Isthmus files PFC complaint

[What follows is the text of a complaint filed April 1, 1998, with the Madison Police and Fire Commission by Isthmus news editor Bill Lueders.]

BOARD OF THE POLICE AND FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF MADISON

filed against a commissioned officer of the Madison Police or Fire Department by an aggrieved person, pursuant to 62.13(5), Wisconsin Statutes, and Rule 7 of the Board.

Name of Complainant: Bill Lueders, News Editor, Isthmus

Address: 101 King St.,
City/ZIP: Madison, WI 53703,
Phone: (608) 251-5627

COMPLAINT AGAINST: Lt. Dennis George Riley, Madison Police Department.

STATEMENT OF CHARGES, made under oath or affirmation and subject to penalties for false swearing (Refer to Wisconsin Statute 62.13 and Board Rule 7.):

In late October 1997, Lt. Dennis George Riley, a supervisor of detectives with the Madison Police Department, received a complaint addressed "Dear Supervisor," as well as an accompanying letter to the Wisconsin State Journal, outlining detailed charges of misconduct against Madison Police Detectives Tom Woodmansee and Linda Draeger.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that "your detectives" coerced the complainant into confessing that she made a false report of sexual assault. It says she was interrogated at length and believed the detectives were not going to let her leave "until they heard what they wanted to hear." It says she asked to leave the room and was told she could not. It says she now knows "everything these people said in that room was a lie." It says that whereas she previously would have urged a sexual assault victim to go to the police, her advice now would be: "Prepare to be victimized again."

The accompanying letter to the newspaper, dated Oct. 22, provided more detail. It says the detectives, in getting the complainant to admit she made a false report, made "many threats," including: "If you think I was good working for you, you should see me working against you." It says she was told the matter would go away quietly if she confessed; otherwise the media, her boyfriend and the man she suspected of raping her would be notified. (All these actions were in fact taken.) The letter concludes, "The investigating detective on my case was not only unprofessional, but may have put myself as well as other women in danger by not taking my complaint seriously. He is sending out the message that we are not to be believed."

Enclosed for the record are two copies of these letters. The first, marked Exhibit A, was provided by the complainant, who I've identified in my articles by first name only, as "Patty." The second, marked Exhibit B, is the copy that was released by the Department's Office of Professional Standards in February 1998 in response to an open-records request. This second copy has two handwritten notations at the top, which may or may not have been written by the same person. The first gives the case number for the matter at hand. The second gives the date, 2-6-98, next to the circled initials, PM, presumably Lt. Pat Malloy, head of the Police Department's Office of Professional Standards.

I am the news editor of Isthmus, a weekly newspaper in Madison. In that capacity I have written frequently about complaints brought by citizens against Madison police officers. (Some recent articles that are relevant to the issues at hand are attached as Exhibit C.) I am a named plaintiff in two lawsuits filed in state court charging the Department with violating Wisconsin's open records law in denying access to complaint information. In both cases, the suits led to court orders requiring the police to release records.

The first lawsuit, filed in mid-1994 and decided in late 1995, is most pertinent. Judge Sarah O'Brien ruled that the Department had no right to withhold complaints filed by citizens against police officers. In response to that decision, Isthmus has been provided access to virtually every citizen complaint received by the Department between Jan. 1, 1993, and Dec. 31, 1997. The only exceptions are cases in which the complaining citizen requested complete confidentiality, and those in which the Department performed an individual balancing test to determine that the potential harm from disclosure was greater than the public's right to know.

On Dec. 9, 1997, Isthmus made an open-records request for "all complaints filed by citizens against Madison police officers by citizens in 1997." The Department released these records in two batches, on Jan. 22 and Jan. 30. In all, the Department acknowledged receiving 30 citizen complaints, and provided at least some records regarding 27 of those complaints. (Copies of Isthmus' request and the Department's responses are included as Exhibit D.)

The complaint from Patty addressed "Dear Supervisor" was not among the complaints acknowledged by the Department, even though the misconduct it alleges is substantially more serious than that alleged in any record the Department did release.

Patty sent her complaint and letter in response to an article about her recanted rape allegation in the Wisconsin State Journal for Oct. 22. (This date appears on the copy of this letter marked Exhibit A, but not Exhibit B.) She says she called the Police Department to find out the name of Woodmansee's supervisor, put his name on the outside of an envelop and had the letter delivered by Badger Cab. She no longer remembered the supervisor's name, but I learned that Woodmansee's supervisor at that time was Lt. Dennis Riley. I called Riley on Feb. 4 or Feb. 5, and asked whether he had received a letter from this citizen addressed "Dear Supervisor" and an accompanying letter to the editor to the Wisconsin State Journal. I proceeded to read him portions of these letters.

Had Riley seen these letters? "Not to my knowledge," he replied. "I do not remember the letter. I do not have a copy of the letter."

