Você está na página 1de 32

CONDUCT REVIEW OFFICE DENVER SHERIFF DEPARTMENT

1 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.

DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request


Subject Officer: Chief Robert White, P11001
Assignment: Police Administration Building (PAB)
Summary of Complaint
Included with this case are numerous items for review containing a variety of information,
including pertinent documents, a great number of photographs, phone records, and
correspondence from the PPA (Police Protective Association), Denver Police Department (DPD)
command staff, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Avon Police Department. Also included is
correspondence related to CORA requests from the PPA and the media, audio- and video-
recorded interviews of involved parties and witnesses, audio- and video- recordings of media
interviews and reports, and news articles from different media sources. For a complete
understanding of the case, it is necessary that all documents, statements, and audio- and video-
recordings be reviewed in their entirety.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016, the Avon Police Department received a complaint from Ms. NJ
alleging that she had been sexually assaulted by Davin Munk, a Denver Police officer. The case
was referred to the Denver Police Department and Deputy Chief Matt Murray and Chief Deputy
District Attorney Adrienne Greene took lead roles in the investigation. It is alleged that Chief
Murray bypassed over 30 years of protocol when he did not contact the appropriate District
Attorney for the case.
During the initial stages of the investigation, Ms. Angiella Arnot was identified as a second
suspect. Both she and Officer Munk were arrested and taken into custody and charged with
several counts of sexual assault. During the investigation, the victim had voluntarily provided her
cell phone which contained numerous texts and photos that would have exonerated Ms. Arnot.
This information was in the Department’s possession when Ms. Arnot was arrested and taken into
custody on May 4, 2016. Chief Murray said he was not involved in Ms. Arnot’s arrest and that he
was camping from May 4 - 6, 2016. It has also been alleged that under the direction of Chief
Murray, unusual requests were being made of the Crime Lab and the Department in violation of
policy, and press releases were provided to media giving updates of the investigation that
provided names and photos of the suspects.
District Attorney Mitch Morrissey conveyed that over time, he became aware of many things about
the case that concerned him and took issue with how the investigation was being handled. He
confronted Chief Murray at the annual Memorial Ceremony and expressed his concerns. He
subsequently wrote a letter to Chief White on May 17, 2016 concerning the matter and received a
response from Chief White on June 3, 2016.
Multiple CORA requests were made by the PPA pertaining to the case and subsequent
correspondence, and it is alleged that Chief White and Chief Murray violated policy when they did
not properly respond to the requests.
________________
ChiefWhite has been Denver’s Chief of Police since December of 2011.
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
2 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Relevant Department Rules
Specification #1 - RR-102.1 – Duty to Obey Departmental Rules and Mayoral Executive Orders
(Conduct Categories A - F)
As it pertains to:
OMS 503.01
Complaint and Discipline Procedures for Sworn Officers
Specification #2 - RR-105 – Conduct Prejudicial
(Conduct Categories A - F)
Specification #3 - RR-115.1 – Conduct Prohibited by Law
(Conduct Categories A - F)
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
3 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Statement of Fact
Background of Case – Avon Police Department
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016, Officer Bryan Mullet of the Avon Police Department received a phone
call from Ms. NJ, who identified herself only by her first name, alleging that she had been sexually
assaulted by a police officer and another woman just a few days prior. 1 She conveyed to Officer
Mullet that she was very concerned about giving him any type of information for fear of retaliation
and reported that the suspect told her if he got fired because of her, “she better hide.”
1 NJwas subsequently identified by Officer Mullet by way of her vehicle’s Colorado license plates.
2 Fora detailed report of the facts in this case and the allegations made by NJ, please refer to the investigation conducted
by DPD Internal Affairs Bureau.
Because NJ was reluctant to go to the police station, Officer Mullet went to her home and
interviewed her. She told Officer Mullet that the suspect sent her numerous pictures and text
messages and showed him a lewd video of the suspect that she had on her cell phone. Upon
viewing the video, Officer Mullet was able to see that the person was wearing a Denver Police
badge and was in full uniform. NJ said during the incident, when she was assaulted by him and
the other woman, he put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger. She said the gun was not
loaded at the time but that she didn’t know that until after it happened. She alleged that he
continued to send her threatening messages warning her not to report the incident and she
described him as “fucking scary.”
After her interview, NJ did not want to go with Officer Mullet to properly get the investigation
started and to speak to a victim’s advocate because she wanted to speak to her father first. After
she spoke with her father, Officer Mullet was able to persuade her to go to the Avon Police
Department the next day, Wednesday, April 27, 2016, to speak to Detective Jeremy Holmstrom.
In her interview the following day with Detective Holmstrom, NJ explained to him that she had
installed a messaging application to her phone called KIK about five days prior. It was through this
messaging application that she met the suspect who identified himself as “Vin.” NJ explained that
she wanted a “fuck buddy” and that the fact that Vin was a police officer made it more exciting for
her. She expressed several times throughout her interview with Detective Holmstrom that she just
wanted to have sex with a cop. When she first met Vin, she was infatuated by him and she had
gone to his place once before and they had consensual sex. She said it was when she went to
see him again on Saturday, April 23, 2016, that she was assaulted by him and the other woman. 2
NJ was informed that it had been discovered that the officer lived in Denver and the case would
have to be referred to the Denver Police Department for investigation.
Sexual Assault Investigation – DPD Internal Affairs
On Monday, May 2, 2016, Detective Holmstrom contacted Lieutenant Rick Bridges of the Denver
Police Department pertaining to the allegations made by NJ. Deputy Chief Matt Murray and Chief
Deputy District Attorney Adrienne Greene were subsequently contacted
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
4 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Early in the investigation, the suspect officer was identified as Officer Davin Munk, badge #13080.
DPD Case:DA Letter and CORA RequestRe:Chief Robert White,P11001

and the criminal investigation into the matterbegan. 3Earlyin the investigation, the
suspectofficerwasidentified as OfficerDavinMunk,badge #13080.

NJreported to DPDHeadquarters at approximately 4:30 p.m.the following day,Tuesday,May3,


2016, and was interviewed.During herinterview,shegave a detailed account of herallegations of a
sexualassault byOfficerMunk andthe female suspect. She saidshe wasterrified of
OfficerMunkanditwas noted thatshe was concernedfor hersafety. During this time, she voluntarily
provided hercell phone containing numerous texts and photos pertaining to hercase and
consented to have DPD Technical Electronic Support Unit(TESU) obtaincommunication
information thattook place between herand OfficerMunk. On the same day,TESU downloaded the
information from her phone using the CellBrite System to conduct a complete dump of allthe data
it held.The data dump provided over 12,000 messages,texts,photographs, videos, and postings.

Anarrest warrant,signed and approved byMs.Greene,was obtained forOfficer Munk on May 3,


2016.Hewas arrested and taken into custody the same day and charged with sixcounts of class 2
felonies, and one count of a class 5 felony.A search warrant for propertyat his residence, also
signed and approved byMs.Greene,wasobtainedand Crime SceneSupervisor AngelaDeadmond
wasrequested to process the scene.

Ms. Deadmond was advised byMs.Greene toalso respond toNJ’sresidenceto collect theclothing
she was reportedly wearing during the incident; however,Ms. Deadmond expressed herconcern
for cross contamination of scenes if she was to complete both the victim’s and suspect’sscene
processing.Inresponse, Ms.Greenesubsequentlyadvised her that anotherinvestigatorwould
respond to the victim’shometocollect the clothing to eliminateanycross-contamination potential.

Duringthe initialstagesofthe investigation, it waslearned that the female suspect, who was also
alleged to have sexually assaultedNJ,wasidentified asMs. Angiella Arnot.After obtaining details of
the reported offense, an arrestwarrant forMs.Arnotwas obtainedon Wednesday, May 4,
2016.Ms.Arnot was arrestedthe same dayandcharged with six countsof class 2 felonies.
Shewastaken into custody, declined an interview, andrequested an attorney.Also on thisdate, a
search warrantwas executed for Officer Munk’scell phone and a pressrelease went outto the
media entitled, “Denver Police Officer Arrested forInvestigation ofSexual Assault.”

On Thursday, May 5, 2016,Officer Munk’s cellphonewas delivered toTESU for data recovery.
However, a data dump of the cell phone wasattempted severaltimes butcontinually encountered
recovery issues. On this same date,a DPDcivilianemployee who was an acquaintance of
OfficerMunk’s ex-girlfriend,revealed to Internal Affairsthat NJ’sposts on her Tumblr account
included posts“involvingrape and wanting to be pulled over bya cop.” 4A48-hourextension for the
investigation related to OfficerMunkwas obtained. Also

3Because this case involved criminal chargesagainst a police officer, it became necessary to involve a
Denver DeputyDistrictAttorney. Mr.Doug Jackson, formerly a Denver Deputy District Attorney, was
generally the person calledinon these cases at the time. In this case, however, Mr. Jackson wasill and
Chief Deputy DistrictAttorney AdrienneGreene was called instead.
4Tumblr is a free social media tool thatallows users to notonly create their own blogs, but also “follow”

other blogsthat interest them.


