CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION LABOR DEPARTMENT. 38 WOLCOTT HILL ROAD WETHERSFIELD, CONNECEICUT Friday, January 18, 2009 TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM Hartford, Cily of and e.- HPU Local # Case # 2008-4-0637 Officer Maithew Secore ARBITRATION AWARD Copies were sent to the following parses: Stephon F. McBloney, Esquire Joseph Parker, Ph. D, Joha Rose, Jr., Esquire Mare $, Mandell, Esquire Santiago Malave, Dir, Of Pers. ‘Michael J. Ferrucei, Jr, Richard Rodriguer, President Town Clerk File +When applicable, this transutial is filed with the towa clerk in accordance with Section 31-98, Chapter 560, of helio Honea the Comectiout General Statues, twotte ReraendsSTATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BOARD OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION ARBITRATION AWARD. In the Matter of: CASE NO. 20084-1637 Auguet 13, 2008 d d > CITY OF HARTFORD ) HEARING DATES: Mey 27, 2008 ) ) ) AWARD DATE: JANUARY 16, 2009 ) Loe. ATION OF HEARING: Department of Labor ‘Wethersfield, Cr. Appearances For the City: John Rose, In. Esy. For the Union; Stephen F. McEleney, Bag, ISSUE, Whether the Chie? of Polics for the City of Hartford trad just cause to tenuiaate the employment af Office Maithew Sacore? : Lf not, what should the remady be?CASE NO, 2008-40637 PAGE 2 ‘There is no dispute of the facts in this case. ‘The grievant, a Police Officer, ieamed that his brother had Lecn sevesely beaten by a group of people and wes in the hospital. He visited his brother there and subsequently, learned one of the people who had allegedly attacked his brother was sill at the Hariford Police Station. ‘The grievant, out of uniform ané off-duty, went to the station where he was granted avcess to the helding cclis. Here, he oonfmynted she individual, Words were exchanged. The grievant grabbed the person and, after more words were exchanged, the grievant punched the pusoner, ‘The prisoner filed a citizén’s commplaint ageinet the grievant, The incident wae investigated and the investigating Police Panel found thal the behavior of the grievant violated the “Code of Conduct” and recommended to the Chief chat the erlevant be terminated for conduct unbecoming « Hurtford Police Officer. ‘The Union, on behalf of the grievant, grieved the discipline, claiming the City did net have just cause to terminate him. POSITION OF On January 31, 2008, Police Chief Daryl K. Roberts wrote to Officer Mauhew Secore terminating his employment, effective Wednesday, February 6, 2008, The Chief's lettor recited thal a December 3, 2007 Disciplinary Hearing was held at the grievant's request on charges of "Conduct Tibscoming an employee” and “Intentional, unnevessary snd exeeasive use of force in effectnating an arrest or in the peaformence and execution of other official duties” in violation of the Department's cade of conduct. “The Lotter referenced as well 4m internal investigation in which [Secure] ssssulted « prisoner within tho Hartford Police Detention Facility.”“The grievant was suspended five (5) days with pay and"... After this, your employment with the City of Hartford Police Depactznent will be severed and your stars considered Teuuinated.” ‘The Boord of Mediation and Arbitration heard this mattor af the 38 Wolcott Hill Road, Wethersfield, CT offices over the course of two (2) days, being May 27, 2008 and August 13,2008, A transcrip! of the proceeding was had st the insistence of the: City and copivs were provided .o each Arbitrator and to the grievant's counsel, As of May 5, 2007, the grievant had been a cestified Hartford Police Officer only since June 2605, when he finished the Academy. He was thirty-six (36) years old in May 2007, hurety a child or young recrnit. He had served ia the National Gard as a Military Police Officer and, when he was seventezn, the grievant had teen a Police Explorer Late i the evening on May 5, 2007, the grievant was at homre in Vernon, CE. His ‘was off cuty and in civilian clothes. The grievant received a telephone call to his cell phone from 2 brother officer to the effect that the grievant's brothes, a tow truck operator, had been injured in a fight an Hestford and was in or at Hartford Hospital. The grievant immediately deve (o Hartford Hospital and located his brother there, on a gumey, in whallway, “... with a neck brace. ..covered with blood all over his face...” At the hospitel, the grievant epoke with his brother who was able fo communicate rationally, even to the extent of describing the physical atiributes and attire of one of his assaitants (“...he said was tall and had he white t-shirt with a red circle”... with “Stop suitching” writen on i). The grievant alao claims he wos told by the Police Officer who called him in the first place that one of the alleged assailants had been arrested.CASE.NO, 2008-40637 PAGE 4 ‘Phe grievant drove approximately eighteen (18) miles from lis hoine to Hartford Hospital. Aller speaking with his brother, the grievant drove to the Hartford Police eadquarters building et 5 Jennings Road in the City. He parked his vehicle in a Lot at police headquarters and tried 10 access the Building dhrough the door at the sally port on the east side of the building, The sally port is the aren where police vans deliver and remove persons Who are arrested and being held at the polive station; it is described by Chief of Police Roberts as che. “Detention Pacility” area The grievant walked around t the frout entrance of te police headquarters building, on the south side, some one hundred (100) to one hundred-twenty (120) fect trom the sally port door, He entered the building and either let himself into the initial secured aren oy wea buzzed in by other police personel working in what he calls the “teleserve area” The gricvant, stil in civilian clothes, testificd he had on bis vehicle Xey