tonight we will be reviewing three complaint investigations those complaints are 0000 for the
intensity of the bars Thank you Stuart divers tariffs I've disappointed by a path at represent our city name my name is Lena pulley and I represent the Urban League of Greater Atlanta. Larger pockets with calling authorities around the city. And we also have Dr. Martin fuller on the panel this evening.
Good evening. I'm Michael. I was appointed by representing you will
thank you. Okay, first meeting our first case tonight is case number 22 Dash 010. The ACR V investigator is Brian lemons. Welcome back, Ryan. I will read the summary of the complaints. The female complaint alleges that on February 2022 APD Sarmad, Dominique Pattillo engaged in excessive force when he placed her in a chokehold with the intervene to stop a physical altercation between her and an unidentified female that occurred in front of the spinning. Hi. Now you just heard the summary of the complaints. This case has four allegations our first allegation will be excess excessive force. The issue is the complaints and allegations that Sergeant Pattillo engaged in excessive force when he placed her in a chokehold. Based on the evidence obtained during the investigation, the ACR reach Staff recommends that the allegation of excessive force against Sergeant domine Pattillo. Assigning a fine of not sustained investigation failed to prove or disprove occurred. Now may have a motion accepting the staffs recommendation, please four to find for finding that not sustained for the allegation of excessive force against Sergeant domine Pattillo. Madam Chair Jermaine Austin. Yes, Mr. Austin,
I have to make a recommendation is staffs like to make a motion that we accept staffs recommendation? Unnecessary?
Yes, that's awesome. Thank you. Is there a second? Yes. Yes, this when? I mean, I'm sorry. First, yes. Madam Chair. Second. Thank you for that. Is there any discussion? Please? Seeing that, there's no discussion. I will now call for the votes. Although the best recommendation, please. Just
close that question with labor because we're supposed to have a person supposed to be an alternate to make it a hot number. Okay. So if you don't vote, then we would have the odd number. Since we have six presidents.
This is since it's five. Members, it is your vote. And then you only need to go over to time. Okay.
All right. All of those just one more time. All those in favor. Please raise your hands. Raise your hands. All right. Thank you for that. Are there any opposed? Please raise your hands are there no votes? All right. Is there anyone abstaining? Everyone The vote is now closed. May have Italian understand please.
The motion passes, folks. Got the recommendation that the excessive force against Saudi government facilities the assignment of finance consists of not sustaining the investigation fails to prove or disprove that. Our second allegation is a violation of departments that operate procedures. Part A investigation determined that certain Patil failed to notify the supervisor and complete a report detailing his actions stemming from this incident as required by the APD policies. Therefore, the acrp staff recommends that the allegation of violation of department standard operating procedures specifically APB SOP number 3010. Section four point 5.4. Again Sergeant Dominique Patel will be assigned a private assistant investigation prove by preponderance of the evidence that the alleged acts occurred. I have a motion accepted or rejected staff's recommendation to the signer fundable sustained against officer. I'm sorry, it was assaulted Dominique Pattillo for the allegation of violation of department said and operating procedures. Yes,
I move that we accept staff recommendation.
Thank you so much. Is there a second please. Thank you very much. Any discussion? The motion has been properly seconded. Is there any discussion please. Seeing that there is no discussion. We will vote All in favor. Raise your hands. Are those opposed or voting?
There anyone saying everyone has voted the votes now. Please. yes votes, the motion passes accepting the staffs recommendation to find that the allegation of violation of standard operating procedures. Part A again Sergeant domine put some of your standard of findings or sustained investigation proved by preponderance of evidence that deliberate acts did occur. Now investigator we have a report disciplinary District Court
Yes. Good evening. Sergeant Pattillo has been with another police department since May 4 2004. Based on the size of disciplinary history and abd disciplinary grid, this will be a Category A because he has had no saying or similar sustained complaints. Within the one year recognized period. You can appeal to range will be an oral report and oral reprimand or written reprimand. And the board also recommend corrective corrective actions such as training and counseling.
