Alfred P. Donovan Special Investigator Town of Montague MONTAGUE POLICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT In the Matter of Police Chief Charles Dodge Dated: December 15th 2017Table of Contents | INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTIVE NW SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION... ML BACKGROUND INFORMATION ... IV ALLEGATIONS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .. Error! Bookmark not defined LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. Town of Montague’s job description for the position of Chief of Police 2. Memo from Chief Dodge to Town Manager Steve Ellis 3. Medication Drop Program Suspension Letter from Northwestern District Attorney David Sullivan dated July 8%, 2016 October 12, 2017 Greenfield Recorder Newspaper story regarding Chief Dodge Transcribed Interview of Chief Dodge conducted on November 20,2017 ‘Montague Police Department Med Box Secure Handling Policy (PP#16-3) Issued 6/28/16 Report of Staff Sergeant Chris Williams ‘Town of Montague’s Job Description for the position Evidence Officer, List of Person's interviewed in course of Investigation 10, Written Summary of June 23, 2016 State Police interview with Chief Charles Dodge 11, Northwestern District Attorney's letter suspending the Town of Montague’s participation in the Drug Task Force 12, Index of ViolationsNOTICE AND WARNING THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT MAY CONTAIN PERSONALLY INDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION INCLUDING POTENTIAL CRIMINAL OFFENDER RECORD INFORMATION. THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT MAY CONTAIN SENSITIVE INFORMATION REGARDING SECURITY ISSUES. THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT MAY CONTAIN UNCORROBORATED OR UNSTAINED ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT BY TOWN EMPLOYEES OR CIVILIANS. THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT MAY CONTAIN PERSONNEL FILE INFORMATION. THIS REPORT, OR PORTIONS THEREOF, MAY NOT BE A PUBLIC RECORD. PLEASE CONSULT WITH TOWN COUNSEL PRIOR TO ANY INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL DISSEMINATION OF THIS REPORT OR EXHIBITS. This report contains confidential and sensitive material which should be redacted before distribution outside of the scope of the Appointing Authority and the Police Department. The material which must be reviewed and redacted includes the report and exhibits and includes the names of any juveniles, addresses, dates of births when appropriate, social security numbers or any other information which should not be disclosed publicly. Itis the responsibility of the Town of Montague to ensure that this material is properly redacted before distributing copies.IN THE MATTER OF: MONTAGUE POLICE CHIEF CHARLES DODGE III I! INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTIVE The undersigned, Alfred P. Donovan, hereinafter referred to as the “Investigator”, has been directed by Montague Town Administrator Steven Ellis and the Board of Selectmen for the Town of Montague to conduct an administrative investigation into the conduct of Montague Police Chief Charles Dodge II as it relates to the following matters: [DIRECTIVE #1] Whether Chief Dodge violated any Town, Departmental or agency rule, procedure or protocol with respect to his handling, oversight and/or management of the Police Department's prescription drug drop-box collection and storage program; and [DIRECTIVE #2] Whether and to what extent any such violation has negatively impacted Chief Dodge’s ability or qualifications to effectively manage the Montague Police Department and otherwise perform the essential functions of his position.” The Town’s Investigative Directive is narrowly defined and straightforward. Nevertheless, the fundamental objectives of this investigation cannot be capably addressed without acknowledging the elephant in the room, Namely, by his own admission Chi f Dodge is a ©2011), 2¢ its core this investigation involves his alleged reckless mishandling and misappropriation of prescription narcotics. Stated differently, although the directive contains no specific instruction to examine Chief Dodge’s ME, it would be malfeasance to ignore the query as towhether IEEE affected his ability to not only administer the Medic: ion Dropbox Program but also his ongoing ability to perform his general duties as Montague Chief of Police, Accordingly, Section A of this report addresses certain highly relevant matters All of which, to varying degrees, impact my findings in this report, Section B will address pertaining to Charles Dod DIRECTIVE #1. Namely, to what extent were rules violated in connection with Chief Dodge’s administration of the Medication Dropbox Program. Finally, Section C focuses on DIRECTIVE #2 and addresses whether any such violations(s) affected Chief Dodge’s ability to perform his duties and essential functions as Chief of Police. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION The scope of this investigation was to (a) review the attached Exhibits, related material, laws, policies, procedures, rules and regulations, (b) conduct interviews deemed necessary and (c) employ any additional inv igative efforts needed to make a determination as to what, if any, act, omission or other conduet effected by Police Chief Charles Dodge, as brought to light by an investigation conducted by the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office in connection with his involvement, handling, oversight or administration of the Medication Dropbox Program, or otherwise discovered through the investigative process, violated any of the Montague Police Department’s Policies, Procedures, Rules or Regulations or statutory laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Ill STANDARDS FOR CHIEF OF POLICE Standards of review are not identical for all police officers. A green patrolman, for example, gencrally will be given more latitude in review of his or her actions than would a veteranSergeant. Intuitively, the po: ion of Chief of Police commands the highest standard of review with virtually no permissible tolerance for deviation from excellence in performing the job, both onand off duty. The Police Chief is not only the face of the Department but is also required to lead by example and have a proficient knowledge of the Department’s rules, regulations, policies, procedures and practices. The Chief is responsible for planning, directing, coordinating, controlling and staffing all activities of the Department.' ‘The Chiefs the final authority as to who may qualify for a license to carry a firearm, how to properly allocate limited resources and, generally, to attend to the safety and wellbeing of every citizen of his or her community. Chief Dodge was not drafied into public service and most certainly was not involuntarily appointed as Chief, By applying for and accepting the position he willingly acquiesced to be held toa higher standard of performance review than any other sworn officer of the Montague Police Department, And that is precisely what was done in compiling this report. Performance at a level below that high standard sullies the reputation of the entire Department and unjustly impugns all the men and women who work under him. IV THE MEDICATION DROPBOX PROGRAM Internal Montague Police Department documents use phrases such as “Medication Drop Box”, “Med Box” or “Permanent Drug Take Back Box” to refer to the drop box and the program under scrutiny in this report. The Town’s direct fe refers to the “prescription drug drop-box collection and storage service”. The Attorney General’s various correspondence use the phrase “Medication Dropbox Program”. Other sources (¢.g., published articles, interviews, etc.) use * From the job description for Montague Chief of Police attached as Exhibit #1,phrases such as: “pharmaceuticals drop-off program”, “medication drop-box program”, “drug drop-box service”, etc, For purposes of clarity, this report uses the Attorney General’s term “Medication Dropbox Program” exclusively, meaning and intending thereby to be interpreted interchangeably with all of the nomenclature described above, The goal of the Medication Dropbox Program is to provide a safe, discrete and convenient place for citizens to discard unused or unwanted medications. It is believed, and evidence suggests, that this program effectively helps remove prescription painkilling medications (primarily highly addictive opiates) from streets and homes where they are often abused. The Montague Police Department's Medication Dropbox Program was established under the supervision of the Northwestern County District Attorney's Office starting in 2012. It was not, however, until January 2013 that the Police Department received the