|
Milwaukee police, city won't tell public how many officers have criminal convictions
|
|
February 11, 2007 2:28 PM by Jess
|
See documents here.
February 12, 2007
By Bradley Wooten
The
Milwaukee Police Department refuses to tell the public which—and how
many—of its officers have criminal convictions, saying it would be
“unduly excessive” to determine the information, and is also refusing
to release key identifying information so journalists can find out for
themselves, a Frontpage Milwaukee investigation has found.
Compiling the information would “so burden” the department that its
normal functions would be “severely impaired,” according to an official
police response to an open records request. The request sought
information about officers with criminal convictions and municipal
tickets. The department further denied a narrowed request for officers
with criminal convictions and drunken driving histories.
Even so, after a six-month investigation by an Advanced Reporting
class, investigative student journalists with Frontpage Milwaukee—using
a patchwork of sources such as jail, court documents and police
personnel cards—were able to find numerous cases of officers who
remained on the force after they were convicted of crimes or were cited
with drunk driving. They include:
• Officers sentenced to work-release jail or supervision by the state.
• Officers cited for drunk driving, at least one of whom is a repeat drunk driver.
• An officer who discharged his gun outside a bar while off-duty.
•
A range of battery accusations, ranging from a domestic violence
incident in which a spouse’s head hit a washing machine to an
intoxicated off-duty officer battering a woman who hit his car with her
van.
• A pattern of deferred prosecution agreements with the
District Attorney’s office in Milwaukee County that allowed officers to
bypass convictions, including one case where an officer’s son stabbed
another student in the neck with a pencil. The officer allegedly struck
her son 20 times with a belt. He was taken to a child protection
center.
• Cases in which officers have more than one criminal conviction.
A
spokeswoman for Milwaukee police said the department “can’t” go through
its entire roster to dismiss everyone on the force who has violated the
law.
Jude case sparked concern
The
issue of officers with criminal records first became one of concern
after the Frank Jude, Jr. beating case. One of the accused officers in
the Jude case, Jon Bartlett, had been hired by both the UWM and
Milwaukee police departments despite having a criminal conviction for
fleeing an officer from 1992.
In fact, Fire and Police Commission policy allows the hiring of
Milwaukee police officers with up to four misdemeanors and two drunken
driving offenses.
A survey of other police departments by Frontpage Milwaukee found
that it is not unusual for departments in Wisconsin and nationally to
hire misdemeanants and drunk drivers. Felons are not eligible for hire
on any department.
The rationale given by some departments is that Wisconsin state law
states that employers may not refuse to hire individuals based on past
criminal history, unless the offense is substantially related to the
job. For example, a recruiter with the Appleton Police Department told
a student journalist that not hiring an officer for offenses such as
operating while intoxicated (OWI) could be construed as
“discrimination.”
Greenfield Police Chief Francis Springob said that the state of
Wisconsin has laws precluding employers from disqualifying candidates
by their criminal past.
“However, if there is a reasonable explanation, then it can be okay, but the burden is on the employer,” Springob said.
Although the Frontpage Milwaukee investigation turned up numerous cases
of Milwaukee police officers with convictions by scouring court and
jail records, the complete number of Milwaukee police officers with
criminal records and drunken driving histories remains unknown because
the department police would not release the information.
The department said it doesn’t have such a list, and it would be too much trouble to compile one.
They also would only release the names of police officers without dates
of birth and would not release personnel photos of officers, making a
complete survey of the force by the student journalists impossible
because some officers have too common of names to allow for record
searches.
In addition, the Fire and Police Commission—the civilian oversight body
for Milwaukee Police—also would not release how many and which police
officers have criminal records, despite being responsible for hiring
and some disciplinary procedures.
Furthermore, the City Attorney’s office upheld the police department’s
decision not to reveal which officers have been convicted of crimes or
have had drunk driving citations. The office also said the department
had properly blocked the release of officers’ dates of birth and police
personnel photos, which would have enabled the journalists to find the
information themselves.
However, one legal expert said the city ruling on dates of births may
not be correct, and the police open records office has routinely
provided the personnel photos to reporters in the past.
“It was an appropriate response under the Open Records Law because (the
police) don’t have the list (of which officers have criminal records or
drunk driving histories),” said Assistant City Attorney Melanie Swank,
who specializes in open records law. “I talked to them and made sure
that they really didn’t have a list, they checked with several
different divisions within the police department and there isn’t a
list.”
When asked if she thinks the police department should have knowledge of
officers with criminal backgrounds and release it to the public, she
said the office of the city attorney has no comment.
