Molon Labe
Member
Traffic stop reveals misconduct
Probes show series of poor judgments by officers, major
By Kelli Wynn
Dayton Daily News
Dayton, OH
March 27, 2006
UNION | Two Union police officers improperly gave a Montgomery County sheriff's major a warning instead of a citation or arrest when the major, pulled over for speeding, said he had been drinking.
They did it for one reason: The driver's rank with the sheriff's office.
So concluded Union police Lt. Darrin Goudy, who investigated the Sept. 18 incident involving Maj. John Brands, officers James Johnston and Jeff Smith.
Goudy said the officers compounded their misconduct when:
• Smith did not record his conversation with Brands.
• They let Brands drive home as they followed.
• They discussed Brands' suggestion they apply for a job with the sheriff's office.
A cop giving a fellow officer a break is rarely documented, said Tim Apolito, coordinator of Community Relations for the University of Dayton's Criminal Justice Studies program.
This incident, though, sparked two investigations. Union's was ordered up Sept. 27, according to Union Police Chief Michael Blackwell.
That was the day Smith wrote a memo that said, "We didn't want to arrest the third-highest ranking deputy in the county."
The day Johnston spoke with the sheriff's office about a job Oct. 4, Union's police department began its investigation.
The Union report
Johnston and Smith "were fully aware that they had an impaired operator of a motor vehicle and that an OVI (operating a vehicle while impaired) investigation should have been initiated," Goudy wrote.
Both Smith and Johnston "detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from or about (Brands') person. Officer Smith observed that his eyes were extremely bloodshot and that his speech was slurred."
The officers did not ask Brands to leave his vehicle or perform a sobriety test.
They did not follow Union's procedure when they didn't offer the Breathalyzer test to Brands, Blackwell said.
"If they have reasonable belief that the individual is under the influence, then yes," they should offer the test, Blackwell said.
After Smith found out the driver was Brands, a childhood friend, "Smith turned off his body microphone and it was never reactivated," Goudy's report said.
Blackwell said in an interview that turning off the body mike was against the department's policy and that Smith, a full-time officer for more than two years, was questioned, reprimanded and retrained for doing so.
Goudy concluded, "Officer Johnston acted improperly by discussing possible employment opportunities offered by Major Brands which could be construed as a reward for Officer Johnston not initiating an OVI arrest."
Johnston and Smith were issued letters of reprimand, Blackwell said. "They realized they made a mistake."
The sheriff's report
Sheriff's Chief Deputy Phil Plummer asked Butler Twp. Police Chief Danny Hobbs on Nov. 14 to probe whether Brands violated sheriff's office policy and procedures by "speeding, driving while intoxicated and offering the officers employment with the sheriff's office."
Brands said he didn't tell Plummer about the incident until he found out about Union's investigation Oct. 4. Sheriff Dave Vore said Plummer told him that day.
Why the delay?
"I had done nothing wrong," Brands said. "I got stopped for a speeding violation. I didn't bring it to them 'til I realized this was an issue."
Hobbs concluded:
• Brands "used poor judgment in driving at excessive speeds after having been drinking."
• Brands' bid to recruit the officers did not violate agency policy:
"Although this might not have been the best time to have recruitment discussions, it certainly was not an attempt by Major Brands to use his official position to avoid the consequences of his driving or possible impairment."
How drunk was he?
If the Union officers believed Brands was driving impaired, why did they let him drive home?
Brands has no answer.
"Not only are they risking my safety, but other citizens'," Brands said in an interview. "They believe I'm intoxicated and then have me turn around and drive my car. That's not even reasonable to believe."
Brands told Hobbs he had four 12-ounce bottles of Bud Light beer during a 3½-hour period before he started driving from his home, less than a mile from where he was stopped.
"They never asked me how much or what I consumed," Brands said in an interview. "They never asked me to exit my vehicle, perform a field sobriety or submit to any chemical test. They told me they smelled alcohol on me, that I admitted I consumed alcohol and I needed to turn around and drive my car home."
The job offer
Brands said he did try to recruit the two officers while conversing in his driveway shortly after the traffic stop about 1 a.m. on a Sunday, but it wasn't to reward them for letting him go.
