Office of Inspector General
City of New Orleans

Report of Inquiry
into
Documentation of Sex Crime Investigations by
Five Detectives in the Special Victims Section of the
New Orleans Police Department
13-0017-I

E. R. Quatrevaux
Inspector General

November 12, 2014

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Office of Inspector General initiated an investigation based on information gathered by the
Audit Division of this Office for its Audit of NOPD’s  Uniform  Crime  Reporting  of  Forcible   Rapes
(May 2014). The Investigations Division reviewed the 90 sex crime related reports that auditors
cited in their report, and identified 23 reports that raised concerns about the documentation of
the investigations.
Investigators reviewed the records of agencies that might have had information regarding these
cases and identified five New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) Special Victims Section
detectives whose documentation for investigations was questionable. Due to ongoing
investigations, these five detectives will be not named in this report; their identities were
provided to the NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau (PIB), which provided material assistance to the
investigation.
PIB identified 1,290 sex crime related calls for service that were assigned to the five detectives.
Of the 1,290 Item Numbers, only 179 (14%) contained supplemental reports documenting any
additional investigative efforts beyond the initial report; these 179 supplemental reports were
the total written investigative product of the five detectives for sex crime related calls for
service for three years.
The Investigations Division reviewed 450 Item Numbers wherein initial reports were written or
comments were made by the five detectives. Of these, 271 (60%) contained no supplemental
reports documenting any investigative effort beyond the initial report.
These five detectives, in 271 specific instances, either failed to provide documentation of
investigative efforts or provided questionable documentation. The Investigations Division has
provided these cases to PIB for further investigation.
The investigation also noted that NOPD supervisors failed to identify the problems concerning
the documentation of investigative efforts by the five detectives for the three year period.

Office of Inspector General
City of New Orleans

OIG-Investigations (13-0017-I)Documentation of Sex Crime Investigations
Page 1 of 7
November 12, 2014

 I. INTRODUCTION
The Investigations Division of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a review of 90
sex  crime  related  reports  that  were  acquired  by  the  OIG’s  Audit  Division. 1 In the course of that
review, the Investigations Division identified detectives in the Special Victims Section2 of the
New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) who failed to provide documentation of investigative
effort and results or who provided questionable documentation in some of their investigations
of sex crimes.
Investigators identified 23 reports of the 90 randomly selected by the Audit Division that
aroused significant concerns regarding the documentation of the investigations. Six reports
were created on a date later than the date written on the report; seven reports contained no
supplemental reports documenting any further investigative efforts; and four reports contained
information that was materially different from related medical reports. These concerns led the
Investigations Division to conduct a comprehensive review of every case that the detectives
were assigned during the three year period, January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013.
Accordingly, the investigators requested that NOPD’s   Public   Integrity   Bureau   (PIB)   identify
every sex crime related call for service that was assigned to the five detectives during this three
year period; PIB identified 1,290 calls for service that had been assigned to one of the five
detectives to investigate.
In addition to reviewing NOPD and Orleans Parish Communications District reports, the
investigators also reviewed the following:
Special Victims Section files
NOPD’s  Central Evidence and Property records
Orleans Parish District Attorney files
Audio recordings of the 911 calls
City of New Orleans Information Technology and Innovation Department records
Louisiana State Police (LSP) DNA Laboratory records
Medical reports
Due to ongoing investigations, the five detectives will not be named in this report and will be
referred to as Detectives A-E. The detectives’ true identities were provided to PIB separately.
This report provides examples of the questionable documentation by these five detectives;
however, these examples will not contain names, dates, locations, or details that could lead to
the identification of any victims. This information was provided to PIB separately to protect the
identity of any potential victim as well as to avoid interfering with any potential prosecution.

1

See “Performance   Audit   of   the   New  Orleans   Police   Department's   Uniform   Crime   Reporting   of   Forcible  Rapes.”  
May 14, 2014. www.nolaoig.org.
2
The  NOPD  website  states  that:  “the  Special  Victim’s  Section  consists  of  the  Sex  Crimes Unit, the Child Abuse Unit
and the Domestic Violence Unit. The Sex Crimes Unit is a specialized investigative unit which has the responsibility
to handle the investigation of all rapes and attempted rapes, sexual batteries, and carnal knowledge cases (except
in child abuse cases).”
Office of Inspector General
City of New Orleans

OIG-Investigations (13-0017-I)Documentation of Sex Crime Investigations
Page 2 of 7
November 12, 2014

