George Floyd Protests Report: Findings

and Recommendations from

Investigations of Policing Complaints in
City of Cincinnati

Gabriel Davis
Director
Table of Contents
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 3
II. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 4
III. TIMELINE ................................................................................................................... 4
IV. COMPLAINT & FINDINGS SUMMARIES ................................................................ 10
V. FINDINGS: PATTERNS & TRENDS......................................................................... 14
VI. KEY OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................ 17
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 20
VIII. COMMENDATIONS............................................................................................... 24
IX. INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................................................... 24
Case No. 20097 – Hough Investigation ...................................................................... 25
Case No. 20188 – Kimutis Investigation..................................................................... 35
Case No. 20112 – King Investigation ......................................................................... 46
Case No. 20090 – Harrow Investigation ..................................................................... 62
Case No. 20095 – Walker Investigation ..................................................................... 76
Case No. 20089 – Erd Investigation ........................................................................... 92
Case No. 20093 – Wilkins, et al. Investigation ........................................................... 99
Case No. 20099 – Thompson Investigation ............................................................. 115
Case No. 20092 – Clifford Investigation ................................................................... 125
Case No. 20120 – Grice Investigation ...................................................................... 137
Case No. 20115 – White/Gilley Investigation ........................................................... 145
XI. APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 164
MAP ......................................................................................................................... 164
AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... 165
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS ........................................................................................... 166

2
 I. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

During May and June of 2020, the Citizen Complaint Authority (“CCA” or “The Authority”) received
complaints from thirty-seven (37) different individuals alleging misconduct by Cincinnati Police
Officers related to the management of protests and civil demonstrations that occurred in
connection with George Floyd’s murder (“the protests”). These complaints represented eleven
(11) separate incidents. In response, CCA opened eleven (11) separate investigations into those
incidents.

Consistent with CCA’s duty under Article XXVIII of Cincinnati’s Administrative Code to publish its
work, the Authority submits this comprehensive report, which summarizes evidence obtained
during CCA’s investigations and conveys findings and recommendations reached by the
Authority. We submit this report (and its sub-reports) as a consolidated record of all investigations
in order to ensure that similarly situated matters are considered consistently, just as they were
analyzed and treated during the investigations, and so that all findings, recommendations, and
observations are placed in their proper context.

In total, 26% of all findings reached were “Sustained” due to sufficient evidence of a policy,
procedure, or training violation; 50% of findings were “Not Sustained,” due to insufficient evidence
to make a determination on the allegation; 11% of findings were “Exonerated,” and 13% of findings
were “Unfounded.”

While CCA’s investigations were not so broad in scope as to probe every arrest, use-of-force
incident, or police contact that occurred in Cincinnati—and while this consolidated report in no
way purports to analyze all such incidents or data points—the eleven incidents investigated and
covered by this consolidated report provide invaluable insight into Cincinnati’s response to the
protests. These eleven case studies illuminate issues pertaining to Cincinnati’s preparedness to
properly address civil demonstrations in the future, and to do so in a way that minimizes policing
complaints and mistrust.

To that end, and consistent with Article XVIII’s mandate that CCA focus its investigations and
other activities on complaint prevention, we make several policy and procedural
recommendations related to the management of crowds and facilitation of protests, civil
disturbances, limitations on mass arrests, expanded use of force reporting, duty to render aid,
and a stronger anti-retaliation policy pertaining to policing complaints.

Finally, despite the findings and recommendations contained in this report, several of which point
to areas of improvement in Cincinnati’s law enforcement response to protests, on those occasions
where CCA possessed sufficient evidence to make determinations as to specific allegations made
by citizens, the evidence showed that the majority of police officers subject to complaint on those
allegations acted in accordance with existing police policy, procedure and training. All served
during an incredibly challenging time for our City, our communities, and indeed our entire country.
This report is offered in the spirit of strengthening the bonds of trust between police and
community, promoting transparency, ensuring mutual accountability, and preventing (or reducing)
future complaints against Cincinnati law enforcement.

3
 II. METHODOLOGY

In completing its investigations, the Authority interviewed more than fifty (50) Cincinnati Police
Officers and nearly twenty (20) other witnesses.

CCA also obtained from the Cincinnati Police Department, and subsequently reviewed, several
hours of Body Worn Camera (BWC) footage; MVR footage; all Use of Force Reports pertaining
to the enforcement of the protests; Arrest Reports; Contact Cards; IIS reports (when available);1
and other records.

CCA investigators obtained and reviewed other records, including video evidence (such as from
cell phones or surveillance systems); medical records (when available); criminal case records
from the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts website; relevant social media postings and activity.

CCA considered all evidence in light of applicable statutes, caselaw, and other legal authorities;
City of Cincinnati regulations and policies; Cincinnati Police Department (“CPD”) policies,
procedures, and available training materials.

The Authority also reviewed applicable reference materials, including but not limited to
publications by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Police Executive Research
Forum, President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, United States Conference of Mayors,
Ohio Justice and Policy Center, Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League,
investigative reports from other jurisdictions addressing protest enforcement, and local media
coverage of the protests from the Cincinnati media market.

III. TIMELINE

The below timeline features key events that occurred during the protests of the summer of 2020,
although it is not exhaustive of all such events. It was created using open-source material. A
hyperlinked list of sources for the incidents described is maintained on file at the Citizen
Complaint Authority.

May 25, 2020 — Death of George Floyd

10:25AM EST – George Floyd is killed by police officer Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis, MN
● Derek Chauvin is later convicted of murder.
May 29, 2020 — First Day of Protests in Cincinnati (Friday)
6:00PM – Protestors gather outside the Hamilton County Courthouse.

1CPD provided IIS Reports for Case No. 20188/Kimutis; Case No. 20112/King; Case No. 20120/Grice;
and Case No. 20115/White-Gilley..
4
6:20PM – More than 36 people gathered outside Hamilton County Courthouse.
● Organizer stating: “We’re just tired of it. We’re tired of the police being above the law.
We’re tired of the police using terrorist tactics to control our communities.”
6:39PM – Protesters begin moving to OTR.
7:09PM – Group of protesters arrives outside Cincinnati Police District 1 and doubled in size. No
violence reported.
8:45 PM – Protestors traveled through Washington Park and back to District 1 where at least 12
officers were standing behind a temporary barrier.
8:50PM – Protesters demonstrate in front of police barricade at District 1.
9:30PM – Protesters march on to northbound I-75.
9:45PM – Protestors have blocked the entrance to I-75 and police are asking Ohio DOT to warn
motorist to avoid I-75 in both direction due to a “police action.”
10:30PM – FOX19 reports that traffic is moving again on I-75 and the protestors have exited
onto Ezzard Charles Drive. Police in riot gear are in front of District 1. Officers are blocking Bank
Street in the West End.
11:06PM – Cincinnati Police Chief Elliot Isaac spoke to protesters in front of District 1.
○ "It was a peaceful demonstration, and that's what every American has the right to
do. I understand the anger that's taken place. I share that anger. There is no
defense of what occurred. It's a stain on the profession."
11:20PM – Protestors take down flag at Hamilton County Justice Center.
11:24PM – Protesters break glass at Justice Center.
11:29PM – Recordings of police making arrest.
11:58PM – Police begin to use “mace.”
12:00PM (approx) – Police are in full riot gear on central parkway.
May 30, 2020 — Second Day of Protests in Cincinnati (Saturday)
12:30AM – Protesters in standoff with police on Race Street in OTR, Ohio State Highway Patrol
arrive.
12:58AM – Police begin to forcibly disperse crowd using “mace.”
1:30AM – Protestors have broken windows at a number of downtown businesses and that
police are making arrests, saying they are dealing with violent behavior in Downtown and OTR.
1:53AM – Police say a number of buildings in downtown and OTR have sustained property
damage and theft of merchandise.
2:00AM – Incident Leading to Complaint No. 20097/Jacqueline Hough is Alleged to Have
Occurred.
• Ms. Hough alleged that during the protests, an officer pepper sprayed her, knocked her
down, and broke her wrist.
2:06AM – Flashbangs used to break up crowd.
11:30AM – Mayor John Cranley announces a 10PM curfew for that evening in Downtown and
OTR.
● Emergency Order 20200713 signed by Mayor Cranley
○ Order in effect from 1pm on the 30th until 6am on June 1st
○ Curfew, prohibiting being in public spaces between 10pm and 6am

5
 ■ in public spaces of the neighborhoods of Over-the-Rhine, the Central
Business District/Downtown, the Banks, Pendleton, and the West End
○ The first version of this emergency order did not include Pendleton.
11:42AM – City of Cincinnati tweets about curfew.
11:48AM – Police Chief Eliot Isaac confirms police used canisters with OC gas to disperse
crowds.
11:49AM – Chief Isaac says there were 11 arrests made last night.
12:01PM – City of Cincinnati tweets image of first version of emergency order.
12:06PM – Peaceful protest in Washington Park, march through OTR.
1:17PM – Peaceful protest march continues in OTR.
1:34PM – March reaches City Hall.
5:14PM – Flashbang heard by Washington Park.
6:12PM – Cincy PD arrests 2 women in OTR.
7:15PM – Protesters at the Banks.
7:30PM – Protesters begin forming outside of Hamilton County Courthouse.
8:29PM – Protesters march from courthouse to Cincinnati Police HQ.
8:30PM – Police Chief Isaac gives order to use “pepper spray” at CPD Headquarters.
8:40PM – Protesters form outside of Cincinnati Police HQ.
9:30PM – Incident Leading to Complaint No. 20188/Bryan Kimutis is Alleged to Have
Occurred.
• Mr. Kimutis alleged that during the protests, he was struck in the eye by a 40mm
marking round fired by a Cincinnati Police Officer.
10:27PM – Protesters moved onto the on-ramp to I-471 at Reading Rd before being turned
away by police in riot gear.
10:33PM – Protesters are walking up Vine St towards University of Cincinnati Campus.
10:58PM – Police made at least 7 arrests at Vine and Liberty streets as protesters were walking
towards UC campus.
11:00PM – Incident Leading to Complaint No. 20112/Daulton King is Alleged to Have
Occurred.
• Mr. King alleged that during the protests, officers tackled him and tased him twice
unnecessarily, then broke his glasses intentionally.
11:13PM – 10-20 arrests for curfew violations reported.
11:15PM – Police respond to small fire near CPD headquarters, no injuries reported.
11:45PM – Police verified that beanbag rounds had been used Saturday evening.
May 31, 2020 — Third Day of Protests in Cincinnati (Sunday)
2:05AM – Protesters crack police car window, according to CPD.
6:00AM – CPD reports officer struck by bullet in Clifton Heights.
10:00AM (approx) – Mayor Cranley and Police chief Isaac hold press conference.
● Mayor Cranley announces curfew.
○ Emergency Order 202000714 signed by Mayor Cranley
■ Order in effect from 1pm on the 31st of May until 6am on June 2nd
■ Curfew, prohibiting being in public spaces between 9pm and 6am
● Now in the entirety of the city of Cincinnati
6
11:30AM – Mayor Cranley, Chief Isaac, and Manager Duhaney hold press conference.
11:45AM – Chief Isaac says majority of yesterday’s protests were peaceful at press conference.
11:48AM – City of Cincinnati tweets about curfew extension.
11:55AM – Chief Isaac announces 110 people were arrested from previous evening – 78
charged with misconduct in an emergency, 4 with arson.
● Additionally, 17 of the defendants identified were under age 20.
12:03PM – Chief Isaac speaks about the police officer struck by a bullet at the press
conference, “I believe it was intentional.”
12:11PM – City of Cincinnati tweets about curfew and says CPD will first give warnings to
anyone in violation of curfew.
12:31PM – City of Cincinnati Tweets to announce curfew.
2:52PM – Cincinnati Metro suspends service after 9pm these buses will be used to transport
protesters later in the evening / overnight.
3:30PM – Protesters arrive at Inwood Park.
3:52PM – CPD tweets about curfew.
4:20PM – Protesters march through OTR.
4:44PM – Police prepare for protesters to arrive at City Hall.
5:04PM – Protesters begin to arrive at City Hall.
5:11PM – Police blare sirens at City Hall.
5:18PM – March slowly moves past City Hall.
5:33PM – Protesters march to Hamilton County Courthouse, met with blaring sirens from CPD.
5:44PM – Incident Leading to Complaint No. 20090/Kate Harrow is Alleged to Have
Occurred.
• Ms. Harrow alleged that she observed an officer holding his baton between both hands
and shoving an unidentified woman on her chest which knocked her to the ground and
then using his baton against Mr. Harrow in the same way.
6:14PM – Police reportedly arrest protesters laying down in street.
9:00PM – Central Parkway shut down by police.
9:00PM – Incident Leading to Complaint No. 20095/Jamison Walker, Jr. is Alleged to Have
Occurred.
• Mr. Walker alleged officers improperly arrested him at his place of business; pointed
their CEWs at him; used excessive force in arresting him; mocked him and used
profanity; and took pictures alongside him, treating him like a “trophy.”
9:05PM – Incident Leading to Complaint No. 20089/Benjamin Erd is Alleged to Have
Occurred.
• Mr. Erd alleged that he was arrested without warning during a peaceful protest and
restrained with flex-cuffs that were too tight, only to have the cuffs removed and
tightened even more.
9:18PM – Arrests reported at courthouse as police scatter crowd.
9:42PM – Reporter barred from entering area around Elm and Green, said they could smell
smoke.
9:59PM – Report of mass arrest at Green.
10:02PM – Tear gas deployed in OTR.
7
10:15PM – Reporters attempt to film arrest.
10:46PM – Mass arrests taking place in OTR.
10:50PM – More arrests, reported as catch and release.
10:55PM – Multiple buses used for mass arrests.
11:58PM – More arrests at Vine and McMicken and Vine and Liberty.
June 1, 2020 — Fourth Day of Protests in Cincinnati (Monday)
11:14AM – Protesters held outdoors at Justice Center.
Emergency Order 202000716 signed by Mayor Cranley.
● Order in effect from 2pm on June 1st until 6am on June 2nd
● Curfew, prohibiting being in public spaces between 8pm and 6am
○ In the entirety of the city of Cincinnati
1:47PM – Curfew moved up to 8PM.
1:48PM – Mayor Cranley questioned about jail conditions.
1:54PM – Protesters reported outside Hamilton County Courthouse.
2:00PM – CPD announces 307 arrests were made the previous evening – 187 white, 112 black,
8 were other nationality.
5:43PM – Protesters head to District 1.
7:10PM – Protesters are outside the Hamilton County Courthouse.
7:54PM – Multiple arrests made around a car where a gun was found.
8:03PM – Police station a tactical vehicle on Main Street, protesters leave courthouse.
8:15PM – SWAT vehicles attempt to scatter protesters on McMicken.
8:15PM – Incident Leading to Complaint No. 20093/Maira Arnaulda, Tyler Beringer, Robin
Wilkins, Et al. is Alleged to Have Occurred.
• Twenty-seven (27) persons contacted CCA via email to file a complaint about the
treatment of a woman, who was believed to be diabetic, and her sister by CPD police
during the protests.
8:21PM – Cincinnati Enquirer reporter detained.
8:30PM – Incident Leading to Complaint No. 20099/Cassandra Thompson is Alleged to
Have Occurred
• Ms. Thompson alleged that after her arrest, an officer took Ms. Thompson’s two bottles
of pepper spray and threw them on the ground with disregard; her property was never
returned to her.
8:31PM – More arrests near Central Parkway.
8:43PM – Multiple arrests outside Imperial Theater.
8:44PM – Enquirer reporter, identified as Patrick Brennan, removed from custody.
8:45PM – Incident Leading to Complaint No. 20092/Pat Clifford is Alleged to Have
Occurred
• Mr. Pat Clifford alleged that he observed SWAT officers restrain three (3) individuals with
flex-cuffs and then release them after several minutes.
9:10PM – Bus full of curfew violators arrives at Justice Center.
June 2, 2020 — Fifth Day of Protests in Cincinnati
11:48AM – Curfew again announced for 8PM.
11:50AM – City of Cincinnati tweets about curfew being extended until Wednesday.
8
12:40PM – Metro again announces suspended service at 8PM.
2:07PM – Volunteers set up aid station across from Justice Center for protesters being
released.
2:30PM – Protesters gather outside Hamilton County Courthouse.
3:00PM – Protesters march towards Washington Park.
7:57PM – Protesters dispersing at courthouse as curfew looms.
8:17PM – Crowd has fully dispersed.
8:25PM – One arrest reported.
June 3, 2020 — Sixth Day of Protests in Cincinnati
2:08PM – City of Cincinnati tweets about extended curfew until June 8th.
University of Cincinnati Capt. Ronald Carter, left, and Lt. Col. Dudley Smith, assistant chief,
walk with protesters around the perimeter of UC.
June 5, 2020 — Candlelit Vigil in Washington Park
Protesters hold candlelight vigil for Breonna Taylor and other people killed by police in
Washington Park.
June 6, 2020 — Protests organized by various organizations take place in Cincinnati
Black Men in Suits and Women in Heels organize protest that take places in Fountain Square,
Washington Park, and outside Hamilton County Courthouse.
● Cincinnati Police Chief Eliot Isaac, participated in the Black Men in Suits and Women in
Heels protest.
Neighborhoods United also holds protest.
June 7, 2020 — Protests in Fountain Square
Thousands of protesters gather at Fountain Square.
June 9, 2020 – City Council Law and Public Safety Committee Meeting
Cincinnati Police Chief Eliot Isaac informs Council that CPD has arrested five hundred and
thirteen (513) protesters for violating curfew.
June 10, 2020 — Cincinnati City Council Amended Motion
City Council passes amended motion allowing for dismissal of charges of curfew violations
during May 30th - June 8th.
June 21, 2020
Online – Incident Leading to Complaint No. 20120/Leah Grice is Alleged to Have Occurred
• Grice alleged a Cincinnati Police Officer made racist comments on Facebook.
June 24, 2020 — Public Comment During City Council Budget Meeting
City Council convenes at City Hall to vote on a budget for the next fiscal year. During public
comment, several members of the public spoke in favor of defunding the Cincinnati Police
Department.
• Some speakers were forcibly removed from Council Chambers by police after
complaining that others were not permitted to speak.
3:00PM – Incident Leading to Complaint No. 20115/Terhas White and Alissa Gilley is
Alleged to Have Occurred
• Ms. White and Ms. Gilley alleged that a police officer at City Hall displayed a white
supremacy symbol resembling the OK sign.

9
 IV. COMPLAINT &
FINDINGS
SUMMARIES

The 11 protest-related investigations below are summarized in order of their date and time of
occurrence.2

1. Complaint No. 20097: Jacqueline Hough

Date: May 30, 2020

Time: 2:00 a.m.
Location: Vine and Seventh Streets
Allegation: Excessive Force

Ms. Hough alleged that during the protests, an officer pepper sprayed her, knocked her
down, and broke her wrist.

Findings: Excessive Force - Not Sustained

2. Complaint No. 20188: Bryan Kimutis

Date: May 30, 2020

Location: 1229 Elm Street
Time: 9:30 p.m.
Location: 1229 Elm Street
Allegation: Excessive Force

Mr. Kimutis alleged that during the protests, he was struck in the eye by a 40mm marking
round fired by a Cincinnati Police Officer.

Findings: Excessive Force - Not Sustained

2 The findings in this section are not listed/tallied at the subject officer or involved citizen level. Each
finding is listed one time per case, provided that CCA reached that finding at least one time in each case
for the corresponding allegation. For instance, if there were four separate Sustained findings for an
Excessive Force allegation in a single case involving one officer and four separate citizens, then in this
section, the findings for that case would simply be listed as: “Excessive Force – Sustained.” To see the
total number of allegations for all investigations (tallied by subject officer and involved citizen) see the
“Findings: Patterns & Trends” section. To see findings itemized at the subject officer level, identifying
each officer and involved citizen, see the sub-reports for each individual investigation below.
10
3. Complaint No. 20112: Daulton King

Date: May 30, 2020

Time: 11:00 p.m.
Location: Calhoun St.
Allegation: Excessive Force; Improper Procedure; Improper Procedure (BWC) – Collateral;
Discourtesy – Collateral

Mr. King alleged that during the protests, officers tackled him and tased him twice
unnecessarily, then broke his glasses intentionally.

Findings: Excessive Force – Sustained and Exonerated; Improper Procedure – Unfounded;

Improper Procedure (BWC) – Collateral -- Sustained; Discourtesy – Collateral – Sustained

4. Complaint No. 20090: Kate Harrow

Date: May 31, 2020

Time: 5:44 pm
Location: Corner of 12th Street and Main Street

Allegations: Excessive Force; Improper Procedure (BWC) – Collateral; Improper Procedure

(Reporting Use of Force) – Collateral

Ms. Harrow alleged that she observed an officer holding his baton between both hands and
shoving an unidentified woman on her chest which knocked her to the ground and then using
his baton against Mr. Harrow in the same way.

Findings: Excessive Force – Not Sustained; Improper Procedure (BWC) – Collateral – Not
Sustained; Improper Procedure (Reporting Use of Force) – Collateral – Sustained

5. Complaint No 20095: Jamison Walker, Jr.

Date: May 31, 2020

Time: Approximately 9:00 p.m.
Location: 19 West Court Street
Allegations: Improper Seizure; Excessive Force; Discrimination; Improper Procedure (Use
of Force) – Collateral; Improper Procedure (BWC) – Collateral

Mr. Walker alleged officers improperly arrested him at his place of business; pointed their
CEWs at him; used excessive force in arresting him; mocked him and used profanity; and
took pictures alongside him, treating him like a “trophy.”

11
 Findings: Improper Seizure – Exonerated; Excessive Force – Unfounded; Discrimination –
Unfounded; Discourtesy – Unfounded; Improper Procedure (Use of Force) – Collateral –
Exonerated; Improper Procedure (BWC) – Collateral – Not Sustained

6. Complaint No 20089: Benjamin Erd

Date: May 31, 2020

Time: 9:05 p.m.
Location: Alley near Race Street
Allegations: Excessive Force; Improper Seizure

Mr. Erd alleged that he was arrested without warning during a peaceful protest, and restrained
with flex-cuffs that were too tight, only to have the cuffs removed and tightened even more.

Findings: Excessive Force – Not Sustained; Improper Seizure – Not Sustained

7. Complaint No. 20093: Maira Arnaulda, Tyler Beringer, Robin Wilkins, Et al.

Date: June 1, 2020

Time: 8:15 p.m.
Location: 2000 Mohawk Place
Allegations: Improper Seizure; Improper Procedure; Discourtesy; Improper Procedure
(BWC) – Collateral

Twenty-seven (27) persons contacted CCA via email to file a complaint about the treatment
of a woman, who was believed to be diabetic, and her sister by CPD police during the protests.

Findings: Improper Seizure – Not Sustained; Improper Procedure – Unfounded; Discourtesy

- Sustained; Improper Procedure (BWC) – Collateral – Sustained

8. Complaint No. 20099: Cassandra Thompson

Date: June 1, 2020

Time: 8:30 p.m.
Location: 2014 Mohawk Place
Allegations: Improper Search, Improper Procedure, Improper Seizure, Improper Procedure
(BWC)

Ms. Thompson alleged that after her arrest, an officer took Ms. Thompson’s two bottles of
pepper spray and threw them on the ground with disregard; her property was never returned
to her.

Findings: Improper Search – Not Sustained, Improper Procedure – Sustained, Improper

Seizure – Collateral – Not Sustained, Improper Procedure (BWC) – Collateral – Sustained
12
9. Complaint No. 20092: Pat Clifford

Date: June 1, 2020

Time: 8:45pm
Location: 209 Hastings Street
Allegations: Improper Stop; Improper Pointing of a Firearm; Improper Procedure -
Collateral

Mr. Pat Clifford alleged that he observed SWAT officers restrain three (3) individuals with flex-
cuffs and then release them after several minutes.

Findings: Improper Stop – Exonerated; Improper Pointing of a Firearm – Not Sustained;

Improper Procedure (Contact Card) – Collateral – Sustained

10. Complaint No. 20120: Leah Grice

Date: June 21, 2020

Location: Online (Facebook)
CCA Receipt: June 29, 2020
Allegations: Discrimination; Improper Procedure

Ms. Grice alleged a Cincinnati Police Officer made racist comments on Facebook.

Findings: Discrimination – Not Sustained; Improper Procedure – Not Sustained

11. Complaint No. 20115: Terhas White and Alissa Gilley

Date: June 24, 2020

Time: 3:00 PM
Location: 801 Plum Street-City Hall
Allegations: Discrimination; Improper Procedure; Improper Procedure (BWC) – Collateral;
Interference with Administrative Investigation – Collateral

Ms. White and Ms. Gilley alleged that a police officer at City Hall displayed a white supremacy
symbol resembling the OK sign.

Findings: Allegations: Discrimination – Not Sustained; Improper Procedure – Sustained;

Improper Procedure (BWC) – Collateral – Sustained; Interference with Administrative
Investigation – Collateral – Sustained

13
 V. FINDINGS:
PATTERNS & TRENDS

A. All Findings

54 Findings Total3

Sustained – (14) 26%

Not Sustained – (27) 50%
Exonerated – (6) 11%
Unfounded – (7) 13%

The definitions for CCA’s findings are as follows:

SUSTAINED – The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident
occurred and the actions of the officer were improper.

NOT SUSTAINED – There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct
occurred.

EXONERATED – The evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate
CPD policies, procedures, or training.

UNFOUNDED – There are no facts to support the incident complained of actually occurred.

3 The total number of findings reached as a result of all investigations – tallied by allegation – are set forth
in this section and the section below. Individual findings are counted according to the number of involved
citizens who were either alleged to been affected, or found to have been affected, by each subject police
officer. Simply put, the number of involved citizens for each allegation was multiplied by the number of
subject officers for that allegation. For instance, if CCA “Sustained” Officers John Doe and Jane Doe for
using Excessive Force against both Citizen A and Citizen B, and if each officer was also Exonerated on
an allegation of Improper Stop against both Citizens A & B, then the allegations would be tallied below as
follows: “Excessive Force – 4 Sustained, Improper Stop – 4 Exonerated
14
B. Findings By Allegation

Not
Allegation Sustained Sustained Exonerated Unfounded Total
Discourtesy 2 0 0 1 3
Discrimination 0 2 0 1 3
Excessive Force 1 7 2 1 11
Improper Pointing of a
0 5 0 0 5
Firearm
Improper Procedure
Body Worn Camera 4 2 0 0 6
Contact Card 2 0 0 0 2
Medical 0 0 0 1 1
Personal Property
1 0 0 3 4
Mishandling
Reporting Use of Force 1 0 0 0 1
Social Media 1 1 0 0 2
TASER 0 0 1 0 1
Improper Search 0 1 0 0 1
Improper Seizure 0 9 1 0 10
Improper Stop 0 0 2 0 2
Interference with
Administrative 2 0 0 0 2
Investigation
Total 14 27 6 7 54

15
 Protest Complaint Findings
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Interference
Improper with Admin-
Discrim- Excessive Improper Improper Improper Improper
Discourtesy Pointing of istrative
ination Force Procedure Search Seizure Stop
a Firearm Investigatio
n
Sustained 2 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 2
Not Sustained 0 2 7 5 3 1 9 0 0
Exonerated 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 0
Unfounded 1 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 0

Improper Procedure Findings

7

0
Personal
Body Worn Reporting
Contact Card Medical Property Social Media TASER
Camera Use of Force
Mishandling
Sustained 4 2 0 1 1 1 0
Not Sustained 2 0 0 0 0 1 0
Exonerated 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Unfounded 0 0 1 3 0 0 0

16
C. Findings: Original Allegations Only

“Original Allegations” are those allegations made directly by a complainant as opposed to other
related violations (or potential violations) of policy that are discovered by CCA during the
investigation, but that were not noted by a complainant. Those other violations are termed
“Collateral Allegations;” corresponding findings are “Collateral Findings.”

40 Original Allegations Total

Sustained – (4) 10%

Not Sustained – (23) – 57.5%
Exonerated – (6) – 15%
Unfounded – (7) – 17.5%

14 Collateral Allegations Total

Sustained – (10) – 71.4 %

Not Sustained – (4) – 28.6%

VI. KEY
OBSERVATIONS

1. The Cincinnati Police Department’s use of mass arrests as a crowd control tactic was
very likely a key contributor to the filing of complaints against police—including those
alleging improper arrest, excessive force, property misplacement, and other
allegations concerning conditions of confinement—and likely had a negative effect on
the public perception of policing.

From May 30, 2020 through June 9, 2020, Cincinnati Police Officers arrested over 500 people
for violating curfew. According to a study by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF),
including POLICE MANAGEMENT OF MASS DEMONSTRATIONS,” the “mass detention of protestors
not actively engaged in violence can create significant problems for law enforcement,”
including by leading to complaints that “law-abiding protestors and passersby were rounded
up and detained along with violators in overly broad sweeps.” Mass arrests also create
negative media attention that damages the perception of law enforcement by “drawing into
question the reasonableness and proportionality of the police response.”4

4 See Police Executive Research Forum, POLICE MANAGEMENT OF MASS DEMONSTRATIONS: IDENTIFYING
ISSUES AND SUCCESSFUL APPROACHES (2006), 55-56, available at
https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series/police%20management%20of%20mass

17
 The complaint data here provides some support for this assertion. While the overwhelming
majority of mass arrests did not result in CCA complaints, approximately 67% percent of the
complaint-incidents involving physical contact between an officer and a citizen took place
during a mass-arrest event. See Clifford, Erd, King, Thompson, Walker, Wilkins, et al.

The mass arrests also received significant media attention, much of which was either
negative or reflected public criticism of those arrests.5

2. In the majority of cases that CCA examined in which an arrest was made, there was
insufficient evidence to support the criminal charges (generally Misconduct at
Emergency in the 1st Degree) and insufficient evidence in most of those cases to
establish probable cause for any other misdemeanor or felony offense. See Erd,
Thompson, Walker, Wilkins, et al.

Due to inadequate documentation by police and challenges inherent in processing mass

arrests,6 in a majority of all arrests examined, investigators had no way to identify (and thus
question) officers who first took suspects into custody or directed arrests of specific persons.
Thus, CCA was unable to determine whether those officers possessed sufficient information
to establish probable cause for a criminal offense at the time of their arrests.

3. Cincinnati Police Officers used force against protesters that was often perceived to be
unjustified, a perception likely to be worsened by the fact that multiple allegations of
Excessive Force—including those involving baton use and injuries to the face caused
by a 40millimeter foam round—cannot be conclusively justified or exonerated based
on available evidence. See Harrow, Hough, Kimutis, King.7

%20demonstrations%20-%20identifying%20issues%20and%20successful%20approaches%202006.pdf
(hereinafter POLICE MANAGEMENT OF MASS DEMONSTRATIONS); see also Police Executive Research Forum,
POLICE RESPONSE TO MASS DEMONSTRATIONS: PROMISING PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED, Washington,
D.C., Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (2018),16-21, available at
https://www.policeforum.org /assets/PoliceResponseMassDemonstrations.pdf (hereinafter POLICE
RESPONSE TO MASS DEMONSTRATIONS).
5 See e.g., WCPO Staff, Cincinnati Mayor Moves Up Curfew, WCPO, available at

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/live-cranley-talks-weekend-protests-
mass-arrests; Camri Nelson, Cincinnati Residents 'Asking for Equity Across the Board' and Call on Police
to Drop Charges Against Protesters, Spectrum News 1, available at
https://spectrumnews1.com/oh/columbus/news/2020/07/08/cincinnati-residents-protest-to-drop-the-
charges; Dan Yount, Protesters, Police Discuss Cincinnati Protests, The Cincinnati Herald, available at
https://thecincinnatiherald.com/2020/08/protesters-police-discuss-cincinnati-protests; Craig Cheatham, I-
Team analysis: Nearly All Protesters Arrested in Cincinnati Are from the Greater Cincinnati Area, WCPO,
available at https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/i-team/i-team-analysis-nearly-all-protesters-arrested-
in-cincinnati-are-from-the-greater-cincinnati-area.
6 POLICE MANAGEMENT OF MASS DEMONSTRATIONS at 55.
7 See Deon J. Hampton, Questions Grow About Police Actions, Tactics During Cincinnati Protests,

Cincinnati Enquirer, available at https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2020/06/11/questions-grow-

police-actions-tactics-during-cincinnati-protests/3138110001/; see also New York City Department of
Investigation, INVESTIGATION INTO NYPD RESPONSE TO THE GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS, 39-43, available at
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doi/reports/pdf/2020/DOIRpt.NYPD%20Reponse.%20GeorgeFloyd%20Prot
ests.12.18.2020.pdf (hereinafter INVESTIGATION INTO NYPD RESPONSE TO THE GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS)
(commenting that perceptions of unjustified or disproportionate force alone can provoke violence and
damage policing).
18
4. The lack of adequate use of force reporting and BWC recording by officers contributed
to great difficulty in investigating and resolving Excessive Force allegations.

Many officers who used force during the protests (those assigned to SWAT or the Civil
Disturbance Response Team) were not required to wear BWC. Moreover, while supervisors
conducted investigations into uses of force, no officer appears to have submitted written first-
hand narratives justifying their own conduct in a use of force report.8 Due in part to the
unavailability of BWC and inadequate use of force reporting, investigators experienced
significant difficulty in identifying, and thus questioning, officers who used force and who were
alleged to have used force, including force such as baton use and less lethal force such as
40 mm foam rounds. See Erd, Harrow, Hough, Kimutis.

5. Officers who were required under police policy to activate BWC often did not activate
BWC as obligated, deactivated prematurely, or reported that their BWCs ran out of
power during their shifts and thus could not record key events. See Harrow, King,
Thompson, White, Wilkins, et al.

6. Enforcement of the curfew appears to have been inconsistent, subject to bias, and
subject to risk of abuse of First Amendment Constitutional rights.

There are indicators that protesters, even non-violent protestors, were disproportionately
targeted for enforcement as compared with other curfew violators in similar geographic
spaces, with some officers who were involved in complaints telling investigators they were
directed to arrest or cite “protestors” (not necessarily those engaged in violent conduct). There
appears to be little explanation for why some violators were released without charge or
permitted to go free, while others were taken into custody and charged criminally. See Clifford;
Walker, Wilkins, et al.

7. Some officers posted inflammatory content about racially-charged topics on their

social media pages, demonstrating a failure to properly appreciate the potential that
any pointed social media engagement regarding the topic of police shootings would
damage the perception of policing in Cincinnati and further fray police-community
relations. See Grice, White.

8. CCA noted a glaring example of interference by a police officer with the right of citizens
to file formal complaints alleging discrimination in relation to protest-related
enforcement activity, and by extension, interference with the investigation process for
that complaint. Such interference suggests the need for, at a minimum, increased
training and policy protections regarding the right to protest and the right to formally
contest police conduct. See White.

8International Association of Chiefs of Police, REPORTING USE OF FORCE (2017), available at

https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2020-06/Reporting%20UoF%20June%202020.pdf (discussing
benefits of comprehensive use of force reporting when addressing complaints against police and
compliance with policy).
19
 VII.
RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Recommendation R2301: Protests, Demonstrations, Crowd Control or Civil

Disturbances

The City of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Police Department should significantly limit the
use of mass arrests for non-violent offenders as a part of protest management—
favoring citations over arrests—and strong limits on such arrests should be codified
in police policies and procedure so as to discourage mass arrests, except as a last
resort measure. See Clifford (20092), Erd (20089), King (20112), Thompson (20099), Walker
(20095), Wilkins, et al. (20093).

According to a study by PERF, given the logistical and legal problems associated with their
use, “[m]ass arrests are generally advisable only when all alternative tactics have either been
tried unsuccessfully or are unlikely to be effective under specific circumstances.” 9 A 2020
Report on Policing Reform by the U.S. Conference of Mayors also called for the use of
citations over mass arrests for non-violent offenders. 10 The Ohio Justice and Policy Center—
along with various local community leaders, clergy, civil rights groups, non-profit groups, and
government leaders as signatories—also released a July 2020 report calling for a cite-and-
release policy in lieu of mass arrests for low-level offenses during protests.11

9 According to PERF:
The areas where problems [with mass arrests] arise with sudden, but now predictable,
regularity are: The quality of evidence available to pursue prosecution against each
individual; The logistics of transporting and handling large numbers of prisoners; Allowing
legal and medical access; An inordinate delay in arranging for release or bringing
persons to court; Not enough police on duty to cope with the above—process centers are
frequently overwhelmed at an early stage due to lack of resources; and In some cases,
the courts have ruled that top police officials can be held personally liable for damages or
actions.
POLICE MANAGEMENT OF MASS DEMONSTRATIONS at 55.
10
See The United States Conference of Mayors, REPORT ON
POLICE REFORM AND RACIAL JUSTICE (2020), 26, available at https://www.usmayors.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/08/20.55.USCM_.Police-Reform.Report.MEC_.pdf (hereinafter POLICE REFORM AND
RACIAL JUSTICE) (“Before a protest, police departments should determine what the bar for making arrests
will be and avoid mass arrests if possible. . . . During protests, departments should avoid making arrests
for low-level civil disobedience, such as blocking traffic, opting instead to issue citations”); POLICE
RESPONSE TO MASS DEMONSTRATIONS at 16 (police departments participating in forum “recommended that
police agencies adopt a high bar for determining when protesters will be arrested during a mass
demonstration”).
11
Ohio Justice and Policy Center, PROTESTS AND THE PANDEMIC: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A MORE
EQUITABLE CINCINNATI (2020), available at https://ohiojpc.org/2020/06/04/protests-pandemic-
recommendations-equitable-cincinnati/.
20
2. Recommendation R2302: Protests, Demonstrations, Crowd Control or Civil
Disturbances

CPD should adopt a new written comprehensive Civil Demonstrations policy to (a)
specifically address the role of police in facilitating First Amendment expression; (b)
incorporate existing CPD’s procedures and trainings regarding mass gatherings and
crowd control; (c) regulate contact between CPD officers and citizens who are not
committing offenses; (d) clarify any exceptions to regular CPD practice; (e) address the
extent of CPD’s responsibilities to care for prisoners during the intake process at the
HCJC; (f) integrate guidance on both use of force and use of force reporting; (g)
regulate munitions tracking; (h) specify standards for mass-arrest processing; and (i)
address after-incident debriefing and reporting. CPD should consider as a model the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) model policy for Crowd
Management.12 See Erd (20089), Clifford (20092), Harrow (20090), Hough (20097), King
(20112), Kimutis (20188), Thompson (20099), Walker (20095), Wilkins, et al. (20093).