physical box into which materials were to be placed. For purposes of this report, therefore, the effective commencement date of the Montague Medication Dropbox Program is regarded as January 2013. Thus, it was at or around that time that citizens began to deposit materials into the Medication Dropbox located in the Montague Police Station. This timeframe is corroborated in an undated memo from Chief Dodge to Town Manager Steven Ellis*, It should be noted that Chief Dodge had been permanently appointed as Chief of Police in November 2012. Ina letter from Northwestern District Attorney David E. Sullivan dated July 8, 2016, Chief Dodge was informed that “the Montague Police Department's participation in the Medication * The memo from Chief Dodge to Mr Elis is attached as Exhibit #2.Dropbox Program [had] been suspended indefinitely”? for failing to comply with recommended protocols. That reason for the suspension and related matters are discussed below. v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S INVESTIGATION Acting upon information that Chief Dodge was mishandling the Medication Dropbox Program, the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office along with the State Police conducted a covert sting operation sometime in 2016. State Police investigators placed seven placebo OxyContin pills in two pill bottles and deposited them into the Montague Police Medication Dropbox. When they later intercepted the contents of the Medication Dropbox on the way to the incinerator for destruction they discovered one bottle which had contained four placebo pills was empty. The second bottle was intact, On or about June 23, 2016, State Police investigators seized computer equipment from Chief Dodge’s office, spoke to police employees and interviewed Chief Dodge relative to his administration of the Medication Dropbox Program. The investigation which ensued was the impetus for District Attorney Sullivan’s suspension of the Montague Police Department's Medication Dropbox Program on July 8, 2016, and, similarly, the Town’s participation in the Northwestern District Anti-Crime Task Force, 9 See letter from DA Sullivan dated July &, 2016 attached as Exhibit #3.Section A 1 find, upon witness to all testimony and review of all other relevant evidence in this investigation, using the preponderance of the evidence standard, that Charles Dodge III violated the Montague Police Department's Policies, Procedures, Rules, Regulations listed below when he acted or failed to act as follows: FINDING: Dodge's Failure to Disclose IIIT ot Any Time Prior to Applying for the Position of Chief of Police was (#1) a VIOLATION OF PROHIBITED CONDUCT (INTOXICATING BEVERAGES or DRUGS, USE of) and (#2) a VIOLATION OF ‘THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS. FINDING: Dodge’s Failure to Disclose ZEEE When Competing for Promotion to Chief of Police was (#3) a VIOLATION OF PROHIBITED CONDUCT (INTOXICATING BEVERAGES or DRUGS, USE of) and (#4) a VIOLATION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS. FINDING :Dodge’s Failure to Disclose TR hile Serving as Chief of Police was (#5) a VIOLATION OF PROHIBITED CONDUCT (INTOXICATING BEVERAGES or DRUGS, USE of) and (#6) a VIOLATION OF ‘THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS. In support of these findings, | provide the following: The Montague Police Department's Rules and Regulations (“MPDRR”) manual under Section 1.G, (PROHIBITED CONDUCT) Rule #13 Intoxicating Beverages or Drugs, Use of (MPDRR Rule #13) states the following: 13. Intoxicating Beverages or Orugs, Use_of - An officer or employee: (a) shall not, while on duty, consume any intoxicating beverage, except for a proper police purpose with the specific approval of the Chief or a superior officer; (b) shall not, while on duty, use any narcotic, controlled substance or other toxic drugexcept at the direction of a physician or for a specific health purpose (in any case where it is necessary to take any such drug on the advice of a physician, such officer or employee shall notify the Officer-in-Charge upon reporting for duty and be guided by his decision as to their fitness for duty); (c) shall not report for duty while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or under the influence oj any narcotic drug or controlled substance unlawfully administered; (d) shall not report for duty with the odor of intoxicants on their breath; (e) shall not, while off duty, render themselves unfit to report for duty through the use of intoxicating beverages or through the use of any narcotic drug or controlled substance unlawfully administered; (f) shall not, while off duty and while wearing any identifiable part of his uniform, drink any intoxicating beverage in public view or in any place accessible to the public; (g) shall not bring, place or keep, or permit to be brought, placed or kept, in any police building or vehicle, any intoxicating beverage or any narcotic drug or controlled substance, except in the proper performance of police duty as required by departmental practices and procedures. [emphasis added] In accordance with the plain language of MPDRR Rule #13, “where it is necessary to take any such [narcotic] drug on the advice of a physician, such officer or employee shall notify the Officer in-Charge upon reporting for duty and be guided by his decision as to their fitness for duty”, The Montague Police Department’s Rules unambiguously require this disclosure and common sense dictates it The requirement that police officers disclose their use of prescribed medication is intrinsic in Massachusetts law enforcement and serves a legitimate law enforcement purpose. Police officers are required to make split-second life and death decisions which impact the lives and safety of their fellow officers and the public in general. They are authorized to use deadly force whenappropriate and carry a deadly weapon as part of their daily job duties. MPDRR Rule #13 ‘meno a On October 12, 2017, the Greenfield Recorder published an article titled: “In Recovery, Montague Police Chief Chip Dodge was the Focus of AG Probe.” *, The article quotes Chief Dodge copiously and one segment of the article states “Montague Police Chief Charles “Chip” Dodge has been JI I — 0 205192 ne 5275 as mave him better at his job and improved his department's handling of the opioid crisis. “| want to try to let people know that this can happen to anybody and that you can be helped and go back to having col Recorder in his first public acknowledgement of trol," he told the Chief Dodge was interviewed by this Investigator on November 20, 2017, in Northampton Massachusetts’, He was represt nted by attorney Austin Joyce. Chief Dodge was advised of his right against sclf-incrimination and further advised that he would not be disciplined if he chose to invoke such right at any time during the interview. The interview was recorded and Chief Dodge * October 12, 2017 Greenfield Recorder newspaper article attached as Exhibit #4. Transcribed November 20, 2017 interview with Chief Dodge attached as Exhit is,cooperated in the respect that he answered all questions asked of him. During the interview Chief 2 His interview testimony about the timeframes regarding when he I «2 2:¢008!s:€0 in some respects with the facts reported in the October 12, 2017 Sreenfield Recorder article. However, in both instances he spore he: The requirement that he not his Officer-in-Charge of a change (e.g. new prescription of narcotic medication) which could potentially impact his fitness to perform his duties and job functions was critical information which his needed to know in order to make an superior officers informed decision as to his fitness for duty. The then C ef of Police had a right and a need to know that one of his plie cs During his interview Chief Dodge downplayed the importance of the MPDRR Rule #13 disclosure requirement and asserted that because, to the best of his knowledge, it was never previously enforced or otherwise followed he felt no obligation to do so either. That conversation went as follows:Donovan: Um, are you aware that you have a rule or regulation that requires any police officer to report when they're on prescription medications? Dodge: Donovan: Dodge Donovan Dodge: Donovan Dodge: Donovan: Dodge: Donovan: Dodge Donovan: Dodge I'll be honest with you. | didn't know that until | read my...’cause | was trying to figure out where that came from. But | can tell you that that's never been enforced in our police department. Nobody has ever reported any medicine that they're on to anybody. [emphasis added] Okay. And, and I, | know that, if you ask any employee, they're not...they're gonna say that, because... |...well, | can tell you that I've asked, I've interviewed probably 16 to 17 employees. Yeah. And probably half of them knew about the rule, and said they knew it existed. So half didn't. Did they ever report...yeah, | was gonna say. | didn't ask that question. | asked if they knew if the rule was there.