Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090618_AdminInquiry_Griffith9Memorandum "Service, Pride. lnieg,*Y" June18,2009 To: Chief Deborah Linden Via: Captain Dan Blanke From: Lieutenant Chris Staley Subject: Administrative Inquiry #09-001 Officer Russell Griffith Summary: city of san Luis oslspo Police Department 1042 Walnut SLO, CA 93401 (805)781-7317 On February 12th, 2009 1 received a memorandum from Captain Blanke detailing allegations of misconduct by Officer Russ Griffith. The allegations were that Officer Griffith had directly disobeyed orders given to him and in doing so he was insubordinate. It is also alleged that he changed an official police document to reflect false information. Alienation Officer Griffith is alleged to have directly disobeyed orders given to him by Lieutenant Tolley. Lieutenant Tolley ordered Officer Griffith to complete a burglary report on a case that had been accepted by Officer Griffith as a log report. Officer Griffith is alleged to have ignored these orders and then resubmitted the log report with inaccurate details that reflected the case as a theft and not a burglary. If this allegation is sustained it would constitute a violation of the Department's Standards of Job Performance and Conduct sections IV 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. IV .JJ. insubordination. 2. Refusing to obey the lawful order of supervisor. IV. 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 Memorandum .�. "Service. Pride, lnregray' city of san tuts oslspo Police Department 1042 Walnut supervisors, who prepare and review reports documenting incidents, may make appropriate changes or corrections in reports, prior to final approval. Pack round Information: SLO, CA 93401 (805)781-7317 This investigation centers on whether or not Officer Griffith obeyed orders to properly document a burglary crime and whether he altered an official report record. When a theft crime is reported to the Police Department a police officer must determine if the theft is a petty theft, grand theft or burglary and if there are any suspect leads or follow-up needed. If the crime is determined to be a petty theft with out leads or follow-up then the officer can complete a "log report." A log report is the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) call print out that provides the details of the call, and a property report that includes the details of the property that was taken. If the reported theft does not meet the criteria described than the officer is required to complete a full crime report. A log report is considered to be an official Police Crime report. These calls are normally received by the Communications Center. The call is entered into CAD and the case is assigned to an officer. If the call does not require an officers response then the call can be handled over the telephone by the officer. In this case this report was assigned to Officer Griffith who was on light -duty assigned to the Records Unit. I reviewed the memorandum from Lieutenant Tolley and the attached copies of the first and second log reports. Lieutenant Tolley outlined his involvement in this case. Lieutenant Tolley was approving reports and came upon this particular case. The CAD Log Report in this case indicated the reported theft was of a bicycle from inside a residence. Because the description of the crime was actually, a burglary the crime should have been documented on a full crime report, rather then the log report. Lieutenant Tolley contacted Officer Griffith and requested that he follow-up and change the report to a crime report. Lt. Tolley subsequently determined that the log report was not changed, however the original call information in CAD had been changed to reflect that the bicycle was taken from outside of the residence, rather than inside as had been originally reported. Investigative Details: 1 provided notice of this investigation to Officer Griffith February 20 at 1000 hrs in my office. I contacted Communications Manager Kerri Rosenblum and requested recordin s of any of the phone communications between Officer Griffith and the reporting party, or Dispatcher Ross. 1 also requested audio of Lieutenant Tolleys' conversations with th� The only recording that could be located was that of the initial report by -to the dispatch center. 1 gip:: G�� � _ 5Memorandul -Service, Pride, Lvegrim ' crty of san Luis oaispo Police Department 1042 Walnut SLO, CA 93401 (805) 781-7317 I was provided the audio of_making the initial report to dispatch. In reviewing the audio I found that_spoke with dispatcher Ross who received the report. During the conversation _was certain that the bicycle was removed from inside of the residence. Interview with - On 02-12-09 1 contacted the reporting party in case # 081231006,-at his residence at 1030 hrs. 1 explained to that 1 was conducting follow up on the report he made regarding a bicycle theft from his home. provided the following statement. He reported his bicycle stolen after he had discovered it missing from his upstairs hallway. The upstairs hallway is where he stored the bicycle and when it was not found there he assumed that it had been stolen. After making the report he discovered the bicycle in a downstairs bedroom some time later. He stated that his wife had been frustrated with tripping over the bicycle in the hallway and she had moved it downstairs to the bedroom without his knowledge. _remembered having several phone conversations with officers from this department. 