NARCOTICS DIVISION REVIEW
AND REVISION 0F
RELEVANT SOPs

Introduction

The Houston Police Department conducted an administrative review of its Narcotics Division
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) regarding Warrant service and the handling of confidential
informants in response to the warrant conducted at 7815 Harding Street on January 28, 2019. The
Harris County District Attorney?s Of?ce and the United States Department of Justice are
conducting a criminal investigation into the incident. The criminal investigations being conducted
by the Harris County District Attorney?s Of?ce and the United States Department of Justice are
not the subject of this review. The Houston Police Department has fully cooperated with all
requests made by the Harris County District Attorney?s Of?ce and the Department'of Justice.

The Houston Police Department?s Internal A?airs Division has conducted a separate
administrative inquiry to investigate allegations of of?cer misconduct.

As a result ofthis adininistrative review, the department made revisions to its Narcotics Division
801?s and took other action as described below.

Scope of Review

The time frame covered by this review was from January 1, 2016, to January 28, 2019. The review
examined case ?les, SOPs, offense reports, and con?dential informant ?les. included in the
review were all cases generated by former Senior Police Officers Goines and Bryant from January
1, 2016 to January 28, 2019. Also included in the review was a representative sample of Narcotics
General Enforcement Squads 9, 10, 14, and 15.

The scope of this review included the following SOPs:
Narcotics Standard Operating Procedures relating to warrant preparation, warrant service,
and con?dential informants. SOPs 10012.03, 200/ 1.02, 200/ 1.05, 
20011.22, 200/135

Revisions to SOPs:

 

. A Narcotics lieutenant must be present during the service of any warrant at a dwelling or
business that may involve forced entry. 

Search and arrest warrant tactical plans will be reviewed by the case agent?s chain of command
up to the division commander.

 

 ?No Knock? warrants now require approval by the Chief of Police or his designee and service
by the Houston Police Department?s Tactical Operations Division?s Special Weapons and
Tactics (SWAT) Team. 

The Narcotics Tactical Team (NTT) was established to provide a uniformed enforcement
component in the Narcotics Division. The assignments include serving knock and
announce warrants. 

Search warrant requests will only be signed by a District Court Judge or the twenty-four~hour.
magistrate. Warrants will no longer be signed by a municipal court judge.

Finalized and implemented the plan to equip investigators with body-worn cameras (BWCs).
Narcotics Division investigators are required to wear BWCs when taking the following
enforcement action: -

All entry team members will wear a BWC.

BWC will be activated before leaving raid vehicle.

The BWC may only be turned off after entry is made and the scene is secured.
Video will be taken to document interior and exterior of scene prior to search.
Still photos will be taken of items as they are seized.

00000

All con?dential informants will have an arrest/criminal activity check conducted annually to
assess continued suitability and reliability, .

An electronic case management system for comprehensive tracking of cases has been
implemented, thus eliminating paper case ?les.

Additional detail required on documentation of contact(s) with (313, including all conversations
(electronic and in person). The documentation shall include the date, location (if applicable),
type of communication, personnel present for the meeting and purpose for the conversation.

A Narcotics Division lieutenant will conduct a face-to?face biannual review of randomly
selected informants from each of?cer who has a registered con?dential informant.

NOTE: Entire Standard Operating Procedure manual was revised in December 2019 to re?ect

operational changes.

 

 

..HOuSton Police Department

Narcotics Division Operational Review

 

 

Executlve Summary

In February 2019, Chief of Police (COP) A. ACevedo ordered an investigative audit of the
Narcotics Division General Enforcement Squads to determine if policies and procedures
were adhered to, during a warrant service at 7815 Harding St. This incident brought into
question the procedures used by Narcotics Division case agents in regards to warrant
development/service and handling of informants.

A separate internal affairs investigation was conducted to document incidents of of?cer
and supervisory misconduct. The audit revealed policy Violations due to administrative
errors committed by Narcotics case agents and supervisors. The review concluded that
case agents did not follow policies related to warrant services, operations planning, and
handling of con?dential informants. As a result of the audit, the team chose six policies
for revision.

It is important to note that the audit did not con?rm criminal activity occurring between a
con?dential informant and a Narcotics case agent. The review revealed numerous errors
related to con?dential informant payments, but a conclusion of illegal aetivity is not
possible without the ability to interview the con?dential informant or witnesses. The
Harris County District Attorney?s Office is conducting an independent review to determine
if any criminal activity occurred. 

Based on the ?ndings during the preliminary Internal Affairs investigations, the COP made
a formal request to the Harris County District Attorney?s Of?ce requesting dismissal of all
cases involving Senior Police Of?cers (SPO) Goines and Bryant that have not received a
?nal conviction. This request was granted and resulted in the dismissal of over two dozen
cases. -

The COP also immediately halted the use of ?No Knock? warrants within the Narcotics
Division. The review documents issues with the request, documentation, and service of
?No Knock? warrants. All policies and procedures related to ?No Knock? warrant requests
were substantially revised to comply with the COP orders.

Objectives 

The audit objectives are to assess the Narcotics Division policies and procedures speci?c
to warrant service, operations planning, and handling of con?dential informants. The audit
will cover all records, reports, and ?nancial data generated ?'om the use of con?dential
informants (receipts, expense during the period of January 28, 2016 to
January 28, 2019. 

The results of the audit will decrease risks associated with high-risk narcotics operations
for both the of?cer and citizen. Supervisory oversight will also improve due to the
de?ciencies discovered during the audit process.

 

 

Methodology

The scope of this audit includes a systemic and analytical review of the following:

a. Narcotics Standard Operating procedures of operations, warrant service, and
handling of con?dential informants.

b. Implementation of immediate changes to the approval procedures of ?No Knock?
and ?Knock and Announce? warrants.

0. Case audit of SPO G. Goines #82651, and 3. Bryant #106620, from January 23,
2016 to January 28, 2019.

d. Case audit of General Enforcement Sc?luads 14 and 15 from January 28, 2017 to
January 28, 2019. ..

e. Case audit of General Enforcement Squads 9 and 10 from January 28, 2017 to
January 28, 2019. -

f. A comprehensive review of all informants handled by SPOs Goines and Bryant.

. g. A comprehensive review of all expense letters and receipts ?led by SPOs Goines
and Bryant. . 

h. Review of ekpenses relating to the use of the Con?dential Informant which led to
the drafting of a- search warrant at 7815 Harding and payment made as a result of
warrant service. .

Th; audit team examined physical records and any/all electronic records and database that
contained information relating to cases generated by the target of?cers and squads. The
Narcotics Division granted access to their Narcotics Division database, Con?dential
Informants database, SOPs, and records room.

Narcotics Division Standard Operating Procedures
The Narcotics Audit team reviewed seven Narcotics SOPs, which speci?cally dealt with
the procedures used to develop a case, conduct narcotics search warrants and handling of
con?dential informants. The audit revealed that six of seven SOPs lacked supervisory
suf?cient oversight. Changes were made to increase supervisory control. The SOPs
subject to review were:

a. 200/101: Establishing Criteria for Investigations
The SOP revealed suf?cient guidance in establishing investigations.

 

b.

200/ 1.02: Activity Authorization and Notification

A Narcotics Lieutenant must be present during the service of any warrant at a dwelling
or business which may involve forced entry. The case agent?s supervisor will be
responsible for: 

0 Ensuring the Operational Plan is presented to participating personnel.

- Providing necessary safety equipment.

Directing surveillance.

Security of undercover officers.

Entry to dwelling or residence.

Arrest and security of suspects.

Ensuring a ?Secondary Search? of the premises for suspects is completed, before
calling the location clear. 

Search Assignments.

Recovery and submission of evidencie and money.

Coordinating transportation of prisoners.

Securing premises upon completion.

. Narcotics Operational Plan

The SOP was changed to require lieutenant approval before the service of any warrant,
?ash, buy-bust or any instance the squad lieutenant deems appropriate. Narcotics
Division of?cer?s liaison with many outside agencies to complete their mission. The
SOP now requires noti?cation to the Division Comrriander and Squad Lieutenant if any
outside agencies participate in any operation. A separate policy is currently under
development to comply with the Chief of Police decision to require Narcotics of?cers
to wear body-worn cameras, (BWC) when taking enforcement action.

20011.12: Search WarrantsIBuy Busts and Open-Air Investigations

Supervisory oversight before the service of a search warrant has been revised.
Supervisors are now required to review investigative efforts which support the search
warrant af?davit. Although supervisors were trained by the Narcotics Training Unit to
review all search warrant af?davits, the SOP did not explicitly require. supervisory
rev1ew.

All entry team members Will wear body~worn cameras. The case agent, not the affiant,

will be responsible for; I

- Completing the offense report.

0 Filing proper charges.

- No later than three whole days after executing a search warrant, the of?cer shall
return the search warrant to the court of original jurisdiction.

0 Securing a certi?ed copy of the search warrant.

I Obtaining a certified copy of the return.

. Upload a digital copy of the certi?ed Return to Intellinetics of the RMS report,

ensuring the celti?cation stamp is included.

 

When conducting ?Open Air? operations, the Case Agent will notify a Narcotics
supervisor at the beginning and end of the operation. Case agents will request EMS

assistance/presence during service of any warrant on a res1dence or business requiring
forced entry. .

e. 200/1.15: Handling of Contraband an Evidence
The SOP revealed suf?cient guidance in establishing procedures used to recover and
tag narcotics evidence and handle currency seizures.

f. 20011.22: Handling Confidential Informants
Handling of con?dential informants required careful revision to avoid future
mishandling of informants. Supervisory oversight Of all investigations involving a
con?dential informant has been enhanced. Supervisors will also verify the veracity of
all con?dential informants? information, especially any information leading to the
issuance of a search or arrest warrant. 

Revisions to SOP 200/ 1 .22 were:

a A case agent is not allowed to use a family member as an informant. 

- Case agents will document all conversations (electronic or telephonic) with a
a con?dential informant. Documentation will consist of the following: 

A. Personnel present for the. meeting.
B. Purpose of the conversation.

- A narcotics Supervisor will meet with each ease agent on a basis to discuss
the status of each con?dential informant assigned to or used by the case agent.
Supervisors will ensure ?each of?cer is correctly utilizing their informants and abide
by all policies and procedures.

g. 20011.35: Noise Flash Diversionary Device (N FDD)
The SOP revealed suf?cient guidance in establishing procedures used to deploy
NFDD during the service of a search warrant.

Implement immediate changes to the approval
procedures for Knock? and ?Knock and

Announce? search warrants.
On February 19, 2019, Chief Acevedo temporarily ceased the use of ?No Knock? warrants.
?No Knock? warrants now require COP approval and the use of the Houston Police

Department?s Tactical Operations Division, Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Team.

The Narcotics Division immediately modi?ed their tactics in ?No Knock? and ?Knock and
Announce? warrants. The Narcotics Division will train of?cers on the following skill sets:

5

 

- New operational plan for the division (to include a checklist for warrant
preparation). 

0 Quarterly classroom training to discuss policy updates, relevant laws, and legal
rami?cations with a speci?c focus on supervisory awareness. The Narcotics
Division currently conducts quarterly ?rearms training. The curriculum will now
include a minimum of an hour of training pertaining to policy discussion.

I Scenario?based training to include:

a. Shields
b. Breach and assess
c. Slow and Deliberate Searches .

I- Search warrant requests requiring the signature of a District Court Judge.