Both officers told Brands they had applied to the sheriff's office before, but their applications had been turned down. Johnston was interested in applying again, so Brands told Johnston to call him Monday and said he would pull his file for review, according to Hobbs' report.
"I can't guarantee anyone a job," Brands said. "I don't have that ability. But what I can do is recruit them and get them into the process."
He said, "We have a very strict background process, which includes a written test, psychological test, polygraph exam, thorough background investigation, interview, investigative report, which has to be reviewed by the chief deputy and the sheriff before it is approved."
Does it happen often?
Police "are very protective of one another," said Tracey Steele, associate professor of sociology and director of criminal justice at Wright State University.
Steele said sometimes the perception among police officers is, "If I meet up with a brother in blue, I'm going to give them a break because I would like them to do the same for me," Steele said.
But it's harder to do that sort of favor without scrutiny, another expert said.
"The days of the good-old-boy network are done," David Williams, instructor of criminal justice and political science at Wright State, said.
"The technology that we have today" — cellphones with cameras, cruiser cameras and officer body mikes — "makes it quite difficult to have corruption that has been in law enforcement in the past," Williams said.
"They police the police," Williams said of police internal affairs divisions.
Williams, who also is a retired Huber Heights officer and an attorney, also said officers today are more concerned about their careers than protecting a crooked cop.
Some people confuse the good-old-boy network with police officers' right to use discretion, Williams said.
"Not everybody that is pulled over for a possible DUI gets arrested," he said. "I would never second-guess an officer's discretion on the street because I'm not there."
Lessons and outcome
Blackwell declined to make Smith or Johnston available for interviews.
Brands told Hobbs, "I put those guys in a bad spot."
Of the stop itself, Brands said, "If I could have changed anything that evening, it would have been to take a field sobriety test and submit to a chemical test, if I would have known the allegations that followed.
He said, "No one else can tell you what my condition was because they turned off the body mikes. People are going to draw their own conclusions. I don't have a defense to it.
"This has been very damaging to my reputation, to my family and to the sheriff's office."
As for Johnston, Vore said, "His application is no longer being considered for employment."
Probes show series of poor judgments by officers, major
By Kelli Wynn
Dayton Daily News
Dayton, OH
March 27, 2006
UNION | Two Union police officers improperly gave a Montgomery County sheriff's major a warning instead of a citation or arrest when the major, pulled over for speeding, said he had been drinking.
They did it for one reason: The driver's rank with the sheriff's office.
So concluded Union police Lt. Darrin Goudy, who investigated the Sept. 18 incident involving Maj. John Brands, officers James Johnston and Jeff Smith.
Goudy said the officers compounded their misconduct when:
• Smith did not record his conversation with Brands.
• They let Brands drive home as they followed.
• They discussed Brands' suggestion they apply for a job with the sheriff's office.
A cop giving a fellow officer a break is rarely documented, said Tim Apolito, coordinator of Community Relations for the University of Dayton's Criminal Justice Studies program.
This incident, though, sparked two investigations. Union's was ordered up Sept. 27, according to Union Police Chief Michael Blackwell.
That was the day Smith wrote a memo that said, "We didn't want to arrest the third-highest ranking deputy in the county."
The day Johnston spoke with the sheriff's office about a job Oct. 4, Union's police department began its investigation.
The Union report
Johnston and Smith "were fully aware that they had an impaired operator of a motor vehicle and that an OVI (operating a vehicle while impaired) investigation should have been initiated," Goudy wrote.
Both Smith and Johnston "detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from or about (Brands') person. Officer Smith observed that his eyes were extremely bloodshot and that his speech was slurred."
The officers did not ask Brands to leave his vehicle or perform a sobriety test.
They did not follow Union's procedure when they didn't offer the Breathalyzer test to Brands, Blackwell said.
"If they have reasonable belief that the individual is under the influence, then yes," they should offer the test, Blackwell said.
After Smith found out the driver was Brands, a childhood friend, "Smith turned off his body microphone and it was never reactivated," Goudy's report said.
Blackwell said in an interview that turning off the body mike was against the department's policy and that Smith, a full-time officer for more than two years, was questioned, reprimanded and retrained for doing so.
