The entire report is attorney/client privileged and exempt under KRS 61 which
incorporates the attorney/client privilege and work product doctrine found at CR
Louisville has chosen to waive the attorney client privilege and work product
exemption for those parts of the report that are not redacted. Louisville is claiming the
privilege for all portions of the report that are redacted. Additionally, the redacted
portions of the report are also being claimed as exempt: under KRS 61 which
incorporates the protection provided to juveniles under KRS 610.320 and KRS 610.340;
under KRS 61 .878(1)(a) to protect private health information and personal information
that might identify a victim; and pursuant to court order that sealed the lawsuits related
to this investigation.

DW

le'lxll NEON Iml'

 

Louisville Metro Police Department Explorer

Program Internal Investigation

Final Report

June 27, 2018

Con?dential
Attorney-Client Privileged



 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. BACKGROUND .. 6
A. The Explorer Program 6

B. '7

FACTS 10
A. Kenneth Betta .. 10

1. uly 2013 10

2. Explorer 2 20

B. Brandon Wood 33

1. Allegations of Misconduct by Wood 33

2. Additional Allegations Against Betta 37

a. 40

b. LMPD Internal Investigations . . 42

i. Former Explorers 42

ii LMPD Personnel 46

53

iv. Senior MDlMetro Government Of?cials 54

IV. ASSESSMENT 55
A. The 2013 Investigation 56

1. PIU 56

2. 57

B. The 2016 Investigation 59

C. False Rumors 60
1. Bette and Wood Acted Together 69
2. The Metro Government Has Privately Settled Lawsuits 59
3. Chief Conrad Prematurely Ended the 2013 PSU
Investigation 60
4. The Mayor?s O?iee Interfered with the 2016 Investigation 60
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 67
A. Boy Scouts of America Policy 
B. LMPD Policies and Procedures 69
1. PIU Operations Manual 69
2. LMPD Standard Operating Procedures 69
WAS THERE AN EFFORT WITHIN THE COMMAND STAFF OF
THE LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT TO 
MISCONDUCT WITHIN THE EXPLORER 70
RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING CONTINUED OPERATION
OF THE IMPD EXPLORER PROGRAM 82
1. Advising the Explorer Post Should be an Assigned Duty,
Not a Volunteer Effort 83
2. Explorer Advisors Should be Rotated Out of the Program
On a Regular Basis 83
3. The Chief Explorer Advisor Should be a Senior Of?cer 83
4. The Chief Adviser to the Explorer Post Should be
Changed Every 18-24 Months 84
5. Establish a Minimum Age to Serve as an Explorer Adviser 84

ii

6. Recruit Parents of Explorers to Serve as Sponsors Along

With LMPD Dmcers 84
7. Limit Participation in the Explorer Posts to Those
Under the Age of 18 84
8. End the Practice of ?Ride-Mange? 85
RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING OPERATION OF THE
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 85
A. Con?icts of Interest 86
B. Legal Review of PSU Determinations 88
C. Consider Term Limiting Assignments to the Special Investigations
Division 89
IX. CONCLUSION 90
EXHIBITS Attached



 

REPORT FINAL

I. INTRODUCTION

On March 8, 2017, N.C., a former member of the Louisville Metro Police
Department's Youth Explorer program, ?led a lawsuit alleging he was
raped and sexually abused by LMPD of?cers while he was an Explorer. Shortly
thereafter, a grand jury returned indictments against Brandon Wood then
an active LMPD of?cer, and Kenneth Betts, a former LMPD of?cer. Wood was
indicted on seven counts of sexual abuse, while Betta was indicted on two counts of
sodomy.

On March 17, 2017, Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer (?Mayor Fischer"), on
behalf of the LouisvilleIJe?'erson County Metro Government (?Metro Government?),
retained Kerry Harvey of the law ?rm Dickinson Wright PLLC to conduct a review
of the LMPD Explorer program. Mayor Fischer also suspended all operations of the
Explorer program pending completion of the review.

The Mayor instructed Mr. Harvey to evaluate ?ve separate issues:

1. a review of the internal processes, policies and procedures concerning
the Explorer program;

2. a review of whether any employment laws may harm been violated:

3. a review of whether any ethics laws may have been violated;

4. the suf?ciency of the checks and balances within the LMPD
professional standards and public integrity components; and

5. a timeline showing when information or accusations were ?rst shown,
to whom same were reported, as well as subsequent actions and
whether such actions followed Metro practices andpolicies.

Dickinson Wright, acting as attorneys for the Louisville Metro Government,
conducted an objective internal review to satisfy this directive. The investigation
team has reviewed the LMPD Public Integrity Unit case ?le as of March 17,
2017. The team has listened to all available audio reoordings provided by PIU. and
has reviewed all interview summaries disclosed by PIU. The team has
independently interviewed over forty individuals associated with the Explorer's
program, the Louisville Police Department, or the Metro Government. Our work

DICKINSON WRIGHT

HIIMM ELOIIM IIKINGAII HEHDA TEXAS DC WHITE

 HHAI

 

includes multiple interviews with Mayor Fischer, Deputy Mayor Ellen Hesen
(?Deputy Mayor Hesen?) and LMPD Chief Steve Conrad (?Chief Conrad?). The
team has spoken, or attempted to speak, with all individuals that raised any
concerns about any improprieties in the Explorer program. In total, statements of
over eighty individuals have been utilized in compiling this report.

In addition, the investigative team has reviewed all documents provided by
PIU. The team has reviewed the Explorer?s internal policies and procedures and
the checks and balances between the Professional Standards Unit; and PIU
components.l The team has constructed timelines involving the investigations into
Kenneth Bette and Brandon Wood, documenting each investigative step taken.
Finally, the team has constructed a timeline of each known inappropriate conduct
taken by Of?cers Bette and Wood involving their association with the Explorer
Program.

Our inquiry proceeded in parallel with a number of other investigations. The
investigation has yielded two state court indictments. The FBI is
conducting a criminal investigation, presumably focusing on potential violations of
federal law. Attorneys defending the targets of criminal investigations are
undoubtedly gathering evidence as well. Several civil suits have been ?led as a
result of this matter. The attorneys for all parties in the civil litigation are
gathering information related to the allegations at issue.

These investigations differ in purpose and scope. Criminal investigations
focus on whether there is suf?cient evidence to warrant prosecution. The civil suits
are adversarial proceedings in which the parties marshal the available evidence to
obtain the best possible result. Neither the civil litigation nor the criminal
investigation is designed to objectively chronicle the response of the Louisville
Metro Government to the disturbing allegations arising from the LMPD Explorer
Program. That is the purpose of our inquiry.

"i

We do not seek to establish whether the accused are guilty or innocent, or
whether a particular party is legally liable for damages. Our inquiry sought to
document the events and the responses to those events as well as make judgments,
where appropriate, concerning errors made along the way. Beyond guilt or
innocence, there have been public charges that the alleged misconduct was ?covered

 

The Professional Standards Unit administratively investigates policy violations by members of the
LMPD, while the Public Integrity Unit investigates criminal violations.

DICKINSONWRIGHT

HORIM TENNESSEE THIS 0f. TUNING

2

 

up? within the LMPD command staff. We sought to answer this fundamentally
important question based on the information available to the investigative team.
We acknowledge that, as with any investigation, there were limits on our ability to
unearth all of the facts. We also understand that our conclusions are based on our
analysis of what we know others could view the same material and reach
different conclusions. Our review has been conducted objectively. We began with no
pro-existing bias toward any particular result.

We also note the obvious our review looks back in time with the advantage
of knowing how certain events unfolded. In some cases, we question judgments
made by those charged with making them in real time. In so doing, we are mindful
that hindsight is 20120. All who ponder these issues should consider that much that
we know today was unknown to those charged with making decisions in real time.
In instances where we believe mistakes were made we say so. This does not imply
that the actors were necessarily unreasonable or negligent in the legal sense, only
that we believe a better choice could have been made.

The team faced signi?cant impediments throughout its investigation, some
anticipated, others surprising. These impediments include:

As with most internal investigations, the team did not have subpoena
power. The inability to compel testimony and the production of documents is an
inherent limitation on the internal investigation of most organizations.

The team sought to interview a number of active duty LMPD of?cers.
The Fraternal Order of Police representing a bargaining unit which
included those of?cers, objected based on its collective bargaining agreement with
the Metro Government and other employment rules. Ultimately, the FOP ?led suit,
seeking to enjoin the team from questioning certain active duty of?cers. Rather
than expose the Metro Government to additional delay and expense, the team
withdrew its request to interview the of?cers in question. We believe that we were
able to access at least a substantial portion of the information sought by
interviewing former Explorers who are not currently serving as LMPD o?cers. Our
inability to interview active duty of?cers has, however, limited our access to
material witnesses.

A number of search warrants were executed in this case. These include
searches of the targets? homes, automobiles, mobile devices, and various social
media accounts. The investigative team was not given access to the items seized.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

mum HICHIHH NEVADA tum TENNESSEE TEXAS DC IMMIIO

3



 

Early in our investigation we were contacted by the FBI Special Agent
leading the federal investigation. The FBI, in conjunction with the Public Integrity
Unit of the LMPD, is conducting an investigation arising from the Explorer issues.
We do not know the scope or focus of that investigation.

The FBI expressed concern that, in some cases, we were interviewing
material witnesses prior to the FBI and PIU. The agent also requested to he kept
informed of our activities. Ultimately, we advised the agent of a number of
witnesses we planned to interview. He asked us to defer our questioning of these
witnesses until the FBI or PIU had conducted interviews. We agreed to defer to the
FBIIPIU investigation, resulting in substantial delays of our work. We also agreed
that we would substitute live interviews in a number of cases with a review of
interview transcripts and/or summaries from PIU. The team reviewed the PIU ?les
in May 2017, with the understanding that this review would be updated as the
investigation progressed. At the agent?s request, the team had regular calls with
him in order to keep him informed of our planned activities and ensure appropriate
de-con?iction. For reasons that are unclear, the FBI changed this approach in
August-September 2017. At that point, we were informed by the FBI that there
was a concern that the team might be considered as part of the prosecution team for
discovery purposes and that the FBI desired no further contact with our
investigative team. We, of course, honored this request as the regular de-con?iction
calls were prompted by the FBI and not our investigative team.

Later, we requested to update our review of the PIU ?les. We understand
that Chief Conrad, the County Attorney's Of?ce and the Commonwealth Attorney?s
O?ce agreed to this request, but the federal authorities objected. We met with the
federal authorities to discuss this matter and were advised that the information we
sought was entirely protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure governing
grand jury material. The investigative team disagrees with this legal analysis.
While we are con?dent that the information we sought was subject to our prior
agreement and is not protected grand jury material, we intend no criticism of the
federal authorities. These are matters of good faith disagreement and the rules are
often complex.

Nevertheless, that left the team with the choice of either completing this
report based on the information we have, or conducting a high volume of new
interviews that were deferred in contemplation of a review of the updated PIU ?les.
The team determined that the time and expense necessary to conduct the additional

DICKINSONWRIGHT

ARIZONA (MIFDIIHA HONDA HEHM OHIO IEHMESSEE TEXAS WISHIHGIOI 0! 

4

REPORTI Hart

interviews was not justi?ed, keeping in mind the different objectives of this
investigation and the criminal inquiry.

Unsurprisingly, there were a number of individuals who we sought to
interview who declined or were otherwise unavailable. These include!

Brandon Wood. Mr. Wood has been indicted. Mr. Wood declined to
speak with us.

Kenneth Betta. Mr. Betts has been indicted. Mr. Betts declined to
speak with us.

David Yates. We placed multiple telephone calls and corresponded
with David Yates. Mr. Yates was President of the Louisville Metro Council and
initially represented certain plaintiffs in civil litigation arising from the
LMPDIExplorers matter. According to media reports, Mr. Yates claims knowledge
of misconduct regarding the Explorer program. We invited him to share that
knowledge with us, but received no response. A copy of our correspondence to Mr.
Yates is attached as Exhibit 1.

Tad Thomas. We corresponded with attorney Tad Thomas, who now
represents a number of plaintiffs in litigation arising from the LMPDI Explorer
matter. We invited Mr. Thomas to share his knowledge of any misconduct within
that program, and to make his cheats available for interviews. Mr. Thomas
declined our requests. Our correspondence and his reply are attached as Exhibit 2.

Jimmy Harper. We left a message with the attorney representing
LMPD Of?cer Jimmy Harper. Mr. Harper has ?led suit against the Louisville
Metro Government based on certain personnel actions taken by LMPD. We are
aware that deposition testimony obtained in that suit indicates that Mr. Harper
may have knowledge of matters of interest to the investigative team. Our message
left with Mr. Harper?s attorney invited him to share that information with the team
on a strictly voluntary basis. We received no response.

Current LMPD Of?cers. The investigative team requested to speak to
all current LMPD o?cers that had participated in the Explorer program. In
response, O?icers Brandon Paris, Matt Gelhausen. and Joey Keeling ?led suit to
prevent these interviews from occurring. As a result, the investigative team did not

DICKINSONWRIGHT

CHIEOIHIA NEVADA Mill! WASHIIMHJII DC 

5



attempt to interview any other current LMPD of?cers. No current LMPD of?cers
contacted the investigative team with information.

 

The PIU investigators. The PIU investigators declined to speak with
the investigative team regarding the ongoing investigation, or to answer any
questions as they arose.

As with any investigation, judgment calls must be made regarding its scope.
Here, a perfectly thorough investigation would entail, for example, an interview of
every individual who has participated in the LMPD Explorer program and every
LMPD officer who has had contact with that program. For practical reasons we
determined to limit the scope in order to achieve an appropriate balance of
thoroughness versus time and expense.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the investigative team compiled a
signi?cant amount of information. This report sets forth the factual background
involving the investigations and allegations of impropriety against Bette and Wood.
It examines what information was known to senior LMPD of?cers, when this
information became known, and what actions were taken. The report addresses
each issue set forth by the Mayor?s of?ce. Finally, the report offers
recommendations for best practices should the City decide to reinstate the Explorer
program.

II. BACKGROUND
A. The Explorer Program

The LMPD Explorer post is part of the national Law Enforcement Exploring
Program. Youth who have completed the sixth grade through 20 years old are
eligible. The program is designed to o??er young people a personal awareness of the
criminal justice system through training, practical experiences, competition and
other activities. Explorers participate in classroom training as well as physical
training and ride-alongs in police vehicles. Explorers also provide additional
manpower to help police at public events, such as assisting with parking and
logistical support to o?cers. Explorers do not carry a weapon or operate police
vehicles and are not sworn law enforcement personnel.

Former LMPD Major Curtis Flaherty is the long-time advisor for the
Explorer program. Major Flaherty ?rst volunteered with the program in 1991,

DICKINSON WRIGHT

CALIFOINIA FLDIIM MICHIGAN OHIO IEIIHESSEE TENS WASBIRGNII DI 

6



while he was with the Jefferson County Police Department.2 Major Flaherty
became lead adviser for the program in approximately 1995, serving until his
retirement in May 2017. On January 1, 2003, the City of Louisville merged with
Jefferson County, resulting in the current Louisville Metro Police Department. The
Je?'erson County Explorer program continued as the LMPD Explorer program, with
Major Flaherty serving as Lead Adviser.

The LMPD Explorer program does not have a dedicated budget and is sta?'ed
entirely by volunteers. While the LMPD provided some ?nancial support to the
program, funding was primarily derived from donations and membership dues.

The Explorer program is sponsored by the Boys Scouts of America 
Learning for Life program. All volunteers are required to undergo the BSA youth
protection program training every two years.3 An Explorer program cannot be
chartered unless all advisors have received the training. The LMPD Explorer
program satis?ed all BSA youth protection training requirements for advisors.

From 2005 through 2017, 274 youths participated in the LMPD Explorer
program. Records ?led with the BSA indicate ll LMPD personnel served as
Explorer advisors ?om 2009 2017.

Bette joined the Jefferson County Explorer program in September 1999.
Wood joined the Jefferson County Explorer program in June 2000. In February
2006, Bette joined the LMPD as a recruit. In November 2007, Wood joined the
LMPD as a recruit.

The only reported incident of sexual misconduct in the LMPD Explorer
program occurred in July 2013. This incident, however, was not the only instance of
improper sexual contact between an Explorer and an Advisor.

B. LMPD Organization

The LMPD is led by Chief Steve Conrad. Chief Conrad became Chief on
March 19, 2012. Prior to his appointment, the LMPD was led by Robert White from
2003 - 2011.

 

3 Flaherty was promoted to Major on August 29, 2014.
3 The BSA youth protection program is discussed more fully in the Policies and Procedures section,
from}, and included in Exhibit 3, Selected Policies and Procedures.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

IICHIHI OHIO TENNESSEE TEXAS WASHIHETOI DC WHITE

.7

 HNAL

Chief Conrad?s senior command staff consists of a civilian legal advisor, a
Deputy Chief of Police, and an operations manager lieutenant. The next line of
supervision consists of the Special Investigations Division, an Administrative
Bureau, a Support Bureau, and a Patrol Bureau.4

The Special Investigations Division Major oversees the PIU and the PSU.
The PIU is responsible for, inter alia, conducting investigations of alleged felonious
activity or corruption involving members of the Metro Government. and conducting
any investigation deemed necessary by the Chief of Police that may be of a sensitive
nature or may a??ect the public?s trust. This includes, but is not limited to,
allegations of sexual misconduct by Metro Government employees.

The Special Investigations Division Commander reviews all complaints to
determine whether PIU should investigate the matter. Upon the determination to
conduct an investigation, the matter will be assigned a case number and will be
logged into the PIU case tracking database. Upon completion, a case will be closed
with one of the following designations:

clgsedlunfg?ded the allegation has no merit.

closedlexonerated - the incident occurred but was within the
guidelines of local, state and federal laws.

clos na 1 sub antia alle 'ons - all investigative leads have
been exhausted. The case will remain suspended until further
information is received to warrant the case being re-opened.

glosed/with prosecution the investigation resulted in the suspect
being prosecuted.

glosedlprosecutign de?ned - the investigation was presented to the
Commonwealth or County Attorney?s of?ce but was declined
prosecution.

closed/by exceptign the investigation was primarily conducted by
another agency and division in which the subject ceased his or her
employment with the Metro Government and PIU no longer has the
need to monitor.

Once a PIU investigation is completed it can be sent to the PSU for a
determination of whether any violations of LMPD policy occurred. The PSU is

 

4 An organizational chart is included as Exhibit 4.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

(Allf?l?ll FLORIDA IHHUCH HICHIMI TENNESSEE TEXAS 0C 

8

 HNAL

tasked with investigating allegations of misconduct by any LMPD employee.
?Misconduct? is de?ned as ?commission of a criminal act, neglect of duty, violation
of any Department policy, procedure, rule, regulation, core value or training
standard; conduct which may re?ect unfavorably upon the employee andfor the
Department.?5 These administrative investigations must supply the Chief with
reasonable and defensible evidence upon which to make his ?ndings and
conclusions and implement the appropriate disciplinary measures.

Administrative investigations into formal allegations of misconduct are
opened in one of two ways. A citizen can sign and swear to an a?davit of complaint
in front of a PSU investigator. In some circumstances, PSU will accept a sworn
af?davit that has been witnessed by a notary public. The LMPD also allows
citizens to electronically ?le a complaint via its website. The second method of
origination is by an order of the Chief of Police to initiate an investigation.

After a case has been opened, the subject and the subject?s unit commander
receive a notice. Accused employees cannot be interviewed until 48 hours have
passed after an interview is requested. All interviews are to be recorded and taken
under oath. A PSU investigation must be resolved in one of the following ways:

s_u_stained? there was suf?cient information to prove the allegation.

not sustmed? there was not suf?cient information to prove the
allegation.

exoneragd ?the incident occurred as reported, but was lawful or
proper.

unfounded - the allegation is baseless or false.
closed by ggceptigp the investigation was closed by direction of the
Chief of Police or the complainant withdrew the complaint.

After the investigator completes the review, it is forwarded to the Unit
Commander for review. After the Commander completes hisfher review and
recommends ?ndings, the case is forwarded to the Special Investigations Division
Commander. The case is thereafter sent to the Chief of Police, who makes the ?nal
determination. The Chief is the sole authority who determines the ?nal ?ndings
and administers any disciplinary actions. If the employee disagrees with the
discipline, helshe may appeal the decision to the Metro Government Merit Board for
a hearing to af?rm, change or revoke the discipline.

 

5 See Unit Guidelines, Exhibit 5.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

AMINM NNMM OHIO IEINESSEE HHS {It 

9

 HMAL

FACTS
A. Kenneth Betta
1. July 2013

On July 20, 2013, an Explorer detail was assigned to work the St. Agnes
Catholic Church picnic. Of?cer Brandon Paris was working the event as an off-duty
of?cer. While sitting in his patrol car, Of?cer Paris was approached by Explorer 1.
Explorer I asked if she could speak with Of?cer Paris and got into the patrol car.

Explorer 1 con?ded that she had been receiving phone calls and text
messages from Of?cer Kenneth Betta (?Betta?). The calls and texts began shortly
after she attended the Seventh Annual Explorer Academy at Campbellsville
University, held June 10-15, 2013. Explorer 1 was uncomfortable with the calls or
text messages. Explorer 1 said Betts would call her and ask her to go on runs with
him. Bette also texted Explorer 1 shirtless photographs, purportedly of himself.
Officer Paris informed Explorer 1 this was inappropriate behavior and asked if she
had reported it to anyone. Explorer 1 said she had not informed anyone of her
communications with Betta.

Of?cer Paris then instructed Explorer 1 to send a text to Betta to see how he
responded. Officer Paris instructed Explorer 1 what to type. The following text
conversation took place at 6322 

Explorer 1: ?Hey?

Betta! ?What?s going on?"

Explorer 1: ?At the St. Agnes picnic?

Betta! ?Till what time?"

Explorer 1: "Like 12 midnight?

Betta: ?Maybe I should come out and see you."

Explorer 11 ?When??

DICKINSON WRIGHT

AIIZMM (ILIFDIHM HOIIM MICHIGAN Dill! IEHNHSEE WASHIHGIOI ll! 

10

REPORTI HNAL

Bette! ?2130??

Betta! ?Who is the adviser there??

Explorer 1: parris?

Bette: ?so you wanna see me?

Explorer 12 "Ya . . . what we gonna do??

Bette: ?Idk whatcha got in mind??

Explorer 11 ?Go behind school . . . But tell me What want to do"
Bette: ?Want me to wear uniform or plain clothes?
Explorer 1: ?Idc. But tell me what want to do.?
Bette: "Will anyone see us??

Explorer 11 ?No"

Betta! wanna surprise you 

Explorer 13 ?Just tell me so I know 

Bette: really want to make out?
Betta: 

Betta: ?Whats up?"

Bette: ?Hey?

Explorer 1 had no further text conversation with Betta.? She called her
parents, who picked her up and took her to dinner. Explorer 1 also texted Explorer

 

5 The text exchange and pictures are attached in Exhibit 6.

DICKINSONWRIGHT

(ALIFDIHIA Hill!? NEVADA am HHS 

ll

 

HNAL

Advisor Julie Schmidt asking to talk. Separately, Of?cer Paris also called Of?cer
Schmidt to advise her of the inappropriate text messages. Officer Schmidt noti?ed
Flaherty of the misconduct. In addition to serving as Lead ExPlorer adviser,
Flaherty was Commander of the Public Integrity Unit. Flaherty sent Sgt. Jackie
Smith and Sgt. Rick Polin to Explorer 1?s home that evening to interview her.
Neither Sgt. Smith nor Sgt. Polin were af?liated with the Explorer program.
Of?cer Schmidt accompanied Smith and Polin to Explorer 1?s house due to her
relationship with Explorer 1.

Sgt. Smith, Sgt. Polin and O?cer Schmidt interviewed Explorer 1 in the
presence of her parents on the evening of July 20, 2013. The of?cers copied the text
messages and asked Explorer 1 whether Bette had made any inappropriate physical
contact with her. Explorer 1 stated she had never had physical contact with Betta.

Based upon this information, Sgt. Smith and Sgt. Polin did not believe Bette
had committed any criminal acts. The matter was therefore forwarded to PSU for
investigation. Flaherty did not open a case ?le for the PIU interview conducted by
Sgt. Smith and Sgt. Polin. and the o?cers did not record the interview.

Bette was given the Option of resigning or being dismissed as an Explorer
adviser. On Monday, July 22, Bette resigned from the LMPD Explorer program.

On July 29, 2013, Chief Conrad directed PSU Lt. Matt Meagher to initiate a
professional standards investigation into Betts? imprOper contact with a female
Explorer. That same day, Lt. Meagher sent a 48 hour notice to Bette, advising him
of the complaint and notifying Bette he would be interviewed.

On July 30, 2013, Sgt. Mann interviewed Explorer 1 at her home. He was
accompanied by Sgt. Alan Bybee. Explorer I signed an oath af?rming to tell the
truth. The interview was tape recorded. Explorer 1?s parents were present for the
interview.

Explorer 1 attended the Explorer summer camp, held June 10-15, 2013.
Betts? inappropriate behavior began at this camp. Explorer 1 stated that while at
the camp, Betta would make ?weird perverted comments? about other girls at the
camp, ?like if they were or if he d-loo 

or atev 

     
   

DICKINSONWRIGHT

KENTUCKY NEVADA Oll? TEIHHSEE WISHIHEWH IOIONW

l2

 FIFML

Bette asked Explorer 1 for her phone number at the camp, and she gave him
the number. Betta began texting Explorer 1 approximately four weeks after the
camp. He sent Explorer 1 photographs of himselfin uniform next to his police car.
Betts also sent pictures of a shirtless male. Explorer 1 could tell the individual was
not Bette. Explorer 1 had the shirtless photos on her phone, as well as the July 20th
text message. She did not have any other messages or pictures.

Betts also made inappropriate comments to Explorer 1. Bette asked Explorer
1 to go on a run with him. Although he said there would be multiple people joining
them, nobody else showed up. This occurred after an Explorer meeting at the
Taylor Boulevard facility. Explorer 1 did not go running with Bette. On another
occasion, Bette told Explorer 1 ?let?s do a make-out workout and see where it leads.?

At some point in July, Explorer I told Bette to step texting her. He agreed to
stop, and asked Explorer 1 if she would set him up with her sister. Explorer I
declined this request. Despite the promise to stop texting, Bette continued.
Explorer 1 did not like being texted by Bette. kind of felt like weird and stressed
out and . . . just felt disgusted because like this dirty old man is texting me . . . 

These events led Explorer 1 to con?de in Of?cer Brandon Paris at the St.
Agnes picnic on July 20th. Explorer I told O?cer Paris about her communications
with Betta. This led to the above text exchange with Bette. Explorer 1 then called
her parents to pick her up. Her parents came and took Explorer 1 to dinner.
Explorer 1 did not tell her parents about the text exchange with Betta at this time.

That night, Of?cer Schmidt, Sgt. Smith and Sgt. Polio visited Explorer 1 and
her parents to ask about the incident. Explorer 1 provided Betts? text and pictures
to Sgt. Smith.

Explorer 1 denied any inappropriate physical contact with Betta!

Mann: I don?t know another way to say it, other than to come out and
say it, did he ever inappropriately touch you in a sexual
manner?

Ex. 11 No, sir.

Mann: He never tried to force himself on you sexually?

DICKINSON WRIGHT

(MIFDIRM FLDRIIM Hlt?lill NEVADA 0an TEIHESSEE WASHINGTON 

l3

 HNAL

 

Ex. 1: No, sir.

Mann! The only sexual comment we have is the one on this text
message here and then the make-out workout session, is that
correct?

Ex. 1: Yes.

At another point in the conversation, Explorer 1 again denied any physical
contact with Both.

Mann: Has there ever been any kind of inapproPriate contact or
touching when you all were alone?

Ex. 12 No, I?ve never been alone with him.

Explorer 1 denied receiving any inappropriate emails or Facebook messages
from Betts. Sgt. Mann then asked if there was anything else he needed to know:

Ex. 1: Well, Brandon like we also knew that like he tried to do this
with other people before but the other people were like too
scared to tell anybody like I heard that he tried to do this with a
boy and girls also . . .

Sgt. Mann asked for more speci?cs. Explorer 1 Itated she had not heard this
from any victims, but from other peeple. Explorer 1 identi?ed Of?cer Brandon
Wood (?Wood?) as the source of the information. She had been speaking to Wood
about Bette prior to the July 20, 2013 texting incident. Explorer I told Wood that
Bette was ?weird.?1r Wood told Explorer 1 that she ?should tell someone.?

According to Explorer 1, Wood told her Betts had performed oral sex on a
former Explorer now working as a police of?cer in Central Kentucky. Explorer I
told Sgt. Mann this individual was an adult when the sexual encounter happened.
Sgt. Mann questioned EXplorer 1 further:

 

7 The interview did not establish what information Explorer 1 provided to Wood to indicate that
Bette was ?weird?, or precisely when the conversation occurred. However, since Explorer 1 did not
have contact with Betta until after the Explorer camp, the timeframe would have been a few weekI
after the camp (which occurred June 10 -15)and the July 20 St. Agnes texts.

DICKINSONWRIGHT

FWIHM IEHIUCIY HICHMMI THIS WASHINGTON DI 

l4

Mann:

Ex. 1:

Mann:

Ex. 1:

Mann:

Ex. 12

HNAL

And what I'm getting at here is are there rumors about him
trying this with other Explorers, any other underage people?

Yes, I?m pretty sure because they, I was told and he like gave
great examples and he also talked to boy Explorers and girl
Explorers but those people were like scared to talk to Lieutenant
Flaherty about it so they never did.

Are these people, are they Explorers now or old Explorers?

I think they?re old Explorers, they?re not in the program any
more.

Do you remember their names?

No, sir.

Sgt. Mann next spoke with Explorer 1?s parents. During this conversation,
Sgt. Bybee asked Explorer 1 again if she was aware of Bette behaving
inappropriately around other Explorers:

Bybeei

Ex. 12

Bybeei

Ex. 1!

Mann:

Mother:

Are you aware of any other, you?ve kind of already spoke to this
Just directly, there are other female Explorers involved in the
program, is that right?

Yes, sir.

Do you know, have they ever told you anything, I mean, have
they told you Kenny?s sending me text messages or . . .

No, sir, I haven?t heard anything.

[addressing Explorer 1?s mother] is there anything you?d like to
add?

