MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSIT AUTHORITY REVIEW OF 2014 INTERNAL 3; AND OFFICER JENEIFER AMYOT Prepared by: Municipal Resources, Inc. 129 Daniel Webster Highway Meredith, NH 03253 603-279-0352 8665010352 Toll Free 603?279-2548 Fax ni cipal Resources TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT Project 1 Overview of 2 Citizen Complaints 2 Compiaint ..2 Holmes Complaint ..3 MRI Review ..4 MBTA Professional Standards Investigation Lieutenant Dennis Hong Interview -. 6 Deputy Chief James Witzgall interview .. 10 F. . 17 .. APPENDICES Lt. Det. Hong report to Chief MacMiiIan, 04?1514 ..A Amyot, META Atrest Report (labeled Garvey Arrest Report); 8 Citizen Complaint/Internal Affairs Form; :3/28/14 Citizen Complaint, internal Affairs Form, Marv Hoimes, 4/4f14 Noti?cation of investigation; to Of?cer Amyot from Lt. Hong; tin/14 Notification of investigation; to Lt. Hong from Deputy Chief Andrews?Ward: Notice of investigation; to Lt. Witzgali from Deputy Chief Andrews?Ward; 2/10/16 ..G Witzgall View of Amvot iAPro iog; 04-0244 .. General Order #2013?l1; Standards of Conduct, Internal investigations, and Citizen Compiaints investigation, Effective Municipal Resources ?xagg?i . .mm I 120 Danici Wehsrer Highway I tel: 603.279.0352 - fax: Meredith. 03253 . :01! Free: 866.501.0353 Municipal Resources ?communicipaircsourcescom MASSACH USETTS BAY TRANSIT AUTHORITY 2014 INTERNAL INVESTIGATION gr; 3M2 MARY HOLMES omcsn JENNIFER AMYOT APRIL 2016 PROJECT OVERVIEW Municipal Resources Inc., (MRI), of Meredith, New Hampshire, was engaged by the office of John Englander, Generai Counsel, Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, to conduct an independent review of the internal investigation conducted by the Professional Standards Unit, of the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Police Department, reiative to the complaints of and Mary Holmes against Of?cer Jennifer Amyot. it must be clear that this was not an internal investigation into the incident itself, but rather a review of the internal investigation that was conducted by the Transit Police which is summarized in a report from the investigator, Lieutenant Hong, to Chief of Police Paul MacMillan, dated April 15, 2014 (Appendix A). The engagement involved a comprehensive review of Transit Police documents, video, and interviews with Lieutenant Dennis Hong and Lieutenantlames Witzgali. Superintendent Richard Sullivan served as the team?s contact at the Transit Poiice and provided background information and documentation as requested by the team. - The MRI team that conducted the review included MR1 Consultant Neil F. Ouellette, a former chief in Massachusetts; President Alan Gould, a former chief in New Hampshire; and MRI Consultant Gregory Hanscorn, a former chief in Maine. The standards for review consisted of those nationally recognized standards set forth by the commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement (CALEA), standards adopted by the Massachusetts Police Accreditation Commission and law enforcement best practices surrounding the investigation of internal affairs complaints within New England. OVERVIEW OF INCIDENT On Wednesday, March 26, 2014, at about 13:50 hours (1:50 pm), META Police Officers Jennifer Amyot and Alfred Trinh were dealing with a female subject who had reportedly been disruptive on a bus at the Dudley Station. A passerby, Mary Holmes, became concerned with the way Officer Amyot was treating the woman and involved herself in the situation by talking to the woman, walking back and forth within the area, questioning the officers, and ultimately placing a 911 call to police requesting assistance due to the way the officers were handling the situation. A scuffle with Holmes ensued and as a result, Officer Amyot sprayed Holmes with Oleoresin Capsicum (O.C.), struck her with a police baton, and wrestled her to the ground with the assistance of Officer Trinh. Holmes was subsequently arrested and charged with interfering with a police investigation, Breach of Peace, Assault and Battery on a Public Employee, and Resisting Arrest, Holmes was transported to MBTA Police Headquarters for booking. See Amyot police report (Appendix B). For clarification purposes it is important to note that at the time of this incident (March 26, 2014}, Amyot is named in reports as Jennifer Amyot and Jennifer Garvey. Amyot has also been referred to in reports as Jennifer Amyot-Garvey. Amyot?s spouse is Ann Garvey, also an MBTA Transit police officer. Ann Garvey is also referenced in this report. For consistency, this report refers to Jennifer Amyot and Ann Garvey. There may be documents attached to this report that identify Amyot as Jennifer Garvey or Jennifer Amyot-Garvey. Jennifer Amyot, Jennifer Garvey, and Jennifer Amyot? Garvey are the same person. CITIZEN COMPLAINTS roan COMPLAINT On the morning of Friday, March 28, 2014, of Mattapan, filed a citizen complaint, in person, at the MBTA Police Headquarters, regarding the incident that she had witnessed on Wednesday, March 26, 2014, at Dudley Station involving Ms. Holmes and Officer Amyot. The substance of her complaint was that ?The female officer appeared to have created a scene to have this woman arrested. The civilian women did not make any gesture of harm or Review of 2014 Internal investigation of Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Page 2 Re and Mary Holmes v. Officer Jennifer Amyot - Prepared by Municipal Resources, inc. April 2016 I I I Municipal Resources threat towards the police officer.? describes the scene in her report to the Transit police (Appendix C) as follows: - the woman stood away from the scene of arrest and more than arm?s length away from the o?icer, the o?icer continues to stay in the woman?s face saying "back up?, and then threatens to spray her. She repeated the phrase a few times as [she] reached out and put her hands on the woman, who was standing there with her cellphone to her ear, and then sprayed her in the face twice. Then another (Asian?looking mole) police officer comes over and they began to arrest her (with her phone in her hand, which the woman didn?t want to lose). The female cop then pulls out her baton and starts beating the woman on her leg. After a struggle the woman is on the ground and they arrest her. HOLMES COMPLAINT On Friday afternoon, April 4, 2014, Mary Holmes, of Roxbury, filed a complaint in person at the META Police Headquarters (Appendix The complaint against Officers Amyot and Trinh specify a complaint of "Assault and Battery with Weapon? and "False Arrest?. The basis of Ms. Holmes complaint related to the circumstances surrounding her arrest on Wednesday, March 26, at Dudley Station. The substance of Holmes complaint is that upon entering Dudley Station, she observed officer Amyot ?verbally accosting an inebriated woman?. According to Holmes, she (Holmes) told this elderly woman to comply with the officer?s orders, but when the woman pulled out a bottle and took a sip, Officer Amyot the bottle and face of the elder with her right picked the woman up by her and the elder on the Holmes says that she then asked Amyot for her name, to which Amyot responded, ?what the fuck do you need my name for??. Holmes reported that when she told Amyot that she was ?calling the police?, Amyot moved towards her yelling, ?i don?t give a fuck who you call. Badge number 6-7-7. Now back the fuck up before arrest you for impeding an ongoing investigation?. Holmes says she backed up, but Amyot to stalk towards me?. Holmes statement in the complaint says that she turned to Officer Trinh and said "1 am backing up and your partner is pursuing me?. When Trinh didn?t reSpond, Holmes called 9?1?1. Holmes reports that she gave the operator her name, location, and requested their presence, when the phone was knocked out of her hand by Amyot, who then shouted When Holmes looked, she was sprayed with ?mace?. Holmes says when she looked towards her phone and ?went for it?, she was sprayed again. Holmes goes on to say, ?then, her and her partner began kicking my legs, hitting me with their batons, and both were pulling me in two different directions by my arms. Nobody once said i was under arrest nor gave any other order than for me to back up". This incident culminated in the arrest of Mary Holmes on charges of Interfering with a Police Investigation, Assault Battery on a Public Employee, Breach of the Peace and Resisting Arrest (Appendix B). Review of 2014 internal Investigation of Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Page 3 Re and Mary Holmes v. Of?cer Jennifer Amyot Prepared by Municipal Resources, inc. . April 2016 I I I Municipal Resources META PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS INVESTIGATION The MBTA Transit Police Department uses a software package known as which the MBTA utilizes to track citizen and administrative complaints,.along with certain pre? identified indicator or data sets that are part of the agency?s Early Intervention Program The Early intervention Program is non?disciplinary in nature and is designed to identify those employees who are exhibiting actions or behaviors that may indicate a trend towards an escalation in negative or potentially harmful actions. The indicators utilized by the MBTA Police Department?s Early Warning Program are: citizen complaints (3), professional standards complaints (3), use of force vehicle pursuits department vehicle operator accidents (3), assault and battery on a police officer incidents (3), resisting arrest incidents (3), domestic violence incidents (1), worker?s compensation claims disciplinary action (3), and firearms discharge (1). The Early intervention Program would trigger when any employee met the total number of events under one category within a twelve?month period or they had any combination of incidents totaling five or more within an eighteen-month period. it should be noted that as of March 31, 2014, there were 19 Amyot alerts to supervisors. Two of the alerts occurred within several days of each other. The alerts were for the following reasons: "i?r 2 alerts for 3 or more citizen complaints in a 12-month period ie 15 alerts for 5 or more incidents of any type in an 18-month period 3+ 1 alert for 3 or more use of force incidents 2 alerts while Amyot was on probationary status as a new of?cer The printout provided to the Team contained thirty~eight pages of triggers, alerts, citizen complaints, and supervisory comments regarding Officer Jennifer Amyot, dating back to November 03, 2008. Although there is no detailed reporting on the specifics of individual indicators, the majority of supervisory comments state that the counseling session occurred, the officer was advised that the session was non-disciplinary in nature, and the majority of the instances had been resolved to the satisfaction of the Department, along with a statement that Officer Amyot believes the alerts are not excessive considering the geographical area in which she works. Additionally, the supervisor noted that ?she has been cleared by the Department in any complaintfjustification of the use of force?. One noteworthy comment which appears to have been written on January 17, 2014, by Sergeant Dean Reynolds of the Professional Standards Unit, stated: ?This instance, as in the case in the others, has not yielded one documented instance of wrongdoing. My evaluation of these situations is that Officer Amyot seems to always employ the strongest action allowable and demands tactical submission in all encounters. This strategy causes many people to take umbrage, which in turn leads to the higher than average complaints/instances that get flagged by Blue Team alerts?. Review of 2014 Internal investigation of Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Page 4 Re and Mary Holmes v. Officerlennifer Amyot Prepared by Municipal Resources, inc. April 2016 i I I Municipal Resources On or about April 1, 2014, the complaint was assigned to Lieutenant Dennis Hang, Professional Standards Unit Commander, by his supervisor, Deputy Chiefiames Witzgall, the Administrative Services Division Commander. On Tuesday, April 1, 2014, Officer Amyot was formally notified through a memo from Hong that she had become the subject of an internal administrative/criminal investigation. The alleged violation articulated Chapter 171, Section 3.0, Use of Force in Response to Resistance/Aggression, alleging that during an arrest of a person at Dudley Station on March 26, 2014, she exceeded the amount offorce necessary (see Notification of Investigation, Appendix E). in a memo (Appendix B) to MBTA Transit Police Chief Paul MacMiilan, dated Tuesday, April 15, 2014, Lieutenant Dennis Hang concludes that: Based on the witnesses? information and video