April 21, 2020 Deputy Brandon Hudson (S11088) Denver Sheriff

Mary J. Dulacki Deputy Director Department of Public Safety

April 21, 2020

Deputy Brandon Hudson (S11088) Denver Sheriff Department Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse

Re: DSD Case Number S2018-0735

Deputy Hudson:

This is official notification that, after an independent review by the Office of the Executive Director of the Department of Safety, you are being dismissed effective immediately for conduct that violated the Career Service Rule and Denver Sheriff Department (DSD) Rules and Regulations set forth below and discussed more fully in the attached Determination of Discipline.

Career Service Rule 16-28 Grounds for Discipline:

R. Conduct which violates the Career Service Rules, the City Charter, the Denver Revised Municipal Code, Executive Order, written departmental or agency regulations, policies or rules, or any other applicable legal authority.

As it pertains to:

Denver Sheriff Department Rules and Regulations

RR-500.2 – Negligent Handling of City or Department Property

Deputy sheriffs and employees shall not willfully, carelessly, or negligently lose, damage, or destroy any City or Department equipment, vehicle, or other property.

Under the DSD disciplinary matrix, a violation of RR-500.2, Negligent Handling of City or Department Property, is a Conduct Category A through F violation.

As it pertains to:

Department of Public Safety 1331 Cherokee St. #302 | Denver, CO 80204 www.denvergov.org/safety p. 720-913-6020 | f. 720-913-7028

RR-200.4.2 – Commission of a Deceptive Act

In connection with any investigation or any judicial or administrative proceeding, deputy sheriffs and employees shall not knowingly commit a materially deceptive act including, but not limited to, departing from the truth verbally, making a false report, or intentionally omitting information.

Under the DSD disciplinary matrix, a violation of RR-200.4.2, Commission of a Deceptive Act, is a Conduct Category F violation.

CONTEMPLATION OF DISCIPLINE

You were served with a contemplation of discipline letter regarding this matter on March 13, 2020. At that time, a contemplation of discipline meeting was scheduled for April 1, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. in the Denver Sheriff Department (DSD) Downtown Detention Center (DDC) administrative conference room, located at 490 West Colfax Avenue, Denver Colorado.

The purpose of this meeting was to allow you to correct any errors in the Agency’s information or facts, to tell your side of the story, and to present any mitigating information as to why possible disciplinary action should not be taken against you. Present at this meeting was Sheriff Frances Gomez and Chief Elias Diggins. Present from the Conduct Review Unit (CRU) was Ms. Gillian Fahlsing and, telephonically, Mr. Nate Emswiller and Ms. Brigitte Sadler. Present, telephonically, from the Office of the Independent Monitor was Mr. Gregg Crittenden. Present, telephonically, from the City Attorney’s office was Ms. Jennifer Jacobson. Present, telephonically, from the Department of Safety was Ms. Mary Dulacki. You attended the meeting in person with your attorney, Mr. Reid Elkus, attending telephonically.

You began by apologizing for the missing rifle, accepting responsibility for your part in the event, saying you should “have handled better.” [See Contemplation of Discipline Hearing transcript, p. 3, ll. 40-43.] You apologized for failing to take adequate steps to ensure the rifle was properly returned to the appropriate staff at the Academy. [Id., p. 3, ll. 43-45.] You said that the various statements you have given in the matter were not “intentionally misleading, inaccurate or deceptive in any fashion” and that you were doing your “very best to recall and retrace [your] steps from several years ago when the time of this investigation started.” [Id., p. 5, ll. 91-96.] You recounted that when you spoke with Detective Jason Rivera on December 4th, 2018, you told him “that Captain Wynn was the one who gave [you] the directive to take the … rifle to the academy, which would have been the second time in the course of the investigation that [you] mentioned that. The very first time that [you were] asked this questions was (sic) by Chief Coyle on November 7th, 2018. Major Alexander and Captain Garcia.]

You addressed questions of why a rifle assigned to the warrant car would be returned to the armory at the academy as opposed to the Court Services Armory. You cited two interviews of retired Deputy Donald Travis conducted by Investigator Bolton with the Administrative Investigation Unit1(AIU) in which Deputy Travis said he was “pretty sure” and he did believe that he was instructed to turn in his assigned rifle to the training academy. [Id., pp. 6-7, ll. 112-142.]

You then spoke of the “cursory investigation meeting” on November 7, 2018, conducted by Chief Coyle that included Major Alexander and Captain Garcia. You said that your statement that Captain Wynn gave you the directive was never provided to Detective Rivera or Investigator Bolton. [Id., pp. 5-7, ll. 143-152.] You questioned Captain Garcia’s AIU interview response that you said that you thought turning your rifle into the academy was “the right thing to do” – a statement which you disavow and note that neither Major Alexander or Chief Coyle included in their interview responses. [Id., p. 7, ll. 152-160.]

You raised questions about Captain Wynn’s responses given in his AIU interview with Investigator Bolton where he said he did not discuss this matter with Major Alexander or Chief Coyle and you pointed out that he was not asked about any conversations he had with Captain Garcia. [Id., pp. 8-9, ll. 161-181.] You suggested that was because Captain Garcia had already said that he may have communicated through emails with Captain Wynn about the subject and specifically recounted the meeting with Major Alexander and Chief Coyle where Chief Coyle called Captain Wynn. [Id., p. 9, ll. 182-100.] You point out that during his interview, Captain Wynn said he had no specific conversation with anyone about this subject “at least five times. [Id., p.10, ll. 201- 204.]

You then addressed a statement made by Sergeant Szumowski in his AIU interview in which he recalled your telling him that you “gave the rifle back to Richard Sawyer. [Id., p. 10, ll. 211-212.] You denied ever having such a conversation with Sergeant Szumowski and you pointed out that Richard Sawyer denied ever being approached by you about the AR -15. [Id., p.10, ll. 212-218.]

Your counsel, Mr. Elkus then addressed the group, pointing out your work performance and attention to detail that led to your assignment to elite specialty units within the DSD. [Id., p.12, 257-269.] Mr. Elkus suggested that the statements from former Deputy Travis corroborate your position that Captain Wynn told you to return your rifle to the academy. [Id., p. 13, ll. 290-296.]

PRIOR DISCIPLINE

You have no prior sustained disciplinary actions.

As will be discussed in the following Departmental Determination of Discipline, the evidence supports a finding that you violated the above-mentioned rules and regulations. The Department has concern regarding your ability to act responsibly and to conduct yourself appropriately while on duty. Your conduct has been in violation of the Department’s policies and procedures. Given the serious nature of your misconduct, dismissal is the only appropriate sanction available to address your egregious behavior.

1 The Administrative Investigations Unit (AIU) of the Public Integrity Division was previously known as the Denver Sheriff Department (DSD) Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB). For the sake of consistency, all references to the investigative entity in this document shall be to the AIU. Finally, please be reminded that you are not to take any retaliatory action against anyone as a result of this disciplinary action. If any such action is taken, further discipline may be contemplated and taken, up to and including dismissal.