\, Y-, yeah. ‘Cause |, | didn't know. Okay. 1,1 didn't know the rule was there. I'm not arguing with the rule, either. [emphasis added) idnn't know it was there, but | will tell you this. It has never been enforced, [emphasis added) 10Donovan: Okay Dodge I mean, in,..when you look at it, it kind of leaves...well, the strange part was, it leaves it up to the duty supervisor to decide if you're fit for duty or not. So if you come in...and it says, you tell your. Donovan: |, | know what it says. Dodge You know what | mean? And so Donovan: Okay Dodge ..a duty supervisor is not going to want to take that risk, and make that decision for somebody when. Donovan: Well, they'd certainly notify the chief or somebody else if there was a concern, | would think Chief Dodge’s admission that he was unaware of the existence of MPDRR Rule #13 at any time during hi career with the Montague Police Department is prima facie evidence of his noncompliance with the Rule . By his own admission Officer and then Sergeant Charles Dodge Sa HR Accordingly, I find that Charles Dodge violated the MPDRR Rule #13 by not informing his Officer-in-Charge when reporting for duty after [Violation #1 - MPDRR Rule #13 | SUSTAIN! DI The Montague Police Department's “Law Enforcement Code of Ethics” states, in pertinent part, the following: ct“Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, | will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department.” [emphasis added] Having failed to comply with MPDRR Rule #13, I must also find that Officer and then lure to inform his Officer-in-Charge of [ii HERE 2s @ violation of his professional responsibilities as promulgated by the Sergeant Charles Dodge’s intentional Montague Police Department's Rules and Regulations under its Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. [Violation #2-MPDRR Law Enforcement Code of Ett s | SUSTAINED]. Charles Dodge was appointed Montague Police Chief in November 2012. During the hiring/promotional process leading up to that appointment Sergeant Charles Dodge competed for the position of Police Chief and was ultimately selected for the job. As part of that process he was required to and expected to honest in interviews and otherwise candid with the Appointing Authority throughout, Whether or not he [iI at the time leading up to his November 2012 appointment as Chief is subject to his own conflicting testimony. Incontrovertibly, however, Sergeant Dodge knew, at the very minimum at that point, [J 2016 vere! not one word about that fact at any time during the competition. It may be reasonably inferred from his nondisclosure that Sergeant Dodge believed that information would hurt his chances of winning the competition for Chief. The Police Chief is the highest ranking officer in the Montague Police Department. The Police Chief is responsible for the effective, efficient and orderly operat n of the Montague Police Department. He or she is responsible for making critical decisions on employment matters; including assignments and promotions, for making decisions on criminal investigations and 2resulting prosecutions. The Police Chief is the approving authority for firearm licensing and the Police Chief is responsible for the control and oversight of the Montague Detectives and Evidence Room. To say that the Appointing Authority's knowledge of Sergeant Dodge’s [EEE would have factored into their decision to entrust him with the litany of responsibilities provided above and to choose to appoint him as Chief over other candidates would be a gross understatement. The Appointing Authority was deliberately deprived of that critical information by Sergeant Dodge's intentional nondisclosure. Accordingly, I find that Sergeant Charles Dodge violated MPDRR Rule #13 by not informing the Appointing Authority ‘hat es HERE when he was competing for the position of Police Chief and subsequent to being appointed to the position of Police Chief. [Violation #3-MPDRR Rule #13 | SUSTAINED]. Ha ing failed to comply with MPDRR Rule #13, I must also find that Sergeant Charles form the Appointing Authority of (is) HEE was 2 violation of his professional responsibilities as promulgated by the Montague Dodge’s intentional failure to i Police Department’s Rules and Regulations under its Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. [Violation #4-MPDRR Law Enforcement Code of Ed 's | SUSTAINED]. During his interview on November 20, 2017, Chief Dodge informed this Investigator that he did not realize he [EEE until offer he had been appointed C! reported that as Police Chief he i C0 th first time somewhere around May 2013 f. He further A review of the information provided by Chief Dodge indicates he w BHRB in. May 2013 while he was Police Chief. Chief Dodge reported During his interview with me Chief Dodge indicated he was advised |s i2r0nce w: was not required to disclose INI use to anyone (including the Town) y principle afforded IT That is that he believed he because of some superseding confidentiali argument is both not credible and absurd. , find that while serving in the capacity as Chief of Police that Charles Dodge violated MPDRR Rule #13 by failing to inform the Appointing Authority of i ES Violation +5 SUSTAINED] MPDRR Rule #13 | Having failed to comply with MPDRR Rule #13, I must also find that while serving in the capacity as Chief of Police that Charles Dodge’s intentional failure to inform the Appointing ‘thoi was a violation of his professional responsibilities as promulgated by the Montague Police Department's Rules and Regulations under its Law Enforcement Code of Ethies. [Violation #6- MPDRR Law Enforcement Code of Ethies | SUSTAINED]. 14As an epilogue to my above findings, in my view the many violations of MPDRR #13 were knowingly and consciously made by Sergeant and then Chief Dodge with the ultimate goal being never 10 disclose |; mmm 5 plained below, it is my opinion that both his eventual disclosure to the Appointing Authority and to the constituents of Montague were made involuntarily Itis no secret that the Attomey General’s inve a“tip” that Chief Dodge [EMI that he was personally administering the Montague Medication Dropbox Program and that he failed or refused to use the controls and ation into Chief Dodge was provoked by protocols specifically designed to eliminate the possibility of mishandling the inevitable influx of highly addictive opioid mediation, As part of their investigation they conducted what is known as a prescription audit of Chief Dodge to leam the names, dates and dosages of all prescription medications provided to Dodge during a specified period. ‘This is a common law enforcement pre investigations such as this to determine if the suspect is taking prescription medications which might prompt some predisposition to stealing érvgs, mes Chief Dodge acknowledged in his interview with this Investigator that State Police formed him they had performed such an audit «rd ME Chic! Dodge only “came out” 26011 II oer State Police investigators had come unannounced into the Montague Police Department, seized I ice investigators computer, spoke with police employees and began questioning him about his handling of the Med cation Dropbox Program. It was State Police investigators in June 2016 who first informed Town officials they were investigating Chief Dodge for improprieties with the Medication Dropbox and that they suspected MMMM. Aficr the State Police investigators 15completed their preliminary investigation and Chief Dodge was allowed to return to work, he met with staff members and disclosed to them [MEE Stated bluntly, Chief Dodge attempted to concea! NINN fom the Appointing Authority until it was no longer possible to do so. The State Police did it for him. Whether intended or not, when Chief Dodge announced [EEE publicly to the people of Montague fourteen months later via the Greenfield Recorder article he received plaudits for his journey due to his status as Police Chief for the Town, Although it may be appropriate for Chief Dodge to have (NM lauded, I find his disclosure at that time suspect. As stated in the Greenfield Recorder article, “A three-page document from the Massachusetts State Police investigators working for the AG, which was obtained by the Recorder, sheds light onto the drop box investigation and why it centered on Dodge” That three-page document (discussed later in this report), among other things, explicitly details Chief Dodge’s i EE. The receipt of that document by the Greenfield Recorder forced Chief Dodge to publicly acknowledge to the constituents