HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdministrative Record Part 103 .-. lO
2; to
5 S|S
i o u. £
i? tt ^ m
nil <2
£|%|
;» CO < A
<
«a
u to <5 in
** CO
< UJ
2 o I
2
3
4
5
6
7
X
9
10
11
i:
13
14
15
16
17
IN
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
J. CHRISTINE DIETRICK (SBN 206539)
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
HANLEY & FLEISHMAN, LLP
DAVID M. FLEISHMAN (SBN 156695)
8930 MORRO ROAD
ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422
TELEPHONE (866) 262-4529
FACSIMILE (866) 262-4529
Attorneys for Respondent
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
(PUBLIC ENTITY, NO FILING FIT:,
GOVT. CODE 6103)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
KEVIN WADDELL
Petitioner.
v.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.
Respondent
CASE NO: 16CV-0491
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Assigned Judge: Hon. Charles Crandall
Petition Hied: October 12, 2016
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
Respondent City of San Luis Obispo hereby submits its administrative record for the above-
encaplioned mailer.
Daied: February 10.2017
DavufK 1 rPhrfshman
Attorney for Respondent
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
INDEX OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Document
Number
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
Description
San Luis Obispo Police Department Kevin
Waddel Hearing Exhibits
Appellant's Exhibit Book, Vol. 1
Appellant's Exhibit Book, Vol. 2
Appellant's Exhibit EE
June 29, 2015 Appellant's notice of motion;
motion for the discovery of peace officer
personnel file (Ptichess motion) of Lietuenant
Bill Proll; declaration of Nicole A. Naleway in
support therein
June 29, 2015 Appellant's notice of motion;
motion for the discovery of peace officer
personnel file (Ptichess motion) of Lt. Jeff
Smith; declaration of Nicole A. Naleway in
support therein
June 29, 2015 Appellant's notice of motion;
motion for the discover)' of peace officer
personnel file (Ptichess motion) of Lietuenant
John Bledsoe; declaration of Nicole A.
Naleway in support therein
July 2,2015 Opposition of custodian of the
records of the San Luis Obispo Police
Department to Appellant's motion for
discovery of peace officer personnel file
information; memorandum of points and
authorities in support thereof
July 16,2015 Appellant's reply to San Luis
Obispo Police Department's opposition to
appellant's motion for discovery of peace
Pages
1-286
287-639
640-823
Audio Files on Disc
filed separately
824-834
835-844
845-855
856-878
879-923
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
officer personnel file information;
memorandum of points and authorities in
support thereof
July 20,2015 People's motion to join motion
for pretrial discovery (Pitchess)
August 3. 2015 Appellant's notice of motion;
motion for the discovery of peace officer
personnel file (Ptichess motion) of Lietuenant
Bill Proll; declaration of Nicole A. Naleway in
support therein
August 3,2015 Appellant's notice of motion;
motion for the discovery of peace officer
personnel file (Ptichess motion) of Sergeant
Chad Pfarr; declaration of Nicole A. Naleway
in support therein
August 3, 2015 Appellant's notice of motion;
motion for the discovery of peace officer
personnel file (Ptichess motion) of Lt. Jeff
Smith; declaration of Nicole A. Naleway in
support therein
August 11,2015 Opposition of custodian of
the records of the San Luis Obispo Police
Department to Appellant's motion for
discovery of peace officer personnel file
information; memorandum of points and
authorities in support thereof
August 13,2015 Appellant's reply to San Luis
Obispo Police Department's opposition to
appellant's motion for discovery of peace
officer personnel file information;
memorandum of points and authorities in
support thereof
September 10, 2015 Appellant's notice of
motion; motion for the discovery of peace
officer personnel file (Ptichess motion) of
Sergeant Chad Pfarr; declaration of Nicole A.
Naleway in support therein
September 10, 2015 Appellant's notice of
motion; motion for the discovery of peace
officer personnel file (Ptichess motion) of
Lietuenant Bill Proll; declaration of Nicole A.
Naleway in support therein
924-929
930-942
943-953
954-964
965-988
989-1037
1038-1049
1050-1061
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
September 10,2015 Appellant's notice of
motion; motion for the discovery of peace
officer personnel file (Ptichess motion) of Lt.
Jeff Smith; declaration of Nicole A. Naleway
in support therein
September 18,2015 Opposition of custodian
of the records of the San Luis Obispo Police
Department to Appellant's motion for
discovery of peace officer personnel file
information; memorandum of points and
authorities in support thereof
Day 1 6-25-15 Full Transcript
Day 2 6-26-15 Full Transcript
Day 3 7-9-15 Full Transcript
Day 4 7-23-15 Full Transcript
Day 5 7-24-15 Full Transcript
Day 6 8-20-15 Full Transcript
Day 7 8-21-15 Full Transcript
Day 8-AM 9-2-15 Full Transcript
Day 8-PM 9-2-15 Full Transcript
Day 9 10-2-15 Full Transcript
Day 10 10-6-15 Full Transcript
Argument on behalf of appellant Kevin
Waddell, December 21, 2015
Post-hearing brief of the San Luis Obispo
Police Department, December 21, 2015
Appendix to the Post-hearing brief of the San
Luis Obispo Police Department, December 21,
2015
Rebuttal on behalf of appellant Kevin
Waddell, December 30,2015
Rebuttal brief of the San Luis Obispo Police
Department, December 30, 2015
1062-1073
1074-1097
1098-1271
1272-1527
1528-1816
1817-2004
2005-2196
2197-2400
2401-2571
2572-2642
2643-2752
2753-3000
3001-3102
3103-3155
3156-3189
3190-3258
3259-3300
3301-3340
36
37
38
Report and recommendation of hearing
officer, January 4,2016
Appellant's written exceptions to the hearing
officer decision, July 14,2016
Discipline appeal hearing of Kevin Waddell
before the City of San Luis Obispo City
Council Findings of Fact, Decision and Final
Order, July 19,2016
3341-3420
3421-3546
3547-3559
SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Kevin Waddell Hearing
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Sections 2.36.290 to 2.36.380
2. San Luis Obispo Police Department Rules & Regulations Manual
3. California Department of Motor Vehicles, Vehicle Code Section 10852 —
Breaking or Removing Vehicle Parts
4. Notice of Decision of Disciplinary Action, dated October 1, 2014
5. Notice of Intent to Administer Disciplinary Action and Right to Respond, dated
September 9, 2014
6. San Luis Obispo Police Department Memorandum to Chief Gesell from Captain
Staley dated May 8, 2014
7. San Luis Obispo Police Department Memorandum to Chief Gesell from
Lieutenant Bledsoe dated March 3, 2014
8. San Luis Obispo Police Department Memorandum to Chief Gesell from
Lieutenant Proll dated February 28, 2014
9. San Luis Obispo Police Department Memorandum to Lieutenant Smith from
Sergeant Pfarr dated October 19, 2013
10. Text message from Kevin Waddell at 12:14 p.m.
11. Photographs of the damaged Bentley
12. Transcript of interview of Sergeant Chad Pfarr by Lieutenant John Bledsoe Re
CAT Shift (November 15, 2013)
13. Transcript of interview of Lieutenant Jeff Smith by Lieutenant John Bledsoe Re
CAT Shift (November 15, 2013)
14. Transcript of interview of Detective Adam Stahnke by Lieutenant John Bledsoe
Re CAT Shift (November 18, 2013)
15. Transcript of interview of Lieutenant Jeff Smith by Lieutenant John Bledsoe Re
CAT Shift (December 12, 2013)
16. Transcript of interview of Sergeant Chad Pfarr by Lieutenant John Bledsoe Re
CAT Shift (December 13, 2013)
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 1
17. Transcript of interview of Sergeant Chad Pfarr by Lieutenant Bill Proll Re
Bentley Event (January 25, 2014)
18. Transcript of interview of Lieutenant John Bledsoe by Lieutenant Bill Proll Re
Bentley Event (February 5, 2014)
19. Transcript of interview of Officer Greg Benson by Lieutenant Bill Proll Re
Bentley Event (February 5, 2014)
20. Transcript of interview of Lieutenant Jeff Smith by Lieutenant Bill Proll Re
Bentley Event (February 13, 2014)
21. Transcript of interview of Officer Kevin Waddell by Lieutenant John Bledsoe Re
CAT Shift (December 12, 2013 )
22. Transcript of interview of Officer Kevin Waddell by Lieutenant Bill Proll Re
Bentley Event (January 27, 2014
23. Transcript of interview of Sergeant Brian Amoroso by Lieutenant Bill Proll Re
Bentley Event (January 7, 2014)
24. Excerpt of the current MOU — Article 29 — Promotional Policy
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 2
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 3
SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE
A Codification of the General Ordinances
of the City of San Luis Obispo, California
CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY I Seattle, Washington
2.36.290 Separation—Removal.
Any employee may be removed from the city service forjust and proper cause as outlined in Section
2.36.320. (Prior code § 2705.4)
2.36W.3 . _, ._....... y.
Each appointing authority shall have the right to discipline any employee subject to his/her jurisdiction
for misconduct, incompetency, inefficiency, insubordination, failure to perform duties, falsifying an
oath, failure to observe the personnel rules or the rules of the individual department or a related
serious offense. Such discipline may include but not be limited to reprimand, demotion, removal,
reduction in compensation, or suspension without pay for up to thirty calendar days in any fiscal year.
The appointing authority shall consult with the personnel director before suspending for more than
five days, demoting or removing a regular employee in the classified service and, prior to imposition
thereof, the city administrative officer shall act to affirm, modify or disallow such actions. Suspensions
of five days or less shall be approved by the department head and personnel director prior to their
imposition. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to reductions in pay which are a part of a
fiscal emergency calling for a reduction in salaries, wages hours of work or positions. (Prior code §
2706)
2.36.330 Disciplinary action—Charges, response, final action.
A. Removal, Demotion, Reduction in Compensation, Suspension of More Than Five Days. In the
case of employees declared exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
FLSA), such employees may be terminated, demoted, suspended for more than one work week or
reduced in compensation for any of the grounds set forth above. Such employees may also be
suspended for less than one work week for a violation of city safety rules of major significance.
Employees not exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA may be removed, reduced in
compensation, demoted or suspended for more than five days. In any disciplinary matter wherein it is
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 4
proposed that a regular employee in the classified service shall be removed, reduced in
compensation, demoted, or suspended for more than five days or the shift equivalent, the procedures
for notifications, response and final action shall be as follows:
1. Charges. The employee against whom the disciplinary action is proposed shall be provided
with written notice stating any and all reasons, specifically and in detail, for the proposed action
prior to the effective date thereof. The material on which the notice is based, including, but not
limited to, statements of witnesses, documents, and investigative reports or extracts therefrom,
shall be assembled and either provided to the employee or made available to the employee for
review. Any materials not so provided or made available shall not be used to sup -port the
reasons in the notice.
2. Response Period.
a. The employee may respond to the notice of proposed disciplinary action within five
business days, unless the appointing authority authorizes a longer time, following delivery of
the notice to the employee. The employee may respond through a designated
representative, personally in writing or any combination thereof. The right to answer
personally includes the right to answer orally in person by being given an opportunity to
make any representations which the employee believes are pertinent to the matter. When
the employee requests an opportunity to answer personally, the appointing authority shall
personally hear the answer.
b. Irrespective of the manner of response, the employee may submit any material or
evidence which is pertinent to the matter. The appointing authority shall consider any
representations, statements, materials, or any other evidence submitted by the employee
with or as his/her response.
3. Employee Status After Notice. The employee shall be retained in active status during the
response period. Provided, however, when in the opinion of the appointing authority,
circumstances are such that the retention of the employee in an active status during the
response period may result in damage to city property, may be detrimental to the interests of the
city, or may be injurious to the employee, fellow workers or the public, the appointing authority
may temporarily assign the employee to duties in which these conditions do not exist, or may
place the employee on paid suspension during the response period.
4. Final Action.
a. Within three business days following the response of the employee to the notice of the
proposed disciplinary action or, if no response is received within three business days
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 5
following the expiration of the response period, the appointing authority shall deliver a notice
of final decision to the employee. If discipline is imposed a notice of decision shall be
delivered to the employee personally or by mail to the address of record in the employee's
personnel file. The notice shall be dated and shall inform the employee of his/her right to
appeal the notice of decision pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.36.340. Disciplinary
action shall be effective upon the personal delivery or mailing of the notice.
b. If no discipline is to be imposed, the notice of decision shall so indicate and the personnel
director shall be directed to delete from the employee's personnel file all references to the
matter.
B. Suspension of Five Days or Less. In any disciplinary action wherein it is proposed that a regular
employee in the classified service who is not exempt from the provisions of FLSA be suspended for
five days- or less, the procedures shall be as provided under subsection A of this section. In a
disciplinary action for a major safety rule violation, wherein it is proposed that a regular exempt
employees in the classified service be suspended for five days or less, the procedures shall be as
provided -under subsection A of this section. Provided however, that in the alternative the appointing
authority may impose immediate final discipline without prior notice and right to respond in which
event -the procedures subsequent to imposition of discipline shall be as follows:
1. Materials. Within five business days following the imposition of discipline a written notice
stating any and all reasons specifically and in detail for the proposed action, materials on which
the disciplinary action is based and investigative reports or extracts therefrom shall be
assembled and either provided to the employee or made available to the employee for review.
2. Response.
a. The employee may respond to the appointing authority concerning the imposed
disciplinary action and the materials in support thereof within five business days of receipt of
the materials. The employee may respond through a designated representative or
personally, or in writing or any combination thereof.
b. The right to answer personally includes the right to answer orally in person by being
given an opportunity to make any representations which the employee believes are
pertinent to the matter. When the employee requests an opportunity to answer personally,
the appointing authority shall personally hear the answer.
c. Irrespective of the manner of response, the employee may submit any material or
evidence which is pertinent to the matter. The appointing authority shall consider any
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 6
representations, statements materials or any other evidence submitted by the employee
with or as his/her response.
3. Appointing Authority Action. Within three business days following the response, if any, of the
employee, the appointing authority shall either confirm or rescind the imposed disciplinary
action, and shall give written notice to the employee of the decision to confirm or rescind. If the
discipline is rescinded, appropriate action, including credit for back pay in case of suspension,
shall be taken and the personnel director shall be directed to delete from the employee's
personnel file all references to the matter. If the discipline is confirmed the notice to confirm shall
inform -the employee of his/her right to appeal: the effective date of the disciplinary action for the
purpose of appeal shall be the date of delivery or mailing of the notice to confirm.
C. Reprimands. In any disciplinary action wherein it is proposed that a regular employee in the
classified service receive a written reprimand, the procedures shall be as provided in the alternate
method in subsection B of this section, with the following exceptions:
1. A reprimand need not include statements of witnesses or other supporting documents, but
shall set forth the circumstances in sufficient detail to permit the employee to understand the
nature and basis of the action.
2. Reprimands shall not be placed in the employee's personnel file unless approved by the
appointing authority. In such cases, the employee shall have the right to submit a written
response to the reprimand and such response shall be placed in the employee's personnel file.
Prior code § 2706.1; Ord. 1313 § 1, 1996)
2.36.340 Disciplinar)r action—Right of appeal.
A. Any employee ( except employees represented by the police officers' [SLOPOA] or firefighters'
SLOFA] associations) demoted, suspended for more than five days or the shift equivalent, reduced
in pay, or removed under the provisions of Section 2.36.330 shall have the right to appeal such
disciplinary action to the personnel board. The appeal shall be in writing and shall be filed with the
personnel director within fifteen business days following the effective date of the notice of decision on
disciplinary action.
B. Any employee represented by SLOPOA or SLOFA who is demoted, suspended for four days or
more or the shift equivalent, reduced in pay, or removed under the provisions of Section 2.36.330 of
the personnel rules and regulations shall have the right to appeal such disciplinary action to a hearing
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 7
officer. The appeal shall be in writing and shall be filed with the personnel director within fifteen
business days following the effective date of the notice of decision on disciplinary action.
C. Any employee suspended for five days or less ( less than four days for employees represented by
SLOPOA or SLOFA) under the provisions of Section 2.36.330 shall have the right to appeal such
disciplinary action to the city administrative officer. The appeal shall be in writing and shall be filed
with the city administrative officer within fifteen business days following the effective date of the notice
of decision on disciplinary action. The city administrative officer shall meet with the disciplined
employee if requested by the employee and conduct such investigations as he or she deems
necessary. His or her written decision shall be final and shall be delivered or mailed to the employee
within twenty business days of the filing of the appeal.
D. There shall be no right for any employee to appeal a reprimand or for a probationary employee to
appeal any disciplinary action.
Ord. 1147 § 1 (part), 1989: prior code § 2706.2)
2.36.350 Disciplinary action—Hearings.
A. Date. Within five business days of receipt of an employee appeal (except an employee
represented by the police officers' [SLOPOA] or firefighters' [SLOFA] associations) under Section
2.36.340A, the personnel director, following consultation with the chairperson of the personnel board,
shall set a date and time for a hearing before the personnel board.
B. Date. Within five business days of receipt of an employee appeal from an employee represented
by SLOPOA or SLOFA under Section 2.36.3408, the personnel director shall obtain from the State
Mediation and Conciliation Service a list of five potential hearing officers. Following a random
determination of which party begins, the parties (city and appellant) shall alternately strike one name
from the list until only one remains. The personnel director shall then set a date and time for a hearing
before the hearing officer.
C. Notification. When a hearing on any disciplinary action is to be heard, the personnel director shall
notify the employee requesting the hearing and the appointing authority from whose action the appeal
is being taken, of the date, time and place of the hearing.
D. Public or Closed Hearing. The hearing may be public or closed, at the employee's option;
E. Appearance, Representation, Witnesses, Conduct of Hearing.
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 8
1. The employee requesting the hearing shall not be required to appear at the hearing; provided,
however, that the city shall have the right to call as a witness and examine the employee
requesting the hearing as if under cross-examination.
2. The employee may be represented by any person, including a representative of a recognized
employee association.
3. Unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the employee and the city's representative, during
the hearing any witnesses to be called by either the employee or the city shall be excluded from
the hearing room unless actually testifying. Provided, that the employee and city each may
designate a person, who shall not be subject to exclusion who has investigated the matter at
issue in the hearing and whose assistance during the hearing is necessary to the efficient
conduct of the hearing.
4. The hearing shall be presided over by the chairperson of the personnel board or the
chairperson's designated representative on the board (hearing officer for employees
represented by SLOPOA or SLOFA).
5. The hearing need not be conducted in accordance with technical rules relating to evidence
and witnesses, but the hearing shall be conducted in a manner most conducive to determination
of the truth. Any relevant evidence shall be admitted if it is the sort of evidence which
responsible persons are accustomed to rely on in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of
the existence of any common law or statutory rule which might make improper the admission of
such evidence in civil actions. Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing
or explaining any direct evidence but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it
would be admissible in civil actions. The rules of privilege shall be effective to the same extent
that they are now or hereafter may be recognized in civil actions, and irrelevant and unduly
repetitious evidence shall be excluded. Decisions made by the personnel board or hearing
officer shall not be invalidated by any informality in the proceedings, and the personnel board
shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence.
6. The personnel board or hearing officer shall rule on the admission or exclusion of evidence
and application of other rules of law with the assistance of its legal advisor.
7. The hearing shall proceed in the following order unless the personnel board otherwise directs:
a. City's representative and the employee may make opening statements;
b. City's representative shall present evidence in support of city's position; employee may
cross-examine city's witnesses;
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 9
c. The employee may present evidence in his/ her own behalf; city's representative may
cross examine the employee's witnesses;
d. Both the city's representative and the employee may then present rebuttal evidence,
unless the personnel board or hearing officer for good reason permits additional evidence
upon the original cases;
e. City's representative and the employee may make closing arguments.
8. Each party may impeach any witness regardless of which party first called the witness;.
9. No- still or moving photography or pictures of any kind shall be taken in the hearing room
during the hearing.
10. Prior to or during a hearing the personnel board or hearing officer may grant a continuance
for any reason it believes to be important to its reaching a fair and proper decision.
11. Upon conclusion of the hearing the personnel board may deliberate its decision in executive
session. No persons other than members of the personnel board shall participate in the
deliberations; provided, that the board may request the attendance of its legal advisor for the
sole purpose of rendering legal advice.
F. Action,
1. No later than twenty calendar days following conclusion of the hearing, the board or hearing
officer shall prepare findings and recommendations for submission to the council.
2. At a minimum, the personnel board or hearing officer shall find whether the city has
substantiated the charges in support of the disciplinary action. It shall base its findings on the
preponderance of the evidence. Findings shall be made as to each charge. If the personnel
board or hearing officer finds that none of the charges are supported by the evidence presented,
the recommendation shall be that no disciplinary action be taken. If the personnel board or
hearing officer finds that any or all of the charges are supported, it shall either a Recommend
that the imposed disciplinary action be earned out;
b. Recommend such other disciplinary action deemed appropriate under the circumstances;
or
c. Recommend that no disciplinary action be taken.
3. The personnel board or hearing officer findings and recommendations shall be filed as a
permanent record with the personnel director. The personnel director shall deliver a copy of the
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 10
findings and recommendations to the council, the employee, the city clerk, the city administrative
officer, and to the appointing authority from whose action the appeal was taken.
G. Council Action,,
1. The council shall review the findings and recommendations and the record of the hearing. The
council shall then determine whether the disciplinary action imposed by the appointing authority
is proper, and shall make appropriate findings. If it is determined by the council that the action of
the appointing authority is proper or that other action is proper, the employee shall be notified in
writing of the findings and order, and no further action shall be necessary. If it is determined that
no discipline shall be imposed the action shall be rescinded and the employee's records and pay
shall be appropriately adjusted.
2. The council's findings and order shall be filed with the city clerk,.
3. The action of the council shall be final. (Ord. 1147 § 1 (part), 1989: prior code § 2706.3)
2.36.380 Emploee responsibilities benefits—Code of ethics.
a . _ ...._
A. An official or employee of the city shall not engage in conduct which would tend to discredit or
dishonor his/her position with the city. Such elected or appointed officials and employees must avoid
conflicts of private interests with public duties and responsibilities and shall not do indirectly what may
not be done directly.
B. Disciplinary action generally does not follow an occasional error in judgment which occurs in good
faith and is unintentional. However, misconduct, dishonesty and fraud shall be the basis for severe
disciplinary action, including removal for cause.
C. Officials and employees occupying designated positions are required to file an annual statement of
financial interests with the city clerk as prescribed by the Conflict of Interest Code as adopted by the
city.
D. Each new employee must be informed of the obligation to submit a statement of financial interests
if he/she falls within the listed designated position categories.
E. Any employee whose job performance is adversely affected by the taking of alcohol, drugs, or
other stimulants shall be subject to disciplinary action.
F. Each employee is required to be familiar with city standards and statutory provisions relating to
ethical and other standards of conduct. Each employee is expected to secure the advice of his/her
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 11
superior or the personnel director or other appropriate officials, when in doubt about the meaning or
application of any conduct requirement applying to his/her particular situation.
G. The political activities of city employees shall conform to pertinent provisions of state and federal
laws. (Prior code § 2%08.1)
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 12
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 13
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Rules & Regulations Manual
MEMORANDUM
To: All Police Department Employees
From: Chief Deborah E. Linden
Date:
Subject: Personnel Rules and Regulations Manual
August 19, 2004,
I am pleased to present our revised Rules and Regulations Manual. The revision process is an
ongoing process to insure that all employees' duties and responsibilities are adequately defined.
The purpose of this manual is to clearly articulate rules of expected individual conduct for all
employees and members by:
Establishing levels of authority and responsibility for all positions in the organization;
Defining expected rules of conduct and disciplinary possibilities;
Providing reasonable and necessary organizational guidelines for developing and
maintaining public trust and confidence in the Police Department;
Encouraging personal and professional development by all department members;
Obtaining open, honest, and ethical community and departmental relations; and
Seeking employee input and evaluation on processes and procedures that require
appropriate change.
It shall be the duty and responsibility of each employee of the San Luis Obispo Police
Department to become thoroughly familiar with the rules and regulations, policies and
procedures, directives and orders, and other information officially distributed by the Department.
DEL:slo
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 14
San Luis Obispo Police Department August 19, 2004
Rules & Regulations Manual
Law Enforcement Code of Ethics
As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard
lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or
intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the constitutional
rights of all to liberty, equality, and justice.
I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in
the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the
welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be
exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see
or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever
secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.
I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or
friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless
prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or
favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting
gratuities.
I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public
trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of police service. I will constantly strive to
achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession --law
enforcement.
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 15
San Luis Obispo Police Department August 19, 2004
Rules & Regulations Manual
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I Definitions
SECTION II Responsibility and Authority — Refer to Job
Description in Human Resources
SECTION III Duty
SECTION IV Standards of Conduct
SECTION V Judicial Responsibilities
SECTION VI Vehicles and Equipment
SECTION VII Discipline
SECTION VIII Uniforms and Apparel
SECTION IX Appearance and Grooming
Attachments:
A: Law Enforcement Code of Ethics
B: SLO Muni Code 2.36.380
C: Oath of Allegiance
D: Value Statement
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 16
San Luis Obispo Police Department August 19, 2004
Rules & Regulations Manual
I. DEFINITIONS
A. Bureau: Two or more Divisions under one command.
B. Competent Authority and Supervisor: Members of the Department who have
been assigned supervisory authority over other Department personnel.
C. Department: The City of San Luis Obispo Police Department
D. Division: A segment within the Department having a Department -wide function
either for a generalized or special police line, service, support, or administrative
activity.
E. May: Indicates that the action is discretionary.
F. Member, Department Personnel, and Employ All persons on the Police
Department payroll, including officers with full and limited peace officer
authority, and civilian employees.
G. Officer: Any member of the Department possessing full peace officer authority.
H. Order: An instruction, either written or verbal, issued by a superior officer.
I. Reporting Area: A small -subdivision of a sector used to relate to distribution of
activity.
J. Section: A segment of a Division having either a Department -wide function or a
specialized activity.
K. Sector: A geographical subdivision of the City established for the purpose of
defining operational boundary limitations.
L. Shall/Will: Indicates that the action required is mandatory.
M. Shift, Watch: Used to indicate a working time period.
N. Tense of Words: Words used in the present tense include the future.
O. Unit: A subdivision of a section or a special segment.
P. Zone: Two designated sectors of the City.
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 17
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Rules & Regulations Manual
Deleted 05/08/07
Refer to Job Descriptions available in Human Resources
August 19, 2004
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 18
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Rules & Regulations Manual
III. DUTY
A. General Responsibilities
Rev 06/24/08
Section III — DUTY
On -duty officers of the department are responsible for maintenance of public
order, the preservation of life and property, suppression of crime, and
enforcement of applicable federal, state, and local laws and ordinances.
B. Reporting for Duty
Employees of the department shall be punctual in reporting for duty at the time
and place designated by their supervising officer. Any inability to comply with
these instructions shall be reported by the employee to the department prior to the
time set for reporting.
C. Duty Responsibilities
Members of the department are always subject to duty although periodically
relieved of its routine performance. While on duty, they shall respond to the
lawful orders of superior officers and other competent authorities as well as to
calls for police assistance or service from citizens. The administrative delegation
of the enforcement of certain laws and ordinances to particular units of the
department does not relieve members of other divisions from the responsibility of
taking prompt, effective police action within the scope of those laws and
ordinances when the occasion so requires. Those assigned to special duties are not
relieved from taking responsible action outside the scope of their specialized
function when necessary.
D. Off -Duty Reporting
Officers off duty shall, upon official notice, report for duty as required. Officers
shall report without notification in the event of a major disaster or any other
emergency wherein it would be reasonably expected that the department would
require the additional services of all officers. Sworn officers shall establish
residences within a 90 minute emergency response time to the police facility prior
to successful completion of the initial year period of probationary employment.
E. Off -Duty Service Requirements
Officers shall have regular hours assigned to them for active duty and when not so
employed shall be considered 'off duty." However, for criminal offenses
occurring within the city limits or its sphere of influence, 'off duty" officers are
required to report such offenses and may take appropriate lawful enforcement
action. For offenses occurring outside the city limits, off duty officers are only
authorized to take official action if they are within the scope of their employment.
See Government Code Section 815.2.)
Section III: DUTY — Page 1 of 2
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 19
San Luis Obispo Police Department Rev 06/24/08
Rules & Regulations Manual Section III — DUTY
F. Physical Fitness for Duty
Good physical condition shall be maintained as is consistent with job demands,
and employees shall strive to maintain the proper ratio of weight and height.
G. Officer Assistance
In times of peril, officers shall act together to assist, defend, and protect each
other from physical harm. Intentional failure to come to the aid and assistance of
another officer or officers shall be grounds for disciplinary action. If in doubt as
to the propriety or legality of the situation, officers shall first take the required
action, unless such action is clearly in violation of any statute or law.
H. Off Dutv Arrests
Officers shall not make arrests arising out of personal quarrels or those of their
family, except to prevent violence or serious bodily injury in cases where on -duty
personnel are not available.
Outside Employment
Employees shall report in writing on the proper forms, as required by the City
Rules and Regulations policy, on outside employment. Officers shall not accept
outside employment as bartenders, ambulance or tow truck drivers, card dealers,
or provide services that would involve a potential conflict of interest with the
stated mission and goals of the department.
Rumors and Gossip
Employees shall not engage in rumors or slanderous or malicious talk about
fellow employees or the public. The internal affairs and personalities of the
department and its members shall not be discussed with anyone outside of the
department.
K. Improper Use of Information
Employees shall not make known any proposed movements of the department
without permission of a commanding officer. Employees shall not use police
equipment, facilities, or files to gain information for personal use.
L. Firearms Registration
Officers shall register the firearms they intend to carry on or off duty as provided
for in the Operations Directives.
Section III: DUTY — Page 2 of 2
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 20
San Luis Obispo Police Department August 19, 2004
Rules & Regulations Manual Section IV — STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
IV. STANDARDS OF JOB PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT
A. Employee Responsibilities
All Department employees are required to know and comply with all Operations
Directives, policies, and procedures of the Department. All Department
employees are required to maintain a written copy of the Department Rules and
Regulations.
B. Duty to Report Violations of Rules and Regulations
Ensuring compliance with Department Rules and Regulations is the responsibility
of all employees. Employees are expected to report significant violations to a
supervisor. If an employee has knowledge of a serious rules violation, he shall
report this violation to a supervisor as soon as possible. "Serious" rules violations
would be those with potential criminal or civil consequences resulting from
Departmental operations.
C. Obedience to Orders
Department employees shall be required to obey the lawful orders of any
Department supervisor. A lawful order shall be construed to be any order that is
consistent with Department policies, procedures, or directives.
D. Unlawful Orders
No command or supervisory personnel shall knowingly issue any order which is
in violation of the law.
E. Obedience to Unlawful Orders
Obedience to an unlawful order is never a defense for an unlawful act. Therefore,
no employee is required to obey any order that is contrary to Federal or State law,
or to City ordinance. Responsibility for justification of refusal to obey rests with
the employee.
F. Conflictingor Improper Orders
Generally, command or supervisory personnel shall not knowingly issue orders
which conflict with those given by another supervisor, nor shall they issue
improper orders, which are those that conflict with Departmental policies,
procedures, or directives. Responsibility for justification of the issuance of
conflicting or improper orders rests solely with the supervisor.
G. Obedience to Conflictingorr Improper Orders
Section IV: STANDARDS OF CONDUCT — Page 1 of 11
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 21
San Luis Obispo Police Department August 19, 2004
Rules & Regulations Manual Section IV — STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
Department employees who are given orders that they feel to be conflicting or
improper must inform the supervisor issuing the conflicting order of the initial
order from the other supervisor, or inform the supervisor of the conflict with
existing Departmental policies, procedures, or directives.
If, after being informed of the existing conflict, the supervisor insists that the
employee carry out the conflicting order, the employee shall obey the order -
provided that the order is not illegal. After complying with the conflicting order,
the employee shall submit a memorandum to the Chief of Police, via the chain of
command, documenting the conflict.
H. Falsification of Reports or Official Statements
A Department employee shall not knowingly or willingly enter into any
Department book, record, document, or official report, whether written or
electronic, any inaccurate or false statement or information.
A Department employee shall not alter or erase any words or figures in a
Department book, record, document, or official report, whether written or
electronic, without direct and specific approval from a Department supervisor
who is authorized to give such approval. However, police officers and
supervisors, who prepare and review reports documenting incidents, may make
appropriate changes or corrections in reports, prior to final approval by a
supervisor.
False Statements
A Department employee shall not knowingly or willfully make a false verbal
statement or give false information to a Department supervisor or investigator.
Neither shall a Department employee make a false verbal statement or give false
information to an investigator from another agency of the Criminal Justice
System, in connection with any San Luis Obispo Police Department investigation
or matter.
A Department employee shall not give false testimony in a court of law, to a
grand jury, or in any legal deposition wherein the San Luis Obispo Police
Department is involved.
J. Willful Mistreatment of a Prisoner or Person
A Department employee shall not willfully mistreat any prisoner or person by use
of force that is not necessary in carrying out the employee's official duty. Neither
shall an employee use obscene or abusive language toward a prisoner or other
person. This does not prohibit the use of accepted verbal interrogation techniques
or assertive commands when appropriate.
Section IV: STANDARDS OF CONDUCT — Page 2 of 11
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 22
San Luis Obispo Police Department August 19, 2004
Rules & Regulations Manual Section IV — STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
K. Divulging Confidential or Classified Information
Department employees shall not divulge, disclose, or reveal any Department
information that is confidential or classified to any person who is not authorized
to receive such information, except when such release is specifically authorized
within the guidelines of the California Public Records Act (CA Govt. Code 6250-
6265) or by the Chief of Police, in the course of the employee's official duty.
L. Release of Information
Department employees shall not release any information pertaining to Department
incidents, calls for service, investigations, or other Department controlled
information, if the release of such information might jeopardize a Department
investigation. Nor shall any information be released which may jeopardize the
security or safety of a victim, witness, possible witness, Department employee, or
other official or person who might in any way be involved in a Department
investigation, except when specifically authorized to do so by the Chief of Police
or a Department supervisor.
M. Copes orr Duplicating Information
No employee shall copy or duplicate any computer, audio, written, or
photographic material except within the scope of their official duties. All such
materials, including voice transmissions, shall be accessible on a need -to -know
basis only. All other access or review shall require the permission of the
Administrative Services Bureau Commander, or in his absence, the on -duty
Watch Commander.
N. Requirement to Display Badge and Nameplate
Sworn officers and Field Service Technicians assigned to uniform duty shall be
required to wear the Department issued badge and nameplate that is described in
the Uniforms and Apparel section of this manual.
Sworn officers assigned to plain clothes duty shall have in their possession while
on duty the Department issued badge (or Department -approved flat badge) and
identification card. Exception to this requirement shall apply to any sworn officer
on an undercover assignment or any assignment in which it is necessary to
disguise the identity of the officer.
O. Requirement to Have a Valid Driver's License, Automobile Insurance, and
Current Vehicle Registration
All Department employees who may be required to drive a City vehicle or other
vehicle while on duty shall have in their possession a valid California Driver's
License.
Section IV: STANDARDS OF CONDUCT — Page 3 of 11
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 23
San Luis Obispo Police Department August 19, 2004
Rules & Regulations Manual Section IV — STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
All employees will be required to present upon demand proof of automobile
insurance, when driving a personal vehicle on City business. Additionally, all
personal vehicles currently being used by employees must be properly registered
per CVC 4000(a).
P. Improper Use of Authority, Badge, or ID Card
Department employees shall not be permitted to use their position of authority,
badge, or official identification to obtain gratuities or gifts, acts of favoritism; or
for any unlawful purpose.
Department employees shall not solicit from any person or business any loan or
service which would not normally be extended to a person who is not a member
of the Department.
Q. Contributions, Rewards, and Gratuity
Employees shall not accept money or other consideration or favors from anyone
other than the City for an act which they would be required or expected to
perform in the regular course of their duties. Employees shall not solicit or accept
any gifts, gratuities, or favors. Should any reward, gift, gratuity, or authorized
compensation come into an employee's possession, it shall immediately be
forwarded to the on -duty Watch Commander, who will handle the situation in
compliance with the City Code of Ethics.
R. Political Activities While On Duty
Employees shall not represent their personal or individual political activities as
being endorsed by the Department, nor shall employees be permitted to conduct
any political activity while on duty.
S. Officially Representing the Department
Department employees shall not be permitted to participate in any advertising
scheme or enterprise related to, or based upon, employment with the Department,
or permit the use of photographs or names of Department employees for
advertising purposes, without the specific consent of the Chief of Police.
Department employees shall not be permitted to address any public gathering, or
join with any organization, or appear on a radio or television program, or write
articles for publication, or give interviews to the news media, wherein such
employee purports to officially represent the Department, or purports to represent
the position of the Department on any subject or issue, or makes any reference to
his/her employment with the Department, without the specific consent of the
Section IV: STANDARDS OF CONDUCT — Page 4 of 11
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 24
San Luis Obispo Police Department August 19, 2004
Rules & Regulations Manual Section IV — STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
Chief of Police or as expressly authorized by Department procedure in the course
of the official duties of such employee by virtue of his/her specific assignment.
T. Public Criticism of the Department
Public criticism of the Department, its policies, or its members which is
defamatory, obscene, or tends to impair the operation of the Department by
impairing its efficiency, interfering with the ability of supervisors to maintain
discipline, or having been made with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity,
constitutes insubordination. Employees shall utilize the established grievance
procedures.
U. Personal Use of Official Department Corresnondence and Business Cards
Department employees shall not be permitted to use official Department
correspondence or official Department forms for personal business or reasons.
Business cards or personal cards which refer to the Department shall be used only
in connection with police business and shall conform with the City approved type.
V. Requirement to Have Address and Telephone Number on Record with the
Department
All Department employees shall be required to maintain a telephone at their place
of residence and to provide the Department with the phone number and the
employee's residence address. All Department employees shall also provide the
Department with the name of a person to notify in case of an emergency involving
the employee. A phone number and address of that person shall also be provided.
All Department employees shall notify the office of the Chief of Police, in
writing, of any change of address or phone number of residence within 24 hours
of such change. If initial notice of such change is not given in writing, written
notice shall be made to the office of the Chief of Police immediately upon the
employee's return to the workplace.
W. Use of Department as a Mailing Address
Employees shall not use the Department as a mailing address for mail or
merchandise which is not directly related to their official duties. Exceptions must
be approved by the Chief of Police.
X. Punctuality
Department employees are required to be punctual in reporting for duty at the
time and place designated by the Department.
Y. Absence from Duty
Section IV: STANDARDS OF CONDUCT — Page 5 of 11
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 25
San Luis Obispo Police Department August 19, 2004
Rules & Regulations Manual Section IV — STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
Department employees shall not be absent from required duty, except when on
authorized leave of absence, days off, sick leave, or other authorized absence
from duty.
Z. Duty to Report Absence from Duty Due to Illness/Injury
Department employees are required to inform a Department supervisor in a timely
manner when requesting sick leave, as defined in SLOMC 2.36.420. Except in the
case of a clearly identified emergency or sudden illness, timely notification shall
be notification made not less than 2 hours prior to the beginning of the scheduled
shift.
Employees assigned to the Patrol Division shall contact the on duty Watch
Commander as soon as the employee realizes the he/she will be absent. Traffic
officers will notify the Traffic Sergeant, if he is on -duty. IT IS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO ADVISE ONLY COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ABSENCE.
AA. Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages While On Duty
Department employees shall not be permitted to drink any type of alcoholic
beverage or intoxicating liquor while on duty, except when such consumption is
required as part of the employee's specific job assignment.
BB. Use of Alcohol. Drugs, or Narcotics
Department employees shall not report to duty under the influence of alcohol or
drugs, possess alcohol or drugs while on duty, or utilize such substances while
subject to Department duty.
The use of medically prescribed or self -prescribed medications and drugs is not,
in itself, a violation of Department rules and regulations. However, an employee's
FAILURE TO ADVISE the supervisor, before beginning any Department work
assignment, that the employee is taking medications and/or drugs lawfully
prescribed, which could in any way reasonably interfere with the safe and
effective performance of the employee's duties or operation of Department
equipment, is a violation of Department rules and regulations.
The employee's supervisor shall determine from his/her personal observation of
the employee whether the actions of the employee indicate unfitness for duty due
to consumption of alcoholic substance or drugs or narcotics.
When obtaining a prescription from a physician, employees shall ask what effects
that particular medication will have on their ability to perform their duties. The
employee shall request that the physician provide them with a written copy of the
information which they could provide to their supervisor.
Section IV: STANDARDS OF CONDUCT — Page 6 of 11
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 26
San Luis Obispo Police Department August 19, 2004
Rules & Regulations Manual Section IV — STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
If an employee informs his/her supervisor that he/she is taking a prescribed
medication with a drug or narcotic content, whether the information is offered
voluntarily or upon questioning by a supervisor, and there is any reasonable
possibility that the medication could affect the employee's ability to properly
perform his/her duties, the supervisor shall have the authority to require the
employee to obtain an evaluation report from the prescribing physician or from a
physician designated by the City.
Alternatively, the supervisor may contact the prescribing physician over the
telephone and obtain a verbal evaluation from the physician. If the physician's
evaluation establishes the possibility that the medication could affect the
employee's ability to perform his/her duties, the supervisor shall exercise his/her
judgment as to the employee's work status.
CC. Physical Fitness for Duty
Good physical condition shall be maintained as is consistent with job demands,
and employees shall strive to maintain the proper ratio of weight and height.
DD. Improper Conduct Toward a Department Employee
No Department employee shall assault another employee or maliciously use
abusive or degrading language toward another employee. Unwelcome sexual
advances, requests for sexual favors, and/or other verbal or physical conduct of a
sexual nature will not be tolerated.
EE. Partiality Toward the Public
All citizens shall be accorded equal treatment and protection under the law. No
employee shall exhibit or practice partiality for or against any person because of
race, sex, creed, position, or influence. While on duty, no employee shall speak
discourteously of any nationality, race, religion, or of either sex.
FF. Attorneys and Bail Bondsmen
On -duty employees shall not post bail for any person arrested, nor shall they
recommend a specific attorney or bondsman. Interested persons shall be referred
to the Yellow Pages of the telephone book.
GG. Duty to Assist and Cooperate „with Other Police Agencies in Criminal and/or
Administrative Investigations
Unless they are identified as a subject of the investigation, Department employees
shall assist and cooperate with criminal and/or administrative investigations being
Section IV: STANDARDS OF CONDUCT — Page 7 of 11
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 27
San Luis Obispo Police Department August 19, 2004
Rules & Regulations Manual Section IV — STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
conducted by law enforcement agencies other than the San Luis Obispo Police
Department.
HH. Duty to Obtain Approval for Outside Employ
Department employees shall not engage in any off duty or secondary employment
without having received the prior approval of the Chief of Police, in accordance
with SLOMC 2.36.390.
A Department employee who has received approval for an outside employment
position is required to report to the Chief of Police any change in the approved
outside employment position, and to reapply for approval annually.
II. Off -Duty Arrests
Officers shall not make arrests arising out of personal quarrels or those of their
family, except to prevent violence or serious bodily injury, in cases where on -duty
personnel are not available.
Whenever an officer makes an off-duty arrest, he shall notify the on -duty Watch
Commander as soon as reasonably possible and, in any event, within 24 hours of
the incident. The Watch Commander receiving such notification shall make
additional notifications, as necessary, utilizing the chain of command.
JJ. Insubordination
Any and all of the following violations of rules shall constitute
INSUBORDINATION (refusing to submit to legitimate authority):
Displaying disrespect to a Department supervisor.
2. Refusing to obey the lawful order of a supervisor.
Refusing to answer questions from a supervisor or investigator in the
course of an administrative investigation.
4. Refusing to answer questions directed to the employee by a supervisor in
the normal course of duty and responsibility, the answers to which the
supervisor has a right to know in conformity with his/her responsibilities,
and of which the employee has knowledge, whether directly or indirectly
connected to the employee's official duties and responsibilities.
Refusal to rewrite or correct a police report, or any other report, when
directed to do so by a supervisor.
Section IV: STANDARDS OF CONDUCT — Page 8 of 1 I
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 28
San Luis Obispo Police Department August 19, 2004
Rules & Regulations Manual Section IV — STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
6. Refusal to report to the Department when directed to do so by a
supervisor.
KK. Neglect of Duty_
Any and all of the following violations of rules shall constitute NEGLECT OF
DUTY:
Failure to perform assigned duties.
2. Failure to respond to an assigned call without legitimate reason, or
deliberately delaying response to an assigned call without a legitimate
reason.
Failure to make required entries in an official police log, ledger, report, or
document as required by Department policy.
4. Failure to complete a required police report in a timely manner without
legitimate reason.
Failure to report information regarding criminal activity or criminal
violations involving a Department employee.
6. Leaving an assigned post or duty without legitimate reason.
7. Fabricating, withholding, substituting, or destroying evidence of any kind.
Failure to replace worn or damaged personal equipment or uniform after
being advised to do so by a supervisor.
Failure of a police officer to keep the firearm he/she carries on duty
properly cleaned and in reliable working order.
10. Failure to comply with Department Uniforms and Apparel specifications
and requirements as directed.
11. Knowingly permitting an unauthorized person to use an official police
badge or identification card.
12. Sleeping while on duty, unless authorized by a supervisor.
13. Inattention to duty.
14. Deliberately omitting required or vital information from a report.
Section IV: STANDARDS OF CONDUCT — Page 9 of 11
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 29
San Luis Obispo Police Department August 19, 2004
Rules & Regulations Manual Section IV — STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
15. Deliberately failing to respond to a call by turning off the police radio, or
deliberately ignoring a radio transmission given by a police dispatcher.
16. Failure to assist, defend, and protect another officer from physical harm.
17. Willful failure of a supervisor to carry out his/her specific supervisory
responsibilities.
18. Failure of a supervisor to take charge of an incident or situation involving
police activity, when the supervisor is _present, and the circumstances and
prevailing factors clearly dictate that SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND
DIRECTION IS EXPEDIENTLY REQUIRED.
LL. Conduct Detrimental to the Department
Department employees shall not conduct themselves in a manner that reflects
adversely on the Department, or which discredits the Department, or is
detrimental or damaging to the reputation or professional image of the
Department. When addressing members of the public or speaking in their
presence, officers shall generally avoid the use of harsh, violent, obscene,
insolent, or sarcastic language. This does not prohibit the use of accepted verbal
interrogation techniques or assertive commands when appropriate.
For purposes of this rule, the following definitions shall apply:
Detrimental: Shall mean obviously harmful or damaging.
Adversely: Shall mean contrary to the interest of the Department and
the public interest.
Damaging: Shall mean injurious or harmful
Discredit: Shall mean to create doubt as to the integrity of the
Department, or that which tends to destroy public
confidence in the Department.
Reputation: Shall mean favorable image or standing of the Department
in the eyes of the community or other elements or
components of the Criminal Justice System.
Professional Shall mean the Department's image of competence and
Image: integrity.
Interrogation May include the use of harsh language, sarcasm, ruses, etc.
Techniques: Such elements are frequently used to emotionally draw a
suspect to one interrogator, while distancing him from
Section IV: STANDARDS OF CONDUCT — Page 10 of 11
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 30
San Luis Obispo Police Department August 19, 2004
Rules & Regulations Manual Section IV — STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
another.
Assertive May include harsh or severe language, such as may be
Commands: necessary to gain control over a potentially violent suspect,
or to order a person out of a threatening or dangerous
situation.
Section IV: STANDARDS OF CONDUCT — Page 11 of 11
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 31
San Luis Obispo Police Department August 19, 2004
Rules & Regulations Manual
V. JUDICIAL RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Civil Actions by Employees
Employees shall not institute any civil action arising out of their official duties
without first advising the Chief of Police in writing.
B. Civil Claims Against the City
No employee shall testify, give a deposition, or release any information -to any
person in any civil matter against the City or arising out of their professional
duties except in a manner approved by the Chief of Police and the City Attorney.
C. Court Testimony in Court Cases
No employee shall testify in any civil proceeding arising -out of their employment
without first notifying their Bureau Commander.
D. Contacts with Defense Counsels
No employee shall give any statement, documents, or professionally related
information to any defense counsel, outside of official court testimony, without
first notifying the Chief of Police. All regular procedures as -required in the
department subpoena processing policy will be followed. All releases of
documents are handled through the Records Manager in compliance with the
State Records Acts.
E. Court Appearances
All employees appearing in court, public hearing, or for any professional
statement or affidavit, shall be dressed either in full uniform or appropriate
civilian attire consistent with standards set by the Chief of Police or his designate
and in keeping with a professional appearance and courtroom standards.
F. Conflicts of Interest
No employee shall testify in any legal proceeding, hearing, or trial outside of their
immediate scope of employment, where such testimony is based on their
professional training and responsibilities, without first notifying the City Attorney
through the Chief of Police.
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 32
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Rules & Regulations Manual
VI. VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
February 26, 2009
Section VI — VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT
A. Care of Department Propejjy and Equipment
Department employees shall be responsible for the proper use, care, and
safekeeping of Department property and equipment that is entrusted to them.
Department employees shall be required to report any damaged or inoperative
property or equipment, using the Departmental Repair/Maintenance Request
form. The loss or destruction of property or equipment shall be documented in
either a crime or officer's report.
When a Department supervisor receives a report of damaged or inoperative
property or equipment, the supervisor shall insure that the report is routed
appropriately to expedite whatever corrective measures are necessary.
B. Carrying of Personal Property
The Department will repair or replace the below listed personal property when it
becomes damaged as a result of an official action necessary in the course and
scope of the officer's duties. The Department shall not be responsible for items of
personal property such as personal cameras, sunglasses, cell phones, non -issued
flashlights, personal recording devices, knives, or other items not specifically
listed below. If an employee chooses to carry such personal property while on
duty and that property becomes lost or damaged, the employee assumes
responsibility for the repair or replacement of the property. If the damage occurs
during an arrest or similar enforcement action, the employee has the option to:
Document and identify that damaged property in the arrest report, including
the value of the property; and
Request reimbursement from the court for the damaged property through court
ordered restitution in conjunction with the criminal case.
The Department will repair or replace the following property, provided that the
property damage or loss occurred in the line of duty and was not the result of
negligence, neglect, or improper use by the employee:
1. Duty Weapons
The duty weapon (handgun) is a safety item that an officer is required to
carry. The Department authorizes employees to carry certain approved
makes and models of handgun owned by the employee in lieu of carrying
a Department issued weapon. If an officer's personal weapon is damaged
as a result of an official action necessary in the course and scope of the
officer's duties, the Department will repair the weapon up to the value of
the cost of the Department issued weapon, provided that:
Section VI: VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT — Page 1 of 2
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 33
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Rules & Regulations Manual
February 26, 2009
Section VI — VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT
The personal weapon had been authorized by the Department for the
officer to carry in lieu of a Department issued duty weapon; and
The officer has complied with required qualifications and safety
inspections with the weapon.
When damage occurs, the officer shall document the damage in a report
and when appropriate, the Department will seek reimbursement through
the court restitution process.
This section shall not apply to personal firearms carried as back-up
weapons.
2. Uniform
If an officer's uniform is significantly damaged as a result of an official
action necessary in the course and scope of the officer's duties, the officer
shall document the damage in the related report and detail the
circumstances of the damage in a memo to their Watch Commander. The
officer shall show the damaged uniform to the Watch Commander. When
appropriate, the Department will seek reimbursement from the defendant
through the court restitution process.
Other
If an officer chooses to purchase "upgrades" to certain items that the
Department routinely issues to the officer, such as radio microphones and
batons, and the item is damaged as a result of an official action necessary
in the course and scope of the officer's duties, the Department will repair
the item up to the cost of the Department issued item, provided that:
The personal item had been authorized by the Department for the
officer to carry; and
The damage to the item was not the result of negligence, neglect, or
improper use by the officer.
B. Police Vehicles
Occupants of Department vehicles are generally restricted to employees,
other law enforcement personnel, prisoners, victims, witnesses,
complainants, or others authorized to ride under the guidelines of official
Department programs. Department employees shall notify the dispatcher
when passengers are riding in police vehicles.
Section VI: VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT — Page 2 of 2
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 34
San Luis Obispo Police Department August 19, 2004
Rules & Regulations Manual
VII. DISCIPLINE
A. Discipline
Discipline is utilized to maintain the professional standards of the organization.
Discipline is generally defined as training, although it may assume many forms in
order to achieve its objectives. In essence, discipline is dispensed in order to
improve employee conduct and to maintain adherence to organization rules and
regulations.
B. Forms of Discipline
Social Training: an education program directed to an employee which is
sponsored and/or endorsed by the Department.
2. Counseling: advice, admonition, or guidance provided to ensure proper
conduct.
Reprimand: official written censure of an employee's conduct.
4. Suspension: a temporary removal from employment with loss of pay for
the duration of the suspension.
By agreement of both the Chief of Police and the employee, one of the
following may be taken in lieu of suspension:
a. Extra duty: an assignment of extra duty beyond the employee's
regular work schedule.
b. Voluntary surrender of accumulated overtime, vacation time, or
pay incentive or differential.
Work Assignment Transfer: as a result of the White and Baggett decisions,
a work assignment transfer may be considered disciplinary in nature,
however, work assignment transfers within the unit (i.e., Investigations,
Traffic) should not. For procedural information, refer to Operations
Directive C-5 and Municipal Code section 2700.
Disciplinary Probation: a trial period in which an employee's performance
within the organization is reevaluated. Disciplinary probation shall not be
for more than six conclusive months. Dismissal may result from
unsuccessful performance during this period.
T Reduction of Pay: a withdrawal of salary increments previously granted as
merit increases," as provided in the current salary resolutions.
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 35
San Luis Obispo Police Department August 19, 2004
Rules & Regulations Manual
8. Demotion: a reduction in position from one job classification to another.
9. Dismissal: termination of employment.
10. Criminal prosecution.
C. Causes for Disciplinary Action
Causes for disciplinary action against any employee may include, but shall not be
limited -to, the following:
1. Conviction of a felony or misdemeanor under the laws of the State of
California. A plea or verdict of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere is
deemed to be a conviction within the meaning of this section.
2. Intoxication while on duty.
3. Incompetency, inefficiency, inattention, or inexcusable neglect of duty.
4. Insubordination or willful disobedience of orders.
5. Dishonesty.
6. Unauthorized or inexcusable absence without leave or unauthorized use of
sick leave.
7. Discourteous treatment of the public or other employees.
8. Addiction to the use of alcohol, narcotics, or habit-forming drugs.
9. Misuse, abuse, or appropriation for personal use of City property,
evidence, or found property.
10. Violation of any of the provisions of the Personnel Rules and Regulations
Manual or of any departmental policy, directive, or rule or regulation.
11. Violations of the Vehicle Code.
12. Knowingly making, causing to be made, or submitting a false statement or
report.
13. Malicious, disparaging, or slanderous remarks, writings, etc., directed at
another departmental member.
D. Departmental Authority to Discipline
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 36
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Rules & Regulations Manual
August 19, 2004
Final departmental disciplinary authority and responsibility rests with the Chief of
Police. Except for counseling and emergency suspensions, all departmental
discipline must be taken or approved by the Chief of Police.
Although departmental authority rests with the Chief of Police, all disciplinary
actions involving suspension, demotion, or removal must be approved by the City
Administrative Officer.
E. Failure to Discipline
Failure of a supervisory officer to take proper disciplinary steps when
required shall be deemed insubordination and dealt with accordingly.
F. Scope of Supervisory Authority
Supervisory personnel, other than the Chief of Police, may take the following
corrective measures:
1. Counsel subordinates;
2. Recommend written reprimand;
3. Invoke emergency suspension; and
4. Make written recommendations for disciplinary measures.
G. Emergency Suspension
Any supervisor has the authority to impose an emergency suspension effective
until the next business day against a member or employee when such action is in
the immediate best interest of the department.
H. Emergency Suspension Follow-up
The recipient of an emergency suspension shall report to the office of the Chief of
Police on the next business day unless otherwise directed by competent authority.
The command or supervisory officer who imposes or recommended the
suspension shall also report to the Chief of Police at the same time.
The department may, from time to time, issue orders and directives not contained
in this manual. All employees of the department shall acquaint themselves with
Operations Directives, Personnel Rules and Regulations, and other Department or
City regulations.
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 37
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Rules & Regulations Manual
VIII. UNIFORMS AND APPAREL
December 22, 2008
Section VII: UNIFORMS & APPAREL
A. All articles of uniform and accessories worn by members of the police department
shall conform to the following standards. All personnel will be held responsible
for the proper care and maintenance of their uniforms and equipment. Any item
not specifically authorized herein may not be worn or used without specific
authorization from the Chief of Police or a Bureau Commander.
B. Wearing of the Uniform
The uniform of the police department is symbolic of the dignity and authority of
the City and the profession and is intended to make members of the department
readily recognized by the public. The uniform shall be worn with pride, kept neat
and clean, and not worn in a state of disrepair or neglect.
C. Uniform Color
Uniform color shall be standard LAPD blue for all sworn personnel and as
otherwise specified herein for non -sworn personnel.
D. Uniform Hats
The uniform hat shall be the Stratton straw campaign hat, model S-40DB (or
equivalent) in navy blue. The hat shall have a 3 -piece black leather strap, gold and
black cord with black acorns, and a San Luis Obispo Police Department hatpiece.
When the cord is attached to the hat and the cords are pulled side-by-side at the
front of the hat, the tips of the acorns should reach the front of the brim.
Optional Accessories: Plastic Hat Protector for the rain.
The hat is a mandatory item of equipment and shall be available for immediate
use whenever so directed by the Watch Commander or Bureau Commander.
Unless otherwise directed, the hat is optional for routine daily wear.
E. Baseball Cap
The approved baseball cap may be worn for protection from the elements while in
Class B or C uniform. Examples include: While in uniform as protection from
rain during normal outdoor patrol activities and when serving search warrants in
plainclothes as a method of additional identification.
The baseball cap will not be worn during any event requiring a Class A uniform,
if you are wearing a tie, or while conducting any public speaking.
Supervisors will be responsible for insuring proper use of baseball caps.
Section VII: UNIFORMS & APPAREL — Page 1 of 7
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 38
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Rules & Regulations Manual
F. Uniform Jackets
December 22, 2008
Section VII: UNIFORMS & APPAREL
Utility Jackets shall be the black Tuffy style with no p -buttons or shoulder boards
epaulets).
The dress jacket shall be the LAPD style Eisenhower jacket. This shall be
required wear for all staff while in Class A uniform. One gold stripe for Sergeant,
two gold stripes for Lieutenant, three gold stripes for Captain, and four gold
stripes for Chief of Police. Braid shall be gold, 1/2", 96 type and shall be sewn on
starting -at 3" from the bottom of the sleeve to the bottom of the braid with a 3/8"
separation between each braid. Optional wear for all other sworn personnel.
Windbreaker jackets shall be black LAPD style. All jackets will have department
patches whenever worn. Name tags are not required on jackets but the department
badge, either regular or cloth, will be worn on the jacket whenever it is in use.
G. Uniform Shirt
a) Class "A" uniform shirts shall meet the following Standards:
Raeford worsted 100% wool, Jaguar or Flying Cross styles, LAPD spec.
2. Wash and wear permanent press consisting of 65% Dacron polyester -and
35% rayon. LAPD spec.
55% wool and 45% polyester blend. LAPD spec. No 100% polyester
uniforms shall be worn. All uniforms shall be maintained in good repair,
neat and clean at all times. Shoulder patches shall be neatly pressed. Shirts
may be either long- or short -sleeved unless otherwise directed. No under
garment shall extend beyond the end of the shirt sleeve. No short -sleeved
shirt may be worn with a tie.
b) Class `B" uniform shirts shall meet the following standards:
1. Poly/Wool or Poly/Cotton blends, 511 or similar approved style Class B only
2. All the above approved class "A" standards
H. Uniform Slacks
Uniform slacks shall meet the same blend/style standards as set forth in the
uniform shirt standard, including an optional "sap" pocket. The class `B"
uniform pants can include the optional low profile cargo pockets, such as the 511
or similar approved style..
Section VII: UNIFORMS & APPAREL — Page 2 of 7
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 39
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Rules & Regulations Manual
Footwear
December 22, 2008
Section VII: UNIFORMS & APPAREL
All footwear shall conform to the following standards. No unauthorized footwear
shall be worn.
Shoes will be plain black, smooth finish, military style, center -laced, high
or low top.
2. Boots will be plain black, military jumpstyleor Wellington style.
Lightweight footwear may be worn only if it is plain black, smooth, hard
or semi -hard finish with a hard toe, and no portion of the sole shall extend
beyond the base of the toe. Questions about particular footwear shall be
directed to the -Bureau Commander. All footwear must be able to take a
shine and shall be maintained in good condition.
Accessories
1. Socks shall be black or navy blue whenever visible above footwear.
2. Tie shall be plain black, four-in-hand style. Optional wear except when in
Class A uniform.
3. Tie clasp shall be either a plain gold bar approximately 1/4" wide, or the
clip type with fine chain, gold in color.
4. The Insignia of Service is an individual gold star for each five years of
full-time sworn service and will be sewn on 3/4" above the top of the left
cuff seam, point up, in a horizontal row. Examples of approved type are
available through the Watch Commander.
The Insignia of Rank shall be worn by staff. Command staff shall wear
gold collar insignia (standard size). Sergeants may wear gold collar
insignia on short -sleeved shirts instead of sleeve chevrons. With one
exception, only sleeve chevrons shall be worn on long-sleeved shirts; the
exception is that gold collar insignia shall be worn by Sergeants when they
wear Class A jackets. Sleeve chevrons shall be worn on all jackets other
than Class A jackets. Sleeve chevrons will be royal blue with gold trim
and shall be centered 1/2" below the bottom tip of the shoulder patch.
6. All sworn personnel, subsequent to being certified by the Chief of Police
as having qualified for MPO II status, will be authorized to wear two
chevrons in a manner and color as indicated for chevrons or collar insignia
in J. 5. above.
Section VII: UNIFORMS & APPAREL — Page 3 of 7
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 40
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Rules & Regulations Manual
December 22, 2008
Section VII: UNIFORMS & APPAREL
7. Name plates shall be visible at all times on uniform shirts (see exception
below for bicycle uniforms). Name plates shall be worn directly above and
centered on the right breast pocket. Name plates on Class A and Class B
uniform shirts shall be gold metal (approx. '/2" in height) with black
letters, and will bear the last name and the first initial, or the first and
middle initials, of the employee.
Name plates on utility uniforms shall be cloth (approx. 1 '/4" in height),
with a navy blue background and white or silver lettering and, at a
minimum, will bear the last name of the employee.
Name plates on jackets of all officers shall be either gold metal or cloth.
Cloth name plates will be black or navy blue, with white or gold letters.
Names of bicycle officers may be embroidered on the right breast of the
black uniform shirt in white or silver block letters (approx. '/2" in height).
In order to comply with Penal Code Section 830.10, all uniformed officers
shall wear a visible name plate or badge which clearly indicates the
officer's name or badge number. Cloth badges, and metal badges of
sergeants and above, have no numbers and do not meet the requirements
of this section. This section applies to uniformed officers even while
wearing jackets or rain gear.
Medal of Valor and Medal of Honor citation ribbons shall be worn on
Class A uniforms, and are optional for wear on Class B uniforms. Ribbons
shall be worn centered on the left breast pocket flap, with the top edge of
the ribbon aligned with the top edge of the pocket flap. Note: Citations
ribbons would typically be worn directly above the pocket. However, the
badge does not allow for such placement in all cases. For consistency, the
ribbons will be worn on the pocket.
9. F.T.O. Insignia shall be a department issued FTO pin which will be
centered above the name plate on the shirt.
10. C.S.I. Insignia shall be a department issued CSI pin which will be centered
above the name plate on the shirt.
11. Special Unit or Service Insignia shall only be worn when, and in a
manner, authorized by the appropriate Bureau Commander.
12. Shooting Pins may be worn when authorized on the left corner of the flap
of the right shirt pocket.
Section VII: UNIFORMS & APPAREL — Page 4 of 7
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 41
San Luis Obispo Police Department December 22, 2008
Rules & Regulations Manual Section VII: UNIFORMS & APPAREL
13. Department badges shall be worn at all times, either on the shirt or on the
jacket if you are wearing it. Cloth badges may be worn with the utility
uniform and windbreaker.
14. Utility Uniforms shall be of a type approved by the Chief of Police. They
shall only be worn when specifically authorized. They shall be worn only
when fully equipped with sewn on name tags, cloth patches, and shoulder
patches, of a type approved by the Bureau Commander.
15. Shoulder -patches shall -be worn on all uniform shirts, jackets, and utility
jackets. They shall be neatly pressed and centered on both shoulders
approximately 1/2" below the seam line.
16. Leather goods shall be black basket -weave. All buckles on Sam Brownes
and keepers shall be silver -colored. No velcro, smooth black type leather
goods shall be authorized. Leather goods shall be maintained in good
repair and appearance at all times. Non -issue leather goods must conform
to the above standards and be approved by the Bureau Commander or his
designee.
17. Gold P -buttons shall be worn on Class A Uniforms.
18. Rain Gear shall be yellow in color, of an approved or issued type. The
word "POLICE" will be worn on the back (for all rain jackets issued after
July 1, 1988).
19. Ballistic vests will be issued by the Department. All sworn personnel will
be required to wear the vest when appearing in uniform outside of the
Police Department facility. Exceptions must be approved by the Chief of
Police or his designee.
20. Tee shirts will be worn with the uniform under the ballistic vest. Tee shirts
will be white, navy blue, or black in color. A black or navy blue turtleneck
or dickey may be worn, as an option. When navy blue or black turtlenecks,
tee shirts, or dickeys are worn, the colors must be fresh and dark. Faded
items are not acceptable for wearing with the uniform.
K. Motor Officer Uniforms
All Traffic Unit uniforms and equipment standards will be subject to any
modifications as deemed necessary by the Operations Bureau Commander.
Uniform shirt - same standards as set for patrol.
Section VII: UNIFORIVIS & APPAREL — Page 5 of 7
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 42
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Rules & Regulations Manual
December 22, 2008
Section VII: UNIFORMS & APPAREL
2. Uniform pants will be motor breeches with the 1/2" vertical stripe on each
side. The stripe will have a gold border with royal blue interior. Pants may
be 100% wool or a 14 oz. blend (no 100% polyester). Pants will be the
same color as set for patrol. All uniforms shall be maintained in good
condition.
3. Boots will be black Danner Jr. style.
4. Helmet will be D.O.T. approved. It will be black and white with a black
patent leather bill and gold hat band. The helmet may have a hat badge
piece, gold metal, with motor wings.
Jacket will be Tuffy style or windbreaker. The black leather jacket will
also be authorized. The jacket will be similar to the Taylor's Leatherware
brand, style 4471 deluxe. Shell will be 2 3/4 oz. black leather, lining will
be nylon quilted, inside picket, zippered sleeves with storm cuffs, badge
tab on left breast, snap down fur collar (optional), belt loops for equipment
belt. (optional), bi-swing action back, kidney support, two front -zippered
pockets, zip -out liner, elastic side gore. All listed specifications are subject
to approval ofthe Bureau Commander.
6. Gloves will be black leather, as approved by the Bureau Commander.
7. Glasses will be black, gold, or silver metal rim only. One dark tinted pair
for daytime use and one clear pair for night use. No mirror -type glasses
will be worn.
Motorwings for the shirt will be worn. The wings have a blue background
with a gold wheel. They will be worn 1" below the department patch,
centered, with one on each sleeve.
L. Service weapons shall be of a type approved by the Chief of Police and authorized
by the Rangemaster (refer to Operations Directive W-7).
M. Investigations Division Apparel
Appropriate civilian attire as authorized by the Division Commander and the
Bureau Commander. Investigators shall maintain a uniform at all times to be worn
if directed.
N. Court Apparel
Court apparel shall consist of a uniform, an appropriate dress, or two-piece suit
for females. Male officers shall wear a uniform (preferably with a tie) or a suit
with tie whenever attending court or any professional appearance unless otherwise
specifically authorized by the Bureau Commander.
Section VII: UNIFORMS & APPAREL — Page 6 of 7
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 43
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Rules & Regulations Manual
December 22, 2008
Section VII: UNIFORMS & APPAREL
O. Webb gear may be worn with Watch Commander approval in place of leather
gear during inclement weather or emergency incidents where utility uniforms are
approved. Webb gear shall be worn only with approved utility uniforms and shall
be black nylon cordura type with heavy webbing. Components shall be of a style
the same as the Bianchi Accumold leather gear or as approved by the Chief of
Police or his designee.
P. Nonsworn Personnel Apparel
1. Field Service Technicians
a. Shirt - same style as uniform officers, light blue in color.
b. Slacks - same color and style as uniform officers.
2. Communications Technicians & Records Personnel
a. Shirt - same style as uniform officers, light blue in color.
b. Skirt or slacks - Navy blue or black. Skirts with a hemline no more
than 2" above the knee.
C. Shoes - Navy blue or black in color, flat or low heel style.
d. Cardigan or blazer (optional), Navy blue or black.
3. Clerical Personnel
Clerical personnel are expected to represent the Department in a
professional and conservative manner, in keeping with the city guidelines.
a. Skirts and dresses: Length must be no shorter than 2" above the
knee and no longer than mid-calf length.
b. Tops and blouses: Fabrics must not be sheer. Low- cut necklines,
tight tops, and sweatshirts are not acceptable.
Shoes: Sandals must have a strap around the heel. Spike heels are
unacceptable
Section VII: UNIFORMS & APPAREL — Page 7 of 7
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 44
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Rules & Regulations Manual
IX. APPEARANCE AND GROOMING
August 19, 2004
A. Officers shall report for duty in full uniform with a neat and clean appearance;
shoes, leather, and brass polished; and weapon and uniform clean and in good
repair.
B. Mustaches
Mustaches shall be kept clean and neatly trimmed. They shall not extend more
than 1/4 inch past the corners of the mouth and not curl or droop at the ends more
than 1/4 inch.
C. Sideburns
Sideburns shall not extend past the bottom of the earlobe and shall be neatly
trimmed. Bootleg, wide flare, or mutton chop cuts are not permissible.
D. Hair
Hair shall be neatly trimmed and shall not extend over the collar. Female officers
shall conform to standards for safety and appearance as deemed appropriate by
the Chief of Police.
E. Non -uniformed Personnel
The appearance of non -uniformed personnel shall conform to appropriate
standards for job assignment and as directed by the Chief of Police.
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 45
San Luis Obispo Police Department
Rules & Regulations Manual
X. CHAIN OF COMMAND
August 19, 2004
A. The chain of command provides for a logical flow of policy, orders, reports, and
information. The direction (up or down) is determined by the nature of the
command.
B. The chain of command, flowing upward from the line personnel proceeds through
one's immediate supervisor to that person's immediate supervisor and so on, to the
Chief of Police. The precise chain may depend on an individual's assignment or
unit.
C. The chain of command will be followed whenever possible, unless the nature of
the information reasonably dictates otherwise.
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 46
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 47
k
V C Section 10852 Breaking or Removing Vehicle Parts
Breaking or Removing Vehicle Parts
10852. No person shall either- individually or in association with one or
more other persons, wilfully injure or tamper with any vehicle or the
contents thereof Dr break or remove any part of a vehicle without the
consent of the owner.
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 48
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 49
R
Memorandum
Service, Pride, Integrity"
Date: October 1, 2014
To: Officer Kevin Waddell
From: Stephen Gesell, Chief of Police
Subject: Notice of Decision of Disciplinary Action
Reference: AI -13-004P and 13-OOSP
r y of san tuts oBlspo
Police Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
After careful consideration of the information presented during your Skelly meeting held on
September 11, 2104 in response to the Notice of Intent to Administer Disciplinary Action dated
July 7, 2014, you are hereby notified pursuant to Personnel Rules and Regulations, Section
2.36.320, I am imposing the following disciplinary action against you effective October 2nd,
2014:
Termination as a Police Officer with the City of San Luis Obispo
This action is being taken for the following violations of City and Police Department Rules and
regulations associated with your conduct on October 19th 2013 and February 22"d 2013 and
actions that would constitute a violation of California Vehicle Code section 10852 Vehicle
Tampering. As a basis for the imposition of the proposed discipline, I have thoroughly reviewed
the complete Administrative Inquiry records referenced above and included here and I expressly
affirm and adopt the conclusions and recommendations therein and find that the allegations of
the following violations are SUSTAINED:
Violation of San Luis Obispo Rules and Regulations Standard of Conduct section IV. I "A
Department employee shall not knowingly or willfully make a false verbal statement or give
false information to a Department supervisor or investigator."
Violation of San Luis Obispo Rules and Regulations Standard of Conduct section III.
Employees of the Department shall be punctual in reporting for duty at the time and place
designated by their supervising officer."
Violation of San Luis Obispo Rules and regulations Standard of Conduct section IV -I -
which states in part Department employees shall not conduct themselves in a manner that reflects
adversely on the Department, or which discredits the Department, or is detrimental or damaging
to the reputation or professional image of the Department.
