http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=1027&mname=ArticleGroup Tarnished Badge Week 1 en-us 60 See documents here. February 12, 2007 By Bradley Wooten The Milwaukee Police Department refuses to tell the public which—and how many—of its officers have criminal convictions, saying it would be “unduly excessive” to determine the information, and is also refusing to release key identifying information so journalists can find out for themselves, a Frontpage Milwaukee investigation has found. Compiling the information would “so burden” the department that its normal functions would be “severely impaired,” according to an official police response to an open records request. The request sought information about officers with criminal convictions and municipal tickets. The department further denied a narrowed request for officers with criminal convictions and drunken driving histories. Even so, after a six-month investigation by an Advanced Reporting class, investigative student journalists with Frontpage Milwaukee—using a patchwork of sources such as jail, court documents and police personnel cards—were able to find numerous cases of officers who remained on the force after they were convicted of crimes or were cited with drunk driving. They include: • Officers sentenced to work-release jail or supervision by the state. • Officers cited for drunk driving, at least one of whom is a repeat drunk driver. • An officer who discharged his gun outside a bar while off-duty. • A range of battery accusations, ranging from a domestic violence incident in which a spouse’s head hit a washing machine to an intoxicated off-duty officer battering a woman who hit his car with her van. • A pattern of deferred prosecution agreements with the District Attorney’s office in Milwaukee County that allowed officers to bypass convictions, including one case where an officer’s son stabbed another student in the neck with a pencil. The officer allegedly struck her son 20 times with a belt. He was taken to a child protection center. • Cases in which officers have more than one criminal conviction. A spokeswoman for Milwaukee police said the department “can’t” go through its entire roster to dismiss everyone on the force who has violated the law. Jude case sparked concern The issue of officers with criminal records first became one of concern after the Frank Jude, Jr. beating case. One of the accused officers in the Jude case, Jon Bartlett, had been hired by both the UWM and Milwaukee police departments despite having a criminal conviction for fleeing an officer from 1992. In fact, Fire and Police Commission policy allows the hiring of Milwaukee police officers with up to four misdemeanors and two drunken driving offenses. A survey of other police departments by Frontpage Milwaukee found that it is not unusual for departments in Wisconsin and nationally to hire misdemeanants and drunk drivers. Felons are not eligible for hire on any department. The rationale given by some departments is that Wisconsin state law states that employers may not refuse to hire individuals based on past criminal history, unless the offense is substantially related to the job. For example, a recruiter with the Appleton Police Department told a student journalist that not hiring an officer for offenses such as operating while intoxicated (OWI) could be construed as “discrimination.” Greenfield Police Chief Francis Springob said that the state of Wisconsin has laws precluding employers from disqualifying candidates by their criminal past. “However, if there is a reasonable explanation, then it can be okay, but the burden is on the employer,” Springob said. Although the Frontpage Milwaukee investigation turned up numerous cases of Milwaukee police officers with convictions by scouring court and jail records, the complete number of Milwaukee police officers with criminal records and drunken driving histories remains unknown because the department police would not release the information. The department said it doesn’t have such a list, and it would be too much trouble to compile one. They also would only release the names of police officers without dates of birth and would not release personnel photos of officers, making a complete survey of the force by the student journalists impossible because some officers have too common of names to allow for record searches. In addition, the Fire and Police Commission—the civilian oversight body for Milwaukee Police—also would not release how many and which police officers have criminal records, despite being responsible for hiring and some disciplinary procedures. Furthermore, the City Attorney’s office upheld the police department’s decision not to reveal which officers have been convicted of crimes or have had drunk driving citations. The office also said the department had properly blocked the release of officers’ dates of birth and police personnel photos, which would have enabled the journalists to find the information themselves. However, one legal expert said the city ruling on dates of births may not be correct, and the police open records office has routinely provided the personnel photos to reporters in the past. “It was an appropriate response under the Open Records Law because (the police) don’t have the list (of which officers have criminal records or drunk driving