CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

POLICE ADVISORY
COMMISSION
2012-13 ANNUAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Pages(s)

Letter of Chair
History and Mission
Budget and Resources
2012-2013 Activity Summary
PAC Complaint Maps and OpenData
Public Case summaries
Fatal Incidents
Opinions and Recommendations
Community Outreach
Staff and Commissioners
Expenditures
Acknowledgements

3
6
7
7
8
10
11
14
16
18
19
20

Appendices
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

PAC Complaint Process

2008-2013 Citizen Complaints
Sustained Complaints by Type Internal Affairs
Summaries of Sustained Complaints PAC
Police Board of Inquiry
Arbitrations
Disciplinary Code & PPD Directives guide
PAC Memo re Post Puerto Rican Day Parade celebrations
Video Evidence and the Josey Arbitration

21
22
25
26
30
31
57
59
61

A REPORT TO THE CITY

My Fellow Philadelphians:
On behalf of the Philadelphia Police Advisory Commission staff and
commissioners, I am pleased to report our 2012 and 2013
accomplishments.
The PACs mission to improve the relationship between the Philadelphia
Police Department and the community is just as vital today as it was in
1983 when the PAC was created by executive order, although the
methods of police oversight have changed significantly.
It is no longer sufficient to focus on investigating complaints of
individual misconduct. True oversight must focus on policy changes and
organizational reform. To accomplish necessary institutional changes in
policing, a civilian oversight agency must be able to track trends of
common complaints and identify and analyze recurring problems.
In 2012, after six years of service the PAC's executive director was
replaced. Assistant director Kelvyn Anderson became acting director,
and a year later he was appointed executive director. With his
background in local journalism and his interest in technology, Anderson
has shown himself to be well-positioned to helm a modern civilianoversight agency.
Under Andersons leadership, the PAC implemented several data-driven
initiatives:
By analyzing five years of data on celebrations following the
Puerto Rican Day Parade in the neighborhood around 5th and
3

Lehigh, the PAC helped civic, community and business groups

reshape transportation corridors and activity centers for the 2013
parade.
In early 2013, the PAC created an OpenData release of our
complaint data to increase transparency around the complaint
process, promote public engagement by creating the ability to
relate complaints to other factors (such as race, age and gender)
and encourage additional transparency in the Philadelphia Police
Department complaint process.
In early 2013, we issued a recommendation to Commissioner
Ramsey to remind police officers that the public may lawfully
videotape police activity. Despite our recommendation, the
problem persists and five lawsuits have been filed against the City
of Philadelphia.
The PAC continues to work on proactive oversight:
In issuing its second opinion In the Matter of Nizah Morris (a
transgender woman who sustained a fatal head wound within
minutes of riding in a Philadelphia Police vehicle), the PAC
criticized both the Police Department and the District Attorneys
Office. These PAC recommendations were accepted by
Commissioner Ramsey:
o Police officers should never make a determination to cancel a
hospital case;
o The Police Department should adopt a written directive
regarding courtesy rides; and
o The Police Department should adopt a written directive
restricting or regulating the use of private cellphones for
official business.
After receiving a complaint from a mother concerned about the
potential for violence during a court-ordered child-custody
exchange at a police district, the Commission contacted the district
and resolved the problem. Building upon that successful resolution,
the Commission is working with police and the courts to develop a
4

model for custody exchanges to forestall a serious incident.

In response to a 2014 request for help from Southwest Philadelphia
residents concerned about the sale of BB guns and similar
weapons, the Commission reviewed the shooting summaries on the
Philadelphia Police Department website. The Commission created
a searchable file of police shootings involving BB guns, fake guns,
etc., and reported to the City Council Public Safety Committee that
16 shootings have occurred since 2007, two of which were fatal.
The Police Advisory Commission believes that with the right tools,
staffing and budget, its mission can be accomplished.

Respectfully submitted,

Ronda B. Goldfein, Chair

November 12, 2014

History and Mission of

Police Advisory Commission
The Police Advisory Commission is the official civilian oversight agency of the City of Philadelphia for the
Philadelphia Police Department. The general mission of the Commission is to improve the relationship
between the police department and the community. The authority granted to police oversight agencies
varies greatly around the nation, from boards and commissions with the power to compel police
testimony and subpoena records and documents, to auditors and ombudsmen concentrating on policy
reviews and analysis of investigations completed by subject police departments.
Authorized in 1993 by Executive Order 8-931, the PAC conducts investigations of individual citizen
complaints of police misconduct while also reviewing police department policies, procedures and
practices. Findings and recommendations made by the PAC are forwarded directly to the Mayor, the
City Managing Director and the Police Commissioner for review and appropriate action
Executive Order 8-93, the Commission's enabling legislation, includes all of the earmarks and
recommended powers for effective oversight: access to police records, subpoena authority, the ability
to conduct independent investigations, and to hold public hearings on both individual and policy
matters.
These hybrid features allow the Commission to look at both the forest and the trees; we have a great
deal of latitude in terms of responding to individual instances of misconduct and larger policy issues.
Cities with hybrid components of oversight similar to Philadelphia include Seattle, WA, Tucson, AZ and
Denver CO.
In the PACs 20 years, it has held hundreds of community meetings, issued 45 opinions, 14 annual
reports, convened two public hearings on policy matters2 held workshops with teens, and answered
more than 10,000 calls and email questions from the public.

1
2

"EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8-93 (Conformed Copy After ..." 2013. 23 Jun. 2014)
(Police Stress in 1995, Search Warrants in 2001)

Budget and Resources

The PACs greatest challenge is its limited staffing and resources. In 1994, the PAC had a staff of six, and
a total budget of $389,000. Currently, its allotted a staff of three. The proposed FY 2015 budget is
27.4% less than in 1994, presenting significant challenges to investigating complaints, analyzing policy
and conduct outreach to the community in a city with more than 6,660 police officers -- the nations 4th
largest police department. The chart below compares the PACs staff and budgets to those of oversight
agencies around the US:

The PAC is the only non-chartered agency operating under an Executive Order, and has a budget and
staff roughly equivalent to Berkeley, CA, which has only 200 police officers.

2012 -2013 Summary

Complaint Investigations: The PAC Commission received 54 citizen complaints in 2012 and 57 in 2013.
In 2012 and 2013, 45 complaints filed with the Commission were accepted for full investigation. The
PACs two investigators have approximately 20 open investigations from 2012-2014. In 2013, the
Commission closed 15 cases filed between 2011 and 2013. Nine cases contained disciplinary
recommendations involving 13 Philadelphia Police Department officers.
Audited Investigations: The PAC routinely audits cases not accepted for a full investigation, but which
are investigated by Internal Affairs. Audits consist of a review of the final Internal Affairs reports by the
PAC staff and the commissioners investigative review committee and are used to insure the
thoroughness of investigations and the appropriateness of outcomes. In 2012, 13 complaints were
accepted at audited investigations. In 2013, 23 complaints were accepted as audits.
Proactive Oversight: As part of its oversight role, the PAC monitors trends in complaints, lawsuits and
arbitrations. Through the initial creation of a Compstat for oversight system that ties together
information from complaint data, the Police Board of Inquiry, fatal incidents, lawsuits and arbitrations,
the PAC continues to improve its ability to collect and analyze information

Public Reporting & Data: In January 2013, the PAC published four years of its complaint information on
OpenDataPhilly to increase transparency around the complaint process, and to encourage public
engagement by creating the ability to relate complaints to other factors. The data includes date,
location, type of complaint, demographics (age/race/sex) of complainant, and the current status of the
complaint. Updates to this information planned for 2014 will include the final dispositions and any
recommendations for each complaint. The data can be filtered by address, police or city council district.
Public Meetings/Community Outreach: The PAC continues to build working relationships with
neighborhood organizations, advocacy groups and other government agencies around policecommunity relations. The Commission held 22 monthly meetings throughout 2012 and 2013, including
10 in community centers and police districts around the city.

PAC Complaint Maps and OpenData

In 2012, the PAC began working with the Department of Technology's Geographic Information
Services/mapping division and the police department to create applications to display maps of basic
information about citizen complaints filed with the PAC and the Police Department. The application will
ultimately aggregate data from both agencies, and show age, race, sex of complainants, the type of
complaint, date it was received, current status, and the disposition of the complaint. In 2013, the PAC
was invited to present this innovative, data-driven approach to oversight agency transparency and the
complaint process, at the NACOLE (National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement)
conference in Salt Lake City, UT.3

The eventual goal is to allow anyone with a web browser or a mobile device to view targeted reports
about complaints; by type, address, by district, etc. The screenshot below shows the PACs internal
mapping application displaying a police district map of the 56 complaints received in 2013, along with
additional layers of complaints from
previous years coded by type, age, race,
district, etc.

Securing Access to Police Agency Documents: the Philadelphia Story

In January 2013, the PAC answered the challenge of Mayor Nutter's Open Data Initiative (Executive
Order 1-12) by taking the first steps in providing additional transparency4 around the police complaints
process. Four years of PAC complaint data was posted at OpenDataPhilly. The public, academics, other
government agencies and data developers
were encouraged to download, map and
correlate this data with other information to
shed light on the variety of factors leading
to complaints against police. Combining
police complaints with crime data became a
useful tool as community groups and city
officials pondered changes to the postPuerto Rican Day Parade events traditionally
held in the area of 5th & Lehigh. In June
2013, the PAC assisted community leaders
and government agencies with efforts to
improve problems associated with the postPuerto Rican Day parade activities. After
reviewing crimes and complaints on the day
of the event over a three year period in the
area of 5th & Lehigh, the PAC found that the
increase in assaults on police and other
crimes was in part due to the lack of familyoriented organized activity and traffic flow
issues. See Appendix 7 for detailed memo
to Dia de Puerto Rico Committee Task Force.

City of Philadelphia Priorities & Accomplishments, March 2014

Public Case Summaries

In 2012 and 2013, PAC staff prepared summaries of cases investigated in tandem with the Internal
Affairs Bureau. As with the OpenData approach, these summaries include as much information as
possible without identifying complainants and subject officers in pending matters. The goal is to provide
a candid look at cases moving through the system, while maintaining the confidentiality of those who
file complaints, the integrity of the investigative process, and the rights of police officers who are the
subject of these allegations.
Examples of case summaries presented at our February 2013 meeting:
#2577 Physical Abuse case filed by family of a BM 22yrs involved in a January 2011 police shooting in
the 19th District. Due to his severe injuries we have not been able to interview him. There are additional
factors, mental illness and whether or not CIT (Crisis Intervention) officers were called. The investigation
by the Shooting Team remains open.
#2603 Abuse of Authority case filed by a BM 43yrs who was arrested for disorderly conduct while
observing the arrest of another man in 17th District in March 2011. The companion case at Internal
Affairs is still open.
#2628 Physical Abuse case filed by BF 19yrs who alleges she was grabbed and pushed to the ground
during the June 2011 Ogontz Ave Jazz Festival in the 14th District The companion case at Internal Affairs
is still open.
#2632 Physical Abuse case filed by BF 24yrs, who claimed 12th District police arrested and physically
abused her after she used a cell phone to videotape a male being arrested in the rear of her home in
July 2011. We received the final IAD report in this case, and will prepare our final analysis. This case is
being tracked with others involving police reactions to videotaping by citizens.
#2633 Physical Abuse case filed by HF 44yrs, who claimed she was injured by 25th District police,
during July 2011 incident involving the arrest of her boyfriend. Police interviews have been conducted,
but the companion case at Internal Affairs is still open.
#2648 Physical Abuse complaint filed by BF 38yrs who claims she was handcuffed and punched by
19th District officers when attempting to intervene in the arrest of her son in Sept 2011. The companion
case at Internal Affairs remains open.
#2658 & #2660 Two complaints related to Fatal Police shooting of BM 26yrs Oct 2011 in the 25th
District. The police Shooting Team and Internal Affairs investigation in these incidents remain open.
#2659 Abuse of Authority complaint filed by BF 36yrs who alleged 35 District officers illegally
searched her home after detaining her son in connection with the Oct 2011 robbery of a pizza shop. The
companion case at Internal Affairs remains open.

10

Fatal Incidents
2013 saw a spike in officer-involved shootings, highlighting the need for the Commission's voice in public
discussions around use of force. After seven police shootings in May and media reports contrasting the
drop in crime to the highest number of police shootings in a decade, Commissioner Ramsey wisely
requested a formal review of the PPDs shooting policies, training and accountability mechanisms by the
Department of Justices Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Division.5 The Collaborative
Reform Model is a relatively new effort by the Department of Justice to encourage municipalities to
engage in systematic evaluation and reforms of police procedures and policies, outside of the more
onerous and costly consent decree process.
According to the DOJ, using subject-matter experts, interviews, and direct observation, as well as
conducting research and analysis, the COPS Office will assist law enforcement agencies with enhancing
and improving their policies and procedures, their systems, their culture, and their relationships with
the communities they serve. Where appropriate, the COPS Office will issue a series of
recommendations, and be instrumental in assisting agencies with the implementation of the
recommendations or finding the right resources to do so.6
The Commission has historically faced resistance from the PPD when requesting information on Officerinvolved shootings. Back in February 2013, the Commissions Executive Director wrote to Commissioner
Ramsey requesting access to completed investigations & reports of all discharges by PPD officers from
2007 to the present, as required by Executive Order 8-93.7
In May 2014, the Commissioners legal representative informed the Commission that the PPD formally
opposed release of shooting records to the Commission under the Executive Order. We disagree and are
continuing to pursue our legitimate use of these records.
The Commission has been tracking these incidents on a public spreadsheet since 2007,8 and families of
individuals involved in seven fatal police shootings brought their concerns to the Commission between
2007 and 2013. As a result of the departments refusal, we have been unable to review these incidents.
Preventing the Commission from discharging its duty to review and comment on police shootings
undermines the department's claims of transparency.