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 50
city OF San tuts ob18p0
Police Department
Violation of California Vehicle Code Section 10852. No person shall either individually or
in association with one or more other persons, willfully injure or tamper with any vehicle or the
contents thereof or break or remove any part of a vehicle without the consent of the owner
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.36.320, the City Manager has affirmed the imposition of
this discipline.
During your Skelly hearing on September I Vh 2014 you chose not to refute the findings of the
Administrative Inquiry. You were represented by legal counsel who did not deny on your behalf
that you engaged in the alleged conduct. However your legal counsel argued that the weight of
your professional duties and circumstances of your personal life should be considered as
mitigating circumstances in determining the appropriate level of discipline. After significant
consideration regarding those facts and circumstances, I find that you engaged in the conduct
alleged, demonstrated a continuing pattern of dishonesty and lack of accountability for
misconduct during internal investigations of your alleged conduct, and that termination is the
appropriate discipline for the conduct.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.36.34013, Disciplinary action — Right of Appeal, you have
the right to appeal this decision to a hearing officer. You must file the appeal in writing with the
Director of Human Resources, Monica Irons, at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
within fifteen business days following the effective date of this notice, by close of business
October 23, 2014.
Warning against retaliation: This provision is to notify you that it is illegal and inappropriate to
retaliate against any person who has provided information pursuant to the investigation
referenced in this Notice. You may not make any adverse comments to, or in any other manner
retaliate against, any individual who has provided information to the City of San Luis Obispo
regarding your conduct.
Stephen Gesell
Chief of Police
City of San Luis Obispo
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 51
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 52
Memorandum
Service, Pride, Integrity"
Date: September 9, 2014
To: Officer Kevin Waddell
From: Stephen Gesell, Chief of Police
LAA4-91 q SO&F."off
Police Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
Subject: Notice of Intent to Administer Disciplinary Action and Right to Respond
Reference: AI -13-004P and 13-005P
You are hereby notified pursuant to Personnel Rules and Regulations, -Section 2.36.290, that
based on the information developed during both Administrative Inquiries #13-004P and 13-005P,
copies of which are provided with this Notice, it is my intention to impose the following
discipline action against you:
Termination as a Police Officer with the City of San Luis Obispo
This action is being taken for the following violations of City and Police Department Rules and
regulations associated with your conduct on October 19th 2013 and February 22"d 2013 and
actions that would constitute a violation of California Vehicle Code section 10852 Vehicle
Tampering. As a basis for the imposition of the proposed discipline, I have thoroughly reviewed
the complete Administrative Inquiry records referenced above and included here and I expressly
affirm and adopt the conclusions and recommendations therein and find that the allegations of
the following violations are SUSTAINED:
Violation of San Luis Obispo Rules and Regulations Standard of Conduct section IV. I "A
Department employee shall not knowingly or willfully make a false verbal statement or give
false information to a Department supervisor or investigator."
Violation of San Luis Obispo Rules and Regulations Standard of Conduct section III.
Employees of the Department shall be punctual in reporting for duty at the time and place
designated by their supervising officer."
Violation of San Luis Obispo Rules and regulations Standard of Conduct section IV -1 -
which states in part Department employees shall not conduct themselves in a manner that reflects
adversely on the Department, or which discredits the Department, or is detrimental or damaging
to the reputation or professional image of the Department.
Violation of California Vehicle Code section 10852. No person shall either individually or in
association with one or more other persons, willfully injure or tamper with any vehicle or the
contents thereof or break or remove any part of a vehicle without the consent of the owner
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 53
exy 14 s,. L-4 094 -
Police Department
Copies of the following documents are attached hereto in support of the intended action:
1. Administrative Inquiry Report by Lieutenants Bledsoe and Proll
2. Executive Recommendation memorandum from Captain Staley
3. San Luis Obispo Rules and Regulations Standard of Conduct section IV. I
4. San Luis Obispo Rules and Regulations Standard of Conduct section III
5. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 2.36.290
6. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 2.36.320 through 2.36.350
7. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 2.36.380 Employee responsibilities and
benefits- — Code of ethics
8. Copies of recordings of investigative interviews
9. California Vehicle Code section 10852
The above referenced Administrative Inquiry report, recommendations, and other associated
documents have been considered in proposing this action.
Pursuant to Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, you have the right to answer,
either orally or in writing or both, this notice of intent to Impose Discipline, and make any
representations you believe are pertinent to the matter. Pursuant to City of San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code section 2.36.330 A.2.a., if you choose to answer or respond to this notice, you
until 5:00 P.M. on July 16th 2014. If you wish to make an appointment to discuss this matter in
accordance with the timeline above, please call my assistant Sue Sanders at 781-7020 to
schedule an appointment.
Warning against retaliation: This provision is to notify you that it is illegal and inappropriate to
retaliate against any person who has provided information pursuant to the investigation
referenced in this Notice. You may not make any adverse comments to, or in any other manner
retaliate against, any individual who has provided information to the City of San Luis Obispo
regarding your conduct.
Stephen Gesell
Chief of Police
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 54
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 55
MY
a
Police Department
jill1G Vr'ah$:` S(Ieel' Sill _Uii "JI' j ii;,
73 17
Date: May 8, 2014
To: Chief Gesell
From: Captain Staley
Subject: Executive Recommendation: AI -13-004P and 005P
SUMMARY:
AI -13-004P
On October 19`" 2013, Officer Kevin Waddell was scheduled to work an overtime shift as
part of the Community Action Team (CAT) which was to begin at 1100 hours and end at
1600 hours. Shortiv after 1100 hours the on duty watch commander, Sergeant Pfarr, noticed
that that Officer Waddell had not arrived for his scheduled overtime shift. Sergeant Pfarr
text messaged Officer Waddell asking him if he was still coming in for his scheduled shift.
He received a text message from Officer Waddell indicating he was still coming in for the
shift and had permission from Lieutenant Jeff Smith, from a conversation the day prior, to
come in late for this shift. When Officer Waddell arrived and spoke with Sergeant Pfarr in
regards to arriving late, he again indicated that he had permission from Lieutenant Smith to
arrive late for the overtime shift. When Sergeant Pfarr spoke with Lieutenant Smith a short
time after this conversation with Officer Waddell, Lieutenant Smith advised that he had not
had any conversation with Officer Waddell and he had not given Waddell permission to be
late for the overtime shift.
AI -13-005P
During the investigation regarding Officer Waddell listed above, another incident involving
Officer Waddell was brought to the attention of Captain Storton. Once this information was
discovered, an investigation into this other incident was initiated. This incident took place
on February 22nd 2013. Officer Waddell was at the scene of a traffic collision as part of the
Accident Reconstruction Team. While on scene, Officer Waddell borrowed a screwdriver
from the tow truck driver who had responded to tow the vehicle. Officer Waddell was seen
removing parts from the wrecked Bentley that were not part of the investigative or collection
of evidence process. Officer Waddell was observed doing this by several officers, including
Sergeant Pfarr. Sergeant Pfarr confronted Officer Waddell about his actions and Officer
Waddell informed Sergeant Pfarr that he had removed the parts as a joke on Sergeant Pfarr.
Waddell returned the parts to the vehicle.
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 56
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
The following are the recommended findings against Officer Waddell determined by
Lieutenants Bledsoe AI -13-004P and Proll AI -13005P:
Allegation #1: Officer Waddell violated San Luis Obispo Rules and Regulations
Standard of Conduct section IV. I "A Department employee shall not knowingly or
willfully make a false verbal statement or give false information to a Department supervisor
or investigator."
SUSTAINED
Officer Waddell provided false statements to Sergeant Pfarr. Lieutenant Bledsoe found
overwhelming evidence that Officer Waddell provided false statements to Sergeant Pfarr
both by text message and in person after he was confronted about being late for a CAT
overtime shift on October 19th 2013. Officer Waddell also provided false statements
regarding this incident to Lieutenant Bledsoe during the Administrative Inquiry of this
incident. The evidence supports a conclusion that Officer Waddell intended to deceive
Sergeant Pfarr and that he continued the deception regarding this matter while being
questioned by Lieutenant Bledsoe in a formal investigation.
Allegation #2: Officer Waddell violated San Luis Obispo Rules and Regulations
Standard of Conduct section III. "Employees of the Department shall be punctual in
reporting for duty at the time and place designated by their supervising officer."
SUSTAINED
Officer Waddell arrived late for a scheduled overtime shift without permission to do so.
Lieutenant Bledsoe determined that Officer Waddell did not have permission to arrive late
for the scheduled overtime shift on October 19th 2013. That conclusion is supported by
Officer Waddell's own statements and admissions during the investigation.
Allegation #3: Officer Waddell violated San Luis Obispo Rules and Regulation
Standard of Conduct section IV -I which states in part "Department employees shall
not conduct themselves in a manner that reflects adversely on the Department, or
which discredits the Department, or is detrimental or damaging to the reputation or
professional image of the Department"
SUSTAINED
Officer Waddell intentionally removed non -evidence related vehicle parts from an accident
scene in front of other officers and the tow truck driver. This action created the impression
that Officer Waddell was stealing parts from a wrecked vehicle with officers and the tow
truck driver present. Officer Waddell only returned the parts after Sergeant Pfarr confronted
him on the issue and Officer Waddell attempted to deceive his supervising officer regarding
his actions by characterizing his actions as a joke, once confronted.
Allegation #4: Officer Waddell engaged in conduct that he knew or reasonably should
have known violated California Vehicle Code section 10852 which states in part "No
person shall either individually or in association with one or more other persons,
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 57
willfully injure or tamper with any vehicle or the contents thereof or break or remove
any part of a vehicle without the consent of the owner."
SUSTAINED
Officer Waddell is trained in the investigation of vehicle collisions as part of his official
duties for the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department. As such he is charged with
knowledge of the Vehicle Code and standards of professional conduct in accident
investigation. While representing the City in performing his official duties, Officer Waddell
engaged in conduct that he knew or reasonably should have known violated this Vehicle
Code Section by removing parts from a vehicle without the permission of the owner of the
vehicle and for no investigative purpose.
RECOMMENDATION:
AI -13-004P
In reviewing Lieutenant Bledsoe's investigation, I agree with his findings that Officer
Waddell provided false information to Sergeant Pfarr in regards to a scheduled overtime
shift he arrived late for on October 19th 2013. Additionally the evidence supports the
assertion that and that Officer Waddell provided false statements to Lieutenant Bledsoe
during the Administrative Inquiry into the incident after his acknowledgement of his
obligation to be truthful in answering questions. I also agree with the determination that
Waddell was late for his scheduled overtime shift on October 19th without permission.
The evidence supports the conclusion that Officer Waddell intended to deceive Sergeant
Pfarr regarding his permission to arrive late for his scheduled shift by stating that he had
received permission from Lieutenant Smith the day prior allowing him to be late. I agree
with Lieutenant Bledsoe's conclusion that Waddell knowingly and willfully provided false
statements to Sergeant Pfarr and that Officer Waddell has continued to provide false
statements to Lieutenant Bledsoe during the investigation.
AI -13-005P
In reviewing Lieutenant Proll's Administrative Inquiry it appears that Officer Waddell's was
initially dismissed as being a bad practical joke with no subsequent administrative
investigation. At the time of this incident, Sergeant Pfarr had only been a supervisor for
three weeks. However, when Sergeant Pfarr became aware of Officer Waddell's false
statements referenced in AI -13-004P, it prompted him to reconsider whether the prior
incident was a joke or a breach of ethics and the law.
Sgt. Pfarr shared these concerns with Capt. Storton and the referenced investigation was
initiated on December 20th, 2013 and was subsequently assigned to Lt. Proll. I agree with
Lieutenant Proll's findings that Officer Waddell removed vehicle parts from a vehicle
involved in a collision without the permission of the owner of the vehicle or for investigative
purposes. This was not perceived by those present as a "practical joke" played on Sergeant
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 58
Pfarr and there is no evidence beyond Officer Waddell's own statements that it was, in fact,
a practical joke.
During Lieutenant Proll's investigation none of the officers interviewed recalled any
conversation with Waddell about his actions being a joke. Waddell claimed in his statement
that he spoke to Officer Benson and assured him that he had no intention of taking anything.
Benson was convinced that Waddell had every intention of taking the car part for personal
gain and stated he would classify it as theft. Benson said he could not understand how this
incident could be a joke and he assumed that Waddell had been written up for the incident.
Officer Kevany stated that taking the emblem from the vehicle was "definitely not" a joke
being played on Sergeant Pfarr. She also went on to say that this was the first time she heard
of this situation being referred to as a practical joke on Pfarr.
Officer Cudworth stated during his interview that "if he had seen Waddell taking something
from the car he would not have thought it to be a practical joke". Cudworth stated further
that he had not heard the practical joke theory until his interview with Lieutenant Proll.
Regardless of whether Officer Waddell's actions were intended to be a joke, he engaged in
conduct that constitutes a violation of the California Vehicle Code, the provisions of which
he either knew or reasonably should have known.
During the interview with Sean Brady, the tow truck driver, he did not recall any
conversation regarding removal of parts from the vehicle or anyone explaining why they
would have removed any of the parts despite Officer Waddell's comments implying he had.
This again calls into question Officer Waddell's integrity and constitutes a clear ethical
breach which, in context, suggests a pattern of dishonesty, lack of accountability and poor
judgment that cannot be tolerated in a police officer.
Due to Officer Waddell's intentional and repeated dishonesty when questioned by
supervisors, lack of accountability and attempts to minimize his wrongful conduct in both
investigations and the actions in violation of the Vehicle Code in the second investigation I
recommend the disciplinary action of termination, for cause; severing Officer Waddell's
employment as a police officer for the City of San Luis Obispo, in accordance with section
2.36.290 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 59
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 60
Illl?Ill; ,
7
l
Memorandum
Service, Pride, Integrity"
March 3, 2014
To: Chief Gesell
Via: Captain Staley
From: Lieutenant Bledsoe
city of san tuts oBispo
Police Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
Subject: False Statements by Officer Waddell to a Supervisor
INTRODUCTION:
Sergeant Chad Pfarr reported that Officer Kevin Waddell provided false statements to
him regarding coming in late for his overtime work assignment on October 19th, 2013. 1
was assigned this to investigate these allegations by Captain Keith Storton.
INTERVIEWS
The persons listed below were interviewed chronologically, independently of one
another.
1. Sergeant Chad Pfarr
2. Lieutenant Jeff Smith
3. Detective Adam Stahnke
4. Officer Kevin Waddell
5. Lieutenant Jeff Smith (Re -Interview)
Sergeant Chad Pfarr (Re -Interview)
7. Shannon Freeby (Manager of Central Coast Dance Academy)
SYNOPSIS:
On Monday October 28th, 2013 Captain Storton assigned me this Administrative Inquiry
involving Officer Kevin Waddell. This case involves a verbal, and text messaging
conversation between Officer Waddell and Sergeant Chad Pfarr on October 19th, 2013.
The allegations against Officer Waddell are that he made false statements to Sergeant
Pfarr when asked about coming in late for an assigned overtime shift. The allegations
include that Officer Waddell told Sergeant Pfarr he had received prior approval by
Lieutenant Smith that he could come in late for his overtime shift. Officer Waddell
communicated this information to Sergeant Pfarr in text messages on their cellular
phones, and later in person in Sergeant Pfarr's office. Sergeant Pfarr later spoke with
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 61
city of San LUIS OBlspo
Police Department
Lieutenant Smith who told him he had not given Officer Waddell permission to arrive
late for work.
Officer Waddell was scheduled to work a CAT overtime assignment on October 19tH
2013 from 1100- 1600 hours. Sergeant Chad Pfarr knew Officer Waddell was scheduled
to work this shift and found Waddell had not arrived to work at his scheduled time.
Sergeant Pfarr sent Officer Waddell a text message asking if he was still planning to
work this overtime shift. Officer Waddell responded with returned text messages stating
he had cleared coming in late (1130 hours) with Lieutenant Smith "yesterday," on
October 18tH
Sergeant Pfarr later spoke with Lieutenant Smith who told him he had not spoken with
Officer Waddell regarding the overtime assignment, and had not approved him coming
to work late.
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS:
The following are the allegations against Officer Waddell:
1
Officer Waddell provided false statements to Sergeant Chad Pfarr. If sustained, this
allegation would constitute a violation of San Luis Obispo Rules -and Regulations
Standard of Conduct section IV. I- which states in part, "A Department employee shall
not knowingly or willfully make a false verbal statement or give false information to a
Department Supervisor or Investigator."
Recommended finding: Sustained
2
Officer Waddell failed to report for duty in a punctual manner. If sustained, this
allegation would constitute a violation of San Luis Obispo Rules and Regulations
Standard of Conduct section III. B- which states in part, "Employees of the
department shall be punctual in reporting for duty at the time and place designated by
their supervising officer. Any inability to comply with these instructions shall be reported
by the employee to the department prior to the time set for reporting.
Recommended Finding: Sustained
Violations of City policies and Department Rules and Regulations are cause for
Disciplinary action per Municipal Code Section 2.36.320.
PAWaddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 62
My QF san Luis ompo
Police Department
EVIDENCE AS TO EACH ALLEGATION:
Interview with Sergeant Chad Pfarr:
On November 15th, 2013 1 interviewed Sergeant Pfarr regarding the allegations against
Officer Kevin Waddell. Sergeant Pfarr told me that on October 19th, 2013 he was
working as the day watch patrol Field Supervisor. He said shortly after 1100 hours he
realized he had not been contacted by anyone to get equipment form the downstairs
locker to work the CAT overtime assignment. He knew Officer Waddell and Detective
Stahnke had signed up for the overtime shift which was to begin at 1100 hours.
Sergeant Pfarr knew this because he spoke with Detective Stahnke on the evening of
October 18th, when Stahnke said he would see him tomorrow. At that time Stahnke told
Sergeant Pfarr he would be working the overtime shift with Officer Waddell on the 19tH
Sergeant Pfarr explained to me that he intended on speaking with Officer Wadde'll about
him being late to work the previous week on Saturday October 12th. He said on October
12tH, Officer Waddell was assigned to work another CAT overtime shift form 1100-1600
hours. He said Officer Waddell showed up to work 20 minutes late and left
approximately 15 minutes early on that date. He intended to address this issue with
Waddell when he -arrived to work on the 19th for this overtime shift.
Believing that Officer Waddell and Detective Stahnke were scheduled to work from
1100-1600 hours, Sergeant Pfarr then checked the Speed Shift schedule and found the
overtime had not been entered for October 19th. Sergeant Pfarr then called Lieutenant
Jeff Smith to confirm whether or not the overtime had been cancelled or just not entered
into Speed Shift. Pfarr said Lieutenant Smith did not answer his phone so he left him a
message to call him back.
At approximately 1111 hours, Sergeant Pfarr sent Officer Waddell a text message
asking if he was still coming into work today. A short time later he received a text
response from Officer Waddell saying he was on his way in, and he had worked it out
with Lieutenant Smith. Sergeant Pfarr said the response Waddell sent him was not
clear as it appeared to have "typos". Sergeant Pfarr sent another text to Waddell
stating that his text made no sense, and to come and see him when he arrives at work.
Sergeant Pfarr then received another text from Officer Waddell stating, that he had
spoken with Lieutenant Smith yesterday about coming in at 1130 hours. He told
Sergeant Pfarr that Lieutenant Smith authorized him coming in late. (Sergeant Pfarr
photocopied the text message exchange between him and Officer Waddell which are
included in this case file.)
Sergeant Pfarr said as he was text messaging with Officer Waddell, he met with
Detective Stahnke in the hallway outside the Sergeants office. Detective Stahnke told
Sergeant Pfarr he had received a text message from Officer Waddell earlier, who told
him he will be about 30 minutes late.
3Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 63
city of san suis ompo
Police Department
Sergeant Pfarr said at approximately 1135/1140 hours Officer Waddell came into his
office. He said Waddell verbally told him in affect, "I talked to Lieutenant Smith
yesterday, we talked in the locker room and I told him my daughter had a dance
function." He said Officer Waddell told him Lieutenant Smith authorized him to come in
30 minutes late so he could attend his daughter's dance function.
After speaking with Officer Waddell, Sergeant Pfarr said Lieutenant Smith returned his
phone call. Sergeant Pfarr initially told Lieutenant Smith, "Everything has been taken
care of." He then explained to Lieutenant Smith about the conversation he had with
Officer Waddell, and that he had cleared him to come in late for his shift. At this time
Lieutenant Smith told Sergeant Pfarr he had never had that conversation with Officer
Waddell and did not authorize him to come in late. Lieutenant Smith eglained to
Sergeant Pfarr he had seen Officer Waddell in the locker room on October 18t , but they
had no conversation about coming in late for work. Lieutenant Smith had no knowledge
about Officer Waddell's daughter's dance function.
After Sergeant Pfarr spoke with Lieutenant Smith he believed Officer Waddell had "lied"
to him. Sergeant Pfarr said he again spoke with Officer Waddell after talking with
Lieutenant Smith. He said he informed Waddell of the conversation he had with
Lieutenant Smith. He told Waddell that the information he had given him_ regarding
Lieutenant Smith authorizing him to come in late was not accurate. He told Waddell
that Lieutenant Smith would be contacting him at a- later time. Sergeant Pfarr -said
Officer Waddell then told him he "was sorry, he didn't mean to." Sergeant Pfarr said he
cut Waddell off and told him he should not say anything at this point. Sergeant Pfarr
again spoke with Lieutenant Smith and agreed that he would submit a memorandum
regarding Officer Waddell's dis-honesty.
Interview with Lieutenant Jeff Smith:
On November 15th, 2013 at approximately 0923 hours I spoke with Lieutenant Smith
regarding this Administrative Inquiry. Lieutenant Smith told me on Saturday October
19 h,
he received a message on his cellular phone voice mail from Sergeant Pfarr. He
said Sergeant Pfarr was asking about whether a CAT overtime shift for October 19th had
been cancelled. Lieutenant Smith believes he returned Sergeant Pfarr's call about 30
minutes later.
Lieutenant Smith said Sergeant Pfarr initially told him the he had "already worked it out."
Sergeant Pfarr then explained to him he spoke with Officer Waddell about getting
permission to come in late for his CAT overtime shift. Sergeant Pfarr told Lieutenant
Smith that Waddell explained to him (Lt. Smith) he wanted to attend his daughter's
dance recital and asked if he could come in at 1130 hours instead of 1100 hours on
October 19th. Officer Waddell told Sergeant Pfarr he was given permission byLieutenantSmithonOctober18thwhileinthelockerroom. Lieutenant Smith told
Sergeant Pfarr he had "never had that conversation with Waddell, nor did he give him
permission to have time off."
MWaddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 64
city of san lues ompo
Police Department
Lieutenant Smith said Sergeant Pfarr seemed upset and indicated Officer Waddell had
lied to him. At this point Lieutenant Smith did not know if there had been a
misunderstanding or miscommunication between Sergeant Pfarr and Officer Waddell.
He said Sergeant Pfarr called him back later in the day and they agreed that Pfarr
should submit a memorandum regarding this situation. Lieutenant Smith said Sergeant
Pfarr felt as though Officer Waddell "blatantly lied to him."
I asked Lieutenant Smith if he spoke with Officer Waddell in the locker room on October
18th. Lieutenant Smith told me on October 18th, at the end of his shift he did go into the
locker room to change. He said he did see Officer Waddell sitting in front of his own
locker, and appeared to be getting ready for work. Lieutenant Smith said- Officer
Waddell was still dressed in his street clothes and it looked like he was texting on his
phone. He said Officer Waddell said, "hi to me as I walked in." Lieutenant Smith said
Officer Waddell appeared to be texting on his phone the entire time he was in the locker
room with him. He said as he finished changing and started to leave Waddell then
made a phone call. Lieutenant Smith told me the entire conversation between him and
Officer Waddell was, "no more than a greeting as I walked in the door."
Lieutenant Smith told me Officer Waddell never asked him about coming in late for his
shift on October 19th. He said Waddell, "never talked about the shift, never mentioned
anything about a daughter's recital or anything like that." Lieutenant Smith denied he
ever had a conversation with Officer Waddell, or gave him permission to come in late for
his CAT overtime shift on October 19th, 2013.
Lieutenant Smith told me on Monday morning October 21St, 2013 Officer Waddell came
in to his office and asked to talk with him. He said Waddell entered his office and shut
the door. Prior to Officer Waddell saying anything, Lieutenant Smith advised him that
Sergeant Pfarr had submitted a memorandum regarding this incident. Lieutenant Smith
told Waddell it would be best not to say anything at this point, and anything he said was
not privileged. Waddell told Lieutenant Smith he understood but still wanted to talk with
him. He told Lieutenant Smith he, "wanted to get something off his chest, and was
willing to accept the consequences that were to follow regarding the incident."
Lieutenant Smith said Officer Waddell told him, "It was kind of a misunderstanding."
Waddell told him he was driving to work at the time he was texting and, "Sergeant Pfarr
misinterpreted his texts." Lieutenant Smith told me he had not reviewed the text
messages between Sergeant Pfarr and Officer Waddell and did not ask Officer Waddell
any questions.
Lieutenant Smith was aware that Sergeant Pfarr and Officer Waddell had a verbal
conversation in the Sergeant's office after their text messaging exchange on October19th.
He was also aware Officer Waddell verbally told Sergeant Pfarr he had the
conversation in the locker room giving him permission to come in late for his shift.
Lieutenant Smith told me this was disturbing to him because he had never had this
conversation with Officer Waddell. He said while Officer Waddell explained to him the
EWaddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 65
crty of san Luis owspo
Police Department
misunderstanding" in the text messages, he never mentioned the face to face
conversation he had with Sergeant Pfarr in the Sergeant's office.
Interview with Detective Adam Stahnke:
On November 18, 2013 1 interviewed Detective Stahnke regarding this Administrative
Inquiry. Detective Stahnke worked the CAT overtime shift with Officer Waddell on
October 19th, 2013. He told me his shift began at 1100 hours and was scheduled to
work until 1600 hours. Detective Stahnke said approximately 45 minutes to an hour
prior to his shift he received a text message from Officer Waddell informing him he was
going to be later. Waddell told Detective Stahnke he would be in no later than 1130
hours. Stahnke responded by texting Officer Waddell back, telling him he would be
there by 1100 hours.
Approximately 5 to 10 minutes prior to 1100 hours, Detective Stahnke said he met with
Sergeant Pfarr in the upstairs hallway. He said Sergeant Pfarr asked him if he had
seen Officer Waddell. Stahnke told Sergeant Pfarr he had received a text message
from Waddell saying he was going to be late for his shift. Detective Stahnke said he
believes Officer Waddell arrived to work at approximately 1115 to 1120 hours. He said
Waddell had told him he was " pulled into the Sergeant's office in regards to being late
for the shift."
Sometime after they went -to work, Detective Stahnke said he had spoken with Waddell
about him being late for his shift. He said Officer Waddell told him he had "permission,
or previously spoken to Lieutenant Smith about being late for shifts by a few minutes
due to scheduling with his wife, or something along those lines." Waddell told Stahnke
he had spoken to Lieutenant Smith on an earlier date regarding being late for this shift.
Stahnke said he was "unsure of the time range or if it was specific to that date," but
Waddell said he had permission to be a few minutes late.
Detective Stahnke said he was not present when Officer Waddell spoke with Lieutenant
Smith about coming in late. He never heard any conversations between Sergeant Pfarr
and Officer Waddell regarding coming into work late. I asked Detective Stahnke if he
recalled speaking with Sergeant Pfarr on October 18th, and telling him he would "see
you tomorrow." Stahnke doesn't recall that conversation.
Interview with Officer Kevin Waddell:
On December 12th, 2013 at approximately 1533 hours, I began my interview with Officer
Waddell in the interview room across from the Human Resources office at 990 Palm.
Officer Waddell was represented by his Attorney Alison Berry Wilkinson. Assisting me
during the interview was Sergeant Kurt Hixenbaugh. I read to Officer Waddell the
interview admonition along with his Constitutional Rights. Officer Waddell invoked his
rights and chose not to speak with me. At this time I ordered Officer Waddell to answer
my questions related to this inquiry per Lybarger vs. City of Los Angeles. Officer
ConWaddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 66
city of San WAS OBISPO
Police Department
Waddell said he understood his rights in this matter and signed the Interview Record
form.
Officer Waddell told me on October 19th, 2013 he was signed up to work an overtime
assignment as part of the Community Action Team (CAT). Waddell said he signed up
for this overtime in advance and was aware that the hours for this assignment were
from 1100- 1600 hours. He told me he did not arrive for work on time that day because
he brought his daughters to their ballet class in Grover Beach. Waddell said the class
was from 1000-1100 hours and he stayed there until his wife was able to pick up their
daughters after the class had ended.
I asked Officer Waddell if he notified anyone he would be late for his overtime CAT
assignment and he said he did. Waddell said his partner for that day was Detective
Adam Stahnke. He told me he sent Stahnke a text message telling him he was, "going
to be in late." Waddell told me Stahnke was the only person he notified that he was
going to be late -that day.
I asked Waddell if he received a text message sometime after 1100 hours from
Sergeant Pfarr. Waddell said he did receive a text from Sergeant Pfarr. I asked what
the text message said and he told me, "He asked me if I was coming in." Waddell told
me he responded to Pfarr's text but he didn't remember exactly what words he used.
He said it was something to the effect of, "on my way in, and that Smith has approved
it." I showed Waddell copies of the text messages that Sergeant Pfarr had provided me
and read them aloud to him. Waddell recalled that was the text conversation he had
with Sergeant Pfarr.
I asked Waddell it there were typos in his first response and he said, "There wasn't a
typo, I was driving at the time I sent that message, so I wasn't able to accurately say
what I fully meant." Waddell then stated, "my intention with that message was to say
that I worked out previous shift adjustments with Lieutenant Smith and that was my
intention was with coming in late today was to just adjust the hours and still work the full
complement of hours."
I then read to Waddell the second text message that he sent to Sergeant Pfarr.
Waddell stated, "Yes that's what I texted, but again that message is not what my
intention was. My intention in that message was that I had actually talked to him
Smith) yesterday but not that I seeked approval for coming in late on this day." He
continued, "My intention that there should be, it's all one- sentence, but there really
should be a separation there. I basically talked with him yesterday and that I'm coming
in at 1130. My intention again, I was driving and I wasn't really focused on explaining
myself properly. I don't think I explained myself properly in what I was trying to convey
in that message." Waddell told me he, "didn't seek permission for this particular day."
Waddell continued to state, "my explanation that I was trying to convey in the text
message was that I had permission in the past, and so that this message was me trying
to convey that I've had permission before so I thought it would be okay if I just came in a
7Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 67
city o f san lues owpo
Police Department
little bit late for the shift. I notified my partner." He then said, "Looking back now the
messages in black and white it's easy for me to see that was not my place to do that but
I know that this that was my intention at the time. My thought process at the time was to
try and convey that I had approval before but I didn't think today was going to be a big
deal."
I asked Waddell if he spoke with Sergeant Pfarr in the sergeant's office when he arrived
to work and he said he did. Waddell told me when speaking with Pfarr this first time, he
didn't remember exactly what words or phrasing he used. He told Sergeant Pfarr that
he had approval from Lieutenant Smith before. Waddell said, "what I conveyed to him
was probably that I got permission for this incident, but 1 don't remember what the
conversation was in detail, of what I would have said to him or how I worded things."
I then asked Officer Waddell directly, "Did you tell Sergeant Pfarr that you spoke with
Lieutenant Smith in the locker room the day before, on the 18th?" Waddell said, "Yeah, I
told. him that I talked to Lieutenant, I saw -Lieutenant Smith in the -locker room." I then
asked him, "Did you tell Sergeant Pfarr that Lieutenant Smith gave you permission to
come in late so that you could attend your daughter's dance recital?" Waddell stated, "I
don't, I don't, I can see, I don't, I don't think I expressed it that way." Waddell continued,
I felt like my expression was trying to be was that I saw him yesterday and I was trying
to say that I thought it would be okay based on other situations, and I don't think I
explained myself well enough to him in that situation." Waddell continued answering
this question by stating, "I didn't say to him that he gave me permission for that day. I
said that Smith's okay with me coming in late, I think that's how I said it, Smith's okay
with me coming in late." Waddell then stated, "I said I talked to him. I saw him in the
locker room yesterday and he's okay with me coming in late. I believe that's how I
worded it." Waddell also said, "I can easily see how that would be my implication that
he gave me specific permission for that day."
Officer Waddell told me he believes he told Sergeant Pfarr he was at his daughter's
dance recital. He also told me there would have not been the opportunity the day
before because the situation arose that morning. He said that's why he texted Detective
Stahnke about it that morning.
Officer Waddell told me he could have done a better job in conveying the message to
Sergeant Pfarr. He said he felt that Pfarr was upset with him that morning. He told me
he was nervous when speaking with Pfarr and didn't explain himself well enough.
Waddell said he realized he should have notified Sergeant Pfarr about coming in late.
I asked Waddell if Lieutenant Smith has given him permission on prior dates to come in
late and he said, "Yes." He said he could think of at least two times where he could get
off early. He said, "So rather than leave at 4, be get off at 3:30." 1 asked Waddell if he
thought it was a "Blanket Statement" by Lieutenant Smith that he could come in late all
the time. Waddell stated, "That's kind of the way I construed the situation. I think that's
my mistake in overstepping my bounds of taking that upon myself and making a poor
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 68
My of, san Luis oaispo
Police Department
decision that that would be okay." He said the schedule for the CAT overtime has been
consistently flexible in the past.
I asked Officer Waddell if he thought Sergeant Pfarr was making up his story. Waddell
said, "I'm not saying that he's making that up. That could very well be what he thought
he heard. I (stuttering) don't remember exactly what I said, and I don't remember the
exact words that I said, I don't believe that that would have been something that I would
have said in that kind of situation." He continued, "I think that something I would have
said in a situation like that would have been just that, something that was vague. That I
said that I am gonna, he, I, I, he's okay with me coming in late." Waddell told me he,
saw Lieutenant -Smith the morning before on the 18th in the locker room and he's okay
with me coming in. That's what I recall saying specifically." Waddell said of his
conversation with Sergeant Pfarr, "my intention was not to mislead him, I felt like I
poorly communicated what I meant."
I asked Officer Waddell if he had a second conversation with Sergeant Pfarr that day in
the sergeant's office and he said he did. He told me Sergeant Pfarr called him in and
told him he had spoken with Lieutenant Smith. He said Sergeant Pfarr told him, "I don't
want you to talk, I'm pissed off, he's (Smith) pissed off, and you lied to me." Pfarr told
him he didn't get permission by Lieutenant Smith to come in late. Pfarr did not ask any
questions of Waddell at that time. Waddell simply said, "Okay."
I asked Officer Waddell if he had a conversation with Lieutenant Smith in the locker
room on October 18th, and he said, "No." He said he did see him in the locker room that
day but they did not have a conversation. I asked him again if he told Sergeant Pfarr
that he had a conversation with Lieutenant Smith in the locker room and he said, "I think
I said I might have talked to him, but we exchanged pleasantries. I mean we didn't have
a conversation. Might of said hi, how's it going, but no conversation." Waddell told me
he did not ask Lieutenant Smith for permission to come in late the following day on the19thofOctober.
On Monday October 21St, Waddell went to Lt. Smith's office and said he just wanted to
talk to him about what happened. Waddell stated, "I wanted to clear the air and get in
front of what happened." He said to Lieutenant Smith, "I recognized the mistakes I
made in that situation and I want you to know what my intentions were." I asked
Waddell to clarify his "mistakes." He said, "I felt like I misinterpreted and overstepped,
misinterpreted being misinterpreted the permissions that he's given in the past by then
overstepping my position of approval of coming in late."
I asked Waddell if he told Lieutenant Smith that he "wanted to get something off my
chest." Waddell stated, "I, that's that's, (stuttering) if I said something like that and he
recalls that, that's not some verbiage that I would want to use." Waddell said his
intention was to express to Lieutenant Smith he wanted to "get in front of something,"
and wanted him to know where he was coming from. He remembers telling Lieutenant
Smith at that time, where he was on the 19th, and the reason behind him needing to be
late for work. Waddell said he told Lieutenant Smith that he, "overstepped his
0Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 69
city of san Luis oeispo
Police Department
interpretation, his permission in the past and he knew he wasn't given permission for
this day and he misinterpreted the time from before in doing that." He again stated he
should have notified Sergeant Pfarr about being late.
I asked Waddell if he made the comment to Lieutenant Smith, "you were willing to
accept the consequences that are to follow?" Waddell said, "I believe I did say that, I
believe I take responsibility for what I've done." Waddell said the mistakes he made
were by not making the proper notifications for coming into work late. He said he
should not have taken it upon himself that he could come in late.
I asked- Officer Waddell, "Kevin, did you knowingly or willfully make false statements to
Sergeant Pfarr regarding getting permission to come in late for your shift on the 19th?"
Waddell stated, "That was not my intention at all. If the words and the way I chose to
say things, that's what Sergeant Pfarr took from it, that's my mistake for not explaining
myself better, not being more clear. My intention was not to explain to him that I had
sought permission the day before, I told you here that I didn't get permission on the 18th
from Lieutenant Smith. It was a situation that arose on the 19th which needed me to
come in late. My intention was never to mislead Sergeant Pfarr in a text message or in
person."
At this point, Ms. Wilkinson -interjected by telling Officer Waddell what the question was.
She stated, "I take it from your answer that's a no." I then re -read the question to
Waddell and he stated, "No."
I went back to questioning Waddell about his text messages with Sergeant Pfarr. I
confronted him about the messages that appeared to explain clearly that he had
received permission from Lieutenant Smith on the 18th to come in late for work on the
19th. He explained again that it was not his "intention." He said, "Specifically with the
message is that I was driving so I'm not accurately explaining myself. In this message I
could have put more periods in there." He used the example of putting in a period after
the word "yesterday." He again went back to getting permission in the past from
Lieutenant Smith.
Sergeant Hixenbaugh asked Officer Waddell why he would mention to Sergeant Pfarr
that he even saw Lieutenant Smith in the locker room the day before, "if not to imply that
he gave him permission." (Ms. Wilkinson clarified the question) Waddell answered, "I
think it was just that that was the last time that I had saw him."
I asked Officer Waddell, "Kevin, have you been truthful in answering all my questions
here today?" Waddell said, "I have tried to be very truthful." I asked, "You've tried, but
have you?" Waddell said, "Yes, yes I want to be cooperative and helpful and honest
with all the things in my recollection of what happened."
I asked Officer Waddell if he had any questions or wanted to make a closing statement.
Waddell just wanted to reiterate what he said this afternoon in this interview. He said he
felt as though he "misinterpreted being given permission in the past by Lieutenant
10Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 70
city o, san Luis oaispo
Police Department
Smith." He said his intention was, "never to mislead Sergeant Pfarr or lie to him or
provide false information to him." Waddell felt that he "under explained himself," and
realized he should have notified the watch commander about coming in late for work.
Re -interview with Lieutenant Smith:
On December 12, 2013 1 re -interviewed Lieutenant Smith in his office. I clarified with
Lieutenant Smith that on October 18th, 2013 he saw Officer Waddell in the locker room
as he was changing out at the end of his shift. Lieutenant Smith confirmed he did not
give Waddell permission to come in late for his overtime CAT shift on October 19th
I asked Lieutenant Smith if he has ever given Officer Waddell permission to either come
in late or leave early from a CAT shift. Lieutenant Smith said he has given Waddell
permission in the past but could not recall any specific dates or times. Smith said he
never gave Waddell a "blanket statement" that he could come and go when he pleases.
Smith said, "That -would be contradictory to what I have told these guys." He said he
has sent out emails to officers working these shifts that this was not a flexible shift. The
hours are from 1100- 1600 hours." Smith said, "That's when officers are expected to be
there."
Lieutenant Smith said Sergeant Pfarr had brought it to his attention he was concerned
about Officer Waddell. Pfarr said Waddell would regularly show up late and leave early
from his overtime shifts. Lieutenant Smith instructed Sergeant Pfarr to monitor and
address any issues with Waddell in this area.
Re -interview with Sergeant Pfarr:
On December 13th, 2013 1 re -interviewed Sergeant Pfarr in my office. I confirmed with
Sergeant Pfarr the exchange of text messaging between him and Officer Waddell on
October 19th. When Officer Waddell came into see him shortly after he arrived to work
on October 19th, he said Waddell appeared to be acting somewhat normal but maybe a
little nervous. Pfarr said Waddell, "reiterated what apparently had taken place between
he and Lieutenant Smith in the locker room the night before which would have been the
18tH »
I asked Sergeant Pfarr what he recalled Waddell specifically telling him regarding beinglateforwork. Pfarr told me, "He said his daughter had some sort of dance event,
recital, practice, or something to that nature. It was the first one for the season and he
wanted to be able to attend that prior to coming in to work." "So he had seen Lieutenant
Smith in the locker room as Lieutenant Smith was leaving for the day on the 18th, and
asked if he could come in 30 minutes late for his scheduled CAT shift." Sergeant Pfarr
said Waddell had told him Lieutenant Smith had given him permission to come in late
for this specific overtime assignment.
Sergeant Pfarr said he intended on addressing Waddell's prior tardiness issues when
he first came into his office, but decided not to since Detective Stahnke had already
11Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 71
My of san tuts ompo
Police Department
been waiting 45 minutes for Waddell to arrive. After finding out from Lieutenant Smith
that Waddell had not gotten permission to come in late for this shift, he called Waddell
back into his office. Pfarr said it was approximately 1230 hours at that point. Pfarr told
me he was upset at Waddell during this meeting because he believed Waddell had
deliberately lied to him. He said when he met with Waddell in his office the second
time, Waddell appeared nervous. He told Waddell that he had spoken to Lieutenant
Smith and believed he had lied to him. Pfarr told Waddell not to say anything, and that
Lieutenant Smith would be talking to him at a later time.
On 12-20-13, at approximately 0945 hours I again interviewed Sergeant Pfarr in my
office. I asked Sergeant Pfarr if he was aware of any other days prior to October 19tH
2013 where Officer Waddell had arrived late to work. Pfarr told me, "Yes, three times
including the 19th." Sergeant Pfarr could not remember the specific dates but said he
did call Officer Waddell approximately one month prior to the 19th. He said on this
occasion he realized Waddell was 20 to 30 minutes late for his assigned CAT overtime
shift so he called him on his cellular phone. Pfarr said Waddell told him he had -forgot to
get gas which put him behind schedule. He said Waddell apologized and said he didn't
realize how late it was. Waddell did not notify Sergeant Pfarr prior to this phone call.
Sergeant Pfarr said he had discussed Officer Waddell's tardiness issues with Lieutenant
Smith. He -said they checked Waddell's time cards and found he was putting in 4Y2
hours of overtime for these CAT assignments which were consistent with the hours he
was working. Sergeant Pfarr said Waddell had never notified him in advance of coming
into work late. Pfarr also told me he has no knowledge of Officer Waddell ever notifying
any other supervisors of coming into work late.
Sergeant Pfarr said he had discussed Officer Waddell's tardiness issues with Lieutenant
Smith when they recognized it was a pattern. He said they agreed that Sergeant Pfarr
was intending on addressing these issues with Officer Waddell on October 19tH
Interview with Shannon Freebv:
On Friday February 28th,
2014 1 spoke with Shannon Freeby who is the Manager of the
Central Coast Dance Academy located at 1030 Huston #C, in the City of Grover Beach,
Ca. (440-8123) 1 asked Freeby if their studio kept records of attendance for dance
practices and rehearsals. Freeby told me they did keep a record of class rosters of
attendance. I asked if she had the attendance roster for Saturday October 19th, 2013
for a class from 1000 to 1100 hours. Freeby provided me a copy of the attendance
rosters for that date.
On the rosters I saw that both Officer Waddell's daughters, So hia and Ava, were
checked as being present for dance class on Saturday October 19t , from 1000 to 1100
hours. Their names were hand written on the bottom portion of the rosters. I asked
Freeby if she knew who may of dropped off the Waddell girls at dance practice that
morning. Freeby said they do not keep record of that activity and she had no way ofknowingthatinformation. The studio has a high volume of students being picked up
12Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 72
city eF san Luis osispo
Police Department
and dropped off throughout the day and she could not tell me who brought the Waddell
girls to dance practice on that October morning. Freeby provided me copies of the
attendance roster for October 19th, 2013. That concluded my interview with Freeby.
During my interview with Officer Kevin Waddell on December 12th, 2013 he appeared to
be extremely nervous. I noticed he was perspiring, particularly on his upper lip and
forehead during almost the entire interview. When asked simple questions, Waddell
would have a difficult time answering with clear concise answers. He would frequently
stutter and ramble on without giving a clear response. He had a difficult time answering
questions directly with "yes or no" responses.
Throughout the interview Officer Waddell expressed that the messages he was trying to
get across were misinterpreted and poorly explained. On several occasions he stated
that he overstepped his interpretation of the permission that he had received from
Lieutenant Smith in the past regarding coming in late for work. When asked to clarify
the text messages which appear to give a clear meaning, Waddell stated he was driving
at the time and was not able to "accurately explain himself."
When responding to Sergeant Pfarr's first text message, it is clear that the structure of
the message is somewhat broken. However, it is clear that he "worked out ahead of one
with Lt. Smith." After Sergeant Pfarr responds that Waddell's message made no sense
he asks him to "stop by when you get here." This message did not ask for follow up
explanation or any return response. Officer Waddell took it upon himself to respond
with a clear text message indicating that he had, "talked to Smith yesterday about
coming in at 1130 he said fine no problem."
After arriving to work Officer Waddell responds to Sergeant Pfarr's office and further
explains to Sergeant Pfarr his reason for being late. Waddell describes how he spoke
with Lieutenant Smith in the locker room the day before and told him about his
daughter's dance event and asked to come in 30 minutes late the following day. When
asked specifically about his conversation with Sergeant Pfarr, as well as the text
messages, Waddell responded by saying that he could not remember exactly what he
said. He felt he did not explain himself well and his messages and words were
misinterpreted. He admitted to saying to Sergeant Pfarr at one point, "Smith's okay with
me coming in late." He tried to explain this by saying that Lieutenant Smith has given
him permission in the past so he felt it was okay this time as well.
Officer Waddell contradicted himself regarding his statement about his conversation
with Lieutenant Smith in the locker room on October 18th. When questioning him abouthisconversationwithSergeantPfarr, Waddell told me he said to Sergeant Pfarr, "I said
I talked to him, I saw him in the locker room yesterday and he's okay with me coming inlate. I believe that's how I worded it." When I asked Waddell if he had a conversation
with. Lieutenant Smith in the locker room on October 18th he said, "No." He did say they
exchanged pleasantries but did not have a conversation.
13Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 73
city of san tuis ompo
Police Department
During the course of this investigation I believe there is overwhelming evidence to show
that Officer Waddell knowingly and willfully provided false statements to Sergeant Chad
Pfarr. Officer Waddell provided this statement in text messages as well as verbally to
Sergeant Pfarr after responding to work late for a CAT overtime assignment. Officer
Waddell was late for his assigned shift without making proper notifications to
supervision. Sergeant Pfarr is also aware of two other occasions when Officer Waddell
arrived to work late without making proper notification to a supervisor. This conclusion is
based on the statements of all involved parties, as well as the text message exchange
between Officer Waddell and Sergeant Pfarr.
CONCLUSION• -
I recommend this case be forwarded to Captain Chris Staley for final disposition.
EXHIBITS -
1) Compact Disc with recorded interviews
2) Copy of Text Messages
3) Handwritten Notes
4) Dance Class Attendance Roster
14Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 74
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 75
t q
Memorandum
lAS
February 28, 2014
To: Chief Gesell
Via: Captain Staley
From: Lieutenant Proll
Subject: Administrative Inquiry Officer Waddell
INTRODUCTION:
1
qty of san Us ompo
Police Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
In December of 2013 Sergeant Pfarr reported to Captain Storton that Officer Waddell
removed a vehicle part from a vehicle while investigating a traffic accident in February
of 2013. It was also mentioned that Officer Waddell might have a collection of car parts
that he has taken from other accident scenes. I was assigned by Captain Storton to
investigate these allegations.
INTERVIEWS
The persons listed below were interviewed chronologically, independently of one
another.
1. College Towing Driver Sean Brady
2. Officer Josh Walsh
3. Officer Colleen Kevany
4. Officer Robert Cudworth
5. Sergeant Brian Amoroso
6. Officer George Berrios
7. Sergeant Janice Goodwin
8. Sergeant Chad Pfarr
9. Officer Kevin Waddell
10. Lieutenant John Bledsoe
11. Officer Greg Benson
12. Lieutenant Jeff Smith
1
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 76
1
emy of san tuis ompo
Police
Memorandum Department
sir—a;r` 1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
SYNOPSIS:
On December 20, 2013 Captain Storton assigned me this Administrative Inquiry
involving Officer Kevin Waddell. This case involves an allegation by Sergeant
Chad Pfarr that Officer Waddell removed a hubcap with a Bentley emblem from a
car during a traffic collision investigation that occurred on February 22, 2013.
Sergeant Pfarr initially accepted Officer Waddell's explanation that Waddell did
this as a joke. Pfarr instructed Waddell to put the hubcap back and the officer did
so. At the time, Pfarr was in his third week as a newly promoted probationary
sergeant and chose to verbally counsel Waddell for what Pfarr considered to be
an inappropriate joke. Pfarr did not initially notify his supervisor, Lieutenant
Smith, because he believed what Waddell did was an ill-conceived practical joke.
Pfarr did notify Smith months later when he began to consider that it might not
have been a joke based on Pfarr's observations of Waddell's work habits and
conduct subsequent to the incident in question. Pfarr later mentioned his
concerns to Captain Storton in December of 2013, while discussing details
regarding Al 13-004P, involving a separate instance of alleged dishonesty, which
made Officer Pfarr question whether the incident that is the subject of this Al was
indicative of a pattern of conduct warranting further inquiry. Based on this
discussion with Storton coupled with Pfarr's concerns in hindsight, an
Administrative Inquiry was initiated on December 20a', 2013.
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS:
The following are the allegations against Officer Waddell',
1
Conduct Detrimental to the Department
If sustained, this allegation would constitute a violation of San Luis Obispo
Rules and Regulations Standard of Conduct section IV. I- which states in
part, "Department employees shall not conduct themselves in a manner that
reflects adversely on the Department, or which discredits the Department, or is
detrimental or damaging to the reputation or professional image of the
Department.
2
Breaking or Removing Vehicle Parts
2
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 77
G' OF-pF
44
Memorandum
Ll
city of san Luis oBispo
Police
Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
10852 CVC: No person shall either individually or in association with one or
more other persons, willfully injure or tamper with any vehicle or the contents
thereof or break or remove any part of a vehicle without the consent of the
owner.
Violations of City policies and Department Rules and Regulations are
cause for
Disciplinary action per Municipal Code Section 2.36.320. Violations of the
California Vehicle Code are grounds for possible criminal charges.
EVIDENCE AS TO EACH ALLEGATION:
Interview with College Tow Truck Driver Sean Kelly Brady:
I met with Sean Brady at the Downtown Police Office on December 21, 2013 at
11:04 PM and explained that I needed to talk with him about an internal
investigation that resulted from a vehicle accident call on February 22, 2013 at
Johnson and Orcutt Road. I told Brady that he was the one who towed the
vehicle. Brady told me he remembered the call. He mentioned that call was a
long time ago and did not think he would remember much. I explained that I was
looking into the actions of one of our officers. This interview was not tape
recorded.
Brady told me that he has worked for College Towing off and on for the past
seven and a half years. He was dispatched to this collision to tow the only vehicle
involved in the collision.
Brady said there were numerous officers present when he arrived. He only
recognized one of the officers who he identified as Colleen Kevany. Brady said
that he has known Officer Kevany for years from accident related calls. He said
there were a few officers in plain clothes and the others were in regular police
uniforms. Brady noticed the vehicle, a Bentley, had rolled over and the officers
present told him that they were done with the investigation and that he was able
to proceed with towing it. Brady told an officer that he was going to have to drag
the damaged vehicle out and roll it back over. Brady then went to move the tow
truck so he could start to tow the vehicle.
3
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 78
r R Memorandum
ro•
i
aty'of san tuts oBmspo
Police
Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805)781-7317
Brady stated that in between moving and "up -righting" the Bentley, he was
approached by ,a male officer who he believed was in uniform. Brady doesn't
believe he would be able to identify the officer. Brady said the officer asked him
to borrow a screwdriver. Brady said that he found a screwdriver in his toolbox
and gave it to the officer. Brady said that officers have, in the past, asked to
borrow tools for such things as removing license plates.
Brady stated that he was focused on getting the Bentley towable and he did not
focus on the officer's actions. Brady said that while he was hooking up to the
front of the Bentley, there was an officer near the rear of the car. He is not sure
which officer it was or what he was doing. When I asked Brady to explain this in
further detail he stated he believed the officer was near the rear passenger area
examining the roll -bar feature of this vehicle. Brady does not remember if this
was the officer who borrowed the screwdriver from him.
The officer who borrowed the screwdriver returned it to Brady and thanked him. I
asked Brady why he thought the officer would borrow a -screwdriver. He initially
said that he did not know. When I asked him again to explain why he thought an
officer would borrow a screwdriver he said, "If I could use my imagination and I
was back in high school I could think it was to remove parts." I asked Brady if he
saw any officer remove any parts from the Bentley. He told me he did not. He
said that he knows from being a car enthusiast that Bentleys do not have hood
ornaments. I asked him what of value could be removed from a Bentley. He
spontaneously answered that the hubcaps could be removed. Brady told me
specifically that he did not see any of the officers remove any hubcaps from the
Bentley. He did say that it would be totally wrong if an officer removed parts to
take them for personal use. Brady said his company has strong guidelines
regarding this issue and they are not to remove anything from a vehicle because
the vehicle and all its parts belong to the owner or the insurance company. Brady
said he even stored the Bentley inside the College Towing building that night
because he was concerned someone might steal something from it.
Brady does not recall the placement of the hubcaps or any emblems on the
Bentley when he arrived on scene. Brady does not recall seeing any hubcaps or
emblems on the driver's floorboard or anywhere else in the vehicle when he
arrived at the tow yard.
I asked Brady if he ever considered asking what the officer needed the
screwdriver for. He said, "He is a law enforcement officer so I am not going to
question him at all."
4
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 79
4 - city of san Luis-oimspo
M. ,;+. Police
Memorandum DepartmentDe
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
1 asked Brady not to discuss this incident or interview with anyone and he
agreed. I instructed Brady to contact me if he remembered anything else about
the. incident. As of this report date Brady has not contacted me.
There was no CHP form #180 completed on this call due to the fact that the
vehicle was towed pursuant to the accident.
The interview lasted 30 minutes and ended at 11:34 PM.
I again spoke with Brady on March 31, 2014 at 8:00 PM. Brady told me that he
did not see any of the officers trying to remove the emblem from the steering
wheel area of the vehicle. I asked Brady if any of -the officers at the- scene
mentioned taking hubcaps as part of a joke. Brady told me he did not have any
conversation with the officers regarding removal of any of the vehicle parts. I
asked Brady if any of the officers tried to explain why they removed a vehicle part
from the Bentley. Brady again said that he did not speak to anyone about
removal of any vehicle parts.
Sean Kelly Brady DOB: 04/18/77
3500 Bullock Lane #60
SLO, CA 93401
805)550-8042
Interview with Officer Josh Walsh:
I interviewed Officer Walsh in my office on December 31, 2013 at 11:16 PM. The
interview was digitally recorded. Walsh told me he remembered the collision
involving the Bentley. He was working that night but was not dispatched to this
call. He went to the call to show Communications Technician Lichty, who was
riding with him this evening the scene, what a major traffic collision scene looked
like. Walsh told me he was only at the scene for approximately 20 minutes and
he does not recall the other personnel who were on scene. He said he did not
have a role in the investigation and when he left the vehicle's occupants were still
being medically treated.
Walsh said he did not observe any behaviors that were illegal or against
Department policy while he was present and he does not remember if Officer
Waddell was present at the accident scene or not.
The interview lasted six minutes and ended at 11:22 PM.
5
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 80
dee o
fo 11 t,
Memorandum
Interview with Officer Colleen Kevany:
city of san Luis osispo
Police
Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
I interviewed Officer Kevany in my office on January 3, 2014 at 8:30 AM. The
interview was digitally recorded. Kevany told me she remembered the traffic
collision involving the Bentley. She was called out from home because she is_ a
member of the traffic unit callout team. At the time, it was believed that this
accident may be a probable fatal collision. Kevany remembers Waddell being
present at the scene and that he had been working that night. She said she was
utilizing the Total Station accident diagramming equipment with Waddell and
another officer. She could not recall who the other officer was. She believes it
was either Officer Cudworth or Sergeant Goodwin. Kevany said that Waddell was
in charge of the Total Station equipment and he was controlling the head of the
device.
Kevany said Waddell was present when the tow truck arrived. She does not
recall if she ever heard Waddell ask the tow truck driver for a screwdriver. She is
not aware if Waddell actually received -a screwdriver from -the tow truck driver.
When I asked Kevany if she saw Waddell remove anything from the vehicle she
said, "Yes we were going to take a little symbol off the front I think it was or
something like that, a trophy for traffic supposed to be it wasn't anything for
personal gain, we were just messing around." I asked Kevany what she meant by
stating, "we?" She told me she was "just there" when Waddell said something like
this would be cool to put in Traffic." Kevany also said, "we knew at that point it
wasn't going to be a fatal or any type of major investigation. The vehicle was
totaled and it was just kind of a joke". It appeared to me that Kevany was
referencing the taking of the item as a joke between she and Waddell, not
against Pfarr.
Kevany said she doesn't remember if the part that was going to be taken was a
hood emblem or a rim emblem. She did recall the idea of taking the emblem was
Waddell's. Kevany said the emblem was going to go into the Traffic office and
she said, "Look, we got to investigate a Bentley accident."
Kevany stated she has never observed Waddell take anything inappropriately
from any other vehicles. She said, "We never get to see a Bentley in a crash or a
vehicle of this caliber." Kevany said Waddell was going to take the part but he
was corrected by a supervisor.
I asked Kevany if she remembered a supervisor intervening, or stating "You have
got to be kidding me. You are not going to put me in this position". Kevany said
that Sergeant Pfarr was the supervisor on scene and would have been the
IJ
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 81
1
city of san Luis oBispo
Police
Memorandum Departmentartment
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
person who made that statement. Waddell had already removed the vehicle part
when this statement was made.
During my investigation there were statements made by Sgt. Pfarr that the taking
of the hubcap could have been part of a practical joke being played on Sergeant
Pfarr. I asked Kevany questions about whether she -thought this could have been
a joke.
Kevany said the taking of the emblem was "definitely not" a "joke" being played
on Sergeant Pfarr because he was a brand new supervisor. Kevany told me this
was the first time she had heard this situation being referred to as a practical joke
on Pfarr. She also said, "I would hope somebody would not put a supervisor in
that position." Kevany said that reason for the taking of the part was to have it for
a, "traffic trophy."
Kevany never saw Waddell place anything into a brown paper bag as had been
described by Sergeant Pfarr. She does not recall any phone call occurring
between Waddell and Pfarr while at the scene. Kevany did say that she
remembered the emblem just getting put back into the vehicle and she believes it
was just loose in the car.
Kevany has never seen Waddell take anything from any other vehicles unless it
was taken for evidence. I asked Kevany if she was aware of Waddell having a
vehicle parts collection. She stated, "No".
I asked Kevany if Pfarr had not been present at that scene what did she think
would have happened. She said, "I think he would have taken the part and put it
like on a board in traffic." Kevany admitted that this is something that they should
not be doing and she felt Waddell would be aware of this as well.
The interview lasted 24 minutes and ended at 8:54 AM. During my interview with
Kevany I felt that she was purposely being vague with her answers and would
not elaborate on everything she saw and/or heard. I concluded that she was
trying to minimize what Waddell had done and she was trying to take some
responsibility for taking the part.
Interview with Officer Robert Cudworth;
I interviewed Officer Cudworth in my office on January 7, 2014 at 11:21 AM. The
interview was digitally recorded. Cudworth remembers getting called out from
home regarding the Bentley collision. He remembered Officer Kevany, Waddell,
7
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 82
Memorandum
1
city of san lulls owspo
Police
Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
Sergeant Pfarr and Goodwin being present He believes there might have been a
few other officers present on scene as well. Cudworth assisted with the collision
investigation by taking measurements and scene documentation. He said he left
at the conclusion of the scene investigation and doesn't remember if the Bentley
was still on scene or not.
Cudworth said that Waddell was manning the control unit of the Total Station
equipment. I asked Cudworth if he heard Waddell ask the tow truck driver for a
screwdriver. He told me that he did. Cudworth stated, "Yes, my understanding
was that he was going to attempt to or try and take off the Bentley emblem".
Cudworth believed that this was Waddell's "idea". Cudworth does not remember
ever seeing Waddell with a screwdriver, nor did Cudworth see Waddell remove
any item from the Bentley.
Cudworth never heard Waddell say anything about having a collection of car
parts. Cudworth remembers Waddell having a conversation with Sergeant Pfarr.
Cudworth believes Pfarr was asking Waddell "what the heck" he was thinking
about taking the emblem. Cudworth also thinks Pfarr told Waddell that he- better
not be taking a car part from an accident scene right before Pfarr left the scene.
Cudworth told me if he had seen Waddell take something from the car, he would
not have thought it was a practical joke. Cudworth said that my interview was the
first time he heard that Waddell was trying to play a practical joke on Sgt. Pfarr.
Cudworth did not believe that to be the case and said if Waddell took something
it would have been for personal interests.
Cudworth never saw Waddell put anything into a brown paper bag, nor did he
see Waddell place a brown paper bag in the Bentley. Cudworth is not aware of
any phone call between Waddell and Pfarr after Pfarr left the scene.
Cudworth has never seen Waddell take any items for personal interest from any
accident scene, nor has he heard of Waddell having a collection of car parts.
The interview lasted 29 minutes and ended at 11:50 AM. The digital recorder
malfunctioned at the recording time of 11 minutes and 21 seconds. The
remainder of the interview was not recorded.
Interview with Sergeant Brian Amoroso:
I interviewed Sergeant Amoroso in my office on January 7, 2014 at 1201 PM.
The interview was digitally recorded. Amoroso told me he was working downtown
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 83
Memorandum
i
city of san Luis omspo
Police
Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
when the traffic collision involving the Bentley was dispatched. He said it
sounded like a serious accident, so he and Waddell responded to the scene to
see if they could assist in any way. Amoroso spoke to Pfarr to see if he needed
any help regarding procedures or notifications. Waddell responded because he is
a member of the traffic collision call -out team. Officer Hyman was the only officer
that Amoroso remembers seeing when he arrived at the scene. When Amoroso
arrived the Fire Department was extricating the occupants from the Bentley.
Amoroso felt this was the type of traffic collision scene to which the call -out team
should be summoned with the possibility that it involved a fatality. Amoroso
stayed on the scene for a short time and then left. He said that Waddell remained
on scene as part of the call -out team. VJhen Amoroso left, the Bentley was still
on -scene and no other call -out officers had arrived. Amoroso left prior to the
investigation being initiated by the call -out team.
Amoroso never heard Waddell ask the tow truck driver for a screwdriver, nor did
he see Waddell obtain a screwdriver from the driver. Amoroso did not see
Waddell remove anything from the Bentley, nor did he see Waddell with a brown
paper bag. Amoroso never heard Waddell say anything in regards to having a
collection of car parts. He did not see Waddell and Pfarr having a conversation at
the scene. Amoroso has never seen Waddell take any item from a vehicle in the
past for personal gain. Amoroso does not believe that Waddell has done
anything inappropriate with the DRMO military surplus equipment. Amoroso said
that, as Waddell's direct supervisor, he has been exemplary with categorizing
and tracking the surplus military items.
Amoroso first knew of the issue with the Bentley emblem when Pfarr brought it to
his attention when Sergeant Villanti was in the promotional process in August of
2013. He said they were discussing who they thought would make a good
sergeant. Pfarr told Amoroso about the incident when Waddell took the hubcaps
from the Bentley at an accident scene. Pfarr told Amoroso that Waddell borrowed
a screwdriver from the tow truck driver and removed a Bentley emblem from a
crashed vehicle. Pfarr told Amoroso that he instructed Waddell to put the item
back while Waddell was still at the accident scene.
Pfarr told Amoroso that he verbally counseled Waddell in the field. Pfarr then
called Waddell into the station because he was still feeling uneasy about what
had occurred. Amoroso told me that Pfarr verbally counseled Waddell for taking
a vehicle part off of a vehicle. Amoroso stated that Pfarr later told his lieutenant,
but nothing ever happened with it.
Amoroso told me that he remembered having a conversation with Waddell at the
Bentley collision scene while they were looking at Pfarr who was standing
E
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 84
Memorandum
city of san Luis oBispo
Police
Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
nearby. The conversation was about how funny it would be to play a practical
joke on Pfarr because he was a new sergeant. Amoroso told me that he was the
instigator of the practical joke concept, but nothing specific was discussed about
who would do it or what was to be done. Amoroso stated that the taking of a car
part was definitely not discussed. Waddell did this on his own without Amoroso's
knowledge.
I asked Amoroso if Waddell removing a Bentley part was part of a practical joke
being played on -Pfarr. Amoroso said, "I would think based on the conversation
that we had, it, that would, that type of activity would be exactly what, you know,
something like that would be what we would have been referring to as a funny
joke that would make a new sergeant .you know, basically flip out, you know,
saying what are you doing." Amoroso thought that Waddell taking the emblem
was a joke. Amoroso said he could not say he was 100 percent sure that is was
a joke. Amoroso said that if Waddell had a collection of parts he would doubt
that it would have anything to do with a practical joke. Amoroso said that if
Waddell took an item, there would only be two explanations for it. It was either a
joke, or Waddell wanted the emblem.
Pfarr told Amoroso that Waddell never mentioned to him that it was possibly a
practical joke. Waddell was just very apologetic toward Pfarr. Pfarr never asked
Amoroso if what Waddell did was a practical joke.
Amoroso told me that about a week and a half prior to his interview Waddell had
come over to Amoroso's house. They had a conversation in his driveway and at
that time Waddell was unaware of this personnel investigation. Waddell had
wondered why he had not heard anything yet, referring to Administrative Inquiry
13-004P. Amoroso informed Waddell that Lieutenant Proll was working on an
additional Administrative Inquiry. Waddell gave Amoroso a strange look and
Amoroso realized that he probably said something that he shouldn't have.
Waddell asked Amoroso what he was talking about and Amoroso told him that I
was working on an incident involving a tow truck driver. Waddell asked Amoroso
what it was about. Waddell told him that he didn't remember much from that
accident other than that they had talked about "messing with" Pfarr. Amoroso
realized he made a mistake telling Waddell about this Administrative Inquiry.
Waddell never told Amoroso that the taking of the emblem was a practical joke.
Amoroso said that he and Waddell have never discussed taking of any items in
any way. The only comment that Amoroso recalled by Waddell was that he
already had this discussion with Pfarr.
The interview lasted 37 minutes and ended at 12:38 PM.
10
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 85
w`
Wit•
T ` Y Memorandum
Interview with Officer George Berrios:
city of san Luis oBispo
Police
Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
I interviewed Officer Berrios in my office on January 7, 2014 at 3:08 PM. The
interview was digitally recorded. Berrios told me he was not working during the
Bentley collision and did not respond to this call. He heard about the accident
from officers talking in briefing. There was a conversation about how the head
rests deployed air bags and the vehicle's roll bar probably saved the occupant's
lives. He told me he had no knowledge in regards to a Bentley emblem or other
part being removed until I asked him about it during this interview.
Berrios was shocked to hear that this personnel investigation was in regards to
Waddell possibly taking a vehicle part from the Bentley. Berrios told me he has
never seen nor has he ever heard of Waddell removing or taking any item from a
vehicle collision investigation. Berrios has no knowledge of Officer Waddell
having any vehicle part collections. Berrios told me that he has not heard
anything about a practical joke involving any Bentley part.
The interview lasted six minutes and ended at 3:14 PM.
Interview with Sergeant Janice Goodwin:
I interviewed Sergeant Goodwin in my office on January 13, 2014 at 5:19 AM.
The interview was digitally recorded. Goodwin told me she was called at home
regarding the Bentley collision. She learned that Waddell was already at work
and Officers Kevany and Cudworth were in route from home as part of the call -
out team. Goodwin went to the scene, and she, Waddell, Cudworth, and Kevany
investigated the collision. Goodwin believes a patrol officer was also on -scene to
help with traffic control, and thought it might have been Officer Hyman. She
stated that Pfarr came to the scene once or twice and he brought them coffee.
Goodwin said she was there to supervise and also to learn how to investigate a
major accident.
Goodwin told me the investigation did not take as long as they thought it would
and she left about 30 minutes prior to the rest of the call -out team leaving. She
does not remember if the Bentley was still present when she left.
Waddell's role at the scene was to input the data into the Total Station. Goodwin
never heard or saw Waddell ask the tow truck driver for a screwdriver. She also
never saw him get a screwdriver from the driver. She never saw him remove
11
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 86
Memorandum
city of san Luis ompo
Police
Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
anything from the Bentley, nor did she see him with a brown paper bag. I asked
Goodwin if she saw Pfarr and Waddell conversing at the scene. She said that
she might have seen them talking, but she did not know what it was about. She
also did not know about a phone call between Pfarr and Waddell after Pfarr left
the scene.
Goodwin has never seen Waddell remove anything from a vehicle other than for
evidence and she has no knowledge of a collection of car parts.
In conclusion, Goodwin told me she has no memory of Waddell removing an
emblem or other part from the vehicle. She stated she did not remember a tow
truck driver being on scene while she was there.
The interview lasted 14 minutes and ended at 5:33 -AM,
On March 30, 2014 1 asked Goodwin if she was aware of any practice in the
Traffic Unit of -officers collecting car parts (other than for evidence purposes) from
accident scenes as mementos: She told me she was not. Goodwin told me that if
she became aware of such a practice she would address the issue immediately
with the officer and refer it to her supervisor.
Interview with Sergeant Chad Pfarr:
I interviewed Sergeant Pfarr in my office on January 25, 2014 at 6:46 PM. The
interview was digitally recorded. Pfarr told me he responded to an accident
involving a Bentley. He believes he was the second officer on scene. He initially
thought the male occupant was deceased and the female occupant was
conscious. Pfarr contacted Lieutenant Smith to inform him he would be calling
out the traffic team. Pfarr had the traffic investigation team called out and he
recalled Officer Kevany, Chitty, Treanor; and Sergeant Goodwin being at the
scene during the investigation.
Pfarr told me he was the field supervisor that night and his role was to be the
scene supervisor. Pfarr turned the scene over to the call -out team when they
arrived. He recalled Waddell and Amoroso arriving in the FST truck with the call -
out equipment. Officer Hyman was also on scene. Pfarr believes he left the
scene prior to Goodwin arriving. Pfarr went to the hospital to check on the
occupants and then later returned to the scene.
12
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 87
r city of san tuts ompofi
Police
Memorandum Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
Pfarr remembers that Waddell was setting up the Total Station laser and the
Bentley was still on scene. Pfarr recalled watching as the tow truck driver rolled
the upside down Bentley to an upright position.
Pfarr initially observed Waddell attempting to remove the vehicle's Bentley
emblem. Pfarr observed this when he was talking with Officer Kevany about the
accident. He was standing in the roadway about thirty feet away from the
crashed Bentley. Waddell was standing to the rear of the Bentley. Pfarr believes
it was the rear trunk deck emblem. Pfarr then heard Waddell ask the tow truck
driver for a screwdriver. Pfarr saw Waddell and the tow truck driver walk over to
the tow truck. Pfarr believes that Kevany may have heard Waddell ask the tow
truck driver for the screwdriver. Pfarr then saw Waddell with some sort of tool in
his hand and believed it was the screwdriver or some other type of pry tool.
Pfarr heard Waddell make a comment to someone. He believes it may have
been to the tow truck driver. The comment was to the effect of Waddell was
going -to "add the emblem -to his collection." Pfarr initially believed the removal of
this emblem was a part of the accident investigation. When he heard the
collection" comment, he thought Waddell was playing a practical joke on him
due to the fact he was a newly promoted sergeant. Pfarr stated something to the
effect of, "Ha ha, funny, joke's over, I am leaving now, I don't want to see you
actually do this." Pfarr assumed that Waddell would not finish with removing the
part.
Pfarr then entered his vehicle and began to drive away. In his mirror, he saw
Waddell working on the trunk emblem, but was unable to see him physically pry it
off. He then saw Waddell crouch down by one of the wheels of the Bentley. Pfarr
saw Waddell, "pop-off' the wheel cover. Pfarr thought that Waddell put the wheel
cover with the Bentley emblem and the rear trunk emblem into a brown paper
bag. Waddell then walked away to where the police units were parked. Pfarr did
not observe Waddell return the screwdriver to the tow truck driver.
