[A call to order]
[00:00:05]
I CALL THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD TO ORDER.
WE'LL ASK THAT WE HAVE A ROLL CALL BY OUR SECRETARY.
MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU HAVE A QUORUM.
AND BEFORE WE GET INTO THE BUSINESS OF TODAY, I WANT TO INTRODUCE TO SOME OF YOU AND, UM, PRESENT TO SOME, A YOUNG LADY THAT'S GOING TO BE SERVING AS OUR BOARD SECRETARY AFTER, UM, THIS MONTH, END OF THE WORKDAY ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 24TH.
NOT THAT SHE'S KEEPING COUNT
SO I WANT TO INTRODUCE TO YOU MS. SHAWANDA HARRIS.
MS. HARRIS, YOU JUST STAND UP THERE SO THAT UH, EVERYONE CAN SEE WHO YOU ARE.
THIS IS HER FIRST OFFICIAL DAY WITH THE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
WITH THAT, WERE THERE ANY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS BEFORE WE GET INTO THE AGENDA? ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS, HEARING NO COMMENTS AND SEEING NOBODY APPROACH TODAY PODIUM? WE WILL
[1. Consider a motion to approve the agenda]
THEN MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER ONE, CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, THERE IS AN ISSUE THAT WE HAVE WITH OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED BOARD MEETING ON JANUARY THE 27TH.
WE HAVE A HEARING SCHEDULED THAT DAY, BUT OUR BOARD ATTORNEY, MR. DARL, WILL BE, UM, ARGUING BEFORE THE STATE SUPREME COURT THAT DAY.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, PERSONALLY I THINK THAT WE PROBABLY SHOULD NOT HAVE A HEARING WITHOUT OUR ATTORNEY, BUT I WANT TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THAT.
SO, BOARD MEMBERS, UH, WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE, UH, MR. CHAIR? I AGREE.
UH, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER, AND I WOULD DEFER TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FIRE.
IF THERE ARE ANY THINGS LIKE PROMOTIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I THINK POTENTIALLY WE COULD DO THAT.
BUT AS FAR AS THE HEARING, I BELIEVE THAT MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT OUR ATTORNEY PRESENT WOULD POTENTIALLY CAUSE PROBLEMS. OTHER COMMENTS? I AGREE WITH THAT.
MR. RICH? YEAH, I I ACTUALLY WOULD NOT, UH, BE IN ATTENDANCE FOR THAT, THAT MEETING AS WELL.
SO, SO WE CAN, UM, HOPEFULLY RESCHEDULE THE HEARING, BUT MAINTAIN THE MEETING DATE AND TIME.
SO I HAVE A MOTION THEN TO, UH, AMEND THE AGENDA TO INDICATE THAT WE ARE GOING TO, UM, MAINTAIN OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULE JANUARY 27TH, MEETING DATE AND TIME, BUT THAT WE WILL RESCHEDULE THE HEARING THAT'S SCHEDULED FOR THAT DATE.
NEED A SECOND? OH, I DIDN'T HAVE A SECOND.
I THANK YOU MR. LEMON SECONDS.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE.
WITH THAT, THEN I ASK THAT WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REVISED AGENDA.
[2. Consider a motion to conduct an administrative hearing on behalf of former Baton Rouge Police Officers]
ITEM TWO ON THE AGENDA.CONSIDER A MOTION TO CONDUCT AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ON BEHALF OF FORMER BATON ROUGE POLICE OFFICERS.
TROY, ALLIANCE SENIOR DOUGLAS CH THOMAS.
TODD THOMAS, WHAT'S THE PLEASURE? DO I HAVE A MOTION? UH, MR. CHAIR, JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, IS THIS FOR THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE FULL ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING? OR BOTH? I WOULD THINK BOTH.
I WOULD, SO JUST FOR CLEAR, AS FOR TODAY, WE'RE GONNA JUST DO THE MOTION THAT HAS BEEN FILED.
AND I ALSO MOVE MR. CHAIR, RIGHT? I HAVE A MOTION.
AND MR. DARA, WOULD YOU SET THE STAGE FOR HOW WE SHALL PROCEED?
[00:05:01]
SURE.UH, BEFORE THE BOARD THIS MORNING IS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION AS IT RELATES TO THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS.
UM, I'VE SPOKEN WITH MO, AT LEAST SOME OF THE ATTORNEYS ON BOTH SIDES, AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED, UH, ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION IN A NON TESTIMONY TYPE OF FASHION.
UM, OF COURSE, IF THERE, AFTER HEARING THE ARGUMENTS, IF THE BOARD FEELS THAT THERE IS SPECIFIC TESTIMONY THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HEAR, WE CERTAINLY HAVE THE WITNESSES AVAILABLE FOR THAT, THAT PURPOSE.
UM, AT THIS POINT, COUNSEL, CAN YOU GUYS MAKE YOUR APPEARANCE FOR THE RECORD AND THEN ALSO IDENTIFY YOUR WITNESSES.
STILL DOESN'T SEEM TO BE, IS IT ON THE MIC? THERE'S A LITTLE BUTTON AT THE BOTTOM.
AT THE BOTTOM AT THE BOTTOM OF, THERE WE GO.
USUALLY DON'T HAVE PROBLEMS BEING HEARD, BUT, UH,
UH, KYLE KERSHAW ON BEHALF OF, UM, DOUGLAS CHS.
I'M JOHN MCCLENDON AND I REPRESENT TODD THOMAS.
BRENT STOCKDALE ON BEHALF OF TROY LAWRENCE.
JIM RAINS HERE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
ANY OTHER COUNSEL OF RECORD AS WITNESSES? WHO DO WE HAVE IN THE BUILDING? UH, FROM OUR END, WE HAVE, UM, JOHNNY DUNHAM, PATRICK PERRY, UM, I SEE, UH, SERGEANT HILL, AND I'M NOT SURE ABOUT OFFICER JACKSON OR, UM, OH, AND SERGEANT MONTGOMERY.
UM, BECAUSE WE MAY HAVE SOME TESTIMONY, ARE YOU GUYS OPPOSED TO PUTTING THE WITNESSES UNDER THE RULE? I'M NOT OPPOSED TO PUTTING THEM UNDER THE RULE.
YOU SAID YOU'RE GOING TO OPPOSE? NO, I'M NOT OPPOSED.
ALRIGHT, WELL, WITH THAT BEING SAID, CAN THE WITNESSES APPROACH, WE'LL PUT YOU GUYS UNDER OATH, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA PUT YOU GUYS UNDER THE RULE OF SEQUESTRATION, WHICH MEANS THAT AFTER YOU'VE BEEN PLACED UNDER OATH, I DIDN'T TALK ABOUT MY WITNESSES YET.
I'M SORRY, I YOU'VE GOT DIFFERENT WITNESSES.
WELL, I'VE GOT TWO PRESENT, UM, THAT ARE SAME WITNESSES AS THEY ARE.
I'VE GOT ONE WITNESS THAT COULD NOT BE PRESENT TODAY.
UM, SO IF THERE IS TESTIMONY TO BE TAKEN, HE IS A NECESSARY WITNESS FOR THE PROCEEDINGS IF WE WERE DOING THE MERITS OF THIS ISSUE.
UH, WITNESSES, IF YOU GUYS DON'T MIND, TO, UH, COME FORWARD.
SO WE CAN PUT YOU GUYS UNDER OATH AFTER WHICH YOU WILL BE PLACED UNDER THE RULE SEQUESTRATION, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU GUYS CAN'T TALK ABOUT THE CASE AND YOU CAN'T HEAR THE TESTIMONY IN HERE.
UM, IF I MIGHT, UM, MSRA YES, THE, UM, IF THAT WITNESS IS GOING TO APPEAR AT SOME POINT AND TESTIFY, OBVIOUSLY HE'S NOT HERE TO PUT UNDER THE SEQUESTRATION, BUT I THINK THE SAME GIST WOULD APPLY TO HIM AS WELL, CORRECT? I WOULD AGREE THAT'S CORRECT.
WELL, AND TO BE FAIR, IF, IF, IF THE BOARD DECIDES AFTER HEARING IT THAT THEY THINK THAT THERE'S TESTIMONY THAT'S NEEDED, I DON'T REALLY HAVE AN OPTION BUT TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO THE TESTIMONY PORTION, I'M FINE MOVING FORWARD WITH, UM, ARGUMENT AS WE HAVE, UH, DISCUSSED.
IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'LL BE INTERESTING WHEN THE TIME COMES.
UM, AND, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR ALSO, IF, IF THAT DOES HAPPEN, I WOULD ASK MR. RAINS AND I BELIEVE HE'LL DO IT, BUT INSTRUCT HIS WITNESS NOT TO WATCH THIS.
'CAUSE I BELIEVE YOU CAN WATCH THIS AT A LATER DATE.
AND OF COURSE NOT TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE TESTIMONY, UM, OF THESE GENTLEMEN.
MR. RAINS, IF I MISS IT, I APOLOGIZE.
WHO, WHAT IS THE NAME OF THAT WITNESS? UH, THAT'S FORMER CHIEF PAUL.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, THOUGHTS BEFORE WE SWEAR THE WITNESSES IN? ALRIGHT, GENTLEMEN, DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? YES, SIR.
YOU GUYS ARE NOW PLACED UNDER THE RULE OF SEQUESTRATION.
UH, YOU GUYS NEED TO LEAVE THE ROOM AND DON'T WATCH IT ON YOUR PHONES,
UM, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
UM, I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED AN EXTENDED, UH, DIALOGUE.
IS THAT GOOD FOR YOU GUYS? ALRIGHT, PER SIDE.
[00:10:01]
PER SIDE, YES.WOULD THAT BE FAIR? IF FAIR THREE'S? WE'LL DO 30 MINUTES PER SIDE THEN.
HOPEFULLY MR. RAINS DOESN'T SPEAK FOR 30 MINUTES THOUGH, I GET 30 MINUTES
ALL RIGHT, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE MOVERS.
FOR HOUSE CLEAN PURPOSES, WE'VE ALL, UM, BOTH MR. RAINS AND, UM, MYSELF AND OTHER COUNSEL HAVE SUBMITTED EXHIBITS BOTH ATTACHED TO OUR MEMORANDUMS AS WELL AS, UM, SOME ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS TO THE BOARD.
I WOULD LIKE TO FORMALLY PRESENT THOSE, UM, OFFER AND INTRODUCE, HAVE THOSE FILED INTO THE RECORD FOR TODAY'S PURPOSES, IF THAT'S OKAY? ANY OBJECTIONS? EXHIBIT THREE, UH, THAT I SEE IS EXHIBIT G, WHICH IS AN INTERVIEW OF, IT'S LISTED AS INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT MONTGOMERY RELATED TO A SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT, UH, INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE.
THAT'S, UH, H WELL, I DON'T HAVE A CURRENT BINDER OF YOURS.
I JUST HAVE WHAT WAS SENT TO ME BY EMAIL.
SO IS IT H NOW LEMME SEE HERE, WHICH I DIDN'T GET.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S H UNDER THEIR, UH, THE REVISED BINDER.
UM, THAT, THAT INTERVIEW IS NOT RELATED TO THE THREE ISSUES THAT ARE BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY.
UM, SO I WOULD, AND IT'S RELATED TO A SEPARATE, UH, REVIEW, UH, RELATED TO SERGEANT MONTGOMERY.
SO I WOULD ASK THAT THAT ONE, UH, I OBJECT TO THAT EXHIBIT.
AND IN RETORT TO THAT, IT'S ACTUALLY HIS INTERNAL, THE DETECTIVE'S INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AND HOW HE HANDLED THIS INVESTIGATION.
IT'S OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY INTERTWINED WITH THIS CASE.
AND, UM, AND WE WOULD SAY HE, HE, HE TOOK THE FIFTH, WHICH YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO, AND HE LIED DURING THAT, UH, HIS INTERVIEW BEING THAT HE'S ONE OF THE CRUX WITNESSES OF THIS, I THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO YOU BY THE DEPARTMENT AND BY US.
WELL,
THERE ARE PROCEDURAL ISSUES UNDER THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS.
UH, DETERMINING THAT SOMEBODY LIED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS A CREDIBILITY CALL THAT IS A MERITS ISSUE.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS PRESENTED IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
UH, SO I, I HEAR WHAT HE'S SAYING, THAT IT IS SOMEWHAT RELATED, BUT IT IS NOT RELATED TO THE THREE ISSUES THAT ARE PROCEDURAL ISSUES BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY.
SO I WOULD, AGAIN, RAISE MY OBJECTION IF I'D ADDRESS THE, THE BOARD.
UH, ONE OF THE ISSUES IS WHETHER THIS WAS AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION OR A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
THE INVESTIGATOR AND HIS POSITION AND WHAT HE SAID AND WHEN HE INVOKED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, I THINK WOULD BE RE VERY RELEVANT FOR THIS COURT OR THIS BOARD MAKING A DECISION AS TO WHETHER IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING OR A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHY IF I WAS ON THE BOARD, I WOULD WANT TO HEAR WHAT THAT WITNESS SAID.
IT JUST, MAYBE I CAN, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OFFICER GATE MONTGOMERY, KATE MONTGOMERY LED THE INVESTIGATION OF OUR CLIENTS IN THIS CASE.
NOW THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S GONNA TAKE THE POSITION.
WELL, WELL ONE OF THE ISSUES BEFORE YOU TODAY IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY DID IT TIMELY, 75 DAYS.
AND IF YOU READ THEIR BRIEF, THEY'RE GONNA TAKE THE POSITION ABOUT, WELL, THE IA WAS SUSPENDED OR IT WAS NEVER STARTED, OR WHATEVER.
GABE MONTGOMERY WAS, WAS THE MAN.
HE HAD A, A COMPLAINT LODGED AGAINST HIM ABOUT THE MANNER IN WHICH HE HANDLED THIS INVESTIGATION.
AND IN THAT IA INVESTIGATION, HE GAVE CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY FOR THE WAY HE PRESENTED IT IN THIS CASE.
SO WE THINK IT IS RELEVANT THAT THE BOARD HEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, I'D PROBABLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU LET IT IN AND LET IT GO TO THE WEIGHT OF, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE HEAR IT OR, BUT I WOULDN'T EXCLUDE IT AT THIS POINT.
[00:15:03]
SO THE REQUEST IS THAT PO DOCUMENTS BE SUBMITTED? YES, EXCEPT IT, YES.I WOULD JUST, I WOULD SAY ACCEPT.
SO IN THAT, BE THAT AS IT MAY I THANK YOU, SIR.
SO, UM, BOARD MEMBERS, MY NAME IS KYLE KERSHAW REPRESENT DOUGLAS SHOOTS IN THIS MATTER.
UM, AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE TODAY.
THE, UM, THESE THREE OFFICERS BEEN TERMINATED.
THE, WE FIND SOME MAJOR ISSUES FROM THE WAY THIS INVESTIGATION WAS HANDLED.
NOW, AS YOU KNOW, POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS, AND I CITED ALL THROUGH THE MEMORANDUMS THAT I HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU.
AND THAT'S, UH, TITLE 40 25, 31.
THESE ARE CALLED, IT PUTS FORTH SOME, UM, RA UM, WHAT CRITERIA ON HOW UH, DEPARTMENT CAN HANDLE ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION.
UM, THESE ARE CALLED MINIMUM MINIMAL STANDARDS.
THE REASON WHY THEY'RE CALLED MINIMAL STANDARDS IS BECAUSE IT'S NOT A WHOLE LOT TO ASK FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO JUMP THROUGH THESE FEW HOOPS THAT EXIST WHENEVER THEY CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION THAT INCLUDES RECORDING ANY INTERROGATIONS, UM, OF ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.
THAT INCLUDES WHEN YOU RECEIVE THE COMPLAINT, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO START WITHIN 14 DAYS.
IT INCLUDES YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO THE, FROM THE DAY YOU BEGIN, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO END WITHIN 75 DAYS, UH, THAT THE INVESTIGATION SHALL BE, SHALL HAVE FINISHED.
WELL, WE, WHEN WE GET PRESENTED, WE PRESENT IT WITH AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE AND WE GO THROUGH THAT.
BUT THEN WE'RE PRESENTED A WHOLE LOT MORE INFORMATION, UM, ELSEWHERE.
WE, WE'VE DISCOVERED QUITE A FEW ISSUES THAT EXIST HERE THAT SHOW THAT THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE LAW.
NOW, FIRST OFF, THIS IS GONNA CENTER A LOT, LOT OF THIS IS GONNA CENTER ON WHAT HAPPENED ON AUGUST 30TH, THE 23.
SO ON THAT DATE, WELL, FIRST OFF, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE COMPLAINT.
THERE'S A COMPLAINT THAT SUPPOSEDLY COMES IN FIELDED BY FORMER CHIEF PAUL.
PROBLEM IS CONTRARY TO BATON ROUGE POLICY, BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY THAT I'VE SUBMITTED IN MY EXHIBITS.
UM, CHIEF PAUL FAILED TO DOCUMENT THIS COMPLAINT IN ANY FORM OR FASHION.
UM, THERE'S A, AND I'VE DESCRIBED IN MY, IN MY MEMO, MY ORIGINAL MEMO, THERE'S A CITIZEN'S COMPLAINT FORM THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FILLED OUT WHEN IT'S RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT.
AND THAT IS TO SHOW, OKAY, WHEN WE GOT THE COMPLAINT, 'CAUSE WE'RE ON A DEADLINE, WE GET THE COMPLAINT, IT'S 14 DAYS.
NOW I KNOW, UM, THIS CAME IN, IT'S ALLEGED THAT IT CAME IN VIA TELEPHONE.
NOW, WHILE THE DEPARTMENT SAYS, WELL, THAT DOESN'T APPLY, THAT'S THE, THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS ONLY APPLIES TO WRITTEN COMPLAINTS.
WELL, THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE, AND IT WOULD TOTALLY UNDERMINE THE ACTUAL, WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE? THERE'S, UM, I THINK I CITE A COUPLE DIFFERENT ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS SAYING, NO, NO, NO, ALL THESE RULES APPLY TO ANY ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION WITH AN EYE TOWARDS POSSIBLE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
SO THIS COMPLAINT COMES IN, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHEN NOTHING WAS PRESENTED TO US, NOTHING.
NOT EVEN A, UM, A SECOND HAND ACCOUNT.
AND THAT IS VIA SERGEANT MONTGOMERY'S REPORT, UM, SAYING, HEY, CHIEF PAUL, THIS IS WHAT CHIEF PAUL TOLD ME.
UM, NOW WHAT HAPPENS? HE RECEIVES A COMPLAINT AND THEN AT, AT SOME POINT, THEN AT SOME POINT HE DECIDES, OKAY, LEMME CONDUCT MY OWN INVESTIGATION.
HOW DO WE KNOW THIS? IT'S IN SERGEANT MONTGOMERY'S REPORT.
HE GOES AND GATHERS SOME DOCUMENTS AND IT HAS TO DO WITH A BODY CAMERA, WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR BODY CAMERA FROM, UM, THREE YEARS PRIOR.
SO CHIEF PAUL GOES AND FINDS DOCUMENTS THAT HE REPORTED THIS BODY CAMERA MISSING.
[00:20:02]
THEN TAKES IT UPON ITSELF.INSTEAD OF TAKING THE COMPLAINT, GATHERING THOSE THINGS, CONFIRMING THAT, AND THEN TURNING IT OVER TO AN INVESTIGATOR, HE DECIDES TO BEGIN THE INVESTIGATION ON HIS OWN.
HOW SO? WELL, ONE IS THAT GATHERING THOSE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS THAT HE GATHERED TO SHOW THAT THERE'S SOME, I GUESS, SOMEWHAT OF A LEGITIMACY TO, UH, THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT.
BUT THEN HE TAKES IT UPON HIMSELF BEFORE APPROACHING, BEFORE APPROACHING SERGEANT MONTGOMERY.
HE THEN CALLS OFFICER JACKSON.
AND ACCORDING TO ONCE AGAIN, ALL WE HAVE ABOUT THIS ACCOUNT IS WHAT OFFICER MONTGOMERY PUTS IN HIS REPORT, OKAY? BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, CHIEF PAUL FAILED TO DOCUMENT ANY OF THIS.
SO ACCORDING TO SERGEANT MONTGOMERY'S REPORT, CHIEF PAUL INFORMED ME UPON LEARNING OF THIS INFORMATION, THAT'S THE LOST BODY CAMERA.
A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED FOR ANY REPORTS OF A LOSS OR STOLEN BODY CAMERA THAT WAS ISSUED TO OFFICER JACKSON.
HE ADVISED, OH, AND THIS IS EXHIBIT A BY THE WAY, PAGE 11.
HE HAD, HE ADVISED HE DID IN FACT DISCOVERY A LETTER, WHICH APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY OFFICER JACKSON AND WAS SUBMITTED ON OCTOBER 20TH, 2020, REPORTING A MISSING BODY CAMERA.
AS A RESULT, HE CONTACTED OFFICER JACKSON IN REFERENCE TO THE REPORTED MISSING BODY CAMERA.
NOW, WHY DID HE CONTACT HIM IN REFERENCE TO THE MISSING BODY CAMERA DOESN'T SAY TO SET UP AN, TO SET UP AN INTERVIEW, IT SAYS HE CONDUCTED, HE CALLED HIM TO ASK HIM ABOUT THIS MISSING BODY CAMERA.
SO CONTRARY TO WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU IN OPPOSITION MEMO, THAT'S WHAT HE TOLD.
AND THIS IS ALL WE HAVE DOCUMENTARY WISE TO GO OFF OF WHAT HE TOLD TO SERGEANT JACKSON.
UM, SERGEANT MONTGOMERY, ACCORDING TO CHIEF BALL, OFFICER JACKSON INITIALLY STATED HIS BODY CAMERA WENT MISSING.
OFFICER LEE ASKED HIM ABOUT THE BODY CAMERA.
HE SAYS, OH, IT WENT MISSING FROM A DOCKING STATION.
AND THEN I KNOW THE DOCKING STATION IS USED TO UPLOAD RECORDED FOOTAGE UPON BEING ASKED AGAIN BY CHIEF POWELL.
BUT WHAT'S HE DOING? HE'S A, HE'S PROBING HIM.
HE'S ASKING SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE AT ISSUE HERE, ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION.
YOU SURE ABOUT THAT? UPON BEING ASKED AGAIN BY CHIEF PAUL, OFFICER JACKSON STATED HIS BODY-WORN CAMERA WAS TAKEN BY ANOTHER OFFICER.
HE WAS SPECIFICALLY PROBING HIM ON THE REASON FOR THIS INVESTIGATION.
POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS 40 25, 31 B SEVEN REQUIRES ALL INTERROGATIONS OF ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DURING AN ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION SHALL BE RECORDED.
SECOND THING, HE DIDN'T BOTHER TELLING HIM, HEY, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER ANY OF MY QUESTIONS.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, AND EXPLAINING ALL, ALL WHAT'S REQUIRED OF THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE GARRITY INFORMATION.
AND GARRITY I MENTIONED IN MY MEMO, GARRITY IS LIKE MIRANDA, I KNOW WE'VE ALL WATCHED TV SHOWS, COP SHOWS THAT SAY, UH, YOU KNOW, I KNOW MY MIRANDA RIGHTS.
I GOT THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.
I GOT THE RIGHT, YOU KNOW, TO AN ATTORNEY.
WELL, THE THING IS, GARRITY IS BASICALLY THE ADMINISTRATIVE MIRANDA, BUT GARY SAYS, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.