histories),” said Assistant City Attorney Melanie Swank, who specializes in open records law. “I talked to them and made sure that they really didn’t have a list, they checked with several different divisions within the police department and there isn’t a list.” When asked if she thinks the police department should have knowledge of officers with criminal backgrounds and release it to the public, she said the office of the city attorney has no comment. And an official with the state Department of Justice’s public integrity unit, which reviews potential open records violations, told a reporter last fall that the office would not even look at the situation for months because a new Attorney General had been elected. “Unfortunately, with the recent elections we will not be able to assist you with your request until the new attorney general has settled in,” said Assistant Attorney General Monica Berkert-Brist. When asked why and when that would be, Berkert-Brist said, “Sometime in February. We’re in transition now and won’t be able to look at your complaint until then.” Officers with convictions can be problematic in court Legal experts say that keeping officers with convictions on the force can hamper prosecutions. Criminal defense lawyer John Schiro, who represented one police officer on a worthless checks case (and then sued her in 2005 for not paying her attorney fees), said that police officers with criminal records can create a dilemma in the courtroom. “These officers can be impeached in prosecutions where they were involved in a case and their testimony leans toward one side or the other,” Schiro said. Deputy District Attorney Jon Reddin agreed. “It creates a big problem because, under the rules of evidence, any witness who’s been convicted of a crime can be asked about that, and law presumes that those people are less credible than people without criminal records,” Reddin said. He said that this is a particularly important problem for police officers because they are called as witnesses quite often. “Normally we don’t call officers who are convicted of crimes, which really limits their ability,” he said. In some cases, the officers were given special agreements by the District Attorney’s office that allowed them to avoid convictions altogether. In other cases, they were sentenced to work release jail or state supervision. Cases—which were pieced together through court records and other sources—include a repeat drunk driver, a theft case from the casino, and battery conviction. In some cases, the officers have since left the force, sometimes after they accrued new charges. In other cases still, they remain police officers. The agency responsible for hiring said that each prospective hire is individually evaluated to consider the circumstances. “Each candidate’s background is evaluated individually, so I am not able to tell you at this time whether four municipal tickets and two OWIs/DUIs would result in a disqualification or not,” said Fire and Police Commission Executive Director David Heard. The questions on the Milwaukee police application are worded as follows: • “Have you had two or more convictions for driving while under the influence, or reckless driving, including at least one conviction in the list five years? o If yes, you may not apply.” • “Have you had four or more convictions for misdemeanor crimes, including at least one conviction in the last three years? o If yes, you may not apply.” Even after the Milwaukee police chief pledged to clean house in light of the Jude case, the police and city attorney blocked reporters’ attempts to learn exactly how many cops on the force have been convicted of crimes. Jude was beaten outside an off-duty officers’ party in Bay View, Wis. in October of 2004. Jude was accused of stealing an officer’s badge and wallet, and witnesses said up to one dozen off-duty officers beat him. Police response Since the Jude case, Hegerty has been looking into the backgrounds of police candidates, starting with the 2004 police academy class, said department spokeswoman Anne E. Schwartz. Some of the officers the students discovered with criminal convictions have now been terminated by Hegerty, since the student journalists were working off a 2005 list of police officers’ names. Some of those officers had remained on the force with convictions for months, or even years. Other officers, including those listed in the bulleted information at the top of the story, had not been terminated as of December 2006, when the class completed the project. Schwartz said that because the crimes are not felonies, the officers may remain on the force. “We can’t go through the entire roster and dismiss anyone who’s had contact with the law,” Schwartz said. “I mean, we’re not talking about felonies here. They can’t be on the force if they’re felonies.” Schwartz asked a Frontpage Milwaukee reporter for a list of the names of officers the newspaper compiled who have criminal records. The investigation launched in December of 2005, after a request initially was made by a previous Advanced Reporting class at UWM for officer names and dates of births. Hegerty denied an open records request for a list of Milwaukee police officers with their dates of birth. Hegerty cited a 2003 law that prohibits the release of personal information, interpreting it to include