City Hall City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 Marked Agenda www.miamigov.com Civilian Investigative Panel Horacio Stuart Aguirre, Chair Rolando Aedo, Vice-Chair Grace Casas, Secretary Barbara Gimenez, Treasurer

William Alvarez, Rafael Cabrera, Eileen Damaso Deidria Davis, Ducosse Delva, Mairlyn Lightbourn Douglas Mayer, Alvaro Puente, Daniel Suarez

Tuesday, March 17, 2015 5:30 PM City Hall Commission Chambers

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Present: Member Aedo, Member Davis, Member Damaso, Member Delva, Member Gimenez, Member Casas, Member Lightbourn, Member Mayer, Member Puente, Member Cabrera and Member Aguirre Absent: Member Suarez and Member Alvarez

The Pledge was led by Ms. Lightbourn

ROLL CALL

Present: Member Aedo, Member Davis, Member Damaso, Member Delva, Member Alvarez, Member Gimenez, Member Casas, Member Lightbourn, Member Mayer, Member Puente, Member Cabrera and Member Aguirre Absent: Member Suarez

Roll Call Performed by Executive Director. Mr. Cabrera arrived at 5:55 pm

APPROVING THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 17TH, 2015

Motion to APPROVE. PASSED.

Minutes approved unanimously.

APPROVING THE AGENDA FOR MARCH 17TH, 2015

Motion to APPROVE. PASSED.

AGenda approved unanimously.

A. REPORTS

Chairperson Report

DEFERRED

Chair waived his time.

Independent Counsel Report

HEARD

Mr. Mays explained that Mr. Alvarez has resigned from the panel.

City of Miami Page 1 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

Ordinance Review Committee Report

APPROVED

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Thank you, Mr. Mays. The Ordinance Review Committee has been meeting for about what, five months now? And I asked Mr. Doug Mayer, member of the panel, to chair that committee. He has done an extraordinary, exemplary job. I was not surprised. Doug, tell us what you are doing and where are you?

MS. BEAMUD: Excuse me. Actually, Ms. Gímenez is the chair. And she couldn't make it tonight. Mr. Mayer is the vice-chair. And he too -- they both have done an extraordinary job.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: You are absolutely correct.

MR. MAYER: Yes. We have been charged with reviewing the ordinance and also charter revisions. And because of the timeliness of the charter revision issues, we took those up first. And there should be a handout, a one page that you should have that is entitled, Proposed Revisions to CIP Provisions of Charter, March 17, 2015. We have met a number of times and refined this. The committee is satisfied with the wording that is before you. And we would like to get a motion to accept these recommendations.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Quick question, were these recommendations published to all members of the panel before today?

MR. MAYER: No.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: No. Doug, I have got a problem with that idea. Unless it is --

MR. MAYER: Motion for discussion.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Okay. You want to go with a motion for discussion? All right. MR. MAYER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Is there a second?

MS. CASAS: I will second.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: All right. Go ahead and present the items and let's discuss them.

MR. MAYER: Do you just want to go through them one-by-one? Is that --

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.

MR. MAYER: First item up is A. And this mis, again, just a restatement. You can see the strike outs. It basically says the CIP would be composed of 12 civilian members, who shall be nominated by the Civilian Investigative Panel and approved by City Commission and an appointee of the Chief of Police, who is not a City of Miami police officer. So that is the first one. If there are any comments or?

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Well, how do you want to do them? You want to vote on them one-by-one, Mr. Aedo?

MR. AEDO: Because they are comprehensive -- and kudos to the committee -- I would like to ask questions on each one of these subsections.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Go ahead. Open discussion.

MR. AEDO: So on that -- and I think it is important, especially for the -- is this working? Especially for the public to know where the substantive changes that we are doing. And in some cases, we are re-engineering or reprioritizing some of this. As I understand this, we -- does the Police Chief's appointee become a 13th member; is that my interpretation

City of Miami Page 2 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

of this? And because it says--

MR. MAYER: Yes. And it has always been that way. So we are not changing that. Actually, the only thing that changed here really is that the order, initially it said, a police officer appointed by the Chief of Police. We are kind of changing the order a little bit and saying that the 12 civilian members shall be nominated by the CIP and then approved by City Commission and then an appointee of the Chief of Police, who is not a police officer. It is really just a little slightly rewording of the way it has been.

MR. AEDO: So there is no substantive change in terms of the appointee by the Chief. What is somewhat of a change is that the nomination starts at the CIP rather than the public, as I read this?

MS. BAKER: Perhaps I can be of assistance briefly? Jeanne Baker on behalf of the coalition.

MR. AEDO: I don't think your mic is on.

MS. BAKER: I will just speak loudly. The change in that first provision is just to update the charter to conform to what now is mand has been operational for about 12-13 years. The very first CIP was not nominated by the CIP. It was nominated by the public. There was a complex process. But that was supplanted in the ordinance. This first provision just updates the charter really to conform to the ordinance that has been in effect for over a decade.

MR. AEDO: That helps a lot. And those comments to section A only or to all of the above?

MS. BAKER: If you hand me the hand out, I can tell you immediately.

MR. AEDO: Because I only had a question on that one and one other section. The other ones seemed to be fairly straight forward. And I am sure my colleagues may have some other questions as well.

MS. BAKER: B does make a change. C does make a change. D pairs down what was there. There is no real change but some of the language is removed. E in three and four, it just makes semantic changes and a little bit of clarification. E 2 adds a new concept.

MR. AEDO: Let's go through those step-by-step. I don't want to obviously dominate the conversation. So my question has been answered on A. And I will pause on that.

MR. AGUIRRE: Keep going. You are on a roll. Keep going.

MR. AEDO: And I think it is important for the panel, but even more importantly for the public, both present and viewing, to -

MR. MAYER: What are the substantive changes and --

MR. AEDO: And what are those that are basically institutionalizing what, in fact, the practice now is. So point two, which is B, we are saying here staffed with professional personnel, including an Executive Director. It removes the advisement by Independent Counsel. And it also removes the minimum experience, as I interpret this, of that Independent Counsel from seven years. And the fact that the Executive Director and the Independent Counsel are subject to appointment and removal by the panel.

MR. MAYER: With the approval --

MR. AEDO: With the approval of the City Commission. I don't have any concerns there. I think that is the direction that I personally would like to see this go. So again, Mr. Mayer, I don't know if you have any additional comments on that?

MR. MAYER: No. I was going to say, I think these were debated and discussed at length

City of Miami Page 3 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

and -- go ahead Jeanne. MS. BAKER: If I may add something that I hope will be helpful to the committee? You recall that there was an independent review committee that was charged by the Miami City Commission to review, first of all, many complaints that the coalition and others had made about how the CIP was functioning. And the IRC, as it is called, really went even beyond that mandate. And it reviewed, from its own point-of-view, a fresh, so to speak, how the CIP was functioning. And it came out with a report, which I know you have all had and hopefully have read. And that report made very many specific suggestions for change both in the ordinance in the charter. And one of the big -- this provision Breally incorporates proposals that the IRC made. The IRC proposed that the chief executive -- that the Executive Director be part of the chartered core. That the Independent Counsel role be clarified as a legal advisor role. And that the panel be in charge of selecting and hiring both of those positions and have the power to remove the persons from both of those positions subject to approval of the City Commission. And those are changes that the IRC recommended. There is an additional smaller change here, which was as Mr. Mayer just said, subject to a lot of debate in the committee. The smaller change was to remove the at least seven years membership in the Florida bar requirement and just put in its place an experienced and competent member of the Florida Bar, in case there might be a superb candidate from another state, who is moving here and has not been here for seven years, but would otherwise be the choice of this panel. So it gives this panel more leeway. So those are the genesis of the changes in paragraph B.

MS. CASAS: I had a question. So is the Independent Counsel -- because I noticed that in C, the staffed with professional personnel including an independent counsel -- and that is struck -- operated on an annual budget that it shall be no less than .5 percent of the approved general fund budget of the police department. So is that to mean basically that the -- was the intent of the -- this is not going to be a person, who is an "independent counsel" quote/unquote? That they are not tobe considered staff?

MR. MAYER: Well, I was going to say, I think the idea was to make the new appointee a legal advisor versus independent counsel. And that they would be more directly under the authority of the executive director.

MS. BAKER: No. The panel. The way you have set it up, the legal advisor will answer to the panel, just as the executive director answers to the panel.

MS. DAWSON: And for clarification, the independent counsel is not considered --

MR. AGUIRRE: Name, name, name, who? MS. DAWSON: Julia Dawson. You want my address?

MS. BAKER: No.

MS. DAWSON: The independent counsel is not currently considered a member of staff, so this doesn't change that. This simply clarifies that the role of this position is an advisory position, because sometimes that has been a little bit muddy in the past.

MS. CASAS: So in terms of advisory, so in terms of that the -- as we are requalifying the attorney position, that this would be a legal advisor, who is here to give legal advice to the panel as a whole, correct?

MR. MAYER: Correct.

MS. CASAS: And that -- what are - are there any limitations?

MS. BAKER: There are in the ordinance that is under -- being drafted as we speak. But is not in front of you. There are specific roles identified for the legal advisor, which match two specific roles that the "independent counsel", with quotes around it, has had. So that question of the duties of the legal advisor are addressed very directly in the ordinance. But it didn't seem to the committee -- and I certainly concur with this - that degree of micro management should be in the charter.

City of Miami Page 4 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

MS. CASAS: Is it going to be contemplated later on that we are going to get the other provisions that will more clearly define both the obligations of the executive director and the legal advisor; is that right?

MR. MAYER: That is correct.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: That would be correct. And in no way -- having attended these meetings -- did I walk away with the impression that we are diminishing the role of legal advisor. We are not expanding. We are not diminishing it.

MS. DAWSON: If I may make a suggestion?

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Yes, ma'am.

MS. DAWSON: Yes. If I were a panel member, I would have wanted to see this ahead of time, seen it and track changes, so I could see what I said before and what the changes were that were done to it. I anticipate that this is going to be a very long meeting just to get through the charter. And there are folks here for cases that are on the schedule. I know the concern is that these recommended changes need to be submitted to the charter review committee. And there is some concern about the deadline. We do not know that we would miss a deadline. This is not our knowledge at this point. If we waited a month to have this discussion or if that were the case, if a special meeting were called specifically to discuss this, so that the panel members would have the opportunity to understand the reasoning behind the changes that the committee made. I also served on the committee. I have been at all the meetings. We have had lots of discussion. And this is the product. And that is my suggestion.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: I appreciate that. But we do have a first and a second. And let's play it through for right now.

MS. BAKER: And just to clarify, the document you have in front of you does exactly what Ms. Dawson says should be done. Anything that is old and is now recommended to be removed is physically in front of you with a strike out line through it. Anything that is new and is recommended to be added is in front of you with an underlined exactly as Ms. Dawson requested.

MR. AEDO: I don't want to speak on behalf of my fellow panel members. But this is great work. And I think it captures the spirit of not only the IRC, but a lot of the discussions. So I think I see us getting through this rather quickly. But again, I don't want to speak on behalf of my fellow panel members. Because I only have one or two other minor questions. Because I do that C was also where we tried to memorialize or institutionalize funding.

MR. MAYER: Yes. It was.

MR. AEDO: And pegging at .05 percent, which there was never -- it was never specified what that budget was. And it seems that it has been rather erratic. So this is pegging it to whatever funding level the City of Miami's Police Department would receive. I am assuming that .05 percent is pegged to the budget ration that it is today. And we want to just maintain that and hopefully grow. And hopefully as that grows.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Correct. Correct. More-or-less, give or take a few dollars.

MS. DAWSON: Just as another point of information, the one half of a percent, in comparison to the current budget, would be about $170,000 more this year, if the half a percent were in effect. And we have requested information from the Chief Financial Officer that would allow us to compare the police budget and the CIP budget for the -- since the inception of the CIP, to see what that would mean in reality. We have not been able to get that back from them yet. So we are proceeding apparently with a half a percent at this time.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Right. And the thinking behind the extra dollars is based on the

City of Miami Page 5 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

idea that various City Commissioners are asking for substantial increases in police officers. So if we are going to have 150 more police officers, it stands to reason to expect that we are going to have more activity in the Civilian Investigative Panel.

MS. BEAMUD: Can I add a little to that? Also, especially for Mr. Aedo's information, I think that this panel might be able to take advantage of the services of the communications person, given all the work that the outreach committee wants to do, and the amount of work that this panel has been producing over the last few months, I think that in order to do the appropriate community outreach, we are going to have to expand our staff. But that is just --

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Mr. Aedo?

MR. AEDO: A quick follow up to that. So the .05 percent would, in essence, represent an additional $170,000 to our current budget, which is how much Ms. Executive Director? CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: It is about $720,000?

MS. DAWSON: And 42 I believe.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: 742.

MR. AEDO: Right. So the 740 plus the 170 would put at about --

MR. MAYER: Nine.

MR. AEDO: -- 910 or so. Historically -- and I don't have the benefit --

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: We are well below what we were five years ago.

MR. AEDO: And that is my point, that even with that .05 percent, even though we are going to lock in a ratio, we are still below where we were five years ago.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: By a whole bunch.

MS. DAWSON: Again, if I may just addition information? It wouldn't take effect until this is in the charter. So that process has to go through. It has to be put in the charter, put on the ballet and voted for and passed by the voters in the city of Miami. It would then take effect in the coming fiscal year after that happens. And we do not know what our budget would have been for that year. And we will know what the budget for the police department will be for that year until we get there. So this is why the comparison would have been valuable. But that is what it would mean if we had gotten it this year.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Got it. All right.

MR. AEDO: I have no further questions on the balance of the items.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Mr. Mayer, you want to continue?

MR. MAYER: Yes. So were there any other questions on item C?

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Okay. None.

MR. MAYER: None. Okay. Item D, again, I am going to read it as it is currently - you can read the strike outs for yourself. "Authorized to issue subpoenas, provided that the CIP may not confer immunity and must advise all City employees appearing before it that no adverse consequences will result from the valid exercise of their right to be free from self-incrimination. And further, no action of the CIP may interfere with any pending or potential criminal investigation or prosecution."

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, comments? Mr. Mays, would you like to comment?

City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

MR. MAYS: I am sorry. No, sir.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: All right. Thank you, sir. All right.

MR. MAYER: Finally, number E authorized, number one, to conduct independent investigations of police misconduct and police use of force. Number two --

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Wait, wait, wait. How is that different from what we are doing today?

MS. BAKER: Let me address that. The Independent Review Committee decided as one of its very definite recommendations that this panel be charged to automatically, mandatorily investigate all police shootings that lead to death of a person. The committee, the Ordinance Review Committee has been meeting and wanted to expand that concept, so that this panel would mandatorily investigate all police shootings leading to a death, but also may investigate police uses of force that lead to serious bodily harm, even if there is no allegation of quote, "misconduct" unquote. The way the charter was framed originally, it focused on misconduct. Uses of force may not be subject to a complaint of misconduct. But nonetheless, maybe something that this panel should be looking and wants to look into? So this, adding the words, "and police uses of force" just clarifies. Perhaps you have already had that power implicitly. But this makes it explicit, that you can conduct independent investigations of police misconduct and police uses of force.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: All right. Mr. Aedo?

MR. AEDO: I agree. And I support wholeheartedly the spirit of adding that additional language. I just feel that "and police uses of force" is very broad. And I know you used language such as unfortunately resulting in death or bodily harm. I think uses of force is a very -- I think we need to perhaps consider further defining that.

MS. BAKER: Well, it is in the ordinance there is a lot of refinement. This - a charter just kind of lays out the principles. And the committee felt -- and I think that this is consistent with what the IRC wanted - that this panel recognize that uses of force is something it should be looking into, as well as police misconduct, which is a pretty broad concept as well. MR. AEDO: Again, agreed. But uses of force, is it if someone gets bruised while they are being handcuffed? That is bodily harm.

MS. BAKER: No, no.

MR. AEDO: And I am going back to the resource issue. So I am sure this was debated and discussed in terms of what constitutes, what the seriousness of that?

MS. BAKER: In the ordinance, there is a very narrower set of words. Mandatorily investigate police shootings that result in the death of a person -- shootings or other uses of force that result in the death of a person or -- and/or may investigate uses of force that result in great bodily harm to a person. That phrase, "great bodily harm" to a person" was not only debated at length by the committee but Juan Carlos -- J.C. Perez, who is the an Assistant City Attorney, and has been attending all of the committee meetings at the behest of the City Attorney, Victoria Mendez, recommended that phrase, "great bodily harm" as the limiting phrase.

MR. AEDO: Sure.

MS. BAKER: There were other limiting phrases.

MR. AEDO: I agree. My suggestion is to make this document consistent with that phrase and add language to that effect. On its face, when you say -- when it just simply says, "police uses of force" it doesn't capture that limiting concept that I am assuming the ordinance reads. So just to make it consistent with that.

City of Miami Page 7 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

MR. AGUIRRE: What language would you recommend?

MR. AEDO: It is resulting in death or great bodily harm. I think that is what was said.

MS. BAKER: Certainly, this is why this is being presented from the committee to the panel.

MR. AEDO: Sure.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: All right. While you are working on that, do we want to go to the next one?

MR. MAYER: Okay. Number two, "Conduct independent investigations of other matters pertaining to incidents or events or systematic problems involving the police that effect the community."

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: All right. Any discussion? None. Go ahead.

MR. MAYER: Number three, "Review and make recommendations regarding policies of the police department."

MS. BAKER: And the only part that is new is to make recommendations, which of course, this body has been doing anyway.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Got it. Got it. All right. Go ahead.

MR. MAYER: And number four, finally, "Make recommendations to the City Manager and the Police Chief, to which the Police Chief shall issue a written response within 30 days."

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: All right. Not substantially different from what we have right now?

MR. MAYER: No.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: All right. Just -- Ms. Jeanne Baker?

MS. BAKER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Go ahead and clarify,the one that you and Mr. Aedo were working over.

MS. BAKER: Well, I think probably if this panel -- I don't know -- I probably would ask you, as the Chair, to clarify this. If this panel puts a change in, does it have to go back to the Ordinance Review Committee or it probably doesn't?

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: I don't believe so. We are the supreme authority.

MS. BAKER: So I would recommend that it could say, "and police uses of force resulting in death or" Cristina, the phrase is "great bodily harm" or "serious"? I think it is "great bodily harm. Great bodily harm to a person."

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: All right.

MS. BAKER: And the reason that is needed is sometimes cops shoot dogs.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: I understand.

MS. BAKER: We are not happy with that. But we don't want to --

MR. AEDO: I accept that affirmatively as an amendment.

City of Miami Page 8 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Well, you are the maker.

MR. AEDO: Right.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: You are the maker. Who seconded it?

MS. DAVIS: I second it.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Okay. Ms. Davis, do you accept that?

MS. DAVIS: Yes.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: All right. Ms. Davis accepts that. Discussion ladies and gentlemen? Hearing none. All right. Let's call it to a vote. All in favor say, aye? (Multiple voices say, aye) Any opposed? All right. Congratulations. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. And Mr. Aedo, you know how to move something.

MR. AEDO: Well, I appreciate that. But I also want to recognize the work of the committee and the coalition.

MS. BAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. AEDO: This was way overdue.

MS. BAKER: I am now going to make a request. This will need to go to the Charter Revision Committee. I think it needs to go with some kind of report or explanation, just as this panel needed and wished for understandably an explanation of what is the genesis of these changes. There will need to be something. And I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you can set up a process to make that happen.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, is there a resolution from this panel to submit this to the Charter Review Committee?

MR. MAYER: So moved.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Motion by Mr. Mayer. Is there a second?

MS. CASAS: Second.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Okay. By Ms. Casas. Any opposed? All in favor? (multiple voices say, aye) So moved.

MS. BEAMUD: I will take care of that report or letter or cover. You don't have to vote on that. I will be glad to do that.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: All right. Thank you.

