLEDGE OF WORKING WITH AN INDIVIDUAL.
BUT IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS CONSIDERED BASED ON WHAT'S BEING APPEALED HERE TODAY.
ALL OF THIS STUFF THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT ANYTHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CHIEF WHEN HE MADE HIS DECISION, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T GIVE THIS TEST.
NOW YOU DO ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT OFFICERS HAVE TO SHOW EACH OTHER RESPECT, CORRECT? OH, YES, SIR.
DO YOU, FOR AN OFFICER TELL ANOTHER OFFICER, I DON'T GIVE AN F WHO YOU ARE CORRECT.
AND YOU RECOGNIZE THAT THAT IN AND OF ITSELF COULD BE A POLICY VIOLATION PER DEPARTMENTAL POLICY, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
SO YOU'RE NOT TELLING THE BOARD HERE TODAY, WHO'S MAKING A DECISION IN THIS CASE THAT THAT CONDUCT IS APPROPRIATE FOR AN OFFICER TO DO, CORRECT? CORRECT.
IT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT, OKAY.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION AND I'LL FOLLOW IT UP WITH MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS.
UH, BASICALLY BASED UPON YOUR OPINION.
UM, THE MAJORITY OF IT IS BASED UPON SERGEANT GUNTHER'S WORK ETHIC AS TO WHETHER YOU WOULD FOLLOW HIM OR NOT.
UM, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FOLLOW HIM AS IN, AS, AS, AS A LEADER BASED UPON WHAT YOU JUST TOLD ME.
AS A LEADER, UM, MEANING TOWARDS LOOK TOWARDS ADVICE ON A SITUATION THAT ORDERS OR DIRECTORS FROM HIM.
WELL, ON DUTY, UH, AS BESIDES EXTRA DUTY.
YES, IT IS YOU, I MEAN, YOU GOT TO FOLLOW YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND, UM, UNLESS, UNLESS IT'S GOING TO PUT A MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE UPON OTHERS OR MYSELF, THEN THAT WOULD JUST BE A S UH, YOU KNOW, A DECISION I WOULD HAVE TO MAKE AT THE TIME, BUT DUE TO, DUE TO FOLLOWING HIS ORDERS ON DUTY, YES.
EXTRA DUTY, THAT EXTRA DUTY THAT WE WORK IS BASICALLY RAN DIFFERENTLY THAN WHILE ON DUTY.
AND IF YOU WANT ME TO FURTHER EXPLAIN, I CAN.
SO, UH, WHILE WORKING EXTRA DUTY, UM, ALL OFFICERS, SERGEANTS, LIEUTENANTS, UM, THEY ALL WORK EXTRA DUTY, UM, AND IT'S TAMARA KNOWLEDGE, EVEN PEOPLE WHO ARE, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, CAPTAINS,
[02:50:01]
YOU KNOW, OCCASIONALLY WORK, EXTRA DUTIES WHO WORKING EXTRA DUTY, YOU HAVE THE SAME GUIDELINES.YOU HAVE THE SAME ROLE AS THE SAME, UH, JOB TO PERFORM.
SO TARGET LAND, FOR EXAMPLE, EVERYONE WORKS OUT THERE.
EVERYONE ANSWERS, CALLS, EVERYONE, PATROLS THE PARKING LOT.
EVERYONE MAKES SURE AND ENSURES THAT IT'S A SAFE TIME OUT THERE AS BEST AS POSSIBLE.
UM, IF THERE'S A SITUATION WHERE POLICE ARE CALLED UPON OR NEEDED, WE RESPOND INSTANTLY DOESN'T MATTER RANK OR, YOU KNOW, UH, ANY, IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
SO, UH, THAT'S HOW IT'S BASICALLY RAN, YOU KNOW, EXTRA DUTY WISE.
SO IF YOU'RE A SERGEANT OUT THERE AND I'M AN OFFICER CALLS GO OUT, WE BOTH ANSWER.
IF SHOTS ARE RUNNING OUT, WE BOTH RESPOND.
UM, I WOULD, THE WAY IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME FOR THIS EXTRA DUTY AND TIGER LANE WAS BASICALLY THE SERGEANTS THAT ARE OUT THERE ARE TO DO THE SAME JOB DESCRIPTION AS YOU, THEY'RE ONLY THERE, IF A SERGEANT IS NEEDED TO HELP DETER A SITUATION, FOR INSTANCE, UH, DUE TO OUR MANPOWER ISSUE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE OUT THERE AND FOR EXTRA DUTY, THEY HAVE, INSTEAD OF HAVING TO PULL A SERGEANT OFF THE STREET WHO MAY BE DEALING WITH A WHOLE NOTHER INCIDENT, WE HAVE A SERGEANT RIGHT THEN AND THERE NOW MAKE NO MISTAKE.
THEY HAVE BEEN DAYS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A SERGEANT THERE ON EXTRA DUTY.
SO THEREFORE WE HAVE TO WORK AMONGST OURSELVES TO, YOU KNOW, UH, MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS RAN.
SO AGAIN, IF A SERGEANT IS NOT THERE, IT'S THE SAME AS THIS FOR SERGEANT IS THERE.
NOW, IF A SERGEANT IS NOT THERE AND WE NEED A SERGEANT, THAT'S WHEN WE WOULD DISPATCH, UH, SEE IF THERE'S AN AVAILABLE SERGEANT TO, YOU KNOW, UM, COME TO OUR LOCATION IN ORDER TO SETTLE A SITUATION, WHAT WOULD BE THE PURPOSE OF THE SERGEANT FULFILLING THAT DUTY AS BEING IN PLACE RATHER THAN SOMEONE ELSE? WELL, MOST OF THE TIME, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST INDIVIDUALS, THEY OUT THERE IN THE PUBLIC, BASICALLY THEY WANT TO SPEAK TO A SUPERVISOR, WHETHER IT'S TO EASE THEIR MONITOR AND GET FURTHER CONFIRMATION ON WHAT THEY'RE THINKING, UH, HOW A SITUATION SHOULD HAVE WENT DOWN.
OR, UH, FOR INSTANCE, IF WE END UP HAVING TO, UM, DO SOME TYPE OF USE OF FORCE, UH, SERGEANT, OR THAT'S GOING TO BE NEEDED TO JUST GO THERE, TO FOLLOW HIS, HIS DUTIES, YOU KNOW, TO GO AHEAD AND JUST ENSURE THE SCENE IS RAN PROPERLY.
THE PROPER CHAIN OF COMMAND IS CONTACTED AND SO FORTH AND SO ON.
SO, SO A SERGEANT IS NECESSARY FOR SUPERVISOR SUE IN A SUPERVISOR CAPACITY AND A SUPERVISOR.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? WHAT YOU JUST SAID THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SERGEANT THERE AND A SUPERVISOR ROLE BASED UPON SOMETHING HAPPENING THAT WOULD DEEM HIM NECESSARY IF NEEDED.
AND AGAIN, IF A SERGEANT IS NOT THERE, WHICH IT IS NOT MANDATORY FOR A SERGEANT TO BE PRESENT DURING, UH, EXTRA DUTY, UM, THERE'S NUMEROUS EXTRA DUTIES ALL THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHERE, UH, OFFICERS WORK IT, YOU KNOW, UH, BUT IF HE IS PERSON, SIR, WHAT IF HE IS PRESENT? IF HE IS PRESENT, IT'S, IT'S SOMEWHAT IN A SENSE, UH, I GUESS, QUICKER ACCESS TO A SERGEANT, BUT WE ALWAYS HAVE ACCESS TO A SERGEANT THAT'S ON DUTY.
