The Atlanta Citizen Review Board (“ACRB”) completed its investigation and adjudication of the complaints filed by Renee Bailey and Latoya Johnson alleging that Officers Charles Royal and Michael Walker falsely imprisoned them during a dispute over a gratuity at the Bliss Spa located inside the W Hotel at 45 Ivan Allen Blvd.

The interviews with both complainants produce a similar fact pattern in which they describe how they were redeeming a coupon for a spa treatment and when they were checking out from the spa there was a dispute over the mandatory gratuity for the service.  According to the complainants, the managers of the hotel and spa detained them during which they contacted 911 to have the police respond to the location.  When Officer’s Royal and Walker arrived, they advised the complainants they could either pay the gratuity or go to jail.  Both complainants claim when they continued to refuse to pay the gratuity, Officer Walker placed Ms. Bailey in handcuffs and Officer Royal began to place Ms. Johnson in handcuffs when Ms. Bailey indicated that she would pay the full gratuity.  Afterwards, Ms. Bailey was un-cuffed and she and Ms. Johnson were alloed to leave with a criminal trespass warning.

Officers Royal and Walker were interviewed concerning the complaint.  According to Officer Walker, when he arrived at the location, the manager explained to him that the complainants refused to pay the gratuity on the full price for the spa treatment as indicated on the coupon.  Officer Walker then claimed the manager said the complainants could either pay the required gratuity or pay the full price of the treatment.  Officer Walker then stated he advised the complainants they could either pay the gratuity or go to jail; after which, the complainants still refused.  According to Officer Walker, he placed a handcuff on Ms. Bailey when she agreed to pay the full gratuity and both complainants were allowed to leave the location.

An interview was conducted with Officer Charles Royal regarding his role in the incident.  According to Officer Royal, he arrived at the location with Officer Walker and began to investigate the incident.  Officer Royal indicated that the manager of the Spa claimed that the complainants were refusing to pay the required gratuity as the coupon, in their possession, indicated.  Like Officer Walker, Royal stated he also advised the complainants that they could either pay the gratuity or go to jail.  According to Officer Royal, the complainants continued to refuse to pay the gratuity so Officer Walker began to place the complainant (Ms. Bailey) in handcuffs.  Then he began to handcuff the other complainant (Ms. Johnson), when Ms. Bailey stated she would pay the gratuity; after which, they were allowed to leave.

The Board considered the evidence and voted unanimously to recommend a finding of Sustained be applied to both Officer’s Royal and Walker in the allegation of false imprisonment.  In both interviews, the Officer’s indicated they believed the refusal to pay the gratuity was considered to be “theft of services.”  According to Georgia O.C.G.A 16-8-5 theft of Services is defined as the following:

“ A person commits the offense of theft of services when by deception and with the intent to avoid payment he knowingly obtains services, accommodations, entertainment, or the use of personal property which is available only for compensation.”

Accordingly, both officers indicated that they understood the dispute between the management and the complainants was over a gratuity not the payment for the service provided.  Having understood this, the officers should have known that this dispute did not meet the required threshold for theft of services.  The failure to pay a required gratuity is a matter best suited for the civil courts.  In conclusion, after learning the origin of the dispute, the officers subsequent detention and handcuffing of the complainants with the threat of jail on the condition of payment was inappropriate and not within APD policy.  The Board recommends a written warning for both Officers’ Royal and Walker for violation of APD work rule 4.1.1 Appropriate Action required with additional training in the area of customer disputes.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns or if you would like a copy of the full investigation.  The ordinance requires that the chief respond in writing regarding which recommendations are accepted, rejected, or will be implemented with modifications within thirty (30) days of the submission of a recommendation for action by the board to the chief.  See Sec. 2-2211 (O) of Ordinance 07-0-0141

The Atlanta Citizen Review Board (“ACRB”) completed its investigation and adjudication of the complaint that was filed by Jeremy Phillips alleging that he was falsely imprisoned and subjected to abusive language by Officer Raymond Layton.  The complaint was investigated by Investigator Marc Addington.

Mr. Phillips alleged that on August 08, 2011 in the area of Luckie Street near the Georgia Aquarium, Officer Layton used abusive language and falsely imprisoned him and his family during an interaction in which Officer Layton advised the complainant to “move dumbass” when the complainant paused at a parking lot exit to activate his GPS.  The complainant admitted to making an obscene gesture with his hand in response to Layton’s comments.  Mr. Phillips then claimed that Officer Layton drove up the opposite lane of traffic in his personal vehicle pursuing Phillips’ vehicle.  Mr. Phillips claimed that Officer Layton parked his car and approached his vehicle while it was stopped and ordered him to provide his license and made the comment “do you always flip off a police officer.”  Phillips responded by asking the officer why he felt the need to curse at them to which Layton replied “I was talking to someone else.”  Mr. Phillips indicated that there was no other person within the vicinity of Layton’s vehicle.  According to Phillips, Layton then appeared to be checking his license or tag and after which, Layton gave his license back and allowed him to leave with a warning.

Mr. Phillips’ wife, Stormy Phillips, was present during the incident and was subsequently interviewed as to what she observed.  Mrs. Phillips interview produced a similar fact pattern as that of her husband.  Mrs. Phillips claimed that Officer Layton said “move dumbass” and that her husband did make an obscene gesture with his hand.  Mrs. Phillips also claimed that Layton pursued them in his personal vehicle and eventually, detained them while he checked her husband’s license or vehicle tag.  Additionally, Mrs. Phillips indicated that she attempted to explain to Officer Layton that the incident was a misunderstanding.  In response, Officer Layton told Mrs. Phillips that if her husband had an issue, he could step out of the vehicle and they would handle it.

Officer Layton was interviewed regarding the complaint of Mr. Phillips.  According to Officer Layton, he was working an extra job when he made eye contact with the complainant and observed Mr. Phillips make an obscene hand gesture.  Officer Layton claimed the vehicle was involved in a road rage incident and out of concern he made the decision to pursue the car in his personal vehicle.  Officer Layton claimed that he did not consider his contact with the Phillips’ vehicle as a traffic stop because the vehicle was already stopped due to a red light near the intersection.  Officer Layton admitted to running the tag of the vehicle after which he allowed the complainant to leave with a warning.  During the interview, Officer Layton never indicated he observed another vehicle that was involved in the road rage incident that initially generated his reason for stopping and confronting the complainant.  Additionally, Officer Layton denied using any profanity but later recanted and claimed that he may have used profanity towards someone else who was in the area.

The Board considered the evidence and voted unanimously to recommend that a finding of Sustained be applied to the allegation of False Imprisonment and Abusive Language.  Officer Layton claimed that he pursued the complainant’s vehicle out of concern that a road rage incident was occurring. Officer Layton’s inability to mention or describe a second vehicle that was involved in this incident calls into question, the validity of the stop and detention due to the lack of probable cause that a traffic offense or crime had occurred.  The profane hand gesture made by the complainant is protected under the First Amendment and this alone should not be reason for the stop and detention of Mr. & Mrs. Phillips.  Moreover, Officer Layton’s initial denial of using any profanity and then later recanting this claim and admitting that he may have used profanity toward someone else in the area calls into question, the officer’s credibility.  The question of Officer Layton’s credibility coupled with the version of events provided by the complainant and his wife support the allegation of abusive language and false imprisonment.  The Board recommends a written warning for violation of APD work rule 4.2.2 Courtesy and a written reprimand for APD work rule 4.1.1 Appropriate Action required.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns or if you would like to have a copy of the full investigation.  The ordinance requires that the Chief respond in writing regarding which recommendations are accepted, rejected, or will be implemented with modifications within thirty (30) days of the submission of a recommendation for action by the Board to the Chief.  See Sec. 2-2211(O) of Ordinance 07-0-0141.

MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING

55 Trinity Avenue, SW, Committee Room Two

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

November 10, 2011, 6:30 P.M

ROLL CALL 

MEMBERS PRESENT

PAMALA ALINIECE (Aliniece)              ALAN MORRIS (Morris)

WILLIAM HARRISON (Harrison           JOY MORRISSEY (Chair/Morrissey)

BARBARA HUBBARD (Hubbard)           RUTH PRICE (Price)

RYAN JOHNSON (R. Johnson)                MACEO WILLIAMS (Williams)

CHARIS JOHNSON (C. Johnson)

MEMBERS ABSENT

PAUL BARTELS (Bartels)

VACANT APPOINTMENTS

Office of the Mayor (vacant 4 months)

STAFF ATTENDEES

MARC ADDINGTON, Investigator (Addington); CRISTINA BEAMUD, Executive Director (Director/Beamud); WILLIAM CASTING (Casting) City Law Department, Assigned Board Attorney); SHEENA ROBERTSON, Investigator (Robertson); MYOLA SMITH, Transcriber (Smith)

A G E N D A

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER:

The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m.  The Chair welcomed everyone including members of the Atlanta Police Department, Office of Professional Standards: Major Elder Dancy and staff.  The Chair also stated that if anyone cared to participate in Public Comment at the end of the meeting, please sign up.  “Public comment is limited to three (3) minutes per person and we are interested in what you have to say.”

APPROVAL OF MNUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (Agenda Item II):

The Chair entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting held October 13, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.  Prior to the motion, Vice Chair Williams made two corrections on Page 8, paragraph ‘c’ and another correction on page 9, paragraph ‘3-b.’  The Chair, by way of acclimation, called for a vote to accept the minutes with noted corrections.  The minutes were approved with one Nay vote expressed by Williams.

REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH COMMITTEE

Community Outreach Committee Chair Williams reported the Committee has decided to postpone presenting to the Board until next month.  He said, “There were some individuals who stated, early on, they wanted to be on the committee and if you are still committed, please come to the meeting.  If you are no longer interested, please state it and we can move forward without you.  Other members interested in joining the committee are welcome to attend the next meeting, Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. in the ACRB office on the 9^th floor.”

REVIEW OF INVESTIGATION #11-65, COMPLAINT OF KENNETH COBB / INVESTIGATION BY MARC ADDINGTON

It should be noted that Chair Morrissey stated that questions asked of the investigators should be limited to the facts and not to making general comments or to prove a point.

Addington reported that the case involved an allegation of False Arrest, Case #11-65 filed by Kenneth Cobb against APD Officer Jason Brooks.  The incident occurred on May 30, 2011.

INTERVIEW WITH KENNETH COBB

In an interview conducted with Mr. Cobb, he claims his brother Fred Cobb and his daughter Deidra, physically attacked him for no reason.  He stated that Deidra Cobb called 911 at some point during the altercation.  The police arrived and interviewed himself and Fred and Deidra.  After the interviews, Officer Brooks placed the complainant in handcuffs and transported him to the City Jail.

INTERVIEW WITH FRED COBB

In an interview with Fred Cobb, brother of the complainant, he claims that it was the complainant, Kenneth Cobb that initiated the fight with both himself and his daughter Deidra.  During the altercation, Fred Cobb claims that the complainant picked up a steel pipe and attempted to strike him with it at which point, his daughter called 911.  At another time during the altercation, Fred alleged the complainant stated that “he was going to bust a cap in him.”  When the police arrived, they interviewed Fred Cobb and his daughter who provided their version of the events.  Following their interview, the complainant, Kenneth Cobb, was arrested.

OFFICER INTERVIEW

An interview was conducted with Officer Jason Brooks.  Officer Brooks indicated that he received a 911 call involving a domestic dispute.

Officer Brooks indicated he separated the parties and the interview with Fred and Deidra Cobb were similar in that they indicated the complainant Kenneth Cobb was the primary aggressor.   Kenneth Cobb denied this and claimed that Fred was the one who started the fight.  Officer Brooks claims that based on the statements of all of the parties, he made the decision to arrest Kenneth Cobb.

Officer Brooks indicated that he charged the complainant with a local ordinance ‘Disorderly Conduct’ in lieu of the state charge of ‘Family Violence’ because he realized that the complainant was the caretaker for his elderly mother.  Officer Brooks felt that using the local ordinance would make it easier for the complainant to make bond and continue his role as his mother’s caretaker.

ACRB STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CASE #11-65

The interviews conducted by Officer Brooks during the initial investigation indicated that the complainant Kenneth Cobb was the primary aggressor in the physical altercation between himself and Fred and Deidra Cobb.  Georgia Law dictates that the primary aggressor in family violence incidents must be taken into custody.  During this incident, Officer Brooks used his discretion in charging the complainant with the local ordinance because of the complainant’s role as his mother’s caretaker.  No matter what charges were used to affect the arrest of the complainant, the end result was the same in that the primary aggressor was taken into custody and removed from the environment.  Also, an officer is allowed to use his discretion in making charges in situations like this.  Therefore, based on the aforementioned facts and information, the ACRB staff recommends a finding of Exonerated in the allegation of False Arrest against Officer Brooks.

To assist the Board with their decision, Beamud made a brief PowerPoint presentation in an attempt to summarize the elements of the events as stated in the ordinance, the SOP and relevant case law, where appropriate.  She presented information regarding False Arrest as defined by the ordinance; jury instructions for False Arrest from federal cases and Probable Cause as defined Georgia Case Law.

VOTE BY THE BOARD TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Following the summary and recommendation, the Chair entertained a motion.  It was moved by Morris to accept staff recommendation to Exonerate in the allegation of False Arrest against Officer Brooks.  Hubbard seconded the motion.  Hearing no discussion, the motion was approved by all.

REVIEW OF INVESTIGATION #11-41, COMPLAINT OF MICHAEL MORRISON / INVESTIGATION BY SHEENA ROBERTSON

Investigator Robertson provided an overview of ACRB’s investigation into complaint #11-41.

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATION

Investigator Robertson reported Mr. Michael Morrison filed a complaint with the ACRB alleging that he was verbally abused by APD Officer Charles Sendling during a traffic stop that occurred on July 2, 2011.

THE INVESTIGATION AND WHAT WAS REVEALED

Mr. Morrison stated that on July 2, 2011, at approximately 12:30a.m., he was driving home when he was stopped by an APD Officer Charles Sendling who was operating a DUI marked patrol car.  His wife and friend were also passengers in the vehicle.

According to Mr. Morrison, Officer Sendling approached his side of the vehicle and asked him if he had been drinking; he responded ‘No.’ He said the officer then asked him to produce his driver’s license and he complied.  Mr. Morrison said the officer then went back to his patrol car, returned a short time later and told him that if he pleads guilty, he would indicate on the citation that he was driving at a lesser speed.  Mr. Morrison said he told Officer Sendling that he was not going to plead guilty to anything and if he wanted to write him a ticket for a greater speed than he should do so.  He said Officer Sendling began yelling and screaming profanities at him and he also noticed that the officer was sweating.  He said at some point during that conversation, he asked Officer Sendling to make a notation on the citation that he was in a cluster of cars when he recorded him on the lidar (Light Detection and Ranging).  He said Officer Sendling got angrier and said “Why do you f—ing (F-word) need this?”  Mr. Morrison said he told Officer Sendling that he was going to use it as a defense against the lidar.  Mr. Morrison said that only made the officer even angrier.  The officer said to Morrison that the lidar is never wrong and never in 18 years of being a police officer has he seen a ticket like that dismissed.  Mr. Morrison said he told the officer that he did not want to argue with him, he only wants him to accurately and truthfully record what he observed.  He said Officer Sendling said to him that he was not going to put that information on the ticket and continued to yell that he was going to write him up for a higher speed.  Morrison said at that point, he responded, “Okay, just give me the ticket.”  He said Officer Sendling then walked back to his patrol car to write the citation; he remained in his vehicle.

According to Mr. Morrison, approximately three minutes later, Officer Sendling yelled to him to get out of his vehicle and walk towards the patrol car.  Mr. Morrison said at this point, he became very frightened and told his wife to call their family attorney because he did not know what was going on but he complied and walked over to the patrol car.  Mr. Morrison said Officer Sendling continued yelling and screaming at him about his previous request for a notation on the citation.  Mr. Morrison said that the officer was sweating and yelling at him so he just agreed with everything the Officer said because he just wanted to get it over with.  The profanity still continued with Officer Sendling repeatedly asking Morrison “Why do you F—ing (F-word) need this?  I have been a F—ing (F-word) cop for over 18 years and you can’t F—ing (F-word) fight this.”  Mr. Morrison said he told Officer Sendling to calm down and that this was not a situation to be angry about.  He said, out of fear, he then just agreed with everything the officer was saying in an effort to defuse the situation.  He said eventually, he was given the citation and afterwards he walked back to his vehicle and the officer drove off before he did.  Mr. Morrison said the stop lasted approximately 15 to 20 minutes.

INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS

• Traffic Citation

According to the traffic citation issued to Mr. Morrison as it relates to this incident, the citation indicates that Officer Sendling cited Mr. Morrison for speeding; driving 54 mph in a 35 mph zone.  Furthermore, according to what is shown on the citation, it is indicated that the laser was calibrated at 49 mph in 35 mph zone, which is 14 mph above the posted speed limit.

• Court Records

According to the Atlanta Municipal Court records, on August 4, 2011, Mr. Morrison case was dismissed per Solicitor’s Pre-Trial Intervention –Traffic Program (PTIT).  PTIT provides traffic offenders an alternative to prosecution and possible conviction.  Participation is limited to once every 12 months.

During his interview, Mr. Morrison provided a copy of the receipt showing he paid a fee of $100.00 for entering into the PTIT program.