YOU GOTTA TALK TO ME BECAUSE YOU'RE EMPLOYED WITH THIS DEPARTMENT.
YOU'RE A PUBLIC, IS A PUBLIC EN ENTITY.
YOU HAVE TO ANSWER ALL OF MY QUESTIONS, OKAY? TRUTHFULLY, OKAY? HOWEVER, HERE'S THE TRADE OFF.
NOTHING YOU TELL ME TODAY CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU CRIMINALLY.
BUT HE DIDN'T BOTHER TELLING HIM ANYTHING.
HE WENT ON QUESTIONING HIM ABOUT THIS MISSING LOST BODY CAMERA.
NOW I KNOW THEY'RE GONNA TAKE ISSUE WALLET.
IT'S ONLY A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
WELL, YOU KNOW, I CITE TO YOU THE MILLER CASE IN MY BRIEF, THAT'S ALL THAT WAS INVOLVED IN MILLER WAS TWO QUE.
WERE YOU TELLING THE TRUTH ON THIS DAY ABOUT YOUR INJURY? SECOND QUESTION.
ARE YOU TELLING THE TRUTH NOW ABOUT YOUR INJURY? THAT'S IT.
NOW THEY'LL SAY, WELL, THE GIST IS THAT WAS PURSUANT TO A, UM, A, UH, POLYGRAPH, WHICH IS AUTOMATICALLY, UM, AN INTERROGATION.
WELL, THE THING IS, IN, IN THE CASE CITED BY MY OPPONENT, ALL OF THOSE CASES WERE, UM, IT WAS OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS AND IT WASN'T THAT OFFICER THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION.
[00:25:01]
SO WE HAVE THIS PHONE CALL THAT TAKES PLACE.ONCE AGAIN, NOT RECORDED, HASN'T BEEN GIVEN TO US EITHER THROUGH THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS, THROUGH THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T EXIST 'CAUSE IT WASN'T RECORDED.
SO THEN FORMER CHIEF PAUL GOES TO SERGEANT MONTGOMERY AND SAYS, OKAY, I'M GONNA NEED YOU TO, HERE'S, HERE'S THE COMPLAINT.
WE'RE GONNA, UM, I NEED YOU TO MEET WITH HIM.
TAKE HIS, UM, TAKE HIS STATEMENT.
SO THEY DO, THEY SET IT UP LATER IN THE EVENING AND, UM, THEY GO MEET WITH HIM.
NOW, HERE'S THE, HERE'S THE FLINCHER CHIEF PAUL'S WITH THE DETECTIVE.
NOW, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD THE CHIEF OF POLICE, WHO'S SUPPOSED TO BE THE, YOU KNOW, FAIR TRIER OF FACT DOWN THE ROAD FOR WHEN THIS PROCEEDS TO A DISCIPLINARY HEARING, WHY WOULD HE BE NOW PARTIC HE'S ALREADY PARTICIPATING IN THE INVESTIGATION BY QUESTIONING THAT OFFICER, BUT NOW HE'S GOING TO THE OFFICIAL, UM, INTERVIEW OF THIS OFFICER.
HE PROCEEDS, HE AND SERGEANT MONTGOMERY GO TO QUESTION, UM, OFFICER JACKSON.
WELL, DURING THAT INTERVIEW, AT THE VERY BEGINNING, HE OFFICER OR SERGEANT MONTGOMERY IDENTIFIES HIMSELF, SAYS, WE ARE CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION ON BEHALF OF THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S INTERNAL AFFAIRS CRIMINAL DIVISION.
NOW, AS A POLICE REPRESENTATIVE, YOU SHOULD FIND THAT COMICAL.
OKAY? NO SUCH DIVISION EXISTS.
THIS WAS A FARCE, A RUSE THAT WAS PERPETRATED ON OFFICER JACKSON BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHY SERGEANT MONTGOMERY DOESN'T WORK FOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS.
ONE MINUTE, SERGEANT MONTGOMERY, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL C FIVE OF MY MINUTES TO MR. ELL.
SERGEANT MONTGOMERY WORKS FOR THE INTELLIGENCE DIVISION, WHICH IS PART OF THE CRIMINAL DIVISION WHO CONDUCTS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.
BUT YOU'LL SEE IN THE RECORDING AND WE CAN PLAY IT LATER.
HE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THOSE WORDS, CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION ON BEHALF OF THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S INTERNAL AFFAIRS CRIMINAL DIVISION.
THEN HE HAS 'EM SIGN AN OFFICER RIGHTS FORM.
AND THAT IS, UM, EXHIBIT G IN YOUR BOOKLET.
OKAY, SO EXHIBIT G SAYS, THIS IS BASICALLY SAYS, THIS IS AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS INTER INTERVIEW.
YOU HAVE TO GIVE THIS STATEMENT, YOU HAVE TO ANSWER ALL OF MY QUESTIONS TRUTHFULLY.
OKAY, THIS SAYS NOTHING THAT I'M CONDUCTING THIS AS A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
BECAUSE THEN WHEN HE GOES TO ADVISE HIM OF HIS MIRANDA WARNINGS, CHIEF PAUL INTERRUPTS, AND THIS IS ON THE, UM, THAT RECORDING IS, UM, EXHIBIT B, BUT CHIEF PAUL INTERRUPTS AND SAYS, WHOA, WHOA, WHOA.
I JUST WANT THE RECORD TO BE CLEAR.
THIS IS A COMP THIS AN ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION.
THIS IS A COMPELLED STATEMENT.
HE HAS TO TELL US, HE HAS TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.
HOWEVER, NOTHING HE SAYS CAN BE USED AGAINST HIM IN A FUTURE CRIMINAL CASE.
OKAY? COULDN'T BE ANY MORE EXPLICIT.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL TOTALITY, THE RECORDING WHERE SERGEANT MONTGOMERY IDENTIFIES HIMSELF TO BE CONDUCTING THIS INVESTIGATION ON BEHALF OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS, THE EXHIBIT G HERE, THE, UM, THE RIGHTS FORM SAYING THIS IS AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS, THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION, YOU'RE COMPELLED.
AND THEN WE THROW IN CHIEF PAUL'S INTERRUPTION SAYING, NO, THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVE COMPELLED.
HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THIS? OF COURSE, IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE.
IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM IS THIS A CRIMINAL INTERROGATION.
WHY IS THIS SO IMPORTANT? WELL, SO DOWN THE ROAD IT GETS ASSIGNED TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND SERGEANT HILL CONDUCTS AN INVESTIGATION.
SERGEANT HILL SAYS, YOU KNOW, HE, HE STARTS HIS INVESTIGATION SEPTEMBER 19TH, AND HE CAN LOOK AT EXHIBITS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY MY OPPONENT, THE PREDIT LETTER, AS WELL AS THE DISCIPLINARY LETTER.
AND YOU CAN TELL FROM THE DEADLINES HE'S LOOKING AT SEPTEMBER 19 AS A START DATE.
WELL, GUESS WHAT ELSE? YOU KNOW, GUESS WHAT WAS NEVER BROUGHT TO LIGHT OTHER THAN US DIGGING IS THIS AUGUST 30TH INTERVIEW BEING ADMINISTRATIVE.
I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO GO AND DETERMINE FOR MYSELF BY LOOKING AT THE, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THERE.
SO WE HAD THIS RUSE THAT WAS ALREADY COMMITTED ON OFFICER JACKSON,
[00:30:01]
BUT NOW IT'S BEING COMMITTED ON THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT TO BOOT.YOU'RE GONNA LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT LAST EXHIBIT, UM, I THINK IT'S AGE WHEN, UH, UM, SERGEANT MONTGOMERY WAS INTERVIEWED, HE ABSOLUTELY DENIED THAT HE EVER HELD HIMSELF OUT TO BE WITH INTERNAL AFFAIRS.
WELL, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF YOU.
IT, WHERE DID HE SIGN? THIS IS EXHIBIT G.
HE SIGNS IN THE BLANK IN THE BLANK THAT SAYS INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATOR.
I DON'T KNOW ANY OTHER WAY YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT AS THAT'S JUST UNTRUTHFUL.
SO, AND LOOK, HE'S SITTING THERE WHEN SERGEANT MONTGOMERY IS HOLDING HIMSELF OUT TO BE WITH INTERNAL AFFAIRS.
SO MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, HE'S THE ONE THAT TOLD MONTGOMERY TO DO THIS, OR MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY'S JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS AT THAT POINT.
OKAY? SO WHY HE HOLDS HIMSELF OUT TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND THEN LATER SAYS, NO, I DIDN'T, I HAVEN'T A CLUE, BUT IT JUST SHOWS YOU THIS RUSE THAT HAD BEEN PERPETRATED ON, ON SERGEANT FIRST OFFICER JACKSON, THEN SERGEANT MONTGOMERY, THEN INTERNAL AFFAIRS NOW US APPARENTLY.
SO WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS, WELL, OKAY, THEY'RE GONNA ARGUE.
OKAY, WE'LL GIVE YOU AUGUST 30TH THEN IF, IF YOU BUSTED US, UM, YEAH, EVERYTHING POINTS TO THAT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, WE SUSPENDED IT, WE SUSPENDED THAT INVESTIGATION AND THEY'RE ENTITLED TO DO THAT.
WE SUSPENDED IT AND THEN CONVERTED IT TO A CRIMINAL CASE RIGHT AFTER THAT ON SEPTEMBER 1ST.
WELL, HERE'S THE PROBLEM WITH THAT.
WHERE DID THEY DO THAT? I MEAN, MAYBE IN CHIEF PAUL'S HEAD, BECAUSE GUESS WHO DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT? SERGEANT MONTGOMERY WHO'S CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION WHERE HE WRITES A 64 PAGE REPORT, THAT'S EXHIBIT A GUESS WHAT IS COMPLETELY MISSING FROM THERE? ANY REFERENCE THAT HE SUSPENDED HIS INVESTIGATION, ANY REFERENCE THAT HE STARTED A NEW INVESTIGATION.
NOT TO MENTION, LIKE HOW CAN YOU START A WHOLE NEW INVESTIGATION OF THE SAME MATERIAL IF IT'S A, AND THE CASE LAW CITED TO, IN MY BRIEF SAYS THESE, THE, THE, THE STATUTE THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS ENCOMPASSES OR ARE A CONTEMPLATES THAT THERE SHALL BE A WHOLLY SEPARATE INVESTIGATION OF CRIMINAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE.
HOW CAN YOU HAVE THE SAME INVESTIGATOR CONDUCTING THE SAME INVESTIGATION AND SAY, WELL, THAT'S A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT HIS REPORT, FIRST OFF, THERE'S ONLY ONE REPORT NUMBER.
SO IF IT'S A SEPARATE REPORT NUMBER, YOU KNOW THIS, ANYTIME YOU START A NEW INVESTIGATION, IT GETS A NEW REPORT NUMBER.
WHY IS IT THE SAME REPORT NUMBER ONE MINUTE.
WHY IS IT THE SAME REPORT NUMBER? WHY? BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME INVESTIGATION.
BUT TO BOOT, LOOK AT THE NEXT ENTRY SEPTEMBER 6TH.
SO IF IT'S A NEW INVESTIGATION, YOU SEE THIS, HIS REPORT, HE'S VERY METICULOUS, GOES THROUGH EVERYTHING BUT HIS NEXT ENTRY SEPTEMBER 6TH.
SO YOU GOT AUGUST 30TH AND THEN NOTHING'S DONE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 6TH.
WELL, YOU WOULD THINK, OKAY, HE'S STARTING A NEW INVESTIGATION, SO HE'S GONNA DOCUMENT THAT, NO, NOT DOCUMENTED, BUT TO BOOT.
SECONDLY, YOU THINK IT WOULD START, OKAY, I'M GONNA NEED TO RETAKE HIS, I NEED TO RE INTERROGATE HIM SO I CAN START A FRESH, INTER FRESH INVESTIGATION.
ALL HE DID WAS MEET WITH HIM ON INFORMATION THAT WAS ALREADY GIVEN ON AUGUST 30TH AND RUN WITH IT.
HE DIDN'T START A WHOLE NEW INVESTIGATION.
HE CONTINUED WITH THE INVESTIGATION.
SO DON'T BE SUCKED INTO THIS RUSE THAT WAS AS PUT OUT THERE.
THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT SUBSTANTIATES WHAT THEY'RE SAYING TO BOOT SAID, POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS REQUIRES THEM TO START THIS INVESTIGATION WITHIN 14 DAYS.
WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS RECEIVED.
THEY CAN SAY ALL DAY LONG THAT EXHIBIT A SERGEANT MONTGOMERY'S REPORT SAYS THAT THE CHIEF RECEIVED THAT COMPLAINT, THAT PHONE CALL ON THAT DAY.
THERE'S NO, I'VE LOOKED AT IT EVERY WHICH WAY.
IT'S NOT IN THERE, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS.
THEY CANNOT PROVE WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS RECEIVED.
THEREFORE, THEY CANNOT PROVE THAT THEY COMPLIED WITH THE 14 DAY RULE TO START THEIR INVESTIGATION.
THEY CANNOT PROVE BECAUSE THERE'S NO DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY SUSPENDED THAT ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION AND STARTED A NEW ONE.
WHY? BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
ASK SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
WHERE IS THAT? IN THE RECORD? WE PRESENTED TO YOU ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
WHAT THEY'RE ALLEGING IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE, BUT IT CERTAINLY BACKS WHAT WE ARE TELLING YOU.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, AND I'LL DEFER YOU,
[00:35:06]
GOOD MORNING.UH, I WANT TO KIND OF BEGIN WITH WHAT ARE THE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
I, I CERTAINLY WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO LISTEN TO THAT 8 30 23 RECORDING.
IT IS EXTREMELY CRUCIAL BECAUSE WHAT IS UNDENIABLE AND UNDISPUTED IS THAT WAS AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION.
WE ALL KNOW THAT THE CHIEF OF POLICE GETS TO DECIDE WHETHER SOMETHING IS ADMINISTRATIVE OR CRIMINAL.
AND WHEN YOU LISTEN TO THAT RECORDING, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE CHIEF SAID THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVE.
THERE IS NO DOUBT GATE MONTGOMERY WAS IN THERE AND KNEW THAT IT WAS ADMINISTRATIVE.
SO THAT IS THE BEGINNING OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER.
NO ONE DISPUTES THAT THAT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION INTO MARTEL THOMAS, MARTEL JACKSON, TODD THOMAS, DOUGLAS SCHUTZ, AND TROY LAWRENCE.
WE KNOW IT'S ONE FILE NUMBER AS TO ALL OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS.
NOW WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT? AND PREVIOUS COUNSEL DISCUSSED GARRITY.
WHAT GARRITY SAYS, TO JUST GIVE YOU A QUICK BRIEF OF IT, IS BECAUSE YOU'RE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.
BENEFIT IS THAT STATEMENT CANNOT BE GIVEN TO A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR.
CANNOT BE USED CRIMINALLY AGAINST YOU.
ON THAT 8 30 23, WE KNOW FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT GAYTON MONTGOMERY WAS THERE AND GOT THAT STATEMENT THAT CHIEF PAUL DESIGNATED HIS ADMINISTRATIVE.
IF IT WAS CRIMINAL, HE COULD NOT GIVE IT TO HIM.
WE KNOW THAT GAYTON MONTGOMERY CONTINUED THE INVESTIGATION, NEVER SUSPENDED IT.
AND THEN THE PREDIS LETTERS COME OUT.
WE KNOW THAT THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING STARTED AT 8 30 23 AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE, THE PREDIS LETTER CAME OUT ON DECEMBER 1ST.
IT'S ACTUALLY 94 DAYS IN A MOTION FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
THE ADVERSE, IF YOU SEARCH THE DOCUMENTS, IF THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF SUPPORT FOR ELEMENTS ESSENTIAL TO AN ADVERSE PARTY'S CLAIM, ACTION OR DEFENSE.
IN OTHER WORDS, BATON ROUGE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT CLAIMED THAT THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING WAS SUSPENDED.
THERE MUST BE PROOF IN THE RECORD.
LOOK AT THAT 64 PAGES, IT IS THERE ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE.
IT IS THEIR BURDEN TO PROVE THAT IT WAS SUSPENDED AND THERE IS NO SUSPENSION BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATOR THAT STARTED THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS CONTINUED THE ENTIRE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION AND NEVER LEFT.
AND ONCE AGAIN, I THINK IT IS EXHIBIT G IF YOU LOOK AT IT, GATE MONTGOMERY SIGNED IT AS AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATOR, NOT AS A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR.
NOW THERE ARE ALSO OTHER ISSUES.
UH, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CRIMINAL FILE, YOU'LL LEARN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE VERY TOP, THIS FILE WASN'T CREATED TILL SEPTEMBER 27TH.
THIS IS ONE FULL MONTH AFTER THE STATEMENT WAS MADE.
SO IT'S NOT A CONTEMPORANEOUS REPORT.
THERE WAS A PHONE CALL THAT WAS MADE BY CHIEF PAUL BEFORE THIS INTERVIEW TOOK PLACE.
OKAY? THE BATON ROU CITY POLICE TAKES THE POSITION THAT THIS WAS A CALL TO SET UP A MEETING.
WELL UNDERSTAND THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING.
THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS YOU TO THINK AND BELIEVE.
BUT THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE CHIEF COULD NOT SET UP A MEETING WITH GATON MONTGOMERY AND MARTEL JACKSON GATE MONTGOMERY SET IT UP ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN ARGUMENT.
WELL, THE CHIEF COULDN'T SET UP THE APPOINTMENT.
SO THAT CAN'T BE THE PURPOSE THAT PHONE CALL WAS MADE.
IT WAS NOT TO SET UP AN APPOINTMENT OR AN INTERVIEW CONTAINED IN THE REPORTS.
GATON CLEARLY DICTATE OR SETS FORTH THAT THE CHIEF STARTED ASKING MARTEL JACKSON'S QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MISSING BODY CAMERA.
GARRITY WAS NOT GIVEN AND IT WAS NOT RECORDED.
THERE ARE OTHER RECORDINGS THAT TOOK PLACE, UH, ON SEPTEMBER 6TH, 2023
[00:40:01]
IN GATE MONTGOMERY'S REPORT.HE CLEARLY STATES THAT HE REACHED OUT TO MAR MARTEL JACKSON TO DISCUSS AND ACCESS HIS ACTS AXON CAMERA VIDEO.
THAT'S PART OF THE INVESTIGATION.
HE'S QUESTIONING HIM ABOUT WHERE THE FOOTAGE IS, WHERE IT IS THAT IS NOT RECORDED.
THAT'S A SECOND RECORDING VIOLATION.
ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2023 IN GATE MONTGOMERY'S REPORT.
ONCE AGAIN, HE CONTACTS MARTEL JACKSON DOES NOT ADVISE HIM OF HIS HIS GARRITY RIGHTS.
THEY DISCUSS THE PHOTOS TAKEN IN AN EFFORT TO CONTINUE THIS INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION.
DISCUSSING THE AREA OF THE INCIDENT.
ASKED UH, MARTEL JACKSON TO LABEL AND IDENTIFY CERTAIN EXHIBITS.
THERE'S NO RECORDING IN THE IA FILE, BUT MONTGOMERY'S REPORT SUGGESTS THAT IT WAS RECORDED.
BUT WHAT ALSO HAPPENS THAT WAS NOT RECORDED WAS MARTEL JACKSON WAS SHOWN PHOTOGRAPHIC LINEUPS TO IDENTIFY CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN THE CASE, INCLUDING VICTIMS AND OTHER OFFICERS THAT WAS NOT RECORDED AS WELL.
SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE RECORDINGS THAT ARE NOT IN THIS IA FILE THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE IN THE IA FILE NOW.
SO YOU'VE GOT, I THINK THE 75 DAY CLEARLY VIOLATED 'CAUSE IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ADMINISTRATIVE AND THERE'S NO SHOWING THAT IT WAS ANYTHING OTHER THAN ADMINISTRATIVE.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, CONTAINED WITHIN GATE MONTGOMERY'S FILE IS THAT KYLE HILL, AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATOR ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, RECEIVED THIS FILE AND STARTED HIS INVESTIGATION.
YOU KNOW WHAT? HE DIDN'T HAVE THE GARRITY STATEMENT.
THE CHIEF DID NOT GIVE HIM THE GARRITY STATEMENT, WHICH IS ONLY USED FOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION.
THE CHIEF GAVE IT TO THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR ACCORDING TO THE BATON ROUGE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THAT WOULD CAUSE ME A LOT OF CONCERN IF I WAS REVIEWING THIS, TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT WAS APPROPRIATE AND WHAT WAS REAL.
THOSE ARE UNDISPUTED FACTS AND IT WILL NOT BE DISPUTED BY MR. RAINS.
NOW WHAT WE KNOW, BASED UPON THE REPORTS, THAT 64 PAGE REPORT, THERE WAS SOME CITIZEN'S COMPLAINT THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE CHIEF.
WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHEN THAT TOOK PLACE.
THERE'S NO FACTS IN THERE SUGGESTING THAT THERE'S AN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THAT IT WAS OUTSIDE OF A 14 DAY PERIOD.
'CAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS, IT WASN'T DOCUMENTED.
AND OUR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD FOR YOU TO DETERMINE THAT PROVISION WASN'T VIOLATED.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FACTS ON THE RECORD, THERE IS NO DOUBT ALL OF THIS IS INDISPUTABLE THAT THESE ARE THE FACTS.
AND BASED UPON THAT, OUR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED AND I'LL DEFER ANY ADDITIONAL TIME I HAVE TO MR. MCCLENNAN.
SO I THINK YOU'VE GOT A TOTAL OF SEVEN MINUTES NOW.
HOPEFULLY I DON'T NEED ALL SEVEN.
I THINK Y'ALL ALL HEARD IT ENOUGH, BUT REAL QUICK.
WERE WERE, WERE THE INTERVIEWS RECORDED? NO, THEY WEREN'T.
I MEAN, THAT'S UNDISPUTED AN ABSOLUTE NOVELTY.
MORE THAN ONE INTERVIEW WITH MARTELL JACKSON.
I I PROBABLY SHOULD SIT DOWN SECOND.
DID THEY INITIATE THE INVESTIGATION WITHIN 14 DAYS? LOOK IN THE RECORD WITH NO WAY OF KNOWING.
AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS, UM, DID THEY COMPLETE IT WITHIN 75 DAYS? THE REASON WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT THIS AUGUST 30TH, IT WAS THE START OF THE INTERVIEW IS, AND THEY TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE THIS IS HERE'S AUGUST.
THIS IS SOME KIND OF, UH, IT'S JUST DEMONSTRATIVE.
JUST, JUST, WE CALL IT DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE.
DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE OTHER SIDE.
I WAS ABOUT TO ASK WHETHER OR IF WE DID A CHART.
DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A SECOND LOOK AT IT.
WE HAVE, IT'S NOT JUST A CALENDAR.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A LOG SHEET OF PEOPLE'S HOURS FOR ME.
YOU WANNA LOOK AT IT THOUGH? IF IT'S JUST A CALENDAR, IT'S REALLY JUST A CALENDAR.
THE, THE COLOR CODING WOULD BE THE ONLY THING THAT RIGHT.
BUT THE REASON WE SPENT SO MUCH TIME AND, AND YOU COULD, I COULD ERASE ALL THESE COLORS.
[00:45:01]
DO IS START, WE KNOW THAT IT STARTED ON AUGUST 3RD, RIGHT? RIGHT.WE KNOW IT STARTED ON AUGUST THE THIRD.