Well, a comment too that is that she hasn?t told anyone other
than the of?cers about Mr. Bette so that?s probably why she
hasn?t had any conversations with any other females there and

DICKINSON WRIGHT

CALTFOIHM FWIIM IEHTIICIT MICHIGAN NEVADA OHIO TENNESSEE TEXAS WASHINGTON 

15

No follow up questions were asked about the directive 

REPORIJ HNAL

then after all this came to surface she was told by the leaders,

you know, not to tell anybody and then she didn?t go to the last

meeting tell anybody,?

and the interview concluded shortly thereafter.

On July 31, 2013, Sgt. Mann called Explorer 1?s mother to request permission
to do a forensic exam on Explorer 1?s cell phone. Her mother agreed.

On August 1, 2013, Sgt. Mann again called Explorer 1?s mother to ask about
conversations she and her husband had with Flaherty. Explorer 1?s mother

responded:

Mother!

Mann!

Mother:

Well, Lieutenant Flaherty had contacted my husband
after I had spoken with you making arrangements to have
the interview and I had also noti?ed my husband to let
him know that this was a scheduled time that you all
were coming, um, then after that phone call he received a
phone call from the Lieutenant Flaherty kind of giving us
a heads-up so to speak that we were going to possibly be
getting a phone call from the internal affairs and my
husband said well my wife has already received the call
and he then proceeded to say well you all don?t have to
talk to them if you don?t want to, and I don?t know the
details word for word but basically that?s what my
husband relayed to me.

And did you and your husband have a conversation about how
that made you all feel?

Yes, after you all had left, uh, after we concluded the interview
with our daughter we discussed it amongst ourselves, said that
kind of gave us the feeling that he was trying to deter us into
talking to the internal affairs, letting us know that we didn?t
have to but we just felt like that was kind of odd, um, coming
from his aspect that he would deter us into talking to you all.



(MIFMHIA HONDA HWAM OHIO TEHHESSH WRONG

16

 

HHAL

Explorer 1?s mother also said Flaherty spoke highly of Explorer 1 and gave
the impression that whether or not they spoke to internal affairs ?wouldn?t have any
effect" on her being in the Explorer program.?3

On August 2, 2013, Sgt. Mann interviewed Explorer 1?s father. The father
had two conversations with Flaherty. In the ?rst conversation, he called Flaherty
to ask him what the procedures were going to be for the investigation into the
texting incident. Explorer 1?s father told Flaherty ?we weren?t looking out for this
guy?s badge or anything but I wanted something to make sure something got in this
guywanted to make sure that you know the guy was no longer in
the Explorer program.? The date of this conversation is not noted.

Flaherty thereafter called Explorer father on July 30th. Flaherty
expressed support for Explorer 1 and he wanted ?her to feel like there was not
gonna be any recourse against her whatsoever.? He also mentioned that some
people from the police department were going to come speak to the family. Flaherty
told Explorer 1?s father ?you can or you can't? speak to the police and it ?was up to
you.? Sgt. Mann inquired further: 

Mannin?uence you or coerce you
into not giving a statement to internal affairs?

Father: Not at all.

Sgt. Mann con?rmed Explorer 1?s story with O?cer Brandon Paris. Of?cer
Paris stated that Explorer I approached him at the St. Agnes picnic and con?ded to
him that Betts ?makes her feel uncomfortable.? Explorer I told Of?cer Paris that
Bette ?talks to her all the time? and that ?it gets weird sometimes? because Bette
was always asking her to hang out. Explorer I told Of?cer Paris she had not told
anyone of her concerns.

 

3 In addition, Sgt. Mann asked Explorer 1's mother about a conversation with her neighbor.
According to the neighbor. a man drove up to Explorer 1's house in a small silver car and knocked on
the front door. When no one answered. the man went around to the back. When the neighbor yelled
at the man, he led. Exnlorer 1?s mother took a photograph. apparently of several police officers. and
asked the neighbor if she could identify the man, as Explorer 1's mother was concerned it was Bette.
The neighbor identi?ed another LMPD o?icer, Brad Schuhmann, as the visitor. Sgt. Mann
investigated this matter. Of?cer Schuhmann denied going to Explorer 1?s house and had an alibi for
the time period in question. In addition, he did not have access to a small silver car. The identity of
the person is not known.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

HIIGHA ULIFDIHIA Il?ll?l? DHIO IEIHESSEE HHS WASHIHETOH TDIONW

l7

 

REPORTIFIHRL

Explorer 1 then told Of?cer Paris that Betts had sent her pictures of a
shirtless male. Of?cer Paris told Explorer 1 that was a problem and Betts shouldn?t
be texting her. He asked Explorer 1 if Betta had sent her any other pictures.
Explorer 1 denied receiving any other pictures from Bette.

Of?cer Paris then directed Explorer 1 to send the text message detailed
above. Of?cer Paris told Explorer 1 what to say, and Explorer 1 sent the messages
to Bette while sitting in the patrol car. Of?cer Paris called Julie Schmidt, another
Explorer adviser, to report the misconduct. He did not inform Major Flaherty or
anyone in his chain of command.

Officer Paris had heard rumors that Bette had ?maybe tried to hit on?
another former Explorer (?Explorer Of?cer Paris told Sgt. nn name, and
explained that Explorer 2 was a former Explorer from a Kentucky
program who had come to Louisville to do a ride-along with Bette when the conduct
occurred. Of?cer Paris was not aware of any other allegations of misconduct within
the Explorer program, and no other Explorers had told him of any similar behavior.
Of?cer Paris had previously been an Explorer himself in the LMPD program, and
participated in the program at the same time as Bette. He had never seen Bette act
inappropriately prior to his actions with Explorer 1.

 

Sgt. Mann next interviewed Of?cer Brandon Wood, also on August 2. Wood
stated that Explorer 1 approached him after the Explorer meeting on July 8th.
Explorer 1 told him that Bette had been texting her since the Explorer camp in
June. The texts were making Explorer 1 uncomfortable. Wood advised Explorer 1
to tell Bette to stop texting her, and if he continued, to tell Flaherty. Explorer 1 did
not share any of the texts with Wood, and did not tell him Bette had sent her any
pictures. Wood admitted that he did not tell Flaherty about Bettl? conduct with
Explorer 1.

Wood also told Explorer 1 ?that you may want to veer away from Kenny."
Wood said that ?a friend of his? had told him Bette had sent texts requesti ex.
This friend (?Explorer had been an Explorer at a police force in
Kentucky. Bette met Explorer 2 at the summer Explorer camp while Bette was an
adviser. Wood did not knew Explorer 2?s age at the time Bette requested sex. ?He's
[Explorer 2] 22 now so it?s been a couple of years so he was probably at least 18."
Wood conceded that Explorer 2 could have been under 18 at the time Bette pursued
him.



HIIOHA HEVAIM IENNESSEE WASHIHETOH WIOITO

18

REPORTIFINAL

Explorer 2 asked Wood for advice on how to deal with Bette. Wood told him
to report the conduct to Flaherty. Explorer 2 never informed Flaherty of Betts?
conduct. Accong to Wood, know he did not, because I asked the lieutenant
about it before and the lieutenant said that he [Explorer 2] never came to him about
it." Wood told Flaherty that Explorer 2 might come to him about an issue.
Speci?cally, Wood stated that he told Flaherty "You may get information about this
and gave him a heads up about it.?9 According to Of?cer Wood, Flaherty said that
he would wait for Explorer 2 to contact him because he needed a victim to move
forward'with any investigation.

Sgt. Mann speci?cally asked Of?cer Wood whether he knew about any other
inappropriate contact between Bette and any Explorer. Wood denied any such
knowledge. Sgt. Mann then asked Of?cer Wood if he knew of anyone working with
the Explorers that was engaged in any improper contact with the Explorers. Again,
Wood denied any such knowledge. Although Wood has since been accused of
misconduct with Explorers, Sgt. Mann had no reason to suspect this in 2013.

Sgt. Mann interviewed Of?mr Brad Schuhmann on August 6th. O?cer
Schuhmann was asked whether he had gone to Explorer 1?s house on July 30?.
Of?cer Schuhmann denied ever going to Explorer 1's house, and said he was at
home during the time in question. This was con?rmed by Of?cer Schuhmann?s
girlfriend, who was with him at the time. Sgt. Mann also con?rmed Of?cer
Schuhmann did not have access to a car that fit the description of the small silver
vehicle seen at Explorer 1's house.

Sgt. Mann asked whether Of?cer Schuhmann had ever seen Bette act
inappropriately around the Explorers. Schuhmann denied witnessing any
misconduct, but stated he had heard rumors of Betts ?having inappropriate text
messages with one of the Explorers.? Of?cer Schuhmann did not know any other
information, such as the Explorer's name. He believed Of?cer Wood was the source
of the rumor.

 

9 Wood's statement is unclear as to whether he told Flaherty about the sexual nature of Betts' texts.
Flaherty denied he was told Betta was sexually propositioning Explorer 2. Explorer 2 con?rmed he
did not tell Flaherty about Betts? texts. Wood declined to answer any questions.

DICKINSON-WRIGHT

(AIIFGIHIA HICHIGAH OHIO IEIIHESSEE TEXAS WASHIHGIOII [it ?Bill?

19

 HMAL

 

2. Explorer 2

Sgt. Mann sought out Explorer 2 based upon his investigation. Sgt. Mann
spoke to Explorer 2 on the phone on August 5, 2013' and conducted an in'person
interview on August 16.

Explorer 2 had been a member of a Kentucky Explorer program.
He was not part of the LMPD program. Exp orer 2 stated he ?rst met Wood and

Bette in 2008 at the Explorer academy at Campbellsville University, where both
Wood and Betts were serving as an advisor. However, records from the 2008
Explorer camp do not show Explorer 2 as an attendee. The ?rst records of Explorer
2 attending Explorer camp was in 2009. Explorer 2 turned 18 in March 2009, and
was eighteen at the time of the 2009 camp. Documentation shows Explorer 2
participated in the summer camp in 2009 and 2010.

Shortly after the camp, Explorer 2 began coming to Louisville to do ride-
alongs with Bette and Wood. The ride-alongs occurred in the evening. and Explorer
2 would frequently spend the night at the home of either Wood or Bette. Explorer 2
stated he did between 20-30 ride-alongs with Bette, but only ?lled out paperwork
two or three times. According to Explorer 2, he was no longer an Explorer at this
time. didn?t come down and ride with him as an Explorer, it was after I was an
Explorer so it probably would have had to be after I was 18." Explorer 2?s
problems with Bette began when Explorer 2 started spending the night at Betts?
house.m

Bette began sending sexually inappropriate messages to Explorer 2 sometime
after Explorer 2?s ?rst summer camp, believed to be 2009. In these texts, Betts
requested Explorer 2 to have sex with Bette and Betts' girlfriend. Bette sent
shirtless photographs of himself to Explorer 2. Bette also asked to give and receive
oral sex from Explorer 2. Betts made these requests via text, and in person when
Explorer 2 was doing ride'alongs alone with Bette and when he stayed at Betts?
house. Explorer 2 denied ever having any sexual contact with Betta. Explorer 2
told Wood about these events when they started.

 

?0 The inappropriate contact started after his ?rst Explorer camp. Explorer 2 was 17 in 2008 and 18
at the time of the 2009 camp. Camp records show Explorer 2 ?rst attended camp in 2009. It
therefore appears Explorer 2 was 18 at the time.



HONDA IEHWCH NEVADA OHIO IEXAS HASHIHGWH BC 

20

 HNAL

Explorer 2 received a speeding ticket in Boone County in 2010. Explorer 2
was 18 at the time. Explorer 2 was concerned that the speeding ticket would
prevent him from becoming a police o?icer. Bette offered to ?take care? of the
speeding ticket for Explorer 2. According to Explorer 2, Bette said he called Boone
County and told the authorities that Explorer 2 was a con?dential informant in a
drug case, and therefore needed to have the ticket dropped. Betta requested sex in
exchange for ??xing? the ticket. In fact, Explorer 2 was not a con?dential informant.
Boone County did not dismiss the speeding ticket, and Explorer 2 went to court and
paid the appropriate ?ne. It is not clear from the record whether Bette actually
attempted to have Explorer 2's speeding ticket dismissed.

In addition to doing several undocumented ride-alongs. Bette offered to let
Explorer 2 drive his patrol car and make traf?c stops. Betta offered Explorer 2 a
bulletproof vest, but did not offer him a weapon. Explorer 2 declined to drive the
patrol car, wear the vest or make traf?c stops.

. Explorer 2 faced some ?nancial dif?culty while in college. Betta was aware of
this and o?'ered to give Explorer 2 money in exchange for sex on multiple occasions.
Bette offered Explorer 2 $400 in exchange for oral sex. Explorer 2 was over
eighteen at this time. Explorer 2 denied having sex with Betta.

Explorer 2 wanted to become a police of?cer and applied to several
departments. Bette wrote letters of recommendation in support of Explorer 
candidacy. In return, Betta requested sexual favors. Betta threatened to give
Explorer 2 bad references if he did not have sex with Bette. Explorer 2 again denied
ever having sex with Betta.

One evening after a ride-along Explorer 2 spent the night at Betts' house.
Bette came into Explorer 2?s room and, fully clothed, jumped into bed with Explorer
2 and requested sex. According to Explorer 2, Bette said ?Let?s do this. No one
needs to know." Explorer 2 was over eighteen at the time. Explorer 2 did not have
sex with Bette and left the house. Explorer 2 went to Wood?s house, where he
informed O?cer Wood of Betts? behavior. Explorer 2 left a jacket and a pair of
prescription glasses at Betts? house.

Wood was angered by Betts? conduct. According to Explorer 2, Wood said
?that?s not right, that pisses me off, he?s like I'm going to do something about that,
he?s like if you don?t contact Flaherty I?m gonna.? Explorer 2 told Wood he didn?t
want Flaherty to know. Nonetheless, Wood contacted Flaherty. Explorer 2 does not

DICKINSON WRIGHT

CALIFOIHIA lEllIlltl'l' HINDI om TEXAS DC 

2]

REPORTIFINAL

 

know what Wood told Flaherty: Wood simply told Explorer 2 ?you?ll probably be
getting some sort of contact from Lieutenant Flaherty soon.?

Flaherty thereafter emailed and called Explorer 2, leaving a voice mail
asking to speak with him. Explorer 2 did not respond to Flaherty's email or
voicemaili

Lieutenant Flaherty did call me several times and left a voice mail and
left an email asked me to get back with him but at that point I got
scared and I didn't want to pursue it, I didn?t want to you know he the
cause of somebody losing their job, I didn?t want to shake things up or
lose any friends things like that, so I didn?t return any of the call or
emails to Lieutenant Flaherty.

Explorer 2 called Bette to try to retrieve his jacket and glasses. Betti refused
to ship Explorer 2 the items, nor would he give the items to Wood because Bette
said he ?didn?t trust? Wood. Betta told Explorer 2 he would have to personally come
and pick up the jacket and glasses. Explorer 2 declined to do so.

Explorer 2 did not stay at Betts? house after this incident. From the
interviews available, it appears Bette did not contact Explorer 2 again until 2013,
when he asked if he would like to be staff at the Explorer summer camp. Explorer 2
now an emergency medical technician -- agreed to attend. Betts made no
inappropriate contact with Explorer 2 during this camp. However, Bette did
remark that one of the female Explorers ?was hot and he?d like to get with her and
things like that.? The female was Explorer 1. Explorer 2 did not tell Flaherty or
anyone else of Betts? inappropriate comments about Explorer 1.

Based upon his investigation, on August 19 Sgt. Mann served Flaherty with a
48 hour notice for an interview to question him about whether he improperly
contacted Explorer 1?s family after a PSU investigation had begun. Sgt. Mann also
sought to question Flaherty about his knowledge and response to the allegations
involving Explorer 2. Sgt. Mann also sent Bette a supplemental 48 hour notice on
the same date informing him the PSU investigation had expanded to include Betts?
alleged misconduct with Explorer 2.

Flaherty waived his right to the 48 hour notice and agreed to speak to Sgt.

Mann on August 19. Flaherty stated that Wood had told him ?there was some kind
of dispute between [Explorer 2] and Kenny Bette over a pair of sunglasses."

DICKINSON WRIGHT

Hlt?l?? NEVADA Milo IEINESSEE If!? WASHINGTON 

22

REPORT I FINAL

Flaherty asked Wood why he was telling him this, because both Explorer 2 and
Bette were adults. Flaherty knew Explorer 2 from the Explorer camps, but Explorer
2 had never been a member of the LMPD program. Wood told Flaherty "there?s
more to it? and gave Flaherty Explorer 2?s phone number.

Flaherty called Explorer 2 at least twice, and left a voice mail asking
Explorer 2 to give him a call on his cell phone. Explorer 2 never returned the call.
Flaherty stated he was never informed of any inappropriate conduct by Bette from
either Wood or Explorer 2. Had he known, Flaherty ?would have reacted
immediately.?

Sgt. Mann asked Flaherty about his actions with Explorer 1. Flaherty stated
he heard about the July 20 incident that evening from Of?cer Schmidt. He
thereafter called Sgt. Smith, who was on duty, and directed her to go to the house to
retrieve the text messages. Sgt. Smith asked Sgt. Polin to go with her to Explorer
2?s house. Flaherty sent the sergeants out that evening because he wanted to
preserve the text messages, as he did not know on July 20 whether this was a
criminal or administrative issue.

Sgt. Smith and Sgt. Polin retrieved the text messages, spoke with Explorer 1
and her parents, and consulted with someone from the Sex Crimes unit. Based
upon this consultation and their interview, Sgt. Smith and Sgt. Polin determined
this was not a criminal violation. Sgt. Smith and Sgt. Polin also told Flaherty that
Explorer 1?s family ?wasn?t really keen on pushing? the issue.

On Monday, July 22, Flaherty took this information to his supervisor, Major
Burbrink. Flaherty also told Major Burbrink the family wasn't very interested in
pursuing the incident. Flaherty told Major Burbrink that if he thought ?we ought to
move forward criminally then let me know or however you want to handle it,
basically forwarded it to him and the reason I did that too is because you know
obviously I've known Kenny Betts since he was 14 and I think that I wanted
someone else to have that because I don?t want somebody to come back and say
there?s a con?ict of interest.?

The following Monday, July 29, Explorer 1 did not attend the Explorer
meeting. Flaherty therefore got her phone number from one of the other Explorers
and called to check on her. Flaherty also asked to speak to her mother. Explorer
1?s mother told Lt. Flaherty her daughter did not feel like coming to the Explorer
meeting that evening. Flaherty assured Explorer 1's mother that Betts was no

DICKINSONWRIGHT

CALIFDINIA KEIHIICH NEVADA OHIO IEHHESSEE TEXAS DC TGIOITI

23

REPORTIFINAL

longer a part of the program and would not have further contact with Explorer 1.
According to Flaherty, Explorer 1?s mother expressed concern about retribution
against her daughter for disclosing Betts? misconduct. Flaherty assured Explorer
1?s mother there would be no retribution against her daughter that only a few other
Explorers knew about the event, and these Explorers would be told not to discuss
the incident.

Flaherty called Explorer 1?s father after Chief Conrad initiated the PSU
investigation against Bette. Her father asked whether Explorer 1 would need to
give a statement to PSU and whether Flaherty ?wantledl her to get involved.?
Flaherty responded, said well that's totally up to you as parents, you all have to
decide that. I said you know I?m not gonna tell you what to do or what not to do, I
said that?s your choice as a parent . . . Flaherty expressly denied he was
attempting to discourage Explorer 1 from cooperating with the PSU investigation.
Upon further questioning from Sgt. Mann about his statement it was ?up to you as
parents" to decide whether to cooperate, Flaherty answered:

I was reacting to his concerns about, he was concerned that if she
couperated or not cooperated, depending on what she did it would be
held against her, I said regardless of what she does it will not affect
her membership in the Explorer program, I can assure you that she
will continue to be a member in good standing, uh again he expressed a
little bit of concern about retribution again and I assured him that if
Of?cer Betta comes around, contacts her, you know, please feel free to
call me and I gave him my cell phone and left him my cell phone
number again but at no tinie did I try to discourage him from ?ling a
complaint, I would never do that.

Flaherty behaved Betts? conduct was ?extremely inappropriate? and stated
he contacted the Explorer representative in Louisville to inform the program of
Betts? misconduct.

Concerned about the allegations of misconduct involving two Explorers, Sgt.
Mann asked Flaherty if Betts was a predator:

Mann: Lemme ask you this, and this is gonna be your opinion and if
you don?t want to answer it you don't have to, but if this
[Explorer 2] stuff is true, you know, we?ve got Of?cer Bette
meeting another Explorer, not one of our Explorers but through

DICKINSONWRIGHT

ARIZONA HIIFOINIA HOIIBA MICHIGAN um IENNESSEE TEXAS Ill: Wl??m

24

REPURTIFINAL

 

Flahertyi

Mann:

Flahertyl

Mann:

Flahertyi

Mann:

Flahertyi

the Explorer camp and if he indeed had this kind of contact
through text messaging (inaudible) sexual in nature, is that an
area of concern, do we have a pattern of behavior here between
Officer Bette preying on Explorers?

It?s possible, I mean, I?ve never had an indication of that but . . .

Any other rumors about Kenny Betta having inappropriate
contact with any other Explorers?

Not that I?m aware of.

And I know you only work with him through the Explorer post, I
believe you?ve known him since he was 14, any kind of
allegations out there about him being inappropriate on traf?c
stops, anything that would make us say hey there?s something
else going on here?

No.

So we have this-incident, because we have the text messages we
can be pretty con?dent that this conversation took place, the call
logs would Ihow a number of text messages back and forth
between Kenny Bette and this 16 year old girl, uh, an thenswe?Ve
got these allegations about [Explorer 2] being an Explorer, I
mean, I guess what I'm trying to say, you already answered this
I believe, this could be a predator mentality.

Well, I mean, I?m not an expert on that so I don't know. I mean
. . . the whole thing surprised me, I would never have guessed
that Kenny would have engaged in this kind of conduct,
obviously if I thought he would have he would have never had
any association with the Explorer program.

Finally, Sgt. Mann and Sgt. Brian Tucker interviewed Of?cer Betts on
August 29th. Betta stated he did not have much interaction with Explorer 1 until
the Explorer camp in June. Bette said Explorer 1 became ?very ?irtatious? with
him on the last day of camp. Bette did not recall giving Explorer 1 his phone
number, and stated he provided it to all of the campers because he was in charge of

DICKINSON WRIGHT

CALIFORNIA MICHIGAN NIID TEXAS [It 

25



training. Bette did not recall how he obtained Explorer 1?s phone number and says
he did believe he asked her for it. Betts stated he began texting Explorer 1 while at
camp."

Bette acknowledged he sent the texts on July 20th to Explorer 1, and
admitted there was ?sexual innuendo? in the exchange. Betts stated it was
?de?nitely an error i - 'ned

 
 
   

Bette state this was not an excuse or

Betts stated he did not have any intention of meeting Explorer 1 on July 20th,
as he was in Florida on vacation at the time-.13 Bette stated he never tried to go on
runs alone with Explorer 1 and was never alone with her. Bette admitted he sent
Explorer 1 pictures from the Explorer camp and pictures of himself in uniform.
Bette denied sending other pictures of himself. He could not recall sending a
picture of a shirtless male to Explorer I. Betts stated that at one time Explorer 1
asked him to stop texting her, but says she later apologized and said she did not
mean it. Betts did not remember that Explorer 1 turned 16 at the camp.

Betta told Sgt. Mann that he had deleted Explorer 1?s contact information
from his phone. Bette also stated that he did not have the Snap Chat app on his
phone. Sgt. Mann and Sgt. Tucker looked at Betts? phone and found Explorer 1?s
contact information and the Snap Chat app. When asked to explain, Betts said he
had tried to delete the contact, but ?you can?t delete anything nowadays.?

Sgt. Mann then asked Bette about Explorer 2. Betta met Explorer 2 at an
Explorer summer camp. Betta was an advisor and Explorer 2 was an attendee.
Bette did not recall the year.

Betts admitted he texted Explorer 2, and that the texts became sexual in
nature. Bette says Explorer 2 was 20 or 21 at the time, and the texting started

 

'1 According to Bette, he had ?very limited? communication with Explorer 1 until Friday. June 
end at rd June 1

    

 

  

investigative team i not ave access to co one or ?nancial records to con?rm Bette was
in Florida on July 20. Nothing in the PSU ?les con?rm Betts' location at the time he was texting
Explorer 1.



?Milli IEHHESSEE TEXAS WASHINGTON IN: 

26

 HNAL

a?er Explorer 2 left the Kentucky Explorer program. Betta believes
Explorer 2 was approximate 21 years old when the sexual texts started, as
Explorer 2 was applying to various law enforcement agencies at the time.
According to Bette, the texts became sexual sometime in 2012.

Betts admitted Explorer 2 accompanied him on ride-alongs. Betts denied
letting Explorer 2 drive his patrol car. denied offering Explorer 2 money for sex, and
denied offering to ?x a speeding ticket in return for sex Be states that he
suggested Explorer 2 sign up as a con?dential informant in Kentucky, but
denies suggesting Explorer 2 could serve as an informant in Lomsville.14 Betta
admitted he had some physical ?contact? with Explorer 2, and claimed Explorer 2
was 20 or 21 at the time. Bette said it was initiated by both he and Explorer 2.

  

Betta con?rmed he had taken the Boy Scouts of America youth protection
training, and admitted that an adviser was not supposed to be alone with an
lilxplorer.?5

In addition to these interviews, Sgt. Mann received consent to search
Explorer 1?s phone. The phone was sent to the for forensic examination.
The examination revealed hundreds of text messages and pictures from June July
2013.17 None of these texts or pictures could be linked to Betts? phone. According to
the ROFL, it is common that iPhones do not provide full information. The
investigative team reviewed these text messages, but the communications do not
show the phone number of the recipient. The .RCFL's forensic report was not
available to the investigative team.

Sgt. Mann also obtained Explorer 1?s phone bill from The bill showed
232 text messages and 8 pictures sent between Bette and Explorer 1 between June
18, 2013 and July 12, 2013. None of the date and time stamps known to have come
from Bette match up to the RCFL forensic report. Moreover, the known
communication between Explorer 1 and Betts on July 20, 2013 are not present on
either the bill. or the ROFL report. This indicates Explorer 1 and Betta used

 

1" Explorer 2 was not a con?dential informant for the LMPD.

"5 Bette completed his youth protection training on December 9, 2012.

35 The RCFL is the Regional Computer Forensics Laboratory. It is a program established by the FBI
that examines digital evidence for law enforcement agencies.

?7 The reliability of the dates on these texts are highly suspect. While most texts are in the
uneIJuly time frame, there are documented texts from as early as May 28, 2013. In addition, one
text is time stamped April 10, 2005, which is clearly incorrect.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

"lulu HONDA ?lt?lil? NEVADA OHM 

27

REPORTIFPMAL

at least one other method of texting each other. Several texts available from
Explorer 1?s phone indicate she used Snap Chat to communicate. Explorer 1?s Snap
Chat messages were not available for review.

Explorer 1's text messages include a number of sexually suggestive
communications. The recipient of these texts cannot be con?rmed. The texts also
indicate sexually suggestive pictures were sent to someone."5 In addition, the RCFL
examination discovered nude photographs of Explorer 1.

The investigative team attempted to determine whether these photographs
were sent to another individual or were only stored on the phone. The ROFL report
provided in the PSU investigative ?le does not show whether the nude photographs
were sent. The LMPD returned the phone to Explorer 1 and no longer has
possession. Later efforts by the LMPD to retrieve the phone were unsuccessful, as
Explorer 1 has changed phones multiple times since 2013 and no longer has her
2013 phone.

On June 29, 2017, the investigative team interviewed Major Donald
Burbrink. Major Burbrink was the commander of the Special Investigations
Division in 2013.19 In this capacity he supervised PIU and PSU.

Major Burbrinl: recalled the 2013 PSU investigation involving Betta. Major
Burbrink stated that when Explorer 1?s phone was examined, they discovered nude
photographs of the 16 year old she had taken of herself. Major Burbrink was
concerned these photographs had been sent to Betts or to anyone else, as they were
child pornography. Major Burbrink was informed by the PSU investigators that
these photographs were never sent to anyone.

Because the photos were never sent, Major Burbrink directed the nude
pictures in the PSU case ?le be removed and shredded. Major Burbrink explained
this decision:

 

?3 For example, one text stated, ?No that's it . . . if cared wouldn?t care about my sexy pose. 
would have said yes! Not idk." Another text stated, ?Can I have another pic.? Explorer I responded,
"What about me? And yes wait tho imms get in shower.? Other texts stated. ?I?ll send a pic in a
min? and "1m in bed what ifl send a sexy pic?" The response was, I could use a couple
more of those.? ?You make me happy especially when you send hot pics."

19 Major Burbrink retired in July 2017.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

HHWINIA ELMHM HICHIGAH NEVADA OHIO TENNESSEE THIS WISHINGIMI 1K 

28

REPORT Hum

 

So Mann came to me and Lieutenant Meagher and said hey, here?s
what we got, and I again asked the question, was there any indication
he ever sent those pictures and stuff like that and he said no, and I
said well, you know, it?s bad enough this little girl's having all these
issues with the thing the fact this happened to her, and a lot of people
liked Bette, and she?s probably getting all kinds of grief about this
because she turned him in, I said, but I don?t want this to be
embarrassing to her parents and everything else, and so I said it?s not
pertinent to this case and if it doesn?t appear that these are, then
delete them. You know, don?t give up the phone, the phone as it is, but
take them out of the ?le and shred ?em . . . I don?t want somebody a
year from now, which unbeknownst to me, like this thing going on,
there's a civil suit or something like that, and those pictures are shown
somehow it gets out . . . to embarrass her even more at that point in
time . . . And so I said no, let?s go ahead and shred them, we?ll give
them the phone back, we don?t need to tell the parents anything, it?s
the little girl?s phone, I?m sure she realized what happened probably
deleted them right afterwards, but that was my indication on that
thing.

Major Burbrink recalled being informed of Betts' inappropriate texts to
Explorer 1 on Monday, July 22. Flaherty sent him the text messages and asked
what steps should be taken next. Major Burbrink immediately took it to his boss,
Lt. Col. Vince Robison, and informed him of the situation. Both Major Burbrink
and Lt. Col. Robison agreed the texts were inappropriate and directed Flaherty to
immediately remove Bette from the Explorer program.

Major Burbrink and Lt. Col. Robison then went to Chief Conrad to inform
him of the misconduct. Because there was no physical contact, and the matter
involved only messaging, Chief Conrad, Lt. Col. Robison and Major
Burbrink decided there needed to be a professional standards investigation into the
matter. Chief Conrad directed a .PSU investigation be initiated. This investigation
was formally opened on July 29, 2013.

