West Chester Police Department Colonei Joel M. Herzog Chief of Police 95?7 Beckett Road, Suite 500 West Chester, Ohio 45069 (513) 759-7250 To: Joel M. Herzog, Chief of Police Fr: Captain Joe Gutman CC: LTC Brian Rebholz Date: 8/27/18 Re: Report 184233 Report number 18-1233 is titled telecommunications harassment and the party is Ms. Ellen Weik. The report was ?led on 4/11/18 by P0 Jim Thomas. I have concerns about both the thoroughness of this investigation as well as the timeliness in which follow-up investigative steps were taken. I would recommend that an internal investigation into this matter be initiated to determine if this case was handled by all involved. Captain Joe Gutman #87 @w?rz, was? s- Egcomm ween-?203 - @498 Kiwi"; ?gs/Lav 7219 I?tLb 5/2. :rv/es?fi? #Tzaro/ 41:5?:33?? 6%26? x65 B?tFonns'lMemo Tempiate EU 9 Rev 12:01 Internal Investigation Unit West Chester Police Department Administrative Hearing Rep ort 18?05 Employee Subject of Hearing PD. James Thomas 132 Rank Name Charges (Charge to Include Rules Regulation Section Number) Issue #1 Rules and Regulations Section 2.02: Members of the department shall: b) Thoroughly doemnent information from citizens relating to complaints or reports in accordance with. existing department procedure. Policy 321 Incident Reporting states in part: 321.22 Reporting Officer's Responsibility - Conduct a through preliminaiy investigation. - Document all ?ndings of the investigation in IFR. Issue #2 Rules and Regulations Section 1.02 Members sghall not commit or omit any acts which constimtes a violation of any Rule, Regulation, Directive, Interim Directive, General Order, Special Order, Policy or Procedure of the Police Department or Towoship of West Chester. Policy 321 Incident Reporting states in. part: 321.2.4 General Policy of Expeditions Reporting In general, all employees and supervisors shall act with promptness and ef?ciency in. the prepartaion and processing of all reports. An incomplete report, unorganized reports or reports delayed without soupervisory approval are not acceptable. Statement of Charges Hearing Of?cer Rank Name Int? Date of Hearing Time of Hearing Location of Hearing Persons Present at Hearing Form DU 8 Required Yes [3 No HU Attached ifch Summary of Employee Statement Hearing Summary Finding Recommendation Hearing Officer IIU 9 Rev 12:0: Internal Invostiga lion Unit West. Chester Police Beoartmont Administrative Hearing Report 1805 Employee Subject of Hearing RO. James Thomas 1.82 Rank Name Charges (Charge to Roles Regulation Section Number) Issue #1 Rules and Regulations Section 2.02: Members of the department shall: 13) Thoroughly {locoment infatuation from. citizens relating to complaints or reports in with existing depo?mont procedure. Policy 321 Incident Reporting states in part: 3212.2 Reporting Of?cer's Responsibility - Coodoot a through preliminary investigation. 1.30011211th all ?ndings of the investigation in. IFR. Issue #2 Rules and Regolatioos Section 1.02 Membors sghall not commit or omit any acts which oonstitotes a violation. of any Rule, Regulation, Directive, Ioterim Directive, General Order, Special Order, Policy or Procedure of the. Police Department or Towmhip ofWest Chester. Foliey 321 Incident Reporting states in. part: 321.2.4 General Policy of Expeditions Reporiiog In general, all employees and supervisors shall not with promp?toess and efficiency in the preparteion and. pz'oeeosing of all reports. A11 incomplete- report, reports or reports delayed without suopewioory approval are not acceptable. Statement of Charges On. April 11, 2018 Of?cer Jim Thomas #182 took a Telecommunicatioos Harassment report from Ms. Ellie Weik. (Repo? #1 84123 3) Ms. Weik reported an unknown person began sending her harassing text messages in 2013. Ms. Well: advised the text messages were from ?Mikael.? with a number of The subject had also sent MS. Weik a Video of be: sitting at her dining room table. The video appeared to have been. taken from someone standing on her patio. On August: 1, 2818 Ellie Weik?s mother reported her missing. (Repo? #184752). A timelioe was oroaiod for Of?cer Thomos?s investigation of Report 18?1233. The timeline was created osiog emails, report supplement, Case Mmegemeot noti?cations, and. other documents relaied to the report. 21?92?1 S-Ms. Weik began receiving text messages. 431 1/1 f?cer Thomas took Report 18-1233, Telecommunication Harassment. ~Of?oer Thomee completed a. General Condition Report in reference to Suspicious Activity at MS. Weik?s residence. "Of?cer Thomas received email from Mo. Weik containing toxt messages and. video link. Thomas reqoesized subpoena contact information from Textmoeom. ?~Sgt. Gearharl: assigned Of?cer '"l?hoo?aas as lead investigator in Case Management. Thomas; emailed Ms. Well; saying he received the pictures she sent him. 821d letting her know he requesteo subpoena contact infonoa?tion from Textmeeom. ?Of?cer Thomas received. a reply email from Ms. Weik thanking him for the update. IIU 9 Rev 12/01 4/3 0/ 1 8-Of?eer Thomas completed a supplement stating he requested subpoena contact information from Textmecorn on 4/12/18. - Of?cer Thomas sent second request for subpoena contact information to Textmecorn. Thomas received email from Ms. Weik saying she received two more texts. A screenshot of the tests was attached to the email. 5/ 5/ 1 8- Officer Thomas received subpoena contact information from Textmecom. Officer Thomas issued a subpoena request through Butler County Prosecutor?s web portal. 5/6/18? Officer Thomas completed a supplement stating what he did on 5/5/18. 5/ 8/ 1 8- Of?cer Thomas received an email from Mike Thacker, Butler County Prosecutor?s Office, with copies of the requested subpoenas attached. 6/ 5/ 1 8-Mike Thacker received email from Textmeeorn containing the subpoenaed information. 6/6/18- Mike Thacker emailed Of?cer Thomas the information from Textrnecom. 6/ 15/ 18 [10:41 Officer Thomas emailed Ms. Weik letting her know he was still waiting to hear from Textmecom and asking if she received any additional texts. [10:44 Of?cer Thomas emailed Mike Thacker asking if he had heard anything from Textmecom in reference to the subpoenaed infonnation. - [1 1:54 Of?cer Thomas received a reply email from Mike Thacker containing the requested information from Textmecom. 6/21/18 -Of?cer Thomas emailed Ms. Weik saying he received the information from Textmeeom and he would need to send out additional subpoenas to the internet providers. Officer Thomas asked if Ms. Weik had received any additional texts. 7/4/ 18 Officer Thomas completed a supplement stating he received the email and IP addresses from Textrnecom and requested assistance with requesting additional subpoenas. 7/ 5 7/15/18 ?Sgt. Gear-hart off work. 7/16 7/31/18 ~Of?cer Thomas off work. 7/ 17/ 1 8 -S gt. Gearhart assigned Detective Randy Farris as the secondary investigator and sent a link to Officer Thomas telling him to contact Detective Farris for assistance. 3/ 1/ 18- Ms. Weilc is reported missing. Report 18-2752. 8/2/18? Of?cer Thomas emailed Ms. Weik?s emails to Detective Farris. 8/15/18 Officer Thomas completed a supplement containing additional information in reference to Report 18-1233. The review of O?icer Thomas?s investigation of Report 18- 1233 shows Of?cer Thomas was taking steps with the investigation while working the case. There were notable gaps in the timeline where there appeared to be no action. The investigation discovered the following issues concerning Of?cer Thomas?s documentation of Report 18?1233: wThe initial report did not explain where the name spelling for Mikael came from. -The report did not document Ms. Weik had an err?boyfriend named Michael, his last name, or address. The report did not say why Of?cer Thomas did not treat him as a possible suspect. IIU 9 Rev 12:01 -The emails and video link Ms. Weik sent Of?cer Thomas were not scanned in and added to the report or logged into property. - Of?cer Thomas did not document he received an email from Ms. Weik on May 1, 2018 stating she received additional texts and he did not scan the messages into the report or log them into preperty. Of?cer Thomas did not document his attempts to evaluate the IP address information he received from Textmecom or the results when he clicked on the addresses. Hearing Of?cer Colonel Joel M. Herzog 59 Rank Name me Date of Hearing November 27, 2018 Time of Hearing 10:08am Location of Hearing West Chester Police Department 9577 Beckett Rd. Persons Present at Hearing Col. Herzog, Rebholz, Lt. Hearing, Sgt. Weingartner, Sgt. Tombragel, P.O. Thomas, P.O. Seitzman Form IIU 8 Required Yes No Hi) Attached if Yes Summary of Employee Statement Of?cer Thomas read a prepared statement into the record of the hearing. Of?cer Thomas stated he felt he followed up on the report per policy. He stated that in no way did he not take the situation as a serious matter. He stated that when he felt he took it as far as he could, he requested assistance from CIS. Hearing