nny a “fob key" with whieh he could gain entrance to the police department's initially secured area - not the Detention Facility Having gained entrance beyond the first secured ares, the grievant walked through the building, dhrough yer another secured door to-the area outside of the Detention Facility, where he encountered yet a third secured door, At the interior catrarice to the detention Facility, the geievant pressed a buzzer. A camera in the ara allows the police personnel in the Detention facility atea to see who is ‘buzzing and seeking enmry ‘The grievant was buxced in, Ous walks through the secured door, down a halal co a larger ere, commonly kaoven as the bullpen; right across irom the bullpen is an elevated area oc platiorm, accessed by a set of stains. Theze ave cells to the north and scurh of theCASENO,2008.4.0637 wae PAGE. 5 singed or platfoun arée, ‘The steged area is where the Departmen: has “the computers and we have the semens for the TV for the maonitoring-of the ceils and the desk area.” ‘The grievant testified that he gained access t0 the socare Detention Tacility Areas that he walked disectly to the staged/platform arc ane! spoke to Sgt. Sernuda, the Officer in charge. He claims he asked Sgt. Sainada if there was a prisoner in holding who had been involved in the incident involving his (the grievent’s) brother. When he Iearned that the prisoner was still there, the grievant asked him [Samudal: Did you &1ow my brother was just assaulted by somebody and the prisoner was brought here? Is there any chnce ] can talk to the prisoner ebout the assault...” ‘The grievant testified that Sgt. Semuda gave him permission to ralk with the prisoner end that the grievant then left the platform and approached Officer Mens who was standing swith an individual “,. with the only prisoner I (gvievant] saw in the root...” “So {walked over to him making the presumption that thet was whi Tnceded to talk to becaase he was standing outside of a cell as if he was ready to talk.” ‘The grievant assumed thet this prisoner was the one associated with the assault on his brother “., Based on the fecl there was 110 one cise", ‘This prisoner was Ruben Perez, a Hispanic Male, height: 5°5"; weigt:L40 pounds, ‘The grievant is six feet tall and st Least 200 pounds — and, on the occasion in question, was a Police Oificer “The grievant (ecified om ezoss-examinaticn ke thought Mr. Peres was five feet ten jinckos tall, The grievant literally was approximately seven (7) inches caller and sixty (60) pounds heavier then Mr. Perez —a prisoner ia custody. ‘There is no debate of denial by the grievant that he assaulted Mr, Pere2, the prisoner On direc: examination, by his lawyer, the grievant said, under cath: “He just played {don't know his exact words, but be was ismissive of che whole thing: like he dida’Leare, AudInterestingly, after T asked him a couple of times, 1 grabbed him, you know (indicating) by she neck, the shirt near the neck...” inc very next line of questicns/answers tram his counsel and by the giicvant relate to the "steet code” “And there's protty much a street code out those that you dont snitch. That's wily everyone weate the Stop Snitehinig shizts, No one's suitching on enyane.” .At that point, F pushed him, Me went back into the cell because he was standing m front of the opening. | pushed hire up near the wall and be had - you know, T said "You better tel] me...” And then he had meds the comments about my brother and thet was when T ost my coi.” ‘The inquizy by his lawyer is instructive at this point, and destruotive of the grievant's aise, 10 wit: hospitel Qn cruss-examination, the grievant test Pe oO > 2. A > FO BO And whet did you do? Struck him ove time. ‘You struck him with you closed fist? Yes sir. Did you think about it before you struck him’ No, I did now. Twas a guéseaction, Iyemember efter I did it and Officer Mena had 1 Kiad of iatecvene, | semember seeing his ara in my peripheral vision and kind of— 1 think he said something like: Woe [sic]. Ikiad of backed up and I realized thea Thad sorowod tip. T was like: this is going to cost me. And da yon remember reacting {0 whatever it was he {Mena} said or cha? Right. Which was to to whet again when Officer Mena said somexhing? L backed - Lot go and I backed up. 6 grievant lestified he left the police departazent at thet point snd returned to theRAGE A. He wes a Police Officer on the day of this incident — all day, B, Thatif Mt Perez had given hin (grievant) the neme of the gentleman in the white t-shirt who had allegedly injured the grtevant’s brother, he “eventually soon f would relate it to the proper detective or found out whe had the case.” C. Thatit was appropriate for a Police Officer to relate such [formation to the investigating Officer. D. That it was his intention if he had leerned fro Mr. Perez the identity of the person who assantted his brother he would have delivered that information to the police department in connection with the oagoing informetion on the offense of the assault on his brother. 4, That [at the time he was assaulting Mr, Perez in the Detention areal there wes an Officer in charye of the station house that night. F. Thathe ucver spoke any supervising Officer a’ police headquarters tat night, or the eat moming. G. Thet he naver wrote a report about what happened. AL That, from his tecining, one of the things an Officer is taught is that as a Hertford Police Officer, you ars always a Hartford Police Officer, TL. That he, 28 a Police Officer, was “a representative of the deparment for all times...and he was to conduct himscif accordingly.” ‘The gcievant’s response ta both those inquines was “definitely” 3. That when he was engaged in his work as.a Police Officer ~ on the stzeet — doing investigative detentions, ‘e., stoppiag people and questioning them, he never “ prat[oed] someone by the throat and said [say Tell 2:¢ your naue or tell xe his name...” K, That he wa aware the incident of his ssseulting Mr. Perez in the Detention Facility arex was writen up in the newspzpors... and caused embarassment to him [OF course it did”] and to the department [It did, yes”) The grievant (estified he wes arrested 4s a res of the assault on Mr. Perez, On direct examination, the testimony wes Now you were criminally charged in regetd to this incident, carect!? “Yes sir. Assault three? (Noudded in the affirmative}. FO pO And what happened 1 lat ebarge? Troveived accelerated rehabilitation reo On cross-examination, it was established that his probation period en aceeleruted rehabilitation was one year, with a requirement to pay Mr. Pereu's medicul billa, if any:CASE NO. 2008-A-01 ce PAGE_2 During his disect testimony, in response to questions by his own lawyer, the grievant atthe May 25, 2008 hearing made an interesting, self-serving, blame-the-other-guy sort of slaicment, The testimony reads: Q. And one thing I'en sure that people ace going te ask themselves is: Well, if he did this once, he cen co this again. Would you speak to that, please? A, Well, Tthink she sitnation was so unique and the — a Unique how? A. Tn the fact that, you know, there was no safeguards. | was allowed in... The City ostablished that the grievant was given notice of the charges against him, A __ very thorough investigation wes done by the Depactmeat’s intemal Affaise Division, The gricvant was nen required to testify during the initial TAD investigation because he stood. accused of a crime (Assault 3) and, on advice of counsel, he elected not te testify. After he appcared in court and was granted Accelerated Rehabilitation, the grievant gave a statement to Internal Affeirs, Me did not deny assaulting Mz. Perez, After the exhaustive LAD investigation was completed, the City established that Chief Roberts advised the grievant on August 2, 2007 that he was required to attend a Discipiimary Heaing on September 6, 2007"... regarding an Iniceal Affaits investigation in whicl you were arrested”. ‘That leiter also appraised the grievant that he wes charged with violating atticies of the Hartford Police Cade of Conduct: * Acticle J, Section 1.00; Conduct Unbecemning an Officer * Amticle VII, Section 7.04: Intentional, unnecessary, excessive ust of force: Although the Chief's Avgusi 21, 2007 ictter referenced severel Captains who might serve as flearing Officor at the Disciplinary Hearing, Chief Roberts later determined that is unique to bizatre case merited a hearing panel, made up of Uhree (3) Assistant Chio‘sCASE NO. 2008-A-0837 _ se PAGE 9 Assi, Chief McKoy testified thet the ericvant was uot assigned the Detention Facility area on May 5, 2007; that he [McKoy}, in thirty-four yenrs es a Pelice Officer, had ewer experienced the iikes of en incident such as that which the grievant porpetraied. He sestificd as well, thal Sgt. Samude end Otficer Mena were disciplined for their pasts in this biuarre affeir. It developed that Sgt. Samude got a five-day suspension and tetéred; and both accepted their disciplines. Asst. Chief McKoy alsa testified conceming the injury which Mr, Perez eustained trom the punch the grievant deliverod to his face; which injury is evident ftom the photos and police reports, He also testified that dae pliotos of the injury to Mr, Perey evidence “abrasion work on the neck area”. The City contends that the physical cviderce contradicts the grevant's claim at arbitration that he grebhed Mr, Perez's shict al the coldar Chief McKoy joined with the two other Assistant Chiefs recommending temzinetion Chie? McKoy made clear his concern during of the grievant to Police Chief Roberts. As the Disciplinary Hearing was to establish that the gilevant was “in the performance and execution of other official duties”. The testimony seade: Q And what about what Officer Secore did was in factin the pesforrmence of other official cities es far as you were concemed’) A ‘Yes sir. He's a sworn Police Officer and he carties a badge. And once he ~ ia ther situation, by his own admission says that he's trying ta exctact information from a porson about a erie and he did what he did He's officially on duty. Chief Roberts was familiar with Mr. Fesez's assault incident and with the grievant's to the erevant requiring bim to attend a Discipimary involvement. He wrore the letters chief Roberts wes familiar with the LAD “Hearing and the suspeusiowtermination lester ion from which he could glean:CASE NO. 2008-40637 PAGE 10 A, That while Mr. Perez was standing outside-one of the smaller cells in the oe sh oo Detention facility arca, the grievant “staried strangling Mt, Perez with his right band by fis neck. He {the grievant) foreed Mr, Pezoz into the open ¢ell and pushed him ints the wall. The grievant pauched Mr, Perez once, with a closed fist, on his left cheek. That Mr. Perez was in custody charged with a crime. ‘That Mr. Perez. claimed he did nothing; ves not aggressive; in Fact, the grievant was the aggressor. ‘That Mr, Porea. “never offered any resistance nor did be attempt to attack or escape from Officer Secore” ‘Phat Mr, Perez was sivack, by the grievant, Sor no apperont reason, “That Mr, Petez’s booking photo showed no injury to his Tace; after the assault by the grievant and fis release from booking, Mr. Petes filer] a complaint at the front desk. Ele hac “prorainent injuries”, photographed by Det. Clandetts Kosinski, ot that time, stigaror personally observed the injuries, including “sed marke “Bis injuries were consistent with being choked and punched.” Mr. Pores sufleced these injurics..." while he was incamerated, in Hartford Police custody, at the detention division” ‘The grievant had no legitimate reason to use force on Mit. Perez. He should pot have used force on Mi, Petez. Mr, Poros never offered any resistance. Sworn officers of the Hartford Folice Dogerument shall ©, .adbere to the highest standards of the law enforcement profession when executing their duties and sesponsibilitis”. Tho gricvant was arrested and charged with Asseuit 3°, CGS, Sec. 53s-63 “The arrest af a police officer whether on doty or off duty discredits the police department end undermines the public confidence in the department amd its members”. ‘The Detention Facility is a physically soparate, secure section of police headquarters and is locked down. Access 1s cnly via an electronic entry system, ‘These safeguards failed wo protect Mr. Perez, Officer Mena told I. Bermicr that he observed the grievant geab Mr, Perex. by the throat. The grievant "violated the Hartford Police Department Coe of Conduct, Adticls VITT, Section 7.01 and Article f, Seetion 1.00” TAD’ a investigation sustained, as against the grevant, charges of Excessive Foren and Conduct Unbecarning an Officer. As against Spt. Samuda, TAD's investigation sustained the charge of Ballure to Supervise; and as against Officer Mena, IAD's investigation sustained the charges of False Bniry into Department Record and butcutional Failure 10 Take Appropriate Action Chief Roberts testified, aline of le posics ion my ©, im responsible tor the efficieacy and conmuct and dis department... have four hunclred seventeen officers...a5 responsibility.”“in this situstion when a porsoa is incarcerated and arrested by police, they’2e entitled to protection by the potice. This was a situation thet I find intolerable as a police officer. We have to maintam the pabiic trust, We can’t, and T will not allow, people to be assaulted while i police custody...this could be deented a Civil Rights viotstion...” Chief Roberts also testifled concerning the “nogetive publicity” gencrated by the grievant's assaelt ov Mr. Perez in the lockup aren. He said The media, in my estimation, had o ironzy”. Chief Roherts, having appointed the Discipline Hearing Panel, received its report and recommendation, ‘The Panel, based «pon its investigation, unanimously sesommended ‘eominstion. The City contends that the law is clear. The Police Chief was well widhin his discretion to terminate the grievant. The actions of the terminated Police Officer were ontragcous, Byen his plaintive wail that he has never denied or lied about what happened is outiandish and contradicted by the physical evidence, He never admitted to throttling or choking Mr. Perez althoagh the physicel injury evidence confirms as much, His actions, by his own testimony, brought disdain snd opprobsium to the Departmen|. In the course of the proceedings, the Department complied with all of the dictates of the contrect, a(Tording 10 the grievant each and all of the prescribed clue process elements, This to be noted that at ao time has the gievant or his counsel raised eny issua of deprivation of due process, Thore 1s no question of natise to the employees it is cleur that a reasonable role related tothe employer’s business was violated by the grievant...he was even arrested for assaulting Mr. Perez én the lock-op ates; (he cherges fit the “rime” as ii were; a very comprebeusive investigation was made priut Lo the discipline; the investigation was done fairly and abjectively; peuaps the best evidence of that is the arievant’s and bis counsel’s involvement and thers having beer throughout the proceedings no contest as to the due prowess affordedRAGE. CASENG 2008-4063). him; the JAD report and the report of the Discipkinasy Hearing clearly justify and sustain dat the grievant ~ who admits much of the wrongdoing in statements or appearances before. the investigating bodies and in coor’ — was "guilty as charged”. As for the sixth prong, whether the employer applied disciptine for sivailar violations equally without discrimination, (a) no such similar cases have been fuced by the Department ~ so outragaous was the grievant's behavior, (b) the Department's males allow for tertainaticn, inter alia for being asleep on duty, for negligent entry in any Bureau or Depariment record; for negligently making public statements regarding confidential departments? materials end for failure of a supervisor 1b complete records, ‘The last prong of the coven tests of just cause hes to do with whether the ponalty ie reasonably celated to the viclation. [tis lakely that this willbe the grievant's last hope. for golate in this case, given his counsel's position at the earlier discipline proceedings and doting tis arbitration, Bur he cennol find jt here. ‘Sgt. Samuda tock his five-day suspension and retired. Officer Mena got his discipline as well for having violated Anicle Ti, Section 2.10 (alse eniry into a department record) and Article VI, section 6.08 (Intentional faiture to ake appropriate action). Only the ecievant was terminated, ‘The Cennecticat Suprome Court has also weighed in, viz A police officer acting unlawiuily in the name of the state possesses far greater capacity for harm than an individual trespasser exerci sing no anthorty other than his own... The difference in the nate of the harn arising from [the tortinas oF unconstitutional conduct of] police officer. .on the one hand, stems frum the fundamental clfference in the nature of the Lwo sels of retationships...A police officer's legat obligation... extends far beyond that ef his fellow citizens; the officer uo! only is sequired to respoce the sights of other citizens, but is sworn t protect and dofond those sights, In order to discherge thee considerabie sesponsibility, he or she is vested with extmordinacy aothority. Consequently, when « law enforcemnen. officer, acting with the appirent imprimatur of the state, not orily Fails to protect a citizen's rights but adfinmatively violates those sights, itis manifest thaz such en abuse of37 _—_——______AGE.13 CASENO. authority, with its concomitiant broach of trast, is likely 20 have a different and even mote harmful canational and psychological effect on the agerieved citizen...Binette v. Sabo, 244 Conn, 23, 43-44 (1993) Here, the grievant committed a crime, He admits as mnach and has admitted 1 fn courl, But his isnot a run of the mill offense. itis the most outrageous thing an Officer, swom to protect, coald do. He took advantage of his position as a sworn Police Officer to gein access (0 te most secure location in the police headquarters building... where, by his, own admission, *...T realized then Thad screwed up. Twas like; This 3s going to cost me." We brought dishonor and humiliation on himself and ou the Department. He committed an act which “undermines the good order, efficiency and disciptine of the ‘Deparument...which reflects diseredit upon ihe Department” He took the Law Enforcement Cade of Ethics and flung it in the face of a man who hed offered him no resistance, He allowed his personal feelings and prejudices and animosities to influence his decision- snaking, It is remarkable how many opportunities he had to wall away —all of which he suppressed, He disrospected the “Constinntional rights of alt people.” Le disrespected his oath. He disrespected his Department and fellow Olficers. He disrespected himself, He eft Chiof Roberta with no alternative save termination — for the good of the Order, POSITION OE THE UNION Officer Secore served from approximacely December 2004 through the date of this incident with » pristine disciplinary recocd and net so ntuch as am allegation of use of cxvessive Force, OFF, Secore was the type of Officer who used words mthos than force, He never lost control, This Panel has had the opportunity to observe OFF, Secore under cross. examinstion and make observation as to his demeanor tnd character 2007, Off. Secore was relaxing ar home when he received On the evening of May courtesy tall from a fellow officer that his younger brother, Slade Secore, bad beenPAGE 4 CASE NO. 2008-.4.0637 severely beaten and was in the hospital. Off Secore rushed to the hospital ro find his brother on a gumey, in 4 neck brace and covered with blocd, While Off Secore was wiping the blood eff his brother; he leaned thet a group of men had mervilessly attacked his brother for doing his job. State Secore noted that one of the individuals, a person weering a white “siop snitehing” t-shirt was not satisfied with besting Siade to the ground. When Slade was “pretty rach out of the fight”, this individual kept stomping on Slade’s Head with his boot, When Slade was taken for tests, which was “going to bc a while”, Off, Secore left for the Hastiard Police Department to sec what he could leam about this “gentlemen” (sic) in the White tshirt, Off, Sccare by now knew that one of the individuals who had beates his brother was uncles aarest. ‘Whor he arrived at the Palice Department, Off. Secore could nat ein entrance Groagh the sally port so he went ecound 19 the front catrance. Of, Sccore does not recall whether he was buzzed in or used his fob-key. Off Secore then proceeded throngh the door which leads into hocking, Off, Secore wae buzzed in from inside booking. Off. Secore did ot speak to anyone prior to being buzzed in, cid not flash his badge nos was he in uniform. Upon emmy into booking, Off, Secore procezded immediately and without prompting tw the Sergeant in charge of booking. Sgt. Samuda wes located on the supervisors? clevated platform. Off, Secore asked the Sorgeant if he could speak with one of the persons anested for sssonkting his bother. The sergeentioexplieably anthorized that action AL this point, Mr. Ruben Perez was the only person left in booking while awaiting release on bail: all otheas having been prcriously weleased or versported t the ovéruight detention facility, For reasous lelt ts speciation, when Off, Secoze first Inid eyes on Mr. Posoa, he was standing in the comidor beside Off, Raphael Mena, By provess of elimination, OF, Secor knew Mz, Parez was the indivicuat arrested for iovolvement ia The easantt onaoe PAGE 19 CASE NO. 2608-A-05 — Slade Secore, Me, Perez obviously was not the person in the white “stop snitching” t-shirt Off, Secore approached and questioned Mr. Porwz who as “dismissive of the whole thing: like int and hhe dida't care At that poiat, OT. Secure grabbed the top front of Mr. Peres. asked agein, Mr, Perez “jut dida’t scem to care” and was smug about the whole thing as if it wae no big deal, Off. Secoue then pushed Mr, Perey bavkward and up aguinst « well in the cel] urging Me, Perez to identify the perton in the white tshirt, i wes a that point that Mx. Perea said “Fuck your brother” and, withoul thinking, Off, Sccore steuck Mr, Pere ance with iis fist. Off, Secove did not enter bookiig with the idea of assaulting Mr. Perez. ‘le waated to find out who had maliciously kicked his brother's bead while he wes on the ground. If all that hed happened was that Off, Sccore hac! grabbed and pashed Mir, Perez, we world not be involved in this prouseding. This proposition was aever challenged by the City during the coarse of this proceeding. Immedistely upon striking Mr. Pores, Off. Secore came to hie senses. Off, Sevore ‘immesitalely realized that he had “screwed up” and was shamed. ‘When the Department first asked to question Off. Secore he declined hased upon the advice of the ailomey. Off. Secore wanted to tell the [ull story from the beginning bat appropriately followed the advice of the attomeys who had experience in these matters, Off, Scoore wae called upem to giva his account of what happened aftor he hed fall nity to review the completed Internal Affairs report. Oéf, Mena told Tntemal Affairs opp Dé "never witnessed any physica! altercation between Off. Secore and My. Perez.” When confronted by his statement 1 Lt, Bernier immediately follawing the incident, OFF. Mena ‘was forced te concede he had seen Off, Socare grab Mu, Pesez Sur still did not admit seeing OMT. Secure strike Mr, Perez, No one else saw any portion of the physica! interactionPAGE 16 CASE NO. 2008-A-0637 between OL. Secore and Mr. Perez. Hince, Off, Secore could have told intemal Affairs and everyone subsequently thet Mr. Perez took a swing or hatled up his fist to swing at OT Secore and he struck Mr, Perez in self defense, Tnstead, his integrity paramount, Off. Secore reported the truth because i¢ was “important to me,” Asst, Chief McKoy wan “vary ampresced” with Off, Sevore’s truthfulness ond remorse, Asst, Chief Dryfe, author of the Disciplinary Hearing vepost, noted Oif. Secore was acredible witness and honest. As uuested by Chief Roberts, Assl. Chicf McKoy and Asst. Chie( Diyfe, ny one had ever heard of a disciplinary hearing being conducted by three Asst. Chiefs (outeide the bargaining unit), rather then by a cingle Captain (in the bargaining unit). Then agein, itis diso unprecedented that the Mayoo’s nephew was attested for assaulting « Police Officer's brother and subsequently essaulied by that Police Offices, Chicf Roberts insisted in his testimony he had not concluded termination was an eppropriate penulty prior to commencement of the disciplinary bearing on December 3, 2007 ‘Yet, Chief Raberts: A, Announced to all of his supervisors ata “Comstat” meeting, his intention to terainate Off. Sesore;, B, Wrote, in his own hand, ander “Chiefs discipline chosen” ~ “termination” on July £1, 2007 and; C. Informed his Departement Advocate, Lt. Bernier, thal he had chosen termination as the appropriate remedy, and Lt, Bernier informed the disciplinary panel in his opening statement that termination wes the Chief's recommendation “in this case”, Why would the Chiof of Police misrepresent to thia Panel whea he decided to tearnincte Off, Secore? Why would the Chie! decide termination as the appropsiate discipline before a fair oppertunily (o be heard at a constitntionaily requized Landermill heating?CASE NO, 2008-4-0637 ~ eo wn —EAGE This is clearly a case addzessed to the penalty, not the facts. As this experienced Panel is well aware, the “Tus: Cause” provision in a collective bargaining sereement provides panels before this Board the authonity, indeed, she obligation, to review the penalty imposed as well ag the facts forming the besis for the penalty ‘The scope of review incorporated into the “ust Cause” standard includes fundamental fairness, the circumstancas surrounding the action, whether the discipline imposed is appropriate to effectuate further future compliance with the sule, de process and the simple anslysis of whether “ihe punishment fits the crime.” In addition to the foregoing general principles behind “Just Cause”, this Pane} and this employer have egreed upon a standard for the fais and uniform imposition of disciphine That standard is the Hartford Police Department Code of conduct which has been in effect sitice December 1, 1994, This code was promulgated consistent with the Chief's responsibilily “... for the efficiency, discipline and good condition of the Deparizaont. ..". Forthormore, the Code of Conduct contains the fellowing definition: “Par purposes of this Code of Conduct “Willful? and “Intentions? shall be interchangeabie anc describes a state of maind wherein the employee acts with a conscious objective to canse & particular result or to engage in pacticuler conduct.” Off, Sezore was charged with violating both Section 1.00 and Scatien 7.01, Oft Secore was not charged with a violation of Section 6.£5, intentionally depeiving a prisoner of basic human rights or humane treatment, Why? Scction 6.15 calls for a meximam penalty of 8 5-day suspensinn upon firs! aveactence. , ‘The pastics have been operating under ac eaxplieit Code of Conduct for almost 15 Fears. As roquired by the “Just Cause” standard, this document provides employeos wit due notice of prohibited conduct and the panalty (herefore, It provides the Department the etiodology for uniform imposition oF discigline as also cequired by “ust Cause"-—_PAGE 18 The Departinent charged Off. Secore with two “not-classified charges” (sic), Unlike the other sections of the Code of Cometic, these twa sections do net provide far progressive discipline. This Panel should first caamnine whetier or not OFF. Seccre was properly charged in onder te determine whether or not he was properly punished undes tho Cade of conduct. Section 7.02 of the Code requires both an inteational act and force used “in. effeciuating aa arresi or in the performance and execution of other official deties”. Tris undisputed that OF Seuote isnot effecwadngin anattest Is undisputed that Off, Seeore was off-daty, not in unifon, did not at any time use oF display his police badge, was unarmed on a personal mission, was not ussigned to booking. Nor wae he assigned to eny aspect of the mvestigation of the assault of Slade Secore. iris farther undisputed that Off. Secore was not paid for any portion of the evening of Mey 5-6. 