And an official with the state Department of Justice’s public integrity
unit, which reviews potential open records violations, told a reporter
last fall that the office would not even look at the situation for
months because a new Attorney General had been elected.
“Unfortunately, with the recent elections we will not be able to assist
you with your request until the new attorney general has settled in,”
said Assistant Attorney General Monica Berkert-Brist.
When asked why and when that would be, Berkert-Brist said, “Sometime in
February. We’re in transition now and won’t be able to look at your
complaint until then.”
Officers with convictions can be problematic in court
Legal experts say that keeping officers with convictions on the force can hamper prosecutions.
Criminal defense lawyer John Schiro, who represented one police officer
on a worthless checks case (and then sued her in 2005 for not paying
her attorney fees), said that police officers with criminal records can
create a dilemma in the courtroom.
“These officers can be impeached in prosecutions where they were
involved in a case and their testimony leans toward one side or the
other,” Schiro said.
Deputy District Attorney Jon Reddin agreed.
“It creates a big problem because, under the rules of evidence, any
witness who’s been convicted of a crime can be asked about that, and
law presumes that those people are less credible than people without
criminal records,” Reddin said.
He said that this is a particularly important problem for police officers because they are called as witnesses quite often.
“Normally we don’t call officers who are convicted of crimes, which really limits their ability,” he said.
In some cases, the officers were given special agreements by the
District Attorney’s office that allowed them to avoid convictions
altogether. In other cases, they were sentenced to work release jail or
state supervision. Cases—which were pieced together through court
records and other sources—include a repeat drunk driver, a theft case
from the casino, and battery conviction.
In some cases, the officers have since left the force, sometimes after
they accrued new charges. In other cases still, they remain police
officers.
The agency responsible for hiring said that each prospective hire is individually evaluated to consider the circumstances.
“Each candidate’s background is evaluated individually, so I am not
able to tell you at this time whether four municipal tickets and two
OWIs/DUIs would result in a disqualification or not,” said Fire and
Police Commission Executive Director David Heard.
The questions on the Milwaukee police application are worded as follows:
• “Have you had two or more convictions for driving while under the
influence, or reckless driving, including at least one conviction in
the list five years?
o If yes, you may not apply.”
• “Have you had four or more convictions for misdemeanor crimes, including at least one conviction in the last three years?
o If yes, you may not apply.”
Even after the Milwaukee police chief pledged to clean house in light
of the Jude case, the police and city attorney blocked reporters’
attempts to learn exactly how many cops on the force have been
convicted of crimes.
Jude was beaten outside an off-duty officers’ party in Bay View, Wis.
in October of 2004. Jude was accused of stealing an officer’s badge and
wallet, and witnesses said up to one dozen off-duty officers beat him.
Police response
Since
the Jude case, Hegerty has been looking into the backgrounds of police
candidates, starting with the 2004 police academy class, said
department spokeswoman Anne E. Schwartz. Some of the officers the
students discovered with criminal convictions have now been terminated
by Hegerty, since the student journalists were working off a 2005 list
of police officers’ names.
Some of those officers had remained on the force with convictions for
months, or even years. Other officers, including those listed in the
bulleted information at the top of the story, had not been terminated
as of December 2006, when the class completed the project.
Schwartz said that because the crimes are not felonies, the officers may remain on the force.
“We can’t go through the entire roster and dismiss anyone who’s had
contact with the law,” Schwartz said. “I mean, we’re not talking about
felonies here. They can’t be on the force if they’re felonies.”
Schwartz asked a Frontpage Milwaukee reporter for a list of the names
of officers the newspaper compiled who have criminal records.
The investigation launched in December of 2005, after a request
initially was made by a previous Advanced Reporting class at UWM for
officer names and dates of births.
Hegerty denied an open records request for a list of Milwaukee police
officers with their dates of birth. Hegerty cited a 2003 law that
prohibits the release of personal information, interpreting it to
include dates of birth. The department did release the officers’ names
to a student journalist, and this information was used by a Frontpage
Milwaukee investigative team in the fall of 2006.
The law, Wisconsin State Statue 19.36(10), specifies exclusion of the
home address, home electronic mail address, home telephone number and
social security number of an employee from disclosure. The department
interpreted the law to include birthdates, though not specified in the
law’s wording, and pitted it against a balancing test.
A second request was made and sought to determine if the department
knew if it employed any criminals or officers with municipal
violations, especially drunken driving. In an October 2006 response,
Hegerty said that the department does not have such information indexed
on its officers and to obtain such information would be “excessively
burdensome” to the point where the department would not be capable of
functioning normally.
