The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM-84-1083DW—an officer ull the shut rigger? fs P If Now there are accusations of ta:F ups and State Attorney Janet Reno will not discuss t Her staff, she says, also still is roves- T Probe seeks the answer talk of a p construers, side r side at the scene, fail the matter. tigating. Reno's deputy chief assist - in a 1990 riot shooting. to recollect the same events. One swears he he That is not what Abe months ad ast heard no gunshots; an officer with him says t to otiilimitati limitations hce ther. ex - declar d that By By EDNA BUCHANAN heard about 10 gunshots.pired. The investigation lay dormant far more than No one Johnson nor for bfil ngrfalse reports, he uerardsufflWrit" Somebody shot Michael Johnson. a year. "I lust want to know, will f ever know who Michael wrote.a final memo, April 15, 1983, Laeser told He says it was a Miami policeman. Police say it was a Miami policeman. shot me?" Johnson, 27, asked Friday. lawyers, Bruce J. Scheinberg and Thom• police n remains unknown how, or by wham, And under oath, some officers even say that "itis knowledge who shot Michael His federal lawsuit against the as G. Sherman, filed,.Officer •'Officer John Doe" 10 days Johnson was shot. "We have no option but to dose out the in- it common Johnson." during the turmoil of the 1980 City of Miami and ago, charging that police violated his civil rights, vestigation ... " do not accept that." Reno said last week. It occurred Miami riots and now, more than three years then engineered a cover-up. Miami Police Chief Kenneth Harms on Friday "I want further work done on it." "Other will be explored when BATTLE VAUGHAN /Miami Herald Staff later, the Michael Johnson case is becoming an issue of Michael within the Miami Police De Launched a new criminal investigation —into in the case. avenues" Michael Johnson: Looking for Laeser returns from vacation Monday said ugly partment. disappeared. A document vanished. the possibility of a police conspiracy We are not finished with this case by any Harms. please turn to SHOOT / 24A answers. Evidence Officers quit. No one was ever charged. stretch of the imagination," said ��3 24A The Miami Heald / Sunday, Aug. 28,1983 s SHOOT / From IA George Yoss, Reno's chief assistant. Johnson was shot on one of the most chaotic days in the history of Miami: Sunday, May 18, 1980, the first full day of the McDuffie riots. The riots errupted after the ac- quittal of Metro police officers on charges of fatally beating Arthur McDuffie. Police faked an accident report after a motorcyle chase. Before the rage ended, 18 persons died and damage exceeded $100 million. This account of the Michael John- son case is based primarily on docu- ments. statements, and reports in Miami police files. At 5 p.m. that Sunday, hundreds of blacks were looting a Zayre's and a Grand Union supermarket in a shopping center at NW 12th Ave- nue and 54th Street. Miami police strategy: retake the stores from the looters. Carloads of riot -garbed police de- scended on the shopping center on signal. K-9 officers converged from one direction. Motorcycle officers, riding in squad cars, came from an- other. Arriving police fired in the air, looters ran, fleeing cars crashed. One officer recalls it as "a demoli- tion derby." Driving across the parking lot in his white Ford LTD was Michael Johnson, then 24. He was not a looter, he says. Wit- nesses' accounts appear to confirm his claim. Johnson, then a construction worker, was en route to pick up his wife and was caught in riot -choked traffic, he said. Trying to shortcut to NW Seventh Avenue, he drove across the shopping center. It was an unfortunate decision. Leading the convoy of motormen Into the lot was Patrol Car 242. Of- ficers John Dees, then 29, Kenneth W. Kemp, 31, and George Roschel, 30, acknowledge that they were in the car. Other officers say that another man, Sgt. Norris Lowe, 44, the lead- er of the operation, was also in Car 242. In fact, they say, he was driv- ing it. Lowe, a popular. 25-year police veteran, cannot recall what patrol car he rode in that violent after- noon, he says, but he is certain it was not Car 242. Walking down an alley east of the Grand Union was John Fergu- son, then 26. He was no looter. He had stepped off a jitney and was trying to make his way home. He had promised his worried mother he would be there by 6 p.m. He did not make it. He saw Johnson's car approach- ing east through the parking lot, he said. He saw the patrol cars close in. It appeared as through a squad car was trying to force Johnson's LTD down the alley where he was walking, Ferguson said. The police car forced Johnson into a right turn, he said. In doing so, the cars collided. Johnson said he was driving 10 to 20 miles an hour. "The police car cut me off and hit my car. Their door was next to my door. Then they shot me." Four white policemen were in the car, he said. One pointed a shotgun at him and pulled the trigger, he said. They wore riot helmets with face shields. He cannot identify them. Johnson was shot through the upper left bicep and the right fore- arm. The bones in his right arm were shattered. In the months to come surgeons would graft sections of his hip bones to his arm. Held to- gether by pins, the wound would reopen. He faces further surgery. After he was shotgunned, John- son's LTD careened down the alley. Ferguson saw the big car coming. He had no place to run. The car struck him, hurled him up onto the hood, and carried him. Seconds be- fore it smashed into a telegraph pole — 70 or 80 yards from the original collision, witnesses say Ferguson leaped off, probably sav- ing his life. Johnson put the car into park and stumbled out, dazed and bleeding. He needed help. No one came to his aid. He saw a white policeman standing on NW llth Avenue, he said, shooting at cars. "Something told me not to call that policeman." he said. He ran for his life. Taken to hospital Muriel Calhoun, 44, standing on the corner and watching the loot- ing, saw police arrive, heard gun- fire and saw hundreds of people running. As she ran home she saw a white car hit a pole, saw the driver jump out and run east on 52nd Street. Veronica Level saw Johnson stagger and fall in front of her home. James Washington, 20, a neighbcu._uw.aLto him. "The police just shot me," John- son said. Joanne Thomas, 29, saw Johnson fall. She went home and got her car. Several witnesses, including a 74-year-old woman, helped lift the Injured man Into the car. They drove to Jackson Memorial Hospital and left Johnson at the emergency room. Ferguson, the stunned and In- jured pedestrian, was rounded up with a number of looters. Police, about to handcuff him, saw that his arm was fractured. He shared an ambulance to Jack- son with Police Lt. Larry Bankert, who was shot in the foot, acciden- tally, by another policeman. That night at Zayre's, police took spray cans and painted the words "looter" and "thief" on cars left in the tot. Mayor Maurice Ferre called the vandals "bums." Investigation begins On May 20, Internal Security Sgt. William Berger found Johnson's LTD, still resting against the pole. There were bullet holes and blood in the car. The Ncense tag was gone. Police found a telephone num- ber among personal papers in the trunk. Alvin Miller, 12, answered the call. He said the LTD belonged to Michael Johnson, his stepfather, hurt in the riot and hospitalized. Homicide Detective Edward Hanek found Johnson at the hospi- tal. Johnson said police shot. him. The detective issued Johnson traffic tickets, for careless driving and no license. The charges were later dropped when no police officer showed up in court. From his hospital bed, Johnson asked a cousin to retrieve the keys from the ignition of the LTD. He did not. According to Johnson, a police- man took the keys from the car, tossed them onto the Grand Union roof and ordered his cousin to leave. On May 23. John Ferguson limped Into police headquarters. He reported that he had been hit by a white Ford moments after it collid- ed with a police car at Zayre's. He wanted to press charges against the driver who nearly killed him. Investigators linked the Inci- dents. Homicide Detectives Hanek and Sgt. Richard Napoli began to Inves- tigate the shooting. Lab reports confirmed that eight lead f `Agments recovered were consistent J,With 00 buckshot and that the bloqd inside the LTD and on the front g Ile was human. 84-108c 84-1084 84-1083 � w ,& -- 411. w's wit MURRAY SILL / Miami Herald Staff Cars, spray -painted by Miami city police, sit in this May 19, 1980, photo of the Zayre's parking lot. They Interviewed members of the motor squad. They examined the accident re- port. It was dated May 20. A stamp reflects that it was filed on May 25. Officer Kenneth W. Kemp, a pas- eenger in Car 242, wrote the report. He called the accident a hit-and- run. lie put the time at 5:25 p.m. May 18 and the place at NW Ilth Avenue and 53rd Street, not the shopping center parking lot. He listed three -p not four — oc- cupants of tsar 242: passengers Kemp and Roschel and the driver, John Dees. Jurisdictional question The homicide detectives never finished their investigation. Their supervisor, Lt. Lane Bradford, in- structed them to turn all their files over to the department's Internal Security Unit. "There was a hassle over who was going to handle the case, homi- cide or internal security," recalls Hanek, now retired. "Who had ju- risdiction, who had more authority? We went to the State Attorney's of- fice. They just dropped it. "I was told to hand over every- thing I had to internal security. I just did as I was told. I don't know what they did with it." What internal security investiga- tors did'with it, it appears, was al- most notiling. Harms says "a reverse jurisdic- t tional dispute" caused the investi- gation to fall into "sort of a bureau- cratic limbo." The investigation lay dormant for 15 months. Internal Security Lt. James Wal- ton says that his detectives do not investigate such a case until a homi- cide probe is finished. And, of course, the homicide in- vestigation had never been finished, because the detectives were told to turn it over to internal security. Michael Johnson visted police headquarters several times to find out what what was happening in his case and "get things straight- ened out," his attorney Scheinberg said. "He never got a legitimate re- sponse." Unable to work construction be- cause of his injuries, he landed a job as a maintenance man. Case is reactivated In the spring of 1982, attorney Scheinberg informed the city that he represented Johnson and that he wanted the results of their investi- gation. Suddenly, the case sprang back to life. Lt. Robert Murphy and Captain William Starks, then In charge of homicide, heard about the case for the first time and were told "of the need for them to complete the in- vestigation." Murphy assigned Sgt. Ernest Vi- 84-1084 Wan and Detective Ronald Ilhardt of the "Cold Case Squad." They interviewed witnesses, viewed riot films and tapes. tracked down former officers and took statements. They learned that the only police at the shopping center at the time of the incident were hgiami officers. The National Guard had not yet been activated. No one other than police was