• Other Findings

Officer Sendling is assigned to the DUI Task Force within the Special Operations Section of the Community Services Division.  According to APD, it is the policy of the DUI Task Force to document all traffic stops using City-issued video cameras installed in team vehicles.  Therefore, based on this information, the ACRB requested a copy of the video footage from Officer Sendling’s patrol car as it relates to this incident.  According to Sergeant Frank Schimmel, Supervisor of the DUI Task Force, he advised that Officer Sendling’s assigned vehicle was involved in a car incident on June 23, 2011 and as a result, the in-car video (ICV) system became inoperable and there is no video footage of the traffic stop.  Sergeant Schimmel provided documentation of the accident, i.e., the accident report, the damage estimate report and the police report.

• Witness Interviews

During the course of the investigation, interviews were conducted with the passengers, his wife and friend, who were with Mr. Morrison on that day.  Although, they could not provide specific details as to what was said, they both indicated that Officer Sendling used the ‘F’ word several times during their encounter.

• Officer Interviews

An interview was conducted with Officer Sendling concerning Mr. Morrison allegations.  Officer Sendling denies the allegations and maintains that he was professional at all times during the stop.

• Officer Disciplinary History

The ACRB reviewed Officer Sendling’s disciplinary history.  He has been employed by APD since July 2002 and there have been four (4) complaints filed against him.  Three of the complaints involved discourtesy allegations and he has been disciplined for using profanity towards citizens while on duty.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING COMPLAINT #11-37

Robertson concluded and said based on the facts presented, there appears to be sufficient evidence to support Mr. Morrison’s allegations.  Therefore the ACRB recommends that the allegation of abusive language brought forth by Michael Morrison against Officer Sendling be assigned a finding of “Sustained”

Beamud supplied the ordinance definition of abusive language.  She stated, “The ordinance definition of abusive language means harsh, violent, profane or derogatory language which would demean the dignity of an individual and which shall also include profanity, racial, ethnic and sexiest slurs.”  Beamud also indicated the corresponding SOP rule that applies in this situation.  The first rule that applies is entitled “Courtesy” and another rule which might apply is ‘Appropriate Action.”

VOTE BY THE BOARD TO ACCEPT RECOMMENDATION

It was moved by C. Johnson and seconded by Morris to accept staff’s recommendation.  Hearing no discussion, the motion was approved by all.

THE BOARD DECIDES DISCIPLINE

Investigator Robertson informed the Board that according to the APD grid, this discipline would normally be considered a category ‘A’ offense, but since the officer already had two (2) sustained category ‘A’ violations, this would be considered a category ‘B’ offense with a penalty range from a written reprimand up to a three (3) day suspension.

The Chair entertained a motion.

It was moved by R. Johnson and seconded by Morris to recommend a written reprimand with a pro-active component to include re-training on Courtesy.

Discussion…

Price stated that she has a problem giving the officer just a written reprimand.  “Did you say this officer has had three allegations of courtesy and etc.?”  Robertson responded yes.   Price indicated she felt the officer should receive a day of suspension.

Hearing no further discussion, Morrissey called for the vote.  The motion was approved with one Nay vote from Price.

INTAKE REPORT FOR OCTOBER, 2011

A copy of the Intake Report was included in the Board packets.  A total of twelve (12) complaints were received for the month of October, 2011.  Staff recommended investigating seven (7) of the complaints and five (5) complaints were dismissed.  The following is a list of those complaints and recommendations by the staff:

• #11-69 / Howard Ensey alleging False Arrest

Staff recommends investigation if and when the matter is adjudicated in favor of the complainant.

• #11-70 / Renee Bailey alleging False Imprisonment

Staff recommends investigation as allegation of false imprisonment.

• #11-71 / Paul Parham alleging Poor Service

Staff recommends dismissal because the matter is not within the ACRB’s jurisdiction.

• #11-72 / Aldenise Griffin alleging Failure to Promptly turn in Traffic Ticket

Staff recommends dismissal because the matter is not within the ACRB’s jurisdiction.

• #11-73 / Whitaker Howell alleging Wrongful Termination from Employment

Staff recommends dismissal because the matter is not within the ACRB’s jurisdiction.

• #11-74 / Abraham Malobe alleging False Imprisonment, Excessive Force

Staff recommends investigation into the allegation of False Imprisonment and Excessive Force.

• #11-75 / Abera Gebru alleging False Arrest/Abusive Language

Staff recommends investigation of False Arrest and Abusive Language.

• #11-76 / Monica Moody alleging Abusive Language

Staff recommends investigation into allegation of Abusive Language.

• #11-77 / Michael Broadnax alleging False Arrest

Staff recommends investigation as a complaint of False Arrest.

• #11-78 / Noah Killingsworth alleging False Arrest

Staff recommends investigation if the criminal case is resolved in favor of the complainant.

• #11-79 / Earnest Beasley alleging Theft of Money

Staff recommends dismissal because the allegation is not within the Board’s jurisdiction.

• #11-80/ Kevin Ennis alleging False Arrest

Staff recommends dismissal because it is beyond the limitation period of 180 days.

The Chair entertained a motion to accept the Director’s Intake report and recommendations.  It was moved by Morris to accept the Director’s report.  The motion was seconded by C. Johnson.  The Chair called for a discussion.  Hearing none, the motion was approved.

DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT #11-59 FOR LACK OF COOPERATION / INVESTIGATION BY MARC ADDINGTON

The Chair directed the board to Investigator Addington’s memo dated November 10, 2011 regarding Complaint #11-59.

Addington reported the complainant in this case is Ms. Akilah Williamson.  Ms. Williamson filed a complaint with the ACRB on September 13, 2011 regarding an allegation of false imprisonment.  Ms. Williamson had scheduled two appointments to interview with staff at the ACRB office and on both occasions she failed to appear.  In addition, Ms. Williamson did not respond to several phone calls made by staff to compel cooperation.  On September 22, 2011, a letter was sent to the mailing address provided to the ACRB and as of this date, she has not responded.

Due to Ms. Williamson’s lack of cooperation, the staff proposes a dismissal of the complaint filed by Ms. Williamson.

The Chair entertained a motion.  It was moved by Aliniece to dismiss the complaint filed by Ms. Williamson.  The motion was seconded by Price.  Hearing no discussion, the motion was approved.

PERSONNEL AND SEARCH COMMITTEE FOR NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR POSITION

The Chair announced Cris Beamud resigned her position of Executive Director. Chair Morrissey expressed sadness and expressed appreciation to Director Beamud on behalf of the Board.

Morrissey said, “With that being said, a new Director is needed.  We may need an Interim Director; however, we need to wait on that.  There are things that need to be tended to.  For one, we need to have a discussion with Human Resources.  We have the earliest possible appointment with the Director and that won’t be until a little later in November.  We also have more than one person interested in the job.  So it is to our best interest that we wait just a little bit to look at the best possible candidates that are interested because that would be in the best light for the Board.  We should not run or jump to any conclusions.  We need to stay focused, intact and on-line and right on top of this job.  I gave it a lot of thought to the Search Committee and the By-Laws give me the ability to appoint screening panels and committees as necessary to carry out the business of the Board.  So I have appointed a Search Committee for a new Executive Director.  I have selected:

• Alan Morris, to my left as the Chair of the Committee.  Alan has many years of experience in Personnel and Managerial skills;
• Paul Bartels, I have also asked.  He is not here tonight due to family illness.  Paul is a very influential Civil Defense attorney in the community;
• Ryan Johnson on my right, has agreed to serve;
• Charis Johnson here was on the original Search Committee when we were looking for a Executive Director and she also serves on the Search Committee to select a new Ethics Director;
• Bill Harrison who has agreed to be on the Committee.  Mr. Harrison has experience in mediation and he has a Law Degree and is very connected around town.

We appreciate all of these people agreeing to be on Executive Search Committee.  Vice-Chair Williams asked, “Could you share with us the individuals who have expressed an interest in this particular position?”  Chair Morrissey said, “No, I will not and I am sure everyone is interested.”

PUBLIC COMMENTS (Agenda item IX):

Chair Morrissey opened the floor for public comments.  Three (3) people addressed the board.

• First Speaker: Senator Vincent Forte, 39^th District

Senator Forte said, “When this Board was first created, I was fixture at the meetings and although I have not attended for a while, I have observed the Board business from afar…either through the media or a citizens making a complaint.”  Mr. Forte expressed concerned that Beamud was leaving and thanked her for serving in the position.  He said, “In three weeks, we will have the fifth anniversary of the killing of Kathryn Johnson.  This Board was created out of that turmoil.  Citizens hoped and believed that this board would be about the business of pursuing the truth.  I hope that the Board is serious about being independent, and fair and an open Board.  I am aware that there is discussion that the Police Force has asked to have a primary position in selecting a new Executive Director and I would urge you not to allow that to happen.  I hope you are fair in this process and independent, because it is well known that the police cannot police themselves.”

• Second Speaker: Moki Macias, Member of BLOCS

Ms. Macias expressed her appreciation to Beamud.  She said, “Her leadership and commitment has been strong and we appreciate your service on this Board.  Also, BLOCS was involved in the Police Chief search.  One of our proudest moment, as BLOCS, was being instrumental in getting a national search for the police chief…having the first ever Police Chief Selection Committee with representation from Community Groups and Citizens.  I urge the Board to consider during something similar to that.  I think Atlanta deserves a national search.”

• Third Speaker:  Glo Ross, Member of BLOCS

“It is exciting that you have a Committee to start the search process; however, there are some things that we (BLOCS) know that can bring legitimacy, at least from the community’s perspective, to the Board and to the future leadership of the Board.  As much as this Board is still growing and there is still much more work to be done in terms of holding the Police accountable, just knowing what the community sees as the responsibility of this Board and the hope for this Board, can be realized.  As much as we are sad to see Cris go, we can really see this as a turning point.”

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Morrissey entertained a motion to adjourn.  Morris moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.

The Atlanta Citizen Review Board (“ACRB”) completed its investigation and adjudication of the complaint that was filed by Kenneth Cobb alleging that he was falsely arrested by Officer Jason Brooks.  The complaint was investigated by Investigator Marc Addington.

Mr. Cobb alleged that on May 30, 2011 at 1495 Ezra Church Drive, Officer Brooks arrested the wrong person.  He reported that his brother, Fred and his niece, Diedra were visiting his home and they had been drinking.  He claims that his brother struck him in the eye and that Diedra knocked him to the ground and threatened him with a pipe.  He said that Diedra called 911 and when the police arrived, they interviewed all of the parties.  They then placed Mr. Kenneth Cobb, the complainant, under arrest.

Officer Brooks was interviewed and he explained that he separated the parties and investigated the incident.  He decided to arrest Kenneth Cobb based on the testimony of Fred Cobb and Diedra Cobb.  He charged Mr. Kenneth Cobb with disorderly conduct because he was aware that Mr. Cobb was the primary caregiver to his elderly mothers and that it would be easier for him to make bail and be released from jail if he changed him with disorderly conduct.

Investigator Addington contacted Fred Cobb.  Mr. Cobb was the listed victim in the matter.  Fred Cobb explained that while visiting his mother, he was physically attacked by his brother, Kenneth.  He claimed he was hit by Kenneth twice, causing him to fall to the ground.  He got up and Kenneth approached him with a long iron wrench.  His daughter Diedra walked into the room, distracting Kenneth and this permitted Fred to grab the wrench from Kenneth’s hand.

The Board considered the evidence and voted unanimously to recommend that a finding of Exonerated be applied to the allegation of False Arrest.  Officer Brooks made this arrest based on the statements of Fred and Diedra Cobb.  There was evidence to support that the primary aggressor was Mr. Kenneth Cobb and that the arrest was both proper and necessary since it involved domestic violence.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns or if you would like to have a copy of the full investigation.  The ordinance requires that the Chief respond in writing regarding which recommendations are accepted, rejected, or will be implemented with modifications within thirty (30) days of the submission of a recommendation for action by the Board to the Chief.  See Sec. 2-2211(O) of Ordinance 07-0-0141

The Atlanta Citizen Review Board (“ACRB”) completed its investigation and adjudication of the complaint filed by Michael Morrison alleging abusive language.

Mr. Morrison filed a timely complaint which alleged that on July 2, 2011, at approximately 12:30 a.m., he was driving in the vicinity of 4225 Roswell Road when he was stopped by Atlanta Police Officer Charles Sendling.  Officer Sendling was operating a DUI marked patrol car.  Mr. Morrison stated that at the time of the stop, his wife Sophia Hogberg and friend Jay Nault were passengers in his vehicle.

According to Mr. Morrison, Officer Sendling approached the driver’s side of his vehicle and asked him if he had been drinking; he responded no.  He said the officer then asked him to produce his driver’s license and he complied.  Mr. Morrison said the officer went back to his patrol car, returned a short time later and told him that if he pleads guilty, he would indicate on the citation that he was driving at a lesser speed.  Mr. Morrison said he told Officer Sendling he was not going to plead guilty to anything because he did not feel he was speeding and if he wanted to write him a ticket for a greater speed then he should do so.  Mr. Morrison said Officer Sendling began yelling and screaming profanities at him and he also noticed that the officer was sweating.  He said at some point during the conversation, he asked Officer Sendling to make a notation on the citation that he was in a cluster of cars when he recorded him on the lidar.  He said Officer Sendling got angrier and said, “Why do you f_ _ king need this?”  Morrison said he told Officer Sendling he was going to use it as a defense against the lidar.  He said Officer Sendling, still very angry, told him that the lidar is never wrong and never in his 18 years of being a police officer had he seen a lidar ticket dismissed.  Mr. Morrison said he told Officer Sendling that he did not want to argue with him, he only wants him to accurately and truthfully record what he observed.  He said Officer Sendling said to him that he was not going to put that information on the ticket and continued to yell that he was going to write him up for a higher speed.  Morrison said at that point, he responded okay, just give me the ticket.  He said Officer Sendling then walked back to his patrol car to write the citation; he remained in his vehicle.

According to Mr. Morrison, approximately three minutes later, Officer Sendling yelled to him to get out of his vehicle and walk towards the patrol car.  Mr. Morrison said at this point, he became very frightened and told his wife to call their family attorney because he did not know what was going to happen.  He said he did as the officer instructed and walked over to the patrol car.  He said Officer Sendling resumed yelling and screaming at him about his previous request for a notation on the citation.  Mr. Morrison said he was afraid because Officer Sendling was sweating and yelling; so, he just agreed with everything he said.  He said Officer Sendling repeatedly kept saying to him, “Why do you f_ _king need this?” and “I’ve been a f_ _king cop for 18 years and you can’t f_ _king fight this.”  He said he told Officer Sendling to calm down and that this was not a situation to be angry about.  He said at that point, out of fear, he just agreed with everything Officer Sendling said in an effort to diffuse the situation.  He said eventually, he was given the citation.  Afterward, he walked back to his vehicle and the officer drove off before he did.  Mr. Morrison said the stop lasted approximately 15 minutes.

Officer Sendling is assigned to the DUI Task Force within the Special Operations Section of the Community Services Division.  According to APD.SOP.4040, Section 4.5.1., “Video Camera Procedures”, it is the policy of the DUI Task Force to document all traffic stops using City-issued video cameras installed in team vehicles. Therefore, based on this information, the ACRB contacted Major Lane Hagin; Commander of the Community Services Division to obtain the video footage from Officer Sendling’s patrol car as it relates to this incident.  Sergeant Frank Schimmel, Supervisor of the DUI Task Force, responded and advised that Officer Sendling’s assigned vehicle was involved in an accident on June 23, 2011 and as a result, the in-car video (ICV) system became inoperable and there is no video footage of the traffic stop.  Sergeant Schimmel provided documentation of the accident, i.e., the accident report, the damage estimate report and the police report.  It is noted that upon review of the damage estimate report, there is no mention of the ICV system having been damaged.

A review of the traffic citation indicates that Officer Sendling cited Mr. Morrison for speeding; driving 54 mph in a 35 mph zone.  Furthermore, according to what is shown on the citation, it is indicated that the laser was calibrated at 49 mph in a 35 mph zone which is 14 mph above the posted speed limit.  According to the Atlanta Municipal Court records, on August 4, 21011, Mr. Morrison’s case was dismissed per Solicitor’s Pre-Trial Intervention-Traffic Program (PTIT).  During his interview, Mr. Morrison provided a copy of the receipt showing that he paid a fee of $100.00 for entering into the PTIT program.

During the course of the investigation, interviews were conducted with Mr. Morrison’s wife, Sophia Hogberg and friend Jay Nault.  Although they could not recall the specific details of the conversation between Officer Sendling and Mr. Morrison, they both recalled that Officer Sendling used the F word several times during the encounter.

The ACRB also conducted an interview with Officer Sending concerning Mr. Morrison’s allegations.  Officer Sendling denies the allegations and maintains that he was professional at all times during the stop.

As the investigation continued, the ACRB reviewed Officer Sendling’s OPS disciplinary complaint history.  According to their records, Officer Sendling has been disciplined in the past for using profanity towards citizens while on duty.

For the above reasons, the Board voted to ‘Sustain’ the allegation of Abusive Language against Officer Charles Sendling.

In light of Officer Sendling’s prior disciplinary history, the Board voted to recommend that Officer Sendling receive a Written Reprimand, as well as, training and courtesy counseling.

Please let me know if you will need any further information or would like a copy of the investigation.

MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING

55 Trinity Avenue, SW, Committee Room Two

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

October 13, 2011, 6:00 P.M

ROLL CALL

MEMBERS PRESENT

PAMALA ALINIECE (Aliniece)                CHARIS JOHNSON (C. Johnson)

PAUL BARTELS (Bartels)                            ALAN MORRIS (Morris)

WILLIAM HARRISON (Harrison             JOY MORRISSEY (Chair/Morrissey)

BARBARA HUBBARD (Hubbard)             RUTH PRICE (Price)

RYAN JOHNSON (R. Johnson)                  MACEO WILLIAMS (Williams)

Vacant Appointments to the Board

Office of the Mayor (vacant 3 months)

STAFF ATTENDEES

MARC ADDINGTON, Investigator (Addington); CRISTINA BEAMUD, Executive Director (Director/Beamud); WILLIAM CASTING (Casting) City Law Department, Assigned Board Attorney); SHEENA ROBERTSON, Investigator (Robertson); MYOLA SMITH, Transcriber (Smith)

A G E N D A

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER:

The meeting opened at 6:00 p.m. with a special training presentation on Ethics, facilitated by the City of Atlanta, Office of Ethics staff, led by Acting Director, Jabu Sengova.  Ms. Sengova’s presentation focused on the purpose of the Ethics Code, public’s trust of Atlanta City Government and Conflicts of Interest.  She said, “The purpose of our code, besides protecting City Government, is promoting the public’s trust.  We want the public to have positive thoughts about Atlanta City Government.  One of the things the code focuses on is Conflict of Interest.  Your official duties should be your first priority and the best interests of the City should come first.  You should not participate in transactions that interfere with your independence or your objectivity.  We want the public to look at you and say, “Here is an official doing their duties and that is an official who is fair and objective.”

Other sub-topics covered under Conflict of Interest included: doing business with the city; appearing before a city agency; compatible business interest; use of city property; making ethical decisions and the one year cooling-off period after leaving City service.

At the end of the training, each member, as a volunteer city official, was asked to read, sign and date an ethics pledge committing to promote integrity in City Government and placing the best interest of the city over any financial or personal interest.

Following the training, the board meeting was officially called to order at 7:00 p.m.  The Chair welcomed everyone including members of the Atlanta Police Department, Office of Professional Standards: Major Elder Dancy and staff.

APPROVAL OF MNUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (Agenda Item II):

The Chair entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting held September 8, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.  It was moved by Bartels to accept the minutes of the last meeting.  The motion was seconded by Williams.  No discussion, the minutes were approved with no corrections.

CONSIDERATION OF INVESTIGATION OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT ALLEGATION IN CASE #11-16, COMPLAINT OF OLAJUWAN WILSON, EMS TRIP REPORT AND DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS – INVESTIGATION BY SHEENA ROBERTSON (Agenda Item IV)

EMS TRIP REPORT

Robertson reported that at the last board meeting, the Board asked for a couple of things regarding the Wilson case that was discussed at the September’s meeting.  One of the items requested was the EMS trip report and a copy of the report was included in the information packets.  The question from the Board was whether or not there were any visible injuries on his person when EMS examined Mr. Wilson.  While the report indicates there were no visible injuries or bruising found on his body, it indicated that Mr. Wilson vomit three times during the examination.

CASE LAW REGARDING FALSE IMPRISONMENT

The second thing requested by the Board was for the staff to research case law to see if this incident could also fall under false imprisonment.  Robertson included a memo to the Board regarding whether or not Mr. Wilson was falsely imprisoned when he was stopped and detained by Atlanta Police Officer Jonathan Cornelius on September 28, 2010.

Robertson reported that the case law is well settled that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.  An officer is authorized to stop a citizen only if the officer reasonably suspects that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.  See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

The officers in this case, contend that the reason they stopped Mr. Wilson was because he was standing in front of a store that is located in a high crime area.  They alleged that when Wilson noticed them, he quickly looked around, shoved his hands into his pants, as if he was trying to conceal something and swiftly walked into the store.  Mr. Wilson refutes the officers’ claim and contends he was already inside the store purchasing some items for his mother when the officers drove up.

During the course of the investigation into Mr. Wilson’s excessive force complaint, ACRB reviewed the circumstances surrounding the stop in an attempt to locate any eyewitnesses to the incident.  As indicated in the report, the ACRB staff could not locate any individuals that may have witnessed the stop that could corroborate either the officers’ or Mr. Wilson’s version of the incident.  However, even assuming the facts described by the officers are true, the question is whether or not these factors were enough to constitute “reasonable suspicion” to justify an investigatory stop of Mr. Wilson.  The Supreme Court has held that in determining the grounds for a stop, “the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture—must be taken into account and based upon that whole picture, the detaining officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity” (see United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411,101 S.Ct.690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981).

Even if Mr. Wilson was at a store located in a “high-crime area,” his mere acts of looking around, shoving his hands into his pants and walking into the store at a quickened pace, when he noticed the officers was not sufficient to justify a Terry stop.  First, it is well established that at a person’s presence in a high crime area, standing alone, does not meet the Fourth Amendment requirement of particularized suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime (see Jackson v. United States, 805 A.2d979 (D.C. 2002).  Furthermore, Mr. Wilson was alone at a store in the middle of the day, had not been observed conversing or interacting with others suspected of illegal activity, was not the subject of a crime report and in no other way associated with criminal activity at the time the officers noticed him standing in front of the store.  Additional, Mr. Wilson did not engage in headlong flight upon seeing the officers.  Rather, he merely walked swiftly into the store.

Based upon these facts, the staff concludes the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Mr. Wilson.  Therefore, we find that Officer Cornelius falsely imprisoned Mr. Wilson when he stopped and detained him on September 28, 2010 without adequate legal justification.  Officer Cornelius is in violation of APD SOP.3020, as well as, Mr. Wilson’s Fourth Amendment rights.

It is noted that during the course of the investigation, ACRB obtained and reviewed the Fulton County Superior Court’s records as it relates to Mr. Wilson’s criminal case concerning this incident.  According to the records, during Mr. Wilson’s suppression hearing, the judge also stated that the officers lacked “reasonable suspicion” of Wilson based on the same set of factors.

ACRB STAFF RECOMMENDATION.0

In summary of this information, Robertson stated, “Not only do we find the allegations of Excessive Force, as discussed at the last board meeting, alleged against Officers Robert Godwin, James Devoto and Dimitri Caldwell be assigned a finding of sustained, we also recommend that the allegation of False Imprisonment against Officer Jonathan Cornelius be assigned a finding of sustained.

VOTE BY THE BOARD TO ACCEPT RECOMMENDATION

Following the summary and recommendation, the Chair opened the floor for questions.

Discussion & Questions…

1. Price asked Robertson, “What is the basis for the excessive force?”  Robertson replied, “There were witnesses who corroborated Wilson was beaten when he was stopped and apprehended.  Price also asked, “Since there were no visible signs of injuries, can we really say it was excessive force and was he admitted to the hospital or just stayed overnight in the Emergency Room?”  Robertson stated, “According to the medical records, he was admitted to the hospital and discharged the following day.”
2. Williams asked if this was same young man, who was outside, sitting on the ground in his underwear.  Robertson stated, “Yes while he waited for EMS.  According to the officers, Wilson had vomited all over his clothing.”   Bartels stated, “I believe he said in a statement, he was told by the officers to take his pants off because of the vomit.”

Following the questions, the Chair called for a separate vote on each complaint.

It was moved by Bartels to accept the staff recommendation to sustain the allegation of Excessive Force against Officers Caldwell, Devoto and Godwin.  Williams seconded.  Hearing no further discussion, the vote was approved.

It was moved by Price to not sustain the Excessive Force allegation against Officer Jonathan Cornelius who was not present. Bartels seconded.  Hearing no further discussion, the vote was approved with an abstention from Williams.

Regarding the allegation of False Imprisonment, it was moved by Morris to accept the recommendation of staff to sustain the allegation of False Imprisonment against Officer Cornelius.  R. Johnson seconded.  Hearing no further discussion, the motion was approved.

RECOMMENDATION AND VOTE REGARDING DISCIPLINE

Before the discipline recommendation and vote, Robertson provided the Board with the category of each discipline as outlined in APD’s SOP.  Regarding the sustain allegation of Excessive Force against Officers Robert Godwin, Dimitri Caldwell and James Devoto, this is a category ‘C’ violation with a penalty ranging from four up to fifteen days suspension.

Jonathan Cornelius

Regarding the allegation of false imprisonment against Jonathan Cornelius, this would be considered ‘abuse of authority’ and falls into a category ‘B’ offense.  The penalty ranges from a written reprimand up to a three day suspension.  Officer Cornelius has been on the force since February 2007.  According to the records of SOP, he has a total of seven complaints filed against him.  Two of them were sustained–oral reprimands for failure to appear in court.  Four complaints were not sustained and one is pending, (Wilson case).  Of the four, three were excessive force and two were not sustained and one is pending.

Discussion/Questions…

1. Bartels stated, “The last time this Board met, we considered a case somewhat similar to Wilson where two young men, we determined, were strip searched.  I think this is similarly egregious case.  All of these cases where the strip search were involved, were not a matter of simply detaining somebody without legal justification for doing that.  I think again, and as I said last month, what occurred here was sexual assault and I feel the same way about this particular case.  I understand we can depart from the guidelines, in terms of a recommendation, and what we have here is not just false imprisonment, it’s a strip search in public without probable cause and without consent.  Even if somebody does consent to be frisked, that is not the same as consenting to a strip search.  Not only that, this was all done to a 17 year old kid.  Given all of that and the case we discussed last month, I said we should consider termination and I think it is appropriate to consider that here as well.”  Williams indicated his agreement with Bartels.
2. Price expressed concern regarding the recommendation to terminate.  “This officer has only had two minor complaints sustained against him, four not sustained and one pending.  Seven complaints since his 2007 date of hire.  The two complaints sustained were for not appearing in court and the Board has not explained if there was a legitimate reason for not appearing in court.”  To clarify, Bartels stated, “I think the failure to appear in court is irrelevant.  The reason I made that comment…this was a sexual assault and they were strip searched in public without consent and it was done to a seventeen year old.  When I made that comment, the two failures to appear in court didn’t factor in.”  Price asked if the case had already been before the courts.  Bartels replied, “The judge granted the suppression motion on the basis that the officers did not have legal cause to detain Mr. Wilson.”
3. Hubbard and C. Johnson asked for the penalty to be restated.  Robertson indicated that according to APD SOP this allegation falls under a category B with a penalty ranging from a written reprimand up to a three day suspension.
4. The Chair stated that it is true, the Board has the authority to go outside the APD SOP ‘grid and make other recommendations; however, we decided some time ago to keep our recommendations in line with the grid.  Bartels, “I would also note that there is something else the Board may want to consider and that is the importance in making our recommendations consistent with cases that have a lot of characteristics in common.  If I recall correctly, at the last meeting, a majority of the Board voted to make a recommendation regarding two of the officers in the case of Mr. Venegas and Mr. Kidd that was outside the standard grid.  Don’t quote me, but if I recall correctly, for two of the officers, the majority of the Board voted for a 30-day suspension.”  C. Johnson stated, “We need to keep in mind this is just a discussion among the board members so that we will have an idea of the varying opinions because to simply say that we are talking about terminating, and I think Mr. Bartels well knows, and for the record that was not his intention, but we don’t want to set some precedent here…saying we are going to terminate here and later on with another case, give an officer three days.  I agree we need to try to be as consistent as possible based on some prior issues relative to the officer.”

Following the discussion, the Chair entertained a motion regarding the sustained allegation against Officer Cornelius.

It was moved Bartels to recommend termination of Officer Cornelius for False Imprisonment.  Williams seconded.  Three members voted in favor and six against.  The motion failed.

Another motion was entertained by the Chair.  Regarding the False Imprisonment allegation against Officer Cornelius, it was moved by Harrison to recommend a category B discipline with a three day suspension.  Morris seconded.  The motion was approved with four votes in favor and three Nay Votes from Bartels, Williams and Aliniece and one abstention.

The Chair called for a motion regarding the other officers, Dimitri Caldwell, Robert Godwin and James Devoto.

Prior to the motion and vote, Robertson reminded the Board that the violation for the officers is a category ‘C’ ranging from four to fifteen days suspension.  The following consist of their individual record and the Board’s recommendation for discipline:

Dimitri Caldwell is no longer employed with APD.  He was hired in February 2004 and resigned April 12, 2011 for reason unknown.  He had a total of five (5) complaints filed against him.  Of the five, two were not sustained and two were sustained (failure to appear in court and vehicle accident) and one open case and that being the Wilson investigation.

Special Note:  Since Caldwell has resigned, no discipline recommendation will be made or voted on.  The sustain vote regarding the allegation is part of the record.

James Devoto was hired in July 10, 2007.  There have been two complaints filed against him.  One is the Wilson case which is still pending.  The other was an excessive force case filed October 6, 2010 alleging that Officer Devoto and three other officers used excessive force during an arrest made in September 2010.  He alleges they pushed him out of a cab and beat him but that allegation was not sustained.

Discussion…

1. R. Johnson asked if Officer Devoto was the first officer on the scene.  Robertson replied No, Officer Godwin was the first officer.
2. Regarding the disciplinary action, Harrison asked, “This is a category C with a four (4) to fifteen day suspension.  How do we attach a proactive corrective action and can we?”  Robertson responded, “We can recommend training.”  Price indicated that she would recommend training.  “When an officer has been on for four years and has had only two complaints, and neither sustained, I just can’t see recommending anything other than training or a written reprimand.  Also, I have a problem with this board bringing up a non-sustained allegation against officers.  It creates a mindset that an allegation was made and although, it was not sustained there is still a certain amount of weight attached to it.  I can say from 25 years of policing, a lot of false allegations are made and I see no need to bring non-sustained allegations up.”

Hearing no further discussion, it was moved by Price that the Board recommend training for Officer Devoto.  C. Johnson seconded.  Hearing no discussion, and calling for the vote, the motion failed with only two voting in favor of the motion and nine ‘Nay Votes’.

The Chair entertained another motion.

Williams moved to recommend five days suspension and training.  Bartels seconded.  Hearing no discussion, the motion was approved with one Nay Vote by Price.

Robert Godwin has been employed with APD since November 29, 2005.  He has had a total of seven (7) complaints filed against him.  Five (5) of the complaints were not sustained.  One was sustained and he received an oral reprimand and one complaint is still pending that being the Wilson case.  Two complaints involved excessive force.  Of the two, one is the Wilson case and the other occurred in March 2011.  The complainant alleges that Officer Godwin and three other officers used excessive force during an arrest.  The complainant suffered a broken nose, jaw and facial fractures.  He also alleges that the officers planted evidence on him.

The Chair entertained a motion.  It was moved by Bartels that the Board recommend five days suspension and training.  The motion was seconded by Morris.  Hearing no discussion, the motion was approved.

CONSIDERATION OF INVESTIGATION #11-37, COMPLAINT OF RALPH ANDREWS, INVESTIGATION BY MARC ADDINGTON (Agenda Item V)

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATION

Investigator Addington reported that Ralph Andrews filed a complaint, ACRB Complaint #11-37, alleging that he was falsely arrested and subjected to excessive force by members of the US Marshall’s Fugitive Task Force which includes members of the Atlanta Police Department.  The incident occurred May 23, 2011 at approximately 9:00 a.m. at Andrews’ home at 914 Welch Street.

THE INVESTIGATION AND WHAT WAS REVEALED

Mr. Andrews alleges that he was at his home when he heard a knock at the door and heard someone shouting, “Police,” so he went to the window.  As he was looking out the window, the officers kicked in his door and entered the house with their weapons drawn.  There were seven (7) or eight (8) offices in plain clothes and wearing vests and hats that said something involving a taskforce.  His stepson, Octavious Stallings, was there with him and they were both grabbed and ordered to the ground and handcuffed.  One of the officers asked his name and when he replied, the officer said that he is the person they are looking for.  Mr. Andrews explained that he had gotten out of jail four days ago and asked them to check the warrant.  The officer verified this information and the warrant was clear.  Subsequently, Mr. Andrews and his stepson were un-cuffed and released.  The officer apologized and Andrews asked for someone to repair the door.  The officers gave him an out of state telephone number.  He tried to call the number but the person who answered the phone didn’t know what he was talking about.

INTERVIEWS

It was determined that Officers Munson and Pope were members of the US Marshall Southeast Regional Fugitive Task Force on the day of the incident.  Both officers were interviewed regarding this complaint.  Office Munson said that the officers participated in what they call a “round-up.”  He said they are giving a stack of 30 or 40 arrest warrants.  They verified that Mr. Andrews lives at the location and arrived at the door.  Officer Munson observed Mr. Andrews look through the curtain and the officers immediately broke through the front door.  He said that he received the warrants a week prior to serving the warrants and he typically does a NCIC/GCIC inquiry on the day they plan to serve the warrants.  Officer Munson said that when he was informed by Mr. Andrews that he had turned himself in a few days earlier, Munson verified this information.  He said that he gave Mr. Andrews the telephone number for the US Marshall’s office to file a tort claim to have his door repaired.  Officer Munson admitted that he failed to pull the warrant out of the group that the Task Force was going to serve and that it was an oversight on his part.

Investigator Pope explained that he was involved with this roundup and when informed by Mr. Andrews that he had turned himself in on the warrant, Officer Munson verified Mr. Andrews’ claim.  Mr. Andrews was provided with information to assist him to file a claim for the damage to the door.