Sam Wood. "Ramsey's shrewd move may save Philadelphia millions." 2013. 23 Jun. 2014
<http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Ramseys_shrewd_move_could_save_the_Philadelphia_millions.html>
6
(2014). COPS - Department of Justice. Retrieved June 25, 2014, from
http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2015justification/pdf/cops-justification.pdf.
7
(Re authority, see Exec Order 8-93 Sec 4 D(5))
8
PPD Justifiable Homicides 2007-2012 (Police Advisory Commission)

11

Shortly after the Department of Justice COPs office began their review of officer-involved shootings in
May 2013, the PPD launched a webpage chronicling police shootings in the city. Hopefully, this is the
beginning of the departments effort to demonstrate transparency around critical uses of force by our
police: theres a flowchart detailing the investigative steps, an explanation of training procedures, a
spreadsheet of the individual incidents, and additional charts/maps detailing the context of officerinvolved shootings from 2007 to date.
While this is an important step in the right direction for the PPD in terms of taking the lead in creating a
sensible narrative around fatal/critical incidents, what theyve chosen to reveal is heavy on general,
defensive explanations of the need to use force, rather than a complete and transparent report on why
force was employed in each incident, and how police administration and the District Attorney ultimately
responded in each case.
The decision on what information should be released in connection with critical incidents balances the
publics right to be informed against the rights of individual officers and police department officials.
While these are clearly difficult decisions, the PPDs overly conservative approach to transparency
around Officer-Involved Shootings stands in stark contrast to information released by other police
agencies, district attorneys and in court rulings:

Las Vegas NV Publically available documents include the District Attorneys Decisions, Force
Investigation Team (FIT) Reports, both of which are released in their entirety. The Office of
12

Internal Oversight (OIO) Review produces a public report which includes an internal review
covering key conclusions and outcomes of each use of deadly force incident, and includes the
findings of the Use of Force Board that is made up of both commissioned officers and citizens.
The review will also include any changes or additions that were made to policy, procedure,
tactics or training if it was necessary to do so as a result of each use of deadly force.
California State Supreme Court - Ruled in May 2014 that the publics interest in knowing the
names of officers involved in shootings outweighed the privacy concerns of police.
Perkasie PA Police Fatal Shooting 2012 - In 2012, Bucks County District Attorney David Heckler
released the complete report on the controversial fatal shooting of Michael Marino. Though
Heckler found the shooting justified, he was critical of the tactics employed by police in this
unarmed encounter.
NYPD Annual Firearms Discharge Report - Though the NYPD does not release officer names or
detailed reports of individual incidents, there is a wealth of information missing from the PPD
reports, including age, race and experience of the officer(s), and the criminal history, race, age
etc. of the subject etc.

13

OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Commission opinions and recommendations should offer substantive and actionable policy direction,
with respect to both individual disciplinary matters and more general areas of concern.
RECOMMENDATION No. 2012-1
Our concerns about support for veterans returning to the PPD from military service resulted in the
following recommendation in February 2012:
We recommend that the Commissioner and the department along with health care professionals,
veterans groups and the FOP promptly work to establish a defined protocol and support for early
identification, intervention, treatment and counseling of officers at risk.
Department Response: The department detailed its current protocols regarding Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder counseling, Employee Assistance and support programs.9

RECOMMENDATION No. 2013-1

In late 2012, our review of pending complaints and the first of a series of lawsuits filed concerning police
reaction to videotaping by citizens resulted in the following recommendation to Commissioner Ramsey
in February 2013:
TO: Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, Mayor Michael Nutter, Managing Director Richard Negrin,
Esq., Director of Public Safety Michael Resnick, Esq.
RE: Recommendation 2013-1 Pictures, Recording and Audio Recordings of Police Officers while
Performing Official Functions in Public Spaces
Dear Commissioner Ramsey:
Recent news accounts indicate that Philadelphia police officers are not adhering to Philadelphia Police
Department Memorandum 11-01, the directive related to the confiscation of recording devices.
Additionally, the Internal Affairs database shows at least eight citizen complaints since 2011 where
people were allegedly retaliated against for videotaping police. Six of those incidents occurred AFTER
the directive was issued in September 2011. One of the more serious cases involving the videotaping of
police from 2012 resulted in partially sustained charges against two officers, who received training and
counseling. The established policy of the PPD is that: Generally, officers who have been photographed,
videotaped or audibly recorded in a public space have no authority to confiscate the recording devices
and, as such, police personnel shall not interfere with any member of the public or individuals
temporarily detained from photographing, videotaping, or audibly recording police personnel while

PPD Response to PAC Recommendation 2012-1

14

conducting official business or while acting in an official capacity in any public space. (Emphasis in the
original) The Police Advisory Commission recommends that all police personnel be reminded, in writing,
of the existing recommendation and that departmental action be instituted against any member of the
PPD not adhering to the recommendation.
Department Response The department did not respond to the Commissions recommendation. We
continue to monitor incidents and complaints about videotaping of police, and additional lawsuits have
been filed throughout 2014.

RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO IN RE: NIZAH MORRIS

On March 29, 2013, the Police Advisory Commission rendered its second opinion on Complaint No.
31279, In the Matter of Nizah Morris. Nizah Morris was a transgender woman who sustained a fatal
head wound within minutes of riding in a Philadelphia Police vehicle. The Commission was critical of the
handling of this matter by both the Police Department and the District Attorneys office, as well as of its
previous opinion of November 2007.
The Commission made a series of recommendations for its future handling of opinions:
(1) the Commission was not to enter into nondisclosure agreements with police or D.A. without consent
of of PAC members.
(2) all opinions are to be dated and include a final footnote of entire Commission approval
(3) all opinions are to include an exhibit of the compilation of evidence
(4) all opinions are to be personally delivered to the Mayor, Managing Director, and Police
Commissioner
(5) once an opinion becomes a public document, it will be posted on the Commission website and the
Commission will remind the Police Commissioner if no answer is received
(6) if conflicting evidence is given the Commission, a determination of credibility must be made
The Commission made a series of recommendations to the Police department:
(7) Police officers should never make a determination to cancel a hospital case and recommended that
Directive #63 be rewritten to make that prohibition clear.
(8) the Police Department needs to adopt a specific written directive regarding courtesy rides.
(9) the Police Department needs to adopt a specific written directive restricting or regulating the use of
private cell phones for official business.
(10) the Police Department needs to implement a sexual orientation/diversity training course as a part
of police academy training.
15

(11) the Commission was critical of progressive discipline used by the Philadelphia police.
The Commission also urged further investigation of the Nizah Morris matter by the Pennsylvania
Attorney General as well as the United States Department of Justice. The Commission forwarded its
opinion to the Municipal Police Officers Education and Training Commission and encouraged statewide
implementation of adequate diversity training.
Department Response: Commissioner Ramsey accepted recommendations 7, 8 & 9 of the Morris
opinion.10

Community Outreach
In September 2013, the Commission partnered with two agencies, the Deaf Hearing Communication
Center and Liberty Resources, and held a well-attended public meeting to discuss the unique issues
faced during interactions between police and the deaf and hard-of-hearing community. This successful
partnership opened lines of communication between police officials in the PPD Training Bureau and two
of the regions important service and advocacy groups. The Commission is continuing to explore training
recommendations, monitoring complaints and reviewing the PPDs adherence to policy directives related
to language access and interpretation services
during these interactions.
Commission personnel routinely serve citizens
of Philadelphia whether or not their concerns
are formal complaints. Typical requests include:
assisting in the locating of family members
arrested by Police, referring individuals with
property damage claims to the Citys claim
process, assisting crime victims in receiving
proper service from local police districts,
explaining the priority 911 call systems,
obtaining accurate information for relatives of
arrest or shooting victims. The Commission
participates in the Police Board of Inquiry (PBI)
process, identifying and interviewing witnesses
that were reluctant to speak with Police and
assisting community members to anonymously
report crimes or information concerning
neighborhood drug activity and other quality of
life issues.
10

http://www.phila.gov/pac/PDF/NMorris_PPD_reply.PDF

16

In October 2013 Commission staff met with police, elected officials, other city agencies, and Latino
community advocates to discuss allegations of police misconduct in immigrant communities. In addition
to formal complaints stemming from two prominent incidents in South Philadelphia, the group raised
several questions about how often and under what circumstances PPD officers make use of the
Language Line,11 which provides translation and interpretation services to officers in the field upon
request. Both non-English & deaf complainants have reported problems when requesting these services.

11

"PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT DIRECTIVE 11 (12 ..." 2011. 16 Jun. 2014

<http://www.wascla.org/library/attachment.202759>

17

COMMISSION STAFF & COMMISSIONERS

COMMISSION STAFF
KELVYN ANDERSON is the Executive Director of Philadelphias Police Advisory Commission. He was
appointed in January 2013, and has worked for the agency as an investigator and Deputy Director since
2000, specializing in records management, database development, mapping and other web-based tools
for oversight. A native of Pittsburgh, PA, Anderson has worked as an investigative reporter covering
police, courts and government; a private investigator for attorneys and insurance companies; and as a
congressional aide. A former member of the board of Directors for the National Association for Civilian
Oversight of Law Enforcement, he is an avid bike commuter, volunteers with the Bicycle Coalition of
Greater Philadelphia, and is a member of GTown Radios Board of Directors. He lives in West
Philadelphia with his wife and two daughters.
JOSEPH W. CHAFFIN JR. is an investigator for the City of Philadelphia Police Advisory Commission. He
investigates, reports and audits citizen complaints against Philadelphia Police Officers. He also
participates in and conducts community meetings and outreach efforts, gathers useful data for policy
analysis, monitors recommendations and policy practices at the district level, and monitors disciplinary
hearings at the Police Board of Inquiry (PBI).
R. WILLIAM MICHAEL is a Special Investigator for the Police Advisory Commission. He is a graduate of
the University of Phoenix in Phoenix Arizona, and has been an Investigator with the Commission since
2008. In addition to investigations and audits of misconduct complaints filed with the Commission and
Internal Affairs, Michael works with police district commanders and community relations officers as
a liaison between the public and police to resolve ongoing neighborhood issues. Michael lives in the NE
section of Philadelphia with his wife of 22 years, Danielle Michael.
COMMISSIONERS (as of 2013)
BISHOP AUDREY BRONSON Dr. Audrey F. Bronson, ordained minister and consecrated bishop, is
founder and pastor of the Sanctuary Church of the Open Door and Christian Academy. She is the former
President of the Black Clergy of Philadelphia and Vicinity.
MUJEEB CHAUDHARY Residing in Northeast Philadelphia, happily married, father of four; operated
pharmacy for over 27 years in Hunting Park area, and currently runs a multifaceted business including
real estate and taxi cabs. Currently is the president of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of
Philadelphia, helping the youth in their spiritual and moral training.
JAMES C. CRUMLISH III (Parliamentarian, Member IOP, IRC, Personnel Committee, Panel Hearing
Officer,) B.A. St Joseph's College, J.D .Widener School of Law, Senior Shareholder ,Elliott Greenleaf,
Resident of Manayunk, Married three children. Former Chairman, City Commissioners of Philadelphia,
General Counsel Philadelphia Parking Authority, Judge Pro Temp Phila. Court of Common Pleas
(Commerce Division)
18

RONDA B. GOLDFEIN (PAC Chair, 2012, B.A., University of Miami, J.D., Shepard Broad Law Center of
Nova Southeastern University, Attorney admitted to the Bars of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New
York; Executive Director of the AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania; Member of the board of directors of
the ACLU of PA and the ACLU of Greater Philadelphia; Chair of Philadelphia FIGHTS Institutional Review
Board; Resident of Center City.
SHERYL HAYNES (PAC Commissioner, Presiding Officer Public Relations Committee, Member
Personnel Committee); B.A. Rowan University; Administrator & Facility Manager (Amtraks National
Training Center); Vice President (Fairmount Civic Association); Board (22nd District PDAC); Fairmount
resident in Philadelphia.
CHARLES F. VOLZ JR. (PAC Recording Secretary, Presiding Officer -- Operating Procedures Committee)
B.A., Villanova University; M.A., Villanova University; J.D., Rutgers School of Law Camden Attorney,
Partner (Finnigan's Wake), Adjunct Professor (University of Sciences), Senior Advisor (Philly Pride)
Resident of Northeast Philadelphia, father of two (26 year old daughter, 22 year old son)

Expenditures
The expenditures for the Police Advisory Commission for calendar year 2013 are as follows:
SALARIES
Executive Director
Deputy Director
Investigator
Investigator
Clerk Typist

$74,984.00
$45,016.00
$40,000.00
$38,000.00
$31,661.00

Sub total (salaries)

$229,661.00

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Legal Representation
SUPPLIES
Misc.
TOTAL

$28,170.00
$1,355.00
$259,186.00

Ancillary expenses such as City of Philadelphia vehicles are not delineated in this report.

