Incident Details Report

9/10/2019

Collegedale Police Department

Employees: Schilling, David (253)

Categories: Counseling - Remedial, Policy - Violation, Complaint - Exonerated,

Complaint - Not Sustained, Complaint - Sustained, Complaint -
Unfounded, Supervisor Notes Entry

Counseling - Remedial
For: Schilling, David (253) Occurred: 8/16/2019
By: Westfield, Michael (260) Entered: 9/3/2019

In June 2019, I, Sgt. Westfield was advised by another supervisor about their concern of the
lack of the Watch List being logged on Alpha Team which consist of Cpl. David Holloway, Ofc.
Kolby Duckett, and Ofc. David Schilling. While checking and reviewing the Watch List for
June, I observed that Ofc. Schilling’s activity while more than zero on most days was less
than it should have been, with several duty days without any of his Watch Lists checked at
all. Due to this shift wide inactivity, I requested a meeting with this team to discuss this
matter.

On June 19, 2019, a meeting was had with Cpl. Holloway and Ofc. Duckett. In this meeting,
it was said that not checking the watch list was unacceptable and that they were expected to
be checked each shift. When asked why they hadn't been checking their Watch List, both
advised they were sorry and they just had not been logging them. Cpl. Holloway went on to
state that many times they do check them but do not log them on the Watch List log. At that
time I gave Holloway and Duckett a verbal order for the all the Watch Lists in the district
which they are working to be checked twice a shift and logged. The order was for them to
check and log the Watch List near the beginning of the shift and once in the afternoon if calls
permitted until instructed otherwise. Cpl. Holloway and Ofc. Duckett both advised they
understood. On this same date, I spoke with Ofc. Schilling about the same issues and also
gave him the same order as Holloway and Duckett.

Ofc. Schilling began to ask why and stated he needed to have a reason why this is being an
order. I advised him of the lack of documentation or checking of the Watch List so this is my
order. I also advised him that this is an order of his supervisor and what is being asked is not
ethically or morally wrong nor against the law.

On August 13, 2019, I, Sergeant Westfield, began to review to check the Watch List logs to
see if my orders were being followed. The records showed that from the date of our last
meeting, on June 19th, Alpha Team failed to comply with my orders given during that
meeting. Ofc. Schilling logged just twenty-nine checks and should have totaled forty-two.
During the entire month of July, the Alpha Team failed to comply with my orders, per our

Page: 1 of 9
During the entire month of July, the Alpha Team failed to comply with my orders, per our
discussion on June 19, 2019. Ofc. Schilling logged only two checks for the month and should
have totaled twenty-two. From August 01 to August 11, on the days the shift worked, my
orders were not followed again. Ofc. Schilling had a total of one logged check which should
have been a total number of six.

On August 14, 2019, I once again requested a shift meeting to discuss the finding on the
review of the Watch List. It was expressed that all three officers had disobeyed my orders
regarding the Watch List.

Once again all parties apologized and they voiced again that they were checking the Watch
List but not logging it in RMS but were putting it in CAD instead. All officers were reminded
that my order was for it to be logged in RMS so it can be documented. At that time the
meeting ended.

It has been a long-standing practice since the Tyler RMS system was implemented years ago
that all Watch List checks be documented in the RMS Watch List log, an established
procedure that Alpha Team is well aware of and practices; however, to give Alpha Team the
benefit of the doubt a check of all documented Neighborhood and Business Patrols were also
reviewed in the event that the Alpha Team members had somehow mistakenly logged their
Watch List checks with their documented and standard patrol activity. A review of all Ofc.
Schilling's documented neighborhood and business patrols between June 19 and August 11,
2019, showed that Schilling had checked 4 neighborhoods that also happened to have an
address on the Watch List log during that same time period. Other than the Watch List log,
no other activity was found showing that Schilling had checked his watch lists as ordered. It
can, at best, be assumed that Schilling most likely checked the watch lists addresses that
also happened to be in the neighborhoods he had documented.

