NOV 15 1999 z Police Department Ciy ot = ie gut Waukesha November 11, 1999 (Chairperson Frances Kritzer ‘Waukesha Police and Fire Commission 201 Delafield Street Waukesha, WIS3188 RE: Filing of Charges Dear Com oner Krtze, ‘Attached to ths leteris the Statement of Charges that Iam formally filing withthe Police and Fire Commission against Officer Mark A. Mutchie of the Waukesha Police Department, These charges pertain to an incident that occurred on August 4, 1999. 1 hhave suspended Officer Mutchie, with pay, pending a final disposition ofthese charges Lam requesting that this matter be placed on the Police and Fire Commission's agenda for November 22, 1999 at 7:00PM. is my understanding that Attorney Mark R, Hollinger of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association represents Officer Mutchie. Atty. Hollinger’s address is 340 Coyier Lane, Madison, WI 53713 with a office telephone number of (608) 273-3840. Itis also nny understanding that Atty. Hollinger is aware ofthe Commission's next meeting date and time, ‘Your consideration inthis materi appreciate. Sincerely, ee Gare Deen sane CHIEF OF POLICE. ee: Police and Fire Commission Members Officer Mark Mutchie City Aworney Curt Meitz Asst City Atty, Vince Mosehella ‘ty. James Korom ‘Ay, Mark Hollinger 19 iat» Win Wi OAT + Teac DSM » Fin SEIT[BEFORE THE CITY OF WAUKESHA. POLICE AND FIRE COMMISSION In the Mater of Charges Filed Against MARK MUTCHIE, By POLICE CHIEF LESLIE A. SHARROCK STATEMENT OF CHARGES Parsuant to Chapter 62.136), Wis Stats, Chie Leslie A. Sharrock ihe “Chie hereby files charges aginst Mark Mutcie (the “Charged Office”) ofthe Waukesha Police Departent for is abuse of force when he beat sn improper restrained a suspect an inhumane manner and fr his dishonesty during the investigation process. Because the Chard Officer intention ally violated departmental polices, used unnecessary and intentional force agnnst suspect, subjected the Department to potential liability, and harmed the ability of the Department to carry out its legitimate business chestives, the Chit hes no choice but to equst hat this Commission remove the Charged Officer fr the god of the service. The Chie alleges that the Charged Ofcer volt rues and regulations applicable to him by commiting he following at: acts (On August 4,199, the Charged Orticer encountered citizen who informed him ta he had boon assaulted by another citizen, KTE, The Charged Ofcer eventually decided to take TB into custody. Because KTB had physical injures, appeared infoicated, and is also an {nsulin-dependent diabetic, he was taken to the hospital to have hs injuries treated. ‘When they arived atthe hospital, KT was generally cooperative with the Charged O' cer in exiting the vehicle, The Charged Officer escorted KTB to the emergency room entrance.Atno time di KTB attempt o kick or strike the Charge Officer. However, KT said wor to the effet, “Leave your hands off me, Don't fucking touch me” Ths was stated in louder han romal voice. KTB was le tothe police room a the Hospital which ea separate room used by the Department. The room is near the clerks office patent lounge and man hallway, The zoom was kept open, and witnesses hada clear view of what transpired KT was siting in a chair. His hands were handcuffed behind his back, There was a ‘small table directly in front of KTB. After entering the room, the Charged Officer told KTB to sit down and not to move. KT twitched his head and shoulder. According tothe witnesses, the ‘witching appeared tobe an “involuntary spasm.” KT did not attempt to getup or say anything. ‘The Charged Officer told KTB, “just st there stop talking, I'm in charge.” Then the Charged Officer told KIB, “that’s i've had it!” The Charged Officer went to KTB, erabbed the back of ‘his shirt and slammed his head into the small ble in front of him, ‘The Charged Ofier then slammed KTB’s head and face into the edge ofthe table a second time “The Charged Officer grabbed KTB and, with KTB's hands cuffed behind his back, let hhim drop to the floor. KTB fell on his front side. The Charged Officer took his right foot and stepped on KB's face, The Charged Officer then told KTB “listen to me, Lam in charge.” KTB began screaming for the Charged Orficer to stop “beating” him. KTB was now bleeding and had “goose eng" above his left eyebrow. When emergency room nurse Mary Jo Hoppe eame to get the patent from the police room, the Charged Officer was “grinning” and told Nurse Hoppe that “you better x-ray his face and teth.” Two other officers assisted KTB after the Charged Oificer left the room. When the Charged Officer retumed to the room, KTB went from ealm and ‘cooperative to agitated and panicky.