19

Acknowledgements
Since it was created in 1994, the Commissions work has depended heavily on the contributions of
volunteers and interns who are committed to improving police-community relations in Philadelphia. We
graciously acknowledge the work of the following individuals who worked closely with the Commission
in 2012 and 2013, without whom police oversight in Philadelphia would not be possible: Jessica Rosa,
Mark Keinard, Colleen Hammelman, Natasha Valentin, Denise Miller, Jacqueline Fiorello, Esq..

20

APPENDIX 1

The Complaint Process

21

APPENDIX 2

Source: PPD Internal Affairs database

This chart shows the distribution of citizens complaints filed by police district from January 2008 to
October 31, 2013. 3,128 complaints were filed during this period, primarily in 5 categories; 1) Physical
Abuse (1200); Other Misconduct12 (877); Verbal Abuse (505), Lack of Service (424), and Harrassment
(112).

12

Accusations such as a domestic altercation involving an officer, false arrest, unprofessional conduct, and other
improper acts - Source PPD Internal Affairs

22

The chart above shows the number of Citizen Complaints between filed between 2008 and 2013 by
category, including 1) Physical Abuse, 2) Other Misconduct,13 3) Verbal Abuse, 4) Lack of Service,
5) Harrassment

13

Accusations such as a domestic altercation involving an officer, false arrest, unprofessional conduct, and other
improper acts - Source PPD Internal Affairs

23

Source: Internal Affairs

This chart shows the top five citizen complaint categories filed in nine police districts from 2008 to 2013.

24

APPENDIX 3
Sustained Complaints by Type - Internal Affairs 2009-2013
As the chart below shows, between 2009 and 2013, 3,773 Complaints Against Police were filed with
Internal Affairs, of which 512 (13.57%) were sustained.

14

In the top two citizen complaint categories, Physical Abuse and Other Misconduct, complaints were
sustained at 11.4% and 17.31% respectively.

Though comparisons of sustained complaint rates between police departments are difficult due to a lack
of national standards and wide variations in how complaints are classified, the overall sustain rate for
Citizen Complaints of 13.57% over the last five years is higher than other large police departments,
which was roughly 8%, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
15

14

Source: PPD Internal Affairs

(2006). Citizen complaints about police use of force law ... Retrieved June 25, 2014, from
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccpuf.pdf.
15

25

APPENDIX 4
Summaries of Sustained Complaints filed with the Commission
The Commissions complaint jurisdiction under Executive Order 8-93 is considerably more limited than
Internal Affairs. All complaints filed with the Commission are sent to Internal Affairs for review, with the
permission of the complainant. Reasons for rejected complaints include 1) Lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, i.e., does not involve a Philadelphia Police Officer, or is outside of the Commissions
jurisdiction as defined by Executive Order 8-93; 2) Failure to complete administrative requirements, and
3) Beyond the 180-day limit as defined in the Commissions Internal Operating Procedures.

Year

2011

2012

2013

Total Complaints
Received

90

54

57

Rejected

39

18

Sustained

Not Sustained

73

24

17

Exonerated

13

Unfounded

DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS in complaints filed with the Commission 2011-2013

#112582, Complainant: 39 year old BF, in the 15th District. Complainant alleged her estranged husband,
who is a Philadelphia Police Officer, threatened to kill her. He has also harassed her on her job and
jeopardized her employment as a correctional officer. Additionally, she alleged he admitted to her that
he stole items while on duty from citizens under police investigation. Also she alleged he did not reside
in Philadelphia.
The complaint was SUSTAINED against one (1) HM Police Officer, for a Residency Violation. He was
dismissed for this violation.
#112584, Complainant: 39 year old BF, in the 15th District. Complainant alleges that on January 23, 2011
at approximately 8:30pm the Philadelphia Police Officers used excessive force and physically abused her
son even after he was handcuffed. When she arrived on the scene to ask what happened she was told
by a short stocky WM Officer that her son was lucky he did not shoot him. She observed that her son
26

had injuries to his face including a closed black eye, a broken nose, 3 fractured facial bones a cut
requiring stitches and other facial scrapes. The injuries required hospital treatment.
The complaint was SUSTAINED against four (4) Police Officers:
WM P/O, Sustained for Physical Abuse. At the PBI hearing the Police Officer was acquitted of the
Sustained Physical Abuse charges.
WM P/O, Sustained for Physical Abuse. At the PBI hearing the Police Officer was acquitted of the
Sustained Physical Abuse charges.
WM P/O, Sustained for Physical Abuse and Departmental Violations. At the PBI hearing the Police
Officer was acquitted of the Sustained Physical Abuse and Departmental Violations charges.
WM P/O, Sustained for Physical Abuse. At the PBI hearing the Police Officer was acquitted of the
Sustained Physical Abuse charges.
#112614, Complainant: 27 years old, BM, in the 14th District. Complainant alleges Philadelphia Police
Officers abused their authority when they entered his residence, handcuffed him for 4 -5 hours and took
his money without returning it. The complaint was SUSTAINED against two white male police officers
Departmental Violations. Both officers were required to receive Training and Counseling for this
violation.
#122686 42 year old WF in the 7th District alleges that a WM Detective in SWDD had engaged in
inappropriate behavior with the two children, 9yrs and 7yrs. The nature of the allegations involved the
WM bathing the children together while in his care, even over their objection. He also bathes himself at
the same time as the children. In addition, there is an allegation that the WM also urinated on the
children during these episodes. The WF indicated that there had been a DHS investigation of the
allegations, but that no criminal charges against the officer had been filed. The complaint was
SUSTAINED for misuse of police computer as a result he received five (5) days suspension. (None of the
additional allegations were SUSTAINED.
#122688 36 year old BF in the 2nd District alleges that her son (whom she contends he is bi-polar) who
was missing was at his girlfriends house. The girlfriend is the daughter of a BF officer whom the
complaint is against. The complainant went to the residence looking for her son and she and BF officer
got into a verbal argument during which the complainant alleges that the BF officer threaten to have
the block lit up. The complainant took that to mean gun fire and as a threat to her safety. At some
point a neighbor called the police so uniformed officers arrived and took a complaint. The complaint
against the BF officer was SUSTAINED.
#13001 37 year old BF in the 18th District alleges that her ex boyfriend BM is a P/O in the 19th District has
repeatedly caused problems whenever they are dropping off or picking up a child they share custody
with. She alleges that on several occasions the same police unit is on location with him to intimidate her,
but it also evokes fear in her daughter. One of the last incidents when she arrived to drop off her
daughter there were 3 patrol cars on the scene and one actually stopped and questioned her. The
complaint against the BM was SUSTAINED the discipline has not been determined at this time.

27

#13005 28 year old BM in the 35th District alleges that while sitting in front of his daughters school
police approached him and asked him to step out of his car. He alleges 2 WM P/Os searched his glove
compartment, back seat, front seat, and took his keys to search his trunk. He also alleges that after they
were done searching him and his car, he asked for their names but they refused to give them. The
complaint against the 2 WM was SUSTAINED as a result they received training and counseling.
#13037 22 year old BM in the 35th District alleges that when he observed police officers get into a
physical struggle with a friend of his, he began to record the incident. A WM P/O saw him videotaping,
came up the steps, and began grabbing and pushing him trying to take his phone. P/Os then starting
punching him, and tasered him when he balled up to protect himself. The BM alleges that other P/Os
hit him with the stick on his legs. The complaint against the WM P/O was SUSTAINED the discipline has
not been determined at this time.
#13040 34 year old BF in the 24th District alleges that she was outside praying and using holy oil on her
street and around her home. A neighbor who the BF was having an ongoing issue with called the police.
At some point a WF P/O arrived on the scene and began to verbally berate the BF complainant, calling
her names and making comments about her expression of religious faith. The complaint against the WF
P/O was SUSTAINED the discipline has not been determined at this time.
Please note that 43 cases filed with the Commission from 2011-2013 remain open and under
investigation.
TERMINOLOGY
Rejected - Under the terms of Executive Order 8-93, the commission can accept cases alleging:
1) Physical Abuse; 2) Abuse of Authority; and 3) specific verbal abuse complaints involving "language
related to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability." Cases alleging misconduct
which occurred more than 180 days before the complaint was filed are usually rejected as required by
Section 11-B of the Commission's Internal Operating Procedures. However when a complainant has
been prevented from filing by an ongoing criminal case, this requirement is often waived. Additionally,
complaints which do not involve allegations against sworn members of the PPD are rejected and
referred to other agencies as appropriate. Any case involving PPD officers that is rejected by the
Commission is forwarded to PPD Internal Affairs for review, with the permission of the complainant.
Case dispositions used by the Commission are the same as those used by Internal Affairs, namely:
Sustained - The investigation discloses sufficient evidence to clearly prove the allegation made in the
complaint.
Not Sustained - The investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the
allegations made.
Exonerated - The investigation indicates the alleged act(s) did occur but were within the policies,
28

procedures and guidelines as set forth by the Department.

Unfounded - The investigation indicates the acts complained of did not occur or did not involve
Philadelphia Police personnel.
Individual complaints in the Total and Rejected categories can involve allegations against more than one
officer, so the totals for Sustained, Not Sustained, Exonerated and Unfounded represents findings for
more than one officer in some cases.
All Citizen Complaints against police received by the Commission, regardless of disposition, are reviewed
at the district level by the Commission alongside crime data, use of force reports and critical incidents
for trends and potential policy issues of interest to the police, public officials and community
organizations.

29

APPENDIX 5
Police Board of Inquiry 2012-2013
The charts below show the penalties handed out by the Police Board of Inquiry in 2012-2013

30

APPENDIX 6
Arbitrations 2008-2013
Introduction
In early 2013, Commission staff began gathering records from the Law Departments Labor Relations
Unit and the Philadelphia Police Department related to arbitration cases involving Philadelphia Police
officers.
Arbitrations involving Philadelphia Police officers, particularly those fired for serious misconduct have
been a source of frustration & public scrutiny for more than three decades. A succession of Police
Commissioners, from John Timoney to Charles Ramsey have criticized the process, while FOP officials
and attorneys representing officers in arbitration see the system as an important check against
politically-driven firings and other supervisory actions that violate the collective bargaining agreement.
In the cases reviewed for this report, arbitrations involving police and firefighters in Pennsylvania are
governed by Legislative Act 111 (Act of June 24, 1968, No. 111. P.L. 237, as amended, 43 P.S. 217.1 217.10)
Discharges in Arbitration
This report reviews and analyzes 26 arbitrations between the City of Philadelphia and Fraternal Order of
Police, Lodge No. 5 conducted between 2008 and 2013. These arbitrations stemmed from a variety of
on-duty and off-duty incidents conducted by officers of a variety of ranks. The issue arbitrated in each
grievance was whether the City had just cause to discharge the employee from the Philadelphia Police
Department. Arbitrators ruled that in only seven cases did the City actually have just cause to dismiss
the employee. The awards issued in the remaining 16 cases are as follows:

In seven of these arbitrations, the grievance was granted because there was no just cause to
discharge the officer. As a result, the grievant was reinstated to his/her former position with full
back pay.
In six of these arbitrations, the grievance was sustained; however, the dismissal was reduced to
a suspension. As a result, he/she was reinstated to their formed position with full back pay, less
the days of the suspension.
In three of the arbitrations, the officer was reinstated without back pay

31

Types of Charges
As shown by Table 1, Philadelphia Police Officers were discharged for a variety of on-duty and off-duty
incidents.
Table 1.
Off-Duty Incidents
On-Duty Incidents
3 Domestic Disputes
3 Uses of Excessive Force
2 Obstructing Police Investigations
2 Theft of Time
2 Failure to Maintain a Bona-Fide Residence in
Philadelphia*
1 Engagement of Sexual Acts on Duty
1 Driving Under the Influence
1 Intoxication while on Duty
1 Use of Excessive Force
1 Failure to Supervise Subordinates
1 Making False Statements to an Auto-Insurer
1 Failure to Comply with the Facial Hair Policy
1 Defrauding the United States Air Force &
Philadelphia Police Department
1 Conduct Unbecoming
1 Retail Theft
1 Improper Use of Department Issued Firearm
1 Use of Steroids
*The same arbitrator, James C. Peck, heard these cases, and both officers with this charge were reinstated with full back pay.
Only two officers who committed on-duty offenses were fully reinstated without loss of seniority and
made whole for all lost wages and earnings. Interestingly, the same arbitrator presided over these cases
in 2013. The first on-duty officer fully reinstated was Detective Rossiter, a Philadelphia Homicide
Detective, who faced two charges of Conduct Unbecoming for stealing time. In other words, the
Detective was charged for being away from his official duties and falsely reporting hours to collect
regular and overtime pay for time he did not work. The Detective was reinstated because the City failed
to meet its burden. At the hearing, testimony showed that it was an accepted practice for homicide
detectives to leave the courthouse while signed into court overtime in order to work on their open
cases. Moreover, the Citys witnesses testified that the Detective was working on his open cases when
he was observed at home from extended periods of time.
Lieutenant Josey, the second on-duty officer fully reinstated, was originally discharged on two counts of
Conduct Unbecoming for making false entries in a Department record and for excessive force. These
charges stemmed from when the Lieutenant allegedly struck a female attendee of the Puerto Rican Day
Parade after-party. The arbitrator, who reviewed a video of the events frame-by-frame, ruled that the
Lieutenant did strike the woman, but it was by no means a knock down blow. Rather, the contact was
inadvertent. The woman slipped and lost her balance as she moved away from the officer at the same
time the Lieutenant attempted to swipe a beer bottle from her hand. As a result, the Lieutenants hand
struck her. Moreover, the details documented on the Department record were not knowingly and
willfully false. The Lieutenant used circumstantial evidence to conclude the woman had thrown beer on
him. A review of the video shows that his conclusion was wrong; however, he did not have the luxury of
reviewing this video before writing his report.
The other five officers who were fully reinstated with full back pay and no suspension time committed
their offenses while off-duty. These offenses include the two theft of time cases, the fraudulent
statements to the auto-insurance company, the retail theft case, and the protection from abuse case
involving the spousal privilege.
32

