AGENDA POLICE MERIT COMMISSION Monday, September 13, 2021 9:00 a.m. Council Chambers Municipal Building, 229 S. Second Street, Elkhart, IN 46516 htt sbex.comn/coailphp7MTiD=50fd 163664c37bea7 1179283 di6e327 {oes ting Number 2315 609 5009 ass 21 Call to Order Roll Call Approve Agenda Minutes- Regular Meeting August 23, 2021 Police Department * Change of Status- Det. Brandan Roundtree « Notice of Charges, Tentative Hearing Date and Rights- Lt. Carlton Conway Public Participation AdjournmentPOLICE MERIT COMMISSION Monday, August 23, 2021 President James Rieckhof called a meeting of the Police Merit Commission to order at 8:00 am., Monday, August 23, 2021. Clerk of the Commission Nancy Wilson called the role. Commissioners James Rieckhoff, Thomas Barter, Ciffon Hildreth and Brad Billings attended in person. Jean Mayes attended on WebEx APPROVE AGENDA ‘On motion by Brad Billings, seconded by Clifton Hildreth and carried 6-0, the agenda was approved as presented, 2,___MINUTES- Regular Meeting August 9, 2021 ‘On motion by Thomas Barber, seconded by Clifton Hildreth and carried 6-0, the minutes from August 9, 2021 were approved as presented. 3. POLICE DEPARTMENT. ‘Chief Seymore presented a change of status promotion for Cpl, Travis Barnes to the position of Uniform Division Patrol Sergeant, On motion by Clifton Hildreth, seconded by Thomas Barber and cartied 5-0, the Commissioners approved the promotion of Travis Barnes to Uniform Division Patrol Sergeant, Chief Seymore presented a change of status promotion for Cpl. Jesus Contreras to the position of Uniform Division Patrol Sergeant. On metion by Brad Billings, seconded by Thomas Barber and carried 5-0, the Commissioners approved the promotion of Jesus Contreras to Uniform Division Patrol Sergeant Chief Seymore presented a retirement notification for Cp. Wiliam Heerschop. Cpl. Heerschop submnitted a letter indicating his intent to retire from the Elkhart Police Department effective August 19, 2021. Chief Seymore thanked him for his service for over 26 years. On motion by Jean Mayes, seconded by Clifton Hildreth and cartied 5-0, the Commission approved the retirement of Wiliam Heerschop. Chief Seymore presented a retirement notification for Lt, Douglas Ryback. Lt Ryback submitted a letter indicating his intent to retire from the Elkhart Police Department effective August 13, 2021. Chief Seymore thanked him for his service to the EPD and the commurity. On motion by Jean Mayes, seconded by Brad Billings ‘and carried 5-0, the Commission approved the retirement of Lt. Doug Ryback, Chief Seymore presented several commendations and asked the officers to ‘come forward while he read them. The families were invited to attend the meeting to show their love and support to the officers Chief Seymore presented commendations to the Board. Cpl. Jared Davies was commended for organizing the Elkhart Police KS Fun Run. Sgt. Dan Jones was commended for rendering aide to save an infant’s life and for going above and beyond duty. Sgt, Ryan Huff was commended for rendering aide to save a victim's life and for going above and beyond duty. Cpl. Drew Neese was commended for administering Narcan and preventing a drug overdose. Cpl. Chris Lewis was ‘commended for assisting Cpl, Neese with monitoring his airway, breathing, and pulse unil the EFD Medics arrived to take over. Together, they prevented the drug overdose and will receive lifesaving awards. Chief Seymore said these officers demonstrate dedication and professionalism all officers should strive for. He congratulated all of them on a job well done. Mayor Roberson congratulated them and told them Chief Seymore lets himPOLICE MERIT COMMISSION Monday, August 23, 2021 know when you go above and beyond, You are expected to have a certain level of public safety, but you have gone above that to public service. We appreciate what youdo and commend you. The ctizens of Elkhart appreciate you and commend you, 4, ADJOURNMENT ‘On motion by Ciifton Hildreth, seconded by Thomas Barber and cartied 5-0, the City of Elkhart, Indiana Police Merit Commission was adjourned at 8:26 a.m. James Rieckhoff, President Attest _Cifton Hildreth, Secretary9 ee sm ; Piet a ff Eldert noes ris Symare ‘nec vith bec sus a Sea oS ‘September 1, 2021 Police Merit Commission Municipal Building 229 8, Second Street linet, IN 46516 RE: Change of Status - Promotion Det. Brandan Roundtree #393 Sergeant Dear Commissioners: Det, Brandan Roundtree interviewed forthe position of Criminal Investigation Division Sergeant and was selected by the Promotional Review Board; I concur with ther recommendation His efective date is September 1, 2021. Per policy this promotion will have a probationary six snomth period, Respectfully submitted, Kris Seymore Chief of Potice Kstkae Ce: Payrolt Personnel Fileee Saye aug we Police Department 75 Matrfall sha Nes ey ry with ie a oc 742008 September 10,2021, Lieutenant Carton Conway 175 Wotefall Dive Ear, IN 46516 Re: Notice of Charges, Tentative Hearing Date and Rights Deat Lieutenant Conway: have offered charges of misconduct against you pusuantto Ind. Code § 36-8-3.5-17. 