WELL, YOU SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE NEED FOR A SERGEANT IN A SUPERVISOR CAPACITY.
UM, ONE OTHER QUESTION WAS, IF YOU WERE, UH, OFFICER LAWRENCE, WOULD YOU HAVE MOVED, THE VEHICLE WOULD HAVE MOVED THE VEHICLE AS REQUESTED? WOULD YOU HAVE, UH, I MEAN, YES, SIR.
I WOULD'VE DID IT JUST TO KINDA ELIMINATE ANY FURTHER ISSUES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE SERGEANTS THAT I'VE WORKED WITH IN THE PAST, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN THAT THEY WERE IN THEIR CAR AND YOU'RE CLOSE TO IF THEY SEEN A SITUATION THAT NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED OR FIXED, WHETHER IF IT WAS ANY TYPE OF TACTICAL SAFETY REASON, UM, FOR THE PUBLIC OF OTHER, UH, SAFETY OF OTHERS OR OURSELVES, THEY WOULD'VE JUST WENT AHEAD AND DID IT, UH, ESPECIALLY IF IT WAS SOMETHING SO MINOR IS MOVING A VEHICLE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN EASILY DONE RATHER THAN TOLD TO DO AND POINT FINGERS, HEY, HEY, YOU'RE GOING TO MOVE THIS UNIT INSTEAD OF JUST, HEY, I'M ALREADY IN MY UNIT, CLOSE BY.
IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS AMONGST THE PEOPLE WHO WORK THIS DETAIL WITH SERGEANT GUNNER.
THERE'S A MORALE ISSUE AS TO KIM NOT DOING HIS JOB AND PUSHING THE JOB ON EVERYBODY ELSE.
THOSE CREE CREE NEC CREATING AN ATMOSPHERE WHERE Y'ALL KIND OF THUMB HIS NOSE, SOMEBODY'S NOSE AT HIM TO WHETHER HE IS RELEVANT OR NOT.
WOULD THAT BE THE FACT? NO, SIR.
THERE'S I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THERE'S EVERY SINGLE OCCASION THAT CODY HAS,
[02:55:01]
UH, ASKED OF TO DO SOMETHING, UH, I HAVE DONE IT.WE JUST BASICALLY, UH, I GUESS IN A WAY, FROM WHAT I GATHERED FROM WHAT YOU JUST TOLD ME IS BASICALLY QUESTION EVERYTHING.
AND WON'T RESENT THE FACT THAT HE DOESN'T DO THE SAME THING THAT HE'S ASKING YOU GUYS TO DO.
IS THERE SOME RESENTMENT THERE AMONGST THE GUYS THAT ARE, UH, THAT ARE WORKING THIS DETAIL? NOW? I WOULD SAY, I WOULD SAY PEOPLE DO, UM, FOR THE MOST PART DO LISTEN WHEN HE IS AROUND.
AND I GUESS THE MAIN THING IS, LIKE I SAID, I MEAN, I, I, AND I GO BACK AND SAY THE SAME THING, AS I SAID EARLIER.
I MEAN, YOU MENTIONED, YOU MENTIONED ABOUT, UH, UH, SERGEANT BEING PRESENT.
WHEN HE IS PRESENT, YOU KNOW, IF HE'S NOT PRESENT AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE NOWHERE TO FIND HIM, YOU SEE, IT'S THE SAME THING AS OFFICERS BEING THERE WORKING AN EXTRA DUTY BY HERSELF, OR YOU'RE SAYING HE LEAVES THE PREMISES NEGATIVE.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS BASICALLY HE, WE ALL ARE IN THE NEUTRAL GROUND, RIGHT? THIS IS WHERE IT, NORMALLY WE STAY IN THE MIDDLE, JUST THE WAY WE CAN HAVE A 360 VIEW OF EVERYTHING GOING ON, WHETHER THEY HAVE, CAUSE THEY HAVE BARS BEHIND US AS WELL AS AROUND LEFT AND RIGHT.
SO, UM, WE BASICALLY SITUATE OURSELVES TO WHERE WE HAVE A 360 DEGREE VIEW OF EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON TO WHERE HE SEE SOMETHING I DON'T, OR IF I SEE SOMETHING THEY DON'T, WE CAN COMMUNICATE QUICK, FAST IN A HURRY TO RESPOND BEFORE THINGS ESCALATE.
UH, LIKE I SAID, THERE'S TIMES THAT CODY'S WOULD JUST GO MIA AND JUST END UP COMING TO FIND OUT HE WAS SITTING INSIDE OF, UH, THE BAR, THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, COMMUNICATING OR WHATEVER.
AND SO AGAIN, IF HE'S NOT THERE MOST OF THE TIMES, WHICH HE WASN'T THEN TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FOR A SERGEANT THAT'S NOT THERE, HOW CAN YOU DO THAT? OKAY.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING, UH, SOME OF IT IS IRRELEVANT, RIGHT? BASED UPON WHETHER, UH, SERGEANT CODY, HE, HE'S NOT THE ONE WHO'S IN TROUBLE RIGHT NOW.
RIGHT? HE'S NOT THE ONE THAT'S BEING DISCIPLINED.
I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION IS, UM, THE WILLINGNESS OF, UH, THE OFFICERS TO FOLLOW ORDERS BASED UPON WHAT YOU'RE REPRESENTING TO ME IS HIM NOT BEING THERE OR HIM NOT BEING ABLE TO, OR WILLING TO DO THE THINGS THAT HE'S ASKING YOU.
THEREFORE THERE MAY BE SOME PUSH BACK FROM THE OFFICERS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT RESPECTING THE SERGEANT BECAUSE HE'S NOT DOING ANYTHING.
AND IS THAT THE CASE? NO, IT'S NOT THE CASE.
PEOPLE ANSWER OFFICER'S ANSWER TO HIS, I GUESS, INSTRUCTIONS OR COMMANDS.
UM, I HAVE YOU, MY WITNESS I'VE WITNESSED TROY ANSWERED TO HIS COMMANDS OR INSTRUCTIONS IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER, NUMEROUS TIMES.
I'VE I'VE EVERYONE ELSE THAT I'VE WORKED WITH HAS RESPONDED PROFESSIONALLY, UH, NUMEROUS TIMES THAT HE'S INSTRUCTED FOR INSTRUCTIONS OR COMMANDS.
SO THIS IS ON THE EXTRA DUTY DETAIL.
SO NOW I'M BEING TOLD THAT IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THAT SOMETIMES YOU CAN LISTEN TO HIS COMMAND, SOMETIMES YOU CAN'T, YOU DON'T HAVE TO, CAN I WRITE, CAN I COME IN BRANDON? HE'S NOT REQUIRED TO FOLLOW HIS COMMAND ON AN EXTRA DUTY REQUIRED TO NOW WHEN HE'S ON, WHEN HE'S AT WORK, WORKING OVERTIME OR A REGULAR SCHEDULE, HE IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE SERGEANT, HIS COMMAND RIGHT THERE ON EXTRA DUTY.
AT THIS POINT, HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO FOLLOW CODY'S COMMAND.
AM I SAYING THIS RIGHT? YES, EXACTLY.
SO WHAT CODY DOES OR WHAT RESEMBLANCE THEY HAVE AT CODY FOR WHETHER OR NOT HE'S DOING HIS JOB OR NOT, THAT'S IRRELEVANT TO THIS.
NOW WOULD I MOVE MY CAR? I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE DO I THINK IT'S RIGHT.
THAT OFFICER LAWRENCE CUSSED HIM OUT.
