Exhibit 168

Exhibit Filed under seal

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 1 of 265

EXPERT REPORT OF

MICHAEL E. GRAHAM

Hispanic National Law Enforcement Association NCR et al. v.

Prince George’s County et al.,

District of Maryland No. 18-cv-3821

August 28, 2020

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 2 of 265

I. QUALIFICATIONS

1. For 33 years, I was employed by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s

Department (LASD), rising from the rank of Deputy to the position of Assistant

Sheriff, the third-highest ranking position in the Department. The LASD is the

largest Sheriff’s Department in the United States with approximately 18,000

employees. The Department serves as the primary police agency for more than 2.9

million residents. As the Assistant Sheriff for five years, I was responsible for the

policing and detective functions, and as part of my duties I reviewed all serious

force cases, approved appropriate discipline, and implemented policy and training

to reduce inappropriate use of force. I previously served as the Chief of the

Professional Standards and Training Division, where, among other things, I had

responsibility over Department training and internal affairs.

2. I was a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)

National Law Enforcement Policy Center for over two decades. The Center is

made up of nationally recognized police executives, current and retired, who

identify leading practices and provide sound guidance to the law enforcement

profession to assist in developing policies for individual departments. I am also a

member of the Board of Directors for the Police Assessment Resource Center

(PARC). PARC provides independent, evidence-based counsel and research on

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 3 of 265

effective, respectful, and publicly accountable policing to law enforcement

agencies, government entities, and community groups. PARC was founded in

2001 by the Vera Institute of Justice with the support of the Ford Foundation.

3. I have served as an expert or consultant for the Department of Justice in over

a dozen matters concerning police practices, including matters concerning the

police departments of Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Newark,

Seattle, and Washington, D.C. I have also been retained as a consultant by a

number of jurisdictions.

4. I have served as an instructor and lecturer on various law enforcement and

management subjects at California State University. My undergraduate degree is

from California State University, and I have a masters from the University of

Southern California.

5. My curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A. I have not had any

publications in the last ten years. I have not testified in any matters in the last four

years. A list of materials I have considered in preparing this report is included as

Appendix B.

6. My work on this matter is ongoing, and I reserve the right to supplement,

update, refine, or revise my conclusions or opinions should any additional

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 4 of 265

information be provided to me in the future and to supplement or amend them to

address any additional expert opinions offered in this litigation.

7. I am being compensated in this matter at a rate of $175 per hour,

including any testimony. My compensation is not contingent upon the substance

of my opinions or the outcome of this case.

II. SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT

8. I have been retained by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, the

Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and the

American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, counsel for Plaintiffs in the matter of

Hispanic National Law Enforcement Officers et al. v. Prince George’s County,

Maryland et al., District of Maryland Case No. 18-3821. I have been asked to

evaluate the facts and circumstances involving police practices used at the Prince

George’s County Police Department (“PGPD” or the “Department”), including

assessment of Departmental policies, practices, and customs. This assessment has

included evaluation of PGPD’s policies, practices, and customs when presented

with complaints of racial discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation, the

PGPD’s training concerning such issues, the PGPD’s methods of evaluating,

investigating, and disciplining such complaints, its Internal Affairs function, its

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 5 of 265

disciplinary function, and promotions and their impact on the racial composition of

the varying ranks of the force.

III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS

9. Based on my professional experience and my analysis to date, I have

reached the following conclusions:

a. The Department’s policies for handling complaints about racial

harassment and discrimination are inadequate.

b. The Department has customs and practices of not enforcing its

policies prohibiting racial harassment, discrimination and

retaliation.

c. There are practices within the Department that result in complaints

by minority officers about racial harassment or discrimination not

being treated appropriately, in that they are either not investigated,

not investigated appropriately, or not disciplined appropriately.

The current leadership of the Department appears to have made a

deliberate choice not to track or monitor its performance

concerning these matters.

d. There are practices within the Department that result in complaints

by civilians about racial harassment or discrimination not being

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 6 of 265

treated appropriately, in that they are not investigated, not

investigated appropriately, or not disciplined appropriately. This is

evident in the Department’s failure to address issues involving

complaints of racial profiling and other complaints, the lack of

discipline when senior command officers were caught giving

incentive pay for “high production,” and the failure to address

pervasive trends in the use of force against minority civilians.

e. There are practices within the Department that result in serious

allegations of misconduct being treated differently when the

charges are made against white officers as opposed to officers of

color. In addition, the current leadership of the Department

appears to have made a deliberate choice not to track or monitor its

performance concerning these matters.

f. There is a practice or custom in the Department that when officers

of color complain about any of the foregoing conduct, they

experience retaliation, in that they are transferred or otherwise

removed from their jobs and sometimes face counter-charges. The

pattern of retaliation indicates that leadership of the Department

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 7 of 265

condones retaliation, and, in certain cases, evidence reflects direct

participation of leadership of the Department in retaliatory acts.

g. There are practices within the Department that result in

discrimination in the promotions system, particularly in selection

of Lieutenants and Captains. Officers of these ranks play critical

roles in the Department, including significant roles in enforcement

of EEO policies, the investigation and discipline of misconduct,

the assessment of uses of force, and community relations. The

failure of officers of these ranks to reflect the community may

contribute to some of the discriminatory trends observed in this

report.

IV. BACKGROUND

10. Prince George’s County is a “majority-minority” community,

meaning that a majority of its residents are members of a racial or ethnic minority.

According to the U.S. Census, the estimated population of the county is 909,327

(as of July 1, 2019) current population of the County is 64.4 percent black, 19.5

percent Hispanic, 12.3 percent white/non-Hispanic, and 4.4 Asian.

U.S. Census, County Quick Facts, available at

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/princegeorgescountymaryland,US/PST045219

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 8 of 265

11. The primary law enforcement and public safety agency in the County

is the Prince George’s County Police Department (“PGPD”), which is the fourth

largest law enforcement agency in the State of Maryland.

12. According to recent information presented by the Acting Chief of the

Department, Hector Velez, the current demographic composition of the PGPD

overall force is 43 percent black, 10.5 percent Hispanic, 42.5 white/non-Hispanic,

and 3.7 percent Asian.

13. The demographic composition of the PGPD includes a smaller

percentage of racial and ethnic minorities (blacks, Hispanics, and Asians) than the

County population as a whole; conversely, the PGPD has significantly higher

percentage of white officers than the County as a whole. And the primary

command-level staff (Captains and Lieutenants) are approximately 80 and 65

percent white respectively—a significantly higher percentage than the County and

the PGPD as a whole.

14. The Plaintiffs in this matter have alleged that the fact that the majority

of PGPD officers and senior officers are white has caused tension with the

community the Department is supposed to serve.

In particular, the Plaintiffs have

PG0000986142.

Velez, Prince George’s County Police Department, Presentation to Task Force on Police

Reform (July 2020).

Complaint ¶¶ 2-5.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 9 of 265

alleged that senior managers of the Department have condoned racist behavior and

other misconduct by white officers directed towards minority civilians and officers,

and that the Department has engaged in retaliation against minority officers who

have complained about such conduct.

15. The racial tension that the PGPD has had with the community is not

new. For example, in October 2000, the Department of Justice initiated a pattern

and practice investigation regarding use of excessive force throughout the Police

Department. This investigation resulted in the County and PGPD entering into a

“Memorandum of Agreement” with the Department of Justice in January 2004.

16. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement, the Department was

required to overhaul its use of force and reporting protocols, including its systems

of documentation and review of use of force, its officer training, its processes for

reviewing and tracking other officer misconduct allegations, and enhancing its

“early identification system” to record all uses of force, all complaints, and all

disciplinary actions taken against officers.

Pursuant to the Memorandum of

Agreement, the County agreed to appoint an independent monitor, who served

until 2009.

Complaint ¶¶ 2-5.

Memorandum of Agreement, available at

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2010/12/15/pg_memo_agree.pdf.

Memorandum of Agreement.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 10 of 265

17. The problems of the County and the PGPD continued after the

monitor ceased its activities. An empirical study released in 2015 noted a

significant increase of use of force incidents from 2010 to 2014.

The study noted

news reports about a “pattern of unlawful and corrupt behavior among PGPD

officers and a continued absence of respect for the rule of law among certain

county officials . . . the Prince George’s County government is either unwilling or

unable to make police accountability and department transparency a priority . . .”

18. As discussed in this report, these problems continue to this day. On

October 24, 2016, senior leadership of PGPD were advised that certain of the

Plaintiffs in this action had filed a complaint with the Department of Justice

concerning Civil Rights violations.

In response to learning that information,

Chief Stawinski convened a “Panel on Equity in Promotions, Discipline &

Practices,” which started meeting in April 2017.

In September 2017, the County

was advised by the Department of Justice that it was conducting an investigation

whether PGPD is engaged in a pattern or practice “of discrimination against

Hispanics and African Americans . . . with respect to their employment in sworn

J. Chanin, Evaluating Section 14141: An Empirical Review of Pattern or Practice Police

Misconduct Reform, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Volume 14:67, 95-101.

PG0000155315.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 11 of 265

positions.”

In early 2018, the Panel on Promotions, Discipline & Practices

stopped meeting, without issuing any findings or recommendations.

19. My understanding is that the Department of Justice continues to

investigate issues of discrimination on the force.

V. ANALYSIS

A. The Department’s Policies for Handling Complaints About Racial

Harassment and Discrimination Are Inadequate

20. It is the responsibility of Police Departments operating in a diverse,

multicultural society to treat allegations of racial discrimination and harassment

seriously. When allegations of discriminatory conduct by a law enforcement

officer are presented, they should be investigated and violations should be

disciplined appropriately.

21. I have reviewed Prince George’s County Police Department General

Order Manual, in particular Volume I, Chapter 12 on Discrimination & Sexual

Harassment (“Discrimination & Sexual Harassment Policies”),

which is the

Department’s primary policy concerning racial discrimination and harassment, as

PG0000155355.

Prince George’s County Police Department General Order Manual (“General Order”), Vol. I,

Ch. 12 (Discrimination & Sexual Harassment), available at

https://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16570/Volume-I-

Administration-PDF. Unless otherwise specified, citations to the General Order reference the

version available at the link in this footnote.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 12 of 265

well as Volume I, Chapter 4 on Complaints, which also gives direction to

employees regarding filing complaints and promises them protection from

retaliation (“Complaints Policy”)

(collectively, “PGPD Policies” or “Policies”). I

have concluded that these policies are flawed in a number of respects, as set forth

below.

22. First, PGPD’s Policies have flawed reporting requirements. The

reporting process required by PGPD’s Policies is deficient in a number of ways.

Most notably, the Policies state that “[w]hen employees, other than victims,

become aware of conduct believed to be sexual harassment or discrimination . . .

they shall report the incident to their supervisor or Commander/Manager.” Vol. I.

Ch. 12 § V

(Procedures). And, even if an employee is uncomfortable with this

directive and instead makes a complaint directly to the EEO Coordinator, the

Coordinator is authorized to “[r]efer [the complaint back] to the employee’s

Commander/Manager for mediation.” Id. § V.3 (Complaint Procedures).

23. The reporting procedure for “victims” is more daunting as it states

that as the first step, “Attempts will be made to settle discrimination complaints at

the employee/supervisory level by dialogue between the parties concerned. When

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 4 (Complaints).

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 12 § V (Discrimination & Sexual Harassment: Procedures).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 13 of 265

a solution cannot be reached at this level, employees are urged to seek the

assistance of either the Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinator or the

Assistant Coordinator.” Id. § V.2. Once again, if the “victim” employee is

uncomfortable with this directive and instead makes a complaint directly to the

EEO Coordinator, the Coordinator is authorized to “[r]efer [the complaint back] to

the employee’s Commander/Manager for mediation.” Id. § V.3 (Complaint

Procedures).

24. If the victim complains to the EEO Coordinator, the procedure

provides the victim “shall complete Part I of the Equal Employment Opportunity

Complaint Form …” and “shall either mail the form (marked confidential) or take

it directly to the Deputy Chief, BOAHS,” the assigned EEO Coordinator. Id. This

is flawed. In contrast, the U.S. EEOC states, “When an employee complains to

management about alleged harassment, the employer is obligated to investigate the

allegation regardless of whether it conforms to a particular format or is made in

writing.”

EEOC, Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors

(June 18, 1999), https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 14 of 265

25. Similarly, the Complaints Policy requires all employees who become

aware of “unlawful conduct” or “violation of written directives” of any kind to

report it to their Commander. Vol. I, Ch. 4 § V.6 (Internal Complaints).

26. Read in tandem, these provisions restrict all employees’ options such

that it is difficult, if not impossible, to break out of the chain of command. Policies

like PGPD’s that require employees to report within the chain of command are

ineffective because a supervisor may be the alleged offender, or may have a

relationship with the alleged offender, thereby compromising the potential for

objective and impartial investigation and determination of complaints.

27. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also recommends

that an employer “provide accessible points of contact for the initial complaint”

and designate officials “outside an employee’s chain of command” as the recipient

of complaints, in order to ensure that complaints are handled in an impartial

manner.

Consistent with this guidance, the Model Policy on Harassment,

Discrimination, and Unprofessional Conduct put forth by the IACP (“IACP Model

Policy”) provides that complainants may report either to a supervisor or to the

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 4 § V.6 (Complaints: Internal Complaints).

EEOC, Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors

(June 18, 1999), https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 15 of 265

Office of Professional Responsibility.

Following this guidance, the Chicago

Police Department’s Equal Employment Opportunity Policy specifically excludes

discrimination or harassment complaints from up the chain of command.

The

Maricopa County Sherriff’s Department

policy advises employees who do not

feel comfortable reporting to the chain of command that they have a duty to report

directly to other parties, including Human Resources, the Compliance Bureau

Chief, or the Professional Standards Bureau.

28. Second, PGPD’s Policies contain an ineffective investigation and

resolution process. The PGPD Policies do not provide for a mechanism for

effective and timely investigation of discrimination and harassment complaints.

EEOC guidance requires employers to engage in a “prompt, thorough and

impartial investigation” into an alleged complaint, including, if necessary, a

detailed fact-finding. In cases in which the harasser does not deny the accusations,

International Association of Chiefs of Police Law Enforcement Policy Center, Model Policy,

Harassment, Discrimination, and Unprofessional Conduct § V.C (2) (May 2019),

https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2019-

05/Harassment%20Discrimination%20Policy%20-%202019%20-%20revised.pdf.

Chicago Police Department, Equal Employment Opportunity Policy (August 22, 2017) at IV

(B)(1)(a) http://directives.chicagopolice.org/directives/data/a7a57be2-1288324b-8a612-8833-

4bfc750afb536ed2.html.

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has been the subject of multiple discrimination lawsuits

and Department of Justice consent decrees. This policy was adopted over three years after the

consent decree.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Policy and Procedures, Workplace Professionalism:

Discrimination and Harassment (Jan 24, 2019), pages 5-6, §§ 5(c )(1), 5(c )(2), 5(c )(5),

https://www.mcso.org/documents/Policy/Critical/CP-3.pdf.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 16 of 265

the EEOC recommends the immediate determination of appropriate corrective

action.

29. The PGPD Discrimination & Harassment Policy provides for no

investigative process if a report is made up the chain of command. The Policy is

silent on what, if anything, a Commander must do upon receipt of a complaint.

30. The PGPD Discrimination & Harassment Policy provides that if the

Department’s EEO Coordinator, the Deputy Chief of Bureau Administration and

Homeland Security, receives a complaint, the Coordinator may “handle

informally” the complaint, issue a “final determination,” or simply refer it back to

the chain of command for “mediation.” Vol. I, Ch. 12 § V.3 (Complaint

Procedures).

None of these options contemplates a thorough investigation.

While the EEO Coordinator may also choose to “assign for investigation” the

complaint, the Discrimination & Harassment Policy is silent on who will conduct

that investigation, how, in what time frame, and how the investigation will be

documented. Id. Although the Complaint Policy separately states that “abusive

language” and “harassment” must be investigated by the Internal Affairs

EEOC, Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Liability for Unlawful harassment by Supervisors

(June 18, 1999), https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html.

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 12 § V.3 (Discrimination & Sexual Harassment: Complaint

Procedures).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 17 of 265

Department (IAD) of PGPD, Vol. I, Ch.4 § V.7 (Complaint Assignment),

and the

EEO Coordinator could presumably use this provision to refer harassment

complaints for investigation to IAD, the Policies contain no provisions stating that

IAD is also responsible for investigation of discrimination complaints. Indeed,

there is evidence that the actual practice is that when internal complaints are

discovered to be associated with an EEOC charge, the investigations are

terminated and the cases closed. Several examples are discussed below.

31. The IACP Model Policy, in contrast, directs that the Office of

Professional Standards has responsibility for investigation of harassment and

discrimination complaints.

Similarly, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

Policy and Procedures directs that discrimination and harassment complaints be

“immediately” taken to the Professional Standards Bureau, which documents them

in IAPro and conducts an investigation.

The Chicago Police Department also

states that the Bureau of Internal Affairs has “primary responsibility for conducting

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 4 § V.7 (Complaints: Complaint Assignment).

See Paragraph 67.

International Association of Chiefs of Police Law Enforcement Policy Center, Model Policy

Harassment, Discrimination, and Unprofessional Conduct § V.C (6) (May 2019),

https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2019-

05/Harassment%20Discrimination%20Policy%20-%202019%20-%20revised.pdf.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Policy and Procedures, Workplace Professionalism:

Discrimination and Harassment (Jan 24, 2019), pages 5-7,

https://www.mcso.org/documents/Policy/Critical/CP-3.pdf.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 18 of 265

a prompt and thorough investigation of complaints of employment

discrimination.”

32. In lieu of an effective investigation process by IAD, the PGPD

Policies place a heavy, and inappropriate, emphasis on direct confrontation

between complainants and alleged offenders. The Policies encourage employees

“to confront the offender and make it clear the offensive behavior must stop.” Vol.

I. Ch. 12 § V.2 (Internal Complaints).

Similarly, the Policies state that

“[a]ttempts will be made” to address discrimination complaints in the first instance

“by dialogue between the parties concerned.” Id.

33. These provisions undermine an effective investigative process and

may deter victims from coming forward. Employees should feel no compulsion to

resolve discrimination or harassment by themselves. The Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office Policy and Procedures, for example, explicitly states that “[a]n

employee is not required to directly confront the offender who is alleged to have

engaged in unlawful or wrongful conduct.”

Chicago Police Department, Equal Employment Opportunity Policy (August 22, 2017) at §

IV(B)(4)(a), http://directives.chicagopolice.org/directives/data/a7a57be2-1288324b-8a612-8833-

4bfc750afb536ed2.html.

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 12 § V.2 (Discrimination & Sexual Harassment: Internal

Complaints).

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Policy and Procedures, Workplace Professionalism:

Discrimination and Harassment (Jan 24, 2019), page 5, § 5(C )(1),

https://www.mcso.org/documents/Policy/Critical/CP-3.pdf.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 19 of 265

34. Third, PGPD’s Policies lack appropriate confidentiality protections.

According to the EEOC, an anti-harassment policy should contain, at bare

minimum, an “[a]ssurance that the employer will protect the confidentiality of

harassment complaints to the extent possible.”

The IACP Model Policy provides

for such confidentiality.

The PGPD Policies, however, fail to provide any

assurance of confidentiality to would-be complainants. At minimum, the lack of

such fundamental protections can result in a chilling effect on would-be

complainants; at worst, it can expose complainants to open hostility and retaliation.

35. Fourth, PGPD’s Policies fail to protect complainants from contacts

with the suspected offender. The EEOC provides that an employer may need to

take intermediate measures pending the completion of an investigation, such as

“scheduling changes so as to avoid contact between the parties; transferring the

alleged harasser; or placing the alleged harasser on non-disciplinary leave with pay

pending the conclusion of the investigation.”

The PGPD Policies contain no

provisions allowing PGPD to take appropriate measures to protect complainants

EEOC, Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Liability for Unlawful harassment by Supervisors

(June 18, 1999), https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html.

International Association of Chiefs of Police Law Enforcement Policy Center, Model Policy

Harassment, Discrimination, and Unprofessional Conduct § V.C (7) (May 2019),

https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2019-

05/Harassment%20Discrimination%20Policy%20-%202019%20-%20revised.pdf.

EEOC, Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Liability for Unlawful harassment by Supervisors

(June 18, 1999), https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 20 of 265

from contact with alleged offenders during the investigation of a harassment or

discrimination claim. As a result, complainants may be forced to continue working

alongside offenders, or worse, if the offenders are the complainants’ supervisors,

and potentially endure ongoing discrimination, hostility, or reprisal, while their

complaint is adjudicated.

36. Fifth, PGPD’s Policies do not prohibit all unlawful forms of

harassment and discrimination. In particular, PGPD Policies do not protect

employees from the full range of conduct that is unlawful under applicable law.

An effective anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policy should prohibit

discrimination and harassment based on sex, race, color, religion, national origin,

age, disability, and protected activity.

37. The scope of PGPD’s policies falls short in a number of ways.

Notably, although PGPD prohibits sexual harassment, it does not prohibit

harassment based on other protected characteristics, including racial harassment.

Relatedly, PGPD’s policies do not contain clear anti-discrimination provisions.

The Discrimination & Harassment Policy lacks a clear statement that the

EEOC, Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Liability for Unlawful harassment by Supervisors

(June 18, 1999), https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html.

EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 15: Race and Color Discrimination, § 15-VII (A)(racial

harassment) (April 19, 2006), https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race-color.html.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 21 of 265

Department as a whole prohibits unlawful discrimination and harassment by all

employees.

38. The Discrimination & Sexual Harassment Policy also lacks a plain,

easily comprehensible prohibition on different treatment in the terms, conditions,

and privileges of employment because of an individual’s protected characteristic.

Instead, the definition section of the Policy is hard to follow. It differentiates

between “arbitrary discrimination” and “personal discrimination,”

which are not

terms used in either guidance by the EEOC or the policies of other Police

Departments that I have reviewed. “Arbitrary discrimination” is defined in part by

reference to other defined terms, while “personal discrimination” is defined as

deprivation of “a right,” without explanation of what rights may be applicable in

the context of employment. The other terms in the definition section, including

“prejudice,” “racism,” “disparaging terms,” and “stereotyping,” do little to clarify

what kind of activity is prohibited.

39. The policies of other police departments contain clearer and more

effective prohibitions on harassment and discrimination. The IACP Model Policy

defines discrimination as “[u]nfair or unequal treatment of an individual or group

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 12 § III (Discrimination & Sexual Harassment: Definitions).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 22 of 265

based on protected class status.”

The Chicago Police Department clearly states

that “City and Department policies prohibit discrimination against employees” on

various bases.

The 2019 Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Policy and

Procedures “prohibits unlawful discrimination and harassment based on an

individual’s membership in a category protected by federal or state law.”

further defines discrimination as different treatment in the terms and conditions of

employment based on a protected characteristic, and proscribes all unlawful forms

of harassment, not just sexual harassment.

40. Finally, PGPD’s policies are deficient in their protections for officers

who raise complaints of misconduct by other officers. Vol. I, Ch. 4 § V.6

states

that “Any employee who becomes aware of unlawful conduct or a violation of

written directives shall report it to the involved employee’s Commander/Manager.

International Association of Chiefs of Police Law Enforcement Policy Center, Model Policy

Harassment, Discrimination, and Unprofessional Conduct § III (definitions) (May 2019),

https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2019-

05/Harassment%20Discrimination%20Policy%20-%202019%20-%20revised.pdf.

Chicago Police Department, Equal Employment Opportunity Policy (August 22, 2017) at II,

http://directives.chicagopolice.org/directives/data/a7a57be2-1288324b-8a612-8833-

4bfc750afb536ed2.html.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Policy and Procedures, Workplace Professionalism:

Discrimination and Harassment (Jan 24, 2019), page 1,

https://www.mcso.org/documents/Policy/Critical/CP-3.pdf.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Policy and Procedures, Workplace Professionalism:

Discrimination and Harassment (Jan 24, 2019), page 2,

https://www.mcso.org/documents/Policy/Critical/CP-3.pdf.

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 4 § V.6 (Complaints: Internal Complaints).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 23 of 265

In confidential matters, reports may be made directly to the Commander, IAD.”

This policy does not define what a “confidential matter” is. Nor does it provide

any direction for employees who have reason not to report up the chain of

command, such as EEO issues or complaints against a supervisor. In addition,

nothing in the policies imposes any requirement that the IAD Commander

investigate the complaint or honor the confidentiality request. The policy should

give the option for all officers to report misconduct to the Internal Affairs Division,

with the assurances that the complaint be thoroughly investigated and its

confidentiality maintained.

41. The anti-retaliation provisions contained in Vol. I. Ch. 4 § V.9

also

do not do enough to protect officers who report misconduct. The policy states that

retaliation is prohibited, that the officer against whom allegations were made shall

not have contact with the complainant and witness, and that “[t]he same standards

of conduct shall apply when officers are witnesses or complainants.” The Policy

then focuses on the need to call supervisors to the scene when a citizen

complainant interacts with an officer under investigation. The protection for

officer complainants should be placed in a separate section of the policy to

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 4 § V.9 (Complaints: Retaliatory Acts Against Complainants

Prohibited).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 24 of 265

emphasize the importance of protecting officers who make good faith

complainants about misconduct. Similar to the anti-discrimination policy, there is

no mechanism for complainants to be removed from working with or under the

supervision about whom they have complained. There is also no mechanism to

report retaliation or investigate allegations that retaliation has occurred.

42. Despite the many complaints of incidents of racial discrimination,

harassment, and retaliation within the Department,

the Department’s EEO

Coordinators made little effort to ensure officers understood their obligations under

the existing policies or to promote anti-discrimination or anti-retaliation efforts

within the Department. In their depositions, the three last EEO Coordinators

described their the anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation efforts as limited to

“ensuring the EEO posters were posted around the Department,” sending “out

quarterly e-mails referenc[ing] how to file an EEO complaint [and with] general

information on the EEO.”

The current EEO Coordinator also testified (as the

County’s 30(b)(6) witness) that “supervisors are required to attend EEO training”

and “the general orders has annual in-service training provided to officers which

See, e.g., infra ¶¶ 66-68.

Grant Dep. Tr. 35:12-37:19; see also Harvin Dep. Tr. 52:5-53:14; 152:1-11; Powell Dep. Tr.

25:3-26:10.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 25 of 265

state our policy on ensuring that all district commands are free of

discrimination.”

43. I have also reviewed a printed copy “Prince George’s County Police

Department Supervisors and Managers Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)

Training,” which is a Power Point that appears to be primarily presented through a

DVD presentation.

I understand that this was the only training materials

submitted by PGPD to the Department of Justice in response to a request for

training materials regarding discrimination or harassment, and that Defendants

have not produced substantially different anti-discrimination training materials in

discovery in this matter. PGPD’s training on employment discrimination is

deficient. For example:

 While the training provides examples of sexual harassment, it does

not explain that a hostile work environment is unlawful when

based on any protected category, including race. It would be

important to have modules on how racial slurs and jokes are

harmful and unlawful.

Harvin Dep. Tr. 51:8-53:2.

PG0000000348-394; PG0000000395-441.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 26 of 265

 The training contains minimal discussion of retaliation, and no

discussion of steps supervisors should take to discourage, prevent,

or report retaliation.

 The policy also fails to accurately advise recipients on a number of

critical issues. For example, it is misleading as to the deadlines for

filing a charge of discrimination, in that it does not make clear that

internal reporting of discrimination does not toll deadlines to file

an external complaint or charge.

 The training also ignores key protections under Maryland state

law, including accommodation for pregnant employees and

prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,

gender identity, and marital status. Md. Code State. Gov. § 20-

606.

44. Based on the materials produced by Defendants, I have other

significant questions about PGPD’s anti-discrimination training:

 Who receives the training? Is training given to new recruits? Is

training given to rank-and-file officers? The presentation title of

PG0000000348-394 at 363.

PG0000000348-394 at 383.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 27 of 265

the training Power Point indicates that the intended audience is

limited to supervisors (which is consistent with internal emails and

some of the training sign-in sheets Defendants have produced).

This is also consistent with the testimony of the current EEO

Coordinator, who testified (as the County’s designated

representative) that “[a]ll supervisors are required to attend EEO

training,” “[t]here’s training provided to both commanders and

managers,” Commanders are “responsible for ensuring that all

supervisors attend annual in-service training,” and “there is no

formal training for the rank-and-file.”

PGPD has produced

records indicating that only a small percentage of rank-and-file

officers received this training,

which is consistent with internal

emails and testimony indicating the training is limited to

supervisors.

All members of the Department should receive anti-

discrimination training. Indeed, the Power Point includes language

PG0000154901-902; PG0000966820-966830.

Harvin Dep. Tr. 52;22-23, 55:25-56:1, 74:18-24; 188:5-6. See also Harvin Tr. 93:19-20

(“EEO training is provided to all supervisors and commanders”); 97:25-98:2 (“each officer the

rank of sergeant and above attends EEO training as a sergeant”).

PG0000968917-33; PG0000968914-16; PG0000969037-042; PG0000966820-30; PG

PG0000969165-75; PG0000969221-23; PG0000969043-45; PG0000969743-50;

PG0000969751-61; PG0000969762-77; PG0000969224-31; PG0000968965-79.

PG0000154901-902; PG0000658090-658091.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 28 of 265

that supervisors should “Ensure that all employees have attended

the mandatory Workplace Harassment Training (WHAT) during

New Employee Orientation.”

But the current EEO Coordinator

acknowledged there was no training for rank-and-file officers but

he planned to commence such training for new police officers at

“the start of being hired as a police officer” starting in July 2020.

Defendants have not produced any materials in discovery

indicating that this effort has actually commenced.

 How often is training given? When asked that question, former

Deputy Chief Raphael Grant, the former EEO Coordinator, could

not say.

Neither could former Deputy Chief Melvin Powell, who

served as EEO Coordinator after Grant.

The records produced by

Defendants indicate that training was given sporadically, and in

many years, few officers attended. The sign-in sheets produced in

discovery reflect that only:

i. 53 officers attended EEO training in 2014 (all supervisors),

PG0000000348-394 at 370.

Harvin Dep. Tr. 188:5-15.

Grant Dep. Tr. 76:25-77-19, 81:18-81:24.

Powell Dep. Tr. 25:16-22, 26:7-10.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 29 of 265

ii. 63 officers attended the EEO training in 2015 (all

supervisors);

iii. 235 officers attended the EEO training in 2016 (all

supervisors);

iv. 633 officers attended the EEO training in 2017, the majority

after the Department learned the Justice Department was

conducting an investigation;

v. no officers attended EEO training in 2018;

vi. 68 officers attended EEO training in 2019 (all supervisors),

and

vii. 251 supervisors have attended EEO training at

“administrative school” in 2020.

 How often are officers required to attend EEO training? The

current EEO Coordinator testified that supervisors received EEO

training in “supervisor school” which “is attended once,” and

Commanders received EEO training in “administrative school,”

PG0000968917-33; PG0000968914-16; PG0000969037-042; PG0000966820-30; PG

PG0000969165-75; PG0000969221-23; PG0000969043-45; PG0000969743-50;

PG0000969751-61; PG0000969762-77; PG0000969224-31; PG0000968965-79.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 30 of 265

which is also attended once.

Anti-discrimination training should

be given at least annually.

 Is training conducted live and is an instructor present for the

training? The current EEO Coordinator testified that “historically

it’s been live,” but acknowledged that “there are some occasions of

when . . . they do offer the video.”

While the EEO Coordinator

testified that video viewing is supposed to be done “in a

classroom” supervised by an instructor, he could not say whether

that was “always the case.”

In at least one instance, supervisors

were directed to the clerk’s office to check out a DVD by signing it

out.

How did the Department confirm that these individuals

actually viewed the DVD? The Power Point contains several

hypothetical questions that present scenarios and ask the viewer to

determine whether the conduct constitutes harassment; but the

written answer is given immediately following the question. If

there is no instructor present, how is the viewer supposed to

Harvin Dep. Tr. 179:22-180:12.

Harvin Dep. Tr. 179:3-11.

Harvin Dep. Tr. 190:23-191:11.

PG0000154901-154902.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 31 of 265

discuss the scenario or ask any questions? The DVD is a training

aid, designed as a support for a subject matter expert’s

presentation, not a substitution. A qualified instructor should

present this information live in a format that allows interaction.

 Does the Department do anything to ensure that viewers actually

and accurately understand the training? The Power Point

presentation is not interactive and does not test to ensure the

viewer understands the information. The Department has recently

produced a draft “quiz” in discovery, but the questions are limited

to questions about sexual harassment (i.e., they do not test

comprehension about other types of discrimination or retaliation)

and contain questions about North Carolina rather than Maryland

law; the Department has produced no evidence the quiz was ever

administered.

And during his testimony, the current EEO

Coordinator testified that he was “not aware of any quiz” or any

other written evaluation of comprehension of the EEO training or

discrimination.

Testing is important because it confirms the

PG0000967475-967476.

Harvin Dep. Tr. 193:2-193:11, 195:5-19.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 32 of 265

viewer understands the information, and would allow the

Department to identify supervisors who score poorly for remedial

training. The Department does not appear to do anything beyond

confirming officers signed a sign-in sheet.

45. In sum, while I have a number of open questions, there appear to be

significant flaws in PGPD’s anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policies and

training related to such policies.

B. The Department Does Not Enforce Critical Components of Its

Anti-Discrimination, Anti-Harassment, and Anti-Retaliation

Policies

46. The Department made almost no effort to ensure that the

Department’s anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, and anti-retaliation policies

were enforced. Of note, the Department never conducted any audit, survey,

assessment or review during Chief Stawinski’s tenure to determine whether its

commands were free from racial harassment or discrimination.

47. Rather, the task of enforcing the anti-discrimination, anti-harassment,

and anti-retaliation policies was left exclusively to his Deputy Chiefs, specifically

EEO Coordinator Raphael Grant and his successors, Deputy Chiefs Melvin Powell

Stawinski Dep. Tr. 87:4-90:11; Harvin Dep. Tr. 83:3-8.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 33 of 265

and Robert Harvin.

Their testimony, however, confirms that measures to ensure

these anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policies were enforced were minimal.

For instance, former Deputy Chief and EEO Coordinator Raphael Grant testified

his only actions to ensure the Department was free from discrimination were

limited to “ensuring that the EEO posters were posted around the Department,” and

sending “out quarterly e-mails [that] reference how to ifle an EEO complaint.”

fact, Deputy Chief Grant testified that the only thing he himself did to ensure that

commanders or managers strictly enforced the discrimination policy promptly and

appropriately was to attend the Academy-run trainings himself.

During Deputy

Chief Robert Harvin’s tenure as EEO Coordinator, he testified that his efforts to

enforce his anti-discrimination policies were limited to sending quarterly emails

and providing the EEO training, which (for the reasons described above) were not

adequate.

48. The Department’s failure to enforce its anti-discrimination and anti-

harassment policies is reflected by the lack of consequences for officers who fail to

adhere to these policies. For instance, during Chief Stawinski’s tenure, despite

numerous instances of racist or discriminatory conduct on the force (discussed

Stawinski Dep. Tr. 87:4-90:11.

Grant Dep. Tr. 35:19-22, 35:25-36:1.

Grant Dep. Tr. 46:5-17.

Harvin Dep. Tr. 52:5-53:14; 152:1-11; see also Powell Dep. Tr. 25:3-26:10.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 34 of 265

below) the Department never relieved any Commander or Manager of their

command for failing to ensure their command was free from harassment or

discrimination.