Sincerely,

s/Mary J. Dulacki

Mary J. Dulacki Deputy Director of Safety

cc: Career Service Authority, Records Management Division S2018-0735 Case File

DEPARTMENTAL DETERMINATION OF DISCIPLINE Deputy Brandon Hudson (S11088) S2018-0735

After a thorough review of the Administrative Investigations Unit (AIU) investigation, the Executive Director of the Department of Safety’s Office has made the following findings of fact and determinations of discipline.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Deputy Brandon Hudson has been employed by the Denver Sheriff Department for more than ten years. On October 30, 2018, Captain Kelly Bruning completed an inventory of the DSD armories and the following rifle was identified as missing from the Court Services Armory: Smith & Wesson M&P15, serial number ST77793, (commonly referred to as an “AR-15”).

Following that discovery, Captain Joseph Garcia of the Court Services Division produced a field inquiry report into the missing firearm. The report determined that ST77793 was purchased in 2014 and then assigned to Deputy Eric Givens in the Fugitive Apprehension Unit2. Range records confirmed that the rifle was last used for qualification by Deputy Givens in May 2015. [See, “Incident Report Re: Missing AR-15”, p.1.] The report summarized efforts to locate the rifle, including the following:

October 31, 2018

• Captain Joseph Garcia contacted Deputy Terry Blethen who was assigned to the Fugitive Apprehension Unit when Deputy Hudson joined the Unit. Deputy Blethen recalled that he was offered the weapon previously assigned to Deputy Givens but had declined it; he recalled that the rifle was given to Deputy Hudson. [Id., pp. 1, 2.] • Captain Garcia spoke with Deputy Hudson who acknowledged that the rifle had been in his possession while he was assigned to the Warrant Car. Deputy Hudson said that he turned the rifle in to the Training Academy after his assignment but he could not recall to whom he turned it over. [Id., p. 2.] • Training Academy Captain Anthony Gettler instructed Deputy Angela Willis to conduct an inventory of the Training Armory. The missing rifle was not located. [Id., p. 2.] • Sergeant James Szumowski (previously assigned to the Training Academy as a Deputy) was asked if he recalled Deputy Hudson turning over the weapon to him and he did not. [Id., p. 2.]

November 5, 2018

• DSD Firearms Instructor Deputy William Beye confirmed that the last date any individual qualified with the rifle was Deputy Eric Givens on May 6, 2015. [Id., p. 2.]

2 The Fugitive Apprehension Unit is also commonly referred to as the “Warrant Car”. • Major Lanceferd Alexander had a telephone conversation with now Sergeant Eric Givens who said that he gave the rifle to his partner at the time, Deputy Don Travis, to give to Deputy Brandon Hudson, his replacement on the Warrant Car. [Id., p. 2.] • In a telephone conversation with Major Alexander, former Deputy Travis recalled reminding Deputy Givens that he should remove the expensive sights he had installed on the rifle before handing over the weapon to Deputy Hudson and he confirmed that the weapon was given to Deputy Hudson. [Id., p. 2.] • Chief Coyle asked former Training Academy Eishi Yamaguchi to search his records for any transaction related to ST77793. Deputy Yamaguchi responded that he had no record of the rifle being turned over to him or of the rifle in the Academy inventory while he was assigned to the Academy. [Id., p. 2.] • Emergency Response Unit (ERU) Deputies Ronald Thomas and Jonathan Decker responded that ST77793 was not included with rifles that had recently been moved from the Training Academy Armory to the Armory at the Downtown Detention Center. [Id., p. 2.] • Major Alexander contacted Deputy Blethen who said that he was never in possession of the rifle but was aware that it had been given to Deputy Hudson. [Id., p. 2.] • Major Alexander contacted Deputy Hudson who responded that he turned the weapon over to the Training Academy following his Warrant Car assignment three years ago. Deputy Hudson stated that he did not recall to whom he gave the rifle. Deputy Hudson also provided Major Alexander with the serial number of the personal AR-15 he uses during his assignment to the ERU3. [Id., p. 2.] • An additional search for the weapon was conducted, including serial number verifications of all rifles in all armories, the Civil Unit, ERU and serial number verification of ERU members’ personal AR-15 rifles. [Id., p. 3.]

November 6, 2018

• NCIC records show registration of ST77793 to DSD. [Id., p. 3.]

November 7, 2018

• Chief Coyle, Major Alexander, and Captain Garcia met with Deputy Hudson who said that he did not recall to whom at the Training Academy he turned in the rifle. Deputy Hudson recalled that during his assignment with the Fugitive Apprehension Unit, the rifle was stored in a safe mounted in the truck assigned to the Unit. Deputy Hudson also mentioned the names of three Training Academy staff instructors (Deputies Michelle Kim, Brown and Anthony St. Germain) who were assigned to the Academy at the time he turned in the rifle, though he could not specifically recall to whom he turned it in. [Id., p. 3.] • Sergeant James Vialpando told Major Alexander that he ensured the rifle safe was empty before the truck assigned to the Fugitive Apprehension Unit was traded in for a newer truck. [Id., p. 3.]

3 “ERU” is the abbreviation for the Emergency Response Unit of the Denver Sheriff Department. • Now-Sergeant Kim told Major Alexander she did not recall any interaction when she was a deputy assigned to the Training Academy with Deputy Hudson involving a rifle. [Id., p. 3.] • Now-Sergeant Brown told Major Alexander he did not recall any interaction when he was a deputy assigned to the Training Academy with Deputy Hudson involving a rifle. [Id., p. 3.] November 8, 2018

• Armory inventories for the last three years were sent to Chief Coyle. ST77793 appeared on only one inventory listing in 2014. [Id., p. 4.] • Former Training Academy Deputy Anthony St. Germain was contacted by Major Alexander and did not recall any interaction with Deputy Hudson involving any rifle. [Id., p. 4.]

Weapon and armory inventories were appended to the report and per an inventory dated November 12, 2014, ST77793 was assigned to Deputy Givens and the Warrant Car. [See Denver Sheriff Department AR-15/Shotgun Inventory Revised 11/12/2014.] The rifle did not appear on any other Court Services armory inventories and is not identified as missing until the October 2018 inventory.

On November 15, 2018, Senior Investigator Bruce Bolton with DSD Internal Affairs Bureau initiated an administrative investigation into the missing weapon. Investigator Bolton spoke with Detective Jason Rivera of the Denver Police Department who had been assigned the police follow- up investigation into the missing rifle. Detective Rivera advised there were no records of the rifle reported as stolen or registered to a new owner. At the time of their conversation, Detective Rivera had not spoken with Deputy Hudson. Later, Detective Rivera’s report memorialized a telephone conversation with Deputy Hudson on December 4, 2018:

Brandon stated at the direction of “Captain Wynn”, he dropped the AR rifle off at the Denver Sheriff academy. Specifically, Brandon stated he placed the AR rifle “in the last portion of the room that is closest to the opposite exit.”

