Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #02 - Discussion ItemATTACI-3MENT 3 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS CONTRIBUTING TO MORALE AND PER- FORMANCE OF POLICE OFFICERS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT The following is a summary of the more significant problems in the Police Department which, in my opinion, are contributing to morale of the Department which has its effect on performance of the Depart- ment and the individual police officer. (This listing is not in priority order. ) Court rulings on individuals arrested by Miami police officers. The Police Department's use of internal review procedures including the Departmental Disciplinary Review Board as it relates to the process of arriving at administrative decision as to the degree of punishment for those police officers who have violated the requirements of their position. The Black officer court case. Concern for the future promotability of officers other than those who are Black and Latin. The legal requirements which set the method for the appointment of a Black Major as prescribed by the Black officer court case. Concern for how the future appointment of a Latin Major will be made. The grouping together of certain officers for special interests, i. e. Fraternal Order of Police, Police Benevolent Association, Community Police Benevo- lent Association, Latin Officers Association. The $300, 000 Law Enforcement Assistance Administra- tion Outreach Grant which provides for inter -departmental training programs to advance the promotional capabilities of existing police officers and an outreach recruitment program placing emphasis on employing a larger number of Latin and Black police officers. 11. Carl Duncan 12. Eddie Mitchell Page 1 Page 1 of 2 • Supervision within the Department with emphasis on the number of Lieutenants and Sergeants available for supervision of the police officers in the field. Communications with the police officers in such a way that they have a clear understanding of the important matters affecting the Department which in turn affect the level of performance. The following is a list of items which are also effecting Department performance, but not as significant as the preceding group: The Traffic Section police officers' request to change their work schedule from the present 5 day-8 hour shift to the 4 day-10 hour shift. Fully understanding the role of Stanford Research Institute, consultant for the City, as it applies to modernizing the Police Department. A feeling of the Miami police officer that Miami is too often selected for special attention by the news media no matter what the nature of the problem might be. Decision on what type of ammunition will be issued to the police officer in the future. Personal matters relating to the use of radios, wearing of caps and hair cuts. Page 1 Page 2 of 2 AGENDA FOR SPECIAL INVEST/GAT/NO COMMITTEE CITY HALL DINNER KEY 9:30 A.M. NOVEMBER 6, 1974 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN AND READING OF RESOLUTION CREATING THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE AND AUTHORIZING THE INVESTIGATION. II. COMMENTS BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE. III. COMMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. IV. POLICE OFFICERS' TORTS - WITNESSES: 1. Michael Sena 2. Joseph Avril 3. Robert Mayer 4. Phillip Knight, Esq. 5. Evelyn Greer, Esq. 6. Marvin Kight 7. Norman Kight 8. Edward Wright V. PRESENTATIONS CONCERNING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT: 1. Charles C. Samen 2. Robert Kowalski 3. Gus Zenos 4. Charles F. Salerno 5. Otis Davis 6. .Franklin Cohen 7. Thomas Pinder 8. Daniel Bailey 9. Nathaniel Veal 10. Clarence Dixon 11. Carl Duncan 12. Eddie Mitchell Page 1 1 VI. COMMUNITY PRESENTATIONS 1. Juvenal. Pena 2. Robert Cruz 3. Aaron J. Manes 4. Fred Harris 5. Jose Molina 6. Emilio Lopez 7. Florence Wills VII. CITIZENS PRESENTATIONS: 1. Elizabeth Virrick 2. Carolyn McBride 3. Mittie Andrews 4. Benny Taylor 5. Leon Leonard 6. Ronald Tookes VIII. OTHERS: 1. Bernard L. Garmire, Police Chief 2. Asst. Chief Garland Watkins 3. Asst. Chief Kenneth Fox 4. Major A. J. McLaughlin 5. Sgt. Ronald Hanley 6. Lt. Robert Murphy 7. Beryl Casey 8. Frances Clark 9. Michael Harrison 10. Charles Vershoor 11. Bruce Hammersley ,12. Joseph Paredes 13. Raphael Villaverde 14. Edward Rivas Page 2 1 The following statement was taken in the office of Internal Security by Sgt. Veal, november 5, 1974, 1715 hours. Case #3523-#2. Stenographer - Rose Gold. The oath to tell the truth was administered to Michael Ter- rence Patterson by notary Rose Gold. Q: Mr. Patterson, I'd like to call your attention to the 7th of tiay 1974 in the area of 3►0 NW 3 Street. This is near the Channel 4 Wometco Enterprises, and ask you if you remember an altercation between a couple of Miami Police officers and.a nearo male who has been identified as Roland Dixon? A: Yes. Q: I would like to ask you what were you doing at that time. Were you working in the area, or what? A: Yeah, I were working and had our truck