4| Page
This document and its contents are confidential andprotected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege" andmustbe
maintained in accordancewith established department procedures.
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
5 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
on this date, a press release went out to the media announcing the arrest of Ms. Arnot the
previous day. The press release had booking photos of Officer Munk and Ms. Arnot attached and
was entitled, “Second Suspect Arrested in Sexual Assault Investigation.”
Later in the day on May 6, 2016, Ms. Greene and District Attorney Doug Jackson dismissed the
case and determined not to prosecute either Officer Munk or Ms. Arnot based on information
found on NJ’s cell phone, specifically indicating that the actions were agreed upon by NJ prior to
the event.5 Ms. Greene and Mr. Jackson indicated in their case filings that the case was refused
because there was “no reasonable likelihood of conviction” and stated:
5 Mr. Jackson was not initially called on this case because he was out ill and unavailable; however, he subsequently became
involved when he returned to work.
6 It should be noted that special requests were also made for specific detectives in the Department to handle the
investigation.
7 Chief Murray said he was camping (May 4 - 6, 2016) and was not involved in Ms. Arnot’s arrest, nor was he involved in
putting out the press release. He said, “I wasn’t present, I wasn’t consulted, I wasn’t getting that information.”
Victim’s initial outcry was in Avon, Colorado because victim claimed to be afraid of suspect. Facts
alleged by victim were violent and involved a weapon. Extensive investigation in the last 68 hours
has undermined victim’s credibility. Text messages between the victim and the suspect undermine
the victim’s account that the event was non-consensual.
Both Officer Munk and Ms. Arnot were released from custody on the same date and the
investigation into the matter was concluded. Another press release was provided to the media by
DPD entitled, “Update in Sexual Assault Investigation Involving DPD Officer, Female Suspect,”
indicating that the investigation was completed and would not result in charges being filed against
Officer Munk or Ms. Arnot based on new evidence that was obtained.
District Attorney Mitch Morrissey Concerns
Then District Attorney Mitch Morrissey reported that all Internal Affairs cases such as this should
be funneled through one person, District Attorney Doug Jackson; and it is Mr. Jackson who
handles cases alleging police misconduct. During his interview, he said there are selective people
who are on-call and despite the fact that Mr. Jackson was ill the day the investigation began, the
next person on the list, District Attorney Lamar Sims, should have been called. If Mr. Sims would
not have been available at the time, then the third person on the list would have been Mr.
Morrissey, himself.
Additionally, Mr. Morrissey indicated that unusual requests were being made of the Crime Lab that
were in violation of Crime Lab protocol.6 Additionally, he said they did the wrong thing when they
arrested Ms. Arnot, as they already had in their possession the evidence from NJ’s cell phone that
would have exonerated her. As such, he said Ms. Arnot’s arrest was unwarranted. Mr. Morrissey
also took issue with the press release naming Ms. Arnot as a second suspect arrested in the
sexual assault investigation and he said there was a rush to judgment. 7
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
6 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
District Attorney Mitch Morrissey Confronts Deputy Chief Matt Murray
On Thursday, May 12, 2016, a week after the investigation was concluded, DPD held its annual
Fallen Officers Memorial Ceremony in the courtyard of the Police Administration Building. After the
ceremony, while still on the dais, then District Attorney Mitch Morrissey spoke to Chief Murray
about concerns he had in how the case against Officer Munk and Ms. Arnot had been handled.
When Mr. Morrissey expressed his concerns and questioned Chief Murray, Chief Murray said they
had probable cause to arrest Ms. Arnot. Chief Murray said he did not think it was the time or place
to have this discussion and walked away.
Mr. Morrissey Writes Scathing Letter to Chief White
Mr. Morrissey was not satisfied with Chief Murray’s response to his questions about the case
when they were at the Memorial Ceremony, so he returned to his office and wrote a letter to Chief
White. In his letter dated May 17, 2016, he outlined his concerns pertaining to the direction of the
investigation and arrest of Ms. Angiella Arnot on May 5, 2016.
Mr. Morrissey conveyed that in the course of directing the investigation, Chief Murray disregarded
protocol that had been in place for more than 30 years when he did not call the appropriate on-call
person in the District Attorney’s Office to provide counsel in this case. Further, he said the
information that would have exonerated Ms. Arnot was in the detectives’ possession at the
beginning of the investigation. He said if Chief Murray hadn’t rushed to judgment, a more
thorough investigation and review of the evidence would have prevented an unwarranted arrest of
Ms. Arnot. He said Chief Murray added insult to injury when he allowed a press release regarding
Ms. Arnot’s arrest, subjecting her to public ridicule and embarrassment.
Chief White Responds to Mr. Morrissey’s Letter
On June 3, 2016, Chief White responded to Mr. Morrissey’s letter. His letter simply said in its
entirety:
Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns regarding the arrest of Angiella Arnot. I will
look at the totality of the situation and will ensure that the appropriate action is taken.
CORA Requests for Investigative Documents
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016, the Denver Police Protective Association (PPA), sent a CORA request
via email to Ms. Mary Dulacki, Records Coordinator for the Department of Safety, requesting
information pertaining to the investigation involving former officer Davin Munk. The following day,
Wednesday, July 6, 2016, Ms. Dulacki forwarded the email from the PPA to many members of
DPD with a cc to Mitch Morrissey, Lynn Kimbrough, and Alfredo Hernandez of the District
Attorney’s Office. In her email, she referenced the PPA’s detailed open records request for records
related to Officer Munk and asked them to provide any documentation they may have in their
possession in response to the PPA’s CORA request. Ms. Dulacki responded to this request with
information forwarded to the PPA on Tuesday, August 2, 2016, and on Wednesday, August 31,
2016, when she provided a redacted copy of the IAB case on disc.
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
7 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
On Thursday, October 27, 2016, another CORA request was made by the PPA and an email was
sent to Ms. Dulacki requesting additional information pertaining to the arrest of former Officer
Davin Munk. The following day, Friday, October 28, 2016, Ms. Dulacki sent an email in response
to each of the items detailed in the email request the day before.
CORA Requests for Correspondence between Mr. Morrissey and Chief White
On Wednesday, December 28, 2016, Ms. Dulacki received yet another CORA request from the
PPA via an email. This time, the request was very specific and requested “copies of all electronic
and written communication exchanges” from/to the District Attorney and Chief White regarding the
incident involving former officer, Davin Munk. Ms. Dulacki forwarded the request to the involved
officers with a cc to Deputy Director of Safety Chris Lujan and stated in her email, “Apparently, the
PPA will not let this one die.” She told the recipients of her email that other than attorney work
products, she was not aware of any other electronic or written communication exchanges that
were responsive to the PPA’s request. She then asked, “Can you please advise if you are aware
of any other communications?” No one advised her that they were aware of any other
communications and Chief Murray’s response, specifically, was, “I have no records responsive to
this request.” Ms. Dulacki responded to the CORA request on Tuesday, January 3, 2017. She
stated, in part, “… We are unaware of any other electronic or written communications exchanges
responsive to your request.”
On Tuesday, January 3, 2017, the same day that Ms. Dulacki responded to the CORA request
dated Wednesday, December 28, 2016, another CORA request was sent by the PPA requesting
the same information as outlined in the CORA request dated December 28, 2016. The following
day, Wednesday, January 4, 2017, Ms. Dulacki responded to the email stating, “The response to
this request is the same as the prior response – we have located no other additional responsive
records.” Less than a half hour later, the PPA made the same CORA request to the District
Attorney’s Office. Chief Deputy District Attorney Alfredo Hernandez responded to the CORA
request on Monday, January 9, 2017, via email. In his response, he provided the letter from Mr.
Morrissey dated May 17, 2016 to Chief White and Chief White’s response to his letter dated June
3, 2016.8
8 It
should be noted that the second page of the letter from Mr. Morrissey to Chief White that was provided by Chief
Deputy District Attorney Alfredo Hernandez has an incorrect date of July 7, 2016.
Letter from Mr. Morrissey to Chief White is Found
On Friday, January 27, 2017, Ms. Dulacki spoke to Mr. Tony Kovaleski, a reporter for KMGH
Channel 7, and he let her know that he had a story and was getting ready to interview Mr.
Morrissey. He indicated that he had a copy of the letter from Mr. Morrissey and Chief White’s
response to that letter. Ms. Dulacki asked him to send a copy of the letters to her personal email
account and his producer forwarded them to her that afternoon. She then reported to Deputy
Director of Safety Chris Lujan that she heard about the letters from Channel 7.
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
8 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
On the following Monday, January 30, 2017,Ms. Dulacki went to Chief White’s office first thing in
the morning, letters in hand. While Ms. Dulacki was in the Chief’s Office, Ms. Bee Ling Withers
was able to produce a copy of the letter from Mr. Morrissey and provided it to Ms. Dulacki. On the
same day, Ms. Dulacki provided both letters to the PPA in an email indicating in part, “It has been
brought to my attention that there are additional records responsive to your request …” She also
provided the letters to various news agencies.
DA’s Office Investigation of CORA Violation
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017, Detective Nick Rogers, President of the PPA, filed a criminal
complaint with the District Attorney’s Office alleging that Chief White and Chief Murray engaged in
a violation of CORA, which was a criminal offense at the time. Chief Deputy District Attorney
Joseph Morales responded to their allegations in an email dated Friday, March 3, 2017, and
stated in part, “The Denver District Attorney’s Office has determined that an investigation is
warranted based on the email and attached documents submitted by you on February 22, 2017.”
The District Attorney’s Office then opened a criminal investigation into the matter.
On May 25, 2017, District Attorney Beth McCann met with PPA President Nick Rogers and the
rest of the PPA Board and informed them that she would not be filing criminal charges on Chief
White or Chief Murray. She criticized their handling of the CORA requests saying they “were
handled carelessly,” but she said there was no criminal intent. She did not fully exonerate them,
however, and said there was not “sufficient evidence … to find a knowing and willful violation of
CORA beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Independent Investigation – Flynn