Nor was any Commander or Manager ever disciplined for failing

to ensure that their command was free from harassment or discrimination during

Chief Stawinski’s tenure.

49. Moreover, during Chief Stawinski’s tenure, no supervisor was

investigated for failing to ensure that their command was free from harassment or

discrimination.

Nor had any supervisor been disciplined during Chief

Stawinski’s tenure for failing to take prompt and appropriate corrective action

when they were made aware of conduct that may be interpreted as discrimination

or harassment.

50. It was the Department’s practice that complaints of racial harassment

or discrimination were not investigated by Internal Affairs if the complainant filed

a charge or complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The Department’s 30(b)(6) witness for Internal Affairs Division matters testified

that if a complaint related to discrimination or harassment was received by Internal

Stawinski Dep. Tr. 91:14-25, 94:24-95:6; Velez Dep. Tr. 173:9-13; Grant Dep. Tr. 44:24-45:3.

Stawinski Dep. Tr. 93:3-13; Velez Dep. Tr. 173:15-20; Grant Dep. Tr. 44:19-23.

Stawinski Dep. Tr. 93:14-94:4; Grant Dep. Tr. 46:5-49:16.

McCreary Dep. Tr. 42:17-43:7.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 35 of 265

Affairs, that complaint is sent to the EEO Coordinator, who “makes the

determination on whether it falls within the realm of an EEOC complaint.”

If the

EEO Coordinator determines that the complaint “falls within the realm of an

EEOC complaint,” then the complaint “would remain with the EEOC coordinator”

and no parallel Internal Affairs Division investigation would be conducted.

This

policy treats officers who file EEO complaints differently than officers who file all

other types of complaints, which are investigated by IAD on the basis of the

allegations. It makes no sense to stop an investigation merely because the officer

indicates they have or intend to file a charge with the EEOC—all complaints

should be evaluated for merit, and if the complaint has merit, it should be

investigated. It also makes no sense that, by policy, a minority civilian’s

discrimination or harassment complaint would be investigated by IAD, but a

similar complaint from a minority police officer, by an unwritten policy, would

not.

51. The Department similarly failed to enforce adequately its anti-

retaliation policies. As confirmed by several command staff, including Chief

Stawinski and Acting Chief Velez, the Department never conducted any audit,

McCreary Dep. Tr. 42:22-24.

McCreary Dep. Tr. 43:3-7.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 36 of 265

survey assessment or review to determine whether retaliatory acts against

complainants or witnesses had occurred.

52. Department leadership similarly could not identify a single instance in

which a supervisor, commander, or manager was ever investigated, terminated, or

disciplined for failure to enforce the provision of the Department’s anti-retaliation

policy, or the Department’s “no contact” policy that the officer against whom

allegations were made shall not have contact with the complainant and witness.

Nor could they identify any supervisor, commander, or manager lost their

command for failure to enforce the “no-contact” policy during Chief Stawinski’s

tenure.

Witnesses similarly testified that during Chief Stawinski’s tenure, no

officer was ever investigated

or disciplined

for engaging in retaliatory acts

against complainants or witnesses.

C. The Department Does Not Treat Complaints About Racial

Harassment or Discrimination Appropriately

53. It is the responsibility of the Prince George’s County Police

Department to treat allegations of racial discrimination and harassment seriously.

McCreary Dep. Tr. 182:5-25; Velez Dep. Tr. 146:20-148:13; Stawinski Dep. Tr. 52:22-53:23.

Stawinski Dep. Tr. 57:8-58:19; Velez Dep. Tr. 155:7-156:1.

Stawinski Dep. Tr. 57:13-17; Velez Dep. Tr. 155:12-16.

Stawinski Dep. Tr. 54:21-55:21; Velez Dep. Tr. 147:10-152:4; McCreary Dep. Tr. 183:15-

184-25; Grant Dep. Tr. 50:8-51:1; Mills Dep. Tr. 32:22-33:18; ; Powell Dep. Tr. 54:21-55:2.

Stawinski Dep. Tr. 52:24-54:20; Velez Dep. Tr. 147:10-152:4; McCreary Dep. Tr. 183:15-

184-25; Grant Dep. Tr. 50:8-51:1; Mills Dep. Tr. 31:20-32:21; Powell Dep. Tr. 54:15-17.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 37 of 265

When allegations of discriminatory conduct by a law enforcement officer are

presented, they should be investigated and violations should be disciplined

appropriately.

54. The Department has certain policies that speak to issues of racial

discrimination and harassment. As noted above, the Department has General

Order Volume I, Chapter 12,

which is its general policy that addresses racial

discrimination and harassment.

55. In addition, the Department has certain specific policies regarding the

investigation and discipline of racial discrimination and harassment. For example:

a. General Order Volume I, Chapter 4 concerns “complaints,” and

covers both internal and external complaints. Chapter 4 Paragraph

V.7 states that certain types of serious complaints, including “use

of force, abusive language, harassment . . . must be investigated by

IAD.”

b. General Order Volume I, Chapter 4 Paragraph V.10

concerns

complaints of “bias-based profiling” and states that “Officers are

prohibited from using bias-based profiling.” That section also

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 12 (Discrimination & Sexual Harassment).

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 4 § V.7 (Complaints: Complaint Assignment).

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 4 § V.10 (Complaints: Bias-Based Profiling).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 38 of 265

provides that there is to be “annual training” and “re-training on

profiling,” and that the “Commander, IAD, shall submit a monthly

report to the Chief of Police that summarizes all complaints of

profiling against Departmental employees” and “the Commander,

IAD, shall conduct an annual analysis of complaints and

investigations, and submit a report to the Chief of Police.” Id.

c. General Order Volume I, Chapter 11

concerns “Discipline.” The

Department has policies that treat certain types of serious

complaints, such as use of “discriminatory language” or “excessive

force” warrant the most severe “Category IV” discipline, which

include reduction of rank, removal from the promotional cycle,

suspensions exceeding 40 hours, and termination.

56. There is also a significant inconsistency in Department policy

concerning investigation of complaints of racial harassment and discrimination.

While General Order Volume I, Chapter 4, Paragraph V.7

states that serious

complaints (including harassment and abusive language) “must be investigated” by

the Internal Affairs Division, another policy directs such complaints in the first

General Order, Vol. I, Ch.11 (Discipline).

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 4 § V.7 (Complaints: Complaint Assignment).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 39 of 265

instance to be addressed by the employee’s supervisor and through direct

confrontation:

2. Internal Complaints: Attempts will be made to settle

discrimination complaints at the employee/supervisory level by

dialogue between the Parties concerned . . . When an employee

observes behavior or finds a casual remark to be offensive, the

employee is encouraged to confront the offender and make it clear

that the offensive behavior must stop. General Order, Vol. I, Ch.

12, § V.2.

57. Contrary to the Department’s policies, based on my review of the

available evidence, complaints of racial discrimination and harassment are usually

not investigated at all. As discussed below in paragraphs 67 and 68, the few

instances that Defendants have identified that were formally investigated have not

been adequately investigated.

Moreover, former Chief Stawinski and other

witnesses testified that the Department’s unwritten policy is that when complaints

of discrimination are discovered to be associated with an EEO charge, they will not

be investigated.

Record evidence also indicates that if an investigation was

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 12 § V.2 (Discrimination & Sexual Harassment: Internal

Complaints).

The Defendants identified such a list of cases at PG0000001362-63. In addition to these

matters, I have independently reviewed to see whether the matters the Defendants have identified

where EEOC charges were filed were also investigated by the Department. These matters are

discussed in paragraph 67 below.

Harvin Dep. Tr. 145:11-146:13; Grant Dep. Tr. 76:16-77:2; Powell Dep. Tr. 59:8-15.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 40 of 265

underway and the complainant files an EEO charge, the investigation is terminated

and the cases closed.

These matters are discussed below.

58. The lack of investigation into complaints of racial discrimination and

harassment is confirmed by the (i) examination of the Department’s response to the

Department of Justice, (ii) examination of the Department’s response to formal

charges of discrimination filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC), (iii) review of the Department’s IAPro database, and (iv)

specific incidents identified in the Complaint and by the Plaintiffs.

59. In conjunction with responding to requests by the Department of

Justice investigation to identify “[a]ny and all Internal Affairs investigative case

files . . . involving employment-related allegations including . . . discrimination,

unfair treatment, disparate treatment, bias, harassment, race . . . retaliation, [and]

hostile work environment,” the Defendants identified a handful of investigations

between 2013 and 2019 which involved a complaint that a white (or unknown)

officer engaged in racist conduct.

Grant Dep. Tr. 76:16-77:2; Harvin Dep. Tr. 145:11-146:13; Powell Dep. Tr. 59:8-15; IA2015-

092 (PG0000042371-42436 at 42391).

PG0000001362-63; PG0000852473. The Defendants’ lists of such incidents also included

several matters where a white officer filed a complaint, and three matters where a minority

complainant does not appear to be alleging racist conduct. IAQ2015-021 ( / );

IA2014-017 ( IA2018-012 (Unknown/ ).

Officer A-1

Captain F-1

Officer D-1

Officer T-3/

Lieutennant S-4

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 41 of 265

60. As discussed below, the evidence indicates that these investigations

represent a small number of the incidents that were brought to the Department’s

attention.

61. For example, in response to discovery requests, the Defendants have

identified approximately 57 matters where a PGPD officer or employee filed a

formal charge with the EEOC.

Of these 57 charges, there is no record in the

materials produced of any investigation (by Internal Affairs or by field command)

for 49 of these.

In other words, over 85 percent of complaints of discrimination

or harassment did not result in a formal investigation.

62. The Department’s discrimination and harassment policy provides

that in the event the supervisor cannot resolve the matter, employees have recourse

to the Department’s Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinator or Assistant

Coordinator. General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 12 § V.2-3.

The same policy states that

the EEO Coordinator and Assistant Coordinator are required to meet and discuss

“a method of resolution with the employee,” which methods of resolution include

“investigation” and making a “final determination.” Id. In response to discovery

PG0000001364-1372; PG0000936765-93769.

There is overlap between these cases and the cases the Department identified for the

Department of Justice. IA2015-092, IA2016-008, and IA2013-075 are on both lists.

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 12 § V.2-3 (Discrimination & Sexual Harassment: Internal

Complaints, Complaint Procedures).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 42 of 265

requests, I understand the Defendants have not identified any investigations or

final determinations made by the EEO Coordinator or Assistant Coordinator, nor

(with one exception) have they produced any document indicating that any such

investigations or determinations were made.

At his deposition, Deputy Chief

Grant, who served as the EEO Coordinator, stated that he did not meet with the

complainants or conduct an investigation if the complainant had filed an EEO

charge, and that he only interviewed only a single complainant.

Deputy Chiefs

Harvin and Powell confirmed that this was their practice as EEO Coordinators as

well. Deputy Chief Powell confirmed that it was his practice as EEO Coordinator

to not undertake a screening interview with a complainant if the case is associated

with an EEO charge.

Deputy Chief Powell could not point to any written policy

providing that an EEO charge should preclude the Department’s EEO Coordinator

from conducting a parallel investigation,

while Deputy Chief Harvin attributed

this policy to a directive from the County Law Office.

I also understand that in

Prince George’s County’s Objections and Answers to UBPOA’s First Set of Interrogatories

No 2; Prince George’s County’s Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set of

Interrogatories Nos. 10 & 11. The sole exception produced in discovery is that Deputy Chief

Grant wrote a memorandum closing the internal review of Captain Perez’s October 2016 EEO

complaint, as it related to Major Mills. PG00000660022-23. Deputy Chief Grant testified that

he interviewed Perez and Mills, but did not interview the other subjects of Perez’s complaint

(Chief Stawinski and Major Alexander) or anyone else. Grant Dep. Tr. 168:24-173:4.

Grant Dep. Tr. 76:25-77-19, 81:18-24.

Powell Dep. Tr. 59:8-15.

Powell Dep. Tr. 59:21-24.

Harvin Dep. Tr. 142:9-19.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 43 of 265

response to discovery requests, the Defendants have neither identified nor

produced any instances where the EEO Coordinator or Assistant Coordinator

referred an allegation of discrimination or harassment to IAD.

63. The IAPro database, as described below, also confirms that contrary

to Department policy under General Order Volume I, Chapter 4, § V.7,

100

which

states that certain types of serious complaints “must be investigated by IAD,” there

are a number of cases involving allegations of racial harassment, abusive language,

use of force, and criminal misconduct that were left to the field command to

investigate or were treated as “inquiries” and closed without investigation. I have

attached a schedule of these matters as Exhibit A.

64. This policy violation and relegation of serious allegations of racist

conduct to the field for investigation is consistent with what I have observed in the

record, as well as information the plaintiffs have provided. For example, the

record indicates that in May 2017, IAD Commander Kathleen Mills was presented

with two separate allegations of racial harassment by Sergeant Darrin Rush made

by officers under his direct supervision, Police Officer Latashia Pinckney and

Corporal Terrence Brown.

101

These allegations followed several other complaints

Prince George’s County’s Objections and Answers to UBPOA’s First Set of Interrogatories

No 3.

100

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 4 § V.7 (Complaints: Complaint Assignment).

101

PG0000156074-156106 at 156075-077 and 156089-156101.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 44 of 265

against Sgt. Rush for engaging in racist behavior (one of which was sustained),

102

and HNLEA and UBPOA specifically brought to Chief Stawinski’s attention on

May 8, 2017.

103

Adhering to the Department’s Complaint Policy regarding

harassment, these matters were brought to IAD Commander Mills’ attention by

confidential emails from PO Pinckney and Cpl. T. Brown. On May 16, 2017, in a

breach of Policy regarding Internal Complaints and confidentiality, Commander

Mills assigned the complaints back to the field, to their District Commander

(Major Guixens) to be addressed;

104

Commander Mills specifically notified both

Chief Stawinksi and Assistant Chief Velez that she was sending PO Pinckney’s

and Cpl. Brown’s confidential complaints back to Commander Guixens.

105

There

are several notable aspects of this episode:

 At her deposition, Commander Mills attributed the decision to assign

these matters back to the field to Captain Art’z Watkins, who made

the determination without having interviewed the complainants or

having conducted any investigation.

106

As senior Internal Affairs

102

Compl. ¶ 61(b); IA2016-008 (PG0000043186-43284) and IA2016-034 (PG0000025286-

25415).

103

PG00000155747.

104

PG0000156074-156106 at 156078 and 156102; Mills Dep. Tr. 354:4-356:10; Watkins Dep.

Tr. 227:3-7.

105

PG0000162779-162780.

106

Mills Dep. Tr. 354:4-355:1; Watkins Dep. Tr. 233:24-8 , 235-20-236:8.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 45 of 265

officers, both Major Mills and Captain Watkins should understand the

Department’s policies regarding investigation of harassment and

discrimination complaints. Neither Major Mills, nor the Chief, nor

the Assistant Chief tried to stop this reassignment to the District

Commander, which was in breach of Department policies. Indeed, it

was Major Mills, not Watkins, who authored the email referring the

employees back to their Commanders, and in so doing, breached the

Department’s policies regarding handling complaints of harassment

and to keep complaints confidential.

 Commander Mills knew the complaints were confidential as she

notified both Officers Pinckney and Brown by email that their

“confidential complaints” were sent back to their Commander, Major

Rosa Guixens.

107

 If Commander Mills believed the complaints were only related to the

Harassment and Discrimination Policy, Commander Mills had no

authority under the General Orders to refer the complaints to the field;

under the General Orders, that authority is only given to the EEO

107

PG0000156074-156106 at 156078 and 156103.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 46 of 265

Coordinator and only after meeting and discussing the claim with the

grievant. General Order Vol. I, Ch. 12 § V.3.

108

 In violation of the Department’s Discrimination and Sexual

Harassment Policy, Commander Mills wrote to the complainants, “in

the event that your Commander cannot rectify this situation, she will

consult with me to determine the next best course of action.”

109

 Commander Mills also violated the IAD Standard Operating

Procedures by failing to provide the referred complaints to the

Administrative Staff to assign case numbers and be entered into the

IAPro case management system.

110

 There is no evidence in IAPro or the Internal Affairs investigative

files produced by the Department that there was any investigation into

Sgt. Rush’s conduct concerning these complaints. At his deposition,

Captain Watkins confirmed that no investigation was conducted by

Internal Affairs into either complaint before sending it back to the

District Commander.

111

108

PG0000000595-598 at 597.

109

PG0000156074-156106 at 156078.

110

IAD Standard Operating Procedures C1-C3, C5 & C8 (PG0000000497-530); Mills Dep. Tr.

357:9-12.

111

Watkins Dep. Tr. 235:20-236:8.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 47 of 265

 There is no evidence that the field Commander addressed these

discrimination complaints or that anyone at senior levels in the

Department took them seriously. Both Chief Stawinski and Acting

Chief Velez concurred with the decision.

112

And high-ranking

personnel directing the resolution of this matter made light of its

importance. For example, the officers’ Commander, Major Guixens,

in a mocking email back to Commander Mills wrote “I’m a little let

down……I was expecting more. LMAO.” Mills wrote back, “Shut

up.” Emails between Mills’ subordinate Captain A. Watkins and

Glenn Long were similar. Long characterized the complaints against

Sergeant Rush as “Unbelievable ….” Captain Watkins wrote back,

“Lol.”

113

 There is no evidence that Sgt. Rush was separated from the

complainants or that he or other supervisors were admonished not to

retaliate. Rather, as discussed below in paragraph 144, both Officers

Pinckney and Brown experienced retaliatory transfers after filing their

complaints.

112

PG0000165875-165876 at 165875; Mills Dep. Tr. 355:13-22.

113

PG0000168875-168876 at 168875; PG000180150 (senior IAD officer saying “LOL’).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 48 of 265

65. It is not clear how many other such complaints came to Commander

Mills’ attention and were dealt with in a similar fashion. It is notable, however,

that several of the incidents identified by the Department to the Department of

Justice were similarly referred to the field and handled by field supervisors.

114

66. The Plaintiffs have identified a number of other incidents in their

complaint and discovery responses where no investigation appears to have been

conducted. For each of the following matters, there is no indication in the IAPro

database or the Internal Affairs files produced by Defendants that there has been

any investigation into the following matters:

a. During a recruiting meeting in December 2016 to discuss new

applicants, Major Misty Mints made a derogatory comment about

Nigerian-Americans. Although Lieutenant Thomas Boone

complained to several senior members of the Department,

115

there

is no indication in IAPro or the Defendants’ discovery responses

that this matter was investigated or Major Mints was disciplined.

As discussed in more detail below, Major Mints was subject to

another complaint of discriminatory conduct by a community

organization. As noted below in Paragraph 144, following the

lodging of his complaint, Lt. Boone was transferred.

b. In April 2016, a complaint was made regarding an offensive

personalized license plate by a Sergeant assigned to IAD

(Lieutenant Brian Selway), which was an acronym for “Go F***

Yourself Obama.” Although a complaint was made about this

114

PG0000001362-1363.

115

PG0000334331; Compl. ¶ 122.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 49 of 265

matter,

116

there is no indication in IAPro or the Defendants’

discovery responses that this matter was investigated, apparently

because Lt. Selway reported he would remove the license plate.

117

In early 2017, it became apparent that Lt. Selway was using the

license plate again, complaints were filed (including an external

complaint from the Department of Motor Vehicles, which had

directed Lt. Selway to return the plate), and Chief Stawinski

indicated he was aware about the incident during a press

conference.

118

There is no evidence that Lt. Selway was

investigated or disciplined over this matter.

119

c. During a community K-9 demonstration to a group of students, a

white corporal ( ) said “if a black bad guy is running

and he drops a cell phone or he drops this piece of leather that may

have evidence or DNA on it, or he fired a gun and it may have that

shell there.”

120

There were multiple civilian complaints about this

incident. Major Mills and Captain Watkins were both aware of

these citizen complaints, and Major Mills directed Captain

Watkins to maintain a file with all citizen complaints related to this

incident, which does not appear to have been produced in

discovery.

121

The incident was captured on video, Chief Stawinski

publicly apologized for the incident, and the incident was

broadcast on local news, but there is no indication in IAPro or the

Defendants’ discovery responses that Corporal was

116

Compl. ¶ 61(d); PG0000020673-20697 at 20676; PG0000169720-169725.

117

PG000020673-20697 at 20694.

118

See https://pgpolice.blogspot.com/2017/02/todays-full-length-press-conference.html (at

07:06).

119

See Defendant Prince George County’s Objections and Answers to Plaintiff United Black

Police Officers Association’s First Set of Interrogatories No. 7.

120

PG00000171860-171867; Compl. ¶ 253.

121

Mills Dep. Tr. 73:6-14; Watkins Dep. Tr. 202:6-8, 205:12-206:15.

Corporal S-4

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 50 of 265

investigated or disciplined.

122

At her deposition, Major Mills

confirmed that Internal Affairs did not investigate that incident.

123

d. In June 2015, a white officer posted, in the Homicide Unit of the

Criminal Investigation Division, derogatory images of Major

, a senior Hispanic officer in the Department, including

images where he was given “googly” eyes and another where he

was depicted as a voodoo doll, and accompanied by captions

making light of his ethnicity (“I want to wish everyone Cinco de

Mayo”).

124

The Department was made aware of the images on

June 10, 2015. Internal Affairs did not open an investigation into

the matter.

125

Rather, Internal Affairs considered the matter closed

after the pictures were removed without any further investigation

into the matter, and no individual was disciplined for making the

derogatory images.

126

In May 2016, a white officer, Sergeant

Kerry Jernigan, circulated the images to various members of the

Department by email.

127

Although there was a complaint about

this matter, Internal Affairs took no further action after learning

that Sergeant Jernigan, who had retired, had his email access

revoked; IAD conducted no further investigation, and considered

the matter resolved.

128

Major Mills’s memo concluded that

Sergeant Jernigan’s conduct “stemmed from a transfer he deemed

as punitive.” This is the only basis provided in Major Mills’s

122

PG00000084440-84446 at 84441 and 84446; PG0000431462-431463; Defendant Prince

George County’s Objections and Answers to Plaintiff United Black Police Officers Association’s

First Set of Interrogatories No. 7; Lorenzo Hall, Chief apologizes after ‘bad black guy’ example

used by Md. Officer teaching kids about K-9s (Aug. 18, 2018),

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/chief-apologizes-after-black-bad-guy-

example-used-by-md-officer-teaching-kids-about-k-9s/65-588570746.

123

Mills Dep. Tr. 70:16-19.

124

PG00000972106; Compl. ¶ 61(c); Joseph Perez’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to

Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories No. 1, at 21, 27; PG0000166349-166350;

PG0000166322-166323.

125

PG00000972106.

126

PG00000972106.

127

PG00000972107.

128

PG00000972107.

Maj. Q-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 51 of 265

conclusion that Sergeant Jernigan’s misconduct “was a personal

one and not a racial one.”

129

e. In 2016, Lieutenant Scott Finn made a derisive comment about

“Black lives matter” activists and was quoted in the Washington

Post and New York Times.

130

Although this statement was the

subject of a complaint and Lt. Finn was the subject of other

complaints for use of language,

131

there is no indication in the

IAPro data produced or Defendants’ discovery responses that this

matter was investigated or Lt. Finn was disciplined.

f. Corporal Steven Jones made a series of negative comments about

Black civilians and officers, including that “at least slaves had food

and a place to live” referring to President Obama as a “coon,” and

referring to a black officer as a “signal 7.”

132

Cpl. Jones also

defended the Ku Klux Klan and equated the Black Lives Matter

Movement with the Ku Klux Klan.

133

Cpl. Jones was the subject

of complaints made to Major Misty Mints (who advised that she

did not want to hear about discrimination), Lieutenant Thomas

Calmon (who denied a request for a meeting to discuss the

complaint), as well as the EEO Coordinator (who acknowledged

the complaint but did not schedule a meeting with the

complainant).

134

There is no indication in the IAPro data produced

or Defendants’ discovery responses that this matter was

investigated or Cpl. Jones was disciplined.

129

PG00000972107.

130

Compl. ¶ 61(g); see also Radley Balko, Washington Post, Scott Finn, model cop for a model

police department (July 27, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-

watch/wp/2016/07/27/scott-finn-model-cop-for-a-model-police-department/; The New York

Times, One Police Shift: Patrolling an Anxious America (July 23, 2016),

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/us/police-ridealongs.html.

131

IA2004-017 (PG0000783482-783871); IA2014-069 (PG0000113804-113898). also

had recent complaints for use of force. IA2014-006 (PG0000045906-46095); IA2014-100

(PG0000046241-46302).

132

Declaration of Chris Smith ¶¶ 6-17.

133

Declaration of Chris Smith ¶¶ 6-17.

134

Compl. ¶ 61(f); Declaration of Chris Smith ¶¶ 6-17; PG0000254415-254416.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 52 of 265

g. In response to a communication to the Department announcing the

establishment of the United Black Police Officers Association in

August 2016, numerous senior white officers, including Lt. Finn

and Major Crandall Weaver, sent derogatory responses.

135

There is

no indication in IAPro that any of these officers were ever

investigated.

136

67. The Plaintiffs have also identified a number of other instances

where, although an investigation was opened, the investigation was inadequate.

This includes the few cases where an EEOC charge was filed that were

investigated by IAD. Notably, four of these cases were administratively closed,

one was handled as a field inquiry, and the remaining two failed to consider the

pendency of other related charges against the respondent. Specifically:

a. Miller/Rush: Corporal Sean G. Miller filed an EEO charge

alleging racial discrimination (harassment and unequal treatment)

from Sgt. Rush (EEO Charge No. 531-2016-01761).

137

There was

a related IA investigation (IA2016-034) of Sgt. Rush based on the

complaint filed by Cpl. Miller alleging that Sgt. Rush (1) used the

word “nigga” multiple times in reading a text message that was

part of an evidence of investigation, (2) asked to see a picture of

Cpl. Miller’s fiancée and upon finding out that she was Mexican-

American, commenting she was cheating “cuz that’s what they

[Latinos] do” and that “all Latino women are whores,” and (3) said

in March 2016 “I can’t wait to see Donald Trump check these

Hispanics.”

138

Sgt. Rush was exonerated of a use of language

charge, and his unbecoming conduct charges were non-sustained.

From my review of the file, the investigator did not appear to

consider that other similar charges had been brought against Sgt.

135

See, e.g., PG0000111973 and PG0000111979.

136

Defendant PG County’s Plaintiff UBPOA’s First Set of Interrogatories No. 7.

137

Compl. ¶ 61(b); PG0000002232-2270.

138

IA2016-034 (PG0000042437-42543) at 42453, 42479, 42483; PG00000104392.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 53 of 265

Rush, nor was there inquiry into whether Sgt. Rush engaged in

other discriminatory conduct.

b. Dadzie/Rodgers: Sergeant Kwesi P. Dadzie filed an EEO charge

alleging retaliation and discrimination based on race from Sergeant

James S. Rodgers (EEO Charge No. 531-2012-02186C).

139

IAPro

indicates there was a related IA investigation (IA2012-063)

140

based on the complaint filed by Sgt. Dadzie alleging that (1) Sgt.

Rodgers used profanity and created hostile work environment, (2)

made unprofessional comments about personal appearance, and (3)

treated Sgt. Dadzie unfairly. Specifically, Sgt. Dadzie complained

that Sgt. Rodgers made derogatory references to his African

heritage and referred to his “big African feet.”

141

The IAD

Investigation was administratively closed without finding.

142

The

EEO file indicates there was a confidential settlement

agreement.

143

I understand the Department has not produced this

file in discovery.

c. McCaskill/Rodgers: Corporal Tahicia L. McCaskill filed an EEO

complaint alleging disparate treatment from Sgt. Rodgers

(discussed above) relating to disciplinary action (EEO Charge No.

531-2014-00065C).

144

Cpl. McCaskill also filed an IA complaint

(IA2013-075)

145

against Sgt. Rodgers alleging that Sgt. Rodgers

made constant disparaging, disrespectful, and discriminating

remarks during roll call. Sgt. Rodgers was charged with

unbecoming conduct and use of language, but both charges were

non-sustained; IAD should have taken into account that Sgt.

Rodgers was the subject of a prior complaint. The EEO filed

indicates there was a confidential settlement agreement.

146

Although the investigator appears to have interviewed a number of

139

PG0000001968-2028 at 1968.

140

IAPro Entry for IA2012-063 (file not produced).

141

PG0000001968-2028 at 1968.

142

IAPro Entry for IA2012-063 (file not produced).

143

PG000001968-2028 at 1970-73.

144

PG0000002223-2270 at 2223-2230.

145

IA2013-075 (PG0000041479-41834).

146

PG0000002223-2270 at 2226-2228.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 54 of 265

witnesses, the file does not reflect that there was any consideration

that Sgt. Rodgers had been accused of discriminatory conduct in

another matter.

147

d. Sharpe/Rush/Mrotek/RID/Roberry Suppression Team

December 2015 Incident (IA2015-092): POFC Earl E. Sharpe, Jr.

filed two separate EEO charges regarding the conditions at the

RID/RST unit. POFC Sharpe alleged race discrimination and

retaliation in the first charge (531-2016-00712), and alleged race

discrimination in the second charge (531-2017-01180).

148

There

was a related IA investigation (IA2015-092), which commenced

after IAD received an anonymous complaint about a pervasive

racially hostile environment in the RID unit, which was under the

command of Lieutenant Sunny Mrotek, and concerned allegations

about discriminatory conduct by Sgt. Rush and Detective Corporal

Darryl Wormuth.

149

The IAD investigator interviewed three

witnesses, all of whom confirmed that there were pervasive issues

with Sgt. Rush and Det. Wormuth’s discriminatory conduct, and

that Lt. Mrotek supported them; one witness identified seven other

minority officers who would corroborate events.

150

Before those

witnesses were interviewed, IAD administratively closed the

matter.

151

Materials produced in discovery reflect that POFC

Sharpe sent the EEO Coordinator an email identifying additional

racist incidents, a history of discriminatory transfers, and

identifying ten witnesses; there is no indication in the record that

these individuals were ever interviewed.

152

e. Wyche/Schreiber: Corporal Omba M. Wyche, a Black officer of

African descent, filed an EEO chare alleging harassment and

intimidation from Sergeant Jeffrey Schreiber based on national

origin (EEO Charge No. 531-2013-01057). IAPro indicates there

147

PG0000002223-2270 at 2223-2230.

148

PG0000157216 and PG0000657800.

149

Compl. ¶ 61(b); IA2015-092 (PG0000042371-42436 at 42378).

150

IA2015-092 (PG0000042371-42436 at 42418-20).

151

IA2015-092 (PG0000042371-42436 at 42391).

152

PG0000658128-658130.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 55 of 265

was a related IA investigation (IA2013-029)

153

of Sgt. Schreiber

based on a complaint filed by Cpl. Wyche alleging that Sgt.

Schreiber posted inappropriate comments about a command officer

on Facebook (IA2013-029). Sgt. Schreiber was charged with

unbecoming conduct, which was found to be unfounded. I

understand the Department has not produced this file in discovery.

f. Nelson/Fair: Civilian Employee Teresa N. Nelson filed an EEO

charge alleging race and disability-based discrimination from

Angela Fair (EEO Charge No. 531-2017-00157). There was a

related IA investigation (IA2016-071)

154

of Fair based on a

complaint alleging unfair treatment and discrimination due to race

and medical condition (IA2016-071). The investigation was

administratively closed.

g. Chambers/Norton: Police Officer Sharon L. Chambers filed an

EEO charge alleging discrimination from Sergeant Christine

Norton (EEO Charge No. 531-2019-00277).

155

PO Chambers

alleged that Sgt. Norton (1) called her a “Sig 7,” which is a

Department code for a suspicious person and a derogatory term

when used to question an officer’s integrity, (2) called her a

disgrace to the police department, and (3) singled her out for

discipline. PO Chambers specifically noted that Lieutenant Ray

Aure and others in the station were notified of Sgt. Norton’s

conduct, and apparently did nothing. Although this matter was

subsequently brought to the attention of IAD during the course of

another investigation,

156

Commander Mills referred the complaint

back to PO Chambers District Station to be handled as an inquiry

by the field commander, Lt. Aure.

157

Before making the decision

to send the matter to the field commander, Internal Affairs did not

153

PG0000001798-1802; IAPro Entry for IA2013-029 (file not produced).

154

PG0000158497; IA2016-071 (PGIAD0000088985-89011).

155

PGPD-CHA-0001334-1352 at 1352.

156

FCIQ2018-068 (PG0000121755-121799 at 121782); Mills Dep. Tr. 310:18-311:1.

157

FCIQ2018-068 (PG0000121755-121799); Mills Dep. Tr. 311:17-313:19.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 56 of 265

conduct any investigation into the allegations, and did not

interview Officer Chambers.

158

Lt. Aure had an obvious conflict

that the IAD Commander and the District Commander should have

recognized. During his investigation, Lt. Aure did not question

Sgt. Norton or explain why he and others failed to report a

discrimination complaint; rather, Lt. Aure closed the inquiry

without any action taken against Sgt. Norton.

159

68. From my review, there are several other matters (in addition to those

listed above) where the investigation was inadequate because the investigators did

not pursue leads, did not make basic inquiries, and failed to conduct fair and

complete investigations. These are some examples of such matters:

a. “Color Guard” Incident: (SI2017-008): In February 2017, an

unknown individual vandalized a locker in the Special Operations

Division “Color Guard” by crossing out the word “Color” and

writing “African-American.”

160

The investigation was primarily

conducted by Corporal Brian Medina, assisted by Sergeant Tina

Blackistone, and supervised by Lieutenant Darden. In the

Administrative Closure Memo, Darden wrote that Captain Perez

had forwarded a picture of the vandalized locker to the Chief of

Police and stated that the incident occurred on February 6, 2017.

161

In fact, according to the transcript of the interview conducted by

Medina, Captain Perez stated an unnamed person texted the picture

to him and that he (Perez) had “no idea” when the picture was

taken and forwarded the text of the picture saying it “happened on

Monday” to Chief Stawinski on February 7.

162

The other witness

told Medina that he did not recall when the incident occurred, but

had the date written down; Medina never followed up to pinpoint

158

Mills Dep. Tr. 310:13-313:13; Watkins Dep. Tr. 257:16-260:9.

159

FCIQ2018-068 (PG0000121755-121799 at 121756).

160

Compl. ¶ 61(i); SI2017-008 (PG0000024868-25099 at 24869).

161

SI2017-008 (PG0000024868-25099 at 24869).

162

SI2017-008 (PG0000024868-25099 at 24905).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 57 of 265

the date.

163

The investigators concluded, with little factual basis,

that the incident occurred on Monday, February 6, and the IAD

investigators cited this misinterpretation of Perez’s statement to

limit the investigation to 59 employees who scanned into the

building on February 6, 2017. Major Mills testified that the she,

the investigator, and Captain Smith agreed that the most

“expeditious[]” course of action was to have the employees fill out

a two-page questionnaire.

164

None of the questionnaires resulted in

any further investigation even though three employees wrote that

they had seen the vandalism and were offended. There were no

follow-up interviews to determine whether these individuals knew

anything more, establish the date and time they observed the

vandalism, or inquiry into why they failed to report the incident.

The matter was administratively closed, and no one was

disciplined, in spite of clear policy violations of failing to report

discrimination and the failure of managers to keep their commands

free from harassment and discrimination. Several drafts of the

closure report recommend that the unit receive diversity training;

this recommendation was deleted from the final version of the

report.

