- Case #: 20PB2978
- Police badge #: 6740
- Download original case files
- Recommendation Termination
- Decision Termination
- Length of process 12 months August 04, 2020 to July 15, 2021 Closed
- Investigative Agency Not Specified
Charged with violating 5 rules on 21 counts
|Rule 10||4 counts||
Inattention to duty.
|Rule 6||5 counts||
Disobedience of an order or directive, whether written or oral.
|Rule 3||5 counts||
Any failure to promote the Department's efforts to implement its policy or accomplish its goals.
|Rule 2||5 counts||
Any action or conduct which impedes the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department.
|Rule 1||2 counts||
Violation of any law or ordinance.
Board Member Votes & Decisions
Agreed with the final decision of the board
Disagreed with the final decision of the board
0 did not vote
Did not vote or were not present for voting
We find credible the testimony from the Superintendent’s expert witness, Adam Hyde, an expert in traffic crash and reconstruction investigations, that Respondent drove her unmarked Department issued vehicle more than 100 m.p.h. The evidence clearly shows that Respondent’s rate of speed was significantly more than 35 m.p.h. over the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. First, the General Order expressly prohibits unmarked vehicles from engaging in motor vehicle pursuits “that involve only traffic offenses.” Second, the General Order required Respondent to undertake a balancing test before deciding to pursue Officer Clark. Respondent’s testimony that she conducted a balancing test was not credible because if she had conducted a balancing test, she would have recognized that Officer Clark was not a “fleeing suspect” that needed to be “immediately apprehended.” Third, the General Order sets forth certain protocols that members are required to follow when engaged in a motor vehicle pursuit. Respondent did not follow any of them. She failed to contact the Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC), failed to report the location and speed of the pursuit, and failed to wait further instruction from a supervisor. In addition, Respondent failed to put on her lights or her sirens. Respondent wrongfully initiated a motor vehicle pursuit and continued to engage in that pursuit without waiting to receive any instruction from a supervisor. Respondent’s testimony in this case was not credible and lacking in candor. There is no basis for Respondent to believe that driving at excessive rates of speed down an urban street populated with pedestrians and other vehicle traffic was reasonable or justified.