On March 2, 2017, then Executive Director Stephanie O’Malley engaged the services of
Employment Matters, LLC, Flynn Investigations Group, to assume the role of Internal Affairs and
conduct an investigation into the handling of the sexual assault case by Chief Murray and the
subsequent CORA requests from the PPA. The independent investigation began after the criminal
investigation into the matter that concluded with the decision by District Attorney Beth McCann not
to file charges against Chief White or Chief Murray.
During the independent investigation, Chief Murray made allegations of misconduct against three
members of the PPA Board; Detective Nick Rogers, Lieutenant Vince Gavito, and Sergeant Bryan
O’Neill. Chief Murray related that the involved officers violated policy through their actions and
comments made to the media regarding an on-going internal investigation from the time period of
approximately January of 2017, to May of 2017. All three officers were given notice of the Internal
Affairs investigation in a memo to each of them dated September 19, 2017.
The investigation by Ms. Jody Luna, J.D., of Flynn Investigations Group was completed on
November 23, 2017 and the entire case was forwarded to the Denver Sheriff Department Conduct
Review Office for their review the following day, November 24, 2017.
____________________
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
9 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Again, included with this case are numerous items for review containing a variety of information,
including pertinent documents, a large number of photographs, phone records, and
correspondence from the PPA, command staff, the District Attorney’s Office, and the Avon Police
Department. Also included is correspondence related to the CORA requests from the PPA and the
media, audio- and video- recorded interviews of involved parties and witnesses, audio- and video-
recordings of media interviews and reports, and news articles from different media sources. For a
complete understanding of the case, it is necessary that all documents, statements, and audio-
and video-recordings be reviewed in their entirety.
Upon review of the entire investigative file, there are numerous internal disagreements, and
dysfunctional relationships that, while potentially salacious, are not relevant to the questions at
hand, those being: 1) Whether the Chief violated policy when he did not open an investigation into
Chief Murray’s conduct as alleged by DA Morrissey, and 2) whether the Chief violated the law or
internal policy as it relates to the Colorado Open Records Act.
CONFIDENTIAL – DELIBERATIVE PROCESS CRO ANALYSIS AND RATIONALE DPD
Case: DA Letter and CORA Request
10 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Chief White Receives Scathing Letter from Mr. Morrissey 9
9 The issues in Mr. Morrissey’s letter to Chief White are discussed in detail as they provide a basis for the actions taken by
Chief White and Chief Murray and must be considered in the totality of the circumstances in this case.
As previously mentioned in the Statement of Fact, District Attorney Mitch Morrissey sent Chief
White a letter dated May 17, 2016 expressing his concerns regarding how Deputy Chief Murray
handled the investigation and arrest of Ms. Angiella Arnot on May 5, 2016. The concerns outlined
in Mr. Morrissey’s letter to Chief White are discussed in detail below.
Disregard of On-Call Protocol
Mr. Morrissey’s first concern mentioned in his letter was that Chief Murray disregarded the on-call
protocol that has been in place for more than 30 years when District Attorney Adrienne Greene
was called to assist in this case. District Attorney Doug Jackson was the usual person who was
called to handle serious investigations including those involving police officers and he was the first
person on the District Attorney’s on-call list. Mr. Morrissey said, “Everybody knew that Doug was
the go to person pertaining police misconduct.” Chief Murray learned that Mr. Jackson was out
sick at the time and instead of calling the next person on the on-call list, which would have been
Mr. Lamar Sims, he called Ms. Greene. Mr. Morrissey took issue with this and said that Chief
Murray was familiar with the policy, a policy that has served both his department and the police
department well. He said that Ms. Greene should not have been called as she was not on the on-
call list for very specific reasons.
Chief Murray explained that someone from Internal Affairs called Mr. Jackson but was informed
that he was unavailable due to illness. After learning of the allegations made by the victim, Chief
Murray doesn’t know if it was him or one of the investigators who brought up Ms. Greene’s name,
but he had no objections to calling her. He has worked with her in the past and knew she had
extensive experience as a sex assault prosecutor. When he called her, she willingly agreed to
assist in the case.
Commander Montoya acknowledged that the Department always used Mr. Jackson but since this
was a sex crime, he said, “Greene seemed like a natural fit” and she had “a couple decades of
experience.”
When Mr. Jackson was interviewed, he said there was no rule that says Chief Murray can’t call
anyone else. Because he was ill, he said that he “appreciated” that Ms. Greene was called rather
than him. Likewise, Chief Murray said, to his knowledge, there was no policy and he didn’t know
what Mr. Morrissey was referring to. Chief Murray conveyed, “What I did do was call a Chief
Deputy District Attorney who has extensive experience in sexual assault investigations. She
happened to be sitting at her desk and was willing to come help us.”
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
11 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Mr. Morrissey Not Informed
Mr. Morrissey took issue with the fact that he was not immediately informed of the case and said
in his interview that when a police officer is arrested, he usually learns about it within moments.
Mr. Morrissey said he can’t remember how he learned Ms. Greene was involved with the
investigation, and she never called him to advise him she was working on the case. He said
trained on-calls get involved and they immediately reach out to him, Mr. Jackson, or Mr. Sims to
say, “I got this call,” “I went out,” “Do you want to take over this?”
Based upon Mr. Morrissey’s statement, it appears that the on-call DA was responsible for keeping
him informed, not the role of the investigating officers.
Allegation of Case “Off the Rails”
Mr. Morrissey said it’s highly unusual to prosecute cops for sexual assault and that he heard from
Mr. Jackson, Ms. Greene, and others that the investigation was “off the tracks.” 10 He said there
were red flags when he heard that special requests were being made for specific crime scene
investigators and direction was being given to people to do things that were in violation of crime
lab protocol for good forensic evidence collection.
10 Again,
Mr. Jackson was not initially called on this case because he was out ill and unavailable; however, he subsequently
became involved when he returned to work.
Detective Daniel Tregembo was the primary on-call detective who was called in on this case.
When asked if there was anything he thought unusual about how the case was processed, he
stated that on the first night, Ms. Greene wanted a specific person from the Crime Scene Unit to
be involved in the search. Sergeant Hernandez also conveyed that Ms. Greene made a request
for a special crime scene investigator to assist in processing the crime scene.
Sergeant Parisi recalled a meeting he believes was on May 4, 2016, when Ms. Greene was “really
leading the meeting” and talking about her specific requests in the case. He said Ms. Greene was
requesting specific detectives and Crime Lab personnel to work on the case.
Lieutenant Bridges conveyed that Ms. Greene was fully involved in the investigation and was
“making calls.” Ms. Greene admitted that she was “actively involved” in the investigation.
Commander Montoya conveyed that Ms. Greene requested a specific crime lab technician.
Commander Montoya also said that Ms. Greene also “kept pushing” for a specific female Sex
Crimes detective, Jamie Cisneros. He said Ms. Greene was “adamant” about getting her, but that
request was not granted.
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
12 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Arrest of Ms. Angiella Arnot
Mr. Morrissey was upset because he said the information that exonerated Ms. Arnot was in the
hands of the detectives when she was arrested and taken into custody. He said the data from the
victim’s cell phone only needed to be downloaded and they did the wrong thing when they dealt
with Ms. Arnot. He said it was not a pressing issue to get Ms. Arnot into custody as she had no
discipline history and was not a threat to anyone. He maintained that a more thorough
investigation and a review of the victim’s cell phone data should have preceded the arrest of Ms.
Arnot. When Mr. Morrissey spoke to Chief Murray about the arrest of Ms. Arnot, he said Chief
Murray defended himself by saying, “We had probable cause.”
As previously stated, the victim voluntarily provided her cell phone containing numerous texts and
photos pertaining to her case and consented to have DPD Technical Electronic Support Unit
(TESU) obtain communication information that took place between her and Officer Munk. On the
same day, TESU downloaded the information from her phone using the CellBrite System to
conduct a complete dump of all the data it held. The data dump provided over 12,000 messages,
texts, photographs, videos, and postings. According to Detective Medford of the TESU, the
victim’s cell phone had a capacity of 64 gigabytes. Of the 64 gigabytes, approximately 59
gigabytes were filled with data, including links to embedded messages, photos and video.
However, Ms. Greene indicated that during the investigation, the exculpatory information
contained in the victim’s cell phone, though it led to the release of Ms. Arnot, was not readily
available when decisions were made to initiate the arrests.
Chief Murray said he was camping and was not involved in Ms. Arnot's arrest. He said, "I wasn't
present, I wasn't consulted, I wasn't getting that information." He said, “I did not direct the
investigation or arrest of Ms. Arnot. She had not even been identified when I left town on
vacation.” Chief Murray’s phone records were obtained and revealed that there were many calls
to and from the Department pertaining to the case; however, Chief Murray said the calls were
about getting updates on the case and at no time was he asked about the arrest of Ms. Arnot. He
said his role in the investigation ended with the arrest of Officer Munk.
Chief Murray stated that pursuant to protocol, “the ‘unequivocal’ position of the responders to sex
assault is that the victim’s account of the event is believed and accepted with the context of
unbiased and objective investigation.” He said that the most appropriate course of action was to
make an arrest and that is what they did.
Commander Montoya said that once the decision to arrest Officer Munk was made, Ms. Greene
started to “take control.” He said she started mapping out what needed to be done and was “kind
of leading and directing people.” Likewise, Sergeant Ryan McGinty said he believes that Ms.
Greene made the decision to arrest Ms. Arnot because she had “taken control of the
investigation.” Ms. Greene said there was “absolutely” probable cause for both arrests. She said,
“I was the DA that was asked to participate and if we were going to do this, we were going to do it
right.”
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
13 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Commander Montoya was in agreement to arrest Ms. Arnot and had no reason to oppose her
arrest. He said that Chief Murray didn’t direct them to arrest her. He said Ms. Greene may have
spoken to Chief Murray, but it was Ms. Greene who wanted Ms. Arnot picked up. He said the
