Aliyya Swaby Photo
Dobson, pictured, is contesting her suspension.
The repercussions of an embarrassing episode involving a rookie cop continue even after her firing.Police Chief Dean Esserman has decided to discipline two more officers in connection with the case and to confer with a third about his failure to follow department rules.
The case centered on rookie Officer Najea Poindexter. The department launched an internal investigation after the Jan. 17 traffic stop and arrest (first reported here) of a man driving a white Honda Crossover with his lights off — and allegedly carrying large quantities of heroin and crack cocaine. The car belonged to Poindexter. The final report concluded that five of Poindexter’s superiors warned her to stay away from her live-in boyfriend. The investigation also found that she had maintained close contact with a convicted murderer and a convicted drug-dealer. In a 3 – 2 vote, the Police Commission fired Poindexter after a five-hour hearing. (Read all about that here.)
The 400-plus-page internal report — obtained by the Independent (read about it here) — went beyond Poindexter’s actions to look at how other cops handled the arrest, and how she got through the vetting process to become a cop.
Officer Michelle Dobson did the background check on Poindexter before she joined the force. Police Chief Dean Esserman has suspended Dobson for 10 days in response to how she conducted that background check; she is to serve five days of the suspension, while the other five remain in abeyance. She won’t have to serve those last five days unless she gets in trouble again.
Dobson was found to have “neglected” her “duty” in violation of Rule 15, Section 35 of the department’s general orders, according to Assistant Chief Al Vazquez, who oversees ethics and values.
“He Did Not Pick Up”
The police union has filed a grievance protesting that suspension, according to President Louis Cavaliere Jr.
“We feel there wasn’t just cause,” Cavaliere said.“The chief suspended her when she did her job. She did what she was told to do. We’re going to defend her. She tried to reach out to certain individuals more than once; she met with dead ends. The supervisor said, ‘You’ve conducted your job. Let me have the packet.’ The officer felt, ‘Hey, I told them what I needed to tell them.’”
The internal affairs (IA) report turned up details about Poindexter’s past that did not show up in Dobson’s earlier report. For instance, internal affairs investigators spoke to the property managers at the Brewery Square apartment where Poindexter lived with her boyfriend (and father of her child); a manager reported showing the couple surveillance video that appeared to show that the boyfriend was dealing drugs out of the apartment. The IA report detailed numerous ongoing contacts between Poindexter and, among other criminals, a convicted murderer with whom she had been romantically involved; as well as numerous past police incidents involving Poindexter.
Dobson addressed those admissions in an interview with IA during the Poindexter probe. Here’s what she said, according to a summary included in the report:
“Officer Dobson stated she did not conduct a neighborhood check or home visit because the property for the Brewery Square Apartments is secure and she was not allowed access. Officer Dobson did not attempt to contact the property manager and stated it is not common to speak with a landlord. She did not speak to Officer Poindexter’s significant other … because he did not pick up when she called. Officer Dobson stated she did not make other arrangements with Officer Poindexter in order to speak with [the boyfriend].
“Officer Dobson conducted an in-house computer check by name on Najea Poindexter. She pulled reports for incidents involving Poindexter but stated there was nothing of significance. An in-house computer check was also conducted on [the boyfriend]. Officer Dobson stated she recalled incidents involving [him] for trespassing … and one in which he was the victim of a shooting. Officer Dobson was not aware that Poindexter had been involved in the shooting because she never viewed the report. She stated that the in-house computer check on Poindexter did not reveal her to be a victim or other in the incident and her background investigation was on Poindexter.
“Officer Dobson was allowed to view the incident report documented under case number 11 – 29940. Najea Poindexter was the complainant in that incident in which she and [the boyfriend] were shot at. During the investigation, [he] was uncooperative with police.