of Montague that he IS because the Recorder was about to do it for him. This was not, as Chief Dodge would have you believe, an acknowledgement of [EE intended to “let people know that this can happen to anybody and that you can be helped and go back to having contro?” as he is quoted as saying in the article. Rather, it was an attempt to change the narrative from a negative to a positive. As noted above, there were many other times during his employment with the Montague Police Department where Charles Dodge was required by Rule and by the public trust to report [i MERI 5:1 052 not to do so. He did so only as he was ubout to be “outed™ by the newspaper, 16One final comment. As stated, during his interview the explanation Chief Dodge gave for not complying with MPDRR #13 at any time (whether officer or Sergeant or Chief) was that no one in the Department ever previously disclosed prescription drug use. This point cannot be stressed enough - the habitual and institutional failure to historically enforce a rule cannot be an excuse for failing to abide by it. On the contrary, particularly once becoming Chief, Chief Dodge had an extraordinary duty to require compliance with MPDRR Rule #13 to the letter as the chief executive of the entire force for the safety of his employees and of the public at large. v7Section B DIRECTIVE #1 Whether Chief Dodge violated any Town, Departmental or agency rule, procedure or protocol with respect to his handling, oversight and/or management of the Police Department’s [Medication Dropbox Program]. In order to respond to this directive a threshold question must be what “procedure or protocol” was in place which Chief Dodge may have violated. As the evidence below will attest, Chief Dodge neither complied with nor implemented any Medication Dropbox Program procedure tion or protocol whatsoever until June 28, 2016 (almost 3% years after launching the Medi Dropbox Program). It was not until five days after State Police seized evidence and announced their investigation into Chief Dodge that Chief Dodge implemented the “Montague Police ‘Department Med Box Secure Handling Policy”® Chief Dodge’s core assertion is that he was not provided with any protocols with respect to administering the Medication Dropbox Program for the Town of Montague until he drafted his own in June 2016. According to Chief Dodge’s memo to the Town Administrator referred to previously’: “I [Chief Dodge] attended 2 meetings at the Northampton District Attorney’s Office, ‘on September 7,2012 and November 30, 2012, to discuss the implementation of the Montague Police Department Policy and Procedure 16-3, effective June 28, 2016 (revised September 25, 2017) attached as Exhibit #6. » exhibit #2. 18“[Medication Dropbox Program|”. | reviewed the agendas and my notes from both meetings and there was nothing on either agenda mentioning a discussion on implementation of any policies or protocols. There was also no talk about protocols at either meeting. No protocols were ever issued at these meetings.” Prior to Sergeant Charles Dodge being appointed Police Chief, Staff Sergeant Chris Williams was Acting Police Chief from November 27, 2011 to July 31, 2012. Acting Chief Williams reported '® that during his time as Acting Montague Police Chief, representatives from the Northwestern District Attorney's Office attended meetings of the Westen Mass Chiefs of Police Association and introduced their proposal for the Medication Dropbox Program, He reports that_guidelin were provided and a PowerPoint presentation was shown regarding the requirements, He further reported that when the physical box used for the Medication Dropbox Program arrived at the Montague Police Department the same guidelines, comprised of a two page document, was provided. Staff Sergeant Williams indicated he was working and present when the box and the document arrived at the Montague Police Station. Moreover, District Attorney Sullivan asserts in his July 8, 2016, suspension letter!’ that his office established formal protocols for the Medication Dropbox Program in August 2014 and issued them to all participating departments at that time. His letter included the following statement: “I have attached the medication drop box protocols that were sent to all participating police departments in August 2014. The recommended protocols regarding the safe collection and securing of medications, by both an evidence ® See letter report attached as Exhibit #7, > Exhibit #3. 19officer and Chief or appointed officer, do not appear to have been adhered to by you and your department”. I interviewed Chief Dodge on November 20, 2017'?, When asked why there was no policy in place prior to implementing the Medication Dropbox Program in January 2013, Chief Dodge stated the following: Donovan: And why didn’t you have a policy in place before accepting the (Medication Dropbox Program] and activating? Dodge: There, uh, one is, we were never told that we needed to have one. This Investigator finds, by the preponderance of the evidence: (i) that prior to commencement of its Medication Dropbox Program in January 2013, the Montague Police Department had received recommended protocols from the Northwestern Distriet Attorney's ice in the form of a PowerPoint pr ) that more formal tation and two page document and and comprehensive protocols were delivered to the Montague Police Department by the District Attorney's Office in August 2014. [also find that Chief Dodge was or should have been aware of the existence of both sets of protocols yet adhered to neither. Moreover, even in the unlikely event Chief Dodge was somehow ignorant or uninformed of the existence of these protocols, his duty as Chief of Police required him to implement thorough, written safeguards in the form of protocols for handling materials collected via the Medication Dropbox Program. Accordingly, I find, upon witness to all testimony and review of all other relevant evidence in this investigation, using the preponderance of the evidence standard, that Montague Police Chief » Exhibit #5. 20Charles Dodge IIT violated the Montague Police Department's Policies, Procedures, Rules, Regulations provided below when Chief Dodge acted or failed to act as follo FINDING: Failure to Implement Medication Dropbox Program Protocols Prior to Institution of the Program was (#7) a FAILURE TO MEET THE JOB DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR POLICE CHIEF for the TOWN OF MONTAGUE and (#8) INCOMPETENT. In support of this finding, | provide the following: ‘The job description for the position of Chief of Police for the Town of Montague'* authori 2 exhibit #2, and requires, in pertinent part, the following: Under Section A. (SUMMARY); “The Chief of Police is the chief administrative officer of the Department and the final departmental authority in all matters of policy, operations and discipline, He exercises all lawful powers of his office and issues all lawful orders as are necessary to assure the effective performance of the department.” [emphasis added} Section B. (GENERAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES) states the following in pertinent part: “It is the Responsibility of the Chief of Police to: 8) Promulgate all general and special orders of the department and issue on his own authority orders, written and oral, not inconsistent with his powers, duties and responsibilities 15) Develop or adopt new techniques to improve effectiveness in the discharge of police obligations of the department. 24And, most relevant: 16) Adopt a policy covering the safekeeping of all evidence and any property recovered, found or confiscated. Designate a member of the Department as Evidence Officer, [emphasis added] Chief Dodge, in his capacity as Police Chief, was the final authority for the implementation and oversight of all policy decisions made on the behalf of the Montague Police Department. His job description provides him with authority and responsibility to issue all lawful orders as are necessary to assure the effective performance of the Department. For a variety of reasons, including safety and opportunity for resale or use, it was crucial that items coming into the custody of the Montague Police Department through the Medication Dropbox Program be subject to strict protocols for their handling, safekeeping, accounting and eventual destruction. One not need be trained in law enforcement to reach that obvious conclusion. Yet, Chief Dodge asserts that no protocols, guidelines or policies were issued to him from the District Attorney’s Office regarding the handling of material collected from the Program which completely ignores Section B(16) above which creates a duty in the Chief to “adopt a policy covering the safekeeping of...any property recovered, found or confiscated”. His excuse for failing to do so was, to paraphrase, “No one told us what to do so we did nothing”. Chief Dodge had a duty and an obligation to promulgate his own protocols regarding safeguarding the items collected through the Medication Dropbox Program prior to allowing the Program to be activated in his community, What actually happened, however, was that from the time the Program was instituted (January 2013) until five days after meeting with State Police investigators about his inadequate administration of the Program (June 28, 2016), Chief Dodge failed to define and implement adequate protocols to secure materials obtained through the Medication Dropbox Program. 22In his interview conducted by this Investigator, Chief Dodge indicated he did not implement protocols because he did not consider the medications being dropped off as part of the Medication Dropbox Program as either evidence or as controlled substances. Yet he directly contradicts his statement in the following sequence: Donovan: Okay. So prior to the implementation of the drug drop medication box at the station. And you said ... that was around January of 2013? Dodge That's when the box...yeah. ‘Cause | sent an email to the program coordinator, asking when we could put the box out, yeah. Donovan: Okay. Um, certainly you knew that there was going to be medication and discard, discarded medications. And you knew e was going to controlled substances in there, correct? [emphasis added] some, Dodge: Presumably, yes. (emphasis) Thus, by his own admi ion Chief Dodge acknowledges he knew controlled substances were being collected via the Medication Dropbox Program. This acknowledgement is relevant for two reasons. The first, as will be shown later in this report, the Montague Police Department has strict protocols and procedures in place to handle controlled substances which come into their custody. The second reason, again as will be shown, is when is self-serving and adv. ageous for Chief Dodge to deny knowledge of controlled substances being collected that is precisely what he do . Regardless, no person having even a casual understanding of the Program could credibly deny that controlled substances would be collected as part of the process. Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, [ find Chief Charles Dodge III's failure to promulgate any policy regulating the collection, handling, security, processing and storage of prescription medications, narcotics and controlled substances coming into the custody 23of the Montague Police Department prior to allowing the Medication Dropbox Program to be activated was a failure to meet the requirements and duties required of his position as Montague Chief of Police. [Violation #7- Failure to Meet the Job Duties and Responsibilities for Police Chief for the Town of Montague | SUSTAINED]. Chief Dodge’s clear absence of sound judgement and decision making by allowing prescription medications and controlled substances to be handled, processed and stored at the Montague Police Department without explicit protocols in place was incompetence per se as defined by the Montague Police Department’s Rules and Regulations Section 1.B (DEFINITIONS) which defines Incompetence as follows: “Being incapable of the satisfactory performance of police duties, which may include a lack of initiative, diligence, sound judgment, ability to take decisive action or any other trait which demonstrates incapacity or ineptness in the performance of assigned tasks.” (emphasis added) In addition, the Montague Police Department’s Rules and Regulations under Section 1.G (PROHIBITED CONDUCT) Rule #10 Incompetence (“MPDRR Rule #10) states the following: “An officer shall maintain sufficient competency to perform his duty and to assume the responsibilities of his position. Incompetency may be demonstrated, but is not limited to, the following a. a lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be enforced; b. an unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks, 24c. the failure to conform to work standards established for the officer's rank, grade, or position; d. repeated poor evaluations or repeated infractions of the rules and regulations. [emphasis added) As previously noted, Chief Dodge “failed to conform to work standards established for {his] rank" as Chief of Police. Accordingly, applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, I find that by that very fact Chief Charles Dodge III violated MPDRR Rule #10. [Violation #8 - MPDRR Rule #10 | SUSTAINED] I find, upon witness to all testimony and review of all other relevant evidence in this investigation, using the preponderance of the evidence standard, that Charles Dodge II violated the Montague Police Department's Policies, Procedures, Rules, Regulations listed below when he acted or failed to act as follows: FINDING: Failure to Assign Duty and Responsibility for the Collection, Security and Storage of the Material Collected From the Medication Dropbox Program to the Evidence Officer as Required by the Town of Montague Job Description for Chief of Police was (#9) a FAILURE TO MEET THE JOB DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR POLICE CHIEF FOR THE TOWN OF MONTAGUE and (#10) INCOMPETENT FINDING: Election to Assign the Duty and Responsibility for Collection, Security and Storage of the Material Collected From the Medication Dropbox Program to Himself was (#11) CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER, (#12) INCOMPETENT and (#13) a VIOLATION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS In support of these findings, I provide the following: It has been reported and confirmed that Chief Dodge personally collected the material deposited through the Medication Dropbox Program by himself and stored the material, which 25contained prescription medications and other controlled substances, in his personal office at the Montague Police Station, The Montague Police Department’s Policy and Procedures Manual provides job des criptions for several key positions. One such description is for the position of Evidence Officer'*. Under Part B, GENERAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, the following is provided: The Evidence Officer performs departmental functions related to the processing, filing, storage and security of controlled substance and related evidence. The Evidence Officer acts as custodian of all controlled substances handled by the department, [emphasis added} Accordingly, the Evidence Officer is designated by the Montague Police Department as the person authorized to be custodian of all controlled substances handled by the Montague Police Department regardless of the manner in which the substance was obtained and regardless of whether the substance was needed for evidence, The Medication Dropbox Program was intended to allow citizens to anonymously discard unused and unwanted prescriptions and other controlled substances. The amount and types of medications and controlled substances deposited in the box was meant to remain unknown and confidential. Citizens depositing prescription bottles containing theit name and type of medication had a right to expect that their information would remain confidential as disclosure, particularly in a small town like Montague, could be embarrassing in certain cases. The Montague Police Department has an explicit, written policy in place such that the within the exclusive domain of the handling, processing and storage of all controlled substances Evidence Officer. The policy requires that controlled substance be accounted for and turned over '* Town of Montague job description for position of Evidence Officer attached as Exhibit #8. 26to the Evidence Officer for proper proc: ing and storage. When the Evidence Officer is not on duty, material collected is documented and placed in a secure temporary or overnight evidence locker. Upon reporting for duty the Evidence Officer then takes possession of the material, documents it and, when appropriate, stores the material in the secured evidence room. This policy pre-dates implementation of the Medication Dropbox Program by the Montague Police Department. ‘The Evidence Officer receives training regarding the processing, storage and, in certain instances, destruction of the controlled substances. The position of Evidence Officer is a position of trust. Failure to perform these duties lawfully and/or correctly can lead to cases being dismissed and the loss of the public’s trust and confiden in the Police Department. Collecting, handling and documenting material collected from the Medication Dropbox Program likewise required security and documentation tantamount to the collection of evidence, Taking custody of prescription medications and controlled substances or other personal property calls for detailed procedures to be in place for documentation and verification purposes and, not intly, to avoid even the appearance of misappropriation. On November 13, 2017 and November 14, 2017, this Investigator interviewed several officers and staff’ members of the Montague Police Department regarding their observations of the Medication Dropbox Program and Chief Dodge’s administration thereof 'S. Officers and staff members consistently reported the following observations: + That Chief Dodge always opened the Medication Dropbox by himself and almost ona daily basis. + Not one employee reported ever witnessing Chief Dodge open the Medication Dropbox with the assistance of or in the presence of another police employee. ° alist of persons interviewed is attached as Exhibit #9. 27+ Employees reported that Chief Dodge would come in on weekends and at night to empty the Medication Dropbox. + Employees reported that after Chief Dodge emptied the Medication Dropbox that Chief Dodge would bring the contents of the box into his office by himself. + Many of those interviewed indicated that after Chief Dodge entered his office with the material collected from the Medication Dropbox he would often close his door. + Most of those interviewed reported that in most cases during the course of normal daily activities when Chief Dodge was in the station that his office door would remain open. + Several of those interviewed (which was confirmed by Chiefs Dodge) reported that they witnessed boxes of material taken from the Medication Dropbox piled in Chiefs Dodge’s office and not secured or locked in his office closet. As stated previously, Chief Dodge's a HER cannot be ignored when asses ng, as required by my direetive, to determine shether Chief Dodge violated any Town, Departmental or agency rule, procedure or protocol with respect 10 his handling, oversight and/or management of the Police Department's prescription drug drop-box collection and storage program.” ‘The determination as to whether or not Chief Dod: III curing the time he assigned himself to handle the prescription drugs and other controlled substances received through the Medication Dropbox Program is a critical and persuasive factor This Investigator finds no legitimate or logical reason for Chief Dodge to place himself in charge of collecting, securing and storing the discarded medications, controlled substances and/or other property which was deposited in the Medication Dropbox. The Evidence Officer was the person designated to process, secure and store all drugs, controlled substances and property taken into custody of the Montague Police Department. Chief Dodge indicated that the District Attorney's Office designated all Police Chiefs to be in charge of their respective Programs. That fact is not in dispute. However, Chiefs were meant 28to be responsible for the oversight and implementation of the Program generally, They were not meant to be the sole individual responsible for the daily function of collecting and storing material received from the boxes. And certainly in no case was that meant to happen without protocols in place to insure the integrity of the process. The original protocols promulgated by the Distriet Attorney and later duplicated by Chief Dodge in June 2016, clearly delineates that the fwo officers are required to handle the material, one of whom is to be the Evidence Officer. Also relevant is the fact that the Montague Police Department had protocols and practice: in place which covered the collection, security and storage of controlled substances and property coming into the Montague Police Department for reasons other than evidence, Specifically, when items and/or controlled substances were brought into the custody for reasons other than as evidence they would be processed and secured using the accepted practice and guideline listed below: 1, ‘The material/items would be bagged and tagged and issued a property number. stem, 2, The material/items would be sufficiently described in the computer s 3. Ifthe Evidence Officer was working and available the material/ items would be tured over to his/her custody. 4. If the Evidence Officer was not available the material/ items would be placed in a secured locker which (Overnight Storage Lockers) was then to be locked by pushing the handle in an upward direction which secured the locker so that it could not be opened from the outside area. The door on the other side of the locker could be opened in the Evidence Processing Room which could only be entered by use of a department issued FOB and by entering a code into an electronic locking device. The inside room was secure and could only be accessed by authorized staff who could be identified by their issued FOB and Code Numbers. Montague Police Sergeant Hoffman was interviewed by this Investigator on November 13, 2017. In July 2016, Sergeant Hoffiman’s duties included being part-time Evidence Officer for the 29Montague Police Department, Montague Police Detective Dobosz, was the permanent Evidence Officer at the time. Sergeant Hoffman reported that sometime soon after State Police investigators appeared unannounced and seized Department equipment that Chief Dodge called him and Detective Dobosz into his office to speak to them about the matter. Hoffman reported that at that meeting Chief Dodge informed Detective Dobosz that the reason he did not assign the duties surrounding the Medication Dropbox Program to him was that it would require extra work and he did not wish to burden Dobosz with the additional chore. In my view this statement is indicative that Chief Dodge knew that the duties associated with collection and securing the materials received through the Medication Dropbox Program were rightfully to be assigned to the Evidence Officer. During his interview with this Investigator on November 20, 2017, Chief Dodge indicated that he had in fact spoken to Detective Dobosz about taking control of the Medication Dropbox Program and that Detective Dobosz indicated he did not wish to do it. Chief Dodge explained that Detective Dobosz, was a senior officer who was nearing retirement and he, therefore, agreed not to assign Dobosz the responsibilities, Regardless, his rebuttal explanation confirms that Chief Dodge ‘was aware of the requirement that the Evidence Officer was the appropriate person for the job. It also supports a clear finding of incompetence by allowing Detective Dobosz to refuse to do a job he was trained, paid and otherwise required to do'®. Chief Dodge reported that material retrieved from the Medication Dropbox Program would at times pile up so he stored it in cardboard boxes which he left in his office. This is a statement which has been corroborated by other staff members. Chief Dodge has made inconsistent, self serving statements during the investigation to both State Police investigators and to me regarding 4 The fact that Chief Dodge chose to assign Detective Dobels’ Evidence Officer duties to himself only compounds the incompetence, 30this practice. When questioned about why he would store the material retrieved from the Medication Dropbox in his office he explained that “his office was secure” and that he would lock the materials in the closet inside his office. Curiously, Chief Dodge had previously told State Police investigators that master keys to his office had been missing for some time and that he had lost his Department issued key fob and office key six months earlier. One's office cannot be “secure” when keys allowing unfettered access are missing. Further, quoting from the October 12, 2017, Greenfield Recorder article, Chief Dodge stated: “Thinking about this now, | realize that there are many occasions where there is nobody around to witness someone accessing my office after hours unbeknownst to me. Someone could have simply entered my office after normal business hours and helped themselves to these bags [of drugs from the drop box] if they really wanted to. | have never checked a box to see if the tape had been pulled back because | never thought | had to. It was my belief that we are police officers and we would not act inappropriately”. ‘The collection, securing and storage of evidence and property in the custody of a police department is crucial to the effective and efficient operation of that Department. Any abnormality or violation of protocol in an evidence room can cause criminal convictions to be overturned and may be cause for dismissal of active cases. In this case Chief Dodge's failure to follow established rules, regulations, policies and established protocols with regard to the material collected from the Medication Dropbox caused an Attorney General’s investigation, a scandal, embarrassment, the loss of