Summary Rebholz read the charges and Sgt. Weingartner read the summary of the investigation. Of?cer Thomas read a prepared statement into the record. After listening to the charges, case investigation, and Of?cer Thomas? statement, I determined that Of?cer Thomas was lacking in several areas and sustained both charges. I took a 3 0 minute recess before returning for an administering of discipline. Finding Issue Sustained a-Violation of Rules Regulation Section 2.02 as stated in the investigation. Issue #2 Sustained Violation of Rules and Regulations Section 1.02 as stated in the investigation. Recommendation I ordered that Of?cer Thomas will be given a 40 hour suspension without pay. Of?cer Thomas had been issued a PSL counseling in April of 2017, and a letter of reprimand in February of 2018, both of which were similar in nanne to these issues. Of?cer Thomas should have had a heightened state of concern after learning that the text had been sent for several months and then a video link showing Ms. Wail; inside her IIU 9 Rev 12:01 residence that was surreptitiously taken from outside. Regardless of how Ms. Weik relayed her consent, these facts should have caused an experience investigator and of?cer reason to believe this case should be given a sense of urgency. Of?cer Thomas neglected to login to property the text messages and failed to capture the video in question. It was later learned that the video link had expired and that the video was potentially lost. It was through cooperation with BCI that this video was able to be recovered. I had to be careful to not mix what is kaown new and what was known to Of?cer Thomas at the time of the report. As this case escalated, many of these case facts were discovered that were not known at the time of Of?cer Thomas? investigation. Of?cer Thomas was provided the name ?Mikael? that the text could be coming from but he failed to question further about this potential suspect. Of?cer Thomas seeded a stronger sense of urgency and attention to detail while investigating this case to ensure the safety cf the victim. That did not occur. - 2 Hearing Officer ?d/f/B W- /Signatnre Distribution Chief of PolicefCase File Form IIU 1 Rev 05.316 Issue #1 Did Sergeant Jeff Gearhart violate West Chester Police Department Rules and Regulations Section 1.04 regarding Case Management related to Report 18? 1233? 1. 04 Members ska?! exercise the reSpomibilng and authoriiy offhe position to which they are assigned in accordance wirhjob Speey?ica?ons and standard operating procedures or practices offhat assignment. Form 1 Rev osns Issue #1 Did Lieutenant David Tivin #58 fail to exercise the responsibility and authority of the position of Criminal Investigation Section Lieutenant as it pertains to C13 Supervisory Responsibility for Incident Reporting? West Chester Police Department Rules and Regulations Section 1.04 states: 1.04 Members shall exercise the responsibility and authority of the position to which they are assigned in accordance with job speci?cations and standard operating procedures or practices ofthat assignment. Form IIU 1 Rev 05116 Issue #1 Did Of?cer Jim Thomas #182 fail to thoroughly document information from a citizen relating to report 18-1233 in accordance with department procedure? West Chester Police Department Rules and Regulations Section 2.02 03) states: 2.02 Members of the department shall: 13) Thoroughly document information from citizens relating to complaints or reports in accordance with existing department procedure Policy 321 Incident Reporting states in part: 321.2.2 REPORTING RESPONSIBILITY Conduct a thorough preliminary investigation. Issue #2 Did Officer im Thomas #182 violate West Chester Police Department Rules and Regulations Section 1.02? West Chester Police Depaitment Rules and Regulations Section 1.02 states: 1.02 Members shall not commit or omit any acts which constitute a violation of any Role, Regulation, Directive, Interim Directive, General Order, Special Order, Policy or Procedure of the Police Department or Township of West Chester. Policy 321 Incident Reporting states in part: 321.2.4 GENERAL POLICY OF EXPEDITIOUS REPORTING In general, all employees and supervisors shall act with promptness and e?iciency in the preparation and processing of all reports. An incomplete report, unorganized reports or reports delayed without supervisory approval are not acceptable. Form HU 5 Rev 10:13 Internal Investigation Unit West Chester Police Department Administrative Review . Employee: Lieutenant David Tivin #58, Sergeant Jeff Gearhert #167, Of?cer im Thomas #182 1&1} Section Lieutenant: Date. Bureau Commander: Cf} @Ty?wg W3C) Date 5 Date M3333, Date: (0(6415 Bureau Commander: Assistant Chief of Police: - I Unit Commander?s Employee Insight Unit Commander: Date: {3 Insight provided, see attached documentation The Of?ce of the Chief of Police has reviewed this investigation along with the recomended ?ndings from the Integrity and Development Section and the following decision has been made: 3 CONCUR WITH FINDINGS 1' A DO NOT CONCUR WITH FINDINGS OTHER FINDING RETURN FOR ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION Issue: I .2 ADMWISTRATIVE HEARING 77%) HAS 0 ply . COWENTS: (13 Additional Comments Attached) ?3 43-534.: 4/ egg/9&3 :55; 4.24 u?i' I I Wed?5 .4 MO {4.77.11} Acwtecr?d-L var. ?(Weir I. so); (if) {If 5531?. ?g wf I fl/L u? an: :J?fqu Jae 0/ Id? In? gnu/QIJ/ir-Id 3/7697?? J?Xdixa /rfr?1f\i?3nt' g; diff-J 7-3 ?and Chief of Police: .- . Date: a 7 Original to Case File Return to for Noti?cation West Police iiliepartment Support Bureau Police Integrity and Development Section Date: April 11, 2018 Date Assigned; August 29, 2018 111111: 1305 Investigato?s): Sgt. Mark W?eingm'mer #67 Complaiuant: Of?ce of the Chief of Police Officer(s) Involved: Lieutenant David Thin #58 Sezgeant Jeff Gm?m?t #167. 0113061 11111 1110213213 #182 01.1 Apzil 11 2018 Of?ce: J1m'1homas #182 tank a 1? almozmnumcatx 0113 Harassment mport ?om Ms Ellie Weik (Raport #18 .1233) Ms Weik reported an unknown person began sending her harassing text messages inFcbinarr2018 Ms Weik advised the text mesgages were ?am a ?Mikaci? with a number oi I subject had aiso sent Ms Weik a Video of he: sittixxg at her dining table: 1113 vi?eo appeared to have been 13km ?om someone standing (an her 3321130 On August 1 2818 Ellie Wail: 3 mother reported. he: missing (Report #183752) Campiaint The complaint is in referance ta the timroughness and timeiimss of. chart 18-1233. Issue #1 Did Of?cer 31m Thomas #182 fail to thoroughly docum?m in?bmaa?on a citizen mlating to mp0}? 18-1233 in with. department West Chester Police Depaimaent Rules and Regulations S?cti?l?l 2.0.2 states: 2, 02 Members afflm department shall: If?) Tim roughly doczgme 1-2: istgformaz?z?on?-am citizem refazirzg :0 complaints repw?fs in accordance with mixing procedure. Policy 321 Incident Rqam?ng states impart: 321.212 REPORTING RESPONSIBILITY Ca?ducr a inveszfgation Pagt: 1 of 22 Document all ?ndings of the investigation in IFR. Issue #2 Did Of?cer Jim Thomas #182 violate West Chester Police Department Rules and Regulations Section 1.02? West Chester Police Department Rules and Regulations Section 1.02 states: [.02 Members shall not commit or omit any acts which constitute a violation of any Rule, Regulation, Directive, Interim Directive, General Order, Special Order, Policy or Procedure of the Police Department or Township of West Chester. Policy 321 Incident Reporting states in part: 321.2.4 GENERAL POLICY 0F EXPEDITIOUS REPORTING In general, all employees and supervisors shall act withpromptness and e?iciency in the preparation and pro cessing of all reports. An incomplete report, unorganized reports or reports delayed without supervisory approval are not acceptable. Issue #3 Did Sergeant Jeff Gearhatt #167 violate WeSt Chester Police Department Rules and Regulations Section 1.04 regarding Case Management related to Report 18~1233 1.04 Members shall exercise the responsibility and authority of the position to which they are assigned in accordance with job specifications and standard operating procedures or practices of that assignment. Issue #4 Did Lieutenant David Tivin #58 fail to exercise the i'e5ponsibility and authority of the position of Criminal Investigation Section Lieutenant as it pertains to C18 Supervisory Responsibility for Incident Reporting? West Chester Police Department Rules and Regulations Section 1.04 states: [.04 Members shall exercise the responsibility and authority of the position to which they are assigned in accordance with job speci?cations and standard operating procedures or practices of that assignment. Page 2 of22 Investigation August 29, 2018 IIU 18?05 was assigned to the Integrity and Development Unit for investigation and the complaint was reviewed. Seggternber 5, 2018 In order to investigate the thoroughness and timeliness related to Report 18-1233, this investigation will need to look at Of?cer Thomas?s investigation, the report