As Pfarr was driving away, he called Waddell at 5:08 AM on his cell phone. He
stated that before he dialed Waddell's number, Pfarr received a text message
from Waddell's personal cell phone. Waddell sent him a text with a photo of two
loose parts on the front floorboard of the Bentley and he does not recall the
specific type of parts that were in the photograph. There was no text in the
message and it only contained the photo. Waddell then answered Pfarr's call and
told him that he just sent him a text message. Pfarr stated something to the
effect, "I can't believe you just put me in that situation." Waddell responded by
saying that he was just being funny and he put it back. Pfarr stated that he is
99% sure that Waddell told him he was joking. He indicated Waddell never said
13
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 88
Memorandum
city of san tins owspo
Police
Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
that he was planning on stealing any car parts. Pfarr stated he would have
handled the situation differently if Waddell had told him something like that. Pfarr
told Waddeli to come and see him in the sergeant's office when he was finished
at the scene.
I -asked Pfarr why he thought Waddell changed his mind after seeing Waddell
walking to the FST truck with a brown paper bag containing the vehicle parts.
Pfarr stated that there were a several possibilities. One possibility being that it
was actually a joke and Waddell saw Pfarr leaving and intended on putting the
parts back. The other possibility was another officer at the scene told him it was
not a good idea to take the parts. Pfarr thought a third possibility was that it
dawned on Waddell that taking these parts was, "not the best idea" and maybe
he should put them back.
Pfarr told me he did not tell Waddell to put the items back while he was at the
scene. This was because he was leaving when he saw the parts being taken.
Pfarr doesn't think the items that Waddell removed from the Bentley ever made it
to Waddell's vehicle.
Pfarr was angry when Waddell arrived at the sergeant's office. Pfarr said that
Waddell was very apologetic, stating that he used bad judgment and was just,
trying to be funny." Waddell told Pfarr that he now realized how it could have
been interpreted. Pfarr said that Waddell was showing a great deal of remorse
and Pfarr believed it was a joke that Waddell took too far once he involved the
tow truck driver. Pfarr said that he and Waddell had a lengthy conversation about
what would happen if the tow truck driver was to get in trouble for something
while having negative information about Waddell. Pfarr told Waddell his concern
if the tow truck driver took this information to a media outlet. Waddell told Pfarr
that he "brushed it over" with the tow truck driver and let him know that it was a
joke on a new sergeant. Pfarr and Waddell had about a 15 -minute conversation
and Pfarr did not think that this would ever be an issue again.
Pfarr had a conversation with Kevany after Waddell left his office. Pfarr told
Kevany that he did not know if she saw what went on at the scene, but he
wanted to make sure it was clear that it was not ok to take parts from a traffic
scene. Kevany was in absolute agreement with Pfarr. Kevany never said
anything about what Waddell did at the scene. Pfarr wanted Kevany to know that
Waddell's behavior of removing parts from a vehicle and enlisting the help of the
tow truck driver was unacceptable.
Pfarr is not aware of Waddell having a collection of parts nor has he ever seen
Waddell take any unauthorized items in the past.
14
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 89
l
a city of san Luis osispo
Police
r u. Memorandum Department
j 1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
Pfarr brought up the incident to Lieutenant's Bledsoe and Smith when Waddell
was applying for an Investigator position in September of 2013. Pfarr said that he
told Lieutenant's Bledsoe and Smith about this separately, but within a few
minutes of each other. Pfarr told them the reason he did not bring this up earlier
was because he thought what Waddell did was a joke. He later thought the
information was relevant whether it was a joke or not and wanted them aware of
what happened with the Bentley parts. Pfarr stated that Waddell was either going
to steal the parts or it was a bad joke. Pfarr felt that Waddell's judgment would
not make him a good candidate for the detective position. Pfarr admitted that he
may have been naive about how to handle this situation as a supervisor and he
has since doubted Waddell's intention and what he was going to do with the
parts. Pfarr also admitted that had Waddell not applied for the detective position
he probably would not have said anything about this incident unless something
else had come up later.
Pfarr told- me that Waddell never told him that he was playing a practical joke on
him. Pfarr reiterated that Waddell had made statements such as, "I was just
joking" or "I was just messing around" but had never said the joke was actually
on Pfarr.
The interview lasted 56 minutes and ended at 7:42 PM.
On April 2, 2014 1 showed Sergeant Pfarr photos of the Bentley at the crash
scene. The reason I showed Pfarr these photos was because Waddell told me
during his interview that one of the hubcaps came off of the Bentley during the
accident. The photos I showed Pfarr depicted the Bentley on its roof with all four
wheels with the Bentley hubcaps still in place on the wheels of the vehicle. It is
possible that while the tow truck driver flipped the car over one of the hubcaps
may have come off. Pfarr did not recall if any of the hubcaps came off during the
accident.
Pfarr told me he remembered something the tow truck driver said at the scene
while retrieving the screwdriver for Waddell. According to Pfarr's recollection the
tow truck driver said, "I can pull some of the parts off and leave them on the side
of the road as if they came off in the accident and you can grab them later." Pfarr
believes the tow truck driver directed this comment towards Waddell because
Waddell had asked for a screwdriver to remove the parts. After the tow truck
driver made this comment, Pfarr saw Waddell immediately use the screwdriver to
remove the hubcap. This was at approximately the same time that Pfarr was
getting ready to leave the accident scene.
15
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 90
Memorandum
a
1
city of san Luis ompo
Police
Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
I also asked Pfarr about a quote that Officer Benson attributed to Pfarr. The
quote was, "On that note, let's get out of here before we get involved in his IA or
that IA." Pfarr believes he said something to that effect after he observed
Waddell take the hubcap off the vehicle. Pfarr and Benson then left the scene.
Interview with Officer Kevin Waddell:
I interviewed Officer Waddell on January 27th, 2013 at 2:10 PM in the City
Council meeting room across from the City Attorney's office at 990 Palm. The
interview was digitally recorded. Waddell was represented by his Attorney Alison
Berry Wilkinson. Assisting me during the interview was Sergeant Fred Mickel. I
read Waddell the interview admonition along with his Constitutional Rights.
Waddell invoked his rights and chose not to speak with me. At this time I
ordered him to answer my questions related to this inquiry per Lybarger vs. City
of Los Angeles. Waddell said he understood his rights in this matter and signed
the Interview Record form.
Waddell told me he remembered responding to the collision involving the
Bentley. I asked Waddell who else was at the scene. He thought Officers
Benson, Rodriguez, Hyman, Kevany, Cudworth and Sergeant Pfarr were there.
Waddell also thinks Amoroso came to the scene and might have taken him back
to the station to get equipment. Waddell does not remember if Goodwin made it
to the scene or not. Waddell's role at the scene as a member of the Accident
Reconstruction Team was to take over the collision investigation. Cudworth and
Kevany were also there as team members and Waddell worked directly with
them at the scene.
Allison Berry Wilkinson wanted it noted that this incident happened almost a year
ago and Waddell is prejudiced by the passage of time and I will just be getting his
best present recollection.
I asked Waddell if he asked the tow truck driver for a screwdriver. Waddell told
me he did ask the tow truck driver for a screwdriver after the Bentley was rolled
over onto its wheels and the officers were going to release the vehicle to be
towed. He told me he asked for a screwdriver because he was going to use it to
take a wheel cover off the vehicle. Waddell told me it was his idea to take the
wheel cover off and it was also his idea to ask for a screwdriver. He does not
remember if the tow truck driver asked him why he wanted a screwdriver.
Waddell did get a screwdriver from the driver.
16
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 91
Memorandum
city aof san Luis oBispo
Police
Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
I asked Waddell if he thought the tow truck driver knew what he was doing when
he was taking off the wheel cover. Waddell told me he was trying to be very vocal
about what he was doing and that he was trying to be dramatic and obvious.
Waddell remembered taking off a hubcap. He was not sure but he thinks the
hubcap came from a wheel on the rear passenger side of the car.
Waddell told me he doesn't remember ever trying to take an emblem off the front
of -the hood but he remembers referencing it. Waddell stated, "I remember at one
point making reference to a emblem on the car, I don't recall, just I don't
remember talking about the emblem itself and getting one off the car, but I never
took an emblem other than the hubcap." I asked him what he meant by
referencing and he said, "as I said a second ago I remember when I got the
screwdriver, talking about the emblem and what it looks like it's cool emblem and
you could use a, I could use a screwdriver, I bet you could get this off, I bet you
that thing comes off, just get behind it and it comes off, and then the hubcap was
an easier thing- to take off." Waddell did not think that the hood emblem would
come off without a great deal of effort. I then briefly summarized what Waddell
had told me so far regarding removing the hubcap. Waddell again said that he
was talking loud while removing the hubcap in order to make it obvious to others
what he was doing.
Waddell removed one hubcap from the Bentley and he said another hubcap fell
off during the crash. Waddell said that he did not place either hubcap in a large
brown evidence bag. Waddell did not recall if he put any items related to the
investigation into a brown paper bag. He said, "My intention was never to take
these items away from the scene." He also said he never walked these items to a
car. Waddell stated that he was sure the tow truck driver saw him removing the
wheel cover because he was being very obvious with what he was doing and he
was not intending on hiding his acts. He also believes Benson and Pfarr saw him
remove the wheel cap.
Waddell said the reason he took off the hubcap was that he was playing a
prank" on Pfarr and was trying to do something to get him to respond and react
to me. He wanted to get him to tell Waddell to stop doing it. Waddell said he
never had any intention on taking the items and that he had no need for them. He
also said his sole reason for that was that he was "messing" with Pfarr. Waddell
admits it was a poor decision due to the timing and the people around. Waddell
instigated the "prank" because of a conversation that he and Amoroso had about
playing a "prank" on Pfarr. He said their conversation did not contain any
specifics on what the "prank" would be and he believed the conversation took
place that same shift but it could have been the day before. He said the "prank"
was designed to be light hearted and that it would have had something to do with
17
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 92
city of san lugs omspo
Police
Memorandum Department
1042 Walnut
r SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
the close working relationship between the two sergeants. It was due to the fact
that Pfarr was a newer sergeant and the prank was to joke with him. Waddell
thought this would be funny.
Waddell again stated that was being loud when he was taking the hubcap off and
that he was not trying to be secretive. He made several references to the
emblem and how cool it was. He was also making random comments about the
car.
Waddell said that he has never retained anything from any prior accident scenes.
He does not recall ever saying anything about having a collection of car parts
and if he did it would have been in reference to the "prank".
Waddell told me that Benson was close by when he took off the hubcap and that
he had a conversation with him after the fact. He also said that he is positive that
Pfarr knew he removed the hubcap. Waddell said that the hubcap was the only
item he took off the car. I then asked him if he had tried to remove any other
items from the vehicle. He said he had looked at an emblem on the front or the
back of the car. He said he did place a screwdriver against the emblem but he
realized taking the emblem would cause damage to the car so he did not
proceed with removing it. He said he did not want to damage the car.
Waddell told me he does not remember making a statement about having a
collection of parts. He also said he doesn't remember having any other
conversations at the scene except for Pfarr saying to Waddell, "I can't be here for
this" and, "I'm not going to be a part of this." At this time Pfarr walked away and
got in his car and left. Waddell thought Pfarr was referring to him taking the car
part off the car. Waddell told me as Pfarr was walking away he told Pfarr that he
was just, "messing around" but he received no acknowledgement from Pfarr.
Waddell doesn't know if Pfarr heard him or not. Waddell stated that Pfarr did not
tell him to put the part back while he was at the scene. Waddell thought his
prank" was not well-received by Pfarr based on Pfarr's comments,
Waddell said that after the exchange with Pfarr he gave the screwdriver back to
the tow truck driver and he put the hubcap on the driver's seat of the Bentley. He
said he made a point with the tow truck driver to advise him what he was doing.
Waddell said that he told the tow truck driver that he didn't have a need for the
hubcap from a Bentley and that he was "just messing around." He said the tow
truck driver then awkwardly chuckled.
Waddell said that after Pfarr left the scene he called Waddell on his personal cell
phone. Pfarr told Waddell that he put him in a bad spot and that he needed to put
UM
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 93
r. Memorandum
t .
city of san lulls oalspo
Police
Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
the parts back. Waddell said he told Pfarr that he had already put the car part
back. Waddell said he told Pfarr that he was "just messing around" with him.
Waddell said Pfarr might have asked him to come and see him at the station but
he was not sure.
Waddell stated that when he returned to the station he met with Pfarr in the
sergeant's office. He said that Pfarr told him that his actions were a bad idea and
he put him in a bad spot especially since junior officers were present. Pfarr asked
him what they were going to think. Pfarr told Waddell that he spoke to everyone
who was there to reassure everyone that he handled this incident with Waddell.
Waddell saw Benson in the parking lot and assured him that he did not want to
put anyone in a bad spot and that he had no intention of taking anything. Waddell
expressed to Benson that he made a bad decision.
I asked Waddell if he ever told Pfarr why he took the car parts. Waddell replied, "
was just messing around and joking." Waddell did not get into specifics because
he thought Pfarr was upset with him and the situation. Waddell did not bring up
the previously mentioned reasons for the " prank" on Pfarr. Waddell stated that at
the end of the night Pfarr did not know this was a practical joke on him.
Waddell does not remember texting Pfarr a photo of the hubcap back in the
Bentley but believes he could have.
Waddell stated that he spoke to Sergeant Amoroso weeks ago about this
incident. According to Waddell, Amoroso was approached by Pfarr and told that
he may be interviewed about this incident. Amoroso told Waddell to be honest
and not to feel like he needed to protect him in relation to their conversation
about playing a "prank" on Pfarr.
I asked Waddell if he and Amoroso discussed the removal of the hubcap being a
prank" three weeks ago and he told me that Amoroso mentioned that to him.
Waddell told Amoroso that it was a prank.
During their discussion Amoroso was the first one to inform Waddell about the
investigation related to the taking of the Bentley part. Waddell stated he told
Amoroso about it being a prank the night after Pfarr had counseled him.
Waddell summarized this interview by stating it was his complete intention at the
time to prank Pfarr and that he never intended on taking anything. He realized
that night that he made a bad choice and understood the bad position he put
Pfarr in.
19
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 94
Memorandum
yiA3 apu+
crLy of san Us omspo
Police
Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
Waddell told me he would have put the hubcaps back even if Pfarr had not
indicated his dislike for the situation. Waddell told me the end result would have
been the same and the hubcaps would have been back in the car. Waddell said
he would have gone to Pfarr if Pfarr had not called him about the incident.
Officer Waddell again stated that he had already placed the hubcap back in the
car prior to Pfarr calling him on the telephone. I asked Waddell if the discussion
between Amoroso and him regarding playing a practical joke on Pfarr had never
come up would he have taken the wheel cover. Waddell said, "It was my choice
to take the wheel cover, I take responsibility for the prank being itself." He also
said, "I don't think that would have been something that I would have done had
we not talked about it" and "I feel like that was a, that put my mind in that realm to
do the prank."
The interview lasted 73 minutes and ended at 3:23 PM,
Interview with Lieutenant.John Bledsoe:
I interviewed Lieutenant Bledsoe in my office on February 5, 2014 at 11:20 AM.
The interview was digitally recorded. Bledsoe told me he first heard of this
incident a few months ago when Pfarr came to his office to express his feelings
on possible candidates for the upcoming Investigations and Special Enforcement
Team (SET) openings. Bledsoe remembers their discussion lasted about ten to
fifteen minutes. Pfarr wanted to specifically discuss Waddell because Waddell
had expressed an interest in an investigator position. Pfarr told Bledsoe that he
had integrity concerns about Waddell because Waddell had planned to take a car
part from a traffic collision scene that he was investigating. Pfarr told Bledsoe
that he initially believed Waddell taking the part was a joke. Bledsoe believes the
item was some sort of hood ornament and that Waddell told Pfarr that he wanted
to take it as some sort of memorabilia. Pfarr thought that Waddell might have
been serious about taking the item for a souvenir even knowing that Waddell told
him it was a joke. Bledsoe thinks that Pfarr told Waddell at the scene to put the
item back. Bledsoe told me that Pfarr told him that if Waddell had taken the item
he would have had much more of an issue with it.
Pfarr told Bledsoe that he called Waddell into his office as soon as Waddell had
cleared the collision scene. Bledsoe got the impression that Pfarr resolved the
issue that night by speaking to Waddell about the issue. Bledsoe asked Pfarr if
he had spoken to Smith, and Pfarr said that he had not. Bledsoe directed Pfarr to
tell Smith about the incident. Bledsoe's impression was that Pfarr wasn't certain
about Waddell intentionally taking the part, or taking it as a joke.
0111
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 95
f v o city of San Us owpo
Police
Memorandum Department
Vol 1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
The interview lasted 11 minutes and ended at 11:31 AM,
Interview with Officer Greg Benson:
I interviewed Officer Benson in my office on February 5, 2014 at 11:55 AM. The
interview was digitally recorded. Benson told me he was not dispatched to the
traffic collision at Orcutt and Johnson but he went by there to see the damage to
the vehicle. He told me that Kevany, Waddell and Pfarr were there when he
arrived. He said other officers could have been there but he doesn't recall which
officers were present. Benson told me he was at the scene less than ten minutes.
He said the tow truck had just arrived there and they were working on dragging
the vehicle out from where it crashed.
Benson said that Waddell was close to the Bentley when he arrived. I asked him
what Waddell was doing. Benson said, "He tried prying off one of the rear
emblems to the vehicle." Benson described the rear emblem that was on the lid
of the trunk and he thinks the vehicle was upright at this time. Waddell was trying
to get the emblem off, but the emblem was part of the locking mechanism of the
trunk. Benson was standing about five feet from Waddell when he was prying the
emblem. Waddell tried to remove the emblem for approximately one minute.
Benson does not remember Waddell saying anything during this time. Officer
Benson said he and Pfarr looked at each other and "wondered if Waddell was
really doing this." Benson was referring to Officer Waddell removing a car part.
Benson remembers Waddell asking the tow truck driver for a screwdriver. He
said that Waddell did have some type of tool that he was using. Benson said that
Waddell gave up on the trunk emblem and that he moved to something else.
Benson thought Waddell then tried to remove the steering wheel emblem.
Benson said that Waddell took something from the car and Pfarr made him put it
back. Benson also saw Waddell around one of the wheels. Benson said that he
couldn't be sure, but he thought Waddell was there to get the Bentley emblem
from the wheels. He did not remember if he used a tool or not to obtain the wheel
cover. Benson saw Waddell with a vehicle part in his hands but he doesn't
remember what part it was. Benson stated it was a vehicle part with the winged
B" for Bentley in the center. He has never heard of Waddell having a parts
collection.
Benson told me he observed Pfarr confront Waddell. Benson could partially hear
the conversation and believes Pfarr was telling Waddell that he did not think it
was appropriate what he was doing and he should put back what he took.
21
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 96
Memorandum
city of san lues ompo
Police
Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
Waddell then placed the item inside the vehicle. It was either the center cap of
the wheel or the steering wheel emblem. Benson said, "For some reason, I want
to say that he took out his knife and cut like a piece out of the leather that was off
the steering wheel but I can't remember. He got something with an emblem on
it". Benson never saw Waddell put anything in a bag. Benson saw Waddell put
the item back in the car.
Benson believes Pfarr said, "On that note, let's get out of here before we get
involved in his IA or that IA." Benson thought Pfarr was referring to Waddell trying
to get parts off of a vehicle. Benson and Pfarr then left the scene. Benson said
he thinks that he and Pfarr left the scene at the same time, and Kevany and
Waddell were still there.
Benson was confident the tow truck driver saw Waddell removing items because
the tow truck driver and Waddell were talking about Waddell taking the part.
Benson believes that Kevany witnessed the taking of the emblem off the car. He
remembers Waddell looking for some kind of emblem to take. He also
remembers the cloth emblem had come off the steering wheel during the
accident and it had the same Bentley logo on it. Benson thinks Waddell was
either cutting or ripping the rest of the emblem off the steering wheel cover.
Benson said that Waddell was not being secretive when he was attempting to
take the parts.
asked Benson if there was anything that suggested Waddell taking the part
could have been a joke. Benson said that he could not understand how this
incident could have been a joke. He did not have any conversation with Pfarr
about it being a joke. Benson said that Pfarr seemed, "pretty pissed" that
Waddell put him in that position. Benson described Pfarr turning red and getting
really quiet and this is different for Pfarr because he is always so nice. Benson
does not know anything about a text message from Waddell to Pfarr nor does he
know about a phone call from Pfarr to Waddell.
Benson had not heard of this incident again until I asked him about it today.
Benson believes he witnessed the whole incident. His impression based on what
he observed was that Waddell attempted to take the part for personal use.
Benson said that he would classify the taking of the Bentley part as theft. Benson
just assumed that Waddell had been written up and the issue was over. He did
not know there was an Administrative Inquiry underway.
The interview lasted 29 minutes and ended at 12:24 PM.
22
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 97
1
I,y
CE4fi city of san Luis omspo
a Police
Memorandum Department
5 1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
On April 7th I asked Benson about what he specifically remembers regarding
what Waddell said to the tow truck driver about removing the part. Benson told
me he did not recall anything specific regarding the conversation.
Interview with Lieutenant Jeff Smith:
I interviewed Lieutenant Smith in my office on February 13th 2014 at 5:02 PM.
The interview was digitally recorded. Smith told me he was first made aware of
this incident when Pfarr came into his office and told him about it. Smith does not
remember the exact date of this meeting but it occurred sometime around the
last Investigations and SET special assignment testing process. This testing
process took place in September of 2013. Their meeting lasted about five
minutes and Smith had a vague recollection of his conversation with Pfarr.
Pfarr admitted to Smith that he should have told him about this incident earlier.
Pfarr went on to tell Smith what had occurred at the collision scene that involved
the Bentley. Smith remembered this collision because Pfarr called him at home
that night to inform him that a major collision had occurred. During the meeting in
Smith's office, Pfarr told him that when he arrived at the collision scene he saw
Waddell carrying one of the hubcaps and walking towards Pfarr. He asked
Waddell what he was doing and Waddell told him that he was just, "messing"
with him. Pfarr told Waddell to put the item back and that it wasn't funny. Pfarr
told Smith that he thought that he handled the situation with Waddell regarding
the removal of the vehicle parts that day and he did not really believe that
Waddell was really going to take any parts. Pfarr believed that Waddell was
playing a practical joke on him because of the fact he was a new sergeant.
Smith believed that Pfarr brought this incident to his attention months later
because Pfarr had experienced some integrity issues with Waddell. Waddell was
volunteering for a number of overtime shifts in the downtown for the Community
Action Team (CAT) shifts. Smith expressed that he had made it clear to his
sergeants that his expectations were that officers would be in the downtown for
the entire four hour shift when working the CAT details. During one occasion
Pfarr caught Waddell at the station one of these shifts watching a movie and
Waddell told him that he had just finished his lunch. Pfarr told Waddell that since
it is only a four hour shift he should only be eligible for a 15 minute break. There
were also other occasions where Waddell either came to work late or left early.
Pfarr began to have concerns with Waddell due to these types of incidents. Due
to these concerns, Smith believes that Pfarr reflected back on this incident and
began to question whether it was truly a practical joke or the possibility that he
really intended in removing and keeping parts from the wrecked vehicle.
23
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 98
Memorandum
ILK
I
a
city of san Luis oBispo
Police
Department
10421ialnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
Smith recalled that Pfarr said he wasn't sure when he told Smith whether it was a
practical joke or not. Smith believed that Waddell might have told Pfarr that he
was going to take one of the wrecked vehicle hubcaps and that Waddell then
went and removed the hubcap from the vehicle. Smith said that Pfarr stated
something to the effect of, "knock it off." Pfarr then saw Waddell carrying the
hubcap towards Waddell's vehicle. Smith believes that Pfarr did tell him that
Waddell placed the hubcap in a brown paper bag and began walking toward his
vehicle. At this point Pfarr began to question whether this was truly a practical
joke or something more.
Smith did not recall if Pfarr mentioned a text message from Waddell with a photo
of the item back in the Bentley. Smith did not get the impression that Pfarr was
minimizing the situation when he told him about it months later. Smith believes
Pfarr came forward because he was having a lot of issues with Waddell on the
weekends and Smith had told Pfarr that he needed to hold Waddell accountable
for his actions. Pfarr never mentioned to Smith the comment about an IA that he
and Benson discussed at the scene.
The interview lasted 13 minutes and ended at 5:15 PM.
INVESTIGATION:
During the interview with Officer Benson he stated that Waddell tried to remove
the Bentley emblem from the steering wheel at some point. Benson is the only
person who mentioned this during the investigation. I checked the photographs
that were taken at the scene by our officers and I was unable to find a
photograph depicting the steering wheel emblem present or missing. I also
contacted the company that insured the Bentley. A representative from
Firemen's Fund Insurance was able to send me the photographs of the Bentley
that an adjuster took a few days after the accident. The Bentley was still at
College Towing at this time. These photographs do not depict the steering wheel
emblem or any loose parts on the floorboard.
CONCLUSION;
24
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 99
Memorandum
Allegation #1:
I
city of san lues omspo-
Pollce
Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805)781-7317
The evidence, including Waddell's own statements and admissions, support the
conclusion that Waddell removed at least one part from a vehicle without the
permission of the vehicle's owner at an accident_ scen-e that he was responsible
for securing and investigating in his official capacity. The evidence further
supports that he requested and obtained a tool to remove the part from the
vehicle from a civilian tow truck driver and that he completed his actions in the
presence of numerous co-workers and the tow truck driver. Those who witnessed
Waddell's actions were left with the impression he was taking the part for
personal use or benefit as a "trophy". Waddell's behavior was contrary to a
Vehicle Code prohibition of which the officer either knew or should have known
and violated Department policy and the City's ethics policy, and cast the
employee, the Department and the City organization in a negative light.
Allegation #2:
During the course of this investigation I concluded that there is overwhelming
evidence to show that Officer Waddell knowingly and willfully attempted to
remove a vehicle part from a vehicle that did not belong to him without the
permission of the owner. The officer knew or should have known that this action
violated the Vehicle Code and this conduct was witnessed by other employees
and at least one citizen.
I recommend that Allegation #1 and #2 be sustained and this case should be
forwarded to Captain Chris Staley for final disposition.
EXHIBITS:
1) Compact Disc with recorded interviews
2) Memo from Sergeant Pfarr to Captain Storton (attached to file)
3) Memo from Captain Storton to Lieutenant Proll (attached to file)
25
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 100
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 101
f'E:a Memorandum
Service, Pride, Integrity"
Date: October 19, 2013
To: Lieutenant Smith
From: Sergeant Pfarr
Subject: Officer Waddell
city Of San Luis OBISPO
Police Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
This memorandum will serve to document an exchange of text messages and a
conversation that took place between Officer Waddell and me on 10/19/ 13 starting at
1111 hours.
On 10/12/13 1 was working as the day watch field supervisor. While reviewing the
schedule at the beginning of my shift I noted there were two officers scheduled to work
CAT overtime that day starting at 1100 hours. At 1120 hours I had not seen anyone
show up to work the shift so I went to the locker room to determine if anyone was here.
In the locker room I found Officer Inglehart dressed at his locker engaged in
conversation with Officer Waddell who was finishing putting on his utility belt. Both
officers advised they were preparing to leave for their assigned foot patrol.
Both officers remained active for the remainder of the shift. At 1545 hours I believed
both officers Waddell and Inglehart would be preparing to leave as their shift ended at
1600 hours. As I was going to locate them I saw Officer Waddell's personal vehicle was
no longer in the parking lot. I located Officer Inglehart by text message who advised he
was in the downstairs report writing room completing reports and would be there for
some time. I asked if he knew where Officer Waddell was and he reported Officer
Waddell had just left due to child care issues.
With this issue in mind I planned to meet with Officer Waddell today to discuss his
tardiness during the 10/12/ 13 CAT shift. At approximately 1105 hours I went to find
Officer Waddell and could not. I was also unable to locate his car in the parking lot.
I checked the schedule and noted no CAT overtime had been entered for today. I had a
brief conversation with Detective Stahnke yesterday as he was leaving for the day,
during which he told me he was working CAT overtime with Officer Waddell today. I
placed a call to your work cell phone to determine if the CAT overtime shift had been
altered. I received no answer from you during this initial call.
I sent Officer Waddell a text message asking if he was still planning to work the shift.
Officer Waddell returned my text message advising he had pre -arranged coming in at
1130 for today's shift with you yesterday. I asked Officer Waddell to see me when he
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 102
city of san lues oBrspo
Police Department
Memorandum 1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805) 781-7317
Service, Pride, Integrity"
arrived at work, intending to discuss the issue of his arriving late last week. I later took
screen shots of the conversation between Officer Waddell and me. That conversation
was printed and is attached to this memorandum.
As I began this text message exchange and prior to receiving a reply from Officer
Waddell, I saw Detective Stahnke walk down the hail. I asked if he had seen Officer
Waddell. Detective Stahnke told me he received a text from Officer Waddell advising
he was going to be 30 minutes late to work.
At 1140 hours, Officer Waddell arrived in the sergeant's office as I requested. I asked
him if everything was okay. Officer Waddell responded by telling me he saw you in the
locker room last night as you were both leaving for work. According to Officer Waddell
he requested he be allowed to come in at 1130 hours today because he wanted to
attend his daughters first dance event. Officer Waddell told me you authorized his
coming in at 1130 hours today. Because Detective Stahnke had been waiting almost 45
minutes by this time I decided not to discuss last week's tardiness during this meeting. I
knew Officer Waddell was scheduled to work his regular night watch shift later in the
day and decided to have that conversation with Sergeant Amoroso present at the
beginning of that shift.
Shortly after my conversation with Officer Waddell I received a return call from you.
During that conversation I explained the exchange between Officer Waddell and me.
You told me Officer Waddell never spoke to you about coming in late for his shift today.
I confirmed the events as they were given to me by Officer Waddell and you again told
me that conversation never took place. During our conversation we decided I needed to
immediately address the issue with Officer Waddell and you requested I complete a
memorandum documenting what had taken place. At the conclusion of our
conversation I contacted Officer Waddell and requested he respond to the sergeant's
office and contact me.
When Officer Waddell arrived I told him I wanted to inform him of the conversation
between you and me. I immediately told Officer Waddell I did not know if this was going
to lead to disciplinary action or not. I told Officer Waddell I had talked with you since my
conversations with him. I told Officer Waddell you never had the conversation he told
about and informed him I was documenting the incident. I told Officer Waddell he would
be contacted by you at a later time to discuss the matter further. Officer Waddell told
me, "Sorry, i thought he and I talked about it, I didn't mean to". Officer Waddell made
no further statements to me during this brief conversation.
Sergeant Chad Pfarr
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 103
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 104
AT&T 12*014 PM 55% ME-)
Messages Kovin
Text Message
Today 11:11 AM
Yes. Sorry. I had worked
Dint ahead of one with It
smith. :on the. W - inay
now
Basically -I had talked to
smith yesterday about
coming in at 1130 he said
fine no Droblem, But I will
42.
Basically -I had talked to
smith yesterday about
coming in at 1130 he said
fine no Droblem, But I will
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 105
AT&T tG 12:14 PM 55% CK
3 i
Messages Kevin
Yes. Sorry. I hadorked
out ahead of one with It
smtth. I'm on the way in
now
BaPically I had talked to
smith yesterday about
corning in at 1130 he said
fine no problem. But I will
tcp by
d j r
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 106
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 107
py a W`q a51t`Y' E"i' ,
F
A
ao:-
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 108
d
a
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 109
i ... -.'
ah .
e
t
4
r• ......
s
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 110
gyp
4
0
No
f
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 111
Roo,"
Ve
Aw tr
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 112
1
0
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 113
0
49s
a
F°
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 114
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 115
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (NOV. 15TH)
BY LIEUTENANT JOHN BLEDSOE
Bledsoe: Okay. Today is November the 15', on Friday. It is about 9:03 a.m. I'm here with
Sergeant Chad Pfarr. Uh, this was regarding administrative inquiry 13-004 on,
uh, Kevin, Officer Kevin Waddell. Um, I'm gonna go ahead and get started with
the questioning with Sergeant Pfarr. Sergeant Pfarr, I understand, um, you're
alleging that Officer Waddell, uh, made some false statements to you regarding a
scheduling issue.
Pfarr: Correct.
Bledsoe: And can you tell me what led up to, um, your conversations and/or text messages
that, that led to Officer Waddell making these false statements?
Pfarr: Um, on October 19'', um, I was workin' as the day watch supervisor, uh, and had
had a conversation with Detective Stahnke the day prior, um, as he was leaving
work for the day.
Bledsoe: On the 18th?
Pfarr: On the 1-8t' of October, and he commented, um, I'll-see-ya tomorrow. I'm in
working CAT. Um, so that shift was supposed to start at 11:00 a.m. Um, he, at
11:15, I noticed that nobody was here. Um; I hadn't seen anybody yet that was
supposed to be in working CAT.
Bledsoe: Lemme just clarify. So you had a conversation with Officer Stahnke on the 18th
Pfarr: Correct.
Bledsoe: Uh, was it the afternoon, morning, evening?
Pfarr: It was when he was leavin' at the end of his shift so —
Bledsoe: And —
Pfarr: — probably around 5:30.
Bledsoe: — and he had told you that he was working CAT on the 19th —
Pfarr: Correct.
Bledsoe: — on the shift beginning from 11 to 1600.
Pfarr: Correct.
LVTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (NOV. 15') Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 116
Bledsoe: Okay.
Pfarr: So at around 11:15, I hadn't been contacted by anybody yet to get their equipment
outta the, um, cupboards downstairs, um, a patrol box or anything like that so I
started wondering if they were here or not. Um, so I — and I need to go back a
little bit to —
Bledsoe: Sure.
Pfarr:_ — kinda lay the groundwork, but on the 12th, um, I was a supervisor that day. No
officers had shown up for the 11:00 shift.
Bledsoe: The foll, the previous Saturday?
Pfarr: Correct.
Bledsoe: Okay.
Pfarr: Um, so I went down to the locker room to see if officers were there before I
started makin' phone calls, and I found Officer Waddell, um, finishing getting
dressed, um, and; uh, so we had a brief conversation. He was running late.
Bledsoe: What time was that about?
Pfarr: That was at about 11:20.
Bledsoe: Okay,
Pfarr: So he was about 20 minutes late for the shift the Saturday before the day in
question. So I had talked with, um, Lieutenant Smith during the week about how
we should address that problem, um, and I was gonna, we decided I would talk to
him about it on the 19th, um, or the next time I saw him, and that was gonna be the
19th. So I was gonna have that conversation with him. So on the 19th when
nobody had shown up, um, I hadn't seen anybody yet, I put a call into Lieutenant
Smith. Um, since I had had the conversation with Detective Stahnke the day
before, I looked at the schedule and now there was nobody listed on the schedule
on speed shift to be working. So before I started making phone calls to the
officers that I thought were supposed to be working it, I put a call into Lieutenant
Smith to see if that shift had been cancelled and I just hadn't been notified yet.
Bledsoe: Lemme — hold that thought. When you spoke to Detective Stahnke the day before
on the 18th, he told he was working.
Pfarr: Correct.
2
NTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (NOV. 15TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 117
Bledsoe: Did he tell you who he was working with?
Pfarr: I don't remember. I don't think so —
Bledsoe: So when —
Pfarr: — but he may have.
Bledsoe: — when you made the phone call to Lieutenant Smith, did you know who was
scheduled to be working or if anyone was scheduled?
Pfarr: You know, I think he did say Kevin because I, when I had made that phone call I
was thinkin' to myself he's gonna be, he's, I think he's late again, and it was
troubling to me that he'd be late for two shifts. So before I called him on it and
made an issue about it and addressed the tardiness issue, I wanted to make sure
that Lieutenant Smith hadn't already cancelled the shift.
Bledsoe: Okay. So you were calling Lieutenant Smith just to verify if people were
scheduled to work —
Harr: Correct.
Bledsoe: —that 19`x'.
Pfarr: Yes.
Bledsoe: Okay.
Pfarr: Because it was no longer listed in speed shift as it normally would be.
Bledsoe: Okay.
Harr: So that turned out to be just a oversight on our part and it hadn't been entered for
the days that it shoulda been entered.
Bledsoe: But it was on the written —
Harr: It was on the —
Bledsoe: — signup list?
Pfarr: — written signup list.
Bledsoe: Okay.
3
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (NOV. 15TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 118
Pfarr: So during that initial phone call to determine if somebody was gonna work to
Lieutenant Smith, I did not get a response. Um, and then believing, I did, when I
did talk to Stahnke the day before he did mention Kevin'cause I shot an email or
text message to Kevin after not receivin' an email or a call from Lieutenant Smith.
After that call went unanswered, shot Kevin an email — text message, sorry, and
asked, "Are you still working today?"
Bledsoe: This was on the 19th —
Pfarr: This was on the 19''.
Bledsoe: — at about what time?
Pfarr: About, it's on the, I've got a screen shot of it, but it's about 10 after or so.
Bledsoe: Okay. It's after he —
Pfarr: After he's —
Bledsoe: — the time that he's scheduled to be at work?
Pfarr: — schedule to be at work.
Bledsoe: And he was scheduled at I P
Pfarr: Correct.
Bledsoe: Okay.
Pfarr: So the response I got from him was, um, it looked like he had fat fingered his
typing, like he was texting it and just didn't look at what he texted, uh, so the
words were a little jumbled up. But the meat of the message was that he had met
with Lieutenant Smith the day before in the locker room and discussed him
coming in late at 11:30 instead of at 11, and Lieutenant Smith had authorized that,
basically. And this, so I shot him a text back sayin' that his text didn't make any
sense and to come see me when he got to the station and was ready to work so I
could discuss the issue with him. So I immediately received another text message
from him saying he had spoken, clarifying the first text message, and he, in that
text message he said, "I arranged this with Lieutenant Smith yesterday. He
authorized me to be late."
Bledsoe: Okay. I'm gonna show you a copy of the text messages that I received, uh, for
this report. Is this what you recall?
Pfarr: Yes.
4
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (NOV. 15TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 119
Bledsoe: You texted, "Are you still coming in today?"
Pfarr: At 11:11, correct.
Bledsoe: And did you, you said, "Never mind, wrong Kevin." You thought that was —
Pfarr: I thought it was Kevin Phillips that I had texted, and then I checked my text
messages to confirm, and it was the wrong — or the correct Kevin.
Bledsoe: Okay. And this statement here, "Yes, sorry. I had worked out ahead of one with
Lieutenant Smith. I'm -the on the way in now," that was a text message you
received from Waddell shortly after?
Pfarr: Correct.
Bledsoe: So obviously, there's some typos in there. Um, you indicate, "That made no
sense. Stop by when you get here." That's your text?-
Pfarr: Correct.
Bledsoe: And this is the one you received?
Parr: Yeah.
Bledsoe: It says, "Basically I had talked to Smith yesterday about coming in at 11:30. He
said fine no problem but I will."
Pfarr: Indicating he would come see me when he got here.
Bledsoe: And the next was, "But I will stop by?"
Parr: Correct.
Bledsoe: Okay. So those are clearly text messages from you to Kevin and back from
Kevin.
Pfarr: Correct.
Bledsoe: Kevin Waddell.
Pfarr: Correct.
Bledsoe: Okay. So —
Pfarr: So —
5
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (NOV. 15THWaddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 120
Bledsoe: — after you had texted Kevin and he said he was comin' in, what happened?
Pfarr: Um, just prior, or I sent that first text, um, to Kevin tryin' to determine where he
was, and I walked out of my office, and as I walked outta the office,
Detective Stahnke came walking by. So I asked him if he knew what was goin'
on with the, with his partner. Um, and he told me he had received a text from
Kevin shortly before indicating he was gonna be 30 minutes late. Then I received
those other text messages from Kevin tellin' me he was gonna be 30 minutes late.
Um, so after that, some time went by. At about 11:35, um, he came into my
office and before I could say anything, he said, "Hey, I talked to Lieutenant Smith
yesterday. We talked in the locker room and, uh, I told him that my daughter had
a dance, um, function. Um, it was her first one for this dance season," and that he
wanted to go that, and Lieutenant Smith had authorized him to come in late so he
could attend that dance function of his daughters.
Bledsoe: So you had a verbal conversation with him in person —
Pfarr: Yes.
Bledsoe: — after this?
Pfarr: After —
Bledsoe: After the text messages when he came in?
Pfarr: Correct.
Bledsoe: And he had told you that he had spoke with Lieutenant Smith —
Pfarr: Yes.
Bledsoe: — and got this cleared?
Pfarr: In the locker room the night prior so on the 18t`, um, when Lieutenant Smith was
leaving at about 1600 hours, 1630, um, they were both in the locker room together
and that conversation transpired between the two of 'em.
Bledsoe: So at this point, you thought that —
Pfarr: I figured —
Bledsoe: — Officer Waddell had cleared this with —
Pfarr: — everything was fine.
Bledsoe: — Lieutenant Smith, and it was fine.
6
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (NOV. 15') Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 121
Pfarr: Yeah.
Bledsoe: Did you ever have, uh, later have a conversation with Lieutenant Smith?
Pfarr: Yes.
Bledsoe: How, what, how, how'd that happen?
Pfarr: So, um, Lieutenant Smith was off duty at the time. He later saw my missed call to
him and returned the call to make sure I didn't need anything. Um, and at that
point, during. that conversation, um, he asked why I called so I told him, um, and
told him everything had been taken care of. Um, and he said, he indicated to me
that he had never had that conversation with Officer Waddell in the locker room.
Um, he said he did see Officer Waddell, um, when he went into the change, um,
Lieutenant Smith went in the locker room to change, and while he was there he
saw Officer Waddell text messaging and they acknowledged each other presence
but did not have any sort of conversation about coming in late for work.
Bledsoe: So after that conversation with Lieutenant Smith it was your understanding that
the, what Officer Waddell told you was not truthful?
Pfarr: Correct.
Bledsoe: And what did you do in response to that?
Pfarr: Um, Lieutenant Smith asked me to draft a memo, um, documenting what had
transpired between Officer Waddell and I, um, and the conversation we had both
via text message and in person in the office. Um, and he asked me to submit that
to him- the following day —
Bledsoe: And —
Pfarr: — and that's what I did.
Bledsoe: Have you had any conversations with Officer Waddell since this incident?
Pfarr: Um, when he, I called him back into the office after I talked with Lieutenant
Smith, um, and told him that I spoken with Lieutenant Smith and that the
information he had given me was not accurate and that there was gonna be,
Lieutenant Smith would be contacting him at a later date to discuss the, um, issue
of being truthful.
Bledsoe: Did Officer Waddell make any statements or comments to you at that time?
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (NOV. 15') Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 122
Pfarr: He started to. Um, he started to tell me that he was sorry, he didn't mean to, and I,
I was pretty upset, um, the fact that he had, I perceived he lied to me, um, so I, I
cut him off and told him not to, that he should probably just not say anything at
that point.
Bledsoe: Did you tell him that you thought he lied to you?
Pfarr: Yes.
Bledsoe: Okay. And that's when he tried to explain and you cut him off?
Pfarr: Correct.
Bledsoe: Anything I left out that you think is relevant?
Pfarr: I don't think so. I never had the conversation with him about the tardiness. Um,
that topic, I never addressed that issue. I was gonna address it later that night
after we realized what happened. He had already been so late, um, Detective
Stahnke had been held up waiting and the CAT shift still hadn't been worked yet.
So instead of havin' that conversation after all this happened, I figured we would
address that at a later date. Um, and that -still has not been addressed.
Bledsoe:- Okay. So-lemme just go back and clarify. On October 12t`
which was a
Saturday, um, Officer -Waddell was scheduled to work a, an overtime shift for a
CAT assignment. You saw that he was late that day, and you were gonna
confront him on that on the 19a` when he came in to work 'cause you realized
from the 18th when you were told by Detective .Stahnke that they were working an
overtime shift Waddell would be comin' in on the 19t`, and you were gonna
discuss his tardiness from the 12'h on that date.
Pfarr: Correct.
Bledsoe: He came in late on the 19'h — or I'm sor, yeah, on the 19th and after texting you
that he had received permission from Lieutenant Smith that he was gonna be
showin' up late.
Pfarr: Yes.
Bledsoe: You later spoke with Lieutenant Smith, and he told you he never had a
conversation and never cleared Officer Waddell for, with bein' late.
Pfarr: Yes.
Bledsoe: Okay. And this is your memo that's written here?
Karr: Yes.
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (NOV. 15') Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 123
Bledsoe: Um, the, the only thing in, that's not really clarified is you said that after the text
messages, um, you indicate later that shortly after your conversation with
Waddell, so I just wanna clarify that you did have a verbal conversation with him
after the text messages when he came in late, and he had told you, um, that he had
had the conversation with Lieutenant Smith in the locker room the night before —
Harr: Yes.
Bledsoe: — clearing him for comin' in late.
Harr: Correct.
Bledsoe: Okay. I have nothing else unless you think that something was, uh, was left out.
Harr: Nope.
Bledsoe: Okay. I would ask that you, uh, not discuss this with anybody else at this time
because this is a confidential administrative inquiry.
Pfarr: Okay.
Bledsoe: You understand that?
Pfarr: Yes.
Bledsoe: Thank you.
SpeakWrite
WWW.speakwrite.com
Job Number: 15156-011
Custom Filename: VN810034-SLO-Pfarr2
Date: 06/ 05/2015
Billed Word Count: 2731
9
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (NOV. 15TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 124
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 125
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH (NOV. 15TH)
BY LIEUTENANT JOHN BLEDSOE
Bledsoe: Okay, it is Friday, November the 15th. It's about 9:23 a.m. I'm with Lieutenant
Smith, and this is regarding the administrative inquiry involving Officer Kevin
Waddell, 13-004. Um, Lieutenant Smith, um, you were made aware of an
incident involving Officer Waddell possibly giving false statements to
Sergeant Pfarr on October the 19th. Do you recall that?
Smith: Yes, I do.
Bledsoe: Can you tell me, um, when you were informed and how you were informed about
this?
Smith: I believe it was a Saturday. It was one of my days off, and Sergeant Pfarr
contacted -me at home. He was, um, calling to inquire regarding Wa,
Officer Waddell working a CAT shift, and if I knew he, if he had cancelled the
shift. Um, he had left a voice mail on my phone, and, um, I had returned it
probably 30 minutes later. When I called, um, Sergeant Pfarr, he said oh no
worries, you know, uh, I had worked, he had worked it out, somethin' to that
effect and said that, um, Officer Waddell had told him that, um, during the
previous day, he had spoken with me and told, asked if he could come in late for
his shift because he was going to his daughter's dance recital or somethin' like
that. When Sergeant Pfarr was telling me this, I told him that, basically, we never
had that conversation nor did I give him permission to have time off. So, at that
point, Sergeant Pfarr was a little upset. Um, he, you know, he had indicated that
Officer Waddell had lied to him, basically, and said that he had gained his
permission from me, and we kinda discussed how to proceed from there, and, um,
whether it was a misunderstanding at the time, I wasn't sure, miscommunication.
Um, —
Bledsoe: Between Sergeant Pfarr and Officer Waddell.
Smith: Yes.
Bledsoe: Okay.
Smith: So, uh, uh, you know, I, I told Sergeant Pfarr I trusted him to handle it
appropriately, and, um, he said he was gonna think about it. Later that day,
shortly after, he called me back, after we had hung up, and said that he had, um,
decided that he was gonna write a memorandum, submit it to me to go through the
chain of command regarding the events 'cause he felt strongly that he, uh, that
Officer Waddell had, you know, blatantly lied to him regarding his reasons for
bein' late, um, for his shift that day, and he had, he had told me he had pulled
Officer Waddell in, told him not to talk about it, and explained that, you know, he
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH (NOV. 15TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 126
had talked to me, and he was aware that, you know, the, their previous discussion
of, of his reason for bein' late, it never occurred, and that he was going to be
submitting it through the chain -a command, and, um, at that time, I told
Sergeant Pfarr I thought he handled it appropriately, and, uh, that I'd get the
memo when I returned to work.
Bledsoe: Okay. Now, so, on October 19th,
a Saturday, when Sergeant Pfarr called you
originally, he left a message on your phone? You didn't answer that phone call?
Smith: No, the, the original phone call, it was a message. I was, I think I was mowin' my
lawn or somethin' and just didn't hear my phone ring.
Bledsoe: Do you remember about what time that was, or remember what time you called
him back?
Smith: I don't.
Bledsoe: Okay. Was it early morning? Was it mid-afternoon?
Smith: I'd say —
Bledsoe: Do you recall any time frame?
Smith: — yeah, mid, mid-afternoon, like the early mid-afternoon portion, because I
usually do my lawn in the morning, —
Bledsoe: Okay.
Smith: _so,_
Bledsoe: Had you spoke with O, Officer Waddell in the locker room on the Saturd, or
Friday, the 18th?
Smith: I, uh, I, when I was finishing my shift, I went in the locker room. Officer Waddell
was in the locker room. He was seated in front of his locker at the time and
appeared to be possibly getting ready for work. He was still in street clothes, and
he was, uh, at the time, it looked like he was, uh, texting or something on his
phone. I think he said, "Hi" to me as I walked in, and, basically, I started
changing. He was on his pho, phone the whole time, and then, towards the end -a
me changing, he made a phone call, and he was still on that phone call prior to my
lef, me, me leaving, so, our conversation was no more than a greeting as I walked
in the door.
Bledsoe: So, he, did he ever ask you about coming in late for the shift on the 19th?
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH (NOV. 15TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 127
Smith: No, he never talked about the shift, never mentioned anything about a daughter
recital, um, anything like that.
Bledsoe: Have you had any conversations, or did you have any conversations with
Officer Waddell after you were informed about this?
Smith: Yes. I believe, Monday I came back to work, um, Officer Waddell had come in
that morning, asked if he could talk to me, um, and shut my door, came into my
office, shut the door. At that time, prior to him talkin' to me, I explained to
Officer Waddell that, you know, Sergeant Pfarr had, uh, submitted a memo to me
regarding, uh, the incident that occurred on Saturday. I told him it was -probably
best, uh, not knowing what was gonna happen regarding that memo, you know,
he, you know, our conversation could not be privileged, and, and, you know,
anything he says to me, at that time, if it went to an IA, could be disclosed, and he
said he understood that. He still wanted to talk to me. He needed to get
something off his chest, and, and was willing to accept the consequences that
were to follow regarding the incident, and then he basically said that, and, and this
is, I'm, I'm generalizing based on our conversation, but somethin' to the effect of it
was kind of a misunderstanding. He was driving to work at the time and texting,
and Sergeant Pfarr misinterpreted his texts, uh, regarding, um, what he was saying
our conversation was. So, he didn't, wasn't specific. At the time, I don't
remember reviewing all the texts, knowing what they exactly said, and I didn't
wanna ask questions. I just explained to him that, you know, we had never had
that conversation. He recognized that, and that, uh, you know, on face value, it
appeared that, that he had, you know, blatantly lied to Sergeant Pfarr regarding his
reason for bein', bein' late, and, and that was about the gist of our conversation.
Bledsoe: Now, Sergeant Pfarr, did he ever tell you that he had a verbal conversation with
Officer Waddell after the text messages?
Smith: Yes, he did.
Bledsoe: And what did he tell you?
Smith: That, you know, he, too, you know, basically, Officer Waddell had come into the
office, I believe it was the office, and said that we had had that conver, or he had
had that conversation with me about being late, which kinda disturbed me a little
bit even more because Officer Waddell came into my office and told me it was a
misunderstanding over texts, you know, text messages, but then, you know,
Sergeant Pfarr then said, "No." This was a conversation they had face-to-face
regarding the reason for him being late and a conversation between he and I, so,
again, I, I didn't ask clarifer, fying questions of Kevin. I just took what he said,
um, and he really relied on the fact that it was a misunderstanding based on him
tryin' to drive and text at the same, text a message to Sergeant Pfarr, or respond to
Sergeant Pfarr's texts.
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH (NOV. 15Tx) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 128
Bledsoe: Okay. Have you had any conversations with either Officer Waddell or
Sergeant Pfarr regarding this matter since that time?
Smith: Um, no, not, um, you know, I think Sergeant Pfarr has asked me what's gonna
happen with this, you know, maybe a week later, and, you know, basically, I said
it's bein' reviewed by the captain and chiefs to make a decision of what actions
would be taken but, no, I don't think we've really discussed the incident further.
Bledsoe: Okay. I have nothing further. Do you have anything you'd like to add?
Smith: Not at this time.
Bledsoe: Okay, I'd just ask that you not discuss this matter with anybody. Thank_you.
Speakw.ite
www. speakwrite.com
Job Number: 15156-012
Custom Filename: VN810035-SLO-Smith2
Date: 06/05/2015
Billed Word Count: 1454
4
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH (NOV. 15TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 129
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 130
INTERVIEW OF DETECTIVE ADAM STAHNKE
BY LIEUTENANT JOHN BLEDSOE
Bledsoe: Today is November the 18`h. It's at 11:52 a.m. I'm here with Detective Adam
Stahnke, and this is regarding Administrative Inquiry No. 13-004. We'll go ahead
and get started. Um, Detective Stahnke, um, this inquiry is regarding
Officer Kevin Waddell, and you worked an overtime shift with him, I believe, on
Saturday, October 19th. It was a CAT assignment. Do you recall that?
Stahnke: Correct. Yes.
Bledsoe: Um, did you have a conversation with Officer Waddell prior to beginning the
shift?
Stahnke: I did. It was, uh, by way of text message.
Bledsoe: And what did that conversation say?
Stahnke: Uh, it was 45 minutes to a hour before the shift started. I received a text message
from, uh, Kevin stating that he was gonna be late for the shift but no later than
11:30 p, uh, a.m.
Bledsoe: Okay. Um, did you respond back to him?
Stahnke: I did. I told him that, uh, that was fine with me, and I'd be in at 11 o'clock.
Bledsoe: And what, so, you were in at 11 o'clock, then?
Stahnke: Correct.
Bledsoe: So, you were here on time.
Stahnke: Yes.
Bledsoe: Did, was that message, or, to your knowledge, given to a sergeant or anybody that
Stahnke: I don't know.
Bledsoe: Okay. Did you have a conversation with the sergeant later that day?
Stahnke: I, I did —
Bledsoe: — or before, I'm sorry, before Officer Waddell showed up to work?
Stahnke: Yes.
1
INTERVIEW OF DETECTIVE ADAM STAHNKE Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 131
Bledsoe: What sergeant was that?
Stahnke: Uh, Sergeant Pfarr.
Bledsoe: And what did that conversation consist of?
Stahnke: Uh, I was in the process etting, process of getting changed -out my uniform, and I
had new shirt staves up on my desk, so, I had partially changed -out and decided I
needed my new shirt staves, so I was in, uh, shorts and, uh, undershirt and vest,
and I walked through the hallway up the far stairs next to the parking lot, and
came across Sergeant Pfarr on my way to my desk, and he asked if I had seen
Officer Waddell, Kevin, and I told him that, uh, I had received a text message
from him, uh, previously, saying that he was gonna be late for this shift, and then
I grabbed my shirt staves and got changed -out.
Bledsoe: Do you remember about what time that was?
Stahnke: Uh, it was probably 10 or 5 minutes to 11.
Bledsoe: Okay, so, it was before 11 o'clock?
Stahnke: Correct.
Bledsoe: Okay. Did, what time did Officer Waddell show up?
Stahnke: I believe it was no later than 11:20, —
Bledsoe: 11:20?
Stahnke: —11:15, 11:20.
Bledsoe: And did you have a conversation with him regarding, uh, him bein' late to work
after he showed up?
Stahnke: After he was dressed out, and we were, uh, out on patrol, yes.
Bledsoe: And what that conversation?
Stahnke: Uh, he stated that he had been pulled into the sergeant's office in regards to being
late for the shift.
Bledsoe: Did he mention to you or say anything about what that conversation was about in
the sergeant's office?
Stahnke: In regards to him being late for work, and, uh, Kevin told me that he had, uh,
permission, or he had previously spoken to Lieutenant Smith about being late for
shifts by a few minutes due to, uh, scheduling with his wife or something along
those lines.
INTERVIEW OF DETECTIVE ADAM STAHNKE Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 132
Bledsoe: Did he tell you that he got permission from Lieutenant Smith to come in late?
Stahnke: He said he had previously spoken to Lieutenant Smith on a earlier date. Uh, I
don't know the time range, um, or if it was specific to that day, but he said that he
had received permission to be a few minutes late.
Bledsoe: Okay. Were you there when he got that permission from Lieutenant Smith?
Stahnke: No.
Bledsoe: Okay. Do you know if he had this conversation with, uh, Sergeant Pfarr
regarding his per, tellin' him that he had permission from Lieutenant Smith?
Stahnke: I don't know if he had that conversation.
Bledsoe: Okay. Now, just backing up a little bit, on October the 18th, the day before —
Stahnke: Okay.
Bledsoe. — you worked, uh, your regular assigned shift in detectives, or that, that would
have been a Friday, —
Stahnke: Not 18th
Bledsoe: — so, that would -a been —
Stahnke: I think it would -of been a day off, yeah.
Bledsoe: — but, uh, did you speak with Sergeant Pfarr that day and tell him that you would
see him tomorrow for a CAT shift?
Stahnke: Uh, I don't recall.
Bledsoe: Okay. All right. I don't have anything else. Uh, do you have anything else, uh,
to add or anything that I forgot?
Stahnke: No.
Bledsoe: All right. Thank you.
speakWrite
www. speakwrite.com
Job Number: 15156-013
CustomFilename: VNB10036-SLO-Stonky
Date: 06/ 05/2015
Billed Word Count: 861
INTERVIEW OF DETECTIVE ADAM STAHNKE Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 133
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 134
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH (12/ 12/2013)
BY LIEUTENANT JOHN BLEDSOE
Bledsoe: Okay, today is, uh, December the 12th, 2013. It's about 1655 hours. I'm
interviewin', uh, Lieutenant Smith again regarding, uh, the, Administrative
Inquiry 13-004, Officer Kevin Waddell's case. Um, Lieutenant Smith, uh, I
understand that on the 8, 19th of October, Kevin Waddell showed up late for work
and it's believed that he may have stated that he's been given permission from you
to show up late for that day of work, is that, did you give him permission to come
in late on the 19th?
Smith: No.
Bledsoe: Have you given Officer Waddell permission to come in late or leave early.on any
other overtime CAT shifts?
Smith: I believe I have, yes.
Bledsoe: Do you recall how many times?
Smith: I do not recall, 'cause, uh, I have other officers have, you know, contact me saying
there was maybe extenuating circumstances regarding time off. But as to Kevin
specifically Officer Pfarr had br6ught it to my attention that he was concerned
about him showing up regularly or leaving early and I had instructed Officer Pfarr
to monitor it because it wasn't something that I, I was specific that this was not a
flexible shift. And in the re, the last two, just background information, on the last
two, um, notifications when I was assigned the CAT shifts after I pulled down the
signup sheet, I have given emails saying these shifts are from 11:00 to 4:00 and
that's when officers are expected to be there.
Bledsoe: Did Officer Waddell ever contact you by phone, email, text message or any, or
anything specifically that you recall asking to come in late or leave early for any
shift? Do you remember any specific time?
Smith: No, because again other officers have done it and I, and I can't specifically
remember Officer Waddell asking to come in late. I, I do remember, I don't have
dates but him saying he can't make one of the shifts and letting me know, asking
me what he needs to do, but specifically saying if he can come in late, I don't, I
don't remember specifically any dates or time.
Bledsoe: Okay. Do you have any saved emails from Officer Waddell asking for time off or
to come in late or early?
Smith: No, and I know I don't have any in my deleted'cause I just emptied it two days
ago.
Bledsoe: Okay. Um, but it is possible that he has asked you in the past to come in late or
leave early?
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH (12/12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 135
Smith: Yeah, but it would be for a specific day not on a regular basis.
Bledsoe: Notjust, you wouldn't have given him a, a blanket statement that you can come in
at your leisure, um, early, late?
Smith: And a, and actually that is, would be even contradictory to what I've told these
guys. That the shift has specific times and it's 11:00 to, it was 11:00 to 4:00.
Bledsoe: Do you have any of the sent emails that you've sent for CAT overtime regarding
that?
Smith: I, I just had, I don't. I wish I did.
Bledsoe: The sent items too?
Smith: 'Cause I, 'cause I deleted all of 'em. Um, I, Sergeant Pfarr might.
Bledsoe: Okay.
Smith: Because, 'cause he had saved those, um, when I had sent those out in case he
needed to reference them so if you talk to Sergeant Pfarr again he might have
those emails that I've sent out.
Bledsoe: Okay. Are you aware of any other times that Officer Waddell has showed up late
without getting permission?
Smith: Um, I am not. Again like I said Sergeant Pfarr had brought it to my attention that
he was concerned, um, you know, that, that he was showing up, um, that, during
non-specific times and asked if, if he had run that by me and I told Sergeant Pfarr
not, no and I asked that he, um, keep an eye on it and address it if it is, if it is
happening. Um, where Officer Waddell was showin' up late, which I think, um,
was one of the reasons Sergeant Pfarr checked with Officer Waddell the, you
know, during this specific incident was because I had talked to him and I said on
the weekends he is to be there from 11:00 to 4:00. If he's not Sergeant Pfau was
to address it. And over that week Sergeant Pfarr had been monitoring when
Officer Wad, uh, Waddell was arriving at work.
Bledsoe: Okay.
Smith: So.
Bledsoe: All right. That ends this interview. We're done.
SpeakWrite
www. speakwrite.com
Job Number: 15156-015
Custom Filename: VN810039-SLO-Smith3
Date: 06/ 05/2015
Billed word Count: 787
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH (12/12/2013)
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 136
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 137
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (DEC. 13')
BY LIEUTENANT JOHN BLEDSOE
Bledsoe: Okay, today is December the 1P. It is about 2:55 p.m. and I'm here with
Sergeant Chad Pfarr and I'm gonna re -interview him regarding the IA case on
Kevin Waddell, uh, 13-004. Um, Sergeant Pfarr, let's go back to, um, October the
19th when you realized that Officer Waddell had not responded to work before
11:00 p.m., or 11:00 a.m., I'm sorry. You, you sent him a text message and he
indicated to you that he was on his way in —
Pfarr: Correct.
Bledsoe: — after texting you and giving you the impression that he had giv, been given
permission by Lieutenant Smith based on the text messages that he'd gotten
permission the day before to come into work, is that correct?
Pfarr: Yes.
Bledsoe: When he came into your office, what was his demeanor?
Pfarr: Um, he was acting fairly normal. He appeared a -little nervous but, um, reiterated
what he had apparently taken place between he and Lieutenant Smith in the locker
room the night before which would have been the 18''.
Bledsoe: Specifically what did he tell you was his reason for being late and, and his, uh,
reason for permission or, or that he got permission?
Pfarr: Um, he said that he, his daughter had some sort of a dance event, a recital or a
practice or something to that nature and it was her first one for the season and he
wanted to, uh, be able to attend that prior to coming into work, um, so he had seen
Lieutenant Smith in the locker room as Lieutenant Smith was leaving for the day,
um, on the 18'` and asked if he could come in, uh, 30 minutes late for his
scheduled CAT shift.
Bledsoe: So he told you that he had a conversation with Lieutenant Smith in the locker
room on the 18th, the day before his overtime shift?
Pfarr: Correct.
Bledsoe: And he told you that that conversation consisted of the, just what you told me
about the daughter's dance recital and him getting permission from
Lieutenant Smith to come into work a half -an -hour late?
Pfarr: Correct.
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (DEC. 13TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 138
Bledsoe: Okay. When he came into your office, when he first arrived to work before you
had spoke with Lieutenant Smith, were you upset or angry with him at all?
Pfarr: Not at all.
Bledsoe: What was your behavior like? What was, I mean your demeanor with him?
Pfarr: Um, what I would any other day. I was totally normal, not excessively happy, not
upset. Um, I just asked him what had happened, um, and he voluntarily gave me
the story again about seeing Lieutenant Smith in the locker room and getting
permission to come in a half-hour late, uh, and I was gonna talk to him about the
tardiness issues from the previous shifts that he had missed but since
Detective Stahnke was already here for 45 minutes by that time I figured I'd talk
to him about that later, so that never even came up during that initial meeting, um,
and he left to go 10-8 with Stahnke downtown on foot.
Bledsoe: Okay, and after that, Lieutenant Smith called you back. Eventually you
discovered that he had not had that conversation with Lieutenant Smith in the
locker room as he had told you that he did, correct?
Pfarr: Correct.
Bledsoe: And you, did you call him back into the office or -did he come in on his own?
Pfarr: No, I sent him, uh, I called him on the radio and asked him to come to the station
to see me and that's when he, he arrived 10 minutes later give or take a few
minutes.
Bledsoe: How, how much, what time was it approximately when this happened?
Pfarr: Maybe 12:30-ish.
Bledsoe: So he'd —
Pfarr: He —
Bledsoe: — been to work about an hour then?
Pfarr. — um, about, yes.
Bledsoe: Give or take, okay.
Pfarr: Give or take.
Bledsoe:
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (DEC. 13TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 139
Pfarr: I'd have to go over the radio log, but he had been here a little bit. They had it
made it downtown and had managed to contact somebody before I was able to get
him on the radio.
Bledsoe: And were you upset with him at that point?
Pfarr: Um, I was upset. On the radio he wouldn't have known that, um, but when he got
back to the office I was definitely upset.
Bledsoe: How was he, how was his behavior?
Pfarr: Urn—
Bledsoe:
m—
Bledsoe: Demeanor?
Pfarr: — nervous. Um, I, as soon as he walked in I told him that the information he had
given me before was not factual, that I had talked with Lieutenant Smith after he
returned my call and that, uh, he had lied to me about getting permission. Um, I
told him that Lieutenant Smith would be contacting him in the very near future to
let him know what was gonna happen. Um, I didn't know if it was gonna be
disciplinary or, or what but that was between the two of them and, um, I told him
not to say anything to me, uh, at that point only because I was upset and I didn't
want him to make matters worse, so.
Bledsoe: After you told him that you thought he'd lied to you did he make any statements
or comments?
Pfarr: He started to, um, but I cut him off.
Bledsoe: So you didn't allow him to —
Pfarr: Correct.
Bledsoe: — comment on anything. Okay. Anything else you can think of that, that I didn't
ask?
Pfarr: No, not right now.
Bledsoe: Okay, all right. That's it, thank you.
Speakwrite
www. speakwrite.com
Job Number: 15156-016
CustomFilename: VN810091-SLO-Pfarr3
Date: 06/ 05/2015
Billed Word Count: 975
3
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (DEC. 13TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 140
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 141
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25)
BY LIEUTENANT BILL PROLL
Proll: This is Lieutenant Bill Proll. I'm in my office at the police department with
Sergeant Chad Pfarr. It's January 25th at 6:46 p.m. This is being recorded. It's an
interview regarding an administrative inquiry, um, regarding Officer Waddell. So
I'm just gonna go through, through a series of questions Chad.
Pfarr: Okay.
Proll: Um, did you respond to a major injury accident at Orcutt and Johnson involving a
Bentley on February 22, 2013?
Pfarr: Yes.
Droll: And -do you remember what the cires were with that or anything? Were you just,
you were out on patrol or —
Pfarr: Um. Yeah, I was on patrol. We got a call of a major injury collision. Um, I
rolled out. I think I was the second one there. Uh, first or -second. A couple of us
arrived right at the same time. Um, we had a male passenger that we, um,
believed -to, he was dead in the car,-. um, and a female that was conscious but not
lookin' too hot. Um, fire got there. Um, they couldn't get any sort of vitals on the
male, so they believed he was dead. Um, at that point, um, I got a hold of
Lieutenant Smith. Let him know that we were gonna be doing a traffic call out,
um, because we thought we had a dead guy in the car, and we could smell a lot of
alcohol.
Proll: To just confirm, that you called Lieutenant Smith and he was home?
Pfarr: He was at —
Proll: Or was he working?
Pfarr: No, I believe he was at home by then.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: It was — I think he had just left.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Um.
Proll: And you asked, or told him that you were gonna call out the —
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 142
Pfarr: The traffic team for the, to investigate the accident portion
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Uh, Officer Traynor was the arresting officer of the female driver. Um, she was
extricated and taken to the hospital. Uh, he went with her, and then shortly
thereafter, the male was extricated, and we realized he was actually alive. Um, he
was transported. Um, and I went to the hospital shortly thereafter, after the traffic
team started showing up.
Proll: Did the male and female both go to the same place?
Pfarr: I believe they went in the same ambulance actually.
Proll: Oh, okay.
Pfarr: Yes, to Sierra.
Proll: Do you remember what SLO PD personnel were at the scene- during the
investigation? So you already said Traynor.
Pfarr: Yeah; Traynor was the primary. Um, I, off the top of my head I couldn't -tell you
who else was there initially responding. Um, I know that, um, Officer Chitty, um,
Officer Kevany, um, Sergeant Goodwin, um, was there for a some time, but not
during the second half when I showed back up. She had already cleared. Um.
Proll: So you do remember Officer Chitty there?
Pfarr: I, I believe so.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: May, maybe not, but I thought, thought he was. Um, and I believe
Officer Berrios, but I'm not 100 percent. I'd have to check the radio log —
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: — to confirm those two.
Proll: And what was your role at the scene?
Pfarr: Um, I was the field supervisor that night, and so just basic scene supervision. Uh,
and then I turned the scene over to the traffic team once they started arriving and I
went to the hospital with Officer Traynor, um, and then there was other patrol
issues goin' on, so I was just goin' to other calls for service, um, while everybody
2
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25Tx) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 143
was tied up on this. And then I went back out sometime after 4:00 to check up on
the guys and see wh, how things were goin'.
Proll: Okay. So when you left initially to go to the hospital, do you remember who was,
what officers were at the scene?
Pfarr: I know Waddell had showed up, um, with Sergeant Amoroso. They came out in
the FST truck, um, with some of the call out equipment. Um, I know there was
another patrol officer there. I wanna say, um, Officer Hyman was there.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: And I don't know if Middleton just did a roll by, or if he actually showed up, or if
he was, what his role was, but I seem to believe —
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: — Middleton was there for a very short period of time.
Proll: Do you happen to remember was Sergeant Goodwin there yet, or?
Pfarr: No, she was not there.
Proll:_ Okay.
Pfarr: She got there after I left and, and she cleared prior to my responding back out.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Ac, actually I think she was leaving as I responded back out the second half.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: She took off and I was gettin' the walk through from Officer Kevany.
Proll: Okay. And you already kinda answered this, do you remember if Officer Waddell
was there, and if so, what was he doing?
Pfarr: Um, he was there, and he was just — well, when I responded back out the second
time, you mean?
Proll: Um, well the first time.
Pfarr: Um, he was settin' up the laser, um, and gettin' some of the equipment out, um, so
they could start workin' the scene.
3
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25Tx) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 144
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Um, and then when I came back out, um -
Proll: And the Bentley was still there at this time?
Pfarr: Yes. Yeah, actually I, I must have been there for a little bit when I came back out
the second time because the Bentley was still upside down. I watched'em roll the
Proll: Okay
Pfarr: - roll the car over. Uh, and Officer Kevany was givin' me the walk around about
what had, what their findings were at the scene. Uh, and then that's when, uh,
Officer Waddell started talking to the tow truck driver about the screwdriver.
Proll: Okay. We can get to that right now. Did you hear or see Officer Waddell ask the
screwdriver, ask the tow truck driver for a screwdriver?
Pfarr: Yes.
Proll: And where were you?
Pfarr: Um, I was, well it's on the south, uh, west corner of the intersection, .up on a
raised kind of embankment, um, is where the car was, and I think I was standin'
with, um, Kevany right down there, they had all their boxes of equipment right on
the corner, um, at the bottom of that embankment -
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: - where some skid marks were, um, and I was right over there with her, and she
kind of pointing out what they had determined happened.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Um, she was **** the skid marks and the, the, there was some gouges in the road.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: She was —
Proll: So you actually heard Officer Waddell ask the tow truck driver for a screwdriver?
Pfarr: Yes.
4
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 145
Proll: Okay. So, the tow truck driver did, was it like Officer Waddell went and sought
the tow driver, or was he standing there with you guys, or?
Pfarr: No, he was, they were off to the side, um, and he was messin' with the emblem
while Kevany was showing me what was goin' on, and then he couldn't get it off.
So then that's when he walked over to the tow truck driver and asked him for the
screwdriver. Um, and the truck was, I don't know, 20 feet away maybe.
Proll: And where was this emblem?
Pfarr: Um, I wanna say it was the rear deck emblem. I'm trying to remember the way
the car was. It, it was the emblem that was pointed towards us at the, in the
intersection.
Proll: So, it wasn't on a —
Pfarr: ****
Proll: It wasn't on a wheel?
Pfarr: Well, that was later.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Um.
Proll: So this might have been the rear deck?
Pfarr: I, I believe it was the rear deck. I was tryin' to remember the direction the car was
facing after it flipped and rolled.
Proll: And this is a, a metal item that's —
Pfarr: Yes.
Proll: — like welded or pinned into the car?
Pfarr: Yeah, it's riveted —
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: — by the back, or the front trunk, or hood release.