In his interview with Investigator Bolton, Captain Kelly Bruning confirmed that in April of 2014 when he was the Captain over Court Services and the ERU, he purchased five Smith & Wesson M&P 15 (AR-15) rifles, including the missing rifle, serial number ST77793. [Bruning 11/20/2018 AIU Interview Transcript, pp. 1-2, ll. 23-42.] Captain Bruning said the rifle was part of the Court Services armory and was originally assigned to Deputy Givens when Deputy Givens was assigned to the warrant car with Deputy Travis. Captain Bruning added that Deputy Givens’ rifle was somehow transferred to Deputy Hudson. [Id., p. 3, ll. 65-71.] Captain Bruning confirmed that he requested an inventory of the various DSD armories and that led to the discovery that the rifle was missing. Captain Bruning was later told by Major Alexander that Deputy Hudson had acknowledged he had been given the rifle when assigned to the warrant car and that he turned the rifle into someone at the Training office but couldn’t recall who it was. When asked why someone would return a rifle assigned to Court Services to the Training Academy, Captain Bruning said that didn’t “make sense” and that the rifle should have been turned into the Court Services armory where it belonged. Captain Bruning also said that it didn’t make sense that Deputy Hudson could not remember to whom he returned the rifle. [Id., pp. 24-27, ll. 587-654.]

Deputy William Beye has been assigned to the DSD range since 2006 and referenced records showing that now Sergeant Eric Givens used ST77793 at the range three times, with the last date of May 5, 2015. There are no later records documenting the use of the rifle. [Beye 11/21/2018 AIU Transcript, pp. 4-5, ll. 84-117.] Deputy Beye said that there are no DSD assault rifles stored in the armory at the range, though there are Denver Police Department assault rifles stored separately there. [Id., p. 6, ll. 141-147.] He stated that he conducted a complete inventory of both armories and the rifle was not located. [Id., p. 7, ll. 163-174.]

During his interview with Investigator Bolton, Sergeant Eric Givens confirmed that when he was assigned to the Warrant Car, he was issued the now missing rifle, ST77793, [Givens 11/20/2018 AIU Interview Transcript, p. 3, ll. 58-60], and that he qualified with the weapon. [Id., p. 4, ll. 83- 85.] Sergeant Givens recalled that upon his promotion to sergeant, he was transferred from the Warrant Car. On his last day, he recalled he left the rifle with Deputy Travis and it was his understanding that Deputy Travis would either turn in the weapon or give it to his replacement. [Id., p. 5, ll. 109-118.] Sergeant Givens said that in a recent conversation with Deputy Hudson about the missing rifle, Deputy Hudson confirmed he had been given the weapon and that he turned it in. [Id., p. 6-7, ll. 147-156.]

Donald Travis retired from the DSD in November of 2016. In his interview with Investigator Bolton, former Deputy Travis recalled that when Deputy Givens promoted to sergeant, the rifle he had was turned over to Deputy Hudson. [Travis, 11/26/2018 AIU Interview Transcript, p. 3., ll. 51-60.] Mr. Travis recalled that his experience was that when he turned in equipment or vacated a position, an individual above him in his chain of command would accept the items and paperwork would be signed. [Id., p.4, ll. 81-97.] Mr. Travis was “pretty sure” that when he let his assignment, he turned his AR-15 into Captain Kafati at the Training Academy because there was a larger armory there. [Id., p. 11, ll. 268-282.] In a later interview, Mr. Travis recalled that he believed Captain Wynn told him to turn his weapon in at the Training Academy because there was no room in the armory at the courthouse. [Travis, 5/20/2019 AIU Interview Transcript, p. 2, ll. 30-34.] Mr. Travis stated that he turned the weapon into Captain Kafati’s office, and believed he handed it directly to Captain Kafati. [Id., p. 3, ll. 55-58.]

Retired Captain Jaime Kafati was interviewed by Investigator Bolton. Mr. Kafati was assigned to the Training Academy in 2015 [Kafati 11/27/2018 AIU Interview Transcript, p. 1, ll. 24-25], and recounted that if a weapon was turned in to the armory, it would show on the log which was maintained by Deputy Yamaguchi. [Id., p.2, ll. 40-43.] Mr. Kafati had no recollection of Deputy Hudson returning a weapon to him or his staff. [Id., p. 3., ll. 55-59.] When asked if he found it unusual for a deputy assigned to the warrant car to turn in a rifle to someone at the Training Academy, Mr. Kafati said it was not. [Id., p. 5, ll. 105-110.]

In a follow-up interview, Captain Kafati said that while he was a captain at the Training Academy, there was no rifle left unattended in the training office. [Kafati 5/29/2019 AIU Follow up Interview Transcript, p. 2, ll. 38-43.] He also said that he was never informed that a rifle was left unattended in the office [Id., p. 3, ll. 51-54], and that it would be “absolutely” unusual for someone to leave a weapon unattended in an office. [Id., p. 3, ll. 73-75.]

Deputy Eishi Yamaguchi was assigned to the Academy from December 2009 to January 2018, during which time his responsibilities included maintaining the Training Academy armory. [Yamaguchi 12/5/2018 AIU Interview Transcript, p.3, ll. 60-66.] Deputy Yamaguchi reported that most of the weapons in the Training Academy armory were ERU weapons, turned in by deputies leaving the ERU team. [Id., p. 6, ll. 127-129.] He explained the logging and inventory process used for the armory. When asked if someone issued a rifle as part of an assignment to the Warrant Car would turn the weapon into the Training Academy armory, Deputy Yamaguchi said that it would not have been accepted because it was not an ERU weapon and the serial number would not have appeared on the inventory. [Id., pp. 9-10, ll. 215-228.] He said that he would tell the deputy to turn the rifle into the armory from which it was assigned. [Id., p. 15, ll. 355-359.] Deputy Yamaguchi said that if Deputy Hudson had come in with his rifle, other staff would probably have directed Deputy Hudson to Deputy Yamaguchi. [Id., p. 22, ll. 526-535.] He also stated that Deputy Hudson did not turn in a rifle to him at the Training armory and he did not believe anyone else in Training accepted a rifle from him. [Id., pp. 24-25, ll. 589-613, p. 28, ll. 679-695.]

In a follow-up interview, Deputy Yamaguchi was asked if he or anyone else in the training office found an unattended AR-15 rifle in the office, and he responded no. [Yamaguchi 6/4/2019 Follow up AIU Interview Transcript, p. 3, ll. 63-69.] Based on his role and his responsibilities, Deputy Yamaguchi said that he would have been notified if another staff member found an unattended weapon. [Id., pp. 3-4, ll. 70-80.]

Sergeant Michelle Kim had been assigned to the Training Academy from 2013 to 2018 during which time she had no responsibilities for the armory. [Kim 12/6/2018 AIU Interview Transcript, p.2, ll. 34-37.] When asked if anyone, including Deputy Hudson, had ever turned in a M&P15 rifle to her during her assignment there, she responded no. [Id., pp. 2-3, ll. 43-53.] Sergeant Kim offered that Deputy Hudson had called her personal cell phone approximately two weeks prior to her interview and asked if she recalled him turning the gun into her, to which she responded she did not. [Id., p. 3, ll. 54-71.]