facing west on 3 Street. Q: A: Q: A: You work for the Florida Power and Light Company? Yes. And what's your classification? Apprentice cable splicer. Q: tlhat drew you and your partner's attention to the incident involving a policeman? A: Well, we were sitting in the truck facing west and there was a black elderly gentleman, I'd say in the neighborhood of fifty, sort of weaving, you know, mildly weaving. Q: He wasn't weaving too bad? A: no, he wasn't causing any harm. A black and white unit:! - pulled up in front of the parking garage, and two officers got out and stopped the suspect. They were questioning him. I couldn't hear them, and they examined the contents the gentleman had - it was a paper sack. Q: Did you see them take anything out of it? A: No. I saw them just look inside. Q: Which way was Dixon heading? A: West. • Statement of Michael Patterson 2 - Case #36234#2 A: Q A: On 3 Street? Right. Did the officers indicate that they were gonna arrest Dixon by opening the car door? I assumed they were gonna take him in, they had opened the back door, at which time Mr. Dixon was standing in front of the opened door - that is - back towards the door. The officers attempted to put him inside the rear oft the squad car and 14r. Dixon froze up, hands to his side, stiff. Q: Is that like an attempt to keep from being put in the rear seat of the patrol car? A: Yes. Q: Did any of the two policemen have to use physical force on Mr. Dixon? A: Yes. Q: We'll refer to the polieemen as the shorter one, and the -taller one. A: The shorter one was the closest to us. There was an officer on each side of Mr. Dixon. Well, after attempts failed to put him in the back of the car, one officer, the shorter one, had his night stick out in his right hand. Okay, that was almost simultaneously, the taller officer was using right uppercuts to the mid section. Q: Of Dixon? A: Yes. Q: Let me ask you this. How close were you to the officers and Dixon at this time. Had you gotten out of your truck? A: Well, we didn't know what they were gonna do to the guy. As soon as the fists started flying, I couldn't believe it. About the same time the other officer was using his night stick to the back shoulder part and neck area of the left side of Dixon, at which time we ran out of the truck and went straight towards them. At which time they were to the rear of the car into the street, with Dixon on the ground, face down. While we Statement of Michael Patterson - 3 Case #3523 2 were running there, like going across the street, like from here to the car outside (approximately 25 yards). R: Okay, and you and your partner ran directly up to A: Yeah, but while we were running there, the subduing drop kicks were thrown by the officers. Q: As you were running towards the incident itself? A: Yes. The one officer, the smaller officer, threw a knee to the fellow's lower back, upper buttocks, and the other officer threw one that looked to land against the fellow's head, which was on the ground. Q: Is that the taller one that landed the knee to the head area of Dixon? A: Yes. Q: Whenyou arrived? A: Then I was there. Q: Did you see the eye injury? A: I did not see it right then. Two employees for WTVJ were there also, like right on top of it, you know, the older fellow and a younger fellow. The younger fellow was also speafing up reference the excessive force I would say., and ended up helping the policemen handcuff Mr. Dixon after the policemen held each arm for this man to be able to place the handcuffs an him. Q: Let me ask you this. Would you say that the people from WTVJ and you and your partner arrived almost at the same time? A: I would say we got there maybe just a 'tad' (second) before they arrived because they were coming out of the north parking lot across the street. Q: When did you notice the eye? A: Shortly after thit. I moved from the position I was standing, approximately eighty to ninety degrees, and got a glimpse of the eye, initially out of the socket, hang- ing on his cheek. Everybody was there then, there was a crowd gathering, backup units were there. Q: Did you see any of the police officers kick Dixon in the eye? A: No. If you want to ask me personally, I would think it Statement of MiChaei Patterson W Case #3523.42 A: was because from the drop kick, but I'm no authority. Q: Are you referring to the drop kick of the policeman? A: Yes, but I did not see the knee land on his head, and see the eye pop out. Q: Can you identify the original officer that kneed Dixon on the head area? A: .After six months or seven months, I can not, but the only name I flashed off a badge was Vincent. He could have been the man who beat Dixon, or he could have been the officer who pulled up after. Q: Would any of the employees from Channel 4 have been in a position to witness Mr. Dixon getting kicked in the eye? A: It's possible they could have saw from the angle they were at, it's possible. Q: If employees from Channel 4 said they observed a Miami Police Officer kick Dixon in the eye while he was on the ground, can you say this did or did not