Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMathews Findings and Rec 5.09.2018CityofSanLuisObispo, PoliceDepartment, 1042WalnutStreet, SanLuisObispo, CA, 93401-2729, 805.781.7317, slocity.org MEMORANDUM March 9, 2022 To: Chief Cantrell From: Captain Staley Subject: IF-2018-0005 SUMMARY AND FINDINGS On Thursday March 1st, 2018 Officer Cory Mathews contacted sworn members of the Hanford Police Department to gather personal information on three individuals through law enforcement data bases. Mathews did this while on administrative leave with this agency. Mathews was specifically told when he was placed on administrative leave that “You are relieved of any and all peace officer powers and duties. You are prohibited from performing any peace officer functions on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department.” Officer Mathews also signed the Administrative Leave Form with this language. Officer Mathews is believed to have committed the following: ALLEGATION: Officer Mathews attempted to illegally obtain confidential information from law enforcement officials and data bases while on Administrative Leave from this agency. Policy, Rule, or Regulation Violation. If sustained it would constitute a violation of the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department Policies and State Law: Lexipol - 339.5.1 (b) LAWS, RULES AND ORDERS- Disobedience of any legal directive or order issued by any [department/office] member of a higher rank. Lexipol 339.5.1 (c) Violation of federal, state, local or administrative laws, rules or regulations. Lexipol - 339.5.9 (m) CONDUCT- Andy other on or off-duty conduct which any member knows or reasonably should know is unbecoming a member of this [department/office], is contrary to good order, efficiency or morale, or tends to reflect unfavorably upon this department/office or its member. Lexipol - 339.5.2 (a) ETHICS-Using or disclosing one’s status as a member of the SLOPD in any way that could reasonably be perceived as an attempt to gain influence or authority for non¬[department/office] business or activity. Lexipol - 339.5.2 (b) ETHICS- The wrongful or unlawful exercise of authority on the part of any member for malicious purpose, personal gain, willful deceit or any other improper purpose. Lexipol 339.5.2 (f) Misappropriation or misuse of public funds, property, personnel or services. Lexipol – 339.5.2(g) ETHICS- Any other failure to abide by the standards of ethical conduct Lexipol 339.5.8 (d) Being untruthful or knowingly making false, misleading or malicious statements that are reasonably calculated to harm the reputation, authority or official standing of this department or its members. Lexipol 339.5.8 (e) Disparaging remarks or conduct concerning duly constituted authority to the extent that such conduct disrupts the efficiency of this department or subverts the good order, efficiency and discipline of this department or that would tend to discredit any of its members. Lexipol 339.5.8 (i) Any act on- or off duty that brings discredit to this department. Lexipol 339.5.9 (j) Attempted or actual theft of department property; misappropriation or misuse of public funds, property, personnel or the services or property of others; unauthorized removal or possession of department property or the property of another person. Lexipol 339.5.9 (m) Any other on- or off duty conduct which any member knows or reasonably should know is unbecoming a member of this department, is contrary to good order, efficiency or morale, or tends to reflect unfavorably upon this department or its members. California Penal Code Section 11143, Any person, except those specifically referred to in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code, who, knowing he is not authorized by law to receive a record or information obtained from a record, knowingly buys, receives, or possesses the record or information is guilty of a misdemeanor. California Penal Code Section 502.c.3 - (3) Knowingly and without permission uses or causes to be used computer services California Penal Code Section 502.c.7 Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network. Personnel Rules and Regulations Section 2.36.380 Employee responsibilities benefits - Code of ethics. A. An official or employee of the city shall not engage in conduct that 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 or is unintentional. However, misconduct, dishonesty, and fraud shall be the basis for severe disciplinary action, including removal for cause. RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: SUSTAINED In reviewing Lieutenant Bledsoe’s investigation into this matter, Officer Mathews violated all the above policies and a direct order by having Police Officers from his previous agency in Hanford California use Police Data bases to obtain confidential information for three individuals. Mathews was advised specifically in his Administrative Leave Notice that he was prohibited from performing any peace officer functions” which would include utilizing Law Enforcement Data bases and representing himself as having the authority to obtain information from such data bases. Mathews requested information from three separate City of Hanford police officers including He asked for information on three different individuals: Mathews told that he was “working a little dope case” as his reason for requesting this information. Mathews told the person he requested information on was a “bad dude” and a “drug dealer”. had provided Mathews with the information he was able to locate on the three individuals through TLO (The Last One or Transunion). Detective denied Mathews request because he had been made aware of Mathews’ status of being on Administrative Leave by Officer Mathews requested check on a and indicated to that should have an address In Mathews interview he claimed to be trying to prepare for his return to work and was interested in obtaining possible drug cases in San Luis Obispo, however, he knew that did not have a address when he spoke with ran through his local Records Management System as well as through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS). RECOMMENDATIONS I have reviewed Lt. Bledsoe’s investigation into this matter. Officer Mathews directly disobeyed a direct order by exercising his peace officer powers when he posed as an active police officer working a drug case to obtain confidential information that should only be utilized by active law enforcement members. When Mathews asked the officers for the information he did not specify whether they should or should not use CLETS information, nor was he forthcoming regarding his administrative leave status with the San Luis Obispo Police Department. This was misleading for all three of the officers. Mathews stated in his interview that he asked Can you run him through” referring to which led to illegally run through the CLETS system. Mathews request to the Hanford Officers also contradicted his statement during his interview with Lt. Bledsoe. During his interview he stated that he was trying to develop a drug case in San Luis Obispo and stated, “But if I can get an address I may be able to sit on that house and watch and develop my own probable cause- to work a case on that individual”. Mathews later in the interview, after being questioned about what he would have done with the information, states “No, I just had the addresses and then the addresses weren’t so I dropped it”. This is contradictory to the fact that Mathews had told in his request that was and told that was Neither of these people had which contradicts Mathews’ claim that he wanted to work a drug case on patrol in San Luis Obispo. Further, Mathews clearly indicated to that he was “working a little dope case and need some help” but in his statement he says he never intended to act on the information he requested but instead would have it ready in the event he returned to Patrol. Officer Mathews demonstrated a pattern of poor judgement and inappropriate behavior when he requested confidential information on three individuals from three separate Police Officers with the Hanford Police Department and while on administrative leave. Mathews also admitted to reaching out to his brother-in-law who he believed worked at the Kings County District Attorney’s Office to obtain confidential information. Mathews was notified in writing that he was relieved of “any and all peace officer powers”. Mathews misled other officers by telling them he was working a drug case and was not forthright about his administrative leave status. Mathews actions are unethical, dishonest, insubordinate and put Hanford City Police Officers in a position of violating the law by providing Mathews with information for which he was not eligible to receive. Mathews should be terminated for cause in this matter.