Sergeant Derrick Burroughs was reassigned to the Training Academy in June or July 2014 and he stated that the armory contained M-15 rifles that belonged to the ERU. [Burroughs 12/03/18 AIU Interview Transcript, pp. 2-3, ll. 49-54; p. 4, ll. 76-84.] Sergeant Burroughs said he did not recall Deputy Hudson ever approaching him to turn in an AR-15 rifle and noted he would not accept a firearm that was part of another division’s inventory. [Id., pp. 6-7, ll. 145-162.]

Anthony St. Germain is a former deputy sheriff and currently a Denver firefighter whose last assignment with DSD was with the Training Academy, assisting with the maintenance and inventories of ERU weapons in the armory. [St. Germain 11/28/2018 AIU Interview Transcript, p. 2., ll. 39-42.] He said that to his knowledge, no weapons assigned to the civil division were kept in the armory at the Academy. [Id., p. 2, ll. 43-50.] Mr. St. Germain said that he was unaware of any rifle left unattended in the Training Academy office. [St. Germain 7/29/2019 AIU Interview Transcript, pp. 1-2, ll. 24-30.] Mr. St. Germain said that he’d “never seen anybody leave any firearm unattended” and had that happened, he or Deputy Yamaguchi would have been notified. [Id., p. 3, ll. 53- 71.]

Sergeant James Szumowski recalled asking Deputy Hudson where the rifle was and Deputy Hudson responded he had turned it in to the Academy staff. Sergeant Szumowski asked Deputy Hudson to identify to whom he turned in the rifle and Deputy Hudson replied that he did not recall. [Szumowski 11/20/18 AIU Interview Transcript, p. 3., ll. 59-64.] Sergeant Szumowski recalled that when he asked this question in the locker room, “It felt like [he] hit a nerve” with Deputy Hudson and that his not remembering to whom he gave the weapon was concerning. [Id., p. 9, ll. 211-223.] Sergeant Szumowski recalled that during his time at the Training Academy, the only weapons kept in the armory were ERU weapons and random handguns. [Id., p. 6, ll. 128-133.] In a later interview, Sergeant Szumowski confirmed that while he was assigned to the Academy, no one had ever left a rifle unattended in the training office [Szumowski 5/30/2019 AIU Follow up Interview Transcript, p.5, ll. 102-107], and he never heard of anyone reporting discovering a rifle left unattended in their office in the training academy or court services. [Id., pp. 5-6, ll. 121-132.]

Major Lanceferd Alexander was interviewed by Investigator Bolton on December 11, 2018. He stated that he initially spoke with Deputy Hudson about the missing rifle by phone, and that Deputy Hudson told him he turned the rifle in to someone at the Training Academy but did not remember who. [Alexander 12/11/2018 AIU Interview Transcript, p. 3, ll. 63-67.] When asked if it was appropriate to turn in a rifle belonging to the Court Services armory to the armory at the Training Academy, Major Alexander replied no, that did not make sense. [Id., p. 8, ll. 186-197.] In response to the question of whether Deputy Hudson told him that he was ordered or directed to turn his rifle into the training office by Captain Wynn, Major Alexander replied no, that “Captain Wynn’s name never came up.” [Id., p. 10, ll. 234-241.] Major Alexander was asked if Deputy Hudson ever told him that he went to the training office to turn in the rifle, but no one was there, so he just left it, and Major Alexander replied that he was not told that. [Id., p.3, ll. 242-246.] Major Alexander said these two versions were “very inconsistent” because Deputy Hudson told him that he gave the rifle to someone but did not remember who. [Id., p. 11, ll. 252-258.]

Captain Joseph Garcia, Captain of Court Services was interviewed on November 26, 2018. Captain Garcia performed the field inquiry into the missing AR-15 and did not locate the missing rifle; however, he did confirm that Deputy Hudson admitted he was given the rifle and he was identified as the last person to have the rifle in his possession. [Garcia 11/26/2018 AIU Interview Transcript, pp. 9-10, ll. 225-237.] Captain Garcia met with Deputy Hudson and asked him what he did with his rifle and Deputy Hudson stated he turned it in to the Training Academy when his Warrant Car assignment ended. [Id., p. 12, ll. 296-298.] Captain Garcia asked Deputy Hudson specifically who he gave the rifle to and Deputy Hudson replied that he didn’t remember or recall. [Id., p. 12, ll. 298-300.] Captain Garcia said that it seemed odd that Deputy Hudson would return the rifle to the armory at the Academy because the Warrant Division is under Court Services and that “would make it a court services weapon.” [Id., p. 13, ll. 301-315.]

Captain Garcia recounted a meeting he attended with Chief Coyle and Major Alexander when Deputy Hudson was asked about returning the rifle to the Training Academy and he offered some names of individuals assigned to the Academy who could have received the rifle, including Willis, Burroughs and Yamaguchi, but he could not recall specifically who took receipt of the rifle. [Id., p. 19, ll. 452-466.] When asked why he would turn the rifle in to the Training Academy, Deputy Hudson said he didn’t know, that he thought that would be a good place to turn it in. [Id., p. 19, ll. 471-475.] Captain Garcia recalled that when asked if someone directed him to return the rifle to the Training Academy, Deputy Hudson replied no, he just thought it was the right thing to do. [Id., p. 20, ll. 477-479.]

Chief Connie Coyle oversaw the Court Services Division at the time ST77793 was identified as missing. [Coyle 3/5/2019 AIU Interview Transcript, p. 2, ll. 45-47.] Chief Coyle recalled that after learning of the missing rifle, she and Captain Garcia attempted to call Deputy Hudson but he did not respond to their calls. Major Alexander called him and Deputy Hudson returned that call while Chief Coyle was in the room. [Id., pp. 7-8, ll. 140-161.] Chief Coyle summarized the conversation, including that Deputy Hudson turned the rifle into someone at training whom he could not recall. [Id., p. 8, ll. 163-167.] The following day, Captain Garcia brought Deputy Hudson to a meeting in the DDC meeting room with Chief Coyle and Major Alexander to “walk through this” to try to find the weapon. [Id., p. 8, ll. 167-173.] She recalled that Deputy Hudson said that when he was taken off the Warrant Car, he was instructed to turn the rifle into Training. [Id., p. 9, ll. 177-179.] When asked who in training took receipt of the weapon, Deputy Hudson said he could not recall and became agitated, raising his voice, using profanity, asking why it was just discovered that the gun was missing, and saying that this happened over a year ago. [Id., p. 9, ll. 180-191.] Investigator Bolton asked Chief Coyle if she was certain that Deputy Hudson said he could not recall to whom he returned the rifle and she said, “He absolutely said that he turned it in to somebody; he could just not remember who it was.” [Id., pp. 11-12, ll. 214-236.]