observed with shotguns. The police photos of Johnson's wrecked car, resting against the pole, had vanished. They were neverfound. Muriel Calhoun told the detec- tives she saw the accident and that her husband, Willie, a former Miami police officer, took photo- graphs. Willie Calhoun told the detectives that he had gone to the State Attor- ney's office twice. He said no one there seemed to care about infrac- tions by police — they were only interested in crimes by citizens. Calhoun got angry, he said, re- fused to cooperate and destroyed the photos. A spokesman at the state attor- ney's office confirmed Calhoun was there and his lack of cooperation. The missing log The "Cold Case" detect ves asked for the "P sheets," daily ,logs that Please turn to SHOOT / 25A t r 84-1086 84-1083 84-1062 HOOT / From 24A reflect officers' cars M-ftliag as- signments. Thoy got all the sheets for thh Mouth of May 1980. All ex- cept May 18. The one for that day was missing. Investigators suspected that the number of occupants in Car 242 and the accident's location were changed in a "restructured" acci- dent report. Behind Car 242 that day, as the police caravan moved into the shop- ping center parking lot, was Car 248. In that car rode Officers Rob- ert Edwards, Matthew Fultz, Wil- liam Heffernan and Walter Clerke. Detectives questioned them. Three told the investigators they saw the accident between Car 242 and Johnson's LTD in the parking lot, not on the street as stated in the accident report. Edwards said he thought Sgt. Lowe was in Car 242. There was a Ic" of talk after the incident, he said. "It just became gJaeral knowl- edge," he said in a statement, "that John Dees had fired llis gun at the car as it was attempting to flee the scene and had hit the guy in the arm ... and the guy ran ... It was rather open. I believe John Dees talked about it openly himself." Officer Fultz said he heard gun- shots. Other officers told him that a white car and a police car collided and "a police officer shot at it. The car hit somebody ... hit a pole and the driver ran and as he was run. ning down the road, his arm was flopping where it looked like he had been shot." Officer Fultz said anotmr officer :old him, "with a grin," that "the man apparently broke his arm in ,.he car accident." He said the only policeman he ;aw firing a weapon was a patrol- nan shooting a carbine into the air. Somebody fired a shot' "I'm in no mom to aumu" some- thing that happene three years ago," Dees to a erald Friday. Officer Kemp quit the depart. Vent less' than three months after the shooting. lie lives in Dunneilon. He also reused to give a formal tutatement. But to the detectives he said he heard a lot of gunfire. He sold his accident report was accu- rate and that nobody in Car 242 fired a gun. Officer Roschel, an occupant of , Car 242, told The Herald he can not discuss the case because "It is still under investigation." So did Sgt. Lowe. I Some officers remember I Although Sgt. Lowe said he could not remember which car he occu- pied that afternoon, two other motorcycle officers say they think they remember. Lowe was with them, say Sgt. Frank Christmas and Francis Loom- is. Christmas drove Car 249. He said be heard no shots and did not does know where the accident took place, but is "almost sure" Lowe was in his car. Loomis, now living in Boynton Beach, said he, too, thinks Lowe was with them. Officer Michael Liottl was with them in Car 249. He does not re- member Sgt Lowe being there. Liotti, accompanied by an attor- ney, told the detectives he heard gunfire and heard talk from other officers in front of Zayre's "about Dees shooting somebody." He saw the bloodstained, shot- gun -blasted LTD, he said, and was hold that "John Dees car was in an accident and that John • Gees had shot the guy in the accident." Pressed for details, he could not -recall who told him. lie said he had "a mental block." lie declined to have a hypnotist try to restore his memory. Asked if the original accident re - Officer Heffernan said he heard a re - Dort was changed, Liotti replied, " 1 ... Lowe and Dees were good •hotgun blast behind him, as he friends ... They kept things to wung his nightstick at a looter. themselves ... It w kind of hush, .00king for his nightstick later, he 1 aid, he heard Dees talking to other fficers. "Something about a shot eing fired at the guy that was j riving the car that they had an ac- t ident with. The way I interpreted was that they were involved in an ccident with the guy and some. ody, an officer that was In his car, red a shot at him." Three months later, In a state- ient, under oath at the state attor- j ey's office, Heffernan complained 4 that the matter "wa not handled :)propriately in the nitial investi- I 1 ition." 1 Prosecutor Laeser greed. During this statement, Heffernan ush ed like it was kind .id he heard shots but said he f quashed." 3 -ard no talk afterward. Officer Edwards, who rode in the Officer Clerke was the fourth nvey's second car, said he over- t an in Car 248. He quit the depart- eard Sgt. Lowe and Officer Kemp eat three days after the shooting. Irking on an accident report in "hen the "Cold Case" detectives Rheir office later. They were dis- sited him in Port St. Lucie, he re- cussing "how the report should be sed to give a statement, made and what should be on it ... Subpoenaed to the State Attor- Sgt. Lowe was directing It ... and y's office later, Clerke said he telling Kemp what to say." yew nothing of how Johnson was of or what car Sgt. Lowe was in Log lists 4 Occupants the time. Clerke added that he is "a good On Sept. 21, 1982, a detective re - end of John Dees." They own a viewing an unrelated case came use in the Keys together. upon a copy of the "P sheet" for John Dees quit the department May 18, 1980. He turned it over to s than two moths after the "Cold Case" detectives. )oting. He lives in'Bradenton. On It listed the occupants of Car 242: advice of his attorney, he re- Officers Dees, Kemp, Roschel — ed to give a formal statement. and Sgt. Lowe. ro the detectives he said that he j As the investigation progressed, Ord no gunfire, that no one in Car the "Cold Case" detectives and ' fired any shots, and that -np's accident report was cor4-Ay 84®1��4 L. J •- is �... .. _. i�LV 1 ■■/�■■R Y� IM ►s the investigation progressed, the 'etectives and their lieutenant said they received threatening telephone calls at their homes. An anonymous caller told Detective Ronald Ilhardt's wife, `You better watch out....' their lieutenant said they received treatening telephone calls at their Ames. An anonymous caller told Il- �rdt's wife, "You better watch Wt...." More than a year ago, Aug. 11. 1982, Ilhardt reported that he spoke to Dees. "I told him that we felt he was not telling the truth ... I t him we were going to su pens t before the state and fore him tell the truth. Before we lid tha wanted to give him the chance tell us the truth. He saidhe wo talk to Kemp and get back vti us." l in October 1982, prosecutor Loeser subpenaed Dees. There is no donartment?" wards: "Again, that was rnm- , copy+atement in the files of knowledge. Although there interne'' affairs or homicide. The was a lot of discontent ... among state attorney will not discuss the all the motormen.... mostly stem - matter. ming from the riots ... it was more In a statement to detectives last or less common knowledge that be - sides the reason, uh —just in case year, Officer Edwards spoke of the anything did come up, he wasn't original investigation in 1980. The going to be around. men of the motor squad were given to understand, he said, that "if there Question: "'If it did come up.' Is was no further pressure brought to that in reference to the shooting?" bear on the City of Miami Police Edwards: "Yeah." Department to pursue this investi• Chief Harms said he wants to gation, that it would not be pursued know if there were "any adminis• any further ... that did come out of trative irregularities in the handling a homicide detective's mouth direct- of the case." ly to me .... At a press conference Friday, "They seemed to know at that Harms said: "Events from the past time tthhat it involved Sgt. Lowe and sometimes resurrect themselves and Dees.' can cause us concern and frustra- 1 Question: Do you know, or did tion. The Michael JohnsoRiLaalx- you hear, why Dees quit the police ample of such an occurrence." { { s s 40 • Herald Lt. R. M. Murphy of the Uniformed Service Bureau Wrote on the 24th of August of 1983 a memorandum to Herbert Breslow, Assistant Chief, Operations Divisions. Mayor Ferre read the memo into the public record which follows: CITY OF WAN11. ELORIDA INTER -OFFICE 10CIAORANDUM Herbert Breslow DATE. 24 August 83 Assistant Chief Operations Division sumarar: Civil Disturbance ,e;,F 1980 Michael Johnson 9 Shooting 0%4 Lt. R. t:. Murphy wcrcACNccs: Uniform Services Bureau t►+=cosullcs: This report is. -.being written upon your orderb to sae on 23 - August•1983 at 0855 hrs. s ' I first bepame aware -of. the Michael Johnson shooting case on/or about April 23, 1982. •� was first advised by Captain 10. Starks, commanding officer of persons crimes. •Later Captain Starks, Lt. J. Walton (commanding officer of. Internal Security), and this writer-ithen commanding of3ieer of Homicide) met to the Homicide •• con -handing officer's office to discuss the case. Capt. Starks and I discussed this case with Major. Putman (commanding officer of C.I.S.). At a later date, Capt. Starks and this writer met with you in the Homicide commanding officer's office and.I expressed my real concerns about investigating this case. As You May recall, •I felt Lt. Bradford (former Homicide commanding officer), should be assigned to complete the Johnson investiga- tion because it was started and stopped under his command. Additionally, due to the personnel and their personalities, position, and connections within the department, I again stated 0 that I had great reservations about conducting the Investigation.. You assured me I had nothing to worry about, that I "have broad shoilders" and I "can take the heat." I••85> iyndc] the**cold cane tram consisting of tea:, leader Sgt. E. Vivian, Detectives R. Ilhardt and E. panel: to investigate the ' flichael Johnson shooting. Sot. Vivinn was to report to n..e daily 84-JLOSG 84-1084 84-1883 84-1062 j 8•-A September 21, r l I )iefbert Breslow 24 August 83 ' Assistant Chief j operations Division Page - 2 - Civil Disturbance, 19BO ; concerning any developments in his investigation. Throughout i the course of. this investigation, we were to have many meetings. ZI Around the first part of June, Detective Ilhardt stated to me _ •' 42 that j t • t.•a.s the feeling of �he"Homicide team air d Internal Security that a cover-up %ad been implemented in the Michael Johnson shoot- ing. To avoid any misunderstandings,at a later date? I called •: Lt. Walton end arranged for a meebing. on/or around •June 7, 1982, in the office of the commanding officer of Internal Security, the following officers met: Capt. Starks, Lt. Murphy, Sgt. Vivian, Detectives Ilhardt and Banek from Boma- • � .. '.+ cide, Lt. Z981ton, Sgts. Reynolds and Sparrow from Internal Security*'• Sgt.