AND THAT IS VIOLATION OF RULES, BUT CO WHETHER OR NOT CODY OR, UH, SERGEANT DONNER IS DOING HIS JOB OR NOT.
WELL, YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S THE TESTIMONY THAT WAS BOUGHT.
THAT WAS, THAT WAS 100% OF HIS TESTIMONY.
WHY HE'S HERE IS TO BASICALLY TELL US THAT, UH, SERGEANT GUTHER IS NOT DOING ANYTHING WHILE WE'RE OUT HERE WORKING.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING YOU.
AND 10 OF HIS TESTIMONY IS TO SHOW THAT, TO JUSTIFY WHAT OFFICER LAWRENCE DONE, BECAUSE OFFICER GUNNER OR SERGEANT GUNNER IS ALWAYS FELT WENT AROUND THESE, ALL THESE ORDERS.
WHENEVER HIS RANK IS NOT A QUESTION.
[03:00:01]
HE'S UP HERE.BUT OFFICER LAWRENCE, HIS ACTIONS AREN'T JUSTIFIED, BUT WHAT CODY, UH, DID OR DIDN'T DO, CORRECT.
THAT'S I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT WE SITTING UP HERE ARGUING WHETHER OR NOT OFFICER LAWRENCE SHOULD HAVE HOLLERED AT HIM LIKE THAT.
NO, I MEAN, I WOULDN'T DO ANYBODY LIKE THAT.
BUT WHETHER HE WAS A SERGEANT, HE WAS MY SUPERIOR PHONE DUTY OR NOT.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY HE'S UP HERE, BUT WHETHER OR NOT SERGEANT GUNNERS DOES THE JOB OR NOT, THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN UP THERE.
NOW, I GUESS THE REASON WHY I WAS ANSWERING WHAT I WAS DOING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, TO GO BACK AND STATE, YOU KNOW, TO ILLUSTRATE THAT WHEN CODY IS THERE, HE GIVES COMMANDS AND IT'S NOT COOPERATING, LIKE AS A UNIT, AS A TEAM BEING THAT WE'RE ALL THERE AS OFFICERS TO WORK AS A, UH, EXTRA DUTY AS ONE TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS RAN AS SMOOTH AS POSSIBLE.
HE'S GIVEN COMMANDS TO DO MINOR THINGS, TO TAKING CALLS WHEN HE IS THERE.
SO YES, WHEN HE WAS THERE, HE GIVES COMMANDS.
AND MAJORITY OF, MOST OF THE TIME THAT I WAS THERE THAT WERE FOLLOWED, I WANT TO INFORM YOU THAT I INFORMED HIM ALSO THAT WHILE YOU'RE ON EXTRA DUTY, SERGEANT GUNNER, HIS RANK DOES NOT MATTER.
THAT WAS TESTIFIED, FULLY AWARE THAT MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, I SEE I'M THINKING THAT SHE, PAUL MAY EVEN WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.
I'VE SEEN HIM GET UP A FEW TIMES.
CAUSE I, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'VE GOTTEN KIND OF COMPLETELY I THINK IF MY AGE, YEAH.
OR WE HAVE PASSED A LITTLE BIT, BUT NOW THERE IS A REAL QUESTION AND MAYBE CHIEF PAUL WOULD WANT TO CLEAR IT UP OR MAYBE HE DOES.
AND I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT HIM ON THE SPOT, BUT I THINK THERE'S THERE'S UM, WE STARTED OFF WITH SERGEANT BEARD WHO TESTIFIED AS I RECALL THAT AN OFFICER DOES HAVE TO RESPECT THE LAWFUL ORDERS OF A SUPERVISOR DURING ALL TIMES EXTRA DUTY OR NOT.
THEN WE WENT TO SERGEANT, UH, DEPUTY CHIEF DANIELS WHO SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
AND THEN CHIEF PAUL SAID SOMETHING.
SO CHIEF PAUL COULD MAYBE IF HE WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY FOR US, CAUSE I'M CONFUSED NOW AND I'VE BEEN HERE A COUPLE OF DECADES AND I'M NOT SURE EITHER.
I THINK A CHIEF PAUL'S TESTIMONY WOULD BE RELEVANT ON A REBUTTAL.
UH, BUT I THINK THAT WE SHOULD LET MR. KERSHAW FINISHED PRESENTING HIS CASE.
AND THEN CAN I ALSO POINT OUT THAT HE WAS NOT SUSTAINED ON CARRYING OUT ORDERS OR IN SUBORDINATION WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH THOSE CHARGES? SO THE RANK ISSUE IS REALLY NOT WHAT'S RELEVANT TO YOU GUYS TODAY.
I THINK WE GET SIDETRACKED BECAUSE I AGREE WITH MR. RAINS BECAUSE IT WAS THOSE, THE INSUBORDINATION WAS UNSUSTAINED.
UM, I KNOW THAT'S REALLY RANK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUES BEFORE HERE.
I AGREE A HUNDRED PERCENT WITH THE ATTORNEYS.
THE ONLY REASON WHY I SUGGESTED CHIEF PAUL COME BACK UP HERE IS BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED AT LEAST TWO OR THREE TIMES.
SO WHILE I AGREE, IT'S NOT THE ISSUE ON APPEAL.
I ALMOST FEEL IT NECESSITATES THE CHIEF PARK.
I MEAN, IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER CONDUCT AS THOUGH, RIGHT.
IF WE'RE IN A FORMAT WHERE EVERYBODY'S EQUAL CONDUCT STAYS IN PLACE, I'M JUST SAYING CONDA FEEL MATTERS.
THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE IN A POSITION OF DUTY, WE'RE RANKED AS EQUAL, BUT THAT DOES NOT ALLOW THEM TO GO AWAY FROM A CONDUCT OF BEING AN OFFICER.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR HIS CONDUCT, CORRECT? CORRECT.
MA'AM ANYTIME WE PUT THIS UNIFORM ON, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO ACT IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER.
EVEN OUTSIDE BEING THAT WE ARE STILL A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT, SO YES MA'AM YEAH.
WELL THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.
AND IT WASN'T TO A FELLOW OFFICER DOESN'T MATTER OF RINK.
SO THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO HEAR.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS? OH, YOU DID.
ANY OTHER WITNESSES, MR. KIRSHA? I JUST HAVE AN OFFICER LAWRENCE TO CALL YOUR HONOR.
ANY STIPULATION THAT WE CAN COME TO AT THIS POINT? UM, MAYBE, UM, THE SPEED OF,
[03:05:14]
YEAH.UH, OFFICER LAWRENCE, UM, STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE BOARD PLEASE? ALSO LAWRENCE JR.
AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? THREE YEARS.
AND IN THAT THREE YEARS, UM, HAVE YOU, OBVIOUSLY YOU WORK ON DUTY, BUT UM, DO YOU WORK EXTRA DUTY OR HAD YOU WORK EXTRA DUTY AT, UH, IN TOGGLE LAND AREA? YES, SIR.
AND HOW DO YOU WORK? UM, WITH OFFICER WALLOTH? YES, SIR.
AND HAVE YOU WORKED WITH SERGEANT GUNJAN? YES, SIR.
SO, UM, UM, PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT, DID ANYONE, OR DO YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE THAT, UM, SERGEANT GUNTER IN THAT CARE FOR YOU? YES, SIR.
AND WHO ADVISED YOU THAT OFFICER? YOU SAID? OKAY.