By: Schilling, David (253) Entered: 9/4/2019

After reading over the above entry I believe it necessary to note the following:

- On June 19 I had a brief informal meeting with Sgt. Westfield in the Hallway
at the Police Department. He advised me that he had already talked to Cpl.
Holloway and Officer Duckett but needed to let me know that we needed to
start checking our watch lists twice a day. He advised as stated, that we
needed to try to get a check in the morning and then do a second check in the
afternoon if call load allowed. After he advised me of this I asked him why we
were now checking the watch lists twice, since we had been only directed to
check them once in the past. I asked this just trying to understand if
something had happened that I needed to know about. I cannot remember his
exact response, but it led me to believe that this directive had been given from
someone above him and that he had not come up with this directive himself.
He advised me to just check them twice for a while and I told him I
understood.

Page: 2 of 9
At no time during the course of this conversation do I recall saying or meaning
anything that questioned if Sgt. Westfield could give this directive, or claiming
that it was unethical or illegal. Furthermore I do not remember any reference
to me missing watch lists in the past or stating that I had to have a reason for
the directive before I would follow it.

- Officer Duckett and I did an extensive search of the watch logs and printed
out every watch list we could find that was active between 6/19/2019 and
9/3/2019, when the directive was given, and when we were informed that we
would receive a GT entry.

I have kept very detailed logs of my calls and patrol activities every day I have
worked, going all the way back to 10/27/2018. These logs include my business
checks, residential checks, traffic enforcements, park and walks, school
patrols, and calls. When I started going over the watch logs and the work
schedule, I noticed that the patrol schedules that were sent to us were wrong a
number of times and also did not necessarily show correct districts that officers
ended up working. For example the schedule showed me working the first two
weeks in July, when I was actually on vacation from 7/4-7/13.

When I patrol I generally stay in my assigned patrol district, so my daily log

accurately reflects what district I was actually working. Using the printed watch
logs, the Daily Activity Reports, and my own daily logs I was able to compile
the following. I will only list watch dates from watches in effect on 6/19 from
that date forward, not from their beginning date. I will address every date in
which I worked in the district of the specific watch list.

WATCH: 10289 Virley Lane – East District – 6/19-6/20. – Checked once on the
morning of 6/20 and was unable to be checked in the afternoon due to a DUI
arrest. The watch was removed before I worked the district again.

WATCH: 8886 Jen Rue – East District – 6/19-6/20. – I worked the East District
on 6/20 but did not log a check of it. The watch ended and was removed that
day. POSSIBLE TWO MISSES?

WATCH: 4590 Wellesley Drive – West District – 6/19-6/23. – Checked once on

the morning of 6/19 and not checked in the afternoon due to court. The watch
was removed before I worked that district again.

WATCH: 9668 Homewood Circle – East District – 6/19-6/23. – Checked 6/20

once in the morning. Was unable to check in the afternoon due to a DUI arrest
that took up the rest of the day. I was not in East District again until after the
watch was removed.

WATCH: 10913 Short Cut – East District – 6/19-6/28. – Checked once on the
morning of 6/20 and not checked in the afternoon due to a DUI arrest. I was
working the East District on 6/28 but the watch was removed in the morning. I
remember driving through the area that day but I did not log a check because
it had been removed. POSSIBLE TWO MISSES?

Page: 3 of 9
it had been removed. POSSIBLE TWO MISSES?

WATCH: 4200 Wellesley – West District – 6/19-6/28. – Checked once on the

morning of 6/19 and not checked in the afternoon due to court. Checked Twice
on 6/25. The watch was removed before I worked that district again.

WATCH: 5825 Main Street – West District – 6/19-6/28. – Checked once in the
morning on 6/19 and then was not checked in the afternoon due to court.
Checked twice on 6/25. Was removed from the watch list before I worked that
district again.

WATCH: 9300 Messenger – West District – 6/19-7/2. – Checked twice on 6/19.

Checked once in the morning of 6/20 but not in the afternoon due to a DUI
arrest. Checked twice on 6/25. Checked Twice on 6/30. Removed before
working that district again.

WATCH: 5066 Chestnutt Creek – East District – 6/19-7/2 – Checked three

times on 6/20. Checked twice on 6/28. The watch was removed before I
worked this district again.

WATCH: 5309 High Street – West District – 6/22-6/26. – Checked Twice on

6/25. Watch was removed before I worked that district again.