MS. BEAMUD: I do have to add that we have quite a number of people here, who are on am short time schedules.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: We are moving quickly. All right. Mr. Doug Mayer, you are the chairman of the By-laws Committee?

MR. MAYER: Correct. If you turn to your tab By-laws, basically the by-laws committee met over a number of months and systematically reviewed and went through all of these. There obviously is not time to read all of this individually right now. But these have been out for some time. We are asking for a motion for approval of the by-laws this evening.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: And it is my understanding your committee met about seven

City of Miami Page 9 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

times for about two and-a-half hours each time?

MR. MAYER: At least. It might have been more like nine.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: And on your committee, were more than three members of this panel plus staff?

MR. MAYER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: And these were published to all members before today?

MR. MAYER: That is correct.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: And every member had an opportunity to review them?

MR. MAYER: I hope so.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: All right. You aremotioning. Is there a second?

MS. DAVIS: Second.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: By Ms. Davis. Any discussion? All right. No discussion. All right. All in favor say, aye? (multiple voices say, aye) Any opposed? Doug, you did fantastic job. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. We are indebted to you. I know you spent for every hour at the committee you spent five hours probably -- I am guessing -- at home reviewing and preparing. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

By-Laws Committee Report and Voting

DEFERRED

Deferred

Executive Director Report

HEARD

Will be attending PERF conference.

B. CASE MANAGEMENT

City of Miami Page 10 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

C. CASE REVIEWS

D. SUMMARY JUDGEMENTS

E. PUBLIC FORUM

F. ANNOUNCEMENTS

G. ADJURNMENT

City of Miami Page 11 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

C. CASE REVIEWS

C.1 DISCUSSION ITEM

15-00146 Case: Andre Addison CIP#: 14-271 IA#: 14-213N

Involved Officer(s): Francisco Torres, 7137

Allegation(s): Improper Procedure (motion to close as Sustained passed)

DOI: November 12, 2014

Investigated by: Elisabeth Albert

Mr. Addison alleged that Officer Torres knew the driver of the vehicle involved in the crash and therefore did not investigate the accident thoroughly. Mr. Addison and Antonio Lopez-Colsa were involved in a traffic crash on SW 13th Street and approximately 50 feet east of SW 2nd Avenue in a construction area where the right lane was blocked with traffic barrels forcing traffic to merge. Mr. Addison was charged with Improper Change of Lane/In Front of Vehicle (withhold adjudication with fine and mandatory school). Mr. Addison believes from conversation he heard on the scene that Mr. Lopez-Colsa and Officer Torres knew each other and spoke on the telephone prior to the officers arrival on the scene.

Internal Affairs closed the allegation of Improper Procedure as a Non-Complaint because there was no violation of departmental regulations.

The CIP contacted Mr. Lopez-Colsa who advised that he had never met Officer Torres before and has never had a telephone conversation with him. Both Mr. Addison and Mr. Lopez-Colsa contacted 911 to report the crash. Both Mr. Addison and Mr. Lopez-Colsa advised that the area of the crash was under construction, and photographs provided by the Complainant confirm the right lane and surrounding area where a construction zone blocked off by traffic barrels. This road construction/construction is not mentioned or described by Officer Torres in his Crash Report.

Recommendation:

CIP Staff finds no evidence to confirm that Mr. Lopez-Colsa and Officer Torres knew each other or had a telephone conversation prior to Officer Torres arrival at the crash scene; however we recommend that the allegation of Improper Procedure be Sustained because the report written, to include narrative and diagram, does not document the lane blockage due to construction at the crash site. Officer Torres violated the below listed Departmental Orders:

Departmental Order 11, Chapter 8, Reporting Procedures:

City of Miami Page 12 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

8.3 RESPONSIBILITIES: It is the responsibility of all officers who respond to police related incidents to obtain all appropriate information and completer the appropriate reports. It is also the responsibility of the officer to ensure accuracy and completeness of every report written. The officer will also ensure that these reports are turned in to his/her Sergeant for review at the end of his/her tour of duty.

Departmental Order 12, Chapter 4, Crash Investigation:

4.4.7.7 When making a crash report in an area where road construction is being performed, the investigating officer shall include the name of the company handling the construction (whether it is City or a private concern) and note this information in the narrative portion of the report, if the road construction is somehow involved in the crash.

Procedural History:

12/15/2014 The Internal Affairs ("IA") investigative report was obtained.

12/15/2014 Independent Counsel and the Executive Director conducted a preliminary review of the case.

12/15/2014 Case assigned to Investigator Albert for investigation.

12/15/2014 A 10-day letter accompanied by the IA Report was forwarded to the Complainant.

12/15/2014 An initial notification letter was mailed to the Principal Officer.

01/13/2015 Mr. Addison responded to the CIP office and provided a taped statement and photographs he took of the crash scene.

01/13/2015 An online search was conducted for current contact information for Mr. Lopez-Colsa and a possible telephone number was identified.

01/13/2015 A witness notification letter was mailed to Mr. Lopez-Colsa.

01/26/2015 Mr. Lopez-Colsa contacted the CIP and advised that Mr. Addison sped up as they entered the construction area and ran into his vehicle. Mr. Lopez-Colsa contacted 911 to report the accident and stated that both he and Mr. Addison were given the opportunity to explain what had happened to Officer Torres. Mr. Lopez-Colsa stated he had never met or spoken to Officer Torres prior to him responding to the crash.

01/26/2015 Mr. Addison's calls to 911 were received and reviewed. At 11:11 a.m., he advised that a car ran into the side of his car and almost ran him off the road because the other driver would not let him over. Mr. Addison contacted 911 several other times requesting a supervisor, stating something was going on because the person in the other vehicle apparently knew the officer.

City of Miami Page 13 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

01/28/2015 Officer Francisco Torres was hired on 01/23/1989 and has had 30 citizen complaints and 13 use of force incidents.

01/28/2015 The 911 call from Mr. Lopez-Colsa's telephone (11:15 a.m.) was obtained and reviewed. The caller advised that someone hit him on Coral Way. He was asked to hold but there was no further communication.

01/29/2015 Miami Dade Clerk of Court records show Mr. Addison was cited for Improper Change of Lane/In Front of Vehicle (withheld adjudication with penalty of $202.00 and aggressive driving school).

01/29/2015 Case submitted for closure with Investigator's recommendation.

03/06/2015 The Complaints Committee voted to accept Staff's recommendation.

03/17/2015 The Panel voted to accept Staff's recommendation.

MOVED: Douglas R. Mayer

SECONDED: Rafael Cabrera UNANIMOUS

This matter was CLOSED AS SUSTAINED. PASSED.

Present: Member Aedo, Member Davis, Member Damaso, Member Delva, Member Suarez, Member Alvarez, Member Gimenez, Member Casas, Member Lightbourn, Member Mayer, Member Puente, Member Cabrera and Member Aguirre Unanimous

City of Miami Page 14 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

C.2 DISCUSSION ITEM

14-00251 Case: Elidion Aristide and Harry Louis CIP#: 14-047 IA#: 13-131S

Involved Officer(s) and Allegation(s): Jeffery Giordano, 2301: Harassment and Improper Procedure (motion to close as No Finding passed) Jorge Loo: 4062: Improper Procedure

DOI: June 18, 2013

Investigated by: Elisabeth Albert

The Complainants alleged that Officer Giordano has been harassing them at their home located at 1061 North Venetian Drive, and while they are driving in the area. Mr. Aristide believes that he is being harassed by Officer Giordano because he has been pulled over five times in a month and was arrested when he was a passenger in the co-Complainants vehicle. Mr. Aristide also alleged that Officer Loo improperly removed him from Mr. Louis's car by gunpoint. Mr. Louis feels that he is being harassed by Officer Giordano because the officer has stopped him four times within a month, and when he was arrested, Officer Giordano closed his left ankle in the police car door. Mr. Louis did not notify anyone that he was injured by the car door, but did provide medical documentation that he was treated at North Shore Medical Center for an ankle sprain/strain on 06/21/2013.

On the date of incident, Mr. Louis was driving and Mr. Aristide was a passenger when they were pulled over by Officer Giordano. Officer Loo arrived as backup and both the Complainants were arrested for Resisting Officer without Violence (Mr. Aristide: Nolle Prossed; Mr. Louis: Convicted-Prob Spec Conditions), and Mr. Louis was issued citations for No Proof of Insurance (Dismissed Complied), Disobey Traffic Control Device (Dismissed SAO), and Refused Obedience Police/Fire Officer (Dismissed SAO). Mr. Aristide alleged that Officer Loo removed him from the passenger seat by his right wrist and pointed his Glock at the right side of his ribs. Mr. Louis and Officer Giordano denied that Officer Loo pointed his gun at Mr. Aristide.

Internal Affairs reported that the Complainant's were squatters living at 1061 North Venetian Drive. The Complainants advised that they have permission from the owner to live on the property, but advised that they do not pay rent and do not know who owns the house. Miami Dade County Property Appraiser website shows that the property is owned by JPMorgan Chase Bank NA.

Miami Dade Clerk of the Court records show Mr. Aristide has received 25 citations in Miami Dade County, including 3 citations issued by Officer Giordano. Mr. Louis has received 40 citations in Miami Dade County, including the 6 citations issued to him by Officer Giordano.

Officer Giordano Worksheets for the month of June were reviewed, and show

City of Miami Page 15 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

that he is proactive in the Downtown NET area where the Complainants live.

Attempts to contact the Involved Officers, and possible witnesses provided by the Complainants were met with negative results.

Internal Affairs was unable to contact Complainants so their initial statements to Internal Affairs were used. Internal Affairs Cleared Officer Loo of Improper Procedure based on statements that he did not point his gun at Mr. Aristide. Officer Giordano was Cleared of Harassment based on his daily responsibilities which include patrol, watch orders, issuance of Watch over Miami cards, traffic stops, and regular enforcement. Internal Affairs Cleared Officer Giordano of Improper Procedure because their investigation "clearly and factually" showed Mr. Louis' leg was not closed in the police car door.

Recommendation:

CIP Staff recommends that Mr. Louis' allegation of Improper Procedure and Harassment against Officer Giordano, and Mr. Aristide's allegations of Harassment against Officer Giordano and Improper Procedure against Officer Loo be closed as Not Sustained because our investigation failed to disclose sufficient facts to prove or disprove the allegations made.

Procedural History:

01/02/2014 The Internal Affairs ("IA") investigative report was obtained.

01/08/2014 Independent Counsel conducted a preliminary review of the case.

01/14/2014 Case assigned to Investigator Albert for investigation.

01/14/2014 A 10-day letter accompanied by the IA Report was forwarded to the complainant.

01/14/2014 An online search was conducted and no current address or telephone number was identified for either of the Complainants.

01/15/2014 An initial notification letter was mailed to the Principal Officer.

01/27/2014 Mr. Aristide contacted the CIP and made an appointment to give a statement.

01/31/2014 Mr. Aristide contacted the CIP and re-scheduled his appointment with the CIP.

01/31/2014 An email confirmation of the appointment was sent to Mr. Aristide.

02/03/2014 Mr. Aristide responded to the CIP office and provided a taped statement. Mr. Aristide advised that there is no contact telephone number for Mr. Louis and that he has not seen him recently, but that he will advise him to

City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

contact the CIP when he sees him next.

02/03/2014 Attempts were made to contact Mr. Louis by telephone. A message was left requesting he contact the CIP.

03/11/2014 A telephone message was left requesting Mr. Louis contact the CIP.

03/20/2014 Mr. Louis responded to the CIP and maintains that Officer Giordano has stopped him four times during a month time frame.

04/07/2014 Case submitted for closure with Investigator's recommendation.

04/23/2014 Independent Counsel's Concurrence.

05/02/2014 The Complaints Committee meeting was cancelled due to a lack of quorum. Attempts were made to notify the Complainants, who responded to make a personal appearence.

05/09/2014 The Complaints Committee met but did not have a quorum. The case was presented to the attending members who agreed with Staff's findings.

05/20/2014 The Panel met and after hearing testimony from Mr. Aristide that included additional allegations of misconduct voted to refer this case back to the police department requesting further investigation into the new allegations.

02/10/2015 Internal Affairs advised that their case will remain closed as Unsupported and that Officer Giordano has retired and is no longer an employee of the Miami Police Department.

02/11/2015 Based on the retirement of Officer Giordano, CIP Staff recommends that the allegations against him be closed as No Finding (he is no longer employed by MPD, separated 01/06/2014), and that the allegation of Improper Procedure against Officer Loo be closed as Not Sustained because our investigation failed to disclose sufficient facts to prove or disprove the allegations made.

02/11/2015 Case re-submitted for closure with investigator's recommendation.

03/06/2015 The Complaints Committee voted to accept Staff's recommendation from 02/11/2015.

03/17/2015 The Panel voted to accept Staff's recommendation.

MOVED: Eileen Damaso

SECONDED: Rolando L. Aedo

This matter was CLOSED AS NOT SUSTAINED. PASSED.

Motion passed unanimously

City of Miami Page 17 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

C.3 DISCUSSION ITEM

15-00103 Case: Renita Holmes CIP#: 14-216 IA#: 14-051S

Involved Officer(s): Walter Byars, 0762

Allegation(s): Discourtesy (motion to close as Not Sustained passed) Improper Procedure*

DOI: March 11, 2014

Investigated by: Elisabeth Albert

Ms. Holmes stated Officer Byars was dismissive with an unknown female who was a possible victim of domestic violence. As the Complainant attempted to speak to the female Officer Byars allegedly told her, "I know how to do my job. If you want to talk to her you can do it outside, but not in here" and then told her she needed to leave or he would arrest her.

Ms. Holmes was at the police station to file a theft report which was authored by Officer Byars under MPD case 140311-072395.

Internal Affairs closed the allegation of Discourtesy as Unsupported because they were unable to meet with or obtain a sworn statement from the Complainant.

The CIP made attempts to identify and locate the unknown female and to contact Officer Byars. Personnel at MPD Emergency Management advised the video of the front desk at the Central Station is maintained for 30 days and was no longer available. Requests were made on 12/10/2014 and 01/08/2015 for Officer Byars worksheet, and on 01/13/2015 we were advised that they were unable to locate an Officer Worksheet for Officer Byars on the date of incident. A request on 01/13/2015 for any/all P-sheets that include Officer Byars and an Incident Search for any/all calls Officer Byars handled on the date of incident is still pending.

Recommendation:

CIP Staff recommends that the allegation of Discourtesy be closed as Not Sustained because our investigation failed to disclose sufficient facts to prove or disprove the allegation.

Because there was no Officer Worksheet located for Officer Byars on the date of incident, Staff recommends an allegation of Improper Procedure be added to the complaint and Sustained based on the below listed Departmental Order:

Departmental Order 1, Chapter 11.6.18.19 Work Sheets: Each member, unless otherwise ordered by his commanding officer, shall make a daily work sheet,

City of Miami Page 18 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

accurately and completely listing his activities during his tour of duty. Members shall sign this work sheet with their payroll name, rank, unit of assignment, and their P.I.N. number. Worksheets will be turned in at the end of a tour of duty, unless directed otherwise by a superior officer.

Procedural History:

10/08/2014 The Internal Affairs ("IA") investigative report was obtained.

10/19/2014 Executive Director conducted a preliminary review of the case.

10/10/2014 Independent Counsel conducted a preliminary review of the case and sent an email to Assistant State Attorney Jose Arrojo advising our intent to investigate in the absence of an objection by 10/15/2014.

10/10/2014 Case assigned to Investigator Albert for investigation.

10/15/2014 10-day letter and copy of the IA Report was mailed to the Complainant.

10/15/2014 Notification letter emailed to Principle Officer.

10/15/2014 Officer Byars III was hired on 03/22/2004 and has had 12 citizen complaints, 1 driving complaint, and 10 use of force incidents.

10/22/2014 Internal Affairs file was obtained and reviewed.

10/24/2014 The 10-day letter and copy of IA Report was returned to sender.

10/24/2014 The 10-day letter and copy of the IA Report was emailed to the complainant.

12/10/2014 Witness notification letter was emailed to PSA Cushion.

12/10/2014 Telephone contact was made with MPD Emergency Management about the availability of video footage of the front desk at the Central Station.

12/15/2014 A Larceny Incident Report generated by Officer Byars III was received and reviewed.

01/08/2015 A second request was made to MPD for Officer Byars worksheet from the date of incident.

01/13/2015 MPD advised they were unable to locate an Officer Worksheet for Officer Byers on the date of incident.

01/13/2015 A request was made for any/all P-Sheets that include Officer Byars on the date of incident, and an Incident Search for any/all calls related to Officer Byars on the date of incident.

City of Miami Page 19 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

01/26/2015 Case submitted for closure with Investigator's recommendation.

02/06/2015 PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY MS. HOLMES The Complaints Committee voted to table Ms. Holmes complaint for 30 days to allow her more time to provide witness information.

02/17/2015 A Resolution was presented per Section 11.5-32 of the CIP's Ordinance for a subpoena but failed because there was not an affirmative vote of seven Panel members.

02/27/2015 Case submitted for closure with Investigator's recommendation.

03/06/2015 PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY MS. HOLMES The Complaints Committee voted to accept Staff's recommendation.

03/17/2015 PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY MS. HOLMES The Panel voted to accept Staff's recommendation.

MOVED: Grace Casas

SECONDED: Eileen Damaso

Motion that this matter be CLOSED AS NOT SUSTAINED PASSED unanimously.

Motion passed unanimously.

City of Miami Page 20 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

C.4 DISCUSSION ITEM

14-01292 Case: Renita Holmes (direct file) CIP#: 14-027 IA#: 13-281S

Involved Officer(s): Julian Cotto, 40739 Ezra Washington, 29229

Allegation(s): Discourtesy (motion to close as Not Sustained passed)

DOI: November 16, 2013

Investigated by: Elisabeth Albert

Ms. Holmes alleged that Officers Cotto and Washington used profanities for no apparent reason as she attempted to find out why the officers had placed an unknown female in the back of a patrol car.

The Complainant advised she heard bottles breaking at the Arena apartments and stopped and assisted officers who were making contact with a drunken veteran with a knife and a woman who had mental health issues. The man was handcuffed and sitting on the ground and the woman was in the back of Officer Cotto's patrol vehicle without handcuffs. Ms. Holmes spoke to the woman in the police car through a partially open window to explain what her rights were. Officer Cotto approached Ms. Holmes with is hand on his gun and stated, "Get the fuck away from my car." Detective Washington made a comment indicating Ms. Holmes was a snitch. Ms. Holmes stated that she asked for a supervisor but no one responded.

A review of Uniform Police Worksheets and the Search Incident shows Officers Sergio Milan and Cotto responded to the New Arena Square Apartments and a female was transported to crisis.

The CIP attempted to contact the Principle and Witness officers identified by Ms. Holmes with negative results. An area canvas was conducted in the area of NW 3rd Avenue between 10-11 Streets to include the business office of The Arena Square Apartments, Economy Shoes, and the New Arena Market, but no witnesses were identified.

Internal Affairs closed the allegation of Discourtesy against Detective Washington and Officer Cotto as Inconclusive because there were no independent witnesses to prove or disprove the allegation.

Recommendation:

CIP Staff recommends that the allegation of Discourtesy against Detective Washington and Officer Cotto be closed as Not Sustained because our investigation failed to disclose sufficient facts to prove or disprove the allegation.

City of Miami Page 21 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

Officer Cotto was placed on the CIP's Monitoring List on 11/18/2014, and it is recommended that his time be extended for one year from the date of the Panel's approval.

Procedural History:

11/22/2014 Ms. Holmes responded to the CIP office and completed a Complaint Form.

11/25/2014 Pursuant to Sec. 11.5-31 of the CIP Ordinance #12188, the complaint was forwarded to George Wysong, Independent Counsel.

11/25/2014 Independent Counsel requested that staff await the results of the IA investigation before proceeding.

01/30/2014 Case assigned to Nikko Evans.

08/28/2014 Internal Affairs advised their investigation was closed.

08/28/2014 Case re-assigned to Elisabeth Albert.