approval process, and Case Management. Lieutenant Paul Haering #39 worked with Dan Aliner, IT department, to retrieve emails between Of?cer Thomas and Ms. Ellie Weilc. Case Management Tracking report was created and added to the report. Segtember 6, 2018 I requested Mrs. Jeanni Quinn #174, Central Records Section Supervisor, to provide Records Management System (EMS) noti?cations in ILEADS for Lieutenant David Tivin, Sergeant Jeff Gearhart, and Sergeant James Brenner #99 relating to Report 18?4233. Mrs. Quinn provided the information she was able to locate, but she is not con?dent all the noti?cations were located. Lt. Haering spoke with Ms. Christine Daley, Police Technician, requesting her to attempt to locate the noti?cations. I located a General Conditioanctivity Report Form in the Brie?ng Boole in reference to Report 18-1233. The form was completed by Of?cer Thomas on April 11, 2018 documenting Suspicious Activity. The form was added to the ?le. ?gprember 7 2018 Of?cer Thomas was served IIU 1. The form was added to the report. Page 3 of 22 Sentember 10, 2018 I began creating a timeline for Report 18~1233 using Of?cer Thomas?s report supplements and emails. I contacted Of?cer Thomas by telephone. I advised him to report for work on September 12, 2018 instead of attending scheduled training. I noti?ed him I intend to interview him on September 12, 2018. The phone call was recorded and added to the ?le. Police Technician, Christine Daley, created a report with the ILEADS noti?cations related to report 18?1233. The report was added to the ?le. Lt. Haering, Integrity and Development Unit, worked with Dan Abner, West Chester IT Department, to retrieve emails between Of?cer Thomas, Textmecom, and Mike Thacker. The emails were reviewed and added to the ?le. September 12, .2018 Of?cer Jim Thomas #182 Sgt. Matt Tombragel 106 and I interviewed Of?cer Thomas at approximately 0915 hours. Of?cer Steve Seitznian #234 and Of?cer Mike Veeneman #169 were present as union representatives. Of?cer Thomas read and signed IIU 3, Administrative Warning. The interview was recorded and added to the ?le. The interview is summarized and paraphrased below. Of?cer Thomas con?rmedvhe took a Telecommunication Harassment report ?om Ms. Ellie Weik on April 11, 2018. (Report 18?1233) Ms. Weik began receiving text messages on February 9, 2018 from an unknown person and the most recent texts were received on April 11, 2018. One of the texts received on April 11, 2018 contained a link to a video. The video was of Ms. Weik sitting at her dining room table. Ms. Weik did not recognize the phone number the texts came from. Of?cer Thomas requested Ms. Weik email the texts and video link to him. Of?cer Thomas told Ms. Weik he would try to determine who the carrier was for the phone number so he could issue subpoenas to the carrier to attempt to identify the account holder. Of?cer Thomas had prepared notes and referred to them to provide the following timeline. April 11th Of?cer Thomas took Telecommunication Harassment report from Ms. Weik. Page 4 of 22 - Of?cer Thomas utilized Accurint to check the phone number the texts came from and determined the number came back to a computer based program called Textmecom. Of?cer Thomas emailed Textmecom requesting a contact person to send subpoena requests for user information. April 25th - Of?cer Thomas sent email to Ms. Weik informing her the carrier was Textmecom. Ms. Weik replied by email, thanking Of?cer Thomas for the update. April 30th Of?cer Thomas completed a supplement stating the carrier was Textmecom. - Of?cer Thomas sent a second email to Textmecom, because he had not received the contact information he requested. May Ms. Weik emailed Officer Thomas stating she received two more text messages and attached screenshots of them. Of?cer Thomas received an email from Textmecom with their contact infonnaticn for subpoenas. May 3rd - Of?cer Thomas received an email from Textmecorn with their contact information for subpoenas. [They may have reusent this email due to Of?cer Thomas?s second email requesting this information] May 5th or 6th Of?cer Thomas issued a subpoena request to Butler County through their web portal to get the account information from Textmecom. Of?cer Thomas completed a supplement stating a subpoena had been requested. Of?cer Thomas said he did not have any further contact with the victim, Textmeeom, or the prosecutor?s of?ce until June 6th. June 631 Mike Thacher, Butler County Prosecutor?s Of?cer, sent an email to Of?cer Thomas containing the information requested from Textmecom. Of?cer Thomas advised it is common practice for Mr. Thaclter to email the information requested in a subpoena. Of?cer Thomas said he either overlooked this email or did not see it. June 15th Of?cer Thomas emailed Ms. Weik informing her he was still waiting on the information from Textmecom. Of?cer Thomas did not receive a reply from Ms. Weik. - Of?cer Thomas sent an email to Mr. Thacker requesting an update on the subpoena request. Page 5 of 22 - Mike Thacher re~sent Of?cer Thomas the email sent on June 6th containing the requested information from Texnneeorn. June let Of?cer Thomas sent an email to Ms. Weik advising her he reviewed the information from Textmeeom and he would need to send out additional subpoenas to the IF address and email address carriers to determine if he can locate a suspect. June 15th July 4?h Of?cer Thomas tried a couple times to access the information he had received from Textrnecorn to determine if there was anything he could do. July 4th - Officer Thomas completed a supplement requesting Criminal Investigation Section (C18) follow-up on the investigation. July 15*h - Officer Thomas?s last day working before going on vacation. July 17th - Report was retrnned to Of?cer Thomas to investigate and Detective Randy Farris #126 was assigned as secondary investigator to assist Of?cer Thomas. August 1St Of?cer Thomas?s ?rst day back to work. Officer Thomas received the noti?cation assigning the report back to him for investigation. A Missing Person report was taken in reference to Ms. Weik. I asked Of?cer Thomas about the text messages Ms. Weik received in February 2018. Of?cer Thomas did not know how many texts were sent at that time and Ms. Weik did not show him those texts. Ms. Weik did show Of?cer Thomas the text messages and video she received April ll, 2018. Of?cer Thomas described the text messages as ?someone reaching out to her?, asking if she knew who they were. Officer Thomas did not see any texts that were threating in nature. Officer Thomas believes the text Ms. Weik received in February were similar to the texts she received on April Officer Thomas viewed the text messages and the video while taking the report from Ms. Weik. The video was part of a text and the sender said, ?You don?t know who this is.? Ms. Weik replied, ?Lol?. Officer Thomas said nothing appeared to suggest the sender was going to hurt her. Sergeant Tombragel asked Of?cer Thomas why Ms. Weilc called the police and what her mental state was over the messages. Of?cer Thomas said he did not know. Of?cer Thomas believed Ms. Weik received the most recent text messages and video on April 1 l, 2018 and that is what prompted her to call police. Of?cer Thomas is not sure if Ms. Weik received any text messages between February 9, 2018 and April 11, 2018. Of?cer Thomas con?rmed he viewed the video link. The video was of Ms. Weik inside her residence and appeared to have been ?lmed by someone outside the home. Of?cer Thomas gave Ms. Weik his department email address and requested her to send him everything she had. Page 6 of 22 I asked Of?cer Thomas about his report stating Ms. Weik received a text asking what she thought about 9/11. Of?cer Thomas advised this was in reference to a text he did not see, but one Ms. Weik described received in February. Officer Thomas said Ms. Weik did not recognize the phone number the text messages came from. I asked Of?cer Thomas about the report indicating the texts came from someone named ?Mikael?, but there was no explanation where this came from. Ms. Weik provided the name and Officer Thomas believes she got this name from one of the text messages. Officer Thomas speci?cally asked Ms. Weik if she knew who ?Mikael? was and she said the only ?Mikael Michael? she knew was her ex~boyfriend, but she did not believe the texts came from him. Of?cer Thomas did not identify the ore boyfriend or get any additional information about him from Ms. Weik. I asked Of?cer Thomas about the spelling of ?Mikael? and he said that was how Ms. Weik spelled it. Officer Thomas does not remember if she knew anyone who Spelled their name this way. Officer Thomas con?rmed he received an email from Ms. Weik containing the Video link and text messages she received on April 11, 2018. Of?cer Thomas did not scan the texts, add them to the report, or print them and log them into property. Of?cer Thomas said he held onto the emails waiting for additional information