[00:00:04]
UH, I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE SOCIAL SERVICE BOARD'S MEETING.
[1. Roll Call]
ROLL? TINA? DO PRESENT? YES.AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY PUBLIC COMMENT.
[2. Consider Motion to Approve Agenda]
ITEM NUMBER TWO IS CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND TAKEN BY MS. TRINA.
[3. Consider Motion to Approve Minutes from May 22, 2023, regular meeting.]
ITEM NUMBER THREE.CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES FROM MAY 22ND, 2023 OF OUR REGULAR MEETING.
MOVE FORWARD THE MINUTE IT'S BEEN MOVED BY PRESS.
MOVING ITEM ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR
[4. Consider Motion(s) to Approve or Reject Personnel Action Forms]
IS CONSIDERED A MOTION TO APPROVE OR REJECT PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS. I MAKE A MOTION.DO WE HAVE ANY POLICE? YES, WE DO.
IS THERE A SECOND? ONE SECOND.
[5. Consider Motion(s) to Approve or Reject Applications]
TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE, IS TO CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE OR REJECT APPLICATIONS.DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, YOU CURRENTLY ACCEPT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? THE WILL END ON JUNE 6TH, BUT THE DATE WE HAVE SERGEANT TWO, TWO APPLICATIONS.
ONE, FINGERPRINT ONE, TWO FOR POLICE CRIMINAL SPECIALIST ON BEHALF OF THE TRIAL DEPARTMENT.
OUR INVESTIGATOR BOARD, OUR STATE APPLICATION, OUR COMMUNICATION TWO.
DO WE HAVE THEM WITH US OR CAN'T? NO, SIR.
THE, THE POSTING PERIOD HASN'T ENDED.
SO, SO ON THE, THEY'LL BE ON THE AGENDA FOR THE, UH, MEETING LATER ON IN THE MONTH.
SO WE'LL TAKE NO ACTION ON THAT ITEM.
[6. Consider Motion(s) to Approve or Reject Examination Results]
ITEM NUMBER SIX IS CONSIDERED A MOTION TO APPROVE OR REJECT RESULT.I MEAN, UH, EXAMINATION RESULTS.
[7. Consider Motion to Call for Examinations.]
NUMBER SEVEN, IS CONSIDERED A MOTION TO CALL FOR EXAMINATION.UH, WE'LL TAKE NO ITEM, NO ACTION ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
[8. Consider Motion to Approve Finding of Facts related to Todd David Hearing.]
NUMBER EIGHT IS CONSIDERED OR APPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT RELATED TO, UH, TODD DAVID HEARING YOU'LL HAVE THE FINDING OF FACTS, WE WOULD LOOK OVER 'EM.I DO KNOW THAT WE ALREADY HAVE SOME CHANGES.
ONE BEING THAT, UM, IT SAYS THE MEETING TOOK PLACE ON APRIL 24TH, 2024, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE CHANGED TO 2023.
ANOTHER CHANGE WAS, UH, BY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION DATED NOVEMBER 11TH.
HE WAS NOTIFIED THAT HE WAS BEING TERMINATED WITHOUT PAY FOR VIOLATION.
SO WE'LL JUST CHANGE THAT TO TERMINATE IT.
AND, UM, NO NEED TO MENTION THE WITHOUT PAY.
UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE AT THIS TIME? I'LL GIVE YOU A FEW SECONDS TO REVIEW AND SEE IF WE CAN FIND ANYTHING.
SO THE MOTION WOULD BE TO, UM, THE CHANGES TO APPROVE THE CHANGES TO THE FINDING OF FACTS WITH TWO STIPULATED CHANGES.
WITH THE TWO STIPULATED CHANGES, IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING.
UH, IS THERE, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.
[9. Hear and Decide Appeal Hearing Concerning Officer Billing Mattingly. ]
UH, ITEM NUMBER NINE IS THE HEARING.DECIDE THE APPEAL HEARING CONCERNING OFFICER BILLY MADLEY.
UH, IF WE'RE READY AT THAT TIME,
[00:05:01]
UM, THEY'RE TALKING OVER THERE.YOU GUYS READY TO PROCEED WITH THE HEARING? OKAY.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, I, WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY STIPULATIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, CORRECT? ON BOTH SIDES? WE HAVE THAT.
DOES THE BOARD WISH TO, TO HEAR OPENING STATEMENTS? YES.
YOU NEED AN EXTRA ONE? YOU NEED AN EXTRA ONE OR, OKAY.
YOU WANNA LIMIT IT TO 10 MINUTE OPEN? YEAH.
IS THAT, I WON'T TOUCH 10 MINUTES.
SOME OF THE CASES YOU'VE SEEN ME DO BEFORE ARE KIND OF COMPLICATED.
UH, THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE, UM, THIS CASE DEALS WITH FORMER CORPORAL BILLY MATTINGLY, WHO'S SITTING IN THE ROOM HERE WITH US TODAY.
UH, MR. MATTINGLY ON FEBRUARY 16TH, 2022 WAS A CORPORAL WITH A DEPARTMENT WITH ALMOST 12 YEARS OF SERVICE WITH A DEPARTMENT.
UH, HE HAD BEEN IN UNIFORM PATROL AND THEN FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT THAT WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY, HE WAS IN DETECTIVES.
UH, HE IN FACT WORKED A LOT OF THE CRIMES THAT ARE SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT TODAY.
UM, ON THAT DATE, FEBRUARY 16 OF LAST YEAR, UH, MR. MATTINGLY WAS SEPARATED FROM HIS, I THINK NOW EX-WIFE.
AND HE WAS AT THE WALMART IN DENI SPRINGS.
AND HIS, UM, THEY WERE SEPARATED AT THE TIME, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
HIS, UH, THEN WIFE TEXTED HIM AND TOLD HIM TO COME OVER THAT EVENING.
SO WHILE HE WAS THERE, MR. MATTINGLY MADE A DECISION TO PICK UP A COUPLE OF ITEMS FOR HER, UH, A STEAK AND A BATTERY CHARGER.
THE ONLY PROBLEM WAS HE HAD ALREADY HAD A COUPLE OF, SEVERAL ITEMS FOR HIMSELF AND THE BATTERY CHARGER AND THE, UH, STEAK PUT HIM OVER THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HE HAD TO PAY FOR ITEMS. SO WHAT HE CHOSE TO DO WAS CHANGE THE BARCODE, THE SCANNER TAG ON THOSE TWO ITEMS. THE BATTERY CHARGER WAS A $50 ITEM AND HE CHANGED IT TO A, WITH A TAG THAT WAS A DOLLAR 15 ITEM.
UH, THE STAKE, I DON'T, IT WASN'T IN THE POLICE REPORT AS FAR AS WHAT THE VALUE WAS WITH THE PRICE TAG THAT HE SWITCHED IT WITH, BUT THEN HE MADE THE DECISION TO SWITCH THOSE TAGS.
THEN HE GOES THROUGH THE SELF-CHECKOUT LINE.
UM, HE COMPLETES THE SALE AND BEFORE HE GETS OUT OF THE DOOR, THE FOLKS AT WALMART, UM, FROM LOSS PREVENTION, GRAB HIM, ASK HIM TO GO BACK TO THE ROOM WITH HIM.
UH, THEIR REPORT HAS REPORTED FROM TOMMY REAMS, WHO WAS THE EMPLOYEE AT WALMART, UH, TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN DENIM SPRINGS WAS THAT, UH, MR. MAGLEY RAN OUT OF THE STORE.
UH, BUT WE KNOW FROM HIS INTERVIEW THAT HE LEFT THE STORE, WENT ACROSS A DRAINAGE DITCH, AND WAS PICKED UP ON A STREET, UH, ADJACENT TO THE WALMART THERE IN DENVER SPRING.
SO HE MADE THE DECISION TO CHANGE THE PRICE TAGS RATHER THAN PUT SOME ITEMS BACK BECAUSE HE HAD MONEY, RIGHT? HE HAD ENOUGH MONEY TO PURCHASE THE ITEMS JUST FOR HIMSELF.
HE HAD ENOUGH MONEY TO PURCHASE JUST THE ITEMS FOR HER, BUT HE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PURCHASE ALL OF THE ITEMS TOGETHER.
SO HE COULD HAVE DONE THAT, BUT HE CHOSE NOT TO.
UH, ONCE CAUGHT, HE CHOSE TO RUN, HE GETS CAUGHT BY POLICE, THEY BRING THEM BACK TO THE WALMART, AND WALMART BANS HIM FROM THE STORES, AS ONE WOULD EXPECT.
UH, THEREAFTER, A CRIMINAL CASE IS OPENED AND, UH, DONE WITH SPRINGS AGAINST HIM, HE MEETS WITH AN ATTORNEY AND THE ATTORNEY TELLS HIM THAT HE'S GONNA BE ABLE TO MAKE THE CASE GO AWAY.
NOW, YOU ALL HAVE SEEN THE B R P D DISCIPLINE POLICY.
EVERY TIME WE HAVE A HEARING, WE GO THROUGH IT.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S REQUIRED IN GENERAL ORDER ONE 12, UH, IS THAT
[00:10:01]
IF YOU ARE ARRESTED OR YOU RECEIVE A SUMMONS, THAT YOU HAVE TO TELL THE CHIEF OF POLICE IN WRITING ABOUT THAT WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THAT INCIDENT.MR. MADINGLEY DID NOT DO THAT.
IN FACT, HE DID NOT BRING IT TO ANYONE'S ATTENTION AT THE DEPARTMENT AT ALL.
UM, SOMEONE AT THE DEPARTMENT, ONE OF HIS SUPERIOR SUPERIORS LEARNED ABOUT IT THROUGH SOMEONE ELSE CONTACTED MR. MATTING LEE, AND MR. MATTING LEE DID CONFIRM.
HE SAID, YEAH, I WAS ARRESTED ABOUT 30 DAYS AGO, BUT IT'S GONNA BE, IT'S GONNA GO AWAY.
IT'S GONNA GET EXPUNGED OR WHATEVER.
UM, IN HIS IA, WELL ACTUALLY IN HIS PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, MR. MATTINGLY WAS ASKED, WHY DIDN'T YOU REPORT THIS? UM, AND HE SAID, WELL, I I DIDN'T WANT Y'ALL TO FIND OUT, OKAY? AND I'LL REPEAT THAT.
HE DID NOT WANT US TO FIND OUT.
WELL, WHY DIDN'T HE WANT US TO FIND OUT? BECAUSE HE WOULD GO THROUGH SOMETHING LIKE THIS, RIGHT? HE WOULD BE DISCIPLINED CUZ WE HAD THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
AT THE END OF IT, THE CHIEF SAID, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN BE EFFECTIVE AS A POLICE OFFICER.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE ANYMORE.
THERE ARE TOO MANY THINGS HERE.
NOT ONLY DID YOU COMMIT THE CRIME, BUT THEN YOU DIDN'T TELL US ABOUT IT AND YOU HOPED YOU WERE GONNA GET AWAY WITH IT.
IT WAS SOME 68 DAYS LATER BEFORE ANYBODY WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT FOUND OUT ABOUT IT.
AND, AND UP UNTIL THAT POINT, HE DID NOT ADVISE US OF IT.
BUT WHEN CONFRONTED, YES, HE ADMITTED HE HAD NO CHOICE.
SO THE CHIEF SAID, YOU'RE TERMINATED AND HERE WE ARE TODAY.
SO THE DECISION YOU, YOU HAVE TO MAKE BEFORE YOU IS, AS YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT EVERY TIME WAS THE CHIEF'S DECISION FOR CAUSE AND WAS IT IN GOOD FAITH? WELL, CERTAINLY IT'S GOING TO BE FOR CAUSE I DON'T THINK MR. MAGLEY IS GONNA COME BEFORE YOU AND FIGHT THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
RIGHT? UH, HE'S ALREADY ADMITTED IT IN HIS PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
I DON'T THINK HE'S GONNA SAY THAT THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN.
UH, I THINK HE WOULD AGREE THAT HE VIOLATED THE POLICIES THAT WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT TODAY.
THERE'S THREE OF 'EM CONDUCT UNBECOMING VIOLATION OF LAWS, AND THEN THE VIOLATION OF LAWS RELATED TO NOT REPORTING TO THE DEPARTMENT WITHIN FIVE DAYS.
SO THEN IT GOES TO, WHAT WAS IT IN GOOD FAITH? WELL, THE DISCIPLINE THAT HE RECEIVED, HE HAD TWO CATEGORY THREE OFFENSES, WHICH IS THE MOST SEVERE.
AND HE CAN BE TERMINATED FOR EITHER ONE OF THOSE OFFENSES ON THE FIRST, FIRST GO AROUND, RIGHT? UM, HE COULD BE, HE COULD BE TERMINATED FOR JUST THE FACT THAT HE WAS ARRESTED FOR VIOLATING THE LAW.
HE COULD BE TERMINATED FOR THE FACT THAT HE RE DID NOT TELL THE DEPARTMENT TRIED TO HIDE IT.
BUT HE HAD BOTH OF THOSE IN THIS SITUATION.
PLUS THE CATEGORY TWO, WHICH IS CONDUCT UN BECOMING AN OFFICER, WHICH HE ADMITTED, UM, YOU KNOW, AT THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
I THINK THAT'S EMBARRASSING TO THE DEPARTMENT AND TO MYSELF THAT I DID THAT.
SO WAS IT IN GOOD FAITH? WELL, WE TALKED ABOUT GENERAL ORDER ONE 12.
THERE'S A MATRIX AT THE BACK OF IT.
YOU ALL HAVE LOOKED AT THAT MANY TIMES AND IT SHOWS, OKAY, WELL IF SOMEBODY IS CATEGORY THREE FIRST OFFENSE, THAT'S A TERMINATION.
SO, AND THAT IS WHAT THE CHIEF DID.
SO I THINK THE ONLY ANSWER HERE IS WHAT THE CHIEF DID WAS IN GOOD FAITH AND WAS FOR CAUSE.
AND WE ASKED TO SHOW UPHOLD THE DECISION.
IS IT ON GOOD MORNING? MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, WHAT MR. RANGE JUST SAID ABOUT CORPORAL MATTINGLY DREW TRUE.
UH, HE ADMIT, HE ADMITTED TO IT.
HE DIDN'T DO IT IN THE PROPER FASHION.
WE DON'T, WE DON'T CONTEST THAT.
BUT IS THE DISCIPLINE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE, THE COURSE IS THE CHIEF'S DISCIPLINE CONSISTENT? THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE JUST CAUSE IS THERE CAUSE YES.
