* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. POLICE, FINGERPRINT [00:00:01] TECHNICIAN [6. Consider Motion to call for Examinations in the Baton Rouge Police Department:] [*This Meeting is Joined in Progress*] ONE AND POLICE CADET. WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? I MOVE TO CALL FOR THE EXAMINATIONS MOVED BY MR. THOMAS. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND. SECOND BY MR. LEMON. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A AYE. OPPOSES NAY. THE EXAMS FOR THE FOUR POSITIONS IS NOW CALLED AGENDA ITEM SEVEN. [7. Consider Motion to review/accept test results] CONSIDER A MOTION TO REVIEW OR ACCEPT TEST RESULTS. I SEE THAT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF THOSE. PLEASE ALLOW ME JUST A MOMENT FOR YOU TO OPEN THESE. THEY COULDN'T HAVE WRAPPED GOLD MUCH BETTER THAN THESE . I THINK THE KNIFE WOULD'VE BEEN BETTER. YEAH. WE GOT QUITE A LIST HERE FOR SEVERAL POSITIONS. I THINK WE NEED TO PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE POLICE LIEUTENANT. WE DO HAVE RESULTS FOR POLICE SERGEANT. UH, YEAH. IT APPEARS THAT ALL THESE ARE POLICE SERGEANTS OR NO. OKAY. NO. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. WE GOT TWO SETS OF BEFORE LIEUTENANT. IT'S JUST GOT SO BIG. YEAH. PLENTY OF THEM. OKAY. THEY DON'T PASS. MR. CHAIRMAN, WHILE THEY'RE, WHILE THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE, UH, THE, THE TEST RESULTS, WE DO HAVE CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE, UH, STATE EXAMINER'S OFFICE REGARDING AT LEAST ONE EXAMINEE WHO WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SIT FOR THE POLICE LIEUTENANT EXAM. CORRECT. SO, UH, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS, UH, THE BOARD SHOULD PROBABLY APPROVE THE DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF POLICE SERGEANT CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE [00:05:01] ANALYST SO LONG AS EVERYTHING CHECKS OUT AND LET'S DELAY THE POLICE LIEUTENANT UNTIL WE GET TO THAT AGENDA ITEM TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL SQUARED AWAY. AND THAT'S AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11, THE CHAIR. SO STIPULATES THAT'S WHAT WE WILL DO. YEP. THEY SOLID. I MOVE TO APPROVE ALL TEST SCORES EXCEPT FOR THE ONE ON THE AGENDA. 11. WELL, WE'RE GOING TO EXCLUDE, I THINK EVERYTHING INCLUDE THE DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF, THE SERGEANT, AND THE CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE ANALYST. AND WE'LL DO THE LIEUTENANT AS A SEPARATE ITEM. YES SIR. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE TESCO'S FOR THE DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF POLICE SERGEANT CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE ANALYST. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND. SECOND. BY MR. LEMON. MOVED BY MR. THOMAS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THIS NAY. THE MOTION TO APPROVE DEPUTY FIRE, CHIEF POLICE SERGEANT CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE ANALYST TEST RESULTS WAS APPROVED. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, [8. Review/accept application and test results for Fire Services and Supply Technician.] REVIEW. ACCEPT APPLICATION FOR FIRE SERVICES AND SUPPLY TECHNICIAN. I REVIEWED THE APPLICATIONS. OKAY. AND I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. THERE WERE EIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. LEMON TO APPROVE THE APPLICATIONS FOR FIRE SERVICE AND SUPPLY TECHNICIAN. I SECOND. SECOND BY MR. THOMAS. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A OPPOSES NAY. A MOTION DISCOURAGE. AGENDA ITEM NINE. [9. Consider a request from Thomas Morse, Jr., Police Chief, to rehire Takiyah Beard, who resigned on January 26, 2021, from the position of Police Fingerprint Technician I.] CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM THOMAS MORRIS JR. POLICE CHIEF TO REHIRE TOIA BY WHO RESIGNED ON JANUARY 26TH, 2021 FROM THE POSITION OF POLICE FINGERPRINT TECHNICIAN ONE. ANY, UM, COMMENTS, MR. RAINS OR FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? IF NOT, WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? BOARD MEMBERS, I MOVE TO APPROVE IT. MR. THOMAS MOVES APPROVAL. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. SECOND BY MR. LEMON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSES NAY. THE MOTION IS APPROVED. AGENDA ITEM 10, [10. Review correspondence from an examinee who wishes to challenge examination results.] REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM AN EXAMINEE WHO WISHES TO CHALLENGE THE EXAMINATION RESULTS. THAT PERSON, UM, I SAW THAT EARLIER. YEAH. THAT PERSON IS CASEY PAULO. MS. PAULO IN THE AUDIENCE? NO, I DON'T THINK, NO, SHE'S NOT HERE. UM, SHE TOOK AN EXAM. I THINK THERE WERE THREE PEOPLE WHO TOOK THE TEST. TWO PEOPLE PASSED. SHE DID NOT. UM, SO SHE IS SAYING THAT SHE DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT THE TEST WAS, UH, A GOOD TEST OR A VALID TEST. UM, A COUPLE WAYS THE BOARD COULD HANDLE IT. THE BOARD COULD, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE WE [00:10:01] DON'T CREATE THE TEST, THAT'S NOT OUR JOB. THAT'S A STATE EXAMINER'S JOB. AND WHAT THEY DO IS THEY CONTACT PEOPLE THAT ARE CURRENTLY HOLDING THOSE POSITIONS NOW AND THEY DEVELOP THE TEST THAT WAY. RIGHT. UM, SO WHAT YOU COULD DO IS HAVE A, YOU KNOW, A CONVERSATION WITH THE STATE EXAMINER WHERE WE COULD BRING HER IN AND, UH, IT WOULD BE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. SHE COULD TELL US ABOUT THE TEST, UM, AND KIND OF WHAT THEY DID AND, AND PUTTING IT TOGETHER. IF THE BOARD AT THAT POINT DECIDES THE TEST WAS NOT DONE CORRECTLY, THAT WOULD INVALIDATE THE TEST RESULTS FOR EVERYBODY AND YOU'D HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN. UM, IN MY OPINION, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SAY. IT'S NOT VALID IF TWO PEOPLE PASS. SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD TO, YOU KNOW, TO, TO LET THE TEST STAND AS IT IS. UH, THE EXAMINEE CAN ALWAYS TAKE THE TEST AGAIN. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I MEAN, I MOVE TO LET THE TEST STAND AS IT IS. UH, I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. THOMAS TO LET THE TEST STAND AS TEST RESULTS. YEAH. AS PRESENTED. UH, MR. CHAIR, MAY I ASK A QUESTION? SURE. ABSOLUTELY. SO IT, MY ONLY CONCERN BECAUSE I, I AGREE WITH YOU. IF PEOPLE ARE PASSING THE EXAM, THAT GIVES ME LESS REASON FOR PAUSE. BUT IT'S THE ALLEGATION THAT THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT DON'T PERTAIN TO THE EVERYDAY DUTIES THAT WOULD PEOPLE COULD POTENTIALLY GET CORRECT, BUT THEN HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JOB. THAT'S WHAT WOULD GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT MORE CONCERN. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S TRUE OR FALSE, I SIMPLY DON'T KNOW. UM, IS THERE, IS THERE ANY UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE DEPARTMENT IF WE WERE TO ASK THE EXAMINER TO COME IN AND SPEAK TO US IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, UM, HOLDING THESE TEST SCORES FOR THAT TO HAPPEN? OR WOULD THAT NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARM TO THE DEPARTMENT OR DO YOU NOT KNOW? I DON'T, I, I BELIEVE IT WOULD CAUSE HARM TO THE SYSTEM. UH, I THINK THAT THE SYSTEM IS, MAKE SURE YOUR MIC'S ON. I BELIEVE THE SYSTEM IS FAIR, UH, ACROSS THE BOARD. UM, UM, I MEAN SOME OF THE QUESTIONS, UH, YOU MAY NOT SEE DURING YOUR CAREER, BUT IF YOU DO RESEARCH, YOU PROBABLY WILL, WILL COME ACROSS IT. AND I, I THINK IT, IT WOULD HOLD UP PROMOTIONS IF THERE'S A PROMOTION THAT IT'S DUE. WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S THE CURRENT CASE OR NOT, NOT, NO. YES. MR. DARA, OUTSIDE OF, OF HOLDING THIS UP, IF WE WERE TO VOTE AGAINST, UM, MS. PARLOW ON THIS, WOULD WE STILL HAVE THE CAPABILITY OR CAPACITY TO REQUEST THE STATE EXAMINER TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION FOR THE FUTURE? OR WOULD THAT ONLY BE PART AND PARCEL WITH THIS QUESTION? NO, YOU COULD, UH, ALWAYS ASK THE STATE EXAMINER TO COME IN AND HAVE A CONVERSATION. OKAY. IS THAT, 'CAUSE I'M BEING TOLD THAT THERE IS, UH, A PROMOTION THAT WOULD BE HELD UP AND IN A VACUUM, I WOULD HESITATE TO DO THAT, BUT I WOULD ALSO HATE TOO THAT WE CONTINUOUSLY VOTE AGAINST THESE TYPES OF REQUESTS WITHOUT HAVING, AT LEAST FROM MY END, I KNOW YOU GUYS LIKELY KNOW BETTER THAN I DO, BUT WITHOUT HAVING ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT THESE QUESTIONS LOOK LIKE, THAT TYPE OF THING. AND SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I, I WOULD LIKE FOR THE STATE EXAMINER OR TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION IN THE NEAR TO MIDDLE FUTURE. BUT I'M, I'M COMFORTABLE VOTING ON THIS AS, AS A, AN ITEM FOR TODAY. ALRIGHT. WELL, LET'S LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT WE'VE MAKING THAT REQUEST TO THE STATE EXAMINER. AND IN THE MEANTIME WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FROM MR. THOMAS TO, UM, LET THE EXAM STAND. I SECOND THAT MOTION AND SECONDED BY MR. LEMON. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NO, SIR. IF NOT, THEN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED THE MOTION PASSES. AGENDA ITEM 11, [11. Review correspondence concerning an examinee's eligibility to sit for a recent Police Lieutenant examination.] REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING AND EXAMINE THESE ELIGIBILITY TO SIT FOR A RECENT POLICE LIEUTENANT EXAMINATION. THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE REFERRED TO EARLIER IN APPROVING TESCOS. WE DO HAVE INFORMATION FROM THE STATE EXAMINER INDICATING THAT ONE PERSON, UM, DID NOT QUALIFY FOR THE POSITION. AND THE LETTER STATES THAT AT THE TIME [00:15:01] OF APPLICATION FOR EXAMINATION, THESE ARE THE QUALIFICATIONS MUST BE AN INCUMBENT IN THE CLASS OF POLICE SERGEANT WITH AT LEAST TWO YEARS IN THIS CLASS. PRECEDING APPLICATION TO THE BOARD, THE TWO YEARS IS TO BE COUNTED FROM THE DATE OF PROBATIONAL APPOINTMENT. STATE EXAMINER SAYS THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS PARTICULAR PERSON, UH, MEETS THOSE QUALIFICATIONS. AND SO UNLESS WE HAVE INFORMATION TO THE CONTRARY, WE WILL THEN, UM, ELIMINATE HIM FROM APPROVING THE POLICE. UH, LIEUTENANT TEST SCORES. ARE THERE ANYONE THAT HAS INFORMATION TO REFUTE THE STATE EXAMINER? NO. MR. D. AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, I DID SEE THAT, UM, I JUST WENT THROUGH THE, THE LIEUTENANT NAMES. HE IS NOT ON THE LIST. SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND APPROVE, UH, OKAY. THESE LIEUTENANT SCORES. ALRIGHT, WITH THAT THEN I'LL REQUEST A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LIEUTENANT'S TEST SCORES. MR. CHAIR, DO WE HAVE TO, AND I APOLOGIZE IF WE DON'T IT AS A SEPARATE ITEM. AND WHAT, WHAT ITEM WAS THIS? 11. ITEM 11. IS THERE ANY ACTION ITEM WE NEED TO TAKE ON THAT SEPARATE AND APART? SO THE, THE ITEM IS TO REVIEW THE CORRESPONDENCE. I WAS JUST ENSURING THAT WE DIDN'T NEED TO ADDRESS THAT BEFORE WE MOVED ON TO APPROVING OR, OR NOT APPROVING THE SCORES. YEAH, I JUST READ THE, THE OKAY. THE QUALIFICATIONS FROM STATE EXAMINE AND, UM, WE AGREE, I THINK, UH, THAT THIS PERSON DOES NOT MEET THE QUALIFICATION. CORRECT. SO THERE IS NO ACTION ON IT TO ANSWER QUESTION. OKAY. AND THAT, AND THAT'S, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING FORMAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE. SO YOU TO INCLUDE IT IN IN THE MOTION. NO, BECAUSE HE'S NOT ON THE LIST. HE'S NOT ON LIST. OKAY. OKAY. SO I HAVE A MOTION TO, UH, APPROVE LIEUTENANT TESCO. IS I A SECOND APPROVE THE LIEUTENANTS TEST SCORES? YES. DID I GET A SECOND? I SECOND. SECONDED BY MR. LEMON. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? NO. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 12, [12. Approve new Scheduling Order regarding Joanell Robinson-Woodard's Appeal.] APPROVE NEW SCHEDULING ORDER. WE REGARDING JANELLE ROBINSON WOOD'S APPEAL. MR. THERE? YES. ON THIS ONE WE HAD A SCHEDULING ORDER. UH, JUST BASICALLY, UH, IN THE EVENT THAT THE ERNEST JONES APPEAL DID NOT GO FORWARD TODAY, WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THAT APPEAL HAPPENED. UH, THE JONES APPEAL IS GONNA GO FORWARD. SO WHAT I WOULD ASK FOR THE BOARD TO DO IS JUST GIVE ME AND THE CHAIR AUTHORITY TO CREATE ANOTHER SCHEDULING AUTHOR, UH, ANOTHER SCHEDULING ORDER FOR THE NEXT DAY, UH, WHICH I THINK IS SOMETIME IN JANUARY, JANUARY 27TH. MM-HMM . RIGHT? UNLESS, UNLESS THERE IS OBJECTION, THE CHAIR WILL SO STIPULATE OR I'LL MOVE IF NECESSARY. YEAH. ALRIGHT. MR. NEWVILLE MOVES THAT, UH, WE AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEYS TO PREPARE NEW SCHEDULING. UM, ORDER I SECOND IT. SECONDED BY MR. THOMAS. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A AYE. OPPOSES NAY. THE MOTION IS APPROVED. ITEM 13, [13. Conduct an appeal hearing on behalf of Earnest Jones, BRPD.] CONDUCT AN APPEAL HEARING ON BEHALF OF ERNEST JOHNS ON THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT. ALRIGHT. ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, GENTLEMEN. UH, THIS IS THE APPEAL FOR, UH, MR. ERNEST JONES. FIRST, I WANT TO APPRECIATE BOTH OF YOU GUYS FOR FOLLOWING THE, THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND COMPLYING THAT ALWAYS MAKES THINGS EASIER. UM, I DO KNOW THAT THERE WAS A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM. HAVE Y'ALL WORKED THROUGH THAT IN TERMS OF PRODUCING DOCUMENTS TO EACH OTHER? MR. RAINS? I THE TEST FORM, UH, MIKE, I MICROPHONE, GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. YES, I BELIEVE, UH, ALL THE DOCUMENTS. YEAH. HIT SHARE DOCUMENTS, . ALL RIGHT. THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. AND MAKE SURE Y'ALL ARE USING Y'ALL MICROPHONES FOR THE, FOR THE RECORD. ALL RIGHT. UM, WELL, I GUESS Y'ALL CAN MAKE APPEARANCES FOR THE RECORD AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. UH, ATTORNEY PHILLIP ROBINSON, UH, [00:20:01] PRESENT WITH ATTORNEYS JTI CURLEY OF THE ROBINSON LAW FIRM PRESENT MR. EARNEST JONES. AND GENTLEMEN, I I, I KNOW THE BOARD HAS READ THROUGH EVERYTHING. I DIDN'T SEE LIKE, ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS SPECIFICALLY. IS THAT FAIR? THAT'S CORRECT. ALRIGHT, GOOD DEAL. WITH THAT BEING SAID, UH, WE'LL GET STARTED. OPENING STATEMENTS CARE. HOW LONG DO THEY HAVE ? 10. 10 MINUTES? YEAH. , 10 MINUTE OPENING STATEMENTS. UH, WE'LL START WITH THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY AND THEN, UH, DOC, WE HAVE TWO DR. ROBINSON IN THE HOUSE, I THINK. YEAH. ALRIGHT. OKAY. DID YOU SAY 10 OR TWO? 10. 10. OKAY. HE SAID TWO. WELL, HE SAID 10. YOU SAID TWO. I'M GONNA MESS WITH 10 . 10 IS FINE. I SAID 10 . UM, UH, PRELIMINARY MATTER, WE'VE GOT WITNESSES OUT IN THE AUDIENCE. UH, DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND SEQUESTER THEM? SURE. AND DO YOU WANNA SWEAR THEM IN NOW OR DO YOU WANT TO AS A GROUP OR DO YOU WANNA DO IT ONE BY ONE? NO, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET EVERYBODY SWORN IN. IF YOU'RE GONNA BE A, A WITNESS IN THIS MATTER, GO AHEAD AND COME UP TO THIS MICROPHONE HERE IN THE FRONT. AND COUNSEL, CAN Y'ALL CONFIRM THAT THESE ARE ALL THE WITNESSES THAT ARE GONNA SPEAK? MR. JONES? YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND GO DOWN THERE TOO. UH, THAT'S CORRECT. FROM US IS ALL THE WITNESS? YEAH. ALRIGHT, EVERYBODY RAISE THEIR RIGHT HAND. DOES EVERYBODY SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? I DO. ALRIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT EVERYBODY ANSWER IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. AND WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO NOW IS PUT YOU GUYS UNDER WHAT WE CALL THE RULES SEQUESTRATION. SO, UH, UNLESS YOU'RE THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY REP, WHICH THE CHIEF IS, OF COURSE, OR MR. JONES, THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO LEAVE THE ROOM AND YOU GUYS CANNOT DISCUSS THE CASE WITH EACH OTHER, UH, OR ANYBODY ELSE OTHER THAN THE ATTORNEYS. ALRIGHT? ANY OTHER PRELIMINARY MATTERS, GENTLEMEN? JUST SIMPLY THE FIRST OH, NO. UH, I, I THOUGHT I MADE IT CLEAR. I'LL MAKE IT CLEAR AGAIN THAT, UH, MR. JONES IS EXCUSED FROM THE, UH, SEQUESTRATION ORDER. MR. RAINS YOUR BALL GUY. OH, I'M GONNA PASS OUT BINDERS WHILE WE GREAT, SIR. SIR, THANKS SO MUCH. I, I'LL DO IT. DO THAT. YEAH. 10 MINUTES, GENTLEMEN. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. A LOT TO READ. DONE? YES, SIR. . THANKS. SO, SIR. OH, THANK YOU, MA'AM. I THINK I HAVE, OH, OKAY. OKAY, COOL. I KNOW IF YOU HAVE A COPY. THANKS. YEAH, I, OKAY. [00:25:07] THANK YOU. NO. OH, BRAD'S WIFE IS OKAY, MAN. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. WE READY TO PROCEED? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. READY TO GO? IT'S EXACTLY 11 O'CLOCK, SO. PERFECT. UH, THIS, THIS CASE IS, I, I BELIEVE, VERY SIMPLE. UM, THIS IS A CASE OF A SUBORDINATE OFFICER FAILING TO RESPECT HIS CHAIN OF COMMAND AND REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH NUMEROUS DIRECT ORDERS FROM SUPERIOR OFFICERS. UM, CORPORAL JONES, ERNEST JONES IS HIS NAME. CORPORAL JONES IS, UH, YOU KNOW, HE'S A CORPORAL IN THE DEPARTMENT IN MARCH. UH, HE HAD A FIELD TRAINING OFFICER, UM, ROOKIE GRIMES, OFFICER GRIMES. THEY ANSWERED A CALL AND A REPORT WAS WRITTEN REGARDING AN INCIDENT BACK IN MARCH. UH, AND THAT REPORT WAS WRITTEN BY OFFICER GRIMES. UM, OFFICER GRIMES WAS, UM, UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF CORPORAL JONES. CORPORAL JONES WAS HIS FIELD TRAINING OFFICER. WHAT THAT, YOU'LL HEAR IT CALLED AN FTO LATER TODAY. UM, WHEN YOU HAVE AN FTO, AND IF YOU'RE A ROOKIE, YOU CAN'T JUST GO OUT AND DO SOLO CALLS. YOU, YOU ARE SUPERVISED BY YOUR FTO AS YOU'RE LEARNING TO DO THINGS, RIGHT? SO THAT WAS THE POSITION THAT THEY WERE IN. SO THEY HAD A CALL OUT TO HOME DEPOT IN MARCH OF 2024. AND AGAIN, OFFICER GRIMES WROTE THE REPORT. AND THE REPORT IS PART OF WHAT WE'RE GONNA TALK A LOT ABOUT TODAY. YOU'RE GONNA HEAR A LOT OF TESTIMONY ABOUT THE REPORT AND, AND THINGS ABOUT IT. UM, THE VICTIM IN THE INCIDENT CONTACTED THE DEPARTMENT WHEN SHE REVIEWED THE REPORT, AND SHE HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT IT. UM, AND SERGEANT ROMY SMITH, WHO YOU'LL ALSO, UM, HERE TESTIFY LATER TODAY, CALLED HER BACK, UH, RECORDED THAT CONVERSATION. AND BASED ON HIS CONVERSATION WITH HER, DETERMINED THAT THERE'S SOME CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THE REPORT, HE ADVISED OFFICER GRIMES THAT THOSE CHANGES NEEDED TO BE MADE. UH, OFFICER GRIMES TALKED TO CORPORAL JONES ABOUT THAT, AND CORPORAL JONES ADVISED HIM NOT TO CHANGE THE REPORT. OKAY. UH, THIS CONVERSATION BETWEEN SERGEANT SMITH AND OFFICER GRIMES WENT ON EVENTUALLY ON MAY 11 OF THIS YEAR, UH, SERGEANT SMITH SENT A, AN TEXT MESSAGE AND AN EMAIL TO OFFICER GRIMES AND SAID, I NEED YOU TO REVISE THAT REPORT. IF YOU DO NOT DO IT, YOU'RE GOING TO BE WRITTEN UP. OKAY. AFTER OFFICER GRIMES RECEIVED THOSE COMMUNICATIONS FROM SERGEANT SMITH, HE REACHED OUT TO CORPORAL JONES ABOUT IT. NOW, AT THIS TIME, AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS CORPORAL JONES HAD BEEN REMOVED AS HIS FIELD TRAINING OFFICER. SO HE WAS NO LONGER HIS FIELD TRAINING OFFICER. NO LONGER HAD DIRECT SUPERVISION OVER, OVER OFFICER GRIMES. UM, BUT, UH, CORPORAL JONES WAS IN THE, UM, DIRECT SUPERVISION OF SERGEANT ROMY SMITH, AS WELL AS LIEUTENANT LONNIE MILLER. AND YOU WILL HEAR THEM TESTIFY LATER TODAY AS WELL. NOW, IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT SERGEANT SMITH MADE A COMPLAINT ABOUT CORPORAL JONES LAST YEAR. SO THERE WAS ALREADY SOME TENSION BETWEEN THEM BECAUSE OF THAT. UM, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, SERGEANT SMITH RECORDED WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE HERE TODAY AND HEAR A LOT OF TESTIMONY ABOUT, UM, ONCE OFFICER GRIMES CONTACTED, UH, OR WAS CONTACTED BY SERGEANT SMITH, HE REACHED OUT TO CORPORAL JONES AND SAID, I'VE GOT THIS TEXT MESSAGE FROM SERGEANT SMITH. CORPORAL JONES THEN REACHES OUT TO SERGEANT SMITH, UH, AND SETS UP A MEETING SO THAT THEY CAN TALK ABOUT THIS REPORT AND WHAT CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE TO THE REPORT. SO THEY GET THERE. AND IN THE ROOM AGAIN IS OFFICER GRIMES, CORPORAL JONES, UH, THE OFFICER HERE, AS WELL AS SERGEANT SMITH. AND YOU'RE GONNA SEE IT ON, UH, UH, ON THE RECORDING HERE IN A BIT. AS SOON AS SERGEANT SMITH ATTEMPTED TO START TALKING TO OFFICER GRIMES ABOUT THE REPORT, CORPORAL JONES INTERRUPTS HIM OVER AND OVER, TALKS OVER HIM. SERGEANT SMITH ASKS HIM TO BE QUIET. CORPORAL JONES REFUSES TO BE QUIET, CONTINUES TO TRY TO TALK. THIS GOES ON FOR SEVERAL MINUTES. UH, SERGEANT SMITH TELLS CORPORAL JONES DIRECTLY, YOU ARE BEING INSUBORDINATE. PLEASE STOP TALKING. UH, HE USES THE TERM HOLD WHAT YOU GOT. A LOT OF TIMES HE'S ASKING HIM TO STOP TALKING. UH, AGAIN, CORPORAL JONES REFUSES TO DO THAT. UH, EVENTUALLY HE ASKED HIM TO LEAVE THE ROOM. JUST LEAVE THE ROOM. I'LL WORK WITH OFFICER GRIMES DIRECTLY. HE REFUSES TO LEAVE THE ROOM AT THIS POINT. HE'S HAD TWO DIRECT ORDERS GIVEN [00:30:01] MULTIPLE TIMES, WHICH HE HAS REFUSED AGAIN. UM, SO THOSE WERE THE TWO DIRECT ORDERS. AND THEN FOR A THIRD, HE WAS ASKED TO ASSIST OFFICER GRIMES IN REVISING THE REPORT. HE SAID, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE REPORT. THAT WAS THE THIRD DIRECT ORDER THAT HE WAS GIVEN. HE TOLD SERGEANT SMITH, I'M NOT OBEYING AN UNLAWFUL ORDER. WELL, THERE ISN'T ANYTHING UNLAWFUL ABOUT ASKING SOMEONE TO REVISE A REPORT. OKAY? UM, BOTH SERGEANT SMITH AND LIEUTENANT MILLER TOLD, UH, AND YOU, YOU'LL HEAR LIEUTENANT MILLER AND SERGEANT SMITH TALK ABOUT THIS. THEY TALKED TO CORPORAL JONES ABOUT THIS, AND THEY SAID, THIS IS NOT AN UNLAWFUL ORDER. QUIT INTERFERING. CORPORAL JONES REFUSES. HE REFUSES TO LEAVE THE ROOM OVER AND OVER. UM, LIEUTENANT MILLER COMES IN THE ROOM, UH, HE'S BROUGHT IN THERE BY SERGEANT SMITH. YOU'LL SEE THIS ON THE, ON THE VIDEO. UH, LIEUTENANT MILLER TELLS CORPORAL JONES, LOOK, I'VE TALKED TO THE TRAINING ACADEMY. THERE IS NOTHING UNLAWFUL ABOUT THE ORDER YOU ARE BEING GIVEN. YOU ARE BEING, UH, YOU'RE BEING INAPPROPRIATE IN FRONT OF YOUR ROOKIE. THEY SENT THE ROOKIE OUT OF THE ROOM. THEY CONTINUE, NOTHING GETS RESOLVED. EVENTUALLY, THINGS CALM DOWN A LITTLE BIT. LIEUTENANT MILLER BRINGS, OR SERGEANT SMITH BRINGS THE ROOKIE BACK IN THE ROOM TO WORK ON THE REPORT. CORPORAL JONES STANDS UP, UH, GRABS THE COMPUTER THAT THE ROOKIE WAS WORKING WITH, CLOSES IT AND TAKES IT AWAY FROM HIM. AT THAT POINT, THINGS HAD GOTTEN HEATED. LIEUTENANT MILLER EVENTUALLY CALLS CHAIN OF COMMAND, AND CORPORAL JONES IS RELIEVED OF HIS DUTIES. AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE IS OPENED, A PREDIS HEARING IS HELD IN SEPTEMBER, AND HE HAS SUSTAINED ON TWO VIOLATIONS, UH, CARRYING OUT ORDERS AND INSUBORDINATION. HE'S GIVEN TWO, UH, TOTAL OF FOUR DAYS SUSPENSION FOR THOSE. AND THAT IS WHAT HE'S APPEALING HERE TODAY. THERE REALLY CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT HE VIOLATED THESE POLICIES. IN FACT, IF THE TRAINING ACADEMY WANTED TO HAVE A VIDEO ON EXACTLY WHAT DOES INSUBORDINATION CARRYING OUT ORDERS LOOK LIKE, FAILING TO CARRY OUT ORDERS. THIS IS THE VIDEO. YOU WILL SEE IT AS YOU WATCH IT HERE TODAY. YOUR JOB AS A BOARD IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE CHIEF HAD, UH, JUST CAUSE AND WAS IN GOOD FAITH FOR MAKING HIS DECISION TO UPHOLD DISCIPLINE AGAINST CORPORAL JONES FOR THOSE TWO POLICIES. OKAY? UM, LIKE I SAID, THERE REALLY CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT HE VIOLATED THOSE POLICIES. IT'S IN, IT'S IN COLOR. I CAN'T SAY IT'S IN BLACK AND WHITE. IT'S IN COLOR. BUT YOU'LL, YOU'LL SEE IT. UM, AND THE QUESTION IS NOT FOR YOU WHETHER YOU WOULD'VE RULED IN A DIFFERENT WAY, NOT WHETHER YOU WOULD'VE BEEN LESS HARSH OR MORE HARSH. WITH CORPORAL JONES, IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THE CHIEF HAD GOOD CAUSE, UH, AND WAS IN GOOD FAITH JUST CAUSE AND GOOD FAITH FOR DOING WHAT HE DID. UM, AND IF YOU FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE IS THERE SUPPORTING THOSE CHARGES, THEN YOU MUST UPHOLD WHAT THE CHIEF DID THAT DAY. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WILL ASK YOU TO DO AT THE END OF THE HEARING TODAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. FIRST OFF, GOOD MORNING, AND, UH, THANK YOU TO THE LADY AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BOARD. UH, ALLOW ME TO BEGIN BY SAYING, UM, CORPORAL JONES, UH, ERNEST JONES, AS HE SITS TO MY RIGHT, HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR NEARLY A DECADE NOW, UH, NEARLY 10 YEARS. UH, CORPORAL JONES IS A GREAT POLICE OFFICER. UH, NOT MANY TIMES WHEN I'M BEFORE ANYBODY, UH, ANY TYPE OF BODY, I'M ALLOWED TO PERSONALLY SAY THAT I KNOW THE PERSON OR THAT I'M REPRESENTING. UM, AND ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY WEIGHT INTO YOUR DECISIONS OF THIS HEARING, I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR THAT I DO KNOW CORPORAL JONES PERSONALLY, AND I'VE KNOWN HIM FOR NEARLY 15 YEARS. UM, HE'S A PERSON OF STRONG CHARACTER AND HE'S A PERSON OF UNWAVERING LOYALTY. UH, THESE ARE THE TYPE OF QUALITIES, I THINK A PERSON WHO IS A MEMBER OF A POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD WANT TO HAVE. THE PERSON SERVING NEXT TO YOU TO HAVE, UM, CORPORAL JONES IS ALL ABOUT TRANSPARENCY. UM, THE REASON YOU'RE GONNA HEAR IN THIS VIDEO, THERE'S, THE REASON WE EVEN HEAR IS BECAUSE CORPORAL JONES WANTED TRANSPARENCY. AND SERGEANT SMITH DID NOT. UH, CORPORAL JONES BELIEVES IN TRANSPARENCY AND HE BELIEVES IN ANTI-BULLYING. HE HAS COMPASSION FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES. AND ESSENTIALLY THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. UM, COMPASSION FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES IN THIS MATTER WAS THE ACTIONS OF HIS ROLE AS A REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTING, UH, A ROOKIE OFFICER, UH, OFFICER GRIMES. UH, THESE ARE ACTIONS AND BEHAVIORS THAT SHOULD BE APPLAUDED, BUT WE FIND OURSELVES, OFFICER JONES AND CORPORAL JONES BEING DISCIPLINED [00:35:01] FOR THESE, UH, THESE POSITIVE TRAITS. UM, THIS COMES DOWN TO INTEGRITY, UH, AND I THINK INTENT MATTERS IN ALL THESE THINGS, UH, WHEN GIVING AN ORDER THAT YOU FEEL IS UNLAWFUL AND YOU FEEL BEING IS BEING DECEPTIVE. UH, HE HAD A DUTY TO SPEAK UP AND HE HAD A DUTY TO STAND UP FOR, UH, A ROOKIE OFFICER WHO BEING FORCED TO REMAIN IN THIS MEETING, YOU KNOW, WAS ASKED TO DO SOMETHING THAT CORPORAL JONES HONESTLY FELT WAS AN ILLEGAL ACT. UM, YOU KNOW, THE VIDEO WILL BE PLAYED. UH, AND I, I GUESS I'LL, I'LL RESERVE THIS FOR ARGUMENT LATER, BUT, UH, I JUST RESPECTFULLY ASK THIS BOARD TO, WHEN YOU WATCH A VIDEO, WATCH THE WATCH IT IN ITS ENTIRETY. UH, YOU'LL SEE WHAT, UH, ATTORNEY RAINS MENTIONED, UH, UP UNTIL THE POINT OF CORPORAL JONES BEING RELEASED. BUT THEN THE VIDEO PLAYS ON. UH, THOSE ARE THE IMPORTANT PARTS I ASKED YOU TO WATCH AND MAINTAIN YOUR JUDGMENT ON MR. ON CORPORAL JONES' ACTIONS UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN THE ENTIRETY OF THE VIDEO. UM, FROM THAT POINT, UM, WE FEEL THAT THERE HAS BEEN DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST CORPORAL JONES, UM, FROM, I BELIEVE I HAVE THE DATE HERE OF, FROM THE MAY 11TH TO AUGUST 12TH. HE WAS RELIEVED OF HIS, THEY, THEY TOOK HIS COMMISSION CARD. HE WAS RELIEVED OF DUTY. UH, THAT AFFECTS OFFICERS IN DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THAT AFFECTS THEIR ABILITY TO BE POLICE OFFICERS THAT AFFECTS THEIR ABILITY TO WORK EXTRA DUTY. UH, THERE HAS BEEN PENALTIES THAT, UH, OFFICER JONES OR CORPORAL JONES HAS SUSTAINED IN THIS MATTER, UH, THAT WE DON'T FEEL WERE WARRANTED AT ALL DESPITE BEING WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE CHIEF. UM, WE FEEL THAT HIS ACTIONS ULTIMATELY, WERE ONLY TRYING TO UPHOLD INTEGRITY FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND UTMOST TRANSPARENCY. UM, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED HOWEVER YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. IT SEEMS THAT THE VIDEOS AND ORDER THEM, DID THAT LIFT UP? NO. UH, THEY WOULD START THEIR CASE IN CHIEF, THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. WE'LL, UH, CALL CORPORAL JONES TO THE STAND. MORNING. MORNING. GOOD MORNING. YEAH, IF YOU'VE BEEN SWORN IN ALREADY. SO, UM, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. THAT BUSINESS ADDRESS? YEAH, JUST, OKAY. UH, CORPORAL ERNEST JONES, UH, 9,000 AIRLINE HIGHWAY. UH, WHAT'S YOUR CURRENT RANK AND ASSIGNMENT? UH, I'M A CORPORAL. I'M CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO FORT DAYS A ROTATION. CORPORAL JONES, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE TURN TO EXHIBIT 11, BOOK THE BINDER BEFORE YOU, THAT'S A COPY OF THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING NOTICE IN CASE OH 34 DASH 24, WHICH IS YOUR CASE. AND THAT'S ADDRESSED TO YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. THAT'S DATED JULY 25TH, 2024. YES, SIR. UM, YOUR NOTICE LETTER OUTLINES THE FACTS REGARDING THE INCIDENT THAT ROSE RESULTED IN THE INVESTIGATION INVOLVING YOU AND ALSO THE POTENTIAL POLICY VIOLATIONS. IS THAT CORRECT? I'M ASSUMING YOU WANTED ME TO READ THE ENTIRE THING OR WELL HAVE, YOU'VE REVIEWED IT BEFORE, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR, I HAVE. OKAY. SO THE, WHEN YOU REVIEWED IT BEFORE, DOES THAT LETTER OUTLINE WHAT THE FACTS ARE AND THE POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF A POLICY? UM, I THINK IT LEFT OUT, UM, ABOUT THE INFORMATION, SO, AND I EXPLAINED THAT IN MY, IN MY PREVIOUS INCIDENT. IN YOUR RESPONSE. RIGHT. BUT DOES THAT LETTER TALK ABOUT THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED ON MAY 11TH, 2024 FOR WHICH YOU WERE ULTIMATELY DISCIPLINED? CORRECT. MAYBE, UH, 80% OF THE INCIDENT. ALRIGHT. [00:40:01] IF YOU RETURN TO THE LAST PAGE OF THE DOCUMENT, CAN YOU IDENTIFY WHETHER THAT'S YOUR SIGNATURE OR NOT? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. SO YOU, YOU DON'T DISPUTE THAT THAT IS A COPY OF THE PREDIS NOTICE THAT YOU RECEIVED AND SIGNED, CORRECT? CORRECT. WELL, THAT'S FORMALITY. YOU HAVE TO, RIGHT. SO WE'LL OFFER THAT AS OUR EXHIBIT 11. I HAVE TO, I EXHIBIT 11 IS ADMITTED. ALRIGHT. NOW, ULTIMATELY ON SEPTEMBER 25 OF THIS YEAR, YOU PARTICIPATED IN A PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. UM, AND YOU WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AT THE HEARING? NO, SIR. YES, SIR. AT THE HEARING? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. UM, AS A RESULT OF THE HEARING, ULTIMATELY YOU RECEIVED A NOTICE OF RULING, IS THAT, DO YOU RECALL THAT? YES, SIR. OKAY. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE TURN TO EXHIBIT 12. ALRIGHT. IS THAT A COPY OF, IS EXHIBIT 12 A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF RULING THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM CHIEF MORRISE? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. AND IF YOU TURN TO AGAIN, THE LAST PAGE OF THAT DOCUMENT, IS YOUR SIGNATURE ON THAT PAGE? NO. YES, SIR. OKAY. AND WE'LL MOVE THAT EXHIBIT 12. UH, BE ADMITTED. SO ADMITTED. ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE NOTICE OF RULING AS WELL? UH, MEANING HAVE, HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE NOTICE OF RULING OR AWARE OF ITS CONTENTS? OH, YES, SIR. OKAY. DO, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY BASED ON THE LETTER, UM, IT SAYS THAT THE CHIEF DISCIPLINED YOU? UH, I SEE THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION AND, UM, THEN I WAS QUESTIONED DURING THE HEARING AND THEN I RECEIVED A, A, A PUNISHMENT. RIGHT. AND, AND THE LETTER ITSELF OUTLINES THE REASONS FOR THAT, CORRECT? WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T REFERENCE THIS INSIDE THE HEARING. WELL, NOT INSIDE THE HEARING. UM, BUT THAT COMES AFTER THE HEARING. YOU RECEIVED IT AFTER THE HEARING, CORRECT. THIS NOTICE THEY GAVE US, THEY GAVE US THE IA INVESTIGATION, BUT MY QUESTIONS WERE DIFFERENT INSIDE THE, UH, PREDIS. RIGHT. OKAY. HERE, HERE'S MY QUESTION. I THINK I'M, I'M, WE'RE MISSING EACH OTHER. OKAY. UM, THE NOTICE OF RULING, THE, THE ONE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT THERE, EXHIBIT 12, RIGHT. THAT LETTER DESCRIBES CHIEF MORRIS'S THAT, LIKE THE FACTS BASE THAT HE, THAT HE, UM, EXPLAINS IN THAT LETTER. THOSE ARE THE FACTS UPON WHICH HE MADE HIS DECISION. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, HIS SIGNATURE IS ON HERE, THIS IS THE IA INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? THIS IS HIS SIGNATURE, BUT THE QUESTION WERE DIFFERENT. AM I MISUNDERSTANDING YOU? UH, YEAH. OKAY. LET'S JUST BACK UP A LITTLE BIT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF WHY YOU RECEIVED A NOTICE OF RULING? RIGHT. YOU DO? RIGHT. OKAY. AND THAT'S FOR THE CHIEF TO EXPLAIN TO YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE DISCIPLINED AND WHY YOU'RE DISCIPLINED, RIGHT? CORRECT. YES, SIR. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU? YES, SIR. OKAY. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE FAMILIAR NOW WITH WHY THE CHIEF DISCIPLINED YOU BASED ON THIS LETTER, RIGHT? THE PREDIS. OKAY. UM, AND IN THAT LETTER IT SHOWS THAT YOU WERE, UH, SUSTAINED ON TWO VIOLATIONS, THREE 18 CARRYING OUT ORDERS AND THREE 19 INSUBORDINATION, CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND FOR THAT, YOU RECEIVED A TOTAL OF A FOUR DAY SUSPENSION? YES, SIR. OKAY. NOW, THE INCIDENT THAT, UH, FOR WHICH YOU WERE DISCIPLINED, THAT OCCURRED ON MAY 11TH, 2024, IS THAT CORRECT? UM, ACTUALLY IT WAS BEHIND THE REPORT, NOT SO MUCH WHAT HAPPENED ON MAY 11TH. THEY ASKED ME ABOUT WHY DID I GIVE DIFFERENT CHARGES ON THE REPORT, WHICH I EXPLAINED. UM, THEY ASKED ME IF I WAS GRIMES IS, UH, FTO, UH, WHEN YOU SAY THEY, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE MEETING BECAUSE I'M, YEAH. YES, SIR. WELL, UH, CHIEF MORRIS ASKED ME THOSE QUESTIONS. OH, WELL, ALONG WITH THE OTHER PANEL, THEY ASKED ME WHY DID I MAKE THOSE CHARGES AND WHY DID I MAKE A DECISION TO CHARGE THE YOUNG LADY WITH A MISDEMEANOR INSTEAD OF A FELON. OKAY. BUT DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE, THE FINDINGS OF INSUBORDINATION AND CARRYING OUT ORDERS, THOSE ARE RELATED TO THE EVENTS OF THE MEETING THAT YOU HAD WITH SERGEANT SMITH AS WELL AS LIEUTENANT MILLER ON MAY 11TH, 2024. OKAY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU? YEAH. OKAY. YES, SIR. UM, BEFORE MAY 11TH, YOU HAD BEEN, UH, AND LET'S GO BACK TO THE DATE THAT THIS, THIS REPORT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WAS INITIALLY DONE BACK IN MARCH, RIGHT? MARCH 25TH. OKAY. SO YOU WERE THE FIELD TRAINING OFFICER FOR OFFICER GRIMES AT THAT TIME, CORRECT? THAT'S PRIMARY FIELD TRAINING OFFICER. OKAY. UM, AND [00:45:01] THE REPORT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, AND WE'LL SHOW YOU IN JUST A SEC THAT REPORT, YOU, YOU WERE PART OF THAT INVESTIGATION OR YOU PARTICIPATING IN THAT INVESTIGATION? YES, SIR. OKAY. NOW, ON MAY 11TH, WHEN YOU MET WITH SERGEANT SMITH AND LIEUTENANT MILLER, YOU WERE NO LONGER THE FTO FOR OFFICER GRIMES, CORRECT? NO. WELL, YOU HAVE BASIS TO WHERE THEY, UM, GIVE HIM A PRIMARY FTO AND THEN THEY GO TO TWO OTHER PHASES, THEN THEY COME BACK TO THEIR PRIMARY, I'M HIS PRIMARY FTO, MEANING HE WOULD'VE CAME BACK TO ME IN HIS FINAL PHASE. OKAY. BUT YOU, YOU WERE NOT HIS FTO AT THAT TIME, CORRECT? NOT AT THAT TIME, NO, SIR. UM, NOW, EARLIER WHEN YOUR ATTORNEY WAS GIVING HIS OPENING STATEMENT, HE REFERRED TO YOU AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF OFFICER GRIMES. NOBODY POINTED YOU AS HIS REPRESENTATIVE IN ANY CAPACITY, DID THEY? WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT? HE DID. WELL, HE, ANYTIME YOU, ANYTIME YOU'RE THREATENING DISCIPLINE, A SUPERVISOR THREATENS YOU, DISCIPLINE, YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT FOR SOMEBODY TO COME IN AND SIT WITH YOU. WELL, SO THAT THERE IS A CONTEXT OF DISCIPLINE WITHIN WHICH THAT MIGHT OCCUR, THAT'S NOT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH YOU WENT TO THAT MEETING? YES. THE PURPOSE YOU WENT TO THAT MEETING WAS TO DISCUSS ISSUES RELATED TO THE REPORT, CORRECT? NO, I WENT THERE FOR, THE TEXT MESSAGE TO REPORT WAS ACTUALLY LOCKED, UH, MAY 1ST RMS LOCKED MAY 1ST. SO IT, WE WERE UNABLE TO CHANGE THE REPORT REGARDLESS. WE WOULD'VE HAD TO GO INTO EXXON, EXXON AND RETYPE THE REPORT COMPLETELY IN ORDER TO CHANGE IT. ALRIGHT. LET'S BACK UP THEN. YOU ARE, YOU WERE NOT A UNION REPRESENTATIVE FOR OFFICER GRIMES ON MAY 11TH, 2024, CORRECT? HE GOT OTHER, HE HAVE OTHER OPTIONS YEAH. TO BRING HIM. YOU WERE NOT NO, I'M NOT A UNION REP, NO, SIR. OKAY. SO YOU WERE NOT A RECOGNIZED UNION REPRESENTATIVE TO REPRESENT HIM WHEN MEETING WITH SERGEANT SMITH AND LIEUTENANT MILLER, CORRECT? NO, I WAS NOT A UNION REP, NO, SIR. AND YOU WERE NOT IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND FOR OFFICER GRIMES AT THAT TIME? YES. HIS FTO GAVE HIM PERMISSION, WHICH WE SHOWED IN A TEXT MESSAGE. HIS FTO GAVE HIM PERMISSION TO MEET WITH ME SINCE I WAS THE PRIMARY OFFICER. HE SAID, MEET WITH JONES AND THEN YOU CAN GO DISCUSS IT WITH SERGEANT SMIT. AND SHE GOT PERMISSION FROM CAPTAIN SIBLEY AT THE FIRST DISTRICT. OKAY. SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT AN FTO GAVE HIM PERMISSION TO MEET WITH YOU, BUT YOU WERE NOT HIS CHAIN OF COMMAND ON MAY 11TH, 2024. RIGHT. HIS CHAIN OF COMMAND GAVE HIM PERMISSION TO MEET IT. OKAY. YEAH. YOU WERE NOT HIS CHAIN OF COMMAND, BUT SERGEANT SMITH WAS IN YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND, RIGHT? YES, SIR. LIEUTENANT LONNIE MILLER WAS IN YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND, CORRECT? YES, SIR. YES, SIR. NOW, YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT ON MAY 11, OFFICER GRIMES CONTACTED YOU AND SAID THAT HE HAD BEEN CONTACTED BY SERGEANT SMITH, CORRECT? YES, SIR. VIA TEXT, VIA EMAIL. AND THAT WAS ABOUT THE POLICE REPORT, RIGHT? UH, WELL, HE, HE SAID HE WAS GONNA PUNISHMENT IF PUNISH HIM IF HE DID NOT CHANGE THE REPORT, IF HE DID NOT CHANGE THE REPORT, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO TURN TO TAB THREE FOR ME PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. THE REPORT IN FRONT OF YOU IS IDENTIFIED AS WHAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED AS EXHIBIT THREE. ON THE TOP RIGHT HAND CORNER IT SAYS REPORT NUMBER 24 DASH 0 2 9 3 7 4, CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND THE REPORT OFFICER IS OFFICER RONALD GRIMES? YES, SIR. AND AS THE OFFICER WHO WAS THE ROOKIE THAT, UH, YOU ARE THE FTO FOR ON MARCH 25TH? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND IF WE LOOK AT THE VERY LAST, OR SECOND TO LAST PAGE, PAGE EIGHT OF NINE, IT SHOWS THAT, UH, RONALD GRIMES IS THE PRIMARY ON THE REPORT, CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND THEN YOU WERE LISTED BE BEHIND THAT ON THE SECOND, THE, THE LAST PAGE OF THE REPORT? VERY LAST PAGE NINE NINE. YES SIR. THAT'S YOU? OKAY? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT, WE'LL OFFER THIS AS EXHIBIT THREE. OKAY. EXHIBIT THREE IS, UM, ACCEPTED. NOW, WHEN WHEN YOU WENT TO MEET WITH SERGEANT SMITH, UM, YOU'RE AWARE THAT THAT MEETING WAS RECORDED, CORRECT? UH, SOMEWHERE DOWN THE, DOWN THE LINE. I DIDN'T INITIALLY KNOW. AND, UM, BUT AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, YOU'RE AWARE IT WAS RECORDED RIGHT AT TODAY? YES, SIR. I WAS AWARE. OKAY. AND HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT, UH, BODY CAM FOOTAGE? YES, SIR, I HAVE. AND THAT IS FROM SERGEANT SMITH'S BODY CAMERA, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND HE KEPT HIS CAMERA ON WHILE YOU WERE PRESENT IN THE ROOM WITH HIM? YES, SIR. [00:50:01] TO MY, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE DAY OF IT, UM, IT'S LIKE UP IN THE AIR AND I EXPLAINED THAT TO THE IA INVESTIGATOR. I WASN'T SURE IF HE WAS RECORDING ME OR NOT. OKAY. YOU, YOU'RE AWARE AS OF TODAY THOUGH? YES, SIR. YOU WERE RECORDED WHAT, DURING THAT MEETING AND AT SOME POINT DURING THE MEETING HE TOLD YOU HE WAS RECORDING IT, RIGHT? UH, HE TOLD THAT TO THE, UH, UNION REP THAT HE WAS RECORDING. YOU DON'T RECALL HIM TELLING YOU? UH, I CAN'T REMEMBER. I CAN'T RECALL. OKAY. I JUST FIGURED NOW I'M, I'M NOT GETTING INTO THE DETAILS OF THIS, BUT THIS, THERE WAS A PRIOR TIME WHERE SERGEANT SMITH HAD WRITTEN UP, WRITTEN YOU UP BEFORE, IS THAT RIGHT? UH, IT WAS A CONFERENCE WORKSHEET HE TOLD ME. UM, AND, AND I DON'T REALLY WANNA GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THAT 'CAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY. BUT, UH, LEMME JUST ASK IT THIS WAY. WAS THERE A BIT OF FRICTION OR TENSION BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU BECAUSE OF PAST HISTORY? LEMME JUST ASK IT LIKE THAT. UH, I ATTEMPTED TO REPORT HIM FOR HIS, UH, HIS ACTIONS TOWARDS MYSELF AND THE SQUAD. AND THEN THAT CREATED A, A TENSION. I ACTUALLY REQUESTED TO SEE THE CHIEF, UH, THREE OR FOUR TIMES IN JANUARY TO DISCUSS THOSE ITEMS. ALRIGHT. AND, UH, THAT CREATED THE ATTENTION. NOW I'M, WHAT I'M GONNA DO IN JUST A SECOND IS I'M GONNA SHOW YOU PORTIONS OF THE MAY 11TH MEETING, OKAY? OKAY. YES SIR. UM, WE'VE MARKED IT AS EXHIBIT ONE IN OUR BINDER. AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE RECORD, THERE IS A THUMB DRIVE THAT'S GOT A RECORDING OF THAT. UM, IT'S IN MR. DE'S FOLDER AS WELL AS THE RECORD FOLDER. SO, UH, I'M GONNA PLAY AGAIN. THE, THE VIDEO ITSELF IS VERY LONG. THERE'S PORTIONS WHERE PEOPLE ARE JUST SITTING AROUND, NOTHING'S HAPPENING. SO I'M GOING TO FAST FORWARD A COUPLE OF SPOTS. THIS, THIS IS WHERE I HAVE TO INTERJECT, IF I MAY. UM, I, I HOLD OBJECTION TO ONLY PARTIAL CLIPS OF THE VIDEO BEING PLAYED. UH, I THINK A REMEDY FOR THAT, SINCE THE VIDEO WILL BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE, LIKELY, UH, IF I'M ALLOWED TO REPLAY SIMILAR PORTIONS OF THE VIDEO, IF ONLY SECTIONS ARE PLAYED FOR THE BOARD. I THINK IT'S NOT FAIR TO THIS HEARING AND TO THIS BOARD IF YOU'RE ONLY ABLE TO WITNESS CERTAIN EXCERPTS WITHOUT CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE VIDEO. SO JUST FOR CLARITY, YOU WANT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO PLAY YOUR OWN, UH, EXCERPTS AS WELL. WELL, OR OR EVEN YES. OF, OF, UH, BAT ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S EXHIBIT. I BELIEVE THIS IS EXHIBIT, IT'S EXHIBIT ONE FOR US. YEAH. IF I CAN BE ABLE TO PLAY, I THINK THAT'LL RE REMEDY MY ISSUES WITH SURE. THEM ONLY PLAYING EXCERPTS RIGHT NOW. AND IOT ASK ABOUT THAT IS, 'CAUSE WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS, THERE ARE SOME PORTIONS THAT HE WANTS TO PLAY THAT I BELIEVE ARE IRRELEVANT TO THIS HEARING. SO I WOULD JUST ASK THAT WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR HIM TO, TO REQUEST TO PLAY VIDEO, THAT WE JUST HAVE DISCOURSE ABOUT OUR OBJECTION OVER IT. AND THAT'S IT. I, I THINK TO, TO DELAY A DECISION ON WHETHER I CAN DO IT LATER AND AGREE TO IT NOW WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, INTENTIOUS TO, TO MY ARGUMENT AND MY POSITION. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT. SO WHAT I, IT'S ADMITTED, I THINK THE WHOLE VIDEO SHOULD BE ADMITTED. WHAT I THINK WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS THE WHOLE VIDEO IS GONNA BE ADMITTED. MR. RAINS IS GONNA OBVIOUSLY FOCUS ON WHAT HE THINKS IS IMPORTANT. MM-HMM. YOU'LL HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY AND AS FAR AS WHO OBJECTS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S RELEVANT, Y'ALL CAN DO THAT IN REAL TIME. IS THAT FAIR? UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. THANK YOU. THAT'S FAIR. ALRIGHT. RIGHT. OKAY. UM, SO I, I THINK YOU CAN SIT DOWN FOR A FEW MINUTES BECAUSE IT'S GONNA PLAY FOR A WHILE. OKAY. UM, JUST FOR CONTEXT, THIS IS GONNA BE SERGEANT SMITH, UH, CORPORAL JONES AND OFFICER GRIMES IN A ROOM TOGETHER AT THIRD DISTRICT. THAT'S ALL I'M GONNA GIVE. IF, IF I MAY. YEAH. UM, AND AGAIN, THIS MAY BE A RELEVANCY ARGUMENT. UM, I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE PLAYING IT AT THE SECONDS BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THE AUDIO STARTS. UM, WELL THERE'S A, THERE'S A PHONE CALL THAT SERGEANT SMITH IS TAKING ABOUT ANOTHER MATTER, ANOTHER POLICE MATTER. SO I'M STARTING IT RIGHT WHEN HE GETS OFF THE PHONE. I THINK THE, UH, THE ENTRANCE OF ALL THE WITNESSES INTO THE ROOM IS RELEVANT. IT'S, IT'S A MINUTE AND A HALF. IT DOESN'T, I MEAN, WHATEVER. JUST, JUST THE FIRST PART. IT'S, IT'S QUIET PART. THERE'S NO SOUND. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I KNOW IT'S NOT EDITED. I'M JUST, YOU COULD JUST PLAY IT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND THEN SKIP TO THIS, THIS MOMENT. UH, IT'S ONLY A MINUTE AND A HALF. I'LL JUST PLAY IT. SURE. THAT MATTERED TO ME. IF IT'S TOO LOUD OR NOT LOUD ENOUGH, YOU'LL [00:55:30] UH, GO AHEAD KAYLA. WHAT YOU GOT? HEY, YOU UM, CHARGE AGAINST THE JUVENILE OR DOMESTIC BEEF BACK. YOU DON'T HAVE A VICTIM. YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHO THE MOM AND THE SON IS. WELL, I KNOW WHO MOM IS. WE GOT HER NAME. I JUST DON'T KNOW WHOSE SON IS. AND MY SON IS UNKNOWN IN HIS PERSONAL PAGE. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING, CALEB, IS THAT YOU, YOU, YOU HADN'T TALKED TO THE MAMA OR THE, OR THE SON AND YOU THERE BECAUSE SOMEBODY FROM THE STORE CONTACTED YOU. THAT'S WHY YOU THERE. SO THEY LEFT THE SCENE BEFORE YOU GOT THERE, GOT, SO YOU DON'T HAVE INFORMATION ON IT, YOU KNOW, SO JUST WRITE IT HOW HEADQUARTERS DISPATCHED YOU THERE AND THE PARTY WAS GONE PRIOR TO YOU ROBBERY. YOU CAN'T PUT CHARGES ON NOBODY 'CAUSE YOU GOTTA HAVE A VICTIM IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE. SO WRITE IT AS A NONCRIME THEN THAT THIS WOULD BE A NONCRIME PUBLIC ASSIST. YOU KNOW, IT WAS UH, YOU WAS DISPATCHED TO A THIRD. UH, IT CAN ACTUALLY BE A DISTURBANCE BUT YOU AIN'T GONNA HAVE AN OFFENSE. YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE A 4 0 1. YOU KNOW THAT'S WHAT YOU WAS DISPATCHED TO AND EVERYBODY WAS GONE BEFORE YOU GOT THERE. IT WAS A 4 0 2 AND UH, AND THEY LEFT BEFORE YOU GOT THERE. OKAY, COOL. I CAN WORK WITH THAT. ALRIGHT MAN. APPRECIATE IT. ALRIGHT, BYE. HOW YOU DOING TODAY? I'M GOOD. WHAT'D YOU SAY? I SAID I'M TRYING TO BE GOOD. I'M TRYING JUST ROLL WITH YOU. WORKING TODAY? YEAH. WHO YOU WORKING WITH? I WAS WORKING WITH YOU WAS ON DAY SHIFT? YEAH. GOING ON. YOU WAS WITH WHO? AARON UH, SEYMOUR. MR. RYANS, CAN YOU TURN IT UP? YOU WANT ME TO SEYMOUR AARON'S OFF. OKAY. HEY, SO WHAT'S IMPORTANT HOLD UP. HOLD, UH, CORPORAL JONES. FIRST CORPORAL JONES. CORPORAL JONES. CORPORAL JONES. I'M TALKING CORPORAL JONES. I'M TALKING. OKAY, SO, OKAY. CORPORATE JONES. I CORPORATE JONES. I'M TALKING. OKAY. I AM TALKING. DO NOT BE INSUBORDINATE WITH ME. YOU GOT THAT? THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING. OKAY. I'M TALKING TO RONALD GRIMES RIGHT NOW. WAS FT OKAY. YOU WAS AS FTO, RIGHT? I'M TALKING TO RONDA GRIMES RIGHT NOW. WHEN I FINISH TALKING TO RON, RONALD GRIMES RIGHT NOW, THEN I'M GONNA DIVERT MY ATTENTION TO YOU. RIGHT NOW. I'M TALKING TO RONALD GRIMES. YES SIR. BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M DEALING WITH WITH YOU. OKAY? UH, WHAT'S THE LAST THING I ASKED YOU? GRAHAM, SIR. ALL RIGHT, LISTEN, I AIN'T TALKING TO YOU. I'M TALKING YOU IN A MINUTE. OKAY. SO WHEN HE WAS ON THE SQUAD, I TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REPORT WRITING AND HOW YOU SHOULD WRITE THE REPORT. OKAY? AS SOON AS YOU GOT TO THE SQUAD, YOUR VERY FIRST DAY CORPORAL JONES HAD YOU. CORPORAL JONES WAS HERE. CORPORAL JONES. HEY. HEY LISTEN, I'M I HEY YOU BEING INSUBORDINATE? I AM TALKING TO, I'M TALKING TO GRIMES. I'M ASKING, I'M TALKING TO GRIMES AND I'M GONNA TALK TO YOU AFTERWARDS. I'M ASKING. SO I NEED YOU NOT TO INTERRUPT ME AND NOT CUT ME UP. OKAY? I NEED YOU TO HOLD WHAT YOU GOT RESTRAINING. HEY JONES. JONES. HOLD. WHAT YOU GOT? I'M ASKING A LIEUTENANT THIRD PARTY CORPORAL JONES. I SAID HOLD WHAT YOU GOT UNTIL I GET TO YOU. I'M TALKING TO OFFICER GRIMES RIGHT NOW. AND I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU ABOUT THE COURT. I'M TALKING TO GRIMES. SO YOU HAVE TO TALK TO, HEY, I'M GONNA PUT YOU OUTTA HERE JONES. YOU. HOW DID YOU PUT ME OUT? OUT? 'CAUSE I'M A SUPERVISOR. YOU SIT THERE. I MICRO THAT JONES SIT THERE. I'M TALKING TO GRINDS. I TOLD YOU I'M GONNA TALK TO YOU LIKE THAT. I'M TALKING TO GRINDS RIGHT NOW. I'M GONNA TALK TO YOU. SIT THERE AND BE QUIET UNTIL I GET TO YOU. I'M TALKING TO GRIMES. OKAY? WHEN YOU WAS ON THIS SQUAD, UH, GRIMES, I TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THE CORRECT WAY TO WRITE REPORTS IN WHICH YOU NEED TO DO THAT SAME REPORT. I KICKED IT BACK BECAUSE WHEN YOU INITIALLY WROTE IT, LISTEN TO CORPORATE'S ROOM, IT WAS INCORRECT. OKAY? SO AFTER I TOLD YOU WHAT THE LADY SAID WHEN SHE CALLED UP HERE, IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN YOU WORKING THE DESK AND SOMEBODY, HEY LISTEN, THE JOAN KNOW WHAT YOU NEED TO DO. GET OUTTA HERE. GET OUT HERE. LEMME TALK TO HIM. I'M GOING, HE GOING LISTEN, GET OUTTA HERE. GO GO INTO THE ROLL CALL ROOM. OKAY? I'M TALKING TO GRIME. GO. I'M YOUR SUPERVISOR. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DON'T SUPERVISE MEETING ALREADY. COED TRY TO. I NEED YOU LI TO GET UP OUTTA HERE. YOU I'M GONNA GET THE LIEUTENANT, OKAY? OKAY. 'CAUSE I'M GONNA WRITE YOU UP SOME [01:00:01] MORE. CAN YOU COME IN HERE PLEASE? NOW AS I WAS SAYING, I'M STILL TALKING TO OFFICER GRIMES AND I WOULD LIKE, HEY, I NEED YOU TO BE QUIET WHILE I'M TALKING TO GRIMES JONES. NEED YOU HOLD WHAT YOU GOT. HOLD ON REAL QUICK. THIS IS HAVE TO DO ABOUT THE REPORT. HOLD WHAT YOU GOT. WHEN YOU WAS ON THE SQUAD, I TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THE CORRECT WAY TO WRITE THAT REPORT. 'CAUSE WHEN Y'ALL INITIALLY WROTE IT FOLLOWING CORPORAL JONES' INSTRUCTIONS, YOU DIDN'T WRITE IT CORRECTLY. THE LADY CALLED UP HERE COMPLAINED. I THEN CONTACTED YOU LIKE I NORMALLY WOULD DO. AN OFFICER SAY, HEY, YOU WROTE IT LIKE THIS. THE COMPLAINANT CALLED AND SAID THIS, YOU NEED TO FIX THE REPORT. NORMALLY OFFICER GO AND THEY'LL FIX THE REPORT. BUT CORPORAL JONES ADVISED YOU IN OTHER DIRECTION. OKAY? THE REPORT IS STILL PENDING. LEGAL HAS AN EMAIL ABOUT IT. I EMAILED YOU ABOUT IT. I TRIED TO CALL YOU A COUPLE TIMES. THEY EVEN CALLED YOUR FTO HAD THEM PUT YOU ON THE PHONE TO FIX THE REPORT. YOU TOLD ME Y'ALL WENT TO THE TRAINING ACADEMY. TRAINING ACADEMY SAID THE REPORT WAS CORRECT. OKAY? CORPORAL JONES WENT OVER TO TRAINING ACADEMY AND LIEUTENANT CARL MAYO EVEN TOLD HIM WHAT HE WAS SAYING WAS INCORRECT AND HIS SUPERVISORS WAS CORRECT. THE REPORT'S STILL NOT THERE. HEY, I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU JONES. HE WAS OVER THERE. JONES. JONES DON'T CUT ME OFF. I TIME DON'T CUT ME OFF. SIT THERE REAL QUICK. IT WAS THE DAY WE HAD UH, SQUAD TRAINING. LIEUTENANT MAYO CAME TO SEE ME AND EVERYTHING HE'S SAYING IS CORRECT. GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE. NOW THE REASON WHY THIS REPORT IS SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS ONE REPORT CAN GO UP ALL THE WAY UP TO THE SUPREME COURT AND BECOME CASE LAW. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE ON PROBATION. YOU ARE A ROOKIE AND YOU LEARNING, I GOT THAT YOU WERE BEING INCORRECTLY TRAINED BY CORPORAL JONES. THAT'S WHY HE'S NO LONGER FTO. SO WHAT NEED TO HAPPEN TODAY? YOU NEED TO WRITE THE REPORT HOW HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE. SO WHAT YOU GOT IN THE REPORT, THE REPORT IS NOT GONNA HOLD UP IN COURT. THAT REPORT CAN'T GO TO COURT. THAT HEY, BE QUIET. IT IS ON ME IF I APPROVE IT. OKAY JONES, YOU GOT NINE AND A HALF YEARS ON THIS DEPARTMENT AND YOU'RE ON RIGHT? OKAY. I'M THE SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE. I'M THE SUPERVISOR. I'M CORRECTING THE REPORT. LISTEN, WHEN YOU WRITE THE REPORT, IT IS A NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT HAPPENED. SO WHEN YOU WENT OVER THERE THE FIRST DAY, A LOT OF EVENTS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE REPORT. THAT'S WHAT I CALLED AND I TOLD YOU ABOUT THE NEXT DAY. HOW THE REPORT IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW WOULD NOT HOLD UP IN COURT. YOU CAN'T TESTIFY TO THAT. OKAY? BECAUSE I'M TELLING YOU HOW TO CORRECT THE COURT. NOW, WHEN YOU GRADUATE THE FTO PROGRAM, WHATEVER SQUAD YOU GET ON WHATEVER DIVISION THAT YOU MAY GET IN, YOUR SUPERVISOR GONNA TELL YOU THE CORRECT WAY TO WRITE THE REPORT SO IT CAN HOLD UP IN COURT. YOU AIN'T LYING, YOU AIN'T FALSIFYING NOTHING. YOU JUST WRITING IT HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE WRITTEN. EVEN I TO THIS DAY SOMETIMES HAVE TO CALL THE LTLT. HOW SHOULD I WRITE THIS? I'M KIND OF CONFUSED ON THIS. AND, AND WE GIVE INSTRUCTIONS AND WE WRITE IT, OKAY? WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IS GO IN THERE AND WRITE THE REPORT CHRONOLOGICAL HOW IT IS AND FIX IT SO IT CAN BE APPROVED TODAY. HE DID NOT CHANGE THE REPORT. HE NOT CHANGED THE REPORT. HOW YOU GONNA SAY WHEN YOU NOT GONNA CHANGE THE REPORT? FIRST OF ALL, HOLD, HOLD, HOLD UP BRIAN. HOLD UP. BRIAN AND LIEUTENANT MAYO CONTACTED YOU, CORRECT? YEAH, WE DID EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID. LISTEN, LISTEN TO THE LIEUTENANT. NO, LISTEN TO THE LIEUTENANT. THAT'S HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO LISTEN. SO WHAT YOU DOING RIGHT NOW? SO I GOT YOU ON BODY CAMERA. YOU SAYING YOU AIN'T GONNA CHANGE IT. SO WHAT YOU'RE DOING, YOU FAILING TO CARRY OUT ORDERS? NO, THIS IS WHAT , SO YOU FILLING IF YOU WANNA WRITE IT UP, I'M GIVING YOU A DIRECT ORDER TO HAVE THE CHANGE REPORT AND TO HELP HIM CHANGE THE REPORT. UNDERSTAND? SO YOU SAYING YOU'RE NOT GONNA DO IT RIGHT? YOU FT. SERGEANT, ARE YOU SAYING YOU'S WHY ASKED TO SIGN OFF ON ALL HIS DOCUMENTS? NO. NO. THAT'S NOT SUPPOSED, THAT IS INCORRECT. THAT'S IN THE EMAIL. THAT IS INCORRECT. THAT'S IN THE EMAIL AND AN EMAIL FOR HIM TO TO, TO DON APPROVE THE IS IN EMAIL BECAUSE IT'S CORRECT. ALRIGHT, LOOK, SO YOU LISTEN TO A TURN AFFAIRS BECAUSE, BECAUSE IT, BECAUSE THIS CONCERNS GRIND ALL EXACTLY. THEY ASKED ME. LISTEN, OKAY. ALRIGHT. LIEUTENANT MAYO COME TO SEE ME. EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING IS INCORRECT. HE TOLD ME YOU WERE WRONG. I KNOW YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT. HE TOLD ME YOU TRIED TO ARGUE WITH HIM AND EVERYTHING. ALRIGHT. I [01:05:01] ARGUED WITH HIM. YES. I I DIDN'T SEE YOU BEING UGLY. YOU WERE ARGUING YOUR POINT. HE SAID YOU WERE WRONG. JUST AS A SERGEANT IS WANTING THIS MAN TO FIX THE REPORT, YOU CAN PUT IN THERE I CONSULTED WITH THE SUPERVISOR OR WHATEVER YOU DID, BUT YOU CANNOT PUT, HE TOLD ME TO DO THIS 'CAUSE HE WASN'T MAD. OKAY. HE MAY HAVE CONSULTED WITH YOU. THANK YOU. THAT'S THAT. THAT'S FINE. SITTING DOWN ON THE HEAD THAT THAT'S FINE. BUT THAT'S NOT HOW HE WROTE IT. THAT'S IN THE REPORT. DID YOU? NO, I READ THE REPORT. YOU READ THE SUPPLEMENT. I READ IT AND IT IT'S TOLD ME TO DO. THIS IS INCORRECT. YOU DO NOT DO THAT. OKAY. WHO TOLD HIM TO DO IT NOW? HE TALKED TO THE COMPLAINANT, CORRECT? WELL, YOU HAVE TO WRITE, HE TALKED TO THE COMPLAINANT. IF HE DIDN'T TALK TO NO, I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN ANY THIS. I UNDERSTAND THAT. YOU KNOW HOW THE INVESTIGATION GOES, RIGHT? YES SIR. AND THAT'S ALL WE WANT TO DO IS TO DO IT CORRECT. IT'S AN EMAIL THAT THIS REPORT IS CORRECT. I, THAT REPORT IS NOT CORRECT. THAT PARTICULAR REPORT IS NOT, THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING WE DON'T, THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE FTO ATIONS LIKE THIS FROM THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. OKAY. TO SUBMIT THE REPORT TO FIX IT. CORRECT. WHAT'S FIXING IT? WHY WE CAN'T PUT THAT IN THE NUMBERS. SO I'M ASKING AGAIN, I'M I'M ASKING AGAIN. HEY, I'M ASKING LISTEN, I'M I'M ASKING ONE MORE TIME. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M JUST GONNA ASK YOU ONE MORE TIME. JONES, ARE YOU REFUSING TO FIX THE REPORT? REFUSING TO FOLLOW AN UNLAWFUL ORDER THAT'S NOT UNLAWFUL. ORDER TO, TO PUT SOMETHING IN A REPORT THAT'S NOT UNLAWFUL. ORDER INVESTIGATOR FIX THE REPORT TO PUT SOMETHING IN A REPORT THAT HE NEVER INVESTIGATED IS NOT UNLAWFUL. HEY, I'M ASKING STOP. I'M ASKING STOP. STOP. SO WHAT DID YOU HEAR? STOP. WHAT? WHAT? MY BODY CAN STOP MY BODY. STOP. YOU WANNA STEP OUT? PLEASE? YOU CAN GO AHEAD IN THE, UH, ROLL CALL ROOM FOR ME. I, I'LL I WE'LL BE WITH YOU IN A MINUTE, OKAY? OKAY. THIS THIS PART AIN'T GONNA CONCERN ME. CLOSE THAT DOOR PLEASE. WHY, WHY DO YOU YELL IN FRONT OF HIM LIKE THAT? BUT, BUT WHY IS HE REACHING OUT TO ROUNDS? HOW DOES THIS WORK? BECAUSE YOU INCORRECTLY MADE HIM WRITE THAT REPORT AND THEN LISTEN. DO NOT INTERRUPT ME. I'M TELLING YOU, I SPOKE WITH CARL MAY LIEUTENANT CALLED MAY, DECEMBER EVENING. HE SAID YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LETTING HIM WRITE THOSE REPORTS IN HIS FIRST, IN HIS FIRST WEEK. YOU DID WRONG. YOU CAN STOP WITH THE EMAILS. I SPOKE TO THIS MAN PERSONALLY. I AM NOT WRONG. OKAY? I DON'T BELIEVE HE'S WRONG. I'VE KNOWN CALL MAYO FOR A LONG TIME. HE SAID YOU WENT OVER THERE WITH THAT PARTICULAR REPORT. HE TRIED TO CORRECT YOU AND HE SAID YOU BUCKED HIM ON IT. BASICALLY. OKAY? NOW I'M TELLING YOU. OKAY, WE GOT SOME EMAILS TO CORRECT THAT REPORT. THIS MAN IS TRYING TO TELL THAT OFFICER HOW TO CORRECT IT. WE'RE NOT TELLING HIM WHAT TO PUT IN IT. WE'RE TELLING HIM TO DO HIS INVESTIGATION. AND IF FOR SOME REASON OR ANOTHER HE WAS UNABLE TO INVESTIGATE A CERTAIN THING, HE, HE NEEDS TO PUT THAT IN THERE. THAT'S OKAY. THAT IT'S A CORRECTION. OKAY? THAT'S ALL WE'RE ADVISING TO DO. AND IF YOU'RE GONNA STEP IN AND SAY NO, THAT'S INSUBORDINATION, OKAY? WE'RE NOT TELLING HIM TO FALSIFY ANYTHING. WE WANT THE MAN TO CORRECT OR REPORT THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY WHILE HE WAS ON SCENE AND INTERVIEWED A VICTIM. THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR. WHAT DID, WHAT DO HE WANT HIM TO CORRECT? WHATEVER HE, WE, WE CAN'T LOSE MINDS, WHATEVER'S IN THAT MAN'S BRAIN AND HE CAN REMEMBER HE NEEDS TO CORRECT. HE DID IT ALREADY. NO HE DID NOT. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN CORRECT? 'CAUSE ALL IT SAYS IS CORRECT MR. YOU IS REPORT JONES WHAT? FIRST? CORRECT. SO FIRST OF ALL, AS I EXPLAINED TO YOU BEFORE YOU THREATENED TO WRITE 'EM UP, I WILL WRITE 'EM UP 'CAUSE AND I'M GONNA WRITE YOU UP TOO. BECAUSE, BUT, BECAUSE IF YOU ARE DEFINE ORDERS HERE, THAT'S WHAT YOU DON'T, THERE'S NOT ILLEGAL ABOUT TELLING A MAN TO FIX THE REPORT. THIS IS, THIS IS WHY I, I PREFER EMAILS. THIS IS WHY I PREFER NOAH TO BE IN THIS MEETING BECAUSE THE EMAILS SAVED IN MY LAST DISCIPLINARY HEARING, MY EMAILS. YOU WOULDN'T SAY ONE SUSTAINED ONET SUSTAINED. WE DON'T WANNA DISCUSS THAT. BOTH OF 'EM. UNSU. SUSTAINED. LISTEN. NEGATIVE, NEGATIVE, NEGATIVE. JUST, JUST LISTEN, READ THE LETTER BECAUSE YOU WERE CLEAR TO SOMETHING. DOESN'T MEAN IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. OKAY? SO, OKAY, HOW MANY TIMES YOU SAID STOPPED SOMEBODY FOR A TRAFFIC TICKET AND YOU LET 'EM GO? DOES THAT MEAN YOU STOPPED THEM ILLEGALLY? MY EMAILS SAY, BECAUSE IT IS Y'ALL WERE VERSUS MY RIGHT. LISTEN. SO THAT'S WHY I YOUR PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, I'M NOT TRYING TO HEAR ALL THAT. ALL RIGHT? YEAH. ONE OF THE THING ONE, ONE NOT SUSTAINED QUESTION. I DON'T WANNA HEAR THAT. WE TALKING ABOUT THIS TODAY. THAT REPORT IS WRITTEN INCORRECTLY AND YOU KNOW IT. WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT? ALL OF IT. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT'S WRONG? ALL OF IT. WHAT SERGEANT? ALL OF ESPECIALLY EXPRESS PART. WHEN YOU SAY I, SERGEANT SMITH TOLD ME THIS, SERGEANT. NO. SO THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE JONES THAN WHEN YOU'VE WRITTEN A REPORT AND IT WAS INCORRECT AND A COMPLAINANT CALLED TO GET THE REPORT FIXED AND YOU SAID, JONES, YOU WROTE THIS WRONG. THIS OUTTA THE COMPLAINTANT SAID FIX IT. WHAT DID, WHAT IUH HE TIME. WHEN DID YOU KNOW? BECAUSE NOT [01:10:01] HE RECORD THIS, RIGHT? OH YEAH. WHEN DID HAPPEN? PLEASE GIMME A TIME AND A DATE. DID YOU NOT HEAR WHAT I SAY? DID YOU NOT HEAR WHAT I SAY? OKAY. CAN YOU TELL HIM WHAT HE NEEDS TO FIX? CAN YOU TELL ME RIGHT NOW? LISTEN, WHAT HE NEEDS TO ALL OF IT. REWRITE THE WHOLE REPORT. IT IS INCORRECT. PLEASE. CAN YOU TELL ME YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT HE NEEDS TO FIX? I'LL FIX IT MYSELF PLEASE. YOU GO TEN EIGHT. WHO? YOU IF HE I I'M DONE TALKING TO YOU. I'M, I'M GONNA HAVE PICTURE MYSELF. YOU TEND TO, YOU'RE NOT TOUCHING THAT REPORTS ARE YOU? OH, OH, SO YOU DEFINE ORDER, DEFINE WHAT ORDERS YOU PRAY TO CARRY ORDER. UH, UNLAWFUL. YOU'RE NOT AS FTO ANYMORE. YOU'RE NOT AS FTO. O YEAH. SO, SO YOU'RE NOT AN FT SERGEANT, RIGHT? DON'T DON DON'T GRIND. WHERE YOU AT? GET YOUR COMPUTER. COME IN THE OFFICE. IN HERE. COMPUTER. COME IN OFFICE. OKAY, LIEUTENANT, AGREE WITH THIS OFFICE. JONES, YOU'RE TEN EIGHT. NO, I'M NOT LEAVING. OH, YOU'RE NOT LEAVING BECAUSE HE'S STILL THERE. HE STILL, HEY, YOU ARE TEN EIGHT. YOU NO LONGER HE, HE NEED HIS FT. SO YOU'RE NOT LEAVING. YOU NOT LEAVING FTO HERE. HEY, YOU NOT LEAVING. I'M STAYING WITH HIM. YOU GOT GO. YOU ARE FAILING TO FILE A LAWFUL ORDER. GRIME GO INTO SERGEANT'S OFFICE RIGHT THERE. LET'S GET THIS REPORT FIXED. I I, CAN I SPEAK IN THE FTO PROGRAM? DID Y'ALL READ THE F GO SIT OVER THAT DESK OVER THERE. SIT IN THAT DESK RIGHT OVER THERE. LET'S GET THIS FIXED. HEY, I'M PUTTING A LETTER ON YOU JONES. HAVE A SEAT RIGHT THERE. LEMME TELL YOU WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS REPORT. PULL IT UP, JONES. EXCUSE YOURSELF. JONES. GET OUTTA THIS OFFICE. NO, AND I'M NOT GOING, I'M GIVING YOU A DIRECT ORDER TO LEAVE THIS. I'M GIVING YOU A DIRECT ORDER TO LEAVE THIS OFFICE FROM THE ACADEMY. MY LIEUTENANT IS HERE. HE NOT YOU ARE GIVING A DIRECT ORDER. LEAVE THIS OFFICE. DON'T, THIS IS ALL INAPPROPRIATE. OKAY. HOW? BECAUSE YOU, BECAUSE YOU TRYING TO GET A SUPERVISOR IN FRONT OF THE TRAINEE LEAVE. I'M ASKING HIM TO LEAVE WITH ME. LEAVE THE ROOM AND THERE WILL BE NO MORE ARGUING. I GO TEN EIGHT JONES. I GO TEN EIGHT. YOU THIS CLOSE TO ME PULLING YOUR BADGE TODAY AND SENDING YOU HOME. OKAY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME? I UNDERSTAND THAT. LEAVE THE ROOM BECAUSE I WON'T FOLLOW ON YOU. CALL SOMEBODY. I'M TELLING YOU ONE MORE TIME. I'M GONNA BUY THE FOOL. YOUR BADGE. I'M GONNA CALL THE CAPTAIN. I'M ABOUT THE WELL, CAN I GET THAT MEAN I ON REPRESENTATION, RIGHT, JONES? NO, WE, WE WE'RE NOT IN HEARING RIGHT NOW. I NEED REPRESENTATION BECAUSE I BROUGHT HIM HERE SO WE CAN GET THIS CLIP JONES STEP OUT OF THE ROOM. NOT ALRIGHT. I'M, I'M GOOD. PHONE, ROGER. UH, STANDBY. YOU GOT BEFORE PULLED UP? YEAH, I GOT IT PULLED UP. TOLD OH, SO NOW YOU, NOW THAT'S THIS COMPUTER. THAT'S THEFT. YOU GOT IT. THAT'S COMPUTER. IT'S IN YOUR, IT IS IN YOUR POSSESSION. SO THAT THEFT, I'M HERE. THAT'S, THAT'S THEFT. I'M NOT DRIVING HIM OR NOTHING. HEY, HOLD, WHAT YOU GOT? JUST HOLD WHAT YOU GOT? I MIGHT NEED SOME. HEY, UH, HE WENT AND TOOK HIS COMPUTER FROM MLT TRYING TAKE ANYTHING. I, I ON THE PHONE. SOMEBODY, SMITH, I'M GONNA GET WITH YOU GROUNDS, UH, LET THE LIEUTENANT TALK TO THE CAPTAIN, BUT THEN WE'LL MOVE FORWARD. BUT THEY DON'T MARCH 25TH TO TOLD BECAUSE HE WANTED HIM TO SOMETHING THAT HE DIDN'T. I TOLD HIM TO LEAVE THE, I DUNNO, THEY TRYING TO BE INSUBORDINATION AND STUFF BECAUSE I WON'T, I WON'T LEAVE BROWNS. OKAY, WILL DO. ALRIGHT, THANKS. OKAY. I'M ABOUT TO GET ON THE PHONE. IA, CAPTAIN CLAIRE WILL BE IN THE NOTIFIED. OKAY, ROGER, I'LL STAND BY. OKAY. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY. I JUST SPOKE TO, UH, DEPUTY CHIEF DANIEL, [01:15:02] YOU ARE RELIEVED OF YOUR DUTIES. ARE YOU GONNA STEAL? DEFINE ME? YOU, YOU'RE NOT GETTING UP, HUH? NO, YOU SAID I'M LEAVE, MAN. LIKE YOU, YOU TURN, YOU TURN IN YOUR BADGE, YOUR COMMISSION. SO WHO DO I TALK TO ABOUT ME SAYING WE'RE WAY BEYOND THAT? AT THIS POINT YOU HAVE GOTTEN NO, YOU, YOU DO NOT, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU JUST DID. I'M ASKING CAN HE HAVE REPRESENTATION? GIVE HIM MY NAME AND ALL THIS. OKAY. SAY AGAIN? I DON'T KNOW. STAY HERE. NO, NO, NO. THEY LOOK HERE. YOU SAID I TURNED THE FLASH. COME TO TALK TO HIM. I DON'T KNOW. LIEUTENANT, LIEUTENANT JUST SAID HE TALKED TO DEPUTY CHIEF MINE DANIELS. OKAY. MY DEPUTY CHIEF DANIELS TOLD HIM THAT YOU ARE RELIEVED OF YOUR DUTIES, WHICH MEAN THAT YOU TURNED YOUR BADGE, YOUR COMMISSION, YOUR FIREARM, AND YOUR UNIT TO THE LIEUTENANT RIGHT NOW. THAT'S WHAT THAT MEANS. JONES MEAN THAT THE CONVERSATION IS OVER WITH. OKAY. NOW THE ADMINISTRATION IS GONNA TAKE IT FROM HERE YOU ARE TO LEAVE YOUR DUTIES AND YOU ARE TO GO HOME WITHOUT YOUR UNIT, YOUR FIREARM, YOUR BADGE, AND YOUR COMMISSION. OKAY. NOW LIEUTENANT JUST GAVE YOU THAT ORDER. OKAY? I'M EXPLAINING IT TO YOU. OKAY? PUT ALL YOUR STUFF ON THAT DESK THAT YOU'RE STANDING BY. MAKE YOUR WEAPON SAFE. PUT IT ON THAT DESK, TURN ALL YOUR STUFF IN, OKAY? MAKE YOUR WEAPON SAFE AND PLACE IT ON THAT DESK. LOCK THE SLIDE BACK. ALRIGHT, LOCK THE SLIDE BACK. NO, THIS IS COMING FROM . LOCK THE SLIDE BACK. NOW. UH, PUT YOUR BADGE ON THE DESK. I HAVE MY COMMISSION CARD AND MY BADGE. PUT YOUR BADGE. YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR BADGE ON? JUST AT MY HOUSE. WHY HAVE YOU SUPPOSED TO HAVE YOUR BADGE ON COMMISSION ON YOU AT ALL TIMES? RIGHT HERE? MY COMMISSION? NO. HEY, PUT THE COMMISSION ON THERE. OKAY. ON THE TABLE. YOU AIN'T GOT YOUR BADGE? I LET ADMINISTRATION DEAL WITH THAT. ALRIGHT. DO YOU, YOU HAD SECURITY AUDITS? YOUR YES SIR. YOUR TASER KEY FILE, YOUR COMMISSION FIREARM KEYS TO YOUR UNIT. OKAY. I WAS, I WAS PASSING ON TO HIM, BUT CAN CAN YOU ASK HIM CAN HE HAVE SOME REPRESENTATION? HEY, THEY GOT I LEVEL. OKAY. THEY COMMISSION RIGHT THERE. WASN'T YOU COMMISSIONED WHEN YOU JUST FLIPPED IT UP? NO. IS THAT THE CURRENT COMMISSION? ALRIGHT. THANK YOU SIR. ALL RIGHT. AND, AND YOU SAY YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR BADGE ON YOU. OKAY. I KNOW YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO KEEP YOUR BADGE ON YOU ALL TIMES, RIGHT? THAT'S NOT A, THAT'S NOT A BADGE. GO AHEAD, CALEB. HEY, CALL NOAH. I'M, UH, TIED OFF ON SOMETHING TONIGHT. UH, THANK YOU MA'AM. NO PROBLEM. YOU TAS CAN'T HAVE HIS BADGE IS AT THE HOUSE. ALRIGHT, WELL I GOT, HE'S GONNA HAVE TO DO THE PAPERWORK ON THAT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? ANYTHING ELSE? HE RADIO, RADIO COMMISSION. COMMISS, TFA, KEYS UNIT. AND HE LEFT. NAME OF BODY CAMERAS THERE. KEYS UNIT. KEA UNIT IS, UH, HE LEFT THIS KEY FOB RIGHT HERE. EXCUSE, GET SOME MESSED STUFF OFF MY PERSONAL STUFF. WHAT YOU GOT IN THERE? I GOT MY, UH, PRINTER. GOT MY RIFLE, GOT MY, UH, WE'RE GONNA GOT MY, MY PERSON ITEMS FROM MY, FROM MY HOUSE. YOU DO WHAT? I AM GETTING IN. YEAH, MY BAG. YOU ALL OF IT. YOU YOU DID WHAT? I YOU DO WHAT? I GET MY BAG. WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE BEYOND ALL THIS. YEAH. YOU, YOU TOOK THIS TOO FAR BECAUSE I WOULDN'T LEAVE OUT, WALK OUT, TALK TO MY, UH, CORRECT. RIGHT. OKAY. OH, SO, SO EVERYBODY ELSE WAS WRONG. I, I SAID CAN HE COME WITH ME OFF HANDICAP [01:20:01] REPUTATION? YOU'RE NOT A FTO JONES AND YOU'RE NOT A LAWYER. YES. WHEN DID, DID I GET, I'M TALKING ABOUT IT. THE DAY YOU LEFT HIM, UH, DAY HE WAS MOVED FROM YOU. HE STILL, NO, YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT FF NEGATIVE. TALK TO LIEUTENANT MAYO. I CAN'T EXPLAIN IT RIGHT NOW. I JUST, I'LL JUST HIT YOU BACK. ALRIGHT, MAN. CALL AUGUST. YEAH, I'M FIXING TO SEE RAW TIED UP. OKAY. ALRIGHT. LEMME CALL AUGUSTINE. MORNING ON SPEAKER. HELLO, OFFICER JONES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, SIR. ALL AT THIS TIME YOU'RE BEING PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE. YOU'LL, UM, GET A RIDE HOME, BE TAKEN HOME. YOU NOT HAVE TO YOUR UNITS, TO YOUR GUN COMMISSION, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. UH, WE WILL GET THE PAPERWORK PREPARED THIS WEEKEND AND YOU'LL COME IN TO SIGN IT MONDAY. UH, THERE WILL BE OBVIOUSLY A FOLLOW UP INVESTIGATION RELATED TO YOUR ACCIDENT THAT THE, UH, ACCUSATION, UH, FROM YOUR LIEUTENANT. AND THAT'S, UH, WE'LL CONTINUE THIS ON MONDAY. OKAY? CAN I, CAN I GET MY BAG OUT? THE CALL, THE BAG HAS LIKE MY MEDICATION AND EVERYTHING. YOUR UNIT? ABSOLUTELY. DEPARTMENT ISSUE, PROPERTY UNIT. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. OKAY, WE STAND? YES, SIR. I JUST SEEING YOU TIED UP. OKAY. OKAY, HANG ON. DO WE NEED MR. JONES BACK ON THE STAND? YEAH. CORPORAL JONES, IF YOU WOULD COME BACK TO THE STAND. OKAY. CORPORAL JONES. UM, HAVING SEEN THE VIDEO THAT WE JUST PLAYED, UM, DOES THAT CAPTURE YOUR INTERACTIONS WITH, UH, BOTH SERGEANT SMITH AND LIEUTENANT MILLER ON MAY 11 OR 2024? YES, SIR. OKAY. WE'LL ADMIT THAT AS EXHIBIT ONE. ACCEPT THAT. THANK YOU. NOW, BEFORE YOU MET WITH SERGEANT SMITH ON MAY 11TH, UM, THAT WE JUST SAW THE ONLY SOURCE THAT YOU HAD FOR HIS CONCERNS REGARDING THE REPORT, WAS THAT THROUGH OFFICER GRIMES? YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? YEAH. WAS THE ONLY SOURCE FOR WHAT SERGEANT SMITH'S CONCERNS WERE ABOUT THE REPORT? DID YOU JUST HEAR THAT THROUGH OFFICER GRIMES? YES, SIR. OKAY. YOU HADN'T TALKED TO SERGEANT SMITH DIRECTLY, CORRECT? NO, SIR. ALRIGHT, SO YOU DID, YOU DID NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTED TO CHANGE WHEN YOU WALKED INTO THAT ROOM, UH, ON THAT DAY, CORRECT? UM, NO, SIR. THE, THE REPORT WAS WRITTEN ON THE 29TH. WELL COMPLETED, EVERYTHING WAS COMPLETED ON MARCH 29TH. AND, UH, THROUGHOUT THAT TIME HE, HE NEVER REACHED OUT TO ME ABOUT THE REPORT. ALRIGHT. UM, SO WHEN YOU WALKED IN THE DOOR ON MAY 11, WHEN WE SAW YOU THERE, UM, AND THE VIDEO OF EXHIBIT ONE, WHEN YOU WALKED IN THERE, YOU DID NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT SERGEANT SMITH WANTED TO CHANGE OR DELETE OR ANYTHING FROM THAT REPORT, RIGHT? RIGHT. CORRECT. OKAY. NOW, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING OF WHAT WE JUST SAW, UM, HE BEGAN TALKING AND YOU BEGAN INTERRUPTING HIM, CORRECT? YES, SIR. OKAY. UM, YOU TALKED OVER HIM, CORRECT? YES, SIR. YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. WHEN HE ASKED YOU AND HE TOLD YOU TO BE QUIET, THAT WAS A DIRECT ORDER, WASN'T IT? YES, SIR. OKAY. UH, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT YOU DID NOT BE QUIET WHEN HE ASKED YOU TO? I AGREE. OKAY. HE ASKED AFTER, UH, YOU KEPT INTERRUPTING HIM, HE TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE BEING INSUBORDINATE, DID HE NOT? HE TOLD YES, SIR. HE DID. OKAY. UM, EVEN AFTER HE SAID THAT YOU CONTINUED TO TALK OVER HIM AND INTERRUPT HIM, CORRECT? YEAH. YES, SIR. OKAY. BEFORE SERGEANT SMITH GOT LIEUTENANT MILLER TO COME INTO THE ROOM, HE DIRECTLY TOLD YOU TO LEAVE THE ROOM, CORRECT? YEAH. YES, SIR. OKAY. UM, BUT YOU DIDN'T LEAVE THE ROOM, RIGHT? RIGHT. DIDN'T LEAVE, YES, SIR. OKAY. [01:25:01] UM, AND YOU TOLD SERGEANT SMITH IF HE'S GOING ONGOING OR IF I'M GOING, HE'S GOING RIGHT? YEAH. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OFFICER GRIMES, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR. RIGHT. OKAY. NOW, AGAIN, ON MAY 11TH, SERGEANT ROMY SMITH, THE ONE THAT WAS TAKING THE VIDEO, HE WAS YOUR DIRECT SUPERVISOR, CORRECT? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. UM, SO YOU AGREE THAT BOTH OF THOSE THINGS, THE TELLING YOU TO BE QUIET AND THE TELLING YOU TO LEAVE THE ROOM, THOSE WERE BOTH DIRECT ORDERS, IT CAN, YEAH. IT CAN BE CONSIDERED A DIRECT ORDER? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. AND YOU WOULD AGREE THAT YOU DIDN'T COMPLY WITH EITHER ONE OF THOSE, RIGHT? NO, SIR. OKAY. NOW, AFTER LIEUTENANT MILLER CAME INTO THE ROOM, SERGEANT SMITH EXPLAINED WHAT HE WANTED TO CHANGE WITH THE REPORT, AND DO YOU RECALL SAYING, AND IT WAS ON THE VIDEO, WE JUST WATCHED IT, IT SAID, SARGE, HE'S NOT CHANGING THE REPORT? NO, HE, HE DIDN'T SAY WHAT HE WANTED TO CHANGE. HE JUST SAID DELETE THE WHOLE THING. HE DISCUSSED THAT HE WANTED, HE, HE ASKED YOU ACTUALLY TO ASSIST WITH REVISING THE REPORT. YOU SAW, YOU REMEMBER THAT HE ASKED THAT QUESTION? YES, SIR. OKAY. UM, AND IN FACT, HE, THAT'S A DIRECT ORDER, RIGHT? I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO CHANGE. HE DIDN'T, HE DIDN'T TELL ME WHAT TO CHANGE. RIGHT. BUT THE ORIGINAL ORDER WAS, I WANT YOU TO ASSIST GRIMES IN REVISING THE REPORT, RIGHT? YEAH. YES, SIR. OKAY. AT THAT POINT, YOU DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTED CHANGED, CORRECT? CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY. BUT YOUR RESPONSE WAS, I'M NOT GONNA COMPLY WITH AN UNLAWFUL ORDER, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. NOW, YOU JUST TOLD ME THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW WHAT SERGEANT SMITH WANTED TO CHANGE SPECIFICALLY? CORRECT. OKAY. YES, SIR. OKAY, SO YOU'RE TELLING US THAT, OR TOLD HIM THAT IT WAS AN UNLAWFUL ORDER, BUT YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT EXACTLY HE WANTED TO DO, RIGHT? NO, I STOPPED IN THE LEGAL ACT. THEY DELETED THE REPORT ALREADY. THEY DELETED OUR ARREST REPORT, WE ARRESTED THE GIRL, UM, THEY DELETED THE REPORT AND PUT IN A WHOLE SEPARATE REPORT. I STOPPED THAT FROM HAPPENING. THAT'S WHY HE SAID, GET RID OF THE WHOLE REPORT. WELL, YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT THEY DELETED A REPORT IF IT WAS ALREADY DELETED, HOW DID YOU STOP IT FROM HAPPENING? SO THE REPORT WAS COMPLETED MARCH 29TH. THE SUMMONS WAS ISSUED, WAS GIVEN TO MY SUPERVISOR MARCH 29TH. LIEUTENANT MILLER SIGNED OFF AND AGREED TO THAT CHARGE. RIGHT. AND THEN, UM, WHILE I WAS ON VACATION, OFFICER GRIMES CALLED ME, HE SAID, HEY, THEY'RE TRYING TO GET ME TO CHANGE ALL MY REPORTS. I SAID, OKAY, WHATEVER, WHATEVER HE ASKED YOU TO DO, JUST DO IT. WAIT ON ME, I, UM, I'LL REVIEW IT AND THEN WE CAN SUBMIT 'EM. HE SAID TEN FOUR, HE, HE STARTED REDOING ALL THE REPORTS AND THEN I LOOKED AT THIS SPECIFIC REPORT AND, UM, SEEING THAT THE ORIGINAL REPORT WAS DELETED ALONG WITH THE ARREST THAT WE MADE. SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS AGAIN. UM, WE LOOKED AT EXHIBIT THREE A MINUTE AGO. THAT'S THE POLICE REPORT THAT'S AT ISSUE, CORRECT? WHAT? THIS WAS THE ONE THAT WAS PRINTED OUT, UH, MAY 14TH, AND IT WAS ALREADY ALTERED. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING COULD SOMEONE ACTUALLY LOOK INTO HOW MANY TIMES THE REPORT WAS ALTERED. OKAY. BUT YOU, YOU, YOU TESTIFIED A MINUTE AGO THAT THE REPORT HAD BEEN DELETED, BUT WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A REPORT FROM OFFICER GRIMES, RIGHT? RIGHT, RIGHT. YES, SIR. OKAY. AND IT'S REGARDING THE INCIDENT FROM MARCH 25TH, 2024. THE REPORT DATE WAS APRIL 9TH, 2024, CORRECT? LIKE WE'RE HOLDING THE REPORT? NO, SIR. YEAH, AND THAT, THAT'S WHY I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT THE PRINTOUT DATE IS, UH, MAY 14TH. WE COMPLETED THE REPORT, UH, MARCH 29TH. THE DAY WE ARRESTED THE YOUNG, YOUNG LADY AND THEN THEY DELETED THAT ARREST REPORT AND OFFICER, WHICH I HAVE IN EMAIL, OFFICER BROWNS, AND I WENT BACK AND FORTH. I SAID, MAN, THAT'S ILLEGAL. WE ALREADY ARRESTED HER. RIGHT. IF SOMEBODY MAKE, IF SOMEBODY TELLS YOU TO MAKE A CHANGE, WE HAVE TO CREATE A SUPPLEMENT REPORT INTO WHAT HE'S SAYING. SO, SO WE WENT BACK IN AND ONCE, ONCE WE CREATED THE REPORT TO WHERE I BELIEVE WAS CORRECT, WE LEFT IT AS SUCH. OKAY. BUT YOUR, WHAT YOU SAID ON THE VIDEO THAT WE JUST WATCHED WAS, HE'S NOT CHANGING THE REPORT, SARGE, DO YOU REC DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT? YEAH. YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. OKAY. AND THAT WAS DIRECTED AT SERGEANT SMITH? YEAH. I TOLD HIM WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE REPORT, CORRECT? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND THE REPORT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS EXHIBIT THREE, THAT REPORT? YES, SIR. YEAH. [01:30:01] OKAY. UM, NOW THERE'S SERGEANT SMITH IN THERE, THERE'S LIEUTENANT MILLER IN THERE, BOTH YOUR SUPERVISORS, CORRECT? YES, SIR. OKAY. SERGEANT SMITH AND LIEUTENANT MILLER WERE IN THE ROOM AND YOU WERE TOLD OR ASKED, ARE YOU REFUSING TO, TO COMPLY WITH A DIRECT ORDER, THE ACT? YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. AND YOU, AND YOU SAID YES. NO, I DIDN'T SAY YES. I SAID, I, I, I SAID I DIDN'T WANT TO COMMIT THAT, UH, TYPE OF ACT. I WASN'T GONNA FORCE CRIMES TO COMMIT THAT TYPE OF ACT. I THINK. WELL, I THINK YOUR INITIAL RESPONSE WAS, I REFUSED TO, TO COMPLY WITH AN UNLAWFUL ORDER. I'M REFUSING TO, TO OBEY AN UNLAWFUL ORDER, RIGHT? CORRECT. THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT YOU TOLD, CORRECT? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. SO SERGEANT SMITH ADVISED YOU THAT THE ORDER WAS NOT UNLAWFUL, CORRECT? YES, SIR. LIEUTENANT MILLER ADVISED YOU THAT THAT ORDER WAS NOT UNLAWFUL, CORRECT? CORRECT. LIEUTENANT MILLER TOLD YOU ON THE VIDEO THAT HE TALKED TO CARL MAYO, WHO IS THE HEAD OF THE TRAINING ACADEMY, CORRECT? CORRECT. ALRIGHT. AND HE SAID, I'VE TALKED TO CARL MAYO. HE TOLD ME THAT IT WAS NOT AN UNLAWFUL ORDER. SO YOU HAD TWO LIEUTENANTS AND A SERGEANT TELLING YOU THAT, CORRECT? WELL, THE INFORMATION WAS INCORRECT. THAT, THAT WAS BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY MET WITH LIEUTENANT CARL MAYO AND GROUNDS WAS WITH ME. SO THE INFORMATION THAT, UM, LIEUTENANT MILLER STATED WAS INCORRECT. ALRIGHT, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. SO YOU MET WITH LIEUTENANT CARL MAYO, AND YOU'VE PUT IT IN A SUBMISSION TO THIS BOARD THAT HE AGREED WITH YOU THAT IT WAS AN UNLAWFUL ORDER. OKAY. YEAH. RIGHT. HE SAID, HE SAID, DO NOT PUT ANYTHING IN A REPORT. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. OKAY. SO AT ANY POINT DID CARL MAYO TELL YOU THAT THE ORDER THAT YOU RECEIVED TO REVISE THE REPORT WAS UNLAWFUL? NO, SIR, IT DID NOT. OKAY. SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT THE TRAINING ACADEMY STAFF REVIEWED AND APPROVED YOUR REPORT AS TRUE AND CORRECT, AND ALLOWING SERGEANT SMITH'S INTENTIONAL ACTIONS TO DIRECT TO DIRECT OFFICER GRIMES TO PERFORM ANY SUCH UNLAWFUL ACT WOULD BRING DISHONOR OR DISGRACE, YOU WERE NOT ADVISED BY LIEUTENANT MAYO THAT ANYTHING SERGEANT SMITH WAS DOING WAS UNLAWFUL? CORRECT? YOU WERE NOT TOLD THAT ANYTHING HE WAS DOING WAS UNLAWFUL. WE, WE WERE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE ENTIRE STORY TO LIEUTENANT MAYO. RIGHT NOW, I'M UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE ENTIRE STORY. OKAY. BUT LIEUTENANT MAYO DID NOT AGREE WITH YOU, CORRECT? UH, NOT THAT DAY. HE DID NOT, HE DID NOT TELL ME THAT HE DISAGREED WITH MY DECISION. WELL, GUESS HE WILL TESTIFY AS TO WHAT HIS BELIEFS WERE AT THAT DAY? YES, SIR. WHAT WAS OFFICER GRIMES BEING TOLD TO DO, EDIT REVISE THAT YOU DID THAT YOU THOUGHT WAS UNLAWFUL? HE, HE DIDN'T GIVE US, HE NEVER GAVE US INSTRUCTIONS ON WHAT TO DO. I WAS THERE FOR THE TEXT MESSAGE. HE THREATENED TO WRITE 'EM UP IF HE DIDN'T ALTER THE REPORT. SO THEN HOW, HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT HIS ORDER WAS UNLAWFUL IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS GOING TO CHANGE? BECAUSE HE ALREADY DELETED THE REPORT. HE ALREADY CAME IN, UM, PER GRS. HE CAME INTO THE OFFICE WHEN I WAS ABSENT AND THEY DELETED THE ENTIRE ARREST REPORT. I WAS THERE TO PREVENT HIM FROM DELETING THE REPORT AGAIN. AND IF YOU SAW IN THE BODY CAM, HE, HE COPIED AND PASTE THE ENTIRE REPORT AND PUT IT INTO WORD. WE COULDN'T, WE COULDN'T, WE COULDN'T TYPE IN RMS AGAIN ANYWAY BECAUSE RMS WAS LOCKED, BUT THEY WAS GONNA HAVE TO, UM, ALTER THE REPORT COMPLETELY. AND THE YOUNG LADY COURT DATE WAS WITHIN LIKE THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. SO WE TALKING ABOUT A REPORT, AN INVESTIGATION THAT HAPPENED ON MARCH 25TH, AND WE ARE ALTERING A REPORT ON MAY 11TH. ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK YOU THIS. WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL ORDERS THAT YOU WERE GIVEN THAT YOU DID NOT AGREE WITH, YOU DID NOT COMPLY WITH. WE'LL SAY IT THAT WAY, RIGHT? RIGHT. YES, SIR. ASKED TO BE QUIET, ASKED TO LEAVE, ASKED TO REVISE THE REPORT. THE LAST ONE WAS YOU WERE ASKED TO GO TEN EIGHT, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. FOR THOSE THAT ARE NOT POLICE OFFICERS ON THE BOARD, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT TEN EIGHT MEANS? TEN EIGHT MEANS GO AVAILABLE BACK INTO THE FIELD. ALRIGHT. AND SO WHEN YOU WERE ASKED TO GO 10, EIGHT, WHAT'D YOU DO? UH, I STAYED WITH GRIMES. I DIDN'T WANT, I DIDN'T WANT HIM TO BE FORCED TO CHANGE THE REPORT AGAIN. [01:35:01] IN FACT, YOUR LANGUAGE WAS, YOU'RE NOT TOUCHING THE REPORT, SARGE. CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT YOU HEARD. I SAID, I SAID, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT TOUCHING THE REPORT. YOU SAID WE ARE NOT YOUR, BUT EITHER WAY. YEAH, YEAH. YES SIR. WE WOULDN'T CHANGE. NO, YOU'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT GONNA CHANGE THE REPORT. NOT TOUCHING THE REPORT, CORRECT? RIGHT. YES, SIR. RIGHT. ALRIGHT. SO, AND THE REASON YOU SAID YOU WERE REFUSING TO LEAVE THE ROOM BECAUSE HIS FTO WASN'T THERE, IS THAT BASICALLY IT, UH, HE DIDN'T HAVE NO REPRESENTATION, WHICH IF YOU CONTINUE THE VIDEO, IT WOULD SHOW, UH, LIEUTENANT MILLER ASKING SERGEANT SMITH TO WALK OUTSIDE WITH ME WHEN HE SAID, NO, HE DON'T THINK THAT'S SMART. HE STAYED IN WITH OFFICER GRIMES AND HE SAID, OPEN YOUR COMPUTER. WE'RE ABOUT TO FIX THIS REPORT. SO WHEN I WAS AT, SO NOW THAT I'M OUT OF THE ROOM AGAIN, HE WAS ABOUT TO, UM, YOU KNOW, FORCE HIM TO CHANGE THAT REPORTING. THEY WERE GONNA, IF YOU, IF YOU, LIKE I SAID, IF YOU CONTINUE THE VIDEO, YOU'LL SEE HIM GOING UP TO GRIMES, NOT WALKING ME OUTSIDE, GOING UP TO GRIMES AND SAYING, HEY, WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THIS REPORT. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU'VE NEVER, UH, BEEN ASKED TO FIX SOMETHING ON OUR REPORT. IS IT, SIR, YOU'VE BEEN ASKED TO FIX THINGS ON REPORTS BEFORE, HAVEN'T YOU? YEAH, SOMETHING LIKE TIMES AND DATES. UH, IF, AND WE ALREADY HAD THAT DAY, WE HAD A SUPERVISOR ON SCENE, A ACT, THE ACTING SERGEANT WAS ON SCENE, AND HE TOLD OUR LIEUTENANT EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. THEY GAVE US THOSE CHARGES AND THEY APPROVED OF THAT REPORT. AND THEN WHEN SERGEANT SMITH CAME BACK TO WORK, HE THEN THIS, ALL OF THIS HAPPENED. OKAY. SO THE ORDER TO BE QUIET, YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS AN UNLAWFUL ORDER, DO YOU? RIGHT. NO. NO. OKAY. UM, WHEN SOMEONE ASK YOU TO LEAVE THE ROOM, A SERGEANT, A LIEUTENANT, THAT IS NOT AN, UH, THAT IS NOT A, AN UNLAWFUL ORDER, IS IT? WHEN SOME NO, THAT'S NOT UNLAWFUL. OKAY. UM, A DIRECTIVE TO GO TEN EIGHT, THAT'S NOT AN UNLAWFUL ORDER, IS IT? NO, SIR. IT'S NOT AN LAW. ALL RIGHT. UM, AND IF YOU'RE ASKED TO REVISE A REPORT, THAT'S NOT AN UNLAWFUL ORDER, UH, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE CORRECTIONS ARE, BUT YOU DIDN'T KNOW, RIGHT. SO YOU REFUSED TO DO IT, BUT YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT YOU WERE BEING ASKED TO DO AND YOU CALLED IT UNLAWFUL, CORRECT? WELL, IT WAS MAY, IT WAS MAY 11TH. THAT'S LIKE CLOSE TO SIX OR SEVEN WEEKS AFTER WE ARRESTED THE SUSPECT. THE COURT DATE WAS WITHIN LIKE TWO WEEKS. SO, AND MY, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WHY WOULD WE, UH, DELETE OR ALTER ANY REPORT WHEN IT'S TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE COURT DATE? OKAY. YOU DO REALIZE THAT THERE'S OTHER WAYS YOU COULD HAVE HANDLED THE SITUATION, RIGHT? YEAH. I ASKED FOR, UH, OFFICER GRIMES BECAUSE AGAIN, OFFICER GRIMES GOT OFF AT FOUR O'CLOCK. I BOUGHT, I BROUGHT HIM INTO THE MEETING BEFORE HE WAS OFF WORK, AND THEN THEY KEPT HIM AFTER HIS SHIFT. NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEAN. OKAY. I'M SORRY. SO THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT YOU COULD HAVE HANDLED THE SITUATION. OKAY? OKAY. YOU COULD HAVE DONE WHAT YOU WERE ASKED TO DO, RIGHT? RIGHT. YOU COULD HAVE BEEN QUIET, YOU COULD HAVE LEFT THE ROOM, AND THEN IF SOMETHING ON THE BACK END TURNED OUT TO BE SOMETHING THAT WAS ILLEGAL, YOU COULD HAVE REPORTED IT. CORRECT. AND, AND THAT'S WHAT, AND I WOULD REFER TO MY COUNSELOR, THIS, THIS INCIDENT ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO ME BEFORE. AND IF YOU PAY ATTENTION TO ANY OFFICER INVOLVED, YOU, YOU WILL NOT SEE THE SUPERVISOR THAT'S ON ADMIN LEAVE. YOU'LL SEE THE OFFICER, IF THEY DID SOMETHING ILLEGAL, THEY'LL BE ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE OR OFF WORK FOR UP TO THREE YEARS UNTIL WE FIGURE THIS OUT. I MEAN, NO WORK THAT MEAN EVERYBODY. ASSUMING YOU'RE GUILTY AND YOU'RE OUT OF WORK FOR THREE YEARS, I, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. BUT LET JUST ASK YOU THIS ONE MORE TIME. YOU COULD HAVE WALKED OUT OF THAT ROOM AND COMPLIED WITH THE ORDER OF YOUR SUPERIORS, AND THEN IF SOMETHING TURNED OUT TO BE WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS UNLAWFUL, YOU COULD HAVE MADE A COMPLAINT TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS ABOUT THAT. COULDN'T YOU HAVE NO, I HAVE, I I'VE TRIED MULTIPLE TIMES, MULTIPLE TIMES, MULTIPLE TIMES. THIS, THIS IS NOT THE FIR AND THIS, AND I DO APOLOGIZE, BUT THIS, THIS WAS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED. OKAY. BUT YOU DID NOT COMPLY, YOU DID NOT FILE AN IA COMPLAINT, CORRECT? I DID. IT NEVER GOT SUBMITTED TO THE CHIEF. HE DENIED IT ALL THREE TIMES AT HIS LEVEL REGARDING THE INCIDENT ON MAY 11TH, 2024. OKAY. I APOLOGIZE. NO, SIR, I DIDN'T. OKAY, SO YOU, YOU DID NOT, YOU, YOU COULD HAVE, AND I, I UNDERSTAND YOU'VE WRITTEN LETTERS BEFORE ABOUT COMPLAINTS, BUT YOU HAVE NOT FILED AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS COMPLAINT ABOUT THE EVENTS OF MAY 11TH, 2024, CORRECT? [01:40:01] I HAVE, I, I, I, I WROTE A GRIEVANCE THAT'S, THAT WAS NOT SUBMITTED. I WROTE A GRIEVANCE, GAVE IT TO THE, UH, UNION PRESIDENT, AND HE NEVER SUBMITTED MY GRIEVANCE. AND YOU'VE NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING FROM THE CHIEF REJECTING ANY KIND OF GRIEVANCE REPORT OF YOURS, CORRECT? NO, I, UM, WE HAD A, A 'CAUSE MY MAGNOLIA REP HAD TO EVENTUALLY SUBMIT MY GRIEVANCE, UH, THREE MONTHS LATER AND WE DID GET A, A TIMESTAMP ON IT, WHICH WAS LIKE, UM, I HAVE IT WRITTEN DOWN. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE DATE. OKAY. BUT IT WAS LIKE THREE MONTHS LATER THAT MY MAGNOLIA REP HAD TO SUBMIT MY GRIEVANCE. NOW I WANT TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING THAT WE SAW IN THE VIDEO. UM, SERGEANT SMITH, UM, HAD DIRECTED YOU TO LEAVE THE ROOM. YES. AND YOU DID NOT GO, GRIMES CAME IN, SAT DOWN AT A DESK, OPENS UP HIS COMPUTER, YOU WALK OVER, YOU SHUT THE COMPUTER AND YOU PUT IT IN FRONT OF YOURSELF? YES, SIR. YES, SIR. OKAY. YOU RECALL DOING THAT? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. YOU, YOUR PURPOSE THERE WAS TO DIRECTLY INTERFERE OR PREVENT THE REPORT FROM BEING CHANGED, CORRECT? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. EVEN THOUGH YOU HAD YOUR LIEUTENANTS AND SERGEANT TELLING YOU THAT THAT WAS NOT AN UNLAWFUL THING TO DO, NO. HOLD ON. THEY HAD ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT THAT WAS NOT UNLAWFUL. UNLAWFUL, CORRECT. THEY CHANGED THE REPORT. CORRECT. AND YOU TOOK THE COMPUTER AWAY FROM OFFICER GRIME SO THAT IT COULD NOT BE DONE, RIGHT? RIGHT. SO HE COULDN'T ALTER OR CHANGE THE REPORT? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND THAT WAS YOUR PURPOSE TO INTERFERE WITH THEM BEING ABLE TO DO THAT, RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND THEN BECAUSE YOU WOULD NOT LEAVE THE ROOM, YOU DID NOT COMPLY WITH YOUR ORDERS, YOU PREVENTED OFFICER GRIMES FROM BEING ABLE TO DO THE WORK THERE FOR A MINUTE. THOSE ARE ALL THE REASONS WHY YOU ULTIMATELY WERE DISCIPLINED. CORRECT? THEY NEVER BROUGHT IN, UM, TERRANCE NOAH, WHICH I REQUESTED BECAUSE HE, UM, OUR FIRST MEETING, INITIAL MEETING APRIL 10TH, HE SAID THAT THAT WAS ILLEGAL IF WE ADD SOMETHING TO THE REPORT, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. SO WE HAD A MEETING SIMILAR APRIL 10TH, AND THAT'S WHY I KEPT REQUESTING FOR WHEN YOU SAY I WAS TALKING OVER SERGEANT SMITH, I WAS REQUESTING, CAN TERRANCE NOAH BE HERE THAT WAY GROUNDS WOULD HAVE SOMEBODY TO PROTECT HIM? GARRITY HAD NOT BEEN READ TO HIM. CORRECT? HE WAS THREATENED PUNISHMENT. HE, IF HE DID NOT CHANGE THE REPORT RIGHT, THEN HE MIGHT GET WRITTEN UP. THAT WAS THE COMMUNICATION TO HIM. HE WAS BROUGHT THERE TO REVISE THE REPORT, CORRECT? RIGHT. CORRECT. ALRIGHT. HE WAS NOT GIVEN ANY KIND OF GARRITY RIGHTS. IT WASN'T READ GARRITY, HE WAS NOT IN A DISCIPLINARY CONTEXT. CORRECT? I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT PART. YOU SAYING, ARE YOU ASKING IF THE TEXT MESSAGE APPEARED THREATENING, LIKE WRITE YOU NO. THE SITUATION WHEN SOMEONE WOULD HAVE A REPRESENTATION, THAT IS WHEN YOU'RE IN A DISCIPLINARY CONTEXT. RIGHT. RIGHT. SO OFFICER GROUND WAS IN HIS PROBATIONAL PERIOD. RIGHT. SO, UM, IF SOMETHING WAS TO HAPPEN, THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GIVE HIM A REASON TO TERMINATE HIM. RIGHT. HE WAS IN HIS PROBATIONAL PERIOD. THAT'S WHY I SPOKE UP FOR HIM. RIGHT. EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE NOT HIS FTO AND NOT AN APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE FOR HIM, CORRECT? NO, THEY, UH, HIS CURRENT FTO GAVE HIM PERMISSION TO MEET WITH ME SO THAT WE CAN MEET WITH, UH, SERGEANT SMITH 'CAUSE OF THE TEXT MESSAGE. HE MAY HAVE GIVEN YOU PERMISSION TO MEET, BUT IT DID NOT GIVE YOU SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER OFFICER GR CORRECT. REPRESENTATION. AGAIN, YOU AGREED EARLIER YOU WERE NOT HIS APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE THAT DAY? I WASN'T HIS FTO THAT DAY, NO, SIR. ALRIGHT. AND NOBODY FROM THE UNION APPOINTED YOU TO REPRESENT THIS MAN IN A MEETING WITH SUPERVISORS, OKAY? CORRECT. CORRECT. ALRIGHT, TURN TO EXHIBIT 13, PLEASE. LET'S GO TO PAGE 20. ALL RIGHT. YOU WERE FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED TWO POLICIES OF THE DEPARTMENT, CORRECT? YES, SIR. FIRST ONE IS THREE 18 CARRYING OUT ORDERS, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT SECTION? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. NOW, THREE 18 REQUIRES YOU TO FOLLOW A LAWFUL VERBAL ORDER OF A SUPERIOR. IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY. YOU WOULD AGREE THAT EVERYTHING THAT YOU WERE DIRECTED TO DO IN THE VIDEO WAS VERBAL, CORRECT? EVERYTHING WAS VERBAL? YES, SIR. [01:45:01] ALRIGHT. AND YOU WERE VERBALLY DIRECTED TO DO SEVERAL THINGS AND WE TALKED ABOUT THOSE JUST A MINUTE AGO? YES, SIR. OKAY. UM, SO YOU, YOU ALREADY A, A ADMITTED FROM THE STAND. YOU WERE TOLD TO BE QUIET, YOU DIDN'T DO THAT. UM, YOU WERE TOLD TO LEAVE, YOU DIDN'T DO THAT, YOU'RE TOTAL GOOD TO GO TEN EIGHT. YOU DIDN'T DO THAT. UM, AND YOU WERE, YOU WERE TOLD TO ASSIST GRIMES IN REVISING THE REPORT AND YOU DID NOT DO THAT, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY, SO YOU WOULD AGREE YOU WERE GIVEN DIRECT ORDERS, YOU DID NOT DO IT RIGHT. OKAY. UM, THE OTHER ONE IS THREE 19 INSUBORDINATION. ALRIGHT. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT PARAGRAPH? YES, SIR. ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN THAT PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS, NOR SHALL A MEMBER BE DISRESPECTFUL OF ANY OFFICER SUPERIOR TO HIMSELF WHILE THAT SUPERIOR OFFICER IS IN THE EXECUTION OF HIS DUTIES. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. UM, WAS SERGEANT SMITH AND WERE, UH, WAS LIEUTENANT MILLER, WERE THEY IN THEIR, UH, IN THE EXECUTION OF THEIR DUTIES WHEN YOU HAD THAT MEETING ON MAY 11TH? YES, SIR. OKAY. UH, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR CONDUCT WAS RESPECTFUL OF THEM? YES, SIR. YOU DO? YES, SIR. SO YOU THINK THAT YOU TALKED TO THEM IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER? I DIDN'T, UH, I DIDN'T CALL 'EM OUT THEIR NAME. I DIDN'T BELITTLE THEM. I, I SIMPLY ASKED FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO BE HERE WITH GRIMES. ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU ALSO ADMITTED THAT YOU REPETITIVELY TALKED OVER AND INTERRUPTED YOUR SUPERVISOR, CORRECT? RIGHT. TO ASK FOR ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE TO COME IN. ALL RIGHT. UM, AND YOU ALSO, UH, TOLD YOUR SUPERVISOR WHAT WAS OR WAS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN THAT DAY, CORRECT? RIGHT. YES, SIR. OKAY. SO YOU THINK THAT THAT IS RESPECTFUL CONDUCT YEAH. WHEN IT COMES TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE DEPARTMENT? YES, SIR. IS THERE A POLICY THAT YOU, YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THAT SAYS THAT A A A CORPORAL WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT IS THE ONE THAT GETS TO DETERMINE WHAT THE, OR HOW TO ASSESS THE INTEGRITY OF THE DEPARTMENT? UH, THE OATH, THE OATH THAT WE TOOK WHEN WE, UM, FIRST APPLIED FOR THE JOB. IT'S A, IT IS TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT? CORRECT. UM, AND DOES THAT TELL YOU THAT A CORPORAL HA GETS TO DETERMINE THAT AND GETS TO TELL HIS SERGEANT AND HIS LIEUTENANT THAT THEY'RE INCORRECT ABOUT THINGS? UH, ANY, ANY OFFICER WHEN THEY CEASE, UM, ANOTHER OFFICER, UH, CONDUCTING AN ILLEGAL ACT, YOU HAVE THE DUTY TO INTERVENE. BUT YOU ALSO SAID THAT YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW AT THIS POINT WHAT SERGEANT SMITH WANTED TO CHANGE, RIGHT? SO YOU DIDN'T, HOW COULD YOU HAVE BEEN INTERRUPTING AN ILLEGAL ACT IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO? BECAUSE THEY DELETED THE REPORT ALREADY. SO HISTORY WILL SHOW IF I WOULD'VE LEFT THAT ROOM, HE WAS TRYING TO DELETE THE REPORT AGAIN. ALRIGHT. IF YOU WOULD GO BACK TO EXHIBIT THREE FOR ME. ALL RIGHT. GO TO PAGE TWO OF NINE. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU SEE THE CHARGES THERE ON THE REPORT? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. WE SEE THAT THERE'S TITLE 14 CHARGES AND TITLE 13 CHARGES. YES, SIR. DO YOU SEE THAT? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. AND YOU HAVE A 1456 AT THE TOP AND AT THE BOTTOM YOU'VE GOT A 1356. RIGHT. ALRIGHT. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT THE TITLE 13 CHARGE IS A BATON ROUGE ORDINANCE CHARGE THE CITY CHARGE? YES, SIR. IT'S THE CITY CHARGE. ALRIGHT. THEN YOU'VE GOT TITLE 14 CHARGES AS A DISTRICT COURT CHARGE, RIGHT? THAT'S A STATE CHARGE, RIGHT? YES, SIR. SO YOU'VE GOT MIXED CHARGES ON THAT REPORT. THIS, THIS IS NOT THE, AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED, COULD THAT BE INVESTIGATED? THIS THIS IS NOT, THAT'S WHY I KEPT REFERRING TO THIS REPORT BEING PRINTED OUT MAY 14TH, BECAUSE NOW, AND, UM, YOU, YOU WOULD DISCREDIT, UM, LIEUTENANT MAYO, UM, CORPORAL BLACKMAIL, WHICH IS THE FTO, UH, COORDINATOR, UH, THE UNION REP WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME, WHO, WHO REVIEWED THE REPORT AND SAID NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THE REPORT, WHICH IS LATER ON THE BODY CAM. UH, ALL THOSE PERSONNEL SAYING THE REPORT WAS CORRECT BEFORE MAY 11TH, THIS REPORT BECAME INCORRECT AFTER MAY 11TH. ALRIGHT. THAT'S THE DATE AT THE BOTTOM. GOT MAY, MAY 14TH. OKAY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT HAVING MIXED CHARGES OF CITY COURT CHARGES AND DISTRICT COURT CHARGES CAN, IS A PROBLEM? I UNDERSTAND THAT. YES, SIR. OKAY. BECAUSE YOU EITHER WANT THE, YOU WANTED THEM YOUR REPORT TO BE UNIFORM, MEANING ALL YOUR CHARGES GO TO ONE COURT, CORRECT? RIGHT. YES, SIR. OKAY. SO THIS REPORT, THIS IS AN UNAPPROVED REPORT WRITTEN BY GRIMES AND IT HAD MIXED CHARGES. WERE YOU AWARE THAT THAT IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT SERGEANT SMITH [01:50:01] HAD WITH IT? THIS THIS WASN'T LIKE THIS, UH, ON MAY 11TH, THIS WAS THE REPORT THAT WAS ISSUED TO ME AT MY, UM, IA HEARING AT MY IA INTERVIEW. GO TO PAGE EIGHT, PLEASE. DO YOU RECALL ON THE VIDEO, SERGEANT SMITH TALKING ABOUT A PORTION OF THE REPORT WOULD NOT HOLD UP IN COURT? UH, HE SAID SOMETHING, YES, SIR. OKAY. LET'S LOOK AT, UH, KIND OF THE SECOND TO, TO THIRD TO LAST PARAGRAPH THERE IN THE NARRATIVE, SERGEANT SMITH'S ADDITIONAL ORDERS ARE AS FOLLOWS, ADD AGGRAVATED ASSAULT DUE TO LEWIS STATING ON THE PHONE CALL WITH SERGEANT SMITH THAT MOSS HAD THREATENED HER WITH A BOX CUTTER AND A CHANGE 1356 STATUTE ON THE SUMMONS TO 1456 BECAUSE ALL CHARGES NEED TO BE FILED WITH THE SAME COURT. AND THEN IT TALKS ABOUT HIM NOTIFYING YOU OF THINGS. THESE, THESE ARE ALL ADMINISTRATIVE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING WITHIN THE OFFICE. CORRECT? MEANING THIS IS, HE TOLD ME TO DO THIS, THEN I CONTACTED THIS PERSON. THESE ARE ALL ADMINISTRATIVE THINGS. THIS IS NOT THE KIND OF THING YOU TYPICALLY PUT IN THE REPORT, CORRECT? WELL, I I ALWAYS REFERENCE WHERE I GOT MY INFORMATION FROM AND THAT'S HOW I TREAT, THAT'S HOW I TRAIN MY TRAINEES. YOU, YOU ALWAYS REFERENCE WHERE YOU GOT THAT INFORMATION FROM AND THEN I COULDN'T LOCATE IT ANYWAY. UH, OFFICER GRIMES TOLD ME HE HAD IT RECORDED ON HIS CELL PHONE. I DIDN'T SEE IT NOWHERE IN EVIDENCE.COM TO WHERE THAT STATEMENT WAS GIVEN. SO RIGHT. BUT YOU WOULD NOT WRITE YOUR REPORT. SERGEANT SMITH INSTRUCTED ME TO ADD VEHICLE BERGER. YOU WOULD GIVE THE INFORMATION. SERGEANT SMITH INTERVIEWED SO AND SO, AND THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS LEARNED AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THE FOLLOWING CHARGES WERE ADDED. SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. CORRECT. I MEAN, THAT'S HOW SOME PEOPLE WOULD WRITE IT, BUT THAT'S HOW I, UM, ADVISE GROUNDS TO WRITE IT. BUT DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SERGEANT SMITH SAID HE DID NOT BELIEVE THIS PORTION OF THE REPORT WOULD HOLD UP AS WRITTEN? HE, HE NEVER TOLD ME THAT I WASN'T PRESENT WHEN HE, HE SET UP. OKAY. I WAS NOT PRESENT. I WAS NOWHERE AROUND, THERE'S NO EMAIL. I'M NOT EVEN ON BODY CAMERA. WHEN HE GAVE THAT, UH, WHEN HE GAVE THAT ORDER. SO YOU ASSUMED THAT HIS REQUEST WAS UNLAWFUL WHEN IN REALITY THERE WERE THINGS THAT HE WANTED TO REVISE ABOUT THE REPORT SO THAT IT WOULD HOLD UP IN COURT AND READ PROPERLY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? RIGHT. HE NEVER, YEAH. RIGHT. HE NEVER TOLD ME WHAT TO CHANGE. ALL I KNOW IS THEY DELETED THE REPORT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN. BUT YOU WERE WILLING TO INTERVENE TO THE EXTENT OF BEING RELIEVED OF DUTIES WHILE NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT WAS THAT HE WANTED TO CHANGE. THAT'S WHY I ASKED, THAT'S WHY I ASKED ON BODY CAMERA. I ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES. BUT YOU ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT IT, THAT WASN'T YOUR ROLE THAT DAY, CORRECT? I WAS REPRESENTING CRIMES, CORRECT. YOU WERE NOT, I I'M NOT SURE. NOT FAIR. IT'S NOT A QUESTION. UH, WAS THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A QUESTION. UH, LET IT ROLL. UM, YOU WENT TO THE PREDIS HEARING, CORRECT? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. YOU UNDERSTAND CHIEF MORSE LOOKED AT THIS SAME ISSUE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? CORRECT. HE REVIEWED YOUR VIDEO, HE REVIEWED THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING LETTER. HE SIGNED IT, HE LISTENED TO YOU, CORRECT? YEAH. YES, SIR. OKAY. AND EVEN AFTER HEARING ALL OF THOSE THINGS, HE DETERMINED THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO DISCIPLINE YOU FOR INSUBORDINATION AND FAILURE TO CARRY OUT THE ORDERS THAT YOU WERE DIRECTED TO DO, TO DO ON THAT VIDEO FROM MAY 11TH, RIGHT? RIGHT. YES, SIR. OKAY. SO NOW YOU HAVE A SERGEANT, TWO LIEUTENANTS AND THE CHIEF OF POLICE TELLING YOU THAT YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT THIS, BUT HERE WE ARE TODAY ON AN APPEAL HEARING MM-HMM . SO YOU STILL THINK YOU'RE RIGHT? WELL, HE, I, AND THIS IS, UM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT, UH, CHIEF MORRIS, UH, REVIEWED AND I'M, I'M, I DON'T WANT TO SIT HERE AND GO AGAINST, UH, CHIEF MORRIS IN THIS TYPE OF MANNER. AND, UM, BUT ME STANDING MAKING SURE THAT GROUNDS DOES NOT ALTER THAT REPORT, I THINK WAS CORRECT ON MY BEHALF OR AT LEAST ATTEMPTING TO GET SOMEONE TO STAND WITH GROUNDS TO BE THERE WITH HIM. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT HE, YOU WERE ABLE TO TALK THAT DAY, RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY. YOU WERE [01:55:01] INTERVIEWED FOR THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE. OTHERS WERE INTERVIEWED FOR THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE YOU SPOKE THAT DAY MM-HMM . UM, AND WERE ALLOWED TO PRESENT WHATEVER IT WAS THAT YOU WANTED TO PRESENT IN YOUR PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, CORRECT? RIGHT. CORRECT. OKAY. CHIEF LISTENED TO THAT, MADE A DECISION. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT AN APPEAL, WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY IS YOUR APPEALING HIS DECISION? YOU'RE SAYING THAT HIS DECISION WASN'T FAIR, RIGHT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? YEAH. YES, SIR. OKAY. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR SERGEANTS OR LIEUTENANTS TO DIRECT THEIR SUPERVISEES TO REVISE REPORTS, IS IT? THAT'S NOT UNCOMMON. OKAY. DO YOU THINK, I'M GOING BACK TO THE INSUBORDINATION THING. 'CAUSE YOU THOUGHT THAT YOU TALKED APPROPRIATELY IN THAT SITUATION. DO YOU THINK IT'S RESPECTFUL TO YOUR SUPERIOR OFFICER TO TALK OVER HIM AND TO INTERRUPT HIM WHEN HE TRIES TO TALK TO ANOTHER OFFICER? OH, IF, IF YOU REMOVE THE, THE CONTEXT, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? MEANING HIM YELLING? CORRECT. AND, AND IN GENERAL, IS IT RESPECTFUL? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS RESPECT, RESPECT OF YOUR SUPERIOR OFFICER, RIGHT. RESPECT FOR ALL OFFICERS. RIGHT. RIGHT. IS IT RESPECTFUL TO INTERRUPT THEM AND TALK OVER THEM WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO TALK TO ANOTHER OFFICER? I, UM, THAT LIKE A YES OR NO? YEAH. RIGHT. UH, IN CERTAIN, IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, NO, IT'S NOT, UH, IT'S NOT RESPECTFUL. DO YOU THINK IT'S RESPECTFUL TO TELL YOUR SUPERIOR OFFICER THAT THEY ARE NOT OR YOU ARE NOT OR ANOTHER OFFICER IS NOT GONNA DO SOMETHING LIKE THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE REPORT WHEN IT'S TO PREVENT AN ILLEGAL ACTION OR A CRIMINAL ACTION? I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH IT. DID YOU THINK IT WAS RESPECTFUL TO CLOSE AND TAKE THE COMPUTER FROM OFFICER GRIMES WHEN SERGEANT SMITH WAS TALKING TO HIM AND DIRECTING HIM TO DO THINGS ON THE COMPUTER? RIGHT. TO PREVENT A CRIMINAL ACTION? I FELT LIKE I DID THE RIGHT THING. AND YOU WOULD BE OKAY WITH YOUR SUBORDINATES BEHAVING LIKE THAT TO YOU? I WOULDN'T HAVE GAVE THAT ORDER. BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHICH ORDER HE GAVE? WE THEY DELETED THE REPORT. WHAT'S THAT? THIS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN. THEY DELETED OUR ARREST REPORT LIKE THAT THE REPORT WAS GONE. THIS WAS, THIS WAS SOMEWHAT, SOMEWHAT OF A REVISED REPORT INITIALLY. LIKE THIS REPORT HAPPENED WAY BACK IN MARCH. WHO ARE YOU SAYING DELETED IT, SIR? WHO ARE YOU SAYING DELETED THE REPORT? SO WHEN I REVIEWED THE REPORT, I CON, WHICH I HAVE AN EMAIL, I CONTACTED, UH, BROWNS VIA EMAIL. I SAID, HEY MAN, THIS IS NOT WHAT WE DO. WE DO NOT, UM, DELETE ARREST REPORT AND REPORTS AND REPLACE THEM. AND THEN THAT'S WHEN HE SAID, SERGEANT SMITH GAVE ME THAT ORDER TO DELETE THE REPORT AND REWRITE IT. I SAY, WE DON'T DO THAT. I SAY, PUT THE ORIGINAL REPORT BACK IN, WHICH I ENCOURAGE HIM TO SAVE ALL THIS REPORTS. THAT'S HOW WE WAS ABLE TO PUT THE ORIGINAL REPORT BACK IN. AND THEN WHATEVER ORDER HE GAVE YOU TO DO, WE'RE GONNA CREATE A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND THEN, SO THAT WAY WE'RE FILING ALL ORDERS. HE SAID, THIS IS WHAT HE INVESTIGATED. SO WE'RE GONNA CREATE A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO SAY, OKAY, THESE ARE THE ADDITIONAL CHARGES. SO YOUR CLAIM IS THAT OFFICER GRIMES DID IT, IS THAT RIGHT? SIR, YOUR CLAIM IS THAT OFFICER GRIMES DELETED A REPORT? NO, UM, CORPORAL PENSON WAS PRESENT AND, UH, CORPORAL NOAH WAS PRESENT WHEN, UM, OFFICER GRIMES WENT IN THERE. SO YOU HAD A, YOU HAD A, A ACTING SERGEANT AND YOU HAD A SENIOR CORPORAL, UH, IN THE ROOM. WHEN, WHEN, UH, WHEN I'M ASSUMING SERGEANT SMITH CAME IN WITH THE RECORDING. OKAY. SO YOUR, YOUR, YOU DO REALIZE THOUGH THAT EXHIBIT THREE, THE REPORT THAT WE'RE WORKING OFF OF DOES HAVE GRIME'S NAME ON IT, RIGHT? RIGHT. YEAH, HE, HE'S THE PRIMARY OFFICER. THAT'S HOW THAT WORKS. IF YOU'RE THE PRIMARY OFFICER, YOUR NAME DON'T COME OFF. OKAY. AND HE WROTE THIS REPORT AS FAR AS YOU KNOW? CORRECT. AND THAT'S WHY I MENTIONED SERGEANT SMITH'S NAME IN THE SUPPLEMENT TO SAY HE GAVE US THIS INFORMATION BECAUSE OFFICER GRIME'S NAME IS ON A REPORT HE CANNOT ANSWER, BUT WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE INVESTIGATED. [02:00:01] ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU STOOD UP IN THE ROOM AND TOOK THE COMPUTER FROM HIM AND DID ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU DID, REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS, YOU WERE, YOU, YOU WERE DOING THAT BASED ON YOUR BELIEF THAT A PRIOR REPORT HAD BEEN DELETED, BUT YOU WERE REFUSING THE DIRECT ORDERS AND YOU DID NOT KNOW WHAT IT WAS THAT SERGEANT SMITH WANTED TO CORRECT ON THE REPORT. CORRECT. HE JUST SAID DELETE THE WHOLE THING. HE SAID ALL OF IT THOUGH. I DIDN'T, YEAH. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL OF IT MEANT. WELL, YEAH, BUT THAT, BUT THAT CONVERSATION HAPPENED LATER ON THE VIDEO. YOU STARTED OFF REFUSING TO LEAVE THE ROOM, CORRECT? YEAH. I WAS ASKING FOR ANOTHER, UH, PERSON TO BE PRESENT. ANOTHER SUPERVISOR, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. ARE YOU GONNA TAKE 'EM NOW OR ARE YOU RESERVED? UH, I WANT GIVE TO THE BOARD. I KNOW IT'S 1230. I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD BREAKS FOR LUNCH OR IF YOU WANT TO ME TO KEEP GOING THROUGH MY LINE OF QUESTIONING. UH, I COMPLETELY YIELD TO THE TIME. HOW LONG DO YOU THINK YOUR QUESTION'S GONNA BE? NOT RUSHING YOU? I'M JUST ASKING. YEAH. UM, I, I ONLY HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, BUT, UM, BUT I DO NEED TO, WELL, I KNOW TIME-WISE, MAYBE 20, 20 TO 30 MINUTES. YEAH. BUT THIS WAS, THIS IS YOUR DIRECT THOUGH, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. I FIGURED WE FINISHED. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND LET YOU FINISH YOUR QUESTION. OKAY. Y'ALL GOOD WITH THAT? MM-HMM . IS THAT OKAY? YEAH. ALRIGHT, LET'S GO FORWARD. CORPORAL JONES, BRIEFLY, COULD YOU GIVE US A DESCRIPTION OR FROM WHEN YOU INITIALLY ARRIVED ON THE SCENE, WHAT HAPPENED TO WHEN YOU SAW THE FIRST REPORT DRAFTED? JUST BRIEFLY IN YOUR OWN WORDS. UM, WE, WE ARRIVED, WE ARRIVED ON SCENE, UH, LIKE I WAS SAYING, 'CAUSE OFFICER BROWN'S TRAINING, WE HAVE YET TO AFFECT AN ARREST. UH, AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD AFFECT AN ARREST ON. UH, SO WE ACTUALLY TOOK THE CALL FROM ANOTHER OFFICER. UH, UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION, WE HAD A SENIOR OFFICER THERE, WHICH WAS ACTING SERGEANT NOAH AT THE TIME ON SCENE. SHE HAD TO BE TRANSPORTED TO THE HOSPITAL BECAUSE, UH, SHE RAN AWAY FROM A MENTAL INSTITUTION AND SHE WAS NONVERBAL. SO WE PUT IN THE VAN, UH, THEY TOOK HER TO THE HOSPITAL. WE FOLLOWED, AND THIS IS WHEN I RECEIVED A MESSAGE, TEXT MESSAGE FROM MY LIEUTENANT AND ACTING SERGEANT, STATING TO CHARGE HER WITH A MISDEMEANOR. AND, UM, AT THE TIME, WE COULDN'T GET ALL THE INFORMATION WE NEED. UM, MARCH 29TH, WE RECONTACTED HER AT ONE OF THE MENTAL INSTITUTIONS, UH, IN FRONT OF, UH, MAYBE FOUR OR FIVE OF HER, UH, REPRESENTATION. UH, ISSUED HER THE SUMMONS, UM, COMMITTED IT TO MY LIEUTENANT, WHICH HE SIGNED OFF ON IT, UH, THAT SUNDAY, WHICH WAS THE 31ST. UM, THEN I TOOK OFF THE FOLLOWING WEEK, OFFICER GRIMES CALLED ME, UM, SAYING, HEY, THEY'RE TRYING TO GET ME TO CHANGE ALL MY REPORTS AND I, AND THAT THAT'S WHAT MADE ME STAY HOME FROM VACATION. I SAID, OKAY, WELL, UH, GO AHEAD AND COMPLY. I'LL REVIEW ALL YOUR REPORTS AND THEN WE CAN JUST, UH, SUBMIT 'EM. WHEN I SAW THIS REPORT, THE ARREST REPORT, THAT'S WHEN I TOLD HIM HE CANNOT TRANSFER REPORT. WHAT WAS, WERE YOU ON THE, SO YOU WERE ON THE SCENE WITH GRIMES INITIALLY? YES, SIR. WHAT WAS THE CHANGE THAT YOU NOTICED IN THE REPORT? THE ORIGINAL REPORT WAS NOT IN AT ALL, LIKE THE REPORT WE INVESTIGATED. SO IF YOU JUST REMOVE THIS ENTIRE REPORT AND KEEP A PORTION OF THAT STUFF, BECAUSE I'M, I ACTUALLY HELPED HIM ADD, UH, CERTAIN ELEMENTS TO THE REPORT THAT SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHERE WE GOT OUR INFORMATION FROM. THIS IS WHAT THE, UH, VICTIM ACTUALLY SAID. SO THE ORIGINAL REPORT WASN'T IN THERE AT ALL. CAN YOU EXPLAIN YOUR ROLE AS A FTO OF GRIMES? WHAT ARE YOUR DUTIES AS AN FTO? UM, SO YOU PRETTY MUCH TRAIN EM, BE A SOLO OFFICER. SO LEARNING, UM, THE, THE POLICY AND, AND THE LAW CAN BECOME CRUCIAL, RIGHT? UM, SO IN, IN AN INSTANCE LIKE THIS, UH, THIS CAN REACH FEDERAL LAW. IF THEY WAS TO DISCOVER THAT THE, UM, INITIAL ARREST REPORT WAS THE DELETED AND SUBMITTED AS, UM, FELONY CHARGE, RIGHT? SO, UH, PROTECTING HIM FROM, UM, JUST MAKING, YOU KNOW, BAD AND, AND TOUGH DECISIONS, FIRST LINE OF COMMUNICATION. DID YOU FEEL, DID YOU FEEL RESPONSIBLE FOR OFFICER GRIMES? YEAH. YES. YES, SIR. UM, I'M, WELL, I WAS HIS PRIMARY FTO THAT MEAN I, I SIGNED OFF ON 'EM AT THE END. SO THE LAST TWO WEEKS, [02:05:01] UH, OF THE FTO PROGRAM, YOUR PRIMARY OFFICER HAS TO SIGN OFF TO SAY, OKAY, UH, YOU, I FEEL YOU DID EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO DO TO, TO GRADUATE ON MAY 11TH. UH, DO YOU RECALL WHO CALLED THAT MEETING? YES, I CALLED IT. UH, WHY DID YOU CALL THAT MEETING? UH, OFFICER GRIMES REACHED OUT TO ME. UM, HE PRETTY MUCH SAID HE WAS, UM, HE DIDN'T WANT TO GO MEET WITH SERGEANT SMITH BY HIMSELF BECAUSE SERGEANT SMITH, UM, KEPT SAYING THAT HE WAS GONNA WRITE HIM UP. AND IN MY CASE, UM, SERGEANT, SERGEANT SMITH ALREADY SENT ME TO A PREVIOUS HEARING FROM, UH, HEARSAY. AND SO HE WAS LIKE, OKAY, CAN YOU COME WITH ME TO BE A WITNESS? AND I WAS JUST LIKE, YEAH. I SAID, OKAY, TALK TO YOUR FTOS. HE WAS LIKE, I DID, I EVEN TALKED TO THE CAPTAIN. THEY GAVE ME THE PERMISSION. THEY GAVE ME PERMISSION TO MEET WITH YOU, TO MEET WITH SERGEANT SMITH. AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED ALL THREE SUPERVISORS PRESENT SO I CAN HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON AND SAY, HEY, I'M NOT BEING INSUBORDINATE, OR MAYBE ANOTHER SUPERVISOR CAN SPEAK UP FOR ME. WHO ELSE DID YOU ASK TO COME TO THAT MEETING? UH, CORPORAL TERRANCE NOAH. IN THE VIDEO WE SAW WAS CORPORAL TERRANCE. NO. NOAH PRESENT? NO. IN THE VIDEO, YOU APPEAR TO HAVE SOME PASSION. WHY DO YOU, WHY WERE YOU SO PASSIONATE, UH, ABOUT MR. GRIMES, OFFICER GRIMES? UH, WELL, IN ALL HONESTY, UH, IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO ME, UH, FEW YEARS AGO. UH, THEY HAD A, A LIEUTENANT REWRITE MY REPORT, WHICH I HAD THE SAME COMMAND, SAME CHAIN OF COMMAND. UH, SERGEANT SMITH WAS THE ACTING SERGEANT. LIEUTENANT MILLER WAS MY SERGEANT, AND, UM, CAPTAIN BILL CLARA WAS MY LIEUTENANT. MY REPORT GOT REWROTE, REWRITTEN, AND AN ANONYMOUS LETTER WENT TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS. UM, SERGEANT OSBORNE CALLED ME IN REFERENCE TO THAT MATTER. ONCE I STATED THAT REPORT WAS NOT MINE. I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SITUATION, BUT I KNOW IT CAN BE LED UP TO LIKE TERMINATION. AND, UM, THEN YOU HAD PEOPLE GET PROMOTED AFTER THAT. AND, UH, I DIDN'T WANT GROUNDS TO OFFICER GRIMES OR ANY OTHER OFFICER TO EXPERIENCE WHAT, WHAT I WENT THROUGH. UH, LET'S, LET'S TALK ABOUT REPORTS. SO, STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR A REPORT. WHAT ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO PUT IN A REPORT? UH, UH, THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME. AND, UM, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO REFERENCE, UH, ALL YOUR RESOURCES, TIME, DATE, LOCATION, WHERE YOU GOT THE INFORMATION FROM. ARE, ARE POLICE REPORTS WRITTEN IN NARRATIVE FORM BASED ON YOUR OWN APPEARANCE? YES. THE REPORT THAT WAS LISTED AS EXHIBIT PREVIOUSLY STATED AS EXHIBIT THREE, UM, ON PAGE EIGHT OF THAT REPORT, THE PARAGRAPH REFERENCED THIRD FROM THE BOTTOM. WHAT'S UNCOMMON IN YOUR OPINION ABOUT THAT STATEMENT? UH, UH, NOTHING. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, HOW I WRITE REPORTS. NOTHING IS UNCOMMON ABOUT THAT. OKAY. UH, IS IT COMMON FOR, OKAY, WELL YOU, YOU WERE ON THE SCENE FOR THIS INITIAL REPORT, RIGHT? DO YOU AGREE WITH PAGE EIGHT, WITH SPECIFICALLY PARAGRAPH THIRD FROM THE BOTTOM, STARTING WITH SERGEANT SMITH? YES, I AGREE WITH HIM. DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ON THE SCENE THAT DAY THAT, TO GIVE YOU A REASON TO CHARGE INITIALLY FOR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT? UH, WELL, I WAS ACTUALLY GIVEN AN ORDER AND NO, I DID NOT TO CLEAR THAT UP, BUT, UM, I DIDN'T SEE THAT, UH, NO KNIFE OR ANYTHING. AND THEN I RECEIVED AN ORDER FROM MY LIEUTENANT WHO WAS, UH, HEAD OF OUR SHIFT TO CHARGE HER WITH, UM, AT THE TIME HE SAID CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. THEN IT CHANGED THE, UH, CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. SO INITIALLY IN YOUR INITIAL REPORT, RIGHT? IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY YOU DID WHAT YOU WERE TOLD TO DO? RIGHT? SO REPORTS ARE WRITTEN IN NARRATIVE FORM BASED ON WHAT THE OFFICER PERCEIVED. IS THAT CORRECT? INVESTIGATIVE, YES, SIR. OKAY. WHEN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION COMES IN ABOUT A REPORT, UH, A COMPLAINANT CALLS AND NEW INFORMATION IS, IS MADE AVAILABLE, HOW IS THAT, IN YOUR OPINION, SUPPOSED TO BE HANDLED? UH, YOU CAN EITHER, UM, REFER TO A DETECTIVE, UM, THAT IF IT'S LIKE A FELONY OR, UH, OR LIKE TRUMPED UP CHARGES, YOU CAN REFER TO A DETECTIVE OR YOU CAN CREATE A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT, MEANING LIKE, THIS IS WHAT [02:10:01] WAS INVESTIGATED LATER. OKAY. AND, AND YOU'VE SEEN THE ENTIRETY OF THIS VIDEO, CORRECT? YES, SIR. AT THIS POINT IN THE VIDEO OR AT ANY POINT ARE, ARE YOU AWARE OF THE REPORT THAT WAS SAID TO BE INCORRECT THEN BEING ACTUALLY APPROVED? UM, THE, AND I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT ACCURATE. I MEAN, UH, SURE, BUT THE INITIAL REPORT WAS APPROVED AND THE SUPPLEMENT WAS DENIED. OKAY. SO THIS MAY 11TH EVENT WAS, WAS IT DISAGREEMENT OVER THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT? UH, FROM, FROM MY UNDER WATCHING THE ENTIRE VIDEO, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, YES. CAN WE, YOU MADE REFERENCE TO, UH, AN INITIAL, THE INITIAL REPORT BEING SEEN AND BEING DELETED. MM-HMM . UH, COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT? DID YOU, WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU SAW THAT VID, THAT INITIAL REPORT? UM, I, LIKE, I, I STAYED, STAYED HOME, UH, WHEN I PUT IN FOR VACATION, BUT WHEN OFFICER GRIMES TOLD ME WHAT WAS GOING ON, I ACTUALLY STAYED HOME. AND, UH, I STARTED REVIEWING HIS REPORTS, UH, SOME FROM THE HOUSE. AND I, I WANT TO SAY I WAS EITHER AT EXTRA DUTY OR AT, AT MY HOUSE WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT HIS REPORT. AND THEN THAT'S WHEN I EMAILED HIM. UM, JUST SO WE CAN HAVE RECORDS. SO I ALWAYS TELL HIM TO PUT EVERYTHING IN WRITING JUST SO WE CAN NEVER SAY WHAT I SAID OR WHAT HE SAID. SO WE'LL NEVER GET A MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHO SAID WHAT. I EMAILED HIM, UH, I SAID, THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SUPPOSED TO DO. I THINK I WANNA SAY THAT WAS, UH, APRIL, UH, SEVENTH, APRIL 7TH IS WHEN I NOTICED, UM, THE REPORT COMPLETELY ALTERED. AND, UH, I EMAILED HIM, HE TOLD ME WHAT, UH, SERGEANT SMITH ADVISED HIM TO DO, AND THEN WE WENT THROUGH WITH THE CORRECTIONS. UM, THAT SAME NIGHT I TOLD HIM, HURRY UP AND SUBMIT IT. I MEAN, HURRY UP AND MAKE THE CORRECTIONS BEFORE THEY APPROVE THE REPORT. ONCE THEY APPROVE IT, THEN WE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. OKAY. UH, BEFORE YOU SET UP THE MAY 11TH MEETING MM-HMM . UH, DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH GRIMES ABOUT HAVING THE MEETING? DID DID RONALD GRIMES ASK YOU TO COME TO THIS MEETING? YEAH, HE DID. HE DID. HE CALLED ME, HE TEXT ME FIRST AND THEN HE CALLED ME AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND I SAID, OKAY, THIS, THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. HE SAID, YEAH, HE JUST THREATENED TO WRITE ME UP. HE SAID, MAN, YOU KNOW, HE ACTUALLY LIKED WORKING HERE. HE SAID, I'M NOT TRYING TO GET FIRED. UH, ALL PRETTY MUCH EXPERIENCED WHAT I'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH AS FAR AS BEING UNDER SERGEANT SMITH'S, UH, COMMAND. AND IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY EARLIER THAT YOU WEREN'T, YOU WERE NOT HIS FTO THAT DAY, BUT WAS HE STILL UNDER YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND? RIGHT. I, I WAS HIS PRIMARY FTO, I'M HIS PRIMARY FTO, THAT MEANING IN THE END WHEN IT'S OVER, UH, I CAN RECOMMEND, UH, REMEDIAL, UH, F HE ADVANCE. OKAY. FTO ASIDE, DID HE PERSONALLY ASK YOU TO APPEAR WITH HIM? YEAH. YEAH. UM, AND HE STILL, TO THIS DAY, HE'LL CALL ME AND, AND, UH, ASK FOR ADVICE AND, AND BEFORE THEN HE'LL EMAIL ME AND SAY, HEY MAN, I'M NOT TRYING TO DO NOTHING ILLEGAL, IMMORAL OR UNETHICAL. AND, UM, THAT'S OUR JOB TO BUILD OUR TRUST INSIDE OF THE ROOKIES SO THEY CAN, UM, SO IF I DO GIVE AN ORDER, HE WON'T HESITATE TO FOLLOW IT. SO IF I, IF I TELL HIM WHAT'S RIGHT ALL THE TIME, I CAN SHOW HIM WHAT'S RIGHT ALL THE TIME, THEN HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO HESITATE IF MY ORDER WAS ILLEGAL. AND AS OF MAY 11TH, WERE YOU RONALD GRIME'S SUPERIOR OFFICER? YES. AND ON MAY 11TH, WERE YOU HIS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE? YES. ARE YOU, CAN YOU, ARE YOU ENTITLED TO HAVE PERSONAL REPRESENTATION? YES. THERE'S TALK ABOUT THE ORDER ITSELF TO ALTER THE REPORT TO, TO THIS DAY IN FRONT OF THIS BODY, DO YOU FEEL YOU WERE GIVEN AN UNLAWFUL ORDER TO ALTER A POLICE REPORT? I, I FELT I, I STOOD, I STOOD IN A WAY FROM THEM CHANGING THE REPORT FROM THEM CHANGING THE REPORT. SO THAT'S WHAT MADE ME SAY THE ORDER WAS UNLAWFUL, BECAUSE IF I WOULD'VE LEFT, THEY WOULD'VE CHANGED THE REPORT AGAIN. WHICH, LIKE I SAID, IF THE BODY CAM CONTINUED, YOU WOULD SHOW, ONCE I'M RELIEVED OF MY DUTIES, HE'LL GO BACK UP TO, UM, OFFICER GROUND AND OFFICER GROUNDS HAD TO SHOW HIM A TEXT STATING THAT CAPTAIN SIBLEY TOLD HIM NOT TO CHANGE THE [02:15:01] REPORT AND THAT THEY WOULD COME TO HIS AID IF HE FORCED IT. WAS IT, WAS IT YOUR INTENTION? HOLD ON. I'M SORRY. I WAS GONNA SAY, I'M GONNA OBJECT TO GETTING INTO HEARSAY FROM OTHER PEOPLE LIKE THAT. IT'S IN TEXT MESSAGE. WE, NO, IT'S OKAY. ALRIGHT, I APOLOGIZE. SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, SO HEARSAY IS IN ADMISSIBLE IF IT'S RELIABLE. IS HE PLANNING TO TESTIFY? IS THE PERSON TALKING GONNA TESTIFY TO THAT? NO, THAT INDIVIDUAL IS NOT A PART OF THIS AT ALL, NOR WERE THEY A PART OF THE PREVIOUS HEARING. I THINK WE SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM THAT. WAS THE INDIVIDUAL YOU'RE REFERRING TO? UH, YEAH. DID YOU SAY THAT THE, SOME CAPTAIN TEXTED CAP CAP, HIS FTO REACHED OUT TO CAPTAIN SIBLEY AND HE GAVE, CAPTAIN SIBLEY GAVE HIM THAT ORDER NOT TO, UH, CHANGE THE REPORT. SO LIEUTENANT SIBLEY AND THE FTO ARE NOT HERE TO TESTIFY, CORRECT? NO, THEY'RE NOT. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. AND I, WE, WE HAVE IT IN TEXT. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK THAT WE, WE WOULD NOT GET INTO THAT. RIGHT. YEAH. IF THEY'RE NOT HERE TO TESTIFY, THEN WE CAN'T VERIFY THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. WAS IT YOUR INTENTION TO BE DISRESPECTFUL, UH, TO SERGEANT SMITH AND LIEUTENANT MILLER MILLER THAT DAY? NO, NOT AT ALL. UM, LIKE I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN EARLIER, UM, HEAR HEARSAY ACTUALLY GOT ME IN MY FIRST PRE DEATH, BUT FOCUSED ON, ON YOUR ACTIONS ON MAY 11TH, RIGHT? NO. WAS IT YOUR INTENT TO BE DISRESPECTFUL TO A SUBORDINATE OFFICER OR NO? NO. UH, A HIGHER RANKING OFFICER? NO, SIR. UH, DOCUMENTATION REALLY DOES SHOW THAT. OKAY. UH, THIS IS HOW WE'RE TRYING TO RECTIFY THE, THE ISSUE. SO NOT AT ALL TO BE DISRESPECTFUL IN ANY FORM. WERE YOU TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUEST ASKED OF YOU AND RESOLVE YES. WHATEVER ISSUES ON MAY 11TH? YES. WHAT STOPPED YOU FROM A RESOLUTION ON MAY 11TH? UH, HE DIDN'T, UH, SPECIFICALLY TELL ME WHAT TO CHANGE OR ASSIST, UH, ASSIST THE OFFICER WITH CHANGING THE REPORT, AND THEN I WAS, UH, RELIEVED OF MY DUTIES. SO AT THIS POINT, I MEAN, YOU CAN BE UP FOR TERMINATION IF, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE. SO ONCE THEY RELIEVED OF MY DUTIES, I COULDN'T HELP THEM ANYMORE. DID YOU EVER RECEIVE ANYTHING FROM, OR HAVE, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WERE THERE ANY INFORMATION FROM LEGAL THAT WAS SENT TO YOU THAT SOMETHING YOU DID WAS WRONG WITH THIS REPORT? NO. NONE AT ALL? NOT TO ME. NONE AT ALL. UM, DID YOU RECEIVE ANY INFORMATION FROM CORPORAL BLACKWELL, UH, THAT THE REPORT AS WRITTEN AS EXHIBIT THREE WAS, WAS, WAS INCORRECT IN ANY WAY? UH, NONE. HE SENT A FEW GRAMMATICAL ERRORS TO OFFICER GRIMES, UM, THE LAST DAY WAS APRIL 19TH, AND THAT'S WHEN HE, UH, FINALIZED THE REPORT, MEANING LIKE GRAMMATICAL ERRORS. HE CORRECTED IN, LEFT IT ALONE AFTER. AND THIS EXHIBIT THREE REPORT AS IT SITS IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW. MM-HMM . UNSURE IF IT'S APPROVED OR UNAPPROVED STILL. BUT IS THIS THE FINAL REVISIONS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF? THIS, THIS WASN'T THE REPORT ON, UH, ON MAY 11TH. AND, UH, I'M, I WAS, I'M UNABLE TO DO, UM, YOU CAN'T PER POLICY, YOU CAN'T INVESTIGATE ANOTHER OFFICER, SO I'M NOT, I WASN'T ALLOWED TO, YOU KNOW, GO TO MOB DAD AND SAY, I, I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING SPECIFICALLY IS WHEN YOU SAID IN THAT MEETING, THEY TOLD YOU THAT THE REPORT WAS WRONG AND TO CHANGE IT. RIGHT. UM, ARE YOU AWARE AS OF RIGHT NOW, IF ANYTHING WAS WRONG WITH THIS REPORT? RIGHT. NOTHING WAS WRONG WITH THE REPORT. SO THE REPORT THAT THEY TOLD YOU ON VIDEO WAS INCORRECT AND IT NEEDED TO BE CHANGED. YOUR UNDERSTANDING RIGHT NOW IS THE REPORT THROUGH OTHER FTO PROGRAMS, ET CETERA, IS A FINE REPORT. CORRECT. I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU RIGHT. YOU ASKED ME IF THE REPORT WAS YEAH. ANY, YOU, YOU, THEY TOLD YOU LIEUTENANT MILLER SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE WRONG, THEY NEED TO CHANGE THIS REPORT. I MEAN, IS THIS REPORT CORRECT AS OF RIGHT NOW? IS THIS THE CORRECT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT? UH, YEAH. YEAH, IT IS OF AS OF MAY 11TH. AS OF MAY 11TH. AS OF MAY 11TH, THE REPORT WAS CORRECT. AND LIKE I SAID, YOU CAN SEE IT AGAIN, IF WE CONTINUE WITH THE VIDEO, UH, CORPORAL HALEY WILL COME IN AND SAY THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE REPORT. SHE, SHE REVIEWED THE REPORT. I'M GONNA OBJECT. YEAH, WE'LL DO, OH, SHE'S ANOTHER RELEASE. YEAH. I, ALL RIGHT. UH, REGARDING THE PENALTY YOU RECEIVE, UH, FROM THE CHIEF AT THE LAST HEARING, [02:20:01] UM, DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT, THAT DECISION? UH, I, I DISAGREE. I DISAGREE WITH THE DECISION WHY, AND, UM, AS FAR AS THIS POINT, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THEY, UH, TOOK IN A, UH, TOOK IN THE FACTS OF WHAT I WAS STANDING FOR, YOU KNOW, UM, IF THAT REPORT WAS ALTERED OR DELETED, THIS CAN GO WELL BEYOND WHERE WE AT NOW. SO, UH, I'M NOT SURE IF HE WAS PRESENTED ALL THE FACTS, UH, JUST DID NOT SEE HIM, BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH THE DECISION BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS AT STAKE AND OFFICER GRIMES BEING A EIGHT WEEK OFFICER AT THE TIME, FOUR WEEK OFFICER WHEN THE REPORT HAPPENED. RIGHT. I, I FELT LIKE THIS INCIDENT COULD HAVE WENT A WHOLE LOT FURTHER IF THEY WOULD'VE DELETED THE ARREST REPORT AND, AND, AND PUT IN THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION. IN YOUR OPINION, DOES CORRECT POLICE REPORTING, UH, AFFECT PUBLIC TRUST? RIGHT. RIGHT. IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, FOLLOW A PROCEDURE? YES. CORRECT. AS FAR AS, UH, YEAH, THE LEGAL RAMIFICATION. NO FURTHER QUESTION. COUPLE OF FOLLOW UPS, UM, AGAIN, YOU WERE AT THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING, YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T THINK CHIEF CONSIDERED EVERYTHING, YOU SAID WHATEVER YOU WANTED TO SAY AT THAT PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING ABOUT THIS CASE, CORRECT? YEAH. OKAY. AND CHIEF WAS THERE, YOU THINK HE WAS LISTENING TO YOU? UH, YEAH, YOU CAN SAY THAT. OKAY. SO YOU, YOU JUST, YOU YOU JUST THINK THAT HE DIDN'T CONSIDER EVERYTHING BECAUSE IT DID, IT WENT AGAINST YOU? NO, IT, IT IS, IT'S ILLEGAL. LIKE IF YOU DELETE AN ARREST REPORT AND PUT IN YOUR OWN INVESTIGATION, THAT IS ILLEGAL. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN. THAT'S ILLEGAL. OKAY. WE ARRE AND THE LIEUTENANT SIGNED OFF ON THE ARREST. HE GAVE THE ORDER AND HE SIGNED OFF ON THE ARREST. THAT'S ILLEGAL. SAYS YOU, HOWEVER YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE TWO LIEUTENANTS, A SERGEANT AND A CHIEF OF POLICE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THIS. I'M NOT CORRECT. I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE. WELL, YOU CERTAINLY INTERFACED WITH TWO OF 'EM THAT DAY. WHO DISAGREED WITH YOU, RIGHT? WITH, UM, SERGEANT SMITH AND LIEUTENANT MILLER. THEY DISAGREED WITH YOU, RIGHT? NO, THEY, THEY NEVER TOLD ME WHAT THE CORRECT, THAT'S WHAT, SO OKAY. THEM SAYING DISAGREE, THEY NEVER SAID WHAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. NOW, YOUR, YOUR TESTIMONY A MINUTE AGO IS YOU WERE THERE BECAUSE OFFICER GRIMES ASKED YOU TO, BUT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT AN A REQUEST BY A ROOKIE OFFICER TO BE PRESENT TRUMPS A DIRECT ORDER FROM A SERGEANT OR A LIEUTENANT, DOES IT? UH, YEAH. HE, HE'S, HE IS ALLOWED TO HAVE REPRESENTATION. HE WAS ON, HE WAS IN HIS PROBATION PERIOD. SO AS AN FTO, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BE WITH YOUR ROOKIE IN A DISCIPLINARY MATTER, HE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO REPRESENTATION, CORRECT? RIGHT. AND THAT GOES THROUGH THE ACADEMY. OKAY. WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL TESTIFY ABOUT THAT LATER. UM, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE ALSO NOT THE FINAL SAY AND WHETHER A REPORT IS CORRECT OR NOT, RIGHT? YES, SIR. I UNDERSTAND THAT. UH, THAT'S IT. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. JONES BEFORE WE BREAK? I THINK JUST ONE FROM ME. UH, UH, JOSHUA NEWVILLE. I KNOW DURING QUESTIONING SOME TIME WAS SPENT ON THAT PARAGRAPH IN THE REPORT IN HOW IT COULD HAVE OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHANGED. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT DISCUSSION WITH, UH, SERGEANT SMITH'S NAME BEING IN THE REPORT? SO LET'S MAKE SURE. SO IN SECTION THREE OF THE BINDER, THE THREE, OKAY, THERE THREE. UM, THE PARAGRAPH THIRD FROM THE BOTTOM, SERGEANT R SMITH'S ADDITIONAL ORDERS. OKAY. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT DISCUSSION? YEAH. YES, SIR. OKAY. AND IN THAT DISCUSSION, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEPARTMENT TALKED TO YOU ABOUT DIFFERENT WAYS IT COULD HAVE BEEN ALTERED. DO YOU RECALL THAT DISCUSSION WITH WITH HIM? YES. HE GAVE ME DIFFERENT WAYS WE CAN CHANGE, AND I APOLOGIZE IF I'M BEING UNCLEAR. SO, TO MY RECOLLECTION, AND TELL ME IF I'M RECALLING INCORRECTLY, UM, THE ATTORNEY ASKED YOU ESSENTIALLY IF IT WOULD'VE BEEN APPROPRIATE TO ALTER THAT PARAGRAPH INSTEAD OF TO SAY, SERGEANT R SMITH'S ADDITIONAL ORDERS ARE AS FOLLOWS, [02:25:01] TO SIMPLY HAVE PUT SERGEANT SMITH CONVEYED OR SAID THAT HE HAD THIS PHONE CALL, AND THIS IS WHAT WAS SAID. AGAIN, I'M NOT ASKING YOU WHETHER THAT'S TRUE OR FALSE. I'M ASKING IF YOU REMEMBER THIS CONVERSATION. YES, YES, SIR. I REMEMBER IT. OKAY. BEFORE TODAY, HAS ANYONE DISCUSSED WITH YOU IN ANY MEASURE OF DETAIL, THAT TYPE OF THING, DID ANYONE TELL YOU WHAT THEY WANTED CHANGED OR IS TODAY THE, THE FIRST TIME YOU WERE HEARING ABOUT WHAT THEY BELIEVED THEY WANTED YOU TO CHANGE? SO I WAS ABLE TO REVIEW THE BODY CAM IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND THAT'S WHEN I HEARD IT ON BODY CAM. WHEN, UH, CORPORAL HALEY, UH, SCENE COMES UP, THAT'S WHEN I HEARD THAT, UM, SERGEANT SMITH WANTED HIS NAME OUT A REPORT. BUT BEYOND THAT, IT WAS NEVER, THAT INFORMATION WAS NEVER GIVEN TO ME A A FOLLOW UP. AND THOUGH I IMAGINE THIS MIGHT BE BETTER ANSWERED BY VIDEO, TO YOUR RECOLLECTION, DID SERGEANT SMITH WANT HIS NAME OUT ENTIRELY OR DID HE WANT IT ALTERED IN THE WAY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED TO SIMPLY REFERENCE HIM HAVING HAD THIS PHONE CALL, UM, AND REMOVING THE PART ABOUT THESE BEING ORDERS FROM SERGEANT SMITH? AND, AND IF YOU DON'T RECALL, THAT'S OKAY. YEAH, YEAH. I, I DON'T, LIKE I SAID, I, I HEARD IT FROM ON THE BODY CAM, SO I CAN'T, UH, RECITE IT VERBATIMLY, SO I DON'T OKAY, THANK YOU. NOTHING MORE FROM ME. IS THAT IN THIS, UH, SEGMENT OF THE YEAH. QUESTION? YES, SIR. YEAH, I GOT A FEW QUESTIONS. YEAH. MR. THOMAS, YOU'RE SAYING AT FIRST, UH, THE ORIGINAL REPORT WAS WROTE ON, UM, MARCH 29TH, AND IT WAS DELETED PRIOR TO THE, UH, AFTER MARCH 29TH. SO WE, UH, OFFICER GRIMES AND I SUBMITTED THAT REPORT AND THE SUMMONS MARCH 29TH, MARCH 29TH, AND SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN MARCH 29TH AND APRIL 7TH, THE REPORT WAS, UH, THE NARRATIVE WAS DELETED, UH, FELONY CHARGES WAS ADDED, AND A DIFFERENT NARRATIVE SET IN, UH, THE NARRATIVE BOX. SO DID, UH, SERGEANT SMITH WANT Y'ALL TO UPGRADE THE CHARGES? I KNOW YOU SAY THE ORIGINAL REPORT, Y'ALL ISSUE A SUMMONS ON IT? YES, SIR. AND AT THAT POINT, HE WANTED THE CHARGES UPGRADED. UH, DID, WERE Y'ALL EVER INSTRUCTED TO CON CONTACT BURGLARY DIVISION OR ANYONE? NO. AND, UH, THE VIDEO HE HAD, AND I'M NOT SURE NOW, BUT IT WAS NEVER SUBMITTED, SO WE, WE COULD NEVER LIKE, REFERENCE ANYTHING. SO WE DIDN'T CONTACT ANY DETECTIVE. UM, AND THAT'S WHAT I ASKED, UH, OFFICER GRIMES, HE WAS JUST LIKE, NO, HE TOLD ME TO PUT IN THE, UM, REPORT AS HE SAID IT. SO, UM, WE DIDN'T CONTACT ANYBODY, UH, ON ANY FOLLOW UP DIVISION, IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY. OKAY. AND WERE YOU EVER INSTRUCTED TO UPGRADE THE CHARGES? NOT, NOT ME, NOT ME. I WASN'T. OKAY. ANY FURTHER, UH, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON THE BOARD? IF NOT, THEN I THINK WE'D LIKE TO TAKE A, UM, A BREAK AND LET'S COME BACK AT ONE 30. LET'S COME BACK AT ONE 30. EVERYBODY READY? THE BOARD MEETING IS RECONVENED. IT IS 1:33 PM MR. DARA, WHO'S NEXT? NEED? ALL GOOD? YEAH. UM, WE'LL GO, UH, WE'RE GONNA CALL SERGEANT, UH, ROMY SMITH. NEXT. SERGEANT SMITH. UH, YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN SWORN IN? YES, SIR. ALL RIGHTY. SO IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STATE YOUR, UH, NAME AND CURRENT ASSIGNMENT. SERGEANT SMITH, THIRD DISTRICT UNIFORM PATROL EVENING SHIFT. AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WITH THE DEPARTMENT APPROXIMATELY? UH, 21 YEARS. ALRIGHT. NOW, YOU, YOU'RE [02:30:01] ALSO IN THE MILITARY, IS THAT CORRECT? YES SIR, I CURRENTLY AM. I AM. ALRIGHT. AND WHAT'S YOUR RANK THERE? I'M A COLONEL. ALRIGHT. SO FAIR TO SAY, YOU'VE GOT A BIT OF EXPERIENCE WITH CHAIN OF COMMAND, IS THAT RIGHT? YES SIR, I DO. OKAY, GOOD DEAL. UM, YOU'RE ALSO FAMILIAR WITH UH, CORPORAL JONES, CORRECT? YES SIR, I AM. OKAY. NOW I JUST FROM THE OUTSET, WE'VE ALREADY HEARD CORPORAL JONES TESTIFY, WE'VE ALREADY WATCHED THE VIDEO SO THEY'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE, WITH THE SITUATION. SO THAT'LL HELP CUT US DOWN AS FAR AS TESTIMONY GOES. UM, AND THE RECORDING THAT WE SAW, THAT WAS YOUR BODY CAMERA, IS THAT CORRECT? YES SIR. IT WAS. ALRIGHT, I WANNA TALK FIRST, JUST BRIEFLY ABOUT THE POLICE REPORT. THERE'S A BINDER IN FRONT OF YOU IF YOU HAD TURNED TO EXHIBIT THREE FOR ME. EXHIBIT THREE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THE INCIDENT THAT TOOK PLACE ON MARCH 25TH OF THIS YEAR, THAT REPORT'S DATED APRIL NINE, IS THAT RIGHT? YES SIR. TOP RIGHT HAND CORNER GOOD? YES SIR. OKAY. AND THE VERSION THAT WE HAVE IS AN UNAPPROVED REPORT, CORRECT? UH, CORRECT SIR? YES SIR. ALRIGHT. DO YOU RECALL HOW THE REPORT ISSUE CAME TO YOUR LEVEL? YES SIR. I RECALL. ALRIGHT. WHAT HAPPENED? THE, UH, THE VICTIM WHO HAD A CAR BURGLARIZED AT THE HOME DEPOT, SHE CALLED THE DISTRICT TO SPEAK WITH A SUPERVISOR TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE REPORT BECAUSE SHE FELT THE REPORT WAS NOT ACCURATE AND WAS MISSING, UH, SPECIFIC DETAILS REGARDING TO THE CHARGES, UH, OF IT. AND SO WHEN I GOT OFF THE PHONE WITH HER, I WENT AND LOOKED AT THE BODY CAMERA FROM THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT AND SAW HER COMPLAINTS AND THE ISSUES WAS VALID. SO, UH, THAT'S WHEN I MADE CONTACT WITH UH, CORPORAL JONES AND, UH, TRAINEE GRIMES TO HAVE A REPORT FIXED. OKAY. THAT'S HOW I GOT INVOLVED IN IT. NOW LET'S FAST FORWARD TO MAY 11, THE DAY OF YOUR MEETING. OKAY. UM, THAT WE SAW THE VIDEO ON. OKAY. IS THE REPORT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW EXHIBIT THREE, IS THAT THE REPORT THAT YOU WANTED TO REVISE? UH, YES SIR, IT IS. OKAY. JUST FROM LOOKING AT THE FIRST PAGE. IT IS. ALRIGHT. IF WE LOOK AT THAT FIRST PAGE, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE MIXED CHARGES, MEANING THAT YOU HAD SOME CHARGES THAT WERE STATE CHARGES AND SOME CITY CHARGES IN THERE. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT SIR. ALRIGHT. AND WAS THAT AN ISSUE FOR YOU? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO BE FIXED? YES SIR, IT WAS. OKAY. UM, LET'S ALSO THEN GO TO PAGE EIGHT. THERE'S THREE PARAGRAPHS, UM, AND KIND OF THAT WORD THE IN RED UNAPPROVED COVERS THE THREE PARAGRAPHS. IT STARTS WITH ON THURSDAY, APRIL FOUR, UM, AND THEN IT GOES DOWN THROUGH THE LAST WORD OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH IS THE WORD PENDING. DO YOU SEE THOSE THREE PARAGRAPHS? UH, I SEE ON YOU SAY TUESDAY, APRIL THE SECOND. UH, IT STARTS WITH ON THURSDAY, APRIL 4TH, 2024. IT'S A THIRD PARAGRAPH ON THAT PAGE. I SEE IT. I SEE IT. OKAY. UM, AND IT TALKS ABOUT YOU INFORMING HIM ABOUT MS. LEWIS CONTACTING YOU AND THEN IT TALKS ABOUT INSTRUCTIONS YOU GAVE HIM AND ORDERS THAT YOU GAVE HIM. UM, ARE THOSE THE PARAGRAPHS THAT YOU WANTED REVISED IN THE REPORT? YES SIR. OKAY. UM, QUESTION TO YOU IS IF, WELL FIRST OF ALL, LET ME BACK UP. THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THAT REPORT, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU PERCEIVE AS MORE LIKE ADMINISTRATIVE LANGUAGE, THINGS THAT WOULD YOU, WOULD, UH, THAT YOU WOULD NOT PUT IN A REPORT? CORRECT? YES SIR. OKAY. IF THE REPORT HAD BEEN REVISED TO SAY SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, OF COURSE I'M NOT WRITING IT, BUT YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU SAID SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, UM, SERGEANT SMITH SPOKE WITH MS. LEWIS AND SHE PROVIDED THE, THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND BASED ON THAT INFORMATION WE'RE ADDING ADDITIONAL CHARGES SUCH AS X, Y, AND Z, UM, WOULD THAT LANGUAGE HAVE BEEN MORE APPROPRIATE, DO YOU BELIEVE? YES SIR. IT WOULD'VE BEEN. OKAY. AND THAT WOULD'VE BEEN SOMETHING THAT MAY HAVE GOTTEN THE REPORT, UM, APPROVED THAT AND UH, CORRECT THE CHARGES HAD CITY AND DISTRICT CHARGES IN IT. OKAY. GOING INTO THAT MEETING, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU HAD ADVISED, UH, OR I GUESS LEMME BACK UP. CORPORAL JONES TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW EXACTLY GOING INTO THAT MEETING WHAT CHANGES YOU WANTED MADE. OKAY. SO WHEN HE, UM, STARTED SPEAKING, WAS THAT INTERFERING WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO GIVE TO OFFICER GRIMES? YES SIR, IT WAS. OKAY. UM, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU GAVE HIM DIRECT ORDERS IN THAT INSTANCE TO BE QUIET? YES SIR, I DID. ALRIGHT. THEN AFTER THAT THERE CONTINUED WITH AN INTERRUPTION INTO THE THINGS THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO SAY TO OFFICER [02:35:01] GRIMES AND YOU ASKED HIM TO LEAVE, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WAS A DIRECT ORDER? YES SIR, IT WAS. AND DID YOU INTEND FOR IT TO BE A DIRECT ORDER? YES SIR, I DID. OKAY. AND DID HE COMPLY WITH YOUR DIRECT ORDER? NO SIR. HE DIDN'T. UM, YOU AFTER THAT YOU ASKED HIM OR DIRECTED HIM TO ASSIST OFFICER GRIMES IN REVISING THE REPORT, CORRECT? I DID. ALRIGHT. UM, WHAT WAS HIS RESPONSE TO THAT? HE REFUSED. HE SAID THAT HE WASN'T GONNA DO IT. ALRIGHT. UM, AND YOU ASKED HIM TO LEAVE THE ROOM AFTER THAT, IS THAT RIGHT? I DID. OKAY. AND DID HE COMPLY WITH EITHER OF THOSE ORDERS? HE DID NOT. ALRIGHT. YOU WENT AND GOT LIEUTENANT MILLER. WHY DID YOU DO THAT? BECAUSE I WASN'T, I WAS TRYING TO FIX THE REPORT AT MY LEVEL AND I COULDN'T GET ANYWHERE WITH JONES IN THE ROOM AND HE REFUSED TO LEAVE AND SO I JUST WENT AND GOT THE LIEUTENANT. WHEN YOU BROUGHT THE LIEUTENANT IN THE ROOM, DID CORPORAL JONES' BEHAVIOR CHANGE? IT DID NOT. OKAY. DID HE CONTINUE TO DEFY DIRECT ORDERS BETWEEN YOU OF YOU AND BOTH LIEUTENANT MILLER? HE DID. ALRIGHT. THE LAST THING THAT YOU ASKED HIM TO DO OR DIRECTED HIM TO DO MULTIPLE TIMES WAS TO GO TEN EIGHT, CORRECT? I DID. ALL RIGHT. AT ANY POINT DID HE VOLUNTARILY GO TEN EIGHT AFTER HE WAS BEING DIRECTED TO DO SO? HE DID NOT. YOU AWARE OF ANY POLICY THAT ALLOWS A SUBORDINATE TO DISOBEY DIRECT ORDERS? UM, IN AN INSTANCE LIKE WHAT WE WERE DEALING WITH THAT DAY THAT WAS ON VIDEO? IT'S NOT ACTUALLY, IT'S A CATEGORY THREE DISOBEYING A, UH, ORDERS FROM THE, UH, SUPERIOR. NOW, WHEN YOU GAVE THIS ORDER, UH, YOU WERE ON DUTY, CORRECT? CORRECT. I WAS. AND WAS CORPORAL JONES ON DUTY? HE WAS. ALRIGHT. SO BOTH OF YOU ARE BEING PAID IN YOUR DIRECT CAPACITY AS UH, YOU AS A SERGEANT AND HIM AS A CORPORAL, CORRECT? CORRECT. UM, AND SAME GOES TRUE FOR LIEUTENANT MILLER, CORRECT? YES SIR. OKAY. NOW I WANT TO JUST BRIEFLY GO OVER A COUPLE OF THINGS IF YOU WOULD TURN TO EXHIBIT FOUR FOR ME. OKAY. UM, YOU TESTIFIED A MINUTE AGO THAT YOU HAD ALREADY ASKED, UH, OFFICER GRIMES TO REVISE THE REPORT, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. AND WE KNOW FROM TESTIMONY PREVIOUSLY THAT THERE WAS A COMMUNICATION THERE BETWEEN YOU AND OFFICER GRIMES, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. THERE ARE TWO PAGES TO EXHIBIT FOUR, IF YOU WOULD, OR I'M SORRY, THREE PAGES. UM, THE FIRST TWO PAGES, IT LOOKS LIKE AN EMAIL BETWEEN YOU AND OFFICER GRIMES DATED MAY 11. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. IT IS. OKAY. AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF SENDING THAT EMAIL? THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT? MYSELF AND THE LIEUTENANT RECEIVED A NOTIFICATION FROM CRIMINAL RECORDS ABOUT THE REPORT BECAUSE THE REPORT HAS TO BE APPROVED AND FORWARDED TO, UH, EITHER CITY OR DISTRICT COURT AND IT WASN'T APPROVED AND IT COULDN'T BE FORWARDED TO CITY OR DISTRICT COURT WITH THE MIXED CHARGES IN IT. SO WE HAD TO FIX THE REPORT AND THEY'LL EMAIL US MAYBE TWO TIMES AND THEN ON THE THIRD TIME THEY START PUTTING THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IN IT, LIKE IT MAY BE THE DISTRICT COMMANDER. AND IF IT STILL DON'T GET FIXED, THEN THE UP COMMANDER GET IN IT AND WE TRY TO SOLVE IT AT ALL LEVEL TO KEEP THE, UH, DISTRICT COMMANDER, UH, FROM COMING TO US ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S A SQUAD LEVEL THING. SO WE TRY TO FIX IT AT OUR LEVEL SO CRIMINAL RECORDS CAN DO THEIR PART. OKAY. SO YOU HAD ALREADY REACHED OUT TO OFFICER GRIMES AND I TAKE IT THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN FIXED PRIOR TO MAY 11, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO YOU SENT THAT EMAIL. IF WE TURNED TO THE THIRD PAGE, UM, THERE'S ALSO A TEXT MESSAGE THERE. IS THAT A TEXT MESSAGE FROM YOU TO OFFICER GRIMES? CORRECT? IT IS. ALRIGHT. UM, AND YOU SAID THE ACADEMY AND LEGAL ARE ASKING FOR THIS REPORT TO BE CORRECTED AND APPROVED FOR THE COURTS, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. AND YOU, YOU ADVISED, UM, MY NEXT ACTION WILL BE TO WRITE A LETTER REGARDING YOU NOT FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS. WAS THAT ONLY IN THE, IF HE DID NOT REVISE THE REPORT, IF IT DIDN'T FIX IT? YES SIR. OKAY. SO IF HE FIXED IT THEN THAT WASN'T GONNA BE, UH, A DISCIPLINARY ISSUE. IT WAS JUST NO, SIR. OKAY. UH, BASED ON THE TESTIMONY WE'LL OFFER, UH, EXHIBIT FOUR ON GLOBO ACCEPTED. THANK YOU. NOW, AFTER YOU SENT THOSE MESSAGES, DID YOU RECEIVE CONTACT FROM CORPORAL JONES ABOUT MEETING? YES SIR. ALRIGHT. AND WAS THERE ANYTHING ODD THAT, DID YOU FIND ANYTHING ODD ABOUT HEARING FROM CORPORAL JONES ABOUT THE REPORT AT THIS POINT? YES SIR. I, UH, HE CALLED ME ON THE RADIO, THE 10 19, THE THIRD DISTRICT, AND I HAD NO IDEA WHY HE WANTED ME TO COME THERE. SO [02:40:01] AS I GOT OUTTA MY UNIT IN THE PARKING GARAGE AND WHEN I GRABBED THE DOOR HANDLE TO KEY FO MY WAY IN, I JUST TAPPED MY BODY CAMERA BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS CALLING ME FOR. AND UH, I JUST HAD SOME TRUST ISSUES WITH HIM, SO I REALLY HIT THE BODY CAMERA FOR MY SAFETY 'CAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WANTED. SO I CAME TO SEE WHAT HE WANT AND THAT'S WHEN I SAW HIM AND GRIMES SITTING IN A ROLL CALL ROOM. OKAY. UM, AND THEN YOU WERE MADE AWARE, YOU BECAME AWARE THAT IT WAS ABOUT THE REPORT. CORRECT. AND ONCE SAW GRIMES, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT. YES SIR. OKAY. NOW, WAS THIS A MEETING ON DISCIPLINE? IT WAS NOT. UM, I MEAN IF IT WAS A MEETING ON DISCIPLINE, COULD, COULD HE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE IF HE WERE IN A DISCIPLINE MEETING? YES SIR. HE DID. KEYING OFFICER GRIMES? UH, HE COULD. OKAY. BUT IN YOUR OPINION, THIS WAS NOT THE REASON FOR THE MEETING, IS THAT RIGHT? IT WASN'T, I HAD NO IDEA GRIMES WAS THERE. OKAY. AND BASED ON WHAT IT WAS ABOUT, UM, DID YOU THINK IT APPROPRIATE, NOW LOOKING BACK, THE CORPORAL JONES WAS THERE FOR A MEETING ON THIS REPORT. IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE FOR CORPORAL JONES TO BE THERE BECAUSE AT THAT TIME HE WAS RELIEVED OF HIS DUTIES AS A FIELD TRAINING OFFICER. AND CORPORAL AND TRAINEE GRINDS WAS ACTUALLY ASSIGNED TO ANOTHER DISTRICT, TO ANOTHER FIELD TRAINING OFFICER BECAUSE HE WAS, HE WAS RELIEVED OF HIS DUTIES BY THE TRAINING ACADEMY. SO IS IT ACCURATE THEN THAT HE NO LONGER HAD SUPERVISORY DUTIES OVER OFFICER GRIMES ON MAY 11TH, 2024? THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. UM, NOW AGAIN, WE SAW YOU GIVE HIM SEVERAL ORDERS. LEAVE THE ROOM, BE QUIET, GO TEN EIGHT AND ASSIST IN REVISING THE REPORT. DO YOU PERCEIVE ANY OF THOSE DIRECT ORDERS THAT YOU GAVE AS BEING UNLAWFUL? NO, SIR. IT WAS LAWFUL. OKAY. DID YOU COMMUNICATE THAT WITH CORPORAL JONES THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR ORDERS WERE LAWFUL? YES SIR. UH, DID LIEUTENANT MILLER ALSO ADVISE THAT THE ORDERS WERE LAWFUL? YES SIR, HE DID. OKAY. AND AGAIN, EVEN AFTER YOU COMMUNICATED THAT WITH CORPORAL JONES, HE DID NOT FOLLOW THOSE ORDERS, CORRECT? HE DID NOT. OKAY. LET'S TURN TO EXHIBIT SIX, PLEASE. I, OKAY. THIS IS A LETTER DATED MAY 12, UM, FROM YOU TO CHIEF MORRIS, IS THAT CORRECT? YES SIR, IT IS. ALRIGHT. AND WAS THIS A COMPLAINT REGARDING, UH, THE BEHAVIOR OF CORPORAL JONES IN THAT MAY 11 MEETING AND SOME OTHER CONDUCT PR PRIOR TO THAT? IT IS, IT STARTS OFF WITH THE, UH, WITH THE INCIDENT FROM HOME DEPOT. UM, WHY THE LADY INITIAL CALLED AND COMPLAINED ABOUT THE REPORT. IT IS. OKAY. UM, AND BUT THIS WAS THE, THE CULMINATION OF EVENTS THERE WAS THE MAY 11TH, 2024 INCIDENT, CORRECT? YES SIR. OKAY. UM, AND YOU WROTE THAT BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT, CORRECT? I DID THAT DAY, I SHOULD SAY. I DID. DID, BASED ON JUST YOUR EXPERIENCE THAT DAY WITH CORPORAL JONES, DID YOU BELIEVE THAT SOME TYPE OF DISCIPLINE WAS WARRANTED RELATIVE TO HIS CONDUCT THAT DAY? YES SIR. ALRIGHT. AND YOUR BELIEF ABOUT THAT, THAT'S JUST ABOUT THE EVENTS THAT HAPPENED IN THAT ROOM THAT ARE ON THAT RECORDING, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. ALRIGHT. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE, . GOOD AFTERNOON. HELLO. UH, IN PREPARATION FOR TODAY'S HEARING, UH, WHAT MATERIALS HAVE YOU REVIEWED IN PREPARING FOR TODAY? NONE. HAVE YOU, SINCE THIS INCIDENT OF MAY 11TH, HAVE YOU WATCHED THIS VIDEO? I WATCHED THIS VIDEO, UH, THE DAYS PRIOR TO IT. 'CAUSE I HAVE TO WRITE THIS LETTER WITH THE CHIEF'S OFFICE. SO I REVIEWED THE, UH, THE BODY CAMERA, MY BODY CAMERA, AS WELL AS THE BODY CAMERA FROM THE HOME DEPOT. SINCE THEN, I HAVEN'T, UH, REVIEWED ANYTHING. AND WHEN YOU WATCHED THIS VIDEO, DID YOU WATCH THIS VIDEO IN ITS ENTIRETY? I DID. DO YOU RECALL YOUR INTERACTIONS, UH, WITH, UH, HALEY ALEXANDER? I DO. BEING NOTIFIED OVER THE RADIO ABOUT THE MEETING, UH, ON MAY 11TH. WERE YOU INSTRUCTED OF, WAS IT, WAS THE MEETING JUST WITH YOU OVER THE RADIO OR DID YOU KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE WAS ASKED TO COME TO THE MEETING? I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS A MEETING. HE ASKED ME THE 10 19, THAT MEETING AND POLICE LANGUAGE COME TO HEADQUARTERS OR COME TO WHERE I'M AT. [02:45:01] AND SO I JUST SIMPLY WENT TO HEADQUARTERS WHERE HE WAS. UM, WHY DID THE, THE MEETING START WITHOUT, WHEN, WHEN, UH, TERRANCE NOAH WAS ASKED TO BE AT THE MEETING? UH, DID YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO PAUSE OR TO WAIT FOR HIM OR COULD YOU HAVE GOTTEN HIM OR IS THAT AN OPTION? WHEN, WHEN WHO WAS ASKED TO BE AT THE MEETING? UH, OFFICER NOAH. NOAH? YEAH. WHEN WAS HE ASKED TO BE AT THE MEETING? UH, IN THE VIDEO? UH, I BELIEVE ERNEST JONES ASKED, CAN, CAN MR. NOAH, OFFICER NOAH BE PRESENT? WELL, TERRENCE UH, OFFICER NOAH IS THE, UH, AT THE TIME HE WAS THE NEXT SENIOR GUY ON THE SQUAD. AND NORMALLY, UH, IF I'M MEETING WITH ANOTHER OFFICER, I HAVE THE NEXT SENIOR GUY THERE, UH, AS A THIRD PARTY WITNESS BECAUSE I DON'T MEET PRIVATELY WITH INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS ALONE BECAUSE, UH, YOU KNOW, UM, THEY MAY HAVE FORGETFUL MEMORIES ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED. ALWAYS HAVE AT LEAST, UH, ONE, I JUST DO THAT THROUGHOUT MY CAREER, BOTH CAREERS. UH, I ALWAYS DO, BUT IT JUST WASN'T, IT WASN'T DONE THAT DAY THOUGH. WELL, NO. BE, I DIDN'T ALLOW NOR TO COME BECAUSE THE BODY CAMERA WAS ROLLING. I, I HAD ALREADY ACTIVATED MY BODY CAMERA. HE KNEW IT WAS ROLLING BECAUSE IT BEEPS EVERY TWO MINUTES. AND I PERSONALLY TURNED IT UP LOUD. AND SO IF YOU LISTEN TO THE VIDEO EVERY TWO MINUTES, THAT A BEEP THAT LET THE OFFICERS KNOW THAT SOMEBODY IS RECORDING. I UNDERSTAND. I GUESS I'M ASKING, SO IS GENERALLY IT'S YOUR POLICY TO HAVE A LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND HAVE MULTIPLE PEOPLE THERE. IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T HAVE A POLICY, WRITTEN POLICY. UNDERSTAND, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME. UNDERSTAND. NO, I'M I BUT YOU MEAN, IS IT SOMETHING THAT I NORMALLY DO? HOW YOU, HOW YOU NORMALLY CONDUCT BUSINESS. YOU, YOU LIKE TO HAVE WITNESSES PRESENT, IS THAT CORRECT? UM, WHEN ASKED FOR WITNESSES THIS DAY, IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY YOU DIDN'T DO IT BECAUSE YOUR CAMERA WAS ROLLING? MY WITNESS WAS THE DEPARTMENT AXON BODY CAMERA. THAT WAS A WITNESS THAT DON'T BLINK. SO WHEN HE WANTED OFFICER NO, IN THERE, WE DON'T NEED NO, I I GOT THE BODY CAMERA ROLLING. SO WHAT, WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU WANT? OKAY. SO IN OTHER MEETINGS WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE A BODY CAMERA, YOU, YOU HAVE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT. CORRECT. BUT I ALWAYS HAVE A BODY CAMERA. SO YOU DIDN'T KNOW. OKAY. UM, ALRIGHT. UNDERSTOOD. UH, SO YOU MENTIONED EARLIER YOU TESTIFIED TO TRUST ISSUES AND THAT'S WHY YOU ACTIVATED THE BODY CAMERA. CORRECT. UM, COULD YOU ELABORATE, ELABORATE ON THE TRUST ISSUE? ON, ON WHAT'S YOUR TRUST ISSUES WITH CORPORAL JONES? I'VE BEEN KNOWING CORPORAL JONES FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND I'VE LEARNED THAT, UH, UM, HE EXAGGERATES AND NOT ALWAYS CORRECT ON INFORMATION THAT HE BRING FORWARD. I JUST, UH, I LEARNED THAT FROM KNOWING HIM OVER SEVERAL YEARS. AND IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS WHERE I'M HIS SUPERVISOR, I HAVE TO PROTECT MYSELF. SO I'M GONNA RECORD IT. OKAY. REGARDING THE, YOUR THE REPORT ITSELF MM-HMM . UH, YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT THE VICTIM CONTACTED YOU AND SHE TOLD YOU THINGS THAT HAPPENED ON THE INCIDENT. UM, DO YOU KNOW HOW SHE RECEIVED THE REPORT? DO I KNOW HOW SHE RECEIVED THE REPORT? I DON'T KNOW HOW SHE RECEIVED THE REPORT OR IF SHE DID RECEIVE A REPORT, BUT SHE SPECIFICALLY TOLD ME THAT THE REPORT WAS INACCURATE. SO FOR HER TO TELL YOU THAT THE REPORT WAS INACCURATE, I MEAN, IS IT LOGICAL TO ASSUME THAT SHE MUST HAVE SEEN THE REPORT OR HAD SOME ISSUE WITH IT FROM SOMEWHERE? WELL, IN ORDER FOR HER TO TELL ME THAT IT WAS INACCURATE, SHE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SEEN IT. UH, BECAUSE SHE SPECIFICALLY TOLD ME THAT THE CHARGES WAS WRONG AND INCORRECT AND OFFICER GRIMES SAID THIS AND SAID THAT. AND I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE VIDEO, UH, THE BODY CAMERA VIDEO. NOT ONLY, UH, I LOOKED AT EVERYBODY BODY CAMERA VIDEO THAT WAS OUT THERE. 'CAUSE WHEN YOU PULL IT UP, IT PULLS UP ALL ASSOCIATES THAT'S OUT THERE. AND I LOOKED AT ALL OF THEM BEFORE YOU MADE CONTACT WITH, UH, CORPORAL JONES. AND, AND WHAT DID YOU FEEL LOOKING AT ALL THE BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE WAS, WAS MISSING FROM THEIR REPORT? UM, FOR STARTERS, CORPORAL JONES WAS SHIRTING DUTIES BECAUSE, UH, HER, HER VEHICLE WAS BURGLARIZED AND HE DIDN'T CHARGE IT WITH BURGLARY. SHE HAD SEVERAL MISSING ITEMS, UH, $10 A FACE MASK. I THINK A SHIRT WAS MISSING. AND NONE OF THAT WAS IN THE REPORT. UM, SHE WAS TRYING TO GET HER CAR FIXED. SHE SAID THAT THE GIRL DID APPROXIMATELY $500 WORTH OF DAMAGE AND SHE NEEDED A REPORT TO GET HER INSURANCE TO, UH, TO FIX IT. SHE BROKE HER DOOR HANDLE. AND SO WHEN I LOOKED, THE REPORT WAS NONE OF THAT IN IT. SO WHEN YOU WERE TALKING, WAS THIS A PHONE CALL OR, YES. UM, WOULD YOU CALL THIS AN INTERVIEW? WAS IT AN INTERVIEW? YEAH. MEANING WITH, WITH THE VICTIM. WITH THE VICTIM. IT WAS A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION. UH, IS THERE ANY I'M TAKING A COMPLAINT 'CAUSE IT WAS A COMPLAINT AND IT WAS A SUPERVISOR [02:50:01] LEVEL COMPLAINT. SO I'M TAKING A COMPLAINT. BUT NONE OF THIS WAS RECORDED OR YES, IT WAS RECORDED. HOW WAS IT RECORDED? PHONE CONVERSATION LIKE ON YOUR PERSONAL CELL PHONE ON THE APP? YES, BECAUSE, UH, SHE CALLED AT ANY POINT. WAS ANY OF THAT UPLOADED TO MAYBE EVIDENCE? UM, I GAVE IT TO IA AND ALSO GAVE IT TO, UH, MR. JAMES RIMES. OKAY. DO YOU, I GUESS CORPORAL JONES DID TELL YOU, AND YOU'VE HEARD THAT, YOU KNOW, HE WAS TOLD TO GIVE CERTAIN CHARGES BY LIEUTENANT MILLER. UH, DO YOU DISPUTE THAT OR? I DON'T REMEMBER HIM TELLING. LIEUTENANT MILLER TOLD HIM TO CHARGE HIM WITH CERTAIN CHARGES. 'CAUSE LIEUTENANT MILLER GOT INVOLVED AS WELL. AND HE AND HIM AND I AGREED THAT THE REPORT WASN'T RIGHT AND IT NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE REPORT. OTHER THAN YOU SAID THAT THERE'S MISSING CHARGES. UH, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE REPORT THAT YOU FELT WAS WRONG? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? YOU GOTTA YOU GOTTA BE SPECIFIC LIKE DATE, TIME GROUP. NO, OTHER THAN YOU MENTIONED THE MIXING OF CHARGES. CORRECT. AS, AS AN ISSUE YOU HAD WITH THE REPORT. I'M ASKING YOU RIGHT NOW, WHAT, WHAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE YOU HAD WITH THE REPORT, IF YOU CAN RECALL? THE MIXING. UH, THE MIXING THE MIXING OF CHARGES BECAUSE WE CANNOT HAVE MAKE EASY NOT GO TO CITY COURT OR DISTRICT COURT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH HOW UH, THE CRIMINAL SYSTEM WORKED WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUT WE'D HAVE TO SEND THE CHARGES TO ALL THE WAY TO DISTRICT COURT OR TO CITY COURT. I CAN'T SEND HALF OF IT TO CITY COURT AND HALF OF IT TO 19 JDC. THEY HAVE TO GO TOGETHER. OTHER THAN THAT I'M ASKING, YES, HE DIDN'T, WITH THE REPORT, HE DIDN'T HAVE, UH, BURGLARY. HE DIDN'T CHARGE IT WITH BURGLARY. HE DIDN'T, UH, CHARGE A CHARGE WITH THE DAMAGE, UH, UH, THE VEHICLE DAMAGE, SIMPLE DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. UH, HE, HE DIDN'T CHARGE IT WITH NONE OF THAT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE REPORT THAT STOPPED YOU FROM APPROVING IT? I WASN'T GONNA APPROVE IT BECAUSE IT WASN'T CORRECT. IT DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT CHARGES IN IT. SO THAT STOPPED ME. OKAY. ALRIGHT. IS IT TRUE YOU DIDN'T LIKE YOUR NAME BEING IN THIS REPORT? IT'S NOT THAT I DIDN'T LIKE MY NAME. IT'S HOW IT'S WORDED BECAUSE CORPORAL JONES AND, AND TRAINEE GRINDS WOULD HAVE TO BE THE ONES TESTIFYING TO THE REPORT IN COURT. AND THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE THAN IF YOU WOULD WRITE A TRAFFIC TICKET AND CHARGE SOMEBODY WITH SPEEDING. BUT THEN YOU PUT A SEATBELT CHARGE ON THERE AND I TELL YOU, HEY, THIS IS THE WRONG CHARGE. PUT THE SEAT BY CHARGE. THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE. I'M NOT GONNA COME TO COURT AND TESTIFY ON YOUR TICKET. YOU ARE, I'M JUST CORRECTING THE CHARGES 'CAUSE YOU, BECAUSE IT'S INCORRECT. SO A PERSON HAS TO TESTIFY AN OFFICER WHEN HE WRITES A REPORT TO HIS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. IS THAT CORRECT? UH, TO HIS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AS WELL AS WHAT HE WRITTEN ON THE ACTUAL REPORT. OKAY. SO YOU DIDN'T, YOU DON'T LIKE HIM SAYING, I MEAN, IS IT TRUE YOU JUST DON'T LIKE HIM USING YOUR NAME TO DESCRIBE THAT YOU TOLD HIM THESE THINGS? IT'S HOW NO, THAT'S INCORRECT. IS THAT, NO, THAT'S INCORRECT. 'CAUSE I'VE TESTIFIED IN COURT A DOZEN TIMES. MY NAME IS IN A LOT OF REPORTS. SO THAT, THAT, THAT WAS NOT THE ISSUE. SO, SO WHAT WAS WRONG WITH, WHAT WAS WRONG WITH OFFICER GRIMES SAYING, SERGEANT SMITH TOLD ME THESE THINGS AND THIS IS WHY I'M ADDING THIS TO THE REPORT. WELL, THE ISSUE IS THAT AT THE TIME SERGEANT, UH, TRAINEE GRIMES IS IN TRAINING, HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO WRITE A REPORT. CORPORAL JONES WAS NOT TEACHING HIM CORRECTLY HOW TO WRITE A REPORT AND HOW TO DO POLICE WORK CORRECTLY. HE WAS, HE WAS, HE WAS CUTTING CORNERS WITH HIM. SO I DON'T FAULT OFFICER GRIMES, OFFICER GRIMES IS AN INNOCENT VICTIM IN THIS. HE DID NOT KNOW HE WAS BEING TRAINED INCORRECTLY BY CORPORAL JONES. THAT'S WHY HE CORPORAL JONES WAS RELIEVED FROM HIS FTO DUTIES BY THE TRAINING ACADEMY. HAVING BEEN THROUGH THE ENTIRETY OF THIS MEETING AND HAVING REVIEWED THE ENTIRETY OF THE FOOTAGE, UH, IS IT STILL YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY THAT SOMETHING WAS WRONG WITH THE REPORT? IT IS. EVEN TO THIS DAY. OKAY. WERE YOU EVER TOLD THAT THE REPORT ON MAY 11TH, WERE YOU EVER TOLD THAT THE REPORT WAS CORRECT? HELI ALEXANDER, WHEN SHE CAME IN, SHE SAID THE REPORT WAS CORRECT AND I ASKED HER, AND IT'S ON THE VIDEO AND I WAS, AND I SAID, YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT WE COULD SEND CITY AND DISTRICT COURT CHARGES IN THE SAME FILE? HELI ALEXANDER SAID THAT IT'S HIS REPORT, HE CAN TESTIFY AGAINST IT. AND SO WHEN SHE BECAME, UH, I DON'T WANNA USE THE WORDS COMBATIVE, BUT WHEN SHE, HOLD ON, LET ME, LET ME OBJECT RIGHT NOW. 'CAUSE WE'RE GETTING INTO WHAT YEAH, WE NEED TO, WE HAVEN'T WATCHED THE VIDEO AND I'D SAY IT'S IRRELEVANT TO THE, TO THE SITUATION. UM, I THINK THIS IS A, IF I MAY, I BELIEVE THIS IS A PERFECT TIME TO ADDRESS THE VIDEO BEFORE WE CAN PLAY IT AGAIN AND THE RELEVANCY OF IT BEFORE THE BOARD. YEAH. SO MS. ALEXANDER IS, WHAT IS HER RIGHT? CORPORAL CORPORAL CORPORAL ALEXANDER, UM, IS A UNION REP. AND SO EVENTUALLY AFTER THIS VIDEO CONTINUES TO PLAY, UM, SHE SHOWS UP AT [02:55:01] THE SCENE TO SIT THERE WITH OFFICER GRIMES AND COMMUNICATE WITH SERGEANT SMITH AND LIEUTENANT MILLER ABOUT THE REPORT. OKAY. UM, CORPORAL JONES HAS ALREADY GONE AT THIS POINT, HE'S ALREADY BEEN RELIEVED OF HIS DUTIES. SO HE IS NOT THERE, HE'S NOT PRESENT. THE CHARGES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, HIS VIOLATIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HER EX HER OPINION ABOUT THE THE POLICE REPORT AND WHETHER IT WAS VALID OR NOT. OKAY. WE'RE JUST, THE, THE CHARGES ARE RELATED TO THE CONDUCT THAT WE WATCHED. WHETHER A UNION REP, UM, BELIEVES THAT THE REPORT WAS CORRECT OR INCORRECT, REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY MATTER TO WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE TODAY. SO IF WE START GOING DOWN THAT ROAD, WE'RE GONNA WATCH A BUNCH OF VIDEO. WE'RE GONNA HEAR TESTIMONY FROM FOLKS THAT, I MEAN, HONESTLY, WE DON'T EVER ALLOW THE UNION TO COME IN AND JUST GIVE THEIR OPINION ABOUT, UH, INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASES. UM, YOU'VE NEVER SEEN, IN ANY CASE THAT I'VE EVER HAD THE UNION HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE TO JUST COME IN HERE AND TESTIFY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY BELIEVE, UH, WHAT WAS DONE WAS APPROPRIATE. THAT'S NOT THE POINT OR THE PLACE OF THE UNION REP. AND SHE WASN'T THERE TO ASSIST CORPORAL JONES. SHE WAS THERE TO ASSIST OFFICER GRIMES. I'M SORRY. I LIKE THAT PART. WELL, I'M EXPLAINING MY POSITION. I HEAR YOU . WELL, NO, I'M, I'M OBJECTING TO THE VIDEO EVEN BEING SHOWN BE SHOW YOU USING YOUR MIC. I'M SO SORRY. UM, I, I THINK IF I'M, I'M SURE WE, UM, KNOW IT OR NOT THAT WELL HOLD ON, HOLD ON IN YOUR RESPONSE REAL QUICK, REAL QUICK. HE MADE AN OBJECTION. WE'RE GONNA LET HIM FINISH THE ARGUMENT, THEN WE'RE GONNA LET Y'ALL RESPOND TO THE OBJECTION AND THEN WE'RE GONNA RULE ON IT. YEAH. THIS IS JUST A RELEVANCY OBJECTION AND I'M OBJECTING TO IT BEFORE ANYTHING WOULD BE PLAYED THAT I THINK IS IRRELEVANT FOR THE BOARD TO VIEW. ALRIGHT. IN RESPONSE TO THAT OBJECTION, THE VIDEO IS VERY RELEVANT, I THINK TO, TO OMIT THE VIDEO OR FOR THE OTHER ATTORNEY TO NOT WANT TO SHOW THIS PART OF IT WHILE THE PERSON IS TESTIFIED WHO'S PRESENT IN THE VIDEO. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT HOURS OF VIDEO FOOTAGE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A 10 MINUTE CONVERSATION. THE WHOLE POINT OF, THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS IS THE REPORT. THEY'RE IN THIS MEETING, HAVING THIS MEETING BECAUSE SOMETHING WAS DEEMED WRONG. UH, YOU, HE'S BEEN CORPORAL JONES AT THIS POINT IN THE VIDEO HAS BEEN PUNISHED BECAUSE OF SERGEANT SMITH'S BELIEF THAT SOMETHING WAS DONE WRONG AND NEEDED TO BE CHANGED. AND THEY'RE NOT AGREEING TO DO THAT. UH, I FEEL THAT THE REMAINDER OF THE VIDEO SPEAKS POTENTIALLY CHANGES SERGEANT SMITH'S POSITION. YOU CAN WATCH SERGEANT SMITH'S POSITION CHANGE OVER THE COURSE OF THIS VIDEO. UH, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S BEYOND RELEVANT. UH, IT'S 10 MINUTES. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD, I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE PREJUDICIAL TO NOT HAVE IT, TO NOT SHOW IT, UH, TO EXCLUDE THIS, THIS THING WOULD BE MORE OF A, AN OMISSION. UH, IT'S, IT'S A 10 MINUTE CLIP WE'RE TRYING TO PLAY. WE, WE, WE DID PROMISE AT THE OUTSET OF THIS THAT WE WOULD SHOW WHATEVER YOU WANTED TO SHOVE DURING YOUR TIME. AND I THINK WE'LL LIVE UP TO THAT. NO, WHAT, WHAT WE, WE SAID WAS THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, BUT I SAID I WOULD SUSTAIN, I WOULD STILL RAISE MY OBJECTIONS. HE'LL RECOGNIZE YOUR OBJECTION, BUT I THINK THAT WE OUGHT TO LET COUNSEL PLAY THE VIDEO IF HE WANTS TO. WELL THEN I WOULD ASK YOU, YOU AT A MINIMUM RULE ON THE RELEVANCY OBJECTION. HE WANTS YOU TO SAY IT. OVERRULED. IT'S OVERRULED. OKAY. BUT WE'LL, WE'LL PLAY STARTING AT HOUR ONE HOUR 20 MINUTES OF UH, EXHIBIT ONE. YEAH, IT'S ABOUT TIM, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SIT DOWN, YOU CAN. Y'ALL ARE SO COURTEOUS. I'D JUST LET HIM STAND THE WHOLE TIME. OKAY. FAST FORWARD TO ONE HOUR AND 20 MINUTES. [03:00:02] YOU CAN PLAY. HEY MAN, YOU COME, YOU AIN'T GOTTA KNOCK. PUT YOUR COMPUTER AND HAVE A SEAT OVER THERE. WHAT A LIEUTENANT AT. HOW YOU DOING? YOU WAS AT HOME WHEN THEY CALLED YOU? MM-HMM . WHO CALLED YOU? HOW YOU GET INVOLVED IN IT? UH, EVERYONE CALLED ME. I'M JUST, I'M JUST, I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT DO YOU MEAN? UH, HOW YOU GET INVOLVED IN IT? BECAUSE I'M A UNION REP. SO WHAT JONES CALLED A UNION REP OR SOMETHING CALLED YOU? NO, NO, I HAVEN'T CALLED JONES. OH, WELL I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. SO, UH, HE TOLD YOU WHAT'S GOING ON? I'M UH, I HAVE AN AMBULANCE THERE THAT I'M GONNA RECORD THE ENTIRE TIME. ALRIGHT, THAT'S FINE. NOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT. DID HE TELL YOU WHAT'S, UH, 'CAUSE I'M ALREADY RECORDING. THAT'S FINE. SO DID HE TELL YOU, UH, DID JONES TELL YOU, UH, SYNOPSIS WHAT'S GOING ON? YES. OVER, OVER THE REPORT. HOW DID HE EXPLAIN THE REPORT? HE DIDN'T EXPLAIN. HE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO, I CAME AND SPOKE TO HIM. THAT'S IT. OKAY. I, I CALLED JOHN AS HE WAS ON HIS WAY HOME WITH, UH, I FORGOT THIS WAS AUGUSTINE. YEAH, AUGUSTINE. OKAY. UH, HE JUST SAID HE, I ASKED HIM, HE WAS LIKE, I MARIO ON THE WAY HOME. I SAID, OKAY, WE'LL TALK LATER. ALRIGHT. SO, UH, THE REPORT WAS, UH, APRIL 2ND, 2024. SO, UH, BASICALLY, BASICALLY THEY WENT TO A CALL AT THE HOME DEPOT AIRLINE HIGHWAY. UM, THE CALL WAS ONE OF THE EMPLOYEE'S CARS WAS BURGLARIZED. OKAY. THE GIRL WENT IN THE CAR. SHE, UH, TOOK SOME PILLS AND THEN SHE TOOK, I THINK IT WAS $10. WAS IT 10 TO $30? HOW MUCH WAS IT? SHE SAID $10 OUT OF THE CAR. OKAY. UH, THE OWNER WORKS AT HOME DEPOT AND THE SUBJECT HAD A BOX CUT. OKAY. AND WAS GONNA TRY TO SLICE UP WITH IT. OKAY. SO WHEN I READ THE REPORT, WHEN THEY SENT THE REPORT IN THE VERY FIRST TIME, I DIDN'T KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE CALL OR WHATEVER IT WAS. ON THE NEXT DAY. THE LADY CALLED UP HERE AND SHE STARTED TO TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED ON THE CALL AND WHAT WAS GOING ON. LOOKED THE REPORT UP, THE REPORT HAD NONE OF THAT UP IN IT. WHAT I JUST TOLD YOU. I SIMPLY CALLED UH, UH, GRIMES. DID I CALL JONES? I CALLED GRIMES, TOLD GRIMES TO FIX REPORT. THIS IS WHAT THE LADY SAID ACTUALLY HAPPENED. UH, JONES INSTRUCTED HIM NOT TO WRITE, TO REPORT LIKE THAT BECAUSE AT FIRST IT WAS GOING TO CITY COURT 1356. THAT WAS SOMETHING DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. IT WAS GOING THE 1356. THAT'S HOW THEY ORIGINALLY WROTE IT. AFTER THE LADY CALLED AND SAID THAT SHE BROKE INTO HER CAR AND THAT SHE HAD THE KNIFE. OKAY, WELL NOT I'LL HAVE TO GO TO DISTRICT COURT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEND A SIMPLE BURGLARY TO CITY COURT. SO TELLING 'EM TO FIX IT JONES TELLING HIM, UH, NOT TO FIX IT. SO WHEN HE DECIDED TO GO IN TO THE REPORT AND HAVE YOU, HAVE YOU READ THE REPORT YET? PART OF IT? YEAH. SO WHEN HE WENT IN AND I WAS LOOKING AT IT AND UH, HE PUT, UH, WHAT'S THIS 1, 2, 3, HE PUT THE ID THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH, I INSTRUCTED HIM TO CHANGE THE 13 COLON TO 14 COLON. SO IN THE ONE IN THE 1, 2, 3 FOURTH PARAGRAPH, THE LAST PART OF THAT SENTENCE WHERE IT SAYS, UH, WHERE IT SAYS SERGEANT SMITH, ADDITIONAL ORDERS ARE AS FOLLOWS AT AGGRAVATED ASSAULT DUE TO LEWIS STATING ON THE PHONE CALL WITH SERGEANT SMITH THAT MO HAD THREATENED HER WITH THE BOX CUTTER AND TO CHANGE THE 1356 STATUTE ON THE SUMS TO 1456 BECAUSE ALL CHARGES NEEDED TO GO, UH, NEEDED TO BE FILED IN THE SAME COURT. THAT SENTENCE DON'T NEED TO BE UP IN THERE, TRY TO TELL HIM TO TAKE IT OUT OF THERE. HE DON'T WANT TAKE IT OUT OF THERE BECAUSE JONES TOLD HIM DON'T TAKE IT OUT OF THERE. WELL, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO TAKE IT OUT OF THERE. HE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE IT OUT OF THERE. MM-HMM. IT'S HIS REPORT. IT IS, IT IS, IT IS HIS REPORT. MM-HMM . BUT HE DON'T HAVE TO WRITE IT NOW. I [03:05:01] SAID CHANGE FROM 13 BECAUSE 13 CODE IS NOT UP THERE. WELL DID YOU, DID I WHAT? TELL HIM TO CHANGE. CORRECT. I SAID WE GOT, WE GOTTA SEND IT OFF TO 19 JDC 14 COURT. UH, 14 COLON. THAT'S WHY I TOLD HIM TO CHANGE IT. SO I SIMPLY TOLD HIM, HEY, TAKE THAT SENTENCE OUT OF THERE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL THE COURTS, I TOLD YOU TO CHANGE IT TO 13 COLON FOR 14 BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO 19 JDC IN. THEY'RE GONNA ORDER AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY HE HAD TO CHANGE THE CHARGES, WHY HE HAD TO CHANGE THE CHARGES. WELL, I GOT THAT, BUT HE CHANGED THE CHARGES ON THE OFFENSE PAGE. HE, HE CHANGED THE CHARGES ON THE, HE WAS TRYING TO JUSTIFY HIS NARRATIVE WHY HE CHANGED THE OFFENSE PAGE. YEAH, WELL SEE THE, IT, IT STILL SHOWS THE CITY CHARGE IN THE NARRATIVE, BUT YET IT SHOWS DISTRICT COURT CHARGES. BASICALLY WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO GET HIM TO DO IS JUST FIX IT TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE FROM THE INVESTIGATION HE DID TO MATCH THE CHARGES. THAT'S ALL. WE WEREN'T TRYING TO TELL HIM WHAT TO PUT IN THE REPORT. WE JUST WANTED TO FIX IT BASED ON HIS INVESTIGATION. THAT'S ALL. BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN GETTING COMPLAINTS. WE GOT SEVERAL EMAILS ABOUT THAT REPORT THAT NEED TO GET CORRECTED IN COMPLETED THAT NEED TO BE CORRECTED IN COMPLAINT BASED OFF THE INFORMATION THAT YOU RECEIVED LATER, UH, THIS WAS SENT BY, UH, BRANDON BLACKWELL REGARDING THIS, AND THIS WAS SENT MAY 7TH. AND THE ORIGINAL ONE THAT IT NEEDED FOR PROCESSING IN COURT WAS APRIL 29TH. WE GOT THIS FROM, UH, THE CHANEL YOUNG IN THE CLERICAL OFFICE. AND AS SUPERVISORS WE REVIEW REPORTS, WE SEE WHAT NEEDS CORRECTIONS AND THAT'S IT, IT'S, IT, IT DIDN'T HAVE TO TURN INTO THIS AND MM-HMM . I MEAN, I TRIED TO GET IN TOUCH WITH A LIEUTENANT MAYO WHEN HE HADN'T CALLED ME BACK YET. WELL, HE'S AT, HE'S AT POLICE WEEKEND. HE OH, HE IS? OH, I EXPLAIN HIS, HIS SISTER WOULD KILLED A ON OF DUTY, SO HE'S GONNA BE THERE. OKAY. WELL I KNOW HE WAS, BUT CORPORAL BLACKWELL RUNS THE FT O PROGRAM. SO THAT'S HIS FIRST TIME SUPERVISING. YEAH. BUT I, I'VE, I'VE CORP UH, LIEUTENANT MAYO'S HAD A COUPLE OF MEETINGS WITH ME ALREADY. OKAY. UM, ABOUT WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON. YEAH. ABOUT THESE PARTICULAR REPORTS TOO, BECAUSE THEY DID SHOW UP AT HIS DOOR MM-HMM . AND HE SAID THAT REPORT WAS INCORRECT. WHO SAYS THAT? THIS REPORT MAYO. SO I WAS TRYING TO GET HIM BACK ON THE PHONE TO LET HIM KNOW WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST. AND SO HIS CURRENT SUPERVISORS AND UH, HE REPORT THAT BLACKWELL, HIS EMAIL TOLD ME TO MAKE, I'M LOOKING AT THAT. HE SAY THAT AGAIN. I WHAT YOU SAY? THE CORPORAL BLACKWELL EMAIL HIM ABOUT THE SUPPLEMENT MM-HMM . EVERYTHING THAT IN THE EMAIL WAS CHANGED. IT'S THE WAY THAT UH, WHOLE BLACKWELL SAID DID, WAS THAT SENT TO US? UM, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE, SEE THAT'S THE PROBLEM. I GOT LIEUTENANT MAYO TELLING ME SOMETHING ELSE AND CORPORAL BLACKWELL DOING SOMETHING AND, AND THAT'S FINE. WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE, THE RANK STRUCTURE OF THE TRAINING ACADEMY. CORPORAL BLACKWELLS HIS FIRST LINE SUPERVISOR AFTER THE FDSI. I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I HAD A LIEUTENANT APPROACH ME A FELLOW LIEUTENANT. SO, OKAY. WE, WE TALKED. SO WHAT DID YOU SAY BLACKWELL SAY? YOU, YOU SAY HE TOLD HIM WHAT NOW? HE HAD HIM CHANGE. I COULD NOT ADD CHARGES AFTER THE ARREST. HE ALSO SAID IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH, THE ADDITIONAL CHARGES AND, AND FROM INFORMATION HE REMOVED THE WORD. HE ALSO SAID, UH, TO ADDRESS WHY HIS BODY CAMERA WASN'T ON. THAT'S IN THERE. UM, [03:10:01] AND THAT WAY THE DETECTIVE WOULD KNOW TO REVIEW HIS BODY CAMERA. SO WHAT DOES SOMETHING, WHAT ABOUT CONFLICTING CHARGES? HEY, YOU OUTSIDE LOOKING AT, UH, I'M LOOKING AT THE CHARGES. HEY, I'M, I'M GONNA COME BRING YOU THE KEY AND JUST SWITCH IT OUT AND BRING IT BACK TO THIRTEENS. EARLIER TODAY WHEN I WALKED IN HERE, HAS THAT BEEN, HAS THAT BEEN FIXED? I'M IN THE MINIMUM MEETING. NOT IN THE ORIGINAL REPORT. IT'S STILL IN THE ORIGINAL REPORT. OH. ON THE FOUR FILE. OKAY. BUT I DID SEE THAT. WELL THAT'S, IT'S APPROVED. IT CAN'T BE CHANGED. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. I, SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WAS AN OUTSTANDING REPORT. IT'S NOT APPROVED. THE SUPPLEMENT'S THE ONLY THING THAT'S OUT THAT IS IN THE SUPPLEMENT. BUT YOUR REASON IS IN THE SUPPLEMENT. I KNOW, BUT THE, I GOTTA GET THIS IN MY DAUGHTER. RIGHT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THE CHARGES, I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE CHARGES 13, THEY'RE IN THE ORIGINAL REPORT. OKAY. SO AS FAR AS YOU CAN TELL EVERYTHING TO FIXED, I MEAN, YEAH. AND I UNDERSTAND HE DOESN'T WANT HIM TO PUT THAT HE TOLD HIM TO, BUT HE CAN'T MAKE HIM TAKE THAT OFF THIS REPORT. SEE, MY, THE, THE THING WAS IS WE WEREN'T TRYING TO MAKE HIM TAKE ANYTHING OUT. IT'S MORE OR LESS I'VE CONSULTED WITH MY SUPERVISOR AND THIS IS WHAT COMES ABOUT BECAUSE HE'S DONE AN INVESTIGATION. OKAY. AS A SUPERVISOR, YOU CAN'T TELL SOMEBODY YOU NEED TO DO THIS AND DO THAT IF IT WASN'T THERE. OKAY. BUT YET OFFICERS DO CONSULT WITH SUPERVISORS EVERY DAY. MM-HMM . ABOUT THE THING. MAYBE THAT WAS THE MISUNDERSTANDING. I, WELL, IN ALL, IN ALL ACTUALITY, AND I GUESS THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE PRACTICE AND SHOULDN'T PRACTICE MM-HMM . UM, IF THEY WERE NOT EVEN THERE FOR THIS MEETING WITH SERGEANT SMITH AND THE WOMAN AND SERGEANT SMITH IS THE ONE THAT SHOULD HAVE SUPPLEMENTED THE REPORT. SEE, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT A ZOOM THING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I, WELL, UM, WHAT? THAT HE SHOWED SUPPLEMENT. CAN YOU TELL ME? WELL, I MEAN AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THE CORRECTIONS WERE MADE AS IN THAT EMAIL. I JUST NOW FOUND OUT ABOUT IT THEN THAT'S FINE. OKAY. UM, EVERYTHING ELSE THAT CAME ABOUT HERE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NOTHING AT ALL. I'M NOT GONNA ADDRESS THAT. MM-HMM . AND I'M, I DON'T WANT I TO, UM, SO, BUT WE WERE NOT TALKING TO HIM TRYING TO VERIFY THE REPORT. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING WITH THIS REPORT. IT CAN BE SUBMITTED IF, IF HE'S GOOD WITH IT AND THE EMAILS THAT HE GOT FROM THE TRAINING ACADEMY WERE GOOD, THEN IT'S FINE. SO THAT'S ALL I ASKED. WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY, MR. JOHNSON. MM-HMM . SO WE HAD OUR MEETING WITH LIEUTENANT MAYO AND UM, CORPORAL BLACKBOARD BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET A TRAINED MM-HMM . THEY WENT OVER, THEY CALLED ME OUT, THEY HAD PRINTOUTS AND EVERYTHING WENT THROUGH HIGHLIGHTED. AND THEY INSTRUCTED ME FROM THE ORIGINAL TO THE SUPPLEMENT. THEY SAID THAT IT WAS THAT HOW I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE JUST TAKE OUT THE THINGS THAT I DID. AND THEN THEY REVIEW THE DASH CAM , ALL THAT STUFF THAT SHE SAID. MM-HMM . WAS NOT SAID THAT NIGHT. AND WE DID NOT TAKE ANY OF THOSE ITEMS OFF OF THAT NIGHT. OKAY. SO THEY WAS LIKE, I CAN'T QUIT. SOMETHING THAT SHE SAID HAPPENED OR THAT SHE SAID THAT SHE TOLD, BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY WATCHED EVERYTHING. NONE OF THAT WAS MENTIONED AT NIGHT. NONE OF THAT STUFF WAS STILL TAKEN OUT OF, ON, OFF OF HER PERSONS OR NOTHING LIKE THAT. SO HE SAID BEING THAT IT WAS UM, YOU KNOW, THROUGH RECORDING AND THAT SHE DIDN'T TALK TO ME MM-HMM . AND SHE TO SERGEANT RO, I MEAN SERGEANT SMITH THAT UM, HE COULD DO A SUB. WELL I COULD DO SUB, BUT IF I DO SUB JUST PUT THAT IT WAS TOLD TO SERGEANT SMITH AND NOT ME. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT THEY TOLD US TO ME. AND HE WENT THROUGH IT. BLACKWELL SAID, SEND ME THE REPORT. I'M GONNA GO OVER IT AND I'M GONNA SEND IT BACK TO YOU AND TAKE YOU TO CORRECTIONS. HE DID THAT. IT WAS DONE. MM-HMM . HE SAID GOOD. I TEXTED HIM TO AND UH, SAID, IS EVERYTHING, ARE YOU GOOD? HE SAID, YES, UH, I RESUBMITTED IT AND THEN HE CAME BACK TO ME. I CONTACTED, HE TOLD ME TO CONTACT JONES 'CAUSE HE'S MY PROBLEM. FIRST TIME CONTACT AARON AND CONTACTED JONES. UM, AND THEN I TALKED TO CORPORAL BLACK BLACKWELL AND THEN THEY SAID JUST RECENT IT AGAIN, DON'T MAKE ANY CHANGES. AND THEN I DID IT AGAIN AND AGAIN, AGAIN, I CAME UP HERE THURSDAY. OKAY. AND TALKED TO CORPORAL BLACKWELL, LIEUTENANT MALE. AND THEY SAID IT'S STILL NOT DONE. IT WAS LIKE THE REPORT IS APPROVED. MM-HMM . BUT THE STUFF ISN'T APPROVED. [03:15:01] AND THAT'S WHEN, I GUESS HE SENT THAT LAST EMAIL AND HE SAID, DIDN'T UM Y'ALL TALK TO HIM? HE SAID HE'S STILL THERE. I SAID, NO, I'M AT FIRST ISSUE NOW, BUT IT IS, YOU KNOW, I SAID, TALKED TO JONES. JONES TOLD ME UH, WHAT HE WAS GONNA DO, BUT I SAID THAT I WAS GONNA COME AND TALK TO Y'ALL FIRST. MM-HMM . UM, BEFORE I DO THAT. AND THEN THEY TOLD ME GO THROUGH MY CHAIN, WHICH IS, UM, AARON AND LIEUTENANT C MM-HMM . BEFORE. THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T RESPOND TO THE CAUSE OF TEXT 'CAUSE THEY TOLD ME TO GO THROUGH THE CHAIN OVER THAT. SO I DID THAT AND SERGEANT BLACK, BLACK BLACK NOW AND ALL THEM TOLD ME, HEY LOOK OVER RESUBMITTED. AND THAT'S, I DID. I WAS CALLING YOU BECAUSE I GOT THE EMAIL FROM UPSTAIRS. YEAH. AND I WAS TRYING TO CONTACT YOU TO GET THE REPORT FIXED. AFTER I COULDN'T CONTACT YOU, I CONTACTED BLACKWELL ON EMAIL TO FIND OUT WHERE HE WAS AND WHO HE WAS WORKING WITH. THAT'S WHEN HE TOLD ME, TAKE AARON AS FTO AND THEY GAVE YOU THE NUMBER AND I CALLED HER AND HAD HER GIVE YOU THE PHONE TO GET THE REPORT FIXED. NOW THE ONLY THING IN THAT REPORT THAT YOU GOT IT FIXED THAT I WASN'T, THAT YOU FIXED WAS THE STATEMENT SAID THAT I TOLD YOU TO CHANGE IT FROM 1356 TO 14 SIX, WHICH AS A SUPERVI YOU HAVE 1356 ON THE OFFENSE PAGE. IN THE BEGINNING I SAID CHANGE IT TO 1456. WHICH YOU DID, YOU CHANGED THE OFFENSE UPDATED TO 1456. I SAID, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE 1356 IN THAT, THAT SENTENCE. 1356. I TOLD YOU TO CHANGE IT BECAUSE THE REPORT MATCHES THE CHARGES. I KNOW YOU AND ANSWER O PROGRAM. I KNOW YOU ARE ROOKIE AND YOU AND I, AND I KNOW YOU PROBABLY DON'T UNDERSTAND, UH, EXACTLY HOW TO REPORT AND YOU LEARNING HOW TO WRITE REPORTS. I GOT THAT. BUT WHEN I THERE, THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE. THEN IF HALEY ALEXANDER WORKED FOR ME AND I WAS LIKE, HEY, WE GOTTA FIX THIS REPORT, YOU KNOW, YOU GOTTA REWRITE IT OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. YOU JUST FIX IT. YOU KNOW, I'M NOT TRYING TO SET YOU UP ALL THIS IS BECAUSE I WAS LIKE, HEY JONES, HE NEED TO TAKE THE, THE, UH, THAT SENTENCE OUT SAYING I TOLD HIM CHANGE FROM 1356 TO 1456 BECAUSE HE ALREADY CHANGED IT. AND THE OFFENSE PAGE SAYS THAT SENTENCE IS IRRELEVANT. JONES SAY I'M NOT MAKING HIM CHANGE IT. AND, AND THAT'S JUST BEING DEFIANT. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. THAT'S WHY. OKAY. SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, DID Y'ALL SIGN GARY? OKAY. SO WE DIDN'T SIGN GARY SIGNED GARY FOR WHAT? HE'S NOT IN I'M HE'S NOT IN INVESTIGATION. HE'S NOT IN NO PREVIOUS, HE'S NOT IN TROUBLE. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIX THE REPORT FOR THE COURT SYSTEM. SO WITH ME GARY, 'CAUSE WE'VE BEEN GETTING EMAILS AND AGAIN, THERE'S BEEN NO COMMUNICATION BETWEEN NO THE ACADEMY AND US. IF THIS WAS ALL TAKEN CARE OF BEFORE THIS MEETING, THAT RIGHT NOW THEY TOLD ME TO LEAVE THAT LINE ANYMORE. THAT WAS THE DAY THAT WE HAD SQUAD TRAINING THAT AND THEY SAID DON'T TOUCH AFTER HE DON'T TOUCH THAT IN THE REPORT. JUST KEEP WELL AND THE STUFF 'CAUSE THE REPORT WAS APPROVED. OKAY. SO IN THE ORIGINAL REPORT IT SAYS 1356. OKAY, HERE, HERE, HERE'S THE DEAL. IF IT WENT THAT FAR AND THEY WERE COOL WITH IT AND EVERYTHING, WHY ARE THEY SENDING, WHY WERE THEY SENDING US EMAILS TO LOOK INTO IT? I FOR IT TO BE APPROVED 'CAUSE IT'S STILL NOT APPROVED. THAT'S WHAT LIEUTENANT MAYO TOLD CORPORAL BLACKWOOD WHEN I WENT THERE. THURSDAY. YEAH. THURSDAY. HE SAID SEND AN EMAIL. I MEAN YOU CONFUSED IN HERE. SEND, CAN I DO GET THE REPORT APPROVED BECAUSE IT'S BEEN TOO LONG. MM-HMM . AND I TOLD HIM, I SAID, RICK IS TRYING TO GET THE REPORT, BUT THAT REPORT AND RICK'S EMAILED ME ABOUT, I MEAN, UH, OTHER REPORTS. HOW, HOW LONG YOU BEEN RIDING WITH AARON? JUST MY LASTLY. OKAY. I GOT TWO MORE DAYS DOWN. SHE, SHE COULD HAVE CALLED US. SHE KNOWS IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT NEEDED TO BE LOOKED AT. SHE CAN'T, NOBODY WANTS TO ADDRESS SERGEANT SMITH. WELL, I AIN'T, I HAVEN'T DONE NOBODY ANYTHING. WHAT I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT WHAT NOBODY WANTS TO ADDRESS SERGEANT SMITH, WHO IS NOBODY. I MEAN LIKE ATON OF PEOPLE LIKE, LIKE HOW, WHAT, WHAT DID I DO? I'M JUST KIND OF BIG, BAD, BAD. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE HOSTILE. I'M NOT HOSTILE WITH NOBODY. I AM AM I HOSTILE EVERY DAY? UH, UH, LIEUTENANT, YOU WORK WITH ME EVERY DAY. WELL, THAT'S A WHOLE NEW STORY. NO, I MEAN THAT. YEAH. SO, BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE ALL OF THIS CAN BE AVOIDED AND THAT'S OUT OF MY BOUNDS HERE. THE ONLY REASON I'M REALLY EVEN HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT HIS RIGHTS AS AN OFFICER NOT BEING INVITED, NOBODY VIOLATED HIS RIGHTS. NO, THEY, HIS RIGHTS, IT, IT DIDN'T AFFECT HIM. I MEAN, WE, WE HAD ANOTHER OFFICER SAY IN, HE STEPPED OVER HIS BOUNDS AND UNFORTUNATELY HE WAS HERE. WELL, NOBODY VIOLATED NOBODY RIGHTS. NOBODY WASN'T GONNA VIOLATE SERGEANT. HE DOES NOT WANNA CHANGE THIS REPORT. HAILEY, I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID THE FIRST TIME. OKAY. OKAY. SO WHAT WE DOING NOW? I'M, I'M EXPLAINING TO YOU WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS. THAT'S IT. YOU KNOW, YOU SAID YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE THE REPORT. HEY, I, YOU, IS THAT ONE SENTENCE THAT YOU [03:20:01] CHANGED THE OFFENSE FROM 13 TO 14? YOU DON'T NEED 1356 IN THE NARRATIVE. IF EVERYBODY'S TELLING HIM, HEY, YOU COULD LEAVE IT LIKE THAT WHERE THE CASE MAY BE FINE. OKAY. OKAY. SO LET, LEMME ASK YOU THIS. HOW, HOW ARE Y'ALL TEACHING OFFICERS WHEN IT COMES TO SUPERVISORS, WHEN YOU LOOK AT REPORTS AND WE ADVISE OFFICERS THAT SOMETHING THAT NEEDS FIXING OR CHANGING, THEY'RE JUST SUPPOSED TO TELL THE SUPERVISORS. NOT . WELL, NO, BUT AS A SUPERVISOR, WHEN YOU'RE REVIEWING THIS REPORT, IT SAYS, I MEAN, REPORTS ARE VERY, VERY SUBJECTIVE. OKAY. THEY ARE. BUT A REPORT, THIS REPORT IS MY DOCUMENTATION WHAT I DID ON THIS CALL MM-HMM . AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. AND, BUT IF, BUT IF CHARGES NEED TO BE ADDRESSED OR IF CERTAIN THINGS IN THE NARRATIVE DON'T MATCH CHARGES AND, AND, AND DON'T GET ME WRONG, IT'S GREAT THAT OFFICERS ARE VERY DETAILED. SOME PEOPLE WILL OVER MUCH LIKE, THEY'LL GO THE NARRATIVE AND PUT AT THIS SUCH AND SUCH TIME, DATE, I DID DISCHARGE, DISCHARGE, DISCHARGE. AND SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T MATCH THE CHARGE PAGE AND WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN TAUGHT THE NARRATIVE SHOULD BE ABLE TO STAND ALONE. IF THAT'S THE CASE, EVERYTHING SHOULD MATCH. AND I TELL OFFICERS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN'T MATCH DATES OR CHARGES OR THINGS, OR IF IT'S A LITTLE TOO MUCH, I MEAN, LET, LET, LET'S REEVALUATE, LET, LET'S TRY AND DO IT A DIFFERENT WAY. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. IT'S ALL SUGGESTION. IT'S ALL TRYING TO BETTER REPORT. WELL, I'M NOT GONNA SIT THERE AND SAY, YOU NEED TO DO THIS AND YOU NEED TO DO THAT. I, I DON'T WORK THAT WAY. OKAY. WE'RE ALL FOR DISCUSSION. WE'RE ALL HE, HE'S LEARNING. OKAY. THAT'S ALL. 'CAUSE WE HAVE TO APPROVE THESE REPORTS. YEAH. AND BECAUSE IF I DON'T ADDRESS IT, THEN I GET LOOKED AT OR AREN'T YOU CHECKING THESE? WELL, WHY, WHY IS THIS WRONG? WHAT IS THIS, WHAT IS THAT? I, I HAVE A JOB TO DO JUST LIKE THEY DO. SO I GOT, I GOT THE QUESTION FOR YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT JUST EARLIER, BUT LIKE, SO YOU SUPERVIS MS. SQUAD AND THEY SEND A REPORT UP TO YOU AND YOU LOOK AT IT SUPERVISOR STANDPOINT AND YOU SEE SOMETHING'S NOT RIGHT. OKAY. AND YOU TELL 'EM, HEY, YOU NEED TO FIX THIS, YOU KNOW, X, Y, Z. AND THEY SAY, WELL, I'M NOT GONNA FIX IT. SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY WORDS THAT ON THERE. I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT'S A WHOLE COMPLETE SENTENCE ON THERE. AND THEY SAY, HEY, I'M NOT GONNA FIX IT. OKAY. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS THEN? WELL, WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT? UH, THE PROBLEM IS, IS LIKE THE CHARGES, THE CHARGE IS 1456. THE ORIGINAL CHARGE WAS 1356. I SAID, HEY, CHANGE 1356 TO 1456 BECAUSE ALL OF IT HAS TO . RIGHT. OKAY. WHICH HE DID THAT. MM-HMM. OKAY. IN THE NARRATIVE, WHAT HE WROTE, UH, AND CHANGED THE 1356 STATUTE ON THE SUMMONS TO 1456. 'CAUSE I TOLD HIM, I SAID, HEY, YOU GAVE HIM A SUMMONS FOR 1356. IT IS GOING TO DISTRICT COURT. YOU GOT SOME BURGLARY. SO YOU GOTTA EITHER GO GET THE SUMMONS FROM HIM OR, OR THEY GONNA BE PENDING INVESTIGATION, WHATEVER WE FIND. 'CAUSE IT'S GOING TO THANK YOU. SHE SWITCH IT OUT. OKAY. UH, THAT'S IT. THAT ONE SENTENCE WAS 1316. NOW STATEMENT, YOU GOTTA CORRECT THAT SENTENCE. RIGHT? YOU DON'T NEED THAT SENTENCE IN THAT BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A 1356 OFFENSE PAGE. IT WAS CHANGED TO 1456. YOU DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY IN THE PARAGRAPH THAT YOU PUT 1356. IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN IF, LET'S SAY HE CAME IN HERE AND THE CHARGE WAS, UH, UH, SIMPLE BATTERY, HYPOTHETICALLY. AND I READ THE NARRATIVE AND I SEE THAT AND, AND I SEE THAT THE BATTERY WAS INCLUDING, UH, A CHIP THAT HIT HIM WITH A CHIP. SO THAT'S AGGRAVATED BATTERY. AND I SAID, HEY, CHANGE THIS TO, UH, AGGRAVATED BATTERY BECAUSE IT'S NOT SIMPLE BATTERY. THEY'RE NOT GONNA WRITE IN A REPORT THAT I TOLD 'EM TO CHANGE IT TO AGGRAVATED BATTERY. WE ORIGINALLY PUT SOME SOMEWHERE BECAUSE IT WAS AN INCORRECT CHARGE. THAT'S LIKE THIS REPORT HERE. THIS IS TWO SEPARATE REPORTS. SO HE'S JUSTIFYING WHY HE'S WRITING THE SUPPLEMENTS WITH THAT SENTENCE. THE ORIGINAL REPORT, THE, THE 0 0 0, THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AS 14. HE'S JUSTIFYING IN HIS NARRATIVE WHY HE SUPPLEMENT CHANGING THE IF LT, I'M, I'M DONE TALKING ABOUT IT. IF IT ISN'T TAKEN CARE OF, SOMEBODY ELSE CAN APPROVE IT. I'M NOT GONNA APPROVE IT. ALL RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW. ALL RIGHT. SO SEND AN EMAIL, [03:25:05] YOU KNOW, RECENT YOUR, JUST LET THEM REVIEW IT. ANYTHING WRONG, JUST EMAIL HIM BOTH. I DUNNO WHY THEY JUST DIDN'T APPROVE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE WHEN HE LEFT FROM OVER HERE. YOU KNOW, IT ALL THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED FROM THAT ONE SENTENCE ONE A. THAT'S, THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE IF WHEN YOU BECOME A SUPERVISOR, UH, CORPORAL, UH, LEXANDER, YOU, YOU CORPORAL OFFICER, I DON'T KNOW CORPORAL CORPORAL LEXANDER. I'M A SUPERVISOR IN THE MILITARY AS WELL. YOU'RE, AND WELL, THE MILITARY AIN'T GOT TO DO WITH THIS. WELL, I'M, BUT I'M GONNA, THIS I'M MAKE REFERENCE TO BRP. ALRIGHT. CORPORAL HALEY, AND THIS IS STRICTLY AN EXAMPLE. OKAY. WHEN YOU BECOME A SUPERVISOR IN BRPD, BECOME A SERGEANT AND YOU GRADE YOUR SUBORDINATES REPORTS AND WHEN YOU SEE THE CHARGES IS WRONG AND SAY, HEY, THAT'S THE WRONG CHARGE, UH, OFFICER BILLY JOHN DOE CHANGE IT. YOU'RE EXPECTING HIM TO GO CHANGE THE REPORT WHEN YOU SEE SOMETHING IN THE REPORT. A YOU DON'T NEED, UH, X, Y, Z IN THE REPORT THAT, UH, UH, UH, OFFICER JOHN DOE JUST TAKE THAT OUTTA THAT AND WRITE BACK BECAUSE YOU ARE SUPERVISING, BUT YOU ARE CORRECTOR. YOU HAVE TOLD HIM TO DO NOTHING E ANYMORE ILLEGAL, UNETHICAL. YOU, YOU HAVE NOT, YOU HAVE NOT TOLD HIM TO INJURE PUBLIC RECORD OR TO FALSIFY A DOCUMENT AND LYING IT SIMPLY A, YOU DON'T NEED 13 SIX IN THAT PARAGRAPH BECAUSE YOU CHANGED THE OFFENSE PAGE. BUT IF YOU TELLING HIM HE COULD DO IT, IF BLACKWELL UH, CORPORAL BLACKWELL SENT THE EMAIL THAT MYSELF AND THE LIEUTENANT DID NOT GET, THEN HEY, IT'S WHAT? IT'S UH, THEY CAN APPROVE THE REPORT. I'M NOT GONNA APPROVE IT. OKAY. YOU CAN EVEN JUST SMITH CONTINUE SOME QUESTIONS. YES SIR. ALRIGHT, SERGEANT SMITH. SO WATCHING THE ENTIRETY OF IT AGAIN TODAY. UM, ARE YOU STILL OF THE OPINION? YOU KNOW, IT IS WHAT IT IS. SOMEONE ELSE CAN APPROVE IT. QUESTION WHAT THE REPORT? YES SIR. I'M NOT GONNA APPROVE THE REPORT BECAUSE HE HAS MIXED CHARGES IN IT. I'M NOT GONNA PROVE IT. IT'S AGAINST POLICY. OKAY. UM, COULD, COULD A, COULD A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT HAVE BEEN A, COULD YOU, COULD YOU HAVE DRAFTED JUST A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO RESOLVE THIS? I'M THE SUPERVISOR. I'M LOOKING AT THE REPORT FOR THE CORRECTNESS FOR IT TO GO UPSTAIRS AND THEN COME TO WHATEVER, UH, COURT THAT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THOSE PARTICULAR CHARGES. OKAY. THAT PARTICULAR REPORT HAS MIXED CHARGES. CRIMINAL RECORDS IS NOT GONNA PROVE IT. IT'S GONNA KEEP GOING UP THE CHAIN UNTIL YOU GET TO THE CHIEF'S OFFICE AND THEN WE ALL GONNA BE IN TROUBLE. YOU MADE REFERENCE TO LEGAL, UH, CONTACTING YOU. DO YOU RECALL WHO CONTACTED YOU FROM LEGAL? FROM LEGAL? MM-HMM . CRIMINAL RECORDS. UH, DID IS THAT IN, UH, IN THE CLERK OF COURT'S OFFICE? CRIMINAL RECORDS? NO, BECAUSE IT HADN'T MADE IT TO, IT HADN'T MADE IT TO THE CLERK OF COURT'S OFFICE YET. IT'S STILL IN, IN POLICE HEADQUARTERS. 'CAUSE IT HAS TO BE APPROVED BEFORE IT LEAVE THE DISTRICT. OKAY. SO WE WAS CONTACTED SEVERAL TIMES, UH, BY DIFFERENT, UM, DO YOU KNOW WHO YOUNG LADIES IN THE CRIMINAL RECORDS DIVISION? I RECEIVED EMAILS AS WELL AS THE LIEUTENANT ABOUT GETTING THE REPORT FIXED AND WE WAS TRYING TO GET IT FIXED BEFORE IT GRADUALLY WENT UP THE CHAIN. OTHER THAN YOURSELF, DID ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE REPORT? THE LIEUTENANT DID, SPECIFICALLY LIEUTENANT MAYO, UH, LIEUTENANT MILLER AND LIEUTENANT MAYO HAD ISSUES WITH THE REPORT, BOTH STATED THE REPORT WAS INCORRECT. DO YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH GRIMES PUTTING WHERE HE GOT THE FIRSTHAND INFORMATION FROM YOU FROM, LIKE, DO YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH HIM TRYING TO BE TRANSPARENT? HE COULD BE TRANSPARENT, BUT HE HAS TO, HE HAS TO WRITE IT THE CORRECT WAY HOW TO, HOW TO WRITE IT BECAUSE THE COMPLAINANT CALLED TO GET IT FIXED. HE WAS ON SCENE. ALL THE BODY CAMERAS SHOWS HIM ON SCENE, HIM INTERVIEWING THE LADY AS WELL AS, UH, CORPORAL JONES INTERVIEWING THE LADY AT HOME DEPOT. AND THAT WASN'T IN THERE. SO HE HAD FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE. HE JUST DIDN'T WRITE IT IN THERE. YOU DID SEE HIM TESTIFY OR YOU DID HEAR HIM TESTIFY TODAY THAT HE DIDN'T SEE THE ITEMS THAT SHE TOLD YOU WAS TAKEN. WHAT HE SAID WAS A FALSE STATEMENT. IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THIS AXON VIDEO, SHE'S TELLING HIM EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED AS WELL AS CORPORAL JONES. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW ALL THE VIDEO, SIR. THAT'S HOW I KNEW THE REPORT WAS INCORRECT WHEN I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT ALL OF THE VIDEO. [03:30:01] UH, DO YOU AGREE, UH, WITH CORPORAL HALEY THAT, UH, LIEUTENANT BLACKWELL'S, IT WAS HIS, HIS, I MEAN, GRIME'S FAULT UNDER BLACKWELL'S SUPERVISION? I DON'T KNOW HOW THE, UH, I'M NOT A PART OF THE TRAINING ACADEMY. OKAY. SO I DON'T KNOW THEIR RANK STRUCTURE AND WHO REPORTS TO WHO. OKAY. OVER THERE. HAVE YOU EVER HAD A, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CHALLENGED BY A SUBORDINATE BEFORE? WHAT DO YOU MEAN CHALLENGE? UH, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ACCUSED OF GIVING AN UNLAWFUL ORDER? NO, SIR. NEVER. IS THIS, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME. THIS THE FIRST TIME, HOW DOES THAT MAKE YOU FEEL? IT DOESN'T MAKE ME FEEL NO KIND OF WAY. 'CAUSE I KNOW THE OFF I UNDERSTAND WHAT A, A LAWFUL ORDER IS. I ALSO UNDERSTAND WHAT A UNLAWFUL ORDER IS. UNLAWFUL ORDER IS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE, THE POLICY CONCERNS OF OFFICERS ADDING THINGS TO REPORTS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF OFFICERS CHANGE REPORTS ON A DAILY BASIS WHEN IT IS NOT CORRECT. UM, 'CAUSE A LOT OF TIME OFFICERS WRITE A NAT, WHICH IS, WHICH IS A NONCRIME AND A SIMPLE NAT CAN ALL GO ALL THE WAY UP TO A SUPREME COURT. AND IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH THAT NAT, THEN AN OFFICER IS BROUGHT IN AND DISCUSSED AND IT IS FIXED. SO YOU WERE, SO IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY THAT THE ISSUE THAT YOU HAD WITH THE REPORT WAS THAT YOUR NAME WAS IN IT, YOU HAD OTHER ISSUES OTHER THAN THAT, IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY? IT WAS MORE THAN THAT. THE CHARGES WAS INCORRECT. BUT WAS THAT AN ISSUE FOR YOU? WAS IT AN ISSUE THAT YOUR NAME, THAT HE TOLD YOU THAT HE, THAT A ROOKIE OFFICER SAID THAT YOU TOLD HIM TO PUT THIS IN THE REPORT? NO, MY NAME BEING IN THE REPORT IS NOT ISSUE 'CAUSE MY NAME IS IN DOZENS OF REPORTS IN CITY AND, UH, PARISH GOVERNMENT. MY ISSUE IS THAT THE CHARGES WAS INCORRECT. IT WAS NOT GONNA PASS CRIMINAL RECORDS TO GET TO WHATEVER MUNICIPALITY, WHATEVER JUDICIAL SYSTEM, CITY OR STATE COURT AT THE AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE THAT FILE NUMBER. THAT WAS THE ISSUE. WE HAD TO FIX IT AT OUR LEVEL BECAUSE IF NOT, THEN MYSELF AND THE LIEUTENANT CAN ALSO GET IN TROUBLE. 'CAUSE NOT A CAPTAIN GONNA GET INVOLVED. THEN THE UP COMMANDER GONNA GET INVOLVED, THEN THE DEPUTY CHIEF GONNA GET INVOLVED, THEN THE CHIEF OF STAFF GONNA GET INVOLVED. THEN WE'RE GONNA BE SITTING IN FRONT OF THE CHIEF IN A PRE THIS HEARING BECAUSE WE FAILED TO DO OUR DUTIES AS A FIRST LINE SUPERVISOR TO FIX A SIMPLE REPORT. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. SERGEANT SMITH, I'VE GOT SOME FOLLOW UP FOR YOU. YES SIR. I HAVE, WELL, YOU GOT ONE PERSON NEEDS TO BE ASKING QUESTIONS. Y'ALL. UM, QUESTION, JUST AS A PROCEDURAL MATTER, OUR BRULES DO SAY ONLY ONE ATTORNEY ADDRESS A WITNESS. SO I MEAN, I WOULD JUST YOU RELAY IT TO SERGEANT SMITH. WERE YOU EVER ASKED BY THE ACADEMY, UH, TO CORRECT THE REPORT? WAS I ASKED BY THE ACADEMY? YES. NO, SIR, I CAN'T CORRECT THE REPORT BECAUSE I DIDN'T DO THE INVESTIGATION. WERE YOU AWARE OF ANY POINT WHETHER OR NOT THE REPORT WAS DELETED OR ALTERED? I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT. I DON'T THINK YOU THINK YOU CAN DELETE A REPORT ONCE IT'S IN THE SYSTEM, IT IT TRACK. WERE YOU INSTRUCTED TO ALTER THE REPORT? NO, SIR. DURING THE MEETING, IS THERE A REASON YOU DIDN'T ASK FOR ANY OTHER ADVISORS TO BE PRESENT DURING THE MEETING? I ASKED WHAT MEETING YOU TALKING ABOUT? THIS MEETING? MAY 11TH. MAY 11TH ASKED FOR OTHER ADVISORS TO BE PRESENT IN THE MEETING? FIRST OF ALL, I DIDN'T REALIZE THERE WAS A MEETING WHEN I GOT TO THE, UH, THIRD DISTRICT AND OTHER ADVISORS. LIKE WHO, WHO DO, WHO DO YOU MEAN? OTHER ADVISORS? OFFICER NOAH SPECIFICALLY? NOAH. NOAH IS, UH, HE'S A SENIOR CORPORAL. UH, THE SHIFT IS RAN BY MYSELF AND LIEUTENANT MILLER AND I DIDN'T NEED A SENIOR CORPORAL NOR IN THERE WHEN THE BODY CAMERA WAS ROLLING. I, I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT THIS, BUT YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS PART BEFORE. LET'S MOVE THIS ON PLEASE. SURE. SO IN THE EARLIER PART OF THE VIDEO, YOU WERE ASKED, YOU DID ASK TIM CORPORAL JONES TO DELETE A, A PORTION OF THIS REPORT. UM, DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? I NEVER SAID DELETE. YOU CAN'T TESTIMONY TO DELETE. UH, YOU DON'T RECALL EVER USING THE WORDS DELETE IN THIS? I DON'T [03:35:01] RECALL USING THE WORD DELETE IN, UH, IN THIS I MAY HAVE USED CORRECT, YOU KNOW, CORRECT THE REPORT, WHICH OFFICER GRIMES DID. DON'T KNOW. 'CAUSE HE'S IN TRAINING. HE, HE DOESN'T KNOW. I DON'T FAULT HIM. HIS TRAINING OFFICER WAS IN, WAS SUPERVISING HIM. WRONG. THANK YOU. SERGEANT SMITH? YES, SIR. JUST A FEW FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS. YOU DIDN'T CALL THAT MEETING, YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS GONNA MEET, BE A MEETING WHEN YOU GOT THERE, IS THAT RIGHT? NO, SIR, I DIDN'T. OKAY. UM, BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU, YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT THE REPORT HAD ERRORS DESPITE WHATEVER WAS TALKED ABOUT THERE WITH CORPORAL ALEXANDER AT THE END OF IT, YOU STILL BELIEVE THERE ARE ERRORS IN THE REPORT, CORRECT? YES, SIR. UH, FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN TO THIS DATE, I HADN'T SEEN A APPROVED COPY OF IT, YOU KNOW, BUT WHAT'S IN HIS BINDER IS, UH, NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE CHARGE OR THE CHANGING OF A CHARGE FROM A 13 TO A 14, DO YOU SEE THAT AS ANY DIFFERENT THAN IF YOU ASKED AN OFFICER TO CHANGE GRAMMAR OR CHANGE SPELLING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I MEAN, IT'S JUST FIXING SOMETHING SIMPLE IN THE REPORT, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR. JUST SIMPLE 'CAUSE THAT'S GONNA DETERMINE WHERE TO GO TO CITY COURT OR THE STATE COURT. NOW, WE WATCHED A LONG VIDEO OF YOUR CONVERSATION WITH CORPORAL ALEXANDER AND LIEUTENANT MILLER WAS IN THERE AND OFFICER GRIMES WAS IN THERE. OFFICER JONES WAS NOT IN THERE ANYMORE, WAS HE? NO, SIR. AND THE DISCIPLINE THAT YOU RECOMMENDED FOR, OR THE COMPLAINT YOU HAD ABOUT CORPORAL JONES WASN'T RELATED TO THIS CONVERSATION, BUT IT WAS RELATED TO WHAT WE SAW EARLIER ON THE VIDEO, CORRECT? CORRECT, YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. WAS CORPORAL ALEXANDER, WAS SHE IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND FOR OFFICER GRIMES? SHE'S NOT. OKAY. AND SHE'S NOT IN YOUR SQUAD TO HAVE ANY CON TO HAVE ANY, UH, SAY OVER WHAT GOES IN THAT REPORT, IS THAT RIGHT? NO, SIR. OKAY. THE REASON THAT YOU HAD A CONCERN ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THE REPORT WAS BECAUSE YOU SAID YOU ACTUALLY WENT BACK AND WATCHED THE BODY CAM FOOTAGE FROM THE, THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, CORRECT? CORRECT. ALRIGHT, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID, DID CORPORAL BLACKWELL DO THAT? UM, I CAN'T RECALL BECAUSE WHEN YOU GO BACK AND WATCH THE THE ACCIDENT VIDEO, IT TELLS YOU EVERYBODY WHO, WHO WATCHED IT SURE. AT THAT PARTICULAR DAY AND TIME? I DON'T REMEMBER. UH, IF I WAS THE ONLY ONE, OR I DON'T KNOW IF HE WATCHED IT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAD REACHED CORPORAL BLACKWELL LEVEL YET. SURE. I, I CAN'T RECALL 'CAUSE IT COMES UP ON THE SCREEN. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE SCREEN IS. AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT ACTUALLY WHEN IN THE REPORT WAS GONNA GO IN THE REPORT, WHO THOUGHT, WHAT ABOUT THE REPORT, YOUR CONCERN WITH CORPORAL JONES WAS RELATED TO HIS BEHAVIOR IN THAT MEETING, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE BOARD MEMBERS PASS THE BOARD. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR SERGEANT SMITH? I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. UM, SERGEANT SMITH, YOU UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS OF UPGRADING THE CHARGES ON THE PERSON? YES, I DO. I UNDERSTAND THAT. OKAY. SO INITIALLY SHE WAS ISSUED, UH, A SUMMONS AND THEN, UH, DID YOU GIVE THAT ORDER TO ADD THE, THE BURGLARY CHARGE TO THAT REPORT? I DID BECAUSE THE, UH, THE SUMMONS IS A MISDEMEANOR 13 CODE. SO THEN WHEN SHE CALLED AND STATED THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY BURGLARIZED AND I VERIFIED IT, THEN THAT UPGRADES THE CHARGE FROM, FROM A, FROM A MISDEMEANOR TO A FELONY. WERE WERE YOU GOING TO HAVE THE OFFICER PICK UP AND BOOK INTO PARISH PRISON AT THAT POINT? NOT THAT PARTICULAR DAY. I MAINLY WANTED TO CHANGE. UH, I MAINLY WANTED THE CHARGES, UH, AS DRESSED AND IT COULD BEEN LEFT PENDING OR HE COULD HAVE WENT, PICKED HER UP IF WE, UH, 'CAUSE SOMETIMES THEY'D BE PROACTIVE OR HE COULD HAVE CUT A WARRANT TO, UH, HAVE HER PICKED UP. MAIN THING WAS GET THE CHARGES CORRECT IN THE INITIAL, UH, OFFENSE SO CRIMINAL RECORDS COULD DO THEIR PART. SO NO, UH, ORDER WAS GIVEN TO PICK HER UP OR TO ISSUE A WARRANT AT THAT TIME? NO, SIR. EVEN THOUGH THE CHARGES WAS UPGRADED, CORRECT. YOU, YOU'RE CORRECT. OKAY. ANY FURTHER, UH, COMMENTS ABOUT MR. NEWVILLE? GOOD AFTERNOON, JOSHUA NEWVILLE. SO I KNOW WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME LISTENING ABOUT THE PROPOSED CHANGE BETWEEN 13 AND 14. I WANNA LEAD WITH THAT BY SAYING NONE OF MY QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT THAT, SO, OKAY. , JUST, I WANT TO MOVE PAST THAT. I'VE WATCHED A LOT OF VIDEO AND HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONY. I'M STILL A LITTLE UNCLEAR AS TO WHERE EXACTLY CERTAIN BITS OF INFORMATION CAME FROM, SO IF IT'S OKAY, I'D LIKE TO KIND OF ROLL THROUGH THEM ONE AT A TIME. OKAY. THE INFORMATION THAT THE CAR OR THAT PILLS WERE CONSUMED, WAS THAT IN BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE OR WAS THAT JUST ON THE PHONE CALL WITH YOU? IT WAS A PHONE CALL. UM, IT WAS A TELEPHONE CALL THAT I RECORDED BETWEEN [03:40:01] ME AND THE, UH, COMPLAINANT. MM-HMM . UM, AND I THINK IT WAS IN THE BODY CAMERA. I, I DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS IN THE BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE OR NOT. UH, I DON'T, NOT NOT ABOUT THE PILLS. OKAY. THE $10 IN ASSORTED ITEMS BEING MISSING FROM THE VEHICLE, WAS THAT FROM BODY-WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE OR WAS THAT FROM THE PHONE CALL? PHONE CALL. SO THAT WAS NOT IN ANY BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE? NOT THAT I RECALL. UM, THE BODY CAMERA, THE THREAT WITH A BOX CUTTER BODY CAMERA OR PHONE CALL. PHONE CALL. OKAY. EARLIER, I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED THAT MR. GRIMES, AND I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T REMEMBER HIS RANK, BUT MR. GRIMES STATED INCORRECTLY ON THE VIDEO THAT SOMETHING HAD NOT BEEN TOLD TO HIM THAT IN YOUR REVIEW OF THE BODY-WORN CAMERA, HE HAD BEEN TOLD, COULD YOU CLARIFY WHAT INFORMATION YOU WERE REFERRING TO THERE? UH, REPEAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID, SIR. AND I APOLOGIZE IF, IF I'M MISREMEMBERING, PLEASE TELL ME I'M MISREMEMBERING. MM-HMM . I THINK I REMEMBER YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS A PORTION YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT WITH MR. GRIMES IN THIS VIDEO IN STATEMENTS THAT HE MADE. AND WHEN YOU WERE ASKED A QUESTION BY COUNSEL, YOU STATED SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF THAT HE SAID SOMETHING THAT WASN'T TRUE. I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT LANGUAGE, WHETHER IT WAS INCORRECT OR LIE OR I DON'T REMEMBER, BUT IT WAS UNTRUE THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING I BELIEVED THAT HE WAS SAYING HE WAS NOT TOLD THAT NIGHT. BUT IN YOUR REVIEW OF THE BODY WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE, HE WAS IN FACT TOLD THAT'S CORRECT. CORRECT. YOU, UH, CORRECT ABOUT THAT. UH, WHAT INFORMATION WAS THAT? HE WAS, HE, HE, HE SAID THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT, UH, THE CAR BEING BURGLARIZED AND, UH, THE SUSPECT DOING SOMETHING ELSE. THAT'S WHAT HE SAID ON THE VIDEO EARLIER, BUT ON THE BODY CAMERA, THE LADY SPECIFICALLY TALKING TO GRIMES AND GRIMES TOLD HER, WELL, I'M NOT THE OFFICER INVESTIGATING IT. YOU GOTTA TALK TO THIS OFFICER HERE. SO, AND, AND, AND SHE SAID, WELL, I TRIED TO TALK TO THIS OTHER OFFICER. AND SO HE SAYS, WELL, UH, I'M NEW OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. UH, YOU GOTTA TALK TO THIS OFFICER OVER HERE. AND SHE'S TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO HIM, BUT ON ALL OF THE BODY CAMERAS, GRIMES NEVER GO AND RELAY THAT TO HIS TRAINING OFFICER, UH, CORPORAL JONES. OKAY. THEN, AND I KNOW IT PROBABLY SOUNDS LIKE I'M GOING BACK TO SOMETHING THAT I ASKED, AND I, AND I AM A BIT, YOU'RE SAYING THAT SHE WAS CONVEYING INFORMATION THAT THE CAR WAS BURGLARIZED IN A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT? I'VE I'VE BEEN YES, SIR. A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR OVER A DECADE. YES, SIR. SO I KNOW THE DEFINITIONS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR BURGLARY YES, SIR. AND THINGS LIKE THAT. UM, SO ENTERING THE VEHICLE INTENT TO COMMIT A FELONY OR TO COMMIT A THEFT, THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF BURGLARY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED HOW, IF YOU ARE SAYING SHE DID NOT DISCUSS THE ITEMS BEING TAKEN WITH HIM, BUT SHE DID DISCUSS THE VEHICLE BEING BURGLARIZED. I'M, I'M HAVING TROUBLE FOLLOWING WHAT WAS SAID. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES, SIR. OKAY. I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY THE CONVERSATION THAT SHE HAD, UH, DIRECTLY WITH GRIMES MM-HMM . BUT IF YOU GO BACK TO THE VIDEO, SHE'S TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE INCIDENT WITH GRIMES TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO TRAINEE GRIMES THE, UH, THE EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED. AND HE TELLS HER, UH, I'M NOT EVEN INVESTIGATING IT. UH, CORPORAL JONES IS, YOU GOTTA TALK TO HIM. UM, THE LADY GOT A MENTAL PROBLEM, YOU KNOW, SHE'S TALKING TO GRIMES GRIME'S STANDING THERE. I THINK CORPORAL, UH, JONAS MARMA, I THINK HE WAS STANDING OFF TO THE SIDE. HE'S IN THE VIDEO AS WELL. UM, BUT JONES, BUT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, THE VIDEO WE SAW GRIME SAID THAT SHE DIDN'T TELL ME NOTHING ABOUT THAT. THAT'S A FALSE STATEMENT BECAUSE SHE'S TELLING HIM ON THE BODY CAMERA EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED. HE'S STANDING THERE LISTENING TO HER, BUT HE NEVER GO RELAYS IT TO CORPORAL JONES FROM WHAT I SAW WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT ALL THE BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE. BUT SHE DID NOT, AT LEAST AS FAR AS YOU SAW, CONVEY THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PILLS, ABOUT THE $10 BEING TAKEN OR ABOUT THE THREAT WITH THE BOX CUTTER. SHE MAY MENTION TO IT ON SCENE BECAUSE, UH, I THINK IT'S CORPORAL JONAS, ANOTHER BODY CAMERA. THEY WAS DISCUSSING THE ISSUE ABOUT WHAT SHE SAID, AND THEN $10 CAME UP IN ONE OF 'EM AND SOME PILLS CAME UP IN ONE OF 'EM AS WELL. UM, WHEN I TALKED TO HER ON THE PHONE, THAT'S WHEN I GOT ALL OF THE STUFF THAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT SHE WAS MISSING IN, IN MORE DETAIL BECAUSE MY MEMORY WAS COMING FROM PIECING [03:45:01] TOGETHER ALL OF THE BODY CAMERA VIDEO THAT I WAS WATCHING. I DIDN'T GET A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF IT UNTIL AFTER SHE TOLD ME ON THE PHONE, AND I'M LISTENING TO IT AND WRITING NOTES FROM IT. AND SO I, TO TRY TO PUT AS FINE A A POINT ON IT AS I CAN. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER, AS YOU STAND HERE TODAY WHEN, UH, MR. GRIMES WAS BEING INSTRUCTED REGARDING HIS REPORT, WHETHER YOU BELIEVED HE HAD DIRECT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE $10 OF THE BOX CUTTER, ANY AND ALL, OR WHETHER, WHETHER YOU ACTING THEN OR STANDING HERE. NOW, WHETHER YOU BELIEVE HE DID NOT HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, HE STATED HE DIDN'T HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. HE SAID TODAY HE SAID THAT SHE TOLD SERGEANT ROMAN, HE SAID, EXCUSE ME, SERGEANT SMITH. SHE DIDN'T TELL ME SHE TOLD HIM. MM-HMM . THAT'S WHAT HE SAID. OKAY. AND SO AGAIN, NOT TALKING ABOUT THE 13 AND 14 YES, SIR. THAT WE'VE BELABORED BECAUSE IT, I KNOW AT NO POINT IN THIS VIDEO, AT LEAST THAT WE'VE SEEN THUS FAR, UM, WAS IT VERY CLEAR, AT LEAST TO ME, WHAT MR. GRIMES WAS BEING INSTRUCTED IN TOTALITY TO CHANGE THE REPORT? AGAIN, I KNOW THE 1314, THAT WE ARE CLEAR ON THAT. WAS HE BEING INSTRUCTED TO RIGHT. IN HIS REPORT? SO LET ME START THAT OVER. THERE'S BEEN SOME TESTIMONY AND SOME QUESTIONING REGARDING THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN COMFORT IF THE LANGUAGE WOULD'VE BEEN CHANGED. SERGEANT R SMITH'S ADDITIONAL ORDERS ARE AS FOLLOWS. AND THEN GIVING A NARRATIVE, IF IT HAD BEEN CHANGED TO SERGEANT SMITH RELAYED THIS IN INFORMATION TO ME, AND THEN INCLUDING THAT IN THE REPORT MM-HMM . WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTABLE? IT WOULD'VE BEEN. BUT HE STILL HAD 13 COLON IN THE NARRATIVE. I KNOW, I KNOW. AND THE 13 COLON, THE, THE NARRATIVE SHOULD STAND BY ITSELF, BUT THAT NARRATIVE COULDN'T STAND BY ITSELF BECAUSE HE HAD 13 CODING IN THE NARRATIVE, BUT YET ON THE OFFENSE PAGE, IT HAD 14 COLON ON THERE. I COMPLETELY, AND I, I DON'T BELIEVE HE UNDERSTOOD THAT AT THAT TIME. I I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, SIR. I'M NOT YES, SIR. ARGUING WITH YOU ON THAT POINT, SIR. I'M YES SIR. I'M ASKING SPECIFICALLY WHETHER HE WAS BEING INSTRUCTED THAT HE NEEDED TO REMOVE ANY REFERENCE TO YOU IN THAT PARAGRAPH. I WAS JUST READING PARTICULARLY THE BOX CUTTER MM-HMM . OR WHETHER HE WAS BEING INSTRUCTED TO SIMPLY CHANGE THE WORDING TO SAY THAT IT CAME FROM YOU, BUT THAT IT IT WASN'T ON YOUR ORDERS. WHICH YOU MEAN, UH, BECAUSE I I WAS INSTRUCTING HIM MM-HMM . TO REWRITE THAT SENTENCE OF THAT PARAGRAPH MM-HMM . SO HE COULD TESTIFY TOWARDS IT IN COURT. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MY NAME BEING IN THE, IN THE REPORT, BUT IF, AND LET'S SPEND A SECOND ON THE BOX CUTTER IN PARTICULAR, BECAUSE OKAY. THEY'RE, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING OTHERWISE, FROM YOUR RECOLLECTION, THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THIS BOX CUTTER IN ANY OF THE BODY-WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE. NO, SIR. I DON'T, UH, I CAN'T RECALL BECAUSE I THAT'S TO YOUR, UH, I I THINK IT IS IN ONE OF THEM. UH, I'M NOT SURE. I CAN'T RECALL RIGHT OFFHAND OF THE VIDEO, BUT SHE DID TELL ME OVER THE TELEPHONE. OF COURSE, SHE, UH, SHE DID. AND, AND GETTING, WE HAD A HEARSAY OBJECTION EARLIER TODAY. BUT WHENEVER IT COMES TO THOSE TYPES OF EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS, IF HE DID NOT HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, IF HE WAS NOT TOLD BY THE COMPLAINING WITNESS OR THE VICTIM AND SHE TOLD YOU AND YOU CONVEYED IT TO HIM, WOULD HE BE ABLE TO TESTIFY IN COURT TO THAT FACT? ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS WRITE. IT JUST SAID THAT, UH, SERGEANT SMITH TALKED TO HIM AND ADVISED THAT THE LADY HAD A BOX CUT AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY IT WAS UPGRADED FROM MISDEMEANOR, THE FELONY CHARGES. SO YOUR, IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH HIM SAYING THE INFORMATION CAME FROM YOU? YEAH, I, I DON'T HAVE ISSUE WITH THAT. OKAY. SO IF HE HAD REWORDED IT AS SERGEANT SMITH SPOKE TO HER ON THE PHONE MM-HMM . HE TOLD ME THIS, THIS IS WHAT HE SAID THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ACCEPTABLE. YES, SIR. OKAY. IS IS THAT WHAT YOU TOLD HIM TO AS THE FIX? BECAUSE THE VIDEO THAT WE WATCHED, AND I I KNOW YOU WEREN'T IN HERE EARLIER, UM, CORPORAL JONES ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES WHAT EXACTLY THE CHANGE YOU WERE LOOKING FOR, AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO ANSWER, BUT YOU DIDN'T ANSWER. AND SO, AS I SIT HERE, I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT MR. GRIMES WAS TOLD THE CORRECTION OTHER THAN THE 13, 14. I KNOW THAT PART. MM-HMM . ANYTHING ELSE? IF THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE IN THE DETAIL OF THE, ANYTHING ELSE? AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO PIN DOWN. WHEN THIS FIRST STARTED, ALL OF THIS, UH, THE CHARGES AND [03:50:01] THE HOME DEPOT THING WAS EXPLAINED TO HIS FIELD TRAINING OFFICER. MM-HMM . FIELD TRAINING OFFICER IS JUST DEFIANT AND REFUSED, UM, TO HAVE HIM FIX IT CORRECTLY. UM, GRIMES IS AN INNOCENT BYSTANDER BECAUSE HE DON'T KNOW, UM, HE'S TAUGHT AN ACADEMY THAT HIS FIELD TRAINING OFFICER IS HIS PRIMARY FIRST LINE SUPERVISOR, AND IT IS, BUT HE TRUSTS HIS FIELD TRAINING OFFICER, WHICH HE'S SUPPOSED TO, BUT HE DIDN'T KNOW HIS OFFICER WAS INSTRUCTING HIM INCORRECTLY. AND, UM, I BELIEVE HE WAS JUST USING GRIMES TO JUST, UH, MAKE ME UPSET. I, I BELIEVE HE WAS JUST USING GRIMES AS A TOOL TO BE VINDICTIVE AND DEFIANT TOWARDS ME. OKAY. AND, AND THAT WAS ACTUALLY, I I ONLY HAVE ONE SHORT LINE OF QUESTIONS LEFT AND THAT GOES INTO IT MOVING ONTO THE INSUBORDINATION. MM-HMM . CERTAINLY, UH, CORPORAL JONES TESTIFIED DIFFERENTLY, BUT AS YOU STAND HERE TODAY UNDER OATH, IS IT YOUR BELIEF THAT CORPORAL JONES' ACTIONS WERE INTENDED TO THREATEN INSULT OR DEMEAN YOU? WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S CALLED THREATEN AND SOUGHT OR DEMEAN ME. 'CAUSE HE DON'T, I'M NOT SCARED OF HIM, BUT HE WAS BEING DEFIANT BECAUSE OF ME. HE, HE, HE, HE DIDN'T WANNA DO ANYTHING. I TOLD HIM BECAUSE OF OUR HISTORY TOGETHER, WE ONCE USED TO BE REAL GOOD FRIENDS. MM-HMM . AND THEN INCIDENT HAPPENED ON THE SQUAD WHERE HE FELT I DID IT, AND HE JUST BEEN DEFIANT EVER SINCE. AND IT JUST KEPT SNOWBALLING, SNOWBALLING, SNOWBALLING. AND WHEN HE GOT A ROOKIE, HE JUST KEPT BEING DEFIANT ON EVERY LITTLE THING. IS IT YOUR BELIEF AS YOU STAND HERE UNDER OATH, THAT IT WAS HIS INTENT TO BE DISRESPECTFUL? YES. OKAY. YES, SIR. NOTHING FURTHER FOR ME, MR. CHAIR. MR. DI THINK, UH, THOMAS, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I JUST HAVE TWO THINGS I NEED TO CLEAR UP REAL QUICK. UM, ON MAY 11TH, WHEN ALL THIS IS HAPPENING IS MR. JONES, HIS FTO, EARLIER I HEARD THAT HE, HE HAD BEEN RELIEVED OF HIS DUTIES MM-HMM . UH, JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO, YOU, OR JUST A FEW SECONDS AGO REALLY? YOU SAID HE WAS HIS FTO ON THE DAY OF ALL OF THIS, WAS HE AN FTO? NO, SIR, HE WAS NOT. OKAY. NOW, WAS HE STILL THE PRIMARY FTO? UM, WHEN YOU SAY PRI PRIMARY IS THE FIRST FTO THAT YOU GO TO MM-HMM . BUT BECAUSE HE WAS RELIEVED OF HIS FTO DUTIES COMPLETELY, HE WOULDN'T HAVE HIS PRIMARY COMEBACK TO HIM BECAUSE HE WAS RELIEVED OF THOSE DUTIES. SO LEGALLY HE WAS NOT, I DON'T WANNA HEAR LEGAL. OKAY. I'M SORRY, AS IT, SO I APOLOGIZE. WHEN YOU SAY RELIEVED OF HIS DUTIES, HE WAS NO LONGER OPERATING AS A FIELD TRAINING OFFICER FOR ANYBODY. IS THAT FAIR? CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UM, AND THEN THE OTHER ISSUE, WHEN YOU WENT AND GOT, I THINK, LIEUTENANT MILLER, WHY DID YOU GO GET LIEUTENANT MILLER AGAIN? BECAUSE I COULDN'T GET ANYWHERE TRYING TO GET THE, TRYING TO GET THE REPORT FIXED AND TRY TO EXPLAIN TO, UH, UH, TRAINEE GRIMES. CORPORAL JONES KEPT CUTTING ME OFF AND I COULDN'T GET ANYWHERE WITH HIM. AND I THINK AT SOME POINT DURING, I THINK CORPORAL JONES ASKED FOR LIEUTENANT MILLER AND I JUST GOT UP AND WENT, GOT HIM, I JUST, UH, WENT, GOT THE LIEUTENANT. 'CAUSE I FELT THAT I, I COULDN'T GET NOWHERE WITH HIM AT THAT POINT. THANK YOU. OKAY, MR. THOMAS, I GOT A QUESTION. UM, IN THE TEXT MESSAGE, DID YOU ADVISE, UH, OFFICER GRIMES THAT HE COULD BE DISCIPLINED? UM, DUE TO NOT CORRECTING THE REPORT, I STATED THAT IF HE DIDN'T GET IT, UH, CORRECTED, I WOULD WRITE HIM UP. THOSE, THAT'S THE WORDS THAT I USED. I WOULD WRITE HIM UP BUT NOT FIX THE REPORT. SO AT ANY POINT IN TIME, DO YOU FEEL IT'S REASONABLE WHEN THE OFFICER FEELS LIKE HE'S THREATENING THE WRITE UP FOR HIM TO HAVE REPRESENTATION? YES. IF HE'S THREATENING TO WRITE UP, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH HIM GETTING REPRESENTATION. OKAY. SO YOU'RE SAYING IT IS REASONABLE THAT HE ASKED CORPORAL JONES TO, TO COME WITH HIM AS REPRESENTATION BECAUSE I THREATENED TO WRITE 'EM UP IN THE TECHNICAL YES. THAT'S, THAT'S REASONABLE. CORPORAL JONES IS NOT A UNION REP. OKAY. YEAH. BUT IT IS REASONABLE. IT IS. THANK YOU, SIR. YES, SIR. I'M HOPING AT THIS POINT THAT WE CAN MOVE TO OUR NEXT, UH, WITNESS, PLEASE. LET'S SIT. I . YEAH. YES. THAT'S [03:55:01] ONE THING WE HAD BEEN DOING. WE HAVEN'T BEEN OFFICIALLY . YEAH, I HOPE NOT. WE'RE GOOD? YES. LIEUTENANT MILLER, WE'RE WAITING ON HIM. SERGEANT SMITH, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO HANG OUT WITH US. I KNOW WE'RE THE COOLEST KIDS ON THE BLOCK, BUT YOU ARE, AT LEAST IF YOU WANT TO ROLL ROLLOUT. UH, SO YOU'RE RELIEVED BOTH FROM YOUR RULE OF SEQUESTRATION. SO YOU CAN STAY IN HERE, BUT YOU'RE ALSO RELEASED FROM YOUR SUBPOENA. AND YOU MAY GO WITH NAME AND, UH, RANK CON CURRENT ASSIGNMENT, PLEASE. LI CONNIE MILLER. LIEUTENANT, WHAT'S YOUR CURRENT ASSIGNMENT? I'M AT THIRD DISTRICT EVENING SHIFT. OKAY. SO THE BOARD'S ALREADY REVIEWED THE VIDEO. UM, THEY HAVE HEARD FROM CORPORAL JONES AND THEY'VE HEARD FROM SERGEANT SMITH. OKAY. YES. UM, HAVE YOU WATCHED THE VIDEO OF THE INCIDENT FROM MAY 11? NO, I HAVEN'T WATCHED IT. YOU LIVED IT? YES. OKAY. SO YOU REMEMBER THAT DAY? YES, I DO. UM, DO YOU FEEL LIKE CORPORAL JONES WAS LISTENING TO YOU THAT DAY WHEN DEALING WITH THE REPORT ISSUE? NO, I DO NOT. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT HE FAILED TO FOLLOW DIRECT ORDERS FROM BOTH YOU AND SERGEANT SMITH? YES, I DO. DO YOU THINK HE WAS RESPECTFUL IN THE WAY HE COMMUNICATED WITH YOU AND SERGEANT SMITH? HE WAS NOT. UM, JUST BRIEFLY, THERE WERE SEVERAL DIRECT ORDERS THAT WERE GIVEN TO HIM BY, BETWEEN YOU AND SERGEANT SMITH. YEAH. I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THOSE. OKAY. UH, SERGEANT SMITH ASKED HIM TO BE QUIET WHILE HE TALKED AND TRIED TO COMMUNICATE TO OFFICER GRIMES. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT TO BE AN UNLAWFUL ORDER? NO, IT'S NOT. UM, HE ASKED SERGEANT SMITH TO LEAVE AND YOU ASKED HIM TO LEAVE AFTER HE CONTINUED TO KIND OF DISRUPT THE MEETING. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT TO BE AN UNLAWFUL ORDER? NO, IT WASN'T. UH, AT, AT A POINT HE WAS ASKED TO ASSIST OFFICER GRIMES IN REVISING THE REPORT. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT TO BE AN UNLAWFUL ORDER? NO. UM, HE WAS ALSO ASKED TO GO 10, EIGHT MULTIPLE TIMES BY BOTH OF YOU. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT TO BE AN UNLAWFUL ORDER? NO, IT'S NOT. ALRIGHT. UM, HAD YOU ALREADY COMMUNICATED WITH THE TRAINING ACADEMY PRIOR TO MEETING WITH CORPORAL JONES? I DID. ALRIGHT. AND YOU, WAS IT CORRECT YOU SPOKE TO LIEUTENANT MAYO ABOUT THE SITUATION? YES, I DID. AT ANY POINT WERE YOU ADVISED THAT INSTRUCTIONS OR UH, DIRECTION TO REVISE THE REPORT WAS UNLAWFUL? NO, I WAS NOT. ALRIGHT. DID YOU BELIEVE THAT REVISIONS THROUGH THE REPORT DIRECTING HIM, OFFICER GRIMES, TO REVISE THE REPORT THAT THAT WAS UNLAWFUL? NO, SIR. THAT'S, THAT'S OUR JOB AS, UH, SUPERVISORS. IN FACT, IT'S PRETTY COMMON FOR YOU TO DIRECT FOLKS TO REVISE REPORTS, CORRECT? YES, IT IS. JUST TALK ABOUT THE DEMEANOR OF CORPORAL JONES. HA. HAVE YOU EVER EXPERIENCED THAT IN A MEETING WITH A SUBORDINATE OFFICER BEFORE? NO, I HAVEN'T. UM, DID IT FEEL VERY TENSE IN THAT MEETING? I MEAN, WE'VE HAD TENSE MOMENTS WITH, UH, OFFICERS BEFORE, BUT IT NEVER GOT TO THAT POINT THAT I DID WITH, UH, CORPORAL JONES. IT WAS MORE EXTREME THAN ANY OTHER MEETINGS YOU'VE HAD WITH A SUBORDINATE OFFICER, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, IT IS. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE TURN TO EXHIBIT FIVE. I'M SORRY. PLEASE TURN TO EXHIBIT FIVE IN THE BINDER THAT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. THERE'S A LITTLE TAB ON THE SIDE. OKAY. BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE ON MAY 11, DID YOU END UP WRITING A, UH, NARRATIVE TO DEPUTY CHIEF MEYER DANIELS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED? YES, I DID. ALRIGHT. AND, AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT? [04:00:01] IT WAS TO DOCUMENT THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON, UH, MAY 11TH. UH, YOU NOTE THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, YOUR OWN DIRECT ORDER WAS VIOLATED THAT DAY, CORRECT? YES, IT WAS. AND YOU ALSO NOTED THAT CORPORAL JONES TOLD OFFICER GRIMES NOT TO DO ANYTHING THAT YOU AND SERGEANT SMITH ADVISED HIM TO DO. IS THAT RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT CONDUCT WAS RESPECTFUL TO YOU? IT WAS NOT. NOW WE'D OFFER EXHIBIT FIVE INTO EVIDENCE. WE'RE OFFERING EXHIBIT FIVE. OBJECT. THANK YOU. UM, YOU'RE, YOU, YOU RECALL WHEN THE COMPUTER WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM OFFICER GRIMES? YES. WHAT WAS YOUR PERCEPTION ABOUT WHY THAT WAS DONE? HE, HE WAS TRYING TO STOP HIM IN ANY WAY FROM AT LEAST ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE WITH THE REPORTS. NOW, OF COURSE, WE WATCHED THE VIDEO, WE SAW YOU ON THERE AT THE, AT THE LAST, I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD WAS ABLE TO HEAR IT. UM, THERE WAS A PERSON ON THE PHONE WITH YOU AND TALKING TO CORPORAL JONES. DO YOU RECALL WHO THAT WAS? TO TALKING TO WHO? TO ME. TO YOU? CORRECT. I HAD CONTACTED, UH, CAPTAIN CHENEY WHEN AFTER I'D, UH, I WAS ATTEMPTING TO RELIEVE, UH, CORPORAL JONES OF HIS DUTIES. AND AFTER YOU SPOKE TO CORPORAL CHENEY, DID YOU HAVE A PHONE CONVERSATION OUT LOUD WITH SOMEONE FROM IA? YES, I DID. SERGEANT ROY OSBORNE. ALRIGHT. AND DID HE ULTIMATELY RELIEVE CORPORAL JONES OF HIS DUTIES? HE DID. HAVE YOU EVER HAD TO DO THAT BEFORE, RELIEVE SOMEONE OF THEIR DUTIES? NO, SIR. THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME. DO YOU TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY? YES, I TAKE IT VERY SERIOUS. ALRIGHT. AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU WOULD DO JUST ON A WHIM, CORRECT? NO, I WOULD NOT. I, I FEEL I GAVE, UH, CORPORAL JONES PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, ACT ACCORDINGLY AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN ON THE DEPARTMENT? IT'LL BE 27 YEARS NEXT MONTH. 27 YEARS. IS THAT THE FIRST TIME YOU'VE EVER HAD TO DO IT? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. IT'S LIEUTENANT MILLER, IS THAT CORRECT? EXCUSE ME? IT'S, YOU'RE, IT'S LIEUTENANT MILLER, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, IT IS. OKAY, LIEUTENANT, IN PREPARATION FOR TODAY, UH, WHAT MATERIALS DID YOU LOOK OVER OR REVIEW? DO YOU RECALL? UH, I'M SORRY, MY REVIEW IN PREPARATION FOR APPEARING TODAY? YES. I'M JUST ASKING WHAT MATERIALS DID YOU LOOK OVER? I DIDN'T REALLY LOOK OVER ANYTHING AS FAR AS, I MEAN, WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO? I'M, I'M ASKING WHAT, HOW DID YOU PREPARE FOR TODAY, IS WHAT I'M ASKING. IT'S NOT A TRICK QUESTION, I PROMISE I'M NOT, I'M JUST ASKING. WELL, I MEAN, DID YOU, DID YOU LOOK AT ANYTHING? DID YOU REWATCH THE VIDEO? NO. NO, I DIDN'T. OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. NO. OKAY. HAVE YOU SEEN THE ENTIRETY OF THE VIDEO? NO, I HAVEN'T. OKAY. UH, BUT YOU DID KNOW, YOU DO KNOW IT WAS, BUT I, I WAS THERE. I WAS IN IT. YOU WERE THERE, YOU KNOW, IT WAS RECORDED. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. UM, THE INITIAL COMPLAINT ISSUE, UH, BACK IN MARCH OF 2024, WHEN THIS CALL CAME IN, UM, DO YOU RECALL GIVING AN ORDER TO CORPORAL JONES AND GRIMES TO CHARGE THE CASE, HOW IT WAS TO CHARGE THE FACTS? NO, I DON'T. YOU DON'T RECALL THAT? NO. THAT, THAT, THAT WAS, UH, HANDLED BY SERGEANT SMITH. OKAY. SO IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU DON'T RECALL WHAT HAPPENED YEAH. BACK IN MARCH REGARDING YOU, IN THIS CASE, THE CASE ITSELF? NO, NOT TILL AFTER THE VICTIM CAME FORWARD TO SERGEANT SMITH. I WAS MADE AWARE OF IT AT THAT POINT. OKAY. UM, DO YOU FEEL, UH, CORPORAL JONES REASONABLY BELIEVED, UH, AN, AN UNLAWFUL ACT WOULD'VE RESULTED FROM HIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDERS YOU WERE GIVING? I, I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS THINKING AT THAT TIME, TO BE HONEST. MM-HMM . UH, DO YOU, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT CORPORAL JONES WAS THERE AS A REPRESENTATIVE, UH, FOR GRIMES? YES, HE WAS. AND IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, UH, CORPORAL GRIMES FTO STATUS. UM, DO YOU RECALL IF, IF CORPORAL GRIMES WAS STILL AT ON MAY 11TH, UH, OFFICER GRIMES, HIS PRIMARY FTO, THE, THE PRIMARY FTO AT, ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY, I BELIEVE WAS AARON SAIN. OKAY. UH, BACK ON MAY 11TH, SHOULD THE EVENTS NOT HAVE TRANSPIRED THE WAY THEY DID AND HE WASN'T RELIEVED OF HIS DUTY, WOULD OFFICER GRIMES HAVE GONE BACK TO, UH, CORPORAL JONES? NO, BECAUSE, UH, CORPORAL JONES WAS NO LONGER AN FTO AT THAT POINT. UH, BACK ON MAY 11TH, WAS CORPORAL JONES THE SUPERIOR OFFICER TO OFFICER GRIMES? HE WAS NOT, [04:05:01] HE WAS NOT A SUPERIOR OFFICER. AS FAR AS A FIELD TRAINING OFFICER? NO. JUST IN, IN THE RANKING OF POLICE DEPARTMENT? YES. HE WAS A SENIOR OFFICER, BUT HE WASN'T HIS TRAINING OFFICER. THANK YOU. UM, THE CHANGES THAT WERE BEING ASKED TO MAKE IN THIS REPORT, UM, WOULD YOU CONSIDER THOSE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES? THE ONLY THING I KNEW ABOUT THE REPORT AT THE TIME, 'CAUSE WE DIDN'T REALLY GET A CHANCE TO GET INTO IT, WAS THAT THERE WERE SOME MIXED CHARGES ON IT, STATE AND CITY CHARGES THAT WERE MIXED. DO YOU AGREE THAT, UH, WELL, WHAT'S YOUR OPINION REGARDING, YOU KNOW, UPGRADING A CHARGE FROM A MISDEMEANOR TO A FELONY? IS THAT SUBSTANTIVE TO YOU? IF THERE WAS A FOLLOW UP INVESTIGATION THAT REQUIRED THAT, UM, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH REPORTS, UH, WHEN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS GATHERED POST THE INITIAL, UH, INTERVIEW OR OFFICERS ON THE SCENE, UM, HOW IS IT, IS IT, IS IT, IS IT COMMON TO HAVE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS AT TIMES? UM, WHEN AN OFFICER WRITES A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT, UM, ISN'T IT HIS DUTY TO TESTIFY TO WHAT HE PERSONALLY WITNESSED? OF COURSE. UH, DID YOU HAVE ANY, AS LIEUTENANT MILLER, DID YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH, WITH THE REPORTS APPROVAL? LIKE YOU PERSONALLY, DID YOU FIND ANY FAULT WITH THE REPORT? I I REALLY DON'T KNOW THE, THE WHOLE DETAILS OF THE REPORT TO SAY THERE WAS FAULT EXCEPT FOR THE CHARGES. OKAY. UH, THERE'S A PART IN THE VIDEO AND YOU CAN KINDA SEE IT ON THE SCREEN STILL, UM, WHERE YOU'RE TALKING WITH, UH, CORPORAL HALEY. UH, HOW DID YOU FEEL ABOUT CORPORAL HALEY'S OPINION OF THE REPORT WHEN SHE EXPLAINED IT TO YOU GUYS AT THE END? UH, HER OPINION WAS, WE COULDN'T TELL THEM WHAT THE CHANGE IN REPORTS. UM, THAT IS A, UH, THAT IS A MISTAKE. UH, IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN, AS SUPERVISORS, WE DISCUSSED WITH THE OFFICERS AND WE WILL DETERMINE IF THEIR CORRECTIONS NEED TO BE MADE. THAT IS PART OF OUR JOB BECAUSE EVERYBODY MAKES MISTAKES. SO WHEN YOU SAY IT'S A, IT WAS A MISTAKE, LIKE WHERE ARE, WHERE ARE YOU RECEIVING THAT INFORMATION? I WAS GOING BY WHAT SERGEANT SMITH WANTED TO ADDRESS. UH, I'M NOT JUST SAYING THIS REPORT, I COULD SAY ANY REPORT MAY NEED CORRECTIONS. UNDERSTOOD. UM, CORPORAL BLACKWELL, IT'S A LOT OF NAMES. CORPORAL BLACKWELL, UM, DO YOU RECALL HIM, THERE'S, THERE'S BEEN TALK OF THE EMAIL THAT HE SENT OUT ABOUT THE REPORT AND YOU WEREN'T INCLUDED ON IT. OKAY. UM, DO YOU FEEL THIS COULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED IF YOU WERE INCLUDED ON THAT EMAIL AND THE REPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IF THEY WERE TOLD THE REPORT WAS APPROVED AND IT COULD HAVE POSSIBLE, DID YOU EVER SEE THE BLACKWELL EMAIL? NOT THAT I CAN RECALL, NO. DID SHE, THAT CORPORAL, UH, ALEXANDER MENTIONED TO YOU THAT SHE, THAT SHE HAD? NOT THAT I CAN RECALL, NO. OKAY. SO YOU HAVE, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE ALSO, HAS THERE EVER BEEN A TIME WHERE A, A PERSON HAS CHALLENGED, UH, AN ORDER THAT, THAT WAS GIVEN? HAVE YOU, HAVE YOU SEEN A SIMILAR SITUATION TO THIS? LIKE WITH ANYTHING, YEAH. IN YOUR ROLE AND YOUR EXPERIENCE AS AN OFFICER, UH, AS A LIEUTENANT, HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED WHAT AT AGAIN, WITH OTHER, WITH OTHER, UH, SUBORDINATES SUPERVISORS? WE, WE DISCUSS THOSE THINGS. OKAY. BUT THE, THE, THE LAWFULNESS OF AN ORDER, HAVE YOU EVER HAD AN EXPERIENCE WHERE THE LAWFULNESS OF AN ORDER WAS QUESTIONED, LIKE THIS INCIDENT? NO. DID YOU UNDERSTAND IN THIS MEETING, I UNDERSTAND THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH, BUT DID YOU UNDERSTAND CORPORAL JONES' POSITION OF TRYING TO DEFEND GRIMES? I, I, I CAN UNDERSTAND TO A DEGREE, YES. BUT, BUT, BUT RESPECT ON BOTH ENDS COMES FROM THAT. WHAT DO YOU FEEL HIS RESPONSIBILITY WAS WITH WITH RESPECT TO REPRESENTING GRIMES AND REPRE AND BEING RESPECTFUL TOWARD, TOWARDS YOU AND SERGEANT SMITH? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, HE WOULDN'T BE TELLING A, UH, ROOKIE OFFICER NOT TO LISTEN TO US OR DO WHAT THEY SAY. THAT, THAT, THAT RIGHT OFF IS WRONG. UH, BUT DISCUSSING THE ASPECTS OF WHAT NEEDED TO BE FIXED THAT DAY, IT, IT WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN TO THAT LEVEL. IF WE WOULD'VE DONE SOME LIEUTENANT MILLER THINGS COULD BE DONE DIFFERENTLY IF WE OF COURSE, IF IN A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT WAYS. YOU'RE RIGHT. IF WE DID HAVE THAT TIME MACHINE MM-HMM . UM, HOW WOULD YOU, HOW WOULD YOU RECOMMEND IT? WE, WE, WE CHANGE THIS SITUATION? WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE DONE DIFFERENTLY? LOOK, I'M [04:10:01] GONNA OBJECT TO SPECULATION AT THIS POINT. I MEAN, THE, WE'RE DEALING WITH, WE'RE GETTING SO FAR FIELD OF WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY HERE FOR, WHICH IS THE VIOLATIONS OF THE CONDUCT, UNBECOMING, INSUBORDINATION WE SAW EARLIER ON THE VIDEO, AND NOW WE'RE TALKING SPECULATING ABOUT WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER. I MEAN, THAT'S NOT WHAT THESE HEARINGS ARE FOR. THAT IS NOT WHAT THESE HEARINGS ARE FOR. OBJECTION, SUSTAINED. THANK YOU. LIEUTENANT MILLER, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE CODE OF ETHICS IN RELATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT? YES. DO YOU UNDERSTAND, DO YOU AGREE WITH CORPORAL JONES', UH, POSITION OF ADDRESSING AN ORDER HE DEEMED UNLAWFUL? NO, I DO NOT. IS THERE A REASON YOU DON'T BECAUSE THERE WASN'T UNLAWFUL? DID, DID YOU KNOW WHAT WAS GOING TO BE CHANGED? YEAH, I'M ASKING LIKE, DID YOU KNOW? YOU SAID I, I, I, I STATED THAT EARLIER. ALL I KNEW WAS WHAT WE HAD STATE AND DISTRICT CHARGES ON THE REPORT, ON, ON POLICE REPORTS. WE CANNOT MIX VENUES. THAT'S ALL I KNEW ABOUT AT THE TIME. WE DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO GO ANY FURTHER THAN THAT. I BELIEVE THAT WAS ALREADY CHANGED IN THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AT THIS POINT IN THE VIDEO. UH, THE ONLY THING OKAY, THEN THAT'S WHAT I KNEW ABOUT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. LIEUTENANT MILLER. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, WELL, SO YOU'RE, Y'ALL DON'T HAVE ANY, UH, OTHER QUESTIONS FOR LIEUTENANT MILLER? UM, GOOD POINT. , BUT YEAH, I DON'T WANT JUST, WELL, LET ME, LEMME SEE IF, DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY WE WERE GONNA ASK? SO WE DIDN'T WANT HIM TO LEAVE BEFORE THE BOARD HAD QUESTION? YEAH. FAIR, FAIR. UM, I DON'T BELIEVE I HAD ANY FOLLOW UP ON HIM. GOOD DEAL. ALL RIGHT. ANY, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? YES, SIR. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PUT A LAWYER ON THE BOARD. THAT'S RIGHT. I WARNED EVERYONE BEFORE THEY DID. GOOD AFTERNOON, LIEUTENANT. A JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY REGARDING TO INSUBORDINATION. YES TO SIGNPOST THAT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU PERSONALLY FELT THREATENED, INSULTED, OR DEMEANED, AS YOU STAND HERE TODAY UNDER OATH, DO YOU BELIEVE IT WAS CORPORAL JONES'S INTENT TO THREATEN INSULT OR DEMEAN DURING THIS INTERACTION? WHAT HE DID? UM, I DUNNO IF HE INTENDED OR NOT, BUT IT'S WHAT HE DID. AND LIKEWISE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU PERSONALLY FELT DISRESPECTED, DO YOU BELIEVE IT WAS HIS INTENT DURING THAT MEETING TO BE DISRESPECTFUL? AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS INTENT, BUT IT DID HAPPEN. THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER. MR. THOMAS, LIEUTENANT, UM, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PRIOR, UM, UM, INCIDENTS THAT, UH, CORPORAL JONES AND SERGEANT SMITH LED UP TO THIS INCIDENT? DO I, DO I BELIEVE CORRECT. THE PRIOR INCIDENTS THEY HAD ON THE JOB LED UP TO THIS INCIDENT. I'M GONNA OBJECT TO SPECULATION THERE. YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT FOR ME TO HOLD ON HOLD. I'M GONNA OBJECT TO SPECULATION. OKAY. SUSTAINED. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. RAYS? I THINK WE ARE READY FOR THE NEXT WITNESS. WANNA FORMALLY RELEASE HIM? UH, LIEUTENANT MILLER, YOU'RE RELEASED FROM THE RULES SEQUESTRATION AND FROM YOUR SUBPOENA, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO HANG OUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO, BUT YOU ARE FREE TO GO. THANK YOU SIR. ALRIGHT, WE'RE CALLING SERGEANT ROY OSBORNE. I GUESS WHILE THEY'RE GETTING, UH, SERGEANT OSBORNE, WE ARE GETTING KIND OF LATE IN THE DAY, SO IF, UH, LET'S LIMIT ALL THE CUMULATIVE TESTIMONY TO THE EXTENT WE CAN. MOSTLY THIS IS JUST ABOUT GETTING DOCUMENTS IN. OKAY. SO, AND, AND I ONLY HAVE TWO QUICK WITNESSES. SURE, SURE. CERTAINLY DO YOUR THING JUST ON POINTS THAT WE'VE ALREADY COVERED AND STUFF. YEAH. PARTICULARLY THINGS THAT ARE COVERED IN DEPTH ON THE VIDEO, LIKE WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR 13 ANYMORE . UNDERSTOOD. UNDERSTOOD. SERGEANT OSBORN, UH, YOU HAVEN'T BEEN SWORN IN YET, IF YOU WOULD, UM, LET'S GET YOU SWORN IN. OKAY. UH, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? YES, I DO. THANK YOU. SERGEANT OSBORNE, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. ROY OSBORNE. AND WHAT'S YOUR RANK AND CURRENT ASSIGNMENT? SERGEANT WITH INTERNAL AFFAIRS. UH, HOW LONG HAVE YOU WORKED IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS? SINCE MAY 18TH, 2018. ALRIGHT, NOW THE BOARD'S ALREADY REVIEWED THE VIDEO, THE [04:15:01] BOARD'S HEARD LOTS OF TESTIMONY TODAY. SO I'M JUST GONNA BE PRETTY QUICK WITH YOU. WE'VE JUST GOT A FEW THINGS WE NEED TO GET THROUGH TOWARD THE LATTER PART OF THE VIDEO. WE SEE YOU CON OR YOU WERE CONTACTED, UM, ABOUT THE INCIDENT AND YOU GOT ON THE PHONE WITH UH, SERGEANT MILLER OR LIEUTENANT MILLER, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. ALRIGHT. UM, AND WERE YOU EXPLAINED TO HIM KIND OF WHAT WAS GOING ON? UH, HE EXPLAINED TO ME WHAT WAS GOING ON, CORRECT. OKAY. AND BASED ON YOUR REVIEW OF THE VIDEO, UH, WAS WHAT YOU WERE TOLD, WAS THAT ACCURATE? YES. OKAY. UM, WHEN YOU DID YOUR, UH, REPORT, UH, YOUR INTERNAL AFFAIRS REPORTS, THERE ARE MULTIPLE CHARGES THAT YOU PUT ON THERE, YOU PUT, UM, INSUBORDINATION, YOU PUT CARRYING OUT ORDERS, WERE THOSE CHARGES BASED ON THE CONDUCT THAT OCCURRED BY CORPORAL JONES IN THE VIDEO? THAT'S CORRECT. WAS IT RELATED TO ANY OTHER INCIDENTS OUTSIDE OF THE VIDEO? OUTSIDE OF THE VIDEO, NO. OKAY. UM, THERE'S JUST SOME DOCUMENTS I NEED TO GET IN WITH YOU. IF YOU WOULD TURN TO EXHIBIT SEVEN PLEASE. AND BEFORE Y'ALL DO, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THESE DOCUMENTS? NO OBJECTION. SO I MEAN WE CAN JUST, IF WE CAN DO THAT QUICKLY THEN WE WILL GET, UH, ALRIGHT, IT'S EXHIBIT SEVEN, UH, EIGHT, NINE, AND 10. IF Y'ALL WOULD REVIEW THOSE AND SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THOSE. NO OBJECTIONS. NO OBJECTIONS. YEAH, SO WE CAN, YEAH. ALRIGHT. THAT THEY ALL TEND IT AND SUBMIT IT. PERFECT. UM, THEN WE'LL BE VERY QUICK. YOU'RE AWARE THAT, UH, CORPORAL JONES, KIND OF AS A DEFENSE, IF YOU WILL, STATED THAT HE WASN'T FOLLOWING ORDERS THAT DAY BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THEM TO BE UNLAWFUL. DO YOU RECALL THAT OR HEARING THAT? YES. ALRIGHT. BASED ON YOUR VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE, YOUR EXPERIENCE AS AN INVESTIGATOR, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THE ORDERS THAT WERE GIVEN TO HIM THAT DAY WERE UNLAWFUL? I DO NOT. I THANK YOU. I'LL PASS THE WITNESS. OH, THAT WAS QUICK. I APPRECIATE IT. I TOLD YOU. IS IT GOOD? GOOD AFTERNOON. HELLO. UH, THE LAWFULNESS OF AN ORDER. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ASKED TO DETERMINE THE LAWFULNESS OF AN ORDER IN YOUR POSITION? CLARIFY THE QUESTION YOU WERE JUST ASKED. YOU KNOW, DID YOU DETERMINE IF, IF, UH, CORPORAL JONES WAS GIVEN ANY, ANY, UH, A LAWFUL ORDER, UH, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ASKED TO GIVE AN OPINION AS TO THE LAWFULNESS OF AN ORDER? I BELIEVE THIS IS MY FIRST CASE OF THIS TYPE, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. THANK YOU. UH, JUST AS A FOLLOW UP TO THAT, UM, EVERY TIME YOU WRITE DOWN A POLICY VIOLATION, A POTENTIAL POLICY VIOLATION AS THREE 18, THAT'S CARRYING OUT ORDERS, CORRECT? YES. AND IN ORDER FOR SOMEONE TO HAVE A CARRYING OUT ORDERS VIOLATION, THAT MEANS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO VIOLATE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO NOT FOLLOW A LAWFUL ORDER, CORRECT? CORRECT. 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO FOLLOW AN UNLAWFUL ORDER. RIGHT. SO PART OF YOUR DETERMINATION EVERY TIME YOU WRITE THAT DOWN IN ONE OF YOUR FILES IS WHETHER OR NOT THAT ORDER WOULD BE LAWFUL. WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE? YES. ALRIGHT. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. OKAY. IS THERE ANY ROOM FOR A BRIEF REDIRECT? NO, . JUST TO THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING, DID IT EXCUSE IT IS A LINE OF QUESTIONS JUST NOW. OF COURSE. LOOK, I'LL OBJECT TO THE EXTENT THAT , I MEAN, WE JUST DON'T GO BACK AND FORTH ON THE PROCEDURE. NO, I JUST, ONE QUESTION, JUST THE, THE 10 18 LAWFULNESS OF AN ORDER, UH, YOU JUST MADE REFERENCE TO, TO IT. UH, BUT IN YOUR OPINION, MY QUESTION IS, UH, IS THE FAILURE TO CARRY OUT IN A UNLAWFUL ORDER A DEFENSE? GENERALLY? GENERALLY, I WOULD SAY IF IT'S AN UNLAWFUL ORDER, YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD ? YES. AND FEEL FREE TO TELL ME. JOSHUA NEWVILLE. GOOD AFTERNOON. FEEL FREE TO TELL ME THAT THIS IS COMPLETELY BEYOND YOUR SCOPE, BUT YOU'RE THE FIRST WITNESS WHO I WOULD THINK TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS TO IN MY REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT CODE THAT WE'RE ALL HERE WITH AN ALLEGATION OF BEING VIOLATED, I NOTICED BETWEEN CATEGORY ONE, CATEGORY TWO, CATEGORY THREE, THAT THERE'S DIFFERENT INTRODUCTORY LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY CATEGORY ONE SAYS THESE VIOLATIONS NEED NOT BE INTENTIONAL. CATEGORY TWO, THIS SECTION IS BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT MEMBERS ARE EXPECTED TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN A MANNER AS PRESCRIBED BY THE CODE AT ALL TIMES. AND THEN CATEGORY THREE IS SIMPLY SILENT. IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT TYPE OF INTRODUCTORY LANGUAGE. AGAIN, FEEL FREE TO TELL ME THAT THIS IS COMPLETELY BEYOND YOUR SCOPE AND YOU DON'T KNOW, BUT HISTORICALLY SPEAKING OR LEGALLY JURISPRUDENTIAL, IF YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW, HOW ARE CATEGORY THREE OFFENSES TREATED REGARDING THE REQUISITE INTENTIONALITY? HONESTLY, I'M NOT SURE HOW TO ANSWER THAT, SIR. UM, THAT'S [04:20:01] PERFECTLY OKAY. YEAH. THEN NOTHING FURTHER FROM ME. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN THE BOARD? IF NOT, THEN WE'LL MOVE TO OUR NEXT ONE. SERGEANT OSBORNE, YOU ARE RELEASED FROM THE RULE. I GUESS YOU WEREN'T UNDER SEQUESTRATION. UH, YOU'RE RELEASED FROM YOUR SUBPOENA. FREE TO GO UNLESS YOU JUST WANT TO HANG OUT. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. OKAY, WE'RE CALLING CHIEF MORRIS. THOUGHT HE WAS JUST LEAVING . VERY BAD TIMING. CHIEF, I BELIEVE YOU'VE ALREADY SWORN IN, SO IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. THOMAS MORRIS JR. ALL RIGHT, AND WHAT'S YOUR RANK AND ASSIGNMENT? CHIEF OF POLICE, BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, CHIEF, DID YOU TAKE PART IN THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING INVOLVING CORPORAL JONES REGARDED FILE? OH 32 DASH 24? YES, SIR. UM, ULTIMATELY AS WE'VE HEARD TODAY, YOU ISSUED A RULING FINDING THAT HE VIOLATED TWO POLICY DEPARTMENTS CARRYING OUT ORDERS AND INSUBORDINATION. IS THAT RIGHT? YES SIR. YOU'VE HEARD TESTIMONY, UM, A LITANY OF TESTIMONY AND YOU HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF SUPERVISORS AS TO WHY THEY BELIEVE HE VIOLATED THOSE POLICIES, CORRECT? YES SIR. NOW WE KNOW THAT ULTIMATELY DISCIPLINE IS IN YOUR HANDS AS FAR AS HOW YOU RENDER IT. SO IF YOU WOULD, UM, WELL FIRST YOU GAVE HIM, YOU SUSTAINED HIM ON THOSE TWO VIOLATIONS, CORRECT? THAT YOU GAVE HIM A FOUR DAY SUSPENSION? YES, I DID. ALRIGHT. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD WHY YOU THOUGHT IT APPROPRIATE TO SUSTAIN EACH OF THE VIOLATIONS CARRYING OUT ORDERS AND INSUBORDINATION? YEAH, SURE. UH, SO IN REVIEW OF THE BODY-WORN CAMERA VIDEO AND IN ALSO TESTIMONY FROM INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE CASE FILE AND THEN, UH, HAVING THE PRE-DISCIPLINARY ALARM MILL HEARING WITH CORPORAL ERNEST JONES AND GIVING HIM THE CHANCE TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE, UM, TO SWAY MY DECISION OR ANY DEFENSE, UM, TOOK ALL THAT INTO, UH, ACCOUNT AND JUST THE TOTALITY OF IT, UM, I THOUGHT WAS VERY SERIOUS, UM, SERIOUS ENOUGH TO THAT IT NEEDED TO, UM, HAVE THE SUSPENSION TIME IN FOUR DAYS, I THOUGHT WAS A FAIR, UM, ASSESSMENT WHEN LOOKING AT THE POLICY AND LOOKING AT, UH, A CLASS THREE CATEGORY OFFENSE, MINIMUM SUSPENSION FOR ONE OF THOSE BEING ONE DAY UP TO TERMINATION. UM, SO WE HAD TWO CLASS THREE VIOLATIONS, SO IT WOULD'VE BEEN A MINIMUM OF TWO DAYS UP TO SUSPENSION. UM, I THOUGHT WITH, YOU KNOW, LOOKING, I COUNTED, UH, 15 TIMES THAT HE WAS ASKED TO LEAVE THE ROOM, UM, BY, AND BASICALLY GIVEN A DIRECT ORDER TO LEAVE THE ROOM FROM HIS SUPERVISORS. UM, AND ALL OF THAT INTO PLAY, UH, CAME UP WITH THE FOUR DAY SUSPENSION. THANK YOU. IF YOU WOULD TURN TO TAB 13, PAGE 20 FOR ME. OKAY. THAT'S CARRYING, IT'S GOT THE TWO POLICIES THERE, CARRYING OUT ORDERS IN INSUBORDINATION ON EITHER ONE OF THEM. DOES IT REQUIRE INTENT OF THE OFFICER TO VIOLATE THOSE POLICIES? UM, NO. IT DOES NOT SPELL OUT ANY SPECIFIC INTENT IN THE POLICY. UM, THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THREE 19, UH, INSUBORDINATION AND THE LANGUAGE WAS ASKED ABOUT THREATENING, INSULTING, DEMEANING LANGUAGE. BUT THERE'S ALSO, NOR NOR SHALL A MEMBER BE DISRESPECTFUL OF ANY OFFICER SUPERIOR TO HIMSELF WHILE THAT SUPERIOR OFFICER IS IN THE EXECUTION OF HIS DUTIES. UM, BASED ON WHAT YOU SAW IN THE VIDEO, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT CORPORAL JONES WAS DISRESPECTFUL TO HIS SUPERIOR OFFICERS IN THE VIDEO? YEAH, OF COURSE HE WAS. UM, HE DID IT WITH HIS BODY LANGUAGE. HE DID IT WITH HIS TONE OF VOICE AND HE DID IT WITH HIS ACTIONS OF NOT LISTENING. AND HE DID IT ALSO IN FRONT OF A JUNIOR OFFICER, WHICH HE SHOULD BE SETTING A GOOD EXAMPLE FOR. NOW, LET'S GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, WHICH IS PAGE 21. OF THAT, TAB 13. AT THE BOTTOM, THERE'S A BOX AND IT'S, IT LOOKS LIKE A MATRIX. UM, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD, OR ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO HAVE NOT HEARD THIS BEFORE, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THAT MATRIX? UH, SO THE MATRIX, THESE KIND OF GUIDELINES TO GO DOWN, LIST OUT CATEGORY ONE, CATEGORY TWO, AND CATEGORY THREE OFFENSES, OF COURSE, CATEGORY THREE BEING, UM, THE MOST SEVERE. UM, IN THIS CASE, CORPORAL JONES WAS, UM, YOU KNOW, SUSTAINED THAT HE VIOLATED TWO CATEGORY THREES. UM, THEN YOU LOOK AT HOW MANY OFFENSES HE'S HAD. UH, THIS BEING HIS FIRST, I BELIEVE IT WAS HIS FIRST CATEGORY THREE, UM, OFFENSES. TWO OF THOSE, UM, GO DOWN AND YOU SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, ON THE FIRST OFFENSE, UM, FOR ONE CATEGORY THREE, IT WOULD BE ONE DAY SUSPENSION UP TO DISMISSAL. AND THIS IS GUIDELINES TO KIND OF DIRECT SO THAT WE CAN STAY FAIR IN OUR, UH, RENDER OF DISCIPLINE. IT ALSO HELPS YOU STAY CONSISTENT OVER TIME ON HOW YOU DISCIPLINE OFFICERS. IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY. SO IN THIS INSTANCE, YOU GAVE HIM A TOTAL OF FOUR DAYS FOR TWO CATEGORY THREE VIOLATIONS, AND YOU COULD HAVE DISMISSED HIM. IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH, I MEAN, ACCORDING TO THE, TO THE MATRIX, I COULD HAVE, I DON'T THINK [04:25:01] IT WARRANTED, UH, TERMINATION, BUT IT DID DEFINITELY WARRANT, UM, SOME DISCIPLINE IN THIS CASE. HOW DO YOU THINK IT WOULD AFFECT THE DEPARTMENT IF THE BOARD WERE TO FIND THAT THIS KIND OF CONDUCT WAS ACCEPTABLE? YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, POLICE WORK, CIVILIAN WORK, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T TALK TO SOMEONE THAT'S IN CHARGE OF YOU AND GET AWAY WITH IT WITHOUT SOME KIND OF DISCIPLINE. UM, NOT TO THE LEVEL THAT CORPORAL JONES DISPLAYED IN THIS CASE. UM, AND THAT IS ALSO GOES TO MY, YOU KNOW, MY RULING AND WHY I WENT FOUR DAYS IS KIND OF SET FORTH, HEY, YOU'RE NOT, YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T DO THIS. YOU CAN'T SPEAK TO SUPERVISORS THIS WAY. IF THE SUPERVISOR ASKED YOU TO LEAVE THE ROOM, YOU NEED TO LEAVE THE ROOM. UM, WE HAVE THESE RULES FOR A REASON, YOU NEED TO FOLLOW 'EM. IF YOU DON'T, THERE'S GONNA BE CONSEQUENCES. IF THERE WASN'T, THEN THERE WOULD BE COMPLETE ANARCHY. IT WOULD SOMEWHAT DISRUPT THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IF, IF YOUR SUBORDINATE OFFICERS ACTED THAT WAY TO YOUR SUPERVISORS CONSISTENTLY. IS THAT RIGHT? OH, OF COURSE. UM, JUST BRIEFLY, THERE WAS, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, WHETHER OFFICER GRIMES WAS ENTITLED TO REPRESENTATION IN THE MEETING WITH, UH, SERGEANT SMITH AND LIEUTENANT MILLER. UH, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT THAT? YEAH, I MEAN, I HEARD SERGEANT SMITH, LIEUTENANT MILLER BOTH SAID THAT THEY THINK THAT, UM, HE WAS, HE, UM, CORPORAL JONES COULD HAVE BEEN THERE AS A REPRESENTATIVE. I DO NOT SEE THAT AT ALL. UM, CORPORAL JONES IS THE ONE THAT CALLED FOR THE MEETING. UM, SO JUST ON HIS FACE, IT WAS NOT A DISCIPLINARY MEETING. UM, NO ONE WAS GIVEN GARRITY, NO ONE WAS SAID, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE HAVING A MEETING ABOUT. IT WAS STRICTLY A MEETING THAT CORPORAL JONES SET UP IN THE FIRST PLACE, UM, TO TALK ABOUT THIS REPORT. AND THEN THAT'S WHERE THE CONVERSATION WENT. THERE WAS NEVER, IT NEVER CROSSED THAT LINE INTO DISCIPLINE WHERE, UM, WHERE THERE NEEDED TO BE, UM, A REPRESENTATIVE AND CORPORAL JONES WAS IN NO PLACE TO MAKE THAT DECISION. HE WAS BEING PAID TO BE TEN EIGHT, ANSWERING THE CALLS AND HELPING THE CITIZENS OF BATON ROUGE. UM, IF CORPORAL, IF CORPORAL, I MEAN, OFFICER GRIMES NEEDED REPRESENTATION, HE COULD HAVE ASKED FOR THAT AND THEN THAT WOULD'VE BEEN PROVIDED FOR HIM. UM, CORPORAL JONES DID NOT HAVE TO BE THAT PERSON. HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ANSWERING CALLS. AND AT THAT TIME, IT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT CORPORAL JONES WAS NOT HIS FTO OFFICER, CORRECT? NO, HE WAS NOT. AND I, I'VE HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONY TODAY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SENIORITY AND SUPERVISING, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN THAT FTO IS IN THE CAR WITH THE TRAINEE, HE SERVES AS A DIRECT SUPERVISOR FOR THAT TRAINEE. BUT ONCE THAT RELATIONSHIP ENDS OUTSIDE OF THAT, THERE IS NO MORE SUPERVISION, UM, OR IS OR NOT RECOGNIZED AS A RANK OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BEFORE YOU WERE CHIEF, YOU WERE IN THE TRAINING ACADEMY, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. I SERVED SEVEN YEARS AT THE TRAINING ACADEMY, STARTED OFF AS A, UM, STAFF INSTRUCTOR AS THE FTO COORDINATOR ACADEMY DIRECTOR, AND THEN FINALLY WOUND UP AS COMMANDER OF TRAINING SERVICES PRIOR TO MY APPOINTMENT AS CHIEF. SO YOU HAVE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF HOW THE FTO PROGRAM WORKS. WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE? YES, SIR. OKAY. SO YOU'VE, YOU'VE HEARD CORPORAL JONES TALK ABOUT HOW EVEN THOUGH HE WAS NO LONGER THE FTO FOR OFFICER GRIMES, EVENTUALLY THAT WOULD COME BACK TO HIM. IS THAT, WAS THAT RIGHT? UM, SO SOMETIMES IT DOES, IT DOES HAPPEN MORE FREQUENTLY THAN NOT THAT YOU GO TO THIS FIRST PERSON AND THEN YOU COME BACK AND YOU END, YOU'RE TRAINING WITH HIM. IT IS NOT REQUIRED. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S WRITTEN STONE. IT USUALLY HAPPENS THAT WAY. YOU START OFF WITH SOMEBODY AND YOU COME BACK TO THEM. I MEAN, SPEAKING ME PERSONALLY, THAT DID NOT HAPPEN FOR ME WHEN I WAS IN THE TRAINING ACADEMY. AND AS A, THE FTO DIRECTOR, THERE'S A LOT OF TIMES WHERE I COULDN'T MAKE THAT HAPPEN. FTO COORDINATOR, UM, COULD NOT MAKE THAT HAPPEN JUST BECAUSE OF SCHEDULING AND DIFFERENT THINGS. SO IT'S NOT AN ALWAYS THING PRIMARY, YOU KNOW, OTHER PEOPLE, UM, WILL FILL IN AND TAKE THAT SPOT AND DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THAT TRAINEE, UM, IS READY TO BE A SOLO OFFICER. AND IF THAT INDIVIDUAL HAD BEEN REMOVED AS THE FTO OFFICER, THEN IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT THEY GR . WELL THEN THIS CASE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. UM, OFFICER GRIMES FINISHED HIS TRAINING OFF WITH A DIFFERENT OFFICER BECAUSE, UM, CORPORAL JONES WAS NO LONGER AN FTO PRIOR TO ALL OF THIS EVEN HAPPENING. NOW. WE WATCHED A LONG VIDEO WITH A DISCUSSION BETWEEN SERGEANT SMITH, LIEUTENANT MILLER, OFFICER GRIMES AND CORPORAL ALEXANDER. CORPORAL ALEXANDER IS A UNION REP, IS THAT RIGHT? UM, I BELIEVE HER. SHE IS THE UNION, UM, SECRETARY. SHE'S ON THE UNION BOARD. OKAY. AND SOMETIMES SHE ASSIST OFFICERS WITH DISCIPLINE CASES, IS THAT RIGHT? I GUESS YES. YEAH, SHE'S COME IN PREDIS BEFORE AS, UM, A REPRESENTATIVE WITH THE UNION. OKAY. UM, DO YOU EVER HAVE, DOES THE UNION EVER COME IN AND GIVE THEIR OPINION ABOUT HOW YOU'RE GOING TO DISCIPLINE AN OFFICER? MM, NO. I HAVE NOT. HAD [04:30:01] I, I MEET WITH THE UNION VERY REGULARLY AND WE DISCUSS THINGS GOING ON, BUT NO, THEY'VE NEVER, UM, OUTSIDE OF, OUTSIDE OF, UH, MAYBE THROUGH AN ATTORNEY LOOKING FOR, UM, A CONSENT DISCIPLINE SURE. OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT NOT TO, BUT THERE'S NOTHING IN YOUR POLICY ALLOWING THE UNION TO COME IN AND GIVE AN OPINION ABOUT THE TYPE OF DISCIPLINE THAT YOU OH, NO, DEFINITELY NOT. NO, SIR. YOU AS THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ARE THE FINAL SAY AND HOW YOU DISCIPLINE AN INDIVIDUAL. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND I, I MEAN, I DO TAKE, UM, YOU KNOW, OPINIONS FROM MY DEPUTY CHIEFS, UM, DURING A PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I AM THE FINAL DECISION. AND, YOU KNOW, WE HEARD THAT SHE HAD AN OPINION RELATIVE TO THE REPORT, UM, BUT SHE WAS NOT IN OFFICER GRIME'S CHAIN OF COMMAND. IS THAT CORRECT? NO. YEAH. ALL OF THAT TESTIMONY KIND OF CONFUSED ME. I THINK Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONFUSED. IT DEFINITELY CONFUSED ME AS JUST THE CHIEF OF POLICE. UM, THE TRAINING ACADEMY SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD AN OPINION. UH, CORPORAL ALEXANDER SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD AN OPINION. NOBODY SHOULD HAVE HAD AN OPINION ON HOW THIS REPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN EXCEPT FOR HIS SERGEANT AND HIS LIEUTENANT. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT CAME IN. TRAINING ACADEMY IS NOT EVEN IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND WHEN IT COMES TO A TRAINEE. THEY DECIDE WHERE THE TRAINEE GOES AND RIDES, AND IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH THE, HOW AN FTO IS BEHAVING, IF THEY HAVE TO MOVE THINGS AROUND, THEY DETERMINE WHO ARE FTOS, BUT THEY'RE NOT IN THAT DIRECT CHAIN OF COMMAND. UM, THAT IT, ONCE THEY ARE OUT THERE, THEY KIND OF WORK BEHIND THE SCENES, BUT THE CHAIN OF COMMAND FOR THAT TRAINEE IS HIS FTO THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO. AND THEN THE SERGEANT AND THE LIEUTENANT. AND WHY THE TRAINING ACADEMY WOULD SAY, NO, THIS REPORT IS COMPLETELY FINE, IS BEYOND ME. IN ANY INSTANCE, UM, THE OPINION OF CORPORAL ALEXANDER, DOES WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY, HER OPINION WOULD NOT TRUMP ANYTHING THAT SERGEANT SMITH OR LIEUTENANT MILLER HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE REPORT? NO, OF COURSE NOT. OKAY. UM, YOU HEARD SOME TESTIMONY EARLIER ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR OFFICER GRIMES TO PUT IN THE REPORT WHAT SERGEANT SMITH LEARNED, UM, IN, IN THE PHONE CALL. WOULD IT BEEN APPROPRIATE FOR THERE TO BE SOME KIND OF LANGUAGE ABOUT WHAT SERGEANT SMITH LEARNED IN THE REPORT IN HIS CALL? YEAH, OF COURSE. UM, I THINK THAT ONE OF THE PARAGRAPHS IN THERE THAT I READ, HEY, SERGEANT SMITH TALKED TO THE COMPLAINANT, SERGEANT SMITH LEARNED THIS. ALL OF THAT IS MORE THAN APPROPRIATE AND SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED WHERE WE GOT THAT INFORMATION FROM. I MEAN, 95% OF OUR REPORTS ARE WRITTEN OFF OF WHAT OTHER PEOPLE TOLD TELL US. RIGHT. WE VERY RARELY ARE THERE TO SEE IT HAPPEN OURSELVES. WE GET THAT INFORMATION FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE, WHETHER IT'S ANOTHER OFFICER OR WHETHER IT'S FROM A COMPLAINANT DIRECTLY. UM, HEY, WHAT DID YOU SEE? OKAY, I'M GONNA DOCUMENT THAT IN MY REPORT. SO THAT'S DEFINITELY WARRANTED. UM, WHAT WAS A LITTLE WEIRD WAS JUST THAT DIRECT ORDER TO CHANGE THIS TO THAT, YOU KNOW, IT REMINDED ME OF, YOU KNOW, WHY WOULD YOU PUT IT, HEY, I HAD A DIRECT ORDER TO CHANGE THE SPELLING OF THIS WORD. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T SEE THAT WRITTEN IN A REPORT. SO IT WAS WEIRD THAT THAT WAS INCLUDED. UM, YEAH. SO YOU COULD, YOU COULD SEE WHY MAYBE THERE WAS A REQUEST TO CHANGE PORTIONS OF THE REPORT. YEAH. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, SERGEANT SMITH, UM, IN THIS CASE WOULD'VE BEEN THE ONE TO APPROVE THE REPORT, AND HE'S THE ONE THAT HAS TO PUT HIS NAME ON IT. SO HE'S, I WANT IT TYPED THIS WAY IN THIS FORMAT, AND THAT'S WHAT THOSE OFFICERS THAT WORK FOR HIM NEED TO DO. DID YOU FIND ANYTHING, 'CAUSE YOU'VE HEARD ALL THE TESTIMONY, DID YOU FIND THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING UNLAWFUL ABOUT THE ORDER THAT SERGEANT SMITH GAVE, UH, ORDERS THAT SERGEANT SMITH GAVE TO CORPORAL JONES? OH, A HUNDRED PERCENT NOT, I MEAN, IF I WOULD'VE FOUND THE ORDER TO BE UNLAWFUL IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEN WE WOULDN'T BE HERE. I WOULDN'T HAVE SUSTAINED THE VIOLATION. YEAH. UM, A FEW QUICK QUESTIONS. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE DECISION THAT YOU MADE WAS IN GOOD FAITH? YES, DEFINITELY. AND DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU HAD JUST CAUSE FOR THE DECISION THAT YOU MADE REGARDING THE DISCIPLINE OF CORPORAL JONES? OF COURSE. YES, SIR. UM, AND AS I PROMISED, ARE YOU ASKING THE BOARD TO UPHOLD THE DISCIPLINE YOU RENDERED IN THIS CASE TO CORPORAL JONES? YES, I AM. ALRIGHT, WE'LL PASS THE WITNESS. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, IS IT CHIEF? CHIEF? CHIEF? YES, MA'AM. ONE PERSON THAT, WHATEVER. UM, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. SO HOW, WHEN YOU COMPLETE YOUR INVESTIGATION, WHAT ALL INFORMATION DO YOU RISK TO HELP YOU MAKE YOUR DETERMINATION? SO I DON'T COMPLETE ANY INVESTIGATIONS. THE INVESTIGATION IS TURNED OVER TO ME, UM, FROM INTERNAL AFFAIRS, AND THEN WE HAVE OUR PRE-DISCIPLINARY WATERMILL HEARING, AND I GO OVER ALL OF THAT INFORMATION. SO I DIDN'T COMPLETE ANY INVESTIGATIONS. I JUST REVIEWED THE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS ALREADY COMPLETED. OKAY. AND THAT, ON TOP OF SPEAKING TO CORPORAL JONES, I SPOKE TO CORPORAL JONES IN THAT HEARING, [04:35:01] OFFERING HIM THE CHANCE, ALONG WITH HIS ATTORNEY WHO WAS ALSO PRESENT TO PRESENT ANYTHING. THEY ALSO GOT THE SAME INFORMATION I DID. SO TO PRESENT ANY DEFENSE AT THAT TIME, UM, TO THOSE ACCUSATIONS. AND WHAT WAS YOUR OPINION OF CORPORAL JONES' DEFENSE? THAT HE HAD A HISTORY WITH SERGEANT SMITH. AND THAT HE WAS, HE HAD A BELIEF THAT IF HE COMPLIED WITH WHAT HE WAS, GIVEN WHAT HE WAS ORDERED TO DO, THAT IT WOULD END UP IN AN UNLAWFUL ACT OCCURRING. SO I ASKED HIM THAT DIRECTLY MM-HMM . IN THE PRE DISCIPLINARY LAUDER MEAL HEARING. UM, I SAID, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME HISTORY ISSUES, AND REGARDLESS OF THE ISSUES IN HISTORY BETWEEN THEM, IT DOESN'T EXCUSE THE BEHAVIOR HE DID THAT DAY. BUT I ASKED HIM DIRECTLY, HEY, WAS THE ORDER TO LEAVE THE ROOM AN UNLAWFUL ORDER? MM-HMM . HE SAID, WELL, I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN. AND I SAID, WELL, WAS IT, AT THE TIME, DID YOU KNOW WHAT THEY WERE GONNA DO? I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE GONNA DO. SO WAS IT AN UNLAWFUL ORDER? AND HE ADMITTED TO ME IN THAT HEARING THAT IT WAS NOT AN UNLAWFUL ORDER. DID HE ADMIT TO YOU THAT HE WAS NOT, HE DIDN'T DISAGREE WITH THE ORDER, BUT THAT THE ACTIONS THAT WOULD RESULT FROM HIM OBEYING THE ORDER WERE LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL? I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. SO WE'VE DISCUSSED A LOT THAT THIS HEARING IS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT MEETING AND WHETHER OR NOT HE DISOBEYED THE ORDER. AND I'M SURE YOU KNOW AS A CAPTAIN THAT THERE ARE MITIGATING FACTORS HERE. YOU HAVE AN ETHICAL CODE OF CONDUCT. I BELIEVE WE, THERE'S A LAW ENFORCEMENT GENERAL CODE OF ETHICS. OKAY. AND WE HAVE A MISSION STATEMENT, DIVISION STATEMENT OF VALUES. OKAY. AS PART OF OUR, DID WE DISCUSS THIS IN THIS, UM, IN HIS HEARING? NO, MA'AM. NO, WE DID NOT. OKAY. YOU'RE AWARE OF THIS CODE, THOUGH, IS CORRECT? OF WHAT CODE? THE, THE CODE OF VALUES. I'M SORRY. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT TITLE. COULD YOU, UM, REFERENCE AGAIN, YOU ARE THE ONE ASKING ME, SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. UM, WHAT'S THE, YES. THE CODE OF ETHICS FOR POLICE. THERE'S A POLICE CODE OF ETHICS AND LIKE WE HAVE A SIGNED POLICE CODE ETHICS HANGING IN THE TRAINING ACADEMY. UM, THINGS LIKE THAT. I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S PART OF OUR POLICY. DOES ANY PART OF THIS POLICY SPEAK TO, UM, AN OFFICER AND WITNESSING ANOTHER OFFICER COMMIT AN UNLAWFUL ACT? YES, MA'AM. OF COURSE. AND, UM, I JUST RECENTLY SIGNED INTO POLICY, A DUTY TO INTERVENE IF, UM, OFFICER IS WITNESSING ANOTHER OFFICER COMMIT A CRIME OR DOING SOMETHING THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING. OKAY. AND ARE WE REFERENCING, UM, NUMBER ONE 30? I BELIEVE THAT'S THE POLICY NUMBER. OKAY. UM, AND THIS WAS EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER THE FIRST, 1994. OKAY. I HAVE THE CODE OF ETHICS IN FRONT OF ME. OKAY. UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE A COPY? SURE. OF WHAT I HAVE? DO YOU NEED TO SEE A COPY? SURE. UM, DO WE HAVE IT IN OUR EXHIBIT? WE DO. OKAY. COULD YOU PASS IT 1 0 7? OKAY. SORRY. OKAY. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH GENERAL CODE 1 0 7? I WASN'T UNTIL YOU JUST HANDED IT TO ME. UM, THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THAT. BUT YEAH, THIS IS THE SAME LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS I THINK WE HAVE HANGING AT THE TRAINED ACADEMY. OKAY. I JUST DID NOT REALIZE IT WAS PART OF THE POLICY. OH, YES, SIR. UM, SO I, I'M SURE WE HAVE IT INDICATED IN THE COPY THAT YOU HAVE. UM, I'D ASK THAT, THAT IT BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE IF POSSIBLE. I KNOW HE WANTS TO, THAT IF I NEED TO LAY SOME MORE VEN, THEN THAT'S FINE. WELL, HE'S, WELL, THE ONLY, ONLY OBJECTION BE THAT IT JUST WASN'T PART OF THE EVIDENCE BINDER THAT WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED TO THE, THE BOARD. OKAY. AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS THEIR POLICY. SO I, I DON'T, IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE LAW. YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO ADMIT THE LAW, BUT IT IS THEIR POLICY. SO WE'LL CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE THAT 1 0 7 IS, IS THEIR POLICY. SO, WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE IT AND IT'LL GO TO THE WAY. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. UM, SO COULD YOU LET US KNOW WHAT 1 0 7 SAYS ABOUT AN OFFICER WITNESSING ANOTHER UNLAWFUL ACT, UM, ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER OFFICER? UM, I SEE IT SAYS, UH, PROTECT INNOCENT AGAINST DECEPTION, WEAK AGAINST OPPRESSION OR INTIMIDATION, PEACEFUL AGAINST VIOLENCE. UM, MAINTAIN COURAGEOUS, CALM IN THE FACE OF DANGER, SCORN OR RIDICULE, DEVELOP SELF RESTRAINT AND BE CONSTANTLY MINDFUL OF THE WELFARE OF OTHERS, HONEST AND THOUGHT DEED, EXEMPLARY AND OBEYING LAWS OF THE LAND AND REGULATION. IN MY DEPARTMENT, WHENEVER I SEE [04:40:01] OR HEAR OF A CONFIDENTIAL NATURE THAT HAS CONFIDED IN ME IN MY PHYSICAL, I'LL KEEP IT SECRET, I'LL NEVER ACT OF VICIOUSLY OR PERMIT PERSONAL FEELINGS, PREJUDICES, ANIMOSITIES, OR FRIENDSHIP TO INFLUENCE MY DECISIONS. OKAY. UM, SO WE'VE ALL HEARD TESTIMONY TODAY AND WE'VE WATCHED THE VIDEO, AND I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE DISAGREES THAT RONALD GRIMES REQUESTED, UM, OFFICER JONES TO BE PRESENT OR HE REQUESTED ASSISTANCE FROM OFFICER JONES IN REGARD TO AMENDING THE POLICE REPORT. DO YOU AGREE? I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT PRESENTED. YOU HAVE NOT, YOU WATCHED THE VIDEO? YES. OKAY. UM, ARE YOU AWARE THAT OFFICER JONES INITIATED THIS MEETING IN RESPONSE TO A TEXT MESSAGE FROM RONALD GRIMES REQUESTING HIS PRESENCE OR HIS ASSISTANCE WITH AMENDING THE POLICE REPORT? YEAH. YEAH. I BELIEVE HE, HE HAD, HE TOLD ME THAT, UH, GRIMES REACHED OUT TO HIM AND THAT'S WHY HE WANTED TO SET UP A MEETING WITH SERGEANT SMITH. OKAY. WE'VE SEEN TESTIM WELL, WE'VE SEEN EVIDENCE TODAY. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU RECALL IN THE RECORDING, UM, MAY BE DISPUTED, BUT STILL TESTIMONY THAT SERGEANT SMITH MAY BE COMBATIVE OR INTIMIDATING. UM, WE'VE ALSO SEEN THAT SERGEANT SMITH TOLD RONALD GRIMES A ROOKIE THAT HE WOULD BE WRITTEN UP IF THE REPORT WAS NOT CORRECTED. UM, I BELIEVE YOU CAN READ SOMEWHERE IN 1 0 7. IT SPEAKS OF PROTECTING THE INTEREST OF THE OPPRESSED WEEK. UM, AND IF WE, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU READ IT AGAIN FOR ME? I DON'T HAVE IT VERBATIM. UM, PROTECT THE INNOCENT AGAINST DECEPTION, THE WEAK AGAINST OPPRESSION OR INTIMIDATION. CORRECT. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? YES, SIR. UM, LET ME SEE WHAT ELSE I HAVE. I FORGET. I'M SORRY. DO YOU KNOW THE PURPOSE OF THE TRAINING ACADEMY? UM, YES MA'AM. I WAS THERE FOR SEVEN YEARS. OKAY. WILL YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO THE AUDIENCE FOR US? THE PURPOSE OF THE TRAINING ACADEMY YES, SIR. IS TO DEVELOP, UM, OFFICER, UM, GIVE THEM THE TRAINING. ONE THAT POST REQUIRES POST REQUIRES, UM, A CERTAIN NUMBER OF HOURS OF TRAINING. AND THEN THE BAT ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE DO ABOUT DOUBLE THAT TO GIVE OFF, PREPARE AN OFFICER WHERE THEY ARE ABLE TO GO SERVE THE CITIZENS OF BATON ROUGE. WHAT'S, AND THEN THEY'RE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR RECURRING TRAINING ON THE DEPARTMENT IN SERVICE TRAINING, OR WHICH YOU MIGHT THINK OF LIKE CONTINUING EDUCATION HOURS. UM, THEY REVIEW USE OF FORCES. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW IN DETAIL YOU WANT ME TO GO? NO, YOU'RE DUTIES OF THE TRAINING ACADEMY. I THINK WE GOT A GOOD UNDERSTANDING. UM, WAS THERE A REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTED TO GIVE YOU ADVICE ON QUESTIONING OF WHETHER THERE WAS AN ISSUE? I KNOW SOMEONE FROM THE TRAINING ACADEMY SMOKE, YOU TESTIFIED THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THIS DECISION, BUT I GUESS WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY WAS, WERE YOU AWARE THAT THEY WERE CONTACTED AND GAVE AN ADVISORY POSITION ON THE ISSUE AT HAND? I, I DID HEAR THAT, THAT CORPORAL JONES AND, UM, OFFICER GRIMES WENT TO THE TRAINING ACADEMY TO GET THEIR ADVICE. AND I THINK THAT THE TRAINING ACADEMY WAS ALSO CONTACTED BY, UM, RECORDS SAYING, HEY, THIS REPORT NEEDS TO BE TURNED IN. WE'RE NOT SURE WHERE GRIMES IS. I KNOW THAT HE'S IN THE TRAINING PROGRAM. CAN Y'ALL FIND HIM AND GET THIS MESSAGE TO HIM? OKAY. UM, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT OFFICER GRIMES WAS ASKED TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE TO THIS REPORT? NO, MA'AM. AND WHY WOULD YOU NOT CALL THIS SUBSTANTIVE? I'M NOT SURE WHAT CHANGE, UM, WAS ACTUALLY ASKED. I'VE SEEN AND HEARD A LOT OF THINGS. OKAY. UM, TO ME, THE, THE CHANGE WASN'T THE MAIN THING THAT DROVE MY DECISION MAKING FACTOR WHEN IT CAME TO DISCIPLINE IN THIS MATTER. OKAY. SO WHEN YOU MADE THE DECISION, YOU WERE UNAWARE OF, BECAUSE CLEARLY WE ALL ARE IN CONFUSION AT THIS POINT, WHAT EXACTLY WAS ASKED TO BE CHANGED? YEAH, I THINK THAT CORPORAL JONES' DEMEANOR AND ATTITUDE MADE THAT WHERE IT WAS NOT BEING ABLE TO BE. OKAY. LET'S SPEAK ABOUT HIS DEMEANOR AND HIS, I I I'M GONNA OBJECT. I'M GONNA SAY ALLOW HIM TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. OH, I APOLOGIZE. I SPEAK VERY QUICKLY. I'M SO SORRY. I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, I THINK THAT, UM, IN THE VIDEO, NO ONE COULD GET THAT ANSWER OF WHAT NEEDED TO BE CHANGED. 'CAUSE CORPORAL JONES WOULD NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO SPEAK IN HIS DEMEANOR AND INSUBORDINATION. OKAY. LET'S SPEAK ON HIS DEMEANOR DURING THE, UM, VIDEO. SO YOU ARE SAYING, YOU'RE SAYING THAT, UM, CORPORAL JONES WOULD NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO SPEAK. DO WE KNOW THE CONTEXT OF HIS OBJECTION TO THE OTHER OFFICER SPEAKING? NO. ALL I KNOW IS THAT HE HAD SOME PERSONAL HISTORY WITH SERGEANT SMITH. [04:45:01] DID YOU NOTICE IN THE VIDEO OFFICER JONES INTERJECTING, UM, I KNOW AT ONE POINT MR. SMITH ASKED TO SPEAK TO GRIMES ALONE, AND AT WHICH POINT HE BEGAN QUESTIONING MR. GRIMES. UM, DO YOU FEEL LIKE THIS WAS A LAWFUL ACT FOR MR. SMITH TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION OF A REPORT THAT WAS IN QUESTION AT THE TIME? UM, WITHOUT GRIMES HAVING A REPRESENTATIVE? YEAH, OF COURSE. THIS IS NOT A DISCIPLINARY HEARING OR A DISCIPLINARY MATTER. THIS WAS A CONVERSATION WITH A SUPERVISOR NEEDING SOME CHANGES DONE IN A REPORT. AND IF WE HAD TO HAVE SUPERVISION EVERY TIME THAT A SERGEANT CONTACTED ONE OF THEIR EMPLOYEES, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF WORLD WE'D BE LIVING IN. SO I BELIEVE THIS IS A DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS BECAUSE SERGEANT SMITH CONTACTED GRIME AND THREATENED WRITEUP JONES CONTACTED SMITH TO SET UP A MEETING IN DEFENSE OF THE ROOKIE. UM, SO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REASONABLE FOR GRIMES TO MEET WITH JONES ALONE, EVEN THOUGH HE FELT THAT HE WOULD BE FORCED TO DO SOMETHING UNLAWFUL FOR GRIMES TO MEET WITH SERGEANT SMITH? YOU SAID JONES? YES. I'M SORRY. UM, SERGEANT SMITH NEVER REQUESTED TO MEET WITH GRIMES. CORRECT. SERGEANT SMITH SENT AN EMAIL IN THE TEXT MESSAGE, AND THERE WERE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS SAID YOU NEED TO GET THIS REPORT FIXED AND SENT IN SO THAT IT CAN BE APPROVED. DO YOU THINK IT PROPER? SO THERE WAS NEVER A MEETING THAT SERGEANT SMITH SET UP TO BE A DISCIPLINARY MEETING. OKAY. DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE PROPER FOR SERGEANT SMITH TO INVESTIGATE, TO CONFORM OR INITIATE ANY INVESTIGATION TOWARD MR. GRIMES WITHOUT A REPRESENTATIVE? YES. YOU CAN DO AN INVESTIGATION WITHOUT HAVING A REPRESENTATIVE THERE. DO YOU RECALL HEARING IN THE VIDEO, UM, SERGEANT SMITH BEGAN TO ASK MR. GRIMES QUESTIONS? I DON'T REMEMBER. THAT WAS SEVERAL HOURS AGO AND OKAY. BUT, UH, BUT YOU DO, I DO REMEMBER HE TRIED TO TALK TO OFFICER GRIMES ABOUT THE REPORT MM-HMM . AND CORPORAL JONES WOULDN'T LET HIM. OKAY. UM, DO YOU, DID YOU, IN YOUR INVEST, IN YOUR DETERMINATION, DID YOU REVIEW ANY DOCUMENTS THAT STATED THAT CORPORAL JONES NEEDED TO IMMEDIATELY CHANGE, DELETE OR ALTER THIS REPORT? DID CORPORAL JONES NEED TO CHANGE IT? DID YOU, IN YOUR, IN YOUR DETERMINATION REVIEW ANY INFORMATION INCLUDING DOCUMENTS, VIDEOS, RECORDINGS, AND THE HEARING, DID YOU COME ACROSS ANY EVIDENCE THAT STATED OUTRIGHT THAT CORPORAL JONES NEEDED TO CHANGE, ALTER OR DELETE SOMEONE NEEDED TO CHANGE THE REPORT? WHETHER THAT WAS, I UNDERSTAND. DID YOU, WHETHER THAT WAS CORPORAL JONES OR YES. YES. YOU DID. OKAY. THAT WAS PRESENTED TO ME, THAT OFFICE. WHERE DID YOU, WHERE WAS THIS PRESENTED TO YOU? AT WHAT POINT? UM, IN THE, IN THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE SEEN PART OF THE IA JACKET WITH THE REPORT, IT NEEDED TO BE CHANGED BECAUSE SERGEANT SMITH WAS THE APPROVER OF THE REPORTS. SO, AND SO EITHER OFFICER GRIMES OR HIS PERSON THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR TRAINING HIM AT THE TIME NEEDED TO MAKE THOSE CORRECTIONS SO THAT THE REPORT COULD BE APPROVED. DO YOU KNOW ANY POLICY WHERE THIS COULD HAVE BEEN MITIGATED ANOTHER WAY WITHOUT OFFICER JONES OR GRIMES BEING REQUIRED TO, UM, CHANGE ALTER OR CHANGE ALTER OR DELETE THE REPORT? ANY POLICY THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO CHANGE OR ALTER OR DELETE THE REPORT SO THAT THIS SITUATION COULD BE MITIGATED OR SMITH OR ANY OTHER HIGHER RANKING OFFICER COULD HAVE MITIGATED THE REPORT TO HAVE IT SUBMITTED WITHOUT OBJECT. AGAIN, WE'RE GETTING INTO SPECULATIVE TERRITORY ABOUT WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED. WHAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH IS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED THAT DAY. I ACTUALLY ASKED IF HE WAS AWARE OF A POLICY THAT COULD HAVE MITIGATED THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN A DIFFERENT WAY. I MEAN, THAT IS A SPECULATIVE QUESTION. WELL, IS THERE A POLICY THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF? I'M STILL NOT EXACTLY SURE THE QUESTION. A POLICY THAT SAYS WHAT THAT WOULD ALLOW A SUPERIOR OFFICER TO GO OVER THE HEAD OF A ROOKIE AND IS ALSO CORPORAL JONES, THE SERGEANT OR LIEUTENANT, HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DELETE A REPORT. THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE PERMISSIONS TO DO THAT. THEY CAN'T MAKE THOSE CORRECTIONS OR EDITS. THAT'S WHY THEY SEND IT BACK TO THE OFFICER TO DO IT. AND IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY THAT THEY WERE GIVEN NOT, UM, LEMME CLARIFY. THEY, CORPORAL JONES, GRIMES, SERGEANT SMITH, LIEUTENANT MILLER, WERE GIVEN A DIRECT ORDER [04:50:02] BY A SUPERIOR OFFICER OR LEGAL AUTHORITY TO CHANGE, DELETE OR ALTER THE REPORT IN SUCH MANNER. WAS SERGEANT SMITH OR LIEUTENANT MILLER GIVEN A DIRECT ORDER? NO. NO. OKAY. UM, I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL I HAVE. UH, WE THANK YOU CAPTAIN. JUST A FEW FOLLOW UP. UM, YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT THE CODE OF ETHICS. IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU READ WAS DEVELOPING SELF RESTRAINT. DO YOU BELIEVE CORPORAL JONES SHOWED SELF RESTRAINT TODAY? THAT WHEN THE VIDEO, OF COURSE NOT. I MEAN, IT'S RIGHT IN HERE. UNDERNEATH WHAT SHE HAD ME QUOTE IS DEVELOP SELF RESTRAIN AND BE CONSTANTLY OF THE WELFARE OF OTHERS. MAINTAIN COURAGEOUS, CALM IN THE FACE OF DANGER, SCORE AND, AND RIDICULE. UM, YOU ARE ALSO READING THE, THAT, AND YOU TALKED ABOUT PROTECTION OF THE WEAK OR OPPRESSED. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT OFFICER GRIMES WAS THE WEAK OR OPPRESSED THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IN THE CODE OF ETHICS? I THINK THAT OFFICER GRIMES WOULD BE VERY OFFENDED IF YOU KNEW THAT COUNSEL WAS CALLING HIM WEAK OR OPPRESSED. . ALL RIGHT. UM, THERE WAS NO, WHAT WE WATCHED IN THE VIDEO, THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION INTENDING ANY KIND OF DISCIPLINARY MATTERS. IS THAT CORRECT? WHAT'S THAT? ONE MORE TIME? THERE'S NO INVESTIG. WHAT WE SAW IN THE VIDEO TODAY. THERE WAS NOT AN INVESTIGATION INTO DISCIPLINARY MATTERS BY SERGEANT SMITH. HE WAS TALKING TO, ATTEMPTING TO TALK TO, UH, OFFICER GRIMES ABOUT THE REPORT, BUT HE WASN'T INVESTIGATING A DISCIPLINARY MATTER. WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? CORRECT. ALRIGHT. UM, OFFICER GRIMES WAS NEVER WRITTEN UP FOR ANY DISCIPLINARY MATTERS AND NOWHERE ON THE VIDEO DID YOU SEE AN, THAT HE WAS ASKED TO DELETE A REPORT. WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE? CORRECT. OKAY. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE BOARD IF THE BOARD HAS QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? YES. UH, 'CAUSE IT IN, UH, INFORMS MY QUESTIONS. HAS EXHIBIT 13 BEEN PLACED INTO EVIDENCE OR NO? THE THIRTEENS IS OUR POLICY. UM, UH, HAPPY TO, UH, ADMIT IT OR, YOU KNOW, OFFER IT INTO EVIDENCE. YEAH, SURE. IF IT'S PART OF THE POLICY, JUST LIKE 1 0 7 THAT Y'ALL SAID DIDN'T NEED TO BE PUT INTO EVIDENCE, BUT I WAS GONNA SAY IT'S JUST THE POLICY, BUT SINCE WE DID IT FOR THEM, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND PUT IT IN. OTHERWISE, CHIEF, I WAS GONNA START ASKING YOU ABOUT THAT INTENTIONALITY LANGUAGE AND I WANTED TO SPARE YOU THAT MM-HMM . IF I COULD. UM, WE DID AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING. YEAH, WE ACCEPTED IT. IF INTENDED, THEN CHIEF, I'LL, I'LL SPARE YOU ANY OF THAT INTENTIONALITY QUESTIONS. I'LL, OH, I GET IT. THE WAY I VIEW INTENTIONALITY IS KIND OF LIKE, UM, IF YOU ARREST SOMEBODY FOR BURGLARY UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT THEFT OR FELONY, HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU HAD THAT INTENT? WELL, WHAT DID THEY DO WHEN THEY WENT INSIDE? DID THEY GO INSIDE THE CHURCH AND FALL ASLEEP AT THE ALTAR? WELL, THAT'S NOT A BURGLARY. IT'S AN AUTHORIZED ENTRY. THEY DIDN'T COMMIT IT. IF THEY WENT INSIDE AND THEY STOLE SOMETHING OR THEY WENT INSIDE AND COMMITTED DAMAGE OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY, YOU KNOW, OR THAT THEFT A FELONY, THEN THAT'S HOW YOU DO THE INTENT. AND I THINK IN THIS CASE, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR WHAT THE INTENT WAS BE BASED ON THE ACTIONS, THE ACTIONS SPEAK TO THE INTENT. I WAS GONNA LET YOU GO, BUT NOW I'M NOT. UM, SO YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. WE CAN LOOK AT WHAT IMPLIES THE INTENT, BUT IN CRIMINAL, AS YOU WELL KNOW, YOU'RE STILL GETTING INTO GENERAL VERSUS SPECIFIC INTENT AND THAT CORRECT TYPE OF THING. AND SO THE REASON I ASKED THE QUESTION EARLIER, NOW, YOUR COUNSEL WAS VERY CLEAR AND CORRECT WHENEVER HE ASKED YOU THAT CATEGORY THREE OFFENSES DON'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT INTENTIONALITY. MM-HMM . HOWEVER, AND HE, AND I'LL SPEND SOME TIME WITH THIS IN A MINUTE. GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHEN A STATUTE OF THE SAME TYPE INCLUDES LANGUAGE INTENTIONALLY, I HATE THAT. I JUST USE INTENTIONALLY, BUT IT USES SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AND THEN STATUTES IN KIND OF THE SAME DOCUMENT DO NOT USE THAT LANGUAGE. THERE'S USUALLY SOME TYPE OF INFERENCE THAT CAN BE MADE, OTHERWISE THERE'S NO REASON FOR THAT LANGUAGE TO BE INCLUDED AT ALL. IF IT'S INCLUDED FOR CATEGORY ONE, IT'S BECAUSE IT WAS MEANT TO BE THERE. IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN OTHER PLACES. GENERALLY SPEAKING, IT'S BECAUSE IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE THERE. YES, SIR. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AS FAR AS THAT INTENT. SO ACTUALLY BEFORE I MOVE BACK TO THAT CHIEF, I, AND I AGREE WITH YOU, CORPORAL JONES ABSOLUTELY DID INTERRUPT THE SERGEANT MULTIPLE TIMES. HOWEVER, ON THE SUBJECT OF WHAT CHANGES WERE BEING SOUGHT, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I BELIEVE MULTIPLE TIMES ON THAT VIDEO HE ASKED THE SERGEANT IN A FAIRLY CALM TONE WHAT CHANGES THE SERGEANT WANTED TO SEE. AND TO MY RECOLLECTION, PROBABLY BETWEEN THREE AND FOUR TIMES THE ANSWER WAS EITHER A COMPLETE NON-ANSWER OR I THINK ONE TIME WE GOT THE WHOLE THING. MM-HMM . WAS THE ANSWER THAT WAS YES, SIR. AND YOU'VE BEEN HERE ALL DAY, YOU'VE NOTICED THAT I'VE ASKED A FEW TIMES IN A FEW DIFFERENT WAYS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT SPECIFICALLY WAS ASKED TO BE CHANGED. UM, BUT ANYWAY, I I KNOW YOU HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THAT. I WON'T BELABOR THAT POINT WITH YOU AS FAR AS INTENTIONALITY, AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU 100%. AND I'M, I HAVEN'T COME TO ANY LEGAL CONCLUSION. [04:55:01] I I WANTED TO SPEND SOME TIME WITH THE LAWYERS ON THAT QUESTION. UM, BUT YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU CAN SEE WHAT HIS INTENT WAS IN HIS ACTIONS. YEAH, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT REQUIRES THE INTENT. I MEAN, LIKE GOING BACK TO CATEGORY ONE, IT SAYS THERE'S NO INTENT REQUIRED. COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. AND AGAIN, THAT'S A LEGAL ISSUE. WE'LL SORT THROUGH IN WATCHING THE VIDEO, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT, AND IT'S OKAY IF YOU HAVE NO IDEA THAT IT'S MORE LIKELY THAN NOT HE HAD THE INTENT TO EMBARRASS OR DISRESPECT THE SERGEANT OR WHETHER HIS INTENT WAS TO MISGUIDED IT OR NOT PROTECT TRAINEE CRIMES? UM, IT IS MY OPINION, AND THIS IS WHY I KIND OF CAME TO THIS DECISION OF SUSTAINED AND THEN SUSTAINED A FOUR DAYS, WHICH, UM, INITIALLY WAS THINKING EVEN HIGHER THAN THAT. BUT I DO THINK THAT, UM, CORPORAL JONES IS A MAN WITH A BIG HEART. AND I THINK HIS EMOTIONS AND HIS, THAT HEART GOT THE BEST OF HIM THAT DAY. HIS DESIRE TO STICK UP FOR OFFICER JONES CLOUDED HIS JUDGMENT TO WHERE THAT HE DID VIOLATE THESE OTHER STATUTES. AND HE DID BECOME INSUBORDINATE TO HIS SUPERVISORS. NO MATTER WHAT HIS, HIS GOOD HARDNESS FELT HIM TO DO, HE STEPPED OVER A LINE ON HOW HE BEHAVED AND HOW HE DID NOT LISTEN TO HIS SUPERVISORS. UNDERSTOOD. AND I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO COMPLETELY CONTRADICT HIM, BUT THE SERGEANT SEEMED TO TESTIFY THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THIS WAS A GRAND AGENDA FOR THE CORPORAL TO COME IN, KIND OF DRUM THIS UP, USE TRAINEE GRIMES WAS I BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE YES. IN ORDER TO GET HIM. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT'S WHAT WAS HAPPENING? THE, THE LANGUAGE IN THE REPORT IS WEIRD TO THAT LIKE, NO, YOU DEFINITELY NEED TO PUT IN HERE. SERGEANT SMITH ORDERED THIS. SO I CAN SEE WHERE THAT THAT COMES FROM. A HUNDRED PERCENT BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE IN THE REPORT KIND OF LEADS TO THAT. WHEN IT COMES TO THE MEETING THAT CORPORAL JONES IS THE ONE THAT CALLED IT. UM, AND MAYBE WHY WE DIDN'T GET THAT ANSWER FROM SERGEANT SMITH IS HE WASN'T READY TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION. HE WASN'T READY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT NEEDED TO BE CHANGED IN THE REPORT. HE WAS DOING HIS NORMAL SERGEANT THINGS. HE WAS OUT IN THE FIELD AND GOT CALLED TO THE OFFICE. AND THEN YOU, AT THE BEGINNING YOU SAW HE'S STILL DEALING WITH HIS OTHER OFFICERS IN THE FIELD. HE WASN'T READY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT NEEDED TO BE CHANGED IN THE REPORT. THIS IS A, THIS WAS BROUGHT ONTO HIM VERY SUDDENLY AND QUICKLY BY CORPORAL JONES. NOTHING FURTHER FROM ME. THANK YOU, CHIEF. YES, SIR. AND FURTHER COMMENTS FOR THE BOYS. I I ACTUALLY HAVE A COUPLE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. UM, EARLIER CORPORAL JONES SAID THAT HE KEPT ALLUDING TO SOMETHING BEING DELETED, A REPORT BEING DELETED. UH, DO YOU RECALL THAT PART OF THE TESTIMONY? I DO. I THINK THAT, UM, THE LANGUAGE WAS GETTING MIXED UP A LOT. UM, BECAUSE DELETING A REPORT JUST IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN. UM, I BELIEVE MAYBE THE NARRATIVE GOT FOR THE SUPPLEMENT THAT HAD NOT BEEN APPROVED YET. MM-HMM . MAYBE THE NARRATIVE. AND THE ONLY PERSON THAT COULD HAVE DONE THAT WOULD'VE BEEN THE AUTHOR OF THE REPORT OR UNDER HIGH LEVEL AUTHORITY FROM THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE SYSTEM. SO I THINK THAT WAS A MISSPEAK OF THE NARRATIVE GETTING CHANGED OR DELETED. BUT A REPORT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED UNLESS IT WAS BY MOBILE DATA AND HIGHER LEVEL AUTHORITIES OR OFFICER WITH A LOT OF DOCUMENTATION OFFICER. RIGHT. OFFICER GRIMES, ONCE THE REPORT'S APPROVED, HE CAN'T EVEN DELETE THE REPORT. SO IF IT'S UNAPPROVED, HE CAN CHANGE IT AND MODIFY IT AS LONG, AS MUCH AS HE WANTS AS THE AUTHOR OF THAT REPORT. ALRIGHT. LET'S GET OUR TIMELINE TOGETHER ON MAY 11TH WHEN THIS IS ALL HAPPENING. IS THE REPORT APPROVED AT THIS POINT? THE ONE THAT I WAS HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT, THE SUPPLEMENTAL ONES HAVE NOT. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS AN INITIAL THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED. OKAY. UM, BUT THE ONES THAT I WAS LOOKING AT, NO MA'AM. NO SIR. DID, UM, DID CORPORAL JONES TELL YOU IN THE PRE DISTRICT SOMETHING HAD BEEN DELETED? DID HE, HE MAKE THAT SAME DEFENSE? HE, HE MADE THE SAME THINGS ABOUT THE NARRATIVE BEING CHANGED, THE NARRATIVE BEING DELETED, TRYING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM. AND IT WAS KIND OF THE SAME TALKING IN CIRCLES LIKE, NO, THAT CAN'T HAPPEN OR IT CAN'T BE DELETED. WAS THERE ANY STEPS TAKEN BY YOU GUYS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT EXACTLY. NOT AFTER, AFTER WE HAD HIS LAUDER MILL HEARING AND UM, HE PRESENTED HIS STUFF AND THEN I MADE MY RULING. OKAY. ALRIGHT. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. HOW MANY, UH, OTHER, UH, WITNESSES WE HAVE? THIS IS MY LAST ONE. THAT'S YOUR LAST ONE. THEY, UH, I BELIEVE HAVE SOME WITNESSES THEY INTENDED ME UP TO, I BELIEVE. WELL, I I THINK WE ARE GONNA DO A FIVE MINUTE RECESS FOR BATHROOM PURPOSES. GOOD IDEA. YEAH. OKAY. AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, CHIEF. [05:04:18] SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A PROBLEM WITH GOING LAST. IF I HOLD Y'ALL TOO LONG, YOU'RE GONNA BE MAD AT ME. . NAH, IT'S, IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE. YOU LAUGH MAN. YOU GOTTA GIVE YOUR DAY. YOU GOTTA GIVE YOUR TOWEL. YEAH, I WAS RIGHT THERE. RECONVENE. I'LL BE READY TO PROCEED. GO RIGHT AHEAD. THANK YOU. CALL YOUR FIRST WITNESS. UM, I'D LIKE TO CALL, UH, OFFICER GRIMES. [05:05:04] GOOD AFTERNOON. OFFICER GRAHAMS, IS THAT MIC ON? THERE'S A LITTLE BUTTON AT THE BOTTOM THERE. THE GREEN LIGHT WILL COME ON. YEAH, IT'S RIGHT. NO, IT'S AT THE BOTTOM OF THE MIC. YEAH. THERE WE GO. GOOD AFTERNOON. YEAH, THERE WE GO. OFFICER GRAHAMS, COULD YOU, UH, COULD YOU STATE YOUR, YOUR FULL NAME AND TITLE? OFFICER GRIMES. WELL, RONALD GRIMES, UH, UP SECOND DISTRICT. UH, AND YOUR BUSINESS ADDRESS? 9,000 ALLEN HIGHWAY. UH, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HOLD THE MIC. IT, IT STAYS ON. YEAH, IT'S AN ON OFFICER. YEAH. OH, OKAY. UH, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN, UH, WITH THE BAT ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT? UH, GOING ALMOST TWO YEARS, BUT AS AN OFFICER, UH, SINCE FEBRUARY I GRADUATED. SO YOU, YOU'VE BEEN AN OFFICER SINCE, UH, FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. DO YOU KNOW WHY YOU'RE HERE TODAY? YEAH. DEALING WITH THIS SITUATION, THIS UH, THIS MAY 11TH SITUATION? YEAH, CURRENTLY, UM, SINCE MAY 11TH, HAVE YOU BEEN, ARE YOU A FULL FLEDGED OFFICER? YOU'RE NOT A PART OF THE TRAINEE PROGRAM ANYMORE, ARE YOU? YES, SIR. OKAY. SO WHEN YOU WERE ASSIGNED A FTO, UH, WAS CORPORAL JONES YOUR ORIGINAL FTO? YES, SIR. UM, COULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR, JUST GENERALLY YOUR INTERACTIONS WITH CORPORAL JONES? UH, HE IS MY FTO. WE PATROLLED AND HE TOLD ME EVERYTHING I NEED TO KNOW. UM, THE THINGS HE TAUGHT YOU THAT YOU NEEDED TO KNOW, UM, NOW THAT YOU'RE AN OFFICER, HOW WOULD YOU, HOW DO YOU SAY THAT EXPERIENCE WAS DEAD ON? UM, DEAD ON AS IN, WAS IT A PLEASANT EXPERIENCE? OH YEAH. I WAS KIND OF UPSET THAT I DIDN'T GET TO GO BACK FOR MY FOURTH PHASE, BUT YEAH. SO IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU LEARNED A LOT FROM OFFICER JONES? YES. UM, BEFORE WE GET INTO MAY 11TH, LET'S GO BACK A LITTLE BIT WITH THIS REPORT. UM, DO YOU RECALL THE, THE INCIDENT IN QUESTION, UH, THAT STARTED THESE INITIAL POLICE REPORTS? YES. UH, CAN YOU TELL US BRIEFLY, LIKE, UH, WHAT YOU REMEMBER? UM, I MEAN WE WROTE THE REPORT AS IT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT AND, UM, THE YOUNG LADY WANTED IT CHANGED AND ALTERED AND I WASN'T DOING THAT. UH, TELL ME THIS, UH, AND OFFICER, I WANT YOU TO KNOW, I MEAN, YOU'RE UNDER, YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN UNDER OATH. PLEASE SPEAK FREELY. I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE A YOUNG OFFICER. THERE'S A CHIEF HERE, THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE. UH, I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW YOU CAN SPEAK FREELY AND BEING HONEST ABOUT ALL THIS. AND, AND TO BE CLEAR, HAVE YOU EVER MET ME OR TALKED TO ME BEFORE TODAY? NO, SIR. OKAY. AND MY NAME'S PHILLIP ROBINSON, BY THE WAY. UM, OFFICER GRIME. SO WHEN YOU WROTE THAT REPORT, DO YOU RECALL IF YOUR BODY CAMERA WAS ON THAT DAY? SO THAT DAY MY BODY CAM WAS DOCKED. WE HAD JUST DOCKED IT 'CAUSE WE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GOING IN FOR A MEETING WITH OUR LIEUTENANT AND WE ENDED UP HAVING A HOT CALL, LIKE STRAIGHT OUT. SO, SO I'M NOT A POLICE OFFICER. SO WHEN YOU SAY DOCKED, YOU MEAN IT WAS, IT WAS NOT ON, IT WAS PLACED SOMEWHERE? YEAH, IT WAS PLACED ON THE DOCK IN THE MEETING ROOM. AND YOU'RE CERTAIN YOU DIDN'T HAVE A BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE THAT DAY? YEAH, I DIDN'T. SO IF SOMEONE TESTIFIED THAT THEY WATCHED YOUR BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE, THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH, CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. SO YOU ALL WERE GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO CHARGE THE YOUNG LADY, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. UM, AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT THAT INITIALLY WAS? UM, I CAN'T, I DON'T WANT TO LIE, BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS, BUT I KNOW, YEAH, WE HAD ALL TALKED ABOUT WHAT IT WAS. DO YOU RECALL, I UNDERSTAND. DO YOU RECALL IF IT WAS A MISDEMEANOR OR A FELONY? IT WAS A MISDEMEANOR. OKAY. DO YOU RECALL WHERE THAT THOSE ORDERS CAME FROM? UH, LIEUTENANT UH, MILLER. OKAY. DO YOU RECALL INITIALLY DRAFTING A REPORT, THE, THE, THE VERY FIRST TIME YOU INSTITUTED A REPORT IN THIS CASE? DO YOU RECALL WHEN THAT WAS? NOT A SPECIFIC DATE AND TIME, BUT JUST GENERALLY, DO YOU RECALL INITIALLY WORKING WITH OFFICER CORPORAL JONES AND DRAFTING A REPORT? NO, SIR. UM, WHEN YOU DRAFTED THE REPORT INITIALLY, DO YOU FEEL LIKE IT WAS ACCURATE BASED ON WHAT YOU SAW AND WHAT [05:10:01] HAPPENED AND WHAT YOU WERE TOLD TO DO? YEAH, IT WAS WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT AND WHAT WAS STATED. OKAY. UM, NOT GOING INTO THE SUPPLEMENTAL JUST YET, UM, BUT THERE BEEN SOME TALKS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT AND DIFFERENT ITEMS SEEN, UM, BOX CUTTERS, I BELIEVE RETRIEVED. DO YOU RECALL EVER SEEING A BOX CUTTER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THIS, IN THIS CASE? NO. AND IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ON YOUR POLICE REPORT, I MEAN, ON YOUR BODY CAMERA? THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. IF I, IF I HAD ONE. OKAY. I DIDN'T HAVE ONE. DO YOU, THERE'S ALSO BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A POLICE REPORT THAT YOUR INITIAL REPORT BEING DELETED. DO YOU KNOW IF YOUR INITIAL REPORT WAS EVER BEFORE THE SUPPLEMENTAL? SO FROM YOUR, YOU SUBMITTING YOUR INITIAL REPORT, BUT BEFORE THE SUPPLEMENTAL BEING ASKED TO DRAFT THE SUPPLEMENTAL, UH, DO YOU RECALL IF THERE WAS ANY DELETIONS OR EDITS OR CHANGES OR ALTERATIONS TO YOUR REPORT? TO THE FIRST REPORT? TO THE FIRST REPORT? YEAH. THERE WAS. DID YOU MAKE THOSE CHANGES? YEAH, AS ADVISED TO. OKAY. WHO ADVISED YOU TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES? SERGEANT SMITH. OKAY. SO PRIOR TO YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ON THIS DAY THAT YOU DISCUSSED, IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS AN INITIAL REPORT AND SERGEANT SMITH ASKED YOU TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES? YES SIR. OKAY. DID YOU CONTACT ANYONE ELSE AFTER BEING ADVISED TO MAKE THOSE MAKE CHANGES? CONTACT ANYONE? DID YOU CONTACT CORPORAL JONES OR NO? NO, ME AND THE PERSON I WAS WORKING WITH THAT DAY MADE THEM CHANGES. OKAY. WHEN DOES CORPORAL JONES COME IN? WHEN DID CORPORAL JONES COME IN ABOUT THIS CA THIS CASE AND THESE REPORTS TO YOU? WHEN I RETYPED IT AND SENT IT TO HIM FOR APPROVING, 'CAUSE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO CHECK ALL MY REPORTS BEFORE I SUBMIT 'EM. OKAY. AND AND HOW DID THAT CONVERSATION GO? WHY DID I CHANGE IT? THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED AND YOU KNOW, I LET HIM KNOW WHY I CHANGED IT THAT I WAS ADVISED TO. SO TELL ME THIS, WHAT, WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THE CHANGES YOU MADE AND THE INITIAL REPORT? DO YOU RECALL IF, WHAT WAS DIFFERENT? YEAH, EVERYTHING THAT SHE SAID THAT HAPPENED THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN, I HAD TO PUT IT INTO WORDS AS IF I WAS TOLD THAT THAT NIGHT OR THAT WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT. SO, AND THAT WAS DONE AND WAS FOR CLARITY. WAS SERGEANT SMITH ON THE SCENE WITH YOU ALL THAT NIGHT? I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NIGHT OF THE CALL. YEAH, I HONESTLY NOW I OKAY. I, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO I WAS ABOUT TO. OKAY. I KNOW YOU, YOU'VE PROBABLY BEEN TO MANY CALLS SINCE THIS INCIDENT. YEAH. UM, OKAY. UH, SO WHEN CORPORAL JONES RAISED SOME HESITATION IN WHAT YOU WERE TOLD TO DO, UM, DID HE EXPRESS TO YOU THAT IT MAY BE UNLAWFUL? YEAH. HOW DID THAT MAKE YOU FEEL? I'M LIKE, I JUST WANNA COMPLETE FTO, I AIN'T TRYING TO GET IN NO TROUBLE. SO HE EXPLAINED TO ME WHY YOU DON'T, UH, DO CERTAIN THINGS AND YOU WRITE IT AS IT HAPPENED, AS FACTS AS YOU CAN. SO WAS IT CORPORAL JONES' RECOMMENDATION TO YOU TO, TO ADD THE ADDITIONAL THINGS BUT BUT TO DO IT IN A FORM OF A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT? CORRECT. UH, IS THAT WHAT YOU, WERE YOU TRAINED TO DO THAT WAS ANY, DID ANYONE ELSE ADVISE YOU TO DO THAT MAYBE IN THE FTO PROGRAM OR, UH, IF YOU RECALL? I MEAN, GENERAL POLICY WHEN IT HAPPENED, WHEN I WAS FACED WITH IT. 'CAUSE THAT WAS MY FIRST TIME GOING THROUGH IT. OKAY. YEAH, HE, HE HELPED ME THROUGH THAT. OKAY. SO YOU DRAFTED A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT? YEAH. UM, IN THIS VIDEO WHEN YOU DID GET A CHANCE, AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, YOU SEEM LIKE YOU WANTED TO EXPLAIN THE SITUATION BEFORE THINGS ESCALATED. UM, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR NOW. UM, WHAT WOULD YOU, JUST REGARDING THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT, CAN YOU JUST GIVE ME A RUNDOWN OF, OF WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO DO WHEN YOU WENT ON MAY 11TH? WELL, I WANTED TO SPEAK MY PIECE ABOUT THE WHOLE THING 'CAUSE UM, WHEN I HAD GOT THAT MESSAGE I WAS LIKE, LIKE, I'M NOT ABOUT TO GET WROTE UP FOR THIS. AND WHEN YOU GOT, WHEN YOU SAY THE MESSAGE, WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO SPECIFICALLY? WHEN SERGEANT SMITH EMAILED ME AND TEXT ME THAT I WAS GONNA HAVE DISCIPLINARY ACTION IF I DIDN'T CHANGE THE REPORT. UM, JUST HOW DID THAT MAKE YOU FEEL? HONESTLY, HONESTLY I WAS UPSET BECAUSE I'M LIKE, I DID THE RIGHT THING AND I'M GETTING IN TROUBLE AND I'M STANDING ON WHAT, YOU KNOW, AFTER WE WENT THROUGH SO MANY PEOPLE WHO SAID, HEY, NAH, THIS IS RIGHT, THIS IS HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DONE. AND STILL BEING TOLD, HEY, DO IT THIS WAY OR YOU GONNA GET, [05:15:01] YOU KNOW, DISCIPLINED FOR IT. I WAS LIKE, IT, I DON'T KNOW IT, IT MADE THAT WHOLE EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRST PHASE OF FTO HORRIBLE AND UH, I WAS REALLY GETTING TIRED OF IT. YEAH. OF THE WHOLE TRAINING PHASE. I UNDERSTAND. UM, IS THAT WHY YOU, WHEN YOU GOT THAT TEXT, IS THAT WHY YOU CONTACTED CORPORAL JONES OR DID YOU CONTACT ANYONE ELSE? I CONTACTED, UM, UH, I CONTACTED JONES AND THEN I CONTACTED MY CURRENT, UH, FTO AT THAT TIME AND MY SUPERVISORS AT THAT TIME TOO. AND THEY TOLD ME TO GET WITH CORPORAL JONES WITH IT 'CAUSE HE WAS THE INITIAL FTO AT THAT TIME. SO EVEN IF CORPORAL JONES WASN'T YOUR CURRENT FTO, DID YOU WANT CORPORAL JONES TO BE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IN THIS MEETING? DID YOU WANT HIM TO GO WITH YOU? YEAH, THAT'S WHY I CALLED HIM. YOU CALLED HIM BECAUSE YOU WANTED HIM TO TO ESSENTIALLY REPRESENT YOU IN THIS MEETING? YEAH, BECAUSE HE KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH IT. I COULDN'T BRING IN A FTO THAT DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE WHOLE SITUATION OF WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT. 