to come in. He submitted all the information to C13 when Ms. Weik was reported missing. He said he put in his supplement he had the emails to forward to whoever was assigned the case. Of?cer Thomas does not have a reason for not adding the text messages to the report or making a copy of the Video. Of?cer Thomas made the decision to title the report Telecommunication Harassment based on the text messages Ms. Weik received, the fact somebody was reaching out to her, and she did not know who the person was. I asked Of?cer Thomas if the video created any concerns the report should have been taken as a Menacing by Stalking or some other type of report. Of?cer Thomas said it could go either way, but that was how he titled it and he was not instructed to change it. Sgt. Tombragel asked if Ms. Weik expressed any fear or concern about the text messages or video. Of?cer Thomas said, don?t recall her exact words of what she described, but am, yah she did, she did show some concern about not knowing who this is. I think that?s why I took into consideration what, what she was sending me and telling me, that I, continued to reach out to her and make sure that, asking her if she had received any other text messages, urn, continued to stay on Textmecom to make sure that, I had all my information, um, and then to uh, am, but like I said the last, I think the last contact that she gave me was a reply, urn, sometime in May? was a reply to my email. I was not made aware of any other, any other situations occurring, um, from that time on.? I asked Of?cer Thomas about a supplement he completed where he documented tasks he had performed. The supplement I referred to was completed on April 30, 201 8. The supplement stated Ms. Weik sent Officer Thomas the text messages and video. He investigated the phone number associated to the texts and found it came back to Textmecorn. The supplement also says Officer Thomas submitted an email request on April 12, 2018 to Textrnecom for the contact information for subpoenas. The supplement appears to show Of?cer Thomas received Ms. Weik?s email and discovered the phone number came back to Textmecom on April 30, 2018, the date the supplement was completed. Officer Thomas explained he worked on the case and completed the supplement on a later date. Sgt. Tombragel asked if that is an accepted Page 7 of 22 practice. Of?cer Thomas said when he was assigned to C18, it was acceptable to conduct investigative work and complete a supplement at a later date. Of?cer Thomas was asked if he requested subpoenas and tried to find information for the IP addresses associated to the phone number the text messages were sent from, between June 15, 2018 (the date he received the email from Mr. Thacker with the IP addresses from Textmecom) and July 4, 2018 (the date he requested the case be assigned to a C18 detective.) Of?cer Thomas said he sat down a few times trying to go through the information he had. He realized he was not able to put a lot of effort into it, so he forwarded the case to C13. Sgt. Tombragel showed Of?cer Thomas the email from Mr. Thacker and asked what he did with the information. Of?cer Thomas said he clicked on the link and he does not recall what came up, but he attempted this a few times. He determined it would take more time than what he had. Of?cer Thomas did not document what investigative action he took with the links or the results of these actions. . I asked Of?cer Thomas about the email he received from Ms. Weik on May 1, 2018 advising she received two more texts. Officer Thomas said he held onto the email and intended to complete a supplement at a later date or forward the information to C18. I asked Of?cer Thomas if he identi?ed anything in the investigation requiring any urgency or for him to ask for assistance. Officer Thomas said, feel that the uh, the steps that I took leading up to July 4th, um, were predominately in an, an urgent manner requesting the subpoena information as quickly as possible, um, even, even checking with Thacker to see where my, my information was, um, I made several attempts to see, what I could do with the information, um, and then forward it on to C18, urn.? Sgt. Tombragel interrupted Of?cer Thomas and asked him about receiving the information from Mr. Thacker on June 15m, but the information was actually sent on June Of?cer Thomas con?rmed that was correct and he overlooked the original email. Of?cer Thomas continued to answer the question in reference to the investigation requiring urgency or needing assistance. Of?cer Thomas said there was no communication with Ms. Weik for about a month or month and a half. There was no indication there were any additional videos, the texts had become more serious, anyone had actually called her, or any other contact with her. Officer Thomas was asked about receiving automated noti?cation when a report does not have activity for a certain period of time. He said he knows notifications are sent, but he does not know the time speci?cations. Of?cer Thomas does not remember if he received a noti?cation in reference to the Report 184233. Of?cer Thomas advised his practice is to delete the noti?cation when he receives it, because he is aware of the cases he is working and does not complete a supplement unless there is new information. Of?cer Thomas said he received noti?cation the case was assigned back to him for investigation on August 1, 2018, his ?rst day back from a two week vacation. On August 1, 2018 Officer Thomas became aware Ms. Weik was reported missing. Of?cer Thomas contacted Sgt. Gearhart, CIS, and provided him with the information he had. Of?cer Thomas feels the action and steps for a proper investigation were taken. Of?cer Thomas described the only break in the investigation was from the time he asked the case be Page 8 of 22 assigned to C18 (July 4111) and when he received noti?cation the case was assigned back to him for investigation (August September 26, 2018 Sergeant Jeff Niehaus #40 Sgt. Matt Tombragel and I interviewed Sergeant Niehans at approximately 1402 hours as a Witness of?cer. Sgt. Niehans read and signed EU 3, Administrative Warning. The interview was recorded and added to the ?le. The interview is summarized and paraphrased below. Sgt. Niehaus was interviewed in reference to the report approval process and Case Management, because he was one of the road patrol sergeants over Officer Thomas? squad at the time report 18-1233 was taken. Sgt. Niehaus was questioned about the report approval process and the management of cases assigned for follow?up investigation. Sgt. Niehaus explained of?cers take the report in the In Field Reporting (IFR) database and submit it for approval. The report then goes into the Squad bin in ILEADS and IFR for supervisor review and approval. Sgt. Niehaus reviews reports in ILEADS and makes sure there are no errors. He does this because the errors show up in ILEADS and not in IFR. He then makes sure all the appropriate boxes are filled in, reads the supplement for content, and approves the report. The report then goes to the Records Section. I asked Sgt. Niehaus about Report 18-1233 Telecommunications Harassment. He said he vaguely remembers someone sending pictures of the complainant inside of her own home, with the person taking the pictures outside the home. Sgt. Niehans con?rmed he approved the report and does not recall anything about the report creating urgency or Officer Thomas needing assistance with following up on the investigation. Sgt. Niehaus had a conversation with Of?cer Thomas about what to title the report and determined Telecommunication Harassment was appropriate. Sgt. Niehaas said he receives two types of noti?cations in reference to reports. A noti?cation is sent for ?no activity? and the other is when a report is at ?level Level 0 is when an of?cer began taking a report, but has not submitted it for approval. Sgt. Niehaus forwards these noti?cations to the officer, because he is unsure if they receive the noti?cation and this serves as a reminder. Sgt. Niehaus said Road i?atrol Supervisors cannot see cases assigned to of?cers, that he is aware of. Sgt. Niehaus has no idea how Case Management works. He said Lieutenants sometimes have an activity sheet with of?cer?s assigned cases for investigation. The Lieutenants ask the officers the status of the case, but he does not know who generates the activity sheet. Sgt. Tombragel asked if it is the supervisor?s responsibility to watch over case assignment or is it up to the officer to take care of their own business. Sgt. Niehaus believes the officers are Page 9 of 22 responsible for their cases, but ultimately it comes back on the supervisor. Sgt. Niehans said without noti?cations, it is one more thing knows the Lieutenants keep up with that. September 28. 