On the contrary, in regards to officers whose dismissals were upheld, four of these stemmed from onduty incidents. Specifically, the City had just cause to dismiss the officer who failed to comply with the
facial hair regulations, the Sergeant (as opposed to the detective) who received pay for time he did not
work, the Corporal who used excessive force while booking juveniles, and the police officer who
reported to duty intoxicated on at least two occasions. The other three instances where the City had
just cause to dismiss the officer rose out of off-duty incidents. These cases include the Sergeant using
excessive force against a male at his siblings house, the police officer who allowed her son to sell drugs
out of her home, and the officer who defrauded the United States Air Force and the Philadelphia Police
Department.
The six arbitrations where the City did not have just cause to dismiss the officer but did have just cause
to suspend the officer split equally between on-duty and off-duty incidents. The on-duty incidents
involved the Sergeant who pled guilty to two-day suspension for failing to supervise, the excessive force
incident involving six officers, and the officer who engaged in a sexual encounter. The off-duty incidents
involved the Corporal whose son was involved in a neighbor theft, the police officer who crashed his car
while intoxicated, and the police officer who misplaced his firearms.
The three arbitrations where the officer was reinstated without back pay involved off-duty incidents.
These cases include the unauthorized use of steroids and two protections from abuse incidents.
Officer Rank
It appears that rank of the employee had little influence as to whether they were reinstated. In a few
cases involving the higher ranking officers, the arbitrator mentioned that they should have acted in a
more professional manner.
Table 2.
19 Police Officers
~ 5 discharged

2 Corporals
~ 1 discharged

~ 5 fully reinstated

~ 1 suspended

~ 3 reinstated
without back pay
~ 7 suspended

1 Lieutenant
~ 1 reinstated

5* Sergeants
~ 2 discharged

2 Detectives
~ 2 fully
reinstated

~ 1 fully
reinstated
~ 2 suspended

*Sergeant Tyrone Cook was dismissed on two occasions: once in 2009 and again in 2011. In 2009, his discharge stemming from
a DUI was reduced to a 5-day suspension. He was reinstated with back pay, less the 5-day suspension. In 2011, his discharged
stemming from multiple charges of Conduct Unbecoming was upheld.

33

Offenses committed by rank are as follows:

Table 3.
18 Police Officers
~ On-duty sexual
encounter
~ Excessive Force
~ Improper Use of
Firearm
~ Obstructing
Investigation
~ 3 Domestic
Disputes
~ Defrauding AutoInsurer
~ Failure to maintain
bona fide residence
~ Defrauding United
States Air Force &
Philadelphia Police
Department

2 Corporals
~ Obstructing
investigation
~ On-duty
Excessive force

1 Lieutenant
~On-duty
Excessive Force

5* Sergeants

2 Detectives

~ DUI

~ Retail Theft

~ Theft of Time
~ Failure to
Supervise
~ 1 On-duty
Excessive Force
~ 1 Off-duty
Excessive force

~ Theft of Time

~ Use of Steroids
~ Failure to comply
with facial hair policy
~ Intoxicated on Duty
Repeat Offenders
Sergeant Tyrone Cook is the only repeat offender in the 23 arbitrations analyzed. He was first
discharged in 2009 for driving under the influence. He discharge was downgraded to a five-day
suspension. He was reinstated with back pay, minus these five days. Arbitrator Rochelle Kaplan heard
this case.
In 2011, Sergeant Cook was again dismissed. This time, he was charged with multiple offenses
accumulated during the course of his career. The arbitrator upheld the dismissal. Arbitrator Ernest
Weiss heard this case. Please note that a different arbitrator was selected for the second case.
Arbitrator
There does not seem to be a commonality as to whether an arbitrator tends to reinstate an officer or
uphold the discharge. However, as Table 4 below displays, Charles D. Long appears to find that the
officer was discharged for good cause, whereas David J. Reilly appears to reinstate the officer.
It should be noted that the same arbitrator was selected to hear both failure to maintain a bona fide
residence claims.

34

Table 4.
Arbitrator Who
Reinstated
Discharge of Kenneth
Rossiter; reinstated by
David J. Reilly
Discharge of Ms. N.
Crawford; reinstated
by Stanley L. Aiges
Discharge of Michael
A. Torres, Jr.;
reinstated by James C.
Peck
Discharge of Rodney
Brown; reinstated by
James C. Peck
Discharge of Gerald R.
Smith, Jr.; reinstated
by Ernest Weiss
Discharge of Deborah
Gore; reinstated by
Ernest Weiss
Discharge of Jonathan
Josey; reinstated by
David J. Reilly

Reinstatements;
Dismissal Reduced
Discharge of Michael
Paige; reinstated by
Thomas G. McConnell
Jr.
Discharge of Anthony
Lynch; reinstated by
Kinard Lang
Discharge of 6 officers;
reinstated by Ralph H
Colflesh
Discharge of Sergeant
LaMond; reinstated by
Charles D. Long
Discharge of Bernita
Jones-Wiggins;
reinstated by Charles D.
Long
Discharge of Tyrone V.
Cook; reinstated by
Rochelle K. Kaplan

Reinstated
without Back Pay
Discharge of J.
Davis; reinstated
by Stanley Aiges
Discharge of
Matthew P. Hill;
reinstated by
Robert E. Light
Discharge of Jason
Belciano;
reinstated by David
J. Reilly

Arbitrator Who
Upheld
Dismissal
Discharge of Rodney
Summers; upheld by
Charles D. Long, Jr.
Discharge of K. Wallace;
upheld by Charles D.
Long, Jr.
Discharge of Sgt. Tyrone
Cook; upheld by Ernest
Weiss
Discharge of Takeya
Wilson; upheld by
Ernest Weiss
Discharge of Kendall
Norman; upheld by
Ernest Weiss
Discharge of Roxanne
Billips; upheld by
Charles D. Long, Jr.
Discharge of Sgt. B.
Mills; upheld by Stanley
L. Aiges

2008 ARBITRATIONS

Grievance of Police Officer N. Crawford

Charges: 1.75
Arbitrator: Stanley L. Aiges
Date of Hearing: May 7, 2008
Date of Award: 21, 2008

Factual History

35

Officer Crawford owned a 1994 Honda. On July 8, 2008, Officer Crawford was renewing her car
registration, which required her provided insurance information to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Motor
Vehicles. Unbeknownst to the officer, her car insurance policy had lapsed. Thus, the information she
provided to the BMV was false.

The Philadelphia District Attorneys Office learned that Officer Crawfords auto policy had lapsed
in July 2005 and that the information she submitted to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles was false. As a
result, Officer Crawford was arrested and charged with two felonies and two misdemeanors.

Officer Crawford surrendered to Internal Affairs on December 6, 2006 and was immediately
placed on 30-day suspension with intent to dismiss.

Arbitration

The Arbitrator noted that in his opinion, the City errs when it elects to discharge an employee
simply because criminal charges have been filed against said employee. It deprives the employee of
fundamental due process. The City discharged Officer Crawford without conducting its own
investigation. Moreover, Officer Crawford was acquitted. As a result, the City cannot meet its burden.

Award
Officer Crawford is to be reinstated and made whole.

2009 ARBITRATIONS

Grievance of Police Officer Michael Paige

Charges: 1.75
Arbitrator: Thomas G. McConnell, Jr.
Date of Hearing: October 21, 2008
Date of Award: January 5, 2009

Factual Summary
At approximately 3:00 a.m. on March 16, 2007, Officer Paige engaged in on-duty sexual contact
with Mr. Harris. The Officer encountered Mr. James Harris, III and another individual participating in
lewd behavior in a parked car in a lot in Fairmount Park. The Officer spoke the gentleman individually.
Mr. Paige handed the officer his registration and insurance card; the officer kept this documentation.
Mr. Harris was instructed to take his passenger home then come back to the park for his insurance and
registration. Mr. Harris complied. When he returned to Fairmount Park, Mr. Harris sat in the front seat
the police car. Officer Harris then drove to a more remote location in the park. Officer Paige removed
his gun belt and asked Mr. Harris performed oral sex on him. Officer Paige ejaculated. Mr. Harris spit
the semen into a Styrofoam cup, which was later retrieved from the patrol car. Seminal stains
containing spermatozoa and saliva were found in the cup. On forensic scientist testified that the sperm
taken from the Styrofoam cup originated from Officer Paige and the saliva came from Mr. Harris.
36

Officer Paige was discharged based on Section 1.75 of the Disciplinary Code.
Arbitration
After the Arbitrator found that this sexual act was consensual, the main issue he had to decide
was to whether this constituted a course of conduct. The Arbitrator stated that the City must prove that
there was continuing or interrelated conduct within a given fact pattern which demonstrates that the
officer has little or no regard for his status as a member of the Police Department. A course of conduct
does not require multiple violations; instead, the entire sequence of events may be considered
unbecoming.

Award
The Arbitrator concluded that Officer Paiges behavior constituted a course of conduct and thus
violated Section 1.75. However, he reduced the dismissal to a 30-day suspension. Officer Paige was
reinstated to his former position and awarded back pay, minus the 30-day suspension.

Grievance of Police Officer J. Davis

Charges: 1.00 and 1.75
Arbitrator: Stanley L. Aiges
Date of Hearing: September 25, 2008
Date of Award: January 27, 2009

Factual History

Police Officer J. Davis was in a volatile romantic relationship with Ms. Ebo. On May 20, 2004,
the two were involved in a domestic dispute. Ms. Ebo called the police and asked them to escort the
off-duty officer from her home. Officer Davis was angry wand began yelling expletives at Ms. Ebo and
the officers. Ms. Ebo received a Protection From Abuse.

Officer Davis was discharged on October 5, 2007 based on two charges of Conduct Unbecoming:
1.00 and 1.75.

Arbitration
Relevant to this case was Officer Davis far-from exemplary disciplinary record. On July 14,
1998, he received a written reprimand. On October 13, 1998, he received a second reprimand. On
March 16, 2000, he received a 20-day suspension. On December 17, 2000, he received a five-day
suspension and a reprimand. On August 2, 2001, he received a 30-day suspension.

Despite these past problems, the Arbitrator held that discharge simply is too serious a penalty in
this case. He believed Officer Davis was remorseful, as he explained that he was upset and let his
emotions get the best of him.

37

Award
Officer Davis is reinstated without back pay.

Grievance of Corporal Bernita Jones-Wiggins

Charges: 1.00, 1.12, and 1.75
Arbitrator: Charles D. Long
Date of Hearing: January 23, 2009
Date of Award: July 9, 2009

Factual Summary
On March 15, 2005, Margo Robinson returned home to find her first-floor apartment
burglarized. She immediately contacted Philadelphia Police. The next day, the victim notified Grievant
Jones-Wiggins that her son might be involved in the crime. After Grievant found the victims missing
Mardi Gras mask in her sons room, she confronted her son. Her son admitted that two of his
neighborhood friends robbed the victim.

Instead of contacting Philadelphia Police, Grievant ordered her son and his friends to return all
of the stolen items. The boys returned only some of the victims belongings. Grievant then arranged a
meeting with the boys parents, and told them they had 24 hours to recover all of this missing property
before the victim contacted Philadelphia Police. Because her property was still missing, the victim
reported the boys to Philadelphia Police, who then executed a search warrant of Grievants home.

Subsequent thereto, Internal Affairs investigated Corporal Jones-Wiggins for failing to take
appropriate police action regarding the burglary.

Arbitration
This is not the first time Corporal Jones-Wiggins obstructed justice on behalf of her son, and as a
result, the City charged Grievant for violating Section 1.75. Additionally, she was charged for violating
Section 1.12 because she failed and refused to provide assistance to the detectives investigating the
crime.

The Union argued that this was merely a neighborhood dispute. As such, pursuant to
Commissioners Directive 98-1, 1(c), Corporal Jones-Wiggins was prohibited from taking action in the
investigation. Moreover, she was not required to call 9-1-1 because she did not witness the crime.

The Arbitrator found that the City did not have just cause dismissing Corporal Jones-Wiggins.
The City failed to establish a nexus between the instant case and the prior discipline which would
support a finding that the grievant had engaged in a course of conduct as required by Section 1.75.

Award
The termination of Corporal Jones-Wiggins is reduced to a 30-day suspension. She is reinstated
to her former position and made whole for any lost wages, minus the 30-days.
38

Grievance of Sergeant Tyrone V. Cook

Charges: 1.75
Arbitrator: Rochelle K. Kaplan
Date of Hearing: March 23, 2009
Date of Award: August 15, 2009

Factual Summary
A car accident that occurred at about 11:30 p.m. on September 16, 2007 caused an off-duty
sergeant to be placed on an immediate 30-day suspension with the intent to dismiss. Earlier that night,
Sergeant Tyrone V. Cook consumed alcoholic beverages at a party and then proceeded to drive home.
While driving home, he drove the wrong direction down Belgrade Street in Philadelphia and crashed into
a parking pole. His car flipped onto its side.