Proll: Let me just get this right. So you, prior to him asking for the screwdriver, you
saw Officer Waddell messing with the emblem, but he couldn't get it off. You
5
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TxWaddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 146
think it might be the rear deck emblem, and at that point you heard him ask the
tow truck driver?
Pfarr: Correct.
Proll: Okay. And what did the tow truck driver say?
Pfarr: He said, oh yeah, I can. He ind, I can't remember his exact words, but he
indicated he'd get him a screwdriver or some tool to get it off.
Proll: Did you see him give him the tool?
Pfarr: Um, I saw them walk over the tow truck together, and then —
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: — Officer Waddell came back over. I didn't see him hand it to him, no.
Proll: So, you saw the two walk over to the tow truck, and then Kevin came back?
Pfarr: Yes.
Proll: And did you see what was in his hand?
Karr: Um, he had some sort of a tool. I couldn't tell — I, I believe it was a screwdriver
but it, it coulda been a, some other pry tool, I suppose.
Proll: Okay, so after Kevin gets the screwdriver or pry tool from the tow truck driver,
then what did you see him do?
Pfarr: Um, well he makes that comment about adding it to his collection as in, I can't
remember if that was as they were walking over. I think it was as they were
walking over to the tow truck, or as he was walking back towards the car after he
got the tool. Um.
Proll:
Pfarr:
Proll:
Pfarr:
Proll:
Do you remember exactly what he said? Who did he make the comment to?
You know, I don't exactly know. I —
Okay.
be, I thought it was to the tow truck driver, but I guess he coulda been doin' it
towards us. Um, I, I'm not 100 percent.
Okay, and what do you think the comment was?
6
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 147
Pfarr: Uh, it was something to the effect of he was gonna add the emblem to his
collection, and up until that point I just assumed — I don't know if I was just being
naive or just, I don't know what I was thinking — but I thought he was taking the
emblem or whatever he was tryin' to get off the car as part of the traffic accident
investigation. Um, and then when he said that, it dawned on me, okay he's, my
thought was he was playing a joke on me since I was newly promoted and, um,
you know, when I showed up everybody kind of razed me about, oh the sergeant's
here. That kinda thing, and, um, they were kinda making those type of a
comment. So when he did that I thought, oh he's just, he's being silly. He's tryin'
to screw with me since I'm the new sergeant. See what I'm gonna do, and how
I'm gonna respond to it
Proll: Until he said for my collection?
Pfarr: No, that's when I, when he said, I thought, that's when I thought, okay now he's
not taking this for part of the traffic accident investigation as I originally thought.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: He's trying to play some silly joke on me, again after they had just got done
making all these comments about, oh the new sergeant's here. You know,
saluting, and all that kind of silly stuff. So, um, that's when I said, ha ha, funny.
Joke's over, I'm leaving now. I don't want to see you actually, actually do this.
Um, and at that point I assumed once I walked away he would no -longer finish his
actions.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Um, and then when I'm driving away, that's when I looked in the mirror and I see,
oh, he's actually popped that off, and now he's going over and crouching down
and getting the —
Proll: Okay. Did you see Kevin remove anything from the vehicle?
Pfarr: Um, well I saw him walking, I saw him working on the trunk deck, or the
whatever/wherever that emblem was, and then carry something over to the car. I
didn't physically see, I guess I didn't see him physically pry it off. I just saw him
working and then I saw him carrying something over to the tire. Um, and that's
when I saw him, then he crouched down and popped off the, the bolt cover, the
hubcap cover, I guess. So, yeah, I saw him pop that off, and then that's when they
went into the bag and he started walking towards his, towards the cars.
Proll: And what wheel was that? Do you remember?
Pfarr: Well, I was heading up Johnson, so it woulda been one of the, the two facing
Johnson. ****.
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 148
Proll: So the driver's side? Passenger's side?
Pfarr: I, I can't remember which way the car was facing
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: — after it, 'cause it went over. It endoed, so it hit front end, landed on its roof with
the back away from us, and then the tow truck driver did a, it, he spun it a couple
of time and rolled it, and I can't remember which way it was actually sitting once
he got it upright.
Proll: Andthat was the lug nut cover?
Pfarr: Correct.
Proll: And so you saw him crouch down and popped off -the bolt cover on the wheel, on
a wheel and you actually saw him do this?
Pfarr: Yes.
Proll: And then what happened?
Pfarr: Um, that's. when I whipped out my .phone and started to call him and —
Proll: And you were still there?
Pfarr: I was pullin' away. I had started to drive away when he's doin' this.
Proll: So at this point when you called him you believed he had the rear trunk emblem
and one of the wheel covers?
Pfarr: Correct.
Proll: And what did, what did you see him do with those two items?
Pfarr: They went into a, a bag and then he started walkin' away from the Bentley
towards where all the units were —
Proll: Like a brown paper bag?
Pfarr: Yeah, like a —
Proll: Big evidence bag?
Pfarr: Yeah.
8
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 149
Proll: And then walk away towards what?
Pfarr: Where the units were parked, the FST truck and their personal cars.
Proll: Did you see him return a screwdriver to the tow truck driver?
Pfarr: No. So that's when I'm, I'm sittin' in my car and I'm startin' to pull away and I'm
thinkin' do I go back and deal with him in front of everybody and make it a big
deal so I opted to just call him. And as I'm pullin' my phone out and I'm dialin' his
number, -um, I get a text message photo from him and it's the photo. of this, of the
emblems and, um, whatever he had in the bag. It's the, the Bentley badge with the
little wings or whatever they are. Um, and they're on the front floorboard of the
Bentley and so I received that as it's ringin' on his end of the line and then he
picks it up and he says I just sent you a text message. I put'em back, I didn't
mean to put you in that position, it's just, you know just kind of a joke.
Proll: So you received the text before you talked to him?
Pfarr: Yeah, well I was I had dialed his number and I'm hitting send and the message
pops up and it's —
Proll: Okay, but you did, what, what I'm gettin' at is he decided to return them prior to
you tellin' him again?
Pfarr: Yes.
Proll: Okay, so why do you think, I mean did you have any other conversations at the
scene to tell him to return them, or —
Pfarr: No, just my, when I'm walkin' away hey, I don't wanna be any part of this, I don't
wanna see this hah hah, very funny, this sergeant's leavin' now.
Proll: Okay, how do you think he took that?
Pfarr: Um, well I can only think he took it as maybe this isn't the best idea.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: And since he sent me that text message, the text photo.
Proll: So the text photo was of the two items loose on the Bentley floor?
Pfarr: Yes.
Proll: So he like dumped 'em outta the bag?
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 150
Pfarr: Correct.
Proll: And then what was the conversation about? So after gettin' the text message did
you follow through with the conversation?
Pfarr: Yeah, so he pick up the phone and I'm, I'm lookin' at this text photo and I can hear
the phone answer so I put it up to my ear obviously and hey, I can't believe you
just put me in that situation, um, is my initial comment to him and he apologizes
and says I know, I wasn't really thinkin', I was just bein' funny. Um, you know I
was bein' stupid and didn't really think about it. Uh and I just said finish up out
there and come see me when you get done, and he said okay I'll be right there.
Proll: So at the scene did you tell him to put the items back?
Pfarr: No. 'Cause I didn't see him take them off until I was in my car and gettin' ready to
leave, and that's when I decided, do I wanna go out and address this in front of
everybody or do I wanna deal with it a little more privately, so that's when I went
to call so there was no conversation at the scene, other than my initial kinda hah
hah jokes over, now I'm leaving.
Proll: So when he had the brown paper bag and he was walkin' towards his car like you,
you don't know how, did the items ever make it into his car?
Pfarr: I don't believe so.
Proll: Okay. What I'm tryin' to do is get the picture. So he pries, has these items in a
brown paper bag —
Pfarr: Mm hmm.
Proll: And you see him walkin' towards the FST truck —
Pfarr: Correct.
Proll: So —
Pfarr: He's maybe 20 feet from the Bentley and I'm like thinkin' to myself, holy shit he's
really, maybe this isn't a joke, maybe he really is takin' em!
Proll: So all of a sudden he's walkin' towards the FST truck, he decides that he's gonna
put'em back?
Pfarr: Yeah, I don't know if he saw me whip my phone out and start to call him or what,
but I'm startin' to drive away and then I quit watchin' him because I'm tryin' to
drive and dial on my frickin' phone at the same time so —
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25Tx) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 151
Proll: Yeah, but I mean whippin' the phone out, the timing wouldn't, he'd have to go put
the items back in the Bentley, take a picture, send that to you as a text and then
you're gettin' the phone call. So I'm tryin' to dwell onto what —
Pfarr: Yeah, and I mean I probably thought about it for 30 seconds, while I'm drivin' up
Johnson, shit, do I wanna call him right now, do I wanna go back, how do I
wanna deal with this, I mean I probably spent 30 seconds drivin' northbound on
Johnson tryin' to figure out how do I wanna deal with this problem I've just been
faced with.
Proll: Okay, what do you think, he's walkin' to the FST truck with the two items he just
took —
Pfarr: Right.
Proll: — in a brown paper bag and you actually left before he, while he was walking or —
Pfarr: No, I pulled away. I started walkin' towards my car as he was walkin', um, from
the trunk around to the tire. And then as I'm gettin' in my car and startin', startin'
to drive away I look in the mirror now he's got the hubcap thing off and he's
puffin' it in -the thing and he's startin' to walk towards his car. So I don't think he
ever got more than 20 feet from the Bentley —
Proll: But we don't know that because you weren't there.
Pfarr: No I mean I was just drivin' away, so —
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: The last time I saw him he was maybe 20 feet away.
Proll: So what do you think, he's walkin' away with the bag, with the two items in it,
what do you think made him change and go and put'em back and take a picture of
it and send you?
Pfarr: I would hope if it was, well there's a couple possibilities, it was a total joke and he
saw me leave and he was like okay time, joke's over now and I'm gonna go put
em back or one of the other, Colleen or somebody else out at the scene said dude,
what the fuck are you thinkin', go put that away, um, or he just had common sense
just hit him upside the head and he said God, takin' these isn't the best idea,
maybe I better go put'em back, uh I don't know.
Proll: Okay. When, let's go back a little bit, when you heard Kevin ask for the
screwdriver, who else would have heard that?
II
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25Tx) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 152
Pfarr: Um, well the, the only I would say for sure could have heard it was Colleen
because she was standin' right with me and I heard it and I'm assuming she could
have heard it. Now I was listenin' to her talk so I, I guess there's a chance that she
didn't hear it because she was tellin' me what was happening and I was, my
attention was divided but um, and then, for the life of me I can't remember, Bill,
who else was there, if, uh, George was there or, or Chitty.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: But I know patrol had all cleared so it was only traffic, the traffic call out team,
the people that would have been there.
Proll: Okay. Have you known or every seen Kevin take any vehicle parts during any
accident investigation before?
Pfarr: No.
Proll: Do you know if he does have a collection of vehicle parts?
Pfarr: I, I don't believe he does.
Proll: But —
Pfarr: I, I've been to his house, I've never see it and I've been to his office and I've never
seen it.
Proll: Okay, so let's go back, after you talked to him on the phone, say when you're done
there come and see me, then what happens there?
Pfarr: Um, I came back here, I waited in the office, in the sergeants' office, um, he
showed up a short time later and was, um, very apologetic and I, I was more
angry at that point, I didn't really wanna hear what he had to say.
Proll: What did he say?
Pfarr: Um, just that he was sorry, he was just tryin' to be funny. Um, said he realized
now what, you know how it could have been interpreted and, um, it was, I can't
remember verbatim what he said. It was more, we're talkin' eight months ago,
nine, ten months ago. Um, when, at the conclusion of that conversation it was,
my thought was, okay he's, he's showing a great deal of remorse, um, my take on
it was that it was a joke that he took a little bit too far, um, once the, once he
involved the tow truck driver. Um, and so we talked it over for 20 minutes or so
and, maybe 15 minutes and I figured okay that's, I don't think this is ever gonna
be an issue again. So that's where it, that's how we ended it.
12 _
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 153
Proll: So when you talked to him at the scene, when you were drivin' away and you
talked to him, did he ever say that it was a practical joke?
Pfarr: No, I, I, we didn't say anything. I just said hey, I can't believe you would have put
in the position you just put me in with the other officers there, with the tow truck
driver there. He says hey I'm really sorry, I put it back, uh, I think he might have
said, actually I'm really sorry I put it back, I was just jokin'. He never admitted
hey, I'm gonna steal it, I was plannin' on stealin' it, nothin' like that. Then I
definitely would have thought much differently of how I was gonna handle the
situation.
Proll: Okay, so he told you on the phone that he put 'em back?
Pfarr: Yeah, I'm pretty sure, I'm 99 percent sure he did.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Oh, no he absolutely told me on the phone that he put'em back —
Proll: Right.
Pfarr: But I'm 99 percent -sure he said he was just jokin' when he —
Proll: Okay. And how much later was it that Kevin came into your office?
Pfarr: Oh, it was pretty quick. Um, drivin' time from Orcutt and Johnson plus ten
maybe? They had to finish puffin' a couple boxes in but they were wrappin' up
the scene, the tow truck driver had the car hooked up so it was —
Proll: And when he came into your office it was just you and him?
Pfarr: Yes.
Proll: And Sergeant Amoroso had gone home?
Pfarr: Correct.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Yeah, he had gone home hours earlier.
Proll: And so when Kevin came in he said great deal or remorse it was a joke that went
too far? And you counseled him and, and didn't think it was gonna be an issue
again?
Pfarr: Correct.
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 154
Proll: Did he say, did he elaborate anything on the joke?
Pfarr: No.
Proll: Like I was, sorry I was messin' with you because you were a new sergeant or just
I thought it'd be funny, I mean —
Pfarr: No, it was mostly me bendin' his ear about you know what the tow truck driver
had thought of this and what's gonna happen now if he gets hooked for deuce, we
had a lengthy conversation about what happens if -the tow truck driver gets
involved- in somethin' and now he's got this dirt on you and he takes it to, you
know to Cal Coast or any of the other news outlets. It was right around the time
of Corey's thing so that was kind of a topic we talked about and we were already
lookin' pretty poor in the media right now and here you're gonna pull somethin'
like this and chance riskin' the department's image and all that kinda stuff, so we
talked about that.
Proll: Did Kevin say he had any conversation other than askin' the tow truck driver for a
screwdriver? Did he, when he put 'em back did he say I was just kidding, did he —
Pfarr: You know what, yeah. He did say that he kinda brushed it over with the tow
truck driver and let him know that it was, um, a new sergeant and it was just a
joke and all that stuff.
Proll: Okay. Have you ever seen him take any dermo stuff that he shouldn't?
Pfarr: No.
Proll: Okay, so after Kevin leaves your office, then what happens?
Pfarr: Um, I had a conversation with, uh Officer Kevany.
Proll: And when was that?
Pfarr: It was minutes after Waddell left.
Proll: In your office?
Pfarr: Yeah.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: And it was very brief and I said hey I don't know what went on out there, if you
saw it but basically I just wanna make sure that we're on the same page that takin'
parts from a traffic scene is not okay and, um, it was, I mean she was in absolute
14
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 155
agreement so she never said anything about what he was doin' or anything like
that.
Proll: And then anything else with Kevany?
Pfarr: No, it was a very, very quick conversation. But I didn't want her to leave thinkin'
that I let Kevin get away with this kinda stuff so I just kinda had a very short —
Proll: Okay, so when's the next time you had somethin' to do with this incident?
Pfarr: Um, during the last testing process for detectives and, -um, NTF out of the sheriff s
department and all that kinda stuff. He had put in —
Proll: But prior to that we had a sergeants' testing. Was there any conversation that you
had with anybody during that time, although they were fairly close in time to this,
but —
Pfarr: No.
Proll: About any conversations with other sergeants that people might not make good
candidates, um, because of things like this?
Pfarr: Um, I don't think so. He didn't even put in for this last testing, so —
Proll: Right.
Pfarr: I'm tryin' to remember if I talked to Amoroso about it during when Kevin was still
debating whether to put in for sergeant or if it was, um, at the time of detective
testing.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: But basically come detective testing time, um, he was pumpin' everybody for
information so he'd do a good oral for those detective spots and it dawned on me,
God, does this, after everything that happened with Corey, um, I thought you
know I may not have used the best judgment in not notifying the lieutenant or
anybody else and takin' this whole incident up the chain a little bit further. Um,
so I, I got a hold of Lieutenant Bledsoe and Lieutenant Smith and said just so you
guys are in the loop and bad on me for not doin' it sooner but, um, this incident
happened.
Proll: And did you tell those two together?
Pfarr: No, separately.
Proll: Separately?
15
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 156
Pfarr: Within minutes of each other but I, once I realized how serious he was about
testing' for those spots I got a hold of Lieutenant Bledsoe and walked right down
the hall and told Lieutenant Smith.
Proll: And what did, do you remember about when that was?
Pfarr: Um, it was after he turned a memo in but before he withdrew his memo. I wanna
say probably two or three week before the oral board process.
Proll: And what did you tell Lieutenant Bledsoe?
Pfarr: Um, I said hey, with everything that's goin' on with Corey this is, this was my
experience with Officer Waddell and now that I realize he's interested in these
positions, um, I think this is relevant information that you should be aware of
now, joke or not joke, um, either he was gonna steal it or it was just a bad joke,
but either way, that judgment is probably not a candidate that wants to go into
those positions, using that judgment in such a recent history is probably not the
best candidate for those positions.
Proll: If you had, this is a supposition, if you had totally thought this was a practical
joke would it have ever entered=your mind that he was gonna steal it?
Pfarr: Um, I, I don't know. I don't know that I came to the conclusion that it was
entirely a joke until after he, we were done in my office that night.
Proll: Okay, because I, you know I've interviewed a ton of people now so I've gotta tell
you, you are the only one that is bringing up, um, other than what hearsay people
mighta had, that it was a joke. Um, Officer Kevany and Officer Cudworth just
flat out, no, he was takin' it and —
Pfarr: Really?
Proll: And she thought he was takin' it for the office. Cudworth was, thought he was
takin' it for some sort of collection, he didn't know if it was for the office but just,
I mean almost to the point, no, he was stealing it. And the interesting thing is,
none of them you know when I asked them was this a practical joke, they're like
what would be the joke? No, I mean he was takin' that item for, I mean in
Robert's words it was personal gain. So and Brian —
Pfarr: It's certainly possible.
Proll: Well I'm just sayin' that, so the whole crux of this whole thing is gonna be, you
know on a, on a, one thing is if in his interview he would be completely dumb and
completely stupid to say no, I never touched anything on that car. So it's gonna
come down to —
16
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 157
Pfarr: Oh God, I hope he doesn't do that.
Proll: — it's all gonna come down to why he was takin' that item.
Pfarr: Right.
Proll: And this, the interesting thing is he's had a conversation with Sergeant Ameroso
since all of this and never once did Kevin say, Brian, that was just a bad joke and
you would think that that would be the first —
Pfarr: First —
Proll: — first thing on his mind. So what I really need to do is to, to think and you know
with, and I'm just gonna be honest with you, I think if, if you personally minimize
this as a practical joke it kinda goes easier on you that you didn't —
Pfarr: Absolutely.
Proll: I'm just sayin' that you didn't report a theft —
Pfarr: Complete agree.
Proll- So I'm just kinda gettin' into this a little more delicately.
Pfarr: No, no, I —
Proll: — too.
Pfarr: Hey, I screwed up, I'll be the first one to say that.
Proll: Right. But it is a lesser screw up if, if this practical joke get perpetuated and then
when you report it to them, minimized, I'm just kinda suppositioning this.
Pfarr: I see where you're goin, I see what you're sayin' though.
Proll: Had you gone to either one of these lieutenant or both and said, you know Kevin
clearly was stealing this instead of bringin' up the practical joke thing I would
have believed that they would not have just took in this information and not done
anything with it.
Pfarr: Right.
Proll: Because up until the recent IA, neither captain knew anything about this, nothing.
Pfarr: Correct.
17
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 158
Proll: So it was, you know either watered down or minimized to you know from the,
from the lieutenant level to maybe protect you or they didn't want that happening
on their thing but it is interesting that the people that were there and stuff, you
know, you know how we are if we're removing a thing, you know we're screwin'
with you know Chad on this and they, that would have been their first thing. You
know they were just screwin' with Chad, you know I was, I was expecting
Colleen to say —
Pfarr: Oh yeah we were just screwin' with him —
Proll: Or we got together on the side of the car and we were just sayin' okay you know
let's, let's screw with Chad. I've done it a ton of times, none of that. I mean they
almost laughed when I brought up at the end of the thing, you know I didn't ask
them that right off the bat, at the end —
Pfarr: Right.
Proll: It's so farfetched of a practical joke, um —
Pfarr: The only think I can tell ya is I don't, I've never worked with Kevin, I don't have
nearly the amount of time that those guys do. At the end of our conversation it
was; I think certainly he could have been intending to steal it, that's --absolutely a
possibility.
Proll: Yeah.
Pfarr: But our conversation led me to think, now is he a hellova, hey I wanna get outta
this, I'm just gonna say whatever I need to say?
Proll: Right.
Pfarr: Absolutely could be.
Proll: But when he's tellin' you, you know it was, I was stupid, I was tryin' to be funny
or whatever, did, did he ever elaborate that saying that I was messing with you
because you were a new sergeant?
Pfarr: No, no.
Proll: Okay, so he never said anything that, it was a practice joke to you?
Pfarr: No. It was just hey I was, I was jokin', I was messin' around.
Proll: Okay, so just take, just take that statement, what, what does that mean, he's taken
items off a car but he's messin' with, who's he messin' around with and don't you
Is
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25Ta) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 159
think if he's in the doghouse you know the first thing he would be tryin' to do is
explain why he was bein' funny or why he was messin' around saying sorry Chad,
you know you're a new sergeant, I was just messin' with you or whatever. The
interest, the other interesting thing is Colleen takes a lot more responsibility for
knowing about doing this than it was just Kevin, I mean she almost, she actually
said we, we were doing this, we and I'm like well —
Pfarr: She was with me so she wasn't doin' anything.
Proll: Well I mean she knew about taking this, let's put it that way. And it wasn't —
Pfarr: Did they talk about it beforehand?
Proll: No, I had to get to her sayin', okay who asked for the screwdriver, who removed
the item, because it was we, we decided to take this item. So it was, it wasn't
Kevin's, it might have been his brain child but it wasn't his —
Pfarr: No, that's absolutely not true because she was standin' with me down at the
intersection linin' up skid marks, gauge marks —
Proll: You don't know what conversation they had prior to you gettin' there?
Pfarr: No, but if she's tryin' to tell you that she was the one that was over askin' for the
screwdriver —
Proll: Oh no she wasn't. No, no.
Pfarr: Okay.
Proll: Absolutely Kevin askin' for the screwdriver —
Pfarr: Okay.
Proll: Kevin removin' the items, Kevin puttin' it in the bag, Kevin putting it in the car —
Pfarr: Okay.
Proll: Um, all those things, absolutely Kevin, but her, yeah we were taking it and you
know that was taking it for office, for the traffic office as a memento of this
investigating this crash.
Harr: Do they have other things over there? I've never seen a memento over there that
would make me think that that's somethin' they would do.
Proll: They don't, but this was a special car, that, that was the reasoning.
19
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 160
Pfarr: Okay.
Proll: So, so when you first talked to Bledsoe —
Pfarr: Yes.
Proll: And you told him that, basically what you had told me tonight, you had this traffic
accident scene, Kevin took this.
Pfarr: Yes.
Proll: Everything you told me tonight?
Pfarr: Yes.
Proll: And that you thought that it was a practical joke?
Pfarr: Well at the end of it I said listen. When I left that, and I'll be the first one to admit
I've gotten a, probably a little too naive at the beginning of this promotion as to
what I'm gonna believe from different officers when I talk to 'em, versus now, and
then just working with Kevin more in the, in the time since then, um, seein' how
he operates on patrol and recognizin' okay, could I have been snowed?
Absolutely, I could —
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: — absolutely wanted to believe that he was playin' a joke and he was intending on
stealin' 'em, that could absolutely be the case.
Proll: But do you think the officer being called in by a sergeant, wouldn't he be, if, if he
truly was doin' it as a practical joke, wouldn't he be going over and over again
about the reasons why he was doing that, um, Chad, you were a new sergeant,
there was a bunch of officers there, we were jokin' about it, then you showed up,
we decided to do it, you know that kinda stuff but he basically said it was stupid
and I was tryin' to be funny but never really, now funny is it? It's not funny in and
of itself.
Pfarr: It's not at all.
Proll: So that's what I, I mean I think if, if his intension was as a practical joke and he
gets called on the carpet for it he would be goin' overboard in my experience to
explain to you why that was gonna be funny, that you're a new sergeant, you
know Janice was there with us, you know all those kinda things.
Pfarr: Right. Right.
20
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 161
Proll: Um, so that kinda makes me believe, and then hearing the statements of the other
people that really the, the practical joke and I do have to tell you that you're not
the only one that brought it up because Brian, um, joked with Kevin either on the
way out there or right when they got there about messing with you, and so Brian's
concerned and feels bad that he might have planted the seed —
Pfarr: Seed —
Proll: — but in the conversations that Brian has had with Kevin, Kevin has never, ever
said you know that was just a stupid practical joke, so you would think that he
would be going overboard in explaining that.
Pfarr: I, I don't know. I can't say one way or the other. I can tell you for sure that that
night I walked away thinkin' it was a joke.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Could I have been snowed and could he have pulled one over on me? Absolutely.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: I will completely 100 percent say he could have got one on me, um, which is why
when the detective -thing came up and what I told Lieutenant Bledsoe was here's
the deal, this is what happened, this is what I believed at the time. Now, having
seen Kevin work since then I'm not so sure.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: I, I, believe it —
Proll: You're not so sure just about it bein' a joke or not?
Pfarr: Correct.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: I, I, I wanna believe it was a joke but this is a pretty —
Proll: But obvious you thought —
Pfarr: — free reign position and do we really wanna go with my gut?
Proll: Right. But you thought big enough to, I mean you could have seriously not said a
word.
Pfarr: Absolutely, and nobody would have ever been the wiser.
21
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 162
Proll: Right. And but and it's obviously good that you did for the ethics of the
department and stuff but it, it almost leads me to believe that you maybe had a
second feeling —
Pfarr: I definitely had a doubt.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Come detective time. Do we really want a chance puttin' this guy in a position
like this —
Proll: Let, let's say he —
Pfarr: Maybe he really was gonna steal 'em and I got one pulled over on me.
Proll: Right. Let's say he didn't put in for detective, would this, do you think you would --
have ever had this opinion unless somethin' else had popped up?
Pfarr: What do you mean had the opinion?
Proll: Well let's say he just remained downtown and, I mean this is months had gone by.
Pfarr: Right. Right.
Proll: So and let's say he didn't put in for detective, didn't put in to get promoted, do you
think it, was it enough for you, or was it just the fact that he might have been goin'
in detectives?
Pfarr: It was simply the fact that he was gonna be goin' into a position that —
Proll: Okay, so had he not applied you probably would have never said anything?
Pfarr: Probably not.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: I mean unless I saw somethin' else later on, but it was kinda one of those, God, I
mean he's goin' into this position now and —
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: I, I now that we're here and months have gone by and I've gotten a little less naive
Proll: Okay.
22
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 163
Pfarr: — about what some of the patrol guys might tell me when I'm askin' 'em questions,
it, there's definitely a possibility he pulled one over on me.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: I'll, I'll be the first to admit it.
Proll: And then you met with Lieutenant Smith?
Pfarr: Right after I left Lieutenant Bledsoe's office.
Proll: Okay, basically said the same thing?
Pfarr: Yeah.
Proll: And did either of them say anything what they were gonna do with it?
Pfarr: No, just thanks for bringin' the information to me.
Proll: Okay, were you thinkin' they were gonna do somethin' with it? Or what —
Pfarr: Um—
Proll:
m—
Proll: — or was it, was it minimized or watered down enough that it was, it was handled?
Pfarr: No, it was more they both had the conversation with me hey, obviously and I was
completely up front with 'em sayin' hey I screwed up by not bringing this to you
guys' attention beforehand, but they both reiterated that again, I mean we had
some conversation about yeah, you screwed up and this should have been brought
to our attention way, way earlier —
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: — right, right when it happened so we can make the call. Um, this was one of
those ones that was so borderline that probably should have just been handled by
you in the field and —
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: — a verbal counseling probably was not in order. So that was how we left it.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: And there was never any conversation about okay, I gotta to talk to the captain
about it or anything like that. It was, when I left my feeling was, was so much
23
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 164
time had gone by and since I had already chewed his ass in the office and, and
gone over all the ramifications of what could have happened, um, when I walked
out of the office it was my opinion that there was probably nothing gonna be
done.
Proll: Okay and that was, what you had with Kevin was just a verbal —
Pfarr: Correct.
Proll: There was nothin' written?
Pfarr: Correct.
Proll: Has anything been written in your evals of what you should have done?
Pfarr: No.
Proll: Like it's not in your quarterly or —
Pfarr: No.
Proll: Nothin'?
Pfarr: No.
Proll: And you've had quarterlies since then?
Pfarr: Yes, yes.
Proll: Um, how much when you talked to Lieutenant Smith and Bledsoe did you stress
the practical joke angle?
Pfarr: Well I stress that's what I originally thought it was, but —
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: — now that I, I've grown up a little bit so to speak, um, it's been a few more
months I've got some concerns.
Proll: Right.
Pfarr: Is what I told them.
Proll: The disconnect, the disconnect I'm seeing is my experience with the lieutenants is
that this just obviously would rise to somethin' that they would tell one of the
24
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25THWaddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 165
captains about. And since they didn't I just kinda, I'm gettin' a sense that you
know months later you say this happened and that it was —
Pfarr: Well I mean I definitely told 'em. hey I think this was a joke which is why I didn't
bring it to you guys' attention beforehand.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: But now that this much time's gone by and I see what, I'm kinda puttin' it a little
more together —
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Do we really wanna risk him bein' in a position like that on what my gut was that
night.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: And could I have grown up enough now that I'm thinkin' God maybe, maybe he
really was gonna steal 'em.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Absolutely a possibility and that's why I brought it up.
Proll: What, so obviously you can tell how serious this is, um, in conjunction with the
other thing goin' on.
Pfarr: Correct.
Proll: So the whole crux of this is going to be, like we talked about, how he would
explain that this whole thing was a practical joke. And if, if you have any insight
to, um, I asked you a ton of questions if you would think of hey, ask him this, I
remember him makin' this statement that didn't make sense to me that night or this
practical joke thing, you know how long had you been a sergeant?
Pfarr: Like not even a month yet.
Proll: Okay. Had he done any other things, um, has anyone else —
Pfarr: Oh, go ahead, sorry.
Proll: — done practical jokes to you that, I mean I, I don't, no one ever played practical
jokes on me when I was a sergeant, and I haven't seen that a lot.
25
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 166
Pfarr: No, and the only reason I brought that up to begin with was when I pulled up I
hadn't really been workin' with those guys at all since I got promoted. It had only
been I think three of four weeks since I got promoted. So I had been working day
watch and all of the sudden I'm thrust into night watch —
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr. — so I was seein' these guys every day, now all of a sudden I hadn't seen 'em for
weeks, and they show up at my scene and that's the first time we'd really said
anything to each other since the promotion.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: And so here I am and they're all showin' up and it's like oh Sergeant Pfarr, sir and
all the bein' super formal —
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: You know and kinda over the top every, every time they start sayin' anything,
Sergeant Pfarr sir, all that kinda stuff—
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: — so it was, everybody was kinda in a joking mood.
Proll: Okay, so Sergeant Goodwin arrived prior to all this stuff happening but then left
also prior to this happening?
Pfarr: Yes.
Proll: So she, she wouldn't have had any knowledge of the screwdriver or anything —
Pfarr: No, unless he said somethin' to her.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: — beforehand of, I mean we definitely then have some knowledge.
Proll: Did you have any discussions, besides, besides talkin' to Officer Waddell that
night in the office, the night of the TC —
Pfarr: Correct.
Proll: — fast forward to when you had a conversation with Sergeant Amoroso and then
when you told Sergeant, or Lieutenant Smith and Bledsoe, had you told anyone
else?
26
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25THWaddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 167
Pfarr: No.
Proll: Okay, so no other discussions?
Pfarr: No.
Proll: — about this with Colleen other than —
Pfarr: No, Colleen that night. Yeah.
Proll: And no other discussions or anybody bring it up or anything?
Pfarr: I'm wondering if I called in Cudworth that night also.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: I don't, I don't remember if I did or not.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: I don't think I did but I,1 wanna say he went to go home right from the scene.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Because I don't think I talked to him —
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: But no, no other.
Proll: Okay. Do you have any suggestions on how I could pinpoint what I should ask
Kevin, um, regarding this, whether you could help in differentiating between a
practical joke and a theft?
Pfarr: You know we talked about the collection, I mean he brought up his collection,
both in the tow truck driver and I can't remember if it was, um, it must have been
back in the office recently, the collection again. And it, it —
Proll: The interesting thing —
Pfarr: — it would seem that that would conflict with a joke —
Proll: Right.
27
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TxWaddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 168
Pfarr: — unless that was the whole crux, I, I don't know if there's a little bit more to this
collection, um —
Proll: The interesting thing is he didn't even, he was downtown at this time. He didn't
even have an office in traffic.
Pfarr: No.
Proll: So it was like where is this collection?
Pfarr: Down in the dermo box in their cage back there? I know they've got a ton of stuff
out there and he and, um, Berrios was the only ones that had access to it. So I
don't know if there's anything in there. Um —
Proll: Have you ever seen anything other than den -no stuff in there?
Pfarr: No. No, um, but I, I've only walked in there briefly a couple times with George
so I haven't really, and like I said at his house, I mean I've been there once and it
was, I didn't get a tour of the whole place or anything but —
Proll: Right.
Karr: I walked through his garage but I didn't see -like a big shrine on the wall with all
the car parts or anything.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Um, you're talking to him Monday?
Proll: Mm hmm.
Pfarr: I'll think about a line of questions and I'll, if I think of somethin' I'll shoot you an
email tonight.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: I'm here 'til 3:00.
Proll: And he, the text picture was one text picture of the items in the car? And did the
text say anything?
Pfarr: No it was just a, I believe it was just a photo.
Proll: Just a photo?
Pfarr: Yeah, I don't think he said anything.
28
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25Tx) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 169
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Um, you know I wanna, I wanna believe LT that it was a joke but it, it got me
concerned enough that I went to both lieutenants after the fact and said hey, hey I
gotta fall on my sword, this is what I did. Um —
Proll: In hindsight what would you have done differently?
Pfarr: Call Lieutenant Smith that night and say this is what I got! How do you wanna
go? I mean and I go over the top with callin' him on almost everything and I don't
know why on this one I didn't. It, it's stupid now, now that I think about it. Well
I've known that for months, but —
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: I, I mean somethin' happened between the time of the TC and detective where I
thought God, really is this, or enough of my opinion of him had changed —
Proll: Did any other things spark that?
Pfarr: No, I think it was just kinda seein', um, just gettin' to know him a little bit better.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Because like I said we'd never worked together before I got promoted and then I
started seein' him —
Proll: But you still kinda weren't working with him
Pfarr: No, um —
Proll: I mean because you were on days, he was on nights.
Pfarr: I was on four months on nights with him, and we were, I mean I saw him quite a
bit on nights my first four months.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: And then on days he was eating up a ton of that CAT overtime so I'd see him
usually like at least once if not two times a week during the day on the downtown
CAT shifts and I, I never saw him, obviously never stole anything or ever did
anything like that that I saw, but I think it was just kind of a, a lack of what I
didn't see, um, when you see Brent or anybody else come in, or whoever else was
suckin' up overtime, there was constant activity and I just never really heard him
Join' anything.
29
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25THWaddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 170
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: I think it, it just kinda struck me as bein' more of a, a laziness, um —
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: So, my opinion of him just changed a little bit.
Proll: So this says I heard Officer Waddell talkin' to the tow truck driver, this is your
letter —
Pfarr: Right.
Proll: I heard Officer Waddell talkin' to the tow truck driver about borrowing a
screwdriver so that he could take the Bentley emblem to add to his collection.
Pfarr: Right.
Proll: So are you sayin' that hey, do you have a screwdriver so I can take that and put it
in my collection? Is that what he told the tow truck driver? Or was it —
Pfarr: No, it wasn't quite that. It was hey, I'm tryin' to get -this off, you got a
screwdriver? And then as they're walkin' over to and from he's oh yeah I'm gonna
add it to my collection.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: — type of thing. And I think at the time my thought was, God was he really gonna
steal this, I mean if he was gonna steal it, would he have really said all these
things in front of me where he knew damn good and well I was gonna hear it?
And, and I think I wanted to believe no, that he wouldn't be that stupid.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: But I, now, I'm thinkin' maybe he just didn't care.
Proll: And as far as you know he, he had just taken one lug nut cover?
Pfarr: Yes. That's all I saw. Now I don't know if he picked another one up off the
ground or somethin' that I just, I didn't see but that was all, I just saw him pop the
one off the car.
Proll: So this, this talks about I immediately recognized the problem that was created for
the department in the eyes of the tow truck driver that Officer Waddell's action
were still an attempt at a joke. I immediately telephoned Officer Waddell
30
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 171
reprimanding his actions and ordered him to return the car parts to the vehicle
which he did. I received a text message photograph from Officer Waddell of the
car parts on the driver's floorboard of the Bentley.
Pfarr: Yeah.
Proll: So this kinda talks about you told him to put it back and then you got the text.
Pfarr: I'm pretty sure I got the text as I, as I was dialin' him. I mean it was ringin' and
the text came across.
Proll: Okay so he, based on this, this makes more sense, but you're saying that he put it
back see because what doesn't make sense to me, Chad, is that he's walkin' with
this bag to the FST truck —
Pfarr: Right.
Proll: And all of a sudden —
Pfarr: It's the timing of it all.
Proll: Somethin' clicks in his head and he says maybe I shouldn't do this and goes —
Pfarr: Goes back.
Proll: Your timing of you call him, say put it back, and then he sends you a text message
confirming, don't worry about it —
Pfarr: I got it back.
Proll: It's all back. The other way doesn't make sense to me. I mean —
Pfarr: I don't wanna, I don't wanna —
Proll: Is this your department phone or is it —
Pfarr: No, it was my personal. Only because I don't, I didn't have his number on the
department one.
Proll: I mean what, what might help me is if you could look at your phone bill, I know
it's from a while ago, um, but you know you're at the scene, you call his text, I
mean you call him and then —
Pfarr: To get the, the sequence?
31
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 172
Proll: To see how much longer you know he calls, or he texts you back. Because to me
it just doesn't make sense.
Pfarr: Let me see if —
Proll: And especially when you, you were at the scene with him you never told him to
put it back until you were leaving on the phone.
Pfarr: Correct. I'll tell ya right now.
Proll: What can you do?
Pfarr: Huh?
Proll: Can you bring it up?
Pfarr: I'm hoppin' on my telephone account, on my AT&T account. Let me get my,
gotta get my username and my password from my wife.
Proll: You know let's do this, let me —
Pfarr: You wanna time out?
Proll: Well, let's finish this interview and then if you could provide me —
Pfarr: Okay.
Proll: — with the, the sequence in numbers at some point. Um, I just wanna kinda get
into that a little more because it, to me it doesn't make sense. The, the memo you
wrote makes sense in that you tell him to put it back when you're on the phone
with him and then he puts it back and sends you a text message like confirming
okay —
Pfarr: Let me, lemme, I'll get that and I'll let you know.
Proll: Okay.
Pfarr: Okay.
Proll: So do you have any other information to add regarding this entire incident?
Pfarr: Not that I can think of right now.
Proll: Okay, so I'm gonna end this interview. It is 7:42 p.m. and I'm turning off the
recorder.
32
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25' Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 173
SpeakWrite
www. speakwrite.com
Job Number: 15156-000
Custom Filename: SLO-Pfarr
Date: 06/ 05/2015
Billed Word Count: 11115
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR (JAN. 25TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 174
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 175
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JOHN BLEDSOE
BY LIEUTENANT BILL PROLL
Proll: 'Kay. This is Lieutenant Bill Proll, I'm in my office with Lieutenant John
Bledsoe. It's 11:20 a.m. on February 5'. I'm talking to Lieutenant Bledsoe
regarding the administrative inquiry into Kevin Waddell's involvement with the
taking of a vehicle part off a Bentley on a traffic accident in February 2013. So
John, what, what I'm interested in talking to you about is what's, when is the first
time you knew of the possible theft of a vehicle part by Officer Waddell on a
traffic accident in February.
Bledsoe: I believe it was a few months ago, and I'm not certain on the exact date but it was
a couple of months ago when we were, um, testing for, or it was put out.that there
was gonna be some openings in the detective bureau or a SEYposition, and Chad
Pfarr came into my office to express his feelings on, uh, possible candidates.
Proll: And what did Sergeant Pfarr tell you?
Bledsoe: Well we were discussing some of the candidates I believe and, and
Officer Waddell's name came up because I knew he had expressed an interest in
the detective bureau, and Sergeant Pfarr addressed- some concerns that we had on
some potential -integrity issues, uh, from Waddell and specifically regarding to -an
incident where he was on scene at a traffic collision involving a Bentley and I
don't remember all the details of that event but it involved him either planning to
take one of the items from a Bentley, and I believe that it was a hood ornament or
something to that effect, um, and um, he had told Sergeant Pfarr that he was
gonna take one of these items from, from the scene as a memorabilia or
something like that, and Sergeant Pfarr convinced him that that probably wasn't a
good idea at the time. I believe I think that's the way the conversation went. I
certainly had some concerns regarding that conversation and I asked
Sergeant Pfarr if he had spoken to Lieutenant Smith about that because he was his
direct supervisor at the time and he said he had not if I recall correctly. Um.
Proll: Hold on a second.
Bledsoe: Okay.
Proll: So just back up a little bit. So, Sergeant Pfarr came and contacted you during
detective and SET testing, that promotional or the special assignment testing
process. Sergeant Pfarr came to you and said that he has concerns with one of the
candidates being Officer Waddell and it was an ethical issue that the concern was,
and that he proceeded to tell you that, um, at a traffic accident scene, uh,
Officer Waddell was either going to take or took what you think was a hood
ornament off of a Bentley when Sergeant Pfarr recommended that he not do that
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JOHN BLEDSOE Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 176
and that, did, did you know if, did Sergeant Pfarr tell you if Waddell put the item
back or not?
Bledsoe: I think he said he put it back —
Proll: 'Kay.
Bledsoe: — because I, it certainly would have been more of an issue if he had not, but I
remembered it being, it being that specific collision because I remember it was in
the media about the Bentley —
Proll: Okay, okay.
Bledsoe: — the young lady that crashed Bentley, um, but I, Sergeant Pfarr told me that
Waddell indicated to him that he wanted to take this part and I wasn't sure if it
was, if he was joking with him or not, but just based on Sergeant Harr's demeanor
it seemed that he thought that Waddell might be serious about taking -this part for
Proll: 'Kay, hold on one second. Okay, so you thought that Waddell might be serious
about taking the part.
Bledsoe: For a souvenir, um, I, I do believe that he said that he did not end up taking the
part.
Proll: 'Kay.
Bledsoe: Because if he had I would have certainly had much more of an issue with it. And
as it was —
Proll: Okay, hold on a second. 'Kay, 'cause if he had actually taken the part you would
have had a much more, um, had much, much more of an issue with it.
Bledsoe: Absolutely.
Proll: Okay.
Bledsoe: Um, even with what Sergeant Pfarr was telling me I still had some concerns, um,
and I asked him if he had notified Sergeant or Lieutenant Smith about this
incident. I, I believe at that time he had not.
Proll: Okay.
Bledsoe: Then I directed him to, because he's your direct supervisor and also the watch
commander during that shift.
2
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JOHN BLEDSOE Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 177
Proll: So you told Sergeant Pfarr to tell Lieutenant Smith.
Bledsoe: I, I first asked him if he had notified him —
Proll: Okay.
Bledsoe: — and I believe he said no and I told him that he probably needs to notify
Lieutenant Smith.
Proll: Okay. And then what happened?
Bledsoe: That's the last —
Proll: Okay.
Bledsoe: — really Pve heard of it.
Proll: And did you, do you know if he had contacted Lieutenant Smith now?
Bledsoe: Um, I don't know for sure if he has or not.
Proll: Okay. Have you talked to anyone else about this?
Bledsoe: No.
Proll: Okay. I'm just, the, the whole crux of this is probably gonna boil down to what
the motive of Officer Waddell was, and what I'm trying to get at is what, um, was,
did you think Sergeant Pfarr was minimizing this to you or that he was truly
concerned that, that this might have been theft and not a practical joke which has
been kinda thrown around during this investigation. So what's your feeling on,
um, and, you know, it gets complicated because Sergeant Harr, you know,
probably practical jock or, joke or not should have reported this immediately to
someone and since he hadn't then I have to kind of look into whether he's
minimizing this so it kind of lessens his exposure to what he should have done —
Bledsoe: Mm hmm.
Proll: — so kind of like I'm trying to get the feeling with you if when, when
Sergeant Pfarr came and told you this was, was there comments about that he
thought Kevin was doing this as a practical joke or kind of based on what you're
saying that there was an ethical issue that some, I'm gettin' at, what did, what did
Sergeant Pfarr tell you about whether this was a joke or not.
Bledsoe: My impression was that he wasn't really certain of whether Waddell —
Proll: Okay.
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JOHN BLEDSOE Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 178
Bledsoe: — was serious about it or not, and he, that's why he came in, that issue came up
because we were talking about the openings and detectives and, and the issue
came up because I think it was, it was a potential integrity issue —
Proll: Okay.
Bledsoe: — with Waddell and, and my impression was that he wasn't certain whether
Waddell was, um, intentionally gonna take this or, or it was just a joke and
because of that that's why I didn't take any immediate action. I thought, well my,
my action was to A. Notify your lieutenant so, so he's informed, whether it's a
joke or not I think it's something that he needs to be aware of.
Proll: Okay.
Bledsoe: And I didn't, I still don't know whether, I don't know if Chad does either whether,
um, it was gonna be, he was actually gonna take the thing —
Proll: Okay.
Bledsoe: — the emblem or not, uh.
Proll: So you just had one conversation with Sergeant Pfarr about this?
Bledsoe: Um, I believe it was that day. You know what? I might have talked with him
later about it.
Proll: Okay.
Bledsoe: But I don't remember when that was.
Proll: And he sought you out to tell you this.
Bledsoe: Well he came into my office —
Proll: Okay.
Bledsoe: — yeah, that was, uh, a few months ago. It was when we put out the note,
notifications that we were opening up testing for detectives —
Proll: Okay.
Bledsoe: — and SET.
Proll: And how long do you think the conversation between you and Sergeant Pfarr
took?
4
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JOHN BLEDSOE Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 179
Bledsoe: Uh, he was in my office probably I'm guessing probably 10, 15 minutes.
Proll: Okay. And you advised him to contact Sergeant, or Lieutenant Smith, and if he
did that then it was sufficient for what you suggested he do.
Bledsoe: Sure, because I, I actually, I got the impression when he was telling me this that,
that Sergeant Pfarr resolved that issue —
Proll: Okay.
Bledsoe: — that night and that's, that's kind of what, what I took from it is he, this occurred,
um, Chad either put a stop to it or resolved it somehow and that he dealt with it
that night and that if I didn't know whether it was gonna be a continuing issue or
not and that's why I told him to notify his lieutenant.
Proll: Okay. But this was clearly months after the incident.
Bledsoe: Yeah, oh yeah, yeah.
Proll: Okay. When, when did this occur? In February.
Bledsoe: In February? Yeah, this was probably at least, uh, several months after I believe.
Proll: Okay. Um, anything else you can remember with, about your conversation with
Sergeant Pfarr?
Bledsoe: No, I don't.
Proll: Okay. Anything else to add about this?
Bledsoe: No.
Proll: So, just, yes, from what Sergeant Pfarr told you, when Sergeant Pfarr left your
office, were you thinking that Waddell took this item as a joke?
Bledsoe: I, I didn't think that he, Waddell took the item.
Proll: Okay.
Bledsoe: I thought that, um, he resolved it.
Proll: He initially took it, I guess.
Bledsoe: I don't know what Waddell was thinking —
5
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JOHN BLEDSOE Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 180
Proll: Okay.
Bledsoe: — at the time. I don't know if it was a joke or if he was serious about it.
Proll: Okay. So, in, in any case did, did Chad go overboard saying or minimizing that
it, it was just a joke or anything like that to you?
Bledsoe: Like I said, my impression was that I, I felt that Sergeant Pfarr wasn't certain.
Proll: Okay.
Bledsoe: Whether or not he believed it was gonna be a joke or, or he was serious gonna
take it.
Proll: Okay.
Bledsoe: But just because of that —
Proll: Concerned —
Bledsoe: — concerned, he, I, I thought that he probably should report it to Lieutenant Smith.
Proll: Okay. Okay. Anything else to add? -
Bledsoe: No.
Proll: So it is 11:31 and I am turning off the tape recorder.
Speakw.ite
www. speakwrite.com
Job Number: 15156-004
Custom Filename: SLO-Bledsoe
Date: 06/05/2015
Billed Word Count: 1874
6
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JOHN BLEDSOE Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 181
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 182
INTERVIEW WITH OFFICER GREG BENSON
BY LIEUTENANT BILL PROLL
Proll: So this is Lieutenant Bill Proll. I'm in my office with Officer Greg Benson. It is
February 5d' at 11:55 and Greg, I'm here to ask you a series of questions. I briefly
explained that it was regarding a traffic accident that was investigated by
Officer Waddell, so I'm gonna ask you a series of questions.
Benson:
Proll: Did you respond to a major injury accident at Orcutt and Johnson involving a
Bentley on February 22nd, 2013?
Benson: I wasn't dispatched to the incident but after the scene had been cleared and the car
was still there I went to see the damage to the vehicle.
Proll: Do you remember what SLOPD key personnel were at the scene during the
investigation?
Benson: My recollection is Officer Kevany, Officer Waddell and Sergeant Pfarr.
Proll: Could there have been other people or that, or that you.
Benson: Yes.
Proll: Okay. And your entire length of your time there you think was?
Benson: Less than 10 minutes.
Proll: And when you got there what was the status, like was the car still up, had it been
Ripped over yet or anything or?
Benson: Think it was, the tow truck had just gotten there and they were working on, uh,
dragging it out of where it had TC'd.
Proll: Okay. And what was your role at the scene? I know you kind of briefly said that.
Benson: Um, I had no role at the scene. Um, I was on patrol in the area. I was just
interested.
Proll: And that would account for you, that you weren't on the radio log?
Benson: That's correct.
1
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 183
Proll: Okay. So you were working patrol that night and you went by the scene but didn't
put yourself off there.
Benson: That's correct.
Proll: Okay. When you left the scene do you remember who was still there?
Benson: Think Sergeant Pfarr and I left at the same time, so it would have been
Officer Waddell and Officer Kevany, I think.
Proll: Did you ever see Sergeant Goodwin there?
Benson: I don't remember.
Proll: Okay. What about Officer Cudworth?
Benson: I can't remember. Sorry.
Proll: That's okay. So when -you and Sergeant Pfarr left, your recollection is that
Officer Waddell and Officer Kevany and the tow truck driver obviously 'cause,
the tow truck, the tow truck was still when you were there?
Benson: Yes.
Proll: Okay. When, when you left the car was still there?
Benson: Yeah.
Proll: Okay. And what was Officer Waddell doing there?
Benson: Um, I think he was working downtown bikes and they dispatched him 'cause of
the severity —
Proll: Okay.
Benson: — of the —
Proll: But at the scene, what do think, what was he doing when you got there?
Benson: Um, he was over by the Bentley.
Proll: Okay. Do you remember what he was doing or anything?
Benson: Um, he tried prying off one of the rear emblems to the vehicle.
2
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 184
Proll: 'Kay. Let's go into this. First of all, on the, the rear emblem, what are you talking
about?
Benson: It's on the trunk.
Proll: Like the lid of the trunk?
Benson: That's correct.
Proll: Okay. And was the car upright?
Benson: I think it was, I can't remember if it was upright or upside down still.
Proll: Okay.
Benson: Um, but the tow truck was there and I think, I warm say it was upright by this
point and, uh, I forget what he had to do it with, but he was trying to get the
emblem off.
Proll: Okay.
Benson: But he couldn't get it off because the emblem was, uh, part of the locking
mechanism for the trunk too.
Proll: 'Kay, hold on a second.
Benson: Sorry.
Proll: No it's fine. So you said he was trying to get the emblem off but he couldn't get it
off because the emblem was part of the trunk locking mechanism.
Benson: Yeah, and I remember Sergeant Pfarr and I looked at each other like, is he really
doing this?
Proll: Did, did you say that or you just kinda looked at each other, thinking that?
Benson: It was a look, yeah, it was the look and then after, um, we said something to each
other.
Proll: Okay. Hold that thought for a minute.
Benson: Sure.
Proll: So, let me go back to a couple of these. Did you hear or see Officer Waddell ask
the tow truck driver for a screwdriver?
3 _
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 185
Benson: Now that you mention it yes, I do recall something similar to that.
Proll: Do you know if he got a screwdriver from the tow truck driver?
Benson: I can't remember.
Proll: Okay.
Benson: But he did have something that he was using.
Proll: Okay. So, you, where were you standing when he was trying to pry the emblem
off?
Benson: I was probably like 5 feet away from him, next to the car, I was lookin' at the car
still.
Proll: And you were lookin' at the car?
Benson: Min hmm.
Proll: How long do you think he tried to get the emblem off?
Benson: Probably about a minute.
Proll: Was he saying anything?
Benson: Not that I recall.
Proll: Okay. So after, did he give up 'cause he couldn't 'cause it was part of the locking
Benson: He gave up on the, I think he moved to something else —
Proll: 'Kay.
Benson: — to get.
Proll: What do you think he moved to? Or do you remember?
Benson: I think it was, was it the steering wheel emblem? Does he go to cut that out?
Proll: I don't, I, I don't know. Did you see him trying to remove the steering wheel
emblem?
Benson: Trying to remember, he got something from the car that —
4
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 186
Proll: Okay.
Benson: — Sergeant Pfarr made him put back.
Proll: 'Kay. Hold on right there. 'Kay so let me ask you specifically, do you remember
seeing Officer Waddell trying to remove the steering wheel emblem?
Benson: On wanna say I remember, like you know how most cars have an emblem on, like
where the airbag would go?
Proll: Uh huh.
Benson: I think that's what he may have gotten that he may have had to put back. I know
he got something and Sergeant Pfarr made him put it back.
Proll: Okay. Did you ever see him around any of the wheels?
Benson: Yes.
Proll: Okay. And what'd you see?
Benson: Again I can't be sure —
Proll: Okay.
Benson: — but he goes to get the center emblem out of the wheels.
Proll: Do you remember which wheel he was at?
Benson: No I don't.
Proll: And when you say center emblem, meaning the Bentley emblem?
Benson: Yeah.
Proll: Okay. Do you know if he used a tool to get that?
Benson: I don't remember.
Proll: Okay.
Benson: I don't, I don't even remember if he was able to get one out.
Proll: Do you remember, did you ever seen him with a vehicle part in his hands?
Benson: Yes, but I don't remember —
5
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 187
Proll: Okay.
Benson: — which.
Proll: Did you ever hear Officer Waddell say anything, anything about having a
collection of car parts that he's taken from accident scenes?
Benson: No.
Proll: Like, hey, I'm gonna take the Bentley emblem for my collection or anything like
that?
Benson: No, I never.
Proll: 'Kay. Did you see Officer Waddell and Sergeant Harr have any discussions while
at the scene?
Benson: Sergeant Pfarr confronted him about it.
Proll: While you were there?
Benson: Yeah, I wasn't like, I could tell what was being said kinda.
Proll: Okay. But you weren't close enough to hear it.
Benson: I wasn't, yeah.
Proll: And what do you think you heard, or what do you think they were talking about?
Benson: I think Sergeant Pfarr was telling him it wasn't appropriate what he was doing and
to put what he got back.
Proll: And then what, what do you remember happening?
Benson: Um, Waddell placed the item that he got back inside the vehicle.
Proll: So, so you remember seeing something but you just don't remember what it was?
Benson: Yeah, it was either, it, it's either the center caps, the wheel, or the emblem —
Proll: From the steering wheel?
Benson: — for some reason I wanna say he took out his knife and cut like a piece out of the,
the leather that was off the steering wheel, but I can't remember.
Proll: Okay.
6
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 188
Benson: He got something with the emblem on it.
Proll: Would, would Sergeant Pfarr have seen the cutting with the knife?
Benson: He should, uh, so long ago, like it was, it was one or the other. Or maybe he just
ripped it.
Proll: Okay.
Benson: There, there was something with an emblem that he got that Sergeant Pfarr had a
problem with and addressed.
Proll: Okay. And, so you remember seeing that something from the car in Waddell's
hand—
Benson: Mm hmm.
Proll: — the right specifically on that point what did Waddell do with it?
Benson: Uh, he just held it in his hand.
Proll: So he, did he put it in a bag? Did he walk over to his car with it or anything?
Benson: Mm-hmm, (no).
Proll: Okay so, the item he took was in his hand and you're somewhere close and you
see what you think is Sergeant Pfarr and him having a discussion that he should,
that it's inappropriate and to put it back.
Benson: Mm hmm.
Proll: And then what happened?
Benson: Um, then Waddell put it back and, uh —
Proll: Do you know where?
Benson: — I wanna say back in the car.
Proll: Okay.
Benson: But there was also parts on the tow truck that he might have put it back with. I
think he put it back in the car.
Proll: Okay.
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 189
Benson: And Sergeant Pfarr both of, both of us looked at each other and were like, all
right, we're gonna leave before we get involved in any, in that IA, I think is what
we said basically.
Proll: And did you actually verbalize that to each other?
Benson: Yeah, I think Sergeant Pfarr said it to me, and I kinda laughed, like yeah, let's get
out of here.
Proll: And, and what do you think he, and I know it's something to the tune of what do
you think he said?
Benson: Um, something like on that note let's get out of here before we get involved in his
IA or that IA.
Proll: And when he said that what did you think he was referring to?
Benson: What I had just seen Officer Waddell do at the scene.
Proll: And just summarize that for me.
Benson: Um, tryin' to get parts off a vehicle and then obtaining something from it.
Proll: Would, do you remember where the tow truck driver was during this?
Benson: He was all in the vicinity.
Proll: Okay. So the tow truck driver would have seen what was going on?
Benson: He did see it, what was going on.
Proll: Okay. And how do you know that?
Benson: Um, I remember they're talking about what he was doing, just in small talk, but I
don't remember anything specific.
Proll: So who, the tow truck driver and Waddell?
Benson: Yeah.
Proll: So the tow truck driver and Waddell were talking about Waddell taking the part?
Benson: Yeah.
8
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 190
Proll: 'Kay. And so Sergeant Pfarr and you looked at each other and said something like
I'm out, let's get out of here before we get involved in that IA and then what
happened there?
Benson: Uh, we left the same.
Proll: 'Kay. And you just went back on patrol?
Benson: Yeah.
Proll: Have you heard anything else about this?
Benson: No.
Proll: Until —
Benson: Today.
Proll: — today? So, the second you left the scene you, you haven't had any other
discussions with Sergeant Pfarr or any other officers that man, Waddell did this or
anything?
Benson: No, I just assumed he probably had gotten written up or something, and it was —
Proll: Okay.
Benson: — gone.
Proll: So, was, do you think in the entirety you were there for this incident or do you
think it's something that started before you got there? Or did you, you basically
witness what the crux of this is.
Benson: I think I witnessed the, what happened.
Proll; And if you witnessed the whole thing which what you believe is the witnessed the
whole thing, what would you say was Officer Waddell's reason for taking the
emblem?
Benson: Um, I think he thought the car was totaled and there was no value to the vehicle.
Think he just thought it was for lack of better words cool that we, there was a
Bentley there that was crashed to that severity.
Proll: Do you remember where Officer Kevany was during, when you're watching this
and you're having the discussion with Pfarr and stuff?
9
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 191
Benson: Um, the last discussion I had with Harr, I don't remember where she was, but
other than that she woulda been right around, where all next to each other.
Proll: When he was taking the item and all that?
Benson: Yeah, I think she would have witnessed.
Proll: Okay. Would it recollect your memory if I told you that Officer Cudworth was
there with those two?
Benson: When you said Sergeant Goodwin and Cudworth were there, um, I wanna say I
remember 'em —
Proll: Okay.
Benson: When I'm leaving —
Proll: Okay.
Benson: — um.
Proll: I'm actually not, not to mislead you, I'm not sure if Sergeant Goodwin was there
when this was going on. I'm pretty sure that Officer, uh Cudworth was there
when this -was going on. So does that change?
Benson: Yeah, and now that you say it, yeah.
Proll: 'Kay.
Benson: I, I don't remember interacting with them that well.
Proll: And he woulda been in the same general area?
Benson: Yeah, we had all been around either other.
Proll: Okay. Okay. So getting back to why. Is, that you witnessed the whole thing.
You thought that he thought the car was totaled, there was no value, that it was
cool that they were, that a, a Bentley was crashed, but why would he take an
item? What, what would you think the motive was?
Benson: Souvenir?
Proll: Okay. Was there any conversation of like a souvenir, oh it would look cool in
traffic or, you know, I'm gonna put it on my desk at work or take it home. Any,
was there any communications about why you think he took that? Okay. Okay.
Would there be any other reason why you think he might take that?
10
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 192
Benson: Not that I can think of, no.
Proll: So it wouldn't make sense as part of the traffic accident investigation to take a
wheel, the hub off with the Bentley emblem or, like you said, the, the back trunk
emblem or if he did the steering wheel thing, there would be no reason as part of
him getting called out to investigate this crash, why he would take those items?
Benson: No.
Proll: Okay. When he took those items do you think he intended on booking them at the
department for evidence of a crash?
Benson: No.
Proll: Okay. Where do you think that, let's say Sergeant Pfarr wasn't there or hadn't had
that conversation, where do you think those items would have ended up?
Benson: In his personal belongings.
Proll: Okay. I'm just gonna tell you that, you know if you can think of any other details,
the first I've heard of this, and I've interviewed this entire thing is of people on
this, just on this case, that is the first time I've heard of the steering wheel thing.
Um, which is another concern obviously. You know I, I heard, um, people didn't
remember if it was the front emblem because, you know, I was talking, is it like a
hood emblem? Like a, you know, one that sticks out and they go no, the Bentley
doesn't have that. It was a —
Benson: It was the wings and I remember they were just bending like really cheap.
Proll: Okay. So that was on the back trunk lid right?
Benson: Yeah.
Proll: So, and then everybody talks about the wheel —
Benson: Mm hmm.
Proll: — lug cover that had the Bentley emblem. That was, that was clear but, you know,
honestly this is the first, so I'm just tryin' to think if there, and you talked about a
knife and, I mean, would, would that have been something he'd have to get in the
car to do?
Benson: No, 'cause it, it was a convertible.
Proll: Okay.
11
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 193
Benson: And I remember he was just looking for some kind of emblem, and I remember, I
remember the wheel.
Proll: Okay.
Benson: I don't think he even got anything off, I can't remember if he was able, he might
have been able to get * * * * .
Proll: I think he got the, the center cap.
Benson: That might have been what he had to put back. But I remember the cloth had
come off the steering wheel and there was the same winged emblem on the cloth.
Proll: And the cloth that came out because of the accident?
Benson: Yeah.
Proll: And then he was just cuttin' the rest of it off or something?
Benson: I wanna say he was cuttin' it. He might have been ripping it —
Proll: 'Kay.
Benson: — but, um, there was an emblem on that steering wheel that matched the rear
emblem, it's that winged Bentley with a B in the center.
Proll: Okay.
Benson: And, uh, he was tryin' to get that but he didn't get it.
Proll: Winged emblem with the B for Bentley in the center. 'Kay. So, you, you can't
really say for sure —
Benson: No.
Proll: — whether he got that one or not.
Benson: No.
Proll: Okay.
Benson: I can't say for sure what he got, Ijust know he got something.
Proll: Okay. Um, okay. Had, any other reason why you think he might have been doing
this? Okay. Was, did he explain or tell you why he was doing this?
12
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 194
Benson: Not directly, no.
Proll: Okay. Was he being secretive while doing this, or just completely out in the open
and —
Benson: Out in the open.
Proll: Not trying to hide anything, I mean, is it kind of weird that sergeant's standing
there and he's doing this or.
Benson: I think it, um, we were all kinda like, is he really doing this?
Proll: Okay.
Benson: But none of us are saying it at first.
Proll: Okay.
Benson: Until the very end Sergeant and I were kind of like, all right. That's weird.
Proll: Okay.
Benson: I never talked to Kevany or Cudworth if he, I never talked to anybody except
Sergeant Pfarr about -it.
Proll: Okay. And so no other explanation that you had ever of heard of came into play?
Benson: No. No.
Proll: Okay. So if I told you that this was a practical joke, what would you think of
that?
Benson: Like he's trying to see our reaction?
Proll: Well, there's various, uh, accounts of why this happened, and one of them is that it
was a practical joke, and just seeing like, and I got some pretty clear office,
answers from officers like, that's, this is the first time I've heard that you know,
and, and there's just no way 'cause it wasn't, I mean there was nothing, you know,
there was no plan of who to be fun, who, who was he practical joking or, you
know, anything but, what do you think of the, the, uh, the reason that it might
have been a practical joke.
Benson: I don't get why, how it could have been a joke.
13
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 195
Proll: Okay. Did you and Sergeant Pfarr have any conversations regarding this incident,
that it was a practical joke, in your back and forth, let's get out of here, those kind
of things?
Benson: No.
Proll: 'Kay.
Benson: Sergeant Pfarr seemed pretty pissed that he was put in that position.
Proll: And how do you describe pretty pissed?
Benson: He's always so nice —
Proll: Mm hmm.
Benson: — that you can tell when he's pissed, he gets really quiet. And also I noticed he
was, he kinda has a tendency to turn red. You know, it kinda sounds fanny but
kinda.
Proll: So he turned red?
Benson: Yeah, you can tell he kinda.
Proll: 'Kay.
Benson: He was bitin' his tongue a little bit.
Proll: So you, did you hear Sergeant Pfarr tell Officer Waddell to put it back?
Benson: That's when they were having the conversation that I was kinda close to.
Proll: Okay.
Benson: But I could tell that's what he was telling him.
Proll: Okay. And then when you left, I mean this is why I'm asking, it's, it's critical but
if you don't remember or didn't see it, that's fine, did you see Sergeant Pfarr on the
phone, like when he was walkin' away or driving away, do you know of anything
that, you know, Sergeant Pfarr, um, again must have again told Officer Waddell
to put it back?
Benson: No.
Proll: Okay. Do you know if Officer Waddell sent Sergeant Pfarr a text message?
14
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 196
Benson: No.
Proll: Okay. So, just reiterating again. When you left the scene, that was the last time
you've heard of this since up until today.
Benson: Yes.
Proll: Okay. So to kinda summarize, Greg, you, you stopped by the scene, you were
there for about 10 minutes. During that 10 minutes you saw or heard
Officer Waddell ask the tow truck driver for some sort of tool. You first saw him
trying to remove the rear trunk emblem Bentley logo, um, but it was part of the
locking mechanism so he couldn't get off, couldn't get it off. It was kind of cheap
metal and it was bending or whatever. You might have seen him, um, trying to
remove the same similar style emblem on the steering wheel of the car, standing
outside the car 'cause it was a convertible. You're not sure of that. He might have
been using a knife or he might have been prying it, you know. Um, you,- you are
aware that he was trying to take something off a wheel but you're not sure if that
came off but at some point you saw him with some sort of object from the
Bentley. Um, you, in your mind was, he was doing that for personal gain for
some sort of souvenir thing. Um, never heard anything remotely about a practical
joke. Um, you knew that Sergeant Pfarr was upset about this, you know that
Sergeant Pfarr, um, told him to put it away. You had a conversation, something
to the tune of, um, Sergeant Pfarr said let's get out of here before it turns into an
IA or something like that.
Benson: Mm hmm.
Proll: Um, so when you left the scene, what was your feeling on whether
Officer Waddell's behavior was counseled or what, what the deal there was. Did
you think there was gonna be more to this or was it a done deal or.
Benson: I didn't think it was, uh, like IA —
Proll: Okay.
Benson: — but I thought it woulda been like a, um, a formal written, I don't know what
they're called * * * *.
Proll: Okay.
Benson: Basically what I got for the locker room write up.
Proll: Okay. Okay. You were thinking that Officer Waddell would have getting'
written up?
Benson: Yeah.
15
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 197
Proll: And if you had to summarize, what would you summarize a, a police officer on
duty, uh, taking a vehicle part in the course of his official duties that had nothing
to do with the investigation. What would you classify that as?
Benson: Like crime -wise?
Proll: Yeah.
Benson: A theft.
ProlL Okay. And the fact that not only did members of our department see it but a_tow
truck driver saw this and, you know, was probably wondering what, you know,
how can an officer do this and, you know, those, those kind of things. Um, let me
see. So let me just go through some other ones here real quick. And I, I dealt
with most of these so, did you see Officer Waddell place anything into a large
brown evidence bag?
Benson: No.
Proll: Did you see Officer Waddell walk towards his car with a brown paper evidence
bag?
Benson: No.
Proll: Do you know of a phone call between Officer Waddell and Sergeant Pfarr just
after Sergeant Pfarr left the scene?
Benson: No, I do not.
Proll: Have you known, or have you ever seen Officer Waddell take any vehicle parts
during accident investigations?
Benson: No.
Proll: On any different scenes? Do you know if Officer Waddell has a collection of
vehicle parts that he has taken from accident investigation scenes?
Benson: No.
Proll: So besides this, not, not only accident scenes, have, have you ever seen
Officer Waddell take anything that he shouldn't have before?
Benson: No.
16
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 198
Proll: 'Kay. And then lastly, just to reiterate this, it, when you saw Officer Waddell
remove the item from the car, did you think he was playing a practical joke on
somebody?
Benson: No.
Proll: 'Kay. 'Kay. Any other thing you wanna add or anything?
Benson: No.
Proll: Okay. It is 12:24 p.m. This interview is over and I am shutting off the tape.
Speakwrite
www. speakwrite.com
Job Number: 15156-002
Custom Filename: SLO-Benson
Date: 06/05/2015
Billed Word Count: 4705
17
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 199
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 200
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH (FEB. 13TH)
BY LIEUTENANT BILL PROLL
Proll: All right this is Lieutenant Proll. It is February 13"' at 5:02 p.m. I'm in my office
at the police department with Lieutenant Jeff Smith. Good evening Lieutenant
Smith.
Smith: Good evening.
Proll: So, what I'm interested -in is obviously I'm conducting an IA on Officer Waddell's
involvement with a traffic accident investigation in February of 2013 where it's
alleged he removed a Bentley part emblem off of a car that was totaled in a traffic
accident. So, I'm just gonna start with some basic questions. What, when was the
first time you heard of this incident, if you recall?
Smith: Uh, the traffic collision or him move, removing the, the, um, brand, the, uh.
Proll: Him, Officer Waddell removing the emblem.
Smith: Um, I don't remember the exact day, but it would have been around the time that
we were conducting our last, um, SET and detective interviews.
Proll:- And how were you contacted about this?
Smith: Uh, Chad approached me in the, my office during the shift. I can't even
remember if it was day or night and stated something to the effect and again, this
is just not exact, but hey I should have probably told you about this earlier, but I
wanted to, like, you know, I want to let you know about this now and he had
referenced, he asked if I remembered the crash with the Bentley and I said yes
cause he had called me that evening when, when the crash occurred. And he
said, excuse me, he said, um, when he arrived on scene, um, I don't remember
how it went, but he had seen Officer Waddell, I believe, carrying one of the
hubcaps and walking towards him and Chad. He said that he said, what are you
doing? And while Officer Waddell, he just made it sound like, kind of chuckled
and says, I'm just messing with you. So at the time Chad said hey, put that back
with the car and, and you know, that's not funny. Um, so, uh, and he, he basically
said he, he, this came back to him at the time that we're talking about, uh, 'cause
Waddell was putting in for one of the positions. I don't remember if it was SET
or detectives and he just had some concerns about potential integrity issues. Um,
he, Chad stated that he felt he had handled it that day. He didn't believe Waddell
was really going to, um, take the rim and was only messing with him'cause he
was a new sergeant. And I think at that time he had maybe been a sergeant one or
two months, so.
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH (FEB. 13TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 201
Proll: Okay. So, after the accident, up until this time when Chad comes to your office
and tells you this, you had no knowledge of anything with Officer Waddell?
Smith: Regarding that, no.
Proll: Regarding the part. Okay. So when Chad's explaining this to you, he initially is
telling you that, that in his mind that he believes this was a practical joke?
Smith: Yes. He, that he was messing with him'cause he was a new sergeant.
