Tarnished Badge Week 2: Officers granted special agreements to avoid convictions

(See case studies by clicking on "home" in the toolbar)

By Ryan Cardarella and Amanda Mauch


At least 11 Milwaukee police officers were issued "deferred prosecution agreements" by the Milwaukee County District Attorney's office in recent years, allowing them to avoid convictions for a range of alleged crimes, a six-month Frontpage Milwaukee investigation has found.
 

But the actual number may be higher because the DA's office says it does not track the cases, leaving comprehensive public scrutiny impossible. Some of the cases don't even appear on the automated circuit court record website open to the public (CCAP).


Under deferred prosecution agreements, offenders who successfully complete the agreement are not charged or, if charged, have the charges against them dismissed. They must complete requirements that often include treatment and counseling.  Unsuccessful participants are prosecuted. The agreements are relatively rare, at least in the office's domestic violence unit.


A number of the cases in which officers' prosecution was deferred involve domestic violence, Frontpage Milwaukee found. And at least one prosecutor admits that officers' occupation plays a role in the office's decisions about whether to defer prosecution. That's because federal law precludes people convicted of domestic violence-related crimes from carrying firearms.



(Photos: Marc Tremblay and Lindsay Killian)

A team of student journalists with Frontpage Milwaukee pieced together some of the deferred prosecution cases by using a 2005 police roster and cross-checking it with court documents. Other cases were discovered through  a partial list provided by the DA's office after an open records request. In a letter responding to an open records request, the DA's office provided the names of six officers it has entered into deferred prosecution agreements with in the last four years. The other five cases unearthed by students weren't in the letter.


"There may well have been other DPAs with Milwaukee police officers in the past four years," the office admitted in the letter.


The findings come on the heels of a Frontpage Milwaukee investigation last week (read it here) reporting that the city, Fire and Police Commission, and Milwaukee Police Department are refusing to tell the public how many and which officers have criminal convictions or drunk driving histories, saying it would be "unduly excessive" to compile the information. City hiring policy allows people to be hired as Milwaukee officers with multiple misdemeanor convictions or OWIs. 


But the investigation unearthed another pattern: Cases in which prosecutors allowed officers to avoid convictions altogether.  In some of the cases, the officers who were given deferred prosecution agreements did not take advantage of the second chance and reoffended. In some cases, they had no further troubles. Some of the 11 officers have since left the force, sometimes well after their agreements. Others have not.

“He just wouldn’t listen to reason,” alleged Sharp. “He told me he has connections on the police force and that he was going to make trouble for me.”

Threats of physical harm would allegedly follow, with Luna stating his intention to trace the number and confront Sharp. Sharp maintains that he has no relationship with Luna and may have come in contact with him through the selling of some items via a newspaper ad.

“I had put some ads up selling a weight bench and some speakers. Someone from his house called me and I tried back. Then about a week later I started getting these calls,” alleged Sharp.

According to the criminal complaint, Sharp called police and told them he had received 25 calls from the same number. In one call, the caller said he knew where Sharp lived. In another call, he said he would burn down Sharp's house. In another call, he said he was a police officer. In a message left by the caller, he allegedly said, "You don't know who you are dealing with."


Later that day, police went back to Sharp's residence because he had received another call and recorded it. The complaint said the message said: "Mr. Sharp, this is Mr. Luna. Just to let you know, dog, I'm gonna trace you down and find out who you are. All right? Remember that - don't mess with me. You don't know who you're messing with. So just that you know - once I find out who you are, dog, you're done. OK? You do not know who you are messing with. I've got connections..."


Sharp also told the officers he had know idea who Luna was. Police subpoenaed Luna's phone records and found 77 calls from his number to Sharp.


When interviewed, Luna claimed that a couple calls had come to his house first from Sharp's number, so he called back. He thought the calls were a prank, and he was drinking, and upset. He said he didn't feel threatened by the calls he'd received, in which the caller asked for someone named "Angel." He said he only remembered making 3-4 calls, and couldn't explain all of the other calls, the complaint said.


But the DA's office didn't think Luna should receive a conviction. Instead, Luna received a deferred prosecution agreement for the charge, in part because of his clean history and the nature of the violation.

“Luna’s case appeared to be isolated and there was no subsequent incident,” said Karen Loebel, who prosecuted the case.