occur? A: My prior statement seeing the drop kick, it was my belief that's how the eyeball could have did itcouldhave been possible. There was a lot of struggling. The old bird was strong. He didn't throw no punches. Q: Would you describe the resisting that Mr. Dixon did as more or less as uncooperative as opposed his trying to hurt the officers? A: I would say uncooperative and leave it just at that. Q: Is there anything else that I haven't asked you that I would need to know, or you think I should know, about this investigation? A: I'll just say the force was too excessive. Q: After all the police officers arrived on the scene, did you see any police officer other than Vincent place his knee on the head of Mr. Dixon? A: No, the only two that were involved in the real scuffle was the two officers, and the only other assistance I Statement of (Michael Patterson Case # 23 #2 A: would say was the handcuffing of the civilian, after persuasion. Q: You didn't see any assistance given to the two original officers by the arriving officers? A: to. I would say no, because by that time they had him cuffed and he was laying on the street, face down. Q: Is everything you've stated to me Mr. Patterson, the truth to the best of your knowledge? A: That's correct. Statement concluded 1741 hours. witness Michael Patterson sworn and subscribed to before me this day of 1974. Notary NIl is State of Florida Thia is a statement taken at Channel Pour, 30 NW 4 Street by Sgt. Veal, Miami Police Department, Internal Security Unit. pse #3523. Since this statement was taped, it is being typed by Stenographer Rose Cold. 5' 11-( may Q: Sir, would you state your name, address and your phone number, please. A: Bob Mayer, address here is 30 NW 4 Street WTVJ, the number is 377-8241, Extension 262. Q: Mr. Mayer, I'd like to call your attention to the 7th of May 1974 at approximately 3:37 PM, and ask you did you witness Miami police officers making an arrest of a N/M, who has been identified as Roland Dixon? A: Yeah, I witnessed the arrest, I don't know the name. Q: I understand. Would you explain to me in narrative form, exactly what you observed from start to finish please, as best you can. A: All right, okay. Well, simply, we were both in the parking lot, my cameraman and I were pulling into the parking lot. This was 3rd Street, pulling out on 3rd Street and we were starting to head west to cover a story, and we noticed at the time that two police officers were up against the side of a cruiser, a white police cruiser, apparently trying to arrest a, what appeared to be, a drunk. It appeared to be that, and it appeared that they were having some trouble, you know, the man was flailing about, he didn't wanna be arrested. He was obviously resisting arrest. The man who was with me, Dave Dershimer, thought that he might go over and give the officers a hand, because they were having problems. Q: Did he physically participate with the officers? A: Yes, Dave Dershimer physically put the cuffs on the suspect. Q: I understand. A: What had happened was, Dave has had some police training, and it was his opinion from what was going on, it was getting to be a very violent struggle. The police officers, it appeared to me, were overacting, reacting terribly. They called in for two or three extra units. One of the police officers took his billy club and was smashing this poor guy over the head, I don't know, maybe ten times, full force, on the head. Statement of Bob Mayer ?Case #3523 Waa he handcuffed? : Not at this point. Not at this point. Dave just thought they were handling it all wrong and he went over. By the time he reached there, the man was on the ground, the suspect was on the ground, and they were trying to cuff him, and couldn't. Dave asked if he could help. I think at first they said, 'no, no, no', but then they said, 'all right', and Dave said, "hand me your cuffs, 1 can get his arm back, give me your cuffs and I'll cuff him", so Dave took the cuffs and cuffed the suspect's right arm first. His other arm was still underneath on the road; he was on his stomach. Dave then, as other officers were holding him, Dave got his other arm, pulled it back and cuffed the other arm. Q: So his hands were cuffed. A: Right. The struggle continued even after this, and more officers came. I would guess there were four officers on top of this guy and at about this time, what I think was a fifth officer was in a unit, came up and I can't identify what officer was what, that's the problem, but I was standing in - to the rear of the suspect who was stomach down to the road, and his face was turned left- ward and this fifth policeman came over and just kicked him as hard as he could in the face, and his eye popped out. Popped out. How far were you from the incident when the guy walked over and kicked him in the eye? Okay, - now, I was standing right next to the suspect I would say. Q: A: Q: A: Two feet, three feet? Two feet from the suspect. Now, from my angle, my vantage point, I couldn't see where the foot hit in the face, I thought he kicked his teeth out, but