AND OFFICER WHO SEE THAT YOU HEARD TESTIFIES TO AN INTERACTION WHEN YOU WERE OFF OF WORK DUE TO CARING FOR YOUR CHILD AND THEN WHEN HE CAME BACK TO WORK, UM, WHERE YOU GRILLED BY SERGEANT GOT TO HER ABOUT IT? YES, SIR.
BASICALLY, UH, I HAD TO TAKE OFF IT WASN'T IN REFERENCE TO MY CHILD AS SHE WASN'T BORN YET, BUT HER MOM WAS PREGNANT AND SICK AND HAD TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL.
UH, I NOTIFIED THE LIEUTENANT WHO RUNS THE DETAIL UPON ME RETURNING TO WORK AT THAT SPECIFIC DETAIL.
SERGEANT GUNNER ASKED ME THE MIRAGE OF QUESTIONS TO WHICH, UH, LIGHTLY TOLD HIM, YOU KNOW, I NOTIFIED LIEUTENANT BOWMAN.
AND YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT, UH, I WAS VERY PROFESSIONAL ABOUT IT.
I DIDN'T GO OVER THIS TONE THAT I'M USING NOW.
UH, AND I GUESS THAT'S WHEN HE HAD A PRIVATE CONVERSATION WITH SERGEANT, UH, I'M SORRY, OFFICER USI AND EXPLAIN THOSE FEELINGS TO HIM AND WHICH POINT IN TIME OFFICER USED TO RELATE THAT MESSAGE TO ME, THE FAKE THAT, DO YOU THINK THAT, UM, THAT KNOWLEDGE OF HOW LONG SERGEANT GUNTER FELT ABOUT YOU AFFECTED HOW YOU RESPONDED TO SERGEANT GUNTER ON THIS NIGHT? UH, YES SIR.
JUST TO CLARIFY A FEW THINGS WHILE INTERACTING WITH SERGEANT GUNNER, THIS PARTICULAR EVENING, THE TONE DIDN'T GO WITH THIS.
UM, HE ASKED ME MULTIPLE TIMES TO MOVE THE UNIT.
UH, AT THE TIME I DID MOVE IT AND I TOLD HIM IS BECAUSE WE'RE STILL WAITING ON THREE OF THE OFFICERS TO GET HERE.
ONCE THEY GET HERE, I WOULDN'T HAVE TO MOVE MY UNIT AGAIN.
AND I ADVISED HIM, YOU KNOW, HEY, IT'S FINE WHERE IT IS.
I'M STANDING IN FRONT OF IT, GIVEN HER PHYSICAL PRESENCE AND ALSO A PHYSICAL DETERRENT.
UM, AND MULTIPLE TIMES, YOU KNOW, YOU REQUESTED THAT I MOVE IT AND I ASKED HER POLITELY STILL, YOU KNOW, IT'S FINE WHERE IT IS.
AND, UH, I GUESS ONE OF THE TIMES HE ASKED ME, DID I CURSE? YES.
WAS I SUPPOSED TO, NOT AT ALL.
THAT'S NOT HOW I CARRIED MYSELF.
IT WAS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE IT KIND OF SLIPPED OUT AS A MISTAKE.
SO WHAT'S, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT NIGHT.
UM, SO WAS THIS BEFORE THE EXTRA DUTY SHIFTS EVEN STARTED? YES, SIR.
SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, YOU'RE THERE EARLY AND HE SAYS YOU ARRIVED BEFORE HE DID, AND THEN HE ARRIVED, BUT Y'ALL WERE BOTH EARLY TO THE SHIFT? YES, SIR.
AND YOU'RE WAITING FOR OTHER OFFICERS TO ARRIVE AS WELL, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND WHEN YOU SAID, WHEN THE THIRD OFFICER, THE NEXT PERSON TO GET THERE SHOWED UP, YOU WOULD'VE HAD TO MOVE YOUR VEHICLE THAT BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE ALSO PULLED IN THAT, THAT, UM, BREAK IN THE MEDIAN, THE BLOCK TRAFFIC.
JUST TO GIVE A, I GUESS PHYSICAL WAY OF HOW IT'S SET UP.
TYPICALLY I HAVE TWO OFFICERS FACING EACH OTHER, SO IT'S TOTAL OF FOUR, TWO FACING, I'M ASSUMING WESTBOUND, ANOTHER TWO FACING EASTBOUND.
THEN THERE'S ALSO A FIFTH OFFICER WHO POSES A, YOU THEN TO THE MIDDLE, WHICH HAS BEEN BETWEEN FOUR OFFICERS.
THIS IS A BREAK IN THE MEDIAN, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
UM, AND LIKE I SAID, THIS IS PRIOR TO THE EXTRA DUTY, EVEN STARVING WAS WHEN HE TOLD YOU TO MOVE YOUR VEHICLE.
AND DID YOU FEEL WHAT WAS GOING THROUGH YOUR MIND? DID YOU FEEL THAT THIS WAS JUST HIM DOING THIS? JUST BECAUSE THAT REALLY STARTED NO PURPOSE? YES, SIR.
WAS BEING DONE BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE WAS THERE BESIDES US.
UM, HE AND I TYPICALLY DON'T SPEAK WITH EACH OTHER.
[03:10:01]
UM, HE STAYS IN THIS CORNER.I KIND OF STAY IN MINE, UH, AND WAS BEFORE THIS ACCIDENT TOO? YES, SIR.
AND, UM, SO HOW LONG AFTER THIS LITTLE INTERACTION DID THE THIRD PERSON GO UP? UH, MAYBE 10, 15 MINUTES.
SO WOULD IT HAVE SERVED A PURPOSE? YOU MOVE IN YOUR VEHICLE UP A FEW FEET? NO, SIR.
UM, NOW YOU SAID THAT YOU DIDN'T, UM, I MEAN, YOU AGREE THAT WELL, IF HE, WHEN HE CAME BACK AND HE TOLD YOU TO MOVE YOUR VEHICLE AGAIN, DID HE REMIND YOU AT THAT POINT? I'M A SERGEANT.
AND THAT'S WHEN YOU RESPONDED HOW YOU DID, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
NOW YOU'RE NOT TELLING US THAT THAT WAS THE RIGHT REACTION.
ARE YOU? NO, IT DEFINITELY WASN'T THE RIGHT REACTION.
AND I MEAN, DO YOU REGRET SAYING WHAT YOU DID? OH, OF COURSE.
AND I MEAN, DO YOU FEEL OBVIOUSLY HAD YOU MOVED YOUR VEHICLE AND JUST ROLLED WITH IT SO TO SPEAK? I GUESS WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY.
UM, AND SOME DISCUSSION WAS SPOKEN ABOUT, YOU HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAM THAT WASN'T BEFORE THIS INCIDENT, WAS IT? NO, SIR.
IN FACT IT WAS SEVERAL MONTHS LATER? YES, SIR.
AND HAVE YOU COMPLETED THAT YET? UH, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO, SIR.
UM, I HAVEN'T HAD ANY NEGATIVE REVIEWS OR ANYTHING OR PRIOR? YES, SIR.
UM, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
UH, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, CASA LAWRENCE, BEFORE THIS INCIDENT WITH SERGEANT GUNNER, HE DIDN'T TELL YOU HE DIDN'T LIKE YOU, RIGHT? NO, SIR.
YOU WON'T BELIEVE THAT HE DIDN'T LIKE HE WAS COMPLETELY BASED ON WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE TOLD YOU, RIGHT? FROM WHAT I WAS TOLD? YES.
SO, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT WHEN HE ASKED YOU TO MOVE YOUR CAR A FEW FEET, HE THOUGHT HE WAS ASKING YOU JUST TO MESS WITH YOU BASED ON WHAT YOU HAD HEARD FROM OTHER PEOPLE? YES.