3. Recommendation R2303: Protests, Demonstrations, Crowd Control or Civil

Disturbances

In its formulation of training and policy related to protests and civil demonstrations,
CPD should emphasize and strengthen “protest facilitation” models and approaches,
13
and CPD should deemphasize approaches that are framed to address “disturbance
control”14 so as to ensure proper balance between safety and protecting the right to
engage in lawful protest. Protest facilitation reduces the prospect that demonstrations will
become violent and minimizes the risk of conflict between police and demonstrators.15 See

12 International Association of Chiefs of Police, CROWD MANAGEMENT (2019), available at

https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2020-08/Crowd%20Management%20FULL%20-
%2008062020.pdf; President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, FINAL REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT’S
TASK FORCE ON 21ST CENTURY POLICING (2015), Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services, available at https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf (“Policies should
emphasize protection of the First Amendment rights of demonstrators”).
13 According to PERF, “The police should seek to facilitate any lawful and legitimate aims of groups who

are present—especially when conflict breaks out. The aim should be to permit the pursuit of lawful actions
while dealing with groups acting illegally.” See PERF, POLICE MANAGEMENT OF MASS DEMONSTRATIONS at
54.
14 See also INVESTIGATION INTO NYPD RESPONSE TO THE GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS, 35-36 (contrasting

“facilitation mindset” with “disorder control,” and stating “[d]isorder control also relies on the use of mass
arrests, bicycle squads, and other tactics to enforce crowd control. These deployments, tactics, and
shows of force may have unnecessarily provoked confrontations between police and protesters, rather
than de-escalating tensions.”)
15 The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation conducted an extensive study on protest management that

interviewed over a dozen law enforcement agencies in cities around the country such as Cleveland,
Milwaukee, Chicago, and New York; surveyed protestors; and concluded the following:
Police sometimes view protests and other public order events from the vantage point of
how to control, regulate, or manage people. This is understandable to some extent given
the role of the police in preserving public order and safety and the possibility that such
events can turn destructive or violent. However, when people have legitimate aims such
as observing their First Amendment rights of speech or assembly, the perception that
police are overcontrolling or micromanaging them can give the impression that police are

21
 Erd (20089), Clifford (20092), Harrow (20090), Hough (20097), King (20112), Kimutis (20188),
Thompson (20099), Walker (20095), Wilkins, et al. (20093).

4. Recommendation R2304: Use of Force Reporting Policy/Procedure

CPD should require all officers using force to personally author and submit a separate
use of force report that includes a narrative specifying the circumstances that preceded
the use of force; the circumstances requiring the use of force; and the specific force
and/or tactic used by the officer. Reports should be comprehensive and timely
completed. See Harrow (20090), Hough (20097), Kimutis (20188), King (20112).

This approach is endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which issued
guidance on Reporting Use of Force (March 2017), stating that “each officer who uses force
or witnesses an incident involving force should submit a separate written use-of-force report
by the end of the shift.” According to the IACP, there are numerous benefits associated with
broad use of force reporting, including that such reports aid in “determining whether the use-
of-force policy is being followed, the number of incidents, the types of force employed, or the
circumstances surrounding those incidents, as well as protection of officers from complaints
of excessive use of force.” 16

5. Recommendation R2305: Body Worn Camera Policy/Procedure

CPD should formalize best practices emphasizing the important role of BWCs during
police crowd control, ensuring sustainability of constant use during prolonged protest
management activity, and ensuring that all officers use BWCs during such operations
with the exception of any working in a covert capacity. See Erd (20089), Clifford (20092),
Harrow (20090), Hough (20097), King (20112), Kimutis (20188), Thompson (20099), White
(20115), Walker (20095), Wilkins, et al. (20093).

simply trying to limit or prohibit legitimate behavior. . . . [P]erceptions of police fairness

have powerful implications for the relationships between police and the public. This is an
especially sensitive issue in the context of protest events. As Her Majesty’s Chief
Inspector of Constabulary in the UK has noted, protesters tend to have “a heightened
sense of grievance” that can easily be turned toward the police. One way to minimize this
transfer of grievance is to allow protesters “a fair and reasonable chance to make their
point peacefully.” When police operate from the vantage point of how to facilitate
peaceful protests rather than how to control, regulate, or manage them, they can
achieve a dramatic change in the relationships between police and protesters and
minimize the likelihood of conflict and violence. This is especially the case when
police are the object of protests, since efforts to block protests will inevitably
strengthen the perception that police are unjust or illegitimate.
Edward R. Maguire & Megan Oakley, Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, POLICING PROTESTS:
LESSONS FROM THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT, FERGUSON & BEYOND: A GUIDE FOR POLICE (2020), 12-13,
available at https://www.hfg.org/Policing%20Protests.pdf
16 International Association of Chiefs of Police, REPORTING USE OF FORCE (2017), available at
https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2020-06/Reporting%20UoF%20June%202020.pdf; see also
The Denver Officer of the Independent Monitor, THE POLICE RESPONSE TO THE 2020 GEORGE FLOYD
PROTESTS IN DENVER, AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW, 23-24, available at
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/374/documents/2020GFPReport_OIM.pdf
(making similar recommendation).
22
 BWCs provide an opportunity to record verbal and physical exchanges between
demonstrators and the police-protecting all parties from false accusations. Utilization of BWCs
improves transparency and accountability by providing video evidence that allows police
agencies to exonerate officers who are falsely accused or to identify officers engaging in
misconduct and take corrective action when force is used inappropriately.17

6. Recommendation R2306: Protests, Demonstrations, Crowd Control or Civil

Disturbances

CCA recommends CPD providing training to all officers regarding criminal offenses
that are most likely to apply should arrests become necessary during protest activity
(including but not limited to Ohio’s Misconduct at Emergency statute), and also provide
specific instruction on the elements required for establishing probable cause for those
offenses, in order to ensure Constitutional policing. See Erd (20089), Thompson (20099),
Walker (20095), Wilkins, et al. (20093).

7. Recommendation R2307: Protests, Demonstrations, Crowd Control or Civil

Disturbances

CPD should review its process for documenting the specific officers who arrest
persons during mass arrest scenarios and ensure that those officers are accountable
for having specific knowledge of facts necessary to prove probable cause to make an
arrest. See Erd (20089), Thompson (20099), Wilkins, et al. (20093).

8. Recommendation R2308: Protests, Demonstrations, Crowd Control or Civil

Disturbances

CPD should provide training on the First Amendment to officers and supervisors,
including training addressing the scope of protected activity, scenario-based training,
and instruction addressing implicit and explicit viewpoint bias or discrimination. See
Clifford (20092); Wilkins, et al. (20093).18

9. Recommendation R2309: Duty to Render Aid

CCA recommends CPD review its policies and procedures, on the Duty to Render Aid—
including CPD Procedure §12.600, Prisoners: Securing, Handling, and Transporting—
and consider whether additional guidance is necessary instructing officers on how to
respond to requests from arrestees for medications or for medical treatment in the
absence of observable immediate emergency. CCA received over 25 complaints when an
officer’s response to an arrested citizen’s request for access to her medication went viral on
the internet and on national television. CPD policies pertaining to such requests should be
reviewed so they conform with best practices and ensure public trust in the handling of
citizens’ wellbeing. See Wilkins, et al. (20093).

17 POLICE REFORM AND RACIAL JUSTICE at 26.

18 POLICE REFORM AND RACIAL JUSTICE at 6.
23
10. Recommendation R2310 (Repeat 2216): Anti-Retaliation and Interference Policy

CCA recommends that CPD extend greater protection and integrity to the complaint
resolution process by strengthening language in Procedure Manual § 15.100 to state
that officers “shall not discourage any person from making a complaint, engage in any
act of reprisal or retaliation against any person who has made a complaint, participate
in any attempts by any person or entity to persuade a person to withdraw a complaint,
or otherwise interfere in the investigation of any complaint by a government agency.”
Such language would clarify that the protections provided in the Manual of Rules of
Regulations for government investigations clearly apply to citizen complainants and to
inquiries into those complaints. See White (20115).

VIII.
COMMENDATIONS

As this report references in the Executive Summary above, despite the findings and
recommendations contained in this report, several of which point to areas of improvement in
Cincinnati’s law enforcement response to protests, on those occasions where CCA possessed
sufficient evidence to make determinations as to specific allegations made by citizens, the
evidence showed that the majority of police officers subject to complaint and investigation acted
in accordance with existing police policy, procedure and training. All served during an incredibly
challenging time for our City, our communities, and indeed our entire country. Cincinnati’s Police
Chief marched with protestors, validating the right to peaceful protest and making common
cause with the community. The Cincinnati Police Department and its members are to be
commended for their service.

IX. INVESTIGATIONS

The 11 investigations covered below are reported in order of their date and time of occurrence.
These reports do not purport to detail all evidence uncovered during their respective
investigations, nor are they intended to summarize the entirety of CCA’s file on these matters.

24
 Case No. 20097 –
Hough Investigation

A. Complaint Summary

Complainant: Jacqueline Hough

Date: May 30, 2020

Time: 2:00 a.m.

Location: Vine and Seventh Streets

CCA Receipt: June 9, 2020

Allegation: Excessive Force

Ms. Hough stated the following in her complaint:

I was caught between the looters and the police with riot gear. I originally was
trying to get protesters to not take it out on the CPD because they didn't kill Mr.
Floyd. A flash bang was thrown close to me and instructions were given by
megaphone. I wasn't sure what was said because of the bang but I thought they
said to disperse and go home. As I was doing that an officer ran up behind the
ones with shields and reached over them to pepper spray me. Then he literally
jumped over them to knock me down and they left me on the street with a broken
wrist, a busted iPhone and pepper spray in my eyes. I'm 58 years old. I was not
being violent or aggressive.

B. Summary of Evidence

1. Involved Citizen Statements

Jacqueline Hough

CCA interviewed Ms. Jacqueline Hough, F/W/58, on June 12, 2020. She provided the following
additional information:

Ms. Hough heard a commotion, helicopters, sirens, horns, and saw lights flashing around 1:00
a.m. Ms. Hough left her residence to see what was occurring. She walked down the street and
saw people “creating violence.” Ms. Hough stated she got between the protestors and the police
and spoke to the protestors stating, “Come on you guys, these guys didn’t do it.”

CPD threw a flash bang, which gave her “PTSD.” She stated “I kind of don’t really remember
everything that happened from then. So I’m almost 100% sure that I didn’t do anything
25
aggressive, because that’s not my way.” The officers were trying to force everyone down
towards the river.

Ms. Hough stated when she looked behind her, she heard all the sirens and glass breaking. Ms.
Hough did not want to move toward the river because she was close to her place which was
across the street. That was when an unknown male white officer ran up from behind the officers
that carried the shields and reached between them and sprayed her with mace. She did not fall,
but stood back with her hands raised and said, “Don’t shoot.” The officer that sprayed the mace
“jumped over” the other officers that held the shields and “pushed” her down “with his hands.”
Ms. Hough fell and broke her right wrist and phone. The officers just walked past her as she lay
in the street.

Ms. Hough stated she was trying to be peaceful. Ms. Hough went to the doctor and had her
wrist cast. She might need to have surgery on her wrist and might need to sue the City. Ms.
Hough advised the investigator she would provide the medical records but was unsure what the
doctor actually put in her report on how she received her injury, but she told them it was from
the officers.

2. Subject Officer Statements

Lieutenant Colin Vaughn

Lieutenant Colin Vaughn, #L0007, M/W/48, is currently assigned to the Intelligence Unit, and he
has been a CPD member since 1999. Lieutenant Vaughn held the rank of Sergeant and was a
part of the CDRT, in uniform carrying riot gear; no BWC.

CCA interviewed Lieutenant Vaughn on June 14, 2021, at 10:02 a.m. He provided the following
information:

Lieutenant Vaughn stated CPD has been building the CDRT about six years ago, and in that time,
they have trained very specifically on how we’re going to function during times of civil unrest, riots.
On May the 30th of 2020, the CDRT was present at Seventh and Vine in the early morning hours
in order to deal with the violent crowds that were protesting and assaulting officers and breaking
into businesses. Members of CDRT were dressed in various forms of protective gear. CDRT-
Grenadiers were equipped with non-lethal or less-lethal munitions.

It was nearing the end of a long number of hours of protests, many of which were violent.
Lieutenant Vaughn stated he threw some OC blast balls but did not believe any were thrown at
Seventh and Vine Streets. The OC is a crowd management device that encourages people to go
away. During these protests, prior to any chemical munitions being deployed, there were multiple
verbal warnings given, orders given to people to leave. Lieutenant Vaughn admitted at times he
reached through the line of officers and spray people who were trying to assault officers, had
assaulted officers, were pushing against the shields, trying to get through the line, not complying
with orders, or trying to rob officers of equipment.

26
All of those munitions are either deployed by supervisors, or at times by the grenadiers, but at the
order of a Captain or above.

Lieutenant Vaughn stated to CCA:

I can’t tell you specifically did I spray her or did I not, other than I can tell you I
absolutely do not remember and don’t think I used any force at Seventh and Vine
Street. I can assure you that I did not jump over any other officers to knock anyone
down. I didn’t see any other officers jump over anybody to knock anyone down. I
don’t know how one would go about doing that because I can’t jump over people
that are five and six feet tall. And we certainly didn’t knock someone down and go
past them and not address them.

When comparing the civil unrest during the protests of Summer 2020 with the unrest in years
past, Lieutenant Vaughn stated the following:

So the difference in this -- between this and other protests that we’ve responded
to . . . since 2001 more or less, we’ve had almost no violent protests. These
protests were much more violent. You had officers getting assaulted. I got hit with
stuff. Other officers got hit with things being thrown by the crowd. But in the
manner in which we responded, we have very clear kind of understanding or rules
about how we’re going to respond to the crowd, assaults on us, etcetera, based
on the crowds’ behavior.

Officer Robert Bohl

Officer Robert Bohl, #PO875, M/W/39, is currently assigned to District 5, and he has been a CPD
member since 2005. Officer Bohl was a part of the Civil Disturbance Response Team (CDRT), in
uniform, with riot gear; no BWC.

CCA interviewed Officer Bohl on May 12, 2022, at 10:32 a.m. He provided the following
information:

Officer Bohl stated that on May 30, 2020, he was on the line with the CDRT team holding a shield
during the times of the protest. Officer Bohl did not recall anyone complaining of being maced,
injured or having any contact with Ms. Hough.

27
Officer Richard Christoph

Officer Richard Christoph, #PO620, M/W/39, is currently assigned to District 3, and he has been
a CPD member since 2008. Officer Christoph was a part of the CDRT, in uniform, with riot gear;
no BWC.

CCA interviewed Officer Christoph on May 5, 2022, at 3:08 p.m. He provided the following
information:

Officer Christoph was a member of the CDRT squad during the protest and stated he had “no
recollection of the specific event in question” and did not “recall specifically working that day.”
He added the CDRT responds to any type of large gatherings, groups, protests, riots, anything
of the sort to provide protection and security for the area and people. “If we are deployed in riot
fashion, we will carry shields and pepper balls and 40-millimeter soft foam cannons but at the
time again, there were times during the protests and riots that we were posted in the basement
of City Hall.”

Officer Matthew Croswell

Officer Matthew Croswell, #PO022, M/W/38, is currently assigned to District 5, and he has been
a CPD member since 2014. Officer Croswell was a part of the CDRT, in uniform, carrying riot
gear; no BWC.

CCA interviewed Officer Croswell on May 12, 2022, at 2:01 p.m. He provided the following
information:

On May 30, 2020, Officer Croswell was with the CDRT platoon and on the line, holding shields.
Officer Croswell did not observe any officer mace, jump over anyone’s shoulder, or knock anyone
down.

Officer James Mathews

Officer James Mathews, #PO668, M/W/42, is currently assigned to District 3, and he has been a
CPD member since 2003. Officer Mathews was a part of the CDRT, in uniform carrying riot gear;
no BWC.

CCA interviewed Officer Mathews on May 4, 2022, at 1:56 p.m. He provided the following
information:

Officer Mathews stated it was a very chaotic scene, with the nationwide George Floyd protest,
specifically around Cincinnati. On May 30, 2020, Officer Mathews was a part of the CDRT, one
of the front-line officers assigned a shield. Officer Mathews stated he did not see anyone jump
directly over the line. They were in different formations but primarily were in a straight line, a

28
horizontal line trying to move the crowd back. At no time did he observe anybody jump over the
line or randomly assault persons.

Officer Aubrey Pitts

Officer Aubrey Pitts, #PO280, M/B/32, is currently assigned to the Homicide Unit, and he has
been a CPD member since 2016. Officer Pitts was a part of the CDRT, in uniform carrying riot
gear; no BWC.

CCA interviewed Officer Pitts on May 24, 2022, at 11:24 a.m. He provided the following
information:

On May 30, 2020, Officer Pitts was platoon man with the Civil Disturbance Response Team
wearing turtle gear a shield and carrying a PR 24 baton. We hold the line and try to prevent
damage caused to people and property. Officer Pitts did not recall coming into contact with Ms.
Hough.

Officer Jay Stephens

Officer Jay Stephens, #PO726, M/W/41, is currently assigned to District 5, and he has been a
CPD member since 2004. Officer Stephens was a part of the CDRT, in uniform carrying riot gear;
no BWC.

CCA interviewed Officer Stephens on May 12, 2022, at 10:25 a.m. He provided the following
information:

On May 30, 2020, Officer Stephens was deployed as part of a CDRT response team on the line,
carrying a shield, wearing protective gear, and holding an intersection. Officer Stephens had no
recollection of coming into contact with Ms. Hough.

Sergeant Stephanie Glueck (pronounced Glick)

Sergeant Stephanie Glueck, #SO068, F/W/41, is currently assigned to Personal Crimes, and she
has been a CPD member since 2006. Sergeant Glueck was a part of the CDRT, in uniform
carrying riot gear; no BWC.

CCA interviewed Sergeant Glueck on June 14, 2021, at 10:43 a.m. She provided the following
information:

Sergeant Glueck did not recall specifically coming into contact with Ms. Hough on May 30, 2020.
Captain Adam Hennie was giving a disbursement order over the megaphone, which the crowd
did not comply with.

29
Sergeant Brian Trotta

Sergeant Brian Trotta, #SO420, M/W/50, is currently assigned to District 1, and he has been a
CPD member since 1997. Sergeant Trotta was a part of the CDRT, in uniform carrying riot gear;
no BWC.

CCA interviewed Sergeant Trotta on May 19, 2022, at 10:07 a.m. He provided the following
information:

Sergeant Trotta was assigned as part of the CDRT as one of the arrest team supervisors
responsible for line control during the riots. On May 30, 2020, Sergeant Trotta deployed his OC
for the protection of the officers, advancement of hostile people towards the line, people
refusing to abide the orders to move back. Sergeant Trotta did not recall Ms. Hough at all.

Sergeant Lucas Neville

Sergeant Lucas Neville, #SO379, M/W/28, is currently assigned to District 3, and he has been a
CPD member since 2016. Sergeant Neville was a part of the CDRT, in uniform carrying riot gear;
no BWC.

CCA interviewed Sergeant Neville on May 5, 2022, at 2:01 p.m. He provided the following
information:

Sergeant Neville stated he did not recall coming into contact with Ms. Hough on May 30, 2020.
His role during the protest was the same each day. We were the team that responded to make
sure everybody was safe. He would have carried a shield and been in a line that made sure
everybody kept in order for the day.

Lieutenant Brian Bolte

Lieutenant Brian Bolte, #L0031, M/W/40, is currently assigned to District 4, and he has been a
CPD member since 2002. Lt. Bolte held the rank of Sergeant during this incident. Lt. Bolte was
a part of the CDRT, in uniform carrying riot gear; no BWC.

CCA interviewed Lt. Bolte on May 25, 2022, at 3:03 p.m. He provided the following information:

Lt. Bolte stated he was a squad leader for the CDRT team, and his role is to “keep them in line
and try to keep the city safe.” Lt. Bolte did not recall coming into contact with Ms. Hough on May
30, 2020.

30
Lieutenant John R. Hudson

Lieutenant John R. Hudson, #L0022, M/W/49, is currently assigned to the Narcotics and Vice
Unit, and he has been a CPD member since 1999. Lieutenant Hudson was a part of the CDRT,
in uniform carrying riot gear; no BWC.

CCA interviewed Lieutenant Hudson on May 18, 2022, at 10:09 a.m. He provided the following
information:

On May 30, 2020, Lieutenant Hudson was a squad leader assigned to CDRT that was called into
areas that had destruction of property or things getting out of hand. Lieutenant Hudson had some
Mark 9 spray which is a big canister but did not have any other CO 2 aerosol-flash bangs.
Lieutenant Hudson denied coming into contact with Ms. Hough.

3. Officer Witness Statements

There were none.

4. Witness Statements

There were none.

5. Documentary Evidence, Audio-Visual Evidence & Other Evidence

a. Police Documents

CCA reviewed all CPD-related forms from the day and time in question, including but not limited
to all available use of force reports.

b. Body Worn Camera (BWC)

On May 30, 2020, members of the CDRT team were not required to wear BWC’s at the time. The
policy changed April 15, 2021, stating that SWAT and Civil Disturbance Response Team (CDRT)
personnel will utilize their BWCs in high risk activities (i.e. search warrants, arrest warrants, crowd
control) in accordance with their documented SOPs.

c. Medical Records

CCA requested Ms. Hough’s medical records from Ms. Hough but did not receive any documents.

31
C. Significant Discrepancies & Clarifications

There were none other than those discussed below in the Analysis section.

D. Authorities

See Appendix.

E. Analysis

1. Allegation: Excessive Force

On May 30, 2020, at about 1:00 a.m., Ms. Jacqueline Hough allegedly walked down Seventh
and Vine Streets and positioned herself between the protestors and the police holding riot gear.
A flash bang was thrown close to her. Ms. Hough reported to CCA that as she complied with
the order to leave, “An officer ran up behind the officers with shields, reached over them and
sprayed her with pepper spray. Then the white male officer literally jumped over them to knock
me down and they left me on the street with a broken wrist, a busted iPhone and pepper spray
in my eyes.” Ms. Hough stated she was not being violent or aggressive. Ms. Hough has also
stated that because of the flash bang, she has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and
does not remember everything that happened.

CPD Policy § 12.545 Use of Force states, “When officers have a right to make an arrest, they
may use whatever force is reasonably necessary to apprehend the offender or effect the arrest
and no more.” The policy cites to caselaw in stating that:

The decision to use force “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances
of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the
suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others, and
whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. The
‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective
of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight
…the question is whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light
of the facts and circumstances confronting them.” CPD Policy 12.545 Use of Force.

Procedure § 12.545 also allows officers to the use reasonably necessary force “to protect
themselves or others.”

Regarding the use of blast grenades, CPD Procedure § 12.545 Use of Force states “the OC blast
grenade is a rubber ball type device that contains a non-lethal chemical irritant which is used in
crowd control situations to aid in controlling and disseminating crowds. Only trained SWAT
officers and grenadiers are permitted to deploy the OC aerosol or OC blast grenades in crowd
control situations.”

32
Procedure 12.545 also states:

Officers encountering crowds will evaluate the situation and determine if there is a
current or future need requiring crowd control or crowd management. Use of force
including the OC blast grenade during periods of civil unrest or for crowd control is
restricted. A command officer must be present and must authorize the deployment
of these devices, absent exigent circumstances. Command officers must give
verbal notice prior to deploying these devices into a crowd unless it would present
a danger to the officer or others to give such a warning.

CCA interviewed several members of the CDRT team, none of whom could recall coming into
contact with Ms. Hough or even an incident that involved Ms. Hough. While Lt. Colin Vaughn
admitted that at times during the protests, he reached through the line of police officers to spray
protesters with OC spray, and while he could not conclusively rule out that he might have sprayed
Mr. Hough in the process, Lt. Vaughn did not specifically remember Ms. Hough, and he denied
using any force at 7th Street and Vine Street.

The officers also were not required to wear BWC’s during this time. Due to a lack of sufficient
evidence, CCA was unable to identify whether the actions alleged by Ms. Hough occurred and, if
so, which of the several potentially involved CDRT officers was at fault. As such, CCA cannot
definitively determine whether a violation of policy occurred.

F. Findings

Unknown CPD Officer

Excessive Force - There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct
occurred. NOT SUSTAINED

G. Observations

See “Section VI. Key Observations” in CCA’s consolidated report on this investigation and ten
other protest investigations, GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI.

H. Recommendations

See R2302, R2303, R2304, and R2305 in “Section VII. Recommendations” of CCA’s consolidated
report on this investigation and ten other protest investigations (GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS

33
REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING COMPLAINTS IN CITY
OF CINCINNATI).

1/31/2023
Dena Brown, Chief Investigator Date

1/31/2023
Davis, Director Date

34
 Case No. 20188 –
Kimutis Investigation

A. Complaint Summary

Complainant: Bryan Kimutis

Date: May 30, 2020

Location: 1229 Elm Street

CCA Receipt: September 9, 2020

Allegation: Excessive Force

On May 30, 2020, Mr. Bryan Kimutis was taking photographs of the protest in the S&P parking
lot between Central Avenue and Elm Street by Music Hall. At approximately 9:30 p.m., without
warning, while not engaged in any illegal activity, he was struck in the eye by a 40mm marking
round fired by a Cincinnati Police Officer. Mr. Bryan Kimutis was taken to the Emergency Room
at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center (UCMC) and has permanent impaired vision as a
result of this incident.

B. Summary of Evidence

1. Involved Citizen Statements

Bryan Kimutis

CCA interviewed Mr. Bryan Kimutis on September 11, 2020. He provided the following
information:

Mr. Kimutis, M/W/26, agreed to discuss the incident but wanted to speak to his lawyer before
giving a recorded statement.

CCA conducted two follow-up interviews on February 18, 2021. He provided the following
information:

Mr. Kimutis went downtown “around 7:00ish” to get some food. All the places downtown were
closed probably in anticipation of what was going to happen that night and what happened the
night before, everything was boarded up and closed. Mr. Kimutis walked back to his vehicle
around 9:10/9:15p.m. and saw a group of protestors in the S&P parking lot between Central
Parkway and Elm Street. There was a line of police officers on the sidewalk of Central Avenue
facing into the S&P parking lot and he was about twenty yards away. Mr. Kimutis was taking
pictures of what was going on and saw someone that he knew in the crowd. He approached him
and had a conversation with him. Mr. Kimutis was struck in the eye around 9:25 or 9:30 p.m. by
a 40-millimeter marking grenade or marking round. A kid that he was talking to picked it up, so

35
he has the actual round that hit him. There were first aid protestors who were there who
administered first aid to him.

Mr. Kimutis had a friend that lived a half block down on Elm Street. Someone helped him walk
there and then he went to Christ Hospital and was transferred to UCMC. Mr. Kimutis did not see
any individual officer or any even cover officer fire it. Mr. Kimutis has permanent damage to his
left eye (a macular hole in the retinal wall of his eye), his vision has decreased to about 20/50 in
that eye. He has permanent sensitivity to light and dark and cannot see very well in bright
environments or dark environments. Mr. Kimutis did not capture the actual round hitting him on
camera but has pictures of his injury and footage of the night before he was injured and then right
after. The doctor wrote a report on his injury.

2. Subject Officer Statements

Officer Kurtis Latham

Officer Kurtis Latham, #PO181, M/W/33, is currently assigned to District 5, and he has been a
CPD member since 2015. Officer Latham was in uniform and a part of the Civil Disturbance
Response Team (CDRT).

CCA interviewed Officer Latham on June 16, 2021, at 6:45 a.m. He provided the following
information:

On May 30, 2020, Officer Latham was a part of the CDRT as grenadier, carrying a 40 millimeter
less than lethal grenade launcher and was positioned in front of District 1 police headquarters
staged for a protest. The crowd turned unruly. Lieutenant Colonel Paul Neudigate gave orders
to have the crowd disburse. The crowd started throwing rocks, water bottles, fireworks, and
other dangerous items at officers and headquarters. Lieutenant Colonel Neudigate gave the
order to engage people that were actively throwing dangerous items at us.

Officer Latham deployed the 40-millimeter LMT Tactical Single Launcher four times. The first
target was a male white attempting to throw one of their gas grenades back at them. Officer
Latham struck that male twice, once in the left calf and once in the left buttocks area. The
rounds hit and dropped and then he proceeded to stop trying to engage the officers. Officer
Latham then engaged two other targets; both were male blacks that threw explosives,
fireworks, pyrotechnics, and both of those individuals were struck in the left thigh and both
rounds hit and dropped.

Officer Latham stated an after-action report was completed, but if they can make an arrest, they
will make the arrest. However, in those situations they were able to retreat back into the crowd
and we were not able to arrest them. The people that he engaged with fled into the crowd and
were not able to be arrested. Officer Latham denied striking anyone in the eye, which is not a
preferred area.

36
Officer Michael Roetting

Officer Michael Roetting, #PO210, M/W/41, is currently assigned to District 3, and he has been
a CPD member since 2002. Officer Roetting was in uniform and part of the CDRT team.

CCA interviewed Officer Roetting on June 16, 2021, at 6:30 a.m. He provided the following
information:

On May 30, 2020, Officer Roetting was a part of the CDRT and was a grenadier assigned a 40-
millimeter LMT Tactical Single Launcher. They carry a backpack, and they have different types
of munitions, impact rounds, marking rounds. Officer Roetting stated some protestors were
throwing firecrackers, frozen water bottles, bottles of urine, rocks at them, and broke windows
near Music Hall. The CDRT was sent to stop them. Officer Roetting was given the command to
fire two rounds by Sergeant Colin Vaughn. The first round fired was at an individual white male
that picked up a gas canister and was attempting to throw it back at them as they were trying to
disburse the crowd with gas. That person was struck in the lower leg and struck by a bean bag
marking round by other members that were trying to prevent him from picking up and throwing a
gas canister at them. Another white male had been throwing firecrackers balled up with nails
and stuff in it. Officer Roetting deployed his second shot which struck the wall and garbage can
and landed on the concrete.

Officer Roetting stated when looking at Mr. Kimutis’s injury (speaking of the video that was
reviewed prior to beginning this interview) that “if he was struck with a 40-millimeter impact
round as he’s saying the distance, he looks like he was standing at, there would have been a
significant amount of more damage around his eye. The kinetic energy they said is equivalent
to almost like Aroldis Chapman high speed fast ball and there would probably be bones
breaking. When we deploy rounds, we deploy them and we’re supposed to aim at the leg, the
extremities and try to avoid the face, neck, and groin.”

Officer Roetting stated fireworks were landing at his feet and a couple of rocks bounced off his
helmet. He did not sustain any injuries.

Officer Molly Shust

Officer Molly Shust, #PO120, F/W/34, is currently assigned to the Narcotics and Vice Unit and
she has been a CPD member since 2002. Officer Shust was in uniform and part of the CDRT
team.

CCA interviewed Officer Shust on March 29, 2022, at 10:04 a.m. She provided the following
information:

On May 30, 2020, Officer Shust was assigned as a grenadier to the CDRT team. That day
Officer Shust was assigned a 40-millimeter LMT Tactical Single Launcher and during one
incident, just south of Music Hall next to District 1 she deployed five rounds of 40-millimeter
foam rounds. There were two individuals that were specifically pointed out as threats. One
37
individual was shooting fireworks directly at them and the other individual was throwing hard
objects. Officer Shust could not recall the race of the males. The two individuals that were struck
were struck in their upper thighs, like meaty part of their legs. One retreated and the other one
eventually retreated after he was hit with other rounds. They eventually retreated and they did
not make any arrests. Officer Shust did not recall coming into contact with Mr. Kimutis.

Lieutenant Colin Vaughn

Lieutenant Colin Vaughn #L0007, M/W/48, is currently assigned to the Intelligence Unit, and he
has been a CPD member since 1999. Lieutenant Vaughn was in uniform and part of the CDRT
team.

CCA interviewed Lieutenant Vaughn on June 14, 2021, at 10:19 a.m. He provided the following
information:

Lieutenant Vaughn stated on May 30, 2020, he was the grenadier sergeant in charge of the
people who were using those less lethal platforms. The CDRT team shot people with 40-
millimeter foam rounds during the civil unrest. All of those people shot were specifically targeted
because they were assaulting officers or committing other felony offenses of violence.
Lieutenant Vaughn stated, “Every officer there, every round that I saw fired that struck someone
struck them in their lower extremities, typically in the thigh because that’s where we’re trained
and where we train to target.” Lieutenant Vaughn did not see or did not recall anyone getting
struck in the face with a 40-millimeter foam round. At the time there was a large group of violent
protestors who were throwing bricks, rocks, water bottles full of urine and other unknown
substances at us. The crowd had been given lawful orders to disburse and told to go away.

At the time they had already deployed some chemical munitions, CS or OC gas to try to get
them to leave without having to use any more force against that large group of people.

Lieutenant Vaughn stated:

They continued to throw things at us, assault us, come up, run up and assault officers by Music
Hall they started barricading themselves using garbage cans to try to thwart our efforts to
disburse this large violent crowd a couple hundred people. Some of those individuals we
specifically targeted who were throwing stuff and did shoot them again in the legs or the lower
extremities with 40-millimeter foam rounds which is quite frankly what those rounds are
designed for. To be a less lethal impact tool to cause somebody pain, to discourage them from
continuing their felonious behavior, quite frankly.

The 40-millimeter foam launcher is a single shot top break launcher. It fires and holds one round
at a time. Officers typically have twenty rounds on them. The grenadiers are the only ones that
are armed with those platforms. Once the situation was under control, they completed a use of
force report that was made sometime later, because of the dynamic situation and everything
that was going on. Four or five officers completed a report but none of them stated they struck
someone in the eye. Several people got hit with 40-millimeter rounds because they were trying
to pick up the munitions, those canisters and throw them back at us. But we always target their
38
legs.

After reviewing Mr. Kimutis’s picture Lieutenant Vaughn stated, “I believe that what I see in that
picture is consistent with him getting hit with a 40-millimeter foam round I do. But the only way
that happens is if he bends down as that shot is being fired. And again, I don’t know that to be
true.” Lieutenant Vaughn stated every person that they were specifically targeting or targeted
was done so because they were throwing things at them. Lieutenant Vaughn did not see any of
the subjects that were struck, and no one came and complained to them afterwards about being
struck by one of these. The deployments occurred at the direction of Colonel Neudigate.

Officer Barnabas Blank

Officer Barnabas Blank, #PO039, M/W/43, is currently assigned to District 5, and he has been a
CPD member since 2002. Officer Blank was in uniform and part of the CDRT team.

CCA interviewed Officer Blank on March 29, 2022, at 12:05 p.m. He provided the following
information:

On May 30, 2020, Officer Blank was assigned to a pepper ball gun and was conducting
operations with the CDRT Team. The pepper ball gun is a paint ball gun that fires a hard-shell
cased projectile that is filled with a powderized capsaicin, “Which is ground up jalapeños
essentially.” Officer Blank deployed the pepper ball gun. CPD uses that particular weapon
system for area saturation mainly at people’s feet just to get them to move. Officer Blank did not
observe anyone struck by a 40-millimeter round.

Specialist Jeremy Howard

Specialist Jeremy Howard, #PS081, M/W/44, is currently assigned to the Central Business
District (CBD), and he has been a CPD member since 2002. Specialist Howard was in uniform
and part of the CDRT team.

CCA interviewed Specialist Howard on March 31, 2022, at 06:21 a.m. He provided the following
information:

On May 30, 2020, Specialist Howard was a grenadier with the CDRT Unit as a pepper ball
launcher tasked with quelling the riots. The pepper ball was deployed at people throwing bottles
and rocks. Specialist Howard was unsure how many pepper ball rounds he deployed this day.
All the target areas are below the nipple line. The belly and the thighs unless it’s area saturation
which is the ground. Specialist Howard did not observe anyone that was struck in the face with
a 40-millimeter round.

3. Officer Witness Statements

There were none.

39
 4. Witness Statements

CCA was not provided any witness names. Neither CCA, nor CPD has been able to identify the
young person who, according to Mr. Kimutis, handed him the foam round after it struck his eye.

5. Documentary Evidence, Audio-Visual Evidence & Other Evidence

a. Police Documents

CCA reviewed all CPD-related forms, including but not limited to arrest forms and the Internal
Investigation Section (IIS) Report.

b. Body Worn Camera (BWC)

CDRT officers were not equipped with BWC’s during this incident. No other BWC exists.

c. Other Video

CCA reviewed three short video clips of Mr. Kimutis’ injury. The videos contained no date or
time stamps.

The first video was approximately six seconds long which showed someone holding the foam
round.

The second video showed Mr. Kimutis sitting on the ground and someone rinsing his injured eye
out. The green markings can be seen above his bloodied left eye.

The third video showed someone rinsing Mr. Kimutis’s eye and advising him to seek medical
attention. The unknown female stated no ambulance would respond. An unknown male who
was out of camera view, stated he would take him to the hospital. Mr. Kimutis mentioned that if
he could get to his friend’s house, his friend could take him to the hospital.

d. Photographs

See description of medical records below.

e. Medical Records

Mr. Kimutis provided CCA with medical records from the University of Cincinnati (UC) College of
Medicine documenting his injury. UC ultimately published those records in the form of a report
entitled: “Ocular Foam Marking Round Injury: a case report and a literature review.”

According to the records, “A 25-year-old male with no previous medical history presented to the
emergency department (ED) with acute vision loss and pain in the left eye after being struck by
projectile during a protest. Initially, he believed that he had been struck by a rubber bullet, but the

40
projectile obtained by the patient was subsequently identified as a foam marking round (Fig 1a).
A green powdery substance was dispersed around the site of injury.”

Mr. Kimutis sustained “significant ocular trauma.” Specifically, his “[i]nitial exam showed
significant periorbital ecchymosis, multiple eyelid lacerations, microhyphema, and vitreous
hemorrhage.” The medical records include a picture of that injury.

The medical records also include a photograph of the aforementioned foam round.

C. Significant Discrepancies & Clarifications

1. Whether Mr. Kimutis Was Struck By 40-MM Foam Round: Mr. Kimutis
maintains that he was struck in the eye by a foam round fired by a Cincinnati Police Officer.

IIS’s report was inconclusive as to whether a foam round struck Mr. Kimutis, stating: “There is
insufficient evidence to determine whether Mr. Kimutis was struck with a 40mm foam marking
round . . .”

At least one officer who fired marking rounds at protestors on May 30, 2020 and who was
interviewed during this investigation (Officer Michael Roetting) expressed doubt that Mr. Kimutis’s
injury could have been caused by a foam round due to where Mr. Kimutis was standing at the
time of his injury.

However, the medical evidence, Mr. Kimutis’s physical recovery of the foam round itself, and the
green powdery substance observed by medical staff around Mr. Kimutis’s injury (all established
by the medical records and corroborated by video), all support Mr. Kimutis’s assertion that he was
struck by a foam round fired by a Cincinnati Police Officer. Additionally, the grenadier sergeant
supervising officers assigned to CDRT who were firing foam rounds that day, Lieutenant Colin
Vaughn, confirmed for CCA that the picture of Mr. Kimutis’s injury was “consistent with him getting
hit with a 40-millimeter foam round.”

2. BWC Usage and Policy: At the time of the incident, CPD Body Worn Camera
System §12.540 did not require CDRT or SWAT officers to wear BWCs. On April 15, 2021, the
policy was revised to require non-uniformed assignments are required to wear and power on their
BWC.

