This is a special meeting of the Council called for a disciplinary hearing and we will need to take a roll, a roll call. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Thank you. Ms. Lawless? Mr. Martin? Mr. McCord? Mr. Myers? Mr. Stennett? Mr. Beard? Mr. Blues? Ms. Crosby? Mr. Ellinger? Mr. Farmer? Mr. Ford? Ms. Gorton? Ms. Henson? Mr. Kaye? Mr. Lane? Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I've asked Mr. Enloe to sit beside me as the Chair to assist in the protocol and the issues that may arise as it relates to the legal issues associated with the hearing. I think each council member has received an order of proceedings document. If you need a copy of that, we can get you a copy of it. It might help in guiding through the evening. A question that I'll have of the counsel of those representing both sides is, do you wish to have witnesses outside the chambers? You do wish, Mr. Jacobs, all right. So that means that all witnesses would be asked to recuse themselves outside the chambers. Okay. Let me ask Mr. Enloe, do you have anything that you want to share with us in terms of procedure? Mr. Do you want me to outline? Why don't you just give us a quick outline of the opening statements and the presentations of the case and what we can expect. All right. In a meeting with the council earlier, talking about the legal counsel for the parties, there were some agreements that were entered into, the first one being that the parties would limit their opening statements to 10 minutes. And the government goes first, and Mr. Jacobs goes second. Then there will be the presentation of the government's case. And at the meeting of, I believe, March the 15th or 16th, the Council voted that each side would have 90 minutes to present their case, which includes direct testimony, cross-examination, and any rebuttal. Following that, the order of the presentation of the case will, of course, be the direct examination of the witness, cross-examination by Sergeant Rayford's counsel, redirect if any, and then recross. The same process will be used in the presentation of Sergeant Rayford's case. That is, Mr. Jacobs will have direct examination or be cross-examination by counsel for the government. There will be redirect and recross if any. Then, after all the evidence is presented, each side has an opportunity to present rebuttal testimony. The first will be Mr. Horn on behalf of the government, followed by Mr. Jacobs on behalf of Sergeant Rayford. The parties also agreed to limit their closing statements to 15 minutes each. Following that, the council will retire for deliberation. Everybody, that will be in closed session. They will be in open session, and then a vote will be taken at that time as to the decision that the council makes. Any, the council have any questions of me? I have one clarification. I wasn't sure, the closing statements would be Mr. Jacobs for Mr. Rayford and then followed by the government. That's correct. Also, just for the record, the last thing I heard was that Mr. Rayford preferred an open public hearing, and I just want to confirm that for the record. That's true. That's correct. All right. All right. Thank you, Mr. Enloe. Is Council ready to proceed? Yes, sir. All right. The government then will be asked to provide an opening statement. Good evening. The case before you today is about a police sergeant who got involved in a matter involving a member of his family. Instead of using good judgment and properly leading subordinate officers, he inappropriately used his position as a sergeant and as a supervisor to help his stepdaughter. As stated in the charges, on August 20th of last year, Sergeant Earl Rayford, while off duty, contacted dispatch and requested that officers be sent to arrest an individual on an outstanding warrant and who he described as being possibly armed. He asked that the officers contact him before they proceeded to the call. The officers did contact Sergeant Rayford, and he gave them a great deal of specific details about the individual, including a physical description, the clothes he was wearing, the type of car he was driving, his license plate number, and his exact location. The officers went to the location and arrested the individual and planned to charge him with gun-related and drug charges. In addition to being in possession of a gun and drugs, the individual was also in possession of approximately $455. Based on these three things, the officers decided to charge the individual with drug trafficking and carrying a concealed deadly weapon. One officer, Officer Jackson, took the individual to the jail, while the other officer, Officer Hoskins, took the evidence to headquarters to be booked. Both officers were contacted by Sergeant Rayford, who asked about the $455. Officer Hoskins was in the process of booking the money when he was contacted by Sergeant Rayford. Sergeant Rayford explained that the money belonged to the suspect's girlfriend, that it was her rent money, and asked Officer Hoskins to return the money to the girlfriend. Sergeant Rayford gave the officer an address for delivery of the money. As you will hear, when Officer Hoskins arrived at the address, the person who came out to meet him was actually Sergeant Rayford's wife, the girlfriend's mother. The girlfriend was Sergeant Rayford's stepdaughter. At no time during any of the conversations with either of the officers did Sergeant Rayford disclose that the suspect's girlfriend was his stepdaughter. Because Sergeant Rayford requested that the money be returned and not booked into evidence, the officers decided that they had to charge the individual with drug possession rather than trafficking. This led prosecutors to question the circumstances surrounding the incident and why the money was not booked into evidence. Upon reviewing the allegations concerning Sergeant Rayford's misconduct and that he inappropriately used his position to help a family member, and after hearing from Sergeant Rayford, the Disciplinary Review Board's recommendation was that he be demoted. At the end of the hearing this evening, we will ask you to take appropriate disciplinary action against Sergeant Rayford, the minimum of which should be a demotion. Thank you, Ms. Humphrey. Mr. Jacobs What I just heard was not what Sergeant Rayford's charged with Sergeant Rayford has been charged with causing something that did not occur. He has been charged with, and this is verbatim in the charges, due to Sergeant Rayford's actions, the original drug charge placed on the suspect was changed from trafficking in a controlled substance to possession of a controlled substance. This led prosecutors to question the circumstances surrounding the incident. Now, it's essential that the council stay inside the four corners of this charge and not go outside the charge which has just happened in this open statement. The KRS 15.520 provides that any charge involving violation of any local unit of government, rule or regulation, shall be made in writing with sufficient specificity so as to fully inform the police officer of the nature and circumstances of the alleged violation in order that he may be able to properly defend himself, the charge shall be served on the police officer in writing. The charge that was served upon him was that he caused the change of the initial charge from trafficking in a controlled substance to possession of a controlled substance. The uniform citation, which will probably be introduced into evidence, which charged Sergeant Del Vaggio Lacks, whatever his name is, with possession of it was said on its face, possession charge was possession of a controlled substance. This was written on there by Officer Jackson before Officer Jackson knew that Hoskins had not booked in the money. Now, the important thing about this is, is Officer Jackson, who is the arresting officer, you will hear from the testimony, is responsible for the disposition of any property found on a prisoner. The money was found on the prisoner. The gun was found on the prisoner. Drugs were found on the prisoner. The responsibility was Officer Jackson's disposition of that. Now, Officer Jackson, in his very first statement about what happened, which was the day, it's dated 821-10, but he says it happened that day. It really happened on 820-10. And here's what he wrote in his first memorandum. He wrote this. It's Officer Jackson. After I had booked in Mr. Lacks, and that's when he put down possession of controlled substance. After I had booked in Mr. Lacks, Officer Hoskins advised me that he had not booked in the money, and that Sergeant Rayford had asked him to deliver the money to the suspect's girlfriend. Number one, the charge was never changed. Officer Jackson put it down before he even had talked to Hoskins about this by Jackson's own words. There's a clarification was asked of Jackson on the 23rd, because he never mentioned anything was there anything wrong with his money. He never mentioned it in his initial statement. And he said Jackson told Sergeant Rayford that he no longer had the money when Sergeant Rayford talked to him and that it was being booked in at that very time by Officer Hoskins and the conversation between Rayford and Jackson ended. Officer Jackson had abandoned his obligation with that money. Hoskins let Hoskins do what he wanted to with it. Sergeant Rayford had nothing to do with any of that. Now, there's another charge in here which is, forgive me, but there's another charge in here that says that this was the secrecy of all this. is what they're concerned about, that Sergeant Rayford never identified the relationship of his stepdaughter and his wife and all this when this money was being handled by Officer Hoskins. Well, that's Officer Jackson's fault because Officer Jackson had told Sergeant Rayford, when Sergeant Rayford and Jackson first spoke to each other, that Jackson had been out to that address, the very address on Winburn, that Sergeant Rayford said this suspect could be picked up, and remember being out there, remember being out there, I recall it involved Sergeant Rayford's stepdaughter, deputy stepdaughter Jessica, and her sister, Deanna, and this Lax guy, Bob Lax's car. This was commented on during the conversation, the first conversation that Sergeant Rayford had with Officer Jackson. But the most telling of all is this. Jackson never mentioned any of this to Hoskins, but Jackson's father, Jackson's father is Rayford's wife's first cousin. Where is the secrecy in this? Jackson knew who everybody was. And not only that, Jackson is also related to Jessica, the stepdaughter by marriage. Jackson was related to Jessica by marriage because Jackson's father was married to Jessica's aunt. Where is the secrecy in this? Number one, Sergeant Rayford didn't cause anything to happen. It already had happened before he called anybody, and there's nothing secret about this. Everybody's kin to everybody. This shouldn't be here. This charge shouldn't be here. I tried to bring to y'all's attention, and y'all wanted to have your evidence, and you're, of course, entitled to hear that. But I tried to prevent this event from happening. I was not good enough to do that, but did the best I could In any event if there's any embarrassment here It's not caused by Sergeant Rayford embarrassment may be on the department for bringing charges They're not viable they don't exist bringing a charge against him for doing nothing wrong Don't hold that against Sergeant Rayford if anybody gets embarrassed about this. It's not our fault All right. Thank you, Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Stigler? Yes, please. All right. The government will present its case next and begin by examination of witnesses. Yes, we would like to call our first witness, Officer Michael Jackson. All right. Thank you. Officer Jackson, here we go. I need to swear you in, please, sir. Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Thank you. Hi, Officer Jackson. I'll be asking you questions. If you wouldn't mind, could you please state your name for the record? Mike Jackson. And you know that you're here today to testify in the disciplinary hearing against Sergeant Earl Rayford. Yes, ma'am. Are you familiar with the events that occurred on August 20th relating to Sergeant Rayford? Yes, ma'am. Could you please tell us what you know about those events? Okay. The 21st of 2010, looks like August, I guess, we just passed the 1053 Windburn for an attempt to pick up on the subject. Excuse me, if you wouldn't mind speaking into the mic so everyone can hear you. We were dispatched at 10-53 in reference to an attempt to pick up on a subject that had warrants and was supposedly known to carry a gun and a known drug dealer in the area. Upon our arrival, myself and Officer Hoskins came in contact with the subject and he did have a weapon on him. Before I arrived, we were instructed to contact Sergeant Rayford about the call, and he was going to instruct us, pretty much give us the identifiers on the subject, tell us what to expect, what to look for. And he did advise me that the subject was known to carry a gun, he was a known drug dealer, and that he had a warrant that was out of county. When we came in contact with the subject, right in front of his apartment, I guess, he actually walked up to us. I frisked the subject, and I first asked him his name. When I asked him his name, he gave me a false name at first, and after talking to him a little more, he did give me the correct name. When I Terry frisked the subject, I asked him if he had any weapons on him. As I was patting him down, we located a .357 magnum in his waistband, a small amount of narcotics and $455.75 in his front pocket. At that time, the subject was placed under arrest for having the weapon, of course, and the warrant we hadn't located yet. Officer Hostins and I kind of discussed whether or not how we were going to divide the work up between us. At that point, it was determined that I was going to take the arrest and book in the paperwork, the report, and Officer Hostins was going to book in the evidence. So he took the money, the narcotics, and the weapon, and I transported the subject to the jail. And after you transported the subject to the jail, did you have any other communication with Sergeant Rayford? Once I got to the jail, the subject was, as I was booking him in and we were trying to, attempting to locate the warrant, Sergeant Rayford called me and he had asked me about the money that the subject had on it, at which point I informed Sergeant Rayford that I didn't have the money and Officer Hoskins was going to be booking it in. And after that phone call, did you have any other conversations with anyone else? I spoke with Officer Hoskins briefly about the charges that we were going to place on the subject, which is first was going to be, at that time it was trafficking, but they were later changed to possession. And why did you change them to possession from trafficking? It was later determined that the money that we used as part of our evidence for trafficking, I wasn't going to have that money. Hoskins was instructed to do something else with that money, so I changed the charges to possession. And during your two telephone conversations with Sergeant Rayford, at any time did he tell you that his stepdaughter was involved in this matter? No, ma'am, he did not. Just one more question as a point of clarification. When you all received the dispatch call, what was your understanding as to the reason that you all were being dispatched to go pick up the suspect? The subject was supposedly had an out-of-state, or I'm sorry, out-of-county warrant, and that was our reason for coming into contact with him. And do you know how you all learned about the out-of-county warrant? We were dispatched to it, but when I called Channel 1, well, before I cleared the call, the Hoskins had informed me that he couldn't locate the warrant. So I called Channel 1, which is our information channel, and had them attempt to locate it. And by the time I had gotten to the jail, they hadn't located it. So when I actually got to the jail, the subject had a name that was spelled kind of different, and I typed it in three or four different ways, and I actually found the warrant, and then I called back to our channel, Warrant Information Channel, and informed them that I had found it. Okay, thank you. Is that the question? Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. Mr. Jacobs. Officer Jackson, I have in my head, you said this happened on August the 21st? 8-21-2010, I'm sorry. It really was 8-20-20, wasn't it? It could have been. It's not crucial, but I just want to know if you wrote this report out the day that it happened or the day after it happened? The day that it happened. The first one? Okay. The day that it occurred? Yes, sir. Okay. I'm reading from you. You probably got a copy of it up there. Okay. I think you're testifying from it. It's right down there, about four lines from the bottom. It says this. After I had booked in Mr. Lacks, Officer Hoskins advised me he did not book in the money that Sergeant Rayford had asked him to deliver the money to the suspect's girlfriend. However, that did not transpire. Did you write that? Yes, sir, I did. Is that true? For the most part, yes, sir. For the most part? Yes, sir. Which part's not true? Well, according to the way I wrote it, it makes it look like that Austin had called me and the subject had already been arrested. And he was already been taken to the booking desk. I guess when I typed it in, maybe I just used the wrong words, apparently. Used the wrong words? Yes, sir. So is everything else reliable in this except for that? Yes, sir. You sure? I'm positive. So you deny that after you booked in Mr. Lacks that Hoskins talked to you? I'm sorry? You're denying that it was after you booked in Mr. Lacks that Hoskins talked to you? You're denying that now? That's what you wrote? Are you now denying that? Upon our arrival at the jail is when I spoke with Hoskins. Yes, sir, but he was not yet. He had already been placed under arrest, but booked in, he had not been taken up to the booking desk and actually booked in. but he was placed under arrest. But that's what this says here. It says after you had booked in Mr. Lacks, you talked to Hoskins. Yes, sir. That's what it says. Okay, so you wrote out this uniform citation which says, written on it, possession of controlled substance. That's what you charged Lacks with, wasn't it? Yes, sir. You never charged him with trafficking, did you? Well, I hadn't wrote out that ticket prior to. I was actually taking care of the warrant first. As I was taking care of the warrant, I hadn't actually rolled out the suspect's charges as far as the trafficking. I'm about to say it again. I was taking care of the warrant first. I hadn't actually filled out the citation as far as trafficking, but that was my intention is to charge him with trafficking. Prior to me filling out that citation is when I had spoken with Hoskins. I guess he had spoken with Sergeant Rayford. At that point, once he explained to me the situation, then the charges went from trafficking to where they ever wrote down that citation. No, but the charges went from trafficking to possession. What Sergeant Rayford is charged with is you changed your initial charge from trafficking to possession, and that's not true, is it? That is true. Where did you write that down? Well, I didn't necessarily write it down, but when I put the handcuffs on the subject, What I told him was he's being charged with trafficking, possession of a firearm, and the narcotics that he had on him. That was what he was charged with. But, like I said, things changed after the discussion with Charlie Grafer. Have you had discussion with counsel before you came in and testified? Somewhat. Somewhat? Mm-hmm. What did you all talk about? Just pretty much the base of the charge. Talk about this? Yes, sir. Talk about how you didn't really change it, but you really did? No, we didn't necessarily talk about that. Did he talk about the change of the charge? You didn't talk to the lawyer about that? I'm sorry? You didn't talk to the lawyer about that? Basically, I explained to him the same way I explained it to you. When I first placed the answer. My question was, did you talk to the lawyer about that? Well, I'm sorry. I explained it to him. Yes, sir. But you didn't write that on your memo, did you? I'm sorry? You didn't write that on your memo that you did that. That I changed the charge or that I talked to the attorney? No, no. Bad question. I'm sorry. know that you didn't write down your memo that you changed the charge. That's not even in here. Nowhere in this memo is to say that. Doesn't. On this memo, no sir, it doesn't. It's not in there. That's another thing that's not accurate about your memo. Is that fair? That it's not accurate? It's not in there. It's accurate. I mean, I just didn't put that part in. It's incomplete then? Is that what you're saying? I'm not saying. I guess that's what you're saying. I'm just saying not to have it up. Is that unfair to say? Mr. Jacobs, let's give him a chance to answer, please. Okay, is it unfair for me to say that your memo is incomplete? Is that unfair? I guess you could say that. I don't think it would be unfair. Okay. You were asked to do a clarification by Sergeant Russo, is that right? Yes, sir. What do you want to clarify? You had that in front of you there? The memo of 823, two days later, three days later? What do you want you to clarify? Hang on one second. Okay. He's asked me to clarify whether the relationship between Sergeant Rayford and the involved parties had ever been discussed between us. You want to know if you all discussed it? Yes, sir. Did you tell him the relationship between Jessica and you and Sergeant Rayford's wife? Did you tell him about that? No, sir. Why not? What party are you asking me about? Did I know them or do I know them? Yes, sir. Did you tell, in this memo, did you tell Lieutenant Russo that you were related to Sergeant Rayford's wife? That's not what he asked me. He asked me if Sergeant Rayford had ever discussed it with me. And the answer to that question was no. Isn't that kind of deceptive? Y'all aren't going to talk about how y'all are related to each other if both of y'all know that you are. Right. Well. Is that fair? Yeah. If you want to say that, well, you can say that. Okay. What is your relationship to Jessica? Somehow, well, that's a long story, but they say that I'm somehow related to Connie by a cousin. She's my cousin. She's your first cousin? No, she's not my first cousin. I wouldn't even say she's my second or third cousin. She's your father's first cousin? No, she's not my father's first cousin. Did I know her? I don't know. I mean, to be honest, I really don't know. I've always heard in my family that we're related, but I've never seen her family. I don't know. I couldn't tell. Have you ever been to any kind of family functions or church functions with them? No, sir. Never been to a church function with them? No, sir. Never? I've never been to a church function with them, no. So Sergeant Mayford says you have. He's not telling the truth? If he says I've been to a church function with them, I don't recall ever going to a church function with them, ever. Now I'm going to direct your attention to the third memo that you did, which was 9-23-2010. And this was from Lieutenant Russo asking you about, I guess he was asking you to tell him what happened when you got to district court about this. You got that in front of you there? Yes, sir, I do. Okay. I'm going to try to condense this. It says, I advised him. You got to be sure that it said I advised him as briefly as possible. You found where I am there, about four lines down? Yes, sir. Okay. Advised him. That means what, the assistant county attorney that he was talking to? Yes, sir. Okay. I advised him as briefly as possible that we had initially charged him, it was lax I guess, with trafficking, but after some discussion about the circumstances, we thought possession would be the better charge. Yes, sir. Is that what you told him? Yes, sir. That's what I told him. So you told him you had initially charged him with that? Yes, sir. Okay. Did you tell him that you put him on uniform citation or just thought you were going to charge him with trafficking? I told him that when I put the handcuffs on Mr. Lacks, he was charged with trafficking. And by the time I got, when I got to the jail, pulled into the Sally Port, at that point, he was still charged with trafficking. And that until we received a call from Sergeant Rayford, his charges were going to be trafficking. And then after the call, we decided that I wasn't going to have any money to go through my charges. So we changed it to possession. Who's responsible for that money? As arresting officer, was it you? Yes, sir. You're the one who has the absolute authority to either put it in property. There was two officers on scene. Let me finish. Let me finish. I'm sorry. You have the absolute authority to put it in property, put it in evidence, or release it to somebody, don't you? The officers on scene do. Yes, sir. Every officer on the scene does? There are 15 officers. Anybody can do it? Well, between us, it can be. Yes, sir. If it can be discussed, then it can be handled that way. It says in Property and Evidence Procedures GO91-13F, it says property and evidence release requirements. The booking slash case officer or his or her commanding officer may authorize release of property or evidence. Is that, you live under that? I don't have that in front of me, but if that's what it says, yes, sir. You know the policy, don't you? Yes, sir. You don't dispute that? I don't have it with me, but I know, sir, I don't dispute that. You don't see it? I don't dispute it. Do you remember giving sworn testimony in front of Lieutenant Gensheimer of Internal Affairs? Yes, sir, I do. He asked you two or three times during that testimony about changing the charge, changing the charge. And then you probably don't have that in front of you, do you? No, sir, I do not. I'm going to read this to you and ask you if you did or did not say this to him. So he'd ask you a couple of times before that about changing the charge, and finally you said, Gensheimer says, okay, so then when ultimately did you change the charge? And your answer was, at when we got there, I hadn't actually filled out the citation with putting trafficking on it, so it was just at that point I made the decision it was no longer trafficking, I was just going to put possession, he was charged with possession. Is that accurate? That I hadn't filled out the citation and I actually wrote down trafficking on it? That's accurate? What you said that's true? That's accurate. Okay. So as far as having written a citation, you never wrote a citation for trafficking? I had not written out the citation for trafficking. I hadn't done any of the paperwork, though, prior to my arrival at the jail. Do you remember a conversation with Sergeant Rayford when he first called and told you the address where this lax guy was? Do you remember your conversation about that? about to go out on Winburn Drive? Remember talking to him about that? Well, we were actually dispatched to it, and I called him once. I was already there. I was already there when I called Sergeant Rick. So you do remember talking to him about that? Yes, sir. Did you tell him you'd had a call out there two or three weeks before that? I may have. I did have a call out there two or three weeks before. Didn't that involve Jessica and Deanna, his sister, and this lax guy? Yes, sir, I did. Yes, sir, I did. You all talked about that? Yes, sir. Okay. So this connection of Lacks and Jessica was not a big surprise to you? No, sir, it wasn't. Okay. That's all. Does the government wish to redirect questions to the witness? Yes, I just have a few points to clarify. First, Officer Jackson, did either Mr. Horne or I tell you what to say in regards to your testimony? No, ma'am, neither of you did. Thank you. Okay, when you arrested the individual at the scene, you and Officer Hoskins had agreed to charge him with what? Trafficking. Trafficking, and why did you decide to charge him with trafficking? Due to the amount of money that he had on him. He had a weapon in his possession, and he had narcotics in his pocket, and he had various bills that usually all those things add up to trafficking. And when you arrested him, you told him what he was being charged with? Yes, ma'am, I did. And then once you got to the jail, when you were booking him, what changed your mind? Again, after Hoskins had had the conversation with Sergeant Rayford, and they determined that I wasn't going to have any money to book in, I didn't want to charge him with trafficking. I have to explain later down the road how I was trafficking. He didn't have any money on it. So even though you had already told him what he was going to be charged with, once you found out that there was no money, you changed that when you were actually putting it on the paper. Is that correct? Exactly. Okay. And then one other thing. While you were at the jail, did you receive a call from Sergeant Rayford? Yes, ma'am, I did. And what did he tell you during that call? He had asked me about the money, and he started to state that the money did not belong to the subject, At which point I told him, I said, Sarge, I don't have the money. Hoskins is booking the money in right now. And he says, well, okay, let me give Hoskins a call. Did he during that conversation tell you who the money belonged to? I don't recall him saying it. I just remember him saying that the money didn't belong to the guy. He may have said that it belonged to the guy's girlfriend or something like that, but he didn't. You know, it was such a brief conversation that as soon as he mentioned money, I just kind of told him that I didn't have it. Hoskins had it and our conversation ended. And during that conversation, he didn't disclose to you that Jessica was involved? No, ma'am. Okay, thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you, Ms. Humphrey. Officer, thanks very much. Did I get a rebuttal? All right. Yes, Mr. Jacobs, go ahead. When you first talked to Sergeant Rayford initially when this thing started, he never mentioned to you about any money, did he? He never said anything about money. He talked about a gun. He talked about he might have drugs, but he probably had his arms, and that was all he said? Prior to us coming into contact with the subject? Yes, sir. It was later on that he called about it and asked did he have any money on him, right? Yes, sir. Okay. So he wasn't calling about the money. He called to see if he had any money on him, right? Because he didn't know about if he found any money on him or not. That's what he was asking you, wasn't it? When he called me while I was at the jail, he said, what about the money the subject had? Apparently he knew the subject had money on him. Right, but he asked you if he found money on him, didn't he? Or if it's the money on him. Did he ask you? If he asked me, did he have money on him? Yeah. Soon he already knew. He asked me, what did we do with the money and that the money didn't belong to him. He didn't say, did he have money on him? He already knew it, apparently. So what did he say? I know he's got money on him. Did he say something like that? Well, he said the money that the soldier had on him, that's not his money. It belongs to his girlfriend. And at that point, I said, Sergeant, I don't have it. I don't have the money. Hoskins is booking it in right now. Did you ever tell Sergeant Rayford that this money was evidence? Did I tell him that it was evidence? Yes. Did you tell him it was evidence? Well, at that time, he was being charged. I didn't think I had to tell him that it was evidence. I mean, he had narcotics on him. He had a gun on him. I didn't tell him. No, I did not. You did not tell him it was evidence. Okay. You didn't think it was evidence either, did you? I knew it was evidence. Then did you tell Hoskins to book it in as evidence? Yes, sir, I did. Why didn't he do it? You'd have to ask Sergeant Ray from the Hoskins Act. As far as it was, last I talked to Hoskins, when he was in the Route 2 headquarters, we had already discussed how we were going to handle it. The plan was that Hoskins was going to book in the money, the gun, and the drugs. My plan was to complete the arrest. And when I got a phone call from Sergeant Rayford and Sergeant Hoskins, that's when everything changed. We already had it set up as far as how it was going to be handled. All you're talking about is you're going to the detention center and he's going to the headquarters. I'm not talking about that. So you left it up to Hoskins to do whatever he wanted to do with the money, book it in his property? No, I didn't leave it up to Hoskins to do whatever he wanted to do with the money. Prior to us leaving the scene, it had already been discussed that the host is going to take the money, the drugs, and the gun to headquarters and book it in as evidence. Okay, but he changed his mind, didn't he? Apparently. I mean, I wouldn't say he changed his mind, but when I talked to him prior to that, when Sergeant Rayford talked to him, he was already at headquarters booking it in. I don't know what happened from the time when he got to headquarters and he was booking it. I don't know. How far is it from headquarters to the 600 block of Elm Tree? I don't want to speculate enough far. I don't know. Not very far, is it? No, I guess not. Six, eight blocks, ten blocks maybe? I don't know. I guess so. You know where 600 block of Elm Tree is? I'm sure I can find it. I don't know where it is. I don't know where I can. No, sir, I do not. There's nothing that compelled Hoskins to do anything with that money, since he was, are you saying he had the same authority you did over that money? Yes, sir. He could have done, he could have booked into evidence, booked into property, or taken it where he took it, couldn't he? That wasn't the discussion. In fact, that never even crossed either one of our minds. I guess he was going to do what we normally do with evidence, and that's take it down to headquarters and book it in. Well, now, my question was, he could have done any of those three, couldn't he? Would he have been wrong in any of those three? In my opinion, he would have been wrong if he took it somewhere else other than where we had discussed it was supposed to go. Has any discipline been labored against you for what you all did? No, sir, I have not. You know if it has against Hoskins? Not that I know of. Okay. Did any of you, either of y'all call your sergeant or anything about this and say, what should we do about this? I didn't. I don't know if I, I mean, you'd have to talk to Hoskins. I never called my sergeant because I was, like I said, I was already booking in the subject. This was no big deal, right? No need to call a sergeant. At that point, it wasn't. But like I said, things changed once he got to headquarters. As far as I know, it was just routine arresting the subject and booking in evidence. Things changed when Hoskins decided to do what he did? Is that what you're saying? Things changed when Sergeant Rayford called us, I guess. I mean, we already had our minds made up as far as what we were going to do. He's not your commanding officer, is he? No, sir, he isn't. Okay. That's all. Any other questions? All right. Wish to call another witness. May Officer Jackson be excused? Pardon? Yes, officer. Thank you very much. Officer Jackson. Our next witness is Officer Jack Hoskins. Thank you. Yeah. Sorry. Promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Hi, Officer Hoskins. I'm over here. I'll be asking questions. If you wouldn't mind, could you state your name for the record? Jack Hoskins. Okay, and you know that you are here today to testify in the disciplinary hearing against Sergeant Earl Rayford. Is that correct? Yes. And are you familiar with the events that occurred on August 20th of 2010 relating to Sergeant Rayford? Yes. Could you please tell us what you know about those events? It was near noon. We had gotten a dispatch call, myself and Mike Jackson, for an attempt to pick up. It's just generally someone's got a warrant, and we're going to go. They're at a certain location where we're going to try to pick them up. The complaint on the call was Sergeant Rayford. It was to go through the address of 1053 Winburn and then to give him a call prior to arriving. Before I got there, I had called and contacted Sergeant Rayford. He told me, you know, Devoggio is lax, gave a date of birth, gave a good description, orange shirt, had bleached tips on his dreadlocked hair. He told us the warrant was for, I believe, drugs. He told us he was possibly carrying a firearm. Gave an apartment where he should be, if not another apartment where he should be. He told us the vehicle he was driving, various things like that. Anyway, I arrived at the scene first before Officer Jackson. I did see the vehicle that Sergeant Rayford told me would probably be there. So I waited on the side of the building for Officer Jackson to arrive. When he showed up, I told Officer Jackson, hey, the vehicle is there. So we went to the back. We got up to the apartment where he was supposed to be. and when we was getting ready to make a contact or make a knock on the door, I happened to see a flash of orange go across the window, and this is like a third floor window. I looked out and looked down, and I saw what looked like Mr. Lacks, a good close description of him anyway, coming up the steps with another person. So I told Officer Jackson, it looks like I think they're coming up right now, so we kind of separated at the top landing and waited for them to come up. When they got to the middle landing, I kind of walked down and met Mr. Lacks and the other subject. I don't remember his name that he was with, but Mr. Lacks turned and walked away from me and started going the opposite direction. I stayed with the other gentleman. Officer Jackson walked down the other side and met with Mr. Lacks. Again, the look from the description Officer Rayford had given us said that was probably a good match for who it was. So we asked his name. He didn't tell us that was his name and gave us a false name, but he told us the same date of birth except for a couple years was off. We kind of knew it was him. We asked him, you know, is he having weapons, guns, drugs, anything like that. He did admit to having a firearm on him. He did admit to having some narcotics on him as well. So once we had him detained, we did confirm the warrant, or tried to confirm the warrant through Channel 1 later on. But during a search incident to arrest, we recovered some money, $450-some. I'm not real clear. I don't remember the exact denomination, but it's $450-something. He immediately told us that money's not his, that's his girlfriend's. Can he give that money to the other gentleman that was with him? Again, I don't remember his name. The other gentleman wasn't being charged with anything. We told him, like, you know, this is part of your evidence. We're going to hang on to it. We need to book this in. So as we were taking Mr. Lacks out to the car, Officer Jackson and I decided what we're going to do for the paperwork and how we're going to divide it up. He was going to take the arrest. I was going to book in the evidence. So as we left from there, I called Sergeant Rayford, told him, hey, we did pick him up, and told him he had the guns, drugs, and money on him. He told us, good job, and we hung up. About halfway down there, I realized I didn't get the Social Security number from Officer Jackson before we left, so I tried to run him on my computer to get the information, and the warrant never popped up. Okay, so I tried it again, and again, the warrant didn't pop up. So I called Mike. I said, hey, I'm sorry, Officer Jackson, have you tried to run him yet? I'm not showing a warrant pop-up anywhere. He says, no, I've not tried. I said, okay, I'll call Sergeant Rayford and asked him. Called him, and he said, you know, yeah, we've had trouble locating it today, but I can tell you that it is confirmed through Bourbon County. I talked to him myself. I said, okay. So I called Officer Jackson back and told him, like, you know, you're probably going to have to go through our information channel and have it faxed. it's not showing up as an E-warrant in our system. I told him when Sergeant Rayford had told us. After that, I arrived at headquarters and was booking in the evidence. I believe Mike may have called, or I called him one, concerning the amount of the drugs. It's something we have to list on the citation sheet when we book them in. And nothing was ever discussed there. And a few minutes later, I got a call from Sergeant Rayford saying, hey, I'm going to need you to take that money to his girlfriend. That money belongs to his girlfriend. And he said, hang on a second. I'll give you an address. And he came back and gave me an address. I don't recall the numeric, but it was off Elm Tree. I was like, oh, okay. Again, I wasn't real sure about that. I wasn't real confident. But I went ahead, and at the time, Mike Jackson was trying to call me, and I couldn't answer because I was talking to Sergeant Rayford when I hung up. I called him back, and I said, hey, you're not really going to believe what Sergeant Rayford asked me to do. And he said, you know, he just called me and was asking about the money. I told him I don't have anything to do with it. Officer Hoskins has the money. He's booking it all in. You need to call him. So that's where we left. I left from there after booking in the drugs and the firearm and went to the Umtree address. I parked a couple houses away from the house where we were going as I was walking up. I know the female came out and greeted me, hello, Officer Osgood. I didn't know her, and she was too far away from me to read my name tag, so I wasn't sure who she was. she did not appear to be someone of age for a 25 year old of the Mr. Lacks we were we were arresting at the time so she walked up to me and she says hey why don't you just give the money to me if if we give it to my daughter she's probably going to go ahead and use the money to bail Mr. Lacks out and I was kind of looking at her funny I couldn't put two to two together and finally she said, oh, I'm Connie Rayford, I'm Earl's husband, sorry, Rayford's husband. And I said, oh, okay. So I gave her the money and I left after that. Wasn't feeling good about it at all. So I parked a couple blocks down and called my sergeant, Sergeant Familiario, and kind of told him what happened. I said, look, I'm not trying to get in my trouble, I'm not trying to spread rumors, but I just need somebody to know what happened. He says, yeah, you need to go get her to sign an evidence release at this time. So I hung up with him, and I called Sergeant Rafer back. I said, hey, I wasn't real comfortable with this. I really need her to sign an evidence release saying that she's taking ownership of this money. And he said, okay, that won't be a problem. And at that time when I said, I need your wife to sign this evidence release, And he said, okay, that was the first mention, anything I'd ever said about any kind of family, I wasn't even aware that it had anything to do with the family at the time. But again, he said that won't be a problem, so I did drive back and she did sign the evidence release. That's about it. Thank you. Just a couple of points. During any of your conversations with Sergeant Rayford, did he disclose to you that this matter involved his stepdaughter? No. So when he told you about returning the money, he didn't tell you that his stepdaughter was involved? No, he mentioned it was Mr. Lacks' girlfriend, and then I needed to take it back to her because it's her rent money. And when you took the money to headquarters, if you hadn't received the phone call from Sergeant Rayford, would you have booked the money into evidence along with the drugs and the gun? Yes. Thank you. I have no further questions. Mr. Jacobs. Officer Hoskins, before you... You're all right now. Before you turn loose of that money, did you know who you were giving it to? What she told me, yes. She told me. You knew that she was Sergeant Rayford's wife before you gave her the money, is that right? Yes. Okay. Why did you give it to her? Sergeant Rayford kind of told me to do that It seemed to me, given that she knew who I was I did not, to my knowledge, have never met her Maybe I have, I don't know, but to my knowledge, I've never met her She knew the situation, she knew to come up and say, hey, I'm Earl's wife What do you think is suspicious about all this? I may not like your answer, but I'd like to know what's wrong with what happened here suspicious. You said you weren't comfortable. You didn't like what was going on. I wasn't comfortable that that's not normally how we do things. Generally, like I said, he originally was going to get a trafficking charge because of the money involved. And because we had to now give the money away, we had to change his charge. He's now in possession. Sergeant Rayford didn't make you give the money away, did he? He told me to take the money to... Is that an order? I took it as one, sir. You did? Yes, sir. Why? Is he your commanding officer? No, sir, but he's a sergeant. Don't you have a sergeant? I do. Did you call your sergeant and say, do I need to do what he tells me to do? Sir, it's not how we operate. Why not? Not. You called him after you did it. I did, because I wasn't comfortable. You got uncomfortable after you gave the money to Sergeant Rayford's wife, knowing it was his wife, and then you call your sergeant and then you felt better? I don't feel better today, sir. Okay, did Sergeant Famularo say to you, you gave money to somebody and didn't get a receipt? Did he say something like that to you? He just kind of said, that's not right. You need to call her and get this signed. Do you think maybe you hadn't done it right? You hadn't gotten a receipt? Did he comment about that to you? I'm very clear that I should have. Did he chew on you a little bit? I'm sorry? Did he chew on you a little bit about it? Not so much, no. Okay. He said, call Sergeant Rayford and see if he'll get Mrs. Rayford to give you a receipt. That's what you did. He just said that you need to get an evidence sheet signed by Mrs. Rayford. Okay. But what you did is you called Sergeant Rayford and said, will she sign a receipt? Yes. Is that what happened? Yes. He said, sure. Yes. Right. And do you know whether or not he called her and said he's coming to get his receipt signed? Do you know about that? I assume he did because he said, go ahead and go by. She'll be there. I'll go in and give a call. And she was standing by. What's sinister about this? Everybody's open. Everybody's open about this. I'm trying to figure out what we were uncomfortable about. That's just not how we handle evidence, sir. What? I mean, we're changing the charge. Okay, I don't know that this involves family at the time. Basically, he's telling me to take money from someone who, you know, for me, it's evidence. We're using it for a charge on. But now he's saying, okay, give it to somebody else. So now we can't use that. So now I'm thinking, okay, I'm not going to lie, there was a little bit of agreement in mind. Okay, well, the suspect did say, yes, that this is my girlfriend's money. So at that point, it's like, well, okay, you know, I was kind of indifferent about it. Maybe yes, no, I don't know. But, again, it's an order from Sergeant. I took it. I took it there. And, I mean, to me, it could be an issue of, you know, from an outsider, it could just look like a shakedown. When you learned that this was Mrs. Rayford standing there and you had the money in your hand, did you say, oh, I can't give it to you because you're married to Sergeant Rayford? Did you say that? I did not. Why not? Again, I took it. Given the information that she knew, which I hadn't told her, I didn't know her, She had to have been getting this information from Sergeant Rayford. She could have been Sally Jones, but she said she was Sergeant Rayford's wife, so he gave it to her. Could have, but what I'm saying is... Who's at fault there? I'm sorry? Who's at fault there? For giving it to her? Yeah. I agree that I should not even take the money in the first place. You're the one who felt uncomfortable about it. You went to Sergeant Famularo, Internal Affairs, get involved in this, and all of a sudden he's sitting here and not you. Why is that? Because the original thing, we wouldn't even have been in the situation had he not asked me to take the money to her. I keep on going back to you knew who she was before you gave her the money. I did. Then what was wrong with you? We should have never been taking the money to anyone in the first place. It should have been used as evidence for the trafficking charge. You knew that Sergeant Rayford was home off duty, didn't you? I did not. You thought he might have been on duty? I had no idea. Did you later learn he was off duty? Some days later. Okay. What did they do to you for doing this? I'm sorry? What discipline did you receive for this? Nothing. If you're referring to documented, I mean, of course, like I said, Sergeant Rafford, I'm sorry, Sergeant Familiar did say, hey, that's not what you do. But that would be the end of it. Can I shoot a springer at you? I'm sorry? Kind of shook his finger at you? Don't do that anymore? Sure. Like that? It was over the phone, but sure. Okay. Your initial, your 8-20-10 memorandum ends with these words. I realize that following Sergeant Rayford's orders, which it wasn't an order because the charge said it wasn't an order. The charge says it's a request. But you say it's an order. You took it as an order? I took it as an order. Okay. It was not appropriate, and my decision to do so reflects poorly on myself, meaning you, and the division. Yes, sir. Right? So you're confessing to what he's charged with, didn't you? I'm confessing that following the order was inappropriate. Well, he's charged with reflecting poorly on himself and the division because he told y'all whatever he told you to do with his money, and y'all did it. and you confessed to it and he's sitting here. Does that make any sense to you? Again, I was confessing to following an order was inappropriate to do so. You know he's not charged with ordering you to do anything. Do you know that? I don't know the context of his charges. Internal Affairs called it a request. Okay. Did you offer to take it out there? I'm sorry? Did you offer to take the money out there when he told you who it was? What? No, sir. If Sergeant Rayford says so, does he not tell the truth? If he's saying so, that is not how I've seen it happen. Not how you've seen it happen? Not how you remember it? I want to choose my words very carefully here. I took that however he asked me, told me, however you want to say it, I took it as an order. he asked you if any money was found you said yes and he told you whose it was and you offered to take it out there is that false? I did not offer that is false you're certain of that? I am positive did you ever tell him it was evidence? I mean being a police officer you ask 99% of us out here what was found on the subject you would know that it was evidence. My question to you was, did you ever tell him it was evidence? Never physically told him it was evidence. No, sir. Never physically told him? No, sir. Okay. Could have been property, right? Again, nobody's going to believe that knowing what was on him. Everybody knows that's trafficking. I didn't say about trafficking. I'm talking about it could have been property. I understand, but again, I didn't tell him property evidence. I told him none of the above. Okay. If he had a Lacks had a wristwatch, you wouldn't put that in evidence necessarily, would you? I'm sorry? If Mr. Lacks had a wristwatch on, it would have gone probably in property under the circumstances? No, that would probably go with him. Oh, you'd have let him keep it? With a watch? I mean, if it's not involved in the crime or there's no reason to believe it's stolen. But wouldn't he put it in the detention center? I'm sorry? Wasn't he put it in jail? He was. Would his watch go with him? It would. Really? Interesting. You weren't involved in that because that's what Jackson was doing. I don't know. Put him in the detention center. You were at headquarters. He was at the detention center? Okay. Is it the fact that you apologized for your inappropriate decision to reflect poorly on yourself in the division? Was the apologies what let you up? they didn't do anything to you because you said I apologize? I don't know. My apologies was to following an order. It worked. Right. I don't know. That's all. Thank you. Ms. Humphrey. Officer Hoskins, I just have a few more questions for you. First, after Mr. Lacks was arrested and you and Officer Jackson divided up the responsibilities, what were you supposed to do? Book in the evidence. And what things were you supposed to book into evidence? The money, the gun, and the drugs. Now, if any of those items had been considered property instead of evidence, would you have taken those or would they have gone with Officer Jackson? Any of those items considered property? Well, hypothetically, let's say he had a watch, as Mr. Jacobs said. If he had had a watch with him, would you have taken that to book it into evidence, or would that have gone with Mr. Lacks to be booked into property? I would not have taken a watch. So you guys were clear that what you were taking to headquarters was to be booked as evidence? Yes. Okay. Now, the only reason you didn't book the money into evidence was because you received a directive from a superior to do something different with it. Would that be correct? Object to leading. Sustained. Objection sustained. I'll rephrase my question. Officer Hoskins, why didn't you book the money into evidence? Sergeant Rayford told me to take it to the girlfriend of Mr. Lacks. And why did you do what Sergeant Rayford told you to do? Superior officer. And is it customary for you all to follow orders of superior officers? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I have no further questions. Dr. Hoskins, did you talk to counsel before you came in here today about this matter? No. No discussion whatsoever? I don't think so. I'm looking at your property and evidence record of this case. It says item one was a one Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver. Item two was 1.0 grams of suspected crack cocaine. Item three is five rounds of .357 Magnum ammunition. There's no money here. Yes, sir. Is it your testimony that you have to obey Sergeant Rayford when he's not your commanding officer? Is that what you're saying? And giving a direct order by a superior, yes, sir. Did he give you a direct order? Yes, sir. He's not charged with that. Okay. So then you will take this out there and give that to somebody. That's why you took it? I took it as he told me to. Is it an order or not? That's what I just said, yes, sir. You took it as an order? Yes, sir. Did you write that down in everything you wrote? I never wrote anything but a memo. Did you write in the memo he ordered you to do it? To be honest, I'm not sure what I wrote as far as that goes. I've not read my memo lately. That's been several months ago. If I wrote it in there, I did. If not, I'm sure in the several times I've given this testimony, I've said clearly that I took it as an order. Does you believe in something in order, make it an order? I'm sorry? Do you believe in something is in order, does that all of a sudden make it an order legally? I don't even know how to answer that. Let me change it. Are you obligated to obey unlawful orders? I don't think that was an unlawful order. I mean, there was nothing illegal. Why are we here? I'm sorry? Why are we here then? By statute, I don't think that's a criminal order. I mean, he didn't tell me to go shoot somebody type thing. I mean, at that situation. So you're required to obey every order that you're given by somebody who's higher rank than you, unless it's a crime? Unless it's an unlawful order, yes, sir. I'm not talking about a criminal order, an unlawful order. You're not obligated to obey an unlawful order, are you? Correct. You get to decide whether it's unlawful or not, don't you? And take it up with somebody later. Yes, sir. And you didn't do that? I think I did when I called my sergeant. But you'd already given them anyway. Okay. I just answered exactly what you asked me. What? I just answered exactly what you asked me. I was asking you about lawful orders, and you're talking about calling your sergeant. Mm-hmm. Do you consider what you consider an order, but the internal affairs didn't consider an order lawful or unlawful? Lawful. Okay. Then nothing was wrong, was it? Nothing happened wrong then, did it? Criminally, no. What define unlawful orders for me? orders for me? It's just, like I said, he's asking, telling me to do something that would involve a crime within the Kentucky Revised Tattoo. And you're obligated to obey any other order he gives you as long as it doesn't violate some crime? Is that what you're saying? Is that right? You really believe that? Yes, sir. He's my superior. If he ordered you to go up to the Chief and cuss him out, would you do it? No, sir. That's all. Ms. Humphrey, you got any questions for the witness? Officer Hoskins, I promise this is my last question. After you returned the money and you had an opportunity to think about it, did you believe what you had been asked to do by Sergeant Rayford was appropriate? No. Thank you. I just need to ask one question to clarify. Mr. Torn, go ahead. I think Mr. Jacobs asked you if you had met with counsel today and you said no, but do you remember talking to me some month or two ago about this? Yes, sir. I think the interpretation was C-O-U-N-C-I-L. I think you were thinking that he was, Officer Hoskins was thinking the question was related to this counsel rather than C-O-U-N-S-E-L. Just wanted to make sure there was no confusion. Thank you, Mr. Horne. Yes, sir. And then just one other point. You and I did have a conversation about when you were supposed to appear to testify. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. All right. No further questions? All right. Officer Hoskin, thank you very much. May he be excused? Pardon? May he be excused? Yes, he may be excused. Thank you. I'd like to call Commander Lawrence Weathers. Commander Lawrence Weathers. Thank you. Mayor Redekop, Chief of the Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department of Police Department Weathers. I'm a commander with the police department. And how long have you been with the police department? 22 years. And how long have you been a commander? About two years. And prior to that? I was a lieutenant. And how long were you a lieutenant? Maybe about eight years. In terms of your relation professionally to Sergeant Rayford, is he in your chain of command? Yes, sir. So Sergeant Rayford answers to you as a commander? He was until about three or four weeks ago. At the time of the incident that we're here about, he was answering to you as a commander? Yes, sir. And you know that we're here about the charges brought against Sergeant Rayford? Yes, sir. And can you explain to the council how you came to know about the incident? I was notified by my then-assisted chief, Craig Newton, that an incident had happened concerning Sergeant Rayford involving two other officers from another sector. and he told me that it appeared that Sergeant Rayford had used his authority to get the officers to release money. And what did you do at that point? At that point, Chief Newton said that he would send me the information in an email, and I got the information in an email and I requested memos from the officers involved and from Sergeant Rafer. Excuse me, Mr. Horn. Commander, could you get up a little closer to the microphone? It's a little hard for us to hear you. Thank you so much. Thank you. So you asked the officers and Sergeant Rafer to prepare memos for you. Yes, sir. And did they do that? Yes, sir. And what did you do after that? After I got the memos, there were maybe some inconsistencies, and I requested through the chain of command additional memos to clarify some of the inconsistencies. And did the officers provide those memos? Yes, sir. And then after that, what did you do? After that, the inconsistencies didn't appear to be resolved, so I made a complaint on our Form 111 and sent it up through the chain of command for internal affairs to investigate the incident. And is that generally how the process works at the police department? Yes, sir. I'd like to approach the witness. Thank you. It's a formal complaint form or Form 111. And is this the document that you signed? Yes, sir. And what does the formal complaint form initiate? It initiates an internal investigation by internal affairs. And does the complaint, the Form 111 reflect what you felt were the concerns about the situation? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And can you explain to the council what the concerns were? My concern was that the officers were contacted by the sergeant to arrest or to locate and arrest a suspected drug trafficker. The officers made contact with the suspected drug trafficker. They also, I think, seized a weapon and seized money. And during the course of that, Sergeant Rayford made contact with them and asked the officers or one of the officers to return the money to the suspect's girlfriend. Because the money belonged, according to Sergeant Rayford, belonged to the girlfriend. What concerned me was that Sergeant Rayford never told the officers that the girlfriend was his stepdaughter. I'm going to ask that the form be admitted as Exhibit 1 of the government. Objection. So after you signed the form, Internal Affairs did its investigation. Objection. Okay. We heard no objection, right? Right. Thank you. So after you learned about the incident, you felt like it warranted a formal investigation? Yes, sir. By Internal Affairs. Can you explain the importance of sergeants in terms of your command structure? Sergeants are our first line of supervision in our command structure. And sergeants have the most contact with our line personnel. They do our daily business leading our people in the direction that the division wants to go in. So they are very important. So they take, officers take daily directives from sergeants, basically. They're the first line of supervision. Yes, sir. And are they responsible for training? Yes, sir. And guidance? Yes, sir. In the field? In the field and off the field and work matters and some of them even in personal matters. Did you ever talk to Sergeant Rayford about this incident? Yes, sir. And did he ever express to you whether he understood that there was a problem here or not? I don't recall him ever expressing that to me. I know I expressed to him that there was a problem. Let me approach him again. Okay. Yes. Just the highlighted part. Okay. Take your step. Okay. Okay. I remember this. Yes, it does. Yes. And in an email you indicated that Officer, Sergeant Rayford understood how asking for money to be returned can reflect poorly upon him as an officer, especially when money is returned to a family. Right. That's all I have for now. Thank you, Mr. Jacobs. Thanks. Commander Weathers, you were asked whether or not Sergeant Rayford thought that what had happened was a problem. Was that what you were asked? Yes, sir. I believe so. And you said he never expressed anything about that? Mr. Jacobs. I didn't recall that. Mr. Jacobs, excuse me, just Commander. Could you speak into the microphone, too, Mr. J.J. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Sorry. Did you hear my question? Nobody else did. You said he never expressed that there was a problem with what happened? Yeah, I said I didn't recall that. I knew that I had expressed, but I didn't recall it. But he showed me the paperwork or the e-mail where I sent where I did recall it then. He reminded you what you said? Yes, sir. I didn't see that, so I don't, can I see it? Says he understands this is from you to Newton. Yes. Craig Newton. Is he another commander? He is an assistant chief. Okay. Okay. And you wrote, he understands how asking for money to be returned in a case such as this can reflect poorly on him as a division officer, especially when the money is returned to him or one of his family members. If he just said what he did say here, shouldn't this been enough for you to, I can't see him. Officer Hoskins apologized for what he did. Would that have been enough here for you if he'd have said, I'm sorry I did this and this would have gone away? Officer Hoskins apologized. He apologized, said he knew it reflected poorly on him and poorly on the department what he had done, what Hoskins had done. Nobody did anything to him after he said, I apologize. Would that have been enough here? Well, for me, no. No? Okay. If Hoskins had done what he did and you'd have done something, you'd have done the same thing as you did here. Well, Sergeant Rayford is a supervisor. If he does something, it has a bigger effect in my mind. Is Sergeant Rayford Hoskins and Jackson supervisor? No, sir. He's not in their sector, is he? No, sir, but he's a supervisor for the Division of Police. Aren't they answerable to their sergeants? They're answerable to every supervisor. The charges, you've read the charges because you've made them out, right? Yes. You've never put in there that Sergeant Rayford ordered anybody to do anything? That's not in there, is it? No, sir. The word request is in there two or three times. Okay, request. Yes. Not an order, is it? Yes, sir, it is. Why do you put order in there? No, sir. We're trained when we make an order, we are trained to form that order and make that order in the form of request. As a supervisor, as long as I've been a supervisor, I've never said I order you to do this. I always make my orders in the form of a request. Is that policy somewhere? That's what I was taught. Is that policy? I don't know if it's written down, but that's what I was taught. I was furnished information from the government that there was no policy violation at all. Sergeant Rayford. Sergeant Rayford violated no policy other than the charge where it says misconduct. Yes, sir. He violated no policy. Isn't that correct? Other than a misconduct. The misconduct was doing, was what they say he did, was change the charge, caused the charge to be changed, right? Yes, sir. Okay. Of course, he didn't cause it to be changed, did he? I'm going to object to the mischaracterization of the charges. Let me read it to you. If he's not going to read it, I think he should read the whole charges and not just the one sentence that he's choosing. You want to read it to him yourself? Objection overruled. Mr. Jacobs can clear it up. Here it is. This is what you wrote. Excuse me, Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Horn can clear it up. Is that good? I just want right now to clarify that he's reading from the Form 111 complaint, not the charges that were filed in this case, just to make Commander Weathers aware of. If this language is different, and I don't believe it is, you can fix that, but it's what it says in there. Due to Sergeant, you wrote this in your Form 11 formal complaint. Due to Sergeant Rayford's actions, the original drug charge placed on the subject was changed from trafficking in a controlled substance to possession of a controlled substance. This led prosecutors to question the circumstances surrounding the incident. Did you mean to say what you wrote here? What do you mean by that? Explain that to me. The charge is that what Sergeant Rayford did, well, you wrote this, what Sergeant Rayford did caused the initial charge, which was trafficking, to be changed to possession. That isn't true, is it? No, sir. This is in totality. It's not just a piecemeal. It's everything together that led to the misconduct. So if Sergeant Rayford did not cause the initial charge to be changed from trafficking to possession, then he's not guilty of that. But there's other parts to that. There's other parts that you're relying on? I'm relying on all of it together. You can't just take all the parts and separate them out. Let me ask you this question. Why didn't Assistant Chief Newton, is he Assistant Chief? Yes, sir. Why didn't he bring this charge? Because Sergeant Rayford was under my command. You didn't know anything about any of this, did you? Yes, sir, when they sent me the information and when I got the memo. Everything in your Form 11 is hearsay, and you swore to it. That's information I was provided to. It doesn't say that. You said it's all true. It says I receive information concerning actions. And I don't say it's true. I say if it is true. So you're swearing to something that if it's true, it's okay? I don't understand that. If it's true, he's guilty of the allegation. Why the hell have you sweared to something that you don't know anything about? I received information about it, and I'm swearing to the information that I received. So you're saying the reason they picked you to do this was because you're his commander? No, I decided to do that. I wasn't picked to do it. You volunteered to do it? Yes, sir. I felt that it needed to be done. If there was an allegation out there that questioned the integrity of one of my supervisors, I felt like it should be investigated. Now, Sergeant Rayford is going to testify that you all discussed this, and that you had said something to this effect, words to this effect, he meaning you, explained that there were so many negative statements about this, that if he, meaning you, handled it at this level, then there would always be those who would say that he took care of me. No. You deny he said anything like that? No, I did not say anything like that to him. Okay, and do you deny he said this back to you? You mean like a brother taking care of another brother? No, I don't remember. And he said no. He said yes. No, sir. Can I finish my question? Sure. Yes, sir. Sorry. He said, he said back to you, you mean like a brother taking care of another brother? I asked him and you said yes. That didn't happen? No, sir. Okay. Could you have handled it at your level? I could have if I felt like the inconsistencies were answered in the memos I got back. I could have handled it at my level. Did you know that Officer Jackson was related to Sergeant Rayford's wife? I think Sergeant Rayford had told me that. They were related somehow. I don't know if it was exactly to his wife or whatnot. So the secrecy thing kind of goes down the tube, doesn't it, that's in your charge? Well, the memo I got back from Jackson said that he wasn't informed of that. Go ahead. The memo I got back from Jackson says that he wasn't informed that the girlfriend was a relative. Didn't he say something to the effect that they didn't talk about the relationship? That's all he said, wasn't it? He didn't say that it was concealed from everything. He said he just didn't talk about it. And I don't have the memo. I can't remember what he said exactly in the memo. If you're at a family reunion, you don't go around and say, I'm your cousin, I'm your uncle, everybody doesn't talk about who's kin to each other when everybody knows it, do you? If you already know that, you don't tell somebody you're my grandson or you're my uncle. Nobody does that, do they? Does that make any sense? My point is, why would they have talked about the relationship when both of them knew what it was? Those are questions you probably should ask Officer Jackson and not me, because I wasn't there. If Officer Jackson says that they didn't talk about it because they were related, and I specifically asked in the information I need to know if Sergeant Rayford advised them of the relationship with the suspect and the girlfriend. Well, I'm asking you the question about this. The fact that he said to you, and you bought it, that we didn't talk about any relationship, that doesn't prove that he didn't know who Sergeant Rayford's wife was, that he wasn't kin to her, that it was kin to Jessica, whose money it was? That doesn't prove any of that, does it? I wouldn't think it wouldn't prove it, but it doesn't substantiate that he did either. Did you ask for more clarification on it? No, sir. I sent it up for Internal Affairs to find that out. Okay. As far as you're concerned, that made it a secret? It appeared to be secretive, yes, sir. At the time that you were talking to Sergeant Rayford, did he know, if you know, that the initial charge was never trafficking? The initial charge put on blacks was never trafficking. It was possession. Did you know if he knew that at the time he was talking to you? I don't know if you know it. That the charge of trafficking? No, that the charge of trafficking was never placed on the uniform citation against this Del Vaggio Lacks. Well, I would assume it wouldn't have been if they decided to make it possession. That wasn't my question, what you're assuming. Did he know, if you know, that the original charge that was put on there was possession of a controlled substance? not trafficking? Did he know that? You're asking me if Sergeant Rayford knew that? Did you know if he knew that? I don't know if he knew that or not. You need to ask him. Well, I'm asking you if he knew. You don't know. I don't know if he knew that or not. Okay, did you tell him that the initial charge put on there was possession? Did you tell him that? I may have told him I'm sorry, I may have told him that they changed the charge from trafficking to possession. In their head or on the uniform citation? I'm not aware of which one they did, sir. You weren't clear on it yourself? No, sir, I was not. Okay. But you volunteered to charge him? You wanted to charge him? Sir, I didn't volunteer. I decided to. Explain that answer. I made the decision. This ended up to be investigated. And Newton couldn't have done it? I suppose he could have. Why didn't you tell him to do it? He knew everything about it, didn't he? I know he's ahead of you. I understand that. I know you can't tell him what to do. But, I mean, he knew about this and you didn't. I don't know how much more he knew about it than I did. Did you tell him that there was a kind of gossip going around or words to that effect about what happened here? I had heard a gossip going around. What kind of gossip did you hear? Questioning his integrity. Tell me a little more specifically what you heard. Basically, I heard that he was taking drug money and giving it to his family. Who told you that? That was just a talk going around. I couldn't specify one person that said it, but that was just the talk going around. Is that why he's sitting here? Because of the gossip? Not because of the gossip, because some things needed to be proven or disproved. Okay, before the charges were ever made, wasn't it proven that the money actually did belong to Jessica, that she had taken it out of the bank that morning and it went back to who it was supposed to go to? Wasn't that proven to you? There was some money taken out of the bank. Whether or not that was her money, I don't know. You think you should have been charged with stealing somebody's money? Are you not saying that, are you? No, no, sir. This gossip got us here, didn't it? I know it was the fact that the officers questioned his integrity. Which was baseless, right? I don't know. It's whatever the internal affairs investigation turned up. You're the one who put your name on this thing. Yes, sir. And it's okay with you, right? Yes, sir. So you didn't charge him with anything other than this, right? I didn't charge him at all. I just made a complaint. Well, then didn't this start the process? Yes, sir. And the complaint looks, the charges look pretty much like your charges, don't they? The charge. Well, that's the complaint form. That's not a charge form. Well, it reads like the charge. Have you read the charge? No, sir. I couldn't see a difference between them. Okay. It says here that the officers shall conduct themselves at all times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to reflect most favorably on the division. This shall include that which tends to bring the division into disrepute or reflects discredit upon the officer as a member of the division. Does all this gossip factor into that? No, it's what the officers thought. What? No, sir, it's what the officers thought. So he's charged with what the officers thought. The complaint was based on what the officers thought. The officers felt like his integrity was in question. So I sent a complaint for him up so that Internal Affairs could investigate it to determine if that was the case or not. And it turned out not to be, right? I'm assuming because we're here that Internal Affairs sustained a complaint. They didn't sustain a complaint about the money went to the wrong person. No, he's not charged with that. The complaint was that his actions reflect an unfavorable down. You're just saying that back to me. He wasn't giving drug money to somebody. Money went to who it was supposed to go to, wasn't it? Or you would have charged that in here. Yes, sir. Okay, so that wasn't true, was it? That gossip was not true? No, sir. Okay. Do you notice any stereotyping going on here when you heard this gossip? No, sir. You sure? Yes, sir. You didn't mention it to him? Stereotyping? Yeah. No, sir. That's all. Mr. Torn. I just have a few questions for clarification. In terms of, they were talking about a charge being changed from trafficking to possession. Trafficking is a more severe charge than possession. Yes, sir. During your career, did you serve in internal affairs? Yes, sir. How long did you serve in internal affairs? About a year and a half. Was it your experience that led you to believe that this needed a formal investigation? Yes, sir. Is it fair to say that you've signed the complaint, but you, as the signer of the complaint, have no decision in what Internal Affairs sends forward? Yes, sir. I have no decision at all. You don't make a recommendation? No, sir. Internal Affairs makes the recommendation, and it proceeds from there? Yes, sir. So after you filed the Form 111, your part of this was finished? Yes, sir. That's all I have. Is it possible to charge somebody with trafficking without having money? Yes, sir. So the money wasn't crucial to trafficking, was it? Well, I don't know about their case in particular. It could have been crucial to their case. You don't know the facts of the case? You don't know the circumstances about it other than? I don't know what led them to charge or led them to think it was trafficking. Well, nothing prevented them from charging for trafficking, was there? According to them, the lack of money did. Which disappeared because Hoskins gave it to his wife. On his own. Again, that was one of the inconsistencies that led me to send it up. Was it up to the other sector to do something to Hoskins and Jackson, if need be? If they determined that they needed it, yes. As far as you know, nothing happened to them, right? I'm not aware that anything did. Thank you, sir. Thank you. May Commander Weathers be excused? Yeah. Commander, thank you very much. You may be excused now. Government, you have how many more witnesses? Two more? Okay. May I request how much time I got left? We'll add it up just a second. Thank you. I'm going to go. Chief, if you, Chief Bosse, yeah. Just go ahead. I was just going to give you directions over there. Thank you. And I will, after you sit down, I'll swear you in. Swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir, I do. Thank you. Go ahead, Keith. Keith Horn. Mr. Horn. I'm here on behalf of the police. Could you state your name and rank for the council, please? Michael Bossie, Assistant Chief. And you are over the Bureau of Professional Standards? I'm over the Bureau of Patrol and the Bureau of Special Operations. Have you served in Professional Standards? I spent six years in Internal Affairs. And how long have you been a police officer? 29 years. And how long have you been an Assistant Chief? Three. And prior to that? I was a major for several years and then a captain, lieutenant, sergeant, patrolman. Have you reviewed the incident involving Sergeant Rayford? Yes, sir. The first thing I would like for you to talk about is the importance of sergeants in the police structure. Sergeants are obviously our first-line supervisors. They're the first individuals we expect to recognize problems, to take corrective measures. They are our first line of defense in evaluating officers' performance, and we expect them to provide both leadership direction and guidance to our officers on a daily basis. It's fairly important. I would say in city government in 29 years that it's probably one of the most important, critical, The number of decisions they make on a daily basis that can cost the city in lawsuits and persons and personal freedom issues are tremendous. May I approach the witness? Chief, do you recognize the document I just gave you? Yes, sir. Can you explain what it is? It's our general orders that cover our disciplinary procedures. And Sergeant Rayford is charged with misconduct under this policy? That is my understanding. And Section 102 of the policy sets forth the standard for misconduct? Is that correct? Yes, sir. Could you read that standard for us? Can you find it? It will take me a while to find it. Page 1 of Appendix B. Does that help? That would have helped. Yes, sir. Misconduct. Officers shall conduct themselves at all times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to reflect most favorably on the division. Misconduct of an officer shall include that which tends to bring the division into disrepute or reflects discredit upon the officer as a member of the division or that which tends to impair the operation or efficiency of the division or the officer. And for identification purposes, that's General Order 73-2H. That is correct. Can you briefly explain how Sergeant Rayford's conduct, how this policy applies to Sergeant Rayford's conduct? The, one of the riskiest. I object to the, no foundation what he knows about this. There's no foundation to him start testifying about this. The objection is overruled. Continue. Mr. Horne. One of the potentially riskiest areas in law enforcement is the procurement of evidence. During the procurement of evidence, probably one of the riskiest areas is the handling of cash, of money. In this incident, I think Sergeant Rayford did not see the dilemma that was presented as he had personal involvement in his relationships with the persons involved, and clearly the cash was evidence for a particular crime. We have particular standards, especially when it comes to cash drugs, that the officers must follow, and he failed to do that. And in terms of his conduct, that reflects poorly on Sergeant Rafer. Yes, especially in the context as a sergeant when he's dealing with the officers. We expect the sergeant to stop the behavior, and I don't know that he actually even recognized it. And it reflects poorly on the division of police. Yes, sir. And in terms of reflecting on Sergeant Rayford and not only the officers under his command, but the officers in the police department, does it impact their opinion of Sergeant Rayford? It certainly, I believe, would, yes. And does it impact the morale of the officers? It certainly does. That's all I have. Chief Bossie, what do you know about the facts of this case? Do you know all the details of this case? Have you read the internal affairs report? You read all that? I have read the internal affairs file on it. Yes, sir. What do you think would have been the outcome to Sergeant Rayford if he had sat at home knowing there's an outstanding warrant for this man, did nothing about it? Didn't call and say, I know there's a newer fellow he is, there's a fugitive out there, there's a warrant for him, and he did nothing. Would that have been appropriate for him? Would that have been appropriate? If he knew the person was a fugitive and did nothing? Yes. No, I think if he knew the person was a fugitive, I would expect him to take an action. Okay. So initially his phone call to dispatch to tell him that was not inappropriate. That's what he did. That's correct. Okay. And he told dispatch, he was off duty, he told dispatch to have whoever they're going to send to contact him. You knew that? Yes, sir. Okay. And he was contacted by which one first? I don't recall. It was either Jackson or Hoskins one or the other. And you do know that Sergeant Rayford referred them to the address where the fugitive was, told them he might be armed, and gave them the address and the type of vehicle that he had that he was operating. You knew that? That is my understanding. Okay. You knew there was no mention of money when he talked to them the first time? You knew that? That is my understanding. Okay. Okay. They went out there. They made the arrest. They had some problem with warrants. You probably read the part they were having trouble finding warrants that he had identified. You don't think he did anything wrong about them not being able to find the warrants right away? Do you think inappropriate on that? That's not his job. I don't think he would have been involved in that. No, sir. Okay. So you can't hold that against him, can we? Okay. Okay. So later on, you knew there was a phone call from Sergeant Rayford to Officer Jackson. Yes, sir. And you knew that he asked him, was there any money on this lax fellow? You knew that? Yes, sir. Okay. And you knew that he was told by Officer Jackson that he didn't have the money, but that Hoskins had it down at headquarters booking it in? That's correct. That's my understanding. Has he done anything wrong so far? No, sir. Not from what you said. Okay. And you also know, according to Officer Jackson, he had already booked in Lacks at the detention center before he called Hoskins about this phone call, about the money. You knew that. Objection, mischaracterization of what Jackson testified to. It's on his memorandum. That's what he said. It's on his memorandum. I'm going to have to overrule the objection on that. Continue. Okay. You knew because you read the memorandum of Jackson's first memorandum. He said after I booked in Blacks or whatever it was his name, he contacted Hoskins about the money. I don't recall the order. I don't have a... No, it's not an order. It was a memo, the original memo that... Yeah, I don't recall the order how that happened. Oh, I see what you're saying. I see what you're saying. Okay. Now, if he knew who that money belonged to when he found out there was money, he knew who it belonged to, would it have been a good idea or a bad idea to tell them that's not drug money, that belongs to somebody else? Would that have been wrong or right? Well, if he knew that for a fact, he could have said, yeah, it's my understanding that that money doesn't belong to that individual. He'd be doing them a favor, wouldn't he, by telling them that, if he knew it. And there's no proof that he didn't know it because it turned out it belonged to who he said it belonged to. He knew that? I don't know that he knew that that was the same money that was withdrawn from the bank or was taken earlier in the day. Okay, there was $455 on him, and there was $453-something withdrawn that day. That was in the Internal Affairs document. It was at the end there. Those receipts and everything were in there, and the withdrawals and all that, you saw those, didn't you, at the end of the – do you want to look at them? Yes. I recall the $455. Okay. If he had not told them what he knew about that money, which turned out to be true, if he had not told them that, and they had charged blacks with trafficking, and prosecution had taken place, and he'd been indicted for trafficking, and all of a sudden somebody comes in to testify, that wasn't his money, this is the money I got out of the bank, would that be embarrassing to the police department and the county attorney's office and the circuit court clerk's office? the circuit court's office, by prosecuting a guy too high? Wouldn't that have been embarrassing to all of them if they had done the wrong thing? No, sir. Every day in drug cases, you know, there's issues with money and drugs and weapons, and you look at the totality of the whole circumstance to determine whether there was trafficking or not. The money was just one component of the trafficking charge. It would have actually, in my opinion, been better to proceed with the trafficking charge, the way the officers found it. Let justice take its course. Do not let the police department interfere with that process and follow the procedures and the guidelines that are clearly written in our general orders. There is no policy about this. There's not any policy. I've asked the government, is there any policy that he violated? And they said no. He violated no policy. There is a policy that governs the booking of evidence. This was clearly evidence. and the officer, the sergeant, steered the officers in the wrong direction. The booking of evidence is responsibility of the officer whose case it is, right? And the sergeant who he's talking to at the time. You knew he wasn't his sergeant. Nobody was talking to him at the time. No, you knew he was not his sergeant. Yeah. As a matter of fact, he was his sergeant at the time he was talking to him. That's the way it works. Where is that policy? Well, because every sergeant within our agency is a sergeant for the entire agency, not just a certain group of people. That's in their basic training and their basic sergeant's academy. You can say all this kind of stuff, but you can't point to a document that says that, can you? I don't know. I would have to review the general orders to find if it's in writing or not, but I stand by what I'm telling you. Every sergeant is everybody's sergeant? Yes, sir. Yeah, every sergeant has the responsibility over every officer within the division. They can't not be someone's sergeant when they're talking to someone. In other words, they don't get to make that call. When you put on those stripes, you're a sergeant within the Lexington Division of Police, and you have a responsibility to every subordinate patrolman. One of the rules of cross-examination is never ask a question that you don't know the answer to. Okay, but I'm going to ask one, and you're a pretty good testifier. Okay. What did he do wrong? He did not recognize that he was personally involved in this situation and that the money that was involved should have never left the procedure that it was in. It should have never gone from downstairs or down at headquarters where it was being booked out to his personal family and delivered back to his family. It should have, I mean, and it's not something that's this, gee, it's just this little thing that he missed. I mean, that's a big deal. That's what gets police officers in trouble. Even if he knew that Jackson knew that this, he was going to be giving it to his stepdaughter, and Jackson knew that, and Jackson put it in his report, it was a stepdaughter. His first report, he mentioned, identified her as his stepdaughter. He identified, in Jackson's very first report, identified Jessica as his stepdaughter, identified Ms. Rayford as his wife. It's in his very first report the day he did this. Okay? He knew all that. So what's wrong with that? It is absolutely wrong for the sergeant to take precedent over the justice system and make those decisions. And that is basic to our first-line supervision. Taking precedence over the justice system? Correct. The only way to get that money out of the evidence would have been through a grand jury or the prosecutor releasing it, not a police officer. If Officer Hoskins offered to take the money out to Jessica, who's wrong? The sergeant. The sergeant has a responsibility to stop the officer when they're making that kind of mistake. He can't act like the officer's in charge. The sergeant's in charge. You really want to get him, don't you? You really want to get this man. No, sir, I don't. You're testifying so strong. You're so forceful about this. I'm sorry. y'all. He's not charged with all this stuff. Sir, you're asking the questions and I have to answer truthfully. Well, I hope you do. Have you? Absolutely. You testify about policy, you can't identify where it is. And you know I can't find it here when they're sitting here asking you questions. I can't dig through all this and find these policies that you say exist. All I know is I was told by them that he violated no policies. Did they tell me wrong? Did the government tell me wrong? I'm sorry, what's the question? I was told by the government that Sergeant Rayford violated no policy except the misconduct one which is the policy itself. It's the crime I guess. But all the things that led to that. Mr. Jacob, I'm going to sustain the objection. All the conduct that is identified in the charge, I was informed by the government that that violated no policy. You've read the charge? Yes, sir. Okay. Have I been told wrong by the government? Well, I mean, he is charged with misconduct. It's my understanding he's charged with misconduct. Okay, except the misconduct charge. All the things he did violated no policy. Do you agree? I don't know that I necessarily agree with that. I think if we went deeper into the general orders and found and were nitpicking at stuff, but I think the most appropriate charge is definitely the misconduct charge. Okay, but I'm talking about the conduct that's identified in there that leads to the misconduct charge. I was told violated no policy. Was I told wrong by the government? Not necessarily, no. What do you mean not necessarily? Yes or no? Not one of those. Well, it would be a matter of opinion, and my opinion would be that if you went through the general order, yes, I've been in internal, I had spent quite a bit of time in internal affairs, that you could nitpick and find different elements within the different general orders that were applicable, but that this is the most appropriate. So then I've been misled by the government, right? I don't believe so, no. Okay. Okay. No policy jumps into your mind right now that they violated? Well, there is a failure to supervise, but, I mean, if you want me to go into it, I can go through the whole policy and find the problems. Okay, but he wasn't charged with failure to supervise, was he? No, sir. He was charged with misconduct, which is the most appropriate charge. But you went off into a policy that he was not charged with, and you found something that he wasn't charged with. That's all I'm saying, right? He wasn't charged with paid or supervised. Correct. I've got to save some time for my client. I'm running out of money. I mean money. Thank you. All right. Mr. Horne. I have no questions. No more questions? Okay. May Chief Bossie be excused. Chief Bossie. Thank you, sir. You're excused. Thank you. And between this witness and the next, we're going to take a ten-minute break. All right. Thank you. The End Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. The End Thank you. The End Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. The End We are in the procedure. Mr. Jacobs, you have 31 minutes left. Mr. Horne, you and Ms. Humphrey have 52 minutes left. And, Mr. Enloe, tell us in the full context of the proceeding where that puts us then, if you would. We have an hour and 23 minutes left. And then the Council? Then there will be closing arguments, closing statements, and then the Council will go next. So closing statements after the remaining time, right? That's correct. All right. Okay. Okay. So, Mr. Horn. Chief Baston, yeah, I need to swear you in, Chief. Thank you. Do you promise to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, sir. Would you state your name and rank for the record? Ronnie Baston, Chief of Police. Chief, obviously you know we're here about Sergeant Rayford, but the first thing I wanted to ask you about is the discipline process, how you become involved in that process. Okay, we had a little bit of a description of that, but I'll lead you through sort of from the beginning stage up through to where we are now. It begins by getting information in about the possible wrongdoing or misconduct of an officer. A commander usually will solicit memorandums or get some information to collect to see if there's enough information to warrant following a formal complaint, a Form 111 that we've talked about a lot. Once a Form 111 has been filed, Internal Affairs assumes the responsibility for the investigation. Once the investigation is completed, then I exercise an option to meet with the individual to see if we can have a resolution at that point before we move further. If there's no resolution at that point, then the individual is scheduled and the case is scheduled to be heard, for lack of a better term, by the Disciplinary Review Committee, which is a committee made up of several commanders and a union representative from the Division of Police. That hearing is a fact-finding investigative arm. Once the committee completes their investigation, they make a recommendation back to my office with either a finding of improper conduct, proper conduct, the charge is unsubstantiated or unfounded. There are several dispositions that it can have, and then they'll offer a recommendation for punishment if they find improper conduct. After that, I meet with the individual, inform them of that recommendation and what my recommendation would be, again, to give an opportunity to have the situation resolved. And if there's no resolution, then I forward that information with a recommendation to the law department to file charges at that point with Urban County Council. Okay. And the review board you indicated is made up of several commanders. And rank-wise, that's assistant chiefs and commanders? That's correct. And is that what happened in Sergeant Rayford's case? It is. And so you had a meeting with Sergeant Rayford prior to the review board? I did. And what did Sergeant Rayford indicate to you about the accusations? Sergeant Rayford didn't accept responsibility for the misconduct that was alleged and that was found to be ultimately later improper by the disciplinary committee. And I offered an opportunity to get it over with at that stage. I felt like if we were able to reach a resolution, then that would be an indication from Sergeant Rayford that he realized the error of his ways and that he would be taking responsibility for those actions and that he would be able to continue to supervise people after having accepted that responsibility. And Sergeant Rayford opted not to resolve it at that time but to go to the review board? That is correct. And the review board met concerning Sergeant Rayford? They did. And did they make a recommendation? They did. And that's the normal process? Yes, sir, it is. What was the review board's recommendation? Reduction in rank. So demoted from sergeant to police officer. Yes, sir. And did you accept that recommendation? I did. And can you explain why you think that's an appropriate recommendation? I assume it was the thought, collective wisdom of the disciplinary review board that failure to accept responsibility for these actions and their finding of improper conduct was an indication that Sergeant Rayford wouldn't be able to effectively hold the respect of folks that he would be expected to supervise in the future. And it would be very difficult for him to be a supervisor, not having accepted his responsibility. And is that your feeling now? It certainly is. Did you have a meeting with Sergeant Rayford after the review board made its recommendation? I did. And was there any change in Sergeant Rayford's attitude about the situation? No, sir. He was not willing to accept the recommendation. Another important part of the process that I neglected to mention earlier is that the first meeting before the disciplinary review board process began, when I initially met with Sergeant Rayford in an effort to resolve the situation, I offered him an opportunity with a punishment to resolve the situation and accept responsibility. and advised him at that time that it didn't matter to me, he could choose or not choose to accept that offer, but that once he made a decision on that, then that offer wouldn't be a viable option in the future. That if it went to the disciplinary committee, that a number of more individuals with a whole lot of experience would be looking at it and that I would support the recommendation of that committee, be it a lighter recommendation or a heavier recommendation. And was the review board's recommendation heavier, more severe than what you had discussed with Sergeant Rayford? Yes, sir, it was. In this particular case, if I understand correctly, the review board actually met again. That's correct. Are you aware of that? That's correct. And has that ever happened, to your knowledge, before? To my knowledge, it hadn't. I know we checked to see if that was possible procedurally. Do you know why they met again? Yes. I received a call after the initial meeting of the Disciplinary Review Board from Sergeant Rayford, who said that he had additional information that he would like to present, have an opportunity to present to the board. At that time, I asked him if he felt like the information he had to present could make a difference in the finding or the outcome. He indicated that it did. At that point, we checked with our legal advisor to see if reconvening the board for the additional information was something that we could do because it was something that had never occurred before. And our advice was that, yes, since this was an investigative mechanism, that we could do that. And I asked the board to reconvene in the interest of fairness. I believed if Sergeant Rayford had information that could have a substantial effect on the board, then we had a duty to hear that. And did the board change its recommendation? No, sir, they didn't. Did you have another meeting with him after that? I had a meeting after the, yes, when I got the recommendation from the board, I met with him. And he opted not to agree to the recommended. That's correct. Which is the point at which that you send up information for charges to be. Yes, sir. That's all I have. Mr. Jacobs. Chief Bastin, the second meeting that the board had, it really was a vote to decide whether to change the recommendation. Is that correct? The meeting, the purpose of the meeting was to hear additional information that Sergeant Rayford had indicated to me that he had, and he felt like that it could make a difference possibly on the outcome of the recommendation and the finding. And then they were going to leave and not do anything? Well, if it made a difference, I'm sure they would have considered the situation in totality and if they felt a need to adjust the recommendation or the finding, they would have done that. They did go back and meet again and talk about it, didn't they? I'm sure they did. That was my question. There was to decide whether to change the original recommendation. Wasn't it? The original recommendation did not change. My question was, they met the second time to decide whether to change the recommendation. They met the second time to hear the additional information. And then walk out of the room. Didn't they vote the second time? Didn't they vote the second time? I assume they talked about it. I don't know if they did a formal vote or not. But the bottom line was they heard the additional information, and in their view, I assume, a change in the recommendation wasn't warranted. The internal affairs report says that they could not reach a consensus on changing the original recommendation. Does that sound right to you? I don't know if they had 100% consensus on it or not, but the majority decides what's going to happen. I don't have very much time here, and when you give long answers and they're not an answer, I'd appreciate it if you kind of condense your answers and help me out. I want to get a certain amount of time. Okay, maybe you can help me clarify some of the questions, and we'll get there. Okay. If I say something you don't understand, say, what are you talking about? I'll try to fix it. Okay. You met with Sergeant Rayford before this went to the board, right? That's correct. And you made a recommendation, you made him an offer at that point in your office. Who was in the office with you, beside of Rayford? I think it was Deputy Chief Boggs. Okay. What did you offer him? I made him a good offer. I offered him 40-hour suspension. And how long did he have to decide whether he was going to take that or not? He had to decide real soon. What was real soon, before he left the room? I usually ask for the recommendation to be decided upon. Please answer my question about him. Did you give him a certain amount of time to answer whether he wanted to take that or not? You know, I think I did give him some time. He wanted to go out and make a call or do something and spend some time. I don't know what he needed to do, but I think I did do that in the interest of fairness. In the interest of fairness, what do you do? If he says that you told him he had to take it right there, where if he left the room it was not alone, no longer on the table, you dispute that? Well, if I let him go out and make a call or something, then that would be an opportunity for him to come back in and give me the answer. I understand, but I'm getting answers other than what I'm asking. I think he's trying to answer. My interpretation is he's trying his best to answer your questions. So let's continue. Do you have a recollection of whether or not you told him he had to decide this before he left the room, yes or no? I don't think I did before he left the room. Is that a no? I guess that's a no, yeah. If he says that, he's wrong. He says what? If he says that you did say you've got to decide it now before you leave the room or it's not on the table anymore, he's not telling the truth? I don't recall telling him that he had to do it before he left the room, but he had to do it before we finished talking that day. I think he went out and I don't know what he did, but he came back in and we talked. I don't remember the time frame. When did you take the offer off the table? When he came back in and says he wasn't going to take it. So he no longer had a shot, right? That was the shot. Okay. Did you do any kind of coercion on him to take this or leave it at all of any kind? None whatsoever. Okay. If he says that, if he differs from your memory, that you told him he had to take this off for 40 hours before he left the room or was off the table, would that have been coercion? It's an option. I don't think it was coercion. I gave him an option and didn't have to give it to him. We could have automatically gone to the disciplinary review committee. statute that were under the Bill of Rights of the Police Officers 15-20. You're familiar with that because you have to deal with it all the time, right? You're familiar with the portion that says no threats, promises, or coercions shall be used at any time against any police officer while he or she is a suspect in a criminal or departmental matter. You know about that? I do. Okay. You're still sticking by. You told him he had to decide before you all finished talking, the step of that? I explained to him when we began that I would make an offer if I felt like the conduct was inappropriate, and it would be his option to either choose to go with that recommendation and resolve the situation or to have it heard before the disciplinary review committee, and that there was no penalty for doing that. It didn't matter to me. That day? Yeah, I had to have a final time that I'd get an answer on it. Okay. Sergeant Rayford said that Officer Hoskins offered to take the money out to the stepdaughter. You didn't believe that? There's inconsistency in the accounts of the story with what happened at that point with that phone call. Okay. You chose to believe Hoskins, that he was ordered to or requested? You believe that? That's the way I believe the evidence is presented, liens, certainly on that side, that argument. It had no substance to you that the fact that Hoskins left with the money, went out to Ms. Rayford's house, knew he was giving the money to Mrs. Rayford, left, and said, ooh, maybe I shouldn't have done that. Did that indicate maybe there's somebody doing something voluntarily and then thought maybe I shouldn't have done it? That didn't cross your mind at all? The fact that he was on a course of action to book the evidence, as he knew he should, and Sergeant Rayford knew that he should be doing with this case, and had already made the effort to go to headquarters and initiate the process to book that evidence, but then chose to change that course of action, was a pretty strong indicator to me that something really changed his mind. Volunteered to carry it out there? Well. Is that conceivable? He voluntarily complied with what he believed, I think, to be an order by Sergeant Rayford. You read the charges? I have. There's nothing in there that says that Sergeant Rayford ordered anybody to do anything? It's not in there, is it? I can't remember if it is or not. Okay. If it's not in there that he ordered anybody to do anything, the matter is different. Different answer. What's your definition of an order, I guess? Maybe we differ on that. You're the man. I don't know what an order is. This says request, okay? It could be a request, volunteered by Hoskins, or an order. Charges don't say order. You know that. I think in the officer's mind, in a young officer's mind, if a sergeant asks them to do something, they're really going to do that in most cases, and they're expected to. I know that I have to be careful with my body language, what I say or do or imply, because people can interpret that as an order. So we all, as supervisors and leaders of the agency, have to be aware of that. Did Hoskins do the right thing? Hoskins didn't do the right thing. Hoskins shouldn't have gone out there and given that money to someone else since it was evidence. You called him in. Didn't you talk to him? I haven't. His commanders I know have talked to him about the incident and about this incident in general. Did he get 40 hours on the street? He hasn't gotten anything for it that I know of. Okay. If Sergeant Rayford is reduced in rank from sergeant or took the 40 hours on the street from sergeant to officer, it would be almost impossible for him to ever get back to compete for a lieutenant, wouldn't it? I don't know about impossible, but it would certainly set him back in his career. Right. But so if you get a suspension, you cannot compete for a promotion for 12 months, can you? That's not true. I'd have to look at the labor contract, but I think there's a window. If you trip a certain amount of suspension time, then you can be automatically removed from a process. If you get up to so many hours of suspension, then you can compete in that process. I haven't reviewed that contract recently. You know that Sergeant Rayford is the only black sergeant with a college degree? I didn't know that. Were you the one who waived the college degree requirement for promotion to a lieutenant, or did somebody else do that? I waived it this last process. Why? Because I felt like we'd been unfair in the process prior to that. We had a new vendor who was doing our promotional testing for us, and we had an inordinate amount of folks who weren't successful, didn't pass the written test. So you want to lower the standards? Not lower the standard, but I wanted to make sure that we were being equitable to everyone in the process. When you have four out of 12 or 13 people that only passed the written test who are good performers and had been good sergeants, then I think there's something there that you need to look at. So I knew that was supposedly the last time that anyone that didn't have a college degree would be able to test for lieutenant. So I felt like I was more than fair than offering another opportunity based on the outcome of that previous process. Lower the standards. I didn't lower the standards. We had indicated earlier that that was going to be a good lieutenant. Your answer was you did not lower the standards, and that's all I wanted to know. I know what you're doing to me, but please don't do that. I don't have much time. Please don't do that to me. I'm almost ready to ask you. Anyway, in the charge, it says, due to Sergeant Rayford's actions, the original drug charge placed on the suspect was changed from trafficking in a controlled substance to possession of a controlled substance. There's been some testimony here that it was a mental change, and this could be, at least it's ambiguous enough to believe that this could mean the original charge, which is what it says, the original charge placed in the uniform citation was trafficking, but because of Sergeant Rayford, it had to change it to possession. Will you at least admit to me that it's ambiguous to that extent? It didn't sound ambiguous in the minds of the officers testifying as to their intent to me. Is it ambiguous to somebody who's reading this and didn't write this? If you didn't understand how we normally did business, it was very logical and appropriate the way Officer Jackson testified in here earlier to me. His intention was to charge with trafficking based on the evidence he collected at the scene. Did you hear him testify? I did. I've got to move to disqualify this witness. That's not appropriate, so we'll continue. Do you want to continue, Mr. Jacobs? He's been sitting here the whole time, so the chief has been present in the proceedings full time. I was not aware of that, but the ruling has been made. I don't want to talk to him anymore because he's been a listener. Do you want to continue with your finish with questions? I'm finished with him. All right, sir. I just have one question. All right. Chief, I want to make clear to the council that how you worked with Sergeant Rayford in this process is no different than how you work with any other officer in this process. Is that correct? That's correct. That's all I have. Except Hoskins and Jackson, right? How do you mean that? He didn't do anything to them. Well, you know, after they realized that this thing went differently and that there were people involved, family members, and all sorts of things that became factors, I think they realized that they'd made an error, and that's probably why they called their sergeant fairly quickly afterwards. So if Sergeant Rafer had apologized, we wouldn't be sitting here? I see the error of my ways, we wouldn't be sitting here. Is that what you're saying? I'm not saying that. If Sergeant Rafer had accepted responsibility for his actions and taken the recommended punishment, we wouldn't have been sitting here. He took responsibility for his actions, which were not wrongful. You have a different view of the actions, right? I certainly do. I expect people to do the right thing. That's how I try to run the police department. This wasn't the right thing. My question to you initially was, you're not treating them the same way you treated Hoskins and Jackson, and the answer to that is, no, you're not. Right? You're treating them different. Isn't that true? They weren't charged with anything, so they had no reason to come in front of them. That's all. All right. Mr. Horne, that's it. All right. Chief, Chief Patz, do you have a question? I'd want to conclude our case in chief. Make sure that Mr. Jacobs and I agree that the charges are already part of the record. Is there any? No problem. All right. And I would like to ask the court to, not the court, the council to take judicial notice of ordinance, section 23-42 and KRS 95-450 and to introduce a copy of each of those into the record. All right. Thank you. Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Enloe tells me that you have 16 minutes. I understand. I understand. All right, sir. I understand. I'll call your witness. I'll call Sergeant Rayford. We're going to have to talk pretty fast, it sounds like. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Earl Rayford. Director, attention back to the 20th of August, 2010. You had occasion to call the dispatch. You were off duty. You had occasion to call the dispatch. Tell the counsel about that. Yeah. Why you did. I had received some information through my wife of an occurrence that was going on with my stepdaughter and the male counterpart, the subject in question here, and that they were not able to actually locate her at the residence. And when I say they, I mean the people who were coming by for child care. Sergeant Rayford, we can't hear all of that because we don't have enough time to. Okay. There's a reason that you called us back. Truly, truly. Tell the council why you called us back. What was your purpose of calling them? The purpose of calling was to just simply find out if this gentleman had a warrant. And this arose out of the fact that there was a realization that he was using an alias name. And so I simply did what any police officer would do, just simply call in and see and check this out, Channel 1. In doing so, with some difficulty by the Channel 1 communicator, they were able to find the warrant under that name. After finding out and confirming that the warrant was in fact present out of county, I simply called back and requested a pickup on this gentleman. In doing so, I asked the call taker to simply call me so that I could provide some additional information. The officer did call. I provided the information that was given to me, which include, as been mentioned and testified to, the description of the vehicle and so forth, as well as the fact that based on my experience as an officer, this gentleman may be armed. So I'm simply giving a personal safety alert to the officers. And in doing so, when I talked to Officer Jackson, I indicated to Officer Jackson that this is involving the stepdaughter, Jessica. And when I did that, when I advised him of that, immediately it provoked a memory that he had taken a report approximately two weeks prior to that. He indicated to me that there was a report taken of a vehicle damage would happen to have belonged to the suspect. He also indicated to me that the two sisters, Jessica and Deanna, it was involving a dispute between them. And so that's what provoked his memory to understand that this was a family-related event. It had nothing to hide. Okay, so apparently they made the pickup. But probably about 30, 40 minutes later, I called the officers inquiring as to what happened as a result of their actions. And they indicated to me that they had made an arrest, that the gentleman had some dope on him. He also had a weapon on him. Okay, fine, good job. We hung up. That was it. And then at some point, I'm just relaxing at home. My wife gets some communications from her daughter. This is Jessica, to whom this is connected to the suspect, Mr. Lacks. Apparently someone had contacted her and advised her that he had, in fact, been arrested. She then stated that he has my rent money. Okay, that was communicated to my wife. She told me about it. I sat on it for a moment, just thought about it, because as a police officer, I know there are procedures in place to make sure that things are taken care of properly. So what I simply decided to do was call to simply inquire about any presence of money, no prior knowledge of money at all, until my wife indicated the information. Before I made the call, I watched my wife call the credit union, and my wife is on the same account as Jessica, and inquire about money that had been withdrawn by Jessica that morning at approximately 10 a.m. in the amount of $453. Okay. Armed with that information, I made a decision to just call and inquire just to see so that I would have something to tell my wife to tell the daughter what you could do, if you claim this is your money, how you could possibly claim that money. So I called Jackson first. Jackson indicated to me he was at the jail with the suspect. I asked him specifically, does this gentleman have any money? And he said, yes, he did. He said, but I'm not handling all that. Hoskins is on his way to headquarters to deal with that. I said, okay, fine, thank you. He kind of cut me off there, and that was the end of the conversation. I then called Hoskins, who was at headquarters, and simply inquired about this guy having some money. I said, did he? I asked him. I said, did this guy have any money? He says, yes, he did. I said, how much? He said, $455.75. Okay. I'm thinking that's pretty close. Okay. I said, well, I'm being advised that that money actually belongs to Jessica, the female counterpart to the suspect. Okay, then he said, okay, well, the suspect did tell me that the money belonged to her. In my mind, I'm thinking only property here. At no time did anyone say to me, and nor did I get involved in trying to assess all the dynamics of this. I'm simply trying to inquire. That is all. That's my only motive. Now, he then, there's a pause there for a while, and then he says to me, well, you know, I can take it to her. Okay. I said, okay, fine. In my mind, I'm still thinking property here. And, yes, we have a policy concerning how property should be released and can be released. So I then provide with him, after soliciting from my wife, as to where the daughter would be. I gave him the address, and I said, I'm told this is where she's on her way to now. He agreed, that's fine, he would take the money to her. Unbeknownst to me, my wife received the money. I did not know that until Hoskins had delivered the money to her, and at some point he called me and said, Sergeant Rayford, do you think that your wife wouldn't mind signing off for the money? My mind is starting to go, okay, wait a minute now. My wife's got the money. Yes. Okay. Okay. And you gave her the money and didn't get her to sign off for anything, which is a requirement. Okay, fine. Okay, I tell you what, I'll call her now and tell her to stay put because you're coming back over to sign off on the property release sheet. Once that was done, later, Hoskins called me and said, Sergeant Rayford, by the way, what's the relationship between the suspect's girlfriend and you? I said, she's my stepdaughter. Okay. And that was the end of it. When did you next hear about this matter officially? When Commander Weathers summoned me into his office while I was on duty, approximately a week later. What did he confront you with? He indicated to me that there had been a complaint that had been brought to his attention. He may have even mentioned that it had come from Newton Assistant Chief Newton I then He wanted to know what happened concerning some money Your stepdaughter and that kind of thing I then verbally explained the whole story to him And he also required me to submit a memo Explaining all of what I had advised him And I did so Okay, then did you all talk what he was going to do about this matter? Did he tell you what he was going to do? It was pretty clear that he stated that let me look into this, but I wasn't clear on where it was going, what kind of life it would take until later. And then what happened later? At some point, it was days later, he indicated to me that he was going to file the complaint and send it up to Internal Affairs under misconduct. Tell you why? Well, he said to me, and of course there were other kinds of conversations prior to that, but he said to me, he said there were a lot of critics, he said there were a lot of things that had been said about this, and some of which didn't even have anything to do with this. And he said, for some reason, there's some people out that don't like you. And I said, well, I'm human. We're going to have people who don't necessarily agree with all things that have been done. But he said, I had asked him, do you know if there is anything you've been assessed against the other officers at the other sector, Hoskins and Jackson? He said, no. I said, I've not been able to determine anything at all either. and he said to me, but I'm sending this up under misconduct because, you know, this needs to be aired out in such a way that it would disprove the critics so that others would not think that I tried to take care of you. And I paused for a moment, and then I asked him, I said, are you talking about a brother taking care of another brother? And he said, yes. Okay. So it took on its life. Okay. After that, were the charges actually preferred against you after that? Yes. He sent it up under misconduct and internal affairs took it from there. And you met then with the chief? The chief called you in? After the internal affairs report submitted to him, at some point, chief summoned me into his office, yes. Okay. I don't know how much time we've got left, but we're trying to get this story told. You take some time to tell us, but tell what happened with you and the chief in the chief's office. Well, along with the chief, it was Deputy Chief Boggs, President as well. All three of us were alone in his office, door closed. He went through explaining the allegation. He indicated to me, he asked me to explain what happened. I very clearly did that and very specifically. He then stated that I believe you're guilty. of this and I'm going to offer you 40 hours of suspension. I took a moment to just a second or so actually to think about that and then I asked an appeal to the chief. I said, chief, I said, according to this document it says that I requested the officer to take money over to another party and it said also that I failed to divulge or to advise of the relationship between the stepdaughter and myself in this situation. I said, I'm trying to figure out where is that proven. It also says that due to my actions, I caused a negative outcome in the case. I said, I'm trying to figure out where is that proven here. And he said, well, your actions compelled the officer to change the charge which affected the outcome of the case. I said, well, he said, well, you're going to need, I'm going to offer you this week. You take a moment to think about it, but you have to make your decision in this office. Once you leave this room, it's off the table. That's 40 hours? That was the 40 hours. Okay. What did you tell him? I took a moment to think about it, and I very politely and very professionally said to him, looked him dead in the eye and said, sir, my conscience will not accept that. Then you left? He said, well, then you would like the board to hear this. I said, yes. The board did meet? Yes. And you got the result come from that? Yes. What did they tell you? They recommended a demotion. You ask again for a Rehearing with the board? I got on the phone at some point thereafter. I called the chief, and I asked the chief. I made an unprecedented request that he, on the phone at that moment, thought about. I asked him to reconvene. I had some additional information for the board. It was, to me, it was just an attempt to really, really go in again and just really put it out there in a way that would certainly explain this in even greater detail, as better as I could the first time. Tell us about what Internal Affairs did to you about that second meeting, second hearing. Well, I can say this. As briefly as you can. Even quickly there, the chief did tell me, he said on the phone at that moment, okay, I'll do that. I'll just have Gintimer to schedule it, okay? Okay, Lieutenant Gentimer is the commander of internal affairs. And I said, okay, thank you. And so when they scheduled it, I was, the day of it to convene, I was in the bed at 845 getting a call from Lieutenant Gentimer advising me that the board has been meeting and waiting on you and that you're not here. And then he said, and I realized that I did not contact you. I have not shaved for three days. I said, well, he said, I need you to come down here now. I said, well, I need to shave, put my uniform on and come on down there. Don't shave. Just put civilian clothes on and come on down. Did he admit that he had not contacted you about it? He admitted he had not contacted me concerning that, but he had contacted everyone else. I was concerned about that because of the manner in which he was asking me to present myself. I was concerned about that. But I did do just that. I went down there, seeing that as my opportunity to explain and air out this situation even more. But, of course, once I was allowed in and explained, and the recommendation was what I got out of there when they called me back in approximately three hours later, Okay. Let me interrupt you. You know the relationship between Officer Jackson and your wife? Yes. What is it? Well, it's a two-sided relationship. There is a cousin relationship on that side of the family, and there's also a marital relationship in there. Okay. I asked him about this. Did you all go to church functions together, or did you go to church functions together? It wasn't church functions, but we have, just a matter of three, four years ago, we all got together and went on a camp that sponsored our department. When I say we, meaning my wife, Connie, a slew of young people on three or four buses headed from Missouri. It was a whole week camp with my wife's daughters, including Jessica here, including Officer Jackson. And we were all together in this throughout the camp. Mr. Jacobs, we've got one minute left. Thank you. Could I borrow Chief's time because he shouldn't have been here? Could I please do that? No, I don't think that's appropriate, sir. We'll have questions from the council members as soon as this is complete. Do you have anything you want? Do you have anything you want to? Am I off? Am I on? You're fine. Go ahead. Yes, sir. Do you have anything else you want to tell the council? In final words, overall, I'd say that this whole situation was really an issue of the simple inquiry about money. That is all I was doing. I was not utilizing my authority as a sergeant, with the exception of calling in a wanted person and a request for a pickup. This is how it all got started. And it's simply my whole intention had nothing to do with a desire to possess money, though that was the kind of tone that had been set even before I heard about this complaint and before it got to my commander. This whole idea of stealing money, this whole idea of my wife being in on it, and this whole idea of comments that I've even heard that he should be fired, this was simply inquiring about money. And really, it has nothing to do with family. If it was not a family member, I still would proceed in a way that our policy is set, and that is all. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Horne. Thank you, Mayor. Sergeant Rayford, I'm Keith Horne. I'm here on behalf of the police. Do you agree with me that you initially got involved in this whole situation because of family? It wasn't because of family, but it was through a family connection. the information flowed through family as to this individual finding out having a warrant. And that's when you started to check to see if there was a warrant? Yes, I did. And you spent, would you say, considerable time tracking that down? Well, you know, as officers, when we have a hunch about something, we tend to inquire until we eliminate that hunch. So, yes? Yes, and there was reasons for that, but yes, there was a considerable amount of time. And when they went to make the pickup, they made the arrest, they let you know that they made the arrest. Is that correct? I called and inquired. You said, good job. Good job. And at that point, there was really no need for you to make any other calls about that case. No. You called about the money because of your family. It later came to my knowledge based on what I had heard and also what I saw confirmed as that being a link to ownership of money. On with that information, that's when I called to inquire. And I think you indicated that you didn't realize anything was being booked into evidence that you thought it was property. I operated on the mentality and the understanding of property only. I recall Officer Hoskins saying to me he had not booked anything in yet. And, in fact, you wrote a memo to Lieutenant Gensheimer dated January of this year. Do you recall writing that memo? I think it was in response to the recommendation of the review board. Do you remember writing a memo? I wrote a memo to Commander Weathers that may have been forwarded up explaining. Let me just show this to you and you can tell me if you recognize it. Okay. I do recall. Yes. Do you recall writing in that memo that Sergeant Rayford called and inquired of Officer Hoskins about the existence of money on the suspect's person? Officer Hoskins advised that he had not booked anything into evidence yet. Yes. And you remember writing the memo to Commander Weathers back in August of 2010? Yes. Again, related to this incident. And you wrote, if you recall, I called Officer Jackson and inquired about currency on Mr. Lacks. Officer Jackson confirmed that Mr. Lacks had cash on him and directed me to call Officer Hoskins at headquarters, who was booking in evidence. Do you remember writing that? Yes, I remember. Do you agree that you never told Officer Hoskins about the family relationship here? I do agree that I did not tell him up until I made that call and made a mention to him. When? When I called to inquire about the money, I indicated to him my stepdaughter. but I don't even think it registered with him. Thank you. Thank you. Do you remember giving an interview to Lieutenant Gensheimer? Yes. And do you remember stating this to Lieutenant Gensheimer? Mm-hmm. But in terms of specifically in that conversation identifying the relationship, no. It wasn't until later that he made the phone call and asked the relationship, and then I told him at that point, which indicates it was after he had returned the money, when your wife had identified herself. Yes. So during that entire exchange, you had not informed Officer Hoskins about the relationship between the suspect, the girlfriend, your daughter, and the money. Well, I also recall him making that call, as I testified earlier. I do recall him making that call, and he did inquire about the relationship. I do recall that. But again, once again, when I first called and inquired about the money, I don't even think he heard that. But... And you agree with me that you and Officer Jackson have a different opinion, perhaps, about whether Officer Jackson knew this involved your stepdaughter. Apparently so. And you heard Officer Jackson say that he didn't realize that the girlfriend in question was your stepdaughter. I heard him say that, yes. And I'm gathering that during this entire situation, you felt like you didn't do anything wrong. I tell you, sir, and I did this, I communicated this to the chief. I communicated this to the board, the disciplinary hearing board, as a supervisor, and even indicated that in my initial memo that was sent to my commander before this even got to internal affairs. I conceded. And as a supervisor, I felt, I can't even put words to it, terrible at this whole thing and how it just blossomed. And to that degree, I expressed taking responsibility for this. And I expressed it more than once. So, for example, with Lieutenant Gensheimer during that interview, you told him, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I'll take the hits. but I do take responsibility for whatever happened here. I see how it got out of hand and how it got perceived. I understand that I certainly concede that I'd have been better served to call a West Sector supervisor, at least to give a heads up on that. Oh, absolutely. Right. There were other avenues you could have taken if you were that concerned about the money. Well, you know, I conceded that in my initial memo, and even though it has been said about me that Sergeant Rafer fails to take responsibility, I've been doing that all along. But at the same time, those specific areas that I've been accused of doing that I know I did not do, I refuse to concede with that. And that's like you're saying, similarly, you took responsibility for the confusion that was created and concede that, again, a call to a West Sector supervisor would have been a well-placed call. I conceded that that would have been a good type of thing that would have given heads up to the supervisors there. But I also concede the fact that as this thing start taking on apparently some kind of activity or movement, at no time was there a sergeant that picked up the phone and even called me as a professional courtesy, I would call it, and say, hey, what's going on here, what's going on? In my mind, I saw absolutely there were no hints or no indications from the officers that they had any concerns or any troubles or problems with this. I never received that from anyone. even though it was clear that one officer called his supervisor after he delivered the money and was told by the supervisor, Sergeant Famularo, to go get the sheet and have her to sign it. Clearly, it was explained to him what this was all about, but at no time did anyone pick up the phone either and call this supervisor and say, what's this all about? Which would then signal to me, oh, okay, there's a problem that we need to look at here. Let's deal with this. Are you suggesting that that didn't happen through this entire process? I'm not suggesting, sir. I'm telling you it didn't happen. That through the discussions you had with Commander Weathers, through the IA investigation, through the discussions you have with Chief Bastin, that no one gave that consideration? No, no. I'm talking about the situation that happened with the officers before this even emerged as a problem and a complaint. That's all I have. Mr. Jacobs, would you like to respond? I don't think I can. I will give you a couple minutes if you'd like. I kind of turned my brain off. Okay. All right. Well, you're working. You've got the chance, of course, for your closing statement. The proceeding will allow for some questions from council members to the council for the government and the respondent at this time. Let's say 10 minutes. Sergeant Rayford, thank you for your testimony. Tony, you can be excused now. Seeing council members, Council Member Beard. I'm not clear who I'm going to be asking questions to. Well, questions may be directed to the council or to specific witnesses, in which case we will need to bring a witness back in. Well, actually, my first question involved the booking of evidence, the money into evidence. had it been booked into evidence when it was moved to the downtown location by Hoskins? Had it been booked yet? No, sir. I was advising nothing had been booked. Sir, I had been advised that nothing had been booked by Officer Hoskins. So there was nobody there to be able to release or not release. In other words, it never got there, never got into evidence. It never got in the evidence. And the idea here, sir, too, is that when you're booking in something, you can book in evidence, you can book in property. There are options here of items and a way in which it can be booked. So I wasn't aware that if he's booking something in, is he booking in something as property, is he booking in as evidence? He's most likely going to be booking most things in as evidence. I'm not getting it. I'm off duty. I'm not getting into the dynamics of this case. I'm just simply providing information. It's all I'm doing. And so I'm not asking him, well, tell me about the evidence. Tell me about the specifics of it. I'm not doing that. And again, even at that point, there was no indication from Officer Hoskins that he had a concern about anything, there was a problem about anything at all until he met my wife. So technically, it was not evidence at that point. Technically, in my mind, sir, it was not evidence in the way in which we talked about it and discussed it. So I'm just simply providing information, and he simply told me that he did say this money belonged to her, and I'm just letting him know. That's all I'm doing. Okay, fine. Thank you. Council Member Henson, we're going to do this. I've had counsel with Mr. Enloe. It's up to the discretion of the chair to allow for the questions now, and we're going to do this for 10 minutes. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Rafer, I was curious as to why the suspect had the money to begin with. I don't know all the details about it. However, I was told that he was simply holding the money. She went out to run some errands and was with her sisters at the time, and that is all I know. I was told that the money was crisp and stiff, consistent with money you would get from a bank. I was told that. Yes, ma'am. I was told that by my commander. And that was all confirming the link of this money being removed from the bank that morning. And I did provide a bank statement indicating the money being released or withdrawn from the bank and also indicated receipts of payment of her rent and other things that was involved there with that money. Okay. And there was something else I was going to add. Oh, like don't you, can't you see how this, I mean, this looks really bad that other monies could, you know, like anybody that's arrested guilty. I mean, they don't, just because they're arrested doesn't mean they're guilty. And the money they have on them disappears or whatever. I just think that as a supervisor in the police department, do you think you use bad judgment? Ma'am, I will tell you, looking at how this all came out and just all the different twists and turns of it, I've stated it to the Internal Affairs Board twice. I wish I'd never picked the phone up. Yeah. Even though all I was doing was providing information, there's no policy that has anything that says you cannot provide information. And that is all, that was the only reason why I picked that phone up in my mind to say, I'm just going to inquire. And by the way, you might want to know. And this is what I've been advising because it has been taken and so forth. Thank you. Council Member Crosby, we've got until 830 with these questions. Council Member Crosby. Well, and I'll probably, this may be a comment directed as a question. I feel very frustrated that by the time constraints that we've put on, it's somewhat similar to our council meetings where we only have a few minutes to comment. And if somebody takes up your time by answering a question, then you can't get all the information in. And based on the testimony we've heard, there are still people, I believe, on this list that I would have liked to have heard from, being the person who has to make the decision on what happens. So I don't know if, because now they've all been, there are several people who've walked in the room, so I don't see where it's even possible now to be able to hear from these people, but I find it very frustrating. Thank you. Taken into consideration. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. So, Sergeant Rayford, I want to go back to some of your last comments about making inquiries. obviously in a role of a council member or an officer of the city or an officer on the police department, anytime we make inquiries, they carry a different weight than a normal person makes an inquiry, or they should, based on our role and our responsibilities that we've been given. Have you made those type of inquiries in the past for other people? No. Outside of your family? I've never had this kind of situation, no. And so it's not something that you would condone or a habit that has occurred in the past for a family member or non-family member? No, it's not a common thing at all, sir. I've never had this kind of inquiry, no. I've never had anything similar to that, no, family member related, nothing like that. And Officer Jackson and Hoskins do not report to you directly on a daily basis? No, sir, they do not. They're a different sector. They have a supervisor on duty at the time that they were subject to. And I do understand that as a sergeant, I'm a sergeant. of any officer in the department. But at the same time, my involvement here has nothing to do with formal police sergeant authority. Simply like any citizen would. It's just you provided information. You got some official guy that might be wanted. You provide the information. They pick him up. There's something that the officers might want to know about this case. I think they might want to know this for what it may be worth. once I find out that, hey, he's got money, and I did, okay, then I can get off the phone and call and tell my wife to call your daughter and say, if you want the money, approach the prosecutor about it. That really was the whole thing. But when Officer Hoskin determined in our conversation, we corroborated for the most part that this was property and not evidence, there is absolutely a policy and there is procedure in place that in the release of the proper release of property, understood to be property, not related to a crime, not related to the commission of a crime, then it can be released. And so I just simply provided the information. He offered to take it over there, and I said, fine. Again, we were talking about property. That's all. And given the fact that you have rejected two levels of discipline to this point, What do you feel is the appropriate discipline at this juncture, given the circumstances? Well, I certainly would say, as far as rejecting the two levels of discipline, it's all an attempt to simply air this out in a fair, proper manner, where due process will be applied in a fair and proper manner. At this point, sir, I still say that as a supervisor, I still feel bad about what happened here. and just this whole thing that blossomed as it did, and I look back and I see the moves and the decisions that I've made in this, I still say in the charging document when they said that I did certain things concerning the money to the officer, I didn't do that. The issue about not communicating the relationship, that is not true. I stand by that. And I stood by it from the beginning with my commander all the way up through this. But at the same time, I take responsibility for realizing that, hey, listen, this didn't have to go there. I've listened to two officers testify, and I've heard a lot of inconsistencies and outright what I call mistruths, which for the most part I wonder why is there a double standard applied to me here, whereas you've got officers who would not apply at any level of discipline, none. And yet I'm left holding the bag with the finger pointed. A supervisor was called by this officer, told him to go get the sheet signed by my wife, who was perceived to have had knowledge of this, but not even required to submit a memo, explaining what was told to him. We got that in the report here. I asked those questions. Why am I being mistreated here? And that's a good word. Why is a double standard being applied here? I do understand the supervisory level you put to a standard, a higher standard. I accept that. I'm not beyond correction, sir. If I perceived and saw myself as wrong, I will be the first to say I was wrong, and I accept the consequences. Very good. Thank you. We have two more Councilmembers with questions. We're scheduled to be complete by 8.30 with these questions, and then we'll go into closing statements. Councilmember Lawless. Thank you, Mayor. I'll try to make these really quick. At what point was it the morning that this happened that you found out about the warrant and it had something to do with not being able to find your stepdaughter? Yeah, information that the people who child care went by, they couldn't. No one answered the door or something like that. And, again, I'll admit, you know, the daughters, my stepdaughters, male counterpart, were family not proud of the selection. Okay. Just briefly, were you aware before then about the warrant? I had had knowledge a few weeks prior. I had actually went on the radio because, again, I was hearing a name he was using that was not consistent with the name that came from the plate of his vehicle. And so I had found out there was a warrant, but I wasn't clear on what his real name was until that day, and we got some communication that his real name is, which fit with the name that I had had. That morning, and so how did you get the information on the warrant, and why didn't you, it sounded like Officer Jackson, when he took him to booking. Yes, ma'am. Was dealing with trying to find the warrant first. Sure. How long did you spend looking for that? Did you access information that an everyday citizen could access? No, ma'am. As an employee, as an officer, I was able to call in to communications. We have an information channel that runs the personal information, and they had a very difficult time finding what I had been advised a few weeks prior was a warrant, and there was problems with the spelling and so forth. Yeah, I just want to try to quickly. Yes, ma'am. So by the time they got him to the detention center to book him, you had the information, the correct information about the warrant? Well, I had the correct information before I actually called and requested a pickup. So they were spending time looking for stuff that you already had obtained? Well, of course, now, procedurally speaking, you have to, Once I confirm that this guy was the person, once I had an idea he was the person, then I call and ask for them to recheck to make sure that this particular warrant is on the file. Okay. That's fine. All right. Can I ask one question with Chief Bastin? Yes. And then Mr. Lane. Chief Bastin, it was stated that you lowered the or changed the requirements for lieutenant because of 12 or 13 sergeants that had taken the exam, only four passed the exam. Was, did Sergeant Rayford take that exam and did he pass it? I don't believe Sergeant Rayford was in that process. I may be wrong. I don't remember. Okay. Thank you. All right. Mr. Lane. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, my question is for Sergeant Rayford, too. I'd appreciate it if you would just comment briefly on your tenure on the force and your record of promotion. Sure, sir. Just an overview of your career. Okay, fine. I started in 1995 into the academy and graduated in 1996. In doing so, like anyone graduating, you're going to be working patrol. So I worked pretty much, they'll take you through the rounds of probation where you'll work all the shifts. So in doing so, at some point, I sought interest in community services. And ultimately was allowed, I got interviewed and was allowed to work in community services as a DARE officer. I worked as a DARE officer for approximately six or seven years. While in the DARE program and fairly successful, I decided that I would apply for promotion. I remained in there until they promoted me to sergeant, sir, in 2004. And I've been a sergeant for, it will be seven years coming up soon. You commented earlier that you haven't had any other disciplinary issues. Is that, did I interpret that what you were saying? No, sir. I did have, at the very beginning of my career, I was involved in a process where I failed to report a reported incident, and as a result, I was disciplined for that. I accepted responsibility and took it. Thank you, Sergeant Rapun. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Lane. All right. Next step in our procedure are closing statements by the respondent and by the government. First by the respondent, Mr. Jacobs. You'll have 15 minutes for the closing statements. And then the council will go into a closed session for debate and decision. Thank you. You may be pleased to know I may not take my full 15. I'm about exhausted. The first thing I want to point out, and I'm really kind of surprised about this, is there was not any proof on the misconduct part where it says that his conduct did not reflect favorably upon the division of police, brings disrepute to the division, reflects discredit on him as a member of the division, and tends to impair the operation and efficiency of the division. I didn't hear any evidence. That evidence would have had to have come, if it would have come from anywhere that was meaningful, would have had to have come from the county attorney's office. The county attorney is the one who questioned, where is this money? They didn't call the county attorney in here. I wonder why. Because there wasn't any problem with the county attorney's office. Obviously, it was. They had him on the stand saying how bad this was. the other side of that is and I think this is really important one of the witnesses came here which one it was trying to make a point that this was no big deal but seems to me that if the charge of trafficking had been placed against Mr. Lacks because Sergeant Rayford not telling them whose money that was and they got Lacks indicted and they got a jury all sitting there and all of a sudden in comes a witness and says that was really my money, that's not drug money, there seemed like there would be some embarrassment and a lot of expense to the government of putting on a trial that shouldn't have taken place. Sergeant Mayford did what he should have done. He called and said, was there money? Because he knew where the money probably came from. And it turned out it did come from there. All the internal affairs investigations showed that that was her money. By the way, I hope you all do have furnished copies of the internal affairs report. I don't know if you did or not, but all these things we've been talking about are in that document. You may at least have one to go back with you when you consider. There are receipts in there. The receipt that Hoskins had to go back and get from Ms. Rayford is in there. You're supposed to be evidence when there's charges. This charge does not, there's no showing of anywhere that there's any kind of impaired the efficiency of the division or brings it discredited on the division or reflected unfavorably. Now there's this. It's not fair to Sergeant Rayford to say, well, the department's embarrassed because we had to have this hearing. That's not of his making. Hearing is he's involuntarily in here. He did not cause this hearing. So if there's any embarrassment to the government, it shouldn't fall on him. You've been told, and I was told too, that there have been no policy violations whatsoever on the part of Sergeant Rayford. They come on saying, well, there's this misconduct charge, but that's just the charge. Excuse me. The other thing, and this was kind of a surprise to me too, the big charge in here that says due to Sergeant Rayford's actions. Due to Sergeant Rayford's actions, the original drug charge placed on the suspect. That is clear to me that that meant the original charge put on the citation was trafficking. Otherwise, it wouldn't have said it that way. It doesn't say the original charge that Officer Jackson thought he might put on there. It doesn't say that. It says the original charge placed on the suspect was changed from trafficking and controlled substance to possession of a controlled substance. That right there is at least ambiguous. And Sergeant Rayford is entitled to have the specific charge against him. I came in here to defend that, and they want to change it and say, well, we thought about putting trafficking on. We thought about putting trafficking on there. and of course that doesn't make any sense that this brings discredit to anybody that they thought about doing something that changed their mind but the point is the proof of the two things is not here they didn't prove that in fact all the proof was the only charge put on them was possession Officer Jackson said after he booked in This is the first report that Officer Jackson did. After he booked in blacks, he called Hoskins and found out that he was going to take the money somewhere. That's in the very first memorandum of Officer Jackson. All this other stuff falls away because of that. What has happened here, in my view, is in the third memorandum that was done by Officer Jackson, was he was doing an explanation of what happened with the county attorney when he was subpoenaed over there to court. And in that memorandum, it's the only one that says this, in that memorandum, It says that he told, that Jackson had told the county attorney that we initially put the charge of trafficking, but we had to change it to possession. That language ended up in this charge. It ended up in Wether's charge. And everything else, none of it says it, and we're including the citation itself. That's how I think there's one misstatement. I think it's probably an innocent misstatement. by Jackson that he, when he told the attorney, county attorney, that he had originally put in traffic and had to change the possession, that's what started this whole thing. That document, it's in the IA report. What should happen in my view, of course I'm advocating for my client here, is nothing happened here that's worth being disciplined for. And if there is discipline here, it is totally, I don't want to use the word, but it's totally, I'll just use unfair, because there's two men that did all the acts in this. Two men did every single act in this. He was on the phone two or three times. All those acts were done by two men, and neither one of them was charged with anything, not discipline or anything. It would be just an atrocity to do anything to Sergeant Rayford in the light of that. If he's a bad fellow, he did less than they did, and they're walking, something's wrong with that. Completing, Mr. Jacobs. Thank you. All right. Mr. Horne, you going to do the closing statement for the government? I am. All right. And I also am unlikely to take 15 minutes to do this. We do appreciate your time. And I think part of what my job here is is not to reiterate everything you've heard. I think at this point you've heard from all the witnesses and you've probably drawn some conclusions about what you have heard. Part of what I need to do, though, is explain that in law school, one of the things they taught me was that it's an old saying that when the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. And when they're both against you, pound the table. Part of that is just like, it's similar to distraction and disorientation. I appreciate what Mr. Jacobs has told you, but what he's trying to do is get you to focus on things that are not the central point of this case. And if you look at the charges, and the charges are certainly in there, and I don't want to read the whole thing to you, but they give you an entire picture of what happened that evening. And then they summarize in the final paragraph with this. Sergeant Rayford's request to be booking officer return evidence, seized incident to arrest, to his family member constitutes misconduct in violation of KRS 95-450, which is the statute that says officers can be disciplined for misconduct, inefficiency, or insubordination, and Section 2342-12 of the Code of Ordinances, which basically adopts that statute and also violates general order of the police, which is misconduct, conduct that does not reflect favorably upon the division of police, brings disrepute to division, and reflects discredit on the officer as a member, et cetera, et cetera. And contrary to what Mr. Jacobs said, you have heard evidence of all that this evening, particularly from Commander Weathers and Chief Bossy. The other thing I want to remind you about is that this has not gone through one police officer. This went through a review by Commander Weathers. It went through internal affairs. It went to a disciplinary review board made up of commanders and assistant chiefs. Every one of them believed that Sergeant Rayford acted improperly in his relationship with these officers here. Only Sergeant Rayford believes that he did not. It is clear he became involved in this case because of family, and I think he admitted that. At any point after he made the call about the warrant, after the suspect was arrested, after he said, good job, guys, his involvement should have been done and could have been done. But his wife and her daughters had concern about this money. And rather than say to them, hey, this has to take its process, this is what happens, he decided to make a call. Now, I think it is disingenuous at best when he says he was just calling to provide some information. He was calling to impact what that officer was going to do with that money, and that's exactly what he did. But he didn't only impact the return of that money, he impacted the course that the officers were taking in charging this person, who Sergeant Rayford had described as a drug dealer. They were going to charge him with trafficking, but when they gave up that evidence of money, they decided it had to be possession. That's what all the charges reflect. Certainly, most of us would say that the perception of the public where police are concerned is that friends and family get special treatment. And clearly, that is a perception that one would draw from this. Sergeant Rayford took this action and gave special treatment to his stepdaughter and his family. I have the highest respect for our police department. With that, I also have the highest expectation. I believe that we all do. I'm a little bit idealist, and so I'm hesitant to share this with you, but I believe in our government. I believe it's a government, a contract with the people. we together take our rights and form a government, and that government has a great deal of authority over our individual rights. It takes that authority and it gives it to police officers with a badge and a gun. And we expect them to responsibly, reasonably, and appropriately exercise that authority. It's the authority that you, the council, have given these officers when they're hired and when they're sworn in. Remember, Sergeant Rayford is a supervisor. You heard about the important role that the sergeants play in guiding, in leading, in training these officers. Supervisors are supposed to lead, not mislead. And that's what this case is about. It is difficult for any profession to police itself. I think our Division of Police do an excellent job of doing that. They did it in this case. They did it well. They went through the process. There's an internal affairs investigation. There's a review board. There's a recommendation. The chief meets with the officer both before the review board and after. They, the police, have done their job. Linda and I filed charges. We presented it to you today. We've demonstrated to you that Sergeant Rayford is guilty of misconduct and that at the very least he should be demoted, as was the recommendation and review board. We've done our job. Now it's time for you all to do your job under the statute, which is hear this case, make a determination. What I'm asking you to do is to demonstrate that you don't condone Sergeant Brayford's conduct, that you have high standards and expectations for police supervisors. As I said, demotion is certainly the least that we're asking for. Under the statute, you have an entire range of discipline available, including dismissal. Because Sergeant Rayford continues to refuse to acknowledge his misconduct, as he has tonight, I'm suggesting to you that it should be demotion plus. You should do a demotion and some level of suspension as well. But if you think Sergeant Rayford sincerely cannot acknowledge that what he did here was wrong, then you have to consider whether or not he should continue to be a police officer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Horne. All right. The next step in our procedure is that the Council will retire for deliberations in closed session, along with Mr. Enloe as the special counsel, and then it will return to open session for a vote. I'll need to ask when we go into closed session that everyone, with the exception of the Council, excuse themselves from the chambers. All right. So is there a motion to go into closed session? Mr. Martin? A motion by Mr. Farmer, a second by Vice Mayor Gorton. Is there any discussion? Mayor, before we go into closed session, I just want to make sure we had copies of the exhibits that are provided to the clerk. So if Mr. Enloe maybe could secure us a case anybody wants to see those in connection with our deliberations. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Martin. All right. All in favor of going to closed session, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. We will go into closed session. Yes. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. The End Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End ¶¶ Thank you. . . . ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. The End . . . The End . . . The End Thank you. The End Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. We come out of closed session. The motion by the Vice Mayor, seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of coming out of closed session, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries. All right, we are back. The council is now in open session. We'll wait just a second for the council to return. Thank you. All right. All right. Chair will entertain a motion. Council Member, Council Member, we're all right to proceed. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. I move that Sergeant Earl Rayford is found guilty of the charges of misconduct. It's a motion by Council Member McCord, seconded by Council Member Henson. Is there a discussion? Hearing none, we do need to take a roll call vote. So, Madam Clerk, can you call the roll, please? Ms. Lawless? Yes. Mr. Martin? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Yes. Mr. Blues? Yes. Ms. Crosby? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Aye. Mr. Ford? Yes. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. And Mr. Lane? Yes. Motion as presented passes. Mr. McCord. Mayor, I move that the penalty for misconduct for Sergeant Earl Rayford be demotion. Is there a motion? Is there a second? There's a motion by Council Member McCord, seconded by Council Member Henson. Is there any discussion as to the motion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk will take a roll call vote, please. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Mr. Martin? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Mr. Beard? No. Mr. Blues? Yes. Ms. Crosby? No. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Aye. Mr. Ford? No. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. And Mr. Lane? No. No. All right. Thank you. The motion, as presented, passes. Is there any further, anything further to come before the Council this evening? Sure. Second. Motion by Councilman Ellinger to adjourn. Second by Vice Mayor Gordon. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. We are adjourned.