Chief Coyle recalled that Deputy Hudson offered that during the relevant time, his wife was moving out and suggested that maybe she moved the rifle into storage. Deputy Hudson said he would check with his wife. [Id., p. 12, ll. 264-271.] Chief Coyle was asked if it made sense that Deputy Hudson reportedly turned the rifle into someone at the Training Academy and then offered his wife might have it, to which she replied no. [Id., p. 14, ll. 312-319.] Chief Coyle said that it also did not make sense that someone would leave a fully operational AR-15 unattended. [Id., p. 14, ll. 322-325.]

Deputy Hudson’s ex-wife Hudson stated that their divorce was final in November of 2016. [P. Hudson 3/5/2019 AIU Interview Transcript, p. 2, ll. 15-22.] Ms. Hudson recalled that Deputy Hudson asked her in 2017 if she had mistakenly packed the rifle when she was moving out. [Id., p. 4, 59-69.] Ms. Hudson confirmed that she had no interest in and never had the weapon. [Id., p. 5, ll. 78-83.] Ms. Hudson recalled that Deputy Hudson told her the rifle was missing; that he couldn’t find it; that he was accused of being a thief; that he thought he turned it in; and that he was trying to see if maybe he was mistaken. [Id., p. 6, ll. 108-113.]

Deputy Ronald Thomas worked with Deputy Hudson in the Court Services unit at the time of his interview and recalled a discussion he had with Deputy Hudson about the missing rifle. Deputy Thomas recalled Deputy Hudson saying that he turned in the rifle to someone at the Training Academy, but he does not remember who. [Thomas 12/18/2018 AIU Interview Transcript, pp. 7- 8, ll. 148-154.]

Sergeant James Vialpando previously worked with Deputy Hudson in the Warrant Car and recalled that while he carried his own AR-15, Deputy Hudson had an AR-15 previously carried by Sergeant Givens. [Vialpando 11/27/2018 AIU Interview Transcript, pp. 3-5, ll. 63-104.] Sergeant Vialpando said he had a conversation with Deputy Hudson about the missing rifle on the telephone, which he placed on speaker for Major Alexander and Chief Coyle to hear. When asked where the rifle was or if he knew who he turned it in to, Deputy Hudson responded no, saying it was quite some time ago and that he didn’t remember. [Id., pp. 12-13, ll. 295-325.] Sergeant Vialpando admitted that it seemed unusual that a rifle out of the courthouse armory would be returned to the training armory. [Id., p. 14, ll. 336-342.]

Captain Deric Wynn was interviewed on December 10, 2018 by Investigator Bolton. Captain Wynn was asked if he had any knowledge of what happened to the missing rifle after Deputy Hudson was reassigned to Court Services and he said he did not. He offered that he only recently learned that the rifle was missing. [Wynn 12/10/2018 AIU Interview Transcript, pp. 26-27, ll. 647-651.] Captain Wynn was asked if he ever directed Deputy Hudson to return the rifle to the Court Services armory and he said he did not, but agreed that was where it should have been turned in. [Id., pp. 18-19, ll. 439-466.] Captain Wynn said that he did not recall having a conversation with Deputy Hudson about the AR-15. [Id., p. 21, ll. 514-518.] When Captain Wynn was told that Deputy Hudson told a police investigator that he was directed by Captain Wynn to turn the rifle in to the Academy, Captain Wynn replied, “That would be a lie.” [Id., p. 26, ll. 626-629.]

On December 20, 2018, Deputy Hudson was interviewed by Investigator Bolton. Deputy Hudson recalled being assigned to the DSD Warrant Car sometime in 2014. [B. Hudson 12/20/18 AIU Interview Transcript, p. 22, ll. 545-547.] Deputy Hudson acknowledged receiving an AR-15, ST77793, from his training officer, Deputy Donald Travis. [Id., p.5, ll. 101-103.] Deputy Hudson stated that he did not complete any paperwork when he was given the rifle, nor when he returned it. [Id., p. 5, ll. 1066-1072.] At the time he was issued ST77793, Deputy Hudson still had an M- 16 that was issued to him as a member of ERU. [Id., p. 7, ll. 162-163.]

Deputy Hudson said that he never qualified with the AR-15 at the DSD range. He recounted how he took the top of the AR-15 and attached it to the bottom portion of the M-16, creating a fully automatic weapon. Deputy Hudson stated that he qualified with the converted weapon at the range. [Id., p. 41, ll. 101-103.] He noted the only serial number available on the converted weapon would have been the number on the M-16. [Id., p. 41, ll. 1016-1023.]

Deputy Hudson confirmed that he carried the converted weapon while he was assigned to the Warrant Car. He said that the lower half of the AR-15 was kept in a secure, enclosed storage locker at his home. [Id., p. 19, ll. 451-459.] Deputy Hudson offered that during this time period, he personally owned an AR-15 rifle and may have carried it with him while assigned to the Warrant Car. [Id., p. 41, ll. 1010-1012.]

Deputy Hudson said that after he was transferred from the Warrant Car, he took the rifle home and put it back together. [Id., p. 20, ll. 488-492.] He said that he then took the rifle to the Training office on the first floor, an office he described as the last one on the right, after entering the main office and turning left down the hallway. [Id., pp. 20-21, ll. 493-512.] The interview continued:

INVESTIGATOR BOLTON: Okay. And you say you turned it in. You don’t know who was there? DEPUTY HUDSON: No, I don’t remember who was there at the time. INESTIGATOR BOLTON: Okay. Did you actually transfer the weapon to an individual? DEPUTY HUDSON: I might have but I’m not sure. [Id., p. 22, ll. 533-539.]

Deputy Hudson stated that he received the rifle in 2014. Investigator Bolton informed him that date did not match with the established timeline. [Id., p. 24, ll. 558-566.] Investigator Bolton explained that if then-Deputy Givens used the rifle to qualify in May of 2015, Deputy Hudson likely received it at some point after. [Id., p. 24, ll. 587-593.]

Deputy Hudson confirmed telling Major Alexander he turned the rifle in to someone at the Training Academy by could not remember who. [Id., pp. 25-26, ll. 624-628.] Investigator Bolton reminded Deputy Hudson that he had told Detective Rivera that he had dropped the rifle off at the Academy at the direction of Captain Wynn. The interview continued:

INVESTIGATOR BOLTON: And that you placed the weapon – that there was no one there and you placed the weapon in the corner of the room. Do you recall telling him that? DEPUTY HUDSON: It was, yeah. INVESTIGATOR BOLTON: Okay. Do you recognize the discrepancy associated with those two things? DEPUTY HUDSON: Not necessarily, no. INVESTIGATOR BOLTON: Okay. Well, in one case, you’re telling me you turned them over to someone specifically that you could not remember, and the other one you indicated you were directed to turn it in but no one was there so you left the weapon alone in the room. That’s – to me that’s inconsistent, so can you explain to me how these two stories fit together? DEPUTY HUDSON: Well, based on how you’re reading it, of course, it don’t sound like they’re consistent but I don’t remember who I exactly gave it to. INVESTIGATOR BOLTON: Was there someone in the room when you left the rifle? DEPUTY HUDSON: Most likely not. INVESTIGATOR BOLTON: Okay. You left a rifle, an automatic rifle, assault rifle in a room with no one else there? DEPUTY HUDSON: That is correct. [Id., pp. 26-27, ll. 629-658.]