D. Authorities

See Appendix.

41
E. Analysis

1. Allegation: Excessive Force

Mr. Kimutis has alleged that on May 30, 2020, during the George Floyd protests, while out in the
downtown S&P parking lot between Central Parkway and Elm Street, he was struck in the eye
with a 40mm foam round. Mr. Kimutis believes the force to be improper.

CPD Procedure §12.545 Use of Force provides guidelines for when officers are authorized to use
force against citizens to maintain crowd control, specifically stating that “officers will not initiate
the use of force… against crowds or a group of individuals except when reasonable and
necessary to protect the officer.” This directive is consistent with the legal requirement for use of
force, which permits officers to use force only when such force is objectively reasonable.

In addition, Procedure § 12.545 states the “40mm foam rounds are impact projectile devices that
offer a less lethal alternative for subduing or incapacitating a subject and to prevent imminent
physical harm, while maintaining officer safety. . . . [and] are restricted for use by SWAT personnel
and grenadiers trained by TSU or CDRT.” Such rounds “are designed to leave a green powder
substance on the subject(s) struck by these rounds.”

Procedure § 12.545 also states that in any deployment of 40mm foam rounds or the beanbag
shotgun, officers are to “target a specific part of the body. Avoid the head, neck, throat, heart, and
genitals, if possible.” In addition, the “officer must be reasonably sure the weapons will not strike
other individuals in the crowd who pose no threat of violence.”

Medical evidence and physical evidence (specifically Mr. Kimutis’s physical recovery of the foam
round itself onsite, and the green powdery substance observed by medical staff around Mr.
Kimutis’s injury) supports Mr. Kimutis’s claim that he was struck by a foam round fired by a
Cincinnati Police Officer. Additionally, the grenadier sergeant supervising officers assigned to
CDRT who were firing foam rounds that day, Lieutenant Colin Vaughn, confirmed for CCA that
the picture of Mr. Kimutis’s injury was “consistent with him getting hit with a 40-millimeter foam
round.” Accordingly, the evidence establishes by a preponderance that the Mr. Kimutis was struck
by a foam round fired by a Cincinnati Police Officers, causing injury to his left eye.

As to the issue of whether Mr. Kimutis’s injury was caused by a violation of policy, the results are
less clear. CCA interviewed several members of the CDRT who would have been in the area at
the time of Mr. Kimutis’s injury. Several officers stated that while standing in front of District
Officers Police Headquarters staged for a protest, the crowd turned unruly, and began throwing
rocks, water bottles, fireworks, and other dangerous items at officers and headquarters. At the
time, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Neudigate gave orders for the crowd to disburse. According to the
officers, when the crowd did not leave, some officers deployed their 40mm foam marking rounds
striking several people in their lower extremities.

CCA interviewed all identifiable CDRT officers who deployed 40mm foam rounds at the time of
Mr. Kimutis’s injury, but none of those officers recalled deploying the round that struck Mr. Kimutis.
Lt. Vaughn did not dispute that Mr. Kimutis could have been struck by such a round, but Lt.
Vaughn maintained that officers were only targeting lower extremities, and that he himself saw no
one being struck by the rounds. While the evidence establishes that some officer fired a foam
42
round that struck Mr. Kimutis in the eye, in this case, CCA was unable to determine which officer
fired the round, where that officer was aiming at the time of discharge, or if that officer was in
compliance with CPD’s policies, procedures, and training when they deployed the 40mm foam
round.

F. Findings

Officer Kurtis Latham

Officer Michael Roetting
Officer Molly Shust

Excessive Force – There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct
occurred. NOT SUSTAINED

G. Observations

See “Section VI. Key Observations” in CCA’s consolidated report on this investigation and ten
other protest investigations, GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI.

H. Recommendations

See R2302, R2303, R2304, and R2305 in “Section VII. Recommendations” of CCA’s consolidated
report on this investigation and ten other protest investigations (GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS
REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING COMPLAINTS IN CITY
OF CINCINNATI).

I. Previous Contacts & Commendations

Officer Latham

Previous Contacts with CCA

Officer Latham had no previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

Previous Contacts for CCA Referrals

Officer Latham had one allegation referred to CPD for investigation in the past three years.

Case Number Allegation CPD Finding

19177 Discourtesy Exonerated
19177 Lack of Service Exonerated

43
Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Latham with IIS.

Commendations

Officer Latham received 2 commendations in the past three years.

Date Source of Commendation Received

03/15/2019 CPD
07/02/2019 CPD

Officer Roetting

Previous Contacts with CCA

Officer Roetting had one previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

Case Number Allegation Finding

18080 Discrimination (Racial) Not Sustained
18080 Lack of Service Unfounded
18080 Discourtesy Sustained

Previous Contacts for CCA Referrals

Officer Roetting had two allegations referred to CPD for investigation in the past three years.

Case Number Allegation CPD Finding

18099 Lack of Service Sustained
19230 Lack of Service Exonerated
19230 Discourtesy Sustained

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Roetting with IIS.

Commendations

Officer Roetting received one commendation in the past three years.

Date Source of Commendation Received

09/08/2018 Civilian

Officer Shust

Previous Contacts with CCA

Officer Shust had no previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

44
 Previous Contacts for CCA Referrals

Officer Shust had one allegation referred to CPD for investigation in the past three years.

Case Number Allegation CPD Finding

19218 Lack of Service Not Sustained
19218 Discourtesy Unfounded

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Shust with IIS.

Commendations

Officer Shust received three commendations in the past three years.

Date Source of Commendation Received

09/11/2018 Civilian
08/31/2019 CPD
01/09/2020 Other Law Enforcement

1/30/2023
Dena Brown, Chief Investigator Date

1/30/2023
Gabriel Davis, Director Date

45
 Case No. 20112 – King
Investigation

A. Complaint Summary

Complainant: Daulton King

Date: May 30, 2020

Time: 11:00 p.m.

Location: Calhoun St.

CCA Receipt: June 22, 2020

Allegation: Excessive Force; Improper Procedure; Improper Procedure (BWC) – Collateral;

Discourtesy – Collateral

On May 30, 2020, Mr. Daulton King walked with protestors up Calhoun Street. Officers mistook
him for someone throwing garbage cans in the road, tackled him and tased him twice
unnecessarily. Tased once while being tackled and again after he was on the ground detained.
An officer then stepped on and broke his glasses intentionally after he asked for them.

B. Summary of Evidence

1. Involved Citizen Statements

Daulton King

CCA interviewed Mr. Daulton King on June 24, 2020. He provided the following information:

On May 30, 2020, Mr. Daulton King, M/W/26, walked with protestors. As they walked several
police vehicles followed behind them. Some protestors threw garbage cans into the road to try
and stop the officers from following them so closely. Mr. King stated to CCA that he “didn’t touch
any garbage cans or anything like that. I was just walking at the back of the group.” Police vans
pulled up and tried to grab people, so everyone took off running. Mr. King ran and was tackled.
He hit his head on a wall or concrete and was tased without a warning.

Mr. King stated once he was on the ground and was no longer moving, the officer who tased him
tased him a second time causing him to almost lose control of his bowels. Mr. King observed
three officers standing around him. Mr. King was handcuffed, searched, sat on the curb, his
backpack searched, and his glasses had fallen off. Mr. King asked the officer to hand him his
glasses. The officer replied, “I don’t give a [expletive] if you can’t see. I’m out of breath from
chasing you all.” The officer walked over to where his glasses were and stepped on them. Mr.
King stated when he got his glasses back, they were not wearable. Mr. King had a lump on his
head above his left eye, “arm and shoulder pretty scratched up,” and TASER wounds on his back.
The Cincinnati Fire Department (CFD) arrived to check his vitals, head, TASER wounds then left.
46
A supervisor also responded and scolded the officer for basically going off on his own and
chasing. Mr. King denied throwing any garbage can. Mr. King did not seek any additional medical
attention.

Mr. King was charged with throwing garbage cans in the road, interfering with official business
and resisting arrest and detained for almost twenty hours between CPD and the Hamilton
County Sheriffs.

2. Subject Officer Statements

Officer Jesse Hooven

Officer Jesse Hooven, #PO111, M/W/33, is currently assigned to District 5, and he has been a
CPD member since 2014. Officer Hooven was in uniform; his BWC was activated.

CCA interviewed Officer Hooven on April 12, 2021, at 12:07 p.m. He provided the following
information:19

Five police vehicles were patrolling the Clifton area, because of the protests and riots that were
occurring. Officer Hooven was in the third or fourth vehicle in the convoy. During this, the
officers observed individuals in the middle of the road dumping trash cans in the road. The
officers exited their vehicles, removed the first set of trash cans, and drove approximately 20
feet. Most of the group had gone forward, but there were still two individuals who were putting
trash cans in the middle of the road.

Lieutenant Michael Fern broadcast their description. Officer Hooven exited his vehicle and
pursued Mr. King who immediately fled when he saw them exit their vehicles. Officer Hooven
chased Mr. King for roughly a quarter of a mile, at one point, he fell while chasing him. Officer
Hooven got to his feet and continued the foot pursuit and told Mr. King to stop. Officer Dewar
warned Mr. King he would be tased if he did not stop. When he did not comply, still running and
resisting arrest, he was tased, striking his butt or upper legs, once for the full five seconds, and
“with all the excitement and everything, I accidentally hit it a second time for a second or two. I
turned it off immediately cause it was an accident. I didn’t mean to do it the second time.”

After Mr. King was taken into custody he was sat on the ground. He was mostly compliant and
polite after the fact. Officer Harold gave Mr. King his glasses and he replied, “Thank you.” At no
time were his glasses broken.

Officer Eric Bley

Officer Eric Bley, #PO114, M/W/23, is currently assigned to District 4, and he has been a CPD
member since 2019. Officer Bley was partnered with Officers Neal, Stewart, and Tudor in a police
vehicle. Officer Bley was in uniform; his BWC was activated.

CCA interviewed Officer Bley on April 13, 2021, at 11:32 a.m. He provided the following
information:

19Officer Hooven provided a statement to CPD’s Internal Investigation Section (IIS) on October 27, 2020.
That statement was substantially similar to the statement he provided to CCA on April 12, 2021.
47
Officer Bley stated Mr. King was observed by other officers in the middle of the street dumping
garbage cans. Officers chased him west on Calhoun St. Officer Tudor caught Mr. King, grabbed
him by his backpack, and pulled him backwards, told him to get on the ground, but he would not
listen. Officer Bley was behind Officer Tudor and assisted in taking Mr. King to the ground.

Mr. King fought with them and was tased. Officer Bley assisted in placing Mr. King into custody
and sat him upright against the curb. Officer Bley could not recall if he issued any commands to
Mr. King, but, “Most likely we were telling him to get on the ground, which he would not do and
possibly stop resisting because he was resisting.” Officer Bley did not observe any broken
glasses.

Officer Nicholas Dewar

Officer Nicholas Dewar, #PO361, M/W/33, is currently assigned to District 5, and he has been a
CPD member since 2016. Officer Dewar was in uniform; his BWC was activated.

CCA interviewed Officer Dewar on April 19, 2021, at 3:31p.m. He provided the following
information:

Officer Dewar and several officers were called for a large group in the street on Calhoun St. They
were shifting over trash cans and being disorderly. Lieutenant Fern gave out the description of
two individuals that were tipping garbage cans, and then he ordered the officers to go after those
two individuals. The officers exited their vehicles and chased them down Calhoun, through a
parking garage and Mr. King ran back out onto Calhoun. At that point, Officer Dewar lost sight of
Mr. King with how many people were there. When Officer Dewar observed Mr. King next, he was
being grabbed by other officers. Mr. King started struggling, attempted to take his backpack off,
resisting. Another officer grabbed his other arm, and he still would not comply. Officer Dewar
grabbed Mr. Kings legs and he was tased and went to the ground. Mr. King was handcuffed, and
Officer Dewar moved down the street to help another officer that was arresting someone. Officer
Dewar did not observe any broken glasses.

Officer John E. Neal

Officer John E. Neal, #PO209, M/W/48, is currently assigned to District 5, and he has been a CPD
member since 1999. Officer Neal was in uniform; his BWC was activated.

CCA interviewed Officer Neal on March 22, 2022, at 06:26a.m. He provided the following
information:

Officer Neal was in a District 5 field force in a group of several police vehicles with four officers in
each with Lieutenant Fern being the supervisor. On Calhoun Street there was a large crowd of
protestors throwing garbage cans and other debris in the street in front of their group so they
could not go down the street. Officer Neal stated to CCA he observed, “One of the individuals
was Mr. King. He’s throwing garbage cans in the middle of the street, the big city garbage cans.”
The officers stopped their vehicles and exited. They moved toward the crowd and removed the
garbage cans from the street then went back to their vehicles.

48
The officers moved farther down the street, about another block, and Lieutenant Fern told them
to get out of the vehicles and apprehend Mr. King who was in front of them. Officer Neal drove
one of the vehicles and had three other younger officers in the vehicle with him who chased him
down Calhoun. Mr. King ran behind buildings, popped back out on Calhoun and then they got him
about 260 Calhoun on the ground. Mr. King proceeded to “fight” with the officers and was tased
twice.20

Officer Neal pulled up in his vehicle, exited and assisted in holding Mr. King down until he was
placed in custody. CFD responded, no injuries and his glasses were not stepped on or broken. A
female officer found his glasses and placed them back on his face and he thanked her.

During his CCA interview, Officer Neal denied making a discourteous comment to Mr. King. He
did make a comment to another officer, about which Officer Neal said the following:

Our Internal saw on the tape where I told him, after he had fought with cops, had
to be tased twice. A large rock was recovered from his bag. So, I think I made a
comment to another cop about put this -- put this piece of crap in a car. But I never
made that comment to him. I made it to another cop just trying to secure him in a
vehicle to make him safe. That was it. . . . So, in my opinion, he’s not just a law-
abiding peaceful protestor. He is an anarchist. And if you want this city to become
Portland you let that -- that type of behavior, go.

Officer Aidan Tudor

Officer Aidan Tudor, #PO483, M/B/27, is currently assigned to District 4, and he has been a CPD
member since 2019. Officer Tudor was in uniform; his BWC was activated.

CCA interviewed Officer Tudor on March 21, 2022, at 02:59p.m. He provided the following
information:

Officer Tudor stated he was riding in a police vehicle with about four officers to a vehicle. They
rode down Calhoun Street during the protests. There were a bunch of protestors in the street,
and they were bringing trash cans out into the street and Officer Tudor and other officers observed
Mr. King bringing trash cans in the street. The officers moved the trash cans out the street and
continued to follow after them. A police vehicle pulled in front of Mr. King, and he ran, and a foot
pursuit began. The supervisor broadcast Mr. King’s description.

Officer Tudor did not give any commands because Mr. King “was so much far ahead when we hit
the corner,” called to Mr. King and tried to take him into custody, but he resisted and fought with
them. At that point Officer Tudor grabbed Mr. King by his book bag, then grabbed his right arm,
told him to put his hands behind his back and was taken to the ground, pulled his arms away and
he heard “TASER, TASER, TASER” and was tased. Officer Tudor left Mr. King and assisted with
another arrest on the street as well. Officer Tudor did not recall any issues with Mr. King’s glasses.

20In an IIS interview pertaining to this matter, Officer Neal stated that “Mr. King was flailing his arms and
refused to put his hands behind his back."
49
Officer Trent Crutcher

Officer Trent Crutcher, #PO241, M/W/29, is currently assigned to District 5, and he has been a
CPD member since 2016. Officer Crutcher was in uniform; his BWC was activated.

CCA interviewed Officer Crutcher on March 29, 2022, at 06:25a.m. He provided the following
information:

Officer Crutcher stated Mr. King was one of the two people that were arrested during the riots.
Officer Crutcher was at the location of the arrest but did not have any direct involvement in his
arrest. Officer Crutcher was involved in the arrest of the other person involved in putting the trash
cans in the street.

Lieutenant Michael Fern

Lieutenant Michael Fern retired from the Cincinnati Police Department sometime after the date of
this incident. Post-retirement, CCA contacted Lieutenant Fern via correspondence seeking an
interview. To date. Lieutenant Fern has not responded to CCA’s request.

3. Officer Witness Statements

There were none.

4. Witness Statements

CCA contacted three (3) witnesses who were provided by Mr. King when he filed his complaint,
but to date, they have not responded to our requests for an interview.

5. Documentary Evidence, Audio-Visual Evidence & Other Evidence

a. Police Documents

CCA reviewed all CPD-related forms, including but not limited to arrest forms, IIS Report, BWCs,
Hamilton County Court records and information from CPD’s Records Management System
(RMS).

i. Supervisor’s Use of Force Investigation Report

CCA reviewed a supervisor’s Use of Force report for this matter that included a narrative by
Sergeant Jarrod Cotton who investigated the incident onsite. Of the tasings, Sergeant Cotton
wrote:

Officer Hooven pursued Mr. King to 249 Calhoun Street, Mr. King continued
actively resisted arrest by Officer Hooven, Officer John Neal and Officer Erik Bley
by pulling away and resistive tension. Officer Hooven deployed his TASER from a
distance of three feet, targeting and striking Mr. King in the back. The TASER took
effect and Mr. King lay still. At the end of the cycle Mr. King began to struggle again
and attempted to get to his feet, Officer Hooven charged the TASER for one
50
 additional second. Mr. King was taken into custody without further incident.
Cincinnati Fire Department Engine 3 responded and evaluated Mr. King. Mr. King
was transported to the Hamilton County Justice Center by the prisoner van.

b. Body Worn Camera (BWC)

Officer Tudor

The events recorded by Officer Tudor’s BWC occurred on May 30, 2020, starting at 22:59:12,
according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals the following:

Officer Tudor exited the cruiser and told Mr. King to “come here.” Mr. King fled, turned and looked
at Officer Tudor then continued to flee. Officer Tudor pursued Mr. King. Officer Tudor caught up
to Mr. King and grabbed his backpack. Mr. King slipped the backpack off and tried to keep running.
Officer Tudor grabbed Mr. King’s arm and ordered him to the ground. Officer Bley grabbed Mr.
King’s other arm. Officer Hooven gave a TASER warning then almost immediately thereafter
tased Mr. King in the back. Mr. King was ordered to place his hands behind his back, but he
refused. The officers placed Mr. King’s arms behind his back and handcuffed him. Officer Tudor
left Mr. King and assisted with another arrest. While escorting the other arrested suspect. An
officer can be seen going through Mr. King’s backpack, but the actual contents could not be
determined.

Officer Hooven

The events recorded by Officer Hooven’s BWC occurred on May 30, 2020, starting at 22:59:49,
according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals the following:

Officer Hooven exited the cruiser and pursued after Mr. King along with other officers. Officer
Hooven jumped over a ledge and fell to the ground. Officer Hooven approached as Officers Tudor
and Bley were trying to detain Mr. King. Mr. King was ordered to the ground. Mr. King pulled
away and did not put his hands behind his back. Officer Hooven warned of the impending TASER
use then deployed his TASER striking Mr. King in the back near the 23:00:50 mark. Mr. King fell
to the ground. After the TASER completed its cycle, officers can be heard ordering Mr. King to
put his hands behind his back. More than 10 seconds later, Officer Hooven completed a one
second hit of the TASER. An officer can be heard stating “shut up.”

Officer Neal arrived on scene and assisted in handcuffing Mr. King. Officer Hooven advised
Sergeant White of his TASER use. Officer Harrell told Mr. King “Here are your glasses.” Mr. King
thanked Officer Harrell. Officer Neal searched Mr. King’s backpack. Officer Hooven left the area
responding to another scene.

Officer Bley

The events recorded by Officer Bley’s BWC occurred on May 30, 2020, starting at 21:49:00,
according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals the following:

Officer Bley was the passenger riding in a cruiser patrolling the area. At 21:58:12 Officer Bley
moved several overturned trash cans in the road to the side of the street. At 22:56:03 an officer
can be heard asking is that him. Another officer replied yes that’s him. At 22:57:31 A description
is given of the suspect a green jacket, black backpack. At 22:58:04 Officer Bley exited the cruiser.
51
An officer can be heard yelling “stay together.” Approximately five trash cans were placed in the
street. At 22:58:18 Officer Bley assisted another officer moving the trash cans out of the road.
Officer Bley returned to the cruiser.

At 23:00:00 Officer Bley exited the cruiser and pursued after Mr. King. Officer Bley caught up to
Mr. King as Officer Tudor attempted to detain him, which was described in detail in Officer Tudor’s
BWC description. Officer Tudor ordered Mr. King to get on the ground several times as he resisted
being taken into custody. Officers Tudor and Bley aided Mr. King into going to the ground. Officer
Hooven arrived and yelled “TASER.”

An officer told Mr. King to get his expletive hands which were underneath his body as he lay on
the ground and place them behind his back. At 23:00:58, Mr. King’s left wrist was secured into
handcuffs by the officers, and the officers started to place his right wrist into handcuffs at 23:01:01.
Seconds later, as Mr. King lay still with hands behind his back and in handcuffs, Mr. King yells
“Ah, stop, stop, stop” as a faint sound that approximates a TASER discharge can be heard. An
officer responds stating “shut up.”

An officer sat Mr. King on the curb along with another suspect. An officer searched a black
backpack and a large rock was removed.

Officer Harrell

The events recorded by Officer Harrell’s BWC occurred on May 30, 2020, starting at 25:00:00,
according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals the following:

Officer Harrell arrived on scene as Mr. King was being handcuffed and helped him stand. Officer
Neal approached and stated, “Bring that piece of crap over and put him in my car.” Officer Harrell
moved to the cruiser, then Officer Neal told Officer Harrell to sit Mr. King on the curb. Officer
Harrell searched Mr. King then sat him on the curb. Mr. King asked Officer Harrell if she saw his
glasses. Officer Harrell searched the area and found his glasses, picked them up and sat them
down next to him. Mr. King thanked Officer Harrell. Officer Neal searched Mr. King’s backpack
and set it down by Officer Harrell. Officer Harrell picked up Mr. King’s glasses and placed them
inside his backpack. Officer Harrell remained with Mr. King until the transport vehicle arrived.

Officer Neal

The events recorded by Officer Neal’s BWC occurred on May 30, 2020, starting at 21:22:37,
according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals the following:

Officer Neal arrived as Officer Hooven tased Mr. King. Officer Neal assisted in handcuffing Mr.
King. Officer Neal walked away, came back, and told Officers Harrell and Bley, “Bring that piece
of crap over and put him in my car.” Officer Neal completed some paperwork then deactivated his
BWC.

Officer Dewar

The events recorded by Officer Dewar’s BWC occurred on May 30, 2020, starting at 22:56:22
according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals the following:

52
Officer Dewar was riding in a cruiser patrolling the area. Officer Dewar arrived on scene and
assisted in pursuing Mr. King. Trash cans can be seen being thrown to the ground during the
pursuit. Officer Dewar assisting in taking Mr. King into custody. Officer Dewar immediately left
that scene and ran further down the street to address another situation.

Officer Crutcher

Officer Crutcher’s BWC did not add any additional information.

c. Clerk of Courts

Mr. King was charged with Ohio Revised Code (ORC) §2921.31, Obstructing Official Business;
ORC § 2921.33A, Resisting Arrest; and Cincinnati Municipal Code (CMC) §714-7, Upsetting
Public or Private Receptacles. The charges of Resisting Arrest and Upsetting Public or Private
Receptacles were dismissed. Mr. King ultimately pleaded guilty to Disorderly Conduct and was
sentenced to 30 days confinement (suspended), 9 months Community Control, and a fine of $110.

d. TASER Download

Officer Hooven deployed his TASER twice: the first time for a five second cycle at 23:00:51
hours, and the second time (more than ten seconds later) at 23:01:09 for a cycle of one second
in duration.

e. Photographs

CCA reviewed three photographs of Mr. King. One showed Mr. King standing, no injuries could
be seen. The second and third pictures showed the TASER barbs in the back of his shirt.

C. Significant Discrepancies & Clarifications

1. Trash Can Displacement: Mr. King stated in his CCA complaint that he was
mistaken by police for others who were throwing trash cans. Officer Tudor told CCA that he
observed Mr. King displacing the trash cans. Officer Neal told IIS he observed Mr. King displacing
trash cans. There does not appear to be any BWC footage clearly showing Mr. King displacing
trash cans.

2. Facts Surrounding Second Tasing: In his use of force investigation, Sergeant

Cotton wrote of the second tasing: “At the end of the cycle Mr. King began to struggle again and
attempted to get to his feet, Officer Hooven charged the TASER for one additional second.” This
contention is directly rebutted by Officer Bley’s BWC. Mr. King can be seen on camera lying still
with his hands behind his back when he tased for the second time. No officer that CCA interviewed
reported that they observed Mr. King attempting to rise from the ground.

D. Authorities

See Appendix.

53
E. Analysis

1. Allegation: Excessive Force

According to the complaint filed by Mr. King and statement he provided to CCA, on May 30, 2020,
at approximately 11:00pm, he walked with protestors and observed several police vehicles behind
them. Some protestors threw garbage cans into the road to try and stop the officers from following
them so closely. Police vans pulled up and tried to grab people, so everyone took off running. Mr.
King alleged that as he ran, Officers tackled him which caused him to strike a wall or concrete
which resulted in scrapes to his body. Mr. King also alleged he was tased unnecessarily and
without warning.

CPD Procedure § 12.554 Investigatory Stops provides that officers may “forcibly stop and detain
the citizen for a brief investigatory period” when an officer has “reasonable suspicion to believe
the citizen is committing or has committed a crime.” In addition, Procedure § 12.545 Use of Force
states, “When officers have a right to make an arrest, they may use whatever force is reasonably
necessary to apprehend the offender or effect the arrest and no more.” The policy cites to the
legal standard in clarifying that:

The decision to use force “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances
of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the
suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others, and
whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. The
‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective
of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight
…the question is whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light
of the facts and circumstances confronting them.” CPD Policy 12.545 Use of Force.

Moreover, Procedure § 15.545 specifically provides that the “TASER may be deployed on a
suspect actively resisting arrest when there is probable cause to arrest the suspect, or to defend
one’s self or another from active aggression.” Procedure 12.545 defines active resistance to
include running from the police and conduct that is physically evasive (“Actively Resisting Arrest
– When the subject is making physically evasive movements to defeat the officer’s attempt at
control, including fleeing an intention to avoid or prevent being taken into or retained in custody.”)

Significantly, Manual of Rules and Regulations § 1.23(B) provides: Members shall use force in
accordance with law and Department procedure (emphasis added). Under §§ 1.01(A) and (B),
negligent violations of policy are punishable under CPD policy, not just intentional violations, and
even violations of policy that occur with something less than negligence are punishable.

a. Force Used to Bring Daulton King to the Ground

In this case, Officer Tudor advised CCA he observed Mr. King placing a garbage can in the street.
Officer Neal also told CCA that Mr. King was one of multiple individuals “throwing” garbage cans
in the street and that Lieutenant Fern directed the officers to arrest Mr. King. According to Officer
Tudor, Officer Tudor ordered Mr. King to “come here,” and instead of complying, Mr. King fled

54
and a foot pursuit began. BWC footage corroborated the officers’ assertions that Mr. King ran
away from the officers when they tried to detain him.

At a minimum, the evidence establishes that officers had reasonable suspicion to forcibly stop Mr.
King to investigate the displacement of garbage cans in light of the observations made by Officers
Tudor and Neal. However, the evidence also, more likely than not, establishes probable cause to
arrest for Obstructing Official Business, given Mr. King’s flight from the officers. Significantly, Mr.
King was ultimately charged with violating both Cincinnati Municipal Code, Section 714-7,
Upsetting Public or Private Receptacles and Ohio Revised Code (ORC) §2921.31, Obstructing
Official Business.

According to the BWC evidence, after Mr. King ran, Officer Tudor caught up with him and grabbed
him by his book bag. Mr. King attempted to remove the book bag and keep running. Officer Bley
arrived on scene and assisted in attempting to take Mr. King to the ground by hand. Under CPD
policy, Mr. King’s attempted flight and physical evasion plainly constituted active resistance to
arrest, permitting the physical force used to attempt to bring him to the ground.

According to BWC evidence, when Mr. King continued pulling his arms away from the officers
and declining to put his hands behind his back as ordered, Officer Hooven deployed his TASER
for a five-second cycle. The TASER struck Mr. King in his back and brought him to the ground.

Video shows Officer Hooven giving a verbal warning to Mr. King before deploying the weapon.
Although Officer Hooven deployed his TASER almost immediately after the warning, some
warning was given, and CPD policy does not require a warning with a particular notice period.

Applying the aforementioned standards governing use of force, our investigation concluded that
Officer Hooven’s initial TASER deployment was objectively reasonable, given Mr. King’s attempts
to pull away from officers combined with his recent flight. The same factors justify the use of force
by Officers Bley and Tudor in holding Mr. King and in attempting to force Mr. King to the ground,
and in restraining him once he was on the ground.

b. TASER Discharge While Daulton King Was on the Ground

As per TASER records, and BWC footage from Officer Hooven and Officer Bley, at approximately
23:01:09 hours, well over ten seconds after the initial cycle, Officer Hooven discharged his TASER
against Mr. King again, delivering electric current into Mr. King’s body for an additional one-
second cycle. In his CCA statement, Officer Hooven maintained that the additional one-second
cycle was accidental. Officer Hooven stated: “With all the excitement and everything, I
accidentally hit it a second time for a second or two.” Nevertheless, a claim of accidental
discharge alone cannot end an excessive force inquiry.

Uses of force that are alleged to be accidental rather than intentional may still be deemed
objectively unreasonable, and thus excessive, when such force occurs “by the very instrumentality
set in motion or put in place in order to” seize the person. See Brower v. Cty. of Inyo, 489 U.S.
593, 599 (1989); Pleasant v. Zamieski, 895 F.2d 272, 274-77 (6th Cir. 1990) (allegedly negligent
discharge of firearm was a seizure subject to analysis under the objective reasonableness
standard for excessive force).

55
Here, Officer Hooven tased Mr. King a second time, with the same TASER that he admitted to
using to bring Mr. Brown to the ground. There is no question that the first tasing was intentional
and was done for the purpose of arresting Mr. King. Accordingly, the second tasing, accomplished
by the same instrumentality as the first, was a use of force (i.e. a “seizure”) that must be analyzed
to determine whether it was objectively reasonable.

In addition, as a matter of policy (and not simply as a matter of legal compliance), the Cincinnati
Police Department only permits the use of a taser on a suspect who is “actively resisting.” See
Procedure Section 12.545 (“A CEW is designed for self-defense or to temporarily immobilize a
subject who is actively resisting arrest. . . . A CEW may be deployed on a suspect actively resisting
arrest when there is probable cause to arrest the suspect, or to defend one’s self or another from
active aggression. . . . If a first shot is ineffective, the officer may deploy a second shot by pulling
the trigger a second time. (emphasis added)). As we have stated, under §§ 1.01(A) and (B),
negligent violations of the Use of Force policy, and even violations of that policy that occur with
something less than negligence, are punishable.

Officer Hooven’s and Officer Bley’s BWC footage shows that after Mr. King was brought to the
ground by the initial TASER discharge, and before that additional one-second cycle, Mr. King lay
unmoving on the ground for over 10 seconds. At the time he was tased for the second time, his
hands were behind his back, with one handcuff having already been secured around his wrist and
the other handcuff around his wrist with officers firmly in control of it. The evidence shows that
any physical resistance by Mr. King had fully ceased over 10 seconds earlier, and Mr. King was
engaged in no additional acts of resistance. Even Officer Hooven admitted to CCA that he
perceived no resistance after Mr. King hit the ground, stating, “He [Mr. King] went down instantly.
At that point is when he quit resisting. Like I said, that accidental one second time, which was like
one second or two seconds or whatever, it was just an accident.” To be sure, Officer Neal told
CCA that Mr. King was “fighting” while on the ground, but that claim is rebutted by Officer Bley’s
BWC and by Officer Hooven’s testimony.

At a minimum, given the lack of active resistance or active aggression, Officer Hooven should
have taken care to avoid the risk of a second discharge of his TASER once Mr. King’s resistance
ended, especially given that the resistance had ceased more than 10 seconds earlier and Mr.
Kings hands were visibly under control and handcuffs were on his wrists. CCA concluded Officer
Hooven’s second TASER discharge was not in compliance with CPD’s policy, procedure, and
training.

2. Allegation: Improper Procedure

Mr. King alleged his glasses were broken and not returned to him during this incident.

CPD Procedure §12.715, Property and Evidence: Confiscation, Accountability, Processing,

Storage, and Release, states “[a]ll property confiscated, seized, found, or coming into police
custody will be properly marked, packaged, and submitted by the officer into the
district/section/unit property room before terminating their tour of duty.”

56
According to the BWC, Officer Harrell can be seen showing Mr. King his glasses then placing
them into Mr. King’s backpack. CCA concluded Mr. King’s glasses were not damaged and were
returned to him. Therefore, the allegation is unfounded.

3. Collateral Allegation: Discourtesy

The CPD Manual of Rules and Regulations: Code of Ethics, states that law enforcement officers
must be, “respectful and courteous to all citizens. They serve their city with zeal, courage,
dedication, and fidelity. They are faithful and loyal to their organization, constantly striving to
cooperate with and to promote better relations with all regularly constituted law enforcement
agencies in matters of mutual interest and obligation.” Additionally, CPD Manual of Rules and
Regulations Section 1.06 Failure of Good Behavior states under section (A), “Members of the
Department shall always be civil, orderly, and courteous in dealing with the public, subordinates,
superiors, and associates.” And under section (B): “Members of the Department shall avoid the
use of course, violent, or profane language.”

While reviewing Officer Neal’s BWC footage, CCA learned that Officer Neal, while speaking with
Officers Harrell and Bley, told them, “Bring that piece of crap, over to my cruiser.” When asked by
CCA if he made a discourteous comment to Mr. King, Officer Neal denied he made a discourteous
comment. Officer Neal stated the following:

I made a comment to another officer. . . . I believe that our Internal saw on the tape
where I told him, after he had fought with cops, had to be tased twice. A large rock
was recovered from his bag. So, I think I made a comment to another cop about
put this -- put this piece of crap in a car. But I never made that comment to him. I
made it to another cop just trying to secure him in a vehicle to make him safe. That
was it. . . . So, in my opinion, he’s not just a law-abiding peaceful protestor. He is
an anarchist. And if you want this city to become Portland you let that -- that type
of behavior, go.

Although Officer Neal stated he directed his comment to another officer it was in the presence of
Mr. King. Irrespective of whether Officer Neal was speaking to the officers, and irrespective of Mr.
King’s behavior, the comment was discourteous, unprofessional, and not within CPD’s policy,
procedures, and training. CCA’s investigation has determined that the comment did not meet
CPD’s standards for courteous and respectful dealing.

4. Collateral Allegation: Improper Procedure (BWC)

CPD Manual of Rules and Regulations Section 2.18, Neglect of Duty, states that, “Members of
the Department shall not fail to activate their BWC system except for a good cause.” CPD
Procedure Section 12.540 Body Worn Camera System states that, “Officers are required to
activate their BWC system during all law enforcement-related encounters and activities as defined
in this procedure. Officers will deactivate the BWC system only at the conclusion of the event,
during transports with an activated DVR, or with supervisor approval.” More specifically under
section (A)(2), “Officers will use BWC equipment to record all calls for service and self-initiated
activities listed below. The BWC must be activated when the officer arrives on scene or
announces he/she is on scene in the area and must be recorded in its entirety.”

57
Officer Hooven deactivated his BWC before Mr. King was transported to jail, which was not in
compliance with CPD’s policy, procedures, and training.

F. Findings

Original Allegations
Officer Aiden Tudor
Officer Eric Bley

Excessive Force - The evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate
CPD policies, procedures, or training. EXONERATED

Officer Jesse Hooven

Excessive Force - The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the
incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper. SUSTAINED

Officer Aiden Tudor

Officer Eric Bley
Officer Jesse Hooven

Improper Procedure - There are no facts to support the incident complained of actually occurred.
UNFOUNDED

Collateral Allegations

Officer John Neal

Discourtesy – The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident
occurred and the actions of the officer were improper. SUSTAINED

Officer Jesse Hooven

Improper Procedure (BWC) - The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine

that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper. SUSTAINED

58
G. Observations

See “Section VI. Key Observations” in CCA’s consolidated report on this investigation and ten
other protest investigations, GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI.

H. Recommendations

See R2301, R2302, R2303, R2304, and R2305 in “Section VII. Recommendations” of CCA’s
consolidated report on this investigation and ten other protest investigations (GEORGE FLOYD
PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING
COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI).

I. Previous Contacts & Commendations

Officer Tudor

Previous Contacts with CCA

Officer Tudor had no previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Tudor with IIS.

Commendations

Officer Tudor received no commendation in the past three years.

Officer Bley

Previous Contacts with CCA

Officer Bley had no previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Bley with IIS.

Commendations

Officer Bley received no commendation in the past three years.

Officer Hooven

Previous Contacts with CCA

59
Officer Hooven had one previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

Case Number Allegation Finding

20025 Discourtesy Unfounded
20025 Improper Stop Exonerated
20025 Discrimination Unfounded

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Hooven with IIS.

Commendations

Officer Hooven received one commendation in the past three years.

Date Source of Commendation Received

05/25/2021 CPD

Officer Neal

Previous Contacts with CCA

Officer Neal had three previous contacts with CCA in the past three years.

Case Number Allegation Finding

20075 Discourtesy Not Sustained
19173 Law Violation Pending
19157 Excessive Force Sustained
19157 Stop (Person) Not Sustained
19157 Improper Procedure (BWC-Turned on Late) Sustained

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Neal with IIS.

Commendations

Officer Neal received no commendation in the past three years.

60
 1/30/2023
Dena Brown, Chief Investigator Date

1/30/2023
Gabriel Davis, Director Date

61
 Case No. 20090 –
Harrow Investigation

A. Complaint Summary

Complainant: Kate Harrow

Date: May 31, 2020

Time: 5:44 pm

Location: Corner of 12th Street and Main Street

CCA Receipt: June 2, 2020

Allegations: Excessive Force; Improper Procedure (BWC) – Collateral; Improper Procedure

(Reporting Use of Force) – Collateral

On May 31, 2020, Ms. Kate Harrow participated in a protest that began at Inwood Park and
continued towards the Courthouse on Central Avenue. During the protest, Ms. Harrow observed
an officer (later identified to CCA as Officer Thomas Haas) nearly struck an eight- or nine-year-
old girl unintentionally while on his motorcycle. Later, another officer (later identified to CCA as
Specialist Christopher Perry) struck a protestor with his motorcycle; the man was struck on the
calf and fell to the ground. It is unknown whether the man was injured but he was detained with
zip ties.