165

As discussed below in paragraph 124, over the course of

his career in Internal Affairs, the primary assigned investigator

(Corporal Medina) as well as the second investigator (Tina

Blackistone) sustained cases against white officers at dramatically

lower rates than which he sustained cases against minority officers.

b. “Training dummy” Incident (SI-2017-067): An unknown

individual placed a picture of an African-American face and an

Afro wig on a training dummy used to practice baton strikes.

Pictures of the training dummy with hand-written words “black

face” and “afro wig” were circulated within the Department.

166

The assigned investigator (Lieutenant William Rayle) conducted a

number of interviews, which identified the officer who had

purchased the wig; Lt. Rayle did not inquire who pasted the Black

face on the dummy, or who took and circulated the photos. Lt.

163

SI2017-008 (PG0000024868-25099 at 24873-74).

164

Mills Dep. Tr. 272:11-275:15.

165

PG00000183132; PG0000183205.

166

Compl. ¶ 61(h); SI2017-067 (PG0000020698-21052 at 20705).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 58 of 265

Rayle also did not investigate why there was a significant delay in

opening an investigation after the pictures were brought to the

attention of senior officers in the Department.

Jewell Graves, the Director of the Police Personnel Division, told

Lt. Rayle she received copies of the pictures in December 2015,

and that she gave them to Deputy Chief Grant, who at the time was

the Commander of IAD. When Deputy Chief Grant was

interviewed, he denied that Ms. Graves had the pictures, but recalls

a conversation with Ms. Graves about the picture in August or

September 2016. Deputy Chief Grant claimed that he told Ms.

Graves that when she got the pictures he could “move forward

with it.”

167

Deputy Chief Grant also claimed he contacted Captain

Stephanie Frankenfield, Commander of the Training and Education

Division, and instructed her to “check and make sure that there was

no photos on the Numb John and to kind of, uh, check slash police

the entire division and make sure there was no inappropriate

photos or anything around the Training Education Division.”

168

During his interview of Capt. Frankenfield, Lt. Rayle failed to

question her about any conversation she might have had with

Deputy Chief Grant.

The file also reflects that Captain Joe Perez told Lt. Rayle he sent a

photo to Assistant Chief Hector Velez in November 2016,

169

but

that no investigation was started until January 2017, after HNLEA

and UPBOA brought the pictures to Chief Stawinski’s attention.

170

Lt. Rayle did not interview Assistant Chief Velez about why he

failed to order an investigation upon learning of the pictures.

Even after opening the case file, Lt. Rayle did not start conducting

interviews for almost three weeks.

171

167

SI2017-067 (PG0000020698-21052 at 20776).

168

SI2017-067 (PG0000020698-21052 at 20776).

169

SI2017-067 (PG0000020698-21052 at 20768-20769).

170

SI2017-067 (PG0000020698-21052 at 20745, 20753); PG0000166342-166344.

171

SI2017-067 (PG0000020698-21052).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 59 of 265

In Lt. Rayle’s three page “Administrative Closure” report of the

IAD investigation, there is no mention of the notification made by

Director Graves to Deputy Chief Grant more than a year earlier or

the notification of Assistant Chief Velez by Capt. Perez.

172

These

facts are buried in the 355-page report.

Lt. Rayle’s report also never addressed why the pictures were still

being circulated several years after they were taken. His report

was primarily a historical review of the Training Dummy and how,

when and where it was used. He described in detail that up to 9

different faces can be affixed to the Training Dummy: 1 Black

male, 1 white female, 5 white males and 2 white female hostages

held by 2 white males. He never asked the questions, (1) why was

the photo of the Training Dummy with the Black male’s face and

“afro wig” still being circulated around the Department several

years after it was taken? and (2) why was the photo of the Training

Dummy with the Black male’s face and “afro wig” the only photo

being circulated?

Then-Commander of SIRT, Captain Michael Smith, testified that

Lt. Rayle had “narrowed [it] down to one [or] two officers who

were assigned to the training academy.”

173

But no one was

charged or disciplined in the matter, which was administratively

closed.

174

Assistant Chief Velez, Deputy Chief Grant, and Capt.

Frankenfield were never identified as Respondents for failures to

conduct an inquiry, report discrimination or to keep their

commands free from harassment and discrimination in accordance

with General Order Volume I, Chapter 12.

175

c. Sergeant Daniel Smith & Officer Nathaniel Bauer (IA2019-

058): In early 2017, Police Officer First Class (POFC) Nathaniel

Bauer, Sergeant and Sergeant Daniel Smith exchanged

racist text messages on a private chatroom called the “Good Old

Boys,” including saying things like “we should bring back public

172

SI2017-067 (PG0000020698-21052 at 20738-20740).

173

M. Smith Dep. Tr. 91:4-7.

174

SI2017-067 (PG0000020698-21052 at 20738).

175

PG0000000595-598.

Sergeant H-3

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 60 of 265

hangings,” posting a picture of Adolph Hitler, and making

misogynistic comments about female Black officers.

176

Although

this incident occurred in early 2017, was the subject of a

complaint, and was cited in the December 2018 complaint filed in

this matter, Defendants did not commence an investigation until

September 2019 following a civilian complaint.

177

The investigation was limited to Sergeant Smith and Officer Bauer,

and was treated as a witness. The assigned

investigator failed to consider Sergeant Smith, , or

other supervisors’ failure to report use of discriminatory or

derogatory language, or the reason this matter was not promptly

investigated when first reported in 2017 or raised in the Plaintiffs’

complaint in December 2018. While the investigator obtained

Sergeant Smith’s county owned phone, he failed to (i) obtain the

phones of the other participants in the chat, or (ii) consider whether

there were other text messages involving these officers. Although

Smith and Bauer did not dispute sending the text messages, the

charges were deemed “unfounded” and no one was disciplined.

178

There is no evidence in the file that this result was communicated

back to the civilian complainant.

d. Sergeant Darin Rush (IA2016-034): Cpl. Sean Miller alleged

that, among others, (i) during a robbery investigation on May 7,

2016, Sgt. Rush read a suspect’s text message putting emphasis on

the suspect’s use of the word “nigga” four times,

179

(ii) Sgt. Rush

asked to see a picture of Cpl. Miller’s fiancée on May 8, 2016,

asked her nationality, and when he told Sgt. Rush she was from

Mexico, Sgt. Rush said she was cheating on him “cuz that’s what

they [Latinos] do,” that “all Latino women are whores,” and

180

(iii) Sgt. Rush said in March 2016 “I can’t wait to see Donald

Trump check these Hispanics,”

181

(iv) noted that Sgt. Rush had a

176

Compl. ¶ 61(e); PGPD-PER-0067207-67240 at 67219, PGPDPLS0000310-347 at 343-347.

177

IA2019-058 (PG0000982700-982879 at 982871.

178

IA2019-058 (PG0000982700-982879 at 982701-702.

179

IA2016-034 (PG0000042437-42543 at 42458-42459).

180

IA2016-034 (PG0000042437-42543 at 42458-42459, 42479).

181

IA2016-034 (PG0000042437-42543 at 42453, 42459, 42483).

Sergeant H-3

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 61 of 265

history of similar statements,

182

and (v) complained that Sgt. Rush

had arranged for Cpl. Miller’s transfer after he filed his

complaint.

183

The assigned investigator (Sergeant Landos D.

Wallace) interviewed four other police officers, two of whom

confirmed that Sgt. Rush placed emphasis on the word “nigga.”

184

The file does not reflect that Sgt. Wallace did anything to inquire

about Sgt. Rush’s statement about checking Hispanics, his history

of similar statements, or that he did anything to investigate Cpl.

Miller’s transfer other than to ask Sgt. Rush about the basis for the

transfer. Sgt. Rush was exonerated of the use of language charge

and his three charges of unbecoming conduct were found to be

non-sustained.

185

No one was disciplined in the matter, in spite of

clear policy violations of the Department’s policies against

discrimination and retaliation.

186

e. Corporal : Cpl. was the subject of at

least eight complaints by African-American male civilians that

Cpl. engaged in inappropriate touching of their genitalia

during traffic or Terry stops.

187

One of these matters was assigned

to field command, investigated by Lt. Finn, and closed

administratively because the matter was not investigated within the

required time.

188

In none of these matters did the investigator

consider the pattern of allegations against Cpl. by

African-American men; Cpl. had no similar complaints

from white civilians. None of these matters was sustained, and

Cpl. was not disciplined in any way. Cpl. has

also been the subject of at least four use of force complaints (all by

182

IA2016-034 (PG0000042437-42543 at 42475, 42485 and 42490).

183

IA2016-034 (PG0000042437-42543 at 42453 and 42491).

184

IA2016-034 (PG000042437-42543 at 42533-34 and 42512).

185

IA2016-034 (PG0000042437-42543 at 42440).

186

IA2016-034 (PG0000042437-42543).

187

See FC2013-031 (“fondled . . . butt cheek”) (PG0000134164-134179 at 13176); IA2014-037

(“put his finger tip in [his] rectum”) (PG0000134984-135105 at 135033); IA2014-078

(“searched vulgarly”) (PG0000132332-132549 at 132372); IA2015-039 (“played with his

penis”) (PG0000123411-123533 at 123438); IA2015-067 (“felt [his] ass and balls”)

(PG0000134180-134270 at 134207); IA2017-008 (“inappropriately touched”) (PG0000133939-

134162 at 133973).

188

FC2013-031 (PG0000134164-134179 at 134167).

Corporal S-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 62 of 265

minority civilians),

189

was frequently identified on the

Department’s Early Warning System reports,

190

and was the

subject of several complaints for bias profiling, none of which

considered his other alleged infractions or imposed any

discipline.

191

f. Lieutenant /Major (SI2017-064): In

September 2016, Corporal George Merkel assaulted a black

homeless woman.

192

His misconduct was reported by two minority

officers -- and . Corporal Merkel

was eventually criminally convicted of assault, and was terminated

from the Department.

193

In conjunction with the Merkel investigation, the State’s Attorney

complained to IAD that Merkel’s shift commander, Lieutenant

, tried to intimidate, influence, and harass Officer

and Officer to change their testimony.

194

’s alleged conduct included attempting to dissuade the

witnesses from pursuing charges against Merkel, referring to them

as “the rat squad,” and not concurring that a use of force by Officer

was within Department policy.

195

During his interview,

admitted that, at the behest of Major , he had

approached Officer and asked her “is this situation with

Merkel really as bad as you make it sound in your statements”

196

During her interview, Major confirmed that she

“instructed Lieutenant to go speak with [ ] ‘cause I

189

IA2016-006 (PG0000134704-134964); SI2015-030 (PG0000133390-133529); SI2015-054

(PG0000096102-96444); PS2015-237 (PG0000132747-132804).

190

Cpl. appeared on the reports (signifying he had multiple incidents in a month) in

September 2014 (PG0000609518-609569), January 2015 (PG00000609764-609809), March

2015 (PG0000609853-609897), May 2015 (PG0000609969-610015), June 2015

(PG00000610016-610081), August 2015 (PG0000610139-61204), and January 2016

(PG0000610611-610652).

191

IA2014-078 (PG0000132332-132549); IA2016-004 (PG0000132633-132726).

192

SI2016-059 (PG0000084795-85168).

193

SI2016-059 (PG0000084795-85168).

194

SI2017-064 (PGIAD00000135296-135456 at 135439-135441).

195

SI2017-064 (PGIAD0000135296-135456 at 135329-135331).

196

SI2017-064 (PGIAD0000135296-135456 at 135391-135394).

Officer A-6

Lieutennant D-1

Major H-2

Officer R-2

Corporal S-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 63 of 265

wanted to make sure she knew what this meant and how this was

all gonna play out … when you make a complaint against another

officer things - things get hairy . . . [I] wanted to make sure that she

knew we were capable of handling it . . . let us make this decision

but she was hell bent on sending this and making this go down to

IA.”

197

IAD determined that three charges against Lieutenant (use

of language and two unbecoming conduct) were non-sustained.

198

IAD did not charge or investigate Lieutenant for potential

violations of the Department’s anti-retaliation policy.

The CCOP disagreed with IAD’s decision not to sustain

unbecoming conduct charges against and noted that Major

had instigated the misconduct, writing: “ attempted

to inﬂuence the officers’ testimony. For example,

testiﬁed that he was trying to ‘soften her stance’ after Major

, directed him to speak to Officer and find out if

her allegations were as serious as she was making it sound. . . . Lt.

’s questioning under these particular circumstances served

to influence Officer ’s upcoming testimony against Officer

Merkel - who was, in fact, convicted during a criminal trial. The

Civilian Complaint Oversight Panel (CCOP) also found Major

’ testimony probative of its disagreement. Specifically,

Major testified that Officer was ‘hell bent’ on

maintaining her testimony and that they wanted to make sure that

she knew ‘how this was all gonna play out,’ ‘that her testimony

would not only affect Merkel, but ‘would affect her as well.’

(Major ’ Testimony, page 2, Lines 55-65 ). This evidence,

considered in totality, provides sufficient proof that at

the direction of Major ’ intended to inﬂuence Officer

to change her testimony regarding Officer Merkel’s case.

Therefore, the CCOP recommends that Allegation #2 be

197

SI2017-064, PGIAD0000135296-135456 at 135379-135380).

198

SI2017-064 (PGIAD0000135296-135456 at 135300).

Lieutennant D-1

Major H-2

Officer R-2

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 64 of 265

sustained.”

199

Using similar reasoning, the CCOP also concluded

that Allegation #3 (Conduct Unbecoming: Inappropriate language

or actions designed to intimidate and harass Officers and

) be sustained.

The file does not include Chief Stawinski’s response to the CCOP,

and there is a post-it note on the cover of the file stating “No

response letter from Chief to CCOP. Needs Chief’s response

letter.”

200

Nor does the Department appear to have advised the

State’s Attorneys of the outcome of the investigation. However, it

appears that neither Chief Stawinski nor IAD accepted CCOP’s

recommendations.

The Department also failed to investigate or charge Major

for instructing to intercede with , or for failing to

enforce the Department’s anti-harassment, anti-retaliation, or no

contact policies. Throughout the investigation it should have been

clear that had a significant role the case, by the testimony

of Lt. and her own admission. But neither the IAD

investigator, nor any IAD command staff who reviewed and

approved the investigation sought to add as a Respondent.

In addition, there is no evidence that anyone in the Department

considered whether the allegations warranted a criminal

investigation into witness intimidation.

g. Sergeant Joseph Bunce (IA2017-003): Plaintiff Richard Torres

alleged that Sgt. Bunce used profanity and racial slurs (“NECA”)

in a text message and made a statement that a suspect was “a

number 1 male with a Bladensburg address. He had to have some

type of contact with the police.” The assigned investigator (Sgt.

Landos D. Wallace) interviewed many witnesses, but failed to ask

sufficient questions to identify what Sgt. Bunce meant by “NECA”

or by his comment about “number 1 males” or individuals who

199

SI2017-064 (PGIAD0000135296-135456 at 135303-135304).

200

SI2017-064 (PGIAD0000135296-135456 at 135296).

Officer A-6

Lieutennant D-1

Major H-2

Officer R-2

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 65 of 265

reside in Bladensburg; notably, during his interview of Sgt. Bunce,

Sgt. Wallace did not ask Sgt. Bunce what he meant by the word

“NECA,” and did not ask any follow up about his reference to

“number one male with a Bladensburg address.”

201

Sgt. Wallace

also did not follow up when Sgt. Bunce changed his story and said

that he typed rather than spoke the word “NECA,”

202

and did not

consider charging Sgt. Bunce with making a false statement.

Furthermore, Internal Affairs was advised by another minority

officer that there was “racial overtone” on Sgt. Bunce’s squad, and

that “white officers were treated differently than the Black officers

or Hispanic officers on the squad,” but there was no follow-up.

203

The investigator also did not assess why Cpl. Torres’s superior

officers (then-Captain Melvin Powell and Lieutenant Jordan

Swonger) failed to alert IAD when Cpl. Torres raised Sgt. Bunce’s

text message with them.

204

In addition, although Sgt. Bunce

acknowledged that he wrote up Cpl. Torres for infractions and Cpl.

Torres was transferred following the time that Cpl. Torres

complained to IAD, the investigator did not assess whether this

conduct was retaliatory.

205

h. Police Officer (IA2017-054): In October 2017, PO

told a Black officer that he was “lazy, just like other lazy

black officers,” specifically referencing another officer on the

squad.

206

This incident was contemporaneously reported to two

other officers and UBPOA, who reported it up the chain of

command.

207

During the interview, PO admitted that he had

told one of the officers that “she is lazy, um, it’s well-known, and

by lazy, I mean she’s not a proactive officer.”

208

Although the IA

investigator (Poole) interviewed several witnesses, she did not

201

IA2017-003 (PG0000020498-20525 at 20501-04, 20510).

202

IA2017-003 (PG000020526-20554 at 20549, 20552); IA2017-003 (PG000020498-20525 at

20501-20504).

203

IA2017-003 (PG000020332-20351 at 20343-20348).

204

PG0000103530, PG0000103567.

205

IA2017-003 (PG0000020498-20525 at 20514-20516).

206

PG0000656569-656571.

207

IA2016-008 (PGIAD00000041940-42075 at 42014 and 42020); PG0000656569-656571.

208

IA2016-008 (PGIAD0000041940-42075 at 42004).

Officer G-7

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 66 of 265

inquire whether PO had a history of similar statements or

probe as to his interactions with the officer he called lazy.

209

When

one of the two complaining officers withdrew their complaint, the

charge was non-sustained and no one was disciplined, even though

the second officer was offended and PO admitted making

derogatory comments about her.

210

Email traffic reflects that

Defendant Commander Mills brought this matter to Chief

Stawinski’s attention.

211

69. From my review, there are also several incidents where charges of

racism were sustained, but the discipline was inadequate. These are some

examples of such incidents:

a. Sgt. Darin Rush (IA2016-008): As noted above, Sgt. Rush has

been the subject of a number of complaints by minority officers for

racist conduct. On April 25, 2015, Sgt. Rush sent a text message

to his subordinate officers on the eve of a promotional exam,

which contained a video clip with racist language, including the

words “niggers and spics.”

212

Two recipients of the video, POFC

Sharpe and Corporal Marvin Ticas, were both minority officers.

213

Sgt. Rush was charged with “use of language,” which was

sustained. IAD does not appear to have considered the repeated

complaints about Sgt. Rush’s racist conduct (including use of racist

language) discussed elsewhere in this report and failed to charge

him with discriminatory language, which is a Category IV offense

under the Department’s disciplinary policy and has been the basis

for termination of minority officers.

214

In his discovery responses,

Chief Stawinski acknowledges he personally interceded to lower

209

IA2017-054 (PGIAD0000041940-42075).

210

IA2017-054 (PGIAD0000041940-42075 at 42004).

211

PG0000656568; PG0000656569-656571.

212

IA2016-008 (PG0000043186-43284 at 43202-43211).

213

IA2016-008 (PG0000043186-43284 at 43211).

214

IA2015-052, IA2014-087; PG0000174351-174495 at 174352-53; PG0000174649;

PG0000174650; General Order, Vol. I, Ch.11 (Discipline).

Officer G-7

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 67 of 265

IAD’s recommended discipline to a $250 fine.

215

Notably, the

Department did not require Sgt. Rush to complete any racial

sensitivity training.

b. Corporal Tiffany Johnson (IA2015-016): On February 4, 2015,

Officer Tiffany Johnson sent a text message to several officers

(including a supervisor) stating “Cops always asking So where you

headed? Nigga probably to jail after you run my name.” Several

recipients of the text message were minority officers, one of whom

complained.

216

During her interview, Cpl. Johnson stated that she

“thought it was funny . . . We often hear that on the streets from,

uh, Signal 7s when we make stops.”

217

Cpl. Johnson was charged

with “use of language,” which was sustained, and received a

written reprimand.

218

IAD does not appear to have considered

charging her with discriminatory language, which is a Category IV

offense under the Department’s disciplinary policy and has been

the basis for termination of minority officers.

219

IAD also did not

investigate whether the supervisors who received this text message

responded appropriately; while the Sergeant told investigators that

he verbally counseled Johnson,

220

, but Cpl. Johnson was not asked

and did not corroborate she had been counseled by her Sergeant --

the only follow up she mentioned was that she was confronted by

the complainant.

221

c. Corporal Kristen Baird (IA2016-038 and IA2017-019: During a

Police and Citizen Interaction Class, an African-American training

instructor showed a slide depicting a white police officer pointing

his gun at a Black man while a citizen recorded the incident.

When the instructor asked the officers what the slide depicted, Cpl.

215

Henry Stawinski’s Responses and Objections to HNLEA NCR’s First Set of Interrogatories

No. 2.

216

IA2015-016 (PG0000002307-2320).

217

IA2015-016 (PG0000002335-2373 at 2356).

218

IA2015-016 (PG0000966025-966027).

219

General Order, Vol. I, Ch.11 (Discipline).

220

IA2015-016 (PG0000002335-2373 at 2343).

221

IA2015-015 (PG0000002335-2373 at 2354-2358)

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 68 of 265

Baird responded “Oh, that’s that Black Lives Matter crap.”

222

Plaintiff Patrick McClam took offense to this comment, and stated,

“You don’t know me!” Lt. McClam was ordered to leave the

classroom, and he complied.

223

Following this, Cpl. Baird

contacted her superior officers with false statements about the

incident and filed a charge alleging that Lt. McClam charged

towards her, yelled he was “com[ing] for her,” used profanity, and

had to be physically restrained and removed from the class.

224

None of the 13 eye witnesses interviewed by IAD confirmed Cpl.

Baird’s account. Twelve witnesses stated that Lt. McClam did not

use profanity and all thirteen denied that he had to be physically

restrained or removed from the classroom.

According to recently produced materials, in fall 2016, the

investigator recommended that Cpl. Baird be charged with making

a false statement; statements reflected that the investigator was told

Major Mills directed that Baird not be charged, and the

investigator and the Commander of AIS, Captain Watkins, signed

off on the file in November 2016.

225

On April 21, 2017 Lt.

McClam sent an email to the investigator complaining that Cpl.

Baird had approached him and made a derogatory statement she

made about Lt. McClam to a white officer by referring to Lt.

McClam as a “ride along” in Lt. McClam’s presence.

226

A ride

along is a term typically describing civilian observers who

accompany police officers (similar to calling someone a

“tourist”).

227

In his April 21, 2017 email, Lt. McClam complained that “Baird’s

conduct was the textbook definition of harassment. [She] lied in

222

IA2016-038 (PG0000023826-24386 at 23859). During her interview, Cpl. Baird stated that

she could not recall whether she used the phrase “Black lives matter crap” or “Black lives matter

shit.” PG000023826-24386 at 23868.

223

IA2016-038 (PG0000023826-24386 at 23859).

224

IA2016-038 (PG0000023826-24386 at 23884-23892).

225

IA2016-063 (PG0000023458-23752 at 23487-23488); IA2016-038 (PG0000972690-972726

at 972694 972698, 972707-972713).

226

IA2017-019 (PG0000080458-80538 at 80480).

227

IA2017-019 (PG0000080458-80538 at 80458-80538).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 69 of 265

an official statement, a statement which was made while on-duty.

Her misconduct was swept under the proverbial rug and she was

protected by the agency from any disciplinary action for her

inappropriate language, discriminatory remarks regarding blacks,

her conduct unbecoming of a police officer, her misrepresentation

of facts, false statement and harassment.” The investigator

forwarded the email to senior officers in IAD. Three days later, on

April 24, 2017, Major Mills directed Captain Watkins to “address”

a number of points concerning the investigation (Watkins had

signed off on the investigation and sent to Mills five months

earlier), including conducting additional interviews and that Baird

“needs to be made a Respondent” and “to investigate whether or

not she provided a false statement on her initial complaint

form.”

228

Commander Mills subsequently directed that everyone present at

the time of the incident needed to be interviewed, and that

“exculpatory” information should be included in the evidence.

229

Cpl. Baird was ultimately charged with a use of language violation

and an integrity violation, both of which were sustained. They

were considered Category I violations (lowest level violations)

based on the penalties imposed. She received two $250 fines.

230

The Department notably did not require Cpl. Baird to complete any

racial sensitivity training, nor did the Department charge her with

using discriminatory language or repeating the same false

statement to other members of the department including her

Captain, both of which are Category IV offenses (Highest level

violations) under the Department’s disciplinary policy,

231

and have

been the basis for terminating numerous minority officers.

232

228

IA2017-019 (PG0000080458-80538 at 80480).

229

IA2016-038 (PG0000972690-972726 at 972693).

230

IA2016-038 (PG0000023826-24386 at 23832).

231

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 11 § V.5 (Discipline: Disciplinary Action Recommendations

Guide).

232

IAPro SI2014-052 (Black officer resigned prior to termination for false statement); SI2015-

015 (Black officer terminated for false statement); SI2016-006 (Black officer terminated for false

statement), SI2016-011 (Black officer terminated for false statement); SI2016-031 (Black officer

terminated for false statement); SI2017-006 (Black officer terminated for false statement);

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 70 of 265

The record also reflects that Commander Mills approved the

decision that Cpl. Baird not be charged with making a false

statement and the discipline,

233

and specifically discussed the

discipline with Chief Stawinski.

234

The Citizen Complaint

Oversight Panel expressed its disagreement with the decision to

charge Cpl. Baird with an Integrity violation, writing that the IAD

investigator concluded that Cpl. Baird was “dishonest when she

filed her complaint.” “However, the investigator opted to classify

the allegation…as an Integrity violation.” “It is the Panels opinion

that providing false statements and/or false information during an

internal or external police investigation is an entirely different and

more serious matter. Per GOM, Chapter 11, Discipline, Section III,

a False Statement is ‘reporting or causing a report of false

information, proved by evidence that such report is untrue,

deceitful or made with the intent to deceive.’ Cpl. Baird provided,

for the recorded and written record, a statement that the

investigation and witnesses proved to be deliberately and patently

false.”

235

With regard to the April 2017 incident, Cpl. Baird admitted and the

white officer confirmed that Cpl. Baird referred to Lt. McClam as

a “ride along.”

236

Notwithstanding this, the charge was found to be

“unfounded.” Notably, IAD did not charge or investigate Cpl.

Baird for initiating contact with the complainant in a pending

matter, nor does it appear to have considered this conduct in

assessing Cpl. Baird’s discipline.

d. Lieutenant Thomas Denault (IA2011-042): Thomas Denault at

the time of this event was a sergeant. He was identified as an

officer who posted racially derogatory comments about his chain

SI2017-049 (Black officer terminated for false statement); IA2014-087 (Black officer

terminated for discriminatory language); IA2015-052 (Black officer terminated for

discriminatory language).

233

IA2016-038 (PG0000023826-24386 at 23833-23834).

234

IA2016-038 (PG0000023826-24386 at 23827).

235

IA2016-038 (PG0000023826-24386 at 23840).

236

IA2017-019 (PG0000080458-80538 at 80507, 80513).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 71 of 265

of command on a Yahoo chat group for current and retired PGPD

officers.

237

Among other things, Sgt. Denault admitted posting

statements (i) referring to members of the command staff as

“baboons,”

238

(ii) stated, “Unless you’re in with the ghetto-fide,

butt-slappin, high-fivin, incompetent retard that runs D4, you will

always be wrong….and especially if you don’t speak Ebonics,”

239

(iii) posted a photo of a Black female officer behind a dog that had

to be shot with a caption saying “You never gonna believe this

girl-friend, I was just getting my hairz dun . . . . I aintz gotz time to

mess with this sh*t, I got’s to get my babies off the bus,” and (iv)

posted a separate photo with a Black male subject in handcuffs

bleeding from his head and face with a caption that read “As I

woke up this day at 6pm, I thought to myself: ‘Self, what can I do

today to be a productive member of society.’ So as I sat about in

my section-8 free housing, eating chicken nuggets and Hennessey,

paid for with my WIC card, and playing my X-Box that I stole

from a B&E, it came to me: ‘Self, I think I am gonna finish this

bottle of Hennessey, smoke some PCP, and pick a fight with Squad

46.’ Wrong Squad Sucka!!!!!”

240

During the course of the

investigation concerning these posts, the Department learned that

Sgt. Denault had previously made “profane, demeaning and

derogatory marks” to a group of Black women during a suspicious

person stop. Specifically, Sgt. Denault asked the women, “How do

you let these greasy mopes [referring to Black men present] fuck

you? How the fuck do you wake up next to that in the morning?”

241

During the investigation, Sgt. Denault admitted that he authored

the racist posts,

242

and IAD sustained all 11 charges against Sgt.

Denault and recommended that he be terminated.

243

Following an

Administrative Hearing, which sustained six charges, Sgt.

Denault’s discipline was downgraded by the Chief of Police to a

237

IA2011-042 (PG0000002503-2724 at 2614).

238

Compl. ¶ 61(a).

239

IA2011-042 (PG0000002503-2724 at 2614).

240

IA2011-042 (PG000002503-2724 at 2615).

241

IA2011-042 (PG0000002503-2724 at 2616).

242

IA2011-042 (PG0000002503-2724 at 2616-17).

243

IA2011-042 (PG0000002503-2724 at 2580, 2619).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 72 of 265

reduction in rank, and $250 in fines.

244

According to former Chief

Magaw, one charge was dropped prior to the Board and the Board

found, at the direction of the County Law Office, three charges to

be not guilty purportedly because of “First Amendment issues.”

245

The Administrative Hearing Board’s disciplinary actions are

recommendations only. The Chief of Police has the final authority

and allowed the recommendations to stand. In January 2013, the

case was closed and Sgt. Denault was reduced in rank to Police

Officer.

246

He was retained by the Department and in February

2018 was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant.

247

e. Captain (SI2017-073): The Department received

an anonymous complaint in December 2017 about a series of racist

and offensive comments by on his Facebook page

(which noted that he was a PGPD Captain). These include posts or

exchanges that (i) referred to Reverend Al Sharpton as a “race

hustling asshole,” (ii) showed a picture of several Black

individuals with the caption “line out the door of the liquor store in

da hood!!! . . . only three murders in the parking lot in 4 years”;

(iii) stated liberals were “scumbags” and “bozos,” (iv) “he comes

the white peivedge [sic] bozos . . . I’m going to return my white

skin for a darker complexion.. sue to my priviledge [sic]… so tired

of the cupcake Obama supporters blaming race for everything…”

(v) referring to another Facebook user as “frito frank . . . the good

news is it’s a long weekend those chip shelves, we be empty and

ready to be stocked,” (vi) told a Hispanic person to “go outside and

mow your moms lawn,” and (iv) stated that he was “Black from

the waist down.”

248

During the IAD investigation,

denied recognizing the specific posts, although he acknowledged

using the phrase “black from the waist down” and that the

materials were from his Facebook page.

249

was charged

with Unbecoming Conduct, Use of Language, and Social Media -

244

IA2011-042 (PG0000002503-2724 at 2509).

245

Magaw Dep. Tr. 327:3-8.

246

IA2011-042 (PG000002503-2724 at 2506).

247

Compl. ¶ 61(a); PG000080720-80806 at 80783.

248

SI2017-073 (PG0000937466-937606 at 937513, 937534-937594).

249

SI2017-073 PG0000937466-937606 at 937522-937530).

Captain H-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 73 of 265

Prohibitions; all three charges were sustained.

250

The Department

did not charge Capt. with using discriminatory language or

making false statements during the investigation, which are

Category IV offenses under the Department’s disciplinary policy

and have been the basis for termination of minority officers.

251

During the course of the investigation, Capt. was also the

subject of a second investigation into allegations that he engaged in

unethical practices such as “double dipping.”

252

In September

2019, Capt. received a reduction of rank and a one-year

removal from the promotional cycle, as well as a $250 fine.

253

f. Corporal (IA2016-044): Cpl. went to

collect his police vehicle from maintenance. When a Hispanic

PGPD civilian employee informed him that his car was

not ready, Cpl. got angry and responded, “You are

lucky to be in this country, you are lucky to be working in this

country.”

254

At the time, Cpl. ’s conduct was the subject

of a complaint that went to the Chief’s office and the IAD

Commander.

255

Cpl. was charged with two counts of

use of language and one count of unbecoming conduct, all of

which were sustained.

256

During the investigation, Cpl.

denied that he had used discriminatory language; his account was

contradicted by four witnesses.

257

The Department did not charge

Cpl. with using discriminatory language or making a

false statement, which are both Category IV offenses under the

Department’s disciplinary policy and have been the basis for

250

SI2017-073 (PG0000937466-937606 at 937467-937468. was also subsequently

charged by the Maryland State Police with felony forgery. PG00000928065.

251

IAPro IA2015-052; IA2014-087.

252

PG0000982683-982699 at 982683.

253

SI2017-073 (PG0000937466-937606 at 937467-937468).

254

IA2016-044 (PG0000096907-97031 at 96935).

255

PG00000104349.

256

IA2016-044 (PG0000096907-97031 at 96910).

257

IA2016-044 PG0000096907-97031 at 96935-96937).

Corporal A-1

Civilian Employee F-1

Captain H-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 74 of 265

termination of minority officers.

258

Cpl. was given 40

hours of suspension without pay for each of the three charges.

259

70. In conclusion, there is extensive evidence that the Department has

persistently and systemically failed to investigate or discipline adequately

allegations of discrimination. This failure was known at the senior most ranks of

the Department who either directly authorized or condoned it.

D. The Department Does Not Treat or Evaluate Citizen Complaints

About Racial Harassment or Discrimination Appropriately

71. The Department’s failure to investigate (adequately or at all) or

impose discipline for complaints of racial discrimination and harassment, is

consistent with the Department’s failure to investigate adequately or discipline

civilian complaints of racist conduct by officers, as well as the failure of its

policies and systems to analyze and detect bias in the conduct of its officers in

complaints, uses of force, and other information that is readily available to the

command staff.

258

IAPro SI2014-052 (Black officer resigned prior to termination for false statement); SI2015-

015 (Black officer terminated for false statement); SI2016-006 (Black officer terminated for false

statement), SI2016-011 (Black officer terminated for false statement); SI2016-031 (Black officer

terminated for false statement); SI2017-006 (Black officer terminated for false statement);

SI2017-049 (Black officer terminated for false statement), IA2014-087 (Black officer

terminated for discriminatory language); IA2015-052 (Black officer terminated for

discriminatory language).

259

IA2016-044 (PG0000096907-97031 at 96910).

Corporal A-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 75 of 265

72. As noted above, the Department has policies concerning civilian

complaints, most notably General Order Volume I, Chapter 4. This requires

investigation by IAD of certain types of civilian complaints. And it also requires

training and monthly and annual reporting of “bias-based profiling.” General

Order Vol. I, Ch. 4, § V.7 & V.10.

260

73. Under the current leadership of the Department, the available

evidence indicates the Department is not in compliance with its policies. Rather,

under Defendants Chief Stawinski and Commander Mills, the Department has a

practice or custom of ignoring its own policies regarding civilian complaints.

74. For example, the record indicates that until 2016, the Internal Affairs

Division prepared an annual report to the Chief of Police regarding its activities,

including the Section V.10 report on allegations of bias-based profiling by police

officers.

261

Defendants Mills and Stawinski confirmed in their testimony that no

subsequent reports, or any of the other Section V.10 bias-based profiling reports

were prepared.