footages from the incident, [conclude my I investigation by stating Of?cerAmyot was not in violation of the following Department policiies or procedures. Department Manual Chapter 170, Arrest, Section 6.0, Validity of Arrest Department Manual Chapter 1 71, Use of Force in Response to Resistance/Aggression, Section 3.0, Use of Less Lethal Force The MRI team determined that there were numerous inconsistencies between the various documents and videos reviewed by the team to determine the thoroughness and validity of the Jennifer Amyot professional standards investigation. It was decided that both Detective Lieutenant Dennis Hong and then Deputy Police ChiefJames Witzgall, who currently is a Lieutenant on the midnight shift, needed to be interviewed. Superintendent Richard Sullivan scheduled the two interviews and requested the current Administrative Services Commander, Gloria Andrews?Ward, to issue the notifications of a pending investigation and an order to attend and comply with the Mid investigation {see Appendices and G). LIEUTENANT HONG MRI consultants Ouellette and Gould interviewed Hang at MBTA headquarters on February 25, 2016, in order to gain an understanding into his background and his involvement in the internal investigation of Amyot. Also present were Union President Michael Rae, and Attorney Kareem A. Morgan, of Sandulli Grace, PC, 44 School Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. MBTA Transit Police Superintendent Richard Sullivan read Detective Lieutenant Hong his administrative rights form and then left the interview. (See Notification of investigation - Hang, Appendix F.) The interview was audio recorded. Review of20141nternal investigation of Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Page 5 Re and Mary Holmes v. Officeriennifer Amyot Prepared by Municipal Resources, inc. April 2016 I I sci pal Resources Lieutenant Dennis Hong described his tenure at the department since being appointed as a patrol officer in 1997. He was promoted to sergeant in 2009, and eventually promoted to Lieutenant in 2012, where he was assigned to the desk for a period of time, eventually transferring to the Court Case Management Unit, and later applying for and being selected for the Professional Standards Unit Commander position. Lieutenant Hong indicated that his first six to eight months in the Professional Standards unit consisted of assisting the department as it prepared for both CALEA and MPAC onsite assessments by gathering proofs of compliance from various units for the accreditation manager. Lieutenant Hong related that he had never been assigned to any complex investigations during his tenure at the MBTA Police Department, having only conducted basic reporting from victims of crimes. He further conceded that he had only conducted two internal investigations while in the Professional Standards Unit; a sergeant posting something inappropriate on Facebook, and another sergeant who made a derogatory comment about another officer. Both of the investigations ?ndings rested on the parties? admitting to the alleged acts when asked by Lieutenant Hong. Hong reports that he had no specialized training in investigations or internal affairs prior to being assigned the Amyot case. Lieutenant Hong was asked to walk the NW team through how he was assigned the Amyot investigation. Lieutenant Hong advised that Deputy Chieflames Witzgall gave the complaint to him and told him that he needed to investigate it. Subsequently, the second complaint Holmes was received. Hong stated that normally a sergeant in his unit wopld have been assigned to investigate a complaint against a patrol officer, but in this case, the case was assigned directly to him by Deputy Chief Witzgall. Hong stated he had never seen another case handled this way. Lieutenant Hong described his investigation as follows: 0 Viewed the video footage Requested a written response from Officer Trinh interviewed MBTA Inspector by telephone a? Was pretty sure that he spoke to by phone, and believed that he took notes, but related that it was two years ago and his memory was not that good It was determined during the interview with that Hong: it Did not interview Mary Holmes I Did not interview Officer Amyot Did not interview other police or civilian witnesses Did not listen to the 911 recording of the Holmes phone call I- Did not view the photos of the incident taken by Holmes on her cellphone 0 Did not review the video of Holmes? booking Review of 2014 Internal investigation of Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Page 6 Re and Mary Holmes v. Officer Jennifer Amyot Prepared by Municipal Resources, inc. April 2016 I I I Municipal Resources - Could not remember if he reviewed Officer Amyot?s history through the TEAM software system in response to further questioning, Lieutenant Hong stated that he didn?t interview Mary Holmes because he had a report, but he conceded that in hindsight he should have interviewed her. 'He also said that he didn?t interview any other officers at the scene because he did not see Officer Curry on the video, even though he knew he was there. Hong said he felt that he had enough witnesses. Lieutenant Hong said that he didn?t interview Officer Amyot because he had her report of the incident. - MRI asked the lieutenant if he watched the video in real time and frame-by-frame, to which he replied that he watched it in every way. when asked to describe how he watched the video frame-by-frame, he said that he would watch and pause, rewind and play the video, indicating that he didn?t change the speed settings and wasn?t sure ifthe software on his computer aliowed such manipulation. When asked, Lieutenant Hong reSponded that he downloaded the radio audio ofthe officers, but he didn?t recall that it was clear and thought there might have been some issue with the radio being static, which he said happens often. Additionally, Lieutenant Hong indicated that he didn?t listen to the 911 call tapes but agreed, in hindsight, that it might have been informing. When asked if he had watched the booking video or if Holmes had been injured, he said he didn?t watch the video and wasn?t sure if Holmes was injured, but believed that she was, as he thought he heard or there was a report of injury perhaps logged on the Larimore Records management system. Lieutenant Hong was asked about the TEAM system. He was provided a printout regarding Of?cer Amyot involving seven incidents linked to her since March 12, 2012, and listing him as "User Alerted/ Making Originai Entry:? on at least one occasion, September 13, 2013. Lieutenant Hong advised that anytime an officer has an incident, it triggers an alert in the system to notify the supervisors that there is an alert. He indicated that when he came into the Professionai Standards Unit he was unfamiliar with the system, and still remains unfamiliar with it, due to the fact he never received adequate training on the system. When asked why the agency had the iAPro system, Lieutenant Hong related that they had it to keep track of officer activity, use of force incidents, and citizen complaints, and explained that everything kind of shifts over to the "Blue Team? to enter their reports related to use of force, and it speaks to lAPro, and "we sort of kind?a-iike manage it and review some of the stuff in there, like if a citizen compiaint came in we would review it, we will give it to the appropriate area supervisor, or if it falis under them, that?s how we do it?. MRI asked Lieutenant Hong if he would consider lAPro to be a tool for the internal affairs function and he agreed that it was. He further stated. he couidn?t remember if he accessed iAPro to review Officer Amyot?s history prior to initiating the investigation. Review of 2014 internai investigation of Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Page 7 Re and Mary Holmes v. Of?ceriennifer Amyot Prepared by Municipai Resources, inc. April 2016 I Muniripal Resources The MRI consultants advised Lieutenant Hung that after watching the video and reviewing the report he had forwarded to Chief MacMillian, the report may not have been consistent with the video. Lieutenant Hong indicated that he relied heavily on the video and reports of the officers, but due to the fact that he didn?t have a good video of some of the views he utilized Officer Amyot?s threat perception at the time. MRI asserted Officer Amyot had her back to Holmes (rather than being in a defensive position) and therefore didn?t appear concerned, nor did the additional officers in the frame that weren?t involved directly with subject . Lieutenant Hong admitted that these factors did not occur to him when he watched the video. Lieutenant Hong related that there were two allegations; False Arrest and Assault and Battery with a Weapon, and those were the two allegations he was focusing on and determining whether there was probable cause to arrest Holmes based on Officer Amyot's statement and the video. Lieutenant Hong further rationalized that Amyot told Holmes to put her hands behind her back and she didn?t, so she was resistant and Amyot used the OC spray. reminded Lieutenant Hong that he didn?t ask Holmes those questions because he didn't interview her, that he didn?t ask Officer Amyot those questions because he didn?t interview her, and that he didn?t listen to the 911 tapes which had an open phone line. MRI inquired why Lieutenant Hong didn?t ask for clarification regarding Holmes? statement that no one ever-told her she was under arrest. Trinh?s response was that she was told she would be arrested if she didn?t back up. Lieutenant Hong conceded that he didn?t remember exactly why he did n?t folldw-up on the Questions and posed that maybe it was a lack of training 'or experience. Additionally, MRI pointed out to Lieutenant Hong that Officer Amyot went into great detail in her police report that Holmes? threatened that her brother, a state representative, would ?take care? of the officers, but there was no corroboration ofthat statement from any of the other witnesses. MRI asked Lieutenant Hong to describe what he would do today if he got the assignment to investigate the incident. Lieutenant Hong related that he would have to redo the whole thing and interview everyone, talk to a use of force instructor, or defensive tactics instructor, or wait for the use of force committee to have its input because he was not an expert on use offorce, and he was just given that training, and he would get people involved in his investigation. When asked by MRI why he didn?t do that in this case he stated that it was a result of a lack of training, and it didn?t dawn on him, because if he never did one, how would he think about doing it. MRI asked Lieutenant Hong to describe what he did with the investigation when he finished it. He stated that he forwarded his report to his supervisor at the time, Deputy Chief James Witzgall. He further indicated that Deputy Chief Witzgall didn?t follow-up with him regarding the investigation and that he never heard anything else about the investigation until he was directed by Witzgall to write letters to the complainants concluding the investigation. Review of 2014 Internet Investigation of Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Page 8 Re and Mary Holmes v. Officer Jennifer Amyot Prepared by Municipal Resources, Inc. April 2016 . I I Municipal DEPUTY CHIEF JAMES WITZGALL INTERVIEW MRI consultants Ouellette and Gould interviewed James Witzgall, a deputy chief at the time of the Amyot incident, but now a patrol lieutenant, on Monday, February 29, 2016, at the MBTA Police Headquarters. Also present were Union President Michael Rae, and Attorneyiamie Goodwin counsel for Lt. Witzgali, of Sandullinrace, PC. Deputy Chief Gloria Andrews-Ward read Lieutenant Witzgail his administrative rights and then ieft the room. (See Notification of investigation - Witzgail, Appendix G.) The interview was audio recorded. Lieutenant Witzgall described that he had been a police officer with the MBTA Police Department for approximately thirteen years, having attended the police academy in 2003, promotedto Sergeant in 2010, Lieutenant in 2012, and Deputy Chiefin ianuary 2013. When asked to describe the different assignments that he has held in the agency, Lieutenant Witzgall related that he had done a stint on the SWAT Team, a quick stint in background investigations, the Honor Guard, as the Training Unit Commander, then as Deputy Chief of the Administrative Services Division, and as Deputy Chief of the Operations Division. After being returned to the I rank of Lieutenant in March 2015, Witzgall was assigned at the academy 1for about a month "not doing much of anything? and further related that he was ?banished? there. Currently, he