IS THERE GOOD FAITH? AND HOW IS THAT GOOD FAITH DETERMINED? IF WE GO TO THE RULES FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE, UH, IT'S UH, RULE SIX, I BELIEVE SECTION 15, IT TALKS ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS.
DISCIPLINARY ACTION WAS TAKEN WITH GOOD FAITH AND JUST CAUSE HERE'S WHERE I NEED TO BRING TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION.
WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED IS COMMENSURATE WITH THE INFRACTION.
AGAIN, WHETHER IT WAS COMMENSURATE WITH THE INFRACTION, IF IT WAS NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE INFRACTION, THE BOARD SHALL MODIFY THE ACTION OF THE APPOINTED AUTHORITY TO SOME OTHER LESSER PUNITIVE ACTION THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
THE BOARD SHALL OVER OVERTURN AND, AND HAVE IMMEDIATE STATEMENT AS YOU GO ON TO TELL THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD, WHICH YOU WERE WELCOME.
FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN, UH, CREOLE CAME BEFORE THIS BOARD, MAYBE, I THINK IT WAS A YEAR AGO, AND AFTER HEARING EVERYTHING, YOU MODIFIED THE CHIEF'S SENTENCE.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING HERE.
WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT OFFICER MANUALLY
[00:15:01]
DID NOT HAVE BEEN PUNISHED.HE HAD A COUPLE OF VIOLATIONS.
BUT WHAT WE'RE GONNA BRING OUT TODAY AND WHAT I HAVE CAPTAIN MCCARLEY HERE FOR, AND, AND YOU HAVE THE, UH, MY EX, UH, EXHIBITS, IT TALKS ABOUT PEOPLE ON THE BRADY LIST BECAUSE IMPORTANT WORDS THAT MR. RANGES SAID THAT THE CHIEF SAID CAN'T BE EFFECTIVE AS A POLICE OFFICER WAS HIS REASON FOR TERMINATION.
AGAIN, REMEMBER, CAN'T BE EFFECTIVE AS A POLICE OFFICER, WAS HIS GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION.
WELL THEN LET YOU GO ACROSS THE BOARD IN MY EXHIBIT, YOU'LL HAVE ONE, WHICH IS A BRADY LIST, WHICH WE ALL KNOW WELL, I HOPE THE BOARD KNOWS.
AND IF ONE, I CAN'T GO INTO DETAIL THAT THIS MAKES OFFICERS VERY EFFECTIVE.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S PROVIDED TO DEFENSE COUNSEL.
I EME THROUGH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO HILL MOORE.
IN MY CASE, I HAD GOTTEN IT FROM HIS FIRST ASSISTANT, MS. PARRA, RELATIVE TO THERE'S REASONS WHY, WHETHER IT BE TRUTHFULNESS OR WHETHER PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ARRESTED OR COMMITTED CRIMES.
AND I, I ASKED FOR FIVE PARTICULAR ONES.
I HAVE CAPTAIN MCCARLEY HERE WITH THOSE IA FILES, SO WE CAN GO OVER THAT.
SO MY QUESTION FOR THE BOARD IS, IS HIS PUNISHMENT IN GOOD FAITH? IS IT COMMENSURATE WITH THE OTHER INTERACTIONS? SOME OF WHICH YOU'LL SEE ARE MUCH MORE SERIOUS THAN THE ONE THAT CORPORAL MADLEY.
SO WHAT I'M ASKING THE BOARD IS NOT TO NOT PUNISH HIM, BUT TO MAKE A COMMENSURATE WITH WHAT THE OTHER OFFICERS HAVE DONE AND THEIR INABILITY TO BE EFFECTIVE BECAUSE THEY'RE ON THE BRADY LIST FOR SOME SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER OFFICER CORPORAL MANLEY DO SOMETHING WRONG.
SHOULD HE BE DISCIPLINED? ABSOLUTELY.
SHOULD HE HAVE BEEN TERMINATED? NO, THAT'S NOT COMMENSURATE WITH WHAT OTHER OFFICERS HAVE RECEIVED FROM THIS CHIEF UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION.
SO I GUESS WE'RE GONNA TURN IT OVER TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY.
DO WE HAVE WITNESSES THAT WE NEED TO SEQUESTER? UH, WE DO.
IF ALL OF OUR FOLKS WOULD STAND UP AND BE SWORN IN MR. DUTY, YOU HAVE ANYBODY THAT NEEDS TO BE SWORN IN? I I'M USING THE SAME.
UH, WELL, TWO OF THE, OF THE THREE AND I'LL BE CROSSING, UH, OBVIOUSLY DEPUTY CHIEF DANIELS AS WELL.
SWORN AND SWEAR EVERYBODY IN AT THE SAME TIME.
ALL RIGHT, GENTLEMEN, DO YOU ALL SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? YES, SIR.
AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT EVERYONE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
AND, UH, MR. DEWEY, I ASSUME YOU WANT THE WITNESS TO SEQUESTERED AS, AS WELL? YES, YOUR HONOR.
MR. HILL AND CHIEF WILL BE OUR REPRESENTATIVE TO, HE'LL STAY IN THE ROOM WITH US.
WHO'S GONNA BE THE, UH, FIRST WITNESS? MR. MADLEY? OKAY.
SO THE OTHER GENTLEMAN, WE'LL SEE YOU, YOU CAN STAY MY REPRESENTATIVE.
UM, COUNSEL, BEFORE WE PROCEED ANY FURTHER, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE, WE'RE CLEAR ON THE RECORD, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE STIPULATING TO CAUSE IS THAT FAIR? THAT'S FAIR.
THAT WE'RE SAYING THAT WHAT HE'S BEEN ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE, HE DID.
I DON'T REALLY THINK WE NEED TO GO OUT.
ME AND MR. RAINS HAD SPOKEN ABOUT THAT.
UH, THE ONLY OTHER STIPULATION I WOULD ASK MR. RAINS MAKE RELATIVE TO THAT ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE WAS THAT, AND I PROVIDED THAT TO HIM PREVIOUSLY, THAT, UH, CORPORAL MADLEY DID PRETRIAL AND THE CHARGES WERE DISMISSED VIA THE PRETRIAL PROGRAM.
SO THERE IS NO CONVICTION OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
I DID SUBMIT THAT TO, UH, MR. RAINS.
MR. RAINS YOUR POSITION ON THAT? THAT THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING TOO.
I REVIEWED IT AND, AND HE WAS, UH, HIS CHARGES WERE DISMISSED AS I UNDERSTAND, SIR.
SO JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE TWO STIPULATIONS.
WE'RE GOING TO STIPULATE THAT IN, IN THE ANALYSIS OF GOOD FAITH FOR CAUSE THE FOR CAUSE HAS BEEN MET.
SO THE BOARD DOESN'T NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ON THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A STIPULATION.
WE'RE ALSO STIPULATING AS A FACTUAL MATTER THAT ALL THE CRIMINAL CHARGES HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
DOES EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD UNDERSTAND THAT? BUT WE DON'T NEED TO HEAR TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT.
WELL, WITH THAT BEING SAID, GENTLEMEN, Y'ALL PROCEED.
AND I'LL SAY IT, IT'S GONNA BE KIND OF IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO PUT THE CASE ON WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
I MEAN, I KNOW WE'RE, WE'RE SAYING STIPULATING TO THE FORE CAUSE ISSUE, BUT I DO NEED TO GET THAT TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, I'LL, I'LL DO WHAT I CAN.
CORPORAL MATTINGLY, UH, CHAIR WANTED YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
UH, MY NAME IS BILLY MATTINGLY.
THERE SHOULD BE A BUTTON AT THE BOTTOM DOWN THERE.
YEAH, THE GREEN LIGHTS BACK USE, USE THE OTHER ONE NEXT TO YOU.
[00:20:01]
OH, THERE, I'D LIKE TOM, THE LIGHTS JUST NOT WORKING.HI, MY NAME IS BILLY MATTINGLY.
UH, MY ADDRESS 92 57 RUDA, FLORIDA DENIM SPRINGS, LOUISIANA, 7 0 7 0 6.
AND LET ME ASK TOMMY SOMETHING, TOMMY, DO, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS? THIS IS THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS, BASICALLY THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE BROKEN UP, AND THEN THE ONE PICTURE OF THE WALMART STORE? NO OBJECTION.
SO I'M JUST GOING, I'LL GO AHEAD AND OFFER MY EXHIBITS, WHICH ARE LABELED, UM, ONE THROUGH 14.
WE ALSO HAVE THE RECORDINGS IN THERE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GONNA NEED 'EM BASED ON THE STIPULATION, SO WE'LL JUST DO ONE THROUGH 14.
UM, YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY EMPLOYED BY THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND IN 2022, YOU WERE TERMINATED BY CHIEF PAUL? YES, SIR.
AT THE TIME OF YOUR TERMINATIONS CORRECT, THAT YOU WERE A CORPORAL IN THE DEPARTMENT? YES, SIR.
AND DID YOU HAVE APPROXIMATELY 11 SOMETHING YEARS, UH, WITH THE DEPARTMENT AT THAT TIME? YES, SIR.
HOW LONG WERE YOU IN, LET ME JUST KIND OF BYPASS THAT.
YOU'RE IN UNIFORM PATROL, ROUGHLY NINE YEARS AND THEN TWO YEARS IN DETECTIVES.
NOW LET'S GO THROUGH THE INCIDENT THAT LED TO YOUR DISCIPLINE.
ON FEBRUARY 16TH, 2022, YOU WENT TO THE WALMART IN DENHAM SPRINGS TO PICK UP A FEW ITEMS. IS THAT ACCURATE? MM-HMM.
AND AT THAT TIME, YOU WERE SEPARATED FROM YOUR NOW EX-WIFE, UH, GIRLFRIEND? YES, SIR.
YOU WERE NEVER MARRIED TO HER? NO.
UM, WHEN YOU WENT TO THE STORE, YOU WERE AWARE OF HOW MUCH CASH YOU HAD, WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE? YES, SIR.
THERE WERE TWO ITEMS THAT YOU MENTIONED IN THE INVESTIGATION.
UM, LET'S BACK UP A LITTLE BIT.
SHE TEXTED YOU WHILE YOU WERE THERE AND ASKED YOU TO COME OVER THAT EVENING, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND THEN YOUR INVESTIGATION, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT, UH, YOU HAD CHANGED THE BAR CODES FOR WHILE AT THE WALMART, AND THAT WAS A, A BATTERY CHARGER AND A STEAK.
UM, AND THE PROBLEM THAT YOU HAD WAS YOU DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH CASH TO GET THOSE TWO ITEMS PLUS THE ITEMS YOU HAD PICKED OUT FOR YOURSELF, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR.
SO DO YOU RECALL THE, THE VALUE OF THAT BATTERY CHARGER? UM, 50 BUCKS, SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE.
AND THE WALMART EMPLOYEE HAD REPORTED THAT THE BARCODE THAT YOU SWITCHED IT WITH WAS ABOUT A DOLLAR 15.
DOES THAT SOUND ACCURATE? YES, SIR.
YOU RECALL THE VALUE OF THE STEAK? 15 BUCKS, MAYBE 10 BUCKS.
IF YOU WOULD, YOU'VE GOT THE EXHIBIT BINDER IN FRONT OF, OH, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'LL PUT IT UP HERE AT THE, A LOT OF TIMES THE WITNESSES TESTIFY UP HERE.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH, UH, EXHIBIT FOUR IN FRONT OF YOU? ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH EXHIBIT FOUR? UM, I GUESS IT'S THE RECEIPT.
UH, THIS IS A, A RECEIPT THAT IT'S PART OF THE POLICE FILE, BUT IT'S A RECEIPT THAT WALMART PUT TOGETHER.
WHAT THE COST OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE ITEMS WOULD'VE BEEN HAD YOU PAID FULL PRICE FOR EVERYTHING.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU? MM-HMM.
AND YOU SEE AT THE TOP THERE PLUS HIGH E AND $50, THAT'S A BATTERY CHARGER, RIGHT? I'M ASSUMING, ASSUMING SO, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
AND THEN IF WE LOOK AT THE BOTTOM, THE WORD IS CUT OFF, BUT YOU SEE TENDERLOIN, WHICH IS LIKE TENDERLOIN WITH A T CUT OFF, AND THAT'S LOOKS LIKE 1307 OR 1367, IS THAT CORRECT? LOOKS LIKE IT, YES, SIR.
NOW LET'S LOOK AT THE OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE ON THERE.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE, THE NEXT TWO ITEMS ARE? IT SAYS PLG, I DUNNO IF THAT'S PLEDGE OR SOMETHING ELSE, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THOSE TWO ITEMS ARE? NO, SIR.
THE NEXT ITEM, AS I UNDERSTOOD FROM INTERVIEWS, IT SAYS B R Z LIGHT FOR BREEZE LIGHT.
IS THAT CORRECT? I'M NOT SURE.
DO YOU RECALL IN YOUR TESTIMONY TALKING ABOUT BEING PURCHASED FOR FABRIC BRIE THAT DAY? NO, SIR.
UM, RIGHT BELOW THAT LOOKS LIKE AVOCADO OIL, OKAY? CORRECT? YES, SIR.
RIGHT BELOW THAT TORTILLA? YES, SIR.
RIGHT BELOW THAT NUTS? YES, SIR.
SO IF YOU PAID FOR THE TOTAL OF EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THAT RECEIPT, THE TOTAL WAS $151 AND 45 CENTS, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
[00:25:01]
OFF THE TWO ITEMS, THE BATTERY CHARGER AND THE STEAK, THAT TOTALS $88 AND 38 CENTS.AND JUST GO WITH ME THAT, THAT'S THE MATH.
AND IF I ADD THOSE TWO ITEMS TOGETHER, THE STEAK AND THE BATTERY CHARGER, YOU'RE GOING WITH YOU AND IT'S AN ATTORNEY ON THE MATH? YEAH.
UH, IF YOU ADD THE STEAK AND THE BATTERY CHARGER TOGETHER, THEIR ACTUAL PRICE WOULD BE $63 AND 7 CENTS.
YOU FOLLOW ME SO FAR? YES, SIR.
SO IS IT ACCURATE THAT YOU HAD ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY THOSE TWO ITEMS, THE BATTERY AND THE TENDERLOIN BY THEMSELVES, AND YOU HAD ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY THE ITEMS THAT YOU HAD PURCHASED JUST FOR YOURSELF, BUT YOU JUST DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY FOR ALL OF IT TOGETHER? CORRECT.
NOW, WE JUST WENT THROUGH THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE IN, IN YOUR, UH, WHAT YOU PURCHASED THAT DAY AT WALMART.
NONE OF THAT STUFF WAS TH THOSE WEREN'T THINGS YOU COULDN'T HAVE LIVED WITHOUT, RIGHT? RIGHT.
