sean cep hens pe tase DENVER _ ee upuic SAFETY coe aE mace ‘AGREEMENT. (Gave No, 1Gz017- (Officer inthe Classified Service of the Denver Police Department This Is betore the Executive Director of the Department of Safety to approve, lsapprove or madity the Chi of Police's Wriien Command ordering diecipinary inst Office ‘The Wetten Command determined that Officer lated RA-TTS-1, rohibited by Law, as k pertains to C.A.S. § 18+ -3-202(1)(a), Probationary power of court and C.RLS. § 16-11-206(2), Arest of probationer ~ revocation, and AR-102.1, Duly to Obey Departmental Rules and Mayoral Executive Orders, as it pertains to. OMS, 503.01(8), Roles and FResponsiities, of the Denver Police Department Operations Manual, when his probation was revoked because he falled to comply wth the terms of a probation Eentence he recelved for a DUI and then fale to holly his supersor, command Ofleer, oF the IAB that he was taken back to cour on a Petition to Revoks probation ‘Tho Witton Command determined that these were Conduct Category D voatons and imposed penal of thity (30) suspended days without pay for each specication. COfcer INN agross withthe penalties as sol forth in the Negotiated Setlement ‘Agrooment appended to this Ordor. ‘On May 31, 2016, Officod was found guity of DWAI and sentenced to 60 days ‘of jal me (suspended), 24 hours of community service, and 18 months of probation supervision in his open Jefferson County OWAl case IEE The terms of bration eqred thal Ores ubnt a8 sleanal eaten end calle Tocommonded treatment. Ho wa ‘on a Secure Continuous Remote ‘Nechel Monitor (SCRAM). fico: Iwas also orded to present proot that he ‘moved in wih his parents and had staried his recommended treatment. Finally, he was ordered fo comply with random urinalysis testing for alcohol fics Case Manager inthe probation matier, DG, fled a Petition to Revoke Probation, on April 17, 2017, due to Officer [IEEE violation of ‘and conditions of his probation. DG informed the cour tat several of Oca UA 7 Oe Angus 2016, Ox eid a ggrovted pny of sce (16) sped ap fo ‘seg RE 1151, Coda Pebedby Lana ponsins ts CRS 42-4120, Dwg Unter he een, 2 (Conde step Bvt, in Case NaPage-2- (Case: 102017- Officer n the Classtied Service ofthe Denver Police Department screens were ether diluted or positive for alcohol in is system and that he had missed schedued UA screens. A summons requiring Otice fs appearance ncourt was. Issued on May 5, 2017 and a revocation of prob 19 was scheduled for May 30, 2017. While this hearing was pending, Otice [continued to provide ditvied UA screens and UA screens thal were positive for alcohol fico fated to notify his chain of command or IAB that he was the subject of the Patton to Ravoke Probation and that ha had bean summoned back ino cout. The Department became aware ofthis when a routine auall was conducted, ‘The hearing on the Peon to Revoke Ot Js probation was held on May 30, 2017. 0G advised that cour that Officer Ill was not incompliance with the terms {and conditions of his probation. DG reported the folowing tothe Court: “our Hone, a] been onprbaton wth rtarveton fr abou a You inf your nose compe elo eucaon un wo fatpy {sies' Of and on vou pealon he has Ganka mised Uke inated sora Ghaed ets She ea tne wo ware soo noe hate toad et potv ta fos an he manda UA on any. took over this case in January. Since January, | feel I've been working really har padi on tworwer eporig, We do 0 day o SCRA ast Airco fra pos iat we gota Geconbor Fe day ata {ok Him of Sohal fave apotve rahe He as dare wo end See a oe eae tee ete Patacre Tinta ney open rong ie Sthurdor hen ets tye Tpnin Keefe would betting or bones betas dona vedo reltoamn coaice lo cael a setonce fica I ote alo had vated te tome aredconions li probaton Feta tar, ny concord forth os And her's atan ot eatnat thet hud pros goten sta edb yer acratom want becomplan wat oo pt ggg wit beng ober Concent a vas ng wih te toms and conor Probate, te cout contnve Once phan Peay 26,508 Since te May 2, 2017 potato evga hing relerancd bev, (ad trough Aeon et Ola 1, 2017), OF ts wo aoa ated Uo an oe tdtona aad a Shoe he bognnget hs pebaon ap tough Osibo 3 2017, Officer INGEN has had seven (7) missed tests, eight (8) UA screens that were dhuccand bree) at nee poste for eo RRLI361 Conduct Prohibied by Law, ofthe Denver Poles Departmen penton Man proves at Officers shall obey the Charter of the City and County of Denver, ally ordinances, ‘late and federal statutes, al awful court orders, and all other applicable laws \whehr criminal, vl, trafic, or administrative.Pago-3- Case: 102017. ence ‘of the Denver Police Department Asit pertains to... C.RS. § 18-1.3-202. Probationary power of court (1)(a) [The court may grant the defendant probation for such period and upon ‘such terms and conditions as it deems best.. ‘and C.A.S. § 16-11-208. Arrest of probationer - revocation (2) @ probation ofcer has reason to believe thatthe conditions of probation have bbeen violated by any probationer, [she] may issue a summons requiing the probationer to appear before the court at a specified time and place to anewor ‘charges of violation of the conditions of probation. The summons, unless accompanied by a copy ofa complaint, shall contain a brief statement of the violation. land the date and place thereot. Falure ofthe probationer to appear before the court 16 by the summons shall be deemed a violation of the conditions of was placed on probation for a DUI and was required to comply withthe terms and conditions of probation. He was required to refrain from the cansumplin of alcohol. During his probation period, urine screens revealed that Cicer Continued to drink. He also provided urine samples thal produced diuted resuls and missed several {ests In fling to comply withthe terms and conditions of probation, Otfce jolted this departmental