WAS THERE ANYTHING UNLAWFUL ABOUT HIS REQUEST FOR YOU TO MOVE THE VEHICLE A FEW FEET? NO, SIR.
YOU TOLD HIM YOU WEREN'T GOING TO MOVE YOUR UNIT, RIGHT? NO, SIR.
YOU TOLD HIM I DON'T GIVE ENOUGH F WHO YOU ARE.
I DON'T THINK, I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS IN THOSE DIRECT WORDS OR WORDING, BUT YES, I DID SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR.
YOU UNDERSTAND NOW LOOKING BACK, WHY THE CHIEF SUSTAINS YOU ON THE POLICIES THAT HE SUSTAINED YOU ON AT THE PREVIOUS PLANARIA HEARING OR FOR THE THREE CHARGES? I'M SORRY.
YOU UNDERSTAND NOW WHY THE CHIEF SUSTAINS YOU ON THE VIOLATIONS NOW HAVING HEARD ALL THE TESTIMONY TODAY? YES, SIR.
YOU DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO GO AROUND CURSING YOUR FELLOW OFFICERS? DUDE, I DON'T GO AROUND CURSING OUT THE OFFICERS, BUT THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.
SO YOU WOULD AGREE THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE.
AND YOU WOULD AGREE THAT'S A VIOLATION OF DEPARTMENTAL POLICY, RIGHT? TECHNICALLY YES, YES.
NOW YOU SAID EARLIER, YOU DON'T CARRY YOURSELF TYPICALLY IN THIS MANNER, BUT THIS IS THE THIRD TIME WHERE YOU'VE HAD INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE.
ABOUT THE WAY IN WHICH YOU CONTROL YOUR TONGUE, THE WAY YOU SPEAK TO OTHERS, RIGHT? YES, IT IS THE THIRD TIME.
HOWEVER, WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES.
AND I'VE LEARNED SINCE THEN, IS IT MAY HAVE SEEN THAT IT MAY SEEM AS IF IT'S NORMAL BEHAVIOR, BUT IT'S NOT, UH, THE WAY I CARRY MYSELF AT WORK ON DUTY, EVEN THAT EXTRA DUTIES I'VE EVER SEEN PROCEED, YOU KNOW, MANY POSITIVE REVIEWS.
UM, IT WAS SOME OF THE MISTAKES I'VE LEARNED FROM SINCE THEN, IT'S 2022.
THESE MISTAKES OCCURRED EARLY 20, 21.
BUT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REGARDLESS OF THE DELAY IN GETTING TO HEARING HERE TODAY THAT THE DISCIPLINE IS STILL RELATED TO SOMETHING THAT OCCURRED WITH A FELLOW OFFICER AND YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THAT CONDUCT WASN'T APPROPRIATE.
I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT YOURSELF? I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
YOU SAID THIS IS 2022 AND THIS OCCURRED BACK IN 2021.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S DELAY IN GETTING TO A HEARING HERE TODAY.
BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A POLICY VIOLATION
[03:15:01]
AND WE'RE HAVING TO DEAL WITH THAT NOW.NOW AT YOUR PRE, UH, DISCIPLINARY HEARING, YOU DIDN'T BRING, UH, THE OFFICERS THAT TESTIFIED HERE TODAY, THEY WERE NOT PRESENT ON YOUR BEHALF AT THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO THE TESTIMONY THAT ALL THIS TESTIMONY THAT WE'VE HEARD ABOUT, UH, THE ATTACKS ON SERGEANT GUNNER, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT ANY OF THAT'S BEEN SAID TO THE CHIEF, IT DID NOT HAPPEN AT THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, RIGHT? CORRECT.
YOU, YOU DID TELL THE CHIEF THAT YOU THOUGHT HE DIDN'T LIKE YOU, BUT ALL OF THIS TESTIMONY THAT WE'VE HAD ABOUT SERGEANT GUNNER, THIS IS ME.
SORRY, THAT LAST PART IT'S NEW.
MEANING THAT IT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS THE CHIEF WAS ABLE TO CONSIDER WHEN HE MADE HIS DECISION, THE STATEMENTS FROM THE WITNESSES, CORRECT? YES.
YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HAVE THEM TESTIFY AT THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING? UH, I DISAGREE WITH THAT.
UM, TYPICALLY I TRY AND GO IN FOR SOMETHING BETWEEN ME AND ANOTHER OFFICER WAS JUST, THIS IS THE ONLY CASE OR MATTER.
THERE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANY WITNESSES SAYS IT WAS JUST HE AND I.
SO FOR THE PREDIS HEARING, YES.
I DIDN'T BRING WITNESSES FOR THAT MATTER.
SO YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THE OTHER OFFICERS REALLY ARE IRRELEVANT TO WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN YOU AND SERGEANT GUNNER? OBJECTION.
WELL, I THINK HE UNDERSTANDS THE TERM IRRELEVANT OUTSIDE OF ILLEGAL, SO YEAH.
WELL, THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY RELEVANT AND WE CALLED THEM TODAY.
SO, UH, THAT MUST HAVE BEEN A CHANGE OF HEART.
THEN PEOPLE CALL IT RELEVANT WITNESSES ALL THE TIME.
I THINK IT HAPPENED TODAY TO ANSWER A QUESTION MAYBE TO THE PLANT, SOMEONE REPEATEDLY, I BELIEVE THE QUESTION WAS THAT THE WITNESSES THAT YOU HAD TO HEAR TODAY WERE NOT RELEVANT TO SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED BETWEEN YOU AND SERGEANT GUNNER, CORRECT? CORRECT.
ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS, THE BOARD QUESTION, IF THEY WASN'T RELEVANT, WHY WERE THEY HERE TODAY NOW? I MEAN, THEY WERE RELEVANT.
THEY JUST WASN'T AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING.
I MEAN, JUST AT MY CLOSING, I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO GET INTO ALL THAT RIGHT NOW.
IT WOULD BE FAIR TO, TO A COP.
WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO APPEAL THIS DISCIPLINARY ACTION LIFE G UH, I APPEAL THIS BECAUSE 25 DAYS I FELT WAS A BIT EGREGIOUS.
UM, I BET IT COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED WHERE THE TWO OF US COULD HAVE BEEN MEDIATED MAYBE WITH THE CHIEF OR SOMEONE UP STAFF TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE THAT OCCURRED THAT NIGHT.
UM, BUT YOU DO REALIZE THAT THAT IS A DECISION THAT THE CHIEF HAS TO EIGHT.
AND THAT IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AT THIS POINT, UM, I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, UH, PRISCILLA IN LA VEST AT 42.
THEY SAID, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR CLOSING ARGUMENTS.
LET US BOARD DO THEY WANT TO, DO YOU WANT TO HEAR ME? I THINK YOU'RE OKAY.
I WOULD THINK THEY'RE ENTITLED TO MAKE THEIR CLOSING THE SALE CLOSING OFF AND JUST POINT ORDER.
THEY'RE NOT ENTITLED TO CLOSING ARGUMENT, BUT IF Y'ALL WANT TO HEAR.
AND WE CAN KEEP IT PRETTY BRIEF.
I BELIEVE, UM, THAT THE FACTS, UM, ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.
I SAID THAT AT THE BEGINNING AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.
UM, WHAT YOU HEARD FROM SERGEANT GUNNER AND WHAT YOU HEARD FROM OFFICER CHORE, LAWRENCE JR.
DO NOT DIFFER APPRECIABLY, BUT AGREE TO THE BASIC SET OF FACTS OF WHAT OCCURRED THAT EVENING.