UM, NOW ONCE YOU CHANGED THE BARCODE ON THE BATTERY CHARGER AND THE STAKE, YOU WENT THROUGH THE SELF-CHECKOUT LINE, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
UM, YOU DID THAT SO YOU WOULDN'T BE CAUGHT, I ASSUME, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
UM, THEN YOU WERE ABOUT TO LEAVE THE STORE AND AN EMPLOYEE FROM THEIR LOSS RECOVERY COMES UP TO YOU AND ASKS YOU TO COME BACK TO THEIR, THEIR ROOM.
SO YOU START THE FOLLOWER, AND THEN YOU SAID THEY SAID YOU RAN, YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T RUN, BUT REGARDLESS, YOU LEFT THE STORE AND I THINK YOU SAID YOU CROSSED A DRAINAGE DITCH.
THERE'S A LITTLE DRAIN AND DITCH, AND I WALKED ACROSS THAT AND THEN WAS STOPPED ON THE STREET TURN TO, UM, IF YOU WOULD TURN TO TAB SIX, PLEASE.
AND YOU HAVE KIND OF TURNED IT SO THAT THE, THE RINGS ARE AT THE TOP TO GET THE ORIENTATION RIGHT.
BUT THIS IS A AERIAL VISUAL, A VISUAL OF THAT WALMART STORE.
SO I ASSUME YOU LEFT THE STORE AND THEN KIND OF HEADED TOWARD THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.
CAUSE THERE'S A DRAINAGE DITCH DOWN THERE, THAT'S THE ONE YOU CROSSED, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO THEN YOU HAD TO GO ACROSS THAT DRAINAGE DITCH KIND OF IN BETWEEN THOSE STORES, AND THEN YOU MADE IT OUT TO THAT STREET DEL NORTE, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR.
AND THAT'S WHERE YOU WERE CAUGHT BY DENIM PD, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND THEN THEY BROUGHT YOU BACK TO THE WALMART STORE, IS THAT ACCURATE? YES, SIR.
CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? IT WAS THE, THE DENIM PD, THEY BROUGHT YOU BACK TO THE WALMART STORE, CORRECT? YES.
TURN TO TAB TWO FOR ME PLEASE.
NOW, TAB TWO IS A COPY OF THE SUMMONS THAT YOU RECEIVED THAT DAY FROM DENIM PD, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
YOU WERE CHARGED WITH A VIOLATION OF, UH, REVISED STATUTE 1467.
THAT'S BASICALLY THE MISDEMEANOR THEFT STATUTE? YES, SIR.
NOW LET'S LOOK AT FLIP OVER TO TAB THREE, PLEASE.
NOW, THIS IS A COPY OF THE POLICE REPORT RELATED TO THE SHOPLIFTING INCIDENT, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
NOW, IF YOU TURN TO PAGE TWO OF THE REPORT, YOU'LL SEE THE NARRATIVE.
AND THEN I'M GONNA GO TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THAT SECOND SENTENCE.
IT SAYS, WHILE EN ROUTE, I WAS ADVISED BY ANOTHER OFFICER WHO HAD SHOWN UP ON SCENE THAT THE SUSPECT HAD RAN AWAY ON FOOT FROM THE WALMART.
THE AUTHOR OFFICER CAUGHT UP WITH HIM ON A NEARBY STREET, DETAINED HIM, AND TRANSPORTED HIM BACK TO WALMART.
DO YOU HAVE ANY DISPUTE WITH THAT OTHER THAN THE RAN AWAY PART? NO, SIR.
AND DO YOU STILL DISPUTE THE, THE RAN AWAY PIECE? CORRECT.
DO YOU TURN TO TAB FIVE FOR ME.
NOW, IN ASSOCIATION WITH YOUR ARREST, YOU WERE ALSO ISSUED A PROPERTY BAN FROM WALMART.
IS THIS A COPY OF THAT, UH, PROPERTY BAN? UH, YES, SIR.
AND THAT'S YOUR SIGNATURE THERE, UH, UNDER THE, YOUR PRINT NAME, BILLY MADLY? YES, SIR.
AND THAT WAS DATED FEBRUARY 16TH, 2022? YES, SIR.
NOW, AFTER YOU WERE ARRESTED, YOU HAD A CRIMINAL CASE IN LIVINGSTON, BUT YOU DID NOT REPORT THAT TO YOUR COMMANDER OR ANY OF YOUR SUPERIORS AT THE DEPARTMENT AT THAT TIME, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
UM, IS IT ACCURATE YOU WERE ADVISED
[00:30:01]
THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, THAT CASE WAS GONNA BE DISMISSED? YES, SIR.AND THAT, SO YOU, YOU CHOSE NOT TO REPORT IT, AND I WOULD ASSUME IT'S CUZ YOU DIDN'T WANNA BE DISCIPLINED, LIKE YOU DIDN'T WANNA GO THROUGH THIS.
UM, HOWEVER, THE, THE DEPARTMENT FOUND OUT ABOUT IT, LET'S GO TO TAB ONE.
NOW, WHO WAS, UH, LIEUTENANT GEORGE PERKINS IN REFERENCE TO YOU? UH, MY SUPERVISOR.
SO HE LEARNED OF IT AND HE ON APRIL 25TH, 2022, SO MORE THAN TWO MONTHS AFTER THE INCIDENT IS WHEN HE LEARNED ABOUT IT, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND THAT HIS LETTER SAYS, SECOND SENTENCE, CORPORAL MADLEY ADVISED APPROXIMATELY 30 DAYS AGO HE WAS ISSUED A MISDEMEANOR SUMMONS FOR MISDEMEANOR THEFT FROM WALMART AND DENIM SPRINGS.
THAT WASN'T COMPLETELY ACCURATE, IT WAS ACTUALLY MORE THAN LIKE 68 DAYS, CORRECT? UH, YES SIR.
NOW, AS A RESULT OF THAT KNOWLEDGE, THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS, UH, DEPARTMENT OPENED UP A CASE REGARDING THIS MATTER, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
TURN TO TAB SEVEN FOR ME PLEASE.
TAB SEVEN IS A COPY OF YOUR GARRITY RIGHTS OFFICER, OFFICER WRIGHTS FORM, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND THIS IS WHAT YOU SIGNED, UH, ON MAY 12TH, 2022 IN ADVANCE OF GIVING YOUR INTERNAL AFFAIRS INTERVIEW? YES, SIR.
AND THERE ARE THREE CHARGES THERE, CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER IN VIOLATION OF LAWS.
SO IT'S TWO, UH, SECTIONS OF THE GENERAL ORDER OF TWO 12 OR, UH, 2 11 3 22 AND 3 22 0.1.
NOW LET'S GO TO, LET'S SEE WHERE YOU RETURN TO TAB 11 FOR ME.
AND LET'S LOOK AT THE FIRST, UH, HIGHLIGHTED SECTION THERE.
THERE'S SECTION TWO 11, CONDUCT, I'M BECOMING AN OFFICER.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE CHARGES WE JUST DISCUSSED.
UM, CAN YOU READ THAT, UH, SECTION OF THE POLICY DISCIPLINE POLICY OUT PLEASE? UM, EVERY MEMBER OF THE DEPARTMENT, WHETHER ON OR OFF DUTY IN OFFICIAL OR UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY, MUST CONDUCT HIMSELF AT ALL TIMES IN SUCH A MANNER, ASKED TO SET A GOOD EXAMPLE FOR ALL OTHERS WITH WHOM HE MAY COME IN CONTACT.
HE SHALL NO WAY THROUGH ACTIONS OR NEGLECT BRING DISHONOR OR DISCOURAGE UPON HIMSELF OR THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT WOULD BE DISHONOR AND DISGRACE, RIGHT? UM, YES SIR.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR CONDUCT ON FEBRUARY 16TH, 2020 22 BROUGHT DISHONOR OR DISGRACE ON YOU AND THE DEPARTMENT? YES, SIR.
LET'S TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE, PLEASE.
THAT'S SECTION 3 22, VIOLATION OF LAWS.
ALL RIGHT, I'LL READ THAT AND YOU JUST TELL ME IF I GET IT WRONG.
OKAY? NO MEMBER WILL, WILL, UH, WILLFULLY OR BY NEGLECT OR OMISSION VIOLATE ANY FEDERAL, STATE, OR CITY ORDINANCE OR STATUTE.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT YOU VIOLATED THAT POLICY? 3 22? YES, SIR.
NOW I'M GONNA READ 3 22 0.1, WHICH IS THE LAST ONE THAT YOU WERE CHARGED WITH.
ANY MEMBER RECEIVING ANY TYPE OF SUMMONS OR ARREST WILL NOTIFY THE CHIEF OF POLICE IN WRITING WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF RECEIPT.
AGAIN, YOU WOULD AGREE THAT YOU VIOLATED THAT SECTION OF POLICY, CORRECT? MM-HMM.
YOU WERE PROVIDED A PRE-DETERMINATION HEARING NOTICE ON DATED JANUARY 23RD, 2022, AND IT PROVIDED NOTICE TO YOU THAT YOUR CONDUCT, SPECIFICALLY YOUR ARREST FOR MISDEMEANOR THEFT AND YOUR FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE CHIEF OF POLICE MAY BE CONTRARY TO DEPARTMENT POLICY.
AND IS THIS, THIS A COPY OF THAT LETTER? YES, SIR.
AND DID THIS LETTER, IF YOU FLIPPED THROUGH IT, DID IT CHARGE YOU WITH THE EXACT SAME CHARGES THAT YOU, THAT WERE ADDRESSED IN YOUR GARRITY RIGHTS FORM? THAT WOULD BE 2 11 3 22 AND 3 22 0.1? YES, SIR.
AND ON PAGE SIX OF THAT LETTER, IS THAT YOUR SIGNATURE? YES, SIR.
THERE'S A COPY OF THE TERMINATION NOTICE THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM THE CHIEF, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
[00:35:01]
CONFIRMED ON THE FIRST PAGE THAT THE CHIEF SUSTAINED ALL THREE CHARGES CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER IN THE TWO VIOLATION OF LAWS, SECTIONS OF THE DISCIPLINARY, UH, POLICY.AND BECAUSE OF THAT, IT SAYS THAT YOU WERE TERMINATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT? YES, SIR.
LET'S GO TO PAGE FOUR, AND THERE'S A SECTION AT THE TOP OF PAGE FOUR OF THAT TERMINATION NOTICE, DEPARTMENTAL POLICY.
IT SAYS, UH, YOUR CONDUCT DESCRIBED ABOVE, SPECIFICALLY YOUR CONDUCT RESULTING IN YOUR ARREST BY MISDEMEANOR SUMMONS FOR THEFT.
UH, TOP OF PAGE, PAGE FOUR, UNDER DEPARTMENTAL POLICY RIGHT THERE.
YEAH, THAT PAGE, I THINK IT CAN YOU SWITCH THE SECOND? YEAH, I SWITCHED THE FOUR.
HERE, YOU THERE? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THIS IS THE TERMINATION NOTICE AND LOOK AT THE TYPE OF PAGE FOUR.
WHAT I WAS READING FROM IS UNDER A SECTION CALLED DEPARTMENTAL POLICY.
AND IT READS, YOUR CONDUCT DESCRIBED ABOVE, SPECIFICALLY YOUR CONDUCT RESULTING IN YOUR ARREST BY MISDEMEANOR SUMMONS FOR THEFT, AND YOUR FAILURE TO INFORM THE CHIEF OF POLICE THROUGH YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND IS CONTRARY TO THIS DEPARTMENT'S POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL SPECIFICALLY, AND AT LIST 2 11 3 22 AND 3 22 0.1.
NOW, YOU, YOU HAD BEEN IN GENERAL DETECTIVES FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT, SO YOU'VE ARRESTED PEOPLE FOR SHOPLIFTING AND SIMILAR THINGS, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR.
SO YOU WERE AWARE OF THE TIME THAT YOU ENGAGED IN THAT CONDUCT OF WHAT THE POTENTIAL RESULT COULD BE, WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE? YES, SIR.
NOW, AFTER YOUR TERMINATION, YOU FILED A PETITION FOR APPEAL, OBVIOUSLY WITH THIS BOARD, RIGHT.
IF YOU WOULD TURN TO TAB 13 FOR ME, PLEASE.
AND THIS IS A COPY OF YOUR PETITION FOR APPEAL, RIGHT? YES, SIR.
I'M GONNA READ PARAGRAPH THREE, APPELLANT A VERSES THAT THE DISCIPLINE HE RECEIVED WAS NOT MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR CAUSE.
NOW YOU'VE ALREADY STIPULATED THE FOUR CAUSE PIECE, AND I WANT TO JUST LOOK AT ONE THING ABOUT THE, THE GOOD FAITH PIECE.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH GENERAL ORDER ONE 12, RIGHT? THE DISCIPLINE POLICY.
YOU SEE THE, UH, THAT MATRIX, THAT TABLE OF PENALTIES? YES, SIR.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT TABLE? UM, IT'S OKAY IF YOU'RE NOT.
I LEMME JUST, YEAH, I MEAN, I'M AWARE OF IT.
SO YOU'RE AWARE THAT THE VIOLATIONS THAT YOU RECEIVED, ONE WAS A CATEGORY TWO AND TWO OF 'EM WERE CATEGORY THREES, CORRECT? RIGHT.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE TABLE OF PENALTIES UNDER FIRST OFFENSE, AND YOU GO DOWN TO THE CATEGORY ON THE LEFT HAND COLUMN, THAT'S CATEGORY FOR CATEGORY THREES.
IT SAYS ONE DAY SUSPENSION, TWO DISMISSAL, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
SO YOU, YOU RECOGNIZE THAT FOR EITHER ONE OF THOSE CATEGORY THREES THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU VIOLATED, YOU COULD HAVE BEEN TERMINATED, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, CORPORAL MATTINGLY? NO.
IS HE RELEASED WELL FROM, HE'S NOT RELEASED WELL UNTIL, UNTIL TOMMY WANTS TO DIRECT HIM.
[00:40:37]
IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, THANK YOU.IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND TURN THE MIC ON.
IT'S, THERE'S A BUTTON ON THE GRAY BUTTON ON THE SIDE RIGHT THERE.
I'M CAPTAIN MICHAEL MCCARLEY, UH, COMMAND OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS.
YOU WANT MY HOME ADDRESS? 1113 POMPE DRIVE, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 7,816.
CAPTAIN, I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE SAID IT, BUT WHAT IS YOUR ROLE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT CURRENTLY? UH, COMMANDER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS.