- Narcotics Division will only conduct ?Kno?Ck and Announce? warrants.

a The NarcotiCs Division Commander will establish a ?Warrant? team used explicitly
for ?Knock and Announce? warrants. The ?Warrant? team will also be available
to assist Narcotics Case Agents in'undercover operations. .

- Narcotics Divisions Case Agents will employ the use of a BWC during all
enforcement operations. - 

Post case audit of SPO G. Goines #82651. and S.
Bryant #106620, from January 28, 2.016 .to January
28, 2019. .

The Narcotics Audit Team reviewed all cases conducted by SPO Goines and SP0 Bryant
from January 28, 2016 to January 28, 2019. In total, 231 cases were audited. The audit
team obtained all cases from the Narcotics Case Tracking Database. In addition to an
electronic review, the team physically reviewed each case file.

The review also included all of?cers on the case tracking sheet generated by either SPO
Goines or SPO Bryant. The results cf the audit documented the number of times SPO
Goines or SPO Bryant worked with each other as ?Co?Case Agents.? The review will also
record the number of times a case agent employed the use of a con?dential informant.

Senior Police. Of?cer G. Goines Cases 2016 2019

Figure 1 illustrates the number and type of cases SPO Goines conducted from January 1,
2016 to January 28, 2019. SPO Goines payroll number was associated with a total of 84
cases listing him as the primary case agent in the Narcotics Case Tracking Database. It is
important to note that the Narcotics Case Tracking Database contains errors which are
human data entry errors. The possibility exists that SPO Goines generated reports which

are not in the Narcotics Case Tracking Database. The statistics provided in this report were

obtained solely from the Narcotics Case Tracking Database, HPD Record Management

System (RMS), and the HPD Property Room database 

 

Figure 1 is an illustration of the type of cases SPO Goines engaged in as the primary of?cer
from January 1, 2016 to January 28, 2019. Table 1 provides percentages of the nature and
number of cases SPO Goines engaged in as the primary of?cer. In 38% of the cases, SPO
Goines involved the use of an informant, and the case ?was titled ?Controlled Buy.? As a
result of the controlled buys, SPO Goines second highest activity involved the use of search
warrants, which in total equaled 36%. In total, SPO Gaines cases with an informant
equaled 74% of his documented caseload.

SPO GOINES CASES 2016 - 2019

Sllmil Pop/P93 

Pull/[Jill
Sheet l?op
?rearm Will I aul/I?UM
Search I 
Seach 
?Surnrh it?s
?rm: I ant
[\lmmticr,
Found Nam-once
'5

i

[luv Walk 

 

Figure I SPO Goings Tara! Cases 2016 2019

The audit also examined the number of cases SPO Goines is listed as the primary of?cer
and the officer he worked with the most cases with The Narcotics Case Tracking Database
possesses the ability to track the name and payrolls of the primary and secondary of?cers
as?igned to the case. The database also has the capability of adding eight additional officers
to the case tracking sheet. 

Fi re 2 indicates SPO Goines worked 38% Of his cases with SP0 SPO

etired in February 2019 after the incident at 7815 Harding St. occurred. Figure
2 illustrates SPO Goines anchonducted 15 controlled buys during the period of
January 1, 2016 to January 2 2019. The audit did not reveal any misconduct committed
by SPO 

 

 
 

 

 

SPO GOINES 8: CASES 2016 


l?up/lIt?f?

Pop

Sent: ll 
5'33th 
I .ml/Dt's
Seanch WM 

Loulmlled Buy

:3

Figure 2 Type of Cases Worked by SPO Gaines 2019

 

During the same period, SPO Bryant assisted SPO Gaines in 27% of his cases, with the
majority consisting of 1? controlled buys. SPO Gaines also listed several members of his
squad supporting him in his cases, but it was interesting to note that none of the
investigations involved a controlled buy.

   
   

SPO GOINES AND BRYANT CASES 2016 2019



?Tu'u'n t'h Win 1 ant

Nmmlizis

Huy

Figure 3 Type of Cases Worked by SPO Gaines and Bryan! 2016 2019

 

 

speci?cally in cases involving controlled buys and informants. SPO Goines
1 me several members of his squad, but as illustrated in Fig. 4, none of the investigations
involved a controlled buy or a con?dential informant. Squad members mostly assisted in
cases involving the execution of a search warrant or street op. Table 1 represents the
percentage of cases SPO Goines worked with SPO Bryant, and members of his
squad.

The audit i'evealed SPO Goines primarily worked narcotics cases with Of?cers Bryant and

SP0 GOINES AND SQUAD CASES 2016 - 2019

Street 

Sheet Pup/Of":
Street Pop 13.41%, 2

Branch Wmmul/Ptlivl 3.701513, 1

SEdlLl'l intent 1
Warrant/PCS

Search Wm .?ml 1LT. 3. Pitt-:1, 1
Sum Wm I (Int
Diff.

Buy Walk

 

Figure 4 Type ofCases Worked by SPO Gaines and Squad 20) 6 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Of?cer Payroll Number of Cases Percentage of

Worked Cases Worked
Bryant . -. 23 27%
Squad . - Assorted 27 32%
Worked 2 cases NA 2 2%
where there is no

Secondary Officer Listed
Total 84 100.00%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1 Percentage of Cases Worked by SPO Gaines and other O?icers between 2016 - 2019

Senior Police Of?cer S. Bryant Cases 2016 - 2019

Figure 5 illustrates the number and type of cases SPO Bryant conducted from January 1,
2016 to January 28, 2019. SP0 Bryant payroll number was associated with a total of 147
cases listing him as the primary case agent in the Narcotics Case Tracking Database.
Figure 5 is an illustration of the type of cases SPO Bryant engaged in as the primary of?cer

9

 

 

 

from January 1, 2016 to January 28, 2019. Table 3 provides percentages of the type and
number of cases SPO Bryant engaged in as the primary of?cer. In 63% of the cases, SPO
Bryant involved the use of an informant and the case was titled ?Controlled Buy.?

Primarily, as a result of controlled buys, SPO Bryant second highest activity involved the

use of a search wan'ant, which in total equaled 21%. In total, SPO Bryant cases with an
informant equaled 84% of his documented caseload.

SP0 5. BRYANT TOTAL CASES 2016 - 2019

Tlnf?llt lilth/Pl??S 2
hallic ?3al 1
Silent 
'f-llti?li?l l?up/Uf? 51%, 
Pup 
Smurh i
fit-(HEM l?ii'u, 

1.9mm Warrant/INS 1m, In
hearth WenaM/Felmr in Pransmsion l'J-fa, '2
- 
Search Warrant
fir-(lull 
Investign'llc'm anrntic?
{my
Buy Bust

90 IUD

 

igure 5 SPOBryant Total Cases 2016 4 2019

The audit also examined the number of cases SPO Bryant is the primary of?cer and the
he worked with the most. The Narcotics Case Tracking Database possesses the
ability to track the name and payrolls of the primary and secondary of?cers assigned to the
case. The database also has the capability of adding eight of?cers to the case tracking
sheet. 

Figure 6 indicates SPO Bryant worked 27% of his cases with SP0 Goines. Figure 6 also
illustrates that SPO Bryant and Goines conducted 36 controlled buys during the period of
January 1, 2016 to January 28, 2019. Even though SPO Bryant worked 75 cases with
various members of his squad, only 29 involved a controlled buy as compared to 36 with
SP0 Goines.

10

 

SPO BRYANT AND GOINES CASES 2016 2019

Tullfir?lul')

Swill LII Warmnl

form nllmi [luv

?31012 6 Type of Cases Worked by SPO Bryant and Gaines 2016 2019

During the same period, SPomassisted SPO Bryant in 21% of his cases with the
majority consisting of 27 controlled buys. 

SPO BRYANT AND CASES 2016-
20 19
51mm. map/rum
St: em Pop/[1L3
5.2mm 


tiny [lust

If} 10 5 20

Figure 7 Type of Cases War 'ed by SPO Bryan! and 6 2019

 
  

The audit revealed that SPO Bryant primarily worked narcotics cases with SPO Goines and
speci?cally cases involving controlled buys and informants. It is common
practlce that case agents work with other case agents. SPO Bryant utilized several
members of his squad, but as illustrated in Fig. 8, the cases primarily involved the execution
of a search warrant or street op. Table 2 represents the percentage of cases SPO Goines
worked with Bryant, and members of his squad.

11

 

 

SPO BRYANT AND SQUAD CASES 2016-2019

Tmliu. 
sneer Pop/Dr's
Pop
Search Wm ant/POM
Wmnull/Pf'b/l'Olv'l

Sosulgll Ill 
Bear ch Wm I NONI
?f-n'mrL'Il Warmnl
5413.1? 11 Wmmut
Nmruine

Controllorl Hm;

       

Figure 8 Type of Cases Worked by SPO Bryant and Squad 201 6 2019

Of?cer Payroll Number of Cases Percentage of
Worked Cases Worked

31 21%
Goines . 1.36%
Squad . . . Assorted 44 . 29.93%
4 2.72%
- Total 147 100%
Table 2 Percentage of Cases Worked ?by SPO Bryant and other O?icers between 2016 2 019

 

During I the time period of 2016 2019, .SP0 Bryant worked with Of?cers 
and SPO worked 19 total cases with SPO Bryant, with 18
of centre uys.' SPO, worked 6 total cases with SPO Bryant, with
100% of the cases consisting of controlled buys. SPO-worked 4 total cases with SPO
Bryant, with 100% of the cases consisting of controlled buys. SPO worked 2 total
cases with SP0 Bryant; with 50% of the cases consisting of controlle uys. -

 

   

  
 

Errors Associated with Cases Involving SPO Goines
and Bryant

The audit reviewed a total of 231 investigations completed by SPO Goines and Bryant
between 2016?2019 to determine the types and frequency of errors discovered. The results
of the examination found 404 errors (some with multiple errors in the same case tracking

12

 

number). The error rates

for each documented category indicate a high percentage 0f

mistakes; particularly in the administrative categories. The results show a high level of
administrative errors and overall lack of attention to detail when completing case
paperwork.

The team placed the data into six distinct categories based on the type of errors. The
categories are:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Administrative
2. Inforrnants
3. Evidence
4. Investigations
5. Offense Report
6. Operations
AdrlriniElra?ve Errors
Code Error De?nition
A1 No Blue Back The case ?le was hot turned on or the ?le was recreated by the
audit team .
A2 No Case Tracking Number There was ad Narcotics Division CT number created for this case
i Case Tracking Error There are errors en the case tracking sheet
A4 Late Case Tracking Entry Case Tracking Sheet was entered late
A5 Missing Case Review Sheet Case Review Sheet not attached to the case investigative tile
A6 No Supervisor Signature on Case Review Sheet No Supervisor Signature on Case Review Sheet
Con?dential Informant Errors 
CI Expense Report Error Ettore on expense report relating to expenditures
C2 Unauthorized Informant Payment Informant was paid prior to supervisory approval
C3 Expense Discrepancy Discrepancies between expense report and offense report
C4 Informant Documentation not Adequate CI payment form does not offer adequate information to justify
payment
C5 No EXpense Letter - Expense Letter missing 
. 7 Evidence Errors 
El . Late Evidence Submittal Evidence was submitted days alter recovery
E2 Evidence Discrepancy Discrepancy between submission slip and offense report relating
to date, weight, or other inconsistencies
E3 Evidence Submission Slips Missing No evidence submission slips found in case ?le
. - . Investigation Errors
11 Thoroughness of Investigation Report was missing portions of the investigation which questioned
- . procedural issues relating to the warrant or arrest 
. A - Offense Report Errors
Ol Inadequate Offense Report Case lacked sufficient details to explain PC or procedural errors
discovered
02 Incomplete Offense Report Report lacked supplements, narratives and errors
03 Late Report Entry Report completed weeks or months post incident
Operations Errors
Sl Supervisory Conduct Supervisor not present when required
T1 Tactical Plan Tactical plan not signed or missing
W1 Late Warrant Rehtm Warrant retumed late to the courts
W2 Warrant Discrepancy Numerous errors on warrants
W3 Warrant Procedural Errors Search and arrest warrants based on controlled buys by informants
with vague information. These should be just search warrants

 

 

 

13

 

 

W4 No Search warrant in case ?le No search warrant in case ?le

 

W5 No Warrant Return Search warrant not returned to court

 

 

No errors found No errors

 

 

 

 

Table 3 Error Codes and De?nitions

Figure 9 documents the type and number of errors committed by SPO Goines and Bryant.
Table 3 includes the de?nition of each error code. ?Missing Case Review Sheet? attributed
to the most signi?cant portion of errors but of more substantial concern was ?Late
Evidence Submittal,? which was 17%.

