Greece Police Department

Town of Greece, New York

+

6 VINCE TOFANY BOULEVARD, GREECE, NEW YORK 14612 – TELEPHONE (585) 865-9200

To: William Reilich, Town Supervisor

From: Joseph Morabito, Special Deputy Chief for Internal Affairs
and Mark Case, Assistant to the Special Deputy Chief for Internal Affairs
Re: Forsythe Motor Vehicle Accident Investigation
Date: December 21, 2021
Cc: Town Attorney and Labor Counsel – FOR LEGAL REVIEW TO ADVISE ON DISCIPLINE AND NEXT STEPS

OFFICE OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS

CASE NUMBER: 21IIV-005 – Final Report
Subject Officers: Evan Kalpin, Joshua Spearman, Ryan Camera, Andrew Potter, Casey Voelkl, Jason
Helfer, David Cubiotti, Jared Rene, Ryan Parina, and Brian Root

I. Background
In the early morning hours of Thursday, October 21, 2021, a vehicle owned by the Town of
Greece (the “Town”) and operated by the former Chief of Police, Andrew Forsythe (“Former Chief
Forsythe”), was involved in a single-vehicle motor vehicle accident (“MVA”) at approximately 12:55am.
Several officers of the Greece Police Department (“GPD”) were involved in the initial response and
investigation into the accident. Throughout the following approximately forty-eight (48) hours,
additional information became known regarding the MVA which had not been adduced from the GPD
response to the MVA. The information came primarily through information published by several media
outlets.
On Saturday, October 23, 2021, Deputy Chief Helfer reached out to Deputy Chief Voelkl to
inquire regarding information that he was learning from the media and from information coming from
within the GPD. Deputy Chief Helfer’s primary concern was that Former Chief Forsythe had not been
forthcoming about information pertaining to the MVA. Deputy Chief Helfer, without checking with
Former Chief Forsythe, contacted Town Attorney Brian Marianetti, to alert him that the MVA needed
additional investigation. Deputy Chief Helfer wanted the Town Attorney to alert the Town Supervisor
and Deputy Town Supervisor that the MVA was not a typical fleet accident like they had been led to
believe by Forsythe. The Town Attorney immediately contacted the Town Supervisor and Deputy
Town Supervisor who instructed Deputy Chief Helfer to provide a recommendation regarding the best
law enforcement agency to refer the matter to immediately. Deputy Chief Helfer called Deputy Chief
Voelkl and they determined that the matter should be referred to the Monroe County District
Attorney. Deputy Chief Voelkl contacted Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley and
requested an investigation of the accident. The District Attorney’s investigation was commenced
immediately. On that same date, the Town Supervisor placed Former Chief Forsythe on suspension. In
less than 24 hours of the referral to the District Attorney’s Office, the District Attorney was aware that
alcohol was likely a factor in the MVA, and the District Attorney preliminarily advised the Town
Supervisor of this issue on Sunday, October 24, 2021. On Monday morning, October 25, the Town
Supervisor requested Former Chief Forsythe’s resignation.

1
 Upon completing the investigation, the District Attorney charged Former Chief Forsythe with
Driving While Intoxicated (“DWI”) and leaving the scene of a Motor Vehicle Accident (“MVA”).
Additionally, the District Attorney’s Office recommended that the Town and GPD conduct a separate,
independent internal investigation regarding the actions of individuals who responded to the accident
and participated in the initial investigation of the same. I was recommended by District Attorney
Doorley and the Chief Investigator for District Attorney’s Office, CJ Dominic, to conduct the
investigation. The Town appointed me as Special Deputy Chief for Internal Affairs, and together with
Assistant to the Special Deputy Chief, Mark Case, we investigated the MVA, the events that followed,
and GPD’s response.
II. Allegations in the Internal Investigation
This investigation was commenced upon the recommendation of the District Attorney’s Office
and not in response to any specific allegation or allegations of misconduct. Upon review of the
materials gathered and provided by the District Attorney’s Office, the following allegation was inferred:
 One or more members of the GPD failed to appropriately respond to and/or investigate the
fleet MVA involving Former Chief Forsythe. In addition, throughout the course of the
investigation, information was gathered that resulted a determination that additional policy
and procedure violations may have occurred, which are set forth below.

III. Investigative Process

The following actions were taken to gather all relevant facts related to the MVA, the events
that followed the MVA, and the GPD’s response and investigation into the MVA.
 Mr. Case and I met with CJ Dominic, during which Investigator Dominic provided an overview of
the investigation completed by the Monroe County District Attorney’s Office.
 Review and analyze all documents, video footage, and audio recordings provided by the
Monroe County District Attorney’s Office. Materials reviewed included, but were not limited
to:
o Investigation Report of CJ Dominic.
o MV-104A and Investigation Report completed by Ofc. Evan Kalpin on 10/21/2021.
o Memoranda prepared by members of the GPD to the Monroe County District Attorney’s
Office pertaining to the MVA Investigation.
o Various photographs of the vehicle driven by Former Chief Forsythe.
o Cellular phone records of former Chief Forsythe.
o GPD Impound Lot Activity Log for 10/20/2021 – 10/22/2021
 Review of November 10, 2021, Memorandum from Acting Deputy Chief Ryan Parina regarding a
conversation with Sergeant Bryan Root on the same day.
 Interview of Sergeant Joshua Spearman – 10/3/2021.
 Interview of Lieutenant Andrew Potter – 10/3/2021.
 Interview of Deputy Chief Casey Voelkl – 10/7/2021.
o Supplemental Memorandum submitted by Deputy Chief Voelkl on December 10, 2021.
 Interview of Acting Chief Jason Helfer – 10/7/2021.
 Interview of Sergeant Jared Rene – 10/8/2021.
o Obtained and reviewed screenshots of text messages sent and received by Sgt. Rene
between October 21, 2021 and October 24, 2021 pertaining to the MVA.
 Interview of Acting Deputy Chief Ryan Parina – 10/8/2021.
 Interview of Sergeant Bryan Root – 10/8/2021.

2
 o Obtained and reviewed photographs taken by Sgt. Root and screenshots of text
messages sent and received by Sergeant Root on 10/21/2021 and 10/22/2021.
 Interview of Officer David Cubiotti – 10/8/2021.
 Interview of Officer Ryan Camera – 10/8/2021.
 Interview of Officer Evan Kalpin – 10/8/2021.
 Information and materials from Town and Town Labor Counsel including, but not limited to:
collective bargaining agreements, GPD policies, procedures; Walkill Resolution; sample reports;
and email and cellular records obtained by the Town’s IT Director.
 We conducted interrogations of the following Subject Officers: Evan Kalpin, Joshua Spearman,
Ryan Camera, Andrew Potter, Casey Voelkl, Jason Helfer, David Cubiotti, Jared Rene, Ryan
Parina, and Brian Root.