09/04/2014 A notification of investigation letter was emailed to the principle officers.

09/04/2014 Telephone contact was made with the Complainant.

09/09/2014 Officer Cotto was hired on 07/23/2014 and has had 4 citizen complaints and 1 use of force incident. Officer Washington has had 5 citizen complaints and 7 use of force incidents.

09/09/2014 Telephone contact was made with Ms. Holmes who requested that the CIP use the recorded statement she gave to Internal Affairs.

09/10/2014 Ms. Homes responded to the CIP office and provided additional information about her complaint.

09/11/2014 Notification letters were emailed to the witness officers.

10/07/2014 IA file was obtained and reviewed.

11/05/2014 Requested documents from MPD were received and reviewed.

12/10/2014 An area canvas was conducted around NW 3rd Avenue between 10-11 Streets.

12/12/2014 Case submitted for closure with Investigator's recommendation.

02/06/2015 PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY MS. HOLMES The Complaints Committee voted to table Ms. Holmes

City of Miami Page 22 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

complaint for 30 days to allow her more time to provide witness information.

02/17/2015 A Resolution was presented per Section 11.5-32 of the CIP's Ordinance for a subpoena but failed because there was not an affirmative vote of seven Panel members.

02/27/2015 Case submitted for closure with Investigator's recommendation.

03/06/2015 PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY MS. HOLMES The Complaints Committee voted to accept Staff's recommendation.

03/17/2015 PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY MS. HOLMES The Panel voted to accept Staff's recommendations.

MOVED: Douglas R. Mayer

SECONDED: Grace Casas

This matter was CLOSED AS NOT SUSTAINED. PASSED.

Unanimous approval

City of Miami Page 23 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

C.5 DISCUSSION ITEM

15-00229 Case: Eduardo Brunken CIP#: C14-145 IA#: 15-008

Involved Officer(s): Alejandro Rivera #5990

Allegation(s): Discourtesy (Motion to close as Not Sustained Passed) Abusive Treatment Improper Procedure

DOI: March 21, 2014

Investigated by: Michael Lucas

Mr. Eduardo Brunken stated that on March 21, 2014, while inside the American Airlines Arena, Officer Alejandro Rivera #5990, told him, "Who do you think you are to tell my friend that you are going to get him fired?" He stated Officer Rivera then placed him into custody and took his cellular phone away from him and erased the video footage he recorded while he was being handcuffed. He noted that he told Officer Rivera in the security room that the handcuffs were very tight and he responded, "That's what you are there for, for you to be in pain," and did not loosen them.

Internal Affairs closed the allegations of Discourtesy, Abusive Treatment and Improper Procedure as Inconclusive.

01/28/2015 Received IA profile for Officer Rivera. Officer Rivera was hired August 26, 1996. Officer Rivera has received 5 citizen complaints and has 2 instances of use of force noted.

Recommendation:

Based on the statement of Mr. Hundevadt that he is a retired police captain and he believes the handcuffs were correctly applied, staff recommends that the allegation of Abusive Treatment be Not Sustained. Based on the statements of Kenneth Roberson, Justin Rosenblum, Robert Hundevadt, Officer Guell, and Officer Singer that no one observed Officer Rivera erase any information form the complainant's phone, staff recommends that the allegation of Improper Procedure be Not Sustained Based on the statement by Mr. Roberson that he did hear Officer Rivera tell Mr. Brunken "who do you think you are, telling my friend that you are going to get him fired. These people make very little money and get no respect from people like you" and the fact that there appears to be more than a working relationship between Officer Rivera and Mr. Roberson, Staff recommends that the allegation of Discourtesy be Sustained. Officer Rivera is found in violation of the following Department Orders: · DO 1, Chapter 11.6.13.3, Courtesy: Courtesy toward the public and each

City of Miami Page 24 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

other is demanded of all members and civilian employees of the Department. Members and civilian employees (in their conduct and deportment) shall always be quiet, civil, orderly, and courteous. Even in the face of great provocation, they shall be diplomatic in the performance of their duties; and they shall serve the City in the discharge of their duties by controlling their tempers and exercising the utmost patience and discretion. When required, they must act with firmness and with sufficient energy to properly perform their duties. They shall, at all times, refrain from using coarse, violent, profane, or insolent language. An attitude of officiousness gains nothing, except the ill will of those with whom the officer comes in contact with.

Procedural History:

01/20/2015 Executive Director and Independent Counsel reviewed case.

01/22/2015 10-day letter and copy of IA report mailed to complainant.

01/22/2015 Notification to Principle Officer letter sent to Officer Rivera.

01/28/2015 Received completed IA file, including video and recorded statements, for this case.

01/29/2015 Received a telephone call from Mr. Brunken (complainant) in reference to this case. During the telephone call, Mr. Brunken expressed the following concerns: There are discrepancies in the report prepared by Officer Rivera and the statement given by Officer Rivera to internal affairs. In his report, Officer Rivera states that Mr. Brunken was waving his arms. Mr. Brunken denied waving his arms and requested that the video be viewed to prove his point. Mr. Brunken stated that he has had the opportunity to hear the statement given by Witness Kenneth Roberson. During the statement, Mr. Roberson never says that Mr. Brunken refused to be ejected from the American Airlines Arena. Mr. Brunken questioned why he was allowed to enter the arena if he was intoxicated. Mr. Brunken alleges that officer Rivera took away his cell phone and deleted a video he had taken during his arrest. Mr. Brunken admits to having consumed some alcohol before going to the arena but denied being intoxicated

01/29/2015 CIP Staff listened to all recorded statements received from internal affairs and reviewed the video from the American Airlines Arena. On reviewing the videotape from the American Airlines Arena, Mr. Brunken could be seen having a confrontation with security as he entered the arena. Mr. Brunken could be seen waving his arms, a couple of times. Mr. Brunken is observed making several attempts to push past security to enter the arena. Officer Rivera is observed speaking to Mr. Brunken before he is allowed into the arena. A second CD containing a cell phone video was also received from internal affairs. On this video, Mr. Brunken could be heard asking someone to give him back his phone, however it is not possible to see who is recording the video. Mr. Brunken alleges that the video was mistakenly taken by Officer Rivera. It should be noted that it is standard procedure for an arresting officer to remove all

City of Miami Page 25 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

personal property from the possession of the arrestee. During his statement, Kenneth Roberson was asked about his relationship with Officer Rivera. Mr. Roberson replied that he had a working relationship with Officer Rivera; however, during his statement Mr. Roberson referred to Officer Rivera by his first name on numerous occasions. It should be noted that Officer Rivera's first name is Alejandro and Mr. Roberson referred to him as Alex. Also during his statement, Mr. Roberson admitted that he heard Officer Rivera tell Mr. Brunken "who do you think you are telling my friend that you are going to get him fired, these people make very little money and they get no respect from people like you." Mr. Roberson stated that he did not observe Officer Rivera in possession of Mr. Brinkmen's cell phone. A statement was also taken from Robert Hundevadt, who is head of security for the American Airlines Arena. Mr. Hundevadt is also a retired police captain. During his statement, Mr. Hundevadt stated that he was not present when Mr. Brunken was placed under arrest by Officer Rivera. He made contact with Mr. Brunken who was upset about being arrested. He established a rapport with Mr. Brunken. Mr. Brunken complained to him that the handcuffs had become twisted behind his back and were uncomfortable. With the permission of Officer Rivera, he checked the handcuffs and adjust them but insisted that in his experience the handcuffs were applied properly. Mr. Hundevadt stated that he did not observe Officer Rivera take a cell phone from Mr. Brunken. A statement was also taken from Justin Rosenblum, who is a supervisor for Contemporary Services Corporation, which is the company that assists with security at the American Airlines Arena. In his statement, Mr. Rosenblum stated that he was present when Officer Rivera placed Mr. Brunken under arrest. When asked, Mr. Rosenblum stated that Officer Rivera had to use a wall to gain control of Mr. Brunken because he had begun to resist being handcuffed. Mr. Rosenblum stated that at no time did he see Officer Rivera with the cell phone belonging to Mr. Brunken.

02/02/2015 Received a telephone call from the complainant. The complainant stated that he spoke to Sgt. Ramos from Internal Affairs. Sgt. Ramos explained that his complaint was closed as Inconclusive on all counts because his statement contained several inconsistencies. Most notable was the complainant's statement that he was pushed to the ground after being "hip checked" by Mr. Roberson. The complainant stated that he did not say that during this recorded statement to internal affairs. On listening to the complainant's recorded statement, twenty minutes and fifty-five second into the statement the complainant could be heard saying that he was pushed to the ground by Mr. Roberson. This statement is in conflict to what is seen on the video footage. On the video footage, Mr. Roberson can be seen blocking the path of the complainant as he attempted to enter the American Airlines Arena. At no time could Mr. Roberson be seen giving the complainant a "hip check". The complainant was informed of these fast and he stated that he would like to see the footage and hear his statement because he was never given the opportunity to hear his statement. The complainant stated that he feels the video is too grainy to see everything. The complainant stated that he would come to the CIP office of 02/03/2015 to hear his statement and viewed the video footage. The complainant was asked to give another statement and he declined, saying that he stands by the account of the incident that is expressed in the email

City of Miami Page 26 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

received January 29, 2015.

02/11/2015 The complainant came to the CIP office to review the video from the American Airlines Arena and listen to the statement he provided to Sgt. Ramos from Internal Affairs. After reviewing the video and listening to his statement, the complainant continuously insisted he has a first amendment right to freedom of speech and he was not causing a disturbance at the gate of the Arena but he was exercising his first amendment rights. The complainant made several attempt to show that no one was being disturbed by his actions, however on the video, people entering the arena could be seen stopping to observe the complainant's actions. The complainant also insisted that it was illegal for the American Airline Arena security to refuse him entry into the arena. It was explained to the complainant that the American Airline Arena is private property and the security staff act as agents of the owners and as agents of the owners they can deny entry to anyone for just cause. The complainant made the following points, which he called discrepancies: - He was arrested and never read his Miranda Rights - It should be noted that the arresting officer only asked the complainant how many drinks he consumed and did not ask any questions about the offense he was arrested for. This would not necessitate the arresting officer reading the complainant Miranda rights.

- The complainant stated that he was never given a sobriety test. - It should be noted that there is no requirement in the Florida State Statue that a person be given a sobriety test before being arrested for Disorderly Intoxication. (See attached copy of F.S.S. 856.011)

- If he was intoxicated, why he was allowed into arena - It should be noted that the complainant was charged with Disorderly Intoxication and the charges were Nolle Pros by the Miami Dade State Attorney's office.

- In his statement given to internal affairs, Kenneth Roberson admitted to hearing Officer Rivera tell the complainant "who do you think you are giving my friend a hard time, they get pay little money and get no respect from people like you." - It should be noted that on listening Mr. Roberson's recorded statement, he did admit to hearing Officer Rivera make this statement.

-The complainant stated that in his statement to internal affairs Officer Rivera stated that the complainant was visibly drunk. The complainant pointed out that there is no mention of him being intoxicated on the arrest affidavit. The arrest affidavit only states that he smelled of an alcoholic beverage.

-The complainant stated that the arrest affidavit states that he admitted to having consumed several beers before arriving at the arena. The complainant insisted that he never told Officer Rivera that he consumed several beers because he only had one beer prior to go to the arena.

- The complainant insisted that he was almost pushed to the ground by Mr. Roberson. - It should be noted that the video does not show Mr. Roberson pushing the complainant at any point during their interaction.

City of Miami Page 27 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

- The complainant insists that Sgt. Ramos from Internal Affairs told him that Officer Rivera did not show for court because he had to go pick up the witness (Mr. Roberson); however this statement is not recorded or documented in the file.

- The complainant stated that in his police report and his internal affairs testimony Officer Rivera claimed that the complainant was yelling but never gave any direct quotes. The only testimony by anybody of any obscenities comes from Mr. Roberson, who stated that the complainant said "this is a bunch of bullshit". - it should be noted that Mr. Roberson does state that the complainant made this statement and also Mr. Roberson says the complainant was causing a disturbance.

- The complainant stated that he believes Mr. Hundevadt's statement confirms that the handcuffs were too tight and when he loosen them he calmed down. - It should be noted that in his statement to internal affairs, Mr. Hundevadt stated that he is a retired police captain and very experience with handcuffing. He believes that Officer Rivera placed the handcuffs on the complainant correctly.

- The complainant believes that Officer Rivera was untruthful during his internal affairs statement when he is asked about taking the complainant's phone. - It should be noted that it is standard procedure for the arresting officer to take/inventory property of any person arrested.

- The complainant stated that the video evidence doesn't support Officer Rivera's and Mr. Roberson's claim that he continued to cause a scene a disturbance by yelling and waving by arms. - It should be noted that there was no official complaint by independent witnesses against the complainant. The arena staff is not listed as victims, however on the video several patrons could be seen stopping to observe the actions of the complainant as he interacts with the arena staff. In statement, Mr. Roberson says that at this point other guest were being diverted to another entrance to avoid the complainant and his actions After officer Rivera appears on scene patrons are seen entering the arena and the problems seems to have been solved.

02/17/2015 Case submitted for closure with investigators recommendation.

02/19/2015 Invitation to testify at complaints committee meeting on March 6, 2015 and the CIP meeting on March 17, 2015 sent to complainant and principle officer

03/06/2015 Complaints Committee disagreed with investigator findings. Committee concluded that Officer Rivera's comments did not constitute discourtesy. The Complaints Committee voted to Not Sustain all charges. It should be noted that the complainant was present and did testify before the committee.

03/06/2015 Received a telephone message and an email from the complainant stating that he wish to drop his complainant and wish that the case be closed.

City of Miami Page 28 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

03/17/2015 CIP Panel voted to accept the compliants commitee recommendatons.

MOVED: Douglas R. Mayer

SECONDED: Grace Casas

Motion that this matter be CLOSED AS NOT SUSTAINED PASSED unanimously.

Mr. Lucas reported this case. Mr. Brunken went to the American Airlines Arena on March 21, 2014 to attend a game. He went through the normal search procedures when he entered but failed to remove a pill bottle from his pocket. He was asked by security to remove the bottle and be checked again and Mr. Brunken became irritated. There is a video of Mr. Brunken waving his hands and creating a scene. Officer Rivera was working at the Arena and security requested that he respond. He spoke with Mr. Brunken and was allowed into the arena. Before the officer arrived, Mr. Brunken was observed trying to push his way into the arena. He insisted that he had a right to enter the arena because he held a ticket. He refused to accept the notion that he could be denied entry. Mr. Brunken was arrested by Officer Rivera on the second floor of the arena. Officer Rivera is heard telling Mr. Brunken, "Who do you think you are, telling my friends that you are going to get them fired. These people make very little money and they get no respect from people like you." Kenneth Robinson, one of the security guards admitted that he heard Officer Rivera make that statement to Mr. Brunken. The security manager, Robert Hundevadt was interviewed and said that Mr. Brunken's handcuffs were properly applied. Mr. Brunken complained that his wrists hurt and Mr. Hundevadt, a retired police captain checked them. Another security supervisor said that Officer Rivera had to use a wall to place Mr. Brunken in custody because Mr. Brunken began to resist arrest. The staff recommends that the allegaiton of improper procedure be not sutained and discourtesy be sustained based on the statement he made to Mr. Brunken about the security officers being his friends and they make very little money. The complaints committee disagreed and said that the statment was not disocurteous and therefore, the recommendation from the committee was that both allegations be not sustained.

City of Miami Page 29 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

C.6 DISCUSSION ITEM

15-00270 Case: Erica Burkwest CIP#: 14-260 IA#: 14-191N

Involved Officer(s): Jose M. Gonzalez, 2450 Dermis Hernandez, 2996 Jose Estevez, 1615* Alejandro Macias, 4252*

Allegation(s): Improper Procedure (motion to close as Sustained passed) Discourtesy Damaged Property*

DOI: September 9, 2014

Investigated by: Elisabeth Albert

The owners of Atlantis Marine Towing, Salvage & Service, Inc. recovered a stripped and abandoned 18' Boston Whaler and secured it to their vessel at Dinner Key Anchorage. Ms. Burkwest contacted John and Charlie Kearn (owners) who advised they had reported the boat stolen. The Kearns, Ms. Burkwest, and the insurance company made an agreement whereas the Kearns would pay the tow and storage fees and the vessel would be returned to them. Ms. Burkwest attempted to notify MPD of the recovery but it did not appear in the system as stolen. Two days later Officers Estevez, Hernandez, and Macias arrived at the anchorage and stated they had to take possession of the vessel because it was involved in an ongoing investigation. Officer Hernandez threated to arrest the Complainant's husband in front of her children if she did not release the boat. The officers used the Miami Marine Patrol boat to tow the vessel to the Seminole boat ramp at Dinner Key Marina where it was dragged out of the water by Ted and Stan's Towing onto a flatbed and towed to their facility. Ms. Burkwest met with Sergeant Gonzalez and Officer Caesar Carbana in the Marine Managers office to clarify the department's policy on stolen/recovered boats. She alleged Sergeant Gonzalez told her he would use whatever tow company he wanted including Sea Tow who rents dockage at the marina. Sergeant Gonzalez advised Ms. Burkwest her husband, Captain Burt Korpela, would be arrested if he entered Dinner Key for business or pleasure.

Internal Affairs closed the allegations of Discourtesy and Improper Procedure against Sergeant Gonzalez and Officer Hernandez as a Non-Complaint because the officers did not violate any Departmental Regulations.

Two police reports were written for the Theft of the vessel owned by Kearn's Construction. Officer Vincent Miller wrote a theft report on 01/20/2014 documenting the boat belonging to Kearn's Construction was taken from behind 4101 Braganza Avenue in Miami. Officer Estevez wrote a separate larceny report on 09/11/2014 for the same stolen vessel, documenting the Kearn's verified this

City of Miami Page 30 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

was the vessel that was stolen and told them the insurance company (new victim) paid off the vessel.

The CIP contacted Tony Kaplan, Director of Claims at IC Maritime who was hired to estimate the damage to the recovered vessel and to satisfy the fees incurred for towing and storage by Atlantis Marine Towing. He advised the Kearn's had arranged through their insurance company to buy the salvaged boat as is, and agreed to pay Atlantis Marine what was owed in towing and storage fees. According to Mr. Kaplan, MPD Sergeant Gonzalez contacted him to tell him they were towing the vessel to have it "processed", and after telling him there would not be any towing fees, abruptly hung up.

Staff spoke to the victims of the Larceny, John and Charlie Kearn, who both believe MPD Marine Patrol Officers mishandled the recovery of their vessel and as a result generated undue expenses and caused unnecessary damage rendering the boat structurally unsound. The Kearn's were never contacted by MPD about the recovery and only knew it had been found because vessel assist had called. John Kearn confirmed the negotiated deal made with the insurance company and Atlantis Marine Towing. Charlie Kearn responded to Ted and Stan's to claim their boat and observed it unsecured sitting out in public right of way. Charlie Kern, who had observed the boat while it was in possession of Atlantic Tow, advised there was fresh damage to the keel (fiberglass) from when it was towed, and the trim tabs had been damaged when it was taken off and stored by the tow company.

Attempts were made to contact the officers involved with the recovery of the vessel from Atlantis Marine. MPD Records and Property Unit advised they had no record of the Vehicle Storage Receipt. Ted and Stan's Towing provided an Invoice and an unreadable copy of a Vehicle Storage Receipt. Although Mr. Kaplan and Ms. Burkwest were told no tow charges would be incurred, Charlie Kearn paid $321.00 to recover his boat from Ted and Stan's. Mr. Kaplan advised the vessel title was never transferred out of Kearn's Construction, and Charlie Kearn advised the vessel was in his name when he picked it up at Ted and Stan's.

