Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #05 - Discussion ItemMCMA aTER, FORMAN ~s MILL_ER. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 321 NORTH EAST 26TH STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 331 37 JAMES D. MCM ASTER DANIEL H. FORMAN A. SCOTT MILLER TELEPHONE HANS G. TANZLER, III December 19 , 19 84 573.4100 OF COUNSEL AREA CODE 305 Honorable Maurice Ferre Mayor's Office Miami City Hall 5300 Pan American Drive Coconut Grove, Florida s3133 Lear Nir. Mayor, Enclosed please find the final draft of a proposed report re- garding the Commission's Inquiry into the Michael Johnson matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely yours, McMAS T ~ , FOR:dAN (&_ MI LLE R, P . A. '~ 'r ~ . JAMES D. I~icMAS'I'ER as Enclosure ec: Lucia Ann Dougherty .. f On September 13, 1984, the City of Miami Commission adopted a resolution pursuant tc~ Section 14 of the City of Miami Charter authorizing the Commission to investigate the official acts and conduct of, several city officials. Specifically, the Commission was concerned with the investigation conducted by the City of Miami Police Department into the shooting of Michael Johnson. This concern was in part gene rated by the media coverage of events resulting from that shooting which put into question the integrity of the Police Department's investigation into the conduct of its own officers. Through the course of the several Commission hearings over the last three months, this Commission has attempted to make public the course of events which followed from the shooting of 3 E Michael Johnson during the civil disturbances on May 18, 1980. Through these hearings, the Commission is making an effort to in- sure that investigations, particularly those involving City officials such as police officers, have boon and are being con- ducted properly so as to insure that ~~arongdoers are punished and that persons innocent of wrongdoing are cleared. Additionally, the Commission has attempted to reveal and expose any existing deficiencies in this process so as to allow the proper officials to take the appropriate actions to remedy any such situation and to restore the public's confidence in its City officials. During the course of the Commission's investigation into _. ~ + 1 s these matters, numerous witnesses have been invited to appear and ~ =_ ~ give testimony under oath regarding knowledge of these events. 3 a -_ Several witnesses voluntarily appeared and gave testimony. A few declined to appear voluntarily but did respond to subpoenas issued by the Commission for their appearance. Several witnesses have declined, for various reasons, to appear. In addition to the witnesses' testimony, the Commission has received numerous docur.~ents, reports and other information, including the Police Department's Internal Security Summary of Investigation, Findings, and supporting documentation. Based on the foregoing materials and testimony, several observations can be made and conclusions drawn regarding the conduct of the Michael Johnson shooting investigation. However, it is, appropriate to point out that this Commission does not have jurisdiction to prosecute, discipline or dismiss wrongdoers. Further, it should be remembered that these proceed.uigs have been conducted in such a manner. as to avoid any unnecessary ini:er- ference in the ongoing civil and czirninal actions which re- sulted from this series of events, and further to not jeopardize any future actions, whether criminal or civil, which may yet come out of these pm cee dings. A review of the materials presented to the Commission leads one to conclude that there were several distinct stages to the four year series of events beginning with the shouting of Michael ,_ - 2 - i. ~` Johnson by a City of Miami Police Officer during the "McDuffie Riots" and continuing through the upcoming perjury trials of two former officers and the civil proceedings instituted by Mr. Johnson. An examination of each of these stages leads even the most casual observer to several inescapable conclusions. THE FIRST STAGE The first "stage" of these events began with the police de- partment':s efforts to "retake" a shopping center which was being looted by hundreds of people in the midst of the "DlcDuffie Riots". During the ensuing assault on the shopping center by at least twelve police units carrying twenty one officers, shots were fired, many people fled, many were arrested and several were injured. During the course of this mass confusion, Michael Johnson attempted to drive across the parking lot of she shopping center a.n his vehicle when it collided with a police vehicle carrying City Police Officers Kemp, Dees, and Roeschel. At that time Cf.ficer Kemp fired his shotgun striking Johnson and his vehicle. In the ensuing confusion, Johnson's car continued on, striking and injuring a pedestrian in the parking lot before it came to a stop and Johnson fled on foot. Johnson was subsequently taken to the hospital by people in the neighborhood for treatment of the gunshot wounds to his arm. Kemp, Dees and Roeschel. remained at the shopping center where they advised their immediate supervisor, Sgt. Lowe, of the accident but did not report the shooting incident. The officers - 3- ,,. __ remained at the shopping center for a short time before leaving for other disturbance areas. During this first stage, it can be concluded that Officers Kemp, Dees and Roeschel participated in a "cover-up" of their own as they were deliberately refusing to report the shooting. The following day, May 19, 1980, Officers Kemp, Dees and Sgt. Lowe returned to the shopping center parking lot and ex- amined Michael Johnson's vehicle. Despite the bullet holes and bloodstains which were plainly visible in the vehicle, Officers Kemp and Dees apparently still refused to officially report or acknowledge the shooting. Further, Sgt. Lowe, despite the same ,~ observations coupled with his knowledge of the accident, failed, __ 3 in violation of standard procedures, to report his observations to the proper investigatory unit of the police department. At the conclusion of the first full day after the shooting occurred., a police supervisor was aware that, at a minimum, a vehicle which had been involved in an accident with a police car was riddled with bullet holes and contained bloodstains and possible human tissue. These observations alone, even if no police officers had been involved in the shooting, should have prompted a full investigation. However, no one was notified to s ~ conduct an investigation, no report was made of the observations, and the accident re ort which should have been turned in the re- P P -4- ~- :. - _ vious day, had yet to be prepared. - THE SECOND STAGE The "second stage." of these events began the very next day, May 20, 1980, the second full day after the shooting. On that day, other officers observed the bullet holes and bloodstains and notified the Homicide unit, responsible for investigations involving shootings. Homicide detectives immediately responded and the first criminal investigation into the shooting of Michael Johnson began. This initial investigation began with a flurry of activity, the vehicle was towed and impounded, records were searched to determine its ownership, and its driver, Michael Johnson, was traced and located in his hospital bed. However, the initial flurry bf activity by Homicide was destined to be short-lived. --- On•_the second day of this, investigators interviewed Michael Johnson ~~ w ~~ ~~' and first learned of his claims that he was shot by a police officer. "' ~~ Despite standard procedures Wllich assigned this type of investi- ~ ' „~ ,t,~ `:; gation to Homicide, the investigators attempted to turn the investi- - gation over to Internal Security. The next day, May 22, 1980, the fourth full day following the shooting, Internal Security investigators interviewed Michael Johnson and again he claimed to have been shot by police officers, specifically the officers in the police car he collided with. At that time. the investigators from Inte rn al Security attempted to -5- ~. '~; ' r , turn the investigat.~on back over to Homicide, as per standard procedures, however Homicide refused to accept responsibility for the investigation. That dispute led to a meeting that after- noon with the Chief of Police, Kenneth Harms, Assistant Chief Cosgrove, Major Gunn and the supervisors of Homicide and Internal Security, Lts. Bradford and Putman, xespe ctively. This meeting is especially significant for several reasons. First, it resulted, in part at least, from a dispute over which unit would be responsible for the investigation, despite the fact that the departmental regulations clearly required that Homicide conduct the investigation. Second, by this time, four days after the shooting, it was obvio~zsly clear to Homicide, Inte rn al Security and presumably everyone else at the meeting, that if the shooting was done by a police officer or officers, it was being "covered tip" as no reports had been filed reporting either the discharge of a firearm o r the use of force in connection with the shooting of DLichael Johnson. It is especially significant that each of these reports is considered so important that it is required to be submitted through channels to the Chief of Police. While it is true, as it was pointed out to the Commission, that there were numerous "police shootings" during this period of time due to the disturbances, it is not apparent that there were any other "police shootings" wherein someone was shot and the officers in- volved were denying or failing to report the incident. -6- ~~ z _~ _ _ .. ,_. ._,., ._.. _.~ ~~,.~.,.~ ,~. ~ _ ..~ o ........ . . .... . ~. ~_ ___ At the conclusion of. this meeting it was made explicitly -- clear that Homicide was responsible for the criminal investiyation of this shooting. Despite Homicide's responsibility for this matter, assistance was still sought from Inte rnal Security. Over the next week period, Homicide's "Investigation" would consist of a few half-hearted interviews conducted primarily by one investigator, another attempt to turn the investigation over to Internal Security, and, when that failed, a trip by the Homicide investigator and a uniform officer to Michael Johnson's hospital bed where Michael Johnson was cited for various traffic infractions - as a result of the accident, and finally, a trip to the State Attorney's Office where a felony warrant was sworn out for Johnson's arrest for Leaving the Scene of an Accident. Nine days after the initiation of the "first investigation", the victim was charged at the direction of the homicide investi- ~p gato r, with traffic charges. Over the next one month period, this first investigation consisted primarily of two more attempts by Homicide to get In- ternal Security to take over the investigation. The other officers at the shopping center the day of the shooting were not inter- viewed nor. was there an attempt to locate witnesses in the neighborhood of the shopping center. In fact, Inte rn al Security took a sworn statement of the victim for Homicide during this time . _~_ i ,~ d s f t i ` ~ Over the next one month pex~.i_od, failing to persuade Internal Security to assume responsibility for the investigation, Homicide interviewed two of the three officers allegedly involved in the shooting, Dees and Kemp. While a ach denied involvement in or knowledge of the shooting, each officer resigned from the depart- '` ment the day following his interview. Over the next four months little, if any, active investigation was conducted by Homicide into this matter. The charges against ~ the victim were dismissed due to the officers failure to appear and a lack of evidence. Five days after the felony charge was dismissed against the victim, the Homicide investigator once again attempted to turn the investigation over to Inte rnal Security. However, two days "later, on December 19, 1980, as a result of a meeting between the Homicide and Internal Security supervisors (Bradford and Putman), the matter was once again returned to Homicide for additional investigation. almost seven months to the day '~ had passed since the shooting of z}Lichael Johnson. } Deppite this meeting on Dece tuber 19, 1980, wherein more investi- gation was requested of Homicide, fifteen months passed without anything being done on the case. Not one report, memo, or letter was filed by any investigator, either Homicide or Internal Security. This is not to say that the case was forgotten or "slipped through the cracks" however. Despite not doing any actual work on this - ~` • `°"~ , - - case, investigators from both Homicide and Internal Sec~~rity claim to have continually advised their supervisors, Bradford and Putman, that nothing was being done and that it was going to cause trouble .someday. Despite these fears, not one investigator or super- visor requested any action in writing or officially notified any- one of the problem. It was not a forgotten problem, it was simply ignored. THE THIRD STAGE While the police department chose to ignore the problem, the victim did not. In March of 1982, an attorney representing Michael Johnson wrote a letter to the Police Department inquiring about the status of the investigation. This caused a chain of events to occur resulting eventually in Homicide receiving orders to complete the investigation. In June of 1982, a "Cold Case Squad", a unit specializing in old, incomplete investigations, headed by Sgt. Vivian and Detective Ilhardt, began the investigation anew. That same month, the Homicide Detective who did the "first investigation" retired from the Department, but not before telling two Internal Security investigators that "he wasn't going to take the fall on the Johnson investigation ... Land that) if they try to hold him responsible, he would hand up the person that directed him on how to handle the investigation." From June 1962 until early October 1982, the Cold Case Squad conducted a thorough investigation into the shooting inci- dent, locating and interviewing numerous civilian witnesses and -9- a: a /"' ®- many police officers. While many witnesses claimed to be aware of the fact that one of the officers were responsible for shooting Johnson, few had any direct knowledge of the incident. Officer Roeschel and former Officers Kemp and Dees was re-interviewed by the investigators but still refused to acknowledge the shooting incident. In early October 1982, the Cold-Case Squad presented the re- sults of their investigation to the State Attorney's Office. For the next six months the State Attorney's Office reviewed the materials and took additional sworn statements of several officers. In April 1983, the State Attorney's Office closed the case without filing any charges, citing insufficient evidence as the reason, and di- rected the Police Department to pursue the matter administratively. On May 11, 1983, the Cold Case Squad officially ended its investigation, citing the results of the review by the State Attorney`s Office and the fact that the Statute of Limitations had expired on any criminal acts which might have been coizunitted as a result of the shooting incident. One week later, on May 18, 1983, the file was turned over to Internal Security, as per standard procedure, and Internal Security officially assumed res- ponsibility for the investigation. The initial stage came to an end exactly three years to the day from the shooting with the ori- ginal three officers still denying the shooting and no criminal charges having been filed against anyone but the victim. -10- t =:>~ {r ~: ~. ~ ~ . ~' THE FOURTH STAGE On August 18, 1983, Michael Johnson's attorney filed a civil lawsuit against the City of Miami stemming from the shooting inci- dent. The next day, a meeting was held in the Chief of Police's (now Herbert Breslow) office with representatives of Homicide and Internal Security. As a result of that meeting, the criminal in- vestigation was again reopened (now the "third criminal investiga- tion") and the Cold-Case Squad again assigned. Shortly, thereafter, the Cold-Case Squad met with representatives of the State Attorney's Office and an agreement was reached to conduct a joint investiga- tion. In the next month, former Officer Kemp was granted immunity by the State Attorney's Office and gave a sworn statement admitting for the first time that he in fact shot Michael Johnson and that he and Dees and Roeschel had agreed among themselves to "cover it up ,. . Shortly thereafter, former Officer Dees and Officer Roeschel were arrested and charged with perjury for lying to the various in- vestigators about the original shooting incident. Their cases are still awaiting trial in the criminal courts. THE FIFTH STAGE On December 15, 1983, Homicide closed out its investigation for the final time and turned the matter aver to Internal Secu- rity to review the matter to determine whether, A) any depart- -11- =I i ~, ~~ mental regulations had been violated by Officers Kemp, Dees and Roeschel's failure to report the shooting incident on May 18, 1980, and B) whether any departmental regulations had been vio- lated by any other officers in the course of the three-and-onE~ half year, on-again, off-again investigation. This Internal Security investigation eventually culmirated in the preparation of the Summary of Investigation Report and a Thir- teen-page Findings Report. Not surprisingly, the Internal Security review found that "Officers" Kemp, Dees and Roeschel had violated departmental regulations in failing to report the shooting and in Lying about it to the investigators. ~ Not surprisingly, either, that Sgts. Lowe and Napoli and i { fated departmental regulations i the investigation and in faili the Internal Security review found "Lts." Bradford and Putman had vio- in failing to properly supervise ng to properly report information to the appropriate authorities. In one somewhat surprising aspect, the Internal Security re- view found that one Officer, although not involved in the shooting incident, had violated departmental regulations by being untruth- ,,- ful regarding a collateral matter in a statement given to the State Attorney's Office. Disciplinary proceedings against the various officers have, yet to be finalized. -12- ---- _ ~ , OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS First, from the foregoing facts, it can easily be concluded that "Officers" Kemp, Dees and Roeschel knowingly agreed to and participated in a "cover-up" regarding the shooting of Michael ~, Johnson. This is out established by Kemp's own admissions, the I~ statements of Michael Johnson, the corroborating, although some- what indirect, statements of other officers, and the official, but untruthful statements of Kemp, Dees and Roeschel to the various investigators. Second, also from the foregoing facts, it can be concluded that Sgt. Lowe, at worst, knew of the Officers attempt to cover- up the shooting and participated in it by not reporting it, or r at best, was grossly negligent in failing to notify the proper authorities of his observations of the bullet holes and bloodstains in Johnson's vehicle, especially in view of the fact that he was aware that that vehicle was involoved in an accident with the police car carrying Kemp, Dees and Roeschel. Finally, his failure to require the preparation of the accident report until after the vehicle was "discovered" by other officers and his failure to come forward and give information to the initial homicide in- vestigator reflect poorly on his role as a supervisor and put into question his motives and the extent of his knowledge of the original cover-up. Third, it can be concluded from the foregoing facts, that -13- ~..~,.~ ~, _,.~ ,. ~. ~~'~`\ ~ the ensuing investigation into the shooting, at least until June of 1982 when the Cold-Case-Squad was assigned after receiving a letter from Johnson's attorney, amounted to no investigation at all. Whether this "failure to investigate" was the result of deliberate inaction by one or more Officers responsible for the investigation or was the result of gross negligence is not as clear. However, several facts point toward the conclusion that this "failure to investigate" was a deliberate intentional under- taking with the hope that the matter would quietly go away. That the first criminal investigation was poorly conducted need hardly be said. The failure to search for or to locate and interview civilian witnesses; the refusal to interview police officers who were present at the scene; the many attempts to turn the investigation over to Internal Security despite the clear responsibility of Homicide; and the cessation of work on the case after the resignations o~ Kemp and Dees all point to the conclusion that this was a matter that someone did not want investigated. That the matter did not end with the resignations of Kemp and Dees can hardly be credited to a desire by the Police Department to come to the bottom of the matter. Rather, it was renewed at a much later date only because of a letter and later a lawsuit filed against the City by the victim's attorney. From the statements of the original Homicide investigator, -14- ,,:~ r!""~ ~. Det. Hanek, that "he wasn't going to take the fall on the Johnson investigation...[and that] if they try to hold him responsible, he would hand up the person that directed him on how to handle the investigation", and from the statements of the Homicide and Internal Security investigators that they were aware that nothing was being done on the investigation and that they continually advised their supervisors, Bradford and Putman of this inactivity, and finally, from the investigator's observations that this case would cause problems in the future, it can be concluded that a deliberate decision was made to attempt to let this matter die a slow and quiet death. This is additionally supported by the failure of every investigator and supervisor to initiate anything in writing, despite their vocal concerns, for a fifteen month period ended ~ only because the victim's attorney wrote a letter requesting to be advised of the status of the investigation. Finally, it cannot be concluded from the materials submitted ~ to the Commission, whether any officials, higher than Its. Bradford and Putman, were specifically aware of or acquiesced in the decision x nat to properly investigate the Michael Johnson. shooting. However, it can be concluded that other officials should have known about the status of this investigation, and if they were not aware of its status they were at best negligent in failing to follow up on it. First, as the foregoing review points act, four days after the shooting incident, this matter was directly brought to the -15- 1 _--- , „~~~. _ _ .~ . ~~ ,~ ~~~~ ~~ attention of the Chief of Police and his aides at which time several key facts were known; a person had been shot and was claiming that a police officer had shot him; several reports so important they are required to be sent through channels to the Police Chief had not been prepared, indicating that the officers were attempting to cover the incident up; and finally, the matter was a problem "in- vestigation as after only one day of investigation, a dispute arose (despite very clear standard procedures) over which unit would be responsible for the investigation, which was resolved only by taking it directly to the Chief's Office for a decision. Despite these key points, and despite meticulous notes and memos on all otherY"police shootings" and sensitive investigations, there is not one written reference anywhere that this matter was again brought to the attention of the highest levels of the De- paYtment until after the victims request for information several years Later. Likewise, there is no indication that any request was made from the highest levels of the department for follow-up infor- s mation about an obviously sensitive, important investigation which `~ was required by departmental procedures to be reported to the Chief of Police. In this regard, it can finally be concluded that the Chief and his top aides were ultimately negligent in failing to follow up and to insure that this matter was properly handled and investigated. -16- ~. ~:~ ~ f~ CITY OF M1nM~. FLORIDA IN?~Fi•C)FFICE ~q~MORANpUM To Herbert Breslow Chief of Police FAOM Maurice A. Ferre Mayor geptembex' 27 r 1884 PILE: DATE Case sue~E~T Snqulry I.'~to M~.chael Johnson REFERENCES ENC~05URE5 serve the attached olice officer ear before the Please have an authorized p at 2;d0 p•M. to therein named wp~tobers2to1984, subpoenas Tuesday. City Conunission on ~F:NHT:ist cc: Howard V. Gary Jac ~ ~~d~`_ ~,``^". ~~ u-' ~ ) s '~ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TIDE ELEVENTH :IUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY IN RE: THE CITY COMMISSION IN[~UIRY THE CITY OF MIAMI POLICE OEPARTMENT WITNESS SUBPOENA T0: SARA BOLLES 400 N.W. Second Avenue Miami, Florida TO ALL AND SINGULAR THE SHERIFFS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND ANY AUTHORIZED POLICE OFFICER GREETINGS We command you to summon the above witness(es) to be and appear before the City Commission of the City of Miami at the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, on Tuesday, the 2nd day of October, 1964, at 2;00 p.m., to testify and the truth to speak in a certain matter before said City Commission pending and undetermined. And this you shall in no wise omit. WITNESS, RICHARD P. BRINKER, Clerk of said Court, and the seal of said Court at i~iami, Dade County, Florida, this the day o f SAP ~ $ 1964 1984. (Original) (Court Seal) RICHARD P. BRINKER, Clerk .• By : L~'u~~~j. rte,.;:' Deputy Cler i {/ ~-fJ~~t/t/ vt ' MAYOR City of Miami ,. ' Received this Subpoena on this the d.ay of 9 1984 and executed the same`:nn the~~ day '~ of , 1984, by delivering a true copy thereof }n +'f'1P W7~'nPCQ~laC~ nnrttn~ nF~nvn oe Full ~... .. 4.. ..•: t_ ~,'~ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH ,7UDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR DADS COUNTY IN RE: THE CITY COMMISSION INQUIRY THE CITY OF MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT WITNESS SUBPOENA T 0 : MARIA PEDR AJO 400 N.W. Second Avenue Miami, Florida TO ALL AND SINGULAR 'PHE SHERIFFS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND ANY AUTHORIZED POLICE OFFICER GREETINGS We command you to summon the above witness(es) to be and appear before the City Commission of the City of Miami at the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, on Tuesday, the 2nd day of October, 1984, at 2:00 p.m., to testify and the truth to speak in a certain matter before said City Commission pending and undetermined. And this you shall in no wise omiL-. WITNESS, RICHARD P. BRINKER, Clerk of said Court, and the seal of said Court at Miami, Dade County, Florida, this the SAP 2~ 198 day of 1984. (Original) RICHARD P. BRINKER, Clerk (Court Seal) .- ~1 Deput,~ ~ y, ~ (~+ /~ / `'- ~~'' MAYOR - '•~~;~• City of Miami ~ - ~ .., .. ~,~,~~, of ... ,• ~~~ r ~ • , Received this Subpoena on tti~3~s~'the.•';';' ,~.-^:'...;,lday of 1984 and executed the same c{rtf ~IY`e ~ day & Cn~t^..z,. 1984, by delivering a'~~T•ue copy thereof to the witness(es) named above as follows, to wit: SHERIFF, OR ANY AUTHORIZED POLICE OFFICER, DADS COUNTY, FLORIDA By: J,~ -~~- J THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY CITY COMMISSION INQUIRY CITY OF MIAMI POLICE DE BARTMENT WITNESS SUBPOENA T0: VICTORIA SUAREZ 400 N.W. Second Avenue Miami, Florida TO ALL AND SINGULAR THE SHERIFFS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND ANY AUTHORIZED POLICE OFFICER GREETINGS We command you to summon the above witness(es) to be and appear before the City Commission of the City of Miami at the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 300 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, on Tuesday, the 2rd day of October, 1984, at 2:00 p.m., to testify and the truth to speak in a certain matter before said City Commission pending and undetermined. And this you shall in no wise omit. WITNESS, RICHARD P. BRTNKER, Clerl< of said Court, and the seal of said Court at Miami, Dade County, Florida, this the day of SEP ~`~ ~g~~ 1984. (Original) RICHARD P. BRINKER, Clerk (Court Seal) ,~ c..- r ~ v ~~r~ By: Deputy Clem.. „~, AYOR .. .~ ~ '-~" City of Miami -. t- ' ~, . 4 Received this Subpoena on this the ~~ ~ 't .c}ay :of 1984 and executed the same on;•,ttSe°~y.. '','; ~~°'1 r' ,'d.a of , 1984, by delivering a trtr~e,;~~p•q' thereof to the witness(es) named above as follows, to wit: SHERIFF, OR ANY AUTHORIZED POLICE OFFICER, DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA By: - - .,~,..,~~,..__ .._ . __ ._. , -_ -r----_.~_ µ ,.. _, - -,. - . , -,, ~~~. f :` { 's s ~ '. ~; p,r1. ~, ~f , ,_ ~~~ 1 ,4. ~, 1. 3 October 1 , 1984 Can 'in~~.m . Victoria Suarez 400 N.W. 2nd Avenue Miami, F1. 33128 Re: City Commission Inquiry Committee Dear Ms. Suarez: This will confirm the change for your scheduled appearance on Tuesday, October 2, 1984 from 2:00 p.m. to 11:00 a.m. in regard to compliance with the Subpo~eT.previously served upon you in the above-referenced subject mat Very t~ly urs, ~ucia A. eTtYt City Attorney \ LAD:kt cc: Honorable tdaurice A. Ferre, Mayor H rbert Breslow, Chief of Police ~lph G. Ongie, City Clerk October 1 , 1984 ~,~„„„_ t~.,•,-. p ~. ~ _ Ll CIA 4. E3Ql ~,F{ERT1 _ Cih ^tt~,rnr•. I tt ~~ i . ..t ' ~ J, ,. %. ~; ;' Sara Bolles 400 N.W. 2nd Avenue Miemi F1. 33128 1 { t 7 Re: City Commission Inquiry Committee Dear Ms. Bolles: This will confirm the change for your scheduled appearance on Tuesday, October 2, 1984 from 2:00 p.m. to 11:00 a.m. in regard to compliance with the Subpoena previously served upon you in the above-refer ~~ d~su~bject matter. Very t °.Ys~~ / Lucia A. Dougherty City Attorney I LAD:kt cc: Honorable Maurice A. Ferre, Mayor ~erbert Breslow, Chief of Police alph G. Ongie, City Cleric OFFICE OF 1FiE CITI ATTORNEY / 169 E. Flaglt•r Strr~<•t ~ Mrami Florida 33137 % f305t 579-67(10 ~ipm~nt yen declined comment. ure was he biggest reported by +'-°°`ities since they captured five tons ndguns, land mines and explosives Cypriot-registered trawler Claudia ~ coast in 1973. nteiligence sources said recently imated 80 percent of the IRA's ere smuggled to Ireland from the s. tans seizure followed a visit to eland last month of a 130-strong from the New York-based Irish d Committee, or Noraid. nd Irish government leaders claim x funds to buy guns for the IRA. s the money is used for Catholic nationalists jailed in Northern ire- i`4~ai tcidy in here.' I was so frightened, i didn't know what W do. ' Police found his hospital gown to a nearby backyard. The Cole's house Es a few doors down from laanuzzi's. He got in it by forcing open a window. Braddy is considered armed and 4ngerous. "The guy has two guns tad he's shown a propensity to vi- olence," said Sgt. Jerry Korte, a member of the Broward Sheriff's ~ escape recovery team which has Wren over the search for Braddy. "He's strong and he's big and de's mean;' Alderson said. Braddy is described as 5•foot-11, 170 pounds and muscular. When bst seen, he was wearing gray flacks. He has brown eyes. black lair, a receding hairline and lacer- ttlons above his left elbow. He al- q uses the name Joe Henry Brad• dy. ~. Police are asking anyone wtth information about his where- tbouts to cats them to Broward at 185-4321 or 76S-TIPS. .. ® b _m - . `` F" ^T • - ~s~~A from 1A COn8truCtlC+n m$te- rials from 68 schools in 1979 and 1980. Culpepper said the federal build- ing was constructed in 1964 and that many buildings constructed before 1972 -- both public and private -~ used asbestos. The building was first checked for airborne asbestos in 1977, he said. The GSA has checked the building every three months for the past 1 y2 years, he said. Two independent checks conducted at the request of building tenants confirmed the results of GSA tests. he said. "The results of our tests consis- tently showed the fiber count is well betow the OSHA standard;' he said. According to Culpepper. outside air tested at air intake points in the federal building contained more asbestos than the air within the building. Carl Votteler, GSA's Miami pub- lic building manager. said asbestos is a potential hazard in the federal building only when certain main- any people who do any work that tenance or construction work is would disturb the asbestos to wear performed. protective clothing and masks." "We take precautions, inasmuch Votteler said some building em- as we don't allow any work that ployees have unnecessarily "pan- would disturb the asbestos