public trust and morale problems for the staff of the Montague Police Department, Not to mention suspension of the Medication Dropbox Program and the Anti Crime Task Force for the citizens of Montague 31Chief Dodge’s failure to assign the duties and responsibilities for the collection, security and storage for the material collected from the Medication Dropbox Program to the Evidence Offficer as required by the job description for Evidence Officer was incompetent and a failure to meet the requirements of his job duties as Chief of Police. [Violation #9-MPDRR Rule #10 | SUSTAINED] and [Violation #10-Failure to Mect the Requirements of Job Duties for Police Chief for the Town of Montague | SUSTAINED]. Furthermore, Chief Dodge’s assignment of the Evidence Officer’s duties to himself during the 3% year time period from January 2013 to July 2016 when he was unqualified, untrained and unauthorized to perform such duties and when, by reason of [iy HERB. Chief Dodge was plainly not the appropriate person to perform those duties and by doing so was incompetent and in violation of the Montague Police Department's Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. [Violation #11-MPDRR Rule #10 | SUSTAINED] and [Violation #12-Law Enforeement Code of Ethies | SUSTAINED]. ‘The Montague Police Department’s Rules and Regulations (“MPDRR™) manual under Section 1,G. (PROHIBITED CONDUCT) Rule #1 Conduct Unbecoming an Officer (“MPDRR Rule #1”) provides: The following acts, actions or activities by department personnel are prohibited or restricted The commission of any specific act or acts immoral, improper, disorderly or intemperate personal conduct which reflects discredit upon the officer himself, upon his fellow officers or upon the Police Department. [emphasis added] There can be no question that Chief Dodge’s decision to personally collect the materials from the Medication Dropbox, store them in cardboard boxes in an unsecured room, do so without 32supervision or corroboration of any kind by a fellow officer and, as a consequence of which, embroiled himself and the Montague Police Department in a State Police investigation, brought discredit to himself and the Police Department in violation of MPDRR Rule #1, [Violation #13- Conduct Unbecoming a Police Officer | SUSTAINED]. I find, upon witness to all testimony and review of all other relevant evidence in thi investigation, using the preponderance of the evidence standard, that Charles Dodge III violated the Montague Police Department's Policies, Procedures, Rules, Regulations listed below when he acted or failed to act as follows: FINDING: Failure to Conform to Established Departmental Procedures, Protocols and Practices Regarding the Processing, Security and Storage of Controlled Substances Taken Into Custody of the Montage Police Department was (#14) CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER and (#15) INCOMPETENCE In support of this finding, I provide the following: ‘As my earlier findings have indicated, protocols were in fact promulgated by the Northwestern District Attorney intended to regulate the collection, handling, security, processing and storage of prescription medications and narcoties collected through the Montague Medication, Dropbox Program. As I have further found, Chief Dodge neither complied with those protocols nor implemented his own until 3% years after the Program commenced. Furthermore, again as previously shown, the Montague Police Department has policies, procedures and protocols in place to handle controlled substances which come into their custody regardless of whether such substances are evidence. Likewise, Chief Dodge failed to comply with these procedures, incompetently allowed his Evidence Officer to refuse to undertake his sworn 33duty and, finally, put himself solely and unaccountably to anyone in charge of these controlled substances. Asa direct consequence of that malfeasance the Town of Montague was suspended from participation in the Medication Dropbox Program as well as the Northwestern District Anti-Crime ‘Task Force. State Police investigators entered the Montague Police Station unannounced and seized Department equipment and interviewed police personnel as part of a sting investigation of Chief Dodge. In a town the size of Montague it i not possible to conceal the existence of such an investigation and the attendant speculation which surrounds the process of investigating its Chief” of Police. All of which unquestionably brought discredit to Chief Dodge, all police personnel, the Department as a whole and, generally, the Town of Montague. This happened as a direct and proximate result of Chief Dodge’s failure to comply with existing protocols. Had he done so from January 2013 forward no investigation, suspension or discredit would have ever occurred. The Montague Police Department’s Rules and Regulations under Section 1.G (PROHIBITED CONDUCT) Rule #1 Conduct Unbecoming an Officer (“MPDRR Rule #1) provides as follows: The following acts, actions or activities by department personnel are prohibited or restricted 1. Conduct Unbecoming an Officer ~ The commission of any specific act or acts of immoral, improper disorderly or intemperate personal conduct which reflects discredit upon the officer himself, upon his fellow officers or upon the Police Department. [emphasis added] Accordingly, I find, using the preponderance of the evidence standard, that by failing to conform to established Departmental procedures, protocols and practices regarding the processing, security and storage of controlled substances taken into the custody of the Montague Police Department, that Chief Charles Dodge III violated MPDRR Rule #1 (Conduct Unbecoming an 34Officer) by bringing discredit to himself, his fellow officers and the Montague Police Department. [Violation 414 - MPDRR Rule #l | SUSTAINED] Once again, by failing to conform to established Departmental procedures, protocols and practices regarding the processing, security and storage of controlled substances taken into the custody of the Montague Police Department, Chief Dodge exhibited a lack of sound judgement jon making. Chief Dodge's Sas = ——— Eyes no oversight whatsoever, was incompetent. and poor de Accordingly, applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, I find that Chief Charles Dodge III violated MPDRR Rule #10 (Incompetence). [Violation #15 - MPDRR Rule #10 | SUSTAINED] T find, upon witness to all testimony and review of all other relevant evidence in this investigation, using the preponderance of the evidence standard, that Charles Dodge III violated the Montague Police Department's Policies, Procedures, Rules, Regulations listed below when he acted or failed to act as follows: FINDING: Improper Access to Material Collected from the Medication Dropbox Program Without any Legitimate Law Enforcement Purpose was (#16) CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER and (#17) INCOMPETENCE In support of this finding, I provide the following: 35During his interview with State Police investigators on June 23, 2016 '”, Chief Dodge was asked to explain the disappearance of four placebo pills which had been planted as part of the sting operation. Chief Dodge explained to State Police investigators that whenever he saw a bottle of pills that resembled OxyContin or some other addictive drug on top of the pile he would open the boitle and dump the pills into the box so they would fall to the bottom. He indicated the reason he did this was to negate the temptation from others in his departnen', a HEE fiom coming into his office, opening the sealed bags and removing the pills. This statement to the State Police serves as an acknowledgement that Chief Dodge did in fact access and inspect the contents of the materials deposited as part of the Medication Dropbox Program. The question, therefore, becomes was there a legitimate law enforcement reason for doing so. My conclusion, as provided below, is a resounding “no”. Stated simply, Chief Dodge's justification for accessing the materials was that he lacked trust in his fellow police officers and MIME He was concerned someone would take the “OxyContin or some other addictive drug” and misuse them. Yet, ironically, he placed unfettered trust in himself - [ii - to be sole custodian of these drugs. If Chief Dodge truly wished to eliminate the temptation and risk of housing these materials he would have followed the Department's established protocol for handling controlled substances and or the District Attorney’s protocols and not left them in taped cardboard boxes in his unsecured office. Chief Dodge asserts that he did nothing wrong by keeping discarded medications which contained controlled substances in his office in this manner. His professed ignorance of the existence of the District Attorney's protocols or his own Department's process for handling controlled substances is profound evidence of incompetence and cannot be used Written summary of June 23, 2016 State Police interview with Chief Dodge attached as Exhibit #10. 