NOW, IN YOUR ROLE AS COMMANDER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS, DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE OVERSIGHT OF, UH, FILE NUMBER 10 DASH 22 AND ATTEND THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING OF MR. MATTINGLY? YES, SIR.
AS PART OF WHAT THE CHIEF AND DEPUTY CHIEFS CONSIDER, IS IT TRUE THAT SOMETIMES YOU'RE ASKED WHETHER THERE ARE ANY OTHER CASES LIKE THE ONE BEING REVIEWED SO THAT YOU CAN KNOW WHETHER THE DEPARTMENT HAS SET ANY KIND OF PRECEDENT AND DISCIPLINING OFFICERS FOR SIMILAR CONDUCT? YES, SIR.
BEFORE, UM, WE HAVE A PRE DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
I GO THROUGH AND LOOK FOR, UM, KIND OF LIKE HISTORICAL DATA, UM, ANY OTHER CASES THAT MAY BE VERY SIMILAR IN NATURE, AND WRITE DOWN WHAT THE DISCIPLINE WAS RENDERED, WHETHER IT WAS THIS ADMINISTRATION OR PAST ADMINISTRATION.
IN PREPARING FOR THE PRELIMINARY DIS PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE, DID YOU REVIEW ANY PAST CASES, DETERMINE IF THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, A CASE THAT WAS LIKE MR. MATTINGLY'S CASE? SO I REVIEWED SEVERAL CASES.
UM, IT WAS UNFORTUNATE THAT I DID NOT FIND ANY CASES, UM, THAT I FOUND SOME THAT WERE SIMILAR IN NATURE, BUT NOT SIMILAR IN NATURE.
AND THE, THE PART THAT WASN'T SIMILAR WOULD BE THE REPORTING TO THE CHIEF WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS OF AN ARREST OR CITATION.
SO YOU HAD OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAD BEEN ARRESTED BEFORE, BUT NOT ANYONE WHO HAD HIT IT FROM THE DEPARTMENT AND, UH, AND NOT, AND THEY'VE VIOLATED THAT 3 22 0.1 POLICY, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO AT THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE, DID YOU PROVIDE ANY PRIOR CASES FOR THE CHIEF OR DEPUTY CHIEF TO CONSIDER BEFORE THEY DELIBERATED REGARDING THE DISCIPLINE OF MR. MATTINGLY? NO, SIR.
DO YOU WANNA JUST KEEP IT TO RELATIVE TO THIS OR DO YOU WANT ME TO GO INTO EVERY, IT'S UP TO YOU HOW YOU WANNA HANDLE IT.
SO I JUST GOOD TO SEE YOU, CAPTAIN.
UH, YOU SAID THAT YOU LOOKED HISTORICALLY OVER THINGS AND THIS ADMINISTRATION PAST WRITTEN, NOT ANYBODY HAD BEEN EXACTLY ON POINT, CORRECT? THE SAME EXACT.
I ASKED YOU TO BRING, UH, AND WE'RE GONNA GO OVER 'EM IN A LITTLE BIT MM-HMM.
AND DID YOU, UH, HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT THAT AND REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AND LOOK AT THOSE FILES? YES.
UH, ONE OF 'EM WAS, ONE SECOND WAS MICHELLE PATTERSON, CORRECT? YES.
AND LET ME MAKE AN OBJECTION HERE, BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS SOME, AND I KNOW WHAT MR. DEWEY PLANS TO DO RIGHT NOW.
UM, HE WANTS TO GET INTO CASES OTHER THAN THIS CASE.
NOW, YOU'VE JUST HEARD THE TESTIMONY FROM CAPTAIN THAT NO OTHER CASES WERE CONS.
PRIOR CASES WERE CONSIDERED IN DOING THE DISCIPLINE OR RENDERING THE DISCIPLINE IN THIS CASE.
AND MY OPINION IS THAT EACH CASE STANDS ON ITS OWN MERIT.
HE, YOU KNOW, THE POLICIES WERE EITHER VIOLATED BY MR. MADINGLEY OR NOT.
THE, THE DISCIPLINE EITHER FITS WITHIN THE MATRIX OR IT DOESN'T, AND HERE IT DOES.
AND MR. MANLEY'S ALREADY ADMITTED TO THE POLICY VIOLATIONS.
SO GOING DOWN THE ROAD OF GETTING INTO A BUNCH OF OTHER CASES, SOME OF WHICH THIS CHIEF HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH, I THINK IS INAPPROPRIATE HERE.
AND I WOULD OBJECT TO THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING OR THE ENTRY OF ANY PRIOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILES INTO EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE SOME OF THEM, I MEAN, A LOT OF 'EM, WE WEREN'T EVEN LITIGATED.
SOME OF THEM WERE PRIOR TO THE CHIEF, AND I JUST DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE
[00:45:01]
FOR US TO GO DOWN THE ROAD FOR A REALLY LONG TIME GETTING TO A BUNCH OF CASES THAT REALLY HAVE NO EFFECT ON THIS CASE.EXCEPT BOY, THIS DEPARTMENT, THIS CHIEF TALKS ABOUT AS TRANSPARENCY.
SO, BUT I AM GONNA REFER TO THE RULES FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE BECAUSE I, I ANTICIPATED THAT MR. RAIN BEING THE EXCELLENT ATTORNEY THAT HE IS, WE WOULD, WOULD WANNA OBJECT.
IT'S, UH, RULES SIX, SECTION ONE.
WHAT'S THE RULE? UH, IT SAYS THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY PERSON OR AUTHORITY, THE PROCEDURE SHALL BE INFORMAL AND NOT NECESSARILY LEGALISTIC FOR THE RULES OF RULE SIX.
SECTION ONE TALKS ABOUT THE PROCEDURES FILED SHALL BE INFORMAL AND NOT NECESSARILY FILED, SHALL BE LEGALISTIC FOR RULES OF EVIDENCE FIRST PART.
BUT IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT, EXCUSE ME ONE SECOND IN SECTION FIVE, THAT REASONABLE RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUES BEFORE THE BOARD, UH, SHALL BE, SHALL BE ACCEPTED.
AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS WAY I OPENED UP WITH IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, AND WHAT IS IMPORTANT IMPERATIVE FOR EQUITY IS, IS IT JUST CAUSE AND GOOD FAITH? WE'RE NOT SAYING HE DIDN'T DO THE VIOLATION, BUT IT HAS TO BE CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BOARD.
AND THE REASON I HAVE TO BRING IN THESE OTHER ONES THAT HAVE SUBMITTED THE EXHIBITS TO YOU IS THAT WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE BEING TREATED ONE WAY AND SOME PEOPLE BEING TREATED ANOTHER WAY? AND IT IS YOUR AUTHORITY TO, AND I WILL GO TO, GIVE ME ONE SECOND, PLEASE.
I, I TOUCHED ON THIS IN SECTION, UH, RULE SIX, I THINK IT WAS SECTION 15.
IT TALKS ABOUT IF IT WAS NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE INFRACTION, THE BOARD SHALL MODIFY THE ACTION OF THE APPOINTED AUTHORITY OR SOME FOR SOME LESSER PUNITIVE ACTION.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING THE BOARD TODAY.
WE'RE GONNA GIVE YOU EXAMPLES AND THAT'S WHY I HAD THESE TO SHOW THAT WE HAD MORE SERIOUS OFFENSES.
SOME THAT ARE SIMILAR, SOME THAT ARE IN THE SAME THING, NOT NECESSARILY EXACTLY, BUT THEY'RE IN A PARAMETER OF THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT.
AND THE CHIEF NEEDS TO EXPLAIN WHY SOMEBODY THAT COMMITTED A FELONY AND THEN PRE THEY PRETRIALS BACK ON THE DEPARTMENT.
BUT SOMEBODY COMMITTED A MISDEMEANOR IS NOT ON THE DEPARTMENT.
THAT WE NEED THE TRANSPARENCY.
AND THIS BOARD IS THE AUTHORITY TO ASK THIS.
AND THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THESE THINGS FORWARD.
SO IT IS REASONABLE PER THE, THE RULES TO BRING SOMETHING FORWARD TO SEE IS THESE, ARE THESE PUNISHMENTS EQUITABLE ACROSS THE BOARD.
AND IF THEY'RE NOT, THAT'S WHAT CAPTAIN MCCARLEY IS HERE FOR, IS TO SHOW HISTORICALLY WHAT SOME OF THESE PUNISHMENTS HAVE BEEN ON EITHER THIS ADMINISTRATION, WHICH WE HAVE SOME OF THOSE EXAMPLES AND PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS.
AND WHEN HE REHIRES PEOPLE, WHY ARE YOU REHIRING PEOPLE THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY TERMINATED? WHY IS HE HIRING, HIRING SOMEBODY THAT HE TERMINATED AND THEN BRINGS BACK? THOSE ARE QUESTIONS THAT HE NEEDS TO ANSWER BEFORE THIS BOARD.
SO WE CAN HAVE TRANSPARENCY FOR THE PUBLIC, FOR OTHER OFFICERS AND FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS IN GOOD FAITH.
NOT JUST JUST CAUSE BECAUSE THEY HAD JUST CAUSE AND THOSE, BUT THEY WERE BROUGHT BACK.
DO WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO PUT IT ALL OUT ON THE BOARD.
IT IS REASONABLE, IT IS RELATED TO MR. MANLEY'S TERMINATION TO OTHER TERMINATIONS AND OTHER DISCIPLINE THAT'S BEEN HANDED OUT.
AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S EQUITABLE ACROSS THE BOARD.
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS BOARD IS CHARGED WITH DOING.
THAT'S WHY I THINK IT IS RELEVANT.
I ANTICIPATED MR. RANGE WOULD SAY THAT, BUT THIS IS VERY RELEVANT.
THERE ARE OFFICERS ON AND OFF THE DEPARTMENT, SOME HAVE, UH, THAT COMMITTED CRIMES, OKAY? SOME OF THEM RESIGNED IN LIEU OF TERMINATION.
SOME OF THEM WERE TERMINATED, SOME OF THEM WERE RETAINED WITH THE DEPARTMENT.
AND THAT'S TRUE WITH THE CHIEFS GOING BACK HOWEVER FAR BACK YOU WANT TO GO.
AND WE WOULD HAVE, I MEAN, EVERY CASE, THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT.
OKAY? THE FACTS THAT HE, THE CASES THAT HE'S BRINGING UP, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU'RE NOT, HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY CASE WHERE THE CHARGES WERE, UH, 3 22, 3 22 0.1, WHERE YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY WHO RAN FROM POLICE, TRIED TO HIDE IT, DIDN'T TELL THE DEPARTMENT THAT CASE DOESN'T EXIST.
IF THE EXACT SAME CHARGES AND VERY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, UH, HAD HAPPENED BEFORE AND THAT PERSON HAD BEEN RETAINED, BUT HE HAD BEEN TERMINATED, THAT MIGHT BE ONE SITUATION.
BUT THE FACTS AND THE ALLEGATIONS AND THE OTHER CASES ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
AND SO I DO AGREE THERE HAS TO BE SOME KIND OF REASONABLE RELEVANCE TO THE CASE, BUT THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THE FACTS ARE SOMEWHAT SIMILAR HERE.
WE YOU MEAN WE'RE GONNA GET INTO RELEGATING RE-LITIGATING EVERY CASE FROM THE PAST, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WENT BEFORE THIS BOARD WHERE,
[00:50:01]
AND NONE OF US, I MEAN, THE CHIEF WASN'T EVEN ON THE DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME.SOME OF THESE CASES, UH, WENT BEFORE THE THE THEN CHIEF.
SO IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.
AND IT'S NOT THAT WE WOULD GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE CASES.
THEY AREN'T REASONABLY RELEVANT.
I WOULD ASK THAT YOU EXCLUDE THAT EVIDENCE.
AND, AND AGAIN, I WOULD SAY THEY ARE REASONABLY RELEVANT AND THE CHIEF HAS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY FOR HIRING AND FIRING PEOPLE.
AND SO WHAT WE, HIS, HIS, HIS ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS BY SOMEBODY THAT WAS ON THE DEPARTMENT THAT HE FIRED, WAS REHIRED FOR AND HAD COMMITTED A FELONY ON THE BOARD, I MEAN ON THE DEPARTMENT WHILE IN UNIFORM, AND THEN WAS REHIRED BACK ON THE DEPARTMENT WITH BACK PAY AND RANK WHILE A PREVIOUSLY TERMINATED UNDER ANOTHER ADMINISTRATION PREVIOUSLY TERMINATED OFFICER 20 YEARS AGO, HER SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS WAS FIRED, WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS, WENT TO THIS BOARD, I'LL, ALBEIT 20 YEARS AGO, ENTERED THE 19TH JC AND IT WAS UPHELD FOR THE TERMINATION AND THEN NOW HAVE BEEN REHIRED BACK ON THIS DEPARTMENT 20 YEARS LATER.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW SOMEBODY PREVIOUSLY TERMINATED FROM THE DEPARTMENT GETS REHIRED 20 YEARS LATER AND THEN GET PUT, GETS PUT AT STEP 16 FOR PAY.
I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE THOSE ANSWERS.
I THINK THIS BOARD'S ENTITLED TO THOSE ANSWERS.
WHAT IS HIS MIND THOUGHT OR WHAT IS HIS MINDSET AND HOW DOES HE COME TO THIS TO BE EQUITABLE? THAT PERSON'S NOT ON TRIAL HERE.
THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT ON TRIAL HERE.
AND IT IS UNFAIR FOR US TO GET INTO LITIGATING THOSE CASES THAT HAVE OR HAVE NOT BEEN BEFORE THIS BOARD PREVIOUSLY.
I MEAN, IF ONE OF YOU HAD A, UH, COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU PREVIOUSLY, I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR FOR US TO BRING THAT UP AND RE-LITIGATE THAT.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT RELEVANT.
UM, THE ONE HE IS, ONE OF THE ONES HE IS TALKING ABOUT IS 20 YEARS OLD.
THAT PERSON WASN'T EVEN, IT WASN'T AN ARREST, IT WASN'T A PROSECUTION.
SO THAT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FACTS.
AGAIN, YOU'VE HEARD THE TESTIMONY AND THE REASON I PUT HIM ON AND PUT THE TESTIMONY IN WAS THAT THE DEPARTMENT, THE CHIEF, WHEN HE RENDERED HIS DECISION, DID NOT CONSIDER ANY PRIOR CASES WHEN HE MADE HIS DECISION HERE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE SOMEBODY WHO RAN AWAY FROM THE POLICE AND FAILED TO TELL HIM ABOUT IT AND TRIED TO HIDE IT.
THAT IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SCENARIO THAN WHAT HE'S HAD BEFORE.