1am recommending othe Police Mert Commission tha you be terminated fom your employment ‘with the Elkhart Police Department. ‘On April 8, 2021 the Court of Appeals of Indinaa issued a published opinion in State» Royer referencing the testimony you provide in connection with the criminal prosecution of ‘Andew Royer in 2005 and the 2019 Successive Post-Conviction Relief (PCR) proceedings ‘hic followed his conviction, 166 N.E, 34380 (ad. CL App, Ape 8,202), ‘The Coust of Appeals of Indiana described some of your testimony as pesury, a felony offense under the criminal laws ofthe State of Indiana! The Cout identified your pxjusious testimony surrounding the significant and mateial question whether you provided details to the defendant during the unrecorded potions of your interogation of hm, which he then restate in the reconed portion of the interrogation. The Appellate Court sated ints opinion, reversing Mr, Reyer’ wrongfil murder conviction ‘At Royer’s criminal rial Detetive Conway denied giving Royer details about Saile’s murder during his interrogations of [Defendant Andrew] Royer: "1c 35-441-24 Par Se. 1. (0 person who: (1) make fal, mater seme under cathe lTinntas, sowing he sateen 0 be fe nt baling ob reo) ha nowingly mde two @2) or ore mai sateen, ie proceeding bof coo gad uy, hich are neansstent to th ogres ht oe) oem sees fase; coms rym Love fey. (i poseation under subsection a2): (1th ldo nfrmaton sod rot pecty which steer acta fae; und) easy oa tere be esis Sule for envio by prot Wat the afd made leconelabl eatradiory Stren which ar alr tothe pon qs.[tate] When you were interviewing the defendant, Andrew Royer, forthe fist tine on September 3, did you give him any details about Helen Seior's murder? [et Comway:} No, As a mater of fat, in Mi Royer's ease I _madea point not to doit [State] Way not? (Det, Conways] mean, 1 we were Well aware Of Mr. Reyes, and. we had ined knowledge sbout his mental background. So I definitely wanted to make a pont not o give fo Mr. Royer just for the shoe ct ht he might go ahead and dispose of the concept that we might Ive boen spoon feeding. him information. (ATs. Vol 110149091) (4d. 2403). Contrary to your previous rl testimony, nthe 2019 PCR, you ested in response ‘To questions from Royer's counsel, othe following: (Q; You were the frst one to bring up that he struck Ms. Seilor, comet? AYessi (@: You wer the fist one to bring up that Ms Sailr had a substance poured on ber, coment? As Yessir, (0 You were the firs to bring up that she was stragged coreet? ‘A: Lwould have to ceck my notes; don‘ believe that’s accurate, Q Alvight, we'll get thre if we havent already, bt you were the frst one to bring up tha the towels used to clean up the murder scene must have been thyowm away inthe trash chute or garbage ight? ‘A: As fa, he was the one that brought up the towels ‘as faras being disposed of, yes T bought that up. (@)-You were asking delet questions of Me Royer about infoumation that he id not previously provide you, core? A:Ces sed to cleanup, in aspects, yes si. (PCR Tr 41911-4226). “The Appellate Court in State», Royer noted your contradictory testimony and stated:However, Detective Conway's testimony during the evidentiary hearing on Royer’ sucessve petition for postconviction reli direstlycontadited this spect of bis testimony at Royer’s tial, As our Indiana Supreme Cou has explained, the ue of pexjre testimony “invokes the highest level of appa ferutiny,” and we will st asido a conviction “if there is any reasonable ikelihood that the flo testimony could have affected the judgment ofthe juny.” Gordy v. State, 385 NE2d 1145, 1146 (Ind. 1979). Detective Convay scknowledged during Royer’ successive petition fr postconviction rele that the wae theft person to mention several deta of the eine. He suggested Royer strck slr. He was the frst person to meron tat towels had been ‘hyovm avray. Reyer did not volunteer any pieoes of this information. Yet at Royer's murder