Sgt. Mann concluded his investigation on September 5, 2013, when he
submitted his Findings and Conclusions to Lt. Matthew Meagher, Commander of
PSU. Sgt. Mann found that Bette had violated Standard Operating
Procedure 5.1.3., conduct unbecoming an officer, for his interactions with Explorer 1

DICKINSON WRIGHT

ARIZONA ULIWIIM HOIIM DHID THIS WASHINGTON DC 

29



and Explorer 2. To our knowledge, Sgt. Mann undertook no additional investigative
steps after September 5, 2013.

On September 13, Lt. Meagher concurred with Sgt. Mann?s conclusions and
submitted the ?ndings to his supervisor, Major Burbrink. On September 17, 2013,
Major Burbrinl: concurred with Sgt. Mann?s conclusions and submitted the ?ndings
to Chief Conrad. Bette was advised in March 2014 that he would be terminated
based upon the ?ndings of the PSU investigation. Betts submitted his 
s" ation on Mar 9 2014 with ectiv ate 0 May 1, 2014. 

On April 4, 2014, Chic
'3 resignation.

   
 
        

Conrad "close by exception? the case against Bette due to

The investigative team inquired into the delay from Major Burbrink?s
recommendation on September 17, 2013, and the ?nal resolution on April 4, 2014.
Action against Bette was delayed due to Betts? medical condition. There was
can: Bette old In his health insurance while he was recovering
Therefore, the decision was made to reassign Bette to
an administrative role wherein his duties involved, among others, providing escorts
for funerals of former police of?cers while he completed his medical treatment.
Betts was to have no contact with the public in this role.20 Once his treatment was
complete, Chief Conrad intended to ?re Bette.

   
  
 

The length of time between closing the investigation and Betts? resignation is
not unusual for the LMPD under Chief Conrad.- Of?cers who face substantial
discipline, including termination, have the right to appeal to a merit board. The
merit board can override the Chiefs disciplinary decision.? If an of?cer resigns,
however, the of?cer cannot seek reinstatement and forfeits all due process
disciplinary rights. Chief Conrad chooses to delay sending disciplinary actions to
the merit board to control the number of cases before the merit board at any one
time. Rather than handle multiple cases at once and risk overwhelming the merit
board, Chief Conrad prefers to control the ?ow of terminations and substantial
disciplinary matters.

 

27? Bette apparently ignored the directive not to have contact with children when he visited Norton
Children?s Hospital in 2013 as one of three LMPD of?cers who participated in a holiday gift
giveaway. See 


2' See LWD Police Merit Board, Rules and Regulations see also Ims 670.326.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

(ILIFOIHM ?03le HICHIGII OHIO IEIINESSEE WASHIHGTOH 0i 

30

REPORTI HNAL

Betts? case was treated similarly to other substantial discipline cases. Major
Burbrink disagreed with Chief Conrad's decision to delay sending cases to the merit
board, and believes that once the decision to ?re an individual is made the person
should be terminated and sent through the process. Notwithstanding this
procedural disagreement, Major Burbrinlr denied Betts? case was unusual. ?Nothat?s the way that this Chief works.?

Major Burbrink was not aware of any misconduct in the Explorer program
other than the July 20tll incident involving Betta, nor had he ever heard of any
complaints concerning Flaherty. However, Major Burbrink had heard of ?an odd
thing" involving Bette while he was an Explorer. The Explorers took a bus trip to
Washington. Allegedly, Bette and former LMPD Explorer Adviser T.S. rode in the
back seat of the bus with a blanket over them. In addition, it was alleged T.S. and
Bette roamed together on the trip. Betta was a teenager at the time. No complaints
or allegations of misconduct were ever reported by Bette or any other Explorer
against T.S. Betts was an Explorer between 1999 and 2002. The investigative
team was unable to con?rm these rumors.

Betts? resignation involved one additional strange occurrence. When Betta
resigned, he brought in all of his equipment, including his badge, to headquarters.
The individual processing the return of equipment left to make a copy of the
paperwork. When she returned, Betta was gone and his badge was missing. Major
Burbrink was informed of the missing badge. Major Burbrink called Flaherty and
directed him to inform Bette that if his badge wasn?t returned within 24 hours he
would be prosecuted. Within twelve hours Bette returned the badge, claiming it
had fallen between the seats of his car. which is why he didn?t turn it in earlier.
Major Burbrink believed this was a lie, as Betts' badge was seen in his her of
equipment when he came in. A PIU case number was opened for Betts' missing
badge. However, no ?le regarding Betts? missing badge can be located.

Following his resignation from the 1MB, Bette returned to law enforcement
two years later as a code enforcement of?cer in Rolling Hills, Kentucky. Bette
worked ?ve hours a week from approximately 2015 - 2017. There are no reported
incidents of misconduct against Betts during this time period.

 

DICKINSON 

MIIOHA Ill-[l0 IEHIESSEE HHS summon IN: 

3!

 HHAL

 

 
 
  

  

Explorer 1?s prior
sworn statements to gt. Mann. Spec' caily, xplorer 1 denie any contact with
Bette and denied ever being alone with him. She denied that she sent or received
any sexually explicit photographs. She states the unwanted conduct began in June
2013, not 2011 or 2012. In 2013, she advised Sgt. Mann she had heard rumors of a
second Explorer from Of?cer Wood. Sgt. Mann followed and con?rmed this rumor.
No additional Explorers were identi?ed as potential victims of Bette.

     

  
 

Rather,
t. Agnes

 
   



DICKINSONWRIGHT

HICHIGMI NEVADA OHM IEHNESSEE 

32

 HNAL

 

The investigative team attempted to clarify these accusations by contacting
Explorer 1's attorney to request an interview. Explorer 1, through her attorney,
declined to be interviewed.

Bette resigned from the LMPD on May 1, 2014. There were no reported
instances of misconduct within the Explorer program until July, 2016, when
allegations were made against Of?cer Brandon Wood.

B. Brandon Wood
1. Allegations of Misconduct by Wood

On July 6, 2016, DB. ?led a terroristic threatening 31'd complaint against
N.G., alleging N.G. had threatened to ?smash his brains in." N.G. was the current
boyfriend of Brandon Wood. D.B. was Wood?s former boyfriend. According to the
police report, the threatening call came from Wood?s phone. Wood did not make the
threat.

On July 28, 2016, DB. submitted an affidavit to PSU alleging that he and
Wood had sex in a LMPD vehicle. PSU thereafter opened an investigation. On
September 19, 2016, DB. told PSU that Wood had sent a video of himself having
sex with BB. to an under-aged male. The under-age male was a member of the
LMPD Explorer program (?Explorer Because this appeared to be a criminal
violation, PSU referred the case to PIU. On September 20, 2016, Sgt. Scott Gootee
was assigned as lead investigator.

On September 22, 2016, Sgt. Gootee interviewed D.B. D.B. stated that he
received a text from Explorer 3. Explorer 3 found phone number on his
boyfriend?s phone and was texting because he thought DB. and his boyfriend were
having a sexual relationship. D.B. assured Explorer 3 he was not sexually involved
with his boyfriend.

D.B. said Explorer 3 then began talking about Wood. Explorer 3 said Wood
was a ?dangerous person for me to be around. I know he would take advantage of
me.? Explorer 3 continued that he was ?scared? of Wood. ?Of what he would do.?
Explorer 3 stated he left the LMPD Explorer program in 2015 because of Wood.

Explorer 3 told D.B. he had received a video via text from Wood. The video
depicted Wood and DB. having sex. D.B. urged Explorer 3 to turn Wood into the

DICKINSON WRIGHT

AIIZOHA HEHOI OHIO IEIHESSEE HIM WASHINGTON 

33

REPORTIFINAL

police. Explorer 3 refused, saying ?It?ll get covered up like another case of stuff like
that a few years ago involving Explorers.? Explorer 3 told D.B. he would not
cooperate with authorities if they investigated Wood.

Sgt. Gootee obtained a copy of the video and text messages between BB. and
Explorer 3. D.B. con?rmed the individuals having sex were himself and Wood.

Sgt. Gootee interviewed Explorer 3 on September 29, 2016. Explorer 3
started with the LMPD program in August 2013 and left in 2015. He returned at
the request of Of?cer Matt Gelhausen in September 2016. O?cer Gelhausen was
an Explorer adviser.

Explorer 3 stated his relationship with Wood was professional and nothing
inappropriate had occurred. Explorer 3 denied ever having a physical relationship
with Wood, and denied Wood had ever sent a sex video.

Sgt. Gootee confronted Explorer 3 with the text messages provided by DH.
Explorer 3 stated he lied to DB. about receiving the video. Explorer 3 stated his ex-
boyfriend, J.S., had actually received the video from Wood. Explorer 3 said he had
never seen the video. Explorer 3 stated he lied about being scared of Wood.
Explorer 3 admitted Wood had once texted him and asked what his favorite sex
position was.

On October 3, PIU interviewed B.S., who was Explorer 3?s former boyfriend.
B.S. initially denied knowing about the text conversation between DB. and
Explorer 3, but eventually admitted that Explorer 3 had told him about the sex
video. Speci?cally, Wood sent the video to .S., another former boyfriend of
Explorer 3, while they were dating. Explorer 3 told B.S. he watched the sex video
with J.S. the week before Explorer 3 spoke to PIU. B.S. stated that Wood and J.S.
were very close friends.

On October 6, Explorer 3 was interviewed again by PIU. Explorer 3 again
denied he ever received a video of Wood having sex with DB. Explorer 3 had heard
about the video from J.S., whom he had brie?y dated. He again stated that in
February 2016 Wood sent him a text asking about his favorite sex position.

Explorer 3 con?ded that he was afraid .3. would expose Explorer 3 as gay.

Explorer 3 stated .3. had nude photographs of him. Explorer 3 was a minor at the
time these pictures were taken, and he said .8. did not have permission to take the

DICKINSONWRIGHT

(Allf?l?ll HONDA HINDI IENNESSH TEXAS WASHINGTON Dt IDHDITO

34

REPORT Fle?lL

nude pictures. Explorer 3 said he had heard that .8. had traded nude photos of
Explorer 3 to Wood in exchange for police lights for car. Explorer 3 stated .S.
has other photos of nude minors.

PIU investigators interviewed Explorer 4 on October 4, 2016. Explorer 4 had
been an Explorer from 2009 through 2012. Explorer 4 was born in 1994. Therefore
he was 22 in 2016.22 Explorer 4 stated he dated Wood from December 2013 through
March 2014. Explorer 4 was 20 at the time and stated he was no longer an
Explorer. Explorer 4 had been told by an LMPD of?cer in 2016 that Wood was
under investigation and Explorer 4 should stay away from him.

Explorer 4 know Betta had gotten in trouble for iniproper contact with
underage Explorers. Explorer 4 stated Betta had made sexual advances towards
him through Facebook and Snap Chat. Explorer 4 stated he knew Betta had
contacted other Explorers, but he couldn?t remember who. Explorer 4 did not allege
any physical contact with Bette.

The PIU investigators interviewed Explorer 5 on October 5, 11 and 24, 2016.
Explorer 5 was a member of the Jeffersontown Police Department Explorer program
and attended the Explorer Academy at Camp Crescendo, Bullitt County, in June
2010.23 Explorer 5 met both Wood and Betts at this camp. Explorer 5 subsequently
joined the LMPD Explorer Program in 2011.

Explorer 5 began having sexual relations with Wood in October 2011,, while
he was 17. After the sexual encounter, Wood took Explorer 5 home. According to
Explorer 5, Wood allowed him to drive his patrol car. Contemporaneous messages
sent via Facebook corroborate the October sexual encounter. Explorer 5 had
additional sexual encounters with Wood in 2011, while he was 17. Explorer 5
recalls attending a party at Wood?s house, after which he had sex with Wood and
another individual. At least two other LMPD Explorers were at the party. Wood
ended his sexual relationship with Explorer 5 in approximately December 2011.
Explorer 5 stated this was because Wood believed Explorer 5 had disclosed their
relationship to others.

 

22 There is some confusion in the interview summary as to Explorer 4?s age.
2" The Explorer Camp was held at Camp Crescendo in Bullitt County until 2011. Thereafter the
camp was held at Campbellsville University.

DICKINSONWRIGHT

(ALIMIHM HEW-DA Milli IEHHISSEE It!? WASHIHGWH IC ?Milli!

35

REPORTIFIMAL

 

Explorer 5 also had a sexual relationship with Betts. This relationship was
unrelated to Explorer 5?s sexual relationship with Wood. Explorer 5 began texting
Betts on April 24, 2011. The text messages became sexual on July 6, 2012, when
Betts requested oral sex from Explorer 5. Betts told Explorer 5 he could not tell
anyone of their sexual relationship.

Betts asked Explorer 5 if he had previously had sexual encounters with
anyone else. Explorer 5 said he had previously had sex with Explorer 7.24 This
occurred via a Facebook conversation on July 6, 2012. At a national Explorer
Conference in Colorado two weeks later, Betts climbed into bed with Explorer 7 and
touched his penis. It therefore appears Betts used the information provided by
Explorer 5 to target Explorer 7 for the unwanted sexual contact.

Explorer 5 states he went to Betts? house on July 6, 2012, and performed oral
sex on Betts. Explorer 5 was 18 at the time. Explorer 5 next had sex with Betts
while Betts was on duty. Explorer 5 and Betts met on a golf course, where Explorer
5 again performed oral sex. The ?nal sexual encounter between Bette and Explorer
5 occurred at Betts? heuse, where Betts, Explorer 5 and Explorer 8 had a sexual
encounter.

On October 6, 2016, search warrants were executed on the homes of Wood
and J.S. On October 13, 2016, search warrants were executed on Betts' home.
Among the items seized were cell phones. The investigative team was not given
access to the results of the searches.

On October 13, prior to the execution of the search warrant, Betts saw Sgt.
Gootee?s vehicle and became suspicious. Betts texted the license plate number to
T.S., his former LMPD Explorer adviser, who was then the Assistant Chief of
another police agency. T.S. ran Sgt. Gootee?s license plate number and informed
Betts.?

After the search warrants had been executed, attorney and Louisville Metro
Councilman David Yates contacted Explorer 5. This occurred on October 13, 2016.
The text conversation is attached as Exhibit 7. On March 8, 2017, Yates ?led a civil

 

2* In the text exchange, Explorer 5 did not disclose his prior sexual relationship with Wood.
35 Additional information regarding T.S is not included in this report because T.S. is not an employee
of the LMPD.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

(Allf?llilk ?03le MICHIGAN NHMM OHIO THIS DC 

36

REPORT Flf?tl?aL

 

lawsuit on behalf of Explorer 5. Mr. Yates declined to be interviewed by the
investigative team.

On January 5, 2017, PIU interviewed Explorer 6. Explorer 6 was identi?ed
through review of Wood?s Facebook messages. Explorer 6 was an Explorer with the
Owensboro Police Department. He met Wood at the Explorer Academy at Camp
Crescendo. Explorer 6 stated he had no inappropriate contact with either Wood or
Bette at the academy. However, after the academy Wood and Explorer 6 exchanged
Facebook messages. Wood sent sexually suggestive messages and offered to travel
to Indiana to meet him. Explorer 6 declined due to their age di?'erence.

No sexual encounters occurred between Explorer 6 and Wood at this time.
However, after graduating from high school Explorer 6 attended college in
Louisville. While in college, Explorer 6 had a sexual relationship with Wood.
Explorer 6 was over 18 at the time and not involved in the Explorer program.

2. Additional Allegations Against Bette

The investigation into Wood revealed allegations that Betts? misconduct was
far more serious and widespread than previously known. As part of the probe into
Wood, the PIU interviewed Explorer 7 on October 3, 2016. Explorer 7 had been an
LMPD Explorer from 2009 2014, when he turned 21. Explorer 7 stated the only
problem he had as an Explorer was with Betta. According to Explorer 7, Bette sent
sexually suggestive texts to him. In addition, while the Explorers were attending a
national conference in Colorado, Bette climbed into bed with him and touched
Explorer 7?s penis. Explorer 7 told Bette to stop, and Bette complied. Explorer 7
stated he did not tell any Explorer advisers or supervisors of Betts' misconduct.

On October 16, 2016, PIU interviewed Explorer 8. Explorer 8 had been a
LMPD Explorer from approximately 2010-2011. Explorer 8 says he was 17 when he
left the Explorer program.? Explorer 8 stated that he and another Explorer
(?Explorer had gone to Bettal house to watch television. Explorer 8, Explorer 5
and Betta then went to Betts? bedroom and performed oral sex on each other.
Explorer 8 was 17 at the time of this sexual encounter with Bette.

PIU thereafter interviewed 0.3., a former Explorer. 0.3. currently is a police
of?cer in another department in Kentucky. 0.8. was a LMPD Explorer from 2001 -

 

2? There is confusion as to when Explorer 8 was an Explorer. and his age at the time.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

IEHIIJCIY MICHIHI HINDI OHIO IEHHESSIE WMIIHGIMI 

37

REPORTI HHAL

2009. C.S. had heard rumors that Wood had previously had a sexual relationship
with an Explorer, but did not know the Explorer?s name. C.S. stated he came out as
homosexual as a high school senior. Wood found out and informed C.S. that he was
interested ?in guys and girls.? C.S. denied any sexual relationship with Wood and
considered him a friend.

C.S. stated he did not get along with Bette. 0.3. had heard a rumor that
Bette had a sexual encounter with Explorer 9, and had heard Bette harassed
Explorer 2. C.S. had one sexual encounter with Bette when he was in college. C.S.
was not an Explorer at the time and was over 18. C.S. stated that Bette and Wood
"despised each other.?

On October 10, 2016, Detective Brad Schuhmann, in response to the
investigation into Wood, contacted current Explorers. On October 24, 2016,
Flaherty and Detective Joseff Keeling contacted the remaining Explorers. The
stated purpose of the interviews was to identify any possible victims. Flaherty
stated this was done to comply with the Learning for Life Youth Protection
protocols. According to a memorandum Flaherty sent to Major Eddie Jones,
Commander of the Special Investigations Division, the Explorers and their parents
had already been noti?ed by letter that Wood was no longer associated with the
Explorer program. The Explorers were told to have no contact with Wood, and to
immediately notify an adviser if Wood attempted to contact them. According to
Flaherty, every Explorer denied having had any contact with Wood or any other
adviser.

Explorer 9 was interviewed on November 9, 2016. Explorer 9 joined the
Explorer program in 2007. Explorer 9 stated Bette was the only adviser that had
inappropriate contact with Explorers. According to Explorer 9, he asked Bette if he
could ride-along with him on a shift. Bette said yes and told Explorer 9 to come to
his house. When he arrived, Bette told Explorer 9 that if he wanted to do the ride-
along he would ?have to mess around? with Bette. Bette thereafter took Explorer 9
to his bedroom and brie?y performed oral sex on Explorer 9. Explorer 9 then
pushed Bette away and told him to stop. Bette responded, "nobody?s gonna know."
When Explorer 9refused to have sex, Betta told him to leave his house and refused
to take Explorer 9 on a ride-along. Explorer 9 was 17 at the time of this encounter.

Explorer 9 was asked whether he ever had a sexual relationship with Wood.
He denied any sexual contact. However, a review of text messages between Wood

DICKINSON Vi! RIGHT

Allin!? (MIWIHIA HDIIDA IEHWCH HEVADI 0an IEIHESSEE TEXAS WASHINGWN DC IDIOHTD

38

REPORT FINAL

and Explorer 9 suggellt a sexual relationship. Explorer 9?s age at the time of this
possible sexual relationship is not clear.

Explorer 9 also informed PIU he had heard a rumor Betts had sexual
encounters with another Explorer (?Explorer Based upon this information,
Explorer 10 was interviewed. Explorer 10 was a LMPD Explorer from
approximately the age of 13 until he turned 21. According to Explorer 10 he
accompanied Bette on a ride-along. During this ride-along, Betts took Explorer 10
to a secluded part of Iroquois Park and got out of his patrol car. He then pulled his
penis out and asked Explorer 10 to perform oral sex. Explorer 10 declined and
asked Betts to take him home. After trying to coax Explorer 10 into giving him oral
sex, Betts took Explorer 10 home. Explorer 10 did not report the incident to
anyone.

On November 18, 2016. Chief Conrad suspended the Explorer program in
light of the allegations against Wood. Major Flaherty asked Chief Conrad to
reconsider, requesting the program be allowed to continue to meet twice a month in
the presence of a monitor from either the PSU or the Boy Scout's Lincoln Heritage
Council. On November 29, 2016, Chief Conrad agreed to allow the Explorer
program to continue under these conditions. 

On December 8, 2016, PIU interviewed Explorer 11. review of Betts?
Snap Chat data revealed sexually explicit messages. Explorer 11 participated in
the Explorer program from the age of 14 to 17. Explorer 11?s father was on the
police force and knew Bette.

While he was in the program, Bette texted Explorer 11 pictures of his penis.
Explorer 11 stated that for approidmately two years Betta asked Explorer 11 to
send Bette a picture of his penis. Explorer 11 stated he grew tired of the requests
and sent the picture to Bette. Explorer 11 was under age when he sent and received
the images. Explorer 11 did not report Betts? behavior to anyone because he was
concerned what people would think of him.

In addition, the PIU investigators interviewed at least two additional
Explorers who had engaged in sexually provocative Facebook messages with either
Bette or Wood. Both Explorers denied anyr sexual relationship with Bette, Wood or
any other Explorer adviser. A review of the limited digital communications provided
to the investigative team indicates Bette and Wood utilized Facebook and Snap
Chat to engage in sexually provocative conversations with at least three additional

DICKINSON WRIGHT

CALIFOIHM HIIHIHI HINDI IEIIHESSEE WMIIHIGWI 

39



Explorers, in addition to the Explorers identi?ed above. These Explorers denied
inappropriate sexual relationships. The investigative team was not given full access
to Wood's or Betts? Facebook and Snap Chat messages and could not conduct a
review to identify further inappropriate contact with Explorers.

 

HIIOIH OHIO IEIIHESSEE TEXAS NASHIHHOI DC IOIOHTO

40

 HNAL

 

 



HGIIM MICHIGAN MIIO IEHIIESSEE WASHINGTON IIC WIOHYO

41

 HHAL

 

 

b. LMPD Internal Investigation

The investigative team conducted, or attempted to conduct, interviews of
Louisville metro government personnel, LMPD personnel, and former Explorers.

i. Former Explorers

The investigative team interviewed Explorers from the time Bette and Wood
joined the Explorer program through the 2016 allegations. These interviews were
coordinated with the FBI and the PIU to avoid any interference with the ongoing
federal/local criminal investigation. At the request of the FBI and the PIU, all
interviews were cleared with the criminal investigative team prior to contacting the
witnesses. In addition, the FBIIPIU expressed concern to the investigative team
about creating multiple witness statements from the same individual. Accordingly,
the investigative team agreed to postpone further interviews until the criminal
investigators had completed their work. Further, the investigative team agreed not
to re-interview any individual who gave a statement to the Louisville police
department PIU smears if the summaries were provided to the investigative team.

In February, the investigative team requested these interviews. Chief
Conrad directed the PIU of?cers to disclose the pertinent interview summaries.
However, federal authorities directed the PIU not to disclose any interview
summaries, claiming the material was Federal Grand Jury material pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure and 
Discussions with the federal authorities to obtain these interview summaries
proved unproductive.

While the investigative team does not believe interview summaries conducted
by LMPD personnel constitutes federal grand jury material, the team respects the
decision of the Department of Justice. The investigative team behaves the
interviews it conducted are suf?cient to address the question of whether there was
widespread knowledge of misconduct within the Explorer program. The results of
these interviews are summarized below.

DICKINSONWRIGHT

AMZMM HLIMIIM HOIIM MICHIBAI NEVADA OHIO HISHINEIOH Ill 

42



J.B. was an Explorer from 1998-2005. He was shocked and surprised
by the allegations of sexual activity. To his knowledge, no such behavior occurred
while he was an Explorer. J.B. was close to Wood and Bette and never saw any
sexually predatory behavior. .B. described Flaherty as ?one of the most
upstanding guys? he had ever met. .B. stated he did not recall any discussions of a
sexual nature with his peers. .B. said all Explorer trips were well chaperoned.

J.W. was an Explorer ?-om 1999-2005. J.W. did not observe any
misconduct or hear any rumors about inappropriate sexual behavior. J.W. is
shocked by the allegations.

C.A. was an Explorer from 2002-2004. He believes the Explorer
program is a great program that helps prepare youth for life. C.A. never saw
anything that made him uncomfortable or that he would consider sexually
inappropriate.

(LG. was an Explorer ?'om 2002-2005. 0.6. described her experience
as good, and said she never saw any evidence of sexual misconduct. C.G. never
witnessed any inappropriate behavior by advisers.

B.F. was an Explorer from 2003-2005. He is currently a probation
officer. B.F. says the Explorers were held to a high standard of conduct by the
advisors. B.F. observed nothing inappropriate, and heard no rumors of any sexual
misconduct. -

S.M. was an Explorer from 2004-2005. She recalls the program was
well organized and strictly run. S.M. did not witness or hear any rumors of any
inappropriate behavior.

K.H. was an Explorer from 2005-2011. K.H. said the advisers were
strict on discipline. K.H. described himself as the type who would quickly report
problems up the chain of command and he was never aware of anything that would
?trigger me to inform an of?cer."

Z.S. was an Explorer from 2006-2007. He never witnessed anything
inappropriate from any advisors. Z.S. is shocked by the allegations and saw no
signs of sexual misconduct.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

"no? ULIFOIHIA MICHMMI NEVADA OHIO IEHIESSEE DC 

43



'k

B.M. was an Explorer from 2006-2008. He was very surprised when he
heard about the allegations of misconduct because he never saw any red ?ags about
inappropriate behavior. B.M. never heard any comments or rumors about sexual
activity or harassment. B.M. stated ?I?m one of those who would notify someone" if
he had seen anything wrong.

D.R. was an Explorer from 2007-2010. D.R. never witnessed
inappropriate behavior or heard any rumors of impropriety. He was surprised
about the allegations.

E.L. was an Explorer from 2007-2010. She did not hear any rumors of
misconduct or see any inappropriate behavior.

E.L. was an Explorer in 2009 for approximately eight months. He was
not aware of any sexually inappropriate behavior.

D.T. was an Explorer from 2008-2010. D.T. recalls that the program
was strictly run. He never witnessed any inappropriate behavior. D.T. stated the
program had a ?weird vibe?, but was not aware of any misconduct.

J.B. was an Explorer from 2008-2010. He was shocked at the
allegations and did not witness any misconduct. .3. did a ride-along with Betta on
at least one occasion, and nothing improper occurred.

L.S. was an Explorer from 2009-2012. L.S. is very surprised by the
allegations because he never saw any signs of inappropriate behavior.

C.J. was an Explorer from 2010-2013. He never saw any indication of
sexual relationships between Explorers and advisers. He spent time with Wood and
never saw any signs of sexually predatory behavior. C.J. heard no rumors of sexual
misconduct.

J.N. was an Explorer from 2010-2013. He never saw anything that
made him feel uncomfortable. J.N. did a ride-along with Wood and nothing
inappropriate happened. However, J.N. stated that Explorer 7 texted him some
sexually suggestive material that .N. took as flirting. J.N. informed Flaherty and
Wood of the text. Flaherty and Wood pulled Explorer 7 aside and talked to him
about the text. J.N. believes this occurred near the end of 2011. This is
approximately the time Explorer 7 says his sexual relationship with Wood began.

DICKINSONWRIGHT

CAIIFOEMIA FLBIIM NEVADA um IEIHESSIE HHS IN: 

44

 HHAL

AS. was an Explorer from 2010-2013. She never saw anything
inappropriate, nor did she ever feel uncomfortable. No other female cadets
discussed any inappropriate behavior with her. Had she seen anything
inappropriate, she would have reported it to the advisers. AS. did have a ?vague
recollection" that Explorer 5 bragged he had ?done stuff" with Betts. A.S. was not
sure whether to believe Explorer 5, as he had a reputation for dishonesty. A.S.
recalls asking an older Explorer what the age of consent was in Kentucky. The
Explorer told her it was sixteen. AS. recalls thinking that since Explorer 5 was 17,
there was no issue. A.S. did not inform any of the advisors of this conversation.

B.G. was an Explorer from 2011-2013. B.G. attended two Explorer
camps. He is surprised by the allegations against Bette and Wood. B.G. did two
ride-alongs with Bette and nothing inappropriate occurred. B.G. never heard any
rumors about sexual activity between cadets and advisors. B.G. described the
Explorer atmosphere as strict, orderly and serious.

C.V. was an Explorer in 2012. He saw no evidence of sexual
misconduct.

A.B. was an Explorer from 2013-2015. AB. was not aware of any
inappropriate actions by advisers. He never heard any comments or warnings
about any advisors acting inappropriately. AB. did a ride-along with Wood and
nothing inappropriate occurred. A.B. described Flaherty as ?by the book."

T.D. was an Explorer from 2015-2016. He never saw any signs of
inappropriate sexual behavior or heard any comments of a sexual nature. T.D. is
very shocked by the allegations.

DD. is the father of ED, a former Explorer currently stationed in
Colorado in the army. D.D. returned the investigator?s call on behalf of his son. He
stated E.D. was too angry to talk about the allegations because he values the
Explorer program and hates what has happened to Flaherty. E.D. blamed these
repercussions on ?a council member?s political agenda against the Chief."

Alexis Stovall was an Explorer from 2009-2015. Her full name is
revealed because Ms. Stovall gave an interview to the Courier Journal on March 28,
2017, wherein she stated Wood ?seemed to cross a boundary? by inviting Explorers
to his home. In addition, she stated Wood got drunk at a baseball game while

DICKINSON WRIGHT

HICHIGAI D?l? WISHIHHON DC 

45

 HNAL

attending the 2012 National Explorer conference. Wood ?leaned? against one of the
Explorers on the ride home.

Ms. Stovall con?rmed that Wood was admonished for drinking when he
returned to Louisville by Of?cer Gelhausen. Ms. Stovall learned of the parties at
Wood's house through Facebook. She recalls being told that Explorers and Advisors
should not socialize. Ms. Stovall does not recall hearing rumors of ?inappropriate"
or ?creepy? behavior. Ms. Stovall did ride-alongs with Bette and Wood and stated
nothing inappropriate happened. Finally, Ms. Stovall stated she attended two of
the Explorer summer camps and did not witness anything improper.

Jason Smiley was an Explorer from 2004-2008. Mr. Smiley?s full name
is revealed because he gave an interview to the Courier Journal on March 24, 2017,
wherein he stated Betts, Wood and Flaherty ?watched out for each other.?
According to Mr. Smiley, "Where was a buddy-buddy system between those
individuals.?

