Danielle Ferlito

  • Recommendation Termination
  • Decision Suspension
  • Length of process about 1 year September 18, 2019 to November 19, 2020 Closed
  • Investigative Agency Not Specified

Charged with violating 6 rules on 12 counts

Show all counts

Rule 14 1 count

Making a false report, written or oral.

Rule 21 1 count

Failure to report promptly to the Department any information concerning any crime or other unlawful action.

Rule 10 2 counts

Inattention to duty.

Rule 5 2 counts

Failure to perform any duty.

Rule 3 3 counts

Any failure to promote the Department's efforts to implement its policy or accomplish its goals.

Rule 2 3 counts

Any action or conduct which impedes the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department.

Board Member Votes & Decisions

Majority Decision

0 agreed

Agreed with the final decision of the board

0 disagreed

Disagreed with the final decision of the board

0 did not vote

Did not vote or were not present for voting

Respondent Ferlito violated the rules specified above for many of the same reasons enumerated in Section No. 4 pertaining to Respondent Walczak. However, unlike Respondent Walczak, Respondent Ferlito admitted that she discovered that her fellow officers were involved in the fight while still at the restaurant, when Ms. Steckenrider walked up to the table and told them. The Board believes that this was the reason that Respondents left without providing any information to the responding officers. In addition, during Respondent Ferlito’s January 2018 interview with COPA investigators, she expressed true regret for leaving the scene without speaking to the responding officers. She acknowledged that she should have stayed and offered what information she knew about the incident and that, in retrospect, she could have provided them with the three male officers’ names at the very least. She conceded that her information could have been helpful; but instead, she followed her sergeant’s lead and left the scene. For the same reasons enunciated in Section No. 4 pertaining to Respondent Walczak, the Board finds that by failing to provide any information to the responding officers, Respondent Ferlito violated Rules 2, 3, 5, 10, and 21.

As previously stated, although Respondent Ferlito would not admit that she witnessed
any portion of the fight between her fellow officers and the Jiminez brothers, she did admit that she knew the officers were involved in the fight while the fight was occurring. At a minimum, Respondent Ferlito failed to summon immediate medical attention for the Jiminez brothers, take police action by identifying possible witnesses, and assist the responding officers by providing them with information vital to their preliminary investigation, including the names of some of the fight’s participants. For the same reasons enunciated above in Section No. 5 as to Respondent Walczak, Respondent Ferlito violated Rules 2, 3, 5 and 10.

As explained in the parallel specification against Respondent Walczak in Section No.
7 above, the Superintendent did not base this charge on certain questionable statements Respondents made to IPRA investigators—namely, that Respondents did not see any portion of the altercation or see CPOs Delgado, Almodovar, or Rooney at the scene after the men walked out of the restaurant. Instead, the Superintendent chose to allege that during their respective IPRA interviews, Respondents falsely “denied having knowledge of a physical altercation” between their fellow officers and the Jiminez brothers. Like Respondent Walczak, Respondent Ferlito never denied having such knowledge.
Respondent Ferlito admitted to IPRA investigators that she knew her friends were involved in the fight because Ms. Steckenrider told them so. Respondent Ferlito also gave the investigators additional information about the altercation. She told the investigators that either CPO Almodovar or Rooney called her and told her that the officers had participated in the fight, and she told the investigators about CPO Delgado’s statement to Respondents at Respondent Ferlito’s home. Again, it stands to reason that by virtue of providing this information to the investigators during the interview, she did not deny “knowledge of the physical altercation,” nor did she use words to that effect. Therefore, Respondent Ferlito, like Respondent Walczak, cannot be found guilty of violating any rules related to this specification.

Minority Opinions