I UNDERSTAND THAT HE SAYS IT WAS A, WAS A MISTAKE.
UM, DO WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES? YES.
BUT DO WE ALSO HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE MISTAKES AND BE ACCOUNTABLE PER POLICY? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
UM, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY SPENT THEIR WHOLE CASE BASHING
[03:20:01]
SERGEANT GUNTER.OBVIOUSLY HE WASN'T REALLY, HE WASN'T ASKED A LOT OF THOSE QUESTIONS, SO HE REALLY DIDN'T GET TO DEFEND HIMSELF.
AND HONESTLY, I DON'T THINK WHAT HAPPENED TODAY WAS REALLY GREAT FOR THE DEPARTMENT.
UM, FOR US TO HAVE A LOT OF TIME SPENT WHERE OFFICERS ARE COMING IN BASHING, UH, SOMEONE IN TESTIMONY THAT REALLY WAS IRRELEVANT TO WHAT OCCURRED.
AND THAT'S WHAT OCCURRED BETWEEN OFFICER LAWRENCE AND SERGEANT GUNTER, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T SUSTAIN CHARGES FOR INSUBORDINATION, UM, AND CARRYING OUT ORDERS.
THEY JUST SUSTAINED THOSE THREE CHARGES, THOSE CLASS TWO CHARGES.
UM, THAT W THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT RESPECT OF FELLOW OFFICERS.
I MEAN, OFFICER LAWRENCE HIMSELF HAS JUST TESTIFIED THAT HE DIDN'T THINK THAT THAT WAS THE LANGUAGE THAT HE SHOULD HAVE USED.
I THINK EVERYBODY, EVEN HIS OWN WITNESSES WOULD AGREE THAT THEIR LANGUAGE WAS INAPPROPRIATE.
UM, IT IS UNBECOMING TO AN OFFICER TO USE THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE AND USE THAT KIND OF CONDUCT WITH ANOTHER OFFICER, REGARDLESS OF RANK.
LET'S JUST TAKE RANK OUT OF IT.
LET'S JUST TALK OFFICER TO OFFICER, UM, IT'S INAPPROPRIATE AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THOSE POLICIES IN PLACE.
LET'S LOOK AT YOUR DECISION, YOUR DECISION.
DID THE CHIEF HAVE CAUSE AND MAKE IT IN GOOD FAITH.
WHAT DID HE HAVE TO LOOK AT ON THE DAY HE MADE HIS DECISION? HE DIDN'T HAVE ALL OF THIS TESTIMONY THAT Y'ALL JUST HEARD ABOUT SERGEANT CODY GUNTER.
HE COULD HAVE, THEY COULD HAVE BROUGHT THOSE WITNESSES THERE TO TESTIFY, BUT THEY DIDN'T DO IT.
SO IF THEY WERE IMPORTANT, SO IMPORTANT THAT YOU ALL NEEDED TO HEAR AN HOUR OF TESTIMONY ABOUT IT, WHY DIDN'T THEY BRING THEM AT THE HEARING? IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CHIEF.
AND YOU HEARD HIM SAY, IF THEY BRING WITNESSES, I LISTENED TO THE WITNESSES AND I CONSIDER THEIR TESTIMONY, BUT HE WASN'T GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
SO WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT ON THE APPEAL WE'RE LOOKING AT? WHAT DID THE CHIEF CONSIDER? WHAT DID HE HEAR? WELL, HE DIDN'T HEAR ANY OF THAT.
HE HEARD, UH, YOU KNOW, OFFICER LAWRENCE WAS THERE AND HE GAVE HIS TESTIMONY AND YES, HE SAID THAT HE THOUGHT THAT, UH, SERGEANT GUNNER DIDN'T LIKE HIM, BUT JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY DOESN'T LIKE YOU, I MEAN, WE ALL WORK WITH PEOPLE THAT WE THINK PROBABLY AREN'T OUR, UH, YOU KNOW, OUR BEST FRIENDS AND THEY MAY NOT EVEN LIKE US, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE DON'T GET TO RESPECT THEM, THAT WE HAVE TO, THAT WE CAN TREAT THEM IN THE MANNER IN WHICH UNFORTUNATELY, UM, OFFICER LAWRENCE TREATED STARTED GUNNAR ON THAT EVENING, THREE CHARGES, COMMAND OF TEMPER CONDUCT AND BECOMING RESPECT TO FELLOW MEMBERS.
UNFORTUNATELY, COMMAND OF TEMPER HAS BEEN AN ISSUE FOR OFFICER LAWRENCE.
THIS IS THE THIRD TIME WE FOLLOW PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE.
YOU HEARD THE CHIEF, HE STARTED OFF SMALL WITH HIM WHEN, AND AT FIRST IT WAS A TWO DAY SUSPENSION, WHICH WAS THEN REDUCED TO A LETTER OF REPRIMAND BY, YOU KNOW, UPON A CONSENT AGREEMENT.
THE NEXT TIME IT OCCURRED WITH AN ARRESTEE WHERE THERE WERE THREATS AND THERE WAS A FOUL LANGUAGE USED THAT WAS A 15 DAY SUSPENSION.
NOW IT'S PROGRESSED TO ANOTHER OFFICER AND CHIEF IS TAKING IT SERIOUSLY.
UM, I THINK YOU'VE ALL HEARD THAT THE, HE CERTAINLY HAD CALLS TO DO WHAT HE DID.
UM, THERE'S NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACTS.
I THINK THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED.
AND CHIEF CERTAINLY WOULD REQUEST THIS BOARD, SUSTAINED THE DISCIPLINE THAT HE GAVE TALKS TO THE WARRANTS IN THIS MATTER.
SO FIRST I LIKE TO DRESS, YOU KNOW, RELEVANCY OF WITNESSES, UM, JUST BECAUSE WE MADE A, UH, A DECISION TO NOT CALL THESE TWO OFFICERS TO THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WEREN'T RELEVANT.
BECAUSE IF THAT'S THE CASE, YOU MENTIONED THE MCDERMOTT CASE THAT YOU PRESIDED OVER A YEAR AGO, THREE DIFFERENT WITNESSES WERE CALLED IN THAT HEARING THAT WERE NOWHERE IN THE AIAA FILE WERE NOT THERE AT WORK.
NO MENTION OF THEM AT ALL IN THE INVESTIGATION, BUT THEY APPARENTLY WERE RELEVANT BECAUSE THEY CAME HERE AND TESTIFIED.
UM, SO THAT IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE.
THAT WAS A TACTICAL DECISION MADE BY ME AT THAT POINT.
SO, BUT WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THEM? I CAN SEE THEY WEREN'T, THEY DIDN'T WITNESS.
NOBODY WITNESSED THIS INCIDENT.
QUICK EXCHANGE, NO RAISED VOICES.
UM, YOU KNOW, NO WITNESSES AROUND NO CIVILIANS, NO OFFICERS WERE STANDING IN THE NEAR.
HE SAID, NOBODY WITNESSES OTHER THAN THE TWO PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THAT CONVERSATION.
I SAID IT AND I WAS WRONG FOR SAYING IT, BUT WHAT HAS COME FROM THAT ONE
[03:25:01]
STATEMENT? UH, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHO YOU ARE.THAT ONE STATEMENT, HE PICKS UP THREE VIOLATIONS.
AND YEAH, I KNOW NO ONE IN THE CRIMINAL REALM, YOU STILL HAVE A LOT OF CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
MEANING YOU'RE DOUBLING UP, YOU'RE TAKING THE SAME CONDUCT, THE SAME CONDUCT.