262

Chief Stawinski testified that he believed that the “foundation”

260

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 4 § V.7, V.10 (Complaints: Internal Complaints).

261

See, e.g., PGPD-PER-0079789-804 at 79799-80, PGPD-PER-0096185-96199 at 96195,

PGPD-PER-0079789-804, PG0000113615-629 at 113625, PG0000104641-656 at 651-52,

PG0000149836-850 at 149846.

262

Prince George’s County’s Objections and Answers to UBPOA’s First Set of Interrogatories

No. 6; Feb. 20, 2020 Alsip Response to Pergament Feb. 10 Letter, Page 3; Prince George’s

County’s Supplemental Response to UBPOA First Set of Interrogatories No. 6 (“Defendant is

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 76 of 265

of the annual bias-based reports were reported to the MPCTC, but Defendants have

yet to produce those reports as requested by Plaintiffs.

263

75. The Department does not appear to have adequate anti-racial bias

training, Defendants do not appear to have provided in discovery any training

materials (also called for in Section V.10) to instruct officers on bias-based

profiling. While I understand from press reports that PGPD has publicized such

training,

264

it is far from clear that the program has the support of Department

leadership.

76. For example, during June 2018, there was a highly publicized incident

where a group of predominantly white officers walked out of an in-service

“implicit bias” training workshop being conducted by the University of

Maryland.

265

A complaint was made to the County,

266

and the Chief’s office was

notified along with other command staff.

267

Although Deputy Chief Rafterry

believed a “review” of the incident had occurred,

268

there is no evidence in the

not presently aware of any regular, monthly reports addressing bias-based profiling.”); Mills

Dep. Tr. 18:9-26:16; Stawinski Dep. Tr. 48:24-50:5.

263

Stawinski Dep. Tr. 49:18-50:5.

264

NBC Washington, Prince George’s County Police Work to Prevent Bias (Feb. 3, 2018),

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Prince-Georges-County-Police-Work-to-Prevent-

Bias_Washington-DC-472436063.html.

265

PG0000162500-162502; Declaration of Michael Anis ¶ 6.

266

PGPD-PER-0122769-122770.

267

Declaration of Michael Anis ¶ 7; Watkins Dep. Tr. 192:5-13.

268

Rafterry Dep. Tr. 163:21-164:8.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 77 of 265

discovery produced by Defendants to indicate that such a review or an

investigation of any sort occurred.

77. Rather, it appears that senior command officers decided that there

should be no investigation of this matter, and sought to excuse their failure to

investigate or discipline this conduct at their depositions. For example, at his

deposition Deputy Chief Murtha attempted to justify the walk-out by stating that

one of the trainers had made what Murtha characterized as “anti-police social

media posts,” and had invited University of Maryland students to observe.

269

Major Watkins similarly testified that he heard from one officer in attendance that

the officers walked out because they were “offended” by observations posted to

social media by University of Maryland students in attendance at the training, and

based on that officer’s observation, Major Watkins felt no further investigation or

discipline was warranted.

270

78. In a Declaration by Plaintiff Michael Anis, one of few officers who

did not walk out, he observed “To my further dismay, PGPD was entirely

unconcerned with the walkout. Shortly after the training occurred, Deputy [Chief]

Murtha made light of the walk-out in front of a group of officers. Moreover, the

269

Murtha Dep. Tr. 106:13-112:15.

270

Watkins Dep. Tr. 193:10-194:22, 196:5-20.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 78 of 265

Department notified officers who walked out that it did not intend to reschedule the

training. PGPD only changed course once the walk-out was reported to in the news

. . . PGPD never conducted an investigation into the details of the walk-out, nor did

it contact me or the other officer who stayed ….To my knowledge, no officers

were disciplined as a result of the walk-out.”

271

79. The Internal Affairs Department also appears not to investigate

adequately civilian complaints about racial profiling. According to the IAPro data

Defendants produced, the Internal Affairs Department has not sustained racial

profiling charges.

272

Not one. And according to the IAPro data Defendants

produced, no officer has been disciplined for racial profiling. This was confirmed

in deposition testimony of senior Department officials.

273

In my experience, that is

indicative of a lack of commitment by Department leadership to address a

significant issue of community tension.

274

271

Declaration of Michael Anis ¶¶ 7-9.

272

A schedule of these incidents can be found at Exhibit B.

273

Stawinski Dep. Tr. 50:24-51:3; Mills Dep. Tr. 28:4-20.

274

See, e.g., Nick Dutton, Md. Officers suspended over ‘driving while black’ YouTube vids (Nov.

17, 2012), https://wtvr.com/2012/11/17/md-officers-suspended-over-racist-youtube-vids/;

Ebony, Black Cop Says He Was Unfairly Detained by Police (Oct. 27, 2016),

https://www.ebony.com/news/black-cop-unfairly-detained/; Jonathan W. Hutto, Sr. & Rodney D.

Green, Social Movements Against Racist Police Brutality and Department of Justice Intervention

in Prince George’s County, Maryland, 93 J. Urban Health 89 (2016),

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4824689/.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 79 of 265

80. This lack of attention to civilian complaints is also confirmed by the

discovery responses the Defendants have provided. For example, in November

2015, the Department received a complaint from an African-American federal

prosecutor that they had been racially profiled leading to a traffic stop.

275

understand that Defendants have not produced this investigative file, but according

to IAPro and Defendants’ discovery responses, after opening a matter, IAD closed

the file, concluding that the complaint was unfounded.

276

Similarly, in October

2015, Defendants received an email from the civil rights organization CASA

complaining about potential racial profiling of Hispanic youths in an incident

outside their headquarters. The email chain shows that the Chief of Police was

notified.

277

Defendants’ discovery responses confirm that no investigation into this

matter was conducted.

278

81. The Department also did not treat external complaints against senior

officers of encouraging improper police conduct appropriately.

82. For example, in recently produced materials, the Defendants disclosed

a 2019 investigation into Major (discussed above in conjunction

275

PG0000108655-57.

276

Prince George’s County’s Objections and Answers to UBPOA’s First Set of Interrogatories

No. 6.

277

PG0000153441-153444.

278

Prince George’s County’s Objections and Answers to UBPOA’s First Set of Interrogatories

No. 6.

Major N-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 80 of 265

with the Department’s failure to investigate a racially derogatory remark) and

Captain , the Commander and Assistant Commander of District II

(Upper Marlboro) in which they made “comp time” awards to District II officers

for the “highest producing officers,” which Major explained involved

“writing tickets” and “stopping Signal 7’s.”

279

subsequently wrote that she

was “beyond pleased with the increased proactivity of our officers.”

280

83. The Department received a complaint about this from the Community

Justice Coalition on August 7, 2019, which forwarded an email from Captain

(dated January 25, 2019) stating that “every month each squad’s high

producer will be recognized with an award of ten hours of Comp time . . . Please

stress with your officers that this program should be discrete.”

281

In forwarding the

complaint, the Community Justice Coalition noted:

This is what causes problems in the minority community.

They are paying officers a reward of pay they did not

work. They are paying the highest producing officers 10

hours of comp time they did not work. This makes these

officers stop people for no reason and invent a crime they

did not commit. They ruin peoples records by these stops

because the officer is pressured to produce.

282

279

PS2019-114 (PGIAD0000127799-127818 at 127809); PS2019-115, PGIAD00000127819-

834, at 127831.

280

PG2019-114 (PGIAD0000127799-127818 at 127813).

281

PS2019-115 (PGIAD0000127819-127834 at 1278).

282

PS2019-115 (PGIAD00000127819-127834 at 127831); PS2019-114 (PGIAD0000127799-

127818 at 127808).

Major N-1

Captain T-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 81 of 265

The Department’s handling of this episode was deficient in several respects.

a. Upon receiving the Complaint on August 7, 2019, Internal Affairs did not

assign an investigator. Rather, it assigned the matter to Christopher Murtha,

the Deputy Chief for the Bureau of Patrol.

283

b. Deputy Chief Murtha opened and closed this matter on August 7, 2019.

c. According to the files, Murtha talked with and , but did not

otherwise interview any witnesses.

284

He made no findings how long the

program had been in existence, or what “productivity” was being

incentivized. He also did not try to figure out how many officers were

awarded “comp time,” or how much in County funds was given to the

officers.

d. Deputy Chief Murtha also does not appear to have taken any steps to

inquire whether any of the other Districts were using similar program.

e. Murtha evaluated the infraction solely as an incentive program that was

not properly authorized by the Chief of Police. Murtha did not investigate

the complaint from the Community Justice Coalition which charged that

stops conducted and tickets written in District II while the program was in

283

PS2019-114 (PGIAD0000127799-127818 at 127803-127804); PS2019-115

(PGIAD00000127819-127834 at 127823-127824).

284

PGIAD00000127824, PGIAD00000127804.

Major N-1

Captain T-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 82 of 265

place improperly targeted minority civilians. Nor did Murtha or the

Department assess whether stops failed to comply with Department policy,

or satisfied constitutional standards.

f. Murtha did not investigate why other senior officers in the District II

failed to report this misconduct.

g. Although Deputy Chief Murtha recommended and and

agreed to serve short suspensions (two days and one day respectively).

285

h. Several months later, both of these disciplinary recommendations were

downgraded so that both officers only received a reprimand.

286

There is no

explanation in the file why this discipline (which and had

agreed to) was downgraded.

i. The file does not reflects that the results of this matter was disclosed to

the Citizen Complaint Oversight Panel, or that the Department ever advised

the complainant on the disposition. There was no internal investigation, no

interviews, and no evidence gathered. The handling of this matter appears

designed to hide this misconduct from public scrutiny.

285

PS2019-114 (PGIAD0000127799-127818 at 127802); PS2019-115 (PGIAD00000127819-

127834 at 127822).

286

PS2019-114 (PGIAD0000127799-127818 at 127800-127802); PS2019-115

(PGIAD00000127819-127834 at 127820-127822).

Major N-1

Captain T-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 83 of 265

84. It is also apparent from the discovery produced by Defendants that

Defendants did not thoroughly investigate or adequately discipline external

complaints from civilians of discrimination or abusive conduct. These are

additional examples from materials produced in discovery:

a. In January 2016, Chief Stawinski received a complaint by email

from the Prince Georges County State’s Attorney Office regarding

a Black citizen who wrote that while he was driving home, a white

officer drew his gun on him and ordered hm out of his car yelling

“you lucky I didn’t snatch you ass out of this fucking car.”

287

The

officer who allegedly made this statement is Cpl. , whose

repeat violations are discussed elsewhere in this report. IAD

determined the allegations were not sustained, even though Cpl.

failed to turn on his microphone to record the stop and

without considering Cpl. ’s history of prior civilian

complaints.

288

b. In July 2016, Chief Stawinski received a complaint forwarded by

State Representative Jimmy Tarlau that one of his constituents had

complained of bias and harassment where an officer asked whether

he was leaving “his house or his girl’s house.”

289

Notwithstanding

the complaint of harassment, emails reflect Chief Stawinski asked

the matter to be referred to the District Commander (Major Mills,

shortly before she was given command of Internal Affairs). The

discovery record reflects that Commander Mills’ inquiry was

limited to asking the two Lieutenants and six Sergeants whether

they knew anything about the incident, and appears to have closed

the matter after Lt. Finn (discussed above), whose unit was on duty

during the incident, denied knowing anything about the matter.

290

The IAPro data and the IA log indicate no investigation was

opened into this matter.

287

IA2016-004 (PG0000132633-132726); PG0000113485-87.

288

IA2016-004 (PG0000132633-132726 at 132635).

289

PG0000155665.

290

PG0000154333.

Corporal S-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 84 of 265

c. In October 2018, Chief Stawinski received a complaint forwarded

by Prince George’s Councilmember Deni Taveras from one of her

constituents, a member of the Hyattsville Race and Equity Task

Force, who complained that he was racially profiled and stopped

by a white officer while taking photographs for his commercial

realty business.

291

Although an email chain reflects Chief

Stawinski was informed about the incident, the IAPro data and the

IA log indicate no investigation was opened into this matter.

Rather, notwithstanding the complaint of racial profiling, the

matter was referred to the District Commander, who in turn

referred the matter to Lt. Selway (discussed above). Lt. Selway

closed the matter after the white officer (POFC )

denied any misconduct after he was not able to speak with the

complainant.

292

In closing the matter, Lt. Selway and the

Defendants failed to consider that POFC had been the

subject of two other civilian complaints in the prior 4 months.

293

d. In May 2015, the Department received a complaint from the Prince

George’s County Fire Department EEO Coordinator that a white

officer made racist comments to two Black patients who were in an

ambulance awaiting transport, accusing them of smoking

marijuana and said “don’t act like this is the first time that the

police took your picture.”

294

Although this incident was reported

to IAD and the EEO Coordinator, there is no indication in IAPro or

Defendants’ discovery response that reflects that the Department

conducted any investigation into this matter.

295

The officer who

made this comment appears to be Lieutenant .

e. In April 2016, Chief Stawinski received a complaint forwarded by

Councilmember Dannielle Glaros from a member of the New

291

PG0000172194-172197 at 172196.

292

PG0000870882-870887 at 870886.

293

FCIQ2018-048 (PGIAD0000031514-31530) (racial profiling traffic stop and aggressive

behavior); FCIQ2018-079 (PGIAD0000032322-32361) (unjustified arrest).

294

PG0000864287-864288; PG0000864289; PG0000864290-864291.

295

Prince George’s County’s Objections and Answers to UBPOA’s First Set of Interrogatories

No. 6.

Lieutennant F-2

Officer V-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 85 of 265

Carrollton City Council that a white officer had harassed and

threatened him, used abusive language, and left him “more afraid

of the County Police Officers than the crime in the community.”

296

Notwithstanding the complaint of harassment, this matter was

referred this to the District Commander (Major Guixens) rather

than reporting it to Internal Affairs, where it was closed with no

discipline imposed.

297

As discussed elsewhere in this report, less

than five months later, the officer who made these statements —

Corporal George Merkel—was criminally convicted for assaulting

a homeless woman, and Major Guixen was identified as a central

figure in trying to intimidate witnesses against Merkel.

298

f. In December 2018, the Department received notification from the

Annapolis Police Department that three members of its Special

Operations Team had been involved in an altercation at a bar in

Annapolis, after one officer (Corporal )

accused another patron of stealing his credit card. When Annapolis

police officers arrived, interfered with their

investigation and had to be physically restrained and was observed

with a firearm.

299

According to the materials produced in

discovery, none of these officers were investigated or disciplined.

g. In September 2016, the Department was notified by the

Montgomery County Police Department that Cpl. Robert Heaney

was involved in a bar fight in Bethesda. According to materials

produced in discovery indicate the Montgomery County police

referred this to PGPD Internal Affairs. Although this matter was

brought to Chief Stawinski’s attention, there is no indication in

296

PG0000893933-893944 at 893939-893940.

297

PG0000893933-893944 at 893934.

298

SI2016-059 (PG0000084795-85168); Circuit Court for Prince George’s County CT170241X;

Drew Gerber, Prince George’s County officer found guilty of assaulting a homeless woman to

roust her (Nov. 14, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/prince-georges-county-

officer-found-guilty-of-assaulting-a-homeless-woman-to-roust-her/2017/11/14/b70f9ad6-c8bb-

11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html.

299

NBC Washington, Prince George’s SWAT Officers Investigated After Bar Fight (Dec. 19,

2018), https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/prince-georges-swat-officers-investigated-

after-bar-fight_washington-dc/166364/; PG0000854965-854966.

Corporal W-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 86 of 265

IAPro or other discovery materials that Officer Heaney was

investigated for the incident. Rather Chief Stawinski was advised

that Internal Affairs decided not to look into the matter.

300

discussed below, Officer Heaney has been involved in at least 37

uses of force since January 1, 2016; these is no indication in IAPro

that any of these uses of force was ever investigated.

h. As discussed above, in November 2017, the Department was

notified by the State’s Attorney that Lieutenant was

pressuring two minority officers who were prosecution witnesses

in the criminal trial of George Merkel.

301

This included repeated

efforts by to “pressure” the witnesses, including contacting

he witnesses to ask if they “really wanted to go forward with the

complaint,” and referring to the two officers as the “rat squad” to

other officers. During the investigation, both and Major

acknowledged that she had instructed to speak

with one of the officers.

302

Internal Affairs closed this matter

finding that the charges against were “non-sustained,” but

never considered whether he violated anti-retaliation policies or

witness intimidation, nor did it investigate Major for

instructing to speak with one of the officers.

303

85. Defendants’ recent production of use of force data also shows

significant racial disparities in the use of force against civilians, as well as flaws in

the Department’s processes for evaluating and investigating use of force incidents.

86. Data produced by the County indicates that there were 6,805 instances

where officers used force between January 1, 2016 and the end of 2019. Chief

Stawinski and Chief Velez served as Chief and Assistant Chief of the Department

300

PG0000104622-104623.

301

SI2017-064 (PGIAD0000135296-135456 at 135439-135441).

302

SI2017-064 (PGIAD0000135296-135456 at 135379-380).

303

SI2017-064 (PGIAD0000135296-135456 at 135300).

Lieutennant D-1

Major H-2

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 87 of 265

during this period.

304

This corresponds to approximately 1,700 uses of force per

year.

87. Of the 6,805 uses of force reported, 94% of the uses of force involved

a minority civilian. Of the uses of forces reported, 86% were against a black

civilian, and another 8% were against a Hispanic civilian. The percentage of black

civilians subject to use of force is significantly higher than its demographic

composition of the County population. In other words, the Department appears to

use force disproportionately against black civilians.

88. My opinion is that there are significant deficiencies in the

Department’s administration of its use of force policies, as well as its assessment

and investigation of uses of force.

89. The Department’s review of use of force includes two significant

components.

90. First, under the Department’s Use of Force policy, General Order

Volume II, Chapter 57, each use of force is supposed to be immediately reported

and reviewed by a supervisor and the relevant command officers (including the

Shift Commander/Lieutenant, the Assistant District Commander/Captain)

304

PG0000985307.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 88 of 265

culminating in review by the District Commander (typically the Major).

305

The use

of force review is supposed to assess, among other things, whether or not officers

are properly trained in use of force techniques and whether the use of force was

within Departmental guidelines. Certain “serious” use of force incidents (such as

those involving a broken bone or hospitalization of a subject, or an officer

discharges of a firearm) are required to be reported to the Special Investigations

Response Team (SIRT) division of Internal Affairs.

91. Second, under the Department’s Early Identification System Policy,

General Order Volume I, Chapter 14, the Internal Affairs Commander is supposed

to prepare a series of monthly and quarterly reports allowing a systemic review of

significant events such as complaints and uses of force.

306

 The monthly reports are supposed to identify all officers who have

been the subject of a combination two or more uses of force or

complaints within a 60 day period.

 The quarterly reports are supposed to identify all officers who have

bene the subject of a combination of three or more uses of force or

complaints in a three-month period, or two complaints during that

305

PG0000054575-54590.

306

PG0000000607-610.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 89 of 265

period. Under the Policy, when an officer is identified on either

the report, the officer’s Commander, their Captain, their

Lieutenant, and their direct supervisor are required to “personally

meet with the subject employee,” and the Commander is required

to “respond back to the Chief of Police in writing, indicating the

date and time of the interview, as well as the participants and

results” including “their assessment and any intervention action

taken. If no intervention is taken, the Commander . . . must

articulate specific reasons for not taking action.”

92. My opinion is that the reporting of EIS information needs to be timely

and reported to the senior-most levels of the Department in order to be an effective

“part of the Department’s police-community relations strategy.” Untimely

reporting or the failure to report information impedes the Department’s policy of

identifying “police employees who may be at risk for future disciplinary

actions.”

307

93. The establishment the Early Identification System, in its current form,

was as a result of a prior Department of Justice investigation into the use of force

in the County. As described in the Policy, it is “an integral part of the

307

General Order Volume I, Chapter 14, PG0000000607-610.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 90 of 265

Department’s police-community relations strategy . . . and it benefits the public by

minimizing the number of police employees who may be at risk for future

disciplinary actions.”

308

94. With regard to the use of force reviews, the Department places

primary responsibility on the supervisor and command review, but does not appear

to assess the effectiveness of the “command review” and whether it detects

whether uses of force are within Departmental guidelines. The Policy provides

that the assessment is to be “evaluated based on the facts known to the officer at

the time of the incident,”

309

and does not provide for consideration that the officer

may have a pattern of use of force, or that the officer may be deploying force in a

discriminatory manner.

95. My review of the use of force data produced by the Department

310

that a relatively small number of officers are responsible for a disproportionate

number of uses of force. For example, the following 19 officers are responsible for

685 uses of force, or 10 percent of the total reported.

308

PG0000000607-610.

309

PG0000054575-54590.

310

PG0000985307.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 91 of 265

Officer Name

Officer

Race

Black

Civilian

White

Civilian

Hispanic

Civilian

Other

Civilians Total UoF

Troy Sumner

White

Anthony Brooke

White

Grant Galing

White

Cedric Heyward

Black

Scott Steinebach

White

Dasplang Gukas

Black

Robert Heaney

White

Gregory Lynn

White

Francesco

Marlett

White

Anthony

Angeloro

White

Cody

Katzenmaier

White

Christopher

Oliver

Black

Daniel Allen

White

Mathew Cotillo

White

Brenden

Gastiaburu-

Simmons

White

Santino Green

Black

Brooks

Mitzkewich

White

Bryant Strong

White

Job Welcome

Black

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 92 of 265

96. Each of these officers had 30 or more uses of force, averaging more

than seven per year. Of these nineteen officers, 74 percent (14) were white and 26

percent (5) were black. Of the uses of force involving these officers, 96 percent

involved minority civilians—and for most of these officers, all or virtually all of

their uses of force were against minority civilians.

97. As Exhibit C to this report, I have attached a list of the officers who

had 20 or more uses of force reported over a four year period. Collectively, these

61 officers were involved in 1,670 uses of force or just under 25 percent of the

total uses of force reported over the period. Of these 61 officers, 64 percent (39)

are white, 28 percent (17) are black, 5 percent (3) are Hispanic, and 3 percent (2)

are Asian. Of the uses of force involving these officers, 99.1 percent involved

minority civilians.

98. My review also identified a number of concerns with the command

review of use of force. The command review involves supervisors (typically

Sergeants), Lieutenants and Captains, and as noted later in this report, the

individuals who hold these positions are disproportionately and (for Lieutenants

and Captains) predominantly white.

 My review of the use of force reports Defendants have produced in

this litigation (which cover 1,219 uses of force since January 1,

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 93 of 265

2016)

311

reflects that there is widespread non-compliance with

Department policy that “District/Division Commanders/Mangers

shall conduct the final review” of use of force incident reports, as

required by General Order Volume II, Chapter 57.

312

Among other

commanders, the reports produced do not indicate or reflect that

Majors Mills, Mints or Weaver (whom are all discussed elsewhere

in this report) reviewed the use of force reports arising under their

commands.

 My review has also identified that a significant number of the uses

of force were reviewed by officers who have expressed racial

animus or otherwise been involved in discriminatory

conduct. These uses of force, which overwhelmingly concerned

use of force against minority civilians, uniformly concluded that

use of force was justified.

 For example, 134 of the 1,219 uses of force (11%) were reviewed

by Lieutenant Scott Finn. Lieutenant Finn concurred that every

311

PGIAD0000138481-147338.

312

PG000054575-54590 at 54582.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 94 of 265

single use of force was justified. And every use of force he

reviewed involved use of force against a minority civilian.

 Similarly, 99 of the 1,219 uses of force (8.1%) were reviewed by

Sergeant Daniel Smith. Sergeant Smith found that every single use

of force was justified. And only 2 of the 99 uses of force Smith

reviewed involved a white civilian.

 Other white officers discussed in this report also reviewed many

use of force reports. For example, Brian Selway reviewed 20,

Kenneth Fox reviewed 25, Christine Norton reviewed 17, Joseph

Bunce reviewed 24, Darryl Wormuth reviewed 30, and Darrin

Rush reviewed 21. All of these reviews uniformly found that the

use of force was justified. And these uses of force almost entirely

concerned incidents against minority civilians.

 Based on the use of force reports produced, it appears that the

command review is doing little more than giving rubber stamp

approval to the use of force. In the 1,219 uses of force covered by

the reports, there was not a single instance where the command

officer did not concur that the use of force was reasonable.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 95 of 265

99. Consistent with this “rubber stamp” assessment, of the 6,805 uses of

force reported, the Police Department concluded that only 15 were non-justified.

In other words, in the review of uses of force, the Department concluded that

99.8% of uses of force were justified.

100. I have also reviewed IAPro data concerning investigations of uses of

force.

 The overwhelming majority of uses of force reported in the

database do not appear to have been investigated by Internal

Affairs.

 Of the 15 officers who engaged in “non-justified” uses of force,

IAD appears to have conducted use of force investigations

concerning five of them.

313

Internal Affairs sustained charges in

two of these matters, and both respondents received a fine.

314

 Of the “justified” uses of force investigated by Internal Affairs,

charges of use of force or excessive force are rarely sustained. In

cases logged in IA Pro since January 1, 2016, Internal Affairs did

313

UoF incidents 16-267 ( , , , &

, investigated as IA2016-052 & IA2016-013 ), 17-219 ( , investigated

as IA2017-029 & IA2017-044) & 17-320 ( , inquiry at SIQ2017-003 & SIQ201-

008)

314

IA2016-052 ( ), IA2017-029 ( ).

Officer C-6

Officer J-4

Officer N-2

Officer S-15

Officer T-7

Officer V-3

Officer J-5

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 96 of 265

not sustain 237 use of force or excessive force charges, and only

sustained charges against four PGPD officers accused of engaging

in use of force or excessive use of force.

315

 Of the four sustained charges, one of these officers, George

Merkel, was terminated following his criminal conviction for

assaulting a black homeless woman.

316

A second officer, Juan

Hernandez, was terminated after hitting a fleeing suspect with his

cruiser.

317

In the other two matters, the officers were fined.

318

101. There also appear to be significant deficiencies in the Department’s

compliance with its Early Identification System policy.

102. First, the monthly reports prepared by the Department do not appear

to comply with the policy that the reports identify all officers who have been the

subject of two or more uses of force or complaints within a 60-day period. Rather,

the reports identify officers who had two uses of force complaints within a

calendar month. During their depositions, Chief Stawinski (who is supposed to

receive the monthly reports) nor Commander Mills (who as Commander of

315

A schedule of the IAPro investigations of use of force or excessive use of force is attached as

Exhibit D. During this time frame, Internal Affairs also sustained an excessive charge against a

Riverdale Park Police Officer. IA 2017-011.

316

SI2016-059 (PG0000084795-85168).

317

SI2016-034 (PG0000785926-786231).

318

IA2016-052 (PGIAD0000086540-87248); IA2017-029 (PGIAD0000039546-39680).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 97 of 265

Internal Affairs is in charge of preparing such reports) did not appear to be aware

that the reports did not comply with policy.

319

103. The failure to generate compliant reports is not an academic issue.

Limiting the reports to officers with two triggering events within a calendar month

will not identify all of the officers who should be reviewed as required by the

Policy. This underreports the number of officers by a significant amount. By

underreporting, the Department has undermined the purpose of the reporting

system, which is to identify officers before they become a problem to the

community. A number of the officers identified above who most frequently

engaged in uses of force were only rarely identified on the monthly reports

produced in discovery

320

—this includes Officers Heaney, Lynn, Angeloro, Oliver,

and Mitzewich.

319

Stawinski Dep. Tr. 61:11-74:5; Mills Dep. Tr. 106:19-109:11.

320

Defendants produced reports from January 2014 through December 2018 (with gaps from

October through December 2016 and June through December 2017). ( PG0000608940,

PG0000608989, PG0000609039, PG0000965837, PG0000609106, PG0000609180,

PG0000609228, PG0000609286, PG0000609355, PG0000609405, PG0000609449,

PG0000609518, PG0000609570, PG0000609631, PG0000609662, PG0000609708,

PG0000609720, PG0000609764, PG0000609810, PG0000609853, PG0000965832,

PG0000609898, PG0000609969, PG0000610016, PG0000965832, PG0000610082,

PG0000610139, PG0000610205, PG0000965832, PG0000610269, PG0000610317,

PG0000610376, PG0000610558, PG0000965832, PG0000610611, PG0000610653,

PG0000610684, PG0000610739, PG0000610785, PG0000610838, PG0000610868,

PG0000610924, PG0000610972, PG0000611012, PG0000611012, PG0000611077,

PG0000611121, PG0000611129, PG0000611173, PG0000611225, PG0000611276,

PG0000965834, PG0000965834, PG0000611326, PG0000611367, PG0000611430,

PG0000611473, PG0000611532, PG0000611578, PG0000611618, PG0000611650,

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 98 of 265

104. Second, as Commander Mills acknowledged during her testimony,

after Mills became Commander of IAD, IAD stopped producing the required

quarterly EIS reports.

321

IAD did not produce quarterly reports for the last two

quarters of 2016 and for most of 2017. I also note that Defendants have not

produced in discovery the monthly EIS reports for any of the months in the last

quarter of 2016 and the period between June and December 2017, corresponding

with start of Commander Mills’ tenure at IAD, and the appointment of Captain

Watkins as AIS Commander.

322

During her deposition, Commander Mills also

testified that Captain Watkins had substantial difficulty producing the monthly EIS

reports on time.

323

Failing to produce reports undermines the purpose of the

PG0000611684, PG0000611751, PG0000611769, PG0000611815, PG0000611863,

PG0000611897, PG0000611906, PG0000611951, PG0000612017))

321

Mills Dep. Tr. 109:12-116:6.

322

PG0000608940, PG0000608989, PG0000609039, PG0000965837, PG0000609106,

PG0000609180, PG0000609228, PG0000609286, PG0000609355, PG0000609405,

PG0000609449, PG0000609518, PG0000609570, PG0000609631, PG0000609662,

PG0000609708, PG0000609720, PG0000609764, PG0000609810, PG0000609853,

PG0000965832, PG0000609898, PG0000609969, PG0000610016, PG0000965832,

PG0000610082, PG0000610139, PG0000610205, PG0000965832, PG0000610269,

PG0000610317, PG0000610376, PG0000610558, PG0000965832, PG0000610611,

PG0000610653, PG0000610684, PG0000610739, PG0000610785, PG0000610838,

PG0000610868, PG0000610924, PG0000610972, PG0000611012, PG0000611012,

PG0000611077, PG0000611121, PG0000611129, PG0000611173, PG0000611225,

PG0000611276, PG0000965834, PG0000965834, PG0000611326, PG0000611367,

PG0000611430, PG0000611473, PG0000611532, PG0000611578, PG0000611618,

PG0000611650, PG0000611684, PG0000611751, PG0000611769, PG0000611815,

PG0000611863, PG0000611897, PG0000611906, PG0000611951, PG0000612017; see also

Letter from A. Pergament to M. Alsip (Dec. 9, 2019).

323

Mills Dep. Tr. 114:1-22.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 99 of 265

reporting system, which is to identify officers before they become a problem to the

community.

105. The virtual shut down of the Department’s EIS breaks the promises

the County made in 2004 to the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ). In 2004,

after an investigation by the Justice Department Civil Rights Division, on behalf of

Prince George County and its Police Department (PGPD), then County Executive

Jack B. Johnson and Chief of Police Melvin High signed a Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA) with the Justice Department to reform the Police

Department.

324

The MOA details numerous reforms, including the reform of the

Police Department’s Early Identification System. Section VII of the MOA

(entitled “MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION, A. Early Identification

System”) provides: “The PGPD will enhance and expand its Early Identification

System to include a computerized relational database for maintaining, integrating,

and retrieving data necessary for supervision and management of the entire PGPD.

The PGPD will regularly use this data to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate

324

MOA Section B, General Provision 2 states: “The United States and Prince George’s County,

a chartered governmental corporation in the State of Maryland, share a mutual interest in

promoting effective and respectful policing. They join together in entering this Agreement in

order to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges,

or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” (page 1)

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 100 of 265

the performance of officers across all ranks, units, and shifts.”

325

The County has

not lived up to this critical part of the Agreement.

106. Third, the evidence in the discovery record indicates that District

Commanders did not report back to the Chief of Police “in writing” following their

interviews with individuals identified on the monthly or quarterly reports. Such

reports do not appear to have been produced in discovery, and Chief Stawinski

testified he did not receive such written reports.

326

Commander Mills also testified

that when she was a District Commander, she did not prepare such reports directly

to the Chief of Police.

327

107. Fourth, there is evidence in the record indicating that District

Commanders did not “personally meet” with officers identified on the monthly or

quarterly reports, as required by Department Policy. For example:

 Prior to becoming Commander of IAD, Major Mills served as the

Commander of District III, where many of the officers who most

frequently engaged in use of force served, e.g., Officers Sumner,

Brooke, Angeloro, Katzenmaier, Cotillo, Oliver.

325

MOA at 18 ¶ 75.

326

Stawinski Dep. Tr. 68:23-69:5.

327

Mills Dep. Tr. 67:5-68:12.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 101 of 265

100

 Commander Mills testified that when she was a District

Commander, she frequently delegated the responsibility to meet

with officers on the list to her subordinates.

328

 Commander Mills testified that she did not recall meeting with a

number of officers who were on the monthly report who were

under her command when she was a District Commander. For

example, she did not recall meeting with Troy Sumner, Anthony

Brooke, or Cody Katzenmaier—all of whom were on at least one

monthly report during her tenure as District 3 Commander, and

were among the officers who most frequently engaged in use of

force.

329

Commander Mills similarly did not recall meeting with other officers who

frequently engaged in use of force who served under her command who appeared

on monthly reports, including Jeremy Burch, Michael Morris, or Stephen

Saraullo.

330

There appears to be little disciplinary consequence for officers who

frequently appear on the monthly reports.

328

Mills Dep. Tr. 65:7-16.

329

Mills Dep. Tr. 119:15-121:9, 146:17-147:8, 147:16-148:1.

330

Mills Dep. Tr. 68:20-69:1, 121:1-3, 147:9-15, 149:5-150:2

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 102 of 265

101

108. In conclusion, there is extensive evidence that the Department has

persistently and systemically failed to enforce its policies regarding civilian

interactions, particularly complaints of racial bias. The Department similarly

failed to follow its policies concerning use of force, which appear to have a

disproportionate impact on minority communities; officers who have engaged in

frequent use of force against minority civilians do not appear to have been

adequately investigated or disciplined. This failure of the Department to abide by

its policies was known (or should have been known) at the senior most ranks of the

Department who either directly authorized or condoned it.

E. The Department’s Internal Investigative and Disciplinary

Mechanisms Treat Officers Differently Based on Their Race

109. The Department states in its General Order that its policy is to “accept

all complaints of employee misconduct at all levels of the Department . . .

investigate complaints in a fair and impartial manner, and to impose disciplinary

action, if necessary, in a uniform and timely fashion.” General Order Vol. I, Ch. 4,

§ I.

331

The Department further states that the Department policy is “to ensure that

all investigations arising from a complaint are conducted fairly and openly.”

General Order Vol. I, Ch. 22, § I.

332

And the Department further states that its

331

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 4 § I (Complaints: Policy).

332

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 22 § I (Internal Investigative Procedures: Policy).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 103 of 265

102

policy is that “[t]he Commander, IAD, will confer with the Chief of Police to

ensure discipline is consistent throughout the agency.” General Order Vol. I, Ch.

11, § V.2.