UH, DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE ATTORNEY WITH ATTORNEYS ON THIS OBJECTION? MY MY CONCERN IS IF WE CHANGE THE DYNAMICS OR SHIFT THE DIRECTION OF THIS HEARING TOWARDS OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES RATHER THAN WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR, RIGHT? SO MY, MY OPINION IS, OR YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS WOULD BE A SHIFT IN WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO MEASURE WHETHER THE DISCIPLINES WERE, UM, PROPER OR NOT.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S WHAT, WHEN WE COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, WHAT IS DECIDED.
UH, BUT I THINK YOU'RE ASKING WHETHER WE LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE DISCIPLINES AND SAY WHERE THIS, YOU KNOW, WHERE, WHERE WE'RE MEASURING UP OR IT SHOULD BE DECIDED BASED UPON THINGS IN THE PAST.
IS THAT FAIR? I'M ASKING FOR TRANSPARENCY AND THAT THE CHIEF EXPLAINED HIS DECISIONS, DECISIONS THAT HE'S MADE RELATIVE TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE HAD, AND WE'RE NOT RE-LITIGATING THE THINGS WE CAN.
THERE WILL BE STUFF THAT ARE IN THE, THE FILES.
THIS IS IA FILES ARE OPEN TO A PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT.
UH, CAPTAIN MC I, I REQUESTED A MONTH AGO, I STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN IT YET, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER STORY.
BUT CAPTAIN MCCARLEY, I SUBPOENAED IT VIA THIS BOARD TO BRING THAT FORWARD.
AND SO HE CAN, HE CAN ATTEST TO HIS REASONING.
I'M NOT TRYING TO RE-LITIGATE THOSE FACTS.
I NEED TO KNOW WHAT HIS REASONING IS FOR, WE HAVE TRANSPARENCY FOR THE BOARD SO THAT HE CAN EXPLAIN THE REASONING BEHIND HIS TERMINATION, YET REHIRING OTHER PEOPLE OR NOT TERMINATING THEM.
AND THAT THAT IS REASONABLE RELEVANCE.
BUT ACCORDING TO EVERY APPEAL I'VE BEEN A PART OF, IT'S ALWAYS REFERRED TO THE TABLE THAT WE'VE MENTIONED IS WHAT THE OFFENSE IS AND WHAT'S COMMENSURATE WITH THE PUNISHMENT.
UM, IF WE GO OUTSIDE OF THAT IS WHERE, WHERE I GET TO, UH, BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE WILL USE THEIR DISCRETION.
YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SAY THAT THIS OFFENSE IS A LEVEL SO AND SO, AND IT'S PUNISHABLE BY THIS, THIS, AND THIS, AND YOU EXCEED THAT.
UM, THE, THE TABLE IS THERE FOR WHATEVER CHIEF IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND, WHETHER IT WAS TODAY, 10 YEARS AGO.
AND IF WE'RE GONNA MEASURE IT BY THAT, THEN I THINK THAT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE THAN SAYING WHAT THIS WAS DONE BECAUSE THE IA OFFICER ATTESTED TO THE FACT THAT HE COULD FIND NOTHING COMPARABLE TO THIS.
AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA FIND CRIMES THAT ARE EXACT TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT THIS IS WHY THIS, AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THIS.
IF WE HAD TWO PEOPLE DO THE EXACT SAME THING AND SOMEBODY GOT THIS AND THE OTHER PERSON GOT THAT, THEN I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE FAIR.
[00:55:01]
BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE HAVE TODAY.AND I, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO GO ON THE CHART THAT WE HAVE AND IF IT FITS WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE DISCIPLINE THAT WAS RENDERED, IF WE LOOK AT THAT, WE'RE NOT ARGUING THAT THERE WOULD, COULD BE JUST CAUSE WE'RE ARGUING IT'S IN GOOD FAITH.
AND THAT IS A REASONABLE ARGUMENT TO GO BASED ON HISTORICALLY, EVERY TIME WE HAVE A, A HEARING WITH THE CHIEF, YOU, I'M SURE YOU'VE LISTENED TO THE TAPES BEFORE HE GOES ACROSS THE BOARD, HE BRINGS IN CAPTAIN MCCARLEY OR WHOEVER MAY BE THE IA REPRESENTATIVE TO GIVE A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT'S BEEN LIKE DISCIPLINE.
NOT EVERYTHING IS NECESSARILY EXACTLY OUT.
LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMEBODY HAS A TEMPERATURE, WE KNOW IT'S 98.6 IS NORMAL, BUT IF THEY, IF WE GIVE AN EX THE 1 0 8 AND THE THE 90, WHAT SOMETHING'S GOING WRONG, IF IT'S, IT'S OFF SCALE AND, BUT IF THIS ONE LEVELS UP TO A HUNDRED, BUT THEY'VE HAD OTHER ONES THAT WERE 1 0 8 AND THEY ARE STILL ON THE DEPARTMENT.
I MEAN, YOU GOTTA HAVE A RANGE THERE AND SAY, WHY IS SOMETHING THAT IS SO FAR OUT OF WHACK GIVEN LESS DISCIPLINE AS SOMETHING THAT WAS CONS CONSIDERABLY MINOR.
AND THAT'S AGAIN, COMES TO THE MINDSET OF HOW DOES HE COME TO THESE CONCLUSIONS AND IS IT DONE IN GOOD FAITH OR IS THERE, IS THERE ANOTHER REASON WHY HE COMES TO THE CONCLUSION FOR MORE SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS? AND AGAIN, THAT BE FOR THIS BOARD TO DECIDE AND YOU ARE THE AUTHORITY, YOU ARE THE GATEKEEPER TO THOSE DECISION MAKING PROCESS.
AND THIS IS VERY RELEVANT FOR THIS TO BE BROUGHT FORTH SO WE CAN HAVE TRANSPARENCY.
SO WE CAN JUST ASK THE CHIEF, EXPLAIN TO ME YOUR DECISION ON WHY THIS, CAUSE WE CAN READ INTO THE RECORD WHY THEY'RE ON THE BRADY LIST AND WHAT WAS THEIR REASON AND WHAT WAS THEIR DISCIPLINE.
AND THAT'LL BE IN THE RECORD, THAT WOULD BE IN THE CHIEFS.
ARE, ARE SOME OF THESE EVENTS ARE, ARE SOME OF THESE THE RESULT OF CONSENT DISCIPLINES THAT NEVER CAME BEFORE US? UM, YES, SOME OF 'EM MAY NOT HAVE BEEN.
YEAH, SOME OF 'EM MAY BE CONSENT, SOME OF 'EM MAY NOT HAVE COME BEFORE YOU.
BUT AGAIN, IT GIVES YOU A GROUND BASIS TO SAY, OKAY, THIS IS, THIS WAS DONE.
WELL, I THINK THIS IS DONE FOR THAT REASON.
AGAIN, WE NEED TO FIND OUT THE REASONS WHY IT IS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION TO SAY, CHIEF, WE JUST NEED TO KNOW YOUR REASON BEHIND IT.
AND WHY IS THIS ONE OUTSIDE THAT PARAMETER SO FAR? OKAY.
AND HE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THAT.
A COUPLE THINGS ON THE, UH, STUFF THAT'S CONSENT RELATED.
MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT THAT CERTAINLY DOESN'T COME IN BECAUSE THERE COULD BE A MILLION FACTORS AS TO WHY DISCIPLINE WAS WHAT IT WAS.
I I DON'T SEE WHY THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT.
UM, ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, UH, TOMMY, IS, UH, ANY DECISION NOT MADE BY THE CHIEF? WHY WOULD WE WANT TO HEAR THAT AGAIN? HE, HE, UH, CAPTAIN MCCRAW JUST SAID THIS OR PAST ADMINISTRATIONS ARE THINGS THAT THEY LOOK ON TO MAKE DECISIONS.
SOMETIMES YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE IN A PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATOR, WHETHER IT BEEN CHIEF LAUFF OR CHIEF DITY OR CHIEF FERRIES OR CHIEF ENGLADE, THAT MAY HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE SIMILAR.
SO WE CAN HAVE AT LEAST HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE DOESN'T, IT'S NOT BINDING TO THE CHIEF, BUT WE HAVE PERSPECTIVE AND THE CHIEF CAN EXPLAIN HIS REASONS WHY OR WHY NOT THAT THIS IS NOT RELEVANT OR HE MADE A DIFFERENT DECISION.
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY BINDING, BUT IT, IT'S THE FIRST THING HE SAID.
I GOT A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE FROM NOT ONLY FROM THIS ADMINISTRATION BUT FROM OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS TO, TO SEE IF THIS PUNISHMENT IS EQUITABLE AND DONE IN GOOD FAITH ACROSS THE BOARD.
FIRE SOMEBODY FOR ONE MISDEMEANOR AND THEN, YOU KNOW, HIRE SOMEBODY OR KEEP SOMEBODY FOR ANOTHER ONE.
ON THE RECORD I SAY YOU MAKE A RULING AT THIS POINT.
I THINK YOU'VE HEARD ENOUGH FROM BOTH SIDES.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANNA SAY, MR? NO, I I, I WOULD LIKE TO GO ON WHAT'S IN FRONT OF, BECAUSE THERE, THERE ARE ALL SORT OF FACTS, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT, YOU KNOW, DON'T COME INTO PLAY WHEN WE LOOK JU JUST FOR INSTANCE, FROM HEARING PREVIOUS, UM, TESTIMONY FROM THE CHIEF.
UH, FOR INSTANCE, WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN A CONSENT DISCIPLINE AND UH, THEY EXPRESS, UM, REMORSE AND THEY'VE, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY FALL ON THE SWORD AND SAY, HEY, I'M GUILTY OF DOING THIS.
THEN THERE'S CERTAIN LEVERAGES OR, UH, THINGS THAT ARE OFFERED TO THEM AT THAT TIME.
AND UH, FOR US TO SIT UP HERE AND LOOK AT THE OUTCOME OF THOSE WITHOUT BEING PRIVY TO, IT WOULD BE WRONG TO TAKE A BLANKET ANALYSIS AND SAY, BECAUSE THIS WAS THIS WAY, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE SHOULD LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, UH, THIS DISCIPLINE AS EQUAL TO THIS DISCIPLINE.
SO I THINK EVERY, EVERY CASE SHOULD BE, UH, HEARD ON ITS OWN MERIT AND WE USE THE ISSUES AT HAND TO DECIDE.
SO, SO YOUR RULING IS TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.
MAY FOR THE RECORD THEN, THEN THIS BOARD IS, IS COMPLETELY OUTTA
[01:00:01]
LINE AND IT'S NOT GIVEN TRANSPARENCY BECAUSE THESE THINGS, THESE DECISION MAKING PROCESS IS WHAT GOOD FAITH, MR. DO.THERE'S ACTUALLY CASE LAW THAT SAYS THAT JUST BECAUSE TWO PEOPLE ARE DISCIPLINED DIFFERENTLY FOR THE SAME THING, I TRY TO GIVE YOU GUYS BOTH THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO MAKE YOUR POINTS.
BUT THERE IS CASE LAW THAT SUPPORTS, UH, MR. WILLIAMS, UH, HIS OBJECTION OR HIS, HIS RULING.
THERE'S CASE LAW THAT SAYS JUST BECAUSE TWO PEOPLE ARE DISCIPLINED FOR THE SAME THING AND ONE IS DIFFERENT, THAT'S NOT A DEFENSE TO HIS, HIS DISCIPLINE.
I MEAN, I, YOU KNOW, WE ALLOWED THE ARGUMENT, I DIDN'T REALLY COMMENT ON IT, BUT TO SUGGEST THAT THE BOARD IS BEING OUTTA LINE, I BELIEVE THAT IS OUTTA LINE.
YOU CAN TALK CASE LAW, BUT THIS IS AN INFORMAL PROCEEDING.
WE DON'T FOLLOW THE STRICT RULES OF CIVIL CODE PROCEDURE.
WE, WE FOLLOW THE GENERAL RULES AS IT'S OUTLINED.
RULES OF CIVIL SERVICE RIGHT HERE.
MR, DO I SUGGEST WE PROCEED? JUST GIVING TWO MINUTES, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
YEAH, AND ALL I'M SAYING IS WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS TRANSPARENCY AND FOR THIS BOARD NOT TO GIVE TRANSPARENCY OR BRING IT TO A VOTE TO WHETHER THIS INFORMATION SHOULD COME IN.
IT'S, IT'S ARBITRARILY MADE BY THE, UH, THE CHAIRMAN.
IT'S NOT GIVING HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY AUDIENCE DISCIPLINE.
LIKE IS HE DOING THIS IN GOOD FAITH? WE ARE JUST SKIRTING THIS UNDERNEATH, UNDERNEATH THE CARPET AND NOT GIVING TRANSPARENCY TO THE PUBLIC OR ANYBODY ELSE OR TO OTHER OFFICERS AND WONDERING WHY IS ONE PERSON BEING DISCIPLINED ONE WAY AND OTHER OFFICERS BEING DISCIPLINED FOR MORE SERIOUS OFFENSES IN ANOTHER WAY.
AND THEN I HAVE THIS TRANSPARENCY IS A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR CAPTAIN MCCARLEY? TOM? WELL, AM I GONNA BE ALLOWED TO ASK HIM THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH I ASKED HIM TO PROVIDE TO THIS BOARD, WHICH IS BOARD SIGNED OFF ON ABOUT THOSE FILES TO INTRO, INTRODUCE THAT INTO THE RECORD.
HE, YOU HAVE LIKE ANY OTHER PROCEEDING, IF YOU WANT TO PROFFER THAT INFORMATION, YOU SURE CAN, BUT I THINK THE, THE OBJECTION THAT WAS MADE WAS SUSTAINED.
I'D LIKE TO PROFFER ALL THOSE FILES INTO THE RECORD.
YOU COULD WRITE, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE MY OBJECTION AND I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT I'D LIKE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THIS PROCEEDING AND WE'RE GONNA REST ON THAT IF I'M NOT GONNA BE ALLOWED TO BRING FORWARD THAT EVIDENCE.
AGAIN, THAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THIS AND, UH, WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE IT UP TO THE 19TH BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN UNFAIR PROCEEDING.
I RESPECT THE BOARD'S DECISION, BUT I, LET'S TAKE A RECESS, STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH IT BECAUSE THEY'RE LACKING TRANSPARENCY HERE AND THAT'S, THAT'S A SHAME.
ON THAT NOTE, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A 10 MINUTE RECESS.
I'D LIKE TO, UH, OPEN THE MEETING BACK UP AND UM, OKAY.
UM, JUST SOME HOUSEKEEPING ISSUES FOR, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THAT ARE WATCHING MAY NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE LAWYERS ARE UP TO SO THERE WAS AN OBJECTION ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN, UH, DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY.
SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS, UH, MR. DEWEY IS GOING TO PROFFER THAT THAT TESTIMONY AND THAT EVIDENCE, UH, AT THE END, AFTER EVERYTHING'S DONE, PROFFER JUST SIMPLY MEANS HE'S GONNA PUT IT TECHNICALLY ON THE RECORD, UH, BUT NOT FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS, UH, FACT FINDER TODAY.
UM, IS THAT EVERYBODY'S UNDERSTANDING IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO, MIKE'S ON, SO IT'S ALL ON THE RECORD.
THEN, UM, THE CHAIRMAN WANTED ME TO KIND OF, UH, REFERENCE THE CASE LAW THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, UH, FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSPARENCY IN REGARDS TO THE, TO THE RULING OF THINGS NOT BEING ADMISSIBLE IN TERMS OF PRIOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS.
UH, THIS IS A FIRST CIRCUIT CASE HERE, AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.
UH, IT'S THE CIVILIAN CASE, BUT THE WAY THAT THE FIRST CIRCUIT R UH, REASONED WAS THAT IT'S NO DEFENSE TO A CRIME TO SAY THAT OTHERS HAVE BROKEN RULES.
JUDGE, I MEAN, TO TOUCH OFF, CAN YOU CITE THE CASE, PLEASE? YEAH, I'M GONNA GIVE YOU THE SITE AT THE END.
UM, BUT SINCE YOU'RE ASKING NOW, IT'S 5 0 4 SOUTHERN SECOND, 10 0 9, SPECIFICALLY PAGE 10 10, FIRST CIRCUIT, 1987.
UH, LIKE I SAID, IT'S NO DEFENSE TO A CRIME TO SAY THAT OTHERS HAVE BROKEN THE RULES AND ARE NOT PROSECUTED.
SIMILARLY, IT'S, ALTHOUGH AN EMPLOYEE CAN LEGITIMATELY COMPLAIN THAT OTHER EMPLOYEES WERE DEALT WITH MORE, WERE DEALT WITH MORE LENIENTLY, THOUGH DISCIPLINED, AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS GUILTY, CANNOT CONTEND AS A DEFENSE THAT OTHER EMPLOYEES EQUALLY GUILTY, RECEIVED NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
THE EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED PRIOR MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF OTHER EMPLOYEES WAS PROPERLY RULED INADMISSIBLE, AND THIS WAS A, A REFEREE CASE.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE RATIONALE FOR THE, THE BOARD'S RULE.
[01:05:01]
QUESTIONS BEFORE I GET STARTED, BEFORE WE GET STARTED.NAME, ADDRESS, UH, DEPUTY CHIEF MYRON DANIELS.
MY ADDRESS IS 9,000 AIRLINE HIGHWAY BUSINESS ADDRESS, DEPUTY CHIEF.
UH, WHAT IS YOUR ROLE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT? I AM THE, UH, CHIEF OF STAFF, UH, OVER ADMINISTRATION.
AND IN YOUR ROLE AS DEPUTY CHIEF AND CHIEF OF STAFF, UH, DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE OVERSIGHT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE 10 22 AND INTEND THE PRE TERMINATION HEARING OF MR. MATTINGLY? YES, SIR, I DID.
AND IN YOUR ROLE AS DEPUTY CHIEF, DO YOU ALSO ADVISE THE CHIEF REGARDING YOUR THOUGHTS ON POLICY VIOLATIONS? YES, SIR, I DO.
AND DID YOU DO THAT IN THIS CASE? YES, SIR.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MR. MATTINGLY SPECIFICALLY REGARDING HIS CONDUCT AT THE WALMART ON FEBRUARY 16 OF 22, WHICH RESULTED IN HIS ARREST? YES, SIR, I AM.
AND ARE YOU ALSO FAMILIAR WITH HIS FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUMMONS TO HIM? YES, SIR.
IF YOU WOULD, THERE SHOULD BE.
I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, LET ME GRAB THE EVIDENCE BOOK FROM YOU.
IF YOU WOULD TURN TO TAB 11, PLEASE? YES, SIR, I'M HERE.
AND THIS IS OF COURSE, GENERAL ORDER ONE 12 ON DISCIPLINE FROM THE DEPARTMENT'S POLICY MANUAL.
NOW, WE'VE ALREADY REFERENCED THE POLICY VIOLATIONS TODAY IN COURT, BUT I'VE GOT THAT THERE FOR YOUR REFERENCE BASED ON THE ALLEGATIONS IN HIS ADMISSIONS, UH, IN THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND, AND OF COURSE TODAY AS WELL.
UH, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT POLICY TWO 11 CONDUCT BECOMING UNBECOMING AN OFFICER WAS VIOLATED? AND IF SO, HOW SO? YES, SIR.
I THINK, UH, THE, THE, THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT WORDS THAT KIND OF STAND OUT IN THE POLICY, AND IT TALKS ABOUT, UH, BRINGING DISGRACE AND DISHONOR, UH, TO THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
AND I THINK, UH, THAT WAS VERY REASONABLE, UH, TO ASSESS THAT.
NOW LET'S GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, WHICH LIST 3 22 VIOLATION OF LAWS AND 3 22 0.1 START WITH 3 22.
UM, OBVIOUSLY IT SEEMS PRETTY APPARENT, BUT WHAT WOULD YOU EXPLAIN IS YOUR, UH, CONSIDERATION OF THIS POLICY 3 22 AND HOW IT WAS VIOLATED? UM, WELL, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, UH, MR. MANLEY ADMITTED TO ACTUALLY, UH, VIOLATING THE LAW BY, UH, SWAPPING PRICE TAGS AND, AND CAUSING A LOSS TO THE BUSINESS, UH, UNLAWFULLY.
AND THEN ALSO, UM, AND HE, HE WASN'T CHARGED WITH THIS, BUT YOU'RE ALSO AWARE OF THE FACT THAT HE LEFT THE STORE AFTER, UH, HE WAS CONTACTED BY THE LOSS PREVENTION FOLKS? YES, SIR.
AND, UH, THE ACTUAL, THE OFFICERS THAT RESPONDED AT THE SEARCH THE AREA AND FOUND THEM A STREET OR SO OVER.
WHAT IS YOUR, YOU KNOW, THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS FOLKS CAN BE ARRESTED FOR.
WHAT, HOW WOULD THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF ARREST, HOW WOULD IT CONCERN YOU? UH, THE BIG PART OF IT IS, UH, THIS WAS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT WAS INTENTIONAL.
UM, THERE WAS A THOUGHT PROCESS THAT HAD TO TAKE PLACE, AND THERE WAS DEFINITE AN INTENT TO COMMIT A CRIME, UH, KNOWING THAT HE WOULD BE, IN ESSENCE STEALING FROM THE STORE.
UM, WE ARE ENTRUSTED WITH QUITE A FEW THINGS, UH, AS POLICE OFFICERS, WHETHER IT'S ENTERING SOMEONE'S HOME, UH, PROPERTY, BUT TO KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY COMMIT A CRIME, UH, IT CONCERNS ME GREATLY.
UM, ALSO UNDER THE VIOLATION OF LAWS, BUT OF COURSE, IT DEALS WITH THE FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE CHIEF.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THIS POLICY WAS VIOLATED? AND IT KIND FEELS SELF-EXPLANATORY, BUT IF YOU WOULD EXPLAIN HOW, HOW THE POLICY WAS VIOLATED HERE? YES, SIR.
UM, WELL, IN THIS CASE, UH, IT DEALS WITH VIOLATIONS OF LAWS.
IF ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, OUR EMPLOYEE IS, IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN ARRESTED, CITED, OR SUMMONS, AND THAT'S ALL THE WAY DOWN TO A TRAFFIC TICKET.
UH, HE'S REQUIRED BY POLICY, AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, A SUMMONS, UH, TO NOTIFY, UH, THE, THE CHIEF OF POLICE WITHIN WRITING WITHIN FIVE DAYS.
AND YOU HEARD HIS TESTIMONY OF, OF COURSE, AT THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, AND IT WAS CONFIRMED AGAIN BY MR. MAGLEY TODAY THAT HE SIMPLY DID NOT
[01:10:01]
WANT THE DEPARTMENT TO KNOW ABOUT IT.UM, WOULD IT CAUSE YOU CONCERN IF HE WERE RETAINED AS AN OFFICER? YES, SIR.
UM, IT GOES BACK TO, LOOK, WE'RE HUMAN BEINGS.
WE, WE MAKE MISTAKES AT TIMES.
UH, SOME ARE MORE EGREGIOUS THAN OTHERS, BUT, UM, TAKING RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMES INTO PLAY FOR ME.
AND, UM, MR. MANLEY WAS TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING TO AVOID EVEN AFTER THE ACTUAL ARREST, TO ENSURE THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF.
SO IT GOES A LITTLE BIT MORE TOWARD, UM, BEING ABLE TO TRUST HIM WITH THE PUBLIC.
UH, IN ADDITION TO WHAT YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT, MR. MADINGLEY WOULD ALSO BE ON THE BRADY LIST, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN, UH, IT WAS DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, BUT CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD, TO THE EXTENT THEY MAY NOT BE COMPLETELY FAMILIAR WITH IT, WHAT THAT MEANS AND WHAT THE IMPACT IS FOR THE OFFICER? UM, UH, THE BRADY LIST IS A LIST THAT, UH, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY KEEPS, UM, OUTSIDE OF THE LEGAL STANDPOINT, UH, THAT WHEN AN OFFICER IS INVOLVED IN, UH, SOMEWHAT QUESTIONABLE BEHAVIOR OR THINGS, UH, THAT THAT COULD AFFECT PROSECUTION, THEN WE ARE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY, UH, THE DA'S OFFICE OF IT.
AND THAT IN OUR NOTIFICATIONS OFTEN AROUND, UH, ARRESTS AND TRUTHFULNESS.
AND AT THAT POINT, UH, THERE'S A LIST THAT'S PROVIDED ARE, ARE KEPT, AND WHEN CASES COME UP, UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS HAVE TO BE MADE AWARE OF THOSE POTENTIAL, UH, CONCERNS.
AND SO IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY AND DETECTIVES THAT DEALS WITH THIS KIND OF THEFT, IT POTENTIALLY COULD AFFECT THEIR CREDIBILITY IF THEY'RE ON THE LIST AND THEY HAD A SIMILAR ARREST.
IS THAT WHAT, WHAT'S YOUR BELIEF WOULD BE? YES, SIR.
HOW YOU DOING? DEPUTY CHIEF? HI, SIR.
GOOD TO SEE YOU, DEPUTY CHIEF.
FIRST, UH, YOU, WE SAT THROUGH QUITE A FEW HEARINGS TOGETHER OVER THE YEARS, AND ALL THE DEPUTY CHIEFS MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT CHIEF ALWAYS ENDS IT WITH, HE LISTENS TO THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, TAKES HIM UNDER CONSIDERATION, BUT HIS AND HIS ALONE IS THE FINAL SAY ON WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE DISCIPLINE.
SO Y'ALL CAN SAY ALL ONE THING, BUT HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE CHOOSES.
ULTIMATELY, HE IS THE ULTIMATE ARBITRATOR.
IT MAKES THE FINAL DECISION CORRECT.
ULTIMATELY, HE IS, UH, BUT I WILL SAY HE DOES, HIS DECISION, UH, WEIGHS HEAVILY ON OUR RECOMMENDATION.
BUT HE ALWAYS DOES MAKE THE CERTAIN THING THAT ULTIMATELY IT'S HIS DECISION.
IS THAT FAIR? HE WAS GIVING YOU SOME SORT OF FACT CASE SCENARIOS AND TALKING ABOUT THE BRADY LIST OF, LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
IF, IF AN OFFICER WAS ARRESTED ON DUTY, FOR EXAMPLE, OR EXCUSE ME, WAS, DID A CRIME ON DUTY, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, FAILED TO CHANGE THE REPORT, LIED IN A REPORT, AND IT WAS CAUGHT ON BODY CAMERA AND THERE WAS A, THERE WAS A TRAIL TO IT.
I'M GONNA OBJECT TO THE LINE OF QUESTIONING.
THIS IS REALLY A BACKENDED WAY TO TRY TO GET INTO ONE OF THOSE CASES THAT WAS EXCLUDED EARLIER.
AND I DIDN'T PUT ANY HYPOTHETICALS IN, IN, IN THE EVIDENCE.
I WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS ACTUAL CASE THAT WOULD CALL INTO QUESTION MR. I THINK THIS IS ALLUDING TO CREDIBILITY.
SO IF SOMEBODY THAT DID CRIME WHILE THEY WERE IN UNIFORM, HE'S GONNA ASK THE QUESTION.
HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY ASK THE QUESTION.
I DON'T KNOW THE, SO I WANT TO HEAR HIM ASK THE QUESTION.
SORT OF LIKE MR. RAINS WAS ACTUALLY, WOULD, WOULD THAT BE OF CONCERN TO YOU IF SOMEBODY COMMITTED A CRIME WHILE IN UNIFORM? UH, YES.
IF SOMEONE COMMITS A CRIME WHILE IN UNIFORM, YES, IT IS A CONCERN.
SOMEBODY LIED ABOUT WHAT THEY DID, WOULD THAT BE A CONCERN AT, AT THIS POINT? I'M GONNA, IT'S A QUESTION THAT'S, UM, WE'RE GETTING INTO HYPOTHETICALS AND THAT'S, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE.
AGAIN, AS LIKE I SAID, LET ME ASK YOU, ARE YOU ALLUDING TO THE, ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS IN, ARE YOU, I'M JUST GIVING A GENERAL, WELL, BECAUSE HE, WHEN MR. RAINS WAS ASKING A QUESTION, HE WOULD SAY, IF SOMEBODY DID THIS, AND IF SOMEBODY DID THAT, THEY WERE SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO WHAT MR. MANLEY, BUT HE SAID SOMEBODY, SO I'M JUST SAYING, IS THIS A WAY OF ASKING THE SAME THING THAT YOU'RE IN, IN, IN EX EXHIBIT TWO? IS THIS WHAT YOU'RE ALLUDING TO? DOES IT LINE UP?
[01:15:01]
I'M TRYING TO GET SOME, SOME FACTS ON WHETHER HE WOULD THINK THAT IT WAS RE SOME LENIENT.I'M NOT MENTIONING ANYBODY BY NAME.
WELL, LET ME RESPOND TO THAT THOUGH, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THIS IS A BACKENDED WAY TO GET INTO THAT CASE THAT HE DIDN'T GET IN EARLIER.