When protestors observed the incident, they walked towards the man. Officer Haas used his
baton to prevent protestors from approaching. He held his baton between both hands and shoved
an unidentified woman on her chest which knocked her to the ground. Ms. Harrow walked forward
with her hands raised (to show they were empty) but Officer Haas used his baton against Ms.
Harrow in the same way and shoved her back. Ms. Harrow sustained an inch-long oval bruise on
her right forearm.

Ms. Harrow indicated that the protest began peacefully; however, CPD officers blared their sirens
so the protestors could not hear the organizers or follow instructions. The officers’ actions during
the protest escalated their interactions with the public, causing people to feel intimidated and
terrified.

62
B. Summary of Evidence

1. Involved Citizen Statements

Kate Harrow

CCA interviewed Ms. Harrow, F/W/40, in June 2020. She provided the following information:

On May 31, 2020, Ms. Harrow was engaged in a peaceful, organized protest which included
community speakers and safety marshals. The protestors began at Inwood Park and marched
down Vine Street towards City Hall. Once the protestors arrived at City Hall, CPD officers began
“creeping up” in their cruisers and had their sirens on “full blast.” As a result, the protestors could
not hear the organizers direct them where to go or what to do. They moved on towards the
Courthouse, took their shoes off, and knelt in front.

As the protestors moved towards Central Ave, there were walkers who had been separated from
earlier in the march and were trying to rejoin the group. An eight- or nine-year-old girl walked
parallel to an officer (later identified to CCA as Officer Haas) and attempted to rejoin the group.
He did not see her and almost hit her on his motorcycle; it was clearly an accident. A protestor
intervened and put his hand near the motorcycle wheel to alert him about the girl, but Officer Haas
“jumped off his motorcycle” and “started coming” at the man. A safety marshal intervened, and
Officer Haas returned to his motorcycle.

The protest continued down Main Street and onto 12th Street. There were two officers on
motorcycles and some marked cruises; the officers were “aggressive” at the end of the protest.
Another officer on a motorcycle (later identified to CCA as Specialist Perry) “ran up on the back”
of a man’s calf, and he “went down.” Ms. Harrow believed it may have been an accident but did
not know Specialist Perry’s intention. It was unknown if the man was injured. Eventually, he was
zip-tied and escorted away.

Several people, including Ms. Harrow and Witness B, walked towards the man to ensure he was
okay. Officer Haas was present and “shoved” Witness B at her chest “hard” with his baton
between both hands, causing Witness B to fall back and hit her head on the ground. Officer Haas
then shoved Ms. Harrow very hard, resulting in a minor oval-shaped bruise to her right forearm,
below her elbow. Another individual intervened to protect Ms. Harrow from Officer Haas.

Ms. Harrow is concerned that the officers’ overall “aggressive” approach escalated a peaceful
protest into a “terrifying day.”

Witness B (Attempt)

There was no identifying or contact information for the woman who was pushed by Officer Haas.
Therefore, CCA was unable to contact her or obtain her statement about the incident.

63
 2. Subject Officer Statements

Officer Thomas Haas

Officer Thomas Haas, #P0413, M/W/52, was a CPD member since 1992. At the time of the
incident, Officer Haas was assigned to the Traffic Bureau’s Motorcycle Unit and provided
assistance with the downtown protests. Officer Haas was in uniform; his BWC was not activated.

At the time of the complaint, CCA was unable to conduct interviews with CPD officers due to
COVID-19 pandemic safety protocols. When CCA resumed officer interviews in late July 2020,
Officer Haas was on extended leave. He remained on leave until he retired from the Department
in October 2021.21

3. Officer Witness Statements

Officer Christopher Thomas

Officer Christopher Thomas, #P0372, M/B/55, is currently assigned to Patrol Bureau’s Motorcycle
Unit, and he has been a CPD member since 1993. At the time of the incident, Officer Thomas
was assigned to provide assistance with the downtown protests. Officer Thomas was in uniform
and operated a marked motorcycle; his BWC was activated.

CCA interviewed Officer Thomas on November 12, 2020 at 9:54am. He provided the following
information:

On May 31, 2020, Officer Thomas was engaged to monitor the crowd. It was determined there
were vehicles in the crowd, so the Motorcycle Unit was asked to remove the vehicles. Specialist
Perry and Officer Thomas were on their motorcycles when a man on a motorcycle moved from
the right to the left; an individual blocked Officer Thomas’s motorcycle so he was unable to move
towards Specialist Perry. While Officer Thomas handled that situation, he observed Specialist
Perry step off his motorcycle, let it hit the ground, and approached a protestor. He did not know
if Specialist Perry’s motorcycle made contact with the protestor. Officer Thomas placed his
motorcycle on a kickstand then ran to assist.

Specialist Perry “grabbed” the protestor by the arm, but someone from the crowd, Mr. Corey
Wolfe, intervened; Specialist Perry arrested Mr. Wolfe. Officer Thomas stated that initially
Specialist Perry and Mr. Wolfe “wrestled” for a moment, but clarified he was not resisting. Mr.
Wolfe made several comments to the crowd like, “It’s my fault…they’re doing their job.” He was
not injured.

During the encounter, Officer Thomas stated the crowd circled the officers and were “rushing” the
area. He stated the citizens were not throwing items but only seemed to want to know what was
going on. Sergeant Mummert, Officer Haas, and himself attempted to keep the crowd back and
gave verbal commands to do so. Officer Thomas kept his hands up, with his palms open and

21 Officer Haas passed away in January 2022.

64
outward to keep the crowd back. He did not have any physical contact with the crowd. Sergeant
Mummert also used his hands and Officer Haas held his baton, but Officer Thomas did not recall
if they made physical contact with anyone.

When shown Harrow Video 1 (see: Evidence section), he confirmed it was Officer Haas. He
clarified he was positioned further away and not near at the time.

Officer Thomas stated that during the protests, CPD command staff spoke with the protest
organizers to ensure the safety of the protestors, and that the streets were blocked off, etc. He
explained that if the protestors go down an unexpected route, the officers have to shift accordingly.
Officer Thomas believed that then-Lieutenant Colonel Paul Neudigate instructed the officers to
hit the sirens so the protestors were not able to hear to ensure the protestors would stick with the
original route that was provided.

Officer Thomas stated while CPD handled many aspects of the protests well, he believed it was
a mistake to send the Motorcycle Unit into the crowd. The Unit has since voiced their concerns
because they believed it was the wrong decision, as it caused unnecessary confusion,
intimidation, and frustration in the crowd. As a result, he stated that CPD no longer directs the
Motorcycle Unit into crowds.

Specialist Christopher Perry

Specialist Christopher Perry, #PS127, M/W/47, is currently assigned to Patrol Bureau’s

Motorcycle Unit, and he has been a CPD member since 1998. At the time of the incident,
Specialist Perry was assigned to provide assistance with the downtown protests. Specialist Perry
was in uniform and operated a marked motorcycle; his BWC was activated.

CCA interviewed Specialist Perry on October 27, 2020, at 8:59am. He provided the following
information:

On May 31, 2020, people were engaged with protests in the downtown area. There were vehicles
trailing the protestors; Lieutenant Colonel Neudigate directed the Motorcycle Unit to remove the
vehicles out of the protest, as it was supposed to be only pedestrians. As they went northbound
on Main Street, they turned onto 12th Street. Officer Haas had stopped two individuals on
motorcycles. While Officer Haas spoke to one individual, the second motorcyclist fled.

Specialist Perry pursued the second motorcyclist with his lights and sirens activated at
approximately 5-7 mph. He noted there were people walking and most moved to the side as he
came through. He stated a man wearing a yellow vest “deliberately” stepped in front of Specialist
Perry; he pretended as if he were hit by the motorcycle and fell “dramatically” into a seated
position. Specialist Perry did not believe his motorcycle made physical contact with him, except
if his hands touched the front of the motorcycle. He clarified that the man faced him and therefore
was not struck in the calf; he did not appear to be injured. Specialist Perry dismounted his
motorcycle and approached him, but another individual (Mr. Wolfe) blocked him from getting to
the initial person. He performed a “standard takedown” and arrested him; the initial person
disappeared.
65
During that time, the crowd “enveloped” to the scene. There was “turmoil” and people attempted
to “kick [him] in the head.” He believed the crowd was screaming and shouting things like, “Fuck
the police!” as though “they were going to kill me.” Specialist Perry watched Mr. Wolfe and the
crowd for potential threats. Mr. Wolfe told the crowd it was okay to calm them and was no longer
“problematic.” Ultimately, Mr. Wolfe was zip-tied and searched incident to arrest before being
transported to the Hamilton County Justice Center (HCJC). He may have been charged with
Disorderly Conduct and Resisting Arrest.

Additional officers arrived to push the crowd back, including Lieutenant Stephanie Fassnacht,
Sergeants Michelle Longworth and Mummert, and Officers Thomas and Hass. Specialist Perry
confirmed the officers attempted to separate the crowd from his arrest, but he clarified he was
unable to determine if the other officers used any force on the crowd because he was focused on
Mr. Wolfe.

When shown Harrow Video 1 (see: Evidence section), he confirmed it was Officer Haas. Prior to
the video, Specialist Perry did not observe Officer Haas’s action towards Witness B. Further, he
stated he did not recall seeing any children during the protests.

Sergeant Jason Mummert

Sergeant Jason Mummert, #S853, M/W/46, is currently assigned to District 1, and he has been a
CPD member since 1999; at the time of the incident, he was assigned to the Patrol Bureau’s
Motorcycle Unit and provided assistance with the downtown protests. Sergeant Mummert was in
uniform and operated a marked motorcycle; his BWC was activated.

CCA interviewed Sergeant Mummert on October 27, 2020, at 9:27am. He provided the following
information:

On May 31, 2020, the Motorcycle Unit was deployed to various civil disturbance activities;
Sergeant Mummert, Officers Haas and Thomas were to intercept and remove vehicles that were
part of the marching protests. They were advised of two motorcycles that were rolling in the
crowd. When they arrived, both motorcycles initially stopped, but one took off into the crowd.
Officer Haas’s motorcycle was blocked by a pedestrian, so Specialist Perry followed the
motorcycle that fled at approximately 5 – 10 mph. As he followed, a member of the crowd stepped
in front of Specialist Perry.

Sergeant Mummert clarified that he did not witness the initial contact between Specialist Perry
and the individual, but initially, there “appeared to be a collision.” He explained that it was later
determined from BWC footage that Specialist Perry diverted left to attempt to go around the
subject, and the subject side-stepped in front of Specialist Perry. He stated that the videos offer
different angles of the incident, but it is not clear whether contact occurred.

However, once the crowd became aware of the incident, they “swarmed in” towards Specialist
Perry, while Specialist Perry attempted to put the man into custody. Mr. Wolfe intervened,
allowing the original person to get away. Specialist Perry arrested Mr. Wolfe instead; Sergeant
66
Mummert noted that Mr. Wolfe was not “fully compliant” in putting his hands behind his back and
Specialist Perry had to “struggle” to effect the arrest.

Meanwhile, Sergeant Mummert and Officer Haas tried to keep the crowd away from Specialist
Perry. Sergeant Mummert described the crowd as “trying to get to us” and “trying to basically
swarm in on top of us,” but confirmed that they were not throwing anything. He did not recall
whether the crowd or Mr. Wolfe were saying anything at the time. He stated that he used his
hands to “push” the crowd back, using an open palm and yelled for them to stay back. Sergeant
Mummert clarified they were using the “minimum amount of force necessary.” Officer Haas held
his baton between his hands to push people back. He was not aware of any injuries that resulted.
They maintained the area until the arrest was completed, and the Civil Disturbance Response
Team unit responded to assist.

When shown Harrow Video 1 (see: Evidence section), he confirmed it was Officer Haas. Prior to
the video, Sergeant Mummert did not observe Officer Haas’s action towards Witness B. He
denied any knowledge of Officer Haas’s actions towards Ms. Harrow. Further, he stated he did
not recall seeing any children during the protests and did not observe Officer Haas’s near-collision
with a child.

4. Witness Statements

Witness A

CCA interviewed Witness A in June 2020. He provided the following information:

On May 31, 2020, Witness A participated in a protest that marched from Inwood Park to the
Courthouse. During that time, the police presence was minimal. As the protestors approached
the intersection of Main Street and Central Parkway, the police presence increased, and they
“followed” behind the crowd. The protest remained peaceful and there were no problems. As
they turned onto 12th Street, there were several officers on motorcycles who appeared to be in a
formation. Witness A observed Specialist Perry seemed to break the line, “speed up and hit” a
man on his left leg, causing the man to fall. The man was not doing anything at the time of the
collision; he was later arrested.

An estimated 10 people rushed over there to see if the man was okay. Approximately six officers
were present and pushed people away. During this time, Witness B also approached the area.
Officer Haas shoved Witness B, causing her to fall to the ground. Witness B may have hit her
head but did not appear to be injured. Witness A also observed Officer Haas “shove” Ms. Harrow.
Witness A did not see Ms. Harrow or Witness B do anything to provoke Officer Haas’s actions.

Witness A reiterated that the crowd “was not doing anything,” did not have any weapons and
nobody threw anything. The officers’ actions seemed “like they were trying to provoke the crowd,”
possibly as a “tactic that they used to break up the crowd.” Witness A further explained that while
most protests were peaceful, the times that situations escalated were due to police provocation,
either by engaging the SWAT team or wearing riot gear.

67
 5. Documentary Evidence, Audio-Visual Evidence & Other Evidence

a. Police Documents

CCA reviewed all CPD-related forms, including but not limited to three (3) CAD Reports, the
Investigation Report (EVT-00003848-1) regarding Mr. Wolfe, arrest forms, and information from
CPD’s Records Management System (RMS).

b. BWC Footage

In addition to the BWC footage detailed below, CCA also reviewed BWC footage from Lieutenant
Stephenie Fassnacht, Sergeant Michele Longworth, Sergeant Hannibal Mayhams, Specialist
Daniel Taylor, and Officer Thomas Finley.

Specialist Perry

The events recorded by Specialist Perry’s BWC occurred on May 31, 2020, starting from 17:43:42
until 17:57:41, according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals the
following:

While on a CPD motorcycle, Specialist Perry interacted with a man riding a motorcycle, who
quickly left. The conversation is inaudible on the BWC. After a couple minutes, Specialist Perry
moves away and into the crowd on his motorcycle. At 17:45:22, there is a man dressed in a red
shirt and yellow vest; the man appears to step in front of Specialist Perry’s motorcycle before he
falls to the ground. Several people rushed to the area. Specialist Perry dismounted from his
motorcycle and began to push people away. As he pushed people away, Mr. Wolfe was present.
Mr. Wolfe appeared to intervene; Specialist Perry took him to the ground, causing Mr. Wolfe to
land on his back. The crowd circled Specialist Perry and Mr. Wolfe as other officers pushed the
crowd back. Mr. Wolfe repeatedly yelled, “It’s okay! It’s okay! They’re just doing their jobs!” at
the crowd. Specialist Perry issued several commands to Mr. Wolfe; Mr. Wolfe complied.
Sergeant Michelle Longworth handcuffed Mr. Wolfe.

Specialist Perry escorted Mr. Wolfe away from the crowd to a nearby street. He asked Mr. Wolfe
multiple times if he was okay and advised he wanted to make sure he was safe. Sergeant
Longworth assisted in the escort. Sergeant Longworth and Officer Thomas assisted in the search
of Mr. Wolfe. When discussing the reason for his arrest, Specialist Perry stated, “I was going
after the guy that was standing in front of my bike, who jumped in front of my bike. As I was going
after him, you jumped in front of him to shield him from me, to protect him, thereby interfering with
my lawful arrest.” Mr. Wolfe responded by saying that he jumped in because he saw several
people around Specialist Perry; he apologized for interfering, but clarified he was trying to protect
Specialist Perry.

The remainder of the footage is not relevant to the allegations.

Sergeant Mummert

The events recorded by Sergeant Mummert’s BWC occurred on May 31, 2020, starting from
21:13:00 until 21:24:57, according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals
the following:
68
Sergeant Mummert activated his BWC while he sat on his motorcycle. There are several people.
There are several protestors standing in the road; protest officials motion for others to continue
down the street. One protestor intentionally stood in front of an officer’s motorcycle with a sign
until other protestors moved him forward. At 17:45:20, an officer drove through the crowd ahead
of Sergeant Mummert; an individual fell to the ground. Immediately, everyone in the surrounding
area moved towards the collision, including Sergeant Mummert. The responding officers,
including Sergeant Mummert, pushed people back as they crowded near Specialist Perry and Mr.
Wolfe.

At 17:46:02, in the distance, Officer Haas pushed Witness B as she walked towards, but then
backed away, from him. Witness B fell to the ground and multiple people went to her. Sergeant
Mummert remained on scene and assisted. A large group of officers arrived on scene,
established a boundary, and moved towards the protestors, which forced them down the street,
The remainder of the footage was not relevant to the allegations.

c. Other Video Footage

Ms. Harrow provided three videos of the encounter:

Video 1
Duration: 4:16 minutes
Source: Witness A

A large crowd of protestors walked along 12th Street. A CPD police officer slowly rode through
the crowd on a motorcycle. At 0:55, the camera holder said, “Stop! Stop! Stop! Stop! Stop! They
just ran the guy over!” He made continued exclamations about the incident as another officer on
a motorcycle slowly rode into the crowd and disembarked. As the individuals moved closer to the
incident with their cell phones, multiple officers positioned themselves between the protestors and
the incident.

One officer pushed multiple individuals back. At 1:27, a Black woman in dark pants, a white shirt,
and blonde hair, who is holding a phone towards the incident (Witness B), took two steps
backwards as the officer took two steps towards her. Using a baton, the officer pushed forward,
causing the woman to fall backward; initially she landed in a seated position but propelled
backwards and hit her head on the pavement. Someone helped her stand, and she rejoined the
protestors.

The remainder of the footage was not relevant to the allegations.

Video 2:
Duration: 4:11 minutes
Source: Witness C

Protestors walked along 12th street. At 0:26, a woman stated, “They ran over him.” Several
individuals walked towards the corner of Main Street and 12th Street. An officer on a motorcycle
rode into the crowd. Multiple officers positioned themselves between the pedestrians and the
incident. At 1:05, unidentified officers held batons and pushed into the crowd; some individuals
fell over. At 1:16, an unidentified officer takes several steps before pushing back additional
individuals.
69
The remainder of the footage was not relevant to the allegations.

Video 3:
Duration: 0:52 minutes
Source: Kate Harrow

Protestors walked along 12th Street. The remainder of the footage was not relevant to the
allegations.

Facebook Video
Duration: 1:03 minutes
Source: Kayla Pablo

Mr. Wolfe encouraged protestors to move down the street as several CPD cruisers and
motorcyclists arrived. Specialist Perry weaved through the pedestrians on the road. At 0:22, an
unidentified individual in a red shirt and yellow vest stepped in front of Specialist Perry’s
motorcycle. Specialist Perry’s motorcycle made contact with the individual and the individual fell
to the ground. Specialist Perry dismounted his motorcycle and immediately pushed people away
from the area. Other officers responded to the area and pushed people back with their hands
and batons. The remainder of the video is not relevant to the allegations.

C. Significant Discrepancies & Clarifications

1. The officers’ identities were not available at the time of the complaint or provided
by Ms. Harrow or Witness A. Later, during interviews with CCA, multiple CPD officers were shown
relevant video capturing the officers at issue, and those interviewed officers identified the officers
at issue to be Officer Haas and Specialist Perry. The names of the involved officers are included
in the above-summarized statements made by Ms. Harrow and Witness A for clarification.

2. CPD conducted a supervisory investigation into Specialist Perry’s encounter; the

arrested man was identified as Mr. Corey Wolfe. This information is included in provided
statements for clarification.

3. Per CPD’s Arrest and Investigation Report, Mr. Wolfe had three charges: Ohio
Revised Code (ORC) §2921.31 Obstructing Official Business, ORC §2921-33 Resisting Arrest,
and ORC §2917.11 Disorderly Conduct. However, per Clerk of Courts, only the latter two charges
were filed. Both charges were dismissed.

4. Officer Haas’s BWC was not activated at the time of the incident.
.
D. Authorities

See Appendix.

70
E. Analysis

1. Allegation: Excessive Force

During the protests on May 31, 2020, Ms. Harrow alleged Officer Haas pushed Witness B, causing
her to fall to the ground. After Witness B was pushed, Ms. Harrow alleged Officer Haas pushed
her as well. CPD Procedure Section 12.545 (Use of Force) defines force to be any physical strike,
instrumental contact with a person, or any significant physical contact that restricts movement of
a person. Officer Thomas, Specialist Perry, and Sergeant Mummert confirmed Officer Haas was
the officer in the video footage provided by Ms. Harrow. Further, it is evident in the video footage
that Officer Haas used his monadnock baton to forcefully push Witness B in the torso, causing
her to fall to the ground; it did not capture Officer Haas’s subsequent actions or encounter with
Ms. Harrow.

CPD Procedure provides guidelines for when officers are authorized to use force against citizens
to maintain crowd control, specifically stating that “officers will not initiate the use of force…
against crowds or a group of individuals except when reasonable and necessary to protect the
officer.” See CPD Procedure § 12.545 (Use of Force).

Officer Haas’s BWC was not activated and did not show his perception of that encounter. Further,
CCA was unable to interview Officer Haas to determine his assessment of the individuals’ actions
and whether he viewed the bystanders as an imminent threat to him or the other officers present.
Without knowing Officer Haas’s perception, we lack critical information needed to determine
whether his actions were reasonable. Per the other officers’ statements, there was incongruity
as to the perceived threat level of the crowd. Ms. Harrow reported that she sustained a bruise on
her right forearm; she declined to provide a picture because it was minor. Therefore, CCA is
unable to determine whether the actions of the officer were improper.

2. Collateral Allegations:

a. Allegation: Improper Procedure (BWC)

Officer Haas’s BWC was not activated during the encounter. CPD Procedure § 12.540 (Body
Worn Camera System) states officers are required to activate their BWC system during law
enforcement-related encounters and self-initiated activities; it clarifies that “under extenuating
circumstances, utilization of the BWC system may not be possible (e.g. ambush/assault on a
police officer, compromising the tactical advantage of police).” BWC footage from other officers
showed that the situation unfolded quickly and required an immediate police response. As CCA
was unable to interview Officer Haas, CCA was unable to discern Officer Haas’s perspective of
the encounter and establish the reasoning for his actions. CCA was unable to determine if Officer
Haas’s failure to activate his BWC was in violation of CPD’s policy, procedure, and training.

b. Allegation: Improper Procedure (Reporting Use of Force)

During the course of CCA’s investigation, the agency became aware of a use of force against Mr.
Corey Wolfe that occurred in the vicinity of where force was used against Witness B and Ms.
Harrow, and that may have contributed to the formation of a crowd of protestors that Officer Haas
71
sought to disperse by pushing protesters with his baton. The agency considered whether the force
used against Mr. Wolfe, specifically a takedown executed by Specialist Perry, was properly
reported and documented by Specialist Perry.

At the time of the incident, CPD Procedure § 12.545 (Use of Force) required an officer using force
against an arrestee to document the force in a specific manner when the force consisted of “’Hard
hands’ use of force by means of leverage displacement, joint manipulation, pain compliance, or
pressure point control tactics without injury or complaint.” In such situations, Procedure 12.545
mandated the following:

The arresting officer(s) are required to notify a supervisor and document a

narrative account of the subject’s form(s) of resistance and the officer’s specific
defensive tactic used to overcome that resistance in the narrative of the arrest
report and complete Form 18NC, Noncompliant Suspect/Arrestee Report, to be
reviewed and approved by a supervisor. The use of force report will require the
officer to identify the events leading up to the use of force and the supervisor will
be required to evaluate the tactics used by the officer.

Specialist Perry admitted to CCA that he performed a “standard takedown” in order to arrest Mr.
Wolfe. Specifically, BWC shows that Specialist Perry used his hands to bring Mr. Wolfe to the
ground and that Mr. Wolfe landed on his back. At a minimum, such force constitutes hard hands
via leverage displacement. Therefore, given that there was no injury, under the aforementioned
provisions of Procedure § 12.545, Specialist Perry was required to document the use of force in
the manner described.

CCA reviewed the Arrest Report for Mr. Wolfe and all use of force reports pertaining to the protests
that occurred on May 31, 2020, and it is apparent that Specialist Perry did not personally submit
any report explaining his use of force by providing a “narrative account of the subject’s form(s) of
resistance and the officer’s specific defensive tactic used to overcome that resistance.” To be
sure, a CPD supervisor investigating uses of force that occurred in connection with Mr. Wolfe’s
arrest submitted a use of force report mentioning the arrest of Mr. Wolfe and related uses of force,
but that report contains no narrative authored by Specialist Perry justifying his actions, and it
contains no account authored by Specialist Perry that describes the specific type of force that he
used to restrain Mr. Wolfe. Specialist Perry’s failure to provide such firsthand written accounts is
inconsistent with CPD policy and procedure.

Note: CCA is mindful of the fact that other officers who policed Cincinnati during CPD’s protest
response may have similarly failed to submit use of force reports (or arrest reports) with firsthand
accounts justifying the force that they used. However, CCA is aware of no other “arresting officer”
who used hard hands against an arrestee without causing injury (the criteria for submitting a
narrative report), and whose failure to record such force was discovered by CCA during the course
of investigating a complaint pertaining to another use of force that occurred close in time and in
proximity. Consistent with CCA’s investigative protocols, CCA reviews all police activity relevant
to its complaints, including all uses of force occurring during an incident about which a complaint
is filed, and the agency makes all appropriate findings.

72
F. Findings

Original Allegations

Officer Thomas Haas | Kate Harrow

Excessive Force – There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct
occurred. NOT SUSTAINED

Officer Thomas Haas | Witness B

Excessive Force – There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct
occurred. NOT SUSTAINED

Collateral Allegations

Officer Thomas Haas

Improper Procedure (BWC) – There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged
misconduct occurred. NOT SUSTAINED

Specialist Christopher Perry | Corey Wolfe

Improper Procedure (Reporting Use of Force) - The allegation is supported by sufficient

evidence to determine that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper.
SUSTAINED

G. Observations

See “Section VI. Key Observations” in CCA’s consolidated report on this investigation and ten
other protest investigations, GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI.

H. Recommendations

See R2302, R2303, R2304, and R2305 in “Section VII. Recommendations” of CCA’s consolidated
report on this investigation and ten other protest investigations (GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS
REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING COMPLAINTS IN CITY
OF CINCINNATI).

73
I. Previous Contacts & Commendations

Officer Thomas Haas

Previous Contacts with CCA

Officer Haas had no previous contact with CCA in the past 3 years.

Previous Contacts for CCA Referrals

Officer Haas had no allegations that CCA referred to CPD for investigation in the past 3 years.

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Haas with IIS in the past 3 years.

Commendations

Officer Haas received 2 commendations in the past 3 years.

Date Source of Commendation Received

08/19/2018 Civilian
02/04/2019 OLE (Other Law Enforcement)

Specialist Christopher Perry

Previous Contacts with CCA

Specialist Perry had no previous contact with CCA in the past 3 years.

Previous Contacts for CCA Referrals

Specialist Perry had 1 allegation referred to CPD for investigation in the past 3 years.

Case Number Allegation CPD Finding

18175 Procedure Violation No Finding Reported

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Specialist Perry with IIS in the past 3
years.

Commendations

Specialist Perry received 3 commendations in the past 3 years.

Date Source of Commendation Received

02/14/2019 OLE (Other Law Enforcement)

74
 Date Source of Commendation Received
07/12/2019 CPD
09/18/2019 Civilian

1/30/2023
Dena Brown, Chief Investigator Date

1/30/2023
Gabriel Davis, Director Date

75
 Case No. 20095 –
Walker Investigation

A. Complaint Summary

Complainant: Jamison Walker, Jr.

Date: May 31, 2020

Time: Approximately 9:00 p.m.

Location: 19 West Court Street

CCA Receipt: June 8, 2020

Allegations: Improper Seizure; Excessive Force; Discrimination; Improper Procedure (Use of

Force) – Collateral; Improper Procedure (BWC) – Collateral

On May 31, 2020, Mr. Jamison Walker, Jr was at his place of business, Black Fern Tattoo. An
officer approached and asked what he was doing; Mr. Walker explained that he worked at the
building and was working on window art. The officer stated he could continue.

Within 5-10 minutes, a different group of officers arrived. They “yelled” at Mr. Walker and his co-
workers to go inside. When Mr. Walker attempted to explain that he was working and that the
initial officer advised him he was able to continue, 10-12 officers “surrounded” him and directed
him to go inside, even though one officer blocked the entry. Two officers “held [his] hands down”
as one officer told him, “to put [his] hands up.” Two officers drew their CEWs (otherwise
commonly referred to as TASERs) and pointed them at Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker attempted to
explain that he was at work and complying, but the officers continued to point their CEWs and
used “excessive force.” He was arrested.

Additionally, Mr. Walker described the officers’ behavior as “inappropriate” as they used profanity
and “mocked” him. He noted that the officers pulled out their cell phones to take pictures
alongside him, “as if [he] was a trophy.” Therefore, Mr. Walker believed the officers “acted on
their own biases and opinions.”

B. Summary of Evidence

1. Involved Citizen Statements

Jamison Walker, Jr.

CCA interviewed Mr. Walker. He provided the following information:

76
On May 31, 2020, there were protests at City Hall and the crowd began to disperse. Mr. Walker
was working and finishing a mural on the window of the business. A group of people came from
around the corner and walked to their vehicles as several officers exited a “caravan of unmarked
SUVs.” The individuals stated they were headed to their vehicles but the officers “didn’t care” and
arrested them.

At around 8:58pm, an officer approached Mr. Walker and asked what he was doing. Mr. Walker
explained he was finishing up the mural. The officer recognized he was not part of the protesters
and said, “Yeah, yeah. That’s fine.” Soon afterward, Specialist Nathaniel Young approached him
and asked what he was doing. Mr. Walker explained that he was working and that another officer
told him he was fine to continue, but Specialist Young said, “Get the fuck back inside.”

As Specialist Young raised his voice, seven or eight other cops came closer. Mr. Walker tried to
“peacefully” explain the situation when Specialist Young “rushed and grabbed [his] left arm and
pushed [him] back against the wall of the glass door.” Officer Sean O’Connor grabbed his right
arm. The officers directed Mr. Walker to put his hands up, but the officers had both of his arms
down.

Mr. Walker estimated that approximately four CEWs were drawn; he put up his hands and told
them not to tase him. Witnesses told him he was tased, but he could not confirm that as he did
not feel anything. Mr. Walker dropped to the ground and pleaded with the officers that this was
his employment. The officers pulled him back up, pulled him to the side, and placed him in zip-
ties. Mr. Walker sustained some bruising on his wrist from being grabbed and tight zip-ties. He
advised an officer that they were too tight and eventually one officer cut off the original zip-ties
and placed on a new set.

The officers took him across the street. One officer asked, “How are we logging the prisoners?”
and mentioned that the previous night, the officers took pictures with them. The officer took a
‘selfie’ with Mr. Walker. Eventually, he was searched, charged with breaking curfew and
misconduct, and taken to Hamilton County Justice Center (HCJC).

Mr. Walker stated he had video of the incident and would provide it to CCA.

2. Subject Officer Statements

Specialist Nathaniel Young

Specialist Nathaniel Young, #PO124, M/W/52, is currently assigned to the Vice Squad, and he
has been a CPD member since 1992. On the day of the incident, Specialist Young was in uniform
and assigned to assist with the protests; his BWC was not activated.

CCA interviewed Specialist Young on March 1, 2022, at 2:30pm. He provided the following
information:

On May 31, 2020, Specialist Young and the other officers had been present during the protest at
the Courthouse. When the individuals dispersed, Specialist Young walked with other officers to
ensure the individuals left the area before the curfew was in effect. Earlier, he had been involved
with a group of people that were protesting and observed a group of people coming from the same
77
direction while on West Court Street. The officers advised the individuals that they were still out
past curfew, so they were under arrest. The officers continued to give warnings to individuals on
the street. The time was after 9:00pm.

According to Specialist Young, Sergeant Joshua Bricker engaged with Mr. Walker and gave him
a verbal warning that he needed to go inside. Mr. Walker responded but did not move to go
inside. Specialist Young approached, introduced himself, and reiterated to Mr. Walker that he
was in violation of curfew. Mr. Walker was recording on his phone and stated he worked at the
business, which has a large glass storefront. Specialist Young told him to go back inside and
video through the glass. Mr. Walker attempted to give an additional explanation, including that
another officer said he was allowed to be outside after curfew. Specialist Young stated that even
if someone (an officer) told him that, the person was wrong, and he is now directed to go back
inside. Mr. Walker refused.

Specialist Young advised Mr. Walker he was under arrest and placed his hands on Mr. Walker’s
left wrist to put his hands behind his back. Another officer attempted to control Mr. Walker’s right
side. Two officers displayed their CEWs, but Specialist Young did not recall whether a warning
was given. The CEWs were not deployed. Mr. Walker “collapsed” onto himself into the corner of
the building. When Mr. Walker collapsed, Specialist Young backed away. Specialist Young
denied that any officer pushed Mr. Walker against the glass window; Mr. Walker’s back went
against the window and then he sat down. He did not observe any injuries to Mr. Walker and Mr.
Walker did not report any injuries.
With the help of other officers, Specialist Young raised Mr. Walker up, applied flex-cuffs, and
escorted him to a designated area for arrested individuals where there was a prisoner processing
team and transportation team. Specialist Young searched him incident to arrest. Additionally,
the officers took cell phone pictures with the arrested individuals in order to identify which officer
arrested which individual; a photograph of Mr. Walker and Specialist Young was taken for that
purpose. Mr. Walker was charged with Misconduct in an Emergency.

Specialist Young denied that anyone was discourteous or discriminatory against Mr. Walker. He
acknowledged there were many individuals using profanity at the time of the arrest but was unsure
which individual and/or officer used the profanity. Specialist Young confirmed his BWC was not
activated during the encounter. He believed that the BWC had died because it had not kept a
charge.

Lieutenant David Schofield

Lieutenant David Schofield, #L0187, M/W/39, is currently assigned to District 1, and he has been
a CPD member since 2006. On the day of the incident, Lieutenant Schofield was in uniform and
assigned to assist with the protests; his BWC was activated.

CCA interviewed Lieutenant Schofield on May 3, 2022 at 10:56am. He provided the following
information:

On May 31, 2020, CPD command staff directed officers to initiate arrests for trespassing and
curfew. Lieutenant Schofield conducted crowd control management on Court Street. Specialist
Young identified a crowd of people and gave multiple requests for them to go inside to avoid
arrest. One individual, Mr. Walker, debated with Specialist Young and Specialist Young
determined he would make an arrest for curfew. Specialist Young advised Mr. Walker he was
under arrest, but Mr. Walker actively resisted arrest by pulling away, backing up, and verbally
78
signaling his intent not to submit to an arrest. When asked if the officers gave conflicting
directives, Lieutenant Schofield stated that the officers were not giving directives that would have
interfered with Mr. Walker’s ability to submit to the arrest.

Lieutenant Schofield approached as a cover officer. To gain compliance, Lieutenant Schofield

displayed his CEW and pointed it in Mr. Walker’s direction. He warned Mr. Walker about the
imminent deployment and Mr. Walker sat on the ground. Lieutenant Schofield did not deploy the
CEW. The surrounding officers arrested Mr. Walker. Lieutenant Schofield was not aware of any
force used during the encounter.

At that time, there were approximately four individuals to Mr. Walker’s left who attempted to
interfere with the arrest. They were “approaching” and “yelling,” so Lieutenant Schofield gave
multiple orders for them to get back. One female individual was very close to Lieutenant Schofield
and screaming. Lieutenant Schofield directed for them to “get back”; he did not recall using
profanity, but stated if he did, it was because they were not listening. He displayed his chemical
irritant as an “indicator” for her to move back and she complied.

Lieutenant Schofield denied any knowledge that the officers were discourteous or discriminatory
to Mr. Walker.

3. Officer Witness Statements

Specialist Kevin Newman

Specialist Kevin Newman, #PS074, M/W/50, is currently assigned to District 5, and he has been
a CPD member since 2004. On the day of the incident, Specialist Newman was in uniform and
assigned to assist with the protests; his BWC was activated.

CCA interviewed Specialist Newman on May 10, 2022 at 1:26pm. He provided the following
information:

On May 31, 2020, Specialist Newman walked down the street and heard a few officers yelling at
Mr. Walker in a doorway because Mr. Walker did not want to go in; Mr. Walker was very
“passionate” that he was in front of his business and another officer had told him he could stay
outside. As Specialist Newman approached, the officers repeatedly told him he needed to go
inside due to the mayor’s orders and eventually placed Mr. Walker in flex-cuffs. Specialist
Newman read him the Miranda Warning and escorted Mr. Walker to another area where other
people stood, waiting for the transport van.

Specialist Newman did not believe any officers used force against Mr. Walker. He did not recall
whether any officers displayed or threatened to use a CEW. Specialist Newman denied that
anyone was discourteous towards Mr. Walker or discriminated against him in any way.

Sergeant Joshua Bricker

Sergeant Joshua Bricker, #S0164, M/W/38, is currently assigned to the Narcotics Unit, and he
has been a CPD member since 2004. On the day of the incident, Sergeant Bricker was in uniform
and assigned to assist with the protests; his BWC was activated.

79
CCA interviewed Sergeant Bricker on April 27, 2022 at 10:02am. He provided the following
information:

On May 31, 2020, due to civil unrest, Sergeant Bricker was separated into squads with other
officers. A city-wide curfew was in effect, and he gave orders for people to go inside or leave the
area. Sergeant Bricker did not have any direct contact with Mr. Walker and did not recall the
reason for his arrest. He did not remember any uses of force related to Mr. Walker’s arrest. He
was not aware of anyone being discourteous or discriminatory to Mr. Walker.

Sergeant Bricker confirmed that in mass arrests situations it is not uncommon to photograph the
officer and individual together so that later, the individual can be identified with the officer that
arrested him; it is necessary for court.

Officer Cole Dunahay

Officer Cole Dunahay, #P0263, M/W/26, is currently assigned to District 4, and he has been a
CPD member since 2017. On the day of the incident, Officer Dunahay was in uniform and
assigned to assist with the protests; his BWC was not activated.

CCA interviewed Officer Dunahay on April 26, 2022 at 1:06pm. He provided the following
information:

After reviewing BWC footage of another officer, Officer Dunahay recalled that he was walking on
Court Street with other officers to enforce the curfew. Officer Dunahay did not know the reason
for the other officers’ involvement with Mr. Walker. He mentioned there was a lot of screaming,
yelling, and commotion at the time. When Officer Dunahay arrived, the other officers were trying
to place him under arrest: Mr. Walker was seated against the glass and an officer tried to pull him
up on his left side. They placed Mr. Walker’s arms around his back; Officer Dunahay assisted by
holding Mr. Walker’s left arm as they applied flex-cuffs. He did not know where Mr. Walker was
escorted after his arrest.