Mr. Smiley stated he never witnessed any signs of the behavior that has been
alleged. He stated that Bette and Wood ?seemed like they were on good terms.?
But he described two groups of Explorers - some that were friendly with Bette, and
some that were friendly with Wood. When asked, Mr. Smiley could not comment
why he told the Courier Journal there was a ?buddy-buddy? system amongst
Flaherty, Wood and Bette.

Each of the above Explorers was contacted by the investigative team. None
had been interviewed by the FBI or PIU at the time. At no time during the internal
review has any former Explorer reached out to the investigative team with any
information concerning misconduct in the Explorers program.

ii. LMPD Personnel

The investigative team?s efforts to interview LMPD personnel was largely
unsuccessful. The PIU investigators expressed their displeasure with the internal
investigation and declined to discuss their criminal investigation, which continues
after the indictments of Bette and Wood.

The investigative team sought to interview current LMPD of?cials who had

participated in the Explorer program. Chief Conrad directed the of?cers to meet
with the investigative team during work hours. In response, Of?cers Brandon

DICKINSONIWRIGHT

Fl?llM KENTUCKY MCI-IMAM ill-HO TENNESSEE WASHINGTON 

46

REPORT FINAL

Paris, Matt Gelhausen and Joey Keeling ?led a grievance against the investigative
team, alleging a violation of the Fraternal Order of Police's Collective Bargaining
Agreement, Article 17, Section Rather than incur the expense of litigation,
the investigative team dropped its request for interviews. No additional LMPD
of?cers were interviewed due to the threatened litigation. At no time during the
internal review has any LMPD of?cer reached out to the investigative team with
any information concerning impropriety in the Explorer program.

Former LMPD of?cers were receptive to interview requests. Jackie Smith
met with the investigative team to discuss the 2013 PSU investigation. Smith
recalled going to Explorer 1?s house and speaking with her. She recalls that
afterwards she, Sgt. Polin and Of?cer Schmidt agreed they did not believe the
texting constituted a crime. Smith stated she regretted not writing up the
interview of Explorer I conducted on the night of July 20, 2013. Smith was asked
why the PIU investigators did not open a PIU ?le for their interview of Explorer 1.
Smith explained that for most of the time she was in PIU the lieutenants she
worked for did not want to have written reports of unsubstantiated allegations.
This was because the unsubstantiated allegations would be subject to open records
requests. Other than the July 20, 2013 event, Smith had never heard of any
allegations of impropriety within the Explorer program.

David Toebbe, a retired LMPD lieutenant, was interviewed. Toebbe led the
Louisville Police Department Explorer program prior to the merger with Jefferson
County. When the city and county merged, Toebbe worked with Flaherty on the
Explorer program, with Flaherty assuming overall leadership responsibilities.
Toebbe retired from the police force in 2007. then returned in 2008-2010 to work as
a civilian supervisor in the property room.

Toebbe was complimentary of Flaherty, stating he took the Explorer program
?to another level? by winning statewide, regional and national awards. Toebbe
stated there was never any sign of inappropriate behavior within the Explorer
program. All advisers were required to undergo the Boy Scouts of America
Learning for Life training program. Toebbe epined that a number of successful
LMPD of?cers had participated in the Explorer program.

Julie Schmidt was asked about her memory of the 2013 PSU investigation.
Schmidt recalled the event and said her prior statements were accurate. Schmidt
stated that as soon as she heard of the misconduct from Of?cer Paris she
immediately called Flaherty, who commenced the investigation. Schmidt said that

DICKIN SON WRIGHT

MICHIGAN OHIO TEXAS WISHIHSIDN 1K TIIBHTD

47



she had heard of Explorers attending parties at Wood's house but was unaware of
any underage drinking. Other than the 2013 PSU investigation, Schmidt never
heard any rumors or allegations of inappropriate behavior in the Explorer program.

Doug Sweeney currently serves as Chief of the Audubon Park police
department. Previously he was a lieutenant in the LMPD, retiring in July 2013.
Sweeney hired Betts as a reserve of?cer for the Audubon Park department.
Sweeney was aware of the 2013 internal investigation and discussed it with Betts.
Bette told him he had sent some texts to a 17 or 13 year old about ?getting
together.? Sweeney checked with a LMPD PSU investigator, who con?rmed there
had been an investigation, that Bette had indeed been in Florida when the texts
occurred, 2"?and that the case was not addressed for several months by Chief
Conrad. Sweeney says he took the delay as an indication the complaint was
innocuous. Sweeney also checked with E-bay, where Betta was currently working.
E?bay gave Bette a good recommendation.

Sweeney immediately began hearing complaints from his staff after Bette
started. Rumors were circulating around the LMPD about Betts? misconduct, and
Sweeney obtained more information concerning the circumstances of Betts?
resignation. He then confronted Betta about lying about the girl?s age. Sweeney
asked Bette to resign but Bette refused, stating an attorney friend had advised him
not to quit. Sweeney informed Bette that because he was a probationary employee
he would be ?red if he did not quit. Betta resigned, stating in his letter that he had
received a promotion at and no longer had time to be a reserve of?cer.

Sweeney described himself as a ?big fan? of Flaherty. Sweeney had never
heard any allegations of impropriety within the Explorer program.

Former LMPD police chief Robert White was interviewed. Chief White
served from 2003 .. 2011. He is currently the Chief of Police in Denver. During his
tenure in Louisville, Chief White heard no rumors or complaints concerning any
sort of misconduct in the Explorer program.

Yvette Gentry retired as Deputy Police Chief in 2014. In 2015, she returned
to work for the City of Louisville, and .is currently Chief of Community Building.
Gentry had previously supervised Bette when she was a patrol commander. She

 

2" The of?cial 2013 PSU report does not contain any evidence con?rming Betta was in Florida on
July 20, 2013.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

?Ill!? HOIIM ?lull!" Ill?ll?Ml NEVADA om IIHIIESSEE TEXAS WASHIHGWN WIOIHD

48

 HHAL

heard allegations of Bette hitting on another of?cer?s wife at a Christmas party, but
was unaware of any other allegations of impropriety. Gentry was unaware of any
allegations of misconduct within the Explorer program. Indeed, Gentry thinks the
Explorer program serves a valuable function, and she would have put her own son
in the program if he had not been so heavily involved in athletics. Gentry stated
that ?there are a lot of police of?cers? kids that were Explorers, you know.? She
described the program leaders as ?stand-up guys." She had previously supervised
Major Flaherty and had no concerns about his performance. Gentry was surprised
about allegations of a cover-up. ?And it kind of ?oors me really the allegation that
Chief Conrad would cover something up because I mean I might not agree with a lot
of the decisions he makes, he is not an unethical guy."

Ozzie Gibson was interviewed by the team on April 23, 2017 and provided
additional insight into Betts? resignation. Gibson, at the time of the interview, was
the Director of the Louisville-Jefferson County Department of Animal Services. He
retired as Deputy Chief of the Louisville Metro Police Department in 2016, after
serving as a sworn of?cer for 27 years. He was promoted to the rank of Major in
2007 and became Assistant Chief for Administrative Services in 2011. He was
serving in that capacity during the pendency of the Betts? PSU investigation.

Gibson reviewed the Bette PSU investigation in his capacity as Assistant
Chief for Administration. He recommended that Bette be terminated and
transmitted that recommendation to Deputy Chief Vince Robison. He felt strongly
that Bette should be terminated because of the nature of the allegations, 
misconduct with minors. During the decision making process, he participated in a
meeting with Chief Conrad, legal adviser Dennis Simms, Deputy Chief Vince
Rnbison and others. Gibson asked if there was a basis for a criminal charge against
Bette and was told there was not. The group discussed whether Bette should be
terminated or allowed to resign and there was a di?'erence of opinion. Gibson
explained that the factors in favor of allowing Betta to resign were: (1) Bette
reportedly had a medical condition and hoped to continue his employment
until the current phase of his medics treatment was concluded; and (2) involuntary
termination of employment triggers the employee's right to appeal the decision to
the Merit Board. The Merit Board would then have the authority to reduce the
severity of the punishment, or reverse it all together. In contrast, resignation ended
the matter and operated to waive an employee?s right to appeal to the Merit Board.

Gibson believed that the nature of the allegations dictated that LMPD should
terminate Betts? employment, regardless of any possible action by the Merit Board.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

FLDIIM HIEHIGAH NEVADA TENNESSEE FEMS HASHIHGIOH DC 

49



 

He believed that the record should be clear as to the nature of Betts? misconduct
and the decision to ?re him as a consequence. Ultimately, Chief Conrad made the
decision to allow Bette to resign.

The fact that Betta resigned before final action was taken on the misconduct
charges against him resulted in the case being ?closed by exception.? Gibson
indicated, however, that all investigative steps were complete long before the
decision was made to allow Betts to resign. The resignation did not cut short the
PSU investigation of Bette because that investigation had been completed by Sgt.
Mann months before.

0.3. was interviewed about his involvement as a former Explorer. 0.3. is
currently a police of?cer at another department in Kentucky. C.S. acknowledged he
had a previous sexual encounter with Bette, and said he deeply regrets it. 0.5.
stated that Wood and Bette despised each other. This stems to when Wood was in
the police academy and he attended a scouting event and shot the scouts with
paintballs. Bette tried to get Wood expelled from the police academy as a result.

0.8 stated that, in his opinion, LMPD o?cials did not ignore or cover-up
misconduct. Instead, C.S. stated there is a small group of homosexual Explorers
and homosexual police of?cers that are not much different in age. 0.8. does not
believe anyone in the LMPD knew of the activity and failed to appropriately
respond.

Rick Polin was interviewed. Polin is currently a Louisville Special Police
O?cer working on the Mayor?s detail. Polin, along with Smith and Schmidt,
interviewed Explorer 1 on the evening of July 20. Polin did not remember many
details of the night. He recalled thinking Betta conduct was not criminal, but was
inappropriate and needed to be further investigated. Polin was not involved in the
Explorer program and had never heard rumors of misconduct. Polin denied
participating in any cover-up. ?And you know, as it related to the . . . I guess, the
cover-up, the alleged cover-up, and the limited role that I played, we didn't close it
down to put fewer eyes on it, we opened it up to put more eyes on it. Right? 50 by
sending it over to PSU, you?re inviting more people to be involved in this
investigation rather than cover it up or minimize . . . this allegation.?

Henry Ott, a retired arson investigator with the Louisville Fire Department,

was interviewed. Ott had contact with Bette through service on the University of
Louisville School of Justice Administrative Alumni Board. Ott also knew Bette

DICKINSON WRIGHT

ARIZONA ULIMRNIA Hal")! NEVADA DINO HHS Di 

50

REPORT 

from when Betts was working on health and safety issues with the LMPD and
interacted with the Fire Department.

Ott described Betta as a ?di?'erent guy? who was ?overly energetic? about law
enforcement. Ott believed there was some animosity towards Bette by a number of
LMPD of?cers.

On March 24, 2017, Ott was interviewed by the Courier Journal, wharein he
stated he ?heard about Kenny?s problems a long time ago.? Ott explained to the
investigative team that ?a long time ago? meant 2013, following Betts? resignation.
Ott explained that in 2013, the arson unit was housed in the same building as PSU
and was moving out to a new of?ce. Because they were housed in the same
building, Ott saw the PSU investigators regularly. Ott recalled one of the PSU
investigators commenting that Betts was in some sort of trouble but did not add
further detail. This is what Ott meant when he said he had ?heard about Kenny?s
problems a long time ago.? Ott had no further information regarding impropriety in
the Explorer program.

Curtis Flaherty was interviewed. Flaherty explained he became involved in
the Explorer program in approximately 1994. At that time, his wife?s youngest
brother was in high school and participating in the Jefferson County Explorer
program. He told Flaherty that the Explorer program only had one adviser and
really needed some help. Flaherty was resistant to the idea at ?rst, but ultimately
agreed to help out. Flaherty remained involved in the Explorer program until his
retirement in May 2017.

The Explorer program is af?liated with the Boy Scouts of America. All adult
volunteers are required to complete a Youth Protection Training program. This
training must be done every two years. The LMPD program, however, had annual
training for all advisers wherein youth protection and the importance of
maintaining appropriate social interaction with the youth was discussed. An
Explorer program is not allowed to re-charter unless all advisors have completed
the training.

The only allegations of imPrOpriety within the Explorer program Flaherty is
aware of are the 2013 misconduct by Betts and the 2016 misconduct by Wood.

 

DICKINSONWRIGHT

(MIFGIHM FLOIIDA OHIO TENNESSEE 'l?li HASHIIEWII DC 

5 

 



 

Flaherty was asked about Explorer 2. Flaherty stated Explorer 2 was from
an Explorer post in Kentucky. Flaherty stated that Wood told him
Explorer 2 and Betts were having a dispute over a pair of sunglasses. Flaherty did
not understand why this was an issue, but nonetheless called Explorer 2 on at least
two occasions and left a voicemail.

 

As with -, Flaherty had no indication of Wood?s misconduct. Wood had
joined the Explorer program in 2000, shortly after - Flaherty heard no rumors
and saw no indication of misbehavior from Wood.

On October 10 and 24, 2016, Flaherty and Schuhmann contacted all current
Explorers to ask if they had any contact with Wood. According to

DICKINSON WRIGHT

norm IICBIGAH om IEHHESSEE DC 

52

REPORTI HNAL

Flaherty, this was required by the Boy Scouts? youth protection program. Upon
learning of this, Major Jones instructed Flaherty to have no further contact with the
Explorers about the subject matter of the PIU investigation.

Flaherty denied any knowledge of misconduct by Bette, Wood or any other
Explorer adviser. Flaherty denied there was any attempt at a cover-up, by him or
anyone else within the LMPD program.

 

DICKINSON WRIGHT

HUIIM Hl?ll?l IIEHOA cm IEIHESSH WASHINGTON DC 

53

 HHAL

 

iv. Senior Government Of?cials

Chief Conrad was noti?ed of the 2013 incident involving Explorer 1 on
Monday, July 22, 2013. He initiated the PSU investigation on Monday, July 29th.
The investigation was complete on September 5, 2013. Chief Conrad did not
personally direct or limit the investigation.

Upon the conclusion of the PSU investigation, 
Bette. He did not, however, take immediate actio He
the delay. First Bette was un and Chief Conrad
decided to wait to terminate Bette. Second,
there were a num of contentious matters pending before the Merit Review board.
The Chief decided that it was in the Department?s best interest to stagger these
employment appeals rather than inundate the board with several cases at the same
time. Finally, Chief Conrad felt it was in the interest for Bette to resign,
which would conclusively terminate his position as a police officer, rather than risk
the Merit Review board overturning the Chier decision and reinstating Bette.
Chief Conrad closed Betts? case ?by exception? on April 4, 2014, due to Betts?
resignation.

hief Conrad decided to ?re
I vides several reasons for

 
      
 

  
  

Chief Conrad recalls telling Deputy Mayor Hesen about the Bette matter
sometime in 2013. He mentioned it to Deputy Mayor Hesen ?in passing," and did
not go into any detail. Chief Conrad did not speak with Mayor Fischer about Betts?
misconduct in 2013.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

OHM IENHESSEE HHS TGIOHTO

54



Chief Conrad learned of Wood?s misconduct in the late summer of 2016, and a
PSU investigation was opened on July 28, 2016. A PIU investigation was opened on
September 19, 2016. Chief Conrad is not personally directing the ongoing PIUIFBI
investigation. He has not imposed any deadlines for its completion.

A brie?ng was conducted in November 2016 by PIU for senior LMPD
of?cers, the County Attorney?s Of?ce, Mayor Fischer, and his senior staff. Chief
Conrad attended this brie?ng.

Deputy Police Chief Michael Sullivan was interviewed. Deputy Chief
Sullivan had not heard of any misconduct within the Explorer program prior to the
PSU investigation into Bette.

Kim Kreszig was interviewed. Kreszig retired from LMPD on July 31, 2017.
At the time of her retirement, she was an Assistant Chief in charge of patrol. She
never had any direct connection with the LMPD Explorer program and never heard
of any misconduct within that program.

Deputy Mayor Hesen was interviewed multiple times. She does not recall
being informed of Betts? misconduct in 2013, but acknowledges she could have been
informed at that time. She did not inform the Mayor of Betts' misconduct in 2013.

Mayor Fischer was interviewed twice. Mayor Fischer learned of the Bette
and Wood misconduct in October 2016. He requested and received a brie?ng from
PIU in November 2016. In March, the Mayor ?rected an internal review be
conducted into the Explorer program. On March 17, Mayor Fischer requested the
FBI investigate the allegations of sexual misconduct within the program.

Neither Mayor Fischer nor Deputy Mayor Hesen have directed the ongoing
FBIIPIU investigations.
IV. ASSESSMENT
The investigative team. has been asked to review the policies and
procedures as they relate to the allegations of sexual misconduct within the

Explorer program. It is not the mission of the team to assess the guilt or innocence
of the LMPD o?cers accused of misconduct. Nor is it the intention of the team to

DICKINSON WRIGHT

CALIFOIHM OHIO IEINESSEE TEIAS WASHIHGTOH DC 

55

REPORTI HNAL

assign blame to the investigating of?cers for the alleged misconduct or omissions of
the Explorer advisers and leadership. Rather, the investigative team?s purpose is to
identify when senior command became aware of the alleged misconduct and
document response to the allegations. In addition, the investigative team
o?'ers an assessment of the Explorer program and subsequent 
investigations for the purpose of avoiding similar issues in the future.

A. The 2013 Investigation

Sgt. Mann conducted a diligent and timely investigation into the allegations
arising from Betts? July 20 texts with Explorer 1. Sgt. Mann personally interviewed
the complainant, all involved parties, and Bette. He obtained hundreds of text
messages and reconstructed, as best as possible, the electronic relationship between
Explorer 1 and Betta.

Sgt. Mann also uncovered allegations of a second inappropriate relationship,
and con?rmed the improper conduct. As a result of Sgt. Mann?s investigation, Bette
was forced out of the LMPD,

Notwithstanding Sgt. Mann?s effort, there werede?ciencies with the LMPD,
PIU, and handling of the 2013 incident. Each will?be addressed in turn.

1. PIU. The PIU quickly responded to the allegations against Bette,
interviewing Explorer 1 the evening of the incident. The quick response is
commendable. In some respects, however, better choices could have been made.

First, the PIU should have interviewed Explorer 1 separate from her parents.
While it is appropriate that Explorer 1?s parents were involved, the subject matter
of the interview concerned allegations of unwanted sexual advances. Explorer 1
should have been questioned privately about the full nature of her contacts with
Bette.

Second, the interview should have been recorded. Recording the
complainant?s st temen standard a erati in a otential criminal

   

   

DICKINSON WRIGHT

HICHIGMI HINDI IEHNESSEE FEMS TOIQIW

56 

 HHAL

Third, a PIU case should have been opened and a ?le number assigned.
Again, this was standard procedure. While the failure to follow standard procedure
and obtain a case number does not alter the substance of the investigation, it
creates a specter of irregularity.

Fourth, the conclusion that there was no criminal case was premature.
The PIU should have further investigated the full scope of Betts' conduct prior to
concluding no criminal violation occurred. While it is true Explorer 1 denied any
physical conduct with Bette, this should have been thoroughly vetted prior to
turning the case over to PSU. At a minimum, PIU should have forensically imaged
Explorer 1?s phone to obtain all text communications with Bette.

Had this happened, PIU would have discovered Explorer 1?s nude self-
photographs and sexually explicit text conversations. The identity of the individual
she was exchanging sexually explicit texts with should have been conclusively
established. In addition, Explorer 1 should have been asked whether she had ever
texted any of her nude photographs, and if so, to whom. Because of her age, texting
nude photographs of herself was distribution of child pornography, and the recipient
possessed child pornography. These are potential criminal violations the PIU
should have investigated.

Finally, Flaherty should have immediately recused himself from the
investigation and had no involvement. His role as the lead Explorer adviser, and
his longstanding professional relationship with Betta, required he have no
involvement in the matter. In particular, Flaherty should have had no contact with
Explorer 1 and her family. Had Flaherty recused himself at the outset, there could
be no credible allegation he attempted to cover-up the incident.

2. PSU. As noted above, the record is clear that Sgt. Mann diligently
investigated this allegation. Any after-action review of Sgt. Mann must also be
viewed through the following lens: Mann had been informed there was no criminal
case by PIU, and the complainant had informed him she had never had any
physical contact with Bette, and had never been alone with him. Nonetheless,
additional steps could have been taken.

First, just like PIU, PSU should have interviewed Explorer 1 privately. This
is particularly true after PSU obtained Explorer 1?s sexually explicit text messages
and nude self-photographs. The recipient of these texts should have been
conclusively identi?ed. In addition, PSU should have immediately noti?ed PIU, or

DICKINSON WRIGHT

?all? HIIHIEAH OHIO HHS DI WIOIW

57

REPORT Flt-4M

 

another appropriate criminal investigative unit, about the potential distribution of
child pornography.

Second, the nude photographs of Explorer 1 should not have been destroyed.
Explorer 1?s phone should have been imaged and kept in the PSU ?les. While it is
understandable the LMPD of?cers were concerned about having child pornography
in their PSU ?le, the police are well equipped to appropriately store these images to
insure they are not disseminated. The phone, or an imaged copy of the phone,
should have been placed in evidence storage.

Third, PSU should have informed Explorer 1?s parents she was taking nude
photographs of herself. This is criminal production of child pornography. More
importantly, Explorer 1?s parents should have been informed their minor child was
engaging in this behavior, regardless of whether the images had been shared with
Betts or anyone else. PSU should also have provided Explorer 1?s sexually explicit
texts to her parents so they could take appropriate action with their daughter.

Fourth, once it was determined that Betts offered Explorer 2 money in
exchange for sex, PIU and the County Attorney?s of?ce should have been consulted
to determine whether any criminal charges could be brought against Betts for
soliciting prostitution or of?cial misconduct.

Fifth, once Explorer 2 was identi?ed, a pattern could be seen that Betta
viewed Explorers as potential sexual partners. At this time, every Explorer in the
LMPD program, and every Explorer that had previously had contact with Bette,
should have been interviewed to determine whether Betts had engaged in any
improper behavior.

Sixth, PSU should have sought consent to search Betts? phone. During the
interview with PSU, Bette lied at least twice about his phone! he lied when he said
he had deleted Explorer 1?s contact information, and he lied when he said he did not
have the Snap Chat app. At the time, Betts voluntarily handed his phone over to
the PSU investigators. They should have reviewed his photographs and his text
history at that time, and sought consent to forensically examine Betts? phone. If he
denied consent, the phone should have been secured while the Commonwealth
Attorney?s office was consulted about whether to seek a search warrant for Betts?
phone.

DICKINSONWRIGHT

HUMMIA FLORIDA IEITICIY NEVADA OHIO IEHIIEHEE TEXAS ?Million"! DC 

58

 

REPORT I FINN

 

 

B. The 2016 Investigation

The 2016 investigation is ongoing. Throughout the process, the FBI and PIU
have declined to share information with the investigative team. Until the full scope
of the 2016 FBIIPIU investigation is known, no assessment is possible.

C. False Rumors

Numerous rumors surround the LMPD Explorer program. These rumors,
often having no basis in fact, made the internal review more dif?cult as the
investigative team repeatedly pursued false allegations. Because these rumors are
so pervasive and go to the heart of allegations of a cover-up, the most common
misperceptions are addressed below.

1. Bette and Wood Acted Together. There is no evidence that Bette and
Wood acted together in furtherance of their alleged sexual misconduct. To the
contrary, the facts indicate that Bette and Wood do not like each other. First, Betta
attempted to have Wood removed from the police academy because Wood shot
Explorers with paintball pellets. Second, Wood warned Explorer 1 to stay clear of
Bette and encouraged her to report Bette to Flaherty. When interviewed by PSU,
Wood disclosed Betts' misconduct with Explorer 2, and Wood actively sought to
have Flaherty investigate Betts? misconduct. Third, while there are numerous
allegations of impropriety against Wood and Bette individually, there are no
allegations from any Explorer that Wood and Betts acted in concert to sexually
abuse anyone. While Betta and Wood are both alleged to be sexual predators, there
is no credible evidence they acted together.

2. The Metro Government Has Privately Settled Lawsuits. The
investigative team received hearsay information that the Metro Government has
already con?dentially paid out millions of dollars to settle claims of sexual

DICKINSONWRIGHT

EWIIM MICHIGAN HINDI Mill! TENS IGIOIW

59

REPORTIFIHAL

misconduct within the Explorer program. This statement is false. The
investigative team has con?rmed that no public funds have been paid to settle any
claims related to the Explorer program.

3. Chief Conrad Prematurely Ended the 2013 PSU Investigation. This
did not occur. The investigation concluded on September 5, 2013. At this point, the
investigation was fully complete. Chief Conrad closed the matter by exception on
April 4, 2014, due to Betts? resignation. Chief Conrad did nothing to prematurely
and or limit the 2013 PSU investigation.

4. The Mayor?s Of?ce Interfered with the 2016 Investigation.
Councilman David James contacted the team in February/March 2018 to ask that
we pay particular attention to certain issues regarding the Mayor?s of?ce. Based on
information he had received, Councilman James asked the team to clarify the level
of involvement of the Mayor?s of?ce with the LMPD Explorers investigation. He
indicated that this was a matter of interest to the Council.

In response to Councilman James' request, the team conducted follow-up
interviews with Chief Conrad-focusing on his interactions with Mayor Fischer and
Deputy Mayor Hesen concerning the Explorer matter. Chief Conrad believes that
he told Deputy Mayor Hesen about the 2013 PSU Bette investigation in late 2013 or
early 2014 during one of their regular meetings. He did not have a special meeting
to discuss the Betta matter with her and it would have been one of several topics
discussed at a regular meeting. Chief Conrad indicated that he did not tell Deputy
Mayor Hesen the details of the investigation, but only that there was a PSU matter
involving an inappropriate text message exchange with a teenager. This occurred
after his subordinates, Robison and Burbrink, reported to the Chief that there
appeared to be no criminal conduct on O?cer Betts? part and that the investigation
was limited to a professional standards matter. Chief Conrad described giving this
information to Deputy Mayor Hesen ?in passing.? He does not recall discussing the
conclusion of the Betts matter with Deputy Mayor Hesen at that time. He had no
discussion of this matter with Mayor Fischer.

Chief Conrad had more extensive contacts with the Mayor?s of?ce after the
LMPD/Explorers issues resurfaced in 2016 as a result of information concerning
Wood. The criminal investigation began in September 2016. Chief Conrad recalls
receiving a brie?ng from PIU detectives concerning the matter in November 2016.
He does not recall whether he briefed Deputy Mayor Hesen at this point in time.
Chief Conrad visited with PIU of?cers on March 6, 2017. The of?cers shared a

DICKINSON WRIGHT

AIIZOIA Hell" OHIO TENNESSEE TENS DC 

60

REPORTIFIHAL

PowerPoint presentation concerning the Explorer investigation. Chief Conrad later
shared that PowerPoint with Mayor Fischer and Deputy Mayor Hesen. He does not
recall brie?ng Mayor Fischer or Deputy Mayor Hesen in 2016, but discussed this
information with them in March 2017. There were no regularly scheduled meetings
between Chief Conrad or anyone in the Mayor?s of?ce to provide updates concerning
the Bette/Wood investigation.

Chief Conrad recalls a conference call in March 2017 involving Sgt. Mann,
the PSU investigator who conducted the 2013 Betta inquiry. Deputy Mayor Hesen
attended this brie?ng by Sgt. Mann. Mayor Fischer did not attend. Attorney Kerry
Harvey attended by telephone. along with representatives of the County Attorney?s
Of?ce. The primary purpose of the meeting was to assemble information needed to
evaluate the civil litigation which had been ?led against the Louisville Metro
Government.

After the ?rst civil suit was ?led, Chief Conrad and Deputy Mayor Hesen
convened more frequently concerning the Explorer matter. Typically, the
conversation centered on the ?ling of additional claims in the civil litigation. Chief
Conrad and Mayor Fischer began having regular weekly meetings in 2017.
primarily to discuss the spike in violent crime that occurred in 2016. Mayor Fischer
wanted regular updates concerning the efforts to combat violent crime. Chief
Conrad does not recall discussing the BettsIWood matter with Mayor Fischer during
these meetings.

The team also re-interviewed Mayor Fischer and Deputy Mayor Hesen.
Mayor Fischer?s recollection is that he learned of the Explorer issues around
October 2016, at about the time those matters were reported in the media. He
believes that he asked for a brie?ng on the matter in November 2016, which was
arranged by Chief Conrad. The brie?ng covered the general nature of the
allegations against the of?cers.

Deputy Mayor Hesen does not recall being informed of the 2013 PSU
investigation of Of?cer Betta. She does not dispute Chief Conrad?s statement that
he mentioned the investigation to her, but simply asserts that she has no
recollection of that conversation. She does not behave that she had any discussion
concerning the 2013 PSU investigation with Mayor Fischer. Mayor Fischer
con?rms that he was unaware of that investigation.

DICKINSONWRIGHT

CALIMIRIA NEVADA OHIO IEHHESHE TEXAS llf. 

6 

 HHAL

Deputy Mayor Hesen believes that the ?rst brie?ng that Mayor Fischer
received concerning the matter was in November 2016. She believes
there was a general discussion of the allegations, but neither she nor the Mayor
made any effort to direct the scope or pace of the investigation. Deputy Mayor
Hesen asked then?General Counsel Kellie Watson to arrange a brie?ng with
representatives of the County Attorney's Of?ce to be delivered by Sgt. Mann. There
may have also been a brie?ng between the PIU investigators and representatives of
the County Attorney?s Of?ce so that those attorneys would have an understanding
of the extent of the allegations against Bette and Wood in order to assist their
representation of the Metro Government. Since November 2016, Deputy Mayor
Hesen has had numerous conversations with Chief Conrad concerning the
matter but there have been no regularly scheduled meetings with
the Chief concerning the investigation.

On the morning of March 20, 2018, Kerry Harvey was contacted by Louisville
Metro Councilman David James. Councilman James repeated the earlier inquiry
concerning alleged brie?ngs between PIU of?cers and members of the Mayor's staff,
speci?cally Deputy Mayor Ellen Hesen. Councilman James was advised that the
team had re'interviewed Chief Conrad, Deputy Mayor Hesen, and Mayor Fischer on
these points and generally described! the ?ndings. Councihnan James stated that
he has been told that Deputy Mayor Hesen had demanded weekly brie?ngs from
PIU detectives and that no fewer than 10 such brie?ngs occurred. Councilman
James had been told the brie?ngs were held in Chief Conrad?s of?ce without the
knowledge of now retired IJVIPD Major Eddie Jones, Commander of the Special
Investigations Division at that time. The Special Investigations Division consists of
the Professional Standards Unit and the Public Integrity Unit. According to
information provided to Councilman James, Major Jones learned of the brie?ngs
and was angry. He allegedly caused the LMPDIPIU investigators and their ?les to
be moved to FBI headquarters as a result of his displeasure with the brie?ngs.