is assigned to midnights as a patrol lieutenant. Lieutenant Witzgail stated that he had never conducted investigations other than when he was assigned background investigations for a coupie of months for one recruit class. Witzgall said he never received formal training for doing the background investigations, bot rather it was on the job training from a senior officer, Lieutenant Jerry Collins. Witzgall couldn?t remember what year he conducted backgrounds, but guessed it was around 2005. Witzgall remembered doing Amyot?s background investigation at that time and was quick to point out that he didn?t recommend her? . When asked if he had documented that in writing he said, ?no i left that blank. Usually you recommend someone to further on in the process, but for her there was nothing. i verbally told the lieutenant who was in charge of me at the time, and he brought it all the way up to the Chief, Paul MacMillan?. When asked why he thought Amyot was hired, he said there was a "push to hire more females at the time so i was overruled?. MRI inquired what types of investigations Witzgall had been involved in during his tenure at the department, and he related, just accident investigations, simple crimes such as robberies and larcenies, noting that anything more serious would be assigned to the criminal investigation unit. When MRI inquired as to what Lieutenant Witzgall?s assignment was on March 26, 2014, he stated, that he was a Deputy Chief, and then confirmed that he was the Administrative Services Division (A50) Commander. Although Witzgaii didn?t recall the exact date of his assignment, he Review of 2014 Internal investigation of Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Page 9 Re and Mary Holmes v. Officer Jennifer Amyot Prepared by Municipai Resources, Inc. April 2016 I Municipal Resources did indicate that at that time he oversaw the Court Case Management Unit, Training, Internal Affairs, and Accreditation. Witzgall said that as the A50 Commander, he reported directly to the Chief of Police. When Witzgall was asked about his relationship with Amyot prior to the March 26, 2014, incident, he said knew her, but personally didn?t associate with her. He was asked if he knew Amyot?s spouse, Ann Garvey, and he responded that he did. Witzgall said he was her field training officer and had been invited to her first wedding, which he didn?t attend because he had another wedding that day. He said he also saw her at two Christmas parties. Lieutenant Witzgall indicated that Ann Garvey is cu?rrentlya patrol officer. He was unsure if she had predated Officer Amyot on the force, until Union President Rae indicated Garvey?s badge number was 5 something and Amyot was 6 something; indicating Amyot was hired after Garvey. it was revealed during the interview that Witzgall did seem to have a personal relationship with Ann Garvey when he was questioned further about his contact with Amyot and Garvey. it was widely reported in the press (Boston Globe 1/22/15), and confirmed by Witzgall, that Garvey made a call characterized as ?hysterical? by the Globe, to him late at night, at home on January 17, 2015, to tell him that Amyot (Garvey?s wife) had just threatened her with a gun during an altercation in which Garvey was injured. At the time, Witzgall was assigned as the Deputy Chief in charge of the Patrol Division. Witzgall stated that Garvey was on her way to Wilmington PD, and that he called the on-duty shift lieutenant and directed him to send officers to meet Garvey at Wilmington Police headquarters. it would seem that this direct contact between Garvey and Witzgall would have by?passed the normal chain of command. Lieutenant Witzgall was asked to describe the citizen complaint process within the agency, and he related that complaints could come by calling into the station, coming into the station and speaking with the lieutenant on the desk, through the complaint line, e?mailing the Chief of Police, or seeing the Chief directly. Once they receive it, ?it gets assigned and pushed out. Internal Affairs tracks it?. Witzgall was asked to describe the lAPro System and what it was used for. He related that it was a software system the agency uses to track complaints, storing the information, and is also part of the Early Warning System. When asked to describe the Early Warning System, Witzgall, said three or more incidents like use of force in a certain time period gets flagged and it goes to the person?s supervisor or commander to ?kind of look into it, not kind of, but look into it, and look into the use of force, make sure that there is nothing else, no under lying issues or something going on?. At this point in the interview, Union President Rae interjected ?that?s not all. We have resisting arrest, injured officer?, then he was interrupted by Witzgall, who stated that ?yea, all that type of stuff; motor vehicle pursuits, resisting arrest, if you charge someone with assault and battery on a police officer, it goes into the system any time you use Review of 2014 internal Investigation of Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Page 10 Re and Mary Holmes v. Of?cerJennifer Amyot Prepared by Municipal Resources, inc. Aprii 2016 I I I Municipal force. inquired, if it was used for domestic violence, to which Witzgall stated that he had never seen that. MRI asked Witzgall ?so the whole point of the system is what?, to which he responded ?lAPro is another software system that internal affairs uses?. MRI questioned why the agency would have a system that flags those types of things that are tracked and to describe the point of it. Witzgall related that ?if someone gets flagged it?s to look at it, its tracked to maybe alcoholism, maybe something going on at home, marital problems, things like that so that way their supervisor will sit down and have adiscussion and review why they were flagged?. When MRI asked if it was a tool for lA, Witzgall indicated it was a tool for the whole department, further relating lA doesn?t necessarily use it, ?maybe only in a sense that they get notified when someone gets flagged, they send it out to that officer?s supervisor or commander to look into it?. He then further explained that he really didn?t think that necessarily was the early warning system, "the early warning system flags someone, like an automatic, like say, when you enter your third use of force say within a month that We used my MR1 inquired isn?t that pretty important when you are conducting professional standards investigations, and he related that he thought so. Witzgall was asked if when he initiated an investigation, he checked to see what information was in the system on the officer who was the target of the internal investigation. He responded that he only investigated one complaint and it was because it was between two lieutenants. questioned Witzgall as to how that single investigation was assigned to him, and he related that the Chief assigned it to him because it involved two lieutenants. When asked if he had ever had any internal affairs investigation training, he replied, ?never?. When asked if he had ever questioned the lack oftraining, Witzgall stated ?that?s how it goes here, just kind of learn as you go?, and at the time he didn?t think there was an issue with it. Witzgall was asked if the chief actually walked into Witzgall?s office and handed him a folder to investigate, and Witzgall said he didn?t know exactly how it happened. Witzgall was asked about the nature of the prior internal investigation he completed and he replied it was about one lieutenant making accusations against another lieutenant. He characterized it as "pretty much embellished and lies. I compare it to two high schoolers, maybe middle schoolers, kind of nonsense between two lieutenants?. Witzgall said he turned the report in to the Chief when it was completed. Witzgall was asked if when he took over as the Administrative Services Division Commander, was he familiar with Chapter 120, general order ii 2013-11 (Standards of Conduct- internal Affairs and Citizen Complaints investigations), and Witzgall responded, ?No, when i was promoted to Deputy Chief, was not familiar with the policy?. Witzgall was asked when he became familiar with the policy, and after a chuckle, reSponded that he didn?t remember when he read the policy. Witzgali was asked how Lieutenant Hong became assigned to the Professional Standards Unit, to which he responded, that he had ?no idea?. Hong was assigned to the unit prior to Witzgall. When asked what training, experience, and personality traits he would want for someone Review of 2014 Internal Investigation of Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Fage 11 Re and Mary Holmes v. Officer Jennifer Amyot Prepared by Municipal Resources, inc. April 2016 I Municipal Resources assigned to Professional Standards, he stated somebody that was thorough, intelligent, organized, and had good interpersonal skills. When asked about previous work experience, Witzgall said experience in investigations would be helpful. Witzgall was asked if the process for assigning people into the various positions was that the position is posted and interested people apply. Witzgali responded that was the process ?and if nobody applies, it?s usually reverse seniority, you just get thrown into it". Witzgall was asked if there are any required trainings for a newly assigned professional standards employee, to which he responded he didn?t think there were. He was asked if Hong ever went to specialized training, and he responded that he didn?t know.' At the time Witzgall took command of the unit, he saidthere were two sergeants, a lieutenant, and a patrolman. Witzgall was asked if, when hetook command ofthe unit, did he review the personnel files of those subordinates for training and experience. Witzgall responded that he did not. Witzgall was asked to describe his responsibilities for Professional Standards as the Administrative Services Division Commander, and he responded that he made sure that cases got assigned, followed-up, and completed in a timely manner. When completed, the investigations would go directly to the chief to sign off on them. Witzgall said he would review most, but not all, of the reports since the sergeants and lieutenants had the ability to go straight to the chief. Witzgall was asked about completing quarterly and annual reports in compliance with CALEA {Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies) standards, but Witzgall didn?t recall if he did them. When asked how internal affairs investigations were supposed to be conducted, Witzgall responded, "l assigned them, it?s as simple as that?. He was asked how he made the assignments and he said normally, it was sergeants on patrolman, a deputy on lieutenants, and the lieutenant did sergeants, but with the Amyot case, the two sergeants had a lot they were doing, like background investigations, and ?more than their fair share of complaints on and at the time Dennis [Hong] didn?t have anything on his plate?. Witzgall was asked about how assignments were made generally, not specifically the Amyot case, and he responded that ?if it?s criminal or something of a serious nature, its Internal citizen complaints and minor issues, it gets assigned out to their division?. Witzgall was asked how he became aware of the and Holmes? complaints against Garvey. He responded that "i don?t even recall that complaint, there are so many complaints. I remember the Jen Garvey [Amyot] use of force, but i don?t remember the actual complaint being filed?. When asked specifically if he was aware of the Holmes complaints, Witzgali reSponded, ?no I just don?t remember, there might have been, i may have just missed it, there are so many complaints, multiple complaints a-day, that gets assigned out, complaints coming right to the chief of police by e?mail, it gets signed off on a daily basis, there are a lot of complaints that come in, and i?ve been told the has more complaints than the on a yearly Review of 2014 internal investigation of Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Page 12 Re and Mary Holmes v. Officer Jennifer Amyot Prepared by Municipal Resources, Inc. April 2016 I I Municipal Resources basis?. Witzgall was asked if the complaint against Amyot should have rung a bell because he had known Garvey and done Amyot?s background investigation. He responded that there were so many complaints he didn?t recognize it. He said he does remember seeing the video "after the fact?. . When asked if he had reviewed the lAPro system, or anything else to familiarize himself with Amyot?s history, Witzgall replied that he hadn?t viewed the video and didn?t specifically remember going into Amyot?s file. Witzgail was provided with a