Officer Dunahay denied any knowledge of force being used at the time of the incident or CEWs.
He denied any knowledge that the officers were discourteous or discriminatory to Mr. Walker.

4. Witness Statements

Witness A (Attempt)

Witness A was unable to be interviewed. Mr. Walker provided Witness A’s name and stated he
would provide contact information to CCA at a later date. CCA has not received contact
information. CCA attempted to contact Witness A at their employment and locate Witness A
through multiple databases (including the Ohio Residents Database, Hamilton County Inmate
Search, RMS, and Ohio Offender Search) but was unsuccessful.

Witness B (Attempt)

Witness B was unable to be interviewed. Mr. Walker provided Witness B’s name and stated he
would provide contact information to CCA at a later date. CCA has not received contact
information. CCA attempted to locate Witness B through multiple databases (including the Ohio
80
Residents Database, Hamilton County Inmate Search, RMS, and Ohio Offender Search) but was
unsuccessful.

5. Documentary Evidence, Audio-Visual Evidence & Other Evidence

a. Police Documents

CCA reviewed all CPD-related forms, including but not limited to the arrest form and information
reviewed from CPD’s Records Management System (RMS).

b. Emergency Order

On May 31, 2020, then-Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley issued an Emergency Order which
implemented a curfew from 9pm – 6am in Cincinnati. The order states that the curfew is “based
upon the emergency declaration currently existing in the City of Cincinnati” and that “[i]ndividuals
are prohibited from appearing in the public spaces of the City of Cincinnati during the period of
the curfew.”

c. Body Worn Camera (BWC)

Lieutenant Schofield

The events recorded by Lieutenant Schofield’s BWC occurred on May 31, 2020, starting at
21:13:06 to 21:14:44, according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals the
following:

At approximately 21:13:30, Lieutenant Schofield walked towards Black Fern Tattoo. Mr. Walker
stood outside on the sidewalk, and four individuals stood in the doorway. Multiple officers said,
“Go inside,” and one officer added, “Or you will be subject to arrest.” Mr. Walker had his hands
raised with his palms open. Specialist Young walked to Mr. Walker and placed his hands on Mr.
Walker’s left arm. Mr. Walker raised his right arm higher and backed away and Specialist Young
attempted to turn him towards the building glass by turning his upper left arm.

Lieutenant Schofield drew his TASER and pointed it at Mr. Walker. He yelled, “TASER! TASER!”
Specialist Young held Mr. Walker’s left wrist with his left hand, while Officer O’Connor brought
down Mr. Walker’s right arm and held it with both hands. Lieutenant Schofield added, “Put your
hands behind your fucking back!” Specialist Young held Mr. Walker’s left wrist with both hands.
Mr. Walker began to yell but when the light of the TASER shone on his face, Mr. Walker closed
his eyes, fell back against the building, and slid down. Specialist Young backed away and let go
of Mr. Walker; Officer O’Connor held onto Mr. Walker’s right wrist.

Once seated on the ground, Mr. Walker raised both of his hands in the air. Mr. Walker and the
bystanders continued to shout about his actions. Lieutenant Schofield directed him to put both of
his hands behind his back. One bystander, who stood in the doorway and within a couple feet of
Lieutenant Schofield, screamed repeatedly, “He was working!” Lieutenant Schofield yelled, “Get
the fuck back!” She continued to scream. Lieutenant Schofield, whose TASER remained in his
right hand, removed the chemical irritant from his belt, pointed it at the bystander, and yelled, “Get
back!” three times. The bystander moved further into the store but continued to scream at

81
Lieutenant Schofield. Lieutenant Schofield returned the TASER and chemical irritant to his belt.
He said, “Just stay inside,” and walked away.

Officer Sean O’Conner

The events recorded by Officer O’Connor’s BWC occurred on May 31, 2020, starting from
21:13:51 until 21:14:42, according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals
the following:

Mr. Walker stood with his back to Black Fern Tattoo. Officer O’Connor held onto Mr. Walker’s
right wrist and upper arm and Specialist Young held onto Mr. Walker’s left wrist. When the light
from Lieutenant Schofield’s TASER turned on, Mr. Walker began to slide down the walker.
Specialist Young backed away, with both of his hands in front of him. Officer O’Connor held onto
Mr. Walker’s upper arm. Mr. Walker put both of his arms above his head and Officer O’Connor
held onto Mr. Walker’s right wrist.

Mr. Walker sat on the ground. Specialist Young pulled on the left sleeve of Mr. Walker’s shirt and
then took Mr. Walker’s arm. Officer O’Connor and Specialist Young pulled Mr. Walker to his feet.
Officers O’Connor and Dunahay held onto Mr. Walker as Specialist Young applied the flex cuffs.
Mr. Walker appeared upset and made several comments to the officers about his actions. Officer
O’Connor told Mr. Walker to stop. Specialists Young and Newman escorted Mr. Walker away.
Officer O’Connor deactivated his BWC.

Sergeant Bricker

The events recorded by Sergeant Bricker’s BWC occurred on May 31, 2020, starting from
21:13:00 until 21:24:57, according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals
the following:

Specialist Young led two officers across Court Street towards Black Fern Tattoo. When Sergeant
Bricker’s audio began, multiple people were speaking, but officers can be heard stating, “Go
inside.” Sergeant Bricker stated, “You are being advised you need to return inside, or you’ll be
subject to arrest.” As Specialist Young approached Mr. Walker, Sergeant Bricker repeated, “Go
inside or you’ll be subject to arrest.” Sergeant Bricker walked away from the interaction and began
to move around a white FOX19 van.

Several more officers arrived, and voices elevated. Sergeant Bricker returned but due to the
presence of several officers between him and Mr. Walker, the encounter could not be viewed
clearly from his vantage point. Bystanders stood in the doorway of the business and yelled that
Mr. Walker was working. Other officers directed the bystanders to leave. Sergeant Bricker
pointed and said, “Go inside.” He walked over to where officers placed flex-cuffs on him. Mr.
Walker reiterated his explanation. Sergeant Bricker left the area to assist with arrested individuals
by Queen City Exchange. The remainder of Sergeant Bricker’s BWC was not relevant to the
allegations.

82
Specialist Newman

Video 1:

The events recorded by Specialist Newman’s BWC occurred on May 31, 2020, starting from
21:13:16 until 21:14:54, according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals
the following:

Specialist Newman crossed Court Street towards Black Fern Tattoo. Several other officers
walked there in front of him. As he approached, Specialist Young stepped towards Mr. Walker
and grabbed left forearm. At 21:13:46, Mr. Walker moved his left arm across his body and away
from Specialist Young. Mr. Walker moved again and raised his right arm above his head. Second
Officer reached for Mr. Walker’s hand as Specialist Young held onto his left forearm. Lieutenant
Schofield warmed of impending TASER use.

Meanwhile, multiple bystanders stoop in the doorway of Black Fern Tattoo; they used their phones
to record the encounter and repeatedly yelled that Mr. Walker was working. In front of Specialist
Newman, a second officer drew his TASER and pointed it at Mr. Walker. Specialist Newman
remained behind the officer for a few seconds, blocking the view of Mr. Walker. When Specialist
Newman moved to the right, Mr. Walker sat on the ground, against the building, with his hands in
the air. In the commotion, the officers gave the bystanders by the store repeated commands to
go inside; they did not comply. Specialist Newman moved towards Mr. Walker, as he was pulled
to a standing position by Specialist Young and Second Officer. Mr. Walker argued against his
arrest, stating that he was working and not involved in the protest. Second Officer placed Mr.
Walker in flex cuffs as Specialist Newman gave Mr. Walker the Miranda warning. Specialist
Newman escorted Mr. Walker towards the other arrested individuals by Queen City Exchange
and deactivated his BWC.

Video 2:

The video was captured on May 31, 2020 from 21:15:36 until 21:16:27.

Specialist Newman stood by Specialist Young as he searched and spoke to Mr. Walker. It
captured the conversation as detailed in Officer Brown’s BWC until Specialist Newman
deactivated his BWC.

Officer Jawanda Brown

The events recorded by Officer Brown’s BWC occurred on May 31, 2020 starting from 21:07:58
until 21:25:30, according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals the
following:

Officer Brown supported other officers during the protests. She assisted with an arrested
individual, and they remained as directed near the Queen City Exchange. At 21:15:03, Specialist
Young placed Mr. Walker by Officer Brown. Specialist Young stated, “Let me do my business
first, and I will answer all of your questions. I can give you that much.” Mr. Walker agreed.
Specialist Young searched Mr. Walker. Officer Brown stepped further away, so Specialist
Young’s and Mr. Walker’s conversation was not entirely audible. At 21:15:56, Specialist Young
placed his hands on Mr. Walker’s shoulders and stated, “When we tell you to go inside, you have
to listen.” Mr. Walker started to speak. Specialist Young stated, “Hey, look, look, look. Let’s do
83
something. Let’s do something here. I’m not going to interrupt you. You don’t interrupt me. You
go first.” Mr. Walker explained that prior to Specialist Young’s arrival, a different officer advised
he could remain outside – he followed the officer’s order and wanted to know why Specialist
Young contradicted that officer. Specialist Young replied, “When I told you to go inside, that’s a
new order and you know better than that. You know you should be inside.”

Specialist Young moved Mr. Walker next to the arrested individual by Officer Brown. At 21:16:36,
Specialist Young added, “The last thing I’m going to say is you got to be self-aware of what’s
going on downtown right now. When a cop walks up to you and looks you right in the eyes and
says, ‘You got to go inside,’ that’s what you got to do.” Mr. Walker replied, “I had to finish my
painting.” They repeated these comments. Mr. Walker asked, “What was harm in what I was
doing?” Specialist Young replied, “Everyone’s got to be inside.” Their conversation continued.

At 21:17:39, Specialist Young asked other officers whether the officers were taking photographs
with the people the officers arrested. Specialist Roderick Malone took a photograph of Specialist
Young and Mr. Walker. Specialist Young escorted Mr. Walker towards a HCJC transport van.
The remainder of Officer Brown’s BWC was not relevant to the allegations.

Officer Daniel Brockmann

The events recorded by Officer Brockmann’s BWC occurred on May 31, 2020 starting from
21:07:44 until 21:26:41, according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals
the following:

Officer Brockmann supported other officers during the protests. He assisted with an arrested
individual, and they remained as directed near the Queen City Exchange. At 21:17:37, Officer
Brockmann asked Specialist Malone to take a photograph with him and the arrested individual.
The man asked, “So you can post it or tag it on my page?” Officer Brockmann explained it was
for court purposes due to the number of individuals arrested. He escorted the arrested individual
to the HCJC transport van.

At 21:18:24, Officer Brockmann spoke to an officer to provide the arrested individual’s information.
As he did, Specialist Young and Mr. Walker approached the HCJC transport van. They spoke
briefly before Specialist Young placed Mr. Walker into the van. From 21:19:20 until 21:19:45,
Officer Brockmann’s audio is out, which includes a period he spoke to Specialist Young. Officer
Brockmann remained by the transport van. The remainder of Officer Brockmann’s BWC was not
relevant to the allegations.

d. Media Footage

Multiple news outlets reported Mr. Walker’s encounter with CPD and produced footage provided
to them.

WCPO (video credit: Mariah Johnston)

The angle of the video is from behind Mr. Walker’s left arm. Specialist Young held onto Mr.
Walker’s left wrist with both hands, while Officer O’Connor held onto Mr. Walker’s right wrist with
his right hand before Mr. Walker leaned back against the wall and sank to the ground. A
woman yelled, “He’s working! He’s working!” Lieutenant Schofield held his TASER in his right

84
hand, pointed at Mr. Walker, and chemical irritant in his left hand, pointed towards the store; he
yelled, “Get back!”

FOX19 (video credit: unattributed)

Video 1:

The angle of the video is taken from a second-floor building. Mr. Walker stood on the sidewalk
outside of a shop with other individuals. Specialist Young and four other officers walk towards
him. They communicated briefly and then Specialist Young moved towards Mr. Walker; Specialist
Young moved to his right and placed his hands on Mr. Walker’s arms. Mr. Walker put his arms
forward as he backed into the glass wall behind him as he raised his right arm above his head.
Specialist Young moved forward and held onto Mr. Walker’s left arm as Officer O’Connor reached
for Mr. Walker’s right arm.

Video 2:

The angle of the video is from behind Mr. Walker’s left arm. Specialist Young approached Mr.
Walker. Mr. Walker stated, “I’m working.” Specialist Young walked towards Mr. Walker with his
hands open and replied, “No. Nope. Nope. Inside.” (Their conversation continues for a few
seconds but is inaudible as the news staff muted it for a voiceover.)

e. Clerk of Courts

Mr. Walker was charged with Ohio Revised Code (ORC) §2917.13 Misconduct at an Emergency
in the 1st Degree. He was charged via a Criminal Complaint signed by Officer Julie O’Brien. The
charge was ultimately dismissed.

C. Significant Discrepancies & Clarifications

1. Mr. Walker did not have the name of the involved officers at the time of the
complaint. CCA identified Specialist Young as the officer who initiated Mr. Walker’s arrest. This
has been updated where necessary for clarification.

2. CCA identified Officer O’Connor as the second officer who assisted Specialist
Young at the time of Mr. Walker’s arrest. Officer O’Connor resigned from CPD before CCA was
able to interview him regarding his involvement.

3. As this case received media footage, CPD released a statement regarding the incident to
FOX19:

““Tough to tell what exactly transpired there. Mr. Walker will have his opportunity to explain his
actions in court as will our arresting officers. We have too many arrests that have occurred over
the past four days to attempt to analyze the merits. Court is the appropriate place & time to do
just that.”

85
4. Mr. Walker stated he had video of the incident and would provide it to CCA. To date, CCA
does not have footage of the incident from Mr. Walker.

D. Authorities

See Appendix.

E. Analysis

1. Allegation: Improper Seizure

In Ohio a person may be arrested for the offense of Misconduct at Emergency in the 4 th Degree,
a misdemeanor criminal offense, if that person “[fails] to obey the lawful order of any law
enforcement officer engaged in the law enforcement officer's duties at the scene of or in
connection with a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind.” ORC §2917.13.

On May 31, 2020, then-Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley issued an Emergency Order which
implemented a curfew from 9pm – 6am in Cincinnati. The Order was based on an “emergency
declaration” and stated that “[i]ndividuals are prohibited from appearing in the public spaces of
the City of Cincinnati during the period of the curfew.”

At approximately 9:13pm on that day, Specialist Young arrested Mr. Walker outside of his place
of business. In their individual statements, Mr. Walker and Specialist Young stated that Specialist
Young directed Mr. Walker to go inside, but Mr. Walker refused because a previous officer advised
Mr. Walker could remain outside. BWC footage showed multiple officers directed Mr. Walker to
go inside, but he did not. Specialist Young told CCA that Mr. Walker was arrested after he refused
to follow the officer’s orders and that he was charged with “Misconduct at Emergency.”

CPD Procedure states §12.554 Investigatory Stops that officers may arrest individuals if they are
“supported by probable cause to believe the citizen is committing or has committed a criminal
offense.” Under the law, "Whether probable cause exists depends on the reasonable conclusion
to be drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest . . . . It does not
depend on the officer’s subjective motivation or his stated reason for making the arrest.” Hastings
v. Hubbard, 151 F. App'x 357, 362 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted).

Given the state of emergency that existed in Cincinnati on May 31, 2020, and Specialist Young’s
knowledge of the emergency declaration; and due to Mr. Walker’s failure to comply with Specialist
Young’s specific directive to return inside (for which there is ample evidence); our investigation
determined that Mr. Walker was lawfully subject to arrest for ORC §2917.13 Misconduct at
Emergency in the 4th Degree.

We note that Mr. Walker was charged with Misconduct at an Emergency as a 1st Degree
misdemeanor, which requires some proof that an offender has created “a risk of physical harm to
persons or property.” Our investigation has uncovered no evidence that Mr. Walker engaged in
any conduct creating “a risk of physical harm to persons or property.” Accordingly, there was no
probable cause to arrest for Misconduct at Emergency in the 1st Degree, and the reliance on that
86
charge by Cincinnati Police Officers in advancing a prosecution of Mr. Walker is concerning.
Nonetheless, on the question of probable cause to arrest, the evidence indicates that specific
facts known to Specialist Young at the time he took Mr. Walker into custody provided a reasonable
basis to believe that Mr. Walker had violated Ohio’s Misconduct at Emergency law (albeit only at
the 4th Degree level). In addition, Specialist Young confirmed that Mr. Walker was charged with
“Misconduct at Emergency,” suggesting that Specialist Young understood that “Misconduct at
Emergency” was the basis for the arrest. Therefore, CCA determined that the allegation of
Improper Seizure by Specialist Young is exonerated.

2. Allegation: Excessive Force

CPD Procedure § 12.545 Use of Force defines “force” to include “any strike, instrumental contact
with a person, or any significant physical contact that restricts the movement of a person… the
term does not include escorting or handcuffing a person with no or minimal resistance.” BWC
footage showed that during the encounter, the officers placed their hands on Mr. Walker’s wrists
and arms to effect the arrest and to raise him from his seated position; no apparent force was
used. Therefore, CCA determined the allegation of Excessive Force to be unfounded.

3. Allegations: Discrimination & Discourtesy

Mr. Walker alleged the officers “acted on their personal biases” and were inappropriate and
discriminatory to him. He stated they “mocked” him and took photographs of themselves
alongside him, “as if [he] was a trophy.” CPD Manual of Rules and Regulations states officers
must “perform the functions of their office without fear, favor, or prejudice” and “shall always be
civil, orderly, and courteous in dealing with the public, subordinates, superiors, and associates.”
BWC footage confirmed multiple officers took photographs of officers next to arrested individuals.
CPD Procedure 12.515 Nonviolent Demonstration Arrest: Mass Arrest Procedure states that
during anticipated mass arrests, “identification photos of the participants arrested, if any, will be
taken with the arresting officer,” although it specifies the photographs would be taken at Central
Intake. Although Specialist Young’s BWC was not activated, other BWC footage captured
Specialist Young’s interaction with Mr. Walker following his arrest. There was no indication that
Specialist Young was discourteous to Mr. Walker, that any officer “mocked” him during that
process, or that any individual officer acted out of prejudice or personal bias. Therefore, CCA
determined that the allegations were unfounded.

4. Allegation: Improper Procedure (Use of Force)

CPD Procedure § 12.545 Use of Force states that an officer’s right to make an arrest…necessarily
carries with it the right to some degree of physical coercion, or threat thereof, to effect it.” The
procedure further defines active resistance to be “physically evasive movements to defeat the
officer’s attempt at control, to include fleeing, bracing, tensing, pushing, or verbally signally an
intention to avoid or prevent being taken into or retained in custody.” BWC footage showed Mr.
Walker demonstrated active resistance when, after the officers attempted to put him in custody,
Mr. Walker pulled his hands and backed away from the officers. CPD’s Tactical Patrol Guide
states CEWs may be used as a tactic to gain compliance in circumstances involving active
resistance. During the encounter, two officers displayed their CEWs at Mr. Walker and issued a
warning about imminent TASER use. No CEWs were deployed and Mr. Walker’s immediate and
87
subsequent descent to a seated position was not the consequence of police action. Therefore,
CCA determined the display of the CEW was permissible.

Collateral Allegations

5. Allegation: Improper Procedure (BWC)

CCA was not able to view the entirety of the contact that led to the allegations. CPD Procedure
§12.540 Body Worn Camera System states officers are required to activate their BWC system
during law enforcement-related encounters and self-initiated activities. Specialist Young stated
his BWC was not activated during the encounter because the battery had died after not retaining
a charge due to the long shifts of the protests. CCA was unable to confirm that the dead battery
was the cause of the lack of footage. Therefore, CCA was unable to determine whether Specialist
Young was in violation of CPD’s policy, procedure, and training.

F. Findings

Original Allegations

Specialist Nathaniel Young

Improper Seizure – The evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate
CPD policies, procedures, or training. EXONERATED

Excessive Force – There are no facts to support the incident complained of actually occurred.
UNFOUNDED

Discourtesy – There are no facts to support the incident complained of actually occurred.
UNFOUNDED

Discrimination – There are no facts to support the incident complained of actually occurred.
UNFOUNDED

Lieutenant David Schofield

Improper Procedure (Use of Force) – The evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur
but did not violate CPD policies, procedures, or training. EXONERATED

88
Collateral Allegations

Specialist Nathaniel Young

Improper Procedure (BWC) – There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged
misconduct occurred. NOT SUSTAINED

G. Observations

See “Section VI. Key Observations” in CCA’s consolidated report on this investigation and ten
other protest investigations, GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI.

H. Recommendations

See R2301, R2302, R2303, R2305, and R2306 in “Section VII. Recommendations” of CCA’s
consolidated report on this investigation and ten other protest investigations (GEORGE FLOYD
PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING
COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI).

I. Previous Contacts & Commendations

Specialist Young

Previous Contacts with CCA

Specialist Young had one previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

Case Number Allegation Finding

18124 Excessive Force Exonerated

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Specialist Young with IIS.

Commendations

Specialist Young received three commendations in the past three years.

Date Source of Commendation Received

06/07/2017 CPD
06/19/2017 CPD
01/31/2020 CPD

89
Sergeant Bricker

Previous Contacts with CCA

Sergeant Bricker had no previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Sergeant Bricker with IIS.

Commendations

Sergeant Bricker received one commendation in the past three years.

Date Source of Commendation Received

12/19/2019 CPD

Lieutenant Schofield

Previous Contacts with CCA

Schofield had seven previous contacts with CCA in the past three years.

Case Number Allegation Finding

18211 Discourtesy Not Sustained
19002 Harassment Unfounded
19002 Discrimination Unfounded
19002 Improper Search Exonerated
19022 Improper Stop Exonerated
19022 Improper Procedure (Contact Card) Sustained
20070 Improper Procedure Unfounded
20070 Improper Search Exonerated
20070 Improper Stop Exonerated
20072 Discrimination Unfounded
21027 Improper Stop Pending
21027 Search Pending
21027 Discourtesy Pending
21027 Pointing of a Firearm Pending
21027 Harassment Pending
22064 Discourtesy Referred
22064 Lack of Service Referred

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Lieutenant Schofield with IIS.

Commendations

Lieutenant Schofield received one commendation in the past three years.

90
 Date Source of Commendation Received
01/05/2020 CPD

1/30/2023
Jessalyn Goodman, Investigator Date

1/30/2023
Gabriel Davis, Director Date

91
 Case No. 20089 – Erd
Investigation

A. Complaint Summary

Complainant: Benjamin Erd

Date: May 31, 2020

Time: 9:05 p.m.

Location: Alley near Race Street

CCA Receipt: June 2, 2020

Allegations: Excessive Force; Improper Seizure

On May 31, 2020, at 9:05 p.m., Mr. Benjamin Erd participated in a peaceful protest on Vine Street.
Several CPD officers and SWAT members, armed with shotguns and assault rifles, told the
protestors they were violating curfew, and then released tear gas. The officers moved the
protestors towards an alley off Race Street; trapped in a circle, they were detained and arrested.
The officers did not explain if they were arresting or detaining individuals until the individuals
asked. A SWAT officer told Mr. Erd to get on the ground and his wrists were zip-tied.

Before Mr. Erd entered a Metro bus to be transported to the Hamilton County Justice Center
(HCJC), he complained to Officer Phillip Herrmann that the flex-cuffs were too tight and cutting
off his circulation. Officer Herrmann removed the initial flex-cuffs and applied new ones; however,
the new flex-cuffs were tighter and uncomfortable to the point he believed he was “going to die” if
they were on too long. It was approximately five minutes before they were removed by another
officer. Mr. Erd sustained lacerations and bruising to his wrists. Mr. Erd believed Officer
Herrmann’s actions were excessive.

B. Summary of Evidence

1. Involved Citizen Statements

Benjamin Erd

CCA interviewed Mr. Benjamin Erd on June 2, 2020. He provided the following additional
information:

On May 31, 2020, at 9:05 p.m., Mr. Benjamin Erd, M/W/22, participated in a peaceful protest on
Vine Street. Several CPD officers and SWAT members, armed with shotguns and assault rifles,
92
told the protestors they were violating curfew, and then released tear gas. Some protestors threw
back water bottles. The officers moved the protestors towards an alley off Race Street; trapped
in a circle, where they were detained and arrested. The officers did not explain if they were
arresting or detaining individuals unless the individuals asked; no Miranda warnings were given.
A SWAT officer told Mr. Erd to get on the ground and his wrists were zip-tied. Mr. Erd stated at
that time, the zip-ties were not tight. The SWAT officer observed Mr. Erd holding spray paint and
asked him if he were a “tagger.” Mr. Erd was advised he was under arrest for “breaking curfew.”

Before Mr. Erd entered a Metro bus to be transported to the Hamilton County Justice Center
(HCJC) he complained to Officer Herrmann that because he had been pulling on them, the flex-
cuffs were too tight and now were cutting off his circulation. Officer Herrmann removed the initial
flex-cuffs and applied new ones. However, the new flex-cuffs were tighter and uncomfortable to
the point he believed he was “going to die” if they were on too long. Mr. Erd advised officers
immediately, although it was approximately five minutes before they were removed by another
officer. Mr. Erd sustained lacerations and bruising to his wrists. Mr. Erd believed Officer
Herrmann’s actions were excessive.

While on the bus, Officer Carrie Hollyfield was helpful and explained the process to the individuals
on the bus. Once at the HCJC, CPD officers and Hamilton County deputies remained with the
individuals, who were forced to remain in the courtyard for 10 hours without food, water, or
protection from the weather. Some individuals needed to urinate but were not able to use the
restroom and urinated on themselves. The officers did not allow people to stand and if people
tried, the officers "forcibly" made the individuals sit. Mr. Erd stated, “Officer Hollyfield got
something done to the point where I was able to use the bathroom.”

2. Subject Officer Statements

Officer Phillip Herrmann

Officer Herrmann #P0109, M/W/42, is currently assigned to the Narcotics Unit. He has been a
CPD member since 1997. Officer Herrmann was in uniform, attached to the CDRT team, and did
not wear a BWC.

CCA interviewed Officer Herrmann on November 4, 2020, at 9:56 a.m. Officer Herrmann provided
the following information:

Officer Herrmann’s specific job that day was to escort the CDRT team and remain with the van to
ensure it was not damaged. Members from the CDRT and SWAT team arrested several people
for curfew violations. Officer Herrmann watched the people that were arrested line up on Race
Street waiting for the Metro bus to arrive to transport them to the HCJC. Officer Herrmann did
not recall specifically coming into contact with Mr. Erd, but he recalled approximately six people
who complained the flex-cuffs were too tight. Officer Herrmann cut those flex-cuffs off and placed
new ones on them. Most people were appreciative of the flex-cuff readjustments.

93
 3. Officer Witness Statements

Officer Carrie Hollyfield

Officer Hollyfield #P0159, F/W/47, is currently assigned to Youth Services-School Resource

Officer. She has been a CPD member since 2014. Officer Hollyfield was in uniform; her BWC
was activated.

CCA interviewed Officer Hollyfield on November 4, 2020, at 10:28 a.m. Officer Hollyfield provided
the following information:

Officer Hollyfield stated she was instructed by Captain Aaron Jones to stand with the protestors
who were already restrained with flex-cuffs and instructed them to get on the Metro Bus. While
on the bus, some of the arrested individuals complained the flex-cuffs were too tight, but Officer
Hollyfield could not specifically recall Mr. Erd as one of the complainants. Officer Hollyfield relayed
she did not know how to loosen the zip ties once they were on but advised they would get them
off as soon as possible.

Officer Hollyfield’s bus was the second bus to arrive at the HCJC. Her bus had to wait until the
passengers left the first bus. Officer Hollyfield exited the bus and spoke with a deputy sheriff who
told Officer Hollyfield that the arrested would be able to exit the bus and use the restroom escorted
by a deputy. A couple of people requested to use the restroom and they were allowed to go.

4. Witness Statements

Mr. Erd indicated he would provide the names of those nearby at the time of his arrest. CCA also
sent a letter to Mr. Erd. To date, Mr. Erd has not provided identifying or contact information for
those individuals.

5. Documentary Evidence, Audio-Visual Evidence & Other Evidence

a. Police Documents

CCA reviewed all CPD-related forms, including arrest forms, and BWC.

b. Body Worn Camera (BWC)

Officer Hollyfield

The events recorded by Officer Hollyfield’s BWC occurred on May 31, 2020, according to the
BWC’s timestamp at 9:41 p.m. A review of that recording reveals the following:

Upon arrival at 9:41pm, a group of protestors yelled, “Let us go home.” Officer Hollyfield remained
behind a line of officers on the sidewalk. An officer on the mega horn gave inaudible commands.
Several protesters were placed in flex-cuffs and arrested. Officer Hollyfield maintained control of
a female protestor until the officer entered the metro bus at 10:37 p.m.

94
At 11:19 p.m., while on the Metro bus, an unknown seated male yelled at Officer Hollyfield. As
Mr. Erd stood in the middle of the bus, Officer Hollyfield attempted to explain that there was
another bus in front of their bus and that he would be first in line so that he could use the bathroom.
Officer Hollyfield asked Mr. Erd if he could sit down, Mr. Erd stated if he sat, he would “pee.”
Officer Hollyfield exited the bus and spoke to a HCJC deputy sheriff, who allowed her to remove
the male off the bus to use the restroom. Several others also requested to use the restroom. The
deputy agreed to have her get Mr. Erd off the bus to use the bathroom and she turned him over
to the deputy, then she returned to the bus.

c. Clerk of Courts

Mr. Erd was charged with Misconduct at Emergency in the 1st Degree § 2917-13 Ohio Revised
Code (ORC). He was charged via a Criminal Complaint signed by Officer Robin White. The
charge was dismissed on June 7, 2021.

C. Significant Discrepancies & Clarifications

At the time of the incident, CPD Body Worn Camera System §12.540 did not require CDRT or
SWAT officers to wear BWCs. On April 15, 2021, the policy was revised to require non-uniformed
assignments are required to wear and power on their BWC.

D. Authorities

See Appendix.

E. Analysis

1. Allegation: Excessive Force

Mr. Erd participated in a protest on Vine Street. During the protest, Mr. Erd was taken into custody
by an unknown SWAT officer in an alley off of Race Street and arrested for Misconduct at
Emergency (ORC § 2917-13). His hands were “zip-tied.” During his arrest, Mr. Erd complained
the flex-cuffs were too tight. He reported that Officer Herrmann removed his flex-cuffs and placed
new ones on, but the new restraints were tighter than before.

CPD Procedure §12.600 Prisoners: Securing, Handling, and Transporting (A) Handcuffing states
“flex-cuffs are permitted” during “[m]ass arrests at demonstrations or civil disturbances.” Under
that policy, all handcuffs “should be reasonably snug . . . .” (emphasis added).

In addition, courts have held that under certain circumstances, “unduly tight or excessively forceful
handcuffing” may constitute excessive force, and that the following three-part test, in addition to
the standard Graham v. Connor factors, are relevant to the analysis: 1) whether the complainant
“complained the handcuffs were too tight;” 2) whether “the officer ignored those complaints;” and
3) whether the complainant “experienced ‘some physical injury’ resulting from the handcuffing.”
Hughey v. Easlick, 3 F.4th 283, 289 (6th Cir. 2021).

95
According to Mr. Erd, approximately five minutes after Officer Herrmann readjusted the flex-cuffs
that had been initially placed on Mr. Erd, making them tighter than before, the flex-cuffs placed
by Officer Herrmann were in turn adjusted by another officer. Although Mr. Erd reported he
sustained lacerations and bruising to his wrists, CCA did not receive any documentation of his
injury to determine its severity. Officer Herrmann did not recall the incident in detail, and CCA
has identified no witnesses to provide an independent account of the encounter. Nor is there BWC
footage showing Officer Herrmann readjusting the flex-cuffs. Therefore, there is not enough
information or footage to determine by a preponderance whether Officer Herrmann’s actions were
within CPD’s policy, procedure, and training.

2. Allegation: Improper Seizure

In Ohio, a person may be arrested for the offense of Misconduct at Emergency, a misdemeanor
criminal offense, if that person “[fails] to obey the lawful order of any law enforcement officer
engaged in the law enforcement officer's duties at the scene of or in connection with a fire,
accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind.” ORC §2917.13.

CPD Procedure states §12.554 Investigatory Stops that officers may arrest individuals if they are
“supported by probable cause to believe the citizen is committing or has committed a criminal
offense.” Under the law, "Whether probable cause exists depends on the reasonable conclusion
to be drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest . . . . It does not
depend on the officer’s subjective motivation or his stated reason for making the arrest.” Hastings
v. Hubbard, 151 F. App'x 357, 362 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).

On May 31, 2020, then-Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley issued an Emergency Order which
implemented a curfew from 9pm – 6am in Cincinnati. The Order was based on an “emergency
declaration” and stated that “[i]ndividuals are prohibited from appearing in the public spaces of
the City of Cincinnati during the period of the curfew.”

At approximately 9:05pm on that day, Mr. Erd was arrested by an unknown SWAT officer in an
alley off Race Street while protesting. Mr. Erd was charged with Misconduct at Emergency in the
1st Degree. BWC footage from that day and time does not clarify who arrested Mr. Erd or placed
flex-cuffs on his wrists. Officer Herrmann did not recall the incident in detail, and there were no
identifiable witnesses to provide an independent account of the encounter.

Mr. Erd’s arresting officer has not been identified and appears to be unknown to the Cincinnati
Police Department. After an extensive review of BWC evidence, interviews with officers alleged
to have been present, and review of available police records, CCA is aware of no officer who can
attest to having knowledge of the specific facts surrounding Mr. Erd’s arrest, or the basis for
charging him with Misconduct of Emergency in the 1st Degree. CCA is aware of no officer who
can attest to whether Mr. Erd failed to comply with a specific order on May 31, 2020. Nor does
the evidence prove the identity of the officer who took Mr. Erd into custody that day.

We note that Mr. Erd was charged with Misconduct at an Emergency as a 1st Degree
misdemeanor, which requires some proof that an offender has created “a risk of physical harm to
persons or property.” The reliance on that charge by Cincinnati Police Officers in advancing a
prosecution of Mr. Erd is concerning, particularly given that there appears to be no officer with
first-hand knowledge who can attest to the necessary facts to establish probable cause for Mr.
96
Erd’s arrest. Given the lack of evidence, we conclude that there is an insufficient factual basis to
make a determination as to whether probable cause existed and whether the arrest was proper
under CPD policy, training, and procedure.

F. Findings

Officer Philip Herrmann

Excessive Force – There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct
occurred. NOT SUSTAINED

Improper Seizure – There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct
occurred. NOT SUSTAINED

G. Observations

See “Section VI. Key Observations” in CCA’s consolidated report on this investigation and ten
other protest investigations, GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI.

H. Recommendations

See R2301, R2303, R2305, R2306, and R2307 in “Section VII. Recommendations” of CCA’s
consolidated report on this investigation and ten other protest investigations (GEORGE FLOYD
PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING
COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI).

I. Previous Contacts & Commendations

Officer Herrmann

Previous Contacts with CCA

Officer Herrmann had one previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

Case Number Allegation Finding

18036 Procedure Violation-Referred Info File

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Herrmann with IIS.

Commendations

97
 Officer Herrmann received three commendations in the past three years.

Date Source of Commendation Received

06/14/2018 Civilian
05/16/2019 Civilian
02/17/2020 CPD

1/30/2023
Dena Brown, Chief Investigator Date

1/30/2023
Gabriel Davis, Director Date

98
 Case No. 20093 –
Wilkins, et al.
Investigation

A. Complaint Summary

Complainant: Maira Arnaulda, Tyler Beringer, Robin Wilkins, Et al.

Date: June 1, 2020

Time: 8:15 p.m.

Location: 2000 Mohawk Place

CCA Receipt: June 3-5, 2020

Allegations: Improper Seizure; Improper Procedure; Discourtesy; Improper Procedure (BWC) –

Collateral

Twenty-seven (27) persons contacted CCA via email to file a complaint about the treatment of a
woman, who was believed to be diabetic, and her sister by CPD police on June 1, 2020. Those
emails were consolidated into a single complaint and are synthesized as follows:

On June 1, 2020, a woman and her sister (referred to in this report as Witness A and Witness B)
participated in a protest in Over-the-Rhine. It is believed they were there to pick up protestors at
curfew. However, the woman was detained. During her detainment, her bag was seized from her.
She and her sister advised the officer she was diabetic, and her blood sugar was dropping; she
repeatedly asked a white, male officer to keep the bag near her or in her sight line in case she
needed insulin. The officer acknowledged her request but refused to retrieve the bag or insulin.
The officer claimed to be aware of diabetic needs but appeared to be “dismissive” of the
seriousness of her request and laughed at her. There are concerns that the officer’s actions could
have resulted in a medical emergency. It is unknown when she was able to obtain her insulin. It
is unknown if she suffered any ill health effects. She was detained until 12am or 2am. At midnight,
the officers allowed her to reposition her insulin pump as needed.

B. Summary of Evidence

1. Involved Citizen Statements

Witness A and B

Neither Witness A nor B filed a complaint regarding this incident. CCA attempted to contact them
but received no response to date.
99
Witnesses C, D and E

CCA made contact with Witness C, a Black female who (according to BWC (summarized below))
was driving a car carrying Witnesses A and B that was stopped by police. Witness C informed
CCA that she did not want to provide a statement in connection with the investigation.

Others who were detained along with Witnesses A and B, including Witness D and E (described
below) could not be identified and were not interviewed.

2. Subject Officer Statements

Officer Raymond Marsh

Officer Raymond Marsh, #PO092, M/W/39, is currently assigned to District 4, and he has been a
CPD member since 2014. Officer Marsh was in uniform; his BWC was activated.

CCA interviewed Officer Marsh on January 25, 2021, at 06:22 a.m. He provided the following
information:

Officer Marsh was assigned to District 4, riot platoon. On June 1, 2020, an 8:00 p.m. curfew was
in place and the large crowd was told to disburse; many did not. The people specifically on
Mohawk Place had been given multiple orders by SWAT over a PA system to disburse and move
on. Officer Marsh’s unit was told to help assist with the arrests and detentions which included 6-
7 people including Witness A and Witness B, who were originally in a vehicle that was stopped.

A supervisor (Officer Marsh did not know the supervisor’s name) ordered them out of the vehicle.
Officer Marsh approached the driver’s side of the vehicle. While the occupants exited, a female
occupant fled. Officer Marsh briefly pursued her but realized she was running toward other
officers, so he stopped and remained with the occupants who were seated on the sidewalk. Officer
Marsh stated he activated his BWC late, which did not catch his brief pursuit.

