111?09 Form . . - MILWAUKEE POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: June 30, 2017 TO: Assistant Chief Carianne YERKES FR: Captain of Police James SHEPARD RE: Police Captain Johnny PS #008383 l.A.8. File #2017-0015 - Sir, I have reviewed the attached investigative reports regarding the allegations of misconduct against the above?referenced member. The investigation, which was assigned to Police Sergeant Thomas HINES, is summarized below. On Friday, January 13, 2017, Inspector Michael BRU seen was notified by lot Dignitary Protection that Captain Johnny SGRIGNUOLI viewed security video at City Hall while on duty. inspector Thomas STIGLER contacted who explained that in the morning of January 13, 2017, he received a call from Captain stating he wanted to come to City Hall to review video that displayed the parking garage on Market Street. stated that Captain SGRIGNUOLI arrived in full uniform at about 9:45 am. and was allowed to review the motion activated security video between 6:00 pm. and 10:00 pm. on January 12, 2017: told Inspector STIGLER that it was apparent that Captain SGRIGNUOLI was looking for a speci?c vehicle. On January 13, 2017', Inspector STIGLER spoke to Captain in his office. During the conversation Captain admitted that he contacted and met with him at City Hall. Captain SGRIGNUOLI stated he was helping out a friend, who is not employed with the City of Milwaukee, in a personal matter. On February 10, 2017, Sergeant HINES interviewed He indicated when Captain SGRIGNUOLI came to City Hall on January 13, 2017, he requested to view video from January 12, 2017, personally retrieved the video for Captain stated it Was apparent that between 6:00 pm. and 10:00 pm. and assumed it was work related. Captain SGRIGNUOLI was looking for a specific vehicle because the video depicted the inside of the parking structure of the Frank Zeidler Municipal Building and vehicles entering and exiting the garage. stated that initially Captain SGRIGNUOLI was interested in video of the outside of the building on Market Street, but he 1 was unable to retrieve it. stated there was nothing that stood out in the video and Captain SGRIGNOULI made no indication that he had located what he was looking for. stated he asked Captain SGRIGNUOLI why he wanted to view video and Captain SGRIGNUOLI only stated that he was looking for a vehicle. File #1743015 . Page 1 of4 r" If I friend. When asked to explain why he viewed the video, Captain stated. was looking for stated when Captain left City Hail; he began thinking about what just occurred. stated he called Captain by phone in hopes of gaining additional information that could assist him in locating the vehicle. stated that was when Captain SGRIGNUOLI told him he was doing a favor for a friend. stated at that point, he believed it was his responsibility to report the matter to inspector BRUNSON. Sergeant was unable to retrieve a copy of the video in question time to Dignitary Protection?s 30a day retention for surveillance video. However, he did obtain a copy of video showing the area covered by the surveillance camera as viewed by Captain The camera showed the interior of the Market Street parking garage, speci?caiiy, the exit garage door and a restricted access door. Sergeant also obtained and revieWed a log for subjects using their employee identification cards to enter and exit the parking garage on January 12, 2017. The log included names of alderpersons, members of the Mayor's Of?ce, employees of the Fire and Police Commission and many others who work in or conduct business with the City of Milwaukee. Captain was scheduled for, and participated in a Pl?21 interview on March 6, 2017. Due to procedural issues, the contents of that interview and any findings from it have been expunged from the record of this investigation. However, i briefly discussed with Captain SGRIGNUOLI some topical issues prior to the commencement of the interview. He stated he had no intention of identifying the friend on whose behalf he had watched the video. When i told him refusing to identify the friend was not an option in the interview, Captain volunteered to me that the friend he was watching the surveillance video on behalf of was a doctor and because the doctor had disclosed prohibited information to him, identifying the doctor could jeopardize his license to practice. I filed a memorandum regarding this discussion, and the memorandum is included in this file. During a Pl~21 interview on June 13, 2017, Captain SGRIGNUOLI acknowledged going to City Hall while on duty and in uniform to view video of the interior employee parking structure at the Zeidler Municipal Building. Captain SGRIGNUOLI acknowledged doing so without prior authorization from someone of higher rank. Captain indicated he did this for a personal reason and not. for a personal my and potentially a man that i know, but don't know who he is, being down at that location.? When asked to clarify, Captain SGRIGNUOLI