333

110. Based on my experience overseeing the internal affairs and

disciplinary functions of one of the largest police departments in the country

(LASD), as well as my expertise evaluating numerous other police departments, a

hallmark of a “fair and impartial” system of investigation and a “uniform” system

of discipline is that one would not expect that there would be disparities in

investigative outcomes or disciplinary consequences according to race.

111. I have reviewed the data from the IAPro system that Defendants

produced in this matter. This data covers a six-year period starting in mid-2013.

112. I am familiar with IAPro, which was developed by former internal

affairs officials and is used throughout the United States. One of the features of

the software is that it allows police departments to analyze investigative and

disciplinary trends, including trends by race. This analysis can be useful in

assisting a department in determining whether there are issues of discrimination

within its investigative or disciplinary functions. As discussed below, members of

the “Equality for Promotions, Discipline and Practices Panel” and the Department

333

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 11 § V.2 (Discipline: Procedures).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 104 of 265

103

convened in 2017 and discussed a proposal that Internal Affairs use this feature to

allow the Department to track whether its processes were fair; Defendant

Commander Mills refused to do so.

334

113. The IAPro data produced by the Defendants demonstrates significant

disparities in the PGPD system of investigation which, in turn, demonstrates that

the Department is not adhering to its policy that investigations should be conducted

in a “fair and impartial” manner or that investigations are being “conducted fairly.”

114. The data indicates significant disparities by race in whether the

Department (i) opened formal investigations, (ii) sustained charges, (iii) imposed

discipline at all, (iv) imposed severe discipline, and (v) resulted in resignations

and/or terminations.

115. The IAPro data produced by the Defendants demonstrates significant

disparities in the PGPD system of discipline that demonstrate that the Department

is not adhering to its policy that discipline should be should be imposed in a

“uniform” manner. Among other things, the IAPro data demonstrates:

 Black and Hispanic officers are more likely than a white officer to be

charged with an offense;

334

PG0000157312 (Video of July 26, 2017 Equality for Promotions, Discipline and Practices

Panel); PG0000161480-161482.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 105 of 265

104

 Black and Hispanic officers are then more likely to face a formal

disciplinary proceeding than white officers, whose misconduct is more often

dismissed through one of the mere “inquiry” proceedings, which do not

result in punishment.

 When charges are evaluated in a formal disciplinary process, a black or

Hispanic officer is more likely than a white officer to be found guilty—that

is, the charge is “sustained.”

 Black and Hispanic officers are then much more likely to be subject to the

more severe forms of punishment (reduction in rank, removal from the

normal promotion cycle, and termination) than lesser forms such as a

reprimand.

116. Analysis of the disparities in the PGPD investigative and disciplinary

processes begin with documenting the racial composition of the sworn officers

subject to that process. Although Prince George’s County is approximately 67%

African-American, 17% Hispanic, and 14% non-Hispanic white, the sworn officer

force is substantially skewed towards white officers. Specifically, in December

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 106 of 265

105

2017—the midpoint of the six-year period reviewed in this analysis—42.8% of the

sworn officers were Black, 9.1% Hispanic, and 44.5% non-Hispanic white.

335

117. It is likewise important to recognize that the senior management of the

PGPD—and specifically the commanders responsible for the disciplinary

process—are even more skewed in favor of whites. Specifically, the percentage of

the three senior ranks (Major, Captain and Lieutenant) was 65.4% white in 2015—

significantly more than the approximately 45% of the overall force which was

white—shortly before Chief Stawinski became Chief. In 2017 the percentage of

the three senior ranks was 68.8% white and in 2019 remained 68.6% white. Over

the same period, the percentage of senior officers who were Black or Hispanic

went down from 31.4% in 2015 (already well below the 53% of the overall force in

those two racial groups) to 29.2% in 2017 and 28.2% in 2019.

336

118. The IAPro dataset initially produced by the Defendants in September

2019 was provided in Excel format, which allowed computation of the impact of

particular practices by race, including: (1) charges initially filed, (2) charges

335

PG0000000291-335 at 335. The 3.6% of the force that was categorized as Asian is not

reflected on the summary charts below as they are not at issue in this case. In addition, the small

sample size does not permit meaningful comparisons of the disciplinary results with that group

and the other three racial groups.

336

PG0000173546; PG0000085344; PG0000085430.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 107 of 265

106

formally processed (rather than treated as inquiry), (3) charges sustained against

the respondent officer, and then (4) punishments imposed.

119. I have reviewed the expert report of Marc Simon, a partner at BDO

LLP. Mr. Simon analyzed the IAPro dataset produced by Defendants in December

2019, which was not produced in Excel or a format that I could readily analyze. I

note that Mr. Simon’s findings regarding racial disparities in investigative and

disciplinary decisions are consistent with my analysis and conclusions concerning

the first IAPro dataset produced. This is not surprising, as much of the data in the

dataset I analyzed remained in the subsequent IAPro dataset.

120. The following chart summarizes the racial disparities throughout the

PGPD’s entire system of investigation and discipline based on the IAPro set

initially produced by Defendants.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 108 of 265

107

121. This chart—and the tabulated counts and percentages in the Appendix

to this report, attached as Exhibit E—shows that, as compared to the racial

composition of the overall force (42.8% Black, 9.1% Hispanic, and 44.5% non-

Hispanic white), the breakdown of:

a. The percentage of all charges against all officers was 46.2% Black,

10.2% Hispanic, and 40.7% white;

b. The number of charges handled as “inquiries” (FCIQ, IAQ, and

SIQ) was slightly skewed in favor of white officers, but the

Black 42.8

Black 46.2

Black 47.4

Black 50.8

Black 54.0

Black 71.4

Hisp. 9.1

Hisp. 10.2

Hisp. 10.6

Hisp. 12.3

Hisp. 10.5

Hisp. 4.8

White 44.5

White 40.7

White 39.2

White 33.8

White 33.2

White 21.4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall Force

All Charges

Formally Pursued

Sustained

All Punishments

Termination/Resignations

Comparison of Disciplinary Acts to

Overall Comparison of PGPD Sworn Officers

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 109 of 265

108

charges handled through formal processes, which can lead to a

punishment, was disproportionately directed against minority

officers (47.4% Black, 10.6% Hispanic, only 39.2% white);

c. The composition of “sustained” charges was 50.8% Black, 12.3%

Hispanic versus only 33.8% white; and

d. Of officers punished in any way 54.0% were Black, 10.5%

Hispanic, and only 33.2% white.

122. Where discipline was imposed, the tabulations attached as Exhibits F

and G show the disparity increases as the level of severity of the discipline

increases.

123. As compared to the racial composition of the overall force (42.8%

Black, 9.1% Hispanic, and 44.5% non-Hispanic white), the IAPro data indicates

the following the disciplinary trends:

a. Starting with the least severe form of discipline -- a reprimand --

the breakdown of the races is somewhat closer to the composition

of the force as a whole -- 49.1 % Black, 12.2% Hispanic, and

35.0% white;

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 110 of 265

109

b. Moving on to fines, one finds a greater disparity against officers of

color: 52.7% of all fines were levied against Black officers, 11.1%

Hispanic, and 34.0% white;

c. For suspensions and leave without pay, the breakdown is 65.5%

Black, 3.5% Hispanic, and only 29.3% white;

d. For reduction in rank and removal from the promotion cycle, the

breakdown is 57.1% were Black, 14.3% Hispanic, and only 28.6%

white; and

e. For officers who either resigned rather than face discipline or who

were actually terminated, 71.4% were Black, 4.8% were Hispanic,

and 21.4% were white.

124. I have also reviewed IAPro data that suggests that specific

investigators display significant disparities in their investigations based on race. In

particular, the IAPro data produced by Defendants finds dramatically different

rates at which the following officers “sustain” cases against white officers as

opposed to minority officers. Since my preliminary report, I have updated this

analysis to include data reflected in the later IAPro productions. The analysis

shows:

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 111 of 265

110

a. Corporal Brett Shapiro: White respondents sustained—8 of 43

(18.60%); Black and Hispanic respondents sustained—35 of 72

(48.61%).

b. Corporal Evan Baxter: White respondents sustained—3 of 51

(5.88%); Black and Hispanic respondents sustained—16 of 76

(21.05%).

c. Corporal Brian Medina: White respondents sustained—4 of 38

(10.53%); Black and Hispanic respondents sustained—40 of 76

(52.63%).

d. Sergeant Thang Pham: White respondents sustained—10 of 44

(22.73%); Black and Hispanic respondents sustained—27 of 63

(42.86%).

e. Sergeant Kyle Bodenhorn: White respondents sustained—7 of 32

(21.88%); Black and Hispanic respondents sustained—29 of 85

(34.12%).

f. Sergeant Tina Blackistone: White respondents sustained—6 of 29

(21.21%); Black and Hispanic respondents sustained—21 of 57

(36.84%).

g. Sgt. William Clifford III: White respondents sustained—3 of 33

(9.09%); Black and Hispanic respondents sustained—13 of 30

(43.33%)

h. Sgt. William Gross: White respondents sustained—5 of 22

(22.73%); Black and Hispanic respondents sustained—31 of 56

(55.36%).

i. Sergeant Winston Wilson: White respondents sustained—1 of 38

(2.63%); Black and Hispanic respondents sustained—9 of 40

(22.5%).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 112 of 265

111

Troublingly, these disparities are evident among several senior white officers in the

Internal Affairs Department when they conducted investigations:

j. Major Curtis Lightner: White respondents sustained—3 of 22

(13.64%); Black and Hispanic respondents sustained—21 of 38

(55.26%).

k. Captain Cynthia Ruff: White respondents sustained—4 of 25

(16%), Black and Hispanic respondents sustained—6 of 18

(33.33%).

l. Captain Joseph Ghattas: White respondents sustained—9 of 19

(47.37%), Black and Hispanic respondents sustained—59 of 84

(70.24%).

By contrast, there are several Internal Affairs Department investigators who

“sustain” cases more equally among racial groups:

a. Sergeant Daniel Hader: White respondents sustained—4 of 43

(9.30%), Black and Hispanic respondents sustained—4 of 28

(14.29%).

b. Sergeant David Byrd: White respondents sustained—5 of 24

(20.83%), Black and Hispanic respondents sustained—4 of 25

(16.00%).

c. Sergeant Paul Mack: White respondents sustained—12 of 22

(54.55%), Black and Hispanic respondents sustained—24 of 39

(61.45%).

d. Sergeant Shannon Harris: White respondents sustained—2 of 31

(6.45%), Black and Hispanic respondents sustained—3 of 25

(12.00%)

e. Lieutenant Michael Rubin: White respondents sustained—13 of

40 (32.50%), Black and Hispanic respondents sustained—17 of 51

(33.33%).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 113 of 265

112

125. During testimony, Chief Stawinski and Commander Mills confirmed

that they had never analyzed the potential racial bias of IAD investigators.

337

126. In addition to the significant disparities in particular investigators’

“sustain” rates, the number of Black and Hispanic officers terminated as a result of

investigations by these investigators is notable. Of the Black and Hispanic officers

terminated during Chief Stawinski’s tenure, three of those investigations were

conducted by Brian Medina

338

; three by Kyle Bodenhorn

339

; two by Brett

Shapiro

340

; and one by Tina Blackistone.

341

That is, most of the minority officers

terminated during Chief Stawinski’s tenure had been investigated by a handful of

investigators with disparate Black and Hispanic officer “sustain” rates.

127. I have seen evidence that the senior leadership of the Department

made a conscious decision not to track, monitor, or analyze race in its investigative

or disciplinary function, although it would have been easy for them to do so. In

particular, I have reviewed an email send by IAD Commander Mills in which she

rejects a proposal raised at the Equality for Promotions, Discipline, and Practices

337

Mills Dep. Tr. 213:8-13; Stawinski Dep. Tr. 230:12-20; see also M. Smith Dep. Tr. 52:1-3.

338

Terminations of Eric Beale, SI2016-011 (PG0000170989-170994); , SI2016-031

(PGIAD103604-612); SI2014-052 (PG0000321922-321925).

339

Terminations of Michael Brown, SI2014-039 (PG0000012123-12429); ,

SI2017-039 (PGIAD0000067714- 67714); , (PG0000161272-161274).

340

Termination of Tasha Oatis, IA2014-130 (PG0000013412-13524); Termination of

, IA2015-040 (PG000070896 -902).

341

Termination of , SI2017-043 (PG0000785926-786231).

Officer A-9

Officer O-4

Officer P-7

Officer S-7

Officer H-10

Officer R-9

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 114 of 265

113

Panel that IAD use IAPro to track race and sex. Specifically, Commander Mills

received an email from Capt. Ghattas reporting that a Panel member proposed that

“we need to track race and sex . . . so we can make sure that [discipline] is being

fairly imposed . . . If we can ever get IAPro set up correctly, we would be able to

do it both ways very easily.” In response, Commander Mills wrote:

We do not currently track this through IAPro, however it has been

discussed. I believe this is a slippery slope as that may present a

tendency to try to make things fair based on race/sex, when in

actuality it needs to be on a case by case basis and never focus on

what an officer of one race/sex got for a punishment as opposed to

another . . . At the end of the day, it is about ensuring that the

investigation is complete and thorough and that the officer is

treated fairly, regardless of race/sex. Having said that, the most

important thing to keep in mind is that if the focus is on race/sex,

then cases are examined with that consideration, thereby negating

the very core of what this is all about, which is treating officers

fairly based on their actions and not their race/sex, therefore

enabling us to be impartial.

342

Commander Mills vetted this answer with Hector Velez, the Acting Chief of the

Department.

343

128. Following this email exchange, and demonstrating Ghattas’ statement

that this analysis could be performed fairly easily, Internal Affairs prepared an

342

PG0000161480-161482, PG0000875393-875493 at 875465; see also Ghattas Dep. Tr. 201-

218.

343

PG0000182196-182199.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 115 of 265

114

analysis of cases handled by its Administrative Investigation Section (AIS), which

are cases with an IA Prefix.

344

Major Mills promptly provided this information to

the Equality for Promotions, Discipline, and Practices Panel, but failed to advise

the Panel that the information was limited to the AIS section cases, and did not

include all cases handled by Internal Affairs (such as the cases handled by the

Serious Incident Response Team (SIRT)) and did not include cases investigated by

supervisors in the field (PS or FC cases). I note that this flawed analysis could

have deceived the Panel into believing there was no racial bias in the

investigations. It is clear that had Commander Mills presented all of the IAPro

data to the Panel, the racial disparity in investigations would have been clear (as

discussed above).

129. Commander Mills noted in her email that the proposal for IAD to

track by race had “been discussed” before and rejected. Id. As discussed above,

there is significant evidence that Internal Affairs has neither “treat[ed] officers

fairly,” nor has it been “impartial”; rather, the data shows a significant,

troublesome disparity that disadvantages minority officers and advantages white

officers at every stage of PGPD’s investigative and disciplinary processes. In

addition, the Department deliberately blinds itself to this information by not

344

PG0000000182-201 at 186-189.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 116 of 265

115

monitoring or analyzing race in its investigative or disciplinary function by

switching off the part of their internal investigations and discipline system that

could track such discrimination.

130. Following the time that Major Mills provided partial data to the

Equality for Promotions, Discipline, and Practices Panel, there is no evidence that

the Department tracked investigative or disciplinary data by race. I have also

reviewed the deposition testimony of the IAD “Statistical Coordinator,” Linda

Washington. In her testimony, she confirmed that the Department does not prepare

analysis of its investigations or discipline by race.

345

Numerous senior officers

including Chief Stawinski and Major Mills testified that the Department does not

analyze such data.

346

I am aware the Defendants have subsequently confirmed in

writing that the Department does not have or prepare any such statistical reports.

347

131. I have seen another series of emails from Commander Mills in which

she expresses conduct inconsistent with Department policy to “investigate

complaints in a fair and impartial manner.”

348

Notably, in conjunction with her

efforts to work with the President of the local Fraternal Order of Police to

345

Washington Dep. Tr. 43-48.

346

Stawinski Dep. Tr. 233:8-235:12; Mills Dep. Tr. 178:16-179:21.

347

Dec. 18, 2019 Alsip Response to Pergament Dec. 9 Letter at 5, item b; Feb. 14, 2020 Alsip

Response to Pergament Feb. 1 Letter at 5.

348

General Order, Vol. I, Ch. 4 § I (Complaints: Policy).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 117 of 265

116

encourage officers to seek expungement of their files, on July 20, 2017

Commander Mills wrote in a series of emails:

349

First of all, you are not a good Catholic… I know better…. I’ll pray

for your soul….

Please note the show of good faith from the Commander of IAD…

I cannot always set your people free but I can certainly cross the

aisle. I look out for them whenever I can. You can buy me a beer

anytime… I would actually prefer it brought to my office today so I

can alleviate some of the stress that your people are causing me of

late… 

350

In my opinion, this is completely inappropriate conduct for a law enforcement

professional. They are certainly inappropriate for the individual charged by the

Department with responsibility for ensuring that complaints be investigated in a

“fair and impartial manner.”

132. These statistical trends are consistent with what the Plaintiffs alleged

in the complaint regarding disparate discipline for similar infractions.

133. Based on my review, the Department has a practice of diverging from

its stated policy of “uniform” discipline.

349

Compl. ¶ 103(a); Pippin Dep. Tr. 79:8-86:14.

350

PG0000182444-182445; PG0000182462-182463. Three days after sending this email,

Commander Mills personally reviewed Sgt. Rush’s request for expungement. PG0000855439;

PG0000855440-855445 at 855541. Commander Mills subordinates reported that they were

“inundated with requests.” PG000903780.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 118 of 265

117

134. These are some examples where I have questions about the fairness of

the discipline. While the conduct at issue in all of these matters is serious, and in

many cases, serious discipline is warranted, there is a pattern where minority

officers have received harsher discipline than white officers for similar violations:

a. Plaintiff Sharon Chambers and Corporal Christopher Smith v.

Corporal , Lieutenant Charles Seward,

Lieutenant , Sergeant ,

Corporal , and Corporal : PO

Chambers is a Black female officer who retired in 2019. While on

duty, she returned to her vehicle and found that her firearm had

been stolen. She was suspended pending investigation, fined $500

and received a written reprimand.

351

Cpl. Smith, a Black male

officer, also had his firearm stolen from his vehicle; he was

suspended for twenty hours without pay.

352

The discipline records

produced by PGPD contain several instances in which white male

officers reported their firearms lost under similar or worse

circumstances—none of them were disciplined as severely as PO

Chambers or Cpl. Smith, and none of the white officers were

suspended pending investigation. Cpl. had his firearm

stolen from his vehicle and was fined $500 but received no written

reprimand.

353

Cpl. had his firearm stolen from his vehicle

and was fined $500 but received no written reprimand.

354

Lt.

Seward lost his firearm and was fined $500 but received no written

reprimand.

355

Lt. had his firearm stolen from his vehicle

and was fined $250 and received no written reprimand.

356

Sgt.

left his loaded firearm in a public restroom and was fined

$500 but received no written reprimand.

357

left his

351

PS2017-090 (PG0000023408-23457 at 23410-23411).

352

PS2017-084 (PG0000016450-16531 at 16450-16452).

353

PS2016-083 (PGIAD0000092647-92687 at 92650-92651).

354

PS2016-185 (PGIAD0000096744-96759 at 96747).

355

PS2013-541 (PG0000080388-80436 at 80391-80392).

356

PS2014-290 (PG0000157689-157741 at 157692).

357

PS2016-111 (PGIAD0000093557-93597 at 93560-93561).

Corporal D-1

Corporal F-1

Lieutennant P-1

Sergeant L-1

Corporal S-5

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 119 of 265

118

firearm and loaded magazine unattended on the kitchen counter in

a house with six young children; he was fined $100 and received

no written reprimand.

358

b. Police Officer Arvester Horner v. Police Officer ,

Corporal and Sgt. Rush: PO Arvester Horner is a

Black officer. In North Carolina, he was charged with driving

under the influence, he was investigated and disciplined with a

suspension without pay for 120 hours and reduction of two ranks

and removed from the promotional cycle for one year.

359

is a white officer. After being stopped and arrested for driving

under the influence, he was investigated and disciplined with a

written reprimand, a reduction of a single rank, and a removal from

the promotional cycle for one year.

360

Cpl. is a white

officer. After being stopped and arrested in Idaho for driving

under the influence with a child in the car, he was investigated and

disciplined with a suspension for 40 hours, a reduction of salary

and a single rank, and removal from the promotional cycle for one

year.

361

Sgt. Rush is a white officer. After striking a guard rail and

flipping his unmarked police car several times and charged with

driving under the influence, he was investigated. Although IAD

recommended he be terminated,

362

Chief Magaw overruled this

discipline and reduced him by one rank and imposed fines.

363

c. Police Officer Tasha Oatis v. Sergeant Lisa Garland (SIQ2016-

012, SI2017-001), Lieutenant (SIQ2017-006): PO

Oatis is a Black officer. She was accused of “double dipping”

(leaving early to go to her part-time security job). Her matter was

formally investigated by Internal Affairs. She was suspended nine

months after her investigation started, and she was terminated in

2016.

364

Sgt. Garland is a white officer accused of 71 counts of

358

IAPro Entry for IA2014-058 (file not produced).

359

SI2014-055 (PG0000786754-786878 at 786761).

360

SI2017-072 (PGIAD000075164-75309 at 75168).

361

SI2014-045 (PG0000001248-1251 at 1249).

362

SI2010-003 (PG0000022038-22322 at 22095).

363

SI2010-003 (PG0000022038-22322 at 22039).

364

IA2014-130 (PG0000013412-13524 at 13431).

Lieutennant B-1

Officer S-10

Corporal W-2

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 120 of 265

119

unbecoming conduct related to “double dipping.” Her matter was

initially treated as an inquiry; she was subsequently investigated

for having engaged in the same practice of “double dipping,” was

not terminated, was not suspended until her investigation had been

pending for 28 months, at which point she was charged with 61

counts of unbecoming conduct related to double dipping. Sgt.

Garland was allowed to stay on the force while her appeal dragged

on until her retirement in 2019.

365

is a white officer

accused of double dipping by improperly “working two law

enforcement jobs.” His matter was treated as an inquiry, which

was closed without any punishment.

366

d. POFC Eric Beale v. Lt. Thomas Denault: POFC Beale is a

Black officer. He was terminated after being investigated for

giving a “false statement” to an investigator attempting to track

down a civilian accused of impersonating a police officer.

367

Lt.

Denault is a white officer. He was investigated for

“misrepresentation of facts,” based on false statements he made in

court, while under oath, in two separate protective order hearings

involving a dispute with his neighbor. Lt. Denault was suspended

for 10 hours without pay.

368

As noted above, he had a prior

disciplinary infraction where his termination was recommended.

He was subsequently promoted twice.

e. Corporal Michael Brown v. Corporals

, (IA 2015-006), and Robert

Heaney: Cpl. M. Brown is a Black officer. After he was

investigated for “use of language” and “unbecoming conduct”

violations following an off-duty confrontation in the District of

Columbia where he drew a weapon, and was arrested; Cpl. M.

Brown was suspended and subsequently threatened with

termination, and resigned the day before the termination was to

365

IAPro Entry for SIQ2016-012 (file not produced); SI2017-001 (PG0000975400-975725 at

975422); PG0000939411-939412; PG0000086663; PG0000080569.

366

IAPro entry for SIQ2017-006 (file not produced).

367

SI2016-011 (PGIAD0000113736-113978 at 113743).

368

Compl. ¶ 61(a); SI2015-037 (PG0000021848-22037 at 21856).

Lieutennant B-1

Sergeant I-1

Corporal W-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 121 of 265

120

occur.

369

Cpl. is a white officer. He was involved

in an altercation at a bar in Annapolis. When Annapolis police

officers arrived, he interfered with their investigation and had to be

physically restrained and was observed with a firearm;

370

according to the materials produced in discovery, he was not

suspended and there is no indication in IAPro or other discovery

materials that he was investigated for this incident. Cpl. is

a white officer. He was accused by a Black civilian of starting an

altercation by cutting him off in traffic, and then brandishing his

weapon. According to IAPro, he received a small fine.

371

Cpl.

Heaney is a white officer. He was involved in a bar fight in

Bethesda; according to materials produced in discovery indicate

the Montgomery County police referred this to PGPD Internal

Affairs; although this matter was brought to Chief Stawinski’s

attention, there is no indication in IAPro or other discovery

materials that he was investigated for the incident; rather Chief

Stawinski was advised that Internal Affairs decided not to look into

the matter.

372

f. POFC and Police Officer v. Police

Officer and POFC POFC

is a Black officer. After a domestic violence incident

alleged by his girlfriend (who later changed her story and said the

subject did not choke her), POFC was investigated and

subsequently terminated.

373

PO is a Hispanic officer. After

being criminally charged with harassment arising out of a domestic

violence incident in New Jersey, he was charged with violation of

laws, unbecoming conduct, and issuance of a civil order against

him. Although an Administrative Hearing Board recommended

that he be fined $2,500,

374

then-Chief McGaw overruled this

369

SI2014-039 (PG0000012123-12429 at 12130).

370

NBC Washington, Prince George’s SWAT Officers Investigated After Bar Fight (Dec. 19,

2018), https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/prince-georges-swat-officers-investigated-

after-bar-fight_washington-dc/166364/; PG0000854965-854966.

371

IAPro Entry for IA2015-006 (file not produced).

372

PG0000104622-104623.

373

SI2016-004 (PG0000160486-160570; PGIAD0000099257-99459).

374

PG000000819-825 at 824.

Officer A-2

Officer F-3

Sergeant I-1

Officer K-1

Officer P-7

Corporal W-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 122 of 265

121

recommendation and terminated him.

375

PO is a white

officer. PO had a domestic violence incident with his

then girlfriend, involving pushing her against a television stand;

approximately 4 months later, he physically threatened her by

texting “ “If you ever come near my life again, I’ll crush you”…”I

find out you contacted anyone close to me, I’ll run you into the

ground and then some. LEARN TO SHUT YOUR MOUTH.” He

also threatened to send intimate videos of a sexual; nature to her

current boyfriend. PO was investigated and

disciplined with suspension without pay for 20 hours, reduction in

rank and removal from the promotion cycle for one year.

376

remains on the force. POFC is a white officer. He was

involved in a domestic dispute. The Prince George’s County

Sheriff’s Department Domestic Violence Unit served POFC

with a Peace Order, which indicated that the concerned

citizen charged POFC had physically assaulted her, made

threats, and continued to harass her.

377

POFC was

charged with unbecoming conduct, which was not sustained, and

with a procedural violation, which was sustained. He was fined

$50.

378

135. Again, the point of this analysis is not to deemphasize the seriousness

of any of this misconduct—it is simply to illustrate that there is a pattern where

minority officers have received harsher discipline than white officers for similar

violations. In this regard, it bears emphasis that, as discussed above (i) in several

of these cases, the minority officer was investigated by one of the IAD

investigators who displayed significant disparities in their investigations based on

375

PG000000826-830 at 826-827.

376

SI2017-069 (PG0000875704-875707).

377

SI2014-005 (PGIAD00000131308- 131457 at 131331.

378

SI2014-005 (PGIAD0000131308-131457 at 131319); District for Prince George’s County

Case No. 0501SP005312014.

Officer F-3

Officer K-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 123 of 265

122

race, and (ii) under Chief Stawinski, the Department appeared to have a

significantly higher threshold for terminating white officers (i.e., the only white

sworn officers terminated during Chief Stawinski’s tenure were those who were

criminally convicted of crimes of violence) than minority officers.

136. The discrepancies in discipline are also evident at the command ranks

of the Department. For example, as discussed below, Captain Joe Perez, the

President of HNLEA, experienced various forms of retaliation following the time

in which he reported that he had filed an EEO charge against Chief Stawinski and

Commander Mills, and advised the senior commanders of the Department that

HNLEA and UBPOA had filed a complaint with the Department of Justice.

Following this disclosure, Internal Affairs (headed by Commander Mills) instituted

an investigation of Captain Perez, stemming from a complaint from the Mayor of

Seat Pleasant, Maryland. As a result of this investigation, Captain Perez was

ultimately demoted, leaving the Department with no Hispanic Captains.

137. In conjunction with the Perez investigation, in August 2019,

Commander Mills was requested to identify “like discipline” for Captain Perez’s

proposed discipline. In response, she wrote: “a command level employee has not

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 124 of 265

123

been disciplined for the behavior and unprofessional conduct Captain Perez has.

Therefore, ‘like discipline’ for this particular allegation does not exist.”

379

138. In writing this, Commander Mills failed to consider the following four

incidents:

 (IA2016-030): was

investigated for authorizing an officer ( ) to perform

certain analysis during a 13 month period when resided in

Florida and never came to a County police facility; entered

’s payroll records himself, and approved payment to

for 10 hour days without no time off during the 13 month period.

The Department initially cleared , following which the

assigned investigator was promoted and assigned to work for

380

The CCOP disagreed with this finding

and concluded “ failed to uphold his ethical duty to be a

prudent steward of the public trust by allowing to collect

more than $80,000 in pay, not including benefits, without

producing a valid work product. This level of oversight, as

revealed by the investigation, appeared to be . . . highly

unprofessional in the least. . . . Consequently, these action . . .

make the Panel believe that the Respondent acted in an

inappropriate manner and if not handled appropriately could

damage the Department’s reputation both with its body of sworn

officers and with the general public.”

381

The Panel also found

“Additionally, and even more concerning to the Panel, Respondent

appears to have acted in a manner which was designed to

obscure his actions from scrutiny.” ’s efforts

to obscure actions from scrutiny can also be seen in his

Major and Captain . Following

379

PG0000150199-150200.

380

Stawinski Dep. Tr. 314:21-315:9.

381

PG0000144137-144138.

Deputy Chief N-1

Officer S-14

Deputy Chief N-1

Officer S-14

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 125 of 265

124

this communication, Deputy received a reprimand

and less than $500 in fines.

382

 Major (PS2019-114): As discussed above,

Major authorized and condoned an incentive program in

District II under which the she authorized “comp time” awards to

the “highest producing officers” in District II, which included

rewarding officers for “writing tickets” and “stopping Signal

7’s.”

383

In my opinion, this program was both highly unethical and

unprofessional, possibly illegal. After concluding his investigation

in less than a day, Deputy Chief Murtha proposed, and Major

accepted, a two-day suspension. Several months later, this

discipline was later downgraded to a reprimand.

Captain (PS2019-015)As discussed above, Captain

administered Major incentive program in District II

under which the she authorized “comp time” awards to the

“highest producing officers” in District II, which included

rewarding officers for “writing tickets” and “stopping Signal

7’s.”

384

From his email, Captain appears to have taken

steps to conceal the program from scrutiny.

385

In my opinion, this

program was both highly unethical and unprofessional. After

concluding his investigation in less than a day, Deputy Chief

Murtha proposed, and Captain accepted, a oneo-day

suspension. Several months later, this discipline was later

downgraded to a reprimand.

 Major (SI2017-064): As discussed above, by her

own admission, Major directed her subordinate,

Lieutenant to try to dissuade two minority officers

from cooperating in a criminal investigation of Corporal George

382

IA2016-030 (PG0000447426-447764).

383

PS2019-114 (PGIAD0000127799-127818 at 127809;); PS2019-115, PGIAD00000127819-

834, at 127831.

384

PS2019-114 (PGIAD0000127799-127818 at 127809); PS2019-115, PGIAD00000127819-

834, at 127831.

385

PS2019-115 (PGIAD0000127819-127834 at 127831).

Lieutennant D-1

Major H-2

Major N-1

Captain T-1

Deputy Chief N-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 126 of 265

125

Merkel following his assault of a homeless woman.

386

This

violated numerous Department policies and in my opinion, was

highly unethical and unprofessional, and possibly illegal. Major

was not investigated for her misconduct, and was not

disciplined in any way.

139. In sum, there is extensive evidence that the Department discriminates

against minority officers relative to white officers in its investigative and

disciplinary decisions, and that senior leaders of the Department were deliberately

indifferent to such discrimination.

F. The Department’s Culture of Retaliation

140. There is a practice and custom in the department that when minority

officers complain, and particularly when they complain about racial discrimination

or harassment by white officers, they experience retaliation. From my review, the

two most prevalent forms of retaliation are (i) transfers of complainants, and (ii)

institution of retaliatory investigations of the complainants.

141. Although the Department has policies concerning retaliation,

387

I have

seen no evidence in IAPro or the Defendants’ response to discovery that these

policies are enforced. In particular, a search of the IAPro data produced by

Defendants for “retaliation” finds several complaints from civilians, but no matters

386

SI2017-064 (PGIAD0000135296-135456 at 135379-135380).

387

See General Orders Vol. I, Ch. 4, § V.9; id. at Vol. I, Ch. 12, § V.4.

Major H-2

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 127 of 265

126

where an officer alleges they were subjected to retaliation. As discussed in this

section, numerous minority officers have claimed retaliation and there is no

evidence that these charges were investigated by either IAD or the EEO

Coordinator.

142. This lack of investigation and enforcement of the Department’s anti-

retaliation policies is consistent with the materials I have reviewed concerning the

Department’s training for supervisors and managers concerning retaliation, which

is inadequate. The Department’s 46-slide EEO training for supervisors and

managers only discusses retaliation on 2 pages.

388

In my opinion, this training

provided is inadequate, particularly given the culture of retaliation in the PGPD.

143. From my review, I noted the following incidents where minority

officers who complained of conduct (including racist and other unprofessional

conduct) by white officers experienced reciprocal charges (or other forms of

retaliation) that were brought in response to or proximate in time to the minority

officer’s complaint.

a. Plaintiff Danita Ingram: While Cpl. Ingram (a Black officer)

was sitting (undercover) in a courtroom, she was confronted by a

white officer, POFC Michael Rushlow.

389

POFC Rushlow

demanded that she surrender her seat to him and proceeded to

verbally harass and disparage her. Cpl. Ingram reported the

388

PG0000000348-394 at 362-363; PG0000000395-441 at 409-410.

389

Compl. ¶ 136; IA2017-007 (PG0000025416-25896 at 25468).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 128 of 265

127

incident to the court liaison and filed an internal written complaint

against POFC Rushlow, in which she accused him of

discrimination and racial bias.

390

Several officer witnesses

corroborated Cpl. Ingram’s account of events.

391

When POFC

Rushlow learned about Cpl. Ingram’s complaint, he filed a

counter-complaint against Cpl. Ingram concerning the same

incident.

392

During his investigation interview, POFC Rushlow

stated that he filed a complaint against Cpl. Ingram only (i) after he

was informed by his superior (11 days after the incident) that she

had filed a complaint against him, and (ii) in response to her filing

a complaint.

393

Nonetheless, IAD did not charge POFC Rushlow

for violating the Department’s anti-retaliation provisions. The

IAD investigator concluded that Cpl. Ingram should not be

charged; in spite of 3 witnesses who confirmed Cpl. Ingram’s

version of the encounter, IAD Commander Mills overruled this

finding and directed that the charge be sustained, and that the

unbecoming conduct charge against POFC Rushlow be non-

sustained.

394

Instead, Commander Mills directed both officers be

given the sustained charge of discourtesy.”

395

POFC Rushlow

accepted the punishment; Cpl. Ingram took this charge to an

administrative hearing and won.

396

In their report to the Chief, the

Administrative Hearing Board not only found Cpl. Ingram “Not

Guilty” but detailed numerous conduct violations committed by

POFC Rushlow that were not charged, noting that Cpl. Ingram had

tried to end his abuse at several points in the confrontation.