Witness A Witness A left her bookbag inside of the vehicle. She yelled that she was a diabetic;
having a “low” and needed insulin while holding a Cliff Bar. Officer Marsh stated to CCA “his
training and experience, when you’re having a low, you don’t take insulin. Beyond that, I wouldn’t
administer medications to her or allow her, while she’s in custody, to administer medications to
herself.”

There were multiple people seated on the ground, not searched, or handcuffed, just detained.
Officer Marsh stated, “I’m not going to turn my back on that group to go fetch a bag right away.
So ultimately, I tell her, “I’m not getting your bag yet. Your property will go with you, but I’m not
getting it right now.” This is where the video ensued. Unbeknownst to him, there were people
seated on the ground that were recording the whole thing. After everyone was properly
handcuffed and restrained for approximately 5-10 minutes, Officer Marsh had another officer
retrieve the bookbag. The bookbag was placed on the ground in front of her and it went on the
bus to the detention center with her.
100
Witness A Witness A had an insulin pump app installed that synced Bluetooth wirelessly to her
cellphone, which she asked Officer Marsh to check for her. Officer Marsh knelt down got Witness
A’s Witness A phone out for her and she instructed him how to check the app to see what her
blood sugar was, which was 205. Witness B Witness B began having a panic attack, she never
lost consciousness, breathing heavily, and weak on her feet. Officer Marsh attempted to calm her.
Officer Marsh stated he “deal with people that we arrest that commonly act that way and, I mean.
I’m kinda used to it.” Officer Marsh continued to try to calm and reassure her then placed his hand
on her shoulder as she sat on the ground to “keep her from flopping over on the ground.” Witness
B Witness B was conscious and responded to his prompts but kept throwing herself on the ground
as if she were disabled.

The transport bus arrived on scene approximately 50 feet away and the officers escorted their
people over to a wall where they were officially searched by a female. And their bags were double
checked and then they were put on the bus. Officer Marsh later learned that, ultimately, Witness
A wanted to take her insulin with her, did not need it right then, but she was upset. Officer Marsh
denied being discourteous at any time.

Officer Nicholas Clark

Officer Nicholas Clark, #PO377, M/W/36, is currently assigned to the Gang Enforcement Squad
(GES), and he has been a CPD member since 2016. Officer Clark was in uniform; his BWC was
activated.

CCA interviewed Officer Clark on January 25, 2021, at 12:58 p.m. He provided the following
information:

On June 1, 2020, Officer Clark was assigned to the District 4 squad that dealt with the crowds. It
was a little after 8 o’clock when the curfew became in effect, and we were ordered to arrest the
curfew violators. A vehicle was stopped by a Black female Sergeant, and she ordered the officers
nearby to get everyone out of the vehicle and detain them. Officer Clark detained multiple 5 to 7
people in that vehicle. One person fled on foot.

Officer Clark did not know the name of the Sergeant who ordered the detention. Officer Clark
believed that the Sergeant wanted the vehicle stopped because the Sergeant had observed
someone get into the vehicle in order to avoid arrest.

The remaining vehicle occupants, other than the one who fled, were detained and officers sat
them on the curb. Officer Clark stood behind the group, as they waited for the transport bus to
arrive. When initially detained, Witness A said, “I need my bag. I need my bag.” Officer Clark said,
“Don’t worry, we’ll get your bag for you before you, you know. You’re not, like. You’re just being
detained. We’ll get your property and your bag for you.” Ms. Wilkins advised another officer that
her insulin was in her bag. Officer Clark stated to CCA that he was not paying attention to the
conversation they were having because “there was a lot going on. There was a lot of people
around us, a lot of people running, the bike squad was going into the woods, trying to detain
people. SWAT was there. It was a pretty dynamic situation.”
101
Witness A was given her bag eventually and asked if she could grab a snack out of it and she
was allowed to eat a candy bar. Witness A also checked her sugar level on her phone. Officer
Marsh said, “It’s, ok? We’re good, right?” and she said, “Ya, we’re good.” Witness A was verbal
and loud about the situation, but he believed she was more worried about getting to her bag than
if she was going to be taken to the justice center or not. Witness A was escorted to the bus; her
bag was with her.

3. Officer Witness Statements

There were none.

4. Witness Statements

Robin Wilkins

CCA interviewed Robin Wilkins and she provided the following information:

Ms. Wilkins was not present for this incident; she observed it posted on Twitter. It was originally
posted on TikTok. Witness Ms. Wilkins observed a young woman who appeared to be 19 or 20
years old, at the protest, and she was helping to pick some people up after curfew. This was her
account of the events. “She posted a video in which she and her sister were being detained by
an officer. Her sister was clearly very distressed, started to panic and started to pass out. The
girls are shown sitting and kneeling on the pavement, while the officers are standing in front of
them having a conversation. One of them identified themselves as a diabetic and asked to have
her bag or to at least have it in her line of sight several times because it had her insulin in it. She
says, “I need my insulin. I need my insulin. It’s in my bag. Can I please get it out of my bag? I am
diabetic. My blood sugar is going to drop. I at least need to have it in my line of sight.”
Three officers were visible in the video footage.

Due to the panic attack, she had taken a glucose tab to manage her blood sugar, but then she
needed her insulin to manage the spike. The responding officers listened, said they understood
but did not give her access to the bag and they were detained for several hours. They were told
that they were going to have access to a medic during this detention period, but that turned out
not to pan out.

Ms. Wilkins was very concerned and realizes that it is a stressful situation for everyone involved,
but it is important to keep an eye on that kind of thing and wanted to bring it to CCA’s attention.

Maira Arnaulda

CCA interviewed Maira Arnaulda, and she provided the following information:

Ms. Arnaulda stated she was not present for this incident, but observed it posted on Twitter. There
were a number of officers, but their badges were not clear. Ms. Arnaulda stated she just wanted
to file a complaint and provided no further information.

102
Tyler Beringer

CCA interviewed Tyler. Beringer and he provided the following information:

Mr. Beringer stated he was not present for this incident but was shown several videos. From his
understanding, a young woman was detained at the protest. She identified herself as a diabetic
several times, in addition to her sister said that as well. They mentioned that her blood sugar was
either falling or rising, and that she really needed to access her insulin in her medication bag. The
officer standing in front of her said several times, or at least made several acknowledgements
that he heard her, understood that she’s diabetic, and understood that she needed her supplies.
At one point, he literally said, “I understand. I know how diabetics works.” But he still insisted that
she would not be allowed to go and get her medication.

Mr. Beringer found this incident troubling. “Insulin for a diabetic is literally like oxygen. Even a
short amount of time without it can be really traumatic.” Mr. Beringer briefly spoke to @lexiejewels
(Witness A) through Twitter.

Mr. Beringer got the impression from Witness A’s messages that she was not “super keen to go
on about it.” Mr. Beringer believed:

[T]he really offensive part was just the attitude of the officer. The fact that he was
very calm, he wasn’t aggressive. . . [But he was] almost a little bit just blasé about
it. She was in extreme distress, and he just said like, ‘Ya, I know you’re diabetic.’
And ya, at one point he is laughing, and just like. It really, really, deeply made me
uncomfortable, how just. Just how much he did not seem to care, I guess.

The officer did not seem like a supporter of community in that moment.

5. Documentary Evidence, Audio-Visual Evidence & Other Evidence

a. Police Documents

CCA reviewed all CPD-related forms, including but not limited to arrest forms, BWC footage, and
the IIS Report.

b. Body Worn Camera (BWC)

Officer Nicholas Clark

The events recorded by Officer Clark’s BWC occurred starting at 20:15:43 hours on June 1, 2020,
according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals the following:

As Officer Clark stood in the street at 20:26:12 hours, he observed a Black female officer standing
in front a stopped vehicle. Officer Clark responded to assist. Other officers also responded and
ordered the occupants out of the vehicle. Witness A was sitting on an unknown male’s (Witness
D’s) lap who was seated on the passenger side of the vehicle. A Black female (Witness C) was

103
sitting in the driver’s seat. Witness B also appeared to exit the vehicle along with two other white
female occupants. Witness E (a white female) can then be seen running away from another officer
who runs after her; it is unclear if Witness E exited the car with the other occupants or if she came
from elsewhere.

At 20:26:25 hours, as soon as Witness A exited the vehicle, she yelled, “I was trying to get my
insulin!” Witness A was ordered to kneel down on the ground, and she complied. Witness A asked
Officer Clark if she could eat her snack because her blood sugar was low and asked for her
bookbag because it had her insulin in it. Officer Clark ordered the occupants to sit down on the
sidewalk, and they complied with that order. Witness A advised the officers her insulin was in the
red bookbag in the vehicle. Multiple conversations occurred at the officers used flex-cuffs and
handcuffed the arrested suspects.

At 20:27:37 Witness C stated she lived down the street and observed several people who needed
help and she was taking them home. Witness D stated the officers were scaring people with a
tank. CPD officers stated they did not have a tank. Witness C stated again she observed a tank.

Witness A stated at 20:27:56 to Officer Marsh “you can search the bag but can I have my insulin
near me. You can search it all you want, you won’t find anything in it.” At approximately 20:28:10,
Witness A stated that she needed to have her insulin “sitting in front of me” and “in my sight; I
can’t go without it.” Witness A further asserted, “my blood sugar is dropping.” Witness B told
Officer Marsh, “If she doesn’t have her insulin she will die.” Officer Marsh replied, “I understand
what diabetic [inaudible].” Witnesses A and B both continued to plead that Witness A needed her
bag.

A male Black officer approached with a white female suspect (Witness E) and yelled out
“[inaudible]…should have done that…8:00 clock is curfew in violation of city law.” Witness E sat
with the arrested group.

Officer Marsh laughed at 20:28:37 and Witness B questioned him why he was laughing. Officer
Marsh pointed in the direction of the unknown Black male officer when he responded but his
response could not be heard due to Officer Clark’s radio speaking at the same time.

At 20:32:50 hours, an officer retrieved Witness A’s bookbag and placed it beside her. Officer Clark
handcuffed Witness A as she advised the officers she wanted her insulin to remain with her.
Witness B kept leaning forward and the officers positioned her so she was sitting upright.
Members of the arrested group tried to calm Witness B from slumping over. The officers escorted
the arrested group over to the bus. Officer Clark picked up Witness A’s face mask and placed it
in her bookbag as requested and placed the bookbag in front of her feet.

Officer Raymond Marsh

The events recorded by Officer Marsh’s BWC occurred starting at 20:31:35 hours on June 1,
2020, according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals the following:

104
Officer Marsh’s BWC was not activated until after the suspects were placed in flex-cuffs. Officer
Marsh placed his hand on Witness B shoulder attempting to raise her body up from the slumped
bent over seated position. Officer Marsh placed Witness B phone in her bookbag. Witness A
yelled, “I told you she was having a panic attack and would pass out.” Witness B slumped over
again. Witness A yelled, “you need to get her a medic or something.” Officer Marsh replied, “she’s
fine, she’s upset, I get that” as he raised Witness B shoulder again. Witness A told Officer Marsh
not to touch her. Officer Marsh told Witness A he did not want her to fall over.

Officer Marsh told Officer Orkies to get Witness A bookbag out from the vehicle. Officer Marsh
searched Witness B bookbag. Officer Marsh advised Officer Orkies he was going to park the
owner’s vehicle to get it out of the middle of the street. Officer Marsh moved the vehicle and
parked it legally on the street. Officer Marsh returned the keys to the vehicle’s owner. Ms. Hannah
Wilkens stated she could not feel her feet as she sat on her knees. Officer Marsh assisted Witness
B moving to her bottom to sit down. Witness A phone rang, and she asked to answer it. Officer
Marsh told her she could not answer it. Witness B continued to fall over. Officer Marsh continued
to keep her upright. Witness B stated she could not feel her hands. Witness A told her they were
still there. Witness A requested she and her sister stay together once at the Hamilton County
Justice Center (HCJC or Justice Center). Officer Marsh advised they would stay together along
with her bookbag. See BWC time stamp at 20:43:04 hours.

Witness A asked, “if one of you could take out my phone and look at my blood sugar for me? the
beeping you here is my pump, I need to know what my blood sugar is” Witness B yelled, “she’s
going low.” Officer Marsh complied and was guided by Witness A as to where to look on her
phone. Witness A’ glucose level read 205. Officer Marsh read the number out loud and said she
was doing alright. Witness A stated, “I’m okay for now, if it keeps dropping, I will let them know by
seizing.” Officer Marsh escorted the sisters over to the sidewalk near the transport bus. The
remaining interaction was captured on Lt. Pearson’s BWC.

Officer William Orkies

The events recorded by Officer Orkies BWC occurred starting at 20:26:29 hours on June 1, 2020,
according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals the following:

Officer Orkies assisted in removing Witness A from the front passenger side of the vehicle and
had her kneel on the ground. Officer Orkies then had Witness D exit the front passenger seat and
had him kneel on the ground. Officer Orkies stood with other officers and watched the arrested
suspects.

At approximately 20:27:40, Witness A began to eat a snack and was permitted to do so by the
officers present. At 20:28:28, in response to repeated requests from Witnesses A and B for access
to Witness A’s insulin, and in response to a comment from Witness B that Witness A would die
without insulin, Officer Marsh stated: “I understand what diabetics is.” At 20:28:23, Witness B
continued to tell Officer Marsh to get Witness A’s insulin.

An unknown Black male officer approached with a white female suspect, Witness E, and placed
her with the group. At 20:28:39 Officer Marsh laughed, and the Black female, Witness C,
105
questioned Officer Marsh why he was laughing. Officer Marsh pointed to Witness E, the suspect
that the unknown Black male officer brought over to the group and said, “that’s the one that ran
from me.” Witness C again questioned Officer Marsh why he laughed, and he repeated his
comment, “because she ran from me.” Witness A commented that she ran because they were
trying to leave.

Officer Orkies engaged in a conversation with an arrested male. Officer Orkies began placing the
arrested in flex-cuffs. Witness B began having a panic attack. See BWC time stamp at 20:32:50
hours. Officer Orkies retrieved Witness A bookbag which was on the front passenger seat
floorboard and placed it beside her. Officer Orkies searched Witness A bag to verify no weapons
were inside. Officer Marsh walked away to move the vehicle from the middle of the street. A
female complained that her flex-cuffs were too tight. Officer Orkies placed a finger in between the
flex-cuffs and said they were looser than the metal cuffs they usually use. Officer Orkies turned
his BWC off and immediately turned it back on.

Officer Orkies assisted Officer Marsh in helping Witness B not fall to the ground. Officer Orkies
mostly engaged with the unknown male during this incident. Witness A asked Officer Marsh if he
could take her phone out so she could check her glucose level. Officer Marsh retrieved the phone
from Witness A pocket and checked her level which was 205. Witness A stated, “I’m okay for now,
if it keeps dropping, I will let them know by seizing.” The group was escorted to the awaiting bus.
A female stated she had PTSD and did not want Officer Orkies to touch to assist her in standing.
Officer Orkies searched the male before placing him on the bus.

Officer Naomi Stewart

The events recorded by Officer Stewart’s BWC occurred starting at 20:32:48 pm on June 1, 2020,
according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals the following:

Officer Stewart responded down the hill with a female suspect and placed her on the sidewalk
along with the group that was already sitting on the sidewalk. Officer Stewart briefly searched her
suspect’s bookbag, then placed everything back inside. Officer Stewart spoke to another officer
then asked her suspect if she had any identification on her person, which she did not. Officer
Stewart advised another suspect they were getting charged with curfew and would be transported
to the jail.

Officer Stewart advised an officer they needed to write in their paperwork that Witness A was
diabetic. Officer Stewart advised Ms. Wilkins “a nurse would be at the jail; they will check it and
they will give you juice.” The officers moved the group to where the bus was going to be
positioned. Officer Stewart spoke to two suspects and advised them of what was going to occur
once at the Justice Center. Officer Stewart walked behind Officer Marsh and the Wilkins sisters
and once they reached the bus, Officer Stewart advised Officer Marsh mace was on the stoop
where the Wilkins sisters were about to sit. Officer Stewart obtained her suspect’s information,
then searched a male officer’s female suspect.

106
Lt. Chantia Pearson

The events recorded by Lt. Pearson’s BWC occurred starting at 20:35:03 pm on June 1, 2020,
according to the BWC’s timestamp. A review of that recording reveals the following:

20:51:26, Lt. Pearson asked Witness B if she had anything on her person. Ms. Wilkins replied she
did not. Lt. Pearson searched Witness B’s person, once checked she escorted her over to the
bus where she entered. Lt. Pearson then searched Witness A’s person. Witness A asked Lt.
Pearson if her bookbag can go with her, to which she replied, “yes.” Witness A advised Lt.
Pearson that her phone and pump needed to stay on her. Lt. Pearson replied, “I’m not taking
anything away from you.” Witness A asked to hold her bag in her hand. Lt. Pearson replied, “Yes
ma’am I give them to everybody.” Lt. Pearson searched Witness A’s bookbag as she explained
to the officer everything that was inside of it. Lt. Pearson advised Witness A to let “them” know
she needed her juice and water once she got there. Lt. Pearson completed her search of the
bookbag, placed it in her hands and escorted Witness A to the bus. While on the bus Witness A
had Lt. Pearson place her bandana over her mouth. Witness A asked Lt. Pearson if she could
help “her” take “her” medicine. Lt. Pearson advised the sisters to make sure they tell the HCJC
that she held the prescription bottle that was prescribed to the other sister, because they could
get in trouble for carrying that bottle. Lt. Pearson then exited the bus.

c. Other Video

CCA reviewed an online video showing portions of the arrest that appears to have been originally
posted on TikTok, and was thereafter covered by the national media, including The Late Show
with Stephen Colbert, available at https://youtu.be/aLWKG6O3VFc (last accessed November 1,
2022). The video, recorded on a cellphone by one of the persons arrested with Witness A and
Witness B, is consistent with Officer Clark’s and Officer Orkies’s BWC footage summarized
above.

d. Emergency Order

On May 31, 2020, then-Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley issued an Emergency Order which
implemented a curfew from 9:00pm – 6:00am in Cincinnati through June 2, 2020. The Order
states that the curfew is “based upon the emergency declaration currently existing in the City of
Cincinnati” and that “[i]ndividuals are prohibited from appearing in the public spaces of the City of
Cincinnati during the period of the curfew.”

CCA has also viewed various Tweets from the City of Cincinnati’s Twitter account announcing
the curfew and its operative dates and times. According to one of those Tweets, sent on June 1,
2022, starting on that day, Mayor Cranley expanded the curfew hours to 8:00pm – 6:00am.

e. Clerk of Courts

Officers charged Witness A with Misconduct at Emergency, Ohio Revised Code (ORC) § 2917-
13. Witness B was also charged with Misconduct at Emergency ORC § 2917-13.
107
Those charges are believed to have been ultimately dismissed, and neither the charges, nor the
corresponding court docket, are still available on the online database for the Clerk of Courts. CCA
obtained copies of the Criminal Complaints showing both sets of charges before they were
removed from the database.

f. Twitter Posts

@lexiejewels posted on June 3, 2020 at 1:13p.m., “I guess I’ll address it, yes I was arrested. Yes
I’m diabetic. I got my bag. I wanted my insulin because my pump was going to expire at midnight,
and I knew I would be doing a site change in custody. I’m okay now.”

“My blood sugar was dropping, and I was eating a granola bar and knew I would go high later,
which I did. That’s why I needed the insulin, and also because I knew my insulin pump was going
to expire that night and I would need to do a site change. Which I did.”

@celebrateequal posted on June 3, 2020 at 1:31 a.m., “I was arrested for peacefully protesting
for the BLM movement in Cinci. Cops forced me to stand (while hyperventilating and actively
passing out) and then laughed at me while I was having a panic attack. They withheld my sisters’
meds and mocked her intelligence while she begged.”

“My sister Lexie was begging for her insulin NOT because she needed it in the moment, but
because she knew if she got separated from her bag, the consequences could be deadly. My
sisters blood sugar was high. She misspoke in the video because she was so worried.”

C. Significant Discrepancies & Clarifications

This incident received national attention due to brief clip of the interaction between Officer Marsh
and Witness A and B, specifically the aforementioned clip aired on The Late Show with Stephen
Colbert. A more comprehensive account of the interaction between Officer Marsh and Witness A
and B is detailed in the BWC summaries above.

D. Authorities

See Appendix.

E. Analysis

1. Allegation: Improper Seizure

Complainants who witnessed this incident on Twitter alleged CPD improperly seized Witness A
and B’s persons.

108
In Ohio, a person may be arrested for the offense of Misconduct at Emergency, a misdemeanor
criminal offense, if that person “[fails] to obey the lawful order of any law enforcement officer
engaged in the law enforcement officer's duties at the scene of or in connection with a fire,
accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind.” ORC §2917.13.

CPD Procedure §12.554 Investigatory Stops states that officers may arrest individuals if they are
“supported by probable cause to believe the citizen is committing or has committed a criminal
offense.” Under the law, "Whether probable cause exists depends on the reasonable conclusion
to be drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest . . . . It does not
depend on the officer’s subjective motivation or his stated reason for making the arrest.” Hastings
v. Hubbard, 151 F. App'x 357, 362 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).

On May 31, 2020, during the period of protests related to the killing of George Floyd, then-
Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley issued an Emergency Order which implemented a curfew from
9pm – 6am in Cincinnati. The Order was based on an “emergency declaration” and stated that
“[i]ndividuals are prohibited from appearing in the public spaces of the City of Cincinnati during
the period of the curfew.” According to Tweets from the City of Cincinnati’s Twitter account sent
on June 1, 2022, starting that day, Mayor Cranley expanded the curfew hours to 8:00pm –
6:00am.

On June 1, 2020, at approximately 8:26 p.m., a vehicle with six occupants was stopped for
violating the aforementioned curfew order. Both Witness A and B Witness A were inside the
vehicle. The BWC footage corroborated the officer’s statements that the sisters were present in
a vehicle that was in operation on Cincinnati streets during the curfew. Both sisters were swiftly
arrested and thereafter charged with Misconduct at Emergency in the 1st Degree.

According to statements from Officers Clark and Marsh, they arrested the sisters and other vehicle
occupants after an unknown Black female Sergeant who had stopped the vehicle ordered the
officers to detain the vehicle’s occupants. BWC footage from that day corroborated those officers’
assertions that a Black female officer had stopped the vehicle at the time the officers began
detaining the occupants; video shows her standing in front of the vehicle and denying it passage.

However, to date, the Sergeant who allegedly ordered that the vehicle’s occupants be detained
has not been identified by any officer or civilian witness. Indeed, her identity appears to be
unknown to the Cincinnati Police Department. After an extensive review of BWC evidence,
interviews with officers alleged to have been present, and review of available police records, CCA
is aware of no officer who can attest to having direct knowledge of the specific facts surrounding
the initial holding of the vehicle by the Sergeant, the basis for ordering its occupants detained, or
the basis for charging them with Misconduct at Emergency. For instance, CCA is aware of no
officer who can attest to whether the occupants failed to comply with a specific order given by an
officer. A failure to follow such an order is an element of Misconduct at Emergency, and if not
present, there can be no probable cause to arrest for that offense.

Such testimony from an officer with first-hand knowledge of facts supporting probable cause to
arrest the vehicle’s occupants is especially important in this case because the BWC footage
appears to show other cars that were permitted to pass without arrest or detention, prompting
questions as to why the occupants in this particular vehicle were stopped for arrest when others
109
were free to pass. To be sure, Officer Clark told CCA that he believed that the Sergeant wanted
the vehicle stopped because the Sergeant had observed someone get into the vehicle in order to
avoid arrest, but without knowing the identity of the Sergeant, CCA is unable to question the
Sergeant, verify this assertion, or assess whether there was probable cause to arrest the vehicle
occupants for committing a crime.

We also note that the vehicle occupants were charged with Misconduct at Emergency as a 1st
Degree misdemeanor, which requires some proof that an offender has created “a risk of physical
harm to persons or property.” The reliance on that charge by Cincinnati Police Officers in
advancing a prosecution of the sisters is concerning, particularly given that there appears to be
no known officer with first-hand knowledge who can attest to the necessary facts to establish
probable cause for those specific arrests. Given the lack of evidence, we conclude that there is
an insufficient factual basis to make a determination as to whether probable cause existed and
whether the arrest directed by the unknown Sergeant—and aided by Officers Marsh, Orkies, and
Clark—was proper under CPD policy, training, and procedure.

2. Allegation: Improper Procedure

Several complainants expressed concern at Officer Marsh’s response to Witness A’s request for
access to insulin in her bookbag.

CPD Procedure §12.600, Prisoners: Securing, Handling, and Transporting provides, “If a prisoner
becomes sick or injured subsequent to arrest, officers will immediately seek medical attention.”
There appears to be no CPD policy requiring officers to provide medical attention, or access to
medication, in anticipation of a potential future illness or potential future health emergency.

The evidence is clear that Officer Marsh did not immediately retrieve Witness A’s insulin-bearing
bookbag for her upon her request; however, CPD policy did not require him to immediately do so,
or to otherwise seek medical attention for Witness A if she was not ill or in medical distress at the
time of her request. As Officer Marsh attested to CCA, retrieving the bookbag immediately would
have required him to walk away from persons who were under arrest but not yet restrained. He
attested that based on “his training and experience,” his knowledge of diabetes, and Witness A’s
description of her condition at that moment, he did not believe the immediate application of insulin
was necessary from a health perspective. Significantly, when Witness A requested her insulin,
she stated that she wanted it “in my sight” and “near me” in case she found herself in need of it,
not that she needed to take insulin at that moment. The evidence does not establish that she was
ill or undergoing a medical emergency, and thus CPD policy did not require the officer to seek
medical attention or provide insulin. We should also note that less than 7 minutes after she was
arrested and placed on the curb, Officer Marsh placed Witness A’s bookbag beside her, as she
had requested. Furthermore, officers present, including Officer Marsh, permitted Witness A to eat
a snack while she sat on the curb in response to her request to do so. Under the circumstances,
the officers’ refusal to provide Witness A with access to her insulin immediately upon request was
not a violation of CPD policy, training, or procedure.

110
 3. Allegation: Discourtesy

A complainant who witnessed this incident on Twitter alleged Officer Marsh laughed at Witness
A and B. Witness A CPD’s Manual of Rules and Regulations states officers shall always be civil,
orderly, and courteous in dealing with the public, subordinates, superiors, and associates.

A review of the officers’ BWCs provided evidence Officer Marsh did not specifically laugh at
Witness A or B. According to Officer Orkies BWC, it showed Officer Marsh laugh at Witness E,
the unknown female suspect who originally fled from him after she was caught and placed with
the group that was inside the stopped vehicle. When questioned by CCA about the allegations
made against him, Officer Marsh denied he had been discourteous to Witness A and B that day.
Ultimately, although Officer Marsh was not discourteous toward Witnesses A and B, his laughing
at the suspect that was caught after fleeing and doing so in the presence of other arrested
suspects, was not professional and only served to escalate tensions. CCA determined Officer
Marsh was not in compliance with CPD's policy, procedure, and training.

4. Collateral Allegation: Improper Procedure (BWC)

Officer Marsh admittedly failed to activate his BWC prior to coming into contact with Witness A
and Witness B. Officer Marsh activated his BWC once Witness A and Witness B were placed in
flex-cuffs and seated on the sidewalk awaiting the transport bus.

CPD Procedure § 12.540, “Equipment is the responsibly of the officer assigned” and “Officers
who fail to use the equipment as required or fail to report damage to the equipment are in violation
of the Manual of Rules and Regulations and are subject to the disciplinary process for the CPD.”

CCA found that Officer Marsh violated CPD policy procedure of training when he failed to activate
his BWC.

F. Findings

Original Allegations

Witnesses A and B

Officer Raymond Marsh

Officer William Orkies
Officer Nicholas Clark

Improper Seizure - There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct
occurred. NOT SUSTAINED

111
Witness E

Officer Raymond Marsh

Discourtesy - The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident
occurred, and the actions of the officer were improper. SUSTAINED

Witness A

Improper Procedure - There are no facts to support the incident complained of actually occurred.
UNFOUNDED

Collateral Allegation

Witnesses A

Officer Raymond Marsh

Improper Procedure (BWC) – The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine

that the incident occurred, and the actions of the officer were improper. SUSTAINED

G. Observations

See “Section VI. Key Observations” in CCA’s consolidated report on this investigation and ten
other protest investigations, GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI.

H. Recommendations

See R2301, R2302, R2303, R2305, R2306, R2307, R2308, and R2309 in “Section VII.
Recommendations” of CCA’s consolidated report on this investigation and ten other protest
investigations (GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI).

I. Previous Contacts & Commendations

Officer Raymond Marsh

Previous Contacts with CCA

Officer Marsh had no previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

Previous Contacts with IIS

112
CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Marsh with IIS.

Commendations

Officer Marsh received no commendations in the past three years.

Officer William Orkies

Previous Contacts with CCA

Officer Orkies had no previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Orkies with IIS.

Commendations

Officer Orkies received no commendations in the past three years.

Officer Nicholas Clark

Previous Contacts with CCA

Officer Clark had one previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

Case Number Allegation Finding

20065 Lack of Service Pending

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Clark with IIS.

Commendations

Officer Clark received no commendations in the past three years.

113
 1/30/2023
Dena Brown, Chief Investigator Date

1/30/2023
Gabriel Davis, Director Date

114
 Case No. 20099 –
Thompson
Investigation

A. Complaint Summary

Complainant: Cassandra Thompson

Date: June 1, 2020

Time: 8:30 p.m.

Location: 2014 Mohawk Place

CCA Receipt: June 11, 2020

Allegations: Improper Search, Improper Procedure, Improper Seizure – Collateral, Improper

Procedure (BWC) – Collateral

Ms. Cassandra Thompson initially emailed her complaint which stated:

On 6/1/2020 assuming sometime after 8 pm I was arrested for curfew. During the
process an officer (F/B, middle aged) went through my belongings and took 2
bottles of my own pepper spray and threw them on the ground with disregard for
my property and stated, "they won't let you have these." Regardless of that
statement I am entitled to my property. and should have been processed in the
property room with my name associated with that so that I can retrieve my
property. I have contacted the property room who as of 6/11/30 does not have
anything for me.

B. Summary of Evidence

1. Involved Citizen Statements

Cassandra Thompson

CCA interviewed Ms. Cassandra Thompson, F/W/29, on July 2, 2020, at 12:55 p.m. She provided
the following information:

On June 1, 2020, approximately 8:30 p.m. at 2014 Mohawk Place, Ms. Thompson, participated
in the George Floyd protest. It was after curfew and she was arrested with a “group of people”
for Ohio Revised Code (ORC) § 2917.13, Misconduct at an Emergency.

Ms. Thompson was situated down against one of the stores on Mohawk Place and kinda sat there
for a minute with the group and was told they were all. An unknown Black female officer
115
handcuffed Ms. Thompson with flex-cuffs then searched her bookbag without her consent and
removed two bottles of mace. The officer told Ms. Thompson “They won’t let you have those,”
and left the mace on the sidewalk. The officer returned the bookbag to Ms. Thompson as she
was placed on a Metro Bus to be transported to the Hamilton County Justice Center (HCJC).

When Ms. Thompson was released from the HCJC, she called CPD’s Property Room, and was
told they did not have her two bottles of mace.

2. Subject Officer Statements

Officer Adrienne Brown

Officer Adrienne Brown, #PO165, F/B/39, is currently assigned to District 1, and he has been a
CPD member since 1999. Officer Brown was in uniform; her BWC was activated.

CCA interviewed Officer Brown on October 6, 2020, at 06:19 a.m. and October 20, 2020 at 6:19
a.m. She provided the following information:

Officer Brown was unsure of where she was positioned on June 1, 2020; she was either on a
Metro bus as an arrest officer or in a Squad as an arrest officer. She recalled there were four
Metro buses picking up people. One day, she rode the bus and filled out hundreds of arrest slips.
The days that she was on a squad, she was responsible for wherever they dispatched her to if
there were ten people or more.

Officer Brown confirmed she searched a lot of females who were arrested because she was one
of the few female officers on the arrest teams. Arrested individuals were placed in flex-cuffs until
a transport officer came. Officer Brown did not specifically remember Ms. Thompson, but stated
every single person was searched. She stated people were advised certain items would not be
allowed at the HCJC and their bags were given back to them as they entered the bus. She
indicated officers set hundreds of things off to the side.

Officer Raymond Marsh

Officer Raymond Marsh, #PO092, M/W/39, is currently assigned to District 4, and he has been a
CPD member since 2014. Officer Marsh was in uniform; his BWC was activated.

CCA interviewed Officer Marsh on September 16, 2020, at 6:29 a.m. He provided the following
information:

Officer Marsh did not recall specifically coming into contact with Ms. Thompson. There was a
large group of people moving up Mohawk and they were out past curfew. They had been warned
and were detained with flex-cuffs. They were searched and then placed on a Metro bus for
transport to a processing center.

116
Officer Marsh recalled being approached by Captain Douglas Snider, who asked, “What’s that
behind you (on the sidewalk)?” Officer Marsh turned and picked up two cans of mace and handed
them to Captain Snider, who walked away.

3. Officer Witness Statements

Officer Robert Pope

Officer Robert Pope, #PO175, M/B/50, is currently assigned to the Community Relations Unit-
School Resource Officer, and he has been a CPD member since 2002. Officer Pope was in
uniform and operated a Metro bus on the day of this incident; his BWC was activated.

CCA interviewed Officer Pope on September 30, 2020, at 10:53 a.m. He provided the following
information:

Officer Pope drove the Metro bus to transport the protestors to the HCJC. Officer Pope did not
recall coming into contact with Ms. Thompson. He dealt with approximately 30 – 40 people who
had been arrested, searched, and then were placed on his bus.

Officer Sabreen Robinson

Officer Sabreen Robinson, #PO196, F/B/42, is currently assigned to the Community Relations
Unit- School Resource Officer, and she has been a CPD member since 2002. Officer Robinson
was in uniform; her BWC was activated.

CCA interviewed Officer Robinson on September 30, 2020, at 11:29 a.m. She provided the
following information:

When Officer Robinson arrived on scene approximately 50 people were already detained for
violating the curfew. The arrested had their persons and property searched before entering the
bus. Officer Robinson searched a few people but did not recall searching Ms. Thompson, nor did
she search anyone who had pepper spray or mace.

Sergeant Cassandra Tucker

Sergeant Cassandra Tucker, #S0055, F/B/55, was assigned to the Youth Services Unit, and she
had been a CPD member since 2000. Sergeant Tucker was in uniform; her BWC was activated.
Sergeant Tucker retired 2021.

CCA interviewed Sergeant Tucker on September 23, 2020, at 10:59 a.m. She provided the
following information:

117
Sergeant Tucker did not recall coming into contact with Ms. Thompson. CPD was tasked with
making sure that the people who violated the curfew were detained, placed in flex-cuffs (which
were used for the large number (30) of people involved at that location), and properly placed
under arrest, searched (person & property), and placed on the bus.

4. Witness Statements

Ms. Thompson did not provide any witness information.

5. Documentary Evidence, Audio-Visual Evidence & Other Evidence

a. Police Documents

CCA reviewed all CPD-related forms, including but not limited to arrest forms and BWCs.

b. Body Worn Camera (BWC)

Officer Adrienne Brown

Officer Brown’s BWC was not turned on during this incident.

Officer Robert Pope

The events recorded by Officer Pope’s BWC occurred on June 1, 2020, according to the BWC’s
timestamp at 8:40 p.m. A review of that recording reveals the following:

Officer Pope’s initial BWC footage was unrelated to the incident. At 20:41:25, Officer Brown
walked towards the barbershop and Ms. Thompson, who sat on the sidewalk. It appeared that
Ms. Thompson was already detained when Officer Brown approached her, given that as Ms.
Thompson sat on the sidewalk, she was sitting in a line with her back to a building next to several
other individuals, many of whom were in the process of being restrained by police officers. Ms.
Thompson stood up. Other officers on scene searched unknown individuals while Officer Pope
assisted with escorting detainees onto the bus.

Officer Brown placed flex cuffs on Ms. Thompson and searched her bookbag. Officer Brown
placed unknown items on the sidewalk. Due to Officer Pope assisting with detainees, obstructions
from the bus, and various people standing between the bus and the barbershop, the full search
of the bag was not captured on his BWC. Officer Brown escorted Ms. Thompson to the bus. Ms.
Thompson identified herself and entered the bus with a strap of her bag around her neck. Officer
Pope later transported the detainees in the bus to HCJC. The remaining portion of his BWC was
not relevant to the incident.

118
Officer Sabreen Robinson

The events recorded by Officer Robinson’s BWC occurred on June 1, 2020, according to the
BWC’s timestamp at 20:31:02. A review of that recording reveals the following:

Officer Robinson’s initial BWC footage was unrelated to the incident. Ms. Thompson stood in front
of the barbershop entrance. Officer Robinson searched an individual on the sidewalk while Officer
Brown, in the background, searched Ms. Thompson’s bag. Officer Brown pulled out contents from
the bag and placed them on the sidewalk in front of the barbershop entrance. Due to the distance
between Officer Brown and Officer Robinson, the contents of Ms. Thompson’s bag were
unidentifiable.

Officer Robinson searched the individual’s property and found pepper spray. Officer Robinson
noted she would have to take the pepper spray from the individual. Officer Robinson escorted the
individual to a nearby Metro bus; Ms. Thompson stood in the background, restrained with Flex-
cuffs, and the strap of her bag around her neck. Officer Brown escorted Ms. Thompson to the
same bus. Several unidentified items were left on the sidewalk where Ms. Thompson’s bag was
searched. Officer Robinson asked Officer Brown, “What happens with their property?” Officer
Brown replied, “They take it with them.” Ms. Thompson entered the bus with her bag. Officer
Brown walked away. Officer Robinson’s remaining BWC footage was not relevant to the incident.

Officer Raymond Marsh

The events recorded by Officer Marsh’s BWC occurred on June 1, 2020, according to the BWC’s
timestamp at 20:31:39. A review of that recording reveals the following:

Officer Marsh’s initial BWC footage was unrelated to the incident. Officer Marsh escorted
detainees to the front of the barbershop where Ms. Thompson and her property were previously
searched by Officer Brown. Captain Snider pointed behind Officer Marsh and asked what was
on the ground. Officer Marsh responded, “Mace.” He reached down, collected two canisters on
the sidewalk in front of the barbershop entrance, and handed them to Captain Snider. Captain
Snider left the area with the canisters. Officer Marsh’s remaining BWC footage was not relevant
to the incident.

c. Clerk of Courts

Ms. Thompson was charged with Ohio Revised Code (ORC) §2917.13 Misconduct at Emergency.
The charge was dismissed.

119
C. Significant Discrepancies & Clarifications

1. After reviewing Officer Pope’s BWC, CCA determined the involved officer was Officer
Adrienne Brown.

2. Officer Brown’s BWC was not activated during this incident.

D. Authorities

See Appendix.

E. Analysis

1. Allegation: Improper Search

Ms. Thompson alleged that on June 1, 2020, her backpack was searched without her consent
after her arrest during George Floyd protests.