In response to this additional information, the team re-interviewed Chief
Conrad on March 20, 2018. Chief Conrad categorically denies that there were
weekly or regular brie?ngs between PIU detectives and Deputy Mayor Hesen. He
states that Deputy Mayor Hesen never asked for weekly brie?ngs, nor were such
brie?ngs suggested by the Chief. He recalled one meeting on March 10, 2017 that
was attended by Deputy Mayor Hesen and the PIU detectives, along with County
Attorney O?Connell and other members of his staff. This meeting was held at
Deputy Mayor Hesen?s request in order to ensure that the County Attorney?s O?ce
had the necessary information to properly represent the Metro Government in civil

DICKINSONWRIGHT

Fl?ll?l MICHIGAN OHIO IEHHESSEE TENS lit 

62

 

suits ?led as a result of the Explorer matter. The PIU detectives gave an overview
of the case. Chief Conrad indicated there was nothing inappropriate about the
meeting and con?rmed that no one present made any attempt to instruct the PIU
detectives concerning the scope, direction or pace of their investigation.

Chief Conrad indicates that there have been no brie?ngs with Mayor Fischer
other than as previously documented. Chief Conrad indicated that the information
concerning the Explorer investigation ?owed through the chain of command, from
the PIU detectives, to the Lieutenant in charge of that unit, to the Commander of
Special Investigations, to Deputy Chief Sullivan, to the Chief. Chief Conrad has
never received any indication that Major Jones (former Commander of Special
Investigations) was upset with anyone in his chain of command concerning the
Explorer investigation.

Chief Conrad recalled hearing that before retiring, Major Burbrink had
apparently made statements that upset the PIU staff. Chief Conrad was told that
Major Burbrink made a statement concerning the staff being reassigned after the
Explorer investigation was complete and that the detectives may have talked to an
attorney regarding this matter. Chief Conrad denies that there was any plan or
design to punish, restrict, or impede the PIU detectives concerning the Explorer
investigation. Upon hearing of these alleged comments by Major Burbrinlc, he
instructed Deputy Chief Sullivan to assure the PIU staff of that fact and to make
sure that they understood that they were to do a thorough, professional
investigation of the matter. Chief Conrad denies knowing the source of the
apparent misinformation concerning weekly brie?ngs with Deputy Mayor Hesen.

The team interviewed retired IMZPD Major Eddie Jones on March 20, 2018 in
order to gather information necessary to answer the speci?c topics of inquiry posed
by Councilman James. Major Jones has retired from the LMPD and now works for
the University of Louisville police force. Major Jones served as Commander of the
Special Investigations Division, comprised of the Public Integrity Unit and the
Professional Standards Unit, for about a year and a half until he retired on July 31,
2017. He retired because of the possibility of adverse changes to the retirement
system. Major Jones has also served as Commander of the Narcotics Division and
as Commander of the Fifth Division. Major Jones has known Flaherty for many
years and always thought he was person of integrity and professionalism. He never
had any direct supervisory contact with the Explorer program, nor had he heard
any rumors of misconduct within that program until media reports in the fall of
2016.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

(ALIFDINIA FLORIDA IMHO THIS DC 

63

 HNAL

Major Jones categorically denied that the Chief and/or Deputy Mayor Hesen
received weekly brie?ngs from the PIU detectives concerning the Explorer
investigation. He also denied any personal distrust of Chief Conrad concerning this
investigation. He denied any knowledge of Chief Conrad, Deputy Mayor Hesen, or
Mayor Fischer having ever made any attempt to direct the scope or pace of the
Explorer investigation. He is aware of no misconduct by any of his former superiors
in the LMPD or the Mayor?s of?ce concerning the Explorer matter. Major Jones
stated that none of the PIU detectives ever complained to him about any such
misconduct.

Major Jones indicated that the PIU detectives were frustrated that other
investigations, such as this one and the growing number of civil suits, were
continuing in parallel to the PIU investigation and that he disagreed with the
Chiefs decision to allow the investigative team access to the LMPD ?les. He saw
nothing wrong with that decision, however, and respected that it was Chief
Conrad?s cal]. He also suggested that the PIU detectives were increasingly
frustrated with the media attention devoted to the Explorer matter and the amount
of time taken to respond to Open Records Act requests from various sources. In
short, Major Jones stated that the information concerning weekly brie?ngs between
PIU detectives and anyone from the Mayor?s of?ce is false.

Major Jones recalled two occasions when he had asked for meetings with
Deputy Chief Sullivan and Chief Conrad to update them on deveIOpments in the
Explorer investigation. He recalls one meeting with PIU detectives, Commonwealth
Attorney Tom Wine, County Attorney Mike O?Connell, Deputy Chief Sullivan,
Deputy Mayor Ellen Hesen, and others. The PIU detectives briefed the group on
the status of the investigation. No one attempted to direct the scape or pace of the
investigation and there was nothing inappropriate about the brie?ng. Major Jones
expressed no anger or hostility towards the Chief or anyone in the Mayor?s of?ce.
He stated that neither the Chief, Deputy Mayor Hesen, nor Mayor Fischer had, to
his knowledge, ever done anything inappropriate regarding the Explorer matter.

On March 22, 2018 the team interviewed LMPD Deputy Chief Michael
Sullivan. Deputy Chief Sullivan became a police of?cer in 1994 and was promoted
to Major by Chief Conrad. He has served as Commander of the Seventh Division,
the Assistant Chief in charge of administrative matters, and was promoted to
Deputy Chief in April 2016. He had no prior connection with the Explorer program

DICKINSONW RIGHT

Hill? NEVADA TENNESSEE TEXAS 

64

 

 

and never heard of any misconduct involving that program. He vaguely knows
Bette and Wood, but has no relationship with either.

Deputy Chief Sullivan ?rst learned of issues within the Explorer program in
October 2016 when Sgt. Gootee brought these concerns to his attention. Sgt. Gootee
happened to see Deputy Chief Sullivan at police headquarters and mentioned the
Explorer investigation. His ?rst in-depth brie?ng concerning the Explorer matter
occurred shortly thereafter at the same time that he was briefed concerning an
unrelated PIU investigation. Sgt. Gootee showed him a PowerPoint presentation
which detailed the status of the Explorer investigation. This occurred in November
2016.

Deputy Chief Sullivan recalls one meeting in the conference room at police
headquarters in late 2016, probably in November, but perhaps December. The
meeting was attended by Chief Conrad, representatives of the County Attorney?s
Of?ce and perhaps Deputy Mayor Hesen. The brie?ng was initiated by Deputy
Chief Sullivan and Chief Conrad and was conducted by PIU detectives. The
detectives summarized the status of the Explorer investigation. No one attempted
to direct the scope or pace of the investigation and there was nothing inappropriate
about the meeting. Deputy Chief Sullivan said there have been a couple of updates
from the PIU detectives presented to him andlor Chief Conrad concerning the
progress of the Explorer investigation. He denied that there had been regular
brie?ngs with Deputy Mayor Hesen or anyone else from the Mayor?s o?ice. He
denied that the PIU detectives moved their ?les to FBI headquarters because of any
attempt to "corrupt? their investigation, as has been suggested. Rather, he
explained that the PIU detectives wanted to leave certain charts and evidence
displayed on the walls of their o?ce used for the Explorer investigation and that
this was impossible at PIU headquarters because of unrestricted foot traf?c through
those of?ces. The detectives were concerned that as other of?cers circulated freely
through the PIU of?ces, sensitive information might be visible. This is consistent
with information the team received from Major Jones.

Chief Sullivan recalls that at some point after the November 2016 brie?ng
Assistant Chief Kreszig told him that PIU detectives were concerned about
comments made by Major Burbrink. The comments were, in substance, that once
the PIU investigation was completed, the detectives might be reassigned. Deputy
Chief Sullivan does not know why Major Burbrink would have made those
comments. He indicated that PIU staffing levels are dictated by the volume of work
to be done. The Explorer investigation caused additional resources to be surged to

DICKINSON WRIGHT

AIIZDHA FNIIDA IIKHISAI OHIO TENNESSEE TENS WASHIHEWII DC 

65



 

PIU. Deputy Chief Sullivan said that once the investigation is complete, it is
possible that fewer resources will be needed in PIU, but that those decisions are
based solely on resource allocations driven by the volume of work.

In response to the concerns purportedly raised by Assistant Chief Kraeszig,
Deputy Chief Sullivan met with the PIU detectives. He assured the detectives that
they were fully supported by the chain of command and that they were expected to
do a full, thorough, and professional investigation of the Explorer matter. He asked
them to make him aware of any impediments to accomplishing that task and
committed that the command staff would support their efforts. He felt that
whatever concerns may have existed were alleviated by the end of the meeting. He
has not been told by the PIU detectives that anyone has made any attempt to
inappropriately impede or direct the Explorer investigation. He believes the
detectives were frustrated that a number of other investigations were proceeding in
parallel, including the civil litigation and the internal inquiry ordered by the Mayor.
The PIU detectives also expressed frustration by the volume of open records
requests and the work that those matters created.

We re-interviewed Major Burbrink concerning his alleged comments to the
PIU detectives. He denies that he ever had such a conversation with the PIU
detectives. We then interviewed Assistant Chief Kraeszig who denies attributing
the remarks to Burbrink. She said that the information concerning the PIU
detectives was simply a rumor which she passed on to the Deputy Chief. The
attribution to Burbrink appears to be in error.

On March 26, 2018, the team interviewed Deputy Mayor Hesen for the third
time. Deputy Mayor Hesen said that she was involved in one, or perhaps two
brie?ngs attended by the PIU detectives. Her best recollection is that she was
involved in one brie?ng delivered by PIU detectives and one brie?ng conducted by
Sgt. Mann, who led the Professional Standards Unit investigation of Of?cer Betts in
2013.

Deputy Mayor Hesen denied having regular meetings with the PIU
detectives in the Chiefs of?ce, or elsewhere. She indicated that it was rare for her
to be in the Chiefs of?ce and that she would certainly recall if she had weekly
meetings with the PIU detectives. She spoke with Chief Conrad more frequently
concerning the matter after November 2016, usually by telephone. She denied any
attempt to direct the pace or scape of the investigation or to impede its progress in
any way.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

CALIFDIHIA FLORIDA MICIIGII OHIO TENNESSEE TEXAS DC 

66

 HNAL

 

We conclude that the suggestion that Deputy Mayor Hesen, or anyone else in
the Mayor?s of?ce, demanded weekly or regularly scheduled brie?ngs from the PIU
detectives is false. Obviously, the team would like to obtain information ?'om the
PIU detectives concerning this allegation, but we are unable to do so. Nevertheless,
Major Jones, Deputy Chief Sullivan, Chief Conrad, and Deputy Mayor Hesen have
all denied that these regular brie?ngs were ever held or demanded. There is no
reason to believe that these four individuals are prevaricating on this point. There
seems to be no reason to do so. Major Jones no longer works for the LMPD and
would certainly know the truth of this matter. If ten meetings occurred between
Deputy Mayor Hesen and the PIU detectives, it would be an easy matter to prove.
Moreover, there would be nothing wrong with the Chief or Deputy Mayor receiving
regular brie?ngs concerning an investigation of great public interest.

These allegations do, however, raise a concern. The allegations are very
speci?c, Deputy Mayor Hesen insisted on regular brie?ngs from the PIU
detectives to be held in the Chiefs of?ce on a weekly basis and no fewer than ten
such meetings actually occurred. The team also received a media inquiry that
essentially asked if this same, quite speci?c information was true. We have
concluded that this allegation is demonstrably false. This means that some person
or persons has disseminated information that is both false and material to the
investigation. The team does not know the source of the false information or the
motive for its dissemination. It is a matter of concern.

V. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
A. Boy Scouts of America Policy

The misconduct within the Explorer program did not occur because of a lack
of appropriate policies and procedures. Rather, it occurred because these
procedures were not properly followed, implemented and supervised.

The Explorer program followed the Boy Scouts of America youth
protection protocol. All Explorer advisers received this training. It was not
followed by Betts or Wood.

The BSA sets forth the ?three R?s of youth protection? to all youth members:

(1) Recognize that anyone could be a molester; (2) Respond when someone is doing
something that goes against your gut or against the safety guidelines; (3) Report

DICKINSON WRIGHT

CAIIWIHM FLDIIDI HIEHIEAI um THIS DI 

67

REPORTJFIHHL

attempted or actual molestation activity that you think is wrong to a parent or
other trusted adult.

Here, the Explorers subjected to abuse con?rmed they did not report
improper behavior to Flaherty or the other Explorer advisers.

Youth protection, however, is the responsibility of adults. All Explorer
advisors were trained concerning proper interaction with the Explorers. The BSA
requires ?barriers to abuse? to be implemented in all Explorer programs. This
mandates the following procedures to be followed:

1. Two-deep leadership is required on all outings. A minimum of two
registered adult leaders is required for all trips and outings. One of the adults must
be 2 1 years of age or older.

2. One-on-one contact between adults and youth members is prohibited.

3. The policies of two'deep leadership and no one-on-one contact between
adults and youth members also apply to digital communications. Leaders are not
permitted to privately text, use social media or communicate through any other
online or digital communication with youth.

4. Age-appropriate and separate accommodations for adults and youth
are required.

5. The buddy system should be used at all timas.

These policies were consistently violated. On numerous occasions - including
all ride-alongs - an Explorer adviser was alone with an Explorer. This should not
have occurred, and the ride-alongs were the source of many inappropriate sexual
encounters. Relatedly, the pragram did not follow the buddy system. Had this
occurred, the Opportunity for misconduct would have been greatly diminished.

Bette and Wood repeatedly violated the prohibition on digital
communications. Text, Snap Chat and Facebook messaging appear to be the
primary manner in which Bette and Wood communicated with their victims. Had
Betta and Wood followed the required protocol and not texted Explorers, many of
the sexual relationships would likely not have developed.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

CALIFORNIA FLORIDA KENTUCKY HEHDA OHIO IEIHIESSEE WASHIHSTIIH DC TGIONW

68



 

B. LMPD Policies and Procedures
1. PIU Operations Manual

PIU Operations Manual Section VII requires that upon receipt of a complaint
or direction to investigate, the matter will be assigned a case number and logged in
the system electronically. Flaherty failed to do this when the 2013 Bette matter
was received. While this did not lead to Betts? misconduct, the failure to follow
procedure leads some to believe a cover-up has occurred. This could have been
avoided by simply following protocol.

PIU Operations Manual (B) requires that when an investigator is
assigned he will formulate an investigative plan and obtain approval of the
investigative plan. This did not happen when the PIU investigators were sent to
Explorer 1?s house in 2013. Had this procedure been followed, it is possible that a
more thorough PIU investigation would have occurred in 2013. It is impossible to
know if the result would have been different.

The PSU Operations Manual requires that information regarding PSU
investigations shall be released only with approval of the Chief or his designee.
Here, the Betta report, in whole or part, was apparently leaked to media.

2. LMPD Standard Operating Procedure

LMPD Standard Operating Procedure 5.1.21 prohibits sexual activity while
on duty or in a police vehicle. There are allegations of at least three of?cers who
violated this policy.

LMPD Standard Operating Procedure 8.6.4 requires of?cers to complete a
JC-3 and forward same to CHFSIDCBS. This did not occur here, but was arguably
required in 2013 because Betts? exercised supervision of Explorer 1 and engaged in
conduct that risked harm to her.

Finally, Section 5.1.3 prohibit: "conduct unbecoming? by a police of?cer. This
includes ?immorality.? Sexually exploiting minors is conduct unbecoming a LMPD
smear.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

OHIO HHS DC 

69

REPORT 

VI. WAS THERE AN EFFORT WITHIN THE COMIVIAND STAFF OF THE
LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT TO 
MISCONDUCT WITHIN THE EXPLORER 

Two LMPD of?cers are under indictment for allegations of misconduct in
connection with the LMPD Explorers program. Several civil suits have been ?led
naming additional frontline of?cers as primary offenders. The civil litigation also
alleges that the misconduct was known at various levels of LMPD management and
covered up. Allegations of cover-up have surfaced in the media. Obviously, an
intentional cover-up of misconduct is unacceptable and would require the strongest
response.

Given the importance of the question, the investigative team will provide a
direct answer, based on the information available to us. In our view, there was no
effort in the LMPD senior command staff to cover up allegations of misconduct in
the Explorer program. Our conclusion is based upon the information available to
the investigative team which, in some respects, is incomplete. Nevertheless, we are
con?dent that the senior command of the LMPD did not engage in an effort to cover
up misconduct in the Explorer program.

This conclusion does not imply, however, that these matters have been
handled without error. To the contrary, we conclude that there have been violations
of policy and mistakes in judgment, some signi?cant. 0n the other hand, a number
of important steps were taken within the LMPD which are entirely inconsistent
with an effort to cover up these matters. Based on the totality of the information
available to us, we do not believe there was a cover-up; we do believe that a number
of mistakes were made. Our analysis follows.

The review of the evidence bearing on this question logically begins with the
2016 PIU investigation. The 2016 investigation was initiated by a PSU complaint
?led by D.B. against Wood. It was then determined that there were allegations of
criminal conduct and the matter was transferred to PIU.

Undoubtedly, there has been no cover-up, or attempted cover-up, undertaken
in connection with the 2016 investigation. That investigation has resulted in two
indictments and continues. This matter has been widely reported in the media and
a number of civil suits have been ?led. From all indications, the LMPD detectives
have pursued this matter aggressively, with the involvement of the Jefferson
Commonwealth?s Attorney's Of?ce. The senior leadership of LMPD has shifted

DICKINSON WRIGHT

AIIZDNA Fl?ilM HICHMIN HMS IN "Hill"!

70

REPORTIFIHAL

resources to PIU in order to support the needs of this on-going investigation. The
Mayor asked the FBI to join the investigation. Those actions indicate a desire to
fully understand the facts of this matter and hold any wrongdoers accountable.

More questions have arisen concerning the 2013 PSU investigation of Bette
which eventually led to his resignation. The fact that there was a PSU
investigation of Betta that led to his resignation is, in itself, strong evidence that
there was no cover-up. Nevertheless, whi arise from . 
inv DICKINSON WRIGHT

CALIMIHM HllIllM HEHM OHIO TENS WASHINGNJI 0C 

7]

 

   

 

There was another potentially disturbing set of events involving Betta that
began in or about 2008. This matter did not involve a LMPD Eilorii. At the time,

 
 
  

Explorer 2 was an Explorer that had been attathed to a post in Kentucky.
The evidence suggests that he was 18 at the time the alleged miscon uct began.

Bette and Wood apparently came to know Explorer 2 through an Explorer
conference. As their relationship developed, Explorer 2 would travel to Louisville
and participate in ride-alongs with Betts and Wood- something that should not have
happened. Explorer 2 Spent the night with either Bette or Wood from time to time
after going on an evening ride?along. He wanted to be a police of?cer.

Explorer 2 reported to Wood that Bette had engaged in inappropriate
behavior with him. Betta allegedly made a number of efforts to initiate a sexual
relationship with Explorer 2. According to both Explorer 2 and Wood, he was
encouraged to report this matter to Flaherty. For his own reasons, he declined to do
so. Ultimately, Wood told Flaherty that there were issues involving Bette and
Explorer 2. Wood suggested that Flaherty contact Explorer 2. According to both
Wood and Flaherty, Wood did not disclose the nature of the issues and 
never learned the facts of the inappropriate conduct. Flaherty behaved it was a
matter of unreturned personal property, not sexual misconduct. Flaherty called

DICKINSONWRIGHT

AIIZMM CALIFOIHIA MKHIGAN OHIO IEIHESSH TENS WASHIHSIOI 

72

 

Explorer 2 at least twice, leaving messages, but Explorer 2 declined to speak with
him and the matter Went no further.

Explorer 2 described the details of the alleged misconduct to Sgt. Mann
during the 2013 PSU investigation of Bette. Explorer 2 alleges that Bette pursued a
sexual relationship with him on a number of occasions. Explorer 2 alleges that
Bette offered him money in exchange for sex. He also alleges that Bette implied that
he would assist or impede his e?orts to be employed as a police of?cer, depending on
whether Explorer 2 engaged in a sexual relationship with Bette. These allegations
potentially constitute criminal behavior. The conduct Explorer 2 describes could
constitute solicitation of prostitution and o?cial misconduct. This conduct should
have been reported by Wood. Bette denies any illegal or coercive conduct concerning
Explorer 2.

Flaherty attempted to contact Explorer 2, without success. Flaherty did not
know the nature of the ?problem? between Bette and Explorer 2. Nothing suggests
that he should have known the severity of the issue. as Wood did not provide that
information and Explorer 2 declined to speak with him. Consequently, the matter
was not further investigated in 2011, but was discovered by Sgt. Mann?s 2013 PSU
investigation.

Sgt. Mann investigated potentially troubling behavior involving Flaherty and
Schuhmann in relation to the 2013 PSU investigation. Explorer 1?s parents
reported a conversation with their neighbor who claimed that an unknown person
driving a silver car parked in their driveway at the time of these events. The
neighbor identi?ed Schuhmann as that person from a photograph. If the
identi?cation were correct this would be troubling, as Schuhmann had no legitimate
reason to be at Explorer 1?s residence. Sgt. Mann fully explored this matter,
however, and determined that Schuhmann did not have access to a vehicle
matching the description provided by the neighbor. Schuhmann did not match the
physical description of the driver provided by the neighbor who described him as
having a beard. Finally, Schuhmann. had an alibi which Sgt. Mann con?rmed. Sgt.
Mann concluded that the neighbor was mistaken and the available evidence
supports that conclusion.

Explorer 1?s mother also expressed concern that Flaherty attempted to
dissuade her husband and her from moving forward with the matter. Sgt. Mann
fully investigated this potential act of misconduct. He learned that Flaherty had
contacted Explorer 1?s father. Flaherty assured him that Explorer 1 could continue

DICKINSON WRIGHT

mum OHIO TENNESSEE It?! 0C 

73



her participation in the Explorer program without incident. The allegation appears
to arise from Flaherty?s statements that it was up to the parents whether or not to
speak with LMPD investigators. Flaherty also suggested that the matter would not
be discussed among the Explorers and those with knowledge of it would be
admonished to refrain from talking about it in order to avoid embarrassing Explorer
1. Explorer 1?s father stated unequivocally, however, that Flaherty said nothing to
dissuade him or his wife from discussing the matter with investigators, which is
strong evidence that Flaherty did not, in fact, attempt to persuade Explorer 1?s
parents to drop the matter.

While the investigative team believes the evidence establishes that Flaherty
made no effort to cause the Explorer 1?s parents to decline cooperation with the PSU
investigation, we believe he exercised questionable judgment in having any contact
with them at all. Our conclusion stems from our belief that Flaherty should have
immediately recognized that his long-standing relationship with both the Explorer
program and Bette created a potential con?ict of interest for him. The better course
would have been to pass along the information to his superior, Major Burbrink. He
should have highlighted the potential con?ict of interest. Major Burbrink could
have assigned the matter to another o?icer, or concluded that the potential con?ict
was insuf?cient to disqualify Flaherty?s participation. In either event, the con?ict
would have been disclosed and the decision made by a disinterested referee.

Flaherty?s interview with Sgt. Mann indicates that he recognized the
potential con?ict of interest. Nevertheless, he continued to involve himself in this
matter by tasking PIU detectives to interview Explorer 1 and discussing the matter
directly with her parents. The better practice would have been to have taken no
action before discussing the potential con?ict with Major Burbrink and receiving
instructions from his superior. To be fair, there appears to have been no formal
con?ict of interest policy and procedure governing investigations. The
Bette investigation would have bene?tted from such a policy.

This lapse in judgment was apparently repeated in 2016 when the Wood
investigation was initiated. Flaherty learned of the allegations involving Wood and,
on his own initiative, tasked Explorer Advisers, including Schuhmann, to contact a
number of the Explorers. The purpose of the contact was to determine if any of the
Explorers had been the subject of any inappropriate contact with an adviser. While
the purpose may have been benign, this is another instance in which the better
course of action would have been to have recognized the potential con?ict of
interest. In fact, the issue is plain in relation to the 2016 investigation. At that

DICKINSON WRIGHT

steam IEHTUCH NEVADA OHIO IEIHESSEE HHS WASHIHMOH MIOIITO

74

REPORTI HNAL

 

point, Flaherty had no connection with PIU or PSU. He would have certainly
recognized, however, that the allegations involving Wood would trigger a far
reaching PIU investigation. He should have taken no action without coordinating
with the Special Investigations Commander. In all likelihood, he would have been
instructed to stand down.

There is another aspect of Flaherty?s involvement with the 2013 Betts?
investigation that is potentially troubling. Major Burbrink, reports that Flaherty
tasked PIU of?cers to interview Explorer 1 without his knowledge. Burbrink was
the Special Investigations Division Commander, supervising both PIU and PSU.
Burbrink indicates that he did not learn Flaherty had taken action until it was
reported as part of Sgt. Mann's investigation. Major Burbrink further reports that
Flaherty did not formally open a PIU ?le and assign the matter a case number.
Major Burbrink described this as a departure from policy, but not a breach of policy.
We believe this was, in fact, a breach of policy and that the matter should have been
formally opened and assigned a case number.

For his part, Flaherty says that he was merely tasking the of?cers to make a
preliminary inquiry to determine if the matter warranted PIU investigation.
According to Flaherty, the of?cers quickly determined that there was no criminal
violation but that a professional standards investigation was warranted. In
accordance with that conclusion, the matter was transmitted to PSU and Sgt. Mann
initiated his investigation.

The initial PIU interview raises at least a couple of questions. First, the
interview was not recorded. While this is not necessarily a policy violation, the
better practice would have been to record the interview. Second, Explorer 1 was
interviewed with her parents present. Again, this does not appear to bee violation
of policy. Indeed, the record suggests that Explorer 1 wanted her parents to be
present for the interview. From an investigative point of view, however, it would
have been better for Explorer 1 to he interviewed alone. She was 16 years old, not a
young child. Although the subject matter was undoubtedly uncomfortable, the fact
that she initiated this matter by approaching O?cer Paris suggests that she was
fully capable of discussing it with the investigators without the presence of her
parents. Moreover, there may have been important details that she would have felt
more comfortable discussing outside of the presence of her parents.

While there are aspects of the initial interactions with Explorer 1 and her
family that are subject to criticism, nothing suggests that it was part of an

DICKINSONWRIGHT

mzuun (MIMIHM Hill? MICHIGAN NEVADA OHIO IEIHESSEE If?! 

75



orchestrated plan to cover up these matters. We learned that it is not unusual for
the initial stages of a PIU investigation to proceed without formally opening a ?le
and drawing a case number. We were told that this is done, in part, so that
allegations quickly disproven will not be subject to Open Records Act requests. We
understand the desire to protect of?cers from the publication of scurrilous and
demonstrably false allegations. This is an insu?cient reason, however, to vary
from departmental policy which requires the formal opening of a case ?le and
assignment of a case number when PIU investigates a matter.

This is more than a technicality. Every investigative action by the Special
Investigations Division should be thoroughly documented. Here, that was not the
case. Nevertheless, the fact that Flaherty immediately reacted to the allegations
against Bette by sending experienced PIU detectives to interview Explorer 1 is
inconsistent with an effort to cover up this matter. Had that been his intent, he
more likely would have handled the initial interview himself and tried to conclude
the matter at that stage. Here, once the PIU detectives determined that there was
no criminal conduct to investigate, Flaherty passed that information on to Major
Burbrink who started the process that quickly led to the opening of a PSU
investigation. Once again, this is inconsistent with an attempt to cover up these
allegations. Flaherty would have known that he would have no in?uence over the
course of the PSU investigation. An of?cer in Flaherty?s position desperate to cover
up the matter would have taken every possible step to prevent a PSU investigation.
Here, Flaherty did the opposite.

The PSU investigation, under Sgt. Mann?s direction, proceeded in an orderly
manner. Our review indicates that Sgt. Mann intended to conduct a thorough,
unbiased investigation. There is absolutely no evidence that he participated in any
attempt to cover up wrongdoing in the Explorer program. Sgt. Mann interviewed a
number of witnesses and ultimately concluded that Bette was guilty of conduct
unbecoming an of?cer. Electronic evidence was gathered from Explorer 1's
telephone. His investigative efforts included interviews with Explorer 1 and her
parents, Brad Schuhmann, Brandon Wood. Explorer 2, Curtis Flaherty, and others.
The investigative report is voluminous and explore: in detail the inappropriate text
message interaction that Bette had with Explorer 1.

The PSU investigation remained narrow in scope, however, and never

resulted in a broad review of potential issues in the Explorer program. It is
impossible to know what a broader review would have discovered.

DICKINSONWRIGHT

HONDA mo TEXAS DC WRONG

76

REPORTJFIHAL

 

There was information, or at least allegations, which might have een
'al to Mann?s 'nlrin th

        
 
  
  

   

 

He questioned Flaherty concerning 's knowle go of any other issues
with Betta, at one point asking ?do we have a pattern of behavior here between
Of?cer Bette preying on Explorers?? Flaherty res ded hat ossible ut
th ad in? ti fthatso of 

  
 

is a matter of conjecture as to
whether this ormation woul have caused Sgt. Mann to broaden his
investigation.

 

Sgt. Mann did learn the details of the Explorer 2 allegations. He concluded,
perhaps wrongly, that the allegations were not criminal in nature because Esplorer
2 was an adult. Explorer 2 alleged that an LMPD of?cer offered him money for sex
and offered to help or impede his efforts to gain employment as a police of?cer,
depending on how he responded to Betts? solicitations. These are serious matters,
potentially criminal in nature. Any criminal charge would likely have been a
misdemeanor and could have been barred by the one year statute of limitations.
mandate is to investigate felonious conduct. Nevertheless, the allegations
were of su?cient severity that further action was needed. The allegations should
have been referred to PIU, or reviewed by Jefferson County prosecutors to
determine if further investigation was warranted.

 

At the conclusion of Sgt. Mann?s investigation, he followed procedure by
forwarding his investigative ?le and substantiated charges up the chain of
command. This ultimately led to Betts? resignation from LMPD and a

DICKINSON WRIGHT

(??01th HIEHIHI OHM lit 

77

REPORTIFINAL

 

determination by Chief Conrad to mark the ?le ?closed by exception.? This
sequence of events has been the subject of a great deal of conjecture and bears
discussion.