“The Charged Officer completed his eporton the incident. He claimed in the repr that KTB “got out ofthe chair and came at (him.” The Charged Officer further claimed that he dd not “sla” KTB's head into the table, but rather ha the Charged Officer controled KTB's rate ‘of descent in taking him down to the ground and KT must have acidentally struck his head on the table. The Charged Officer finally noted that he used a “three pont stance” whereby he kneeled over KTB while KTB was on the ground Unbelaiownst to the Charged Officer, a number of witnesses viewed what actually had happened. Nurse Hoppe and another hospital employee, Nancy A. Sanco, were no more than 20 fet sway frm the police room when the Charged Officer attacked KB, Bativing tha the Charged Officer should be disciplined for his “unnecessa attack on KTB, Nurse Hoppe ‘contacted the Waukesha Police Department and fled a Citizen's Complain ‘After investigating the mater and confirming the misconduct bythe Charged Office, an interview was conduct The Charged Officer was represented by an atomey, Instead of ‘Xmitng to his conduct and apologizing fo his action, the Charged Officer continued to stand by his version ofthe story claiming that there was absolutely no fale information in bis repr, "at, eee eamteheetes ia _KITB in defensive tates terms claiming he was only using “decentralization technique” — The Charged Officer stated that many aspects of the witnesses’ reports were “lies.” He continued to claim that he never told KT, Tm in charge” or that the medical sta should x-ray KCTB’s skull and teeth, even though two credible witnesses corroborated thatthe Charged Officer re ths teens He tr et a oft wm stn ht esa KTS alaeBecause of his unnecessary force and brutality upon KTB and because of his uneuth- ness in attempting to cover up his misconduct, dschacgeis appropiate ‘APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTAL RULES ‘Rule 22, Section: All personel shall peak the th tll ies and unde al ereumstances ‘except where undercover operations warrant deception directed atthe 848. peat) of sid investigation Rule 22, Section 14: No personnel of the Department shall make false official reports of knowingly or willingly enler or cause to be entered into any department books, records, or reports any inaccurate, false or improper information oF ‘material matter. Rule 22, Section25: Each employee is issued a copy of the Rules and Regulations and it shall be their duty to familiarize him or herself with such provisions ofthe rules and regulations of the department as deal specifically and generally with their duties, ank, erade, or position and abide by these rules and regula- tions. Rule 22, Section 32: . . Personnel shall be attentive and zealous in discharging their duties, controlling their tempers and exercising the utmost patience and disere- tion, Rule24, Section 7: Among the offenses for which department personnel may be subject to iscipinary action are the following, but should not be construed as the only violations that shall be subject to disciplinary measures B. Disobedience or violation of any department rule, order, policy, instruction or memorandum. J, Arrogance, oppression or tyranny in the discharge of duty. K. Unnocessary violence or indignity toa citizen or prisoner Q. False official statements, oral or written, T. Conduct unbecoming an officer. U. Conduct tending to cause distepute on the department. sear Boece Paliey: An officer may ute force: AA) inthe defense of an officer(s or athers; B) to cect an arrestor take someone into custody, ©) to bring an unlawful situation safely under contoJUST CAUSE ‘The aforementioned acts constitute just cause for discharge ofthe Charged Office. Spe- citcally: 1 Officer knew, oF should have Known, of onsen his conduct, During the interview, the Charged Officer admited that an oficer who slams the head of handeuffd suspect on a tble or places his foot on the head ofa suspect should he subject to discipline. He further admitted that lying onan ofl police repor isa “serious act of misconduct” In fact, the Charged Officer stated that, if an officer lied about abusing a suspect, “my personal elit that somebody did what you are saying and it can be proven, not only should he os his job, bu he should be eximinally prosecuted.” All officers of Waukesha Police Department, like all police departments, must conduct themselves withthe highest level of