Total Errors by Goines and Byrant 2016-2019


Wanant [Hurlepaney 
Informant Pcwment 
nl 21
I'ael ital l?lrru ll?h?r, Lt":

No War I 91134:, it
No Sealel'r Warrant in [3-190 Flte Stirs, (t
No xpeme letter 213, 
Nu i. 2

Nu tinse hacking Number It
ND Blue Back 
[Viewing ease Itewew Sheet 99%, 
Late Wm Innl [tetum (1%,14
Inle Repnrl 1 4151., 
Late Lvirlenee Suhrnittal lilo, 40
16%. 3t}
Inirn l)rn:uulentotugnI Nm Adequate
II?Imr'rlplele OHeuse l'x'epru'l'
tusrlequale Otis-maze Report
Fxpense Report Error
Expense 13%, 31
Evulemre 
Furrlemnz- 1
(Lane Tm: lung 14%, 

1.0 do

Figure 9 Types of Errors in Cases Associated to Gaines and Bryan!

14

 

 

 

Documentation of Case Errors Committed by SPO
Goines 2016 2019

The Narcotics Audit Team also investigated 34 cases SPO Goines generated to determine
the number and frequency of errors found in each case. In Figure 10, the Audit Team
discovered that SPO Goines failed to deposit recovered narcotics in a timely fashion. SPO
Goines failed to tag the drugs into the evidence box before the end of his shift 48% of the
time. Con?rmation of the conclusion was veri?ed by a review of the LMS system to
compare the recovery of the evidence and receipt by the Houston Forensic Science Center.
Other recurring issues stemmed from ?Expense Discrepancies? ?Missing Case
Review Sheets? ?Case Tracking Errors? (23 and ?Failure to Complete a Tactical
Plan? - 

SPO Goines Errors 2016 - 2019

Warrant 2

W.:n I Digel 

3
lln.?mlhon izerl Intel l?nyrnenl.


2 18

of Investigation 7

2r"! 

la: [ital Plan gm,
[\Jn Warrant Retmn 3
Nu Seal I'ii \annl in (Wise File t?l
No J.
No Case ltaelnng i]

No Blue [Lick

[VII-vain? (Taur- RPvim-v ?aheel

Late Helm 

Late l- videnLe 

Late (Jen) l?ni?ry
Not Mir-rural}:
Intiomplete ('Jllenw Relirnl
Inadequate Report
lumen-1e Report [urn

Expense 

Lurdenre Enihnlizzsinn Musing
Evidence DI-ntl 

(jam: Hart-(mg Ener

251%, 

41)
17%, 14

12%, U)
r1
-


7 Iii}, :1 .3:

.2 .3223, 19

25

 

Figure I0 All Errors in Cases Pertaining to Gaines 2016 2019

15

 

 

Documentation of Case Errors Committed by SPO
Bryant 2016 2019

The Narcotics Audit Team also investigated 147 cases to determine the number and
?'equency of errors found in each of SPO Bryant cases. Figure 15 revealed that SPO
Bryant?s most consistent error was ensuring the ?Missing Case Review Shee was
attached to the investigation. SPO Bryant failed to turn in the case ?le after the
investigation in 26 of the 147 cases Other recurring issues stemmed from ?Late
Case Tracking Entry? ?Case Tracking Errors? and ?Thoroughness of the
Investigation? 

SPO Byrant Errors 2016-2019

Wananl Procedural EH01 tit-1?, E:
Wm I ant Dl??JGl'lCli'lC'f
'i'lirn ?ugliness, [If It ?I-ii, ill

Taclirni 
I'vinow (1 
No Wm I out 
No [Expense [Elli?:1
No Etmn.

NU Burl: 18%, .16


51%, 



I n- I

tall:- Wain-ml Rotlnn 



1 nl iv f1


16%, ?4

Lalo {3:15.13 hacking l-nlw
Incornnloln Oilon-m liu?pon b'Ji, 
OI'I'onse linnorl
Expense [Mancunian

Evidence Slips Missing
Evidence ['Jisnensnug

Case Enrn i 10%, 

2 0

Figure 1] All Errors in Cases Pertaining to Bryant 2016 - 2019

 

 

Post case audit of South General Enforcement
Squads 14 and 15, from January 28, 2017 to
January 28, 2019.

Narcotics South General Enforcement Squads 14 and 15 are housed at the Southeast
Division. The South General Enforcement Squad consists of squads 14 15. Both squads
are commanded by one lieutenant. Each squad has 2 sergeants, 8 to 9 officers, and 1
Narcotics of?cer.

The review covered two years commencing on January 28, 2017, and ending on January
28, 2019. During this period both squads completed a total of 981 individual
investigations. The audit. team conducted a review of 107 ?Case. Tracking? numbers from

Narcotics General Enforcement Squads 14 15 from January 28, 201, to January 28 2019. 

?Case Tracking? numbers are computer generated ?gures which contain a minimum of 1
offense report number. ?Case Tracking? numbers may contain more than one offense
reports numbers. . 

The audit team reviewed 173 offense repoit numbers to include all records associated with -

the investigation, such as expense records, warrant reViews, and informant payments.
Individual ?Case Tracking? numbers may contain several different case numbers within
the case ?le. 

Figure 12 displays the numbers of cases (173) audited from South General Enforcement
Squads l4 15 from 2017 to 2019. It alsolists the percentage of the cases both squads
worked during the same period.- The data indicates ?Controlled Buy? cases account for
38% of- bo'th squads? cases. A ?Controlled Buy?_usually involves the use of informant.
The Second highest percentage was ?Search Warrants?, which accounted for 30% of
narcotics enforcement efforts. I 

17

 

South General Enforcement Squads 14 15
Cases 2017 - 2017

Trail?: Stop
Tilf?.?
Sheet Pop
Search 
Investigation Nmmtug?.
Rm;

Buy Walk I

Buy 13ml 3%,5

 

it}

Figure 12 Number of 7349.93 of Cases Percentages Worked by South General Enfof?cemem Squads 14 15
Years 2017 2019 

The Audit Team also focused on the type and frequencies of errors committed by members

of South General Enforcement Squads 14' and 15. Both squads committed a total' of 306
errors in the 173 case numbers that were audited. The most frequent error documented was
?Missing Case Review Sheet? Also noted were de?cieneies in ?Thoroughness of
Investigation? ?Late Repmt Entry? and ?Late Case Tracking Entry? 

18

South General Enforcement Squads 14 15
Errors 2017 - 2019

Warrant l?lurn-grihrral l-Iror 11%, 1E)
Warrant Disrrerirann,? rl

0/ 1'

Informant l'ayrnenl m,
ol Investigation 2 3?5, {16
Tartical Plan 
I.
No Searth Warrant in Late File .1
No Elrnr II
No (law File Review Sheet
hills-3mg ase Reuir-?ew 151%. 51?-
Lalc Warrant 3 
Lats: Herioll lining 24%,41
Lalo Evidence 
talc Case tracking Entry 24%,41
Inrjor?nplelr: Rupert
Irradequalr?g 0111:1151? Report
Expense [)Isr'repancv
Evidence Snlirniusrnn Slips. Mrssing
Evidenrr: 

Case Lrtror'

 

Figure 13 South General Enforcement Types of Case Errors 2017 to 2019

SOuth General Enforcement Squad 14 Audit

South General Enforcement Squad 14 consisted of 8 of?cers on the evening of January 28,
2019. A review of the Narcotics Database revealed that as a squad, they completed a total
of 527 cases from January 2017, to January 28, 2019. The Audit Team audited 77 of the
527 cases. Figure 14 documents the number and type of cases of?cers assigned to squad
14 conducted.

?Controlled Buys? accOunt for 29% of the cases generated biz squad 14. ?Search Warrants?
account for 15% of the cases. The second-highest percentage was ?Street Pops? at 27%.
Controlled buys and search warrants account for 44% of squad 14 total cases. Other
categories each range under 10%.

19

 

South General Enforcement Squad 14 Total
Cases 2017?2019

Ut? 

30

DC l' 5 35

?ii-NH 51?? 

0 1' are, 1
POP 
\n.lARRr\l\ll 

MMDP DISPATITHED
Corns-01 LED BUY 20's., 154
To 


1 181}

  

Figure 14 Number of All Cases Sour); General Enforcement Squad 14 Facts 20] 7 2019

A review of- Squad 14 case errors indicates administrative issues in case management as
the primary problem. The most common error occurred under the category of ?Missing
Case Review Shee In 39% of the audited 'cases, the case review sheet was missing.
This sheet is expected to be reviewed by a sergeant and lieutenant to ensure all components
of the case are in the packet, and the offense report is suf?cient to explain the investigation.

The second most erred item Was ?Theroughness of Investigation? (3 Case agents
failed to document pertinent, details in the offense report, such as who was present, location
of the evidence, and other information that would aid the prosecution. Lastly, ?Late Case
Tracking Entry? was the third most committed error at 25%. This error is committed when
the case agent fails to document any changes, or the entry contains errors to the case
tracking sheet on the location of arrest, site of the incident, arrest data, evidence recovered,
and other details of the event. ?Expense Discrepancy? errors account for 8% of errors.

20

   

 

 

SQUAD 14 ERROR TOTALS

Wanmtl ("Hal 
Wm rant Uisu (1 qu 

I'M-ti Inl'm maul Pawnont

., L?b?


Tnclicnl Plan
No I [Hill 1.

Nu Filo Review Sheet


J. I

[VIM-tug Lose Hewew Slit-[J1

Lntu W..m.mt Relum 111%, ll


2334?3, 13


Late Lase Tmrlum; L'nlly 
ll). 31-, fl

Offense Report



Expense Drawn-pantry 82-12, (3
?itips Missing 
.7

livuilunlge 

(Ia-Jr: Em'm'

?gure 15 South Genera! Enforcement Squad 14 Total Error Count Year 2017 to 20) 9

South General Enforcement Squad 1 5 Audit

So?uth General Enforcement Squad 15 consisted of nine of?cers (excluding the officer)
on the evening of January 28, 2019 A review of the Narcotics Database revealed that as a
squad, they completed a total of 443 cases from January 1, 2017, to January 28, 2019. The
Audit Team audited 50 ?Case Tracking? numbers which equals to 57 case numbers Figure
16 documents the numb er and type of cases that were audited by the Audit team for of?cers
to squad 15. - -

The majority of the cases'Of?cers assigned to squad 15 completed were ?Street Pops?
which account for 35% of their case load. ?Controlled buys? are the second?highest at
28%. ?Search Warrants? are 17% of the cases conducted by squad 15. Search warrants
and controlled buys account for 45% of their cases.