stated, ?That had to do with my gut feeling, my instinct, areas thati have seen her in the past.? When asked to identify the male he believed his was with, Captain SGRIGNUOLI stated, ?i said i know him, but don't know who he is. A person in our universe, it could have been one of many men that she had been befriending." Captain stated he believed that his was in that area on January 12, 2017 because of a pattern of behavior that he had witnessed during the course of their marriage. He indicated that his had been in that area on previous occasions and she couldn?t explain why. "But she had been in many places that were unexplained and discovered this from the phone, her phone tags where she had parked and there were, Cover File 23-17-0015 Page 2 of 4 ?a - like I said other locations that she was where she should not had been. i thought she was down there to meet the man. i have no idea why.? When asked if anyone told him that his was going to be in that area on January 12, 2017, Captain stated, "Nobody told me that.? Captain indicated that he did not observe his or her personal vehicle on the video he viewed on January 13, 2017. As far he knew, Captain did not have any access to the parking garage. Captain SGRIGNUOLI acknowledged not using his time to accomplish the mission of the department A . Captain was asked about the discussion he had with inspector on January 13, 2017. He stated he talked with inspector about a personal situation and a friend?s marital problem, explaining, "i thought it was a personal conversation. Again, we had talked about many personal matters with myself, with my health, with my mother?s health, about my family. When i said i was helping a friend with a marital problem, i truly assumed they?d thinkit was me. it was awkward.? 9 Captain was asked about the discussion prior to the March 6, 2017 Pi?21 interview. When asked to verify that during that discussion he announced he would not identify the friend for whom he had watched the video, Captain explained, "i think that was a confused mix?Lip talking about what i, had learned in consultation with my doctor. i didn?t want to talk to you about anything that had been discussed within a patientfdoctor relationship, but i didn't in anyway ever want to refuse to answer your qUestion." When asked to verify he told me the friend he did the favor for was a doctor and he didn?t Want to jeopardize the docto?s license to practice by disclosing prohibited information, Captain stated he didn?t remember saying that. Captain statements to me and inspector STIGLER conflict with the explanation he gave in his Pl?21 about why he viewed the surveillance video. Captain explanations for why he believed his might have been in the Market Street parking garage are implausible. When pressed to support his story he was looking for his in the video, Captain stated he wasn?t informed she would be down there, he didn't believe she had any means to access the garage, and he was checking on the area due to a process of elimination of places she had been according to ?phone tags," yet the Market Street garage wasn?t a place her phone had indicated she had been. This investigation was unable to determine what exactly Captain SGRIGNUOLI was looking for on the video and for whom. Based on the aforementioned, there is evidence present to support the allegation that Captain of Police Johnny SGRIGNUOLI violated the Code of Conduct as it pertains to members using their time to accomplish the mission of the department and not using their official position with the department for interfering with personal affairs of any persons. Therefore, 1 recommend the aiiegations be filed as SUSTAINED and charges preferred as follows: CoVer 1A5 File 17?0015 Page 3 of 4 I We are exemplary leaders and exemplary foiiowers." to accomplish the mission of the department." We are honest in word and deed." affairs or' professional responsibilities of any person or agency.? Cover 1A5 File #17-0015 Page 4 of 4 Jr-i Core Value 1.00 Competence, which states, ?We are prudent stewards of the public?s?grant of authority and resources. We are accountable for the quality of our performance and the standards of our conduct. Referencing Guiding Principle 1.03, which states, "All department members shall render service to the community and efficiently. When not answering a call for service, members shall use their time Core Value 3.00 integrity, which states, ?We recognize the complexity of police work and eXercise discretion in ways that are beyond reproach and worthy of public trust. Honesty and truthfulness are fundamental elements of integrity. it is our duty to earn public trust through consistent words and actions, 'Referencing Guiding Principle 3.06, which states, "Department members shall not use their official position or membership in the Milwaukee Police Department to unnecessarily interfere with the personal Respectfully submitted, men/(IL. James SHEPARD Captain of Police internal Affairs Division