AND TWO, WHAT I TALKED ABOUT WAS SPECIFICALLY THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, NOT SOME OTHER CASE.
I WAS TALKING ABOUT SOME, UH, MATTINGLY BASICALLY WHO HAD, UH, BEEN ARRESTED FOR THEFT.
HE'S ON THE BRADY LIST AND HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT HIM, IF YOU RECALL, TO TESTIFY IN COURT.
I DIDN'T GO INTO ANY KIND OF HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION.
I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU TRY NOT TO USE THE, UH, EXHIBITS OR REFERRAL, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTIONING BASED UPON WHAT THE EXHIBITS THAT YOU PRESENTED TO US.
DEPUTY CHIEF, SOMEBODY, ANYBODY LIED ABOUT WHAT THEY DID WHILE IN, IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES AND IT WAS CAUGHT ON BODY CAMERA? WOULD THAT BE OF CONCERN TO YOU? SAME OBJECTION.
I COULD, SO I WOULD OVERRULE THE OBJECTION.
I WOULD ALLOW SOME LENIENCY, BUT WHAT WE DON'T WANT IS TO BACK IN INTO THE SAME THINGS WE JUST SUSTAINED AN OBJECTION, HONOR.
ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT? AND I WILL ALSO ADD TO IT THAT THE SPECIFIC CASE THAT HE'S TRYING TO GET INTO WAS A CONSENT DISCIPLINE CASE, WHICH YOU SPECIFICALLY SAID EARLIER WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD NOT ALLOW HIM INTO EVIDENCE.
SO I, I'M GONNA RECOMMEND THAT YOU OVERRULE WITH SOME, SOME LENIENCY, BUT LET'S, LET'S KIND OF GET TO THE, GET TO WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GO.
UH, I WOULD HAVE, AND IF THEY WERE ON THE BRADY LIST, THAT MAKES AN OFFICER INEFFECTIVE.
CAN IT MAKE AN OFFICER INEFFECTIVE? UH, CAN IT, UH, I, I WOULD SAY IT, IT POSSIBLY CAN, BUT I WON'T SAY THAT OFFICERS ON THE BRADY LIST ARE TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE.
I DIDN'T SAY TOTALLY CAN MAKE THEM INEFFECTIVE.
IT, IT CAN TRUTHFULNESS WAS AN ISSUE.
WOULD THAT POSSIBLY MAKE 'EM INEFFECTIVE? UH, THAT IS ONE OF THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO REPORT.
ARE YOU PART OF WHEN PEOPLE GET HIRED ON THE DEPARTMENT, ARE YOU PART OF THAT VETTING PROCESS? OBJECTION, RELEVANCE.
I WOULD SU UH, I WOULD SUSTAIN THAT OBJECTION.
MY QUESTION IS THIS, DO YOU ALLOW PEOPLE ON THE DEPARTMENT THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY TERMINATED FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS? SAME.
WHERE ARE YOU, WHERE ARE WE GOING? ASKING THE KIND OF CHARACTER OF PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE ON THE DEPARTMENT AS IT RELATES TO THIS CASE? I, I THINK IT'S RELEVANT.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S NOT RELEVANT AT ALL.
WE'RE NOT EVEN THE SAME BALLPARK.
HE'S ASKING ABOUT SOMEBODY THAT WAS TERMINATED AND BRINGING THEM BACK AND HOW THAT RELATES.
HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SOMEBODY BEING TERMINATED AND BRINGING THEM BACK? I JUST SAID IF SOMEBODY WAS PREVIOUSLY TERMINATED AS A DEPARTMENT, WOULD YOU CONSIDER IT HIRING THEM? WELL, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE THAT THAT WELL, CONSIDERING HIRING 'EM, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BRINGING THEM BACK.
SOMEBODY'S GONNA BE FIRED FOR AN OFFENSE AND, BUT YOU'RE HIRING OTHER PEOPLE FOR THAT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE, THE MINDSET IS HERE.
AND I'M ASKING A GENERAL QUESTION.
I, I, SO I UNDERSTAND THE, THE QUESTION, RIGHT? YOU'RE ASKING, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GERMANE TO THIS PER PARTICULAR INSTANCE.
IS HE ASKING FOR A REHIRE? WELL, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE RIGHT NOW.
BUT WHAT, WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT WHAT WE'RE AT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DISCIPLINE RIGHT NOW, THOUGH, RIGHT? RIGHT.
THE, WHAT THE RELEVANCE TO ME IS THAT IF SOMEBODY WAS TERMINATED FROM A JOB AS A POLICE OFFICER AND YOU BROUGHT THEM BACK, WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD BE THE REASON BEHIND THAT? SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE BRING HIM BACK, HE WAS, HE HAS BEEN TERMINATED, BUT IF HE WAS BROUGHT BACK, WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THAT? I'M GONNA MESS, I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE IF IT'S LIKE REASONS.
LET'S JUST LET HIM ASK, ASK THE QUESTION.
DEPUTY CHIEF IS IF SOMEBODY'S TERMINATED AND YOU GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, WHAT WOULD BE THE REASONS TO ALLOW SOMEBODY BACK ON THE A DEPARTMENT? UH, I WILL SAY THIS.
UM, EVERY CASE IS HELD ON ITS OWN MERIT.
SO WHEN THOSE INDIVIDUALS PRESENT THEMSELVES
[01:20:01]
FOR A REHIRE, WE HAVE TO WEIGH IT ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.BUT TO SPECIFICALLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES.
UH, THROUGHOUT MY 25 PLUS YEAR CAREER WITH THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, UH, THROUGH EVERY ADMINISTRATION THAT I CAN RECALL, OR MOST OF THEM, THERE HAVE BEEN HIRES, UH, THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY TERMINATED BY OTHER AGENCIES OR BUSINESS.
SO OTHER AGENCIES, THEY WERE, THEY WERE FIRED BY THE, ANOTHER DEPARTMENT AND THEY WERE HIRED BY THIS DEPARTMENT.
THERE WAS, YOU HAVE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF THAT, OR MULTIPLE? YES, SIR.
AND WILL, YOU CAN PROP THAT OUTSIDE OF THE, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WANT TO PROPER IT NOW, BUT I'D, I'D LOVE TO KNOW THOSE EXAMPLES.
WELL, I, I'VE ADMITTED THE QUESTION, BUT COULD WE GO ON? OKAY.
I, I JUST, I KNOW HE IS UNDER OATH.
I JUST CURIOUS OF THOSE EXAMPLES.
THAT'S NEW TO ME FOR MY 20 YEARS, BUT, OKAY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? LAST AND FINAL QUESTIONS ONE WAY ASKED BEFORE, SO I DON'T NEED TO BE REDUNDANT, BUT ULTIMATELY THE CHIEF IS THE ULTIMATE ARBITRATOR, MAKES THE FINAL DECISIONS ON HIRINGS AND FIRINGS.
IS THAT, WOULD THAT BE FAIR? YES, SIR.
I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER FROM DEPUTY CHIEF BOARD.
DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF DEPUTY CHIEF? NO.
NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
UH, NEXT WITNESS WOULD BE CALL CHIEF PAUL.
JOSEPH PAUL JUNIOR, 9,000 AIRLINE HIGHWAY, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.
AND WHAT'S YOUR POSITION WITH THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT? I AM THE CHIEF OF POLICE CHIEF.
DID YOU TAKE PART IN THE PRE-DETERMINATION HEARING INVOLVING MR. MATTINGLY REGARDING INTERNAL FI AFFAIR FILE 10 DASH 22? YES, SIR.
IS IT ACCURATE THAT YOU ISSUED THE RULING REGARDING THE DISCIPLINE OF MR. MATTINGLY? YES, SIR, I DID.
AND AS WE'VE HEARD TODAY, YOU ISSUED A RULING FINDING MR. MATTINGLY VIOLATED THREE POLICIES OF THE DEPARTMENT CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER VIOLATION OF LAWS RELATED TO THE CRIME AND VIOLATION OF LAWS RELATED TO THE FAIR TO REPORT THE SUMMONS WITHIN FIVE DAYS, CORRECT? CORRECT.
NOW, YOU'VE HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY CHIEF DANIELS AS TO WHY HE BELIEVED THE CONDUCT OF MR. MADINGLEY VIOLATED THOSE POLICIES.
UM, AND YOU HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MADINGLEY HISSELF ADMITTING TO IT.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF THOSE VIOLATIONS THAT THEY HAD TESTIFIED TO? YES, SIR.
NOW, ULTIMATELY, AS, UH, WAS JUST TESTIFIED TO THE DISCIPLINE RENDERED IN, IS YOUR DECISION TO MAKE AS THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO HERE WE HAVE THREE POLICY VIOLATIONS, AND YOU TERMINATED MR. MAGLEY FOR THOSE VIOLATIONS, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
IF YOU WOULD TURN TO TAB 11 IN THAT BINDER IN FRONT OF YOU.
UH, THE POLICY OF, AND IF YOU WOULD GO BACK TO THAT LAST PAGE, SEE THE MATRIX THERE, THE POLICY, THE TABLE OF, UH, PENALTIES, LAST PAGE OF PAGE, UH, TAB 11.
THE POLICY, UH, OR VIOLATIONS OF LAW POLICY ARE BOTH CATEGORY THREE VIOLATIONS, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO IS IT ACCURATE THAT MR. MADINGLEY COULD HAVE BEEN TERMINATED FOR EITHER ONE OF THOSE VIOLATIONS? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE DISCIPLINE YOU RENDERED IN THIS CASE, MR. MATTINGLY'S TERMINATION, WAS WITHIN THE PROPOSED PENALTIES AS SET FORTH BY POLICY? THAT IS CORRECT.
IT WAS WITHIN THAT TABLE OF PENALTIES.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD WHY YOU THOUGHT THE DISCIPLINE YOU RENDERED IN THIS CASE WAS APPROPRIATE? YES.
AFTER REVIEWING ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS, UH, PRESENTED TO ME, UH, LISTENING, UH, TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, OF MY, UH, UH, DEPUTY CHIEFS WHO WERE PRESENT, UH, I BELIEVE THAT HE WAS IN VIOLATION OF, UH, CONDUCT ON BECOMING OF AN OFFICER, THE VIOLATION OF LAWS STATUTE, AS WELL AS, UH, FAILURE TO NOTIFY MY OFFICE WITHIN FIVE DAYS.
UH, TWO SEVERAL KEY THINGS IN FACTOR WAS, ONE, THE INTENT, HIS INTENT TO COMMIT THE CRIME.
UH, AT THE TIME, UH, I BELIEVE HE WAS ASSIGNED TO OUR DETECTIVES DIVISION, AND IN THAT HEARING, ADMITTED TO ARRESTING, UH, INDIVIDUALS IN HIS COMMUNITY FOR SIMILAR TYPE CRIMES.
[01:25:01]
SO THERE WAS A SPECIFIC INTENT, AND THEN THERE WAS ACTUALLY RUNNING OUT THE STORE AWAY FROM, UH, THE, UM, UH, WALMART, UH, EMPLOYEES.UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, HE WAS FOUND IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, BY, UH, THE, THE, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHO HAD TO TAKE HIM INTO CUSTODY AND BRING HIM BACK.
AND EVEN AFTER THAT, THEY WERE NOT AWARE THAT HE WAS AN OFFICER.
UH, WE LATER FOUND OUT, I BELIEVE ABOUT TWO MONTHS LATER.
SO I TOOK ALL OF THOSE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION, UH, IN MAKING THAT DECISION.
ONE OF THE THINGS YOU'VE ALWAYS EMPHASIZED TO OFFICERS DURING OUR PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, AND THIS BOARD HAS HEARD YOU SAY MANY TIMES IS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT MR. MATTINGLY TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS IN BASED ON HIS CONDUCT? UH, I, I DON'T BELIEVE HE CAN EFFECTIVELY BE A BATON ROUGE POLICE OFFICER.
CHIEF, DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR DECISION WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH? I DO.
DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC ISSUES WITH THIS INDIVIDUAL? MR. MATTINGLY? DID DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING PERSONAL AGAINST HIM? NO, SIR.
AND OF COURSE, WE HAVE A STIPULATION ON THIS, BUT YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS CAUSE FOR TERMINATING HIM? YES.
HELLO, CHIEF, HOW YOU DOING? THE, THE, I THINK THE, THE SUMMARIZE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE VIOLATED THOSE STATUTES.
THAT'S, THAT'S NOT, BUT THE REASON YOU TERMINATED HIM WAS BECAUSE ULTIMATELY YOU DIDN'T THINK HE COULD BE EFFECTIVE AS A BATON ROUGE POLICE OFFICER.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT GOES INTO THAT DECISION MAKING PROCESS FOR YOU FOR IN THAT PROCESS? SURE.
THE EVIDENCE THAT'S PRESENTED BEFORE ME, UH, IN A HEARING, UH, THE, UM, UH, STATEMENTS FROM, UH, MY DEPUTY CHIEFS, UH, WHO WERE PART OF THAT PROCESS.
AND, UH, IN, IN, IN, IN EVERY HEARING I ASKED INTERNAL AFFAIRS TO REVIEW PRIOR CASES, UH, THERE WERE NONE THAT WAS PRESENTED, UH, WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE THE SAME.
WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY WHERE THERE WAS A POLICE OFFICER WHO INTENTIONALLY COMMITTED A THEFT, RAN AWAY FROM THE BUSINESS, AND WAS CAPTURED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, BROUGHT BACK AND FAILED TO NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT.
SO WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY THAT WAS PRESENTED TO ME, UH, THAT MET THAT, UH, CATEGORY.
IF SOMEONE DID SOMETHING AND THEY DIDN'T REPORT IT.
AND YOU LATER, UH, FIND OUT AS A POLICE OFFICER COMMITTED A CRIME AND FOUND OUT LATER AS A POLICE OFFICER, AND THEY, THEY NEVER REPORTED IT, BUT IT CAME TO YOUR ATTENTION WITH THAT BALL UNDER THE SAME PARAMETERS.
I MEAN, IF IT WAS WHILE ON DUTY DOING A, DID A CRIME, I'M, I'M CON I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED WITH YOUR QUESTION.
IF, IF YOU HAVE AN OFFICER MM-HMM.
AGAIN, WE'RE GETTING INTO HYPOTHETICALS.
LIKE I SAID EARLIER, THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO BACK INTO A DIFFERENT CASE.
I, I THINK I, I THINK IT'S JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE PROCESS THAT HE, THE CHIEF GOES THROUGH.
IT'S A TOUGH DECISION MAKING PROCESS AND HE'S, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE PARAMETERS AND WHAT IS IMPORTANT SO WE CAN MAKE, YOU KNOW, IS THIS REASONABLE? AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING HIM WHAT HIS DECISION MAKING PROCESS IS ON THESE KIND OF, UH, SITUATIONS.