21

 

South General Enforcement Squad 15 Total
Cases 2017 2019

21-1., 91
0 at WARRANT
Pot- 1.50
SEARCH ma, r7
UN MEW
?Wt. 25
Nana) 
DISPATCI-IL-D
BUY ram, 126
(Ml In DH 

ARRESIVUARRANT

 

GD 3. 100 190 140 160

Figure I 6 South 635nm?! Enforceuiem'Squad I5 pe of Cases

A review of Squad 15 Case errors indicates similar to Squad 14. Administrative issues in
case management was the primary problem, Missing case reviews account for 49% of the
errors. _The Second most erred item was ?LateRepOrt Entry? Case agents failed to
complete their original offense reports or supplements in a timely fashion; some
supplements were entered months after the incident occurred. Lastly, ?Late Case Tracking
Entry? was the third most committed error at 39%. This error is committed when the case
agent fails to document any changes, or the entry contains errors to the case tracking sheet
on the location of arrest, site of the incident, arrest data, evidence recovered, and other
details of the event. ?fExp?nse Discrepancy? accounted for 7% of the errors.
documentation.

22

 

SQUAD 15 TOTAL ERRORS

21%, 


Ull?llillUf'lZL?t?l inhumant innem

ul' 

Tm llc'al Plan 

Sullawimw (?uminrt

Nu Beatrix in L'aso. ile

No l-Ilms

Mia-sum (Tow Itawow 

1831?, ll)


?10356, 3

I ale [topout Entry

Late Subliminal 

Lulu: ("ago TI .arkmg Lnlay ?2
lm_:_nnpleh= Dil'nnse Reno: 
Ollmm: Report
Expense 
Ewtlence Slips Missal};
Evulenct: 

Case Tracking I'rl mr

Figure I 7 South General Erforeemenr Squad 15 Total Error Count Year 2017 to 2019

Post case audit Of North General Enforcement
Squads 9 and .10, from January 01, 2017 to June
2019. . i

The Narcotics orth General Enforcement Squad was previously commanded by
Lieutenant and are housed at the North and Midwest Divisions. The North
General En oreement squads consist of two squads, Squads 9 and 10. During the time
period of January 1, 2017 and January 28, 2019, Squads 9 and 10 consisted of the following
personnel and supervisors:

   

  

North Commander: Lt.
Squad 10
Sgt.
Sgt.

 
 
 

(HIDTA)

 

23

- .
4' ram, 2s

 

 

Indicates personnel who transferred from North to South General Enforcement
and were counted as part of the South Audit.

The review covered two years, commencing on January 1, 2017, and ending on January
28, 2019. During this period both squads conducted a total of 1286 individual
investigations. The audit team conducted a review of 131 ?Case Tracking? numbers from
North General Enforcement Squads 9 and 10 from January 28, 2017 to January 28, 2019.
There will be several of?cers whose cases are not listed on the above list because they
transferred out of the division or into a new squad. Cases conducted by the two K9 of?cers
are not part of the audit because K9 of?cers do not generally initiate cases. The audit team
reviewed 252 case numbers to include all records associated with the investigation, such
as expense records, warrant reviews, and informant payments. Individual ?Case Tracking?
numbers may "contain several different case numbers within the case ?le.

Figure 22 displays the numbers of cases the Audit Team audited from North General
Enforcement Squads 9 and 10 from 2017 to 2019. It also lists the percent of the cases both
squads worked during the same period. The data indicates that in 45.24% of the cases,
both squads worked ?Controlled Buy? cases which involved an informant. The second
highest percentage was ?Search Warrants? which accounted for 25.40% of narcotics
enforcement efforts.

24

 

 

 

Types of Cases North General Enforcement Squads 9 and 10
2017 - 2019

UC Buy Walk 0.40%, Tlotal,1

 

  
  
   
  


1
Traf?c Stop 0.40%, Total, 1 1
Street Pop 8.73%, otal, 22
Search warl'nntl'CT 18-0556 lotal,1

 

Search Warrant 25.40%, Total, 64


. . . 
Invastlgatlon Narcotlcs 8.73%, otalControlled Delivery ?l 

I
Controlled Buy 

Class Non Narc 0.40%, Total, 1 - 
I 

   

   
 

 

 

 

Buy Walk Total, 5
Buy Bust 17.14%, To 111,18 
Arrest warrant 0.40%, TilotalFigure 18 Number of Types ofcases Percentages Worked by North General Enforcement Squads 9 I 0
Years 2017 20} 9 

 

The audit team then focused on the type and frequencies of errors committed by all North
General Enforcement Squads, North General Enforcement consisted of 38 of?cers during
2017- 2019. ?In total, they committed 409 case errors in 252 cases. When compared to SPO
Goin?es and Bryant?s total errors, they committed seven more errors. When compared to
the 22 Of?cers assigned to South General Enforcement squads 14 and 15 (3 6?7 errors in 173
cases over two years) they committed more mistakes due to the higher number of of?cers
assigned. - 

25

 

 

Late Case Tracking Entry

Late Report Entry

Late Warrant Return

Missing Case Review Sheet

No Errors

No Search Warrant in Case File

No Supervisor Signature on Case File Review Sheet
Supervisor Not Present When Required

Tactical Plan Missing

Throughness of Investigation

Unauthorized Informant Payment
Warrant Discrepancy

Warrant Procedural Errors

 





 

 

II
1.:
uh
a1


I 






20

igu?i'e 19 North Gz?zneral EnfOJ-ckment Types of Ease Errolr'sZOI 7 to 2019

 



A

60

NORTH GENERAL ENFORCEMENT TOTAL CASE ERRORS
SQUADS 9& 10, 2017 2019
Case Tracking Errors 9
Evidence Discrepancy 18
Evidence Submission Slips Missing 2
I Expense Discrepancy 8
Expense Report Error ill 4 .5
Incomplete Offense Report i 7

78

 

 

i

 

 

26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North General Enforcement Squads 9 10 Ell?Ol? Percentages 
(2011.111 metagem .1-..
Case TxaclungEnors . . . 9i . . 210/_
Evidence Discrepancy 18 34$th
Evidence Submission Slips Missing 2  
8  1.91%
Expense Repo1t E1101 1 4i 919.53%
11113212121919.9991119399911 7 i 1.171%
71. ., 0.7%
Late Report Entry *H#w .. 54i__ 121.29%;
Late Warrant Remrn .. 11.111.93.41.
iMissing Case Review Sheet 7. . 1.71%
{Issuers I . . 
Seaich Wauant 1n Case File ?w 1i 
.No Snpervisoi Signature Case 11e Reyiew_ Sheet mi? 106] .. 25. 92%i

.. 1! [92.13411
. - - 

iSupel visor Not Present When Requiied

 

iThoroughness ofhivesjiggtion 7 . 02%i
iUneuthori.z:ed 1.111111111111171 1i . . . 9.24%
iWarrant Disciepancy - 1: . 
IWan-ant Procedural E1101 l_Ol 

 

Table 4 All E1 I Percentages for North Gene: Enforcement Squads 9 10. 2017 to 2019

North General Enforcement Squad 9 Audit

During 2017? 2019, North Gene1al Enforcement Squad 9 consists of a total of thee
- se1geants and twenty of?cers Squad 9 consists of the following of?cers;

 

27

 

Of?cers do not generate cases.
*Indicates personnel who transferred from North to South General Enforcement
and were counted as part of the South Audit.

A review of the Narcotics Database revealed that Narcotics Squad 9 completed a total of
854 cases from 2017 to 2019. The Audit Team audited 145 cases. Figure 24 documents
the number and type of cases completed by each of?cer assigned to squad 9. The average
case per year for each of?cer was approximately nine cases.

 

 

 

North General Enforcement Squads 9 Typesof Cases Conducted 1
2017 2019
Arrest warrant
:1 i r: Bust
trBuy Bust
Buy Wall:
?1.139 1 a i :l I . Controlled buy
I. II 111Controlled Delivery
?l "233', 1 5 1 4 i 1-1IInvestigation Narcotics
Search warrant
- lStreetPop
i 133: I 4 I .2- unpnTraf?c Stop
.-- 21W 5 1. 1 2 UC Buy Walligu're 20 Number o?fAll Cases North Genera! Enforcemgn?8quad 9 Years 20} 7 - 2019

The Audit Team examined the types of cases Squad 9 typically completed. Table 15
documents 55 controlled buys, which equal to 38% of the cases. Search warrants (39)
accounted for the second~highest percentage of the cases. Controlled buys and
search warrants accounted for 65% of Squad 9 total enforcement activity.

28

 

 

North General Enforcement Squad 9 Types of Cases Percentages 2017?2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Case Count Percentages

Arrest warrant 1 1%
Buy Bust 14 10%
Buy Walk 5 . 3%
Controlled Buy 55 3 8%
Controlled Delivery 1 1%
Delivery of a Controlled Substance 1 1%
Investigation Narcotics 16 1 1%
Search warrant 3.9 . - 27%
Street Pop . '11 . . . 8%
Traf?c Stop 1 'j 1%
UC Buy Walk 1 - 1%
Grand Total I 145 i. 100%

 

 

Table 5 Percentages of Types of Cases for North Genera! Enforcement Squad 9 Years 2017 2019

A review of Squad 9 case errors indicates administrative iSsues in case management were
the primary problem. Approximately 25% of the cases were missing the case review sheet
which was required to be attached to the ?Blue Back? when the case is tuned in. This
sheet is expected to be reviewed by a sergeant and lieutenant to ensure all components of
the case are in the packet, and the offense report is suf?cient to explain the incident.

The second most erred item was ?Late Case Tracking Entry? This error is
committed when the ease agent fails to document any changes, or the entry contains errors
to the case tracking sheet on the location of arrest, site of the incident, arrest data, evidence
recovered, and other details of the event. Lastly, ?Late Report Entry? was the third most
committed error at 14.87%. The audit team did not discover any alarming errors on
expense documentation. I 

29

 

 

North General Enforcement Total Case Errors
Squads 9, 2017 - 2019

Case Tracking Errors

Evidence Discrepancy

Evidence Submission Slips Missing
Expense Discrepancy

Expense Report Error

Incomplete Offense Report

Late Case Tracking Entry

Late Report Entry

Late Warrant Return

Missing Case Review Sheet

No Errors

No Supervisor Signature on Case File Review Sheet
Supervisor Not Present When Required

Tactical Plan Missing

Throughness of Investigation

Warrant Discrepancy

Warrant Procedural Errors

 

 

 

 

 

801


Figure 21 North General Squad 97mm] Error Coz'mr Year 2011;10 2019

30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. North General Enforcement Squads9Err0r_l_?ercentag??' 
1 .. Qategory Count I 
Case TraCIdngErmrs . 8 . 8.97%.
E?deneeDiscrepancy . . . . .18 I 3323/2 
Evidence. .smamission Slips M'ssng . - 

Expense Discrepancy . . 6 _i 2.23%
Bmene?gportE??or .-2 . 
Incomplete Offense Report 6 223%
LateCeseTrapking 49 . _l 
_Lgte ReportEntgy? 40 _14.37%
27 . 
MssingcaseRevieW Sheet .. 38-231.12% .
E1119 Syp?ryi?gr?igna?lre on Case File 24.9-le 
Supervisor Not _Present When Required . 0.37% 1
lTaotiealPlanIv?ssing . . 9 I 3.35{Grand-Total . 269 I. 100.00% 

Toble 6 North General Enfofc?ment Squad 9 Error Pencentages Year 2017 to 2019

North General Enforcement Squad 10 Audit

Du1'ing2017- 2019, North General Enforcement Squad 10 consisted of a total of three
sergeants and twenty of?cers. Squad 10 consists of the following officers;

.. . Squad-1mm.-
1
.
Sgt--
083-- (Retired)* 
Ofc._ 
Ofc._- 
0mm
0th?
Ofew
Ofc.?
Ofc._
081-.