c0py of an iAPro access log (Appendix H) that showed he had accessed and printed out Amyot?s lAPro file 4/2/14, which at the time had indicated 19 alerts. He didn?t specifically remember doing this. He was then provided with a copy of Amyot?s iAPro printout. . Witzgall was asked if, based on everything he knew about Amyot, would he consider her a risk, to which he responded "i've always considered her a risk?. When questioned further about the lAPro file, Witzgall said he didn?t know if it tells whether she was ?flagged? or not. When he was told MRI had documentation that showed she had indeed been flagged at least 19 times, Witzgall responded that her supervisors at the time of an alert would have had to sit with her ?to see if there is anything else going on, to take corrective actions, or recommend any actions. That?s not Internal Affairs. internal Affairs doesn?t do that?. He said that Amyot ?does everything by the book. Maybe does she lack a little discretion? Possibly". He said he wouldn?t have looked up details before assigning the case, stating would have just assigned the case?. When asked if he knew what those complaints were, Witzgall responded, ?no there are 250 officers here, i don?t know?. Witzgall was asked specifically about assigning the Amyot case to Hong. He responded that Hong "didn?t have a lot going on, he wasn?t doing much, and probably the seriousness of the again I don?t even recall that complaint coming in". in an attempt to clarify, Witzgall was asked that if he had just stated he didn?t even know the XHolmes complaints came in when he assigned the use of force complaint to Hong, how did he think it was serious enough to be assigned to the lieutenant? He said he didn?t know; all he knew was the use of force. He did say he watched the video after the fact, but didn?t ever recall the Holmes? and complaints. MRI further inquired, that when he initially assigned the complaint, he hadn?t watched the video, and he didn?t know about the Holmes' or complaints, what was the nature of the complaint? Witzgall said he didn?t remember. inquired, so what was the nature of the complaint when you assigned it, and Lieutenant Witzgall related he didn?t remember the nature ofthe complaint. When asked if Holmes had been injured or treated at the hospital as a result of the arrest, Witzgall said he didn?t know. When asked about documentation and procedures for handling an arrestee with injuries, Witzgall didn?t know. Witzgall was asked if there is a requirement to - Review of 2014 internal investigation of Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Page 13 Re and Mary Holmes v. Of?ceriennifer Amyot Prepared by Municipal Resources, Inc. April 2016 I I I ll. I ivulli H. Ipdl Resources do something when someone is injured and comes through the booking area on his watch as the shift lieutenant, and Witzgall responded ?is there a requirement for that?? to which Union President Rae told him that there?s a notification. Witzgall then repeated there?s a notification. Witzgall was asked how he would have conducted the investigation if it had been assigned to him. He responded he thinks he would have reviewed all the reports and interviewed all the parties, the camera, everything is captured on video, i guess if there?s any calls into dispatch. Witzgall was asked specifically if he would have listened to the 911 phone call from Holmes, to which Witzgall replied that he thought he would have. Witzgall was asked if he would have interviewed Officer Amyot, to which he responded ?oh yea?. When asked if he would have interviewed the other officers at the scene, he said yes. When asked if he would have watched the video, he said yes. When asked if he would have interviewed both of the complainants, Witzgall replied, yes. When asked if he knew whether Hong had done those things, Witzgall initially said ?no, I don?t know?. Witzgall was asked what if Hong did not interview both ofthe complainants, listen to the 911 tapes, interview Jennifer Amyot, and didn?t interview all the officers at the scene, is that what he would not consider was a thorough investigation to which Witzgall responded "Um Hmm?. When asked if Hong sent the report to him when completed, Witzgall responded that he didn?t . know. When asked if it would have been the normal practice, Witzgall responded that he ?wouldn?t call it a normal practice, I reviewed some of them, but i don"t review them all, the chief ultimately reviews all of them, because he is signing his name on the conclusion of the investigation?. Witzgali was asked if he had any responsibility for knowing what?s in the report, or agreeing with it, and Lieutenant Witzgall related, ?ah, don?t know?. Witzgall was asked ?You don?t know, you were commander of the unit, and don?t know if you had any reSponsibility for internal investigations that you assigned?, and Lieutenant Witzgall responded ?it?s an issue, because the two sergeants and the lieutenant can go right to the chief with a lot of their reports?. Witzgall was asked if he would be surprised to know that based on everything MR1 knew, Lieutenant Hong submitted his report to Witzgall, to which Witzgall responded ?ah, i am not really may have, he may not have?. Witzgall was asked who writes the letters to the complainant, to which he responded that they are "drafted by the lieutenant or the two sergeants, and then the chief ultimately has a say in it?. Witzgail was told that section 15 .4 says the ASD Commander will prepare a written response to the complainant, and Lieutenant Witzgall responded ?i guess that?s in the policy then?. When asked if he had done that, Witzgall responded don?t recall?. Witzgall was asked if he remembered telling Hong to write a letter back to the complainant, and Lieutenant Witzgall replied, ?no, i don?t remember that?. Witzgali was asked again that if Hong didn?t talk to the complainants, if he didn?t talk to the officer, if he didn?t talk to all the other officers at the scene, if he didn?t listen to the 911 tapes, Review of 2014 Internal Investigation of Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Page 14 Re and Mary Holmes v. Officer Jennifer Amyot Prepared by Municipal Resources, Inc. April 2016 I I Municipal Resources would he, Witzgall consider that a thorough investigation?, Witzgali replied it was pointed out to Witzgall that according to Chapter 120 ?2013-11 that governs Standards of Conduct, identifies the responsibilities of his position as ASD Commander, and that section 1.0 specifies that ?The responsibility of the Professional Standards Unit is to thoroughly investigate allegations of misconduct originating from all internal and external complaints?. Further, section 4.0 states that "The ASD Commander will ensure that internal Affairs and Citizen Complaints are thoroughly investigated in the appropriate When Witzgall was asked if the complaints against Amyot were thoroughly investigated in the appropriate timeline, Witzgall asked "in the appropriate timeline?? and responded further with a semantical question about the structure of the sentence. The question was repeated again with emphasis ?thorough? and ?timeline? and then was asked "if it was thoroughly investigated in any timeline?? to which he responded "i guess not?. Witzgall was asked if Hong?s report had been submitted to him pursuant to section 10.0 of the policy which reads "The investigative reports, with recommendation(s) will be forwarded to the A50 Commander forthwith". Witzgall replied "no, I don?t know. Did there an email Witzgall was asked if he ever watched the video of the incident to which he replied, ?months after the Use of Force Committee reviewed the use of force. it came in well after the fact?. When asked his interpretation of the video when he-saw it, he responded ?it looks awful, but my opinion as far as use of force, was that she was in compliance?. Further questioning revealed that the Use of Force Committee did not have the video at the time it reviewed the incident. MRI clarified, however, that Hong had the video when he did his investigation which came prior to the Use of Force Committee review, to which he responded, "i don?t know?. in an effort to summarize Witzgall?s answers to a number of questions, it was stated to Witzgall that he didn?t recall if Hong had submitted the report to him. Witzgall agreed. Witzgall was asked if he agreed that the investigation completed by Hong was not thorough. Witzgall agreed. He was asked that if the report had been submitted to him at the time would he have accepted it as a thorough investigation, to which he replied "At the time, maybe?. When asked why, he responded, "Again, i?m not properly trained on at it now i would have hoped it would be more thorough, but then I?m not sure?. He was then asked if after being years at that time, and being a deputy chief, he wouldn?t have recognized a thorough investigation from a less than thorough investigation? Witzgall reSponded "i hope i would have?. Witzgall was asked if because of the seriousness ofthe complaint would there have been a better and product if he had assigned the investigation to one of the two sergeants that predominantly did internal investigations. Witzgall responded "possibly". i-ie restated his position that ?the whole time I was in ASD Dennis [Hong] had a clean that?s probably why i assigned it to Dennis?. An interviewer stated that Witzgall had made previous statements about Amyot?s issues, and it seemed like the Amyot investigation would be one that he might think should get the right attention, to which he responded "i assigned it to a lieutenant, maybe for that reason?. He was then asked Review of 2014 Internal investigation of Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Page 15 Re and Mary Holmes v. Officer Jennifer Amyot Prepared by Municipal Resources, inc. April 2016 I I AA Iln:f:n-I1 Ill Resources lieutenant that had never done one?? Witzgall chuckled and responded ?by a deputy that had never done one?. Witzgall was asked if he had any conversation with Ann Garvey before assigning the report, and Witzgall said he didn?t think so, that he didn?t recall any. FINDINGS The MBTA Transit Police Department is accredited by CALEA, the Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies. As such, the Transit Police Department has demonstrated a commitment to meeting what is nationally recognized as industry best practices. As a CALEA accredited department, the policies of the MBTA Transit Police meet a very high standard. The policy that governed the investigation into the civilian complaints against Amyot was General Order #201341, STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, Internal Investigations and Citizen Complaints Investigations (see Appendix found this policy to be comprehensive and representative of best practices. The META Transit Police also used a records management system known as lAPro/Blue Team to track certain officer involved incidents including civilian complaints and use of force. This system is designed to not only track these incidents but to serve as an early warning system for potentially high risk officers. MRi?s independent review of the MBTA Police Department?s Professional Standards Unit investigation into the Officer Amyot complaint was found to be deficient in a number of areas. MRI has identified numerous weaknesses, omissions and deviations from industry best practice as they relate to the investigation of citizen?s complaints, basic investigative practice and written MBTA Police policy/procedure. Additionally, there was an obvious lack of utilization of the tracking and early warning systems in place at the time of the incident. MRI finds that: 1. Detective Lieutenant Hong knew or should have known the extent of Officer Amyot?s complaint history within the agency. 2. Detective Lieutenant Hong was not properly trained in internal affairs investigations upon being assigned as the Professional Standards Unit Commander. 3. Detective Lieutenant Hong failed to personally interview all officers present at the scene of the incident on March 26, 2014, including the other involved officer, Alfred Trinh. 4. Detective Lieutenant Hong failed to interview the subject of the compiaints, Officer Jennifer Amyot. 5. Detective Lieutenant Hong failed to interview complainant/victim Mary Holmes. Review of 2014 internal Investigation of Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Page 16 Re and Mary Holmes v. Officer lennifer Amyot Prepared by Municipal Resources lnc. April 2016 I I I Municipal Resources 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Detective Hong failed to personally interview complainant but believes he spoke with her by phone. He had no notes of any interview. Detective Lieutenant Hong failed to review telephone recordings of Holmes? 