Proll: Okay, practical joke, yes. But also in the same time that he's talking to you he
brings up that this is, he's bringing this up now because he some ethical concerns.
So the whole crux of this thing is that obviously my whole goal is to find out if
this was a practical joke or not.
Smith: Yes.
Proll: So it's weird that if Chad all along had thought that it's a practical joke, then, you
know, why would he bring it up when Kevin's applying for these things with now
Chad and having an ethical issue. So it's kind of, they kind of conflict each other.
Smith: I think it was because, um, as, uh, Kevin was doing a lot of overtime for me on,
um, for- the -CAT downtown on teams for prior to having a full time cat team and I
had in, uh, reinforced with my sergeants to ensure that their downtown for the
entire four hours 'cause it was only in four hour shifts. And Chad had caught him
in the office one time watching a movie. Now Kevin said he was just finishing
his lunch and he had watched the movie at the time, but Chad told him, you're
only here four hours, you get a 15 minutes break. And I, and then there was a
couple times where he had come in, um, late or left early, um, and again I
reinforced with Chad to stay on top of this if it's becoming an issue, Kevin needed
to get written up. So I think Chad had started having concerns by some of the
patterns he had seen with Kevin and I may be, I, I think he reflected back on this
incident. Was this really a practical joke or, or could he have been taking this?
Proll: Okay, 'cause that's kind of in my interview with Chad. He's like, well then, you
know, I started thinking that maybe it never was a practical joke.
Smith: Yeah.
Proll: Um.
Smith: He never came and told me that. At the time he said he felt he had handled it and
it was just a bad joke.
Proll: Yeah, okay.
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH (FEB. 13TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 202
Smith: So.
Proll: And how did Chad tell you he handled it? Do you remember?
Smith: Um, I, you know, honestly I don't. I know he told to put, put, put it back and I
don't remember if he called him into his office later or talked to him to be honest
with you.
Proll: Okay. So this conversation with Chad, sometime before when they were
conducting detective and SET interviews, how long do you think the conversation
between you -and Chad went?
Smith: Oh, it was maybe 5 minutes.
Proll: Okay.
Smith: I had asked him if he had any knowledge. I, I can't remember if I asked him or if
I'd talked to Brian and said hey, have you ever heard of Kevin collecting like
trophies from accident scenes and if, uh, Chad wouldn't have known that. So I
kind of felt like maybe I, I was just kind of, you know, Chad told me this.
P-roll: Okay.
Smith: And I -vas talking to Brian and Brian at that time, Brian, one of Brian's comments
to me, he, he said nothing would surprise me with Kevin. But he, he didn't, he
said he, he, there was nothing to his knowledge that Kevin had ever taken from
any type of a case.
Proll: Okay.
Smith: And that was, I think, in a, in a side conversation at the time. I really wasn't
trying to investigate anything 'cause I had, at the time I had felt, I, you know, I
had really questioned Chad. So you feel this has been handled, that it was a joke
because otherwise I would have gone down the hall and probably said hey, we
need to do something else. But Chad, at the time, reinforced that he felt he had
handled it and, and it had been taken care of.
Proll: Okay. See that's the whole, that's where this whole thing conflicts in that, you
know Chad on one hand, you know, potentially is minimizing this to lessen the
exposure that he should have done different, something differently.
Smith: Yeah.
Proll: And in the same time he's saying well, now I'm thinking that it wasn't a practical
joke.
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH (FEB. 13TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 203
Smith: Yeah.
Proll: And that he was taking it, so, you know, that's, that's the dilemma.
Smith: Yeah.
Proll: Um, but as far as the conversation with you, did he ever mention that maybe it
wasn't a practical joke or anything like that?
Smith: You know I, uh, I can't, I can't honestly remember. I said, I think he said it, you
know at the_ time -maybe in his mind. He wasn't sure, .but then because Kevin
went, had laughed about it and turned around right away and took -it back to the
car that he felt like, you know what, I, you know now that I remember what I
think it was, was when he first saw Kevin walking with it, he's like, 'cause I think
maybe he told me Kevin said, hey I'm gonna take one of the, the hubcaps. He
went and grabbed one, whether it was on the ground or something and Chad's
like, knock it off. Or, you know, something like that. So and then he had saw
him carrying it towards his car and at that point Chad said, you know I think what
he had told me was, he sort of thinking, maybe this isn't a practical joke. Maybe
he's really gonna do it. He's like hey Kevin, and then at that point Kevin says, ah,
I'm just kidding. I'm only messing with you or something like that.
Proll: Okay.
Smith: And then that's when Chad's like knock it off and put it back with the vehicle.
Proll: Do you remember if he said that it was in a brown paper bag or anything?
Smith: I do think he said it was in a bag like he, like Kevin had said, and Kevin even kind
of prompted him, hey I'm gonna take one of these rims, I believe and, and I,
cause this was such a long time ago, but I feel like what he said is he's told Chad
that. Chad's like, yeah whatever, kind of just playing it off like Kevin's just, you
know, messing with him, but then he actually put it in a bag and started walking
towards his vehicle and Chad's like, hey Kevin, what are doing? Or, or knock it
off and that's when Kevin laughed, laughed and said oh, I'm just kidding and put it
back.
Proll: Okay.
Smith: He put it back in the car. So I think that's, now that I'm talking about it more,
that's what I think Chad told me how it happened.
Proll: Okay.
Smith: And at that point he, he said oh, you know, he kind of felt that yeah, he was just
messing with me.
4
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH (FEB. 13TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 204
Proll: Okay.
Smith: Or messing with the new sergeant is what he said.
Proll: Do you remember if Chad said that Kevin text him a photo of it or anything?
Smith:. No, that I don't remember.
Proll: Okay. Um, so then after Chad told you this what, what was the next step with
you? I mean did you hear about this again any time after that or?
Smith: Um, I mean just through the, through the grapevine and I'm not sure who or even
that there was gonna be an IA and...
Proll: Okay.
Smith: I think -it was, it was kind of backed up on the original lie so that, that this incident
had come up and that we're gonna potentially look into it, that, that we're gonna
be looking into it.
Proll: Okay.
Smith: Um, but I, I hadn't heard anything else of it until it was, it was assigned to, you
know, it was a, it was an assigned IA.
Proll: Okay. Do you think that Chad was, I mean here this thing happens in February
and the testing was months later. Do you think Chad was, did you get the
impression for, that Chad was minimizing with you because he should have told
you that night or?
Smith: I didn't get that impression. I think it was more, uh, I, you know, when he came
to me I think it was more of Chad was saying, you know, with all the other stuff
that he had been dealing with Kevin, 'cause he was having, we were having, he
was having a lot of problems with Kevin over the weekends.
Proll: Okay.
Smith: Um, it, with the CAT thing. With him just kind of leaving early or showing up
late or, or being in the downtown office and he had relayed this to me and I told
him he needed to be on top of that and he needed to hold these guys accountable.
So I think from what he was saying at the time was, it was kind of, you know, he
was starting to really question Kevin based on these other things that were
happening, you know, and, you know and he felt like were integrity issues in
terms of just his time and things like that. So I don't think at the time he was
minimizing it. I think, I think he just all the other things have started to happen.
s
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH (FEB. 13TxWaddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 205
He really just, Kevin was not real high on his list 'cause he had kind of become a,
a problem officer so.
Proll: Okay. Did Chad tell you anything, other statements that people had made out at
this accident scene or anything?
Smith: No.
Proll: Okay.
Smith: No. only thing he -talked about this was Kevin.
Proll: Did Chad mention the words IA or letters that there might be an IA going on
because of this to you?
Smith: I asked him what was going on. One, one night I, one, or one day I came to him
and I said hey, well, you -know I knew something was going on and he was
working on something and Chad had said I'm completing a memo regarding the,
the, the family incident.
Proll: Okay.
Smith: So that was me approaching him and he said that, he didn't know that it was
gonna be an IA at that time. He was just, he had been asked to complete a memo
regarding that incident.
Proll: Okay, but, no, I'm talking about the conversation that you and Chad had in the
office, the first conversation. Did Chad mention anything about an IA or
anything?
Smith: No.
Proll: Okay.
Smith: I, I mean.
Proll: Just in another officer's testimony, Chad told this other officer at the scene, let's
get out of here before we get pulled into this IA.
Smith: Oh, no, he never said anything about that.
Proll: Okay, okay. So, do you know how this ended up with Keith?
Smith: I have no idea.
Proll: Okay.
6
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH (FEB. 13TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 206
Smith: I, I'm not sure how Keith, uh, I'm not sure how he found out about it unless —
Proll: Because —
Smith: — part of me and I can't confirm this and, and I'm probably wrong. But for some
reason I felt like I might have mentioned it to Captain Staley. I, and I might not
have. I don't know because I might have just said hey, Chad came with, to me
with this. He said he handled it and, and, you know, I don't, I, and there's no
evidence that he was, he's been doing this on a regular basis, all right.
Proll: Okay.
Smith: But I, again I don't want to drag Captain Staley into it 'cause I, I don't, I can't
really remember.
Proll: Okay.
Smith: And I'll be honest with you, I vaguely remember my conversation with Chad.
Proll: Chad, okay.
Smith: So, I had, I had to talk to him a little bit about, you know, when he said he was
completing the memo, I'm like,- oh. And, you know, I was, and I, I really was
racking my brain to remember our conversation 'cause it was that short at the
time.
Proll: Okay.
Smith: So.
Proll: Okay._ Anything else you can think of that, about the conversation with Chad?
Smith: Um, no.
Proll: Okay. It is 5:15. I'm ending the interview and I'm turning off the tape recorder.
Speakwrite
www.speakwrite.com
Job Number: 15156-009
Custom Filename: SLO-Smith
Date: 06/ 05/2015
Billed Word Count: 2734
7
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH (FEB. 13TH) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 207
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 208
INTERVIEW OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/ 12/2013)
BY LIEUTENANT JOHN BLEDSOE
Bledsoe: Okay, this is Lieutenant John Bledsoe, and the date is December the 12', 2013. It
is about 3:33 in the afternoon. I'm here with Officer Kevin Waddell who is the
subject in this matter. I'm also here with Sergeant Kurt Hixenbaugh and Allison
Berry Wilkinson who is representative for Officer Waddell. Kevin, I gave you
the, um, the notice back on, um, 11/18/13 at 1050 hours, you remember that —
Waddell: Yes, I do.
Bledsoe: — uh, for this inquiry? Okay. Did you have a chance to read the, the form that I
gave you?
Waddell: Yes, I did.
Bledsoe: And you know what the allegations are against you right now?
Waddell: Yes, I do.
Bledsoe: Okay. I'm gonna go ahead and start, um, with the, the document that I have here
and read it verbatim for you. Today is 12/12/13. The time is approximately
1533 hours. Um, this is a personnel investigation concerning the San Luis Obispo
Police Department involving the, the allegations of, um, presenting false
information or making false statements to a supervisor. This person, this is a
personnel investigation and as such, you do not have the right to refuse to answer.
The truth is expected as is your entire knowledge relative to items discussed. Any
failure to respond may be grounds for punitive action. No promise or reward will
be made as an inducement for the answer to any question. You may record any
portion of this interview or have access to the department's tape if any further
proceedings are contemplated or prior to any subsequent interview. Any
statement you make during a personnel investigation interview cannot be used
against you if subsequent criminal procedures are initiated unless you have first
waived your rights to remain silent under Miranda guidelines. You have the right
to be represented by an individual of your choice who may be present at all times
during your interview providing the person chosen is not subsequent — or the
subject of the inquiry. Your representative may assist you as appropriate however
she may not interfere or obstruct the orderly process of the interview. You have
the right to take a break at any time during this interview so just let me know if
you need to step out or anything. Do you understand all the things I've read to
you?
Waddell: Yes, I do.
Bledsoe: Do you have any questions so far?
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/ 12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 209
Waddell: No.
Bledsoe: Okay. Continuing, the nature of this investigation is such that one or more
officers may be in jeopardy of facing criminal charges, and like I said, uh, before
that doesn't appear to be the case at this point in time, but the, the investigation is
still ongoing. Because you acted in your official capacity as a police officer of the
San Luis Obispo Police Department in this incident, you may be subject to some
form of legal action in the future. To protect your rights under self-incrimination,
I'm gonna advise you of your constitutional rights. You have the right to remain
silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the
right to talk -to a lawyer and to have him or her present with you while you're
being questioned. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer one will be appointed to
represent you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand these
rights?
Waddell: Yes.
Bledsoe: I'm gonna check the yes box. Do you wish to speak with me?
Waddell: No.
Bledsoe: Okay. I'm gonna check the no box that -you're invoking. If you decide not to give
a statement at this time, you are now ordered as an employee of this_ department to
answer all questions asked by investigators, excuse me, to give a full, detailed and
complete statement regarding your knowledge of or involvement in the matter
now under investigation. Although you have the right to silence in a criminal
investigation, this is not a criminal investigation but an administrative hearing,
and you are now being ordered to answer all questions under the compulsion of
the threat of disciplinary action and having been so ordered, any statements that
you make cannot be used against you in any criminal proceeding. If you fail to
comply with this order, you may be dismissed from your employment with this
agency on the grounds of willful disobedience and insubordination. And again, I
apologize.
Wilkinson: That's all right, we've all been there.
Bledsoe: Assuming —
Waddell: The last week, the last week got to me.
Bledsoe: Yeah, assuming that you now comply with this order and cooperate fully in this
investigation, your statements and any evidence obtained through such statements
will be used as to you solely to determine whether department disciplinary action
is necessary. False statements of course will result in severe disciplinary action.
Do you have any questions about, concerning your rights?
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 210
Waddell: No, I don't.
Bledsoe: Okay. I've read the above admonishment order, and I fully am, what I'm reading
to you now is your acknowledgement and if you fully understand your rights and
duties, I need you to sign your signature and then print your name and date it,
please. I should've had you read it.
Waddell: I know, I was gonna say I could of read that for ya.
Bledsoe: I didn't know it was gonna be that. bad.
Wilkinson: We could have just incorporated the form into —
Waddell: He coulda just, here read this.
Bledsoe: Okay. And I'm gonna do the same. I'm gonna sign as a witness and print it. The
time's about 3:40.
Wilkinson: It's that nasty winter cold.
Bledsoe: Okay. So I'm just gonna ahead and begin with the questioning. Kevin, on
October 19'11, 2013, um, did you sign up or were you assigned to work a CAT
overtime assignment?
Waddell: Yes, I was.
Bledsoe: Did you sign up or, or were you assigned?
Waddell: I believe that was an, uh, one I signed up for prior.
Bledsoe: It was an overtime shift?
Waddell: Correct.
Bledsoe: Do you remember the hours that you were assigned to work?
Waddell: Those shifts are from 11 to 4.
Bledsoe: Okay. Did you arrive to work on time that day?
Waddell: No, I didn't.
Bledsoe: And can you tell me why?
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 211
Waddell: Uh, that morning, uh, my daughters had a ballet class, and my wife last minute
had to, uh, go somewhere else and wasn't able to take 'em, uh, but she was able to
pick them up so I was gonna drop them off, uh, on the way, uh, coming up here.
Bledsoe: Okay. Did you notify anyone that you'd be arriving late that day?
Waddell: I told my partner who I was going to be workin' with me that day, Adam
Stahncke.
Bledsoe: And how did you notify him?
Waddell: I sent him a text message tellin' him that I was gonna be in late.
Bledsoe: Is that the only person you notified that you were gonna be comin' in late?
Waddell: Yes.
Bledsoe: Okay. Later that day or soon after 11:00, did you receive a text message from
Sergeant Pfarr sometime after 11 a.m. that day?
Waddell: Yes.
Bledsoe: And what did the text, -text message say?
Waddell: Uh, he asked me if I was comin' in.
Bledsoe: And what did you tell him —
Waddell: Uh—
Bledsoe:
h—
Bledsoe: — in your text message response?
Waddell: Yeah, I don't, I don't remember exactly what exact words I would have used, but I
know it was something to the effect that I was on my way in and that, uh, Lieu,
that I think I referred to him as Smith, Smith, uh, has approved it.
Bledsoe: Okay. I, I have a copy of the, of the text messages that Sergeant Pfarr provided
me, and they're split up a little bit. Does this look accurate, um, as to what
Sergeant Pfarr had asked you? It says, "Are you coming in today," and then it
says, "Never mind, wrong Kevin."
Waddell: Yes, I, I'm, yes, this, this is the conversation between, uh, Chad and I.
Bledsoe: And so you're, you're, when he asked after he said, "No, correct," when he
realized it was the correct Kevin, Waddell, that he was texting, um, you
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/ 12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 212
responded by saying, "Yes, sorry, I had worked out ahead of one with Lieutenant
Smith. I'm on the way in." Is that accurate?
Waddell: That's what I typed, yes.
Bledsoe: Uh, uh, are there some typos in there?
Waddell: Well, that, it wasn't a typo. I was driving at the time when I had sent that message
so I, I wasn't able to accurately say what I fully meant. Um, my intention with
that message was to say that, that I had worked out previous shift adjustments
with Lieutenant Smith and that that's what my intention was with coming in late
today was that I was gonna -just adjust the hours and still work the full
complement of hours.
Bledsoe: But were you telling. him in this message that you had prearranged come, coming
in late with Lieutenant Smith?
Wilkinson: Why don't you read, read the whole thing so you have the full context of the
conversation.
Bledsoe: Okay. And we'll move on. The, the, the next message by —
Wilkinson: Yeah, I meant, I, I think that it, it's hard because you're asking about one and there
is —
Bledsoe: Sure.
Wilkinson: — multiple ones back and forth, so.
Bledsoe: And, and we'll move on with the, the rest of 'em. It says from Sergeant Pfarr, it
said, "That made no sense. Stop by when you get here."
Waddell: Correct.
Bledsoe: And then you again texted him, or texted him back saying that basically had
talked to Smith yesterday about comin' in at 1100 hours. He said, "Fine, no
problem but I will stop by," or you said, and that's what you texted to Sergeant
Pfarr?
Waddell: Yes, that's, that's what I texted him, but again, that, that message is not what my
intention was. Uh, my, my intention in that message was that I actually had
talked to him yesterday, not that I had seeked approval for coming in late on this
day, and that message is wrong. My intention that, there should be, it's all one
sentence but there really should be a separation there. I said basically, "I talked to
him yesterday," and then I'm comin' in at 11:30. I, my intention, again, I was
driving and I wasn't really focused on explaining myself properly. I didn't, I don't
s
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 213
think I explained myself properly and what I was trying to convey in that
message.
Bledsoe: So are you telling me that in this text message you're not saying that you received
permission from Lieutenant Smith about comin' in late —
Waddell: That —
Bledsoe: — for that shift?
Waddell: — that, that's my intention with -that message, as -is the message before that. It was
that, not that I, I didn't seek permission from this, for this particular day. I know
that I didn't have permission for this day to come in late. Again, my explanation
that I was trying to convey in the text message was that I had permission in the
past and so that this message was me trying to convey that I had permission
before so I thought it would be okay if I just came in this little bit late for the shift.
I had notified my partner and -so I know that I over, ya know, looking back now
the message is in black and white it's easy to, for me now to see that, ya know,
that was not my place to do that, but I know that this, that was my intention at the
time. My thought process at the time was to try to convey that I had approval
before. I -didn't think today was gonna be a big deal.
Bledsoe: Okay. Um, after you arrived at work, after these text messages, did you speak
with Sergeant Pfarr in his office?
Waddell: Yes, I did.
Bledsoe: And what did ya tell him?
Waddell: Uh, again, I, I don't remember exactly what words I woulda used or phrasing but
I, I know the overview of the conversation and what the conversation was was
that, ya know, he asked me, ya know, if I got approval from Smith, and I said,
well, I, again, I said that I had approval before. Um, I think that what I probably
tried, what I conveyed to him was probably that I had got permission for this
incident, but I, I don't remember exactly what the conversation was in detail of
what I would have said to him or how I worded things.
Bledsoe: Did you tell Sergeant Pfaff that you spoke with Lieutenant Smith in the locker
room the day before?
Waddell: Yeah.
Bledsoe: On the 18th?
Waddell: Yeah, I, I told him that I talked to Lieutenant, I saw Lieutenant Smith in the
locker room, but —
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/ 12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 214
Bledsoe: Did you tell Sergeant Pfarr that Lieutenant Smith gave you permission to come in
late so that you could attend your daughters' dance recital?
Waddell: I don't, I don't, I could see, I don't, I don't think I expressed it that way. I, I, I felt
like what my expression was trying to be was that I had saw yesterday. I was
trying to say, uh, that I thought it would be okay based on other situations, and, ya
know, I don't, I don't think I explained myself well enough to him in that
situation.
Bledsoe: I mean it appears that from what the others have explained to me,
Lieutenant Smith and -Sergeant Pfarr, that you gave Sergeant Pfarr reason to
believe that you spoke with Lieutenant Smith and that Lieutenant Smith, you had
a conversation with him about comin' late for work because you were gonna go to
your daughters', daughters' dance recital. And are, now you're tell, I, I'm not quite
sure what you're tellin' me. You either did or you didn't, and so I wanna ask that
question one more time just to clarify. Did, when you were in Sergeant Pfarr's
office that morning of the
19th, did you tell him that Lieutenant Smith gave you
permission to come in late so you could attend your daughters' dance recital?
And I mean come in late for the 19th not any previous times.
Wilkinson: Are you askin' him if he used those specific words?
Bledsoe: I'm asking if that is an accurate, maybe not those specific words, but if he told
Sergeant Pfarr that he had permission by Lieutenant Smith to come in late for the
19th
so that you could attend your dance, daughters' dance recital?
Waddell: Uh, I, I, I, I didn't say to him that he gave me permission for that day. I said that
Smith's okay with me coming in late. I believe that's how I said it, "Smith's okay
with me coming in late." I, that was my recollection of how I said it, um, and I
said I talked to him. I saw him in the locker room yesterday, and he's okay with
me coming in late. I believe that's how I worded it. Um, I, I can easily see how
that would be my implication that he gave me specific permission for that day.
Bledsoe: Well, did you mention to Sergeant Pfarr anything about your daughters' dance
recital?
Waddell: Uh, I believe I told that that's where I was, um, but there would have not been the
opportunity the day before for me to ask him about that because the situation
arose that morning. That's why I texted Stahnke about it. I, like I said when I
conveyed that to Sergeant Pfarr it was that, ya know, I, I felt like, I, I felt a little
nervous talking to him about it so I, I may have not been as clear as I shoulda
been. I feel like I could have explained the situation better, but I felt like he was
upset with me that he wasn't told, and I see that now, you know, looking back that
I could have easily just called him about it'cause he was workin' that day. Um,
and I, I, I get that. I see that, um, and I think that when I was there how I
conveyed to him was just that was that I talked, I saw Smith yesterday and that
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/ 12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 215
he's, he's okay with me comin' in late. I, that simple, poorly -explained
explanation to him at the time, I can see how he — I'm not sayin' he's lyin', but I'm
sayin' that —
Bledsoe: So has Lieutenant Smith given your permission in the past, on past dates to come
in late?
Waddell: Yes.
Bledsoe: How many other times?
Waddell: There, there's been, I can think of two times particularly where I've sought
permission to come, to either get off, generally to get off early, so rather than
leave at 4 be, get off at 3:30- is generally what it would be.
Bledsoe: So when he told you could come in late on those other occasions, did you think
that that was a blanket -statement that- it's okay that you come in late all the time
then?
Waddell: That, that, that's kinda the way I construed this situation, and I think that's my, my
mistake in overstepping my bounds, um, of, ya know, taking that upon myself and
making a=poor decision on, that that would okay that, uh, uh, a small amount of
time comin' in_late, I .canjust adjust it to another time because it's been okay not
just for myself but for other people that I've talked to for CAT shifts where it's, it's
been really flexed around, ya know, when they come in and when they get off.
Um, so I kinda, again, like I said, I, I, that's my fault for overstepping that and,
and inferring that that would be something that would be okay without asking him
that it would be okay. Um, I see that now looking back.
Bledsoe: So was Sergeant Pfarr, did he mis, I mean, was he wrong or is he not being honest
when he tell, told me that you came in and specifically told him that
Lieutenant Smith told you you could come in late so that you could attend your
daughters' dance recital?
Waddell: Uh, I, I'm not saying that he's makin' that up, I, it, uh, that can very well be what
he thought he heard, but I, I, I don't remember exactly what I said, and I don't
remember the exact words that I said, but I, I don't believe that that would've been
something that I would've said in that kind of a situation. I, I think that something
that I would have said in a situation like that would have been just that was
something that was vague that I said that I, I'm gonna, he's, I, I, he's okay with me
comin' in late. If, if I put those two things together that I talk, I saw him
yesterday, and I'm comin' in, he's okay with me comin' in late that to him,
obviously, meant that, that he said it was okay yesterday, 'cause I saw him
yesterday, but I don't believe that I said it specifically like that.
Bledsoe: Was Lieutenant Smith at work that day?
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/ 12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 216
Waddell: Um_
Wilkinson: The day —
Bledsoe: The day that you showed up late and spoke with Sergeant Pfarr on the 19th, was
Lieutenant Smith working then?
Waddell: The 19th, no. He, he, that was a Saturday.
Bledsoe: So unless he told Sergeant Pfarr that he'd given you permission how would,
Sergeant Pfarr wouldn't have known unless you told him that you had permission
to come in. Correct?
Waddell: Correct. And that's what, and that's what I'm saying is that in, in our conversation
that's what I had said that I had saw Lieutenant Smith the morning be, that
morning before, the 18th, in the locker room and he's okay with me coming in.
Those, the, that's what I recall saying specifically. So I, I don't think, I, I, again, I,
that's something that I woulda said in a situation like that. I don't remember
exactly, specifically what I said. I'm not tryin' to op, I'm not tryin' to sidestep my
responsibility that I misinterpreted the situation and overstepped my own approval
for comin' in late. I, I should've called Sergeant Pfarr or called whoever the
sergeant was or responsible for the watch for -that day. I mean, I, !-recognize that
now. I recognize that I made that correction in other, since then. So I, um, that,
that, my intention was not to mislead him. I feel like I poorly communicated what
I meant in that situation. I, I should have explained to him the greater situation of
in the past he's been okay with me comin' in late. In the past he's been okay with
me leaving early, and, and likewise with other people. He's been very flexible
with us on that overtime schedule specifically and I, I thought it wouldn't be a big
deal in this situation as well.
Bledsoe: How many times has he given you permission in the past to come in, to show up
to work late, Lieutenant Smith?
Waddell: Um, I, like I said, at least two I can remember for sure, and they were involving
me leaving early. And I know that there's been other times where I've worked and
the people that I've worked with have either come in late or gotten off early as
well or that person, uh, has either talked to Lieutenant Smith and has arranged for
us both to adjust where I didn't talk to Lieutenant Smith about it, but that person
said that we're gonna work 10 or 10:30 to 3 or 3:30 as a result of the adjustment
of the schedule even though that, ya know, afterward I've talked, ya know, there's
been emails that this schedule is specific to 11 to 4, but in those instances it got
moved. So that, that was the understanding that I was operating with was that it
wouldn't be that big of a deal if I just came in, uh, 20 minutes late probably that I
was gonna be and just stay 'til 4:20 rather than, ya know, ya know, my, again, my
inten, my intention at the time was not, ya know, to mislead. I was, it was just a
poor communication on my part.
9
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/ 12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 217
Bledsoe: Okay. Well, we'll move on. Um, did your daughter actually have a dance recital
that morning?
Waddell: Uh, it, it's, it's not really a recital. It's, it's just a dance class. It's an hour on
Saturdays. Both my daughters go. Um, they, they're in different classes.
Bledsoe: Did they have dance class that day then?
Waddell: Yeah. Ev, every Saturday they do, yeah.
Bledsoe: Where, where's that at?
Waddell: Uh, it's in Grover, um, Central Coast Dance Academy, I think it's what it's called.
It's over kinda off of Fourth Street, the pike over there kinda somewhere.
Bledsoe: Do you know the hours that they go?
Waddell: Um, it's from 10 to 11.
Bledsoe: So did you take your daughters there by yourself?
Waddell: Yes, and my wife had another engagement to get to, but she was gonna be able to
pick them up, and so she didn't arrive -there 'til right close to 11, and so I wasn't
gonna leave them there by themselves. I mean they're 5 and 7 and —
Bledsoe: Okay.
Waddell: —my, one of 'em is special needs. So I didn't, I wasn't gonna leave 'em thereby
themselves.
Bledsoe: No, I get that.
Waddell: Okay.
Bledsoe: I get that, I ****-
Waddell: So I, I, I didn't wanna leave and then them be lookin' for me and my wife hadn't
arrived yet so I, that was the, there was a scheduling issue at home and so I didn't
want to leave them there. I could get them there but she needed to pick them up,
and I didn't wanna leave without her gettin' there.
Bledsoe: Okay. So it went from 10 to 11 then.
Waddell: That's their dance class, yes —
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/ 12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 218
Bledsoe: Okay.
Waddell: —10 to 11.
Bledsoe: Later that day, did you, uh, have a chance to talk with Sergeant Pfarr regarding
you comin' in late?
Waddell: Um, no. Well, he, he called me back. Um, af, after that initial conversation when
I first got there, is that what ya mean? I'm —
Bledsoe: Yeah. Did you have a conversation with him after the initial one in -his office?
Wilkinson: So there's, there's the text conversation, there's the one when he arrived, and now
are you asking if there was another one after that?
Bledsoe: Correct.
Wilkinson: Okay, I understand.
Bledsoe: Did you have another conversation with Sergeant Pfarr after —
Waddell: He talked to me. I, I didn't talk.
Bledsoe: What did, what did that, what did he say?
Waddell: Um, he, he called me back in and said that he had talked to Lieutenant Smith, and
that he didn't give me permission. Well, he started off with, um, I don't want you
to say anything. I don't want you to talk. I'm pissed off. He's pissed off, and you
lied to me. And I said okay, and his next thing he said that he talked to
Lieutenant Smith, Lieutenant Smith didn't give me permission to come in, and I
said okay. I think my, I mighta said something of, "I'll talk to Lieutenant Smith
and we can clear it up." And I said, "Oh, you didn't want me to say anything. I'm
sorry." And then that was it, I walked out.
Bledsoe: Okay. Did you have a conversation with Lieutenant Smith?
Waddell: Uh, yes I did the Monday after it happened.
Bledsoe: Okay. Let's go back to the 18th though when you were in the locker room with,
with Lieutenant Smith and he was in there. Did you have a conversation with him
that day?
Waddell: No.
Bledsoe: Did you see him in the locker room at all?
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/ 12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 219
Waddell: Yes.
Bledsoe: Didn't you tell Sergeant Pfarr that you had a conversation in the locker room with
Lieutenant Smith though?
Waddell: I think I might have said that I talked to him. Well, we exchanged pleasantries. I
mean, we didn't have a conversation, per se. I, the conversation, we didn't talk at
length about anything. We might of said hi and hey, how's it goin', but it wasn't a
Bledsoe: When you were in the, in the locker room on the 18th, did you ask
Lieutenant Smith for permission to come in late for work on the 19th?
Waddell: No, I didn't.
Bledsoe: You had no conversation with him at all?
Waddell: No, I didn't.
Wilkinson: Uh, about that.
Bledsoe: About comin' in to late on the 19t`.
Waddell: Correct. No, not coming late, no.
Wilkinson: He's already indicated they may have exchanged pleasantries.
Bledsoe: Correct. And that's it. That was the gist of your conversation is —
Waddell: Yeah.
Bledsoe: Okay. I, did you talk with Lieutenant Smith about your daughters' recital at any,
at any time?
Waddell: On the 18th?
Bledsoe: On any, at any time?
Waddell: Um—
Wilkinson:
m—
Wilkinson: Before or after?
Bledsoe: Correct.
Waddell: Uh, I, I —
Bledsoe: Well, before. Before.
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 220
Waddell: Not, not before, no.
Bledsoe: And certainly not in the locker room that day.
Waddell: No.
Bledsoe: I guess it woulda been on Monday the 21St, possibly. Did you go into
Lieutenant Smith's office to speak with him?
Waddell: Yes.
Bledsoe: Did you close the door when you walked in?
Waddell: I may have asked him if he wanted me to? I —
Bledsoe: Okay.
Wilkinson: Do you remember whether —
Waddell: Uh, I, I —
Wilkinson: — you did or not?
Waddell: — I, I, I may have closed, and we may. have had a closed door. I, I think it was
closed.
Bledsoe: Okay. Did you, what'd you talk to him about?
Waddell: Um, he obviously knew I was, why I was there 'cause, uh, he said, "I know why
you're here." And I said, "Okay," I said, "I, I just wanna talk to you about what
happened and so we can clear the air. I wanna get in front of what happened. I, I
recognize the mistakes that I made in that situation and I wanna, you're, you're a
part of that, and I wanna let you know that that, what my intentions were."
Bledsoe: When you say mistakes, what kinda mistakes did you make?
Waddell: I felt like I misinterpreted and overstepped, misinterpreted being misinterpreted
the permissions that he's given in the past by then overstepping my position of
approval for comin' in late on something.
Bledsoe: Did you tell Lieutenant Smith that, um, you wanted to get somethin' off your
chest?
Waddell: I, that's, that's, that, that's, I don't know, I, I, if I said something like that, and he
recalls that I, I, uh, that's not some, that's not some verbiage that I would wanna
use. I, let I said I, I, the stuff I said to him was reflective of I wanna get in front of
13
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 221
somethin', and I want you to know where I was comm' from. That's the kinda
verbiage that I would use. I, I, I'm not someone to, that's not something that I
would say.
Wilkinson: That, that phrase "get something off my chest" is not your normal —
Waddell: That's —
Wilkinson: — type of phrase?
Waddell: — that's not a normal phrase that I would, I would use. I dont recall saying that.
Bledsoe: You don't recall saying that, okay. Do you, what did you tell Lieutenant Smith
when you were in there that you remember?
Waddell: Uh, I remember tellin' him about, uh, where, where I was that morning and the
reason behind me needin' to be there late and —
Bledsoe: Late morning meaning the 19a'?
Waddell: Meaning the 19', um, and he, and I, and I told him that, just what I've told ya here
today that I overstepped his interpretation of his permission in the past, and I
knew that you didn't give me permission for this day and that I misinterpreted the
time from before, um, in, in doing that. And I should of notified Sergeant Harr or
whoever the watch commander was for that day for Saturday that I needed to be
in late. It really wouldn't have been a big deal had I done that, that, ya know, I, I
shouldn't have taken it upon myself to just make that unilateral decision.
Bledsoe: Did you make other comments to Lieutenant Smith such as, um, you were willing
to accept the consequences that are to follow?
Waddell: Uh, I believe I did say that. I, I believe that I take responsibility for what I've
done, and I, I believe that he had mentioned something, mentioned something to
me to the effect of, um, that he was not gonna be responsible for what was gonna
happen out of it like, and I, and I told him. I said, I'm, I'm not looking to stop
whatever it is you guys are gonna do with it. Um, my, my intention with coming
here today was to own my responsibility of the situation that I made mistakes, and
I messed up, and I should have called and told whoever the watch commander
was for that day. I should have not taken it upon myself to make the decision that
I could have come in late. Um, I, I felt like I wasn't gonna impact anybody and
overtime wise, there was no one to cover for that portion of the shift, and so I felt
like I could just stay an extra 20 minutes or whatever it would be to allow for the
similar in other situations. Again, I didn't have permission for it in this instance,
but I know that it was okay in the past so I figured I could just do it.
14
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 222
Bledsoe: Um, okay. Kevin, did you knowingly or willfully make false statements to
Sergeant Pfarr regarding getting permission to come in late for your shift on the
19th?
Waddell: That was not my intention at all. My, I, if, if the words and the way I chose to say
things that's what Sergeant Pfarr took from it, that's my mistake for not explaining
myself better, not being more clear. Um, my intention was not to explain to him
that I had sought permission and gotten permission the day before. I'm, I've told
ya here that I didn't get permission on the I go' from Lieutenant Smith. Um, it was
a situation that arose on the 19'' for which me needing to come in late. So I, my
intention was never to mislead Sergeant Pfarr in a text message -or. message-or.in person. Um,
I felt like I could have better explained myself. I could have better thoroughly
explained to him the situations from the past like I am now, but at the time, like
when I'm driving or when I'm —
Wilkinson: His question was did you knowingly —
Waddell: Sorry.
Wilkinson: — intend to mislead him. I take it from your answer that's a no?
Waddell: No, I didn't —
Wilkinson: Can you read the read the question again? Maybe he —
Waddell: I'm, I'm sorry.
Wilkinson: — can focus —
Bledsoe: Sure.
Wilkinson: — on the question. That's all right.
Bledsoe: My question is did you knowingly or willfully make any false statements to
Sergeant Pfarr regarding getting permission by Lieutenant Smith to come in late
for work on October 19th?
Waddell: No.
Bledsoe: Okay. And, and, and I get the fact that, that you said that you didn't get
permission from Lieutenant Smith. Um, I think, based on your statements and
Lieutenant Smith's and Sergeant Pfarr's, it's clear you did not get permission.
Waddell: Mm hmm.
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 223
Bledsoe: But where I have a problem is with your text messaging saying that you talked to
Lieutenant Smith yesterday about coming in at 11:30 and he said fine, no
problem. This isn't a blanket statement from weeks past or other shifts. This is
specific yesterday would have been the 18t' 'cause this is dated the 19ffi when you
did these text messages.
Waddell: Mm hmm.
Bledsoe: So I, I'm just not, not understanding how this is a miscommunication or, I mean,
it, it seems to me very clear that in reading this and later in going in and telling
Sergeant Harr that you spoke to Lieutenant Smith in the locker room and asked if
you could come in late because you were goin' to your daughters' dance. And
you're, you're sayin' that didn't happen?
Waddell: I'm, I'm saying that that was not my intention with, well, specific, I mean there's a
couple things ya said there, but I mean specifically with the message is that, I
mean, I was driving so I'm, I'm not accurately explaining myself. And in, in this
message, like I said, I, there's, I coulda put more periods in there to separate. I
talked to Smith yesterday. Well, I mean to say I talked to him is a, uh, is
something vague to say, um, ya know, but, and, I mean, I, I said a second ago
when I was, I didn't say to him, I don't recall saying specifically to Sergeant Harr
in his office that Smith gave me permission yesterday. I think that, and my
recollection, what my intention was with -the conversation was that I, was -just like
what I said earlier was about that he has given permission in the past and that I
felt like that it would be fine for this one.
Bledsoe: In the past wasn't yesterday though, according to what you're tellin' me. It was
other assignments not yesterday. This is specific to yesterday and, and so that's,
that's kinda where I'm runnin' into a problem on, on your thought process on, and,
and you're, you're trying to explain it to me. So, um —
Waddell: I'm trying to explain it to you 'cause I want you to understand where I was comin'
from. That's, that's why I'm tryin' to explain it.
Bledsoe: In the, um, when you came in to Sergeant Marr's office, um, the first time, not the
second time where he told you not to talk to him the first time, did you also in that
conversation say that you talked to Smith in the locker room or saw Smith in the
locker room?
Waddell: Uh, I made a, a mis —
Bledsoe: So—
Waddell:
o—
Waddell: — so the sec, is this the second conversation that I —
Bledsoe: No, the, like, okay so you get to work the, after the text conversation and you go
and meet him in his office the first time.
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/ 12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 224
Waddell: Yes.
Bledsoe: And you had a conversation with him. Did you tell him at that point in that
conversation that yeah, I saw Smith in the locker room yesterday?
Wilkinson: I think we went, we went over that already and he said —
Bledsoe: Uh, yeah, I —
Wilkinson: — that he had —
Bledsoe: — I, I'm just tryin' for —
Wilkinson: Yeah.
Bledsoe: — my own recollection, um, did, and you said yes, you did?
Waddell: I, I may of, uh, in, in the verbal conversation the —
Bledsoe: Yeah.
Waddell: — first time, I may have said something that I saw him. I may have reiterated -that
I saw him in the locker room.
Bledsoe: Okay. I'm just wondering why, why would you say that if not to imply that when
I saw him in the locker room, he gave me the permission?
Wilkinson: That's kind of a hard question to ask'cause you're asking him to speculate about
something that he's already identified that he doesn't have a real clear recollection
of the words that he used. He has a recollection of the intent he was trying to
convey, and he's accepted that he juxtaposed things in a way that may have led
Sergeant Pfarr to have a different —
Bledsoe: Min hmm.
Wilkinson: — understanding than he intended to communicate but to ask him why he would
have said that if that wasn't what to intended to imply given how he already
explained it, I think that's a, asking him to speculate about something that's not —
Bledsoe: Okay. I, I don't think his comments are speculation. I'm asking what he said.
Wilkinson: Well, there's a difference between saying why would say that if you didn't —
Bledsoe: Okay. That —
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 225
Wilkinson: — um, so I mean obvious, I think he's explained it. Are you asking him in essence
why did you even mention when you met with Sergeant Pfarr seeing
Lieutenant Smith?
Bledsoe: Mm hmm. If not to imply that that's the time that he was given the permission.
Wilkinson: So, so do you remem, uh, what was the reason in your conversation with
Sergeant Pfarr that you even brought up seeing Lieutenant Smith in the locker
room the day before? I think that's what —
Bledsoe: That's, that's —
Wilkinson: — he wants to know.
Bledsoe: — yeah, yeah.
Waddell: I think it was, it was just that, that that was the last time that I had saw him.
Bledsoe: Well, did you tell him goin' back to that thought, did you tell Sergeant Pfarr that
well, he's given me permission in the past so I assumed that I would be okay to
come in today? 'Cause that's what you're tellin' me today.
Waddell: Yes, and I, I don't believe that I, that's where I feel like I fell short, and I felt like
being in his office, and it felt kinda confrontational with him, I, I felt like sh, I fell
short, and I felt like what I was saying was not, was, was not making him happy,
basically. So I felt like trying to, I felt like I under explained myself, is what I'm
sayin' is I felt like I very well could have done that. I felt like, and that's what I
see now looking back at it that I could of handled it better, and I could of
explained it better and we probably wouldn't even be here that I could of better
articulated that that's what I was operating within.
Bledsoe: Well, why, why do you think it was confrontational?
Waddell: I felt like he was very inquisitive of me specifically of the, of things. I felt like he
was very harsh and abrupt with his line of questioning with me like come see me
when ya get here. I'm, why do I need, I don't under, why? I, I, I, that's the stuff I,
I was a little already taken aback.
Bledsoe: Okay. Kevin, have you been truthful in answering all my questions here today?
Waddell: I have tried to be very truthful with you.
Bledsoe: You've tried, but have you?
Waddell: Yeah, yes, I've been truth, yes. I, I, I wanna be cooperative and helpful and
honest with all the things in my recollection of what happened.
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/ 12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 226
Bledsoe: I don't have any other questions. Do you Sergeant Hixenbaugh?
Wilkinson: No.
Bledsoe: Do you have any questions?
Wilkinson: I don't have any follow up.
Bledsoe: Okay. This interview's, I'm gonna call it over, and if you have any questions or
you wanna make a final statement to me, now is the time.
Wilkinson: Do you have anything you wanna say?
Waddell: No, uh, just again to reiterate what I've been sayin' this afternoon is that, I, I felt
like I misinterpreted being given permission in the. past. My intention was never
to mislead Sergeant Pfarr or lie to him or provide false information -to him. I felt
like I under explained myself. I felt like I, trying to talk to someone in a text
message while you're driving is not gonna properly explain that. I, I, I thought it
was gonna okay to adjust a shift. Um, I should have called the on, on -duty watch
commander, sergeant, whoever it was gonna be for that day and sought
permission to come in rather than me, ya know, unilaterally makin' that decision
that it was gonna be okay and not a big deal to just shift adjust it a little bit and
come in later like, like I've done before so I, I, that's my mistake.
Bledsoe: Okay. I'm gonna end the interview and I'm gonna stop -recording. I'm gonna ask
that we not discuss this after we've stopped recording, and I'm gonna also ask or
order you not to talk with, to anybody about this other than your counsel or
representative. Okay.
Speakwrite
www. Speakwrite.com
Job Number: 15156-014
Custom Filename: VN810038-SLO-Waddell2
Date: 06/05/2015
Billed Word Count: 7578
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (12/12/2013) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 227
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 228
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014)
BY LIEUTENANT BILL PROLL
Proll: This is Lieutenant Proll of San Luis Police Department. We are in the City
Council Chamber hearing room or interview room at City Hall. With me is
Sergeant Fred Michael and Officer Kevin Waddell and Alison Barry -Wilkinson.
The date is 1/27/14. It is 2:10 in the afternoon, and this is a personnel
investigation concerning the San Luis Obispo Police Department involving
Officer Waddell's involvement with a traffic accident involving a Bentley where
items from the Bentley were alleged to have been removed -from the car. This is a
personnel investigation, and as such, you do not have the right to refuse to
answer. The truth is expected, as is your entire knowledge relative to items
discussed. Any failure tof respond may be grounds for punitive action. No
promise or reward will be made as an inducement for the answers to any question.
You may record any portion of this interview or have access to the Department's
tape if any further proceedings are contemplated or prior to any subsequent
interview. Any statement you make during a personnel investigation interview
cannot be used against you if subsequent criminal proceedings are initiated, unless
you have first waived your rights to remain silent under Miranda guidelines. You
have the right to be represented by an individual of your choice who may be
present at all times during your interview provided the person chosen is a not a
subject of this -inquiry. Your representative may assist you as appropriate,
however he or she may not interfere with or obstruct the orderly process of the
interview. You have the right to take a break at any time during this interview.
Do you understand?
Waddell: Yes, I do.
Proll: Do you have any questions so far?
Waddell: No, I don't.
Wilkinson: Just before we begin is, we had a brief discussion, uh, before we went on the
record. The notice that was, uh, provided to Officer Waddell in advance was
relatively, um, generic in nature and, and you clarified that it concerned, uh, two
items that were allegedly removed from the Bentley — some hubcaps and, and an
emblem. Uh, some of the matters, uh, in fact, it's our contention that all of the
matters that are being investigated here were already discussed, investigated by
Sergeant Pfarr and, uh, Officer Waddell was counseled with regard to it, and so as
a consequence it is our position that the Department does not have the right, uh, to
proceed with the investigation, and that doing so is in violation of the Public
Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act. Based on our discussion it's my
understanding the Department has already evaluated, um, that issue internally and
given the direction to proceed nonetheless. I just wanna make it known for the
record, um, that we, by our appearance here, we don't waive any objection, that
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 229
our contention remains the same, that it's not proper subject, and that he is here
only because he is ordered to be here to answer the questions, not because we
agree that it's appropriate for the Department to do this.
Proll: Okay. That concern has been noted. I'm actually continuing with the waiver.
The nature of this investigation is such that one or more officers may be in
jeopardy of facing criminal charges. Because you acted in your official capacity
as a police officer of the San Luis Obispo Police Department in this incident, you
may be subject to some form of legal action in the future. To protect your rights
against self-incrimination, I must advise you of your Constitutional rights. You
have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against
you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present
with you while you're being questioned. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer,
one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning if you wish one.
Do you understand these rights?
Waddell: Yes, I do.
Proll: Do you wish to speak to me?
Waddell: No, I don't.
Proll: If you decide not to give a statement at this time, you are now ordered, as an
employee of this department, to answer all questions asked by investigators and to
give a full, detailed and complete statement regarding your knowledge or
involvement in the matter now under investigation. Although you have a right to
silence in criminal investigations, this is not a criminal investigation, but an
administrative hearing, and you are now being ordered to answer all questions
under the compulsion of the threat of disciplinary action, and having been so
ordered, any statements that you make cannot be used against you in a criminal
proceedings. If you fail to comply with this order, you may be dismissed from
your employment with this agency on the grounds of willful disobedience and
insubordination. Assuming that you now comply with this and cooperate fully in
this investigation, your statements and any evidence obtained through such
statements will be used as to you solely to determine whether Department
disciplinary action is necessary. False statements, of course, will result in severe
disciplinary action. If you have any questions concerning your rights, you may
ask them now. So this statement as I have read the above admonishment order
and I fully understand my rights and duty in this investigation.
Wilkinson: The only comment we would make with regard to his rights is the one I already
identified earlier.
Proll: Okay.
2
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 230
Wilkinson: Uh, with respect to the propriety of the in, interview continuing forward.
Apparently this battery is low and dying, so I'm using this one.
Proll: Are they little As?
Wilkinson: Pardon me?
Proll: Are they battery — what size battery?
Wilkinson: Oh, it's a rechargeable.
Proll: Oh.
Wilkinson: So. I'll just have to recharge it. Apparently I've been working too hard.
Proll: Do you wanna be the witness?
Wilkinson: Uh, no go, you go ahead. Or the sergeant can.
Proll: So Kevin, I have a lengthy list of questions to ask. Um, I'm gorma go down, just
one by one and might elaborate on, elaborate on stuff, some based on your
answers and stuff. I'm not being informal, but instead of saying Officer Waddell
every time, -I' m just gonna say Kevin, if that's okay?
Wilkinson: We're comfortable with that.
Proll: Okay. Kevin, did you respond to a major injury/accident at Orcutt and Johnson
involving a Bentley on February 22, 2013?
Waddell: Yes I did.
Proll: And do you know what SLOPD personnel were at the scene during the
investigation of this collision?
Waddell: I would probably miss people, but I can give you my best recollection of some
people that were probably there.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: Um, uh, uh, Officer Benson was there, I think. Uh, Officer Rodriguez, I think,
might have been there. I think Jen Hyman might have been there at one point.
Uh, Sergeant Pfarr was obviously there at a point, uh, Colleen Kevney I think
mighta been there. Uh, Robert Cudworth was there. I don't recall if Sergeant
Goodwin had come to the collision or if, I, I recall talkin' to her on the phone, but
I don't, I don't, I don't recall if she actually made it to the scene.
3
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 231
Wilkinson: That brings me to one other point. It has been almost a year, um, since the events,
so understandably he's been prejudiced by the passage of time.
Proll: Right.
Wilkinson: So you are just gonna get his best —
Proll: It's all guesswork.
Wilkinson: - present recollection here. I just wanted to note that as well.
Proll: Okay. Did you remember if Sergeant Amoroso was there with you?
Waddell: I think he came, he, you're, you're right. I believe I missed him. He, he, I believe
he came at one point to the scene, um, but I don't recall him coming with me.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: Unless he initially came with me when we first were requested, and then he took
me back to get equipment.
Droll: Okay.
Waddell: It would have been something, one of those two scenarios, I, I, I don't recall
exactly, um, the order in which.
Proll: What, so what was your role at the scene?
Waddell: Um, part of the accident reconstruction team and my role there was, uh, to operate
in that capacity to investigate at that time what was gonna be determined a
potential fatal collision, and when the —
Proll: So this wasn't a case that you were dispatched to on patrol?
Waddell: I was working at the time, as I recall —
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: - downtown. And, I recall hearing the collision, call for service, and I remember
being requested to come. I, I don't recall if it came directly from Sergeant Pfarr
or if it came through disp, but someone requested —
Proll: Okay. So you were grouping at this accident scene with the accident
reconstruction team to investigate this accident?
Waddell: Yes. I, as I was already working, the other people were coming from home. I —
4
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 232
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: I recall that I was facilitating, if you will, these people arriving and some
components of what we would need and —
Proll: Do you remember who you were directly working with once kinda the accident
reconstruction team took over? Which officers? `Cause all these other officers
were basically on patrol and probably weren't helping in the, the actual
reconstruction of the accident.
Waddell: Um, I recall Officer Cudworth and Officer Kevney being there for the
reconstruction portion of it. I, I don't think I'm missing any — like I said,
Sergeant Goodwin may have come —
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: I don't recall. Um, I do remember speaking to her at one point. She could have
come, but her capacity is limited anyway with what we did or do. I, I don't recall.
Proll: Did you ask the tow truck driver that, that showed up to take, to tow the Bentley
away, did you ask him for- a screwdriver?
Waddell: Yes, I did.
Proll: When did you ask him for a screwdriver?
Waddell: It would have been after the car was already rolled over onto its wheels. Uh, we
were preparing, we, we were completed with the scene at that point and the, he
was preparing, he wa, we were ready to release the vehicle to him.
Proll: And why did you ask him for a screwdriver?
Waddell: I was gonna use it to take a hubcap off the car. Or the wheel cover, hubcaps per
se off a Bentley.
Proll: And whose idea was it to remove the wheel cover?
Waddell: It was mine.
Proll: And whose idea was it to ask the tow truck driver for a screwdriver?
Waddell: That was my idea.
Proll: Did the tow truck driver ask you why you wanted a screwdriver?
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 233
Waddell: I don't, I don't recall him asking me.
Proll: So you don't recall him asking you?
Waddell: I don't recall if he did or did not. I don't remember.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: Remember.
Proll: Do you think the tow truck driver knows why you wanted to borrow the
screwdriver?
Wilkinson: I don't think he canjump into the tow truck driver's head. I mean, I, he, what the
tow truck driver thought.
Proll: Was there any conversation between you and the tow truck driver on why you
wanted the screwdriver?
Waddell: I was trying to be very vocal about what I was doing. I was being, uh, dramatic if
you will, I was try, emphasizing, uh, what I was doing. I, my, my intention in
what I was doing, the -reason behind what I was doing to him, I didn't express to
him obviously. I don'tknow— I, I don't recall specifically telling him directly.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: What, what I intended to do with it.
Proll: So you don't recall a conversation between you and the tow truck driver about
removing the wheel cover?
Waddell: Again, I was, I was, my intent at the time was to be obvious about what I was
doing. Uh, I was not trying to have a private conversation with him on the side,
so I, if I talked to him, I, I don't recall, bas, is where I'm going. I don' t remember
having it or what that, or if that conversation took place. I, I don't remember.
Wilkinson: Do you remember whether you made known, just in general, whether to him
directly or not what you were gonna do with the screwdriver?
Waddell: I believe I did. I, I believe that I was being obvious with my intention with what
and where I was going with it, what I was doing with it. Not, not just to him, but
to other people that were around.
Proll: Okay. Did you ultimately get a screwdriver from the tow truck driver?
Waddell: Yes I did.
6
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 234
Proll: Okay. And after getting the screwdriver, what did you do with it?
Waddell: Uh, I remember, uh, I definitely remember takin' off a wheel cap, hubcap. Uh, I
remember at one point making reference to a emblem on the car. I, I don't recall.
Just, I remember talking about the emblem itself, and, and getting one off the car.
Uh, but, I, I never took an emblem other than the, other than the hubcap off.
Proll: And where, where did the hubcap come from?
Wilkinson: You mean, like which wheel?
Proll: Yeah.
Waddell-: I, I thought it was the rear passenger side of the car, as I remember. Um, again I
could be wrong. I, I remember it, I think it's that one because I know that the
front, the front passenger wheel was damaged, and that was the one that had the
missing -cap already, so we were already on that side.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: I, that, that would be my best recollection.
Proll: And where was the emblem that you had just discussed that you didn't take, but
you knew, looked at or worked on or —
Wilkinson: Well did you work on it — I mean, that's a different question. So you talked about
the emblem.
Waddell: I, I don't recall, I recall referencing the screwdriver for the cap and talking about
the emblem, and you could use the screwdriver to take the emblem off, but I, I
don't recall ever trying to take the em, an emblem off.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: Uh, but —
Proll: And where was the emblem?
Waddell: But the emblem I referenced, um, was at the front of the car on the hood, because
that was where the tow truck, that was where I just got that screwdriver from so it
was right there. And that was where most of the damage was to the car. That's
where we had been, and been standing the most.
Proll: So is this like a hood ornament?
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 235
Waddell: Yes. Yes, it, it, it's a, a wing in the middle of the hood, right at, right at the front
hood line, um -
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: - where the hood would meet the grill, if you will.
Proll: Okay. So you, you didn't try to take it off?
Waddell: I, I don't remember tryin' to, I, I don't, I remember referencing it. I don't, I don't
remember -
Proll: Okay, what, go into what you mean by I remember referencing it.
Waddell: Well, as I said a second ago, I remember when I got the screwdriver, talking about
the emblem and what it looks like, it's a cool, cool emblem. And you could use a
screw-, I could, I bet you could get this, I bet you that thing comes off. You just
get behind it and it comes off. And then the hubcap was an easier thing to take
off. It was not -
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: I didn't think that the hubcap, I didn't think that the emblem would even come off
with any kind of reason, reasonableness.
Proll: Okay. So just to back up a little bit. You asked the tow truck driver for a
screwdriver, he gives it to you. You walk and pop what you think is the right, or
the rear passenger hubcap or, or wheel cover off, and then what did you do?
Waddell: Um, I remember makin' it obvious that I was doing it, um, talking a lot about it,
talking loud about it. Uh, I remember getting it off. I, I had the other wheel cover
that had come off the front wheel had, was already there, and so I had sat the, the
wheel cover that I had taken off on top of the other one, as if I was organizing
them.
Proll: So the one that naturally came off during the crash?
Waddell: Correct.
Proll: You took the second one and put it on top of that one?
Waddell: Correct.
Proll: So you took the one you pried off and put it on top of, and that was just layin' in
the street?
8 _
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 236
Waddell: I think it was in the dirt, on the berm, that was this side of the road.
Proll: Was that damaged?
Wilkinson: The one that came off naturally in the crash?
Proll: Yeah.
Wilkinson: Or the one he took off?
Proll: The one that came off naturally.
Waddell: I, I don't recall looking at it that, I, I don't remember.
Proll: What -was the condition of the one you did take off?
Waddell: It was fine. There was nothing wrong with it. I think there was some dirt inside
of it, and -mud, but there was nothing mechanically wrong with it.
Proll: Okay. Did you place anything into a large brown evidence bag?
Waddell: I, not related to any of these items. I did, I, I very well could have taken
evidentiary items that were legitimately evidentiary items, but I don't, I don't
recall, I don't remember. That was my scope, I, I don't remember putting
anything into a bag.
Proll: During the course of investigation of the traffic collision, do you remember taking
any vehicle parts or anything, um, other than the, the wheel cap you pried off?
Waddell: I mean, I didn't take any of these things. I, I —
Proll: I mean, did you take `em as, and intend to book `em as evidence or anything in
the investigation? I mean, basically you have a, a rolled over car, and you guys
are there to determine what happened. Did you collect anything to assist in the
reconstruction?
Waddell: I, I don't, I don't recall that we, I know we took a lotta photographs and we did
the diagram of the scene with the total station, but that is usually my, my scope,
when I, when we go out there is, I, I do the diagramming.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: Um, so usually the way we break up that, is that someone else will handle a
portion of the report and evidence, and someone does the diagram and the
computer portion of it later. So that's usually my aspect because no one else
knows how to do it, so —
9
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 237
Proll: So you don't normally collect parts?
Waddell: I mean, if I'm the only one there or if, there's been other times where I would
have collected evidentiary items however, in this instance, I don't recall if that
was my role or responsibility. There were other people there, so I believe that
that responsibility would have gone to someone else.
Proll: Okay. So to answer the question, did you place anything into a large, brown
evidence bag, you don't remember?
Waddell: I could _have,_inassistance of someone else. I, I, I_don't recall. I don't, I don't
know.
Wilkinson: Let's ask this — do you have any independent recollection of putting anything in
any evidence bag? It's been almost a year, but just —
Waddell: I, I don't —
Wilkinson: Based on your present memory?
Waddell: I don't remember.
Proll: Okay. Did either of the, the wheel cover that you -pried off or the one that
naturally came off during the accident that you put on top- of each other, did either
of those, during the time you were at the scene ever be put into a brown, paper
bag?
Waddell: No.
Proll: And you would have known that?
Waddell: Yes. My intention was never to take these items away from the scene.
Proll: So, in that answer, I'm gonna ask this, even though that, that answer — did you
ever walk to your car, with a brown, paper evidence bag? That you remember?
Waddell: I don't, no, I don't — there was never anything — unless that was something I was
doing for someone else, it was an actual evidence item, that's what I would have
been doing, but the items that we're talking about were never, I never placed them
in a bag and I never took them to the car.
Proll: Did the tow truck driver see you remove the wheel cover?
Waddell: I'm sure he did. I was being very obvious with what I was doing. I was not
intending to hide my acts. I, I was —
10
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 238
Proll: Who else knew or saw — lemme go with, who else saw you remove the wheel
cover?
Waddell: I wanna say Benson was there and saw that. Um, I, I remember there being other
people there, but I don't recall —
Proll: Okay, well then you stressed that you're bein' obvious and overly loud and all
this. You had, I mean, at some point you would think that you would know the
audience that you're —
Waddell: Uh, my, my -audience was Sergeant Harr.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: That, that, that's who my audience was, but I was not intending to, I was, messin',
I was messin' with him. I, I had, the prank was on him. That, that was my
intention with this -whole thing, and, um, T, I accept responsibility for that, but that
was poorly timed, and it was, um, you know, at, at the time I realized that it was
not a good idea, and now a year later, I also see that it's a bad idea and I take
responsibility for my actions and what my intention was, uh, with, with that, uh,
but my audience was not any of the officers — my audience was Sergeant Harr,
and that's the person that I was, as, as I make mention of —
Proll: Okay.
Waddell- - tryin' to be obvious with and about.
Proll: Did Sergeant Pfarr see you remove the item?
Waddell: I'm sure that he did.
Proll: From the car?
Waddell: I'm sure that he did.
Proll: So you, you kinda answered this, but I'm gonna ask again. Is, why did you
remove the Bentley wheel cover from the Bentley?
Waddell: I was playing a prank on Sergeant Harr. I was trying to do something to get him
to respond and react to me, to get him to tell me to stop doin' it. I was tryin' to
get a reaction from him with what I was doing. I had never had any intention in
taking the items for anything, had no need for them whatsoever. My sole reason
for that was, was, just that I was messin' around with Sergeant Pfarr, and that,
that's, you know, I knew it at the time when he chose to leave, I realized that the
timing, the audience, the people around it was, it was a poor decision, uh, based
11
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 239
on his response and the people that were around it. I, I see that, I saw that then
and I, I see that now that —
Proll: Okay. What instigated this prank?
Waddell: There was a conversation, um, that I had with Sergeant Amoroso where he and I
talked about playin' a prank on Sergeant Pfarr. It was not anything in specifics.
Um, that's where my mindset was, that's, that's where, that's where this came
from. That was my intention in doing it. I take full responsibility for my actions
because I made the choice.
Proll: And when was this conversation with you and Sergeant Amoroso?
Waddell: I thought it was that same shift, but it coulda been the day before, um, and I say
that because it, it was that week and thatwas the middle of our work week and we
had worked together the night before, and we had been in the truck driving, um,
for that shift or the shift before. That's when that conversation, I recall now, I
recall it taking place sometime then.
Proll: So you and Sergeant Amoroso were driving and one of you have the idea of let's
prank Sergeant Pfarr.
Waddell: Yeah, .it was a, it was a lighthearted conversation. It was -not evil, it wasn't to —
Proll: What was the, was there any reasoning? I mean, why didn't you prank
Sergeant Michael, I mean, what the reasoning on Sergeant Harr?
Waddell: Uh, I recall, I think, I don't recall specifics, but I think it had something to do with
the close working relationship between Sergeant Amoroso and Sergeant Pfarr that
Sergeant Michael or some others, that's the reason that he was the topic. There
was not any specifics to targeting him or anything like that. It was not.
Proll: Okay, when you said close working relationship, did you mean between the two
sergeants or between you and the —
Waddell: Between the two sergeants.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: They both were working that night shift.
Proll: So that was, that would be the reason why in your mind that you would prank
Sergeant Pfarr, because of the close working relationships that Sergeant Amoroso
and Sergeant Pfarr had?
12
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 240
Waddell: I, I'm not speaking for Sergeant Amoroso, but or myself I didn't have any ****
intentions.
Proll: You're the one that did the prank, so I don't think it — so what, what was in your
mind of why you would do that?
Waddell: At the time it was just `cause it would, he was a newer sergeant and I think it
would be, at the time I was thinking it would be a lighthearted thing to joke with
him, and I didn't have any ill intention about it or toward him. It was just that I
thought that at the time it would be funny. That was it. In light of our conver, my
conversation with Sergeant Amoroso, I thought it, it would be fun.
Proll: Okay. Let's go back a little bit to where you made a big deal of taking this thing.
How, what do you mean by that? What specifics did you do when asking for the
screwdriver or removing the item would lead someone else to believe that you
were talking louder than normal or what were you doing or saying that you were
going above and beyond your normal work for them to notice this?
Waddell: It was really an emphasis on the emblem of the car. It's a unique emblem, and so
that was what I was doing was just referencing a lot to the emblem and how cool
it is and how, you know, it's a cool emblem, display it, whatever, it'd be neat. It
was, again, it was not anything- specific, it was just random comments about the
car, I mean, it's a higher- end car, you know, not a car that everybody has. It was,
that was what was the lead in was about the emblem.
Proll: Okay. Did you reference, um, doing this before or having other items like this
that would lead credence to that this was a joke or that you're being loud and
obnoxious with, not obnoxious, but loud in making sure they knew that you were
doing this? Was there any reference to anything like that?
Waddell: I don't recall because I'd never collected anything, I've never retained anything
from any other crash. That's not something I've ever done or nor will ever do,
but I, I do know that I was not trying to be secretive with what I was doing, uh,
you know, talking loudly, talking a lot about it.
Proll: So if you referenced taking this for my collection, would that be to further go on
with what you were talking about? Would that help the, the practical joke?
Waddell: I don't recall saying something like that.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: Um —
Wilkinson: I guess he's asking if you said something like that, was that in connection with the
prank or was that because you have a collection.
13
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 241
Waddell: I don't recall saying that; however, if that's something that I would've said, that
woulda been in reference to the prank. It would not be in reference to any sort of,
any collection that I have `cause I do not have one.
Proll: Okay. So here you are purposely gaining attention to what you're doing, so who
else there knew that you took the wheel cover? You're making a point to not be
secretive or whatever, so you're working with people. Who, who else knew that
you took it?
Waddell: I didn't check in with anyone— I didn't, my intent, my focus was on
Sergeant Pfarr. I, I recall Benson being here, being close by when it happened.
Wilkinson: Did Sergeant Pfarr say anything to you to make it suggest that he saw or knew
what you were doing?
Proll: I'm gonna get into that.
Wilkinson: Are you? Okay.
Proll: I mean, here you're, you're going overboard in being loud, and so you don't know
who your audience was besides Sergeant Harr.
Wilkinson: Are you asking him if anybody said anything that would make him know
specifically?
Proll: Well, I mean, if I asked Kevin a question right now, you're there, you're gonna
know what we're talking about.
Wilkinson: Right. But by the same token, that's simply by virtue of proximity. I mean,
sometimes you know somebody overheard something because someone else did
something.
Proll: Right. But I mean, just bear in mind I've interviewed probably ten people that all
had comments on this very question, and for Kevin to be there and he was the one
Wilkinson: But he, he can only tell you what he did and what he knows from other people's,
um, comments or behavior that they know. For example, he certainly knows that
the, um, tow truck driver is aware that he used a screwdriver because he asked for
a screwdriver.
Proll: Right.
Wilkinson: So um, I mean, you can't, I'm assuming you're not asking him to speculate. He
can only give you —
14
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 242
Proll: No, that's —
Wilkinson: — the best recollection almost a year after the fact.
Proll: Reiterating that, you know, he's making a big deal of it, like besides Sergeant
Pfarr if anybody who knew of this?
Wilkinson: To your knowledge is all you can say.
Waddell: The only person I know specifically that would have -had knowledge of it was,
was Benson because I talked to him after the fact, but I did not approach anyone
else. I did not make sure that anyone else was watching, looking. I, I just was
doing what I was doing. I wasn't trying to check.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: Um—
Proll:
m—
Proll: But you're positive Sergeant Pfarr knew you removed it.
Waddell: I'm positive. He knew I —
Proll: Okay. Would Sergeant Pfarr have seen you remove it and then place it on the
other one that was on the street already?
Waddell: I know that he knew I was doing things. I don't know specifically what he saw
me specifically do. I can't speak for what he saw —
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: — obviously, but I know he knew things were going on based on his reaction.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: That's the, that's how I know that he saw and that he knew what was happening.
Proll: Okay. So in summary of the specific part thus far, the only thing you removed
from that car that you remember was a wheel cover that you believed to be on the
right passenger rear.
Waddell: That was the only thing that I took off the car.
Proll: Okay. Did you try and remove the emblem?
15
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 243
Waddell: I think there was an initial look at it. I, I went, that was the first thing after getting
a screwdriver, that I went and looked at it, and it was gonna be impossible to
come out, come off, and I didn't want to cause any damage to the car, I didn't
wanna break anything.
Proll: Wasn't the car totaled?
Waddell: Oh, the car was totaled.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: But I didn't want what I was, my intention and my prank, I didn't want that to,
even if, even a totaled car if it was burned, I wouldn't have wanted to cause my,
myself to cause any more damage to a car.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: I, I was, that's why the hubcap was there is because it was something that you can
just pop on and off and it wouldn't have caused any damage to the cap or the car.
Proll: Do you know if you tried to remove the emblem or just looked at it and go there's
no way I -can remove that?
Waddell: I recall having the screwdriver and I recall having the screwdriver against the
emblem, but I don't recall, just I don't, I never took the emblem off. I never —
Proll: Was there a rear emblem too?
Waddell: There's probably a rear emblem. I —
Wilkinson: Do you remember?
Waddell: There probably is one.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: I, I don't —
Proll: Did you remember doing anything with the rear emblem?
Waddell: I recall doing something with the one emblem and it was not gonna, it was gonna
cause damage to the car, and I went away from the whole emblem thing.
Proll: Okay. So did you make a statement about having a collection of car parts that
you took from accident scenes?
16
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 244
Wilkinson: He's already asked, answered this question.
Proll: Well, this, not only here but the collection from accident scenes.
Wilkinson: But he's already indicated that he doesn't have a collection.
Proll: Okay.
Wilkinson: And that he doesn't remember whether or not he talked about collections, but if
he did talk about collections it was in connection with furthering the prank, not
because he has one. So I think the question's been asked and -answered.
Proll: Okay. I see a little difference, but um —
Wilkinson: Well, maybe you can clarify what the difference is, what you're looking for here
that he didn't previously answer. You're asking him to recount specifics of
statements that happened almost a year ago, and I think he's given you his best
recollection.
Proll: Yeah, when I asked originally was, I just kinda specifically brought up the word
collection, and this is a little further. The question, and you can easily say no, the
question that I wrote here is did you make a statement about having a collection
of car parts that you took from accident scenes.
Waddell: I do not recall making that statement and I don't have any collections from any
other scenes at any other time.
Wilkinson: Similar to what he said earlier if it answers your question.
Proll: Did you and Sergeant Pfarr have any discussions regarding the Bentley car parts
while at the scene, and if so what were they about?
Waddell: I don't recall having any conversation at the scene with him. The only thing he
said to me was I can't be here, something to the, something, in summary,
something to the effect of I can't be here for this, I'm not gonna be a part of this.
Something to that effect and, and then he walked away and got in his car and left.
Proll: Um, whatta you think he was referring to?
Waddell: I think he was referring to the fact of me takin' the car part off the car.
Proll: At this time, does, in your mind, does Sergeant Pfarr know he was the, the
purpose or the thing for the practical joke?
17
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 245
Waddell: I don't know but as he's walking — I, I tried to make that apparent to him, `cause
as he's walking away I said I'm just messin' around. Uh, but with, to with no
acknowledgement, so whether he heard me or not, I, I don't know. But the —
Proll: And when you say you were just messin' around, referring to him?
Waddell: Correct. And obviously the taking of the parts. That whole —
Proll: Okay. While Sergeant Pfarr is at the scene, did he tell you to put the car back, the
car part back?
Waddell: While he was at the scene?
Proll: Right.
Waddell: No.
Proll: Okay. Okay. So while Sergeant Pfarr was at the scene, he is well aware you, you
removed this wheel cover and then he just tells you he can't be here and he starts
to leave and what did you do?
Waddell: Uh, as I said, I said, said as he's walk, I said I'm just messin' around. dm, and at
that time, I felt like what I was doing in my prank was -not perceived well.
Proll: Did he say anything that it wasn't received well or?
Waddell: Not at that time. Uh, and then I
Proll: Did you take that, that it wasn't received well, did he ignored you or he was
walkin' back to get in his car and leave or what?
Waddell: I took his comment, him walking away and him not responding to me sayin' I'm
messing around, I took all of that collectively as he was not happy with me or it.
Proll: Okay. And so he drives away.
Waddell: Yes.
Proll: And then what happened?
Waddell: Uh, at that time I gave the screwdriver back to the tow truck driver and I put the
hubcap on the driver's seat, I recall...
Proll: Driver's seat of?
Waddell: The Bentley or on the passenger seat. In, in the front of the car. I recall making a
point with the tow truck driver that I didn't have any need from him, I was just
18
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 246
messin' around because I didn't want him to think that there was something to do
with me taking things.
Proll: Okay. So you, what did you specifically tell the tow truck driver that you
remember?