2018 Sergeant Gearhart was served IIU l, the form was added to the ?le. Sergeant Jeff Gearhart #167 Sgt. Matt Tombragel and I interviewed Sergeant Gearhart at approximately 1109 hours. Sergeant Gearhait chose to Speak with us without a union representative. Sergeant Gearhart read and signed IIU 3, Administrative Warning. The interview was recorded and added to the ?le. The interview is summarized and paraphrased below. Sgt. Gearhart was interviewed in reference to the report approval process and Case Management, because he was the CIS sergeant at the time report 18-1233 was taken. Sgt. Gearhart was asked to explain his procedure for assigning reports for follow?up. He said an of?cer completes a report and then all of the reports go into an electronic CIS Role folder. A CIS supervisor reviews the reports. If follow-up is needed, the case is assigned to a CIS detective, road patrol of?cer, traf?c safety of?cer, school resource of?cer, or to the appropriate of?cer to investigate the report. Sgt. Gearhart advised he is responsible for Case Management for all reports taken by the West Chester Police Department. He determines which reports need to be assigned for followup and who to assign them to. When Sgt. Gearhart is off, Lt. Dave Tivin or Sgt. Jim Brenner take on this responsibility. This responsibility is communicated prior to Sgt. Gearhart being off. Lt. Tivin completes this task unless they are both off, then Sgt. Brenner reviews and assigns cases. When a CIS supervisor assigns a case, the of?cer assigned the case receives an instantaneous ?new case? noti?cation. Sgt. Gearhart thinks once the officer is assigned a case, they receive a noti?cation if there is no activity on the case for a certain period of time. Sgt. Gearhart said the exception to this no activity noti?cation is the CIS Supplement. This supplement was created so the CIS detectives can keep a running supplement documenting their investigation without receiving the no activity noti?cation. Sgt. Gearhart said the noti?cation is still sent to Central Records, but they know to ignore the noti?cation. Sgt. Gearhart believes a case has a twenty?one day due date from the time it is assigned in Case Management and the assigned of?cer?s supervisor receives an automatic noti?cation after the tWenty~one days. Sgt. Gearhart only sees the noti?cations for the CIS detectives and not the road patrol of?cers. Sgt. Gearhait explained once a report is assigned for investigation, the person assigning the case gets noti?cation whenever a supplement is completed. This noti?cation is only sent to the person assigning the case and not a shared bin or mailbox. Sgt. Gearhart said a supplement can also be linked to a speci?c person if the of?cer completing the supplement sends it as a link. Sgt. Gearhart questioned whether Page 10 of 22 the system always works properly, because after he has assigned a case, he has received a linked supplement ?orn an of?cer and never received the automatic supplement noti?cation. Sgt. Gearhart was asked how he determines which cases are assigned and who he assigns them to. Sgt. Gearhart said certain cases, like rapes and sexual offenses are assigned to a C18 detective. When he assigns general offenses, he has to look at the officer?s abilities, the amount of time needed for follow-up, and work?loads. The of?cer?s shift, work schedule, and the detective?s case?load can play a role as to who is assigned a case. Sgt. Gearhait sometimes has to ask himself if the road patrol officer can get to the case quicker than a detective, depending on the detectives case assignments. Sgt. Gearhart did not remember anything about Report 18-1233 creating any urgency or a reason not to assign the case to Of?cer Thomas for follow-up. Of?cer Thomas completed a supplement on uly 4, 2018 requesting the case be assigned to C18 for follow-?up. Sgt. Gearhait was on vacation beginning July 5, 2018 and his ?rst day back to work was July 16, 2018. Of?cer Thomas?s request to assign the case to CIS would have satin Sgt. Gearhart?s binlrnailbox and not the shared CIS Role mailbox, because Sgt. Gearhart assigned the case in Case Management. I asked Sgt. Gearhart if he was aware Of?cer Thomas was on vacation beginning July 16, 2018 and his ?rst day back to work was August 1, 2018. Sgt. Gearhait did not knowr this and the first he knew of this is when I mentioned it. I asked Sgt. Gearhart how cases are managed once they are assigned, to ensure they are being followed up on. Sgt. Gearhart?s understanding is the road patrol boss is in charge of their of?cer?s investigations. Sgt. Gearhart was asked how the road patrol supervisors are noti?ed or made aware their of?cers are assigned a case for investigation. Sgt. Gearhart said, can?t answer that, I don?t know.? Sgt. Gearhart referenced when reports were taken on paper, the yellow copies of the report were kept in a road patrol squad bin while the of?cer investigated the case. He said the process has not changed, the road patrol boss is reSponsible for managing their of?cer?s case load. Sgt. Gearhart said 013 has started providing the road patrol supervisors with weekly reports showing their of?cer?s case assignments. Prior to this investigation the information was not provided weekly or but was provided periodically. I referenced and showed Sgt. Gearhart the West Chester Police Department Policy 321 Incident Reporting, Section 3.2 018 Supervision Responsibility. This section states in part: CIS supervision will, at the conclusion of each thirty day period conduct an audit of all active/open to include warrant issued cases. 1. Investigating O??icers of active, open cases shall be contacted and requested to give an update. 2. Notification to o?icers will be made by sending notice to the o?icer ?s slu?? commander who will insure that the o?icer forwards a resgionse to CIS supervision within three working days. Sgt. Gear-hart con?rmed he did not conduct audits of all active/open cases at the conclusion of each thirty day period, but he did provide road patrol supervisors a list of assigned investigations Page 11 of 22 periodically. Sgt. Gearhart said he did not conduct these audits and is not aware of them being done. Sgt. Gearhart said on August 1, 2018 when Ms. Weik was reported missing, DetectiVe Randy Farris and Of?cer Thomas connected with one another and Of?cer Thomas provided all the information he had in reference to the Telecommunication Harassment report he took on April 1 1 201 8. October I 2018 Of?cer Jim Thomas #182 Follow?up Interview Sgt. Matt Tombragel and I conducted a follow?up interview with Of?cer Thomas at approximately 1000 hours. Of?cer Steve Seitzman was present as union representative. The interview was recorded and added to the file. The interview is and paraphrased below. Officer Thomas was asked how he ruled out Ms. Weik?s ear?boyfriend as a possible suspect given the fact the suSpect knew Ms. Weilc?s cellphone number, where she lived, and the only ?Michael Mikael? Ms. Weik knew was her ex?boyfriend. Of?cer Thomas said Ms. Weik told him she did not believe the person sending the texts and video was her cit?boyfriend, she felt the texts were coming from someone else. During the ?rst interview, Officer Thomas said Ms. Weik had concerns about not knowing where the texts were coming from. Officer Thomas said he does not remember her expressing any fear or urgency when he was taking the report. Officer Thomas was asked about the email Ms. Weik sent him on May 1, 2018 containing a screenshot of the text messages, stating she received two more texts. Of?cer Thomas said he did not complete a supplement documenting this information. Of?cer Thomas intended to document this information in a supplement at a later date after he completed additional follow-up. Officer. Thomas said he sent Ms. Weik emails on June 15 and June 21, 2018 updating her on the investigation and asking if she had received any additional text messages. Officer Thomas did not receive a reply to either email and Ms. Weik did not make any contact with Of?cer Thomas after the email she sent on May 1, 2018 Of?cer Thomas does not remember if he opened the video link Ms. Weilc sent him on the day the report was taken to confirm the video link he received worked and was the video Ms. Weilc showed him at the time he took the report. Officer Thomas was asked what he did with the information he received from Textmecom. He said the ?rst opportunity he had to look at the IP address information he received from Textmecom was on June 21, 2018. He made several attempts to examine this information before he realized he did not have the time to devote to this and requested the case be assigned to C18 on July 4, 2018. Officer Thomas did not document the dates he attempted to work on the IP address information or what was discovered during these attempts. Page 12 of 22 October 2 2018 Sergeant Torn Gabbard #115 Sgt. Matt Tombragel and I interviewed Sergeant Gabbard at approximately 1320 hours as a witness of?cer. Sgt. Gabbard read and signed ITU 3, Administrative Warning. The interview was recorded and added to the file. The interview is sutmnarized and paraphrased below. Sgt. Gabhard was interviewed