Deputy Hudson did not have an explanation for the discrepancy but said the first statement (to Major Alexander) did not “sound like [him].” [Id., pp. 27-18, ll. 673-389.] Deputy Hudson was asked if someone took the weapon from him and he answered, no. He reaffirmed that he left the rifle in an office at the Academy with no one around. [Id., p. 29, ll. 701-709.] Deputy Hudson said he did not feel the rifle would be accessible to anyone but DSD employees. [Id., pp. 29-30, ll. 722-728.] Deputy Hudson said he believed that he gave the same information to Major Alexander and Chief Coyle. [Id., pp. 30-31, ll. 746-754.]

Investigator Bolton told Deputy Hudson that Captain Wynn denied telling Deputy Hudson to turn the rifle into the Academy. [Id., p. 31, ll. 763-765.] Deputy Hudson then accused Captain Wynn of lying, adding that he knows of numerous occasions where Captain Wynn has lied. When asked if he could offer a motive for Captain Wynn to lie about giving the order, Deputy Hudson could not. [ Id., pp. 33-34, ll. 821-841.] When asked why a weapon issued from the Court Services armory for use in the Warrant Car would be turned into the Academy armory, Deputy Hudson replied that he was not instructed to turn the weapon into Court Services. [Id., p. 34, 842-849.] When asked if he made an appointment at the Training Academy office to turn in the rifle, Deputy Hudson said that he was not sure, but that it was a possibility. [Id., pp. 37-38, ll. 922-926.] When asked if he spoke with anyone about leaving the gun in the office after the fact, Deputy Hudson stated he did not and he thought that Captain Wynn had arranged for the return of the rifle [Id., p. 38, ll. 927-939.] Deputy Hudson was asked if leaving the rifle in the office was the safe thing to do and he replied, “Absolutely.” [Id., p. 39, ll. 966-969.] When describing the rifle’s condition when he returned it, Deputy Hudson replied that it “was in decent condition”, was “fully functional”, “it was perfect.” [Id., p. 40, ll. 996-1005.] Deputy Hudson was “almost sure” that he never qualified with the converted weapon. [Id., p. 40, ll. 1013-1016.]

As the interview neared its conclusion, Deputy Hudson asserted that “for the most part” he told the same information each time he was asked about the return of the rifle, starting with the call from Major Alexander roughly one month prior to the interview, and including the meeting with Chief Coyle, Major Alexander, Captain Garcia, and the interview with Detective Rivera. [Id., pp. 47-50, ll. 1164-1249.]

In a follow up interview with Inspector Bolton on March 20, 2019, Deputy Hudson clarified that on occasion, he kept some of his extra work equipment, including the top of the M&P15 and bottom half (stock) of the missing rifle in the locked storage unit of his condominium. [B. Hudson Follow up Interview Transcript, p. 2-3, ll. 33-74.] During this interview, it was established that Deputy Hudson also did not join the warrant car until July of 2015. [Id., pp. 4-6, ll. 92-136.]

Investigator Bolton advised Deputy Hudson that during an interview with Deputy Hudson’s ex- wife, she said that Deputy Hudson asked her in the summer of 2017 if she had mistakenly taken the rifle from their residence when she moved out. [Id., pp. 11-14, ll. 253-351.] Deputy Hudson clarified that the conversation happened in 2018 and that he asked her because he wanted to “make sure [he] definitely made sure [he] did everything.” [Id. pp. 13-15, ll. 313-326.] Deputy Hudson offered that Chief Coyle suggested he check with his ex-wife. [Id., p. 14, ll. 326-334.]

When asked if he was still a member of the ERU and if he still had the M16 in his possession, Deputy Hudson stated he was still a member of the ERU but that he had turned in the M16 to Sergeant James Szumowski of the ERU armory. He also recalled that he signed off when he returned the weapon. [Id., pp. 22-23, ll. 529-566.]

At the conclusion of the interview, Deputy Hudson and his attorney accompanied Investigator Bolton to the DSD training office on the first floor, south side of the Roslyn building. Deputy Hudson pointed to the south wall of the office and stated he left the rifle leaning against that wall, east of the corner and slightly to the right of the wall’s center point. [Id., pp. 23-24, ll. 571-584.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Career Service Rule 16-28 Grounds for Discipline:

As it pertains to:

Denver Sheriff Departmental Rules and Regulations

RR-500.2 – Negligent Handling of City or Department Property

Deputy sheriffs and employees shall not willfully, carelessly, or negligently lose, damage, or destroy any City or Department equipment, vehicle, or other property.

A Smith & Wesson M&P 15, serial number ST77793, (commonly referred to as an AR-15), was purchased by the Denver Sheriff Department in April of 2014. That Department weapon was initially provided to then Deputy Eric Givens who was assigned to the Warrant Car. DSD Range records confirm the rifle was last used during qualification by Deputy Givens in May of 2015. When Deputy Givens left the Warrant Car assignment, the rifle was provided to Deputy Brandon Hudson upon his assignment to the Warrant Car. Deputy Hudson admitted receiving the weapon from his training officer, Deputy Travis, for use during his assignment to the Warrant Car in July 2015. There was no paperwork completed documenting the assignment of the rifle to Deputy Hudson. Deputy Hudson recalled that he took the top portion of ST77793 and attached it to the bottom portion of the M-16 rifle he was issued by the Department, creating a fully automatic weapon. Deputy Hudson stated that he qualified with the converted weapon, which would have been recorded by the serial number located on the bottom portion from the M-16. There are no records reflecting that Deputy Hudson ever used the rifle ST77793 in qualification shootings at the DSD range. Deputy Hudson confirmed that he carried the converted weapon while he was assigned to the Warrant Car and that the lower half of the AR-15 was kept in a secure, enclosed storage locker at his home.

Upon completion of inventories of DSD armories in October 30, 2018, ST77793 was not located and was identified as missing. The rifle was included in a Court Services armory inventory report dated November 12, 2014, reflecting that ST77793 was assigned to Deputy Givens and the Warrant Car. The rifle does not appear on any other Court Services armory or any other DSD armory inventory reports since that date. Deputy Hudson was identified as the last person to be in possession of the missing rifle. To date, the rifle has not been found and is reasonably presumed to be lost by the Department.

During the investigation that was commenced following the inventories, Deputy Hudson provided differing versions of what he did with ST77793 upon his transfer from the Warrant Car. Deputy Hudson initially told Captain Garcia on October 31, 2018 that he turned the rifle into the Training Academy but could not recall to whom. He next told Major Alexander substantially the same on November 5, 2018.