Waddell: I remember telling that, telling him specifically whatta, whatta I need hubcaps for
on a Bentley? What am I gonna do with `em? And I remember him, tellin' him
that I was just messin' around.
Proll: Did he say anything?
Waddell: I don't recall. I, I remember him awkwardly chuckling or something. I, I don't
remember if he, I don't remember if he had any response.
Proll: So why did you put the car part back in the interior of the Bentley?
Waddell: The driver had already had the car loaded up and ready to go.
Proll: So it was on the tow truck?
Waddell: Um, I think he had the wrecker. I don't think it — was it a flatbed? I don't
remember. He, he already had the car loaded up. S -o I, I didn't wanna take any
more of his time or anyone take the time to try and put this thing back on there.
Um, I, I just put inside the car to make sure that it stayed with the car.
Proll: So, I mean, do you recall if, was the car on the tow truck or was it just sittin' on
the street when you went and put it back in?
Waddell: Uh, well, the car was in the dirt off the street. It coulda, he could've had the car
on the lift. Remember being an angle and havin' to get up, so I, I don't remember
exactly at what point the car was in the tow truck but it coulda still be on the
ground.
Proll: Was it just something you like tossed it in the driver's window or opened the door
and put it in or what?
Waddell: Yeah, the windows were all broken out —
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: — of the car, so the windows were open, so I, I had reached in and, and put it down
on the seat inside the car.
Proll: I mean, do you think you climbed on the — you would have to climb on the tow
truck if the car was already on the tow truck.
19
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 247
Waddell: Yeah, if it was a flatbed, I woulda had to've gotten up but I remember walkin' — I
don't remember if he had a flatbed or if he had the wrecker. I don't remember. 1,
I remember putting it in the car. I, I — and I, I know I put it in the car because I
made a point to make sure the tow truck driver knew, saw and —
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: — would acknowledge that I, it got back in the car.
Proll: Did you and Sergeant Pfarr have a phone conversation after Sergeant Pfarr left the
scene?
Waddell: Yes.
Proll: And what, what prompted that?
Waddell: Uh, he called me. Uh, I answered the phone. Uh, I said hey, what's up? And he
goes, he told me that I put him in a bad spot and that I needed to put back the car
parts. And I had told him that I already put the car parts back and that I was just
messin' around with him. And that he said that regardless of what I was doing,
what would it look like to -the tow -truck driver, what would it look like to the
other people that were there by what I was doing. He re-emphasized it, I put him
in a bad spot. Uh, I again tried to ensure him that I was just jokin' around, just
messin' around. All the car parts are back in the car. I, I have no need for those
things. Um, and that was, he, and, and that was the end of the phone call to my
recollection.
Proll: Okay. So he calls you on your personal cell?
Waddell: Yes.
Proll: And says you put him in a bad spot. You said I was already, I was jokin' around,
I've already put the part back in the car?
Waddell: Yes.
Proll: And was that the end of it?
Waddell: That was the end of the phone call.
Proll: Okay. Did he, did he tell you anything else?
Wilkinson: He just gave you a full description. I mean, anything other than what he just
described to you.
20
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 248
Waddell: I mean, it coulda been something to — come talk to me when you get back and I, I
already eclipsed my regular shift. So, you know, I think he could've said
something hey, come check out with me when, before you leave or something
that, I mean, something in closing for a phone call. But I don't recall there being
anything else specific to the car or the parts * * * *.
Proll: So you don't remember if he asked you on that same conversation to come and
see him in the, at the station.
Waddell: No, he very well could have. But I, I, I, that would've been a normal closing or
ending or — `cause I did go see him at the stationinthe office after that. So, um —
Proll: What, what I'm getting at, did, did he prompt you coming to see him or did you
specifically, you were just gonna go back, check out -and go home like we always
normally do. Was there a, a prompt from him based on all this that come to the
station and talk to me?
Waddell: I, I, I don't recall anything specific about him telling me to come.
Proll: But you went and saw him?
Waddell: I did go see him after.
Proll: Okay. And where, where was that?
Waddell: In the sergeant's office.
Proll: And what happened there?
Waddell: Uh, I went in, I believe I started with askin' if there's anything else he needed
from me or about the crash. I, I think he said no. And he then reemphasized
again about the car parts. That it was a bad idea, put him in a bad spot. Wha,
what would the other people there think. There were junior officers that were
there. Whatta they gonna think? Um, he then emphasized with me that he spoke
to every, he told me specifically, I spoke to everyone that was there and I made
sure that they knew that I handled this with you. That was specifically what he
said.
Proll: He asked you to speak to everybody that was there?
Waddell: He told me that he had already spoke to everybody that was there and that he
made sure that they knew that he had handled this incident with me already.
Proll: Okay. I just wanna make, get this right. Sergeant Pfarr spoke to everybody that
was there and he reassured everybody that it has, that the incident of takin' the car
part has been handled with you.
21
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 249
Waddell: Yeah, he, he spe, specifically what he told me was that he said, Sergeant Pfarr
said I spoke to everyone that was there and I told them that I handled it with you.
Proll: Subsequent to that, did you have any conversations with anybody that
Sergeant Pfarr had spoke to as a kind of a closure on this?
Waddell: On the way out, uh, going to get something outta the car and, and leaving, I saw
Benson in the parking lot and I had a conversation with him at his window of his
car and I told him, I, I assured him that I didn't wanna put anybody in a bad spot,
I had no intention of taking anything and, you know, I expressed to him that I
made a decision.
Proll: Okay. During this, either on the phone or when you were at the station with
Sergeant Pfarr, did you tell him why you took the car parts?
Waddell: Other than saying that I was just messin' around and I was justjoking, stuff like
that, I, I didn't get into specifics because I felt like he was upset with me, upset
with the situation, so I didn't want to —
Proll: So the things you, you talked about before, about that he's a new sergeant and
he's got this relationship with Sergeant Amoroso and stuff, those things didn't
come up as a reason why you did this?
Waddell: I did not bring that up with him.
Proll: Okay. So when you left there that night, why do you think Sergeant Pfarr — what
as soon as I say anything else, you're gonna object, so I'm just gonna stop right
there. So he, as far as you know, did not know that night, at the end of that night,
that this was all a practical joke on him.
Waddell: He did not know that from me.
Proll: Did you have any other communications with Sergeant Pfarr that night regarding
this incident?
Waddell: I don't believe I did.
Proll: Okay. Did you text him a photo of the car part?
Waddell: I don't remember. I, I don't know that I did. I, I don't know. I, I don't remember
that at all?
Proll: Would that something, would you have remembered something like that?
22
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 250
Wilkinson: I don't know if someone can answer a question like that. He can only tell you
whether he remembers it or not. If he did tlicn —
Proll: He said he's * * * * .
Waddell: — if, if he did, then there'd be a record of it that —
Proll: * * * * be very specific about when you took it, what you took —
Waddell: Sure.
Proll: — and, um, through my interviews, there was a text from _you to Sergeant Pfarr
right after he left the scene of a photo from your phone of the car part in the
Bentley.
Wilkinson: Do you remember doing that?
Waddell: I could have. Uh, I, eh, and if, and if that has been said and — I don't remember
doing that. However, if that is, that very well could be something I did, that
would, just to qualify that the part was back in the car. I did not want there to be
any disparity if that's — I, I don't remember that at all. But —
Proll: Okay.
Wilkinson: And it has been almost a year.
Proll: Right. But, I mean, there's, he remembers taking it and putting it back and all this
and then, I mean, like, like we were talking about. If the car was up on a tow
truck, he woulda literally had to climb up there to take this picture, `cause the
picture was of an item inside the car.
Waddell: * * * * and honestly —
Wilkinson: All he can tell ya is what he remembers ****.
Proll: Yeah.
Waddell: Honestly, that, I, I, I don't remember the location of the car and the tow truck, if it
was a flatbed tow truck or the wrecker tow truck. I, I don't * * * * . You bring that
up now and that is —
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: — is, is — I, I don't remember that.
Proll: * * * * as part of this would be his phone record from January.
23
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 251
Wilkinson: I'll talk to him about it. It's not something you either have the right to request or
require from him under Government Code § 3309. The department can neither
ask nor require that he produce any item of this, um, his personal property but I'll
take it under consideration.
Proll: Okay. But, I mean, it'd been his, his own reason why if, not that he remembers
doing it but if it he did do it, he said well, I was just showing that it was back and
Wilkinson: I mean, he, he, from that perspective, I would imagine Sergeant_Pfarrhas it on his
phone.
Proll: We have one side of it, let's put it that way.
Wilkinson: Okay.
Proll: So.
Wilkinson: Well, it, maybe it would refresh his recollection to show him it.
Proll: Well, we just have the record of, of the —
Wilkinson: Oh, that a communication was made?
Proll: Right.
Wilkinson: Okay. So you have a record that a text was made from his phone to Sergeant
Harr's phone —
Proll: ****
Wilkinson: — but no actual copy of what was sent?
Proll: Correct. We have a communication sh, uh, uh, a line on a phone bill showing that
Wilkinson: Right. That there was a communication from one to — oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Proll: That Sergeant Pfarr called Officer Waddell —
Wilkinson: Right.
Proll: — after leaving the scene and because of the way the iPhones work, we needed
from the other end the sending of the text.
24
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 252
Wilkinson: Right.
Proll: `Cause Sergeant Pfarr's phone bill did not show a text.
Wilkinson: No, but he should've had it — he, if he has an iPhone, he would have it on his
phone. The text itself. We could take a picture of it or recover that from the hard
disk of Sergeant Marr's phone.
Proll: Right. And that wasn't done.
Wilkinson: Okay. I mean, it could still be done.
Proll: Well, not if he deleted it, I don't know.
Wilkinson: Yeah. Well, if it's, I, I will tell you from practical experience, if it was on his
phone and it hasn't been overwritten —
Proll: It's still there somewhere.
Wilkinson: — they can pull it off. Yeah. Eve, uh, even if, even if Sergeant Pfarr deleted it.
Prolh Okay.
Wilkinson: So I would request —
Proll: Okay.
Wilkinson: — the department try to get it first from Sergeant Pfarr's phone before we go
invading the privacy of, of his phone, uh, with regard to it.
Proll: Right.
Wilkinson: We'll check and, and get back to it. But I think that that would be the proper
place to start because then it would protect and insulate the department from
committing a violation of the Bill of Rights Act by asking him for material you're
not allowed to ask him for.
Proll: Well, I'm not demanding it ****. I mean, it's like it's almost proving —
Wilkinson: No, I understand, I, I understand.
Proll:
Wilkinson: No, no, no, no.
Waddell: And, and I'm not -
25
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 253
Wilkinson: I, I understand. But, um, I, I want you to understand, and I know Sergeant Pfarr
knows this `cause he was in the IA class week that I taught, um, Government
Code § 3309 says that the department shall neither request nor require. So a Bill
of Rights Act violation happens by the request.
Proll: Okay.
Wilkinson: Not just by the requirement that it be produced and so, um, to avoid, uh, you
know, to avoid that component — I'm just lookin' to see if I have my note, um —
Proll: I was just, let's just leave it that.
Wilkinson: Yeah. We'll just leave it at that.
Proll: If —
Wilkinson: If, um, if you're able to get it from Sergeant Pfarr's phone, it would be much
cleaner and, you know, since I already have one aspect of the Bill of Rights Act
that I'm contending is violated, I do my best not to accumulate more. Um, so —
Proll: Okay.
Wilkinson: — I, I suggest that you go back and look at, at that section first and then see
whether it can be retrieved. I will then talk to him —
Proll: Okay.
Wilkinson: — a, about it as well.
Proll: Okay. So just, in summary there, you don't remember sending a text?
Waddell: This would refresh it if that, you're saying that he has, I, I, I don't remember. I
don't remember. It's a long time ago. I, I don't remember that aspect of it.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: Um, but if that, knowing me, and my personality and who I am, I would,
would've wanted to' ve proved —
Proll: Right.
Waddell: — what I was just telling him on the phone.
26
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 254
Proll: You know what I mean, just in the, the practical joke went bad scenario. Um, you
know, he's not happy. He's calling you into the office. All these kinda things.
Um, what a great way to say —
Wilkinson: Done.
Proll: — I never left the scene and the part never left the scene. It's sitting right here.
And really the quickest and easiest way to show Sergeant Pfarr that is a text.
Waddell: Absolutely.
Proll: Yeah.
Waddell: And I, I, and I don't have a recollection
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: A year later, of doing it. But if, if there is, you know —
Wilkinson: If Sergeant Pfarr remembers getting one then, I mean, it —
Waddell: I, I, I wouldn't, I wouldn't say that it didn't happen. I'm not saying he didn't get
one. I'm not saying -that I sent it. I, I'm saying that I didn't remember that until —
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: — now and I, I really still don't remember it but —
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: I —
Proll: Just to clear that part up, do you remember anyone else sending him a text of that
picture?
Waddell: No, 1, I, that, that woulda been me. I mean, if the — I, I just don't remember that.
A year later, I just don't remember it and if —
Wilkinson: I'd be great if he did `cause it would be exonerating, it just tells you he's being
honest.
Proll: Okay. So we're gettin' close here. Did you and Sergeant Amoroso recently have
a conversation about this incident?
Waddell: I talked to Sergeant Amoroso weeks ago.
27
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 255
Proll: About this?
Waddell: About this.
Proll: And what was the substance of that conversation?
Waddell: He told me that he was approached by Sergeant Pfarr, that he may be inter, that
Sergeant Amoroso may be interviewed about this and Sergeant Amoroso told me
not to — to be honest and don't feel that I needed to protect him in any way.
Proll: He was telling you not — that he, that you're not to feel, to protect him in any
way?
Waddell: With relation to our conversation of a prank or anything like that, he wanted- me to
be honest and he wanted me to not feel that whatever I — he, his emphasis was on
being honest and that if he was to be in trouble for being a part of raising an idea
of a prank, then that would be his, his to bear. Not feel like I had to not say that,
not bring it up, was his emphasis to me.
Proll: Did you two discuss it being a prank?
Waddell: At that time?
Proll: The, the 3 weeks ago.
Waddell: He mentioned that to me, yes.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: And that's my recollection of it was well.
Proll: Did you make any statements to him about it being a prank?
Waddell: That was — I told him at that time that was what I was doing.
Proll: I mean, did you feel that was a time to try to clear yourself and say God, man, I
wish we wouldn't've or I wish I wouldn't've done that. It didn't go well.
Sergeant Pfarr took it wrong. Anything like that?
Waddell: We had the conversation the next night about that incident. I told him about the
incident that happened and that he was upset and that —
Wilkinson: So this, this conversation 3 weeks ago was, was a separate conversation than the
one you had before.
Waddell: Correct.
28
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 256
Proll: So the night after the crash, you and Sergeant Amoroso had a conversation.
Waddell: Yes.
Proll: Regarding it being a prank.
Waddell: I, I — that's my recollection, yes.
Proll: So this is slightly different than the collection question but I'm just goin' through
my questions. We're almost done. And it, a simple yes or no. Have you ever
taken any vehicle parts during accident investigations that were not taken and
booked as evidence?
Waddell: No.
Wilkinson: I'm okay with that question.
Proll: Do you have any vehicle parts that you have taken that were not booked as
evidence?
Waddell: No.
Proll: Have you ever taken any dermo equipment for your own use?
Waddell: My own work use but not for my own personal use.
Proll: Okay. Do you have any dermo equipment at your home?
Waddell: I think I have two jackets that I wear when I go to SWAT. I don't have any other
equipment.
Wilkinson: We didn't have notice that there was any accusation that he had done this on any
other prior occasion or that he had had improperly any equipment at home. So I
would state that those questions are outside the scope of this investigation, that we
were identified `cause they don't have anything to do with this collision on
February
22nd
Proll: Okay. Those questions are over with but —
Wilkinson: Yeah, I, I understand that but I'm just —
Proll: Okay.
Wilkinson: — adding you my objection for the record that those are not proper questions to be
asking.
29
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 257
Proll: Okay.
Wilkinson: And that I would recommend the department strike any of that from its
investigation as not having been properly noticed.
Proll: Okay, Kevin, is there anything else that you know about this incident that I should
know about on why all this happened, um, I, I can just tell you there's, there's
definitely some differences of opinion by personnel at the scene of what
happened. And, you know, I would encourage you if there's any other
information you can tell me about the prank, those kinda things, um, this is a good
time to tell me anything else you wanna tell me about it.
Waddell: That was my complete intention at that time was to mess with, to prank Sergeant
Harr. I had no intention at any point of taking anything at all. I realized that
night that I made a bad choice in doing that. I take responsibility for my actions
in that and the position that I put him in and, you know, potentially undermining
his authority as a sergeant. I, I see that and again, my intention was solely to be
funny —
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: — and at that time —
Proll: Any evidence or anything, other statements that you could tell me that would lead
somebody that viewed this whole thing, oh, that's definitely a prank or he was
stealing that. What is, I mean, you were there. You know about where kind of
people were and what they heard and stuff. Um, anything to lead, statements that
would lead someone to believe that this was absolutely, definitely a prank?
Wilkinson: Uh, you're not talkin' about con, discussions he had with people afterwards.
You're talking about at the scene?
Proll: Right.
Wilkinson: A good prank doesn't reveal it during, the time of its execution but to the degree
that you can answer that —
Proll: A good prank doesn't end up here.
Wilkinson: Uh, no, don, don't, don't believe that. You should see some of the pranks that
ended up in IA. Maybe not in San Luis Obispo but —
Waddell: But that's, that's * * * *. I, I don't recall the, any, any statements I woulda made.
Uh, again, a year later to say specific things that I had said to try and identify to
other people that it was a joke was, was — I can remember being, just being over
the top and bein' out in front of everybody, not tryin' to hide anything. Um, doin'
it with him right there.
30
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 258
Proll: But you, you're tellin' me that stuff but you're really not in specifics on how you
were over the top or what you were specifically doing because, I mean, there's
people right there that are working with you that had no idea this was a prank
until I interviewed `em. And so, you know, here I'm gettin' this picture that
you're oh, we're gonna mess with Chad. Everybody here, we're gonna mess with
Chad. And there's people working with you, hand in hand —
Wilkinson: I think, I think maybe you're misinterpreting what he's saying. He was indicating
that he was not concealing what he was doing and that he was being loud and
verbose about taking the wheel * * * *, not the fact that it was a prank. So, um,
and, somebody's gonna, somebody's gonna steal a wheel? Well, really they're
gonna do it —
Proll: Well, that's, that's —
Wilkinson: — in connection with what they're doing?
Proll: — kind of, as, as the uninvolved person watching this whole thing, you know, I
mean, we would know the difference. And, and I'm sayin' that he's purposely
being loud and —
Wilkinson: All, all he can tell you is what he remembers and he's gone into it in extraordinary
detail. We are prejudiced, um, by the fact that the department knew about it on
the night of it and, uh, Sergeant Pfarr certainly represented that he investigated it
at the time, which brings me back to my original objection, which is had this been
something that was timely addressed in a proper manner, memories are fresher
closer in time. So, um, this is an event which by virtue of the counseling that
Sergeant Pfarr gave him, was closed in his mind at the time that it happened as a —
Proll: Right.
Wilkinson: — as a, as a bad deal. So the idea now that suddenly, um, you know, 9, 10
11 months later he has to go back on something that he thought was over and
done with and remember with specific details who was where and what he said
and how he said it, that's prejudicial. This is precisely why these things are
supposed to be dealt with in a timely fashion. Which brings me back to my
original —
Prolh Right.
Wilkinson: — complaint.
Proll: I was just, in summary overall, trying to give him an opportunity to sum up the,
the notion that it was a practical joke and nothing else.
31
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 259
Wilkinson: I mean, I think, I think he's told you, uh, you know, he was open about it. He
didn't hide it. He was loud, um, and he was doing it right in front of people. In
his view, it was obvious that this was not something that he intended to do or, or
to take but, um, you know, it was designed, as, as he already described to you, to
get a reaction out of Sergeant Pfarr. The reaction he got was not the reaction he
was looking for.
Proll: Okay.
Wilkinson: And, you know, and, and so end, end of story. Lesson learned.
Proll: If Sergeant Pfarr hadn't arrived at the scene or — like, like did you do this because
he was there?
Waddell: Yes.
Proll: Okay. So let's say he didn't come to you and say these things like, you know,
you put me in a bad spot or walked away from you, which were the two indicators
of you thinking that this didn't go well, what if none of that'd happened? What
would've happened with this incident?
Waddell: The exact same solution woulda happened. The, the end result woulda been the
same. The hubcaps woulda been back- in the car and had he — there's a lotta what
ifs too. I mean, but if he didn't call me or didn't come to me, I could see myself
going to him to clear it up.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: But it didn't get that far.
Proll: Okay. Okay.
Wilkinson: In terms of the amount of time that passed from Sergeant Pfarr leaving the, um,
scene to you getting the phone call, can you estimate how long that was?
Waddell: I felt like it was minutes, 2 to 3 minutes.
Proll: And, you know, I would, we have that stuff timed —
Wilkinson: Yeah.
Proll: — and stuff. I would've asked, you know, how much longer, how much later did
you send the text but, um —
Wilkinson: * * * * don't know when that was * * * *.
32
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 260
Proll: — * * * * remember doing it.
Wilkinson: Don't remember doing it.
Proll: That, that is * * * * —
Wilkinson: I'm sure the record tells you though.
Proll: But that is the one thing I'm interested in on the text is what time it was. That
was —
Wilkinson: So from, so from your recollection, lemme, lemme, uh, see if I can get this and we
are getting just your best recollection almost a year after the fact. Um,
Sergeant Pfarr leaves. Um, does he call you before or after you've already put
the, um, wheel cover back into the, into the, um, seat of the vehicle?
Waddell: It was already back in the car and that's what I told him on the phone when he
told me to put `em back in there. I told him, I said it's already in there. I already
had put `em back. I was just messin' around. And so the photo message is
reasonable. That, that would be something that I would do. That woulda been
something that I — I wish I could remember doing it because I would, it's a very
reasonable thing that, for me to do. I would wanted to, to have shown him. He
wasn't there to — the tow truck was gonna leave. Um -
Proll: Okay.
Wilkinson: Make sure he knew you did what you said you were —
Waddell: Exactly.
Proll: One last thing, you met like 3 weeks ago with Sergeant Amoroso and that
basically he told you that he was approached by Sergeant Pfarr, that Sergeant
Amoroso might be interviewed regarding this?
Waddell: That's what he told me that Sergeant Pfarr told him.
Proll: And then he told you to be honest. Did, so other, uh, prior to Sergeant Amoroso
talkin' to you 3 weeks ago, did you have any indication that the Bentley part was
coming up?
Waddell: No.
Proll: So he was the person that told you.
Waddell: He started that with do, do you remember a crash last year about a Bentley that
rolled over? And I said, and I told him yes.
33
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 261
Proll: Okay.
Wilkinson: And that was the first you heard of it being an issue —
Waddell: That —
Wilkinson: — again after that night?
Waddell: — that, that was the first time that I've heard of that since the day it hapened.
Proll: So what brought that topic up?
Waddell: Sergeant Amoroso brought it up. Because...
Proll: Based on anything you said or anything?
Waddell: Absolutely not. I hadn't seen him in weeks before that. And —
Proll: * * * * anything you said during that conversation?
Waddell: No, he, he's, he offered.
Wilkinson: * * * * the conversation started?
Waddell: I was at, I had stopped at his house for something unrelated. To get a tool or
something.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: And he said hey, by the way, Sergeant Pfarr pulled me aside and said that I might
get interviewed on this case. Do you remember a, do you remember a Bentley
crash last year? I said yeah. And —
Proll: So that was the, that started the whole thing?
Waddell: He — yes. That's, he started it.
Proll: Okay. You don't, do you recall talkin' to him about bein' upset that this process
from the other IA was goin' on so long and that you were like God, what, you
know, I wanna go back to work. What could be goin' on? And that's when he
brought up this.
Waddell: I, I'm, I could've expressed that frustration. That I, I, I, don't know what's goin'
on. It's been a long time. That could've, what, in, that's could've what had
prompted him to say what he said but I didn't, I knew nothing about it. Knew,
heard nothing about it `til he brought it up.
34
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 262
Proll: I know this is supposition but **** when you guys were drivin' around in the
truck that night or the night before, had that discussion never came up, would
you've taken the wheel cover?
Waddell: It was my choice to take the wheel cover. I take responsibility for the prank being
it, so I don't think that that woulda been something that I would've done had we
not talked about it. I feel like that was a — I, it, that put my mind in that realm to
do a prank.
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: And that was his idea. I remember it being a general discussion. I, I don't recall
who — I don't remember having it, so —
Proll: Okay.
Waddell: — I, I recall him bringing it up as —
Proll: Okay. Do you have any questions?
Wilkinson: No.
Proll: You guys got anything further?
Wilkinson: Nothing further.
Proll: Okay. It is now 3:23 and I will be turning the tape recorders off.
Wilkinson: Okay. Thank you.
SpeakWrite
www. speakwrite.com
Job Number: 15156-010
Custom Filename: SLO-Waddell
Date: 06/06/2015
Billed Word Count: 12452
35
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER KEVIN WADDELL (1/27/2014) Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 263
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 264
ti17
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO
BY LIEUTENANT BILL PROLL
Proll: This is Lieutenant Bill Proll. It is January 7`h
at 12:04 p.m. I'm in my office at the
police department with Sergeant Brian Amoroso. I've asked Brian to be
interviewed regarding an incident that is now a internal affairs investigation, so
I'm gonna ask you a series of questions, Brian. Did you respond to a major injury
accident at Orchid and Johnson involving a Bentley on February 22"d —
Amoroso: Yes, I did.
Proll: — 2013?
Amoroso: Yes.
Proll: Okay, and what was that, were you working anyway, or?
Amoroso: I was. I was working, uh, I was working downtown on the bicycle and if I
remember correctly the, uh, accident came out, uh, shortly before 3 o'clock in the
morning, uh, so we were I think just arriving at the station and it sounded like a
major, it sounded really bad like it potentially could be a fatal and so
Officer Waddell and I decided to drive out there to see if, uh, people on scene, the
officers on scene needed help.
Proll: Did you drive out together?
Amoroso: No, we drove separately. I drove the FST truck and I believe Officer Waddell
drove a white Crown Vic.
Proll: And why did you guys go separately?
Amoroso: Um, because of his involvement with the total station, um, for documenting, uh,
the traffic collisions. We had kind of assu, because it was almost 3 o'clock it was
a nor, normal time that we would be off and, uh —
Proll: He just might be kept there longer?
Amoroso: — right. We kind of, I, I think we believed that he was gonna be helping out with
the actual accident. The main reason for me going is because Sergeant Pfarr was,
I don't remember when he promoted but it was fairly soon prior to this incident so
I was going out to talk with him to make sure that he was doing all the right things
that he would need to do and proper notifications if it was, uh, a fatality, that kind
of stuff.
Proll: Do you remember what SLOPD personnel were there when you arrived?
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 265
Amoroso: You know the only one that I remember being there was Officer Hyman. I, I
know there was other cops there but I, I don't remember who was there.
Proll: And you probably said this earlier but what was your role at the scene?
Amoroso: Uh, just as a supervisor going there. Again it sounded like it might have been a
fatality so I wanted to go to find out if in fact it was so that I could make sure that
Sergeant Pfarr was going to do the proper notifications and also make an
assessment if potentially the traffic sergeant needed to be called for a CAT
callout, um, for the, uh, critical accent, accident team 'cause they would document
the collision, um, in a different way. If Chad wasn't so new I probably wouldn't
have gone —
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: — but because he was so new I wanted to make sure that, that, uh, he had support
if he needed it.
Proll: And when did you leave the scene and if you remember what SLOPD personnel
were still there?
Amoroso: I left the scene after Sergeant Pfarr arrived. Uh, I don't recall who else was there.
I, I don't remember. I remember there were several officers present, um, but I just
Proll: So you went to the scene, had Sergeant Pfarr got there yet?
Amoroso: — no, not yet.
Proll: Okay, so you were the first supervisor —
Amoroso: Yes.
Proll: — on scene?
Amoroso: Yes.
Proll: Okay, and when was the decision to call out the traffic team? Like did you do
that or did you wait to meet with Sergeant Pfarr or?
Amoroso: No, I, I think we waited and, and you know as I'm thinking about this, I, I think
arrived before Sergeant Pfarr. I can't say with a hundred percent certainty. 1
know that when I arrived there, they had already extricated one, there was two
people in the car. Fire had already pulled out, uh, the female I believe then they
pulled out the male and so when I got there they were just pulling the male out
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 266
and that was I think the one that they were not sure if he was going to live or die
at the time. It, it ended up they actually was, weren't that bad, they were just so
intoxicated they were unresponsive —
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: — um, but, so when I got there that was occurring. I think I got before Chad but I,
I could be wrong if you look at the radio logs, I don't know.
Proll: Okay, so at some point when you were there you talked to Sergeant Pfarr about
what else you should do at the scene?
Amoroso: Yes.
Proll: Okay, and what was the decision there?
Amoroso: Yeah, I think we looked at it and said this could be a fatality, this, you know, we
need to I believe notify the traffic sergeant and this would be a, the, a typical
accident where the CAT team would probably come out and shoot the accident
with the total station so that it was, uh, a very factual traffic collision report versus
just a normal patrol officer taking it due to the extent of the injuries and the
damages.
Proll: Okay, and did you arrive at the same time as Officer Waddell or later or before or
do you remember?
Amoroso: Yeah, I'm pretty sure we arrived about the same time and, and again as I'm
thinking about it, there's a small chance we may have driven together and he may
have gone back to the PD in someone else's car to get the total station.
Proll: Okay,
Amoroso: This was so long ago I, I don't quite recall but I know I left separately from him.
He stayed longer than I did.
Proll: Do you know what his role at the scene was?
Amoroso: Um, he was going just as a member of the callout team since he was already on
duty, was really I think to assess the accident so if it was a CAT callout he can
already start thinking of what it is that needs to happen and, and start making
those arrangements and, uh, you know, start getting the equipment ready, that
kind of stuff.
Proll: So when you left the TC scene, had any other traffic callout people arrived?
Amoroso: Not that I can recall. I don't think so.
3
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 267
Proll: So when you left the scene the car was still there?
Amoroso: Yes.
Proll: So prior to you leaving, you and Sergeant Pfarr discussed whatever and decided
that it was an accident that would be a worthy of a callout of the traffic team?
Amoroso: I, I think we at least decided it would be a notification to the traffic sergeant —
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: — and, and I, 1 would assume that then that process happened and it, but 1, 1 don't
have an independent recollection of one way or the other who we contacted or
whether we made the determination to call the critical team out —
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: — or whether we got a hold of the traffic sergeant, I don't recall.
Proll: Okay, so when you left though, had the traffic team started the investigation as a
collision yet?
Amoroso: No.
Proll: Okay_
Amoroso: Not that I remember. I mean the officers on scene had done the preliminary but
not the callout team.
Proll: Okay. Did you hear or see Officer Waddell ask the tow truck driver for a
screwdriver?
Amoroso: No.
Proll: Did you see Officer Waddell get a screwdriver from the tow truck driver?
Amoroso: No.
Proll: Did you hear Officer Waddell say anything about having a collection of car parts
that he has taken from accident scenes?
Amoroso: No.
Proll: Did you see Officer Waddell and Sergeant Pfarr have any discussions while at the
scene?
4
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 268
Amoroso: No.
Proll: Did you see Officer Waddell remove anything from the vehicle?
Amoroso: No.
Proll: Did you see Officer Waddell place anything into a brown paper bag?
Amoroso: No.
Proll: Did you see Officer Waddell walk towards his car with the brown paper evidence
bag?
Amoroso: No.
Proll: Do you know of a phone call between Officer Waddell and Sergeant Pfarr after
Sergeant Pfarr had left the TC steen, scene?
Amoroso: No.
Proll. Have you known or ever, have you ever seen Officer Waddell take any vehicle
parts during accident investigations?
Amoroso: No.
Proll: Do you know if Officer Waddell has a collection of vehicle parts that he has taken
from accident investigation scenes?
Amoroso: No, I've never, and I've been to his house, I've never seen it and he's never
mentioned it to me.
Proll: Do you know if Officer Waddell's ever been involved in any inappropriateness
with the military surplus theft?
Amoroso: No. Matter of fact I've, as his direct supervisor I've watched his actions with the
military stuff and to my knowledge he's been exemplary in his, um, cataloging of
it, in his tracking of it, um, you know, not prime examples, the email he sent out
when all the shoes came here and he was, I mean I talked to him, he was pissed to
use the term lightly that people were over there freely taking stuff before it could
even be cataloged and, and organized and for them to realize it, so no.
Proll: Okay, so summarizing your thing. You go to this traffic scene, um, hang out for a
little while, talk to Sergeant Pfarr, think everything's under control, that the traffic
investigation team's coming out. One of the members, Officer Waddell's already
there, so you leave and go home for the night?
5
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 269
Amoroso: Yes.
Proll: Okay, and that was back in February?
Amoroso: Yeah, whenever the incident occurred.
Proll: When is the next time you had any knowledge of this traffic accident scene being
discussed?
Amoroso: Sergeant Pfarr brought it up to me when Sergeant Valaney, during that
promotional process, right it was the time that the chief was deciding who he was
gonna promote, um, Chad had just casually mentioned oh yeah, then there was
that whole thing with the tow truck, tow truck driver and I looked at him and said
what are you talkin' about.
Proll: So let me back up a little bit. So this wasn't discussed during the special
assignment selection?
Amoroso: What special assignment selection are you talking about?
Proll: Well, at that time we had a whole bunch of special assignment selections that —
Amoroso: Yes, it was. This was before that. Sergeant Valaney was promoted, it, what
you're referring to from my recollection is when Officer Waddell and
Officer Engelhard were selected for the daytime metro positions.
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: That was prior to, that was after Sergeant Valaney promoted —
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: — the, my first time anyone talked to me about this was when Sergeant Harr
sitting in the office brought it up when we were between each other, we were
talking about who we thought would, would be a good sergeant between the
candidates and I think at the time the candidates were Waddell, Valaney and,
what was it? Cudworth or Shahoove? 1,1 forget who with the, uh, or no maybe it
was, no, 'cause Valaney was his most recent test. Maybe it was right, you know
what? I may re, it was, it was definitely before the staff, when we talked about all
the specialty positions —
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: — but it was not much before that and it had something to do with us discussing
who would make a good sergeant about the time that Valaney promoted is my
6
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 270
recollection. Um, if, if I had to guess from now I, I would think it would have
been, you know, less than 6 months ago or right about that time is when he first
said it to me. Maybe even a little less.
Proll: Is this accurate, it had something to do with Sergeant Pfarr and I discussing who
would make a good sergeant?
Amoroso: Yes.
Proll: Okay, so then what did Sergeant Pfarr tell you?
Amoroso: Well, he said there was that whole incident with the tow truck driver and I said
well, what are you talking about and he says you know, where, when he took the
hub caps off the Bentley so as soon as he said that I knew what accident he was
talking about because this was a, this was the only Bentley I've ever seen in a car
accident and I assumed it was the same incident.
Proll: And that was plural, hub caps?
Amoroso: Yeah, I think that's what he said. I could be —
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: — I, he could have said hub cap, I, I don't know.
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: Um, but he, so I looked at Chad and I said well what, what the hell are you talking
about? I've never heard of this and he said oh, 1, I never told you this at the time
and I said no, no one has ever told me anything and since I'm his direct supervisor
I'm frankly a little surprised that if there was an incident nobody discussed it with
me and so he said oh, he said, well, he said I, I guess I must have forgot, uh, but
he basically said that, uh, Kevin had popped, and again I don't know if it was one
hub cap or four, off of that Bentley and had put 'em, uh, I don't know if he said he
put 'em in his car or put 'em in a bag or something and then, and he had gotten a, a
screwdriver from the tow truck driver to do this and then Chad somehow found
out at the scene and confronted him about it and, you know, Chad told me he, you
know, basically verbally reprimanded him in the field, then he came back to the
station, he called him into the station 'cause Chad was still feeling uneasy about
what had occurred and he went through it again with him and then, I mean,
basically for lack of a better term told me, you know, he basically tore him a new
one to use a quote, uh, you know, verbally in the office about what are you
thinking, what are you doing out there, that's inappropriate activity, you can't do
that, you know etcetera and, uh, and then he says he just left it at that, but from
what I recall Chad had said he had, he told whoever the, his lieutenant was and I, I
don't remember if it was, I don't believe it was. I think he'd said he'd either told
7
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 271
Sm, Smith or Bledsoe, I don't remember, um, but he had told somebody about it
but, uh, nothin' ever happened with it.
Proll: Do you know, during your conversation with Chad what the sequence of steps
were that, that Chad found out about this at the scene and then, you know, how he
notified Kevin to put it back or don't take 'em or?
Amoroso: No, he, I don't the sequence of events. He didn't go into detail about how he
found out. I, 1 do remember him saying at one point afterwards then Kevin
grabbed 'em and, and put 'em back in the car, like inside the car or something like
that.
Proll: I know there's supposition and stuff, but in your mind from talking to Chad —
Amoroso: Mm hmm.
Proll: — what did Kevin take off of that car?
Amoroso: The hub cap I believe. The, the center, there's a, there was a, the way Chad
explained it, and I don't remember the, I remember there being nice wheels on this
Bentley but —
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: — apparently like where the lug nuts are, there was a plastic cap that covers the lug
nuts and it had the Bent, the B, like the Bentley emblem and it was my
understanding that's what he had popped off was just the plastic like cap for the
lug nuts I guess.
Proll: Okay, on one wheel or —
Amoroso: The center cap.
Proll: — do you know?
Amoroso: Yeah, and I don't know if he said one wheel or four wheels. I'm, I'm just —
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: — guessing. I, 1 don't recall.
Proll: Were there any other items from the car discussed, like any type of emblem from
the, the hood or the side of the car or anything like that?
Amoroso: No.
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 272
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: I only, at least, from Chad and I, the only thing I recall was the, uh, the center cap
Proll: Okay, so Chad tells you this when you guys are discussing sergeant candidates —
Amoroso: Right.
Proll: — and tells you that it was handled, he told his lieutenant and since then what has
happened of, with your knowledge? What knowledge do you have of anything
that's happened since your discussion with Chad?
Amoroso: Uh, that it went to IA.
Proll: Okay. Any other discussions with anybody?
Amoroso: Well, I, you know I told Chad, I said, you know I remembered having, and again
by the time he was telling me this it was like a long time from the accident but I
told him the more I started thinking about it I said you know, Chad, I remember
having a conversation with Kevin on -scene while we were looking at you and I
don't remember if it was when Chad arrived 'cause, 'cause again I don't, I can't
recall whether he pulled up when we were there, I think that's what I believe but —
Proll: So you were having this conversation at the traffic accident scene?
Amoroso: — yes, at the traffic accident scene, and I remember joking with Kevin and we
were, we were kind of laughing about because Chad was so new I had said oh
wouldn't it be funny to, to lwk with Chad, to use a, again a slang term, but to
screw with him, you know, to kind of haze him and do something that would be
so ridiculous that he would as a supervisor sort of, you know like oh my God
what, what are you doing, why would you do that and Kevin and I both kind of
laughed about it and then we just went about whatever we were doing. There was
no discussion of what we would do or that he would in fact do something or I
would do something, it was just we laughed about it as a, it'd be a funny practical
joke or whatever and then that was it. That was the end of that discussion.
Proll: So at no time did the item, did the issue of taking items off of this Bentley come
up as, specifically as a result to play a practical joke on Chad?
Amoroso: No.
Proll: Was anything specific discussed to play the practical joke on Chad?
Amoroso: No.
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 273
Proll: Okay. If Kevin took items off this car, do you think it was a result of him playing
a practical joke on Chad?
Amoroso: I would think based on the conversation that we had it, that would, that type of
activity would be exactly what, you know, something like that would be what we
would have been referring to as a, as a funny joke that would a new sergeant, you
know, basically flip out, you know, saying what are you doing. Um, you know,
but I, I can't, I can't say. I don't, I don't know 100 percent and judging by your
questions about whether he has a collection of parts from other traffic accidents
then if that part is true then I would doubt that it would have anything to do with a
practical joke. I, you know, I mean that, so 1, that's like I said that's the first I've
ever heard of that, um, but you know, I don't know.
Proll: So, but, your, your gut feeling when Chad months later is discussing this with you
in your office about who should get promoted, who shouldn't —
Amoroso: Right.
Proll: — and Chad tells you about the Bentley incident, do you instantly think that this
was a practical joke that never came to fruition that, that, you know 'cause let's,
let's say this, this had been a practical joke that had gone through —
Amoroso: Mm hmm.
Proll: — everybody in the department would know about it —
Amoroso: Right.
Proll: — and since it never got to that, do, in your mind now do you think that's what
Kevin was doing?
Amoroso: The first thing that popped in my mind when Chad told me this was no way. Why
would he pop the hub cap off this car? It makes no sense at to me.
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: So I could come up with no other explanation in my mind as to why Kevin would
do this, and again I've been to his house, I've been in his garage, I've never seen
anything that appears to be a collection of vehicle parts and so nothing in my
mind would make any sense other than, God I wonder if it was just that —
Proll: So let me just ask straight out. Why —
Amoroso: Sure.
Proll: — do you think Kevin removed the emblem from the wheel?
H
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 274
Amoroso: In my opinion, was maybe as a joke. That, that's the only explanation I can think
of. I mean there's, there's two explanations. Either he was doing it as a joke or he
was doing it 'cause he wanted the emblem. I don't know because I'm not him.
Um, my only rational explanation would be because it was a joke based on the
fact of what we talked about and laughed about outside of Chad's presence at the
scene being a new sergeant. That's my feeling, that's my thought. I could be
wrong —
Proll: Okay, but I mean you —
Amoroso: — I don't know.
Proll: — guys are close and Chad has this uncomfortable discussion with him and —
Amoroso: Mm hmm.
Proll: — Kevin ends up putting items back in the car —
Amoroso: Mm hmm.
Proll: — don't you think that had this been a practical joke that had gone awry the next
time you work with him, the next time he sees you, you text him, you know
something like oh, well that didn't work out too well, was there anything like that?
Amoroso: No, and that's, I actually specifically asked Chad, once I started, and I think it was
after the fact, but as I started thinking and recalling the event more and I asked
Chad, I said well, did he talk to you or say anything about the conversation that he
and I had a, about that and he said no and that's what I thought was odd is if it was
truly a joke that would have, if it was me that would have been the first thing that
I would thought of to say were to say well look, go talk to Amoroso. We were
just, we had talked about —
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: — screwing around with you just, so that, I did ask Chad, did he ever say that?
Did, didn't that come up, and he said no, he was just very apologetic and, and, you
know, was just hey, you know, you're right and, and that was it, so I don't know
whether he was covering 'cause he didn't wanna get me in trouble with Chad or
something that we were trying to, you know, screw with him or something or
whether that wasn't why he was popping 'em. I, I don't know.
Proll: So Kevin never mentioned to Chad about it being a possible practical joke?
Amoroso: That's what Chad told me.
11
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 275
Proll: And this discussion about doing a practical joke on Chad, you were the instigator
of that or —
Amoroso: Yes.
Proll: — Kevin was?
Amoroso: I was.
Proll: Okay. Good job.
Amoroso: I'm too much like you.
Proll: Okay, since the night at the Bentley have you discussed this with Kevin?
Amoroso: No. This incident, no. There is one thing to add, though and that is about a week -
and -a -half ago he had come over to my house to borrow some blue, uh, thread
locker, you know, like you put on screws because he, he needed some for this
thing he's building at his house, the remote control helicopter and when he came
over we were talking in the driveway and he was, you know saying oh, you know
I, I, God I still I haven't heard anything. I can't believe that no one's contacted me
and I said oh, well, you know I think Bill's still working on his, so, and then he
kind of looked at me and I went, oh shit I think I probably said something I
shouldn't have, so he, then of course he asked. He says what are you talking
about, and I said well, I said, there's another IA that Bill's working on about this,
some tow truck accident thing. That's all I know, I haven't been interviewed, but
there's something else going on. I think that's why you haven't heard on the first
IA yet, but I don't know. After that, you know, surely, I mean we talked, chit chat
a little more and nothing about work but then he left and then I thought wow that
was really frikkin' stupid of me. I shouldn't have said that 'cause I realized that he
obviously didn't know at that point that this other one was going on, but I said it,
I, you know, so that's the only discussion that we have is, is I think I, you know,
inadvertently through the discussion of trying to explain why the process takes a
long time, you know, let this one slip, so, but that's, I have never had any
discussion with him about that accident scene prior to that, uh —
Proll: So even after bringing this up, uh, you basically tell him that I'm doing an IA on
the tow truck driver issue with Kevin —
Amoroso: — mm hmm.
Proll: — you had no discussion after that?
Amoroso: No, well he said well what's it about and I said well, I said, you know, I, I don't
have a hundred percent of the details but I said it's something to do with this tow
truck driver and then I said you know, I, and I even told him, I said I don't
12
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 276
remember much of anything from that accident other than, you know, we had
talked about fucking with Chad and that was it and then I left and I said I don't, I
wasn't there for the, the accident, for the, the remainder of it. I said I don't know
man and that was it.
Proll: So at that point though, wouldn't, that was another opportunity for him to say, you
know, man we shouldn't have, we shouldn't have, you know, just decided to screw
with Chad at that scene or something, so that —
Amoroso: Well, and, and what I told him is I said look, you know, he knows from his last
IA, from the other one, not the last one, the other one that's still going, I have
never talked to him about anything with detail. We've talked fundamentally about
lAs —
Proll: Okay,
Amoroso: — and just tell the truth and, you know, all that kind of stuff but he knows that I do
not want to talk about details with any of it 'cause I don't want to get involved or,
or, or be involved if I'm not already, you know, and so with this, I mean it, no it
didn't go to a full-blown discussion. It was just, 'cause once I had said it and I
saw the look on his face that clearly made me realize he didn't know this was
going on, I felt obligated at that point to at least give him 2 cents worth. I'm sure
it was the wrong thing to do and I, 1 wish that he did not come over for that thread
locker 'cause this incident would not have happened but it did and I'm not gonna
hide the fact that it did, you know.
Proll: Okay. Has, since the February 22nd incident has Kevin ever claimed to you that
the taking of an item off the car was a practical joke?
Amoroso: No. We've never talked about the taking of that item one way or the other. The
only comment that I can recall that he had was something to the effect of I already
went through all this with Chad or Chad, Chad already, uh, and I'm trying to think
of the word that he used but, but basically Chad already, already, uh, you know,
um, I don't wanna dressed him down but, and, and I don't wanna say yelled 'cause
I don't think that's what he said, but he already discussed the incident with Chad
and he was, just the thought was this was a long time ago, you know.
Proll: Okay, so you've never discussed that it being a practical joke, talking to Kevin the
week -and -a -half ago. Have you had any other conversations with anybody
regarding this?
Amoroso: No.
Proll: Okay.
13
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 277
Amoroso: Well, no, I mean other than the conversation with Chad, but we already covered
that. Well, and I take that back. Uh, Lieutenant Bledsoe at one point came into
the, into my office after Chad had told me initially about the incident and I think it
was, I wanna say it was just prior to that staff meeting or, or somewhere around
the time, you know I think it was. I think it was around the time because Kevin
had initially applied for the investigations bureau and then he, he pulled his
application and I believe this discussion with Lieutenant Bledsoe occurred while
his application was still in but the orals hadn't happened yet —
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: — and John had come in just to get my feeling and 2 cents on some of the
candidates and he had brought up the fact that oh well there's this whole, uh, tow
truck vehicle wheel thing going on with Kevin and that made him uneasy to have
him in investigations 'cause he felt that it was a, you know, potential theft issue
or, or integrity issue that was just, you know, it had happened and, and so that
gave him kind of a, a negative, uh, overall feel of Kevin —
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: — um, so, so he talked about it but we didn't, again didn't go into a whole lot of
discussion. We had just kind of a brief talk and I had told Lieutenant Bledsoe at
the time, yeah that whole thing was news to me and matter of fact Chad just told
me about it a couple of weeks ago and prior to that no one's ever told me about it,
you know and, uh, and, and so that was, that's all the discussion that John and I
pretty much had, but —
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: — um, but that was it.
Proll: So it was like this discussion came up prior to or during the promotability forum -
type period or?
Amoroso: No, you're talking about with Lieutenant Bledsoe?
Proll: No, with, uh, when you and Chad were discussing the future sergeant candidates —
Amoroso: Yes.
Proll: — with Sergeant Valaney and those kind of things —
Amoroso: Mm hmm.
Proll: — was this a part of that or did this —
14
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 278
Amoroso: I, I, I think so but it, it kinda doesn't make sense because Kevin didn't test when
John promoted. That's the test that Kevin pulled back on.
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: So Kevin got pulled over, got passed over by Fred and Chad when they got
promoted and then he didn't put in again, so I don't know that it came up as part of
the promotabilities but it came up in some discussion with Chad when we were
looking at potential sergeants and, and who else is in the officer pool and who had
tested in the past —
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: — so I, I wish I could nail down a better date for you but 1, I just can't but it was,
you know, it was probably within a month of when I talked to Lieutenant Bledsoe
about it and that occurred, those interviews for all those specialty positions I think
occurred in the beginning of October, kind of the September, October timeframe
or maybe it was September —
Proll: Okay.
Amoroso: — is when they occurred so I would have, I would think that when Chad first
brought it to my attention was probably sometime around August or September,
late August, early September would be my guess.
Proll: Okay. Any else to add about this?
Amoroso: No.
Proll: Okay. You didn't think of anything else that I should ask?
Amoroso: No, I, I, I mean frankly I'm just, I'm, I'm dumbfounded, I'm really dumbfounded
by this question that he, does he have this collection of parts and I, I just think
that's such a strange thing, you know, for someone to have and, and, you know, I
guess we've all been on traffic scenes and you see little pieces of debris, whether
it's reflectors or plastic bumpers or whatever, and that's one thing, but you know
to actually remove something from vehicles is another, you know, in my opinion,
but.
Proll: Right.
Amoroso: Which is why when I initially heard this the only thing I could think of well, it's
had to have been a joke but then I questioned my own intuition because then I
wondered but if it was me and then someone called me on it I would say well
yeah, I was just screwing with you —
15
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 279
Proll: Uh huh.
Amoroso: — and go talk to him, he'll tell you. We had that conversation.
Proll: Yeah.
Amoroso: So, I don't know.
Proll: So Chad never came to you and said was this a joke?
Amoroso: Never once.
Proll: Which would have, which would have, uh, made everyone to believe that Kevin
told Chad that Brian and I were playing a joke on him.
Amoroso: Right. No, Chad, and to my understanding 'cause I specifically asked Chad that
when he told me, um, and Chad he never once mentioned anything about that to
him, about him and I joking about it, but again I don't know if that's because he
just didn't wanna get me in trouble with Chad thinking that we were trying to, you
know, make fun of him or haze him or do something like that, um, I don't, I don't
know.
Proll: Okay. If you don't have anything else to add I'm gonna shut the tape recorder off,
It's 12:38 p.m.
SpeakWrite
www.speakwrite.com
Job Number: 15156-001
Custom Filename; SLO-Amoroso
Date: 06/05/2015
Billed Word Count.: 6031
16
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 280
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 281
ARTICLE 29
PROMOTIONAL POLICY
Promotions from Police Officer to Police Sergeant shall be subject to the following:
I. Job Announcement. When the Police Department notifies the Department of Human
Resources of a Sergeant position vacancy, the Department of Human Resources will
publish a job announcement. The job announcement will identify the selection
procedure, which includes the application process, test components with their weights
expressed as a percentage of the total score, and tentative dates of the testing schedule.
Whenever available, the City will identify study materials at least 60 days in advance of a
test.
2. Application Process. A completed City application must be received in the Department
of Human Resources by the filing deadline. The filing deadline will be at least 30 days
from the date the job announcement is released by the Department of Human Resources.
3. Testing Components.
A. Written Test: The written test will count as 20% of the final score.
1. A standardized Police Sergeants multiple-choice test as provided by a
testing service, such as Cooperative Personnel Services (CPS) or
International Personnel Management Association (IFMA). If available,
the City will provide a list of suggested study materials.
2. A score of 70% or better on the written test will enable a candidate to
proceed in the testing process. A score below 70% will disqualify a
candidate from further consideration.
3. All candidates will have the right to review with a representative from the
Department of Human Resources their own written test results so that the
candidate may have the opportunity to improve in the future.
47
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 282
4. The Chief or his/her designee will review the test before it is given to
ensure that the exam contains material relevant to a supervisory position in
San Luis Obispo.
B. Assessment Center will count as 60% of the final score.
I . The Assessment Center may consist of 2 or more exercises. One of these
exercises will be a traditional oral board interview. Other exercises may
include a situational role-playing, oral resume, simulation exercises; and a
supplemental questionnaire to assess written communication, critical
thinking, problem solving and leadership skills, or other testing
instruments as determined by the Human Resource Director in
consultation with the Police Chief. The Human Resources Director shall
determine the weight of each Assessment Center activity. [n no case shall
the oral interview count less than 60% of the total Assessment Center
score.
2. The evaluators will be members of the law enforcement community.
Selection of the evaluators will be made by the Human Resources Director
in consultation with the Chief of Police. The Human Resources Director
or his/her designee from the HR Department will be responsible for
instructing the raters on how to conduct interviews and the scope of the
interviews.
3. A Police Department observer as appointed by the Chief of Police and an
Association observer as appointed by the Association may monitor the
Assessment Center. The Association observer must be a neutral, non -unit
member not a part of, nor directly impacted by the testing process. Both
observers shall be subject to approval by the Human Resources Director.
The Chief of Police or his/her designee will provide the evaluators and
observers with information about the qualifications desired for the position
being tested.
ON
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 283
4. At the conclusion of the testing process, each candidate will be asked to
complete an anonymous evaluation of the testing procedure. This will be
used to make improvements on the process. The evaluation will not be
used in determining the final outcome of the testing process.
C. Staff Evaluation will count as 20% of the total score. In addition to this review,
the Chief shall review the candidate's personnel files prior to making an
appointment. The staff evaluation will not be provided to the oral panel.
1. Past and present day performance is a significant factor, which should be
considered when determining a candidate's promotability.
2. Each candidate who passes the written test will be evaluated by all sworn
members of the Department with the rank of sergeant or lieutenant,
excluding the Captains and the Chief of Police.
3. Subject to the approval of the Police Chief, if a supervisor feels he or she
is unable to conduct an impartial evaluation due to unfamiliarity with a
given applicant, he or she may opt not to evaluate the candidate but will be
required to document the lack of familiarity on the evaluation form.
4. Staff evaluators will be able to review the three (3) most current
performance evaluations and documentation from the last 24 months of
counseling sessions.
S. Staff evaluations are to be in writing on a form developed by the Director
of Human Resources and signed by the evaluator.
6. Each applicant's evaluation forms shall be available for review by the
applicant. The applicant shall not have access to the other applicants'
evaluation forms.
7. Final scores will be tabulated by the Department of Human Resources.
Prior to the score tabulation, applicants will have the opportunity to
request in writing that the Department of Human Resources correct any
factual errors contained in the applicant's staff evaluation.
49
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 284
D. Peer evaluation is not compulsory, is only advisory to the Chief of Police and
does not count toward the final score.
1. Peer evaluation is limited to those candidates who pass the Assessment
Center.
2. All regular Department employees below the rank of Sergeant may
complete a peer evaluation on a form developed by the Director of Human
Resources.
3. Participants must verify their eligibility to participate in the peer review
process.
4. The results of the peer evaluation will be tabulated by the Department of
Human Resources. All forms will be anonymously forwarded to the Chief
of Police.
5. The tabulated results of the peer evaluation for each individual candidate
shall be released to the individual candidate upon request of the Human
Resources Director after the eligibility list has been certified.
4. Final Selection.
A. Upon completion of the testing process, the Department of Human Resources
shall tabulate the scores.
B. Candidates will be ranked by total score. Candidates scoring below 70% will be
ranked unqualified and not placed on the eligibility list. Each candidate will be
individually given his/her score in writing. Candidates who are ranked 1 through
3 (plus one for each additional vacancy if there is more than one vacant position)
will be considered equally qualified for promotion and eligible for appointment
by the Police Chief.
C. Final selection by the Police Chief will be in accordance with the City's Personnel
Rules and Regulations following a discussion of the staff evaluations at the
Chief's regularly scheduled staff meeting with sworn and non -sworn managers
and a final selection interview with the top three candidates (plus one for each
additional vacancy over one).
50
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 285
D. The eligibility list shall be valid for one year unless extended, in accordance with
the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations.
E. Announcements for promotional opportunities for members of the Association
will list testing and scoring processes that will be followed. Once defined, testing
and scoring processes will not be modified.
If any of the top three candidates is not selected during the selection process, that
person will be given a written reason by the Police Chief as to why he/she was not
selected. The City agrees to an opener to discuss the promotional process if the
Police Chief goes below the top three (3) candidates in making his/her selection
on promotional exams two (2) or more times during the term of this contract.
51
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 286
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 287
Memorandum
i
Service, Pride, Integrity"
Date: December 20, 2013
To: Captain Storton
From: Sergeant Pfarr
Subject: Officer Waddell, Case #130222007
u=p
L;Ity of san Luis oBIspo
Police Department
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
805)781-7317
This memorandum will serve to document an incident involving Officer Waddell onFebruary22, 2013
On 2/22113, 1 was working as the night watch field supervisor. At approximately 0125hours, patrol units were dispatched to a major injury collision at the intersection ofJohnsonandOrcutt. This was a single vehicle, roll-over collision involving a Bentleywhichwasoccupiedbytwosubjects. The initial assessment by police and fire unitswas that the female driver was DUI with moderate injuries and the maleassen ersufferedfromwhat appeared to be major injuries. Both occupants were
trapped
in hevehicleandhadtobeextricatedbytheFireDepartment. Our initial belief was the malepassengerwasalready deceased in the vehicle which initiated a traffic team caliout duetothepotentialforaDUI/manslaughter investigation.
Officer Waddell is part of the traffic call -out team and responded to the collision alongwith the rest of the traffic team. I cleared the scene to assist Officer Treanor at thehospitalwith the arrest of the female driver. At approximately 0445 hours I respondedbacktothe scene of the collision to get a synopsis of the investigation.
While at the scene I observed Officer Waddell attempting to remove an emblem fromtheBentley. My first thought was that he needed the emblem for the accidentinvestigation. I saw Officer Waddell looking for a tool to help in the removal of theemblem. During his hunt for a tool Officer Waddell contacted the tow truck driver whorespondedtopickupthecar. I heard Officer Waddell talking to the tow truck driveraboutborrowingascrew driver so he could take the Bentley emblem to add to hiscollection. The tow truck driver provided Officer Waddell with a screw driver to aid in theremovalofthecarparts.
After gearing this I believed Officer Waddell was no longer taking the car part as part ofthe accident investigation but was playing a joke on me since I was a newly promotedSergeant. I confronted Officer Waddell telling him he was funny and that I was leaving, believing he would not actually remove the car part. As I walked to my car and startedtoleavethesceneIwatchedOfficer Waddell take the Bentley badge as well as a lugnutcoverwhichalsodepictedaBentleybadge. Officer Waddell placed these items in a
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 288
a
city of san Luis oaispMemOrandumPoliceDepartmentpe
1042 Walnut
SLO, CA 93401
Serrrce, Pride, integrity, (805) 781-7317
large brown evidence bag and started to walk towards his car
reprimandingg his actions and ordered him to
withimmediatelyrecognizedtheproblemthiscreatedforthedepartmentinthe
the
eems,
tow truck driver even if Officer Waddell's actions were still an attemptimmediately telephoned Officer Waddell,
repe
eyes of the
return the car parts to the vehicle which he did. I
receivedp
at a joke. I
from Officer Waddell of the car parts on the driver's floor board o
message
he Bentley. This
image was seen by me but not saved. I met with Officer Waddell in the Sergeants Thisatthestationtofurtherdiscusshisactionsattheaccidentscene, geants office
During that conversation Officer 'Waddell expressed what I believedremorseforhisactions. It was my belief that Officer Waddell acted without any thoughttowardstheramificationsofhisactionsandthepotentialfalloutthatcouldtake
y oughtaresult. I discussed with him what could ha a place as
go public with what he saw and the negative mage hiswact ons
ruck rcouldiver ahadveclded todepartment. No further action was taken by me as a result of Officer Wadde °
e on the
II s actions.
Sergeant Chad Pfarr
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 289
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 290
IoP Z
Chad Pfarr (purr: ;;Inri y. rq
Subicoi: CAT overtime for November and December
Date: November 8, 2013 at 9:27 AM
To,. Kevin Waddell (ovz,r'clel! sio• itv,or!-;, Brent Inglehart Njigk::1 ior,;!v ,.:rg, Jeremy Behrens jh-: ii ::.cil:v.r3rc;, Jeffrey Middleton
David Sanchez c ;,: ,, Jason Dickel1fel ••n > tiit;Cl['¢01"(J, Adam Stahnke,i.i, r ;ir vcii .,
ociiy;:;r;-j, PD_Staff Pp :3tall 5ioc iy.;:rg
Thank you to everyone who volunteered for the downtown foot patrol overtime. Below are the
officers working for each shift, which was based on seniority. All the Shifts have been entered
into speed shift under CAT OT. The shifts are from 11:00 to 16:00 hours downtown on foot
and should include the transit center, City Hall, Mission area, and the Library. Please do not
use these shifts to complete reports or conduct follow up from your regular patrol shifts.
These are only 5 hour shifts and the majority of that time should be spent downtown on foot.
Lt. Smith is tracking the stats of the CAT officers and wants to capture the stats for the
downtown foot patrol overtime. At the end of each shift could one of the officers working
send him an email with the number of citations, arrests, FIs and reports written.
11/9 Waddell/Inglehart
11/ 11 Behrens/Middleton
11/12 Middleton
11/17 Stahnke/Waddell
11/18 Waddell/Behrens
11/23 Stahnke/Waddell
11/24 Waddell
11/25 Behrens/Middleton
11/26 Sanchez/Waddell
12/1 Waddell
12/2 Behrens/Middleton
12/7 Stahnke/Inglehart
12/8 Waddell/Inglehart
12/9 Waddell/Behrens
12/10 Waddell
12/ 15 Stahnke/Waddell
12/ 16 Waddell/Behrens
12/21 Stahnke/Dickel
12/22 Waddell
12/23 Waddell/Middleton
12/30 Waddell/ Behrens
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 291
Chad Plarr
Patrol Sergeant
San Luis Obispo Police Department
805-781-7336
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 292
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 293
APP c
a
riir:airy
rrirr nr
000, iiia
CAL-PACIF'IG
REPORTING, INC.
E
Certified Transcript of Audio Recording of:
Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
Case: In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Reporter: Christine Boldt, CLT
18 Professional Center Parkway, 3rd Floor
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: 415.578.2480
Fax: 415.952.9451
Email: support@calpacificreporting.com
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 294
k
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT CHAD PFARR
Conducted by Lieutenant Bill Proll)
LDF Matter No. 13-3248 e;
January 25
TRANSCRIBED ON
JUNE 17, 2015 BY:
CHRISTINE BOLDT, CLT
CAL -PACIFIC REPORTING
18 Professional Center Parkway, 3rd Floor
San Rafael, California 94903
415) 578-2480
Support@CalPacificReporting.com
000-
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 295
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
1
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
2 LIEUTENANT PROLL: This is Lieutenant Bill
3 Proll. I'm in my office at the police department with
4 Sergeant Chad Pfarr. It's January 25th at 6:46 p.m.
5 This is being recorded. It's an interview regarding an
6 administrative inquiry regarding Officer Waddell.
7 Q. So I'm just going to go through a series of
8 questions, Chad. Did you respond to a major injury
9 accident at Orchid and Johnson involving a Bentley on
10 February 22nd, 2013?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you remember what the cires were with that
13 or anything? Were you just -- you were out on patrol?
14 A. Yeah, I was on patrol. We got a call of a
15 major injury collision. I rolled out -- I think I was
16 the second one there; first or second. A couple of us
17 arrived right at the same time. We had a male passenger
18 that we believed to -- he was dead in the car. And a
19 female that was conscious but not looking too hot.
20 Fire got there. They couldn't get any sort of
21 vitals on the male, so they believed he was dead at that
22 point. I got ahold of Lieutenant Smith, let him know
23 that we were going to be doing a traffic callout because
24 we thought we had a dead guy in the car, and we could
25 smell a lot of alcohol.
Page 2
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 296
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 Q. So just to confirm, you called Lieutenant
2 Smith, and he was at home?
3 A. He was at --
4 Q. Or was he working?
5 A. I believe he was at home by then. It was -- I
6 think he had just left.
7 Q. And you asked -- or told him that you were
8 going to call out the --
9 A. The traffic team for the -- to investigate the
10 accident portion. Officer Traynor was the arresting
11 officer of the female driver. She was extricated and
12 taken to the hospital. He went with her. And then
13 shortly thereafter, the male was extricated, and we
14 realized he was actually alive. He was transported.
15 And I went to the hospital shortly thereafter, after the
16 traffic team starting showing up.
17 Q. Did the male and female both go to the same
18 place?
19 A. I believe they went in the same ambulance,
20 actually, to Sierra.
21 Q. Do you remember what SLO PD personnel were at
22 the scene during the investigation? You already said
23 Traynor.
24 A. Yeah. Traynor was the primary. I -- off the
25 top of my head, I couldn't tell you who else was there
Page 3
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 297
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 initially responding. I know that Officer Chiddy,
2 Office Kevany. Sergeant Goodwin was there for some time
3 but not during the second half. When I showed back up,
4 he had already cleared.
5 Q. So you do remember Officer Chiddy there?
6 A. I believe so. Maybe not, but I thought he was.
7 And I believe Officer Barrios, but I'm not 100 percent.
8 I'd have to check the radio log to confirm those two.
9 Q. And what was your role at the scene?
10 A. I was the field supervisor that night, so just
11 basic scene supervision. And then I turned the scene
12 over to the traffic team once they started arriving, and
13 I went to the hospital with Officer Traynor. And then
14 there was other patrol issues going on, so I was just
15 going to other calls for service while everybody was
16 tied up on this. And then I went back out sometime
17 after 4:00 o'clock to check up on the guys and see
18 what -- how things were going.
19 Q. Okay. So when you left initially to go to the
20 hospital, do you remember who was -- what officers were
21 at the scene?
22 A. I know Waddell had showed up with Sergeant
23 Amoroso. They came out in the FST truck with some of
24 the callout equipment. I know there was another patrol
25 officer there. I want to say Officer Hyman was there.
Page 4
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 298
1
2
3
4
672
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
Q. Okay.
A. And I don't know if Middleton just did a
roll -by or if he actually showed up or if he was -- what
his role was, but I seem to believe Middleton was there
for a very short period of time.
Q. Do you happen to remember, was Sergeant Goodwin
there yet?
A. No, she was not there. She got there after I
left, and she cleared prior to my responding back out.
Q. Okay.
A. Actually, I think she was leaving as I
responded back out. The second half, she took off, and
I was getting the walk-through from Officer Kevany.
Q. Okay. And you already kind of answered this.
Do you remember if Officer Waddell was there and, if so,
what was he doing?
A. He was there, and he was just -- when I
responded back out the second time, you mean?
Q. Well, the first time.
A. He was setting up the laser and getting some of
the equipment out so they could start working the scene.
Q. Okay.
A. And then when I came back out --
Q. And the Bentley was still there at this time?
A. Yes. Yeah, actually I must have been there for
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578. 2480
Page 5
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 299
1
2
3
M
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
a little bit when I came back out the second time
because the Bentley was still upside down. I watched
them roll the car over.
And Officer Kevany was giving me the
walk -around about what had -- what their findings were
at the scene. And then that's when Officer Waddell
started talking to the tow truck driver about the
screwdriver.
Q. Okay. We'll get to that right now.
Did you hear or see Officer Waddell ask the
screwdriver -- ask the tow truck driver for a
screwdriver?
A. Yes.
Q. And where were you?
A. I was -- well, it's on the southwest corner of
the intersection up on a raised kind of embankment, is
where the car was. And I think I was standing with
Kevany right down near -- they had all their boxes of
equipment right on the corner at the bottom of that
embankment where some skid marks were. And I was right
over there with her, and she was kind of pointing out
what they had determined happened. She was laying out
the skid marks, and there were some gouges in the road.
Q. So you actually heard Officer Waddell ask the
tow truck driver for a screwdriver?
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Page 6
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 300
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So the tow truck driver -- was it like Officer
3 Waddell went and sought the tow truck driver, or was he
4 standing there with you guys? j
5 A. No. He was -- they were off to the side, and
6 he was messing with the emblem while Kevany was showing
7 me what was going on. And then he couldn't get it off,
8 so that's when he walked over to the tow truck driver
9 and asked him for the screwdriver. The truck was, I
10 don't know, 20 feet away maybe.
11 Q. And where was this emblem?
12 A. I want to say it was the rear deck emblem. I'm
J
13 trying to remember the way the car was. It was the
14 emblem that was pointed towards us at the -- in the
15 intersection.
16 Q. It wasn't on a wheel?
17 A. Well, that was later.
18 Q. Okay. So this might have been the rear deck?
19 A. I believe it was the rear deck. Just trying to
20 remember the direction the car was facing after it
21 flipped and rolled.
22 Q. And this was a metal item that's --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- like, welded or pinned into the car?
25 A. Yeah. It's riveted by the back or the front
Page 7
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 301
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
1 trunk or hood release.
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
2 Q. Let me just get this right. So you -- prior to
3 him asking for the screwdriver, you saw Officer Waddell
4 messing with the emblem, but he couldn't get it off.
5 You think it might be the rear deck emblem. And at that
6 point you heard him ask the tow truck driver?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And what did the tow truck driver say?
9 A. He said, "Oh, yeah, I can" -- I can't remember
10 his exact words, but he indicated he'd get him a
11 screwdriver or some tool to get it off.
12 Q. Did you see him give him the tool?
13 A. I saw them walk over to the tow truck together,
14 and then Officer Waddell came back over. I didn't see
15 him hand it to him, no.
16 Q. So you saw the two walk over to the tow truck,
17 and then Kevin came back?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And did you see what was in his hand?
20 A. He had some sort of tool. I couldn't tell. I
21 believe it was a screwdriver, but it could have been
22 some other pry tool, I suppose.
23 Q. Okay. So after Kevin gets the screwdriver or
24 pry tool from the tow truck driver, then what did you
25 see him do?
Page 8
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc_
415. 578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 302
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
A. Well, he makes that comment about adding it to
his collection. I can't remember if that was as they
were walking over. I think it was as they were walking
over to the tow truck or as he was walking back towards
the car after he got the tool.
Q. Do you remember exactly what he said? Who did
he make the comment to?
A. You know, I don't exactly know. I thought it
was to the tow truck driver, but I guess he could have
been doing it towards us. I'm not 100 percent.
Q. Okay. And what do you think the comment was?
A. It was something to the effect of he was going
to add the emblem to his collection. And up until that
point, I just assumed -- I don't know if I was just
being naive or just -- I don't know what I was thinking,
but I thought he was taking the emblem, or whatever he
was trying to get off the car, as part of the traffic
accident investigation.
And then when he said that, it dawned on me,
okay, he's -- my thought was he was playing a joke on me
since I was newly promoted. When I showed up, everybody
kind of razzed me about, "Oh, the sergeant's here," that
kind of thing. And they were kind of making those type
of a comment. And so when he did that, I thought, oh,
he's just -- he's being silly. He's trying to screw
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 9
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 303
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th) IA 13-004
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
F_ __ - - __ - ___ ____ ]
1 with me since I'm the new sergeant, see what I'm going
2 to do, how I'm going to respond to it.
3 Q. Until he said "for my collection"?
4 A. No, that's when -- when he said that, I
5 thought that's when I thought, okay, now he's not
6 taking this for part of the traffic accident
7 investigation, as I originally thought.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. He's trying to play some silly joke on me,
10 again, after they had just got done making all these
11 comments about, "Oh, the new sergeant's here," you know,
12 saluting and all that kind of silly stuff.
13 So that's when I said, "Ha, ha, funny. Joke's
14 over. I'm leaving now. I don't want to see you
15 actually do this."
16 And at that point I assumed once I walked away,
17 he would no longer finish his actions. And then when
18 I'm driving away, that's when I look in the mirror and I
19 see, oh, he's actually popped that off and now he's
20 going over and crouching down and getting the --
21 Q. Did you see Kevin remove anything from the
22 vehicle?
23 A. Well, I saw him walking -- I saw him working on
24 the trunk deck or the -- whatever, wherever that emblem
25 was, and then carry something over to the car. I didn't
Page 10
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 304
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 physically -- I guess I didn't see him physically pry it
2 off. I just saw him working, and then I saw him
3 carrying something over to the tire. And that's when I
4 saw him bend -- he crouched down and popped off the bolt
5 cover, the hub cap cover, I guess. So, yeah, I saw him
6 pop that off. And then that's when they went into the
7 bag and he started walking towards us, towards the cars.