911 call to Police requesting assistance at Dudley Station._ Detective Lieutenant Hong Failed to view photos of the incident taken by on her cellphone. Detective Lieutenant Hong should have carefully reviewed all videos of the incident, on a frame?by?frame basis if necessary. Detective Lieutenant Hong failed to review the Holmes? booking video. Detective Lieutenant Hong could not remember if he reviewed Officer Amyot?s history in the TEAM software. Deputy Chief Witzgail was not trained in basic internal affairs investigation when he was promoted to the Administrative Services Division Commander Position. Deputy Chief Witzgall failed to review the training and experience of subordinates upon taking over his assignment as Commander of the Administrative Services Division. Deputy Chief Witzgall knew of Officer Amyot?s complaint history within the agency before this investigation because he had accessed her records in the TEAM software. Further, according to Witzgali, he had done Amyot?s pare?employment background, did not find her a suitable candidate, and Deputy Chief Witzgall assigned the Amyot investigation to an untrained and inexperienced subordinate. Deputy Chief Witzgali failed to ensure that Officer Trinh?s participation in this incident or the complaint against Trinh, made by Holmes (Appendix D) was investigated. Deputy Chief Witzgall failed to ensure the Amyot complaint was ?thoroughly investigated? as required of him by General Order 2013?11, section 4.0. Deputy Chief Witzgall failed to indicate in writing whether or not he concurred with Lieutenant Hong?s findings and recommendations as required of him by General Order 2013-11, section 14.0. Review of 2014 internal investigation of Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Page 17 Re and Mary Holmes v. Of?cer Jennifer Amyot Prepared by Municipal Resources, inc. April 2016 I I I I: 1 JVlulilLlP-di Resources Due to the numerous weaknesses, omissions, and deviations from industry best practices identi?ed in this report, concludes that the internal investigation completed by the MBTA Transit Police into the compiaints made by and Mary Hoimes, was insufficient fOr META investigators to have drawn any conciusions regarding the vaiidity of those complaints or the reasonableness of actions taken by officers during the incident at Dudley Station on March 26, 2014. Review of 2014 internal investigation of Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Page 18 Re and Mary Holmes v. Officer Jennifer Amyot Prepared by Municipai Resources, inc. April 2016 Municipal Resaurces - gag-r: ?ii M4 15" we?? MB TA Transit Police To: Paul MacMillan Chief of Police From: Dennis Hong Lieutenant Detective Date: April15.2014 Subject: Administrative Investigation Al#2014-004 Sir, The Professional Standards Unit received complaints from and Ms. Mary Holmes for an incident that occurred at Dudley Station on March 26. 2014. The following is a summation of an administrative investigation on Officer Jennifer Amyot for allegations of false arrest and excessive use of force. inueshga?on: On March 28, 2914. The Professional Standards Unit-received a complaint from for an incident involving Officer JenniferAmyot that occurred at Dudley Station. The complainant stated she observed Of?cer Amyot and Ms. Mary Holmes having a verbal altercation. stated she heard Holmes inquiring why the woman on the bench was being arrested. then stated she observed Holmes on the phone and OfficerAmyot telling and pushing her to get back. stated Officer Amyot continued to tell Holmes to get back and threatened to spray her with 00 spray. stated Holmes did not move and Officer Amyot sprayed her on the face twice while she was holding a cell phone to her ear. stated a struggle between the officers and Holmes ensued. Then Officer Amyot took out her baton and struck Holmes on the leg. stated she heard the crowd yelling to Holmes for her to get down on the ground. stated the struggle continued and the officers were able to get her on the ground and subsequently arresting her. stated Holmes did not do anything to provoke Officer Amyot or make any threatening gestures toward the officers to be treated in such a manner but she thought Holmes was in the area where the of?cers were trying to perform their duties. On April 4, 2014, Professional Standards Unit received a complaint from the defendant. Ms. Mary Holmes. She stated she observed Officer Amyot was harassing an inebriated elderly woman, identified as that was seated on the bench. Holmes stated Officer Amyot forcefully pushed back into the bench when she was trying to get up. She further stated Officer Amyot slapped a bottle of gin away from the lips of and simultaneously slapping her face. She further stated Of?cer Amyct picked up and slammed her into the bench. Holmes stated she requested Officer Amyot?s name and Officer Amyot response was, "What the fuck do you need my name for?? Holmes stated she was going to call the police. Holmes then stated Of?cer Amyot stated her badge number was 677and told her to back the fuck up before she get arrested for impeding an ongoing investigation. Holmes stated she backed up and Officer Amyot pursued her. Holmes stated she had dialed 911 and was speaking to the operator when her phone was knocked out of her hand. She then stated OfficefAmyot Sprayed her with mace in her eyes and on the forehead. She also stated the officers kicked and struck her at the legs with their batons. Holmes stated she was never told she was being under arrest. Officer Amyot stated while she was placing in handcuffs, Holmes approached the officers and demanded the officers not to arrest and questioned the actions of the officers. Officer Amyot stated Holmes was pacing between the officers and physically bumping into them. Officer Amyot stated she told Holmes several times to back away from the area and warned her if she did not, she will be arrested. Officer Amyot stated Holmes ignored her commands and told Holmes she would use her 00 spray on her if she did not comply. Officer Amyot then stated she sprayed Holmes in the facial area but it was ineffective due to the extreme wind. Officer Amyot stated Holmes became combative by swinging her arms and charging at her. Officer Amyot stated she feared for her safety and struck Holmes on the shin with her baton. She stated after an intense struggle, Of?cer Trinh and her were able to wrestle Holmes to the ground. She further stated Holmes continued to resist and refused to remove her hands from underneath her chest. She then stated she and Of?cer were able to subdue Holmes and place her in custody after a brief struggle On April 7, 2014, inspector was contacted because he witnessed the confrontation between the of?cers and Holmes. inspector stated he called the officers over to assist him with a disorderly person on board a bus at Dudley Station. He stated was yelling at an MBTA bus driver and other patrons. He then stated the officers escorted to the bench and was being cooperative at the time. stated he observed Holmes walked over to the officers and was pacing between and around the officers when the officers were dealing with . stated Holmes appeared to have bumped into Officer Amyot couple of times while walking in and around them and inciting . He stated Holmes seemed to be taunting the of?cers and questioning their actions. stated he heard Officer Amvot telling Holmes several times to get back and she refused to obey her commands. stated the situation escalated into Officer Amyot utilizing her 00 spray on Holmes but it did not seem to have any effect on Holmes due to the' strong wind. further stated Holmes appeared to be physically overpowering the of?cers and then observing Officer Amyot striking Holmes on the legs with the baton. He stated the crowd was yelling for Holmes to get down on the ground. Oi?cer Alfred Triob was present during this incident. Officer Trinh stated Holmes was wedging herself between the officers while they were assisting . Officer Trinh stated he heard Officer Amyot repeatedly telling Holmes to get back and she will be arrested if she did not. Officer Trinh stated Holmes refused to comply therefore O?'icerAmyot utilized her department issued 00 Spray on. Holmes. Officer Trinh further stated Holmes struck both of?cers while they were attempting to arrest her. Of?cer Trihh stated Officer Amyot delivered baton strikes O'i Holmes in order to subdue her. Findings: Holmes stated in her compiaiht that Officer Amyot struck in the face. Accordihg'to the witnesses, they never observed Of?cer Amyot striking on the face. Holmes also stated she was never told she was going to be placed under arrest and backed up when told to do so. Conversely, witnesses and including Holmes stated Of?cer Amyot did warn her if she did not back up, she will be arrested. Witnesses and video footages showed Holmes did not back away from the area of where the of?cers were performing their duties. The video footages showed Officer Amyot telling and pushing Holmes to back away. It also showed Holmes was resistance to moving back from the immediate area. Holmes was non compliant and combative which led to Of?cer Amyot discharging her 00 spray and striking Holmes with her baton. Based on the witnesses? information and video footages from the incident. I conclude my investigation by stating Officer Amyot was not in violation of the following department policies or procedures. Department Manual Chapter 170, Arrest, Section 6.0 Validity of Arrest Department Manual Chapter 171, Use of Force in Response to ResistancelAggression Section 3.0 Use of Less Lethal Force Respe ully submitted, enhis Hong Lieutenant Detective TRANSIT POLICE DEPARTMENT 5399?? 2014-0903503?" ARREST REPORT Supp No 000 "5 Addmonai EA?esl Repen Accideni Domesiic [3 Juvenile invoived C3 Aichdhel Involved ans Photos Adults 2 Rep??s Complaint App 8:35 Stolen Bike Drugs Involved Gang tnvotved [3 Video - Juuemles '0 meander}! Cuts Offense Cede rm Repeded Date :1-1Time n; Day we ON POLICE, OFFICER 1 D1 [zssnaem 03126120? [13:50 [wee v.3 Occrd Date r14 Tune r15 Day DISORDERLY CONDUCT jzmsazF 031259014 13:5_e we0 ma Occrd To Dale Time as Day I I 03!26!2014 I 13:50 Repenvng Officer} :21 Reponing D?scerz?io GARVEY, JENNIFER 67? ALFRED 658 Localicn of Occurence r21 Area r21 Line r22 Caumy ,r33 City Bus me 29 ROXBURY ST DUDL BUS SUFFOLK BOSTON r2; Repeding Person . :25 Phone r27 How Received r28 Stews TELEPHONE CLEARED ADULT REPGNIHQ Person Address and Weather WeaporHTools r32 Um! Of?cer 1 Of?cer 2 Renewed Dispatched Arrived Cieared 3330 GARVEY, JENNIFER TRINH, ALFRED 1350 1355 1407 1532 DEFENDANTS no Name Type PCF No n: Last NamelBusunessiSiaIe oi. . :13 First Name In: Middle Name ADULT HOLMES MARY CELESTE Race n8 Sex .nr Age n8 Daze o! Binh :19 Piece of?inh -City. Staie n10 Soc Sec Nd. n11 Operator's License No n12 Stene MA v.3 HGIQN n14 Weight ms 8qu ME. Complexion m: Eyes me Hair m9 Fame! Hair nae Marita! Status 5'10" - - 2401bs HEAVY - LT BRN- -.. BRN BRN - - invoivement: CHARGE A2518 SIMPLE ON POLICE. OFFICER Readenee Address 1 an phone Employer and Address Ina: Phone UNKNOWN . INVOLVED PERSONS me Name Type 11?. POP No n2 Last Name I Business State of. ye! Firs! Name :14 Middle Name ADULT . r15 Race re' Sex 5? Age me Date ofBidh n9 Piece efBinh - City. State me Soc Sec No Operatofs License No State Hexgm Md Weight Build n16 Compiemn n1? Eyes ma Hair n19 Famaf Hair lee Manta} Status Involvement OTHER A88 ON POLICE OFFICER Resxdence Admess 1 n25 Phone NARRATIVE .ereesAH .16. .352 cert, mixer :33" . a- are: 1- genie} Station due-r; its" Bus xepexor ms. .: re :36 g. - megs-m. 3. "meme-r: me rm: a Anewueel; pezecn hes warez: :ha? is." 'e refusing '13 1 er!- ?2.25 The ?Venue suggest -32; v" w. 5-: 3:15: Lsir-i, angry. was y??lizng are a: ?we ind-3.1a? r, m. a: arrz?t Sins. ?(2le no: sale ram d'u Curr; e584"; v? 0551?" ?E?he fe. sue we: 4am: feed ?Ertafilu' nah-eves :ze- have 32w: "he; a. 1 ?Pu-med 'E?Iensm Fewer: 1:51:33?? 5: 3 reggaer -: Submmed By Of?cer. I s: Approving Of?cers Name, Page GARVEY, JENNIFER HORTON, PRESTON 452 1 NCO 5001 Rev OQIOS MBTA TRANSIT POLICE DEPARTMENT CONTINUATION PAGE a Case No :2 Supp No we Repcned Date ca: Tune 2014-0003082A 000 031269014 1 3:50 NARRATIVE FF: an evairatzoo. hhzle for BEE, grabbeo a bo?rle ?1 Fr. .zigdrsodg's, the: Has next to her. I feared thaL she was creating are ?91:10 2; s'rsk? ex?n 5: off.re: Tr;hn aso I grabbe? her arms to p1rc= fer .n for cur :afet,. fh?Le coin; so a fETii= later 1dent1f1eo as Mary nolmes spproaorea :re :wre1-aze r325 -nd oeqen tleLng Lo he: to relax and CdLli ou?, the: so: a?rsod .5 control. I asked Holmes if she knew she said no. Salmes keg: be*heer officers, while portraying Lhe fact she was a concerneo c;tiz:r, by asking an of goestzon . Ooce we placed handcufis, Holmes rtmmoiso to wedge . 