Octavious Stallings’ complaint was not considered because he would not cooperate and did not file a signed complaint.  Mr. Stalling also failed to return numerous calls to be interviewed regarding this matter and to support the allegations of his step-father.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING COMPLAINT #11-37

Task Force members are required to comply with APD standard operating procedures.  Georgia Law allows law enforcement officers to forcibly enter residences where they believe an offender is concealed.  The officers mistakenly, but genuinely, believed that Mr. Andrews had an active arrest warrant.  While this admission is refreshingly candid, it cannot be used to avoid the responsibility of checking on the validity of the arrest warrant before entering the house.  For this reason, the ACRB staff recommends the allegation of False Imprisonment be sustained against Officers Munson and Pope.

The SOP governing force and the pointing of firearms prohibits the unnecessary of unreasonable use of force.  Investigator Pope entered the front door with a firearm.  This was unreasonable and the staff recommends a finding of sustained be assigned to the allegation of Excessive Force against Officer Pope.

Officer Munson was not part of the entry team, so the staff recommends a finding of Not sustained against Officer Munson with regard to the Excessive Force complaint.

VOTE BY THE BOARD TO ACCEPT RECOMMENDATION

Following the summary, the Chair opened the floor for discussion and questions.

Discussion…

1. Price asked Addington if it was true that Officer Munson is an Atlanta Police officer assigned to the US Marshall Fugitive Task Force and for how long.  Addington said that both Munson and Pope were assigned. Also, he added that Munson has been on the force for almost thirty years.
2. Bartels asked if Mr. Andrews was wanted on state or federal charges.  Addington stated it was a battery charge.  He also indicated that Munson said normally the task force is used to apprehend dangerous felons but frequently that are tasked with doing local round-ups throughout the metro area.  “In all fairness to Munson, he did indicate that he was not pleased with that situation, because it is very likely that individuals on these minor misdemeanors may have already been turned in or apprehended.  He is sensitive about entering a residence where the individual may have already turned himself in.”  Bartels, “Obviously someone is expected to run checks between the time the warrant is written and the time they actually apprehend them; was Officer Munson specifically charged with that responsibility or was it a shared responsibility among everybody?  I asked this because we also sustained the allegation against Officer Pope.  Addington said the responsibility falls on all the officers and there is no specific SOP that address if they should check the warrant before they served it.  I believe it was just common sense and understood.  This was going to be a recommendation of the staff that they develop a policy where there is a process whereby they have to check the warrant before serving it to avoid any confusion like this.  Collectively, Pope was at the location and participated in the detention of Mr. Andrews and that is why the allegation was sustained against him as well.
3. Williams said, “Given all the time that Officer Munson has served as a professional on the force—30 years, it would seem he would know when a person’s civil rights are being violated.”  Addington stated that Officer Munson was refreshingly candid and admitted that he made a mistake.  “To say that he should have caught the mistake because he was on the force for 30 years, I can’t answer that.”
4. Price asked the age of the arrest warrant.  Addington replied it was less than four months.

Following the discussion, the Chair entertained a motion to accept staff recommendation.

1^st Allegation of False Imprisonment against Officer Munson

It was moved by Williams to accept the staff’s recommendation to sustain the allegation.  Bartels seconded the motion.  No further discussion, the motion was approved with Price abstaining.  For the record Officers Munson and Pope have both worked for Ms. Price during tenure with APD.

2^nd Allegation of False Imprisonment against Officer Pope

It was moved by Williams to accept the staff’s recommendation to sustain the allegation.  Bartels seconded the motion.  No further discussion, the motion was approved with Price abstaining.

3^rd Allegation of Excessive Force against Officer Munson

It was moved by Bartels to accept the staff’s recommendation to not sustain the allegation.  Williams seconded the motion.  No further discussion, the motion was approved with Price abstaining.

4^th Allegation of Excessive Force against Officer Pope

It was moved by Bartels to accept the staff’s recommendation to sustain the allegation.  Williams seconded the motion.  No further discussion, the motion was approved with Price abstaining.

THE BOARD DECIDES DISCIPLINE

Officer Munson (False Imprisonment):

Addington reported that Officer Munson has been with the Police Department for almost 30 years.  During the last five years, he has had four disciplinary complaints…two sustained motor vehicle accidents and one for conduct which was not sustained.  One case is currently open which the case that we are reviewing tonight is.  The discipline is a category D, Abuse of Authority, ranging from a written reprimand up to a two or three day suspension with a proactive training component.

It was moved by R. Johnson for the Board to recommend an oral admonishment for Officer Munson.  C. Johnson seconded the motion. 

Discussion…

1. Williams expressed concern that the recommendation was too light.  “This officer has been on the force for 30 years, and all we are recommending is oral admonishment?”
2. Harrison said, “In all our discussion, I think we have forgotten the fact there was a child involved and traumatized.  Addington stated that he was seventeen and he did not cooperate with the investigation.  Harrison asked if he would be offered counseling since he had witness this event.  Addington said, “He did not know.”  Harrison stated, “I understand the laws in the state of Georgia, being seventeen and considered an adult, does not take away from the fact that he may be traumatized.”
3. Bartels asked, “When the officers entered the house, were the weapons pointed at anyone?”  Addington answered, No, the guns were pointed down.  C. Johnson said, “The officers admitted they made a mistake and also it was brought out that the son did not cooperate with the investigation.  Now it could be that he was so traumatized and that is why he didn’t cooperate.  We can only assume; however, people do make mistakes and the officers appear to be remorseful.  At best, an oral admonishment is appropriate and at worst, a written reprimand.”  Williams expressed concern.  He said, “These types of incidents occur all the time in the presence of young black men and whether you know it or not, they suffer the rest of their lives.  In the report, it was stated that the officers broke through the door with their guns drawn pointing.  Also, the officers gave Mr. Andrews a telephone number for him to call to get his door fixed.  Mr. Anderson indicated that he and his wife called the number but the person who answered the phone stated they had no idea what he was talking about.  This young man could be traumatized for the rest of his life and you want to give him an oral admonishment because finally, we have an officer who said I made a mistake?  And Mr. Johnson being a young black man.”  The Chair then took a moment to warn Williams, “That is just not right.  You cannot call somebody on the Board out like that.  That’s wrong.”  Williams said, “Don’t get me started.”  The Chair said, “We need to have some decorum and this is a good time to start right now.”  Williams replied, “Yesum Missy.” The Chair stated to Williams, “You are out of order.”

Following the discussion, the Chair called for the vote.  The vote was split with four supporting the motion and four against the motion.  Price abstained.  Due to the split, the Chair voted to break the tie in favor of the motion.  The motion was then approved.

Another motion was made with regards to Officer Munson.  It was moved by Harrison to add training to the previous motion and he asked the Board to include in the recommendation for APD to develop procedural guidelines and training for officers serving warrants and checking to see if it is still valid, as well as, who’s responsibility it is to check the validity of the warrant.  The motion was seconded by Williams.  Hearing no discussion, the motion was approved.

Officer Pope (False Imprisonment Allegation):

Addington reminded the Board that the discipline is a category ‘B’ violation carrying a written reprimand up to a two to three day suspension and also a component of training.  Pope has been employed since 1996.  In the past five years, he has had two disciplinary complaints filed against him.  One complaint was for failure to take appropriate action and it was not sustained; and the current open investigation regarding Mr. Andrews.

It was moved by Harrison to recommend the officer receive a verbal admonishment with training.  It was seconded by R. Johnson.  Hearing no further discussion, the Chair called for the vote.  The motion was approved.

Officers Munson and Pope (Excessive Force Allegation)

Addington reported that this is a category ‘C’ violation and the range of discipline is from four to fifteen day suspension to demotion with a pro-active training component, psychological intervention or a substance abuse program if applicable.  It was also noted by staff, that at the time of entering the home, the officer believed the warrant was valid.

Discussion / Questions…

1. Aliniece asked, “If the warrant was for battery, why did they go in with such force?”  Addington stated, “There is a Georgia law that allows them to enter with force if they believe a wanted person is inside.  But having said that, the officers would certainly be aware of the charge.”
2. R. Johnson asked if the officers received the entire criminal history of the person being served a warrant.  Addington replied, yes.  R. Johnson also asked.  “Did the officers know of anything that may have been problematic and causing them concern regarding this individual?”   Addington answered, no.  Williams then asked if there were any officers considered to be bystanders.  Addington answered, “There were only two APD officers present.”
3. Following the discussion, it was moved by Williams that the officers received a fifteen day suspension with training.  Hearing no second, the motion dies.
4. Based on the information provided by the staff, Harrison motioned for the Board to reduce the allegation from a category ‘C’ to a category ‘B’ and recommend a written reprimand with training.  Hubbard seconded the motion.  No discussion, the motion was approved with a vote of four in favor and three Nay Votes from Bartels, Williams and Aliniece.  Price and R. Johnson abstained.

CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINT #11-27, COMPLAINT OF RODNEY DANIEL – INVESTIGATION BY SHEENA ROBERTSON (Agenda Item VI):

ALLEGATION

Investigator Robertson provided an overview of the complaint #11-27.  She indicated that the complainant, Mr. Rodney Daniel, is a 22 year old African American male.  He, along with his mother, Frieda Johnson filed an Excessive Force complaint with the ACRB alleging that on April 25, 2011, Mr. Daniel was beaten by APD officers during an arrest.

RODNEY DANIEL’S INTERVIEW

Mr. Daniel stated that on April 25, 2011, at approximately 12:00 p.m., he was at the Forest Cove Apartments standing in the middle of the complex with several other men when an unidentified Atlanta Police Officers approached them.  The officer had his weapon drawn and pointed at one of the men and ordered him to the ground.  Mr. Daniel said the men ran from the area and he walked behind the building and proceeded through the field to the other side of the complex.

Mr. Daniels said, approximately five to ten minutes later, an Atlanta Police Officer, later identified as Lyle Moore, approached him from behind with his weapon drawn and pointed at him and said words to the effect of, “It’s me and you in this field.  I’ll shoot you.”  The officer then ordered him to the ground.  Mr. Daniel said he turned around and begin to walk toward Officer Moore and as he did so, Officer Moore sprayed mace on the right side of his face.  He said he then ran and Officer Moore chased after him.  At one point during the chase, Daniels said he ran into two different apartments and it was in the second apartment that he was apprehended.  He said that when he entered that apartment, he was very tired and was having difficulty breathing so he held both arms up and told Officer Moore that he gave up.  He said Officer Moore ran into the apartment and struck him in his head several times with handcuffs.  He said he again repeated that he gave up, but Moore struck him several more times in the face with his closed fist and the handcuffs.  At that time, he said another officer arrived, later identified as Richard Ramirez, and placed his arm around his neck and began to choke him while Officer Moore continued to strike him.  He said he could not breathe and began to fall to the floor.  He said as he was falling to the floor, Moore struck him one last time in the face.  He said while on the floor, he repeatedly told the officers that he could not breathe and that he suffers from asthma.  He said the officers then pinned his face to the floor, handcuffed him from the front and told him to stand up.  He said he was unable to stand because he could not breathe, so the officers dragged him out of the apartment and sat him on the sidewalk.  Mr. Daniel said that while he was sitting on the sidewalk, a third officer arrived.  He said he was still having difficulty breathing and it was particularly, becoming harder to sit up so that officer went behind him and held him up.  He indicated that officer never struck him.  He said during that time, one of the residents brought some water to one of the officers and that officer poured it over his head.  They then picked him up, took him to the parking lot and sat him on the ground.  They eventually, put him in the patrol car and drove him to the Mrs. Winters Restaurant located on McDonough Blvd. to meet the ambulance.  He said that when they arrived at the location, he ran out of the patrol car to the ambulance where he was treated.  He was then sent back to the patrol car and taken to the precinct where he remained for approximately two hours before being taken to Grady Hospital for further treatment.  Mr. Daniels said he sustained several lacerations and cuts to his face as a result of the beating.

During the interview with the ACRB, Mr. Daniel admitted to running from the officers; however, he denies that he resisted and/or struck any of the officers anytime during that encounter.

OFFICERS INVOLVED

The ACRB’s investigation identified the officers involved in Mr. Daniel’s arrest as Officers Lyle Moore, Richard Ramirez, Nicholas Mercado and Anthony Dawson.

PHOTOGRAPHS / MEDICAL RECORDS / COURT RECORDS

When the complainant’s mother initially filed the complaint, she provided video footage that was about 30 seconds long showing Mr. Daniel sitting on the sidewalk with his hands cuffed and there were four APD officers present.  One officer was holding Mr. Daniel’s hand and another officer appeared to be holding him up.  The other two officers were standing nearby.  It appears Daniel’s face was covered in blood.  Verbal comments can be heard in the background which sounds like they are coming from persons who have gathered on the scene.  Also, the footage showed one officer receiving water and a towel and he poured the water over Mr. Daniel’s head.

From the video footage, ACRB staff extracted still photographs and showed one of the photographs to Mr. Daniel to identify the officer who physically attacked him.  Mr. Daniel pointed to the officers who assaulted him.  Those officers are identified by ACRB as Richard Ramirez and Lyle Moore.

The ACRB staff obtained a copy of Mr. Daniel’s medical records.  A review of the records indicate that on the day of the incident, Daniels was seen in hospital Emergency Room and he reported to the staff that he had been struck with handcuffs multiple times in the head.  He was admitted to the hospital and treated for a one (l) cm laceration on the left side of his face, as well as, a 1 cm laceration on his left ear.  Steri-strips were used to close the wounds.  The records also indicate that Mr. Daniels had multiple abrasions on his forehead and a small laceration on the top of his head.  Mr. Daniel was discharged the following day and transported to the Fulton County Jail.

The Fulton County Superior Court records revealed that Mr. Daniel was arrested April 25, 2011 and charged with the following:  Robbery by Force and Obstruction of Law Enforcement Officer.  Mr. Daniel’s criminal case is still pending.

WITNESS INTERVIEWS AND OFFICER INTERVIEWS

During the course of the investigation, interviews were conducted with various residents of the apartment complex and they corroborated Mr. Daniel’s claim and stated they observed the officers beating him.

Interviews were conducted with all of the officers involved.  During their interviews with the ACRB, Officers Moore and Ramirez both admit to using physical force to restrain Mr. Daniel but contend that the use of force was justified because Daniel was resisting arrest.

Officer Moore stated he could not recall with certainty how many times he struck Mr. Daniel but stated that it was possible that he struck him multiple times.  Officer Ramirez stated that he struck Mr. Daniel at least twice and admits that he “accidently” had him in a choke hold position for a few seconds.

Officers Mercado and Dawson were present during the incident and they both stated that they assisted the officers in getting Daniel into custody by getting the handcuffs on him; however, they stated they did not strike Daniel nor did they observe Officers Moore or Ramirez strike him.  It is noted that Mr. Daniel stated that Officers Moore and Ramirez were the only officers that struck him.

ACRB STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Based on these facts, the staff recommends the following:

The allegation of ‘Excessive Force’ as alleged by Rodney Daniels against Officers Lyle Moore and Richard Ramirez assigned a finding of “sustained.”

The allegation of ‘Excessive Force’ against Officers Nicholas Mercado and Anthony Dawson is assigned a finding of “not sustained.”

BOARD VOTE REGARDING STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Following the summary and recommendation of the staff, the Chair opened the floor for discussion and questions.

Questions /Discussion…

1. Price asked, “Why the officers were dispatched to the area and was there a lookout given by a plain clothes officer that there were two robbery suspects that had been identified in that general area?”  Robertson replied yes.  Price then asked, “Is it also correct that the ambulance did not come into that location because of the hostility they knew existed in that area?”  Robertson replied yes.  Price, “Is it also clear that all persons involved except one officer, received injuries and were treated at Grady Hospital?”  Robertson replied yes.  Price then asked Robertson to explain why the officer poured water on Daniel’s head.  Robertson stated that they said it was to get the OC spray out of Daniel’s face.  Price said, “Is that not the procedure the Atlanta police requires when a person has been sprayed as a way of administering aid to that person to help with the burning of the eyes?”  Robertson stated that she could not answer that question.
2. Williams asked, “Initially, were there more than one individual the police were concerned with?”  Robertson stated, “According to Mr. Daniel, he couldn’t recall whether or not he was there with two or three other men.  When the first officer approached, he approached one of the other men.” Williams then asked, “Is it also true that Mr. Daniel’s face was covered in blood and they may have poured water over his head to get the blood off?”  Robertson responded, “Yes, but the officers said they did it to remove the OC spray.”
3. To clarify an earlier statement, Harrison said, “I thought it was the victim of an alleged robbery who had identified the suspects in the parking lot, not a plain clothes policeman or an informant.”  Robertson, “Yes it was the victim who called.  He had been robbed a couple of weeks prior and he called the detective who was working on his case and told him that individuals suspected of robbery were in the parking lot.”
4. Bartels, “The Atlanta Police Department do not carry tasers, is that correct?”  Beamud said that the only people who use tasers are assigned to specialty units like the swat team, not patrol.
5. Morris asked, “Is it standard operating procedure to use handcuffs as a weapon.”  Robertson replied no.  Morris recalled that the board reviewed another case where the officer used his handcuffs or flashlight as a weapon.  “What does the policy manual say regarding the use of handcuffs as a weapon?”  Beamud stated that she didn’t recall a specific policy but cuffs are metal objects.
6. Williams said, “The victim (Daniel) said he was beaten repeatedly with the cuffs, is that right and followed by beating him with their fists?”  Robertson said yes.

The Chair entertained a motion to accept staff’s recommendation.  Each officer will be voted on individually.

Officer Lyle Moore

It was moved by Bartels to accept the staff recommendation to sustain the allegation of Excessive Force against Officer Moore.  The motion was seconded by Williams.  No further discussion, the motion was approved with one Nay Vote from Price.