ACTUALLY, WHAT'S KIND OF FUNNY, THE, THE POLICE OFFICER BILL RIGHTS POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS STILL, I COULD ARGUE SIX, THE LEGISLATURE CHANGE 7, 7 5, ARGUE 6 30, 31.
OKAY, THEN WE GO TO SEPTEMBER.
NOW THEY TAKE THE POSITION THAT IT SUSPENDED ON SEPTEMBER 1ST.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THAT COMES FROM.
THE REASON I, MR. RAIN MENTIONED IT IN HIS BRIEF.
I'M GONNA GIVE 'EM SEPTEMBER THE FIRST.
BUT LOOK IN THE RECORD TO SEE IF YOU FIND ANYWHERE WHERE IT WAS SENT.
SO REALLY WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS GO TO 30, 31 SEPTEMBER ONE AND COUNT 75 DAYS AND WE'RE DONE.
BUT WE'LL GIVE 'EM THE SEPTEMBER 1ST PENSION.
SO IF WE GIVE 'EM THE SEPTEMBER 1ST SUSPENSION, SO WE WOULD COUNT 30, 31 AND THEN WE'D STOP THERE AND THEN THEY, THEY ADMIT IT PICKS UP ON THE 19TH OF SEPTEMBER WHEN KYLE HILL, YOU COUNT ALL THOSE DAYS AND THEY GET THEIR TERMINATION LETTER DECEMBER 1ST, 76.
I MEAN IT'S PRETTY, SO IT'S, BUT AGAIN, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A SUSPENSION.
I'M JUST GIVING 'EM THAT SEPTEMBER 1ST BECAUSE YOU PUT IT IN THREE.
BUT IF YOU LOOK IN THE RECORD, WAS IT SUSPENDED? NO, IT WASN'T.
SO YOU ONLY GO TO 30, 31 AND WE GO TO SEPTEMBER AND YOU, YOU RUN OUT TO 75 DAYS WAIT.
SO THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SUSPENSION.
SO THAT'S REALLY IT IN A NUTSHELL.
THEY DIDN'T INSTITUTE IN 14 DAYS.
THEY DIDN'T RECORD THE INTERVIEWS THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO AND THEY DIDN'T COMPLETE IT IN 75 DAYS.
Y'ALL WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS OR HEAR MR. RAINS FIRST? I'M, I'M GETTING A REQUEST FOR A FIVE MINUTE BREAK BEFORE YOU BEGIN MR. RAINS.
WELL WE WERE BACK FIVE MINUTES.
YEAH, SO, ALRIGHT, HERE'S THE DEAL.
SO WE FOUND THAT GAME WE NEED NOW WE KNOW WE PROCEED.
WE CAME HERE, WE WERE WONDERING WHY HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY QUESTION THAT NOW HE DOESN'T HAVE, HIS KEY WASN'T SET LAST WEEK, LAST MONTH.
WHEN DID WE, WHEN DID WE SCHEDULE THIS IN NOVEMBER? WAY BACK.
THIS HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS TWO, THREE MONTHS.
WELL, AND THAT'S GONNA BE ANOTHER THING.
ALL THIS YOU LIKE IT, YOU GETTING SOME TIPS? ALL THIS DOES, ALL
[00:53:13]
THE MEETING IS RESUMED MR. RAINS.UM, AGAIN, JIM RAINS FOR THE DEPARTMENT, UH, AND I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER AN INTRODUCE, UH, OUR EXHIBITS ONE THROUGH 13 THAT, UH, THE OFFICE HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED A COPY OF.
ANY OBJECTIONS, UH, FROM THE OFFICERS SAYING NO OBJECTION.
WELL, OBVIOUSLY TODAY I'M PLAYING A LITTLE BIT OF ZONE DEFENSE AS ONE OF ME AND THREE OF THEM.
SO I'LL TRY TO TOUCH ON ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT THEY RAISED.
UM, ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND TODAY, WE'RE HERE ON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
WHAT WE ALSO KIND OF REFER TO AS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN CIVIL COURT IS WHEN THERE ARE NO MATERIAL ISSUES OF DISPUTED FACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THAT'S WHEN YOU CAN LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU AND REASONABLE NOT MINDS COULD NOT COME TO TWO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FACTS.
THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT A MOTION FOR SUM OF DISPOSITION IS APPROPRIATE.
OTHERWISE, A CASE LIKE THIS WOULD GO ON TO A TRIAL ON THE MERITS ON THESE ISSUES.
UM, AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE ARE, UH, DISPUTED FACTS.
THE ATTORNEYS ON THE OTHER SIDE DISAGREED TO SOME EXTENT WITH SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY'VE ALREADY SAID IN BRIEF, WHICH RAISES DISPUTED FACTS OF THEIR OWN.
I'LL POINT THOSE OUT AS WE TALK, UH, HERE TODAY AND GO THROUGH THEIR, THEIR ARGUMENTS.
UM, BUT THIS IS, UH, THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE TESTIMONY, UH, IS NEEDED FOR THE BOARD TO MAKE CREDIBILITY CALLS OF WITNESSES.
UM, THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE YOU CAN JUST RULE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY AND THE EVIDENCE TO LISTEN TO EVERYBODY AND HEAR WHAT HAPPENED.
[00:55:01]
THERE WERE, YOU HEARD A LOT ABOUT, WELL, IT'S THE DEPARTMENT'S BURDEN TO PROVE THIS AND PROVE THAT.AND THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT THE CASE.
WHEN YOU FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION HERE OR IN CIVIL COURT ACROSS THE STREET, IT IS YOUR BURDEN AS THE MOVER TO PROVE THAT THERE ARE NO ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT.
AND BASED ON THE LAW AND THE LAW ALONE, YOU SHOULD WIN YOUR CASE.
AND THE COURT OR THE BOARD HERE WOULD NOT BE CALLED UPON TO MAKE A CREDIBILITY DECISION BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
IF THERE'S A SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE MAKING A CREDIBILITY CALL BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THEN THAT IS NOT A SITUATION FOR A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
AS WE TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT CASES TODAY, BOTH SIDES HAVE QUOTED CASE LAW TO YOU ALL.
NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE CASES WAS DECIDED ON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
THEY WERE ALL DECIDED AFTER A TRIAL IN THE MAYORS.
AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THESE TYPES OF CASES ARE INHERENTLY FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS WHERE YOU'RE WEIGHING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE PARTIES AND DETERMINING BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHO YOU BELIEVE IS RIGHT, AND THEN YOU MAKE A LEGAL DECISION BASED ON THE FACTS.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO.
THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO BYPASS THE NORMAL PROCESS AND MAKE A DECISION ON THE LAW.
AND WHY ARE THEY DOING THAT? WHY ARE THEY MAKING PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS? WELL, THE FACTS FOR THEM ARE PRETTY BAD IF YOU ACTUALLY GET TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, AND YOU ALL KNOW TO SOME EXTENT SOME OF WHAT THE MERITS OF THE CASE IS ABOUT.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT IN OUR BRIEFS, AND I'M NOT GONNA GET INTO THE DETAILS OF ALL OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THIS SITUATION BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REALLY RELATE TO THE THREE QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY.
BUT WE HAVE PUT IN, UH, OUR BRIEFS THAT OFFICER JACKSON, MARTEL JACKSON, UM, HAD AN, A BODY CAMERA ON THAT ALLEGEDLY CAUGHT AN INCIDENT WHERE THE APPELLANTS WERE INVOLVED IN STRIKING, UH, AN ARRESTEE AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY LOOKED AT THAT VIDEO CAMERA, THAT BODY CAM FOOTAGE, UH, THOUGHT IT TO BE BAD AND, AND DISPOSED OF THE FOOTAGE AND THE CAMERA.
THAT IS, THOSE ARE THE ALLEGATIONS.
SO LET, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT.
IT NOW, IF WE FAST FORWARD TO AUGUST 30TH, 2023, A DATE THAT YOU HEARD A LOT HERE TODAY.
UH, FROM THE OTHER SIDE, A CONCERNED CITIZEN CONTACTS CHIEF PAUL AND TELLS HIM ABOUT THE INCIDENT.
CHIEF PAUL HAS A SYSTEM SEARCHED AT THE DEPARTMENT IN OCTOBER, 2020.
MEMO REGARDING A MISSING BODY CAMERA WAS LOCATED.
CHIEF PAUL THEN CONTACTS OFFICER JACKSON ADVISES HIM.
HE'S DOING AN AUDIT REGARDING THE BODY CAMERA ADVISES HIM.
THEY WOULD NEED, THEY WOULD NEED TO DO AN INTERVIEW ABOUT IT.
OFFICER JACKSON ADVISES INITIALLY THAT THE CAMERA WAS TAKEN OFF THE DOCK AND LOST.
THEN HE CHANGES THE STORY AND VOLUNTARILY TELLS CHIEF PAUL THAT IT WAS TAKEN FROM HIM BY HIS SUPERVISORS, THE APPELLANT.
UH, HE SAYS THIS, AND WHEN HE SAYS THIS, CHIEF PAUL STOPS THE CONVERSATION AND TELLS HIM THEY'RE GOING TO SCHEDULE AN INTERVIEW LATER THAT DAY.
UM, FOR THE FIRST TIME I HEARD, UH, MY, MY OPPONENTS ARGUE THAT CHIEF PAUL WAS NOT THE ONE TO SCHEDULE THE INTERVIEW.
IT WAS ACTUALLY, UH, SERGEANT GATON MONTGOMERY THAT SCHEDULED THE INTERVIEW.
BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT INDICATES THAT THIS IS NEW EVIDENCE.
THAT ALONE CREATES A DISPUTED FACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
THEY MEET WITH SERGEANT MONTGOMERY.
NOW YOU HEARD THERE WAS NO RECORDED INTERVIEW.
THEY, THEY SAID THAT MULTIPLE TIMES THERE IS A RECORDED INTERVIEW FROM AUGUST 30TH.
IT'S QUITE LONG AND BOTH PARTIES HAVE ENTERED IT INTO EVIDENCE.
THE REASON I ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE IS NOT THE FACTS, THE SUBSTANCE OF THE INTERVIEW, BUT TO SHOW THAT AN INTERVIEW WAS SET UP AND AN INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED AND AN INTERVIEW WAS RECORDED AND THAT WAS DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS.
AND KEEP IN MIND, THE ONLY THINGS THAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH TODAY ARE THOSE THREE QUESTIONS OF THE VIOLATIONS OF THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS, WHICH I WILL GO THROUGH, UH, ONE BY ONE HERE IN A MINUTE.
UM, A VIOLATION OF, AND I DON'T THINK THERE WERE ANY, BUT THEY RAISE, AND I'LL POINT 'EM OUT, WHAT I CALL COMPLAINTS IN THEIR BRIEF COMPLAINTS THAT ARE NOT ISSUES RELATED TO THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS.
THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS IS THE ONLY THING THAT CARRIES WITH IT A NULLIFICATION OF DISCIPLINE IF IT WERE DONE.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS THAT SAYS, WELL, IF, IF CHIEF BALL TOOK A CALL AND HE DIDN'T WRITE IT DOWN, WELL THAT'S, THAT CASE IS NULLIFIED.
IT IS NOT A PLEA PART OF THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS.
THE ONLY ISSUES, THOSE THREE ISSUES BEFORE YOU ARE THE ONES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY NULLIFIED DISCIPLINE.
[01:00:01]
EACH OF THE COMPLAINTS TOO, BECAUSE I'LL SHOW YOU THAT THOSE ARE ALSO INACCURATE.UH, ON AUGUST 30 THEY MEET WITH OFFICER JACKSON.
IT'S CLEAR TO CHIEF PAUL, AFTER VISITING WITH JACKSON THAT THESE ARE CRIMINAL ISSUES.
AT THE TIME, JACKSON WAS NOT THE TARGET, UH, OF THE SITUATION.
UM, YES, HE WAS GIVEN ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHTS, UH, UH, GARRITY RIGHTS THAT HAPPENS IN ALL ADMINISTRATIVE INTERVIEWS OF OFFICERS.
WE ALWAYS GIVE THEM GARRITY RIGHTS WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE THE TARGET OF THE CASE.
HE WAS ALSO GIVEN MIRANDA WARNING.
UM, THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF THE RECORDING.
SO THE NEXT DAY, AND, AND I WILL APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I DIDN'T CATCH IT WHEN IT, THIS BRIEF WAS WRITTEN BY MY, MY OFFICE THE FOLLOWING DAY IS WHEN IT OCCURRED.
THE NEXT DAY IS WHEN, UH, CHIEF MEETS WITH THE FBI TO TALK ABOUT THE CRIMINAL CASE.
SEE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT HAPPENED ON THE DAY FOLLOWING THAT INTERVIEW WITH MARTEL JACKSON THAT SHOW CLEARLY THAT THIS CASE WENT CRIMINAL.
WHAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT EASILY SHOWS THAT THIS CASE WENT CRIMINAL? SERGEANT MONTGOMERY, IF YOU LOOK AT OUR EXHIBIT, EXHIBIT ONE, BUT IT'S ALSO THEIR EXHIBIT.
WHAT KIND OF REPORT DOES SERGEANT MONTGOMERY DO? IS IT AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT? IT IS NOT.
SERGEANT MONTGOMERY IS A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR.
HE DID A CRIMINAL INCIDENT REPORT.
REPORT NUMBER 23 DASH 0 9 6 9 6 2.
THAT REPORT THEN RESULTED IN THE ARREST OF THE OFFICERS.
IS THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE SITUATION? NO, IT IS NOT.
IF WE LOOK AT EXHIBITS THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE OF OUR EXHIBIT BOOK, THOSE ARE THE, UH, WARRANTS OF A, OF THE AFFIDAVITS THAT RESULT IN THE WARRANT OF ARREST FOR THE OFFICERS SIGNED ON SEPTEMBER 27TH.
SO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION BEGINS ON SEPTEMBER 19, AS WAS ALREADY RELAYED TO YOU BY THE OTHER SIDE.
THIS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION WAS ALREADY ONGOING ON SEPTEMBER 27TH, A WEEK OR SO AFTER THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION HAPPENS OR STARTS, THESE, THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE ARRESTED AND THAT ARREST ULTIMATELY LED TO A GRAND JURY PROCEEDING WHERE THE INDIVIDUALS WERE INDICTED.
OKAY? THEIR CASE, THEIR CRIMINAL CASES ARE ONGOING AT THIS TIME.
THEY ARE STILL PENDING DURING THAT SPACE OF TIME BETWEEN THE TWO.
UH, AUGUST 30 AND SEPTEMBER 19, WHEN THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS, UH, THE CHIEF OF POLICE ALSO MET WITH AXON.
UH, THE CHIEF SERGEANT MONTGOMERY AND SERGEANT MONTGOMERY'S SUPERVISOR LIEUTENANT HARRIS MET WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
THEY MET WITH THE PARISH ATTORNEY.
UM, AND IT WAS AFTER THAT MEETING ON THE 19TH MEETING WITH THE PARISH ATTORNEY AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
THE CHIEF ADVISED INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE COMPLAINT.
THEY TALK ABOUT WHETHER WHERE THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS.
WELL, THERE WERE, YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE THE REPORTS.
OUR EXHIBIT SIX IS THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS REPORT.
UH, AND THEN AGAIN, YOU HAVE SERGEANT MONTGOMERY'S 64 PAGE REPORT, WHICH IS CRIMINAL.
UM, THEY MAKE A BIG DEAL ABOUT SERGEANT MONTGOMERY BEING INVOLVED IN THE INITIAL INTERVIEW.
AN INVESTIGATION OF, IN AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION IS AN INVESTIGATION.
IT'S, IT'S THE CHIEF'S INVESTIGATION.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT DEPARTMENTS ACROSS THE STATE, THERE ARE PLENTY OF DEPARTMENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT.
THIS, OUR, OURS IS BIGGER, SO THEY HAVE ONE, THE CHIEF OF POLICE CAN CONDUCT HIS OWN INTERVIEWS IF HE WANTS TO.
THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN SMALL TOWNS.
I'VE REPRESENTED A DEPARTMENT THAT WAS LIKE THAT BEFORE.
THEY DON'T HAVE A, THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE A WHOLE SEPARATE OFFICE TO DO INTERNAL AFFAIRS.
THE CHIEF CAN CONDUCT THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION AND THEY CAN INTERVIEW WITNESSES IF THEY WANT TO.
THAT IS ALLOW, SO LET'S GET TO THE NUMBER ONE ARGUMENT THAT THE, UM, THE FIRST ARGUMENT, UH, THAT THE INVESTIGATION LASTED LONGER THAN THE 75 DAYS.
UH, IT'S ESSENTIALLY THAT, UH, THE INTERVIEW WITH OFFICER JACKSON WAS ON AUGUST 30.
THE PREDIS NOTICE WAS WERE ISSUED ON DECEMBER 1ST.
IF YOU CALCULATE THE, THE TOTAL DAYS BETWEEN THOSE TWO IS 75 DAYS.
THAT'S TRUE IF YOU COMPLETELY IGNORE THE EXCEPTION OF THE LAW FOR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.
THERE'S AN IMPORTANT PHRASE IN THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS.
THEY QUOTED TO YOU SECTION B SEVEN, BUT THEY, THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THAT LAST PHRASE IN B SEVEN.
NOTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL LIMIT ANY INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
AND THIS IS THE VERY REASON WHY THIS CASE CANNOT BE DECIDED ON A SUMMARY DISPOSITION BECAUSE THERE IS AN EXCEPTION FOR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, WHICH HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY RECOGNIZED BY CASE LAW AND EVIDENCE WOULD NEED TO BE PUT ON TO DETERMINE
[01:05:01]
WHETHER THERE WAS THIS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION THAT WAS ONGOING, WHICH CLEARLY IT WAS BECAUSE IT RESULTED IN SERGEANT MONTGOMERY'S REPORT.UM, AND I'LL, I WANNA GO THROUGH THOSE BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE VERY IMPORTANT FOR THIS BOARD TO UNDERSTAND.
THE SUPREME COURT OF OUR STATE SAYS THAT THAT SECTION OF 25 OR 25 31 B SEVEN, THAT NO, YOU KNOW, THAT NOTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL LIMIT ANY INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
THAT MEANS THAT NOTHING MUST INTERFERE WITH A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE O'HERN CASE, AND THIS IS A QUOTE FROM THE O'HERN CASE.
THE LANGUAGE FOUND IN 25 31 PROVIDES THAT AN INVESTIGATION SHALL BE INITIATED WITHIN 14 DAYS OF A FORMAL COMPLAINT.
AND UNLESS INVOLVING ALLEGATIONS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 60 DAYS, THE OLD RULE WAS 60 DAYS.
NOW IT'S 75 UNLESS INVOLVING ALLEGATIONS OF AC CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
SO IT APPLIES UNLESS YOU HAVE THAT, THAT GOING ON THERE.
PROCELL CASE FIRST, THIS IS THE FIRST CIRCUIT.
SO WE ARE UNDER THE 19TH JDC AND THEN ABOVE THAT, IF YOU APPEAL, THAT GOES TO THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL.
THE FIRST CIRCUIT CITED TO O HEARN.
AND IT SAID, IT, IT CITED O HEARN TO MEAN THIS, THE 60 DAY PERIOD FOR COMPLETION OF AN INVESTIGATION DOES NOT APPLY TO INVESTIGATIONS OF CONDUCT INVOLVING ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
WELL, DID THIS CASE INVOLVE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY? WELL, CLEARLY IT DID BECAUSE IT RESULTED IN THE ARREST AND INDICTMENT OF THE OFFICERS.
SO EVEN RECOGNIZING THAT THE COURT STILL DID THE MATH AND, AND SHOWED YOU THAT IF YOU REMOVE THE DAYS WHEN THE CASE WAS SUSPENDED, THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION WAS STILL COMPLETED WITHIN 60 DAYS.
AND THAT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN OUR, OUR CASE HERE.
UM, AND I I'M GONNA PROVIDE JUST A FEW MORE QUOTES AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO THAT PART.
THE BURNS CASE, WHICH IS ONE THAT, UM, MR. KERSHAW AND I ARGUED AT THE FIRST CIRCUIT.
UM, THEY ARGUED A SIMILAR 60 DAY VIOLATION IN THAT INSTANCE.
AND THE COURT THERE SAYS THE 60 DAY PERIOD DOES NOT BEGIN TO TOLL UNTIL THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPLETE OR COMPLETE.
OKAY? SO BASED ON THE CLEAR CIRCUIT OPINION WE HAVE IN OUR FIRST CIRCUIT, THE COURT HAS SAID IT'S NOT UNTIL THE THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ARE ACTUALLY COMPLETE, THAT THE, THAT IT BEGINS TO TOLL THOSE DEADLINES.
SO OUR POSITION IS THAT IS TRUE, BUT IF YOU ALSO LOOK AT THE TIMEFRAMES, THE VERY NEXT DAY AFTER MARTEL JACKSON'S INTERVIEW ON AUGUST 30, THE VERY NEXT DAY, AND UNTIL SEPTEMBER 19TH, THERE WAS A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION THAT WAS ONGOING.
EITHER WAY YOU LOOK AT IT, WE ARE, WE STILL COMPLY WITH THE 75 DAY RULE.
UM, MCMASTER WAS ANOTHER CASE, UH, THAT WE CITED TO, AND I WANNA POINT THIS OUT.
IT SAYS, UH, TALKING ABOUT B SEVEN AGAIN, OF, OF THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS, NOTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL LIMIT ANY INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO MEAN THAT THE 60 DAY TIME LIMITATION WITHIN WHICH TO COMPLETE INVESTIGATION DOES NOT APPLY TO INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
THE INVESTIGATION INTO MS, UH, MR. MCMASTER'S CONDUCT WAS CLEARLY AN INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
THEREFORE, THE TIME PERIOD OF REVISED STATUTE 40 25 31 DOES NOT APPLY PURSUANT TO OUR HOLDING IN O'HERN.
THIS IS THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT THAT SAYS THIS, AND THAT APPLIES TO THIS CASE.
THERE'S A REASON THEY DIDN'T GET INTO THE DETAILS, BUT THAT THAT IS WHAT APPLIES HERE.
BRIEFLY, I WANNA POINT OUT THEY PUT THIS IN THEIR BRIEF, THEY POINTED OUT POLICY 5 0 1 95 DASH FOUR, THEY SAID IT ONLY REQUIRES A 60 DAY, UH, UH, TIME PERIOD RATHER THAN A 75.
THEY SAID BASICALLY WE LIMITED OURSELVES IN THE WAY THAT WE DID OUR POLICY.
THE PROBLEM IS THEY DID NOT, THEY ONLY CITED ONE SENTENCE TO YOU OF THAT, UH, THAT POLICY AND DIDN'T GIVE YOU THE WHOLE POLICY.
THE POLICY IN THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE ONE B UM, SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THERE'S A 70 75 DAY COMPLETION REQUIREMENT FOR INVESTIGATIONS.
THIS WAS NOTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD THE BOARD.
THEY ALSO CITED TO OUR GENERAL ORDER ONE 12.
UM, AND AGAIN, IN THAT SITUATION, THEY GET IN, THEY DID NOT GET INTO IT TODAY.
WHAT THEY DID IN THEIR BRIEF, AND THEY SAID THAT IT REQUIRES CERTAIN THINGS TO OCCUR, BUT THEY DID NOT GIVE YOU THE FULL SCOPE OF WHAT, WHAT WAS ACTUALLY IN OUR POLICY.