,Ofc. ?(Retiredfk?l?

31

 

Ofc 
Ofc .. (K9)
Ofc. 

Of?cers do not generate cases.
WIndicates personnel who retired.

A review of the Narcotics Database revealed that Narcotics Squad 10 completed a total of
432 cases from 2017 to 2019. The Audit Team reviewed 109 -.cases Figule 26 documents
the numbe1 and type ofcases completed by each of?cer aSsigned to Squad 10. The average
case per of?cer pe1 year is appioximately ten cases.

 

 

1
North General Enforcement Squads 10 Types
of Cases Conducted 2017 2019
I 1 I IBuy Bust
1?9?1 1 . lClass NonNarc
- I 1 I i 1 I Controlled Buy
. 
i . IControlled Delivery
i Investigation Narcotics
'm . nSearch warrant
a? h?e? 1 . i IStrcet Pop
?gure 22 Number Cash; North General Enforcenienf Squad 10 Years 201 7 2019

The audit team examined the types of cases Squad 10 typically conducted. Table 17
documents 58 controlled buys, which equal to 53% of the cases. Seaich warrants
accounted f01 the second-highest percentage of the cases. Controlled buys and
search warrants account for- 78_% of Squad 10 total enforcement activity.

32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North General Enforcement Squad 10 Types of Cases Percentages 2017-201
Type of Case Count Percentages

Buy Bust 5 5%

Class Non Narc 1 1%

Controlled Buy 58 53%

Controlled Delivery 1 1%

Investigation Narcotics 6 6%

Search Warrant 2'7 - 25%

Street Pop 11 . 10%

Grand Total 109 - - 100%

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7 Percentages of Types of Cases for North General Elia-cement Squad I0 Years 20] 7 - 2019

A review of Squad 10 case errors indicates administrative issues .in case management were
the primary problem. Almost 28% of thee'ases were missing the case review sheet which
was required to be attached to the ?Blue Back? when the case is turned in. This sheet is
expected to be reviewed by a sergeant and lieutenant to ensure all components of the case
are in the packet, and the offense report is suf?cient to explain the incident.

The second most erred item was ?Late Case Tracking Entry? This error is
committed when the case agent fails to document any changes, or the entry contains errors
to the case tracking sheet on the location of arrest, site of the incident, arrest data, evidence
recovered, and other details of the event. Lastly,'the third most erred item was ?Late
Warren This error is committed when the case agent fails to return a search
warrant within three days of execution of the warrant. The audit team did not discover any
alarming errors in expense documentation.

33

 

 

North General Enforcement Total Case Errors Squads 10, 2017 -
2019

Warrant Procedural Errors
Unauthorized Informant Payment
Throughness of Investigation
Tactical Plan Missing

No Supervisor Signature on Case File Review Sheet
No Search Warrant in Case File
No Errors 

Missing Case Review Sheet

Late Warrant Return

Late Report Entry

Late Case Tracking Entry
Incomplete Offense Report
Expense Report Error

Expense Discrepancy

 

Evidence Submission Slips Missing
Evidence Discrepancy
Case Tracking Errors

15 20 25 30 35

 

- 
Figure 23 North General mrcem?m Squad 10 Tara? Error Count Year 2017 to 2019

 

 

40

 

 

45


34

 

 

mum-"w" 

 

 

Case Trailers Erma
Evidence Diserep'ancy

.. .hyu??h-1H?J




Expense Report Error


late Case TrackingEntiy ~29 I I 20.71%

4-J-Amulaa u. mutlt?nSearch Warrant in Case File

 

10.00%
1 14.29%
1 0.71%
0.71%

 

1 0.71%
We Supendsor Siemre 0a?eea11ali?rira?heet .. .. 39 I 27.86%;
';TactiealP1an_Mis_sing 1 0.71%

1 1 0.71%.
. 2 1.43%_

1. Grand Total Hm." . 140 100.00%
- TabIe 8 North General Enforcement Squad 10 Error Perdentages Year 2017 to 2019

Comprehensive review of all infermants handled
by SPO Goines.

A 'oomplete examinatiOn of SPO Goines?s con?dential informant ?les includes a detailed
review of the following data: 

1. The total monetary arnount of draWS from SPO Goines expense report from

January 1, 2016 to January 28,2019.
a. During the time period listed above, SPO Goines was under the supervision of

three sergeants.
i. Sgt. a SPO Goines drew $16,767.00 from Sgt,?
ii. Sgt. -. SPO Goines drew $2,720.00 from Sgt. 
Sgt. - SPO Goines drew $34,755.00 from Sgt. 

b. SPO Goines drew a total of $54,242.00 during January 1, 2016 to January 28,
2019. SPO Goines returned $24,808.00 during the same time period.

35

Nort? 5536131 martian: . 7



Category 1.0011141 

. 

 

 

 

SPO Goines Draws 2016 Jan 2019

i




 

G.M. Gaines

 

 




$34,755.00

   

 

 

 

- - 4
Figure 24 SPO Gaines 2016 - 2019 -

2. The total monetary amount of expenses from SPO Goines expense report from
January 1, 2016 to January 28, 2019, are as follovvs:

a. From January 1, 2016 to January 28, 2019, SPO Goines was under the
supervision of three sergeants, See Fig. 28, for a breakdown of expenses under
each superviSor. -

i. sgt._ $5,967.00.00
ii. Sgt.- $1,120.00 - -
Sgt. q: $7,630.00

1:5. SPO Goines expenses reports indicate he spent a total of $14,717.00 on
con?dential informants and narcotics investigations. Figure 29 displays the
dollar amount and category SPO Goines used in his narcotics investigations.
The data reveals that in 82.66% of his cases, SPO Goines ?Paid an Informant for
Information/Assistance on an Investigation.? The second-highest category was
?Provided Money for Informant to Purchase Narcotics and Contraband.?

36

 

 

 

 

  
      
   
 
   

   

 


Comparision of SPO Goines Expenses Per Supervisor Expense $5,967. 0 
.-
57,530.1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

 

 

_1
Figure 25 Comparison of SPO Gaines Expenses DFaws per Supervisor 

 

 

Categories of Expenses for SPO Goines

$290.00 $580.00
El Money Stolen/Lost While
Attempting to Purchase Narcotics

$1,670.00:

I Paid for Services/Props to Enhance
Investigation

I Paid informant for
Information/Assistance on an
Investigation

Ci Provided Money for Informant to
Purchase Narcotics and/or
Contraband

 

 

- 4
Figure 26 Categories dexpe?sesfor SPO Gaines 2016? 2019

3. Record review of all confidential informants SPO Goines used from January
2016 to January 28,2019.

a. The audit revealed SPO Goines used a total of six con?dential informants from
January 2016 to January 28, 2019, for a total of $13,845.00.

37

 

 

 

b. Con?dential Informant Use:

i.

ii.



iv.

vi.

 

CI 
was registered on Why SPO Goines and paid a total of
$3 60.00. The informant was involved in the seizure of 35.6
grams of marijuana 54 grams of ecstasy. SPO Goines does not
list a secondary handler on the con?dential informant
application.

CI #-was used two times during this period. CI 

was registered oany Sergeant and
retired SPO m. SPO Goines paid CI 
a total of 140.00 dollars. The informant was involved in the
seizure of approximately 2 lbs. of marijuana.

CI ?was used 50 times during this period. CI #-was
registered on-?Mby SPO Goines, andde'ceased Of?cer

. SPO Goines paid CI total of
$7340.00. The informant was involved in the seizure of
approximately 447 grams of cocaine, 23 grams of crack
cocaine, 30 grams of ecstasy, 155 grams of hydrocodone, 11.5
lbs. - of marijuana, and-7.5 grams of Xanax. SPO Goines
allegedly used this informant for the af?davit at 7815 Harding.?

CI __was used 12 times during this period. CI #?was
registered on ?(by SPO Gaines, and deceased Of?cer D.

#102029. SPO Goines paid CI a total of 

$1,385.00. The informant was involved in the seizure of
approximately 9.6 - grams of cocaine, grams of crack

cocaine, and 12 grams of marijuana.

CI ?was used four times during this period. Friendswood
Police Of?cer recruited CI 
Of?ce_was part of an Narcotics Task Force.

Goines paid CI total of $335.00. The informant
'was involved in the seizure of approximately 7 grams of

methamphetamine, and 8 grams of cocaine.

CI #?was used 19 times during this period. CI ?was I

registered on ?by retired SPO 
SPO Goines paid CI it. a total of $4,215.00. The
informant was involved in the seizure of 2042 tabs of ecstasy,
22 grams of hydrocodone, and 4768 grams.

38

as used two times during this period. CI 

 

 

 

Xanax

  
  
 

Other 
$Methamphetamine . I 
.t i
I '1 9346
. 
Marijuana . I 9024
I i i I 8912
Hydrocodone (Vicodin) i 5730
I 5696
1 
I . I 5543
Ecstasy I $1820.Crack 
. . I 

5 . I 

Cocaine .


 

 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

 

 

igitre 27 Con?dential Informanrs Expenditures by SPO Gaines

4. Explanation of errors of the use of confidential informants found during the
review of SPO Goines cases January 1, 2016 to January 28, 2019.

The audit te?aindocumented 4 errors relating to the use of con?dential informant
funds. The codes are:

1. Cl: Expense Report Error

II. C2: Unauthorized Informant Payment

C3: Expense Discrepancy

IV. C4: Information Documentation Not Adequate to Justify Payment

1. C1: Expense Report Error: SPO Goines failed to document the expenditure of

$20.00 on his September 2016 expense report. He purchased crack cocaine from a

suspect on 9/ 13/2016, under case #1173712-16. His expense report did not
document the purchase of narcotics.

39

 

II. C2: SPO Goines committed many errors relating to the payment of informants
before .receiving supervisory approval. Listed below are the cases where the
mistakes were committed: 

a. CT 16?0908: .
Case - I 

i. The receipt indicates that Cl #-was paid $400.00 on
16, but the Narcotics Expense Authorization form
indicates that Sgt. approved the payment on
16, and Lt. approved the amount on w.
Payments over $250.00 require lieutenant authorization.
The lieutenant should have approved the payment before the
informant received payment. The receipt indicates a
supervisor was present on When the payment was
made. . 

b. CT 16-0909:
Case - - I
i. The receipt indicates that Cl _was paid $200.00 on
but - the Narcotics Expense Authorization form
indicates that Sgt. approved the payment on
m. Payments over $50.00 to $250.00 require sergeant
approval. The case agent should have paid the informant
after receiving authorization the sergeant. The receipt
indicates a supervisor was present on when the
payment was made.

c. CT 16-1163: 
Case am -
i. The receipt indicates that Cl mwas paid $950.00 on
. but the Narcotics Expense Authorization form
indicates that Sgt. "approved the payment on
m, and Lt. ?authorized payment on 6/7/16.
Amounts over $250.00 require lieutenant approval. The ease
agent should have paid the informant after receiving
authorization from the lieutenant. The receipt indicates a
supervisor was present on when the payment was
made.