Philadelphia Police arrived at the scene and witnessed Sergeant Cook climb out of the vehicle
through its sunroof. Sergeant Cook was injured; he had a gash in his arm and a split lip. Because he
refused medical treatment, officers transported him to the 26th District to see the Sergeant on-duty.
While there, officers detected a strong odor of alcohol and noted that Sergeant Cook had glassy eyes,
slurred speech, and a bad sense of balance. Sergeant Cook was transported to the hospital, where his
blood alcohol content was tested. Even though 90 minutes elapsed between the accident and this
blood test, he returned a BAC of .213.

Sergeant Cook was charged with a DUI and placed on an immediate 30-day suspension, with the
intent to dismiss.

Arbitration
During his 22-year career, Sergeant Cook sustained a slew of violations, including ethnic
disparagement of another officer, sustained civilian complaints, theft of time, falsifying police reports,
unprofessional conduct, and failure to supervise. Because of these repeated violations, the City charged
Sergeant Cook for violating Conduct Unbecoming An Officer Section 1.75.

During the arbitration proceedings, The Union argued that the Section 1.75 discharge was too
harsh of a penalty. Instead, Sergeant Cooks actions constituted a violation of Section 2.10 (Intoxication,
off-duty, not in uniform and arrested), which carries a 15 to 30 day suspension for a first offense.
However, the Union asserted that since the City did not originally charge Sergeant Cook with this
offense, the Arbitrator cannot use it as a basis of punishment.

The Arbitrator noted The weight of arbitral authority indicated that s single DUI incident, even
where there is a minor accident and an arrest, is not sufficient to establish a course of conduct
pursuant to Section 1.75. As such, the facts of this case do not amount to a course of conduct on the
part of Sergeant Cook. The Arbitrator, nonetheless, found Sergeant Cook in violation of Section 2.10 and
suspended the Sergeant for five days.

39

Award
There was no just cause for the discharge under Section 1.75. There was just cause for a fiveday suspension under Section 2.10. Sergeant Cook is reinstated to his former position with full back pay,
less five days for the suspension and any interim earnings.

Grievance of Police Officer Rodney Brown

Charges: Failing to maintain a bona fide residence within the City of Philadelphia
Arbitrator: James C. Peck, Jr.
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2009
Date of Award: September 14, 2009

Factual History
Philadelphia Code, Section 20-101 holds that every employee in the Civil Service of the City shall
be required to maintain a bona fide residence in the City during the continuance of his employment by
the City. Officer Browns personnel records and drivers license state that he maintains an address in
West Philadelphia. However, he has no utility bills nor is he registered as a voter at this address. Officer
Torres states that he spends four nights a week in this house, which owned by a friend. Officer Brown is
married; however, his wife adamantly refused to live in the City. As such, his wife and four children live
in Lansdale, Pennsylvania.

Internal Affairs conducted surveillance on Officer Brown for three brief periods of time:
September 25 through 29, 2007; October 2 through October 12, 2007; and October 23 through October
27, 2007. During this time, the officer is seen waiting with his children for at the school bus stop in
Lansdale. Additionally, his is vehicle is seen parked in Lansdale on several nights.

Officer Brown received a Notice of Suspension on July 18, 2008 and then was discharge on
August 14, 2008 for failing to maintain a bona fide residence in Philadelphia.

Arbitration
Factors considered in determining residency include:
1. The location where the employee engages in the majority of his social activities;
2. The location where the employee spends the majority of his time;
3. The location where the employees children attend school;
4. Whether the employee rents a home in the City and owns a home outside the City;
5. The address where the employees vehicle is registered.

Here, the Arbitrator determined that Officer Brown spends at least eight hours per day in the
City performing his duties as a police officer. On the contrary, he spends many nights in Lansdale. While
the officer is seen waiting with his children at the bus stop, no evidence was presented as to where the
children actually attended school. With regard to property ownership, there is no evidence that Officer
Brown has any interest in either property. Finally, the vehicle the officer drives is registered in his wifes
name but his license indicated that he lives in Philadelphia.

40

The burden of proof in Philadelphia residency cases is beyond a reasonable doubt. Having
weighed all of the evidence, the Arbitrator was not entirely convinced that the City has met the high
burden. As a result, he refused to uphold the suspension and discharge of Officer Brown.

Award
Officer Brown is reinstated and made whole without any loss of seniority or benefits.

Grievance of Police Officer Anthony Lynch

Charges: 5.18
Arbitrator: Kinard Lang
Date of Hearing: July 9, 2009
Date of Decision: December 1, 2009

Factual History
On two occasions, Officer Lynch lost his department issued firearm: first on July 20, 2001 and
the second in December 2007. In 2001, his firearm was stolen by a female acquaintance who was
later charged with aggravated assault. In December 2007, Officer Lynch reported that both his cityowned and off-duty firearms were missing. These events triggered an Internal Affairs investigation.
During this investigation, marijuana was found in the officers home. A drug test performed subsequent
thereto came back negative.
Officer Lynch was suspended for 30 days and dismissed for violating Section 5.18.

Arbitration
The City argued that such an offense was egregious because Officer Lynch resided with two
children as well as an adult male roommate. Moreover, his firearms were reported stolen when there
was no evidence of forced entry into his home.

The Arbitrator sustained the 30-day suspension and allowed the officer to return to work as long
as satisfactorily completed appropriate fitness for duty examinations. The Arbitrator noted that Officer
Lynch had a clean record since his appointment to the Police Department in September 1989. In
December 2006, he was injured in the line of duty and was prescribed pain medications with codeine.
He should be given the benefit of the doubt for behavior arising from that injury.

Award
The penalty shall be reduced to a 30-day suspension.

Grievance of Sergeant LaMond

Charges: 4.15
Arbitrator: Charles D. Long
Date of Hearing: August 25, 2009
Date of Decision: September 25, 2009

41

Factual History
At approximately 12:30 a.m. on December 11, 2002, Philadelphia Police stopped a vehicle for
failing to stop at a red light. When the officers approached the passengers, they smelled marijuana. The
two women were placed in the back of the patrol car, which was not the proper protocol. Sergeant
LaMond then responded to the scene. When he saw the two women in the back of the patrol car, he
asked the officers, What the fuck are you doing? Sergeant LaMond then asked if a search of the
woman actually produced marijuana. They replied in the negative. Moreover, only the passenger
admitted to smoking marijuana. The driver was lucid and normal. As a result, Sergeant LaMond told the
officers to wrap it up and left the scene.

Six years later, this incident was investigated. Sergeant LaMonds Captain proposed a two-day
suspension. Believing that this proposal was final, Sergeant LaMond pled guilty, a move he cannot now
undo. The City, however, implemented a 20-day suspension.

Arbitration
The City contents that Sergeant LaMond failed to follow Directive #130, which required him to
conduct his own investigation of a DUI stop, and as a result, charged him for violating Section 4.15 of the
Disciplinary Code. The City argues that the 20-day suspension falls within the range of discipline for a
first 4.15 offense reprimand to 5 days and/or demotion. The Arbitrator noted that the City never
explained or justified this increase.

The Union contends that because this was not a DUI stop, Sergeant LaMond was not required to
conduct a private investigation, and therefore, he did not violate Directive #130. The Arbitrator sided
with the Union. However, because Sergeant LaMond pled guilty, his two-day suspension was upheld.

Furthermore, the Arbitrator noted that the primary purpose of discipline is to educate an
employee that certain conduct is unacceptable and by so doing modify the employees behavior.
Employees shall be given timely notice of unacceptable behavior. There was no reason for the six year
delay in this case.

Award
The 20-day suspension was not for just cause. Sergeant LaMonds 20-day suspension was
downgraded to a two-day suspension without pay.

2010 ARBITRATIONS

Grievance of Police Officer K. Wallace

Charges: 1.75, 3.01, and 4.20
Arbitrator: Charles D. Long, Jr.
Date of Hearing: May 21, 2009
Date of Award: January 7, 2010
42

Factual History
Directive 78, which establishes the departments facial hair policy, has been upheld by both
State and Federal Courts. It allows an officer to obtain a notarized waiver from a religious institution so
they can wear facial hair. If the waiver is authorized, facial hair may be worn in a trimmed, neat
manner, not exceeding in length.

Officer Wallace was told on numerous occasions by his superiors that his beard exceeded the
maximum allowable length of . Moreover, numerous employees described the officers heard as
thick bushy and full. The officer never argued his beard was in compliance with Directive 78;
instead, he stated that his religious beliefs mandated he wear the beard.

On specific instance occurred in July 2005. A Captain told the officer he was not permitted to
work until he came into compliance with Directive 78. During this period, the officer received vacation
or holiday pay until his allowed time expired.

A second violation occurred in September 2005. The officer was told he must come into
compliance with Directive 78 no later than September 17, 2005. The officer called out sick on
September 17, 2005 and was told that if he was not in compliance with Directive 78, he would be sent
home. On September 20, 2005, the officer reported to duty with a beard exceeding and was sent
home. Again, his supervisors allowed him to use a holiday or vacation day so he would receive pay.

Officer Wallace was terminated in February 2006.

Arbitration
The Arbitrator believed that the officer had a clear choice: comply with Directive 78 or keep his
beard at a length the exceeded . Time and time again, he chose to keep his beard. His choice was in
direct conflict with the reasonable uniform requirement to be a Philadelphia police officer.

Award
Officer Wallace was discharged for just cause.

Grievance of Vincent Strain, Patrick Gallagher, Sean Bascom, Demetrios Pittaoulis, Jonathan Czapor,
and Joseph Schiavone
Charges: 4.20, 4.15
Arbitrator: Ralph H. Colflesh, Jr.
Date of Hearing:
Date of Award: March 12, 2010

Factual History
Shortly after 10:00 p.m. on May 5, 2008, three suspects Brian Hall, Pete Hopkins, and Dwayne
43

Dyches parked and exited their Mercury Grand Marquis at 4th and Annsbury Streets in Philadelphia
(25th Police District). They then walked toward a group of men gathered at the corner and engaged in
what police believed to be a drug transaction. Before police took action, Suspect Hopkins fired
approximately fifteen shots at the group on the corner. The three suspects ran back to the Grand
Marquis and fled the scene. Police chased the suspects for several minutes and several miles through
the streets of Philadelphia. Police surrounded the vehicle halting the chase. This position was not ideal
for police the three suspects could fire at police but police could not return fire as a firefight would
have resulted with officers being caught in a cross fire. Thus, when the three suspects refused to
voluntarily exit the Grand Marquis, they had to be removed by force.

Suspect Hall, the driver, was forcibly removed first. Hall fell to the ground, rolling on top of his
right hand. Grievants Sean Bascom and Demetrios Pittaoulis kicked suspect Hall in the upper part of his
right arm. Grievant Gallagher kicked Suspect Halls left arm. When Suspect Halls arms were free,
Grievants Bascom and Pattaoulis continued to struggle with him as they tried to handcuff him.

Suspect Dyches was forcibly removed from the back seat of the Grand Marquis. When he
landed face up, officers ordered him to roll face down and kicked him to make him comply. Grievant
Vincent Strain kicked Suspect Dyches two or three times in the legs. However, Suspect Dyches still
refused to comply, and two other officers punched and kicked Dyches to subdue him.

Suspect Hopkins locked himself in the car, forcing police to break the front passenger window to
get him out. Although Suspect Hopkins was on the ground face down, he put his arms under him and
kept trying to roll over. Grievant Strain heard someone say that Suspect Hopkins was reaching and
believed Suspect Hopkins was reaching for a weapon and swiftly kicked Suspect Hopkins left arm a few
times. When Grievant Gallagher heard that Suspect Hopkins was twisting his legs to roll off his back, he
tried to cease this behavior by spreading the suspects legs. Grievant Strain again kicked the suspect.
All three suspects received medical treatment on May 5, 2008. Their injuries were not serious.

Grievants Strain, Gallagher, Bascom, Pittaoulis, Czapor and Schiavone were discharged from the
Philadelphia Police Department following the events on May 5, 2008. On February 22, 2010, an
arbitration hearing was held to determine whether the City had just cause to discharge or discipline
these officers.

Vincent Strain
Video reveals that he delivered heel kicks while Suspect Hopkins was being subdued. However,
at least once, Grievant Strain delivered a heel kick without directly looking at the suspect. This
heel kick violates Directive 22s requirement to use only the amount of force necessary to
overcome resistance. As such, Vincent Strain is guilty of violating Section 4.20 of the
Departments Disciplinary Code. However, this was Grievant Stains fist offense, and it occurred
in a high-pressure situation. Moreover, the suspect was not injured. His violation does not
authorize discharge; instead, it is recommended that he only be reprimanded. He shall be made
whole as to salary, shall be paid all overtime he would have reasonably expected to earn during
his termination, and shall receive all benefits that would have been made on their behalf to his
Joint Health Fund.

44

Patrick Gallagher
Video reveals that he struck Suspect Hall in his upper arm or deltoid. It is not clear whether he
delivered the blows with handcuffs or only his fist. These strikes were (1) too close to the head,
neck, and shoulders area and (2) not absolutely necessary. This violation, albeit de minimus, is
neither excused nor justified. Grievant Gallagher is guilty of violating Section 4.20 of the
Departments Disciplinary Code. Because the strikes did not cause harm, his discharge shall be
reduced to a reprimand. He shall be made whole as to salary, shall be paid all overtime he
would have reasonably expected to earn during his termination, and shall receive all benefits
that would have been made on their behalf to his Joint Health Fund.