Soon there was. Luna remained on the force. In July, Luna was charged with a second offense, this time a disorderly conduct stemming from a domestic dispute in which he allegedly ripped the home phone out of the wall while intoxicated.

This second offense caused his deferred prosecution agreement to be terminated, and Luna was later convicted of both charges.

Officer Luna rendered his resignation on Sept. 23, just three days before a motion terminating his deferred prosecution agreement was made. Luna is currently on vacation until March and unavailable for comment, according to a family member.



Officer given agreement got caught drunk driving

Other officers remain on the force. Officer James Morsovillo received a deferred prosecution agreement in 2000 stemming from a domestic violence-related disorderly conduct charge involving his spouse. According to the complaint, his wife alleged he had slapped her and used profanities. While Morsovillo was suspended for that criminal violation, he met the terms of his DPA and stayed out of trouble until the case was dismissed, maintaining his status as an officer.

In subsequent years, however, Morsovillo has run into problems again, while receiving short suspensions or reprimands. Morsovillo was cited for operating while intoxicated and driving the wrong way down Wells St. in March of 2004. Morsovillo was suspended for two days for those offenses.

He also has two demerits to his file for failure to inventory evidence and failure to conduct a proper investigation. Both demerits resulted in official reprimands from the department. In spite of repeated offenses, Morsovillo continues his work as a District 2 officer. When asked about his past troubles and how they affect his status as an officer, Morsovillo had no comment.


In other cases, officers did not reoffend.


Daniel Resnick was another officer who was granted a deferred prosecution, once again for a disorderly conduct charge involving a dispute with a spouse. He fulfilled the terms of his agreement, and the charge was later dismissed.

According to the arrest-detention report, his wife alleged that, during a heated argument, Resnick pushed her to the ground, causing her to bump her head on a washing machine.


Resnick has not run afoul of the law or received any disciplinary action since the 2004 charge and did not respond to messages left at his residence. His personnel card says he received a three-day suspension for violating the criminal laws of Wisconsin in 2005 and currently works the early shift at District 4.


DA's office doesn't track agreements


Custodian of Office Records for the Milwaukee County D.A.’s Office Jim Martin said in a recent letter that “the district attorney’s office does not maintain a database of police officers that receive deferred prosecution agreements.”

Additionally, Deputy District Attorney Jon Reddin said that he does not believe the D.A.’s office catalogs the number of DPAs, including those issued to police officers. “I don’t know if anybody actually keeps track,” Reddin said.


One prosecutor explained how the decision is reached to enter agreements.

“What we say to somebody is, ‘ok, you’ve got a criminal charge against you and what we want is for you to engage is some type…usually counseling.’,” Assistant District Attorney Paul C. Dedinsky said. “At that point in time if you do everything that is required of you we will ultimately ask the court to follow.”

Several things are considered when determining if a DPA is appropriate in a given case. Dedinsky said he looks at the existence or lack of a prior record of any criminal activity for the defendant, character, type of charge, and level of violence in the crime, among many other things.

“What professionals try to do is try to script out what risk factors might be predictors for future harm,” Dedinsky said. “Nothing fool-proof or scientific that will tell us who will be the next offender.”

The agreements are relatively rare.


In the last year, the Milwaukee County domestic violence unit issued fewer than 100 DPAs – one of the lowest rates in the state of Wisconsin, according to Dedinsky.

Police officers may be more likely to receive DPAs for crimes they commit while on the force because a prosecution may result in losing his or her job or affect his or her status on the force.

Dedinsky said that while he looks at the totality of the case, he does consider the fact that an officer may lose his or her job as opposed to an average citizen.

“What happens in a case relating to an officer the probable consequence is that the person will lose his or her job,” Dedinsky said. “Do I consider it? Yes, I do consider it. I know the reality of the federal law. The person is going to lose their job and that won’t happen to another person who is individually situated.”

Otherwise, there is no exception for police officers, Dedinsky said.

“Sometimes I’ve charged police officers…and you know what, you should have thought about it before you committed the crime,” Dedinsky said.

However, Reddin believes that while the existence of employment should be considered when deciding to issue a DPA, no occupation outweighs another.

“You might consider the fact that they were employed…you wouldn’t weight an occupation against another,” Reddin said.

Reddin also believes that police officers should be held to a higher standard than average citizens because they are in a position to uphold the law.