-Reynolds stated that >.e nad been telling them (I.S. commanding case was a time bomb and officer) for two (2) years that this should ' �. be investigated. Sgt. Reynolds said he was ignored. It was decided at an earlier meeting what posture and directions the homicide investigation world take. The homicide investigation would direcd all its efforts in investigating the criminal aspects of the Johnson shooting. Any Departmental violations would be pursued by Internal Security. The investigative plan was to question all pozlice officers'aisigned to the Enforcement Unit who workingthe day of the shooting, we would start with the police Y 9 F s. 3 officers and work upwards. Any and all civilian witnesses would 40 •. ' . be questioned, area canvass conducted and statements recorded. All aspects of the investigation, its conduct and progress were " related as they occurred to Major Putman. •• In the early stages of this investigation, I, along wi'th.Capt. Sta rhs met in my office With Lt. Bradford (now the coT�rranding • 84-1086 84-1084 84-1083 84-1082.`. 8-B Hebert Breslow 29 August 83 Assistnnt Chief ' ' Operations Division r Page - 3 - Civil Disturbance, 1980 — officer of Enforcement). The netting was to determine why the Johnson shooting had started (teim leader Sgt. Napoli) and then stopped. Lt. Bradford stated that. the Johnson shooting should have never been investigated by No.mieide, that it was an I.S. ', �•. matter% .I. wadt••otirlly zur�Si%ed at his statement. Lt. Bradford •' t '''S= • ..:. i. _ . further reminded me that when I releived hir,► as the homicide •f. :.• a - commander, that "we are not Internal Security, up here we do not ':�•��'-� do their work." As I recall, this statement was made sp-veral times 3.o me by Lt. Bradford. This confused me because Lt. Bradford very well knows that I was the commanding officer of Infernal Security for miny years. Lt. Bradford stated he still. felt that the Johnson case was an;I.S. case and not a homicide '•' _ case. As the investigation progressed, it became apparent that the detectives would have to travel throughout the state of Florida •-— and in one -case, out of state to contact former officers who •••`�:' were working the day Michael Johnson was shot. ,• •:;; , I recall one of the officers stated to the interviewing Aetec- tives that he had information but he could not speak because of the police officers code of silence. `• one officer stated that two accident reports were made. The a :�,• V first was destroyed because it ref lected Sgt. Lowe as the driver •i :.. of the police vehicle involved, in the accident with Michael Johnson. It should be noted that no police accident report was wade until several days later, and only then when it was req-iested _ by• Y,priici�ie.. 'No officers state it was "co-mmon " knowled ethat the g police shot 84®JL086 RI-InR4 84-JL083 84-1082' _; a 3 t i Herbert Breslow 24 August 83 Assistant Chief ' ' Operations Division Page - 3 - Civil Oisturbnce, 1980 •. officer of Enforcement.). The necting was to determine why the _ Johnson shooting had started (team leader Sgt. Napoli) and then stopped. Lt. Bradford stated that the Johnson shooting should j have never been investigated by Homicide, that it was an I.S. matterz I..wa.�" 'to#.arlly surfi�ed at his statement: = Lt. Bradford •'�' further reminded me that when I releived hire as the homicide :. co.nu ander, that "we are not Internal Security, up here we do not '• '-t do their work." As I recall, this statement was made several .•.":= times to me by Lt. Bradford. This confused nee because Lt. Bradford very well knots that I was the commanding officer of '•''° = Internal Security for many years. Lt. Bradford stated he still felt that the Johnsen case was an;I.S. ease and not a homicide case. As the investigation progressea, it became apparent that the •• detectives would have to travel throughout the state of Florida and in one -case, out of state to contact former officers who '••�`' " were working the day Michael Johnson was shot. ,• •.�::�a I recall one of the officers sated to the interviewing aetec- tives that he had information but he could not speak because of the police officers code of sile-nce. • • •`• :r Y. - One officer stated that two accident reports were made. The .• , 0 first was destroyed because it reflected Sgt. Lowe as the driver �:.. - of the police vehicle involved• in the accident with Michael - Johnson. It should be noted that no police acciaent report was . ..,t•. .... -r::, made until several dabs later, and only then when it was requested t� by. Pip . iciCe.. • g police shot i`t�•o officers state it was "common knowledge" that the ®A-4f%C)V1 Ra 11OR2' Herbert Breslow 24 August 83 Assistant Chief I Operations Division — • Page - 4 - Civil Disturbance, 1980 s i . 9 Michael Johnson. One of the officers said he heard another .�= —- off;cer-state.he shot a nigger and he scan away with his arm _ flopping like a broken chicken wing. These statements were = overheard or rude on the day of the shooting in the area where .. - the shooting .too}c pYace . The delayed acbident report was Cade by officer K. Kemp who was a passenger in the vehicle. Why was this done? The summons issued to Michael Johnson was by officer D. Burger of A.I.U.. Ofizcdr Burger was taken to J.N.R. by Det. E. Banek of Homicide . Where Johnson was' issued traffic summon for not reporting the a- accident. Lt. Bradfcrd told me nnc:e ct a Dolphin football game that Sgt_ Lowe could straighten everything out -if we would talk to him. ••ice::; On several other occasions when we spoke, Lt. Bradford wanted to �'4� know when we were going to .talk to Sgt. Lowe. I informed him we i were progrepsing in a structured manner and were not prepared to '. question Sgt. Lowe at this time. When we did call Sgt. Lowe to r� take his statement, he came into my office and cat down (you • l' must understand that I attended the Police Academy with Norris Lowe and we were good friends for over twenty (20) years)., Sgt.. i Lowe told me that he did not like*the way we were conducting the investigation and that he was mad as hell. I told him he has p never conducted an investigation in his life, all of his career :•: has been spent on motors. He said he was waiting for Lt. Bradford to come up to sit in with him. I told him Lt. Bradford =�=~ could not sit in with him, but he could have an attorney. When Lt. Bradford came into the office he questioned why he could not ~� sit in with Sgt. Lowe (Lt. Bra fora was the homicide cor.6nanding _ officer far over three years) . I told him t hp. difference between • a criminal investigation ,and an Aatarnal investigation. Rs €gt....�.-..�.- 84-IL083 84-1086 84-1084 8-D Uerbert Breslow 29 August 83 Assistant Chief • Operations Division Page - 5 - Civil Disturbance, 198D Lowe went with Detective Ilhardt and Sgt. Vivian, Lt. Bradford . called out to him that he would a:ait there in Case Sgt. Lowe - needed him. That made me feel real great. Sgt. Lowe's statement should have been taken two years prior (while I was still in Court Liaison).- Until this day, Sgt. Lowe will npt look or —speak to mew lost for doing the Job. In late July I went to Major Putman's office to see him about something. Major Putman was on the telephone` his door was open. i sat in a chair next to Sgt. Vance's desk tw.ith my back to the Zlajor's office next to the open door. I had no intention of listening in on the Major's conversation, but I could hear him talking. His conversation contained information which could only have come from the Johnso:. s..coting. I -asked Sgt. Vance if he kreff"Vho-the Ma jqr was to king to and he stated it was Capt. Clover. I left the office without seeing the Major and went to Capt. Starks and informed him of the conversation. I also informed you of this information when I met with you over my transfer from Homicide on September 13, 1982 at 1030 hours. ' :he rumors had been running for months, ever since Major Putman was transferred to C.I.S., that Capt. Glover was going to replace Capt.. Starks and Lt. Burger was to replace me in Homicide. This was repeatedly denied by t•Jajor Putman and on one occasion, denied to me by you. 3 After Sgt. Reynolds statement at the meeting on June i, 1582 that he had repeatedly stated this case was a time bomb and overhearing Xajor Putman disucss the Johnson case on the phone, supposedly wil! Capt.'Glover, I became greatly concerned. I had no proof that Major Putman discussed the investigation with Capt. Glover _•_ r:ho at the time of the Johnson shooting was the c:omrnanOer of the 84-84 -1084 84..�1,�18 84-10152 ia�s � 5 - Ne.rbert Breslow 24 August e3 j t AssistanChief. 3 - - Operations Division Page - 6 - Civil Disturbance, 1980 - i Enforcement Unit, I know that Major Putman and Capt. Glover are close friends.so the overwhelming possibility existed. a - It was during this time that Sgt. Vivian, Det. Ilhardt, end I r startgd renewing" -threatening phone calls to cur --homes. This was reported to rapt. Starks and Major Putman. _= 11 en we had progressed far enough along in the investigation, it - beeamd apparent that we (the Miami police) had in fact shot ' Michael Johnson during the 1980 Miami civil disturbance. Capt. Starks, Sgt. Vivian,•Det. Ilhart, and this writer met with Chief Assistant State* Attorney# George Moss., Mr. Yoss assigned major crimes Chief Abe Lazer to assist us. In my last meeting with Mr. Lazer prior to my transfer from Ho.:►icide, it was decided to select one or two of the officers ' and grant immunity. 1 f It should be noted that it appeared to all who were involved i6 ` this investigation that in all probability, the actual shooting r. of bichael Johnson wars accidental or justifiable. The problem we were banded was who shot. Michael Johnson? It was during this investigation that ' it became' apparent to all that a cover-up of the shaotin,q had taken place. Proving it was another matter. Lt. Burger was transferred to Homicide and Capt. Glover was transferred to commander of Criminal Investigation. Just as rumor said would happen and t:ajor Putman and you said would not happen. ... . '. Capt. Glover in his new assignment obtained the Johnson case file• . obviously to read, what other reason `:•ould there be. ?.t a later 84-1.036 94-JL084 84-1093 84®-1082 x 8-F y Rerbert Breslow Assistant Chief Operations Division Page -7- 24 August 83 Civil Disturbance, 1980 date, Sgt. Vivian, who by this time was under Capt; Glover's command, was now placed in the position of taking a statement from Capt. Glover concerning his involvement in this incident. Even to the casual untrained observer, this is totally inappro- ppriat®� _3�Tiry. i is rapt: .G3.0'Ver not read his rightSlr`tlhile Cap:. ' Starks and this writer were in control. of the investigation • this procedure'.was to be followed when taking statements from all who may have been involved in any way. Capt. Glover, who at the time of the Michael Johnson shooting, was the commanding officer of the Enforcement Unit, and would fall into this category. ' • e This report has been composed from a few notes with reference to times and dates. As for statements and events, they are from memory as I do not have access to the Homicide case file. The, irajority*of the knowledge contained in this report can be suppor- ted by documentation in the Homicide case file or by one or more persons involved in the investigation. i It is a fact that the Homicide and Internal Security investiga- tions into the shooting of Michael Johnson was started and is also a fact that they were stopped. Further it is a fact that valuable materials are missing from the files, statements, tapes, and photo- graphs. f: 'rS It is my belief that at the time of our transfers and I still believe on the date of. this report, that the removal of Capt. Starks and' ' this writer from our assignments in C.I.S. was due to our involvement with the overseeing and directing of the !Michael +. Johnran shooting. I informed !Major Putr.an' and you of this at the time of Capt. Starks and n:y tra ns rer . The Chief of Police was quoted in the papers as sayin j that Capt: ==J='&=�~ 8-G 11exbert Breslow ,'.Ats.4stant Chief cp rations Division rage - 8 - 24 August 83 Civil Disturbance, 1980 Starks and this writer were tra:,:;fvrroc1 Lacause we refused to cooperate with the department• pnlrcy with regards to reducing overtime. In• pny neetirrg 'with 'Chief-Be-r+s on Septe-caber 161-1962 at 1500-hrs:, ' r I discussed several problems I was concerned with in regards to - the transfers -of Capt. Starks and myself . On the question of not cooperating with the reduction of overtimer I presented the Chief o .