1 1 a och he: that she as an aid women. sozmss 3 ing ?er inq isizion. I informeo he .4. I t? r_ 35 calzy bump :nto me again. She 'e uses 'r s?er a4~. won?t :iizecti'y hindered us from performing our duties, helping . some; war-{wry were ops-?tting more than she was, where she began screaming ant: corsincg more. 3 LShE?t?j ?uni?es 3w:- a second time to oaok away and let us deal with stat wssn': fuel; no the situatloo, aoain she refused. I drew deoertmen: issued in"? raw art-'5 .. .. . e. sie did no? move away from :15 char I would spray her. She refsses?i 9c 'u 1 issued one, two :0 three:- soconoi burst of CC to he: is the entremo wind. Holmes became angry and turned to sneer . r? 1 arms and ?15: trying to hit me am: yel?mg that he: and she will deal with me. 1. E's?Hug Homes was going *0 attack me I drew my department issued oaLcr: are tare-e. fosr shin strikes that were ineffective, Holmes continued has: m; ?11- as. I'olnes greobod m; and attempted to pull me down to the ground. in'ier an 19 office' Trio}: Rd :ere able to wrestle he: to. the {31:53:53, Holmes to remove her hands from under her chest. area. . tin-:3 our. from under her an attempt to gain control. Eafwa?: a sari-r! U: '0 InInquie we were a?oie to glass .aer into 4 During mcheI-it *?Lficer Curry remained with and vowed to: ?33:31. Home; u'nts Holrvses was arrested for: interfering with a poiice inve'mzjatien; French peaze, assaglt am: on a public employee and resisting arrest. was . o'y and transported to Transit Police Headquarters '.-Jheze EMS- she was highly Intoxicated, she had no 5 Submitted By Of?cer. 1 r? Approving Of?cer?s Name; ED. Page JENNIFER HORTON, PRESTON 452 2 END NCD 5001 Rev 091'05 Number Type of Complaint: Corruptth Ci Other I: Date of Complaint: Time of Complaint: 346;: How CompiamlWas Received: Panama T?ephcneu me: other: 0 Date oi Occurrence: Time of Occurrence: Location Of incident (Number. Street. City) 3:26:14 Approx. 2:00p Dudley Station Roxbury? MA Complainant (Last, First, Mi) Address (Number. Street. Citv. Slate 8. Zip Code} Phone {Home} Sex 0 Race; Age: Mark! Femaie Narrative.- Narrative :5 on Continuation Form (Continue narrative on page 2] Signature of Complainant under the pains and penalties of periory Name 01 Employee Complaineo? Against: Badge No. LD No. 5 {:21 Race: Age Height Weight Build Hair Eyes: Comments 8 ?3 ,1 Approx ldid not ask the of?cer [o'herintormaiion However, i thte 5'4? Blonde do have pictures of her and the civilian rowel-Jed in my 1 Female cellphone - Name of Employee Compteined Against; Badge No No '1 Sex. Race: Age Height Weight Build Hair Eyes: Comments a Name of Mimosa Address (Number. Street. City} 1 Phone Sex: Race Age 0.0.8 Comments: . c: Name OiWriness i Address (Number. Street. City} 8 Phone sex; Race Age 0-0.8 Comments Cl 3 Name of Employee Receiving Complaint (Print) Signature of Employee Receiving Complaint ED No. i 1 Superror Officer Assigned To Investigate Complaint ii) No, I Deputy Chief Noti?ed Yes? Noti?ed By Bate Time 1 No Witness Tea-studs Commander Date 1 MB CITIZEN COMPLAINTIINTERNAL NARRATIVE CONTINUATION FORM As i watked into Dudley station around 2pm this afternoon. there was a woman being arrested. i did not Know what was going on. (Only that there were a few officers surrounding a woman and arresting her) However: there was another woman, who is light skin with very short hair (nearly bald) approached them and begin asking questions about the woman being arrested. A white female officer with blonde hair at the scene was answering back to her, telling her it?s none of her business. The woman started to make a phone call on her cellphone (apparently to report what was going on with the arrest) The officer in a upset tone tells her to "Go ahead! Call!? along with some other words. As the woman is on the phone! the female officer tells her to back up. The woman didn't move and eventually the female of?cer pushes her back and the woman moves back. As the woman stood away from the scene of arrest and more than arm's length away from the officer? the officer continues to stay in the woman?s face saying ?back up?, and threatens to spray her. She repeated the phrase a few times as reached out and put her hands on the woman, who was standing there with her cellphone held to her ear, and then sprayed her in the face twice. Then another (Asian~tooking mate) police officer comes over and they began to arrest her (with her phone in her hand, which the woman didn't want to loss} The female cop than pulls out her baton and starts beating the woman on her leg. After a struggle the woman is on the ground ano they arrest her. Tne female officer appeared to have createda scene to have this woman arrested The civilian women did not make any gesture of harm or threat towards the police of?cer. stood there in shock of seeing this place. a bit intimidated by the situation and not knowing what to do. So. finally, i took pictures of the officers arresting her and decided I would report it. CETEZEN FORM Tyne c?Cornplaini . A - 1 A Corrumipn a. 1 i Jimmus? J?lj??im? MP2 Ingram camera Fab? {93% Time of Com 3? in? Haw Co"rnpfami was Recalea :5 9mm}? ?Te'esrmo 7 Oihcr. . g. Ear Mm?. ?21 Dale 3' Occuuence Time of OccurI?nce: i Location Of {meant (Number. Street. City) .. :50 . . 535141116 1 $5,511.,me {db-L2 hm? [Emu/mum gawk 3 Compiainanl? {LasL Fast. Mi? 1' Addres?s {Numb-er, Sweet, Cityf Statfa a. Zip Glade) {?Ev IVE 1"ch I. I 3Ju?PhanHE-iomel Sex: ?at; Age.21? F96. Hm i Nara-311:9? I, - .54; . . I I .- L-77w s-)?4113? I ?nnde *{E??rtUxi Mm?me Effigy?rrx??faru {m?hmn?cdt wqu {as H'651m? dam? mmc?fgum mum 1mg mummym .153 Th:hg?j? ?hnwe? 1 49/75:" Mad 2?5: of? 5/1/47 Wage-x? 1/1/41 03mg .rLztau-?3- w} (3?de ?173-: aft/{J 1 i - . . #331335} hf. 1.: {Cb-x5 ,d was HULL/imam (bid 70%: Hf/7?iuidj 2.90% m?g-rn. (?IE-?fl 1 {Centinuc nar'aliue on sage 2} Name of Empioyes Against: Badge Nemnl?uai . "Sex. i?Race; 5 Age might Watght Buid Hair Eyes: i Cam-meats ?Aiv' m. 'h s} [In A (rt? ?if-2m" {In-Xi?x?ame of armpit-yea ?gamsi' Badge Ne ID No jl i a at}; ?ah watt, 1.3. ?uL. 3 ;r Sex Race A 3 Height Weigh: Build Hair Eyes: Commenis - 2: ?9 ?om man-Emma 5'33: 180183! Dam" auto-?L? 0mm . i Nam? Address (Number. Street. City} i Dhsne ex Race Age 2' 00.8 Comments: gamma Am 3:5: ?51 11mm :3 gaw?ai {'Cngasid? 38; gabl?mtness Address {Nur?bea Strael. bay} 1 Dr :39 Sex, Race Age 0.8 Camments 'I?Jaw-a 35 Emp?cyee Reta-wing Complain: (Print: i Signazurz' 6! Employee Receivmg Compiain: ID No I . 3 Superror Of?ce: Assigned lawsugale Complain: ID No I Dacub; Chief Mt Yesa Nam-2d By Date Time 1. N99 {Signaiure of Csmpiaman: under :he warns a?d pena?ies of perjury Witness TPSAIU in (3cm . nde? Date '7a i .l 1 META TRANSIT CONTINUATEON FORM Ila! 37% is; aim?uz?jjaw 2.34'fr' . _1 i 3111". (Egg) V44). 5m? 5r Thfr?l JillEg??m? +5111? 'Iri?ii? Cgl\513 3.063%! 3- . an" I . 39mm] 6.: ow J: m; amt" ?m 27??.th myni?g: ?3 31:? WI - I if?) Eff} if} Taff?)? {1'13 1 If 399/7. #15173 I 3? I . a? ?lial-25": "?315: :5 353:5; 3m? i-h: 5; may: i 51.:{3?12 N?s-m? Ni f??iJRC-m?iiri ?t L5 Win-?- 4-9- 0 442.51: (if: .ggiimj Ci??nr? g3} :Pi? . {313352'?: i- ?35? a "Li EVAH ?inf? u: 1 . I ?3 31:; mini: {gym 130%. gm um: {Mi 131:3? ?h'w?ix'nmii . ?igx?? ([595 in?) 373'? a: i . {32 ?91? 335g; 3 1/ incur? 57, mil". if1. fu-?Js?r' 533M mm. (Jr-bl Cari? "If" ff: C3 1115?731 'r/E a - at: ?5?74'- - - 93?. 3331g.) (of? (:3!whim-574v I .1 'LL?ah? m: Hum-"3 >147; 71.1376; .13 ,fong .~35, 23If?" . 5?1 LL: 2; {20ch Ur?: b5}! hop 1 1'1. was Mr Tr?. . i @621 an em 3m Zxkfuffi'} 9mgwas? ?x?xefmC lbijL?fz? @1913 M4 Mug-:3 :19er mam-T- +03 1% snag .- .l I 'l 1, - (2b \?i?xa?g?x Wk; 5f flu??- - - . - - . 1 .a [f Hm my ,2 331?. ~f'm3r. 037%: .C 5L gr: Ira..- .Fm?: (1.453.104? xii :ra?wa'zg my 5? Eh; OJ (no; gr": {d ?1 i .mf?b?ff (arms? f?Cgm; ?31: ?Ll? No It:- W170. MM. Citizen campiaint IA No: CC2014-017 Received: Apr 04? 2014 Cage Nu: Involved citizen: Mary Holmes nkoo addressis}: Home Address: nkea phone?s): Phone. Of?cers invoived: Poiico Of?cer Jennifer Amyot?677167?] Of?cer current info: Diwsmn: Patroi Assignment: TDSA4 Um:- Patm: Division Snapshot officer information at time of incident: 33099le no: Dix-Sim: Poirot Assortment: L?nit. Patroi Division Shift: 35302330 Ranmitie: :Dclice Officer Age: 31 was of empiovment: 6 ?v?ears with unit Off may: Off duo; empioyed: Poilce Of?cer Alfred Tr'mh Of?cer current info: Div-'sion: Patrol Assignment: Lnar: Patro} {Eiwsion Snapshot - of?ce:- information at Lime of incident: SaigegiD no: 658 Dix-ska": Palm! Assignment: TPSA 5. omit: Patroiaiwsion Shim ORG-1530 Squad: 2 ?ank?titla' Potice Officer Age- 33 Years of employmort: 6 Years with unit: 6 Of? only. Off duty employee: Witnesses: Llnked addressi83= Home: Summary: On Wednesday March 26, 2-314, on my way to Dudlevaoxoor; police station, witnessed of?cer Amyot verbally accosted an elder. Speaking to the apparently enebriateci elderly woman, I told her to comp-5y with the officer?s orders. Of?cer .i'tmyot began to dialog with me. I answered honestly. The women gurnped up and was foreibiy pushed back to the bench. I turned to of?cer Trinh and asked him to hem his partner so that the woman wouldn't get hurt. He continued to watch, silently. The elderi?i? still unrestrained and moments unrestricted reached into a bag to her immediate left, polled at a plastic bottle of gin, put it to her lips, and took a Sip. At that point, officer Amyo?. slapped the bottle and face of the elder with her right hand. The bottie's cements Spiked all over the elder and the bench. She nicked the woman up by her front slammed her back into the backing. Slammed the elder on the bench, and drag her along it. tasked for officer Amyot' name. She responded, wt at the fuck do you need my name for?" I told her I was calling the police. Officer Arr-yet then started walking towards me yelling, don't grve a too. who you call! badge number 6?7. Now back the fuck up bet?ore I arrest you for impeding an ongoing investigation". I said "yes ma'am? and backed up. She continued to tell: towards me. I turned to of?cEr Trinh and told him I am backing up and your partner is pursuing met you see thrs. "Do somethmg?. He said I dialed 911 when response answered, i gave them my name, location, and requested their presence when my phone was suddenly knocked out of mi; hand by of?cer Amigo: shouted with her hand on her hip (E believed was her gun}. i looked and she sprayed me With mace in my eyes and forehead. i look towards my phone and went lo.- rt She sprayed me again. Then her earths-1r began kicking my legs, nitt'rtg me with their batons, and both were pulling me in two different directions ?oy my arms. Nobody once said I was under arrest nor gave any other order than for me to back up. Whenfwhere: Dat-eftime etc-erred: Mar 26 20M 33:33 Home ?ddress: County: Dudley Bus Terminal Sta tusfassignment information: Status: Initial Ooeneo?: Assigned. Que: 055199014 Completed: Deposition: {Jolt aesigned: Un?ess-gned Handled at ?eld-ooh Eevel: No investigator Ur. assigned Supervisor assign: Source or? information: Page I: Organizational componen?s): Divasian: ?atroi Assignment: 4 unit: patrol stisio? Shw?z? 1539-2330 G:ue?fez1m chain routings Apr 04, 2014 14:45: Sent from Lieutenant Manes Cadet {S76j4391 to Sergeant Detective Sean Reynolds Enhluxcl?uns: Sgt. Reynolds, Please review and irvestzgate said complaint. Rmewed by Sergeant Detectwa Sean Reynolds on Apr 04, 201-1 3: MA Rewewar comment: Routmg was ?endled BlueTeam. rhe incident was forwarded into by uSei? Sergeant Detective (liming rar? thas routzng were: sent t-c {he Fokowmg: Entered via BlueTeam by; Lieutenant Manes Cadeth76f43910n Apr 04, 2014 31:13:45 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TRANSIT POLICE DEPARTMENT - ww I a - PAUL S. Chief of Police Committed to Excellence State and Nationally Accredited . . . . Notification of Investigation To . Officer Jennifer Amvot From: Lt. Det. Dennis Hong Vsoiatior: Chapter 171 Section 3.0 Use of Force in Response to Resistance: Aggression Date April 2014 This document is intended to provide notification that you have become the subject of an internal administrative i criminai investigation. The nature of the complaint is as foiiows: During an arrest ofa person at Dudley Station on March 26, 2014, it alleges you exceeded the amount of force necessary. You may be contacted at some future date to arrange for an interview that is convenient to you and your work schedule. Pursuant to NLRB v. Weinoerten. 