36exculpatorily to excuse or justify accessing the materials from the Medication Dropbox Program. Knowing or unknowingly failing to recognize that one’s actions are improper does not, under any circumstances, make them acceptable. The burden of proof for a criminal conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt) is far greater than that for an admi tative investigation and disciplinary hearing which requires only a preponderance of the evidence, The Attorney General chose not to bring criminal charges against Chief Dodge because they had to prove Chief Dodge accessed the placebo pills using the higher standard and there were flaws in the administration of that investigation, The investigators had not preserved the box Chief Dodge claims to have dropped the pills into thus making it unlikely they would have sustained a conviction, Here, however, we need only decide which explanation is more likely: (a) that Chief Dodge accessed the pills for unspecified personal reasons or (b) that, out of concer for the potential lack of integrity of his fellow employees, he searched the collected materials for containers with addictive prescription labels, open those containers, removed the pills and dropped them to the bottom of a cardboard box which he left in his unsecured office. I find Chief Dodge’s explanation not remotely credible. As an aside, Chief Dodge’s attempt to shift the culpability and cast aspersions on others, including JE is regrettable. As established early in this report, I ascribed very little weight to any direct testimony of Chief Dodge, particularly as it relates to his explanation for accessing controlled substances in the custody of the Montague Police Department. Chief Dodge did everything in his power to keep control of the operation of the Medication Dropbox Program and the material removed from it exclusively in his domain. This included complying with an alleged refusal to accept the 37responsibility for the job from the employee rightfully authorized to do it (Evidence Officer Dobos7). Chief Dodge ignored accepted rules and protocols and offered implausible explanations for doing so. A review of the facts provides no evidence anyone other than Chief Dodge accessed the material and yet placebo pills were removed from their container, And frankly, Chief Dodge’s zeal to suppress disclosing JEM leads one to the accessing the materials was likely not for the benevolent reasons he posits. inference that his motivation for ‘The Northwestern District Attorney's Office suspended the Town of Montague from the Medication Dropbox Program because they learned Chief Dodge had accessed the contents of the containers in the Medication Dropbox. District Attorney Sullivan indicated as much in his letter of suspension to Chief Dodge dated July 8, 2017 '8, which states, in pertinent part: “The recommended protocols regarding the safe collection and securing of medications, by both an evidence officer and Chief or appointed officer, do not appear to have been adhered to by you and your department, Furthern protect the confidentiality of all citizens who dropped off these medications, the medi j the. re, to, tion bottles were never to be directly inspected by any member police department.” [emphasis added] Chief Dodge had no legitimate law enforcement reason to access the closed containers retrieved from the Medication Dropbox and by doing so he caused the Town of Montague to be suspended from the Medication Dropbox and Anti-Crime Task Force Programs and caused ‘embarrassment and disrepute to the Town of Montague and the Montague Police Department. "8 Letter from District Attorney Sullivan dated July &, 2017, attached as Exhibit #11. 38Accordingly, I find that Chief Dodge's conduct in accessing the materials retrieved from the Medication Dropbox Program and questioning the integrity of his fellow officers and employees was conduct unbecoming a police officer and incompetent. [Violation #16-Conduct, Unbecoming a Police Officer Rule #1 | SUSTAINED] and [Violation #17-MPDRR Rule #10 | SUSTAINED]. I find, upon witness to all testimony and review of all other relevant evidence in this investigation, using the preponderance of the evidence standard, that Charles Dodge III violated the Montague Police Department's Policies, Procedures, Rules, Regulations listed below when he acted or failed to act as follows: FINDING: Failing to Take Proper Action Upon Learning That the Master Keys to the Police Department and Department Key Fob were missing was (#18) INCOMPETENCE In support of this finding, I provide the following: The Montague Police Department has master keys which allow certain authorized personnel access to secured areas inside the Police Department. Chief Dodge reported that prior to becoming Police Chief, when the new station opened in 2009, all of the keys for the station were placed on a table in the Chief's conference room and left for officers to take. He reported that when he became Chief he sent out an email requesting that all of the master keys be returned to him, Chief Dodge reported no one returned any of the masters keys The master keys in question allow access to most of the administrative offices in the Police Department including the Chief's office. As reported herein, from 2013 to July 2016, Chief Dodge stored the discarded medications and controlled substances from the Medi ition Dropbox Program 39in his office knowing the office was not secure and there were keys missing which allowed unauthorized personnel access. Chief Dodge also reported that in or around January 2016 he lost his Department issued digital key fob. During his interview with this Investigator he explained he lost the key fob and the keys on the key ring with it which included a key to his office. Chief Dodge reported he originally thought he misplaced the keys but now believes someone may have taken them. Chief Dodge had a responsibility to insure that the Montague Police Department was secure, Moreover, he had a particular duty and responsibility to insure that his office was secure since he had stored Medication Dropbox Program materials, including controlled substanees, in his office for almost 3% years. Chief Dodge knew that master keys which allowed access to his, office were missing and should have undertaken the simple act of changing the lock on his door at some point between January 2013 and July of 2016 to secure the collected items, However, he failed to take any action whatsoever to secure his office. larly, after losing his Department issued digital key fob and keys on the ring, Chief Dodge had a responsibility to change the lock on his office door and should have run a security report on the missing fob to see if it had been used to access any of the doors in the Police Department, He failed to take either action. For the above stated reasons, I find Chief Dodge showed incompetence when he failed to take reasonable measures to secure the Police Department and specifically his office door. [Violation #18-MPDRR Rule #10 | SUSTAINED. 40Section C DIRECTIVE #2 Whether and to what extent any such violation has negatively impacted Chief Dodge’s ability or qualifications to effectively manage the Montague Police Department and otherwise perform the essential functions of his position. Before addressing DIRECTIVE #2 directly a word about Chief Dodge’s credibility in general and specifically as it applies to this investigation is in order. Credibility and integrity are hallmark requirements of law enforcement. Even one revelation of untruthfulness by a police officer justly calls into question every other statement made by that officer. Pending and closed cases and investigations are jeopardized and, perhaps even more importantly in the grand scheme, the publie’s trust in its police force as a whole is permanently fractured. {As the reader has learned, some of the violations sustained in this report against Chief Dodge involve straightforward noncompliance with Department rules. Others, however, required some degree of inference where the only source of exculpatory evidence was the testimony of Chief Dodge himself. Accordingly, 1 was compelled to assign some degree of weight to that testimony before reaching my findings. ‘As regards Chief Dodge’s credibility generally, I am enlightened by a previous matter in which Chief (then Sergeant) Dodge was a party. Without delving into specifics which go beyond the scope of this investigation, the following excerpt from a published Civil Service Commission a