tial, Detective Conway testified: [State] Did the Defendant refer to items of — or leaning up ‘things that were desis not release to the pic? [Det, Conway] Yes, am, [State] Were there other details tat were nt released to the public which the defendant seemed to have intimate knowledge of [Det. Conway!) Yes, me's [State] What were those? (Det. Convay’] Locations within the apartment that were rurmmaged though, where some of the evidence wns disposed at [State] Where was that? [Det, Conway] Watefall Highise has an internal garbage che that goes to every floor whee you can drop items down, ‘and they will go down into @ main hopper down ~ actully ‘adjoined tothe ‘outside the parking lt. Some of the items ~ some ofthe towels that were used to clean up the ates ‘ofthe seone were actualy throvm inthe garbage chote, and we found them inthe hopper He knevr this. Noone else~ we did not ever dsseninte that information to him. [Det Conway] Yes, mam. [State] Yet he ed intimate knowledge [Des, Conway] Absolutly.(PAT, Vol. 049293). However, Detective Convay witheld the truth when he attempted t0 bolster the reliability of Royer's confessions by saying Royer knew details about the ‘murder which were not known tothe public, Thus, we bold that Reyer was ‘ented to post-convitin relief due to Dotetive Conway's misrepresentstion {to the jay that he didnot feed information about the erie to Royer and the State's reliance on Detestive Conway's denial ding is closing argument to inmplicne Reyes. ((U, 2404, In rave public rebuke of your egregious conduct which led to the wrongfl ‘conviton of Andrew Ror, the Appellate Court stated: Detective Conway's false testimony at Royer’s tal is ptculny galling because he was an Elkhart Police Department detective at he time of Royer’s cal and, ofthe evidentiary heaving on Reyes successive pefition fr poste conviction eit, Deestive Conway was ill employed by the Elkhat Police Department overseeing the juvenile bureau andthe special victims unit (Ud, at 404 2.20). Adaltionlly, the Appellate Court recognized the differences between your 2005 til tcatimony regarding your claims of concer for Royer’s mental disabilities inthe course ‘of your interrogation and your 2019 testinony atthe post-vonvietion heating in which your testimony reflected a cavalier disrogard for Me, Royer's disabilities. {In your 2005 tral testimony you stated: (Q: Detective Conviay, you indicated that because you were aware of Mi Royer’ challenges mentally that you did speak to some people at Oaklawn, Comet? A: Yes, ma'am, After inquiring into is eondition futher, did you find it vas necessary tall (have a representative or somieone there on his bel? ‘A: No, as a mater of fat, we were told that, that wasn't necessary, (State v, Royer, Te $19:16-519:25) Noting this prior testimony, the Appeliste Court stated: Detective Conway also testified at Royer's etiminal tral that he spoke to someone at Oaklawn before interogating Royer and that individual 4{informed him that it was not necessary to have a counselor present during te interrogation, However, al the evidentiary on Royer’s successive petition for postconviction relief, Detective Conway testified that an Flkhart Housing Authority employee relayed to the Elkhart Police Department that Royer “had a mind of a child.” but Detective Conway dismissed this concern as simply “an opinion.” (Tx, Vol. Il at 202-03.) Royer went onto ask Detective Conviay: [Royer] Between the time Ms, Snider provided you with this information that she lestued from the housing authority and the time that you questioned Andy Royer, so from August 28!to September 3%, 2003, what investigation did you do to determine whether Mr, Royer was mentally disabled? [Det. Conway:} At that point in time, I don’t believe there ‘was really any? [Royer] You didn’t make any phone call fo Oaklawn, right? [Det. Conway:] We didn't have any information about any services that he was, that he was, he was, he was obtaining, atthe time, (ld, ot 204) The State argues Detective Conway's awareness and dismissal of Royer’s mental disabilities doct not constitute newly discovered evidence because it was known at the time of trial that Royer was interrogated alone and that Reyer became confused and fatigued over the course ofthe inteirogaton, Hoviever, Detective Conway's testimony a til [ef the jury withthe impression that he took Royer's mental disabilities into secount ad took protective measures before interrogating Royer; whereas, Detective Conway's testimony daring the successive postconviction