420 US. 251 (1975;, you will be allowed to have union representation present. You may also be contacted to submit a written response to written questions in regards to this incident if you need further information feel free to contact me at 617-222- 1265. Lieutenant Detective Dennis Hong a. ?hm; 246 SOUii?iEiiTpiUli Sheet - Boston a Massachusetts 02118 Basroess Prone {517i 2224103."; Fax; 2232?1035 Emergency Priors: i MA SSA CHUSETTS BA TRANSPORTA TION A UTHORITY TRA 7' POLICE DEPAR TMEN . .. -. . -. Kenneth Green Chief of Peirce Committed to Exceiience State and Nationally Accredited Noti?cation of Investigation CONFIDENTIAL To: Lieutenant Dennis Hong From: Deputy Chief Gloria Andrews-Ward Subject: Administrative Investigation Date: February 10, 2016 This document is intended to provide notification that you have become the subject of an . internai administrative investigation.- . . . . . You will be required to answer questions regarding your actions and/or inactions relative to the Mary Holmes Investigation. If you fail to answer questions that are narrowly and Speci?cally designed regarding the performance of your duties and your ?tness to perform those you will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and inciuding my recommendation for termination. You may be contacted at some future date to arrange for an that is convenient to you and your work scheduie. Pursuant to NLRB v. Weinoarten, 420 U.8. 251 (1975), you will be allowed to have union representation present. You may also be contacted to submit written a response to written questions in regards to this incident. The META has obtained the services of Municipal Resources to review the aforementioned matter. It you need further information contact Superintendent Richard Sullivan at 617-222-1174Mgr, it?th q: u-f 3, v- Gloria Andrews Ward Deputy Chief 240 Southampton Street . Boston a Massachusetts 02118 Business Phone: 222-1100 Fax: (6t7)222?1035 Emergency Phone: (617} 222-1212 MASSA CHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Kenneth Green Chief of Ponce Committed to Exceliance State and Nationaily Accredited Noti?cation of Investigation CONFIDENTIAL To: Lieutenant James Witzgaii From: Deputy Chief Gloria Andrews-Ward Subject: Administrative Investigation Date: February 10, 2016 nun-I ?ail-n.- au? This document is intended to provide noti?cation that you have become the subject of an internai administrative investigation. You wilt be required to answer questions regarding your actions andior inactions relative to the Mary Holmes Investigation. If you fat! to answer questions that are narrowly and specifically designed regarding the performance of your duties and your ?tness to perform those you will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including my recommendation for termination. You may be contacted at some future date to arrange for an interview that is convenient to you and your work schedule. Pursuant to NLRB v. Weinqarten, 420 US. 251 {1975)1 you will be aIIowed to have union representation present. You may also be contacted to submit written a response to written questions in regards to this incident. The MBTA has obtained the services of Municipal Resources to review the aforementioned matter. If you need further information contact Superintendent Richard Sullivan at 617?2224 174. ?5 I w" 1" Gloria Andrews Ward Deputy Chief 240 Southampton Street Boston in Maesachusetts 02118 Business Phone: (617'; 222-1100 Fax: {81.7) 22240355 Emergency Phone. (617) 222-1212 ii! ga.uJi: .. .34: 5.1.11 .. . .1. ?uu?tt . . is G'zn . . Kg?mx?zs DEPARTMENT MANUAL META Transif Police CHAPTER 1 20 DATE or pare General Order No. 201 3-1 1 04r24i2013 0429.901 3 SUBJECT STATUS AUTHORWY STANDARDS OF CONDUCT internal Affairs and Citizen Complaints investigations NEW REFERENCES AMENDS CALEA 12.2.2, 25.1.1, 28.1.4, 26.1.8. RESCINDS 52.1.1?5. 52.2.2. 52.2.3. 52.2.4, 52.2.6. OF 8 52-2-8 1.0 BACKGROUND. The responsibility of the Professional Standards Unit is to thoroughly in- 2.0 3.0 vestigate allegations of misconduct originating from all internal and external complaints.? Investigating alleged employee misconduct carries with it the important responsibility of con- ducting such investigations in accordance with the law and professionally accepted practic- es. In order for the public to have con?dence in the Department, there must be a clearly es- tablished mechanism for complaints to be received and investigated in a fair and impartial manner so that a positive and constructive resolution can be achieved. The MBTA Transit Police Department has established policies, nJles and procedures for handling the receipt. investigation and resolution of allegations of employee misconduct. These policies, rules and procedures have been established to clearly set forth the Depart? ment's commitment to protect the right of the public, and the right of employees of the De partment and complainants to expect ef?cient, fair and impartial resolution of investigations and be protected from unwarranted harassment. POLICY. The META Transit Police Department recognizes the right of all citizens to initiate a complaint and receive a fair and thorough investigation and unbiased adjudication. All el- ements of the complaint process will be handled in a manner that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race. gender, religion. ethnicity, sexual preference, national origin or other legal? ly protected class. All citizen complaints of employee misconduct. including anonymous complaints, will be investigated. All reports or accusations made against employ? ees of the Department or the Department in general, from all sources, will be thoroughly in- vestigated in order to ensure the integrity of the Department. The Department is committed to objectivity, fairness and justice through intensive, impartial review and investigation of all complaints. The public has a night to expect ef?cient, fair and impartial law enforcement. All misconduct must be detected. thoroughly investigated and properly adjudicated to assure the maintenance of these qualities. {52.1.1} TERMINOLOGY. The following terms are used: lAPro is a computerized case management system used by the Profes- sional Standards Unit for Citizen?s Complaints and Internal Affairs investigations. 3.1 BLUETEAM. Blue'l'eam is a web-based program that allows Officers and Supervi- sors to enter and manage incidents use of force reports. vehicle pursuits. Citi- zen?s Complaints, etc.) from "the ?eld?. Once entered into BlueTeam, the incidents are then reviewed and managed through iAPro. CITIZEN. Any individual not a member of the META Transit Police Department. 3.2 3.3 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT Chapter 120 internal Affairs and Citizen Compialnts investigations 4.0 MB TA Transit Police Manner 13.4 COMPLAINT. An allegation of misconduct made against a member of the Depart- ment. Complaints generaliy fall within one of two categories. 3.4.1 INTERNAL COMPLAINTS. internal Affairs complaints are those more serious complaints (see Section 6.1) that will be investigated by the Professional Standards Unit in accordance with this chapter. {52.2.1 b} 3.4.2 COMPLAINTS. Citizen?s complaints are minor complaints (see Section 6.2) that are not serious and are non-criminal in nature. {52.2.1 a} 3.5 EMPLOYEE. Any sworn or civilian, permanent or temporary, member of the MBTA Transit Police Department. 3.5 EXONERATED. The incident did occur, but the actions of the accused were in compliance with Department policies. rules and procedures. This de?nition would also include those aliegations not directed at the individual but rather deal solely with a comptainant's objection to, or criticism of, a Department policy or procedure. 3.7 NOT SUSTAINED. The investigation faiied to discover suf?cient evidence to ciearly prove or disprove the allegation(s) of employee misconduct. This de?nition aiso in- cludes incomplete investigations. An incomplete investigation is an investigation that cannot be thoroughly or properly compieted due to any one of the following: a lack of cooperation by the complainant or witness(es); the absence of a criticai interview, which was necessary to the investi- gation; a determination that the physicai evidence is not available; andi?or a witness(es) statement is insuf?cient to permit adjudication of the com- piaint. 3.8 SUSTAINED. The investigation indicates there is sufficient evidence to cieariy prove the allegation(s) of employee misconduct made in the compiaint. 3.9 UNFOUNDED. The investigation indicates that the acts compiained of did not oc~ cur. FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Professional Standards Unit Commander reports to the Administrative Services Division (ASD) Commander and also has the authority to re? port directly to the Chief ExecutIVe Of?cer. The ASE) Commander, by function. reports di- rectly to the Chief of Police. {52.13. 522.2} The Professional Standards Unit Commander will be responsibie for recording and register- ing alt complaints against the Department and its employees. The Professional Standards Unit Commander will review, assign, control and oversee the investigation of complaints and will protect the con?dentiality of all investigatory ?les and related records by maintaining them in a secure area. {521.2, 52.2.2} The A80 Commander wlli: - ensure that internal Affairs and Citizen Complaints are thoroughly investigated in the appropriate time line; Chapter 120-2 04/24/2013 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT Chapter 720 internal Affairs and Citizen Complaints investigations - ensure that Citizen Complaints are forwarded to the appropriate Division Com- mander for investigation and recom mendetions; - maintain a central file of all complaints received: 0 assume responsibility for the maintenance and security of all complaint investi- gation tiles, and records; maintain liaison with the appropriate prosecuting authority during investigations involving alleged employee criminal misconduct: 1? ?l conduct regular audits of complaints to ascertain the need for changes in train- ing or policy; a ensure that the Chief is noti?ed immediately, via telephone. text, email, or in person, concerning internal affairs incidents (eg. the arrest of an employee, complaints against the Department, or an event involving an employee that may cause media inquiry, etc) 0 review and analyze trends in numbers and types of complaints: and 4.1 COMPLAINT ANALYSIS SYSTEM. One function of the Professional Standards Unit is to assure that consistent standards are maintained by reviewing records of complaints that may be ?led against an Of?cer throughout his/her career. if a pat? tern is identi?ed, an analysis will be conducted to determine if the employee?s be- havior warrants further action (8.9. training, counseling, etc). 5.0 COMPLAINT PROCESSING AND RECORDING. The Department, being cognizant of its responsibilities to all citizens and its employees, will process, record and investigate all com? plaints of alleged employee misconduct. 5.1 Prior to the completion of the investigation of either an internal Affairs or Citizen?s Complaint, information concerning such an investigation shall not be released unless authorized by the Chief of Police. The fact that a complaint was received and a departmental investigation is underway may be disclosed unless the A80 Commander determines that for security reasons it should remain con?dential. 6.0 CATEGORIES 0F COMPLAINTS. The Department has established guidelines regarding which categories of complaints will be handled and investigated by the Professional Stand? ards Unit and which complaints will be referred to the appropriate Division Commander for investigation. 6.1 Investigations to be conducted by the Professional Standards Unit include. but are not limited to: {52.2.1 13} a criminal conduct: untruthfulness; a domestic violence; 0 acts indicative of bias (eg. racial, gender. etc); META Transit Police Manual Chapter 120-3 3 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT Chapter 120 internal Affairs and Citizen Complaints Investigations 8.0 MBTA Transit Police Manual divulging con?dential police information to unauthorized sources; a engaging in conduct, whether on or off duty, that discredits the Depart- ment, or the individual in hislher capacity as a Police Officer; and - requests from the Chief of Police. 