WATCH: 4300 Ooltewah Ringgold – West District – 6/24-6/29. – Checked

Twice on 6/25. I did not work this district again until after the watch was
removed.

WATCH: 9650 Leyland – West District – 6/24-7/8. – Checked twice on 6/25.

Checked once in the morning of 6/30 and was unable to check in the afternoon
due to a number of reports and an arrest. I was then on vacation and not in
the district through the end of the watch.

WATCH: 5661 Hyacinth – East District – 7/3-8/3 – Watch was added on 7/3
after my shift was over. I was then on vacation from 7/4-7/13. I worked the
East Side on 7/14 but was unaware of the watch list. My log shows that I
checked Homewood from 1526-1600 hours. TWO MISSES? The watch was
removed before I worked that district again.

WATCH: 9144 Integra Hills – West District – 7/11-7/11.- I was not working on
the day this watch was in place.

Watch: 5309 High Street – West District – 7/17-7/21. – Checked once in the
morning on 7/18 and wasn’t able to check in the afternoon due to calls,
including a misdemeanor citation. The watch was removed before I worked the
district again.

WATCH: 5075 Ooltewah Ringgold – West District – 7/20-8/3. – Checked once

in the morning on 7/26 and did not perform check in afternoon due to
Meetings and issues with HR. My log shows that I did drive through the area a
number of times during the rest of the shift. I was not in this district again

Page: 4 of 9
while the watch was in effect. ONE MISS.

WATCH: 10051 Tellico – South District – 7/22-7/27. – On 7/23 the schedule

shows I was working the south district. I have no recorded data on my logs for
this date. I am unclear why this is the case. Checking the daily I know I
responded to calls in the east district and assisted other officers with drug
arrests. I do know that another officer that was working the east district on the
schedule was not on shift and I believe I shifted over to the east side. Either
way this does account for TWO MISSES on the watch log.

WATCH: 9501 Robinson Farm – West District – 8/2-8/16. – Checked once in

the morning on 8/9 and was not able to be checked in the afternoon due to
multiple reports, including a misdemeanor citation and directing school traffic.
Checked on 8/14 in the morning and was not able to be checked in the
afternoon due to court. The watch list was removed before I was in that district
again.

WATCH: 5066 Chestnutt Creek – East District – 8/9-8/16. – On 8/10 I worked

the East District and did not log a check. I am unsure if I knew about the
watch or not. My log shows that I checked Chestnutt Creek from 742-744 that
morning but didn’t log a check on the Watch List. This apartment has been
watched by us since June when there was a shooting. Every time I have gone
through there since I have specifically looked at that apartment. I know I
visited the apartment at least two times during this period to try and take a
report from the person, due to the incident of why it was on the watch list, but
was never able to make contact. TWO MISSES? I checked the watch twice on
8/15. It was taken off of the list before I worked that district.

WATCH: 4231 Stratton – South District – 8/12-8/26. – Checked once on 8/19

per new directive. The watch was removed before I worked the district again.

WATCH: 4220 Ooltewah Ringgold – West District – 8/12-9/1. – Checked once

on 8/14 per new directive. Checked once on 8/20 per new directive. Checked
once on 8/25 per new directive. Removed from the watch log before I worked
that district again.

WATCH: 9600 Bill Reed – West District – 8/16-8/31. – One check on 8/20 per
new directive. Once check on 8/25 per new directive. The watch was removed
before I worked that district again.

WATCH: Downing Green at Bill Reed – West District – 8/16-8/31. – Checked

once per new directive on 8/20. Checked once per new directive on 8/25.
Removed from watch list before I worked that district again.

WATCH: 5791 Tallant – East District – 8/19-9/1. – Checked twice on 8/23

even though new directive only required once. Worked the district on 8/28 but
was required to come in late to burn time and had a report and then court in
the afternoon that did not allow a check. Wes removed before I worked the
district again.

Page: 5 of 9
district again.

WATCH: 5573 Tallant – East District – 8/20-8/29. – Checked once per new
directive but log shows I checked that area a number of times during shift. I
worked the district on 8/28, but came in late because my hours were cut and
had a call and then court, so it was not checked.

WATCH: 5588 Little Debbie – West District – 8//29-9/3. – Checked twice on

9/2. Removed before working that district again.