Two days later in a meeting with Chief Coyle, Major Alexander and Captain Garcia, Deputy Hudson mentioned three members of the Training Academy staff assigned to the Academy during the relevant period (Deputies Kim, Brown and St. Germain), but could not recall to whom he returned the weapon. Neither Mr. St. Germain nor now Sergeant Kim can recall any interaction with Deputy Hudson involving the return of his rifle. Additionally, Sergeant Kim was called by Deputy Hudson a couple of weeks prior to her December 6, 2018 interview and he asked her if she recalled him returning the rifle to her. In the November 7th meeting, Captain Garcia recalled that Deputy Hudson said that no one directed him to return the rifle to the Training Academy, but that he thought at the time it was the right thing to do. Chief Coyle described how Deputy Hudson became agitated, reiterated that he turned the rifle into someone, but he could not recall to whom. Deputy Hudson mentioned that this occurred during the time of his divorce, and he offered that his ex-wife might have the rifle, to which Chief Coyle responded by asking him to check with his ex-wife.

On December 4, 2018, Deputy Hudson told DPD Detective Rivera that he dropped the rifle off at the DSD Academy at the direction of Captain Wynn and that he placed the rifle “in the last portion of the room that is closest to the opposite exit.”

Deputy Hudson repeated the version that he turned in the weapon and that he doesn’t remember to whom to Sergeant Szumowski (a couple of weeks prior to November 20, 2018), Deputy Thomas (prior to December 18, 2018) and Sergeant Vialpando (on or about November 5, 2018).

In his interview with Investigator Bolton on December 20, 2018, Deputy Hudson initially said he turned the rifle into the Academy, that he didn’t recall who was there at the time and he may have transferred the rifle to someone, but he was not sure. Deputy Hudson confirmed that he told Major Alexander that he had turned the rifle into someone at the Academy but could not remember who. Deputy Hudson recalled telling Detective Rivera that he took the rifle to the Academy at the direction of Captain Wynn and that no one was there so he left the rifle in the corner of a room. When the inconsistencies of these two statements were pointed out to Deputy Hudson, he did not have an explanation for the discrepancy; however, when he was again asked if someone took the weapon from him, he answered no and reaffirmed that he left the rifle in an office at the Academy with no one around. When asked if leaving the rifle unattended in the office was the safe thing to do, Deputy Hudson replied, “Absolutely.”

In a follow-up interview on March 20, 2019, Deputy Hudson clarified that he had a conversation with his ex-wife in 2018, asking her if she had inadvertently removed the rifle from their residence when she moved out. Deputy Hudson said that he asked her because he wanted to “make sure [he] definitely made sure [he] did everything.” At the conclusion of the interview Deputy Hudson and his attorney accompanied Investigator Bolton to the Training office and Deputy Hudson pointed to the south wall of office, stating he left the rifle leaning against the wall.

The missing rifle, ST77793 was last known to be in the possession of Deputy Hudson while he was assigned to the Warrant Car. Upon leaving that assignment, Deputy Hudson acknowledged that he was to surrender the rifle. There is no documentation that Deputy Hudson returned the rifle to either the Court Services or the Training Academy armory. Deputy Hudson’s inability to provide a consistent logical account of the return of the rifle is troubling. When his initial story of returning the weapon to someone at the Training Academy was unable to be corroborated, Deputy Hudson raised the possibility that his ex-wife may have taken the rifle and then the story changed to leaving the weapon unattended in an office at the Academy. Assuming that Deputy Hudson’s latest version of events that he left the weapon unattended in an office at the Training Academy is accurate, he was careless and negligent in the handling of the weapon. In his statement at the Contemplation of Discipline meeting, Deputy Hudson apologized and took responsibility for failing to take adequate steps to ensure the rifle was properly returned to the appropriate staff at the Academy. It is more likely than not that Deputy Hudson carelessly or negligently lost the Smith & Wesson M&P 15, serial number ST77793, belonging to the Denver Sheriff Department. There is a preponderance of evidence that Deputy Hudson violated DSD RR-500.2, Negligent Handling of City or Department Property, and pursuant to Career Service Rule 16-28, there exist grounds for discipline.

Under the DSD disciplinary matrix, a violation of DSD Rule and Regulation 500.2 is a Conduct Category A through F violation.

A Conduct Category D violation includes misconduct that “involves a demonstrable risk to the safety of a deputy sheriff, and employee, a detainee or the public.” Losing or leaving a fully operational semi-automatic assault rifle unattended in an office which resulted in its loss, created a clear risk to the safety of deputies and employees of the Denver Sheriff Department and the public. The weapon has not been recovered and is considered lost. Somewhere, there is a deadly weapon in the hands of an unauthorized party which equates to a “demonstrable risk” to public safety. This misconduct is, therefore, properly characterized as a Conduct Category D violation.

Deputy Hudson has no prior relevant sustained disciplinary cases. Pursuant to the disciplinary matrix for a discipline level of five (5), the mitigated penalty is a four (4) to six (6) day suspension, the presumptive penalty is a ten (10) day suspension, and the aggravated penalty is a fourteen (14) to sixteen (16) day suspension.

The lack of prior disciplinary history has been considered in the establishment of the discipline level assigned to this case and there are no other significant mitigating or aggravating circumstances that are applicable to this specification. Therefore, a presumptive penalty is warranted for this rule violation, and a penalty of ten (10) days suspension is imposed.

Denver Sheriff Departmental Rules and Regulations

RR-200.4.2 – Commission of a Deceptive Act

In connection with any investigation or any judicial or administrative proceeding, deputy sheriffs and employees shall not knowingly commit a material deceptive act including, but not limited to, departing from the truth verbally, making a false report, or intentionally omitting information.

The Department recognizes that not every discrepancy between a deputy’s answers to questions, the statements made during Internal Affairs interviews, and the statements made to a detective as part of a criminal investigation necessarily establishes that the deputy “knowingly commit[ted] a materially deceptive act including, but not limited to, departing from the truth verbally, … or intentionally omitting information.” “Knowingly” means “being aware of the nature of the conduct.” The “nature of the deceptive conduct is untruthful representation.” [DSD Discipline Handbook, App. C, p. 1.] With respect to RR 200.4.2, “a deceptive act is material if it has any significance, bearing, or weight with respect to the subject of the investigation.” “Investigation” includes an internal affairs investigation.

On October 30, 2018, a Department-wide inventory of weapons was completed and an assault rifle, Smith & Wesson M& P 15, serial number ST77793, was discovered missing. It was determined that Deputy Brandon Hudson was the last person to possess the firearm. When Major Alexander asked Deputy Hudson about the missing rifle, Deputy Hudson told him he gave the gun to someone at the Training Academy but could not remember who. Deputy Hudson never mentioned that Captain Wynn ordered him to return the rifle to the Training Academy. Deputy Hudson did not say that he left the rifle unattended in an office. Major Alexander added that it did not make sense to him that a rifle assigned to Court Services would be returned to the armory at the Training Academy.

Captain Garcia assisted in the initial inquiry into the missing rifle and upon speaking to Deputy Hudson, he was told that he turned the gun into someone at the Academy, but he could not specifically remember whom.

In a meeting held with command staff on November 7, 2018, Chief Coyle recounted that Deputy Hudson claimed he turned the weapon in to someone at the Academy and did not remember who. She also recalled that he did not mention Captain Wynn or leaving the rifle in an office at the Academy.