Officer Richard Ramirez

It was moved by Williams to accept the staff recommendation to sustain the allegation of Excessive Force against Officer Ramirez.  The motion was seconded by Bartels.  No further discussion, the motion was approved with one Nay Vote from Price.

Officers Nicholas Mercado and Anthony Dawson

It was moved by Morris to accept the staff recommendation to not sustain the allegation of Excessive Force against Officers Nicholas Mercado and Anthony Dawson.  The motion was seconded by Bartels.  No further discussion, the motion was approved.

BOARD VOTE REGARDING DISCIPLINE

The Chair opened the floor for discussion and questions before the vote.  Robertson provided information on the type of violation and each officer’s background.

She indicated that according to the APD grid, this is a category ‘C’ violation with discipline ranging from four to fifteen days suspension.

Regarding their individual records:

Officer Moore has been employed with APD since October 17, 2006.  Since his date hire, five complaints have been filed against him.  Of those complaints, three resulted in a finding of sustained; one exonerated and one is still pending investigation.

Officer Ramirez has been employed since January 9, 2007 and four complaints have been filed against him since his employment.  Of those complaints, one resulted in a finding of sustained, one exonerated and two are still pending investigation (Daniel case and a vehicle accident).

Discussion / Questions…

1. Harrison asked Robertson to explain what Officer Ramirez meant when he said he ‘accidentally put a choke hold on Daniel.  Robertson said, “The officer said he was very oily from the OC spray and also sweating and when he tried to grab him, his arm slipped in that position for a few seconds.”  Harrison, “But it was an accident.” Robertson said, ‘That’s what he said.”
2. Williams stated, “Could it be that although Daniel was running and so were the others, and they got him for running and looting but he may not have been the person they were coming to get.”  Robertson said, “That matter is still pending and the other alleged suspect was apprehended and arrested.  Both cases are still pending.”  Williams, “Were the other individuals beat down too or were they the only two?  I thought there was a group of men.”  Robertson indicated that Daniels was in the parking lot with a group of guys when the officers came up.  The officers were looking for two men, Daniels and the other suspect.  Both men were arrested and charged, but the case is pending.
3. Price asked about Daniel’s size. “He looks like a big muscular built guy.  How big were the officers, and did it take two officers to bring him down?”  Robertson, “There are photographs of the officer in the full report.”
4. R. Johnson asked if the officers received their injuries during the foot chase.  Robertson replied that it was doing the struggle in the apartment.

The Chair entertained a motion on each officer:

It was moved by Bartels to recommend Officer Moore receive a five day suspension.  The motion was seconded by Morris.  After some discussion, the motion was approved with two Nay Votes from Price and Harrison.

It was moved by Bartels to recommend Officer Ramirez receive a five day suspension.  The motion was seconded by Morris.  After some discussion, the motion was approved with two Nay Votes from Price and Harrison and one abstention from Williams.

REQUEST FOR SUBPOENA FOR INVESTIGATION OF RENEE BAILEY’S COMPLAINT #11-70,

(Agenda Item VII)

Beamud summarized the purpose of the subpoena.  She reported that on October 3, 2011, ACRB received a signed complaint form from Renee Bailey alleging False Imprisonment by an APD officer.  Ms. Bailey alleges the incident occurred involved a dispute over a tip amount at the “Bliss Spa” located in the W Hotel, 45 Ivan Allen Jr. Blvd. in downtown Atlanta.  The complainant was allegedly handcuffed and threatened with jail by the APD officer if she did not pay the tip that was being disputed.

The ACRB staff respectfully requests the Board to issue a subpoena for the production of evidence related to any surveillance video footage that may have recorded the incident.

The staff also requests the Board to issue a subpoena to appear for Trevor Collins, an employee of the Bliss Spa who was a party in the dispute with the complainant.

The Chair called for motion to grant both subpoenas.

It was moved by Morris to grant both subpoenas.  Williams seconded the motion.  Hearing no discussion, the motion was approved.

INTAKE REPORT FOR AUGUST, 2011 (Agenda Item VIII)

A copy of the Intake Report was included in the Board packets.  A total of fifteen (15) complaints were received for the month of September, 2011.  Staff recommended investigating four (4) of the complaints and eleven (11) complaints were dismissed.  The following is a list of those complaints and recommendations by the staff:

#11-54 / Jan Calhoun alleging False Arrest

Staff recommends dismissal because this is not within the board’s jurisdiction.  Arrest was in Cobb and the warrant was from Douglas County.

#11-55 / Allen King alleging Unlawful Imprisonment

Staff recommends dismissal because this is not within the board’s jurisdiction.

#11-56 / Laura Bailey alleging False Arrest

Staff recommends dismissal for failure to file a signed complaint.

#11-57 / Cavonna Assigbley alleging Poor Service

Staff recommends dismissal because the matter is not within the ACRB’s jurisdiction.

#11-58 / Faye Fawley alleging False Arrest

Staff recommends dismissal because the complaint was outside the 180 day requirement as outlined in the City Ordinance.

#11-59 / Akilah Williamson alleging False Arrest

Staff recommends investigation into the allegation of False Arrest.

#11-60 / Brandon Groves alleging Unknown

Staff recommends dismissal because he has not appeared or filed a signed complaint.

#11-61 / Anatasia Paggett alleging False Arrest

Staff recommends dismissal because for lack of signed complaint.

#11-62 / Jeffrey Phillips alleging Abusive Language

Staff recommends investigation as a complaint of abusive language and false imprisonment.

#11-63 / Cedric Barnhart alleging Excessive Force

Staff recommends investigation into excessive force against members of the Department of Corrections.

#11-64 / Kenneth Cobb alleging False Arrest

Staff recommends dismissal because the complaint is beyond the limitation period of 180 days.

#11-65 / Kenneth Cobb alleging False Arrest

Staff recommends investigation into the allegation of false arrest.

#11-66 / Sabrina Felton alleging Perjury

Staff does not recommend investigation because this is not within the Board’s jurisdiction (perjury).

#11-67 / Cedric Smith alleging Excessive Force

Staff recommends dismissal because the allegation does not involve the APD.

#11-68 / Breka Tinch alleging False Arrest

Staff recommends dismissal because she was arrested by members of APD based on a warrant.

The Chair entertained a motion to accept the Director’s Intake report and recommendations.  It was moved by Morris to accept the Director’s report.  The motion was seconded by Bartels.  The Chair called for a discussion.  Hearing none, the motion was approved with one abstention vote by R. Johnson.

PUBLIC COMMENTS (Agenda item IX):

Chair Morrissey opened the floor for public comments.  Two (2) people addressed the board.

First Speaker: Frieda Daniel Johnson

Ms. Daniel Johnson expressed concern regarding comments made by a member of the Board.  She said she did not expect to hear or witness members having a lack of sensitivity and disregard for her son.  She indicated that her son was seriously injured and the beating he received from the police was not necessary because he threw his hands up and gave up but they continued to hit him in the face and head.

Second Speaker: Tiffany Roberts

Ms. Roberts also addressed the Board to present additional information regarding Rodney Daniel’s complaint #11-27.  She expressed concern regarding the discipline recommendation.

Additional Comments from the Board:

Williams reported on the NACOLE conference that occurred September 11th through September 15th in New Orleans.  He stated that he enjoyed the conference and found it very beneficial.  The Chair thanked Williams, for attending and representing the Board at the conference.

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Morrissey entertained a motion to adjourn.  R. Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING

55 TRINITY AVENUE, S.W., COMMITTEE ROOM TWO, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

September 8, 2011, 6:30 P.M.

       ROLL CALL

MEMBERS PRESENT 

PAMALA ALINIECE (Aliniece)

PAUL BARTELS (Bartels)                                                   

BARBARA HUBBARD (Hubbard                                       

CHARIS JOHNSON (C. Johnson)                                        

RYAN JOHNSON (R. Johnson)                                           

ALAN MORRIS (Morris)

JOY MORRISSEY (Chair/Morrissey)                                              

MACEO WILLIAMS (Williams)                                          

NEW MEMBERS PRESENT

WILLIAM HARRISON (Harrison)

RUTH PRICE (Price)

(These members have no voting rights until they have been sworn in by the Municipal Clerk)

Vacant Appointments to the Board

Office of the Mayor (vacant 2 months)

STAFF ATTENDEES

MARC ADDINGTON, Investigator (Addington); CRISTINA BEAMUD, Executive Director (Director/Beamud); SHEENA ROBERTSON, Investigator (Robertson); WILLIAM CASTING (Casting) City Law Department, Assigned Board Attorney.

A G E N D A

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER:

The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.  The Chair welcomed everyone including members of the Atlanta Police Department, Office of Professional Standards: Major Elder Dancy and Lieutenant Neil Klotzer.

APPROVAL OF MNUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (Agenda Item II):

The Chair entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting held August 11, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.  It was moved by Williams to accept the minutes of the last meeting.  The motion was seconded by Morris.  No discussion, the minutes were approved with no corrections.

INTRODUCTION OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS: MS. RUTH PRICE AND MR. WILLIAMS HARRISON (Agenda III)

The Chair welcomed new members, Ms. Ruth Price and Mr. Williams Harrison.  City Council President Ceasar Mitchell appointed Ms. Price to fill the position vacated by J.L. Booker in April, 2010.  Mr. Harrison was appointed by the full Council to replace Roderick Edmonds, who resigned December, 2010.  Ms. Price and Mr. Harrison both addressed the Board and expressed how honored they were to be selected to be part of the Board.

Ms. Price said, “I am honored to serve on this Board.  I think I bring a lot of expertise to the Board.  I have twenty-six years with the Atlanta Police Department serving in many different capacities and I have been a citizen of Atlanta since 1972.”

Mr. Harrison stated, “I have always had a desire to serve on this particular board.  I have the experience of the Fulton County Public Defender Office, as well as, civil experience.  I have been a resident of the City of Atlanta since the year 2000.”

CONSIDERATION OF INVESTIGATION C          ASES #10-72 and #10-73, COMPLAINT OF SHAWN VENEGAS AND BRIAN KIDD – INVESTIGATOR MARC ADDINGTON

(Agenda Item IV)

The Chair directed members to Agenda Item IV, and Director Beamud’s memo to the Board dated August 29, 2011 summarizing the investigation of the complaints.  Investigator Addington conducted the investigation and provided an oral summary of the complaint.

ALLEGATION SUMMARY

Addington reported that both of the cases involved an allegation of False Imprisonment and Excessive Force.  Addington indicated that these are two separate cases but for the presentation, they are being consolidated into one report.

They involve Case #10-72, Mr. Brian Kidd and #10-73, Mr. Shawn Venegas.  The incident occurred on June 30, 2010 at the intersection of Fulton Street and Whitehall Terrace in the City of Atlanta.  The subject officers in both of complaints case are Officers Cayenne Mayes, Travis Britt and Dion Meredith.

SYNOPSIS OF INVESTIGATION

The complainants allege their vehicle was stopped for no legal reason.  Mr. Venegas was the driver and Mr. Kidd was the passenger.  Both complainants alleged they were subjected to excessive force by Officer Cayenne Mayes who approached the driver’s side of the car with firearm drawn and pointed at Shawn Venegas.  In addition to this allegation, Venegas and Kidd allege that Officer Mays, Britt and Meredith engaged in an illegal and inappropriate search of their person and their vehicle in search for illegal contraband.  Specifically, Kidd alleges that Officer Britt approached the passenger side and asked if they had anything illegal in the car.  Kidd told him no.  Officer Britt opened the car door and pulled him from the car and searched him without his consent.  He (Britt) removed the contents from his pockets and opened his shorts to see if anything was in his pants.  The officers asked Shawn Venegas for permission to search his car and Venegas denied them the consent.  Despite this Venegas and Kidd were detained at the rear of the car by Officer Meredith, while Officers Mayes and Britt searched the car and trunk.  The complainants said that Officer Meredith pulled Shawn Venegas’ pants down in public and required him to spread his buttocks in an attempt to search the area of the anal cavity to locate any illegal contraband.  An outstanding warrant was discovered for the arrest of Brian Kidd for failing to appear in DeKalb County.  He was arrested and searched a second time.  Mr. Kidd said that Officer Britt, using gloves, searched his genital area.  After the search, he said the officers discussed how they would charge them in order to justify the stop of the motor vehicle.  Officer Mayes wrote a citation for failure to stop at a stop sign at Fulton and Ira Streets.  There is no stop at this location.

WHAT THE INVESTIGATION REVEALED

The investigation revealed that on the day of the incident, the complainants were stopped in by the subject three officers and cited for a stop sign violation.  Officer Mays initially reported that the vehicle ran a stop sign at the intersection of Windsor Street and Fulton Street.  He reported this in his incident report and in the traffic citation that was written.  Also, all three officers reported on their Daily Activity Sheet that the vehicle was stopped at this location as well.  It was only after being confronted with the fact there is no stop sign at this described location did Officer Mayes amend his version of the incident.  He claims that he made a mistake on the citation and police report about the location of the stop sign.  Mayes said that the car ran a stop sign but the location was incorrect.  When the officers approached the car, they allege they observed Brian Kidd attempting to conceal blunts or blunt wrappers.  For this reason, they had the occupants step out of the car.  They claimed Kidd and Venegas consented to be searched and to have the car searched.  Officer Mayes said that he did not draw his firearm and point it at Venegas.  In the police report he submitted, he neglected to note any of the observations about blunts or blunt wrappers.  He did not mention anything about conducting a search of the vehicle based on the consent of the driver (Venegas) and/or passenger (Kidd).

They deny any of the officers had Mr. Venegas lower his pants in public.  Mr. Venegas asserts that after they removed them from the vehicle, Officer Mayes removed the contents of his pockets and inappropriately searched the area of his groin.  After this occurred, Venegas accused Officer Meredith of lowering his pants.  He claims that as Meredith attempted to spread his buttocks looking for drugs, he appeared to be having difficulty doing this, so Meredith ordered Venegas to spread his buttocks himself so that he could inspect the area further.  During his interview with both OPS and the ACRB, Brian Kidd corroborated this version of the incident.  Officer Mayes claims he could not recall that this type of search was conducted by Officer Meredith.  According to Venegas, after Brian Kidd was placed in custody, he was confronted by Officer Mays with a choice of being issued a traffic citation or being arrested.  Mr. Venegas further alleges that he observed Mayes discussing this issue with Officers Britt and Meredith.  Mr. Venegas expressed a need for probable cause to stop and search the vehicle and the need to justify the NCIC, GCIC inquiry that resulted in the discovery of Brian Kidd’s outstanding warrant.  Mr. Kidd asserts that he observed this discussion while he was sitting in the rear of the officer’s vehicle.  It was reasonable for Kidd to have overhead this because both he and Venegas claim this discussion took place while Mayes and Britt were seated in the front seat and Meredith stood near the door.  In addition, the vehicle driven by the Red Dogs typically do not have screens that are used in other patrol vehicles.  Officer Mayes issued Venegas a citation for failure to obey a stop sign and he was allowed to leave.  The APD dispatch records indicated that the stop lasted approximately 45 minutes.

ACRB STAFF RECOMMENDATION

The findings in both the complainants case turns on several factors uncovered during this investigation.  First, there were several inconsistencies provided by the officers as to where the actual stop violation occurred.  The officers only explained the confusion about the violation location after they were interviewed a second time by OPS.  These inconsistencies were apparent in the interviews and documentation of the stop and the subsequent traffic citation.  The Daily Activity Report completed by the officer, only documented the one traffic stop but did not record any additional activity by the subject officers.  A proactive unit such as the Red Dogs would most likely be engaged in more activity; hence, an attempt to document the stop only after the allegation was made by the complainants.  Officers Britt and Meredith could not recall if Officer Mayes drew his firearm, but Officer Mayes was adamant that he did not draw his weapon and point it toward the car.

A decision was made during the investigation to submit the officers to truth tests.  The CVSA test was administered by OPS and the Polygraph test was administered by GBI.  Officers Mayes and Britt passed all questions.  Officer Meredith failed some questions.  The ACRB administered CVSA test to Venegas and Kidd.  Venegas failed some questions and Kidd failed one question.  The truth examination utilized during the investigation provides information that cancels each other out.

In addition to the truth test, a list of the three officers’ record involving prior similar allegations was considered for the recommendation.  The adjudication of the allegations of Unlawful Imprisonment and Excessive Force must be determined on the basis of credibility.  Truth tests are not reliable indicators as revealed in the officers’ record of prior and similar allegations.  The similarity in prior allegations against the involved officers and the Red Dog Unit make it more likely, than not, this incident occurred as reported by the complainants.  For this reason, the staff recommends a finding of Sustained be applied against all three officers for False Imprisonment and Excessive Force as alleged by Venegas and Kidd.

VOTE BY THE BOARD TO ACCEPT RECOMMENDATION

Following the summary and recommendation, the Chair opened the floor for questions.

Discussion & Questions…

1.     Bartels said, “Mr. Addington, I take it, the officers are saying consent was given to them to search Kidd and Venegas and was any of that in writing?  Addington replied, “No sir.”  Bartels also asked, “When officers are frisking somebody, is this part of the Terry Frisk, regardless of whether or not it is justified?  In addition to patting down the outwearing clothing, is it standard procedure or policy to unbuckle someone’s pants, look inside and put his hands inside the pants as part of a Terry Frisk?  Is this policy?  Addington stated, “It is not an APD policy and the only guidelines that APD policy stipulates is strip searches be done in a secure facility with medical personnel.”