UM, AND LET'S GET TO, THERE'S ONE THING THAT THEY SAID ABOUT DURING THE, UH, INTERVIEW.
THEY SAID CHIEF DID NOT ADVISE OFFICER JACKSON OF HIS RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY.
IF YOU READ 40 25 31 THE POLICE OFFICER'S
[01:10:01]
BILL OF RIGHTS, IT ALLOWS AN INDIVIDUAL, THEY'RE PERMITTED TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THEM.IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THEY BE ADVISED OF THAT PRIOR TO GIVING AN INTERVIEW.
IT IS NOT IN THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS.
AGAIN, YOU'RE, THERE'S AN ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD YOU ON WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS.
SO I WANT YOU ALL TO, WITH YOUR ATTORNEY TO READ THE LAW CAREFULLY BECAUSE YOU WERE BEING ADVISED THAT THERE ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS WHEN THAT IS NOT TRUE.
THE LANGUAGE DOES NOT SAY THAT.
NOW LET'S GET INTO THE FAILURE TO RECORD.
WE ALL AGREE THAT ON AUGUST 30 THAT THERE WAS A, UH, AN EXTENDED, LENGTHY RECORDED INTERVIEW BECAUSE WE ALL PUT THAT INTO EVIDENCE.
UM, THEIR ARGUMENT HINGES ON THAT.
WE ON FACTS AND WE CANNOT DECIDE THOSE IN A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO FIND THAT INTERROGATION OF OFFICER JACKSON TOOK PLACE ON THE PHONE CALL.
SO THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DETERMINE THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF THAT AN INTERROGATION HAPPENED JUST ON A SUMMARY BASIS, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
UM, THE PHONE CALL WHERE THE CHIEF ADVISED HE NEEDED TO SET UP AN INTERVIEW WITH SERGEANT MONTGOMERY ABOUT THE MISSING CAMERA FROM 2020.
UH, HE STARTED THAT CONVERSATION BY TELLING HIM HE HE WAS GOING TO AUDIT IT AND SET UP AN INTERVIEW AND THEN OFFICER JACKSON EXPLAINED THAT HE PUT IT ON A DOCKING STATION.
THEN HE SAID THAT HIS, UH, SUPERVISORS TOOK IT.
NOW, IF WE LOOK AT THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS 45, UH, 40 25, 31 B THREE, ALL INTERROGATIONS OF ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTIGATION SHALL BE RECORDED IN FULL.
NOW THEY'RE JUST USING SERGEANT MONTGOMERY'S CRIMINAL REPORT LANGUAGE TO SAY THAT THERE WAS AN INTERROGATION WITH NO PROOF OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID IN THE CONVERSATION.
IN FACT, ALL OF THE STUFF THAT THEY DESCRIBED ABOUT THE CONVERSATION WHEN THEY WERE UP HERE ASK YOU TO GO FAR BEYOND WHAT EVEN THE CRIMINAL REPORT SAYS.
THEY ASK YOU TO ASSUME, OH, WELL, HE WAS PROBING AND HE WAS ASKING HIM THIS, HEY, WAS, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT.
EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THERE WAS AN INTERROGATION, WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE BEFORE YOU ALL YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW IS HEARSAY WITHIN HEARSAY BECAUSE SERGEANT MONTGOMERY WAS NOT A PART OF THAT CONVERSATION.
SO SERGEANT MONTGOMERY IS RELAYING TO YOU WHAT HE HEARD ABOUT THE CONVERSATION.
OKAY? IT WOULD BE ONE THING IF SERGEANT MONTGOMERY WAS A PART OF THAT CONVERSATION HIMSELF, AND THEN HE WROTE A POLICE REPORT AND HE EXPLAINED IN HIS POLICE REPORT WHAT HAPPENED IN HIS CONVERSATION, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
CHIEF PAUL SAID THIS, AND, AND MARTEL JACKSON SAID THIS, AND HE EXPLAINED IT THAT WAY.
UM, THERE'S SEVERAL PEOPLE IN THE ROOM THAT DO CRIMINAL DEFENSE WORK.
I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WOULD WANT, UH, THE PROSECUTOR TO BE ABLE TO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE POLICE REPORT ALONE AND SAY, WELL, CLEARLY IF YOU READ THE POLICE REPORT, THE GUY'S GUILTY.
LOOK AT WHAT WE PUT IN THE POLICE REPORT.
OKAY? YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY HEAR TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CONVERSATION TO UNDERSTAND WHAT OCCURRED IN THE CONVERSATION.
AGAIN, IT IS THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS AN INTERROGATION.
THEY CANNOT DO IT BASED ON ALL THAT THEY HAVE PRESENTED TODAY.
ALSO, WHAT IS AN INTERROGATION YOU THAT WASN'T EXPLAINED TO YOU? THE LAW SAYS IT'S A, IT CONTEMPLATES THE FORMAL OR SYSTEMATIC QUESTIONING OF A LAW OFFICER, KYLE AND I, UH, MR. KERSHAW AND I ACTUALLY ALSO ARGUED THE MCDERMOTT CASE, AND THAT WAS ANOTHER BRPD CASE.
UM, IN THAT CASE, ON THE DATE OF THE PREDIS HEARING, UH, ONE OF THE INSTRUCTORS FOR THE TRAINING ACADEMY WAS BROUGHT IN TO MEET WITH THE CHIEF AND THE DEPUTY CHIEFS.
THIS IS WAY BEFORE I WAS, UH, REPRESENTING THEM, AND THEY SHOWED HIM A, A, AN INCIDENT, A USE OF FORCE INCIDENT.
THEY SHOWED IT TO THE INSTRUCTOR.
THEY HAD HIM, UM, REVIEW IT, AND THEN THEY ASKED HIM QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, WHETHER THAT COMPLIED WITH TRAINING AND WHETHER THAT WAS A VIOLATION OF THE POLICIES OF THE DEPARTMENT.
UH, THE FIRST CIRCUIT DETERMINED THAT, THAT, THAT IN OF ITSELF WAS NOT AN INTERROGATION.
IT WAS NOT A, THEY'RE ASKING HIM OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS.
THIS WAS NOT A FORMAL OR SYSTEMATIC QUESTIONING OF THE LAW.
OFFICER MILLER THAT WAS QUOTED WHERE THERE WAS TWO QUESTIONS ASKED OF MILLER, UM, IS AN INTERESTING CASE.
THERE WERE ONLY TWO QUESTIONS ASKED, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.
HE WAS STRAPPED TO THE POLYGRAPH.
HE ASKED FOR AN ATTORNEY TO BE THERE TO REPRESENT HIM.
HE ASKED THAT HIS INTERVIEW BE RECORDED.
AND THE FIRST CIRCUIT SAID, LOOK, JUST BY ITS NATURE, A POLYGRAPH IS, IS A FORMAL AND SYSTEMATIC QUESTIONING.
SO THAT'S NOT REALLY, UH, COMPARABLE TO WHAT
[01:15:01]
HAPPENED HERE ON A PHONE CALL TO SET UP AN INTERVIEW.UM, ALSO THE, THE ANDEL SITUATION, UH, ANDEL CASE THAT WE CITED.
IN THAT SITUATION, A LIEUTENANT MEETS WITH A, UM, ONE OF HIS SUPERVISEES.
HE HAS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT A POTENTIAL VIOLATION, AND HE BRINGS HIM IN AND HE SAYS, YOU KNOW, GIVE ME A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION WHY I SHOULD NOT DISCIPLINE YOU FOR WHAT I'VE GOT HERE.
THAT WAS HIS QUESTION TO THE OFFICER.
THE PERSON STARTS EXPLAINING IT.
THEY TALK FOR 10 TO 15 MINUTES, AND THAT WAS DETERMINED NOT TO BE A FORMAL AND SYSTEMATIC QUESTIONING OF THE OFFICER.
SO CERTAINLY, EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE THAT CHIEF, UH, CHIEF PAUL DID ASK OFFICER JACKSON, UH, THE THOSE, THAT ONE QUESTION THAT IS IN THE POLICE REPORT, EVEN IF YOU DID BELIEVE THAT, WHICH HE DENIES, UM, THAT WOULD NOT BE A FORMAL AND SYSTEMATIC QUESTIONING AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW AS REQUIRED BY THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL IN OUR STATE, IN, IN OUR CIRCUIT.
LAST ISSUE IS THE TIMELY START OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION.
AGAIN, THEY HAVE THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT IT DID NOT OCCUR.
IT DID NOT HAPPEN WITHIN THE 14 DAYS.
THEY WANT YOU TO ASSUME THAT THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO SPECULATE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION OTHERWISE.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, IT DOES NOT, UH, THAT THE STATUTE, THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS DEALING WITH THE 14 DAYS DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION BECAUSE THAT, UH, PART OF THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS CALLS FOR WHEN A FORMAL WRITTEN COMPLAINT WAS MADE AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER.
THEY ASK YOU, THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO APPLY IT TO AN ORAL SITUATION WHERE AN ORAL COMPLAINT WAS RECEIVED.
THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS COULD CLEARLY CALL FOR THAT.
THE LEGISLATOR WANTED TO, THEY COULD MAKE IT SPECIFIC TO APPLY TO ANY COMPLAINT THAT WAS RECEIVED BY A DEPARTMENT, BUT THEY DIDN'T DO IT HERE.
THEY SAID, WHEN A FORMAL WRITTEN COMPLAINT IS RECEIVED, AND NO DOUBT, THAT IS NOT WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
WE HAVE AN ORAL COMPLAINT THAT WAS MADE.
THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS IS PENAL IN NATURE.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT MEANS THAT IN THIS CASE, IF THE DISCIPLINE, UH, IF THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS, THE DISCIPLINE COULD BE THROWN OUT AND MADE A NULLITY.
WELL, THE COURT SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO INTERPRET THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS NARROWLY.
YOU CAN'T EXPAND IT TO INCLUDE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY PUT INTO THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO.
THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO, TO EXPAND TO OTHER THINGS THAT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE.
SO CLEARLY THIS WAS NOT A FORMAL WRITTEN COMPLAINT.
SO THIS, THE 14 DAY ARGUMENT DOESN'T APPLY, BUT IF YOU WERE TO APPLY IT, IT WOULD BE INCORRECT UNDER THE LAW.
UH, THE CHIEF RECEIVED THE INFORMATION PER, UH, SERGEANT GAYDEN'S REPORT ON AUGUST 30.
UH, THAT'S WHEN HE MET WITH OFFICER JACKSON, THE RECORDED INTERVIEW.
THEY'VE GOT NO PROOF OTHERWISE, AND THEY'RE JUST ASKING YOU TO SPECULATE.
UM, AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE AN ISSUE THAT REQUIRES TESTIMONY TO PROVE IT'S NOT THE KIND THAT'S ORDINARILY HANDLED IN A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION STATUS.
JUST TO WRAP UP, YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW DURING THE INVESTIGATION WITHOUT HEARING TESTIMONY TO EXPLAIN WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO GUESS OR SPECULATE WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU COULD HAVE THE RELEVANT PARTIES HERE TO TALK ABOUT.
YOU COULD HAVE O OFFICER JACKSON, YOU COULD HAVE CHIEF PAUL TO EXPLAIN WHAT TOOK PLACE IN THEIR PHONE CALL.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE CASES WE CITED, NONE OF THEM WERE HANDLED ON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
THEY WERE DECIDED ONLY AFTER A TRIAL WAS HELD ON THESE ISSUES, TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE WERE PRESENTED, ALLOWING THE BOARD TO MAKE FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS, WHICH WOULD THEN INFORM YOUR LEGAL DECISIONS, URGE YOU TODAY TO DENY THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
AND IT CAN'T BE GRANTED BASED ON THE CLEAR LAW THAT WE CITED.
THERE WERE A FEW THINGS THAT I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON THAT WERE BROUGHT UP BY THE OTHER SIDE.
THEY ARGUED, OR THEY, THEY ARGUED THAT THE DOCUMENTATION, UH, OF BY THE CHIEF OF THAT INITIAL REPORT OR THE COMPLAINT, UM, THAT IS A SITUATION WHERE YOU WOULD NULLIFY THE DISCIPLINE.
IT IS NOT PART OF THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS.
UM, THEY TALKED ABOUT WHAT SERGEANT MONTGOMERY SAID IN HIS INTERVIEW, UM, OR IN THE INTERVIEW WITH GATON, UH, WITH, UH, MARTEL JACKSON, AND THEY SAID HE CALLED HIMSELF A CRIMINAL AND IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS, UH, OR THE CRIMINAL INTERNAL AFFAIRS, UH, DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT, OBVIOUSLY, AS EVERYBODY RECOGNIZES, THAT DOESN'T EXIST, NUMBER ONE.
UM, AND SURELY MARTELL JACKSON WOULD KNOW THAT BEING A MEMBER OF THE THE DEPARTMENT, BUT ALSO IF YOU'VE LISTENED CLEAR
[01:20:01]
CAREFULLY, HE SAYS, UH, THIS IS INVESTIGATION IS BEING CONDUCTED FOR PURPOSES OF THE, IN, UH, THE CRIMINAL AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS.HE PUT THE WORD AND BETWEEN THOSE, IT'S HARD TO HEAR, BUT IF YOU SLOW IT DOWN AND LISTEN CLOSELY, THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.
REGARDLESS IF HE CALLED HIMSELF THE PRINCE OF ABU DHABI, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
IT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS.
OKAY? IT JUST BECAUSE HE CALLED HIMSELF SOMETHING THAT HE'S NOT, EVEN IF THAT WERE TRUE, WHICH IT'S NOT, IT WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS.
AGAIN, THEY RAISED THEIR OWN FACTUAL DISPUTES TODAY.
THEY SAID THE CHIEF DIDN'T, WAS NOT THE ONE THAT SET UP THE INTERVIEW THAT SERGEANT MONTGOMERY DID NOT.
THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO SPECULATE WILDLY IN THAT SITUATION.
UM, AND I WOULD JUST ASK YOU NOT TO TAKE THE BAIT.
AND FINALLY, SO MUCH OF THEIR ARGUMENT JUST HINGES ON THIS WAS ALL, EVERYTHING THAT SERGEANT MONTGOMERY DID WAS ADMINISTRATIVE.
BUT AS I'VE POINTED OUT NUMEROUS TIMES, SERGEANT MONTGOMERY'S INVESTIGATION RESULTED IN A CRIMINAL REPORT THAT RESULTED IN AN ARREST THAT RESULTED IN A GRAND JURY PROCEEDING THAT RESULTED IN INDICTMENT.
THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THERE WAS CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THEN THERE WAS A SEPARATE INTERNAL AFFAIRS PROCEEDING THAT RESULTED IN A PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARING.
IT RESULTED IN A TERMINATION OF THE OFFICERS AND IT APPEALED TO YOU TWO DISTINCT, CORRECT? THANK YOU.
UH, MR. KHAW DOES, YOU'RE GONNA DO REBUTTAL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW LONG TO GIVE HIM FOR REBUTTAL BOARD.
UH, WHAT'S BEING DISCUSSED IS HOW LONG FOR REBUTTAL.
I'VE HEARD FIVE MINUTES OVER HERE.
WELL, AND, AND WELL, THEY HAD 30 MINUTES.
MY REASONING BEING ULTIMATELY THIS ISN'T BREAKING TO A JURY.
THIS ISN'T THEIR LAST OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO US.
HAVING FIVE MINUTES OF KIND OF NO ONE CAN INTERRUPT TIME, AND THEN THERE CAN BE QUESTIONS IN CONVERSATION AFTER THAT.
IF THIS WERE BREAKING TO FINAL DECISION, I WOULD 100% AGREE WITH YOU, BUT BEING I HAVE A FEELING WE'RE GONNA SPEND A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME AFTER THE FIVE MINUTES THAT THE FIVE MINUTES OF KIND, KIND OF SCRIPTED TIME WAS APPROPRIATE.
ONE ATTORNEY, HOW ABOUT WE, UH, MEET AT THE MIDDLE? LET'S DO 10 MINUTES.
IS THAT FAIR? UM, MR. CAN WE AGREE TO THAT? 10 MINUTES? WE HAVE 10 MINUTES? OKAY.
FIRST OFF, UM, I THOUGHT WE HAD AGREED WE'RE SUBMITTING THIS ON ALL THE EXHIBITS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO YOU AND OUR, AND THE BRIEFS THAT WE SUBMITTED TO YOU.
YOU, YOU STILL NEED TESTIMONY ON TOP OF ALL THAT WE AGREED BEFORE THIS HEARING STARTED, THAT WE'RE GONNA PRESENT TO YOU ALL OUR EXHIBITS AND MAKE THOSE ARGUMENTS BASED ON THAT.
NOT THAT WE NEED TO, TO SUPPLEMENT THAT WITH TESTIMONY.
SO KEEP THAT IN MIND WITH ALL THAT.
I, I KNOW, YOU KNOW, MS. RAINS KEEPS REFERRING TO, WELL, YOU DON'T, YOU NEED TESTIMONY FOR THIS.
WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A CONSIDERATION BEFORE AGREEING TO HANDLE THIS BASED ON THE RECORD.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE AGREED TO DO, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING IT THIS WAY.
SO WITH, LET'S TALK ABOUT, WITH WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU.
YOU WOULD THINK THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, A DETECTIVE, WOULD HAVE EVERYTHING WELL DOCUMENTED AS TO WHAT OCCURRED, WHAT STEPS HE TOOK IN HIS INVESTIGATION.
SO LET'S START WITH ISSUE ONE.
THE, THE, THE, UM, PHONE CALL THAT CHIEF PAUL FORMER CHIEF PAUL HAD WITH, UH, OFFICER JACKSON.
THE ONLY DOCUMENTATION THAT BRPD HAS PRODUCED, THE ONLY DOCUMENTATION PRODUCED IS A REFERENCE IN SERGEANT MONTGOMERY'S REPORT.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO GO ON.
OKAY? THAT'S THE ONLY EVIDENCE WE HAVE TO GO ON, THAT THIS CONVERSATION ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE.
AND WHAT, WHAT WAS THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT? WELL, THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT, ONCE AGAIN, HE CON UM, AS A RESULT, HE OF, UM, CHIEF
[01:25:01]
PAUL CONTACTED OFFICER JACKSON IN REFERENCE TO THE REPORTED MISSING BODY CAMERA.SO LET'S TALK ABOUT MISLEADING THE BOARD.
WHAT DID YOU JUST HEAR? OH, THE CHIEF JUST CALLED HIM TO SET UP AN INTERVIEW.
DOES THAT SOUND LIKE HE'S JUST CALLING TO SET UP AN INTERVIEW? THAT ABSOLUTELY SOUNDS, HE'S CALLING HIM TO ASK HIM QUESTIONS.
THAT'S, AND WHERE WOULD SERGEANT MONTGOMERY HAVE GOTTEN THIS INFORMATION, BUT FROM CHIEF PAUL? 'CAUSE SOMEBODY JUST COME, IF I WALK UP TO YOU AND TELL YOU SOMETHING, AND THAT'S THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED, THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE TO GO ON.
THAT'S ALL SERGEANT MONTGOMERY HAD TO GO ON.
YEAH, THE CHIEF DID THIS PHONE CALL, UM, CONCERNING THE MISSING BODY CAMERA, NOT TO SET UP A MEETING.
ACCORDING TO CHIEF, PAUL JACKSON INITIALLY STATED IT WENT MISSING UPON BEING ASKED AGAIN, ASKED NOT FREELY, VOLUNTARILY, JUST STARTED RATTLING OFF AT THE MOUTH.
THIS IS THE ONLY EVIDENCE WE HAVE OF THIS PHONE CALL.
AND HE SPECIFICALLY STATES UPON BEING ASKED AGAIN.
SO WHAT DOES THAT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT? WELL, HE MUST HAVE BEEN ASKED ABOUT IT PREVIOUSLY TOO.
NOW THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MR. RAINS TALKS ABOUT THE, UM, THE MILLER CASE, AND I GET IT.
MILLER BASICALLY SAID, YOU KNOW, JUST THE FACT THAT IT WAS A, UM, THAT IT WAS A, UM, A POLYGRAPH MAKES IT AN INTERROGATION.
BUT THERE WERE TWO OTHER ELEMENTS.
IT WAS A THREE, THREE ELEMENT TEST.
AND ONE OF 'EM WAS, WELL, THAT'S THE PERSON WHO'S A TARGET.
WELL, HE WAS A TARGET, HENCE THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION STARTED ON HIM TOO.
AND GUESS WHAT? HE RESIGNED IN LIEU OF GOING THROUGH THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS PROCESS.
AND THE QUESTIONS WERE ASKED, QUESTIONS WERE ASKED.
AND IT'S NOT JUST OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS, IT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR BODY CAMERA? ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT? WHY DON'T YOU REALLY TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR BODY CAMERA? THAT'S WHAT OCCURRED.
AND THOSE ARE THE PRETTY MUCH THE EXACT KIND OF QUESTIONS THAT THE TWO QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED IN MILLER AND MILLER SAID, NOPE, THAT'S, THAT IS AN INTERROGATION.
OKAY? SO ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT BRPD HAS PRODUCED CONCERNING THAT PHONE CALL.
AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DECIDE ON ALL THIS GOING OFF.
OH, WELL, WE NEED TESTIMONY ON THAT.
'CAUSE WE AGREED THAT THIS IS HOW WE'RE GONNA HANDLE IT.
AND THAT'S THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU ONLY, THAT'S IT.
SO SECONDLY, UM, YOU KNOW, NO RECORD OF THE INITIAL COMPLAINT.
AND THEY'RE SAYING, WELL, WE NEED TESTIMONY ON THAT.
WE GO AUTHORIZATION ONCE AGAIN, WHY SHOULDN'T WE BE ABLE TO RELY ON THIS 64 PAGE REPORT PRESENTED BY THE LEAD DETECTIVE ON THIS CONCERNING THAT INITIAL COMPLAINT? WHY CAN'T WE JUST GO ON THAT? BECAUSE THAT REPORT DOESN'T TELL YOU.
WE, WE STILL HAVE NO IDEA WHEN THAT INITIAL COMPLAINT CAME IN.
I MEAN, THEY HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROVEN THAT THEY COMPLIED WITH THESE CERTAIN, THE MINIMUM STANDARDS, THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS.
'CAUSE THEY DIDN'T, BUT THEY STILL CAN'T DO IT.
THERE'S NO RECORD OF THIS INITIAL COMPLAINT AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A WAY TO DO THINGS.
WE NEED TO DOCUMENT THESE THINGS.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS A FAIRLY IMPORTANT CASE, I WOULD SAY.
SO YOU GOTTA DOCUMENT WHEN THIS COMPLAINT COMES IN THAT'S OUT THERE IN THE STRATOSPHERE, IT DOESN'T EXIST.
BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, CHIEF PAUL TOOK IT UPON HIMSELF BECAUSE THESE ARE RULES.
THE POLICY DOES NOT APPLY TO HIM.
HE'S THE CHIEF OF POLICE, DOES NOT APPLY TO HIM.
SO THEN, YOU KNOW, THEY MAKE, UM, THEY WANNA MAKE THE DISTINCTION SAYING, WELL, NO, BUT THIS WAS ALL CRIMINAL IN NATURE.
SO THEREFORE, NONE OF THE TIME DEADLINES, NO.
THE 75 DAY TIME DEADLINES DON'T, UM, DON'T BEGIN TO RUN.