decisions moving forward would be based on the actions of the DA and the courts and he was
“out of the loop.”
“Rush to Judgment” Allegation
Mr. Morrissey said that if the appropriate DA had been contacted instead of Ms. Greene, they
would have “slowed the train down” and asked more questions about the messages on the
victim’s cell phone. Mr. Morrissey said that Chief Murray rushed to judgment and should have
directed the investigators to wait for that information prior to Ms. Arnot’s arrest. Had they waited,
they would have realized that her arrest was completely unwarranted. Mr. Morrissey said in his
interview during this investigation that he believes Chief Murray is very sensitive to the media and
rushed to judgment because there was another law enforcement agency involved.
Based on the conversations Chief Quiñones had with Mr. Laberge and Sergeant Hernandez (see
below), Chief Quiñones told Chief Murray to slow down to make sure they had everything right.
Sergeant McGinty said that he specifically remembers that he and Sergeant Faris attempted to
show Ms. Greene the text messages from the victim’s cell phone and “she didn’t want to see
them.” He said she was not interested and they made her physically sit down to show her the
messages. He said she finally realized that “the case was falling apart.” He said Ms. Greene was
more involved “than Doug Jackson would have been.” When Mr. Jackson told Ms. Greene to take
things slowly, she said, “Hindsight’s 20/20.” In her interview, she said, “Maybe he would have
done it differently and better, I don’t know. But he didn’t do it, I did.”
Regarding the letter from Mr. Morrissey, Sergeant McGinty said the comment that Chief Murray
“rushed to judgment” was incorrect because “Murray was not driving the case.”
Press Releases
Mr. Morrissey said that Chief Murray “added insult to injury” when he allowed a press release
announcing the arrest of Ms. Arnot, an “innocent woman,” subjecting her to “public ridicule and
embarrassment.”
Chief Quiñones said it is not unusual to issue a press release when an officer is involved, but
again, based on his conversations with Mr. Laberge and Sergeant Hernandez, he told Chief
Murray to slow down to make sure they had everything right.
Chief Murray said that the press releases are proactive and are what is expected by the
community with respect to accountability and transparency. He said he was not involved with the
press release regarding Ms. Arnot but said it was appropriate as it is a “normal course of action to
update the public on ongoing
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
14 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
matters.” He said no one sent him the press release and no one contacted him to ask for his
approval. Likewise, Chief White said the PIO is responsible for issuing press releases and he did
not see a problem with the press release involving Ms. Arnot.
Who was taking charge?
Mr. Morrissey said in his interview that Chief Murray was running the investigation and that he
“should know what he’s doing but didn’t.” He said he was disappointed that there were people in
his office who were involved in this.
Ms. Greene said she doesn’t think she knew Chief Murray was going out of town during the
investigation. She doesn’t recall if he said he was going camping and said, “I was kind of
surprised that he wasn’t more involved as opposed to less involved, because … he was there,
and he had gotten me involved in the beginning and then he wasn’t involved in the follow up.” She
said that the “first night Murray was greatly involved and the ranking officer, and he was less
involved after that.”
Commander Montoya was asked who was directing the investigation and he said he wasn’t going
to “downplay” his own involvement as Director of Internal Affairs. He said, however, that the
primary guiding force was Ms. Greene. To his knowledge, Chief Murray wasn’t involved, and Ms.
Greene gave direction.
Mr. Jackson said that he agrees with the letter that Mr. Morrissey wrote to Chief White but that
there are some facts that Mr. Morrissey didn’t have. He said he knows Chief Murray was involved
at some point, but doesn’t know whether he was “calling the shots” or if it was others in Internal
Affairs. He said, “it was unusual for a Deputy Chief to be involved, but this was an unusual
allegation.”
By his own admission, Mr. Morrissey said that when he had the conversation with Chief Murray
about this matter, if Chief Murray had told him someone else had made the call regarding these
events, or said he was camping, he would have talked to that person responsible, but that Chief
Murray didn’t tell him this.
Cavalier Attitude of Chief Murray
Finally, Mr. Morrissey conveyed in his letter to Chief White, “Equally concerning to me was Deputy
Chief Murray’s cavalier attitude when I spoke to him about the situation … His lack of concern for
the needless arrest of Ms. Arnot, and the subsequent publicity, was astounding.”
Chief Murray said that Mr. Morrissey’s letter was “baseless, as not a single accusation made by
Mr. Morrissey was accurate.” He said when Mr. Morrissey spoke to him, they were standing on the
dais, surrounded by families of fallen officers and other guests, when he thanked him for coming.
He said Mr. Morrissey raised his voice …. and appeared to be very agitated. He added, “… and it
was clearly not the place or time to have the discussion.”
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
15 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Regarding the letter from Mr. Morrissey, Sergeant McGinty said the comment that Chief Murray
“rushed to judgment” was incorrect because “Murray was not driving the case.” He added that the
comment Mr. Morrissey made about Ms. Arnot’s arrest being “completely unwarranted” is
inaccurate. He said there was probable cause to arrest Ms. Arnot and it was not a “needless”
arrest as conveyed in the letter. Once again, Sergeant McGinty added that Ms. Greene was
driving the case. He said if Mr. Morrissey had concerns, he could have talked to him or to
Commander Montoya, Lieutenant Bridges, Sergeant Ayers, or Sergeant Faris. Lieutenant Bridges
also saw the letter from Mr. Morrissey and in his opinion, some things Mr. Morrissey addressed in
the letter were not accurate.
Commander Montoya commented about the letter and said he is curious that Mr. Morrissey
focused on Chief Murray. He said he respects Mr. Morrissey, but that Mr. Morrissey did not
consider the involvement of the DA’s office in this case.
Again, Mr. Jackson said that he agrees with the letter that Mr. Morrissey wrote to Chief White but
that there are some facts that Mr. Morrissey didn’t have.
Chief Quiñones’ Concerns
Chief Quiñones had concerns with how the investigation was being directed. He received calls
from Mr. Laberge and Sergeant Hernandez who expressed their concerns with the manner in
which Chief Murray and Ms. Greene were pursuing the investigation. As stated above, Ms.
Greene was demanding certain detectives to be involved who weren’t even assigned to the unit
and also requested a specific crime scene investigator. Mr. Laberge said he took exception to Ms.
Greene’s request and contacted Chief Quiñones because it could appear biased. He said it was
not a “professional way to ask for services.” Chief Quiñones also said that he was told how Chief
Murray and Ms. Greene wanted to process two scenes in violation of policy. He said it had to be
pointed out to them that this wasn’t how they do things. Because of his conversations with Mr.
Laberge and Sergeant Hernandez, Chief Quiñones told Chief Murray he needed to “slow things
down” because he wanted everything done correctly.
Chief Quiñones contacted Mr. Sims to express his concerns about Ms. Greene’s involvement in
the investigation. He told Mr. Sims that she was demanding certain detectives who weren’t even
assigned to the unit handling the case. Mr. Sims told him he didn’t know why Ms. Greene had
been involved. Mr. Sims said he would look into how this happened and would speak to Mr.
Morrissey.
When Chief White received the letter from Mr. Morrissey, he showed it to Chief Quiñones. Chief
Quiñones told him there was some validity to it, as he also had concerns in the way the
investigation was handled. Chief White indicated that he talked to Chief Quiñones early on in the
investigation and expressed his view that it would not have been appropriate for Chief Murray to
give direction to, or instruct, personnel from the Crime Lab.
Chief Quiñones conveyed that he thinks the letter should have been looked into “through some
form of investigation.” He said Internal Affairs was not the appropriate agency to handle the letter
because they work directly for Chief Murray. However, he reiterated that some level of
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
16 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
investigation should have occurred. He said he believes there is a double standard in the
Department and that if someone else was the subject of this type of letter, it would have been
addressed. He said, in part:
Why a case was not generated, that’s a question for the Chief. I don’t know. And I’m not saying
that it would have proven that something wrong was done, but you at least have to take that
concern off the table and address it.
Summation of Morrissey Concerns
Mr. Morrissey’s first concern was about Chief Murray not following the on-call protocol that had
been in place for more than 30 years. There does not appear to be a formal policy in place
pertaining to this and, in fact, Mr. Jackson said that there was no rule that says Chief Murray
couldn’t call anyone else. Furthermore, this was an unusual allegation involving a police officer
that also involved a victim of sex assault. Chief Murray said Ms. Greene had extensive experience
in sex assault cases and she was available and willing to help in the investigation. Moreover,
Chief White indicated that a violation of a District Attorney’s policy would not constitute a violation
of a DPD policy.
Mr. Morrissey took issue with the fact that he was not immediately informed of the case. He said
Ms. Greene never called him to advise him that she was working on the case. When he asked her
who was “running this thing” and asked why he hadn’t been notified, she told him that Chief
Murray was running the investigation. During her interview with the investigator in this case, she
said that Chief Murray got her involved but clarified that he was initially involved but she had less
contact with him as the days went on. Chief Murray indicated that his involvement ended with the
arrest of Officer Munk on the first day of the investigation. As noted and corroborated extensively
above, there were many people who witnessed and reported that it was Ms. Greene who had
taken charge of the investigation. Additionally, it would be expected that Mr. Morrissey would be
kept apprised of the investigation by his own staff.
Mr. Morrissey said it’s highly unusual to prosecute cops for sexual assault and that he heard that
the investigation was “off the tracks.” He said there were red flags when he heard that special
requests were being made for specific crime scene investigators and direction was being given to
people to do things that were in violation of crime lab protocol for good forensic evidence
collection. Again, as noted earlier in this report, it was Ms. Greene who was taking the lead in the
investigation. She was the person making special requests and giving direction for evidence
collection. Although it was conveyed that she was one of the people who reported to Mr.
Morrissey that the investigation was “off the tracks,” based on the review of this investigation, it
appears she was primarily responsible.
Mr. Morrissey also claimed that there was a “rush to judgment” to arrest Ms. Arnot because he
claimed the detectives were in possession of the victim’s cell phone and that information in her
cell phone would actually have exonerated Ms. Arnot. He said the data from the victim’s cell