• with -the following documentation concerning the homicide overtime reduction. ►' Aprilr 1982 1271 hrs. Instructed to reduce overtime 14ay, 11982 1012 hrs. Urpp of 259 hrs. June, 1982 617 L ^ s . Drop of 395 hrs. July,--1982 ' 4c^r'._5. Drop -of 137 firs. August, 1982 236 hrs. Drop of 244 hrs. From the time Capt. Starks and this writer were instructed to cut • f back on overtime in April 2982 until our transfer in September, •. 1982, we had cut back overtime by 1,035 hours. :It is obvious that.:� f this stas not the real reason for our transfer. • : �jz 1 Chief Harms informed me that he was ::ot aware of this information and that Major Putman told him :-at, Capt. Starks and this writer were uncooperative. This I catcoorically denied. I sucgested to the Chief that he spec:•. wi`•h C pt:• Starks. lie said he would and. ;'`:•� get back with -me. e �. There so many facets and attached to this i nvesti- gation that it is with gre2t d::fi.c.ully that I reduced to writing •- . tii�is-infor" ation without tra='='n�f=t of the case file. I am :.ure that upon questioning I V:ill hs to satisfy t. inquiries. The a nforr..a tiun eons _ �.:::: ir. :po: t is ac.c/u�ratt]ea�njd truthiu�. �Y/y-- • ` the !� �.. t-s� of ny kno:':leclue .-:i:r: �•.".w: Y:`w°.loa `l�iVG7li ��i®V•r/ ..o .i • 8-H Amt- " CITY OF MlAMi, FLORILIA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO Herbert Breslow DATE. 24 August 83 FILE: Assistant Chief Operations Division suflJECr: Civil Dis-curbance 1980 Michael Johnson Shooting FPO%i Lt . R . li. Murphy REFERENCES: Uniform Services Bureau EN: LO5URES: This report is -.being written upon your orders to me on 23 August 1983 at 0855 hrs. I first became aware of. the Michael Johnson shooting case on/or about April 23, 1982. •I was first advised by Captain W. Starks, co_-,manding officer of persons crimes. Later Captain Starks, Lt. Ialton (commanding officer ef.Internal Security), and this writer- -(then commanding o--514cer of Homicide) met in the Homicide comnanding officer's office to discuss the case. Capt. Starks and I discussed this case with t•iajor Putman (commanding officer of C.I.S.). At a later date, Capt. Starks and this writer met with you in the Homicide commanding officer's office and.1 expressed my real concerns about investigating this case. As you may recall, I felt 1t. Bradford (former Homicide commanding officer), should be assigned to complete the Johnson investiga- tion because it was started and stopped under his command. Additionally, due to the personnel and their personalities, position, and connections within the department, I again stated that I had great reservations about conducting the investigation. W You assured ine I had nothing to worry about, that I "have broad shoulders" and I "can take the heat." I•-a5signod the cold case team consisting of team leader Sgt. E. Vivian, Detectiv,,_s R. I11.ardt and E. Rana): to investigate the 1•)ichael Johnson shooting. Sgt. Vivian ;.:as to report to rye daily 84-1066 84-1084 84-1003 84_1082 F 5 Herbert. Breslow Assistant Chief Operations Division Page - 2 - 24 August 83 Civil Disturbance, 1980 concerning any developments in his investigation. Throughout the course of this investigation, we were to have many meetings. Around the first part of June, Detective Ilhardt stated to me - that '; t was the fe-eling of .the -Homicide team and ..Internal Security that a cover-up ad been implemented in the Michael Johnson shoot- ing. To avoid any misunderstandings, at a later date, I called Lt. Walton Pad arranged for a meeting. On/or around June 7, 1982, in the office of the commanding officer of Internal Security, the following officers met: Capt. Starks, Lt. Murphy, Sgt. Vivian, Detectives Ilhardt and Hanek from Homi- cide, Lt. Walton, Sgts. F-le no?ds and Sparrow from Internal Security_ Sgt.-Reynolds stated that Te nad been telling them (I.S. commanding officer) for two (2) years that this case was a time bomb and should t_ be investigated. Sgt. Reynolds said he was ignored. It was decided at an earlier meeting what posture and directions the homicide investigation would take. The homicide investigation would direct all its efforts in investigating the criminal -aspects of the Johnson shooting. Any Departmental violations would be pursued by Internal Security. The investigative plan was to question all police officers'assigned to the Enforcement Unit who working the day of the shooting, we would start with the police 3 officers and work upwards. Any and all civilian witnesses would J , be questioned: area canvass conducted and statements recorded. All aspects of the investigation, its conduct and progress were '= related as they occurred to Major Putman. In the early stages of this investigation, I, along with Capt. _ Starks met in my office %.pith Lt. Dradford (now the commanding 84-1086 84-1084 84-1083 . 84 ioez, f AM Herbert Breslow Assistant Chief Operations Division Page - 3 - 24 August 83 Civil Disturbance, 1980 officer of Enforcement). The muting was to determine why the Johnson shooting had started (toam leader Sgt. Napoli) and then stopped. Lt. Bradford stated that. the Johnson shooting should have never been investigated by homicide, that it was an I.S. matter-. .I wastotally .sur'pilsed at his statement:-= 3Lt. Bradford 7. further reminded me that when I r`l.ei-ved him as the homicide - cotimander, that "we are not Internal Security, up here we do not do their work." As I recall, this statement was made several ..,, times to me by Lt. Bradford. This confused me because Lt. Bradford very well knows that I was the coml-nanding officer of _ '•` Internal Security for many years. Lt. Bradford stated he still felt that the Johnson case was an;I.S. case and not a homicide case. As the investigation progressed, it became apparent that the detectives t•:ould have to travel throughout the state of Florida and in ine case, out of state to contact former officers who were working the day Michael Johnson was shot. I recall one of the officers stated to the interviewing.detec.-• ' tives that he had information but he could not speak because of the police officers code of silence. One officer stated that two accident reports were made. The first was destroyed because it reflected Sgt. Lowe as the driver of the police vehicle involved in the accident with Michael Johnson. It should be noted that no police accident report was .` made until several days later, and only then tiahen it was requested by_ }soMici(le.. Two officers state it teas "commor, knowledge" that the nolice shot 84�_ 84-1083 84-1082 i `= 1086 84--1084 n Ilerbert Breslow Assistant Chief Operations Division Page - 4 - 24 August 83 Civil Disturbance, 1980 Michael Johnson. One of the officers said he heard another officer state he shot a nigger and he ran away with his arm flopping like a broken chicken a;j.ng. These statements were overheard or made on the day of the shooting in the area where the shooting -took. place. - — - The delayed accident report was made by of K. Kemp who was a passenger in the vehicle. Why was this done? The sunLmons issued to Michael Johnson was by officer D. Burger of A.I.U_. Officer Burger was taken to J.M.H. by Det. E. Hanek of Homicide where Johnson -was issued traffic summon for not reporting the accident. =A Lt. Bradford told me once Li Dolphin football game that Sgt. - Lowe could straighten everything out if we would talk to him. On several other occasions when we spoke, Lt. Bradford wanted to know when we were going to talk toSgt. Lowe. I informed him we were progressing in a structured manner and were not prepared to question Sgt. Lowe at this time. When we did call Sgt. Lowe to take his statement, 'pie came into my office and sat down (you must understand that I attended the Police Academy with Dorris Lowe and we were good friends for over twenty (20) years). Sgt. Lowe told me that he did not like -the way we were conducting the investigation and that he was mad as hell_ I told him he has p never conducted an investigation in his life, all of his career •. j He said he was waiting for Lt. „• has been spent on motors. g ,� � •, Bradford to come up to sit in with him. I told him Lt. Bradford -•: could not sit in with him, but he could have an attorney. When Lt. Bradford came into the office he questioned why he could not sit in with Sgt. LOC•le (Lt. B----Hord %-.as the flolmicide cor m„anding officer for over three years). I told him the. difference between a criminal investigat.ior. *and an internal investigation. As Sgt. ..:..�:��• 84-1083 84-1066 84-1084 - Perbert Dreslow Assistant Chief Operations Division Page - S - 24 August 83 Civil Disturbance, 1980 Lowe went with Detective Ilhardt and Sgt. Vivian, Lt.. Bradford called out to him that he would wait there in case Sgt. Lowe needed him. That made me feel real great. Sgt. Love's statement should have been taken two years prior (while I was still in Court Liaison).- Until this day, Sgt. Lowe will not look or -speak to me,- - :Another-: f•riend lost for doing the job. In late July I went to Major Putman's office to see him about something. Major Putman was on the telephone, his door was open. I sat in a chair next to Sgt. Vance's desk with my back to the Major's office next to the open door. I had no intention of listening in on the Major's conversation, but I r-ould hear him talking. His conversation contained information which could only have come from the Johnson s,,c.oting. I asked Sgt. Vance if he kn %•:ho the Major was tz •'::ing to and he stated it was Capt. Glover. I left the office without seeing the Major and went to Capt. Starks and informed him of the conversation. I also informed you of this information when I met with you over my transfer from Homicide on September 13, 1982 at 1030 hours. 'Lhe rumors had been running for months, ever since Major Putman was transferred to C.I.S., that Capt. Glover was going to replace Cap`. Starks and Lt. Burger %•.as to replace me in Homicide. This was repeatedly denied by Major Putman and on one occasion, denied to me by you. J " ? A:Eter Sat. Reynolds state.