Microsoft Word - AS Allegations Summary IA2022-03.doc - ryanp

Please enable JavaScript to view the full PDF

INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY COMPLAINT SUMMARY On 04/23/22 at approximately 0645 hours Officers with the GJPD were in the area of the Studio 6 Hotel on Horizon Drive investigating a shooting that occurred around 0300 hours the same morning. Officers contacted a suspicious vehicle in the area that matched the description of the suspect vehicle. The sole occupant of the vehicle, Aaron Booker, refused to identify himself to officers and stated he was a constitutionalist. Officers pursued other means in identifying Booker and he was released once they were able to identify him. On 04/24/22 a YouTube channel by the name “We The People University” posted an edited cell phone video of the incident recorded by Booker. The presenter of the video, Abiyah Israel, alleged officers (Officer Tyler Posadas, Cpl. Colter Church and Sgt. Jacob Steele) “held [Booker] hostage” by unlawfully detaining him because they lacked reasonable suspicion. The video generated significant interest and numerous individuals contacted the GJPD to express frustration surrounding the video and the involved officers. There were additional concerns about Cpl. Church and Sgt. Steele not identifying themselves. Due to the seriousness of the allegations an internal review into the incident was authorized by Deputy Chief Smith on 04/28/22. On 05/03/22 the GJPD received a letter via email from Attorney Sarah Schielke of The Life and Liberty Law Office. Atty. Schielke advised Aaron Booker retained her as his attorney to assist with obtaining “all incident recordings” associated to the contact pursuant to CRS 24-31-902(2)(a). Atty. Schilke further advised the letter served as “notice of Mr. Booker’s complaint of peace officer misconduct against officers Church, Posadas, and the on-scene sergeant who refused to give his name.” On 05/04/22 the PD received a subsequent request asking for records pursuant to CRS 24-31-902(2)(a) from Dale Hiller with LackLuster Media LLC. Both Requests can be referenced in Section 3. INVESTIGATION SUMMARY Initial Call for Service Per officer’s reports, dispatch audio recordings and the dispatch call for service report (CFS 785) at 0259 hours Officers with the GJPD were dispatched to the report of a shooting in the area of Studio 6 Extended Stay Hotel, 704 Horizon Drive. The reporting ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 1 of 17 I.A. 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY I.A. 2022-03 party advised they heard around four to five gunshots and saw a "dark figure" run past the Days Inn, 708 Horizon Drive. Per dispatch notes Cpl. Church was dispatched the call at 0301 hours, Sgt. Steele was dispatched at 0309 hours and Officer Posadas was dispatched at 0314 hours. The Dispatch Call for Service Report can be located in Section 4, relevant Officer Reports can be referenced in Section 5 and Radio Traffic can be located at G:\Personnel Files\IA and Supervisory Inv Files\Investigations\2022 Investigations\IA2022-03 Posadas, Church, Steele\Radio Traffic. Officers responded to the area and did not immediately locate anything. At 0313 hours dispatch received a call from St. Mary's Hospital advising a patient, showed up with a gunshot wound to the head. arrived at the hospital with a female by the name of was taken into the hospital and began receiving medical attention for his injury. Officer Carli Ford briefly spoke with before he was taken for a CT scan. Per her report, “ told me briefly that he was shot in the head by a " and a black male. He described " as a "little white preppy kid with a beard."” Officer Ford then interviewed Per Officer Ford’s BWC, stated friend was “half-black” and the one who shot Additionally, showed Officers images of friend from social media, confirming him as a black male. Cpl. Schriener and Officer Salgado were also present for the interview. Per dispatch call notes and BWC, Cpl. Schriener aired this information at 0327 hours on the GJPD primary radio channel, stating “Information, suspect is a younger male, mixed race, unknown clothing description, staying in an unknown room at the travel lodge, break. Should be in the company of a a white male; and that’s all I have on The incident was switched to the radio channel Tac 4 at 0331 hours. At 0333 hours, Officer Ford updated the description on Tac 4 stating “Suspect is possible black male, further information on that, he might have shoulder length dreadlocks.” At 0324 hours Officer Rowe and Cpl. Church contacted a witness, in the Travel Lodge parking lot. was initially uncooperative and detained in handcuffs. A field show-up was also done on by witnesses in the Village Inn. The Officers had reasonable suspicion to contact and detain due to the recency to the time of the shooting, limited foot traffic due to the time of the morning, his location in proximity to the shooting and the area where the potential suspect was last seen (per hotel employee). Per Officer Rowe’s report “ also advised he knew the two males were associated to a dark blue new model Nissan (possibly an Altima), with tinted windows and new rims. advised the Nissan would be at the Travelodge in the area of the pool and the two males would be associated to a room facing the pool.” This was also confirmed on BWC. After obtaining the information she advised Cpl. Church of the information, and then aired ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 2 of 18 I.A. 