Ultimately the department said the public’s right to know how many
officers serve on the force with criminal convictions does not outweigh
privacy the department holds its officers to have with regard to their
birthdates. The city attorney’s office upheld this decision.
This, however, is up for debate, said Godfrey and Khan Attorney Jennifer Peterson.
“We have to deal with the statute and balancing test,” Peterson said.
“It’s not yet clear whether or not they should be able to withhold such
information.”
Last September, the open records request was re-submitted and a
complaint was filed with the Wisconsin Department of Justice’s Public
Integrity Unit challenging the denial of the original request. The
complaint maintained that the public’s right to know outweighs the
denial of police officer birthdates.
In a letter received more than a month later, the DOJ said the
complaint should be filed with District Attorney E. Michael McCann.
The investigatory team filed a complaint with the city in October. The
City Attorney’s office had already upheld the department’s decision of
non-disclosure. When the Milwaukee’s District Attorney’s office was
asked if it, like the Attorney General’s office, also felt
incapacitated to assist the public as a result of the midterm
elections, a woman named Laurie in E. Michael McCann’s office said, “We
don’t have the manpower to do work for students.”
She refused to divulge her last name.
“Nobody in the office will be able to speak to that,” Laurie said. “We
don’t have time to answer students’ questions. Try someone at Marquette
or the public library.”
“That’s appalling,” said Molly Christofferson, then District
Attorney-elect John Chisholm’s campaign manager. “I can’t believe she
did that. You do not gain second-class citizen status for being a
student. I’m sure John will have plenty to say on this.”
Phone calls and e-mails were not returned by Chisholm or Christofferson to speak on the matter further.
The Milwaukee Police Department’s open records department traditionally
issues hard cards detailing an officer’s personnel history, including
disciplinary history and job assignments. These cards include photos of
the convicted.
One reporter was able to obtain photos on the hard cards, while other
reporters were told pictures are no longer issued on hard cards. The
student reporters hoped to match the officers’ photos with photos on
mug shots of individuals arrested for crimes who have the same names as
officers. Historically, the Milwaukee police have released personnel
photos to the news media.
“After the Jude incident, I took a look at some backgrounds and I
decided that there needed to be a change in the types of people we were
getting on the job,” said Chief Hegerty in one media interview.
But she didn’t want to talk about the Frontpage Milwaukee findings.
Numerous requests were made to speak with Hegerty about her officers.
“The chief is not available to address your queries, but as the
department’s…spokeswoman, I will be happy to address any specific
questions you have,” Schwartz said.
Union praises Hegerty
The
police union said that Chief Hegerty tried to more aggressively root
out problem officers than predecessors. As chief, Hegerty is not
responsible for the hiring policy. That’s determined by the Fire and
Police Commission and the city.
“The chief has done an excellent job in cleaning up the force,” said
Milwaukee Police Association Trustee Thomas Fischer. “It has been her
policy since she took office, and that is why we have supported her and
will continue to support her in this campaign.”
However, the recent purges enacted in the department have been
Hegerty’s only control over officers, because according to MPA
President John Balcerzak, the chief has no control over the hiring
process.
All police officers are hired by the city’s Fire and Police Commission,
and the chief’s role in the hiring process is only an advisory one,
according to Balcerzak. The chief has no final say whatsoever.
“The Fire and Police Commission has all the sway,” Balcerzak said. “The
commission is not an independent body, so all of the hiring is really
done by the city of Milwaukee.
“This shouldn’t be, and it could help in the hiring process if it was independent.”
According to Balcerzak, the hiring policy was enacted after a series of
racial discrimination lawsuits were filed against the city in the
mid-1980s, and the city thinks that in order to hire minorities, they
must hire people with criminal records.
“When officers are hired, a certain amount of them must be minorities,
and another amount of them women,” Balcerzak said. “It’s really a
racist and unfair view that in order to get minorities and women, they
have to hire criminals, or people with no education.”
Balcerzak
also said the MPA does not keep track of how many officers have
criminal records, and the union officials are unsure of what the exact
total is.
However, Balcerzak said that only looking at misdemeanor charges on
potential officers is an unfair judge of candidates due to variations
of statutes across the country.
“Something that is a misdemeanor here is not necessarily a misdemeanor
somewhere else,” Balcerzak said. “Really every candidate should be
judged on a case-by-case basis.”
Balcerzak also said that he does
not think criminal charges are the most pressing issue in the hiring
policy of the Fire and Police Commission. Rather, he is concerned that
education requirements are not as high as is needed to ensure good
hires.
To see the sidebars on individual cops and learn more click “home” at the top.
Joe Petrie, Robin Fuchs, Erin Petersen, and Shannon McKenna contributed to this report.
|
|