�.ent at the meeting on June 7, 1982 that he had repeatedly stated this case was a time bomb and overhearing Major Putman disucss the Johnson case on the phone, supposedly •' with- Capt. Glover, I became greatly concerned. I had no proof that t•:ajor Putr.an discussed the investigation with Capt. Glover �.ho at the time of. the Johnson shooting was the ccMM� anaer of the 84_ 8 _ 84-1083 84-1082 10�6 4 1084 s I;exbert Breslow Assistant Chief. operations Division Page - 6 - .moo -- 24 August 83 _ Civil Disturbance, 1980 Enforcement Unit, I know that Major Putman and Capt. Glover are close friends so the overwhelming possibility existed. It was during this time that Sgt. Vivian, Det. Ilhardt, and I started repel•vinq-threatening phone calls to our --homes. This - was reported to -Capt. Starks and. Major Putman. Wh en we had progressed far enough along in the investigation, it became apparent that we (the Miami police) had in -fact shot Michael Johnson during the 1980 Miami civil disturbance. Capt. Starks, Sgt. Vivian, Det. Ilhart, and this writer met with Chief Assistant State. Attorney, George,Yoss.. Mr. Yoss assigned major crimes Chief Abe Lazer to assist us. In my last meeting with Mr. Lazer prior to my transfer from 4 Homicide, it was decided to select one or two of the officers and grant immunity. It should be noted that it appeared to all who were involved in this investigation that in all probability, the actual shooting of Mlichael Johnson was accidental or justifiable. The problem we were handed was who shot. Michael Johnson? It -was during this investigation that it became apparent to all that a cover-up of the shootin5 had taken place. Proving it was another matter. Lt. Burger was transferred to Homicid& and Capt. Glover %..as transferred to commander of Criminal Investigation. Just as rumor said would happen and 14ajor Putman and you said would not happen. Capt. Glover in his new assignment obtained the Johnson case file, obviously to read, what other reason %•.-ould ti:ore bc. i,,t a later .. 84-1086 84-1084 84-1083 84-1082 ?ierbert Breslow Assistant Chief operations Division Page - 7 - 29 August 83 Civil Disturbance, 1980 date, Sgt. Vivian, who by this time was under Capt. Glover's cor=and, was now placed in the position of taking a statement from Capt. Glover concerning his involvement in this incident. Even to the casual untrained observer, this is totally inappro- priate.. -Why..i s:Capt: .Gloves not read his right-OWhile Capt. Starks and this writer were in control of the investigation this procedure'.was to be followed when taking statements from all who may have been involved in any way. Capt. Glover, who at the time of the Michael Jo'.inson shooting, was the commanding officer of the Enforcement Unit, and would fall into this category. This report has -been composed from a few notes with reference to times and dates. As for statements and events, they are from mer-ory as I do not have access to the Homicide case file. The majority'of the knowledge contained in this report can :lie suppor- ted by documentation in the Homicide case file or by one or more persons involved in the investigation. LA it is a fact that the Homicide and Internal Security investiga- tions, into the shooting of Michael Johnson was started and is also i a fact that they were stopped. Further it is a fact that valuable materials are missing -from the files, statements, tapes, and photo- graphs. 1 It is my belief that at the time of our transfers and I still believe on the date of. this report, that the removal of Capt. Starks and' •; this writer from our assignments in C.I.S. was due to our involvement with the overseeing and directing of the Michael Johnson shooting. I informed IMajor Putr:an' and you of this at the :• time of Capt. Star}:s and r:%' tYansrer. ri The Chief of Police was quoted in the rapers as saying that Capt: 84-1086 84-1084 84-1083 S4--1082.". 0 perbert Jreslow J1as� stint Chief Cl 2rations Division 24 A1191Ist 83 Page - 8 - Civil Disturbance, 1980 Star),s and this writer were b_,cause we re used to cooperate with the departm3:nt; cy �Ath regards to reducing overtire. In. my, meeting 'with 'Chief s on September 16-,- 1-9$2 at 1500-hrs:, I discussed several problems I •.tias concerned with in regards to the transfers -of Capt_ Starks and myself. On the question of not cooperating with the reduction of overtire, I presented the Chief with the following docurentation concerning the Homicide overtime reduction. April, 1982 1271 hrs. Instructed to reduce overtime May, 1982 1012 hrs. Drop of 259 hrs. June, 1982 61 ; =_=s. Drop of 395 hrs. Drop -of 137 hrs. ' =:ugust, 1982 236 hrs. Drop of 244 hrs. From the time Capt. Starks and ti,is :,;riter were instructed to cut back on overtime in April 1982 unti.l owr transfer in September, 1982, aye had cut back overtime by 1,035 hours. -it is obvious -that - -this was not the real reason for our transfer. : Chief Harms informed me that he w ns not oa_e of this information .: and that Major Putman told. hi:� th,!z Capt. Starks and this writer were uncooperative. This I c:ntc._70=ically denied. I suggested to the Chief that he spear: %4i t h Capt.. S'1ar%s _ He said he would and . c`t back with ine. ' There .R so many fac&=ts a:.0 attached to this investi- ., gation that it is vjith art:! c'•i` `:cu) ty that I reduced to writing f�is 'information ��itho- :�_n.: t of the case file I am sure t;�at upon questioning satisfy t4r_=-_ inquiries. 10 84-1.086 84 -84 The information con`: irej -• ``'-POris accurate and truthful • to the hcst of my kr.o•.:12i . = =c- l:action. 84-1083 84-1082 F� 1 i CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO Honorable Mayor Maurice Ferre DATE September 219 1984 FILE and MeZA.ouqhe he ity Commission SUBJECT Special Commission Meeting Convened as a Legislative Investigation Committee Regarding the FROM Lucia ty REFERENCES Michael Johnson case City Attorney ENCLOSURES 1 Pursuant to Section 14 of the Miami Charter, you have resolved to constitute yourselves as a panel of legislative inquiry to pursue 3 matters involving the police investigation of the Michael Johnson case. Your motives in this regard are to insure that cases are properly investigated by the police department so that through such investigation wrongdoing is exposed, wrongdoers are punished and that persons innocent of wrongdoing are cleared. In this regard your role is to reveal and expose weaknesses in the Police Department that can be subject to future legislation. While fulfilling these critical objectives, it is necessary to consider the following: 1. This Panel of Inquiry does not have jurisdiction to prosecute, discipline or dismiss wrongdoers, but may turn over evidence gathered at these proceedings to the appropriate agency for investigation or action. The role of the commission should and must be that of a legislative body that is investigating alleged weaknesses in Police Department procedures for potential future legislation. 2. The State Attorney advised that taking statements in public of key witnesses having knowledge of criminal acts would allow wrongdoers the opportunity to assess the evidence and defend against such evidence. As such, she suggested that the City not question those officers who directly investigated the Michael Johnson case. 3. Under Florida law and City contracts, Police em to ees who are subject to discipline are arotec ed by a cadre of ri h and procedures that may not be subject to interference by this inquiry. Also, pursuant to Garrity v. State of New Jersey, 385 U.S. 443 (1967) the 14th Amendment prohibits the use in criminal proceedings of �1 confessions o aine m olice officers under three L/of removal from f_ice. Therefore, in order to protect the integrity of criminal prosecutions or pending disciplinary proceedings, it should be made clear from the outset that statements made at this in uiry are 84-1066 84-1084 84-1083 84-1082 Honorable Mayor Maurice Ferre September 21, 1994 and Members of the City Commission Page 2 totally voluntary, and are not made under direct or y� indirect threat_ or intimidation. both as to criminal proceedings and as to continued _employment. 4. The Michael Johnson civil suit and the perjury trial of two officers in the car at the time of the shooting are set for trial in late November. As such, the plaintiffs in the civil suit could exploit statements or inuendo made at this hearing. Likewise, the defendants in the perjury suit would have benefit of these statements. Hence, this proceeding could jeopardize one or both of these pending suits, if only by prejudicing potential jurors as a result of media coverage. 5. This Panel of lnguLLy, unlike the State Attorney's ice as no prosecutional immunity for defamation. Therefore, it is suggested that comments should be made bearing this in mind. LAD/kt PARENTI FA IK, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW COMMONWEALTH BUILDING, SUITE 200 GLENN P. FALK - MICHAEL J. PA RENTI, III �6 SOUTHWEST FIRST STAEET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33130 _ MAYES G. WOOD TELEPHONE (305) 356 7799 BY HAND September 21, 1984 Mayor Maurice Ferre 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Re: Kenneth I. Harms v. The City of Miami Our File No.: 00320 Dear Mayor Ferre: As you know, we represent Kenneth Harms as his personal attorney. The City of Miami sent a certified letter to Kenneth Harms which he received at 11:05 a.m. this morning. That certified letter invited him to attend a City Commission meeting for 11:00 a.m. this morning. Mr. Harms was also sent a telegram, which he received this morning, inviting him to appear at 3:00 p.m. As I indicated to you in our conference, it was absolutely impossible for Mr. Harms to accept this invitation due to the late notice.. You have indicated that you would be willing to have a Commission meeting at 1:00 p.m. on Saturday. It is our understanding that the purpose of this Commission meeting is to investigate an alleged cover-up arising out of an incident which occurred during the 1980 Miami riots. We also understand that Mr. Harms has been cleared not only by the Internal Security Division of The City of Miami Police Department, but also by the State Attorney's Office, of any involvement in this alleged matter. However, even in light of this, Mr. Harms really has no objection to speaking to the Commission. The problem that Mr. Harms faces, however, is that a Stipulation of Settlement was entered into by Kenneth I. Harms, The City of Miami and Howard Gary, concerning any public statements he might make. That Stipulation provides that he will make no adverse statements regarding The City of Miami, The City of Miami Police Department, or its administration, officers, men and women. This further provides that Kenneth I. Harms agrees to make no negative or critical statements about Mr. Gary, personally. As you well know, contained within this Stipulation for Settlement is a penalty provision which provides that, by violation of this agreement, Mr. Harms could be subject to a $10,000.00 fine. Certainly any statements he might make in front of the Commission might be interpreted as a 84-1086 84-1Q84 84-1083 84-1082 12 Mayor Maurice Ferre September 21, 1984 Page Two violation of this agreement, Mr. Harms could be subject to a $10,000.00 fine. If the City of Miami and Mr. Gary would be willing to enter into an addendum that would allow him to speak to the Commission without fear of reprisal or fines or any attempt by the parties to the agreement to argue that Mr. Harms had breached said agreement, then he would be willing to respond to the Commission inquiry. Further, Florida Statute §112.533 provides the only means by which 4 investigation of a complaint against a police agency may be conducted. We enclose a copy of that statute for your convenience and review. Therefore, we accept your invitation to appear as soon as there is an agreement by the City Commision and Mr. Gary that Mr. Harms will not be in violation of the Stipulation for Settlement and that pursuant to Florida Statute §112.533, he has been advised that this investigation has become a matter of public record so that we will not be in violation of any law in making statements in public. We wish to point out that Mr. Harms is ready, willing and eager to tetify as soon as the above conditions are met. Please contact me at home if you can agree to the above and if there is enough time, we will have Mr. Harms here tomorrow. Very truly yours, PARENTI & F L . 