IV. Investigative Summary:

On October 21, 2021, at 1:49am Former Chief Forsythe called out an accident over the GPD
radio channel. Specifically, Former Chief Forsythe attempted to contact Car 804, the Precinct 1
Sergeant at the time. Because there was no Car 804 working that evening, Sergeant Joshua Spearman,
Car 805, responded to the radio transmission. Former Chief Forsythe then requested that a vehicle be
sent to the area of North Greece Road and English Road because he had struck a deer. Sergeant
Spearman responded and informed him that a vehicle would be sent to his location. Upon hearing the
call on the radio, Officer Evan Kalpin responded to the area as well, upon his own initiative, as it was
his car beat. After responding to Former Chief Forsythe, Sergeant Spearman directed Officer Ryan
Camera to respond to the MVA at North Greece Road and English Road. At the time, Sergeant
Spearman and Lieutenant Andrew Potter were sitting car to car in the Old Country Road neighborhood
as part of the group of several GPD officers concluding a search for a missing person. Lieutenant Potter
notified Sergeant Spearman that he would respond to the scene as well and directed him to stay
behind and finish the search. Each of the four individuals who heard Former Chief Forsythe on the
radio stated that they did not believe he sounded intoxicated. Lieutenant Potter noted that he
sounded “disheveled”, and further noted that it was comparable to how other officers have sounded
after fleet MVAs in the past.
Officer Kalpin was the first individual to arrive at the scene and observed significant damage to
Former Chief Forsythe’s vehicle. Specifically, the vehicle was in the middle of North Greece Road
facing northbound, straddling the double yellow lines and partially in the southbound turning lane.
The right front wheel was missing, the front driver’s side and rear passenger side tires were flat and
shredded, and there was extensive damage to the passenger side of the vehicle. Former Chief
Forsythe was walking around his vehicle when Officer Kalpin approached him. Once he reached him,
Officer Kalpin observed blood coming from his forehead traveling down his face which appeared to be
fresh and dripping, and he noticed an additional abrasion on his face. Former Chief Forsythe
repeatedly stated that he was okay but that his head hurt. He declined medical attention. Former
Chief Forsythe also told Officer Kalpin to callout and say he did not need further assistance. At that
exact time, approximately one minute after Officer Kaplin arrived at the scene, Lieutenant Potter and
Officer Camera arrived at the scene. After confirming with Officer Kalpin that the matter was under
control, Lieutenant Potter informed Officer Camera that he was not needed, and he left the scene
before having any interaction with Former Chief Forsythe.
When asked what had occurred, Former Chief Forsythe explained to both Officer Kalpin and
Lieutenant Potter that he was driving on Interstate 390 North and had struck the guardrail when
swerving to avoid hitting a deer. Former Chief Forsythe explained that this had occurred in the area of

3
Vintage Lane, and that upon striking the guardrail he must have hit his head inside the vehicle. He also
explained that his cellular phone went flying inside the vehicle and that he could not locate it.
Additionally, Former Chief Forsythe stated that his vehicle’s police radio was not working properly
following the accident, and that his several attempts to call out on his radio at the scene of the impact
were not successful. As a result, it was explained that he then started driving in an effort to get his
damaged vehicle to GPD Precinct 1 to report the accident. He further explained that the vehicle came
to rest at its current location on North Greece Rd. and English Rd. At this point he again tried his radio
and was able to successfully transmit the broadcast described above on his car radio. Former Chief
Forsythe requested that Officer. Kalpin call his cellular phone to locate it within the vehicle, and it was
ultimately found under the bottom of the center console.
Lieutenant Potter and Officer Kalpin stated that they did not observe any signs of intoxication
or alcohol consumption from Former Chief Forsythe during their conversations with him at this time.
No odor of alcoholic beverage was observed coming from Former Chief Forsythe by either individual,
nor did they observe his speech to be slurred, or any other physical signs of intoxication, based on their
training and experience. Lieutenant Potter also observed that he was chewing tobacco. Additionally,
they both observed him to be walking around his vehicle without staggering and deemed him to have a
demeanor similar to individuals encountered after being involved in a motor vehicle accident with a
head injury and extensive vehicle damage. Both Lieutenant Potter and Officer Kalpin stated that they
did not get closer than 2 to 4 feet from Former Chief Forsythe. Officer Kaplin stated that he could not
smell very well because of a recent bout with COVID. It was understood by Lieutenant Potter and
Officer Kalpin that the vehicle was in close proximity to Former Chief Forsythe’s home, but at the time,
this did not cause either to question the actual intended destination of Former Chief Forsythe.
Neither Officer Kalpin nor Lieutenant Potter considered, as part of their reasonable suspicion
evaluation, the discrepancy in the fact that Former Chief Forsythe had initially called out that he struck
a deer, but at the scene he explained that he hit a guardrail while swerving to avoid a deer. Nor did
they consider the length in which the heavily damaged vehicle would have had to travel with one
wheel missing and two others shredded. Additionally, shortly before Former Chief Forsythe called out
for assistance on the radio, a call went out over the radio from Dispatch providing information
regarding a suspicious vehicle sighted heading north toward North Greece Road driving on rims with
sparks flying. The officers at the scene recalled hearing the call shortly before responding to the
Forsythe MVA, but initially did not connect the call as related to Former Chief Forsythe’s MVA.
Once these limited details of the accident had been obtained from Former Chief Forsythe,
Lieutenant Potter approached the vehicle to complete a closer inspection of the damage. After doing
so, he called Sergeant Spearman (not on the scene yet) to try and find the scene of the accident on 390
North at Vintage Lane and then called Deputy Chief Voelkl to inform him of the incident and to receive
guidance and instruction on how to proceed. Lieutenant Potter felt the need to contact Deputy Chief
Voelkl because the damage was extensive, the vehicle had traveled a considerable distance based on
where Former Chief Forsythe stated he struck the guardrail, that Former Chief Forsythe had said he
was trying to go to Precinct 1 of the GPD and where he stopped was not in the same direction, and he
had never dealt with an MVA involving a higher-level officer, and certainly not a Chief. Lieutenant
Potter said that he called Deputy Chief Voelkl because he wanted direction from his boss and to make
sure the incident was being handled properly. Once he contacted his boss, Deputy Chief Voelkl, he
believed he was getting direction from his supervisor and that he was relinquishing control and charge
of the incident to Deputy Chief Voelkl. This was an appropriate action on Lieutenant Potter’s part
considering the situation. Lieutenant Potter relayed the details of the accident to Deputy Chief Voelkl,
including the fact that the vehicle had sustained significant damage and appeared to have traveled
some distance from where the actual impact occurred, that the vehicle was driven with only three
4
wheels, and two of the three wheels were shredded, and Former Chief Forsythe did not sound good on
the radio. Deputy Chief Voelkl only inquired whether Former Chief Forsythe was injured, and
Lieutenant Potter explained that he had an injury on his forehead and cheek and had blood on him.
Deputy Chief Voelkl then advised Lt. Potter to investigate the incident “as he saw fit” and his only
guidance was that it was critical to identify where the initial crash occurred to determine whether any
other motorists or property were involved, and to get medical attention to Former Chief Forsythe.
During this discussion, Deputy Chief Voelkl did not inquire as to whether Former Chief Forsythe had
been drinking, or direct Lieutenant Potter to inquire with Former Chief Forsythe whether he had been
drinking or even to ask where he had been prior to the MVA, because, as he explained later when
interviewed, he did not want to influence Lieutenant Potter in any way because he was not physically
at the scene. Deputy Chief Voelkl was home asleep when Lieutenant Potter called him and was
awoken by the call. He also explained that based on the time of night and circumstances of the
accident, it was in his mind that alcohol could have been a factor but still did not convey this to
Lieutenant Potter. During the investigation, it subsequently became known that Deputy Chief Voelkl
knew that Former Chief Forsythe was at a benefit earlier in the evening, which he later learned was a
New York State Police fundraiser.
Meanwhile, Sergeant Spearman commenced his search for the crash site by traveling on 390
North toward the Vintage Lane exit. Initially he could not find any signs of a collision, and proceeded to
return to 390 South, making a U-turn onto 390 North, where he traveled slowly, carefully inspecting
the guardrail on the east side of the road. Ultimately, he noticed a thin line in the pavement where it
appeared to be damaged from a vehicle scraping the pavement. He followed this line, as well as
additional, heavier markings on the pavement along Vintage Lane. At this time, Sergeant Spearman
elected to get back onto 390 South until the Lyell Avenue exit, then got onto 390 North, and traveled
slowly north in the right lane searching for the impact site.
Eventually, just north of the Latona Road overpass, Sergeant Spearman observed a piece of
metal sticking out of the guardrail. After exiting his vehicle and inspecting the object, he believed it to
be a piece of a door of a vehicle. Additionally, Sergeant Spearman observed a debris field stretching
out approximately 50 feet north of the piece of metal in the guardrail, as well a wheel of a vehicle stuck
under the guardrail. Sergeant Spearman recognized the wheel to match those on Former Chief
Forsythe’s vehicle. At this time, Sergeant Spearman called Lieutenant Potter to advise him that he
located the scene of the accident. After Sergeant Spearman described the damage and car parts he
observed, Lieutenant Potter directed him to travel to his location at North Greece Road and English
Road. Sergeant Spearman informed him that he would follow the path of the damage in the roadway
to confirm whether anything else had been struck.
Lieutenant Potter then called Deputy Chief Voelkl back to inform him that the scene of the
accident on 390 North had been located by Sergeant Spearman. During this conversation Lieutenant
Potter informed Deputy Chief Voelkl that approximately 30 minutes before Chief Forsythe’s call over
the radio, Dispatch provided information regarding a 911 call made regarding a suspicious dark colored
SUV, missing a wheel, sitting in front of a home on North Greece Avenue. He stated that he believed
this was Former Chief Forsythe’s vehicle. Lieutenant Potter also inquired as to whether Deputy Chief
Voelkl wanted him to contact a GPD technician to come to the scene and take photographs. Deputy
Chief Voelkl decided that a technician should not be called, and instead told Lieutenant Potter to take
photographs with his GPD cellphone. Lieutenant Potter took photographs of the scene where Former
Chief Forsythe’s vehicle stopped, but none were taken of Former Chief Forsythe and his injuries.
Lieutenant Potter asked Deputy Chief Voelkl if Officer Kalpin could bring Former Chief Forsythe home
from the scene, and Deputy Chief Voelkl agreed, apparently determining that there was no need for
him to remain at the scene or go to the precinct for reports. Ultimately, Deputy Chief Voelkl advised
5
Lieutenant Potter that Officer Kalpin could give Former Chief Forsythe a ride home at that time.
Deputy Chief Voelkl explained that he was on his way to the scene and would reach out to him again
when he was nearby.
Lieutenant Potter then directed Officer Kalpin to give Chief Forsythe a ride to his home and to
make sure a family member was home to receive him because of his head injury. Before Former Chief
Forsythe left the scene, he informed Lieutenant Potter that he would call the Deputy Town Supervisor,
which Lieutenant Potter subsequently conveyed to Deputy Chief Voelkl.1 It took approximately 3 to 5
minutes for Officer Kalpin to reach Chief Forsythe’s home, and they did not speak during the drive.
Upon arriving at Chief Forsythe’s residence, Officer Kalpin observed multiple vehicles in the driveway,
including the vehicle which he knew to be Chief Forsythe’s wife’s, in addition to the lights being on
inside. Officer Kalpin asked if Chief Forsythe’s wife was home, to which he replied “yes” and that she
was expecting him. Almost immediately upon pulling into the driveway, Chief Forsythe exited the
vehicle and went inside. It was subsequently learned that Chief Forsythe’s wife was not home at the
time.
Officer Kalpin left Chief Forsythe’s home, he returned to the scene on North Greece Road and
English Road and was directed by Lieutenant Potter to call dispatch and send a tow truck. Towing
ultimately responded and Officer Kalpin directed the driver to bring the Chief’s vehicle to the impound
lot at Precinct 1. Officer Kalpin then accompanied the tow truck to the impound lot.
Sergeant Spearman arrived at North Greece Road and English Road after Chief Forsythe had
been brought home. He had followed the line and markings in the road from the impact site on 390
North to the Chief’s vehicle. Upon viewing Chief Forsythe’s vehicle, Sergeant Spearman observed
heavy damage to the passenger side and concluded that the scrape marks he had observed were likely
the result of the front end touching the pavement because of the missing right front wheel, which he
had previously observed on 390 North. It was surprising to Sergeant Spearman that the vehicle was
able to travel as far as it had to get to its final location. At that time, Sergeant Spearman advised
Lieutenant Potter that the scratch marks in the roadway were in S-type patterns and Former Chief
Forsythe’s vehicle had crossed into the oncoming traffic lane several times on 390.
Deputy Chief Voelkl called Lieutenant Potter again to inform him that he was near the crash
scene and instead of arriving at North Greece and English Road, as he previously indicated, he was
going to go directly to the accident scene on 390 North and instructed Lieutenant Potter and Sergeant
Spearman to meet him there. Lieutenant Potter and Sergeant Spearman met Deputy Chief Voelkl at
the scene. Upon arrival, Lieutenant Potter took out his phone to take photographs and asked Deputy
Chief Voelkl if he wanted pictures taken, to which Deputy Chief Voelkl responded that it was not
necessary. In Deputy Chief Voelkl’s statement to the District Attorney’s Office, he stated that he did
not instruct either Lieutenant Potter of Sergeant Spearman to photograph debris at the scene. It was
subsequently acknowledged, including by Chief Deputy Voelkl, that in accordance with accepted
policies and procedures, including for fleet MVA incidents in particular, photographs should have been
taken of the scene. At Deputy Chief Voelkl’s direction, the three individuals then proceeded to collect
the various pieces of debris from Chief Forsythe’s vehicle and brought them to the Precinct 1 impound
lot to leave them with the Chief’s vehicle.

1
Phone records indicate that Former Chief Forsythe dialed the Deputy Town Supervisor’s number at or
around this same time; however, the call lasted only one second before Former Chief Forsythe
disconnected. He essentially dialed the number and immediately hung up the call. The Deputy Town
Supervisor was not aware of any call and never spoke with Former Chief Forsythe at that early morning
hour, likely because he only dialed the Deputy Town Supervisor for one second.
6
 Upon arriving at the Precinct 1 impound lot, Deputy Chief Voelkl viewed the damage to Chief
Forsythe’s vehicle in person for the first time and conveyed to Lieutenant Potter his disbelief that a
vehicle with that level of damage was able to be operated. At this time, Deputy Chief Voelkl requested
that Lieutenant Potter, Sergeant Spearman, and Officer Kalpin all meet in his office. This meeting
lasted approximately 5 to 10 minutes. Chief Deputy Voelkl conveyed to the other individuals his belief
that it had been a difficult situation in responding to an accident involving the Chief, and that there
would likely be a follow-up investigation. He stated his belief that they did not need to be concerned
about any repercussions regarding their performance and that he would back them up. He also
advised them that they should not participate in any gossip or discussion of rumors regarding the
incident to ensure any subsequent investigation was not tainted. According to Chief Deputy Voelkl,
during this discussion the individuals involved did not review any facts or observations from the
evening; however, this was disputed by Lieutenant Potter and Officer Kalpin following the meeting.
Following this meeting, Lieutenant Potter, Sergeant Spearman, and Officer Kalpin left Deputy
Chief Voelkl’s office together. In accordance with Deputy Chief Voelkl’s directive, Lieutenant Potter
ordered Officer Kalpin to complete an incident report. Officer Kalpin explained that he originally
started a MVA report before saving it without completing a narrative portion. Part of the rationale
behind completing an incident report as opposed to a MVA report was because Deputy Chief Voelkl
said that it was unknown at the time whether the incident constituted leaving the scene or whether
Former Chief Forsythe was on or off duty at the time. As Officer Kalpin was writing his report,
Lieutenant Potter assisted with some grammar and spelling choices but stated that he did not dictate
what Officer Kalpin should write. Once completed, Lieutenant Potter approved the report,
downloaded photographs taken that evening on his cellphone to a thumb drive, and placed it in an
envelope that he left in Deputy Chief Voelkl’s mailbox.
Later the same day Deputy Chief Voelkl and Deputy Chief Helfer discussed the matter further
and determined that due to the amount of damage sustained to the fleet vehicle, it would be most
appropriate to complete a MV-104A, not an incident report. After this discussion, Deputy Chief Voelkl
contacted Lieutenant Potter and directed him to have Officer Kalpin transfer his incident report onto a
MV-104A. During this discussion Deputy Chief Voelkl also instructed Lieutenant Potter that it was not
necessary to mark the box on the form for “leaving the scene”, with the rationale being that Chief
Forsythe was not deemed to be on duty at the time of the accident and because, according to Deputy
Chief Voelkl, Chief Forsythe had been unsuccessfully attempting to callout on his radio or locate his
cellular phone. Lieutenant Potter believed checking that box would have been appropriate but
followed Deputy Chief Voelkl’s instruction. During this discussion Deputy Chief Voelkl also directed
Lieutenant Potter to complete a memorandum to his attention with the Lieutenant’s account of what
had transpired, per policies and procedures applicable to fleet MVAs.
Lieutenant Potter then directed Officer Kalpin to complete a MV-104A in TRACS. In doing so,
Officer Kalpin copied and pasted the information from his previously completed incident report.
Lieutenant Potter thereafter approved the MV-104A and completed a memorandum regarding the
incident as directed by Deputy Chief Voelkl. Officer Kalpin was not involved in the process of drafting
this memorandum. Lieutenant Potter stated that he did not rely on any documents, including Officer
Kalpin’s MV-104A. However, in at least ten instances the language used in Lieutenant Potter’s
memorandum was identical to the language used in Officer Kalpin’s report and the written segments
were in the exact same sequence as the narrative of the MV-104A. In our interviews, Lieutenant
Potter insisted that he did not copy Officer Kalpin’s report or dictate to Officer Kalpin what he was to
write, but, in retrospect, said that he may have impacted or influenced Officer Kalpin’s report more
than he had intended to. Officer Kalpin stated that the completed report reflected his words, not

7
those of Lieutenant Potter, and he was unsure how the verbatim statements ended up on Lieutenant
Potter’s memorandum.
Shortly after arriving to work on October 21, Former Chief Forsythe entered Sergeant Jared
Rene’s office and described the incident from earlier that morning. He told Sergeant Rene that he
swerved to miss a deer on 390 and hit the guardrail, that he hit his head during the collision, and had
driven the vehicle away from the impact site because he had not felt safe on 390. Sergeant Rene was
aware that Former Chief Forsythe had been attending a New York State Police benefit that evening.
Former Chief Forsythe also indicated that he believed the vehicle was totaled. Sergeant Rene observed
Former Chief Forsythe as appearing shaken up and more solemn than he usually is. Sergeant Rene
attributed this to the fact that he was in an accident in the early morning only a few hours ago.
Sergeant Rene did not see a picture of the damage sustained to the vehicle until Saturday, October 25,
and he expressed being shocked at the extent of the damage when he finally saw it, especially
compared to how Former Chief Forsythe had downplayed the accident. During this discussion with
Sergeant Rene, Former Chief Forsythe also requested that Sergeant Rene alert him in the event he
received any media inquiries regarding the accident.
Later the same morning, Deputy Chief Voelkl and Former Chief Forsythe had a brief
conversation. Deputy Chief Voelkl provided Former Chief Forsythe with his ballistic vest and GPD
jacket and explained that he had responded to the incident earlier that morning. Former Chief
Forsythe conveyed the impression that it was nothing more than a fleet accident and that he had
notified the Deputy Supervisor. Deputy Chief Helfer also had a brief interaction with Former Chief
Forsythe during the day on Thursday. Former Chief Forsythe informed him that he was not injured and
that he had previously discussed the accident with the Deputy Supervisor, and that she was not upset
and expressed that she was glad that he was not injured. Toward the end of the day, Former Chief
Forsythe told Deputy Chief Helfer that he was going to Town Hall to speak with the Supervisor and
Deputy Supervisor in person.
At approximately 2:00pm on Thursday, Officer Isaac Lenhard, approached Sergeant Brian Root
between shifts and expressed concern that a possible corrupt incident was occurring in connection
with Chief Forsythe’s MVA, and no one within GPD was taking appropriate action. When Sergeant
Root asked why he felt this way, Officer Leonard explained that there is a strict chain of events that are
to occur in response to fleet MVAs, which did not appear to have been followed, no one could locate
Former Chief Forsythe’s vehicle at the DPW, and because individuals felt there were inconsistencies in
the reports related to the incident. Sergeant Root then told Officer Leonard to stop his involvement
and told him that he would look into the situation. Sergeant Root did not receive prior permission
from GPD command staff or a supervisor to work on the investigation. However, without permission,
Sergeant Root logged into TRACS and took a picture of the report with his personal cellphone and
printed a copy as well. He also took photos of OEC information from the MDT job card, again, using his
personal cellphone. On Friday morning, October 22, 2021, Officer Leonard informed Sergeant Root that
Former Chief Forsythe’s vehicle was in the impound lot. Thereafter, Sergeant Root accessed the
impound lot without clearance to do so, and took photos of the vehicle with his personal cellphone.
Sergeant Root explained that he did not bring this matter to the attention of his direct supervisor,
Lieutenant Ryan Parina. Sergeant Root admitted that he later shared details of his unauthorized
investigation, publicly, with an individual who is not a member of the GPD, Joseph Copetta (“Copetta”),
a GPD retiree. On Friday night, he forwarded Copetta, via text message, a photo he took in the
impound lot of Former Chief Forsythe’s damaged vehicle with the caption: “You mean this minor
MVA?” That photo that he texted to Copetta was indistinguishable from the photo that was aired by
the media on Saturday, October 23, 2021. It is my conclusion that the photo Sergeant Root sent to
Copetta is the same photo that the media received. Sergeant Root acknowledged that he was aware of
8
the Town’s whistleblower policy and acknowledged that he did not follow the policy. He also
acknowledged providing the ill-gained police information and unauthorized photos to Copetta.
Also occurring on Friday, October 22, Former Chief Forsythe informed Deputy Chief Helfer that
the Supervisor and Deputy Supervisor had no issues upon learning about his accident and discussed
ordering him a replacement vehicle. However, he did not reveal to deputy chief Helfer that he
downplayed the MVA with the Supervisor and Deputy Supervisor, only telling them he hit a guardrail to
avoid a deer that ran out in front of him on 390 North. The same morning Deputy Chief Helfer gathered
the MV-104A, the memorandum completed by Lieutenant Potter, and the photographs taken by
Lieutenant Potter at the scene where the vehicle came to a stop, placed them in an envelope, and
hand-delivered the materials to Lisa Santillo, the Assistant to the Town Attorney, which is standard
procedure in fleet vehicle accidents.
At approximately 2:00pm on Friday, Sergeant Rene, GPD’s Public Information Officer (“PIO”),
was contacted by Ginny Ryan, who was requesting information regarding Former Chief Forsythe’s
accident. During their initial discussion, Sergeant Rene confirmed the accident had occurred and
requested that she text him her specific questions. Believing this to be a minor felt accident, Sergeant
Rene then called Former Chief Forsythe, relayed Ms. Ryan’s questions, and asked how he would like
him to respond. Sergeant Rene and Former Chief Forsythe engaged in a series of discussions to gather
answers to the questions posed by Ms. Ryan. At this time, Sergeant Rene believed that GPD had
responded to and investigated the incident, and the Chief had first-hand knowledge of the
circumstances relevant to the questions being asked. He explained that based on these facts, he did
not have any basis to question the information being provided to him by the Former Chief.
After Sergeant Rene responded to Ms. Ryan’s initial questions, she stated that she was
receiving information that alcohol was involved. Sergeant Rene again spoke with Former Chief
Forsythe on how to respond, and he stated that alcohol was not a factor in the accident. Sergeant
Rene asked if that was the response he should give to Ms. Ryan, and Former Chief Forsythe confirmed
that it was. Sergeant Rene then provided this information to Ms. Ryan.
On Saturday, October 23, Ms. Ryan sent Sergeant Rene a photograph of Former Chief
Forsythe’s vehicle from the impound lot via text message and asked if he could confirm it was the
Former Chief’s vehicle. Sergeant Rene did not respond and contacted Former Chief Forsythe. Sergeant
Rene began pressing Former Chief Forsythe for additional information regarding the accident. In his
discussions with Former Chief Forsythe during the day on Saturday, Former Chief Forsythe stated that
he had in fact consumed a couple of drinks, but maintained that alcohol was not a factor in the
accident. He further stated that if alcohol had been a factor, a different agency would have been
contacted to investigate the accident. At the time Sergeant Rene learned this information, he had not
yet been in contact with either Deputy Chief Voelkl or Helfer, and later explained that he had been
operating under the auspice that Deputy Chief Voelkl and Former Chief Forsythe were operating on the
same page and that any information he was receiving from Former Chief Forsythe was already known
by Deputy Chief Voelkl. As a result, after learning that Former Chief Forsythe had consumed alcohol
before the accident, Sergeant Rene did not immediately share this information with any higher
commanding officers, the Deputy Town Supervisor, or the Town Supervisor.
Throughout the day on Saturday and into the evening, Sergeant Rene received several
additional media inquiries and provided the same information provided in response to Ms. Ryan.
Throughout the afternoon Deputy Chiefs Voelkl and Helfer discussed concerns that the incident should
be receiving greater attention internally. In furtherance of these concerns, Deputy Chief Helfer
reached out to the Town Attorney and expressed his belief that the accident photos and accompanying
paperwork should be reviewed by Town Administration and that he believed Former Chief Forsythe
9
was not telling them the full truth. The Deputy Town Supervisor told Deputy Chief Helfer that this was
a serious law enforcement matter and that he and Deputy Chief Voelkl needed to advise her as to what
was the best course of action to proceed with this matter and who should investigate the MVA. It was
determined that the District Attorney’s Office should be engaged. Deputy Chief Voelkl spoke directly
with District Attorney Doorley, who agreed that her office would investigate the accident.
Additionally, with respect to media attention on the issue, a Town employee saw a news station
Cameraman with whom he is familiar outside of the GPD impound lot, trying to take a picture of
something in the lot. The Town employee reports that there were several cameramen in the area at
the time, so he approached his acquaintance to find out what was going on. The
cameraman/acquaintance said that former Chief Pat Phelan (recently retire GPD Chief) had broken a
story of the Forsythe MVA to a particular reporter (who the cameraman named to his friend
specifically)2 and now all the photographers were sent down to the impound lot by their stations to try
to obtain photos of the vehicle. The Town did not find out about this encounter until some point in
time after the matter had been referred to the District Attorney. This information was not documented
with the GPD or the District Attorney’s Office.
V. Findings:
General Findings
The following GPD Policies are applicable and/or were violated:
 102.3 OATH OF OFFICE
 200.4.2 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITY, COMMAND PROTOCOL, CHAIN OF
COMMAND
 200.4.3 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITY, COMMAND PROTOCOL, UNITY OF
COMMAND
 200.5 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITY, ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMUNICATIONS
 320.3 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, DIRECTIVES AND ORDERS
 320.3.2 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES
 320.4 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, GENERAL STANDARDS
 320.5 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINE
 320.5.1 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINE, LAWS, RULES AND ORDERS
 320.5.2 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINE, ETHICS
 320.5.6 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINE, UNAUTHORIZED
ACCESS/DISCLOSURE OR USE
 320.5.7 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINE, EFFICIENCY
 320.5.8 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINE, PERFORMANCE
 320.5.9 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINE, CONDUCT
 320.5.12 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINE, LEGISLATIVE RESTRICTIONS

2
The reporter named was not Ms. Ryan.
10
  321.2 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY USE, POLICY
 321.4 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY USE, RESTRICTED USE
 321.4.2 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY USE, RESTRICTED USE, HARDWARE
 323.4 REPORT PREPARATION, REPORT PREPARATION
 329.4 MAJOR INCIDENT NOTIFICATION, ON-DUTY SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES
 341.1 OFF-DUTY LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, PURPOSE AND SCOPE
 341.3 OFF-DUTY LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, DECISION TO INTERVENE
 341.3.1 OFF-DUTY LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, DECISION TO INTERVENE, INTERVENTION
PROCEDURE
 403.6 CRIME AND DISASTER SCENE INTEGRITY, OPERATIONS BUREAU DEPUTY CHIEF
RESPONSIBILITIES
 403.7 CRIME AND DISASTER SCENE INTEGRITY, TRAINING
 501.1 TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PURPOSE AND SCOPE
 501.2 TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICY
 501.3 TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, RESPONSE
 501.5.3 TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, POLICE DEPARTMENT VEHICLE-INVOLVED ACCIDENT
INVESTIGATIONS
 600.4.1 INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION, INITIAL INVESTIGATION, OFFICER
RESPONSIBILITIES
 600.4.2 INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION, INITIAL INVESTIGATION, SCENE/INCIDENT
PROCESSING RESPONSIBILITIES
 701.5 PERSONAL COMMUNICATION DEVICES, PERSONALLY OWNED PCD
 701.6 PERSONAL COMMUNICATION DEVICES, USE OF PCD
 800.3 CRIME ANALYSIS, DATA SOURCES
 1010.3 PERSONNEL COMPLAINTS, PERSONNEL COMPLAINTS
 1030.4 SPEECH, EXPRESSION AND SOCIAL NETWORKING, PROHIBITED SPEECH, EXPRESSION
AND CONDUCT

The following GPD Procedures are applicable and/or were violated:

 301.3 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE
 301.3.2 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE, OPERATIONS DEPUTY CHIEF
 301.4 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE, POLICE LIEUTENANT
 405.1.3 COMMUNICATIONS, PROCEDURES & INFORMATION, RADIO PROCEDURES
 800.3 PROPERTY/TECHNICIAN SOPS, ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION

11
In addition to the above-referenced GPD Policies, the GPD Code of Ethics, GPD Oath of Office, GPD
Standards of Conduct (Section 172(h)), and the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law (related to
leaving the scene of an MVA) were not followed by GPD officers in various instances.

Voelkl
 Deputy Chief Voelkl did not act in a manner consistent with the below GPD Polices:
o 102.3; 200.5; 320.3.2; 320.4; 320.5.7; 320.5.8; 323.4; 501.5.3; 329.4; 403.6; 403.7;
501.1; 501.2; 501.3; and 600.4.2

 Deputy Chief Voelkl did not act in a manner consistent with the below GPD Procedures:
o 301.3; 301.3.2; and 800.3

 Deputy Chief Voelkl did not act in a manner consistent with the below sections of the GPD Code
of Ethics:
o I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs,
aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions.
o I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill
will.
o I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public
trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of police service.
o I know that I alone am responsible for my own standard of professional performance
and will take every reasonable opportunity to enhance and improve my level of
knowledge and competence.

 Before Former Chief Forsythe was taken home, Deputy Chief Voelkl failed to:
o Recognize the significance of what was occurring, though sufficient information
regarding the incident was shared by Lieutenant Potter.
o Advise Lieutenant Potter that “I know where he was,” or “I know what he was - what he
was at.”
o Ask for more details about damage and incident.
o Ask Lieutenant Potter if the Chief had been drinking or instruct Lieutenant Potter to ask
the Chief if he had been drinking, even though he (Deputy Chief Voelkl) stated that he
thought that the time and hour could suggest alcohol involvement.
o Ask Lieutenant Potter to utilize an alco sensor, based upon the reasonable suspicion
circumstances relayed by Lieutenant Potter to him.
o Recognize that he was putting Lieutenant Potter in an awkward position to deal with the
Chief alone by telling Lieutenant Potter "Do whatever you have to do" without further
explanation.

12
 o Utilize another agency, as an investigative unit, based upon the circumstances
presented, though Deputy Chief Voelkl said that he and Deputy Chief Helfer spoke about
the New York State Police and Monroe County Sheriff’s Office and discounted them
based upon past experience. Deputy Chief Helfer stated they did not discuss other
agencies.
o Recognize that his directions/instructions/agreements with, or to, Lieutenant Potter
during the first and second call were actually orders. Which left Lieutenant Potter to
express that Deputy Chief Voelkl was in charge of the preliminary investigation.
 Deputy Chief Voelkl tried to negate his involvement/authority stating that he did not want to
influence and/or direct Lieutenant Potter in his investigation because he (Deputy Chief Voelkl)
was not on the scene and that he had reached out to Deputy Chief Helfer for an understanding
of what he should do and followed what they discussed. Deputy Chief Voelkl also relayed that
he was woken up from sleeping.
 Deputy Chief Voelkl failed to understand that in this type of situation, the Chief is not in charge
of the investigation involving himself. Deputy Chief Voelkl felt the Chief would be in charge
until he recused himself. Deputy Chief Voelkl had been a Deputy Chief for 6 years at the time
and should have been aware that the involved party does not conduct their own investigation.
 Deputy Chief Voelkl wrote his statement about photos at the actual accident site in a way that
was misleading and not fully transparent. Deputy Chief Voelkl specifically told Lieutenant
Potter and Sergeant Spearman not to take photos of the scene, though knowing they should
have.
 Deputy Chief Voelkl failed to list several items in his statement that had relevance: He failed to
list that he was told by Deputy Chief Helfer that Helfer had driven by the accident before the
police responded; He failed to list that he authorized the Chief to be taken home; He failed to
document that he was aware that the Chief was possibly returning from a benefit at the time of
the accident, however he did list at the end of his statement that he learned it from the media
afterwards; He failed to mention that he and Deputy Chief Helfer talked about the use of the
New York State Police and/or the Monroe County Sheriff's Office, but decided that there were
conflicts with both agencies and ultimately decided not to call them; He failed to document that
he partially followed the "scratch" in the roadway back after leaving 390 North; He failed to
document that it was he and Deputy Chief Helfer who decided to not list the accident as
"Leaving the Scene" as they felt that since the Chief called the accident in (though almost an
hour later), it did not constitute "Leaving the Scene."
 Deputy Chief Voelkl should have recognized that the length of travel (6.1 miles) in a vehicle with
that much damage, traveling to North Greece Rd. and English Rd. (that was acknowledged it
was closer the Chief Forsythe's home) was not in the path from 390 North to Precinct 1 (Chief
Forsythe could have turned North on Long Pond Rd from Vintage/Mill Rd or traveled to Latta on
390 North), and Chief Forsythe could have stopped anywhere once off 390 North and tried to
utilize/contact a civilian to make a call to OEC or any GPD supervisor.
 Based on the information provided to him from Lieutenant Potter, Deputy Chief Voelkl should
have possessed a reasonable suspicion that alcohol may have been a factor, sufficient to
recommend utilizing the alco-sensor in Lieutenant Potter’s possession.
 Deputy Chief Voelkl appeared to be influenced that it was the Chief.

13
  The Allegation against Deputy Chief Voelkl is SUSTAINED.

Root
 Sergeant Root did not act in a manner consistent with the below GPD Polices:
o 102.3; 200.5; 320.3.2; 320.4; 320.5.2; 320.5.6; 320.5.7; 320.5.8; 320.5.12; 321.2; 321.4;
321.4.2; 701.5; 701.6; 1010.3; and 1030.4

 Sergeant Root did not act in a manner consistent with the below sections of the GPD Code of
Ethics:
o Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official
capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my
duty.
o I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public
trust to beheld so long as I am true to the ethics of police service.
o I know that I alone am responsible for my own standard of professional performance
and will take every reasonable opportunity to enhance and improve my level of
knowledge and competence.

 Sergeant Root conducted his own, rouge investigation into Former Chief Forsythe's accident
without permission.
 In conducting his improper investigation, acting without permission, Sergeant Root took photos
of Former Chief Forsythe's vehicle with his personal phone. Through unauthorized access,
Sergeant Root also accessed and took photos of computerized TRAC record and OEC record of
the MVA. He also printed a copy of the MV-104A report related to Former Chief Forsythe’s
MVA.
 Thereafter, Sergeant Root shared the details of his unauthorized investigation with a retired
GPD member - Joe Copetta. Sergeant Root conveyed information regarding the accident to Mr.
Copetta, despite his being a civilian and Sergeant Root having no legitimate basis to share such
information with a citizen. Sergeant Root also forwarded the photo he improperly took of
Former Chief Forsythe’s damaged vehicle from the GPD impound lot to Mr. Copetta. This photo
was indistinguishable from the photo subsequently aired in the media. not having any official
involvement in the matter.
 Sergeant Root failed to follow the Town’s Whistleblower Policy.
 He explained that he believed information regarding Former Chief Forsythe’s MVA needed to
be made public because of the upcoming election involving Supervisor Reilich.
 Sergeant Root also failed to share information brought to his attention regarding the MVA
within chain of command or properly report to Lieutenant Parina.
 The Allegation against Sergeant Root is SUSTAINED.

Potter
14
 Lieutenant Potter did not act in a manner consistent with the below GPD Polices:
o 102.3; 200.5; 320.3.2; 320.4; 320.5.7; 320.5.8; 323.4; 600.4.1; and 600.4.2

 Lieutenant Potter did not act in a manner consistent with the below GPD Procedures:
o 301.4; 800.3

 Lieutenant Potter did not act in a manner consistent with the below sections of the GPD Code
of Ethics:
o I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs,
aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions.
 I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice
or ill will
 I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a
public trust to beheld so long as I am true to the ethics of police service.
 I know that I alone am responsible for my own standard of professional
performance and will take every reasonable opportunity to enhance and
improve my level of knowledge and competence.

 Lieutenant Potter should have taken in the following considerations as reasonable suspicion to
believe that alcohol may be a factor by utilizing an alco-sensor that he had in his possession:
o Former Chief Forsythe sounded intoxicated on 911 call.
o Former Chief Forsythe said on the air that he hit a deer, but upon arriving on-scene,
Former Chief Forsythe said he swerved to miss a deer. As Lieutenant Potter
approached, he stated he was expecting to see a dead deer.
o Former Chief Forsythe initially told Lieutenant Potter and Officer Kalpin that the
accident scene was at Vintage Lane and 390 North, when in fact it occurred on 390
North at Latona Rd., approximately 6.1 miles south of where Former Chief Forsythe
initially said the accident was located.
o The vehicle stopped in the middle of North Greece Road, straddling a double yellow line,
and blocking some of the northbound lane. There was no debris at the site on North
Greece Road and English Road.
o There was all regarding a suspicious vehicle, with a similar description, just prior to
Former Chief Forsythe calling out, which was reported to be traveling in the same area
throwing sparks.
o Sergeant Spearman advised Lieutenant Potter that the scratch marks in the roadway
crossed into on-coming traffic several times.
o Former Chief Forsythe said he was traveling to Precinct 1 because his radio was not
working and his cell phone was missing following the accident, however, where his
vehicle came to rest was closer to his personal residence and not in the same direction
or the closest route to Precinct 1.
15
 o The extensive damage to the vehicle, specifically no wheel on the front passenger side
and two shredded tires (front driver and rear passenger), and the fact that Former Chief
Forsythe drove the vehicle in that condition over 6 miles.
o The fact that Former Chief Forsythe could have gotten off 390 North at several locations
and then contacted OEC or GPD by using the phone of a resident or other motorist.

 Before Former Chief Forsythe was taken home, Lieutenant Potter failed to:
o Inquire where Former Chief Forsythe was coming from or ask if he had been drinking,
after realizing all the above factors.
o Ask Former Chief Forsythe how and why he ended up on North Greece Road at English
Road with such extensive damage to his vehicle.
o Ensure photographs of Former Chief Forsythe were taken before getting permission
from Deputy Chief Voelkl to have Former Chief Forsythe brought home.
o Ensure medical treatment was called for Former Chief Forsythe, even though he
repeatedly declined, because Lieutenant Potter admitted he didn't know if the Chief
may have had a concussion.
o Follow-up with the complainant of the suspicious vehicle before taking Former Chief
Forsythe home.
o Follow the scratch mark in roadway backwards to see if there was any damage or other
accidents, or to see the swerving actions of the vehicle that made the marks before
taking Former Chief Forsythe home.
 Lieutenant Potter failed to ensure that the MV-104A report contained certain relevant
information, including: the actual time of accident; information regarding the path of travel
after the accident occurred; all photos taken in connection with the MVA; leaving the scene of
accident was not checked. Notably, he was directed by Deputy Chief Voelkl, in consultation
with Deputy Chief Helfer, that it did not constitute "Leaving the Scene".
 Lieutenant Potter testified that he did not assist Officer Kalpin write the MV-104A and that he
wrote his own statement separately, but this is not credible. The same sentences, with the
same verbiage, are in the same order on Lieutenant Potter's memo as they are in the original
Incident Report, later converted to the MV-104A. Lieutenant Potter then changed his
testimony and stated that he must have dictated more of the Incident Report/MV-104A more
than he originally thought, but still claimed he wrote his memo on his own without the
assistance of the Incident report or MV-104A. Officer Kalpin said that Lieutenant Potter only
assisted him with some grammar and spelling.
 Lieutenant Potter’s actions appeared to be influenced because the MVA involved Former Chief
Forsythe.
 The Allegation against Lieutenant Potter is SUSTAINED.

Kalpin
 Officer Kalpin did not act in a manner consistent with the below GPD Polices:
o 320.3; 600.4.1; and 600.4.2
16
 Officer Kalpin did not act in a manner consistent with the below GPD Procedures:
o 405.1.3

 Officer Kalpin should have taken in the following considerations as reasonable suspicion to
believe that alcohol may be a factor by utilizing an alco-sensor:
o Former Chief Forsythe sounded mumbled on the 911 call.
o Former Chief Forsythe said on the air that he hit a deer, but upon arriving on-scene,
Former Chief Forsythe said he swerved to miss a deer. As Lieutenant Potter
approached, he stated he was expecting to see a dead deer.
o Former Chief Forsythe initially told Lieutenant Potter and Officer Kalpin that the
accident scene was at Vintage Lane and 390 North, when in fact it occurred on 390
North at Latona Rd., approximately 6.1 miles south of where Former Chief Forsythe
initially said the accident was located.
o The vehicle stopped in the middle of North Greece Road, straddling a double yellow line,
and blocking some of the northbound lane. There was no debris at the site on North
Greece Road and English Road.
o There was all regarding a suspicious vehicle, with a similar description, just prior to
Former Chief Forsythe calling out, which was reported to be traveling in the same area
throwing sparks.
o Former Chief Forsythe said he was traveling to Precinct 1 because his radio was not
working and his cell phone was missing following the accident, however, where his
vehicle came to rest was closer to his personal residence and not in the same direction
or the closest route to Precinct 1.
o The extensive damage to the vehicle, specifically no wheel on the front passenger side
and two shredded tires (front driver and rear passenger), and the fact that Former Chief
Forsythe drove the vehicle in that condition over 6 miles.
o The fact that Former Chief Forsythe could have gotten off 390 North at several locations
and then contacted OEC or GPD by using the phone of a resident or other motorist.

 Officer Kalpin should have inquired where Former Chief Forsythe was coming from or ask if he
had been drinking, after realizing all the above factors.
 Ask Former Chief Forsythe how and why he ended up on North Greece Road at English Road
with such extensive damage to his vehicle.
 Ensure photographs of Former Chief Forsythe were taken at scene.
 Ensure medical treatment was called for Former Chief Forsythe, even though he declined.
 Officer Kalpin drove Former Chief Forsythe home at Lieutenant Potter’s direction but failed to
follow the directive to ensure Former Chief Forsythe was safely brought into home and to make
sure someone was home.

17
  Officer Kalpin failed to ensure that the MV-104A report contained certain relevant information,
including: the actual time of accident; information regarding the path of travel after the
accident occurred; all photos taken in connection with the MVA; leaving the scene of accident
was not checked.
 Officer Kalpin appeared to be influenced that it was the Chief.
 The Allegation against Officer Kalpin is SUSTAINED.

Helfer
 Deputy Chief Helfer did not act in a manner consistent with the below GPD Polices:
o 102.3; 320.3.2; 320.4; 320.5.9; 323.4; 341.1; 341.3; 341.3.1; and 600.4.2

 Deputy Chief Helfer did not act in a manner consistent with the below GPD Procedures:
o 301.3

 Deputy Chief Helfer did not act in a manner consistent with the below sections of the GPD Code
of Ethics:
o I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs,
aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions.
o I know that I alone am responsible for my own standard of professional performance
and will take every reasonable opportunity to enhance and improve my level of
knowledge and competence.

 Deputy Chief Helfer drove by the accident scene and failed to notify OEC or, at a minimum, an
on-duty GPD supervisor of a car that was disabled in the middle of the road. Deputy Chief
Helfer’s daughter even asked if they should stop. He instead drove directly to his home and
explained that approximately 5-10 minutes later he could see flashing lights and went to bed.
 The testimony that Deputy Chief Helfer saw the vehicle without seeing excessive damage is not
credible. Deputy Chief Helfer said he stopped to make a right-hand turn and he would have
been facing the passenger side of Former Chief Forsythe's vehicle. However, Deputy Chief
Helfer said he had to drive around the stopped vehicle, which was straddling the center lane,
into the on-coming lane to drive by the disabled vehicle. Moreover, later that day or Friday he
should have understood the amount of damage on vehicle and taken swift action.
 Minimally when the incident was being discussed with Deputy Chief Voelkl on the day of the
incident, October 22 and reports were being prepared, Deputy Chief Helfer should have
recognized that the length of travel (6.1 miles) in a vehicle with that much damage, traveling to
North Greece Rd. and English Rd. (that was acknowledged it was closer the Chief Forsythe's
home) was not in the path from 390 North to Precinct 1 (Chief Forsythe could have turned
North on Long Pond Rd from Vintage/Mill Rd or traveled to Latta on 390 North), and Chief
Forsythe could have stopped anywhere once off 390 North and tried to utilize/contact a civilian
to make a call to OEC or any GPD supervisor.

18
  Deputy Chief Helfer failed to list several items in his statement that had relevance: He failed to
list that he had driven by the accident before the police responded; He failed to mention that
he and Deputy Chief Voelkl talked about the use of the New York State Police and/or Monroe
County Sheriff's Office, but decided that there were conflicts with both agencies and ultimately
decided not to call them; He failed to document that it was he and Deputy Chief Voelkl who
decided to not list the accident as "Leaving the Scene" after speaking of all the facts of the
accident - they felt that since Chief Forsythe had called in (though almost an hour later) the
accident it was not "Leaving the Scene."
 Deputy Chief Helfer did not place a call to Town Hall regarding the MVA until Saturday
afternoon, although he should have known on the day the accident occurred that it was a
significant matter. Assuming the Town Supervisor and Deputy Town Supervisor knew about the
accident and were not taking action is not a credible or appropriate response. He needed to
notify either or both of them immediately.
 Multiple conversations between Deputy Chief Helfer and Deputy Chief Voelkl on October 21,
22, and 23 created responsibilities for Deputy Chief Helfer (though not to the same extent as
Deputy Chief Voelkl).
 Through conversations in the evening following the accident, Deputy Chief Helfer
acknowledged becoming aware of the fact that the vehicle ended up a significant distance from
where the accident occurred, that it did not sound good, and that he was told there were flat
tires.
 Deputy Chief Helfer also acknowledged that in speaking with Deputy Chief Voelkl he inquired
whether the officers on the scene made any observations regarding alcohol, and that Deputy
Chief Volekl responded that the officers were not concerned with that. Based on the
information available to him at the time, a reasonable suspicion exists that both Deputy Chiefs
were simply willing to rely on Lieutenant Potter and Officer Kalpin’s assessment without
discussing the matter directly with them or providing any leadership or guidance.
 Deputy Chief Helfer knew that Former Chief Forsythe had been at an event prior to the MVA
and did not ensure that information was relayed to either Lieutenant Potter through Deputy
Chief Voelkl, before Former Chief Forsythe was taken home, or over the course of the next two
days with Deputy Supervisor Marini or Town Attorney Marianetti.
 The Allegation against Deputy Chief Helfer is SUSTAINED.

Rene
 Sergeant Rene did not act in a manner consistent with the below GPD Procedures:
o 200.4.1

 Sergeant Rene should have worked directly with Deputy Chief Voelkl regarding media inquiries
regarding Former Chief Forsythe’s MVA and GPD’s corresponding response to the same.
 Because the MVA involved Former Chief Forsythe, and Former Chief Forsythe was the source of
Sergeant Rene’s knowledge of the MVA, he should have known to take further steps to
independently verify the information he was in receipt of before answering media inquiries.

19
  After engaging in discussion with Former Chief Forsythe and learning he consumed alcohol
before the accident, he should have reported this information to one of the Deputy Chiefs
immediately.
 The Allegation against Sergeant Rene is SUSTAINED.

Parina
 Lieutenant Parina did not act in a manner consistent with the below GPD Policies:
o 323.4

 Lieutenant Parina received information from Sergeant Root regarding conduct which was
potentially criminal as it pertained to Sergeant Root’s rogue investigation and Lieutenant failed
to report all of the information he was aware of in his report. Thus, he submitted an
incomplete report.
 Upon receiving this information from Sergeant Root, Lieutenant Parina stated that he did not
inquire who Sergeant Root provided it to, but Sergeant Root, who was forthright and credible
stated that he informed Lieutenant that the information was shared with Mr. Copetta.
 Lieutenant Parina did not document Sergeant Root’s confession regarding his unauthorized and
potentially criminal conduct until directed to do so by Deputy Chief Helfer.
 The Allegation against Lieutenant Parina is SUSTAINED.

Spearman
 Sergeant Spearman acted in a manner consistent with Department policy and procedure.
 The Allegation against Sergeant Spearman is UNSUBTANTIATED.

Cubiotti
 Officer Cubiotti acted in a manner consistent with Department policy and procedure.
 The Allegation against Officer Cubiotti is UNSUBTANTIATED.

Camera
 Officer Camera acted in a manner consistent with Department policy and procedure.
 The Allegation against Officer Camera is UNSUBTANTIATED.

VI. Recommendations:
General Recommendations
 Policy updates/training
 Roll Call training on Whistleblower Policy, Fleet MVA Police Work, Reporting Procedures

20
  Suggestions
o Fleet Vehicle Accident Investigations policy review and adjustments. To include "Who is
in charge", notifications, medical care, documentations, and when the need for use of
other agencies (listing those agencies and possibly an MOU). Adjust 501.6.1
INVESTIGATION BY OUTSIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY to more than a simple
accident. Require use of alco-sensor in all fleet; along with post-accident drug and
alcohol testing
o Officer complaints, Accidents and reporting instructions - Emphasizing that the involved
party is not in charge of the investigation nor can he/she be involved; the use of an alco-
sensor for any fleet MVAs (possibly anything more than an officer involved minor MVA
with no unusual circumstances). Chief involved – Deputy Chief and Deputy Town
Supervisor will be contacted and determine if outside agency will be called.
o 501.6.2 ACCIDENTS INVOLVING SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH - should include more than
simple Fleet Vehicle MVAs.
o 503.5 Reasonable suspicion vs probable cause in unusual accidents along with use of the
alco sensor
o Injury to Officers - documentation and photographing; purpose and expectations;
medical care for involved officer.
o Nothing about photographing Fleet MVA, what should be included - scene of accident,
vehicle, debris field, officer involved (showing injury or lack thereof), damage to
roadway or area in which the vehicle stopped. Photos for 323.5.5. TOWN PERSONNEL
OR PROPERTY
o Written policy for What, Who, and When incidents should be reported to Town
Supervisor or Deputy Supervisor.
o Expectations of reporting observations made by Off-Duty Command personnel. At a
minimum, contact with an on-duty supervisor, unless it is an emergency situation then
to OEC.
o Accessing Computerized information, such as MDC or TRACS, for an investigation that
the officer is not involved with must have supervisor approval.
o Add an officer ethics policy/update Town ethics policy. Include more areas of concern
than financial areas.

Disciplinary Recommendations
Voelkl
 Demotion from Deputy Chief position to a position where he does not have supervisory
authority with a memorandum in his file notifying him that if he has another instance of
incompetence or failure to properly execute his duties and responsibilities, he will be subject to
termination.
Root
 Recommend a maximum of 30-day suspension and Counseling Memorandum in his file
outlining the fact that if he does anything similar, he will be subject to termination.

21
Helfer
 Recommend a maximum of 10-day suspension with a memorandum in his file outlining the fact
that if he does anything similar, he will be subject to discipline up to and including termination.

Potter
 Recommend a maximum 5-day suspension for each of the two (2) infractions (up to a maximum
of 10 days) and training recommendations for DWI, reasonable suspicion, leaving the scene
investigation and follow-up; report completion, refresher on technician activities etc.
Kalpin
 Written reprimand.
 Recommend training on reasonable suspicion, MVA investigation and follow up, leaving the
scene investigation and follow up, proper documentation.
Rene
 Written reprimand.
Parina
 Written reprimand.
Spearman
 Exonerated.
Cubiotti
 Exonerated.
Camera
 Exonerated.

22