when I got around to the other side, I saw the eye hanging out. Q: So it was obvious it was the eye area. A: Right. Now, there were a lot of witnesses, a lot of people watch- ing, including Joe Abrell, who is the Public Affairs Director. Q: I have his statement, and a letter from Mr. Abrell. A: Right. Now, Joe, when Joe saw the officer kick the man's eye out, ES: Statement of Bob Mayer Case #3523 A: he got very upset, and he said something to the effect that - he went over to the officer who did it and said, "just a minute," 'you knowNhat'a going on here, you got four -guys on top of a drunk, you know this action is unnecessary, you're overdoing it a little, aren't you?" something to that effect. Q: I understand. A: The officer got very arrogant and told him to get his identifi- cation out immediately, asked who he was, told him to get his identification out immediately and Joe proceeded to do so, at the same time asked the officer for his identification, and he said, "there's my identification", pointing to his badge. Q: A: There were some words between the two, and Joe said he'd never seen anything like this before and the officer said something to the effect that, "well, you're not a cop, you don't understand, you'll never understand", and Ahrell said, "that's bullshit; and you know it is". That's about That's about the whole thing At that point the - I had asked the cameraman at that point, Aftee he cuffed the suspect, to get his camera, you know, 'cause it was obvious that something was going on here that was not right. Q: Right. A: So I asked him to start shooting some film, and he did. However, I don't know what came out because we were set up for an inside story and there was no filter in the camera, you know, so the film could be ruined. I haven't had a chance to look at it. Q: Mr. Dershimer, what time does he come to work, is he around now? A: Dave works from nine to six. Q: Nine in the morning to six in the afternoon. Is he off today? A: (in the background, "I believe he's off today.) I believe it's his day off. Q: Okay. Will you see him tomorrow? A: Tomorrow may be his day off too. Today is Wednesday. He's off today and tomorrow. Q: Has everything you've told me been exactly what you observed, to the best of your knowledge, Mr. Mayer? A: Right. Statement of Bob Mayer Case #3523 Q: The only thing you A: Oh, I can add this Dave - if you want to get into hearsay Q: I'm gonna take a statement from Mr. Dershimer, and you can just relate to it. A: well, I'll relate to it. Dave said, when he first went over - Dave ran over, I was in the car, which the car was like part way into the street in our parking lot. Dave ran over, and I pro- ceeded over a couple of minutes later, but he said the officer, the original officers, at the time when he walked over there, were choking him. He said the man was about to go, you know, and Dave told them to stop. Q: I understand. The first two were choking him rather than trying to subdue him A: Right, you know, and eventually, when Dave insisted that he was just trying to help, and trying to get it done the right way, they let him, and when he left, Dave told me that they asked for his name and address and said they were gonna send him a letter of commendation for helping the police out. Q: Let me ask you this. Would you be willing to assist us in taking a formal statement from a stenographer. There'll be times when I'll try to do it as much to your convenience as I can. A: Absolutely, there's no question. Q: You will. A: There's no question. I wanna make this clear. The man they were arresting was resisting arrest - no question about it. Q: I understand. A: You know, the whole thing was - you've got one gu; flailing around, resisting arrest. They called in three police unnts, and four or five policemen, and with all of that, you know, etcess brutality to an extreme where a man lost his eye. It was horrfible. I've never seen anything like it in my life. Q: I understand. But you will assist us in any departmental inquiry. Everything I gather is gonna be taken to the State Attorney's office in the event that the State Attorney files charges, and bound the officer over that kicked the man's eye cit. Cage 0523 : But the problem - I don't know Q: Well, that will be identified, All I want to know, will you cooperate with us? Al Yes. Q: That's all 1 want to know. Statement concluded 12:39 PM. : 01 j!fr.1 1:6 - ;17 - "III Aft,' IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF DADE FALL TERM A. D. 1973 FINAL REPORT OF THE GRAND JURY FILED MAY 21, 1974 Es :01 1'y :'1 'r 1;1 ii•j �jr MIAMI.. POttCEDEPARTMENT to 1970 the Dade County Grand Jury conducted an investigation of morale and communication problems within the Miami Police Depart- ment. The Jury concluded that there had been a failure to open lines of communication between the top echelon of command and the men in the field. This Grand Jury has heard witnesses from the Miami Police Depart- ment of virtually every rank, including the Chief of Police and his top assistant. Those witnesses who were were