1 asked if he ever told anyone from the police department that the bicycle could have been taken from outside the residence. He was certain that he had not. The bicycle had always been stored in the house and he would not have reported it to have been outside stated that this was his favorite bicycle and he would not have left it outside for any reason. _seemed confident in his answers and I concluded my interview with_ Interview with Dispatcher Ross On 02-19-09 I interviewed Dispatcher Rochelle Ross. I presented Ross with a copy of the log report, case #081231006, and asked her if she had any recollection of this report. Ross initially could not remember any details of the report. After viewing the log report again Ross began to remember some details. She stated that she remembered something to the eti'ect that the reporting party had not seen the bicycle for about two weeks and that it had been left outside. I pointed out the changes made to the log report and inquired if she remembered why the changes had been made to the report. Ross again did not initially remember. Ross recalled Officer Griffith asking her to make the changes due to a discrepancy with the report. Ross thought that she may have misunderstood the reporting party when she took the original report and that was why Griffith asked her to make the changes. Ross thought the request from Griffith had been made over the phone. She could not recall Griffith giving her a specific reason for the changes requested. She assumed it was because the reporting party had changed his story or had given incorrect information. 9y';; Vic;: ,oMemorandul - "Service, Pride, Integrity" crty of san Luis ompo Ross had no further recollection of the report or the details of the changes. I concluded my interview with Ross. Interview with Lieutenant Tolley Police Department 1042 Walnut SLO, CA 93401 (805) 781-7317 On 04/02/09 1 interviewed Lieutenant Tolley. Tolley remembered finding a log report while conducting report review. lie noticed that the report details indicated that the crime would equate to a felony burglary case and should not have been done as a log report. The narrative of the report specifically stated that the bicycle was taken from the residence. He contacted the author of the report Officer Griffith. Griffith was working a light duty assignment in the Records Department. He told Griffith that he thought this should be a burglary report. lie needed for him to redo the report as a burglary and re -contact the victim if necessary. Griffith responded by saying the report must have ended up in his box from dispatch and that he would take care of it. The report again came to his attention when he found this same log report that Lieutenant DePriest had approved. The log report narrative now indicated the bicycle had been taken from outside of the residence. This was contradictory to the first log report. This concerned Tolley and he found it unusual. Tolley contacted the victim over the telephone. The victim was adamant that the bicycle had been taken from inside the residence. The bicycle was a collector bike that the victim wanted to fix up and re -sell. The victim remembered talking with an officer but could not remember the officers' name. He said that the bicycle was definitely taken from inside of the house. The victim appeared competent about his answers. Tolley told him that he was just ensuring that we had the correct information on this case. Tolley thought this conversation had taken place on the news line and was not on the Watch Commanders recorded line Lieutenant Tolley felt there may be a possible policy violation at this point. He contacted the victim one additional time to ensure that he had obtained the correct information and that the bicycle had been taken from inside the house. The victims' story never changed in his conversations with Tolley. He documented this incident in a memorandum to Captain Blanke. His concerns were that information on the report was intentionally inaccurate and Griffith had failed to follow his instructions to complete a burglary report on this case. Griffith never spoke to Tolley about this case or the changes made to the report. I concluded my interview with Lieutenant Tolley 9 Memorandul "Service. Pride. Integrity - Interview with Officer Griffith city of san Luis oslspo Police Department 1042 Walnut SLO, CA 93401 (805)781-7317 On 04/07/09 1 conducted an interview with Officer Griffith in the Administrative Lieutenants Office. Also present during the interview were Griffith's attorney Allison Wilkinson Berry and Lieutenant Bill Proll. Officer Griffith was informed of his Miranda rights which he invoked. I then ordered Griffith to speak per our administrative policy. Officer Griffith was unclear on how he was notified or assigned this log report. When asked how he was assigned the report he stated "Working up at the desk, I would imagine it was given to me from Dispatch. I don't remember how I was notified of the report it came up over the CAD system or possibly was put in my box. I don't know how it was given to me." 1 asked Griffith what he did once he was assigned the report. He did not have a specific recollection of completing this report. Griffith stated "I don't remember getting the report. I remember treating it