WELL, THAT'S NOT EXACTLY THE LAW.
AND I SIGNED IT IN MY REPLY MEMO FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT, WHICH CONTROLS HERE, QUOTE, THE DEPARTMENT IS PERMITTED TO DEFER THE IA INVESTIGATION DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
OKAY? I DON'T DISPUTE THAT THEY COULD HAVE, THEY DIDN'T, BUT THEY COULD HAVE EVERY CASE THAT HE CITES, MCMASTER, O'HERN AND ALL THAT.
THAT WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE CONDUCTING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BEFORE THEY EVER GOT AROUND TO DOING THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION.
EACH ONE OF THOSE CASES HE CITES, THAT'S WHAT OCCURRED.
SO THEY SAID, YEAH, YOU CAN'T COUNT ALL THAT TIME 'CAUSE THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION WAS GOING ON.
BUT I'VE PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY THREE DIFFERENT PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE BEEN PRESENTED SHOWING THAT, THAT AUGUST 30 INTERVIEW WAS ADMINISTRATIVE FROM THE WORDS OF MURPHY PAUL, FROM THE WORDS OF GATE MONTGOMERY IN THE RECORDING AND FROM THE WRITTEN REPORT EXHIBIT A THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU WHERE HE IS GIVEN AN OFFICER RIGHTS FORM.
AND LOOK AT THAT OFFICER RIGHTS FORM SPECIFICALLY SAYS, THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVE, THIS IS INTERNAL AFFAIRS.
WHAT IS ONE TO BELIEVE? BUT THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERVIEW,
[01:30:01]
MEANING DEADLINES, YOUR, YOUR TIME STARTS TICKING.SO WHAT HAVE THEY PRESENTED TO YOU THEN? THAT, SO THAT'S, THAT'S GOTTA BE, AND I THINK HE CONCEDED THAT.
I'M NOT CERTAIN, BUT I THINK HE CONCEDED THE AUGUST 30TH.
BUT SHOW ME HAVE ALMOST BETTER YET, HAVE THEM SHOW YOU WHERE, IN THE RECORD OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU.
WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT THEY SUSPENDED THAT INVESTIGATION FROM AUGUST 30TH? YOU KNOW WHAT? IT DOESN'T EXIST.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT SERGEANT MONTGOMERY'S REPORT, YOU'LL SEE, HEY, HERE'S NEXT ENTRY, SEPTEMBER 6TH.
THAT'S JUST A CONTINUATION OF HIS AUGUST 30 INVESTIGATION.
SO WITHOUT HAVING SUSPENDED IT AND CONVERTING IT TO A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, THEN THE TIME KEEPS TICKING.
AND JUST BECAUSE IT WAS CRIMINAL IN NATURE DOES NOT IN AND OF ITSELF, BECAUSE THE RPD ALL THE TIME CONDUCTS PARALLEL, PARALLEL INVESTIGATIONS.
AND BY PARALLEL WE MEAN YOU'RE RUNNING WITH TWO DIFFERENT INVESTIGATIONS AT THE SAME TIME.
HOW CAN ONE, HOW CAN ONE INVESTIGATOR HANDLE TWO DIFFERENT INVESTIGATIONS OF THE SAME MATERIAL? CAN'T HAPPEN.
SO IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE GONE TO A SECOND INVESTIGATOR AND THEY WANNA SAY, WELL, THAT HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 19TH.
WELL, SOMEBODY FORGOT TO CALL THE DOGS OFF AFTER THE AUGUST 30 INTERVIEW.
SO IF THE CHIEF WANTED TO SUSPEND THAT INVESTIGATION, THEN HE WOULD'VE AT LEAST HAD TO TELL THE INVESTIGATOR, RIGHT? OR ELSE HE'S GONNA KEEP ON RUNNING WITH THAT INVESTIGATION.
SHOW ME WHERE DOES THIS, I'LL GET IT TO YOU.
WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT HE SUSPENDED HIS INVESTIGATION? YOU DIDN'T, HE CONTINUED WITH THE SAME INVESTIGATION.
AND YOU'LL IN THE, HIS INTERVIEW, HIS INTERVIEW TO INTERNAL AFFAIRS, HE SAYS, YEAH, I WAS JUST DOING THE SAME INVESTIGATION.
I WAS THERE TO DO A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
THE CHIEF DECLARED IT TO BE ADMINISTRATIVE, AND HE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO THAT.
HE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT, AND HE DID IT.
SO WHEN YOU'RE SAYING, WELL, I WAS DOING THIS, BUT YOUR BOSS SAID, NO, NO, NO, THAT'S NOT HOW WE'RE DOING IT.
WHAT YOU TELL ME WHAT OVERRIDES WHAT, WHAT CONTROLS THE DAY? AND THAT IS CHIEF PAUL'S DECISION TO MAKE THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERVIEW AND MAKE THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION.
HANDS DOWN, THERE'S NO GETTING AROUND THAT.
SO SHOW ME, LIKE I SAID, JUST SHOW I'VE PRESENTED PLENTY OF EVIDENCE AND SHOWING YOU THEY'RE THE ONES THAT WANT YOU TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES.
I'M GONNA SAY, LOOK, IT'S NOT THERE.
YOU KNOW, WHEN THAT CAME UP? WHEN WE FILED FOR AN INJUNCTION IN THE 19TH JDC, AND A LETTER GETS SENT FROM MR. RAINS TO THE JUDGE SAYING, HEY, THEY, THEY SUSPENDED, THE CHIEF SUSPENDED THE INVESTIGATION.
THAT'S THE FIRST TIME WE LEARNED OF THAT, OKAY? AND I KNEW THAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN BECAUSE THAT, THAT WAS THEIR DEFENSE.
OKAY? NOW, ONCE AGAIN, WE AGREED THAT WE WERE GONNA DO THIS HEARING TODAY BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT IS BEFORE YOU.
THAT'S WHAT WE ALL AGREED TO ON THIS RECORD BEFORE WE STARTED.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING TO DO.
LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED, THAT EVIDENCE, WHAT THEY'RE CLAIMING DOES NOT EXIST.
OH, HE BRINGS UP BURNS AS FAR AS THE SUSPENSION, UH, THE, THE NRA APPEAL OF BURNS.
AND WE ARGUED THAT HE'S RIGHT.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS EXISTED IN THAT CASE, WHICH IS GLARINGLY ABSENT FROM THIS CASE, WAS A MEMO TO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE SAYING, HEY, JEREMIAH, INVESTIGATION, I FOUND WHAT COULD BE CRIMINAL.
SO I'M SUSPENDING THIS INVESTIGATION AND I'M, I'M SENDING IT TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE THAT EXISTED IN BURNS, DOES NOT EXIST IN THIS CASE.
THEY'RE THE ONES ASKING YOU TO TAKE A LEAP OF FAITH AND TRUST ME, TRUST ME.
ALL I'M SAYING IS TRUST THE EVIDENCE.
JUST LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, ANALYZE THE EVIDENCE, AND DON'T BE BAMBOOZLED WITH THIS ARGUMENT, THIS RUSE.
'CAUSE WHAT THEY'RE SAYING DOES NOT EXIST.
QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD TO I GUESS ANY COUNSEL? UH, I'LL, SO I'LL START.
AND THIS IS ALSO, I SUPPOSE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. DARA.
THERE APPEARS TO BE A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE REGARDING WHAT, BETWEEN THE PARTIES, REGARDING KIND OF WHAT WE'RE HERE TO ACCOMPLISH TODAY.
AND I'D LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF GUIDANCE.
UM, THE, THE COUNSEL FOR THE OFFICERS CLEARLY MAKING THEIR CASE THAT, UM, PARTIES AGREED THAT IT'S THE EVIDENCE BEFORE US TODAY, THOUGH, I, I WILL NOTE THAT YOU GUYS DID SUBPOENA OR HAVE WITNESSES HERE.
SO IF WE WEREN'T ANTICIPATING AT LEAST SOME POSSIBILITY OF WITNESS TESTIMONY,
[01:35:01]
I WOULD BE A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THAT.BUT WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE US THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED.
WE HAVE THE ARGUMENT BEFORE US.
AND SO I'D LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF INPUT AS A BOARD MEMBER OF, WHEN IT COMES TO DETERMINING GENUINE ISSUES OF LAW, WHICH I BELIEVE IS, IS WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE.
WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE DECIDING TODAY? HOW ARE WE GAUGING THESE ARGUMENTS? IF WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS EVIDENCE, ARE WE SUPPOSED TO MAKE ANY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE, WHAT EVIDENCE WE BELIEVE MORE THAN OTHERS? OR WOULD THAT THEN BE A GENUINE ISSUE OF LAW THAT WOULD NEED TO GO TO TRIAL? AND I COULD SIT UP HERE FOR ANOTHER FIVE MINUTES, BUT I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE I'M GOING.
I, I'D LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF GUIDANCE REGARDING THE EXACT LEGAL PARAMETERS OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH TODAY.
UM, WHENEVER YOU PRESENT A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, WHICH IN THIS CASE WE'RE LIKENING IT TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE WHOLE PREMISE IS THAT A, THE PERSON WHO'S MOVING IS GONNA ATTACH EVIDENCE TO HIS MOTION AND SAY THAT BASED ON THAT, THERE'S NO OTHER WAY THAT YOU COULD VIEW THIS EVIDENCE.
OKAY? THEN THE OTHER SIDE COMES AND SAYS, WELL, NO, NOT REALLY.
AND WHEN YOU PUT THE TWO TOGETHER, THERE'S WHAT WE CALL A GENUINE ISSUE OF FACT, A MATERIAL FACT.
SO NOT JUST ANY FACT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, THE FACTS THAT MATTER.
IF THERE'S A DISPUTE ABOUT THOSE MATERIAL FACTS, THEN THE MOTION SHOULD FAIL.
OKAY? IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'RE WRONG ON THE MERITS, IT JUST MEANS ON THAT PARTICULAR MOTION THEY FAIL.
WHAT I HAVE, UH, SUGGESTED THAT WE DO IS THAT, LET'S HEAR THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
LET'S SEE IF THERE'S A DISPUTE ABOUT ANY OF THE MATERIAL FACTS.
IF THERE ISN'T GREAT GRANT, THEIR MOTION AND WE MOVE ON.
IF THERE IS DENY THE MOTION, BUT WE STILL HAVE AN OPTION BECAUSE WE HAVE SUBPOENAED WITNESSES, OKAY? YOU CAN STILL DENY THEIR MOTION.
AND THEN WE ENTER INTO A DIFFERENT KIND OF SITUATION WHERE NOW WE'RE HAVING SOMEWHAT OF A BIFURCATED TRIAL STILL SOLELY ON THE ISSUE OF THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS, WHERE YOU CAN SAY, OKAY, GUYS, BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE JUST HEARD, I THINK THE REAL ISSUES THAT ARE DISPUTED RELATE TO THIS WITNESS.
LET'S CALL THIS WITNESS AND GET 'EM IN HERE.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE PARAMETERS.
AND I DISCUSSED THAT WITH MR. KERSHAW AND MR. RAINS.
IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT OF WHAT KIND OF WHAT I TOLD YOU GUYS? SO THAT, THAT'S OUR PARAMETER HERE.
AND DOES EITHER SIDE HAVE ANY OBJECTION OR, OR CLARIFICATION TO WHAT MR. MR. DARE JUST SAID? OKAY.
BUT, BUT TO BE CLEAR, THERE SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE IS DISAGREEMENT AMONG THE PARTIES, CORRECT? WELL, THEY'RE ALWAYS GONNA DISAGREE
THE QUESTION IS, DOES THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE WHEN YOU PUT 'EM TOGETHER, DOES IT REALLY CREATE, UM, A, A, AN ISSUE OR A DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACTS? NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THEY SAY, 'CAUSE THEY'LL NEVER AGREE TO ANYTHING, AND THAT'S OKAY.
BUT THE, THE FACTS, THE EVIDENCE FROM WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, THE EVIDENCE IS, I SHOULD SAY, DOES IT CREATE A FACT? DOES THAT MEAN THAT THERE'S A NEED FOR US TO THOROUGHLY EXAMINE THE FACTS BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER AS A BOARD? WELL, THEY HAVE, UH, PRESENTED TO YOU WITH, THEY BELIEVE TO BE THE EVIDENCE ON EACH SIDE.
UH, IF YOU GUYS THINK THERE'S A FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS THAT'S WARRANTED, I THINK THAT NECESS NECESSARILY MEANS THAT THE MOTION SHOULD BE, UH, DENIED.
HOWEVER, THEY STILL HAVE THEIR WITNESSES HERE.
AND IF YOU GUYS HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE WITNESSES TO HELP US, UM, ANSWER THESE THREE QUESTIONS, WHICH I, WHICH SEEMED TO BE, UH, WAS THE 75 DAY LIMIT VIOLATED WAS THE 14 DAY LIMIT VIOLATED.
AND WHETHER OR NOT A PHONE CALL BETWEEN CHIEF PAUL AND I FORGET THE OTHER GENTLEMAN'S NAME AND INTERROGATION, THAT SEEMS TO BE THE THREE ISSUES, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.
YEAH, PERSONALLY, I'M NOT SURE THAT I, UM, FULLY UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER TO THAT AT THIS POINT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT HAD BEEN PRESENTED AT, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, BUT MR. CHAIR, MAY I ASK A QUESTION, UH, OF THE PARTIES? YES.
[01:40:01]
THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE OFFICERS ARE ESSENTIALLY, UH, ON SPECIFICALLY ON THE SUBJECT OF WHETHER OR NOT THE PHONE CALL WAS AN INTERROGATION.SO TO SIGN POST MY QUESTION, UM, ESSENTIALLY MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AS THEY ARE SITTING HERE TODAY, UM, MR. RAINS, THEY ARE NOT ONLY ARGUING THAT THIS WAS AN INTERROGATION AND HERE IS WHY THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY ARGUING THAT THEY, THE ONLY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY, UM, INDICATES THAT, UM, THAT THAT WAS AN INTERROGATION.
IF WE, IF WE REVIEW THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO US TODAY, THERE'S NO GENUINE QUESTION, UM, OF FACT, AND, AND WE COULD THEN APPLY THE LAW.
CERTAINLY HAVE HEARD AND UNDERSTAND AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS.
TODAY, YOU SAID THAT CHIEF PAUL COULD BE CALLED, PROBABLY NOT TODAY.
IT SOUNDS LIKE HE'S UNAVAILABLE, BUT COULD, COULD BE CALLED.
WHAT IF ANY RESPONSE WITH THAT UNDERSTOOD.
WHAT, IF ANY RESPONSE DO YOU HAVE TO THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE OFFICERS ALLEGING THAT IF WE ONLY LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED THUS FAR TODAY, THAT THEY, THAT THEY WOULD THEN CARRY ON THE MERITS ON THAT ASPECT OF THE LAW? NO.
UM, AS MR. DERA SAID, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT GONNA AGREE ON ANYTHING TODAY.
SO FIRST, UM, LOOK AT THE BACK OF CASE LAW.
WHAT DOES THE COURT SAY ABOUT INTERROGATIONS? UH, THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT, UH, THE COURT IN, UH, MCDERMOTT SAID THAT THESE OTHER CASES THAT IT WAS QUOTING THE ANDELL CASE, THE MILLER CASE WAS TALKING ABOUT THOSE, IT SAID, UM, IT SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT THAT ISSUE INVOLVES A FACTUAL DETERMINATION OF WHETHER QUESTIONING OF THE OFFICER WAS AN INTERROGATION.
SO THIS IS AN INHERENT, UH, FACTUAL DETERMINATION SITUATION.
I GO BACK TO IT, I KNOW I KEEP SAYING IT, I REPEAT IT, BUT THIS IS A SITUATION, IT'S THEIR BURDEN TO PROVE THE INTERROGATION.
UM, THE ONLY SPECIFIC EVIDENCE I GUESS YOU HAVE AT THIS POINT IS THE POLICE REPORT OF SERGEANT MONTGOMERY, WHICH AS I SAID IS HEARSAY.
WITHIN HEARSAY IS A, IS A REPEATED CONVERSATION FROM, FROM SOMEONE ELSE.
UM, IT ONLY ADDRESSES ONE QUESTION THAT WAS, UH, ALLEGEDLY ASKED OF MARTEL JACKSON.
UM, SO IF YOU APPLY THE CASE LAW THAT WE HAVE QUOTED, EVEN IF YOU WERE TO APPLY THAT TO THE FACTS, THAT'S NOT AN INTERROGATION.
OKAY? NOW, THAT IS AN INHERENTLY FACTUAL DETERMINATION.
UM, WE, WE DID AGREE THAT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION WOULD GO TO YOU TODAY WITHOUT TESTIMONY.
UM, BUT IF YOU PUT THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ORDINARY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, UH, THE, THE TYPICAL DEFENSE OF A MOTION ON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR USUALLY A DEFENSE IS FILING THAT AGAINST A PLAINTIFF.
UM, THE, THE PLAINTIFF ALWAYS SAYS, LOOK, YOU HAVE TO HEAR THE FACTS OF THE CASE AT A TRIAL.
UM, YOU DON'T JUST DECIDE IT ON A FEW THINGS THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE, UH, FACTS THAT ARE IN CONTEST BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
AND, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE TODAY.
UM, THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT AN INTERROGATION HAPPENED, YOU WOULD NEED TESTIMONY, UH, BY THE PARTIES TO SHOW.
AND, AND THE ONLY PARTIES THAT CAN TESTIFY ABOUT IT WOULD BE THE ONES THAT WERE PARTICIPANTS IN THAT CONVERSATION.
NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, SECONDHAND INFORMATION.
THIRD HAND INFORMATION THAT YOU RECEIVED IN THE POLICE REPORT, YOU MR. RAINS, AND EITHER ANY OF YOU THREE.
DO YOU, FROM A PURELY OF THE QUESTION, LET'S IGNORE THE LAW FOR A SECOND.
PURELY FROM A QUESTION OF WHAT EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO SHOW, IS THERE, IN YOUR ESTIMATION, ANY EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED TO THIS BOARD OTHER THAN THE 60 SOME ODD PAGE REPORT? SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO THE KIND OF, SPECIFICALLY TO THE FACTUAL ISSUE, UM, THAT WOULD BE THE BASIS FOR WHETHER OR NOT THAT QUESTIONING WAS AN INTERROGATION UNDER THE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS, OR DO YOU AGREE THAT THAT REPORT IS, IS THE ONE AND ONLY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED UP TO THIS POINT? YEAH, IT, IT IS THE, PROBABLY THE ONLY PIECE OF EVIDENCE, AND IT, IT'S CRITICAL.
AND, UH, THE, YOUR QUESTION, MR. NEWELL, I THINK IS, IS, WAS THAT AN INTERROGATION? WHAT EVIDENCE IS IN THE RECORD THAT WAS AN INTERROGATION.
AND AGAIN, I, I'M READING STRAIGHT FROM, FROM THE REPORT, DON'T FORGET, MURPHY PAUL GOT A
[01:45:01]
CALL FROM A CONCERNED CITIZEN BEFORE CALLING MARTEL JACKSON.HE STARTED HIS OWN INVESTIGATION.
HE WENT AND, AND HE FOUND, UH, EV OF LETTERS ABOUT A MISSING BODY CAMERA.
HE DID CERTAIN THINGS LIKE THAT.
THEN HE CALLS MARTEL JACKSON AND SAYS, HEY, YOU KNOW, IN OTHER WORDS, HE WASN'T CALLING JUST TO SHOOT THE BREEZE WITH HIM.
THIS WAS AN, THIS WAS GONNA BE AN INTERROGATION.
'CAUSE HE ALREADY FOUND THE LETTER WHERE MARTEL JACKSON THREE YEARS AGO SAID, OH, I LOST MY BODY CAMERA.
SO HE STARTS ASKING, AND MARTEL STARTS TALKING ABOUT SAYING, YEAH, AND THIS IS DIRECTED FROM THE REPORT.
HE SAYS, UH, IT WAS MISSING FROM A DOCKING STATION.
SO MAR THEN THE CHIEF, ACCORDING TO, UH, THE REPORT, HE WAS ASKED AGAIN, IN OTHER WORDS, THE CHIEF DIDN'T ACCEPT THAT ANSWER.
HE SAID, LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN, IT'S AN INTERROGATION.
AND BECAUSE IT'S AN INTERROGATION, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED AND HE DIDN'T RECORD IT.
AND THAT THIS, THE WHOLE CASE IS AN ABSOLUTE NORM, GO TO LOOK.
WE DON'T NEED ANY TESTIMONY FOR THAT.
GO TO THE NEXT LINE WHERE HE SAYS HE'LL HAVE SOMEONE SET UP AN INTERVIEW.
SO IF WE'RE NOT, HE SAYS, WE'LL HAVE SOMEBODY SET UP AN INTERVIEW.
BUT IT WAS, THE PHONE CALL WAS NOT THE SET UP AN INTERVIEW.
IT'S CLEAR ON PAGE 11 OF THE SIX OF THE 64 PAGE REPORT THAT CHIEF PAUL WAS MAKING THE CALL TO GET INFORMATION, NOT TO SET UP AN INTERVIEW.
'CAUSE HE GOT THAT INFORMATION.
THEN HE SAID, I'LL HAVE SOMEONE ELSE SET UP AN INTERVIEW.
AND SO, MR. SEL, MR. MCCLENDON, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ON THAT, AND I, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
I'M, I'M BORING DOWN ON A VERY SPECIFIC ASPECT.
I SUPPOSED TO REPHRASE MY QUESTION.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS OFFICER MCMASTER, IS THAT, UH, WHO, WHO WROTE THAT REPORT? I APOLOGIZE.
MONTGOMERY, UM, I HAD THE M**K WRITE AND, AND MESSED UP THE ENDING.
SO OFFICER MONTGOMERY WRITING THIS REPORT, WHAT I AM ASKING IS WHETHER IT IS ESSENTIALLY YOUR ARGUMENT, I BELIEVE IT IS, BUT I'M JUST CONFIRMING, I I'M CERTAIN MR. RAINS IS GOING TO DISAGREE.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR CITATIONS OF THIS REPORT AND SAYING THIS IS WHAT THESE WORDS ARE.
WHAT MY QUESTION IS, IS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S YOUR, WHAT YOU ARE POSITING IS THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THIS REPORT WRITTEN BY A PARTY THAT WAS NOT A PARTY TO THIS CONVERSATION SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF FACT THAT WE SHOULD RELY ON THAT.
SUCH THAT WE CAN THEN FIND THAT THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE DISAGREEMENT ON FACTOR LAW ON THAT SUBJECT.
THAT'S, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I'M, I WOULD ANSWER THAT.
ABSOLUTELY YOU SHOULD BECAUSE IT IS ADOPTED ADMISSION BY A PARTY OPPONENT, THE BATON ROUGE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID HAPPENED AND WHY IT HAPPENED.
NOW MR. RAINS CAN SAY THAT THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT IT IS, BUT HE CAN CALL A DOG A CAT ALL DAY LONG AND IT DOES NOT MAKE IT A CAT.
SO THAT WAS AN INTERROGATION DONE BY THE BATON ROUGE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT SET FORTH IN THEIR OWN REPORTS THAT ARE HIS CLIENT.
SO YES, YOU CAN RELY ON WHAT HIS CLIENT TOLD YOU.
AND IF I MAY JUST QUICKLY ADD, UM, YOU ASKED, IS THIS THE ONLY PIECE OF EVIDENCE MM-HMM
HEY, WE CAN ONLY WORK WITH WHAT THEY HAVE GIVEN US.