397

Still,

during the pendency of the case, which lasted over a year, Cpl.

Ingram was ineligible for a promotion.

398

390

Compl. ¶ 136; IA2017-007 (PG0000025416-25896 at 25468).

391

IA2017-007 (PG0000025416-25896 at 25588, 25598, 25573).

392

Compl. ¶ 138; IA2017-007 (PG0000025416-25896 at 25678).

393

IA2017-007 (PG0000025416-25896 at 25513-25515).

394

PG00000939321 (points 5 and 6); Kathleen Mills’s Response to HNLEA’s First Set of

Interrogatories No. 1.

395

Kathleen Mills’s Responses and Objections to HNLEA’s First Set of Interrogatories No. 1.

396

Compl. ¶ 140; IA2017-007 (PG0000025416-25896 at 25449).

397

IA2017-007 (PG0000025416-25896 at 25449).

398

Compl. ¶ 139; IA2017-007 (PG0000025416-25896 at 25441).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 129 of 265

128

b. Captain Capt. (a Hispanic officer) filed

a complaint against Lieutenant following the

Department’s Toys for Tots program, during which

instigated a public argument with Capt. (Unbecoming

Conduct) and called her a bitch (Use of Language).

399

Police

department witnesses corroborated the allegation forming the basis

of the first charge, and one civilian witness confirmed the Use of

Language allegation.

400

Several civilian witnesses also filed

complaints against stemming out of this incident.

401

After Capt. filed the complaint, subsequently

filed one against Capt.

402

IAD concluded that the

allegations as to were unfounded (unbecoming conduct)

and non-sustained (use of language), despite the ample

corroboration of Capt. ’s allegation and the civilian

complaints.

403

IAD also concluded that ’s unbecoming

conduct allegation against Capt. was unfounded.

404

IAD

does not appear to have investigated for retaliation,

notwithstanding his admission that he filed the complaint against

Capt. because she had filed a complaint against him.

405

c. Officers and (SI2017-064): As

discussed above, Officers and reported Corporal

George Merkel after he assaulted a homeless woman, and

cooperated in his criminal prosecution. After they first made the

charges, they were subject to a number of hostile and retaliatory

acts (e.g., pushing them to drop the charges, insisting on

accompanying them to a pat-down so they “don’t use too much

force,” coming to their traffic stops, not concurring that a use of

399

Joseph Perez’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of

Interrogatories No. 1, at 9-10; IA2017-069 (PG0000025100-25285 at 25116).

400

IA2017-069 (PG0000025100-25285 at 25111-25112).

401

Joseph Perez’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of

Interrogatories No. 1, at 9-10; PG0000162177-79.

402

Joseph Perez’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of

Interrogatories No. 1, at 9-10; IA2017-069 (PG0000025100-25285 at 25269).

403

IA2017-069 (PG0000025100-25285 at 25107- 25108).

404

IA2017-069 (PG0000025100-25285 at 25107-25108).

405

IA2017-069 (PG0000025100-25285 at 25269).

Officer A-6

Captain G-1

Officer R-2

Lieutennant R-2

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 130 of 265

129

force was consistent with Department policy, calling them the “rat

squad”) from their Shift Commander, Lieutenant

after they refused his efforts to pursue charges against Merkel.

406

complained that she did not feel safe after ’s

comments.

407

Although s conducted prompted a complaint

from the State’s Attorney, IAD non-sustained all charges against

him and he was not disciplined in any way.

408

IAD does not

appear to have investigated for retaliation.

d. Plaintiff Patrick McClam: Lt. McClam witnessed William

Vosburgh, the white Director of the Forensic Lab, make racist and

sexist statements concerning minority female employees of the

lab.

409

With Lt. McClam’s encouragement, two female civilian

employees of color filed EEOC charges concerning the

Vosburgh.

410

After learning that Lt. McClam was a witness to the

EEOC charges and was cooperating in the EEOC investigation, the

Department transferred Lt. McClam involuntarily to the Patrol

Bureau.

411

Discovery reflects senior white officers have also

exchanged disparaging remarks about him.

412

In August 2017,

when Lt. McClam was on track to be promoted to supervisor for a

Special Assignment Team, he was again involuntarily transferred

to a less desirable assignment in the Patrol Bureau.

413

Since

cooperating in the EEO investigation, the Department has pursued

four individual meritless investigations into Lt. McClam.

414

understand that Defendants recently charged Lt. McClam in a fifth

matter and are seeking his termination.

406

SI2017-064 (PGIAD0000135296-135456 at 135335-135349).

407

SI2017-064 (PGIAD0000135296-135456 at 135339) (“I felt like Lieutenant had it out

for me”).

408

SI2017-064 (PGIAD0000135296-135456 at 135439-135441, 135300).

409

Compl. ¶ 222.

410

PG0000158501 and PG0000158507.

411

Compl. ¶¶ 222, 227; Patrick McClam’s Third Supplemental Responses and Objections to

Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories No. 6; PG0000162400-162402.

412

PG0000162391-162392.

413

Id.

414

Id.; IA2016-038 (PG0000023826-24386); IAQ2018-014 (PG0000027646-27747);

FCIQ2017-067 (PGIAD0000028915-28922); FCIQ2018-105 (PGIAD0000032967-33006).

Lieutennant D-1

Officer R-2

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 131 of 265

130

e. POFC Earl Sharpe: Four days after POFC Sharpe’s cooperation

in an investigation during which he reported Sgt. Rush’s racist

conduct and other racist conduct in the RID/RST division

(discussed above, IA2015-092), POFC Sharpe was transferred out

of the Investigations Bureau to the Patrol Bureau without

explanation.

415

Although the Department has advised the Justice

Department that Sharpe was purportedly transferred “after a series

of incidents in November and December of 2015 during which he

exhibited unprofessional behavior . . . and became belligerent with

his co-workers,” Defendants have not produced evidence of such

conduct; I also note that Defendants attributed the decision to

transfer Sharpe to a white Sergeant and Major and

, whose conduct and condonation of discriminatory conduct

in RID/RST (discussed above) was the subject of Sharpe’s

cooperation.

416

Approximately one month after Sharpe’s transfer,

IAD reopened a stale investigation (started in 2014) into POFC

Sharpe relating to a worker’s compensation claim.

417

POFC

Sharpe was charged with a Category IV offense, and he was told

by the investigator that he would be terminated if he did not accept

a diminishment of rank.

f. Plaintiff Joe Perez: During 2015 and 2016, Capt. Perez filed a

number of complaints with the PGPD Inspector General regarding

discrimination against officers of color related to promotions,

discipline in Internal Affairs investigations, and assignments to

specialty units.

418

Additionally, Capt. Perez complained about

racially hostile conduct and unethical conduct by white officers.

419

In March 2016, Capt. Perez, as President of HNLEA and along

with other officers filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of

Justice raising the same issues. After Defendant Commander Mills

was transferred to IAD in August 2016, Capt. Perez witnessed her

make a number of discriminatory comments about minority

415

EEO Charge 531-2016-00712 (PG0000157216), PG0000908213-908214; Sharpe Decl. ¶ 11.

416

PG0000964709-964718 at 964717; IA2015-092 (PG0000042371-436, at 42405-421).

417

SI2014-015 (PG0000137899-138649).

418

Compl. ¶ 107.

419

Compl. ¶ 107.

Lieutennant M-1

Captain M-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 132 of 265

131

officers and engage in discriminatory practices regarding

investigation and disciplinary issues.

420

In October 2016, Capt.

Perez was denied promotion to Major.

421

In a meeting following

this to discuss his complaints against Defendant Commander Mills,

Capt. Perez informed Chief Stawinski that he would be filing an

EEOC complaint and a supplement to the DOJ Complaint.

422

Within 45 minutes of the meeting ending, Capt. Perez was

informed he was being transferred from Internal Affairs to

Planning & Research.

423

His direct supervisor in Planning &

Research was Major William Alexander, who was the subject of

one of his prior complaints about unethical conduct.

424

Moreover,

around this time, Defendant Commander Mills and her

subordinates engaged in retaliatory efforts against Capt. Perez for

raising concerns about himself and other minority officers.

425

For

example, Major Lightner filed a complaint against Capt. Perez and

Defendant Commander Mills contemplated suspending Capt. Perez

for “insubordinate behavior.”

426

In late April 2017, Defendants Chief Stawinski and Commander

Mills learned that the Citizen Complaint Oversight Panel had

recommended that ethics charges be sustained against Deputy

Chief Christopher Murtha.

427

Capt. Perez had originally been

assigned this matter to investigate, and he had informed Chief

Stawinski that this was a matter he brought to the attention of the

420

PGPD-PER-0069987-69992.

421

Joseph Perez’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of

Interrogatories No. 6.

422

Joseph Perez’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of

Interrogatories No. 6; Stawinski Dep. Tr. 115:1-135:7.

423

Joseph Perez’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of

Interrogatories No. 6; PG0000147518; PG0000147519-147522.

424

Joseph Perez’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of

Interrogatories No. 6; PG0000300016-300018.

425

Joseph Perez’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of

Interrogatories No. 6, at 48 (“[T]he manner in which Chief Stawinski and Major Kathleen Mills

handled the investigation was retaliatory and incongruent with PGPD’s disciplinary policies.”).

426

PG0000785918-19; PG0000785910; PG0000956075.

427

PG0000144137-144138.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 133 of 265

132

State’s Attorney and the Department of Justice.

428

Following this,

Chief Stawinski had a series of contentious meetings with Capt.

Perez and UBPOA leadership that focused on the investigative

flaws in the Deputy Chief Murtha investigation and complaints

about discriminatory treatment of minority officers.

429

Around the

same time as these meetings, Commander Mills and Chief

Stawinski engaged in a series of actions against Capt. Perez,

including Commander Mills directing her subordinates to generate

complaints against Capt. Perez, and the Department requested a

complete review of all of Capt. Perez’s emails from February 11

through May 2017.

430

During their depositions, Chief Stawinski

and Major Mills acknowledged that Assistant Chief Velez had

ordered an earlier review of Capt. Perez’s emails and “outlook

activity.”

431

Around the same time, Commander Mills had her

subordinates conduct research into potential grounds to terminate

an unspecified officer.

432

And Chief Stawinski had Commander

Mills obtain an audit from the Seat Pleasant Police Chief detailing

Capt. Perez’s son’s record in accessing various law enforcement

databases for the previous year; Commander Mills forwarded the

results of the audit to Chief Stawinski, and Chief Stawinski

forwarded the audit to the superintendent of the Maryland State

Police under the Subject line: “Fwd: Possible Criminal Misconduct

-- Municipal Officer.”

433

This is the same timeframe that the Seat

Pleasant Chief complained that Capt. Perez had attempted to use

his position within PGPD to obtain leave for his son.

434

Major

Mills was also aware that Deputy Chief Murtha filed a complaint,

and Chief Stawinski was aware that Deputy Chief Murtha

contemplated filing a complaint, against Perez and the UBPOA

President Boone, ostensibly for reporting his misconduct to the

428

PG0000162691-162711 at 162698-162699; PG0000181256-181257; PG0000787555-787693

at 787569-787570.

429

PG0000162169-162171; PG0000162510-162511.

430

PG0000150850; PG0000171078-171079; PG0000929099-929102.

431

Stawinski Dep. Tr. 335:5-337:6; Mills Dep. Tr. 418:7-419:7.

432

PG0000169211-169213; PG0000169310-169311; PG0000165790.

433

PG0000155548-155549.

434

Compl. ¶¶ 115-116 & 118.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 134 of 265

133

State’s Attorneys office – notwithstanding this knowledge, Murtha

was not charged with or investigated for retaliation.

435

Captain Perez filed two further complaints of harassment during

the summer and fall 2017 – one involving one of Major Mills’

senior officers performing surveillance on him, and another

involving vandalism of Captain Perez’s office. Neither of these

complaints appears to have been investigated.

436

Capt. Perez filed a supplemental EEOC charge on October 10,

2017 after he was denied the opportunity to compete for a

promotion to Major.

437

Two months later, on January 10, 2018,

PGPD informed Capt. Perez that there was an Internal Affairs

investigation into an incident based on the Seat Pleasant Police

Chief’s complaint in April 2017.

438

While Chief Stawinski appears

to have recused himself from this matter, Major Mills (who was

another subject of Captain Perez’s EEOC charge) did not. There

appear to be significant procedural irregularities in this

investigation, including (i) commencing the investigation well after

the time of the Seat Pleasant Chief’s complaint,

439

(ii) conducting

the investigation well outside the time frame for conducting an

investigation under the IAD Standard Operating Procedures,

440

(iii)

failing to turn over an IAD interview with the chief prosecution

witness to Captain Perez’s counsel,

441

and (iv) failing to disclose

information IAD had regarding an active FBI corruption

435

Mills Dep. Tr. 412:20-413:3, 416:10-14; Stawinski Dep. Tr. 316:4-7, 317:2-15.

436

PG0000971542-50; PG0000875170; PG0000171280-86.

437

Compl. ¶ 114-115.

438

PGIAD0000097141; Compl.¶ 115; Joseph Perez’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to

Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories No. 6.

439

PGIAD0000097141.

440

Compl. ¶ 116; Joseph Perez’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First

Set of Interrogatories No. 6; PGPD IAD Standard Operating Procedures at 10 (PG0000000497-

530 at 506) (“Upon receipt at Internal Affairs, each complaint will be assigned a unique

identified (case number), which will be provided to the complainant within ten (10) business

days. . . . IAD investigations must be completed within 90 days absent extenuating

circumstances.”).

441

PG0000973606.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 135 of 265

134

investigation into two prosecution witnesses.

442

During his

testimony, the assigned investigator acknowledged he had not

previously personally conducted any Internal Affairs

investigations.

443

He also acknowledged that he consulted with

Major Mills throughout the investigation, and that he did not

evaluate Captain Perez’s complaint that the investigation was

retaliatory.

444

On February 13, 2019, the EEOC issued a determination that

Defendants had “subjected [Capt. Perez] to unequal terms and

conditions of employment concerning involuntary transfer and

internal affair processing, denied promotional opportunities,

reassigned, disciplined, demoted, and retaliated against for

engaging in protected activity due to his national origin.”

445

g. Plaintiff Adrian Crudup: In 2015, Cpl. Crudup made several

complaints against his supervisor, Lt. Hampson. One such

complaint alleged that Lt. Hampson had called a civilian a “project

n****.”

446

In October 2016, Cpl. Crudup was suspended with pay

and transferred from the Special Investigations Division Gang Unit

to the Financial Crimes Unit; although Defendants have told the

Justice Department that Crudup’s transfer was because he was

suspected of “passing confidential police information to suspected

gang members,”

447

Crudup was not given any explanation for this

transfer.

448

Crudup’s request for a hearing was denied.

449

Cpl.

Crudup subsequently learned that his transfer was a result of Lt.

Hampson filing an IAD complaint against him for allegedly

interfering with an investigation dating back to May 2015.

450

The

442

See PG0000970325.

443

Watkins Dep. Tr. 116:23-117:5, 140:18-144:8.

444

Watkins Dep. Tr. 302:2-3, 310:3-16.

445

EEOC_Perez_00001-355 at 00007.

446

Compl. ¶ 240, Adrian Crudup’s Third Supplemental Responses and Objections to

Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories No. 6.

447

PG0000964709-964718 at 964713.

448

Compl. ¶ 240; PG0000202216; PG000150392; PG0000171445.

449

Compl. ¶ 240.

450

Adrian Crudup’s Third Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of

Interrogatories No. 6; SI2016-008 (PG0000198478-198479).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 136 of 265

135

Complaint (which concerned an allegation that Crudup had

provided confidential information to one individual) was referred

to the State’s Attorney and all charges were dismissed as in

February 2018.

451

IAD does not appear to have investigated Lt.

Hampson for retaliation, and there is no evidence Defendants

opened an investigation into Cpl. Crudup’s complaints about Lt.

Hampson’s racist conduct. As a result of this investigation, Cpl.

Crudup was terminated in March 2020.

h. Lt. : Lt. , a prominent member of

HNLEA, reported Sgt. and Sgt. for

workplace harassment (including removing a wheel from his office

chair and urinating on his keyboard).

452

identified these

officers as the perpetrators by secretly filming his desk space.

453

Sgt. retaliated against by issuing a complaint

against him for filming without permission.

454

IAD does not

appear to have investigated Sgt. for retaliation, despite the

fact that ’s complaint stemmed directly from Lt.

’s institution of charges against him.

144. Several of these incidents (Lt. McClam, POFC Sharpe, and Capt.

Perez) involved transfers after the minority officer filed a complaint or cooperated

in an investigation against a white officer. From my review, I noted other

incidents where minority officers who complained of conduct (including racist and

other unprofessional conduct) by white officers were transferred promptly (or

experienced other hostile environment) after lodging their complaint. These

include:

451

PG00000171445.

452

IA2015-087 (PG0000041835-42055 at 41881 and 41967-68).

453

IA2015-087 (PG0000041835-42055 at 41869, 41877-41882).

454

IA2016-031 (PG0000043028-43150).

Sergeant B-4

Sergeant R-2

Lieutennant R-3

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 137 of 265

136

a. Plaintiff Richard Torres: As discussed above, in May 2016, Cpl.

Torres received a text message from Sgt. Bunce, his white

supervisor. In the text message, Sgt. Bunce used the word

“NECA” to describe an African-American civilian and made a

derogatory reference to a suspect.

455

Cpl. Torres complained to

then-Captain Powell about the text message.

456

Cpl. Torres

subsequently told Capt. Powell that Sgt. Bunce was a racist with

whom he no longer wanted to work.

457

Despite hearing Cpl.

Torres’s allegations and reading the text message, Capt. Powell

declined to notify Internal Affairs or the EEO Coordinator.

458

Further, there is no indication that Capt. Powell either tried to

remove Cpl. Torres from under Sgt. Bunce’s supervision or warn

Sgt. Bunce not to retaliate. In November 2016, Sgt. Bunce issued

a performance evaluation of Cpl. Torres alleging that he had failed

to perform his duties satisfactorily; the specific criticism was that

Cpl. Torres declined to seize a suspect’s phone, even though such a

seizure would have violated the Fourth Amendment.

459

contemporary analysis by an unidentified person indicates that Cpl.

Torres closed 6 of his 14 assigned cases which was characterized

as a “good statistic.”

460

Shortly thereafter, Cpl. Torres was

transferred from Investigations to the Patrol Bureau.

461

b. Plaintiff Sonya Zollicoffer: While assigned to IAD, Lt.

Zollicoffer had a number of disagreements with Defendant

Commander Mills, including a disagreement where Commander

Mills ordered Lt. Zollicoffer to charge Plaintiff Cpl. Ingram after

she filed a charge against POFC Rushlow.

462

Lt. Zollicoffer was

455

PG0000150665-150693 at 150669-150670; Richard Torres’s Supplemental Responses and

Objections to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories No. 6.

456

Richard Torres’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of

Interrogatories No. 6.

457

Richard Torres’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of

Interrogatories No. 6.

458

Compl. ¶ 166.

459

PG0000150665-150693 at 150669-150670; PG0000103513-103525..

460

PG0000103511.

461

PG0000179546; PG00000446894-446898 at 446897; PG0000144565-144566.

462

Compl. ¶¶ 36, 144.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 138 of 265

137

promoted to Lieutenant in February 2018.

463

She expressed

interest in remaining in the Internal Affairs Division because there

were two open Lieutenant positions. Despite that, Lt. Zollicoffer

was involuntarily transferred from Internal Affairs to the Patrol

Bureau to work the overnight shift starting in April 2018.

464

the time of the transfer, senior Department officers did not

consider her request to remain in IAD. They considered only three

Patrol Bureau assignment options for Lt. Lt. Zollicoffer, two of

which created a possible hostile work environment for her. While

these officers acknowledged that Lt. Zollicoffer had been

“involved in an EEOC incident,” referencing her sexual assault by

her training officer as a “drawback.”

465

Notwithstanding this, the

Department reassigned her to the District where she was

assaulted.

466

Although the Defendants have advised the

Department of Justice that “upon promotion, Zollicoffer was

proposed for transfer,” they did not inform the Department of

Justice (i) that Zollicoffer had requested to stay in Internal Affairs,

(ii) other officers in Internal Affairs who had been promoted were

allowed to stay in Internal Affairs, and (iii) the Defendants

proposed to transfer her to a unit where she had been sexually

assaulted by her training officer.

467

c. Plaintiff Thomas Boone: Since December 2016, Lt. Boone has

repeatedly complained to his supervisors of the incidents of

racially motivated wrongdoing in the work environment, including

complaints about inappropriate language, unfair transfers, disparate

discipline, unfair hiring practice, racially insensitive and offensive

pictures, retaliation for reporting wrongdoing and other racially

motivated behaviors.

468

Additionally, Lt. Boone met with Chief

463

Sonya Zollicoffer Supplemental Interrogatory Responses and Objections to Defendants’ First

Set of Interrogatories No. 6; PG0000007180-7396 at 7186.

464

Sonya Zollicoffer Supplemental Interrogatory Responses and Objections to Defendants’ First

Set of Interrogatories No. 6; PG0000446894-446898 at 446897.

465

PG0000162977.

466

Compl. ¶ 146.

467

PG0000964740-964745 at 964744.

468

See, e.g., PG0000155770; PG0000155786; Thomas Boone Supplemental Responses and

Objections to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories No. 6.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 139 of 265

138

Stawinski on a number of occasions to complain about these

problems.

469

On October 1, 2018, Major David Renner informed

Lt. Boone that he was being transferred.

470

Lt. Boone made clear

that he did not wish to be transferred from his current position;

however, based on his understanding that a transfer was

mandatory, he agreed to be transferred to the Property Division.

471

Lt. Boone was ultimately transferred to Patrol, under the command

of Major Mints, against whom he had previously made a

complaint; and he was stationed in District 2, where Lt. Boone had

previously experienced a traumatic event.

472

d. Plaintiff Chris Smith: In October and December 2015, Cpl. Smith

complained to Lt. Vondell Smith that Cpl. Smith’s colleagues had

created a racially hostile environment by disparaging African-

American civilians.

473

Lt. Smith took no action.

474

In March 2016,

Cpl. Smith was involuntarily transferred to the Patrol Bureau, a

transfer that Cpl. Smith believes was retaliatory in response to his

prior complaints.

475

In June, 2016, Darryl Kriess gave Cpl. Smith

a poor performance evaluation after Cpl. Smith had complained to

him about the racist environment on the team.

476

e. Sergeant Aubrey Thompson: In January 2015, Sgt. Thompson

complained to the EEO Coordinator that Major Zachary O’Lare

had discriminated against him on the basis of race and age,

including telling Sgt. Thompson when Major O’Lare was first

assigned to the unit he had heard that Sgt. Thompson “never came

to work and was [] lazy” and the unit Sgt. Thompson supervised

was “the worst squad in the gang unit,” and subsequently wrote

469

Thomas Boone Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendants’ First Set of

Interrogatories No. 6.

470

Thomas Boone Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendants’ First Set of

Interrogatories No. 6.

471

Boone Dep. Tr. 128:17-22, 69:6-20, 72:16-25.

472

Boone Dep. Tr. 69:21-23, 74: 22-25, 75:1-25, 76:1-14, 220: 17-25, 221:1-25, 222:1-8.

473

Compl. ¶ 189.

474

Compl. ¶ 189.

475

Chris Smith’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Set of

Interrogatories No. 6.

476

C. Smith Dep. Tr. 241:10 -242:20.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 140 of 265

139

him up; Sgt. Thompson subsequently filed a charge with the

EEOC.

477

In June 2015, Sgt. Thompson was told by Assistant

Chief Howard that he was being transferred from the Special

Investigative Division Gang Unit to the Division of Property

Management.

478

After the transfer, the FOP President, Dean Jones,

advised Chief Magaw in writing that Thompson’s transfer was

retaliatory for filing an EEOC complaint and “Thompson has

suffered and continues to suffer monetary damages as well mental

anguish from the embarrassment, humiliation, harassment and loss

of status.” Dean Jones asked the Chief look into the matter and

requested a meeting at the Chief’s “earliest convenience.” There is

nothing in the record that indicates the Chief made any inquiries or

met with the FOP President regarding this forced transfer.

479

f. Police Officer Latishia Pinckney: After PO Pinckney sent a

complaint to the IAD commander that Sgt. Rush had made

inappropriate comments about her hair and nails, and that she was

singled out for failing to meet a productivity requirement that Sgt.

Rush previously said did not need to be met.

480

Upon learning of

the complaint, Sgt. Rush threatened to transfer her out of the squad

as a result of the complaint.

481

PO Pinckney was subsequently

transferred.

482

g. Corporal Terrence Brown: Cpl. Brown sent a complaint to the

IAD commander that Sgt. Rush favored white officers when

making work assignments and completing job evaluations. Cpl.

Brown complained about the disparity in treatment to Lieutenants

Shaniqua Smith and Troy Wallace and was subsequently removed

from his position as the lead “9-car” corporal.

483

Cpl. Brown

477

PG0000001713-1802 at 1715, 1755.

478

PG0000905763-905765.

479

PG0000905763-905765.

480

EEO Charge No. 531-2017-0161 (PG0000001550-1642 at 1550).

481

EEO Charge No. 531-2017-01616 (PG0000001550-1642 at 1550).

482

PG0000001265-1351 at 1336; PG0000154090-154091.

483

EEO Charge No. 531-2017-01487 (PG0000001375-1457 at 1382).

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 141 of 265

140

subsequently filed an EEOC charge. He was subsequently

transferred.

484

h. Sergeant Sergeants and had an

altercation in the office. Sgt. submitted a complaint

(including a request that , his subordinate, be transferred).

485

Sgt. met with the unit’s Lieutenant ( ), called Sgt.

into the meeting, and accused him of being a racist. Sgt.

was subsequently transferred from RID/RST to IAD.

486

Although the Department has advised the Department of Justice

that was purportedly transferred for “poor performance,” the

fact that was transferred to another prestigious investigative

like IAD is inconsistent with that explanation. I also note that

Defendants attribute the transfer decision to Major

and Captain ; provided evidence

against both of whom are discussed elsewhere in this

report; provided evidence of ’s discriminatory acts,

as well as and ’s failure to keep their command free

from discrimination.

487

This matter was ultimately investigated as

part of IA2015-092 (discussed above); Sgt. ’s complaint (as

well as related complaints against Sgt. ) were closed

administratively and forwarded to the EEOC Coordinator.

488

The

EEO Coordinator does not appear to have conducted any

subsequent investigation.

i. Corporal NaRica Hamilton: Cpl. Hamilton complained about

workplace harassment involving Sergeant Gerald Manley; the

complaint was never addressed or resolved.

489

Sgt. Manley

subsequently issued her a negative performance evaluation.

490

Although Defendants advised the Department of Justice that

Hamilton requested a transfer, she failed to disclose that Hamilton

484

PG0000154090-154091.

485

IA2015-092 (PG0000042371-42436 at 42386).

486

IA2015-092 (PG0000042371-42436 at 42399-42404); PG0000446894-446898 at 446896.

487

IA2015-092 (PG0000042371-436, at 42422-436); PG0000964709-964718 at 964716.

488

IA2015-092 (PG0000042371-42436 at 42375-42375).

489

EEO Charge No. 12F-2016-00639 (PG0000002029-2055 at 2030).

490

EEO Charge No. 12F-2016-00639 (PG0000002029-2055 at 2029).

Sergeant C-1

Lieutennant M-1

Sergeant R-3

Major X-1

Captain M-1

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 142 of 265

141

was involuntarily transferred from day shift to night shift which

forced her to be reassigned to another squad.

491

145. In conclusion, there is abundant evidence that the Department did

not have adequate anti-retaliation policies or training, and that there is a

widespread and persistent issue of retaliation against minority officers who

complain about white officers, and that senior Department leaders directly

participated in or condoned such actions.

G. Discrimination in the Department’s Promotions

146. There is a significant disparity between the demographics of Prince

George’s County and its police force; and that disparity is greatest in PGPD’s

senior ranks.

147. A comparison of the racial composition of the County as a whole, as

reported by the U.S. Census,

492

and the racial composition of PGPD and its senior

officers, as shown in a recent presentation by Interim Chief Velez,

493

documents

those disparities well:

491

PG0000964740-964745 at 964741; EEO Charge No. 12F-2016-00639 (PG0000002029-2055

at 2030); PG0000446894-446898 at 446897.

492

Graves Dep, Ex 1, U.S. Census, County Quick Facts.

493

PG0000986142.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 143 of 265

142

Racial Composition (in Percents)

Asian Black Hispanic White/Non-Hispanic

Prince George’s County 4.4 64.4 19.5 12.3

PGPD Overall Force 3.7 43.0 10.5 42.5

PGPD Lieutenants 6.5 27.1 5.4 60.9

PGPD Captains 0 19.4 0 80.6

148. These figures from the files of PGPD show that, although blacks and

Hispanics make up 84% of the citizens of Prince George’s County, they are

policed by a force that is only 53.5% black or Hispanic—and that that force, in

turn, is led by captains and lieutenants who are, respectively, only 19.4% and

32.5% black or Hispanic. (The smaller number of Majors are somewhat closer to

the overall force in that the combined percentage of blacks and Hispanics at that

level is 44%. That appears to reflect the fact that appointments to that level must

be approved by the County government, including the County Council. According

to Defendant Magaw, the former chief of PGPD, when he suggested that that

procedure be extended down to Captains, in part to increase the racial diversity of

leadership, the proposal was vetoed by the police union.

494

)

149. These disparities appear to result from the County’s repeated

failure to meet goals for the initial hiring of more entry-level black and Hispanic

494

Magaw Dep. Tr. 106-13.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 144 of 265

143

officers, and then an assignment/promotional system that favors white

candidates.

495

150. I have reviewed the results of the semi-annual promotional tests for

the most common levels of promotions, as stated in the reports provided to the

County by its testing consultants,

496

as well as the statistical analysis of those

results by Marc Simon of BDO.

497

Those results show that, over the last 8 years,

white/non-Hispanic candidates have scored, on average, higher than either black or

Hispanic candidates in every one of those 32 tests.

151. I have also reviewed the depositions of both the outside testing

consultant and the PGPD Personnel Director who have testified that they cannot

explain why white candidates consistently score higher on these promotional

exams.

498

152. In that regard, I have also read a memorandum submitted by one of

the members of the Equality in Promotions, Discipline and Practices Panel which

held hearings, and reviewed other data, on that issue in 2017.

499

That “Fairness

Panel” member (an officer on the force who happened to be white) explained to the

495

Graves Dep. Tr. 26:1-29:25.

496

Flaig Dep. Exs.5-8.

497

Report of Marc Simon, BDO, Statistical Report on Promotions (Aug. 26, 2020).

498

Graves Dep. Tr. 226-30; Flaig Dep. Tr. 31-34.

499

Graves Dep. Ex. 9, PG0000928895-928898.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 145 of 265

144

other Panel members that the promotional tests favor candidates from “specialty”

units within PGPD because they are, by those assignments, exposed, in the course

of their normal duties, to the differing subjects contained on the tests -- and also

because the members of those specialty units also have more time to study for the

exams than officers assigned to patrol units. As the Panel member also noted, the

officers assigned to those specialty units (through an assignment process in which

unit commanders are free to select whomever they want) are disproportionately

white/non-Hispanic; the patrol units, by contrast, are disproportionately black and

Hispanic.

153. Despite the fact that that Panel member made those observations

about the effect of the assignment process on promotions, the Panel itself was

disbanded in early 2018 without issuing any report or recommendations on that or

any other topic.

500

No one at PGPD has conducted any further study of that issue.

And the system of assignments and promotional tests has not been changed in any

respect.

154. One can see the net effect of this system on the current ranks of

PGPD, again recently released by interim Chief Velez. As this chart shows, the

500

Acosta Dep. Tr. 34, 125-27, 262.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 146 of 265

145

ranks become increasingly white/non-Hispanic as officers progress up the ranks as

determined by the assignments and promotional test process:

155. As discussed above, Captains and Lieutenants play a critical roles in

the Department, including significant roles in enforcement of EEO policies, the

investigation and discipline of misconduct, the assessment of uses of force, and

community relations. The failure of officers of these ranks to reflect the

community may contribute to some of the discriminatory trends observed in this

report.

**********

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 147 of 265

146

Since the time I filed a preliminary version of this report on June 18, 2020,

Defendants have made substantial additional productions of documents and data,

including several thousands of pages of Commander Mills files, numerous Internal

Affairs investigative files, and made other belated productions as recently as the

evening of August 21. As noted above, I reserve the right to supplement, update,

refine, or revise my conclusions or opinions should any additional information be

provided to me in the future and to supplement or amend them to address any

additional expert opinions offered in this litigation.

_________________________

Michael Graham

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 148 of 265

APPENDIX A

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 149 of 265

MICHAEL E. GRAHAM

Background Information:

California State University at Los Angeles (B.S. 1970)

University of Southern California (M.A. 1974)

Instructor and lecturer in various law enforcement and management subjects for:

California Peace Officers Standards and Training

California State University, L.A.

Rio Hondo College

Professional Organizations and Associations:

International Association of Chiefs of Police

National Law Enforcement Policy Center, Member - 1993 to 2017

Contractor for the review of the Miami Beach Police Department regarding use of force,

internal affairs and citizen complaints - 2003

Contractor for policy development for the Pentagon Police Department – 2007-8

U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Consultant - 2000

U.S. Department of Justice, Special Litigation Section, Police Practices Consultant regarding use

of force, internal affairs and citizen complaints - 2000 to Present:

Chicago, Illinois

Columbus, Ohio

Detroit, Michigan

Escambia County, Florida

Los Angeles, CA.

New Orleans, Louisiana

Newark, New Jersey

Orange County, Florida

Portland, Maine

Prince George County, Maryland

Riverside, CA.

Seattle, Washington

Washington, D.C.

Police Accountability Resource Center (PARC), Board of Directors - Present

Consultant for the Portland, Oregon Police Bureau regarding use of force – 2004-8

County of Los Angeles – 2001 to 2016:

Consultant for the Department of Probation

Monitor for the Agreement between the DOJ and the County regarding the conditions in

the juvenile halls.

Monitor for the Agreement between the DOJ and the County regarding the conditions in

the Probation Camps.

California Police and Fire Games, President, - 1987 to 2018

World Police and Fire Games, President - 1987 to the Present

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 150 of 265

Employment:

Michael Graham was employed by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department for over 33 years

rising through the ranks from Deputy the position of Assistant Sheriff (A/S). As the third ranking

member of the largest Sheriff’s Department in the Nation, A/S Graham was responsible for the

policing and detective functions for the three million residents in the unincorporated areas and 40

contract cities in Los Angeles County. As part of his duties he was required to review all serious

force cases, approve appropriate discipline and implement policy and training to reduce

inappropriate use of force.

From January 1993 until his promotion to A/S in March 1995, he was the Chief of the

Professional Standards and Training Division where he oversaw the implementation of the Kolts

Commission recommendations. He had responsibility for Department training, inspections, civil

litigation, internal affairs and internal criminal investigations. During this period, he established

and implemented the Department’s risk management unit and early warning system. As part of

his duties, he created and supervised the Department’s Shooting and Serious Force Rollout

Teams. He reviewed and had settlement responsibility for all claims and civil suits, including

suits alleging excessive force.