like any other log report and dispoing it and probably doing a property receipt and turning it in." I asked Griffith when the next time this report was brought to his attention. Griffith stated "Lt. Tolley spoke with me about it." He was unclear about where this communication took place or on what date. I asked Griffith what Lt. Tolley asked him to do. Griffith stated " we, he pointed out that from the verbiage on the report that he thought that I needed to make a phone call to the reporting person to determine if there was a theft report or a burglary report." I asked Griffith what he did after speaking with Lt Tolley. Griffith stated "Again, this was .... this would have been after a weekend and several days oft, I believe, that he approached me on it and pointed out his concern about a burglary versus a theft. And I did what he asked I made a phone call and spoke with the RP." He did not remember the RP's name but said the contact was over the telephone. When I asked the content of the conversation with the reporting party Griffith stated "1 remember there being a conversation about, and asking, I simply don't remember the conversation as far as what 1 asked him but I but 1 do recall that he had specified or mentioned that it was ... the bicycle was inside the residence." After speaking with the reporting party Griffith then made contact with the dispatch center. He was unsure if it was by telephone or in person. Griffith stated "1 went, again, I don't remember if 1 went to Dispatch or if l went to a telephone... and contacted Dispatch and changed the verbiage tea•ft. LA o. "Service, Pride, Integrity" city of san Luis osispo Police Department 1042 Walnut SLO, CA 93401 (805)781-7317 on the report." When asked what he changed the verbiage to say Griffith stated "that it was located outside the residence." I asked Griffith why he changed the narrative to reflect that the bicycle was taken from the outside when he understood that it was taken from inside the residence. Griffith stated "You know ever since this was brought to my attention, I've wondered why 1 changed that, why I changed it, and I haven't been able to come up with one. Maybe an explanation eventually I might be able to recall something, but as far as making that, and changing it on my report, I don't know why I did. It wasn't in any way to deceive anybody or to fabricate a situation." Griffith was unable to provide an explanation why he had the narrative changed to reflect inaccurate information. 1 asked Griffith if he made the changes even though he realized that the information was inaccurate, on the report. Griffith replied "Um hum." Griffith then turned the report in for approval. He was unsure whether he turned the report into the Day Watch approval box or the Night Watch. I asked Griffith if he understood this crime to be a burglary after speaking with the reporting party on the phone. He stated "yes". I asked why he had not completed a burglary report in this case. Griffith stated "That's the hard question. I don't know." I asked Griffith if when he turned in the report, was his intent to turn it in to a Night Watch Supervisor so that Lieutenant Tolley would not see the report. Griffith said "no". He said there was not intent to keep this from a Day Watch Supervisor. I concluded my interview with Officer Griffith. A complete check of the phone recordings was conducted by Communications and Records Manager Kerri Rosenblum. She was unable to locate any phone calls from Griffith to the reporting party or to the Dispatch Center. It does appear from my interview with the reporting party and Lieutenant Tolleys interview with him, that someone did communicate with him about this case. Do to the fact that no phone calls could be located it can only be assumed that the person who contacted him was Officer Griffith Findings and Conclusions Allegation NI-Disobediance to Orders: Recommendation: Inconclusive 1 interviewed both Lieutenant Tolley and Officer Griffith in this matter. They had conflicting versions of what instructions were given in this case. Griffith thought that he was instructed to ;S Memorandum "Service. Pride. lnfegrity" city of san Luis oslspo Police Department 1042 Walnut SLO, CA 93401 (805)781-7317 contact the victim, make a determination about the crime, and report appropriately. Lieutenant Tolley thought his instructions were clear that Griffith was to contact the victim and then complete a formal burglary report. Allegation #2- Insubordination: Recommendation: Unfounded Officer Griffith did not directly refuse to complete the tasks requested by Lieutenant Tolley. Griffith responded to Lieutenant Tolleys request in a manner that was acceptable. The investigation found nothing to show that Griffith refused the orders given by Lieutenant Tolley. Allegation 43- Falsification of Reports or Official Statements Recommendation: Sustained Officer Griffith admitted to changing the narrative in this case to reflect that the bicycle was taken from outside of the residence. Griffith had spoke with the victim and understood that information was false and that the bicycle was in fact taken from inside the residence. He contacted dispatch and had the details changed to reflect this false information. Griffith was aware this would change the crime from a felony to a misdemeanor and would therefore change the type of report required to document the incident.