Recommendation:

CIP Staff recommends that the allegations of Improper Procedure and Damaged Property be Sustained against Officers Hernandez, Estevez, Macias, and Sergeant Gonzalez. These officers violated Departmental Order when they utilized, or authorized the use of, the City of Miami Marine Patrol vessel to tow the recovered Boston Whaler from Dinner Key Anchorage to Seminole boat ramp. We find unnecessary damage was caused as a direct result of the decision and method authorized by these officers when they allowed Ted and Stan's to utilize an automated winch to drag the vessel out of the water and onto the tow truck for transport and storage. Additionally, based on both Ms. Burkwest and Mr. Kaplan's statements we recommend the allegation of Discourtesy against Sergeant Gonzalez be Sustained, but Not Sustained against Officers Hernandez, Estevez, Macias (because our investigation failed to prove or disprove the allegation).

Officers Hernandez, Estevez, Macias, and Sergeant Gonzalez are found to

City of Miami Page 31 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

be in violation of the below listed Departmental Orders:

DO 1, Chapter 11, Rules and Regulations: 11.1 POLICY: The policy of the Miami Police Department is to make these Rules and Regulations, which contain information and guidance, available to all employees, including members and civilian employees of the Miami, Florida, Police Department. Each police officer's value to the City of Miami will be measured by his/her ability to exercise discretion, sound judgment, and by his/her zeal and activity in properly performing his/her duty on all occasions. As a representative of the law, police officers must fully realize that they are not THE AUTHORITY but, instead are the VOICE OF AUTHORITY. They are given the power and responsibility by the people to protect individual rights, to preserve the public peace, to enforce the law, to protect life and property, to prevent and detect crime, and to arrest violators of the law. Neither abuse this power nor neglect this responsibility; instead, endeavor to perform your sworn duty in a manner that a citizen would expect it to be performed. Superior officers are delegated by the Chief of Police to supervise, direct, and instruct subordinates in the proper performance of their duties. Respect for the rank held by superior officers is shown by giving unqualified obedience, promptly carrying out orders, and honestly, efficiently performing all duties that are assigned.

DO 12, Chapter 7, Marine Patrol: 7.35.1: Officers will assist, secure, or advise on commercial assistance. Marine Patrol vessels are not designed or equipped to pull or tow stranded or disabled vessels and will only do so in case of an emergency situation.

DO 14, Chapter 4, Impounding Vehicles/Vessels: 4.4.6.5 Inventory of Impounded Boats: When a boat is towed to the wrecker company the impounding officer shall: 4.4.6.5.1 Insure that the boat is completely inventoried at the scene of the impoundment unless circumstances warrant delaying the inventory until the boat reaches the storage facility. 4.4.6.5.4 Property Receipt Number: When a vehicle storage receipt is completed, the property receipt number shall be placed on the report (when applicable). 4.4.6.5.5 The impounding officer will turn the original vehicle storage receipt and inventory into the Property Unit as soon as practicable during his/her tour of duty. 4.4.6.6 Delivery of Boats to the Auto Pound: The impounding officer will accompany the boat to the Auto Pound. Boats on trailers will be delivered to the Auto Pound via wrecker using normal procedures. The Miami Police Department Marine Patrol will be responsible for delivering boats seized in the water to the auto Pound. No other officers will move a boat in water except in an emergency. No boats will be stored in the water without the consent of the Property Unit Commander or the Marine Patrol Supervisor.

Sergeant Gonzalez is also found to be in violation of the below listed Departmental Orders:

City of Miami Page 32 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

Departmental Order 1, Chapter 11, Rules and Regulations: 11.4.1 General Rules for Commanding Officrs, Sergeants, and Other Supervisors: All personnel have authority and responsibility commensurate with their position. All members will be responsible and accountable for the use of delegated authority. 11.6.13.3 Courtesy: Courtesy toward the public and each other is demanded of all members and civilian employees of the Department. Members and civilian employees (in their conduct and deportment) shall always be quiet, civil, orderly, and courteous. Even in the face of great provocation, they shall be diplomatic in the performance of their duties; and they shall serve the City in the discharge of their duties by controlling their tempers and exercising the utmost patience and discretion. When required, they must act with firmness and with sufficient energy to properly perform their duties. They shall, at all times, refrain from using course, violent, profane, or insolent language. An attitude of officiousness gains nothing, except the ill will of those with whom the officer comes in contact with. 11.6.13.6 Tact and Consideration: Members and civilian employees should remember that tact and consideration will be of great value in any work that is to be done, and they should cultivate the ability to meet and deal with people easily.

Procedural History:

10/31/2014 The Internal Affairs ("IA") investigative report was obtained.

11/04/2014 Independent Counsel and the Executive Director conducted a preliminary review of the case.

11/04/2014 Case assigned to Investigator Albert for investigation.

11/04/2014 Telephone contact was made with the Complainant.

11/04/2014 An initial notification letter was mailed to the Principal Officer.

11/07/2014 Ms. Burkwest met with the CIP and provided a statement.

11/18/2014 Advised there were no crime scene photographs taken in this case.

01/06/2015 MPD Records Department advised there was no Vehicle Storage Receipt on file.

01/22/2015 Telephone contact was made with Mr. Kaplan.

01/23/2015 Responded to Ted and Stan's and was provided with a copy of an invoice paid by Charlie Kearn.

01/27/2015 MPD Property Unit advised they had no Property or Vehicle Storage Receipt on file.

01/27/2015 Officer Witness Notification letters were emailed.

City of Miami Page 33 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

01/08/2015 Officer Hernandez was hired on 03/29/2004 and has had 5 citizen complaints and 4 use of force incidents. Sergeant Gonzalez was hired on 07/25/1994 and has had 7 citizen complaints and 4 use of force incidents.

02/11/2015 Telephone contact was made with Mr. Kaplan.

02/12/2015 Telephone contact was made with Terry Burns with the City of Miami Procurement Department.

02/12/2015 Additional Officer Witness Notification letters were emailed.

02/12/2015 A request was made for copies of Officer Estevez radio transmissions from the date of incident.

02/19/2015 Invitations to Testify were mailed/emailed.

02/19/2015 Telephone contact was made with John and Charlie Kearn and Tony Kaplan.

02/20/2015 Officer Estevez was hired on 07/16/1997 and has had 4 citizen complaints and 6 use of force incidents. Officer Macias was hired on 05/02/1988 and has had 3 administrative complaints, 28 citizen complaints, 1 driving complaint, 1 firearm discharge, and 13 use of force incidents.

02/23/2015 Case submitted for closure with Investigator's recommendation.

02/04/2015 A copy of a Vehicle Storage Receipt (unreadable) was received from Ted and Stan's. 03/06/2015 PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY MS. BURKWEST The Complaints Committee voted to accept Staff's recommendation.

03/17/2015 PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY MS. BURKWEST AND JOHN KEARN The Panel voted to accept Staff's recommendation.

MOVED: Douglas R. Mayer

SECONDED: Deidria Davis

Motion that this matter be CLOSED AS SUSTAINED PASSED unanimously.

Ms. Albert presented this case involving allegations of improper procedure and discourtesy. Ms. Burkwest complained that on September 9, 2014, she and her husband observed a stripped and abandoned 18 foot Boston Whaler, belonging to Mr. Kearns. Ms. Burkwest and her husband secured the boat and towed it to their vessel in Dinner Key anchorage. Ms. Burkwest and her husband are owners of Atlantis Marine Towing, Salvage and SErvice, Inc. Ms. Burkwest contacted the boat owners, John and Charlie Kearns, who advised they had reported the boat stolen. Ms. Burkwest tried to notify Miami Police of the recovery, the the officer that came out said that is was not listed as stolen in the police system. The Kearns, Mr. Burkwest and the insurance company were communicating and they made arrangements whereas the Kearns would pay the tow and storage fees and the vessel would be returned to them. They were the owners. Two days later, the complainant contacted the police and Officers Estevez, Hernandez and

City of Miami Page 34 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

Macias arrived at the anchorage site and said they had to take possession of the vessel because it was invovled in an ongoing investigation. Officer Hernandez threatened to arrest the complainant's husband in front of the children if the vessel was not released. The officers are all marine officers with the city. They requested a flatbed tow truck through dispatch for a stolen vessel. Officers Estevez, Hernandez and Macias used the Miami Marine Patrol boat to tow the vessel to the Seminole boat ramp at Dinner Key, where it was dragged out of the water by Ted & Stan's Towing onto a flatbed and towed to their facility. Ms. Burkwest met with Sergeant Gonzalez and Officer Carbana to clarify the department's policy o stolen and recovered boats. She said Sergeant Gonzalez ws rude and uncooperative and he told her he would use any tow copany he wanted, including sea tow, who rents dockage at the marina. HE advised Ms. Burkwest that her husband, Burt Corpela would be arrested if he entered Dinner Key Marina for business or pleasure. Internal Affairs closed this complaint with allegations of discourtesy and mproper procedure as a non complaint, noting the officers did not violate any policies. The CIP investigation showed that two police reports were written about the theft of this vessel from Kearns Construciton. Officer Vincent Miller initiallywrote a theft report on January 20, 2014 but he di dnot include the vessel's identification numbers, so when the officers responded on the date of the incident, it did not show as stolen. Officer Estevez then wrote a larceny report on Septedmber 11, 2014, stating that Kearns had verified the vessel was stolen. They advised the insurance company paid off the vessdel and was the new owner. Ms. Albert contacted Mr. Kaplan, the director of claims at IC Maritime. He confirmed the Kearns arrangement to buy the salvaged boat by paying off the towing and storage fees. Mr. Kaplan felt that Sergeant Gonzalez was rude. Sergeant Gonzalez had contacted him to tell him he was taking the vessel to process it. When Mr. Kaplan tried to find out if there was going to be further towing fees, he told him there would not be and abruptly hung up on him. Ms. Albert spoke to John and Charlie Kearns. Mr. Kearns said the Miami Marine Patrol mishandled the recovery of their boat and as a result, generated undue expense and unnecessary damage rendering the boat structurally unsound. The Kearns said they were never contacted about the recovery of the boat. Jouhn Kearns negotiated a deal between the insurance copany and Atlantis Marine. Charlie Kearns said he went and looked at the boat while it was at Atlantic Tow. He responded to Ted and Stan's to claim the boat and he observed the boat sitting unsecured int he public right of way and noted with photos, fresh damage to the Keel, the fiberglass and the trim tabs. Ms. Albert tried to gert Miami PD records and a copy of the vehicle storage receipt. She was advised there was none on file. Ted and Stan's provided an invoice and it was unreadable. Though Mr. Kaplan and Ms. Burkwest were told there would be no additional tow fees, Charlie Kearns had to pay $321 to recover his boat from Ted and Stans. Mr. Kaplan advised that the vessel's title was never transferred out of the Kearn's name. CIP Staff and the Complaints Committee recommended that the allegations of improper procedure and damaged property be sustained against Officer Hernandez, Estevez, Macias and Sergeant Gonzalez. They violated the DO when they utilized or authorized the use of the Marine Patrol vessel to tow the recovered boat from Dinner Key to Seminole boat ramp. Unnecessary damage was caused as a result of this decision and method authorized by the officers. Ms. Albert checked with the procurement department. They said Ted and Stan's is authorized to tow for cars and if they are called to tow a boat, they are supposed to use another method, where the boat is lifted up and put on a flatbed to minimize damage. This did not happen. Further, the CIP recommends that the discourtesy allegation against Sergeant Gonzalez be sustained based on Ms. Burkwest's and Mr. Kaplan's statments. Howevre, the recommendation is to not sustain against Officers Hernandez, Estevez and Macias. Ms. Burkwest testified before the panel. Mr. Aguirre recused himself. Mr. Kearns testified as to the facts. He said that there was no need to drag the boat and destroy it. Ms. Burkwest said that what started as a courtesy call to the Miami Marine Patrol turne dout to be threats of arrest, an egregiously mishandled investigation, the misuse of the Marine Patrol vessel, destruction of a commercial vessel belonging to Kearns Construction and putting officers at risk. Further, she tried to work this out with the sergeant and the meeting was astonishing because the sergeant threatened her husband with arrest. Mr. Mayer moved to accept staff recommendation. It was seconded by Ms. Davis. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. AGuirre abstained.

City of Miami Page 35 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

C.7 DISCUSSION ITEM

15-00278 Case: Travis McNeil CIP#: 11-078 IA#: 11-035

Involved Officer(s): Reynaldo Goyos #27232

Allegation(s): Discharge of Firearm

DOI: February 10, 2011

Investigated by: Michael Lucas

Case Background Officer Reynaldo Goyos was assigned to the City of Miami Police Department Gang Unit. On the date of the incident, which is February 10, 2011, the entire Gang Unit was working with a multi-agency task force, headed by the Department of Homeland Security/Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Violent Gang Task Force (VGTF). The operation plan for this multi-day operation, which was dubbed Project Southern Tempest, stated During the execution of project, HSI will strategically target the most egregious offenders with links to drug trafficking organizations identify within the Southern District of Florida. This surge operation will potentially target hundreds of local gang members, gang associates and collaterals for identification, apprehension, prosecution, and potential removal from the United States. This is a criminal street gang investigation. Participating in this operation are the following law enforcement entities: the Broward County Sheriff's Office, Davie Police Department, Pembroke Pines Police Department, Miami-Dade County Police Department, North Miami Beach Police Department, Hialeah Police Department, City of Miami Police Department, Homestead Police Department, Enforcement and Removal Operations, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). The HSI operations plans also stated each team will be commanded by Sgt. from one of the various participating agencies as well as an HSI - VGTF Special Agent. The HSI operation plans additionally states that each participating law enforcement officer will adhere to his/her own agency's use of force policy. For the purpose of the operation, the agencies were divided into four primary teams. The City of Miami Police Department was assigned to Team 2, with the City of Hialeah Police Department and agents from HSI and Enforcement and Removal operations. For the purpose of this operation, officers of local police departments were paired with federal agents in unmarked vehicles. Detective Goyos was partnered with HSI Special Agent Timothy Scott and HSI Special Agent Kevin Deslauriers. Special Agent Scott was the driver of the blue Chevy suburban, Detective Goyos was a front seat passenger, and Special Agent Deslauriers was in the rear seat. On the date of this incident, the task force chose to target the Take One Lounge located at 333 N.E. 79 Street, which is said to be known for gang activity,

City of Miami Page 36 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

shootings, violent offenders, narcotic sales, and armed offenders. Miami Police Department Sgt. Ernesto Sierra stated that in the past they have conducted operations at this establishment and recovered several guns. Two City of Miami police officers were positioned outside of the establishment to observe the ingress and egress of the patrons and advise of any suspicious person or activity.

The Vehicle Stop While positioned outside of the Take One Lounge, Detective Desreen Gayle observed a security guard pushing a black male out of the establishment. A second black male exited the establishment voluntarily. The male, who was escorted out of the establishment, attempted to reenter the establishment but was refused entry by security. The second male then pulled him away and officers lost sight of the two males. Detective Gayle then informed Detective Odney Belfort to keep an eye on the males and advise what type of vehicle they got into. Approximately five minutes later, Detective Belfort advised of the subjects getting into a burgundy Kia SUV. Detective Belfort asked other units, via police radio, if they could stop the vehicle. Detective Goyos advise via police radio that he was behind the vehicle. Detective Gayle would later state that the driver of the vehicle was “slouched so far down in the seat that all she could see was his head." Detective Gayle would later state that the driver was driving faster than the speed limit however, his driving did not interfere with any other traffic. Detective Goyos advised on the police radio that the vehicle ran a red light at N.E. 2nd Ave. and 78th St. and the driver was possibly driving under the influence. Several detectives and special agents working Project Southern Tempest would later describe the vehicle as being driven “erratically”. According to Detective Goyos' statement, while he was behind the vehicle it made a wide turn almost going into a house. The vehicle made a second turn, going into several yards. He advised, via police radio, that the driver was possibly DUI or had committed a crime. Detective Goyos stated that they waited for additional backup to arrive before attempting a traffic stop. He observed the vehicle run the stop sign at N.E. 1st Place. As the vehicle approached the red light at N. Miami Avenue and 75th St., he advised that that would be a good time to initiate a vehicle stop. Detective Goyos stated that they activated the emergency lights, which consisted of red and blue visor or dash lights. Special Agent Scott attempted to get in front of the vehicle to contain it. Detective Goyos stated that the vehicle brake lights came on but the vehicle continued moving forward. As a result, Special Agent Scott was unable to get directly in front of the vehicle as intended. Special Agent Scott positioned the suburban at an angle to the left of the vehicle and ended up in front of the left corner of the vehicle.

The Shooting Detective Goyos stated that he immediately exited his vehicle through the front passenger door. He then approached the vehicle with his gun drawn at a low ready position, pointed downwards at the driver's (Travis McNeil) chest. Detective Goyos described the area as dark with some lighting from the intersection. He stated that he observed, through the open window of the driver's door, the head of two black males in the front seat but could not see them below the waist. He began to shout loud verbal commands saying "show me your hands,

City of Miami Page 37 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

show me your hands" Detective Goyos stated that he made eye contact with the driver who appeared incoherent and disobeyed his commands. The passenger was looking at him with both hands on his lap. There was no communication between the driver (Travis McNeil) and the passenger (Kareem Williams). He could not hear a radio in their vehicle and the lights inside the vehicle were off. Detective Goyos stated that as he got closer he observed the driver side window to be open and McNeil's hands on his lap. He continued to give loud verbal commands but McNeil just stared at him and would not comply. Detective Goyos stated that he was in fear because he thought the situation was not going well due to McNeil's noncompliance. He felt that McNeil was “up to something”. Detective Goyos stated that as he was standing next to the driver's door (approximately a foot away) McNeil made a sudden movement, ducking down and reaching towards his waistband/pocket area. He gave McNeil loud verbal commands saying "don't do it, don't do it", but McNeil disobeyed his command. Detective Goyos stated that Mr. McNeil pulled out a black object from the side of his right leg area, with his right hand and he thought it was a firearm. Detective Goyos stated that he was in fear for his life and the life of his partners, so he fired three rounds at McNeil. He was unaware which one of his three rounds struck McNeil. Detective Goyos stated that he had a clear shot and was aiming at McNeil's chest, but as he was firing McNeil moved forward and after he discharged his weapon laid back in the car. As a result of Detective Goyos firing his weapon three times, Travis McNeil was fatally wounded and Kareem Williams suffered two gunshot wounds. Detective Goyos stated that he was unaware that he shot Williams and at no time did he aim at Williams but he was only trying to neutralize McNeil. Detective Goyos stated that based on where McNeil's vehicle stopped and where Special Agent Scott stopped their vehicle, he was placed in a position where he was left in the open and could not seek cover, even if you needed to do so. After discharging his weapon, he was placed in Sgt. Abreu's vehicle. No one else discharged a firearm besides him. Other officer on scene rendered aid was rendered to McNeil and Williams.

The Scene The incident location was N. Miami Ave. and 75th St. The area was illuminated by streetlights only. The McNeil's vehicle was in the left lane facing west. There are two cell phones on the driver side floorboard, one cell phone was a black Metro PCS phone and the second phone was a white Sprint HTC phone. On the passenger seat was a set of headphones and several homemade CDs. Outside the passenger's door was a projectile on the ground. On the southwest corner of McNeil's vehicle was a blue Chevy suburban with emergency lights flashing. Behind the McNeil's vehicle was a black Dodge Durango (unmarked police vehicle). Additionally there were numerous pieces of clothing on the ground outside the passenger door where Williams had been rendered aid. Detective Goyos was wearing a black tactical vest the said “GANG UNIT” above the right breast and “POLICE” across the back. A pocket on the left side of his vest contained his police radio. A pocket on the left side of his vest contained to spare magazines. The third pocket located on the right side of the vest contained flex cuffs. To the left of that pocket was another pocket with a flashlight. Underneath the vest, Detective Goyos was wearing a gray shirt and

City of Miami Page 38 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

blue jean pants. Around his waist on the right side was his gun holster containing his city issued Glock handgun.