A review of Officer Pope’s BWC showed Officer Brown aiding in the arrest of Ms. Thompson by
placing her in flex-cuffs, and then searching Ms. Thompson’s bookbag. (Although the actual items
inside of the bookbag could not be determined due to Officer Pope’s distance from Officer Brown
and Ms. Thompson, BWC footage from other officers indicated two of the items were chemical
irritants.) In her statement to CCA, Officer Brown explained that as one of the female officers on
the arrest teams, she searched several females who were arrested. Officer Brown did not
specifically remember Ms. Thompson but stated every person was searched. She stated people
were advised certain items would not be allowed at the HCJC and their bags were given back to
them as they entered the bus; officers set hundreds of things off to the side.

CPD Investigations Manual § 12.1.3, Search Incident to Lawful Arrest, instructs officers taking
suspects into custody to search the person who is being arrested as well as the area within their
immediate control, even when taking suspects from another officer. The instruction is consistent
with Ohio law, which permits searches incident to lawful arrest. The preliminary issue that must
be satisfied when analyzing such searches, is whether the arrest that is being used to justify the
search is a lawful one.

As this investigative report explains below, there is uncertainty pertaining to whether there was
probable cause to arrest Ms. Thompson for Misconduct at Emergency, given the inability to
identify the officer who decided that she should be arrested and directed that arrest. Given that
there is a lack of sufficient evidence to determine whether her arrest was lawful, CCA concluded
there is a lack of sufficient evidence to conclude that Officer Brown’s actions were consistent with
a search incident to arrest and therefore within policy, procedure, and training.

2. Allegation: Improper Procedure (Property and Evidence)

After her arrest, Ms. Thompson alleged Officer Brown removed two cannisters of pepper spray
from her bag and threw them to the ground; Ms. Thompson stated she never received them after
her release from the HCJC.
120
CPD Procedure §12.715, Property and Evidence: Confiscation, Accountability, Processing,
Storage, and Release, states “[a]ll property confiscated, seized, found, or coming into police
custody will be properly marked, packaged, and submitted by the officer into the
district/section/unit property room before terminating their tour of duty.”

Officer Pope’s BWC captured Officer Brown search Ms. Thompson and her bookbag. Officer
Brown removed the two cans of pepper spray and placed them on the sidewalk near Ms.
Thompson Before escorting her to the Metro bus for transport to HCJC. Subsequently, Officer
Marsh escorted his prisoner to where Ms. Thompson had been standing; as Captain Snider
walked past, he observed the pepper spray and gestured for Officer Marsh to hand him the
cannisters. Officer Marsh complied, and Captain Snider walked out of view.

CCA reviewed the HCJC’s website which listed items such as pocketknives, scissors, mace, and
any other weapon which are not permitted inside. CCA determined Ms. Thompson would not have
been permitted to take the chemical irritant with her into the HCJC. However, CCA determined
Officer Brown should have tagged Ms. Thompson’s property per CPD Procedure §12.715. CCA
concluded that Officer Brown did not comply with CPD’s policy, procedures, and training.

3. Collateral Allegation: Improper Procedure (BWC)

CPD Procedure §12.540 Body Worn Camera states officers must have their BWC activated
during all law enforcement-related encounters and activities as defined in this procedure. Officers
will deactivate the BWC system only at the conclusion of the event, during transport with an
activated DVR, or with supervisor approval. The BWC may be deactivated after clearing the call
for service/self-initiated activity. Officer Brown deactivated her BWC after she placed an unknown
male into custody. Her late activation prevented her interaction with Ms. Thompson from being
captured on her BWC.

4. Collateral Allegation: Improper Seizure

In Ohio, a person may be arrested for the offense of Misconduct at Emergency, a misdemeanor
criminal offense, if that person “[fails] to obey the lawful order of any law enforcement officer
engaged in the law enforcement officer's duties at the scene of or in connection with a fire,
accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind.” ORC §2917.13.

CPD Procedure §12.554 Investigatory Stops states that officers may arrest individuals if they are
“supported by probable cause to believe the citizen is committing or has committed a criminal
offense.” Under the law, "Whether probable cause exists depends on the reasonable conclusion
to be drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest . . . . It does not
depend on the officer’s subjective motivation or his stated reason for making the arrest.” Hastings
v. Hubbard, 151 F. App'x 357, 362 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).
In determining whether there was probable cause to arrest, we must analyze the facts known to
officer who directed the specific arrest, and not limit the analysis to the facts known to officers
who merely respond to aid in the arrest. See McCallum v. Geelhood, 742 F. App'x 985, 993-94
(6th Cir. 2018).

121
On May 31, 2020, during the period of protests related to the killing of George Floyd, then-
Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley issued an Emergency Order which implemented a curfew from
9pm – 6am in Cincinnati. The Order was based on an “emergency declaration” and stated that
“[i]ndividuals are prohibited from appearing in the public spaces of the City of Cincinnati during
the period of the curfew.” According to Tweets from the City of Cincinnati’s Twitter account sent
on June 1, 2022, starting that day, Mayor Cranley expanded the curfew hours to 8:00pm –
6:00am.

On June 1, 2020, at approximately 8:30 p.m., Ms. Thompson was arrested. She admitted in her
CCA interview that she was arrested with “a group of people,” while she was protesting “after
curfew.” Of her arrest, she stated, “We were kinda all sat down up against I guess one of the
stores on Mohawk Place and kinda sat there for a minute and they told us we were all under
arrest.” Ms. Thompson described Officer Brown as an officer who subsequently searched her
and placed her into restraints, but when describing their interaction, she did not identify Officer
Brown as an officer who initially detained her, sat her down, or told her she was under arrest.

Officer Brown told CCA she did not specifically recall Ms. Thompson; however, BWC from Officer
Pope establishes that Officer Brown walked up to Ms. Thompson while she sat against the store
front and then placed Ms. Thompson into flex cuffs. As summarized in this report, the BWC
appears to show that Ms. Thompson was already detained when Officer Brown approached her,
given that as Ms. Thompson sat on the sidewalk, and before Officer Brown approached, Ms.
Thompson was sitting in a line with her back to a building next to several other individuals, many
of whom were in the process of being restrained by police officers. This is consistent with Ms.
Thompson’s statement that “we were kinda sat down” against a storefront prior to being searched
by Officer Brown and then restrained with flex cuffs by Officer Brown.

Given these facts, it is far from clear that Officer Brown was the officer who initially detained Ms.
Thompson and decided that she should be arrested. Indeed, the identity of the officer who decided
that Ms. Thompson should be detained and arrested is unknown to CCA and appears to be
unknown to the Cincinnati Police Department. After a review of available BWC evidence,
interviews with officers alleged to have been present, and review of available police records, CCA
is aware of no officer who attests to having direct knowledge of the specific facts surrounding the
arrest of Ms. Thompson, the basis for ordering her detention, or the basis for charging her with
Misconduct at Emergency. For instance, CCA is aware of no officer who can attest to whether
Ms. Thompson failed to comply with a specific order given by an officer. A failure to follow such
an order is an element of Misconduct at Emergency, and if not present, there can be no probable
cause to arrest for that offense.

The identity of the arresting officer is important, for if the officer who specifically directed that Ms.
Thompson be arrested had probable cause to do so—which in this case would require a
reasonable basis to believe that she had disobeyed an order from a police officer during a time of
emergency—then Officer Brown would likely be entitled under the law to rely on that probable
cause in aiding the arrest of Ms. Thompson. However, without knowing the identity of the officer
who directed the arrest, CCA is unable to question that person, or assess whether there was
probable cause to arrest Ms. Thompson for committing a criminal offense.

We also note that Ms. Thompson was charged with Misconduct at Emergency as a 1st Degree
misdemeanor, which requires some proof that an offender has created “a risk of physical harm to
122
persons or property.” The reliance on that charge by Cincinnati Police Officers in advancing a
prosecution here is concerning, particularly given that there appears to be no officer with first-
hand knowledge who can attest that Ms. Thompson disobeyed the lawful order of a police officer,
let alone that she created a risk of physical harm while doing so.

Given the lack of evidence, we conclude that there is an insufficient factual basis to make a
determination as to whether probable cause existed and whether the arrest directed by an
unknown officer—and aided by Officer Brown—was proper under CPD policy, training, and
procedure.

F. Findings

Original Allegations

Officer Adrienne Brown

Improper Search - There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct
occurred. NOT SUSTAINED

Improper Procedure – The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the
incident occurred, and the actions of the officer were improper. SUSTAINED

Collateral Allegations

Officer Adrienne Brown

Improper Procedure (BWC) – The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine

that the incident occurred, and the actions of the officer were improper. SUSTAINED

Unknown Officer
Officer Adrienne Brown

Improper Seizure – There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct
occurred. NOT SUSTAINED

G. Observations

See “Section VI. Key Observations” in CCA’s consolidated report on this investigation and ten
other protest investigations, GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI.

H. Recommendations

See R2301, R2302, R2303, R2305, R2306, and R2307 in “Section VII. Recommendations” of
CCA’s consolidated report on this investigation and ten other protest investigations (GEORGE
123
FLOYD PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING
COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI).

I. Previous Contacts & Commendations

Officer Adrienne Brown

Previous Contacts with CCA

Officer Brown had no previous contacts with CCA in the past three years.

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Brown with IIS.

Commendations

Officer Brown received three commendations in the past three years.

Date Source of Commendation Received

09/27/2018 CPD
12/20/2018 CPD
12/30/2018 CPD

1/30/2023
Dena Brown, Chief Investigator Date

1/30/2023
Gabriel Davis, Director Date

124
 Case No. 20092 –
Clifford Investigation

A. Complaint Summary

Complainant: Pat Clifford

Date: June 1, 2020

Time: 8:45pm

Location: 209 Hastings Street

CCA Receipt: June 3, 2020

Allegations: Improper Stop; Improper Pointing of a Firearm; Improper Procedure (Contact

Card) - Collateral

On June 1, 2020, Mr. Pat Clifford and his wife stood outside on the roof deck of their residence
and observed three young adults on a private lot nearby. At approximately 8:45pm, CPD SWAT
officers arrived, displayed their firearms, and restrained the individuals with flex-cuffs. After
several minutes, they were released.

B. Summary of Evidence

1. Involved Citizen Statements

No identifying or contact information was available for the men listed in the initial complaint. As
a result, CCA was unable to attempt contact with those individuals.

2. Subject Officer Statements

Officer Ronald Johnson

Officer Johnson, #P0843, M/B/44, is currently assigned to District One, and he has been a CPD
member since 1999. At the time of the incident, Officer Johnson was engaged as a member of
SWAT.

CCA interviewed Officer Johnson on March 11, 2021, at 6:32am. He provided the following
information:

On June 1, 2020, there was civil unrest and protestors were going down McMicken Avenue after
the City-imposed mandated curfew. SWAT was ordered to “break the whole thing up” by
dispersing the protestors. The protestors ran and/or exited vehicles and “bolted” into the woods,
125
which led into yards in Clifton. Several people “popped up” in the area and ran up the hill. The
officers were supposed to locate the protestors, detain them, and then issue citations. Sergeant
Shannon Heine had detained individuals and requested assistance from SWAT.

After his arrival, Officer Johnson indicated to his team that he needed to use a nearby Port-a-
John. Officer Johnson and Specialist Michael Harper left and approached the Port-a-John, but
when Officer Johnson went to open the door, he observed a young adult jumping onto a seven-
foot wall. There were two other male individuals with him.

Officer Johnson and Specialist Harper approached them. Officer Johnson ordered them to show
their hands, and they complied. Officer Johnson and Specialist Harper radioed for additional
officers to assist. The individuals were placed in flex-cuffs, though he could not recall which
officers flex-cuffed the individuals. He stated that the individuals were likely patted down “for
safety.” He did not recall positioning the individuals on their knees. Officer Johnson clarified they
were never under arrest. They said they lived there and attended the University of Cincinnati.
Officer Johnson observed they wore flip-flops, had food on a plate, and a toy car nearby. The
officers determined the individuals were not the ones the officers were looking for or chasing. The
officers removed the flex-cuffs and apologized for the inconvenience before leaving. The
individuals were polite, compliant, and seemed to understand the situation. Further, the
individuals did not seem upset, and said, “No problem.” The encounter lasted approximately 10
minutes.

Officer Johnson stated that on his SWAT uniform, his rifle is visible and positioned on his chest.
He did not recall if they displayed firearms during the encounter.

Officer Jacob Wloszek

Officer Wloszek, #P0757, M/W/43, is currently assigned to District One, and he has been a CPD
member since 2004. At the time of the incident, Officer Wloszek was a member of SWAT.

CCA interviewed Officer Wloszek on March 11, 2021, at 10:25am. He provided the following
information:

On June 1, 2020, SWAT was assigned to support the Civil Disturbance Response Team (CDRT).
His specific group included Sergeant Michael Hudepohl, Specialist Harper and Officers Winslow,
Mercado, and Johnson. At the time, the city had implemented a curfew, and the crowd was
“testing to see how long” they could stay past curfew. CPD directed the crowd, using vehicles
and gave announcements over loudspeakers, to disperse and head home. Suddenly, the crowd
“scattered,” going in different directions and into the woods. Command staff directed the officers
“to make arrests for anybody that was left in this group.” The officers made arrests as necessary
and waited for the transport van to take them to the processing center.

Approximately 100 feet away, there was a construction site and a Port-a-John. The officers
decided to take turns using the restroom. Either Specialist Harper or Officer Johnson went
towards the Port-a-John but yelled that there were more individuals near the Port-a-John. The
remaining officers observed approximately three individuals: three males, two of whom appeared
126
Caucasian. When he arrived, the individuals were sitting on slabs of concrete; and were
“extremely cooperative.” Officer Wloszek did not flex-cuff anyone; he did not recall if the other
officers applied flex-cuffs, but if so, the individuals were not detained for long – possibly a couple
minutes. He did not believe they were frisked or searched.

In that period, another individual came out of a nearby house, dressed similarly to the detained
individuals (e.g., button-down shirts and khakis) and claimed they were his roommates. The
individuals explained they lived nearby and were driving a remote-control monster truck
(approximately three to four feet long) on the construction site; they were private property, but it
was not on their own property. One of the individuals had climbed through an unfinished window
on the construction site, placing the truck on the building, when the officers noticed him.

The officers determined the individuals were not involved. They continued to talk to the
individuals, “joking with us and asking us how to be police officers.” Officer Wloszek stated there
was “nothing adversarial” in the entire encounter, which lasted approximately seven minutes. The
officers returned to wait for the transport van.

Officer Wloszek explained that his SWAT uniform had tactical gear, which included a firearm on
his side and on a drop holster. He stated some officers had rifles; he did not know whether he or
any of the other officers present had rifles slung. He denied that he drew his firearms at any time
and did not observe any other officer draw or point his firearm at these individuals.

Officer John Mercado

Officer Mercado, #LEI01, M/H/53, is currently a Law Enforcement Instructor at the CPD Target
Range and Firearms Training. He was a CPD member since 1990 and retired from CPD in 2021.
At the time of the incident, Officer Mercado was engaged as a member of SWAT.

CCA interviewed Officer Mercado on March 15, 2021 at 11:24am. He provided the following
information:

On June 1, 2020, Officer Mercado was assigned to a team under Sergeant Hudepohl, which
involved Officers Johnson, Jacob Volcheck, Michael Winslow, and Steven Caponis, and
Specialist Harper. From 8:00pm – 8:45pm, CPD had been announcing on PA systems that the
curfew was in effect. “Large crowds of riotous people” ran throughout neighborhoods and through
backyards, committing criminal trespass and “defying the curfew.” Officers had stopped and
apprehended individuals in front of a building.

During this time, an officer called out on the SWAT radio that there were three subjects running
away through another yard, climbing in a window of a building that was under repair. Officer
Mercado described it as a potential “B&E in progress.” The officers encountered three individuals
who appeared to be “young college kids”; all three were male, one was white, and one may have
been of a different ethnic background. Officer Mercado arrived as the officers placed the
individuals into flex-cuffs temporarily; he did not know whether all individuals were placed in flex-
cuffs, or if he applied the flex-cuffs. He believed they were patted down for weapons “to ensure
that they did not have any weapons, as many of the other rioters did.”
127
The individuals were cooperative and explained they lived nearby; they had been playing with a
remote-control vehicle and had gone through the property as a shortcut to get home because
they knew it was past curfew. After the officers’ investigation, in which they observed the remote-
controlled vehicle, the flex-cuffs were removed. The officers spoke with the individuals for a few
minutes. They voiced “concerns…not the arrest, but the fact that the way that other people were
acting.” Officer Mercado described it as a “good encounter” and stated they “joked” with the
individuals. The individuals were not cited. He did not recall if the individuals’ identifying
information was obtained but stated that a contact card was not completed.

According to Officer Mercado, SWAT officers had their firearms holstered on their side and M4
rifles on a sling; the firearms were “displayed” by being visible. He stated that he did not recall
whether the officers pointed their firearms at the individuals but stated there was
“potential…because they were curfew violators, criminal trespassers, and a possible B&E in
progress at the same time” – he clarified the firearms may be pointed in the person’s direction or
held “in the ready.”

Specialist Michael Harper

Specialist Harper, #PS597, M/W/45, is currently assigned to the Canine Squad, and he has been
a CPD member since 2001. At the time of the incident, Specialist Harper was engaged as a
member of SWAT.

CCA interviewed Specialist Harper on March 18, 2021 at 9:02am. He provided the following
information:

On June 1, 2020, there were protestors gathered in several areas of Cincinnati. The mayor
mandated a curfew for 8:00pm. At 8:00pm, over loudspeakers and in person CPD announced to
the protestors that the curfew was in effect, and they needed to go home or else be arrested. The
protestors were notified via the news and social media and given “multiple” warnings. SWAT
officers were assigned to an area on McMicken Avenue. When the officers began to arrest
citizens for curfew violations, many ran to Ravine area towards Clifton through the woods, yards,
and side streets.

Specialist Harper, Officer Mercado, and other SWAT members observed three male individuals
“fast walking” through a vacant lot coming from the same direction as the protestors and one
individual went over a retaining wall by a lot that appeared to be under construction. Specialist
Harper ordered them to stop, and the officers detained them for potential curfew violation. Each
individual was placed into flex-cuffs, but Specialist Harper did not know by which officer. He
believed they were pat down for weapons “because of the nature of what was going on with
protestors who had assaulted police, had thrown box bottles and rocks, and one of our officers
was actually shot,” but he did not know by which officer.

The individuals informed them that they lived in the area and had been playing with a remote-
controlled car in one of the backyards, but they saw people running so they ran also. They pointed
out the remote-controlled car on a nearby concrete ledge. Specialist Harper noted that the
128
individuals did not appear to be dressed in typical “protest garb,” either. The officers determined
the individuals were “genuine” and did not appear to be involved in the protests. The individuals
were released and not cited. Specialist Harper estimated the detainment to have been “brief,”
possibly for a “few minutes.” He mentioned the individuals were cooperative and asked questions
related to SWAT operations. Specialist Harper described the interaction as “good” and “very
positive.”

Specialist Harper did not know if a Contact Card was completed or who would have been
responsible for completing it.

Officer Carroll Todd

Officer Todd, #P0312, M/B/49, is currently assigned to District One – Neighborhood Liaison Unit,
and he has been a CPD member since 2001. At the time of the incident, Officer Todd was
engaged as a member of SWAT.

CCA interviewed Officer Todd on March 18, 2021 at 9:35am. He provided the following
information:

On June 1, 2020, Officer Todd assisted other SWAT officers in a response team to provide
protection and assistance to other officers. Announcements were made to a large group in the
Central Parkway area at the time of curfew, so several individuals ran into the woods towards the
Clifton area. His team went to assist a sergeant, who had four or five individuals stopped in an
area near a construction site. As they waited, Officer Todd observed a nearby Port-a-John and
advised his team, including Sergeant Hudepohl and Officers Johnson and Harper, he needed to
use the restroom; some officers indicated likewise.

Officer Todd heard an officer say, “Hands, hands!” which indicated to him that an individual was
in the area. He noted that there was a small hill near the construction site, and he believed the
individuals present likely were “hiding out.” When Officer Todd approached, he observed at least
three teenagers; an officer assisted one teenager off of his knees and removed the flex-cuffs from
his hands. He did not observe which officers applied the flex-cuffs but based on the time it took
to respond to the scene, he estimated the individuals were only in flex-cuffs for “seconds.” Officer
Todd did not observe the individuals being pat-down or searched during the encounter.

The individuals explained they had been “playing with a car on the hill” which appeared plausible
to the officers, as they observed a toy car and its remote control. When the officers determined
that the individuals were not involved in the incident, they were released. The individuals were
not cited. Officer Todd described the individuals were in “shock” initially, but prior to their
departure, the officers had a conversation with the individuals to explain the situation.

Officer Todd explained that his SWAT uniform had tactical gear, which included a holstered
firearm on a thigh rib and an AR-15 rifle slung across his vest. He denied that he drew his firearms
at any time and did not observe any other officer draw his firearm.

129
Officer Todd stated that all of the officers would have been responsible for completing a contact
card since everyone was in contact with the individuals; however, he did not believe any were
completed.

3. Officer Witness Statements

Officer Michael Winslow

Officer Winslow, #P0728, M/B/40, is currently assigned to the Firearms Training Unit, and he has
been a CPD member since 2002. At the time of the incident, Officer Winslow was engaged as a
member of the SWAT team.

CCA interviewed Officer Winslow on March 15, 2021, at 11:00am. He provided the following
information:

On June 1, 2020, Officer Winslow worked with the SWAT team under Sergeant Hudepohl. He
stated that while he worked that day and was with Sergeant Hudepohl’s team, he was not involved
in the incident listed in the complaint and did not observe the interaction.

4. Witness Statements

Pat Clifford

CCA interviewed Mr. Clifford on October 28, 2020. He provided the following information:

On June 1, 2020, Mr. Clifford, M/W, and his wife stood outside on the roof deck of their residence
and observed three young adults on a private lot nearby, playing with a motorized truck. At
approximately 8:45pm, CPD SWAT Team officers arrived, had their firearms drawn, and
restrained the individuals with flex-cuffs. After several minutes, they were released.

Mr. Clifford was concerned the SWAT officers were unnecessarily involved; although the City of
Cincinnati had a curfew mandate in effect, the young adults were not in a public space and had
not been involved with the recent protests. Mr. Clifford is concerned they may have been
“traumatized” by the encounter.

5. Documentary Evidence, Audio-Visual Evidence & Other Evidence

a. Police Documents

CCA reviewed all CPD-related forms, including but not limited to arrest forms and use of force
forms related to the 2020 protests.

b. Emergency Order

On May 31, 2020, then-Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley issued an Emergency Order which
implemented a curfew from 9pm – 6am in Cincinnati through June 2, 2020. The Order states that
the curfew is “based upon the emergency declaration currently existing in the City of Cincinnati”
130
and that “[i]ndividuals are prohibited from appearing in the public spaces of the City of Cincinnati
during the period of the curfew.”

CCA has also viewed various Tweets from the City of Cincinnati’s Twitter account announcing
the curfew and its operative dates and times.

c. CAD Report (Computer-Aided Dispatch)

CAD Report #CPD200601001451 showed that on June 1, 2020, at 8:40pm, a caller reported that
“[p]rotestors are jumping fences onto people’s property…others spread throughout the area” of
322 Emming Street.

Note: Emming Street is located two streets away from Hastings Street.

d. Recorded Footage - Provided by: Pat Clifford

Duration: 0:45 seconds

The camera recorded part of the incident from several yards away on a second-floor balcony.
Three individuals were kneeling or seated in an empty lot, near a foundational wall. One officer
lowered and appeared to be applying or adjusting the restraints.

The audio recording captured commentary about the incident, including, “Are they arresting those
kids?” and “I guess. Yep [inaudible]. They’re in their own backyard. …They were just playing
with a little toy truck in their backyard.”

C. Significant Discrepancies & Clarifications

The SWAT officers involved in the interaction were in SWAT uniform; they did not wear BWCs.
At the time of the incident, CPD Procedure § 12.540 Body Worn Camera System did not require
SWAT officers to carry and activate BWCs. As of April 2021, the procedure has been updated to
require those officers to “utilize BWCs in high-risk activities (i.e., search warrants, arrest warrants,
crowd control).”

D. Authorities

See Appendix.

E. Analysis

1. Allegation: Improper Stop

Mr. Clifford alleged that during the evening of June 1, 2020, at approximately 8:45 p.m., he and
his wife observed CPD officers improperly detain three young adults with flex-cuffs while those
persons were on private property.

131
CPD Procedure § 12.554, Investigatory Stops, maintains that when an officer has reasonable
suspicion to believe a citizen is committing a crime, the officer may forcibly stop and detain the
citizen briefly.

On May 31, 2020, then-Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley issued an Emergency Order which
implemented a curfew from 9pm – 6am in Cincinnati. The order states that the curfew is “based
upon the emergency declaration currently existing in the City of Cincinnati” and that “[i]ndividuals
are prohibited from appearing in the public spaces of the City of Cincinnati during the period of
the curfew.” According to Tweets from the City of Cincinnati’s Twitter account sent on June 1,
2022, on that day, Mayor Cranley expanded the curfew hours to 8:00pm – 6:00am.

In addition, in Ohio, a person may be arrested for the offense of Misconduct at Emergency, a
misdemeanor criminal offense, if that person “[fails] to obey the lawful order of any law
enforcement officer engaged in the law enforcement officer's duties at the scene of or in
connection with a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind.” ORC §2917.13.

On June 1, Specialist Harper and Officer Johnson were engaged with the SWAT team to assist
with civil unrest in Cincinnati. Statements from multiple officers involved in policing the unrest
have indicated that CPD command staff directed CPD to detain and cite or arrest protestors who
were in violation of curfew.

Per their statements, Officer Johnson and Specialist Harper observed three individuals running in
the same area as the protestors who were “fleeing” from the officers’ pursuit. Those three
individuals were outdoors in the City of Cincinnati at the time they were observed by officers, with
Specialist Harper describing the three individuals as having been observed walking through a
“vacant lot.” At least one of the officers who participated in the stop of the three individuals told
CCA that he responded to the area after receiving a transmission reporting that individuals were
trespassing through the property of others, a fact which is corroborated by CAD reports.
Therefore, the stop of the unnamed individuals by Specialist Harper and Officer Johnson was
made with reasonable suspicion to believe that one or more criminal offenses was being
committed, and in compliance with CPD’s policy, procedure, and training.

2. Allegation: Improper Pointing of a Firearm

Mr. Clifford alleged the officers pointed their firearms at the individuals during the detainment.

CPD Procedure §12.550 Discharging of Firearms by Police Personnel states officers who
perceive what they interpret to be a threat of loss of life or serious physical harm to himself or
others at the hands of another, have the authority to display a firearm, with finger outside the
trigger guard and have it ready for self-defense.

Per their statements, the officers confirmed they carried firearms; however, their recollections
were inconsistent: Officers Johnson and Mercado were unsure whether they pointed their firearms
at the individuals, and Officers Todd and Wloszek stated they did not. The officers were not
required to wear BWCs at the time of the incident, and therefore there is no footage of the incident
from their perspective. The officers do not appear to be pointing their firearms in the recording
provided by Mr. Clifford; however, it is not a complete recording and does not show the beginning
or conclusion of the encounter. Therefore, CCA could not determine whether the actions of
132
Specialist Harper and Officers Johnson and Mercado were within CPD’s policy, procedure, and
training.

3. Allegation: Improper Procedure (Contact Card) – Collateral

CPD Procedure §12.554 Investigatory Stops stipulates that a Contact Card must be completed
for any vehicle passenger or pedestrian detention that does not result in a citation or arrest. Per
their statements, the officers present at the encounter confirmed that the individuals were not
cited and released. They either did not recall or denied that a contact card was completed for
their detention of the unnamed individuals. Specialist Harper and Officer Johnson initiated the
detention and were therefore responsible for the contact card. Therefore, their failure to complete
a contact card was not in compliance with CPD policies, procedures and training.

F. Findings

Original Allegations

Specialist Michael Harper

Officer Ronald Johnson

Improper Stop – The evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate CPD
policies, procedures, or training. EXONERATED

Officer Ronald Johnson

Officer John Mercado
Officer Carroll Todd
Officer Jacob Wloszek
Specialist Michael Harper

Improper Pointing of a Firearm – There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged
misconduct occurred. NOT SUSTAINED

Collateral Allegations

Specialist Michael Harper

Officer Ronald Johnson

Improper Procedure (Contact Card) – The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to

determine that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper. SUSTAINED

133
G. Observations

See “Section VI. Key Observations” in CCA’s consolidated report on this investigation and ten
other protest investigations, GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI.

H. Recommendations

See R2301, R2302, R2303, R2305 and R2308 in “Section VII. Recommendations” of CCA’s
consolidated report on this investigation and ten other protest investigations (GEORGE FLOYD
PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING
COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI).

I. Previous Contacts & Commendations

Specialist Harper

Previous Contacts with CCA

Specialist Harper had one previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

Case Number Allegation Finding

18038 Off Duty Conduct Referred (Unfounded

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Specialist Harper with IIS.

Commendations

Specialist Harper received three commendations in the past three years.

Date Source of Commendation Received

09/06/2018 CPD
08/19/2019 CPD
08/19/2019 CPD

Officer Johnson

Previous Contacts with CCA

Officer Johnson had no previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Johnson with IIS.
134
Commendations

Officer Johnson received five commendations in the past three years.

Date Source of Commendation Received

08/04/2017 CPD
07/11/2018 CPD
09/06/2018 CPD
02/04/2019 OLE
07/11/2020 CPD

Officer Mercado

Previous Contacts with CCA

Officer Mercado had no previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Mercado with IIS.

Commendations

Officer Mercado received three commendations in the past three years.

Date Source of Commendation Received

08/04/2017 CPD
08/15/2017 CPD
05/13/2019 CPD

Officer Todd

Previous Contacts with CCA

Officer Todd had no previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Todd with IIS.

Commendations

Officer Todd received one commendation in the past three years.

Date Source of Commendation Received

02/04/2019 OLE

135
Officer Wloszek

Previous Contacts with CCA

Officer Wloszek had no previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Wloszek with IIS.

Commendations

Officer Wloszek received four commendations in the past three years.

Date Source of Commendation Received

08/04/2017 CPD
09/20/2017 Civilian
09/06/2018 CPD
03/07/2019 CPD

1/30/2023
Jessalyn Goodman, Investigator Date

1/30/2023
Gabriel Davis, Director Date

136
 Case No. 20120 –
Grice Investigation

A. Complaint Summary

Complainant: Leah Grice

Date: June 21, 2020

Location: Online (Facebook)

CCA Receipt: June 29, 2020

Allegations: Discrimination; Improper Procedure

On June 25, 2020, while on social media, Ms. Leah Grice observed a viral post that originated
from a Facebook group called The Mason and Deerfield Township Neighborhood Group. The
thread included screenshots of a conversation between users made on June 21, 2020. One of
the commenters (hereinafter referred to in this report as “Facebook User #1”) made several
comments expressing "racist ideas and beliefs." Facebook User #1 spoke against Black Lives
Matter, stating “Must be close to 50 Black lives that Don’t Matter all that much, dead in the city..But
hey!! Let’s plan another BLM march! And talk about defunding the police!” with emoticons. She
noted Facebook User #1 was appropriating the use of “axing” in another comment: “Because if
the word ghetto is used… then that means… uh, why you axing?”

B. Summary of Evidence

1. Involved Citizen Statements

Leah Grice

CCA interviewed Ms. Grice, W/F/28 on June 29, 2020. She provided the following information:

On June 25, 2020, while on social media, Ms. Grice observed a viral post that originated from a
Facebook group called The Mason and Deerfield Township Neighborhood Group. The thread
included screenshots of a conversation between users made on June 21, 2020. One of the
commenters, Facebook User #1, made several comments against Black Lives Matter, including,
“Black Lives Matter is a…political business. It is painfully clear that most black lives don’t matter
for that fake group,” and “Black Lives Matter is taking in money hand over fist, stealing in the
name of black. I’ll bet the leaders are sitting in a nice hotel suite right this moment, enjoying room
service, planning their next ‘protest.’” Ms. Grice stated Facebook User #1 appeared to be white
and was appropriating the use of ‘axing’ in another comment, “Because if the word ghetto is

137
used… then that means… uh, why you axing?” In the group, Facebook User #1 mentioned he
was a police officer.

Ms. Grice has seen the same set of screenshots posted in multiple places online. Commentors
of the thread, including several people of color, commented that they were “scared” and believed
they should make a collective complaint. The commentors looked through other social media
sites and identified him on the Great Oaks Career Campus page and via Linked In as a Cincinnati
Police Department officer. In the photographs, his badge number was visible, and Facebook User
#1 was ultimately identified as Sergeant Kenneth Kilgore.

2. Subject Officer Statements

Sergeant Kenneth Kilgore

Sergeant Kilgore, #S0128, M/B/59, was assigned to the Support Bureau, and joined CPD in 1997.
Since this incident, he has retired from CPD. Sergeant Kilgore was reportedly off-duty at the time
of the social media posts.

CCA interviewed Sergeant Kilgore on March 15, 2021, at 2:55pm. He provided the following
information:

Sergeant Kilgore confirmed he had a Facebook account, and that its handle was the handle
designated as “Facebook User #1” in this report. He acknowledged that he and his wife have
access to the account. Sergeant Kilgore stated that he used to be a member of the Mason and
Deerfield Township Neighborhood group, although he had not been a member for approximately
one year.

On June 21, 2020, Sergeant Kilgore initiated and responded to posts within the group related to
“politics that were a hot button during that time,” including Black Lives Matter. Sergeant Kilgore
stated that some of the posts were his and some were his wife’s, but he “was not sure which.” He
believed he “probably” posted the comment which stated, “Must be close to 50 black lives that
don’t matter all that much dead in the City. But hey, let’s plan another Black Lives Matter march
and talk about defunding the police.” Sergeant Kilgore stated that the post expressed his opinion
and concern for the record number of homicides of black lives due to violence within the City
which was not addressed by Black Lives Matter, a movement he considered an effort to defund
the police department, who “take an enormous risk to save some of the same people,” and “taking
money away…from an organization that really is trying very, very hard to do good things in the
community.” Sergeant Kilgore did not recall what the responses were to his post and did not
remember if he responded to those responses.

Another post stated, “I’m a taxpayer who’s sick of the lies and exploitation of black people and my
community. Black Lives Matter is a business, a political business, and it is painfully clear that
most black lives don’t matter to that fake group.” Sergeant Kilgore stated this was also his opinion
expressed after doing research into the group; he stated that he did not know if he or his wife
posted the comment but stated he would “take credit for it.” In another post, Facebook User #1
commented, “Black Lives Matter is taking in money hand over fist, stealing in the name of ‘black.’
I’ll bet the leaders are sitting in a nice hotel suite right this minute, enjoying the room service and
planning the next protest.” Sergeant Kilgore confirmed it was his opinion, but he did not have
independent knowledge of that.
138
In a separate post, Facebook User #1 commented, “Boy, is that ever important. Boy, because if
the word ghetto is used then that means why you axing?” Sergeant Kilgore stated that his use of
‘axing’ was personal slang. He stated that he did not appropriate the language because he is a
member of the of the African American community. Sergeant Kilgore denied that any of his posts
could be perceived as discriminatory.

Sergeant Kilgore stated that the people involved in the interaction were strangers. He denied that
he ever identified himself as a police officer or as a Cincinnati Police Department officer.

3. Officer Witness Statements

There were none.

4. Witness Statements

Facebook Users #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6

Facebook Users #2, #3, and #4 were involved in the original posts with Facebook User #1;
Facebook Users #5 and #6 are monitors of Mason and Deerfield Township Neighborhood Group.

These witnesses were unable to be interviewed. CCA attempted to contact each through
Facebook and by phone and/or mail, but there was no response. To date, none of the witnesses
has contacted CCA.

5. Documentary Evidence, Audio-Visual Evidence & Other Evidence

a. Facebook

Several screenshots were taken of Facebook User #1’s comments within the Mason and Deerfield
Township Neighborhood Group.

[Please note: the grammar and spelling are reflective of the original posts. The bold print indicates
the person who posted the comment; the italics identifies who was tagged in the post.]

1. Facebook User #1 posted an article headlined, “Police: 1 dead after shooting in the West
End.”
Facebook User #1 commented: “Must be close to 50 Black lives that Don’t Matter all that
much, dead in the city. But hey!! Let’s plan another BLM march! And talk about defunding
the police!! [emojis]”

2. Facebook User #7: Facebook #8 of course she is…..the mother of all hood rats. [emoji]
Those ghetto people disgust me.
Facebook User #9: Facebook User #10 it was a son & his mother that they are looking
for not 5 black kids.
Facebook User #3: Facebook User #7 who reported they came from the ghetto??? Or
are you just assuming that?
139
 Facebook User #1: Facebook User #3 Boy is that ever important..Because if the word
ghetto is used..Then that means..uh, why you axing?

3. Facebook User #4: Aren’t you a cop?

Facebook User #1: Facebook User #4 I’m a Tax payer..Who’s sick of the lies and
exploitation of black people..
Facebook User #4: Facebook User #1 and a cop who’s on a community page saying
most black lives don’t matter. You have to think about the optics of that. Even if you’re
joking around and just being an [expletive] you have to think about what you’re doing.
Facebook User #1: Facebook User #4 MY COMMUNITY.. BLM is a business.. A political
Business.. and it is painfully clear THAT MOST BLACK LIVES DON’T MATTER to that
fake group.. how’s THAT FOR OPTICS?