unanimous in their testimony that a not part of the top echelon substantial morale problem exists within the department and that it has intensified since the Jury report of 1971. There continues to exist a communications gap between the command echelon and men in the lower ranks. We recognize that in every organization there is bound to be a small cadre of irreconcilable malcontents, and in listening to a cross-section of the department, we made effort to avoid being the sounding board for the complaints of cliques. The Fall Term 1970 Grand Jury stated that although there was a morale problem within the Miami Police Department, witnesses, speak- ing of Chief Bernard Garmire, who had been hired in 1969, were `almost unanimous in their praise of (Garmire) as an excellent administrator." Such praise was not heard this term. This Grand Jury believes that the administrative abilities of the Chief of a Metropolitan Police Department are tested by and should be judged by his handling of exactly those problems which exist today in the Miami Police Department. Beyond his administrative abilities, moreover, he should be the kind of leader who inspires his men to willingly follow orders, fulfill their assignments with dedication, and a man who communicates to his 1 ORO men the feeling that he is interested in their total welfare. To the men in the ranks, the installation of a new administrative pro- cedure, however brilliant, may not be as meaningful as, for example, a visit by the Chief to the family of a policeman killed in the line of duty. We have heard testimony of a number of situations in which the Chief has failed to take advantage of obvious opportunities to show the men in the field that they were led by "a cop's cop." It is evident from our investigation that the report of the previous Grand Jury has not been implemented. We believe that the City Administration and the City Commission have also failed to take action to remedy the morale problem which has a direct bearing on police performance. Repeatedly, the Grand Jury heard these complaints from Miami policemen: 1. Lines of communication were more open in previous administra- tions. 2. There is a lack of pride in the Department. 3. There is inadequate training in gathering evidence and giving testimony in court. 4. Patrolmen do not feel they have the support of their superiors; reprimands are given without adequate basis, and officers investigated by the Internal Security Section are often made to feel guilty until proven innocent. 5. Transfers in and out of specialized divisions such as Homicide are made in groups rather than on a staggered basis, too often requiring those divisions to investigate cases without exper- ienced personnel. 6. Sergeants are not deployed in the field to achieve maximum 2 results of both supervision and support for men it 7. Cliques within the department are increasing as a result of morale deterioration. 8. Promotions are made on the basis of a weight of 807 given to a written test and 20'/ to seniority, with no consideration given to performance. The top man on the register submitted by the Civil Service Board must be promoted. 9. To the police officer whose career is involved, there often seems to be no supervision of the Chief by those officials to whom he is responsible. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS: 1. Since the same conditions exist now as did in 1970, the City Manager and the City Commission should demand that Chief Garmire use all the authority vested in him to correct the conditions outlined. If he cannot improve morale and the performance of the department, new leadership should be sought. 2. The sheer number of complaints of specific nature, ranging from report procedures to the condition of motor pool vehicle equipment, indicates that additional seminars should be held to discuss morale, hear complaints, and give both administrators and rank and file officers a chance to exchange views. 3. The Chief of Police should make more personal appearances at roll call and be more visible to the men in the ranks. 4. Although the Grand Jury does not think this is a proper time to recommend solutions for every inter -departmental problem, it does strongly recommend a differential in pay for night duty. The Grand Jury recognizes that effective police work is the responsibility not only of the administration of the department, but of individual officers. The high calling of police work demands that an officer must consider himself a professional, even though certain conditions may not be to his satisfaction, and his conduct and perform- ance should reflect this professionalism. Good communication requires a two-way flow and the Grand Jury strongly, recommends that all members of the department do their share to keep the avenues open. In conclusion, the Grand Jury recommends that surveys of the Miami Police Department now in progress by Booz-Allen Corporation and Stanford Research Corporation be given thorough study and implementation by not only the Chief, but by the City Manager and City Commission.