in reference to the report approval process and Case Management, because he was one of the road patrol sergeants over Of?cer Thomas?s squad at the time report 18?1233 was taken. Sgt. Gabbard con?rmed the report approval process consists of the of?cer completing a report, the officer then approves the report, the report goes to a shared squad supervisor mailbox, a supervisor for that squad approves the report, and then the report goes to a records mailbox and a C18 mailbox. Sgt. Gabbard approves reports in ILEADS because it gives the error codes for what needs corrected on the report and the errors do not show up in IFR. Sgt. Gabbard was allowed to review Report 18-4233 completed by Of?cer Thomas. He con?rmed he approved the supplement completed on April 30, 2018. The supplement states Of?cer Thomas received the screenshots and video from Ms. Weik, but the report does not show preperty logged into evidence and/or the screenshots attached to the report. Sgt. Gabbard said normal procedure is for video and photos to be logged in, he does not remember any specifics related to Report 18-1233. Sgt. Gabbard did not read anything in the supplements he approved raising concern or urgency. Sgt. Gabbard was asked about automatic noti?cations. He said he routinely gets noti?cations in the shared supervisor squad mailbox saying a case needs updated. He opens the noti?cation, writes ?update? in the narrative, and forwards the noti?cation to the officer. Sgt. Gabbard is not familiar with the schedules or times associated with Case Management noti?cations. Sgt. Gabbard assumes CIS handles Case Management and sends noti?cations requesting investigation updates. Sgt. Gabbard said Road Patrol Lieutenants would print out sheets every now and then and give them to of?cers, telling them to do something with the case. October 4 2018 Lieutenant Michael Quinn #98 Sgt. Tombragel and I interviewed Lieutenant Michael Quinn #98 at approximately 1338 hours as a witness of?cer. The interview was recorded and added to the ?le. The interview is summarized and paraphrased below. Page 13 of 22 Lieutenant Quinn was interviewed in reference to the report approval process and case management, because he was the road patrol lieutenant over Officer Thomas?s squad at the time report 18-1233 was taken. The ?rst knowledge Lt. Quinn had of the Telecommunication Harassment report was after Ms. Weilt was reported missing. Lt. Quinn was asked about the report approval process. He said when an of?cer creates a report, the report is at ?level When the of?cer submits the report, it changes to ?level 1? and goes to a shared supervisor squad mailbox. One of the squad supervisors then reviews the report for accuracy and ensures there are no errors in The squad supervisor can return the report to the of?cer for corrections, in which case the report returns to - ?level or approve the report and it goes to ?level When the report goes to ?level it is sent to both Records and a C18 mailbox. Records reviews the report and when it is approved, it goes to ?level 3? and the report is locked. The reporting of?cer can request a report be assigned back to them for follow?up or can request the report be follow-up up by CIS. Lt. Quinn said the CIS sergeant reviews all reports taken by the West Chester Police Department. The 018 sergeant can place a clearance on the report or assign it for investigation or follow?up. The CIS sergeant determines which cases are assigned and who to assign them to. Prior to being promoted to lieutenant, Lt. Quinn was the CIS sergeant. When Lt. Quinn was assigned to C18, he cleared all the reports. If a report came to him that had been cleared, he would ?touch? it or re-clear it so the system would show all reports of?cially cleared by him. Lt. Quinn was asked about automatic noti?cation related to reports. He advised the reporting of?cer and their supervisors receive an automatic noti?cation when a report has no activity for a certain amount of time. Noti?cations are typically handled by the squad sergeants and he is not sure what they do when they receive a noti?cation. Lt. Quinn said road patrol supervisors are not noti?ed or made aware when a case is assigned to an of?cer for investigation or followwup. Typically, supervisors have no idea which of?cers are assigned cases, unless they do a search in Case Management. Lt. Quinn said, ?Quite honestly, supervisors on dayshift do not have time to do the searches.? Sgt. Tombragel said sometimes, in the past, lieutenants would have a list of assigned cases and request updates from the of?cers on their squad. Lt. Quinn said they would have to go into ILEADS and search each officer to see what cases they are assigned. When Lt. Quinn was in CIS, he would run a report of all open oases. He would print out the report and place it in the road patrol lieutenant?s mailboxes. Lt. Quinn does not know if Sgt. Gearhart has continued this practice. Lt. Quinn does not receive these reports from Sgt. Gearhart, but he does not know if the sergeants receive them. Lt. Quinn was shown the West Chester Police Department Policy 321 Incident Reporting. I referred him to Section 32.1.3.2 Supervisory Responsibility. Lt. Quinn said he did not run audits every 30 days, but he consistently ran them about every two months. He feels every thirty days is a little much, because in 018 it is not uncommon for cases to be open longer than thirty days. When Lt. Quinn was the CIS sergeant, he would do case reviews with all the detectives in C18. Lt. Quinn sat down individually with each detective and discussed all of their assigned cases and where they were with the investigation. Lt. Quinn was not aware audits were required every thirty days and of?cers had to respond within 3 working days. Lt. Quinn was promoted to Page 14 of 22 lieutenant two years ago and has not received any reports, until approximately two weeks ago, informing him of cases assigned to of?cers under his command. Lt. Quinn said the current system is not the best or most ef?cient. It is easy for things to get lost. He said, there are some de?ciencies and hopefully the new system will ?x the issues. October 11 2018 Lieutenant David Tivin was served IIU 1, the form was added to the ?le. Lieutenant David Tivin #5 8 Lieutenant Paul Haering and I interviewed Lieutenant Tivin at approximately 0907 hours. Lieutenant Tivin chose to speak with us without a union representative. Lieutenant Tivin read and signed ITU 3, Administrative Warning. The interview was recorded and added to the ?le. The interview is summarized and paraphrased below. Lt. Tivin was interviewed in reference to the report approval process and Case Management, because he was the CIS lieutenant at the time report 18-1233 was taken. Lt. Tivin was asked to explain the process used by C18 supervision to determine which cases are assigned for followup. He said the decision is based on solvabih'ty factors. Some of the factors he mentioned included if there is evidence to be processed, if a suspect is known, can a relationship between suspect and victim be determined, higher pro?le crimes, violent crimes, and matters that can be looked at to develop any of these factors. Lt. Tivin was asked how they decide who to assign a case to. He said they look at the experience of the reporting of?cer. Lt. Tivin said most cases assigned back to the reporting of?cer, the of?cer requested the case be assigned back to them. Lt. Tivin uses these opportunities as a learning tool for the patrol of?cer to develop investigative skills. Lt. Tivin referred to the Telecommunication Harassment report taken by Of?cer Thomas. He pointed out Of?cer Thomas was a former detective for ten years and the case was a relatively minor crime. Lt. Tivin did not assign this case to Officer Thomas, but he assumes this is the reason for assigning the case back to him for investigation. Lt. Tivin advised one of Sgt. Gearhart?s day to day responsibilities is determining which cases to assign and who to assign them to. Lt. Tivin estimates Sgt. Gear-hart has been a C18 supervisor for ?ve to six: years, including his assignment in Special Investigations Unit (SIU). Sgt. Gearhart replaced Lt. Quinn as (318 sergeant when he was promoted to lieutenant. Lt. Tivin was asked if Sgt. Gearhart was provided any guidance in regards to Case Management. He said Sgt. Gearhait did assign cases in Case Management while he was in SIU and prior to Lt. Quinn being transferred from the CIS sergeant position, they worked together and Sgt. Gearhart was shown the Page 15 of 22 work ?ow. Lt. Tivin also worked with Sgt. Gearhart going over solvability, who to assign cases to, and how to manage and monitor case~loads. Lt. Tivin was asked what the responsibility CIS SUpervision has in ensuring cases are being followedwup on. He said initially they have no responsibility, because the case are being assigned back for the purpose of follow-up. Lt. Tivin said this is normally done by noti?cations of inactivity. These noti?cations