Sheriff’s Department Accomplishments:

Accountability: Starting in 1993, he initiated a series of accountability policies, training and

review mechanisms to strengthen management and individual accountability:

-Policy: comprehensive delineation of responsibilities by rank and

assignment; prioritization of critical issues; audits of key accountability areas

-Complaints: open public complaint system; written resolution and tracking of all

complaints; appeal process to an ombudsman for dissatisfied complainants; integrity

testing

-Force: complete reporting and tracking of all force; force training; less lethal weapon’s

options

-Performance Tracking: track all force, complaints, claims and lawsuits, etc., via an early

warning system; lifetime tracking, intervention and periodic performance review of

individual problem employees

-Risk Management: created the bureau in 1993; made all unit commanders accountable

to reduce the risk factors that lead to claims and lawsuits through annual risk reduction

plans

-Critical Issues Forum: every unit commander required to account for crime rate, budget

and internal integrity and administrative controls of his/her unit each month in an open

forum with Department executives

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 151 of 265

Community Policing: Beginning in 1996, he initiated and oversaw several community policing

strategies:

-High Impact Community Oriented Policing: characterized by door-to door surveys of

residents; identify community concerns about crime and neighborhood deterioration;

organize and mobilize the community and other governmental service providers; follow

community plan for neighborhood revitalization.

-Hate Crimes: organize stakeholders; contract among stakeholders to help and support

each other; training for patrol officers and detectives

-Gangs: chief components include alternatives to arrest; vertical prosecution where

necessary; probation and parole sweeps; parent accountability

-Family Violence: the focus includes spouse, child and elder abuse; intervention with

a unique “predictor of family violence” computer program

-Regional Community Policing Institute: a major feature is the emphasis on domestic

violence

Jail Reform Project: In November 1997, at the conclusion of the U.S. Department of Justice,

Civil Rights Division’s investigation, he was assigned the additional responsibility to

reorganize and improve the delivery of medical and mental health services to the inmates in the

Department’s nine jail facilities. This project was expanded to reform all services provided to

prisoners.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 152 of 265

APPENDIX B

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 153 of 265

Appendix B

Documents Considered for Report

1. Prince George’s County Police Department General Order Manual

2. Prince George’s County’s Internal Affairs Standard Operating Procedure

3. Defendants’ Discovery Responses

4. Plaintiffs’ Discovery Reponses

5. Amended Complaint (ECF 54)

6. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss (ECF 31)

7. Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Department of Justice and Prince

George’s County, Maryland and The Prince George’s County Police Department

(January 22, 2004), available at

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2010/12/15/pg_memo_agree.pdf

8. Agreement Made by and Between Prince Georges County, Maryland and Fraternal Order

of Police Price Georges County Lodge 89, Inc. (July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018)

9. Defendants’ Reply to Opposition to Motion in Limine and for Appropriate Relief

10. Expert Report of Marc Simon, CPA, CFA, Statistical Analysis of Rank & Promotional

Test Result Data (August 25, 2020)

11. Hector Velez, Prince George’s County Police Department, Presentation to Task Force on

Police Reform (July 2020)

12. Raphael Grant Deposition (March 16, 2020)

13. Joseph Ghattas Deposition (October 6, 2019 and July 8, 2020)

14. Linda Washington Deposition (October 6, 2019)

15. Carlos Acosta Deposition (June 3, 2020)

16. James McCreary Deposition (June 15, 2020)

17. Robert Harvin Jr. (June 18, 2020)

18. Stephen Whitted (June 24, 2020)

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 154 of 265

19. Melvin Powell Deposition (June 30, 2020)

20. Jewell Graves Deposition (July 1, 2020)

21. Art’z Watkins Deposition (July 10, 2020)

22. Hector Velez Deposition (July 15, 2020)

23. Jacqueline Rafterry Deposition (July 17, 2020)

24. Michael Smith Deposition (July 22, 2020)

25. Christopher Smith (July 29, 2020)

26. Henry Stawinksi Deposition (July 31, 2020)

27. Hugh Darden Deposition (August 4, 2020)

28. Christopher Murtha Deposition (August 5, 2020)

29. Kathleen Mills Deposition (August 6, 2020)

30. Jennifer Flaig Deposition (August 7, 2020)

31. Mark Magaw Deposition (August 17, 2020)

32. Richard Pippin Deposition (December 20, 2019)

33. Jacqueline Rafterry Deposition (July 19, 2020)

34. Thomas Boone Deposition Transcript

35. Earl Sharpe Declaration

36. PGPD Promotion lists

37. PGPD Rosters

38. PGPD Transfer Lists

39. Plaintiffs’ Personnel Files

40. Early Warning System reports

41. PGPD EEO Training documents, including but not limited to PG0000000343,

PG0000000348, PG0000000395, PG0000000627, PG0000152721, PG0000179336,

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 155 of 265

PG0000432822, PG0000658090, PG0000783353, PG0000154901, PG0000966820,

PG0000967475

42. IAPro spreadsheet (4 versions)

43. Internal Affairs files, including but not limited to:

 DA2014-120

 DA2015-050

 DA2015-059

 DA2015-117

 DA2015-166

 DA2016-015

 DA2016-017

 DA2016-020

 DA2016-073

 DA2016-103

 DA2016-105

 DA2017-110

 DA2016-111

 DA2017-035

 DA2017-085

 DA2017-138

 DA2018-018

 DA2018-071

 DA2018-077

 DA2018-088

 DA2018-138

 DA2019-010

 DA2019-033

 FC2013-024

 FC2013-029

 FC2013-031

 FCIQ2013-153

 FCIQ2014-026

 FCIQ2015-017

 FCIQ2015-086

 FCIQ2016-007

 FCIQ2016-009

 FCIQ2016-053

 FCIQ2016-055

 FCIQ2016-075

 FCIQ2016-076

 FCIQ2016-086

 FCIQ2017-035

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 156 of 265

 FCIQ2017-052

 FCIQ2017-067

 FCIQ2017-071

 FCIQ2017-072

 FCIQ2017-076

 FCIQ2017-082

 FCIQ2017-103

 FCIQ2017-105

 FCIQ2018-002

 FCIQ2018-011

 FCIQ2018-034

 FCIQ2018-040

 FCIQ2018-048

 FCIQ2018-068

 FCIQ2018-079.

 FCIQ2018-089

 FCIQ2018-105

 FCIQ2019-052

 FIQ2015-094

 FQI2016-053

 IA2004-017

 IA2006-027

 IA2009-068

 IA2011-042

 IA2011-054

 IA2013-049

 IA2013-071

 IA2013-075

 IA2013-084

 IA2014-006

 IA2014-017

 IA2014-037

 IA2014-053

 IA2014-062

 IA2014-065

 IA2014-068

 IA2014-069

 IA2014-072

 IA2014-078

 IA2014-079

 IA2014-099

 IA2014-100

 IA2014-106

 IA2014-111

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 157 of 265

 IA2014-114

 IA2014-130

 IA2015-010

 IA2015-016

 IA2015-028

 IA2015-031

 IA2015-032

 IA2015-035

 IA2015-038

 IA2015-039

 IA2015-040

 IA2015-056

 IA2015-063

 IA2015-067

 IA2015-072

 IA2015-083

 IA2015-086

 IA2015-087

 IA2015-088

 IA2015-092

 IA2016-004

 IA2016-006

 IA2016-007

 IA2016-008

 IA2016-013

 IA2016-027

 IA2016-030

 IA2016-031

 IA2016-034

 IA2016-035

 IA2016-038

 IA2016-044

 IA2016-046

 IA2016-050

 IA2016-052

 IA2016-054

 IA2016-055

 IA2016-063

 IA2016-067

 IA2016-071

 IA2016-075

 IA2017-001

 IA2017-003

 IA2017-007

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 158 of 265

 IA2017-008

 IA2017-013

 IA2017-014

 IA2017-019

 IA2017-020

 IA2017-022

 IA2017-031

 IA2017-034

 IA2017-036

 IA2017-037

 IA2017-038

 IA2017-042

 IA2017-048

 IA2017-053

 IA2017-054

 IA2017-055

 IA2017-056

 IA2017-058

 IA2017-059

 IA2017-060

 IA2017-064

 IA2017-069

 IA2017-070

 IA2018-002

 IA2018-009

 IA2018-012

 IA2018-020

 IA2018-027

 IA2018-032

 IA2018-034

 IA2018-054

 IAQ2014-046

 IAQ2014-047

 IAQ2015-004

 IAQ2015-018

 IAQ2015-019

 IAQ2015-020

 IAQ2015-021

 IAQ2015-024

 IAQ2016-009

 IAQ2016-023

 IAQ2018-006

 IAQ2018-014

 IAQ2019-002

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 159 of 265

 PS2013-541

 PS2014-154

 PS2014-290

 PS2014-385

 PS2015-034

 PS2015-039

 PS2015-050

 PS2015-066

 PS2015-125

 PS2015-198

 PS2015-220

 PS2015-237

 PS2015-287

 PS2015-369

 PS2016-052

 PS2016-053

 PS2016-068

 PS2016-083

 PS2016-111

 PS2016-131

 PS2016-185

 PS2016-190

 PS2016-194

 PS2017-013

 PS2017-075

 PS2017-084

 PS2017-090

 PS2017-110

 PS2017-124

 PS2017-172

 PS2017-192

 PS2017-194

 PS2018-038

 PS2018-068

 PS2018-072

 PS2018-137

 PS2019-036

 PS2019-090

 PS2019-114

 PS2019-115

 SI2010-003

 SI2010-006

 SI2010-027

 SI2011-075

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 160 of 265

 SI2014-003

 SI2014-005

 SI2014-015

 SI2014-016

 SI2014-017

 SI2014-028

 SI2014-039

 SI2014-045

 SI2014-055

 SI2015-009

 SI2015-015

 SI2015-022

 SI2015-030

 SI2015-037

 SI2015-045

 SI2015-052

 SI2015-053

 SI2015-054

 SI2015-055

 SI2016-004

 SI2016-006

 SI2016-008

 SI2016-011

 SI2016-013

 SI2016-031

 SI2016-033

 SI2016-034

 SI2016-039

 SI2016-042

 SI2016-053

 SI2016-059

 SI2016-068

 SI2017-001

 SI2017-006

 SI2017-008

 SI2017-039

 SI2017-043

 SI2017-048

 SI2017-049

 SI2017-060

 SI2017-062

 SI2017-064

 SI2017-064,

 SI2017-066

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 161 of 265

 SI2017-067

 SI2017-069

 SI2017-072

 SI2017-073

 SI2019-077

 SIQ2015-002

 SIQ2015-013

 SIQ2016-003

 SIQ2017-006

 SIQ2019-007

44. Internal Affairs Division Standard Operating Procedures (PG0000000497,

PG0000853984)

45. Internal Affairs Division Standard Operating Procedure, IAP SOP March 2014 draft

(PG0000875393)

46. Internal Affairs Log Books (PG0000787213, PG0000787352, PG0000787555,

PG0000787694, PG0000787873)

47. Internal Affairs 2013 Annual Report (PG0000149836)

48. Internal Affairs 2014 Annual Report (PG0000113615)

49. Internal Affairs 2015 Annual Report (PG0000104641)

50. PGPD Internal Investigations Guide (PG0000310607-310664)

51. Like Discipline documents analyses, including but not limited to PG0000174650,

PG0000651606, PG0000651608, PG0000651609, PG0000651612, PG0000651614,

PG0000651617, PG0000651619, PG0000651622, PG0000651624, PG0000651627,

PG0000651629, PG0000651633, PG0000651638, PG0000651641, PG0000651644,

PG0000651647, PG0000651649, PG0000651651, PG0000651652, PG0000651659,

PG0000651661, PG0000651665, PG0000651668, PG0000651670, PG0000651674,

PG0000651678, PG0000651681, PG0000651684, PG0000651687, PG0000651690,

PG0000651694, PG0000651698, PG0000651700, PG0000651703, PG0000651705,

PG0000651708, PG0000651713, PG0000651715, PG0000651719, PG0000651720,

PG0000651722, PG0000651724, PG0000651729, PG0000651734, PG0000651736,

PG0000651737, PG0000651741, PG0000651749, PG0000651752, PG0000651755,

PG0000651757, PG0000651762, PG0000651764, PG0000651768, PG0000651772,

PG0000651775, PG0000651777, PG0000651779, PG0000651780, PG0000651785,

PG0000651791, PG0000651795, PG0000651798, PG0000651801, PG0000651804,

PG0000651807, PG0000651810, PG0000651814, PG0000651819, PG0000651822,

PG0000651827, PG0000651830, PG0000651835, PG0000651837, PG0000651842,

PG0000651847, PG0000651852, PG0000651857, PG0000651863, PG0000651866,

PG0000651870, PG0000651875, PG0000651876, PG0000651882, PG0000651884,

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 162 of 265

PG0000651887, PG0000651895, PG0000651896, PG0000651899, PG0000651902,

PG0000651906, PG0000651908, PG0000651913, PG0000651917, PG0000651920,

PG0000651922, PG0000651924, PG0000651927, PG0000651933, PG0000651935,

PG0000651940, PG0000651943, PG0000651945, PG0000651949, PG0000651952,

PG0000651955, PG0000651962, PG0000651967, PG0000651969, PG0000651972,

PG0000651975, PG0000651978, PG0000651980, PG0000651986, PG0000651992,

PG0000651994, PG0000651997, PG0000652005, PG0000652010, PG0000652015,

PG0000652019, PG0000652023, PG0000652027, PG0000652030, PG0000652033,

PG0000652036, PG0000652039, PG0000652042, PG0000652046, PG0000652049,

PG0000652053, PG0000652055, PG0000652060, PG0000652065, PG0000652070,

G0000652076, PG0000652082, PG0000652086, PG0000652090, PG0000652093,

PG0000652096, PG0000652100, PG0000652104, PG0000652107, PG0000652110,

PG0000652113, PG0000652118, PG0000652121, PG0000652125, PG0000652130,

PG0000652136, PG0000652139, PG0000652141, PG0000652146, PG0000652150,

PG0000652152, PG0000652154, PG0000652159, PG0000652162, PG0000652166,

PG0000652169, PG0000652172, PG0000652182, PG0000652186, PG0000652193,

PG0000652197, PG0000652204, PG0000652206, PG0000652210, PG0000652213,

PG0000652216, PG0000652218, PG0000652222, PG0000652225, PG0000652229,

PG0000652233, PG0000652235, PG0000652239, PG0000652242, PG0000652247,

PG0000652250, PG0000652255, PG0000652259, PG0000652263, PG0000652266,

PG0000652272, PG0000652275, PG0000652278, PG0000652282, PG0000652286,

PG0000652291, PG0000652295, PG0000652298, PG0000652303, PG0000652308,

PG0000652316, PG0000652323, PG0000652327, PG0000652332, PG0000652335,

PG0000652342, PG0000652346, PG0000652349, PG0000652354, PG0000652360,

PG0000652365, PG0000652370, PG0000652372, PG0000652377, PG0000652380,

PG0000652383, PG0000652387, PG0000652390, PG0000652393, PG0000652397,

PG0000652402, PG0000652405, PG0000652408, PG0000652411, PG0000652414,

PG0000652419, PG0000652422, PG0000652425, PG0000652428, PG0000652432,

PG0000652441, PG0000652442, PG0000652446, PG0000652449, PG0000652454,

PG0000652458, PG0000652463, PG0000652466, PG0000652471, PG0000652474,

PG0000652477, PG0000652479, PG0000652484, PG0000652487, PG0000652490,

PG0000652493, PG0000652496, PG0000652500, PG0000652504, PG0000652507,

PG0000652511, PG0000652513, PG0000652515, PG0000652521, PG0000652525,

PG0000652528, PG0000652533, PG0000652537, PG0000652538, PG0000652540,

PG0000652544, PG0000652549, PG0000652552, PG0000652557, PG0000652562,

PG0000652566, PG0000652569, PG0000652572, PG0000652577, PG0000652580,

PG0000652582, PG0000652585, PG0000652588, PG0000652596, PG0000652598,

PG0000652603, PG0000652608, PG0000652614, PG0000652619, PG0000652623,

PG0000652627, PG0000652630, PG0000652635, PG0000652637.

52. EEO files (EEOC_Perez_000001, PG0000001364, PG0000001375, PG0000001379,

PG0000001417, PG0000001458, PG0000001501, PG0000001550, PG0000001584,

PG0000001624, PG0000001643, PG0000001671, PG0000001676, PG0000001710,

PG0000001713, PG0000001759, PG0000001790, PG0000001798, PG0000001803,

PG0000001968, PG0000001975, PG0000001984, PG0000002015, PG0000002029,

PG0000002056, PG0000002097, PG0000002122, PG0000002128, PG0000002146,

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 163 of 265

PG0000002167, PG0000002170, PG0000002223, PG0000002232, PG0000011201,

PG0000011319, PG0000071313, PG0000071485, PG0000071525, PG0000071563,

PG0000071611,PG0000071664, PG0000080229, PG0000080231, PG0000095591,

PG0000103668, PG0000103669, PG0000103670, PG0000103739, PG0000103788,

PG0000103791, PG0000103792, PG0000103793, PG0000103794, PG0000104194,

PG0000104208, PG0000150184, PG0000155487, PG0000156112, PG0000156238,

PG0000157026, PG0000446823, PG0000157200, PG0000157210, PG0000157216,

PG0000446826, PG0000157263,PG0000446844, PG0000158494, PG0000158495,

PG0000158497, PG0000158498, PG0000158500, PG0000158501, PG0000158502,

PG0000158503, PG0000158504, PG0000158506, PG0000158507, PG0000158508,

PG0000158509, PG0000158512, PG0000158514, PG0000158515, PG0000158516,

PG0000158517, PG0000158520, PG0000158521, PG0000158522, PG0000158523,

PG0000161290, PG0000161295, PG0000161299, PG0000161945, PG0000171506,

PG0000171706, PG0000171766, PG0000178403, PG0000178409, PG0000178428,

PG0000178447, PG0000178510, PG0000178512, PG0000178627, PG0000178631,

PG0000178784, PG0000178873, PG0000179292, PG0000179436, PG0000179635,

PG0000179756, PG0000179768, PG0000179770, PG0000179777, PG0000179881,

PG0000181838, PG0000184313, PG0000289570, PG0000313412, PG0000319749,

PG0000324006, PG0000324021, PG0000340815, PG0000350133, PG0000350134,

PG0000426840, PG0000432182, PG0000432247, PG0000432507, PG0000613562,

PG0000613563, PG0000613814, PG0000613823, PG0000656580, PG0000656714,

PG0000656768, PG0000656803, PG0000657585, PG0000657661, PG0000657734,

PG0000657735, PG0000657800, PG0000657862, PG0000657867, PG0000657909,

PG0000657911, PG0000657914, PG0000657954, PG0000658050, PG0000658082,

PG0000658184, PG0000658189, PG0000658217, PG0000658298, PG0000658495,

PG0000658790, PG0000658803, PG0000658828, PG0000658880, PG0000658905,

PG0000659020, PG0000659099, PG0000659148, PG0000659173, PG0000659212,

PG0000659214, PG0000659322, PG0000659380, PG0000659548, PG0000659563,

PG0000659940, PG0000660008, PG0000660017, PG0000660019, PG0000660098,

PG0000660173, PG0000660252, PG0000660438, PG0000660463, PG0000672268,

PG0000755034, PG0000785662, PG0000785700, PG0000856903, PG0000857064,

PG0000857102, PG0000857105, PG0000857152, PG0000857183, PG0000857261,

PG0000857276, PG0000860399, PG0000860563, PG0000860617, PG0000860778,

PG0000860982, PG0000861105, PG0000861261, PG0000861307, PG0000861390,

PG0000861418, PG0000861588, PG0000861596, PG0000861624, PG0000861786,

PG0000861880, PG0000861968, PG0000862208, PG0000862714, PG0000862720,

PG0000862791, PG0000863042, PG0000863132, PG0000863244, PG0000863259,

PG0000863751, PG0000863770, PG0000863773, PG0000863844, PG0000863945,

PG0000863996, PG0000864000, PG0000864031, PG0000864090, PG0000864345,

PG0000865066, PG0000865983, PG0000866006, PG0000866060, PG0000866066,

PG0000866534, PG0000866619, PG0000866862, PG0000866865, PG0000866973,

PG0000867003, PG0000867096, PG0000867121, PG0000867174, PG0000868089,

PG0000870537, PG0000905504, PG0000905774, PG0000905776, PG0000907893,

PG0000908065, PG0000908115, PG0000908182, PG0000908185, PG0000908298,

PG0000908299, PG0000909161, PG0000909164, PG0000909743, PG0000909755,

PG0000909816, PG0000909902, PG0000909903, PG0000909926, PG0000914063,

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 164 of 265

PG0000917366, PG0000920198, PG0000923033, PG0000925264, PG0000928742,

PG0000934569, PG0000934570, PG0000934685, PG0000934776, PG0000935030,

PG0000935034, PG0000935062, PG0000935164, PG0000935191, PG0000936765,

PGX0000000443, PGX0000001031, PGPD-PER-0067207, PGPD-PER-0069987,

PGPDPLS0000310)

53. List of Suspensions (PG0000080569-80719)

54. Various materials produced by PGPD to DOJ

55. Adrian Crudups’ Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Case files (No. 17-273X)

56. Robert Folchetti Circuit Court Docket (Case No. 0501SP005312014)

57. George Merkel Circuit Court Docket (Case No. CT170241X)

Other PGPD produced documents:

(PG0000000595, PG0000000607, PG0000001265, PG0000001362, PG0000001364,

PG0000001713, PG0000001798, PG0000001968, PG0000002223, PG0000002232,

PG0000007180, PG000000819, PG000000826, PG0000010434, PG0000010439,

PG0000015574, PG0000017144, PG0000017186, PG0000018313, PG000001968,

PG0000020673, PG0000044689, PG0000054575, PG0000080569, PG0000085344,

PG0000085430, PG0000086663, PG00000939321, PG00000972106, PG00000972107,

PG0000103511, PG0000103513, PG0000103530,, PG0000104622, PG0000108655,

PG0000111973 , PG0000113485, PG0000144137, PG0000144565, PG0000147518,

PG0000147519, PG0000150199, PG0000150665, PG0000150850, PG0000153441,

PG0000154090, PG0000154333, PG0000154901, PG0000155315, PG0000155355,

PG0000155548, PG0000155665, PG0000155770, PG0000155786, PG0000156074,

PG0000157216 , PG0000157312 , PG0000158497, PG0000158501 , PG0000161480,

PG0000162169, PG0000162177, PG0000162391, PG0000162400, PG0000162500,

PG0000162510, PG0000162691, PG0000162779, PG0000162977, PG0000165790,

PG0000165875, PG0000166322, PG0000166342, PG0000166349, PG0000168875,

PG0000169211, PG0000169310, PG0000169720, PG0000171078, PG0000171280,

PG0000171445, PG0000172194, PG0000173546, PG0000174351, PG0000174649,

PG0000174650, PG0000179546, PG0000181256, PG0000182196, PG0000182444,

PG0000182462, PG0000183205, PG0000202216, PG0000206732, PG0000254415,

PG0000300016, PG0000334331, PG0000446894, PG0000608940,, PG0000656568,

PG0000656569, PG0000658090, PG0000658128, PG0000785910, PG0000785918,

PG0000787555, PG0000807208, PG0000852473, PG0000854965, PG0000855440,

PG0000864287, PG0000864289, PG0000864290, PG0000870882, PG0000875170,

PG0000893933, PG0000905763, PG0000929099, PG0000936765, PG0000939411,

PG0000956075, PG0000964709, PG0000964740, PG0000966820, PG0000967475,

PG0000968914, PG0000968917, PG0000968965, PG0000969037, PG0000969043,

PG0000969221, PG0000969224, PG0000969743, PG0000969751, PG0000969762,

PG0000970325, PG0000971542, PG0000973606, PG0000982683, PG0000985307,

PG0000986142, PG000150392, PG000180150 , PG2019114 , PG0000161272,

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 165 of 265

PG0000853378, PG0000855170, PG0000875249, PG0000875251, PG0000929100,

PG0000166288, PG0000169922, PG0000170011, PG0000292231, PG0000772690,

PG0000155747, PG0000180150, PG0000084440, PG0000431462, PG0000166362,

PG0000111973, PG0000111979, PG0000104392, PG0000103530, PG0000103567,

PG0000180223, PG0000171193, PG0000853346, PG0000928065, PGIAD0000031514,

PGIAD0000032322, PG0000864292, PG0000082873, PG0000104182, PG0000855439,

PG0000903780, PG0000162728, PG0000164312, PG0000939321, PG0000908213,

PG0000162667, PG0000165717, PG0000144647, PG0000027248, PG0000095217,

PG0000027459, PG0000973900, PG0000965764, PG0000966009, PG0000966013,

PG0000966019, PG0000966022, PG0000966025, PG0000966028, PG0000966031,

PG0000970756, PG0000970852, PG0000971923, PG0000972060, PG0000972106,

PG0000972482, PG0000973548, PG0000982700, PGIAD0000119998, PGIAD0000120201,

PGIAD0000120284, PGIAD0000120700, PGIAD0000121232, PGIAD0000121298,

PGIAD0000121632, PGIAD0000127799, PGIAD0000127819, PGIAD0000131308,

PGIAD0000131458, PGIAD0000131637, PGIAD0000131867, PGIAD0000131999,

PGIAD0000135296, PGIAD0000135457, PGIAD0000135665, PGIAD0000137520,

PG0000987135, PGIAD0000138481, PGIAD0000039546, PGIAD0000086540,

PGIAD0000127420, PGIAD0000127088, PGIAD0000127183, PGIAD0000137029,

PG0000023826, PGIAD0000040805, PGIAD0000139025, PG0000979493, PG0000447426,

PG0000928895, PG00000155315, PG0000608940, PG0000608989, PG0000609039,

PG0000965837, PG0000609106, PG0000609180, PG0000609228, PG0000609286,

PG0000609355, PG0000609405, PG0000609449, PG0000609518, PG0000609570,

PG0000609631, PG0000609662, PG0000609708, PG0000609720, PG0000609764,

PG0000609810, PG0000609853, PG0000965832, PG0000609898, PG0000609969,

PG0000610016, PG0000610082, PG0000610139, PG0000610205, PG0000610269,

PG0000610317, PG0000610376, PG0000610558, PG0000610611, PG0000610653,

PG0000610684, PG0000610739, PG0000610785, PG0000610838, PG0000610868,

PG0000610924, PG0000610972, PG0000611012, PG0000611077, PG0000611121,

PG0000611129, PG0000611173, PG0000611225, PG0000611276, PG0000965834,

PG0000611326, PG0000611367, PG0000611430, PG0000611473, PG0000611532,

PG0000611578, PG0000611618, PG0000611650, PG0000611684, PG0000611751,

PG0000611769, PG0000611815, PG0000611863, PG0000611897, PG0000611906,

PG0000611951, PG0000612017, PG0000103513, PG0000103530, PG0000104622,

PG0000108655, PG0000111973 , PG0000113485, PG0000144137, PG0000144565,

PG0000147518 , PG0000147519, PG0000150199, PG0000150665, PG0000150850

PG0000153441, PG0000154090, PG0000154333, PG0000154901, PG0000155315,

PG0000155355, PG0000155548, PG0000155665, PG0000155770 , PG0000157216 ,

PG0000162169, PG0000162177, PG0000162391, PG0000162400, PG0000162500,

PG0000162510, PG0000162691, PG0000162779, PG0000162977, PG0000165790,

PG0000165875, PG0000166322, PG0000166342, PG0000166349, PG0000168875,

PG0000169211, PG0000169310, PG0000169720, PG0000171078, PG0000171280,

PG0000171445, PG0000172194, PG0000173546 , PG0000174649 , PG0000182196,

PG0000182444, PG0000182462, PG0000183205, PG0000202216 PG000020673,

PG0000300016, PG0000334331 PG0000446894, PG0000012123, PG0000155786 ,

PG0000156074, PG0000157312 , PG0000158497 , PG0000158501 , PG0000161480,

PG0000174351, PG0000174650 , PG0000179546 , PG0000181256,

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 166 of 265

58. Other Plaintiff produced documents (PGPD-CHA-0001334, PGPD-PER-0122769,

PGPD-BOO-0000134)

59. EEOC, Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful harassment

by Supervisors (Jun. 18, 1999), https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html.

60. EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 15: Race & Color Discrimination, § 15-VII

(A)(racial harassment) (Apr. 19, 2006), https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race-

color.html

61. Matt Zapotosky & Mary Pat Flaherty, Pr. George’s officers transferred, The Washington

Post (Jan. 28, 2011) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012707491.html

62. Nick Dutton, Md. Officers suspended over ‘driving while back’ YouTube vids (Nov. 17,

2012), https://wtvr.com/2012/11/17/md-officers-suspended-over-racist-youtube-vids/

63. Joshua Chanin, Evaluating Section 14141: An Empirical Review of Pattern or Practice

Police Misconduct Reform, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 14: 67, 95-101

64. Jonathan W. Hutto, Sr. & Rodney D. Green, Social Movements Against Racist Police

Brutality and Department of Justice Intervention in Prince George’s County, Maryland,

93 J. Urban Health 89 (2016), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4824689/

65. Lynh Bui, Lifelong resident and officer’s son confirmed to lead Prince George’s police

department, The Washington Post (Feb. 16, 2016)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/lifelong-resident-and-son-of-a-cop-

set-to-lead-pr-georges-police-department/2016/02/16/3042ea76-d3fd-11e5-b195-

2e29a4e13425_story.html

66. One Police Shift: Patrolling an Anxious America, The New York Times (Jul. 23, 2016)

(https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/us/police-ridealongs.html

67. Radley Balko, Scott Finn, model cop for a model police department, The Washington

Post (Jul. 27, 2016) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-

watch/wp/2016/07/27/scott-finn-model-cop-for-a-model-police-department/

68. Ebony, Black Cop Says He Was Unfairly Detained by Police (Oct. 27, 2016),

https://www.ebony.com/news/black-cop-unfairly-detained/

69. PGPD News, Full-Length Press Conference With Police Chief Hank Stawinski (Feb. 9,

2017) https://pgpolice.blogspot.com/2017/02/todays-full-length-press-conference.html

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 167 of 265

70. Chicago Police Department, Equal Employment Opportunity Policy (August 22, 2017) at

IV (B)(a) http://directives.chicagopolice.org/directives/data/a7a57be2-1288324b-8a612-

8833-4bfc750afb536ed2.html.

71. Drew Gerber, Prince George’s County officer found guilty of assaulting a homeless

woman to roust her, The Washington Post (Nov. 14, 2017)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/prince-georges-county-officer-found-guilty-of-

assaulting-a-homeless-woman-to-roust-her/2017/11/14/b70f9ad6-c8bb-11e7-8321-

481fd63f174d_story.html

72. Jim Handley, Prince George’s County Police Work to Prevent Bias, NBC4 Washington

DC news report (Feb. 3, 2018) https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Prince-

Georges-County-Police-Work-to-Prevent-Bias_Washington-DC-472436063.html

73. Lorenzo Hall, Chief apologizes after ‘black bad guy’ example used by Md. Officer

teaching kids about K-9s, WUSA9 (Aug. 28, 2018)

(https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/chief-apologizes-after-black-bad-

guy-example-used-by-md-officer-teaching-kids-about-k-9s/65-588570746

74. Prince George’s SWAT Officers Investigated After Bar Fight, NBC4 Washington DC

news report (Dec. 19, 2018) https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/prince-georges-

swat-officers-investigated-after-bar-fight_washington-dc/166364/

75. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Policy and Procedures, Workplace Professionalism:

Discrimination and Harassment (Jan 24, 2019), pages 5-6, §§ 5(c )(1), 5(c )(2), 5(c )(5),

https://www.mcso.org/documents/Policy/Critical/CP-3.pdf.

76. International Association of Chiefs of Police Law Enforcement Policy Center, Model

Policy, Harassment, Discrimination, and Unprofessional Conduct § V.C (2) (May 2019),

https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2019-

05/Harassment%20Discrimination%20Policy%20-%202019%20-%20revised.pdf.

77. December 18, 2019 Alsip Response to Pergament December 9 Letter

78. February 14, 2020 Alsip Response to Pergament February 1 Letter

79. February 20, 2020 Alsip response to February 10 letter

80. U.S. Census, County Quick Facts, available at

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/princegeorgescountymaryland,US/PST0452

81. Prince George’s County Police Department, available at

https://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/345/Police

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 168 of 265

EXHIBIT A

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 169 of 265

Exhibit A

File #

Respondent Name

Respondent Race

Respondent

Gender

Allegation/Accusation Type

Allegation/Accusatio

n Sub-Type

Finding

Discipline/Punish

ment

Date Rec'vd in

IAD/Entered in

IAPro

Investigator(s)

Investigative Unit(s)

Date Investigation

Completed/Charges

Sustained

Complainant(s)

Respondent(s) & Allegation(s) & Finding(s) & Discipline/Punishment(s)

Summary/Narrative

Discipline Category

SIQ2011-058

White

Male

Criminal Misconduct

Protective

Order/Peace Order

Inquiry

completed

None

12/9/11

Lieutenant Brian Reilly

SIRT

4/21/14

1.Chiurco, Elisabeth

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Criminal Misconduct

[Protective Order/Peace Order] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to

Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) Complainant alleges the Respondent touch her inappropriate sexual manner.

No Action Taken

SIQ2011-062

Black

Male

Criminal Misconduct

Protective

Order/Peace Order

Inquiry

completed

None

12/12/11

Lieutenant Brian Reilly

SIRT

4/21/14

1. - Black MaleAllegation(s) 1.Criminal Misconduct [Protective

Order/Peace Order] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) The Involved Citizen and the Respondent have kids together. The Respondent was at the LOI to

visit with his oldest child. The Involved Citizen wanted to leave and not allow the Respondent to have time

with the children, due to the Respondent arriving later than the arranged time.

No Action Taken

SIQ2012-022

Asian

Male

Criminal Misconduct

Inquiry

completed

None

6/18/12

Lieutenant Brian Reilly

SIRT

4/9/19

1. - Asian MaleAllegation(s) 1.Criminal Misconduct - Inquiry

completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens

Linked to Employee 2.Eason, Alexis - Black FemaleAllegation(s) 1.Criminal

Misconduct - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation

No Action Takens Linked to Employee 3. - Black MaleAllegation(s)

1.Criminal Misconduct - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

No Action Taken

SIQ2012-022

Black

Female

Criminal Misconduct

Inquiry

completed

None

6/18/12

Lieutenant Brian Reilly

SIRT

4/9/19

1. - Asian MaleAllegation(s) 1.Criminal Misconduct - Inquiry

completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens

Linked to Employee 2.Eason, Alexis - Black FemaleAllegation(s) 1.Criminal

Misconduct - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation

No Action Takens Linked to Employee 3. - Black MaleAllegation(s)

1.Criminal Misconduct - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

No Action Taken

SIQ2012-022

Black

Male

Criminal Misconduct

Inquiry

completed

None

6/18/12

Lieutenant Brian Reilly

SIRT

4/9/19

1. - Asian MaleAllegation(s) 1.Criminal Misconduct - Inquiry

completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens

Linked to Employee 2. - Black FemaleAllegation(s) 1.Criminal

Misconduct - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation

No Action Takens Linked to Employee 3. - Black MaleAllegation(s)

1.Criminal Misconduct - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

No Action Taken

SIQ2012-033

Black

Male

Criminal Misconduct

Theft

Inquiry

completed

None

11/12/12

Lieutenant Brian Reilly

SIRT

4/9/19

1. - Black MaleAllegation(s) 1.Criminal Misconduct [Theft] -

Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action

Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) Officer alleged to have stolen a vehicle

No Action Taken

SIQ2013-013

White

Male

Criminal Misconduct

Misrepresentation of

Facts

Inquiry

completed

None

5/23/13

Lieutenant Cynthia Ruff

SIRT

8/30/13

1 - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Criminal Misconduct

[Misrepresentation of Facts] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to

Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) Complainant does not agree with the accident reconstruction report that involves the death of her

adult daughter and injuries to her adult son. Complainant alleges that a police vehicle is the striking vehicle,

due to red broken plastic in the roadway and the police not allowing her to view her daughters body.