THIS IS THE ONLY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE PRESENTED TO US SHOWING THE EX EXHIBIT THAT THAT PHONE CALL ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE TO PAUL DIDN'T DOCUMENT IT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE.
'CAUSE WE'VE NEVER BEEN GIVEN THAT, UM, OFFICER JACKSON DIDN'T DOCUMENT IT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE.
'CAUSE WE'VE NEVER BEEN GIVEN THAT.
THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF THAT PHONE CALL WE'VE BEEN GIVEN IS THIS, THIS REPORT.
AND THAT'S THE INVESTIGATOR WHO RAN WITH THIS INVESTIGATION.
AND LIKE I SAID, IT'S OBVIOUS HE GOT THAT INFORMATION FROM CHIEF PAUL AND THAT IS A PARTY ADMISSION.
MR. RAINS, I ASSUME I KNOW YOUR ANSWER, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THE RECORD, IF YOU COULD RESPOND BRIEFLY.
I DON'T THINK YOU MAY, I WONDER IF THERE'S A CONNECTION 'CAUSE IT WENT OUT WHEN YOU PULLED IT DOWN.
I WAS TRYING TO SPEAK OR THE TOP.
UM, YEAH, WE DIDN'T BRIEF THIS WHOLE PARTY ADMISSION, UH, ARGUMENT ISSUE.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY JUST CAME UP WITH ON THE SPUR.
UM, NO, I DON'T THINK YOU, IT, IT QUALIFIES AS A PARTY ADMISSION.
UM, I, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IF WE, IF WE REVERSE THE FACTS, I DON'T THINK ANY OF THEM WOULD WANT THEIR CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS PROSECUTED.
UH, JUST ON THE LANGUAGE OF A POLICE REPORT.
YOU WOULD WANT TESTIMONY TO BE ABLE TO HEAR THAT.
[01:50:01]
THAT IS, LIKE I SAID, THAT'S THE STANDARD THING THAT YOU SAY IN THE DEFENSE OF ANY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.GO TO THE MERITS, HEAR THE TESTIMONY, LET THE PARTIES TESTIFY, AND, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU DISCOVER THESE THINGS.
LET ME POINT OUT ONE OTHER THING.
'CAUSE THEY'RE QUOTING THE POLICE REPORT.
I, I DON'T NORMALLY GET NITPICKY, BUT I I JUST DON'T LIKE THE DISPERSION CAST ON THEM.
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT SOMEONE ELSE WOULD SET UP AN INTERVIEW.
IT SAYS SOMEONE ELSE WOULD CONDUCT AN INTERVIEW.
SERGEANT MONTGOMERY CONDUCTED AN INTERVIEW LATER THAT DAY.
I, I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE ANY, I MAY HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS LATER, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT.
I I DO HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR EITHER COUNSEL.
SO UNDER THE, THE POLICE, UH, BILL OF RIGHTS RS 40 25 31, UH, I UNDERSTAND WHERE IT SAYS, UH, AT, AT THE END UNDER C UH, UH, EIGHT C.
IT SAYS THAT, UH, ANY DISCIPLINE, DEMOTION, DISMISSAL OR ADVERSE ACTION OF ANY MINIMUM, MINIMUM STANDARDS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, ANY DISCIP UH, UH, ANY SORT WHATSOEVER TAKEN AGAINST A POLICE EMPLOYEE, A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WITHOUT COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOREGO FOREGOING MINIMUM STANDARDS IS AN ABSOLUTE, ABSOLUTE NULLITY.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO GO FOR BECAUSE OF IT WASN'T DONE IN A PROPER FASHION.
UM, AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THIS BOARD NEEDS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, UM, UH, ONCE WE, BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION ON THAT, BECAUSE THIS IS THE ACTUAL LAW.
UM, ON ANOTHER NOTE UNDER BURDEN OF PROOF, UM, I KNOW THAT'S BEEN MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES, UH, IT DOESN'T SAY WITHIN THE POLICE BILL OF RIGHTS, BUT IT DOES SAY UNDER, UH, LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION TEN EIGHT, UNDER APPEALS, UH, CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE SUBJECTED TO SUCH DISCIPLINARY ACTION SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE APPROPRIATE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 12.
IT IS PART THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON APPEAL AS TO THE FACTS SHALL BE ON THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY.
SO COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT? SURE.
SO IF WE GO TO A TRIAL ON THE MERITS, IT IS MY BURDEN TO PROVE IF WE GO TO THE MERITS OF THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THEM, IT IS MY BURDEN.
OKAY? UM, WE ARE NOT HERE IN THE CAPACITY OF A MARRIAGE TRIAL.
WE'RE HERE ON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION FILED BY THEM TO KICK THE CASE OUT ON A PROCEDURAL BASIS.
IT IS THEIR BURDEN TO PROVE THAT WE VIOLATED THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS.
AND THAT'S SAME IS TRUE WHEN WE'VE STEPPED ACROSS THE COURT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? QUESTIONS? WELL, MR. KHAW, YOU RESPOND TO THAT.
THE CONSTITUTION DOES SAY THE BURDENS ON THEM.
THESE ARE FACTS REGARDLESS OF WHAT KIND OF HEARING THIS IS, THESE ARE FACTS.
THEY HAVE TO PROVE THOSE FACTS, YOUR RULES, THE BOARD RULES STATE, THEY HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
UNLESS THIS IS A CASE INVOLVING DISCRIMINATION OR ONE OTHER THING THAT IS IN INAPPLICABLE HERE, THEY'RE BURDEN ON OUR BURDEN.
I I, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY, LOOK, EVEN, EVEN IF YOU PUT THE BURDEN ON US, LET'S JUST STICK WITH THE 75 DAY RULE.
IT, THEY DIDN'T, IT TOOK 'EM 94 DAYS TO FINISH.
THEY STARTED AUGUST 30TH AND WE GOT OUR LETTER DECEMBER ONE ON THAT CHART.
MR. MCCLENDON, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IT ISN'T THE CORE OF THAT.
AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS WRONG, BUT ISN'T THE CORE OF THAT LEGAL ARGUMENT ESSENTIALLY THAT THE POLICE ARE FABRICATING FACTS AND SAYING THAT THERE WERE THINGS DONE THAT YOU SAY THEY ARE LYING ABOUT AND DID NOT DO? THE ONLY THING I'M NOT SAYING THERE, MAYBE IT WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT TO SAY, WELL, WE SU SUSPEND, THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN THINK OF OFF THE TOP OF HEAD IS THIS STORY THAT THEY SUSPENDED THE IA INVESTIGATION.
PLEASE GO THROUGH THAT ENTIRE RECORD AND I PROMISE YOU, YOU'RE NOT GONNA FIND ANYTHING THAT SAYS THEY SUSPENDED.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT.
THE ONLY PLACE YOU'RE GONNA SEE IT IS IN MR. RANGE'S BRIEF.
THAT'S JUST ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL.
SO, BUT THE COURT OF MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE NOT ESSENTIALLY A, A CORE DISAGREEMENT OF THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN YOU ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE? BUT YES.
BUT BEFORE THIS HEARING, WE AGREE THAT, ALRIGHT, WE'RE GONNA DO THIS BASED ON, ON WHAT'S SUBMITTED OUR EXHIBITS AND WHAT'S SUBMITTED.
RIGHT? AND IT'S ONLY IF THOSE EXHIBITS AND WHAT WAS SUBMITTED THEN IF THEY'RE BASED ON THE EXHIBITS, THEN IF THERE'S AN ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT, THEN WE CAN HAVE TESTIMONY.
SO IF, IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE RECORD, IF YOU ALL LOOKED AND YOU SAW SOMETHING AND SAID, OH, YOU KNOW WHAT, MAYBE IT WAS SUSPENDED.
THAT WOULD BE A MATERIAL ISSUE OF FACT.
[01:55:03]
YOU GOTTA LOOK ON WHAT WE SUBMIT ON THE RECORD.SO IF YOU LOOK IN THAT RECORD AND YOU SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, IT MAY HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED, LOOK AT THIS WORD SUSPENDED.
I I DEFY YOU TO FIND THAT IN THERE.
'CAUSE YOU'RE NOT GONNA FIND IT.
IT TOOK THEM 94 DAYS TO FINISH THIS INVESTIGATION.
I I DO WANNA RESPOND TO THAT ISSUE.
THEY KEEP TALKING ABOUT THERE'S NO DOCUMENTATION OF A SUSPENSION.
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS THAT THERE ANY, BE ANY DOCUMENTATION OF IT.
IF YOU READ ALL OF THE CASES THAT WE CITED, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT IT BE DOCUMENTED.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROCELL CASE, WHICH IS A FIRST CIRCUIT CASE, THEY STARTED WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE.
IT DID NOT START CRIMINAL, IT STARTED WITH ADMINISTRATIVE.
AND THEN THE CHIEF NOTICED REALIZED THAT THE CASE LOOKED LIKE THERE WERE CRIMINAL ASPECTS TO IT.
SO WHAT DID HE DO? HE ORDERED THAT A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BE CONDUCTED.
IT DOES NOT NOTE ANY DOCUMENTATION WHATSOEVER.
AT SOME POINT THAT OFFICER WAS ARRESTED.
AT THAT POINT, HE ORDERED THAT THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE BE SUSPENDED.
A COUPLE OF MONTHS LATER, HE ORDERED THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS CASE TO AGAIN, RESTART.
AND THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS, THERE IS A DOCUMENTATION.
IT HAPPENS AS A MATTER OF LAW.
THE CASE LAW IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS.
UM, AND WE REPORTED THAT I, I WE'RE GONNA DISAGREE ABOUT THE LAW, BUT I QUOTED FIVE, SIX DIFFERENT THINGS.
THEY'VE BEEN RUNNING AWAY FROM THE LAW, THE, THE WHOLE DAY.
CAN I, SO I WILL WHOLEHEARTEDLY GRASP PER CELL AND GIVE IT A BIG OLD HUG 'CAUSE THAT IA ADMINISTRATOR, INVESTIGATOR HAD IN HIS FILE, I'M SUSPENDING AT PER ORDERS OF THE CHIEF.
I'M SUSPENDING THIS INVESTIGATION AND IT'S GOING CRIMINAL.
SO NO, WE DON'T HAVE THAT HERE.
THE OTHER THING, THE OTHER THING THIS, THIS SUSPENSION ISSUE.
SO IF YOU RE AND I'LL PLAY IF YOU WANT TO HEAR, IT'S ONLY FIVE MINUTES LONG IF YOU WANT TO HEAR IT.
WHEN THEY'RE INTERVIEWING MARTEL JACKSON ON AUGUST 30TH, CHIEF PAUL SAYS, LOOK, THIS IS A COMPELLED GARRITY STATEMENT CANNOT BE USED AGAINST YOU.
IF THIS BECOMES CRIMINAL, WE'RE GONNA APPOINT A NEW INVESTIGATOR TO HANDLE IT.
IF IT BECOMES CRIMINAL, THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
IT WAS MONTGOMERY GATE MONTGOMERY THE ENTIRE WAY, WHICH TELLS YOU IT WAS NOT SUSPENDED.
'CAUSE IF IT WAS SUSPENDED, YOU'D HAVE SEEN A NEW INVESTIGATOR IN THERE AND A NEW FILE NUMBER AND A NEW FILE NUMBER AND EVERYTHING.
IT TOOK HIM 94 DAYS TO FINISH.
THAT'S IT, THAT'S IN THE RECORD.
YOU DON'T NEED TESTIMONY FROM ANY WITNESSES TO SEE THAT.
ALL YOU GOTTA DO IS GET THE CALENDAR OUT AND COUNT YOUR DAYS.
UNLESS YOU FIND SOMETHING IN THE RECORD THAT SHOWS IT WAS SUSPENDED, THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE A MATERIAL ISSUE OF FACT.
COUNSEL, I THINK AS A BOARD, I THINK WE'D LIKE TO HEAR THAT RECORDING.
WELL, I'LL TELL YOU THAT I DON'T DISPUTE THAT CHIEF PAUL SAYS THAT THERE'S NO DIS I MEAN HE DOES SAY THAT WE, WE TALK ABOUT IT TOO.
I MEAN HE HE DOES SAY THAT IN THAT INTERVIEW.
LET, LET'S JUST HEAR IT ANYWAY.
CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE TIME IS 4:02 PM TODAY'S DATE IS GONNA BE AUGUST 30TH, 2023.
MYSELF IS PRE, IS PRESENT AS ALONG WITH UM, CHIEF MURPHY PAUL OF THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS A, UM, DETECTIVE MORTEL JACKSON IS PRESENT AS WELL.
JACKSON, UM, YOU MIGHT GIMME YOUR DATE OF BIRTH PLEASE.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S NOVEMBER THE FIFTH OF 85? YES.
UM, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE PRESENT INSIDE THIS ROOM THAT I DID NOT NAME SUCH AS CHIEF PAUL, MYSELF, AND YOURSELF AS WELL? NO.
SO FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, YOU HAVE SOME INFORMATION THAT YOU WISH TO PROVIDE TO ME ON THIS DATE AND THIS TIME.
UM, PRIOR TO GETTING STARTED WITH THAT INFORMATION THAT YOU WISH TO SHARE, I'M GOING TO UM, INTRODUCE TO YOU NOW AS THE BATON POLICE DEPARTMENT, UM, ALL UH, OFFICE RIGHTS FORM.
UM, I DON'T WANT TO ASSUME, BUT I BELIEVE SO YOU ABLE TO READ AND WRITE AND UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE? YES.
OKAY, SO YOU DO NOT NEED THE ASSISTANCE OF ANYONE ELSE WHO'S PRESENT.
SO WHAT I'M GOING TO DO, UM, THIS FORM IS GOING TO START OFF WITH TODAY'S DATE, WHICH IS ALREADY STATED, WHICH IS OFFICE THE 30TH, 2023.
IT ALSO STATES THAT YOU ARE NOW BEING QUESTIONED AS PART OF AN OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION.
[02:00:01]
BY ANY MEANS, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, GO AHEAD AND STOP ME AND, AND SO WE CAN GET CLARITY AND MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND.UM, BUT IT'S OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION THAT'S GONNA BE CONDUCTED BY US, WHICH IS THE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, UM, INTERNAL AFFAIRS OR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS, UM, DIVISION.
UM, AS IT CONTINUES TO READ, AND I WANT TO ALLOW YOU TO READ IT AS WELL HERE, TAKE ALL THE TIME NECESSARY TO READ AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS FORM HERE, UM, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FORM, IF YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU AGREE TO WHAT IS WRITTEN, I WANT TO GET YOU TO SIGN, UM, AND ALSO PRINT YOUR NAME AND I WILL SIGN AS WELL, OKAY? OKAY.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND JUST NOTE THAT AT THIS TIME HERE, WHICH IS FOUR 4:00 PM SAME DATE, IS THAT YOU DID IN FACT JUST SIGNED A BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT OFF UM, OFFICER RIGHTS FORM.
YOU ALSO PRINTED YOUR INITIALS AND THIS HERE WAS DONE VOLUNTARILY AND I FEEL THREATENED, INTIMIDATED, PRESSURE, ANYTHING THAT BE CORRECT? CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO A SECOND FORM HERE AS WELL.
IT'S GOING TO BE BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT, YOUR RIGHTS FORM.
OKAY? NOTHING IS SAYING THAT YOU INNOCENT NOTHING IS SAYING THAT YOU ARE GUILTY.
RIGHT? UM, BUT HERE I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADVISE YOU OF YOUR RIGHTS.
JUST MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHTS BEING FACT THAT UM, YOU ARE GOING TO BE PERHAPS GIVEN SOME INFORMATION.
ALRIGHT? SO, UM, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.
ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW.
YOUR RIGHT TO ATTORNEY CAN AFFORD ONE, THEN A COURT WARRANT ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT YOU.
OKAY? YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO STOP ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS AT ANY POINT IN TIMEOUT THE COURSE OF NOT ONLY OUR CONVERSATION, BUT THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THIS ENTIRE INVESTIGATION.
ALRIGHT? UM, IF YOU WISH TO ANSWER QUESTIONS NOW WITHOUT A LAWYER PRESENT, LIKE I SAID, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO STOP ANSWERING THOSE QUESTIONS.
UM, SOMETIMES PEOPLE SAY I TALK FAST OR I TALK SLOW, I DON'T KNOW, BUT RIGHT NOW I JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS READ TO YOU.
AND BY ALL MEANS, JUST AS I PRESENTED THIS FIRST FORM, YOU CAN TAKE WHATEVER TIME THAT'S NECESSARY.
WE WANT GO AHEAD AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU, UM, THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE TIMES THAT WAS READ.
WE'RE GONNA PUT THE TIME AT 1605, WHICH IS FOUR OR FIVE HOURS.
UM, AND ALSO WE'RE GOING TO CONCLUDE THE TIME THAT I ADVISE YOU OF THESE RIGHTS HERE AT 1606 HOURS.
THE DATE IS GOING TO BE THE SAME, WHICH IS AUGUST THE 30TH OF 2023.
AND IF YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHTS, YOU WISH TO WAIVE YOUR RIGHTS AND YOU ALSO WISH TO SPEAK WITH ME VOLUNTARILY.
NOW I WANT TO ASK YOU TO DO THE SAME JUST TO GO AHEAD AND SIGN YOUR NAME AND ALSO PRINT YOUR NAME AS WELL PLEASE.
AND SO YOU ARE ASSIGN AND YOU PRINT YOUR NAME ACKNOWLEDGING EACH BOX HERE THAT YOU SEE A BLUE CHECK DOCUMENT.
ALRIGHT, IF YOU DON'T MIND, YOU'RE GOING TO WITNESS ME AS WELL THEN THE ONE, I'M THE ONE WHO ADVISED YOU OF THESE RIGHTS, PERSONAL MIRANDA OF WARNING, I'M GONNA SIGN AS WELL.
AND ALSO I MAY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE RECORD, UM, GAVE BECAUSE, BECAUSE HE SIGNED THE ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHTS FORM MM-HMM
SO WE CANNOT USE THAT AGAINST HIM CRIMINALLY.
SO WE'RE GOING TO, UM, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS INTERVIEW, WE'RE GOING TO BE, UM, UM, WITHIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OFFICER FEELING RIGHTS.
OKAY? 'CAUSE THIS IS A COMPELLED STATEMENT.
OKAY? SO NOTHING HE SAYS CAN BE USED AGAINST HIM CRIMINALLY.
SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT.
A PART THAT WILL PROBABLY BE CONDUCTED BY A DIFFERENT INVESTIGATOR, OKAY? YES, SIR.
UH, OR, OR MAYBE ONCE WE MAKE THAT DETERMINATION BASED ON WHAT INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE.
SO FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS, WE JUST GONNA STAY WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHTS.
'CAUSE I DON'T THINK LEGALLY WE CAN USE WHAT HE SAID AGAINST HIM CRIMINALLY AS IT RELATES TO, UM, THE, UH, THE RIGHTS FORM.
WE HAVE TO, UH, GO BY THE FIRST FORM THAT HE SIGNED.
ALRIGHT, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE, UM, JUST STATED BY CHIEF PAUL D THIS IS, IT STARTED THE IA
[02:05:01]
AND STARTEDSO GABE
SO THAT INVESTIGATION NEVER A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, CRIMINAL AFFAIRS ALL TIME.
BUT GABE PROCEEDED THE ENTIRE WAY INVESTIGATION AS AN INTERNAL.
DOUG GARRITY SAYS IT CAN'T BE USED AGAINST HIM IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.
NOT THAT GAYTON MONTGOMERY COULD NOT HAVE THAT STATEMENT.
THAT'S, THAT'S DIFFERENT I, US VERSUS CO COUNSEL.
UH, PLEASE DIRECT TO THE, THE BOARD US VERSUS WHAT COUNCIL.
AND IF I COULD ASK A CLARIFICATION QUESTION, AND I REALLY HOPE WE DON'T HAVE TO REPLAY THOUGH.
IT WOULD ONLY BE A VERY, VERY SMALL PORTION IF WE DID.
I HEARD, 'CAUSE I, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THAT.
HE SAID THAT THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OR ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION AND REGARDING THE, ANOTHER INVESTIGATOR BEING USED, BUT YOU GENTLEMEN ARE USING A LITTLE BIT FIRMER LANGUAGE THAN I HEARD.
AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WHAT I HEARD WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TODAY THAT, THAT THAT WAS THE LANGUAGE USED AS FAR AS IT BEING ADMINISTRATIVE AND THAT THEY WOULD PROBABLY USE ANOTHER INVESTIGATOR IF THIS WOULD BECOME A, A CRIMINAL.
AM I HEARING THAT CORRECTLY, SIR? NO, NO, YOU'RE HEARING THAT RIGHT.
AND WHAT, WHAT HE SAYS IS THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT INVESTIGATION WITH PROBABLY A DIFFERENT INVESTIGATOR.
UNFORTUNATELY THE CASE LAW SAYS AND, AND COMMON SENSE.
CAN YOU REALLY HAVE THIS, A DIFFERENT INVESTIGATION WITH THE SAME INVESTIGATOR WITH THE CONCERNING THE SAME ISSUE.
WOULDN'T YOU NECESSARILY NEED ONE OR, OR WAIT TILL ONE INVESTIGATION'S OVER AND THEN PROCEED WITH THE OTHER? CAN YOU REALLY DO THAT? 'CAUSE UNDER THIS, IT'S, IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE, RIGHT? I MEAN THERE'S NO GETTING AROUND THAT.
YOU HEARD THE AUDIO, SO THAT'S ADMINISTRATIVE.
BUT THEN UNDER THEIR ARGUMENT, THE SAME INVESTIGATORS THEN GOING TO RUN WITH A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, WITH THE BENEFIT OF HAVING THAT STATEMENT THAT HE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE PURSUANT TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT LAW.
THAT THAT WOULD KILL THAT WHOLE, THAT WHOLE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
THERE'S SPECIFIC CA CIGAR IS WHAT I'M STATING SAYS NO, NO, NO.
YOU CAN'T BE PRIVY TO THOSE PROTECTED STATEMENTS.
AND MR. RAINS, BECAUSE MY FOLLOW UP AND MR. RAINS I'LL HAVE YOU ADDRESS IT WAS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION OF YOUR SAYING HE ISN'T ALLOWED TO HAVE IT WHERE THE PREVIOUS LANGUAGE WAS.
AND SO I I I WOULD LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
DO YOU HAVE A SITE ON THAT, THAT CAST OF ALL CASE? YES.
WE'RE GETTING FAR OUTSIDE OF ANYTHING WHERE WE BRIEFED, BECAUSE THESE ARE NOT ISSUES THAT WERE PERTINENT TO THE THREE ISSUES BEFORE YOU TODAY.
THIS WOULD RELATE TO THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST MARTEL JACKSON AND WHETHER THEY COULD USE STATEMENTS AGAINST HIM IN THAT CASE.
UM, IT DOES NOT TELL YOU NECESSARILY THAT THIS WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE ON AUGUST 30 AND IT STATE ADMINISTRATIVE CREATIVE ALL THE WAY THROUGH UNTIL, UH, SEPTEMBER 19, RIGHT WHEN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT STARTED THEIR INVESTIGATION.
THIS IS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE ABOUT THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST MARCHELL JACKSON AND WHETHER THOSE STATEMENTS COULD BE USED AGAINST HIM THERE.