“Officer Dobson stated she does have conversations with certain applicants to make sure they have completely thought out what they seek when applying for a position as a police officer. She had a conversation with Poindexter regarding her relationship with [the boyfriend]. Officer Dobson advised Poindexter that in her experience, someone repeatedly stopped for trespassing and someone who has been shot at might not be wise to be with. Officer Dobson stated that as an example, she told Poindexter that if [he] was stopped doing something in her vehicle, it could come back to her.
“Officer Dobson told Poindexter that becoming a police officer does require a change in lifestyle for some people. Poindexter was given time to think about the importance of becoming a police officer. Officer Dobson voiced her concerns to Sergeant Taft who was her immediate supervisor at the time. She told Sergeant Taft her concerns with [the boyfriend] were solely based on her experience of being on the job. After a few days, Poindexter told Officer Dobson that her concerns were acknowledged and appreciated, but being a police officer was something she wanted to do.”
Special Treatment?
Paul Bass Photo
Miller: Details to come.
Another focus of the IA probe was the handling of the arrest of Poindexter’s boyfriend after the Jan. 17 traffic stop.
Officers claim they didn’t know her boyfriend had a large amount of heroin and cocaine on him until they had transported him to 1 Union Ave. for processing. They never searched Poindexter’s Honda Crossover, which the boyfriend had been driving. They didn’t impound the car. They called up Poindexter so she could come pick up the car. An officer drove to her home to deliver the keys.
One of the officers, Matthew Borges, was found to have violated General Order 76 Section 3, which requires filing accurate and complete reports, according to Assistant Chief Al Vazquez.
Borges did not receive formal discipline. Instead he had a sit down with Chief Esserman to discuss “training issues,” Vazquez said. He was also given training on strip searches; the IA report concluded Borges did not understand department policy on that issue. In fact, the entire department has received training at line-up on strip searches as a result of this case, Vazquez said.
Borges told IA that he was following past practice in not conducting a strip search of the boyfriend at the scene of the arrest, since he was being cited for a traffic stop. Officers later found the drugs in the back of a police vehicle in which the suspect was transported to 1 Union Ave.
Police had been targeting the area that night as part of a drug-suppression detail.
The officers at the scene did believe the suspect had drugs on him when they initially patted him down at the scene, according to the IA report. They noticed a “bulge” in his pants “which was not part of the human anatomy.”
“Both officers stated they believed the bulge to be illicit narcotics. However, a supervisor was not contacted. Officer Borges stated he deemed it unnecessary.”
Before going home at the end of their shift, the officers wrote a report of the incident. The report did not mention that the car the suspect was driving belonged to a police officer. They didn’t mention contacting the officer about it and driving to her home to deliver the keys.
As a result of the investigation, the chief has decided to discipline the sergeant who signed off on that report, Richard Miller. The chief has yet to meet with the union to set the terms of the discipline. So the department does not have to release any information about that matter yet.
Another section of the report describes the IA interview with Miller. It states that he “confirmed” that the report he signed omitted the information about the officer owning the Honda. “He stated that even though he approved the report, he instructed Officer Borges to complete a supplemental report during his next schedule[d] shift to include the vehicle’s owner information. Sergeant Miller stated he was unsure if the supplemental report was completed and he had not document the order given to Officer Borges.” Miller stated that he didn’t learn until the next day that an officer owned the vehicle.
“In regards to the bulge in [the boyfriend’s] pants, suspected to be illicit narcotics … Sergeant Miller stated he had not questioned them on their decision not to positively identify the item or its content. After reading the report during the interview, Sergeant Miller stated he believed the decision not to positively identify the item or its content was an officer safety issue. Sergeant Miller stated the item and its content would have been retried and identified had he been the patrol supervisor aware of the circumstances.”
The IA report clears other supervisors on duty that night of culpability because they weren’t aware of key information.
Markeshia Ricks contributed reporting.
Previous coverage of this case:
• Rookie Cop Fired In 3 – 2 Vote
• Probe Question: What Did Rookie Know, & When?
• Cop’s Connection To Drug Arrest Sparks IA Probe
• Cop Was Warned About Companion’s Dealing
• Esserman Moves To Fire Rookie Cop