No Action Taken

SIQ2013-015

Black

Male

Criminal Misconduct

Domestic Dispute

Inquiry

completed

None

8/30/13

Lieutenant Cynthia Ruff

SIRT

1/6/14

1. - Black MaleAllegation(s) 1.Criminal Misconduct [Domestic

Dispute] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation

No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) On June 25, 2013 the Respondent was listed as a suspect on a child abuse case. Respondent's wife,

the involved citizen, filed the report and wanted the Respondent to leave the home. No arrest were made, no

visible marks were on the 7 year old child of both parties. The Respondent agreed to leave the home. On

9/9/13 the Involved Citizen went to the Respondent's home and assaulted him by punching him in the face.

Respondent obtained a protective order against the Involved Citizen. A civil divorce case is pending.

No Action Taken

SIQ2013-018

Unknown

Criminal Misconduct

Sex Offense

Inquiry

completed

None

8/30/13

Lieutenant Cynthia Ruff

SIRT

8/30/13

1.Unknown, Allegation(s) 1.Criminal Misconduct [Sex Offense] - Inquiry

completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens

Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) Involved citizen alleged that an unknown officer is molesting neighborhood children. The

involved citizen, known only as "Auset" refused to cooperate and give any further statements. State's Attorney's

Office issued a Grand Jury Subpoena and the IC refused to show as she is a member of the "Moorish American

Group" that does not recognize the authority of courts or laws.

No Action Taken

SIQ2013-025

Black

Male

Criminal Misconduct

Inquiry

completed

None

11/18/13

Lieutenant Hugh Darden

SIRT

4/9/19

1. - Black MaleAllegation(s) 1.Criminal Misconduct - Inquiry

completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens

Linked to Employee

No Action Taken

SIQ2011-035

Black

Male

Criminal Misconduct Inquiry

Theft

No Action Takens

Linked to

Employee's

Allegation

7/28/11

Un-assigned

SIRT

8/2/17

1. - Black MaleAllegation(s) 1.Criminal Misconduct Inquiry

[Theft] - No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 2.Ethics Violation -

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to

Employee

No Action Taken

SIQ2013-003

Unknown

Criminal Misconduct Inquiry

Inquiry

completed

None

1/24/13

Lieutenant Cynthia Ruff

SIRT

10/2/13

1. k - Unknown Male

1.Unknown, Allegation(s) 1.Criminal Misconduct Inquiry - Inquiry completed No

Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to

Employee

Narrative(s) Unknown officer is involved in possible criminal misconduct from 1980 to 2004.

No Action Taken

SIQ2013-007

Hispanic

Male

Criminal Misconduct Inquiry

Theft

Inquiry

completed

None

2/11/13

Lieutenant Cynthia Ruff

SIRT

1/6/14

1. Female

1. - Hispanic MaleAllegation(s) 1.Criminal Misconduct Inquiry

[Theft] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No

Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) The Involved Citizen made allegations that the Respondent might be part of a burglary ring, after

he responded to her home for an alarm. The Respondent entered the home alone and the Involved Citizen feels

the Respondent might have rummaged through her dresser drawers. The report was written as a vandalism with

nothing taken from the home.

No Action Taken

SIQ2015-009

White

Male

Excessive/Unnecessary Force

Canine Seizure

Inquiry

completed

None

4/20/15

Lieutenant Hugh Darden

SIRT

10/26/15

1. - Black Male

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Excessive/Unnecessary Force

[Canine Seizure] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) On 4/20/2015 officers responded to . for a disorderly call. Upon

arriving they discover that the call is actually a burglary. The person representing themselves as the home

owner stated that there was no one else in the house. The actual home owner (aunt of the person who stated no

one is inside) arrived and advised police that no one was supposed to be in the house and that the K-9 could

search. The Involved Citizen was located in the basement bathroom. The Involved Citizen fought with the K-9

which resulted in scratches on his chest and a bite on the middle finger of his right hand, the Involved Citizen

was transported to PGH for treatment. District will be charging the Involved Citizen

No Action Taken

SIQ2015-013

White

Male

Excessive/Unnecessary Force

Taser

Inquiry

completed

None

8/7/15

Captain Joe Perez

SIRT

10/19/15

1. - Black Male

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Excessive/Unnecessary Force

[Taser] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No

Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) On Saturday, August 1, 2015, I received notification from Cpl. , who

informed me that Involved Citizen was taken to PGH to be treated for injuries he sustained after he

broke a glass door at the apartment building where his lives. During this incident Involved Officer

deployed his taser at Involved Citizen to gain control of him. Cheverly Police Department Officer

arrived on the scene and activated his issued body camera. I had an opportunity to view the

body cam footage at the Cheverly Police Department station. The footage clearly shows officers on scene trying

to talk to Involved Citizen as he did not listen. Involved Citizen went back into his building

then came back outside when officers continued to try to talk to him. It was at that point when Involved Officer

used his taser to gain control and detain a bloody Involved Citizen There was nothing found in

Officer Economes body camera footage that indicated any use of force violations and the injuries sustained by

Involved Citizen were sustained when he broke the glass door

No Action Taken

SIQ2015-016

Black

Male

Excessive/Unnecessary Force

Canine Seizure

Inquiry

completed

None

8/7/15

Lieutenant Hugh Darden

SIRT

12/14/15

1. - Black Male

1. - Black MaleAllegation(s) 1.Excessive/Unnecessary Force

[Canine Seizure] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) On 8/6/2015 officers responded to , for the report of a

residential robbery. Several officers responded to the area of the robbery in an attempt to locate the suspects.

Officers observed two males matching the description provided by the victim of the robbery running on foot

crossing Pennsylvania Ave heading towards Byers Street. Officers pursued the suspects and were able to make

an apprehension on one of the suspects at the intersection of Clark Street and Dewitt Ave. The outstanding

suspect, The Involved Citizen was believed to be contained within the perimeter. K-9 and air support was

requested and responded to assist with locating the Involved Citizen. Cpl. (T-111) and canine

Taz responded and a track was conducted. The track led to where canine seized the

Involved Citizen, who was hiding behind a tree. Sgt. (T150) authorized the canine

deployment. The Involved Citizen was treated on the scene by Fire Department EMS (CCN 15-218-0357) and

was transported to Prince George's Hospital by Ambulance #826. While at the hospital the Involved Citizen

was treated for 4 canine punctures, two punctures to his right hand and two punctures to his right thigh. The

Involved Citizen's wounds were cleaned and bandaged

No Action Taken

SIQ2015-019

White

Male

Excessive/Unnecessary Force

Canine Seizure

Inquiry

completed

None

12/2/15

Lieutenant Hugh Darden

SIRT

12/8/15

1 - Black Male

2. - Black Male

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Excessive/Unnecessary Force

[Canine Seizure] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) Officer were patrolling a known area for CDS use and sales. The officers observed two males

suspected of being engaged in a possible CDS transaction. Upon approach officers smelled the odor of narcotics

and requested a CDS canine unit to conduct a search. The involved citizens were moved to a safe area while

the canine conducted a search. Canine hit on a vehicle parked 3 cars away from the incident scene. The canine

hit on the rear bumper and went underneath the vehicle. A voice yelled out from under the vehicle as the canine

made contact wit the subject. The involved citizen was treated at PGH.

No Action Taken

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 170 of 265

Exhibit A

SIQ2016-001

White

Male

Excessive/Unnecessary Force

Canine Seizure

Inquiry

completed

None

1/4/16

Lieutenant Hugh Darden

SIRT

1/14/16

1 - Black Male

1 - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Excessive/Unnecessary Force [Canine

Seizure] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation

No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) The R deployed responded to the scene of a residential alarm with his canine. The R was

authorized to deploy his canine into the home to search for a person. The home owners were not at

home and advised no one should be inside the home. Canine located the Involved citizen inside a closet in the

home.

No Action Taken

SIQ2017-003

Black

Male

Excessive/Unnecessary Force

Canine Seizure

Inquiry

completed

None

9/6/17

Lieutenant Hugh Darden

SIRT

10/10/18

1. - Black MaleAllegation(s) 1.Excessive/Unnecessary Force

[Canine Seizure] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) Details to follow

No Action Taken

SIQ2017-008

Black

Male

Excessive/Unnecessary Force

Canine Seizure

Inquiry

Completed

No Action Takens

Linked to

Employee

3/28/2017 0:00

Lieutenant William Rayle

SIRT

10/31/2019 0:00

1. - Black Male

1 - Black MaleAllegation(s) 1.Excessive/Unnecessary Force

[Canine Seizure] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) MTAP requested PGPD canine unit to respond to LOI for an armed robbery suspect. Officers

tracked the stolen IPad to a residence, A perimeter of the residence. Canine was deployed when the

involved citizen ran out the back door of the residence. The canine was released and was able to seize the

involved citizen.

No Action Taken

SIQ2018-009

White

Male

Excessive/Unnecessary Force

Canine Seizure

Inquiry

completed

None

11/5/18

Sergeant Steven Cobb

SIRT

10/11/18

1. - Black Male

1 - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Excessive/Unnecessary Force

[Canine Seizure] - Inquiry completedActions Taken 1.NoneAction Taken(s)

1.None

Narrative(s) Canine was called to the scene of a school alarm. The Canine and his handler (the Respondent)

entered the LOI and were able to locate the I.C. h ool.

No Action Taken

FC2012-035

Black

Male

Harassment

Non-Sustained

No Action Takens

Linked to

Employee's

Allegation

6/11/12

Un-assigned

Special Enforcement Div

4/28/14

1. - White Male 2.A

- Hispanic Male 3

- Hispanic Male

1 y - Black MaleAllegation(s) 1.Unbecoming Conduct

[Professionalism] - Non-Sustained No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation 2.Harassment - Non-Sustained No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) Thursday May 3, 2012 Arrived at . (client residence) at approximately

1:10pm, and began our mulch work. At approximately 1:15pm (Police Officers wife) came outside while our

truck and crew were beginning to unload and disconnect our tools and trailer. We were in the process of

parallel parking our truck next to our trailer against the curb in front of the Client residence, in the correct flow

of traffic direction. Police Officer's Wife asked if we could move, because she claimed we were blocking her

driveway. The crew member that was driving the truck responded simply "yes, we're moving right now".

Vehicle and trailer sat parked as they are shown in the photo. At approximately 1: 45pm The Officer arrived

home and parked his car in his driveway beside his other vehicle, in no way was his entrance to the driveway

impeded due to our presence. At approximately 1:55pm Police Officer's Wife came outside of the house with

their dog and asked, "Are you all going to clean that up (referring to the spilled mulch from our loading and

unloading), because last time you all were here (March 3, 2012) you left all that dirt (compost material) in the

street, and it got all up in my yard". I responded very respectfully, "Yes , and actually it was not dirt it was

compost, and the day we were here doing the work, we were completely rained out and couldn't possibly clean

up what was now mud, but yes we will clean up today". She seemed satisfied and began to walk a way with the

dog, she returned home and went inside about 10 minutes later. At approximately 2:05pm The Officer came

outside of his house speaking very loud in an very aggressive manner saying and asking, why I was so "smart

with his wife", disrespectful, and his tone and demeanor grew more hostile. I tried to explain what had happened

and he let me know he didn't want to hear me speak or my side. This carried on for about 5 minutes in the

center of the cul-de-sac. The Officer , then began to make statements about where our truck was parked and

how we were blocking other driveways. I simply stated "we are here doing a job, and have no other options for

parking, what we he suggest I do". There we a back and forth of his complaints and accusations, and I

continued to ask in a patient calm manner for suggestions on where to park, direction, and manner. At this

point, The Officer told me to move the truck, I responded "I cannot move the truck, we have a job to do", he

told me I was parking illegally, over and over. At this point, The Officer ask "Let me see your driver's license",

I told him "no, you're not getting my license". He walked away, went to his car, and returned with a police

badge and what looked like a ticket booklet. He then said, "are you gonna move your truck now?". This is the

point that I first discover he is a police officer, not something I would have ever guessed by his attitude,

No Action Taken

IAQ2014-044

White

Male

Harassment

Inquiry

completed

None

12/4/14

Corporal Erik Reynolds

Internal Affairs

12/11/14

1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Harassment - Inquiry completed No

Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to

Employee

Narrative(s) The complainant alleges that she lives in a house which was rented to her by someone who does

not own the house. She states that the police conducted a search warrant on the home in a manner which was

"totally overboard." She feels that the police are harassing her because she has not evacuated the house and civil

_ attempts to remove her from the house were unsuccessful, so she believes they · have moved on to criminal

means to remove her from the residence.

No Action Taken

IAQ2014-047

White

Male

Harassment

Inquiry

completed

None

12/20/14

Sergeant Landos Wallace

Internal Affairs

1/15/15

1. - Black Male

1 - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Harassment - Inquiry completed

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 2.Procedural Violation -

Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation

3.Procedural Violation - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee 2. h - White

MaleAllegation(s) 1.Harassment - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to

Employee's Allegation 2.Procedural Violation - Inquiry completed No Action

Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 3.Procedural Violation - Inquiry

completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens

Linked to Employee 3. - White MaleAllegation(s)

1.Harassment - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation 2.Procedural Violation - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked

to Employee's Allegation 3.Procedural Violation - Inquiry completed No Action

Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) The complainant alleges he was detained for no reason ad officers refused to identify themselves.

He says 'he was harassed because he was not free to leave.

No Action Taken

IAQ2014-047

White

Male

Harassment

Inquiry

completed

None

12/20/14

Sergeant Landos Wallace

Internal Affairs

1/15/15

1.M - Black Male

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Harassment - Inquiry completed

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 2.Procedural Violation -

Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation

3.Procedural Violation - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee 2 - White

MaleAllegation(s) 1.Harassment - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to

Employee's Allegation 2.Procedural Violation - Inquiry completed No Action

Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 3.Procedural Violation - Inquiry

completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens

Linked to Employee 3. - White MaleAllegation(s)

1.Harassment - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation 2.Procedural Violation - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked

to Employee's Allegation 3.Procedural Violation - Inquiry completed No Action

Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) The complainant alleges he was detained for no reason ad officers refused to identify themselves.

He says 'he was harassed because he was not free to leave.

No Action Taken

IAQ2014-047

White

Male

Harassment

Inquiry

completed

None

12/20/14

Sergeant Landos Wallace

Internal Affairs

1/15/15

1. - Black Male

1 - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Harassment - Inquiry completed

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 2.Procedural Violation -

Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation

3.Procedural Violation - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee 2. - White

MaleAllegation(s) 1.Harassment - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to

Employee's Allegation 2.Procedural Violation - Inquiry completed No Action

Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 3.Procedural Violation - Inquiry

completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens

Linked to Employee 3. - White MaleAllegation(s)

1.Harassment - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation 2.Procedural Violation - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked

to Employee's Allegation 3.Procedural Violation - Inquiry completed No Action

Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) The complainant alleges he was detained for no reason ad officers refused to identify themselves.

He says 'he was harassed because he was not free to leave.

No Action Taken

SIQ2015-015

Black

Male

Harassment

Inquiry

completed

None

8/7/15

Lieutenant Hugh Darden

SIRT

8/7/15

1. - Black MaleAllegation(s) 1.Harassment - Inquiry completed No

Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to

Employee

Narrative(s) Officer's ex-wife accused him of slashing all four tires on her boyfriend's vehicle.

No Action Taken

IAQ2014-011

Black

Male

Use of Force

Inquiry

completed

None

3/26/14

Sergeant Tina Blackistone

Internal Affairs

4/1/14

1. - Black MaleAllegation(s) 1.Use of Force - Inquiry

completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens

Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) The Complainant alleged that she was injured when Sgt. grabbed her in an interview.

No Action Taken

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 171 of 265

Exhibit A

SIQ2013-008

White

Male

Use of Force

Taser

Inquiry

completed

None

2/20/13

Lieutenant Cynthia Ruff

SIRT

1/6/14

1. - Black Male

2. - Black Female

3. Joseph - Black Male 4.

- Black Male 5. -

Black Female 6. - Black

Female 7. - Black Male

1 - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Use of Force [Taser] - Inquiry

completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens

Linked to Employee 2. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Use of Force

[Taser] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No

Action Takens Linked to Employee 3. - White MaleAllegation(s)

1.Use of Force [Taser] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) On Feb. 19, 2013 at 2247 hrs, officers were dispatched to the LOI for a shooting. Officers located

the Involved Citizen with a gun in his hand. Officers were able to tactically approach the Involved Citizen and

disarm him. After the Involved Citizen was disarmed, he resisted officers. Three Respondents tried to subdue

the Involved Citizen using tasers. None of these strikes had any effect on the Involved Citizen. Finally after

utilizing an asp to manipulate the arms into handcuffing position. The Involved Citizen was charged with

murder and several other criminal charges.

No Action Taken

SIQ2013-008

White

Male

Use of Force

Taser

Inquiry

completed

None

2/20/13

Lieutenant Cynthia Ruff

SIRT

1/6/14

1. - Black Male

2. - Black Female

3. Joseph - Black Male 4.

- Black Male 5. -

Black Female 6. - Black

Female 7. - Black Male

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Use of Force [Taser] - Inquiry

completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens

Linked to Employee 2 - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Use of Force

[Taser] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No

Action Takens Linked to Employee 3. - White MaleAllegation(s)

1.Use of Force [Taser] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) On Feb. 19, 2013 at 2247 hrs, officers were dispatched to the LOI for a shooting. Officers located

the Involved Citizen with a gun in his hand. Officers were able to tactically approach the Involved Citizen and

disarm him. After the Involved Citizen was disarmed, he resisted officers. Three Respondents tried to subdue

the Involved Citizen using tasers. None of these strikes had any effect on the Involved Citizen. Finally after

utilizing an asp to manipulate the arms into handcuffing position. The Involved Citizen was charged with

murder and several other criminal charges.

No Action Taken

SIQ2013-008

White

Male

Use of Force

Taser

Inquiry

completed

None

2/20/13

Lieutenant Cynthia Ruff

SIRT

1/6/14

1. - Black Male

2. - Black Female

3. - Black Male 4.

- Black Male 5. -

Black Female 6. - Black

Female 7. - Black Male

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Use of Force [Taser] - Inquiry

completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens

Linked to Employee 2. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Use of Force

[Taser] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No

Action Takens Linked to Employee 3. - White MaleAllegation(s)

1.Use of Force [Taser] - Inquiry completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) On Feb. 19, 2013 at 2247 hrs, officers were dispatched to the LOI for a shooting. Officers located

the Involved Citizen with a gun in his hand. Officers were able to tactically approach the Involved Citizen and

disarm him. After the Involved Citizen was disarmed, he resisted officers. Three Respondents tried to subdue

the Involved Citizen using tasers. None of these strikes had any effect on the Involved Citizen. Finally after

utilizing an asp to manipulate the arms into handcuffing position. The Involved Citizen was charged with

murder and several other criminal charges.

No Action Taken

SIQ2013-021

White

Male

Use of Force

Inquiry

completed

None

9/25/13

Lieutenant Cynthia Ruff

SIRT

1/6/14

1 - Black Male

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Use of Force - Inquiry completed No

Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to

Employee

Narrative(s) Unreported Use of Force by a member of the Gang Unit.

No Action Taken

SIQ2017-004

Black

Male

Use of Force

broken bone

Unfounded

No Action Takens

Linked to

Employee's

Allegation

11/17/17

Sergeant Tina Blackistone

SIRT

11/3/17

1. - Black Male

1. - Black MaleAllegation(s) 1.Use of Force [broken bone] -

Unfounded No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens

Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) The Respondent initiated a traffic stop on Contee Road. The driver fled at a high rate of speed.

The Respondent did not pursue the vehicle, per the supervisor's direction to terminate. Further down the road in

the area of Baltimore Avenue, the vehicle lost control hitting a metal pole. The Driver fled on foot and climbed

a wall not knowing the other side was a 9 foot drop. The Driver broke his arm when he landed on the other side

of the wall. SIRT was notified of the broken bone and responded to obtain more information. Due to the fact,

that the IC broke a bone by his own actions, a use of force investigation by SIRT was not conducted, but

information was gathered for an SIRT inquiry.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 172 of 265

EXHIBIT B

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 173 of 265

Exhibit B

Date Rec'vd in

IAD/Entered in IAPro Investigator(s)

Investigative

Unit(s)

Date Investigation

Completed/Charges

Sustained Complainant(s) Respondent(s) & Allegation(s) & Finding(s) & Discipline/Punishment(s) Summary/Narrative Discipline Category

File #

Respondent Name

Respondent Race

Respondent

Gender

Allegation/Accusation

Type

Allegation/Accusation

Sub-Type

Finding

Discipline/Punishment

IA2014-099

Black

Male

Bias

Non-Sustained

No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's

Allegation

9/19/14

Corporal Evan

Baxter

Internal Affairs

6/29/15

1. -

Black Female

2. -

Black Female

1. l - Black MaleAllegation(s) 1.Use of Language - Non-Sustained No

Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 2.Unbecoming Conduct

[Unprofessionalism] - Non-Sustained No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation

3.Bias-Based Profiling - Non-Sustained No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation 4.Ethics Violation [Traffic Stop] - Non-Sustained No Action Takens Linked

to Employee's Allegation 5.Protocol [Unprofessionalism] - Non-Sustained No Action

Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 6.Procedural Violation [Traffic Stop] -

SustainedActions Taken 1.Written Reprimand 7.Procedural Violation [Failure to

Notify Dispatcher of Traffic Stop] - Non-Sustained No Action Takens Linked to

Employee's AllegationAction Taken(s) 1.Written Reprimand

Narrative(s) The Complainants alleged that the Involved Officer attempted to make flirtatious

advances toward one of them and used profanity during the confrontation. This incident also

involved an alleged traffic stop.

No Action Taken

IA2016-050

Black

Male

Bias

Non-Sustained

No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's

Allegation

7/11/16

Sergeant Daniel

Hader

Internal Affairs

5/22/17

1 s,

1. - Black MaleAllegation(s) 1.Bias-Based Profiling - Non-Sustained No

Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 2.Unbecoming Conduct - Unfounded

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to

Employee 2. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Bias-Based Profiling - Non-

Sustained No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked

to Employee

Narrative(s) The Complainant alleges he was racially profiled during a traffic stop by Pfc.

and P/O. on 06/27/16. The Complainant further allegations that Pfc. made

inappropriate and inaccurate statements during the f District Court proceedings.

No Action Taken

IA2014-031

Hispanic

Male

Bias

Unfounded

No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's

Allegation

3/24/14

Corporal Matthew

Ling

Internal Affairs

10/6/14

1 d

- Black

Male 2.

- Black

Female

1. - Hispanic MaleAllegation(s) 1.Bias-Based Profiling - Unfounded No

Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) The complainant alleges the respondent may have conducted a registration check

prior to stopping him and once realized the complainant had a last name that sounded non-

caucasian he initiated a traffic stop based on this information.

IA2015-062

Hispanic

Male

Bias

Unfounded

No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's

Allegation

8/18/15

Sergeant Gerald

Caver

Internal Affairs

6/24/16

1. - Hispanic MaleAllegation(s) 1.Ethics Violation - Unfounded

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 2.Bias-Based Profiling - Unfounded

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to

Employee

Narrative(s) The Complainant states she was stopped by on 08/092015 by the Respondent.

Her two passengers and she were asked to step from the vehicle and subsequently searched, as

was her vehicle. The complainant states the officer had no probable cause to conduct the stop

and used racial profiling in order to justify the search.

IA2017-014

Hispanic

Male

Bias

Unfounded

No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's

Allegation

3/27/17

Sergeant Daniel

Hader

Internal Affairs

2/27/18

1. - Hispanic MaleAllegation(s) 1.Excessive/Unnecessary Force - Non-

Sustained No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 2.Use of Language -

Unfounded No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 3.Bias-Based Profiling -

Unfounded No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation

4.Excessive/Unnecessary Force - Unfounded No Action Takens Linked to Employee's

Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) The Complainant states that he was stopped for traffic by Cpt

. The Complainant fled the scene, and was stopped by Cpl. who punched and

choked him after he was handcuffed. The Complainant further advised that Cpl. used

racially derogatory language towards him several times.

IAQ2014-039

Hispanic

Male

Bias

Inquiry completed

None

11/3/14

Corporal Evan

Baxter

Internal Affairs

11/15/14

1. - Hispanic MaleAllegation(s) 1.Bias-Based Profiling - Inquiry completed

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to

Employee

Narrative(s) The Complainant alleged that the Involved Officer conducted a traffic stop based

on his race. Complaint alleges that he was racially profiled by Involved Officer.

No Action Taken

IA2014-048

White

Male

Bias

Traffic Stop

Non-Sustained

No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's

Allegation

5/8/14

Lieutenant Curtis

Lightner

Internal Affairs

3/27/15

1. -

Black Male

1 - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Bias-Based Profiling [Traffic Stop] - Non-

Sustained No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked

to Employee

Narrative(s) The Complainant alleges that the Respondent pulled him over and cited him

based on his race (African American).

No Action Taken

IA2014-107

White

Male

Bias

Traffic Stop

Unfounded

No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's

Allegation

10/10/14

Corporal Brett

Shapiro

Internal Affairs

7/30/15

- Black

Female

1. White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Unbecoming Conduct [Grabbed] -

Unfounded No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 2.Use of Language -

Unfounded No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 3.Bias-Based Profiling

[Traffic Stop] - Unfounded No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No

Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) The complainant alleges that she was stopped for a traffic violation. She said

during the stop she was tested for DUI, which she says she passed. She says she was

handcuffed and searched, at which point P/O l grabbed her breast. She states she was

arrested and given a breath test and states it proved she had not been drinking.

IA2014-118

White

Male

Bias

Unprofessionalism

Non-Sustained

No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's

Allegation

10/28/14

Sergeant Brian

Selway

Internal Affairs

7/30/15

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Protocol [Courtesy] - Non-Sustained

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 2.Protocol [Courtesy] - Non-

Sustained No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 3.Procedural Violation

[Failure to Audibly Record Traffic Stop with MVS] - SustainedActions Taken 1.Written

Reprimand 4.Unbecoming Conduct [Threats] - Non-Sustained No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's Allegation 5.Bias-Based Profiling [Unprofessionalism] - Non-

Sustained No Action Takens Linked to Employee's AllegationAction Taken(s)

1.Written Reprimand

Narrative(s) The Complainant alleged that the Involved Officer mistreated and used

demeaning language towards her because she has a disability.

No Action Taken

IA2015-073

White

Male

Bias

Non-Sustained

No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's

Allegation

10/28/15

Lieutenant Sonya

Lancaster

Internal Affairs

5/22/17

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Unbecoming Conduct - Non-Sustained

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 2.Bias-Based Profiling - Non-

Sustained No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked

to Employee

company. He states that Sgt. arrived at his apartment, in full uniform, in order to

retrieve keys that belonged to the management company. He alleges that Sgt.

intimidated him, asked if he belonged to ISIS, and said he could "easily send me back to where

I came from." On April 1, 2015, at approximately 1800 hours, Complainant stated

that Respondent was sent to his home by his former employer, Involved Person

to harass him. Complainant stated Respondent called his cell phone,

identified himself as a Prince George's County police officer and asked him to come outside of

his apartment. Complainant he came out holding his infant child. Complainant

stated that Respondent began threatening him stating, "I can easily send you

back to where you came from." "Why are you scaring people, are you affiliated with ISIS?"

Complainant stated that he immediately denied Respondent false

accusations. Complainant stated that Respondent continued to harass and

intimidate him with his questions as he held his infant son who began crying. Complainant

was terminated from his place of employment by Witness for threats to other

employees and sleeping on the job. Respondent asked Complainant if he had

the master keys to the apartments. Complainant advised Respondent that he

had turned-in keys to Y& B Associates that morning. Complainant stated Respondent

seemed to accept that he gave the master keys to Theresa at Y&B Associates and

began to depart after approximately thirty minutes of harassment and intimidation. The mother-

in-law was at home, however, was inside the entire time the conversation occurred with

Complainant and Respondent Complainant stated that before

Respondent left his home, he provided his personal business card indicating that he is

a Senior Loan Officer at MB Financial Bank and said to contact him if he needed any financial

help. (Evidence #1) Complainant stated he called Prince County Police

Department to obtain a police report reference Respondent responding to his home,

however, no report was taken or filed with the Prince County Police Department.

No Action Taken

IA2015-084

White

Male

Bias

Unfounded

No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's

Allegation

11/17/15

Sergeant Gerald

Caver

Internal Affairs

6/24/16

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Bias-Based Profiling - Unfounded No

Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) The complainant alleges that she was stopped for traffic after being followed for

several minutes for no reason. She says that P/O told her her headlights, taillights, and

windshield wipers were not on while it was raining, but says that is untrue. She was issued a

citation for a non-functioning brake light and contends · that she was targeted and fined solely

based on her race and should have only receIved an ERO.

Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 445-13 Filed 02/22/21 Page 174 of 265

Exhibit B

IA2016-004

White

Male

Bias

Unfounded

No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's

Allegation

1/20/16

Sergeant Gerald

Caver

Internal Affairs

10/19/16

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Use of Language - Non-Sustained No

Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 2.Bias-Based Profiling - Unfounded

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 3.Unbecoming Conduct - Non-

Sustained No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked

to Employee

Narrative(s) The respondent alleges he was stopped in Washington DC at gunpoint. During

the stop, Cpt told him, "You are lucky I didn't snatch your ass out of this fucking car."

He alleges the "rude, asshole, white cop" and the "Benedict Arnold Black Officer" pulled over"

another 35 year old black male for no apparent reason.

IA2018-020

White

Male

Bias

Unfounded

No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's

Allegation

3/20/18

Sergeant Shannon

Harris

Internal Affairs

4/29/19

1 n - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Use of Language - Non-Sustained No

Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 2.Use of Language - Non-Sustained

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 3.Use of Language - Non-Sustained

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 4.Use of Language - Non-Sustained

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 5.Use of Language - Non-Sustained

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 6.Use of Language - Non-Sustained

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 7.Use of Language - Non-Sustained

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 8.Use of Language - Non-Sustained

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 9.Bias-Based Profiling - Unfounded

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 10.Protocol [Courtesy] - Sustained

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to

Employee

Narrative(s) The Complainant stated that Police Officer encountered

him on a traffic stop. The Complainant alleges that when he felt threatened by the officers

presence, P/O said he was stupid and a dumb ass for requesting a supervisor to respond

to the scene.

IAQ2015-002

White

Male

Bias

Inquiry completed

None

1/27/15

Corporal Evan

Baxter

Internal Affairs

2/18/15

1 - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Bias-Based Profiling - Inquiry completed

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to

Employee

Narrative(s) The complainant was detained and given a criminal citation for drinking alcohol

outside a 7-11 store. He alleges that the only reason he was stopped is because he is black.

No Action Taken

IAQ2015-009

White

Male

Bias

Inquiry completed

None

2/14/15

Sergeant William

Silvers

Internal Affairs

3/9/15

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Bias-Based Profiling - Inquiry

completed No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens

Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) ): alleges that he was pulled over by Cpl. t for a brake light

malfunction. He alleges that there was never anything wrong with the brake light, but he was

issued a repair order. The mechanics he took his car to to have · the brake light checked said

there was nothing wrong with it, so · c011cluded that he was targeted because

of his race. He also alleges that Cpl. called for "back-up," which further shows racial

profiling on the officer's part.

No Action Taken

IAQ2015-012

White

Male

Bias

Inquiry completed

None

3/16/15

Sergeant Landos

Wallace

Internal Affairs

4/6/15

1.Huntley, Jason - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Bias-Based Profiling - Inquiry completed

No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to

Employee

Narrative(s) The Complainant alleged that the Involved Officer conducted a traffic stop based

on his race. Complaint alleges that he was racially profile by Involved Officer.

No Action Taken

IA2014-030

White

Male

Bias

Unfounded

No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's

Allegation

3/20/14

Corporal Erik

Reynolds

Internal Affairs

2/9/15

2. -

Black Female

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Bias-Based Profiling - Unfounded No

Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

2. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Bias-Based Profiling - Unfounded No

A ction Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 2.Protocol [Discourtesy] - Non-

Sustained No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked

to Employee

Narrative(s) The Complainant described that his daughter was subject of an inappropriately

conducted traffic stop. The Complainant alluded to race as a possible motivator to the stop.

IA2014-030

White

Male

Bias

Unfounded

No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's

Allegation

3/20/14

Corporal Erik

Reynolds

Internal Affairs

2/9/15

2 -

Black Female

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Bias-Based Profiling - Unfounded No

Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

2. White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Bias-Based Profiling - Unfounded No

A ction Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation 2.Protocol [Discourtesy] - Non-

Sustained No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked

to Employee

Narrative(s) The Complainant described that his daughter was subject of an inappropriately

conducted traffic stop. The Complainant alluded to race as a possible motivator to the stop.

IA2014-062

White

Male

Bias

Non-Sustained

No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's

Allegation

6/9/14

Corporal Matthew

Ling

Internal Affairs

2/10/15

1. -

Hispanic Male

2. -

Black Male

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Excessive/Unnecessary Force [Punched] -

Non-Sustained No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation

2.Excessive/Unnecessary Force [Threw] - Exonerated No Action Takens Linked to

Employee's Allegation 3.Bias-Based Profiling - Non-Sustained No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's Allegation 4.Use of Language - Non-Sustained No Action

Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

2. White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Excessive/Unnecessary Force [Punched] -

Non-Sustained No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation

2.Excessive/Unnecessary Force [Threw] - Non-Sustained No Action Takens Linked to

Employee's Allegation 3.Bias-Based Profiling - Non-Sustained No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's Allegation 4.Use of Language - Non-Sustained No Action

Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

Narrative(s) The Complainant alleges that the Respondents punched him in the face, grabbed

him out of a cab and threw him to the ground. Then while handcuffed asked the Complainant

to give him a blowjob. The Complainant is alleging that this all happened because he believes

the Officer Felt he was an undocumented alien.

No Action Taken

IA2014-062

White

Male

Bias

Non-Sustained

No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's

Allegation

6/9/14

Corporal Matthew

Ling

Internal Affairs

2/10/15

1. -

Hispanic Male

2. -

Black Male

1. - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Excessive/Unnecessary Force [Punched] -

Non-Sustained No Action Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation

2.Excessive/Unnecessary Force [Threw] - Exonerated No Action Takens Linked to

Employee's Allegation 3.Bias-Based Profiling - Non-Sustained No Action Takens

Linked to Employee's Allegation 4.Use of Language - Non-Sustained No Action

Takens Linked to Employee's Allegation No Action Takens Linked to Employee

2. d - White MaleAllegation(s) 1.Excessive/Unnecessary Force [Punched] -