evidentiary hearing reveal he cavalier dismissed such concerns (Roper, 166 N.B.3d at 405). In other word, the Indiana Court of Appeals found that you either lied about your oneeins for Mr, Royer's mental disabilities or eavalierly disregarded then — both ‘The natare and severity of your conduct undermines the very foundation of the etiminal 5justice system, As the Indiana Court of Appeals said in reference to your conduc ‘when ln enforcement officers ie under oth they ignore ther publ finde taining betty their oath of office and signal tothe pubic at lrge tat poriy is something not fo be taken seriously. This type of conduct diminishes thepublic trust in Jaw enforcement and is beneath the standard of conduct to be expected of ny aw enforcement office. (4d, 404 1.20), Your conduct amounts to an assault ypon the institution of justice which ‘you swore to uphold and constitutes a violation of your oath of office, No meesure of ‘iscipline for your conduct can restore your ereibility within the criminal justice system. ‘As. result, your tenmination isthe only appropriate discipline tht canbe had, Anything ‘host of your termination would only futher diminish the publio retin lv enforeement ‘and the standard expected of those entrusted with the duty and the obligation to beat ‘witness in cours of law. You are no longer abl perform an essential duty of yout job to ‘provide uncompromised testimony in a court of law. Any etiminal ease you work on is now at sk of dismissal Since the Appellate Court decision in State v, Reyer, atleast one federal bank robbery ‘case has been dismissed as a result of you being the lead detective onthe case. We have ‘eason to believe that if you were to continue with the Elkhart Police Department, may ‘similar decisions dismissing or pleading down charges would take place when prosecutors weigh their ability o prove your cases, given your inability to testify effectively, In addition, the Appellate court in State v. Rayer drew attention tothe failure of the State to disclose evidence to Royer’s defense counsel regarding your removal from the homicide department after the Royer investigation, due to your superios's concer that ‘you had managed to interview an attorney's client by falsely telling his attorney that his ‘lint was nota suspect, but rather a witnes in your investigation. The court held that ‘your superiors concern regarding your misrepresentation which led to your removal fiom the homicide department was evidence thatthe State was required to tum ovee to defense counsel to satisfy the requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 84 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Your superiors concems regarding the integrity of your investigations and your reilly continue today. ‘The Professional Standards Investigation substantiated violations ofthe following polices + Curent Policy 3205.8 (0) & () Performance: © 3205, (@) Pale to disclose or misrepreseating material fet, or making any false or misleading statement on any application, examination form, or oir cleat document, eport or form, or dung the course of any work-related investigation, © 3205.8 () The flsification of any work-related records, making misleading ‘nis or satements with the intent to deceive, o the willfl and uneuthorized removal alteration, desttiction and/or mutation of any department record, public record, book, pape or document 6‘© General Onder #0005 and General Order HOOL (2004-07) (© #0005. Fxeteite of Police Powers: Before exerising our powers, we must ‘earfilly weigh ll surounding fctors, be humane, cautious and restrained, and above al, avoid intolerance, over entnusiasm and auhorterinism. We rst be impartial and act without fear of fav, malice, oil wil, We must ‘show reasonableness eoncering the rights of suspeis and power of atest and ‘deteation, We must demonstate absolute integrity in the cllection of ‘evidence and reporting of facts. ‘©. #0011 A Profesional Approach: Ou reputation will depend on the mannerin ‘which we des, responds and betave, We must protec the character ofthe Etkbart Police Departmont and work constantly to maintain thigh ideals. We rust encourage others todo so by example and leadership and contibate to its excellence by showing resolution and honesty, whatever the problem faced, ‘Business Bthies avd Conduct (Bkhart City Policy) ‘© The sucess operation and reputation of The City is built upon the principles of fur dealing and ethical conduct of our employees. Ou repulation far integrity and excellence requires careful