2007, Initially, Chief Roberts conceded Off. Secore was “off-duty” when he went into the lock-up area to question Mr. Perez. "‘Wheri confronted with the language in Section 7.01, Chiet Roberts then claimed Off. Secore was in the performance and execution of his official duties when he assaulted Mr. Perez, How can this be? How can Off, Secore he off-duty for all purposes and by all measures except fur the inomeat he assaulted Mr, Petez? Obviously, Off, Seeore was nol acting in the perfomance and cxcoution of his official duties by going into the booking area to question Mr. Perez and, particuladdy, ia the act of assaulting Mz. Perez. ‘ Perthennore, Off. Secore’s act in striking Mr. Perez was nol “intentional” as defined as dy tho Code af Condact. Dit. Scoore was not in such # state of mine that “with e conscious objective”, he intended to engage in “particular conduct”. Off Secore acted viscerally to the callous chssnissal of bis buutally beaten brother with the expletive “Fuck your brother’CASE NO, 2008-4-0937 _PAGE 19 an Officer to be properly charged, The Code of Conduct, in the firs! instance, toquri Chiet Roberts charged Off, Secere uncer the Coele of Conduct prior ta the disciplinary hearing, Consistent with his intent co terminete Off, Sccore, regardicas of the outcome of the disciplinary hearing. Chicf Roberis intontionally ignored the charge appropriate to Off. Setore’s conduct, Seetion 6,14 spooifically prosecides the conduct of “depriving a prisoner of basie human rights” or “humane testment”, The Code furthor provides for a meximmm ponally of 5 days suspeasion in the event of a first affense. When asked on cioss- examination whether or not Of. Secore deprived Mr. Perez of “basic Tights”, Chief Roberts ai first would not respond and ultimately testified “I don’t know”, When asked whether Off. Secore intentionally did not provide Mr. Perez with “tamane treatment”, Chict Roberts answered in the affirmative, Eartierin cross-examination, before being confronted with Section 6.15, Chief Roberts testified chat depriving Mr. Perea of his “basic rights asa. prisoner” was “important” in the Chiei"s decision-making provess, Accordingly, Chief Roberta has conceded Section 6.125 of the Code of Conduct does describe the misconthuct in which Off, Secore engaged, Section 6,15 requiren vix soparate violadigns of that Section pucr to the imposition of termination, No wonder Chief Roberts and his niinions avoided this charge. Chicf Roberts testified that he “will not allow" people to be assaulted while in castody. Unfortunatly forthe Chief, doe Elatoed Police Depantuent Cente of Conduct which Jong procedes the Chiet’s tenure, is in disagreement. Indeed, even the sections of the Code oJ Conduct under which the Chief charged O1f Seoore belie his argament ‘Those seotions are “unclassified”, which means these sections provide for discipline far shart of lenmination,CASE NO, 2008-40697 _ It was simply wrong to charge OMT, Secore with a violation of Section 1:00 as both Chiet Roberts and Assi. Chief MeRey conceded. Section 1,00 may not bo used if there is 4 move appropriate section of te Code available. Based upon the woriling of the Cade, common sense and testimony of Chief Roberts, Section 6.15 is « "more appropriate” section uncer which to change Off. Secore than either Section 7.01 or 1.00. Hence, by tho very standards sot by the Hartford Poliee Department, Off. Secore should not be terminated. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted the City should be held to the standards it has set oncler ity own Code of Conehict end under which the employees of this Department have operated for fifteen yours. Ttis completely inconsistent with the concept of “Just Canse” for the Department, given the tests and conditions of its own Code, to terminate Cf Secure ‘The City called Chief Robeits to testify cumphatically it is “intolerable” and he “will nal allow" people to be assaulted while in police custody. ‘First as previously argaed, dise’pline must be imposed based upan the established procedures of the Department, not the personal predilections of @ particular Chief. This is piuticularly true where the Mayor's nephew is involved. Second, the Chief's own actions bolie his protestations. Sgt, Semuda was directly approached by Off. Secore, who explained his reason for being in booking while off-duty. Sgt. Samada looked up the case on the camputer and knew, based on Off. Secore’s sisted purpose, chat OFT. Secore was there 10 question 2 person Who assaulted his brother, Set Samude authorized the comfiutativa, if i is so “intolesable” that, someune in lock-up uot be “allowed” to be subjected to physical force, why did Sgr, Samuda receive a 5-day suspension (or allowing a situation ripe for such a regale?10. 20084-0637 __ PAGE 2 Off, Raphael Mens receiver a 1$-day suspension for etanding by during the entire confrouiativa between Off. Secore and Mr, Perez and then Jying about it Funthecmore, how is it that Chief Roberts is “allowing” the conduct engaged in by Off. Secore if he disciplines Off, Secore short of termination? As Off, Socore testified, be hhas been to hell and back. As this Panel can judge from his demeanor, Off, Secose has boen hnumtled, shaken andl changed hy this experienes, As he testified, should there ever be a situation where his brother is involved in a case, he will be the last person to get involved, Off. Secore was always willing to take responsibility for his actions, Responsible discipline ig not the loss of OF. Secore’s euteér. Chief Robert’s position is also not consistent with that of the Department, even in the absence of the Code of Conduct, Prior te the imposition of that Cade, Off, Fames Jenkins engaged in the following conduct, as attested to by two witnesses in addition Lo Mr, Spillane: Mz. Rodriguez attested that Off. Jenlkins opened the door to Mr. Spilane’s vehicle and started throwing things from the track onto the ground. Off, Jenkins “then pulled Bob Spillane out of the track by his waist", Mr. Kodrignez then observed Off. Jenkins pull Mr. “Spillane to the middle of Walnuc Steet, throw him 10 the ground aad punch him three or four Ume. An uninvolved bystinder, Mr, Hernandez, came upon Off. Fenkins as he was on top of Mr. Spillane inthe travel portion of Walnut Si, ponching Mr. Spillane with * oth fists, about four or five times.” Mr. Hernandez thea observod Off. Jenkins spit m Mr. Spillane’s ince, Off. Jenkins lied whee he denied the ellegations of Mi. Homandes, hf, Spillane and ‘Mr, Rodriguer. Ofl, Jenkins teceived a 90-dey suspension. in Novernber 1999, Off, Peterson was initially charged with excessive uae of fore, “which was subsequentiy radaced Io failure to comply with jaefal orders, Off, Peterson stotCASE NO. 20 a Heeing misdemeanent, which is cearly excessive use af force under Section 7.61.