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY I.A. 2022-03 the information over Tac 4 at 0355 hours. At 0331 hours Officer Posadas interviewed witness, In his report described both males as black males. Officer Posadas then interviewed witness at 0340 hours. Per his report, described suspects as a black male and a white male. This was also confirmed through his BWC. At approximately 0334 hours another individual was contacted and detained by Officers McBride and Moesser. The male was sleeping in his car parked in the Denny’s parking lot, along Horizon Drive. The male was semi-cooperative, as he initially refused to exit his vehicle until Officer McBride advised he was being detained until he was identified. The male was eventually identified as and released. The temporary detention was appropriate when considering the same factors articulated for detention. At approximately 0415 hours a dark sedan is seen leaving the area of the Travelodge at a high rate of speed. The vehicle also had an altered exhaust. The vehicle was eventually contacted at the Clifton exit on I-70 by Officer Lopez and found to be unrelated to the homicide investigation. The stop of the vehicle was appropriate due to the location to the crime scene, vehicle description, driving behavior and the altered exhaust. Per radio traffic, as of about 0515 hours, Officers had not yet confirmed the suspect vehicle and were actively watching two vehicles in the parking lot of the Travel Lodge matching the description (one silver and one gray) and any other vehicles in the area matching the description: a late model dark/silver/gray sedan similar to a Nissan Altima. Suspicious Vehicle Contact – Aaron Booker At 0645 hours Sgt. Steele requested Cpl. Church to stop a vehicle leaving the south parking lot of the Travel Lodge stating over GJPD primary (a non-encrypted radio channel) “There is a vehicle leaving the south exit, I’d like a plate on that car.” He then asked Officer Posadas “Hey Posadas, actually flip and go get that one please.” Per Sgt. Steele’s report: Information was learned there were possible two suspects and one of them was an African American male with shoulder length dreadlocks, while the second was believed to be a Caucasian male. The suspects were believed to be staying at the Travelodge (718 Horizon Drive) in an unknown room and possible associated to a dark colored sedan. Sgt. Steele further articulated his reasons for wanting the vehicle stopped by writing: While I was standing, talking to Sergeant Crocker, we observed a darker gray sedan, 2015 Mazda 3 UT-L539U, driving south down on Horizon Drive. The vehicle was approaching the crime scene and then slowed down, made a U-turn. This was unusual when compared to the other vehicles driving on Horizon Drive and seemed like the vehicle was avoiding the area the police were located. After ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 3 of 18 I.A. 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY I.A. 2022-03 the U-turn the vehicle turned into the south driveway of the Travelodge hotel. The vehicle was in the Travelodge parking lot for approximately three to five minutes and then started to exit the Travelodge parking lot through the south driveway. I cannot be sure this was the same vehicle that made the U-turn but based on body style, window tint and color I thought it was the same vehicle. The vehicle stopped and waited for a few minutes to the point that a second vehicle that was behind this vehicle was waiting on it and then pulled around the vehicle to get onto Horizon Drive. The vehicle left when I aired the information on the radio, furthering my suspicion, indicating the occupants of the vehicle could be using a police scanner to avoid contact, detection and further survey law enforcement to share information with a suspect attempting to avoid police contact. The vehicle turned into the Alta Gas Station (722 Horizon Drive) and parked on the Northside against a cement wall. [A Map of the location can be referenced in Section 7] Sgt. Steel also noted in his report the “[The] short amount of time at the Travelodge, [was] consistent with picking someone up.” Sgt. Crocker who was with Sgt. Steele during this time corroborated the driving behavior witnessed by Sgt. Steele. In addition, Sgt. Croker saw the vehicle did not utilize its turn signal as it made the U-turn (Sgt. Steele did not note seeing the turn signal). Sgt. Crocker also stated the following in his report; During my 25 years in law enforcement, I know it is not uncommon for a suspect or persons of interest to have someone else come to their location, hide in that vehicle in an attempt to help them leave the area. I also know it is not uncommon for people to sit and watch law enforcement to see what we are doing and then relay that information to others that might be in hiding. It should be further noted that dash-camera footage later posted by Booker on his YouTube channel indicated the vehicle that drove around him was the vehicle being driven by his associates that he was meeting and going to Cameo with. On 05/13/22 I conducted an interview with Sgt. Steele and asked him to clarify what he knew the suspect vehicle description to be that morning. Sgt. Steele stated that early in the call (well before Booker’s contact), they developed a suspect vehicle description of a dark gray Nissan Altima sedan. This vehicle description remained valid for the entirety of time Sgt. Steele was on scene (he left at approximately 1000 hours). He said this information was obtained from their initial witness on scene, who proved other credible information, such as the location of the bullet casings. During his time on scene, Sgt. Steele had an officer keep a visual on the potential suspect vehicle and the associated hotel room at rear of the Travelodge; as well as watching for any other vehicles matching the suspect vehicle description. I asked Sgt. Steele if the suspect vehicle information weighed into his reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle (in addition to the suspicious driving behavior he had articulated in his report). Sgt. Steele stated the suspicious driving behavior around the crime scene was his initial reasonable suspicion, however, the vehicle description (dark ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 4 of 18 I.A. 