'CAUSE THE WHOLE THING IN QUESTION WAS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT AND WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT BRIEFLY. SO WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN? SO, AS FAR AS I CAN REMEMBER, 'CAUSE THIS HAPPENED A WHILE AGO. WE GOT TO THE CALL, WE HANDLED IT AS IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HANDLED AND THEN LATER ON DAYS LATER, THE LADY CONTACTED ME AND SHE WANTED THINGS CHANGED AND HER EXACT WORDS WAS, I WANT HER TO RIDE IN PRISON. BUT SHE STARTED STATING ALL THIS AND I WAS LIKE, MA'AM, I CAN'T DO THAT. YOU KNOW? DO YOU FEEL THAT IT WOULD'VE BEEN UNLAWFUL FOR YOU TO ALTER THE REPORT AS INSTRUCTED BY SERGEANT SMITH AS IN THE PUT LIKE SHE TOLD ME THOSE THINGS THAT SHE TOLD HIM? YES. 'CAUSE IT WAS, INSTEAD OF IT SAYING WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT, IT WOULD'VE TOOK WHAT WAS SAID DAYS LATER AND PUT IT AS INTO SHE TOLD ME THIS OR THIS IS WHAT I SEEN AND EVERYTHING. EVEN FROM THE VIDEO EVIDENCE THAT SHE SUBMITTED, THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED. OKAY. SO TELL ME THIS, UH, WHEN YOU WENT IN THIS MEETING, MAY 11TH, BEFORE MAYBE EVEN AFTER JONES LEFT, WHAT DID YOU BELIEVE SERGEANT SMITH WANTED YOU TO CHANGE? TAKE HIS NAME OUT THE REPORT AND PUT IT AS IT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT. LIKE HE KEPT TELLING ME OVER AND OVER LIKE WE DID WHEN WE CHANGED FROM THE FIRST REPORT TO THE SECOND REPORT TO THE THIRD REPORT AND TO THE FINAL REPORT THAT'S LOCKED IN RMS 'CAUSE I CAN'T GET THAT REPORT. I CAN'T EVEN OPEN THE RMS. WOULD YOU HAVE FELT GOING BACK TO MAY 11TH AND WHERE I KNOW YOU'RE MORE ADVANCED NOW THAN WHERE YOU WERE THEN, UH, WOULD YOU HAVE FELT SAFE AS A ROOKIE OFFICER, COUPLE MONTHS, YOU KNOW, STILL IN TRAINING, WHATEVER PHASE YOU WERE IN THE FTO PROGRAM, GOING INTO THAT MEETING BY YOURSELF AS TODAY, THEN DID YOU, WOULD YOU HAVE FELT COMFORTABLE BACK THEN GOING INTO THAT MEETING BY YOURSELF? NO. 'CAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT, NO, I'M STILL NEW TO THE WHOLE THING AND YOU ASK ANYBODY THAT KNOW ME, I'M REAL BIG ON TRYING NOT TO VIOLATE POLICY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO AT THAT TIME I WAS STILL LEARNING. SO TELL ME THIS, DO YOU FEEL ANY TYPE OF REMORSE OR, OR, OR DO YOU HAVE ANY FEELINGS ABOUT HOW THIS WHOLE SITUATION TRANSPIRED OR THE SITUATION OFFICER JONES FINDS HIMSELF IN? WHAT YOU MEAN? I DON'T OBJECT TO THE RELEVANCY OF THAT QUESTION. OKAY. WELL, I I'LL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION. DON'T ANSWER IT. UH, DO YOU FEEL ANY TYPE OF REPRIMAND FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY? OBJECTION, RELEVANCY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE. IT SPEAKS TO HIS TRUTHFULNESS AND HIS CREDIBILITY. AND WHILE HE'S TESTIFYING TODAY, I'M NOT DISPUTING HIS CREDIBILITY. I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT CORPORAL JONES, UH, SHOULD, VIOLATION, SHOULD BE UPHELD. THAT, THAT'S, LET'S, LET'S MOVE FORWARD. OKAY. TOWARD THE END OF THIS VIDEO. UM, OFFICER JONES LEAVES, UH, CORPORAL ALEXANDER COMES, UH, WHEN CORPORAL ALEXANDER IS IS IN THERE AND YOU'RE TALKING, UH, DO YOU FEEL LIKE THERE'S ANY CHANGES YOU NEED TO MAKE TO THIS REPORT? [05:20:01] DO I FEEL LIKE THERE'S ANY CHANGES I NEED TO MAKE? YEAH. UH, NO. AT THIS POINT YOU'VE BEEN CONTACTED BY SEVERAL PEOPLE, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. UH, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, UH, BLACKWELL. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE YOU'VE DONE, WHEN YOU'RE SITTING IN THIS CHAIR, BEFORE YOU'RE ASKED QUESTIONS, DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'VE DONE EVERYTHING AS YOU'VE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO DO AND TRAINED TO DO? YES SIR. UH, DO YOU FEEL REGARDING YOUR TRAINING WITH, WITH CORPORAL JONES, DO YOU FEEL ANY TYPE OF MIS TRAINING OR, OR DO YOU FEEL LIKE HE'S DONE ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE IN HIS TRAINING OF YOU? NOT TO ME, NO. OKAY. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ON THAT LINE. SERGEANT SMITH, IN THE PROCESS OF YOU BEING UNDER CORPORAL JONES'S TUTORSHIP, DO YOU RECALL EVER HEARING SERGEANT SMITH TALK DOWN ABOUT CORPORAL JONES? I'M GONNA OBJECT TO RELEVANCY. IT'S STILL NOT RELATED TO WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE TODAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS ABOUT TO INDICATE. UH, MR. ROBINSON, I THINK YOU NEED TO MOVE AWAY FROM THAT ON THE DAY OF MAY 11TH. I WITHDRAW THAT QUESTION. THANK YOU. BOOR OFFICER GRABS ON ON MAY 11TH. DID YOU FEAR SERGEANT SMITH? I AIN'T GONNA SAY I FEARED HIM, BUT I DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE BEING THERE. THAT'S WHY I WASN'T, UH, REALLY TALKING TO HIM TOO MUCH. AND ANYTIME I DID HAVE TO TALK TO HIM, I WOULD CONTACT ONE OF MY FTOS 'CAUSE I WASN'T TRYING TO GET IN NO TROUBLE WITH SAYING THE WRONG THING OR DOING THE WRONG THING AND NOT KNOWING HOW TO HANDLE MYSELF WITH THE SITUATION I HAD. OFFICER GRIMES, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. PLEASE ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS DURING YOUR RYAN TEST. OFFICER GRIMES. JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS. UM, ON THE SCENE IN MARCH, YOU, YOU TESTIFIED THAT ABOUT THAT A MINUTE AGO. UM, AND YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT WHO WAS PRESENT. YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T RECALL EXACTLY WHO WAS PRESENT. I UNDERSTAND THAT'S A LONG TIME AGO. UM, NOW YOU SAID YOUR BODY CAMERA WAS DOCKED. IF YOU WOULD TURN TO EXHIBIT SIX, PAGE TWO FOR ME. SO THERE'S A BOOK IN FRONT OF YOU, IT'S GOT TABS. TURN TO TAB SIX FOR ME AND GO TO THE SECOND PAGE. YEAH. AND THEN LETTER A, THE LAST PAGE OF THAT, THIS IS A, A, A, A MEMO FROM SERGEANT SMITH AND IT SAYS ON THE NIGHT OF THE INCIDENT MARCH 25, AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE INCIDENT WAS CAPTURED ON CORPORAL JONES, CORPORAL PENSON, CORPORAL MARMAL AND OFFICER HOWARD'S BODY CAMERA, UM, AS WELL AS FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE EVENTS UNDER THE FILE NUMBER. SO DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS WERE OUT THERE THAT EVENING, UH, AS WELL AS YOU YES, SIR. OKAY. SO IF SERGEANT SMITH WAS TALKING ABOUT REVIEWING BODY CAM FOOTAGE, IT COULD HAVE BEEN ONE OF THOSE OTHER FOUR INDIVIDUALS CAMERA THAT HE WAS, OR FOOTAGE THAT HE WAS REVIEWING, CORRECT? YES SIR. OKAY. UM, AND YOU WOULD AGREE THAT ON MAY 11 WHEN YOU WENT TO MEET WITH SERGEANT SMITH, CORPORAL JONES WAS NOT YOUR FTO, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND HE WAS NOT AN APPOINTED UNION REPRESENTATIVE TO YOU? NO. OKAY. HE WAS MY FTO FROM THE INITIAL REPORT. RIGHT. ON THE DATE THAT YOU INITIALLY DID THE REPORT, HE WAS YOUR FTO AT THE TIME THAT YOU HAD THE MEETING ON MAY 11, HE HAD NO SUPERVISORY CAPACITY OVER YOU, CORRECT? I GUESS NOT. I, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT GOES THOUGH. NO. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? UH, YES PLEASE. BRIEF REDIRECT. UH, ON THE DAY WHERE YOU INTERVIEW, YOU CAME OUT HERE FOR THIS INITIAL POLICE REPORT. UH, DID YOU SEE ANY KIND OF BOX CUTTER OR DANGER DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTALITY WHEN YOU WERE ON THE SCENE? NO. DID ANYONE ELSE? NOT THAT I CAN REMEMBER. [05:25:01] OTHER THAN SERGEANT SMITH AND THE, THE ALLEGED VICTIM WHO CONTACTED YOU? DID ANYONE ELSE MAKE REFERENCE? DO YOU RECALL ANYONE ELSE HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH YOU ABOUT ANY KIND OF DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTALITY OR, OR BOX CUTTERS? I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR, BUT I'M GONNA GONNA OBJECT 'CAUSE IT'S OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF CROSS. UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR WE'RE GOING HERE, BUT IT IS SUSTAINED. IT WAS, IT WAS LITERALLY A QUESTION HE ASKED, BUT I UNDERSTAND. BUT NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. OFFICER GRIMES, DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR OFFICER GRIMES? NO. OKAY. YOUR NEXT WITNESS, OFFICER GRIMES, YOU ARE RELEASED FROM THE RULE OF SEQUESTRATION AND YOUR SUBPOENA. YOU ARE FREE TO STAY IF YOU'D LIKE OR YOU CAN LEAVE. THANK YOU. LET'S TRY AND REMEMBER, PLEASE, THE REASON THAT WE ARE HERE AND THE ISSUES THAT BEFORE THIS BOARD, LET'S NOT INTRODUCE NEW ONES, PLEASE. UNDERSTOOD. I WAS GONNA OBJECT JU JUST AS A MATTER OF, UH, PROCEDURE. I GUESS I WOULD MAKE AN OBJECTION HERE TO THE TESTIMONY OF CORPORAL ALEXANDER, JUST 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK IT RELATES TO THE ISSUE AT HAND, WHICH IS THE VIOLATIONS. UM, IT RELATES TO INCIDENT OR DISCUSSIONS THAT WERE HAD ON CAMERA WELL AFTER THE INCIDENT OCCURRED WITH CORPORAL JONES AND REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT, UH, THE VIOLATIONS WERE SUSTAINED AGAINST HIM. I'LL LET HER TESTIFY. I AND I RECOGNIZE THAT, BUT WE DID WATCH THE VIDEO AND SO I THINK THE BOARD MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN HEARING WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY. SO THAT'S OVERRULED. CORPORAL ALEXANDER, UH, COULD YOU STATE YOUR FULL NAME? UH, RANK AND TITLE? MM-HMM . IT'S CORPORAL HALEY ALEXANDER, UH, WITH THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT. UH, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WITH THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT? FOR ALMOST EIGHT YEARS. UM, WE'VE WATCHED, UH, A VIDEO AND WE SAW REFERENCED YOU MAY REFERENCE IN THE VIDEO TO, UH, YOUR MILITARY SERVICE. COULD YOU STATE YOUR MILITARY RECORD FOR? I'VE BEEN IN THE MILITARY FOR ROUGHLY 11 YEARS. OKAY. IN THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD. OKAY. AND DO YOU HAVE A ROLE, UH, WITH THE UNION? I DO, SIR. UH, WHAT'S THAT ROLE? I'M THE UNION SECRETARY, SIR. OKAY. UH, DO YOU KNOW WHY YOU'RE HERE TODAY? YES, SIR. OKAY. REGARDING THE REASON WHY YOU'RE HERE TODAY AND THE DATE IN QUESTION OF MAY 11TH, UM, CAN YOU TELL US HOW YOU CAME TO ARRIVE, UH, ON THIS MATTER? YES, SIR. I RECEIVED A CALL FROM OFFICER AARON SAIN, UM, IN REFERENCE TO HER CURRENT AT THE TIME. UH, OFFICER GRIMES WAS HER FTO, HER TRAINEE, AND HE WAS WITH CORPORAL JONES. UM, HAVING A MEETING WITH THEIR SUPERVISOR AT THE TIME. UM, AND JUST A, SHE GAVE ME A RUNDOWN OF OFFICER JONES WAS ESCORTED OFF THE, UH, OUT OF THE DISTRICT. AND OFFICER GRIMES NEEDED A UNION REP AT THE TIME. SO I RESPONDED. ARE OFFICERS ENTITLED TO REPRESENTATION? UH, ABSOLUTELY, SIR. DO YOU FEEL THAT THIS WAS, THIS MEETING, UM, WAS AN, UH, A MEETING WHERE REPRESENTATION, IN YOUR OPINION, BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A SECRETARY, UH, WITH THE UNION WHERE REPRESENTATION WOULD BE WARRANTED? ABSOLUTELY, SIR. UM, DID, DID AARON TELL YOU THAT OFFICER GRIMES WAS GOING, WAS, WAS AT THIS MEETING OR WAS GONNA BE AT THIS MEETING? YES, SIR. DID SHE TELL YOU AS IF HE WAS, WAS IN PLACE OF HER OR STANDING IN FOR HER OR YOU, DO YOU RECALL? IT'S A PERSONAL CONVERSATION SHE HAD. I'M ASKING HER, THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF HEARSAY. AND HEARSAY IS ADMITTED IN THIS HEARING. I, I, I UNDERSTAND. BUT LET'S, LET'S, LET'S LET HER ANSWER OVERRULE. UH, OFFICER LISSE, UH, ARE YOU ASKING IF OFFICER JONES WAS IN PLACE OF OFFICER LISSE? I'M NOT, OR, YES. YES. UH, SHE WAS OUT OF TOWN AT THE TIME. AND WHEN OFFICER GRIMES WAS WITH, UH, OFFICER JONES DURING THE FTO PHASE, UM, THEY TOOK A REPORT TOGETHER AND THAT'S WHAT THE MEETING WAS ABOUT. OKAY. [05:30:02] WE'VE WATCHED THE VIDEO, UH, WHERE YOU COME IN AND YOU'RE EXPLAINING AND, AND YOU SEEM RESTRAINED AND YOU, YOU ALLOW, UH, SERGEANT SMITH TO, TO SPEAK. UM, WAS THERE ANY CHANGES THAT YOU FELT NEEDED TO BE MADE OR NOT EVEN IF YOU FELT THAT, WERE YOU, DID YOU COME THERE KNOWING THAT ANY CHANGES NEEDED TO BE MADE TO THIS REPORT? YES, SIR. AND WHAT CHANGES WERE THOSE? UH, THEY WANTED OFFICER GRIMES TO TAKE INFORMATION OUT OF THE REPORT THAT HE WAS TOLD NOT TO BY OFFICER JONES AND HIS CURRENT FDO OFFICER LISSE AND HER SUPERVISORS. UH, DID YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES IN YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE, THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AS, AS OFFICER GRIME SAT THERE WITH YOU? I DID NOT READ THE REPORT PRIOR TO RESPONDING TO THE DISTRICT. OKAY. I WAS JUST THERE AS HIS UNION REPRESENTATION. IN THE EVENT THAT HE WAS IN ANY TROUBLE, WAS IT EVER EXPRESSED TO YOU OR DID YOU EVER COME UPON KNOWING, UH, WHAT INFORMATION THEY WANTED OFFICER GRIMES TO CHANGE OR ALTER AFTER THE FACT? YES, SIR. UM, BUT NOT DURING THE MEETING? OH, YES, SIR. AND WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU THINK? I DON'T REMEMBER, SIR. OKAY. YEAH, I DON'T REMEMBER. IN THE VIDEO, YOU DO MAKE REFERENCE TO SERGEANT SMITH, UH, I BELIEVE YOU USED THE WORD HOSTILE. YES, SIR. UM, COULD YOU JUST ELABORATE GENERALLY ON WHAT MADE YOU SAY THAT? UM, BASED ON HIS EX, LIKE HIS PREVIOUS INTERACTIONS WITH, UH, CORPORAL JONES HERE AND SOME OF HIS OTHER OFFICERS ON HIS, UH, SQUAD PREVIOUSLY. SO IS IT SAFE TO SAY, UH, A LONG LIST OF PEOPLE COMING TO HELP GRIMES? THERE WASN'T A LONG LIST OF PEOPLE WILLING TO, TO INTERJECT INTO THIS SITUATION? NO, SIR. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A SUSTAINABLE, I, I'M NOT SURE. TELL ME THIS. DON'T, THAT'S, THAT'S THE SAME BASIC, SIR. YEAH. THANK YOU. UH, LAST QUESTION FOR YOU, BUT IN THIS MEETING, DID YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE OR AS A UNION REPRESENTATIVE FOR GRIMES IN THIS MEETING? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. OFFICER, LET ME JUST QUICKLY ASK, WHEN YOU ATTENDED THAT MEETING, WERE YOU AWARE OF WHO CALLED THE MEETING? UH, NO SIR, I WAS NOT. WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD REQUESTED THE MEETING OR THAT CORPORAL JONES? I, I WASN'T RESPONDING THERE FOR CORPORAL JONES. I WAS RESPONDING THERE FOR OFFICER GRIMES. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE MEETING BEFOREHAND WHEN I WAS CALLED AS A UNION REP FOR OFFICER GRIMES. IT WAS BY HIS, HIS CURRENT, HIS FTO AT THE TIME. SO HIS TRAINER AT THE TIME CALLED ME BECAUSE SHE WAS OUT OF TOWN AND NOBODY WAS THERE TO REPRESENT HIM. SHE FELT THAT BASED OFF OF THEIR COMMUNICATION THROUGH TEXT AND PHONE CALL, THAT HE NEEDED SOMEBODY WITH EXPERIENCE THERE TO REPRESENT HIM BECAUSE HE WAS IN SOME TYPE OF TROUBLE. BUT YOU UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS A DISCIPLINARY HEARING? UH, I GUESS, YES, SIR. THANK YOU. CORPORAL ALEXANDER. UM, YOU'RE AWARE, UH, SO YOU WERE NOT AWARE THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY OFFICER JONES THAT CALLED THAT MEETING? NO, SIR. NOT AT THE TIME. OKAY. AND IT WAS OFFICER JONES THAT BROUGHT, I'M SORRY, CORPORAL JONES THAT BROUGHT OFFICER GRIMES TO THAT TO, TO MEET WITH SERGEANT SMITH? YES, SIR. I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT PRIOR. ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU JUST TESTIFIED THAT YOU WERE, UM, TOLD THAT OFFICER GRIMES WAS IN SOME KIND OF TROUBLE? YES. SO WHEN, WHEN OFFICER LISSE CALLED ME, SHE ASKED ME TO GO TO THE DISTRICT TO BE HIS REPRESENTATION BECAUSE AN ALTERCATION OF SOME SITE, UH, OCCURRED WHILE THEY WERE HAVING THIS MEETING WITH, UH, SERGEANT SMITH AND LIEUTENANT MILLER. SO WHEN SOMEBODY TOLD YOU THAT IT WAS AN ALTERCATION, DID THEY TELL YOU WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED? UH, NOT REALLY. NO, SHE WASN'T, SHE WASN'T SURE. SHE WAS, I BELIEVE, MAYBE IN ANOTHER CITY AT THE TIME. SHE WASN'T WORKING. AND OFFICER GRIMES WAS. SO YOU HAD AT LEAST THIRD HAND INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT OCCURRED THAT IN, IN THAT MEETING? YES. IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR. SO YOU WERE CALLED AND YOU SAID, I THINK YOU SAID YOU WERE AT HOME? YES, SIR. OKAY. SO WHEN YOU GET CALLED, WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THAT, DO YOU HAVE TO GET PERMISSION FROM A SUPERVISOR TO GO TO THAT MEETING? NO, SIR. HMM. BUT IF YOU WERE AT WORK, WOULD YOU HAVE TO GET PERMISSION TO, UH, [05:35:01] GO TO A MEETING LIKE THAT? YES. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS DISCIPLINE OR THEY'RE GOING TO LIKE A PREDIS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU'D HAVE TO GET PERMISSION FROM YOUR SUPERVISOR, CORRECT? YES, SIR. I WOULD'VE TO LET THEM KNOW. OKAY. UM, AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S A ROLE THAT YOU PLAY BECAUSE OF YOUR ASSOCIATION WITH THE UNION, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, CORPORAL JONES IS, DOES NOT PLAY THE SAME ROLE WITH THE UNION, CORRECT? HE DOES NOT. OKAY. HE'S NOT A PERSON WHO THE UNION HAS AS AN APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE FOR IT IN THE SAME CAPACITY THAT YOU ARE? NO, SIR. HE DOES NOT. AND IF HE WERE IN THAT SAME CAPACITY, HE'S NOT. BUT IF HE WERE, UM, AND HE WERE ON DUTY, WHICH HE WAS ON MAY 11TH, IF HE WANTED TO GO REPRESENT SOMEBODY, HE WOULD'VE TO GET THE AUTHORITY FROM HIS SUPERVISORS, CORRECT? YES, SIR. OKAY. UM, AND HIS SUPERVISORS WERE SERGEANT SMITH AND LIEUTENANT MILLER, RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, ARE YOU AWARE OF THEM GIVING HIM SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY TO THEN REPRESENT, UH, OFFICER, OFFICER GRIMES? NO, SIR. OKAY. ARE YOU AWARE OF THE DIFFERENT ORDERS THAT WERE GIVEN TO CORPORAL JONES WHILE HE WAS IN THE MEETING THAT DAY WITH THE SUPERVISORS? NO, SIR. NOT. OKAY. LET'S JUST TALK GENERALLY, UM, IF A SUPERVISOR GIVES A DIRECT ORDER TO A, UM, LOWER RANKED OFFICER TO BE QUIET WHILE THEY'RE TRYING TO TALK TO ANOTHER OFFICER, I'D LIKE TO MAKE AN OBJECTION FOR SPECULATION. UM, IT'S A GENERALIZATION THAT SHE JUST TESTIFIED THAT SHE WAS NOT THERE FOR. THIS IS, UM, YOUR WITNESS THAT YOU BROUGHT HERE TO TESTIFY ABOUT THIS EVENT. I'M JUST ASKING ABOUT SPECIFIC THINGS, AND THERE'S ALSO JUST GENERAL POLICY QUESTIONS TO THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE. SO, COUNSEL QUESTION. NO, NOT A QUESTION, BUT THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. YOU SAW WHAT, WHAT I'M SAYING? YEAH, IT'S NOT SPECULATION. YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT'S SPECULATION. I'M GONNA DENY THAT. AND LET'S MOVE ON, FOLKS. YEAH, I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. JUST GENERALLY ORDERS SUCH AS GOING TEN EIGHT, IS THAT AN UNLAWFUL ORDER THAT YOU'RE AWARE? NO, SIR. IT'S NOT. ALRIGHT. BEING DIRECTED TO BE QUIET. IS THAT AN UNLAWFUL ORDER? NO, SIR. IT'S NOT BEING DIRECTED TO LEAVE A ROOM. IS THAT AN UNLAWFUL ORDER? NO, SIR, IT'S NOT. AND IN GENERAL, BEING ASKED TO REVISE A REPORT, IS THAT UNLAWFUL ORDER? NO, SIR. IT'S NOT. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY EXCEPTIONS TO WHEN A, AN ORDER TO REVISE A REPORT WOULD BE UNLAWFUL? IS, IS THERE ANY TIME YOU CAN THINK OF YES, SIR. WHEN THE CHANGES AREN'T FACTUAL? THANK YOU. BOARD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, CORPORAL ALEXANDER? IS IT? YES, SIR. BOARD MEMBER? NO. ALL RIGHT. YOU WERE RELEASED FROM, UH, SEQUESTRATION THE SUBPOENA. YOU'RE WELCOME TO HANG OUT IF YOU'D LIKE, BUT YOU'RE FREE TO GO. THANK YOU, SIR. IT'S TIME TO . ANY OTHER WITNESSES? NO OTHER WITNESSES. HAVE WE GOTTEN ALL THE EXHIBITS IN? UH, DID WE GET ALL YOUR EXHIBITS IN? I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE HAVE, BUT MOST OF OUR EXHIBITS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED THROUGH, UH, YOU KNOW, IT WAS MAINLY THE VIDEO THROUGH ALREADY SUBMITTED THROUGH OPPOSING SITES. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, WE'LL DO CLOSING ARGUMENTS. SAME THING. 10 MINUTES. UH, REAL QUICK, I DON'T KNOW, WHEN I WAS READING THE NUMBERS, I DON'T KNOW IF I SAID TWO, WHICH WAS THE IA FILE WHEN I WAS DOING, WHEN WE, WE DID NOT DO TWO SERGEANT OSBORNE UP HERE. THERE WAS ONE THAT I JUST, A QUESTION WAS, I WAS READING BACK THROUGH 'EM. DID WE PUT TWO IN WHEN? NO, WE DID NOT. DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO TWO BEING PLACED IN? NO OBJECTION. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. ACCEPTED THE LAST ONE. DO I NEED TO READ THE ONES THAT WE, UH, 11? I I THINK THAT'S ALL OF MINE. THAT SHOULD BE EVERYTHING. IT SHOULD BE, SHOULD BE ONE THROUGH, UH, 13 DR. PRESS ONE. WELL, LET'S SEE. 1, 3, 4, 5. WE DIDN'T DO SIX. YEAH, WE DID, WE THAT WAS SERGEANT SMITH. NO, WE, WE TALKED ABOUT THE SIX, BUT WE DID NOT TENDER IT. IT WAS NOT TENDERED. OKAY. LET'S DO IT THIS WAY. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS BINDER THAT YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT'S EASIEST WAY? NO OBJECTION TO THE BINDER. ALRIGHT. WE'LL PUT THE ENTIRE I MADE. YEAH. HOW ABOUT THAT? YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. OKAY. UM, YOU READY FOR CLOSINGS? YES. YES. THANK YOU. ME TOO. JUST A, JUST A FORMALITY. [05:40:01] IS IT A, IS IT A CLOSING? IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR, UH, IS THIS ONE CLOSING PER SIDE OR IS THERE ANY WAY TO SPLIT THE TIME? OR HOW DOES IT, HOW DOES THE BOARD PREFER TO HANDLE JUST ONE 10 MINUTE SESSION? UH, SO TYPICALLY WHAT WE'VE DONE IS, UH, THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY DOES GET A BRIEF REBUTTAL. UH, SO IT'S LIKE ANY OTHER THING, BUT 10 MINUTES PER SIDE AND IT'LL BE A VERY BRIEF REBUT. I UNDERSTAND . YEAH, IT'S OKAY. IT'S GONNA BE A VERY BRIEF CLOSING. , WE WE'LL OUT. Y'ALL WANT US OUT? YEAH. WELL, YOU HAVEN'T DONE THIS IN A WHILE, DR. PI WANT YOU TO GET YOUR MONEY'S WORTH. . UM, ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ALL HAVE SEEN THE VIDEO. UM, THERE'S TWO VIOLATIONS THAT, THAT CHIEF MORRIS UPHELD AGAINST, UH, CORPORAL JONES, UM, CARRYING OUT ORDERS AND INSUBORDINATION. I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT HE WAS, AND I MEAN, HE, HE ADMITTED TO IT. WE TALKED ABOUT HE WAS TOLD TO DO CERTAIN THINGS 15 TIMES, I THINK LEAVE THE ROOM WAS MAYBE 15 TIMES, IS WHAT SHE, UH, CHIEF SAID. UM, BUT YOU HAD THOSE FOUR ORDERS THAT I'VE SAID REPEATEDLY. I'M NOT GONNA SAY IT AGAIN, BUT, UM, HE ADMITTED TO VIOLATING THOSE, THE ONLY ONE THAT HE SAYS WAS UNLAWFUL WAS THE REVISING THE REPORT IS THE ONE THAT HE BELIEVED WAS UNLAWFUL. NOW, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT, UH, EXPLANATION IS THAT HE HAD NO IDEA WHEN HE FIRST STARTED ACTING THAT WAY IN THE MEETING, WHAT IT WAS SPECIFICALLY THAT SERGEANT SMITH WANTED HIM TO CHANGE BECAUSE HE WASN'T THE ONE DIRECTLY DEALING WITH SERGEANT SMITH. IT HAD BEEN, UH, OFFICER GRIMES UP TO THAT POINT. SO HE WAS UNAWARE WHAT IT WAS THAT HE WANTED TO CHANGE, BUT HE HAD A BELIEF THAT IT WAS UNLAWFUL. WELL, THAT DOESN'T GET YOU THERE. UM, THE, THE ORDER AS IT WAS WAS I WANT YOU TO ASSIST OFFICER GRIMES IN REVISING THE REPORT. AND THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT AN UNLAWFUL ORDER. UM, AS I TRIED TO GET HIM TO SEE ON, ON TESTIMONY, THERE WERE OTHER WAYS HE COULD HAVE HANDLED THAT. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS WITHIN POLICY THAT HE COULD HAVE HANDLED THAT, AND IT WOULD'VE BEEN MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE FOR HIM TO DO IT THAT WAY. YOU ALL SAW TWO VERY DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS ON VIDEO. AND WHILE I DIDN'T WANT US TO SPEND TIME DEALING WITH THE, THE SECOND CONVERSATION, YOU SAW HOW CORDIAL IT WAS, EVEN THOUGH THEY DISAGREED ABOUT HOW, HOW THE REPORT WAS TO BE WRITTEN. IT WAS NOT DONE IN SUCH A, AN AGGRESSIVE MANNER. UM, WE SIMPLY CANNOT HAVE THE DEPARTMENT OPERATE IN SUCH A WAY WHERE WE HAVE SUBORDINATE OFFICERS SPEAKING TO AND ACTING LIKE THAT TOWARDS THEIR SUPERIORS. AS CHIEF SAID EARLIER, IT WOULD BE ANARCHY AND IT WOULD, UM, IF THE BOARD WERE TO NOT UPHOLD THAT, UM, ORDER IT AGAIN, I THINK IT WOULD BE ENTIRELY DETRIMENTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT. UM, THE SECOND ONE WAS INSUBORDINATION. INSUBORDINATION. THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS, BUT THE LAST ONE IS RESPECT. AND I, SO I DON'T THINK HE WAS NECESSARILY BEING, UH, VIOLENT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT HE WAS BEING DISRESPECTFUL, UH, TOWARDS HIS SUPERIORS. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY, I MEAN, UM, ANYBODY REVIEWING THAT WOULD THINK THAT THAT IS A RESPECTFUL WAY TO TREAT A SUPERIOR. IT WAS NOT. UM, I THOUGHT CHIEF SAID IT WELL, THAT HE BELIEVES CORPORAL JONES HAS A BIG HEART, UM, THAT HE CARED ABOUT, UH, OFFICER GRIMES AND WANTED NOTHING BAD TO HAPPEN TO HIM. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. UM, BUT AS HE ALSO SAID, HE GOT IT WRONG THAT DAY. HE WENT TOO FAR. THERE'S A LINE THAT HE CROSSED, AND THERE IS, UM, I KNOW WE'VE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT BRIEFLY OR EARLIER, BUT OUR, OUR POLICIES DON'T HAVE ANY INTENT CRITERIA IN THEM. UM, AND OUR BURDEN IS REALLY JUST SHOWING BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT, UH, CHIEF WAS IN GOOD FAITH AND, AND HAD JUST CALLS FOR HIS DECISION. AND SO WHAT IT'S ABOUT IS, DID HE, OKAY, UM, IT'S, AGAIN, IT'S NOT WHETHER OR NOT YOU MIGHT'VE DONE SOMETHING DIFFERENT IF YOU WERE IN THE CHIEF'S PLACE. THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT THE SITUATION. UM, YOU MIGHT'VE DONE SOMETHING MORE HARSH. I MIGHT'VE DONE SOMETHING MORE HARSH, BUT THE CHIEF TRIED TO TAKE THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES INTO CONSIDERATION HE DID HERE. UM, HE COULD HAVE FIRED HIM ON A SPOT. AND I CAN PROMISE YOU IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR THAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED. BUT IN THIS SITUATION, CHIEF SAID, LOOK, I UNDERSTAND WHY HE DID WHAT HE DID. I UNDERSTAND EVEN HIS BELIEF, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T AGREE WITH IT, BUT I'M JUST GIVING HIM FOUR DAYS VERSUS 10, 20 80 OR FIRING HIM. OKAY? THIS WAS AN ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE, AND WE WOULD ASK AGAIN THAT YOU UPHOLD IT. THANK YOU. [05:45:01] ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR? ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. RAINS? OKAY, MR. ROBINSON. WELL BOARD, THANK YOU FOR YOUR, YOUR TIME, MR. I APOLOGIZE. THOSE ARE GOING BE ASKED. THEY SHOULD BE ASKED NOW AS OPPOSED TO AFTER BOTH SIDES. IF YOU ASKED IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, MRS. YES, AND I APOLOGIZE. NO PROBLEM. I, I WAS EXPECTING THAT'S FINE. UM, I, YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I'M COMING. SURE. UM, I KNOW YOU SAY THAT THERE IS NO INTENTION INTENTIONALITY CRITERIA, BUT THERE IS THEN IN THE NEGATIVE LANGUAGE FOR THAT CATEGORY ONE OFFENSE EXPLICITLY NOT MEETING. SURE. SO I'LL TRY TO SPARE THE ROOM, YOU KNOW, KIND OF ONE L LAW SCHOOL TYPE CONVERSATION AS FAR AS SEXUAL CONSTRUCTION AND ALL THINGS. BUT WHY, IF THERE IS NO INTENTIONALITY, WHY INCLUDE THAT FOR CATEGORY ONE AND NOWHERE ELSE? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THIS IS NOT STATUTE. IT ISN'T, OKAY. THIS IS POLICY. IT'S, THIS IS POLICY VERY DIFFERENT THAN STATUTES. SO THE SAME INFERENCES THAT YOU WOULD MAKE ABOUT STATUTES, YOU CAN'T, UH, CORRELATE TO POLICY FIRST. UH, SECOND, I DON'T BELIEVE, AND MR. DARE MAY CORRECT ME BECAUSE HE'S WELL VERSED IN ALL OF THIS. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE GONNA FIND RED END INTO ANY DE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DISCIPLINE CASE, A REQUIREMENT OF INTENT. UM, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS A WHILE, MR. DARE HAS BEEN DOING THIS A WHILE. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GONNA FIND THAT. I THINK IT, WHAT, WHAT IT IS IS DID THEY VIOLATE IT OR DID THEY NOT? UM, UNLESS IT'S SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN INTO THE POLICY THAT IT REQUIRES, UH, INTENT, I HAVE NOT SEEN A CASE WHERE THAT IS READ INTO THERE. UM, SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING FROM A STATUTORY STANDPOINT. I JUST, I'VE NEVER SEEN IT. UM, AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN APPLY IT HERE. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE, SO IF, IF I ACCEPTED WHAT YOUR POSITION IS REGARDING THE STATUTORY INTERPRET, I'M NOT SAYING THAT I DO, WHETHER IT'S NOT BEING APPLIED, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WOULD YOU SAY THAT I'M INCORRECT IN THAT BEING THIS POLICY IS DRAFTED BY THE APPOINTING 45, THE AGENCY? SURE. THAT IS BINDING ITS EMPLOYEE, PRESUMABLY PUTTING THEM ON NOTICE FOR THE TYPES OF THAT AMBIGUITIES, FOR LACK OF CLARITY IN THE LANGUAGE, SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AGAINST THE APPOINTMENT. UH, BECAUSE YOUR QUESTION IS IN THE NEGATIVE, BUT YOU, YOU'RE SAYING YOU BELIEVE, UH, OR, OR ASKING WHETHER, WHETHER IT WOULD BE READ AGAINST THEM. CORRECT. UM, WELL, LET ME START WITH THIS AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S EVEN RELEVANT HERE. I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE VIDEO THAT, THAT QUESTION IS NOT A QUESTION TO BE ASKED. UM, HE ADMITTED HE DID THINGS WITH THE IN WITH INTENT TO DISRUPT THE WHOLE PROCESS WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT, UH, SERGEANT SMITH EVEN WANTED TO CHANGE. HE WAS THERE TO DISRUPT THE PROCESS BECAUSE HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT IT WAS THAT SERGEANT SMITH THOUGHT NEEDED TO BE REVISED IN THE REPORT. PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE WHEN HE ASKED, OKAY, I, I MEAN IT, IT, I, MY BELIEF IS THAT HE WAS SO COMBATIVE AND WOULD NOT ALLOW SERGEANT SMITH TO TALK. THE, THE CONVERSATION WAS ALREADY SHUTTING DOWN AT THAT POINT, IN MY OPINION. I CURIOUS IF ANYONE DISAGREE WITH ME, UH, THAT CONVERSATION BROKE DOWN IN ABOUT 60 SECONDS. SURE. UM, BOTH ON THE PART OF CORPORAL JONES AS WELL AS IT, IT KIND OF STRUCK ME IN THE FACE HOW QUICKLY SERGEANT SMITH PULLED CORPORAL JONES, SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, STOP TALKING. I KNOW WHAT I'VE GOT WITH YOU. WHATEVER LANGUAGE THAT WAS, IT WAS SOMETHING ALONG, IT WAS SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. UM, HOW QUICKLY THAT BROKE DOWN ON BOTH SIDES. UM, BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM, I IMAGINE, HAVE WATCHED THAT VIDEO A WHOLE HOST OF TIMES. I'VE I'VE SEEN IT ONCE. SURE. AND SO WHEN, WHEN I HEARD THAT HEARING THAT COME FROM A SUPERVISOR WAS, OH, WOW, OKAY. THAT WAS, THAT WAS A QUICK ESCALATION THAT I WASN'T EXPECTING. UM, AND TO BE CLEAR, WHEN I'M ASKING ABOUT THIS INTENTIONALITY, WHY I, WHILE I ALSO BELIEVE THAT MY QUESTIONS WOULD APPLY TO THE FOLLOWING ORDERS CHARGE, I AM, I AM MORE INTERESTED IN APPLYING IT AS, AS FAR AS THIS CONVERSATION ON THE INSUBORDINATION. [05:50:01] UM, I, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK OUT OF TURN. I, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DONE, I WOULD'VE IDEALLY WANTED TO SAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE END, BUT JUST FOR CLARITY, YEAH. I'M, I'M FOCUSED ON THE INSUBORDINATION CHARGE AS IT COMES TO, UM, QUESTIONS OF INTENTIONALITY. AND SO THAT'S INTENT. OKAY. SO, NO, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. YEAH. UM, CHIEF WAS JUST POINTING OUT AND IT, AND IT IS, UM, I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT. SO THERE ARE SPECIFIC ONES IN CATEGORY THREE THAT DO USE KIND OF INTENT LANGUAGE. IF YOU LOOK AT 3 23, RIGHT BELOW IT, UNDER VIOLATION OF LAWS 3 22. YEAH. IN FACT, 3 22 AS WELL. SO I THINK THIS IS GONNA BE HELPFUL FOR YOU. UH, IT'S PAGE 20 AND I'LL, I'LL START READING FOR 3 22. ASSOCIATION WITH KNOWN CRIMINALS. MM-HMM . NOW MEMBER WILL KNOWINGLY ASSOCIATE ON A CONTINUING SOCIAL BASIS WITH INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY FELONY WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE. I'VE ACTUALLY HAD A CASE LIKE THIS. MM-HMM . UM, AND THE QUESTION THERE COMES IN, DID THEY KNOW IT OR DID THEY NOT, RIGHT? MM-HMM . DO THEY HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE? DO THEY INTEND TO, UM, HANG OUT WITH SOMEBODY THAT WAS A KNOWN FELON? UH, YOU LOOK AT 3 23, NO MEMBER WILL WILLFULLY OR BY NEGLECT OR OMISSION VIOLATE ANY FEDERAL, STATE, OR CITY ORDINANCE OR STATUTE. SO WILLFUL THAT, THAT, THAT GOES TO THAT. OR ANY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR ATTORNEY? HAVE ANYTHING? I HAVE NO IDEA. NO. FIRST, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR COUNSEL, THIS WILL BE THE TIME. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING. NO, COUNSEL, IF YOU'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED OPPOSING COUNSEL, YOU CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE TO, BUT IF YOU'D LIKE, AGAIN, I'M, I'M, I DO THINK, I DO THINK THAT THE, I DO THINK IT WAS INTENTIONALLY, I DO THINK THE STATUTE, I THINK WHEN THIS, WHEN THIS POLICY CONSIDERATIONS WERE DRAFTED, THEY WERE IN DRAFTED FOR PURPOSE. UM, I UNDERSTAND DIFFERENT SITUATIONS HAPPEN, UH, AND EVERYTHING ISN'T, YOU KNOW, BLACK LETTER OF THE LAW. I THINK EVERY WORD, YOU KNOW, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, I THINK EVERY WORD MATTERS. UH, I DO THINK IN THIS CASE, YOU ALL SHOULD CONSIDER THE INTENT OF WHAT OFFICER JONES WASN'T TRYING TO DO. HE DIDN'T GO THERE TO DEMEAN, HE DIDN'T, AS SERGEANT SMITH SAID, HE DIDN'T GO THERE TO CAUSE THIS THING. I MEAN, THE FORESIGHT IT WOULD TAKE TO STRATEGICALLY PLAN THIS WHOLE THING. UM, I UNDERSTAND OFFICER SERGEANT SMITH, YOU KNOW, MAY FEEL HIMSELF IMPORTANT, BUT I DON'T THINK HE'S THAT IMPORTANT IN OFFICER JONES' MIND TO FABRICATE THIS ENTIRE SITUATION. AGAIN, I THINK HIS INTENT WAS TRULY TO BE THERE AND AS, AS HE WOULD BE THERE FOR ME OR ANYONE ELSE HE KNOWS, OR ANYONE WHO, WHO'S EVER HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF KNOWING OFFICER JONES, HE WOULD BE FOR THERE FOR THEM THE SAME EXACT WAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENT ON THE BULLET? NOTHING FROM ME. BRIEF REBUTTAL FOR MR. RAINS. ALRIGHT, MR. RAINS. YEAH, JUST TWO QUICK THINGS. UM, ONE IS, UH, THEY MENTIONED THAT THERE, THERE, WE WISH THERE WAS A DIFFERENT PROCESS FOR, UM, CORPORAL JONES TO DEAL WITH THIS SITUATION. WELL, THERE IS, THERE IS A COMPLAINT PROCESS THAT HE COULD HAVE DEALT WITH THIS. HE COULD HAVE COMPLIED WITH ORDERS AND THEN MADE A COMPLAINT THROUGH INTERNAL AFFAIRS. BUT HE CHOSE, HE CHOSE TO TAKE IT INTO HIS OWN HANDS THAT DAY. AND LIKE WE, WE SAID EARLIER, WE BELIEVE THAT HE STEPPED ACROSS THE LINE WHEN HE DID THAT. UM, SECONDARILY, UH, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU ALL HAVE SEEN, UH, CHIEF IN A HEARING. UM, I'LL SAY THAT HE TAKES THESE MATTERS VERY SERIOUSLY AND HE GIVES A LOT OF THOUGHT WHEN HE MAKES DECISIONS REGARDING DISCIPLINE. UM, WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST THERE HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WHAT PEOPLE THOUGHT WERE HEAVY HANDED DECISIONS BY, UH, PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS. UM, AGAIN HERE, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A SITUATION WITH A PRIOR ADMINISTRATION OR MANY OF THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS WHERE CORPORAL JONES COULD HAVE BEEN TERMINATED. UM, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, CHIEF MORSE AND HIS DISCRETION, AGAIN, LISTENED TO ALL OF THE FACTS, REVIEWED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, AND THOUGHT IT IS IMPORTANT TO DISCIPLINE AN OFFICER, EVEN A GOOD OFFICER, UM, WHEN THEY STEP ACROSS THE LINE. BUT IT IS NOT, HE DID NOT THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO TERMINATE HIM OR TO EVEN GIVE HIM A SEVERE, UH, DISCIPLINE IN THIS CASE. THAT'S WHY HE BELIEVED FOUR DAYS WAS APPROPRIATE AND TO UPHOLD THE TWO. AND THERE WAS ONE, UH, POLICY VIOLATION HE DID NOT UPHOLD AGAINST HIM. SO HE, HE UPHELD TWO OUTTA THE THREE POLICY VIOLATIONS. SO AGAIN, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU UPHOLD IT. THANK YOU. AND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS BY THE BOARD. AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO, WELL LET, LET, LET ME JUST TAKE A MOMENT TO SAY, [05:55:01] UH, THIS, I UNDERSTAND THAT PERHAPS, UH, YOU MAY HAVE BEEN, UM, TRYING TO HELP OFFICER GRIMES AND YOU HAVE A BIG HEART, BUT I DO THINK PERSONALLY THAT YOU OVERSTEPPED YOUR BOUNDS. YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT THAT WAY. AND LET ME JUST GIVE YOU A BIT OF REFERENCE FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE. I WAS THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FOR A CONSULTING ENGINEERING FIRM FOR 40 YEARS. AND JUST ONE DAY MY ACCOUNTANT CAME INTO THE HALLWAY WHERE I WAS STANDING AND CONFRONTED ME ABOUT SOMETHING THAT I HAD NO IDEA WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT. AND WHEN I SAID TO HIM, FINE, FORGET IT. LET'S JUST GO ON AND NOT WORRY ABOUT IT. HE CONTINUED, I FIGHT HIM ON THE SPOT. AND THE REASON I DID WAS BECAUSE IN ORDER FOR ME TO OFFICIALLY RUN MY FIRM, I COULD NOT HAVE ONE OF MY EMPLOYEES, YOU KNOW, IN PUBLIC QUESTIONING SOMETHING THAT WAS BEYOND REASONED. HE NEVER CAME BACK TO MY FIRM AGAIN. AND REALIZING THAT YOU COULD HAVE BEEN TERMINATED AND THE CHIEF CAME UP WITH FOUR DAYS. I THINK YOU WON THAT BATTLE ALREADY PERSONALLY. BUT BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? SO I, I WOULD DEFER TO OTHER BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY BELIEVE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS APPROPRIATE IN, IN THIS INSTANCE. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS, UNLESS THE CORPORAL WOULD PREFER THAT WE DISCUSS THE MATTER IN YEAH. HE DOESN'T HAVE A SAY IN IT. WELL, TECHNICALLY HE CAN OBJECT TO IT. IF I MOVE FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION, YOU PREFER EXECUTIVE SESSION? YES SIR. OUR MOTIONS IN ORDER. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION BY MR. THOMAS AND SECOND IT BY MR. LEMON AND WE SHALL VOTE ON THE MOTION. LET US TAKE A ROLL CALL. MR. MICHAEL LEMON. YES. MR. JOHN THOMAS. YES. DR. ROBINSON? YES. ATTORNEY VILLE. YES. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. WILL WILL, UH, RECESS TO, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE BOARD RETURNS FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSION TO REGULAR SESSION WHILE IN EXECUTIVE SESSIONS NO MOTIONS WERE MADE AND NO VOTES WERE TAKEN. AND NOW WE WILL COME BACK TO THE BOARD TO SEE WHAT OUR PLEASURE. I NEED A, WE NEED A MOTION TO COME OUT. COME OUTTA EXECUTIVE SESSION. THAT'S RIGHT. SORRY ABOUT THAT. MOVE ON MR. SECOND BILL, THAT WE COME OUT. EXECUTIVE SESSION. SECONDED BY MR. THOMAS. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSES BOARD IN REGULAR SESSION. WHAT'S THE BOARD'S PLEASURE? WELL, I MOVED, UH, TO AFFIRM THAT THE CHIEF WAS JUST IN, UH, UH, SUSPENDING, UH, CORPORAL JONES, UH, FOR FAILURE TO CARRY OUT ORDER, BUT MOVE TO REDUCE IT TO TWO DAYS SUSPENSION AND FIND UNJUST, UH, NON JUSTIFICATION FOR THE INSUBORDINATION. I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. THOMAS. IS THERE A SECOND? A SECOND. IS THERE A SECOND? THE MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND, MR. CHAIR. I WOULD MOVE THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND WITH JUST CAUSE AS TO ARTICLE THREE 18 CARRYING OUT ORDERS AND WOULD FURTHER MOVE TO AFFIRM THE FOUR DAY SUSPENSION WITHOUT, WITHOUT PAY, BUT FURTHER MOVE THAT AS TO THE VIOLATION OF ARTICLE THREE 19 INSUBORDINATION THAT WHILE THE AGENCY ACTED IN GOOD FAITH, I DO NOT, I MOVE THAT THERE WAS NOT JUST CAUSE FOR THAT ALLEGATION. I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. NEWELL. I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION AND WE WILL ASK THAT WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MOTION UNLESS THERE'S DISCUSSION. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION AMONG BOARD MEMBERS? SURE. YEAH. MR. THOMAS? I, I DISAGREE WITH IT. UH, [06:00:01] UH, AS FOR THE FOUR DAYS BECAUSE, UH, I BELIEVE WHAT THE CHIEF SAID, HE WAS WEARING HIS HEART ON HIS SHOULDER AND HIS TIME SHOULD BE REDUCED IN HALF. AND, AND I'LL JUST PUT ON THE RECORD OF, OF WHY IS THAT? I IMAGINE IT MIGHT SEEM A BIT ODD. I I BELIEVE THAT WHILE THE CHIEF AND I MAY, MAY DISAGREE AND NOT SEE EYE TO EYE ON THE LAW ON THIS SUBJECT, I BELIEVE THE CHIEF'S TESTIMONY GIVEN UNDER OATH THAT HE TOOK MY CONCERNS INTO CONSIDERATION IN MEETING OUT THIS PENALTY. AND SO WHILE WE MAY HAVE A DISAGREEMENT REGARDING WHETHER THAT INSUBORDINATION CHARGE SHOULD BE UPHELD, ULTIMATELY I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT THE CARRYING OUT ORDERS SHOULD BE UPHELD. THAT THAT CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN IN MEETING OUT THAT PENALTY. AND SO EVEN THOUGH I AM MOVING TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ONE OF THE ALLEGATIONS OR CHARGES, I BELIEVE THAT THE PENALTY IS NONETHELESS, UM, COMMENSURATE WITH THE OFFENSE. AND THE FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD. HEARING NONE THEN WE WILL HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. MR. MICHAEL LEMON? YES. MR. JOHN THOMAS? NO. DR. ROBINSON? YES. ATTORNEY NEWVILLE? YES. THE MOTION PASSES. THE MOTION PASSES. THIS MEETING NOW STANDS ADJOURNED. . * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.