“My view of police officers to some extent is that they really should be held to a higher standard because they are in a position of trust,” Reddin said.

Cases often involve allegations of domestic abuse

Former police officer Beverly B. Moore received a DPA in August of 2004 after she was arrested for physical abuse of a child, a felony, in March of 2004.

Moore (left) allegedly struck her son 20 times on March 25, 2004 with a belt and slapped him once on the right side of his face after hearing he “stabbed” a fellow female student with a pencil, according to the criminal complaint.

The victim was taken to Child Protection Center and seen by Certified Pediatric Nurse Practitioner Michael Scahill where the following injuries were noted on the criminal complaint: five red scratches to the right cheek, fresh red bruising on his right hand, five fresh red horizontal marks on the neck and shoulder, a single fresh red bruise on the back of the neck, a single fresh reddish-purple bruise on the inner left thigh, a series of horizontal reddish-purple bruises on the right outer thigh, and two fresh red horizontal bruises on the left side of the head.

Scahill noted the marks were consistent with an intentional inflicted injury and would be consistent with physical abuse, according to the criminal complaint.

Upon conviction of a physical child abuse charge, an offender may face the maximum possible penalty of a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than three and half years or both.

Moore was issued a DPA that required no further law violations, compliance with all bail conditions, payment of the domestic abuse assessment, and continued cooperation with the Milwaukee County Bureau of Child Welfare.

Moore fulfilled the terms of the agreement, and the case was dismissed in May of 2005. She had no prior record but did have a list of official demerits and reprimands on her Milwaukee Police Department personnel card. Moore remained on the police force until her resignation in early 2006.

Moore’s attorney, Michael Guerin, declined to comment on the specifics of her case but said that what is appropriate or not differs with every person.

Guerin also said that “Wisconsin law is very clear” and employers are not allowed to discriminate against those with criminal convictions unless it directly applies to their occupation.

When asked whether a criminal offense directly applies to an officer’s job, Guerin said that a lot of times “we [the public] think police should be held higher…Sure, that’s true about the execution of their job but is it necessarily true in their daily life?”

Frontpage Milwaukee was unable to contact Moore.

Another case involves Mark A. Ciske, who is currently a lieutenant in the sensitive crimes division. He was promoted to lieutenant in January of 2001, according to his police information record.

Shortly after the promotion, Ciske allegedly engaged in violent, abusive, or otherwise disorderly conduct with his daughter, on March 29, 2002, according to the criminal complaint.

According to the complaint, Mr. Ciske grabbed the daughter by the arms, attempting to throw her out the door. As a result, she suffered bruising to her arms. During the course of the argument, Mr. Ciske also allegedly slapped his daughter twice, brought her to the floor and knelt on her with his leg across her throat, the complaint said.

Ciske was ordered no contact with his daughter and was issued a DPA that required him to pay $200 in restitution to Ms. Ciske and attend counseling at ICF Counseling on a weekly basis within one week of signing the agreement.

Ciske had no prior record. He received one demerit for this case in April of 2003, a year after the incident with his daughter, and was suspended without pay for two consecutive working days. Ciske also has a demerit on his MPD personnel card for idling and loafing while on duty in which he received one day suspension without pay.

Ciske fulfilled the requirements of the DPA and his case was dismissed in September of 2002.

Ciske was contacted and had no comment on this case.

In another case, police officer Carla A. Bridges was arrested for disorderly conduct involving her live-in boyfriend at the time, Jeffery Beauford.

According to the criminal complaint, both Bridges and Beauford had been drinking alcohol when she came to the Catfish Lounge in Milwaukee to meet and argue with Beauford.

Bridges struck Beauford once with a closed fist to the left side of his throat and proceeded outside of the lounge, yelling obscenities toward Beauford.

Bridges was issued a DPA in February of 2006 that required her to attend counseling on a weekly basis within one week after signing the agreement. Bridges was also required to complete an Alcohol and Drug Assessment and follow through with all recommended education and treatment, according to the DPA.

Bridges declined to comment on the specifics of the case but said that it “didn’t really affect” her status on the police force.

She had no prior criminal record, but her Milwaukee Police Department Information Record shows five demerits and reprimands including the aforementioned case, for things ranging from “failing to promptly communicate possible criminal activity,” “failing to fully investigate a crime,” and “idling and loafing while on duty.”

Bridges is currently assigned to the police academy.