diseretion, honesty and integrity. The Department's rules specifically address abuse of force, dishonesty and falifyng offical records. The Charged tier knew and bas conceded ta, it this Commission believes tha the witneses’ accounts of his police brutality are accurate, then he shouldbe terminated 2 The departmental sles equiting officers to reftin fiom beating handevffed suspects aul which require officers to be honest ave feasonable, The integrity and eredbility of the Department are essential for it to carry out its dues. We grant the police a great power—the power to have physial contol over citizens. We us tha, when an officer takes an individual into custody and restrans that individual with handeut, the officer will use no more fore tan necessary to detain the individual, To sbuse this trast and power with any suspect i simply unacceptable, To then le to coverup the fct thal the suspect was abuse is deplorable, The departmental rues safeguard the Department’ legitimate interest in ensuring that an officer doesnot by action, of inaction, jeopardize the community's trust, or bring diseredit upon the Depart- ‘ment and thereby damage the Department's ability to carry out its duties. 43. The Department conducted a complete and reasonable investigation. The Depart- ‘ments investigation was comprehensive and thorough. After receiving the citizen complaint, a complete and reasonable investigation was conducted. Both Nurse Hoppe and Nancy A Sunicola were interviewed. Their stories corroborated the initial complaint. Officer Bregar, who ‘was at the Hospital working as a security officer, stated that he did observe KTB on the floor hhandouffed, According to Brogar, when Officer Bregar entered the room, KTB was yelling that the Charged Oficer had “beaten” him. Later on August 21, 1999, Sergeant Andrews met with Nurse Hoppe again to check her statement for any possible inconsistencies. She remained consistent with her original statement Ms, Sanicola reiterated and supported Nurse Hoppo's story in telephone interview on August 23, 1999. On August 26, 1999, Sergeant Andrews interviewed Robin Heitman, the unit clerk for ‘Waukesha Memorial Hospital. While she was not able to see the entire incident as Hoppe and Sanicola were able 10, Ms. Feitman did hear KT pleading withthe Hospital staff to review the video tapes' to “see what he did to me.” Sergeant Andrews also received statements and/or discussed the matter with Officer Mackowski, Sergeant Konkol, Officer Van Ells, and Sergeant Holkenson, Then, after interviewing the Charged Oficer, follow-up interviews were conducted of key witnesses, verifying ther statements Luring the interview, the Charged OmTicer attacked Nurse Hoppe’s credibility. He claimed that Nurse Hoppe had the tendency to exsggerate, He further claimed that he heard this rumor had been told the Monday night after the incident ats local bar named “Sharkey’s”. Yet, "1 minkenly believed that the events a ben videotape on secu enmeras. “6.afc interviewing the only two nurses ftom Waukesha Memorial Hospital separately who were at Sharkey’ that night, they both indicated that at no time did they ever say that Nurse Hoppe ‘exaggerated or was not eee. Given the thorough investigation and credible evidence of misconduct, i is evident that the Charged Officer falsified his report and led during the investigation. While no separate investigation ofthe dishonesty was conducted, it is memorialized inthe Charged Officer's report andthe tansript of he investigation meeting 4, The investigation was conducted fuel and equitably. All normal procedures utilized by the Department in an internal investigation were followed in this case 5. The Deparment discovered substantial evidence ofthe above misconduct during its investigation. Specially the Department verified thatthe Charged Otficer had beat, dropped and stepped on ahandoulTed suspect, false his official report, and led ding the interview. 