AND, AND I, TO REPHRASE MY QUESTION, IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE OFFICERS ARE ARGUING THAT PURSUANT TO THIS CASE, WHICH I'M OBVIOUSLY NOT FAMILIAR WITH AS I SIT HERE TODAY, THAT THAT IS LEGALLY DETERMINATIVE.
THAT THE FACT THAT THEY USED THE SAME INVESTIGATOR AND HE HAD THIS INFORMATION THAT LEGALLY PER SE, THAT THAT MEANS THAT IT'S THE SAME INVESTIGATION.
THAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER I'M HEARING THAT CORRECTLY AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S ACCURATE.
THAT'S, THAT'S, I DON'T THINK THAT TO BE ACCURATE.
'CAUSE OTHERWISE I THINK THEY WOULD'VE CI IT IN THEIR BRIEF.
WHAT? WELL, WHEN AN ISSUE, UH, BUT MR. NEWFELD, WHAT WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS JUST LOOK AT EVERYTHING.
UH, ALL WHAT YOU'VE BEEN PRESENTED.
AND CAN YOU HONESTLY SAY, CAN YOU, HONESTLY, WHEN ASKED CAN YOU SAY THAT SERGEANT MONTGOMERY STARTED A NEW INVESTIGATION AFTER AUGUST 30TH WITH WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU THAT'S BEEN PLAYED TO YOU, AND THEN YOU SEE HIS POLICE REPORT THAT HE DRAFTED.
I MEAN, LOOK, IF YOU CAN FIND THAT, UM, NEEDLE IN A HAYSTACK THAT DOESN'T EXIST, GO FOR IT.
[02:10:01]
IS NO NOT A SELLA OF EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT OFFICER MONTGOMERY OR SERGEANT MONTGOMERY STARTED A NEW INVESTIGATION.BECAUSE LIKE I ARGUED BEFORE, IF HE HAD STARTED A NEW INVESTIGATION, WHAT WAS HE ARMED WITH ON AUGUST 30TH? OFFICER JACKSON'S STATEMENT.
OKAY, SO NOW UNDER FEDERAL LAW, UNDER UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT LAW, GARRITY, WHATNOT, IT CAN'T BE USED.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE RIGHTS FORM HE WENT OVER AND HE SIGNED AS THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATOR.
HE SAID, WE CAN'T USE THIS AGAINST YOU CRIMINALLY, BUT THEN HE TURNS RIGHT AROUND AND PUTS IT IN HIS, IN HIS CRIMINAL REPORT.
AND THEN THE NEXT THING HE DOES ON THE CASE IS ON SEPTEMBER 6TH AND IT'S GATHER GETTING BACK WITH HIM.
NOW, IF HE WAS GOING TO START A WHOLE NEW INVESTIGATION, DON'T YOU THINK HE WOULD HAVE TO START WITH GETTING THE SAME, GETTING THAT INFORMATION SO WE CAN RUN WITH IT AGAIN? IT'S NOT WHAT HE DID.
HE RAN WITH THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO HIM ON AUGUST 30TH AND THEN SAT DOWN WITH HIM AGAIN THE NEXT TIME IS ON SEPTEMBER 6TH TO GO OVER CERTAIN SPECIFICS OF WHAT HE WAS TOLD ON AUGUST 30TH.
IS THAT A DIFFERENT INVESTIGATION TO YOU? WOULDN'T HE HAVE HAD TO START OVER THAT HE NEVER DID.
YOU KNOW, WHEN HE STARTS OVER AND OUTSIDE MY REPLY, OCTOBER 11.
OCTOBER 11, YOU LOOK AT THAT ENTRY, HE SITS DOWN WITH HIM AND SAYS, HEY, UH, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR HERE, REMEMBER ALL THOSE TIMES WE MET UP TO THIS DATE? YEAH.
I SAID YEAH, AND MIRANDA APPLIES MIRANDA.
AND I KNOW I'M TALKING TO A LAWYER HERE, BUT WE'RE NOT A LAWYER.
YOU KNOW, YOUR MIRANDA RIGHTS, YOUR RIGHTS REMAIN SILENT.
WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE ALL THAT APPLY.
YOU AGREE? RIGHT? TO ALL THOSE STATEMENTS I TOOK FROM YOU STARTING ON AUGUST, AUGUST 30TH.
WELL, I MEAN, THAT'S JUST A HUGE NO-NO TO BEGIN WITH AND WE'RE GONNA DEAL WITH THAT ACROSS THE STREET.
BUT AS WE'RE HERE TODAY THAT IF YOU'RE GONNA CLAIM THAT A SECOND SEPARATE INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN STARTED, THAT WAS THE DAY, OKAY.
SO NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT AUGUST 30TH THROUGH OCTOBER 11, THEN SUSPEND.
'CAUSE HE GOT A NEW STATEMENT FROM HIM.
AND YOU LOOK, IT'S THE SAME SCENARIO.
TELL US EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED THREE YEARS AGO AND THEN, BUT, BUT BY THIS TIME, INTERNAL AFFAIRS ALREADY HAS IT.
THEY GOT IT ON SEPTEMBER 19TH.
LOOK, THIS INVESTIGATION WAS COMPLETELY HANDLED INAPPROPRIATELY, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
IT'S THE FIRST ONE IN ALL THE YEARS I'VE BEEN DOING THIS, IT'S THE ONLY ONE I'VE EVER SEEN LIKE THIS.
LOOK, LET'S JUST FACE IT, IT WAS, THEY FUMBLED THE BALL, THEY HANDLED THIS INCORRECTLY, AND NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE UP AN EXCUSE AFTER THE FACT OF SOMETHING THAT NEVER EXISTED OR ELSE THAT IT WOULD'VE BEEN DOCUMENTED THAT THEY SUSPENDED THE INVESTIGATION STARTED WITH A WHOLE NEW ONE.
IT'S RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES, ONE POLICE REPORT'S WRITTEN.
IF YOU START A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION, DO YOU PULL ANOTHER FILE NUMBER? OF COURSE YOU DO.
THAT'S WHAT THEIR PROCEDURE SAYS.
IT'S ON THAT GARRITY RIGHTS FORM.
IT'S IN HIS, ON HIS POLICE REPORT.
HOW CAN YOU SAY, WE SUSPENDED AND STARTED A WHOLE NEW INVESTIGATION OH, YEAH.
THAT'S, THAT'S NOT HOW IT'S DONE.
OH, AND WE NEVER, WE, WE WAITED, YOU KNOW, A MONTH AND A HALF BEFORE WE, YOU KNOW, GOT THAT STATEMENT AGAIN.
AND THAT'S WHAT ACTUALLY IN, UM, IN THE LAST EXHIBIT THAT WE HAD, WHICH IS OFFICER MONTGOMERY'S, HIS INTERVIEW IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS, HE SAYS, YEAH, HE JUST DID THE ONE INVESTIGATION.
I MEAN, OF COURSE HE THOUGHT IT WAS JUST A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, BUT YOU HEARD THAT HIS DECISION DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
CHIEF POLICE CAN VERY WELL MAKE, AS LONG AS IT WAS AN, AS LONG AS THAT WAS AN INTERVIEW THAT COULD LEAD TO POSSIBLE DISCIPLINARY ACTION, WE'RE HERE.
SO AS LONG AS THAT'S THE CASE, THEN IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE.
AND ONCE AGAIN, THERE'S NO PROOF OTHERWISE.
AND THERE'S NO PROOF THAT IT WAS SUSPENDED.
AND A NEW INVESTIGATION STARTED.
MR. KHAW, TELL, TELL US AGAIN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION GETTING STARTED AND A CONTINUING INVESTIGATION THAT HAD BEEN SUSPENDED.
SO IF YOU LOOK IN MY BRIEF, UH, I CITE TWO DIFFERENT, UH, ONE'S A LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT CASE, WHICH IS, I'M SORRY, IT'S A FOURTH CIRCUIT CASE, WHICH IS STATE VERSUS BUCKLEY.
AND THE OTHER ONE IS O'HERN, WHICH THEY LOVE.
YOU KNOW, MR. RAMS WAS UP AND DOWN TALKING ABOUT BEFORE, WHICH IS SUPREME COURT CASE.
BOTH OF THOSE CASES SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT, LET'S SEE, IT'S QUOTE LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTE 40 25 31, WHICH IS POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS CLEARLY CONTEMPLATES SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
[02:15:01]
ADMINISTRATIVE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT CAN'T BE HANDLED BY THE SAME PERSON? CANNOT.
WELL, THEY
WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE TWO TOTALLY SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS.
BUT, BUT CAN IT BE HANDLED BY THE SAME PERSON? YES.
AND THE ONLY INSTANCES WHERE THAT COMES UP IS WHENEVER THEY HANDLE THE CRIMINAL FIRST, AND THEN THAT SAME DETECTIVE THEN GOES AND HANDLES THE INTERNAL AFTERWARDS.
WHEN THE CRIMINAL IS COMPLETE, THEN GOES AND HANDLES THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE OF THINGS.
THAT'S THE ONLY CASES I'VE SEEN, REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
I'M SORRY? REGARDLESS OF THE EXISTING CIRCUMSTANCES.
WELL, IT CAN'T HAPPEN IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.
IT COULD NOT HAPPEN THE WAY IT HAPPENED.
SO I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS TO TRY TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS.
UM, ON THE ISSUE OF SUSPENDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE FOR CRIMINAL, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS? I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THE STATUTE NOW THAT REQUIRES A SUSPENSION.
THEY DON'T MENTION SUSPENSION REQUIRES OR ALLOWS FOR, UH, ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED.
'CAUSE YOU GUYS SEEM TO BE SAYING THAT A SUSPENSION IS REQUIRED HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED AS, AS INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS OF THIS STATE.
SO WE'LL GET TO THE COURTS IN A SECOND.
I'M STARTING WITH THE STATUTE.
'CAUSE IN LOUISIANA WE START WITH STATUTE.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE STATUTE THAT REQUIRES A SUSPENSION? UM, NO.
NOW YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE COURTS REQUIRE A SUSPENSION MM-HMM
WHICH CASES EXACTLY REQUIRE A SUSPENSION? BECAUSE I LOOKED IN PROCELL.
I DIDN'T SEE THAT PROCELL, BUT IF YOU LOOK AND SEE, OR IN BURNS, HELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT BURNS.
UM, AND I'LL TAKE IT ON THE CHIN.
UM, WHAT THEY DID WAS BURNS, UH, AN ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION STARTED ON BURNS AT ONE POINT, ABOUT A MONTH INTO IT, THE, THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS, DAVID SCHULTZ, I'M SURE.
HE, HE LOOKS AND SAYS, WHOA, WE MIGHT HAVE SOME CRIMINAL, SOME CRIMINAL STUFF HERE.
SO HE PUTS A MEMO, HE WRITES A MEMO TO THE FILE THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DONE, AND SAYS, HEY, DURING MY INVESTIGATION, I DETERMINE THERE MAY BE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
THEREFORE I'M SUSPENDING MY INVESTIGATION AND I'M REFERRING THIS TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
SO THEN THE CHIEF GETS IT AND SENDS IT TO CRIMINAL DIVISION WHERE THEY RUN WITH THEIR INVESTIGATION, WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTS IN THE ARREST OF DEREK BURNS.
SO THEN THERE'S ANOTHER MEMO TO THE FILE A MONTH LATER, UH, AFTER, OR NO? NO, IT'S LIKE TWO WEEKS AFTER THE DATE OF REST SAYING, I'M PICKING IT BACK UP.
I'VE JUST RECEIVED THE FILE BACK FROM CRIMINAL, AND NOW I'M STARTING WITH MY, RESTARTING MY ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION.
NOW THEY DO THEIR INVESTIGATION, HE GETS TERMINATED.
UM, I RAISE THE ISSUE ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE 60 DAYS AT THE TIME IT WAS 60 DAYS.
WELL, THE COURT WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE ANALYSIS AND WHY WE COUNT.
THEY WENT THROUGH THE SUSPENSION TIME DURING THAT TIME, UM, FROM THE DATE IT WAS SUSPENDED, DOCUMENTED.
AND THE DATE THAT IT GOT PICKED BACK UP, THEY REMOVED THAT.
THEY WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE TIME CALCULATIONS.
WELL, I'M GONNA TELL YOU AT THE, AND MR. STOCKDALE, I KNOW 'CAUSE HE REPRESENTED MR. BURNS IN THE CRIMINAL CASE.
SO HERE'S A, A SMALL WORLD HERE.
SO, BUT HERE'S, HERE'S THE CATCHER.
WHILE THAT WHOLE CASE WAS PENDING, WHILE HE WAS TERMINATED, THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE, UM, INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION GOING ON, THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST MR. BURNS WAS PENDING.
ALL RIGHT? HE DIDN'T, THAT, THAT WAS LIKE FOUR YEARS LATER THAT IT GOT DISMISSED.
WELL, THE FIRST CIRCUIT WOULD'VE SAID, HEY, THERE'S NOTHING, NOTHING.
HE WAS ALREADY, HE WAS TERMINATED BEFORE HE, THE, THE CRIMINAL CASE WAS EVER, UH, DECIDED.
SO WHY ARE WE EVEN HERE ON A TIME LIMITATION? 'CAUSE NOT A DAY'S EVER RUN.
SO WHY, WHY DID THEY GO THROUGH THAT EXERCISE OF COUNTING DAYS? AND THAT'S WHY I SAY PROCELL, WHEN YOU READ PROCELL ALONG WITH BURNS, PROCELL NAILS, IT, IT'S LIKE, NO, NO.
THE DEPARTMENT CAN SUSPEND THEIR, THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION.
THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO IT, TO DEFER IT DURING THE DEPENDENCY OF THE CRIMINAL, BUT THEY CAN ALSO RUN WITH IT AT THE SAME TIME, WHICH IS WHAT BRPD HAS GENERALLY DONE.
THEY, IT'S A SEPARATE INVESTIGATOR.
YOU GOT THE CRIMINAL, YOU GOT THE IA.
THAT'S JUST NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
SO I THINK YOU'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT MY ISSUE.
I UNDERSTAND PROCEL SAYS THEY MAY DEFER OR THEY CAN DEFER.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS DO THEY HAVE TO, DO THEY HAVE TO SUSPEND? IF THEY DON'T,
[02:20:01]
THEN THE TIME LIMIT RUN.SO THEN UNLESS THEY CAN PROVE THAT THEY SUSPENDED IT.
WE KNOW FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT IT STARTED ON AUGUST 30TH.
THERE IS NO PROOF OF SUSPENSION.
SO MORE THAN 75 DAYS HAS ELAPSED UNTIL DECEMBER 1ST.
SO BY ALL EVIDENCE YOU HAVE RIGHT HERE.
NOW, BAT CITY POLICE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE 75 DAY REQUIREMENT, AND YOU SHOULD RENDER THE TERMINATIONS NUITY, UNLESS THEY CAN PROVE TO YOU IT WAS SUSPENDED, WHICH THEY HAVE NOT DONE.
SO THEREFORE, THE NU THE THEIR SUSPENSION SHOULD BE DEEMED A NUITY.
SO UNDER O'HERN AND MCMASTER THOUGH, AND, AND I'M NOT SAYING YOU'RE RIGHT OR WRONG, THE LANGUAGE IS MORE THAT WHEN YOU'RE INVESTIGATING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, THE TIME LIMIT DOESN'T APPLY.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT THAT'S WRONG BECAUSE THOSE ARE TWO SUPREME COURT CASES? CORRECT.
BUT YOU GOTTA LOOK AT THE FACT OKAY.
INSTEAD OF JUST TAKING THAT AS A BLANKET STATEMENT, BECAUSE THEN WE LOOK AT THAT, THAT'S NOT WHAT PROCEL SAYS, YOU KNOW? CORRECT.
WHEN THEY ARE INVESTIGATING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND THAT'S ALL THEY'RE INVESTIGATING, SURE.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE, UM, DEADLINE IS SUSPENDED.
HOWEVER, TO YOU'RE COMPLETELY UNDERMINING THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS.
IF YOU'RE GONNA SAY, YOU KNOW, THAT CRIMINAL CASE COULD BE GOING ON FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE JUST GONNA PIGGYBACK AND KEEP ON 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT, A SINGLE DAY IS BEING COUNTED AGAINST US.
WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE WITH AN IA INVESTIGATION FOR FIVE, SIX YEARS UNTIL THAT CRIMINAL CASE IS OVER WITH.
I MEAN, SURELY THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEING CONSIDERED HERE.
'CAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE, THAT IS WHAT I'M HEARING THAT WELL, AS LONG AS THE CRIMINAL CASE IS STILL PENDING, THE DEADLINES DON'T COUNT.
WELL, THAT COULD BE FOR A DECADE.
THAT'S WHAT, SO, SO THEY HAVE 10 YEARS, THEY HAVE FOREVER TO, TO FINISH THEIR I INVESTIGATION THAT COMPLETELY UNDERMINES THE STATUTE.
SO I'M, I'M GONNA MOVE ON TO A DIFFERENT QUESTION TO MR. RAINS.
YOU SEEM TO NOT DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF PHONE CALL WITH CHIEF PAUL AND THE, THE, UH, THE OFFICER THAT WAS INTERROGATED, CORRECT? I GUESS THE QUESTION IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PHONE CALL.
DO YOU HAVE A DEFINITION OF INTERROGATION FOR THE BOARD? YES.
AND THEN CAN YOU APPLY SAID DEFINITION TO THIS SITUATION? AND THEN I'LL POSE THE SAME QUESTION TO YOU GUYS IF Y'ALL HAVE A DIFFERENT YEAH.
IT'S A SYSTEMATIC QUESTIONING IF HE CITED IN HIS BRIEF.
AND IT'S CITED IN, UM, CITED IN BURNS AND IT'S CITED IN.
DO WE ALL AGREE IT'S A SYSTEMIC FORMAL QUESTIONING? IS THAT KIND OF YES.
WHAT WE ALL BELIEVE AN INTERROGATION IS FORMAL AND SYSTEMATIC QUESTIONING.
SO, SO WHY IS, AND AGAIN, THIS IS FOR THE BOARD.
WHY IS THIS PHONE CALL A FORMAL AND SYSTEMIC QUESTIONING? 'CAUSE THERE'S MULTIPLE QUESTIONS ON THE ISSUE AT DEBATE, SHALL WE SAY? IT WAS NOT ABOUT SETTING UP A MEETING, IT WAS ASKING MARTEL JACKSON'S QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MATTER.
HE WAS INVESTIGATING THE MISSING BODY CAMERA.
WHAT, WHAT TIES THE MISSING BODY CAMERA TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE? EXCUSE ME.
INITIAL COMPLAINT, WHAT, WHAT TIES THE MISSING BODY CAMERA TO THIS CASE? GO AHEAD.
I MEAN, I, I KNOW CHIEF PAUL WAS ASKING ABOUT THE MISSING CAMERA.
RIGHT? THERE WAS AN ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT, RIGHT.
IN WHICH IT WAS SAID THAT, UH, MARTEL JACKSON LOST HIS BODY CAMERA.
THAT WASN'T TRUE, THAT THE CAMERA WAS DESTROYED.
BASED UPON THAT COMPLAINT, THE CHIEF THEN STARTS AN INVESTIGATION, STARTS PULLING RECORDS.
SO HE BEGINS HIS INVESTIGATION.
RATHER THAN HAVING SOMEONE CALL MARTEL JACKSON TO SET UP AN INTERVIEW, THE CHIEF REACHES OUT TO HIM.
WE KNOW IN THE REPORT THE CHIEF STARTS ASKING HIM QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE MISSING BODY CAMERA.
NOT WHEN HE WAS AVAILABLE FOR AN INTERVIEW THAT MARTEL JACKSON THEN PROVIDES INFORMATION INDICATING THAT HE WAS LIED OR WAS INCORRECT IN HIS ORIGINAL STATEMENT ABOUT THE LOST BODY CAMERA.
THEN THE CHIEF, ACCORDING TO THEIR REPORTS, SAID, WELL, I WILL HAVE SOMEONE REACH OUT FOR AN INTERVIEW FOR YOU.
BUT WE KNOW THAT THE CHIEF QUESTIONED HIM ABOUT THE FACTS OF THIS INTERNAL INVESTIGATION DEALING WITH THE MISSING BODY CAMERA.
HOW WOULD THE CHIEF KNOW WITHOUT ASKING SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A NEED TO EVEN GO ANY FURTHER WITH THE ISSUE? 'CAUSE BEFORE HE MADE THAT PHONE CALL, HE PULLED DOCUMENTATION SUBSTANTIATING THAT THERE WAS A REPORT OF THE MISSING CAMERA.
THERE'S A REASON WHY WE HAVE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS TO CONDUCT
[02:25:01]
THESE INVESTIGATIONS.AND IT'S NOT THE CHIEF OF POLICE THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE CONDUCTING IT.
WELL, AS OPPOSED TO RUNNING, LET ME JUST CONFIRM THERE'S SOME, SOME TYPE OF VALIDITY TO IT.
HE DID THAT, HE PULLED SOME DOCUMENTS THAT SHOULD HAVE CONDENSED HIM RIGHT THERE.
HE THEN CALLED HIM AND STARTED QUESTIONING HIM ON HIM.
AND, AND MR. ROBINSON, I THINK THAT'S WHAT MAKES AN INTERROGATION, GOES RIGHT TO YOUR QUESTION.
CHIEF PAUL DOES AN INVESTIGATION FIRST, THEN HE CALLS MARTEL JACKSON.
AND MARTEL'S ORIGINAL ANSWER WAS, I LOST MY CAMERA.
NOW, IF IT WASN'T INTERROGATION, YOU'D SAY, OKAY, WELL THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THAT INPUT, WE'LL GET BACK, LET'S SAY.
WHEN HE SAYS, I LOST IT, IT WAS STOLEN AT THE DOCKING STATION.
HE SAYS, HE ASKED HIM AGAIN THAT, THAT'S IN MY MIND.
THAT'S WHEN IT BECAME AN INTERROGATION.
HE DID NOT ACCEPT HIS FIRST ANSWER.
HE SAID, LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN ABOUT YOUR CAMERA MISSING.
THAT'S HOW IT BECAME AN INTERROGATION.
I DIDN'T MEAN TO NO, YOU'RE FINE.
IS THE MARTEL, UH, GUY HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS? UH, THERE'S, I DON'T HAVE, I DON'T KNOW.
SO HE WASN'T, OKAY, I, MR. RAINS, DO YOU AGREE THAT THAT IS WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS OR THERE'S A DISPUTE ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED ON THE CONVERSATION? THERE IS, YES.
AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
PAUL WOULD HAVE TO, WOULD TESTIFY ABOUT PAUL AND POTENTIALLY OFFICER JACKSON WOULD TESTIFY BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ONLY ONES THAT ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN THE CONVERSATION.
LIKE I SAID, THIS WAS A THIRD HAND ACCOUNT, UH, OF, IN, IN THE REPORT OF WHAT OCCURRED.
DO WE KNOW HOW MONTGOMERY KNEW OF THIS STUFF TO WRITE IT DOWN IN THE FIRST PLACE? GOT IT.
HE SAYS HE GOT IT FROM CHIEF PAUL.
UM, DOCUMENTED, UM, ON THE WRITTEN, ON THE 14 DAY THING.
SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT REQUIRES A WRITTEN COMPLAINT AND Y'ALL ARE SAYING IT DOESN'T.
UH, AND MY REPLY MEMO, I ADDRESSED THAT MM-HMM
THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS SAYING NO, IF THERE IS ANY ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION WITH AN EYE TOWARDS DISCIPLINARY ACTION, THEN POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS APPLY NOT JUST ONE RIGHT.