8 Q. And what wheel was that; do you remember?
9 A. Well, I was heading up Johnson, so it would
10 have been one of the two facing Johnson, I'm thinking.
11 Q. So the driver side? passenger side?
12 A. I can't remember which way the car was facing
13 after it -- because it went over. It end -Old, so it hit
14 front end, landed on its roof with the back away from
15 us, and then the tow truck driver did a -- he spun it a
16 couple times and rolled it. And I can remember which
17 way it was actually sitting once he got it upright.
18 Q. And that was the lug nut cover?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. And so you saw him crouch down and popped off
21 the bolt cover on the wheel, on a wheel. And you
22 actually saw him do this?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And then what happened?
25 A. That's when I whipped out my phone and started
Page 11
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 305
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
PIX5!
M
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
to call him.
Q. And you were still there?
A. I was pulling away. I had started to drive
away when he's doing this.
Q. So at this point when you called him, you
believed he had the rear trunk emblem and one of the
wheel covers?
A. Correct.
Q. And what did you see him do with those two
items?
A. They went into a bag, and then he started
walking away from the Bentley towards where all the
units were.
Q. Like a brown paper bag?
A. Yeah. Like a --
Q. Big evidence bag?
A. Yeah.
Q. And then walk away towards what?
A. Where the units were parked, the FST truck and
their personal cars.
Q. Did you see him return a screwdriver to the tow
truck driver?
A. No. So that's when I'm sitting in my car and
I'm starting to pull away. And I'm thinking, God, do I
go back and deal with him in front of everybody and make
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 12
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 306
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 it a big deal? So I opted to just call him.
2 And as I'm pulling my phone out to -- I'm
3 dialing his number, I get a text message photo from him,
4 and it's the photo of this -- of the emblems and
5 whatever he had in the bag. It's the Bentley badge with
6 the little wings or whatever they are. And they're on
7 the front forequarter of the Bentley. And so I received
8 that as it's ringing on his end of the line.
9 And then he picks it up, and he says, "I just
10 sent you a text message. I put them back. I didn't
11 mean to put you in that position. It was just kind of a
12 joke."
13 Q. So you received the text before you talked to
14 him?
15 A. Yeah. Well, I was -- I had dialed his number,
16 and I'm hitting "send," and the message pops up, and
17 it's --
18 Q. Okay. But you did -- what' I'm getting at is
19 he decided to return them prior to you telling him
20 again?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So why do you think -- I mean, did you have any
23 other conversations at the scene to tell him to return
24 them?
25 A. No, just my -- when I'm walking away, "Hey, I
Page 13
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 307
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
7
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 don't want to be any part of this. I don't want to see
2 this. Ha, ha, very funny. The sergeant's leaving now."
3 Q. Okay. How do you think he took that?
4 A. Well, I can only think he took it as maybe this
5 isn't the best idea. And since he sent me that text
6 message, or the text photo.
7 Q. So the text photo was of the two items loose on
8 the Bentley floor?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So he, like, dumped them out of the bag?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. What was the conversation about? So did you --
13 after getting the text message, did you follow through
14 with a conversation?
15 A. Yeah. So he picks up the phone as I'm looking
16 at this text photo. And I can hear the phone answer, so
17 I put it up to my ear, obviously. And "Hey, I can't
18 believe you just put me in that situation," is my
19 initial comment to him.
20 And he apologizes and says, "I know. I wasn't
21 really thinking. It was just -- I was just being funny.
22 It was just being stupid and didn't really think about
23 it."
24 And I said, "Just finish up out there and come
25 see me when you get done."
Page 14
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 308
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
41
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th) IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 17, 2015
And he said, "Okay, I'll be right in."
Q. So at the scene, did you tell him to put the
items back?
A. No, because I didn't see him take them off
until after I was in my car and getting ready to leave,
and that's when I decided, do I want to go out and
address this in front of everybody, or do I want to deal
with it a little more privately. So that's when I went
to call him. So there was no conversation at the scene
other than my initial kind of, "Ha, ha. Joke's over.
Now I'm leaving."
Q. So when he had the brown paper bag and he was
walking towards his car, like, you don't know how -- did
the items ever make it into his car?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. What I'm trying to do is get the picture. So
he pries these -- has these two items in a brown paper
bag, and you see him walking towards the FST truck.
A. Right. So he's maybe 20 feet from the Bentley.
And I'm, like, thinking to myself, holy shit, he's
really -- maybe this isn't a joke. Maybe he really is
taking them.
Q. So then all of a sudden, he's walking towards
the FST truck. He decides that he's going to put them
back?
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Page 15
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 309
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 A. Yeah. Now, I don't know if he saw me whip my
2 phone out and start to call him or what, but I'm
3 starting to drive away, and then I quit watching him
4 because I'm trying to drive and dial on my frigging
5 phone at the same time, I was so pissed.
6 Q. Yeah, but I mean, whipping the phone is not --
7 the timing wouldn't -- he'd have to go put the items
8 back in the Bentley, take a picture, send that to you as
9 a text, and then you're getting the phone call.
10 So I'm trying to dwell onto what --
11 A. Yeah. And I mean, I probably thought about it
12 for 30 seconds, about, as I'm driving up Johnson. Shit,
13 do I want to call him right now? Do I want to go back?
14 How do I want to deal with this? I mean, I probably
15 spent 30 seconds driving northbound on Johnson, trying
16 to figure out how do I want to deal with this problem
17 that I've just been faced with.
18 Q. Well, what do you think -- he's walking to the
19 FST truck with the two items he just took in a brown
20 paper bag. And you actually left before he -- while he
21 was walking?
22 A. No. I pulled away. I started walking towards
23 my car as he was walking from the trunk around to the
24 tire. And then as I'm getting in my car and starting to
25 drive away, I look in the mirror. And now he's got the
Page 16
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 310
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 hub cap thing off and he's putting it in the thing, and
2 he's starting to walk towards his car. So I don't think
3 he ever got more than 20 feet from the Bentley.
4 Q. But we don't know that because you weren't
5 there.
6 A. No. I mean, I was driving away. So the long
7 time I saw him, he was maybe 20 feet away from the car.
8 Q. So when do you think -- he's walking away with
9 the bag with the two items in it. What do you think
10 made him change and go and put them back and take a
11 picture of it and send you?
12 A. I would hope if it was -- well, there's a
13 couple possibilities. Either there was a total joke and
14 he saw me leave and he was, like, "Okay; time. Joke's
15 over. Now I'm going to go put them back." Or one of
16 the other -- Colleen or somebody else out at the scene
17 said, "Dude, what the fuck are you thinking? Go put
18 that away." Or he just had -- common sense decided to
19 hit him up side of the head, and he said, "God, taking
20 these isn't the best idea. Maybe I better go put them
21 back." I don't know.
22 Q. Okay. When -- let's go back a little bit.
23 When you heard Kevin ask for the screwdriver,
24 who else would have heard that?
25 A. Well, the only one I can say for sure could
a
Page 17
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc,
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 311
In
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
11PA
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
have heard it was Colleen because she was standing right
with me, and I heard it. So I'm assuming she could have
heard it. Now, I was listening to her talk, so I guess
there's a chance that she didn't hear it because she was
telling me what was happening and I was -- my attention
was divided. But -- and then I -- for the life of me, I
can't remember, Bill, who else was there, if George was
there, or Chiddy.
Q. Okay.
A. But I know patrol had all cleared, so it was
only traffic, the traffic callout team people that would
have been there.
Q. Okay. Have you known or ever seen Kevin take
any vehicle parts during any accident investigation
before?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if he does have a collection of
vehicle parts?
A. I don't believe he does.
Q. But --
A. I've been to his house; I've never seen it.
And I've been to his office, and I've never seen it.
Q. So let's go back. After you talked to him on
the phone, say, "When you're done there, come and see
me," then what happens there?
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Page 18
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 312
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 A. I came back here. I waited in the office, in
2 the sergeant's office. He showed up a short time later
3 and was very apologetic. And I was more angry at that
4 point. I didn't really want to hear what he had to say.
5 Q. What did he say?
6 A. Just that he was sorry; it was a bad decision.
7 He was just trying to be funny. Said he realized now
8 what -- how it could have been interpreted. It was -- I
9 can't remember verbatim what he said. It was -- we're
10 talking eight months ago; nine, ten months ago.
11 When -- a the conclusion of that conversation,
12 it was -- my thought was, okay, he's showing a great
13 deal of remorse. My take on it was that it was a joke
14 that he took a little bit too far once the -- once he
15 involved the tow truck driver.
16 And so we talked it over for 20 minutes or so,
17 15 minutes. And I figured, okay, that's -- I don't
18 think this is ever going to be an issue again. So
19 that's where -- that's how we ended it.
20 Q. So when you talked to him at the scene when you
21 were driving away and you talked to him, did he ever say
22 that it was a practical joke?
23 A. No. I -- we didn't say any. I just said,
24 "Hey, I can't believe you would have put me in the
25 position you just put me in with the other officers
Page 19
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 313
1
1
3
4
5
6
rA
01
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
there, with the tow truck driver there."
He says, "Hey, I'm really sorry. I put it
back." I think he might have said it, actually, when he
said "I'm really sorry. I put it back. I was just
joking." He never admitted, "Hey, I'm going to steal
it. I was planning on stealing it." Nothing like that.
Then I would have definitely thought much differently of
how I was going to handle the situation.
Q. So he told you on the phone that he put them
back.
A. Yeah. I'm pretty -- I'm 99 percent sure he
did.
Q. Okay.
A. Oh, no, he absolutely told me on the phone that
he put them back.
Q. Right.
A. But I'm 99 percent sure he said he was just
joking when he --
Q. Okay. How much later was it that Kevin came
into your office?
A. Oh, it was pretty quick. Driving time from
Orchid and Johnson plus ten, maybe. They had to finish
putting a couple boxes in, but they were wrapped up the
scene. And the tow truck driver had the car hooked up.
So it was --
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 20
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 314
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 Q. And when he came into your office, was it just
2 you and him?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And Sergeant Amoroso had gone home?
5 A. Correct. Yeah, he had gone home.
6 Q. And so when Kevin came in and he said -- great
7 deal of remorse, it was a joke that went to far, and you
8 counseled him and didn't think it was going to be an
9 issue again --
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. -- did he say -- did he elaborate anything on
12 the joke?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Like, "I was sorry I was messing with you
15 because you're a new sergeant" or just "I thought it
16 would be funny"? I mean --
17 A. No. It was mostly me bending his ear about
18 the -- what if the tow truck driver had thought this,
19 and what's going to happen now if he gets hooked up for
20 dues. We had a lengthy conversation about what happens
21 if the tow truck driver gets involved in something and
22 now he's got this dirt on you and he takes it to -- you
23 know, the -- to CalCoast or any of the other news
24 outlets. It was right around the time of Cory's thing,
25 so that was kind of a topic that we talked about, and
Page 21
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 315
1
2
3
4
672
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
We're already looking pretty poor in the media right
now, and here you're going to pull something like this
and chance risking the department's image," and all that
kind of stuff. So we talked about that.
Q. Did Kevin say he had any conversation -- other
than asking the tow truck driver for a screwdriver, did
he -- when he put them back, did he say, "I was just
kidding"? Did he --
A. Oh, you know what, yeah. He did say that he
kind of brushed it over with the tow truck driver and
let him know that it was a new sergeant. It was just a
joke and all that stuff.
Q. Have you ever seen him take any DRMO stuff that
he shouldn't?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So after Kevin leaves your office, then
what happens?
A. I had a conversation with Officer Kevany.
Q. And when was that?
A. It was minutes after Waddell left.
Q. In your office?
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay.
A. It was very brief. And I said, "Hey, I don't
know what went on out there, if you even saw it, but
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Page 22
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 316
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 basically I just want to make sure we're on the same
2 page that taking parts from a traffic scene is not
3 okay." It was -- I mean, she was in absolute agreement.
4 So she never said anything about what he was doing or
5 anything like that.
6 Q. Anything else with Kevany?
7 A. No. It was a very, very quick conversation.
8 But I didn't want her to leave thinking, oh, I'm going
9 to let Kevin get away with this kind of stuff. So I
10 just had a very short --
11 Q. Okay. Then when's the next time you had
12 something to do with this incident?
13 A. During the last testing process for detectives
14 and NTF out of the sheriff's department and all that
15 kind of stuff. He had put in --
16 Q. Prior to that we had a sergeant's testing. Was
17 there any conversation that you had with anybody during
18 that time? Although they were fairly close in time to
19 this.
20 A. No.
21 Q. How about any conversations with other
22 sergeants that people might not make good candidates
23 because of things like this?
24 A. I don't think so. He didn't even put in for
25 this last testing.
Page 23
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 317
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 Q. Right.
2 A. I'm trying to remember if I talked to Amoroso
3 about it during -- when Kevin was still debating whether
4 or not to put in for sergeant, or if it was at the time
5 of detective testing.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. But basically, come detective testing time, he
8 was pumping everybody for information so he could do a
9 good oral for those detective spots, and it dawned on
10 me, God, is this -- after everything that had happened
11 with Cory, I thought -- you know, I may not have used
12 the best judgment in not notifying a lieutenant or
13 anybody else and taking this whole incident up the chain
14 a little bit further.
15 So I got ahold of Lieutenant Bledsoe and
16 Lieutenant Smith and said, "Hey, this just -- so you
17 guys are in the loop and bad on me for not doing it
18 sooner. But this incident happened, and I'm guessing
19 that should be --"
20 Q. Did you tell those two together?
21 A. No. Separately.
22 Q. Separately.
23 A. Within minutes of each other, but I -- once I
24 realized how serious he was about testing for those
25 spots, I got ahold of Lieutenant Bledsoe and then walked .
I
Page 24
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 318
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
IA 13- 004 Transcribed: June 17, 2015
right down the hall and told Lieutenant Smith.
Q. And what did -- do you remember about when that
was?
A. It was after he turned a memo in but before he
withdrew his memo. I want to say probably two or three
weeks before the oral board process.
Q. And what did you tell Lieutenant Bledsoe?
A. I said, "Hey, with everything that's going on
with Cory, this is -- this was my experience with
Officer Waddell, and now that I realize he's interested
in these positions, I think this is relevant information
that you should be aware of now, joke or not joke.
Either he was going to steal it, or it was just a bad
joke. But either way, that judgment is probably not --
a candidate that wants to go into those positions using
that judgment in such a recent history is probably not
the best candidate for those positions."
Q. If you had -- this is a supposition. If you
had totally thought this was a practical joke, would it
ever have entered your mind that he might have -- was
going to steal it?
A. I don't know. I don't know that I came to the
conclusion it was entirely a joke until after he -- we
were done in my office that night.
Q. Okay. Because, you know, I've interviewed a
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 25
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 319
1
2
3
M
672
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
ton of people now. So I'm going to tell you, you are
th*e only one that is bringing up, other than what
hearsay people might have had, that it was a joke.
Officer Kevany and Officer Cudworth just flat-out, "No,
he was taking it." And she thought he was taking it for
the office. Cudworth was -- thought he was taking it
for some sort of collection. He didn't know if it was
for the office. But just, I mean, almost to the point,
No, he was stealing it."
And the interesting thing is none of them --
you know, when I asked them, was this a practical joke,
they're, like, "What would be the joke? No. I mean, he
was taking that item for" -- I mean, in Robert's words,
it was "personal gain." So -- and Brian --
A. It's circumstance possible.
Q. I'm just saying that -- so the whole crux of
this whole thing is going to be, you know, on a -- one
thing, if in his interview he would be completely dumb
and completely stupid to say, "No, I never touched
anything on that car." So it's all going to come down
to --
A. Oh, God, I hope he doesn't do that.
Q. It's all going to come down to why he was
taking that item.
A. Right.
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 26
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 320
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 Q. And this -- the interesting thing, he's had a
2 conversation with Sergeant Amoroso since all of this,
3 and never once did Kevin say, "Brian, that was just a
4 bad joke." And you would think that that would be the
5 first thing on his mind.
6 So what I really need to do is to think and,
7 you know, with -- I'm just going to be honest with you.
8 I think if you personally minimize this as a practical
9 joke, it kind of goes easier on you that you didn't --
10 A. Absolutely.
11 Q. I'm just saying that you didn't report a theft.
12 A. Completely agree.
13 Q. And so I'm just kind of getting into this a
14 little more delicately to --
15 A. No, no. I -- hey, I screwed up. I'll be the
16 first one to say that.
17 Q. Right.
18 A. And --
19 Q. But it is a lesser screw -up if this practical
20 joke gets perpetuated. And then when you report it to
21 them -- I'm kind of just suppositioning this because --
22 A. No, I see where you're going. I see what
23 you're saying, though.
24 Q. Had you gone to either one of these lieutenants
25 or both and said, "Kevin clearly was stealing this"
Page 27
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 321
1
2
3
4
672
10
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
instead of bringing up the (inaudible) thing, I would
have believed that they would not have just took in this
information and not done anything with it. Because up
until the recent IA, neither captain knew anything about
this, nothing.
A. Correct.
Q. So it was, you know, either watered down or
minimized to -- from the lieutenant level to maybe
protect you, or they didn't want that happening on their
thing. But it is interesting that the people that were
there and stuff -- you know, if -- you know how we are.
A. Yeah.
Q. If we're removing a thing, we're screwing with,
you know, Chad on this, and they would have -- that
would have been their first thing. You know they were
just screwing with Chad. You know, I was expecting
Colleen to say --
A. "Oh, yeah, we were just screwing with him."
Q. Yeah. Or you know, we got together on the side
of the car and we were just saying, okay, "Let's screw
with Chad." I mean, I've done it a ton of times. None
of that. I mean, they almost laughed when I brought up
at the end of the thing. You know, I didn't ask them
that right off the bat at the end.
A. Right.
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 28
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 322
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
TA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 Q. So far-fetched of a practical joke.
2 A. The only thing I can tell you is I don't --
3 I've never worked with Kevin. I don't have near the
4 amount of time those guys do. At the end of our
5 conversation, it was -- I think circumstance he could
6 have been intending to steal it. That's absolutely a
7 possibility. But our conversation led me to think, now,
8 is he a hell of a -- "Hey, I want to get out of this and
9 I'm just going to say whatever I need to say."
10 Q. Right.
11 A. Absolutely.
12 Q. When he's telling you -- you know, it was
13 was stupid. I was trying to be funny" or whatever, did
14 he ever elaborate that, saying that "I was messing with
15 you because you're a new sergeant"?
16 A. No.
17 Q. So he never said anything that it was a
18 practical joke to you?
19 A. No. It was just, "Hey, I was -- it was -- I
20 was just joking. I was just messing around."
21 Q. Okay. So just take that statement. What does
22 that mean? He's taking items off a car, but who's he
23 messing around with? And don't you think if he's in the
24 doghouse, the first thing he would be trying to do is
25 explain why he was being funny or why he was messing
Page 29
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 323
1
2
3
D!
67M
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1
around, saying, "Sorry, Chad. I mean, you're a new
sergeant. We were just -- I was just messing with you"
or whatever.
The interesting -- other interesting thing is
Colleen takes a lot more responsibility for knowing
about doing this than it was just Kevin. I mean, she
almost -- she actually said "we"; "We were doing this."
We." And I'm like, well --
A. She was with me, so she wasn't doing anything.
Q. Well, I mean, she knew about taking this; let's
put it that way. And it wasn't --
A. Did they talk about it beforehand?
Q. I had -- no. I had to get to her saying,
Okay, who asked for the screwdriver? Who removed the
item?" Because it was "We decided to take this item."
So it was -- it wasn't Kevin's -- it might have been his
brainchild
A. No.
Q. -- but it wasn't his
A. That's absolutely not true because she was
standing with me down at the intersection, lining up
skid marks, gouge marks (inaudible) the cars.
Q. But you don't know what conversation they had
prior to you getting there?
A. No. But if she's trying to tell you that she
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 30
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 324
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13- 004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
Page 31
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
9
1 was the one that was over asking for the screwdriver --
2 Q. No, no, no, she wasn't. No, no, no, no. She
3 absolutely --
4 A. I misunderstood what you said.
5 Q. Absolutely Kevin asked him for the screwdriver.
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. Kevin removing the item, Kevin putting it in
8 the bag, Kevin putting it in the car, all those things.
9 Absolutely Kevin. But her -- yeah. "We were taking
10 it." And you know, that was taking it for the traffic
11 office as a memento of this, investigating this crash.
12 A. Do they have other things over there? I've
13 never seen a memento over there that would make me think
14 that that's something they would do.
15 Q. They don't. But this was a special car. That
16 was the reasoning.
17 A. Okay.
18 Q. So when you first talked to Bledsoe --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. and you told him that -- basically what you
21 had told me tonight. You had this traffic accident
22 scene. Kevin took this. Everything you told me
23 tonight.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And that you thought that it was a practical
Page 31
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 325
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
1 joke.
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
2 A. Well, at the end of it, I said, "Listen. When
3 I left that" -- and I'll be the first one to admit, I've
4 gotten a little -- probably a little too naive at the
5 beginning of this promotion as far as what I'm going to
6 believe from different officers when I talk to them
7 versus now. And then just working with Kevin more in
8 the time since then, seeing how he operates on patrol
9 and recognizing, okay, could I have been snowed?
10 Absolutely. I could have, absolutely, wanted to believe 1
11 that he was playing a joke and he was intending on
12 stealing them. That could absolutely be the case.
13 Q. But do you think the officer being called in by
14 a sergeant, wouldn't he be -- if he truly was doing it
15 as a practical joke, wouldn't he be going over and over
16 again about the reasons why he was doing that? "Chad,
17 you're a new sergeant. There was a bunch of officers
18 there. We were joking about it. Then you showed up.
19 We decided to do it." That kind of stuff.
20 But he basically said, "It was stupid and I was
21 trying to be funny." But never really -- how funny is
22 it? I mean, it's not funny in and of itself?
23 A. It's not at all.
24 Q. So that's what I'm -- I mean, I think if his
25 intention was as a practical joke and he gets called on
Page 32
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 326
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 the carpet for it, he would be going overboard, in my
2 experience, to explain to you why that was going to be
3 funny; that you're a new sergeant. You know, "Janice
4 was there with us." You know, all those kind of things.
5 A. Right.
6 Q. So that kind of makes me believe -- and then
7 hearing the statements of the other people, that really
8 the practical joke -- and I do have to tell you that
9 you're not the only one that brought it up because Brian
10 joked with Kevin either on the way out there or right
11 when they got there about messing with you. And so
12 Brian's concerned and feels bad that he might have
13 planted the seed.
14 A. Seed.
15 Q. But in the conversations that Brian has had
16 with Kevin, Kevin has never, ever said, you know, "That
17 was just a stupid practical joke." So you would think
18 that he would be going overboard in explaining that.
19 A. I don't know. I can't say one way or another.
20 I can tell you for sure that that night I walked away
21 thinking it was a joke.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. Could I have been snowed and could he have
24 pulled one over on me? Absolutely. I will completely
25 100 percent say he could have got one on me, which is
Page 33
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 327
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13- 004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
why when the detective thing came up -- and what I told
Lieutenant Bledsoe was, "Here's the deal. This is what
happened. This is what I believed at the time. Now
having seen Kevin work since then, I'm not so sure. I
believe -- I want to say --"
Q. You're not so sure just about it being a joke
or not?
A. Correct. I want to believe it was a joke, but
this is a pretty --
Q. But obviously you thought --
A. -- free -rein position, and do we really want to
go with my gut.
Q. Right. But you thought big enough to -- I
mean, you could have seriously not said a word.
A. Absolutely. And nobody would ever be the
wiser.
Q. Right. And -- but, I mean, it's obviously glad
that you did for the ethics of the department and stuff.
But it almost leads me to believe that -- I mean, you
maybe had a second feeling.
A. I definitely had a doubt come detective time.
Do we really want to chance putting this guy in a
position like this, that maybe --
Q. Let's say he --
A. Maybe he really was going to steal them, and I
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 34
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 328
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 17, 2015
got one pulled over on me.
Q. Right. Let's say he didn't put in for
detectives. Would this -- do you think you would have
ever had this opinion unless something else had popped
up?
A. What do you mean, had the opinion?
Q. Well, I mean, let's say he just remained
downtown. And, I mean, this is -- months had gone by.
A. Right, right.
Q. So -- and let's say he didn't put in for
detectives, didn't put in to get promoted. Do you think
it -- was it enough for you, or was it just the fact
that he might have been going in detectives?
A. It was simply the fact that he was going to be
going into a position that --
Q. So had he not applied, you probably would have
never said anything?
A. Probably not.
Q. Okay.
1
A. And I mean, unless I saw something else later
on, but it was kind of one of those, God, I mean, he's
going into this position now. Now that we're here and
months have gone by and I've gotten a little less naive
about what some of the patrol guys might tell me when
I'm asking them questions, there's definitely a
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Page 35
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 329
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
low
OVA
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
possibility he pulled one over on me. I'll be the first
to admit it.
Q. And then you met with Lieutenant Smith?
A. Right after I left Lieutenant Bledsoe's office.
Q. And he said the same thing?
A. Yeah.
Q. And did either of them say anything what they
were going to do with it?
A. No. Just "Thanks for bringing the information
to me."
Q. Were you thinking they were going to do
something with it? Or was it minimized or watered down
enough that it was --
A. No, it was more -- they both had the
conversation with me about, hey, obviously -- and I was
completely upfront with them, saying, "Hey, I screwed up
by not bringing this to your guys' attention
beforehand."
But they both reiterated that again. I mean,
we had some conversation about "Yeah, you screwed up,
and this should have been brought to our attention way
earlier right when it happened so we can make the call.
This was one of those ones that was so borderline that
probably shouldn't have just been handled by you in the
field, and a verbal counseling probably was not in
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Page 36
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 330
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
PICA
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
order."
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
So that was how we left it, and there was never
any conversation about, "Okay, I got to go talk to the
captain about it" or anything like that. It was -- when
I left, my feeling was so much time had gone by, and
since I'd already chewed his ass in the office and gone
over all the ramifications of what could have happened,
when I walked out of the office, it was my opinion that
there was probably nothing going to be done.
Q. What you had with Kevin was just a verbal?
A. Correct.
Q. There was nothing written?
A. Correct.
Q. Has anything been written in your evals of what
you should have done?
A. No.
Q. Like, it's not in your quarterly or --
A. No.
Q. Nothing? Okay. And you've had quarterly since
then?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. How much -- when you talked to Lieutenant Smith
and Bledsoe, did you stress the practical joke angle?
A. Well, I stressed that's what I originally
thought it was, but now that I've grown up a little bit,
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc_
415.578.2480
Page 37
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 331
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
so to speak, it's been a few more months. I've got some
concerns --
Q. Right. The disconnect --
A. -- is what I told them.
Q. The disconnect I'm seeing is -- my experience
with the lieutenant is that this just obviously would
rise to something that they would tell one of the
captains about. And since they didn't, it just kind
of -- I'm getting a sense that, you know, months later
you say this happened and that it was --
A. Well, I mean, I definitely told them, "Hey, I
think this was a joke, which is why I didn't bring it to
your guys' attention beforehand." But now that this
much time's gone by and I see what -- kind of putting it
little bit more together, do we really want to risk him
being in a position like that on what my gut was that
night? And could I have grown up enough now that I'm
thinking, God, maybe he really was going to steal them?
Absolutely a possibility. And that's why I brought it
up.
Q. What -- so, obviously, you can tell how serious
this is in conjunction with the other thing going on.
A. Correct.
Q. So the whole crux of this is going to be, like
we talked about, how he would explain that this whole
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 38
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 332
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 thing was a practical joke. And if you have any insight
2 to -- I asked you a ton of questions. If you think of,
3 hey, ask him this. "I remember him making this
4 statement that didn't make sense to me that night" or
5 "This practical joke thing" -- you know, how long had
6 you believe a sergeant?
7 A. Like, not even a month yet.
8 Q. Okay. Had he done any other things? Has
9 anyone else --
10 A. Oh. Go ahead sorry.
11 Q. -- done practical jokes to you that -- I mean,
12 I don't -- no one ever played practical jokes on me when
13 I was a sergeant, and I haven't seen that a lot.
14 A. No. The only reason I brought that up to begin
15 with is because when I pulled up, I hadn't really been
16 working with those guys at all since I got promoted. It
17 was -- it had only been I think three or four weeks
18 since I got promoted. So I had been working day watch,
19 and now all of a sudden I'm thrust into night watch. So
20 I was seeing these guys every day. Now all of a sudden,
21 I haven't seen them for weeks, and they show up at my
22 scene. And it's the first time we've really said
23 anything to each other since the promotion.
24 And so here I am, and they're all showing up,
25 and it's, like, "Oh, Sergeant Pfarr, sir" and all the
Page 39
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc,
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 333
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 being super formal. And you know, kind of over the top.
2 Every time they start saying anything, "Sergeant Pfarr,
3 sir," all that kind of stuff. So it was -- everybody
4 was kind of in a joking --
5 Q. So Sergeant Goodwin arrived prior to all this
6 stuff happening, but then left also prior to this
7 happening?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So she wouldn't have had any knowledge of the
10 screwdriver or anything?
11 A. No, unless he said something to her beforehand
12 of -- I mean, she would -- definitely would have some
13 knowledge.
14 Q. Did you have any discussions besides talking to
15 Officer Waddell that night in the office the night of
16 the TC --
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Fast -forward to when you had a conversation
19 with Sergeant Amoroso and then when you told Sergeant --
20 or Lieutenants Smith and Bledsoe, had you told anyone
21 else?
22 A. No.
23 Q. So no other discussions --
24 A. No.
25 Q. -- about this with Colleen other than -- oh,
Page 40
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 334
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 Colleen was --
2 A. Colleen that night.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. Yeah.
5 Q. And no other discussions, or anybody bring it
6 up or anything?
7 A. I'm wondering if I called in Cudworth that
8 night also. I don't remember if I did or not. I don't
9 think I did, but I want to say he left to go home right
10 from the scene. So I don't think I talked to him. But
11 no, no other --
12 Q. Okay. Do you have any suggestions on how I
13 could pinpoint what I should ask Kevin regarding this,
14 whether you could help in differentiating between a
15 practical joke and a theft?
16 A. You know, he talked about the collection. I
17 mean, he brought up his collection both in the tow truck
18 driver and then the -- I can't remember if it was -- it
19 must have been back in the office where he said "the
20 collection" again. And it would seem that that would
21 conflict with a joke.
22 Q. Right.
23 A. Unless that was the whole crux. So I don't
24 know if there's a little bit more to this collection.
25 Q. The interesting thing is he didn't even -- he
Page 41
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 335
1
2
3
67
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
was downtown at this time. He didn't even have an
office in traffic.
A. No.
Q. So it was, like, where is this collection?
A. Maybe out in the DRMO box in their cage back
there? I know they've got a ton of stuff out there. He
and Berrios are the only ones that have access to it.
So I don't know if there's anything in there.
Q. Have you ever seen anything other than DRMO
stuff in there?
A. No, no. But I've only walked in there briefly {
a couple times with George. So I haven't really -- and
like I said, at his house, I mean, I've been there once,
and it was -- I didn't get a tour of the whole place or
anything.
Q. Right.
A. But walked through his garage, but I didn't
see, like, a big shrine on the wall with all the car
parts or anything.
Q. Okay.
A. You're talking to him Monday?
Q. Mm-hmm.
A. Let me think about a line of questions, and
I'll -- if I think of something, I'll shoot you an
e-mail tonight.
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 42
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 336
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
Q. Okay.
A. I'm here till 3:00.
Q. And the text picture was one text picture of
the items in the car? And did the text say anything?
A. No. It was just -- I believe it was just a
photo.
Q. Just a photo?
A. Yeah. I don't think he said anything. I want
to believe, LT, that it was a joke, but it got me
concerned enough that I went to both lieutenants after
the fact and said, "Hey, I got to fall on my sword.
This is what I did."
Q. In hindsight, what would you have done
differently?
A. Call Lieutenant Smith that night and say, "this
is what I got. How do you want to go?" I mean -- and I
go over the top with calling him on almost everything,
and I don't know why on this one I didn't. It's just --
it's stupid now, now that I'm thinking about it. Well,
I've known that for months. I mean, something happened
between the time of the TC and detectives where I
thought, God, really, is this -- or enough of my opinion
of him had changed.
Q. Did any other thing spark that?
A. No. I think it was just kind of seeing -- just
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 43
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 337
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E:A
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
getting to know him a little bit better. Because like I
said, we had never worked together before I got
promoted. And then I started seeing him.
Q. But you still kind of weren't working with him.
A. No.
Q. I mean, because you were on days.
A. I took four months on nights with him, and we
were -- I mean, I saw him quite a bit on nights my first
four months. And then on days, he was eating up a ton
of that CAT overtime, so I'd see him usually, like, at
least once if not two times a week during the day on the
downtown CAT shifts. And I never saw him, obviously,
never stole anything or anything like that, that I saw.
But I think it was just kind of a lack of what I didn't
see. When you see Brent or anybody else come in, or
whoever else was sucking up overtime, yeah, there was
constant activity, and I just never really heard him
doing anything. I think it just kind of struck me as
being more of a laziness.
Q. Okay.
A. So --
Q. Let me just --
A. My opinion just kind of changed of him a little
bit.
Q. So this says, "I heard Officer Waddell talking
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 44
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 338
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
to the tow truck" -- this is your letter.
A. Right.
Q. "I heard Officer Waddell talking to the tow
truck driver about borrowing a screwdriver so that he
could take the Bentley emblem to add to his collection."
A. Right.
Q. So are you saying that -- "Hey, do you have a
screwdriver so that I can take that and put it in my
collection?" Is that what he told the tow truck driver?
Or was it --
A. No, it wasn't quite that -- it was "Hey, I'm
trying to get this off. You got a screwdriver?"
And then as they were walking over to and from,
he's, "Oh, yeah, I'm going to add it to my collection,"
type of thing.
I think at the time my thought was, God, was he
really going to steal this? I mean, if he was going to
steal it, would he have really said all these things in
front of me where he knew damn good and well I was going
to hear it? And I think I wanted to believe no, that he
wouldn't be that stupid.
Q. Okay.
A. But I -- now I'm thinking maybe he just didn't
care.
Q. And as far as you know, he had just taken one
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 45
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 339
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
1 lug nut cover?
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
2 A. Yes. That's all I saw. Now, I don't know if
3 he picked another one up off the ground or something
4 that I just -- I didn't see. But that was all. I just
5 saw him pop the one off the car.
6 Q. So this talks about "Immediately recognized the
7 problem that's created for the department in the eyes of
8 the tow truck driver even if Officer Waddell's actions
9 were still an attempt at a joke. I immediately
10 telephone Officer Waddell, reprimanding his actions and
11 ordered him to return the car parts to the vehicle,
12 which he did. I received a text message and photograph
13 from Officer Waddell of the car parts on the driver's
14 floorboard of the Bentley."
15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. So this kind of talks about you told him to put
17 it back and then you got the text.
18 A. I'm pretty sure I got the text as I was -- as I
19 was dialing him. I mean, it was ringing and the text
20 came across.
21 Q. So he -- based on -- I mean, this makes more
22 sense, but you're saying that he put it back -- see,
23 because what doesn't make sense to me, Chad, is he's
24 walking with this bag to the FST truck --
25 A. Right.
Page 46
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 340
1
2
3
M
611
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
Q. -- and all of a sudden --
A. Just the timing of it all.
Q. Something clicks in his head and he says,
Maybe I shouldn't do this," and goes and puts it back.
A. Goes back.
Q. Your timing of you call him, say "Put it back,"
and then he sends you a text message confirming, "Don't
worry about it."
A. "I got it back."
Q. It's all back. The other way doesn't make
sense to me. I mean --
A. I don't want to -- I don't want to --
Q. Was this your department phone, or is it the --
A. No. It was my personal, only because I didn't
have his number on the departmental one.
Q. I mean, what might help me is if you could look
at your phone bill. I know it's from a while ago. But P
you know, you're at the scene. You called his text -- I
mean, you call him and then --
A. And get the sequence?
Q. To see how much longer, you know, he calls
or he texts you back. To me it just doesn't make sense.
A. Let me see if --
Q. And especially when -- you were at the scene
with him. You never told him to put it back until you
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 47
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 341
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
1 were leaving, on the phone.
Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
2 A. Correct. I'll tell you right now.
3 Q. What can you do?
4 A. Huh?
5 Q. What -- can you bring it up?
6 A. I'm just -- I'm hopping on my telephone
7 account, on my AT&T account. I got to get my user name
8 and password from my wife.
9 Q. You know, let's do this. Let me --
10 A. Do you want a timeout?
11 Q. Well, let's finish this interview, and then if
12 you could provide me --
13 A. Okay.
14 Q. with the sequence and numbers at some point.
15 I just want to kind of get into that a little more
16 because it -- to me it doesn't make sense. The memo you
17 wrote makes sense in that you tell him to put it back
18 when you're on the phone with him, and then he puts it
19 back and sends you a text message, like, confirming,
20 okay.
21 A. Let me -- let me -- I'll get that and I'll let
22 you know.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. Okay.
25 Q. So do you have any other information to add
Page 48
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 342
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Chad Pfarr (January 25th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 17, 2015
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 49
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 343
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 344
fPP 'D
From: Bledsoe. John
To: Proll. Bill
Subject: Al Copy
Date: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 2:08:14 PM
Attachments: Waddell Al 13-004P(4).doc
Image001.ona
1maae002.ono
Lieutenant John Bledsoe
San Luis Obispo Police Department
1042 Walnut, San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
805) 781-7353
sulz
Pq ni;:le
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 345
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 346
IPP C
4i
rrrrrrrrer : .
rrrr i rr
arrr =
CAL -PACIFIC
REPORTING, INC.
Certified Transcript of Audio Recording of:
Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
Case: In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Reporter; Christine So/dt, CLT
18 Professional Center Parkway, Ad Floor
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: 415.578.2480
Fax: 415.952.9451
Email: support@calpacificreporting.com
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 347
CERTIFIED
TRANSCRIPT
INTERVIEW OF OFFICER GREG BENSON
Conducted by Lieutenant Bill Proll)
LDF Matter No. 13-3248
February 5
TRANSCRIBED ON
JUNE 15, 2015 BY:
CHRISTINE BOLDT, CLT
CAL -PACIFIC REPORTING
18 Professional Center Parkway, 3rd Floor
San Rafael, California 94903
415) 578-2480
Support@CalPacificReporting.com
000-
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 348
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 LIEUTENANT PROLL: So this is Lieutenant Bill
2 Proll. I'm in my office with Officer Greg Benson. It
3 is February 5th at 11: 55.
4 Q. And, Greg, I'm here to ask you a series of
5 questions. I briefly explained that it was regarding a
6a traffic accident that was investigated by Office
7 Waddell. So I'm going to ask you a series of questions.
8 Did you respond to a major injury accident at
9 Orchid and Johnson involving a Bentley on February 22nd,
10 2013?
11 A. I wasn't dispatched to the incident, but after
12 the scene had been cleared and the car was still there,
13 I went to see the damage to the vehicle.
14 Q. Do you remember what SLO PD personnel were at
15 the scene during the investigation?
16 A. To my recollection, it was Officer Kevany,
17 Officer Waddell, and Sergeant Pfarr.
18 Q. Could there have been other people, or --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And your entire length of your time
21 there you think was --
22 A. Less than ten minutes.
23 Q. And when you got there, what was the status
24 like? Was the car still up? Had it been flipped over
25 yet or anything?
Page 2
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 349
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
A. I think it was -- the tow truck had just gotten
there, and they were working on dragging it out of where
it had TC'd.
Q. What was your role at the scene? I know you
kind of briefly said that.
A. Um, I had no role at the scene. I was on
patrol in the area. I was just interested.
Q. And that would account for you -- that you
weren't on the radio log?
A. That's correct.
Q. So you were working patrol that night and you
went by the scene but didn't put yourself off there?
A. That's correct.
Q. When you left the scene, do you remember who
was still there?
A. I think Sergeant Pfarr and I left at the same
time, so it would have been Officer Waddell and Officer
Kevany I think.
Q. Did you ever see Sergeant Goodwin there?
A. I can't remember.
Q. What about Officer Cudworth?
A. I can't remember. Sorry.
Q. That's okay.
So when you and Sergeant Pfarr left, your
recollection is that Officer Waddell and Officer Kevany
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 3
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 350
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
and the tow truck driver, obviously, because the tow
truck was still there when you were there?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. When you left, the car was still there?
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay. And what was Officer Waddell doing
there?
A. I think he was working downtown on bikes, and
they dispatched him because of the severity of the --
Q. Okay. But at the scene, what do you think --
what was he doing when you got there?
A. He was over by the Bentley.
Q. Okay. Do you remember what he was doing or
anything?
A. He tried prying off one of the rear emblems to
the vehicle.
Q. Let's go into -- first of all, on the rear
emblem, what are you talking about?
A. It's on the trunk.
Q. Like, the lid of the trunk?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And was the car upright?
A. I think it was -- I can't remember if it was
upright or upside down still.
Q. Okay.
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Page 4
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 351
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 A. But the tow truck was there. And I think -- I
2 want to say it was upright by this point. And I forget
3 what he had to do it with, but he was trying to get the
4 emblem off.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. But he couldn't get it off because the emblem
7 was a part of the locking mechanism for the trunk too.
8 Q. Hold on a second. No, that's fine.
9 So you said he was trying to get the emblem off
10 but he couldn't get it off because the emblem was part
11 of the trunk locking mechanism?
12 A. Yeah. And I remember Sergeant Pfarr and I
13 looked at each other like "Is he really doing this?"
14 Q. Did you say that, or you just kind of looked at
151 each other?
16 A. It was a look. Yeah, it was the look. And
17 then after, we said something to each other.
18 Q. Okay. Hold that thought for a minute. So let
19 me get back to a couple of these.
20 Did you hear or see Officer Waddell ask the tow
21 truck driver for a screwdriver?
22 A. Now that you mention it, yes, I do recall
23 something similar to that.
24 Q. Do you know if he got a screwdriver from the
25 tow truck driver?
Page 5
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 '
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
A. I can't remember.
Q. Okay.
A. But he did have something that he was using.
Q. Okay. So you -- where were you standing when
he was trying to pry the emblem off?
A. I was probably, like, five feet away from him
next to the car, just looking at the car still.
Q. And you were looking at the car?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. How long do you think he tried to get the
emblem off?
A. Probably about a minute.
Q. Was he saying anything?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Okay. So after, did he give up because he
couldn't -- because it was part of the lock?
A. He gave up on that, and I think he moved to
something else.
Q. What do you think he moved to, or do you
remember?
A. I think it was -- was it the steering wheel
emblem? Did he go to cut that off?
Q. I don't know. Did you see him trying to remove
the steering wheel emblem?
A. Trying to remember. He got something from the
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 6
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 353
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
car that Sergeant Pfarr made him put back.
Q. Hold on right there.
So let me ask you specifically: Do you
remember seeing Officer Waddell trying to remove the
steering wheel emblem?
A. I want to say I remember -- like, you know how
most cars have an emblem on, like, where the air bag
would be?
Q. Uh-huh.
A. I think that's what he may have gotten that he
may have had to put back. I know he got something and
Sergeant Pfarr made him put it back.
Q. Okay. Did you ever see him around any of the
wheels?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. I can't be sure, but I think it was to get the
center emblem out of the wheels.
Q. Do you remember which wheel he was at?
A. No, I don't.
Q. And when you say "center emblem," meaning the
Bentley emblem?
A. Yeah.
Q. A do you know if he used a tool to get that?
A. I don't remember.
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 7
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 354
25I think they were talking about?
Page 8
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. I don't even remember if he was able to get one
3 out.
4 Q. Do you remember -- did you ever see him with a
5 vehicle part in his hands?
6 A. Yes, but I don't remember which.
7 Q. Did you ever hear Officer Waddell say anything
8 about having a collection of car parts that he's taken
9 from accident scenes?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Like, "Hey, I'm going to take the Bentley
12
i
emblem for my collection" or anything like that?
13 A. No, I don't remember.
14 Q. Did you see Officer Waddell and Sergeant Pfarr
15 have any discussions while at the scene?
16 A. Sergeant Pfarr confronted him about it.
17 Q. While you were there?
18 A. Yeah. It wasn't like I could tell what was
19 being said, kind of.
20 Q. Okay. But you weren't --
21I A. I wasn't --
22f Q. close to hear it?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. What do you think you heard -- or what do you
25I think they were talking about?
Page 8
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 355
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 A. I think Sergeant Pfarr was telling him it
2 wasn't appropriate, what he was doing, and to put what
3 he got back.
4 Q. And then what do you remember happening?
5 A. Waddell placed the item that he got back inside
6 the vehicle.
7 Q. So you remember seeing something, but you just
8 don't remember what it was?
9 A. Yeah. It was either -- it's either the center
10 caps, the wheel, or the emblem --
11 Q. From the steering wheel?
12 A. For some reason, I want to say he took out his
13 knife and cut, like, a piece out of the leather that was
14 off the steering wheel, but I can't remember.
15 Q Okay.
16 A. He got something with an emblem on it.
17 Q. Would Sergeant Pfarr have seen the cutting with
18 the knife?
19 A. He should have. It's so long ago. Like, it
20 was one or the other. Or maybe he just ripped it.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. There was something with an emblem that he got
23 that Sergeant Pfarr had a problem with and addressed.
24 Q. Okay. And so you remember seeing something
25 from the car in Waddell's hand?
Page 9
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 356
Page 10
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 A. Mm-hmm.
2 Q. Right specifically on that point, what did
3 Waddell do with it?
4 A. He just held it in his hand.
5 Q. So did he put it in a bag? Did he walk over to
6 his car with it or anything? Okay.
7 So the item he took was in his hand. And
8 you're somewhere close, and you see what you think is
9 Sergeant Pfarr and him having a discussion that he
10 should -- that it's inappropriate, and put it back.
11 And then what happened?
12 A. Then Waddell put it back and --
13 Q. Do you know where?
14 A. I want to say back in the car.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. But there was also parts on the tow truck that
17 he might have put it back with. But I think he put it
18 back in the car. And Sergeant Pfarr -- both of us
19i looked at each other like, "All right. We're going to
20 leave before we got involved in that IA," I think is
21 what we said, basically.
22 Q. Did you actually verbalize that to each other?
23 A. Yeah. I think Sergeant Pfarr said it to me,
24 and I kind of laughed, like, "Yeah, let's get out of
25 here."
Page 10
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 357
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1
1 Q. And what do you think he -- I know it's
2 something to the tune of -- what do you think he said?
3 A. Something like "On that note, let's get out of
4 here before we get involved in his IA" or "that IA."
5 Q. And when he said that, what did you think he
6 was referring to?
7 A. What I had just seen Officer Waddell do at the
8 scene.
9 Q. And just summarize that for me.
10 A. Trying to get parts off a vehicle and then
11 obtaining something from it.
12 Q. Do you remember where the tow truck driver was
13 during this?
14 A. He was all in the vicinity.
15 Q. So the tow truck driver would have seen what
16 was going on?
17 A. He did see what was going on.
18 Q. And how do you know that?
19 A. I mean their talking about what he was doing,
20 just in small talk, but I don't remember anything
21 specific.
22 Q. So who, the tow truck driver and Waddell?
23 A. Yeah.
241 Q. So tow truck drive and Waddell were talking
25 about Waddell taking the part?
Page 11
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 358
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. Okay. And so Sergeant Pfarr and you looked at
3 each other and said something like, "I'm not -- let's
4 get out of here before we get involved in that IA."
5 And then what happened there?
6 A. We left the scene.
7 Q. And you just went back on patrol?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. Had you heard anything else about this?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Until today?
12 A. Today.
13 Q. So the second you left the scene, you haven't
14 had any other discussions with Sergeant Pfarr or any
15 other officers that "Man, Waddell did this" or anything?
16 A. No. I just assumed he probably got written up
17 or something and it was gone.
18 Q. So was -- do you think in the entirety you were
19 there for this incident, or do you think it's something
20 that started before you got there? Or did you -- do you
21 basically witness what the crux of this is?
22 A. I think I witnessed what happened.
23 Q. And if you witnessed the whole thing,
24 which what you believe is you witnessed the whole thing,
25 what would you say was Officer Waddell's reason for
Page 12
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578. 2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 359
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 taking the emblem?
2 A. I think he thought the car was totaled and
3 there was no value to the vehicle. I think he just
4 thought it was, for lack of better words, cool that
5 we -- there was a Bentley there that was crashed to that
6 severity.
7 Q. Do you remember where Officer Kevany was during
8 when you're watching this and you're having the
9 discussion with Pfarr and stuff?
10 A. The last discussion I had with Phar, I don't
11 remember where she was, but other than that, she would
12 have been right around there. We were all next to each
13 other.
14 Q. When he was taking the item and all that?
15 A. Yeah, I think she would have witnessed it.
16 Q. Okay. Would it recollect your memory if I told
17 you that Officer Cudworth was there with those two?
18 A. When you said Sergeant Goodwin and Cudworth
19 were there, I want to say I remember them when I'm
20 leaving.
21 Q. Okay. I'm actually not to mislead you. I'm
22 not sure if Sergeant Goodwin was there when this was
23 going on. I'm pretty sure that Officer Cudworth was
24 there when this was going on. So does that change
25 anything?
Page 13
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 360
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 A. Yeah. And now that you say it, yeah. I don't
2 remember interacting with him that well.
3 Q. And he would have been in the same general
4 1 area?
51 A. Yeah. We would have all been around each
6 other.
7 Q. Okay. So getting back to why, is -- that you
8 witnessed the whole thing. You thought that he thought
9 the car was totaled; there was no value; that it was
10 cool that they were -- that a Bentley was crashed. But
11 why would he take an item? What do you think the motive
12 was?
13 A. Souvenir.
14 Q. Okay. Was there any conversation of, like, the
15 souvenir, oh, it'd look cool in traffic, or, you know,
16 "I'm going to put it on my desk at work or take it
17 home"? Any -- was there any communications about why
18 you think he took that? Okay. Okay.
19 Would there be any other reason why you think
20 he might take that?
21 A. Nothing I can think of.
22 Q. So it wouldn't make sense as part of the
23 traffic accident investigation to take a wheel, the hub
24 off with the Bentley emblem or, like you said, the back
25 trunk emblem, or if he did, the steering wheel thing?
Page 14
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 361
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 There would be no reason as part of him getting called
2 out to investigate this crash, why he would take those
3 items?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Okay. When he took those items, do you think
6 he intended on booking them at the department for
7 evidence of a crash?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Where do you think that -- let's say Sergeant
10 Pfarr wasn't there or hadn't had the conversation.
11 Where do you think those items would have ended up?
12 A. In his personal belongings.
13 Q. Okay. I was going to tell you that if you can
14 think of any other details -- the first I've heard of
15 this, and I've interviewed this entire thing, is of
16 people on this -- just on this case. That's the first
17 time I've heard of the steering wheel thing, which is
18 another concern, obviously.
19 I heard -- people didn't remember if it was the
20 front emblem, because I was talking, "Is it like a hood
21 emblem, like one that sticks out?"
22 And they go, "No, the Bentley doesn't have
23 that. It was a --"
24 A. It was the wings, and I remember they were just
25 bending, like, really cheap.
Page 15
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 362
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 '
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
Q. Okay. So that was on the back trunk lid,
right?
A. Yeah.
Q. So -- and then everybody talks about the wheel
lug cover that had the Bentley emblem; that was clear.
But honestly, this is the first. I'm just trying to
think if there -- you talked about a knife. And I mean,
would that have been something he'd have to get in the
car to do?
A. No, because it was a convertible.
Q. Okay.
A. And I remember he was just looking for some
kind of emblem. And I remember the wheel. I don't
think he even got anything. I can't remember if he was
able -- he might have been able to get the center cap.
Q. I think he got the center cap.
A. That might have been what he had to put back.
But I remember the cloth had come off the steering
wheel, and there was the same winged emblem on it.
Q. And the cloth had came off because of the
accident?
A. Yeah.
Q. And then he was just cutting the rest of it off
or something?
A. I want to say he was cutting it. He might have
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 16
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 363
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 been ripping it. But there was an emblem on that
2 steering wheel that matched the rear emblem, that winged
3 Bentley with a "B" in the center.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. And he was trying to get that, but he didn't
6 get it.
7 Q. Winged emblem with the "B" for "Bentley" in the
8 center. Okay.
9 So you can't really say for sure --
10 A. No.
11 Q. whether he got that one or not?
12 A. No. I can't say for sure what he got. I just
13 know he got something.
14 Q. Um, okay. Had -- any other reason why you
15 think he might have been doing this? Okay.
16 Was -- did he explain or tell you why he was
17 doing this?
18 A. Not directly, no.
19 Q. Okay. Was he being secretive while doing this
20 or just completely out in the open?
21 A. Out in the open.
22 Q. Not trying to hide anything? I mean, is it
23 kind of weird that a sergeant's standing there and he's
24 doing this?
25 A. I think we were all kind of like, "Is he really,
Page 17
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 364
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 doing this?" But none of us are saying it at first --
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. -- until the very end. Sergeant and I were
4 kind of like, "All right. That's weird."
5 Never talked to Kevany or Cudworth. I never
6_ talked to anybody except Sergeant Pfarr about it.
7 Q. Okay. And so no other explanation that you
8 would ever have heard of came into play?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Okay. So if I told you that this was a
11 practical joke, what would you think of that?
12 A. Like he's trying to see our reaction?
13 Q. Well, there's various accounts of why this
14 happened, and one of them is that it was a practical
15 joke. And just seeing, like -- and I got some pretty
16 clear answers from officers like "This is the first time
17 I've heard that, and there just no way because it
18 wasn't" -- I mean, there was nothing -- you know, there
19 was no plan of who to be -- who was he practical -joking
20 or anything. But what do you think of the reason that
21 it might have been a practical joke?
22 A. I don't get it, how it could have been a joke.
23 Q. Okay. Did you and Sergeant Pfarr have any
24 conversations regarding this incident, that it was a
25 practical joke, in your back and -forth, Let's get out
Page 18
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 365
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 of here," those kind of things?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. Sergeant Pfarr seemed pretty pissed that he was
5 put in that position.
6 Q. And how do you describe "pretty pissed"?
7 A. He's always so nice that you can tell when he's
8 pissed. He gets really quiet. And also I noticed he
9 was -- he kind of has a tendency to turn red. And it
10 kind of sounds funny, but...
11 Q. So he turned red?
12 A. Yeah. You could tell he kind of was biting his
13 tongue a little bit.
14 Q. So you -- did you hear Sergeant Pfarr tell
15 Officer Waddell to put it back?
16 A. That's when they were having the conversation
17 that I was kind of close to, but I could tell that's
18 what he was telling him.
19 Q. Okay. And then when you left -- and this is
20 why I'm asking it; it's critical. But if you don't
21 remember or didn't see it, that's fine.
22 Did you see Sergeant Pfarr on the phone, like,
23 when he was walking away or driving away? Do you know
24 of anything that Sergeant Pfarr, again -- must have
25 again told Officer Waddell to put it back?
Page 19
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 366
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 A. No.
2 Q. Okay. Do you know if Officer Waddell sent
3 Sergeant Pfarr a text message?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Okay. So just reiterating again, when you left
6 the scene, that was the last time you've heard of this
7 since -- until today?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. So to kind of summarize, Greg, you
10 stopped by the scene. You were there for about ten
11 minutes. During that ten minutes, you saw or heard
12 Officer Waddell ask the tow truck driver for some sort
13 of tool. You first saw him trying to remove the rear
14 trunk emblem, Bentley logo, but it was part of the
15 locking mechanism, so he couldn't get it off. He
16 couldn't get it off. It was kind of cheap metal and it
17 was bending or whatever. You might have seen him trying
18 to remove the same similar -style emblem on the steering
19 wheel of the car, standing outside of the car because it
20 was a convertible. You're not sure of that. He might
21 have been using a knife, or he might have been prying
22 it. You are aware that he was trying to take something
23 off a wheel, but you're not sure if that came off, but
24 at some point you saw him with some sort of object from
25 the Bentley. You, in your mind, was -- he was doing
Page 20
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 367
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1! that for personal gain or some sort of souvenir thing.
2 Never heard anything remotely about a practical joke.
3 You knew that Sergeant Pfarr was upset about this. You
4 know that Sergeant Pfarr told him to put it away. You
5 had a conversation, something to the tune of Sergeant
6 Pfarr said, "Let's get out of here before it turns into
7 an IA" or something like that.
8 So when you left the scene, what was your
9 feeling on whether Officer Waddell's behavior was
10 counseled or what the deal there was? Did you think
11 there was going to be more to this, or was it a done
12 deal?
13 A. I didn't think it was, like, IA. I thought it
14 would have been, like, a formal written -- I don't know
15 what they're called.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. Basically what I got for the walker on the
18 write-up.
19 Q. Okay. You were thinking that Officer Waddell
20 would have gotten written up?
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. And if you had to summarize, what would you
23 summarize a police officer on duty taking a vehicle part
24 in the course of his official duties that had nothing to
25 do with the investigation? What would you classify that
Page 21
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 368
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
1 as?
Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
2 A. Crime -wise?
3 Q. Yeah.
4 A. A theft.
5 Q. Okay. And the fact that not only did members
6 of our department see it but a tow truck driver saw this
7 and was probably wondering what -- how can an officer do
8 this, and those kind of things.
9 Let me see. So let me just go through some
10 other ones here real quick. And I dealt with most of
11 these.
12 So did you see Officer Waddell place anything
13 into a large brown evidence bag?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Did you see Officer Waddell walk towards his
16 car with a brown paper evidence bag?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Do you know the phone call between Officer
19 Waddell and Sergeant Pfarr just after Sergeant Pfarr
20 left the scene?
21 A. No, I do not.
22 Q. Have you known or have you ever seen Officer
23 Waddell take any vehicle parts during accident
24 investigations?
25 A. No.
Page 22
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 369
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 Q. On any different scenes?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Do you know if Officer Waddell has a collection
4 of vehicle parts that he has taken from accident
5 investigation scenes?
6 A. No.
7 Q. So besides this, not only accident scenes, have
8 you ever seen Officer Waddell take anything that he
9 shouldn't have before?
10 A. No.
11 Q. And then last, just to reiterate this, when you
12 saw Officer Waddell remove the item from the car, did
13 you think he was playing a practical joke on somebody?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Okay. Any other thing you want to add or
16 anything?
17 A. No.
18 LIEUTENANT PROLL: Okay. It is 12:24 p.m.
19 This interview is over, and I'm shutting off the tape.
20
21 (End of recording)
22 -000-
23
24
25
Page 23
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 370
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Officer Greg Benson (February 5th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
2
3 I hereby certify that the foregoing recorded
4 proceedings in the within -entitled cause were
5 transcribed by me, CHRISTINE BOLDT, CLT, a disinterested
6 person, and were thereafter transcribed into
7 typewriting.
8
9
10 Dated: June 15, 2015
11
12
13
14
15
16 Christine Boldt, CLT
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 24
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 371
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 372
CAT
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 373
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 374
Smith, Jeffery" <jsmithks ocity.org> wrote:
Thank you all for helping to fill the overtime. I made one mistake and forgot to specify the
overtime was for one officer per day. My apologies! Since there were a few days with two
officers I gave the overtime to the senior officer. Below is the CAT overtime schedule,
there are still a couple of open dates.
SAT. 5/ 4: OPEN
SUN. 5/ 5: PHILLIPS
MON. 5/ 6: KEMP
TUES. 5/7: OPEN
WED. 5/ 8: OPEN
THURS.S/9: WADDELL
FRI.5/10: WADDELL
SAT. 5/11: DICKEL
SUNS/12: DICKEL
MONS/13: KEMP
TUES. 5/ 14: WADDELL
WED. 5/15: OPEN
THUR.5/16: WADDELL
FRI.S/17: KEMP
If you are interested in one of the open dates please let me know ASAP.
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 375
Lieutenant Jeff Smith
San Luis Obispo Police
1042 Walnut Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805) 781-7321
image001jpg>
M-11 ••
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 376
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 377
fif'o7jo H
Rodriguez, Sara; Stahnke, Adam
Cc: Goodwin, Janice; Pfarr, Chad; Mickel, Fred
Subject: Fall Downtown Foot Patrol OT
Thank you to everyone who volunteered for the downtown foot patrol overtime. Below are
the officers working for each shift, which was based on seniority. All the Shifts have been
entered into speed shift under CAT OT. The shifts are from 11:00 to 16:00 hours
downtown on foot and should include the transit center, City Hall, Mission area, and the
Library. Please do not use these shifts to complete reports or conduct follow up from your
regular patrol shifts. These are only 5 hour shifts and the majority of that time should be
spent downtown on foot. Currently I am tracking the stats of the CAT officers and want to
capture the stats for the downtown foot patrol overtime. At the end of each shift could
one of the officers working send me an email with the number of citations, arrests, FIs and
reports written.
9/14 Phillips/ Dicke)
9/15 Phillips/Dicke)
9/16 Kemp/Behrens
9/21 Phillips/Waddell
9/22 Phillips/ Waddell
9/23 Behrens/Waddell
9/28 Phillips/Dickel
9/29 Phillips/Dickel
9/30 Kemp/ Behrens
10/1 Waddell/Rodriguez
10/6 Stahnke/Waddell
10/7 Behrens/Waddell
10/12 Dickel/Stahnke
10/13 Phillips/ Dickel
10/ 14 Kemp/Waddell
10/ 15 Waddell/Rodriguez
10/19 Stahnke/Waddell
10/20 Phillips/Waddell
10/21 Kemp/Behrens
10/26 Dickel/Stahnke
10/27 Phillips/Dickel
10/28 Kemp/Behrens
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 378
10/29 Phillips/Waddell
Lieutenant Jeff Smith
San Luis Obispo Police
1042 Walnut Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805)781-7321
image001;jpg>
image003.0p_ >
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 379
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 380
r;
Arm
r'
111x111111 •
wrrrlra rrr r
rrlx
CAL, -PACIFIC
REPORTING, INC.
Certified Transcript of Audio Recording of:
Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
Case: In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Reporter: Christine Boldt, CLT
18 Professional Center Parkway, 3rd Floor
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: 415.578.2480
Fax: 415.952.9451
Email: support@calpacificreporting.com
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 381
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH
Conducted by Lieutenant Bill Proll)
LDF Matter No. 13-3248
February 13
TRANSCRIBED ON
JUNE 16, 2015 BY:
CHRISTINE BOLDT, CLT
CAL -PACIFIC REPORTING
18 Professional Center Parkway, 3rd Floor
San Rafael, California 94903
415) 578-2480
Support@CalPacificReporting.com
000-
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 382
1
2
3
4
5
C-2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
LA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
LIEUTENANT PROLL: This is Lieutenant Proll.
It is February 13th at 5:02 p.m. I'm in my office at
the police department with Lieutenant Jeff Smith.
Q. Good evening, Lieutenant Smith.
A. Good evening.
Q. So what I'm interested in is, obviously, I'm
conducting an IA on Officer Waddell's involvement with a
traffic accident investigation in February of 2013 where
it's alleged he removed a Bentley part, emblem off of a
car that was totaled in a traffic accident. So I'm just
going to start with some basic questions.
What -- when was the first time you heard of
this incident, if you recall?
A. The traffic collision or him removing
the brand -- or the
Q. Him, Officer Waddell removing the emblem.
A. I don't remember the exact date, but it would
have been around the time that we were conducting our
last set and detective interviews.
Q. And how were you contacted about this?
A. Chad approached me in my office during the
shift -- I can't even remember if it was day or night --
and stated something to the effect that -- and again,
this is just not exact. But "Hey, I should have
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 2
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 383
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
probably told you about this earlier, but I wanted to
let you know about this now."
And he referenced -- he asked if I remembered
the crash with the Bentley, and I said yes, because he {
had called me that evening when the crash occurred. And
he said -- excuse me -- he said when he arrived on
scene -- I don't remember how it went. But he had seen
Officer Waddell, I believe, carrying one of the hub caps
and walking towards him.
And Chad, he said, "What are you doing?"
And Officer Waddell, he just made it sound
like -- kind of chuckled and says, "I'm just messing
with you."
a
So at the time, Chad said, "Hey, put that back
with the car. That's not funny."
So -- and he basically said he -- this came
back to him at the time that we're talk about it,
because Waddell was putting in for one of the positions.
I don't remember if it's set or detective. And he just
had some concerns about potential integrity issues.
Chad stated that he felt he had handled it that
day. He didn't believe Waddell was really going to take
the -- it was only messing with him because he was a new
sergeant. And I think at that time he had maybe been a
sergeant one or two months.
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 3
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 384
1
0
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004 Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
Q. Okay. So after the accident up until this time
when Chad comes to your office and tells you this, you
had no knowledge of anything with Officer Waddell?
A. Regarding that, no.
Q. Regarding the part?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So when Chad's explaining this to you,
he initially is telling you that in his mind that he
believes this was a practical joke?
A. Yes. That he was messing with him because he
was a new sergeant. A practical joke, yes.
Q. But also in the same time that he's talking to
you, he brings up that this is -- he's bringing this up
now because he has some ethical concerns. So the whole
crux of this thing is that -- obviously, my whole goal
is to find out if this was a practical joke or not.
A. Yes.
Q. So it's weird that if Chad all along had
thought that it's a practical joke, then why would he
bring it up when Kevin's applying for these things with
now Chad having an ethical issue. So it's kind of --
they kind of conflict with each other.
A. I think it was because -- as Kevin was doing a
lot of overtime for me on -- for the CAT downtown teams,
prior to having a full-time CAT team. And I had
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 4
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 385
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th) IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
reinforced with my sergeants to ensure that they're
downtown for the entire four hours, because it was only
a four-hour shift. And Chad had caught him in the
office one time watching a movie.
Now, Kevin said he was just finishing his lunch
and he had watched a movie at the time, but Chad told
him, "You're only here four hours. You get a 15 -minute
break."
And then there was a couple times where he had
come in late or left early, and again, I reinforced with
Chad to stay on top of this. If it's becoming an issue,
Kevin needed to get written up.
4
So I think Chad had started having concerns by
isomeofthepatternshehadseenwithKevin. And I may
be -- I think he was reflecting back on this incident
and thought was this really a practical joke or could he
have been taking this. 1
Q. Okay. Because that's kind of -- in my
interview with Chad, he was, like, "Well, then I started
thinking that maybe it never was a practical joke."
z
i
A. Yeah. He never came and told me that. At the ' j
time he said he felt he had handled it and it was just a
bad joke, so.
Q. And how did Chad tell you he handled it? Do
you remember?
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 5
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 386
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
LA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
A. You know, honestly, I don't. I know he told
him to put it back. And I don't remember if he called
him into his office later or talked to him, to be honest
with you.
Q. Okay. So this conversation with Chad, sometime
before when they were conducting the detective and set
interviews, how long do you think the conversation
between you and Chad went?
A. Oh, it was maybe five minutes.
Q. Okay.
A. I'd asked him if he had any knowledge. I can't
remember if I asked him or if I talked to Brian and
said, "Hey, have you ever heard of Kevin collecting,
like, trophies from accident scenes?"
And Chad wouldn't have known that, so I kind of
felt like maybe I was just kind of -- you know, Chad
told me this, and he was talking to Brian, and Brian
at that time Brian's comments to me, he said, "Nothing
would surprise me with Kevin." But he said there was
nothing to his knowledge that Kevin had ever taken from
any type of -- and that was I think in a side
conversation.
At the time I really wasn't trying to
investigate anything because at the time I had felt --
you know, I really questioned Chad, "So you feel this l
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 6
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 387
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
has been handled as a joke?" Because otherwise I would
have gone down the hall and probably said, "We need to
do something else."
But Chad at the time reinforced that he felt he
had handled it and it had been taken care of.
Q. Okay. So that's the whole -- that's where this
whole thing conflicts in that Chad on one hand, you
know, potentially is minimizing this to lessen the
exposure that he should have done something differently. i
And then at the same time, he's saying, "Well, now I'm
i
thinking that it wasn't a practical joke, and he was
taking it."
So that's the dilemma. a
A. Yeah.
a
Q. But as far as the conversation with you, did he
ever mention that maybe it wasn't a practical joke or
anything like that?
A. I can't, honestly, remember. I think he said,
you know, at the time maybe in his mind he wasn't sure,
but then because Kevin had laughed about it and turned
around right away and took it back to the car, that he
felt like -- you know what, you know, now that I
remember, what I think it was, was when he first saw
Kevin walking with it, he's, like -- because I think
maybe he told me Kevin said, "Hey, I'm going to take one
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Page 7
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 388
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
P[!
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
of the hub caps." He went and grabbed one, whether it
was on the ground or something.
And Chad's, like, "Knock it off" or something
like that. So and then he saw him carrying it towards
his car, and at that point, Chad said -- you know, I
think what he had told me was he was sort of thinking
maybe this isn't a practical joke; maybe he's really
going to do it. He's, like, "Hey, Kevin."
And then at that point Kevin says, "I'm just
kidding. I'm only messing with you" or something like
that.
And then that's when Chad's, like, "Knock it
off and put it back with the vehicle."
Q. Do you remember if he said that it was in a
brown paper bag or anything?
A. I do think he said it was in a bag. Like,
i
Kevin had said -- and Kevin even kind of prompted him to
take one of these rims, I believe. Because this was
such a long time ago. But I feel like what he said is
he's told Chad that. Chad's, like, "Yeah, whatever,"
kind of just playing it off, like Kevin's just messing
with him. But then he actually put it in a bag and
started walking towards his vehicle. And Chad's, like,
Hey, Kevin, what are you doing?" or "Knock it off."
And that's when Kevin laughed and said, "Oh,
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 8
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 389
1
2
3
4
5
IM
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
I'm just kidding" and put it back, put it back in the
car.
So I think that's -- now that I'm talking about
it more, that's what I think Chad told me had happened.
And at that point, he said -- he kind of felt that
Yeah, he was just messing with me" -- or "messing with y
r
a new sergeant," is what he said.
Q. Do you remember if Chad said that Kevin texted
him a photo of it or anything?
A. No. That, I don't remember.
Q. Okay. So then after Chad told you this, what
was the next step with you? I mean, did you hear about
this again anytime after that?
A. I mean, just through the grapevine. I'm not
sure that there was going to be an IA. I think it was
kind of backed up on the original why, so that this
incident had come up and that we're going to potentially
look into it, that we're going to be looking into it.
But I hadn't heard anything else of it until it was
assigned -- it was assigned. K
Q. Do you think that Chad was -- I mean, here this
things happens in February, and the testing was months
later. Do you think Chad was -- did you get the
impression that Chad was minimizing with you because he
should have told you that night?
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 9
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 390
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 A. I didn't get that impression. I think it was
2 more -- you know, when he came to me, I think it was
more of Chad was saying, you know, with all the other
stuff that he had been dealing with Kevin, because he
was having -- we were having -- he was having a lot of
6 problems with Kevin over the weekends with the CAT
thing, with him just kind of leaving early or showing up
8 late, or being in the downtown office. And he had
9 related this to me, and I told him he needed to be on
0 top of that and he needed to hold these guys
11 accountable.
1nk for what he was saying at the time
13 was it was kind of -- he was starting to really quer
14 Kevin. Based on these other things that were h -a
15 you know, he felt like were integrity issues in terms of
16 just his time and things like that.
17 So I don't think at the time he was minimizing
18 it. I think he just -- all the other things that
19 started to happen, he really just -- Kevin was not real
20 high on his list because he had kind of become a problem
21 officer.
22 Q. Did Chad tell you anything, other statements
23 that people had made out at this accident scene or
24 anything?
25 A. No.
Page 10
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 391
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
N
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
Q. Okay.
A. No. The only thing he talked about was Kevin.
Q. Did Chad mention the words "IA" or letters that
there might be an IA going on because of this, to you?
A. I asked him what was going on. One night I --
or one day I came to him and I said, "Hey, what" -- you
know, I knew something was going on and he was working
on something. And Chad had said, "I'm completing a memo
regarding the Bentley incident." So that me approaching
him, and he said that. He didn't know that it was going
to be an IA at that time. He was just -- he had been
asked to complete a memo regarding that incident.
Q. Okay. But, no, I'm talking about the
conversation that you and Chad had in the office, the
first conversation. Did Chad mention anything about an
IA or anything?
A. No. I mean --
Q. Just in another officer's testimony, Chad told
this other officer at the scene, "Let's get out of here
before we get pulled into this IA."
A. Oh, no, he never said about that.
Q. So do you know how this ended up with Keith?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Okay.
A. I'm not sure how Keith -- I'm not sure how he
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 11
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 392
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th) IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
found out unless
Q. Because
A. Part of me -- and I can't confirm this, and I'm
probably wrong. But for some reason, I felt like I
might have mentioned it to Captain Staley. And I might
not have. I don't know, because I might have just said,
Hey, Chad came to me with this. He said that he
handled it." And I don't -- there's no evidence that
he's been doing this on a regular basis. All right?
But I -- again, I don't want to drag Captain Staley into
it because I don't -- I can't really remember. And I'll
be honest with you. I vaguely remember my conversation
with Chad. I had talked to him a little bit about it.