6. The Department is applying its rules fairly and without discrimination to the Charged fice. The Department is unaware of anyother employee ofthe Department who has engaged in similar behavior, Furthermore, during the interview, the Charged Officer conceded that he knew of no other individuals who had committed similar misconduct 7, The proposed discipline of discharge clearly is reasonably related to the seriousness of| the charge i ist ofthe Charged Oficersoror discipline. This Commi «one-day suspension forthe Charged Officer when he failed to mai ion previously upheld in proper contol over a department vehicle in causing an accident, and filed to immediatly repor the accident to bis supervisor. The Charged Officer had previously been involved in thee prior automobile accidents while on day, and he had recived writen reprimands on two prior occasions for ‘related misconductHowever, even ifthe Charged Officer had no prior distpline, discharge would be appro- priate in this cae, ‘There is never an excuse for a police officer to use unnecessary free. Had the Charged Officer simply dropped the hsndeufTed suspect to the ground on is face, that would be bad enough. Had the Charged Officer only slammed the sues face into the table, that alone would be a justified reason for termination. Had the Charged Officer just stepped onthe suspect's face after dropping him, one would be and shouldbe shocked. The Charged Officer did all tee "Tm in charge,” he suid, That is nota phrase consistent with the orderly restrain of a suspect in need of medical attention. ‘That is @ phrase of power. The Charged Officer may have been annoyed by KTB. KTB was likely drunk and at times loud, But no matter how annoying KTB may have been, there is never an exeuse for police brutality, ‘What is even more troublesome is the idea that the Charged Officer could attempt to cover the mater up by ying, EA ee ee ER A Thee i no logical reason why they would erete sich stony, The only individual with a ‘motive to lie isthe Charged Orficer. He has past discipline and was recently disciplined by this ‘Commission. He was worried about losing his job, ‘While itis clear that his misconduct of abuse of force is grounds for termination, most ceases that have involved officers lying alone have also upheld termination, Courts and arbitrators have generally upheld discharges for dishonesty, even if the lies involve minor matters. See, Donofrio v. City of Rochester, 534 N.Y S24 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (New York court that Upheld an ofice’s dismissal fr lying to investigators, despite an office's 30 yeas of service with the department); Hamilton County Sheriff's Dept, 99 L.A. 6, 11 (Duff, 1992) (arbitrator upholdAischarge of an officer who concocted false stories about how his service revolver was stolen in ‘order to ide the fact that it was stolen by his lover); Monroe »: Board of Publi Safty ofthe City of Glen Falls, 423 N.Y $24 963 (NLY. App. Div. 1980) (New York cour, upholding the termination of an officer who entered false information about his marital status on his health insurance application, agred thatthe behavior reflected discredit on the department or tended to bring the department to disrepute); Angelopoulas v. New York Civil Service Commission, STA N.Y.S.24 44 (AD. 1995) (discharge upheld for fsilure to indicate on employment application that officer had ‘been arested for desertion while serving in army under assumed name); City of Stamford, 97 LA 261 (Pittocco 1991) (termination of officer upheld for dishonesty after he fraudulently mado insurance claim); Curray County Sherif’ Department, PE.B. 445,593 (CCH, 1983) (termination of officer for unruthfulness at arbitration hearing); Homenick v. Ward, 556 N.E.2d 81 (A.D. 1980) (Germination upheld where ater an off-duty accident, the officer filed false report claiming that his vehicle had been stolen). “These eases support the simple concept that we don’t allow police feast bly broken.) The Chie simply canot trust the Charged Officer inthe future, Te inbiiyy of _ctizens to trast an officer i also fatal othe effective operations ofthe Department. Again, the public gran police ofcers great power. police ofcer has discretion to ares ctizen, eter ign homes, question witness, and soon, We it lis GCE Wit his geat amount of‘Along with great power comes great responsibility, however, One of thse responsibili= ties that every officer must have i that that officer can never physically abuse a suspect and ean never lie because the public needs to believe and trust the officer at al ies. ‘To summarize, the Charged Officer violated the rales and regulations applicable to him by: 1 2 . Abus offre when he slammed the sspec's ea nt the table on vo ecasons Abus offre when ie the handed suspect drop to the ground Abus of free when he steppe on the sspet’s heads Fasifeton of an oficial eport and Lying during the investigatory interview. ‘THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby requests the Waukesha Police and Fire Commis sion to discharge the Charged Ofer forthe good of the service Dated this 0 Peay of November, 1999, WAUKESHA POLICE DEPARTMENT - Lyle be “10