Sgt. Mann substantiated the charges against Bette. He forwarded his
?ndings to his superior, Lieutenant Meagher, who sent them on to Major Burbrink.
The charges continued up the chain of command to the Deputy Chief and ultimately
to Chief Conrad. Before the disciplinary decision is made by the Chief, a number of
those in the command staff weigh in with their opinion. Here, all agreed that Betta
had committed a serious act of misconduct and should be separated from the LMPD.
During the deliberative process, it was learned that Betts had a serious medical
condition (although Bette represented that he had a serious medical condition, it
does not appear that the nature or extent of the condition was independently
veri?ed). Further, it appeared that he was willing to resign if he could continue his
employment long enough to complete his medical treatment. He expressed concern
about losing his health insurance before completing treatment. During this time,
Betta was removed from the Explorer program and assigned what was essentially
?desk duty?.

There was a division of opinion within?the command staff concerning whether
to ?re Betts, or allow him to resign after his medical treatment was complete. Some
strongly believed that Bette should be ?red, while others disagreed. Ultimately,
Chief Conrad decided to delay action until Bette resigned. Consistent with this
decision, Bette tendered his resignation from LMPD on March 24, 2014. Chief
Conrad ordered the ?le "closed by exception? on April 4, 2014, which is the
appropriate administrative determination when an employee resigns before the
disciplinary process is complete.

Reasonable people can differ regarding Chief Conrad?s decision to stay his
hand until Betta resigned. It is not, however, evidence of a cover-up, nor did that
decision in any way impede the fact-?nding process.

The dif?culty with a resignation by someone in Betts? position is that it
makes it more likely that a person unsuited to police work may be able to continue
in the profession. Indeed, Bette was able to obtain employment with another police
agency after leaving LMPD. 0n the other hand. allowing Betta to continue his
health insurance coverage until the treatment of a serious medical condition was
concluded is understandable. Moreover, allowing Betts' resignation carried
signi?cant bene?ts for LMPD. Public employees who are terminated have appeal

DICKINSON WRIGHT

(MIMRHIA FWIIM Illtl'll?ll OHIO TENNESSEE DI 

78

 

 

rights, in this case to the Louisville Metro Merit Board. Employees who resign
waive those appeal rights. By allowing Bette to resign, he was not able to appeal a
disciplinary action to the Merit Board, which could have returned him to work, an
eventuality which all who reviewed the case wanted to avoid.

We also learned that some delay in making disciplinary decisions was not
unusual. Chief Conrad indicated that he generally took these matters in turn and
made an intentional effort not to decide the cases in ?batches?. He adopted this
practice in order to avoid overwhelming the Merit Board. This standard practice of
disposing of disciplinary cases by Chief Conrad was con?rmed by a number of his
subordinates. In that respect, the Bette matter was not unusual.

Perhaps most importantly, closing the Bette ?le by exception did nothing to
impede the fact-?nding process. Closing the ?le by exception did not truncate an
ongoing investigation. Sgt. Mann conducted the investigation. His investigation
was complete in September 2013. Had Chief Conrad ?red Bette instead of allowing
him to resign, no further investigation would have resulted.

It is not unusual for managers of public employees facing termination to
allow those employees to resign; indeed, they cannot prevent a resignation. They do
so, at all levels of government, precisely for the reason presented here it cuts off
appeals of the termination decision. Reasonable peeple can differ with Chief
Conrad?s determination of this matter. One can certainly argue that the better
course would have been to have ?red Bette. There is no basis upon which to
conclude, however, that Chief Conrad?s actions in this matter impeded the fact-
finding process in any way.

There were two other instances of concern to the investigative team which
occurred after Sgt. Mann completed his work. First, PSU retrieved data from
Explorer 1's cell phone. Included in that data were nude images of the teenager.
Mann and his chain of command made a determination that these images had
not been transmitted to Bette or anyone else. Sgt. Mann was disturbed at the
prospect of leaving these images, which had been burned to a disk, in the
investigative file. He appropriately addressed this concern with his chain of
command. Ultimately, Major Burbrink decided that the disk should be destroyed.
The investigative team questioned Major Burbrink regarding this decision.

Major Burbrink believed that the dish containing the images had no
evidentiary value. He said that a forensic determination had been made that the

DICKINSON WRIGHT

HIIHIEAI NEVADA OHIO IEIHESSEE HIM 

79

 

REPORT FINAL

images had not been transmitted ?'om Explorer 1?s phone. He was concerned that
the images could be released at some future point, causing unnecessary
embarrassment to Explorer 1. Believing that the images had no evidentiary value,
he ordered that the disk containing them be destroyed. He also indicated that there
was no reason to inform Explorer 1?s parents that these images existed, believing it
would only cause her unnecessary embarrassment.

We believe this judgment was ?awed. While we accept that there was no
af?rmative reason to conclude that the images had evidentiary value at the time of
their destruction, we do not believe that this material. gathered as part of an of?cial
investigation, should have been destroyed without some further review. We are
also uncertain as to whether there was a conclusive forensic determination that the
images were not transmitted to anyone else as opposed to simply being unable to
determine whether or not that was the case. Further, nude images of a teenager on
a cell phone are cause for concern. Explorer 1?s parents should have been noti?ed
that this evidence had been found.

No evidence suggests that Chief Conrad knew of this decision before the
fact, or in any way participated in the process. Likewise, nothing suggests that any
LMPD of?cer involved with this decision engaged in any intentional wrongdoing.
While we behave that the decision to destroy the disk containing the subject images
was unsound, nothing suggests that it ?owed from bad motives.

Finally, our investigation revealed a curious incident that occurred as part of
Betts? resignation process. During the exit process, he met with LMPD
representatives and returned the departmental property in his possession. The
of?cer who oversaw that process remembered seeing his badge on the table, along
with other property. She left the room brie?y and then noticed after Betts departed
that the badge was no longer among the items he left with her. There is some
indication that a ?le was opened and a case number assigned for this incident.
Word was sent to Betts that if the badge was not returned, of?cial action would be
taken. Bette returned the badge within 24 hours. through his attorney, claiming
that it had been inadvertently left in his car.

Although it is believed that a case was opened, later efforts to retrieve it
indicate that there is no physical or electronic ?le. No one has been able to
determine why this is the case. Moreover, there is no apparent motive for removing
or destroying the ?le.

DICKINSONWRIGHT

FLORIDA HINDI. OHIO TEXAS WASHIIGWI 0C 

80

 

 

We conclude that there were long-standing issues in the Explorer program,
dating back through a number of police administrations and even prior to the City
County merger. Certain of these issues, such as the Explorer 1 text interactions,
are readily con?rmable, while others are not. As indicated by the foregoing, we also
conclude that there were instances in which LMPD policies were not scrupulously
followed and questionable judgments were made. Some of these problematic
decisions were potentially consequential while others were not. We also conclude,
however, that there was no orchestrated or coordinated effort within the command
staff to cover up misconduct in the Explorer program. Mistakes and errors in
judgment are qualitatively distinct from a criminal cover-up.

 

In other respects, we take issue with Flaherty?s decision-making. It must be
acknowledged, however, that he took several steps that are inconsistent with an
intentional cover-up. For example, upon learning of the Explorer 1 allegations, he
dispatched seasoned detectives to question her and to interact with her parents.
One who hoped to cover up these matters would have conducted the interview
himself. When PIU determined that there were no criminal violations involved, be
reported that to his superior who appropriately initiated a reasonably
thorough PSU investigation. One who hoped to cover up this incident would have
done his best to avoid a PSU investigation over which he would have no control.

There is also the question of motive. An orchestrated cover-up of sexual
misconduct in the Explorer program would expose the perpetrator to serious
criminal liability. Presumably, one would need a strong motive before taking such a
risk. We are unable to ?nd that sort of motive.

In reviewing the conduct of others in the LMPD chain of command, nothing
suggests an attempt or desire to cover up misconduct in the Explorer program.
Allegations of misconduct in the Explorer program go back many years, across more
than one administration. If we assume there was widespread misconduct in the
Explorer program, then one must assume that covering it up would require the on-
going commitment of a number of people over a long period of time. Under the
circumstances, it seems quite unlikely that senior commanders in the LMPD were
involved in this type of behavior.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

Fl?ll?l HICHIHI NEVADA OHIO IEIHIHSEE DC 

81



While it is possible to ?nd fault with certain aspects of the process that led to
Betts? resignation, it is undeniable that the LMPD command staff caused the PSU
investigation to occur and did nothing to impede its progress. Likewise, the 2016
investigation has been aggressively conducted. The LMIPD senior command surged
additional resources to support that investigation. The Mayor contacted the FBI
and requested that it investigate this matter. Our investigation includes interviews
with a signi?cant number of former Explorers who served at various points in the
program?s history. None of these individuals report any awareness of misconduct
within the Explorer program during their service. Likewise, none of the senior
commanders of the LMPD whom we have interviewed, whether currently serving or
retired, report any awareness of allegations of wrongdoing within the Explorer
program. Our review leads us to conclude that there was no on-going, orchestrated
effort to cover up misconduct in the LMPD Explorer program.

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING CONTINUED OPERATION OF
THE LMPD EXPLORER PROGRAM

The Boy Scouts of America sponsored Law Enforcement Explorer program is
designed to provide young people who are interested in a law enforcement career
with a head start on pursuing their professional goals. It is a program of long-
standing and, when functioning properly, bene?ts both participants and the
sponsoring agencies. The participants get real training and a glimpse of the
professional life of a law enforcement of?cer. The sponsoring agency develops a pool
of interested young adults from which to recruit.

On the other hand, the challenge of properly operating such a program is all
too obvious considering the circumstances giving rise to this investigation. The
sexual abuse of law enforcement Explorers is not limited to the allegations arising
from the LMPD program. Indeed, similar allegations have occurred across the
country and date back many years. These challenges must be weighed against the
perceived bene?ts of operating a Law Enforcement Explorer program in deciding
whether it should be continued. That decision is the beyond the scape of this
investigation.

In the event that the Metro Government and LMPD choose to continue its

af?liation with the Law Enforcement Explorer program, every effort must be made
to ensure compliance with Boy Scouts of America guidelines governing volunteers.

DICKINSONWRIGHT

ARIIONA OHIO TENNESSEE nus ?t 

82



 

In addition to these guidelines, we offer a number of proposals which we believe
would mitigate, not eliminate, the risk:

1. Advising the Explorer Post Should be an Assigned Duty, Not a
Volunteer Effort

We recommend that, should the LMPD Explorer program continue, the
advisers should be selected by the LMPD command staff and assigned that duty as
a regular component of their employment. Historically, the program has been
operated by LMPD of?cers who volunteer for that duty. While the overwhelming
majority of Explorer advisers undoubtedly volunteer for the right reasons and
render admirable service, allegations of sexual abuse across the country indicate
that there are those who participate in order to be close to young people for their
own nefarious purposes. While we take no'pesition on whether the LMPD Explorer
program should be continued, we believe that if it is important enough to sponsor, it
is important enough for advisers to be assigned those duties. This will promote a
more professional and less casual approach to the Explorer program. The advisers
will be more likely to view their role as a professional activity which will promote
appropriate boundaries with the Explorers.

2. Explorer Advisers Should be Rotated Out of the Program on a Regular
Basis

Those who are assigned duties as advisers to the Explorer Post should be
rotated out of the program with some frequency. We recommend 18-24 month tours
as sponsors. This policy will further promote an appropriate and professional
relationship between advisers and Explorers and deter an unhealthy familiarity
between those groups. Rotating sponsors also ensures that fresh eyes are
continually on the program. To the extent that unhealthy relationships are
developing, they will be more likely to be discovered, reported and ended at an early
stage.

3. The Chief Explorer Adviser Should be a Senior Of?cer
We recommend that the Chief Explorer Adviser be at least at the rank of

Major. This will provide the Explorer Post with mature leadership and a varied
professional background.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

(ALIMIHH MICHIGAN HINDI OHIO TENNESSEE WASHINGTON IDIMITD

83

REPORTI HNAL

4. The Chief Advilor to the Explorer Post Should be Changed Every 18-
24 Months

The last Chief Adviser to the LMPD Explorer Post served in that capacity as
a volunteer for more than two decades. While a willingness to volunteer is
laudable, it is not, in our view, desirable to have the same lead adviser for a long
period of time. Rotating the Chief Adviser will promote a more professional, less
casual relationship between the program, its advisers and its participants. The
Chief Advisor is less likely to develop a proprietary view of the program and fresh
eyes at the senior level will be focused on the program on a frequent basis.

6. Establish a Minimum Age to Serve as an Explorer Adviser

In many cases, LMPD advisers to the Explorer Post were not much older
than the participants. Again, we believe that the vast majority of Explorer advisers
rendered laudable service and should be commended for their willingness to
volunteer. Nevertheless, we think it is healthier if there is a signi?cant gap in the
age of Explorer sponsors and participants. To be sure, this is no guarantee of
apprOpriate behavior. There are examples across the country where Explorer
sponsors in their 50s have been accused of sexual abuse of the participants.
Nevertheless, we believe that a signi?cant gap in the age between sponsors and
participants promotes a more professional, less personal relationship. We
recommend the age of 30. This also ensures that no LMPD. of?cer hired from the
Explorer program will serve as an adviser with Explorer participants who were once
peers.

6. Recruit Parents of Explorers to Serve as Sponsors Along with LMPD
O?icers

Including parents as Explorer Post advisers would be bene?cial. Not only
would this provide outside observers to the Explorer activities, but it brings an
important point of view concerning the appropriate boundaries of the program.

7. Limit Participation in the Explorer Posts to Those Under the Age of 18
We recommend that Explorers age out of the program upon their 18th
birthday. As currently constructed, Explorers may participate until they reach the

age of 20. During the course of our investigation, we have reviewed a number of
allegations of inappropriate sexual contact between Explorers and sponsors. In

DICKINSON WRIGHT

Mill?! HONDA ?Hill!" HIIHIGMI OHIO IEHHESSEE TEXAS manure

84

 HNAL

many cases, the lines blur because the Explorers may be over the age of 18. While
fraternization between sponsors and Explorers may be inappropriate, it is not
illegal if the Explorer is age 18. This promotes unhealthy relationships. Moreover,
it necessarily entails that adult participants in the Explorer program are serving
with participants who are minors. We do not believe this is prudent. Limiting all
EXplorers to those under age 18 draws a bright line, making it clear that social
relationships with participants are completely inappropriate. This cut'off
eliminates ambiguous circumstances.

 

8. End The Practice of ?Ride-Alongs?

While ?ride-alongs" are undoubtedly one of the most popular Explorer
activities, we recommend that they be eliminated. Ride-alongs generally entail an
Explorer advisor being alone in a patrol car with an Explorer, often a minor, often
at night. This not only increases the dif?culty in detecting inappropriate conduct, it
increases the possibility of false accusations. Moreover, Explorers may be exposed
to unduly dangerous circumstances. Ride-alongs should be eliminated.28

In the event that LMPD chooses to continue its sponsorship of an Explorer
post, we believe that these recommendations will assist it in the apprOpriate
administration of the program.

RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING OPERATION OF THE SPECIAL
INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION

The Special Investigations Division is composed of the PIU and PSU. The
units ?police the police.? PIU investigates allegations of police misconduct which
could result in felony prosecution. PSU investigates allegations of misconduct
which could result in adverse personnel actions.

These functions, often referred to as ?internal affairs?, are among the most
sensitive of the LMPD. It is imperative that PIU and PSU investigations not only
be fair, objective and thorough. but that they be seen as such by the public. There is
often skepticism concerning the ability of a police department to police itself.
Community trust in a police department is vital and must not be squandered

because the public snapects that it cannot police itself.

 

1? The LMPD's ride-along policy complies with the National Law Enforcement Exploring Program Guidelines.
Nonetheless, we recommend discontinuing the practice.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

HUMIHIA Fl?llM Hl?ll?l OHIO TENNESSEE DC WHITE

85



A. Con?icts of Interest

In some respects, there is an inherent and irreconcilable con?ict of interest in
police agency investigations of its own members. Nevertheless, the ef?cient
operation of a police force demands that it support a robust internal affairs function.
The unique fact pattern presented by this matter illuminates, in our view, the need
for LMPD to draft and implement a comprehensive con?ict of interest policy for PIU
and PSU. By de?nition, PIU and PSU personnel are investigating their colleagues.
Invariably, questions will arise concerning the objectivity of such an investigation in
a high pro?le matter such as the one now under consideration. A fully functioning
con?ict of interest policy can both avoid real con?icts, and eliminate the appearance
of con?icts of interest.

LMPD Standard Operating Procedure 5.1.46 governs recusals and
applies to all of?cers. This SOP was not adopted until August 2017. The SOP sets
forth a general principle regarding recusals for con?icts of interest, but does not
establish a suf?cient process to insure compliance. The Special Investigation
Division, given its unique mission, should adopt its own rigorous con?icts of interest
policy.

The facts of the LMPDIExplorer matter are illustrative. By coincidence,
Flaherty was the of?cer in charge of the PIU when the 2013 allegations against
Betts stemming from his interactions with EXplorer 1 commenced. Once it was
determined that Betts sent inappropriate text messages to Explorer 1, the
allegations were forwarded to Flaherty as head of PIU. Identifying the contours of
a con?ict of interest is often dif?cult, but here, Flaherty appeared to be con?icted.
He had been the adviser to the EXplorer program for two decades. He had known
Betta for many years, stemming from Betts? participation in the Explorer program.
He advocated hiring Betta as an LMPD police of?cer. Betta became an Explorer
advisor and worked with Flaherty in that capacity.

By the time the 2013 allegations were made, Flaherty had extensive contacts
with both Bette and the Explorer program. Presumably, he also knew the alleged
victim through her participation in the program. We do not suggest'that the
circumstances created a legal impediment to Flaherty?s involvement. Indeed, it
does not appear that his involvement in the investigation, limited as it was, violated
any con?ict of interest rules because, to our knowledge, there was little in the way
of a written con?ict of interest policy for the Special Investigations Division. We

DICKINSONWRIGHT

(IUWIIKIA Hall? NEVADA om It IOIOHTD

86

REPORTIFJNAI

 

believe, however, that the circumstances present the strong appearance and the
likelihood of an actual con?ict of interest which should have precluded Flaherty
from having any participation in the investigation whatsoever. To his credit.
Flaherty recognized the potential con?ict, but participated in the initial stage of
what proved to be an abbreviated investigation. The better course would have been
to immediately pass this matter on to his superior to be handled by a designated
of?cer not laboring under a potential con?ict.

Walling off Flaherty from any contact with the investigation would not only
have bene?tted LMPD, it would have served Flaherty as well. Although his actions
regarding the investigation were quite limited, they may be viewed with skepticism
because of his connection to the Explorer program and Bette.

The circumstances presented by this matter are unique. They are capable of
repetition, however, as every PSU and PIU investigation requires a LMPD of?cer to
investigate a colleague. We are con?dent that the of?cers of the Special
Investigative Division generally use good judgment in order to identify con?icts of
interest. We are con?dent that these of?cers generally remove themselves from an
investigation in which they perceive themselves as con?icted. Indeed, the PSU
Operations Manual states that the regular assignment by rotation process should
be interrupted to avoid tasking an o?cer with an investigation if there is a con?ict
of interest. The Operations Manual provides no guidance, however, in de?ning,
identi?ying, or documenting a disqualifying con?ict of interest. Con?icts of interest
are often matters of degree, dif?cult to identiiy and subject to di?ering
interpretations.

Based on the foregoing, we recommend that LMPD adopt a rigorous con?icts
of interest policy for the Special Investigations Division. At a minimum, the policy
should ask PIU and PSU of?cers to describe, in writing, their past association,
whether professional or social, with the subject of an investigation for which they
may be assigned. Likewise, any association with the complainant or alleged victim
should be disclosed. Full disclosure is the sine qua non of appropriately dealing with
con?icts of interest questions. The supervisor of PIU or PSU. as the case may he,
should then conclude if there is an actual or apparent con?ict before making ?nal
staf?ng decisions for that investigation. All stages of the process should be
documented.

In similar fashion, the PIU and PSU leaders should document their
associations with the target and others involved in the investigation. Ultimately, a

DICKINSON WRIGHT

neurons CALIFORNIA TEINEHEE TEXAS 

87

REPORTIFIMAL

 

decision by a disinterested party as to whether a perceived con?ict is disqualifying
protects the process and the detective. No system is perfect, but the
implementation of clearly understood con?ict of interest rules will be bene?cial.

Consideration should be given as to whether those serving in the leadership
of the FOP bargaining unit should be eligible to serve in PSU or PIU. FOP leaders
have a primary role in protecting the rights of of?cers, including those accused of
misconduct. This role creates an inherent con?ict with functioning as a Special
Investigations Division of?cer. In the event that LMPD believes this suggestion has
merit, the FOP should be consulted before implementation, as it may be an issue for
collective bargaining.

Internal affairs investigations are sensitive. The integrity of the
investigations must be beyond question. Moreover, the investigators themselves
should be protected from unwarranted criticism. A well*designed con?icts of
interest policy advances both goals.

B. Legal Review of PSU Determinations

A number of questions are raised by the 2013 PSU investigation involving
Betts. The overarching question is whether different decisions should have been
made that would have prevented what came after. The answer is likely
unknowable.

The decision to cabin the Betts? investigation as an administrative, as
opposed to criminal matter, is worthy of consideration, however, and potentially
consequential. The PIU of?cers assigned to interview Explorer 1 on the evening
that the Betts? text messages were discovered quickly determined that no criminal
laws were implicated. They apparently did so after consulting with their colleagues
in the sex crimes unit. We cannot take issue with that determination, based on the
limited information available to them at the time. Believing that no criminal laws
were implicated, the matter was transmitted to PSU for an administrative
investigation, an appropriate action given the premise.

Sgt. Mann then led an investigation directed toward Betts? interactions with
Explorer 1. The matter was presented to him as an administrative, not a criminal
matter and he followed that course. To be sure, PSU investigators can re-engage
PIU upon discovery of evidence of criminal conduct and that frequently occurs.
Here, it did not. Sgt. Mann?s investigation uncovered evidence which could have

DICKINSONWRIGHT

(Allf?l?lh NEVADA OHIO IEHHESSEE THIS HISHINGIOI DC 

88



triggered a broader criminal review. The suspected violations may have been
misdemeanors and may have been barred by the statute of limitations but could
have constituted criminal conduct nonetheless. The 2013 PSU matter proceeded as
an administrative investigation and ultimately resulted in Betts leaving LMPD. It
did not produce a broader review to determine if criminal prosecution was
warranted.

We recommend that a policy be implemented requiring a review by attorneys,
presumably prosecutors with the Jefferson County Attorney?s Of?ce, in PSU
matters involving serious allegations of misconduct. This might be measured by the
penalty sought to be immsed, such as termination.

Such a review may not have led to a different outcome in the Explorer
matter. On the other hand, it is possible that an investigation of Betts? interactions
with Explorer 2 could have led to a broader review of the Explorer program in
general.

It is important to note that Sgt. Mann?s investigation, given its purpose,
appears to be thorough and objective. We are aware of no evidence that he made
any attempt to suppress any proof of wrongdoing or reach a preordained result.
From the information available to the team, we conclude that Sgt. Mann genuinely
sought the truth of the allegations he was asked to investigate. We behave,
however, that the investigation would have bene?ttsd ??om a legal review.

0. Consider Term Limiting Assignments to the Special Investigations Division

The United States Department of Justice, Of?ce of Community Oriented
Policing Services publication entitled ?Standards and Guidelines for Internal
Affairs: Recommendations from a Community of Practice? is a useful resource. The
publication is attached as Exhibit 8. The authors suggest that police agencies
consider term limiting assignments to Internal A?'airs units to a maximum of ?ve
years. These are dif?cult assignments and can be wearing. By the same token, the
assignments can be an important tour of duty in an of?cer?s professional
development. Special Investigations detectives have a unique opportunity to view
complex circumstances from a wider agency perspective. This experience is a useful
building block for future managerial personnel. LMPD may bene?t from exposing a
larger number of its personnel to the unique experiences encountered by Special
Investigations detectives.

DICKINSON WRIGHT

Fl?llDA ?Hill?? IEIHESSIE TEXAS WASHIHEIMI IIC 

89

 FINAL

The culture and needs of every police agency are different. There may be
unique circumstances that would argue against term limiting Special Investigations
personnel in LMPD. We believe, however, that this practice should be considered
by the senior leadership of 

IX. CONCLUSION

The misconduct in the LMPD Explorer program is disturbing and unacceptable.
Although the alleged perpetrators were relatively few in number, they were well-
placed to do a great deal of harm. These events will continue to be reviewed in our
courts and by a justly concerned public. More will be learned and additional
conclusions drawn. steps will be taken to insure that these events
cannot be repeated.

Our review leads us to conclude that mistakes were made and policy was not
rigidly followed. We also reviewed the work of many LMPD of?cers striving
mightily to do the right thing in the right way. While we do not believe that there
was, as some have asserted, a massive cover up of misconduct in the senior ranks of
the LMPD, there are lessons to be learned from this episode. We hope that our work
will contribute to the learning.

01"?
erry Harvey



Andrev? L. 

straw
Clay on

DICKINSONWRIGHT

UllF?MllA FLORIIA Milli IEHHESSES THIS WASHIHGIOII DC 

90
LEXINGTON 74462-1 

EXHIBIT 1

300 WEST VINE I100

LEXINGTON. KY 405074511

TELEPHONE: (859) 399-8100
FACSIMILE: (844} 670-5009
dleklnlauwrinhuom

B. Hanvsv
KHIfVBdeIckI?l?nershLoom
(359) 899.8739

January 12, 2013

Mr. David Yates

600 West Main Street
Suite 500

Louisville, KY 40202

Re: LMPD/Explorers Program
Dear Mr. Yates:

I am an attorney with Dickinson Wright PLLC in the Lexington office. As I believe you
know, I was retained by the Louisville Metro Government to conduct a review of its response to
allegations of abuse in the LMPD/Explorers Program.

We want to access all of the relevant information to inform our conclusions. Obviously,
you are in a position to assist us in this inquiry. We would very much appreciate the opportunity
to interview you in order to bene?t from you: insights into this important matter.

We hope that you will be amenable to a discussion of the allegations concerning this
matter as well as the response of the Louisville Metro Government. You may contact me by

convenient to you.

Best regards.
Very truly yours,
Kerry B. Harvey ava/
KBH:sac

LEXINGTON 74462-1 

 

 

ARIZONA FLORIDA NEVADA
WASHINGTON 

EXHIBIT 2

300 Wesr VINE Smear. SUITE [100
LEXINGTON. KY WSW-I621
DICKINSON (35913994100
FACSIMILE: (844) 670-?009
com

Kan? B. HARVEY

(359) ass-B739

February 15, 2018

Via U.S. Mail and Email: Tad?gthomaslawof?ccsnom

Tad Thomas

9418 Norton Commons Boulevard
Suite 200

Louisville, KY 40059

Re: LMPD/Explorers Investigation
Dear Mr. Thomas:

As I believe you know, I have been engaged to conduct an inquiry into the Louisville
Metro Police Department and its connection with the EXplorers Program. I know that you
represent a number of clients who have initiated litigation arising from allegations of misconduct
within the LMPD/Explorers Program.

The nature of our inquiry concerns the reaponse of the Louisville Metro Government to
allegations of misconduct within the program. The allegations in the complaints you have ?led
on behalf of your clients are of obvious relevance to our inquiry. We wish to cast as wide a net
as possible in order to uncover the facts necessary for a full understanding of this matter. We

Please let me know if you are available for such a meeting.

 

 

 

Regards.
Very truly yours,
Kerry B. Harvey
KBH:sac
LEXINGTON 74462-1 62373v1
ARIZONA KENTUCKY NanlJA

lliNNl-?Sl-l' DU

9418 NORTON COMMONS BLVD
SUITE 200

LOUISVILLE KY 40059

PHONE. 877855700!
THomasLAWOFI-?Icsscom

 

THOMAS LAW OFFICES

WHERE CLIENTS COME FIRST

February 19, 2018

VIA EMAIL


Hon. Kerry B. Harvey
Dickinson Wright, PLLC

300 West Vine Street, Suite 1700
Lexington, KY 405 07-1621

RE: Litigation
Dear Mr. Harvey:

Thank you for your letter dated February 15, 2018. As I?m sure you understand, cooperation is a
two-way street. Unfortunately, in the course of conducting my own investigation as part of this
litigation, agencies of the City of Louisville and its counsel have re?ised to cooperate and produce
relevant information that should be open to the public. Our open records requests have either been
only partially answered or have gone unanswered in their entirety. Baseless claims of privilege or
exaggerated claims of needing months to gather documents have been made to prevent our efforts
to obtain clearly relevant and public information. In addition, LMPD and prosecutors handling
the criminal matters have refused to produce information that we requested as part of our
investigation.

Thus, while my clients are eager for the truth to be heard, to see those responsible held accountable,
and to see changes to be made to protect other youth, it is apparent the City prefers to hold the
truth close to the vest and has no interest in sharing information with the public or with my clients.
Thus, because of what appears to be a one-sided request on the part of the City, we cannot agree
to participate in your investigation.

However, if you intend on sharing your ?le with me as part of an exchange of information so that
my clients are able to obtain additional facts which reveal this cover-up, I?d be happy to discuss
?thher.

Sincerely,

Tad Thomas

 

EXHIBIT 3

 

YOUTH PROTECTION TRAINING
FOR VOLUNTEER LEADERS AND PARENTS

 

Facilitator?s Guide

The Boy Scouts of America deeply appreciates your leadership in facilitating this session of
"Youth Protection Training for Volunteer Leaders and Parents.? This training is an important
part of helping to protect our members from child abuse. This Facilitator's Guide provides
staphy-step instructions to help you prepare for and present this training session. We
encourage you to review these materials and become thoroughly familiar with them. Most
of the hainlng is deivered through the information on the DVD. In addition to the information
from the video, you must learn the Speci?c roporh'ng procedures used in your BSA local
council and add them to the handout materials for the participants in your training sessions.

1

Prepared. For Lifei"

 

. my

 

 

 

aha-.5? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Youth Protection Policies for Culliculum Based Programs

Learning for Life programs in schools and organizations must follow both Learning for Life and
organizational prevention policies. The following policies have been adopted to guard against
abuse and to give protection to the adult leaders.