2.     To clarify Addington’s comments, Beamud added that medical personnel is required for cavity searches and the requirement for strip searches is that a supervisor be notified and that the strip search be performed at correctional facility.  Chair Morrissey asked, “I just want to be clear, in these two cases, are we talking about a strip search or a cavity search?  Beamud stated, “Clearly there was a strip search.  Regarding the cavity search, the buttocks were spread apart.  In some case law and in many jurisdictions, any such touching of the skin and the spreading apart of the skin is considered a cavity search.  I consider this a cavity search.”

3.     Williams, “Is it not true that this strip search and cavity search occurred in the middle of the street and they did not have an opportunity to pull their vehicle over.  Is this correct?”  Addington answered, “That is correct.” Williams continued, “Is it also true, Mr. Kidd said the officers were never given permission to search their person or their vehicle?”  Addington indicated it was true.

4      R. Johnson, “How long was the stop and what is the average amount of time something like this takes?”  Addington said, “It is hard to say.  Forty-five minutes in some cases, may not be considered excessive, but in this case, I think it was.”

5.     Williams, “Following the search, did Officer Mayes also say, “What are we going to do with you now?” because they were trying to create a reason for probable cause?  Addington said, yes.

6.     C. Johnson asked, “Procedurally, how common is for the Internal Affairs to conduct truth verification examinations and who decides?  Addington answered, “I can’t give you a specific number how often it happens during the year.  I think it would be safe to say that it happens more than once, I would assume.  The odd thing about this particular case is there was a decision made prior to giving the officers a CVSA.  They were also going to submit them to a subsequent polygraph which is outside the normal procedures.  I think, normally, they just do one or the other, unless the officer fails and then they give them the opportunity to take a second test.  The decision to test, I believe is a command decision and an investigative decision when the decision is made first to take the test.  I would imagine it could also be permissible for the officers to request one to clear his name and also, based on the egregiousness of the complaint.  Secondly, because the lack of witnesses, but a lot of the OPS cases are ‘he said-she said’ versions where there is not a test conducted.”

7.     Bartels, “Regarding the polygraph issue, are you aware of any control, double-blind scientific studies that have been done on polygraphs testing that have been published?”  Addington answered, “Most of the literature out there, comparing CVSA to Polygraph, consider Polygraphs to be more accurate but no test is 100% reliable.  Beamud added, “The academic studies, not commercial studies, on polygraphs and CVSA have indicated that it is no more or less reliable then a human being listening to a subject.  The courts have made a constant and affirmative decision that truth tests are not reliable.”

Following the questions, the Chair called for a separate vote on each complaint.

1. Regarding Shawn Venegas Complaint #10-72, it was moved by Williams to accept staff’s recommendation to sustain the allegations of False Imprisonment and Excessive Force against all three officers.  Bartelsseconded the motioned.  Hearing no further discussion the motion was approved unanimously.
2. Regarding Brian Kidd, Complaint #10-73, it was moved by Bartels to accept staff’s recommendation to sustain the allegations of False Imprisonment and Excessive Force against all three officers.  Williams seconded the motioned.  Hearing no further discussion the motion was approved unanimously.

RECOMMENDATION AND VOTE REGARDING DISCIPLINE

Addington stated, “There are several work violations regarding the Board’s sustained allegations.  They are as follows:  appropriate action required; obey the law as it pertains to the False Imprisonment allegation; conduct; abuse of authority; unauthorized force and conformance to directives.

• OPS categorized work rule violations from Category A, for the least egregious violations.  The punishment for this category is oral admonishment or written reprimand; OPS categorized work rule violations from Category B, C, and D for progressively more serious misconduct violation.
• Category B is written reprimand; a one or two or three day suspension;
• Category C is a four to fifteen day suspension;
• Category D is a sixteen to thirty day suspension, demotion or dismissal.

Chair Morrissey directed the Board to look at Beamud’s complaint summary memo, and review the Prior Similar Allegation (page 3) of these officers.  Addington provided the following summary of the Officers discipline record:

1. Officer Cayenne Mayes was hired in 2006.  He has a total of 10 disciplinary cases since his date of hire.  Four (4) of the cases involved Use of Force and it is important to note that several of the cases in Officer Mayes’ past involves allegation of inappropriate touching of an individual, the inappropriate exposing of buttocks, and the occurrence of improper or illegal searches.  The work rule violations regarding cases #10-72 & #10-73 should be counted as two violations since the conduct occurred both in the complaints of Venegas and Kidd.  The violations are: appropriate action required; obey the law; conduct; abuse of authority; unauthorized force; conformance to directives.  All of which fall into Category A through D violations listed in the APD-SOP on Discipline with the exception of unauthorized force which is a Category C through D violation.  It is important to note Officer Mayes has currently terminated from APD due to a previous infraction.
2. Officer Travis Britt is only accused of False Imprisonment.  His Prior Similar Allegations consist of five (5) disciplinary cases total since his 2006 date of hire.  This includes two prior cases that involving allegations of improper illegal searching.  One of the cases Britt was found to have inaccurately completed an incident report.  The work rule violations here are: appropriate action required; obey the law; conduct; abuse of authority; unauthorized force; conformance to directives. These violations fall into Category A through D.
3. Officer Dion Meredith was hired in 2006.  He has five (5) disciplinary cases since his date of hire.  He was involved in one previous case that involved an allegation of illegal search and false imprisonment during the same situation.  The work rule violations that apply to Meredith regarding #10-72 and #10-73 should also carry two violations since the conduct occurred in the complaints of both Kidd and Venegas.  Those violations are: appropriate action required; obey the law; conduct; abuse of authority; conformance to directives.  All of which fall into Category A through D violations listed in the APD-SOP on Discipline.

The Chair opened the floor for discussion.

Discussion…

1. Williams said, “Since Officer Mayes has been fired, what is there left to do?”  Beamud replied, “The DOJ, in the same report presented by Mr. Addington, also recommends completing investigations when a person is no longer with the Department either through resignation or firing.  Their recommendation is that you adjudicate it and I would suggest that you recommend to the Chief what we would do had he been employed.  The reason that I suggest that is because we do not know when and if the Civil Service Board overturns the disciplinary decision of the Chief and if he is ordered reinstated, it would be helpful to the Chief to have a case with which to go forward.”
2. Bartels, “I think we need to consider not just what each officer did but also what we believe he may have allowed the other officer to do.  I think if we find that the citizen who made these complaints is credible, then what happened here was a sexual assault.  There is no two ways about this and if an officer allowed this, he is tolerating a sexual assault in his presence.”
3. Williams asked if Officer Meredith was one of the officers involved in the Eagle Bar situation.  Addington replied yes, and that this incident occurred after the Eagle Bar complaint.
4. Price expressed concern about recommending lengthy suspension or termination.  “If you recommend this to the Chief, and he accepts the recommendation, it will be overturned by the Civil Service Board.”  Bartels responded, “I’ll just reiterate the comments I made earlier regarding Officer Britt.  I believe we should consider termination in light of everything that we know about this case.  I appreciate Ms. Price, your experience and I understand your belief that we need to keep in mind what might be overturned or what will be upheld by the Civil Service Board, but I still feel we should recommend termination.”

Following the discussion, the Chair entertained a motion regarding the sustained allegations.  The Board will vote on each officer separately.

False Imprisonment Allegation against Officer Britt  

First Motion:  It was moved by Bartels to consider the violation a Category D.  The motion was seconded by Aliniece.  Hearing no opposing vote, the motion was approved unanimously.

Second Motion:  It was moved by R. Johnson to recommend twenty (20) days suspension for Officer Britt.  The motion was seconded by Hubbard.  Hearing no further discussion, the motion was approved with three members (Bartels, Aliniece, Williams) voting NO.

False Imprisonment and Excessive Force against Officer Mayes

Williams moved to have Officer Mayes terminated should he be reinstated to the APD force.  Bartels seconded.  Hearing no further discussion, the motion was approved unanimously.

False Imprisonment and Excessive Force alleged against Officer Dion Meredith

It was moved by Bartels to recommend termination of Officer Meredith.  Williams seconded.

Discussion…

1. Morris asked Bartels to explain the difference in the behavior and discipline for Britt and Meredith.  Bartels replied, “As opposed to Mr. Mayes, I believe if we find what the witnesses say is credible, and I believe they do, this is a sexual assault.  I believe it is appropriate to consider termination if a police officer is there for 45 minutes and allows this to happen.”
2. To clarify, Price asked, “When you discuss prior infractions, do you really look at them to see what was the finally analysis to see if they were sustained just because they were allegations.  Can the investigator tell me the ruling on the prior five cases.  Because if you are going to bring it up, you should be able to tell me what was the final analysis and conclusion of these prior allegations.”  To answer Ms. Price question, Investigator Addington said, “Meredith only has three prior cases in his disciplinary file.  One was for the Eagle case which the final finding in that case was sustained; a Failure to Appear charge, which was sustained, and an Appropriate Action which was not sustained.  The majority of the complaints that we look at for all officers are often given a finding of not sustained.  The trend that we see in the cases of OPS, if there is something such as a vehicle accident or failing to appear for court case, those cases are usually sustained.  The other allegations where complaints are alleging something different, there is a trend in those cases to not sustain by OPS.”
3. Price asked, “Did this particular incident happen after the Eagle?”  Addington said yes.
4. Regarding Addington’s comments, Bartels said, “I would think that this is more than a trend.  My experience has been, whenever we do sustain an allegation against an officer, it has always been rejected.  Since I have been on the board, I can only think of two exceptions…one is the Eagle raid and the other is the case a couple of months about the videotaping or recording police officers.  Those are the only two I can think of which we sustain and the police did not reject.”  Price asked, “Are you saying that from your findings there have only been two times that Atlanta Police Department’s OPS agreed with your findings?  Bartels clarified, “Yes, when we have sustained an allegation.  APD always agrees with us when we don’t sustain or when we exonerated an officer.  Please correct me if I am wrong but I can only think of two times, since I have been on the Board when we find the allegation is sustained that OPS has agrees with us.”  Addington added, “There was one other, James Hereford’s complaint, who was falsely arrested in the stairwell.  Initially, OPS did reject our sustain finding, but decided to reopened the case following further investigation.  Price, “I am correct in saying ‘not sustain’ does not mean that it did not happen, what it says is the evidence did not support the allegation that the complainant said was true.  Is this correct?  Bartels said, “Yes that is what it means and we all agree on that.”  Morrissey said, “Yes we all agree on the meaning, but it is very telling that every case that we have adjudicated with the exception of three, in the years we have been here, our findings have been rejected and that is very telling and statistically, that cannot be true.  We take a lot of things into consideration and regardless of their adjudication, patterns of conduct that we see by officers, and similar names continue to come up time and time again, we have to take that into consideration.  It we don’t, we don’t know who will.  We simply have not found that degree of trust with OPS yet; however, I am hopeful everything I have seen in the past year or so, will give me even more hope.”
5. R. Johnson added, “I want to add to Paul’s (Bartels) comments regarding the culture and seeing Officer Britt as guilty as the other officers.  What do you think would happen to him if he were to say, ‘Stop this is wrong!’ to the other Red Dog officers?  He is fairly new, he was hired in 2006, so what do you think those officers would have done if he had intervened and suggested calling a supervisor?”  Price answered, “I believe a supervisor should have been there.  The officers, on that particular day, were all on the same level and they are not going to stop each other.  I blame the supervisor because when you keep seeing the same allegations, then you have a training issue.  This office, as well as OPS, should look at these situations and that will show the strengths and weakness of the department.  All discipline does not have to be negative, they can be positive.  This needs to be brought to Chief Turner’s attention that we keep getting the same allegation and maybe APD needs to retrain these officers.  The situation that took place that day, where was the supervisor and did anyone file a complaint against the supervisor?
6. Williams clarified, “Ruth (Price), just so that you are aware, we have recommended training, especially training dealing with Terry stops.”

Following the discussion, the Chair called for the vote.  The motion was approved with one NO vote by R. Johnson.

CONSIDERATION OF INVESTIGATION #11-16 – COMPLAINT OF OLAJUWAN WILSON – INVESTIGATOR SHEENA ROBERTSON (Agenda Item V)

The Chair directed members to Agenda Item V.  Investigator Robertson provided an oral summary of the complaint.

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATION

Investigator Robertson reported that Mr. Olajuwan Wilson, a 17 year old African American male, filed an Excessive Force complaint with the ACRB.  Mr. Wilson alleges that on September 28, 2010, Officers Jonathan Cornelius, James Devoto, Dimitri Caldwell and Robert Godwin, members of the now disbanded Red Dog Unit, engaged in unnecessary and excessive force when they physically assaulted him during an arrest.

COMPLAINANT’S INTERVIEW

Robertson indicated that according to Mr. Wilson, he was at the M&M Grocery Store located at 911 Joseph E. Boone, Blvd., retrieving some items for his mother when he was approached by Officer Cornelius.  Mr. Wilson said Officer Cornelius approached him and asked if he could search him.  Mr. Wilson said he replied, “What for, I did nothing wrong.”  He said the officer then told him that if he did not allow him to search, he would be arrested; so he consented to the search.  He said Officer Cornelius initially began to search his pants pockets and found nothing illegal.  He then unbuckled his belt, reached inside his pants and touched his genital, buttocks and anal areas and again did not find anything illegal.  Mr. Wilson said after the search, Officer Cornelius instructed him to turn around.  Mr. Wilson said he complied; however, because of what had just occurred and out of fear, he ran out of the store towards his home, 950 Neal Street, approximately three blocks away.  Mr. Wilson said as he was running, he saw several unidentified Atlanta Police Officers chasing him.  Mr. Wilson said when he reached his house, he jumped over a fence, tripped and fell face-down in the front yard.  He said before he had an opportunity to get up, an unidentified Caucasian officer jumped on his back and forcibly held his face to the ground.  Mr. Wilson said at that time, he noticed that he was surrounded by numerous APD officers who then began to beat him throughout his body.  Mr. Wilson said, at one point, he began to feel nausea and vomited because of the numerous hits he received to his abdomen.

Mr. Wilson said when the officers finally picked him up off the ground he was searched again, this time by a different officer and the search was more aggressive.  He said the officer snatched his belt off, went inside his pants and pulled, tugged and adjusted his genitals and buttocks.  He was then forcibly placed in the backseat of the patrol car and transported to the gas station located across the street from where he first encountered Officer Cornelius (M&M Grocery Store).  Mr. Wilson said that before they arrived at that location, he vomited on himself.  He said once that before they arrived at the gas station, the officers took him out of the patrol car, moved his arms from his back to the front and ordered him to remove his pants because they did not want to touch him since his clothing was covered with vomit.  He said after he removed his pants, the same officer again searched him and found nothing illegal.

EMS arrived and he was taken to Grady Hospital where he stayed for approximately three days before being released and transported to Fulton County Jail.

Mr. Wilson adamantly stated that he did not have any illegal substance on his person and there was no reason why he should have been stopped and searched.

MEDICAL RECORDS AND COURT RECORDS

Robertson reported ACRB obtained and reviewed Mr. Wilson’s medical records.  The records indicated that on September 28, 2010, the day of the incident, Mr. Wilson was seen in Grady’s Emergency Room (ER).  Mr. Wilson reported to the ER staff he had been hit in the abdomen by the police.  Mr. Wilson was admitted and treated for nausea.  All examinations were benign and lab results were normal.  Mr. Wilson was discharged the following day and transported to the Fulton County Jail.

The court records revealed that Mr. Wilson was arrested September 28, 2010 and charged with four counts of obstruction of law enforcement and possession of marijuana less than one ounce.

Mr. Wilson’s counsel filed a motion to suppress on the grounds that the arrest of Mr. Wilson was illegal.  The suppression hearing was held January 18, 2011 and the motion was granted.  The judge held that Mr. Wilson ‘had the right to withdraw any consent to search he may have given and to run from a ‘first-tier police-citizen encounter.’  Mr. Wilson’s case was placed in ‘dead-docket’ status.

WITNESS INTERVIEWS

During the interview of eyewitnesses to the incident, including Ms. Annabel Thomas, Mr. Wilson’s mother, all corroborated Mr. Wilson’s claim that he was beating by the officers when they apprehended him on the ground

According to Ms. Thomas, on the day of the incident, she was at home when she heard a commotion in her front yard.  She went outside and observed her son, Olajuwan, lying face down on the ground and there was an unidentified Atlanta Police Officer with his knee in Olajuwan’s back.  She further stated that the officer and several other officers were smashing Olajuwan’s face into the ground and repeatedly hitting him.  Ms. Wilson said she was yelling and repeatedly asking the officers to stop beating her son.

Ms. Thomas stated that an unidentified African American officer pulled out his firearm, pointed it in her direction and told her, “Don’t make me have to use this.”  Ms. Thomas said that she was so concerned about her son that she told the officer to do what he had to do.  She said at some point, the officers picked her son up from the ground, put him in the patrol car and left.  Ms. Thomas said she then went back into the house to retrieve her handbag so she could meet the officers and her son at the Fulton County Jail because she assumed that where they taking him.

Ms. Thomas said while retrieving her handbag, an individual, she knows only as “Tony” came and told her that the police had her son at the corner and he was naked.  Upon hearing that, she said she immediately went to where he was being held.  Ms. Thomas said when she arrived at the location, she observed her son in his underwear lying on a gurney in the ambulance.  She said she also noticed that an officer was shaking out Olajuwan’s pants; a few coins and a piece of candy dropped out of the pockets.  She said at some point, the officer gave her Olajuwan’s soiled clothes.

