LITTLE ROCK POLICE DEPARTMENT

SUPERVISORY EVALUATION FORM

D Citizen Complaint
[gj Administrative Investigation Case CC #2016-00001

Involved Employee(s): Officer Charles Starks/: - & Officer James Phillips/: _ ,___ _ _ _ _ __
Complainant or Type Incident: Chief of Police directed investigation for two separate incidents
Date of Complaint: February 12, 2016 Date oflncident: _F_eb_r_u_a_ry_.__1_2_,_,_2_0_16_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATIONS: DISPOSITION

Charge/ 1. Dereliction of Duty Disposition 1. s S Sustained

NS Not-Sustained
Allegation 2. Conduct Unbecoming 2. s E Exonerated
3. Justified Criticism 3. s U Unfounded
4. Failure to report a Use of Force 4. s MC Misconduct Not
Based on Orig.
5. 5. Compliant
6.
------------------- 6. W Withdrawn
-------------------

DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATION
D Counseling D Oral Reprimand D Written Reprimand
[gj Suspension - 30 Days D Demotion
[gj Termination ONone

Comments:
On Friday, June 29. 2016 Officer Charles Starks and Officer James Phillips were given an Administrative Hearing for
the four above mentioned violations of Departmental Rules and Regulations and General Orders. The investigation was
centered two separate incidents: the two officers' cursory involvement in physical fight at the Rave Theater on February
12. 2016 as well as their peripheral role in being at a local pawn shop with a former officer looking to pawn a ring which
he had in his possession under questionable circumstances. Former Little Rock Police Officer - - resigned
under duress on March 2. 2016 as the investigation bega:n to gain momentum.

I discovered during the investigation that all three men were a part of Recruit Class #78 at the Little Rock Police
Department Training Academy a few years ago. This is an important facet in understanding the poor decision-making of
these two employees. After being the second-line supervisor of this group of men for over a year. I believe former officer
• had great influence over his coworkers that even superseded doing what was right. Let me provide an example of
this fact.

When the group became involved in the altercation at the Rave Theater and former officer • struck Mr. Christopher
Davis, Officer Starks and Officer Phillips took no direct action to stop it in a manner consist with responsible policing.
They did not identify themselves as police officers. did not warn Davis of a potential arrest. did not take Davis to the floor
and subdue him. nor did they inform the Pulaski County Sheriffs Deputy working there in an off duty capacity of their
dilemma. Instead. Officer Starks telephoned Officer Justin Taynor. who works the Northwest 2300-0700 Watch. Officer
Taynor was the top graduate of recruit class #78. After the incident. Officer Starks went to his home. He did not call an
on-duty supervisor nor did he call his supervisor. The following day. in the afternoon. he presented a written accounting
of his actions.

LRPD Form 5030-17

January 23, 200 I
 Little Rock Police Department
Supervisory Evaluation Form
Page2

Case CC #2016-00001

Comments C o n t ' d : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
appropriate accountabilitv.

Action must be taken to change their behavior.

There are multiple infractions of operating guidelines.

Bv not reporting the incident promptly (use of force), Officer Starks is in violation of Departmental Rules and
Regulations 1/4001.00 states:

Dereliction of duty on the part of any officer, detrimental to the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, is cause for disciplinary action. The offender shall be punished according to severity of the violation,
the results brou,:ht by the dereliction and the effect it has upon discipline, good order, and the best interest of the
Department.

In my judgment. both officer's actions are in conflict with the following guidelines:

Departmental Rules and Regulations 1/4002.00 states:

Officers shall not engage in any conduct which constitutes conduct unbecoming an officer or neglect of duty.

Departmental Rules and Regulations 1/4003.00 states:

No officer shall engage in anv personal act or conduct which, if brought to the attention of the public, could
result in justified criticism of that officer or the Department. No officer shall be personally involved in
disturbances or police incidents to his/her discredit.

I have come to the conclusion that both of these employees are complicit in multiple infractions previously listed. The
violations should be classified as sustained.

Additionally. Officer Starks appeared to be committed to the group of academy classmates as opposed to the interest of
his peers on the Watch or the Department. This was an unfortunate decision that must be corrected through discipline.
Officer Starks has been a difficult employee to manage over a several years and seems to gravitate toward conflict. In
2015. he utilized an excessive amount of sick leave. he called in sick during a black-out period and posted pictures of the
hunt on his personal Facebook page for his coworkers to see. He has deliberately undermined the authority of police
supervisors repeatedly. Consequently. I recommend Officers Starks is terminated for the violations listed above.

Officer Phillips level of culpability is not as severe: however, people are known by the company they keep. He knew
his peers/classmates were involved in inappropriate behavior and he chose to follow them. I make no distinction in the
violations he committed. He should be given a thirty (30) day suspension to change his behavior. Order must be
maintained in the ranks.

In summation. I believe this recommendation is fair to the officers. commensurate with the infractions and is aligned
with the Departments progressive discipline philosophy.

I \
I \ . \ ·"

Date \