(1. CT 16-1515:

Case 
i. The receipt indicates CI ?was paid $320.00-onm
but the Narcotics Expense Authorization form indicates that

Sgt. .mpproved the payment on!? and Lt.
40

 

approved payment on Payments over
$250.00 require lieutenant approval. The case agent should
have paid the informant after receiving authorization from
the lieutenant. The receipt indicates a supervisor was present
onWhen the payment was made. 

e. CT 16-1872:

i.

Case .. 
The receipt indicates CI paid $500.00 on?
but the Narcotics Expense Authorization form indicates that
Sgt. ?approved the payment on m, and Lt.

approved payment on W. Amounts over
$250.00 require lieutenant approval. The case agent should
have paid the informant after receiVing authorization from
the lieutenant. The receipt indicates .a supervisor was present
oanhcn the payment was made.

f. CT 16-2039:

i.

g. CT 16-2045:
1.-

indicates "that Sgt.

Case I 

The receipt indicates that CT #-was paid $200.00 on
m, but the Narcotics Expense Authorization form
indicates that Sgt. approved the payment on

. The case agent should have paid the informant
after receiving authorization from the sergeant. The receipt
indicates a supervisor was present on when the
payment was made. -



Case

The receipt indicates that CI ii-Nas paid $300.00 on
but the Narcotics Expense Authorization form
approved the payment on

and Lt. ?approved the amount on

Payments over $250.00 require lieutenant approval. The
?case agent should have paid the informant after receiving
authorization from the lieutenant. The receipt indicates a
supervisor was present on when the payment was
made. 

h. CT 16?2057:

i.

Case . ..

The receipt indicates that CI -was paid $300.00 on
10/27/16, but the Narcotics Expense Authorization form
indicates that Sgt. approved the payment on

41

 

m; and Dunpproved the amount on 

Payments over $250.00 require lieutenant approval. The
case agent should have paid the informant after receiving
authorization from the lieutenant. The receipt indicates a
supervisor was present on When the payment was
made.

i. CT 17?0554: 

i.

Case 

The receipt indicates that'- CI paid $400.00 on
but the. Narcotics Expense Authorization form
indicates that Sgt. ?approved the payment on 3/3 0/ 17,
and Lt. "pproved the payment on 3/30/. Amounts
over $250.00 require lieutenant approval. The case agent
should have paid the informant after receiving authorization
from the lieutenant. The receipt indicates a supervisor was
present on? when the payment was made.

j. CT 17?1224: 

i.

Case it?

The receipt indicates that Cl #-was paid $300.00 on
but the Narcotics Expense Authorization form
indicates that sgt. ?approved the payment on?,
and Lt. approved the amount on m.
Payments over $250.00 require lieutenant approval. The
case agent should have paid the informant after receiving
authorization from the lieutenant. The receipt indicates a
supervisor was present on when the payment was

made.

k. CT 17-1328:

Case 

i; The receipt indicates CI was paid $1,500.00 on

. 8/3/17, but the Narcotics EXpense Authorization form
indicates that Sgt. -approved the payment on 

and Lt. - approved the amount on W.
Payments over $250.00 require lieutenant approval. The
case agent should have paid the informant after receiving
authorization from the lieutenant. The receipt indicates a

supervisor was present on a" when the payment was

made.

42

 

1. CT 17?1392:

i.

Case -

The receipt indicates that CI #?was paid $400.00 on
3/7/17, but the Narcotics Expense Authorization form
indicates that Sgt. .approved the payment on m,
and Lt. approved the amount on 
Payments over $250.00 require lieutenant approval. The
case agent should have paid the informant after receiving
authorization from the lieutenant. The receipt indicates a
supervisor was present the payment was
made.

m. CT 18-0332:

i.

Case - 
The receipt indicates that Cl it- was paid $500.00 on
2/23/18, but the Narcotics Expense Authorization form
indicates that the paymenton m,
and the amount on Payments
over $250.00 require lieutenant approval. The case agent
should have paid the informant after receiving authorization
from the lieutenant.- The receipt indicates a supervisor was

present on ?when the payment was made.

1.1. CT 18-0559:

i.

Case 

The receipt indicates that Cl #?was paid $400.00 on
but the Narcotics Expense Authorization form
indicates that Sgt. approved the payment on w,
and Lt. -approved the amount on 1? Payments

. over $250.00 require lieutenant approval. The case agent

should have paidlthe informant after receiving authorization

from the lieutenant. The receipt indicates a supervisor was
present on ?when the payment was made.

0. CT 18?0713:

i.

mm.

The receipt indicates that Cl paid $100.00 on
m, but the Narcotics Expense Authorization form
indicates that Sgt. -approve'd the payment on?
Payments over $50.00 to $250.00 require sergeant approval.
The case agent should have paid the informant after

43

 

receiving authorization from the sergeant. The receipt
indicates a supervisor was present on #9 when the
payment was made.

1). CT 18?1517:

i.

Case . -
The receipt indicates that CI ?as paid $500.00 on

but the Narcotics Expense Authorization form

indicates that Sgt. -approved the payment on m,
and Lt. - approved the amount on 
Payments over $250.00 require lieutenant approval. The
case agent should have paid the informant after receiving
authorization from the lieutenant. The receipt indicates a
supervisor was present 011W when the payment was
made.

q. CT 18?1608:

i.

Case 

The receipt indicates that CI tit-was paid $300.00 on

but the Narcotics Expense Authorization form

indicates that Sgt. ?approved the payment on 

and Lt. approved the amount on 
Payments over $250.00 require lieutenant approval. The
case agent should have paid the informant after receiving
authorization from the lieutenant. The receipt indicates a
supervisor was present on whenthe payment was
made.

r. CT 13?1733: 

il

Case trim

The'receipt indicates that CI #.was paid $600.00 on
but the Narcotics Expense Authorization form

indicates that Sgt. approved the payment on m,
and Lt. approved the amount on m.

Payments over $250.00 require lieutenant approval. The
case agent should have paid the informant after receiving
authorization from the lieutenant. The receipt indicates a
supervisor was present on ?when the payment was
made.

44

 

 

 

C3: Expense Discrepancies

Code C3 covers a litany of errors on documentation of payments and
documentation of payments in reports and receipts. Some case tracking numbers
contain numerous errors. Listed below is an explanation of each error with the
associated case tracking number.

16-1163
17-0552
17-0554

17-0592

17-0596
17?0772
17?0772

17?1328

18?0332

18-0332

18-0378

18?0555

The informant receipt do es not match the date of the controlled buy.

Discrepancy between the expense report and offense report. The
report re?ects a crack rock purchased for $10, but the report states
$20.

All receipts re?ect dates that conflict with the offense report and all
expenditures captured on March 2017 expense report.

Expense report re?ects February expenses during the month of
March. The expense report reveals the case agent lost but the
report states the money was recovered.

Expense report re?ects expenditures two months following the
incident. (March2017). 

The expense for the controlled buy was not documented on the
Febiuary 2017 expense report.

Date on the Cl. activity sheet is incorrect. C.I. payment date re?ects
4/ 3 7.

The date on the informant receipt does not match the controlled buy
date.?

The date of informant payment is not correct on the eXpense
authorization letter.

The date on the 0.1. receipt for funds form is not correct. Records
revealed the activity took place in February instead of January.

Controlled buy not documented in the December 2017 expense
report. The February 2018 receipt re?ects a December 2017

controlled buy.

The expense for the ding purchase and suspect tip were combined
in the expense report.

45

 

 

18-0562

18?1401

18?1405

18?1517

18-1519

18-1608-

18-1612

18-1733

19-1861

Address incorrect on the expense letter; off by a couple of blocks.

The expense report does not re?ect the correct date or the correct
informant number.

The expense letter does not re?ect an accurate address.

There is no C.I. receipt or expense listed on the expense report for
this transaction. The case agent reports that an informant was used
for the controlled buy, but no indication of payment. There is a
receipt for the C.I. payment following the search warrant.

The expense letter records an inaccurate weight of crack cocaine.

The distributed units of pills were not speci?ed in the report and the
audit team was unable to determine the C.I. payment.

No expense letter and no receipts for the controlled buy or payment
to the C.I.

The case agent completed the controlled buy in November, but the
expense appears in the December expense report.

There are no C.I. receipts for this case, however Narcotics Division
produced the expense letter for the month of January. The expense
letter Was dated 2/25/2019. The signature, usually signed by the
of?cer, indicates relieved of duty.

IV. Information Documentation Not Adequate to Justify Payment
The Narcotics Division utilizes a f?Con?dential Informant Payment Schedule? for
guidelines used to pay informants for their assistance in investigations. The payment
is based on the informant?s degree of involvement. The instructions include narcotics
for Penalty Group One, Two, and Three drugs, and marijuana.

A review of SPO Goines informant payments reveals potential overpayment of
informants for mimiScule amounts of narcotics. Listed below is an explanation of the

overpayments.

17-0853

SPO Goines paid informant for the seizure of eight
grams of marijuana under case numbers W, an 
Marijuana seizures payments are at the rate of $40.00 per pound up 
to nine pounds. The seizure also included a seizure of 15 grams of
crack cocaine, but is missing on the form.

46

 

17?1731 SPO Goines paid informant ?$300.00 for the seizure of three
grams of marijuana, nine grams of MDMA, and one ?rearm under
case numbers and M. Marijuana seizures
payments are at the rate of $40.00 per pound up to nine pounds.

17?1374 sro Goines paid informant $100.00 for the seizure of 44
grams of marijuana under case numbers'm and m.
Marijuana seizures payments are at the rate of $40.00 per pound up

to nine pounds.

Review of all expense letters andreceipts ?led by
SPO Bryant 

A complete examination of the SP0 Bryant? 3 con?dential informant ?les includes a
detailed review of the following data: 

1. The total monetary amount of draWs from SPO Bryant expense report from

January 1, 2016 to January 28, 2019. 
a. During the period listed above, SPO Bryant was under the supervision of three

  
  

 
  

sergeants. -
i. Sgt. SPO Bryant drew $12,985.00 from .
ii. Sgt. Bryant drew $1,410.00 from Sgt.
Sgt. SPO Bryant drew $36,280.00 from Sgt.

b. I SPO Bryantdrew a total of $50,675.00 from January 1, 2016, to January 28,
2019. SPO Bryant returned a total of $10,535.00 during the same time period.

47

 

 

SPO Bryant Draws Expenses 2016 Jan
2019

3.0. Bryant

$12,935.00

 

 

 

Figure 28 SPO Bryant Draws 2016 - 2019

2. The total monetary amount of expenses from SPO, Bryant expense report from
January 1, 2016 to January 28, 2019. .

a. From January 1, 2016 to January 28, 2019,- SPO Bryant was under the
supervision of three sergeants. See Figure 33. for a breakdown of expenses
under each ?11 ervisor.

i. Sgt. $410.00?
ii. Sgt. $14,175.00
Sgt; $5,485.00

  
 

B. SPO Bryant expenses reports indicate he spent a total of $20,070.00 on

con?dential informants and narcotics investigations. Figure 34 displays the

dollar amount and category SPO'Bryant used on his narcotics investigations.