Sean Bascom
Video reveals that he kicked Suspect Halls left arm while other officers were attempting to
handcuff Hall. Grievant Bascoms actions were superfluous and he is guilty of violating Section
4.20 of the Departments Disciplinary Code. However, his transgressions were minor and did
not harm the suspect. His punishment should be reduced to a reprimand. He shall be made
whole as to salary, shall be paid all overtime he would have reasonably expected to earn during
his suspension, and shall receive all benefits that would have been made on their behalf to his
Joint Health Fund.

Demetrious Pittaoulis
Grievant Pittaoulis superfluously kicked Suspect Hall on the right thigh as he was being
handcuffed. This unnecessary use of force violates Directive 22, and accordingly, Grievant
Pittaoulis is guilty of violating Section 4.20 of the Departments Disciplinary Code. This kick
caused no harm to the suspect; therefore, he should only be reprimanded for his actions. He
shall be made whole as to salary, shall be paid all overtime he would have reasonably expected
to earn during his suspension, and shall receive all benefits that would have been made on their
behalf to his Joint Health Fund.

Jonathan Czapor
Grievant Czapor kicked Suspect Dyches twice while other officers were trying to handcuff the
suspect. The kicks were unnecessary and violative of Directive 22. Further, they were neither
excused nor justified. Grievant Czapor is guilty of violating Section 4.20 of the Departments
Disciplinary Code. He actions merit a reprimand. He shall be made whole as to salary, shall be
paid all overtime he would have reasonably expected to earn during his suspension, and shall
receive all benefits that would have been made on their behalf to his Joint Health Fund.

Joseph Schiavone
Grievant Schiavone, a Sergeant and only supervisor charged in this matter, was charged with
violating Section 4.15 of the Departments Disciplinary Code (Properly Supervise Subordinates).
Given the number of police on the scene, the velocity of developments as police struggled to
effectuate arrests, and the minor natures of the other Grievants faults, Grievant Schiavones
failure to intervene is entirely excusable. There is no just cause for his demotion or any other
penalty. He shall be reinstated as a Sergeant.

45

2011 ARBITRATIONS
Grievance of Police Officer Gerald R Smith, Jr.
Charges: Conduct Unbecoming (no specific section identified in the opinion)
Arbitrator: Ernest Weiss
Date of Hearing: December 7, 2010
Date of Award: February 2, 2011

Factual History
Officer Smith and Corporal Haskins, two Philadelphia Police Officers, started a romantic
relationship in 2005. On February 19, 2009, at approximately 2:30 a.m., Corporal Hankins obtained a
Protection From Abuse order against the grievant. This was not the first PFA she obtained against
Officer Smith and evidence shows Officer Smith, on at least one occasion, secured a PFA order against
Corporal Hankins. However, every PFA was withdrawn or expired without adjudication.

Arbitration
An interesting issue of spousal privilege arose at the arbitration. On April 13, 2010, the couple
married. As such, Corporal Haskins was not permitted to testify against her husband. Furthermore,
there have been no allegations of domestic abuse since the marriage.

The Arbitrator ruled that the City failed to meet its burden for it did not prove that these
domestic disputes were job related nor did they affect the officers ability to do his job.

Award
There was no just cause to discharge Police Officer Gerald R. Smith, Jr. The City is to reinstate
the officer and to make him whole with respect to his lost salary and benefits.

Grievance of Corporal Rodney Summers

Charges: 1.75
Arbitrator: Charles D. Long, Jr.
Date of Hearing: December 20, 2010
Date of Award: March 29, 2011

Factual History
Corporal Summers was the 18th District Operations Room Supervisor on Wednesday, March 11,
2009. While on duty, three juveniles were arrested and booked at the 18th District. The juveniles
behaved disrespectfully and inappropriately; as such, the Corporal got up from behind his desk, walked
over to one juvenile, stated Let me set the tome in this bitch and slapped him twice across his face.
46

Later, while the juveniles were in a holding cell, a different boy spilled water on the floor. Officer Reid
retrieved a mop and instructed the boy to clean up his mess. After this juvenile started mopping,
Corporal Summers rose from his desk and punched the juvenile with a closed fist in the back of the
head. The juvenile dropped the mop and confronted the Corporal. The Corporal then grabbed the
juvenile, hit him, and pushed him onto a desk. Officer Reid, in an effort to keep the juvenile from hitting
the floor, pulled him back to his feet and pushed him against a wall. The Corporal reached around her
and continued to punch the boy.

Arbitration
In order to conclude that the Corporal committed repeated violations of the Disciplinary Code,
evidence of the pattern or occurrence of such incidents must be established. Further, the City must
establish that the Corporal had knowledge of the Code and this conduct was so egregious it showed
little regard for his duties and/or fellow officers.

The Corporal had received training on Directive 22 (use of force) and did not follow the
appropriate use of force continuum. He admitted that slapping was not taught as a control move. The
Corporal admits to initiating contact by slapping the first juvenile. Moreover, he did not issue a verbal
working before making physical contact.

The Arbitrator gave deference to the Commissioner in his decision to discharge Corporal
Summers. He noted that the penalty for violating Section 1.75 is 30 days to dismissal.

Award
The City had just cause to discharge Corporal Summers.

Grievance of Sergeant B. Mills

Charges: 1.75
Arbitrator: Stanley L. Aiges
Date of Hearing: April 16, 2010 and June 13, 2011*
Delay caused by alleged witness tampering by Sergeant Mills. The charges were dismissed not
on the merits, but on procedural grounds)
Date of Award: June 20, 2011

Factual History
Around 7:00 a.m. on December 22, 2007, Sergeant B. Mills was dropping his children off at his
siblings residence in Philadelphia. When he arrived, Sergeant Mills saw that brother was upset.
Allegedly, the brother had awakened to an adult male, identified as his sisters friend, licking his
buttocks. They ordered the adult male to leave; he began to gather his belongings. While on the first
floor waiting for sometime to retrieve his shoes, Sergeant Mills thought he saw the male pull an object
out of his jacket. Sergeant Mills struck the male and got into a physical altercation. The fight escalated
and the Sergeants sister called 9-1-1.

Police arrived to the bloody, chaotic scene. They witnessed the adult male curled up in fetal
47

position. His face was bruised and bloody. Blood was spattered on the wall, floor, and carpet. The
officers tried to restrain Mills; however, he continued to kick the male three or four times in the back of
the head.

Arbitration
The Arbitrator determined this was a clear case of excessive force. His determination was
based on the credibility of the witnesses. He deemed the on-scene officers recollections to be credible.
Moreover, undistorted photographs of the scene corroborated their statements. The Arbitrator stated
that Mills was devoid of credibility and was disturbed that an employee using the arbitration process to
gain reinstatement would abuse the process by fabricating his testimony.

Award
The City had just cause to dismiss Sergeant Mills.

Grievance of Police Officer Takeya Wilson

Charges: 2.01
Arbitrator: Ernest Weiss
Date of Hearing: August 8, 2011
Date of Award: September 2, 2011

Factual History
On at least two occasions, Officer Wilson violated the Departments alcohol policy. The first
documented incident occurred on February 20, 2010 at about 4:00 p.m. Specifically, she was found in
the roll call room with her chin resting on her chest; her uniform and equipment were sprawled on the
floor. When she was awoken, her speech was slurred and she appeared to be intoxicated. She admitted
to consuming alcoholic beverages and a Breathalyzer examination indicated she had a .310 BAC. For her
actions she received a 30-day suspension and was seeking treatment.

A second incident occurred on April 17, 2010. On this date, she was found leaning against a wall
the womens locker room with her pants around her ankles. The toilet was broken; blood was on the
seat and water was spilling on the floor. Officer Wilson was cut on her lower back and covered in blood.
She did not remember injuring herself. She could not stand. Her eyes were glassy. She was incoherent
and mumbling. At about 4:30 p.m. she was transported to Hahnemann Hospital so doctors could tend
to her injury. She returned to the Department at 7:30 p.m. and a Breathalyzer examination indicated
she had a .304 BAC. They took her back to the hospital for further examination.

Arbitration
The Union admits that Officer Wilson screwed up twice but contends that she voluntarily
submitted to a treatment program. As such, the City should use progressive discipline. Instead, the
Union argues, that the City improperly comingled the two incidents together.

The Arbitrator concluded that reinstatement would establish a dangerous precedent.

Permitting an inebriated officer to report to duty, armed, would be dangerous to both the citizens of
48

Philadelphia and the members of the Philadelphia Police Department. As such, there should be a zero
tolerance for reporting to working under the influence of drugs or alcohol in a law enforcement work
environment.

Award
The City had just cause to dismiss Officer Takeya Wilson.

Grievance of Police Officer Jason M. Belciano

Charges: 1.80
Arbitrator: David J. Reilly
Date of Hearing: September 8, 2011
Date of Award: December 8, 2011

Factual History
Officer Belcianos estranged wife notified Internal Affairs that the officer regularly took steroids
orally and by injection since October 2009. Officer Belciano was ordered to take a drug test. He
provided a urine specimen and a hair sample. These samples were forwarded to Drugscan and Omega
Laboratories but tested negative the drugs included in the Departments regular testing panel. Drugscan
lacked the ability to test for steroids, so it forwarded a separate sample to Aegis Laboratory. The sample
tested positive for nandrolone, a Schedule III controlled substance, and an elevated testosterone level.
Officer Belciano did not exercise his right to have the second half of his split sample tested. The officer
received a notice of dismissal on March 30, 2010.

Arbitration
The Union argues that (1) it was not contacted before the urine sample was sent to Aegis
Laboratory and (2) a proper chain of custody cannot be established. The City contends that the Union
does not have the right to mandate or veto the Departments laboratory selection. As such, a proper
chain of custody was maintained. Further, the City contends that the officers failure to have a
reanalysis justifies an adverse inference that such testing would have been incriminating.

The Arbitrator sided with the Union and stated that he was satisfied that there was strict
adherence to the chain of custody requirement of the two samples between the Department and
Drugscan; however, he cannot reach the same conclusion as to the transfer between Drugscan and
Aegis. The Departments unilateral selection of Aegis to perform steroid testing was improper. These
procedural failing involve matters that go to the integrity and accuracy of the process.

Award
Officer Belciano is reinstated to his former position without loss of seniority. The issue as to
whether to make the officer whole was remanded back to the parties. If they could not reach an
agreement within 60 days, the Arbitrator would issue a ruling.

2012 ARBITRATIONS

49

Grievance of Police Officer Roxanne Billips

Charges: 1.12, 1.25, 1.75
Arbitrator: Charles D. Long, Jr.
Date of Hearing: November 30, 2011
Date of Award: January 5, 2012

Factual History
Officer Billips husband notified Internal Affairs that the officers son, Morgan Brooks, was selling
narcotics out of their home. Philadelphia Police investigated this complaint. They set up surveillance
and hired a Confidential Informant to buy drugs from her son. The surveillance team spotted the
officers son enter and exit her home on several occasions. Moreover, they witnessed several drug
transactions made on her property some of them were made when the officer was in her home.
Other sales were made only 30 seconds after she left the house. On six occasions, the CI purchased
drugs from Morgan Brooks; two transactions occurred in the officers home.

This information provided police with probable cause to obtain a search warrant for the officers
home. On April 30, 2008, police executed this search warrant. In plain view, they found ammunition,
cocaine, Morgan Brooks license next to a plate with cocaine residue, and packaging materials similar to
those used to package the drugs sold to the CI. The also recovered a 30 caliber handgun inside a popped
ceiling tile and a 40 caliber Glock under a mattress in a bedroom. Officer Billips came home during this
search. She stated that Brooks no longer lived there but that her other children would let him in.

A second search warrant was executed on June 19, 2008. In plain view, officers found a blue
Adidas box containing a digital scale and several bags containing a white powdery residue. They also
found papers from the DMV that stated Morgan Brooks claimed the officers property as his legal
residence.

Arbitration
The Union argues that this is a classic case of guilt by association. There is no evidence that
Grievant was involved in illegal drug activity. Plus, the City did not establish the required nexus between
a police officers actions and a conflict with her official duties.

The Arbitrator found to the contrary. He found that Officer Billips made false statements to
Philadelphia Police during an official investigation. Further, he found that was not performing her duties
as on officer because she allowed she allowed illegal activity to go on in her residence. As such,
Grievants claims that she was unaware of any suspicious activity involving her residence is simply not
credible.

Award
The City had just cause to dismiss Officer Roxanne Billips.

Grievance of Sergeant Tyrone Cook

Charges: 1.00, 1.15, 4.15, 5.33
50

Arbitrator: Ernest Weiss

Date of Hearing: September 26, 2011 and October 14, 2011
Date of Award: April 25, 2012

Factual History
Sergeant Cook was dismissed on a Commissioners Direct Action of November 1, 2010. This
discharge was for the following violations:
1. taking overtime pay to which he was not entitled on 38 occasions (this allegation was
corroborated by Daily Activity Reports);
2. arriving late many times and didnt use sick leave, vacation, or holiday time to cover;
3. failing to supervise the execution of search warrants for which he requested and received
overtime pay;
4. receiving overtime pay for a prisoner transport while not being in attendance.