When he said he was completing the memo, I'm like, oh.
4
And I really was racking my brain to remember our
conversation because it was that short at the time.
Q. Okay. Anything else you can think of that --
about the conversation with Chad?
N
d
A. No.
LIEUTENANT PROLL: It is 5:15. I'm ending the
interview and turning off the tape recorder.
End of recording)
000-
r.
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 12
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 393
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th) IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
2
3 I hereby certify that the foregoing recorded
4 proceedings in the within -entitled cause were
5 transcribed by me, CHRISTINE BOLDT, CLT, a disinterested
6 person, and were thereafter transcribed into
7 typewriting.
8
9
10 Dated: June 16, 2015
11
12
13
14
15
16 Christine Boldt, CLT
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 13
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 394
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 395
From: Kevin Waddell kwaddellUslocity.org
Subject: CAT 6/6
Date: June 5, 2013 at 1:16 PM
To: Jeffery Smith jsmith@slocity.org
Lt.
I was hoping to be excused from the first hour of CAT tomorrow 11-12. 1 have
another obligation at 11. Thanks in advance.
Kevin
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 396
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 397
From: Jeffery Smith jsmith@slocity.org
Subject: RE: CAT 12-21
Date: December 11, 2013 at 10:33 AM
To: Kevin Waddell kwaddell@slocity.org
Sorry for the delay, I put you down for the shift.
From: Waddell, Kevin
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 201311:14 AM
To: Smith, Jeffery
Cc: Dickel, Jason
Subject: Fwd: CAT 12-21
I'm not sure if I would be next in line or if there was a more senior person ahead of me to take
this shift. But I will take it if eligible.
Kevin
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Dicke[, Jason" <idickel@slocity.org>
Date: December 2, 2013 at 1:39:55 PM PST
To: "Waddell; Kevin" <kwaddell@slocity.org>
Subject: CAT 12-21
Do you want my CAT shift 12-21? If so email the LT or whomever needs to know.
Thanks
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 398
HP 0/7,
From: Kevin Waddell kwaddellQslocity.org
Subject: Re: CAT
Date: December 12, 2013 at 7:37 AM
To: Jason Dickel jdickel(9slocity.org
I just finally hoard back from him yesterday he approved it. I'm working it
On Dec 12, 2013, at 2:55 AM, "Dickel, Jason" <idickel@slocity.org> wrote:
Confirming Smith approved the change and you are working that CAT shift?
Officer Jason M. Dickel
San Luis Obispo Police Department
805-781-7312
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 399
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 400
From: Jeffery Smith jsmith@slocity.org
Subject: RE: CAT 12/ 15
Date: December 12, 2013 at 6:39 AM
To: Kevin Waddell kwaddellgslocity.org
That is fine.
Original Message -----
From: Waddell, Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 4:22 PM
To: Smith, Jeffery
Subject: CAT 12/ 15
Lt.
I have had some unforeseen things come up on 12/ 15. 1 would need to leave the
shift at 1500. If this does not work I am okay with letting the shift go or attempting
to find someone else to work the shift. Please let me know what the preference
would be.
Thanks
Kevin
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 401
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 402
5
CAL -PACIFIC
REPORTING, INC.
Certified Transcript of Audio Recording of:
Lieutenant Jeff Smith (November
15th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
Case: In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Reporter: Christine Boldt, CLT
18 Professional Center Parkway, 3rd Floor
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: 415.578.2480
Fax: 415.952.9451
Email: support@calpacificreporting.com
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 403
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH
LDF Matter No. 13-3248
November 15
TRANSCRIBED ON
JUNE 17, 2015 BY:
CHRISTINE BOLDT, CLT
CAL -PACIFIC REPORTING
18 Professional Center Parkway, 3rd Floor
San Rafael, California 94903
415) 578-2480
Support@CalPacificReporting.com
000-
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 404
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (November 15th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
THE INTERVIEWER: It is Friday, November the
15th. It's about 9:23 a.m. I'm with Lieutenant Smith,
and this is regarding the administrative inquiry
involving Officer Kevin Waddell, 13-004.
Q. Lieutenant Smith, you were made aware of an
incident involving Officer Waddell possibly giving false
statements to Sergeant Pfarr on October the 19th.
Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Can you tell me when you were informed and how
you were informed about this?
A. I believe it was a Saturday. It was one of my
days off. And Sergeant Pfarr contacted me at home. He
was calling to inquire regarding why Officer Waddell was
working a CAT shift, and if I knew he had cancelled the
shift. He had left a voicemail on my phone, and I had
returned it probably 30 minutes later.
When I called Sergeant Pfarr, he said no
worries, he had worked it out, something to that effect.
And said that Officer Waddell had told him that during
the previous day he had spoken with me and asked if he
can come in late for his shift because he was going to
his daughter's dance recital or something like that.
When Sergeant Pfarr was telling me this, I told
him that basically we never had that conversation, nor
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 2
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 405
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (November 15th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
did I give him permission to have time off. So at that
point, Sergeant Pfarr was a little upset. He had
indicated that Officer Waddell had lied to him,
basically said that he had gained this permission from
me. And we kind of discussed how to proceed from there,
and whether it was a misunderstanding. At the time I
wasn't sure. Miscommunication --
Q. Between Sergeant Pfarr and Officer Waddell?
A. Yes. So you know, I told Sergeant Pfarr I
trusted him to handle it appropriately. And he said he
was going to think about it.
Later that day, shortly after, he called me
back after we had hung up and said that he'd decided
that he was going to write a memorandum, submit it to me
to go through the chain of command regarding the events
because he felt strongly that he -- that Officer Waddell
had, you know, blatantly lied to him regarding his
reasons for being late for his shift that day. And he
told me he had pulled Officer Waddell in, told him not
to talk about it, and explained that he had talked to me
and he was aware that their previous discussion of his
reason for being late had never occurred and that he was
going to be submitting it through the chain of command.
And at that time I told Sergeant Pfarr that he
handled it appropriately and that I'd get the memo when
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 3
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 406
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13- 004
I returned to work.
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (November 15th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
Q. Now, so on October 19th, that Saturday when
Sergeant Pfarr called you originally, he left a message
on your phone? You didn't answer that phone call?
A. The original phone call, it was a message. I
was -- I think I was mowing my lawn or something. I
just didn't hear my phone ring.
Q. Do you remember about what time that was, or
remember what time you called him back?
A. I don't.
Q. Okay. Was it early morning? Was it mid
afternoon? Do you recall --
A. I'd say --
Q. -- any time frame?
A. Yeah. Mid afternoon; like, the early, mid
afternoon portion because I usually do my lawn in the
morning.
Q. Had you spoke with Officer Waddell in the
locker room on the Saturday -- or Friday the 18th?
A. When I was finishing my shift, I went in the
locker room. Officer Waddell was in the locker room.
He was seated in front of his locker at the time and
appeared to be possibly getting ready for work. He was
still in street clothes. And he was -- at the time it
looked like he was texting or something on his phone. I
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Page 4
mm
a
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 407
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (November 15th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
think he'd said hi to me as I walked in, and basically I
started changing. He was on his phone the whole time.
And then towards the end of me changing, he made a phone
call, and he was still on that phone call prior to me
leaving. So our conversation was no more than a
greeting as I walked in the door.
Q. So he -- did he ever ask you about coming in
late for the shift on the 19th?
A. No. He never talked about the shift, never
mentioned anything about a daughter recital, anything
like that.
Q. Have you had any conversations or did you have
any conversations with Officer Waddell after you were
informed about this?
A. Yes. I believe Monday I came back to work.
Officer Waddell had come in that morning and asked if he
could talk to me, and shut my door. He came into my
office, shut the door.
At that time prior to him talking to me, I
explained to Officer Waddell that Sergeant Pfarr had
submitted a memo to me regarding the incident that
occurred on Saturday. I told him it was probably
best -- and not knowing what was going to happen
regarding that memo, you know, he -- our conversation
could not be privileged and anything he says to me at
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 5
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 408
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (November 15th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
that time, if it went to an IA, could be disclosed. And
he said he understood that. He still wanted to talk to
me. He needed to get something off his chest and was
willing to accept the consequences that were to follow
regarding the incident.
And then he basically said that -- and this
is -- I'm generalizing based on our conversation. But
something to the effect of it was kind of a
misunderstanding. He was driving to work at the time
and texting, and Sergeant Pfarr misinterpreted his text
regarding what he was saying our conversation was. So
he wasn't specific.
At the time I don't remember reviewing all the
text, knowing what they exactly said. And I didn't want
to ask questions. I just explained to him that we had
never had that conversation.
He recognized that and that on face value it
appeared that he had blatantly lied to Sergeant Pfarr
regarding his reason for being late. And that was about
the gist of our conversation.
Q. Now, Sergeant Pfarr, did he ever tell you that
he had a verbal conversation with Officer Waddell after
the text messages?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And what did he tell you?
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Page 6
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 409
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (November 15th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
A. That, you know, he too -- you know, basically
Officer Waddell had come into the office -- I believe it
was the office -- and said that we had had that -- he
had had that conversation with me about being late,
which kind of disturbed me a little bit even more
because Officer Waddell came into my office and told me
it was a misunderstanding over text message, but then
Sergeant Pfarr then said, no, this was a conversation
they had face to face regarding the reason for him being
late, and a conversation between he and I.
So again, I didn't ask clarifying questions of
Kevin. I just took what he said. And he really relied
on the fact that it was a misunderstanding based on him
trying to drive and text a message to Sergeant Pfarr, or
respond to Sergeant Pfarr's text.
Q. Have you had any conversations with either
Officer Waddell or Sergeant Pfarr regarding this matter
since that time?
A. No, not -- you know, I think Sergeant Pfarr has
asked me what's going to happen with this maybe a week
later. And you know, basically I said it's being
reviewed by the captain and the chiefs to make a
decision of what actions would be taken. But I don't
think we've really discussed the incident further.
Q. Okay. I have nothing further. Do you have
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 7
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 410
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13- 004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (November 15th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
anything you'd like to add?
A. Not at this time.
Q. Okay. I'd just ask that you not discuss this
matter with anybody. Thank you.
End of recording)
i•
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 8
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 411
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (NovembEr 15th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
I hereby certify that the foregoing recorded
proceedings in the within -entitled cause were
transcribed by me, CHRISTINE BOLDT, CLT, a disinterested
person, and were thereafter transcribed into
typewriting.
Dated: June 17, 2015
Christine Boldt, CLT
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 9
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 412
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (November 15th)
Transcribed: June 17, 2015
1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
2
3 I hereby certify that the foregoing recorded
4 proceedings in the within -entitled cause were
5 transcribed by me, CHRISTINE BOLDT, CLT, a disinterested
6 person, and were thereafter transcribed into
7 typewriting.
8
9
10 Dated: June 17, 2015
11
12
13
14
15
16 Christie oldt, CLT
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 9
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 413
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 414
An), N
CAL -PACIFIC
REPOR'TING9 INC.
Certified Transcript of Audio Recording of:
Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
Case: In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Reporter: Christine Boldt, CLT
18 Professional Center Parkway, 3rd Floor
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: 415.578.2480
Fax: 415.952.9451
Email: support@calpacificreporting.com
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 415
INTERVIEW OF LIEUTENANT JEFF SMITH
Conducted by Lieutenant Bill Proll)
LDF Matter No. 13-3248
February 13
TRANSCRIBED ON
JUNE 16, 2015 BY:
CHRISTINE BOLDT, CLT
CAL -PACIFIC REPORTING
18 Professional Center Parkway, 3rd Floor
San Rafael, California 94903
415) 578-2480
Support@CalPacificReporting.com
000-
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 416
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
WIN
15
16
17
IVA
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
LIEUTENANT PROLL: This is Lieutenant Proll.
It is February 13th at 5:02 p.m. I'm in my office at
the police department with Lieutenant Jeff Smith.
Q. Good evening, Lieutenant Smith.
i
A. Good evening.
Q. So what I'm interested in is, obviously, I'm
conducting an IA on Officer Waddell's involvement with a
traffic accident investigation in February of 2013 where
it's alleged he removed a Bentley part, emblem off of a
car that was totaled in a traffic accident. So I'm just
going to start with some basic questions.
What -- when was the first time you heard of
this incident, if you recall?
A. The traffic collision or him removing
k
the brand -- or the --
Q. Him, Officer Waddell removing the emblem.
A. I don't remember the exact date, but it would
have been around the time that we were conducting our
last set and detective interviews.
Q. And how were you contacted about this?
A. Chad approached me in my office during the
shift -- I can't even remember if it was day or night
and stated something to the effect that -- and again,
this is Hejustnotexact. But " J y, I should have
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 2
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 417
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004 Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
probably told you about this earlier, but I wanted to
let you know about this now."
And he referenced -- he asked if I remembered
the crash with the Bentley, and I said yes, because he
had called me that evening when the crash occurred. And
he said -- excuse me -- he said when he arrived on
scene -- I don't remember how it went. But he had seen
Officer Waddell, I believe, carrying one of the hub caps
and walking towards him.
And Chad, he said, "What are you doing?"
And Officer Waddell, he just made it sound
like -- kind of chuckled and says, "I'm just messing
with you."
So at the time, Chad said, "Hey, put that back
with the car. That's not funny."
So -- and he basically said he -- this came
back to him at the time that we're talk about it,
because Waddell was putting in for one of the positions.
I don't remember if it's set or detective. And he just
had some concerns about potential integrity issues.
Chad stated that he felt he had handled it that
day. He didn't believe Waddell was really going to take
the -- it was only messing with him because he was a new
sergeant. And I think at that time he had maybe been a
sergeant one or two months.
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 3
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 418
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
17
18
ME
20
21
22
23
MAE
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
Q. Okay. So after the accident up until this time
when Chad comes to your office and tells you this, you
had no knowledge of anything with Officer Waddell?
A. Regarding that, no.
Q. Regarding the part?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So when Chad's explaining this to you,
he initially is telling you that in his mind that he
believes this was a practical joke?
A. Yes. That he was messing with him because he
was a new sergeant. A practical joke, yes.
Q. But also in the same time that he's talking to
you, he brings up that this is -- he's bringing this up
now because he has some ethical concerns. So the whole
crux of this thing is that -- obviously, my whole goal
is to find out if this was a practical joke or not.
A. Yes.
Q. So it's weird that if Chad all along had
thought that it's a practical joke, then why would he
bring it up when Kevin's applying for these things with
now Chad having an ethical issue. So it's kind of --
they kind of conflict with each other.
A. I think it was because -- as Kevin was doing a
lot of overtime for me on -- for the CAT downtown teams,
prior to having a full-time CAT team. And I had
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2450
Page 4
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 419
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
WA
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
reinforced with my sergeants to ensure that they're
downtown for the entire four hours, because it was only
a four-hour shift. And Chad had caught him in the
office one time watching a movie.
Now, Kevin said he was just finishing his lunch
and he had watched a movie at the time, but Chad told
him, "You're only here four hours. You get a 15 -minute
break."
And then there was a couple times where he had
come in late or left early, and again, I reinforced with
Chad to stay on top of this. If it's becoming an issue,
Kevin needed to get written up.
So I think Chad had started having concerns by
some of the patterns he had seen with Kevin. And I may
be -- I think he was reflecting back on this incident
and thought was this really a practical joke or could he
have been taking this.
Q. Okay. Because that's kind of -- in my
interview with Chad, he was, like, "Well, then I started
thinking that maybe it never was a practical joke."
A. Yeah. He never came and told me that. At the
time he said he felt he had handled it and it was just a
bad joke, so.
Q. And how did Chad tell you he handled it? Do
you remember?
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 5
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 420
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
A. You know, honestly, I don't. I know he told
him to put it back. And I don't remember if he called
him into his office later or talked to him, to be honest
with you.
Q. Okay. So this conversation with Chad, sometime
before when they were conducting the detective and set
interviews, how long do you think the conversation
between you and Chad went?
A. Oh, it was maybe five minutes.
Q. Okay.
A. I'd asked him if he had any knowledge. I can't
remember if I asked him or if I talked to Brian and
said, "Hey, have you ever heard of Kevin collecting,
like, trophies from accident scenes?"
And Chad wouldn't have known that, so I kind of
felt like maybe I was just kind of -- you know, Chad
told me this, and he was talking to Brian, and Brian --
at that time Brian's comments to me, he said, "Nothing
would surprise me with Kevin." But he said there was
nothing to his knowledge that Kevin had ever taken from
any type of -- and that was I think in a side
conversation.
At the time I really wasn't trying to
investigate anything because at the time I had felt --
you know, I really questioned Chad, "So you feel this
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 6
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 421
1
2
3
4
5
M
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
has been handled as a joke?" Because otherwise I would
have gone down the hall and probably said, "We need to
do something else."
But Chad at the time reinforced that he felt he
had handled it and it had been taken care of.
Q. Okay. So that's the whole -- that's where this
whole thing conflicts in that Chad on one hand, you
know, potentially is minimizing this to lessen the
exposure that he should have done something differently.
And then at the same time, he's saying, "Well, now I'm
thinking that it wasn't a practical joke, and he was
taking it."
So that's the dilemma.
A. Yeah.
Q. But as far as the conversation with you, did he
ever mention that maybe it wasn't a practical joke or
anything like that?
A. I can't, honestly, remember. I think he said,
you know, at the time maybe in his mind he wasn't sure,
but then because Kevin had laughed about it and turned
around right away and took it back to the car, that he
felt like -- you know what, you know, now that I
remember, what I think it was, was when he first saw
Kevin walking with it, he's, like -- because I think
maybe he told me Kevin said, "Hey, I'm going to take one
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc,
415. 578.2480
Page 7
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 422
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
pigs
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
PA!
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
of the hub caps." He went and grabbed one, whether it
was on the ground or something.
And Chad's, like, "Knock it off" or something
like that. So and then he saw him carrying it towards
his car, and at that point, Chad said -- you know, I
think what he had told me was he was sort of thinking
maybe this isn't a practical joke; maybe he's really
going to do it. He's, like, "Hey, Kevin."
And then at that point Kevin says, "I'm just
kidding. I'm only messing with you" or something like
that.
And then that's when Chad's, like, "Knock it
off and put it back with the vehicle."
Q. Do you remember if he said that it was in a
brown paper bag or anything?
A. I do think he said it was in a bag. Like,
Kevin had said -- and Kevin even kind of prompted him to
take one of these rims, I believe. Because this was
such a long time ago. But I feel like what he said is
he's told Chad that. Chad's, like, "Yeah, whatever,"
kind of just playing it off, like Kevin's just messing
with him. But then he actually put it in a bag and
started walking towards his vehicle. And Chad's, like,
Hey, Kevin, what are you doing?" or "Knock it off."
And that's when Kevin laughed and said, "Oh,
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 8
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 423
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
OVA
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
WAS
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
I'm just kidding" and put it back, put it back in the
car.
So I think that's -- now that I'm talking about
it more, that's what I think Chad told me had happened.
And at that point, he said -- he kind of felt that
Yeah, he was just messing with me" -- or "messing with
a new sergeant," is what he said.
Q. Do you remember if Chad said that Kevin texted
him a photo of it or anything?
A. No. That, I don't remember.
Q. Okay. So then after Chad told you this, what
was the next step with you? I mean, did you hear about
this again anytime after that?
A. I mean, just through the grapevine. I'm not
sure that there was going to be an IA. I think it was
kind of backed up on the original why, so that this
incident had come up and that we're going to potentially
look into it, that we're going to be looking into it.
But I hadn't heard anything else of it until it was
assigned -- it was assigned.
Q. Do you think that Chad was -- I mean, here this
things happens in February, and the testing was months
later. Do you think Chad was -- did you get the
impression that Chad was minimizing with you because he
should have told you that night?
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 9
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 424
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Orm
18
19
20
21
22
23
WIN
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
A. I didn't get that impression. I think it was
more -- you know, when he came to me, I think it was
more of Chad was saying, you know, with all the other
stuff that he had been dealing with Kevin, because he
was having -- we were having -- he was having a lot of
problems with Kevin over the weekends with the CAT
thing, with him just kind of leaving early or showing up
late, or being in the downtown office. And he had
related this to me, and I told him he needed to be on
top of that and he needed to hold these guys
accountable.
So I think for what he was saying at the time
was it was kind of -- he was starting to really question
Kevin. Based on these other things that were happening,
you know, he felt like were integrity issues in terms of
just his time and things like that.
So I don't think at the time he was minimizing
it. I think he just -- all the other things that
started to happen, he really just -- Kevin was not real
high on his list because he had kind of become a problem
officer.
Q. Did Chad tell you anything, other statements
that people had made out at this accident scene or
anything?
A. No.
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 10
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 425
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
it"
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
Q. Okay.
A. No. The only thing he talked about was Kevin.
Q. Did Chad mention the words "IA" or letters that
there might be an IA going on because of this, to you?
A. I asked him what was going on. One night I --
or one day I came to him and I said, "Hey, what" -- you
know, I knew something was going on and he was working
on something. And Chad had said, "I'm completing a memo
regarding the Bentley incident." So that me approaching
him, and he said that. He didn't know that it was going
to be an IA at that time. He was just -- he had been
asked to complete a memo regarding that incident.
Q. Okay. But, no, I'm talking about the
conversation that you and Chad had in the office, the
first conversation. Did Chad mention anything about an
IA or anything?
A. No. I mean --
Q. Just in another officer's testimony, Chad told
this other officer at the scene, "Let's get out of here
before we get pulled into this IA."
A. Oh, no, he never said about that.
Q. So do you know how this ended up with Keith?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Okay.
A. I'm not sure how Keith -- I'm not sure how he
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578. 2480
Page 11
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 426
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
Q. Because --
A. Part of me -- and I can't confirm this, and I'm
probably wrong. But for some reason, I felt like I
might have mentioned it to Captain Staley. And I might
not have. I don't know, because I might have just said,
Hey, Chad came to me with this. He said that he
handled it." And I don't -- there's no evidence that
he's been doing this on a regular basis. All right?
But I -- again, I don't want to drag Captain Staley into
it because I don't -- I can't really remember. And I'll
be honest with you. I vaguely remember my conversation
with Chad. I had talked to him a little bit about it.
When he said he was completing the memo, I'm like, oh.
And I really was racking my brain to remember our
conversation because it was that short at the time.
Q. Okay. Anything else you can think of that --
about the conversation with Chad?
A. No.
LIEUTENANT PROLL: It is 5:15. I'm ending the
interview and turning off the tape recorder.
End of recording)
OM
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415. 578.2480
Page 12
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 427
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Lieutenant Jeff Smith (February 13th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
I hereby certify that the foregoing recorded ,
proceedings in the within -entitled cause were
transcribed by me, CHRISTINE BOLDT, CLT, a disinterested i
person, and were thereafter transcribed into
typewriting.
Dated: June 16, 2015
i
Christine Boldt, CLT
1
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 13
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 428
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 429
From: 5torton. Keith
To: Irons. Monica
Subject: Waddell - First IA Draft
Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 8:18:55 AM
Attachments: Capt. Review kas.docx
image006.Dna
Thanks Monica,..... enjoy the retreat.
Captain Keith A. Storton
San Luis Obispo Police Department
1042 Walnut Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-781-7118
kstorton slocity"
00
g] ni;•:Ia
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 430
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 431
From: Staley, Chris
To:leIro , Bill
Subject: Waddell A113005
Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:36:14 PM
Attachments: Waddell A1130Q5,doc
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 432
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 433
From: Staley, Chris
To: Droll, Bill
Subject: Re: Confidential Personnel Matter
Date; Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:06:16 PM
Yes
Chris Staley
Police Captain
IRI
Police Department
1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729
E cstaley@slocity.org
T 805.781.7142
slocity.org
On Jun 18, 2014, at 5:34 PM, "Proll, Bill" <bprolllwslocity.ora> wrote:
Ok, what is the status of the narrative I sent you last. Can that be the narrative
in the final file?
image00I Jpg>
From: Staley, Chris
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:16 AM
To: Proll, Bill
Subject: Fwd: Confidential Personnel Matter
Bill I need the complete case file including all CDs to give to Katie.
Chris Staley
Police Captain
0
Police Department
1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729
E cstaleyaslocity.ora
T 805.781.7142
slncity. ;ra
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Gesell, Steve" <sgesell .sloci .org>
Date: June 18, 2014 at 10: 10:48 AM PDT
To: "Stoilon, Keith" <kstortonZj,_ l ci org>, "Staley, Chris"
cstaleX@sloci ty.ore>
Subject: Fwd: Confidential Personnel Matter
Hand deliver both files to her please.
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 434
Steve Gesell
Chief of Police
San Luis Obispo
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Gesell, Steve" <seesell(@sloci , .ore>
Date: June 18, 2014 at 10:09: 23 AM PDT
To: "Lichtig, Katie" <klichti sloci .org>
Subject: Re: Confidential Personnel Matter
Of course!
Steve Gesell
Chief of Police
San Luis Obispo
On Jun 18, 2014, at 8:56 AM, "Lichtig, Katie"
klichtig a.sloci .ore> wrote:
I would like to review the entire file before
making a decision.
Katie E. Lichtig
City Manager
City of San Luis Obispo, CA
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
805-781-7114
From: Gesell, Steve
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 7:08 PM
To: Lichtig, Katie
Cc: Dietrick, Christine; Irons, Monica
Subject: Confidential Personnel Matter
Katie, we are ready to move forward with
serving a letter of intent to Ofc. Waddell
provided you concur. I've attached the most
relevant documents for your review.
Thanks,
Steve
Steve Gesell
Chief of Police
Police Department
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 435
1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
93401-2729
E sgeselli
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 436
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 437
ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRY DISPOSITION
Name of Empla e: ,
Supervisor:
Reason for Investigation:
Witnesses/ID#'s: <
Police Report # (if any):
Section #'s/PC codes violated:
ID #:
Division: 4
Investigated by:
Employee Notified by-, y Date: 1;
DISPOSITION:
Unfounded [ ] Reviewed by:
Exonerated`''`
Inconclusive [ ] Approved by:
Sustained
Date:
Date:
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 438
ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRY DISPOSITION
Name of Ems
Supervisor:
Reason for In
Witnesses/ID#'s: C
on:
fie
Police Re ort # (if any):
Section #'s/PC codes violated:
ID #:
Division: A
Invested by:L.f'c
Employee Notified b :
Date:
DISPOSITION:
Unfounded [ ] Reviewed by:
Exonerated r I
Inconclusive [ ] Approved by:
Sustained
Date:
Date:
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 439
ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRY DISPOSITION
Name of Employee: f ' ID #:
Supervisor:
Reason for Investigation;
Witnesses/ID#'s;
Police Report # (if an
Section #'s/PC codes violated;
Investigated by:
Employee Notified by:
DISPOSITION:
Unfounded [ j
Exonerated [
Inconclusive r i
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
nate• 1_ ,`
Sustained
as
v]
Date:
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 440
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 441
From: Gesell, Steve
To: Lichtig, Katie
Cc: pietrick. Chriis Ine; frons. Monica
Subject: Confidential Personnel Matter
Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 7:08: 28 PM
Attachments: Cotain"s Recommendation Fina1201
ATr00001. htm
4P
ATf00004.htm
imaae0ol.ona
AIT00005,htm
Katie, we are ready to move forward with serving a letter of intent to Ofc. Waddell provided
you concur. I've attached the most relevant documents for your review.
Thanks,
Steve
Steve Gesell
Chief of Police
R
Police Department
1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729
E sgeseil@slocity.org
T 805.781.7337
slocity.org
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Staley, Chris" <cstalev a.slocity =>
To: "Gesell, Steve" <s2esell(2cslociZ ore>
Subject: AI
Here you go.
Chris Staley
Police Captain
City of San Luis Obispo]
Police Department
1042 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2729
E estaleynslocity.ortr<mailto:cstaley@slocity.rr>>
T 805.781.7142
slocity.ore<http:Hwww.slocity.or >
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 442
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 443
GASPARD CASTILLO WINTER HARPER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
3333 Concours Street, Building 4, Suite 4100
Ontario, California 91764
Tel: (909) 466-5600 Fax: 909-466-5610
www.GCWMaw.com
CONFIDENTIAL
September 4, 2014
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL AND FAX
Chief Stephen Gesell
San Luis Obispo Police Department
1042 Walnut Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Fax: 805-781-7088
Re: ADMINISTRATIVE INOUIRIES AI -13-004P AND 13-005P
Dear Chief Gesell:
Chris L. Gaspard
Kasey A. Castillo
Nicole F. Winter
Brandi L. Harper
Michael D. McCoy
Joseph N. Bolander
Steven D. Sanchez
Astrid G. Alfonso
As you know, this Office represents Officer Waddell and I write in advance of his Skelly hearing.
This letter is to request the removal of any reference to any alleged violation of California
Vehicle Code section 10852 (hence forth "CVC 10852") associated with AI -13-005P from your
Notice of Intent to Terminate dated July 7, 2014. California Labor Code section 432.7( a) states
that no employer may utilize "as a factor in determining any condition of employment including
hiring, promotion, termination" for "any record of arrest or detention that did not result in
conviction," as none of those actions occurred in this case, inclusion is improper.
In addition, the inclusion of reference to any alleged violation of CVC 10852 is contrary to the
holding in Pitman vs. City of Oakland (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1037. The court in Pitman clearly
interpreted California Labor Code section 432.7(a) as preventing all employers from using
records of arrest, detention or investigation as a factor in determining any condition of
employment to include discipline or termination. The court in Pitman stated that "the obvious
intent of the legislation is to prevent the adverse impact on employment opportunities of
information of arrests where culpability cannot be proved." Id. at 1044.
As there was no arrest, detention or filing for a violation of CVC 10852 against Officer Waddell
there can be no conviction against him. Therefore the use of this allegation as a factor in
discipline against Officer Waddell is violative of Labor Code 432.7(x) and California case law.
The inclusion of this allegation is clearly a violation of my client's rights under California law
and is actionable as such unless it is removed immediately.
In addition, I am requesting that all allegations related to AI -13-005P be removed from the
Notice of Intent to Discipline as the statute of limitations has run on that investigation. As you
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 444
Chief Stephen Gesell
San Luis Obsipo Police Department
Page 2
are aware, California Government Code section 3304(d)(1) states "no punitive action" "shall be
undertaken for any act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct if the investigation of the
allegation is not completed within one year of the public agency's discovery by a person
authorized to initiate an investigation of the allegation of an act, omission, or other misconduct."
San Luis Obsipo Police Department Sergeant Chad Pfarr was not only aware of the allegations
which are contained in AI -13-005 but he chose to verbally reprimand Officer Waddell for them.
Based on the running of the statute of limitations we now request that allegations related to AI -
13 -005P be removed from the Notice of Intent to Discipline and that a new Notice of Intent to
Discipline be prepared.
Chief Gesell, I hope that by presenting these statutory concerns, you will have ample time to
analyze these issues prior to Officer Waddell's Skelly meeting with you on September 11, 2014.
My client and I understand the many demands that are placed on you and your schedule each and
every day, therefore my client and I are open to a continuance of the Skelly meeting in order that
you may have ample opportunity to consider these statutory concerns which we have presented
you.
I look forward to meeting you and discussing additional items in mitigation in the future. Should
you have any questions, please contact me at 909-648-3929 or via email at
Nicole !GCWHlaw.com.
Very truly yours,
GASPARD CASTILLO WINTER HARPER, APC
Nicole F. Winter
Partner
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 445
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 446
nnur r
CAL -PACIFIC
REPORTING, INC.
Certified Transcript of Audio Recording of:
Officer George Berrios (01/17/2014)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
Case: In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Reporter; Christine Bo/dt, CL T
18 Professional Center Parkway, 3rd Floor
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: 415.578.2480
Fax: 415.952.9451
Email: support@calpacificreporting.com
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 447
CERTIFIED
TRANSCRIPT
ERVIEW OF OFFICER GEORGE BERRIOS
ucted by Lieutenant Bill Proll)
LDF Matter No. 13-3248
January 17, 2014
L'X.& 'WjUxj_bhL) UN
JUNE 15, 2015 BY:
CHRISTINE BOLDT, CLT
CAL -PACIFIC REPORTING
18 Professional Center Parkway, 3rd Floor
San Rafael, California 94903
4 15) 578-2480
SupportCCalPacificReporting.com
000-
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 448
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: officer George Berrios (01/ 17/2014)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 LIEUTENANT PROLL: This is Lieutenant Bill
2 Proll. I'm in my office at the San Luis Obispo Police
3 Department. It is January 17th, 2014. It is 3:08 in
4 the afternoon. I am sitting here with Officer George
5 Berrios.
6 Q. George, I'm going to ask you a couple questions
7 about an administrative inquiry investigation that I'm
8 looking into. Do you understand that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. Did you respond to a major injury
11 accident at Orchid and Johnson involving a Bentley on
12 February 22nd, 2013?
13 A. I think I did. I might have drove by, but I
14 don't think I was there.
15 Q. Okay. I don't think you were there.
16 A. I remember hearing about it because we talked
17 about how the Bentley's air bags -- or the headrests
18 went (makes sound) .
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. The headrest popped.
21 Q. What were you working last -- this February?
22 A. This February. Nights; nights, days.
23 Q. Okay. So this was an accident in the middle of
24 the night that the traffic team got called out to.
25 A. Right.
Page 2
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 449
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Officer George Berrios (01/17/2014)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 Q. And I don't see you there at all.
2 A. Yeah. I know we talked about it after the
3 fact, talked about how the Bentley saved -- or how the
4 lady's life or someone got saved because the Bentley's
5 convertible --
6 Q. The roll bar, type thing?
7 A. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That think kicked in. If
8 that thing didn't happen, that someone would have died
9 or something like that.
10 Q. So during this investigation of the traffic
11 team getting called out, there is an allegation that
12 Officer Waddell removed a piece of the Bentley for
13 personal gain. Okay?
14 So my question to you is: Do you -- have you
15 ever heard that, or any knowledge of that?
16 A. No.
17 Q. So if I told you that the item in question was
18 a Bentley emblem from a wheel, does that surprise you?
19 A. I'm shocked.
20 Q. Okay. So you were not at this accident scene.
21 You have no knowledge of any item being removed, whether
22 it was or not?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. So then we get to, basically, two pretty simple
25 questions. During your time working with Officer
Page 3
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 450
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Officer George Herrios (01/17/2014)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 Waddell, have you ever seen him remove and take, or take
2 any --
3 A. Never.
4 Q. Hold on a second.
5 any vehicle item during a traffic
6 investigation collision off a vehicle for a memento to
7 put on the wall, to put in his garage? Any sort of
8 collection type item?
9 A. Never.
10 Q. Do you know if Officer Waddell has a collection
11 of items that he's taken from vehicles?
12 A. No. That's funny.
13 Q. And the last question will have to do with the
14 DRMO stuff. Have you ever known or seen any
15 inappropriateness or the personal taking of military
16 surplus items by Officer Waddell --
17 A. No.
18 Q. home or in his car? Okay.
19 A. I think we pride ourselves on not -- uh,
20 keeping that stuff accountable because we don't want to
21 lose the program.
22 Q. Okay. So just in summary, you did not respond
23 to the Bentley accident.
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. You heard about it because of talking, briefing
Page 4
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 451
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8'
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
h
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 f'
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
or whatever.
Audio of: Officer George Berrios (01/17/2014)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
A. Yes.
Q. You had no knowledge of Officer Waddell
attempting to take or taking any items from the Bentley.
A. Correct.
Q. You have no knowledge of Officer Waddell taking
any items from cars or anything during the course of
work for personal gain, whether it's for a collection or
any sort of personal gain?
A. Correct.
Q. Any car parts? And that would hold true for
the DRMO military surplus stuff, that you've never seen
any personal taking of any of those military items?
A. Correct.
Q. So had -- because you didn't know about all
this other stuff, any knowledge that any of this, what
we're discussing, might have been as a root of a
practical joke?
A. By who?
Q. Well, it's kind of my question. I mean, had
you -- since you hadn't heard about any of this stuff --
A. Right.
Q. -- had you heard that, you know, there was any
sort of practical joke involving the Bentley or anything
like that?
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 5
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 452
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Officer George eerrios (01/17/2014)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
A. No.
Q. Okay. Is there any other thing you could add
based on my line of questioning that you would like to
tell me about?
A. No, but this is, like, left field. It's,
like --
LIEUTENANT PROLL: Okay. That would conclude
the interview. It is 3:14 p.m. And I am turning off
the tape recorder.
End of recording)
000-
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 6
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 453
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Officer George Berrios (01/17/2014)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
I hereby certify that the foregoing recorded
proceedings in the within -entitled cause were
transcribed by me, CHRISTINE BOLDT, CLT, a disinterested
person, and were thereafter transcribed into
typewriting.
Dated: June 15, 2015
Christine Boldt, CLT
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 7
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 454
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 455
1) ORIGINAL
CAL -PACIFIC
REPORTING, INC.
Certified Transcript of Audio Recording of:
Sergeant Janice Goodwin (January
13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
Case: In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Reporter; Christine Bo/dt, CL T
18 Professional Center Parkway, 3rd Floor
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: 415.578.2480
Fax: 415.952.9451
Email: support@calpaciflcreporting.com
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 456
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT JANICE GOODWIN
Conducted by Lieutenant Bill Proll)
LDF Matter No. 13-3248
January 13
TRANSCRIBED ON
JUNE 15, 2015 BY:
CHRISTINE BOLDT, CLT
CAL -PACIFIC REPORTING
18 Professional Center Parkway, 3rd Floor
San Rafael, California 94903
415) 578-2480
SupportCCalPacificReporting.com
000-
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 457
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Janice Goodwin (January 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
2 LIEUTENANT PROLL: This is Lieutenant Bill
3 Proll. It is January 13th at 5:19 a.m. in the morning.
4 I'm in my office at the San Luis Obispo Police
5 Department with Sergeant Janice Goodwin.
6 Q. Good morning, Janice.
7 A. Good morning.
s Q. So I'm asking you a series of questions
9 regarding what I briefly told you about was a traffic
10 collision involving a Bentley at Orchid and Johnson on
11 February 22nd.
12 Did you respond to that injury accident?
13 A. I did.
14 Q. And can you tell me the details of that?
15 A. From what I remember, I remember getting a call
16 at home from Chad and initially saying that -- he gave
17 me the brief circumstances around the call and said he
18 didn't think that I needed to come out. I got some of
19 the details. I hung up, thought better of it. And I
20 don't remember what time of the night it was, but I know
21 it was the middle of the night he woke me up. And I
22 called him back and I said, "I don't feel good about not
23 being there on what you're telling me. Could be a
24 fatal. So I need to come in and kind of help direct my
25 team."
Page 2
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 458
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Janice Goodwin (January 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 And so he gave me the location. I don't
2 remember -- I don't remember if I had to go 1016 first
3 for anything, but I did. I asked Chad who was there and
i
4who was coming.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. And he said Waddell was already at work, I
7 believe. I know he was already here. And he got the
8 equipment and was headed out to the scene. And Robert
9 was on the way and Colleen was on the way.
10 So I went -- I think I made -- I know I made
11 some phone calls back and forth with Kevin to find out
12 what he needed, and talked with Robert to make sure that
13 he was on the way. They told me Colleen was coming. So
14 I just headed out to the scene. I said I can't remember
15 if I stopped 1016 for a 1019 or anywhere for stuff. I
16 don't remember.
17 Q. Okay. You kind of got into Question No. 2, is:
18 Do you remember what SLO PD personnel were at the scene
19 during the investigation? So you said Kevin.
20 A. Kevin, Robert, Colleen and myself. I'm pretty
21 sure it was just the four of us because I know George
22 wasn't there. And we used a patrol officer. I don't
231 remember who.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. The first thing that comes to mind is Jennifer,
Page 3
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 459
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Janice Goodwin (January 13th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 but I absolutely would not bet a paycheck on it. But we
2 used an officer to help with traffic control just to be
3 a -- to be the bright, shiny lights down at the -- on
4 the Orchid county end of things to slow people from
5 coming up on us.
6 Q. Okay. Do you remember --
7 A. Chad came out once or twice just to touch base
8 to see if we needed anything, to see how we were doing.
9 I think he brought us coffee.
10 Q. Do you remember ever seeing Brian Amoroso
11 there?
12 A. Whew.
13 Q. It's no big deal.
14 A. I -- if he was there, it wasn't a significant
15 amount of time. I really, truly don't remember.
16 Q. Okay. What was your role at the scene?
17 A. Just to supervise and sort of supervise but to
18 have Colleen and the rest of them help teach me how to
19 work through this.
20 Q. So supervise and learn the total station?
21 A. Supervise and learn and help work the scene
22 just like we do here at any other big scene, as much as
23 a supervisor supervises. And then we just jump in and
24 help.
25 Q. Okay. When you left that morning when the
Page 4
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc -
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 460
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Janice Goodwin (January 13th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 investigation was done or whatever, do you remember who
2 was still at the scene?
3 A. We were wrapping everything up. It didn't --
4 it really didn't take as long as we had expected. I
5 think we learned that the driver was already being
6 booked out of jail by the time we were ready to clear
7 it.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. And I left first because I said, "You guys, do
10 you have everything you need? What more is going to go
11 on? Is there any need for me to sit here with you?"
12 And they said, "No, I think we're going to be
13 about 30 more minutes. We'll put the gear back, and
14 it's done."
15 Q. Do you remember when you left if the car was --
16 if the Bentley was still there, or had it been towed?
17 A. I couldn't say for sure. I don't remember.
18 Q. Okay. And what was Officer Waddell doing
19 during this investigation?
20 A. He was operating the total station. He has the
21 most knowledge of it. He was actually inputting the
22 data into the computer portion of the total station.
23 Q. Did you hear or see Officer Waddell ask the tow
24 truck driver for a screwdriver?
25 A. No.
Page 5
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 461
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Janice Goodwin (January 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
Q. Did you see Officer Waddell get a screwdriver
from tow truck driver?
A. No.
Q. Did you see Officer Waddell remove anything
from the Bentley?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear Officer Waddell say anything about
having a collection of car parts that he has taken from
accident scenes?
A. No.
Q. Did you see Officer Waddell or Sergeant Pfarr
have any discussions while at the scene, and if so, do
you know what they were about?
A. I may have seen them talking to each other, but
I circumstance don't know about what. I don't know the
substance of any those conversations.
Q. Did you see Officer Waddell place anything into
a brown paper bag?
A. I don't remember. No.
Q. You kind of said two things there. You said,
I don't remember," and then you said, "No." So is
it --
A. I have no memory of anything like that
happening.
Q. Okay.
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 6
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 462
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Janice Goodwin (January 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1
1 A. So, no.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. I don't remember us collecting -- thinking
4 along evidence collection, and I don't remember us
5 collecting anything. We took photos. We may have taken
6 some I think the photos were probably already done
7
8!
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
but we may have taken a couple of pictures.
Q. Okay.
A. I don't remember us doing anything.
Q. So if you didn't see him place anything into a
large paper bag, did you see him walk towards his car
with a brown paper bag?
A. No.
Q. Do you know anything about a phone call between
Officer Waddell and Sergeant Pfarr after Sergeant Pfarr
left the scene?
A. No.
Q. Have you known or have you ever seen Officer
Waddell take any vehicle parts during any accident
investigations other than from an evidentiary
standpoint?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if he has a collection of vehicle
parts that he's taken from accident investigation
scenes?
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 7
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 463
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Janice Goodwin (January 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 A. Never heard of such a thing, or from anyone
1
2 else Nothing like that.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. That's primarily the questions. I'm going to
tell you a little bit about what this is about to see if
it -- if you know, maybe that does ring a -- or, you
know, ring a bell with you or anything.
The allegation is that while at the scene with
other officers, Kevin had the idea of asking the tow
truck driver for a screwdriver so he could remove the
Bentley emblem from one of the hub caps to keep. And
that is the focus of this investigation. And in talking
to the other traffic people and the other people there,
kind of everybody knew about it. And Chad knew about
it. Chad basically was there one time, heard of it or
saw him do it or something, and said something like "Are
you fucking kidding me?" And then Chad left, then
called Kevin and said, "That is not to leave that
scene." Kevin then takes and puts the emblem back in --
just loose inside the Bentley. And then calls him in
here and has a discussion with him. The notion of a
possible practical joke came up where this was a
practical joke maybe because Chad was a new sergeant and
everything. Talking to the other officers that were
there that observed this or knew that Kevin had done
this, said that never entered into any realm of thought
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 8
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 464
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Janice Goodwin (January 13th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 or whatever, that Kevin was taking this for kind of a
2 trophy either for home or for the traffic office wall or
3 something like that. So that's -- I'm just kind of
4 filling you in on what -- interesting is that Robert and
5 Colleen knew -- one might have not said, "Oh, yeah, I
6 heard him ask the tow truck driver," but they both knew
7 what had occurred, and that they thought it was a done
8 deal because he had been talked to by Chad and that kind
9 of stuff.
10 So does that shed any light on anything? Okay.
11 A. I truly have zero --
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. No memory of -- I don't even remember the tow
14 truck being there.
15 Q. Okay. Maybe the idea was "Let's do it when
16 you're not looking" or after you left or something, you
17 know, but to kind of keep --
18 A. I did leave first.
19 Q. Yeah. That's why I kind of wondered if --
20 because obviously, it was while the tow truck -- if you
21 had left after the car got towed and everything, then
22 you would have definitely been there when this was going
23 on, but not remembering whether the truck was -- but if
24 your guys were leaving the scene, most of the time the
25 car is already gone, right?
Page 9
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 465
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
i
Audio of: Sergeant Janice Goodwin (January 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 A. When the rest of them leave the scene.
2 Q. Yeah, okay.
3 A. But they still have some work to do.
4 Q. Okay. So any other thoughts on this? Okay.
5 A. I can't shed any light on that. I'm sorry.
6 Comment I have is it's just a stupid thing to do.
7 Q. Right. Yeah.
8 A. I wouldn't have --
9 Q. Does it -- would it surprise you?
10 A. I can't say anything surprises me anymore in
11 the realm of human existence.
12 Q. But you've never seen anything like that --
13 A. No.
14 Q. with anything? Okay.
15 A. No, no. There aren't -- there weren't -- at
16 the time he was working with them, there weren't
17 trophies in the office. There were no -- the only
18 vehicle parts that ended up over in the traffic office
19 were --
20 Q. Evidentiary.
21 A. pieces of a car that we were using to
22 match --
23 Q Right.
24 A. to another vehicle. And we had a couple of
25°" lenses for a while. And then as soon as it was -- as
Page 10
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 466
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Janice Goodwin (January 13th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 soon as the mystery was solved, "Oh, okay. We know what
2 that is. We can get rid of that now." And it goes into
3!' evidence and it's gone.
4 Q. Okay. Well, unless you have anything else --
5 A. We're not trophy keepers.
6 Q. I'm going to terminate this at 5:33 and turn
7 off the tape recorder.
8 A. Okay.
9 End of recording)
10 000-
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 467
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Janice Goodwin (January 13th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
2
3 I hereby certify that the foregoing recorded
4 proceedings in the within -entitled cause were
5 transcribed by me, CHRISTINE BOLDT, CLT, a disinterested
I.
6 person, and were thereafter transcribed into
7 typewriting.
8
9
10 Dated: June 15, 2015
11
12
13
14
15 ='4
16Christine oldt, CLT
17
18
19
20
i
21
22
23
24
25
Page 12
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 468
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 469
ORIGINAL
wrurrr
CAL -PACIFIC
REPORTING, INC.
Certified Transcript of Audio Recording of:
Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
Case: In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Reporter; Christine Bo/dt, CL T
18 Professional Center Parkway, 3rd Floor
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: 415.578.2480
Fax: 415.952.9451
Email: support@calpacificreporting.com
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 470
INTERVIEW OF SERGEANT BRIAN AMOROSO
Conducted by Lieutenant Bill Proll
LDF Matter No. 13-3248
January 7
TRANSCRIBED ON
JUNE 15, 2015
CHRISTINE BOLDT, CLT
CAL -PACIFIC REPORTING
18 Professional Center Parkway, 3rd Flcor
San Rafael, California 94903
415) 578-2480
Support@CalPacificReporting.com
000-
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 471
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 LIEUTENANT PROLL: This is Lieutenant Bill
2 Proll. It is January 7th at 12:04 p.m. I'm in my
3 office at the police department with Sergeant Brian
4 Amoroso. I've asked Brian to be interviewed regarding
5 an incident that is now an Internal Affairs
6 investigation.
7 So I'm going to ask you a series of questions,
8 Brian.
9 Q. Did you respond to a major injury accident at
10 Orchid and Johnson involving a Bentley on February 22nd,
11 1 2013?
12 A. Yes, I did. Yes.
13 Q. And what was that? Were you working anyway?
14 A. I was. I was working -- I was working downtown
15 on the bicycle. And if I remember correctly, the
16 accident came out shortly before 3:00 o'clock in the
17 morning. So we were, I think, just arriving at the
18 station. And it sounded like a major -- it sounded
19 really bad, like it potentially could be a fatal. And
20 so Office Waddell and I decided to drive out there to
21 see if the people on scene, the officers on scene needed
22 help.
23 Q. Did you drive out together?
24 A. No. We drove separately. I drove the FST
25
i
truck, and I believe Office Waddell drove a white Crown
Page 2
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 472
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
1 Vic.
Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
2 Q. And why did you guys go separately?
3 A. Because of his involvement with the total
4 station for documenting the traffic collisions, we had
5 kind of -- because it was almost 3:00 o'clock, it wasn't
6 a normal time that we would be off. And --
7 Q. He just might be kept there longer?
8 A. Right. We kind of -- I think we believed that
9 he was going to be helping out with the actual accident.
10 The main reason for me going is because Sergeant Pfarr
11 was -- I don't remember when he promoted, but it was
12 fairly soon prior to this incident. So I was going out
13 to talk with him to make sure that he was doing all the
14 right things that he would need to do and the proper
15 notifications if it was a fatality, that kind of stuff.
16 Q. Do you remember what SLO PD personnel were
17 there when you arrived?
18 A. You know, the only one that I remember being
19 there was Officer Hymand. I know there was other cops
20 there, but I don't remember who was there.
21 Q. And you probably said this earlier, but what
22 was your role at the scene?
23 A. Just as a supervisor going there. Again, it
24 sounded like it might have been a fatality, so I wanted
25 to go to find out if in fact it was so that I could make
Page 3
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 473
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 sure that Sergeant Pfarr was going to do the proper
2 notifications and also make an assessment if potentially
3 the traffic sergeant knew to be called for a CAT call
4 out for the critical accident because they would
5 document the collision in a different way. If Chad
6 wasn't so new, I probably wouldn't have gone, but
7 because he was so new, I wanted to make sure that he had
8 support if he needed it.
9 Q. And when did you leave the scene, and if you
10 remember what SLO PD personnel were still there?
11 A. I left the scene after Sergeant Pfarr arrived.
12 I don't recall who else was there. I don't remember. I
13 remember there were several officers present, but --
14 Q. So when you went to the scene, had Sergeant
15 Pfarr got there yet?
16 A. No, not yet.
17 Q. Okay. So you were the first supervisor on
18 scene?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And when was the decision to call out the
21 traffic team? Like, did you do that, or did you wait to
22 meet with Sergeant Pfarr?
23 A. No. I think we waited -- and, you know, as I'm
24 thinking about this, I think I arrived before Sergeant
25 Pfarr. I can't say with 100 percent certainty. I know
Page 4
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 474
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
i
1 when I arrived there, they had already extricated --
2 there was two people in the car. Fire had already
3 pulled out the female, I believe. Then they pulled out
4 the male. And so when I got there, they were just
5 pulling the male out, and that was I think the one that
6 they were not sure if he was going to live or die at the
7 time. It ended up they actually weren't that bad. They
s were just so intoxicated they were unresponsive.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. But so when I got there, that was occurring. I
11 think I got there before Chad, but I could be wrong. If
12 you look at the radio logs, I don't know.
13 Q. Okay. So at some point when you were there,
14 you talked to Sergeant Pfarr about what else you should
15 do at the scene?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. And what was the decision there?
is A. Yeah, I think we looked at it and said this
19 could be a fatality. This -- you know, when you do -- I
20 believe notify the traffic sergeant, and this would be a
21 typical accident where the CAT team would probably come
22 out and shoot the accident with the total station so
23 that it was a very factual traffic collision report
24 versus just a normal patrol officer taking it, due to
25 the extent of the injuries and the damages.
Page 5
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 475
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 Q. And did you arrive at the same time as Officer
2 Waddell or later or before? Or do you remember?
3 A. I'm pretty sure we arrived about the same time.
4 And again, as I'm thinking about it, there's a small
5 chance we may have driven together and he may have gone
6 on back to the PD in someone else's car to get the total
7 station. This was so long ago, I don't quite recall.
8 But I know I left separately from him. He stayed longer
9 than I did.
10 Q. Do you know what his role at the scene was?
11 A. He was going just as a member of the callout
12 team since he was already on duty, was really I think to
13 assess the accident. So if it was a CAT callout, he can
14 already start thinking of what it is that need to happen
15 and start making those arrangements and start getting
16 the equipment ready, that kind of stuff.
17 Q. So when you left the TC scene, had any other
18 traffic callout people arrived?
19 A. Not that I can recall. I don't think so.
20 Q. So when you left the scene, the car was still
211 there?
22 1 A. Yes.
23 Q. So prior to you leaving, you and Sergeant Pfarr
24 discussed whatever and decided that it was an accident
25 that would be worthy of a callout of the traffic team?
Page 6
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 476
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 A. I think we at least decided it would be a
2 notification to the traffic sergeant.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. And I would assume that then that process
5 happened. But I don't have an independent recollection
6 of one way or the other who we contacted or whether we
7 made the determination to call the critical team out or
8 whether we got ahold of the traffic sergeant. I don't
9 recall.
10 Q. Okay. So when you left, though, had the
11 traffic team started the investigation of this collision
12 yet?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. Not that I remember. I mean, the officers on
16 scene had done the preliminary, but not the callout
17 team.
18 Q. Did you hear or see Officer Waddell ask the tow
19 truck driver for a screwdriver?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did you see Officer Waddell get a screwdriver
22 from the tow truck driver?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you hear Officer Waddell say anything about
25 having a collection of car parts that he has taken from
Page 7
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 477
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 accident scenes?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did you see Officer Waddell and Sergeant Pfarr
4 have any discussions while at the scene?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did you see Officer Waddell remove anything
7 from the vehicle?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did you see Officer Waddell place anything into
10 a brown paper bag?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Did you see Officer Waddell walk towards his
13 car with a brown paper evidence bag?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Do you know of a phone call between Officer
16 Waddell and Sergeant Pfarr after Sergeant Pfarr left the
17 TC scene?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Have you known or ever -- have you ever seen
20 Officer Waddell take any vehicle parts during accident
21 investigations?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Do you know if Officer Waddell has a collection
24 of vehicle parts that he has taken from accident
25 investigation scenes?
Page 8
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc,
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 478
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
A. No. I have never -- I've been to his house.
I've never seen it. He's never mentioned it to me.
Q. Do you know if Officer Waddell's ever been
involved in any inappropriateness with the military
surplus stuff?
A. No. As a matter of fact, I've -- as his direct
supervisor, I've watched his actions with the military
stuff, and to my knowledge, he's been exemplary in his
cataloging of it, in his tracking of it.
You know, my prime example is the e-mail he
sent out when all the shoes came here, and he was -- I
mean, I talked to him. He was pissed, to use the term
lightly, that people were over there freely taking stuff
before it could even be cataloged and organized and for
them to realize it. So, no.
Q. So summarizing your thing, you go to this
traffic scene, hang out for a little while, talk to
Sergeant Pfarr, think everything's under control, that
the traffic investigation team's coming out, one of the
members. Officer Waddell's already there.
So you leave and go home for the night?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was back in February?
A. Yeah, whenever the incident occurred.
Q. When is the next time you had any knowledge of
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 9
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 479
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 this traffic accident scene being discussed?
2 A. Sergeant Pfarr brought it up to me when
3 Sergeant Villani -- during that promotional process
4 right when it was the time that the chief was deciding
5 who he was going to promote, Chad had just casually
6 mentioned, "Oh, yeah, and then there was that whole
7 thing with the two truck drive."
s And I looked at him and said, "What are you
9 talking about?"
10 Q. So let me back up a little bit.
11 So this wasn't discussed during the special
12 assignment selection?
13 A. What special assignment selection?
14 Q. Well, that time we had a whole bunch of special
15 assignment selections that --
16 A. Yes, it was. This was before that. Sergeant
17 Villani was promoted. What you're referring to, from my
18 recollection, is when Officer Waddell and Officer
19 Inglehart were selected for the daytime metro positions.
20 That was prior to -- that was after sergeant Villani
21 promoted.
22 My first time anyone talked to me about this
23 was when Sergeant Pfarr, sitting in the office, brought
24 it up when we were -- between each other, we were
25 talking about who we thought would be a good sergeant
Page 10
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 480
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 between the candidates. I think at the time the
2 candidates were Waddell, Villani, and -- what was it? --
3 Cutworth or Shahoov? I forget who, what the -- or, no,
4 maybe -- no, because Villani was this most recent test.
5 Maybe it was right -- you know what, I may be -- it
6 was -- it was definitely before the stat when we talked
7 about all the speciality positions, but it was not much
s before that. And it had something to do with us
9 discussing who would make a good sergeant, about the
10 time that Villani promoted, is my recollection. If I
11 had to guess from now, I would think it would have been
12 less than six months ago, or right about that time is
13 when he first said it to me, maybe even a little less.
14 Q. Is this accurate? It had something to do with
15 Sergeant Pfarr and a discussion who would make a good
16 sergeant?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So then what did Sergeant Pfarr tell you?
19 A. Well, he said there was that whole incident
20 with the tow truck driver. And I said, "What are you
21 talking about?"
22 And he says, "You know, where -- when he took
23 that hub caps off the Bentley."
24 So as soon as he said that, I knew what
25 accident he was talking about because this was the only
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
0
Page 11
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 481
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 Bentley I've ever seen in a car accident, and I assumed
2 it was the same incident.
3 Q. And that was plural, "hub caps"?
4 A. Yeah, I think that's what he said. He could
5 have said "hub cap." I don't know.
6 Q. Okay.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. But he -- so I looked at Chad, and I said,
Well, what the hell are you talking about? I've never
heard of this."
And he said, "Oh, I never told you this at the
time?"
And I said, "No. No one has ever told me
anything. And since I'm his direct supervisor, I'm,
frankly, a little surprised that if there was an
incident nobody discussed it with me."
And so he said, "Oh," he said, "I guess I must
have forgot." But he basically said that Kevin had
popped -- again, I don't know if it was one hub cap or
four off of that Bentley and had put them -- I don't
know if he said he put them in his car or put them in a
bag or something. And then -- and he had gotten a
screwdriver from the tow truck driver to do this.
And then Chad somehow found out at the scene
and confronted him about it. And Chad told me he
basically verbally reprimanded him in the field. Then
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 12
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 482
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 he came back to the station. He called the men to the
2 station because Chad was still feeling uneasy about what
3 had occurred, and he went through it again with him.
4 And then, I mean, basically for lack of a better term,
5 told me, you know, he basically tore him a new one, to
6 use a quote, you know, verbally in the office about
7 "What are you thinking? What are you doing out there?
8 That's inappropriate activity. You can't do that." You
9 know, et cetera. And then he says he just left it at
10 that.
111 But from what I recall, Chad had said he told
12 whoever his lieutenant was, and I don't remember if it
13 was -- I don't believe it was you. I think he had said
14 he' d either told Smith or Bledsoe. I don't remember.
15 But he had told somebody about it, but nothing ever
16 happened with it.
17 Q. Do you know during your conversation with Chad,
18 what the sequence of steps were that Chad found out
19 about this at the scene and then how he notified Kevin
20 to put it back or don't take them?
21 A. You know, he -- I don't know the sequence of
22 events. He didn't go into detail about how he found
23 out. I do remember him saying at one point afterwards
24 that Kevin grabbed them and put them back in the car,
25 like inside the car or something like that.
Page 13
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc_
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 483
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 Q. I know there's supposition and stuff, but in
2 your mind from talking to Chad, what did Kevin take off
3 of that car?
4 A. The hub cap, I believe, the center -- there's
5 a -- there was a -- the way Chad explained it -- and I
6 don't remember the -- I remember there being nice wheels
7 on this Bentley.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. But apparently, like, where the lug nuts are,
10 there was a plastic cap that covers the lug nuts, and it
11 had the "B," like the Bentley emblem. And it was my
12 understanding that's what he had popped off, was just
13 the plastic, like, cap for the lug nuts, I guess.
14 Q. On one wheel?
15 A. The center cap. Yeah. And I don't know if
16 he's said one wheel or four wheels. I'm just guessing.
17 I don't recall.
18 Q. Were there any other items from the car
19 discussed, like any type of emblem from the hood or the
20 side of the car, anything like that?
21 A. No. I only -- at least from Chad and I, the
22 only thing I recall was the center cap.
23 Q. So Chad tells you this when you guys were
24 discussing sergeant candidates?
25 A. Right.
Page 14
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 484
In Rea Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 Q. And tells you that it was handled. He told his
2 lieutenant. And since then, what has happened, with
3 your knowledge? What knowledge do you have of anything
4 that's happened since your discussion with Chad?
5 A. That it went to IA.
6 Q. Okay. Any other discussions with anybody?
7 A. Well, you know, I told Chad, I said, you know,
8 I remembered having -- and again, by the time he was
9 telling me this, it was, like, a long time from the
10 accident. But I told him, the more I started thinking
11 about it, you know, "Chad, I remember having a
12 conversation with Kevin on scene while we were looking
13 at you." And I don't remember if it was when Chad
14 arrived because, again, I don't -- I can't recall
15 whether he pulled up when we were there. I think that's
16 what I believe.
17 Q. So you were having this conversation at the
18 traffic accident scene?
19 A. Yes, at the traffic accident scene. And I
20 remember joking with Kevin, and we were kind of laughing
21 about it because Chad was so new, I had said, "Oh,
22 wouldn't it be funny to fuck with Chad," to use again a
23 slang term. But to screw with him, kind of haze him and
24 do something that would be so ridiculous that he would,
25 as a supervisor, sort of be, like, "Oh, my God, what are
Page 15
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 485
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 you doing? Why would you do that?"
2 Kevin and I both kind of laughed about it, and
3 then we just went about whatever we were doing. There
4 was no discussion of what we would do or that he would
5 in fact do something or I would do something. It was
6 just we laughed about it as it would be a funny
7 practical joke or whatever. And then that was it; that
8 was the end of that discussion.
9 Q. So at no time did the item -- did the issue of
10 taking items off of this Bentley come up as a --
11 specifically as a result to play a practical joke on
12 Chad?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Was anything specific discussed to play the
15 practical joke on Chad?
16 A. No.
17 Q. If Kevin took items off of this car, do you
18 think it was as a result of him playing a practical joke
19 on Chad?
20 A. I would think based on the conversation that we
21 had, that would -- that type of activity would be
22 exactly what -- you know, something like that would be
23 what we would have been referring to as a funny joke
24 that would make a new sergeant, you know, basically flip
25 out, you know, saying, "What are you doing?" You know,
Page 16
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 486
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 but I can't -- I can't say. I don't know 100 percent.
2 And judging by your questions about whether he has a
3 collection of parts from other traffic accidents, then
4 if that part is true, then I would doubt that I would be
5 anything to do with a practical joke. I mean, that --
6 so like I said, that's the first I've ever heard that.
7 But I don't know.
8 Q. So -- but your gut feeling when Chad, months
9 later, is discussing this with you in your office about
10 who should get promoted or who shouldn't --
11 A. Right.
12 Q. -- and Chad tells you about the Bentley
13 incident, do you instantly think that this was a
14 practical joke that never came to fruition that -- you
15 know, because let's say this had been a practical joke
16 that had gone through. Everybody in the department
17 would know about it.
18 A. Right.
19 Q. And since it never got to that, in you mind
20 now, do you think that's what Kevin was doing?
21 A. The first thing that popped in my mind when
22 Chad told me this was, no way. Why would he pop the hub
23 cap off this car? It makes no sense to me. So I could
24 come up with no other explanation in my mind as to why
25 Kevin would do this.
Page 17
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 487
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 And again, I've been to his house. I've been
2 in his garage. I've never seen anything that appears to
3 be a collection of vehicle parts. And so nothing in my
4 mind would make any sense other than, "God, I wonder if
5 it was just that."
6 Q. So let me ask you just straight out. Why do
7 you think Kevin removed the emblem from the wheel?
8 A. In my opinion was maybe as a joke. That's the
9 only explanation I could think of. I mean, there's two
10 explanations. Either he was doing it as a joke or he
11 was doing it because he wanted the emblem. I don't know
12 because I'm not him. My only rational explanation would
13 be because it was a joke based on the fact of what we
14 talked about and laughed about outside of Chad's
15 presence at the scene, being a new sergeant. That's my
16 feeling. That's my thought. I could be wrong. I don't
17 know.
18 Q. You guys are close, and Chad has this
19 uncomfortable discussion with him, and Kevin ends up
20 putting items back in the car.
21 A. Mm-hmm.
22 Q. Don't you think that had this been a practical
23 joke that had gone awry, the next time you work with
24 him, the next time he sees you, you text him, you know,
25 something like, "Oh, that didn't work out too well"?
Page 18
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 488
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 Was there anything like that?
2 A. No. And that's -- I actually specifically
3 asked Chad once I started -- I think it was after the
4 fact. But as I started thinking and recalling the event
5 more, and I asked Chad, I said, "Well, did he talk to
6 you or say anything about the conversation that he and I
7 had about that?" And he said no.
8 And that's what I thought was odd, is if it was
9 truly a joke, that would have -- if it was me, that
10 would have been the first thing that I would have
11 thought of to say, would say, "Well, look. Go talk to
12 Sergeant Amoroso. We were just -- we talked about
13 screwing around with you."
14 So that -- I did ask Chad, did he ever say
15 that; didn't that come up. And he said no. He was just
16 very apologetic and was just, "Hey, you know, you're
17 right." And that was it.
18 So I don't know whether he was covering because
19 he didn't want to get me in trouble with Chad or
20 something, that we were trying to, you know, screw with
21 him or something, or whether that wasn't why he was
22 popping them. I don't know.
23 Q. So Kevin never mentioned to Chad about it being
24 a possible practical joke?
25 A. That's what Chad told me.
Page 19
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 489
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
11
Q. And this discussion about doing a practical
2 joke on Chad, you were the instigator of that, or Kevin
3 was?
4 A. Yes, I was.
5 Q. Okay. Good job.
6 A. I'm too much like you.
7 Q. Okay. Since the night at the Bentley, have you
8 discussed this with Kevin?
9 A. No. This incident, no. There is one -thing to
10 add, though, and that is about a week and a half ago, he
11 had come over to my house to borrow some blue thread
12 locker, you know, like you put on screws. He needed
13 some for this thing he's building in his house, the
14 remote -control helicopter.
15 And when he came over, we were talking in the
16 driveway, and he was saying, "Oh, you know, I -- God, I
17 still haven't heard anything. I can't believe that no
18 one's contacted me."
19 And I said, "Oh, well, you know, I think Bill's
20 still working on his."
21 So and then he kind of looked at me, and I
22 went, "Oh, shit. I think I probably said something I
23 shouldn't have."
24 So he -- then of course, he asked. He said,
25 "What are you talking about?"
Page 20
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 490
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 And I said, "Well," I said, "there's another IA
2 that Bill's working on about this, some tow truck
3 accident thing. That's all I know. I haven't been
4 interviewed. But there's something else going on. I
5 think that's why you haven't heard on the first IA yet,
6 but I don't know."
7 After that, you know, surely, I mean, we
8 talked, chitchat a little bit more; nothing about work.
9 But then he left.
10 And then I thought, wow, that was really
11 fricking stupid of me. I shouldn't have said that
12 because I realize that he obviously didn't know at that
13 point that this other one was going on. But I said it,
14 you know.
15 So that's the only discussion that we have, is
16 I think I, you know inadvertently threw the discussion
17 of trying to explain why the process takes a long time.
18 Let this one slip, so. But that's -- I have never had
19 any discussion with him about that accident scene prior
20 to that.
21 Q. So even after bringing this up, that you
22 basically tell him that I'm doing an IA on the tow truck
23!! driver issue with Kevin, you had no discussion after
241 that?
251 A. No. He said, "Well, what's it about?"
Page 21
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 491
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 And I said, "Well," I said, "I don't have
2 100 percent of the details, but," I said, "it's
3 something to do with this tow truck driver." And then I
4 said, you know -- and I even told him, I said, "I don't
5 remember much of anything from that accident other than,
6 you know, we had talked about fucking with Chad, and
7 that was it, and then I left." And I said, "I wasn't
8 there for the accident, for the remainder of it." I
9 said, "I don't know, man." And that was it.
10 Q. So at that point, though, wouldn't -- there was
11 another opportunity for him to say, you know, "Man, we
12 shouldn't have -- we shouldn't have just decided to
13 screw with Chad at the scene" or something.
14 A. Well, and what I told him was I said, "Look" --
15 you know, he knows from his last IA -- from the other
16 one; not the last one, the other one that's still going.
17 I have never talked to him about anything with detail.
18 We've talked fundamentally about IAs and just tell the
19 truth and, you know, all that kind of stuff. But he
20 knows that I do not want to talk about details with any
21 of it because I don't want to get involved or be
22 involved if I'm not already, you know.
23 And so with this, I mean, no, it didn't go to a
24 full-blown discussion. It was just -- because once had
25 said it and I saw the look on his face, it clearly made
Page 22
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 492
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
me realize he didn't know this was going on. I felt
obligated at that point to at least give him two cents'
worth. I'm sure it was the wrong thing to do, and I
wish that he did not come over for that thread lock
because this incident would not have happened. But it
did, and I'm not going to hide the fact that it did, you
know.
Q. Since the February 22nd incident, has Kevin
ever claimed to you that the taking of an item off the
car was a practical joke?
A. No. We've never talked about the taking of
that item one way or the other. The only comment I can
recall that he had was something to the effect of "I
already went through all this with Chad" or "Chad
already" -- I'm trying to think of the word that he
used. But basically Chad already, you know -- I don't
want to say dressed him down, but -- and I don't want to
say yelled because I don't think that's what he said.
But he already discussed the incident with Chad, and he
was -- just the thought was this was a long time ago,
you know.
Q. Okay. So you' ve never discussed it being a
practical joke, talking to Kevin a week and a half ago.
Have you had any other conversations with anybody
regarding this?
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Page 23
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 493
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell
IA 13-004
Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 A. No. Well, no, I mean, other than the
2 conversation with Chad, but we already covered that.
3 Well, and I take that back.
4 Lieutenant Bledsoe at one point came into my
5 office after Chad had told me initially about the
6 incident. And I think it was -- I want to say it was
7 just prior to that staff meeting or somewhere around the
8 time -- you know when I think it was? I think it was
9 around the time -- because Kevin had initially applied
10 for the investigations bureau, and then he pulled his
11 application. And I believe this discussion with
12 Lieutenant Bledsoe occurred while his application was
13 still in but the orals hadn't happened yet.
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. And John had come in just to get my feeling and
16 two cents on some of the candidates, and he had brought
17 up the fact that, oh, well, there's this whole tow truck
18 vehicle wheel thing going on with Kevin, and that made
19 him uneasy to have him in investigations because he felt
20 that it was a, you know, potential theft issue or
21 integrity issue that was just -- you know, it had
22 happened, and so that gave him kind of a negative
23 overall feel of Kevin.
24 Q. Okay.
2S A. So he talked about it, but we didn't -- again,
Page 24
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 494
In Re: Matter of Kevin Waddell Audio of: Sergeant Brian Amoroso (January 7th)
IA 13-004 Transcribed: June 15, 2015
1 didn't go into a whole a lot of discussion. We had just
2 kind of a brief talk. And I had told Lieutenant Bledsoe
A.
3 at the time, "Yeah, that whole thing was news to me.
Kevin didn't test when John promoted. That's
4 And as a matter of fact, Chad just told me about it a
5 couple of weeks ago. And prior to that, no one's ever
6 told me about it," you know.
Fred and Chad when they got promoted, and then he didn't
7
put in
And so that's all the discussion that John and
8 I pretty much had. But that was it.
with Chad when we were looking at potential sergeants
9 Q. So it's like this discussion came up prior to
10 or during the promotability form -type period?
11 A. No. You're talking about Bledsoe?
12 Q. No. With the -- when you and Chad were
13 discussing the future sergeant candidates --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. with Sergeant Villani and those kind of
16 things, was this a part of that? Or did this --
17 A. I think so, but it kind of doesn't make sense
18 because Kevin didn't test when John promoted. That's
19 the test that Kevin pulled back on.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. So Kevin got pulled over -- got passed over by
22 Fred and Chad when they got promoted, and then he didn't
23 put in again. So I don't know that it came up as part
24 of the promotability, but I came up in some discussion
25 with Chad when we were looking at potential sergeants
Page 25
Cal -Pacific Reporting, Inc.
415.578.2480
Waddell v. San Luis Obispo, 16CV-0491
Administrative Record Page 495