70�/— uienn r. ra-iK PODHURST, ORSECK, PARKS, et al. By: Robert C. Josefsber GPF:ca cc: Robert C. Josefsberg, ESq. Mr. Kenneth I. Harms 84-1084 84-1083 84-1086 PARENTI & FALK, P.A. 0 84-1082 Herbert Breslow Robert W. Warshaw Kenneth I. Earms Sgt. Edward Hanek Captain L. Glover Sgt. Norris Lowe Lt. Lane Bradford Sgt. Richard Napoli Diosdado Diaz Col. Emory Putman Officer Michael Liotti Sgt. Franklin Christmas Officer Robert Edwards Officer Matthew Fultz Officer Ron Ilhardt Sgt. Ernest Vivian Lt. William Berger Officer i,illiam Heffernan Col. John R. Fonner Officer W. Clerke Officer George Roschel Captain William Starks Lt. Walton Captain Michael Cosgrove a& • � Don Dunlap 84-1082 2 1. PLEASE GIVE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF EVENTS ON MAY 18, 1980. 2. WHAT WERE THE NUMBER OF UNITS INVOLVED IN THE OPERATION? **Follow-up Questions NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN OPERATION. NAME OF THE POLICE UNITS INVOLVED (WAS IT PATROL? K-9, ENFORCEMENT? ETC.) 3. WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE TOTAL OPERATION AND WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE? 4. HOW MANY SQUAD CARS WERE CALLED TO HANDLE LOOTING? Follow-up Questions WHAT WAS ORDER OF ARRIVAL OF UNITS RESPONDING WAS PATROL CARD 242 LEADING CONVOY AND WAS CAR 248 SECOND IN CONVOY? NAME OF THE POLICE OFFICERS RIDING CARS 242 and 248. (If Lowe not mentioned, what car was Lowe riding in?) Where are they now? (If resigned, when they left?) 5. AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT, MAY 18, 1980, HOW MANY INDIVIDUALS WERE ASSIGNED TO THE ENFORCEMENT UNIT? **Follow-up Questions OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS, HOW MANY ARE STILL ASSIGNED TO THAT UNIT? (If large turn -over rate, ask if this is ususal for said unit. READ LIST OF OF ENFORCEMENT UNIT PERSONNEL ON DATE OF INCIDENT AND REQUEST CURRENT STATUS OF EACH. 6. OF THE PERSONNEL IN THE ENFORCEMENT UNIT, HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE INVESTIGATED BY INTERNAL SECURITY? 84-1086 84-1064 84-1083 84-1082 P. E 1. PLEASE GIVE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF EVENTS ON MAY 18, 1980. 2. WHAT WERE THE NUMBER OF UNITS INVOLVED IN THE OPERATION? **Follow-up Questions NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN OPERATION. NAME OF THE POLICE UNITS INVOLVED (WAS IT PATROL? K-9, ENFORCEMENT? ETC.) 3. WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE TOTAL OPERATION AND WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE? 4. HOW MANY SQUAD CARS WERE CALLED TO HANDLE LOOTING? Follow-up Questions WHAT WAS ORDER OF ARRIVAL OF UNITS RESPONDING WAS PATROL CARD 242 LEADING CONVOY AND WAS CAR 248 SECOND IN CONVOY? NAME OF THE POLICE OFFICERS RIDING CARS 242 and 248. (If Lowe not mentioned, what car was Lowe riding in?) Where are they now? (If resigned, when they left?) 5. AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT, MAY 18, 1980, HOW MANY INDIVIDUALS WERE ASSIGNED TO THE ENFORCEMENT UNIT? **Follow-up Questions OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS, HOW MANY ARE STILL ASSIGNED TO THAT UNIT? (If large turn -over rate, ask if this is ususal for said unit. READ LIST OF OF ENFORCEMENT UNIT PERSONNEL ON DATE OF INCIDENT AND REQUEST CURRENT STATUS OF EACH. 6. OF THE PERSONNEL IN THE ENFORCEMENT UNIT, HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE INVESTIGATED BY INTERNAL SECURITY? 84-1086 84-1084 9 84-1083 84-1082 Ej **Follow-up Questions WERE ANY OF THESE PEOPLE UNDER INVESTIGATION SUBSEQUENTLY PROMOTED? IF ANY, IS THIS USUAL POLICY? 7. AT THE TIME OF INCIDENT? WAS THERE EVER A REPORT FILED AS TO THE FIRING OF POLICE WEAPONS? IF SO, WHO WERE THE OFFICERS WHO FIRED WEAPONS AT THAT TIME? 8. ON WHAT DATE WAS ACCIDENT REPORT WRITTEN AND WHEN WAS IT FILED? WHAT IS THE USUAL REPORTING TIME? 9. WHO AND WHAT DEPARTMENT WAS ASSIGNED TO INVESTIGATE SHOOTING? IS THIS THE USUAL PROCEDURE? Follow-up WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF UNIT INVESTIGATING SHOOTING? AND 9vPO DOES T.:AT DIRECTL`_ ;REZ C'•RT 'gin? (POINT OF QUESTIONING IS TO TRY TO FIND OUT BY CEAIN 01' COMMAND HOW FAR UP ORIGINAL REPORT WENT.) ON WHAT DATE WAS CHIEF OF POLICE FIRST INFORMED OF THE FINDINGS OF THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION? WAS ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION EVER CLOSED, IF YES; ON WHAT DATE AND BY WHOSE ORDER? PLEASE PROVIDE COMMISSIONERS WITH SAID REPORT. (If case was never officially closed, what actions were taken to solve investigation in the 15-month period between shooting and the filing of the $2 million law suit. 84--1086 84-1084 84-r1083 84-1082 0 El El MANUAL OF RULES AND REGULATIONS DEPARTMENT OF POLICE CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA 11 CHAPTER 3. This shall not be construed as preventing a member from cooperating with the prosecuting attorney in the alter- ing of any charge or other action, in the furtherance of justice, in any case he may be concerned as the arrest- ing or investigating officer. 3.35 DISCIPLINARY ACTION — VIOLATION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS: 3.35.1 Authority: Authority in the Department of Police shall be exercised with firmness, fairness, kind. ' ness and justice. 3.35.3 Responsibility of Member: Members shall assume responsibility of their own acts. In no instance shall they attempt to shift the burden of their responsibility for executing, or neglecting to execute, a lawful order, regulation, or police duty. 3.35.5 Disciplinary Action: Whenever it shall be deemed necessary for the preservation of good order, efficiency, and discipline, a ranking officer may relieve any subordinate member or employee from duty, pending a prompt reporting of such action to his Commanding Officer, stating the circumstances of the matter concerning the member's being so relieved. The memo of facts will be accomplished in the required manner reference the member, and forwarded through channels of command to the Chief of Police. The facts upon which the complaint is based will be described in full. 3.35.7 Duty While Under Suspension: A suspended member shall not be restored to duty pending investi- gation and hearing of the charges for which he was suspended, except by direction of the Chief of Police or other competent authority. 3.35.9 Wearing Uniform While Under Suspension: During the period of suspension, a member shall not wear any part of the official uniform or act in the capacity of, not represent himself as a Police Officer in any man- ner, not perform any off -duty police work. 3.35.11 Misdirected Action of Members When Charged: Any member, against whom a complaint or charge has been made, who shall attempt, directly or indirectly, by threat, appeal, persuasion, or the payment of monies, or other consideration, to secure the withdrawal or abandonment of the complaint or charges, or who, at time before final disposition of same, shall cause any person to intercede personally, by letter, or by other means in his behalf, with the Chief of Police, shall be made the subject of additional charges. 3.35.13 General Offenses — Disciplinary Action: A member of the Department found guilty of violating a tule or regulation, or any of the provisions of general or special order, or upon conviction in a court having criminal jurisdiction, or any one of the following listed offenses, shall be subject to reprimand, suspension, dismissal, or suffer such other disciplinary action as the Chief of Police may impose: 3.35.13.1 Cowardice — — Whoever shrinks from danger, responsibilities, or their sworn duty, will be deemed guilty of cowardice. 3.35.13.2 Disobedience of orders, or rules. 3.35.13.3 Being under the influence of intoxicating beverages or drugs, or barbituates (not prescribed by doc- tot) while on duty. 3.35.13.4 Drinking intoxicating liquor while on duty, except when so assigned; or the habitual use of intoxi- cating beverages, drugs or narcotics. 3.35.13.5 Entering a disorderly house or gambling house, not in the performance of police duty. 3.35.13.6 Maltreatment of a prisoner or any other person. 3.35.13.7 Conduct unbecoming a Police Officer, which shall include any act or conduct not specifically men- !' tioned in these Rules and Regulations, which tends to bring the Department into disrepute, or reflects discredit upon the individual member as a Police Officer. 3.35.13.E Insubordination, or disrespect toward a Superior Officer. I` j 84-1084 9 - 3 84-1083 84-1082 84-1086 F CHAPTER 3. 3.35 13 9 Neglect or inattention to duty. 3,35.13.10 General incompetency. 3.35.13.11 Sleeping while on duty. 3.35.13.12 Laziness or idleness. 3.35.13.13 Being absent from duty without permission. 25.13.14 Leaving post without proper relief or permission. s 3.35.13.15 Using coarse, profane, insolent or discourteous language to a Superior Officer, fellow member of the Department, or to any citizen. 3.35.13.16 NCt properly patrolling or guarding a post. 3.35.13.17 Making a false statement, report, communication or entry into any official police record, or other of- ficial or required report or record. 3.35.13.18 Neglecting to appear clean and tidy in person and dress, or failure to wear the proper uniform on duty in the prescribed manner. 3.35.13.19 Smoking in violation of rules and regulations. 3.35.13.20 Accepting bribes or money or other valuables while acting in the capacity of a Police Officer, either on or off duty. 3.35.13.21 Accepting any fees, rewards or gifts of any kind from any person or from any person arrested, or in his behalf while in custody, or from any person for services rendered, or pretended to be rendered, as a mem- ber of the Department of Police, without the consent of the Chief of Police. 3.35 13.22 Gossi;,ing atout a member or employee of the Department, concerning his personal character and conduct, which is detrimental to such member or employee. .r 3.35.13.23 Publicly criticizing orders given by the Chief of Police, a Superior Officer, or a public official. 