phone only needed to be downloaded and a review of the victim’s cell phone data should have
preceded her arrest. Ms. Greene said the evidence Mr. Morrissey describes in the letter wasn’t
initially available as it took some time to download. When Mr. Morrissey spoke to Chief Murray
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
17 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
about the arrest of Ms. Arnot, he said Chief Murray defended himself by saying, “We had probable
cause.” Again, under the direction of Ms. Greene, it was reported that those involved in the
investigation felt that Ms. Arnot should be arrested. Mr. Morrissey was also upset when a press
release announced Ms. Arnot’s arrest and provided her picture.
Again, Chief Murray said his involvement in the case ended with the arrest of Officer Munk the
day before. Despite the fact that he said he was not involved in Ms. Arnot’s arrest, he maintained
that there was probable cause to arrest her as described in more detail above. In fact, as
previously noted, everyone involved in the investigation of this case up to this point felt it was
appropriate to arrest her. Additionally, Chief Murray said he did not have anything to do with the
press release naming Ms. Arnot as a second suspect; however, he said that it was appropriate
and that it is not unusual to issue press releases for accountability and transparency.
Finally, by his own admission, Mr. Morrissey said that when he had the conversation with Chief
Murray about this matter, if Chief Murray had told him someone else had made the call regarding
these events, or said he was camping, he would have talked to that person responsible, but that
Chief Murray didn’t tell him this.
Matters to Consider
Date of Letter
Mr. Morrissey wrote the letter to Chief White on May 17, 2016; however, the letter that was
submitted by Mr. Alfredo Hernandez in response to the CORA request from the PPA incorrectly
has the date of July 7, 2016 on the second page of the letter. Likewise, the second page of that
letter forwarded to Ms. Dulacki’s personal email account on January 27, 2017 by Mr. Tony
Kovaleski’s producer is also dated July 7, 2016. Ms. Bee Ling Withers provided a scanned copy of
the letter on January 30, 2017 and the second page of the letter she provided has the correct date
of May 17, 2016.
There is only one explanation for the incorrect date on the second page of the letter; and that is
that the person who created the letter, or someone who had access to it, opened it and re-printed
the second page on July 7, 2016 and simply did not notice that the date was incorrect. When a
Microsoft Word document replaces the original date in a document with the current date, it is
because the “Update Automatically” box was checked when the Date and Time field was selected
at the time the document was created. As a result, the field updates to the current date instead of
a static date every time a document is opened and/or printed. The date can also be changed
manually; however, there would be no logical explanation for why the second page of the letter
should have a different date.
After a document is created and the date is initially populated, the field can be locked; however,
the person from the DA’s Office who created this letter, and/or printed it, either did not know that
the date field could be locked, forgot to lock it, or simply did not realize that the document was set
up to automatically populate with the current date. Additionally, when looking at the signature on
both versions of the second page, there is no question that the second page of the letter dated
(and printed) July 7, 2016, was re-signed by Mr. Morrissey, most likely because his office did not
have a copy of the original signed letter.
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
18 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Ms. Mary Dulacki
Ms. Dulacki received a copy of both letters sent to her personal email address from Mr. Tony
Kovaleski’s producer, Brittany Freeman, on Friday, January 27, 2017. She reported her contact
with Mr. Kovaleski to her supervisor, Deputy Director of Safety, Mr. Chris Lujan. Mr. Lujan told her
not to call Executive Director Stephanie O’Malley until they had more information.
According to Mr. Lujan, Ms. Dulacki told him that she “learned about the letter” that weekend and
that a reporter had the letter and was giving her the opportunity to verify whether the letter
existed.
After Ms. Dulacki received the email from Mr. Kovaleski’s producer, she conveyed that she spoke
to Chief Quiñones about the letter that weekend with the understanding that he would tell Chief
White about the matter. Chief Quiñones, however, does not remember discussing this with Ms.
Dulacki.
When Ms. Dulacki spoke to Chief White and Chief Murray on the following Monday, January 30,
2017, she had a copy of the letter in-hand.
Deputy Chief Murray
Chief Murray indicated that he was not involved in Ms. Arnot’s arrest and said his involvement
ended with the arrest of Officer Munk on the first day of the investigation. He said he was camping
and provided a receipt for his camping reservation. He said, "I wasn't present, I wasn't consulted, I
wasn't getting that information." However, he did receive several calls during this time from
members of the Department. He indicated that the calls were to keep him apprised of the case but
claims that at no time did they ask him about Ms. Arnot’s arrest or anything about sending out
press releases.
Additionally, the first CORA request from the PPA was made via email on July 5, 2016. The
following day, July 6, 2016, Ms. Dulacki sent an email to many people in the Department asking
for records related to former Officer Davin Munk. The email said, in part: “… please provide me
with any communications that you may have in your possession.” Chief Murray said he did not
respond to this request because he believed the request was specifically for the case file.
Additionally, the email asked if anyone had any communications in their possession and he said
he did not have the letter in his possession.
The second CORA request dated October 27, 2016 consisted of four requests and does not
specifically refer to any communications between any of the parties involved in this case. In fact,
there is no email to the Department from Ms. Dulacki regarding this particular CORA request and
she responded to all four of their requests the following day, October 28, 2016. Ms. Dulacki
conveyed that she does not have a particular recollection of talking to anybody about this request.
As such, there would be no reason for either Chief White or Chief Murray to respond to it.
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
19 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
The third CORA request from the PPA dated December 28, 2016 was more detailed and asked
specifically for any communication between Mr. Morrissey and Chief White. Ms. Dulacki’s email to
the Department on the same date stated in part: “Can you please advise if you are aware of any
other communications?” (emphasis added) Chief Murray responded via email the following day,
stating, “I have no records responsive to this request.”
Chief Murray indicated in his interview that there was a lot going on at this time; he had a family
crisis with his granddaughter and he was in the middle of working on issues with the controversial
use of force policy. He said he made a good faith search for the records the PPA was requesting
before he answered Ms. Dulacki; however, he said the request was not his priority and he relied
on Ms. Dulacki to ensure that the records requested were located and released.
Chief Murray said in an interview with the media, "… you can tell by this interview, we are hiding
nothing, [we are] more than happy to talk about this. Clearly the District Attorney has a lot of facts
wrong here." Chief Murray went on to explain that there was no reason to suppress the letter and
that it had more to do with the process that had a fallacy because of the players who were
involved.
Chief White
During this investigation, Chief White said he did not handle CORA requests unless the email(s)
were addressed only to him. He said when he is included in the email with many other members
of the Department, he relies on them to handle the request. According to Chief Murray, since he
handles most of the administrative functions for the Chief, Chief White thought that he (Chief
Murray) would provide it because that would be what is normal.
When Chief White received the letter from Mr. Morrissey, Chief Murray was upset and wanted to
defend himself, but Chief White told him to “stay out of it.” Chief White said if Chief Murray had
helped Ms. Dulacki find the letter, he would have been “violating this directive.”
Ms. Dulacki was asked why she didn’t ask Ms. Bee Ling before going to Chief White’s office about
the letter. She said:
I wanted to find out what Chief White had to say. It was his name on the letter. I mean to me that
would have been completely inappropriate when I hadn’t even discussed this with Chief White. I
was waiting to talk to Chief White. I walked into his office when he walked into his office and we
sat down and we talked about it. That would have seemed almost insubordinate to me to do
something like that.
Furthermore, Ms. Dulacki says she knew the letter was to the Chief and Chief Murray said she
usually goes directly to the person who has the document if she doesn’t get a document she
needs from other sources.
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
20 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Investigation of CORA Violation by DA’s Office
Detective Rogers, PPA President, subsequently filed a criminal complaint with the District
Attorney’s Office alleging that Chief White and Chief Murray engaged in a violation of CORA,
which was a criminal offense at the time. In Detective Rogers’ interview, he said he took issue with
how the case was being handled and questioned why the City would deviate from the normal
investigative process in this case.
The case was opened by the DA’s Office on March 3, 2017 and at the conclusion of the criminal
investigation on May 25, 2017, District Attorney Beth McCann informed Detective Rogers and the
rest of the PPA Board that she would not be filing criminal charges on Chief White and Chief
Murray because there was no criminal intent. She conveyed that the manner in which the CORA
requests were handled was done with negligence and was “careless” and “cavalier.” However,
she did not think there was the appropriate mental state to file charges. As such, she indicated
that their conduct did not rise to the level of criminal misconduct. Detective Rogers said that Chief
White and Chief Murray consciously did not provide the information that made them look bad.
Independent Investigation – Flynn
On March 2, 2017, Executive Director O’Malley engaged the services of Employment Matters,
LLC, Flynn Investigations Group, to assume the role of Internal Affairs and conduct an
investigation into the handling of the sexual assault case by Chief Murray and the subsequent
CORA requests from the PPA. The independent investigation began after the criminal
investigation into the matter that concluded with the decision by District Attorney Beth McCann not
to file charges against Chief White or Chief Murray.
In Director O’Malley’s announcement, she stated:
As Executive Director of Safety, it is my duty to provide civilian oversight to the Denver Police
Department. As such, I have decided to initiate an outside, third party investigation into this matter
to ensure transparency and accountability. …
Chief White Receives Letter from District Attorney Morrissey
When Chief White received Mr. Morrissey’s letter, he showed it to Chief Murray and Chief
Quiñones. Chief Quiñones told Chief White that there was some validity to the letter based on
what he knew from Mr. Laberge and Sergeant Hernandez about how the case was being handled,