ALL OF 'EM, THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS APPLY.
I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION THOUGH, BECAUSE OF COURSE THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS APPLIES MM-HMM
I'M ASKING DOES THE 14 DAY LIMITATION APPLY? IT'S IN, IF THERE'S NO WRITTEN COMPLAINT, THAT WAS WHAT THOSE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS ADDRESSED THAT THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS APPLY.
THAT IS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OR ONE OF THE MINIMAL, MINIMAL, UH, REQUIREMENTS OF THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS.
IS THAT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT, WHILE THE STATUTE SAYS WRITTEN, THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL'S THOSE OPINIONS THAT I CITE SAY, YEAH.
AND THAT WAS A SPECIFIC QUESTION.
DOES THIS ONLY APPLY TO WRITTEN, UM, TWO WRITTEN COMPLAINTS AND THEY ADDRESS IT? NO.
IT APPLIES TO ALL INVESTIGATIONS WITH AN EYE TOWARDS POSSIBLE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
MR. KERSHAW, IT, BECAUSE I I HAVE READ ALL OF THE BRIEFS, BUT I'M, I'M NOT REMEMBERING THAT SPECIFIC POINT.
COULD YOU POINT US TO THAT PORTION OF YOUR BRIEF, PLEASE? YES, SIR.
UM, IT'S ON PAGE SEVEN AND EIGHT.
IT WAS LOUISIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NUMBER 93 DASH 52.
AND I WANNA SAY IT MUST HAVE BEEN WITHIN THAT ONE, THEY STATE REFERENCE ANOTHER PAGE OPINION.
AND SO BY READING THE, THE QUESTION WAS, HEY, THE, DOES THIS TIME LIMITATION THAT THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS PUTS ON US ONLY APPLY TO WRITTEN COMPLAINTS? AND THEIR ANSWER WAS NO.
I MEAN, WHY WOULD, IN OTHER WORDS, IF THAT APPLIES AND ALL OF THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS APPLIES, UH, AND THEY WENT FURTHER SAYING, NO, NO, IF THERE'S A, IF IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION, REGARDLESS OF HOW IT CAME IN, YOU NEED TO, YOU NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
[02:30:01]
AND SO THE REASON WHY I WANTED TO DIG INTO THAT IS BECAUSE THAT, THAT PORTION, I DON'T WANNA SAY IT'S UNIQUE, BUT IT'S PART OF THE SAME SENTENCE, RIGHT? MM-HMMWHEN SUBSECTION SEVEN, WHEN A FORMAL MM-HMM
WRITTEN COMPLAINT IS MADE AGAINST ANY POLICE EMPLOYEE OR LAW COM, I'M SORRY, EMPLOYEE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, THE SUPERINTENDENT OR STATE POLICE, OR THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE DATE THE COMPLAINT IS MADE, PERIOD.
AND THEN IT CONTINUES GOING ON.
IT'S ACTUALLY A RATHER LENGTHY SUBSECTION.
AND SO, 'CAUSE THIS IS A THOUGHT THAT I HAD WHEN I WAS ORIGINALLY READING THE BRIEFS AND READING THE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS INTENDED, WHETHER THE 14 DAYS, CERTAINLY NOT THE ENTIRE BILL OF RIGHTS, BUT WHETHER THE 14 DAY REQUIREMENT WAS EXCLUSIVE TO THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT OR WHETHER IT WAS NOT, AND WHETHER ALL OF IT APPLIED.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DIG INTO A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT'S STRUCTURED AND IT'S, IT'S THE ENTIRE STATUTE.
ALL THOSE MINIMAL STANDARDS APPLY WHEN THE COMPLAINT COMES IN THE 14 DAY BEING ONE OF THEM.
SO I, I WISH YOU HAD BEEN HERE THE LAST TIME WE HAD A BOARD, BECAUSE MR. RAINS IS LIKELY HAVING FLASHBACKS TO ME REALLY DIGGING INTO LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE AND THE CODE.
WHAT, IN YOUR ESTIMATION, AND OR BECAUSE I'M NOT READING THE ENTIRE OPINION, THE AGS POSITION, WHAT WAS THE LEGISLATURE ENVISIONING WHEN THEY WROTE THAT STATUTE? WHY SAY, WRITTEN COMPLAINT IF IT'S NOT NECESSARY? I HONESTLY CANNOT ANSWER THAT BECAUSE I THINK YOU'D AGREE THAT, THAT THAT IS NOT AMBIGUOUSLY WRITTEN.
IT COULD BE AMBIGUOUS TO WHETHER IT COULD APPLY TO THE ENTIRE BILL OF RIGHTS.
BUT THAT SINGLE SENTENCE PERTAINING TO THE 14 DAYS IS NOT AMBIGUOUS AT ALL.
AND, AND YET YOU ARE ASKING US TO INTERPRET THAT IN A WAY THAT WOULD CONTRADICT THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN.
WELL, I MEAN, I'M JUST CITE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
ATTORNEY GENERAL AGREES WITH ME, UH, AT LEAST BACK IN 93.
UH, CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? 'CAUSE I, I JUST PULLED UP THE AG OPINION AND BECAUSE WHAT THEY QUOTED IN THEIR BRIEF IS TO SUMMARIZE OUR RESPONSE TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION IS THE 60 DAY TIME LIMITATION APPLIES TO ALL INVESTIGATIONS OF MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
WELL, I WENT BACK WITH WHAT IS THE FIRST QUESTION? FIRST QUESTION WAS NOT THE DISTINCTION WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE HERE.
IT SAYS, DOES RS 40 25 31 ENTITLED TO ENTITLED RIGHTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS APPLY UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES TO A POLICE OFFICER? THAT WAS THE SPECIFIC QUESTION ASKED.
SO I, UNLESS I'M MISSING IT, I DON'T SEE THE DISTINCTION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE BEING MADE.
I'M TRYING TO READ IT QUICKLY, BUT THAT, THAT WAS THE SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT THEY WERE RESPONDING TO.
DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ALL SATISFIED? I JUST HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT IF I COULD, ON THE SUSPENSION HEARING.
'CAUSE I, I JUST THINK IT'S SO EASY.
AND AGAIN, I'M GONNA REFER TO THIS IF EVERYONE AGREES NOW THAT THIS STARTED ON AUGUST THE 30TH.
IF, IF YOU FIND NO SUSPENSION, THEN IT'S 94 DAYS.
THESE ARE THE DAYS, TWO DAYS HERE.
IF YOU FIND IT WAS NEVER SUSPENDED 94 DAYS, THEY BUSTED THE 75 DAY CAP IF YOU BELIEVE IT WAS SUSPENDED, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, IT WAS, IF YOU BELIEVE IT WAS, YOU COUNT THESE TWO DAYS, THIS RED DAY IS WHEN THEY SAY IT WAS STARTED.
BUT AGAIN, NO EFFORT, BUT WE'LL GIVE IT TO 'EM.
IT'S 76 OR 77 DAYS TWO HERE, 12 31 31.
SO EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE IT WAS SUSPENDED, THEY DID NOT COMPLETE IT IN 75 DAYS.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT OUR ARGUMENT.
ACTUALLY OUR ARGUMENT IS IT STARTED THE NEXT DAY.
I TOLD YOU EARLIER THAT I JUST DIDN'T SEE IT WHEN THEY PUT NINE ONE VERSUS 8 31 IN THE BRIEF.
SO IT STARTED THE NEXT DAY BEING IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, UH, BY CHIEF PAUL.
IT DID NOT BECOME, UH, AGAIN, LIKE THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT DID NOT GET IT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 19TH.
SO IT DOES NOT EQUATE TO 76 DAYS.
IF YOU GO BY THE NORMAL RULES OF COUNTING WAS ACTUALLY 74 DAYS.
AND ACTUALLY IN RETORT TO THAT, IT'S NOT JUST IN HIS OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM WHERE THEY CITED PICKED BACK UP SEPTEMBER 1ST.
THERE WAS A LETTER DIRECTED TO THE 19TH JDC DATED JANUARY 10, WHICH IS OUR EXHIBIT F, WHERE THEY SAY THAT SAME THING TO WHERE THEY GET THAT INFORMATION FROM.
OBVIOUSLY IT HAD TO COME FROM THE ONLY PERSON WHO APPARENTLY, UH, FIGURED OUT THAT A SUSPENSION WILL SAVE THIS THING.
[02:35:01]
AND THAT WAS CHIEF PAUL AND HE TELLS 'EM SEPTEMBER 1ST.SO IT'S IN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES WHERE THEY'RE ALLEGING THEY PICKED BACK UP ON SEPTEMBER 1ST.
WAS THAT A PLEADING? IT'S NOT IN THE FILE.
IT'S NOT PART OF THE IA FILE THAT IT, THAT, THAT HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 1ST.
I'M TELLING YOU HIS, IT WAS THE NEXT DAY.
AND HE SAYS THAT, BUT IT'S NOT IN THE FILE ANYWAY.
NOWHERE EVER IN ANY REPORT IS THERE A MENTION OF A SUSPENSION.
THAT'S HIS DEFENSE TIRE SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IT SAYS NOT SUFFICIENT FACTS TO SUPPORT HIS DEFENSE, THEN THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED.
SO THERE IS NO FACT TO SUPPORT THIS SUSPENSION, THEREFORE, THE 75 DAY RULE WAS VIOLATED AND THE TERMINATION SHOULD BE RENDERED OR KNOWLEDGE.
MR. RAINS, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE RECORD THAT INDICATES A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION STARTED ON THE FIRST OR 31ST WHATEVER DAY IT, IT WAS, THE ONLY THING YOU HAVE CRIMINALLY IS SERGEANT GAYDEN'S REPORT, WHICH TALKS, I MEAN, IT DISCUSSES A ONGOING INVESTIGATION.
UM, HIS INVESTIGATION, IN FACT, I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
I MEAN, HE TALKS ABOUT HIS STEPS.
I'LL LET THE REPORT SPEAK FOR ITSELF.
BUT HE TALKS ABOUT HIS STEPS IN THE PROCESS OF THE INVESTIGATION, WHICH AGAIN WAS CRIMINAL.
WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO, I THINK, AND IS WHAT MR. DARA WAS POINTING OUT A MINUTE AGO, IS YOU GO BACK TO STATUTE, WHAT DOES THE STATUTE SAY ABOUT THIS IN B SEVEN? NOTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL LIMIT ANY INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
THEN YOU GO BACK TO WHAT DID THE CASES CLEARLY SAY ABOUT THIS? THAT THE PARAMETERS OF B SEVEN DO NOT APPLY WHEN THERE'S AN INVESTIGATION INTO CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
THERE HAS BEEN AN INVESTIGATION IN CRIMINAL, CRIMINAL CONDUCT DURING THIS ENTIRE PROCESS.
UM, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN THE POLICE OFFICER'S BILL OF RIGHTS THAT THERE BE A DOCUMENT THAT SAYS, I AM NOW SUSPENDING HERE FOR SUSPENDING THE INVESTIGATION AND NOW I'M CONVERTING IT TO AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND THEN CONVERTING IT BACK TO CRIMINAL.
THAT IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW.
AND IF I MAY, THAT'S BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE WAY THEY'RE HANDLED.
YOU START WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE, THEN YOU DISCOVER THAT THERE MIGHT BE CRIMINAL IF THAT'S HOW WE'RE DOING THIS, AND THEN YOU SUSPEND THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND YOU SWITCH IT OVER TO A CRIMINAL DETECTIVE.
YOU CANNOT, ONCE AGAIN, YOU'RE UNDERMINING THE REASON, THE WHOLE PREMISE OF THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW INTERNAL AFFAIRS TO RUN WITH AN INVESTIGATION TO THE ENTIRE PENDENCY OF, OF A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND A CRIMINAL CASE FOR THE SAME CASES THAT HE CITES.
THEY'RE ALL OUT OF NEW ORLEANS.
OKAY? THEY'RE ALL THESE FOUR CIRCUIT CASES AND THEY, AND THEY, THEY SAY THAT, WELL, DURING THE DEPENDENCY OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, UNTIL THAT'S OVER, YOU DON'T START ADMINISTRATIVE.
BUT AT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE CASES, THEY DIDN'T START THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION UNTIL THE CRIMINAL CASE WAS OVER WITH EVERY SINGLE ONE.
THAT'S WHY I SAID, PROCEL NAILED IT.
THE STATUTE GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO DEFER YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION AND SO THAT THE THE TIME ISN'T TAKEN AGAINST YOU.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT.
THEY CHOSE TO CONTINUE WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION.
UNLESS THERE'S OBJECTION FROM THE BOARD, I'M GOING TO ASK THAT WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER.
UH, MR. CHAIR, DO YOU NEED A SECOND? I NEED A MOTION.
WE BE BACK AFTER THE XAVIER SESSION.
THAT'S WHAT MOST OF THE TIME A MOTION TO, UM, RECONVENE IS AN ORDER.
I WILL SO MOVE, MOVE BY MR. NEWELL.
SECOND BY MR. FLEMING THAT WE RECONVENE I SESSION MAYBE WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE, MA'AM.
[02:40:01]
ROBINSON.MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU HAVE A QUORUM.
ALRIGHT, WHAT'S THE, UH, ACTION OF THE BOARD? MR. CHAIR? I MOVE TO DENY THE APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.
I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. NEWVILLE.
BY MR. FLEMING THAT WE DENY THE MOTION OF THE APPELLANT.
WE NEED A ROLL CALL ON THE MOTION.
ATTORNEY JOSHUA LOUISVILLE? YES.
THE MOTION PASSES AND THE IT IS DENIED.
MR. ROD, DO WOULD YOU GET TO, UH, OKAY, FOLLOW UP PLEASE, SIR.
UH, NEXT STEPS IS, WELL, I GUESS TO, TO BE CLEAR, I THINK THE BOARD'S DECISION TODAY SIMPLY REFLECTS THAT THEY CANNOT GRANT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION, BUT HAS NO REAL IMPACT ON HOW THEY VIEW THE MERIT OF THE CASE.
I THINK THAT'S NECESSARY TO PUT OUT THERE.
NOW, MOVING FORWARD, WE NEED TO SET THE ACTUAL DATE OF THE APPEAL.
UH, I KNOW THERE'S SOME OTHER THINGS PENDING OUT THERE.
UH, WE HAD KIND OF BANDIED AROUND, UM, POTENTIALLY TAKING TESTIMONY TODAY, BUT I, I'M, I'M NOT POSITIVE THAT ALL OF THE WITNESSES THAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM OR HERE.
SO, UH, WE'D LIKE TO DEFER THAT TO THE TRIAL, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU GUYS TO THE ACTUAL APPEAL HEARING.
UH, DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY INPUT AS TO WHEN THE APPEAL HEARING SHOULD BE? YOU WANNA TAKE A MOMENT TO TALK? SURE.
MOTION TO RECESS OR MOTION TO RECESS.
THEY'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT SCHEDULE.
DO WE NEED A DO WE NEED TO RECESS OR JUST, LET'S JUST WAIT AND SEE HOW LONG IT TAKES.
IF IT TAKES MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES, WE'LL HAVE A RECESS.
LET'S NOT DECLARE RECESS AT THIS TIME.
YOU TWO JEFF AROUND AND I START LOOKING.
THEY'RE NOT, WELL, WE, YOU ASKED ME TO DO THAT ON MY CALENDAR.
YEAH, LET'S SEE WHAT THEY COME UP WITH.
WE HAVE TO JUST LET THE LAWYERS SET TODAY LATER.
[02:46:10]
SO THE, THE MOTION WAS DENIED ON THE RECORDS SUBMITTED AND SO NOW WE WOULD HAVE, NOT TODAY, BUT, UM, Y'ALL WOULD LISTEN TO TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE? YEAH.
SO WE'D LIKE TO PICK A DATE TO DO THAT.
AND AGAIN, THE TESTIMONY WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE THREE ISSUES THAT WERE PART OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
IS THAT RIGHT? NO, MY INTERPRETATION WOULD, WOULD BE, AND AGAIN, I I AM NEW TO THIS BOARD, I WOULD DEFER TO ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN HERE LONGER THAN I WOULD THAT AT, AT THE HEARING THAT WE WOULD SET, WE WOULD BE HEARING EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENT BOTH ON ANY APPLICABILITY OF THE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS.
IF THERE IS DEEMED TO BE A VIOLATION, THAT WOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE NULLITY.
IF THERE WOULD BE NO VIOLATION FOUND TO THE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS, THEN WE WOULD GET TO ALL OF THOSE NORMAL PRONGS THAT, THAT WE WOULD HAVE AS FAR AS THE CHIEF'S ACTIONS.
UM, BUT IT WOULD, IT WOULD ALL BE PART OF, OF ONE SAME DAY.
BUT YOU TAKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS STUFF FIRST AND THEN RULE ON THAT, SOME OF IT IS GOING TO INTERMINGLE.
UM, A LOT OF THE TESTIMONY IS GOING TO INTERMINGLE, BUT THERE WOULD, AND THIS IS ME SPEAKING ALONE, I WOULD ENVISION IN MY HEAD THERE BEING SEPARATE DETERMINATIONS FROM THE BOARD ON THOSE ISSUES.
SO THAT WAY THE RECORD IS CLEAR, BUT AT LEAST IN MY MIND, THE PROCEEDING WOULD BE EXTREMELY INTERMINGLED BECAUSE SO MUCH OF IT IS GOING TO OVERLAP.
MR. THAT ANY, ANY ADDITION? YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY TOO EARLY FOR US TO COMMIT TO HOW THE PROCEEDING IS GONNA BE DONE.
BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, IF YOU GUYS DON'T MIND, IS FOR US TO ALL
[02:50:01]
GET ON THE PHONE AND HAVE A, A CALL.I'M NOT AGAINST HAVING A BILL OF RIGHTS TESTIMONIAL HEARING, BUT I WANT TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND THE LOGISTICS OF THAT, UM, CLOSER TO THE TIME.
AND MR. DAD, I'LL, I'LL TELL YOU.
AND, AND MR. FEL, UM, THE THING IS, IF WE SET 'EM, BOTH THE WITNESS LIST'S GONNA BE PRETTY EXTENSIVE.
SO MY SUGGESTION, AND I THOUGHT THIS IS, I THOUGHT WE WERE, WE WERE ON THIS PAGE BEFORE WE STARTED THE HEARING.
IF, IF, IF IT GETS DENIED BASED ON JUST ARGUMENT ON WHAT'S IN THE RECORD, THEN WE'LL THEN WE'LL HEAR TESTIMONY JUST ON THESE ISSUES AND THEN WE'LL SEE HOW THAT'S DECIDED.
UM, THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AND THE REASON WHY I WOULD PREFER IT TO BE LIKE THAT IS WE GET INTO A WHOLE DIFFERENT BOTTLE OF WAX.
IF WE'RE GONNA DO A TRIAL ON THE POLICE ON WHAT YOU HEARD TODAY, NOW LET'S INFUSE THE TESTIMONY AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THOSE WITNESSES READY TO GO.
ALL THESE OTHER WITNESSES READY TO GO IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER ON THE, UM, NOT TO MENTION THEY STILL HAVE, YOU KNOW, STILL PROCEEDING ACROSS STREET.
SO WE HAVE FIFTH AMENDMENT ISSUES, ALL THAT.
SO I'D PREFER IF WE JUST DID A HEARING JUST ON THE BILL OF TAKE TESTIMONY, JUST ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS ISSUES.
MR. INS, DO YOU HAVE A, AS FAR AS BIFURCATING THE HEARING? UH, PROBABLY BIFURCATING WOULD BE EASIER.
GET ON THE PHONE AND, UH, WITH MR. DARE AND THE, AND THE, AND COUNSEL AND US WORK OUT THE, THE PROCESS AND PROCEDURE AND TIMING AND ALL OF ALL OF THAT.
I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY BE EASIER BECAUSE OF THE ONGOING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.
IT WOULD PROBABLY BE EASIER IF WE SPLIT 'EM INTO TWO THINGS AND HAD THE, THE POLICE OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS ISSUES FIRST.
SO, AND I'LL DEFER TO MR. DARE FROM, FROM AN, FROM A PROCEDURAL PERSPECTIVE, I PERSONALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN TECHNICALLY HAVE TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE HEARINGS OR WHETHER LEGALLY, TECHNICALLY IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE A SINGLE APPEAL HEARING IN WHICH WE CLEARLY BIFURCATE ONTO DIFFERENT DAYS.
BUT UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S PART OF ONE APPEAL, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
NO, WE CAN, WE CAN BIFURCATE IN THAT AND CONSIDERING THE, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT ISSUES WITH SOME OF THE CRIMINAL STUFF GOING ON, THAT PROBABLY MAKES THE MOST SENSE.
UH, DO WE HAVE A DATE IN MIND GUYS? MOM, LET'S GET TECHNICAL ABILITY.
I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL WERE TALKING.
DO Y'ALL HAVE A, IS YOUR HEARING DATE ON FEBRUARY 24TH TAKEN OR IS IT OPEN? IS IT TAKEN? THAT'S THE ONE THAT WE JUST BUMPED IN MARCH.
ALTHOUGH WE GOT A TWO DAY TRIAL RIGHT BEFORE THAT, YOU CAN HANDLE IT.
THAT'S WHAT HE LOVES TO TELL ME.
DON'T WORRY ABOUT OUR OPTIMISM FROM, FROM THIS TIME OF THIS BENCH IS JUST SO MUCH FUN.
FEBRUARY 24TH WORKS FOR ME THAT WE'LL HAVE, I MEAN, WE SAID THIS, WE, WE'LL HAVE TO CONFIRM WITH ALL OF OUR WITNESSES THAT HE, THEY CAN BE AVAILABLE FOR THAT DATE.
BUT TENTATIVELY GO AHEAD AND PUT US DOWN FOR THAT DATE AND WE'LL TRY TO WORK WITH THAT.
THAT, SO GUYS, ON, ON THE WITNESS ISSUE, I WOULD NOT ASSUME ANYBODY'S GONNA SHOW UP VOLUNTARILY, SO I WOULD ISSUE SUBPOENAS.
ARE WE CLEAR JOHN? WHO WHEN WE ASK FOR A SUBPOENA, WHO ACTUALLY WHO DELIVERS A SUBPOENA FOR CONS? THE CONSTABLE? YEAH.
IF WE HAVE TROUBLE GETTING SOMEBODY, CAN WE DO A MOTION OF POINT OF PRIVATE PROCESS SERVER? I'VE SEEN THAT.
YOU DON'T TAKE ME, IT'S A SCHEDULING ISSUE, BUT IF Y'ALL WANT TO, YOU CERTAINLY CAN.
SO YOU ARE GOING TO CONFER WITH THE ATTORNEYS ABOUT NO, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE MADE THE DECISION.
SO WE'RE GONNA BIFURCATE AND HAVE THE, THE HEARING ON THE 24TH.
SO JUST SO EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE, WE PROBABLY DO NEED A MOTION
I HAVE A MOTION THAT WE WILL HAVE A HEARING ON JANUARY, FEBRUARY, FEBRUARY 24TH.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND IT.
ATTORNEY JOSHUA LOUISVILLE? YES.
AND GENTLEMEN, THAT SHOULD UM, GET US TO OUR NEXT MEETING.
SO WITH THAT, A MOTION TO ADJOURN IS AN ORDER.
MOVE BY MR. RICKS THAT WE ADJOURN.