Police Commissioner Ramsey testified that the severity of the infractions, together with the
pattern of abuse, displayed an unacceptable lack of integrity. He noted that other officers were
discharged for similar infractions.

Arbitration
The City presented seven witnesses to support its position. Sergeant Cooks behavior was
neither inadvertent not isolated. The discipline was proportionate given the severity and frequency of
the infractions.

Award
The discharge of Sergeant Tyrone Cook was for just cause.

Grievance of Police Officer Michael A. Torres, Jr.

Charges: Failing to maintain a residence within the City
Arbitrator: James C. Peck, Jr.
Date of Hearing: February 10, 2012
Date of Award: July 5, 2012

Factual History
The Collective Bargaining Agreement contains a residency requirement mandating that certain
employees maintain a bond fide residence within the City of Philadelphia. The officers ex-wife notified
Internal Affairs that he was currently living in New Jersey with his current girlfriend, Amanda Rosario.
Internal Affairs opened an investigation.

After his divorce, Officer Torres was forced to leave his marital home and moved into his
residence located at 1540 Lawrence Street in Philadelphia. He only brought a few personal items with
him. Moreover, Torres drivers license, Federal and State Income Tax returns, mortgage and lease
payments, and credit card bills all list this address. However, he was been spending nights at property
located at 530 Highland Avenue, Westville, New Jersey. Torres admits that the cable bill for this New
51

Jersey residence was in his name because of his girlfriend had poor credit.

Internal Affairs also conducted surveillance between July 8, 2010 and July 30, 2010. During this
time, Officer Torres was observed exclusively at the Westville, New Jersey address. A second
surveillance was conducted from December 24, 2011 through February 11, 2011. On 21 occasions
Officer Torres was observed I Westville while he was only observed three times at the Lawrence Street
address in Philadelphia.

After an interview with Internal Affairs on September 8, 2010, Officer Torres found a landlord
who accepted him despite his damaged credit. Torres and Ms. Rosario moved into an apartment on
Bennington Street in Philadelphia. Unfortunately, their relationship ended and Officer Torres returned
to his sisters home on Lawrence Street.

The City concluded that Officer Torres failed to maintain a bona fide residence within the city of
Philadelphia. He was terminated.

Arbitration
The Arbitrator noted that this was a highly fact-driven case. The evidence was not sufficient for
the City to conclude that Torres was in violation of the residency requirement. The factors considered in
determining residency include:
1. The location where the employee engages in the majority of his social activities;
2. The location where the employee spends the majority of his time;
3. The location where the employees children attend school;
4. Whether the employee rents a home in the City and owns a home outside the City;
5. The address where the employees vehicle is registered.

Here, Officer Torres social activities include going to the gym and practicing his marksmanship at
the shooting range. He does both of these activities in Philadelphia. Furthermore, he spends at least
eight hours a day in the City performing his duties as a police officer. Torres testified that his children
attend school in Philadelphia. Officer Torres does not own property; however, it is evidence that he
made a good-faith effort to maintain a residence within the City. Lastly, Officer Torres vehicle is
registered in his name with a Philadelphia address and he maintains a Pennsylvania drivers license,
which lists an address in the City.

Award
Officer Torres is reinstated to his previous position with full back pay and is to be made whole
for any loss that he has incurred as a result of his termination.

Grievance of Police Officer Matthew Hill

Charges: 1.75
Arbitrator: Robert E. Light
Date of Hearing: November 2, 2011 and April 30, 2012
Date of Award: July 19, 2012
52

Factual History
Officer Matthew Hill was dismissed from the Philadelphia Police Department in March 2011 for
off-duty events occurring in December 2007 and February 2008. The events are a result of a volatile
personal relationship. Officer Hill started a romantic relationship with Ms. Caitlyn Hallinan in 2006 and
he tried to end the relationship in November 2007. Allegedly, on two separate occasions, the officer
threatened to kill himself. During another incident, Ms. Hallinan came to the officers home in a
drunken state and threw a cologne bottle at his head. When Ms. Hallinan left, the officer called her
mother to notify her that Ms. Hallinan was driving while intoxicated.

Arbitration
The main issue presented her is if an employees off-duty conduct is serious enough that the
existence thereof may jeopardize his very employment, how can the City property justify a three year
delay in imposing such discipline? The Arbitrator believed this was an unreasonable delay.

Award
Officer Hill is to be reinstated to his prior position on certain terms and conditions. He must be
cleared, both mentally and physically. Next, for a period of one year, he is to undergo quarterly physical
and psychological evaluations by a doctor. Officer Hill is not entitled to back pay.

2013 ARBITRATIONS

Grievance of Police Officer Kendall Norman II

Charges: 1-010-10, 1.00, 1.75, 6-003-10
Arbitrator: Ernest Weiss
Date of Hearing: February 7, 2013
Date of Award: February 11, 2013

Factual History
Police Officer Normal defrauded the United States Air Force and the Philadelphia Police
Department. An investigation by the Air Force revealed that he submitted false vouchers. In March
2011, he was court-martialed and found guilty of conspiracy, larceny, and filing false claims related to
travel voucher fraud. He was sentenced to six to ten months at Monmouth County Correctional Facility
in New Jersey.

He failed to notify the City of Philadelphia of the investigation, the charges, and the court
martial. Instead, he presented a fraudulent memorandum and activation orders indicating that he was
being deployed to Afghanistan. He requested to take a military leave of absence. This military leave
covered the dates of his court martial and prison sentence.

On May 25, 2011, Officer Norman was placed on a 30-day suspension with intent to dismiss.

53

Arbitration
The Union argued that the officers behavior constitutes off-duty conduct and the rules of the
Police Department should not be comingled with military justice. The Arbitrator was not convinced.
The officer knowingly and fraudulently prepared and submitted false travel vouchers. He then
submitted false activation orders. Such conduct is clearly unbecoming of a law enforcement officer.

Award
The City had just cause to dismiss Police Officer Kendall Norman II.

Grievance of Detective Deborah Gore

Charges: 1-026-10 (Conduct Unbecoming)
Arbitrator: Ernest Weiss
Date of Hearing: February 12, 2013
Date of Award: March 1, 2013

Factual History
On May 1, 2012, Detective Gore, a 17-year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Department, was
arrested by the Bensalem Township Police for retail theft at Kohls Department Store. She entered
Kohls with her young daughter and two bags of items to return in her cart. While she was shopping,
she placed a number of items in her card. She went through the check-out line, but failed to pay for five
items that were under her bags. She was stopped in the parking lot and allegedly said, oh my gosh I
decided that I did not want them but I forgot to return them and they were under my returns. She
offered to pay but they would not allow it. She was arrested and placed on an immediate 30-day
suspension with the intent to dismiss. Her discharge was effective on June 21, 2012.

Arbitration
The Arbitrator reviewed the Kohls surveillance tape and determined that Detective Gore did not
have the required state of mind to commit retail theft. Instead, it was more likely that she was a
customer who forgot to empty all of her items from the bottom of the shopping cart that contained the
return items she exchanged earlier that day at the customer service counter. The Arbitrator considered
the shape of the cart, a mesh bag suspended from handles. It is easily understandable that such a bag
could engulf items and disguise their visibility.

The Arbitrators conclusions are corroborated by the fact that Bucks County dismissed the
criminal charges against her.

Award
The discharge of Detective Gore was not for just cause. She is reinstated to her former position
and shall be made whole.

Grievance of Detective Kenneth Rossiter

54

Charges: 1-010-10 and 1-021-10 (Conduct Unbecoming)

Arbitrator: David J. Reilly
Date of Hearings: January 10, 2013, February 13, 2013, and February 22, 2013
Date of Award: April 2, 2013

Factual History
Homicide Detective Kenneth Rossiter was discharged on July 15, 2012 because on multiple
occasions he was at home, away from his official duties, while on paid time.
The events leading to the Detectives discharge stem from an anonymous complaint received by
the Department on July 28, 2011. Internal Affairs then placed surveillance on Detective and observed
him at his home a total of 16 times on nine separate days when he was recorded for payroll purposes as
being on either straight time or overtime. The City contends that he acted unilaterally without
authorization from his supervisors. Rossiter testified that he usually went home to eat, shower, and use
the bathroom. He also worked on open cases while at home. Commissioner Ramsey recommended
that Detective Rossiter be discharged for theft of time.

Arbitration
In the instant arbitration, the City bears the burdens of proof; the Arbitrator is convinced that
the City has not met its burden. The Arbitrator believed the Unions assertion that Homicide was a
different animal. Whenever their presence is not immediately needed by the requesting ADA,
Homicide Detectives leave the courthouse while signed into court overtime in order to work on their
open cases. Moreover, the Citys witnesses stated they had no reason to doubt that Detective Rossiter
was in fact working on his open cases when he was at home for extended periods of time. As a result,
the Arbitrator believed that Rossieter submitted factual timesheets.

Award
The City did not have just cause to discharge Homicide Detective Rossiter. He is to be reinstated
and made whole for all wages and benefits lost as a consequence of his discharge.

Grievance of Lieutenant Jonathan Josey

Charges: Conduct Unbecoming for violating 1-010-10 (made false entries on Department
records) and 1-012-10 (excessive force)
Arbitrator: David J. Reilly
Date of Hearing: June 24, 2013 and June 25, 2013
Date of Award: August 10, 2013

Factual History
Lieutenant Jonathan Josey serves on the Departments Highway Patrol Unit. On September 30,
2012, he was assigned to patrol the after-party to the Citys annual Puerto Rican Day Parade.
During this after-party, one vehicle stopped in the intersection of Lehigh Avenue and 5th Street
and drove in circular skids. Ms. Guzman watched the driver make these doughnuts. As she was
observing, she jumped up and down with an open beer bottle in one hand and a can of silly string in the
55

other. Lieutenant Josey felt liquid hit his body and saw a spray of silly string. He turned around, saw
Guzman standing nearby, and concluded she was the culprit. Other officers overheard the Lieutenant
instructed Guzman to drop the beer. When she did not comply, he attempted to swat the bottle from
her hand using an open-handed swipe with his right hand. At the same time, Guzman stepped on a
can, slipped, and lost her balance. As she fell to the ground, Lieutenant Joseys hand struck her. Ms.
Guzman she was arrested and issued a Summary Offense Citation for disorderly conduct. Lieutenant
Josey prepared a Use of Force Report, in which he wrote he observed Ms. Guzman throw beer on him
and several other officers.

Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey learned of the events on October 1, 2012. He reviewed
the YouTube video several times and concluded Lieutenant Josey used excessive force. He then
reviewed the Citation and Use of Force Report and concluded the Lieutenant falsified the reports. On
October 4, 2012, Commissioner Ramsey suspended Lieutenant Josey with intent to dismiss. Effective
November 1, 2012, Commissioner Ramsey discharged the Lieutenant by means of Commissioner Direct
Action

Arbitration
In regards to the excessive force claim, the standard of appropriate force does not mandate an
officer use the least intrusive level of suitable force. Instead, the test is whether the level of force
employed was reasonable based upon the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time
of the incident.
The arbitrator reviewed the video of the events frame-by-frame. He deemed the video was
consistent with Lieutenant Joseys testimony. Watching the video at this slow speed showed that Ms.
Guzman did not fall from the force of the Lieutenants blow. Instead, it shows that she tripped on a can
and lost her balance. At the simultaneous moment, Josey made an open-handed swipe at the beer
bottle in Ms. Guzmans hand. He inadvertently struck her. Such an action was reasonable because the
circumstances known to him at the time were reasonable led Lieutenant Josey to believe, albeit faulty,
that Ms. Guzman threw beer upon him and other officers.

In regards to the false records charge, the City must prove that the false entry was made
knowingly and willfully. Proof of an erroneous or mistaken entry without evidence that it was done
intentionally is insufficient. Lieutenant Josey document that he observed Ms. Guzman throw beer. He
testified that he did not see this, but rather, drew a conclusion from his surrounding circumstances. The
arbitrator ruled that his entry was a minor factual error.

Award
The City did not have just cause to discharge Lieutenant Josey. He is to be reinstated to his
former position without loss of seniority. He is to be made whole for all lost wages and benefits.

56

APPENDIX 7 DISCIPLINARY CODE & DIRECTIVE GUIDE

Article 1 - Conduct Unbecoming an Officer
Section 1.0
Unspecified

Section 1.12
Making a false statement in response to an official department investigation

Section 1.15
Knowingly and willfully making a false entry in an departmental report or record

Section 1.25
Knowingly associates, fraternizes with known criminals or persons engaged in unlawful
activities

Section 1.75
Repeated violations of Departmental rules and regulations, and/or any other course of conduct
indicating that a member has little or no regard for his/her responsibility as a member of the
Police Department

Section 1.80
The Penalty for the use of a controlled substance shall be dismissal except where prescribed by
a licensed medical practitioner

Article II Intoxication
Section 2.01
Intoxication, On-Duty

Section 2.10
Intoxication, Off-Duty, Not in Uniform and Arrested

Article III Insubordination

Section 3.01
Refusal to obey proper orders from superior officer

Article IV Neglect of Duty

Section 4.15
Failure to properly supervise subordinates; or to prefer disciplinary charges; or to take other
disciplinary action

57

Section 4.20
Failure to comply with any commissioners orders, directives, regulations, etc., or any oral or
written orders of superiors.

Article V Disobedience of Orders

Section 5.18
Improper use, handling or display of firearms

Section 5.33
Tardiness

Directive 22
The Philadelphia Police Departments formal policy on Use of Force states that only the minimal use of
force necessary to protect life or to effect an arrest should be used by an officer. Excessive force will not
be tolerated Officers should [use] only the amount of force necessary to overcome resistance.
When using fists, kicks, or batons, Directive 22 designates muscles in the legs (thigh and calf) and arms
(Forearms and biceps) as preferred striking areas because they are the most vulnerable to an effective
strike. Additionally, it states that the elbows, knees, and ankles as intermediate areas because they may
cause pain or injury, but not intended to cause permanent damage. Finally, Directive 22 states that
there shall not be intentional blows to the head, face, throat, chest, abdomen, groin, and collarbone.
If an officer violates Directive 22, (s)he may be guilty of violating Section 4.20 of the Departments
Disciplinary Code. This code prohibits a failure to comply with any Commissioners Orders, Directives,
Regulations, etc.

Directive 78
A beard may be worn when a waiver is authorized by the Police Commissioner, a waiver will be
authorized upon a showing from the employee by a religious leader that the employee practices a
religion that requires him to wear a beard. The request for a waiver must have the name of the religion
and the specific beard requirement and must be on the religious institutions letterhead.
Documentation must be notarized or subject to verification. If a waiver is authorized, facial hair will be
kept trimmed and neat, not to exceed in length. Waivers expire after twelve months and employees
must reapply at the end of each term.

Commissioners Directive 98-1, 1(c)

Off-duty police officers will not take police action in minor family or neighborhood disputes, or in minor
offenses, such as disorderly conduct or traffic violations, unless such action is necessary to prevent
bodily injury or death. In most off-duty situations, a call to 9-1-1 should be sufficient.
42 Pa.C.S. 5924(a)
In a civil matter neither husband nor wife shall be competent or permitted to testify against each other.

58

Appendix 8
To: Dia de Puerto Rico Committee Task Force
From: Kelvyn Anderson, Executive Director, Police Advisory Commission
Re: Crimes & Incidents from 2010-2012
Date: 6/17/2013

There were a total of 81 Part 1 & Part 2 crimes in our defined area of concern on the dates of the parade
in 2010, 2011, and 2012.
Part 1 crimes include: Criminal Homicide, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Larceny-Theft,
Motor Vehicle theft and Arson.
Part 2 crimes include: Simple Assault, Forgery/Counterfeiting, Fraud, Embezzlement, Buying/Receiving
Stolen Property, Weapons offenses (carrying, possessing etc), Prostitution, Sex Offenses (except rape,
prostitution, commercial vice), Drug Abuse violations, Gambling, Driving Under the Influence,
Drunkenness, Disorderly Conduct, Curfew & Loitering laws, and runaways.
As we can see from the map, there are clusters of incidents along the 5th Street corridor, in the area of
5th & Lehigh, and along 2nd Street, in the area of 2nd & Allegheny.
59

The most prevalent crimes are Disorderly Conduct (14), Driving under the Influence (11),
Stolen/Recovered Vehicles (9), and Aggravated Assault (7). There were also 5 Assaults on Police and an
Aggravated Assault on Police in the area of 2nd & American in 2010 & 2011. In 2010, there was a
homicide at 6th & Huntingdon. A list of the incidents is below.
In addition to these incidents, we queried the Internal Affairs IAPro database for formal complaints
filed in connection with post-parade celebrations and found six from 2003 to 2012. Four of the six
complaints had traffic flow issues at their root, as people argued with police about their inability to
drive/park near their homes.
Parade organizers, city officials, police and community groups made significant changes to the postparade events, creating a more positive atmosphere for family-centered activity, and improving travel
and access routes.16

16

"Cop's punch spurs changes to the Puerto Rican Parade ..." 2013. 23 Jun. 2014 <http://articles.philly.com/201309-17/news/42117427_1_parade-aftermath-post-parade-activities-josey>

60

APPENDIX 9
Video Evidence and the Josey Arbitration Award

To:
From:
Date:
Re:

Police Advisory Commissioners & Staff

Kelvyn Anderson, Executive Director
2/15/2014
Lt. Jonathan Josey Arbitration PAC#13-SI-01

I: BACKGROUND

On September 30, 2012, Philadelphia Police Lt. Jonathan Josey arrested Aida Guzman for disorderly
conduct in the area of 5th & Lehigh Streets, in the post-Puerto Rican Day Parade celebration. A 35second video taken by an onlooker and posted on YouTube captured a portion of the incident, which
depicted Josey quickly approaching and striking Guzman. She falls to the ground, is handcuffed by Josey
and lead away by another officer.

The incident attracted considerable attention from local & national media, and several versions of the
original video, embedded in news reports and blog posts, gathered millions of views on YouTube and
other websites.

In early October 2012, Mayor Michael Nutter met with Guzman and her attorneys to deliver an
apology. Josey was suspended with Intent to dismiss on October 4, 2012, and was fired by Philadelphia
Commissioner Charles Ramsey through a Commissioners Direct Action on November 1, 2012. He was
charged with two counts of Conduct Unbecoming, Making False Entries in a Department Report, and
Excessive Force. The District Attorneys office dropped the disorderly conduct charge against Guzman.

Ramsey noted that he was "deeply troubled" by the video Lt. Josey. "From what I saw, it's difficult to
justify the actions that took place.

FOP President John McNesby defended Lt. Joseys actions and promised to challenge the dismissal in
arbitration. McNesby told KYW News reporter Mark Abrams there was no evidence Josey used
excessive force. Was it multiple swings? Was he pulling hair? Was he kicking anybody? Absolutely not,
he says. You know, there was one swinging motion. She was handcuffed and led to the police wagon.
McNesby conceded Joseys actions might merit a suspension, but not dismissal.
61

On November 15, 2012, the Philadelphia District Attorneys Office charged Josey with simple assault.
In a courtroom packed with supportive fellow officers, Josey was acquitted of the charge by on February
22, 2013 by Municipal Court Judge Patrick F. Dugan. Subsequent to the ruling, it was revealed that Judge
Dugan is married to Philadelphia Police officer Nancy Dugan, which caused a firestorm of conflict-ofinterest criticism and calls for a federal civil rights investigation of the incident.

As expected, the FOP submitted Joseys case for arbitration. Hearings were held before arbitrator David
Reilly on June 24 and June 25, 2013. Local reporters were prevented from attending the proceedings at
the request of FOP attorneys. Reilly issued his final report in the Josey Matter on August 10, 2013. The
arbitrator granted the grievance, reinstating Josey to his former position with full back pay.

II: PAC Arbitration case review

As the Josey case unfolded in early 2013, Commission staff began a review of all police arbitration cases
between 2008 and 2012, focusing on the high percentage of officers who are dismissed for disciplinary
reasons but returned to active duty by arbitrators. The Commission examined 23 cases where dismissals
were submitted to arbitration, including the Josey-Guzman incident.

In only seven cases did the City actually have just cause to dismiss the employee, according to
arbitrators rulings. The awards issued in the remaining 16 cases are as follows:

In seven of these arbitrations, including the Josey case, the grievance was granted because
arbitrators ruled there was no just cause to discharge the officer(s). As a result, grievant were
reinstated to their former positions with full back pay.
In six of these arbitrations, the grievance was sustained; however, the dismissal was reduced to
a suspension. As a result, he/she was reinstated to their formed position with full back pay, less
the days of the suspension.
In three of the arbitrations, the officer was reinstated without back pay.

III: Josey Arbitration review PAC# 13-SI-01

Commission members and staff discussed the Josey arbitration decision at its September 2013 public
meeting. Several members asked to view the frame-by-frame version of the video, which was clearly a
pivotal exhibit that colored the arbitrators decision to return Josey to the police department and acquit
him of the excessive force charge.

After viewing the original video and the FOPs frame-by-frame excerpt, the arbitrator concluded that
it is apparent that Guzman did not fall to the street from the force of being struck by Joseys hand.
62

Rather, she fell because she slipped and lost her balance after accidentally stepping on a can as she
moved away from him (Pg. 15, Arbitrators Opinion). In rejecting the allegation of excessive force, the
arbitrator accepted the FOP attorneys assertion that "Guzman slipped on a can", and was struck by a
"glancing blow" from Josey but not enough to cause her to fall.
After contacting the law department, it became apparent that the FOP strongly objected to the
Commissions request for the evidence it presented to the arbitrator. FOP counsel Tom Jennings
provided details in an November 5, 2013 email response to the law department: As the arbitrator
rightfully concluded, the video contains an analysis of the incident that dispels the myth that Josey
never so much as touched the victim who was in the process of throwing beer at police officers and
who, after consuming beer all day, slipped on a can. The video prepared by this law office with respect
to the arbitration contains nothing that cannot be duplicated by the PAC through its own effort and
considerable expense. However, as the author of that document, I and the FOP assert the strongest
privilege to its design and content and unequivocally refuse any permission to the PAC to view or
otherwise possess the video that was the product of our efforts
On November 22, 2013, the Commission served a subpoena to the City Law Department requesting a
copy of the FOP frame-by-frame version of the video. The FOP filed a Motion to Quash the subpoena,
but its rather novel assertion of intellectual property rights around the exhibit was rejected by Common
Pleas Court Judge Idee C. Fox on Dec. 20, 2013.

After reviewing the video, statements from the officers and witnesses at the scene and the FOPs frameby-frame version there are two areas of the opinion which the Commission found troubling:

1) Arbitrators unbalanced treatment of testimony from Josey & Guzman

Josey's Use of Force report acknowledged striking Guzman in the face. His testimony regarding the
intention of his actions in both the criminal case and statements cited by the arbitrator appear to bear
out his claim of attempting to swat a bottle from Guzmans hand. This assertion by Josey is supported by
statements from other officers, and video of the incident.
But during the arbitration, Joseys statement changed significantly with the introduction of the FOP
frame-by-frame version of the video, which proves, as FOP counsel noted, that Josey never touched
her and that Guzman slipped on a can as Josey swung in her direction.
Reilly found Josey's testimony "Clear, consistent and convincing" (Page 15 Paragraph 1), and
corroborated by other witnesses. The opinion does not challenge the significant change in Joseys
version of the incident, but merely notes that ..despite his prior statements, he denied that in doing
so he struck Guzman in the face. He explained that in his prior statements in which he acknowledged
hitting Guzman inadvertently reflected an assumption he made from seeing her fall to the pavement.

63

Conversely, the arbitrator found Guzman's testimony "lacked persuasiveness" and "her recollection of
the events reflected obvious gaps and serious inconsistencies" (Pg 15 Paragraph 2) ...Pg. 5, Footnote
#7. Guzman testified that Josey was accompanied by more than 10 officers, and possibly as many as 20.
The video shows only 4 officers accompanying Josey.

Aspects of the video which support Guzmans testimony are ignored. As Guzman is handcuffed,
helped to her feet and led away, there are at least 10 officers who are within her field of view, though,
as the arbitrator notes, only four are directly facing Guzman. This gap or inconsistency in Guzmans
testimony is understandable for someone who has just been knocked to the ground and whisked away
by police in only a few seconds.

The arbitrator criticized Guzman for basing her testimony of being struck by Josey on subsequent
views of the video, rather than her own independent recollection (Arbitrators Opinion, Pg. 5 Footnote
8). By contrast, Joseys change of opinion regarding whether he made contact with Guzman, which is
based in large part on the FOPs frame-by-frame version, goes unchallenged.

2) Poor quality of FOP frame by frame version of the event - The FOPs frame-by-frame version covers
four seconds of the event and includes 34 individual frames, or roughly 8.5 frames per second. The
resulting electronic document presented for the arbitrators review is not a video, but a heavilypixelated PDF (portable document format) that distorts the quality of original video posted on YouTube.
In contrast to the FOP Frame-By-Frame version of 34 frames covering 4 seconds of the incident, the PAC
version contains 127 frames, or approximately 32 frames per second.17

While courts and forensic video experts have not identified a specific minimum frame rate for video
exhibits to be considered of evidentiary value. ..Lower frame rates may reduce the likelihood of
determining activities within a scene, but do not negate the value of the video. The evidentiary weight
of the video should be determined on a case--by-case basis.

In this case, judgment regarding the physical interactions between Lt. Josey, Ms. Guzman and the can at
her feet is made more difficult by the lower quality approach taken by FOP counsel as they produced
their frame-by-frame analysis. A more rigorous forensic approach would subject the video and
individual frames to additional analysis to establish movement of people and objects in the scene.
Unfortunately, we dont know which one of the many versions of the video was used by FOP counsel to
produce its frame-by-frame analysis. But this flawed approach to the production, use and interpretation
of video evidence in the Josey-Guzman incident undermines the weight assigned to it in the arbitrators
opinion.
17

PAC Frame-by-Frame Version Josey-Guzman Incident

64

IV. The Commissions frame-by-frame version

In early October 2012 as the incident came into public view, Commission Executive Director Kelvyn
Anderson downloaded and saved the original video for use by the board. In 2013, an alternative frameby-frame version was created from the file for comparison with the FOPs version. The viewpoint of the
original video is limited, in that Lt. Joseys hand cannot be seen from the vantage point of the person
who shot the video. Neither the FOP nor Commissions frame-by-frame versions of the event are
professional, forensically sound examinations of the event that are sufficient to reach an unassailable
conclusion that Lt. Joseys hand struck Guzmans face based on the video alone, or that Guzman fell
from slipping on the can rolling near her feet.

65

66

67

68

69

70