 II. RESULTS
Investigators reviewed 1,290 calls for service identified by PIB that were assigned to the five
detectives. Of these, 840 (65%) were designated Signal 21 (Miscellaneous).3 For these 840, no
reports were written and there were no comments in the Incident Recall Report. The latter
report   is   created   by   the   Orleans   Parish   Communication   District’s   Computer   Aided   Dispatch  
(CAD) system, which maintains a log of all transactions for incidents called into 911. Due to this
total void of information, the investigators could not analyze 65% of the sex crime related calls
for service assigned to the five detectives.
Investigators analyzed the remaining 35%, which were the 450 calls for service that were
designated as sex crime signals4. For all of these, there is an initial report which provides very
little information; the initial reports are deliberately brief in order to protect the identity of the
victims. For example, a typical initial report of a sex crime might state,  “a  known  female  was  
sexually assaulted at a known location. Additional information will be provided via
supplemental  report.”
In the majority of the brief original reports associated with these 450 calls for service that were
designated as a sex crime signal, the detectives indicated that additional information would be
provided via a supplemental report. However, the detectives followed through only 40% of the
time, providing a total of only 179 supplemental reports among the five detectives over three
years. These 179 supplemental reports represented the entirety of the written product
documenting further investigative efforts by the five detectives during the three year period.
For 271 (60%) of these cases which were designated as a sex crime signal, there were no
supplemental reports documenting any investigative effort beyond the initial report.5
Table A.
Det.

Cases
assigned

Det A
Det B
Det C
Det D
Det E

99
105
40
87
119
450

No
Supplemental
Report /
Information
53
29
34
53
102
271

%

54%
28%
85%
61%
86%
60%

3

A sex crime related call for service might be originally classified as Signal 21 (Miscellaneous) when there is not
enough information to designate it as, for example, Signal 42 (Rape) or Signal 43 (Simple Rape). It is entirely in the
discretion of the NOPD whether to reclassify a Signal 21 to a signal indicating criminal behavior.
4
Sex Crime Signals include: Signal 42, Rape; Signal 43, Simple Rape; Signal 80, Indecent Behavior with a juvenile.
5
It should be noted that the  DA’s  Office  accepted  cases  for  prosecution  from  these  five  detectives  despite  the  fact  
that approximately 60% of the time the detectives did not provide any documentation showing investigative
efforts beyond that of the scant initial report. The 5 detectives presented  105  cases  to  the  DA’s  Office  and  74  were  
accepted. The  DA’s  Office  obtained  all  the  documentation  required  for  prosecution.
Office of Inspector General
City of New Orleans

OIG-Investigations (13-0017-I)Documentation of Sex Crime Investigations
Page 3 of 7
November 12, 2014

 These 271 cases should be investigated by the NOPD and a final determination made.

Analysis By Detective
Detective A
Detective A was assigned 13 cases of potential sexual/physical abuse involving juveniles
wherein the juvenile victims potentially were still in the same home where the alleged abuse
occurred. Due to potential safety concerns involving the children, these cases were provided to
NOPD on discovery by the Investigations Division.
Out of these 13 cases, 11 had no supplemental reports documenting any investigative effort
beyond the initial report. These included:
An infant was brought to the hospital emergency room with a skull fracture. The
emergency room nurse wrote  that  she  “suspected  non-accidental  trauma”; Detective A
conducted no investigation and closed the case.
An infant was brought to the hospital emergency room with a skull fracture. The doctor
found   not   only   a   current   skull   fracture   but   an   old   skull   fracture   as   well.   The   victim’s  
mother changed her story several times, but Detective A wrote in the original report
that there was no cause for criminal action and closed the case.
A juvenile was brought to the hospital emergency room due to an alleged sexual assault.
A review   of   the   victim’s   medical   records   revealed   that   the   juvenile, who was under 3
years old, had a sexually transmitted disease. However, Detective A wrote that the
victim did not disclose any information that would warrant a criminal investigation and
closed the case.
A juvenile was brought to the hospital emergency room due to an alleged sexual assault.
A review of hospital records revealed that a forensic interview was conducted by a
specialist trained to elicit information from children regarding sexual/physical abuse.
The forensic interview report noted specific information regarding sexual and physical
abuse by a named individual who was living in the same house with the juvenile; this
report also stated that the named individual was a registered sex offender. Detective A
wrote that the juvenile victim did not disclose any information regarding a sexual assault
and closed the case due to a lack of evidence.

Office of Inspector General
City of New Orleans

OIG-Investigations (13-0017-I)Documentation of Sex Crime Investigations
Page 4 of 7
November 12, 2014

 Detective B
Detective B was assigned three separate cases wherein the Louisiana State Police DNA
Laboratory identified DNA evidence. In none of these cases was there documentation of
any follow-up investigation.
Detective B had two cases wherein no files were created in the Special Victims Section.
Detective B also had a case where the victim stated she was sexually assaulted and her
IPhone was stolen. There was no documentation of any investigative effort in tracking
the phone or obtaining phone records.