On Feb. 5, I called Lt. Pat Malloy of the Professional Standards Unit to ask why the complaint from Patty was not among the records released to Isthmus in response to its request for all complaints. Lt. Malloy stated that he had no knowledge of this letter, but would look into it. I spoke again with Lt. Malloy on Feb. 6, the date he apparently jotted on the complaint. He stated that he had retrieved a copy of these letters and reviewed the case file. He said the letters had been delivered to Lt. Riley, who "basically gave this to Woodmansee to put in his file, and that's where I retrieved it yesterday." I asked Lt. Malloy whether Riley had followed proper procedure for receiving and investigating a complaint. Lt. Malloy said he couldn't conclude this but did say, "Would I have liked to have known about it? Yes."

The Madison Police Department's policies regarding "Complaint Acceptance and Investigations" are set forth under section 6-500. (A copy of these policies appears as Exhibit E.) The rules, which all Madison police officers are supposed to know and follow, state that the Department "is committed to investigating complaints in an open and fair manner with the truth as its primary objective." (A. General Purpose.) It says that "supervisors assigned to investigate a complaint against an employee will be responsible for conducting a thorough and fair investigation." (C. Investigator's Responsibility.)

But Lt. Riley was never assigned to investigate the matter at hand, and there is no evidence he conducted any sort of inquiry. Instead, he kept the complaint from being investigated by giving it to the accused officer, Det. Woodmansee, to put in his case file. I believe this violates several areas of the policy, including:

6-500.1, Responsibility for Accepting/Referring Complaints, sub A: "Every employee of the Department has the responsibility to insure that a citizen complaint, on being expressed, is received and referred to the appropriate unit or supervisor." Lt. Riley apparently did nothing to either investigate the complaint or call it to the appropriate unit's attention.

6-500.1, Responsibility for Accepting/Referring Complaints, sub C: "Unless the alleged conduct described is minor, citizens...who wish to make a complaint against a member of the Department...will be referred to the Professional Standards Unit." Lt. Riley made no such referral. (Sub B defines minor complaints as those that, if proven true, would result in actions less than a letter of reprimand; Patty's allegation of detention and coercion, if true, would hardly qualify under this definition as "minor.")

6-500.1, Responsibility for Accepting/Referring Complaints, sub D: "When the Professional Standards Unit is closed, citizens with non-minor complaints will be referred to the employee's commanding/supervisory officer, or, if unavailable, to the Patrol unit leader, who will forward the information, in writing, to the Professional Standards Unit, as soon as practical. A written summary of non-minor complaints shall include, at a minimum, the nature of the complaint, a description of events, the names of any witnesses, and how the complainant witness can be recontacted." Lt. Riley evidently produced no such written summary.

6-500.2 Options Available to the Complainant, sub A: "Unless the complaint is of a minor nature, citizens will be advised by the Professional Standards Unit, or the responsible supervisor, of the following categories of complaints available to them." A list of four complaint options follows. Lt. Riley did not notify the complainant in this case of any of these options.

6-500.3 Professional Standards Unit Responsibility, sub A: "The Professional Standards Unit shall be responsible for the following types of complaints: 1. Allegations of criminal conduct by employees; 2. Allegations of excessive use of force by employees; 3. Formal complaints from citizens against employees. 4. Other serious matters, as determined by the Chief of Police." The allegations in Patty's complaint may fall within the first and second category, as the complainant charges that she was held against her will and repeatedly threatened. It might also have fallen under the third category of formal complaints, were it not for the fact that Lt. Riley failed to inform the complainant, as required, of her right to file a formal complaint. Certainly, it falls with category 4, as a matter serious enough to call to the personal attention of the Chief of Police. Lt. Riley did not inform either the Chief or Professional Standards that he had received this complaint.

In addition, I wish to file formal charges against Lt. Riley for violating another Police Department rule:

2-1816, Untruthfulness, which states: "Members of the Department are required to speak the truth at all times and under all circumstances, whether under oath or otherwise." I believe that Lt. Riley violated this rule when he falsely represented to me that he had no knowledge of Patty's complaint.

It is my understanding, from talking to Lt. Malloy and Chief Richard Williams, that the Department does not intend to take any action against Lt. Riley for these violations of its rules, nor does it plan to investigate the substance of Patty's complaint while she is prosecuted on criminal charges for having retracted her complaint. The Department is relying on another section of its rules, 5-600.3, sub C: "In cases where citizen complaints are filed against arresting officers, the investigation may be suspended, at the direction of the Chief of Police, until after court proceedings are completed." In this case, the decision to suspend was made after the fact, despite the rule violations by Lt. Riley.

I think this policy is problematic, in that it allows officers to forestall a misconduct investigation simply by making an arrest or issuing a citation. (Although the above policy refers only to "arresting officer," it is invoked even in cases of ordinance violations that have yet to be adjudicated.) But I understand that the Commission's powers may be limited in this regard.

Clearly, though, the Commission has the authority under 62.13(5) to discipline Lt. Riley for his violations of Department rules. I think an appropriate disposition would include:

1. An unpaid suspension of a duration to be determined by the Commission.

2. Possible demotion in rank, if deemed appropriate by the Commission.

3. Inclusion of a record explaining any such discipline and the reasons for it in Lt. Riley's personnel file, and the PFC's own public files.

4. The issuance of a memo to all Madison police offices from the Commission or Chief reminding them of their obligation to follow the Department's rules for receiving and investigating complaints.

Thank you for your timely attention to this matter.

[End of document.]