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY I.A. 2022-03 color sedan) being similar was “complimentary” and added to the suspicious driving behavior, and the totality of the reasonable suspicion. Sgt. Steele also reaffirmed his concerns over the vehicle potentially picking up the suspect, switching vehicles, or returning to the scene to manipulate or take evidence. Further, that an accomplice or suspect in this circumstance typically makes mistakes due to the stress they are under, such as missing a turn or adding extra steps. Per Cpl. Church’s report: On 4/23/22 at approximately 0647 hours I was parked behind the Travel Lodge Hotel Located at 718 Horizon Dr. watching two dark colored sedans parked behind the building that were possibly related to the attempted homicide case numerous officers in the area were investigating. Sgt. Steele then asked over the air that a dark colored sedan pulling out of the Travel Lodge parking lot be contacted and the driver identified. Sgt. Steele also indicated that he observed suspicious driving behavior from the vehicle. It should be noted that information developed during the course of the investigation, which had been ongoing since about 0259 hours, indicated that a dark colored sedan, possibly a Nissan Altima was involved and that the two suspects were likely associated with the Travel Lodge. Video reviewed from the Travel Lodge showed the two suspects on the hotel property. One suspect was a white male and the other suspect a black male. At approximately 0649 hours, Officer Posadas pulled up behind the vehicle after it parked in a parking space at the Alta Gas Station (initially his lights were not activated). Per BWC and an eventual DMV return out of Utah, the vehicle was a dark gray 2015 Mazda 3, registered to Aaron Booker. At 0650 hours Cpl. Church advised the male was uncooperative and asked for a return on the Utah plate (L539U). Sgt. Steele then advised Cpl. Church, “Colt, Steele, we definitely have RS on that guy for an ID.” It's important to note a 2015 Mazda 3 (sedan/hatchback) is a in the same class of car as a 2015 Nissan Altima (sedan). When doing a side-by-side comparison of the esthetics and dimensions the vehicles are very similar. A Side by Side Comparison of both vehicles is available for reference in Section 7, as well as Comparison Photos. It should be noted a 2018 and later Nissan Altima looks more esthetically similar to a Mazda 3 as the front facia/grill is less sloped and more upright. During an interview conducted with Officer Posadas on 05/12/22 I clarified his reason(s) for conducting the stop. In summary, Officer Posadas stated that although he knew the suspect vehicle description was possibly an early to mid-2000’s Nissan Altima sedan, dark in color, he initiated the contact with the Mazda because Sgt. Steele asked him to. Officer Posadas was uncertain what level of involvement the vehicle may have had related to the homicide, or other reasons why Sgt. Steele may want the vehicle contacted. Essentially, Officer Posadas was following an order, but knew it was related to the homicide investigation (possibly an accomplice picking up the suspect or switching ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 5 of 18 I.A. 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY I.A. 2022-03 vehicles). Per BWC, at 0648 hours Officer Posadas contacted the driver, later identified as Aaron Booker, who rolled his window down only a few inches. Their initial interaction is as follows: Booker: “Can I help you?” Posadas: “Yeah. Would you mind rolling down your window real quick?” Booker: “No, what do you need?” Posadas: “I need you to identify yourself.” Booker: “No, why?” Posadas: “Ah, because you’re leaving an area where a shooting occurred. Don’t worry, this is being recorded as well.” Booker: “I know, but your recording is easier, or a lot harder to get versus mine.” Posadas: “Okay, well can you please roll down your window more, so I can talk to you?” Booker: “No, no. what do you need?” Posadas: “Alright, well, I need to identify you.” Booker: “No you do not.” Posadas: “My name is Officer Posadas, with the Grand Junction Police Department. Alright.” Booker: “What’s, what’s you badge number?” Posadas: “20-16, it’s right here. And this is my Corporal right here, this Corporal Church as well, so I need you to identify yourself.” During the interview with Officer Posadas, I asked his impressions of the situation once he saw the driver was black. Officer Posadas explained that although he knew one of the suspects was a black male, he saw Booker did not have dreadlocks and appeared well-kept and therefore didn’t think he was likely the suspect, however, he also understood he could still be related to the homicide investigation. Further, that although he did not think of at the time, later in the morning he realized the suspect could have changed his appearance. From then on, the conversation digresses to Booker explaining his rights as a citizen and arguing with Officer Posadas that he (Posadas) did not “suspect” “actual him” of committing a crime, in order to identify him. Further that “failing to identify” is a “secondary offense.” Booker then reaffirms he is not going to identify himself. Officer Posadas then attempts to clarify the circumstances of the shooting (and contact) by stating, “Earlier in the night there was a shooting that occurred right near the Travel Lodge and your car is similar in description, a dark colored sedan, to the suspect vehicle. So, you’re seen leaving the Travel Lodge where we have information that’s where the suspect might have come from.” Booker responds by asking numerous questions, then declaring that Officer Posadas, did not have “reasonable articulable suspicion” to contact him and require him to identify himself. ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 6 of 18 I.A. 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY I.A. 2022-03 Booker states once again he is not going to identify himself and Officer Posadas responds by advising if he (Booker) does not identify himself, he will remove Booker from his vehicle and detain him for obstruction. Booker responds by disagreeing and re- explaining his interpretation of constitutional law and Colorado law. Booker and Officer Posadas continue to have an agitated dialog, essentially repeating the same information that has already been explained or stated on each person’s part. At one point Booker demands Officer Posadas tell him what crime he is suspected of committing and Officer Posadas states “possible attempted homicide.” Later, Officer Posadas, after being questioned by Booker, states two witnesses advised one of the suspects “may be of African descent.” This information further agitates Booker and Booker continues explaining his interpretation of the law and stating Officer Posadas does not have the right to identify him. Officer Posadas again tries to explain the reasons for the stop, however Booker, continues to interrogate Officer Posadas about the validity of the stop. It appears that no amount of explanation on the part of Officer Posadas would gain compliance on the part of Booker. The back and forth between the two continues several times, until Cpl. Church speaks with Booker. During the interview with Officer Posadas, I asked why he used the words possibly and may be when describing the suspects and suspect vehicle. Officer Posadas explained “I don’t want to divulge too much information of an ongoing investigation, but I also want to be able to articulate to this guy, er, to Mr. Booker why I stopped him, in hopes it would satisfy in his mind, “Like oh okay, like that is reasonable.”” I also asked why he did not attempt to remove Booker from the vehicle. In short, Officer Posadas explained that although he believed he was legally justified to do so, at that point he did not believe it would be worth it. That it would result in “one of those ugly uses of force or responses to resistance.” Cpl. Church conveyed the same sentiment during his interview. During the interview with Sgt. Steele, I asked the same question and Sgt. Steele gave a similar answer as Officer Posadas; Booker was physically composed in the car, no immediate threats were seen in the car, and he believed pursuing other investigative means would avoid an escalation of force that would potentially injure Booker, injure officers or damage Booker’s property. Sgt. Steele said his primary goal was to identify Booker (as a suspicious individual at an attempted homicide crime scene) and if he could do that another way, an altercation could be avoided. I asked Sgt. Steele if he felt he would have been lawful in ordering Booker out of the car and he asserted that he would have. Sgt. Steele reaffirmed that the severity of the crime, the suspicious driving behavior in and around the crime scene and to a degree, Booker’s behavior during the contact all increased the need to identify Booker. Further that the courts support officers with the need to control and remove individuals in these circumstances. ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 7 of 18 I.A. 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY I.A. 2022-03 Per BWC and reports, while Officer Posadas was speaking to Booker, he directed Cpl. Church to contact another vehicle that was parked in front of the gas station. During their conversation Booker identified the two individuals in the vehicle as who he was going to the Cameo shooting competition with. Cpl. Church contacted the two occupants, a white male driver and a white female passenger. The driver did most of the speaking and advised they were with Booker and Cpl. Church explained the reasons why he was contacting him. They also confirmed they know the male stopped as Aaron Booker and they were going to a shooting competition in Cameo with him. To their knowledge he was not involved in the shooting. Per Cpl. Church’s report, they also request Booker not be told they confirmed who he was. During the interview with Cpl. Church he stated that after the driver made that comment he replied something to the effect of “Yeah he’s being difficult.” to which the driver replied “I know he [Booker] can be that way.” At hours 0653 hours, Cpl. Church spoke with Booker but the conversation did not significantly improve: Church: “Hi Aaron.” Booker: “I understand you situation. I, but, but, but I, I, am a free American. I’m a God damn veteran marine whose done four deployments in fucking Iraq. You’re not going to come up to me and try an intimidate me.” Church: “Has anybody intimidated you? Whose intimidating you?” Booker: “He is [Posadas].” Church: “Do you want to talk to me?” Booker: “Yes, yes.” Church: “Okay, alright, he’ll step back.” Cpl. Church continues to speak with Booker and attempts to identify him, however Booker continues to refuse and forcefully explains his interpretation of law and the circumstances of the stop. Booker is adamant in his beliefs and, as with Officer Posadas, is not willing to hear new information or explanations. Booker also identifies himself as a constitutionalist. Cpl. Church asks Booker questions about Colorado and Utah drivers licenses and police contacts, which he answers. Cpl. Church then makes polite conversation about the competition in Cameo and Booker asks if he’s being detained. Cpl. Church tells him yes and Booker states he is going to execute his 5th Amendment right to remain silent. While Cpl. Church was speaking with Booker, Officer Posadas works on finding a photograph of Booker in law enforcement databases and with dispatch. At 0656 hours Officer Posadas returned to Booker, as Cpl. Church left. Officer Posadas does not have significant conversation with Booker and transitions to a role of a cover officer. However, Booker states “I’m going to send this video to We the People on YouTube and its, it’s going to blow up and you’re going to look ridiculous for your intimidation tactics. I’m just saying.” Booker continues to engage Officer Posadas about racial issues and these issues being a reason to violate peoples rights. Officer Posadas ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 8 of 18 I.A. 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY I.A. 2022-03 expresses his sympathy about Booker feeling that way and tries to again explain the situation to him. Booker then suddenly states he’s “executing” his 5th Amendment right to remain silent. There is limited interaction during this time between Officer Posadas and Booker, until Booker demands Officer Posadas explains why they did not contact his friends in the second vehicle. As Booker is talking about his friends, he becomes more angry and Officer Posadas calmly attempts to de-escalate; Posadas: “Okay, well, I’m sorry that…” (interrupted by Booker) Booker: “No, shut you fucking mouth! I don’t want to fucking talk to you!” Posadas: “You’re not going to tell me how to talk alright?” Booker: “You shut your fucking, mother fucking mouth!” Posadas: “Corporal come up here, it’s not working. Never mind, it’s not even worth it.” Booker: “Yeah, yes, exactly. Shut the fuck up. Posadas: “Alright.” Booker: “I’m executing, I’m, I’m just going to fucking be quiet.” Posadas, further attempts to deescalate the situation by again apologizing and further explaining the circumstances of the contact. The attempt did not help the situation or gain compliance from Booker. At 0705 hours Sgt. Steele arrived at the stop and spoke with Booker. This is no progress made during this conversation, as Sgt. Steele advises Booker he has to identify himself and Booker refuses, responding by telling Sgt. Steele to explain why he has to. The conversation digresses from there. Booker then tells Sgt. Steele to give him his name and badge number and Sgt. Steele refuses to give it to him stating Booker also needs to give him his name. The conversation continues for a few more minutes but, again no progress is made. Sgt. Steele attempts to explain the reason for the stop multiple times, but Booker demands his name and badge number, then states he is going to execute his right to remain silent. During the interview with Steele, I asked why he did not provide his name and badge number when Booker demanded it and he stated “It wasn’t my intention to not give it to him. I think at one point I said, something like “Not now.” or something like that. Um, it was not my intention to withhold that from him. Um. As much as, um, with him not giving his name and then demanding my name, I wasn’t going to give it to him right that second. Um. And then when I went to the Travelodge, I came back and I said “That looks like him.” and I left. I forgot.” I then asked Sgt. Steele his understanding of requirements for producing this information and he explained he believed it was required under (GJPD) policy as well as statute. At 0708 hours Cpl. Church took over as cover officer with Booker, while Sgt. Steele went to the Travelodge to see if they had a copy of Bookers identification on file. There was minimal dialogue between them, excluding Booker asking Cpl. Church to identify himself. ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 9 of 18 I.A. 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY I.A. 2022-03 Although Cpl. Church was identified previously by Officer Posadas, he did not identify himself to Booker again. Instead, Cpl. Church explains he will provide his name and badge number after Booker complies and provides his. Cpl. Church further explains to Booker he is holding up an investigation and violating the law by not identifying himself. Booker does not identify himself. Officer Posadas also states to Booker he can look up obstruction of a Peace Officer in Colorado Revised Statutes (for further reference). For the next several minutes Booker narrates to his phone and becomes upset when Officer Posadas thinks he is speaking to him; cursing and telling him to shut up. Later during his interview, Cpl. Church explained he did not identify himself because he already knew Booker had his name and felt he did not want his name repeated on his Booker’s cell phone video (and potentially the internet). At 0715 hours Sgt. Steele returned to Booker with a photo on his cell phone he obtained from the Travelodge. Sgt. Steele was then able to confirm Booker’s identity. The stop concluded at 0719 hours and Officer Posadas states “Alright Mr. Booker you have a nice day. Good luck at your shooting competition.” To which Booker replies “Fuck-off.” Investigation Progression and Resolution From the time the call was dispatched around 0300 hours, officers and detectives continuously investigated and developed suspect leads. When officers developed suspect and suspect vehicle information linking back to the Travelodge, they consistently surveilled and explored any leads relating to the Travelodge and the afore mentioned descriptions. The information relating to the Travelodge was credible enough that constant surveillance was maintained on the hotel and the related vehicles into the late morning hours. While surveillance was maintained, detectives expanded leads and developed concreate suspect information, which lead to the SWAT team ultimately executing a search warrant on the room rented by the suspects around 1330 hours. The information of the suspect vehicle being a dark colored Nissan Altima was not dispelled until approximately 1245 hours. After completion of the search warrant at the Travelodge, an arrest warrant was issued for the arrest of the suspect in the case, a black male, Stanley Lucero. Interviews completed with Officer Posadas, Sgt. Steele and Cpl. Church were recorded and their Transcripts should be referenced in Section 9 for further detail. YouTube Content On 04/24/22 YouTube videos related to this incident were posted to at least two YouTube channels. One of the channels, We The People University, posted one edited video and it garnered a significant amount of views in the first 48 hours (over 200,000). The second channel, Anonymized, originally posted five videos relating to the incident and had much less views (less than 2,000). Screenshots of YouTube Content can be referenced in Section 6. ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 10 of 18 I.A. 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY I.A. 2022-03 The owner/administrator of We The People University, is a male who identifies himself as Abiyah Israel who proports to be a “former Police Officer and former Sheriff.” A cursory internet search did provide any information to confirm Abiyah Israel is his real name or confirmation of what agencies he previously worked at, or that he was actually a Sheriff, as opposed to a Deputy. Israel’s channel is heavily viewed, with numerous videos regarding police contact. Israel sells merchandise, is most likely monetized and heavily advertises an ebook he authored, titled “Surviving the Police.” The owner/administrator of Anonymized appears to be Aaron Booker, as he is featured in the videos, narrates in the comments, and narrates to the camera about the incident. Booker’s channel is a small channel with only his videos related to this incident. It appears it was created solely due to this incident. YouTube Video – We The People University The Video, which is 14:29 in length, can be referenced at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV0fJYnaWdI. At the time of this investigation there is not an appropriate means to download the video or a practical way to record the video. As previously mentioned, this video was the apparent catalyst for public frustration and concern over the incident. This video was also heavily edited, as the interaction with Booker is approximately 30 minutes and this video is only 14:29 minutes (this includes narration by Israel). The editing of the video does not lend favor to the officers as it removed comments and explanations on their part, as well as excluding demonstrative behavior on the part of Booker. Further, Israel prefaces the video with inaccurate or false information. For example, the fact Booker is a Marine is focused upon for apparent emotional appeal from the audience. However, officers did not have knowledge of Bookers military status before the stop. Another example is Israel stating the incident happened the night before, conveying a sense of inappropriateness due to the elongated timeline. The incident, in fact, occurred approximately three and a half hours prior to Booker’s stop and the officers never left the area of attempted homicide scene. Finally, another example is the statement “…held hostage while pumping gas.” Again, an exaggeration of the circumstances with a false statement that Booker was pumping gas. The video continues with conjecture on Israel’s part, evaluating the incident based off the information (or his interpretation of the information) known to him through Booker’s video with no further investigation into the incident or benefit given to officers. The overarching assumption of Israel’s analysis is there was no other information known to the officers and the only factors for the stop are what was divulged by Officer Posadas; that there is some implicit requirement that an officer must explain all reasons for a stop before an individual needs to comply with the stop. YouTube Videos – Anonymized Upon initially viewing Anonymized’s channel on 04/26/22 there were five videos posted ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 11 of 18 I.A. 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY I.A. 2022-03 relating to the incident. They are summarized as:  Dashcam (interior) – Prior to LE contact (unknown minutes, deleted)  Dashcam (exterior) – Prior to LE contact (2:24)  Dashcam (interior) – LE contact (33:34)  Cell Phone (Booker) – LE contact (30:20)  Cell Phone (Booker) – Interpretive analysis of incident (14:43) Anyonymized has since removed the interior dashcam video prior to police contact and, I believe, added additional captions to the interior dash cam video of the contact. The Videos can be referenced here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxbn28wTWZpBbYutNw2zUSw/videos. At the time of this report there is not a means to download the video or a practical way to record the videos. On or around 05/06/22 Anonymized posted a follow-up video titled I’ll teach the Grand Junction PD how to do their jobs. In the video Booker alleges he submitted a request for BWC footage from the GJPD and was told “They’re not going to do it, they’re not going to release it because it’s, um, part of an investigation.” I have been unable to locate any formal record request summitted by Booker himself. Booker then explains he retained an attorney who contacted the GJPD and advised the PD they have 21 days to release the footage. SUMMARY OF CONCERNS Upon learning about the “viral” video involving Officer Posadas, Cpl. Church and Sgt. Steele which alleged violation of an individual’s (Aaron Booker) 4th Amendment rights, the GJPD initiated and investigation into the incident. Eventually, an attorney retained by Booker made a formal complaint into the incident on his behalf. The central issue regarding this incident is whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain Booker. Sgt. Steele initiated the stop of Booker by telling Officer Posadas to stop his vehicle. At the time of his request, all available information showed Sgt. Steele based his reasonable suspicion off the highly suspicious driving behavior of Booker around the crime scene and that the vehicle being driven by Booker matched the suspect vehicle description. Per GJPD Policy (ADM 133) and Colorado Revised Statutes (16-3-103), a peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime. The Colorado Peace Officer Handbook further details a suspect can be detained when articulated facts and circumstances would lead a reasonable officer to believe the circumstances outlined above are occurring. Sgt. Crocker, who was with Sgt. Steele, saw and articulated the same suspicions as Sgt. Steele. The specific criminal activity the Sergeants believed was being committed was in connection to an attempted homicide or complicity to an attempted homicide. The ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 12 of 18 I.A. 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY I.A. 2022-03 articulation given by both Sergeants was detailed, specific to the crime they were currently investigating and more than a mere hunch. Once the contact and subsequent stop with Booker was made, officers used the minimal amount of force necessary (officer presence / no force) to detain Booker who was verbally non-compliant and seated in his vehicle. There is no legal requirement to divulge all details of reasonable suspicion to a stopped person before they are required to comply with the stop (and identify themselves). This would be highly impracticable and would jeopardize investigations and an officer’s safety. Officers would have been justified to ask Booker out of his vehicle due to officer safety concerns, however, they chose to identify Booker via less invasive means by researching his license plate, DMV records and hotel records. Officers diligently pursued these means of identification until they confidently identified Booker. Once they confirmed Booker’s identity and their suspicions were dispelled, they immediately concluded the stop and left the area; effectively releasing Booker of the stop. The stop took approximately 30 minutes but was solely prolonged due to Booker’s non-compliance. Regarding the concept of reasonable suspicion, The Colorado Peace Officer Handbook makes an important point: If you have an articulable reasonable suspicion that a suspect is involved in criminal activity, you may briefly detain him in order to “maintain the status quo” and investigate. Courts use the “stats quo” language because it implies that you are not really doing anything to the suspect, besides taking some of his time. This distinction is important because all Fourth Amendment intrusions must be reasonable. If all you are doing is temporarily detaining a suspect, versus conducting a full search or other arrest-like behavior, then it’s more likely to be considered reasonable. Another policy issue revealed during this investigation was the refusal of Cpl. Church and Sgt. Steele to identify themselves. Both supervisors clearly refuse to do so during the contact. It should be noted Cpl. Church had already been identified by Officer Posadas, but Booker insisted Cpl. Church had to identify himself again. GJPD Policy (ADM 133) references Colorado Revised Statute 24-31-309 which states, “A peace officer certified pursuant to this part 3 shall provide, without being asked, the peace officer’s business card to any person whom the peace officer has detained in a traffic stop, but has not cited or arrested.” GJPD Policy (ADM 133) further states “An Officer, as a matter of Department policy, shall provide a Department issued business card to any person who has been the subject of a stop.” It is important to note, this contact was pursuant to reasonable suspicion regarding a crime, not a traffic violation constituting a traffic stop. In summary, Sgt. Steele clearly articulated reasonable suspicion to contact Booker and Officer Posada’s and Cpl. Church detained Booker based off Sgt. Steele’s request. ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 13 of 18 I.A. 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY I.A. 2022-03 Booker was detained for the amount of time necessary to identify him and dispel any involvement in the homicide being investigated. The officers’ actions do not appear to be in violation of GJPD policy and procedure, or state law. Cpl. Church and Sgt. Steele did not identify themselves (or provide a business card), which was not a violation of state law, but was potentially a violation of GJPD Policy as they are required to provide a business card. RELATED POLICIES Applicable GJPD Policy Violation(s): AM 121.03 Guiding Philosophies / Our Core Values Integrity - We hold ourselves accountable to the highest level of honesty, truthfulness, and ethical conduct. We are truthful and open in our interactions with each other and with citizens of our community. Our value as police employees depends upon the respect and confidence we earn from the community. The integrity of each individual, as well as the organization, is necessary to maintain our community’s trust. With this trust, we expect to form successful partnerships. ADM 122.02 Decision Making Model / Litmus Test Litmus Test  Does your decision help us accomplish our mission?  Is your decision consistent with our values?  Is your decision consistent with our guiding philosophies?  Is your decision legal, ethical, and moral?  Would you be proud to have your decision and your subsequent behavior featured on television or in the newspaper?  Would someone that you really respect be proud of your decision?  Can your decision be implemented consistently by all teams? If the answer is “yes” to all the questions and there are no financial consequences, you or your team may proceed with the action without further approval. If the answer is “no” to any of the above questions, you should not proceed with your decision and other options should be considered. ADM 131.03 Code of Conduct / General Rules B. Obey All City and Department Regulations – All employees shall be familiar with and obey all rules, regulations, lawful orders and directives issued by the City, the Department, a Division within the Department or a Supervisor. Employees will not commit any act (or fail to act) in violation of any rule, regulation, law, order or directive and will never aid or abet another employee to violate any rule, regulation, law, order or directive. F. Conduct to Reflect Favorably on The Department – Employees are prohibited from engaging in conduct that could bring the Department and/or City into disrepute. This rule applies to both on-duty and off-duty conduct. ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 14 of 18 I.A. 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY I.A. 2022-03 ADM 131.17 Code of Conduct / On-Duty Conduct A. Professional Conduct – An employee’s conduct must always reflect favorably on the Department/City. Proper care and maintenance of issued equipment, performance and appearance must meet the standards established by the Department/City. ADM 133.01 Profiling / Summary This directive affirms the Police Department’s commitment to deliver law enforcement services that are unbiased, impartial and non-discriminatory in application and effect. The policy clarifies the circumstances in which race may be considered as a factor in establishing reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause and establishes policies and procedures to assure the public that the Police Department is providing fair, equitable and just service to those that it aids and protects. This Department, as a matter of general policy, acts proactively. The Officers of the Department consistent with that policy shall zealously patrol, investigate and prosecute offenses that violate the peace and dignity of the community. Officers shall at all times base their actions on a thorough understanding and application of well settled principles of law. Those principles include but are not limited to reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The Department requires that any police action taken by an Officer(s), which includes all investigative stops, traffic stops, arrests, searches and seizures of persons and/or property, shall be premised on reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause as required by the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution and case and statutory law. Consistent with those principles an Officer must be able to articulate specific facts and circumstances based on his/her experience and training which support the existence of reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause for the police action. Officers shall not initiate or take police action solely on or because of the ethnicity, religion, age, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation of a person. The Department does not condone the use of discriminatory policing, hereinafter referred to as Profiling in its enforcement efforts. ADM 133.02 Profiling / Definitions Reasonable Suspicion (also known as articulable suspicion) – Reasonable suspicion is suspicion that is more than a mere hunch. Reasonable suspicion is based on a set of articulable facts and circumstances the existence of which would cause a person of reasonable caution to believe that a violation of law has been committed, is about to be committed or is in the process of being committed, by the person or persons under suspicion. Reasonable suspicion may arise from observations made by an Officer combined with his/her training and experience ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 15 of 18 I.A. 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY I.A. 2022-03 and/or reliable information received from credible sources. Stop – A stop occurs whenever an Officer uses express or implied authority to temporarily detain a person(s) based on reasonable suspicion. (As defined in the Colorado Peace Officer’s Handbook) A temporary detention or vehicle stop is an application of express and implied authority by an Officer. A stop is something less than an arrest but more substantial than a contact. ADM 133.03 Profiling / Impartial Policing Must Have Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause – All stops (vehicle or pedestrian), arrests, searches and seizures of property (to include asset seizure and forfeiture procedures) by an Officer shall be based on reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause as required by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, case and statutory law construing the same. In order to be lawful, an Officer must be able to articulate specific facts, circumstances and conclusions, based on his/her experience and training, that support a finding of reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause for all stops, arrests and searches and/or seizures of property. No Profiling or Contacts Based on Race or Other Factors – An Officer shall not make any contact, stop, arrest, search and/or seizure solely upon a persons, race, color, nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, economic status, disability, age and/or culture.  An Officer shall not assert that he/she had reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause to contact, stop, arrest, search, and/or seize any person or property solely because of a person’s race, color, nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, economic status, disability, age and/or culture.  An Officer may take into account the race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, economic status, age and/or culture of a specific suspect(s) if the Officer has credible, reliable, locally-relevant information that links a person that has a specific characteristic(s) to a particular crime or criminal incident and/or links a suspect to a particular series of crimes or criminal incidents.  In the delivery of police services to victim(s), the suspect(s) and/or person(s) accused of committing a crime no person shall be singled out or otherwise treated differently on account of his/her race, ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation, religion, economic status, age and/or culture. ADM 133.04 Profiling / Authority and Responsibility Compliance with State Law – Pursuant to C.R.S. 24-31-309, an Officer shall provide, without being asked, an explanation for a contact or stop made.* Similarly an Officer shall provide a Department issued business card to any person whom an Officer has detained on a traffic stop, if that person is not issued a summons or arrested or when requested by the person detained. Additionally, the Officer should give a business card to anyone who requests one, regardless of their location in the vehicle. ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 16 of 18 I.A. 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY I.A. 2022-03 *CRS currently reads “A peace officer certified pursuant to this part 3 shall provide, without being asked, the peace officer’s business card to any person whom the peace officer has detained in a traffic stop, but has not cited or arrested.” ADM 133.05 Profiling / Procedure if Citizen is Stopped Provide a Business Card – An Officer, as a matter of Department policy, shall provide a Department issued business card to any person who has been the subject of a Stop.* This policy does not apply to an Officer involved in authorized undercover operations or to Contact. The Officer shall insure that his/her business cards contain the following information:  Officer’s name  Officer’s badge/ID number  Officer’s assignment  A telephone number that may be used to report any comments, positive or negative, regarding the Stop. *GJPD Policy is more restrictive than CRS, which only requires providing a business card to “any person whom the peace officer has detained in a traffic stop, but has not cited or arrested.” OPR 223.02 Field Interviews / General Procedures  Investigative Detention – A contact which involves a brief detention is permissible when done for investigative purposes and is initiated based on a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be occurring.  The time allowed for the interview or interrogation is directly related to the scope of the contact. The information obtained during a contact or stop with a citizen should be reduced to writing. Applicable City Policy Violation(s): 6.01 Ethical Conduct I. Policy City employees are prohibited from engaging in any conduct which could reflect unfavorably on the City or the employee’s service. Employees are expected to conduct themselves in such a way that their actions and relationships with each other are professional at all times and are free of gossip. Employees must avoid any action which might result in or create the impression of using public office for private gain, giving unauthorized preferential treatment to any person or losing impartiality in conducting City business. It is the City’s policy that all employees conduct themselves ethically and avoid all misconduct or the appearance of misconduct. ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 17 of 18 I.A. 2022-03 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY I.A. 2022-03 6.03 Other Harassment Or Intimidation I. Harassment Or Intimidation No City employee will harass or intimidate any other person or class of people on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, genetic information, marital status, veteran status or any other status protected by applicable state or local law. A. Definition Such harassment or intimidation includes any joke, remark or comment about another individual’s or class of people’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, genetic information, marital status, veteran status or any other legally protected status or any other physical or verbal conduct which is offensive or abusive and would serve to degrade another. Respectfully submitted, Sergeant Ryan Piotrowski 03-6 May 19th, 2022 ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY Page 18 of 18 I.A. 2022-03