Reasons Miami Dade State Attorney Declined to Prosecute Exactly one year, three months and 28 days after the incident, the Miami-Dade State Attorney's office declined to prosecute Detective Goyos for this shooting incident. The case declination was based on the following:

• A black cell phone was found on the floorboard of the SUV being driven by the McNeil. In his statement, Detective Goyos stated that he observed a black object in the hands of McNeil. The State Attorney's office speculated that the black cell phone might have been the object Detective Goyos stated he observed.

• Both McNeil and Williams were intoxicated and there was some concern that they would return to the club, attempt to reenter, and cause a disturbance, therefore officers were justified in stopping the vehicle. It should be noted that the toxicology report for McNeil showed his blood alcohol level to be .19, which is more than twice the legal limit.

• In their statements, several officers described the vehicle being driven by McNeil as being operated "erratically". This also gave officers reason to stop the vehicle.

• A re-enactment of the scene was conducted by Medical Examiner Dr. Emma Lew. In Dr. Lew's opinion, McNeil was not sitting upright but was leaning forward, slightly bent at the waist, and rotated to the left, with his right shoulder positioned lower than the left shoulder. Dr. Lew opinioned that McNeil's body position would be consistent with someone reaching down with their right hand to the floor of the SUV in the area where the accelerator and brake pedals will be located. This is the area where the two cell phones were located by crime scene investigators.

• The parallel paths of the gunshots are consistent with gunshots fired in rapid succession.

• There is testimony by Williams that is inconsistent with the physical evidence and the medical examiner's findings. For example, Williams stated that at the time of the shooting McNeil was seated an upright in the driver seat with his feet on the floor, and both hands on the steering wheel. This statement is inconsistent with the evidence and the opinion of Dr. Lew.

• On examining the facts, there is no evidence of intentional criminal conduct by Detective Goyos; therefore there is no legal basis to support a charge of first-degree premeditated murder.

• An examination of the facts also determined that there is no evidence to support the proposition that Detective Goyos' actions demonstrated a depraved mind or that he acted with ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent, therefore there is not enough evidence to support a charge of second-degree murder.

City of Miami Page 39 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

• The evidence does not suggest that the death of McNeil occurred during the commission of any applicable felony being perpetrated by Detective Goyos; therefore there is no evidence to support a charge of felony murder.

• The State Attorney's office considered a charge of manslaughter; however the charge requires that the prosecution established that Detective Goyos' actions caused McNeil's death by culpable negligence. The State Attorney's office felt it would not be able to prove that Detective Goyos was engaged in a course of conduct that was criminally reckless

• The State Attorney's office also considered the fact that Detective Goyos would be able to use the Standard Ground Law as a defense.

• The State Attorney's office also gave consideration to the fact that McNeil failed to obey lawful commands. Several officers stated that they heard Detective Goyos give loud and lawful commands to McNeil's to "show me your hands, show me your hands"

• The State Attorney's office also considered that this incident occurred very quickly and noted that the courts have considered the dangers of traffic stop by police officers.

• The State Attorney's office considered the totality of the witness officer's testimony, the crime scene investigation, Dr. Lew's findings, and the proffered testimony provided on behalf of Detective Goyos to come to a conclusion that they could not in good faith proceed with criminal charges against Detective Goyos.

It should be noted that the Miami-Dade State Attorney's office did not consider the formulation of the operation plan or the elements that may have been lacking in the plan. Page 2 of the Miami-Dade State Attorney's closeout memo states “we do not comment as part of our analysis on the operations plan utilize the night of the police shooting. The only relevant facts extracted from our review of the material is that the plan targeted individuals identified as “egregious offenders” with links to criminal gangs or more general criminal organizations”.

Firearms Review Board Findings On December 5, 2012 (1 year, 9 months, and 25 days after the incident), the City of Miami Police Department convened the firearms review board per section 21.4.19 of Departmental Order Six, Chapter 21 entitled Use of Force. The delay in convening the Firearms Review Board was due to a backlog of cases that scheduled to be heard by the board. The cases were heard in chronological order. The 5-member board consisted of three assistant chiefs, one Major, and the police legal advisor. Detective Goyos was present but decline to speak before the board. The board's actions were as follows:

• The board outlined seven concerns: 1. Detective Goyos was not the driver of the unmarked vehicle used in the operation, which was poor planning as he was the officer most familiar with the area.

City of Miami Page 40 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

2. Detective Goyos did not conduct the traffic stop. 3. Miami Police Department does not teach its personnel how other agencies (agents) conduct traffic stops (poorly executed felony stop) 4. Although the City of Miami Police Department's deadly force policy holds officers accountable, the agent did not give Detective Goyos options to take cover, etc. where he stopped the unmarked vehicle. The agent stopped the vehicle, while conducting a felony stop, in front of the suspect vehicle, thereby placing Detective Goyos in a tactically poor position. 5. Detective Goyos had reason to believe he saw what appeared to be a black object, Detective Goyos made statements, "don't move", etc. the subject apparently reached down causing Detective Goyos to make a decision to use deadly force 6. Evidence that was not consistent with Detective Goyos' statement: a. McNeil was struck in the rear left shoulder blade area. b. Inconsistent with Detective Goyos' statement that he saw a black object c. There was a black object on the floorboard (cell phone) 7. Detective Goyos fired three rounds: a. Two (2) striking the passenger, who was not identified as a threat by Detective Goyos b. One fatally wounding McNeil.

• The board initially disagreed (split three for and two against) on whether Detective Goyos was given adequate direction for this operation. The two members not in agreement with the others later changed their vote to make it unanimous that the board thought Detective Goyos was given adequate direction for this operation.

• Only one board member thought the weapons discharge was a violation of Florida State Statute

• The entire board agreed that the firearms discharge was an unreasonable action/careless act and recommended that Detective Goyos be dismissed from the Department.

Detective Goyos Detective Goyos was hired May 31, 2005. Prior to this incident Detective Goyos received 5 citizen complaints. Detective Goyos also has three Use of Force incidents noted on his IA profile. Detective Goyos received a citizen complaint from an incident that occurred on April 11, 2012, while he was supposed to be assigned to administrative duties and not to participate in any field or tactical operation. However, Detective Goyos was listed on an operation plan regarding a narcotics surveillance operation and did in fact participate in that operation. Additionally, Detective Goyos was involved in an incident on October 31, 2010, while the decision on the McNeil shooting was pending. During this incident several officers were videotaped punching and arresting a male. Detective Goyos completed a Response to Resistance report in which he stated that the male received a minor injury because he had to be taken to the ground. The report made no mention of the male being struck by officers. A charge of improper procedure was sustained against Detective Goyos. (This video can still

City of Miami Page 41 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

be viewed on Youtube.com under the title Halloween Police Brutality) On January 31, 2013, the City of Miami Police Department terminated Detective Reynaldo Goyos' employment for the incident that occurred on February 10, 2011. This was 1 year 11 months and 21 days after the incident. The city cited the following four reasons for terminating Detective Goyos' employment: 1. Detective Goyos violated the department's deadly force policy on the grounds that the evidence of the case was not consistent with Detective Goyos' statement because McNeil was struck in the rear left shoulder blade area.

2. Detective Goyos violated the department's deadly force policy on the grounds that when Detective Goyos discharged his firearm when neither he nor another person present was in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.

3. Detective Goyos violated the department's deadly force policy on the grounds that the evidence of the case was inconsistent with Detective Goyos' statement that he saw a black object on McNeil.

4. Detective Goyos violated the department's deadly force policy because Detective Goyos should have never approached the Kia SUV, but instead should have retreated and followed all training protocols regarding felony stops involving on subjects or vehicles.

The Arbitrator's Decision Per Article 6 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the City of Miami and the Fraternal Order of Police, entitled Grievance Procedures, Detective Goyos is entitled to file a grievance for unjust termination. The CBA states that if the grievance is not resolved in the first three steps of the process, the grievance will then proceeded to step four, which outlines the process for arbitration. A mutually agreed-upon arbitrator was chosen and testimony was given on November 18th, 19th, 20th, 2013. The last day of testimony was December 9, 2013. All parties were required to submit their closing briefs before February 13, 2014. On August 8, 2014, the arbitrator rendered a decision in this matter.

The arbitrator found the following: City's Charge One The charge was flawed because the records show that that McNeil was not struck in the rear left shoulder blade area of his body as alleged by the city. Both Detective Goyos and Medical Examiner Dr. Lew testified that the bullet that killed McNeil struck him in the left side of his torso just below the armpit. The arbitrator found that at no time during his Garrity statement was Detective Goyos ask what part of McNeil's body the bullet entered. The only testimony given by Detective Goyos concerning what part of McNeil's body was struck was given during the arbitration hearing. Based on this the arbitrator unfounded charge one and stated there was insufficient evidence to discharge Detective Goyos on this charge

City's Charge Two

City of Miami Page 42 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

There was no merit to charge two because the Firearms Review Board stated that Detective Goyos "reasonably believed he saw what appeared to be a weapon (black object) in McNeil's hand. Detective Goyos gave the driver warning saying "don't do it" and "show me your hands". This is an indication that Detective Goyos saw what he believed to be a weapon. Since the entire incident was over in just seconds, the arbitrator believed there was no violation of department policy and therefore insufficient grounds to terminate Detective Goyos based on this charge.

City's Charge Three The arbitrator believed that Detective Goyos statements were consistent that he saw a black object on McNeil. The evidence of the case corroborates Detective Goyos testimony that he saw a black object since a black cell phone with McNeil's matching DNA was retrieved from the driver side floor of the Kia SUV. Because the black cell phone was found in the vehicle the arbitrator, felt there was insufficient grounds to terminate Detective Goyos on this charge.

City's Charge Four The city alleged that Detective Goyos should have never approached the Kia SUV but instead should have retreated and followed all training for calls regarding felony stops involving on subjects or vehicles. The arbitrator felt that there were several factors that undermine this charge. 1. Only seconds elapsed from the time Detective Goyos exit his vehicle to the time he discharged his weapon 2. The Firearms Review Board report stated that the HSI agent that conducted the traffic stop pulled in front of the vehicle and did not give Detective Goyos options to take cover. 3. Detective Goyos and other eyewitnesses stated that Detective Goyos was placed in "a hot/danger zone" just 3 feet from McNeil's vehicle door with no cover. 4. Detective Goyos testified that from training he was taught to assess what is going on. He was not trained to retreat or take cover. 5. Officer Byars (City of Miami Police Department Training Officer) also testified that the department does not teach its officers “to actually retreat” 6. The fourth sentence of Department Order 6, Chapter 21, Section 21.4.1.16 states "it must be remembered that by law an officer need not retreat in his/her efforts to lawfully control a subject, one may utilize the amount of force necessary to accomplish his/her task" Given these factors, coupled with the fact that the entire event was over in seconds the arbitrator believe there was no grounds or reasons for terminating Detective Goyos' employment under this charge. The arbitrator's decision that the four charges cited as grounds for terminating the employment of Detective Goyos were unfounded and the city failed to prove it had just and proper cause to terminate Detective Goyos' employment resulted in Detective Goyos being reinstated to his former position. Article 6, Section 6.8 (step 4, paragraph 5) of The Collective Bargaining Agreement between the city of Miami and the fraternal order of police states “copies of the award of arbitration made in accordance with the jurisdiction war authority under this agreement shall be furnished to both parties within thirty (30) days of the hearing and shall be final and binding on the aggrieved bargaining unit

City of Miami Page 43 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

member(s), the FOP and the city." This means that the arbitrator's decision is final and binding upon all parties. As a part of the award by the arbitrator Detective Goyos was granted reinstatement with the following: 1. No loss of seniority, employee benefits, unpaid vacation time, sick leave, contractual pay raises, contractual promotions, etc. 2. Return to former status/position of detective 3. Access to all training courses needed for this certification or re-certification as a sworn police officer 4. To the extent allowed by law, removal of all documents, IA files, Firearms Review Board files, or any other reports in reference to Detective Goyos' termination on January 31, 2013 be removed or stricken from his personnel file or any files maintained by the city.

Concerns This situation raises several concerns that should be addressed to avoid a similar situation in the future. The concerns raised are:

• The operations plan for Project Southern Tempest states each team will be commanded by Sergeant from one of the various participating agencies as well as an HSI - VGTF Special Agent. On the date of the incident, there were two City of Miami Police Department sergeants listed on the operations plans as working Project Southern Tempest, however, the operations plan did not designate a specific sergeant to be in charge. It should be noted that the City of Miami Police Department after action plan shows Sgt. M. Abreu as a supervisor for all City of Miami officers. This after action plan would have been completed at the end of the night.

• The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between The City of Miami and Immigration and Customs enforcement (ICE) is essentially a financial document that only outlines the financial responsibilities of each department. The MOU does not address the chain of command or address any of the terms, such as relationships, strategies, and commitment as outlined in the publication entitled the Guidelines for Establishing and Operating Gang Intelligence Unit and Task Forces, which was published by the Bureau of Justice Assistance/US Department of Justice, in October 2008. Most notably missing from the MOU is the suggestion that it address agency liability issues.

• The operation plan has a paragraph entitled Use of Force. This paragraph states that each participating law enforcement officer will adhere to his/her own agencies' use of force policy. This is a direct conflict to the Guidelines for Establishing and Operating Gang Intelligence Unit and Task Forces publication, which states that the MOU should bind participant agencies to agreed-upon policy and procedures.

• The operations plan clearly delineates the equipment to be carried by each officer during this operation. Although this was a nighttime operation, starting at 5 PM, the operation plan neglected to mention that each officer should have a flashlight. In his statement to internal affairs Detective Goyos described the night as “dark but with some lighting from the intersection”. The lack of a

City of Miami Page 44 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

flashlight/poor lighting conditions may have been a factor to consider as Detective Goyos approached the vehicle in the dark.

• Detectives observed McNeil and Williams exit the Take One Lounge and enter a Kia SUV. The vehicle was followed by detectives and several described the vehicle as being driven erratically. In his statement, Detective Goyos stated that he believed the driver of the vehicle was driving under the influence (DUI). Even with their observations and the radio transmissions from Detective Goyos, No one, including the two City of Miami Police Department sergeants working the operation, called for a marked patrol vehicle to conduct the traffic stop.

• As the Kia SUV was stopped, HSI Special Agent Scott was driving the blue Chevy Suburban, Detective Goyos was the front passenger and HSI Special Agent Deslauriers was in the rear seat. Special Agent Scott positions the vehicle in a manner that left Detective Goyos within a few feet of the driver's door of the Kia SUV. In his statement to Internal Affairs, Detective Goyos stated that “no takedown tactics were discussed at briefing.” He additionally stated that he did not discuss any takedown tactics with the HS I agent he was partnered with. On reviewing the operation plan, no consideration was given to any tactical concerns.

• Detective Goyos stated based on where the Kia stopped and where Special Agent Scott stopped their vehicle, he was placed in a position where he was left an open and could not seek cover if you needed to do so. The question of whether or not Detective Goyos should have retreated to a position of cover was raised during the investigation. Detective Goyos stated that he had never been trained retreat. This claim was backed up by Training Officer Byars, who stated that no training was ever provided to City of Miami officers in regards to retreating from a threat.

• After the shooting of Travis McNeil and Kareem Williams, investigations were conducted by the City of Miami Police Department Homicide Unit and the Miami Dade State Attorney's office. A representative from the Miami-Dade State Attorney's office was present with each statement was given. In spite of this fact, it took the Miami-Dade State Attorney's office approximately 15 months and 27 days to make a determination in the case. With such a lengthy time span, little consideration could be given to the fact that witnesses may be hard to locate and the memory of witnesses may have deteriorated. Additionally, The State Attorney's office could have conducted a separate investigation, which may have less of a chance of being influenced by police personnel.

• There were Thirty-three (33) police involved shooting in the City of Miami between 2008 and 2011. It is unknown exactly how many of these shooting involved injury to a person. Three (3) of these cases are still open. Two cases are still undecided and one case is still open due to the arrest of the officer involved on unrelated charges.

Procedural History:

10/21/2014 The CIP panel voted to extend the one year statute of limitations for reviewing this case.

City of Miami Page 45 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

11/05/2014 The Executive Director conducted a preliminary review of the case.

11/10/2014 Case assigned to Investigator Lucas for review.

This matter was CLOSED AS NO FINDING. PASSED.

MR. LUCAS: For the benefit of the panel, the background of this case is that this case involves Officer Reynaldo Goyos. Officer Goyos was assigned to the City of Miami gang unit. On the night of the incident, which is February 10, 2011, the entire gang unit was working a multi-agency taskforce, which was being headed by the Department of Homeland Security. The operation was supposed to be targeting -- to quote the operations plan, "the most egregious offenders with links to drug trafficking organizations." This was a multi-day operation, with which was dubbed, "Operation Southern Tempest." For the purpose of the operation, the local officers were paired with Federal agents in unmarked units. Detective Goyos was partnered with two Department of Homeland Security special agents, one Agent Scott and another Agent Deslauries. Agent Scott was the driver of the vehicle. And on this particular night, there was decision made to target the Take One Lounge located in the city of Miami at 333 N.E. 79th Street, which was said to be known for gang activity, shootings, violent offenders, narcotic sales and other armed offenders were quote/unquote, "frequent this establishment." On the night of the incident, two city of Miami officers were positioned outside the establishment to watch the coming and going of the patrons. Prior to the incident involving Mr. McNeil, there had already been, I think, at least one arrest. So as the officers positioned themselves outside the Take One Lounge, one of the detectives allegedly saw a security guard removing a young man from the establishment. And another young man, who was accompanied by him, who accompanied him was also voluntarily left the establishment. The officer radioed to another detective to keep an eye on them to see where they went. The two subjects later identified as Mr. Travis McNeil and his cousin Mr. Kareem Williams entered a burgundy Kia SUV. At that point, officers began to follow them -- follow the vehicle. One officer was, in her statement, stated that the vehicle was driving faster than normal. However, it did not interfere with any flow of traffic. Officer Goyos was the officer that got behind the vehicle. And he stated over the police radio that the vehicle ran a red light at N.E. 2nd Avenue and 78th Street. And the driver was possibly under the influence. Several detectives and agents would later say that the vehicle was being driven erratically. Officer Goyos stated that he observed the vehicle as it made a wide turn and almost strike a house, and then the vehicle drove into several yards, according to Officer Goyos' sworn statement. As the vehicle approached the red light at North Miami Avenue and 75th Street, Officer Goyos stated that he decided that was a good place to initiate a traffic stop. At that point, Special Agent Scott, who was driving the vehicle, initiated the traffic stop. And that is when things went terribly wrong. Officer Goyos stated that the vehicle, that as they attempted to stop the vehicle, the brake lights came on but the vehicle did not stop. The vehicle that they were attempting to make the traffic stop in was an unmarked Chevy Suburban, which was equipped with only a dash red and blue light. And I have pictures to show you of the area. As Agent Scott positioned the vehicle in such a manner that as -- if you will look at the pictures, this is the picture of the vehicles at the traffic stop. If you notice the vehicle with the red and blue lights is the vehicle that Officer Goyos was a front passenger and Officer Scott was driving. And this is, to say the least, very unorthodox method of stopping the vehicle, basically they just cut the car off. As you can see and also take note of the fact of the lighting in the area. As you can see here it is basically in order to stop the vehicle, they just basically cut the vehicle off. Because of the way the vehicle was stopped, that left Officer Goyos in a position, where he was basically face-to-face with Mr. McNeil, as Mr. McNeil was the driver and Mr. Williams was the front passenger. Officer Goyos stated in his statement, that he came out of the vehicle and started to began giving loud verbal commands to