observance ofthe sist and eter ofall applicable laws and regulations, as wo as a serupulous regard forthe highest stars of conduct and personal integrity. ‘The continued succes of the Citys dependent upon ow iizen’s trust and our dedication to preserving that us, Employees owo a duty to the City adits citizens to act n'a way tat will ert the continued trust and confidence ofthe public The City will comply with ll applicable les and regulations and expects its iresor, fiers, and employees to conduct business in accordance withthe Jeter, pit, an intent of all yelevant laws and to reftain frm any egal, dishonest, or unethical conduct, In general the use of good judgment, based on high ethical principles, will guide you with respect to lines of acceptable conduc. Ia situation arises ‘where itis difficult to determine the proper couse of wetion, the mater should ‘ye discuss openly with your immediate supervisor and, if pecessary, with the Director of Human Resources fr advice and consultation Cmplians with his oie of snes this and eats the ‘ssponsiliy of every employe. Dsrgaing fling to comply with his Sana of bsnets cea end col edt daily acento ‘nd inl posible tention of emploment.Based upon thee allegations, the offered charges of misconduct against you constiate: 1. Immoral conduct, a that erm is used in .C. §36-8-3.5-17(0)2)0). 2. Conduct injurious to the public peace cr welfise as tht tm i used in LC. §36-83.5- INYO), 3, Connet unbecoming a mesnber, that tum is used in .C, $36-83.5-1700)2(D. In addition to the eurrent concems regarding your integrity and ability to perform an essential function ofthe job, you have the following history of past discipline: ‘+ March 3, 2021 you reesived a onelay suspension for violation of policy 1010.5, regarding personne complantsdocumentation and policy 320.5.8 regarding performance. You fled complaint against Joy Philips, an offices, and in that complaint misrepresented material facts and made misleading statements. You ‘wrote in the complaint that on July 13, 2020 at approximately 1450 hours you witnessed Det, Phillip leaving the Elkhart Police Department through the CID drs, but aotally viewed it on a video ater the incident. The Captains Review Board recommended x one-day suspension without pay. ‘+ May 12,2005 you received a written reprimand for reporting toa random drug screening fifteen (15) days late + December 3, 2005 you received « Writen Reprimand for Msfeasance for TA case (05-1043, Records indicate you used then Lt. Windbigler’s P.LN. of 4444 since you began atthe department. Revords indieate you began to use the PLN. properly issued to you in March of 2005, However, you continued to use Lt ‘Windbiglers P.LN. and your pin ftom March to September of 2005. You used Lt ‘Windbigler's P.LN. to make multiple long distance eas to your giftiend on department phones. You alleged you didnot kaow the P.LN. of 4444 belonged to Lt Winelbigler, yet you knew it was not your propery issued P.LN. and continued tose it + Onor about May 28, 2011, an incident was documented in RMS by Peggy Snider, ‘wherein you adited to lying to Det, Hauser so Det, Hauser would not fee bad ‘oc have his ego hurt. You told Det Hauser that Peggy Snider felt comfortable with Det, Hauser attending an emergency CAC when in fact Officer Snider had ‘made lout to you she dd not fel comfortable with Det Hauser attending the CFAC duo to his lack of experiencePursuant to Ind. Code 36-8-.5-17(¢) You may request hearing on this matter. Your equest has akeady been reecived and documented. Upon receipt of this eter by the Police Merit Commision, the Commision seated o cond heating on this mat win hy 0) days, The Commission i available to ear this matter on 'AMIPM in th Connon Cour hans Rat ica Bg 229 3 Second Svea, Elehart, Indiana. At that hearing, you are ented tobe represented by counsel, ‘ocalland ecoss-examine witnesses, to require the production of evidence and to have subpoenas issued, served and executed, Ifthe Board determines tht you ar indeed guilty of the misconduct alleged above, it wil vote ‘on your sinction. The Chie’ recommendation i otenninate your employmvent withthe City ‘of Elkhart Police Department. Sincerely, tac Chief of PoliceCertificate of Serview | swear under the penalty of perjury that I delivered a Notice of Heaving to Caton Conway by service upon Carlton Conway in person or by a copy let at Carlton Convray’s lst and usual place of residence on the following date at least 14 days before the date set forthe heating Signature: Dat: Printed Neme: