Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1984-09-25 Minutes777 AI.. C-=�k`.:�, St Cr C d7s =vb% ..ivl' w .ft�; � tT 4 y' ai 64T = dP but(aV u {l��r. z r ,�y.t i .y'E`iF'Rn..-�_ kr } i .., 'rs:' i S`7 ` h �y •�'xt `` a 5 �b i J i-� c- 1 ..�P [ �St� .f�+yFA,r P�=t - z,• 1 t Jsti �a t, i'. t 1 �.- tS9 t t f fit,, "NiP MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1984 (SPECIAL) PREPARE© BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HAL L RALPH G.. ONL'lE CITY CLERK 0 INDEX i MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING l CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 25, 1984 ORDINANCE OR --ITEM-NO. SUBJECT RESOLUTION NO. PAGE NO. LEGISLATIVE INQUIRY ALLEGED COVERUP IN POLICE DEPARTMENT SHOOTING INCIDENT - MICHAEL JOHNSON R-84-1087 M-84.-1088 M-84-1089 11-84-1090 M-84-1091 1 - 72 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 25th day of September, 1984, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in Special Session to consider business of public import. The meeting was called to order at 1:20 O'Clo,:k P.Y. by Mayor Maurice A. Ferre with the following members of the Commission found to be present: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo ALSO PRESENT: Howard V. Gary, City Manager Lucia A. Dougherty, City Attorney Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk Matty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk An invocation was delivered by Mayor Maurice A. Ferre who then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. ---------------------------------------------------------- MISEATNE INQUIRY ALLEGED COVERUP IN POLICE DEPARTMENT SHOOTING INCIDENT-MICHAEL JOHNSON Mayor Ferre: This is a Special City of Miami Commission Meeting and is in consideration of the previous hearing that we have had under the Section 14 of the City of Miami Charter, the City Commission has the power to institute itself as a Board of Inquiry, what we are doing at this time. Mr. Manager, I would like to request that the members of this Commission be given a summary report, which up to now I have not gotten on the Johnson case. I understand that is public record now. It is a fairly voluminous type of a thing, but at this time I do not have it. The following people have been asked to be present here: Chief Herb Breslow; Chief Robert Warshaw; Mr. Kenneth Harms, who I think is here; Sergeant Edward Hanek; Captain Glover, who I saw here; Sergeant Norris Lowe; Lieutenant Lane Bradford; Sergeant Richard Napoli; Colonel Emory Putman; Officer Michael Liotti; Sergeant Franklin Christmas, Officer Robert Edwards; Officer Matthew Fultz; Officer Ron Ilhardt, Sergeant Ernest Vivian; Lieutenant William Berger; Officer William Heffernan, Colonel John R. Fonner; Officer W. Clerke; Officer George Roschel, Captain William Starks; Lieutenant Walton; Captain Michael Cosgrove; Don Dunlap; Paul Webber; Sara Bolles; Maria Pedrajo; Vicky Suarez. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, the list which I .. Mayor Ferre: It is not my intention at this time to order any subpoenas for any of these people, but that may end up happening later on. Id 1 September 25, 1984 0 Mr. Plummer: The list that you handed me, there was one name on this list which I have that you did not read out, and that is Diosdado Diaz. Mayor Ferre: I'm sorry, right after Napoli. I stand corrected. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, may I have the floor? Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: On the 21st you opened this inquisition by saying, and I quote: "This is a Special City of Miami Commission meeting, which has been called by the constitution of a Board of Inquiry pursuant to the City of Miami Charter. The Board of Inquiry is to deal with police issues, specifically with the case of Michael Johnson." I take issue to that, and I think that today we should follow the resolution. The resolution said: "A resolution setting September 21, 1984 at 11:00 A.M. for Special City Commission to be continued if necessary, to another date to be set by the Commission for the purpose of conducting a legislative investigation into matters relating to the efficiency and performance of the City of Miami Police Department and its handling of the investigation of the Michael Johnson case Said legislative investigation to be conducted pursuant to and in accordance with Section 14 of the City of Miami Charter." Sir, I sat here Friday, and we appeared to go through everything but that. I would hope as the Chairman of this inquisition, that you would speak today to the purpose of what we here for, to investigate the Michael Johnson eoverup, and let's do that, and go home, please. Mayor Ferre: Commissioner Dawkins, I think your request is appropriate; however, I wish to tell you that in the eleven years that I have been here, I have never attempted, nor am I going to begin at this time to put a muzzle on any member of this Commission at any time, on any issue. If any member of this Commission wishes to ask questions that he feels is pertinent to the process before us, then I think that person is entitled to ask those questions. I am not going to be the person to stop those questions from being asked. I have never done that in the past, and I don't intend to do 1L ►^,+ay . Mr. Dawkins: Okay, Madam City Attorney, according to this resolution, if anything comes up during this inquisition, other than that, it states in the resolution what it was called for, is it legal? Mr. Dougherty: Yes, sir, Mr. Commissioner. Mr. Dawkins: All right, do I, as a member of this Inquiry Board have a right to state that I don't want to hear it unless it is about what it was called for so I may leave and you may conduct that part of the inquisition that does not deal with that which my community is concerned about — a Black man being shot and again, we are dealing with everything but that, and I would hope that today this 4y ld 2 September 25, 1984 Inquiry Board would deal with the issues of a Black man being shot; the Police Department covering it up and up here we are dealing with everything but that, and I would like, Mr. Mayor, if you, as the Chairman of this Board, would hold everything else and get rid of what you said this was called for - to find out how high up the coverup went, who was involved, and after you do that, sir, I would excuse myself and you could sit here from now until the moon comes up. If you would do that for me, then I don't think sir, I would be imposing on my fellow Commissioners to be sure that the Black community and the Latin community and the White community knows how high up the coverup went, who was involved, and then, let's deal with other issues. Mayor Ferre: Commissioner Dawkins, there are five members on this Commission. I don't think, with the exception of Commissioner Carollo, that any question you were asked on Friday, the four hours that we met, that at least three of those hours were spent in nothing other than direct questions dealing with the Johnson case. Now, I do not remember Commissioner Plummer, Commissioner Perez, Commissioner Dawkins, or myself, going into other matters, other than related issues such as other coverups, which I think are germane questions. I will try to, within what I can do from the Chair to keep the issue directly to the Johnson case. You were not here in 1974. In 1974, in the four or five times that we met as a Board of Inquiry when we started with the Dickson case and we ended up going to ten or fifteen other matters that were unquestionably related, related because they all pertained to the Police Department. Now, I just want to make sure, Mr. Manager, that we understand that. I am talking about the Internal Security case number - I.S. Case Number 8258-X, as I understand it, compiled by Major John S. Ross. Is that correct, Bob? Now, the second question that I would like answered is, as I understand it, in March of 1983, the State Attorney, under the direction of Mr. Abe Laeser closed the case, and since this case has been closed, (I imagine it is public record) I would like to understand why the State Attorney's office closed the case in April of 1983. There must be a statement into the record. Are you aware of that, Chief? and then, subsequently, it was reopened August of 1983. Is the case open or closed at this time? Chief Herbert Breslow: The case is coming to trial at this time. There are two officers that are involved - an officer and a former officer are up on charges of perjury at this time. Mayor Ferre: As I understand it, therefore, when it was closed, there was a statement into the record. Chief Breslow: Mr. Laeser had written a memo to the State Attorney's office saying that he recommends the case be closed. At that time they did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute. Ms. Reno had not received it, but we had gotten copies of it and assumed that that was the status of the case. However, when this was brought to the attention of Ms. Reno, she said "Wait a minute. No way, this is not closed. I want to look further into it", and that was, I think around July or August. I would not like to be held to the exact date, but that was around July or August or 1983, and then it was reinvestigated, and they did get information, which came up with the perjury indictment. Mayor Ferre: Chief, I want to get some things that were stated Friday. we going to get to the transcriptions some clarifications on By the way, when are of that? ld 3 September 25, 1984 Ms. Hirai: It is on the way, Mr. Mayor. It will be at least two days. Mayor Ferre: I'm sorry? Ms. Hirai: It will probably be two days. Mayor Ferre: Two days? In other words, by the end of the week or the first of next week? Ms. Hirai: That is right. Mayor Ferre: I was trying to get an understanding of what the structure was in the Department in 1980, and as I understand it, in Homicide, Homicide reported to you. Chief Breslow: No, sir. Indirectly, yes. Mayor Ferre: Indirectly. There was Major Fonner, Captain England ... Chief Breslow: Captain England, Mayor Fonner ... Mayor Ferre: Lieutenant Bradford, Sergeant Napoli. Chief Breslow: Right. Mayor Ferre: Is that correct? Chief Breslow: Sergeant Napoli would be the lowest level - or actually investigated, to Sergeant to Lieutenant to Captain to Major, and I think at that time, the Major reported directly to me. Mayor Ferre: Did Major Fonner report to you? Chief Breslow: I believe at that time, yes. Mayor Ferre: Then, at the very same time, Internal Security was made up of ... who is in charge of Internal Security in 1980? Chief Breslow: Lt. Putman was in charge of Internal Security in 1980. Mayor Ferre: Sgt. Reynolds and Sgt. Sparrow were involved. Chief Breslow: They reported to Lt. Putman. Mayor Ferre: Who did Lt. Putman report to? Chief Breslow: The Chief of Police. Mayor Ferre: Directly? Chief Breslow: Directly. Mayor Ferre: Was Chief Warshaw in any way involved as liaison? Chief Breslow: He was an Executive Assistant to the Chief at that time. Mayor Ferre: But, was he involved with Internal Security? Chief Breslow: Not directly, no. Mayor Ferre: So, only when Chief Harms told him that he needed to do something, was there an involvement. ld 4 September 25, 1984 Chief Breslow: Only at direction, I would assume - yes. May;)r Ferre: Under the orders of Chief Harms. Chief Breslow: I would assume that to be so. Mayor Ferre: Now, in 1982, when the State Attorney closed the case, which is in 1983, but at that time, Homicide was Major Putman, so Major Fonner was no longer in Homicide. E Captain Starks, Lieutenant Murphy, Sergeant Vivian and Officer Ilhardt were involved in Homicide. They reported to you through Alba, is that correct? Internal Security, on the other hand, was under Assistant Chiedf Warshaw, and i there we had Captain John Ross, Lieutenant James Walton, i Sergeant S and Sergeant Reynolds. Chief Breslow: There was a time that Walton was in charge by himself during that period. I can't give you specifics, I would have to check dates. Mayor Ferre: But, the point with regards to Internal Security, is that ... at that time there was no question that the language that the line of command did go through Chief Warshaw. Now, Capt. Glover joined Homicide in 1983. Chief Breslow: No, I believe it was 1982, sir. I believe it was November of 1982. Mayor Ferre: And the same is true of Lt. Berger? Chief Breslow: Berger came in probably in September of 1982 and Glover in November of 1982. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, may I ask the Chief a question, please? Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: Chief, I was not here when this incident occurred. Would you verbally draw me the organizational chart, showing lines of command, and before you begin, who was the City Manager when this occurred? Chief Breslow: In 1980? Mr. Dawkins: In 1980. That is okay, well, whatever. So, we go from the City Manager to who? Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, Commissioner, because - I will tell you what. I am going to ask that none of us interrupt you . . . Mr. Dawkins: I got permission. Mayor Ferre: I understand, but I think the thing to do is, I am going to turn it over and you do you do your thing and then let me ... Mr. Dawkins: Well, just let me say something to the Manager. May I say something to the Manager? Mr. Gary, would you have someone draw for me now, the organizational chart when this happened, the lines of Command, and how it went down and how it came up, and who was the first one to start investigation and bring that back to me so I can have that when. I question the Chief, please. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Chief, I understand that the file on the Johnson case was specifically locked in Major Putman's files from November of 1982 to April of 1983. Now, I would like verification if you can, now, if not, in the future of that having occurred. ld 5 September 25, 1984 Chief Breslow: That is strictly an accurate statement. Mayor Ferre: All right. Mr. Josephberg I have your note here, and I was frankly waiting for Commissioner Carollo to be present. I have objections at this time ... yes, I realize we were all here at 1:39 P.M., but Commissioner Carollo is not here, and I thought out of courtesy to him I would get some of these questions under way, but I have no objections to comply with your request, and Chief if you would, then I think we will now turn over to Chief Harms. Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, before you do that, I suggest that you pass the resolution that I have passed out that would authorize the signature of a contract between Ken Harms and the City that is outlined pursuant to your request at the last meeting. There are certain stipulations in it, provided by his lawyers, and I am going to read them to you. One is that he appears ... the second one is that he not answer any questions not reasonably related to the Michael - Johnson shooting and investigation thereof, and that his lawyers will make that determination. That Ken Harms answer all relevant questions truthfully, that he only answer factual questions and will not give opinions or respond to hypothetical questions. In consideration thereof, the City agrees to waive any entitlement under Paragraph 3 of the Stipulation of Settlement, as it relates to Harms and to indemnify Ken Harms up to $10,000 in liability, which may occur by Harms in favor of Howard Gary and this is only for this one meeting today. Mayor Ferre: All right, think we have to pass this in a resolution form. Are there any questions on this? Mr. Plummer: Yes, I would ask, Mr. Mayor, that it was your request at the last meeting that the likewise be given to Mr. Gary, and I don't find that here. Mayor Ferre: I think the sequence was like this. The Commission passed a resolution stating that it would waive that portion of the contract. And I asked Mr. Gary if he would personally do that, and Mr. Gary, I think, answered in the negative. Then, we decided ... Carollo subsequently came up with a resolution making $10,000 available from the City if there was a breach, to cover it. At that point, it was discussed that Chief Harms would either waive, in a similar type of a fashion, or the City of Miami Commission would cover it in the same way. Now, I don't know whether, Lucia, that is going to work out, legally. Mrs. Dougherty: That has been worked out. We have provided here that in consideration for the conditions set forth, Ken Harms agrees to waive any relief he may be entitled to under Paragraph 3 of the stipulation, which includes both, and the City releases Ken Harms from recourse under Paragraph 3 as it relates to the City of Miami, and not to Howard Gary. Mayor Ferre: Okay, so in other words, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Does that answer your question? Mr. Plummer: My question was it was my understanding that it was going to be offered to both parties. We have one in front of us. Where is the other? Mayor Ferre: She just answered that. Mrs. Dougherty: as ... Howard Gary is not included in it, except ld 6 September 25, 1984 y Mr. Plummer: If Howard Gary, if he makes a statement that breaches the contract, according to what the Mayor requested, then he would be given the same right up to $10,000 in guarantees. Mayor Ferre: Absolutely. Mr. Plummer: But there is no agreement. 3 i Mayor Ferre: That is the clear intention of what ... i Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, I am only asking that which the Mayor asked the other day, that if there is a document before us, indemnifying Chief Harms, there would be a like document to indemnify Gary. That seems normal to me. Mayor Ferre: Same conditions, similar amount. - Mr. Plummer: Okay, I only have one in front of me. Mayor Ferre: You are absolutely right. That was the clear, legislative intent. They can either waive it - either Harms can waive it, or it can be made available, either way. Commissioner, when this began, I was asking questions, but Mr. Harms did not agree because.. (INAUDIBLE, OFF MICROPHONE) ..at this point we are discussing the resolution that is before us about waiving, and so on. (NOTE: Commissioner Carollo entered at 1:44 P.M.) OWN Mr. Carollo: Has Chief Harms made any statements yet? Mayor Ferre: He hasn't as of yet and we are about- to ... Lucia was about to answer the questions. Plummer brought out the issue of reciprocity and whether ... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I am informed by the City Attorney that she feels that this document before us does in fact, waive both, and I would assume that would be the understanding. Mayor Ferre: You are telling us that this is the proper form, on the record, Lucia, please. Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: All right, are we ready now to vote on this? Is there a motion on this resolution as presented? Mr. Carollo: Can the resolution be read again, Mr. Mayor? f Mayor Ferre: It is right before you. I will read it. (AT t THIS POINT, MAYOR FERRE READS RESOLUTION 84-1087 INTO THE RECORD.) Now, as I understand the actual intent of all of this, as signed by Kenneth Harms ... this document speaks 3 for itself, but Lucia Dougherty says it protects the City t and gives equal rights to both Harms and Gary. Mr, Dawkins: Move it. J Mayor Ferre: All right, we have a motion. Is there a 3 second? Mr. Carollo: Second. r � Mayor Ferre: Now, Lucia, one last time, so I know exactly what I am voting on. You represent that Howard Gary has as ` much protection under this as Kenneth Harms does. Is that correct? ld 7 September 25, 1984 0 U Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, sir, if you read in the second ... Mayor Ferre: He has equal rights. Mrs. Dougherty: If you read in the second ... Paragraph Number II in the contract, it says in consideration, the conditions set forth in Paragraph I above, and in consideration of Ken Harm's agreement to waive any release he would be entitled to under Paragraph III(3), and that is the only paragraph and that specifies both the City and Howard Gary. Mayor Ferre: In effect, that is what you asked Mr. Gary to do, which Mr. Gary didn't want to do, and that is why we set up this $10,000 fund, if you will. Is that correct? Mrs. Dougherty. That is correct. Mayor Ferre: Okay, but in Harm's case, he is actually waiving. Okay, I am ready to vote. Any further discussion? All right, call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 84-1087 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING, HOWARD V. GARY, AS CITY MANAGER, TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT BETWEEN KENNETH I. HARMS AND THE CITY OF MIAMI WHICH PROVIDES FOR REIMBURSEMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000, TO KENNETH I. HARMS BY THE CITY OF MIAMI IN THE EVENT THERE IS A BREACH BY KENNETH I. HARMS OF AN EXISTING AGREEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF HIS APPEARANCE BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION IN ITS LEGISLATIVE INQUIRY DEALING WITH THE MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT'S INVESTIGATION OF THE MICHAEL JOHNSON CASE; THE EXECUTION OF SUCH EXISTING AGREEMENT HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COMMISSION THROUGH ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 84-719, JUNE 281 1984. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, I would like to thank Chief Harms for taking time out from his busy schedule to take the time to come down, sir , and attempt to help us get to the bottom of this. I'm grateful, sir. Id $ September 25, 1984 Mr. Harms: Thank you, Commissioner. Mayor Ferre: Chief, I think Commissioner Dawkins speaks in that statement for all of us. We are grateful that you have taken the time and we understand the constraints and the problems that this involves. Our interests here is to fully understand exactly what happened in the Johnson case. I am sure all of us will have questions,coo but perhaps the best thing is to ask you to tell us... or would you rather that we ask you questions? Mr. Harms: I would prefer to respond to your questions, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Chief, the issue here is the handling internally in the Police Department of the investigation, both by Homicide and I.S. of the Michael Johnson shooting, and at what point, if any, there was an attempt, either at the lower echelon, or higher up, to hide any of the facts of the investigation, so I can just begin by asking your opinion, was there a cover-up in this case? Mr. Harms: I will preface my ... UNIDENTIFIED: May I speak to this? Chief Harms is not going to give an opinion or answer any hypothetically. He will give a factual answer. He will not give any opinions. Mayor Ferre: I stand corrected. Chief, was there a cover-up in this case? Mr. Harms: I will preface my comments by indicating to you that my knowledge specifically with regards to this case goes back to January 27, 1984. I realize there has been considerable work done on that case since that point in time, but at. that point in time, January 27th, 1984, and before, I was not aware of any intentional and deliberate act that would be construed, or would constitute any form of cover-up with regard to that investigation. Mayor Ferre: During the period of 1980 to 1982, was there in your ... did you at any time, were you informed by Major Fonner or by Chief Breslow, or by Chief Warshaw that there was an investigation dealing with the Johnson shooting and that Homicide was probably following it up? Did it ever come up in the conversation between ... within staff, or on a one to one? Mr. Harms: During which period of time? Mayor Ferre: From the occurrence of the incident until the April 1983 closing of the investigation by Abe Laeser of the State Attorney's office. Mr. Harms: I don't have a specific date or time that such a conversation occurred between myself and any of those individuals, although I did have conversation relating to that case with then Assistant Chief Breslow and Assistant to the Chief and subsequently Assistant Chief Warshaw and perhaps with several other individuals. Mayor Ferre: And your sense of it at that time, to the best of your recollection was that all of the procedures had been followed, and there had been no cover-up and that when the State Attorney Abe Laeser closed the case in April of 1983, everything had been followed properly. Mr. Harms: Yes, sir, I would characterize that as an accurate statement that reflected my level of knowledge of that case at that time. Id 9 September 25, 1984 1 1, Mayor Ferre: Now, subsequent to that, the case was again reopened in August of 1983, closed in April, May, June July - four months later it was reopened. When it was reopened, were you informed that it was reopened? Mr. Harms: To the best of my recollection, I was informed that it was being reopened about that point in time. Mayor Ferre: And to the best of your recollection, what was the reason why it was reopened? Do you remember what the basis of reopening the case was? Mr. Harms: I had made during the course of my normal duties a number of notations and that related specifically to instances wherein I dealt with different individuals involving this particular case. In my best recollection, the case was being re-evaluated from the standpoint that not everything that had been done investigatively had been accomplished at the point that it was reopened. Mayor Ferre: Were you aware at the time that Mayor Ferre: Were you aware at the that Lt. Putman had locked the Johnson file where it was not accessible or available to anyone other than through himself between the period of November of 1982 and April of 1983 when, in fact, the case was closed? Chief Harms: I have no specific recollection on that subject. Mayor Ferre: After the case was re -opened, and subsequent to that, there was a memorandum that was written by Lt. Murphy to Chief Breslow implying rather explicitly, implicitly and explicitly that there was a cover up. Do you recall that memorandum of Lt. Murphy's? Chief Harms: I have no ... recollection that I had available to me for review in the course of my duties any such memorandum. It is conceivable or possible I did discuss that matter with then Assistant Chief Breslow but I have no specific recollection of it, sir. Mayor Ferre: You don't recall at any time discussing Lt. Murphy's strong allegations that there was a cover-up and that he was very dissatisfied with the way this thing had been handled between Homicide and Internal Security? Chief Harms: ...(INAUDIBLE) Mayor Ferre: When was the first time that you recall there being a discussion about a possible cover up? Chief Harms: This came about, I think in part, as a result of an article being prepared by one of the local press medias. It was during the course of a conversation with a reporter that a number of "unusual circumstances" ... Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, Chief, is this the Edna Buchannan Article of August, 1983? Chief Harms: Yes, sir, that's correct. It came to my attention at that time that there may have been some irregularities associated with that case. At that precise point in time I wanted to make sure that whatever we had done as a law enforcement agency would stand the close scrutiny of a review of our process. I directed Chief Warshaw's attention to a special inquiry that would consist essentially of taking a look at the case, the chronology of RT 10 9/25/84 F the case and all of the events surrounding it at the time that the case occurred ... until the time we became that there was so much slippage that had taken place as it worked its way through the process. This was an oversight investigation charged to Chief Warshaw specifically... the expectation that there would be some lessons learned as a result of the inquiry. We could then take a look at those lessons learned with an expectation that wo could protect against future situations of that type wherein cases were inordinately and unreasonably delayed in working their way through the process. ... time delays create problems when you investigate both criminally and administratively and in order to bring those two investigations together you have to keep them separate so that one will not taint the other as you are going through the investigative process. Mayor Ferre: Did Chief Warshaw then keep you informed as to the progress between August of 1983 and January of 1984? Chief Harms: We had numerous discussions during that time frame regarding his specific efforts to take a close look at the investigations - two of them, administrative and criminal - that had been occurring up to that point. Mayor Ferre: At that time, wasn't the task of Homicide pretty well concluded? And wasn't the investigation basically Internal Security? Chief Harms: At which point in time? Mayor Ferre: Beyond August of 1983• Chief Harms: It had been concluded initially and turned over to the State Attorney's Office and then it went through a process of review and the letter or memorandum as mentioned a few minutes back ...written by Mr. Laeser and ...Johnson ... that time period that we were generally, and perhaps it wasn't a completed criminal investigation and, of course, we subsequently, that aspect of it re -opened. So in' about August of 1983 or thereabouts within a week or two of that particular article it was my impression that the criminal investigation had been re -opened. Mayor Ferre: Well, Chief, I guess the basic question that I am kind of headed for here is here is something that occurs in 1980, it is now August of 83, 3 years and some months have now gone by. In April of that year a case is closed and then an article comes out in a newspaper written by Edna Buchannan in the Miami Herald which brings up all these things. Immediately Janet Reno and the State Attorney re- open the case, this whole thing gets on the front burner again, you called in Bob Warshaw, you go over this whole process with Warshaw. I would imagine that at that point in the conversation wasn't there any question on your part as to Bobby, did something fall through the cracks or what occurred? How can an investigation go for three years, get closed and then out of a newspaper article, is re -opened again and there are some questions that, I mean, and you say you don't recall the Lt. Murphy memorandum which also is in August of 1983• Somewhere there, somehow, some place the Chief of Police of M3.ami has got to ask the person that is directly involved in this what happened. Why did this thing get revived? Why was the story re -written? Why are we re- opening this investigation? Was there a cover up. Have you looked into this, Mr. Warshaw? I mean wasn't there that kind of, either with he or somebody else? Chief Harms: Yes, there certainly was. As a matter of fact that was the focus of Warshaw's special inquiry ... case of that magnitude could drop through the cracks of bureaucracy. RT 11 9/25/84 That was the focus of the investigation and, of course, we were particularly interested in administratively how the case was handled. ... investigated from internal standpoint, how the entire criminal justice system, if you would, came into play with the investigation of that case. Mayor Ferre: From August to January 184, you did not conclude the matter, it was still open when you were demoted from Chief. Chief Harms: Yes, sir, it was still open in the latter part of January of 84 to my knowledge. I had not received a summary or a final report from Chief Warshaw at that time. Mayor Ferre: During that period of time, did you keep in contact with Warshaw about the progress of this report? Chief Harms: Yes, sir, I did. Mayor Ferre: And you did not come to any conclusions during any of this that there was a cover up? Chief Harms: No, sir, I did not ... I think that Chief Warshaw came to certain conclusions and I asked him to document with appropriate investigations and statements but I was not prepared to come to a conclusion in that matter until I had reviewed the entire case file. Mayor Ferre: I'll open it up to other members of the Commission. Does anybody have any questions of Chief Harms? Mr. Carollo: Yes, I do, Mr. Mayor, if I may. Chief, from the outset until the time that you left the department, what was the scope of the chain of command where all the information that was being generated was being passed to? In other words, who was the final supervisor, commander in the Police Department that was in charge of receiving all the information that was corning and then relating it to you? Chief Harms: Yes, sir, as I indicated a few moments ago, it was a bifurcated process. One aspect of the investigation was criminal in nature and the other was administrative. With regard to the criminal investigation, the Homicide Unit had responsibility for that and during the period of investigative responsibility, there were in effect some changes within the organizational structure that put different people in that chain of command. So depending on the point in time to which you refer whether it be in early 1980 or 82 or 83, then those changes essentially were reflected at the level of the Homicide Commander and Crimes Against Persons Commander, the Criminal Investigations Section Commander and then there was an additional position inserted in the form of Chief Alba who then reported to Chief Breslow. It is a little confusing, but to abbreviate it somewhat, during that entire period of time Chief Breslow who was Chief of Operations had responsibility for the investigative process that dealt with the criminal aspects of the case. With regard to the administrative aspects of the case, at one point in time, Internal Security reported directly to me and then some time in the vicinity of about November of 1981 Internal Security reported to me through then Assistant Chief Warshaw. So it depends on which particular point in time you're referring as to what the precise chain of command was. Mr. Carollo: all right, sir, as you stated, the criminal investigation aspect of it, the buck stopped in Chief Breslow's Office. In other words, all the different investigators passed on their work to their respective commanders and whomever the commander at the respective time RT 12 9/25/84 was in charge of the Investigative Unit for the criminal investigation finally reported to Chief Breslow. Chief Harms: In theory, of course, that's how large complicated bureaucracies such as our's is supposed to work and Breslow was, in fact, in charge of the chain of command below him that dealt specifically with the criminal investigation that he in turn reported to me. So the buck stopped essentially at my level and various people below me had shared the responsibility for the investigation. Certainly my expectation was that it would be a properly handled investigation. Mr. Carollo: Okay, now, in as far as the Internal Security investigation, you said beginning November of 1981 all the information that was being derived from that Internal Security investigation which was separate from the criminal investigation, the information was give►! to Assistant Chief Warshaw from the respective commanders of Internal Security at the time. Chief Harms: From November of 81 up until January of 84, _ yes, sir, as my memory serves me that is accurate. And prior to that time, I am under the impression that there was a limited amount of effort on the part of Internal Security as the early part of the criminal investigation was occurring. Once again, the need to maintain separate paths to investigative conclusions was mandated on the issue of criminal versus administrative process and there came a time when I think certain turf battles developed over who should Iff handle the case. It was, at best, a sensitive case and I'm satisfied that there were some concerns regarding the potential outcome of that case. Mr. Carollo: Chief, would it be correct to assume that the Internal Security Section or Division, the Special Investigative Unit Section or Division and the Planning Unit or Division would be the three most important units or divisions within the Miami Police Department or at least three of the most important ones? Chief Harms: Sir, would you please repeat that for me, - which divisions? Mr. Carollo: Internal Security, Special Investigative Unit... Chief Harms: Special Investigations, yes, sir. Mr. Carollo: S.I.U., as it is commonly known, and the Planning Section. Would it be correct to assume that those three units or divisions, whichever way you all have them labeled, are the three most important units or divisions or three of the most important units or divisions within the Miami Police Department? Chief Harms: Excuse me for just a moment. Mr. Carollo: Certainly. Chief Harms: I think those are certainly three very important functions among a number of others within the organization. Those are traditionally considered as very important entities within the organization. Mr. Carollo: Through 1980 through January of 1984, to the best of your recollection, can you tell me who were the commanding officers that were responsible, in charge, for - each of those three units - Internal Security, Special Investigative Unit and the Planning Unit. ,, RT 13 9/25/84 Chief Harms: I don't recall specifically, and I don't have any notes to work from, each of those units were commanded, as you indicated, by a commanding officer and John Ross for a good bit of that time was in charge of Internal Security. Paul Obos, for a considerable amount of time during that time frame was responsible for SIS. Mr. Carollo: Well, what I'm referring to, Chief, is not the commander of each unit, what I'm referring to is whom the commander of each of these three units had to finally report to. Chief Harms: Yes, sir. Prior to November of 1981 their chain of command was such that they reported directly to me. Subsequent to November - I don't recall the specific date - early November of 1981, the chain of command was adjusted and those functions then reported to Assistant chief Warshaw who then reported to me. Mr. Carollo: And so Internal Security after November of 81 started reporting to Assistant Chief Warshaw. Chief Harms: Yes, sir, as I recall, I'm not certain, that is my general recollection, however. Mr. Carollo: Okay. In as far as the Special Investigative Unit, did that also start reporting to Assistant Chief Warshaw after November of 81? Chief Harms: At a certain point in time, it did report through him to me and I believe that time was November of 1981. Mr. Carollo: Okay, and last but not least, the Planning Unit, did that also report to Assistant Chief Warshaw and through him supposedly to you? Chief Harms: Yes, sir, after a certain point in time, which again I believe was the result of a reorganization in 1981. Mr. Carollo: So basically through the best of your recollection, at some point in time, you think around November of 181, possibly some of these cases could have been after, all three of these divisions finally had to report to Assistant Chief Warshaw, he was in charge of those divisions and through him is how you received the information as to what was happening in those three divisions, through that chain of command. Chief Harms: I believe that was the chain of command, I think with regard to daily awareness there were many instances of those individuals reporting directly to me or my having conversations with them but the formal structure at about that time was adjusted to create a reporting sequence through Bob Warshaw. Mr. Carollo: So, in essence, when you left in January of 184 the structure that was established and was the working structure at that time was that the Special Investigative Unit where your best and most efficient investigators and all your major investigations were done reported to Assistant Chief Warshaw? Your Internal Security Unit where all the investigations and internal police, or should I say internal possible wrong. -doings were investigated, the Internal Security Section reported directly to Assistant Chief Warshaw in the Planning Section of the Police Department, also reported directly to Assistant Chief Warshaw through the chain of command. RT 14 9/25/84 13 13 Chief Harms: Yes, sir, as indicated, and once again, I believe the date was somewhere around November of 81 when that commenced. Mr. Carollo: So, in essence, up until that time on whatever tell you that was going on in in this investigation. you were relying tremendously Assistant Chief Warshaw would respect to investigations and Chief Harms: Yes, sir, I had a great deal of confidence in him and his judgment at that time and I was relying on many things that he kept me informed on. Mr. Carollo: In as far as the criminal investigation and the Internal Security investigation, the criminal investigation was being handled by Homicide and Internal Security was handling the other investigation - to the best of your knowledge, was every step taken to insure that those two units would work as efficiently as they possibly Lauld in trying to acquire and locate and find the necessary informations that they would need to conclude their respective investigations? Chief Harms: I was being given those assurances, although at some point, particularly around August of 183 when I directed the oversight inquiry I was not satisfied that we had done everything as an organization we should have done with regard to properly and adequately handling those investigations. Mr. Carollo: And now, the criminal investigation part of it, that in 80 - 81 was being directly reporting to, or should I say the commander in charge of the criminal investigation was reporting directly to Chief Breslow and informing to him the process and th progress that was being made in the investigation? Chief Harms: For a part of that period the answer is yes. For another part of that period the reporting relationship was not direct from the individual in charge of criminal investigations but it went through an additional person to Breslow and again, that was about November, perhaps later in 1981. Mr. Carollo: Who was the additional person that it was going through, Chief? Chief Harms: At some point in time that additional person was Assistant Chief Alba and the chain at that point was from Putman who was the Commander of Investigations to Alba and then to Breslow. Mr. Carollo: Do you feel at this point in time today, based on what you are aware of today, that Assistant Chief Warshaw was providing you with all the accurate information that he should have been providing you with since you were relying on him? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible comment) Mr. Carollo: Okay, well, let's try to keep it to the factual issues as much as we can, and I could understand you reason for that,, counselor. To the best of your recollection_, Chief, during the course of this time, if you could maybe recollect on how many occasions Chief Warshaw came to you to discuss this particular case and to the best of your recollection, what were the main issues that are in your mind that were discussed by this particular case with him? RT 15 9/25/84 Chief Harms: The frequency of contact with Assistant Chief Warshaw increased rather dramatically once I assigned him the specific responsibility of going Through the oversight investigation and we had numerous conversations during that period of time. The general tenor of those conversations was not expected from him on a reasonable and regular basis and update with regard to where his inquiry was going and what kind of determinations and conclusions he was arriving at and which direction the balance of the investigation would take. Certainly, during my charging him with the responsibility of conducting that particular inquiry had left, at least in my mind, no questions unanswered with regard to what my expectations were. I felt that the Department had been embarrassed over having an investigation that was that old that had not reached a reasonable conclusion. I felt that the Department had failed to meet its obligation and commitment to the community and I wanted to make sure that a situation like this did not develop again. I conveyed those sentiments and those thoughts to Chief Warshaw when I charged him with the responsibility for conducting the oversight inquiry. Prior to that I had several conversations with him, dates and times unknown, that involved the investigation and essentially some of the things that had transpired with regard to the investigation going from the Homicide Unit to Internal Security and back again and the current state of the investigation. I was not pleased then or subsequent to that after August of 183, and prior to August of 183 I was not pleased with what had transpired and expressed those concerns to both Warshaw and Breslow. Mr. Carollo: During the scope of that period that Assistant Chief Warshaw was, in fact, it charge of overseeing the whole progress and process of this investigation, was there any other supervisor that you had direct contact with that provided any direct additional information to you? Chief Harms: During which periods of time? Mr. Carollo: During the period of when Warshaw, after November of 181, took charge, if I may use the expression, of being the individual that all the information that was being gathered on the investigation was heading to and ...? Chief Harms: Yes, that was about August of 183 when that oversight inquiry commenced. Now, does your question relate to from that point until January of 184, did I speak to any other supervisors about the case? Mr. Carollo: to the best of your recollection, did any ;other supervisors come to you to directly discuss any of this information with you? Chief Harms: Yes, sir, I believe that there were several individuals that I had limited discussions with regarding that particular case or aspects of the case. Mr. Carollo: With any of these individuals that you spoke to that were at the supervisory level, whether Assistant Police Chief or below, was anything that was related to you during the times that you met with them, was there anything put into writing during or after those conversations that would give us some additional insight as to th kind of information that was being passed on through the chain of command? Chief Harms: There were notations on more than one occasion in my day timer that I had met with a particular individual and we had discussions about a particular case, and I don't know how it was phrased, but I know that on two or three HT 16 9/25/84 occasions involving one individual that notations were, in fact, made in the day timer. In addition to that, one memorandum to file was generated, possibly two, I'm not sure, and at the conclusion of each of those conversations I spoke directly with Assistant chief Warshaw to make him aware that I had spoken to this individual and I related to him the content of the conversation so that appropriate notations could be made in the case file that he was developing. Mr. Carollo: Do you know if, in deed, some of this information was put to file, the ones that you did not write yourself, that is? Chief Harms: I don't know if, as a result of my conversations with Chief Warshaw, if he made any notations or if any of the investigators that were working on ... t thing is to ask you to tell us ... or would you rather that we ask you questions? Mr. Harms: I would prefer to respond to your questions, Mr. Mayor Ferre: Chief, the issue here is the handling internally in the Police Department of the investigation, both by Homicide and I.S. of the Michael Johnson shooting, and at what point, if any, there was an attempt, either at the lower echelon, or higher up, to hide any of the facts of the investigation, so I can just begin by asking your opinion, was there a cover-up in this case? fir. Harms: I will preface my ... Unidentified: May I speak to this? Chief Harms is not going to give an opinion or answer any hypothetically. He "' will give a factual answer. He will not give any opinions. - Mayor Ferre: I stand corrected. Chief, was there a cover-up in this case? Mr. Harms: I will preface my comments by indicating to you that my knowledge specifically with regards to this case goes back to January 27, 1984. I realize there has been considerable work done on that case since that point in time, but at that point in time, January 27th, 1984, and before, I was not aware of any intentional and deliberate act that would be construed, or would constitute any form of cover-up with regard to that investigation. Mayor Ferre: During the period of 1980 to 1982, was there in your ... did you at any time, were you informed by Major Fonner or by Chief Breslow, or by Chief Warshaw that there was an investigation dealing with the Johnson shooting and that Homicide was probably following it up? Did it ever come up in the conversation between ... within staff, or on a one to one? Mr. Harms: During which period of time? Mayor Ferre: From the occurrence of the incident until the April 1983 closing of the investigation by Abe Laeser of the State Attorney's office. Mr. Harms: I don't have a specific date or time that such a conversation occurred between myself and any of those individuals, although I did have conversation relating to that case with then Assistant Chief Breslow and Assistant to RT 17 9/25/84 the Chief and subsequently Assistant Chief Warshaw and perhaps with several other individuals. Mayor Ferre: And your sense of it at that time, to the best of your recollection was that all of the procedures had been followed, and there had been no cover-up and that when the State Attorney Abe Laeser closed the case in April of 1983, everything had been followed properly. Mr. Harms: Yes, sir, I would characterize that as an accurate statement that reflected my level of knowledge of that case at that time. Mayor Ferre: Now, subsequent to that, the case was again reopened in August of 1983, closed in April, May, June July - four months later it was reopened. When it was reopened, were you informed that it was reopened? Mr. Harms: To the best of my recollection, I was informed that it was being reopened about that point in time. Mayor Ferre: And to the best of your recollection, what was the reason why it was reopened? Do you remember what the basis of reopening the case was? Mr. Harms: I had made during the course of my normal duties a number of notations and that related specifically to instances wherein I de u with different individuals involving this particular case. In my best recollection, the case was being re-evaluated from the standpoint that not everything that had been done investigatively had been accomplished at the point that it was reopened. Mayor Ferre:. Were you aware at the time that Mayor Ferre: Were you aware at the that Lt. Putman had locked the Johnson file where it was not accessible or available anyone other than through himself between the period of &.-,vember of 1982 and April of 1983 when, in fact, the case was closed? Chief Harms: I have no specific recollection on that subject. Mayor Ferre: After the case was re -opened, and subsequent to that, there was a memorandum that was written by Lt. Murphy to Chief Breslow implying rather explicitly, implicitly and explicitly that there was a cover up. Do you recall that memorandum of Lt. Murphy's? Chief Harms: I have no ... recollection that I had available to me for review in the course of my duties any such memorandum. It is conceivable or possible I did discuss that matter with then Assistant Chief Breslow but I have no specific recollection of it, sir. Mayor Ferre: You don't recall at any time discussing Lt. Murphy's strong allegations that there was a cover-up and that he was very dissatisfied with the way this thing had been handled between Homicide and Internal Security? Chief Harms: ...(INAUDIBLE) Mayor Ferre: When was the first time that you recall there being a discussion about a possible cover up? Chief Harms: This came about, I think in part, as a result of an article being prepared by one of the local press medias. It was during the course of a conversation with a reporter that a number of "unusual circumstances" ... RT 18 9/25/84 13 Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, Chief, is this the Edna Buchannan Article of August, 19837 Chief Harms: Yes, sir, that's correct. It came to my attention at that time that there may have been some irregularities associated with that case. At that precise point in time I wanted to make sure that whatever we had done as a law enforcement agency would stand the close scrutiny of a review of our process. I directed Chief Warshaw's attention to a special inquiry that would consist essentially of taking a look at the case, the chronology of the case and all of the events surrounding it at the time that the case occurred ... until the time we became that there was so much slippage that had taken place as it worked its way through the process. This was an oversight investigation charged to Chief Warshaw specifically... the expectation that there would be some lessons learned as a result of the inquiry. We could then take a look at those lessons learned with an expectation that we could protect against future situations of that type wherein cases were inordinately and unreasonably delayed in working their way through the process. ... time delays create problems when you investigate both criminally and administratively and in order to bring those two investigations together you have to keep them separate so that one will not taint the other as you are going through the investigative process. Mayor Ferre: Did Chief Warshaw then keep you informed as to the progress between August of 1983 and January of 1984? Chief Harms: We had numerous discussions during that time frame regarding his specific efforts to take a close look at the investigations - two of them, administrative and criminal - that had been occurring up to that point. Mayor Ferre: At that time, wasn't the task of Homicide pretty well concluded? And wasn't the investigation basically Internal Security? Chief Harms: At which point in time? Mayor Ferre: Beyond August of 1983. Chief Harms: It had been concluded initially and turned over to the State Attorney's Office and then it went through a process of review and the letter or memorandum as mentioned a few minutes back ...written by Mr. Laeser and ...Johnson ... that time period that we were generally, and perhaps it wasn't a completed criminal investigation and, of course, we subsequently, that aspect of it re -opened. So in about August of 1983 or thereabouts within a week or two of that particular article it was my impression that the criminal investigation had been re -opened. Mayor Ferre: Well, Chief, I guess the basic question that I am kind of headed for here is here is something that occurs in 1980, it is now August of 83, 3 years and some months have now gone by. In April of that year a case is closed and then an article comes out in a newspaper written by Edna Buchannan in the Miami Herald which brings up all these things. Immediately Janet Reno and the State Attorney re- open the case, this whole thing gets on the front burner again, you called in Bob Warshaw, you go over this whole process with Warshaw. I would imagine that at that point in the conversation wasn't there any question on your part as to Bobby, did something fall through the cracks or what occurred? How can an investigation go for three - years, get closed and then out of a newspaper article, is re -opened again and there are some questions that, I mean, and you say RT 19 9/25/84 you don't recall the Lt. Murphy memorandum which also is in August of 1983. Somewh�-re there, somehow, some place the Chief of Police of Miami has got to ask the person that is directly involved in tYiis what happened. Why did this thing get revived? Why was the story re -written? Why are we re- opening this investigation_? Was there a cover up. Have you looked into this, Mr. Warshaw? I mean wasn't there that kind of, either with he or somebody else? Chief Harms: Yes, there certainly was. As a matter of fact that was the focus of Warshaw's special inquiry ... case of that magnitude could drop through the cracks of bureaucracy. That was the focus of the investigation and, of course, we were particularly interested in administratively how the case was handled. ... investigated from internal standpoint, how the entire criminal justice system, if you would, came into play with the investigation of that case. Mayor Ferre: From August to January 184, you did not conclude the matter, it was still open when you were demoted from Chief. Chief Harms: Yes, sir, it was still open in the latter part of January of 84 to my knowledge. I had not received a summary or a final report from Chief Warshaw at that time. Mayor Ferre: During that period of time, did you keep in contact with Warshaw about the progress of this report? Chief Harms: Yes, sir, I did. Mayor Ferre: And you did not come to any conclusions during any of this that there was a cover up? Chief Harms: No, sir, I did not ... I think that Chief Warshaw came to certain conclusions and I asked him to document with appropriate investigations and statements but I was not prepared to come to a conclusion in that matter until I had reviewed the entire case file. Mayor Ferre: I'll open it up to other members of the Commission. Does anybody have any questions of Chief Harms? Mr. Carollo: Yes, I do, Mr. Mayor, if I may. Chief, from the outset until the time that you left the department, what was the scope of the chain of command where all the information that was being generated was being passed to? In other words, who was the final supervisor, commander in the Police Department that was in charge of receiving all the information that was coming and then relating it to you? Chief Harms: Yes, sir, as I indicated a few moments ago, it was a bifurcated process. One aspect of the investigation was criminal in nature and the other was administrative. With regard to the criminal investigation, the Homicide Unit had responsibility for that and during the period of investigative responsibility, there were in effect some changes within the organizational structure that put different people in that chain of command. So depending on the point in time to which you refer whether it be in early 1980 or 82 or 83, then those changes essentially were reflected at the level of the Homicide Commander and Crimes Against Persons Commander, the Criminal Investigations Section Commander and then there was an additional position inserted in the form of Chief Alba who then reported to Chief Breslow. It is a little confusing, but to abbreviate it somewhat, during that entire period of time Chief Breslow who was Chief of Operations had responsibility for the investigative process that dealt with the criminal aspects of the case. With regard to the administrative aspects of HT 20 9/25/84 the case, at one point in time, Internal Security reported directly to me and then some time in the vicinity of about November of 1981 Internal Security reported to me through then Assistant Chief Warshaw. So it depends on which particular point in time you're referring as to what the precise chain of command was. Mr. Carollo: all right, sir, as you stated, the criminal investigation aspect of it, the buck stopped in Chief Breslow's Office. In other words, all the different investigators passed on their work to their respective commanders and whomever the commander at the respective time was in charge of the Investigative Unit for the criminal investigation finally reported to Chief Breslow. Chief Harms: In theory, of course, that's how large complicated bureaucracies such as our's is supposed to work and Breslow was, in fact, in charge of the chair_ of command below him that dealt specifically with the criminal investigation that he in turn reported to me. So the buck stopped essentially at my level and various people below me had shared the responsibility for the investigation. Certainly my expectation was that it would be a properly handled investigation. Mr. Carollo: Okay, now, in as far as the Internal Security investigation, you said beginning November of 1981 all the information that was being derived from that Internal Security investigation which was separate from the criminal investigation, the information was given to Assistant Chief Warshaw from the respective commanders of Internal Security at the time. Chief. Harms: From November of 81 up until January of 84, yes, sir, as my memory serves me that is accurate. And prior to that time, I am under the impression that there was a limited amount of effort on the part of Internal Security as the early part of the criminal investigation was occurring. Once again, the need to maintain separate paths to investigative conclusions was mandated on the issue of criminal versus administrative process and there came a time when I think certain turf battles developed over who should handle the case. It was, at best, a sensitive case and I'm satisfied that there were some concerns regarding the potential outcome of that case. Mr. Carollo: Chief, would it be correct to assume that the Internal Security Section or Division, the Special Investigative Unit Section or Division and the Planning Unit or Division would be the three most important units or divisions within the Miami Police Department or at least three of the most important ones? Chief Harms: Sir, would you please repeat that for me, which divisions? Mr. Carollo: Internal Security, Special Investigative Unit... Chief Harms: Special Investigations, yes, sir. Mr. Carollo: S.I.U., as it is commonly known, and the Planning Section. Would it be correct to assume that those three units or divisions, whichever way you all have them labeled, are the three most important units or divisions or three of the most important units or divisions within the Miami Police Department? Chief Harms: Excuse me for just a moment. RT 21 9/25/84 Mr. Carollo: Certainly. Chief Harms: I think those are certainly three very important functions among a number of others within the organization. Those are traditionally considered as very important entities within the organization. Mr. Carollo: Through 1980 through January of 1984, to the best of your recollection, can you tell me who were the commanding officers that were responsible, in charge, for each of those three units - Internal Security, Special Investigative Unit and the Planning Unit. Chief Harms: I dor_'t recall specifically, and I don't have any notes to work from, each of those units were commanded, as you indicated, by a commanding officer and John Ross for a good bit of that time was in charge of Internal Security. Paul Obos, for a considerable amount of time during that time frame was responsible for SIS. Mr. Carollo: Well, what I'm referring to, Chief, is not the commander of each unit, what I'm referring to is whom the commander of each of these three units had to finally report to. Chief Harms: Yes, sir. Prior to November of 1981 their chain of command was such that they reported directly to me. Subsequent to November - I don't recall the specific date - early November of 1981, the chain of command was adjusted and those functions then reported to Assistant chief Warshaw who then reported to me. Mr. Carollo: And so Internal Security after November of 81 started reporting to Assistant Chief Warshaw. SL i Chief Harms: Yes, sir, as I recall, I'm not certain, that is my general recollection, however. Mr. Carollo: Okay. In as far as the Special Investigative Unit, did that also start reporting to Assistant Chief Warshaw after November of 81? Chief Harms: At a certain_ point in time, it did report through him to me and I believe that time was November of 1981. Mr. Carollo: Okay, and last but not least, the Planning Unit, did that also report to Assistant Chief Warshaw and through him supposedly to you? 4 Chief Harms: Yes, sir, after a certain point in time, which again I believe was the result of a reorganization in 1981. Mr. Carollo: So basically through the best of your recollection, at some point in time, you think around November of 181, possibly some of these cases could have been after, all three of these divisions finally had to report to Assistant Chief Warshaw, he was in charge of those divisions and through him is how you received the information as to what was happening in those three divisions, through that chain of command. Chief Harms: I believe that was the chain of command, I think with regard to daily awareness there were many instances of those individuals reporting directly to me or my having conversations with them but the formal structure at about that time was adjusted to create a reporting sequence through Bob Warshaw. RT 22 9/25/84 Mr. Carollo: So, in essence, when you left in January of 184 the structure that was established and was the working structure at that time was that the Special Investigative Unit where your be9t and most efficient investigators and all your major investigations were done reported to Assistant Chief Warshaw? Your Internal Security Unit where all the investigations and internal police, or should I say internal possible wrong -doings were investigated, the Internal Security Section reported directly to Assistant Chief Warshaw in the Planning Section of the Police Department, also reported directly to Assistant Chief Warshaw through the chain of command. Chief Harms: Yes, sir, as indicated, and once again, I believe the date was somewhere around November of 81 when that commenced. Mr. Carollo: So, in essence, you were relying tremendously up until that time on whatever Assistant Chief Warshaw would tell you that was going on in respect to investigations and in this investigation. Chief Harms: Yes, sir, I had a great deal of confidence in him and his judgment at that time and I was relying on many things leapt me informed on. Mr. Carollo: In as far as the criminal investigation and the Internal Security investigation, the criminal investigation was being handled by Homicide and Internal Security was handling the other investigation — to the best of your knowledge, was every step taken to insure that those two units would work as efficiently as they possibly could in trying to acquire and locate and find the necessary informations that they would need to conclude their respective investigations? Chief Harms: I was being given those assurances, although at some point, particularly around August of 183 when I directed the oversight inquiry I was not satisfied that we had done everything as an organization we should have done with regard to properly and adequately handling those investigations. Mr. Carollo: And now, the criminal investigation part of it, that in 80 — 81 was being directly reporting to, or should I say the commander in charge of the criminal investigation was reporting directly to Chief Breslow and informing to him the process and th progress that was being made in the investigation? Chief Harms: For a part of that period the answer is yes. For another part of that period the reporting relationship was not direct from the individual in charge of criminal investigations but it went through an additional person to Breslow and again, that was about November, perhaps later in 1981. Mr. Carollo: Who was the additional person_ that it was going through, Chief? Chief Harms: At some point in time that additional person was Assistant Chief Alba and the chain at that point was from Putman who was the Commander of Investigations to Alba and then to Breslow. Mr. Carollo: Do you feel at this point in time today, based on what you are aware of today, that Assistant Chief Warshaw was providing you with all the accurate information that he should have been providing you with since you were relying on him? RT 23 9/25/84 U FT UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible comment) Mr. Carollo: Okay, well, let's try to keep it to the factual issues as much as we can, and I could understand you reason for that, counselor. To the best of your recollection, Chief, during the course of this time, if you could maybe recollect on how many occasions Chief Warshaw came to you to discuss this particular case and to the best of your recollection, what were the main issues that are in your mind that were discussed by this particular case with him? Chief Harms: The frequency of contact with Assistant Chief Warshaw increased rather dramatically once I assigned him the specific responsibility of going through the oversight investigation and we had numerous conversations during that period of time. The general tenor of those conversations was not expected from him on a reasonable and regular basis and update with regard to where his inquiry was going and what kind of determinations and conclusions he was arriving at and which direction the balance of the investigation would take. Certainly, during my charging him with the responsibility of conducting that particular inquiry had left, at least in my mind, no questions unanswered with regard to what my expectations were. I felt that the Department had been embarrassed over having an investigation that was that old that had not reached a reasonable conclusion. I felt that the Department had failed to meet its obligation and commitment to the community and I wanted to make sure that a situation like this did not develop again. I conveyed those sentiments and those thoughts to Chief Warshaw when I charged him with the responsibility for conducting the oversight inquiry. Prior to that I had several conversations with him, dates and times unknown, that involved the investigation and essentially some of the things that had transpired with regard to the investigation going from the Homicide Unit to Internal Security and back again and the current state of the investigation. I was not pleased then or subsequent to that after August of ' 83, and prior to August of 183 I was not pleased with what had transpired and expressed those concerns to both Warshaw and Breslow. Mr. Carollo: During the scope of that period that Assistant Chief Warshaw was, in fact, in charge of overseeing the whole progress and process of this investigation_, was there any other supervisor that you had direct contact with that provided any direct additional information to you? Chief Harms: During which periods of time? Mr. Carollo: During the period of when Warshaw, after November of 181, took charge, if I may use the expression, of being the individual that all the information that was being gathered on the investigation was heading to and ...? Chief Harms: Yes, that was about August of '83 when that oversight inquiry commenced. Now, does your question relate to from that point until January of 184, did I speak to any other supervisors about the case? Mr. Carollo: to the best of your recollection, did any ;other supervisors come to you to directly discuss any of this information with you? Chief Harms: Yes, individuals that I that particular case sir, I believe that there were several had limited discussions with regarding or aspects of the case. RT 24 9/25/814 Von - Mr. Carollo: With any of these individuals that you spoke to that were at the supervisory level, whether Assistant Police Chief or below, was anything that was related to you during the times that you met with them, was there anything put into writing during or after those conversations that would give us some additional insight as to th kind of information that was being passed on through the chain of command? Chief Harms: There were notations on more than one occasion } in my day timer that I had met with a particular individual and we had discussions about a particular case, and I don't know how it was phrased, but I know that on two or three occasions involving one individual that notations were, in fact, made in the day timer. In addition to that, one memorandum to file was generated, possibly two, I'm not sure, and at the conclusion of each of those conversations I spoke directly with Assistant chief Warshaw to make him aware that I had spoken to this individual and I related to him the content of the conversation so that appropriate notations could be made in the case file that he was developing. Mr. Carollo: Do you know if, in deed, some of this — information was put to file, the ones that you did not write yourself, that is? Chief Harms: I don't know if, as a result of my conversations with Chief Warshaw, if he made any notations or if any of the investigators that were working on...Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Chief, the issue here is the handling internally in the Police Department of the investigation, both by Homicide and I.S. of the Michael Johnson shooting, and at what point, if any, there was an attempt, either at the lower echelon, or higher up, to hide any of the facts of the investigation, so I can just begin by asking your opinion, was there a cover-up in this case? Mr. Harms: I will preface my ... UNIDENTIFIED: May I speak to this? Chief Harms is rot going to give an opinion or answer any hypothetically. He will give a factual answer. He will not give any opinions. Mayor Ferre: I stand corrected. Chief, was there a cover-up in this case? Mr. Harms: I will preface my comments by indicating to you that my knowledge specifically with regards to this case goes back to January 27, 1984. I realize there has been considerable work done on that case since that point in time, but at that point in time, January 27th, 1984, and before, I was rot aware of any intentional and deliberate act that would be construed, or would constitute any form of cover-up with regard to that investigation. Mayor Ferre: During the period of 1980 to 1982, was there in your ... did you at any time, were you informed by Major Fonner or by Chief Breslow, or by Chief Warshaw that there was an investigation dealing with the Johnson shooting and that Homicide was probably following it up? Did it ever come up in the conversation between ... within staff, or on a one to one? Mr. Harms: During which period of time? RT 25 9/25/84 Mayor Ferre: From the occurrence of the incident until the April 1983 closing of the investigation by Abe Laeser of the State Attorney's office. Mr. Harms: I don't have a specific date or time that such a conversation occurred between myself and any of those individuals, although I did have conversation relating to that case with then Assistant Chief Breslow and Assistant to the Chief and subsequently Assistant Chief Warshaw and perhaps with several other individuals. Mayor Ferre: And your sense of it at that time, to the best of your recollection was that all of the procedures had been followed, and there had been no cover-up and that when the State Attorney Abe Laeser closed the case in April of 1983, everything had been followed properly. Mr. Harms: Yes, sir, I would characterize that as an accurate statement that reflected my level of knowledge of that case at that time. Mayor Ferre: Now, subsequent to that, the case was again reopened in August of 1983, closed in April, May, June July - four months later it was reopened. When it was reopened, were you informed that it was reopened? Mr. Harms: To the best of my recollection_, I was informed that it was being reopened about that point in time. Mayor Ferre: And to the best of your recollection_, what was the reason why it was reopened? Do you remember what the basis of reopening the case was? Mr. Harms: I had made during the course of my normal duties a number of notations and daytimers that related specifically to instances wherein I C:ealt with different individuals involving this particular case. In my best recollection, the case was being re-evaluated from the standpoint that not everything that had been done ir_vestigatively had been accomplished at the point that it was reopened. Mayor Ferre: Were you aware at the that Lt. Putman had locked the Johnson file where it was not accessible or available to anyone other than through himself between_ the period of November of 1982 and April of 1983 when, in fact, the case was closed? Chief Harms: I have no specific recollection on that sir. Mayor Ferre: After the case was re -opened, and subsequent to that, there was a memorandum that was written. by Lt. Murphy to Chief Breslow implying rather explicitly, implicitly and explicitly that there was a cover up. Do you recall that memorandum of Lt. Murphy's? Chief Harms: I have no independent recollection. that I had available to me for review in the course of my duties any such memorandum.. It is conceivable or possible I did discuss that matter with then Assistant Chief Breslow but I have no specific recollection_ of it, sir. Mayor Ferre: You don't recall at any time discussing Lt. Murphy's strong allegations that there was a cover-up and that he was very dissatisfied with the way this thing had been handled between Homicide and Internal Security? HT 26 9/25/84 z: Chief Harms: No sir I have no specific recollection to that effect. Mayor Ferre: When was the first time that you recall there being a discussion about a possible cover up? Chief Harms: This came about, I think in part, as a result of an article being prepared by one of the local print medias. It was during the course of a conversation_ with a reporter that a number of "unusual circumstances" ... Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, Chief, is this the Edna Buchanan Article of August, 1983? Chief Harms: Yes, sir, that's correct. It came to my attention_ at that time that there may have been some irregularities associated with that case. At that precise point in time I wanted to make sure that whatever we had done as a law enforcement agency would stand the close scrutiny of a review of our process. I directed Chief Warshaw's attention to a special inquiry that would consist essentially of taking a look at the case, the chronology of the case and all of the events surrounding it at the time that the case occurred ... until the time we became that there was so much slippage that had taken place as it worked its way through the process. This was an oversight investigation charged to Chief Warshaw specifically... the expectation that there would be some lessors learned as a result of the inquiry. We could then take a look at those lessors learned with an expectation that we could protect against future situations of that type wherein cases were inordinately and unreasonably delayed in working their way through the process. There is some time delays create problems you investigate both criminally and administratively and in order to bring those two investigations together you have to keep them separate so that one will not taint the other as you are going through the investigative process. Mayor Ferre: Did Chief Warshaw then keep you informed as to the progress between August of 1983 and January of 1984? Chief Harms: We had numerous discussions during that time frame regarding his specific efforts to take a close look at the investigations - two of them, administrative and criminal - that had been occurring up to that point. Mayor Ferre: At that time, wasn't the task of Homicide pretty well concluded? And wasn't the investigation basically Internal Security? Chief Harms: At which point in. time? Mayor Ferre: Beyond August of 1983. Chief Harms: It had been concluded initially and turned over to the State Attorney's Office and then it went through a process of review and the letter or memorandum as mentioned a few minutes back ...written by Mr. Laeser and copied to us that was directed to Ms. Reno, it was during that time period that we were generally under the impression_ that, it was a completed criminal investigation and, of course, we subsequently, that aspect of it re -opened. So in about August of 1983 or thereabouts within_ a week or two of that particular article it was my impression that the criminal investigation had been re -opened. Mayor Ferre: Well, Chief, I guess the basic question that I am kind of headed for here is here is something that occurs in. 1980, it is now August of 83, 3 years and some months RT 27 9i25i84 Chief Harms: No sir I have no specific recollection to that effect. Mayor Ferre: When was the first time that you recall there being a discussion about a possible cover up? Chief Harms: This came about, I think in part, as a result of an article being prepared by one of the local print medias. It was during the course of a conversation_ with a reporter that a number of "unusual circumstances" ... Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, Chief, is this the Edna Buchanan Article of August, 1983? Chief Harms: Yes, sir, that's correct. It came to my attention_ at that time that there may have been some irregularities associated with that case. At that precise point in time I wanted to make sure that whatever we had done as a law enforcement agency would stand the close scrutiny of a review of our process. I directed Chief Warshaw's attention to a special inquiry that would consist essentially of taking a look at the case, the chronology of the case and all of the events surrounding it at the time that the case occurred ... until the time we became that there was so much slippage that had taken place as it worked its way through the process. This was an oversight investigation charged to Chief Warshaw specifically... the expectation that there would be some lessors learned as a result of the inquiry. We could then take a look at those lessors learned with an expectation that we could protect against future situations of that type wherein cases were inordinately and unreasonably delayed in working their way through the process. There is some time delays create problems you investigate both criminally and administratively and in order to bring those two investigations together you have to keep them separate so that one will not taint the other as you are going through the investigative process. Mayor Ferre: Did Chief Warshaw then keep you informed as to the progress between August of 1983 and January of 1984? Chief Harms: We had numerous discussions during that time frame regarding his specific efforts to take a close look at the investigations - two of them, administrative and criminal - that had been occurring up to that point. Mayor Ferre: At that time, wasn't the task of Homicide pretty well concluded? And wasn't the investigation basically Internal Security? Chief Harms: At which point in. time? Mayor Ferre: Beyond August of 1983. Chief Harms: It had been concluded initially and turned over to the State Attorney's Office and then it went through a process of review and the letter or memorandum as mentioned a few minutes back ...written by Mr. Laeser and copied to us that was directed to Ms. Reno, it was during that time period that we were generally under the impression_ that, it was a completed criminal investigation and, of course, we subsequently, that aspect of it re -opened. So in about August of 1983 or thereabouts within_ a week or two of that particular article it was my impression that the criminal investigation had been re -opened. Mayor Ferre: Well, Chief, I guess the basic question that I am kind of headed for here is here is something that occurs in. 1980, it is now August of 83, 3 years and some months RT 27 9i25i84 0 have now gone by. In April of that year a case is closed and then an article comes out in a newspaper written_ by Edna Buchanan in the Miami Herald which brings up all these things. Immediately Janet Reno and the State Attorney re- open the case, this whole thing gets on the front burner again_, you called in Bob Warshaw, you go over this whole process with Warshaw. I would imagine that at that point in the conversation_ wasn't there any question on your part as to Bobby, did something fall through the cracks or what occurred? How can an investigation go for three years, get losed and then_ out of a newspaper article, is re -opened ;again_ and there are some questions that, I mean, and you say J )u don't recall the Lt. Murphy memorandum which also is in August of 1983• Somewhere there, somehow, some place the Chief of Police of Miami has got to ask the person that is directly involved in this what happened. Why did this thing get revived? Why was the story re -written? Why are we re- opening this investigation? Was there a cover up. Have you looked into this, Mr. Warshaw? I mean wasn't there that _. kind of, either with he or somebody else? Chief Harms: Yes, there certainly was. As a matter of fact that was the focus of Warshaw's special inquiry ... case of that magnitude could drop through the cracks of bureaucracy. That was the focus of the investigation and, of course, we f were particularly interested in administratively how the case was handled. ... investigated from internal standpoint, k. how the entire criminal justice system, if you would, came into play with the investigation of that case. Mayor Ferre: From August to January 184, you did not conclude the matte*, it was still open when you were demoted from Chief. Chief Harms: . Yes, sir, it was still open in the latter part of January of 84 to my knowledge. I had not received a summary or a final report from Chief Warshaw at that time. Mayor Ferre: During that period of time, did you keep in contact with Warshaw about the progress of this report? Chief Harms: Yes, sir, I did. Mayor Ferre: And you did not come to any conclusions during any of this that there was a cover up? Chief Harms: No, sir, I did r_ot..I had not seen the report as I indicated to you. I think that Chief Warshaw came to certain conclusions and I asked him to docume:; with appropriate investigations and statements but I was not prepared to come to a conclusion in that matter until I had reviewed the entire case file. Mayor Ferre: I'll open it up to other members of the Commission. Does anybody have any questions of Chief Harms? Mr. Carollo: Yes, I do, Mr. Mayor, if I may. Chief, from the outset until the time that you left the department, what was the scope of the chain of command where all the information that was being generated was being passed to? In other words, who was the final supervisor, commander in. the Police Department that was in charge of receiving all the information that was coming and then_ relating it to you? Chief Harms: Yes, sir, as I indicated a few moments ago, it was a bifurcated process. One aspect of the investigation was criminal in nature and the other was administrative. With regard to the criminal investigation, the Homicide Unit had responsibility for that and during the period of investigative responsibility, there were in effect some RT 28 9/25/84 changes within the organizatior_al structure that put different people in that chain of command. So depending on the point in time to which you refer whether it be in early 1980 or 82 or 83, then those changes essentially were reflected at the level of the Homicide Commander and Crimes Against Persons Commander, the Criminal Investigations Section., Commander and then there was an additional position inserted in the form of Chief Alba who then reported to Chief Breslow. It is a little confusing, but to abbreviate it somewhat, during that entire period of time Chief Breslow who was Chief of Operations had responsibility for the investigative process that dealt with the criminal aspects of the case. With regard to the administrative aspects of the case, at one point in time, Internal Security reported directly to me and then some time in the vicinity of about November of 1981 Internal Security reported to me through then. Assistant Chief Warshaw. So it depends on which particular point in time you're referring as to what the precise chain of command was. Mr. Carollo: all right, sir, as you stated, the criminal investigation_ aspect of it, the buck stopped in Chief Breslow's Office. Ir_ other words, all the different investigators passed on their work to their respective command—q a^ri whomever the commander at the respective time was in charge of the Investigative Unit for the criminal investigation finally reported to Chief Breslow. Chief Harms: In theory, of course, that's how large complicated bureaucracies such as our's is supposed to work and Breslow was, in fact, in charge of the chair_ of command below him that dealt specifically with the criminal investigation that he in turn reported to me. So the buck stopped essentially at my level and various people below me had shared .the responsibility for the investigation. Certainly my expectation was that it would be a properly handled investigation. Mr. Carollo: Okay, now, in as far as the Internal Security investigation., you said beginning November of 1981 all the information that was being derived from that Internal Security investigation_ which was separate from the criminal investigation, the information was given_ to Assistant Chief Warshaw from the respective commanders of Internal Security at the time. Chief Harms: From November of 81 up until January of 84, yes, sir, as my memory serves me that is accurate. Ar_d prior to that time, I am under the impression that there was a limited amount of effort on the part of Internal Security as the early part of the criminal investigation was occurring. Once again, the need to maintain separate paths to investigative conclusions was ma,. -,dated on the issue of criminal versus administrative process and there came a time when I think certain turf battles developed over who should handle the case. It was, at best, a sensitive case and I'm satisfied that there were some concerns regarding the potential outcome of that case. Mr. Carollo: Chief, would it be correct to assume that the Internal Security Section_ or Division., the Special Investigative Unit Section or Division_ and the Planning Unit or Division would be the three most important units or divisions within the Miami Police Department or at least three of the most important ones? Chief Harms: Sir, which divisions? would you please repeat that for me, RT 29 9/25/84 Mr. Carollo: Internal Security, Special Investigative Unit... Chief Harms: Special Investigations, yes, sir. Mr. Carollo: S.I.U., as it is commonly known, and the Planning Section. Would it be correct to assume that those three units or divisions, whichever way you all have them labeled, are the three most important units or divisions or three of the most important units or divisions within the Miami Police Department? Chief Harms: Excuse me for just a moment. Mr. Carollo: Certainly. Chief Harms: I think those are certainly three very important functions among a number of others within_ the organization_. Those are traditionally considered as very important entities within the organization. Mr. Carollo: From 1980 through January of 1984, to the best of your recollection., can you tell me who were the commanding officers that were responsible, in charge, for each of those three units - Internal Security, Special Investigative Unit and the Planning Unit. Chief Harms: I don't recall specifically, and I don't have any notes to work from, each of those units were commanded, as you indicated, by a commanding officer and John Ross for a good bit of that time was in charge of Internal Security. Paul Oboz, for a considerable amount of time during that time frame was responsible for SIS. Mr. Carollo:. Well, what I'm referring to, Chief, is not the commander of each unit, what I'm referring to is whom the commander of each of these three units had to finally report to. Chief Harms: Yes, sir. Prior to November of 1981 their chain of command was such that they reported directly to me. Subsequent to November - I don't recall the specific date - early November of 1981, the chain of command was adjusted and those functions then reported to Assistant chief Warshaw who then reported to me. Mr. Carollo: And so Internal Security after November of 81 started reporting to Assistant Chief Warshaw. Chief Harms: Yes, sir, as I recall, I'm not certain., that is my general recollection., however. Mr. Carollo: Okay. In as far as the Special Investigative Unit, did that also start reporting to Assistant Chief Warshaw after November of 81? Chief Harms: At a certain point in time, it did report through him to me and I believe that time was November of 1981. Mr. Carollo: Okay, and last but not least, the Planning Unit, did that also report to Assistant Chief Warshaw and through him supposedly to you? Chief Harms: Yes, sir, after a certain point in time, which again I believe was the result of a reorganization in 1981. Mr. Carollo: So basically through the best of your recollection, at some point in time, you think around November of '81, possibly some of these cases could have RT 30 9/25/84 been after, all three of these divisions finally had to report to Assistant Chief Warshaw, he was in charge of those divisions and through him is how you received ;he information as to what was happening in those three divisions, through that chain of command. Chief Harms: I believe that was the chair_ of command, I think with regard to daily awareness there were many instances of those individuals reporting directly to me or my having conversations with them but the formal structure at about that time was adjusted to create a reporting sequence through Bob Warshaw. Mr. Carollo: So, in essence, when you left in January of 184 the structure that was established and was the working structure at that time was that the Special Investigative Unit where your best and most efficient investigators and all your major investigations were done reported to Assistant Chief Warshaw? Your Internal Security Unit where all the investigations and internal police, or should I say internal possible wrong -doings were investigated, the Internal Security Section_ reported directly to Assistant Chief Warshaw in the Planning Section of the Police Department, also reported directly to Assistant Chief Warshaw through the chair_ of command. Chief Harms: Yes, sir, as indicated, and once again, I believe the date was somewhere around November of 81 when that commenced. Mr. Carollo: So, in essence, up until that time on whatever tell you that was going on in in this investigation. you were relying tremendously Assistant Chief Warshaw would respect to investigations and Chief Harms: Yes, sir, I had a great deal of confidence in him and his judgment at that time and I was relying on many things that he kept me informed on. Mr. Carollo: In as far as the criminal investigation and the Internal Security tr.vestigation, the criminal investigation was being handled by Homicide and Internal Security was handling the other investigation - to the best of your knowledge, was every step taken to insure that those two units would work as efficiently as they possibly could in trying to acquire and locate and find the necessary in -formations that they would need to conclude their respective investigations? Chief Harms: I was being given those assurances, although at some point, particularly around August of '83 when I directed the oversight inquiry I was not satisfied that we had done everything as an organization we should have done with regard to properly and adequately handling those investigations. Mr. Carollo: And now, the criminal investigation_ part of it, that in 80 - 81 was being directly reporting to, or should I say the commander in charge of the criminal investigation was reporting directly to Chief Breslow and informing to him the process and the progress that was being made in, the investigation.? Chief Harms: For a part of that period the answer is yes. For another part of that period the reporting relationship was not direct from the individual in charge of criminal investigations but it went through an additional person to Breslow and again, that was about November, perhaps later in 1981. Rr 31 9i25i84 Mr. Carollo: Who was the additional person that it was going through, Chief? Chief Harms: At some point in time that additional person was Assistant Chief Alba and the chain at that point was from Putman who was the Commander of Investigations to Alba and then to Breslow. Mr. Carollo: Do you feel at this point in time today, based on what you are aware of today, that Assistant Chief Warshaw was providing you with all the accurate information that he should have been providing you with since you were relying on him? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible comment) Not using microphone. Mr. Carollo: Okay, well, let's try to keep it to the factual issues as much as we e?n., and I could understand you reason for that, counselor. To the best of your recollection, Chief, during the course of this time, if you could maybe recollect on how many occasions Chief Warshaw came to you to discuss this particular case and to the best of your recollection_, what were the main_ issues that are in your mind that were discussed by this particular case with him? -- Chief Harms: The frequency of contact with Assistant Chief Warshaw increased rather dramatically once I assigned him the specific responsibility of going through the oversight investigation and we had numerous conversations during that period of time. The general tenor of those conversations was not expected from him on a reasonable and regular basis ar_d update with regard to where his inquiry was going and what kind of determinations and conclusions he was arriving at and which direction_ the balance of the investigation would take. Certainly, during my charging him with the responsibility of conducting that particular inquiry had left, at least in my mind, no questions unanswered with a regard to what my expectations were. I felt that the Department had been embarrassed over having an investigation - that was that old that had not reached a reasonable conclusion. I felt that the Department had failed to meet its obligation and commitment to the community and I wanted to make sure that a situation like this did not develop again. I conveyed those sentiments and those thoughts to Chief Warshaw when I charged him with the responsibility for conducting the oversight inquiry. Prior to that I had several conversations with him, dates and times unknown, that involved the investigation and essentially some of the things that had transpired with regard to the investigation going from the Homicide Unit to Internal Seourity and back again and the current state of the investigation. I was not pleased then or subsequent to that after August of ' 83, and prior to August of 183 I was not pleased with what had transpired and expressed those concerns to both Warshaw and Breslow. i Mr. Carollo: During the scope of that period that Assistant Chief Warshaw was, in fact, in charge of overseeing the whole progress and process of this investigation_, was there any other supervisor that you had direct contact with that provided any direct additional information to you? 4 i Chief Harms: During which periods of time? != Mr. Carollo: During the period of when Warshaw, after November of 181, took charge, if I may use the expression, of being the individual that all the information that was being gathered on the investigation was heading to and stopping at? RT 32 9/25/84 Chief Harms: Yes, that was about August of 183 when that oversight inquiry commenced. Now, does your question relate to from that point until January of 184, did I speak to any other supervisors about the case? Mr. Carollo: to the best of your recollection, did any other supervisors come to you to directly discuss any of this information with you? Chief Harms: Yes, sir, I believe that there were several individuals that I had limited discussions with regarding that particular case or aspects of the case. Mr. Carollo: With any of these individuals that you spoke to that were at the supervisory level, whether Assistant Police Chief or below, was anything that was related to you during the times that you met with them, was there anything put into writing during or after those conversations that would give us some additional insight as to the kind of information that was being passed on through the chair_ of command? Chief Harms: There were notations on more than one occasion_ in my day timer that I had met with a particular individual and we had discussions about a particular case, and I don't know how it was phrased, but I know that on two or three occasions involving one individual that notations were, in fact, made in the day timer. In addition to that, one memorandum to file was generated, possibly two, I'm not sure, and at the conclusion of each of those conversations I spoke directly with Assistant chief Warshaw to make him aware that I had spoken to this individual and I related to him the content of the conversation so that appropriate rotations could be made in the case file that he was developing. Mr. Carollo: Do you know if, in deed, some of this information was put to file, the ones that you did not write yourself, that is? Chief Kenneth Harms: I don't know if as a result of my conversations with Chief Worshaw, if he made any rotations or if any of the investigators that were working on the case at that time made any notations. It was my expectation that rotations would be made by them when I brought those matters to their attention. Mr. Carollo: The memos that were made to file by yourself Chief, do you recollect what happened to them? Chief Harms: To the best of my knowledge they were in my office the morning of January 27, 1984 and I have not seen or heard from them since. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, would it be appropriate at this time to ask that those memorandums be sent to this Commission to look over and if reed be have the documents subpoenaed. Mayor Ferre: Ms. Dougherty, is there any legal constraints in our asking the Police Department to send to the Commission copies of those pertinent portions of the files that deal with this investigation. kT 33 9/25/84 Ms. Lucia Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, I assume they are public records at this time since there is no pending investigation that I know of, and that would be the only caveat. If they are involved in a pending investigation that are not public records. Otherwise, you can have them like any other citizen. Mayor Ferre: Ok, so upon the request of a member of the Commission then, Mr. Manager, we could have those forwarded as soon_ as possible. Mr. Carollo: Chief, as was related to me the previous inquiry that we had last week by Assistant chief Warshaw, it's common practice or should I say when an investigator comes up with information that might associate any member of the administration_ with someone else that might be under investigation_ or to be more precise and I will assure all that at a later time a lot of the questioning that I am doing now will come together and people will realize why this Commissioner was asking certain questions. And it all fits in directly or indirectly with what has been happening in this case. Sometimes you have to establish certain things and certain_ policies to be able to show that in fact certain_ things have happened in this particular investigation or another investigation.. But the point that I'm getting at Chief... Assistant Chief Worshaw related to me and he can correct if I'm wrong. He is sitting over there, at the last inquiry that it is or at least it was --- let me correct that ---I don't know that the policy is anymore. At least it was the policy during your administration_ that if at anytime during the course of any investigation_ there was any kind of information that was derived during the course of an investigation_ that would bring out the name of anyone in the administration, either involved in possible allegations of wrong doing or in the associating with individuals that were involved in allegations of wrong doing that it would be the practice of the Miami Police Department either to investigate that or to send the information to another appropriate agency. Is that basically, correct? Mr. Robert Josephberg: Mr. Commissioner, under Ken Harms agreement to appear here we are limiting it to the facts of this case and while I'm sure that you will eventually reveal relevance of that to this case at this time, his attorneys have determined that it's not and he won't be answering questions as to such general policies. Mr. Carollo: I could understand counselor, your position_ and I certainly can appreciate it. For the record the reason that I have asked that question. because I wart to establish what the procedure has been through the chair_ of command and where the final memorandums, reports, what have you that has been done internally, in the Miami Police Department, where it finally stopped and who was responsible with providing information_ to Chief Harms. Or if in cases that he was not provided with information who was responsible for not providing information to Chief Harms. Mr. Josephberg: You want to know about any information about this case, he will answer your inquiries as to who provided it or who didn't provide it and as far as your setting a record of what the policies were, you have stated that Mr. Warshaw previously told you that those were the policies. So, apparently that is established on your record. Mr. Harms will not be discussing that at this time. Mr. Carollo: The were closest to Assistant Warshaw, secretaries that you in working i Chief Breslow, who the individuals, that n this case such as were the secretaries RT 34 9/25/84 f that they had up until January of 1984? And the reason I'm asking the question because I would like know who were the secretaries that might have worked in preparing memorandums, letters, might have taken phone calls with information dealing with this particular case? Chief Harms: Commissioner, I would suggest that perhaps we refer to the official records of the department which will have that precise information based on any particular cross- section in time. You can take a look at the organizational structure and who belonged or who reported to who during that period of time. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, can I respectfully ask that those records be provided and if reed be may I respectfully request that we subpoena them if we can't get them any other way. Mayor Ferre: I don't think there is any need to subpoena that. That's not a legal problem is it? Mr. Manager, can we have that information? Mr. Gary: Yes, sir. Mr. Carollo: Is there any other areas Chief that you think this inquiry should direct itself to in this particular investigation? Chief Harms: My purpose, of course, for being here is to speak directly to the issue of the Johnson case and how it was handled. I would once again, reiterate the fact that at some point in time August, particularly around August of 1983, there was a growing concern on my part that the organization had not met its obligation to the community with regard to that particular investigation. And I think we can tell you that we had a lot to do and that would be an under statement. We had more thr.r_ our plate full of responsibilities back then and for the years preceding that, but I felt that we could have and should have handled it better and directed that the oversight inquiry be conducted. I took a particular look at the performance of those who reported directly to me that had responsibility for the various levels of the investigations and could find absolutely, no hint or suggestion_ of impropriety on their part. Perhaps in some areas the work could not progress as I had hoped perhaps in some areas. It was a little sloppier than I wish that it had been, but in retrospect then and now I could see no overt attempt by those individuals to do anything that was inappropriate with regard to conducting that investigation. Mr. Carollo: In_ as far Chief to the following statement that you wrote at one time that I'm going to read now, did this statement that I'm going to read have anything to do in relating to anyone involved in this particular investigation.. Let me read this to you for the record. "I now have reason for concern that you were informed, you is Mr. Gary, as to the status of an ongoing investigation of Vice in political corruption and privy to the information that I instructed one of my assistants, Worshaw, to ask the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to initiate an investigation, I believe he also may have been fully aware that Warshaw delayed many weeks in contacting the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and that not long before you fired me, I gave him an ultimatum to carry out my orders. This gives not only the names of at least two confidential informants with a great deal to lose, but an outline of the direction this investigation was taking. Is this connected in anyway with anyone or anything in this particular investigation Chief? RT 35 9/25/84 Chief Harms: Mr. Carollo: together? Chief Harms: No, sir not to my knowledge. So, it's connected with a different item all Another matter. Yes, sir. Mr. Carollo: Counselor, would it be appropriate at this point and time to ask of the Chief ---I don't want to... and I understand the guidelines that you have given, I understand why ---would it be correct ask the Chief at this point and time if these statements were accurate that, I quoted row? Mr . Josephberg: You want to ask him whether it was quoted accurately? Mr. Carollo: Yes, if I quoted him accurately. Mr. Josephberg: We don't have a copy of that document in front of us. I will assume for the record that you quoted it accurately. Mr. C2--�' I_^ Yes. I would be happy to provide one to you and the Chief, sir. _ Mr. Josephberg: I will assume that you quoted it accurately. I will assume that he is the author of that. Mr. Carollo: I would like to establish that for the record, if what I read were the actual words that the Chief put in writing. If I may provide the copy to Chief Harms, so that he could verify that. Mr. Josephberg: He is not going to verify your reading of it. I am sure that you have clear on the record that you are reading from his document. He will not be involved in that at this time. Mr. Carollo: Ok. Well, at least if there was anything that I read that was incorrect, that was not what he put in writing, can you at least acknowledge that here today? Mr. Josephberg: Based upon my listening it sounded as if you accurately read from some prior documents. Mr. Carollo: All right, sir, thank you very much. I think you have answered my question. Well, Mr. Mayor, I just want to establish certain_ things for the record that might bring some light. Mr. Mayor, at this point and time I do not have i any additional questions. Mayor Ferre: All right: Mr. Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor. Chief Harms, in any organization i the size of the Police Department there can and will be some degree of error. Would you say that was a correct statement, sir? Chief Harms: Yes, that is an opinion. and I think it speaks for itself. That's a fair statement. Mr. Dawkins: Thank you, sir. And as you stated an investigation was started in the Johnson affair to discover if any improper acts had occurred in an order to improve our Police Department. Is that correct, sir? Chief Harms: Yes, sir, that's a correct statement. gl 36 September 251 1984 Mr. Dawkins: How many persons worked under your supervision in the Police Department, sir, when you were there during the time when this incident occurred? Chief Harms: Ir_ a direct reporting of chain of command or responsibility? Mr. Dawkins: No, the total number of people... you were the Chief of Police. Chief Harms: Yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: Therefore, anything happening within the Police Department directly reverted to your supervision_... I mean under you. Is that correct? Chief Harms: Yes, sir, I certainly had responsibility. Mr. Dawkins: Approximately how many people was that, sir? Chief Harms: In May of 1980 or in 1984 in January? Mr. Dawkins: Ir_ May of 1980, sir? Chief Harms: Ir_ May of 1980 we probably had some where in the vicinity of six hundred forty to fifty officers and probably around two hundred fifty civilians within_ the organization. Mr. Dawkins: So, we are talking about eight hundred people for you to supervise. Right, sir? Chief Harms: Eight hundred fifty to nine hundred. Somewhere in that vicinity. Yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: So, now in my opinion_ it would have beer impossible for any individual to have been apprised of every incident that happened within the Police Department. That's my personal opinion_, sir. Now, what is the express purpose of the Internal Review Section.? Chief Harms: With regard to their functional responsibility? Mr. Dawkins: Yes, sir. Under your administration, sir. Chief Harms: Excuse me, just a moment. Mr. Dawkins: All right, go right ahead, sir. Chief Harms: The Internal Security Unit of the Miami Police Department functioned in, effect as a quality assurance group to make sure that complaints that were generated by members of the public or members of the Police Department were fairly and properly investigated as they related to potential employee misconduct. Whether it be sworn officers or civilians. In addition to that if there were any rumors or concerns about possible criminal misconduct of individuals within_ the department, either sworn or civilian Internal Security had an occasional responsibility based on my direction to investigate that possible criminal misconduct. In addition to that, certainly to the exter_t that we warted to make sure that we could predict and control the employee conduct that had responsibility for benefit abuse, which included taking unnecessary sick leave and taker. an inordinate period of time to recover from a minor mishap that perhaps they could return to work for and didn't. Those sort of things. I think by enlarge the most succinct description of their responsibility was quality assurance to insure proper employee conduct. gl 37 September 25, 1984 F" Mr. Dawkins: All right, sir, I'm going to state my opinion rather than ask you to reply to it and then I will go on. Human beings do err. I don't care where you work and only a few humans who err admit to it. Other people make c., uses. Therefore, in an organization_ such as our Police Department an individual might err and not admit it. Therefore, we reed in my opinion such a unit as the Internal Review System to see that these "human_ errors" are adjusted to enhance the department. Now, that's my opinion. Chief Harms: Yes, sir and as a corollary responsibility to make sure that all complaints are handled to a reasonable level of satisfaction_ so that officers who are improperly accused will have an opportunity to be heard as well. It has a dual responsibility in effect. Mr. Dawkins: Now, in the investigation of Internal Review or whatever we may refer to, if I am at the sergeant's level or below and I have a friend... it's only natural that I --- this is my opinion now ---that I might attempt to help my friend so he can help me. Now, therefore, any investigation would have to evolve and it's quite possible, I would say in an organization this size, that the sergeant over me, over my section_ may never no that me and my friend made an error. Now, wherever I make a mistake stop me, sir. Now, there are some sergeants who will cover for sergeants, because we are sergeants who you may never know about. Mr. Josephberg: Commissioner. Mr. Dawkins: Yes, sir. Mr. Josephberg: Mr. Harms will not be stopping you if he disagrees, if his opinion disagrees with yours. So, his silence should not be construed as acquiescence in your statements. Mr . Dawkins: Thank you very much, sir. Ok. I can understand. As Commissioner Carollo said, we understand, sir your position. And I understand it. But there is a possibility that some sergeants may do something wrong and the lieutenants never find it out. There is a possibility that the lieutenants may do something and the captains never find it out. There is a possibility that the majors may do something and the assistant chiefs may not found it out. So, therefore, I for one do not believe Chief, that as good a policeman as you were, that you could have known_ everything that went wrong in this Police Department and it is my opinion_, sir, that doing this motorgate as it's commonly called, that it is possible that individuals who were supposed to have reported to Chief Breslow and to Chief Warshaw who was supposed to report to you did not get the information to report to you. So, for us to sit up here and attempt to say that you knew something that you didn't know is wrong. For us to sit up here and say that somebody should have report something to you that they didn't is wrong. So, I just wanted to go on record in. saying that you, sir could not have know everything that went wrong in. the Police Department. I have no further comments. Mayor Ferre: Chief, in reference to that and the functions of Internal Security and the Johnson_ Case, you said and Commissioner Dawkins properly summarized it is to over view proper officer conduct. How many times a year ---you were police chief how many years? Chief Harms: A few months short of six years, sir. Mayor Ferre: Six years. gl 38 September 25, 1984 Chief Harms: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: All right. Ir_ your six years experience and previously as a police officer, but in your six years experience as a chief, how many times was there any ---- average year ---was there an accusation that a police officer shot a person for cause or without cause? I mean does it happen... Chief Harms: I'm sorry, would you repeat part of that question, I missed it. Mayor Ferre: When a police officer shoots and hits with a gun a person_, a citizen there is a procedure where there has to be a report instituted and I'm just trying to find out how often in your experience, your six year experience does that occur. I mean was it something that occurred frequently, once a month, ten times a year and was it a frequent; occurance where there was a report of a shooting of an individual by a police officer? Chief Harms: In almost every instance when a weapon_ was discharged a report was made and Internal Security was required to conduct a follow-up inquiry regarding the discharge of the weapon. That occurred in a very vast majority of the cases. I suspect that there were, however, times when weapons were discharged when reports and follow- up inquiries were not made, but to my knowledge in almost every instance when a weapon was discharged it was reported and there was follow-up inquiry. Mayor Ferre: I would imagine that as a police chief, that is a fairly important thing to keep tabs of how many people have been shot, physically, actually shot. Chief Harms: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: And I'm sure that in your six years and in the Johnson Case in particular, since there was an accusation that a police officer shot a citizen., Michael Johnson_, that that was a matter that like all other such occurences that you kept tabs of. Chief Harms: In my mind it was certainly a major event in the history of the Police Department. Mayor Ferre: Precisely. In. other words, the point is that this is not a cavalier everyday type of occurence. Commissioner Dawkins is saying that there is no way that a police chief can keep tab of eight hundred people and everything that goes on. Mr. Dawkins: I beg to differ with you Mr. Mayor. I said that there was no way the Chief could know every incident that happened. I did not specify any incidents. Mayor Ferre: See you expressed your opinion and I'm expressing my opinion.. And my opinion is that this is an important matter and that the shooting of Mr. Johnson is an important issue and that the police chief does know and should know about it. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, you are saying words that I did not say, sir. You are saying things that... and I'm not going to let you... No, no, no, I'm not going to let you sit here and say I said something I did not say, Mr. Mayor. Now, if you want us to, we will play the record back from here and you can hear exactly what I said. If you want that. gl 39 September 25, 1984 2 Mayor Ferre: Commissioner Dawkins, you in your statement in my opinion were trying to belittle the importance of this inquiry. Mr. Dawkins: You are a lie and I will tell you a lie and if you say it again, you are lying. Mayor Ferre: And I am just trying to establish the simple premise that a shooting of a human being is a major occurrence and that it is important to the police chief and he should be Informed about it and that's the area where I want to talk to former Chief Harms about the specific case of the shooting of Michael Johnson. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, you love to grandstand and philosophy, see and I sit here and I let you philosophy, but today as you say, this is serious and I'm not going to let you sit here and make an accusation that I said something that I did not say that will get back to the Black community as you like to do and make it appear as if I said a Black man.'s life being lost was nothing. Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioner, this inquisition should focus first on the Michael Johnson incident, commonly referred to as "motorgate", determine if there was a cover-up, who was the person_ or persons involved in the cover-up and who was the highest ranking police officer, city administrator or other persons involved. This matter is of great importance to us, because it addresses ore more incident of excessive deadly force used against a Black male. I must point out, however, that this is nothing unique to Black males. If you recall a Latin person's head was blown off by a shotgun held to his head that accidentally went off. Another Latin male was shot as he reached for a pair of scissors. Again, there is nothing unique about being male and shot by a policeman. Just to name a few Black deads from the use of excessively deadly force, McDuffie, La Fleur, McTier, the gentleman who got shot on I-95 and a person_ who's name I can't recall, who made a sudden move inside a car and the police shot him. This is a golden opportunity to demonstrate to the entire community that we, the Commission, are going to find out how high the cover-up went and today we are going to get to the bottom of this. In. a few hours we should have determined who else other than those already named were involved in the cover-up. If anyone was involved who has been punished or who will be punished, what preventive measures are in place to insure that similar shootings do not occur and no cover- up would be attempted. My constituency, which is your constituency also demand that we do the above and do it row. Again., a Black person_ was shot, only this time he lived to talk about it. What about those who did rot live to talk about it. We sat for six hours or_ Friday. Today we are interested in Michael Johnson. death. Today we should cover the Michael Johnson's motorgate incident in its entirety. Let's stick to our purpose of determining how high up the cover-up went and what we are going to do about it. If any member of this Commission has any information dealing with drug abuse within. the Police Department, City administration or Commissioners, any sale of drugs by members of the t Mayor Ferre: Getting back to.... Mr. Carollo: Miller, excuse me, Commissioner Dawkins, since it will take the Clerk probably a couple of days to type that transcript, I'd appreciate it, sir, if I would get a copy of what you said, so that I could go over it before hard. gl 40 September 25, 1984 �a U Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Carollo, you did rot give me a copy of anything you said. I do not feel it is within your right to ask me for a copy of nothing I said, sir. Mr. Carollo: Sir, the reason I did, with all respects, is that I didn't have anything typed.... Mr. Dawkins: As respect to you as my Commissioner, I'm not going to give it to you. Mr. Carollo: All right, I guess I'll wait for the Clerk then_, sir. Mayor Ferre: What you are trying to certify is that he was reading from a written_ statemert; I don't think that is germane to the issue. I'd like to get back to the issue of the questions that we were making of Chief Harms. I'd like to conclude that, but go ahead. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would only like for the record to reflect one correction_ in Mr. Dawkins' statement. He referred to as the Michael Johnson. death. He did not die. Let the record so reflect. Mr. Carollo: That's one of the things that I was trying to verify. Mayor Ferre: All right, Chief. Mr. Kenneth Harms: Mr. Mayor, could I ask you for clarification of the question. Mayor Ferre: Please, go right ahead. Mr. Harms: I need a clarification_ of your question, sir. Mayor Ferre: My question_ that I was headed in all of this is just to try to determine that obviously a shooting of a person_ by a police officer is a major event which any good police chief would be aware of and follow up. Chief Harms: Yes, sir, the shooting of any police officer.... Mayor Ferre: No, by a police officer. Chief Harms: ....by a citizen_, or the shooting of any citizen by a police officer, a murder, a rape, an aggravated battery, a robbery, those are all very important everts that we certainly had our share of. Yes, that was an important event, as were many others. Mayor Ferre: But you, obviously, would keep informed when a police officer is accused of shooting a person and you would give it, I imagine, the importance that it deserved, and did in the Johnson case. Chief Harms: Yes, sir, I would try to give all of those issues appropriate attention., based on their importance. Mayor Ferre: I don't think that a burglary is, I would imagine, or is a burglary as important as a shooting of a citizen by an officer? Chief Harms: No, sir, I don't recall saying a burglary. I may have, but I don't recall saying a burglary. Certainly, a burglary is important to the people that have been burglarized. gl 41 September 25, 1984 Mayor Ferre: But not as important as a shooting of a citizen by a police officer, and the question that I was trying to ask you is how often in your six years was a citizen, shot by a police officer. I mean, to the best of your recollection., was that a daily recurring thing or did it happen several times a year, or was there a pattern_ or no pattern_. I mean, it was not a quickly recurring thing. It didn't occur every day. Did it? What I'm trying to establish, Chief, is that it is an isolated incident. It does not happen_ that often. It is an important event in the life of a police chief. Chief Harms: I don't have the statistics available. But I know that certainly during the five or six years just prior to January 1984 that there were perhaps 20 plus shootings by police officers of the City of Miami that resulted in fatalities; there were a number of shootings of police officers by civilians, some of which, one of which at least resulted in a fatality; and many more that resulted in injuries. There were certainly any number of those events to keep track of during that period of time. Mayor Ferre: When a shooting of a person by a police officer occurs -and this is all I'm trying to establish- it is an important event. The police chief gives it the due importance that it has. In. the Johnson case, that specifically was an important evert. What I'm trying to establish is that since it happened in 1980, I would imagine that through Bob Warshaw or someone else, you kept informed as to what was going on in the investigation by homicide of the Johnson_ shooting. Chief Harms: I think it is probably a fair assumption for you to make, although for some period of time, particularly i during the latter part of 180 and 1981, I don't have any specific recollections that deal with that case. Mayor Ferre: The matter that was being investigated, was specifically in the hands of Lieutenant Bradford and Sergeant Napoli. Chief Harms: For some period of time, yes, that is correct. Mayor Ferre: During the period of time that the initial homicide investigation was being conducted, it was in the hands of Lt. Bradford and Sgt. Napoli. Is that correct? Chief Harms: Sir, I defer to your rotes and information.. I have no rotes of my own_, but that's my general recollection. Mayor Ferre: At no time during that period until August of 1983, or when the case was closed, were you ever told that Lt. Bradford or Sgt. Napoli or anybody in homicide were either dragging their feet in this case or that there was a cover-up? Chief Harms: Prior to August 1983, not to my knowledge. Mayor Ferre: or subsequent to August 1983• Chief Harms: Subsequent to August 1983, there were certainly some questions raised about their handling of that case. Those questions were raised essentially as a result of the specific directions, instructions that I had provided to Chief Warshaw on his over -sight review responsibility, again. to the best of my recollection.. It occurred that during one or more conversations that I had with Chief Warshaw regarding the conduct of his inquiry, those names that you just mentioned, Bradford and Napoli, did come up with regard to their specific handling of the case. It was gl 42 September 25, 1984 0 during those conversations, that Warshaw, in his opinion, and that is what he provided to me, in his opinion, Napoli and Bradford had not properly handled and discharged their responsibilities. Mayor Ferre: When Lt. Murphy was removed from homicide, did you at all go into any kind of a discussion_ with either Warshaw or Chief Breslow as to why Murphy was being removed? Chief Harms: I had at least two conversations with Chief Breslow on that matter. Essentially, and this once again is based on a best recollection without benefit of rotes, there came a point in time when I directed my division commanders and section commanders to be more conscientious on how they controlled the over -time of the Miami Police Department. For some period of time, particularly when we were under- staffed, we were requiring our employees to perform a lot of over -time. This created a couple of problems. First of all, it was very difficult to budget the appropriate amount for over -time. Second of all, it resulted in the abuse of relationships with some officers wherein they were required to work considerably beyond their call of duty. I directed those people subordinate to me.... Mayor Ferre: Chief, I don't mean to get into areas not related to the Johnson_ case. Frankly, all I basically want to know, I'll ask you specifically, was the removal of Lt. Murphy from homicide -I think it was in the end of 1982- in any way related to any of the problems he was having in. the Johnson_ investigation or his concerns and complaints about the mishandling of it. Chief Harms: No, sir, it was related to other problems that Lt. Murphy was having, but none related to the Johnson investigation, that I am aware of. Mayor Ferre: So, to the best of your recollection_, there was no relationship the Lt. Murphy removal from homicide and the Johnson case itself. Chief Harms: None at all. Mayor Ferre: You, I think, testified that there was no relationship, you could not recall having ever seer. the Murphy memorandum to Chief Breslow complaining about the Johnson. case. Chief Harms: I don't have a specific recollection of seeing that memorandum or having discussed it with anyone. It's possible that I did, but an evert so significant, or at least significant in. Lt. Murphy's mind that might have led him to that kind of conclusion_, certainly should have been brought to my attention.. Presumably.... Mayor Ferre: But it was not brought to your recollection.. Chief Harms: Not to my knowledge, no, sir. Of course, I think had it been brought to my attention_, the document itself would have had my signature on it, had I seer_ the document. Mayor Ferre: When a police officer is being investigated of shooting a person., and the State Attorney concludes the investigation_, are you usually told? Were you usually told? Chief Harms: The normal course of everts was the Homicide Unit Crimes Against Persons, that chain of command would be notified by the State Attorrey's office, and presumably as they worked their way through this type of a case, they stay in constant touch with one another. Eventually, yes, sir, gl 43 September 25, 1984 through that chair_ of command, I would generally be notified that an investigation was concluded. Mayor Ferre: Again, you said that in a six -year period, there were 20 cases of police officers shooting, fatally wounding individuals, and so the shooting of a person, again., is not a common re -occurring thing. When an investigation_ of a shooting is concluded, I would imagine that is something that is reported to the Police Chief. I'm just trying to determine that you were told, or that you do remember saying the State Attorney and Mr. Abe Laser has now close this case. Chief Harms: I have no specific recollection of when that information came to me, but at some point I did become aware that Abe Laser had written a memorandum to Miss Reno, the State Attorney at that time, indicating that in his judgment, that they should have in effect no more interest in that case, and it was referred essentially back to the Police Department. That letter, apparer_tly, or memo was delivered to our office, our Police Department; and I don't recall the time frame that then transpired before I became aware of that. Mayor Ferre: I guess what I'm trying to find out is whether you were aware of any of this before August 183 or whether you were aware of it only after you read it in the newspaper. Chief Harms: I was aware of certain parts of it before I read it in the newspaper, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: When you read it, before you read it in the newspaper, did you then talk to either Chief Breslow or Chief Warshaw about the fact that there was some concern on your part about this being closed improperly. Or did that only come up after you read the newspaper story? Chief Harms: I spoke with both Chief Warshaw and Chief Breslow prior to the article being published. I don't recall the relationship in time, but I did express concern on how the case was investigated. We talked generally, as I recall, about the Laser memo and about the period of time after Laser wrote that memo before we became aware of the status of that particular case. It was at that point in time before the article was written, or I should say published, that I directed Chief Warshaw to initiate the special over -sight investigation.. So, yes, there were several conversations that dealt with my concern over that case prior to the Miami Herald Edna Buchanan_ article. Mayor Ferre: The special over -sight investigation was ordered after August 183? Chief Harms: I think it was ordered just prior to the release of the article itself, as I recall, but once again., my notes should reflect precisely a point in time when I had my conversation with Chief Warshaw. Mayor Ferre: And yet, during all this process, here is Bob Warshaw, your right hard man, a person_ you have trusted completely, that you knew well, that you had moved up from the ranks and jumped over lieutenants and captains and majors, and here he was next to you, and here he had in his hand a memorandum from Lt. Murphy that very succinctly and specifically, in no uncertain terms implied that there was a cover-up, and you were no aware of and had no idea that there was any thought or any indication on anybody's part Y,hat there was a cover-up in. the Police Department. sl 44 September 25, 1984 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: To answer that he had not received that, as to the opinions or the innuendoes he's not going to agree or disagree with those.... Mayor Ferre: I'm not saying that he warts to agree with the innuendoes. I just want to know specifically whether Chief Harms, at that point of August 183, when the Edna Buchanan article comes, he says he had requested a special r investigation to be done by Warshaw. At that point in time, s he does not know that there is a potential cover-up. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Let him answer that. Mayor Ferre: I mean_, I find that frankly, hard to believe. That is my personal opinion.. Mr. Carollo : In the answer that he gave, Mr. Mayor, inas far as the memorandum goes from Lt Murphy, was again that j you did not receive that? Chief Harms: I don't have a specific recollection that I was aware of that information or that memorandum at that point in time. the first specific recollection that I have of a memorandum from Bob Murphy, which I think was directed not to Chief W&; shaw, but to Chief Breslow._ Mayor Ferre: Breslow, I stand corrected. Chief Harms: Yes, sir, the first specific recollection_ I have of that was when somebody contacted me recently and said there was an article in the Miami Herald and the Miami News about that issue. I have roIn independent recollection or —that matter prior to the last several weeks. Mayor Ferre: So when you asked Warshaw to make a special investigation prior to the Edna Buchanan article, you directly or indirectly, Murphy memorandum or no Murphy memorandum, had no idea, no thought that there was a potential cover-up? Chief Harms: When I directed the inquiry, I instructed Chief Warshaw approach it from a standpoint of of trying to determine how the case had fallen through the cracks in the systems floor. I did not provide any specific perimeters with regard to an investigative direction_ that he should take, other than to be complete and thorough and to let the facts determine what happened with the case. I had no 3 specific information_ at that time to arrive at a conclusion involving a cover-up in that investigation. Yw Mayor Ferre: Chief, when this matter took over four years to conclude, it went from the early part of 1980 until the middle of 1984. Up until January 27th, almost four years 4Y had elapsed. To your recollection_ during the time of your tenure as Police Chief for six years,, was there any other investigation that you knew, that took four years?: Chief Harms: Yes, sir, there we-,, numerous investigations that took in excess of four years. Mayor Ferre: Dealing with a shooting of a person? Chief Harms: Dealing with a shooting of a person_, yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: So, in other words, four-year investigations, is that the norm in the Police Department? Or would you say that they are far and few in between or is that routine? sl 45 September 25, 1984 Chief Harms: Perhaps you'll describe for me what your definition_ of norm is and then I'll try to respond to your question_. Mayor Ferre: Let me say that in the investigations of the Police Department of shootings of people, do they usually take four years to conclude? Chief Harms: No, sir. Mayor Ferre: That is not the average? Chief Harms: Not normally and certainly not the average by definition. Mayor Ferre: So, in other words, an investigation of that long a duration is not a normal procedure in the Police Department? Chief Harms: I think it would be characterized as being.... Mayor Ferre: Unusual? Chief Harms: ....unusual. Mayor Ferre: You said there had been others. Had there been many other investigations that had taken four years, one, two, a hundred? Chief Harms: More than one or two, less than a hundred. Mayor Ferre: More than one or two; more than ten? Chief Harms: Yes, sir, I think there has beer_ more than ten. I don't have the statistics available.... Mayor Ferre: In your six year period, you say that there have been over ten investigations dealing with shootings of people that have taken more than four years. Chief Harms: Mr. Mayor, let me see if I can clarify that. It's my general opinion., and I don't have the statistics available, but the Police Department does. They would provide a precise number for you. It's my general opinion that there had been in excess of ter_ investigations involving shootings.... Mayor Ferre: By police officers of people. Chief Harms: ....that took more than four years to arrive at conclusions on. Mayor Ferre: Would you say that's typical on Police Departments around the country? Or is that just the case in Miami? Chief Harms: I would say that for major city police departments, that would not be an unusual circumstance. I think that there are many major police departments that are faced with the same investigative kinds of case loarss that our employees had that out of necessity spent more time than perhaps they would like to concluding investigations. Mayor Ferre: Chief, I have some questions of Chief Warshaw, in. particular. Then if I may, I'd like to ask you subsequent to that. Kr. Josephberg: We have other commitments and the Chief has some on behalf of the City that he has previopsly made for the City's benefit. How long are you asking him to remain_? sl 46 September 25, 1984 Mayor Ferre: I have about four or five questions of Chief Warshaw, and then I would ask.... Mr. Josephberg: Four or five questions will be no problem. Mayor Ferre: That's what I have. I don't know what anybody else.... Mr. Josephberg: Well, in terms of -certainly, I'm in no position to limit what the Commission_ on its questioning of any witnesses. Ken Harms has no objection to Mr. Warshaw being called and then_ being returned; but if it's going to be a lengthy delay, he will not be able to stay. Mayor Ferre: I don't perceive that it will be a lengthy delay. Mr. Josephberg: And his other commitments are for the City. Mayor Ferre: Chief Warshaw, the last time around we had you under oath. Do you have any objections repeating that? Chief Herbert Breslow: No, sir. - Mrs. Matty Hirai: Would you raise your right hand, please? =- Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give in this matter will be the truth, so help you God? FMWU Chief Breslow: I do. Mr. Dawkins: Chief Harms, I want you to understand, I may have some questions of him too. I'm not going to tell you how long mine are going to take. I want you and the counselor to understand that I am not going to limit my questions until I, too, have a full realm of what they are doing. Mr. Josephberg: Henry Latimer, the City's counselor on the case that's going to trial next week is waiting for him, and he will fulfill the commitment to meet with Mr. Latimer on behalf of the City. I will tell you that we will leave here in a half an hour because Mr. Latimer has beer waiting on behalf of the City for two hours to meet with him. We are going to leave to meet with him. Mr. Dawkins: My question will take about thirty minutes. I suggest then that you leave now. Mayor Ferre: No, sir, you can do anything you wart, Commissioner, but I have five questions for Warshaw, then I wart to ask Chief Harms. It's not going to take a half hour. Then. I will concede the floor to you at that time and not until that time. Mr. Dawkins: No, no, no, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Oh, yes, oh, yes. Mr. Dawkins: No, no. Mayor Ferre: Yes, yes. Mr. Dawkins: If you have a minute up there at that podium, then. I have a right to question.... Mayor Ferre: Sir, I am.... Mr. Dawkins: Wait a minute. sl 47 September 25, 1984 Mayor Ferre: questions. You are out of order . I now am asking Mr. Dawkins: I will stay out of order as long as this goes on, sir; I will stay out of order. Because unless you return the same favor to me to question_ any question I might have.... Mayor Ferre: You absolutely will have that when I conclude. Mr. Dawkins: ....of Chief Warshaw so that Chief Harms can understand.... Mayor Ferre: No, sir. Mr. Dawkins: ....the questions that I may have of him.... Mayor Ferre: No, sir. You will not have the floor. I will not concede the floor until I finish. Mr. Dawkins: I'll have to keep having to disrupt you, sir, until you give me the floor. Mayor Ferre: It's obvious what you are trying to do, Commissioner. 1 would now like to get Chief Warshaw back; and I'd like to ask some questions of you, Chief. First of all we were going to have you sworn. in. Mrs. Hirai: We did, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Chief, let me ask you questions. During this whole time from the initial shooting of Mr. Johnson_ to the conclusion in March 1983, during that period of time, even though internal. security for the most part, until 1982, reported directly to Chief Harms. You did act as liaison. Is that correct? Chief Warshaw: In some matters yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Ir_ the case of the shooting of Michael Johnson, did you at all involve yourself in the proceedings? Chief Warshaw: No, as I stated the other day, sir, prior to...it was either March or April of 1982 when we received a correspondence from Mr. Johnson's attorneys. To the best of any independent recollection. I have, I had no involvement, no knowledge of the shooting of Michael Johnson., no, sir. Mayor Ferre: Did you write any memorandums at any time to the best of your reollectior_ to Chief Harms in this general area of the shooting of Michael Johnson during that period? Chief Warshaw: No, sir, to the best of my recollection., no. Mayor Ferre: You don't have any recollections of direct conversations where you were reporting to Chief Harms what was occurring in the homicide and in the internal security investigation_. Chief Warshaw: Certainly not during the homicide investigation.. It's certainly commencing in August 1983, there was considerable dialogue between myself and Chief Harms. As to anything prior to that, I have no recollection of, no, sir. Mayor Ferre: You do know Sergeant Napoli? Chief Warshaw: Yes, sir, I do. sl r 48 September 25, 1984 e Mayor Ferre: Is Sergeant Napoli a person_ that you consider a personal friend? Chief Warshaw: No, sir, I've known Sergeant Napoli for many years. I have never been a social friend. It's been quite some time since I have spoken to him at all. Mayor Ferre: Is it the practice in the Police Department Chief to permit a police officer to go to school on City time? Is that standard operating procedure in the department for all police officers who request it? Chief Warshaw: Generally not. Mayor Ferre: If a police officer wishes to get a degree at the University of Miami or F.I.U. in any subject in particular, and he wishes to do it on City time, is there a procedure that is followed to accomplish that? Chief Warshaw: Generally no, sir. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, that is related to the cover up? Mayor Ferre: Yes, it is. Mr. Dawkins: Would you show me how, sir? Mayor Ferre: If you will permit me to continue, I will. Mr. Dawkins: All right, thank you. Mayor Ferre: Did, at any time, Sergeant Napoli request permission from the Police Department to go to the university to get an advanced degree. Chief Warshaw: No, I think I know what you are referring to, Mayor. Sergeant Napoli is pursuing an advanced degree in social work and had asked the department to enter into an arrangement with him to accommodate his school schedule so that he could apply the ultimate degree he would gain_ from that schooling as a social worker in the Police Department and there was an arrangement made with him for that purpose. Mayor Ferre: Is Sergeant Napoli or has Sergeant Napoli gone to get that degree on City time? Chief Warshaw; I really don't know. I'm not familiar. I certainly do remember what you are referring to. I don't remember what the exact provisions were of that agreement. Mr. Carollo: On. City time? Mayor Ferre: I would like for Mr, Manager to know whether or not Sergeant Napoli does or has gore to the university on. City time. If so, who approved it; when it was approved; and if that is going on or has gone on in the past few years by any other police officer. Mr. Dawkins: That is related to the motorgate? I still don't see how you relate your questioning, sir, to our finding out how high it went and how low. Mr. Carollo: Your logic doesn't surprise me, Commissioner Dawkins. Mayor Ferre: Can I get this information, Chief? Mr. Carollo: It is not who laughs first, but who laughs last, Commissioner Dawkins. sl 49 September 25, 1984 Mayor Ferre: Chief Warshaw. Mr. Carollo: I'm not going to lose, Commissioner Dawkins, and we're not talking about this now. I know what you are referring to, sir. Mayor Ferre: Are you finished with your little dialogue now? Mr. Carollo: You could go back with that answer to your friend, Milton Vickers, that I'm not going to lose. Mr. Dawkins: You you've done nothing wrong, then_ you can't lose. Mr. Carollo: Commissioner Dawkins, why don't you put in the record what you are telling me here row, what you told me before, sir? Mr. Dawkins: If you've done something wrong? Mr. Carollo: Can you put in the record what you said a few minutes ago, not what you're saying now, what you told me a few minutes ago? Why don't you put it in the record? Mr. Dawkins: If you know something, you tell it. Mr. Carollo: Why don't you put it in the record, Mr. Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins: You see, Joe, you are so accustomed.... Mr. Carollo: Don't threaten me off the record. 'threaten me or the record. Mr. Dawkins: You are so accustomed to innuendoes and throwing off heat.... Mr. Carollo: No. Mayor Ferre: Can we get back to the.... Mr. Dawkins: ....and what have you, so if you know something, now is the time to say it. Mr. Carollo: Commissioner Dawkins.... Mr. Dawkins: Don't hide behind innuendoes. Mr. Carollo: Commissioner Dawkins, if you are going to threaten me, you threaten me on the record. That's all I will tell you. Mr. Dawkins: If you have something to say, you say it. Mr. Carollo: You threaten me on the record, Commissioner Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins: No, I have no threats. aj�4:9 Mr. Carollo: I would suggest that what you told me just a few seconds ago off the record, you place it on the record. Mr. Dawkins: I suggest you place it on the record, since you are interested in it going on the record. Mr. Carollo: I certainly did, sir. sl 50 September 25, 1984 Mr. Dawkins: All right, then, wo^_der f j:i i Mayor Ferre: Can we get back.... Mr. Dawkins: You win some and you lose some. You just lost me. Mayor Ferre: Are you through, Commissioner Dawkins, with that? Mr. Dawkins: Why are you picking on me? He started it. See, that's the part I don't understand about you, Maurice. Mayor Ferre: Car we continue on this, Commissioner Dawkins, or do you want to keep on this little side discussion.? Mr. Dawkins: It's up to you. Mayor Ferre: I'd like to continue. Mr. Carollo: It's very apparent, Mr. Mayor, that Commissioner Dawkins warts to do everything he can't to derail the inquiries that we are making here today. It's becoming more and more apparent to me why. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Warshaw, continue on question_ on Sergeant Napoli. I want to ask you now, is there any special relationship that you are aware of on Sergeant Napoli between you or anybody else in the Police Department? Chief Warshaw: I'm sure Sergeant Napoli has friends within the Police Department, but I certainly do rot have any special relationship with Sergeant Napoli, no, sir, absolutely not. Mayor Ferre: How about Lieutenant Bradford? Is there any special relationship between you or anybody else in the upper echelons of the departvir_t with Lt. Bradford? Chief Warshaw: I certainly know Lt. Bradford. We are not social friends. We are not close professional associates either. I'm certain_ that he has many friends with whom he has a greater relationship than with me. Mayor Ferre: In the conclusion_ of the reprimands, perhaps you can tell me the five individuals that were reprimanded. Perhaps I should ask Chief Breslow. Chief, with regards to the five individuals in the department that were reprimanded, could you tell us who they were and why they 4 were reprimanded? Chief Herbert Breslow: Two of them have been through the process. Three of them have not. In other words, I have 3 not made a final judgment on three of them. j Mayor Ferre: Who are the two that have been through the process that have been reprimanl ed? Chief Breslow: Putman and Bradford. Mayor Ferre: Putman_ and Bradford. I received an anonymous memorandum today. It reads as follows: "Talk about a sick society. On Wednesday, the ` 19th of September, members of the Miami Police Department had a luncheon at Monty Trainers for Major Emory Putman who was demoted from Colonel for the shooting of a Black mar, Michael Johnson. 'Black people pay taxes and this luncheon was on City time and was attended by City officers41 driving City vehicles and using City gas. This sl 51 September 25, 1984 was luncheon for a Police Colonel that was demoted to Major for his leading role in the cover up of shooting a Black citizen_; and who were the highest ranking police officers in attendance? Assistant Chief Clarence Dixon_ and Deputy Chief Perry Anderson, both Black men. If they are not loyal to the Black community, not loyal to their Chief Breslow, not loyal to the City Commission or to the City Manager; then why were they appointed to these high positions in the Police Department?" The rest of it, and I'll make it part of the public record. The question_ that I have is, I'd like to know exactly what this luncheon for Major Putman was all about, and why he was, at that time, was he being honored? What exactly was going on and is this the way the Police Department reprimands people? Chief Breslow: When Major Putman was demoted, he was also transferred to an administrative assignment. He had a very high reputation in C.I.S. and he did a very good job in C.I.S., and the people there liked him. They had a luncheon for him and they invited Chief Dixon to that luncheon. He had gotten a call to go to that luncheon and he went to that luncheon. Mayor Ferre: The two people that have been reprimanded so far are Major Putman and who is the other person? Chief Breslow: Lt. Bradford. Mayor Ferre: Lt. Bradford, is there going to be a luncheon for Lt. Bradford also? Chief Breslow: The luncheon was made by lower echelon people. It had nothing to do with the staff making a luncheon_ for him, sir. Mayor Ferre: What were the specific charges of Major Putman and Lt. Bradford? Chief Breslow: Basically, neglect of duty; I would have to look up, but basically, it adds up to neglect of duty. Mayor Ferre: And their punishments are? Chief Breslow: Lt. Bradford was giver. a 30—day suspension_. Colonel Putman was demoted to major. Mayor Ferre: When was Major Putman made a major? Chief Breslow: I would have to look up the date. It's approximately... I think it was on. a Friday; a week ago Friday, maybe. Mayor Ferre: I think what I'm trying to say is that in 1980 he was a lieutenant, right? Chief Breslow: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: From lieutenant he went to major? Chief Breslow: From lieutenant he went to captain_; then from captain he went to major. Mayor Ferre: In. 1982. Chief Breslow: I don't know the dates, sir. Mayor Ferre: He was now demoted from colonel to major. z sl 52 September 25, 1984 ;a Chief Breslow: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: What does that entail? Is there a difference in pay? Chief Breslow: It's a difference in pay. It's a difference in status and a difference in fringe. Mayor Ferre: What is the pay of a colonel? Chief Breslow: Depends of the seniority of the colonel. Mayor Ferre: Average... let's take Putman's case in particular. The demotion_ means how much of a demotion was this for now Major Putman? Chief Breslow: It's a one-step decrease in pay, loss of a car, loss of status. Mayor Ferre: No loss in pay? Chief Breslow: Yes, sir, one step decrease in pay. Mayor Ferre: What does that amount to? Chief Breslow: 5% of whatever he was making, approximately. Mayor Ferre: The other three individuals that have been charged, are they... is that because of your not concluding your investigation? Chief Breslow: It has to go through an administrative process up the chain of command. When it reaches the assistant chief's rank, then if they ask for a disciplinary review board hearing, they would get a disciplinary review board hearing. At the conclusion_ of the disciplinary review board hearing, it would be forwarded to me with the chairman's memorandum of the hearing. I would make a final determination. Mayor Ferre: When Putman was promoted from major to colonel, when did that occur? Chief Breslow: Around April of this year, sir. That was Mayor Chief: In April of this year. At that time you were Chief. Chief Breslow: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Was he under investigation? Chief Breslow: The investigation was on going now. The promotion_ from major to colonel was one of title at that time. It was a title change with the same. Mayor Ferre: Well, didn't he get a 5% increase? Didn't he get an automobile? Didn't he get an increase in his prestige? Chief Breslow: The salary was the same. The job was the same. The title was different. We implemented a lower rank of major at that particular time. Mayor Ferre: Well, you just told me that the punishment was demotion.; in demotion he lost a car.... Chief Breslow: That's right, to a lower rank. sl 53 September 25, 1984 .-........ Mayor Ferre: ....he lost 5% of his pay, and it was a loss of prestige. Chief Breslow: Right, yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: I assumed that going from major to colonel, it's just the opposite. You get a 5% increase; you get a car; you get.... Chief Breslow: No. Mayor Ferre: You don't? You just get it on the way down, not on the way up? Chief Breslow: No, we established a new position_. In other words, we established a newer staff rank. We kept the title of major, but elevated those who were majors in title only to colonel. They had no gain in pay, no gain in status, Just a different title. Mayor Ferre: But then when he goes from colonel to major, there is a decrease. Chief Breslow: Decrease, yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: So, in other words, there was a new category of major, and that dropped and it was at a lower basis. Chief Breslow: The old category, the old title of major was reduced in status and pay and the old people who held the rank of major were just given a new title with the same status in pay. Mayor Ferre: Putman had a car as a colonel? Chief Breslow: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Doesn't have a car now? Chief Breslow: Doesn't have a car now. Mayor Ferre: And didn't have a car before as a major? Chief Breslow: No, when he was a major before, he had a car, but the title charged only. Mayor Ferre: I see, I think I understand. Chief Breslow: It's was only a title charge; the fringe and the salary was the same. Mayor Ferre: It is common practice in the Police Department Chief to promote people that are under investigation.? Chief Breslow: This was not considered by me as a promotion. It was just considered a charge in title for all those who were majors. Everybody who was a major was now called culor_el. Mayor Ferre: I see. So you don't think that going from major to colonel is a promotion? Chief Breslow: Now it is, because there is a difference in pay. Mayor Ferre: Ir_ April it wasn't. Chief Breslow: opinion.. In April it was just a title charge in my sl 54 September 25, 1984 Mayor Ferre: It didn't bother you at all that a man who was subsequently reprimanded by you and was under investigation_ in April, would go up from a major to a colonel. Chief Breslow: It was a title charge at that time. No recommendations had come to my attention_ at that point, although I knew everybody involved was being looked at. It was a title change. Mayor Ferre: Were there any other people that were promoted or promoted, but not really promoted, but whose title were charged from lieutenant to captain, from captain to major, from major to colonel, from colonel up, whatever that was being investigated in the last few months? Chief Breslow: No, not to my knowledge. Mayor Ferre: So the only case, since you have been chief of a person_ that was moved by title, promotion_ or otherwise, from major -in this case- to colonel, was Putman. There are no others. Chief Breslow: Not to my knowledge, no. Mayor Ferre: What was the reprimand for Putman_ specifically based on_? Chief Breslow: Basically, the situation was like this. There were three separate investigations in the Michael Johnson. shooting. If you remember, the Michael Johnson_ shooting happened at the time of the 1980 riots. During the 1980 riots we had a approximately 18 homicides that occurred during that riot period within. the City. Michael Johnson was a shooting. All these homicides are investigated by a homicide detail. When the shooting occurred, it was during an accident at Zayre's parking lot. Our police car hit Michael Johnson's car. Shotgun was out the window. It was either discharged deliberately or accidentally. It hit Michael Johnson_ in the arm. His car kept going, ran_ over a person_ named Mr. Ferguson_, injured him, kept going and wound up, I think, against a light pole. Johnson got out of the car and he took off because he thought other officers were shooting at him. Ferguson, didn't know anybody was shot, came to the police and said he was run over by that car. The three officers in the car did not report the shooting, did not make an. accident report at that time. Several days later, I asked ir_vestigators, discovered the car with blood on it against the pole and reported it to homicide. Then the information came down that there was a mar shot by police involved in that car. The homicide lieutenant said it should I.S.'s job to investigate. I.S. lieutenant said it should be homicide's job to investigate. The I.S. lieutenant was, at that time, Putman.. The homicide lieutenant was at that time, Bradford. Finally, Lieutenant Bradford told Sergeant Napoli to call in., get the accident reports and so on and call in to investigate; talk to all the potential people involved. This was done, but it wasn't done to satisfaction, and this was passed back and forth between I.S. and homicide; whose responsibility this was to finish this and they kept this up until December 1980, when it dropped through the cracks and disappeared until a letter was received in approximately March 1982 in the Chief's office saying what's the results of this investigation. The details of the investigation you probably will read in the package that you'll be getting. I will be duplicating it and giving you a picture that's not as accurate. But basically, that's what happened. C.I.S. was given the responsibility again_. Now Putman., who was now a major, was in charge of C.I.S. Lieutenant Murphy was in homicide, I think. Starks was crimes against persons unit. They began sl 55 September 25, 1984 PIN what we refer to as the second Michael Johnson - investigation. The second Michael Johnson investigation, they interviewed practically everybody they could find that might be a witness. They could not get anyone to admit or give them any information that they could substantiate. They got a lot of rumors and innuendoes, and it reached a point where the State Attorney's memorandum of A. Blazer == came in. This stopped the criminal investigation from section_ operation. temporarily. They were going to go into the internal security investigation_. The Edna Buchanan article came about. The investigation was rejuvenated again_ under Chief Warshaw's leadership, with my input and assistance of him. I think he did a fantastic job in bringing this investigation.... Mayor Ferre: Who did that? Chief Breslow: Chief Warshaw and his people, I believe, did a fantastic job in bringing an almost impossible case to a solution in getting ore of the participants, who before denied everything to turn on the others and give information and give State's evidence which permitted us to charge these two others with perjury. I think instead of being up here and receiving a blast for doing a poor job, Chief Warshaw should be commended by this Commission_. We have done a fantastic job in doing this rase. Mayor Ferre: Chief, we haven't concluded anything on this thing yet. What we're trying to get is the exact information as to what occ,irred. I don't think we've come to any conclusions yet. I'd like to ask you, as I read in the newspapers and I saw a copy of a one -page memorandum. There was, in your words a cover-up. Chief Breslow: Definitely, the cover-up was by the three officers in the car. They shot Michael Johnson. They didn't report the accident until three days later, and they did not report the shooting and the fact that they shot Michael Johnson. That was a cover-up, definitely. The officers involved in the investigation, due to the load that they had at that time, had 18 homicides and numerous other problems going on during the 1980 riots, the two units were having a dispute and didn't do their job. They didn't do their jobs, not because of a cover up, but because each felt it was the other's daily work. Mayor Ferre: You also, in that memorandum, as I read it, recommended the two officers be fired. Chief Breslow: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: One was Captain_ Glover. Chief Breslow: I didn't... Let me correct that. I didn't recommend it. The lower people had recommended that. The immediate commander going through the process, in other words, the section commanders of these people have recommended that. Mayor Ferre: The section commander, now let's see who these people are. We're talking about now Captain. Glover and Sgt. Lowe. Chief Breslow: That's correct. Mayor Ferre: Set. Lowe is in the hospital? Chief Breslow: He may or may not be at this time. I don't know. sl 56 September 25, 1984 Mayor Ferre: He has been in the hospital up until very recently. I think he's still in the hospital. Why did the section commander recommend that Sgt. Lowe be dismissed? Chief Breslow: If I discussed this, I could taint my decision_ at a later date, your Honor. Mayor Ferre: I see, all right. Who is the commander? Chief Breslow: Mayor Ferre: For Sgt. Lowe? Yes. Chief Breslow: Colonel For_r_er. . Mayor Ferre: Who is the commander for Capt. Glover? Chief Breslow: At the time, Col. Witt. Mayor Ferre: Chief, there was a meeting, and I just wart to verify this, on September 5th where the decisions were made as to what the penalties would be for the five individuals involved. Were you at that meeting? Chief Breslow: I don't remember specific dates. I met with my Assitar_t Chief. Some of the problems that the Police Department has had when discipline crosses division lines was that one division_ slaps them like with a wet noodle, sort to speak, and another division hangs them. I met with my three assistant chiefs and I said I wart basically consistent in the ball park decisions; I don't want the fact that a person is in one division_ vs. another division to be a big disparity in what they get as a penalty recommendation. Mayor Ferrer Were you involved in the meeting when the disciplinary action was decided? Chief Breslow: No, sir. Mayor Ferre: Perhaps I could ask Chief Warshaw to step back to the mike. Were you at the meeting on September 6th when disciplinary action_ was decided? Chief Warshaw: I don't remember it in terms of the date, Mr. Mayor, but I would certainly would stipulate that there was a meeting. Mayor Ferre: At that meeting there was an attorney representing the City Attorney's office? Mr. Mielke was there. Jack Eads was there. ¢. Chief Warshaw: Oh, O.K. Let me clarify that meeting. I 1 didn't catch that was the meeting you were referring to. There was a meeting at that time just to discuss appropriate { verbage, if the time should come that the employees would opt for different avenues of re -address. It's the best I J, can say without attempting to jeopardize. Mayor Ferre: At that meeting, and I dor't think this would jeopardize, who were the people present? Chief Warshaw: It was myself, the other two assistant chiefs, Chief Breslow, Mr. Mielke, and Mr. Hurtge„. Mayor Ferre: Had the decisions by the section commanders been taken at that point? Or is this prior to the section_ apt°y commander's decisions? t sl 57 September 25, 1984 r - Chief Warshaw: This was, I think, the decisions... I think, I know I'm under oath, and I want to answer it correctly. I'm not certain if the section_ commanders had already done it and whether or not it was at the assistant chief's level. I'm not certain of that. f- Mayor Ferre: Because of the legal nature of both Glover and Sgt. Lowe's case until the chief takes his decision on that, I do have, Mr. Manager, a series of questions that relate to all of this and tie in to the question of Sgt. Napoli and Lt. Bradshaw. Chief Warshaw: Bradford. Mayor Ferre: But I do not think this is an appropriate time for me to pursue this matter because I don't want in any way jeopardize legal action_, but in the future and subsequent to my having read this summary of this matter, I will come back to this area. Mr. Carollo: Excuse me, Assistant Chief Warshaw, what is the full name of your assistant? Mayor Ferre: Wait, out of courtesy to Commissioner Dawkins, who we had a little back and forth, I want to make sure that before, since I am releasing him, he has the next series of questions. Chief Harms, I don't think, at this time that I have anything further to ask you that has come out of this because of the nature of some of these investigations that have not been. con -eluded. I don't think that I'm at liberty really to get into it at this time, so I personally have no other questions. Mr. Dawkins: I yield to Commissioner Carollo, but I too, wish to thank you. I have no further questions of you either. But I still wart to thank you again for taking your time to come down here to see how and sit through this and attempt to help us find out what went wrong and give this department your guidance as how to correct what went wrong to insure that the Police Department continues to serve the citizens of Miami as best as they can. Thank you again_ for coming, Chief. Mr. Carollo: Chief, I may too like to express my gratitude to you for taking your time in coming here today. I will say, for the record that at no time that I believe that you were involved in any kind of cover up here. I think you, leaving your new home in. South Carolina, coming all the way v. to Miami, speaks for itself a lot. Particularly when, all kinds of attempts were made to try to derail you from coming here today and speaking. I just hope that we all learn from history, because one thing that I've learned inlife is ify "i you don't learn from history, history repeats itself. Assistant Chief Warshaw. Mayor Ferre: Excuse me, out of courtesy to Ken Harms, does anybody else have any other questions of.... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, not a question of Chief Harms, but I wart to make sure that goes in sentiments of others that he did take his time to come down here. I wart to be assured, Mr. Gary, that any expenses incurred by him either for travel or for his attorneys who came here to represent him, since he came here at our invitation, I think it is only right that this Commission pay such tab. I would say" to you if you want that in the form of a motion., I would ' offer such. I wanted to make sure that he did this and our invitation should be reimbursed and should not be out of pocket. t sl 58 September 25, 1984 Mayor Ferre: I think you should formalize it. _ Mr. Plummer: I'll offer that in the form of a motion. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption_: MOTION NO. 84-1088 A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ALLOCATE THE NECESSARY DOLLARS IN ORDER TO COVER ALL EXPENSES INCURRED BY KENNETH HARMS AND THE ATTORNEYS WHO REPRESENTED HIM AS THE RESULT OF MR. HARMS' ACQUIESCING TO THE CITY COMMISSION'S REQUEST FOR HIS PRESENCE FOR QUESTIONING IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMMISSION'S INQUIRY INTO MATTERS CONCERNING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion_ was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Mayor Ferre: You didn't expect to get paid for this afternoon_, by the City, I mean? - Mr. Perez: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make public my satisfaction for the presence of our former Chief Ken. Harms. I think that his presence here speaks too much about his credibility and his personal record. I would like to propose today to make a resolution; this doesn't have any legal instruction_, to make a resolution_ recognizing the six years of Ken. Harms as our Police Chief for our department, not as a formal proclamation_. I would like to have it as a resolution signed by all the members of this Commission. Mr. Carollo: I second the motive. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion.? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Perez, who moved its adoption.: MOTION NO. 84-1089 A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION TO FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE KENNETH HARMS IN RECOGNITION OF HIS MANY YEARS OF SERVICE TO THIS COMMUNITY. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote- ; , r sl 59 September 25, 1984 r U 0 AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Mayor Ferre: Thank you very much, Chief, for your presence here today. All right, Mr. Warshaw, I think Commissioner Carollo has some questions. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Warshaw, in the testimony that we heard this afternoon from Chief Harms, was there anything that he said there that you found to be incorrect or inaccurate? Chief Warshaw: Commissioner, in fairness to your question, without going through the absolute fire print, so I can answer your question now, the answer is no, I did not find anything. Mr. Ca:-:,ll:,: Ir_ as far as some of the findings, Assistant Chief Warshaw, I'm not done, sir, I'm sorry. In as far as some of the information that we have been able to develop from the last inquiry and this one here today, we have been able to see how the chair_ of command was structured and how the information_ on the investigation_ and the progress that it was channeled up, and particularly the last several years of it, at least according to the statements of Chief Harms from November of 181 until at least when he left, it was all being channeled to you from the respective commanders from the different units, or approximately around that time. I would have to commend you, if I may use that word, because it certainly seems that not only for someone to have jumped from regular police officer but to Assistant Chief in such an outstanding short period, but you also did quite well in gaining the assignments of the choice and key departments to you. I think that is something for which you should be commended about. But going to some of the areas that I covered last time, it's been established now by your testimony, the testimony that others have made, that internal security, at least from November of 181 and thereafter, whatever information internal security would receive in any of their irvestigatior_s, it would be channeled to you through whomever the commander of internal security would be at that time. Chief Warshaw: It certainly should be, yes, sir. Mr. Carollo: Again, at the last inquiry you stated that if during the course of any investigation_, any information would have beer, gotten by any of our investigators in S.I.U., which also the commander of that units reports to you just like internal security, if in the course of any investigation., any information would have fallen through the hands of our Miami Police Investigators, that would have brought out the names of the individuals, companies, institutions that might have been involved in allegations of laundering drug monies, and if that investigation would have received this information that associated an individual, a company, an institution that they had received information allegations that were involving the laundering of drug monies and these people were associated in one way or another, whether in business, close friendships, or a combination of both, that the normal procedure would have been for either for our department to have investigated that or for our department to have sent that to another appropriate agency? Is that correct again.? sl 60 September 25, 1984 Chief Warshaw: That is generally correct, yes, sir. Mr. Carollo: Now, again, let's say that that might have happened at least in one instance. If indeed, it did happened in one instance, that during the course of an investigation our department derived information_ such as 41 that, would it have surprised you if that would not have been addressed to you or sent to an appropriate agency to be investigated or at least made aware of? Chief Warshaw: Commissioner, generally speaking, the answer is yes; but I think it's important that we clarify or at least it be clarified for me.... Mr. Carollo: I'm only going through the previous answers that you gave me. Chief Warshaw: No, I understand and I want to answer your question, when we get into the area of information_, and you, as a former police officer yourself, know that information_ can come in many different packages. What is rumor in the men's room may not be information_. What comes in the course and conduct of an, official police report would be very much, or more so fit the definition_. Mr. Carollo: Let me say this. What I'm referring to is a lithe more than rumors in the men's room. Chief Warshaw: O.K. Mr. Carollo: What I'm referring to are statements that have been made under oath by a law enforcement officer. So it goes much more beyond than rumors in the men's room or in the ladies' room, Assistant Chief Warshaw. L AV Chief Warshaw: I understand that. To answer your question, I would have to say that if the Police Department developed, -_ had information_ and the information was directed to the proper channels and that information was put through an - evaluation evaluation process where it warranted scrutiny, yes, it should be referred. Mr. Carollo: Did, at any point in time, during the last four years did you receive any kind of information_ from the special investigative unit, either the commander or any other officer there, that anyone in. this City Administration was associated with individuals or institutions or companies = • that they had had information_ on., information that apparently they felt was credible, that a member of this Administration_ was associated with either an institution, a`'; company, or an individual involved in the laundering of drug j monies? Chief Warshaw: I have no specific recollection of that, no, 4 . sir. Mayor Ferre: I don't have too many more questions. Mr. Carollo: I think one of the things that up to now we've beer able to establish is it's been very important to this case the chair_ of command, the people that have been A responsible in this Johnson incident, we have been able to at least get a direction where the Commission should look at and at the same time I think we've through that process I've been able to get a pretty good insight of how present day Miami Police is functioning, how the department is working, some of the people that we have, I guess some of the acceptable standards now for our department. For instance, we've been able to see how presently today it is acceptable' t f: Yam' sl 61 September 25, 1984 u: rcfu ""ham. -,. __ ,-. r„ '._: • . - ., ,. -: ;.::' � ;• to have someone that was formerly a sergeant in the scope of a couple of months, be promoted to major and colonel, and that an arrest for gambling is really irrelevant, when apparently at other times it was.... Mr. Dawkins: You know, Mr. Mayor, I still have to say.... Mr. Carollo: Commissioner Dawkins, I haven't interrupted you, sir. Mr. Dawkins: I don't see how this is relevant. Mr. Carollo: I have not interrupted you. Mr. Dawkins: I do not see how this is relevant. Mr. Carollo: I wish to have the opportunity.... Mr. Dawkins: I do not see how this is relevant to a cover- up. Whether somebody is selling drugs... I don't see it. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Dawkins, that's because maybe you're blind, sir. At least you want to be blind to the things that you wart to be blind. Mr. Dawkins: I don't see it, Mr. Mayor. You are the Chairman. Mayor Ferre: I am the Chairperson_. I am not going to muzzle anybody from asking any questions they want to ask. Mr. Carollo: We've been able to see, maybe I'm hitting too close to home. Mr. Dawkins: I still say I don't see that is relevant. Mayor Ferre: I tell you what, you wart to make it simple for you? I'll make it very simple for you. I move Commissioner, I pass the gavel to you. Lucia, the intent of the resolution_ that was previously passed is not satisfactory to me. I move that this Commission institute itself as a board of inquiry on any issue dealing with the Police Department. Mr. Carollo: I second the motion, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Perez: Any discussion? Mr. Dawkins: Under discussion_, can we do that now and continue this or do you have to do it.... Mayor Ferre: Ah.... Mr. Dawkins: Wait a minute. Are you the City Attorney too? Mayor Ferre: Yes. Mr. Dawkins: Jesus Christ, you know, you've been the Mayor, you are the Chairperson., now you are the City Attorney, Jesus Christ! Madam City Attorney, can you I mean legally.... H-. Carollo: It's been on for a long time more than one way. Mr. Dawkins: Let me compose myself so I don't answer my colleague on my right. Mr. Carollo: Maybe you can greaten_ me on the record, like you did off the record with Milton Vickers again, Commissioner. 510 sl 62 September 25, 1984 Mr. Dawkins: You win some, you lose some. As I was saying, I am asking you Madam City Attorney, this inquiry was called to find out if there was a cover-up of the Michael Johnson incident, how high up it went and whom was involved. Can you legally... I mean you can legally expand it, but don't you have to conclude one before you expand into the other? Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Commissioner, the Charter Section 14 of the Code provides that you can form yourselves as a board of inquiry to inquire as to any matter. Therefore, I'd say that by rule of three of this Commission you can expand your inquiry to any matter. Mr. Dawkins: Thank you. Mayor Ferre: I call the question. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, I think all of us would - hope that we can come to some conclusions in this matter. _ In fact would be beneficial as the or. -sought, which I voted for, to bring about better rules and regulations as what we are limited in doing as to setting policy. Mayor Ferre: I agree with that, Commissioner. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, for everyone's benefit, the sooner these investigations are over,.... Mayor Ferre: I agree with that too. Mr. Plummer: ....the better for all. Mayor Ferre: I agree with both those statements. = Mr. Plummer: Mr . Mayor , I. would have to vote against your = motion_ only because you opened the total pandora's box by saying any matter relating to the Police Department. Mayor Ferre: That is correct. Mr. Plummer: If you would be in scope, Mr. Mayor , to tell me that we are not going to be investigating every ticket that a policeman_ wrote or are we going to investigate every murder, which is the scope. Mayor Ferre: I don't think you know, I'm pretty sure you know that's not the intention_. Mr. Plummer: All right, but Mr. Mayor, I think we have to have some perimeters. Mayor Ferre: Commissioner, I would like to remind you that in. 1974, when we constituted ourselves as a board of inquiry, it was without limitation_. Now in. the wisdom of; our City Attorney, she took the motion, which she will go back and.... t „7 Mr. Plummer: Of which I have a copy. s Mayor Ferre: The motion was general in. nature. She made it specific. That's appropriate; I have no problems with that. T,{ But so that we can stop the bickering here as to whether or =_ r not a member of the Commission_ has the right to ask a question_, I thought that perhaps I would widen the scope of it, so that there would be no legal questions as to whether or not Commissioner Carollo could ask any questions he rr wants. sl 63 September 25, 1984 �, WN Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I 1lave absolutely no problem with Commissioner Carollo asking questions. He has that right as a Commissioner. And I would defend that right. Mayor Ferre: Precisely, that's exactly the point. Mr. Plummer: If you make a motion_ to the effect that Commissioner Carollo have the right to have the floor and ask all the questions he wants.... Mayor Ferre: You don't reed a motion for that. I can rule on that without a motion_. Mr . Plummer : Mr. Mayor, I cannot in good cor_sel.en_ce vote for a motion_ that opens totally, with no limitatiois.... Mr. Carollo: Commissioner Plummer, if you think that I'm going to take a long time, so you won't be bored, I'll give you some nail clippers so you car_ cut your rails or do something to kill some time. Mayor Ferre: Is there further discussion.? Mr. Dawkins: We have further discussion. I too am voting against motion_, not because I'm against the motion_, but as I said ever since we sat here, we came here under the pretense of finding out if there was a cover-up, how high the cover- up went, and how to prevent it. Now, under the disguise of this, we are going to vote on whether we are to expand this, which is...everybody has a right up here to vote...expand this to cover all police matters. At another time, I could say yes. But in all fairness to the community, I still say that the Michael Johnson_ incident should be brought to a head now and today and if we want to go on into something else, I mean., that's perfectly right. But we owe it to the public after two days of saying whether there was a cover- up, if there was not a cover-up, and what we are going to do about it. Mayor Ferre: I call the question.. The following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre, who moved its adoption_: MOTION NO. 84-1090 A MOTION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION CONSTITUTING ITSELF AS A BOARD OF INQUIRY INTO ANY MATTERS DEALING WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion_ was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissiorerr Joe Carollo Commissioner Demetrio Perez Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: Commissioner Miller A.Dawkins Commissioner J.L. Plummer ABSENT: None. ON ROLL CALL: r.Plummer: For the reasons stipulated, I vote no. Mr. Perez: In order to rot deny the opportunity to the people of Miami to clarify any doubts about the credibility sl 64 September 25, 1984 ,r of our Police Department, I support this motion_ and I vote yes. Mayor Ferre: Now, Commissioner Carollo, you are at liberty -you were at liberty before in my opinion_- but now �- so that there is no question on the legal technicality, I have no intention_ or no interest at this time, to get into 1 any other matter other than the Johnson. matter. However, I don't wart on a technicality for somebody to start on a - petty basis picking on issues that may or may not be related and at this point are not determined. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I thank you for the motion that you made and the opportunity that I've been giver_. It's really a shame when in a country such as ours that has the freedom that no other country in, the world has... I have seen individuals in the City of Miami squirming and trying every which way they can to prevent others from talking. There is a big charade in trying to prevent Mike Cosgrove from speaking. Then., there was a big stone wall trying to prevent Chief Harms from speaking, until finally there was no other choice. Now, and particularly since the last inquiry that we had, the powers behind some people in this City, individuals that in my personal opinion really are the movers and shakers in the City of Miami, are now trying to - prevent me from speaking. I understand that I'm getting too close to areas that some here do not wart to have revealed -_ and that possibly at some point in time in the rear future, because of information that might come out of this or some other areas, there might even be some Federal Grand Jury investigations. I personally don't give a hoot, since how far I have to stick my neck out and the personal consequence that I might have to suffer. My colleague here can threaten_ me all he wants with his bossom buddy, Mr. Vickers. The Manager can direct the security chief of the Sunshine State Bank all he warts to go around my house and check to see where I'm at and put a little cat -and -mouse surveillance on me. People can make all the threatening phone calls they want against me, but the truth in certain matters is finally going to come out. I don't care, as I stated before, what personal loss I might have to incur in this. This City of Miami cannot go on any longer the way it is being run. You cannot have the double standard that we have in this City any longer. Mayor Ferre: Commissioner, I have some other questions of Mr. Webber in particular before we conclude. Mr. Carollo: All right, the point I was making before was that through the course of this inquiry, we have found some very interesting things that you probably won't find in any other city police department in the country, I dare say. We've seen how an individual who was just a regular police officer that at one time, when he was just a regular police officer, his captain recommended.. or a captain in one of the shifts recommended that he be fired. This individual just jumped every rank available and made the rank of assistant police chief. That's like a private in the army. Say Golmer Pyle was a private, all of a sudden being named a general; it's unheard of. We have seen how a colonel in. the Miami Police Department, that was just a sergeant not long ago, was promoted within, a couple of months' time to major, then to colonel, and an arrest record for gambling that he had is acceptable, but I guess when you see other things, you can understand how things like that can be acceptable. Oh, yes, but I'm told that there were no convictions. Well, that is interesting. We see how a Miami Police Department } officer that was accused by his own father, in fact, his own. sl 65 September 25, 1984 s ` father called another police department, Dade County Police to ask them to arrest his son_ that he alleged had been using cocaine because the boy had, according to his father, had been using cocaine and was driving the car in suicidal tendencies. Well, the father of the boy happens to be a colonel of the Miami Police Department. Who do you believe? But, I was told by the Chief of Police, 110h, no, the father of the colonel was wrong. The young police officer was actually high on alcohol." Well, he's still in the Miami Police Department, interesting. _ Mayor Ferre: Mr. Paul Webber, as you know the people that have testified here in the past have been asked to go under oath voluntarily. If you will, it's all right; if you don't, that's all right too. Nobody has coerced you or threatened you one way or the other. Is that correct? Mr. Paul Webber: No. Mrs. Hirai: Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly that the evidence you are about to give in this matter will be the truth, so help you God? Mr. Webber: I do. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Webber, you work for the City of Miami? Mr. Webber: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: In. what capacity do you work. Mr. Webber: At this time, I'm the claim supervisor. I work out of risk management. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Webber, what were you doing in 1980? You were with the City of Miami in 1980? Mr. Webber: Yes, sir, I came here.... Mayor Ferre: What was your capacity then_? Mr. Webber: Depending on what the Deputy City Attorney called me at the time, I could have been the adjuster, the legal irvestigator, the working supervisor, whatever he needed, I was there to do. Mayor Ferre: Were you involved in the Michael Johnson claim when it was instituted in. August 18, 1983? A law suit was filed at that time. Were you involved at any time in the - last four and half years in. this Michael Johnson case? Mr. Webber: I knew of its existence, yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: You have never been an investigator or involved with, dealt with, wrote memorandums on, or involved _. yourself it the Michael Johnson. case? Mr. Webber: I have written a couple of memos. We do have a file on it. Mayor Ferre: To the best of your recollection, when was the first memo that you wrote on this? How far back do you go, is the question. I'm trying to.... '7 Mr. Webber: Would you like a specific date? Mayor Ferre: General, it doesn't have to be specific. If ,a you have a specific, that's better, but general will be fire. I'm just trying to determine when. you first became involved in this. == �t fi sl 66 September 25, 1984 JE _ s erN Mr. Webber: We received a letter from an attorney Shenberg on June 20, 1980. Mayor Ferre: That informed you that Mr. Shenberg was _ representing Michael Johnson. f Mr. Webber: That is correct. Mayor Ferre: Was it subsequent to that you investigated with the attorneys? Mr. Webber: I did not. It was assigned to another investigator. Mayor Ferre: Who was it assigned to? Mr. Webber: To Enrique Sanchez. Mayor Ferre: Were you involved subsequently to Mr. Sanchez's investigation_ in any way? Mr. Webber: Off and on. Mayor Ferre: Off and on, that means it came to your attention_? Did Mr. Sanchez report to you, or did you work in conjunction with him? Mr. Webber: He would usually report to me and I would report to.... Mayor Ferre: Were the investigative reports to you then, did you at any time meet with any of the attorneys? Mr. Webber: I don't have any recollection as to meeting with any of the attorneys at that time. Mayor Ferre: Did you meet with any representatives of Mr. Michael Johnson? Mr. Webber: No. Mayor Ferre: Did you meet with the Police Department to review the internal investigation? Mr. Webber: Not directly, that was done by memo. Mayor Ferre: Ir_ your file, was there mention_ at any time of .s� a cover-up? �x Mr. Webber: None. Mayor Ferre: You do not recall at any time any mention specifically of any thought within_ the Police Department that there might be a cover-up of the Johnson case. Mr. Webber: None what -so -ever with our contact. < Mayor Ferre: Are you aware of any other information that might be pertinent to this inquiry regarding the Johnson f shooting. Mr. Webber: Just our basic file content, which is minimal, at most. Mayor Ferre: I have no further questions at this time. Does anybody else? Mr. Plummer: yes, sir, I have one question, Mr. Mayor, of Chief Breslow. I'm assuming I'm asking of the right party. sl 67 September 25, 1984 If you don't know, I'm sure, you'll indicate. The one question that I have not heard come out of this inquiry, or answer, did the State Attorney's office -we know that they closed the inquiry the first time in April of '83. We know that in August of 183 they re -opened the inquiry or the investigation. What I need to know from you or whomever can T' answer, did the State Attorney investigate to the best of your knowledge the cover-up aspect of this case? Chief Breslow: I believe they did. However, stepped out and he was involved directly. I want to confirm it with him. Mayor Ferre: Madam City Attorney, is it appropriate for members of the City Commission to look at the file from the insurance investigation_ that is in your possession_, the file that Mr. Paul Webber....? Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: ....was referring to. Do you have any objections? Mrs. Dougherty: No, sir. Mayor Ferre: I'm talking about Mr. Dunlap and Mr. Webber and the irternal... Is there any problem in looking through � that file? Do you have any objections to that, Mr. Manager? Mr. Gary: No, sir. Mayor Ferre: I think it is appropriate, since as far as I'm concerned, I think maybe Mike Cosgrove may shed some additional light, I don't know that he can or he can't. But since he did not wish to testify on Friday and will testify beyond October 15thhe Police Department, City administration_ or Commission and will testify beyond October 15th and since I've got some questions that deal with both Lowe and Glover, but I don't = want to get into that until those investigations are concluded, and since there is a lot of material that we have read, and the matters are technical in these nature, and since it is my opinion_ that both the City Attorney, since `< the City Attorney's office has to defend the City in a civil case that is soon forthcoming, we may have to be involved in helping in a criminal case that will also start two cases _ and since the labor attorney for the City, I think has some internal complications because of the several clients that he has in this particular case, and because of the n sensitivity of it, I would rot want to put him in the position,. I think that this legislative body has got to do like other legislative bodies, and that is to retain outside counsel to look into this matter for us in a legal point of view, and I would like to, at this time make a motion_ that Lucia Allen be instructed to recommend somebody to us, and I specifically will proffer the name of a firm after ...°` should the motion_ pass. Mr. Carollo: At least, Mr. Mayor, if we could recommend say s three firms to us. Mayor Ferre: All right, and I would so move at this time. � 4 { sl 68 September 25, 1984 ell Mr. Carollo: Second the motion. Mayor Ferre: Let me, under discussion make it very specific. I would like to proffer the firm of McMaster, Forman_ and Miller, to be the attorneys at law and that Lucia Dougherty come back and specifically with the recommendation and if it is acceptable to her, since we will not be meeting until October 11th, that if she could come to a reasonable conclusion in a matter that is acceptable and reasonable ... I am sorry, it is October 10th, so as not to lose two weeks, that if she is satisfied with the arrangements, that she could conclude and do it verbally with the members of the Commission., so that we will of course authorize the final form on October 10th, but so as not to lose these next two weeks that Counsel be retained specifically. I might say that this law firm of three individuals have had extensive experience at both the U. S. Attorney level and at the State Attorney level in criminal and other types of investigations and specialize in this specific field, and so I have amended my motion. Mr. Perez: Do we have a second on the motion? Mr. Carollo: I second the motion. Mr. Perez: Do we have any other comments? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Mayor Ferre, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 84-1091 A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO RETAIN OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY COMMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH ITS INQUIRY INTO MATTERS CONCERNING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT; SPECIFICALLY SUBMITTING THE NAME OF THE LAW FIRM OF McMASTER, FORMAN & MILLER; FURTHER REQUESTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO COME BACK WITH A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION; FURTHER STIPULATING THAT IF THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN COME TO A REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE CONCLUSION AND IS SATISFIED WITH THE ARRANGEMENTS SHE CAN CONCLUDE, TO DRAFT THE APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION SO THAT THE CITY COMMISSION CAN FORMALLY VOTE ON IT. Upon_ being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, if I may make a brief request ... Mayor Ferre: All right, I have one other person_ that I did want ... and I said I didn't want ... I have one more question. sl 69 September 25, 1984 Mr. Carollo: If I can make a brief request, Mr. Mayor, before we here from Mr. Cosgrove, I would like to hear and have the time to study their answers and so on from several other people, for instance, these people do not fall under the police officers bill -of --rights, therefore, I believe they car_ be subpoenaed, if they do not want to come otherwise. The people that I am referring to, and maybe your Aide can confirm to me if they were invited, are Vicky Suarez, the Secretary to Chief Breslow; Sara, the Secretary or Aide to Assistant Chief Warshaw; and Maria Padrajo. Mayor Ferre: They were all extended invitations to appear. Mr. Carollo: Well, r_or_e of them are sworn police officers; therefore I do not believe that they come under the police officers bill -of -rights; therefore I believe they car_ be subpoenaed. Mayor Ferre: That is correct. Mr. Carollo: And what I would like to request, Mr. Mayor, is that possibly we meet a week from today - next Tuesday, and have the these three persons subpoenaed. I don't think it should be too long of a meeting. Mayor Ferre: I have no objections to that except Commissioner, there may be some members of the Commission that won't be here. Let's see my own ... I don't know whether ... you are going tomorrow? When are you going to be back? Commissioner Perez is rot going to be here. Mr. Carollo: Okay, will you be here on Monday? That will be Monday, the 1st, or Tuesday the 2nd. Mr. Dawkins: I won't be here the 2rd or the 3rd. Mr. Carollo: Okay, Commissioner Dawkins can be here on the 1st, Monday, the 1st. Mr. Plummer: Excuse roe - I will not be returning to the City until Monday, the 1st until about 5:00 P.M. in the afternoon.. Mr. Carollo: That might be a good time if the others can be here. The 1st is acceptable to Commissioner Dawkins and Commissioner Plummer. Mr. Plummer: After 5:00 P.M. o'clock on Monday right. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) I will be back in on 5:00 Mr. Dawkins: Well, I will tell you what - why not adjust it to the 2nd. I will try and adjust it to the 2nd because ... Mayor Ferre: If we can, we will meet on the 2nd. Now, does that conclude ...? I've got a question. Mr. Plummer: Mr Mayor, I had asked a question for which I was waiting my answer. Mayor Ferre: Is the answer available row? Chief Breslow: I am advised that the State Attorney's office looked into the coverup, and they found the coverup at the lower, lowest levels, which I brought out earlier. Mr. Plummer: Thank you. sir. sl 70 September 25, 1984 111� /1*_1 Mayor Ferre: All right, Mayor Fleming, would you step up for a moment, sir? Would you voluntarily go under oath? Major William Fleming: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Without any coercion or influencing of any kind? Major Fleming: Yes. Ms. Hirai: Would you raise your right hard, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about to give in this matter will be the truth, so help you God? Major Fleming: I do. Mayor Ferre: Major Fleming, as I understand it, you are an asaistar_t to the Police Chief? You work in that capacity. Major Fleming: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: You heard that there are several people that are not present here that were asked voluntarily to come. You heard me ask Chief Warshaw and you heard me ask Chief Breslow and others whether or not they were involved in specifically informing individuals that they didn't have to come, or advising them that they shouldn't come, and I wart to ask the same question of you. Did you at any time tell any police officer or any civilian connected in this that we invited to come here to answer questions not to come? Major Fleming: No, I did not. Mayor Ferre: You did not? Did you at any time specifically speak in your discussions with Major Starks and did you tell Major Starks that he did rot have to come here? Msjor Fleming: No, sir. Mayor Ferre: You never mentioned the subject to Major Starks, you never discussed it with Major Starks, the matter of the Commission's invitation,? Major Fleming: He had called me and told me that he had received this invitation and he asked me if I had to go, and I said "That is strictly up to you". Mayor Ferre: Thank you. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I ask a question., since this was placed before all of us before we arrived here - I am assuming everybody got a copy of this. What does it mean? I dorlt understand, other than it is an affidavit who is making all kinds of accusations. Does it relate to the Michael Johnson. case? Ms. Hirai: An elder gentlemen came to our office, Commissioner, and asked us that +e distribute that to you, with no further explanation. Mr. Plummer: Well, my question is, is whether or not this is to be kept in this file as part of this investigation? No one has brought it out, and I am just asking, what is it all about? (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENT) Mr. Plummer: All right. ;aa sl 71 September 25, 1984 Mayor Ferre: All right, I don't know - Howard, did we have some other issues that were non -related to this that you were going to pass? Lucia, do you remember what they were that we said we would deal with today? There are some resolutions or ordinances on second reading. One was on cable television. Mrs. Dougherty: We passed that one on first reading so you do not have to do it today. Mayor Ferre: We do not have to do it today. Mrs. Dougherty: Because you did not take up the budget, nor did you have to continue the budget to today, that is why you passed on first reading the cable ordinance. Mayor Ferre: Okay, then we have nothing before us at this time. Is there a motion_ to adjourn.? Mr. Dawkins: Before we adjourn, Mr. Mayor ... Madam City Attorney, I wish you would pull the records, and Commissioner Carollo said that I threatened him with Milton. Vickers, and he said it twice. If the record reflect such a statement, I want you send that record to the State Attorney's office, and have the State Attorney investigate that I did such a thing and take any appropriate action. Thank you. Mr. Carollo: It is as good idea, Commissioner Dawkins. Mayor Ferre: All right, are we finished, now? We stand adjourned. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Commission., on motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 4:41 P.M. MAURICE A. FERRE Mayor ATTEST: RALPH G. ONGIE City Clerk MATTY HIRAI Assistant City Clerk NOTE: STATEMENT AFTER ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Carollo: I am glad that the Commissioner, for the record, made that statement after he was informed that I requested copies of what was said and taped. Id 72 September 25, 1984 ,. e pq AIN m I". AM[ OCUM.,NT INDEX DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION AUTHORIZF./DIRECT HOWARD V. GARY, AS CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF A CITY AN AGREEMENT BETWE KENNETH I. HAFJIS AND THE CITY OF MIAMI PROVIDING FOP REIMBURSEMENT TO KENNETH I. HARMS BY THE CITY IN THE EVENT OF A BREACH BY HA.,ZIS FOR EXISTING AGREEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF HIS APPEARANCE BE- FORE THE CITY C=IISSION REGARDING POLICE-. DEPART- MENT'S INVESTIGATION OF THE MICHAEL JOIINSON CASE. MEETING DATE: SPTEMBEP. 25, 1984 - COMMISSION RETRIEVAL ACTION AND CODE NO. d-