Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 468-1 Filed 03/05/21 Page 1 of 116 Expert Report Prepared By J. Thomas Manger In Hispanic National Law Enforcement Assoc. NCR et al. v. Prince George’s County et al., United States District Court District of Maryland Civil Action No.: 8:18-cv-03821-TDC 1 CONFIDENTIAL Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 468-1 Filed 03/05/21 Page 2 of 116 TABLE OF CONTENTS Experience ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Scope of Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 7 Materials Reviewed ........................................................................................................................ 7 Summary of Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 8 Landscape of Policing in the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area .............................................. 10 A. Recruitment ................................................................................................................ 11 B. Background on Prince George’s County Police Department ...................................... 12 Analysis and Opinions ................................................................................................................... 14 PART 1. INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL EEO COMPLAINT PROCEDURES ....................................... 14 A. Prince George’s County Police Department Policies for Addressing Harassment and Discrimination Complaints is Consistent with Industry Standards and Incorporates Best Practices. ............................................................................................................................... 14 B. Prince George’s County Police Department Conducts Routine, In Person, Harassment and Discrimination Trainings That Are Generally Presented by the County’s Commission on Civil Rights. ............................................................................................................................ 20 PART 2. IAD REASONABLY APPLIES DISCIPLINE AND PERFORMS INVESTIGATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH BEST PRACTICES ...................................................................................... 23 A. Prince George’s County Police Department’s Complaint Policies Are Reasonable ... 23 B. IAD’s Screening and Assignment Procedures Are Reasonable................................... 24 C. IAD’s Practices Comply with LEOBR and Have Several Layers of Internal and External Review ................................................................................................................................... 26 i. Investigations .......................................................................................................... 26 ii. Recommending Discipline and Like Discipline ........................................................ 27 iii. Recommending Terminations ................................................................................. 31 iv. CCOP Review ........................................................................................................... 33 v. AHB Hearing ............................................................................................................ 34 vi. Circuit Court Review ............................................................................................... 35 vii. Diversity in the Disciplinary Process ....................................................................... 35 D. The Individual Plaintiffs Were Reasonably Disciplined .............................................. 37 i. The investigations into Plaintiff Perez were not retaliatory or harassment .......... 37 ii. Plaintiff Oatis was disciplined fairly ........................................................................ 41 iii. Michael Brown was Fairly Disciplined .................................................................... 44 iv. McClam Was Not Retaliated Against During Internal Investigations ..................... 50 2 CONFIDENTIAL Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 468-1 Filed 03/05/21 Page 3 of 116 v. The investigation into Plaintiff Crudup was not retaliatory. .................................. 51 E. Prince George’s County Police Department Acted Reasonably with Regard to Other Investigations If and When Complaints Were Made ............................................................ 54 F. The Department Responded Appropriately to Facts and Circumstances, Even If No Complaint Was Filed ............................................................................................................. 54 i. “GFYOBMA” License Plate ...................................................................................... 54 ii. Lieutenant Edward Scott Finn’s Comment Published in a New York Times Article 55 iii. A String of Statements Allegedly Made by Corporal Steven Jones ........................ 57 G. The Department Repeatedly Carried Out Sufficient Investigations Despite Impediments Caused by Plaintiffs or Circumstances Unrelated to the IAD Leadership ...... 59 i. The Color Guard Locker, SI2017-018 ...................................................................... 59 ii. Training Dummy, SI2017-067.................................................................................. 61 iii. Sergeant Bunce, IA2017-003 .................................................................................. 63 iv. Sergeant Rush, IA2016-034 and Parallel EEO Complaint........................................ 64 H. The Department Determined Discipline for All Cases in Light of the Evidence Available and Consistent with Best Practices ....................................................................... 66 I. IAD Exercised Its Discretion Appropriately When Deeming Cases Suitable for Review by Alternative Avenues .............................................................................................................. 68 i. Complaints by Police Officer Latashia Pinckney and Corporal Terrence Brown .... 68 ii. Compensatory Time Incentive Program ................................................................. 69 PART 3. THE DEPARTMENT’S PROMOTION PROCESSES ARE EQUITABLE. .............................. 73 A. Contrary to His Assertions in the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Paul Mack Did Not Test High Enough to Be Promoted to Lieutenant During the 2016 Promotional Cycle 75 B. Plaintiff Perez’s Failure to Earn a Promotion to Major Does Not Indicate Retaliation or Discrimination. .................................................................................................................. 76 PART 4. THE DEPARTMENT MAKES TRANSFERS REASONABLY AND FAIRLY WITHOUT RACIAL BIAS AND WITHOUT RETALIATION ........................................................................................... 77 A. Perez’s transfer was not retaliatory. .......................................................................... 79 B. Corporal Michael Anis Was Not Discriminated Against in Connection with His Transfer Requests ................................................................................................................. 80 C. Plaintiff Thomas Boone’s Transfer Was Not Retaliatory ............................................ 80 D. Plaintiff Sonya Zollicoffer’s Transfer Was Not Retaliatory ......................................... 81 E. Corporal Chris Smith’s Reassignment Was Not Retaliatory ...................................... 84 F. Plaintiff Patrick McClam’s Transfer Was Not Retaliatory .......................................... 86 G. Plaintiff Richard Torres’s Transfer Was Not Retaliatory ............................................ 86 3 CONFIDENTIAL Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 468-1 Filed 03/05/21 Page 4 of 116 PART 5. USE OF FORCE ............................................................................................................. 88 PART 6. THE DEPARTMENT PROVIDES IMPLICT BIAS TRAINING CONSISTENT WITH BEST PRACTICES ................................................................................................................................. 93 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 97 4 CONFIDENTIAL Case 8:18-cv-03821-TDC Document 468-1 Filed 03/05/21 Page 5 of 116 EXPERIENCE 1) I spent 42 years as a police officer from 1977 to 2019. After being sworn in as a Fairfax County, Virginia police officer, I rose through the ranks and was appointed the Chief of Police in 1998. During my career, I worked as a patrol officer, a supervisor, had a variety of administrative and operational assignments as a Lieutenant, and then commanded two District Stations as a Captain. As a supervisor, I conducted numerous investigations of complaints, both those generated internally, as well as complaints from the public involving personnel under my supervision. As a District Commander, I gained extensive experience reviewing and making decisions on internal investigations as well as disciplinary decisions. For over three years, I was assigned as the Night Duty Officer, and was in charge of all police operations from 4 p.m. to 4 a.m. In that role, I managed hundreds of police operations involving violent crimes, hostage- barricade events, protests, police shootings and other use of deadly force cases, traffic fatalities, and other high-profile incidents. I also headed the Patrol Bureau for two years.