City of Miami Page 46 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

show him his hands. He also stated that the area was dark, but he could see from the lighting in the intersection, which is questionable, as you can see from the photographs. At some point, Office Goyos stated that he gave verbal commands to Mr. McNeil, who did not comply with his commands. He became concerned for his safety and the safety of the other officers working the detail. He said at some point, according to his statement, Mr. McNeil reached down and into his pocket or leg area and retrieved a black object. At that point, Officer Goyos fired three rounds from his department issued firearm striking Mr. McNeil once and striking Mr. Williams twice, the passenger -- striking the driver once and the passenger twice. At that point, Officer Goyos or Detective Goyos was removed from the scene and other officers on scene issued -- rendered aid to -- here is a better picture, if you will, of how the vehicle was stopped by Special Agent Scott, where he stopped the vehicle. Which would have left Officer Goyos, the front passenger, basically face-to-face with Mr. McNeil. Inside the vehicle, the black object was found was a cell phone. Mr. McNeil was not armed, neither was Mr. Williams. And that the picture of the interior of the vehicle. You can see in the arm rest the two rounds that were fired through the arm rest striking Mr. Williams on the other side of the vehicle. As Officer Goyos approached the vehicle, this is the view that Mr. McNeil and Mr. Williams would have had of him. As you can see, he only has a small patch that says, "Gang Unit." There is no other way to identify him as a police officer. Those white things sticking out of his pocket would be flex cuffs. The white object sticking out of the vest pocket would be flex cuffs, zip ties that are used in place of handcuffs. As you can see, Officer Goyos was not even wearing a department issued duty belt or anything that, again, would identify him as an officer, even -- that is a close up of the fact that he did have a flashlight with him, but he did not use that flashlight when he approached the vehicle. And that would be the back view. Again, just a vest that says, "Police." And as you know, anybody can buy that, buy a patch that says, "police." So the case was --

UNKNOWN FEMALE: Question --

MR. LUCAS: Maybe I will answer it if you allow me to finish? Maybe at some point there will be an answer. The case went to the Miami Dade State Attorneys Office. And they declined to prosecute, stating a number of factors, stating 14 different points of why they declined to prosecute. One being the black cell phone found on the floor. They speculated that is what Detective Goyos saw in Mr. McNeil's hand. They also said that because Mr. McNeil was intoxicated leaving the club, that the officers would have had a good reason to stop the vehicle, so the stop was a good stop. And the fact that officers stated that the vehicle was being driven erratically was also cited. Again, there was 14 points on which the State Attorney relied in making their decision not to prosecute Detective Goyos. And one of which was the stand your ground law, stating that Officer Goyos would have had the right to use the stand your ground law. And it would have been almost impossible for them to prove the case based on the stand your ground law. What the State Attorney's Office did note was that they did not comment on was the formulation of the operation plan or the elements that the plan lacked. And the closeout memo stated, "We do not comment as part of analysis on the operations plan utilized the night of the police shooting. The only relevant facts extracted from our review of the material is that the plan targeted individuals identified as the most egregious offenders with links to criminal gangs or other general criminal organizations." For the record, the operations plan, it was sorely lacking. The plan, there was no plan as to what to do in the event of an emergency. There was no -- basically, when you looked at that operations plan, you could not tell who was in charge of what. It is, in my years of law enforcement and working multi-agency taskforces, I have never seen an operations plan put together so haphazardly. The -- one of the things that also was the MOU between the city of Miami -- the MOU being the memorandum of understanding, which puts together -- which defines the terms of them working together -- the memorandum of understanding between the City of Miami Police Security was basically a financial document. It did not define anything about chain of command or emergencies or anything of that nature. Basically, what it said is who will reimburse who for overtime. And that is basically what the document was about. But anyway, the case went before the firearms review board on December 5, 2012,

City of Miami Page 47 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

which is one year, nine months and 25 days after the incident. The firearms review board found seven points in which Officer Goyos was at fault. And those seven points included the fact that the Federal agent was operating the vehicle when Officer Goyos should have been the driver of the vehicle, because he is the one who would have known the area best. And also, I am not sure of the type of training that Federal agents get when it comes to conducting traffic stops. Being a local police officer, Officer Goyos would have been more schooled on conducting traffic stops than a Federal agent. Excuse me. And that is another point that the firearms review board made. The other thing is that -- at some point, the City of Miami firearms review board stated that they do not teach their personnel how other agencies work. And that is something that have been addressed in the operations plan is how we are going to do things. That was not addressed. And they acknowledge that the traffic stop was poorly executed. Also, they acknowledged that Officer Goyos was put into a very poor tactical position based on the stop. And one of things they stated is that he should have retreated from that position. But -- not but -- I know of no department that teaches their officers to retreat. In fact, you are taught that you don't have an obligation to retreat. And I think that was -- that might have been a factor in Officer Goyos not seeking a more tactical position. It is said that you react how you are trained. So could he have retreated? As I told someone the other day, in my world, we don't call it retreating, we call it advancing in reverse. So you take a tactical position because it is your life. The board voted unanimously that Officer Goyos was at fault and voted that he should be terminated from the department. A little background on Officer Goyos, prior to this incident, Officer Goyos had received five citizen complaints --

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Major, which board, which board?

MR. LUCAS: The firearms review board.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: The firearms review board?

MR. LUCAS: Right.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Of the Miami Police Department?

MR. LUCAS: Of Miami Police Department.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Thank you.

MR. LUCAS: Recommended that he be fired. Prior to this incident involving Mr. McNeil, Officer Goyos had received five citizen complaints. He also had three use of force incidents noted on his I.A. profile. While he was on -- this incident was pending, he received two more citizen complaints. One of which where he was not supposed to be participating in any tactical operations but was found to be participating in tactical operations. The second incident occurred October 10th -- just to give you a little background on Officer Goyos -- the second incident occurred on October 31, 2010, while this decision on the McNeil case was still pending, Officer Goyos was involved in an incident, where several officers were seen -- were video taped punching and arresting a male. Officer Goyos wrote the response to resistance report and stated that the male received his injuries when he was taken to the ground. This video is still posted on Youtube. If you Google Halloween Police Brutality, you can see that video on Youtube. On October 31, 2013, the City of Miami Police Department terminated Officer Goyos for the offenses cited by the firearms review board. They believed that the use of force was not consistent with the policy and was unfair -- unjust. Excuse me. The case then went to an arbitrator, per the City's CBA or collective bargaining agreement. The case went before an arbitrator, whose decision would be binding. The arbitrator decided in the favor of Officer Goyos. And Officer Goyos was returned to duty. The arbitrator stated that the City did not have -- the City failed to prove that it had just grounds to terminate Officer Goyos for this incident. In reviewing this, we found that there were several concerns came up in reviewing this. And those concerns are the date of the incident there were two City of Miami

City of Miami Page 48 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

sergeants working this detail. And they were listed on the operations plan. But when you look at the operations plan, you cannot tell who was in charge. You just knew that there were City of Miami sergeants working in addition to the officers from the gang unit. As I stated earlier, the memorandum of understanding is essentially a financial document. There is a publication that is Operating Gang Intelligence Units and Taskforce, which was published by the U.S. Justice Department in October of 2008. Which most police departments follow when setting up their operations plans and these type of operations. That document tends to be to seem to have been totally ignored. And as a part of that document, it states who is at fault, who is responsible for use of force incidents and it binds the agencies to an agreed upon policy and procedures. In this case, it seems like everything just fell back to the officer's department and everybody else just kind of stepped back. As I stated earlier, one of the things that the operations plan stated was what equipment the officers should bring with them on this operation. Lacking from that note or that list of things that the officers should have brought with them was a flashlight. This operation started at 5:00 p.m., so that should tell you that this was a night operation. So it should have been somebody should have had a flashlight out there. And in reviewing those pictures, I find it quite frankly find it hard to believe that someone could see inside of a vehicle with that -- under those lighting conditions. The other thing -- the concern we came up with is that when Mr. McNeil and Mr. Williams exited the Take One Lounge and were said to be possibly under the influence, at no point did anyone, including the two sergeants working this operation, call for a marked unit. That stop should have been conducted by a patrol officer, not by a taskforce. And no one bothered to, at any point until shots were fired, did anyone call for a marked unit. As someone who has worked these taskforces, it is protocol that when you get something that is outside the realm of what you planned for, you call for a marked unit to come and handle it. And I am sure that this being the City of Miami, with the number of officers that they have, they had someone available. The other thing that we saw as a problem is during briefing and on the operations plan, there was no discussion of take down tactics. What do we do in the event of this happening? And even on the operations plan, what most notably was lacking in my -- from my experience was what we always noted was where is the nearest trauma center. That was not even -- that is a basic. And that was not even on this operations plan. Again, I talked about how the City of Miami provided no training to their officers in regards to retreating from a threat. They were just not taught to tactically put themselves in a more tactical position by backing up. Everything seemed to be that they were taught to move forward and confront the threat. Another problem we found was the length of time that the Miami Dade State Attorney took to complete this case, 15 months and 27 days went by before they made a determination in this case. And I don't know how that could be? Why would it take so long, 15 months and 27 days? The other thing is that the City of Miami could have made a decision on the status of Officer Goyos before the State Attorney came back with their case. And that was never done. That was never done. And as a side note, let me state that between 2008 and 2011, there were 33 police involved shootings in the City of Miami. It is unknown how many of those shootings involved injury to a person. Three of the cases are still open. Two of the cases are still undecided and one case was open until the officer involved was recently arrested on a drug charge. So with those concerns that we stated, those are things that the City of Miami can do better.

MS. BEAMUD: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. Ms. McNeil is here. Ms. McNeil, did I get the name correct or do you use a different last name?

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: While Ms. McNeil is walking to the podium, Major Lucas, did this go to the Complaints Committee?

MR. LUCAS: This did. We did discuss this in front of the Complaints Committee. Yes.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: What was the finding of the Complaints Committee?

City of Miami Page 49 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

MR. LUCAS: I don't think we came up with a finding. We all agreed that this avoidable, definitely something that should have never happened.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Ms. McNeil, give me a second please? Ms. Grace Casas, Chairman of the Complaints Committee.

MS. CASAS: Mr. Aguirre, regrettably because of the time, which we were prevented basically because of the ordinance because of the time, that we could not, in fact, make a finding. However, because of just the absolute seriousness and because of just the facts, we felt that it was still important for this Complaints Committee to hear the entire case and to make recommendations. And it was very clear to us that this was the absolute worst -- it was probably the poorest planned multi-agency operation. And things such as something so basic as deciding who is going to be giving the direction? Where is the nearest trauma center? What is the procedure if there should be an incident, where it looks like there may be whatever type of incident that could have been involved in this? Again, there -- the alleged goal here was that this was about drugs. The worst that was said is that these two gentlemen might have seemed intoxicated. Yet it never dawns on anyone to call for a marked unit? We discussed that. This is a problem that we have seen over-and-over again. It is the use of unmarked units. The photographs that were shown of those t-shirts, I think any reasonable person in our viewing audience would probably not disagree with me that those are shirts that people could make at home. Why would a reasonable person stop? Any person could have easily believed that they were going to be carjacked. We also looked at the fact that - and again, unfortunately, we cannot review the arbitrators decision. But it is great concern to not only the committee itself, but this panel as a whole, that this officer has been reinstated. And in the arbitrator's -- as part of what he was granted as a reinstatement, I would like to just briefly read this. That Detective Goyos, among the other things he was granted, was to the extent allowed by law, removal of all documents, I.A. files, firearms review board files or any other reports in reference to Detective Goyos' termination on January 31, 2013 be removed or stricken from his personnel file or any files maintained by the City.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: All right. Thank you. I am going to ask you to come back and comment later. Ms. McNeil, could you kindly state your name please?

MS. MCNEIL: My name is Sheila McNeil. I am the mother of Travis McNeil. My son by no means was -- you know -- like a lot of young men growing up in a city today. But I feel that his death was totally unnecessary. His life was cut short by an officer, who took it upon himself to be judge and jury. Travis, at no time was I ever told that Travis had any drugs or was he intoxicated. His main thing that night was to take his cousin at home, who was drinking, and he wanted to get him out of the club environment. Last thing he spoke to one of his friends was that I am going to take him home and I will be back. I am not saying my son was no angel. By no means, growing up on the mean streets of Miami, there are no -- there is no room for angels out there when you grow up in one of the more rough neighborhoods. I can say about my son was that he was not a violent child. And anybody reviewing this records from the arrests that he had, none of them entailed him being violent. He carried no weapon that night. He had no drugs on him. In fact, the officers had no idea who was driving that vehicle, because the vehicle was listed in his girlfriend's name. She had rented the car, because they had planned to take a trip. And I am still trying to grasp what happened and why it had to happen. During that time over the past few years, we lost over seven young black men in our neighborhood, who have been targeted by these so-called unit that was going around. And they, to me, their sole mission was just toeliminate or eradicate some of our young men, some who may have been guilty of whatever the charges were. But I know in my heart that my child was not one of those. His life was taken at a time when he just become a young man. Some of us grow up at 18, 21. My son was 28 years old. And he was just becoming a young man and a father to his son. And I still cannot to this day understand why his life was snuffed out like it was. And then the officer who took his life is allowed back on the streets. He is back out there on the streets again. They paid him all his money. He got back pay. I just don't understand. And I don't see the fairness is what happened to my child

City of Miami Page 50 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

and the way he was treated. It is almost as if he is some kind of City hero or something. And that is not the case, at all. I miss my son every day. He has a young son of his own right now, who just turned 14 years old. And he needs his father in his life. But we can only do so much as grandparents. He has got me and his other grandma. My son, he helps out as much as he can. But it just doesn't seem fair that this man should be still walking around. I work every day. He is collecting tax dollars - you know, he is being paid to protect and serve us as citizens. But he takes my child's life. I don't understand how he can still be out here on the street. What fairness is that? How can this possibly happen in a city as great as ours? That someone who did the things that he did still be allowed to patrol the streets of Miami? I just don't understand it. I never got a chance to talk to you folks, because it was so mixed up at the time with the CIP. I really wanted -- I really needed you guys. I wanted your support at the time, but there was so many mix ups -- everything was just a lot of chaos at that time. I saw so many young men loose their lives. Things that could have been avoided. And I feel so bad as a mother, because when I saw all these things going on, as long as it didn't touch my home I was okay. And maybe if I had stepped up and spoke out sooner, my child would have still been alive. We lost seven young men over a period of three years to the City of Miami Police Department. These are people we pay to protect and serve us. Regardless of the situation, my boy was -- he was not on drugs. He was just a young man out to have a nice time that evening. And how I am supposed to explain that to his son? To my grandchildren?

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: I don't know that. But give us an opportunity and maybe we come to some understanding to make sure that this never again happens. Ladies and gentlemen of the panel, I have a lot to say. But I am going to wait and be the last speaker.

MS. MCNEIL: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Ms. McNeil, would you wait a minute? I have a question for you. Did your son own a gun?

MS. MCNEIL: No, sir.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Did he have a gun in the car that night?

MS. MCNEIL: No, sir. No gun, no drugs. My son was just out to have a nice time. As a matter of fact, he had baby sat for me that day, so I could go to work. When I came home, he said, "Mom, what you cooking today?" As most young men do. I said, I am going to fix this, that. And he was babysitting for me, so I could go to work. I had my nephew, who was visiting from out of town.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Yes. Would you mind if other members of the panel asked a question? Ladies and gentlemen?

MS. MCNEIL: No. I wouldn't. Not at all.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Mr. Cabrera, Mayer, Ms. Casas, Ms. Davis?

MS. DAVIS: I can speak now?

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Yes. Go ahead please.

MS. DAVIS: Ms. McNeil, I really can hardly breath from your story. I have been there since it happened. And I am very sorry for your loss. And I feel it. I feel your pain. And to answer why is this man back on his job? I have no idea. But I do have some questions. I really feel I agree with you that he shouldn't be -- he shouldn't have gotten his job back. But it was not our call. But I had a couple of questions. When you started talking about when Travis was pulled over in the unmarked car, did the officer -- I didn't hear it anywhere in the summation -- did the officer ever identify himself as a police officer?

City of Miami Page 51 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

MS. MCNEIL: As far as I -- you know what? When I went to the hospital, I had no idea my child was dead. I went the hospital to see about my nephew, who was still conscious. He called me. He said, "Auntie, they won't tell me where Travis is."

MS. DAVIS: That was my next question, was--

MS. MCNEIL: He never lost consciousness. I said, "What happened?" He said, "They shot the car up." I said, "Who shot the car up? "He said, "I don't know. But Auntie, I think it was the police."

MS. DAVIS: Because they weren't even sure because of the way the officer was dressed?

MS. MCNEIL: Right. He didn't even know for sure what had happened to him. All he knew was that they wouldn't tell him what happened to Travis. And when I got to the hospital, that is when I was made aware about it, not even by the police themselves. A doctor walked up to me and told me that I should take solace in the fact that my son did not suffer. He took one shot to his chest and he was deceased. So all that there where they were saying that they were trying to revive him at the scene, that is not true. A lot of that is not true. I have never -- I live in Overtown. I have seen what people get killed in the street and the body is there for hours and hours. My son was gone in -- I wouldn't even say an hour and-a-half there was no more crime scene. My niece is an officer for the City of Miami Beach. That was the first place she went. My boy was -- she said there is no crime scene here.

MS. DAVIS: Do know if a sobriety test was done on Travis at the hospital? Did they ever tell you what his official blood alcohol level was?

MS. MCNEIL: They didn't tell me.

MS. DAVIS: They claimed that he was drunk and driving erratically.

MS. MCNEIL: No. That is not even Travis. He is not a big drinker.

MS. DAVIS: But they never gave you an official --

MS. MCNEIL: They never gave me any official anything. I know that -- I know for a fact that Kareem was a drinker. Travis is not a drinker. That was the reason he was leaving.

MR. LUCAS: Ms. Davis --

MS. MCNEIL: He was leaving to take this boy home to get him out of the club.

MS. DAVIS: The other question I wanted to ask is who are the arbitrators? Who are they? Are they police officers?

MR. LUCAS: No. They are chosen.

MS. DAVIS: By whom?

MR. LUCAS: By the City and the FOP, they are agreed upon by both.

MS. DAVIS: They are chosen by the Fraternal Order of Police?

MR. LUCAS: And the City. They are agreed upon by both. What happens in that instance when they get ready to choose an arbitrator is they are given a list of seven. And the City will strike one. The FOP will strike until they come to a mutual agreement upon an arbitrator.

MS. DAVIS: So you could take that as though they would pick someone that would share their mentality or their thoughts or their opinions on what should have happened

City of Miami Page 52 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

and not happened?

MR. LUCAS: Sure. Of course. Of course. And what I was going to say is that in the autopsy, Mr. McNeil's blood level was .19.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Right. Ms. McNeil, why don't you relax and sit down. You have another question?

MR. AEDO: Yes. She has one.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Go ahead.

MS. DAVIS: Actually, I am reading through this. And I don't see any comments or any statements from the other agents that were in the car. Was anything -- did they confirm or they able to state whether they identified themselves or were they ever interviewed?

MR. LUCAS: I read all the statements from the all the -- everyone present. And that is one that is lacking. I can honestly say that I did not see in any of the statements where anyone ever said, "Police Detective Goyos said, 'Show me your hands. Show me your hands. Don't do it.'" But at no point did anyone ever say, "Police."

MS. DAVIS: And the three agents that were there, nobody --

MR. LUCAS: No one.

MS. DAVIS: Was there any other witnesses in the area?

MR. LUCAS: There were -- when Mr. McNeil was stopped, there were three agents - there were two agents and Detective Goyos in the vehicle that basically cut him off. And there were two agents in the vehicle behind him. And in none of their statements did they say --

MS. DAVIS: That they identified themselves?

MR. LUCAS: -- they identified themselves as police. And in none of their statements did any of them say they ever saw Mr. McNeil with anything in his hands.

MS. MCNEIL: Excuse me. That was one of the things that really bothered me. That all the officers that was on that site that night, why was it that only one officer felt threatened enough to shoot my child? I mean, it wasn't like he was the only officer there. There had to be at least six to nine other officers there. If there is three vehicles and three officers in each vehicle, why was it that he was the only one who felt threatened enough to shoot to kill? I don't understand that. Nobody to this day has explained that to me. If I can -- I mean it wouldn't any. But I would you know -- it would make some sense. This doesn't make any sense to me for there to be that many police officers. And we all know what goes on at police scenes. If a police officer draws his guns and he has got his comrades with him, everybody draws their gun. Multiple shots would have been fired. But this is only one officer felt threatened enough to shoot my child. I - to this day, I just can't grasp -- I just don't understand that.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: I understand. Mr. Delva?