Leadership Requirements for Trips and Outings

Two-deep leadership: adult leaders, at least 21 years of age, are required on all trips and outings.
If male and female youth are present, 21 year old leaders of both sexes are required on overnight trips.
There should be no one-on-one contact with youth.

Separate (mais/f?male) adult and youth bathrooms and showers are required.

Creating Barriers

Pmper lrainlng, preparation, equipment and safety procedures on LFL outings are required.
No sea-at organizations, parents are welcome.

Proper protective clothing is required according to activities.

Discipline should be constructive and corporal punishment is never permitted.

Hazing is not allowed.

Youth leadership should be monitored and guidance given at all times by adults.

School and Classroom Leaders

- All Learning for Life meetings are conducted on campus. Any off campus Learning for Life trips must

Fraternization Policy

- Because high school programs are designed for young adults, there are often little differences in the ages
of the adult leaders and lhe participanis. It has been found that maintaining a close social relationship,
such as doling, behrreen adult leaders and youth participants is disruptive and, therefore, is not
permitted.

.-.-.. him-Ll. 

-


-an?emru-u-w-u -. I: v-N?r

 

. - use??rs.- .u I titans-(41 -

?=13 -

- ?2th 3.4-: .

 

 

 

Step-by?Step Instructions

1. Make arrangements for a meeting place. and schedule the training.

2. Promote the training in your council newsletter, in announcements at roundtables, or
by personal contact. There is a sample ?ier that can be duplicated and passed out at
roundtables or other Scouting gatherings.

3. Obtain the following training materials from your council or district:
"Youth Protection Training for Volunteer Leaders and Parents" DVD {Be sure to obtain the
current version.)

Facilitator?s Guide, 

The Youth Protection Quiz, which can be downloaded and printed from

or duplicated from this handout

Copies of the promotional ?ier

Your council's child abuse reporting procedures and contact information

4. Review the materials carefully and view the video.

5. Duplicate "the handout materials, one set for each participant.

6. Review the local council's child abuse reporting procedures and become very familiar with
them. The reporting procedures should be available through your council website in the Youth

Protection Online Training segment of the site.
7. Conduct the training session. .
8. Follow your council?s procedures for recording attendance and reporting training participalion.

Introduction to Training

Welcome to this session of "Youth Protection Training for Volunteer Leaders and Parents.? This
training is an important component of the Boy Scouts of America's strategy to protect youth from

youth protection policies to be used by all Scouting members and units. These policies protect
the youth in the program. as well as our adult volunteers. During the video presentation, there will
be two discussion periods that require participants to identify and apply the proper policies.

Training Session

?mum-s.

u. can?

- v.1! ?(P-luau. .,

 

 

Help protect our youth members by rigorous use and enforcement of the Youth Protection?Policies?.
Inform our leaders of the BSA's Youth Protection Policies.

Maximize the protection of children by promoting prompt reporting of suspected abuse and violations
of Youth Protection Policies.

Familiarize key leaders with BSA's Youth Protection resources and their intended use in unit programs.

While viewing the video, there will be two scenarios fordiscussion. After the video, we will discuss the
child abuse reporting procedures. Let?s watch the video. (Start the video, "Youth Protection Training
for Volunteer Leaders and Parents. 

First Scenario

Pause the program when prompted on screen to do so. Restart the video when the discussion of the
?rst scenario ?nishes.

This scenario depicts an adult leader who appears to be asking a youth to accompany him alone into"
the woods. Anotherladult leader points out that one-onone situations are not allowed. _The same adult
is seen a few minutes later attempting the same thing with another youth.

Discussion Points
Why are oneon-one situations not allowed in the Scouting program?

Sexual abuse is much more likely to occur when the child is isolated with an offender. Additionally,
even if no abuse takes place in such a setting, it increases the acceptance and "comfort? of the youth
in being alone with an adult, which could be an attempt by the adult to ?groom" the youth: The no
one-oncne policy serves to protect our youth and adult members.

What should be done when a volunteer violates the policies after having them explained?

Even if no abuse occurs, leaders and other volunteers in Scouting must obey the rules. When they
demonstrate an unwillingness to follow the rules, they must be expelled from the activity and reported to
the person in charge of the activity and local Scout executive as soon as possible. The Scout executive
will determine any follow-up action?up to and including revocation of membership in the BSA.

Is the strict enforcement of the Youth Protection Policies really necessary?

Yes, in order for youth protection to be meaningful, we must eliminate opportunities for abuse to be
perpetrated. The Youth Protection Policies help limit the opportunities for abuse to occur.

 



y?u.

urn-mu: nan-A." ?dun?1?? 



 

 

Second Scenario
Pause the program when prompted on screen to do so. Restart the video when the discussion of
the second scenario ?nishes. 

in this scenario. we see a young man with a cell phone approaching a latrine, A short time later,
the same young man is seen running out of the latrine looking at the view screen on his phone.

What happened?

Clearly the young man used the camera in his cell phone to invade the privacy of others in the
latrine. This is a violation of the Youth Protection Policy regarding the use of digital devices in
taking photos or videos where privacy is expected, and immediate intervention is called for.

What should the intervention be?

The ?rst step is to con?scate the cell phone. Because of the ease of posting pictures on the
Internet, con?scation should take place immediately: however, the pictures should not be deleted
from the digital device.- Concurrently, the adult leader must attempt to ?nd out it the pictures
have already been posted?if so, they should be deleted from the Internet. Deletion is no
guarantee that all online copies will be destroyed.

Such an occurrence should be a learning opportunity for the young offender. The unit should
also engage the parents or the youths involved. Most times that young people engage in this
kind of behavior. they mean it as a harmless prank. Helping them appreciate the pain and
embarrassment that such pictures can cause to the subjects of the pictures is part of the
lesson to be taught.

Some yOUng people act out of maliciousness or other motivations. The National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children estimates that young people using cell phones, webcams, or
other digital imaging devices produce nearly ten percent of the child pornography on the lnternet.

What responses can the unit make to this kind of situation?

Depending upon the circumstances, the unit leadership has a range of responses available.
from reprimanding the youth all the way to terminating his membership in the unit. This
situation should be reported immediately to the person in charge of the activity and the Scout
executive as soon as possible.

Irv-l. - var-av- -..- IW 

-.. mh-asrr-us- -rumta. Av?

I ?at?van .r-J 12:. - an. I cw:

.sn.



.4 --

 

 

 

Reporting Procedures .
After viewing the video portion ?of the training, there should be a discussion of the reporting
procedures. The following points should be covered during this portion of the training:

Any suspicion or belief that any child is or has been physically, emotionally or sexually abused,
exploited or exposed to any form of violence, threat, pornography or obscene material should be
reported to local authorities and to the Scouting executive.

The reporting procedures are available through your council website in the Youth Protection
Online Training segment of the site and/or from your council of?ce.-

The procedures for reporting child abuse during times the service center is closed particularly if-
they are not the same as during regular business hours.

executive designates.)

Regardless of whether the child is in the Scouting program, the report should be made to the
appropriate authorities.

Violations of youth protection policies must be reported to the council Scout Executive or to the
professional staff member designated to receive these reports. This report must be made even if
the violations may not constitute abuse.

Concluding the Training

When the video portion of the training has been completed, administer the printed Youth
Protection quiz to participants. Review the correct answers with the group using the answer
found at the back of this Facilitator?s Guide. Address any questions from the participants.
Record the names and information of all who attend and participate. Participants who
successfully complete the session are certified as Youth Protection?trained.

 

Ia. 

Youth Protection Training Quiz

Please select the best answers to the following questions. Note that some questions may
have more than one correct answer, but one particular answer in those cases is better than
[i the other correct answers.



What happens to those who are reported as having violated a BSA Youth Protection policy?
Local Scout executive takes appropriate action

No action unless parent complains

Reviewed by the Scoutrnaster

A or B, depending on the violation

 



Twodeep leadership requires both adults to be 21 years of age or older.
. True
B. False

were



Which of the following is true about twodeep leadership?

One adult must be a registered leader

At least one registered leader and another adult are required on all Scouting trips
and outings.

C. One of the leaders must he a parent of a participant

D. A and 



4. If parents give permission, the unit may conduct outings without adhering to the two-deep
leadership policy.

A. True

B. False

5. It is okay for an adult leader to take a Scout on a walk alone while at camp?
A. True
B. False

6. Merit badge counselors are exempt from the no one-on-one policy since they have
undergone criminal background checks.

A. True

B. False

 

7 Under what circumstances may the respect of privacy policy be suspended?
A. When youth are homesick

B. If youth ask speci?cally to speak to you alone

C. If the health or safety of a youth is compromised

D. All of the above

Itlur??u- 173?17 
 

1 Jill 

$1.25. his??! .ir 1  a



.

  

What do if YOU observe a youth taking inappropriate photos that economists?

another's privacy?

Stop the behavior immediately.

Report the incident to the person in charge of the activity and the local Scout executive
as soon as possible.

Con?scate the device and give it to the person in charge of the activity.

All of the above.

Scouts are permitted to sleep In the Scoutmaster's tent when camping, as long as more
than one Scout sleeps in that tent

True

False

. Skinny-dipping is a violation of the Appropriate Attire policy.

True
False

. The Boy Scouts of America does not allow any secret organizations as part of

its program.
True
False

. All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents and leaders.

True
False

. Corporal punishment' Is permitted' In the Scouting program under extreme circumstances.

True
False

. What BSA Youth Protection policies create barriers against child molesters being able to

groom their victims?

No one-on-one contact
Two-deep leadership
Criminal background checks

. AandB



.. - 

v- 

?It's tn- .9-





 

 

 



er??v?r,

 

 

 

:2me'- ?15"



aw .-.. 3.x" - -

 

15. Light?hazing in Scouting is permitted witbtuil adultleadee supervision.

A. .. ?Trii?

B. False

16. Which of the following may be signs a Scout has been bullied?
A. Cuts and bruises

B. Nervousness around another particular Scout

C. Frequent absences

D. All of the above

17. Adult leaders in Scouting and parents have an obligation to recognize and
address bullying issues in Scouting.

A. True

B. False

18. What can you do as an adult leader or parent to create an anti-bullying culture?
A. Stop any bullying behavior immediately

B. Tell the bully his actions are unacceptable and must stop

C. Always model kind behavior 

D. All of the above

19. Adult leaders and parents should address ?cyber bullying" with the same urgency
as physical bullying.
A. True

B. False

20. Youth leaders should administer constructive discipline?adhering to Scouting
principles?when adult leaders are not present.

A. True

B. False

21. What should concern you about this picture? 

A. Violates two-deep leadership 5
B. Violates no one?on-one contact FA
C. Might indicate grooming 
D. All of the above

 

no. -

kl.?

.- - ear}?

zu- .e-zn-muu . 



.3. r- o-

u?unq. 



 

 

 

 

 

.
22. The memhei?hi?gf?nv adult or youth in the BSA may be revoked forviolatlhg
which of the following membership responsibilities?

No physical violence, hazing. bullying or theft

No verbal insults

No drugs or alcohol

Any of the above



23. The chartered organization must approve the registration of every adult leader in
all units chartered by the organization. 

A. True

B. False

24. If you witness a violation of a Youth Protection policy. what should you do?

A. Report the violation to the person on site in charge of the activity and to the local
Scout executive immediately.

B. Report the violation to the local police.

C. Wait 24 hours and see if the situation changes.

D. A and 

25. You must accept a youth's report of abuse at face value.
A. True
B. False

26. What should you do when you either suspect abuse or there is an indication
of abuse?

A. Report your information to appropriate local authorities.

5. Report your information to the person in charge of the activity and to the local
Scout executive immediately.

C. Sleep on the information for a couple of nights.

D. A and 

-u .-..- anew-rd

 

 

 

Youth Protectionlrainins .QuiaAnswer. Key.
Correct answers in bold. 

1. What happens to those who are reported as having violated a BSA Youth
Protection policy?

Local Scout executive takes appropriate action

No action unless parent complains

Reviewed by the Scoutmaster

A or B, depending on the violation







Two-deep leadership requires both adults to be 21 years of age or older.
A. True 
B. False

3. Which of the following is true about two~deep leadership?

A. One adult must be a registered leader

B. At least One registered leader and another adult are required on all Scouting trips
and outings 

C. One of the leaders must be a parent of a participant

D. A and 

4. If parents give permission, the unit may conduct outings without adhering to the
two-deep leadership policy.

A. True 

B. False

5. it is okay for an adult leader to take a Scout on a walk alone while at camp?
A. True
B. False

6. Merit badge counselors are exempt from the no ocean-one policy since they have
undergone criminal background checks.

A. True

B. False

Under what circumstances may the respect of privacy policy be suspended?
- When youth are homesick

7

A.

B. if youth ask speci?cally to speak to you alone

C. If the health or safety of a youth is compromised
D. All of the above

10

me'nr-n -- -



wl-I?



awn?an.- as.- raw ,?v-wurmsw r-r-J-m?mr-cv- --

 

 

8. What should you do if you observe a youth taking inappropriate photos that coulEl?Violat?

one?

I

another?s privacy? 

Stop the behavior immediately.

Report the incident to the person in charge of the activity and the local Scout executive as
soon as possible.

Con?scate the device and give it to the person in charge of the activity.

All of the above.

Scouts are permitted to sleep in the Scoutmaster?s tent when camping, as long as more
than one Scout sleeps in that tent.

True

False

. Skinny-dipping is a violation of the Appropriate Attire policy,

True
False

. The Boy Scouts of America does not allow any secret organizations as part of its program.

True
False

. All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents and leaders.

True
False

. Corporal punishment is'permitted in the Scouting program under extreme circumstances.

True
False

. What BSA Youth Protection policies create barriers against child molesters being able to

groom their victims?

No one-onone contact
Two-deep leadership
Criminal background checks

D. A and 

11

harm-r..-) ?Puma?a: m' 1

thy 2.4.5.: 

 

. Light hazingin Scouting is permitted withiull adult-leader supervision.

A. True

B. False

15. Which of the following may be signs a Scout has been bullied?

A. Cuts and bruises

B. Nervousness around another particular Scout

C. Frequent absences

D. All of the above

17. Adult leaders in Scouting and parents have an obligation to recognize and
address bullying issues in Scouting.

A. True

B. False

18 What can you do as an adult leader or parent to create an anti-bullying culture?

A. Stop any bullying behavior immediately .

B. Tell the bully his actions are unacceptable and must stop

C. Always model kind behavior

D. All of the above

19 Adult leaders and parents should address ?cyber bullying" with the same urgency
as physical bullying.

A. True

B. False

20. Youth leaders should administer constructive discipline?adhering to Scouting
principles??when adult leaders are not present.

A. True -

B. False

21. What should concern you about this picture?

A. Wolates twodeep leadership

B. Violates no one-on-one contact

0. Might indicate grooming

D.

All of the above

12

 

-.. usual?n U?HcH-?h-l?IK-n??H?q?ym?

Gum-J?Jh um? 

Ann?sw- h- 

arc-Mu ~?.rgs .H. ?nu-stun; .uxpp?i

 

 

 

. The membership of any adult or youth in the BSA maybe revoked for violating

which of the following membership responsibilities?
No physical violence, hazing, bullying or theft

No verbal insults

No drugs or alcohol

Any of the above

. The chartered organization must approve me registration of every adult leader in

all units chartered by the organization.
TI'lle
False

. If you witness a violation of a Youth Protection policy, what should you do?

Report the violation to the person on site In charge of the activity and to
the'looal Scout exocutlve immediately.

Report the violation to the local police.

Wait 24 hours and see if the situation changes.

A and 

. You must accept a youth's report of abuse at face value.

True
False

. What should you do when you either suspect abuse or there is an indication

of abuse?

Report your information to appropriate local authorities .
Report your information to the person in charge of the activity and to the local
Scout executive immediately

Sleep on the information for a couple of nights

A and 

13

 

 

 

- 1-1- ;hann; 

 



Youth Protection begins with you

YOUTH PROTECTION TRAINING

For Volunteer Leaders and Parents

Where:

When:

 

Who: All registered leaders and interested parents

 

. .3 .7312}

.

I Af?rgtuuh Jipl

 

L.

. L. ?1.2 

1:951 Isl Inillivu 

 

a r53.)

.II. . 

Prepared. For Lif-

I'll
I

. Eur:

 

 

Hui?unlit. II lift?-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

       

 

 

 

on Io Youth Protection

. . . . 51;??er
BOY SCOUTS OF 
Espaitol
Training ruluit 'r'ouil'l Protection ?i'raming Under-en .?routh
mrunc Youth Protection
Youth Protection
Youth Protection . oJ. 
Eil?ii?i'sraielaj?
You do not have to be a
Training Updates registered member or have a
member ID to take Youth
Protection training.
Youth
To take Youth Protection training
on to re and create
an account.
From the portal,
?The Boy Scottie of America places the greatest importance on we" E-Leaming and lake the
creating the meet some envirorunent possible for our youth Protection ?Ming?

members. To maintain such an environment. the BSA developed
numerous procedural and leadership selection policies and
provides parents and leaders with resources for the Cub Scout.
Boy Scout. and Venturing programs.

Leadership Selection

The Boy Scouts of America takes great pride in the quailtyoi our
adult leadership. Being a leader in the BSA is a privilege. not a
right. The quality of the program and the safety of our youth
members all for high-quality adult leaders. We work closelywith
our clertered organizations to help recruit the best possible
leaders for their units

The adult application requests background information that
shouid be checked by the unit committee or the chartered
organization before accepting an applicant for writ leadership.
While no current screening teehnlques artist that can Identity every
potential child molester. we can reduce the risk ofaccepting a
child molester by teeming all we can about an applicant for a
leadership position?his or her experience with children, why he
or she wants to be 3 Scout leader, and what discipline techniques
(3. he or she would use.

Required Training

Upon completion.'you may prints
certi?cate of completion to submit -
with a volunteer application or
submit the completion certificate to
tire at the 
local council.

When your volunteer application is
approved. you will receive a BSA
membership card Mich includes
yourmemberln number: Alter you
receive your membership card, log
MyScoudhg. click on My
Pro?le and update the system by
inputting your member ID number:
This link your Youth Protection
training records, and any other
training. in MyScouting to your
BSA membership.

I Youth Protection training is required for all BSA registered volunteers.



1M

?u star?s-Aa?

. . In?-



.A are. 

bl warn- 



fr?

 

 

Youth Protection

I Youth Protoction training must be taken every two years. If a volunteer's Youth Protection
training record is not current at the timeof recharter. the volunteer-will not be raregtersmd.

Youth Protection Reporting Procedures for Volunteers
?l'here are two types of Youth Protection?related reporiing procedures all volunteers mustfoiiow:

I When you witness or suspect any child has been abused or neglected?See "Mandatory Report of
Child Abuse" below.

. Whenyouwitness a violation ofthe BSA's ?ibuih Protection policies?See ?Reporting Violations of
BSA Youth Protection Policies" below.

Mandatory Report of Child Abuse

All persons involved in Scouting shall report to local authorities any good-faith suspicion or belief that any
cttid is or has been physically or semally abused. physically or emotionally neglected. exoosed to arnrforrn
of violence or threat. exposed to any form ofsemal exploitation. including the possession. mamfacture. or
distribution ofctild pomegraphy. onllne solicitation, enticement. or showing of obscene material. You may
not abdicate this reporting responsibility to any other person.

Steps to Reporting Child Abuse
1. Ensure the child is in a safe environment.
2. in cases clot-lid abuse or medical emergencies. call 911 immediately. it addition. If the suspected
abuse is in the Smut?s home orfamiiy. you are requlmd to contractthe local child abuse bottles.
3. Notifythe Scout executive or hisll'rer designee.

Reporting Violations of BSA Youth Protection

Policies Find your/coal Scout executive.
if you drink any of the Youth Protection policies have been -

violated. including those described witl'rln Scouting's Renters to Abuse. you must notiiyyour local council
Scout or designee so appropriate action can be taken for the safety of our Scouts.

Scouting's Barriers to Abuse

Scouting's Barriers to Abuse

111s BSA has adopted the policies for the safetyand well-being of its members. While these
policies are primarily for the protection youth members. they also serve to protect adult leaders. Refer to
the Guide to Safe Scouting. contact your local council. or enroll formers
infonnation.

I Minimum bro-deep leadership on all outings required. Two registered adult leaders. or one

I Separate accommodations for adults and Scouts? required. When camping. no youlr is
permitted to sleep in the tent of an adult other than his or her own parent or guardian. Courrclis are
stronglyancouraged to have separate shower and latrina facilities for females. When separate
facilities are not available. separate male and female shower times should be scheduled and
posted. Ukewiss. youth and adults must shower at di?erent limes.

- inappropriate use of cameras. imaging. or digital devices prohibited. While most campers and
leaders use cameras and other imaging devices resporsibly. it has become very easy to invade the
privacy of individuals. it Is inappropriate to use anydedce capable of recording or transmitting visual
images in Show houses. restrooms. or other areas where privacyis expected by participants.

macromo'gmalning?ord?otecumerm 2n

3.. . umww. an. "an - -

v.7 

 

 

 



Youth Frotec?m

his secret organizations. The Boy Scouts ofAmerlca does not recognize any secret organizations
as part of its program. All program-era open to observation by parentsand
team?s. 

I No hazing. Physical hazing and initiations are prohibited and may notbe included as part of any
Scouting activity. 

I No bullying. Verbal. physical. and cyber bullying are prohibited in Scouting.

I Youth leadership monitored by adult leaders.Aduit leaders must monitor and guide the
leadership techniques used by youth leaders and ensure that BSA policies are followed.

I Discipline must be constructive. Discipline used in Scouting should be constructive and reflect
Scouting's values. Corporal punishment is never permitted.

I Appropriate attire for all activities. Proper clothing for activities is required. For example. skinny-
or revealing bathing suits are not appropriate in Scouting.

I Members are responsible to act according to Scout Oath and Law. All members of the Boy
Scouts of America are expected to conduct themselves in accordance With the principles set forth in
the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Physical violence. thalt. verbal insults. drugs, and alcohol have no
place In the Scouting program and may result in the revocation ofa Scout's membership.

I Units are responsible to enforce Youth Protection Policies; The head of the chartered
organization or chartered organization representative and the local cemcli must approve the
registration of the unit?s adult leader. Adult leaders of Scouting mils are responsible for monitoring
the behavior cfyouth members and lntercedlng when necessary. The parents ofyouth members who
misbehave should be infonned and asked for assistance.

I Mandatory reporting of child abuse. All involved in Scouting are personally responsible to
immediately report to law enforcement any belief orgood faith suspicion that any child is or has been

abused or erqaloited or endangered In anyway. No person may abdicate this?reporiing responsibility
to any other person.

I Social media guidelines. The policy of two-deep leadership extends into cyberspace. Another
adult leader should be copied on any electronic communication between adult and youth member.

Violations of any BSA's Youth Protection policies must immediately be reported to the Scout executive.

Digital Privacy

A key ingredient fora sale and healthy Scouting emerience is the respect for privacy. Advances In
technology are enabling new forms of social interaction that ancient beyond the appropriate use of
cameras or recording devices (see "Scouting's Barriers to Abuse?). Sending sexually explicit photographs
or videos electronically or "carding" by cell phones is form of testing being practiced primarily by young
adults and children as young as middle-school age. Seating is neither safe. nor private, nor an approved
form of communication and can bad to severe legal concequences forlhe sender and the receiver. 
Alli-mph most campers and leaders use digital devices responsibly, educating them about the

addresses topics including cyborbuliyiflg. cell-phone use. terding. biogging. gaming. and identity theft.
Check it out.

BSA Social Media Guidelines

The "three R's" of Youth Protection

The ?lives R's" of Youth Protection convey a simple message for the personal awareness of our youth
members:

I Recognize situations that place you at risk of being molested. how child molesters operate. and that
anyone could be a molester.
I Resist unwanted and inappropriate attention. Resistance will stop most attempts at molestation.

I Report attempted or achral molestation to a parent or other trusted adult This prevents further abuse

and helps to protect other children. Let the Scout know he or she will not be blamed for what
costs-red.

3M

meg-v.7" 

. .1..- ,nar-m ?I-In-u-

 In?

 

Youth Protection
Key Resources
StetsStatutas on Ghiid Welfare 
Reporting requirements for child abuse di?er from state to state. The Child Welfare infonnation Gateway
provides access to information and resource on a vanetyof topics, including state statutes on child
abuse. This site Is not operated by the Boy Scouts ofAmen'ca.

Guide to Safe Scouting
The purpose of the Guide to Safe Spoo?ng is to prepare adult leaders to conduct Scouting activities in a
safe and prudent manner.

it Happened to Me: Cub Scout Meeting Guide .
Video Facilitator Guides. A sample letter to parents and guardians as well as English and Spanish
meeting guides use when showing the age-appropriate sexual abuse prevention video.

A Time to Tell: Troop Meeting Guide
Video Facilitator Guides. English and Spanish meeting guides for facilita-tors? use when showing the age-
appropriate semi abuse prevention video.

Peisonat Safety AWereness Meeting Guide ill/entering Program)
Video Facilitator Guides. A sample ietterto parents and as well as English and Spanish
meeting glides forfacilitators? use when showing the age-appropriate camel abuse prevention video.

Youth Protection Training Facilitators Guide 1-:
Video Facilitator Guides.

Cyher Chip
To help families and volunteers keep youth safe with of?ine, the SSA introduces the Cyber Clip. The
Scouting portal showcasing Cyber Chip resources includes gradespecl?c videos for each level.

Youth Protection Champions

To address the need for Youth Protection?specific mimteers at all levels, the SSA has implemented its
new Youth Protection Champions program. These volunteer champions will be the key drivers of Youth
Protection atthelr assigned levels.

Camp Leadership A Guide for Camp Staff and Unit Leaders .53
Brochure for urit leaders and camp staff who are responsible for providing a safe and healthy comp
setting where Scouts are free from the aromas ofchild abuse.

SooutHelp .
Support is available for victims ofpast abuse.

Yo uth Protection lesion Statement

True youth protection can he achieved only throughthe commitment of everyone in Scouting. It Is
the mission of Youth Protection voimteers and professionals to work within the Boy Scouts oiAmarin to
maintain a onions ofVoulh Protoctton awareness and catalyst the national. regional. area. council. district.
and unit levels.

 

 

@2013 any About careers Llconang and 'l'redenran: Privacy Tonnel Sltomsp

.
zen-.112..- seem. 

Tn

?2:397?; 3? alohuL: Mr:- .3. Etna?. re. a A 

 

 

 

Learning for Life

Youth Protection Training Course
Completion Certificate
for

- Kenneth R. Betts- 

Post Number: 259

 

 

 

 

Date: 12/9/20?

 



 

 

 

rugcl-I- U1. 

Youth Protection Reporting Procedures
for Volunteers

There are two types of Youth Protection-related reporting procedures all volunteers must
follow:

- When you witness or suspect any child has been abused or neglected?See "Mandatory Report of
Child Abuse? below.

- When you witness a violation of the BSA's Youth Protection policies?See "Reporting Violations
of BSA Youth Protection Policies" below.

Mandatory Report of Child Abuse

All persons involved in Scouting shall report to local authorities any good-faith suspicion
or belief that any child is or has been physically or sexually abused, physically or
emotionally neglected. exposed to any form of violence or threat, exposed to any form of
sexual exploitation, including the possession, manufacture, or distribution of child
pornography, online solicitation, enticement, or showing of obscene material. You may not
abdicate this reporting responsibility to any other person.

Steps to Reporting Child Abuse

. Ensure the child is In a safe environment.

2. In cases of child abuse or medical emergencies, call 911 immediately. in addition, if the
suspected abuse is in the Scout's home or family, you are required to contact the local child
abuse hotline.

3. Notify the Scout executive or his/her designee.

Find your local Scout executive. 

The Incident information form can be accessed here 


For more information on incident reporting, click here 

Reporting Violations of BSA Youth
Protection Policies

If you think any of the BSA's Youth Protection policies have been violated, including those
described within Scouting's Barriers to Abuse, you must notify your local council Scout
executive or his/her designee so appropriate action can be taken for the safety of our
Scouts.

on/ 3/ 1 2/20] 8

- rage 3 or 

ScOuting?s Barriers to Abuse

increase the safety of their youth. Those who serve in positions of leadership and
supervision with youth outside the Scouting program will find these policies help protect
youth in those situations as well.

Two-deep leadership ls required on all outings. A minimum of two registered adult
leaders?or one registered leader and a participating Scout's parent or another adult-is
required for all trips and outings. One of these adults must be 21 years of age or older.

Patrol A ctivitles

 

 

TThere are instances, such as patrol activities, when the presence of adult leaders
is not required and adult leadership may be limited to patrol leadership training and
guidance. With proper training, guidance, and approval by troop leaders, the patrol

can conduct day hikes and service projects.
Adult Supervision/Coed Activities

Male and female adult leaders must be present at all overnight coed Scouting trips

and outings, even those for parents and children. All male and female adult leaders

must be 21 years of age or older, and one must be a registered member of the BSA.
One?on-one contact between adults and youth members is prohibited. . In situations
requiring a personal conference, such as a Scoutmaster conference, the meeting is to be
conducted with the knowledge and in view of other adults and/or youth.

 

The policies of two-deep leadership and no one-on?one contact between adults and
youth members also apply to digital communication. Leaders may not have one-on-one

Age-appropriate and separate accommodations for adults and Scouts are required.

3/ 1 2/201 8

Page a of 12

 

Tearing

No adult may share a tent with a member of the opposite sex unless that person is
his or her spouse.

No youth may share a tent with an adult or a person of the opposite sex other than a
family member or guardian. Assigning youth members more than two years apart in
age to sleep in the same tent should be avoided unless the youth are relatives.

Shower Facilities

Whenever possible, separate shower and iatrine facilities should be provided for

male and female adults as well as for male and female youth. if separate facilities

are not available, separate shower times should be scheduled and posted.
The buddy system should be used at all times. The buddy system is a safety measure for
all Scouting activities. BUddies should know and be comfortable with each other. Buddies
should be strongly encouraged to select each other, with no more than two years? age
difference and the same level of maturity. When necessary, a buddy team may consist of
three Scouts. No youth should be forced into or made to feel uncomfortable in a buddy
assignment.

 

Privacy of youth is respected. Adult leaders and youth must respect each other's privacy,
especially in situations such as changing clothes and taking showers at camp. Adults may
enter changing or showering areas for youth only to the extent that health and safety
requires. Adults must protect their own privacy in similar situations.

Inappropriate use of smart phones, cameras, imaging, or digital devices is prohibited.
Although most Scouts and leaders use cameras and other imaging devices responsibly, it
is easy to unintentionally or inadvertently invade the privacy of other individuals with such
devices. The use of any device capable of recording or transmitting visual images in or
near shower houses, restrooms, or other areas where privacy is expected is inappropriate.