6.2 COMPLAINTSISUPERWSORY Complaints submitted by citizens alleging improper or unprofessional behavior related to the performance of their duties or sworn status or violations of Department policy will be investigated by the Division Commander, and/or his or her designee. They include, but are not lim- ited to, the following offenses: {52.2.1 a} insubordination; - excessive force; 0 rudeness; - uniform violations; and 0 minor rule infractions. However, the nature, sensitivity, or severity of the offense may indicate a more appropriate assignment to the Professional Standards Unit for investigation. RECEIPT OF COMPLAINTS BY TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON. Complainants will be re ferred to ArealUnitlSection Superior Of?cers, or Professional Standards Unit Superior Offic? ers, if available. When the complainant informs the Supervisor that helshe desires to ?le a complaint, the Supervisor will ask him/her, in private, to describe the complaint. The com- plainant will then be asked to fill out an internal AffairsiCitizen Complaint form. if for any reason they are unable to fill out the form, the Supervisor may paraphrase the com piaint in the narrative section and read it to the complainant. The complainant will be asked to sign the form. if requested. the complainant will be given a blank internal A?airleitizen Corn- plaint Form to ?ll out and sign later time that is convenient for them. The forms will include the language that it is signed under the pains and penalties of perjury. it ls'the responsibility of each Supervisor who receives a complaint, no matter what their as? signment or how the complaint is received, to enter the complaint into BlueTearn. LOGGING AND PROCESSING COMPLAINTS. All complaints against employees, includ? ing complaints ?led by mail or electronically, will be processed in the following manner. The A80 Commander or his/her designee will: review all complaints received: 0 complete the necessary entry into BiueTeam for each internal A?airleitizen Complaint Form or Blue Team entry received; - file the original; assign the complaint to the ArealUnithection Superior Officer for investigation. as indicated by the nature of the complaint; and Chapter 120?4 04/24/201 3 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT Chapter 120 internal Affairs and Citizen Complaints Investigations - notify the complainant in writing that the complaint has been received. {52.2.4 a} 9.0 0F COMPLAINTS. All complaint investigations. including anonymous complaints must be conducted thoroughly and objectively. Every appropriate investigative technique and method may be employed consistent with legal requirements and concern for the individual rights of the accused employee. All complaints require a finding. it the em- ployee resigns or the complaint is withdrawn, the investigator will note that fact in his/her re? port but will still be required to conclude the investigation based on the information available. 52.2.8} 9.1 COM The A80 Commander will review the complaint and assign it to the Professional Standards Unit Commander or the appropriate Ar- eannit/Section Supervisor for investigation. as indicated by the nature of the corn? plaint. 9.2 CRIMINAL COMPLAINT. Whenever, an employee is accused of committing a crim? inal act, whether on duty or off duty, heishe will notify their Supervisor or Ar- ealUnitlSectlon Commander who will immediately notify a member of the Profes- sional Standards Unit and the appropriate Division Commander, who will notify the Chief of Police. {52.1.3, 52.2.2} 10.0 BY SUPERIOR OFFICER. An employee who may have been involved as either a participant or witness to the alleged incident being investigated will submit, upon re- questr a written report concerning hislher actions and observations to the investigating Supe- rior Of?cer. Upon completion of the investigation. the Superior Of?cer will submit the investigative re? ports to the Professional Standards Unit Commander or hisiher designee. After reviewing the results of the completed investigation, the Professional Standards Unit Commander or hisfher designee will indicate. in writing, whether or not heishe concurs with the recommen? dationts). The investigative reports, with recommendationfs), will be forwarded to the Commander forthwith. The file must contain the following: a statement of the allegations made by the complainant; a a statement of the situation as described by the employee involved andfor witness employees; a a conclusion and statement of what occurred based upon the Supervisor's analysis of the supporting evidence: and {52.2.8} a recommended ?nding in one of the following classi?cations: Exonerated, Not Sustained. Sustained or Unfounded. {52.2.8} 11.0 FORMAL INTERVIEW. in the interest of organizational integrity and fairness. when an in- ternal Affairs investigation requiresthat an" employee be brought in for a formal interview, helshe will be issued a written statement that will include the allegations against the em ploy? ee, and the employee?s rights and responsibilities. {52.2.5} All formal interviews will be conducted in accordance with the following procedures: META Transit Police Manual Chapter 120-5 04/24/2013 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT Chapter 120 Internal Affairs and Citizen Complaints Investigations 12.0 13.0 14.0 MB TA Transit Police Manual 11.? At the time of the interview, the interviewee under investigation should be afforded all rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution, the Massachusetts Dec- laration of Rights, Carney v. Sorino?eid 403 Mass. 604, and any other applicable constitutional or statutory rights. if the employee could infer that his responses may result in discipline against himlher, tie/she shall be noti?ed that they have the right to consult with a union representative and to have himlher present during questioning. The Department will afford an opportunity for the employee to consult with counsel and/or a union representative before being questioned concerning a serious viola- tion of rules and procedures, provided that the interview is not unduly delayed. In any case, the interview may not be postponed for purpose of counsel. 11.2 The questioning will not be overly long. Reasonable respites will be allowed. Time will also be provided for personal necessities, meals, telephone calls and rest peri- ods as are reasonably necessary. 11.3 The complete interview of the employee will be recorded in some manner. There will be no "off-the~record" questions. All requests for recesses during the question- ing will be recorded. PROHIBITION 0F CONTACT WITH COMPLAINANTIWITNESS. An employee against whom a complaint has been made shall not contact the complainant/witness or attempt. di- rectly or indirectly, by threat, appeal, persuasion. or the payment or promise of money or other things of value, to secure the withdrawal or abandonment of the complaint. Such ac- tions are prohibited and shall be dealt with very strictly by the Department. An employee against whom a complaint has been made shall not conduct any CORI or Registry of Motor Vehicle inquiries involving the complainant. EXAMINATIONS. Upon orders of the Chief of Police or his/her designee, an employee may be compelled to submit to a medical or laboratory examination, at the Department?s ex- pense. This examination must be speci?cally directed and narrowly related to a particular in- ternal Affairs investigation being conducted by the Department. {522.6 a} . An employee may also be compelled to be photographed, to participate in a lineup to be viewed by witnesses or complainants for the purpose of identifying an employee accused of misconduct, andl'or be compelled to submit a ?nancial disclosure statement as part of an in- temai investigation provided such statement is material to the investigation. {52.2.6 b, c, d} Examinations may also include workplace searches. The agency reserves the right to exer- cise searches of storageloiothing lockers, desks, ?le cabinets, computers and electronic messaging systems. Such submissions andlor examinations will only be conducted in a manner that is consistent with applicable federal, state, case law and administrative deci- alons. 13.1 DETECTION OF DECEPTION. if necessary, when instruments for the detection of deception are used in any internal affairs investigation, these instruments will be used only by trained and certi?ed personnel who have graduated from an institution providing training for this purpose. These instruments will be used and in accord- ance with all applicable federal, state, case law and administrative decisions. {42.2.6} REVIEW PROCESS. The A80 Commander will review the completed in- vestigation and indicate, in writing, whether or not he/she concurs with the Superior Officer's or Professional Standards Unit Superior Officer?s finding and recommendation. The investi~ gative report, with the recommendationis), will be forwarded to the Chief of Police for appro- . priate action. Chapter 120-6 04/24/2013 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT Chapter 120 lntemal Affairs and Citizen Complaints investigations 14.1 The employee and the complainant will be notified. in writing. of the disposition of the complaint. {52.1.5 c. 52.2.40} 15.0 DEADLINESIPROCESS. All investigations pursuant to this chapter wili be completed by the AreaiUnit/Section Commander within thirty (30) days of initiation unless extenuating circum? stances exist. initial contact with the complainant by the Area/UniifSection Commander will be made within ?ve (5) days of the complaint being made. in all such investigations. after the thirty {30) day initial time period. extensions will be allowed provided status reports are submitted to the ASD Commander. {52.2.3} 15.1 it an investigation arising fiom a citizen complaint is still pending at the end of forty- ?ve (45) days. the complainant will be noti?ed stating that the investigation is contin? uing. and estimating when the investigation will be completed. {52.2.4 b} 15.2 A decision on the complaint will be made by the Chief of Police based on one of the following classifications: Exonerated. Not Sustained. Sustained or Unfounded. 15.3 The employee will be noti?ed. in writing. of the disposition of the complaint. 15.4 The ASD Commander will prepare a written response to the complainant. The re- sponse will be signed by the Chief of Police and will apprise the complainant of the results of the investigation. {52.2.4 c} 15.5 if the complaint is SUSTAINED, disciplinary action as appropriate. consistent with policies and procedures on progressive discipline as outlined in this manual. may be initiated. 15.6 if the allegation was true. but the action complained about was not inconsistent with established policies. rules or procedures, the Department will review its policy to de? termine what changes need to be made so as to provide clearer guidelines to per? sonnel and prevent a recurrence of the type of action complained about. 15.6.1 The investigating Supervisor will specify in his/her report which policy. rule or procedure was the subject of the complaint and when applicable. will in- clude a draft policy revision for review. 15.6.2 The Division Commander will review the suggested policy revision for con? currence and forward it in accordance with the Department?s policy review process. 16.0 DISCIPLINARY RECORDS. in the event disciplinary action is taken. a record of same wilt be placed in the employee?s Personnel File and attached to the lAPro investigation file, in conformance with Massachusetts General Law (MGL). Chapter 149. 520. {26.1.8} 17.0 APPEAL PROCESS. If an employee wishes to appeal the disciplinary action imposed, he/she may ?le a signed. written grievance through the employee's bargaining unit in ac- cordance with the respective collective bargaining agreement. {25.1.1 as} 17.1 All disciplinary hearings against an Of?cer will be held in compliance with MGL. Chapter 31. 41-45. Employees may also exercise their right to appeal disciplinary actions leg. suspen- sion. discharge, or transfer) to the Civil Service Commission. MB TA Transit Police Mantra! Chapter 120-? 04/24/2013 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT Chapter 1' 20 Internal Affairs and Citizen Compiaints investigations 18.0 FILES. A centrai??le of internal investigation complaints will be maintained eiectronically in lAPro. and secured and treated as confidential investigative files. The A80 Commander wiil assume responsibility for all lntemai Affairs and Professional Standards investigation ?les. {52.12} 19.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION. The system of processing complaints against empioy- ees will be monitored in the following manner: 19.1 ANNUAL SUMMARY. The ASD Commander will prepare a quarter- iy and annual summary of complaint statistics (both internal Affairs and Citizen Complaints), indicating the number of complaints ?led, by type of complaint. the out- come of the investigations undertaken, and by outcome classi?cation. This infor- mation wiil be forwarded to the Chief of Police and published on a Chief's Memo to Department employees and the public at the discretion of the Chief of Police. {52.1.5} MB TA Transit Police Manual Chapter 120-8 04/24/201 3