order because he faled to “obey ‘all lawl court orders ‘Aviolation of BR-118.1, Conduct Prohibited by Law, appears a Conduct Categories A through Fof the disciplinary matrix. As noted above, Officelmglillconsnued to drink ‘and was otherwise noncompliant with the terms and condtons of probation. In doing 50, Officer engaged in “conduct substantially contrary tothe values of the Department fend) that substantially inteeried] with iis mission, operations or professional mage.” As such, this was @ Conduct GalegoryD violation. Otter lM has one prior Conduct Category D, oF higher, violation within the rs that would mandatory increase the penalty violated RR-115.1, Conduct Prohibited by Law, when he pled guity to and was sentenced for DWAl in the same court case for which Officer EEE has admitted toa violation of probation. (See 1C2016-00'0.) Pursuant to the disciplinary matrix, for a discipline level of six (6), the mitigated penalty is an eighteen (18) to twenty-two (22) day suspension, the presumptive penally isa thirty (30) day suspension, and the aggravated penalty isa thity-elght (28) toforty-two (42) day suspension. There are no significant aggravating or mitigating factors inthis case that woul jusiy a penalty outside of the presumptive range, As such, the presum, Benaty ofa tity (20) dey eumpencon wihout pay 1s waraned for fier ‘misconduct(IMENTAL ORDER VARY ACTION Page-4- cof the Denver Poles Department £-R102.1, Duty to Obey Departmental Rules and Mayoral Executive Orders, of the Denver Police Department Operations Manual, provides tha, COfficors shall obey all Departmental rules, duties, procedures, instructions, directives, and orders; the provisions of the Operations Manual; and Mayoral Executive Orders. {sit pertains tc. (OMS 508.01 Complaint and Discipline Procedure for Sworn Officers (9) Roles end Responsibilities b. Mandatory notification requtements appiy tothe folowing circumstances: 11, Any incident that has the potential forpoie involvement, or could have a pronounced negative impact on the professional image of ‘the department, and the officers directly involved, fier Jvas summoned into court on @ Patton to Revoke probation and a hhaating fo fevoke his probation for noncompliance was schedued. Oficer llated this departmental rule because he flied to noty anyone in the Department that he was required o appear in court and that he was facing revccation of probation. ‘A vation of A102. Duy 1 Obey Deparntal Rules and Mayoral Executve Orders, 28 peta to OMS'£03.0' (@) oes and Responses, eppesrs ih Gendt Gatogores A through F ofthe dcpnary matte Oca i was ware ‘le olicaton ecurmerts because he had prowoutly been charge ih DUL He free paced on pebaton end gurwmened Ino court for Waaing foo teens nd ondons of his sortence. Ae Gacissed above, ne dd nt ivan anyone the Bopatment fe ponding court mate. naling to do so, Otic ililengepod in “conduct that was substantially contrary to the values of the Department [and] that ‘substantially interfer(ed] with its mission, operations or professional image.” As such, {histo was a Gondcl Category D vito, Tho penaies fo this rule olaton are sot oth above. There are no sigficant aoravaling or migatng acorstha! woul justly a penal ouside o he presumptive age. As such, the presumptive penalty of a thirty (30) day suspension without pay is proprale fons rue vlaon aa wel This penalywalbeconsesave othe panaly ped oth olan of Pet Oficer IMB witngncss to tke responsbity for his conduc, the scnerdodganent nethe's sevaging wih ashton end ie connie adcros these issues present significant and weighty mitigating factors that render his circumstances and this case appropriate for resolution through the Negotiated Stitorent Agreement referenced ove and appre otis OrderPARTMENT oF t Page -5- Case: 102017. ‘Officer in the Classified Service ‘of the Denver Police Deparment ‘Accordingly, the Written Command is hereby approved, in part, and modified, in part, as follows: ‘+ Officer II shall serve a thity (30) day suspension without pay for violating [RR-1 15:1, Conduct Prohibited by Law, as It pertains to [the probation violation), + Officer IIE shail serve a thirty (90) day suspension without pay for violating 'RA-102.1, ast pertains to OMS 503.01(3), “Twenty (20) ofthe suspended days imposed for the violation of RR-115.1 and twenty (20) of the suspended days imposed for the violation of RR-102.1 shall be held in ‘abeyance for two (2) years, pursuant tothe terms and conditions of the Negota Sattoment Agreement, which include the following: + Offce gE shat! serve a total of twenty (20) suspended days for the two sustained rule violations. The period of suspension shall begin on Sunday, March 25, 2018, through and inclusive of Friday, April 18, 2018, + Officer [shal abstain from the use of alcohol or controled substances: during the to (2) year period. + Ofc shat paricpae inthe Donor Potce Departments Resilency Progesing undorgomg an lech evluaon and” complying, wit Tocment recordation + Officer shatl submit to random urine soreens. + Offer shalt ationd AA mestings (or the equivalent) and provide proof of the same to ne Resiliency Program staf. + Officer IIE shall successfully complete his probation sentence in his open Jefferson County DWAI cass. Please be advised that the discipine enumerated in this Order is based upon the ‘approval and execution of the Negotiated Setlomar went appended to this Departmental Order of Disciplinary Action and Oficer fs agreement to accept the disciptine as stated above and waive further discpinary process. BY ORDER:7 Page -6- ‘Case: 102017 a “Oficor in fed Service ‘ofthe Denver Police Deparment OFricen's RETURN Lhereby cert that | received the within Departmental Order of Discipinary Action and ‘hava delivered a true copy thereof to the within-named| 6 2 day of January, 2018, Printed Name