dates of birth. The department did release the officers’ names to a student journalist, and this information was used by a Frontpage Milwaukee investigative team in the fall of 2006. The law, Wisconsin State Statue 19.36(10), specifies exclusion of the home address, home electronic mail address, home telephone number and social security number of an employee from disclosure. The department interpreted the law to include birthdates, though not specified in the law’s wording, and pitted it against a balancing test. A second request was made and sought to determine if the department knew if it employed any criminals or officers with municipal violations, especially drunken driving. In an October 2006 response, Hegerty said that the department does not have such information indexed on its officers and to obtain such information would be “excessively burdensome” to the point where the department would not be capable of functioning normally. Ultimately the department said the public’s right to know how many officers serve on the force with criminal convictions does not outweigh privacy the department holds its officers to have with regard to their birthdates. The city attorney’s office upheld this decision. This, however, is up for debate, said Godfrey and Khan Attorney Jennifer Peterson. “We have to deal with the statute and balancing test,” Peterson said. “It’s not yet clear whether or not they should be able to withhold such information.” Last September, the open records request was re-submitted and a complaint was filed with the Wisconsin Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Unit challenging the denial of the original request. The complaint maintained that the public’s right to know outweighs the denial of police officer birthdates. In a letter received more than a month later, the DOJ said the complaint should be filed with District Attorney E. Michael McCann. The investigatory team filed a complaint with the city in October. The City Attorney’s office had already upheld the department’s decision of non-disclosure. When the Milwaukee’s District Attorney’s office was asked if it, like the Attorney General’s office, also felt incapacitated to assist the public as a result of the midterm elections, a woman named Laurie in E. Michael McCann’s office said, “We don’t have the manpower to do work for students.” She refused to divulge her last name. “Nobody in the office will be able to speak to that,” Laurie said. “We don’t have time to answer students’ questions. Try someone at Marquette or the public library.” “That’s appalling,” said Molly Christofferson, then District Attorney-elect John Chisholm’s campaign manager. “I can’t believe she did that. You do not gain second-class citizen status for being a student. I’m sure John will have plenty to say on this.” Phone calls and e-mails were not returned by Chisholm or Christofferson to speak on the matter further. The Milwaukee Police Department’s open records department traditionally issues hard cards detailing an officer’s personnel history, including disciplinary history and job assignments. These cards include photos of the convicted. One reporter was able to obtain photos on the hard cards, while other reporters were told pictures are no longer issued on hard cards. The student reporters hoped to match the officers’ photos with photos on mug shots of individuals arrested for crimes who have the same names as officers. Historically, the Milwaukee police have released personnel photos to the news media. “After the Jude incident, I took a look at some backgrounds and I decided that there needed to be a change in the types of people we were getting on the job,” said Chief Hegerty in one media interview. But she didn’t want to talk about the Frontpage Milwaukee findings. Numerous requests were made to speak with Hegerty about her officers. “The chief is not available to address your queries, but as the department’s…spokeswoman, I will be happy to address any specific questions you have,” Schwartz said. Union praises Hegerty The police union said that Chief Hegerty tried to more aggressively root out problem officers than predecessors. As chief, Hegerty is not responsible for the hiring policy. That’s determined by the Fire and Police Commission and the city. “The chief has done an excellent job in cleaning up the force,” said Milwaukee Police Association Trustee Thomas Fischer. “It has been her policy since she took office, and that is why we have supported her and will continue to support her in this campaign.” However, the recent purges enacted in the department have been Hegerty’s only control over officers, because according to MPA President John Balcerzak, the chief has no control over the hiring process. All police officers are hired by the city’s Fire and Police Commission, and the chief’s role in the hiring process is only an advisory one, according to Balcerzak. The chief has no final say whatsoever. “The Fire and Police Commission has all the sway,” Balcerzak said. “The commission is not an independent body, so all of the hiring is really done by the city of Milwaukee. “This shouldn’t be, and it could help in the hiring process if it was independent.” According to Balcerzak, the hiring policy was enacted after a series of racial discrimination lawsuits were filed against the city in the mid-1980s, and