AND YOU'RE DEFINING AS MANY ALLEGATIONS AS YOU CAN TO BACK THAT UP.
IT'S ONE, ONE LITTLE SENTENCE.
HE SAID, THREE VIOLATIONS HAVE RESULTED AND WE CAN'T HAVE IT IN THE CRIMINAL REALM.
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT HERE EITHER.
IT WAS ONE THING THAT WAS DONE HERE.
ONE ACTION AND OKAY, THERE, THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE NOW STEMMED FROM THIS.
YOU CAN'T FIND THAT HE VIOLATED THREE DIFFERENT THINGS.
JUST FROM ONE LITTLE APP, ONE STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE, IS IT COMMAND TEMPER? IS IT, IS IT RESPECT TO FELLOW OFFICERS LR? UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL, IT'S ALL TOGETHER.
AND HE HAD BETS, HE DID DO IT, BUT I THINK THE, THE PUNISHMENT WENT OVER.
WHAT, WHEN YOU FIND HIM, THEN I ASKED THE CHIEF, I SAID, WELL, THE REASON WHY HE GAVE HIM THE 25 DAYS, OBVIOUSLY WE GOT THE PRIOR DISCIPLINE.
BUT YOU ALSO, BECAUSE YOU FOUND THAT HE VIOLATED THREE DIFFERENT POLICY, UM, THREE DIFFERENT POLICIES.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, SO I'M SAYING IT'S ONE POLICY VIOLATION, IT'S ONE ACT AND ONE POLICY VIOLATIONS, NOT THREE.
SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE MADE THE ARMY.
IT'S NOT THAT HE ADMITTED HE DID WRONG.
ROBINSON, YOU ASKED WHY YOU APPEAL.
WELL, I GOT STARTED THIS THING 25 DAYS IS A LOT.
AND YOU, I MEAN, THAT'S 8% OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO WHAT YOU, AND THE REASON WHY I PUT THESE, THESE, THESE WITNESSES UP THERE, JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A FRAME OF MIND OR A FRAME OF REFERENCE OR WHAT HIS STATE OF MIND WAS WHEN THIS OCCURRED.
UM, HE'S GIVEN INFORMATION, THIS OFFICER, DON, KEVIN, HE'S GOING OUT AND TALKING AND TOLD ALL THEIR OFFICERS.
I DON'T LIKE THIS GUY WHEN HE COMES BACK FROM WORK BECAUSE HE'S HIS, UM, HE'S, UM, HIS GIRLFRIEND'S HAVING DIFFICULTIES IN HER PREGNANCY.
I MEAN, ALL THAT ADDS UP TO JUST IT JUST OR FORM AS WELL FROM SERGEANT ON BEHALF OF SERGEANT GUNTER AS WELL.
BUT, UM, BUT THEN HE'S GONNA COME AND GIVE HIM THIS LITTLE IS ORDER OF THE SHIFT HASN'T EVEN STARTED.
AND HE'S GOING TO GO TELL HIM, MAYBE CALL HER UP A FEW FEET, BUT WHY WOULDN'T HE THINK THAT THAT'S COMPLETELY FRIVOLOUS? AND WHEN YOU'RE JUST DOING THAT TO MESS WITH ME, WHY? I MEAN, THAT'S, WHAT'S GOING, AND THAT'S WHY I PUT THOSE WITNESS UP THERE.
SO YOU COULD AT LEAST GET A FRAME OF MINE FROM, UM, SO JUST TO SEE WHY HE REACTED THE WAY HE DID, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TOO.
IT'S NOT JUST WHAT HAPPENED, IT'S WHY DIDN'T HAPPEN.
AND THAT'S WHY, SO IT'S, AGAIN, IT WAS ONE ACT IS ONE STATEMENT.
AND I WOULD ASK THAT, YOU KNOW, IN 25 DAYS, IT'S PRETTY HEFTY.
AND WE WOULD ASK THAT Y'ALL REDUCE THAT BOARD MEMBERS.
YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT WHAT SITUATIONS CONFRONTS YOU IN LIFE.
IT'S HOW YOU RESPOND TO THOSE SITUATIONS IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE.
AND YOU'VE ADMITTED THAT YOU'VE MADE A MISTAKE IN THE SOCIETY.
YOU PAY FOR THE MISTAKES WHEN YOU MAKE THEM.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S LIFE YOU'VE SEEN.
LIKE YOU COULD BE A VERY, UM, FINE OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT AND A FINE YOUNG MAN.
AND I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR TEMPER AND YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO CONTROL THAT.
IF YOU DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO GET WORSE FOR YOU.
I THINK IN THIS SITUATION, THE CHIEF HAD CAUSE, AND IN GOOD FAITH, HE MADE A DECISION AND I MOVED THAT.
WE UPHOLD THE CHIEF'S DECISION.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLORIDA.
ARE WE GOING INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION? IS THAT NOT? IF THIS MOTION I'M NEW, I'M TRYING TO LEARN THE POINT OF PROCEDURE.
ONCE THE MOTION'S ON THE TABLE, YOU GOT TO DEAL WITH THE MOTION.
IF THIS MOTION WERE TO FAIL, YOU GUYS COULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION IF YOU'D LIKE, BUT JUST PROCEDURALLY SAYING THAT.
SO, AND AGAIN, UM, WOULD I BE ABLE TO, I CAN MAKE A SUPPLEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO
[03:30:01]
HIS CORRECT SUBSTITUTE MOTION YOU MENTIONED.CAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO.
AND I WOULD, UM, MY SUBSTITUTE MOTION WOULD BE THAT WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF AND THAT HE, UM, HAD CALLS AND THAT HE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH IN THIS DECISION.
THE ONLY CAVEAT TO THAT, WHICH WOULDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING RELATIVE TO THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION IS, UM, ACCORDING TO THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY, I'M SORRY, THE NOTICE OF RULING UNDER, UM, 33, 2500, AND THIS IS JUST A MATTER OF HOUSEKEEPING.
UM, THERE WERE SEVEN ITEMS THAT WERE CHECKED OFF FOR CAUSE THE CHIEF'S COST TO FIND, UM, THE WAY HE DID.
AND AGAIN, UM, THIS IN NO WAY WOULD AFFECT THE CHIEF'S DECISION, BUT I HAD, UM, SOME ISSUES WITH, UM, FOUR OF THEM.
NUMBER TWO, NUMBER FOUR, NUMBER 14 AND 15 DO RELATE TO THE RECORD PLEASE.
UM, AND IF WE'RE ON PAGE FOUR OF FIVE OF THE CHIEF'S NOTICE OF RULING WHERE IT SAYS AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE STATE CIVIL SERVICE LAW, AND IT SAYS YOUR CONDUCT ALSO CONSTITUTES REASON FOR WHICH DISCIPLINARY ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ON THE PROVISIONS OF LA 33, 2508, WHICH STATES.
SO IF YOU GO TO NUMBER TWO, THAT WAS CHECKED OFF BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WHERE IT SAYS THE DELIBERATE OMISSION OF ANY ACT THAT IT WAS HIS DUTY TO PERFORM.
UM, MY ARGUMENT WOULD BE THAT, UM, THAT THIS, THAT PARTICULAR CAUSE WOULD BE IMPROPER IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT, HE DIDN'T NOT DO SOMETHING.
IT WAS SOMETHING THAT HE DID THAT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE.
SO I WOULD THINK THAT NUMBER TWO WOULD BE IMPROPER.
UM, NUMBER FOUR WAS CHECKED OFF AS INSUBORDINATION.