and as outlined more extensively above. He believed there was a “rush to judgment” and he told
Chief Murray during the investigation that he should slow things down. Chief Murray said that the
letter from Mr. Morrissey was “baseless, as not a single accusation made by Mr. Morrissey was
accurate.” As detailed above, Ms. Greene was the person who was making the special requests
for certain individuals to be involved in the investigation and she was the person taking the lead in
this case.
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
21 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Chief Murray told Chief White that he had nothing to do with Ms. Arnot’s arrest and that the letter
was “fabricated.” He told Chief White he had “zero input” in “the Arnot arrest” and that his
involvement in the case ended with the arrest of Officer Munk. He said Ms. Arnot had not yet been
identified when he went camping. He also conveyed that he took calls when he was camping, but
indicated that they were calls keeping him apprised of the situation and said at no time was he
consulted about Ms. Arnot’s arrest or anything about sending out press releases. Commander
Montoya said Ms. Greene might have spoken to Chief Murray when he was camping, but
confirmed it was Ms. Greene who wanted Ms. Arnot picked up.
Chief Murray informed Chief White that there was “nothing inappropriate” regarding the Munk
investigation and that Ms. Greene played a “very significant part” in the decision to arrest Ms.
Arnot. Although Chief Murray was not involved in Ms. Arnot’s arrest, he reiterated that they had
probable cause to arrest her. Additionally, Chief White was told it was a group consensus of all
involved in the investigation to have Ms. Arnot arrested and charged with sexual assault. In fact,
Commander Montoya said he was in agreement to arrest Ms. Arnot and had no reason to oppose
her arrest. He said the victim gave a compelling interview and was very credible. This was
confirmed by several people involved in the investigation.
Based on what was conveyed to him, Chief White said he thought the letter had misinformation
and it didn’t require any … other action on his part. Chief White also indicated that he did not
believe there was a written “on-call” policy for the District Attorney’s Office. He said, even if it
existed, it would apply to the District Attorney’s Office and would not be deemed a departmental
policy violation.
Chief White said he “absolutely” does not consider the letter a complaint against an officer
because “it wasn’t a complaint” … it was a “difference of opinion over legal actions that were
taken. It’s a difference of opinion and misinformation. He said Chief Murray had nothing to do with
Ms. Arnot’s arrest and that just because charges weren’t filed, doesn’t mean “an innocent person
was being impugned.” Chief White conveyed in his interview, “While Ms. Arnot may have been
embarrassed, the fact is, she committed a felony.” He explained that because the DA doesn’t file a
case, it doesn’t mean a crime did not occur.
Chief White said that the information was “inaccurate” and an attempt to undermine him through
Chief Murray and that gave him reason to question the entire tone and nature of the letter. He said
he knew [the information was inaccurate] through Chief Murray and Internal Affairs and validated
the information given to him.
If the letter was about someone else, Chief White said he would have handled it the exact same
way. He said the letter was a “letter of concern” that was “not even based on factual information.”
He said if Mr. Morrissey had a legitimate complaint, he would have forwarded the letter to EDOS
and possibly the Mayor.
In sum, pursuant to the Operations Manual (Section 503.01 – Complaint and Discipline
Procedures for Sworn Officers), the Chief of Police has the authority not to pursue a complaint.
Chief White did not pursue the matter because he didn’t consider it a complaint of substance. He
said he looked into the matter and spoke to Chief Murray about these events. He confirmed the
information given to him and told Chief Murray to read the letter but to “leave it alone” and “stay
out of this.” Chief Murray was frustrated and angry when he read the letter and wanted to defend
himself, but Chief White made it “very clear” to him that he was not to get involved.
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
22 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Responses to CORA Requests (for case information and correspondence)
As stated in the Statement of Fact above, the PPA sent a CORA request to Ms. Dulacki on July 5,
2016 requesting information pertaining to the investigation involving former officer Davin Munk.
Ms. Dulacki responded to this request on August 2, and August 31, 2016, when she provided a
redacted copy of the IAB case on disc.
Another CORA request was made by the PPA on October 27, 2016 requesting additional
information. Ms. Dulacki responded to the request the following day. She received yet another
CORA request on December 28, 2016; this time the request was for communication exchanges
from/to the District Attorney and Chief White. Ms. Dulacki responded to Ms. Yeros on January 3,
2017 stating that [the Department] was not aware of anything responsive to her request. On the
same day, another request from the PPA was made for the same information as before. Ms.
Dulacki responded the next day, “The response to this request is the same as the prior response
– we have located no other additional responsive records.” Less than a half hour later, Ms. Yeros
made the same CORA request on behalf of the PPA to the District Attorney’s Office. The DA’s
Office responded on January 9, 2017 and provided the letter from Mr. Morrissey to Chief White
and Chief White’s response to the letter. Up to this point, the letters had not been provided to the
PPA by the Department in response to the CORA requests.
Chief White said he does not open emails that are CORA requests and he knows when they are
CORA requests because they come from Ms. Dulacki. He appointed Chief Murray as his Chief of
Staff and delegated to him the duty to respond to Ms. Dulacki’s requests. Chief White said he
would open an email from Ms. Dulacki if it only had his name on it but that the emails are usually
addressed to others and he receives several on a daily basis.
When he received the letter from Mr. Morrissey, he discussed it with Chief Murray and during his
interview, he said that Chief Murray was “anxious to respond” to the letter but that he (Chief
White) was trying to “circumvent” an unnecessary argument with Mr. Morrissey. He gave Chief
Murray a “directive” not to be involved in “that particular letter” and that would have included
responding to CORA requests. Further, Chief Murray did not have the letter and Chief White said
Chief Murray would have been “violating this directive” if he helped Ms. Dulacki find the letter.
However, it should be noted that it does not appear that anyone was delegated the responsibility
of responding to applicable CORA requests in Chief Murray’s stead.
Regarding the 2016 CORA request, Chief White treated it like every other and didn’t open it. Chief
Murray reiterated that the Chief typically relies on him to gather material for open records requests
in the office, but in this case, he was recused because he was the officer in question in Mr.
Morrissey’s letter. He said he didn’t talk to Ms. Dulacki about the letter in July because he thought
the request was about the Internal Affairs case.
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
23 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Chief Murray said there is no question that the letter should have been disclosed. He stated, in
part: “… The Chief told me to stay out of it and I stay out of it. And I’m going to say again, Mary
says she knew the letter was to the Chief, she goes to people [when] she needs a document she
doesn’t get, and when she did go to the Chief and ask for a document, she got it. Those are the
facts.”
Chief White said he was “pretty comfortable” that the letter was in their files somewhere. He said it
would have been inappropriate to throw the letter away.
Chief White reiterated, “All Mary had to do was come to me … It was that simple, and she
would’ve gotten exactly what she wanted.”
Ms. Dulacki acknowledged in her statement to the DA that Chief White “didn’t do CORA.”
Because the letter pertained to him, she admitted that she should have just asked him.
“Eventually she did that and when she did, she got the letter …”
Chief White said, “I am not accepting any responsibility for being careless as it relates to this.” He
said that the City, including his Department, is looking into the way CORA requests are handled
and that “There’s certainly room for improvement.”
Summary of Discipline
The Department’s top priority is to develop and foster trust and integrity within the Department
and within the community. The discipline system, and the dedication it shall receive, is vital to
promoting these values internally and externally. In the past, both community members and police
officers, for varying reasons, have expressed a lack of confidence in the Department’s ability to
administer disciplinary penalties in a fair and timely manner. The Department’s matrix based
system of discipline should attempt to accomplish the elimination, to the extent possible, any
public perception that the discipline system is ineffective, unfair, inconsistent, or unreasonable and
which reflects the goals, values, and priorities of the Department and promotes respect and trust
within the Department and with the community it serves.
The lack of an effective discipline system fosters mistrust and low morale within the Department,
poor relationships with the community and a negative image of the Department in the eyes of the
public. These can, in turn, jeopardize the public’s confidence in the Department and can
contribute to the Department’s inability to effectively carry out its mission.
In addition, an appropriate discipline system will also serve to help accomplish other goals of the
Department, including but not limited to, ensuring the orderly functioning and operation of the
Department and adherence to its established standards of conduct as well as reinforcing the
Guiding Principles of the Department and the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics.
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
24 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
The Guiding Principles implicated in this case are:
Equity
“Equity is best achieved when officers are fair and impartial in all of their contacts.
Equity means that officers do not allow personal bias or prejudice to interfere with their judgment
and actions. When the Department applies the rules, regulations and laws in an impartial and
unbiased manner, equity is achieved. …”
Honesty
“Honesty is expected of each individual officer. Avoiding any deception, misrepresentation or
omission of relevant facts and telling the complete truth are necessary to ensure honesty in the
Department.
There is no basis for respect or trust without honesty. If the Department fails to demand honesty, it
breaks faith with the public and its own officers. The Department must reinforce the core value of
honesty with its actions, words and conduct. Honesty must be expected of everyone, from the
Chief to the newest officer or recruit. No decision can be fairly made, or no case completely
investigated without honesty.”
Accountability
“Accountability means accepting responsibility. Being accountable requires that an officer is
answerable to both the public and the Department, for his or her conduct.
Officers demonstrate accountability by acknowledging their own conduct, whether good or bad,
mistaken or intentional, and accepting the consequences. Being accountable also means that
officers understand that their community looks to them to set a positive example in their
professional and personal lives.
Likewise, the Department and its administration must be accountable to its officers and the