remind the of?cers they have a case needing to be worked on. He thinks after a case is assigned, the of?cer assigned the case will receive a noti?cation if the case has no activity for thirty days. Lt; Tivin said no activity does not necessarily mean a case is not being worked on. The investigator could be waiting on subpoena information or the nature of the investigation can cause a case to be open for an extended period of tirne. Lt. Tivin does not see the noti?cations for assigned cases, because only the individual assigning the case receives the noti?cations. I informed Lt. Tivin the automatic inactivity noti?cations go to the reporting of?cer after fourteen days of no activity and to the reporting of?cer?s supervisors after twenty-one days of no activity. I explained the thirty day noti?cation is not automatic, an audit is supposed to be run every thirty days and results provided to the of?cer?s supervisors. Lt. Tivin said it can be done a couple different ways and Case Management is just a shell view of the incident module. He explained anybody can run a query through the incident module to see what cases are assigned to who. Lt. Tivin said he has brought it up countless times at conunand staff meetings, supervisor?s meetings, and emails that supervisors need to be monitoring the cases assigned to their of?cers. I referenced West Chester Police Department Policy 321 Incident Reporting. The policy says (318 supervision is responsible for running an audit every thirty days for open/active cases and providing this information to the road patrol supervisors so they can follow-up with their of?cers who have cases assigned to them. Lt. Tivin said he understands what the policy says, but in the twelve years he has been a lieutenant, he has never seen a report like that. Lt. Tivin believes the way they were addressing it was by sending links to individual of?cers and their supervisors requesting updates on cases. Lt. Tivin understands what the policy says and he stated, ?This should have been taken care of. This is a day to day operation, maintenance that needs to take place.? Lt. Tivin said this is the responsibility of Sgt. Gearhart. He said Sgt. Gearhart had the ability to identify the problem, but not solve the problem, so he had to take it over. Lt. Haering referenced when the police department started using IFR and supervisors were told to stay out of Lt. Tivin said the bene?t of IFR was the supervisor could approve reports in the ?eld. When Captain Gutman was the lieutenant in C13, there was a push to approve reports in ILEADS because the supervisor could see the validation errors that could not be seen in IF R. Lt. Haering asked if Lt. Tivin ran reports in Case Management to see cases assigned to his of?cers when he was a road patrol supervisor. Lt. Tivin said whenithe program was installed, he didn?t even know what Case Management was: Lt. Tivin was asked if one of his sergeants on road patrol wanted to run a report of cases assigned to their of?cers, would he have been able to instruct them on how to run the report. He said at that time he would have not, but if that question would have been asked he would have taken steps to ?gure it out. Lt. Tivin stated he is not reviewing and evaluating the patrohnan?s performance on a day to day basis. He feels the road patrol supervisors are abdicating their responsibilities over the assigned cases, because they are not in charge of investigating. Reports are being submitted requesting cases be closed incorrectly and the supervisor is approving the report. Lt. Tivin is Page 16 of 22 concerned if the of?cers and supervisors do not understand the closure process, do they understand the investigative process. Lt. Tivin said there is confusion about when a case is closed. An investigation can be closed or complete, but still open for the purposes of reporting to the state. Lt. Haering said policy puts the of case closure on CIS supervision, not the road patrol supervisor. Lt. Tivin reference Report 18?1233 taken by Of?cer Thomas. He said Of?cer Thomas had been a detective for 8~10 years and at the time of the report, was his first week assigned back to road patrol. Lt. Tivin questioned why his supervisors would not critically read his report to see how he handled it and have questions about what took place. He said when a report is approved, it is more than stamping OK. The supervisor should be approving the report as being as good as or better than what they would have done. Lt. Tivin was asked about inactivity noti?cations. Lt. Tivin said inactivity noti?cations can come in when an of?cer is waiting on information they have sent a subpoena for and other cases, a noti?cation can come in on a case an of?cer had forgotten about. Lt. I-Iaering said this is why it is important to run the thirty day audits. He also advised Lt. Tivin the system only sends out one inactivity noti?cation to the reporting of?cer, one to the supervisors, and after sixty days the system does not send out any additional noti?cations. Lt. Tivin said he takes pride in deveIOping sergeants who work for him. He teaches them new things and allows them to show authority in the unit. This allows them to build self con?dence and decision making. Lt. Tivin said when Sgt. Gearhart came to C18 he needed work in several areas and he has come a long way. Lt. Tivin and Sgt. Gearhart have discussed the administrative skills involved in Case Management. Lt. Tivin said it is a balancing act, because he cannot take the responsibility of Case Management from Sgt. Gearhart, because that?s his job. Lt. Tivin advised the situation is being addressed and they have begun running weekly reports of open/ active cases and providing them to the lieutenants at the command staff meetinng Investigation 18-1233 Timeline A timeline was created for Of?cer Thomas? investigation of Report 13423 3. The timeline was created using emails, report supplement, Case Management noti?cations, and other documents related to the report. 2/9/1 8 Ms. Weik began receiving text messages. 42? 1 1/18 - Of?cer Thomas took Report 18?1233 Telecommunication Harassment. - Of?cer Thomas completed a General Condition Report in reference to Suspicious Activity at Ms. Weilt?s residence. Of?cer Thomas received email from Ms. Weik containing text messages and video link. 4/ 12M 8 - Of?cer Thomas requested subpoena contact information from Textmecom. Sgt. Gearhart assigned Of?cer Thomas as lead investigator in Case Management. Page 17 of 22 4/25/1 8 Officer Thomas emailed Ms. Weik saying he received the pictures she sent him and letting her know he requested subpoena contact information from Textmeeorn. Officer Thomas received a reply email from Ms. Weik thanking him for the update. 4/ 3 0/ 1 8 Of?cer Thomas completed a supplement stating he requested subpoena contact information from extmecom on 4/12/18. - Of?cer Thomas sent second request for subpoena contact information to Textmecom. 5/11?1 8 Of?cer Thomas received email from Ms. Weik saying she received two more texts. A screenshot of the taste was attached to the email. 5/ 51' 1 8 Officer Thomas received subpoena contact information from Textmecom. Of?cer Thomas issued a subpoena request through Butler County Prosecutor?s web portal. 1 8 Of?cer Thomas completed a supplement stating what he did on 5/5/1 8. 518/1 8 Of?cer Thomas received an email from Mike Thacker, Butler County Prosecutor?s Of?ce, with copies of the requested subpoenas attached. 6/ 5/ 1 8 Mike Thacker received email from Textmecorn containing the subpoenaed information. 6/6/1 8 .. Mike Thacher emailed Officer Thomas the hifmrnation from Textmecorn. 6/15/1 8 [10:41 Of?cer Thomas emailed Ms. Well: letting her know he was still waiting to hear ??om Textmeeom and asking if she received any additional texts. [10:44 Of?cer Thomas emailed Mike Thacker asking if he had heard anything from Textmeeom in reference to the subpoenaed information. [11:54 Of?cer Thomas received a reply email from Mike Thacker containing the - requested information from Textme.com. 6/21/1 8 - Of?cer Thomas emailed Ms. Weik saying he received the information from Textmecom and he would need to send out additional subpoenas to the internet providers. Officer Thomas asked if Ms. Weik had received any additional texts. 774/1 8 - Of?cer Thomas completed a supplement stating he received the email and IP addresses from Textmecom and requested CIS assistance with requesting additional subpoenas. 7/5 7/15/18 Sgt. Gearhart off work. 7/16 7/31/18 Officer Thomas off work. 7717/1 8 - Sgt. Gearhart assigned Detective Randy Farris as the secondary investigator and sent a link to Officer Thomas telling him to contact Detective Farris for assistance. Page 18 of 22 8/1/18 - Ms. Weik is reported missing. Report 18-2752. 