- In total, after my research, I missed 11 watch list checks over just 6 days
from 6/19-9/3. Four of those misses come from 6/20 and 6/28 where I didn’t
check the watch because it ended that day and was removed. Four of those
misses were from 7/14 and 8/10. 7/14 I had just returned from vacation and
had forgotten to check the watch log. I did however check the area one time
during shift. 8/10 I again forgot to check the watch log for the watch that had
been added the day before, my log also shows I checked this area during the
shift. One miss comes from a situation with HR in the afternoon where I didn’t
get the second check on 7/26. The other two misses come from 7/23 where I
believe I was switched to a different district due to Office Duckett not being on
shift.

Contrary to the above entry, which makes it look, and sound, like A Team, and
I, repeatedly and intentionally violated a verbal directive from our Sgt., this
research shows that as a whole Sgt. Westfield’s directive was followed. On the
days that there was not court in the afternoon or a heavy call load the watch
lists were checked twice. All of the misses were either on a day the watch list
ended or were because of a innocent mistake of forgetting to check the watch
log when I believed there was nothing on it. I, nor any member of A Shift,
intentionally or grossly violated any verbal order that we received.

- On August 14, when Sgt. Westfield Approached us again about not checking
our watch lists, we advised him that we had been and that there must have
been a mistake in the recording of the information. We all advised him that we
would make sure we got them in the future and record them in the proper
format. He then advised us that he was removing the requirement of checking
them twice. Before he left the room he advised us that this was our second
strike and that we didn’t want to get to a third strike. There was no mention at
this time of a write up or any disciplinary action.

- What this entry fails to address is the fact that since August 14th no member
of A shift, to the best of my knowledge, has failed, even once. to check and
record their watch list. After we received clarification of the verbal directive
and the check amount was brought back to one a shift no watch list has been
missed. For 20 days after the second directive and before the notification of
the above entry no watch lists were missed. This brings into question the
reason for the above entry at all, in light of the research shown above.

- In the month of June I recorded 60 enforcement actions, 320 patrol

activities, was primary on 29 calls, and was ranked second overall in patrol

Page: 6 of 9
performance. In the month of July I recorded 27 enforcement activities, 237
patrol activities, was primary on 40 calls, and was ranked third overall in patrol
performance. In fact, I have ranked above average and in the top 3 of the
patrol division for the last year as it has been tallied. My performance and
dedication to my job has been noted in supervisor compliments and by other
officers, and my overall performance speaks to my work ethics. The above
entry appears to questions my work ethic and my drive to do my job, I don’t
believe my performance can be seen in this light.

- After talking to a member of the other day shift team, team Charlie, A shift
members determined that C shift had also received the same verbal directive
to check their watch lists twice a day. This officer advised that they also had
not gotten two checks a day on a number of occasions, but that they had
received no “remedial counseling” or any type of disciplinary action, as of the
evening of 9/3/2019.

- During my Meeting with Sgt. Westfield on the morning of 9/3 he advised me

that my fellow teammates and I were going to be written up for not following
his directive. He advised that someone else had wanted him to enter this entry
under Insubordination, but that he was going to enter it under Remedial
Counseling. I found this interesting because in our initial meeting Sgt.
Westfield had made it apparent that his directive had come from above him
and not from him. I also have now noted that his is interesting based on the
fact that after examining every watch list from 6/19-9/3 it does not appear
that Sgt. Westfield had a vested interest in the watch lists.

Sgt. Westfield went on to advise that he had something typed up for us

supposedly not following his orders a while ago, but was told not to put it in
yet. He told me I should know that everything has to be approved and looked
over before it goes out. I have received entries from supervisor Sgt’s in the
past and it was never clear or apparent that they needed any permission to
write a supervisor note about one of their subordinate officers. This left me
wondering why it was being entered now.

- With all the above aforementioned information I am left with the conclusion
that Sgt. Westfield did not enter this Entry on his own. I have seen his GT
entries before and they are very matter of fact, this entry was personal and
degrading in its intent and wording. I am also left with the conclusion that
there may have been an underlying objective in this entry and disciplinary
action against the members of A shift. The above has shown that this order
was followed and that no officer on this shift intentionally violated this verbal
directive. The entry was severely delayed, and does not mention at all that the
watch logs have been checked without fail since the second meeting. It also
cannot be dismissed that the other dayshift team received the same order,
self-admitted that they didn’t get the double checks, but received no
disciplinary action.

- I hope that they Administration of this department, and my supervisory staff,

know that I have and always will do my job to the best of my abilities and that

Page: 7 of 9
 I want only what is best for this department and city. I do ask questions
sometimes, but I never disregard the order of a supervisor. I will continue to
do my job in the future, and as always, will strive to be a productive member
of this department.

Respectfully – Officer David Schilling.

Supervisor Notes Entry

For: Schilling, David (253) Occurred: 1/4/2019
By: Heath, Jamie (171) Entered: 1/4/2019

Ofc. Schilling completed and/or submitted the minimum standard requirements for
Enforcement and Patrol Activities during the month of December 2018.
Schilling submitted 50 activities in the Enforcement category and 409 activities in the Patrol
category.

Good job!

Supervisor Notes Entry

For: Schilling, David (253) Occurred: 7/11/2018
By: Heath, Jamie (171) Entered: 7/11/2018

The supervisory staff has discussed recent behavioral issues exhibited by Ofc. Schilling over
the past 2 months that has created some concern. Specifically, as the supervisors discussed
the matter it was quickly discovered that these issues were not isolated. There were incidents
involving Schilling complaining to another officer regarding orders he had received from Sgt.
Kepner, questioning Lt. Young and Sgt. Kepner’s instructions to take a report, and
questioning my own orders regarding the issuance of traffic citations for a particular law
violation. The officer’s reactions to these orders were typically a passionate desire to not
comply based on a mistaken belief that his supervisors were incorrect or unclear in their
instructions. These vocalizations, while at times initially directed at the supervisor before
being quelled, were typically directed towards other officers; and in so doing quickly began
approaching insubordination.

Schilling’s mental health and work performance was discussed, as the officer not only
functions as a patrol officer, but is also a firearms instructor, a SORT operator and an FTO.
The supervisors observed that there had been several incidents within the past 2 months
where Schilling has not only made statements that he is overly stressed and overworked, but
has vocalized many times that he is dealing with personal issues at home. At one point he
was given a day off from work after I had spoken with him over the phone and he had stated
that he was in need of a day off to improve his mental health.

Page: 8 of 9
that he was in need of a day off to improve his mental health.

Ofc. Schilling is one of our more productive officers and has always been willing to volunteer
his time to assist the team. Since he has begun exhibiting these concerning behaviorial
issues which are uncharacteristic of his servant mindset it was decided to offer the officer an
opportunity to take advantage of the employee assistance program (EAP).

I met with Ofc. Schilling today and discussed the behavioral issues mentioned above. I
explained not only that they are unacceptable and borderline insubordination, but that his
supervisory staff had grown concerned with his recent behavior .

I provided Ofc. Schilling the phone number for the counselors employed by our employee
assistance program (423-899-1993) and instructed him that he was not being ordered at this
time to attend counseling. I explained that I was giving him the information as a resource
our agency provides to employees who may be in need, and explained further that he was in
no way obligated to notify me whether or not he has contacted or attended any counseling
sessions covered by EAP.

I advised Ofc. Schilling that this was our first response to the issues identified herein, and
while it is the agency’s hope that this non-punitive intervention will prevent any future
issues, further steps may have to be employed to correct any issues should any of this
nature arise again.

Supervisor Notes Entry

For: Schilling, David (253) Occurred: 11/29/2016
By: Young, Jeff (123) Entered: 12/5/2016

On 12/5/16 I was reviewing your cruiser videos and noticed on 11/29/16 at 0139 you were
driving emergency traffic in the rain to a call in Grindstone. I noticed that during the trip, you
repeatedly used your cell phone with your eyes off the road. I suspect you were using a GPS
application. If you need GPS assistance, get a hands free windshield mounted unit. I don't
believe I need to tell you how dangerous this was or why.

Supervisor Notes Entry

For: Schilling, David (253) Occurred: 2/13/2014
By: Hardeman, James (128) Entered: 2/17/2014

Law Enforcement Code of Ethics

Page: 9 of 9