- Of. Peterson received u short suspension Jn short, Chiof Roberts cunnot change the tule after the fact and in vialation of the Code of Conduct without running afoul of the principle of Just Cause. ‘Matthew Secore is a good cop. He stands for integrity and responsibility. He is not plone 10 violence, Indeed, his demeanor, record and principles run agsinst the excessive nse of force. This sitaaticn is an abetration for Off, Secor. As Asst, Chief Dryfe attesied, the circumstances of May 5-6, 2007 constituted unique constellation of facts inclnding an OfEicer being let into lock-up by a Sergeant to interview a suspect accused of assaulting his brother. Everything about this case supports the fact we cart take Off, Secore at his word. He cid not go to HED to hart the person wha beat phi brother, He went to ottompt to find out who kicked his cowed brother. He wes not coxeging in an official act as a Police Oifices; it wes instinctual zeaction of a brother in emotional turmiil. Hed events not unfolded in the fashion they did, inciading bat not lied to Mr. Peuea's callous rermark, OIF. Secoce would never have appeared before x Penal of this ‘Board. lis difficult to coourately desosibe cizoumstances, not as they appear under fluorescent light of an SBMA hearing room, but as they in Fact are in the street, hospital rooms orlock-ups, late af night, in the City of Hartford, A cuastellation ot regretlahle | actions, not ody on the pat of Off. Secore, bring us te this juncume. Off. Secore asks now w escape responsibility for his action but rather that the punishment for those actions considers his character and ell ofthe circummstaness, not anly his momentary lapse. Aveordingly, OFF Secore anc the Hartford Police Union respectfaliy request this Panel, consistent with the concept of Tusc Cause, to reverse the temuinatios of Ottiver Secore,SE.NO.2008-A-0637 a PAGE. 03 CUSSION sue ttftamed for the parties atthe The Panel met in Eaccutive Session to discuss the i onset of the henting, At members agrood thet the issue as initially stated was see by the Panol for its consideration. There was no disagresmnent amuang the Patel members that the sctions uf Officer Matthew Sccore were totally unacceptable. Further, the Panel found that the Cety had just eause to discipline the grievant. ‘The remainder.of its deliberation was devoted to the assessment of the City’s level cf discipline. Was there just cause to terminate the grievant? Here, as was in the position of the purtios, a divergence of views, The treatment of a prisoner by an nif-duty offices was, without question, unacceptable, On this point, there was no disagecinenl, However, the Panel found that the ultimate discipline which the City could impose was not consistent with similar discipline issued by the City to other Officer: which allegedty violated the Codé of Conduct ia their physical treatment of suspects/prisoners ‘The City was welt within iis rights to discipline the grievant. It kad just canse: to do so, Nonetheless, the Panel found that termination was too severe a penalty, but rather afong- term suspension would have the same impact upon the grievant end the Department with regard fo unacceptable behavior of um Oificer when deabing with a peeson in eustody, Therefore, the Panel is issuing # long-term suspension in lieu of fesmination as well us ordoting the grievant Lo ero] in an anger management course. The puryose of discipline ism suspension, is to comect, as well as punish, an ineppropaiate job perfocramee. ‘The lon coupled with azger management, hopefully will allow this Officer to zetum to duty and be a credit (0 himself, the Department and the City“The Chief of Potice for the City of Hartford did riot have just cause to terminate the elaployment of Officer Matthew Secare. The termination shall be replaced by 4 ninery (90} day suspension, Phe gricvant is further required « attend and snccessfully complete an appropriate anger management course, He is to be made whole for any Jost regular wagos and benefits beyond the ninety (90) day susponsion period unl he is reinstated. Paret Chair Mare §. Mandel, Esq, Management Member Loge & “s ~ Labor MemberDissenting Opinion ‘This case was a difficult decision for all the members of this panel. All of us agree tht the erievanr deserves some fonw of discipline. 1 believe thet there was substantial evideuce for Chief Roberts to determine that the misconduct of the eriovart merits discharge. Givon the undisputed fucts of this case, | ean find no compelling reason for our panel o set pside the decision of Chief Roberts. Chicf Robetts did not come to his decision lightly. He was fully aware of the consequences of discharging a police officer from employment, This was not simply a matter of an officer getting into an altercation, This grievant made bis way to the police headquarters when he was off duty and hed ne reason to he ut the potive headkmueriers, He mace his way into the Jockup, although he hed no employment related masons for being in the lockup, He approached the suspect ‘who wos alone in the lockup and interrogated him, None of the detectives had authorized the grievant to interrogate tho suspect. Following an unpleasant exchaige with che suspect, the grievant punched him ix the face, causing the suspect to bleed. Hf others officers ed not heard the commotion dnd intervened, the stiwation may have worsened. Chief Roberts endeavors to maintain the highest standatds for his dopartmeat He is a man of granite-like integrity. 1 believe that Chief Roberts exercised his judgment propecly end fairly. I sce no compelling reason (o jetison Chief Robert's decision and. L therefore dissent,