8/2/18 8/15/18 Officer Thomas emailed Ms. Weik?s emails to Detective Farris. Of?cer Thomas completed a supplement containing additional information in reference to Report 18-1233. Summary Issues Concerning Of?cer Thomas?s Documentation of Report 18-1233 The initial "report did not explain where the name Mikael came ?'orn. The report did not document Ms. Weik had an err?boyfriend named Michael, his last name, or address. The report did not say why Of?cer Thomas did not treat him as a possible suspect. The emails and video link MS. Weik sent Of?cer Thomas were not scanned in and added to the report or logged into property. Of?cer Thomas did not document he received an email from Ms. Weik on May 1, 2018 stating she received additional texts and he did not scan the messages into the report or log them into property. Of?cer Thomas did not document his attempts to evaluate the IP address. information he received from Textmecom or the results when he clicked on the addresses. The Timeliness of Officer Thomas?s Investigation of Report 18-1233 Of?cer The timeline associated with Of?cer Thomas?s investigation of Report 184233 shows Thomas was moving forward with the investigation and actively working the case. The facts do not identify any unreasonable delays in Officer Thornas?s investigation. Report Approval Process ?Level 0? Repoit number is assigned. ?Level 1? Reporting of?cer submits the report. At this point, the report goes to a shared Squad mailbox. (The road patrol lieutenant and two sergeants have access to this mailbox) The supervisor can reject the report back to the reporting of?cer for correction or additional information (report goes back to ?level or the report is approved and goes to ?Level ?Level 2? Supervisor approved report. Report is sent to Records and a case is created in Case Management. The report is sent we shared mailbox where the case is assigned a status. ?Level 3? Records Section reviews the report and accepts it. The repolt is locked. Page 19 of 22 The reporting system generates automatic noti?cations to prevent reports ?om being forgotten about. The system generates an automatic noti?cation when a report exists for 1 day without the reporting of?cer submitting the report: The system also sends an automatic noti?cation to the reporting of?cer after 14 days of no activity on a case and a noti?cation is sent to the reporting officer?s supervisors after 21 days of no activity. The system generates validation errors that must be corrected before the supervisor can approve the report. This ensures the report is correct and meets the criteria set for electronically reporting crimes to the State of Ohio. Upon receiving reports from subordinates, supervisors are responsible for checking them for content, correctness, proper preparation, and completeness of information. The supervisor?s responsibility for reviewing reports for content and proper preparation becomes very subjective. This part of the report approval process is ?nther challenged, because the report and subsequent supplements can be approved on different dates, times, and by different supervisors. Report 18- 1233 consists of the original report and five supplements. The report and supplements were completed on ?ve separate dates and approved by two different supervisors. Sgt. Gabbard approved the supplement Officer Thomas completed on April 30, 2018-. The supplement stated Ms. Weik forwarded Officer Thomas screen shots from her phone and video. The report does not indicate the screen shots and video were scanned, added to the report, or logged into property. The error of Sgt. Gabbard approving the supplement do es not rise to the level of a Policy and Procedure or Rules and Regulations violation. Case Management West Chester Police Department Policies and Procedures places the responsibility of Case Management on CIS supervision. The purpose of Case Management is to close cases, assign cases, and ensure assigned cases are being followed-up on. This investigation found Case Management did not impact the investigation of Report 184233, because Officer Thomas was actively working the case. This investigation did discover audits of open/active cases were not being conducted, as required by department policy. The failure to do audits on open/active cases eliminates the checks and balances to ensure cases are followed?up on in a timely manner and are not forgotten about. Sgt. Gearhart handles the CIS Supervision Responsibility outlined in Policy 321.3.2. He acknowledged he has not been running thirty day audits of open/active cases. Lt. Tivin is the lieutenant over CIS and advised he has never seen a report generated by a thirty day audit. As the lieutenant over CIS, Lt. Tivin has the responsibility to ensure the policy concerning Case Management is understood and followed. Lt. Tivin and Sgt. Gearhart have taken steps to correct this issue and have begurr running weekly audits of the open/active cases and providing the report to Unit Lieutenants at the weekly command staff meetings. Page 20 of 22 Findings Issue #1 Did Of?cer Jim Thomas #182 fail to thoroughly document information from a citizen relating to report 184233 in accordance with department procedure? West Chester Police Department Rules and Regulations Section 2.02 states: 2. 02 Members oftlze department shall: 6) Thoroughly document information ?ow citizens relating to complaints or reports in accordance with existing department procedure. Policy 321 Incident Reporting states in part: 321.2.2 REPORTING RESPONSIBILITY - Conduct a thorough preliminary investigation. Documeat all findings oftlze investigation in IFR. SUSTAINED The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence Issue #2 Did Of?cer Jim Thomas #182 violate West Chester Police Department Rules and Regulations Section 1.02? West Chester Police Department Rules and Regulations Section 1.02 states: 1. 02 Members shall not commit or omit any acts which constitute a violation of any Rule, Regulation, Directive, arteries Directive, General Order, Special Order, Policy or Procedure of the Police Department or owaship of West Chester. Policy 321 Incident Reporting states in part: 321.2.4 GENERAL POLICY 0F EXPEDITIOUS REPORTING In general, all employees and supervisors shall act with promptness and efficiency in the preparation and processing of all reports. Art incomplete report, unorganized reports or reports delayed without supervisory approval are not acceptable. SUSTAINED The allegation is supported by suf?cient evidence Page 21 of 23 Issue #3 Did Sergeant I eff Gem-hart violate West Chester Police Department Rules and Regulations Section 1.04 regarding Case Management related to Report 18?1233? 1.04 Members shall exercise the responsibility and authority of the position to which they are assigned in accordance with job Speci?cations and standard operating procedures or practices of that assignment. SUSTAINED OTHER Sustaining of violation or misconduct other than the allegation of the original complaint. 1.02 Members shall not commit or omit any acts which constitute a violation of any Rule, Regulation, Directive, Interim Directive, General Order, Special Order, Policy or Procedure of the Police Department or Township of West Chester. Policy 321 Incident Reporting states in part: 321.3.2 CIS SUPERVISION RESPONSIBILITY c. CIS supervision will, at the conclusion of each thirty day period conduct an audit of all active/open to include warrant issued cases. I. Investigating o?icers of active, open cases shall be contacted and requested to give an update. 2. Notification to o?icers will be made by sending notice to the o?lcer?s shift commander who will insure that the o?cer forwards a response to CIS supervision within three working days. Issue #4 Did Lieutenant David Tivin #58 fail to exercise the responsibility and authority of the position of Criminal Investigation Section Lieutenant as it pertains to CIS Supervisory Responsibility for Incident Reporting? West Chester Police Department Rules and Regulations Section 1.04 states: 1.04 Members shall exercise the responsibility and authority of the position to which they are assigned in accordance with job specy?ications and standard operating procedures or practices of that assignment. SUSTAINED OTHER Sustaining of violation or misconduct other than the allegation of the original complaint. 1. 02 Members shall not commit or omit any acts which constitute a violation of any Rule, Regulation, Directive, Interim Directive, General Order, Special Order, Policy or Procedure of the Police Department or Township of West Chester. Page 22 of 23 Policy 321 Incident Reporting states in part: 321.3.2 CIS SUPERVISION RESPONSIBILITY c. CIS supervision will, at the conclusion ofeaok thirzj) day period conduct an audit of all active/open to include warrant issued cases. I. Investigoz?ing officers of active, open eases shali be contacted and requested 2?0 give an update. 2? Noti?cation to o?icers will be made by sending notice to the o?ieer?s shi?? commander who will insure that the o?ioer forwards a response to C18 supervision within three working days. This investigation 00:1317d: October 26, 2018 We) Sergeant Mark A. Weingartner #67 Page 23 0f 23