3.35.13.24 Communicating or giving police information to any person concerning the business of the Depart- ment, which is detrimental to the Department, without prior approval or authorization by a Commanding Officer. k 3.35.13.25 Communicating or giving police information which may aid a person to escape arrest, or to delay the apprehension of the criminal, or to secure the iemovel of stolen or embezzled goods, or other property, or money. 3.35.13.26 Refusing to give name, badge number, or to display identificati„o card in a courteous, gentlemanly manner when requested. 3.35 13.27 Neglecting to properly record on the booking slip of any person arrested the exact amount of all per- sonal and real property taken from him at time of arrest and/or booking. 3.35.13.28 Neglecting to turn over to the proper officer without unnecessary delay all property, including money, that is found, or seized as evidence, or taken from persons arrested. 3.35.13.29 Unjustified or careless use of a firearm. 3.35.13.30 Neglecting to report any member or employee of the Department known to be guilty of violation of any ru e, regulation or order issued for the guidance of the Department, where such violation would bring dis- credit to such member and/or the Department. 3.35.13.31 Failure to report or take necessary action in a known violation of law or a City ordinance. 3.35.13.32 Immorality 10-3 84-1086 84-1084 84-1083 84-1.08 2 CHAPTER 3. GIFTS: (See Rewards and/or solicitations) 3.87 3.47 GRIEVANCES: 3.47.1 Procedure: Members who feel aggrieved shall discuss their difficulties and differences with their Superior Officer, and not with other members of equal or lower grade, not with persons outside the Department of Police. Any member having a grievance involving another member which cannot be resolved amicably, shall consult his immediate Superior Officer. 3.49 HANDCUFFS: 3.49.1 Use of Handcuffs: The responsibility of an officer for the safe custody of his prisoner permits dis- cretion in the use of handcuffs. On minor offenses, he shall use his handcuffs only when he has reasonable cause to believe their use is necessary for the safety and well-being of the arrested person and the officer. Handcuffs should normally be used in transporting prisoners charged with a felony. Good judgment must be exer- cised in the use of handcuffs based on existing circumstances. 3.49.3 Juveniles and Women: As a general rule, handcuffs should not be used on women and children. The use of handcuffs on a female prisoner or on a juvenile (under the age of 17 years) may be effected when neces- sary to overcome resistance, or under such circumstances that they are liable to do injury to themselves or to escape from custody. 3.49.5 Transporting Prisoners: The use of handcuffs is not a form of punishment, but is a form of pro- tection to the arrested person to prevent his committing a foolish act which might result in injury tc himself, an officer, or an innocent citizen. The use of handcuffs also protects the officer. Reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of the use of handcuffs. Attempting to gain cooperation of a person, charged with or sus- pected of a felony or a serious misdemeanor, is not ordinarily a valid reason for failure to use handcuffs. Mem- bers should be able to justify the use, or failure to use, handcuffs in incidents resulting in escape, injury, or damage to property. 3.49.7 Witnesses and Persons Not Under Arrest: The above instructions do not apply to witnesses or sus- pects (persons not under arrest) who have merely been invited to the Police Department. 3.51 IDENTIFICATION CARDS: 3.51.1 Issued Official ID CARD: Members, on duty and off duty, shall at all times carry, or have on or about their person, the official issued Department of Police identification card. The loss of an ID card shall be reported immediately. 3.53 INFORMATION -- OFFICIAL: 3.53.1 Deface or filar: Members or employees of the Department shall not mark, mar, alter, or deface any printed or written notices placed on the bulletin board relating to police business, or any other information placed thereon. 3.53.3 Information Confidential: Members of the Department shall treat as confidential the official busi- ness of the Department. They shall not impart same to anyone except those for whom it is intended, or as di- rected by their Commanding Officer, or under due process of law. Members shall not make known to any person any special or general order which they may receive, unless so required by the nature of the order. Members shall not divulge or make known, or exhibit contents of any official file or criminal record filed in the Department of Police, to any person other than a duly authorized Police Officer or agency, except on ap- proval of the Chief of Police, a police Commanding Officer, or under due process of law. 3.53.5 Release to News Media: A Commanding Officer may impart to recognized representatives of the press and news media current news provided the ends of justice are not thereby defeatea, impaired, or impeded. Members shall cooperate with representatives of the press and news media, giving the proper information re- lating to incidents that come to police attention, except: 84-1086 84--1084 15 — 3 84-1083 84-1082 CHAPTER 3. 3.57.5 Members to Conform To: Members shall be required to conform to and abide by the Rules and Regu- lations of the Department of Police, and Ordinances of the City of Miami, the County of Dade, the Laws of the State of Florida, and the United States of America. — 3.57.7 Not Pursuit: Members shall not go outside the City except in fresh (hot) pursuit of known of sus- pected criminals, or hot pursuit of a traffic violator, or when authorized by the Chief of Police, or a Command. ing Officer, on a request received by him from an outside authority because of a grave emergency and urgent need for police assistance. 3.59 LEAVE OF ABSENCE: 3.59.1 Absence Without Leave: Any member of the Department absent from duty without authorized leave wr 11 forfeit pay for the time absent, and be subject to having disciplinary action placed against him. 3.61 LOITERING — LOAFING 3.61.1 Places in General: Members while on duty shall not loiter in cafes, drive-ins, service stations, or other public places, except for the purpose of transacting police business or to take regular meals as provided in these Rules and Regulations. Members of the Department shall not congregate or loiter in any place in such a manner as 4o bring discredit to the Department on or off duty. - 3.61.3 On -Duty: Members shall not sleep, idle, or loaf while on duty. This is a serious dereliction of duty and any member guilty of such misconduct shall be subject to disciplinary action. 3.63 ORDERS 3.63.1 Lawful Order: The term lawful order shall be construed as any order in keeping with the per- formance of any duty, issued either verbally or written over the signature of the Chief of Police or a Division Commanding Officer, or a Superior Officer, or prescribed by law or by the Manual of Rules and Regulations, or for the preservation of good order, efficiency, and proper discipline of the Department, which is not in con- flict with the Manual of Rules and Regulations. 3.63.3 Obedience To: Members of the Department shall obey, and execute promptly, any lawful order ema- nating from any Superior Officer. Should any such order conflict with a previous order or with any provision of the Manual of Rules and Regulations, the member to whom such order is given shall respectfully call attention to such conflict. It the officer giving the last order does not alter or retract such conflict, his order shall stand and the responsibility shall be his and the officer obeying the order shall not be held responsible for disobe- dience of any order theretofor issued. 3 63.5 Reporting of Unlawful Order: If an order contrary to the provisions of the Manual of Rules and Regulations is given to any member, such member shall promptly report such fact to the Chief of Police, through chain of command. 3.63.7 Carrying Out Orders: Members shall be held responsible for the proper performance of the duties assigned to them, and for strict adherence to the Rules and Regulations adopted from time to time by the Chief of Police. Ignorance of the Rules and Regulations shall not be received as an excuse or justificat',i�Inr any- thing that they may do contrary to the Rules and Regulations, or for anything they may omit to do, or that they follow the advice or suggestion of any person, whether or not that person be connected with the Department, except when a ranking officer may take upon himself the responsibility of issuing direct and positive orders. In no instance shall a member attempt to shift the burden of responsibility for executing or neglecting to execute a lawful order or police duty. Disagreeable duties must be performed and unpopular orders obeyed with cheerful willingness. Grouchiness, sarcasm, wisecracks, or flares of temper shall be avoided. Members shall at all times perform their duties outlined or ordered by a Superior Officer. 3.63.9 Derogatory Remarks: No members or employees of the Department shall, directly or indirectly, speak critically or derogatorily to other members and employees of the Department, or to any person outside of the Department, regarding any official action or the orders or instructions issued by any ranking or Superior Of- ficer; neither shall the action or orders of any city official, judge, magistrate, or other official agency be pub- 84--1486 84-108417 - 3 84-1083 84-1082 I CHAPTER 3. licly criticized. However, in any case where there is sound reason to believe that such order or instruction is inconsistent or unjust, he shall follow procedure as set forth above. (Obedience To:) 3.63.11 Through Chain of Command: of a tanking or Superior Officer, or any business or neglect of duty, or to make writing and direct same through official Failure of a Superior Officer to forward serious dereliction of duty. Any member or employee feeling aggrieved at the treatment or orders member or employee wishing to call attention to any matter of police suggestions for the improvement of the service, shall reduce same to chain of command to his Commanding Officer or the Chief of Police. a communication through the chain of command shall be treated as a 3.63.13 Emergency Routing of Orders: Although the Department of Police is a semi -military organization, and regular channels must be followed in addressing official communications, for the purpose of good discipline and progressive methods, every member or employee shall be privileged to have an interview with the Chief of Police through chain of command, or in case of emergency or pressing personal matter, the official channels may be bypassed. 3.63.15 Responsibility For: Members shall carefully read and study the Manual of Rules and Regulations, all bulletins, regulations, orders and memoranda issued from time to time by the Chief of Police, and Command- ing Officers, and shall be prepared to answer Questions thereon at any time asked by a Superior Officer. Any orders read or posted on the bulletin board of the Department over the signature of the Chief of Police or a Di. vision Commanding Officer shall have the same effect, and be construed as part of the Manual of Rules and Reg. ulations. 