The data reveals that in 70.85% of his cases, SPO Bryant ?Paid an Informant for

- Information/Assistance on an Investigation.? The second-highest category was
?Provided Money for Informant to Purchase Narcotics and Contraban 

48

 

 

 

Comparision of SPO Bryant Expenses Per 
Supervisor

Expense $14,175.00

 
    

 

 


4

?gure 29 Comparison of SPO Bryant Expenses DFawsper Supervisor

 

 

 

1
$25.00 Categories of Expenses for SPO Bryant

$765.00 1 $35.00 $1,000.00
I Bought FoodlDrink During

Covert Operation
I Money StolenlLost While

Attempting to Purchase Narcotics

I Paid Inform ant for
Information/Assistance on an
Investigation

I Provided Money for Informant to

Purchase Narcotics andior
Contraband

. In Purchase of Narcotics andlor

Contraband

I Rented Lodging Daring an
Investigation -

 

 

. 
Figure 30 Categories of Expenses for SPO Bryant 2016 2019

49

 

3. Record review of all confidential informants SPO Bryant used from January
2016 to January 28, 2019.
a. The audit revealed that SPO- Bryant used a total of seven con?dential
informants from January 1, 2016 to January 28, 2019, for a total of $14,220.00.

b. Con?dential Informant Use:

i.

ii.



iv.

vi.

CI #.was used six times during this period. CI ?was

registered by retired HPD Of?cers? and 

(mm The case agent paid CI a total
of $2500.00. The informant was involved in the seizure of 0.6
grams of crack cocaine,.and 15 grams of PCP.

- CI #?was used 26 times during this period. CI 

registered on .m by SPO and?

The case agent paid Cl ii- a tetal of 1 ,050.00. The

informant was involved in the seizure of approximately 18
grams of crack cocaine and 9 grams of marijuana. -

c1 'was need two times during this period. CI #?was
registered on? by SPO SPO
Bryant paid CI ?a total of $120.00. The informant was
involved in the seizure of approximately 1.6 grams of crack
cO?caine. --

CI ?was used 25 times during this period. C134. was
registered on by SPO and retired
SPO SPO Bryant paid CI #n a total
of $1,580.00. The informant was involved in the seizure of

approximately 20 grams of ecstasy, .8 grams of crack cocaine,

and 794 grams of marijuana.

CI alt-was used eight times during this period. CI #-was
registered on by SPO Bryant paid

. CI a total of $2,050.00. The informant was involved in

the seizure of approximately 4 grams of crack cocaine, 231
grams of cocaine, 14 grams of marijuana, and 36120 grams of
?Other? illegal substance. 

CI #-was used 161 times during this period. CI it. was
registered on 9/4/11 by retired SPO Bryant and retired SPO

SPO Bryant paid CI it. a total of
$11,155.00. The informant was involved in the seizure of 2
grams of cocaine, 1000 grams of codeine, 137 grams of crack

50

 

 

vii.

Xanax

Cannabinoids

 

cocaine, 20 grams of ecstasy, 792 grams of marijuana, 36240
grams of ?Other,? Hydrocodone, 17 grams of PCP, 13 grams of
cannabinoids, and 1.6 grams of Xanax.

CI #?was used 13,times during this period. CI 11?. was
registered on by so and?
SP0 Bryant paid CI a total of $2,040.00. The informant

was involved in the seizure of approx1mately 15 grams of crack
cocaine, 1003 gains of codeine, 62 grams of marijuana.

a! .

Confidential Informants ExPenditurcs by SPO Bryant

I I I
1360.001 0140100

$1611.Other 1 I 1 '9333
- 1' .8463
$3,280.00 1 "419
Marijuana 1 1 '7163
1 i$60.00 I 1 1 1 .6945
1 I 32,5000 '1 '5515
Ecstasy $2011..3027
133,395.00
Crack $1,300.00: 1 '1 I
Codeine $1,100.00 1 1 1 1
Cocaine Figure 3] Con?dential Informams Expenditures by SPO Gaines

51

 

4. Explanation of errors on the use of confidential informants found during the
review of SPO Goines cases from January 1,2016 to January 28, 2019.

The audit team documented four errors relating to the use of con?dential informant
funds. The codes are listed as:

1. C1: Expense Report Error

II. C2: Unauthorized Informant Payment

C3: Expense Discrepancy

IV. C4: Information Documentation Not Adequate to Justify Payment
V. CS: No Expense Report

C1: Expense Report Error: No errors.

11. (32: Unauthorized Informant Payment: No errors.

C3: Expense Discrepancies

Code C3 covers a litany of errors of documentation'of payments and documentation
of payments in reports and receipts; Some case tracking numbers contain numerous
errors. Listed below is an explanation of each error With the associated case tracking
number. - - 

18?0718: Of?cer-is listed on the Cl. receipt, but not in offense
report 

18?0877: Address 011 the Cl. receipt forfunds form is incorrect. 2800 is
listed on the form, and report lists 2500 

'18-1008: The informant was paid for assistance on an investigation twice in one
controlled buy which appears to be to avoid a sergeant?s approval. The
C1. was paid $50.00 for the methamphetamine and $50.00 for the cocaine

under case 

18-1651: Offense report doesn't re?ect the lost $25 used for the buy under case
#143640818.

18?1658: C.I. receipts reflect wrong address under case Receipt
indicates apartment 1701 when it should have been 13 01.

18?1756: Money not recovered, was not documented in offense report



52

 

IV. C4: Information Documentation Not Adequate to Justify Payment
No errors.

V. C5: No Expense Report
SPO Bryant did not submit an expense letter in January 2019 because he was
relieved of duty. The Narcotics Division reconciled his expenses.

Speci?c review of expenses relating to the use of a
Con?dential Informant at 7815 Harding

Case number 120867?19 was generated by SPO, Goines on January 27, 2019, as an
?Investigation Narcotics? and served as the controlled buy that led to the drafting of a ?No
Knock? search warrant at 7815 Harding. Due to his injury, SPO Goines did not obtain a
Narcotics Case Tracking number to document the buy.

A careful review of case number 120867-19 revealedthat on January 27, 2019-, SPO Goines
conducted a narcotics investigation?at 7815 Harding at approximately 1700 hours. The
original report indicates that SPO Gaines tagged as evidence .40 grams of an unknown
substance, which he described as heroin. SPO Goines also lists the abbreviation 
(lost) in the offense report, which indicates he used $20.00 to purchase the narcotics.

In the ?Brief Surm?nary? section of the original report, SPO .Goines wrote 1/27/2019,
A NARCOTIC PURCHASE POWDER SUBSTANCE WAS PURCHASED
FROM ?7815 BY A CONFIDENTIAL SPO Goines also
lists one suspect as an unlmown white or Hispanic male; no other identifying information
was listed. . A 

On anuary 28, 2019, SPO Goines presented a narcotics search warrant to Municipal Court
#13 Judge G. Marcum who reviewed and signed it. The search warrant affidavit indicates
that SPO Bryant was present during the alleged use of the unknown informant. SPO
Goines and Bryant instructed a con?dential informant to go the 7815 Harding to purchase
heroin. SPO Goines stated "he searched the informant for contraband prior to the
investigation. The informant went into the residence where he was met by a unknown
white male, approximately 55' years old, 5?11?, and weighed approximately 180 pounds.

The informant exited the residence and returned directly to SP0 Goines. The informant
handed SPO Goines a ?quantity? of a brown powder substance. The brown powder
substance is referred to as ?Boy? and is street slang for heroin. The informant told SPO
Goines that the unknown white male was in possession of a 9MM semi-automatic pistol.
The informant stated the white male told him to return when he needed some more ?Boy?.
SPO Goines searched the informant and the informant was released. SPO Goines stated
the informant has proven to be reliable and credible on more the ten occasions. SPO

53

 

requested the judge authorize a ?No Knock? warrant due to the presence of a weapon as
stated by the informant. Judge Marcum agreed and signed the warrant.

On January 28, 2019, SP0. Goines presented the warrant and tactical action plan to
Sergeant-Who reviewed it. Narcotics Squad 15 then briefed the warrant and were
assigned speci?c responsibilities for the execution of the warrant.

The assignments were as follows:

Surveillance

     

Case Agent, Entry Team
SPO Goines 
Uniform Units

Eas?tsideTPatrol

The threat assessment did not indicate aneed to contact SWAT. to execute the warrant. The
narrative section of?page .2 does not indicate an animal, speci?cally a dog, was seen in the
residence. The fpr'm lacks the sergeants 0r lieutenants review,- but the form may have been
emailed to them Goines.

During the execution of the warrant, four members of Narcotics Squad 15 are shot, two
citizens are 'killed, and another of?cer suffered a serious leg injury. The warrant
immediately turned into an ?Of?cer Involved? shooting and members of the Special
Investigations Unit (SIU) conducted a separate investigation under case #133932~19.

On January 30, 2019, SP0 Bryant wrote supplement number one in offense report
#12086749. In the supplement, SPO Bryant states he searched SPO Goines vehicle and
found a plastic bag that contained a white napkin and two small packets containing a brown
powdery substance.? SPO Bryant identi?ed the two small packets as the narcotics
purchased from 7815 Harding on January 27, 2019. SP0 Bryant tagged the two small
packets as evidence on January 30, 2019.

As part of the Special Investigations Unit investigation, it was necessary to identify the
con?dential informant used by SPO Goines to verify the purchase of narcotics on January
27, 2019. On January 30 2019, SP0 Goines provided SPO Bryant with the name and
number of the con?dential informant he used during the controlled buy. The name of the
informant will not be publicized in this report, but will be identi?ed as con?dential
informant numbertm 

54

 

SIU Investigators interviewed con?dential informant #-Wh0 stated that he/she was not
involved in the controlled bu conducted at 7815 Harding on January 27, 2019. A review
of con?dential informant ?les indicates SPO Goines last documented use was on
January 14, 2019, and January 16, 2019, on a controlled buy at On January
14, 2019, records indicate that SPO Goines provided con?dential informant $20.00
to purchase .40 grams of crack cocaine under HPD case w. Confidential
informant was paid $20 for the purchase under the same case number.

On January 16, 2019, a warrant was executed under case M.
where approximately 7.5 grams of ecstasy, 5 grams of crack cocaine, 75.5 grams of
marijuana, 13 grams of Hydrocodone, 12.2 grams of Xanax, and 62.4 grams of
Carisoprodol were recovered. Mr. Gordon Dancy was arrested for Possession of a
Controlled Substance with the Intent to Deliver. Con?dential informant paid
$400 dollars for the warrant. A review of SPO Goines? expense ?les. for- January 2019,
revealed that there were no Con?dential Informant receipts or request for payments in the
?les. The expense letter was created by the Narcotics Division due to SP0 Goines medical
condition. 

SIU Investigators returned back to SP0. Goines to determine if he used another
Con?dential Informant at, 7815 Harding. SPO Goines was unable to speak, but provided
Narcotics Lieutenant ?with con?dential informant number -. SIU Investigators
interviewed con?dential informant 6730 who stated he/she was not involved in the

i purchase of narcptic. 'at 7815 Harding.