On December 4, 2018, Deputy Hudson spoke with Denver Police Detective Jason Rivera and told him that, at Captain Wynn’s direction, he dropped the rifle off in a room at the Academy.

On December 20, 2018, Deputy Hudson was interviewed by AIU Investigator Bolton and initially said that he turned the rifle into the Academy, that he did not recall who was there at the time, and he may have transferred the rifle to someone, but he was not sure. Deputy Hudson confirmed that he told Major Alexander that he had turned the rifle into someone at the Academy but could not remember who. Deputy Hudson recalled telling Detective Rivera that he took the rifle to the Academy at the direction of Captain Wynn and that no one was there so he left the rifle in the corner of a room. When the inconsistencies of these two statements was pointed out to Deputy Hudson, he did not have an explanation for the discrepancy; however, when he was again asked if someone took the weapon from him, he answered no and reaffirmed that he left the rifle in an office at the Academy with no one around. When asked if leaving the rifle unattended in the office was the safe thing to do, Deputy Hudson replied, “Absolutely.”

Deputy Yamaguchi said in his AIU Interview that when he was assigned to the Training Academy he would not have accepted a weapon from a different armory. Deputy Yamaguchi was quite certain a weapon was never dropped off and left unattended in a Training Academy office because he would have been made aware of such an occurrence. Mr. St. Germain also said that he was never aware of a weapon left in a Training Office and if a weapon was left, he or Deputy Yamaguchi would have been made aware of it.

Sergeant Szumowski recalled his conversation with Deputy Hudson in which he inquired about the missing rifle. Deputy Hudson told him he turned the weapon into the Academy but did not recall who accepted the gun from him. Deputy Hudson told the same basic version to Deputy Thomas and Sergeant Vialpando.

In his meeting with Chief Coyle, Major Alexander and Captain Garcia, Deputy Hudson offered three names of Academy staff who could have possibly received the weapon from him. One of those was now Sergeant Kim. While confirming that she never accepted a rifle from Deputy Hudson, Sergeant Kim advised Investigator Bolton that Deputy Hudson had recently contacted her and asked if she remembered him returning a weapon to her, to which she replied she did not.

Deputy Hudson gave conflicting statements about his reported return of the Department issued rifle. He told command staff he took the weapon to the Training Academy and gave it to someone who he could not remember. He told DPD Detective Rivera he was ordered by Captain Wynn to deliver the rifle to the Academy and then left it in an office. During his AIU interview, Deputy Hudson told Investigator Bolton he was ordered by Captain Wynn to take the rifle to the Academy and he said that he told command staff that he left the weapon in an office at the Academy. That version is contradicted by Chief Coyle, Major Alexander and Captain Garcia.

Deputy Hudson has claimed that he both gave the rifle to someone at the Academy and that he left it unoccupied in an office. He at times claimed that the rifle was returned to the Academy upon the direction or order from Captain Wynn. No individual assigned to the Training Academy recalled receiving the rifle from Deputy Hudson, nor did any member of the staff recall a weapon being left unattended in an office. Captain Wynn vehemently denied ordering Deputy Hudson to return the rifle which was assigned to the Court Services unit to the Academy.

Deputy Hudson provided differing accounts of the return of the rifle, all generally refuted by multiple witnesses. Deputy Hudson has not explained the inconsistencies in his stories. The initial version of turning the weapon in to an individual at the Academy was revised when no one could corroborate receiving the weapon. Deputy Hudson suggested during his meeting with command staff that perhaps his ex-wife had mistakenly assumed possession of the weapon when she moved out; a version that is completely irreconcilable with his return of the rifle to either an individual assigned to the Academy or leaving the rifle unattended in an office there. Deputy Hudson’s final version that he took the rifle to the Academy and left it in an unattended office, propped against a wall is difficult to accept based on his position and associated training with weapons. Even though Deputy Hudson has claimed that it was “absolutely” a safe thing to leave the rifle unattended in an office, it is not likely that a reasonable deputy under similar circumstances would conclude the same.

The DSD Discipline Handbook defines “knowingly” as “being aware of the nature of the conduct” and “the nature of the deceptive conduct is untruthful representation.” With respect to RR 200.4.2, “a deceptive act is material if it has any significance, bearing, or weight with respect to the subject of the investigation.” “Investigation” includes an internal affairs investigation. Here, Deputy Hudson’s varying versions of how he returned the rifle are so clearly inconsistent that it is reasonable to conclude that he was aware of his conduct and knowingly misrepresented the event. This deceptive misrepresentation was material because it bore directly on whether Deputy Hudson was careless or negligent in his handling of Department equipment.

Viewing all of the evidence, it is more likely than not that Deputy Hudson knowingly committed “a materially deceptive act” numerous times during his answers to questions made during the initial inquiry into the missing rifle, during his interview with DPD Detective Rivera and during his IAB interview by “departing from the truth verbally, … or intentionally omitting information.”

This reviewer has considered the fact that the return of the rifle occurred more than two years prior to the discovery of its loss and that memory of some events may be tempered by the passage of time. However, the return of a semi-automatic weapon is an important event that one can reasonably assume would be somewhat memorable to a deputy. Deputy Hudson never responded that he could not recall the circumstances surrounding the return of the rifle. Instead, Deputy Hudson knowingly offered varying scenarios that he represented as factual, not potential, and that amounts to deceptive conduct.

Therefore, there is a preponderance of the evidence that Deputy Hudson violated this DSD RR- 200.4.2, Commission of a Deceptive Act, and pursuant to Career Service Rule 16-28, there exist grounds for discipline.

Pursuant to the DSD disciplinary matrix, a violation of DSD Rule 200.4.2 is a Conduct Category F violation. A Conduct Category F violation includes misconduct that “constitutes a willful and wanton disregard of Department guiding principles” or “involves an act so serious as to demonstrate a lack of the integrity, ethics, character, or fitness to hold the position of Denver deputy sheriff.”

Deputy sheriffs hold a “position of trust” bestowed upon them by the Department and community and with that trust, they are granted discretion in carrying out their duties. That discretion carries tremendous responsibility. (DSD Discipline Handbook section 1.2.) By departing from the truth or intentionally omitting information about the return of the weapon, Deputy Hudson failed to live up to his responsibility as a deputy sheriff, he violated the public trust, and acted “contrary to the guiding principles of the Department.” His deceptive conduct demonstrates a lack of integrity, ethics and character which render him unfit to hold the position of deputy sheriff.

Pursuant to the disciplinary matrix, any Conduct Category F violation is assigned a discipline level of eight (8) with a mitigated penalty of a ninety (90) day suspension and a presumptive penalty of dismissal.

Other than the lack of a prior disciplinary history, there are no significant relevant mitigating circumstances that are applicable to this specification. That possible mitigation is offset by the significant endangerment to the public by the loss of a semi-automatic weapon and the lack of integrity associated with Deputy Hudson’s deception. (Id., Section 19.9.2.) Therefore, the presumptive penalty is warranted for this violation and the penalty of dismissal is imposed.

s/Mary J. Dulacki 4/21/2020

Deputy Director of Safety Date