the city thinks that in order to hire minorities, they must hire people with criminal records. “When officers are hired, a certain amount of them must be minorities, and another amount of them women,” Balcerzak said. “It’s really a racist and unfair view that in order to get minorities and women, they have to hire criminals, or people with no education.” Balcerzak also said the MPA does not keep track of how many officers have criminal records, and the union officials are unsure of what the exact total is. However, Balcerzak said that only looking at misdemeanor charges on potential officers is an unfair judge of candidates due to variations of statutes across the country. “Something that is a misdemeanor here is not necessarily a misdemeanor somewhere else,” Balcerzak said. “Really every candidate should be judged on a case-by-case basis.” Balcerzak also said that he does not think criminal charges are the most pressing issue in the hiring policy of the Fire and Police Commission. Rather, he is concerned that education requirements are not as high as is needed to ensure good hires. To see the sidebars on individual cops and learn more click “home” at the top. Joe Petrie, Robin Fuchs, Erin Petersen, and Shannon McKenna contributed to this report. Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:28:00 CST http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17161&mname=Article http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17161&mname=Article “She is misusing her police authority” By Shannon Alanna McKenna (See documents in the case here) In January, Milwaukee police officer Tamara R. Crouther made the news, albeit regional news and briefs. She was suspended from the force after being arrested for insurance fraud. The question is why she was still a police officer. During her 13-year career as an officer of the law, Crouther racked up two criminal convictions and at least one municipal violation, and people sought harassment restraining orders against her four times, a Frontpage Milwaukee investigation has found. Yet, she remained a Milwaukee police officer. She is now facing a felony charge. Crouther was accused of abusing her police authority and harassing people while on duty in a growing pattern of problems over the years. Crouther has been on the force since 1993. That was also the year of her first harassment restraining order. Derek H. Clayton filed for a harassment restraining order against Crouther because, according to his written statement in the case file, Crouther was calling his voice mail at work and threatening to find him wherever he went. “She is misusing her police authority to find me for no reason and she has called me at work which is causing me to feel physically threatened,” Clayton said in the statement. Clayton said that he was unaware of whether or not Crouther was reprimanded by the Police Department. “I don’t know much about the outcome of the case from that perspective, but I know no injunction was issued,” he said in an interview with a student journalist. Clayton had no opinion regarding whether or not Crouther or other officers with criminal records should be allowed to remain on the force. A woman sought a harassment restraining order against Crouther in 1995. Yolanda Y. Bender, who was then married to Terrence Bender, also a Milwaukee police officer at the time, said in her written statement that Crouther was constantly calling her on the phone and verbally abusing her. Bender also stated that Crouther drew her police gun on her. “Because she is a police officer she has used her job to get to me by any means necessary,” Bender said in the statement. Crouther received an official reprimand from the Police Department. Bender could not be reached for comment. First criminal conviction Crouther was convicted of unlawful phone use harassment, a criminal misdemeanor, in 1996. Bender was also the victim in this case. Between Jan. 16 and March 23, 1996, hang-up phone calls were made to Bender from the district three area, where Crouther was working at the time, while Crouther was on duty. Crouther was fined $702.50 by the court and received a two-day suspension without pay from the Police Department. Crouther’s third harassment restraining order was issued in 1996. This was filed by Yolanda Bender’s ex-husband, Terrence Bender. He said in his written statement that Crouther had been calling his house throughout the day and night and that she had scratched both of his cars with keys. The motion for injunction was dismissed, but the pattern was building. Second criminal conviction In 2002, Crouther was convicted of issuing worthless checks, another criminal misdemeanor. At Potawatomi Bingo Casino, which contains a branch of the check cashing company Fast Funds, Crouther issued five worthless checks between Jan. 22 and Jan. 29, 2002, that totaled $1,864. Crouther pled guilty to one count of issuing worthless checks in exchange for the other four counts being dismissed. Crouther was ordered to pay the $1,864 plus a $500 fine. She was also suspended without pay for 25 consecutive working days by the Police Department. In 2005, a man named Louis Smith sought a restraining order against Crouther, but the injunction was denied. The following year, in 2006, Crouther received a municipal violation, for unlawful phone use - repeated harassment. The court website also lists a second identical case with a slightly different case number. According to the case file, when Crouther’s then-boyfriend Louis Smith broke up with her, she made repeated phone calls to him with the sole intent to harass him. Between Nov. 23 and Nov. 29, 2005, Crouther’s home and cell phones were used to make a total of 209 phone calls to Smith’s cell phone. Between Nov. 23 and Dec. 24, 2005, Crouther’s phones were used to call Lowe’s, where Smith worked at the time, 95 times. During that time period, Crouther’s phones were also used to call Milwaukee Water Works and the Department of Public Works in an attempt to have Smith’s water and utilities shut off. At the time, Crouther denied making most of the phone calls but said that it was possible she had made some phone calls out of anger. Crouther received a $250 fine in this case. But even all of that was not enough for Crouther to lose her job. She remained a police officer. Smith could not be reached for comment. In addition to her suspensions from the force for her criminal convictions, Crouther received a two-day suspension in 1996 for interfering officiously in the private business of other persons and submitting a false official report. Also in 1996, she was suspended for three working days without pay for failing to promptly obey a lawful order emanating from her superior officer. In 2003, she received a two-day suspension without pay for failing to be responsible for monies which were entrusted to her by virtue of her official position. Crouther has received three official reprimands, one of which was due to her 1995 harassment restraining order. In 2001, she was reprimanded for failing to complete a Wisconsin motor vehicle accident report, and in 2003, she was reprimanded for failing to appear in court after duly being subpoenaed to do so. Crouther’s criminal record presented another problem before she was suspended for the felony last month. Criminal defense lawyer John S. Schiro, who represented Crouther in her worthless checks case (and then sued her in 2005 for not paying her attorney fees), while not commenting on Crouther’s specific situation, did say that police officers with criminal records can create a dilemma in the courtroom. “These officers can be impeached in prosecutions where they were involved in a case and their testimony leans toward one side or the other,” Schiro said. Deputy District Attorney Jon N. Reddin agreed. “It creates a big problem because, under the rules of evidence, any witness who’s been convicted of a crime can be asked about that, and law presumes that those people are less credible than people without criminal records,” Reddin said. He said that this is a particularly important problem for police officers because they are called as witnesses quite often. “Normally we don’t call officers who are convicted of crimes, which really limits their ability,” he said. When contacted before her latest arrest, Crouther, who was assigned to the city jail, said that a police department representative had advised her not to comment on anything. Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:08:00 CST http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17162&mname=Article http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17162&mname=Article "I am the (expletive) police" See documents here. By Dan Polley Ronald Denard Bridges was hired as a Milwaukee police officer on Feb. 17, 1992, but since that time, he has found himself sitting at the defendant’s table in court several times. Despite the outcry after the Frank Jude beating incident, there continue to be cases involving Milwaukee police officers on the force who engage in criminal activity and continue to be employed by the city. Consider the story of Ronald Bridges: He’s been convicted twice of crimes (stemming from the same incident), failed to meet all his pretrial supervision appointments in another case, had a warrant issued against him, and has been the subject of a restraining order. But he’s kept his badge. Bridges’ trouble with the law began in 2001, according to court records. In July 2001, he was charged in Milwaukee County Circuit Court with engaging in violent and abusive behavior, a criminal misdemeanor. According to the criminal complaint, Bridges allegedly pushed his wife in the chest and grabbed her by the neck when she was five months pregnant. The criminal complaint says that Bridges came home and took $15 from Dianne Bridges’ 8-year-old daughter “in order to go drinking.” The complaint says that Ronald pushed Dianne in the chest and “then grabbed her by the neck with both hands and lifter her up in the air.” Dianne was five months pregnant at the time. As part of the case, the criminal complaint says, Bridges “was offered an opportunity to go to counseling through a diversion agreement/program but defendant failed to complete the program.” A September 2001 report to the court from Wisconsin Correctional Services says that Bridges did not keep all of his appointments for pretrial monitoring. “We request that the court address his attendance issues,” said the report. “The defendant was scheduled for eight (8) contacts with WCS since the last court date on 08/09/2001 and kept three (3) of these appointments.” However, reports from treatment providers describe Bridges as being participatory and engaged and accepting responsibility. In October 2001, the case was dismissed after the state’s witness did not appear in court. New charges It wasn’t long, however, before Bridges was back in court. In 2002, he was in a car accident that ultimately resulted in two criminal convictions against him. The charges stem from a vehicle accident about 2:30 a.m. May 11, 2002, when a van with a driver and passenger was exiting a parking lot to westbound Burleigh Avenue near 78th Street. Bridges allegedly struck that van with his van and went up the median and struck a light pole. After he got out of his van, testified Shawnda McKee, the owner of the other van, he said, “You crazy b--ch. You stupid b--ch. This is a brand new f---ing truck. You crazy b--ch.” In the trial, McKee, who was the passenger in the van at the time, said that Bridges was yelling obscenities and that he grabbed her neck and scratched and bruised her. McKee said at the trial that Bridges pounded the top of the vehicle and shouted, “You f---ing stop.” When someone said the police had been called, McKee testified that Bridges said, “I am the f---ing police.” Heather Lucas, the driver of the van at the time of the accident, testified at the trial that Bridges appeared intoxicated. One of the officers to respond to the accident, Officer Steven Svensson, said that Bridges failed both a heel-to-toe and one-legged stand field sobriety tests. Svensson also said at the trial that Bridges’ speech appeared to be slurred. At the trial, both McKee and Lucas said Bridges had allegedly yelled at them, put his hands on McKee and got into a scuffle with other witnesses. Bridges then went back to his truck and was attempting to pull something out when the police arrived. Lucas said at the trial that she thought he was getting a gun. “People don’t go to their truck digging for nothing,” Lucas said at the trial. An April 16, 2003 letter sent to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation from Heather Lucas said that Bridges claimed that he was insured by American Family Insurance, but that he did not have any insurance at the time of the accident. Lucas was ticketed, first for failure to yield, reduced to obstructing traffic, the letter says. Lucas also claimed in the letter that Lucas’ ticket for the accident was written at 2:10 a.m. but that the accident report said the time of the accident was 2:35 a.m. The letter, submitted in the court file, says that a test to see if Bridges was impaired was not given until three hours later at a district station. The letter also raises questions about the veracity of other officers’ reports. Bridges was eventually charged with battery and disorderly conduct in connection with the accident. He was found guilty of both charges. He was sentenced to serve 25 days in the House of Correction, perform 200 hours of community service, and serve 2 years on probation. He also had to make a $100 contribution to a non-profit agency. In addition, he was ordered to complete an AODA assessment and anger management. He was discharged from the probation on Jan. 26, 2005. “His employment (as a police officer) has nothing to do with my representation of him,” said Geneva McKinley, the attorney who represented Bridges in the criminal case, when contacted by Frontpage Milwaukee. She would not make any further comment. Restraining order That same year, on Sept. 12, 2002, Bridges’ wife, Dianne, filed for a restraining order against him. In the petition for a restraining order, Dianne said that “he was drunk we were arguing about something and he came up to my face and held his fists and said, ‘I’ll beat your f---ing ass.’ Later in the petition, she wrote, “In the past there has been violence such as choking me — by picking me up from the ground, pushed me down and slapped me.” Attempts to reach Dianne Bridges by Frontpage Milwaukee were not successful. The restraining order with a firearm restriction was granted on April 22, 2003. In a May 2003 affidavit to the court, Bridges said he believed the court commissioner had misused her discretion in granting the order. But the order was vacated on Aug. 29, 2003 upon a stipulation by both parties. The Bridges were divorced on Sept. 29, 2003, but the agreement took effect on Nov. 3, 2003. “Generically you will find that most people don’t bring an action often times the first time something happens. It’s used the second or third time in an attempt to resolve the marriage. Not an uncommon occurrence,” said Jerome Tepper, the attorney who represented Dianne in the divorce case. As part of the divorce settlement, Ronald Bridges was ordered to pay Guardian ad Litem fees, which pays for an appointee of the court to determine the competency of the client and protective placement. Ronald Bridges did not pay the fees and did not attend a court hearing on the matter on Aug. 17, 2005. That same day, a warrant for his arrest was ordered. The next day, Ronald appeared in court and the warrant was canceled. Several attempts to reach Ronald Bridges by Frontpage Milwaukee have gone unsuccessfully. Bridges has not returned a phone call from a student journalist seeking comment. Lisa Martin, who represented Bridges in the divorce case, declined to contact Bridges for the newspaper and declined to comment on the case. Today, Bridges works days in District 4, which includes the north side down to Villard Avenue and west of 90th Street and east of Green Bay Avenue down to Glendale Avenue. He has been in that position since Sept. 12, 2004. His police personnel card says that he was ordered dismissed from the department in 2003 for intoxication and failing to abide by laws of the state of Wisconsin. However, the personnel file says, in 2004, the chief decided to reduce the discipline imposed to a 30-day suspension. Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:41:00 CST http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17164&mname=Article http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17164&mname=Article "A very poor candidate for employment" See documents here By Robin Fuchs Shortly before a judge sentenced Milwaukee police officer Joseph John Zawikowski for a criminal conviction as a repeat drunk driver, the prosecutor admonished the police department. "Again, he is (sic) being an employee of a Police Department was an extremely aggravating factor here, but when I look at his record of past forfeitures, the Police Department should have been on notice that he was a very poor candidate for employment in the first place," Assistant District Attorney Nancy Ettenheim told the court. But the officer, standing before the court a year ago in January, begged for understanding, saying, "I deeply regret my disrespectful, selfish, irresponsible actions...I take responsibility, full responsibility for these actions." Zawikowski is one of several confirmed officers on the Milwaukee Police Department’s 2005 roster with OWI convictions. In the state of Wisconsin, driving while intoxicated is not a criminal offense until repeated. Frontpage Milwaukee’s investigative team looked into the number of officers on the Milwaukee police force with criminal records after it was disclosed that former police officer Jon Bartlett had a criminal record prior to the Frank Jude Jr. beating case. Prosecutor describes threat On Jan. 25, 2006, Zawikowski was convicted of a criminal misdemeanor for second-offense drunk driving. According to the sentencing transcript for the conviction: Assistant District Attorney Ettenheim told the court that Zawikowski had been observed in the parking lot of a hospital at 14th and Oklahoma, driving around. He was stopped by a security guard there and asked for the name of a particular individual, whose name might or might not have been fictitious. She said that his behavior toward the guard was "very hostile" and that he "in effect threatened the guard by telling him he was a Milwaukee Police Department employee, and he better not take any action, which, of course, the security guard disregarded altogether." The security guard became alarmed and called Milwaukee police. Shortly thereafter, the police stopped Zawikowski heading eastbound on the 1300 block of Oklahoma Ave. Police reported that Zawikowski had all the usual, extreme indicia of intoxication. The written police citation noted a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath; glassy, bloodshot and far-looking unfocused eyes; extreme slurred speech; an inability to stand or walk without a large sway; and difficulty spelling his own last name. The transcript continued that, according to Ettenheim: Field sobriety tests were not conducted out of fear that Zawikowski was so intoxicated that conducting the test might endanger his safety. His blood alcohol concentration was found to be .215. Ettenheim noted that: Zawikowski had been ticketed for underage drinking in Sheboygan in 2001, although the citation was dismissed. He was found guilty of a similar forfeiture in 2000 in Racine County. Zawikowski’s first OWI offense occurred on Nov. 25, 1999 in Racine County before he was hired. He was found guilty on Jan 17, 2000. "There was a cluster of drinking related offenses, albeit civil, which should have been a very loud warning signal to the Milwaukee Police Department; and, frankly, they would have been best off passing on his candidacy at that time," the prosecutor told the court. The prosecutor recommended 120 days in the House of Correction and a $600 fine. Defense asks for leniency Peter Ploetz, Zawikowski's attorney, said he was 25, a 1998 graduate of Cudahy High School, and a 2002 graduate of UW-Milwaukee with a degree in Social Welfare, according to the transcript. He told the court that Zawikowski had been cooperative, was taking the matter seriously, and had sought counseling with good prognosis. He'd also spent time tutoring students and serving as a role model at St. Josaphat parish school. The defense attorney asked the court to consider a term of 40 days in jail with release privileges for work. Zawikowski told the judge that he had sought out treatment on his own. He said that he has admitted being an alcoholic and has "taken responsibility for my disease." He told the court that he had turned to alcohol to cope after his uncle was murdered in Texas in 2005 as the victim of a home invasion robbery. He claimed that he only drank on his days off, and his life "spun out of control" with the incident. "I am grateful that this has happened because it has led me to change my life," he said. Zawikowski said his volunteer work with the children has been a great opportunity. "A lot of them are there on the Choice Program, and their parents are either unable to teach them at home or do not have the time to teach them at home, and I feel really great about the work I am there being able to spend time with them that I have right now and hopefully set a good example for them and maintain the importance of education." He told the court that he had been suspended from the police force. The Judge, Daniel Konkol, called it an "aggravating factor" for "someone that is to be upholding the law to be breaking the law in this fashion." He added, that the defendant "placed at risk many members of the community that came across his path while he was operating his vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, and again, particularly disturbing here is someone who, through their employment is supposed to be protecting the community, instead, he is putting the community at risk." Taking into consideration Zawikowski’s young age, high education and employment, the court ruled that Zawikowski pay a $600 fine and serve 60 days at the Milwaukee County House of Corrections. Zawikowski was further sentenced to attend alcohol treatment. Zawikowski’s driving privileges were also revoked for 12 months, but he was granted Huber privilege for work. The Milwaukee Police Department hired Zawikowski on Dec. 6, 2004. Zawikowski received a 15-day suspension from the department without pay for “a failure to conform and abide by the rules in effect.” A one-day suspension for intoxication came six days after his conviction. He remained on the force and was last assigned to district 7. No comment When reached by telephone, Zawikowski refused to comment citing the matters to be personal. When asked if someone else could speak on his behalf, Zawikowski said, “No…you know where I stand, and I don’t want to talk about it.” Zawikowski’s defense attorney Peter Ploetz could not be reached for comment. The lack of cooperation from all parties concerned in this investigation made the initial confirmation of Zawikowski’s employment extremely difficult. Confirmation was ultimately made through the sentencing transcript and personnel card. Open Records requests were submitted to both the Fire and Police Commission and the Milwaukee Police Department in mid October. By law, an open records request must be responded to within 10 days. The Milwaukee Police Department fulfilled a partial request on Nov. 21, or more than a month after the deadline. Meanwhile, the Fire and Police Commission did not fulfill a partial request until Dec.1. Kari Kinnard, the executive director of the Wisconsin chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, was caught off guard by the investigative findings. “It’s really disappointing that people who are entrusted with upholding the law are breaking it,” said Kinnard. “No one is above the law and as police officers they should be held to higher standards.” While Kinnard found the news of Zawikowski’s case disappointing, she saw it as a springboard to greater activism. “Drunk driving clearly knows no boundaries and it’s something we should deal with,” said Kinnard. “As a society, we have to look at the issue more seriously no matter who the offender.” Kinnard suggested such initiatives as making the first offense OWI a crime in Wisconsin, ignition interlocking devices, sobriety checkpoints, treatment and earlier education on making healthy choices. “We [MADD] can’t tell an agency like the police department how to run it,” said Kinnard. “They have standard procedures and they should follow them.” Kinnard expressed that it is a difficult situation to criticize because citizens don’t have the same power in holding officers to higher standards as we do with elected officials. At the same time, Kinnard recognized that it would not be reasonable to prohibit all offenders from going to work. “Instead, we should look at how we can change these behaviors as a whole,” said Kinnard. “It’s disheartening to hear when people who are role models or are entrusted with the community’s safety let us down. It makes us step back and think. It certainly makes us fear for our safety on the road.” Milwaukee Police Union leader, John Balcerzak, stated that OWI offenses were something that “should be looked at.” “It’s not perfect, but I think the hiring policy is headed back in the right direction,” said Balcerzak. “I think the psychological test is a good idea and the background checks have intensified. I don’t know what the restrictions of misdemeanors are, but everything should be looked at on a personal basis.” The Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission is the citizen oversight body responsible for the hiring and firing of police officers. “The Fire and Police Commission uses a point system of demerit points, which I think is a farce. I think if you want the best candidate, then hire those people. If you want someone with a higher education or without a misdemeanor, then raise the bar higher,” said Balcerzak. Balcerzak personally felt that a higher standard of education is important, but cited that the department has been unsuccessful in the past to implement that hiring standard. Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:56:00 CST http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17165&mname=Article http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17165&mname=Article