WHAT, AND IT CAN BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, BUT YOU KNOW, THE THINGS ABOUT BEING AN EFFECTIVE POLICE OFFICER, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY IS IN THIS LIKE SITUATION, IS THAT EFFECTIVE OR WHAT WOULD BE HIS REASON TO, TO SAY YAY OR NAY OR WHAT IS THIS THOUGHT PROCESS? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ASCERTAIN.
AND HE IS DOING THAT BY ASKING ABOUT ANOTHER CASE.
I DON'T, I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ANOTHER CASE.
WE'RE BOTH AWARE THAT THE FACTS OF THE OTHER CASE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET INTO THOUGH YOU PUTTING, YOU'RE PUTTING SOMETHING IN THE RECORD THAT'S NOT IN THE RECORD.
I NE I NEVER BROUGHT UP ANYTHING.
I JUST GAVE HIM A FACT PATTERN.
[01:30:01]
THAT THERE WERE NO COMPARATORS.MR. DEWEY SEEMS TO BE ASKING HIM ABOUT PART OF THAT.
IS THAT FAIR? LIKE, IS THERE, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET AT.
I, I, HE CHIEFS TESTIFIED THERE WAS NOTHING EXACTLY LIKE THIS ONE.
WE HAVE DIFFERENT PARAMETERS LIKE IT WAS A MISDEMEANOR CRIME AND WE COULD TALK ABOUT THAT.
AND YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'M SURE ONE OF THE THINGS, YOU KNOW, HE HAS DIFFERENT REASONS ABOUT HOW HE HANDLED HIMSELF AT THAT TIME.
AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GET PARAMETERS ON IF OTHER OFFICERS DO CERTAIN THINGS IN SIMILAR SITU, SIMILAR, NOT EXACT SITUATION, WHAT THE PROCESS IS.
JUST, JUST LIKE IN EVERY CASE THERE'S A PROCESS AND THAT PROCESS IS INVESTIGATED BY INTERNAL AFFAIRS DECISION.
UH, IT'S PRESENTED BEFORE THE BOARD.
AND I WILL MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, UH, BEFORE THAT BOARD AND THAT BODY AND, AND THAT, UH, UH, STRUCTURE JUST LIKE I DO ALL DECISIONS.
SO I WILL LET THE PROCESS, UH, UH, GO THROUGH, UH, AND I WILL MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, UH, IN THAT ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PROCESS, JUST LIKE I DO EVERY CASE.
AND, AND TO RESPECT TO THE BOARD'S PREVIOUS RULING, I, I'M GONNA WAIT TO PROFFER ALL THIS TESTIMONY RELATIVE TO THE ITEMS WE TALKED ABOUT LATER.
SO I DON'T GO OUTSIDE THE SCOPE THAT HAS BEEN SET FORTH TO LIMIT THE CHIEF'S TESTIMONY AT THIS TIME RELATIVE TO THIS.
BUT I WILL PROFFER THE REST OF THE TESTIMONY AFTER WHEN THE BOARD'S ALREADY MADE A DECISION.
SO I WOULD JUST BOARD ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF? NO.
AND WE, WE REST, HE'S THE LAST WITNESS.
I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION, UH, FOR MR. MADLEY.
MR. MANLEY, OH, I ASKED YOU A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
DO YOU AGREE THAT YOU MADE A MISTAKE? YES, SIR.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD JUST IN BRIEF, WHAT YOU WERE GOING THROUGH IN YOUR PERSONAL LIFE AT THAT TIME? UM, NO EXCUSES, BUT IT'S JUST THAT, UM, I WAS GOING THROUGH SEPARATION AT THAT TIME FOR SHORT ON MONEY, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, MADE THE MISTAKE.
UM, WHEN IT CAME TO ME, I FESSED UP TO EVERYTHING.
I'VE BEEN TRUTHFUL THIS WHOLE TIME ABOUT IT AFTER THE FACT.
UM, AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE GIST OF IT.
ONCE, ONCE IT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD, YOU ADMITTED TO EVERYTHING THAT RIGHT.
AND YOU STIPULATED TO IT AGAIN HERE TODAY, CORRECT? RIGHT.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR MR. SIR.
ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE TURN OVER FOR CLOSING ARGUMENTS? NO.
UM, IS THERE AN OBJECTION AT, TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT THAT WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THERE? THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS AT THIS TIME TO DOCUMENTS THAT WERE INTRODUCED.
MY ONLY OBJECTION WAS THAT MY INABILITY TO GET THE THINGS I WENT IN, WHICH WILL BE PROPER LATER.
I JUST WANNA MAKE A NOTE THAT I THINK THAT IT SHOULD HAVE COME IN, BUT YOU'VE RULED ON THAT AND WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.
YOU WANNA SET THE PARAMETERS FOR THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS? OH, WE, UM, AGAIN, WE SAID THIS EARLIER, BUT THE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE VERY SIMPLE.
UH, YOU HEARD MR. MATTINGLY ADMIT THAT HE VIOLATED DEPARTMENTAL POLICY ON ALL THREE COUNTS.
UH, HIS CONDUCT IN THIS CASE IS, WAS DISCUSSED, IS INTERESTING BECAUSE HE MADE A LOT OF SPECIFIC INTENTIONAL DECISIONS TO GET HIMSELF TO THE POINT WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
HE DECIDED TO IMPRESS THIS WOMAN BY TRYING TO PICK UP A COUPLE OF ITEMS FOR HER, EVEN THOUGH HE DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY FOR THE ITEMS. RATHER THAN PUT SOME, SOME OF THE ITEMS HE HAD BACK ON THE SHELF THAT HE COULDN'T AFFORD, HE DECIDED TO SWITCH BARCODES ON TWO OF THOSE ITEMS THAT REQUIRED TO GO HIM TO GO FIND ITEMS THAT HE COULD AFFORD AND SWITCH THE TAGS ON 'EM, AND THEN AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE IT, GO THROUGH THE SELF CHECKOUT AFTER PAYING FOR THOSE ITEMS. AND ONCE CAUGHT, HE MADE THE DECISION, DECISION TO LEAVE THE STORE AND ATTEMPT TO GET AWAY AFTER HIS ARREST.
[01:35:01]
HE DID NOT APOR REPORT THE ARREST TO ANYONE AT THE DEPARTMENT IN AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE IT BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS.HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE DISCIPLINED.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THAT'S A VIOLATION OF POLICY.
UM, YOU'VE HEARD THE CHIEF TALK ABOUT HERE AND IN MANY OTHER OCCASIONS HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR OFFICERS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
UM, THE, HIS CONDUCT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE SAYS TODAY, HIS CONDUCT LEADING UP TO THE POINT AT WHICH HE WAS DISCOVERED SHOWS THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS.
AND IN FACT, HE TOLD US HE INTENTIONALLY WANTED TO HIDE IT FROM THE DEPARTMENT SO HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS.
YOU SIMPLY HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF, DID THE CHIEF NOW HAVE GOOD FAITH FOR WHAT HE DID? CUZ WE ALREADY, EVERYBODY AGREES THAT THERE'S CALLS FOR IT.
GOOD FAITH CAN REALLY BE SURMISED BY LOOKING AT THIS CHART.
THE CHIEF TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY STAYS WITHIN THIS CHART WHEN HE DETERMINES DISCIPLINE.
OKAY? HE, HE DOESN'T WANT TO GO OVERBOARD.
HERE YOU HAD TWO VERY SIGNIFICANT INCIDENTS.
YOU HAD THE ARREST OR THEFT, AND THEN YOU HAD THE ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL IT, PLUS YOU HAD THE CONDUCT OF BECOMING, BUT YOU HAD TWO CATEGORY THREES.
AND ON YOUR FIRST OFFENSE, YOU CAN BE TERMINATED FOR EITHER ONE OF THOSE.
AND THE CHIEF CHOSE TO TERMINATE BECAUSE HE DID NOT THINK THAT HE WAS, COULD BE AN EFFECTIVE OFFICER, AND HE DID NOT SEE THAT HE WAS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS CONDUCT.
UM, I COULD GO ON AND ON, BUT I DON'T THINK I NEED TO.
I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU UPHOLD THE DISCIPLINE OF THE CHIEF AND UPHOLD HIS TERMINATION.
AGAIN, WHAT, WHAT I OPEN WITH AND WHAT I WOULD ASK THIS BOARD TO CONSIDER, THIS BOARD'S SEEN MANY, MANY OFFICERS COME FORWARD AND HE TALKS ABOUT THAT GOOD FAITH BEING IN THAT, THOSE PARAMETERS, THAT PARAMETER IS WHERE IT COULD BE ANYWHERE FROM A DAY DETERMINATION.
AND THERE HAVE BEEN MANY INSTANCES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THIS BOARD THAT PEOPLE WERE NOT TERMINATED FOR DOING ALL TYPES OF ALLEGATIONS.
NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS THIS ONE.
BUT THAT I ASKED THE BOARD, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE WE'RE OUTSIDE, WE DIDN'T BRING IN OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER ALL THE THINGS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, EVEN MAYBE A MORE SERIOUS NATURE THAT WERE ULTIMATELY WORKED OUT OR DISCIPLINE WAS CHANGED.
HE ADMITS THAT READILY MULTIPLE TIMES TODAY.
AND ONCE THIS PROCESS STARTED THAT HE MADE A MISTAKE.
HE WAS GOING THROUGH A TOUGH TIME IN HIS LIFE WITH HIS, UH, MARITAL SLASH FIANCE SITUATION, CHILDCARE, WORRYING ABOUT THAT AND MADE A BAD DECISION.
NOBODY, HE'S, HE'S NOT, HE OWNS THAT.
HE SAYS, I DID, I MADE A BAD DECISION AND FURTHER BY NOT REPORTING IT TIMELY.
SO HE, HE MADE SOME BAD DECISIONS BASED ON THAT ONE EVENT, BUT HE HAD A, YOU KNOW, 11 YEAR CAREER OF ALMOST 11 YEARS.
AND THEN IT SAYS HIS REASONING IS THAT IT'S GONNA BE INEFFECTIVE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST EXHIBIT, WHICH WAS A WHOLE SLEW OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THAT BRADY LIST, MANY OF WHICH HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS ADMINISTRATION, BUT THEY'RE STILL ON THE DEPARTMENT.
WELL, IT BEGS THE QUESTION, WELL, WHERE'S THE REASON? MAYBE HE GETS MOVED OUT OF DETECTIVES, MAYBE HE GETS MOVED INTO A DIFFERENT POSITION.
MAYBE HE GIVES HIM 60, 75 DAYS OFF.
BECAUSE NOT ONLY DID HE COMMIT THAT, THAT HE DID, THAT THERE'S OFFER, YOU KNOW, THERE'S OTHER OFFICERS THAT HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR MISDEMEANOR CRIMES, WHICH THIS WAS, THAT ARE STILL IN AN APARTMENT THAT ON THE BRADY LIST AND ARE STILL CAN BE EFFECTIVE.
SO, YOU KNOW, YES, HE WOULD HAVE TO DO SOME TIME TO, TO GET TO THAT POINT, TO RECOUP FROM THAT.
IT WAS A, A VERY STUPID ACT AND HE ADMITS THAT.
BUT DOES IT, YOU KNOW, DOES THE CHIEF, IS HE SHOWING GOOD FAITH BASED ON ALL THE STUFF THAT HAS COME BEFORE AND RELATIVE TO MORE SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS AND RE RELATIVE TO THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN, UH, COME FORTH.
I, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S THE RIGHT PUNISHMENT.
I THINK THIS BOARD AND ITS WISDOM AS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY PPA DID WRONG, BUT THERE'S A MULTIPLE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THE BRADY LIST FOR DIFFERENT ALLEGATIONS, CRIMES THAT THEY'VE BEEN COMMITTED, THAT THEY'RE AUTOMATICALLY PUT ON THERE FOR TRUTHFULNESS THAT MAKES 'EM SOMEWHAT INEFFECTIVE AS OFFICERS.
AND THAT'S GIVEN TO THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS OF WHICH I AM ONE.
AND, AND SO THAT CAN BE BROUGHT UP IN COURT.
SO IT MAKES A LOT OF OFFICERS INEFFECTIVE ONCE THEY MAKE THAT BRADY LIST.
BUT DID, DID IT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF HAVING TO TERMINATE HIM AFTER, YOU KNOW, ALMOST 12 YEARS OF SERVICE? I JUST DON'T THINK HE DID.
I THINK HE SHOULD BE, BE DISCIPLINED.
I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE REPORTED IT IMMEDIATELY AND MAYBE THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, SUCH AN EGREGIOUS PUNISHMENT VERSUS A MUCH MORE SEVERE PUNISHMENT BUT TERMINATION.
AND I WOULD ASK THIS BOARD TO CONSIDER IT.
CAUSE THIS BOARD HAS SEES MULTIPLE ISSUES COME BEFORE, WHICH
[01:40:01]
A LOT MORE SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS AND A PUNISHMENT THAT'S MORE FITTING WOULD BE A LARGE SUSPENSION VERSUS A TERMINATION.AND LOOKING AT THE BRADY LIST, YOU CAN SEE THOSE OFFICERS THAT ARE QUOTE UNQUOTE CONSIDERED INEFFECTIVE BY BEING ON THERE.
THEY'RE STILL WORKING FOR THE DEPARTMENT AND SOME ARE BEING EFFECTIVE.
SO I WOULD ASK THE BOARD CONSIDER THAT AND ARE REMOVING THE TERMINATION AND MAKING A SUSPENSION MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT HE HE COMMITTED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF THE, UH, ATTORNEYS? DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO, THAT'S LATER PLEASE.
SO, UM, AT THIS TIME WE'D HAVE TO HAVE TO TAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THIS MEETING AND ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
WILL WE GO TO EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE SESSION? WAIT ON, ALL RIGHT.
I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO, UH, LEAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ENTERTAIN AND, UM, ENTER BACK INTO OUR REGULAR MEETING.
WE MAY HAVE A MOTION BY MR. SMITH.
SECOND BY MR. DORSEY IN FAVOR? NO, I GOTTA DO A ROLL CALL.
THIS IS A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE EXECUTIVE STAFF.
YOU HAVE A UNANIMOUS DECISION TO UPHOLD THE MOTION.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE NOW MOVED BACK INTO OUR REGULAR MEETING, UM, OPENED UP OUR REGULAR MEETING.
I MOVE THAT WE UPHOLD THE CHIEF'S DECISION.
WHICH BRINGS US TO OUR NEXT ITEM, UM, WHICH WOULD BE TO ADJOURN.