3.65 OFFICERS — COMMANDING OFFICERS, SUPERIOR OFFICERS: 3.65.1 Manner of Addressing: Members and employees, when in the presence of others, shall address Corm manding Officers and Superior Officers by their title of rank. Superior Officers, in addressing members, shall re- fer to them by the title of their rank, or the term 'officer" for those without official rank, 3.65.3 Criticism of Orders: Members shall not publicly criticize a Superior Officer, or any member of the Department of Police, to the detriment of such member. No member shall publicly criticize any order issued by a Superior Officer, or fail, refuse, or neglect to obey such legal order of a Superior Officer or members acting in a supervisory capacity. 3.65.5 Respect For: Members shall treat their Superior Officers with respect and their demeanor toward Superior Officers and associates in the Department shall be courteous and considerate, guarding themselves against envy, jealousy, or other unfriendly feelings, and retrain from all communications to their discredit; ex- cept to their Superior Officers when it is their duty to inform of a neglect or disobedience of orders that may come to their attention, 3.67 ORGANIZATIONS: 3.67,1 Subversive: 'A member or employee of the Department of Police shall not join, or be a member of, any organization or society which has as a purpose the overthrow of, or interference, with, the established government, by force, or illegal means. 3.67.3 Not To Interfere With Department Control: A member or employee of the Department shall not join, or be a member of, any organization or society, the object of which is either directly or indirectly to interfere with the administration and discipline and control of members of the Department of Police. 3.67.5 Members Urged To Join: Members and employees may, and are encouraged to, at their own discre- tion, join or become members of recognized civic, fraternal, social police organizations or societies, and to work through such organizations for the betterment of same and for better public relations and civic relations between said organizations and the Department of Police. It is through participation in such organizations that a closer understanding of the functions and problems of mutual interest can be resolved. 3.67,7 Labor Unions: Members and employees are prohibited from affiliating with any labor unions, or with any other organization or body, the constitution of which embraces provisions which might in any way 84-1086 84--IL084 M - 3 84-1083 84-1082 CHAPTER 3. exact prior consideration and prevent the proper and efficient functioning of police operation, or that maintains the right of its members to strike; nor shall they become affiliated with, or cause to be established within the Department, any such organization. 3.67.9 Organising Clubs, Societies, etc, It shall be the duty of every member and employee of the De- partment to inform the Chief of Police promptly whenever he shall have knowledge of the organizing or attempt to organize any association, society, club or meeting of members or employees within the Department without the approval of the Chief of Police. Failure of any member or employee having such knowledge to forward same or give such information promptly to the Chief of Police will subject him to disciplinary action. 3.69 POLITICS: 3.69.1 Activities of Members: Members shall avoid all religious or political discussions or arguments to the detriment of good discipline, in the police building or elsewhere while on duty. He shall not interfere or make use of the influence of his office for political reasons, nor be permitted to take part in any political ac- tivity or management, or affairs, or circulate political or election petitions, other than to cast his vote and to express privately his opinion on such matters; his participation must end there. 3.69.3 Solicitation — Contribution by Members: Members shall not campaign not solicit nor make con- tributions in money or other things to any person, committee, or association for political purposes. 3.71 PETITIONS: 3.71.1 Members Signing: Members shall not sign or circulate any petition as a member of the City of Miami Department of Police, except on authorization of the Chief of Police. 3.71.3 Members Seeking: Members are forbidden to solicit petitions for their promotion or change in line of duty, or for the promotion or change of any assignment of another member or to promote any political influ- ence to effect such an end. i 3.73 PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT: i 3.73.1 Use: A member shall not use departmental property or equipment or vehicles except in the perfor- mance of a police duty, nor permit its use by an unauthorized person, either on or off duty. All members are re- sponsible for the care and use of all Department property or equipment assigned to their use or care, and shall promptly report to their Commanding Officer the loss of, damage to, or unserviceable condition of any such de- partmental property or equipment assigned to them, and shall exercise the utmost attention to use and care of said property and equipment entrusted to them to facilitate performance of their police duty. 3.73.3 Careless Handling: Roughness or carelessness in the handling or use of such property shall not I be tolerated, and any member found guilty of such action, either through carelessness or negligence, shall be d subject to disciplinary action. r 3.733 Loss: It shall be prima facie evidence of neglect of a member through carelessness to lose his badge, 10 card or other property or equipment, or when lost to neglect to report same immediately to the com- manding officer. 3.73.7 Inventory Control: Furniture, files and other property and equipment of the Department of Police in the various offices and in other places in the police buildings shall remain where officially assigned, and shall not be moved from such offices and places, or the location changed from the assigned area without con- sent of the Division Commanding Officer, and then only when the proper notice has been forwarded to the Ad- ministration Division for proper inventory control. (Item and Department property number shall be included with this notice). 3.73.9 Damage: Members shall be held responsible for damages resulting from accidents wherein the evi- dence shows carelessness, negligence or a violation of a traffic ordinance. Members shall be held strictly ac- countable for damage caused by abuse or careless handling of police vehicles. Evidence of such abuse or care- less handling shall be submitted promptly to the Division Commanding Officer. Each member shall examine his vehicle at the start of his tour of duty for dents, broken glass, or other readily visible damage, and shall sub- 84-1086 84-1015419.3 84-1083 84-1062 0iAPTER 3. 3.93.11 Soliciting Funds: Members of the Department shall not solicit, accept, print, or publish advertise. ments, mess-cges, space or booster lists, directly or indirectly, or receive funds in connection therewith, di. rectly or indirectly, from storekeepers, businessmen, or any other person, in connection with journals, peri- odicals, or any other publication of any police organization, or any other organization of this Department, or in connection with journals, periodicals or any other publications of any organization within or without the De- partment that has the word "Police" in its organizational title or its literature, tickets, or pamphlets used in connection with the raising of money for any purpose, which indicates in any way an affiliation with the De- partment of Police, without approval and consent of the Chief of Police. 3.93.13 Law Enforcement Requires Strict Neutrality: Effective and efficient law enforcement requires strict neutrality on the part of all members of the Department of Police in dealing with the public. The Depart• ment of Police must provide police services to all persons and groups within the community, without favor. It is certainly not conducive to a suitable climate of law enforcement to have Police Officers or public fund raisers in their behalf, soliciting contributions from storekeepers, businessmen and commercial enterprises, or other members of the public, for journals or organizations affiliated with the Department of Police. Experience has demonstrated that such practices inevitably lead to a suspicion, whether justified or not, of corruption, intimidation, or expectation of favors. 3.95 SPEECHES OR DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATION: 3.95.1 Approval Required: A member of the Department shall not attend conventions or meetings, or make speeches as a representative of the Department without official sanction. f r Members, officially or unofficially, shall not address any public gathering or appear on radio or television of t prepare for publication any aiticle,or act as a correspondent to a newspaper or periodical,nor shall he discuss, or release, or divulge to the public or for publication any information concerning the activities, plans, methods, policies, affairs of the administration, personnel matters, investigative information, or matters of the Depart- ment of Police, or lecture or instruct on police or related subject, without prior approval of or as directed, or duly authorized, by the Chief of Police. 3.95.3 Remuneration For; No member who has agreed to, or who has fulfilled an engagement or appearance of any kind whatsoever, as a representative of the Department of Police, shall receive any remuneration there- for, without the approval of the Chief of Police. 3.97 SMOKING, CHEWING GU 11, TOBACCO, ETC: 3.97.1 On Duty: Smoking at any time shall not be indulged in by any member or employee of the Depart- ment under conditions which would be detrimental to good conduct, courtesy, or efficent procedure. 3.97.3 Uniform Members: Members of the Department, while in uniform, shall not smoke, chew tobacco, gum, or snuff, when visible to the public, nor shall they do so during roll call, line tip, or while attending any court, or during any formation or official function, nor shall they leave any post or assignment for the sole pur- pose of smoking, chewing tobacco, gum or snuff, but shall, when permitted, do so in such a manner as to be in- conspicuous. 3.97.5 In Police Building (Offices): Restrictions on smoking in the police building offices, will be sub- ject to the above only while in contact with the public. r 3.97.7 Members Not in Uniform: Members and employees not in uniform shall not smoke, chew tobacco, gum, or snuff, while in direct contact with the public, or at any time that to do so would interfere with the prop- er and courteous discharge of their official police duties. 3.99 SUGGESTIONS: (Improvement of Services) 3.99.1 From Members: Any member of the Department wishing to call attention to any matter of police business, or neglect of duty, or to make suggestions for the betterment and improvement of the Department, shall communicate directly in writing with his immediate Superior Officer, who shall forward such communi- cation to the Chief of Police through official channels. 84--1086 84-1084 23 — 3 84--1083 84-1082