Thank goodness because of that, as you've heard and investigated for misstated visibly categories, a violation. I have a motion recommended discipline against Sergeant domine puts him up with a sustained allegation of violation of operating procedures please. Yes, Miss
Hurst recommend all and Monica.
Is there a second please? Yes, Miss Tony. Thank you so much. It has been motion properly seconded. Any discussion? Please. Say that there is no discussion. I will call the vote All in favor with a discipline recommendation is first of all advisement minutes. If there are any opposing levels, please raise your hand. This happens when is there? No votes? Are there any
abstentions? Please.
Right everyone has voted to vote is now closed.
Please
share the five possible votes we have 44 yes
votes, the motion passes. Accepting. Mrs. Hurst oral management's have the discipline recommendation against started Dominique Patel off of a sustained allegation of violation that he failed to notify his supervisor and complete a report detailing his actions stemming from the Insert from business as defined by the right move. We want to do that Commission's case which is a violation of department standard operating procedures Part B, because invoice investigation determined that Saki Pattillo was working an extra job at the at the incident location to spin pi without an approved job extra job from this talk about s AP these policies or add policies in his statement with the ACR V startup until admitted to committing them therefore, the ACR recommends that allegation of violation of department standard operating procedures specifically APD slpp, number 2060. Section 4.2 point one I guess started downloading Patil be assigned a ban versus being investigated by proponents of the evidence has been this as a part. May I have a motion accepted or rejected staffs recommendation to assign a findings of sustained for the allegation of violations departments and operating procedures, Part B, against Sergeant Tammany patello? Madam Chair, yes, Mr. Austin,
I'd like to make a motion that we accept staffs recommendation.
Is there a second please? Yes, Miss Hawkins when? Second. Thank you, Miss Hawkins. It's been moved and properly seconded. Any discussion? Please. Say that there's no discussion. We will move to the vote. All in favor? Please raise your hands. For those opposed, voted no, please raise your hands. Are there any abstentions? Everyone has voted. The vote is now close. May we have the telecom Mr.
Chair out of five possible
yes votes. The motion was passed recommendation that the allegation violation of standard operating procedures part be against sovereign Dominica or five the investigation by preponderance of evidence that the alleged acts of her All right in this additional information
is based on Sergeant Bustillos disciplinary history and APDS disciplinary grant. This would be a Category A because he has had no cycle of similar sustained complaints within the wider recognition period. And the go to range will be an oral admonishment or written recommend. The board can also recommend proactive corrective action, such as training, analog counseling.
Thanks so much investigated, as you've heard and listened to bloomin stated this is a category A violation. They have a motion recommend and discipline material for the sustained allegation of violation of department standard operating procedures. It's hard to beat. I don't care. Yes, let's talk. I mean, oh, sorry. The service can recommend a written recommend? Rapper, man.
Is there a second please? Yes, doctor. Thank you for that. It's the motion. Seconded. Any discussion? Please. Saying that there is no discussion hearing. I will now call for the vote.
All those in favor? Raise your hands. If you're opposed or voting, please raise your hands. Is there anyone standing please? Everyone has voted the vote is now those living numbers. Please.
Possible? Five? Yes.
Yes, those passes, except in the recommendation of a written reprimand against starting to dominate allegation of a violation of standard operating procedures Part B related to the time that he was working on an extra job at the incident location Dustin, without an approved extra document on top as currently PDS policies. We're going to move forward with the fourth allegation in this case, which is violation of department standard operating procedures. Parts of the investigation determined that some of the some of the knots have his body worn camera activated at the time that he at the time he entered the altercations between the complainant and the other involved woman as Kurt APDS policy. Therefore the ACD acrp separate And then of allegations of violations, procedures, specifically AVP SOP number 3133. Sections three point 11 and four point 4.4. against cyber Domine. For too long, it is not a sustained investigation approved by the farmers. To hurt me I have a motion accepted or rejected staff's recommendation, please. Yes.
I'm willing to accept that recommendation.
All right. Thank you, Miss Boyle. Is there a second? Yes. Thank you. It has the motion to properly seconded any discussion, please. See that there's no discussion of I will now call for the vote. All those in favor? Please raise your hands.
Are those opposed? No. Please raise your hands. Are there any abstentions? Please. Everyone has voted. The vote is now closed when you have a tally from the staff please. Five possible votes.
yes votes The motion passes accepting the recommendation that the allegation violation of standard operating procedures Part C related to start to facilities failure to operate his body worn camera against certain abdominal because of sustained investigation proves that approximates of evidence that the alleged acts occurred. Yes, is there a limit?
Based on Sergeant Pattillo disciplinary history this is his first sustained body worn camera violation. And according to a VDS policy governing governing body worn cameras, the first violation of the policy is a Category B violation with a disciplinary range being three through 15 days suspension.
All right. Thank you, investigator for them. And as you heard, I said this category b i have a recommendation. Recommended discipline to give Simon Patil Dominic Pattillo for the sustained allegation of validation of operating procedures. Madam Chair,
Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we recommend a suspension.
Okay, that's a three day suspension.
Is there a second please? Chair? Yes. Thank you so much. It's the motion properly. seconded. Any discussion? Please. See that there's no discussion. I will call for the vote. All in favor of Mr. Lawson's record reading suspension recommendation, please raise your hand
if you're opposed raise your hands or your voting ratios. Are there any assistance? Everyone has voted the bonus now. So please,
five possible
votes The motion passes except replace this bill suspicion as discipline against certain dominant brutal over the sustained allegations of violation of operating procedures. Part C related to the claim that he did not have his body worn camera activated at the time of being an altercation between the complainant and the other involves as per APBs policies. All right, that concludes that placement moving on with our second case, which is zero to two, the ACR the investigator is Mr. Ronald Jackson. I will now be available on September 22 2021. Basically officer Lee Clark, number one wrongfully cited wrote in fact second citation. This case has Sue elevations which the first allegation is appropriate action required. The issue is the complainant allegations that he was wrongfully cited for failure to maintain lane when he was involved in a motor accident motor vehicle accident. Based on the evidence obtained during the investigation, the acrp staff recommends that the allegation of appropriate action required With something related to the opposite, wrongfully cited for failure to maintain the assigned acquirement of exonerate investigation, the status of the list has occurred, but were justified legal or proper in the department's policy. They have a motion accepting, rejecting staff recommendation, a sign of a finding of allegation of appropriate action required related to the issues that the company was wrongfully cited for failure to maintain, I guess. Yes, Miss polio. best recommendation. Thank you so much. Is there a second please, Madam Chair? Thank you, Mr. Lawson. This emotional property.
Senator another session. I will now call for the vote. All in favor, please raise your hands. Those opposed? Please raise your hands. Are there any abstentions? Please? Everyone is one of the voters now. May we have the salary from the staff please?
Chair five possible? Yes.
Yes votes. The motion passes, accepting assess recommendations that the allegation of appropriate action required against officer Lee Clark, relating to the wrongful citation that gets a complaint for failure to maintain my be assigned exonerated. The investigation established that occurred but were justified legal problems within the department policy. Rights.