I THINK WE'VE BEEN AROUND AND ROUND TODAY ABOUT WHY THAT WAS NOT SUSTAINED BY THE CHIEF.
AND SO IF THE CHIEF CHOSE NOT TO SUBS TO SUSTAIN THAT, I THINK THAT THAT IS PROBABLY IMPROPER TO BE INCLUDED FOR.
CAUSE, UM, AND THEN IF YOU FLIP TO THE NEXT PAGE, NUMBER 14, IT SAYS THE WILLFUL VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS PART OR OF ANY RULE REGULATION OR ORDER HERE UNDER IT'S MY BELIEF THAT THIS STATES THAT, UM, IF THIS IS CHECKED, THAT MEANS THAT SOMEONE HAS WILLFULLY VIOLATED THIS PART, WHICH IS REFERRING TO CHAPTER FIVE, PART TWO OF TITLE 33.
AND IF A PERSON WILLFULLY VIOLATES ANY PORTION OF CHAPTER FIVE, PART TWO, THEN THERE IS A UNNECESSARY SEPARATION FROM SERVICE BY, UM, UM, THE APPLICATION OF 33, 25 0 7, WHICH IS THE PENALTY PROVISION.
SO I THINK THAT THIS WAS CHECKED INAPPROPRIATELY AND WOULD NOT APPLY HERE.
AND THEN AGAIN, NUMBER 15, WHERE IT SAYS ANY OTHER ACT OR FAILURE TO ACT, WHICH THE BOARD DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THE OFFENDER TO BE UNSUITABLE OR UNFIT PERSON TO BE EMPLOYED IN THE RESPECTIVE SERVICE, UM, THAT CLEARLY, UM, IS, SHOULD ONLY BE CHECKED IF THE BOARD MAKES A DECISION.
UM, AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE AND THIS, THIS IS THE POINTING OF AUTHORITIES, UM, DECISION.
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR WITH MY SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION WOULD BE IS THAT WE UPHOLD THE CHIEF'S DECISION.
HE CERTAINLY IN MY OPINION, HAD CAUSED.
AND HE CERTAINLY, IN MY OPINION, ACTED WITH GOOD FAITH.
THE ONLY CAVEAT WOULD BE TO ASK THE, UM, RJ, OR IF WE VOTED ON IT, THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO, UH, RESUBMIT THE NOTICE OF RULING TO TAKE OUT NUMBER TWO, NUMBER FOUR, NUMBER 14, AND NUMBER 15 AS I BELIEVE THEY WERE INAPPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE.
AND I THINK IT WAS JUST AN ACCIDENTAL OVERSIGHT IN NO WAY, WOULD IT AFFECT ANY OTHER PROVISION, UM, RELATED TO THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN? THIS IS JUST A HOUSEKEEPING MATTER.
SO THAT WILL BE MY SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO SUSTAIN THE CHIEF'S DECISION.
BUT WHAT MY QUESTION WOULD BE, WOULDN'T THE SUSTAINABLE AND ON THE COMMAND ATTEMPT OR THE, THE OTHER THREE ITEMS, WOULDN'T, YOU CAN ONLY DISCIPLINE AN EMPLOYEE UNDER 25.
HE COST NOW WHAT THE CHIEF SUSTAIN OUR DEPARTMENT LEVEL VIOLATION.
THE WAY THE CASE LAW READS IS THAT IF YOU VIOLATE THE DEPARTMENT RULES, THEN YOU PER SE VIOLATE THE STATUTORY RULES.
YOU GET WHAT I'M SAYING? SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT SETS.
SO WHAT THE CHIEF HAS WRITTEN ON THE NOTICE OF RULING OR DEPARTMENT LEVEL RULING, RIGHT? YOU DID NOT FILE DEPARTMENT RULE, WHATEVER.
NOW WITH, UH, START JOHN'S OVER THERE TALKING ABOUT IS BASICALLY WHAT, HOW DO THOSE DEPARTMENT LEVEL RULING SPIT INTO STATUTORY COURT? NOW THAT'S THE DISCUSSION THAT JOHNNY TO HAVE BASED ON WHAT JOHN IS SAYING? I UNDERSTAND
[03:35:01]
HIS POSITION.I THINK I WOULD ONLY AGREE WITH HIM ON INSUBORDINATION AS THEY'VE DESCRIBED IT TODAY.
UM, I THINK THERE'S AN ARGUMENT THAT INSUBORDINATION NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES, RIGHT? WHETHER IT'S WRITTEN OR VERBAL, BUT THAT'S NOT THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US TODAY.
SO I THINK THAT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU GUYS WANT TO, UH, WHERE ARE WE GOING HERE? GO THROUGH THEIR STATUTORY CAUSE AND ASK THEM TO AMEND IT.
BUT I CAN SEE HOW NUMBER TWO, THE DELIBERATE EMISSION OF ANY ACT THAT WAS HIS DUTY TO PERFORM HIS DUTY IS TO FOLLOW THE, UH, THE DEPARTMENT LEVEL RULES HE DID IN THIS CASE.
I THINK THAT DOES APPLY A NUMBER FOR INSUBORDINATION.
I THINK IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING A RULE, WHETHER IT'S WRITTEN OR VERBAL, I THINK IT'S INSUBORDINATION EITHER WAY.
BUT AGAIN, THE EVIDENCE THAT ARGUMENT TO HERE HERE HAS BEEN MORE OF A VERBAL RANK THINGS.
THAT'S UP TO YOU GUYS, 14 AND 15, 14 AT THE WILLFUL VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THE BARK.
I UNDERSTAND AGAIN, WHAT JOHN IS SAYING, BUT AGAIN, YOUR JOB IS TO FOLLOW THE DEPARTMENT LEVEL RULES.
IF YOU DON'T, THAT IS A WILLFUL VIOLATION.
IN MY OPINION, IT MAY NOT BE SUBJECT TO PENALTIES IN 25 OR SEVEN, BUT IT'S STILL A WILLFUL VIOLATION.
AND I THINK NUMBER 15 STILL FITS AS WELL.
SO, SO IT'S THE CHIEF'S RULING AND BASED ON THESE 2, 4, 6, 7 ITEMS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, YES.
YOU CANNOT DISCIPLINE ANYBODY WITHOUT GOING THROUGH 2,500.
BUT IT SAYS ANY ONE OF THE, OTHER OF THE EAST ROAD SOAR.
SO DOES CHECKING THESE OFF MEAN THAT EAST CONCERNING ALL SEVEN OF THESE, THE ONES HE CHECKED ARE THE ONES HE'S SAYING THAT THOSE DEPARTMENT LEVEL RULES WOULD APPLY TO.
YOU ONLY NEED ONE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST MY THING, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT JOHN IS TALKING ABOUT OVER THERE.
I DON'T HAVE NO BUS, A SUBSTITUTE MOTION ANYWAYS.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS, YOU WANT TO RESTATE YOUR MOTION, BUT ACTUALLY THE MOTION HAS GOTTEN A SECOND.
I WAS ABOUT TO SAY, NEITHER ONE GOES ANYWHERE WITHOUT A SECOND.
THE MOTIONS THAT WE DEAL WITH THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FIRST BASED UPON WHAT YOU SAID THAT I WITHDRAW MINE, WE CAN GO BACK TO, UH, SO NOW WE HAVE MISSED THE PRISON'S MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY SHARON ALL IN FAVOR, ALL IN FAVOR.
NOW I UNDERSTAND YOU SAY YOU UPHELD THE CHIEF'S DECISION.
YES, WE HAVE WAITING ON YOU, MAN.