MR. DELVA: Mr. Lucas, do you know how many agents were involved in this operation? How many total, 20 or?

MR. LUCAS: There was somewhere in the neighborhood of about 20. Not all were there at the time of this incident but in the operation. Because you had --

MR. DELVA: But the officer, he was in a vehicle with a City tag or just a regular?

MR. LUCAS: Regular tag.

City of Miami Page 53 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

MR. DELVA: Regular tag?

MR. LUCAS: Yes.

MR. DELVA: Regular tag and --

MR. LUCAS: And from the positioning of the vehicles, Mr. McNeil and Mr. Williams would not have been able to see a tag anyway.

MR. DELVA: What takes so long? This happened since 2011. Why it take so long until right now? This is why -- you have a family here. The reason they come is they believe in us.

MR. LUCAS: Right.

MR. DELVA: They believe in us. For us to do something. And we have a family here. We have a mother here that is still grieving, crying in front of us. I don't think is going to be a closed book for us. For the second time in the time I have been here, there is a lot of cases that come in here. And after that, I don't know what happened. But this one here, you can see you have a family that come in here. And then you know we have to do something about this. This is listen to the mom, you can see that this is a very serious thing. And then the picture that I saw - I don't know the picture went away -- the vehicle -- I mean the uniform, everything I look at it is a problem. This can happen to anyone of us. You know? Somebody stopping us. We don't know who that person is. And then we start asking question. And the next thing we got shot. The next time they kill us. We going to follow on this and make sure we do something. Thank you.

MS. BEAMUD: Mr. Delva, let me answer why this is before this panel now. This panel -- first of all, there was a complaint filed by the NAACP. You saw that. It came in maybe in September. And it was filed on behalf of the NAACP asking that the CIP look at this matter. This was because there was recent news that Officer Goyos had been reinstated. So that is why this is in front of this panel now. And why it was not before this panel before is at least in part because of the delays and the policy of waiting until all of the investigations were over.

MS. BAKER: Might I?

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Let me finish with the panel. I promise I will invite the coalition and I will invite the complainant to comment. All right. Mr. Damaso, did you indicate you wanted to speak?

MS. DAMASO: This seems to be a procedure problem. And I saw the picture of the truck, the little blue light is barely noticeable. You can't see that from the front. And my reaction is we have heard this before. We just heard this a couple of months ago. And it is something that I think the department needs to really understand that I wouldn't stop. If I see somebody with a little blue light I wouldn't stop. So it is something that needs to be -- I think the department needs to consider what other people are thinking when they are out on the street in the dark being accosted that way. It is definitely something we need to recommend again.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Thank you. Point well made. Mr. Puente? No. All right. nAre there any other family members that want to speak? Oh. I am sorry. Ms. Marilyn Lightbourn. Thank you.

MS. LIGHTBOURN-OSHODI: To the mother, I just want to say that from all aspects of this case, it looks and appears that everything went wrong that shouldn't have. And from what I can tell, that your son, as you said, was doing -- was actually saving -- trying to save a life of someone else, who he -- who was drinking and wanted to take him home and make sure he was safe. And in the interim was lost his life by pure misleading facts, just pure just wrongdoing. And on behalf, I just feel and want to say that I am very sorry. I feel your pain. And I am very very sorry. And we definitely will look into this and

City of Miami Page 54 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

see what else can happen to take place. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Thank you, Ms. Lightbourn. Are there any other members of the family that would like to comment? Okay.

MR. MAYER: Could I?

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Mr. Mayer?

MR. MAYER: It is just troubles me in so many ways. And we, again, are so sorry for your loss. The thing that compounds this is this arbitrary -- it is arbitrary - the arbitrator's decision. And I am thinking how could we keep this from happening again? I don't know when the police negotiate their collective bargaining agreements. But in cases where a police officer is found to have violated police procedure and somebody has lost their life, and the police move and discharge them, and then later have somebody come in as an arbitrator and say, we are going to reinstate him, it just seems totally wrong to me. And that there ought to be -- we ought to be able to make some kind of a recommendation to change that policy. I don't know exactly what it is tonight. But we ought to talk about it and see if there is anything that could be done. Because it just compounds the tragedy on top of everything else. I think the police management tried to do the right thing by discharging the officer. And then to have that turned around is a slap in the face to the family and the people that lost --

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: I totally agree with you, two great tragedies are being discussed today. The first one is the murder of Mr. Travis McNeil. And the second one is the Re-instatement of a police officer, who has no business ever being a police officer. Once again, any members? Go ahead, Ms. Casas.

MS. CASAS: I have one question. And again, I agree with Mr. Mayer. This is - this arbitrator's decision does seem like it is arbitrary. My -- it is more of a legal question. Which is because this arbitrator -- and I would like to know the reasoning for that last recommendation that he -- to the extent quote, "allowable by law" that this officer will be able to basically remove all - it says, "all documents, IA files, firearms and any files maintained by the City." Is there -- I mean, how legally could they proceed with doing that? And is there any possibility that we could be affected by that?

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: I don't know. We would have to ask Mr. Mays or Ms. Beamud. Could either one of you comment on that?

MR. MAYS: I don't know. The reason I say that is because I have not read in detail the arbitrator's decision. I do not know all of the particulars that he or she concerned themself with. One thing that we can do however is something that Mr. Lucas made reference to, that is to make recommendations to try to prevent this matter from occurring again. Let's go back just for a moment or so. If you all recall, one of the big problems that they had in the Witherspoon case -- and that was the one --

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Which one? Which one?

MR. MAYS: Weatherspoon.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Weatherspoon.

MR. MAYS: That was the one where the officers were riding around in the black SUVs with the dark tinted windows, et cetera. And no one knew they were police other than themselves. And in a similar manner from the photographs that you have seen and from what you have seen in the file, the only way that one would have known that these people were police officers would have been, I imagine, for them to show you some sort of identification. We all see vehicles that have a peculiar light in. And some of it may even look blue, for instance. But who would stop at that sort of matter, particularly at night?

City of Miami Page 55 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

So one matter that you all could do would be to make a very strong recommendation that these officers not engage in such activities. And that if they are going to try to stop a vehicle, that it be a marked police unit. You know, who is going to question a marked police unit? And so far as the tactics that were employed, etcetera, they were questionable. But I think the strongest thing that you can do is send a recommendation that marked units make these sort of stops, not these so-called undercover vehicles.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: I agree, Mr. Mays. While Major Lucas was reading his report, I was keeping track -- my math may be wrong. But I think I counted 28 objections that you noted to the procedures that were employed that evening. And it will be my recommendation -- as a matter of fact, it will be my request that you convert this into a report that can be sent to the Chief of Police with the specific items that you found that were at fault. We recognize these -- this event took place a long time before the current Chief of Police assumed office. But we need to make sure that these violations of commonsense and good policy are never again violated. So we want to document them. I think you have done an excellent job. I commend you. Reduce it to a good report. Something crisp, sharp and to the point, bullet point style. Let's look at it and let's send it to the Police Chief and to our elected officials. I promised -- don't go away -- I promised the complainant the opportunity to speak. And the complainant was the NAACP. MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Brad Brown. I am the first vice-president of the Miami-Dade branch of the NAACP and a former president. My first reaction when I saw the results of this was not as an NAACP here, but as a parent of a young adult, a young black adult male. And that it could have been him. And it brought to mind an incident that he had not too long ago, stopped while driving. And while waiting for the dogs to come to check to see whether there were drugs, which none were found. He is texting me. And he notes he is texting, because I don't want to pick up that phone, because of incidents like Travis McNeil, where even a phone that wasn't picked up was presumed to have been picked up and thought a gun. So he is texting me on the phone rather than picking it up and calling me. I think this is extremely important. When we were out working to get the CIP -- and I will never forget that Commissioner Teal (sp), who was probably the single most effective person in seeing it got through the -- and a vote, a positive vote by the City Commission -- said that the CIP needs to look at policies and procedures. And you probably will change the police more by looking at policies and procedures than just specifically individual complaints. And so, I applaud that I think it is important that you put these into policies and procedures. And even a more thorough review than here. I have to wonder what all those officers are doing outside a small strip club that could have hardly had fit in there if they had all gone. Drive by it some time. It is not very big. To not -- so the policies, particularly in this case, are egregious. And any one of a number of cases, had they been done according to a more proper procedure, Travis McNeil would be alive today. And the second conclusion I draw from it is we have heard the City say we don't need the Federal oversight to sign a consent decree to bring a monitor in, because everything is fine now. Well, I don't see any indication that these policies are any different now than they were then. We just maybe have been a little lucky that something more has not happened. And so, I would urge the CIP to use the issues in this policy and procedure as an example to urge the City to move quickly to sign that consent decree and have Federal oversight looking at all of their policies and procedures, in so far as they deal with deadly force, including those issues of training that could have made a difference as well. So I think you have a great opportunity here. But you need to also let the public know, so that we can -- because obviously, you can make recommendations and they are there. But those of out there can argue that those recommendations are not to be adhered to. But we are going to have to know though. And it is going to have to get that kind of publicity. So I thank you for extending your complaint period and going back and looking at the procedures. And I think we need to move forward and make sure that any of these cases in the future that can be prevented are prevented. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Thank you, Mr. Brown. Ms. Baker, you will have the last word on behalf of the public.

City of Miami Page 56 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

MS. BAKER: Well, thank you for hearing me. I don't want to cut off anyone, who might also want to speak. But let me just say two points. First, the question was raised: Why could there not be findings? Well, because the timeframe when you undertook this review of the NAACP complaint was out of time. And you did the best you could. I need to just clarify for the record, in February of 2011, the NAACP and the ACLU jointly filed a complaint in writing before this panel. Most of you weren't on it at the time. Perhaps, there is only one or two who were. But that complaint specified the Travis McNeil case among the seven we asked to be reviewed. There was a different panel and a different approach. And the case was not reached by the panel within a timeframe in which it could have made actual findings sustaining misconduct complaints. So I just think it is important that the record reflect that. I think it is very positive that you responded so really in detail and specificity and with an excellent degree of analysis to the recently renewed filing by the NAACP. So my first pointy though is to set the record straight. Some of you were on the panel then. Some of you have heard the coalition make many complaints. We stood here many times begging that those investigations go forward when you were still within the timeframe when you could have made findings. Okay. That is the history. Going forward is most important. The second point that I want to make is that the kind of analysis that you have done here is one of the main things the coalition was asking for with respect to all seven of those complaints. Not to just look at that last moment when an officer might have a basis to say, "I was in fear of my life." But to look at everything that led up to it. Because in this case, it is a tragic story. There were so many points, as Major Lucas has pointed out. I think you said 28 different things that were not done well and strategically and correctly in advance. If any of them had been different, the outcome might have been different. We have urged this approach. The DOJ in its findings said that a major problem with the Internal Affairs investigations of shootings in Miami was that the Internal Affairs investigations don't look at each step of the way to see where things could have come out differently if they were more done appropriately to begin with. So I just want to really urge the panel to stick with this approach that you are now using. And I think that Mr. Brown's comments reflecting what Commissioner Teal said to us over a decade ago really should be reemphasized. And I want to re-endorse them. When Commissioner Teal said, looking at the policies and procedures might do more to change the police than just looking at individual misconduct cases, I think he didn't just mean looking at the written policies. He didn't just mean going to the police department manual and checking are things logically laid out. I think he meant looking at the way the police operate, that level of policy and procedure. So I really want to commend, first of of all, the panel for hearing this case now. And for what it sounds like you have already, Chairman, asked Major Lucas to do to really tell the police department what you found with respect to the different things that could have been done differently.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: And we will publish that report to the media as well. All right. That closes the public portion of our discussion today. Don't go away, Major Lucas. Mr. Mays?

MR. MAYS: Yes. It is important that I correct two things. A, with respect to the previous panel, as it is referred to, the previous panel undertook a very methodical and assiduous task to look at everything. Now, there is a question as to when could the City -- I mean the CIP look at things. Obviously, it could not interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation during the time that the State Attorney's Office had the file. And Mr. Lucas has made reference to -- what was it, a year and some five months? I forget how many - but whatever period of time he is talking about. But at any rate, by law, you could not do anything. And then subsequent to that, there came a point in time when the gentleman was fired by the City of Miami Police Department. The ordinance and the charter says that you no longer have jurisdiction once the man is fired. So it is important that you look at the record in its totality as opposed to cherry picking certain dates and certain times. And I don't want to get into a debate. But that is the truth and that is accurate. CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: All right. Now, let me ask you something? The ordinance says

City of Miami Page 57 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

that once the man is fired, he is no longer under our jurisdiction.

MR. MAYS: That is correct.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: But would that preclude us from having an investigation nonetheless, even though we don't end up voting on anything?

MR. MAYS: I don't think -- I think it would preclude us, sir. Yes, sir. I think it would. And perhaps, that is something that we need to examine with respect to the ordinance revision committee. Let's face it.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Certainly.

MR. MAYS: I have stated it and others have stated it. And I will repeat it again. An individual case of police misconduct and bringing some sort of resolution there, that only affects that individual. The big and the most important thing, of course, of the underlying policies. That is what governs, that is what affects all of us. And here, from the standpoint of the policy issues that we have previously identified and we have made reference to tonight, that is to say don't ride around in these cars that look every much like your car, my car and anyone else's car and expect people to treat you as a law enforcement officer. If I had been in that vehicle, I would have thought I was going to be subject of a carjacking.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: I agree. I agree. Okay. Thank you very much. I am going to come back at next month's meeting. And I am going to bring a resolution for today. I will call it the Travis McNeil resolution. And it will be a resolution from a request from the Civilian Investigative Panel to the City of Miami, City Commission and to the City Manager asking them that the next time that they sit down for the collective bargaining agreement, that portion of the agreement that allows a police officer, who is properly fired to be reinstated, I want that removed from the collective bargaining agreement. And I don't care if that is the only thing they get tough and hard on. That is important. A bad cop should not remain on the force, especially one carrying a gun. All right. You are going to - Major Lucas, you are going to work on your report?

MR. LUCAS: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: And hopefully, you will bring it to us long before we have our next meeting. As soon as it is ready, maybe in about three weeks? All right. Excellent job, sir. In Saturday's Miami Herald there was a story that surprised the daylights out of me. There is a bill before the State legislature that will prohibit city police departments or county police departments or Florida police departments from publishing the work histories of police officers. So in effect, the work history of Officer Reynaldo Goyos could, in effect, if this bill is passed, be hidden forever and never be considered again by a future employer. I think that is wrong. I think that is dangerous. And I think that is a privilege that is not afforded regular people. You want to comment?

MR. MAYS: No, sir. What they are doing, they are trying to make an additional exemption or an additional -- they are trying to expand the public records law exemption, if you will. And it would indeed do those things that you are talking about.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Yes. And I sent a message to State Representative Carlos Trujillo, who is chairing the subcommittee, and told him I oppose that. And I would like to know that we can send him a message saying that the Civilian Investigative Panel opposes that.

MR. MAYS: Mr. Chair, I would advise us against that. Let me tell you why.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: Why?

MR. MAYS: And the reason being is because it is not within the scope of what we do. Where I share your sentiments regarding that proposed bill. In fact, it is more expansive

City of Miami Page 58 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

than you have commented on. In that it will shield the identity not only of the law enforcement officer, the family members, children, et cetera. Where it will actually end up? Who knows. But the question is: Whether or not we are empowered to lobby in that regard? And I don't think we are.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: All right.

MR. MAYS: But of course, you are free to ignore --

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: As individuals, we can?

MR. MAYS: Yes. But you are free to ignore my advice.

CHAIRMAN AGUIRRE: No, no, no, no, no, no.mWe politely listen. But as individuals, we can lobby for our own beliefs.

MR. MAYS: Oh. Indeed, sir.

City of Miami Page 59 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

D. SUMMARY JUDGEMENTS

D.1 DISCUSSION ITEM

15-00203 Case: David Canton CIP#: 15-010 IA#: 14-060

Involved Officer(s): Javier Herbello, 40748 Diyango Fernandez, 40746 Rolando Padron, 5467

Allegation(s): Negligence of Duty (Motion to close as No Finding passed) Improper Procedure (Motion to close as No Finding passed)

DOI: March 18, 2013

Investigated by: Elisabeth Albert

Mr. David Canton was involved in a hit and run accident at SW 27th Avenue and 8th Street and two City of Miami officers responded. The offending vehicle was located and the driver responded back to the scene with her vehicle. During the course of the investigation, it was determined the driver of the offending vehicle, Ms. Jimena Castenedamelo, did not have a valid driver's license. Ms. Castenedamelo was permitted by officers to sign a Promise to Appear Arrest Affidavit and left the area on foot. Ms. Castenedamelo was not charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident with Property Damage. Mr. Canton felt Ms. Castenedamelo was shown favoritism because she was not charged with the hit and run.

Internal Affairs Substantiated the allegation of Improper Procedure and Negligence of Duty against Officer Herbello based on the below listed Departmental Orders:

Departmental Order 1, Chapter 11: Rules and Regulations:

11.6.1.2 Members and Civilian Employees to Know Rules and Regulations: It shall be the duty of all members and civilian employees of the Police Department to thoroughly familiarize themselves with such provisions of the rules and Regulations that deal specifically and generally with the duties of their rank, grade, or position. This should occur within ten days from the date of issuance. Within thirty days of issuance, every member and every civilian employee shall familiarize himself or herself with all the provisions of the Rules and Regulation. Failure on the part of any member or civilian employee to acquaint himself/herself with the provision of the Rules and Regulations, as hereby directed, shall be considered negligence of duty and subject to disciplinary action.

11.6.13.1 Responsibility of Members: Members of the department, at all times within the boundaries of the City of Miami, shall observe the laws; preserve the

City of Miami Page 60 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

public peace; prevent crimes; detect and arrest violators of the law; protect life and property; enforce all criminal laws of the federal government, the State of Florida, the county of Miami Dade, and the ordinances of the City of Miami, of which the Police department takes cognizance; and render service to the City and citizens of the City with zeal, courage, fidelity, and loyalty.

11.6.28.3 Members an Civilian Employees to Conform: Members and civilian employees shall be required to conform to and abide by the rules and Regulation, Departmental Orders and other directives of the Police Department, the Ordinances of the City of Miami and the county of Dade, and the laws of the State of Florida and the United States of America.

Departmental Order 12, Chapter 4: Crash Investigation:

4.4.2 Florida Traffic Crash Report: Whenever there is an event on public property that results in unintended injury which is attributed directly or indirectly to the motion of a motor vehicle or its load, a crash report will be made in accordance with Florida State Statute Chapter 316. In cases of hit and run crashes, regardless of the extent of damage or the location of the crash within the city of Miami, a Florida Crash Report and a Leave-The-Scene Report will be made. Private property crashes will be investigated and reported in cases of serious injury, hit and run, D.U.I., reckless driving, or no valid driver's license.

4.4.7.9 In all crashes where either a vehicle or the driver left the scene, a hit and run card will be made. This will be done even if the driver or vehicle is apprehended in the field and the hit and run cleared. Do not fill in the information on the Crash Report unless you have the hit and run vehicle and the information on the vehicle can be verified.

Departmental Order 12, Chapter 2: Traffic Enforcement:

2.4 PROCEDURES: Even though the city of Miami Police Department does not issue written warning, officers are allowed to use their discretion to give verbal warnings.