Goudy concluded, "Officer Johnston acted improperly by discussing possible employment opportunities offered by Major Brands which could be construed as a reward for Officer Johnston not initiating an OVI arrest."
Johnston and Smith were issued letters of reprimand, Blackwell said. "They realized they made a mistake."
The sheriff's report
Sheriff's Chief Deputy Phil Plummer asked Butler Twp. Police Chief Danny Hobbs on Nov. 14 to probe whether Brands violated sheriff's office policy and procedures by "speeding, driving while intoxicated and offering the officers employment with the sheriff's office."
Brands said he didn't tell Plummer about the incident until he found out about Union's investigation Oct. 4. Sheriff Dave Vore said Plummer told him that day.
Why the delay?
"I had done nothing wrong," Brands said. "I got stopped for a speeding violation. I didn't bring it to them 'til I realized this was an issue."
Hobbs concluded:
• Brands "used poor judgment in driving at excessive speeds after having been drinking."
• Brands' bid to recruit the officers did not violate agency policy:
"Although this might not have been the best time to have recruitment discussions, it certainly was not an attempt by Major Brands to use his official position to avoid the consequences of his driving or possible impairment."
How drunk was he?
If the Union officers believed Brands was driving impaired, why did they let him drive home?
Brands has no answer.
"Not only are they risking my safety, but other citizens'," Brands said in an interview. "They believe I'm intoxicated and then have me turn around and drive my car. That's not even reasonable to believe."
Brands told Hobbs he had four 12-ounce bottles of Bud Light beer during a 3½-hour period before he started driving from his home, less than a mile from where he was stopped.
"They never asked me how much or what I consumed," Brands said in an interview. "They never asked me to exit my vehicle, perform a field sobriety or submit to any chemical test. They told me they smelled alcohol on me, that I admitted I consumed alcohol and I needed to turn around and drive my car home."
The job offer
Brands said he did try to recruit the two officers while conversing in his driveway shortly after the traffic stop about 1 a.m. on a Sunday, but it wasn't to reward them for letting him go.
Both officers told Brands they had applied to the sheriff's office before, but their applications had been turned down. Johnston was interested in applying again, so Brands told Johnston to call him Monday and said he would pull his file for review, according to Hobbs' report.
"I can't guarantee anyone a job," Brands said. "I don't have that ability. But what I can do is recruit them and get them into the process."
He said, "We have a very strict background process, which includes a written test, psychological test, polygraph exam, thorough background investigation, interview, investigative report, which has to be reviewed by the chief deputy and the sheriff before it is approved."
Does it happen often?
Police "are very protective of one another," said Tracey Steele, associate professor of sociology and director of criminal justice at Wright State University.
Steele said sometimes the perception among police officers is, "If I meet up with a brother in blue, I'm going to give them a break because I would like them to do the same for me," Steele said.
But it's harder to do that sort of favor without scrutiny, another expert said.
"The days of the good-old-boy network are done," David Williams, instructor of criminal justice and political science at Wright State, said.
"The technology that we have today" — cellphones with cameras, cruiser cameras and officer body mikes — "makes it quite difficult to have corruption that has been in law enforcement in the past," Williams said.
"They police the police," Williams said of police internal affairs divisions.
Williams, who also is a retired Huber Heights officer and an attorney, also said officers today are more concerned about their careers than protecting a crooked cop.
Some people confuse the good-old-boy network with police officers' right to use discretion, Williams said.
"Not everybody that is pulled over for a possible DUI gets arrested," he said. "I would never second-guess an officer's discretion on the street because I'm not there."
Lessons and outcome
Blackwell declined to make Smith or Johnston available for interviews.
Brands told Hobbs, "I put those guys in a bad spot."
Of the stop itself, Brands said, "If I could have changed anything that evening, it would have been to take a field sobriety test and submit to a chemical test, if I would have known the allegations that followed.
He said, "No one else can tell you what my condition was because they turned off the body mikes. People are going to draw their own conclusions. I don't have a defense to it.
"This has been very damaging to my reputation, to my family and to the sheriff's office."
As for Johnston, Vore said, "His application is no longer being considered for employment."