in the icked" about asbestos. building to be performed when the "I work in ehis building, too, and air conditioning system is on, or I would be extremely concerned if when people are in the building," there were a hazard," Votteler Votteler said. "And we require said. ~ty fce~ ~~'~o~ y e~t to harp ~n ~on~ng dgent The city of Miami faces paying attorney disagreed in a 1977 rul• as much as S6 million now that a ing. Dougherty said the 11th Cir- federal appeals court has ruled cult Court of Appeal yesterday af- against tt to a suit brought by finned the ruling of U.S. District Btickellbanc Savings and Loan As• Court Judge C. Clyde Atkins, who sociatioa, said City Attorney Lucia cited the 1977 opinion last year Alien Doughertyy. Brickellbanc is asking S6 million when he ordered the city to re-is- sue the building permit. in damages it says resulted from delays caused by the city revoking Relying on Atkins' ruling, Brick- s building permit in 1982 far con- ellbanc went ahead with construc- atructioa of its new headquarters tlon. Robert Parks, attorney for at 2666 Brickell Avenue. Brickellbanc, said yesterday he 'The city told Brickellbanc that was "delighted" with the appet- zontag rules would not allow the late ruling. Parks said he wil! now construction of the savings sad ask Atkins to set the matter for loan on the property. But a city .trial on the amount of damages. Teaching license is revoked after 4th-grader alaegedly hit A state disciplinary panel has re- voked the teaching license of a former Hialeah Elementary School teacher accused of striking a stu- dent with a wooden pointer last year. _~.TYmnthv McGee, 38, allegedly ~~._ said. McGee was allowed to resign a month after the February 1583 in- cident. Ne had been reprimanded to 1980 afer he admitted striking a student with a wooden ruler, Gray Bald. ThP s~t~ucational Practices e-.. dde ri ~0 ~~ siw ,ly.. . t ~I~~~r1t ten declined comment. ure was he biggest reported by "~'"""'ities since they captured five tons ndguns, land mines and explosives Cypriot-registered trawler Claudia _ i coast in 1973. ntelligence sources said recently imated 80 percent of the IRA's ere smuggled to Ireland from the - x. arms seizure followed a visit to eland last month of a 130-strong from the New York-based Irish d Committee, or Noraid. nd Irish government leaders claim ~ funds to buy guns for the IRA. s the money is used for Catholic nationalists jailed in Northern lre- in here.' I was so frightened, 1 didn't know what to do." Police found his hospital gown in a nearby backyard. The Cole's Rouse is a few doors down from lannuzzi's. He got in It by forcing open a window. Braddy is considered armed and langerous. "The guy has two guns and he's shown a propensity to vi- olence," said Sgt. Jerry Korte, a ' ~ eaember of the Bmward Sheriff's escape recovery team which has taken over the search !or Brnddy. "He's strong and he's big and !e's mean: 'Alderson said. $raddy is described as 5-foot• t 1, !?0 pounds and muscular. When fast seen. he was wearing gray clacks. He has brown eyes, black lair. a receding hairline and tacer- ttlons above his left elbow. He al- eo uses the name Jce Henry Brad- dy. Police are asking anyone with information about his where- abouts to calf them in Broward at 185-321 or 765-TIPS. ^. '1 ~~s 1 ~p 4rom to construction mate- rials from 68 schools in 19?9 and 1980. Culpepper said the federal build- ing was constructed in 1964 and that many bufidings constructed before 1972 -- both public and private -used asbestos. The building was first checked for airborne asbestos in 1977, he said. The GSA has checked the building every three months for the past 1 ~ years, he said. Two independent checks conducted at the request of building tenants confirmed the results of GSA tests, he said. "The results of our tests consis- tently showed the fiber count is well below the OSHA standard: ' he said. According to Culpepper, outside air tested at air intake paints in the federal building contained more asbestos than the air within the building. Carl Votteler, GSA's Miami pub• tic building manager. said asbestos is a poteatiai hazard in the federal building only when certain main- tenance or constructioa work is performed. "We take precautions, inasmuch as we don't allow any work that would disturb the asbestos in the building to be performed when the air conditioning system is on, or when people are In the building," Votteler said. "And we require i1~.Y. to keep tads on social ~nrorkers Rsw rent ~te!ef Mews fetnlee _ __ -- NEW YORK -- New York City's Human Resources Admin- istration has established an inde- pendent committee to investigate social workers when children they are responsible for are killed or seriously injured, offi• cials said yesterday. They said a worker involved in such a case would be taken of[ ail assignments until the investi- gation was completed and a writ- ten report made. Disciplinary ac- tion would be taken if a worker or a supervisor were round negli- gent. The actions are a result of an earliec city report that found so- cial workers negligent to 17 cases in Brooklyn in which atae children died. nny people who do any work that would disturb the asbestos to wear protective clothing and masks." Votteler safd some building em• ptoyees have unnecessarily "pan• icked" about asbestos. "I work in this building, too, and I would be extremely concerned if there were a hazard," Votteler said. ~y es ~ll~~n ay ~n~ to hank in or~ing ~dg ant The city of Miami faces paying attorney disagreed in a 1977 rul- es much as ~6 raili[on now that a ing. Dougherty said the Ilth Cir- tederat appeals court has ruled cult Court of Appeal yesterday af- against it in a suit brought by firmed the ruling of U.S. District Brickellbanc Savings and Loan As- Court Judge C. Clyde Atkins. who sociaUon, said City Attorney Lucia cited the i977 opinion last year Alien Dougherty. when he ordered the city to re-is• Briekellbanc is asking 3B million sue the building permit. !n damages it says resulted from delays caused by the city revoking Retying on Atkins' ruling. Brick• a building permit in 1982 for con- ellbanc went ahead with construc• struction of Its new headquarters tion. Rabert Parks, attorney for at 2686 Brickell Avenue. Brickellbanc, said yesterday he The city told Brickellbanc that was "deUghted" with the appel- zoning rules would not allow the late ruling. Parks said he will now construction of the savings and ask Atkins to set the matter for loan on the property. But a city trial on the amount of damages. Teaching license is revoked after 4th-grader allegedly hit A state disciplinary panel has re- voked the teaching license of a former Hialeah Elementary School teacher accused of striking a stu- dent with a wooden pointer last Y~- TJ.mi~hv juicGee. 38, allegedly -- ~" aa~. said. McGee was allowed Oo resign s month after the February 1983 in- cident. He had been reprimanded in 1980 afar he admitted striking a student with a wooden ruler. Gray Bald. ,,,,„~h,ry, rte, tote„~ducationai Practices N t~ Ada o ao -s9, giuu :rr.. . 4 i I•f~ssat 81e'as#dle I ,`~ ~ i ~ °~ ~ ~ } f~' DATE /18/80 ~ 5/19/80 5/20/80 5/21/80 5/22/80 EVENT Shooting Zayres Lowe, Kemp, & Dees return & examine car 10:30 A.P9. IS finds car & notifies Homi. 12; 30 A.td. car towed . Clerke resigns Hom. (Hanek & Johnson) int. V "cops shot" Hom. notifies IS (Sparrow) IS int. V "cops shot" (Sparrow & Reynolds) Glover knows of Accident will check on report Report to Hom. (Lt. Bradford talks to Kemp & Lowe) 12:15 P.M. rleeting HAR,'"IS COSGROVE GUNN Putman Bradford 2: 4 0 P. td . t/ c Putman & Bradford; IS will take V statement 5/23/80 Hom int. Ferguson ' (pedestrian) 5/ /80 Hom. discussion re: - charge V j 5/28/80 Bngland, 3radford & Putman meet re: Hom. not want to proceed 5/29/80 Buerger (w/ Hanek) cites V & files affidavit w/SAO one iIOTES Decision that Homicide -= should handle (Cosgrove) -. ~-., What discussed re: failure '~~' of officers to report shots? ~_~ DATE hJ9/80 7/2/80 SAO issues Warrant for V, LSA Hom (Bradford) req. IS assist. from (Putnam) x/8/80 IS req. Hom reports x/9/80 IS takes sworn state- ment from V Hom (Hanek) report re: turn invest to IS 7/14!80 Hom (Napoli) int. Dees (not sworn) 7/15/80 Dees resigns 7/16/80 Putman & Bradford t/c re: resig & statements 3/7/g0 Hom (Napoli) takes sworn statement of Kemp & Roschel 8/8/80 Kemp resigns 9/4/80 Court dismisses V traffic tickets 10/12/80 V arrested on LSA warrant 12/12/80 LSA Nolle Prossed by SAO (Darby) re: FTA 6 insuff. evid. Notes not located P '~ ~ ~ ~~. .+i ~. ~ __ DATE 12/17/30 12/18/80 12/19/80 12/19/80 to 3/ /82 EVr,NT Hom(Hanek) suppl rpt. re: invest to IS; & unclass shooting IS(Putman) t/c Hom (Bradford), want all files. files reviewed by Putman Putman & Bradford meet re: more work by Hom NOTES not signed by supervisor (Napoli); ignore sworn statement of V NOTHING DONE ON FILE ON PAPER, NO REPORTS, MEMOS OR LETTERS. See Sparrow, Reynolds, Napoli & Haneks statements re: they know nothing is being done & have advised their superiors See also Putman's statement re: trying to work it nut with Bradford & his statements re: his meetings with Harms 3/ /82 IS(Ross) receives letter from V atty. / /82 Ross notifies Warshaw / /82 Hom (Starks & Murphy) told to have Hom. complete the invest. / /82 Cold Case Squad (Vivian ti 6/2/82 to CCS investigates & 10/6/82 takes statements, interviews witnesses, civilian & PO. 10/6/82 CCS meets w/ SAO (Laeser) 10/ /82 to 3/ /83 SAO takes statements of several officers 4/15/83 SAO (Laeser) closeout memo re: insuff evid, go administratively. ` 5/11/83 CCS closeout memo re: See FSS 775.15 unclass. shooting & Statute ran 5/18/83 Hom gives file to IS (to copy) 5/23/83 IS returns original file to Hom / / 83 IS assigns Sparrow 7/28/83 Glover has file 3/18/83 V atty fa.les lawsuit 8/I9/83 Aieetinc3 Chief's conf room Breslow 4larshaw Putman Bradford Napoli Sparrow Ross Murphy (legal adv) 8/ /83 reopen Hom case invest. CCS reassigned (Vivian & Ilhardt) & Fleming CIS ..-= ~~I NOTES EVENT DATE CCS meets SAO w/ agree joint investigation 8/ /83 Reno, Havens &Laws 9/16/83 Kemp gives proffer ' of raphed & Kemp P yg Dees & Roschel only ones Kemp, g/23/83 gives sworn statement involved w/ coverup 9/30/83 Dees gives sworn statement & ls er ur arrested for p 7 y ~ Roeschel to IS e ur arrested for p 7 y 12/15/83 Hom. reviewturneover close out; to IS f ive ;~ a~ ~ bud 1~v~' ~ ~~ o~n law -bier,. ~I~ ~~Cv~~~ __ _ .. ~-~~ ~ '~~D~o2i~Cv M-~rwos c~ .. vrF w~,rt-r~J M~upS ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~6s ~Ev1~vJ f~tL MaEnti05 htl.l. ~2~C~E~ 't0 ~ME~ZtvlAl, S'£CU2~T`Z. i :. "yC.S ~~ ~{ ~.~- ,~ r~ rno "~ CS~eF -~ wl~,os m~:cble ~ a ~tW,~ i~o ar ~ nF~~~~~ ~ nn¢~uo - zrm. ~~~ ~ .~ ~N ~; ~k~' 1 ~- t ~ ~~ { ~~. ~~ ~i inn s ~ s w~ rq-~~ +~ ~'v`tc~-,"'~ w~ ~l Cam - ~t r ~ 6e-{u,~ N~7~ ~~~J O N ~rt f--~ rrv~s~ 4 i -fit ~-Q-~ ~ ~° ~-rJ~"~"~ ' ;: