FINAL REPORT

To: Tim Norris, Esq.

Labor Counsel for the
City of Worcester

From: Michael P. Gardner

Investigator for the City

Re: Allegations of Possible Misconduct, Steven Sargent, Chief of Police and Others

Date: January 9, 2020

I. Introduction

I was hired by the City Manager on October 1, 2019 to conduct an independent investigation into
allegations that the Worcester Chief of Police, Steven Sargent, acted inappropriately an
encounter with a Worcester resident in front of his home, witnessed by his wife and family, on
September 22, 2019 when the Chief was off-duty and allegedly intoxicated. In addition, I was
charged with evaluating the response to the complaint by other City of Worcester employees, to
assess effectiveness of that response and to identify any possible violations of rules, regulations,
policies, or procedures. I had no prior knowledge of these alleged incidents or acquaintance with
any of the employees or citizens involved or interviewed in this matter. I have never previously
worked for or provided services to the City Manager or other officials of the City of Worcester. I
was requested to submit my report to Tim Norris, Esq., counsel for the City on this matter.

The Chief was advised that an investigation would be conducted and was provided with a notice
that I had been appointed to do this work by letter of October 2, 2019.

On October 1, 2019 I conferred with the City Manager, Assistant City Manager Kathleen
Johnson, and outside counsel for the City. On October 3, 2019, I began interviewing individuals
who may have had information relevant to the investigation.

II. Methodology

In conducting the investigation, I reviewed relevant policies and procedures, rosters, payroll
records and other documents, and rules and regulations from the Worcester Police Department. I

1
interviewed twelve current City employees as well as the two complainants and the civilian
witness. Most interviews were conducted at City Hall, three in the home of the complainants,
two at Police Headquarters. Some individuals were interviewed more than once, with some
follow-up interviews conducted by telephone. Chief Sargent was interviewed at City Hall for
approximately 2 hours and 45 minutes on October 7, 2019 with a follow-up interview on Oct. 21,
2019

Interviewees were advised that they had the obligation to tell the truth and were requested to
keep the contents of the interview, both my questions and their answers, confidential. They were
advised that I could not promise to keep the conversation confidential as I would be preparing a
report as part of the investigation. Interviewees were also advised that an important priority of
the City was to ensure that anyone cooperating in the investigation felt safe, and that the City
would not tolerate any retaliation or negative treatment toward anyone because they participated.
Any individuals who felt they might be experiencing negative consequences from participating
were told to contact the City Manager’s Office and me immediately. All interviews were
recorded by note-taking only.

I listened to two separate recordings made in the Emergency Communications Center on

September 22, 2019—one was the conversation between the initial complainant and the Dispatch
Supervisor and the second was a series of telephone conversations between the Dispatch
Supervisor and a lieutenant in the Services Division. Two of these calls were made while the call
with the initial complainant was placed on hold. I made a written transcript of the call between
the Dispatch Supervisor and the complainant. I also listened to the recorded conversations
between a Patrol Sergeant on duty that evening and another dispatcher. The sergeant was calling
in to find out why the Dispatch Supervisor was putting out a call for a lieutenant to respond to
her; the sergeant said he was inquiring so he could inform his captain.

I also listened to recordings of radio transmissions on the East and West side from around the
time the complainant called in and Dispatch was calling for a lieutenant to contact Dispatch. I
reviewed text messages between a Captain in Operations and two sergeants assigned to work in
Operations on the first half shift on September 22. Those texts relayed the decision of the
Captain to work that shift because no lieutenants were scheduled to work. I also reviewed texts

2
between the Chief of Police and that Captain after the Captain visited the Chief’s home later that
evening

The persons interviewed, and dates of the interviews are as follows:

Kathleen Johnson Assistant City Manager October 1, 2019

Christina Orczyk-Barbale Dispatch Supervisor October 3, 2019

Telephone October 10, 2019
Telephone October 22, 2019

Michael Shanley Acting Director Emergency

Communications and Management Dept. October 3, 2019
Telephone Oct. 17, 2019

Edward McGinn Deputy Police Chief, Support Services October 3, 2019

Frank Assad Police Lieutenant, Support Services October 4, 2019

John Ryder Police Captain, Operations October 4, 2019

October 11, 2019
Telephone October 17, 2019

Citizen Complainant October 4, 2019

Telephone October 11, 2019
Telephone October 15, 2019
Telephone October 18, 2019

Citizen Complainant October 4, 2019

Telephone October 15, 2019
Telephone October 20, 2019

Citizen Witness October 4, 2019

October 11, 2019
Paul Saucier Deputy Police Chief, Operations October 7, 2019

Steven Sargent Police Chief October 7, 2019

Telephone October 16, 2019
October 21, 2019

3
Kimberley McMahon Attorney, Worcester HR Dept. October 7, 2019

William Bagley Attorney, Worcester HR Dept. October 7, 2019

Ryan Maher Police Sergeant, Operations October 11, 2019

Ken Davenport Police Captain, Prof. Standards Telephone Oct. 21, 2019

Interviews were all conducted individually. Interviews listed above were in person, unless
“telephone” is noted. I spoke separately with Mr. and Ms. and Ms. , in quick
succession, without an opportunity for them to consult with each other.

Among the documents I reviewed as part of the investigation were the following:

 Two written complaints concerning the Chief of Police, prepared with the assistance of
lawyers from the City’s Human Resources Department, signed and sworn by
and another by his wife, , dated September 27, 2019
 Letters forwarded to each of the employees and citizens to be interviewed, advising them
of the investigation and providing information on when and where the interview was
scheduled.
 Audio files including the recordings of (1) the original telephone call to the
Communications Center from the complainant; (2) telephone calls between the Dispatch
Supervisor and a lieutenant in Support Services; (3) telephone call from a patrol sergeant
to the Communications Center regarding a broadcast request from Communications to
have a lieutenant contact the Communications Center; (4) On-air radio transmissions
between street units and the Communications Center from around the time the above
telephone calls were being handled in the early evening of September 22.
 Worcester Police Department Rules and Regulations, Dec. 30, 1975
 Police Policy and Procedure NO. 500 Bureau of Professional Standards Investigations
 Police Policy and Procedure NO. 205 Code of Ethics
 Police Policy and Procedure NO. 453 Domestic Violence Handling for Employees
 Police Policy and Procedure NO. 602 City Owned and Leased Vehicles

4
  A list of Police Department employees with cell phone numbers
 Rosters of Operations Division personnel working first half, Sept.16-Sept. 23, 2019
 Payroll records for Captain John Ryder Sept. 2-Oct. 4, 2019
 Morning Reports Operations Division first half, Sept. 22-Sept. 26, 2019
 Police Daily Journal 07:01 Sept. 21-07:00 Sept. 26, 2019
 A copy of Police Chief Sargent’s Employment Contract with the City
 An email summarizing Chief Sargent’s unsolicited account to the City Manager of his
encounter with the citizen complainant as reported by the City Manager shortly after the
conversation took place on October 2, 2019
 Typewritten notes prepared by Captain Ryder describing his involvement in investigating
the complaint in the early evening hours of September 22, 2019
 Email communications and a letter between me and Chief Sargent concerning the
scheduling of his interview
 Text messages between Captain Ryder and Sgts. Ryan Maher and Brian Donahue, 3: 36
pm, Sept. 22, 2019
 Text messages between Dispatch Supervisor Orczyk-Barbale and Sgt Maher, 7:16 pm
Sept. 22, 2019
 Text Messages between Chief Sargent and Captain Ryder, 8:44 pm Sept 22, 2019 and at
8:37 am, Oct. 3, 2019.
 Personnel records for from her time as an employee of the City of
Worcester

III. The Telephone Complaint and the Departmental Response

A. The Initial Call

At approximately 7:05 pm on Sept. 22, 2019 , of

placed a call to the non-emergency number at the Worcester Emergency Communications and
Management Department. He spoke with Dispatch Supervisor Christina Orczyk-Barbale on a
recorded line. She placed him on hold twice which she tried to locate a higher ranking (Gold
Badge) police supervisor to whom she could refer the matter. A copy of the recorded call was

5
preserved. What follows is my transcription of that call, in its entirety. The time markers were
supplied by Michael Shanley of the Emergency Communications and Management Department.

Transcript of recorded telephone call to 508-799-8606 Emergency Communications Department

September 22, 2019 7:05 pm to 7:23 pm

Dispatch Supervisor Christina Orczyk-Barbale (DSB) and )

[Call first answered at19:05:21]

DSB: This line is recorded 16

: How can I make a complaint?

DSB: Regarding what sir?

: I’m sorry

DSB: Regarding what?

: I was just ah…pull…I want to make a complaint against the Chief of Police. I was just
pulling out of my driveway on and I pull out so my wife can back back
in so we can move the cars and I was pulled over on the side of the road and he was behind
me, ah beeping his horn so I beeped my horn back at…What?

DSB: Who was behind you?

: The Chief of Police

DSB: OK

: He was beeping…he was beeping his horn and then I pull in my driveway and he kept
beeping so I beeped back. At the time I had no idea who it was. He gets out of his car and he
was absolutely hammered. I could smell it a mile away. He was hammered. Gets in my
driveway, gets in my face. Calling me names, with my kids in the driveway. That’s bullcrap,
Chief of Police doing that.
Now I don’t know what I have to do to make a complaint. I’ll go to the Worcester Telegram
if I have to but that is no way for the Chief of Police to act.

DSB: All right, I’ll… Hold on a second sir all right

: He was hammered

DSB: All right. Hold on one second OK?

[Line on hold at 19:06:28]

6
[Call picked back up at 19:10:41]

DSB: Sir are you still there?

: I am.

DSB: All right. What’s your first name sir?

: My name is .

DSB: . And do you live on…..?

: Yep. . That’s where, yep I live right on , I was backing

out of my driveway yep.

DSB: Does he live on do you know?

: I have no idea where he lives.

DSB: All right. It was definitely him sir?

: 100 per cent. Blue Taurus. 100 percent.

DSB: All right.

: My wife knows who he is. She worked for the City of Worcester for a long time.

DSB: All right. I’m..

: Blue Taurus, short guy.

DSB: Yeah

: Hammered.

DSB: I’ll get someone to call in. So, I don’t want you to think I’ve forgotten you. I’m Just trying
to get someone to [inaudible].

: OK, No I…

DSB: So, hold on one second. I haven’t forgotten you. I just don’t want you to think so. So hold
on one second OK?

[Line on hold at 19:11:20]

7
[Call picked back up at 19:22:32]
DS: Sir are you still there?

: Yep.

DSB: Are you home now at ?

: Yes Yep yep

DSB: All right. I’m going to send someone over there.

: OK

DSB: What’s your phone number sir?

DSB: Yep.

DSB: OK

DSB: All right sir, and what’s your last name?

DSB: OK, . OK sir, all right, we’re going to send someone over to speak to you
about it OK?

: Thank you.

DSB: Thank you. Bye bye sir.

: Bye

[Call ends at 19:23:00]

Prior to a more detailed examination of the encounter between the Chief and Mr. this
report will review how the two Departments responded to Mr. ’s complaint, on the evening
of September 22 and in the days following.

8
 B. The Dispatch Supervisor Attempts to Direct the Complaint to an
Appropriate Police Supervisor

During her interview Dispatch Supervisor Orczyk-Barbale (hereinafter DSB) said when she
receives what she called a “low-level complaint” she refers it to a sergeant working that shift. In
this case she did not think that was appropriate. She also said she had never had a call like this
before. When she placed Mr. on hold, she looked at a roster for the shift and saw that there
was no captain working. She then said she called on the air if there was a captain working, but
there was no response. She then called for a patrol lieutenant, East or West, who might be on the
air to respond. None were working and none responded.1 Operations Sgt. Brian Donohue called
in to a recorded line, and spoke to a dispatcher, asking to be told what was going on, so he could
brief his captain. He was on hold but never connected with DSB as she was searching for another
solution.

At 7:10 pm after making these radio requests for assistance, DSB reconnected with Mr. to
obtain more information and to reassure him that she was still working on getting someone to
check in.

At 7:14 pm she then called on a recorded line to Support Services Lt. Frank Assad, who was
working, as he might be the highest-ranking officer on duty. She advised him of the complaint
and requested advice/assistance. In an extensive exchange, DSB said she had the complainant’s
cell number. Lt. Assad suggested calling Public Information Officer Lt. Murtha but did not have
his phone number. While she was speaking with Assad, Operations Sgt Ryan Maher texted DSB
at 7:16 pm to ask what was going on, why they needed a lieutenant. She texted back “troublr”
and asked if he had a phone number for Public Information Officer Murtha. He gave it to her,2
and asked “what kind of trouble?? One of our guys?” DSB responded by merely thanking him
for the phone number.

Lt. Assad told DSB he would call his Commanding Officer, Deputy Chief McGinn and hung up
at 7:18 pm. Lt. Assad called DSB back on a recorded line at 7:21:28 to say that DC McGinn said

1
In his interview Sgt. Maher said he’d never previously heard Dispatch call for just a lieutenant like that.
2
Because of subsequent developments (i.e. Captain Ryder advising DSB that he would handle it) DSB never called
Lt. Murtha.

9
a supervisor in Operations should handle the matter, as it was an Operations issue. They
discussed which sergeant should handle it. Because of the sector where is
located, Lt. Assad said Sgt. Donohue should be assigned3.

This call with Lt. Assad ended at 7:22:20. For the first time since Mr. had called at 7:05,
DSB had clear instructions, from a Deputy Chief, as to how to respond. DSB picked up the line
again with Mr. at 7:22:32, confirmed his phone number, got his last name, and told him
“we are going to send someone over to speak to you about it OK?” and after pleasantries, she
disconnected the call at precisely 7:23:00.

Although she had intended to give the assignment to Sgt. Donohue as Deputy McGinn had
instructed, that plan changed.

According to a timeline prepared by Captain John Ryder, he called Sgt. Maher at 7:15 about a
call on the air saying he had heard “they were looking for a lieutenant.” At that point Sgt. Maher
thought Sgt. Donohue would be handling the matter. Captain Ryder called Sgt. Donohue at 7:17
and found out he was still on hold with Emergency Communication. Sgt. Maher called DSB on
her cell phone to say Captain Ryder would be back shortly. With Mr. on hold she briefed
Sgt. Maher on the complaint. In his interview Sgt. Maher said DSB told him that the complainant
had said as he was backing out of his driveway when the Chief began yelling at him, and that he
thought the Chief was intoxicated.

Captain Ryder then called Sgt. Maher back as he was approaching the station at 7:21 pm. In his
interview Sgt Maher said, while he was outside the station, he saw Captain’s Ryder’s vehicle as
it approached the station. They spoke at the flagpole and Sgt. Maher told the Captain what he
knew about the incident. Captain Ryder got DSB’s cell phone number from Sgt. Maher. Captain
Ryder called her, while still at the flagpole. Captain Ryder said his cell phone showed that he
made that call at 7:26 pm. DSB said her phone showed the call at 7:25 pm and lasted one minute
and 52 seconds. In her initial interview she said she gave the Captain the complainant’s name
and phone number and address and what happened. After she briefed him, he told her he would
take care of it. He also told her to tell Lt. Assad that he was going to handle it. She reached Lt.

3
Sgt. Donohue was never given the assignment as Captain Ryder intervened before that could be done.

10
Assad4 at 7:36 pm, after failing to reach him on two earlier calls, to say Captain Ryder was
“calling the guy.”

C. Call or Visit?

DSB clearly told Mr. that “we’re going to send someone over to speak to you” when she
was concluding that call. At that point she thought Sgt. Donohue would be handling the matter. It
was only after she had ended the call with Mr. that Captain Ryder called to say he would
handle the matter, and that he would call the guy. DSB saw no need to call Mr. back; she
had never told him who was going to be assigned. She may not have remembered exactly what
she said to Mr. about sending someone over to see him and did not realize Captain Ryder
had said something else, or she may have thought the distinction required no clarification to Mr.
.

For his part, Captain Ryder said he only got the name and phone number of the complainant
from DSB, not the address. He said he told DSB that he would call the complainant. In his
interview, he said he knew the incident had occurred on , but did not know it
was about moving cars around, or that the incident had occurred at the complainant’s home.
When interviewed again by telephone, DSB thought she had given the Captain both the
telephone number and address but was not completely sure. Sgt. Maher from his phone call with
DSB knew the incident related to “someone pulling out of a driveway and the Chief’s beeping at
him.” He said he “told Captain Ryder what Chrissie [DSB] told me.”

This issue will be discussed further in the Analysis Section of this report, but for now it is
enough to note the miscommunication resulted in Mr. expecting a home visit while
Captain Ryder, who had taken on the responsibility for handling the complaint, intended only to
call him.

D. Captain Ryder’s Handling of the Complaint

In his interview Captain Ryder said that when he spoke with Sgt. Maher the second time at the
flagpole, Sgt. Maher had been told by Dispatch that a man had called in to complain about the

4
On a recorded line

11
Chief. Sgt. Maher gave the Captain DSB’s cell phone number and he called her. In that call, he
said he identified himself and asked what was going on.

Captain Ryder said DSB told him a man named called in to complain after some
kind of incident with vehicles and that said the Chief swore at him and said the Chief was
“drunk as a skunk.” DSB related that said he knew it was the Chief because his wife used
to work at City Hall. Captain Ryder said DSB had spoken to an inside lieutenant (Services) but
wasn’t getting anywhere, so she had called for the sergeants on that shift. Captain Ryder said he
would “take care of it. I said I’d call him. She gave me his phone number.” Captain Ryder said
DSB didn’t give him an address, and though he knew the incident had occurred on
, he did not have a specific address.

Captain Ryder’s own reconstructed timeline of events of that evening placed his call to DSB at
7:26 pm. DSB described her phone call with Captain Ryder as quick; her phone records showed
it began at 7:25 and lasted about one minute and 52 seconds or so.

After he concluded his phone call with DSB, Captain Ryder said he went up to his office. He
said he called the phone number he had received from DSB at about 7:45 pm5. He said he let it
ring for quite a while and hung up when no one answered. He said he did not leave a message.
He said he was not sure if during the call he received a prompt to leave a message or not.

After placing the call to Mr. and receiving no answer Captain Ryder said he called his
commanding officer Deputy Chief Paul Saucier on his cell phone. According to the Deputy he
was travelling home from the Cape when Captain Ryder called. Although the Deputy missed the
first call, he called Captain Ryder back shortly thereafter. Captain Ryder said he told the Deputy
“what I had” and that he was going to talk to the Chief. The Deputy said Captain Ryder told him
that Dispatch had been looking for a gold badge because of a complaint against the Chief who
was alleged to be yelling and intoxicated. He said Captain Ryder told him he going to see the
Chief. The Deputy said in his interview that he told Captain Ryder to go ahead.

5
Mr. ’s phone indicated that the call came in at 7:54pm. This is likely a more accurate time than Captain
Ryder’s reconstructed timeline. Captain Ryder agreed, as he had placed that call from a departmental phone, which
did not include a time stamp, as his cell phone calls did.

12
Captain Ryder said he did not have the Chief’s home address, but he looked it up on the
electronic rolodex. He estimated that he left for the Chief’s house at approximately 8:05 pm and
got there about 15 minutes later. He said he parked by the house next to the Chief’s house and
called the Chief on his cell phone. Captain Ryder described what happened next in the timeline
he prepared later that evening:

8:20 called the Chief from outside his house. I asked if I could speak to him about
a complaint. He opened the door and met me outside as I was walking toward his
door. I told him that a guy called dispatch and claimed that there was an incident
on involving their vehicles and that the Chief swore at him and
said the Chief had been drinking. There was no indication to me that the Chief
had been drinking. I could smell BBQ sauce from the ribs he was eating. Chief
said that the guy jumped out of his car at him and a woman said something to him
and he changed his attitude. I apologized to the Chief for bothering him and his
family while they were eating.
8:36 spoke to DC Saucier about what had occurred.

In his interview Captain Ryder elaborated on what had occurred. He said when he first called the
Chief, the Chief had said “I know what this is about.” He said when the Chief came out, they
spoke on the grass. He said he told the Chief that the guy had complained to Dispatch that in an
incident on . the Chief had yelled at him and the guy said the Chief was “drunk
as a skunk.” Captain Ryder said he was sorry he had to come up to the Chief’s house, but he had
to do this “in case it goes further.”

According to Captain Ryder, the Chief said words to the effect “I appreciate it. The guy was a
jerk. He stopped two times in front of the car. He stopped two times and was not moving. The
guy got out of his car; he came at me and swore at me and he changed his attitude when a
woman approached.” The Chief said the whole incident was like “15 seconds” and then the Chief
drove off. Captain Ryder said he did not remember the Chief saying that he had gotten out of the
car. He had the impression that the Chief hadn’t left his car.6

Captain Ryder also said that it was apparent to him that the Chief was not intoxicated. He said he
noted how the Chief walked. He said he got close to the Chief and all he could smell was

6
As described later in this report, in his interview as part of this investigation, the Chief indicated he had gotten out
of his car and that the two met somewhere at the end of the complainant’s driveway, out of the street.

13
barbeque sauce. He also observed his speech and overall appearance. In his interview Captain
Ryder said “I think if someone was drunk I would have some kind of indication.” He said “My
observations of the Chief made it clear he wasn’t drunk.” He said the Chief said something like
“that’s crazy” in reference to the complainant’s assertion that the Chief was drunk. He also said
the Chief remarked “the guy was an ass. It goes with the territory.” Captain Ryder said he
apologized for interrupting him and the Chief said he was glad that the Captain had come up.
The Chief invited him for something to eat but he declined and left.

Captain Ryder said he did not ask any questions about the incident itself though he knew that the
Chief had said he had also sworn at Mr. . After he left the Chief, he placed a call to Deputy
Saucier. He spoke to him on his timeline at 8:36 and told him that things went well in his visit
with the Chief and that there was no indication of any alcohol. He said the Deputy thanked him
for taking care of it. He said the Deputy gave him no further instructions.

After that he went back to the office and put his timeline together. He wrote no other reports
about the incident.

Although Captain Ryder chose not to reveal it to me in our initial interview, the Chief had texted
Captain Ryder shortly after the Captain left his house. I learned of these texts from the Chief.
When I interviewed Captain Ryder again, he let me take a photograph of the texts. The Chief
wrote to him at 8:41pm on Sept. 22:

Thanks for coming by. Pissed you had to come by. The guy was an ass for sure.
Comes with the territory
Captain Ryder replied:
I figured that. Embarrassed that I went to ur house and disturbed u eating w ur
family. I wanted to see u in case this goes further,
Now this fool cannot claim we did nothing.
The Chief responded:
I agree
I’m glad you did

14
 He jumped out at me then the women7 said something to him and he changed his
attitude.
Thanks again.
Captain Ryder then answered:
Thanks Chief. Sorry to bother u and ur family
The Chief closed the exchange with:
Glad you did
You never know
[End of text exchanges on 9-22]

Captain Ryder said he got back to his office at “a little before nine…a quarter to nine.”
He said Mr. had not called him back. He said he would have seen the call coming
in. As he explained it, if a call came into the main Operations line,8 and if a message was
left for the Captain, the desk officer, upon listening to the message, would have
forwarded it to a line on Captain Ryder’s desk phone, and a red light would have lit up
and flashed. When Mr. had called the line back, he did not leave a message.9
However Captain Ryder would not have been certain of that unless he checked with the
desk officer, who would have had to check his messages, as the desk officer could have
been away when the call came in. In his interviews, Captain Ryder did not say he
checked with the desk officer, but rather relied upon the lack of a flashing light.10

After returning to the office, Captain Ryder did not place another call to Mr. that
evening or at any other time in the days after that. He said he saw Sgt. Maher later that
night when he was coming off his shift. He told the sergeant he “went up and talked to
the Chief and there was no problem: he was fine,” or words to that effect. He said he saw
Deputy Chief Saucier the next evening about 6:00 pm and told him the same thing. He
said the Deputy “just thanked me for taking care of it.”

7
In his interview the Chief agreed “women” was a typo. He saw only one woman.
8
As Mr. ’s call did, as described below.
9
Also described below
10
On the afternoon of October 16, I left a message for Captain Ryder on the same line used. The
Captain returned the call about 24 hours later.

15
Captain Ryder said he had only two other involvements with the case. The first was a
brief conversation with the Chief at a roundtable discussion with captains at which the
Chief said, “Thanks for the other night, I appreciate it.” Captain Ryder said he responded,
“You’re welcome.” Second, on Wednesday October 2, Captain Ryder had heard
indirectly from Dispatch Supervisor Barbale that she had been called for an interview at
City Hall. In his interview he said he understood she appeared “anxious and didn’t want
to get anyone into trouble.” Upon learning this,11 Captain Ryder texted the Chief as
follows at 8:37 am on October 3:

“Hi Chief. Would u have a minute to meet in private before or after our meeting?”

They spoke before a meeting about a license began. Captain Ryder said he told the Chief
that a dispatcher was being called to City Hall to speak. The Chief indicated he knew
something was happening. That appears to be Captain Ryder’s last involvement with this
matter except for his cooperation with the investigation.

E. Analysis of the Departmental Responses

1. Emergency Communications and Management

It must have been very stressful and upsetting for employees of both the Police Department and
Emergency Communications and Management to have received such an inflammatory and
potentially serious complaint against the Chief of Police. Although DSB maintained an
absolutely professional and polite demeanor in her interactions with Mr. her anxiety and
frustration about finding a responsible police supervisor with sufficient rank to whom to refer the
matter was very apparent in her recorded conversations with Lt. Assad. She could sense Mr.
’s anger and frustration and felt the matter needed to be dealt with quickly; as she said to
Lt. Assad, “I don’t want to say [to Mr. ] ‘call this number tomorrow,’ I don’t want it to get
that far.”

Although she had reservations about referring the matter to Sgt. Donohue, that was the first
definite instruction she received, from Deputy McGinn as relayed by Lt. Assad. Perhaps
concerned about how long Mr. had been left on hold, she gave him assurance someone

11
Which was probably the first indication to the Captain that an investigation had been started

16
would be out to see him before any plan was finalized. Captain Ryder did not know that was
what had been promised, and DSB appears not to have appreciated that Mr. was not likely
to get the home visit she had promised. With this exception, DSB’s actions appear to have been
exemplary. In the absence of clear instructions or procedures on how to handle such an unusual
case, she maintained her composure, treated the complainant professionally and with courtesy,
and, with the assistance of Sgt. Maher, got the matter referred to the senior patrol commander on
duty, who promised he would “take care of it.”12

2. The Inadequacy of Captain Ryder’s Investigation

Captain Ryder’s role is much more problematic. His half-hearted effort to reach the complainant,
by placing one telephone call, without leaving a message, and then with no follow-up, as well as
his statements to the investigator, make clear he had no intention to thoroughly investigate the
complaint. Rather, once he met with the Chief, and satisfied himself the Chief was not
intoxicated, he felt his job was done. He completed no official report, reporting orally to his
Deputy. He felt by his home visit he had exonerated the Chief and no further action was
required.

Captain Ryder made no effort to meet with Mr. in person. He said he could not go see Mr.
because he did not have his address. He said he knew the incident had taken place on
., but he thought it was a road rage incident where both had been driving. He
said he did not know it had occurred at Mr. ’s residence. Both DSB and Sgt. Maher said
they thought they gave Captain Ryder ’s address and Sgt. Maher said he thought he gave
the Captain the information DSB had given him, including that the dispute involved backing out
of a driveway.

Given standard dispatch protocol, it would have been highly unusual for an experienced
Dispatcher like Ms. Orczyk-Barbale not to give the address as a matter of course, as it is
information most officers would also expect to receive, as a matter of course. The call with DSB

12
It should also be noted that DSB and Emergency Communications were hampered by the lack of clear guidelines
on how to handle such a complaint coming in against such a high level official. Michael Shanley said he would
welcome “guidance from on high,” including from the Police Department on how to handle such matters in the
future.

17
was not rushed; her records showed it lasted nearly two minutes. He had ample time to learn
everything she knew about the situation. It is hard to believe, or difficult to understand why he
would not make that effort; to know as much as he could about the situation he was getting
into13.

Also, if Captain Ryder didn’t have the address, he could always have called DSB back and
gotten it from her. When asked why he didn’t have the address, Captain Ryder said, “I had the
[phone] number, I thought that would be the way to start.” Most investigators would want both.

Policy and Procedure No. 500 on Bureau of Professional Standards Investigations makes
collection and recording of a complainant’s address a standard part of their procedures.14 In
addition, the standards provide: “The preferred form of an interview with non-departmental
personnel/civilian witness will be in person; interviews via telephone means may be used
however, when time, distance or other expediencies may so require.”15 There appears to be no
reason Captain Ryder could not have made an in person visit to the house, as would have been
the preferred first step.

Deciding not to make a home visit, Captain Ryder’s attempt to make telephone contact was also
quite feeble. He had no real explanation as to why he did not leave a message before hanging up
on his one call to Mr. . He did not remember whether he waited on the line long enough to
prompt a voice mail message. All he remembered was that he let the phone ring for a “long
time.” When I placed a call to Mr. s phone, the “leave a voicemail” message came up after
five rings on my end. That does not seem to be an excessively long time.16

Whether Captain Ryder kept the call going until that fifth ring or not, by not leaving a message
he committed a serious professional breach. Typically, when someone places a call, they actually
want to talk to the person they are calling. If Captain Ryder had actually wanted to speak with
Mr. he would have left a message identifying himself, the purpose for the call, and given a
reliable call-back number. Captain Ryder did none of that. Rather, Captain Ryder appeared to do

13
If Captain Ryder ever planned to write a report about his investigation, he would need to include the
complainant’s address. It makes no sense that he did not capture that data from the beginning.
14
Policy 500, Sections 3B and C, p.3
15
Policy 500, Section 4, p. 9
16
Mr. told me he had made no changes to his cell phone settings for “rings before voice mail” between
September 22 and when I made my test call on October 15.

18
the absolute minimum he had to in order to make good on his representation to DSB that he
would call the complainant; while also making it as hard as possible for the complainant to
actually connect with him.

The following a recounting of what a caller would experience by calling back the phone line
Captain Ryder said he used to call Mr. :

A call on the phone line Captain Ryder said he used17 comes up on a cell phone as “City of
Worces.” If you call that number back, as Mr. says he did, the voice mail that follows says
you’ve reached the Operations Division of the Worcester Police Department. It offers that if you
know your party’s extension you can dial it at any time18. It then gives seven options of various
units within Operations to ask for, including the District Officers and School Liaison, the
Citation Office and the OHV task force. This puts a blind caller, who has no idea who called
him, at a distinct disadvantage. Among the options, the caller is told if he wants to reach the 7-3
voice mailbox, press one. If he wants the 3-11 voice mailbox, press two; 11-7 shift press three. If
one presses two and no one picks up, one gets a message that no one on the First Half is
available, so please leave a voice message.19

In his statement, Mr. said he called back the number that had called him, and “learned it
was the Operations Department.” He said he hung up and “called again and went through a series
of prompts but did not reach [an] individual to speak with. I hung up and did not leave a
message.” He may not have known what “First Half” meant, assuming he got that far. Even if he
did get to what was actually the right line, there is no way he could have had confidence that this
was the right place for him to leave his message. Given the sensitivity and volatility of his
complaint, it is understandable that he did not leave a message when he had no idea who to ask
for; who might listen to the message; or what they might do with the information. At that point

17
On Oct. 11, 2019 I asked the Captain to call my cell phone using the same line he had used to call Mr. on
September 22. I then called the number back on the next Sunday evening, at a time a little later than when Mr.
said he called the number back on September 22.
18
Because Captain Ryder had not left a message, Mr. did not know the extension to dial; conversely, had
Captain Ryder left a message with the correct call back extension, Mr. might have reached him relatively
easily.
19
This is the information I gathered when calling the number back on October 13.

19
he also thought someone was coming to visit him; nothing about the phone call he received
informed him that was no longer the Police Department plan.

In his interview, when Captain Ryder was asked how he had expected Mr. to recognize,
without a message, that this was the number to call back, he said “I figured he’d see the number
and he’d call back at some point.” Captain Ryder said that since it was a 799 exchange, he
assumed the caller would know. “I kind of expected when he saw my number, I’d get a call back.
It’s a 799 number, the same exchange so I figured he’d call back.” The Captain also said “I did
what I had to do. I was expecting another call; for him to call the Bureau of Professional
Standards.”20

He also said that if the guy wasn’t able to reach him, he could always call Dispatch back, and
“she [DSB] would know who to refer it to.” But whether Captain Ryder understood it or not,
there were only two employees in Emergency Communications who knew anything about the
complaint—DSB and the Department Head, Michael Shanley. Mr. did not know the name
of the person he talked to in Dispatch. With a 24/7 operation, there is very little likelihood that
Mr. could have, without monumental effort, actually gotten from anyone, the name and
number of Captain Ryder as the person investigating a complaint that virtually no one in the
department knew anything about. If Mr. had called back that evening, he might have been
successful in reaching DSB. But why should he do that? He had already spent nearly 20 minutes
on the phone with her and been told someone was coming out to visit him.

By failing to leave a message that identified himself, with clear instructions as to how to reach
him, Captain Ryder effectively frustrated Mr. ’s objective in making his 7:05 pm call in the
first place: to file a complaint that would be honestly and effectively investigated by the
Worcester Police Department. He was denied the opportunity be heard on what he regarded as a
serious civic violation against him and his family.

Despite Captain Ryder’s representation that he would “take care of” or “handle” the complaint,
once he visited the Chief, he had no further interest in the complaint or continuing the
investigation. As he said during his interview: “After I spoke to the Chief and made my

20
Obviously, Mr. had no idea BOPS was the place he should call.

20
observations and it was not true what this guy said, that was going to be the end of it.” “I thought
it was a road rage thing and this guy just made something up.” “I thought I had resolved it by
talking to the Chief.” “I would have called back if I thought there was a problem, but this was a
road rage thing and he was making it up… I looked into it and I thought it was resolved.”

There were two elements to Mr. ’s complaint: that the Chief got in his face and called him
names, in front of his kids, and that the Chief was “hammered.” Once he concluded that the
Chief was not intoxicated when he saw him, Captain Ryder saw no need to investigate the other
element of the complaint, that the Chief had acted inappropriately in an encounter with a citizen.
In his interview the Captain was asked, words to the effect “suppose the matter of intoxication
was not part of the complaint; that it was just about the Chief yelling at a citizen in a road rage
case.” He was asked if he still thought there was no need to get the other side of the story. He
said he was satisfied and that he didn’t think it needed to go further. He was so uncurious about
what had happened that he did not query the Chief enough to know the Chief had gotten out of
his car, rather than just driving away, thereby greatly increasing the chances of escalation of an
ugly incident.

Even the Captain’s effort to assess the Chief’s sobriety was flawed. He declined to do even a
basic field sobriety test. He did not inquire as if or when the Chief had had anything to drink. He
said he saw the Chief at approximately 8:20 pm. I asked him how much time had passed between
the time the incident occurred and when he saw the Chief. He said he assumed the incident had
happened right before the complainant called Dispatch. He did not really know when that was
because he inquired at the end of Mr. ’s long wait on the phone. Because he never spoke to
Mr. , he did not know that Mr. said he had not called Dispatch right after the
incident; rather he said he had first stewed a bit about what to do, and then used Google to find a
non-emergency phone number to call. Ms. said she estimated that her husband had not
called to complain until 10 or 15 minutes after the incident had ended.

In his written statement Mr. said the incident took place between 6:30 pm and 7:00 pm.
When speaking with me he estimated that it occurred between 6:00 pm and 6:30 pm.21 He said

21
Nothing in my line of questioning should have alerted Mr. or Ms. that I was interested in a time lapse
between the incident and Captain Ryder’s visit with the Chief. I do not believe the are aware of any of
Captain Ryder’s involvement.

21
that when the incident happened it was still very light outside, with no difficulty seeing. He said
it got dark while he was waiting on the phone [with Dispatch].22 The Chief said he left his house
that evening between 6:30 and 7, “around dusk.”23

Because of the variable estimates of when the event occurred, we cannot firmly estimate the time
lag between Mr. ’s assessment of the Chief’s sobriety and Captain Ryder’s. But we do
know that, because Captain Ryder never spoke with Mr. he had made assumptions that
were flawed. If the time lag was as long as one and a half hours or more. (between 6:40 and 6:50
pm to 8:20 pm), the Chief’s condition might have changed substantially in the interim. Captain
Ryder did not appear to take this factor into account at all.

Captain Ryder was asked if he had a duty to report the matter to the Bureau of Professional
Standards (BOPS). He said that the policy talks about an employee’s responsibility to report a
complaint to BOPS “when someone complains to me. If I talked to him, there were things I
would have to do. I didn’t talk to the guy, so I didn’t go [to BOPS].” The Captain said again he
had done what he needed to do.

This seems disingenuous. Captain Ryder did not speak to the complainant largely because he
made a very minimal effort to do so, not assisting the complainant in reaching him in any way.
After he saw the Chief, the Captain was positively indisposed to meeting with the person he
called a “fool,” who had made up stories about the Chief.

3. The Role of Deputy Chief Saucier

Captain Ryder rightly advised his commander, Deputy Chief Saucier of the complaint and his
plan to see the Chief. In his interview, Deputy Saucier said he was driving home from the Cape
with his family that Sunday night when Captain Ryder called him in the car. The Captain had
told him people were yelling at each other and there were allegations that the Chief was
intoxicated. Deputy Saucier said he agreed with the Captain visiting the Chief, in essence

22
The sun set in Worcester at about 6:45 pm on September 22. Civil twilight ended at about 7:15 that evening:
source: timeanddate.com/sun/usa/Worcester?month=9&year=2019
23
The Chief said the drive time between his house and . is about a minute.

22
authorizing that course of action. The Deputy said couldn’t remember if Captain Ryder said he
called the complainant, or that he was going to. The Deputy asked the Captain to call him back
after he visited the Chief, which he did. When he saw Captain Ryder the next day, he asked if the
guy had called him back, and Ryder said no. In his interview Deputy Saucier said he thought
Captain Ryder had left his name with a phone number for the complainant to call back and was
unaware that the Captain did not do that. He said he was unaware that Captain Ryder had told
Dispatch he would “handle” the complaint.

In his interview Deputy Saucier said he thought that a complaint like this should go to the
Bureau of Professional Standards (“BOPS”), and seeing it was about the Chief, BOPS should
refer it to the City Manager’s Office, “via the chain of command.” However, he took no steps to
see that it was referred to BOPS, either by Captain Ryder or himself. Deputy Saucier said that on
Tuesday or Wednesday of that week (Sept. 24 or 25) he did mention to the Chief that perhaps the
Chief should consider “calling the City Manager and giving him a heads up.” He said the Chief
told him it was “all set.” Deputy Saucier said he had no further conversation with the Chief about
the issue after that.

By pursuing a largely passive role, Deputy Saucier contributed to the inadequacy of the
departmental investigation. In his interview he said he was unaware that Captain Ryder had said
to DSB that he would “handle” the complaint. But it is hard to understand what else he thought
Ryder was doing; a citizen had complained, and Ryder was investigating that complaint. In a
matter this important he should have questioned Captain Ryder more closely about what he had
done and hadn’t done. Even if he assumed Captain Ryder had left Mr. a message telling
him how to get ahold of Ryder, it would have been prudent for Deputy Saucier to instruct the
Captain to try to contact him again, if for no other reason than to demonstrate the Department’s
commitment to taking citizen complaints seriously, as is well articulated in Policy 500.
Specifically, Deputy Saucier should have instructed Captain Ryder that pursuant to Policy 500 an
in-person interview was preferable to the telephone, and that he should make an appointment
with the complainant.

23
Instead, he, like Captain Ryder seemed to be hoping that if they ignored the complainant, he
would go away.24 This may explain why he never instructed Captain Ryder to prepare an official
report of the matter. Such a report presumably would have had to document the Captain’s efforts
to reach the complainant, the inadequacy of which should have been apparent, and something the
Deputy could have acted on.

Neither Deputy Saucier or Captain Ryder followed the provisions of Policy 500, but Deputy
Saucier did, at least suggest to the Chief that it would prudent for him to give the City Manager a
“heads up” two or three days after learning of it. The Deputy said the Chief responded, “It’s all
set.” In his interview the Chief said he did not recall Deputy Saucier saying that to him.

F. Policy 500

It is true that although Policy 500 does not specially address how to handle a complaint received
by phone in Emergency Communications,25 the general language is broad enough to cover this
situation:

Anytime a complaint…..is given to any non-supervisory, on-duty employee of

this department, whether by phone…..or by any other means, it shall be
brought to the immediate attention of an on-duty supervisor from the
division or unit where the employee receiving the information or complaint is
assigned. It shall be the responsibility of any on-duty supervisor, who receives
said complaint or information from either a subordinate or by any other means,
(emphasis added) to ensure that the complaint and/or information is processed in
strict compliance with the remainder of this policy. There shall be no exceptions
to this practice either permitted or condoned.26

In this instance, the “other means” was notice from Emergency Communications, through DS
Barbale, who advised, in order, Lt. Assad, Sgt Maher, and Captain Ryder of the complaint.
Captain Ryder, as the senior official on duty, rightly accepted responsibility for taking care of the

24
In this regard, DSB had a better sense of what was needed than these two police commanders did. As she told Lt.
Assad, “I don’t want to say call this number tomorrow. I don’t want it to get that far.”
25
A deficiency that should be corrected, as well as the somewhat more complicated problem about how to deal with
complaints involving high ranking officials.
26
Policy 500, Section 3, Introduction, p. 2 (emphasis in the original).

24
complaint, for handling it. But in doing so, he was bound to maintain “strict compliance with the
remainder of [the Policy 500] policy.”

Policy 500, Section 3, B, C, and D assume a broad role for on-duty supervisory personnel in the
Services Division in Complaint Initiation and Intake. In this instance Deputy McGinn, perhaps
taking into consideration demands on Lt. Assad in supervising lock-up that evening, referred the
matter to Operations. Captain Ryder accepted the responsibility. The first duty of the supervisor
is to “provide the complainant with a copy of the citizen complaint form and allow the citizen to
read and fill out the complaint form.” After the complaint form is signed and the complainant
provided a copy, it is to be forwarded to the Bureau of Professional Standards.27 None of this
was done by Captain Ryder, nor ordered by Deputy Saucier.

The final sentence of Section 3 D is instructive. “Under no circumstances will a request for a
written complaint form be either refused or discouraged.” (emphasis added). Mr. didn’t
ask for a written complaint form; he was never advised that this was the next step, which was
Captain Ryder’s responsibility. He was certainly discouraged from filing one by the inadequacy
of Captain Ryder’s outreach to him on September 22, and Captain Ryder and Deputy Saucier’s
refusal to reach out to him again on subsequent days, or to hand the matter off to BOPS or
Services if they no longer wanted the responsibility.

This was an extraordinary case. But bureaucracies make rules and establish procedures to give
guidance in handling both routine and extraordinary matters. Policy 500 provided the road map,
even in this extraordinary case: give the citizen the opportunity to file the written complaint; then
investigate it. It is especially important to follow procedures in extraordinary cases, where
suspicions might run high that the department would be tempted to ignore procedures, and not
investigate as required, in order to protect their own. That appears to be what happened in this
matter, potentially undermining citizen confidence in the integrity and thoroughness of
investigations, particularly those at the highest levels.

Captain Ken Davenport, the commander of the Bureau of Professional Standards was
interviewed by telephone. I identified myself as doing some work for the City Manager’s Office

27
Policy500, Section 3, D. p. 3

25
without going into any details of what.28 Captain Davenport affirmed my view that if a complaint
comes in on the non-emergency Emergency Communications line, and Emergency
Communications notifies an appropriate supervisor in the police department, the complaint is
subject to the provisions of Policy 500 and should be investigated.

That did not happen here.

IV. The Incident Itself

A. The Incident as Experienced and Reported by and , and
their Neighbor,

1. Background

and are married with three children, ages 15, 12, and 11. They have lived at
. for approximately 17 years. Mr. has been employed by
for 24 years. He is currently a salesman. Ms. works as an administrative
assistant in , since 2007. Prior to that, from 1992 into 2007, she
worked for the City of Worcester, in ,
and in . In the , she worked on
. While in that position Ms. had occasion to attend meetings
with Steven Sargent from the Police Department. They did not have a close working relationship,
but she described their interactions as “always pleasant,” and she reported no hostility or
conflicts with him. After she joined the , she noted in news reports and
on social media when he had been promoted to Chief of Police for the City of Worcester. She
doubted he would have known or remembered her or known where she lived. Both Mr. and Ms.
are approximately 45 years old.

is a rather short street connecting with

From it proceeds down a fairly steep hill. It is apparently a popular cut-through
street and can be significantly busier than a typical residential street
without cut-through traffic. The street is so steep at the top, , that a car placed in drive,

28
Captain Davenport was generally aware I was interviewing police department employees as he had been assisting
the City Manager’s Office in helping schedule interviews and notifying the officers to attend.

26
 . They deny any animosity towards the Worcester police,
or the police in general. Two of the three of them hold or held jobs directly connected to public
safety.

2. The Incident of September 22, 2019 from the Perspective of Residents of

.

Sometime in the early evening of Sunday, September 22, 2019, Mr. and Ms. were in the
process of swapping their cars around in the driveway, in anticipation of having the cars in the
right order for leaving for work the next morning. Ms. had already backed the minivan
across onto , and Mr. said he had backed his car onto ,
waiting for traffic to clear so his wife could cross and pull into the driveway ahead of
him. Mr. estimated that he was 12-18 inches away from the curb, with his right
blinker on. Mr. said he was parked near the fire hydrant, which is on his side of the street,
near his house. He estimated he was a car length behind (up the hill) from his driveway.

Mr. said he had been waiting for perhaps a minute or less for traffic to clear to allow his
wife to pull into the driveway when a car came up behind him, very close, and blowing his horn.
To get as close as it did, Mr. felt the driver of the car was probably not paying close
attention when he turned onto from . Ms. said she felt the on-
coming car had to “brake hard” to stop behind Mr. . Mr. said there was on-coming
traffic that prevented the other car from going around him, but it had stopped so close that he
could not see the license plate. He said this happened about the time his wife was crossing
in order to pull into the driveway.

As the car behind him beeped his horn, Mr. said he responded in kind. Ms. said she
had already crossed the road and was in the driveway when she first heard the beeps. She thought
it was a friend of her husband and she continued into the house. Mr. said, once his wife
was up at the top of the driveway, he drove a car length or so down to pull back into
his driveway. He said he proceeded slowly down the hill, not using his accelerator but relying
on the gravity of the hill to move him forward. He said he had to use his brake to control his
speed but did not brake suddenly or hard while moving the car length or so before he turned in

28
Mr. denied he was yelling at the other driver. He said that driver was not “screaming,” but
was yelling so loud that his oldest daughter, who was on the second floor, in a room at the back
of the house, furthest away from the driveway, heard the yelling, and came down and watched
from the front porch. He said it was a warm evening, so some house windows were open, making
it easier to hear. He said his younger daughter and his son were out on the porch most of the
time and witnessed most of the encounter. His wife, , heard the yelling from inside
the house; she looked outside and saw the other man coming “around the end of his car, yelling,
coming into my driveway.” She said she heard her husband say “What?” She said the man was
swearing, “he just kept calling my husband these names, over and over again.” She said the man
called her husband a “fat fuck” and a “fat ass.” He was “in my husband’s face, very close.”

Like her oldest daughter, Ms. also went outside, and walked partway down the driveway
or lawn, closer to where her husband was. She said she said to the man, “Listen asshole, get out
of my driveway.” About that point she heard the man say, “who the fuck parks in the middle of
the street?” She said the man looked like he was going to “hit my husband.”

said she was leaving her house (next door to the ’s) to walk her dog when
she heard the horn of a car behind Mr. . She said that car came to a quick stop, and then
pulled around “ ’s car.” She said the driver jumped out of his car. She did not see him roll
down the passenger side window or hear him yell anything out. She had crossed
with her dog and was watching from the corner of and . She said the man
“was jumping up in ’s face and called him a “fat ass,” and told him to leave. She did
not hear him call Mr. any other names. She said the man was very aggressive, “almost as
if he wanted to hit him.” She said she did not know how held back. At some point
she yelled from across the street words to the effect “I’ve got your back .” Ms. said
she also heard Ms. say “I saw it all.”

Ms. described the man as “out of his mind; he kept jumping up and down and pointing
his finger in ’s] face.” She said it was still light enough that she could see clearly; “it was
still light out.” Ms. also agreed it was light enough to see the man’s face and clothing.

Ms. said when she got within a few feet behind her husband in the driveway, she
recognized the man; thinking, “I know him.” She said she then said to her husband “ , come

30
in the house, that’s the Police Chief.” At about this time, the Chief turned and started back to his
vehicle. She said the Chief “continued screaming and calling names” as he walked back to
his vehicle. Ms. was not sure but did not think the Chief heard her identify him as the
Police Chief. She said he did not acknowledge that she was there. Ms. said she was not
close enough to really smell him or form an opinion as to whether he had been drinking.

In follow-up, separate, individual interviews, Mr. , Ms. and Ms. all denied
that, as the Chief was returning to his vehicle, Mr. yelled at him, or yelled that he was a
drunk, or yelled several times that he was a drunk.33 Mr. said by the time the man was
leaving he knew he was the Chief of Police. Mr. said, he “absolutely did not yell he was a
drunk. I’m a lot of things, but I’m not that stupid.”

Both Mr. and Ms. and Ms. were asked their opinion or assessment of the Chief’s
level of anger, on a ten-point scale, with one being mild annoyance and ten being so angry it
looked like the person might strike the other. Ms. said she estimated that the Chief was at
an 8. Mr. estimated the Chief was at an 8.5. Ms. estimated the Chief was at a 9.
Mr. said, in contrast, he was at a 2 during the encounter, but that he got more angry later,
when he thought about it, believing “for an official to act like that is ridiculous.”

Ms. said that the whole experience “was awful. I was shook up about it for a few days.”
She said she felt bad that the kids saw it from out on the deck. Mr. said that “the kids were
on edge all night. The kids knew I was upset.” He said their son (age 11), who has some
obsessive emotional issues, “talked about it for days.” He kept asking “why would a police
officer act that way?” Mr. said he “obsessed about it a little bit.” Ms. said her son
has some learning disabilities and he “repeats the story at home and repeats it. He’s been
bothered by it. He asks questions [about it] all the time.” She said she was sorry she had sworn at
the man, as her kids remarked they were surprised she had sworn.

Mr. estimated that the whole incident took about 5 to 10 minutes from beginning to end.

33
This is a claim made by the Chief. See below.

31
 B. The Incident as Experienced and Described by Chief of Police Steven M.
Sargent
1. On

Chief Sargent was interviewed on October 7, 2019 with a follow-up on Oct. 21. He said he was
off duty on Sunday September 22, 2019 and did not work at all or self-activate that day. He said
he and his wife spent the morning shopping and browsing at an antiques fair. They had their dog;
it was hot, so they decided to go home. He said they got home about 12:30 pm. The Chief said he
watched the Patriots game (1:00 pm) at home and did some work around the house. One or more
of his children and their families may have been at his house for some of the day. He was not
exactly sure, or sure when they may have left.

He said he had “maybe two beers while I was cooking earlier in the day when I first got back
from the fair,” but that was all the alcohol he had. He said he did not spend any time in any bar
or licensed establishment that day. At some point he began cooking ribs. A neighbor couple
came over to visit with their grandchildren and were invited to stay for dinner. Although the ribs
were not done, at some point his wife sent him out to by extra side dishes at Shaw’s and to buy
wine for the company. He said he left his house at between 6:30 and 7:00 pm as
dusk was approaching. He drove his department-issued Taurus. He said the car had a fully
functional police radio, but the lights and siren were malfunctioning and needed to be serviced.

He said he lives approximately one minute from . He said he was very familiar
with the street, driving it frequently, “2 times a day to take 290”. He said he also used to work
out by running in that area; the bottom of being one mile from his home. He used to
exercise by doing hill work on the street, running up and down ’s steep hill. He said
he “knows a bunch of people on that street” and “my kids’ friends live on the street.”

He said that on Sept. 22, he made a right-hand turn from , on to , headed

downhill toward . He was travelling between 5 and 10 miles per hour. He said after he
took the turn, he saw a car backing up the hill in the right-hand lane he was traveling in. He said
he “saw the vehicle right away” after the turn. He said he gave a “quick beep” to alert the driver.
He said the other driver stopped when he beeped. However, by that time the cars were so close to
each other that the Chief could not pull around the vehicle, now parked, without first backing up.

32
The Chief did not back up. There was one occupant in the car, the driver with no passengers. He
said he assumed he was letting someone in [the driveway] but he did not see another car cross
the street and pull up in the driveway.

He said the other car remained still, not moving, without any blinker or turn signal indicating his
intentions for about a minute. He said, “I’m behind him and he didn’t move so I gave a couple
more beeps.” He said he “didn’t lay on the horn but hit the horn a couple of times.” In his second
interview he said, “I really beeped.” He described the other vehicle as “being in the middle of
the road.” The other car did not move, and the Chief was stuck behind him, he estimated for
about a minute.

Finally, the car began to move forward, down the hill. Rather than wait for that car to travel far
enough for the Chief’s car to drive away unobstructed or achieve enough clearance to pull
around the first car, the Chief said he moved his car in tandem with the front vehicle, staying
very close. As the other car was going into the driveway Chief said the car braked very hard and
suddenly, almost causing the Chief to rear-end the vehicle. The Chief had to “slam his brakes
on.” The Chief felt the other driver may have done this deliberately, “like he was trying to cause
an accident.” In his second interview the Chief said the other guy “stopped quick to bust my
chops.”

The Chief also said that, after the other guy “slammed his brakes on,” nearly causing an accident,
the other driver sat there “for a minute, blocking me.”

When the other vehicle pulled into a driveway, the Chief said he pulled past the driveway,
stopped and lowered his front passenger side window. He yelled out to the man “You almost hit
me two times.” This occurred at about the time, or right after the other man exited his car, now
parked in the driveway.

At this point the other driver34 started “barreling” down the driveway towards the Chief’s car.
The Chief said, “he was coming after me, he was a bully.” As the man was approaching the
Chief said he reacted with his police training, instinctively getting out of his car and approaching

34
In his interviews the Chief said he did not know the complainant’s name, so throughout this section, the report
will refer to Mr. in the way the Chief did in his interviews, mostly as “the other guy.”

33
the other driver, who was still coming towards him. He said “I got out of the car to yell; he was
moving at me. It was just a reaction, like a cop. You get out of the car and try to move them
back. I certainly didn’t want to fight.” When they both stopped moving toward each other, the
Chief said they were “a few apart” from each other, “maybe a couple of feet into the
driveway.”35 He estimated they were about ten feet away from the Chief’s car.

In describing what happened when they were a few feet apart, the chief said, “we go back and
forth swearing at each other.” He said the other man said something first, and the Chief
remembered calling the other man a “fucking asshole.” He did not remember saying “who the
fuck parks in the middle of the street?” but said it was a possibility because “the guy was in the
middle of the street.” The Chief said that at this point they were not speaking that loudly. Asked
if he would be surprised to learn that they were so loud that someone on the second floor in the
rear of the house could hear what they were saying, the Chief said, “I doubt it, but it is possible.”

The Chief said he thought “oh God, this guy is looking for trouble.” The Chief did not remember
whether he pointed his finger at the other guy or not, but said he did not close his fist, or do
“anything like that.” He said he displayed “no aggressive behavior that looked like I was looking
for a fight.” He said the other guy did not point a finger at him, and he did not recall a closed fist.
He said he didn’t know what the other guy’s intent was at first, and he feared for his safety when
the guy slammed on his brakes and when he was coming down the driveway. The Chief said
after he got out of his car, he “decided that it didn’t look like it was going to get physical. He
said there was “no physical encounter at all.”

After a very brief time, the Chief noticed a woman “out of the corner of my eye.” The Chief said
he does not like to swear in front of women. “I saw the woman and decided ‘I’m not going to do
this.’ So I left. I jumped in my car and drove away.” He also said about seeing the woman,
“That’s why I shut down. I didn’t want to be jerk. So I shut down and I think ‘What am I doing
here?’”

As he was walking back to his car, the Chief said the other driver began yelling at him, loudly
and repeatedly, “You’re a drunk, You’re a drunk. I think you’re a drunk” The Chief said he

35
The Chief said he was not sure if he was even on the property of the other driver.

34
screamed it until I left.” “Anyone could hear what he was yelling at the end.” In his second
interview the Chief said, “He was screaming it so everyone could hear.” The Chief said he
thought the guy was trying to provoke him or maybe get the Chief to come back [to continue the
argument]. When asked why he didn’t go back, the Chief said he was already embarrassed for
getting out of the car. He said “instinct” made him get out of the car and a “cooler head” had him
get back in.

The Chief did not respond to the yelled taunts that he was a drunk but got in his car and drove
away. He did not go to Shaw’s but did stop at a package store (O’Hara’s Wine and Liquors on
Boylston St.) to buy the wine. He went home by a different route and did not travel on
. again that evening. The Chief said the whole incident in the cars lasted about a
minute or so, while the incident in the driveway lasted about 15 seconds.

The Chief described the incident as “two guys yelling at each other.” He said he did not see any
kids or anyone else on the street. He said if he had seen kids, he would not have gotten out of his
car and he wouldn’t have yelled at the other man. He said, “if there were kids there, I don’t know
why he [the other man] would have behaved the way he did, or his wife either.”36

The Chief said he never would have left the car if the man “wasn’t coming at me.” He said he
got out “to protect me and the car. I could have pulled away but he was coming at me, so I got
out.” The Chief agreed that the man never got so close to the car that the Chief would have been
hampered in any way in just driving away. The man was not close enough to the car to present a
danger that the man might have been hurt by the Chief’s pulling away. Nor was he close enough
to have been able to do any damage to the car if the Chief just drove off.

The Chief said he did not recall what the other guy said to him. He did not recall him saying that
maybe they should call the police. He said if he had heard that he might have agreed. He said he
could have cited the guy for three violations, including driving on the wrong side of the road, the
quick stop and not using his directional signal. He said he did not want to do that because he
doesn’t like to do policing in his own neighborhood. He also said “I could have written him up

36
It is curious that the Chief chose to include the wife in a comment about bad behavior. He claimed not to have
heard anything she said and did not accuse her of any misbehavior at all.

35
but I wasn’t looking for retaliation or anything. He did not show his badge or do anything to
reveal that he was a police officer.

He said he did not hear the woman tell her husband he was the Police Chief. He said he did not
know he had been identified by them until Captain Ryder told him when the Captain visited him
at his house later that evening.

The Chief was asked to assess his own level of anger and that of the other guy. The Chief was
offered the same 1 to 10 scale as had been offered to Mr. . The Chief said he started out as
a 2, and then to a “5 or 6 if that” when the guy slammed on his brakes, and “he got to 5 when he
came down at me.” He said he was “back to a 2 when Jack [Captain Ryder] showed up.” He
assessed the other guy’s anger at “probably the same” [as his].

The Chief did say however that “Whatever I did, he [the other guy] did three times over. He said
the other guy “was the aggressor all the way.”

The Chief said the visibility was “not bad” when he was on , but that it was dark by
the time Captain Ryder got to his house.

The Chief said there was nothing about his appearance that would have made anyone think the
Chief had been drinking. He said there was not an odor of alcohol, because he had had nothing to
drink since the early afternoon. He said he did not do anything to clean up or change clothes
before Captain Ryder visited the house.

The Chief said he considered this entire thing a dispute between two men. He said he was a
private citizen in this incident. He called it a dispute between neighbors. He said he doesn’t go
looking for trouble. We were just guys yelling at each other. The Chief said he looked at the
incident as “two Worcester citizens had a disagreement for a very short time.” He said he had
“no idea why they [Mr. and Ms. ] were making such a huge issue out of this. He speculated
that it was the wife who was driving this, perhaps because of some problem she had when
working for the City. He said he understood that if he had been on duty it might have been more
serious, but this was just a dispute between neighbors.

36
 2. The Chief’s Interaction with Captain Ryder

The Chief said it took him about 15 minutes to get back home after he left the scene of the
incident on . He stopped at O’Hara’s on West Boylston St. for a bottle of wine,
which he said was for company, and which he did not drink that evening himself. He said he did
not go to Shaws as planned. In the first interview he said he was not sure why but felt it might
have been because he was upset by the incident on . He said he did not think his wife
called him about the food. At his second interview he said that his wife had called him and told
him he did not need to stop there, as they had enough food.37

He said that Captain Ryder came to the house about 8:00 pm.38 He said Ryder said “I’m here in
front of your house. Can you step out?” The Chief said sure and was worried that the Captain
had some bad news, thinking perhaps someone had been killed. The Captain told him there had
been a call to Dispatch and someone made the accusation that the Chief was drunk and was
yelling at a citizen. Captain Ryder said he came up “to make visuals and check me.” He said
Ryder was embarrassed to do this by the Chief reassured him he was glad he came.

The Chief said the Captain did not do any field sobriety tests, and he didn’t remember what if
any questions the Captain asked him about the incident. He said he did tell the Captain that he
and the other guy “were yelling back and forth.” He said he did not know if the Captain asked
him if he had been drinking. He said that if the Captain had asked him anything, he “would have
told him. I wasn’t going to pull any punches.” He said he was sure the Captain asked him some
questions, but he could not remember what he asked.

The Chief was asked if he gave Captain Ryder any instructions or direction about what he should
do next. The Chief said he did not say anything about that. He said he did not give him any
“marching orders” or any course of action to follow. He said he thought the Captain had tried to
call the other guy but was “not sure if he ever got to him.” He was asked if he told the Captain to
be sure either he or someone spoke to the complainant. The Chief said “No, I didn’t say anything
about that.” When asked when he learned no one in the department had ever contacted the

37
It is possible that, between interviews, he spoke to his wife and she refreshed his memory, but I did not inquire on
that point.
38
Captain Ryder said it was 8:20 pm, based on information in his phone as to when he called the Chief from outside
his house. Captain Ryder’s timeline is probably the more accurate one.

37
complainant, he said he did not know that. “He [Captain Ryder] could have talked to him for all I
know.”

At the conclusion of their conversation the Chief invited Captain Ryder in in for something to
eat. The Captain declined. Shortly after the Captain left, the Chief texted him [at 8:44 pm]
thanking him for coming by. The text exchange is fully set forth in Section III. D, above. It is
worth noting that in this exchange the Chief called the complainant an ass, and the Captain
responded by calling him a fool.

3. The Chief’s View of What Investigation Was Required

In his interviews the Chief was steadfast in his view that this was a neighbor on neighbor dispute
and should be treated like one. He said he was acting as a private citizen and that is how he
thought the matter should be viewed. He agreed that when police are called to a neighborhood
dispute, they would typically talk to both [or all] sides: “That’s what you do in a neighbor
dispute.” He also said that wasn’t always necessary. If for example, the dispute was over, and,
peace had been restored, the police might not have to talk to everyone involved; they had
discretion in how they handled the matter. In this instance, Captain Ryder “checked out the
dispute [and] there was no on-going problem.” He said he did not know if Captain Ryder had
ever talked to the complainant but made clear he did not think that was necessarily required.

In his second interview the Chief restated that position. “it came across as a regular neighbor
dispute. Both Ryder and I [thought of it that way]. When a neighbor dispute ends, that’s it. No
problem.”

He also said “If I thought it was going to go further, I would have had someone go in and talk to
the guy.”

From a procedural perspective, the Chief was also very clear that what Captain Ryder was
investigating was not a citizen’s complaint under Policy 500. He said:

The complaint was a call-in to Dispatch. If it was a formal complaint to BOPS,

we would have done it [i.e., the investigation] thoroughly… There was no claim
to BOPS. There was no complaint to BOPS. If there were, BOPS would have

38
 investigated then I’d have notified the Manager. There was no formal complaint
to the Police Department.”

When asked why he did not advise the City Manager that a complaint had been filed
against him with Emergency Communications, the Chief said, “I didn’t think it was going
to be an issue… I didn’t think it was a complaint. Jack [Captain Ryder] took care of it at
my house.” In the second interview he said “This was a neighbor dispute that was over.”

4. Analysis of the Chief’s View of the Investigation

The Chief’s claim that “There was no formal complaint to the Police Department” is
without merit. He knew a citizen had called Dispatch and complained about his behavior.
He knew that the highest-ranking officer working in the City that night had been
informed. He said Captain Ryder told him when he was at the house that when
Emergency Communications got a complaint, protocol was to notify an officer of the
complaint. He knew Captain Ryder was so notified, and he had taken the extraordinary
step of visiting the Chief’s house unannounced to check on his sobriety.

To claim that the Police Department had not received a formal complaint is to make a
distinction without a difference. The Police Department was notified when DSB called
Lt. Assad and told him what she had. Deputy McGinn then took charge by directing who
should respond to the complaint. When Sgt. Maher informed his Captain what was
alleged, the Captain rightly decided to take the assignment away from Sgt. Donohue, and
to handle the matter himself. He placed a call to the complainant, he informed his Deputy
and received direct or tacit authorization to proceed as he planned. This was the
Department’s formal response to a citizen complaint they had received in the ordinary
course of business, from Emergency Communications, their most important
communications link to the people of Worcester. The call went to the organization
specifically charged with being as immediately available as possible, at all hours of the
day and night to respond to the needs of citizens and others.

Policy 500, issued under Chief Sargent’s signature, in its most recent version on March
14, 2019, makes clear that it does not matter exactly how the department learns of a

39
complaint (phone, mail email, in person, or by any other means).39 Once police officials
are notified of a complaint, Policy 500 is applicable. The Chief said if BOPS had been
notified, then there would have been a thorough investigation. But the duty to notify
BOPS fell to Captain Ryder and Deputy Saucier, and even, arguably to the Chief
himself—Ryder told the Chief a complaint had been lodged against him. As the highest
ranking official in the department he had a duty under Policy 500, just like other officers
of the department, to be sure BOPS was informed.

Policy 500 was written to make it easy for a citizen to file a complaint, and to be sure
complaints are thoroughly investigated, for the protection of both citizens and the
officers. For the Chief to claim this was not a formal complaint because the citizen called
Dispatch rather than BOPS, is entirely contrary to both the spirit and letter of Policy 500.

The Chief’s claim that what happened on . should be seen as a private

dispute between two neighbors is also without merit. In his answers to some of the open-
ended questions which led off the first interview (his accomplishments, challenges, things
he’s proudest of, his work schedule), the Chief acknowledged the obvious: being Police
Chief is a 24/7 job. He said he works some most weekends, and he makes a point of
working on holidays like Christmas, so officers know he is around. It was clear he took
pride in approaching the job that way.

In the same way, he must realize that wherever he is, whatever he is doing, day or night,
he is the Chief of Police for the City of Worcester and he needs to conduct himself
accordingly. He carries the badge, and that means he does not have the luxury of being
able to transform himself into totally private person, with no responsibility for
representing and symbolizing the Worcester Police Department, when it suits him. It
doesn’t work that way, and surely the Chief realizes that.

The prohibition against Conduct Unbecoming an Officer or Employee40 applies to

conduct both on and off duty. As the person principally responsible for the administration

39
Policy 500, Section 3 Introduction
40
Worcester Police Department Rules and Regulations (1975), Section 1514.1, p.28 (In the document this Section is
listed as 1511.1, but that appears to be a typo. There is another, unrelated 1511.1)

40
of discipline for employees in the department, the Chief must realize that. From his
interviews, it is clear that the Chief chafes at that 24-hour responsibility ([incidents like
.] “are the reason guys don’t want to live in the City”), but that is the
reality of his job. He probably didn’t turn down . thinking of himself as
the Police Chief, but once he decided to interact with a citizen, he should have
remembered who he is, and acted accordingly. He was more than just a neighbor. Being
recognized by citizens as the leader of one the most important public institutions in the
City is another reality of the position. It comes with the territory.

That the Chief would rely so heavily on these two frivolous justifications for not
investigating this matter as a citizen complaint against a police official is very troubling.
If he seriously believes what he said in these interviews, he is displaying a fundamental
misunderstanding of his role, and the process by which citizens can have their complaints
investigated, in a manner which upholds the professionalism, integrity and fairness of the
Worcester Police Department.

5. Analysis of the Varying Claims of What Happened on .

The principal areas of disagreement between Mr. and Ms. and the Chief about what
happened on . include the following:

 Was Mr. still backing up his car when the Chief approached him or was he already
parked?
 Did the Chief get so close to Mr. ’s car because with the movement of the two
vehicles towards each other he could not have stopped sooner, or was the Chief distracted
and failed to notice the parked car until it was almost too late?
 Was Mr. ’s blinker on or not?
 Was Mr. ’s car in the middle of the road or close to the curb?
 Did Mr. brake suddenly as he was pulling into his driveway or not?
 Did the Chief lower his passenger side window and yell to Mr. that he almost hit
the Chief two times?
 Who was the primary aggressor in the incident?

41
  Did the Chief show signs of having been drinking?
 Did Mr. yell “You’re a drunk,” loudly, several times, as the Chief was leaving?

Additional questions concerning the Chief are

 Why didn’t he just back up and go around Mr. when he first came upon him?
 Why did he tail Mr. so closely, driving in tandem behind him, rather than just wait
for Mr. to drive far enough to allow the Chief to be clear of him?
 Why did he stop his car and get out?

a. Assessing Credibility

In trying to sort out the discrepancies between these conflicting accounts it is necessary to assess
the credibility of the various participants. This includes considering motive, the logical
consistency and believability of their accounts, any internal inconsistencies, and any possible
corroboration of the account.

Mr. and Ms. presented as very credible complainants. By all measures they live stable,
well-structured lives, with long term regular employment, children, established careers, with no
indication of conflict with or animosity toward the police, the Chief, or the City. Ms. was
well regarded as a long term employee of the City (starting to work at City Hall when she was
eighteen). She has had a career in public service, and now works for a public safety agency.
. Neither Mr. nor
Ms. appear to have had any motive to make things up, or to exaggerate what occurred out
of malice, a desire for attention, revenge, or any other inappropriate motive. Mr. said he
did not know who the Police Chief was, or even his name before that evening.

Their stories did not match completely as stories seldom do when seen from different
perspectives. Ms. saw less of the entire confrontation than her husband, and she was
careful to limit what she reported based on what she saw. Most telling, she said she did not get
close enough to the Chief to smell any alcohol. If she had a malign motive to harm him, this was
an opportunity, which she declined.

42
They were going about their business, doing what they often do, getting the cars ready so they
could get off to work the next morning. From their perspective, all the quiet of that evening was
interrupted by the driver of the Blue Taurus. When that car parked, partly blocking the driveway,
Mr. went to investigate and was drawn into a confrontation with someone he didn’t know.
Once he was identified, the couple were appalled that someone with such an important position
behaved so poorly. I believe they called to report the matter as much out of civic duty as any
other motive. Ms. said she was not looking for anyone to lose their job or anything, but
both of them want the problem recognized.

The only motive for Mr. to “fake good” or not be completely candid is possibly in
defending himself against attack for his alleged driving offenses. Those matters will be addressed
below.

The civilian witness, Ms. , likewise appeared very credible. She is a retired state
Corrections Officer who worked at . She claims no
antagonism towards the police and appreciates having a license to carry for a firearm she keeps
in her home for self-protection. Although she has a clear friendship with Mr. and Ms. , she
was also careful to only describe what she saw from her perspective, which, being farther away,
was somewhat limited. On the critical point of what Mr. said as the Chief was leaving, she
was clear and definite. I do not think she lied.

As the person under investigation and potentially accused of wrongdoing, the Chief’s
motivations are fully entangled with the need for self-protection, for his career, for his
reputation, and his own sense of himself as a professional police officer. Some of what he said
does not fit well with other facts and the statements of others.

The Chief also demonstrated himself to me to be someone who can be quick to anger, and who
can say things in anger that, with better emotional control, he might have realized were
imprudent to say. The Chief was initially interviewed by me on Oct. 7. At that time, I asked him
for a copy of the texts he had exchanged with Captain Ryder on the night of September 22. He
promised he would forward them. When I had heard nothing from him for over a week, I
emailed him on the afternoon of October 15, again requesting the texts, and asking for the
opportunity to meet with him again briefly within the next two days. When I did not receive a

43
delay, the response I would expect, he challenged my need for the documents he had already
promised. I had explained that one of the reasons for my second visit to him was so I could take
pictures of the texts, therefore relieving him of any burden of figuring out how to send them to
me, but he chose to see my visit as a “fishing expedition,” a phrase he did not explain.

The aspect of our telephone conversation I found most troubling was his reaction to learning
Assistant City Manager Kathleen Johnson was involved. Normally I would decline to reveal who
I had spoken with, but out of respect for his office I responded. The intensity of his angry
reaction to this news made me regret my decision. His reaction was unprofessional and led me to
believe he is capable of quickly losing emotional control, in a manner as alleged by Mr. .

b. The Field Visit

To help understand the logical consistency of the accounts, I visited . on the

morning of my second interview with the Police Chief (held in his office) on Oct. 21, after the
interview was concluded. I did this to try to understand better what the experience of turning
right from Grove and coming down the hill on was actually like. What I found was
that . is so steep from to beyond where the live that one cannot
maintain a speed of 10 mph42 without steady and firm application of the brake. Starting at 10
mph and then letting the car coast from the top of the hill, I immediately began picking up speed
due to gravity, reaching 22 mph in seconds. At that point, when I was still a long way from
reaching the ’s house, I applied the brakes, to maintain control of the car, which was
continuing to accelerate at an increasing rate. I was driving a 2016 model Prius, which although
it may have a different gear ratio than the Taurus, is almost certainly lighter, which might make
the Taurus accelerate even faster.

I also drove down the hill at moderate speed (est. 20 mph) and found that from the top it took
approximately 15 seconds to reach the point where Mr. said he had parked his car while
waiting for his wife to cross from and pull into the driveway first.

42
The top speed the Chief estimated he was travelling as he drove down

45
 c. The Initial Stop Behind Mr. ’s Car

Using these as rough measures I do not find the Chief’s accounting of how he ended up so close
to Mr. on the street to be believable. The Chief said he spotted the car moving, backing up
on as soon as he turned the corner. Mr. said he only drove about a car length
up the hill from his driveway before he stopped to wait for his wife. I find Mr. ’s account
plausible and believable. He had no need to drive further up the hill to clear the driveway for his
wife. There is no reason he would have been actually moving up the hill except for a short
distance, taking only a short amount of time.

If the Chief really saw him moving backwards from the top of the hill, the Chief would have had
ample time to adjust his speed by applying the brakes and come to a full stop well before he was
close to Mr. ’s tail end. This is especially so if he were travelling at the low rate of speed
he claimed, as he would have had to be controlling his rate of descent using the brake, not the
accelerator. The Chief described the two cars, travelling in opposite directions in the same lane,
as moving towards each other so quickly that it was all he could do to avoid hitting the other car
by braking hard. This would only be true if the Chief was travelling significantly faster than he
said he was, and if he did not notice the other car until he was much further down the hill than he
claimed. It could not have happened the way he described it.

I also think it more likely than not that Mr. had already stopped his car well before the
Chief got close. I find this based upon the short amount of time that Mr. actually was
backing up compared to the time it takes to get from Grove to the point where the car
likely stopped. The Chief’s story also had to explain why he came so close to the other car if he
saw it from the full distance from , and he was travelling slowly. The only way that story
makes any sense is if the other car is backing up the hill at a good rate of speed and for a
considerable distance, the driver oblivious to what’s coming behind him. That is not what Mr.
was doing.

The Chief’s claim that Mr. stopped his car only after the Chief gave him a warning beep
also does not seem likely. Mr. stopped because he had backed up as far as he needed to in
order to let his wife in. Mr. said he had pulled out of the driveway, backed up and was
parked for 30 seconds before he noticed the other car.

46
Both Mr. and the Chief agree that the Chief stopped his car very close to the tail of Mr.
’s. (Mr. said the car was so close he couldn’t see the license plate.) I do not believe
it was because Mr. was travelling towards him so fast that the Chief had no options
besides beeping and braking hard, narrowly avoiding a collision. There are two other possible
explanations. The first is that the Chief was travelling faster than he said and did not notice the
parked car until he was very close to it, causing him to brake very quickly. The second
possibility is that he saw the parked car in plenty of time to stop but was irritated that the car was
blocking his path, so he intentionally pulled up close behind it and beeped. Mr. said he
did not notice the car until it was right behind him and beeped. He did not report any screeching
tires or other noises connected with hard braking to avoid an accident. That is not dispositive
however. Ms. noted that the Taurus “came to a quick stop and almost hit him [Mr.
].” She later she “saw him [the operator of the Taurus] brake hard.”

I do not find it necessary or possible to conclude which of these two possibilities is the most
likely. Under either scenario, the Chief was likely in an aroused emotional state. Narrowly
avoiding an accident could certainly set him on edge. Being blocked by someone who, from his
perspective seemed to have no reason to just be sitting in the road, not moving, can also put
someone, particularly if he is in a hurry, into an agitated state. The Chief admitted he used his
horn to signal his displeasure that Mr. was not moving. No matter the reason he ended up
so close to Mr. , while he sat there, he likely grew increasingly frustrated.

d. Why Didn’t the Chief Back Up?

This raises the question of why the Chief did not just back up and go around Mr. . The
Chief offered no explanation, but I gathered from his tone and demeanor that he felt backing up
was an imposition that he didn’t want to accept; so he waited. It may also be that there was
enough on-coming traffic that even if he backed up so he could swing around Mr. ’s car,
traffic in the other lane prevented him from passing Mr. safely43. Still, backing up so he
was ready to pull out when traffic cleared seems like the best solution, but for unexplained
reasons the Chief did not do that.

43
In his interview, Mr. agreed that on-coming traffic would have impeded the Chief’s ability to get around
him and be on his way.

47
 e. The Blinkers and the Middle of the Road

Mr. and the Chief disagree whether Mr. was in the middle of the road, with no
blinker or flashers on, or near the curb with his blinker on, indicating he would be turning right.
Given that I find the Chief’s explanation as to how he got so close to Mr. ’s car difficult to
believe, the rest of his account is less credible than it otherwise would have been if the initial
claim of what had first happened had been more believable.

For his part, Mr. ’s story makes sense. Switching of the cars is a routine task for his wife
and him, something they have done many times. Mr. had no interest in blocking traffic
behind him, he wanted to switch the cars with the least trouble possible. In his interviews he
presented as a prudent and reasonable person, likely to be conscious of the hazards presented, to
himself and others by his waiting in the street for traffic to clear so his wife could pull in first. It
would certainly have made sense for him to do as he said, pull within 12 to 18 inches of the curb
with his blinker on.

On the other hand, there is a telephone pole near the right hand (uphill) side of his driveway. To
pull out and back up the hill might have required him to swing wide to avoid coming close to the
telephone pole. If he did this and did not course correct to pull closer to the curb, he might have
ended up further from the curb. The “middle of the road” implies being so far out that he would
have been blocking uphill traffic as well or making it harder for them to pass him. I find this very
unlikely; his interest was in clearing uphill traffic as quickly as he could so his wife could cross
into the driveway. I find it possible that he was in the middle of his lane, and not as
close to the curb as he indicated, but he was not likely in the middle of the road.

Either way, . is narrow enough that, even if he were close to the curb, another
car travelling downhill would have had difficulty safely getting past him if there was on-coming
traffic; the road not being wide enough to safely accommodate three vehicles with two passing
each other at the same place. In that sense it may not matter if he was within 18 inches of the
curb, except to the extent being farther out further irritated the Chief.

48
said the other car was creeping down the hill at the same pace he was. He denied ever hitting his
brakes hard for a sudden stop.

Mr. would have had to maneuver around the telephone pole to make his turn back into the
driveway. He may have braked harder at that point than in the prior part of his short journey, but
it is impossible to know.

Intentionally braking hard to deter or punish a tailgater is a common enough experience, but in
this instance, I don’t find that Mr. intentionally braked hard to frighten or startle the Chief.
If they were as close to each other as the Chief said, Mr. ran the risk of having his own car
damaged if the Chief’s reactions were too slow to prevent a collision. I don’t know why he
would have risked that, having no idea of the skills or reaction time of whoever was driving the
car behind him. I think Mr. just wanted to get back in his driveway and on with his life.

It is entirely possible that in negotiating his turn into the driveway, Mr. braked harder that
the Chief anticipated. The Chief could have interpreted that as a hostile act, contributing greatly
to the verbal confrontation ahead. Or the Chief could have blown this out of proportion, seeking
to embellish his reasons for showing so much subsequent anger.

I do not believe that Mr. interrupted his short journey to get back in his driveway by
sitting in the street, not moving after allegedly braking hard, as the Chief claimed. Mr.
may have been irritated at the Chief for blowing his horn, and for following him so closely, but I
do not believe he was interested in wasting his time, siting in the road for no reason other than to
irritate the other driver. Given how easily it is to pick up speed when coming down
. blocking traffic unnecessarily present safety risks, and I think Mr. just wanted to get
in his driveway with a minimum of fuss.

I find Mr. ’s account the more credible version of the alleged sudden stop.

g. The Aggressors

Perhaps the most aggressive act Mr. displayed was coming down the driveway after the
Chief parked his car. Mr. said he started toward the road because the other car had pulled
over and he wanted to find out what was going on. Both Ms. and Mr. said the

50
Chief had parked hastily, at an angle with his rear end sticking out in the road. Mr. and Ms.
both said the car had not pulled down far enough to clear the driveway. It was parked in
such a way that the driveway was partially blocked.

Mr. denied that the Chief had rolled down his passenger window to yell something about
almost causing two accidents. As he began walking down the driveway the Chief got out of his
car, leaving the engine running.

Perhaps the biggest mistake the Chief made in this whole matter was in stopping after Mr.
had pulled into his driveway, and then getting out of his car. If he had just gone on his way
without stopping, the matter would have been over. Even if he had just stopped to yell about the
near accidents, and then driven on, the matter would have been finished. Stopping and getting
out of his car were two aggressive acts; and they were provocative. If the Chief had not stopped,
Mr. would have walked in his house and everyone could have called it a day.

The Chief had no explanation as to why he stopped in the first place other than wanting to yell at
the other guy.

I do not accept the chief’s explanation that he got out of his car because of his police training. I
agree that had Mr. come up to the car, the Chief would have been at a disadvantage;
perhaps unable to safely move the car and sitting, with limited range of movement while this big
guy loomed over his window and door. But Mr. never got near enough to the car to limit
the Chief in any way. He could have given Mr. a dismissive or rude gesture, and then
driven off. I think the Chief got out of his car because he wanted to argue with and yell at this
other guy.

By stopping and then getting out of his car, the Chief prolonged and exacerbated the
confrontation that began when he stopped suddenly behind Mr. . Mr. would not
have walked down the driveway if the Chief hadn’t stopped. Contrary to his claim, it was the
Chief who was the primary aggressor in initiating the face-to-face confrontation.

Both the Chief and Mr. tell reasonably similar stories about how they behaved toward
each other in the driveway. Mr. had them closer to each other than the Chief did, and both
Mr. and Ms. had the Chief pointing his finger at Mr. , which the Chief says

51
Mr. and Ms. and Ms. all deny that Mr. said that or anything like it as the
Chief was leaving.47 Ms. was approximately 2-3 feet behind her husband and Ms.
was an estimated 36-40 feet away on the corner of and . They both would
have been able to easily hear Mr. if he were screaming that. They were emphatic that he
was not. Mr. also denied saying it, adding “I knew by then he was the Police Chief. I’m a
lot of things, but I’m not that stupid.”

As soon as Ms. recognized who the driver of the Blue Taurus was, she told her husband he
needed to go into the house. This was clearly out of a safety concern for him. To be having a
verbal confrontation with a person in such a powerful and prominent position must have been
very unsettling. For all they knew he could have pulled a weapon and arrested Mr. on the
spot. Or more likely, he could have called for back up and they would be faced with numerous
cruisers with lights and sirens gathered in front of their house, with who knows what outcome,
all played out in front of their children.

Mr. may have been outraged that a person in such an important position could act in that
way, but I don’t think he was so angry as to have gone so far as to taunt, in such a loud, dramatic
and offensive way, this person they now had good reason to be afraid of.

The Chief said he thought Mr. was yelling, calling him a drunk because Mr. wanted
to provoke him into coming back into the driveway, to continue the shouting match. That is
highly unlikely. Mr. had no interest in prolonging the argument; he wanted this guy to go
away, especially now that he knew who he was.

When the Chief made these accusations in his interview, I believe the Chief was unaware that
there was a neighbor outside observing the entire encounter, in a position to hear, and to confirm
or deny what Mr. was alleged to have said. As a long-time neighbor and friend of the

47
It is important to distinguish two separate claimed instances of Mr. referring to alcohol when he was
confronting the Chief. Mr. said he told the Chief “he had been drinking and suggested they call the police to
settle it” while they were in the driveway together. This was before he knew that the individual in his driveway was
the Chief, and before he started to leave. The Chief claimed he never heard Mr. say this. Instead, the Chief
claimed Mr. repeatedly yelled “you’re a drunk” to the Chief as he was walking back to his car. Mr. and
the two other witnesses denied Mr. said this. According to Mr. , he did not call the Chief a drunk, he did
not yell that phrase; he did not yell that phrase repeatedly; and he did not yell as the Chief was leaving, walking back
to his car. The two claimed instances are distinct from each other.

53
 , Ms. is certainly not unbiased. But she is a pleasant, friendly, engaged 64-year-
old, who lives with her dog after years of service in one of the hardest and most challenging
public safety jobs as exist. I believe she respects law and order and she would not lie. She didn’t
see that Mr. had his blinker on. Even though it was obvious that a “yes” answer would
have helped Mr. , she said she did not see it. I believe the same is true of the alleged
repeated yelling, “you’re a drunk.” She didn’t hear it because Mr. didn’t say it.

Why the Chief make up such a story is hard to understand. It seems to be a gilding of the lilly,
adding seemingly compelling details to show how unhinged the complainant really was. Not
realizing another witness was present may have given him more confidence that his version
would be accepted. He clearly didn’t appreciate how unsettling the found it when they
learned who they were dealing with.

I find it more likely than not that Chief Sargent was not telling the truth when he claimed Mr.
repeatedly yelled “you’re a drunk, you’re a drunk” as the Chief was leaving the property
and headed back to his car.

i. Had the Chief Been Drinking?

When Mr. called Emergency Communications, he told DSB that the Chief was
“absolutely hammered. I could smell it a mile away. He was hammered.” He said the same thing
later in the call: “hammered.” Other than the smell, he gave DSB no other indicators of his
alleged intoxication. When Captain Ryder was interviewed, he said DSB had told him the
complainant said the Chief was “drunk as a skunk.” In a second interview, DSB volunteered,
before I asked, that she had told Captain Ryder the Chief was supposed to be “drunk as a skunk,”
even though she agreed those words were never used by the complainant.

When I spoke to Mr. , he was substantially calmer that he was at the beginning of his call
with Emergency Communications.48 He did not use language like “hammered” though he said he
was 1000% sure the Chief was drinking. He said he would bet his life on it. He said you could
see it in his eyes and you could smell it. Mr. did not mention a staggering gait or slurred

48
DSB had said that although the complainant was agitated at the beginning of the call, he became very polite by the
end.

54
words or any other signs of alcohol use, and he never claimed in his interview that the Chief was
intoxicated.

Assuming Ms. is correct that it was about ten to fifteen minutes after the Chief drove off
that her husband called Emergency Communications, that would place this incident as occurring
sometime between 6:40 and 6:45, ending about 6:50 pm. Captain Ryder arrived at the Chief’s
house at 8:20 pm, about 90-100 minutes after Mr. made his observations. Early in his
conversation with the Chief, Mr. had told the Chief he had been drinking. The Chief said
in his interview that he did not hear that, though Mr. said the Chief began backing away as
he said it. If the Chief did hear it, and he had had more to drink, later in the day than he had
admitted to in his interview, it is conceivable he could have taken precautionary steps after he
got home, such as showering and changing clothes prior to Captain Ryder’s arrival.

The Chief denied doing any of that, and claimed he had no reason to, since he hadn’t heard what
Ms. had said, and had no idea he had been identified until Captain Ryder told him.

I am persuaded that Mr. has an honest belief that the Chief had been drinking prior to their
encounter. I think his outrage that the Chief of Police would act the way he did was genuine. I do
not believe he would make up the claim of drinking just to embellish his story However, in his
anger and emotion, he did embellish his story in the call to Dispatch. The Chief did not have the
smell that could be detected “a mile away.” Ms. got within perhaps 5-7 feet of the Chief
when she identified him, and she said, “I didn’t get close enough to form an opinion about if he
was drinking.” Her unwillingness to corroborate her husband’s strongly held view added to her
credibility in my view. It also added to Mr. ’s. They did not concoct a false story together
to unjustly slander the Chief.

I believe the Chief did present signs to Mr. that he had been drinking, but there is no
evidence that he was “hammered,” “drunk as a skunk,” or even intoxicated above the legal limit.
By DSB’s use of colorful language, Captain Ryder may have been looking for a level of
intoxication that was more than Mr. claimed, at least during his interview. Perhaps the
smell of barbeque sauce overpowered the fading smell of alcohol. Captain Ryder did the barest
minimum to satisfy himself the Chief was not drunk, but he was not interested in probing further.
It is also important to know that Captain Ryder and the Chief have known each other for a very

55
long time, having worked together at another employer prior to joining the police force. By his
actions Captain Ryder failed to show any interest in thoroughly investigating the complaint and
satisfied himself after a brief conversation with the Chief that the complainant was a fool.

Given the flawed investigation, and the variability of Mr. ’s claims as to the level of the
Chief’s impairment, I believe there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Chief Sargent was
seriously impaired by the use of alcohol during his encounter with Mr. . Nonetheless,
alcohol may have played a role in affecting the Chief’s judgment during the incident.

V. Findings

Based upon all of the above,

1). I find that Captain Ryder, Deputy Saucier and Chief Sargent violated Policy 500 by failing to
ensure that a citizen complaint was properly investigated, including giving the citizen the
opportunity to file a written complaint, preparing necessary reports about the incident and failing
to refer the matter to the Bureau of Professional Standards.

Although the complaint was about himself, the Chief had a duty to ensure it was properly
investigated pursuant to the Policy, to not disparage the complainant in a communication with
the investigating officer, and to advise the City Manager advised in a timely way of the existence
of the complaint.

After assuming responsibility for handling the complaint Captain Ryder took inadequate steps to
reach out to the complainant and showed great prejudice against him and the complaint by
disparaging him in a text with the subject of the complaint, less than 90 minutes after accepting
responsibility for the investigation.

Deputy Saucier failed to give adequate direction to his subordinate Captain to ensure that the
complaint was adequately investigated, reports prepared, and the matter referred to the Bureau of
Professional Standards.

2). I find that Chief Sargent engaged in Conduct Unbecoming an Officer in violation of Rule
1514.1 of the Rules and Regulations of the Police Department on September 22, 2019 by exiting
his City-supplied unmarked vehicle, entering onto the property of a private citizen for no lawful
56
purpose and then berating that citizen using vulgar language and insults; further Chief Sargent
engaged in Conduct unbecoming an officer by disparaging a citizen complainant to the officer
assigned to complete the investigation, thereby compromising the integrity of the investigation
that should have been conducted.

3). I find that Chief Sargent violated Rule 1402.1, Truthfulness of the Rules and Regulations of
the Police Department, by falsely stating during an investigation that on September 22, 2019,
while turning onto . from and traveling 5-10 miles per hour, he
spotted a vehicle traveling backwards up the hill at such a speed and distance that he only
narrowly avoided collision with that vehicle by sounding his horn and braking hard.

4). I find Chief Sargent violated Rule 1402.1, Truthfulness of the Rules and Regulations of the
Police Department, by falsely stating during an investigation that a citizen yelled “you’re a
drunk” at him several times on a public street, so loudly that others could hear and while the
Chief was walking back to his car to leave the area

5). I find Captain Ryder engaged in Conduct Unbecoming an Officer in violation of Rule 1514.1
of the Rules and Regulations of the Police Department by disparaging a civilian complainant to
the subject of the complaint, thereby compromising the integrity of the investigation that should
have been conducted.

VI. Other Recommendations

A. Roster Updates

When the original complaint came in to Emergency Communications on the evening of

September 22, Dispatch Supervisor Barbale wanted to assign the matter to the highest ranking
Superior Officer on duty. Captain Ryder, the 3-11 Captain in Operations was not scheduled to
work that day, and he was not on the Roster forwarded from Operations to Emergency
Communications by email. At approximately 3:36 pm Captain Ryder texted the two sergeants
working that shift that he would be coming in a little later. There was no update to the roster sent
to Emergency Communications, so it had no record that he was working. This caused
miscommunication and delay in assigning someone to handle the complaint. Consideration

57