All right. We will move on to the next allegation, which is allegation of violation of department standard operating procedures. The issue is the complainants allegation that office wrote an accurate tracking citations. Based on the evidence obtained during investigation that ACR Staff recommends that the allegation of validation with departments and operating procedures against officer Lee Clark, related to the inaccurate expectation of unfounded investigation proved that the lead ads did not make either a multiple step and rejected staffs recommendation of their findings of unfounded allegation of validation, the department standard operating procedures against office related to the citation have been impacted incorrect. Information. Yes. Miss Hurst. Access. That's right. Thank you so much. Is there a second please? Yes. Any discussion please. Seeing that there is a discussion. I will now call for the vote in favor,
raise your hands. Those opposed? Please raise your hands. Is there are there every one is one of the oldest out there we have
five possible? yes votes?
yes votes. The motion passes. Accepting the staffs recommendation that allegation of violation of the department standard operating procedures against officer Riccar. Brian in the event of finding unfounded investigation proven facts did not occur. Moving on to the final case works in REITs, which is case number 22 070. The ACR is investigating this hospital. Now, the issue is that on July 2 2022. Officer James abused his authority when he told him to vacate his residence prior to an eviction and threatened to arrest him that he did not vacate after the eviction was turned over so we fail to read the report documenting the incidents. This case has two allegations which the first allegation is abuse of authority. The issue is the complainants allegation that Officer James abused his authority when he told him to vacate his residence prior to the eviction and threatened to arrest him if he did not make a decision. Based on the evidence obtained during the resignation, the ACR recommends that the allegation of abuse of authority of Police Officer James. Assistant investigation has established by preponderance of the evidence that the officer committed acts of misconduct. I have a motion accepted or rejected his recommendation to assign a fine was sustained for the allegations of abuse of authority against Officer James Wheaton. Yes, those
are left to make a recommendation that we reject staffs. Recommendation sustained. Second.
Okay. You want to be next? Recommendation? Stay? All right. Is there a second? Oh, goodness. Thank you. It is the motion properly seconded. Any discussion?
Madam Chair? Yes, that's. For me, this particular case, speaks to the need for the BCRP. We have a situation where the landlord
filed a complaint,
call the Atlanta police department and inform the police department that an individual was on his property, essentially illegally. And the indirect of the officer to address this issue of a person being on private property illegal, the opposite embassy orientation that the officer had in going to put his property. The officer went to the property with the orientation with the direction that he was dealing with the trespassing situation after the officer investigated, as he should have identified that this is not a trespassing case, this is a tenant landlord tenant situation. And at that point, the officer changed his mode of operation provided information to the complainant in his case about what he should do to move this matter forward and provided information to the landlord who initially filed this complaint. And so from my point of view, the officer operated according to the directions that he received. And as a result of the investigation that he repeated, he changed his demeanor, his interaction with the complainant. And so I don't see that the officer violated his protocol.
I agree department. People will clearly see the Office of Inspector. But most importantly, under the system, the evidence has to support abuse in the form of harassment, basically persecution and that he was acting as a prosecutor and putting it that simply isn't the case on page four of the transcript. The reporting investigators summarizing what the complainant says. So the planet says that when Officer we can return and it's almost verbatim, essentially what the complainant says that when the return office will be free from interviewing the owners, he reiterated that he didn't think he did not. I'm sorry, he reiterated that he did not he did not make the purchases after the eviction, because the owners were saying that the next thing that would occur is that the rest of the arts will be filed on the premises. Upon arrival, he wouldn't be arrested. This is the complaint himself recounting to our reporting investigator a summer off summarization of what the officer said to him. But again, upon arrival to the location, officer, we're very important. Never really, I think he actually spoke to complete out to the tenant first, and the only guess who's what's going on, and the tenant himself began to tell them, but I think the tenant himself was not sincere. But I would also say the officer in this transcribe statement he ran and he reiterated this the same thing you can physically remove in England unless you get an order from the court. And then you can legally remove which is essentially what you reiterated then. Yes.
For the gentleman.
Chairs remain Awesome. Yeah, I just wanted to just take a second since the person that rejected the recommendation, I just don't feel like in this instance, it was a violation of that specific SOP. Maybe if it was a different SOP. Yes. But I don't think in this instance, the officer uses authority. To me, I don't see any abuse, harass, oppression, oppression or persecution. Here in this case. And I I honestly believe that if there was some sort of fear of being removed, I just don't feel that that would have been reasonable. There's a large pass in which there would be a large passage of time between what the officer was stating and anytime the conviction process, to me that takes a week or even longer in between that timeframe, that tenant seems like he had access to legal aid or other resources, do whatever is necessary to find out additional information on the project on its own. But I just don't think the actions of the officer in this case fits this specific SOP in terms of violation.
So I picked that piece that really kind of illustrate the valuation of this vessel from the officer told the person there that pizza of land that in that process, that would be no precedent. And in an election process that is not part of the processes that you could it's been armrest.
So that piece was cloud based,
because it put that person on notice that that officer was going to come back and Hancock that person. That was the abuse of
authority. So you say that he was intimidated or
absolutely, absolutely love the fact that he was nice and gave him all the information. When he told him that mentioned process, that he will be arrested. That's when he stepped off. When I lay out the conditions, I don't think
this is what happens when it's taken just for the record.
This is what the complainant said himself to the reporting investigator. He said that after he returned after oppositely return, that he said to him, they're going to find the eviction, eviction is order, you will have to vacate the premises. If you don't make it the premises and the rest mark will be once the restaurant is filed, if in fact with a big common year they will be arrested. That is the process. And that's exactly okay. That is exactly what the complaint is citing to the reporting investigator as to what officer we said to him after he returned from interview. It's a summarization of exactly what he said, which was not a threat and laid out the process. Again.
Just one point of clarity in regards to what occurred, the state that was investigated. However, that's not the evidence and what their show. Seek, it seems 20 seconds into the view. See, like Dr. Paul Hubbard has clearly stated he changed direction. After speaking with landlord, he then went up to the tenant and said something explicitly stated, this is the validation papers, it's mostly validation papers, you have to lead otherwise. Your arrest by whose authority will lead to granting the warrant of arrest in this particular instance, law offices are that he will
read elimination. Thank you so much. We'll close this discussion. And we will have votes. All of those in favor for accepting. Mr. Austin's rejection of the sustained recommendation by stat please raise your hands all right. Those opposed to rolling mills raise your hand
stations right everyone has voted to vote is now
right the boys that post
official, Madam Chair, by hospital walls, we have three expos into the Melville developments coming.
Free Yes. The motion passes. Accepting domain awesomes rejection of the sustained recommendation by this there. Okay, allegation of abuse of authority against opposite Jake sweetening the assignment of finance and sustaining which was rejected.
Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion.
We can go back and make a new motion. Can we go
make a new motion just to the board? Stafford was was rejected. Okay, well know what he ordered.
So yes, Mr.
Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we record recommend.
For that, we'd like to make a motion that we recommend that as of unfounded in this case.
So you want to make a recommendation to accept staff sustaining and promotion that this is unfounded.
I'd like to make my own recommendation that we issue a says unconfident. Is that a motion or is that a motion? Okay, motion, not a recommended discipline.
So when you say that he said that? Is it never heard, period. comments were made. Nothing ever happened? Because they're presented something.
So, Madam Chair I'd like to make a I'd like to change my motion.
You want to change the amendment? You want to make a motion to what?
I'd like to amend my motion to exonerate instead of
exonerate the notice
that is accident that his actions were within power.
Okay, so
we have a motion from Mr. Smith. Initial motion is to make a recommendation or motion. Would there be allegations against Officer James Wheaton. Madam Chair, yes,
Dr. Wood the second motion.
Thank you Dr. Woodard for that is there. It has been motion properly seconded.
Seeing no discussion, I will move to the vote. All of those in favor of Mr. Austin's
recommendation of exonerated against Officer James sweet. Please raise your hands of you're in favor of that. exoneration recommendation All those opposed?
Any abstentions? Everyone has
Evening You RIGHT? You You Right It evening Listening?
Ah
you are fairly medicine I just want you to know that
I've noticed some disturbing things you guys have ghosts