OFFICER INTERVIEWS

Interviews were conducted with all of the involved officers except Officer Dimitri Caldwell because the allegations were brought forth subsequent to his resignation from APD (he resigned 4/12/11) for reasons that are unknown to us.  According to Caldwell’s supplemental report, he did not report that anyone struck Mr. Wilson.  He said that Wilson refused to give up his hands and that he assisted the officers by getting one of the cuffs on him.

Officer Godwin admits he struck Wilson once in the face but contends that the use of force was justified because Wilson was resisting by refusing to surrender his hands in order to be handcuffed.

Officer Devoto denies hitting Wilson and also denies any of the officers’ struck him, although Officer Godwin admitted that he did strike Wilson.

Officer Cornelius arrived on the scene after Wilson was apprehended and he denies striking or witnessed anyone striking Wilson.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING COMPLAINT #11-16

Therefore, given the aforementioned facts, the ACRB staff recommends the following:

The allegation of “Excessive Force” against Officers James Devoto, Robert Godwin, as well as, Officer Dimitri Caldwell, even though he no longer with the Department, is assigned a finding of “Sustained.”  Despite this, Officer Caldwell’s resignation and lack of interview, it is clear that he engaged in this conduct.

The allegation of “Excessive Force” against Officer Jonathan Cornelius assigned a finding of “Not Sustained.”  There is insufficient evidence to indicate that he was present when the assault occurred.  Regarding the search where we know Cornelius was involved and there were also allegations about other officers who searched him, staff did not make a determination into that allegation because it is not within the Board’s purview.  However, the Board may want to recommend that the APD investigate.

VOTE BY THE BOARD TO ACCEPT RECOMMENDATION

Following the summary, the Chair opened the floor for discussion and questions.

Discussion…

Morris asked Robertson, “On page five of your report, you indicated that Ms. Thomas went to the Police Department, OPS office to file a claim on behalf of her son, but they told her she could not do that without him being present, even though he is a minor.  Is that a fact?      Robertson replied, “They do have a complaint but whether or not that occurred, I can’t say because I did not investigate if that actually happened and I do not know if that is an OPS policy that the actual complainant must be present even though he/she is a minor.  Perhaps Major Dancy can clarify if that is policy.”

It should be noted at this time, the Chair asked Major Dancy of OPS, to clarify if this is an APD policy where the minor must be with the parent in order file a complaint.

1. Major Dancy stated that the parent would be able to file the complaint on behalf of the minor.  “Absolutely, we would accept the complaint from the parent and in reference to this complaint, one was filed, it is open and we are investigating it.”
2. Williams asked, “Since the complaint involves a 17 years old juvenile, is he considered a minor or an adult?”  Major Dancy, “The State of Georgia considers anyone 18 or older as an adult; however, in certain cases, the courts can incarcerate a 17 year old as an adult.  If you are arrested at 17, you will go to the same jail where 16 or younger are held.
3. Bartels, “The search Mr. Wilson said that Officer Cornelius performed on him, which sounds like the previous case, were there any other witnesses you could find that could corroborate that this happened?  Robertson, “No.  When I went to the store, two of the employees I spoke with said they were not present on that day; however, they mentioned that another employee was present and he may have seen what happened.  I tried several times to contact this employee, but I was not successful.”  Bartels asked, “Where you able to determine the identity of the second officer?”Robertson replied, no.  
4. Bartels asked Beamud, “It looks like the only charges here are Excessive Force, and could this also be considered a False Imprisonment issue?  The Judge that heard the suppression motion found that this was a first-tier Terry stop, voluntary, which meant that the Judge found there was not reasonable suspicion.  The basis that was given for stopping Mr. Wilson was that he put his hands in his pants at the sight of the police and turned and walked into the store.  Beamud stated that she had not looked at it that way, but it is possible.
5. R. Johnson, “In regards to the stature of the complainant, what was his weight?”  Morris indicated that the medical report noted his weight at 150 lbs.  R. Johnson, “That’s still thin, and it took three officers to take him down.”  Williams expressed concerned about bodily injury and if it would have been appropriate to include this charge along with Excessive Force.  C. Johnson stated that if there was a trip report provided by EMS, it may provide some information on his injuries.  “Otherwise, we have nothing documenting an injury.”  Robertson said that she did not get the EMS trip sheet but he did complain to the medical staff that he had been struck several times in his stomach.

Hearing no discussion, the Chair called for a motion.

It was moved by C. Johnson to accept the staff’s recommendation to Sustain the allegation of Excessive Force against Officers James Devoto, Dimitri Caldwell and Robert Godwin and to Not Sustain the allegation of Excessive Force against Officer Jonathan Cornelius.  The motion was seconded by Morris.

Discussion…

1. Bartels stated, “I’m inclined to accept the staff’s recommendation based on the complaint as an Excessive Force.  The evidence shows that when the three officers were struggling and fighting with Wilson, Officer Cornelius, who had made the initial stop, was elsewhere?  By the letter that would be a correct recommendation, but what is concerning about this is I think this should also have been a False Imprisonment stop and Officer Cornelius initiated the stop.  I believe that he did not have reasonable, articulable suspension to detain Mr. Wilson.  I also think there is some evidence that he conducted an intrusive search on him not unlike the searches that we heard about in previous case.  I say this because in the report submitted by Officer Godwin, after Wilson was handcuffed, Officer Cornelius told him (Godwin) that he saw a small baggie containing marijuana in Mr. Wilson’s underwear and at this point, Goodwin indicated that Officer Cornelius stated Mr. Wilson punched him in the arm and took off running.  I am concerned for two reasons, 1) This information about the marijuana comes from Officer’s Godwin’s own report that said Officer Cornelius told him he saw the marijuana in Mr. Wilson’s underwear and 2) no contraband was recovered.  So if this was true, where’s the marijuana?
2. C. Johnson asked how is the determination made regarding the category of the complaint and how it should be investigated.  “Does the staff determine the category that the complaint falls under or is that something that is suggested to complainant by staff to help them?  How does that come about?”  Robertson stated, “Cristina (Beamud) screens the complaints and the Board votes on whether or not to accept.”
3. C. Johnson, “You have investigated this complaint from the standpoint of Excessive Force rather than False Imprisonment.  At this point, as a body, if we can decide to table this vote, or I can withdraw my recommendation and have the staff go back and make another recommendation or we can say, the Board has look at this recommendation and feels that there should be some additional recommendations regarding the Officers.”  Beamud stated that this had not been done before, but the Board has the authority. “It is just a matter of you deciding.”
4. C. Johnson stated, “With that being said, I withdraw my motion and we can table our vote pending further investigation.”  Bartels indicated that he agreed, “In fairness to everybody including the officers, I don’t think we should consider voting tonight.  We need to reset and not necessarily, so much,  to try and get additional evidence, because I understand that staff tried to call the witness, but to do some sort of legal analysis so that staff can make a recommendation.  Time can then be allowed for us to look over it and do it in a deliberate fashion.”
5. Morris stated, “There are no additional witnesses and I am not sure if we will know anymore a month from now then we know now.”  Bartels answered, “Sometimes when you are trying to determine whether a stop was justified, it can be on the edge and sometimes worthwhile to do a little bit of legal research, which the staff does a great job, pulling out a few cases that will help guide us to a decision.”
6. To clarify, Robertson asked, “You want us to do a legal analysis and look at some case law to see whether a False Imprisonment can be recommended for you to consider.”  Bartels replied, yes.  Aliniece also asked Robertson, to get a copy of the EMS trip report.

Hearing no further discussion, the Chair entertained a motion.  Williams moved to table the case to allow staff time to further review the case to determine if a False Imprisonment recommendation should be made for consideration at the next board meeting.  Bartels seconded.  Hearing no further discussion, the motion was approved.

DISMISSIAL OF COMPLAINT #11-23, COMPLAINT OF JAMIE SMITH – INVESTIGATOR MARC ADDINGTON (Agenda Item VII):

Investigator Addington summarized the request for dismissal of the complaint made by Jamie Smith.

He reported that the case involved Officer Kenneth Thomas with an allegation of False Imprisonment.  “In an attempt to contact Ms. Smith on several occasions, she did not respond to our request for interviews.  At the last Board Meeting, when the case was presented, we were given additional information that Ms. Smith may have been incarcerated at Fulton County Jail; however, a review of the jail records indicated that she was not in custody.  We also received additional information that she may have been in State custody.  We found a Jamie Smith in custody; however, this was not the Jamie Smith we were looking for since this person was in custody when this incident occurred.  To this date, we have been unable to make contact with her and therefore, ask that the case be dismissed.”

The Chair entertained a motion.

It was moved by Morris to accept the staff recommendation to dismiss complaint #11-23, Jamie Smith.  The motion was seconded by Bartels.  No further discussion, the motion was unanimously approved.

DISMISSIAL OF COMPLAINT #11-33, COMPLAINT OF CEDRIC BARNHART – INVESTIGATOR SHEENA ROBERTSON (Agenda Item VII):

Cedric Barnhart complaint #11-33 is being recommended for dismissal.  Investigator Robertson reported that on May 17, Mr. Barnhart filed a complaint with the ACRB alleging that on January 1, 2011, APD Officer Antonius Black, falsely arrested and charged him with Aggravated Assault and Theft by Shoplifting.  At the time he filed his complaint, his criminal case was still pending adjudication in the Fulton County Superior Court.

On June 9, 2011, the aforementioned information was presented to the Board for consideration.  The Board agreed to suspend the investigation until adjudication of the criminal case.

According to the Fulton County Superior Court records, Mr. Barnhart pled guilty August 4, 2011 to Simple Assault and Theft by Shoplifting.  As penalty, he was sentenced to 12 months probation for each count.  Therefore, based on these facts, the ACRB Staff recommends that the Board dismiss Mr. Barnhart’s complaint because it does not meet the definition of false arrest which defines the authority of the Board.

The Chair entertained a motion to accept staff’s recommendation.

It was moved by Morris to accept staff recommendation to dismiss the complaint made by Cedric Barnhart, Case #11-33.  The motion was seconded by Hubbard.  Hearing none, the motion was approved.

INTAKE REPORT FOR AUGUST, 2011 (Agenda Item VIII)

A copy of the Intake Report was included in the Board packets.  Director Beamud reported nine (9) complaints were received for the month of August, 2011.  The following is a list of those complaints and recommendations by the staff:

#11-45 / Jermaine Cobbs alleging Harassment

Mr. Cobbs was sent a complaint form and an email explaining the necessity of a signed complaint.  He has not returned the complaint signed.  Staff recommends dismissal for failure to file a signed complaint.

#11-46 / Sharon Cooper alleging Poor Investigation

Staff recommends this complaint be dismissed because it happened in 2006.

#11-47 / Tremayne Jordan alleging Excessive Force

Staff recommends an investigation into the excessive force allegation.

#11-48 / Todd Pritchett alleging Improper Tow

Staff recommends dismissal because the matter is not within the ACRB’s jurisdiction.

#11-49 / Joe Alcock alleging Poor Service

Staff recommends dismissal because the matter is not within the ACRB’s jurisdiction.

#11-50 / Hattie Smith alleging Failure to Take a Police Report

Staff recommends dismissal because the matter is not within the ACRB’s jurisdiction.

#11-51 / Matthew Cardinale alleging Harassment

Staff recommends dismissal because the matter is not within the ACRB’s jurisdiction.  Harassment is defined as the act of tormenting by continued persistent verbal or physical attacks.

#11-52 / Robert Hill alleging Poor Service

Staff recommends dismissal because the matter is not within the ACRB’s jurisdiction.

#11-53 / Ezeoke Parks alleging Abusive Language and Excessive Force

Staff recommends investigation into the allegations of excessive force and abusive language.

The Chair entertained a motion to accept the Director’s Intake report.  It was moved by Morris to accept the Director’s report.  The motion was seconded by Bartels.  The Chair called for a discussion.  Hearing none, the motion was approved with one abstention vote by Williams.

REPORT FROM THE PUBLIC OUTREACH COMMITTEE (Agenda item IX):

Williams reported the progress of the Outreach Committee.  He said, “We are moving along and have made a lot of progress.  I am happy to report Pamela Aliniece has been able to rejoin our committee and we are all grateful for her.  To bring you up to date, we are starting to pull together our first draft copy and develop a list of stakeholders.  If you have any recommendations to add to this list, please email this information to me.  We try to meet weekly when we can but our next meeting will be Wednesday September 21^st at 1:00 p.m. at the ACRB office in their conference room.”

The Chair reported that Williams, Beamud and Addington will be traveling to the NACOLE conference next week in New Orleans.

PUBLIC COMMENTS (Agenda item X):

Chair Morrissey opened the floor for public comments.  It should be noted that no one signed up to speak.

ADJOURNMENT (Agenda item XI):

Chair Morrissey entertained a motion to adjourn.  Williams moved to adjourn the meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 9:01 p.m.

The Atlanta Citizen Review Board (“ACRB”) completed its investigation and adjudication of the complaint filed by Ralph Andrews alleging excessive force and false arrest.

Mr. Andrews filed a complaint alleging that on May 23, 2011 at 914 Welch Street, officers from a task force broke into his house, handcuffed him and his stepson and put them on the floor of the house.  They had their firearms drawn and pointed at him when this happened.  After the officers put them on the floor, he was advised that there was a warrant for his arrest.  He explained to the officers that he had turned himself in on the warrant the previous week.  The officers verified this information and removed the handcuffs.  One of the officers told him that he could be charged with obstruction.  When Mr. Andrews asked how he could be charged with obstruction, the officer provided a telephone number for Mr. Andrews to arrange to have his door fixed.  His wife tried to call the number but no one seemed to be aware of the problem.  Mr. Andrews explained that there were seven (7) or eight (8) officers who were dressed in plain clothes and were wearing vests and hats that had something like “taskforce” printed on them.

Officer Munson is assigned to the US Marshalls Task Force.  He participated in the “round-up.”  He explained that sometimes task force members and the local police work together to serve arrest warrants for individuals wanted for committing crimes.  Officer Munson said his team routinely receives approximately 30-40 arrest warrants as part of this operation.  He said he arrived at the complainant’s address at about 9:00 AM with documents that provided evidence that Mr. Andrews lived at the location.  One team of officers went to the rear of the house and a second team went to the front of the house.  Officers at the front of the house knocked on the door announcing their presence and they observed movement in the front room.  The officers knocked in an attempt to get someone to answer the door.  Munson said a member of the task force went to a neighbor’s house and showed a picture of Andrews and the neighbor confirmed that Andrews lived at the house.  Officer Munson observed Mr. Andrews look through a back curtain and then walk away.  The officers at the front made entry into the house.  They handcuffed the two individuals in the house and both were seated on a sofa.  Andrews told them that he had turned himself in on the charges and Munson verified this information.  They removed the handcuffs and left.  Andrews was provided a telephone number for him to contact the US Marshall’s office to file a tort claim for the repair of the door.  Officer Munson explained that the underlying warrant was for a battery and that he had previously checked on the validity of the warrant and failed to remove the warrant from the stack.  He accepted full responsibility for this error.  He did not participate in breaking down the door or pointing weapons.

Officer Kevin Pope was the second officer involved in this arrest.  He verified the information provided by Mr. Andrews when Mr. Andrews explained that the warrant was withdrawn.  He entered the house through the front door with his weapon drawn and pointed.

For the above reasons, the Board voted to ‘Sustain’ the allegation of False Arrest against both Officers Munson and Pope.  They further voted to ‘Not Sustain’ the allegation of Excessive Force as to Officer Munson.  They voted to ‘Sustain’ the allegation of Excessive Force against Officer Pope because he pointed his firearm when it was not necessary or reasonable.  The Board also voted to recommend that the Atlanta Police Department adopt a policy to address warrant sweeps and the necessity to verify the validity of an active warrant before entering a home in this fashion.  Currently, there is no Standard Operating Procedure which requires this and it would be helpful, if this task were assigned to a specific person so that there is no confusion about the importance of this responsibility.

While the classification of the allegations might call for more serious discipline, the Board was impressed with the officers’ candor and realizes that this was a mistake.  The Board voted to recommend that Officers Munson and Pope be orally admonished for the violations.

Please let me know if you will need any further information or would like a copy of the investigation.

The Atlanta Citizen Review Board (“ACRB”) completed its investigation and adjudication of the complaint filed by Rodney Daniel alleging Officers Mercado, Moore and Ramirez engaged in unnecessary and excessive force when they assaulted him during an arrest that occurred on April 25, 2011.

Mr. Daniel stated that on April 25, 2011 at about 12 p.m. he was at the Forest Cove Apartments, standing with two or three others.  An unidentified Atlanta Police Officer approached with his firearm drawn and pointed at one of the men and ordered them to get down.  The men ran and Mr. Daniel walked behind the building and proceeded through the field to the other side of the complex.  About 5-10 minutes later, an Atlanta Police Officer, later identified as Lyle Moore, approached him from behind with his weapon drawn and pointed at him and said, “It is me and you in this field, I’ll shoot you.”  He ordered him onto the ground.  He began to walk towards Officer Moore and Officer Moore sprayed OC spray into his face.  He ran and then fell.  Officer Moore allowed him to get up, so he continued running.  He ran towards an area where people were congregated.  Mr. Daniel indicated that Officer Moore had his gun in his hand and was repeatedly yelling that he will shoot him if he did not stop running.  He saw that a person had left his apartment door open and he ran into the apartment and Officer Moore followed.  He ran out of that apartment and into a nearby apartment where the door was also open.  He entered the second apartment and was tired and having difficulty breathing, so he held both arms up and told Officer Moore that he gave up.  Officer Moore struck him in his head several times with handcuffs.  He repeated that he gave up but the officer struck him several more times in the face with his closed fist and handcuffs.  Another officer arrived, later identified as Richard Ramirez and placed his arm around his neck and began to choke him while Officer Moore continued to strike him.  He said he could not breathe and began to fall.  As he was falling, Officer Moore struck him one last time in the face.  He told the officers he could not breathe because he said he suffers from asthma, so the officers dragged him out of the apartment and sat him on the sidewalk.  Mr. Daniel said that he was sitting on the sidewalk and a third officer arrived and when he said he was still having difficulty breathing, the third officer held him up.  This officer did not hit him.  A resident brought some water to one of the officers and the officer poured the water over his head.  They picked him up and took him to the parking lot and eventually put him in the patrol car and drove him to Mrs. Winners Restaurant on McDonough Boulevard to meet the ambulance.  He was treated in the ambulance then taken to the precinct where he remained for about two hours before being taken to Grady Hospital for further treatment.  He sustained several lacerations and cuts to his face.  He was charged with robbery by force and obstruction and remained in jail for two weeks.