Records indicate con?dential informant #-was last used by SPO Goines on May 22,
2018, at - under HPD case number?. On this date, SPO
Goines provided con?dential informant #_with $100 dollars which the informant used
to purchase 6 grams of marijuana. SPO Goines paid con?dential informant $50.00
for the purchase; SPO Bryant witnessed the payment. 

On W018, SPO Goines presented a ?No Knock? search warrant to Harris County
Magistrate R. Bax for Wu The warrant was executed on 
2018, under HPD case No suspects were found and no arrests were made
inside of the apartment; only marijuana residue was found. SPO Gdines documented case
Wrinder Narcotics Case Tracking #18?0 893. No records exist of
a payment made to Confidential Informant it. as a result of the warrant.

On February 7, 2019, SIU Investigators interviewed SPO Bryant who con?rmed that he

was not present when SPO Goines made the alleged purchase of heroin at 7815 Harding.

On March 4, 2019, SP0 Bryant invoked his ?fth-amendment rights and declined ?nther I

interviews.

55

 

On February 13, 2019, SIU Investigators re?inteiviewed SPO Goines who admitted he did
not use a con?dential informant at 7815 Harding. SPO Goines stated he purchased the
heroin himself and he did not submit the alleged two bags of heroin as evidence. SPO
Goines admits he falsi?ed the search warrant af?davit. As a result of the controlled buy,
case number 653465-18 was generated to document the execution of the search warrant.

Recommendations

The audit revealed the necessity to place additional emphasis on supervisory oversight,
con?dential informant handling, and changes to the department?s policies and procedures
on cases involving search warrants. The Audit Team re?comniends the following:

- SOP Activity Authorization and otifiCation
A Narcotics Lieutenant must be present during the service of any warrant at a
dwelling or business which may involve forced entry. Before this revision, only a
sergeant had to be present. --

- Narcotics Operational Plan .
The SOP was changed {to require lieutenant approval before the service of any
warrant, ?ash, buy?bust, or any instance the squad lieutenant deems appropriate.

Narcotics Division of?cers liaison with many outside agencies to complete their
mission. The Commander and. Squad Lieutenant will be noti?ed if any
outside agencies participate in the operation.

A separate policy is being. generated to comply with the Chief of Police decision to
require officers to w??ar body-worn cameras (BWC) when taking enforcement
action With outside agencies.

I Search Bus?ts and Open Air Investigations
Stipervisors are new required to review investigative efforts that support the search
warrant af?davit to determine the sufficiency and efforts of the case agent.

When Conducting ?Open Air? operations, the Case Agent will notify a Narcotics
supervisor at the beginning and end of the operation. Case Agents will request
EMS assistance/presence during service of any warrant on a residence or business
requiring forced entiy.

- 20011.22: Handling Confidential Informants
Supervisory oversight of all investigations involving a con?dential informant is
enhanced. Supervisors will also verify the veracity of all confidential informants?
infonnation, especially any information leading to the issuance of a search or arrest

warrant.

56

 

 

A narcotics supervisor will meet with each Case Agent every month to discuss the
status of each con?dential informant assigned to or used by the case agent.
Supervisors will ensure each of?cer is correctly utilizing their informants and abide
by all policies and procedures.

All operational conversations with a con?dential informant will be annotated in a
log. Operational conversations consist of dialogues (verbal, text messages, e-mails,
or any other form of electronic communication) in which a con?dential informant
provides information to a case agent. The Narcotics Division Commander will
develop additional guidelines to capture the data in either a written form or an
electronic database. I

0 Changes to ?No Knock? and ?Knock and Announce? Search Warrants
1. Continue the practice of obtaining COP approval for ?No Knock? warrants.

2. ?No Knock? warrants require. execution by the -- Houston Police
Department?s Tactical Operations Division,- Special Weapons and Tactics 
(SWAT) Team. . - 

3. Develop a new operational plan which includes a checklist for warrant
preparation. 

4. Annual classroom training to discuss-policy updates, relevant laws, and legal
rami?cations with a speci?c focus .on? supervisory awareness.

5. Scenario?based training to include the use of:
Shields 
Breach and assess.? -
0 Slow and Deliberate Searche

6 Search warrant: requests will only be signed by a District Court Judge or the
twenty-four hour magistrate located at 1201 Franklin. Warrants will no longer
be signed by a municipal court judge.

7. The Narcotics? Division Commander will establish a ?Warrant? team used
explicitly for ?Knock and Announce? warrants. The ?Warrant? team will also
be available to assist Narcotics Case Agents in undercover operations.

8. Narcotics Divisions Case Agents will employ the use of a BWC during all
enforcement operations.

0 The audit overwhelming supports the need to improve administrative procedures,
speci?cally, supervisory review of case ?les and case tracking. In almost 25% of
all cases turned in by Narcotics Case Agents, supervisors failed to sign the ?Case

57

 

File Review Shee This sheet is required to be signed by the squad sergeant. The
review sheet is vital to maintain supervisory oversight of cases submitted by a

Narcotics Case Agent.

Over 11% of the cases submitted were turned in late to intake. Many of the cases
were turned in over six months to a year later which is in violation of Narcotics
SOP ?Case Tracking Sheet?. Once a Narcotics Case'Agent receives a
he or she will have 10 working days to complete the investigation and submit
it to their respective Squad Supervisor.

The Narcotics Squad Supervisor, or designee, will have 5 working days to review
and submit the completed case to the Quality Control Section. Overall, of?cers and
supewisdrs will have 15 days to complete the case and turn it in. Any case not
completed within the allotted time ?ame must be clearly communicated to the

- respective supervisor and a notice submitted to the Administrative Sergeant,

producing the case tracking report, via email. Anycase outstanding for more than
60 calendar days must be approved by the respective Supervising Lieutenant and
communicated to the Administrative Sergeant, producing the case tracking report,

via email. Any case outstanding for more than 90 calendar days require approval

by the Commander of the Narcotics Division.

The ?Quality Centrol Section? is staffed by a single civilian support person who in
addition to maintaining the hundreds of case ?les that come into the Narcotics
Division, has other responsibilities that detracts attention from the case ?les. In
addition, record-keeping procedures are manual which leads to case ?les not being
reported as late to the Squad lieutenant. Recommend the Narcotics Division
develop and automated CaSe tracking system which will allow the sergeants and
lieutenants to track cases._

58

 

 

Figures

Figure 1 SP0 Goines 'Total Cases 2016 2019 -. 7
Figure 2 Type of Cases Worked by SPO Goines and-2016 2019 8
Figure 3 Type of Cases Worked by SPO Goines and Bryant 2016 2019 8
Figure 4 Type of Cases Worked by SPO Goines and SQuad 2016 4- 2019 9
Figure 5 SP0 Bryant Total Cases 2016 2019 10
Figure 6 Type of Cases Worked by SPO Bryant and Goines 2016 2.019 11
Figure 7 Type of Cases Worked by SPO Bryant and ?2016 2019 11
Figure 8 Type of Cases Worked by SPO Bryant and Squad 2016 2019 12
Figure 9 Type of Cases Worked by SPO Bryant and .2016 2019 Error!
Bookmark not de?ned. 

Figure 10 Type of Cases Worked by sro Bryant and .2016 2019 Error!
Bookmark not de?ned. - -

Figure 11 Type of Cases Worked by SPO Bryant and -2016 2019 Error!
Bookmark not de?ned. a .

Fig?ure 12 Type or Cases Worked by SEO Bryant and .2016 2019 Error!
Bookmark not de?ned. 

Figure. 13 Types of Errors in Cases Associated to G?oines and Bryant 14
Figure 14 All Errors in Cases Pertaining to Goines 2016 2019 15
Figure 15 All Errors in Cases Pertaining to Bryant 2016 - 2019 16
Figure 16 Number of Types of Cases Percentages Worked by South General
Enforcement Squads 14 15 Years 2017 2019 18
Figure 17 South General Enforcement Types of Case Errors 2017 to 2019 19

Figure 18 Number of All Cases South General Enforcement Squad 14 Years 2017 -
2019 20

59

 

 

Figure 19 South General Enforcement Squad 14 Total Error Count Year 2017 to 2019

21
Figure 20 South General Enforcement Squad 15 Type of Cases 22
Figure 21 South General Enforcement Squad 15 Total Error Count Year 2017 to 2019

Enforcement Squads 9 10?Years 2017 . 25
Figure 23 North General Enforcement Types of Case Errors 2017 to 2019 .. 26

I Figure 24 Number of All Cases North General'Enforcement Squad 9 Years 2017 
. . .. . 23

Figure 25 North General Enforcement Squad 9 Total Error Count Year 2017 to 2019

30

Figure 26 Number of All Cases North General Enforcement Squad 10 Years 2017 -

2019. . 32
Figure 27 North General Enforcement Squad 10 Total Error Count Year 2017 to 201Figure 28- SP0 Goines Draws 2016 - 2019 . . . . 36
Figure 29 Comparision of SPO Goiues ExPenses Draws per Supervisor . 37
Figure 30 Categories of Expenses for SPO Goines 2016 2019 37
Figure 31 Confidential informants Expenditures by SPO Goines . .. .. 39
Figure 32 SPO Bryant Draws 2016 2019 48
Figure 33 Comparison ..rsro Bryant Expenses Draws per Supervisor 49
Figure 34 Categories of EXpenses for SPO Bryant 2016 2019 49 .
Figure 35 Con?dential Informants Expenditures by SPO Goines 51

60

 

 

Tables

Table 1 Percentage of Type of Cases Worked by SPO Goines 2016 2019 7

Table 2 Percentage of Cases Worked by SPO Goines and other Of?cers between 2016
- 2019 .. 9

Table 3 Percentage of Cases Worked Bryant and other Of?cers between 2016
- 2019 . . . 10

Table 4 Percentage of Cases Worked byi SPO Bryant and other Officers between 2016
2019 0 f. a 12

Table 5 Error Codes and Definitions I 14

Table 6 Percentage of Errors Found in Cases Completed by SPO Goines and Bryant
2016 2019 -. Error! Bookmark not de?ned.

Table 7 SPO Goines Error Percentage 2016 2019 Bookmark not de?ned.
Table 8 SPO Bryant Error Percentage 2016'?: 2019 .Error! Bookmark not de?ned.

Table 9 All Error Percentages for General Enforcement Squads 14 15, 2017 to 2019
. .. Error! Bookmark not de?ned.

Table 10 Percentages of Types of Cases for South General Enforcement Squad 14
Years 2017 2019 Bookmark not de?ned.

Table 11 South General Enforcement Squad 14 Error Percentages Year 2017 to 2019

BOOkrnal'li not de?ned-

Table 12 Percentages of Types of Cases for South General Enforcement Squad 15
Years 2017 . Error! Bookmark not de?ned.

Table 13 South General Enforcement Squad 15 Error Percentages Year 2017 to 2019'

Bookmal?k not defined.

Table 14 All Error Percentages for North General Enforcement Squads 9 10,2017

t02019.._ . . 27
61'

 

 

Table 15 Pelcentages of Types of Cases for North General Enforcement Squad 9
Years 2017? 2019 . . .. .. .. .29

Table 16 North General Enforcement Squad 9 Error Percentages Year 2017 to 2019

O. IOIU ..ICIIOO 0 31

Table 17 Percentages of Types of Cases for North General Enforcement Squad 10
Years 2017? 2019 . 

Table 18 North General Enforcement Squad 9 Error Percentages Year 2017 to 2019

of" 35

62