Detective C
A female reported being sexually assaulted and was examined by a Sexual Assault Nurse
Examiner (SANE). 6 NOPD was provided with the sexual assault kit. The original report
stated that Detective C contacted the Louisiana State Police DNA Laboratory and found
no results in the sexual assault kit. However, a review of the laboratory’s records
revealed that the kit was never submitted; a review   of   NOPD’s   Central   Evidence   and  
Property records showed that the kit had never moved from Central Evidence and
Property.
On a specific date in 2013, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) requested NOPD to
provide four supplemental reports that were missing from the case files of Detective C.
NOPD provided these reports; the Investigations Division then contacted the City of
New Orleans Office of Information Technology and Innovation (ITI) and received the
following information:
o Three supplemental reports were dated with specific dates in 2011; ITI
determined that these reports were actually created by Detective C two years
later.
o One supplemental report was dated with a specific date in 2010; ITI determined
that this report was actually created by Detective C three years later.
(All four reports were created on the same day in 2013, shortly after NOPD
received the OIG request for the missing reports)

6

An examination by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner typically takes 4 to 6 hours to perform. These Nurses are
specially trained, take meticulous notes and write very thorough reports.
Office of Inspector General
City of New Orleans

OIG-Investigations (13-0017-I)Documentation of Sex Crime Investigations
Page 5 of 7
November 12, 2014

 Detective D
Detective D was assigned 11 simple rape cases during the three year time period. Five had no
supplemental reports documenting any investigative effort beyond the initial report; one had
no  file  at  all;  and  one  was  presented  to  the  DA’s  Office.  Detective D told at least three different
individuals that Detective D did not believe that simple rape should be a crime. 7
In one case, Detective D wrote that no DNA evidence was discovered. However, this was
directly contradicted by Louisiana State Police DNA Laboratory records which showed
that DNA evidence had been discovered.
In another case, the victim went to the hospital for a SANE examination. The SANE nurse
reported that the victim said that she was receiving threatening text messages from the
assailant; however, there was no documentation that Detective D attempted to obtain
any phone records or text messages. The SANE Nurse also collected potential DNA
evidence from the victim that was collected in a sexual assault kit; however, a review of
LSP DNA Laboratory records revealed that Detective D never submitted the kit for
testing. A review of the sex crimes log book maintained by the Special Victims Section
revealed that Detective D made an entry for this case which stated that Detective D
would not submit the kit to the DNA lab because the sex was consensual.
Detective E

The Louisiana State Police (LSP) maintains the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) in Baton
Rouge. When a DNA profile matches another crime scene or an individual it is referred to as a
CODIS hit. LSP notifies the police department by letter and requests that the department send a
“reference  sample”  for  positive  confirmation. A review of LSP DNA Laboratory records revealed
that as of 10/03/2014, NOPD had 53 outstanding sexual assault CODIS hits dating from July of
2010 to September of 2014.
Detective E was assigned two cases wherein the victims went to the hospital and submitted to
SANE examinations. The SANE Nurse documented specific physical injuries and collected
potential physical evidence for both victims.

7

Simple rape, as defined by the Louisiana Revised Statutes, is a rape committed when sexual intercourse is
deemed to be without the lawful consent of a victim because it is committed under any one or more of the
following circumstances:
(1) When the victim is incapable of resisting or of understanding the nature of the act by reason of a stupor or
abnormal condition of mind produced by an intoxicating agent or any cause and the offender knew or should have
known of the victim's incapacity.
(2) When the victim, through unsoundness of mind, is temporarily or permanently incapable of understanding the
nature of the act and the offender knew or should have known of the victim's incapacity.
Office of Inspector General
City of New Orleans

OIG-Investigations (13-0017-I)Documentation of Sex Crime Investigations
Page 6 of 7
November 12, 2014

 In one of these cases, LSP DNA Laboratory sent a CODIS hit notification letter to NOPD over two
years ago; however, NOPD had not submitted a reference sample to confirm the match. In the
other case, LSP DNA Laboratory notified NOPD over two years ago that it had submitted an
incorrect kit; NOPD had not responded.
Detective E submitted no supplemental reports documenting any further investigative efforts
for either case.
The OIG requested that NOPD provide two specific supplemental reports that were
missing from the case files of Detective E. Upon receipt of the reports from NOPD , the
investigators contacted the City of New Orleans Office of Information Technology and
Innovation (ITI) and received the following information:
o One supplemental report was dated with a specific date in 2011; ITI determined
that this report was actually created by Detective E two years later.
o One supplemental report was dated with a specific date in 2010; ITI determined
that this report was actually created by Detective E three years later.
(Both reports were created on the same day in 2013, shortly after NOPD
received the OIG request for the missing reports.)

OBSERVATION
The widespread failure to submit supplemental reports as well as the discrepancies between
reports and other factual documentation means there was no effective supervision of these five
detectives over a 3-year period. Nor could there have been any effective supervision of the
supervisors, nor any review of the outcome of the cases assigned to these five detectives.

Office of Inspector General
City of New Orleans

OIG-Investigations (13-0017-I)Documentation of Sex Crime Investigations
Page 7 of 7
November 12, 2014