No secret organizations. The BSA does not recognize any secret organizations as part of
its program. All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents and
leaders.

Youth leadership is monitored by adult leaders. Adult leaders must monitor and guide the
leadership techniques used by youth leaders and ensure BSA policies are followed.

Discipline must be constructive. Discipline used in Scouting must be constructive and
reflect Scouting's values. Corporal punishment is never permitted. Disciplinary activities
involving isolation, humiliation, or ridicule are prohibited. Examples of positive discipline
include verbal praise and high ?ves.

Appropriate attire is required for all activities.

3/12/2018

 Page of 12

No hazing. Hazing and initiations are prohibited and may not be included as part of any
Scouting activity.

No bullying. Verbal, physical, and cyberbullying are prohibited in Scouting.

Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse

All persons involved in Scouting must report to local authorities any good-faith suSpicion
or belief that any child is or has been physically or sexually abused, physically or
emotionally neglected, exposed to any form of violence or threat, or eXposed to any form
of sexual exploitation including the possession, manufacture, or distribution of child
pornography, online solicitation, enticement, or showing of obscene material. The
reporting duty cannot be delegated to any other person.

Immediately notify the Scout executive of this report, or of any violation of Youth
Protection policies, so he or she may take appropriate action for the safety of our Scouts,
make apprOpriate notifications, and follow up with investigating agencies.

State-by?state mandatory reporting information: gr


All adult leaders and youth members have responsibility. Everyone is responsible for
acting in accordance with the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Physical violence, sexual activity,
emotional abuse, spiritual abuse, unauthorized weapons, hazing, discrimination,
harassment, initiation rites, bullying, cyberbullying, theft, verbal insults, drugs, alcohol, and
pornography have no place in the Scouting program and may result in revocation of
membership. For more information, please see the BSA's Guide to Safe Scouting and
Youth Protection resources.

Units are responsible to enforce Youth Protection policies. Adult leaders in Scouting units
are responsible for monitoring the behavior of youth members and other leaders and
interceding when necessary. If youth members misbehave, their parents should be
informed and asked for assistance.

The following incidents require an immediate report to the Scout executive:

- Any threat or use of a weapon

- Any negative behavior associated with race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or
disability

- Any situation where the Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse policy or your state?s
mandatory reporting of child abuse laws apply

- Any abuse of a child that meets state reporting mandates for bullying or harassment
- Any mention or threats of suicide

If someone is at immediate risk of harm, call 911.

3/ 1 2/201 8

Page ti of 12

If a Scout is bullied because of race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or
disability. and local help is not working to solve the problem, contact the BSA's Member
Care Contact Center at 972-580-2489, or send an email to youth.protectlon@scoutlng.org 


Download the Volunteer Incident Report Form Li": 
676_WEB.pclf)

Your Responsibility

- Step the policy violation or abuse.

- Protect the youth.

- Separate alleged victim(s) from alleged perpetrator(s).

- Summon needed assistance (911, EMS, additional leaders, etc).
- Notify parents.

- Notify the appropriate Scouting professional.

Chartered Organization Responsibility
The head of the chartered organization or chartered organization representative and their
committee chair must approve the registration of the unit?s adult leaders.

Youth Protection lnfographic It: 


Download it 
the Youth Protection
infographic to see how Scouting's barriers to abuse help keep youth safe.

Local Council Locatcr 

Download the Bullying Prevention Guide DZ


Digital Privacy

A key ingredient for a safe and healthy Scouting experience is the respect for privacy.
Advances in technology are enabling new forms of social interaction that extend beyond
the appropriate use of cameras or recording devices (see ?Scouting's Barriers to Abuse?).
Sending sexually explicit photographs or videos electronically or "sexting" by cell phones is
a form of texting being practiced primarily by young adults and children as young as
middle-school age. Sexting is neither safe, nor private, nor an approved form of
communication and can lead to severe legal consequences for the sender and the
receiver. Although most campers and leaders use digital devices responsibly, educating
them about the appropriate use of cell phones and cameras would be a good safety and
privacy measure. To address cyber-safety education, the BSA has introduced the age- and

3/12/2018

rage a 01 12-

grade-specific Cyber Chip program, which addresses topics including cyberbullying, cell-
phone use, texting, blogging, gaming, and identity theft. Check it out (/traininglyouth-


BSA Social Media Guidelines

Key Resources

State Statutes on Child Welfare 
policies/state!)

Reporting requirements for child abuse differ from state to state. The Child Welfare
Information Gateway provides access to information and resources on a variety of topics,

including state statutes on child abuse. This site is not operated by the Boy Scouts of
America.

Guide to Safe Scouting 

The purpose of the Guide to Safe Scouting is to prepare adult leaders to conduct Scouting
activities in a safe and prudent manner.

How to Protect Your Children From Child Abuse: A Parent's Guide

These booklets are a basic resource to help parents understand how child abuse happens
and keep their children safe. Exercises for parents and children are included. Several
versions of the booklets are available:

- For Cub Scouts and their parents IE 00-
014_WEB.pdf) .

- For Cub Scouts and their parents (in Spanish) 
00-073.pdf)

- For Boy Scouts and their parents 00-01 5(1 5)
_WEB.pdf)

- For Boy Scouts and their parents (in Spanish) 
00-01 6_web.pdf)

- For STEM Scouts and their parents 11:


it Happened to Me: Cub Scout Meeting Guide 

Video Facilitator Guides. A sample letter to parents and guardians as well as English and
Spanish meeting guides for facilitators' use when showing the age-appropriate sexual
abuse prevention video.

3/12/20] 8

rage or 14

A Time to Tell: Troop Meeting Guide 
Video Facilitator Guides. English and Spanish meeting guides for facilitators' use when
showing the age-appropriate sexual abuse prevention video.

Personal Safety Awareness Meeting Guide (Venturing
Program)

Video Facilitator Guides. A sample letter to parents and guardians as well as English and
Spanish meeting guides for facilitators? use when showing the age-appropriate sexual
abuse prevention video.

Youth Protection Training Facilitators Guide OO-
023_WB.pdf)
Video Facilitator Guides.

er Chip 

To help families and volunteers keep youth safe while online, the BSA Introduces the Cyber
Chip. The Scouting portal showcasing Cyber Chip resources includes grade-specific
videos for each level.

Bullying Awareness 
These fact sheets will help with bullying awareness and direct you to resources provided
by the BSA and other entities we work with to protect children.

Youth Protection Champions 

To address the need for Youth Protection?specific volunteers at all levels. the BSA has
implemented its new Youth Protection Champions program. These volunteer champions
will be the key drivers of Youth Protection at their assigned levels.

Camp Leadership A Guide for Camp Staff and Unit Leaders 11?]


Brochure for unit leaders and camp staff who are responsible for providing a safe and
healthy camp setting where Scouts are free from the worries of child abuse.

ScoutHelp
Support is available for victims of past abuse.

NEW Youth-on-Youth Training Materials

The Boy Scouts of America places the greatest importance on creating the safest
environment possible for our youth members. To that end, BSA's ScoutingU has created
some additional Youth Protection training to professionals, volunteers, and leaders

3/12/20] 8

 rage 11 or 12

regarding the prevention of ydUth~on4youth incidents that might occur within the context of
Scouting, especially in a camping or overnight setting. it is designed to help prepare adult
leaders to prevent and appropriately respond to these incidents.

This informational document with an accompanying PowerPoint presentation for BSA
leaders, parents, volunteers. and professionals should be delivered at the council, district,
or unit level by a Youth Protection Champion, training chair. district chair, district executive,
or other appropriate Scout leader to leaders for camping and overnight activities.

Suggested training opportunities include:

- Existing facilitator-led Youth Protection training sessions

- Pre?camp leaders' meetings for summer camp and first-time leaders' meetings at all outings

- Camp schools"

- Scout executives' and district executives' trainings on responding to youth protection incidents

. Other training events that include the "Youth Protection Training for Volunteer Leaders and
Parents? DVD

Youth-On-Youth Training Facilitator's Guide 

Youth-0n~Youth Training 

0 



. 

3/12/20 1 8

 . 

rage 12 or 12

0 
It

  



2018 Boy Scouts of America - All Rights Reserved

About (/almut} Careers (labout/careers) Terms 
Privacy Policy (llegal/privacy?policy) Donor Privacy (llegal/donor-privacy-poficy)
Connect (laboutlfollow) Contact (labout/contact-usl)

3/1 2/201 3

EXHIBIT 4

Louisville Metro Police Department
Organizational Chart

 

Chief of Police 

 

 

 

i 1
Legal Advisor- Deputy Chief of Operations

Attorney Police! Manager
Civilian Chief of Staff Lieutenant

'3 Support Bureau Media and Pubiic Patrol Bureau
Assistant Relations Of?ce Assistant cnieroi

Assistant Chief of
Ponce Police Sergeant Potion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
    

 

 

 

I a v- 
investigations
Division

Ma U.

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A integrity Unit Police Chaplains
Lieutenant 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Special Operations Community Major Crimes Nerootioe Division

 

 

 

Division Sent-toes Division . Division Major
Major Major Major . .

Professional Administrator -- A Seco?dagnnsion
Standards Unit Civ?ian

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?5mm 
a Conununiiy Events Crimes Ayah-tat
Unit

Coordinator of Support Unit
Train! Division 5 at Teams Lieutenant
{in ?lmy Third Division Fourth Division

Major Major

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CommunityPoiloing ?made Unit Complaint
Admmisltam Pairoiunii Unit Roommwnit -

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saniices Division Lieutenant Lieutenant Lieutenant
Fiflh Division Sixth Division

Robberyi'Flnanciai Majorciiso Mai" Mainr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$3233? a Crimes Unit inmtigation Unit -
3' Property Room Liemetiant Ueiitenant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compliance

. Lieutenant
Lieutenant aiVicti Seven?i Division Eighth DMsian
PedUnit Major Major

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Records Lieutenant
Taoi'tniooi Services 
Ueulenant ?amt

 

 

 

 

 

Forensic Ninth?MDhiie

investigations Dltiision
Impoundmont Unit! Shitegln Planning Lieutenant Major
Fleet Lieutenant

Revised 0111?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Louisville Metro Police Department
Special Investigations Division Organizational Chart

 

ChiefofPoilce 

3.x. :37:x?a f. 5.ChiefofSla?
Deputy Chief of Police

 

 

 

 

 

 

ciallnves atlans Division 

 
 
 

Emu!
lieutenant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professional Standards Unit 


 

 

 

Revised 09112
Reviemd 09:30:15

EXHIBIT 5

 

 

 

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION

Organization

The Special Investigations Division (SID) Commander of the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD)
is appointed by the Chief of Police and reports directly to the Deputy Chief of PoliceIChlef of Staff. The
Special investigations Division Commander holds the rank of Major. The current commander of SID is
Major Eddie Jones. Major Jones has been In command of SID since April 2016.

The SID Commander coordinates the activities of the following units

Public Integrity Unit (PIU)
. Professional Standards Unit (PSU)

Louisville Metro Police Department
Special investigations Division Organizational Chart

 

ChIeISteve Conrad
.l a
Deputy Chief Michael Sullivan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
Major Eddie Jones
I: Special investigations Division
Adjutant to the Meier
m- u.
Professional Standards Unit Pubiic Integntv Unit

 

 

 

 

 

 





E:

 

 



 



   

 

 

Public Integrity Unit 

The primary responsibility of the Public Integrity Unit is to conduct investigations of alleged criminal

olivity or corruption involving members of the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government. The
outcome of these investigations may result in criminal andior administrative charges being brought
against employees.

The secondary responsibility of the Public integrity Unit, as part of the Special investigations Division, is
to conduct any investigations deemed necessary by the Chief of Police,- and at the direction of the Chief
of Police, which may be of a sensitive nature and/or may affect the pubiic?s trust;

Additionally, the Public Integrity Unit may investigate critical incidents andior criminal allegations against
employees of other law enforcement agencies who hails entered into a Memorandum of Agreement
between that agency and the Louisville Metro Police Department with the approval of the Chief of Police.

The goal of the investigative process is to ensure that members suspected of wrongdoing receive a fair
investigaticnand that the support and con?dence of the public is not abused.

Functions of the Public Integrity Unit

A. The Public integrity Unit is responsible for maintaining records of all criminal allegations received,
dispositions of investigations, and final actions taken as a result of these allegations andlor the
?ndings of a subsequent investigation.

B. The Public Integrity Unit will coordinate with the County Attorney's Of?ce, the Commonwealth
Attorney's Of?ce, and the US. Attorney's Of?ce on matters concerning possible criminal charges
being leveled against members of the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government as a result
of investigations conducted by the Pubiic Integrity Unit.

C. inquiries from the media regarding Public Integrity Unit concerns will be referred to the Public
information Of?ce.

D. The Public Integrity Unit is directed to:

investigate of?cer-involved shootings resulting in injury or death.

Investigate officer-Involved use of force actions resulting in death or serious physical
injury.

3. investigate incidents of the discharge of a ?rearm by an of?cer when the Intention is to
use deadly force.

4. Investigate incidents of the discharge of a firearm by the public with the intention to

harm of?cers.

5. investigate incidents resulting in death or serious physical Injury to persons while In the
custody of the Louisville Metro Police Department or the Louisville Metro Corrections
Department.

 

 

6. investigate traffic deaths or serious physical injuries resulting from police pursuits or other
officer-involved traf?c collisions.

7. Accept. record, and investigate allegations of felony criminal activity/corruption against
Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government employees.

8. Monitor the criminal proceedings involving charges against any sworn member of the
Louisville Metro Police Department.

9. Conduct thorough. confidential. accurate. and impartial investigations completed to a
iogioai conclusion.

10. Maintain the con?dentiality of all Public integrity Unit investigations and records.

Organization

The Public integrity Unit is a component of the Louisville Metro Police Department. The Public integrity
Unit is commanded by a Lieutenant who is responsible for the overall operation and administration of the
unit and supervision of all members of the unit. The current commander of PIU is Lt. Kevin Deepain. Lt.
Despain has been in command PIU since September 201 .

All LMPD investigators assigned to the Public integrity Unit will be commanding of?cers holding the rank
of Sergeant.

PIU investigators may be assigned to the Federal Bureau of investigation (FBI) as a member of the Task
Force to investigate political conuption. Assignment to the Task Force is based on the needs of the
Federal Bureau of investigation. and coordinated by the Flu Commander. A Federal background check
resulting in a successful security clearance is required.

Con?dentiality

Con?dentiality is essential to the success of the Public integrity Unit. By maintaining the con?dentiality of
investigations. those members of the County Metro Government who are falsely
accused need not have their character impugned without cause. Members of the Public integrity Unit will
maintain the con?dentiality of all records and information. both oral and written.

information relating to an investigation will not be released to anyone without the explicit permission of the

Public integrity Unit Commander. Special investigations Division Commander. Legal Advisor. or Chief of
PoiicelDeputy Chief.

Of?cers with special investigative knowledge or experience may be called upon to assist the Public
integrity Unit in a speci?c investigation. Of?cers assisting the unit will report all ?ndings and conclusions
in the investigation directly to the Public integrity Unit Commander and all information will be held in the
strictest of con?dence.

Case ?les will be maintained in a secure area at all times.

 

 

Types of Investigations handled by the Public integrity Unit include. but are not limited to:

. Critical incidents (Of?cer Involved Shootings. in-Custody Deaths. on-duty Officer involved
Traffic Fatalities)

Sexual Assaults I Sexual Misconduct

Assaults

Domestic Violence

Thefts

Narcotics

Official Misconduct

Corruption 

?Shadow" Cases (arrests of Metro Employees by other units or other agencies ljunsdictlons)
Special Assignments (as directed by the Chief of Police)

Processing Allegations Complaints

Complaints of criminal activity will be forwarded to the Public integrity Unit through the Special
Investigations Division Commander and or the Flu Commander. The following are examples of how
criminal allegations andlor complaints may be received:

- Net Claims (Ethics Tip line)

- Chiefs Initiation

- Direct Citizen Complaints (telephone calls, small. letters. etc.)
- LMPD Division Referrals

- LMPD Division Call-Outs

- Metro Government Department Heads (Directors)

- Media Outlets (television news. radio news. newspaper)

- Miscellaneous (social media. etc.)

- At the request of another agency

The Special investigations Division Commander andlor the PIU Commander will review the complaint to
determine if the investigation should be Investigated by the Public integrity Unit.

Upon determination andlor direction to conduct an investigation. the matter will be assigned a distinctive
sequential case number and will be logged into the Public integrity Unit computerized case tracking
database

Disposition of PM cases will be designated in the following manner once the case is determined to be
CLOSED by the Special investigations Division Commander andlor Pi Commander:

- CLOSED I Unfounded - the allegation is false or has no merit.

. CLOSED {Exonerated - the incident occurred. but was within the guidelines of local. state, and
federal laws.

- CLOSED Unable to Substantlate Allegations - all investigative leads have been exhausted.
The case will remain suspended until further information is received to warrant the case being re-
opened.

- CLOSED with Prosecution The investigation resulted in the suspect being prosecuted in
court. The results of the prosecution will be clearly documented. indicating adjudication and
verdicts.

. CLOSED Prosecution Declined - The investigation was presented to the Commonwealth?s
Attorney's Of?ce andlor the County Attorney's Of?ce; but was declined prosecution.

 

 

- CLOSED lby Exception - This disposition may be utilized when the investigation is a PIU
?Shadow" case of an Investigation conducted by another agency or division, in which the subject
of the investigation has ceased their employment by Louisville Metro Government, and there Is no
longer a need to monitor the outcome of the investigation.

. Except in rare Instances. this disposition will not be utilized for investigations originating by a PIU

investigation. except In the event the case was conferenced as a stipulation of a plea agreement
in another case by a prosecutor.

The Lead Investigator and/or the PIU Commander will apprise the Special Investigations Division

Commander and/or the Chief of Police/Deputy Chief of the allegatidn and facts prior to any enforcement
action

If probable cause exists to merit prosecution for a crime, the Special Investigations Division Commander
andlor PIU Commander. along with the assigned investigators will meet with the appropriate prosecutor?s
office to discuss the allegation and investigation to deten'nlne the next course of action.

Once a PIU investigations is complete, it can then be sent to the Professional Standards Unit for
investigation to determine if there are any violations of LMPD policies.

Professional Standards Unit


The Professional Standards Unit of the Louisville Metro Police Department is entrusted with the
responsibility of thoroughly and fairly investigating alleged misconduct by members of the Department. It
Is the goal of the Professional Standards Unit to conduct these investigations based on witness
statements and/or physical evidence. These administrative investigations must supply the Chief of Police
with reasonable and defensible evidence upon which to base his findings and conclusions and implement
appropriate disciplinary measures, when necessary. All Professional Standards Unit Investigations and
operations will be conducted in accordance with the law. contractual agreements, the Standard Operating

Procedures of the Louisville Metro Police Department and the policies and procedures of the Professionai
Standards Unit.

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Professional Standards Unit is a component of the Special Investigations Division. which reports
directly to the Deputy Chief (Chief 0f Staff). The primary function of the Professional Standards Unit is to
investigate allegations of 'administrative' violations of Department rules, policies and procedures. It is
also accountable for records retention and maintenance of the Department's complaint and disciplinary
history files for all members of the Department. The Professional Standards Unit also serves as the
repository for the Department's Administrative Incident Report Forms. In addition to 
investigations, at the discretion of the Chief of Police, the Professional Standards Unit will review
investigations of alleged criminal conduct by members of the Department for administrative violations.
The Professional Standards Unit will also review all 'Critical Incident Investigations? (eg. Use of Deadly
Force, Deaths to Persons as Result of Police Actions. etc.) involving members of the Department,
following an investigation by the Public integrity Unit.

 

 

Organization and Staf?ng

The ProfesSicnai Standards Unit is comprised of the following personnel:

1 - Unit Commander, rank of Lieutenant

10 Investigators, rank of Sergeant

1 - Unit Administrative Assistant, rank of Sergeant

?i - Drungubstance Testing Administrator, rank of Sergeant

.1 information Processing Technician 1' Secretary, civilian employee
1 - Transcriber, civilian em ployee

Lieutenant, Commander:

The Lieutenant of the Professional Standards Unit reports to the Special investigations Division Major.
The Lieutenant is responsible for the overall, efficient operation of the unit. The commander may
participate In unit Investigations or conduct hislher own investigation at his/her discretion. The current
commander of PSU is Lt. Larry Sutties. Lt. Suttles has been commander of PSU since March 2017.

Sergeant. investigator:

endeavor.

The following are examples of the investigators' responsibilities:

. Conducts thorough, complete and impartial administrative investigations into allegations of police
misconduct or ruleslpoiicy violations. This is done in compliance with KRS 670.326,
Departmental S.O.P., Unit S.0.P., and contractual agreements.
Fields complaints from citizens, via telephone calls or in person - of?ce visitors.
Assigned to cover in-coming complaints and concerns to the Of?ce on a misting basis.
Siefeks to attend advanced training in the specialized ?eld of Professional Standards 1 internal
A airs.

- Testi?es at Louisville Merit Board Hearings in cases of accused em pioyee appeals.

Sergeant, Drug/Substance Testing Administrator:

. Coordinates and oversees the departmental drug/substance test activities pursuant to current
Collective Bargaining Agreement. Tasks include exam selections, distribution of test packets and
recording of test results.

. Maintains all records relating to drug/substance testing. This is done by physical possession and
organization of the records and by electronic organization via data entry into current Professional
Standards Unit software database.

- Performs the duties as the Liaison between the Louisville Metro Police Department and
Occupational Physicians Services.

 

 

Unit Procedures

De?nitions:

an employee which, if proven true, would constitute a violation of law or a violation of the Louisville Metro
Police Department's Standard Operating Procedures

Misconduct can be de?ned as the following:

Commission of a criminal act.

Neglect of duty.

Violation of any Departmental policy, procedure, rule, regulation, core value or training standard.
Cenduct which may re?ect unfavorabiy upon the employee and/or the Department.

can.

When a complaint or allegation arises in the Professional Standards Unit, it can be handled 'Formaiiy' or
'infonnaliy?. The remainder of this section illustrates both of these processes.

When a citizen calls or visits the Professional Standards Unit with a complaint. PSU personnel will intently
listen to their concerns. if a possible violation has been described, then they will explain the complaint

processes to the citizen and allow them to choose either a formal investigation or informal avenues of
resolution.

informal investigative Process

complaints.

Fennel investigative Process

This section describes, more speci?cally, the process of an administrative investigation of a complaint of
alleged misconduct by a member of the Louisville Metro Police Department.

Formal allegations of misconduct or complaints can be originated by only 2 methods: by a citizen
completing a sworn af?davit, or by an order of the Chief of Police. All administrative complaints pertaining
to members of the Louisville Metro Police Department will be documented on a Complainant Af?davit
or on a Chief's initiation Letter. These documents will be forwarded to the Professional
Standards Unit Commander for initial review and investigator assignment.

initiation of investigation

 

 

of the Chief of Police to initiate an investigation. The Chiefs initiation letter outlines to the Commander of
Professional Standards who is to be investigated and for what speci?c allegations.

Assignment of Cases

The Commander of PSU will assign the case to one of the Unit Investigators on a rotating basis. This
policy need not be followed should a con?ict of interest exists between the investigator and the accused
employee. The Chief of Police, the Special Investigations Division Commander or the Professional
Standards Unit Commander may select a specific investigator to handle an investigation at their
discretion. Also. the UnIt Commander has the authority to deviate from any rotation schedule based upon
the merits of each investigation. Each case is assigned a sequential 'case number? and also entered into
a master complaint logbook. The Administrative Assistant enters the case into the complaint database.

File Preparation by Unit Secretary

Duties of the Investigator

The Professional Standards Unit Investigator is responsible for conducting a thorough. complete and
unbiased investigation. duties are to gather all possible evidence and statements in order to fairly
and impartially evaluate the totality of circumstances surrounding the complainant's allegations of

em pioyee misconduct. Investigators perform this task by gathering all documentation, statement
interviews of all witnesseslaccused employees and any other evidence (mobile video. CAD records.
police radio recordings, etc). They organize all information Within the case ?le and based upon a
preponderance of evidence assign a recommended ?nding for each allegation of the case.

can only be resolved by one of the following Judgments:

. Sustained There was suf?cient information to prove the allegation.

Not Sustained There Was not suf?cient information to either prove or disprove the allegation.
Exonerated - The incident occurred as reported, but was lawful or proper.

Unfounded ?The allegation is baseless or false.

Closed by Exception ?-The investigation was closed by dimction of the Chief of Police or the
com piainant vw'thdrew the complaint. -

48-hour Notice

they have been noti?ed of the investigator's desire for such an interview. This noti?cation Is documented
on a 48-hour Notice (PSU-003) and included in the case ?le.

Interviews
All statement Interviews (complaints, complainant witnesses, employee witnesses and accused
employees) will be recorded and taken under oath. Ail interviews should be conducted by two

Professional Standards Unit Investigators, unless exigent circumstances exist. Only the two Investigators

8

 

 

 

and the source Individual are permitted in the interview room during the statement.

The Unit Commander has the discretion to make an exception to this rule for unusual circumstances (eg.
juvenile witness, Citizen's Advocate, etc). When such exceptions occur, the additional person included
will be present as an ?observer' only and not as a participant'. if an observer interrupts an interview
statement, they will forfeit their privilege and be asked to leave the Interview facility

Case Review

After the Investigator completes their investigation, it is forwarded to the Unit Commander for review. The
Commander closely examines the contents of the case file for its detail, clarity and appropriateness of the
investigator's ?ndings. After the Commander completes hislher review and recommends ?ndings, the
Administrative Assistant enters the Unit?s recommendations in the complaint database and the case is
forwarded to the Special investigations Division Commander for ?nal review. The Special Investigations
Commander will also make recommendations as to the ?ndings of the investigation

control. The Chief's Office examines the contents of the ?le and the recommendations of the
Professional Standards Unit. The Chief of Police will use all information provided him/her in the case ?le
to base hislher own ?ndings for the allegations, which are the of?cial ?ndings.

The Chief of Police is the sole authority who determines the ?nal ?ndings of these administrative
investigations. The Chief of Police is also the sole authority that determines and administers any

disciplinary action against a member of the Department, resulting from a Professional Standards Unit
investigation.

Once this is accom plished. the case file is returned to PSU for file storage. The Administrative Assistant
will record the Chiefs ?ndings in the complaint database and the case will be bound and ?led.

Merit Board Appeals

In some cases where the Chief of Police issued discipline against an employee. the employee may
appeal the levied discipline to the Louisville Metro Government Merit Board for a hearing to either change
or reverse the discipline. Investigators of the Professional Standards Unit will assist the Metro
Government in the capacity as a witness and testify to the investigation they conducted. They may also

be called upon to relocate witnesses, serve Merit Board Subpoenas or other tasks at the discretion of the
Metro Government Attomsys.

Record Keeping 8. Management

- When information, documents or records are requested by an external or internal source, the
Professional Standards Unit will abide by governing laws of the Kentucky Open Records Act KRS

EXHIBIT 6

 
n)


43:73.H,
?qI-hh-lw w?mH?nn?lr-I- . um. nn?u?mu?mrw??-n? p?


.. 

Share Contact

 

.w I u? - m-wp . .-. us?. -I vu-uim .. .: unqu- -.

.

FaceTime

Add to Favorites

 

- 



.mn ?gu

 

 

 

 
  

yi??m?

 
 

-Ih 'k

  
     
 
  
 

  
  
   

    
 

$5731-
1 -"r??51523r -

1.7m.

  
   
 

   
 


.- 35$. n?hk'ar ria-

I mi.

Jul 20. 2013, '1 37:17:36

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe I should come out
?and see you.

 

 

an ha- .



    

   

 

it: the nduian mart-39W

.- "nun II "unw-

.- . baa?a1?-?t. a. i hug-u: n. - u- um un?upu. um. -I 

u- w- gums-uh"

 

 792.?" a:
3-3933 fish m5?? 

  
  

  
  

           
  

- 3&1; 
Iii-52W ?25% . 13%?
433$!" cam. 

    

3,13%. ?-fmut??
- 

lh-b-il 

LWho is the advise; mas?)



   
  






 
  

so wanna see me

       
  




271'3-im'
"it
.0 '1
F4 
Erika?

       
    

  
  

 

 

  

Li.
.Eil'? JFMEKFJ pi?

 

 

 

 

 

Want me to wear uniform
or plan clothes

 



 

. m- Inu- -- ..

 

ulna-A Hu- u?I mum-n

 

 

Will" anyone see Us:

Wan1..


Lwanha surprise I. 1.11149:

.17. .. .
Tet. 
. 

 

3
g.
z:

 

 5? Ed

n. hfibdw.?

. .. .
g. our-In .. ..

I
1F. 

 

 

EXHIBIT 7

- to Attorney David I?d 5

 
 
    

IRecipients
David Yates
Author David ates
Sent 2016-10-13 19:3 
Deleted false

Body

I apologize if I missed your call.
It was suggested that I get in touch with you inunediately. I believe because of my

unique position and set and having won large verdict on behalf of victims, I
would

love the opportunity to help you.

My law of?ce number is

    



 

  
 
    
 

 

 
 

Sent 2016-10-13 19:46:03 UTC
IP

De ete 

Body You accepted David's request.
Recipients David Yates

 
  
 

Deleted false
Body What's this about?

  

Deleted false
Body I never called you

Recipients David Yates 

 

 

 Sent20 - - :1 
12m
1)

Body I'm confused
Recipients
David Yates
Author Da 
Sent 2016-10-13 20:11:06 UTC

Deleted false

Body I am sorry if I messaged the wrong person. my law practice represents
Plaintiff?s in

civil cases involving sexual misconduct. I was told that you may need my assistant
and representation. My paralegal said that I had two calls from a i that declined
tQ

leave a msg. We have several mutual ?iends and I made the assumption that you
were the person who may want my help.

Thanks
David

. Reel tents David Ya
1

- - 0:13:58 UTC -

SentlU


De eted false

Body Not me sir
Reel ients David Yate

 
  
 

 

  
    

 

  
  
   

 

 

or
Sent 2016-10-13 20:14:13 UTC
IP
Deleted false
Body But I'm involved in something like that but do not wish to ?le
Reci ients David Yates -

  
 

Author
Sent 2016-10-13 20:17:30 UTC


1 Deleted

   

 

false
Body Who did vou get 
Recipients
David Yates
Author David Yates?
Sent 2016-10-1 3 20: :04 UTC
Deleted false

Body
*Is my personal cell. I'd be happy to have a completely con?dential conversation.