Mr. Daniel identified Officers Richard Ramirez and Lyle Moore as the two officers who assaulted him.  The identification was made from photographs provided by Daniel’s mother.

Daniel’s mother also produced a video which shows Daniel sitting on the sidewalk with his hands cuffed to the front.  There were four APD officers present.  One officer was holding Daniel’s head and another officer appears to be holding him up.  The other two officers are standing nearby.  Daniel’s face is covered in blood, and at one point, one of the officers is shown bringing a cup of water and a towel and gives the water and towel to the officer holding Daniel’s head.  That officer pours the water over Daniel’s head.

Interviews were conducted with residents in the apartment complex.  Mr. G.W. said that he saw Mr. Daniel being chased by an Atlanta police officer.  He said that although Daniel was running, he appeared to be out of breath and the officer was still running behind him.  Daniel ran towards an apartment and saw the officer take his firearm and put it to Daniel’s head and said, “Don’t make me do it.”  He said Daniel ran through the apartment and when he exited the back door, there were three officers chasing him and they ran towards his apartment.  They all ran into his apartment and began punching Daniel throughout his body.  Mr. Daniel was not resisting.  The resident, G.W., said Mr. Daniel was bleeding from his head and face and the officer carried him out the back door and sat him on the ground and poured water over his head.  The witness noted that when Daniel entered the apartment, he was not bloody.

A second witness, Mr. R.J., indicated that he was in his living room with the front and back doors open and Mr. Daniel came running through his apartment, followed by two police officers; one Hispanic and one African American.  Daniel then ran to G.W.’s apartment, followed by the officers.  He did not see what happened in the second apartment, but they eventually brought Daniel out of the apartment and sat him on the curb and poured water over his head.

A third witness, Ms. S.M., said that she saw the police chase Mr. Daniel into G.W’s apartment and observed an unidentified African American officer hit Mr. Daniel in the head with an unidentified object.  Mr. Daniel was sitting on the living room floor, surrounded by three officers; two African Americans and one Caucasian.  The officers dragged Daniel out of the apartment and there was blood all over his face.

Four involved officers were then interviewed.  Officer Nicholas Mercado advised that he and Officer Moore are partners assigned to Zone 6 FIT Unit.  They were on patrol when an investigator advised on the radio that he had a robbery suspect in the Forest Cove Apartments.  Officer Mercado said Officer Moore responded and said he was in route.  A few minutes later he heard Officer Moore say that he was in a foot pursuit.  He heard Officer Moore say he had deployed his OC spray but the suspect was still fighting.  He said Officers Ramirez and Moore advised via radio that Mr. Daniel had entered into an apartment and they were all inside.  Officer Mercado said he arrived at the same time as Officer Dawson.  He observed a large crowd and an unidentified woman said to him, “Get that man out of my apartment.”  He then looked inside and saw Officers Moore and Ramirez on the floor struggling with Daniel; trying to get the handcuffs on him.  He heard the officers repeatedly giving Daniel loud verbal commands to stop resisting.  Mercado said that he noticed one of Daniel’s hands had been cuffed and Officer Moore was struggling to put on the second cuff.  He said Officer Moore was tired and running out of energy, so he grabbed Daniel’s left hand and put the second cuff on him.  He cuffed Daniel in the front and lifted him up and he fell back down.  Officers Ramirez and Moore walked outside to get some air and he sat next to Daniel.  Officer Mercado took Daniel out of the apartment through the back door and Daniel would not stand on his own, so he got behind him and lifted him and Officer Ramirez helped to walk him outside.  There was a large crowd and so they radioed for assistance.  Officer Ramirez went back into the apartment and got some water and poured it over Daniel’s face to help get the OC spray out of his eyes.  Officer Mercado said that he did not strike nor did he observe any of the officers strike Daniel.

Officer Ramirez advised he was dispatched because an officer had identified a robbery suspect.  He saw Officer Moore chasing Mr. Daniel and proceeded to engage in the chase.  Officer Ramirez said that he noticed Officer Moore slow down and Ramirez continued to chase Daniel into at least two or three apartments.  He entered the last apartment and pushed Daniel and tried to grab him and handcuff him but Daniel resisted by using his weight to push him away.  He said that Daniel said that he was giving up but he continued moving towards the back door.  Daniel pushed him with such force that he almost fell.  Officer Moore intervened and struggled with Daniel.  He said he had to do something to put him under control, so he punched Daniel on the left side of his ribs and punched him in either his left or right eye.  Daniel slowed down and fell but he didn’t know if Daniel fell on his own or if Moore tackled him.  They continued to struggle and he noticed that Daniel was bleeding.  Officer Mercado arrived and assisted with handcuffing.  Daniel complained that he could not breathe so they took him outside.  He asked for water and he took the water and poured it over Daniel’s head so he could get the OC spray out of his eyes.  Officer Ramirez was asked if he used a choke hold and he said that at one point during the struggle, his arm did slip around Daniel’s neck because he was slippery from the spray.  He added that it was around his neck for only 15-20 seconds and he did not hear Daniel say he could not breathe.  He said that Daniel bit him on both hands while he had him in a choke hold.  Officer Ramirez said that he only struck Daniel twice and did not observe Officer Moore or any other officer strike him.

Officer Moore said that after he received the information from a detective about the robbery suspect, he observed the suspects sitting on a wall and advised radio.  He saw Officer Watkins walk in the direction of the suspects and he proceeded in the same direction.  He got to the area where the suspects were and saw that Officer Watkins had one in custody.  Officer Watkins told him the others had fled.  Officer Moore said he saw Mr. Daniel running up a hill and he gave chase and notified the radio of a foot pursuit.  He observed Daniel lying in the grass in an attempt to hide and ordered him to come out and get down on the ground.  He came out of the grass but did not get on the ground.  Officer Moore tried to grab his wrist but Daniel pulled away, smacked his hand and fled.  Officer Moore yelled out for Daniel to stop but he did not.  He attempted to grab him again but the Officer felt some pain in his hamstring and could not continue.  He called for assistance.  Mr. Daniel fell and he sprayed him with OC spray, however, the OC spray also got into the officer’s face.  He chased him into the apartment and when they reached the street, he lunged towards Daniel and they fell to the ground.  He attempted to use the OC spray again but it was empty.  Daniel got up and the chase continued.  He drew his firearm. Daniel ran into an apartment and Officer Moore put his foot inside the door to keep it open until Officer Ramirez arrived.  They entered the apartment and Officer Ramirez grabbed Daniel from behind and Daniel resisted.  Officer Moore grabbed him to handcuff him but Daniel kicked him in the leg and struck him in his face.  Officers Mercado and Dawson arrived and they were able to cuff him.  They took Daniel outside and poured water over his head in an attempt to wash away the OC spray.  Officer Moore said that he could not say how many times he struck Mr. Daniel.  He did not see any other officer strike Mr. Daniel.  Officer Moore sustained cuts to his hands and lip and was treated.

Officer Dawson arrived at the apartments, there were 20 people standing in front.  He entered and saw Mr. Daniel sitting on the floor and Officers Moore and Ramirez were trying to get him into custody.  Officer Dawson grabbed Daniel’s arm and tried to cuff him in back, but he was too big, so with the assistance of Officer Mercado, they double cuffed him in the front.  Once handcuffed, they took him out of the apartment and Mr. Daniel kept falling and complaining about the burning.  One of the officers got some water and poured it over Daniel’s head to help wash away the OC spray.  Officer Dawson said that he did not strike Mr. Daniel nor did he observe any officer strike him.

The Board considered the above evidence and voted to recommend that a Sustained finding be assigned to the excessive force complaint against Officers Moore and Ramirez.  They voted to Not Sustain the allegations against Officer Mercado and Dawson.  The Board further recommends that a five day (5) suspension be imposed upon Officers Moore and Ramirez.

Please let me know if you will need any further information or would like a copy of the investigation

The Atlanta Citizen Review Board (“ACRB”) completed its investigation and adjudication of the complaint filed by Olajuwan Wilson and his mother, Annabel Thomas, concerning allegations of false imprisonment and excessive force.

Mr. Wilson, who is 17 years old, filed a timely complaint which alleged that on September 28, 2010, he was at the M & M Grocery Store at 911 Joseph E. Boone Boulevard, retrieving items for his mother.  He was approached by Officer Jonathan Cornelius; a member of the now disbanded Red Dog Unit.  Officer Cornelius asked if he could search him and Mr. Wilson replied, “What for, I did nothing wrong.”  He claims that Officer Cornelius told him if he did not allow the search, he would be arrested.  Officer Cornelius searched his pants pockets and found nothing and then unbuckled his belt, reached inside his pants and touched his genitals, buttocks and anal area and did not find anything.  The officer instructed Mr. Wilson to turn around and he complied, but then, out of fear, ran out of the store towards home.   He was chased by a number of officers.  He reached his house at 950 Neal Street and tripped and fell as he jumped over a fence.  An officer jumped on his back and held his face to the ground and Mr. Wilson was surrounded by police officers who began to beat him throughout his body.  Mr. Wilson felt nausea and vomited because of the hits to his abdomen.  He complained the officers picked him up and searched him again and the search was aggressive.  The officer snatched his belt off, went inside his pants and pulled and tugged and adjusted his genitals and buttocks.  He was placed in the backseat of a patrol car and transported to a gas station.  He vomited again and the officers took him out of the car and ordered him to remove his pants because they did not want to touch him.  He removed his pants and the officer searched him again.  He was transported to Grady Hospital where he was admitted and treated and released the following day.

Mr. Wilson’s mother, Annabel Thomas, was home and heard a commotion in her yard.  She observed her son lying face down on the round and an unidentified police officer had his knee on Olajuwan’s back.  She observed the officer smash Olajuwan’s face into the ground and, along with other officers, repeatedly hit her son.  She yelled and asked the officers to stop beating her son.  A van with several other officers arrived and the officer also approached her son and began to beat him.  An African American officer pulled out his firearm, pointed it in her direction and told her, “Don’t make me have to use this.”  Ms. Thomas said that she told the officer to do what he had to do and continued to attempt to have the officers stop hitting her son.  She observed the officers pick up her son and put him in a patrol car and leave.  She retrieved her handbag and assumed her son would be taken to the Fulton County Jail.  A neighbor informed her that the police had her son at the corner and he was naked.  She went to the location and saw her son in his underwear laying on a gurney in the ambulance and saw an officer shaking out his pants.  An officer gave her Olajuwan’s soiled clothing.

The Fulton County Court records revealed that Mr. Wilson was charged with four counts of Obstruction of Law Enforcement Officers and Possession of Marijuana.  A motion to suppress was filed and a hearing was held.  The judge held that Mr. Wilson, “had the right to withdraw any consent to search he may have given and to run from a first-tier police citizen encounter.”

The Incident Report filed with this incident indicates that Officer Jonathan Cornelius was the officer who made the stop.  He was accompanied by Officers Godwin, Devoto and Caldwell.  The Use of Force Report indicated that Olajuwan Wilson put his hands in front of his pants and walked in the store.  The officers approached Mr. Wilson and obtained consent to search his person.  Officer Cornelius claims he observed a yellow baggie contained marijuana in his underwear.  Officer Cornelius claims that he tried to retrieve the marijuana and Mr. Wilson pushed Officer Cornelius’ arm away and fled on foot.  Officers Godwin and Devoto chased him and caught up with him when Mr. Wilson fell.  Officer Godwin jumped on top of him and he claims that Mr. Wilson refused to give up his hands by placing them under his body.

Some neighbors on Neal Street were interviewed.  One neighbor, K.D., indicated that she saw officers chase Mr. Wilson.  Officers had him laying face down on the ground with his arms behind his back and she saw three APD officers standing over Mr. Wilson and hitting him throughout his body.  She pled with them to stop.  She said the officers ignored her and shouted at her to step back.  Mr. Wilson was picked up off the ground and placed in a police car.  Another witness said that he observed officers chasing Mr. Wilson and one jumped on Mr. Wilson’s back and both fell to the ground.  The officer placed his knee in Wilson’s back and began to hit him in his back and ribs.  He saw Mr. Wilson vomit what appeared to be blood.

Officer Cornelius was interviewed and said that he, along with Officers Godwin and Devoto were patrolling the area when they observed Wilson standing in the front of the grocery store and when Wilson noticed the marked patrol car, he put his hands in his pants as if he was trying to conceal something.  He said that the area is known for illegal drug activity and crime.  Officer Cornelius said he entered the store, approached Mr. Wilson and asked him if he had any illegal drugs or weapons on him.  He asked Wilson if he could search him and Wilson agreed.  He conducted a pat down for weapons and because he observed Wilson put his hands in his pants, he pulled open the waistband of Mr. Wilson’s trousers and looked down his underwear.  He observed a small bag of marijuana next to his genitals and called out to Officer Devoto and Godwin for assistance.  Wilson struck him in his left arm and ran out of the store.  He yelled to Officers Devoto and Godwin and they all proceeded to chase after him.

Officer Cornelius said that while in pursuit, he received a call via radio from Officer Devoto advising that he needed to secure the patrol car and he did that.  He went to the patrol car and he heard the officers were on Neal Street and Wilson was resisting.  He then proceeded to Neal Street and saw that Wilson had been apprehended by other officers.  Mr. Wilson was on the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back and officers were standing around him.  He did not observe Officers Godwin or Devoto strike Mr. Wilson

Officer Devoto said that he observed Officer Cornelius stop Mr. Wilson.  He said Mr. Wilson struck Officer Cornelius and ran.  He chased Mr. Wilson to a house on Neal Street and Wilson was tackled by Officer Godwin.  He and Officer Godwin had difficulty cuffing Mr. Wilson because he did not put his hands behind his back.  He held Mr. Wilson down by the shoulders and after a brief struggle; Officer Godwin managed to handcuff Mr. Wilson.  He claims that at no time did he or any other officer strike Mr. Wilson.

Officer Godwin said that he observed Mr. Wilson in front of the grocery store and when he noticed the police, he shoved his hands into his pants and walked into the store.  Officers Cornelius and Devoto entered the store and he moved the car out of traffic.  Officer Godwin parked the car and walked into the store and observed Officer Cornelius and Mr. Wilson.  Officer Devoto was at the front of the store.  Officer Godwin observed a scuffle and heard Officer Cornelius say that Wilson was running so he pursued him on foot.  He yelled for Mr. Wilson to stop but he continued running.  He jumped over a fence and tripped, falling face down.  Officer Godwin jumped on top of him and Officer Caldwell arrived and managed to handcuff one wrist.  Wilson hid his right arm under his body.  He wouldn’t put his hand behind his back and tried to get up and Officer Godwin punched Wilson in the face, causing him to fall.  Officer Devoto arrived and held Mr. Wilson down by his shoulders and Mr. Wilson finally gave up and surrendered his other arm.

Officer Caldwell was not interviewed because he resigned from the department on April 12, 2011.  His report was considered by the Board.

After a careful review of the investigation, the Board voted to recommend that the allegation of False Imprisonment be sustained as to Officer Cornelius.  Even assuming that the facts described by the officers are true, there were no grounds for the stop.  A person’s mere presence in a high crime area does not meet the Fourth Amendment requirement of particularized suspicion.  Mr. Wilson was alone in a store in the middle of the day.  He did not engage in flight.  Even if the officers had possessed reasonable suspicion, they lacked adequate justification to search him.  Even if Mr. Wilson consented to the interaction or the search, he was free to withdraw that consent at any time.  Thus, the detention and arrest of Mr. Wilson was improper.

It is also noteworthy that no drugs were ever recovered.  The Board had a lengthy discussion concerning this issue and expressed concern with the strip search of the complainant.  They voted to recommend the imposition of a three day suspension for Officer Cornelius.

The second allegation considered was excessive force.  The Board voted to sustain the allegation of excessive force against Officers Devoto, Godwin and Caldwell.  Officer Caldwell has resigned, so no recommendation is made concerning his discipline.  However, the Board voted to recommend that Officers Devoto and Godwin be suspended for five days and be provided with training about the proper manner to restrain individuals and the proper use of force.  Officer Devoto denied striking Wilson and denied witnessing any officer strike him.  Officer Godwin admits that he struck Wilson one time in the face because Wilson refused to surrender his hands in order to be handcuffed.

There were eye witnesses to the incident who corroborated Mr. Wilson’s claim that the officer beat him.  For this reason, the Board voted to sustain this allegation and impose this level of discipline.

Please let me know if you will need any further information or would like a copy of the investigation.