general public. Accountability is a major component in community confidence as well as officer
confidence in the Department.
A lack of accountability can negatively impact every aspect and function of the Department, both
internally and externally.”
Respect
“Respect is achieved by acting properly and showing due regard for all those with whom an officer
has contact. …
… Respect requires that officers acknowledge the dignity of each individual they contact and act
in an appropriate and honorable way in their dealing with every person.
… It is equally necessary for every officer, from the Chief to the rank and file, to treat each other
with respect.”
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
25 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Law Enforcement Code of Ethics
“… I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to
influence my decisions. …” The Code was the first recognition that inappropriate influences of any
kind will undermine the public trust.
It should be noted that public perception is affected by the intense media coverage of law
enforcement agencies and their conduct, and matters such as this frequently come under public
scrutiny. Adverse public reactions to these circumstances are not uncommon and the result,
unfortunately, is detrimental to the Department’s professional image.
Findings
Investigation
This office considered only the evidence that is contained in this file and any reasonable
inferences to be drawn from that evidence.
The CRO examined the credibility of involved parties and the weight to be given their statements.
In doing so, we took into consideration the individuals’ means of knowledge, strength of memory
and opportunities for observation; the reasonableness or unreasonableness of their statements;
the consistency or lack of consistency in their statements; their motives; whether their statements
have been contradicted or supported by other evidence; their bias, prejudice, and interest, if any;
their manner or demeanor while making statements; and all other facts and circumstances shown
by the evidence which could affect the credibility of the individuals involved. A suspicion, belief or
opinion not supported by the weight of the evidence was not considered.
This office finds that the explanations given in the Analysis and Rationale above for why Mr. Doug
Jackson or another District Attorney from the DA’s on-call list were not called were logical and
reasonable. Despite the fact that Mr. Morrissey took issue with Chief Murray bypassing over 30
years of protocol when Ms. Greene was called, there is no definitive written policy in place that
was violated. Likewise, based on Chief Murray’s testimony and that of many witnesses, we find
that it is reasonable to believe that he was not the person who was responsible for the arrest of
Ms. Arnot. While he took an active part in the investigation in the beginning, which he admits to,
many witnesses conveyed that Ms. Greene was the person who was giving direction and “calling
the shots.” Perhaps the investigation could have been handled differently; however, as previously
stated, the DA’s on-call policy is not a departmental policy and would not be deemed a rule
violation.
Additionally, consistent with Mr. Morrissey’s claim, it was determined that there may have been a
better way to handle this criminal investigation that would not have led to the immediate arrest of
Ms. Arnot. Nevertheless, it was also determined that Chief Murray was not the person directing
this investigation. It also appears Mr. Morrissey did not have all the relevant information about
how the case was handled and who was in charge.
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
26 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Again, by his own admission, Mr. Morrissey said that when he had the conversation with Chief
Murray about this matter, if Chief Murray had told him someone else had made the call regarding
these events, or said he was camping, he would have talked to that person responsible, but that
Chief Murray didn’t tell him this. Moreover, when he asked Ms. Greene who was in charge of the
investigation, she told him Chief Murray was. He did not know that she was the driving force in the
investigation and was more involved than Chief Murray.
The CRO finds that Mr. Morrissey’s complaint that he wasn’t informed about the investigation was
not the fault of Chief Murray. It stands to reason that the person who should have kept Mr.
Morrissey apprised of the events would first fall on Ms. Greene, as she was his employee and
worked under his charge. Again, it was also confirmed during the investigation that Ms. Greene
was the person who took charge and was directing the investigation. It was she who was making
the special requests for specific detectives, a specific crime scene investigator, and was giving
direction for crime scene evidence collection. Furthermore, Mr. Morrissey said that Chief Murray
had a “cavalier” attitude when he spoke to him at the Police Memorial; however, Chief Murray
indicated that Mr. Morrissey’s accusations were “baseless” and it is understandable that Chief
Murray chose to walk away to de-escalate the situation. Further, he said this was neither the time
nor the place to have this discussion.
Chief White’s Discretion Not to Pursue Complaint
When he received the letter from Mr. Morrissey, Chief White showed it to Chief Quiñones. Chief
Quiñones told him there was some validity to it, as he had concerns in the way the investigation
was handled. Chief Quiñones conveyed that he thinks the letter should have been looked into
“through some form of investigation.” He said he believes there is a double standard in the
Department and that if someone else was the subject of this type of letter, it would have been
addressed.
As previously mentioned, Chief White said the information was “inaccurate” and was an attempt to
undermine him through Chief Murray and that gave him reason to question the entire tone and
nature of the letter. He said he thought the letter had misinformation and it didn’t require any …
other action on his part.
Chief White said he “absolutely” does not consider the letter a complaint against an officer
because “it wasn’t a complaint” … it was a “difference of opinion over legal actions that were
taken. It’s a difference of opinion and misinformation. If the letter was about someone else, Chief
White said he would have handled it the exact same way. He said the letter was a “letter of
concern” that was “not even based on factual information.” He said if Mr. Morrissey had a
legitimate complaint, he would have forwarded the letter to EDOS and possibly the Mayor.
Pursuant to the Operations Manual, the Chief of Police has the authority not to pursue a
complaint. He did not pursue the matter because he didn’t consider it a complaint of substance.
He said he looked into the matter and spoke to Chief Murray about these events. He told Chief
Murray to read the letter but to “leave it alone” and “stay out of this.” Chief Murray was frustrated
and angry when he read the letter and wanted to defend himself, but Chief White advised him not
to escalate the matter. Chief Murray said Chief White was “very clear” when he told him not to get
involved.
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
27 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
As previously noted, Chief Quiñones conveyed that there was some validity with Mr. Morrissey’s
concerns. He said he thinks the letter should have been looked into “through some form of
investigation.” He added, “Why a case was not generated, that’s a question for the Chief. I don’t
know. And I’m not saying that it would have proven that something wrong was done, but you at
least have to take that concern off the table and address it.”
Despite the fact that it was the Chief’s discretion not to pursue a complaint, the findings of a
formal investigation likely would have come to the same conclusions; however, based on the
circumstances of the investigation and on the fact that it involved a member of the command staff,
a better course of action might have been to conduct a formal investigation.
CORA Requests
It is unclear whether or not Chief White was even aware that the PPA CORA request was for the
letter from Mr. Morrissey since he was generally not involved in answering CORA requests. This is
a cogent argument for why Chief White did not respond to the CORA requests; however, if he
knew at the time that they were requesting that letter, he should have let Ms. Dulacki know about
it, regardless if it was still in his possession. However, Chief Murray never denied that he knew
that the letter from Mr. Morrissey existed and openly admitted to being aware of it. He indicated
that he was told by Chief White to stay out of the matter and said he was never in possession of
the letter. There is no question that the letter should have been disclosed in response to the PPA’s
CORA request for the letter despite the fact that he did not have it in his possession. By his own
admission, he said, “The letter was responsive, we had it, should have gotten it to release it.”
It appears, however, that Ms. Dulacki never asked Chief White directly for the letter until after she
had a copy of it from Mr. Kovaleski. When she finally went to Chief White and asked for the letter,
she got it. Ms. Dulacki acknowledged in her statement to the DA that Chief White “didn’t do
CORA.” However, because the letter pertained to him, she admitted that she should have just
asked him. Again, “eventually she did that and when she did, she got the letter …”
Conclusion
The Department takes all allegations of misconduct such as this very seriously. As noted in the
DPD Disciplinary Handbook:
Undoubtedly, the [Executive Director of Safety] and Police Department need to be able to
discipline officers for engaging in conduct that is prohibited by criminal statutes or other laws. A
primary reason for that need is that officers are employed in large part to enforce the law and,
consequently, conduct by officers that violates the law is totally antithetical to a police officer’s role
in society and diminishes the public image of law enforcement officers. Engaging in conduct that
violates a law, particularly a criminal law, may also negatively affect an officer’s ability to perform
his/her job functions.
DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request Re: Chief Robert White, P11001
28 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
In reviewing this case in its entirety and as noted in the previously stated rationale, the CRO has
made some very plausible findings and reasonable inferences with regards to the timing of the
correspondence (CORA requests, letters, emails, text messages, etc.) by the PPA.
In determining whether the injury or harm caused in this case was a result of Chief White’s
conduct, caution must be used to determine whether there is a sufficient causal connection
between the conduct and the foreseeable result in order to justify holding Chief White accountable
for the result. (See Section 26.3 in the Disciplinary Handbook.)
There is no requirement that an officer actually be convicted of a criminal offense to initiate a
formal administrative investigation into conduct prohibited by law. However, as previously stated,
Chief White had a very cogent argument as to why he did not provide the letter to Ms. Dulacki. He
did not handle CORA requests and Ms. Dulacki did not ask him for the letter.
Chief White denies that he purposefully withheld any information because he was not involved in
the process. He indicated that he was not aware of what they were asking for and it is his
contention that if he was asked for the letter, he would have provided it. However, no one asked
him and the evidence supports this.
CONDUCT REVIEW OFFICE DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request SPECIFICATIONS
1 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Specification No. 1:

RR-102.1 – Duty to Obey Departmental Rules and Mayoral Executive Orders


(Conduct Categories A – F)
Officers shall obey all Departmental rules, duties, procedures, instructions, directives, and orders;
the provisions of the Operations Manual; and Mayoral Executive Orders.
As it pertains to:
Operations Manual - 503.00 Performance
503.01 – Complaint and Discipline Procedures for Sworn Officers
(1) Policy:
The policy of the Denver Police Department in creating a complaint and discipline process is to
establish a set of accountability standards that address how complaints of officer misconduct are
made, filtered, processed and evaluated at all levels. …
The Department recognizes the vital importance of the internal investigation process and that no
system of discipline can be effective without investigations that can be considered by members of
the Department and the general public as unbiased and trustworthy. The Department is
committed to investigating all allegations of officer misconduct in a fair, thorough and timely
manner in accordance with accepted Department policies and procedures. . . .
(2) Guidelines and Definitions
Misconduct: A violation of a law, policy, procedure, or rule and regulation. There are several
classifications of misconduct:
• Minor Misconduct: Potential violations of policy or procedure that have minimal adverse impact
on the operation or integrity of the Department and that are not likely to result in a formal
disciplinary action against a named employee.

...
• Serious Misconduct (including Conduct Prohibited by Law): Potential violations of policies,
procedures, rules, or regulations that have an adverse impact on the operation or integrity of the
department and that, if proven, would likely result in formal disciplinary action against a named
employee. Investigations involving allegations of serious misconduct of law violations will be
conducted by the Internal Affairs Division. Examples of serious misconduct include but are not
limited to: commission of a deceptive act, sexual misconduct, inappropriate force, harassment,
discrimination, and conduct prohibited by law.

...
SPECIFICATIONS (CONT.) DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request
2 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Dismissal: The Chief of Police (or designee) may elect not to investigate and thereby dismiss
certain complaints. The grounds for dismissal of complaints are outlined in OMS 503.01(5).
Formal Investigation: All allegations of misconduct that are not classified as minor misconduct,
service complaints, or dismissals will be formally investigated. … Nothing will prevent division or
district level supervisory or command officers from conducting an initial investigation prior to
forwarding the issue to the Internal Affairs Division for a full investigation . . .
Informal Investigation: Informal investigations are conducted when there is a complaint of minor
misconduct. If applicable, the investigation should include debriefing the subject officer regarding
a complainant’s concerns about the officer’s actions or quality of service. The informal
investigation is an expedited process that does not result in a formal finding or the imposition of
discipline.
...
(5) A Complaint may be Dismissed for the Following Reasons:
...
e. No Misconduct:
Even if all aspects of the complaint were true, no act of misconduct would have occurred. An
allegation that fails to describe at least a potential violation of federal, state, or municipal law, or
city or Department policy will be dismissed. Occasionally, a complaint that fails to state
misconduct may merit a referral to the Chief’s Office for policy or other considerations or to
mediation as a means of improving police community relations. A complaint may be dismissed if it
is apparent that no misconduct was committed and if it is likely that additional investigation would
not reach a different conclusion.
f. False or Trivial:
The complaint is trivial, frivolous, false, or not credible.
1. Allegations determined to be intentionally and materially false will be dismissed.

2. Trivial or frivolous complaints may be dismissed. Trivial or frivolous complaints allege minor
technical violations of procedural rules which have negligible adverse effects on the public or the
credibility of the Department.

3. Complaints that are grossly illogical or improbable may be dismissed during intake by IAD or
recommended for dismissal by bureau, district or division supervisors, ….
SPECIFICATIONS (CONT.) DPD Case: DA Letter and CORA Request
3 | P a g e This document and its contents are confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to the "deliberative process privilege"
and must be maintained in accordance with established department procedures.
Specification No. 2:

RR-105 – Conduct Prejudicial (Conduct Categories A – F)


Officers shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the good order and police discipline of the
Department or conduct unbecoming an officer which:
(a) May or may not specifically be set forth in Department rules and regulations or the Operations
Manual; or

(b) Causes harm greater than would reasonably be expected to result, regardless of whether the
misconduct is specifically set forth in Department rules and regulations or the Operations Manual.

Specification No. 3:

RR-115.1 – Conduct Prohibited by Law (Conduct Categories A – F)


Officers shall obey the Charter of the City and County of Denver, all City ordinances, all state and
federal statutes and all other applicable laws whether criminal, civil, traffic, or administrative.
Denver Sheriff Department
Conduct Review Office Date: 4/9/2018

Você também pode gostar