2.4.1 Warnings: Verbal traffic warnings should not be issued in the following circumstances:

2.4.1.5 Accidents

Departmental Order 11, Chapter 16: Arrest Procedures:

16.3 RESPONSIBILITIES: Every sworn member, when effecting an arrest, will be responsible for the following:

16.3.4 Fully an accurately completing the complaint/arrest affidavit and any other applicable reports.

16.4.10 Misdemeanor "Notice to Appear" Arrests: If a person is arrested without a warrant or capias for an offense declared to be a misdemeanor of the

City of Miami Page 61 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

first or second degree, or for a violation of a municipal or county ordinance that is prosecutable in the County Court, and he does not demand to be taken before a magistrate, the arresting officer may issue such a person a "Notice to Appear," unless

16.4.10.1 The accused fails or refuses to sufficiently identify himself or supply the required information.

16.4.10.3 The accused has no ties with the jurisdiction reasonably sufficient to assure his/her appearance, or there is substantial risk that he/she will refuse to respond to the notice.

16.4.10.9 If the arresting officer, in lieu of issuance of a "Notice to Appear", determines that the accused person should be taken to police headquarters, a supervisor may issue a "Notice to Appear" if he/she determines that there is a likelihood that the accused will appear as directed, based on a reasonable investigation of the following:

16.4.10.9.1 Length of residence in the community

16.4.10.9.2 Family ties

16.4.10.9.3 Employment records

16.4.10.9.5 Past record of convictions

16.4.10.9.6 Past history of appearance at court proceedings

16.4.10.9.8 The arresting officer shall prepare the standard arrest form containing the name and address of the person, the offense charged, the name of the arresting officer, and the signature of the person. "Notice to Appear" will proceed with the above-mentioned information. The original report will be delivered to the Central District for processing.

Internal Affairs Substantiated the allegation of Misconduct against Officer Fernandez based on the below listed Departmental Orders:

11.6.1.2 Members and Civilian Employees to Know Rules and Regulations: It shall be the duty of all members and civilian employees of the Police Department to thoroughly familiarize themselves with such provisions of the rules and Regulations that deal specifically and generally with the duties of their rank, grade, or position. This should occur within ten days from the date of issuance. Within thirty days of issuance, every member and every civilian employee shall familiarize himself or herself with all the provisions of the Rules and Regulation. Failure on the part of any member or civilian employee to acquaint himself/herself with the provision of the Rules and Regulations, as hereby directed, shall be considered negligence of duty and subject to disciplinary action.

11.6.13.1 Responsibility of Members: Members of the department, at all times within the boundaries of the City of Miami, shall observe the laws; preserve the

City of Miami Page 62 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

public peace; prevent crimes; detect and arrest violators of the law; protect life and property; enforce all criminal laws of the federal government, the State of Florida, the county of Miami Dade, and the ordinances of the City of Miami, of which the Police department takes cognizance; and render service to the City and citizens of the City with zeal, courage, fidelity, and loyalty.

11.6.17 Disciplinary Action - General Offenses: A member or civilian employee of the Department found guilty of violating a rule, regulation, provision of a general or special order, or any of the offenses below, or upon conviction in a court having criminal jurisdiction, shall be subject to reprimand, suspension, dismissal, or suffer other disciplinary action as the Chief of Police may impose. 11.6.17.7 Conduct unbecoming a police officer that shall include any act or conduct not specifically mentioned in these Rules and Regulations that tends to bring the Department into disrepute or reflects discredit upon the individual member as a police officer.

11.6.5.6 To Be Booked Without Delay: A member making an arrest shall convey the prisoner, or cause him to be conveyed, to the appropriate prisoner processing facility to be booked without delay. He/she shall not, at any time, accompany him to his home or room or elsewhere, except with the consent of a superior officer. Every person arrested for any cause shall be brought to Headquarters, and the arrest will be properly recoded, unless otherwise ordered by written directive.

All prisoners will always be taken directly to their point of detention. Drivers may stop to pick up other prisoners; but they will not respond to calls while they have prisoners in their vehicles, unless such response is deemed essential to prevent sever bodily harm, and then only with supervisory approval.

Under normal circumstances a prisoner will not be kept in a transporting vehicle for over one (1) hour. All prisoners will be taken to their point of detention as expeditiously as possible.

11.6.28.3 Members an Civilian Employees to Conform: Members and civilian employees shall be required to conform to and abide by the rules and Regulation, Departmental Orders and other directives of the Police Department, the Ordinances of the City of Miami and the county of Dade, and the laws of the State of Florida and the United States of America.

Departmental Order 11, Chapter 16: Arrest Procedures:

16.4.21 Transportation of Prisoners: Officers must adequately provide for the safe and secure transportation of prisoners, and in addition will adhere to the following procedures:

16.4.21.1 Officers must search prisoners prior to placing a prisoner in a police vehicle. It cannot be assumed that a prisoner is free of weapons or contraband, even if previously searched. The responsibility for the search is incumbent on the officer who places the prisoner in the police vehicle.

City of Miami Page 63 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

16.4.21.2 Prisoners will be transported directly to a poice station or a Miami-Dade Jail or holding facility. If there is a delay in transporting, or another destination, supervisory approval is required.

16.4.21.3 Vehicles used to transport prisoners are to be inspected at the beginning of each tour of duty to ensure that the vhekcle is safe to operate and is properly equipped.

16.4.21.4 Officers are required to search the transport vehicle before and after transporting prisoners.

16.4.21.4.1 All vehicles used for transporting prisoners must have the driver separated from the prisoner by a clear safety barrier, which prevents the prisoner from having access to the driver's compartment.

16.4.21.4.2 Each patrol vehicle used for transporting prisoners must have the window cranks and door handles removed from the rear compartment. The door release locks should operate from the front compartment or from the outside of the vehicle. This would minimize the opportunity for the prisoner to exit from the rear compartment.

16.4.21.6 If vehicles without cages are used to transport, the officer shall:

16.4.21.6.1 Place the prisoner in the right rear seat.

16.4.21.6.2 Position one officer in the rear seat with the prisoner.

16.4.21.10 Prisoners will be transported by officers of the same sex whenever possible.

16.4.21.11 When a prisoner must be transported by an officer of the opposite sex, the transporting officer will:

16.4.21.11.1 Advise the dispatcher when he/she is departing and his/her mileage.

16.4.21.11.2 Advise the dispatcher when he/she has arrived a his/her destination and his/her mileage.

16.4.21.11.3 Record the departure and arrival times and mileage on his/her worksheet.

16.4.21.12 When a prisoner must be transported by officers of the opposite sex, the transporting officer should, if practicable, have a second officer accompany or follow him/her to the destination.

Internal Affairs Substantiated the allegation of Improper Procedure against Sergeant Padron based on the below listed Departmental Orders:

Departmental Order 11, Chapter 16: Arrest Procedures:

City of Miami Page 64 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

16.4.10 Misdemeanor "Notice to Appear" Arrests: If a person is arrested without a warrant or capias for an offense declared to be a misdemeanor of the first or second degree, or for a violation of a municipal or county ordinance that is prosecutable in the County Court, and he does not demand to be taken before a magistrate, the arresting officer may issue such a person a "Notice to Appear," unless

16.4.10.1 The accused fails or refuses to sufficiently identify himself or supply the required information.

16.4.10.3 The accused has no ties with the jurisdiction reasonably sufficient to assure his/her appearance, or there is substantial risk that he/she will refuse to respond to the notice.

16.4.10.9 If the arresting officer, in lieu of issuance of a "Notice to Appear", determines that the accused person should be taken to police headquarters, a supervisor may issue a "Notice to Appear" if he/she determines that there is a likelihood that the accused will appear as directed, based on a reasonable investigation of the following:

16.4.10.9.1 Length of residence in the community

16.4.10.9.2 Family ties

16.4.10.9.3 Employment records

16.4.10.9.5 Past record of convictions

16.4.10.9.6 Past history of appearance at court proceedings

16.4.10.9.8 The arresting officer shall prepare the standard arrest form containing the name and address of the person, the offense charged, the name of the arresting officer, and the signature of the person. "Notice to Appear" will proceed with the above-mentioned information. The original report will be delivered to the Central District for processing.

16.4.10.9.8 The arresting officer shall prepare the standard arrest form containing the name and address of the person, the offense charged, the name of the arresting officer, and the signature of the person. "Notice to Appear" will proceed with the above-mentioned information. The original report will be delivered to the Central District for processing.

16.4.29 All reports concerning an arrest, must be reviewed by a supervisor. The supervisor must ensure the reports are thoroughly completed and contain the proper elements.

Recommendation:

CIP Staff recommends that the allegations of Improper Procedure and Negligence of Duty be closed as No Finding because the Complainant is satisfied

City of Miami Page 65 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

with the Internal Affairs investigation and requested the CIP close our case without further action.

Procedural History:

01/16/2015 The Internal Affairs ("IA") investigative report was obtained.

01/20/2015 Independent Counsel and the Executive Director conducted a preliminary review of the case.

01/20/2015 Case assigned to Investigator Albert for investigation.

01/20/2015 A 10-day letter accompanied by the IA Report was forwarded to the Complainant.

01/20/2015 An initial notification letter was mailed to the Principal Officer.

01/28/2015 Officer Herbello was hired on 07/23/2012 and has had 1 citizen complaint and 7 use of force incidents. Officer Fernandez was hired on 07/23/2012 and has had 2 citizen complaints. Officer Padron was hired on 03/11/1997 and has had 2 citizen complaints and 6 use of force incidents.

02/11/2015 Case submitted for closure with Investigator's recommendation.

03/06/2015 The Complaints Committee voted to accept Staff's recommendation.

03/17/2015 The Panel voted to accept Staff's recommendation. CLOSED AS NO FINDING

City of Miami Page 66 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

D.2 DISCUSSION ITEM

15-00225 Case: Latavia Brown CIP#: 15-005 IA#: 14-130S

Involved Officer(s): Peter Reynolds, 6006

Allegation(s): Discourtesy (motion to close as No Finding passed)

DOI: June 17, 2014

Investigated by: Elisabeth Albert

Ms. Brown alleged that while she was shopping at Winn Dixie, 1150 NW 54th Street, Officer Reynolds approached her small children and screamed at them.

The CIP contacted the Complainant who expressed her desire to pursue her complaint; however she has failed to respond to telephone messages attempting to schedule to meet with her.

Internal Affairs closed the allegation of Discourtesy as Inconclusive because there were no independent witnesses to prove or disprove the allegation.

Recommendation:

CIP Staff recommends that the allegation of Discourtesy be closed as No Finding because the Complainant is unavailable to clarify the complaint.

Procedural History:

01/15/2015 The Internal Affairs ("IA") investigative report was obtained.

01/15/2015 Independent Counsel and the Executive Director conducted a preliminary review of the case.

01/15/2015 Case assigned to Investigator Albert for investigation.

01/16/2015 A 10-day letter accompanied by the IA Report was forwarded to the Complainant.

01/16/2015 An initial notification letter was mailed to the Principal Officer.

01/18/2015 Officer Reynolds was hired on 01/13/1992 and has had 14 citizen complaints and 7 use of force incidents.

02/02/2015 Telephone contact was made with the Complainant who expressed her unhappiness with Sergeant Sabrina Richard and the Internal Affairs investigation.

City of Miami Page 67 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

02/10/2015 Internal Affairs file was obtained and reviewed.

02/11/2015 A message was left for Ms. Brown advising the IA file was obtained and requesting she contact the CIP in order to schedule an appointment to meet to discuss her complaint.

02/17/2015 A message was left for Ms. Brown requesting she contact the CIP.

11/03/2015 Case submitted for closure with Investigator's recommendation.

03/06/2015 The Complaints Committee voted to accept Staff's recommendation.

03/17/2015 The Panel voted to accept Staff's recommendation. CLOSED AS NO FINDING

City of Miami Page 68 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

D.3 DISCUSSION ITEM

15-00148 Case: Messilina Parks CIP#: 14-270 IA#: 14-109

Involved Officer(s): Toshiba Johnson #27419

Allegation(s): Misconduct (No Finding) Discourtesy (No Finding)

DOI: April 28, 2014

Investigated by: Michael Lucas

On April 28, 2014 at 08:15 hours, while off-duty, Officer Toshiba Johnson attended a student mediation at Miramar High School. The mediation was in reference to a fight that occurred on campus on April 22, 2014 between four female students, one of which is Officer Johnson's daughter. During the mediation Officer Johnson became upset over a statement allegedly made by the parent of one of the parties Officer Johnson screamed, "I'm the only one certified to carry a gun and I will fuck you up." Officer Defalco (Miramar Police Department) who was on the scene helped keep the argument from escalating with the Park's family (Messilina Parks, Frederick Parks and Steven Roundtree). Assistant Principal Mr. Murray advised that the meeting was over and that everyone had to leave the school grounds. Officer Johnson was advised to leave campus four times and escorted her to their vehicle. Officer Johnson was cursing and being disruptive as she was being escorted off campus. Officer Johnson advised the school resource officer that Messilia Parks should have arrested because the City of Miami Police Department, where she is employed, would have considered that a threat and arrested her. Officer Johnson stated that the Miramar Police Department are pussies. Officer Johnson finally left the campus when threatened with arrest for trespassing Officer Juan Ulfe informed Officer Johnson that he would have to inform her police department the incident. Officer Juan Ulfe documented the incident on an Incident Investigation Report (Miramar Police Department case number 14-04-05374).

Internal Affairs closed the allegation of Misconduct as Inconclusive based on conflicting statements by witnesses.

Internal Affairs closed the allegation of Discourtesy as Sustained based on the statement of Officer Ulfe and other witnesses.

12/05/2014 Receive IA profile for Officer Johnson. Officer Johnson was hired October 2005. Officer Johnson has received 2 citizen complaints and has been relieved of duty 1 time.

City of Miami Page 69 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

Recommendation:

CIP Staff recommends that the allegations of Discourtesy and Misconduct be closed as No Finding because the complainant refused to cooperate with the investigation.

Procedural History:

12/03/2014 The Internal Affairs (“IA”) investigative report was obtained.

12/03/2014 Executive Director conducted a preliminary review of the case.

12/03/2014 Independent Counsel conducted a preliminary review of the case.

12/03/2014 Case assigned to Investigator Lucas for investigation.

12/03/2014 10-day letter and copy of IA report mailed to Complainant Messilina Parks. Letters also mailed to Officers Ulfe and Defalco of the Miramar Police Department.

12/05/2014 Received a telephone call from Officer Johnson. Officer Johnson stated that she is fighting the findings of the IA investigation. Officer Johnson stated that she is willing to give a statement and she would be in contact next week.

12/09/2014 Received complete IA file and statements.

12/23/2014 Left Message for the complainant to call in reference to this case.

01/06/2015 To date CIP staff has not had any contact with the complainant, nor has Officer Johnson called back as she sated she would.

02/02/2015 Case submitted for closure with investigator's recommendation.

02/19/2015 Invitation to testify at complaints committee meeting on March 6, 2015 and the CIP meeting on March 17, 2015 sent to complainant and principle officer.

03/06/2015 Complaints Committee concurs with staff recommendation.

03/17/2015 CIP Panel concurred with complaint committee recommendations CLOSED AS NO FINDING

City of Miami Page 70 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

D.4 DISCUSSION ITEM

15-00201 Case: Gabriel Serru CIP#: 15-002 IA#: 14-136S

Involved Officer(s): Vincent Miller #4785

Allegation(s): Discourtesy (No Finding)

DOI: June 30, 2014

Investigated by: Michael Lucas

Mr. Gabriel Serru stated that on June 30, 2014, at approximately 2130 hours, Officer Vincent Miller #4785, approached him together with a Publix Employee he had a difference of opinion with and proceeded to antagonize him in an effort to elicit a negative reaction from Mr. Serru. Officer Miller was working off duty.

Internal Affairs closed the allegation of Discourtesy as Inconclusive based on the lack of independent witnesses.

01/28/201 Received IA profile for Officer Miller. Officer Miller was hired February 28, 1994. Officer Miller has received 7 citizen complaints, 1 driving complaint, and has 15 instances of use of force noted.

Recommendation:

CIP Staff recommends that the allegation of Discourtesy be closed as No Finding because the complainant refused to cooperate with the investigation.

Officer Miller has received 4 citizen complaints in the past year, regardless of finding. It is recommended that Officer Miller be placed on the monitoring list for one year from the date of the panel's recommendation.

Procedural History:

01/15/2015 The Internal Affairs (“IA”) investigative report was obtained.

01/15/2015 Executive Director conducted a preliminary review of the case.

01/15/2015 Independent Counsel conducted a preliminary review of the case.

01/15/2015 Case assigned to Investigator Lucas for investigation.

01/15/2015 A 10-day letter accompanied by the IA Report was forwarded to the Complainant.

01/22/2015 An initial notification letter was mailed to the Principal Officer.

City of Miami Page 71 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

01/28/2015 Received completed IA file, including video and recorded statements, for this case.

02/10/2015 Made contact with the complainant via telephone. Complainant stated that none of the employees who gave statements to IA were present the night of the incident. Therefore, he believes the employees at Publix lied in order to protect Officer Miller; He believes nothing can be done as long as the employees protect Officer Miller. The complainant was asked to provide additional information and he declined by saying that he has not seen Officer Miller at Publix and knowing that he will not have any further contact with Officer Miller is enough.

02/10/2015 Case submitted for closure with investigator's recommendation.

02/19/2015 Invitation to testify at complaints committee meeting on March 6, 2015 and the CIP meeting on March 17, 2015 sent to complainant and principle officer.

03/06/2015 Complaints Committee concurs with staff recommendation

03/17/2015 CIP Panel concurred with complaint committee recommendations CLOSED AS NO FINDING

City of Miami Page 72 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

D.5 DISCUSSION ITEM

15-00255 Case: William Diffenbaugh CIP#: 15-011 IA#: 14-113S

Involved Officer(s): Allixen Stevens II #27239 Eugene Roque #28620

Allegation(s): Discourtesy (No Finding) Improper Procedure (No Finding)

DOI: January 3, 2014

Investigated by: Michael Lucas

Mr. William Diffenbaugh stated that on May 27, 2014, Officers Allixen Stevens II and Eugene Roque yelled and screamed at him and called his employer to get him fired after a traffic stop.

Internal Affairs closed the allegation of Discourtesy against Officer Stevens as Inconclusive.

Internal Affairs closed the allegation of Discourtesy and Improper Procedure against Officer Roque as Inconclusive.

01/28/2015: Received IA profile for Officer Roque and Officer Stevens II. • Officer Roque was hired February 01, 2008. Officer Roque has received 2 citizen complaints and has 5 instances of use of force noted. • Officer Stevens II was hired May 31 , 2005. Officer Stevens II has received 1 citizen complaints and has 0 instances of use of force noted. Recommendation:

CIP Staff recommends that the allegation of Discourtesy and Improper Procedure against Officer Roque and the allegation of Discourtesy against Officer Stevens be closed as No Finding because the Complainant is unavailable to clarify the complaint.

Procedural History:

01/16/2015 The Internal Affairs (“IA”) investigative report was obtained.

01/20/2015 Independent Counsel and the Executive Director conducted a preliminary review of the case.

01/20/2015 Case assigned to Investigator Lucas for investigation.

01/20/2015 A 10-day letter accompanied by the IA Report was forwarded to the Complainant.

City of Miami Page 73 Printed on 7/27/2015 Civilian Investigative Panel Marked Agenda March 17, 2015

01/20/2015 An initial notification letter was mailed to the Principal Officer.

01/28/2015 Received completed IA file, including recorded statements, for this case.

02/11/2015 Telephoned the complainant and received no answer. Left a message for complainant to call back.

02/20/2015 To date, CIP staff has not had any contact with the complainant. All attempts to contact the complainant have been unsuccessful.

02/20/2015 Case submitted for closure with investigator's recommendation.

02/20/2015 Invitation to testify sent to complainant and principle officers.

02/23/2015 Letter returned by USPS with a notation of “ Return to Sender, Vacant, Unable to Forward”

03/06/2015 Complaints Committee concurs with staff recommendation.

03/17/2015 CIP Panel concurred with complaint committee recommendations

MOVED: Eileen Damaso

SECONDED: Douglas R. Mayer

Motion that this matter be CLOSED AS NO FINDING PASSED unanimously.

Motion to approve all of the No Findings passed unanimously

City of Miami Page 74 Printed on 7/27/2015