4. Facebook User #1: Facebook User #7 Ask for ME.. BLM is taking in money hand over
fist, stealing in the name of “black” I’ll bet the leaders are sitting in a nice hotel suite right
this moment enjoying room service and planning the next “protest”

5. Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 what are the police doing to stop all this crime?22
Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 sweet. So then you can stop commenting then.
If your point is that criminals are killing people and the cops can’t or won’t stop it because
we told cops they should not kill people, then cool step aside. I guess is was never about
protecting people and was always about being “a soldier/warrior”.
Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 as I thought another redirect. “I am wrong I better
change the subject to save face, no one will ever find out” Come on man, cops are
supposed to protect people and a lot of them aren’t cause they think their job is to punish
criminals. You know that’s not your job. It has never been your job. And now that some
have called some cops out on their BS you feel like you have to defend them. If you are
for police then change them so that the people feel protected.
Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 I don’t like to argue with memes that don’t have
the source of the info stamped on them but in the interest that someone might learn
something so are you pointing out that police can’t stop all regular murders and they add
another 4% on top of that? To get the correct numbers I will provide for you [lists racial
make-up statistics of murder victims and officer involvement].
Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 so police reported that they killed 410 “felons”
Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 all of those lives matter. The problem is that police
should stop people from killing other people and people should stop cops from killing
people.
Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 how about we start with police don’t get paid to
kill people.
Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 plenty of civilized societies don’t have military
armed police forces so yeah that would be great.
Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 once again this proves that you don’t want to
protect you want to fight and shoot and some times kill. Instead of finding a way to protect
people without killing and brutalizing you want things to stay the same so that you can
personally feel like a badass.
22 Based on the context of the conversation, Facebook User #1's responses to Facebook User #2 appear
to have been removed or deleted.
140
 Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 your right the only thing stopping people from
killing each other is the fact that cops have guns [emoji]
Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 hahaha so one way or the other with you. No
middle ground. No fixing problems. Just we get to kill people or [expletive] off.
Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 hahahaha you are the worst [emoji] enjoy your
socialist murder kid as long as you get to keep it I guess.
Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 looks like you are doomed. Good, kind, protectors
will keep their jobs
Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 no it isn’t
Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 you are a delusional warrior cop that just can’t
wait to have an excuse to shoot someone. I really do hope that not only do you get
defunded but that most of the people on your force are rational people that will change
with the times.
Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 yeah for you. When you are jobless. Sorry you
picked a socialist job and now the people don’t want you no more.
Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 [emojis]
Facebook User #2: Facebook User #1 I am watching you make a fool of yourself. That’s
all I am doing right now. By the way you argue on the internet I am sure you won’t be able
to find another job if the police get rid of you. If I were you and my job relied on the will of
the people then it would be better if you left your opinions on your own person page.
Because they are not factual and they show extreme bias.

C. Significant Discrepancies & Clarifications

There were none other than those discussed below in the Analysis section.

D. Authorities

See Appendix.

E. Analysis

1. Allegation: Discrimination

Ms. Grice reported that, while posting as “Facebook User #1,” in the Mason and Deerfield
Township Neighborhood Group on Facebook, Sergeant Kilgore made comments that were
against Black Lives Matter; additionally, Ms. Grice stated Facebook User #1 appeared to be white
and used appropriated speech through use of ‘axing’ in another comment: “Because if the word
ghetto is used… then that means… uh, why you axing?” In his statement, Sergeant Kilgore
acknowledged that he made the alleged comments but stated that, as he is African American, he
was not inappropriately using another culture’s phrase. Further, he clarified that his use of “axing”
was slang he uses and did not perceive it as discriminatory.

CPD’s Manual of Rules and Regulations § 1.23 C. provides that members “shall not express,
verbally or in writing, any prejudice or offensive comments concerning… race, color, and ethnicity

141
… or similar personal characteristics.” The City of Cincinnati’s Administrative Regulation 25 has
defined discriminatory harassment as “conduct toward an individual because of his or her…race,
color, ethnicity…when the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive…environment” and will not be tolerated.

When viewed in its full context, including the comments by other posters, Sergeant Kilgore’s
comment and use of “axing” could be interpreted as perpetuating a racial or socio-economic
stigma, regardless of whether it was his intention or not. However, it is unclear whether he was
merely using slang, referring to race (which is a protected class), referring to socio-economic
status, or referring to some other personal characteristic that might (or might not) be covered by
CPD’s or the City’s antidiscrimination policies. As Sergeant Kilgore’s meaning at the time of the
post cannot be verified, CCA is unable to determine whether his comments were discriminatory.

2. Allegation: Improper Procedure

Aside from whether Sergeant Kilgore’s online speech was discriminatory, CCA considered
whether it violated CPD’s social media policies.

CPD Procedure §14.205 Social Media policy states that “Department personnel are free to
express themselves as private citizens on social media sites to the degree that their speech
does not impair working relationships in the Department for which confidentiality is important;
does not impede the performance of duties, impair discipline and harmony among coworkers, or
negatively affect the public perception of the Department” (emphasis added).

Sergeant Kilgore’s comments were made in June 2020, during a time of heightened tension and
strain between the police and the community, in which several groups (including Black Lives
Matter) organized public demonstrations against police misconduct. A review of the Mason and
Deerfield Township Neighborhood Group and captured Facebook screenshots showed Sergeant
Kilgore made comments about and against the Black Lives Matter organization, including, “Must
be close to 50 Black lives that Don’t Matter all that much, dead in the city. But hey!! Let’s plan
another BLM march! And talk about defunding the police!!” and “[BLM is a] political Business..
and it is painfully clear THAT MOST BLACK LIVES DON’T MATTER to that fake group.” He
continued to make incendiary comments after members of the group identified him as a police
officer and had responded negatively to his statements, including, “BLM is taking in money hand
over fist, stealing in the name of ‘black’ I’ll bet the leaders are sitting in a nice hotel suite right this
moment enjoying room service and planning the next ‘protest.’” Additionally, Sergeant Kilgore
and another poster (Facebook User #2) appeared to have continued their conversation; although
Facebook User #1’s posts appear to have been deleted and their content is unknown, the
remaining responses are indicative of continued disagreement about problems within policing –
a topic associated with Sergeant Kilgore’s employment.

While it is concerning that Sergeant Kilgore posted the comment “Must be close to 50 Black lives
that Don’t Matter all that much, dead in the city,” the evidence is inconclusive as to whether
Sergeant Kilgore had ever identified himself to members of the Mason and Deerfield Township
Neighborhood Group as either a police officer or a Cincinnati Police Officer at the time he posted
it. Although community members were able to ascertain Facebook User #1’s identity by searching
other sites, and thus associate that user’s comments with the Cincinnati Police Department,
Sergeant Kilgore maintained that he did not identify himself as an officer with the Cincinnati Police
142
Department, and CCA is in possession of no evidence that disproves his claim. There is
contextual evidence from the Facebook conversation thread that Officer Kilgore might have
implicitly acknowledged that he was a police officer through his silence when accused of being
an officer, but his failure to dispute that he was an officer is not strong enough evidence that he,
on his own, identified himself as an officer so as to “affect the public perception of the
Department.”

The evidence, however, does not rule out that Sergeant Kilgore explicitly revealed himself to be
a CPD officer while participating in the Mason and Deerfield Township Neighborhood Group as
Facebook User #1 during the time period preceding the incendiary posts that are the subject of
Ms. Grice’s complaint. CCA was unable to obtain Facebook posts from that prior period. Members
of the Group, other than Ms. Grice, did not respond to CCA’s attempts to interview them about
their interactions with (or knowledge of) Facebook User #1 at the time of the incendiary comments.
Moreover, as described above, it appears that someone deleted Facebook User #1’s responses
to Facebook User #2 during an incendiary conversation on the Group page where Facebook User
#2 made comments suggesting that Facebook User #1 was a “warrior cop.” Our inability to review
the full body of Facebook User #1’s posting history on the Group page, combined with the refusal
of online users to speak with CCA, leaves us unable to determine whether Sergeant Kilgore
publicly associated his comments as Facebook User #1 with his profession or with the Cincinnati
Police Department. Thus, the evidence is inconclusive as to whether Sergeant Kilgore’s
comments violated CPD’s Social Media policy.

F. Findings

Original Allegation

Sergeant Kenneth Kilgore

Discrimination – There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred.
NOT SUSTAINED

Improper Procedure – There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct
occurred. NOT SUSTAINED

G. Observations

See “Section VI. Key Observations” in CCA’s consolidated report on this investigation and ten
other protest investigations, GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI.

143
H. Previous Contacts & Commendations

Sergeant Kilgore

Previous Contacts with CCA

Sergeant Kilgore had no previous contact with CCA in the past three years.

Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Sergeant Kilgore with IIS.

Commendations

Sergeant Kilgore received one commendation in the past three years.

Date Source of Commendation Received

07/20/2017 CPD

1/30/2023
Jessalyn Goodman, Investigator Date

1/30/2023
Gabriel Davis, Director Date

144
 Case No. 20115 –
White/Gilley
Investigation

A. Complaint Summary

Complainants: Terhas White and Alissa Gilley

Date: June 24, 2020

Time: 3:00 PM

Location: 801 Plum Street-City Hall

CCA Receipt: June 25, 2020

Allegations: Discrimination; Improper Procedure; Improper Procedure (BWC) – Collateral;

Interference with Administrative Investigation – Collateral

Per Terhas White’s emailed complaint:

Ryan Olthaus was brought in to fill in for James Donaldson who was told to go
downstairs via Goodrum because he had put his hands on 2 citizens waiting to
speak in from on the city council. He came in smug and smiling which only served
to display his dismissal of those he is supposed to protect and serve, his dismissal
of the seriousness of our reason for being there as citizen speakers and his
dismissal of the seriousness of why he was asked to come fill in for Donaldson. I
asked [why] he was smiling as this was no laughing matter and Donaldson had
been taken away for putting his hands on people. He replied, still smirking and
removed from the seriousness of the situation, that Donaldson was "ok" first and
that he "was gone" second then he put his hand by the front of his belt and did the
adopted white power symbol that resembles the "ok". This very thing happened to
me early protest when I was arrested for breaking curfew. I happen to be arrested
with white supremacist who were dressed as a protester who taunted me with the
same white power hand symbol from behind locked doors in the same way Olthaus
did. Only difference is Olthaus is paid to protect and serve people like me and this
taunting happened in my own cities city hall.

Allowing these incidents to go unchecked is how officers, like Olthaus, are able to
be in positions to abuse the power given to them by us, the people. I would guess
that this is not the first incident he has reported on him. I'm sure he knew exactly
what he was doing though. As an officer of the law he is informed and aware of
hate symbols and gestures. He chose to disregard that to taunt me.

Per Alissa Gilley’s emailed complaint:

Yesterday, myself and many others witnessed eye witness accounts on record of
officer Ryan Olthaus throwing up a white supremacy hand signal towards citizens
145
 of color at city hall as we waited to share our concerns regarding the divestment
from CPD during the budget meeting for this exact behavior/mentality.

Ryan's behavior is the living representation of what is corrupting the force. After
further research it appears this is not the first time he has been reprimanded for
such acts. Please, consider the state of affairs and do what is in your power to
remove him from the force. Ryan Olthaus is a threat to me, my children and so
many others. He does not represent this city. Please, please, please do what you
can to remove him.

B. Summary of Evidence

1. Involved Citizen Statements

Terhas White

CCA interviewed Ms. Terhas White on July 23, 2020. She provided the following information:

On June 24, 2020, Ms. Terhas White, F/B/37, stated she was at City Hall waiting to speak and
heard a commotion going on upstairs. CPD led someone out in handcuffs. “City Council members
and Mayor Cranley had already done numerous things to ‘slub’ up the process of them being
there to speak so they had a different flow going.” One of which they implemented in the midst of
people speaking. They made people leave after they spoke. But they did not know who had
spoken and who had not, so they were trying to kick out people who hadn’t spoken and that was
the commotion that was going on upstairs.

Ms. White questioned what was occurring after seeing a speaker taken out in handcuffs. Mr.
James Donaldson, who was the security guard at City Hall, ended up putting his palm to the
speaker’s chest to push him. When this happened, everything became a little more heated. The
people in line told Mr. Donaldson he could not put his hands on people. Mr. Donaldson knocked
on a door to get more people to come out.

A female Black security officer came down and the remaining speakers (“thirty [30] of us”) told
her what occurred. Some CPD officers came and stood on the steps. Some people interacted
with the officers, because the officers asked Mr. Donaldson if he wanted them arrested. The
speakers questioned the officers why they would be arrested because they were down there trying
to ask questions and get answers.

One of the speakers had their back to Mr. Donaldson. Mr. Donaldson attempted to put his hands
on that person. This was the second person that he had put his hands on. The Black female
security officer stepped in and told Mr. Donaldson he could not put his hands on this person and
motioned for him to back away and put herself in between him and male speaker.

Security Guard Manager Goodrum at City Hall arrived, and they told him what occurred. Mr.
Goodrum made Mr. Donaldson leave. Officer Olthaus arrived “smiling, being very dismissive
about what’s going on, and laughing like it’s no big deal.” Everyone was still “heated” now looking
at Officer Olthaus wondering why he was laughing. This was not a laughing matter.

146
Ms. White told Officer Olthaus that Mr. Donaldson’s behavior was not okay. Officer Olthaus
responded, “[W]ell that guy’s gone now. He’s okay. He’s gone.” Ms. White responded, “[Y]eah
but, like this is why we’re upset.” Officer Olthaus responded, “[O]kay.” Ms. White and Officer
Olthaus “stopped talking for a second. . . [H]e turned his head to the side and then threw -- threw
up the symbol at his like belt buckle.”

Ms. White told Officer Olthaus, “[T]hat symbol that you threw up . . . that’s a white supremacist
symbol. Like that’s the white power symbol. . .. And like for that -- for that to happen here at City
Hall like it doesn’t make me -- it doesn’t make us feel okay. And he’s like -- he threw up two
thumbs. He’s like oh is this better?” People began yelling and telling the officer he was trained
better. The security guard manager responded again, and Ms. White attempted to explain to him
what occurred. The Security Guard Manager had Officer Olthaus leave as well. Ms. White left the
waiting area as it was her turn to speak in council chambers.

Ms. White tried to talk to the Mayor about what happened, which she regretted afterwards (“I
should have just used my time and say what I initially intended to say”). Other people had already
tried to talk to the Mayor about what occurred.

After she spoke for two minutes she was led out of the building by a Black and a white officer. As
soon as they walked around the corner, Officer Olthaus was standing there smiling. It felt like
“harassment.” Ms. White advised the Black officer this was the officer she attempted to speak
about in chambers. Ms. White pleaded with the officers to make Officer Olthaus leave. Eventually
he left even though the Black officer stayed with her.

Alissa Gilley

CCA interviewed Ms. Alissa Gilley on July 21, 2020. She provided the following information:

On June 24, 2020, Ms. Gilley, F/Unknown/Unknown, “was not there physically,” but was “waiting
for the new group to come in” to City Hall and watched the hearing online.23 Ms. Gilley heard
several people mention that Officer Olthaus had thrown up a white supremacist symbol. This
action “bothered me and I just had hoped --That someone was looking into that after that had
happened.”

There were witnesses but they do not wish to come forward. Ms. Gilley sent the CPD Investigator
assigned to this complaint an email of Officer Olthaus’s Facebook page. Officer Olthaus has since
logged off of Facebook. “I’m sure FOP contacted him immediately. But his Facebook was
indicative of like white violence and obviously blue lives matter but in a very extreme way.”

2. Subject Officer Statements

Officer Ryan Olthaus

Officer Ryan Olthaus, #PO961, M/W/40, is currently assigned to District 3, and he has been a
CPD member since 2008. Officer Olthaus was in uniform; his BWC was not activated.

23Ms. Gilley told IIS she was present at City Hall at the time of the incident, and that while she did not see
Officer Olthaus display a “white supremacist hand gesture,” she heard others there state that he had
done so.
147
Interview with CCA:

CCA interviewed Officer Olthaus on July 12, 2021, at 9:56 a.m. He provided the following
information:

On June 24, 2020, Officer Olthaus was on duty, in uniform at City Hall for the protests to make
sure everything was orderly that day. There was an issue on the floor of Council Chambers.
Officers Olthaus and Merlin Murrell escorted a female down through a crowd of people there in
the lobby of City Hall.

An “officer needs assistance” was broadcast, so Officer Olthaus had Officer Murrell take their
prisoner. Officer Olthaus responded to the lobby to make sure that the officer was okay. When he
arrived, it was actually a security guard that needed assistance. Approximately twenty to twenty-
five (20-25) people yelled at him, saying the guard put his hands on somebody. Officer Olthaus
did not witness any of that.

Officer Olthaus remained on scene and told other officers they could disregard anybody else
coming and he would sit there while the security guards figured out what they were doing. Officer
Olthaus was standing approximately 10-12 feet away from Ms. White when the two of them had
the following exchange:

. . . I was sitting there and she started, she started yelling “How is so and so”
whoever this little white security guard’s name was. “How’s he doing?” And I was
like “He’s OK.” She’s like “What? I can’t hear you.” I’m like “He’s OK.” And she
goes “What?” I work on the SWAT team. We do a lot of things with our hands. I
mean if you can’t hear we’ve got a lot of signals to do things. I gave her the “OK”
sign. He’s OK. And I think I might have done it, cuz I had, there was a big crowd. I
keep my forearms on both of my weapons. I think I was like OK. Everything’s OK.
And then, apparently she went crazy. Four other people went crazy. They thought
I was a racist for throwing up the “OK” sign that meant “OK” for the last hundred
years.

After his response, Ms. White called him a white supremist. Officer Olthaus thought her allegation
was “so ludicrous, I think I even gave her the OK sign or the thumbs up sign after a while. Is this,
OK? Does this make me a racist? And I shrugged it off.”

Other people jumped on the band wagon and asked for his name, which he spelled out and gave
his badge number. The speakers then went upstairs and told Council that he was a racist. Officer
Olthaus was moved to another area and when Ms. White was done speaking, she came out, saw
him and said, “There he is! The racist blah, blah, blah white supremist. He’s scaring me!” Officer
Olthaus walked back into the room.

Officer Olthaus initially stated he could not recall if his BWC was activated. He later advised CCA
that he did not believe he had his BWC on “because I was actually not talking to anyone. I was
by myself, just watching the whole crowd. And at that point if I am not actually engaged with
anybody per our procedure, I don’t have to have it on.”

Officer Olthaus confirmed during this CCA interview that when he made the “OK” gesture, he had
his right hand out with the palm toward Ms. Gilley and three fingers straight up. He stated that he
likely made the gesture “right at my stomach” because “I always keep contact on my gun belt
148
because my right forearm sits on my gun and then my left forearm sits on my TASER because
my TASER is up towards my . . . stomach.”

Interview with IIS:

IIS interviewed Officer Olthaus on July 16, 2020. He provided the following information as
excerpted from IIS’s report summarizing his statement:

Officer Olthaus has used the gesture since he was a child to convey approval and
well-being. There was no white supremist connotation when he used the “okay”
hand gesture. Officer Olthaus has never used the symbol to convey any other
message than everything is fine, and his use of the hand gesture was
misinterpreted.

Officer Olthaus is a proud member of the Department’s Special Weapons and

Tactics team (SWAT) and had a team photo as his Facebook profile picture. After
Ms. White’s allegation, Officer Olthaus posted an image of LeBron James using
the “okay” hand gesture to show it is universally accepted, and Officer Olthaus’s
use of it was misrepresented. Officer Olthaus also shared several articles relating
to protests around the country but did not comment on any of them. Officer Olthaus
posted a picture of an unknown person with a knife to a police officer’s neck being
shot in the head by a third party. The picture of an officer’s throat being cut by an
unknown person was widely circulated on Facebook and the post was not
removed. Officer Olthaus was demonstrating Facebook’s unfair censorship policy
because it has universally removed any post of the unknown person being shot in
the head after cutting the officer’s neck, but not the other.

3. Officer Witness Statements

There were none.

4. Witness Statements

Witness A

CCA interviewed Witness A. on August 17, 2020. They provided the following information:

On June 24, 2020, Witness A was with a group of people waiting to be taken upstairs so they
could speak to Council. There was a woman who was brought downstairs in handcuffs. They
asked why this person was being arrested and were told by the security officer to stop talking and
step back. They replied they had a right to know why they were being arrested because you can’t
be arrested for speaking. Then Mr. Donaldson, the security guard, escalated things by pushing
someone. The crowd wanted the security officer arrested for assaulting someone. There were
CPD officers on the stairwell and they were told what occurred. A person started chanting “Who
do you protect? Who do you serve?” Mr. Donaldson grabbed Witness A from behind, trying to
grab their wrists. A Black female security officer approached Witness A, stopped Mr. Donaldson,
and removed Mr. Donaldson from the room.

149
Officer Olthaus took the place of the security officer. Officer Olthaus looked at someone and
flashed the “white power” symbol (put your pointer finger and your thumb together and then you
hold up like your three fingers so it’s like, it kind of looks like the OK symbol) from his beltline and
then was asked why he flashed the white power symbol at them and if he knew what that was.
Officer Olthaus acted like he didn’t really know and shrugged it off. Then smirked and laughed
while this person explained to him and then he gave the thumbs up hand gesture asking if that
was better. The person said “No don’t flash any hand gestures at me…” Then he laughed again
and acted like it wasn’t a big deal.

Witness A stated from their perspective and some of the other people that were there, they took
as if he clearly knew what he was doing, especially when he flashed the white power symbol at
someone who was Black. Witness A could not hear if Officer Olthaus said anything when he
gestured the symbol.

5. Documentary Evidence, Audio-Visual Evidence & Other Evidence

a. Police Documents

CCA reviewed all CPD-related forms, including but not limited to the Internal Investigation Section
(IIS) Report, and information from CPD’s Records Management System (RMS).

b. Body Worn Camera (BWC)

Officer Olthaus did not have his BWC activated and told CCA that per CPD policy, because he
had not initiated any contact, he did not have to turn on his BWC.

c. City Hall Footage

Events recorded by Cincinnati City Hall’s cameras (front entrance) that are relevant to this
investigation occurred on June 24, 2020 starting at 14:59:23. That footage does not have audio.
A review of that recording reveals the following:

The footage begins with Mr. Donaldson standing at the front entrance to City Hall and several
people in line to speak. Officers Olthaus, Merrell, and another officer in front escorted a
handcuffed citizen out of the building. Mr. Donaldson spoke to one citizen on several different
occasions. Council Member Kearney walked down the steps and greeted the awaiting speakers.
Four CPD officers slowly followed behind and remained on the steps. Sgt. Jerry Kinebrew
responded to the steps and spoke to the officers, then walked upstairs. A Black female security
officer spoke with the crowd and the CPD officers on the stairwell. The officers walked up the
stairs and remained on the landing. A Black male security officer walked down the steps and
spoke to the crowd. Mr. Donaldson left the area. The officers on the landing left and walked
upstairs. Officer Olthaus arrived on scene and stood across from the waiting speakers. The
female security officer left. Officer Olthaus can be seen speaking to Ms. White. Officer Olthaus
had his left hand at his waist area and raised the “OK” sign. Three of his fingers can be seen
being raised. Officer Olthaus then raised his arms and gave the “thumbs up.” Ms. White attempted
to speak to the Black male security guard. The Black male security guard spoke to Officer Olthaus
and the officer left the area.

150
 d. Other Video

CCA reviewed Ms. White’s video footage, which was consistent with City Hall footage.

e. Officer Olthaus’s Facebook Posts

CCA reviewed several screenshots of Officer Olthaus’ Facebook page which were provided by
Ms. Gilley (who took the screenshots) including the following:

i. LeBron James Photo

The photograph shows LeBron James displaying an OK sign with his right hand (thumb and
index finger touching in the shape of a circle and three other fingers pointed up) near his cheek.
See Photo A below.

ii. SWAT Team Photo

Ms. Gilley provided CCA and IIS with a Facebook "cover photo” she copied from Officer Olthaus’s
Facebook page that showed Officer Olthaus and CPD’s SWAT Team in uniform. Officer Olthaus
authenticated that photo during his IIS interview and admitted that he posted the photo. Photo not
shown.

iii. Image of Attempted Execution of Officer and Execution of

Figure in Black

CCA also obtained an image from Ms. Gilley that Officer Olthaus shared on this Facebook page,
dated "June 22,” that featured a graphic depiction of violence against both a male officer and
against a masked figure of unknown race and unknown gender clad in all black with an American
flag over their shoulders. Specifically, the image shows a figure wearing all black who appears to
be attempting the execution of a white police officer by standing over the officer from behind,
holding a bloody knife to the officer’s throat with one hand and covering the officer’s mouth with
the other hand. Simultaneously, the image shows a third person, who is white, holding a gun with
both hands, aiming the gun at the head of the figure in black, and shooting a bullet into the head
of that person causing blood to splatter in an apparent execution of the figure in black. It is unclear
from the photo if the shooter is a police officer or a civilian. See Photo B below.

151
Photo A Photo B

f. Resources on White Supremacist Gestures

i. Southern Poverty Law Center

Is that an OK sign? A white power symbol? Or just a right-wing troll? David Neiwert, 9/19/2018,
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/18/ok-sign-white-power-symbol-or-just-right-wing-
troll (last accessed 11/22/2022)

The above Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) publication contains the following provision:

So, what does it mean when someone flashes the OK sign? In the end, it can mean
almost anything, but primarily it’s one of three things:

• It can be a harmless use of its traditional meaning that all’s well.

• It can be an ironic attempt to troll liberals with a symbol chosen to “trigger” their
inner “SJWs.”
• It can be a surreptitious way of signaling your presence to other white
supremacists.
152
 The first of these (and its most common, but also most declining, use) is harmless.
But it can’t credibly be claimed by anyone who has a record of involvement with
the many far-right elements that swirl both around the Trump White House and
outside it as well. Nor can it be claimed by street-protesting Proud Boys chanting
far-right slogans.

The second is less directly harmful, but hardly innocent of wreaking havoc. The
normalization of the radical right under the rhetorical protection of self-proclaimed
“centrists” and “libertarians,” particularly those who spread conspiracy theories and
are often labeled the “alt-lite,” is a legacy that could last a generation or longer.

The third is, of course, reflective of a toxic worldview and authoritarian politics, bent
primarily on the destruction of liberal democracy. At the moment, it remains the
smallest bloc of the three.

Yet trolling culture, the ethos that fuels the second motivation, has proven a direct
gateway not just to the alt-right, but also to even more poisonous cultures such as
that of woman-hating “incels”. It’s one thing to shrug off misbehavior by embracing
the “troll” label, but it still means you’re a participant in a toxic subculture. It's easy
for the second motivation to morph into the third.

ii. Anti-Defamation League

Okay Hand Gesture, https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/okay-hand-gesture (last

accessed 11/11/2022)

According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), one of the foremost “anti-hate organization[s] in
the world:”

The “okay” hand gesture—in which the thumb and index finger touch while the
other fingers of the hand are held outstretched—is an obvious and ancient gesture
that has arisen in many cultures over the years with different meanings. . . . [I]t
most commonly signals understanding, consent, approval, or well-being. . . . The
"okay" hand gesture also forms part of the basis for a number of words or concepts
in American Sign Language. It appears in many other contexts as well. Use of the
okay symbol in most contexts is entirely innocuous and harmless.

In 2017, the “okay” hand gesture acquired a new and different significance thanks
to a hoax by members of the website 4chan to falsely promote the gesture as a
hate symbol, claiming that the gesture represented the letters “wp,” for “white
power.” The “okay” gesture hoax was merely the latest in a series of similar 4chan
hoaxes using various innocuous symbols; in each case, the hoaxers hoped that
the media and liberals would overreact by condemning a common image as white
supremacist.

. . . [T]he hoax was so successful the symbol became a popular trolling tactic on
the part of right-leaning individuals, who would often post photos to social media
of themselves posing while making the “okay” gesture.
153
 Ironically, some white supremacists themselves soon also participated in such
trolling tactics, lending an actual credence to those who labeled the trolling gesture
as racist in nature. By 2019, at least some white supremacists seem to have
abandoned the ironic or satiric intent behind the original trolling campaign and used
the symbol as a sincere expression of white supremacy

The overwhelming usage of the “okay” hand gesture today is still its traditional
purpose as a gesture signifying assent or approval. As a result, someone who uses
the symbol cannot be assumed to be using the symbol in either a trolling or,
especially, white supremacist context unless other contextual evidence exists to
support the contention. Since 2017, many people have been falsely accused of
being racist or white supremacist for using the “okay” gesture in its traditional and
innocuous sense. Because of the traditional meaning of the “okay” hand gesture,
as well as other usages unrelated to white supremacy, particular care must be
taken not to jump to conclusions about the intent behind someone who has used
the gesture.

g. Litigation Documents

CCA obtained litigation documents (including a Complaint submitted by counsel for Ryan
Olthaus and affidavit executed by Ryan Olthaus) from the Hamilton County Clerk of Court’s
website for the following matter: Ryan Olthaus v. Julie Niesen, et al., Case No. A2002596. All
documents reviewed were unsealed.

C. Significant Discrepancies & Clarifications

While statements from the subject officer and complainants are largely consistent on the point
that Officer Olthaus displayed an OK sign in Ms. White’s presence on June 25, 2020, they
disagree as to Officer Olthaus’s intent in displaying the sign and the meaning of that symbol.

D. Authorities

See Appendix.

E. Analysis

1. Allegation: Discrimination

Ms. White and Ms. Gilley alleged Officer Olthaus gestured a discriminatory symbol when speaking
with Ms. White during her wait at City Hall for the public comment session on June 24, 2020. A
review of City Hall footage showed Officer Olthaus gesturing the OK symbol as alleged. In his
interview with CCA, Officer Olthaus denied his actions were discriminatory.

CPD’s Manual of Rules and Regulations § 1.23 C. provides that members “shall not express,
verbally or in writing, any prejudice or offensive comments concerning… race, color, and ethnicity
… or similar personal characteristics” Furthermore, the City of Cincinnati’s Administrative
Regulation 25 has defined discriminatory harassment as “conduct toward an individual because
154
of his or her…race, color, ethnicity…when the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create
an intimidating, hostile, or offensive…environment.” Examples of discriminatory harassment that
violate this policy and may violate the law include discriminatory gestures.

a. The OK Sign’s Meaning

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)—a well-known anti-white-supremacy organization

recognized for its expertise concerning racist symbols and groups—says the following regarding
three potential meanings expressed by the “OK sign”:

[W]hat does it mean when someone flashes the OK sign? In the end, it can mean
almost anything, but primarily it’s one of three things:
• It can be a harmless use of its traditional meaning that all’s well.
• It can be an ironic attempt to troll. . .
• It can be a surreptitious way of signaling your presence to other white
supremacists.

SPLC at https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/18/ok-sign-white-power-
symbol-or-just-right-wing-troll

While SPLC does not define “trolling,” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary has defined it to mean:
“antagoniz[ing] (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive
comments or other disruptive content.” See “Troll.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-
Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll. Accessed 7 Dec. 2022.

Any display of the OK sign for the purpose of trolling is problematic because trolling is inherently
done with the knowledge that one’s use of the sign is perceived by others to have some
connection to white supremacy; thus any use of the OK to sign to troll others cannot be neatly
separated from white supremacy. On this point, the SPLC says the following:

Yet trolling culture, the ethos that fuels the second motivation, has proven a
direct gateway not just to the alt-right24, but also to even more poisonous cultures
. . . . It’s one thing to shrug off misbehavior by embracing the “troll” label, but it
still means you’re a participant in a toxic subculture. It's easy for the second
motivation to morph into the third.

This linkage between trolling and white supremacy is echoed by The Anti-Defamation League
(ADL), another authoritative anti-hate organization, which states on its website:

[The historic use of the sign to trigger concern about white supremacy] was so
successful the symbol became a popular trolling tactic on the part of right-leaning
individuals, who would often post photos to social media of themselves posing
while making the “okay” gesture. Ironically, some white supremacists themselves

24According to the SPLC, “[t]he Alternative Right, commonly known as the ‘alt-right,’ is a set of far-right
ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that ‘white identity’ is under attack by multicultural
forces using ‘political correctness’ and ‘social justice’ to undermine white people and ‘their’ civilization.”
See SPLC, https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alt-right (last accessed
1/12/2023).
155
 soon also participated in such trolling tactics, lending an actual credence to those
who labeled the trolling gesture as racist in nature.

ADL at https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/okay-hand-gesture.

Accordingly, any use of the OK sign by a Cincinnati Police Officer that is proven to have occurred
for the purpose of trolling or for the purpose of white supremacist expression, would likely qualify
as offensive expression concerning race under Manual of Rules and Regulations § 1.23 C or as
discriminatory harassment under AR 25.

If displayed, the extent to which an OK sign is used with either the intent or knowledge as to its
offensive meaning is key when evaluating any charge of wrongdoing, because the sign is
traditionally not an offensive one. The ADL expresses this point well:

The overwhelming usage of the “okay” hand gesture today is still its traditional
purpose as a gesture signifying assent or approval. As a result, someone who
uses the symbol cannot be assumed to be using the symbol in either a trolling or,
especially, white supremacist context unless other contextual evidence exists to
support the contention. ADL at https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/okay-
hand-gesture.

b. Officer Olthaus’s Use of the OK Sign in This Case

The issue, then, is whether there is evidence establishing by a preponderance that Officer Olthaus
either intended to use the OK sign in a manner to troll a hearing attendee in Council Chambers
or used it with the intent to display white supremacist affinity or expression. As is the case in all
CCA investigations, when answering this question we look to any direct evidence, but also to any
circumstantial evidence or contextual information.

After careful review, we have concluded that there is insufficient evidence that either proves or
disproves, by a preponderance, that Officer Olthaus intended to use the OK sign in a manner to
troll or used it with the intent to display white supremacist affinity or expression. For one, video
footage from Council Chamber lacks audio that might prove Ms. White’s account of the
conversation that occurred just before the use of the sign. Similarly, the absence of video means
we cannot corroborate Officer Olthaus’s account for what was spoken. This gap in evidence is
heightened by the lack of BWC from that encounter.

Moreover, even if the conversation unfolded as Ms. White has maintained that it did, there is
insufficient evidence that the intent behind the officer’s displaying of the OK sign as a response
to her comment “this is why we’re upset” was done for the purpose of mocking her with a racist
symbol, trolling her, or expressing white supremacy. Indeed, there is insufficient evidence proving
by a preponderance that Officer Olthaus was even aware that the OK sign had any connection
with white supremacy.

To be sure, the evidence establishes that following the incident, after he had been publicly
accused of racism, Officer Olthaus posted a cover photograph of LeBron James displaying the
OK sign on his Facebook page. However, when questioned by investigators about the post,
Officer Olthaus maintained that he posted the photo for the purpose of demonstrating that the OK
sign was not a white supremacist symbol, and he maintained that he was using LeBron James, a

156
Black athlete, as a validator for his position that the symbol was innocent. CCA is aware of no
evidence that disproves Officer Olthaus’ claim as to his intent in posting the photograph.

While we are troubled by Officer Olthaus’s failure to activate his BWC during his interactions with
speakers and protesters at the Council Chambers that day, and while his placement of the OK
sign near his waistline may seem unusual, those two facts alone do not prove wrongful intent or
motivation by a preponderance. We note that none of the leading sources on white supremacy
that CCA consulted have identified the display of the sign near the waistline as a specific indicator
of racist or trolling intent. We also note that Officer Olthaus’s failure to activate his BWC at City
Hall that day began before his interaction with Ms. White, and there is no direct evidence that he
failed to activate his BWC for the purpose of hiding misconduct that day.

Under these circumstances, and in light of leading authorities advising caution with respect to
interpretations of the OK sign, which can be varied, CCA was unable to determine by a
preponderance whether Officer Olthaus violated the applicable non-discrimination policies by
displaying the sign.

2. Allegation: Improper Procedure

Complainant Alissa Gilley raised concerns about the content that Officer Olthaus posted on his
Facebook page, alleging that it was indicative of “white violence” and was “extreme.” CCA
considered that social media content in its investigation of Ms. Gilley’s and Ms. White’s
Discrimination allegations (addressed above), and also reviewed the content for any potential
violations of CPD’s social media policies.

CPD Procedure §14.205 (E)(1)(a) Social Media policy states that “Department personnel are free
to express themselves as private citizens on social media sites to the degree that their speech
does not impair working relationships in the Department for which confidentiality is important;
does not impede the performance of duties, impair discipline and harmony among coworkers, or
negatively affect the public perception of the Department” (emphasis added).

Procedure §§ 14.205 (E)(1)(b) and (e) also provides: “Department personnel should assume that
their speech and related activity on social media sites will reflect upon their office and [the]
Department,” and that officers “should be mindful of the standards imposed by the Department’s
code of conduct prior to engaging in any social media, which could be construed as reflecting
poorly on Department personnel or the Department;” this conduct includes “[s]peech containing
obscene or sexually explicit language, images, or acts and statements or other forms of speech
that ridicule, malign, disparage, or otherwise express bias against any race, any religion, or any
protected class of individuals” (emphasis added).

Finally, for purpose of this investigation, Procedure § 14.205 (E)(1)(d) instructs officers not to post
information or images revealing their employment with CPD on personal social media sites.
Specifically, the policy instructs officers “not to do the following: 1) Display Department logos,
uniforms, or similar identifying items on personal web pages. 2) Post personal photographs or
provide similar means of personal recognition that may cause them to be identified as a police
officer of this Department.”

157
 a. SWAT Photo on Facebook

Applying these principles, CCA obtained and reviewed a photo that Officer Olthaus posted on his
Facebook page of CPD’s SWAT team. The photos featured the SWAT team in uniform with CPD’s
logo and wearing police badges.

When discussing the Facebook photo with investigators, Officer Olthaus admitted: “This I SWAT
Team. . . . Just to show who the members were. . . When this was happening, we had been
together for two weeks straight for 16-hour days. It was just us taking a picture to remember. . .
.This is my personal cell phone.” Officer Olthaus admitted that he did not have permission from
CPD’s Public Information Officer to post the photo and that he did not have permission from other
officers in the photo.

Under the plain terms of Procedure § 14.205 (E)(1)(d), Officer Olthaus’s posting of the SWAT
photo was forbidden, given its display of logos, badges, and uniforms. It also clearly identified
Officer Olthaus as a member of the Cincinnati Police Department and risked linking every other
image or post on his Facebook page to CPD.

b. Facebook Image of Attempted Execution of Officer and Execution of

Figure in Black

CCA also obtained and reviewed an image that Officer Olthaus shared on this Facebook page,
dated "June 22” that featured a graphic depiction of violence against both a male officer and
against a masked figure of unknown race and gender clad in all black with an American flag over
his shoulders who was threatening that officer.

Specifically, the image shows a figure wearing all black (termed “Antifa guy” by Officer Olthaus in
his IIS interview) who appeared to be attempting the execution of a white police officer by standing
over the officer from behind, holding a bloody knife to the officer’s throat with one hand and
covering the officer’s mouth with the other hand. Simultaneously, the image showed a third
person, who is white, holding a gun with both hands, aiming the gun at the head of the figure in
black, and shooting a bullet into the head of that person causing blood to splatter in an apparent
execution of the figure in black. Only the shooter’s hands are shown; the rest of the shooter’s
body was not visible. It is unclear from the photo if the shooter was a police officer or a civilian.

Given the graphically violent nature of the image, there is no doubt that it falls under the definition
of an “obscene” image under Procedure § 14.205 (E)(1)(e) and CPD’s code of conduct. By posting
this photo on the same Facebook page where he openly identified himself as a member of CPD
via the posting of a CPD SWAT photo, Officer Olthaus also “negatively affect[ed] the public
perception of the Department.” The negative perception that this image engendered amongst the
public is underscored by the citizen complaint filed by Ms. Gilley, her forwarding of the image to
CPD and CCA, and her allegation that Officer Olthaus’s Facebook page was improperly
“extreme.”

For all of these reasons, the evidence has shown that Officer Olthaus violated CPD’s Social Media
policy.

158
 3. Allegation (Collateral): Improper Procedure (BWC)

CPD Procedure § 15.540 Body Worn Camera System states officers are required to activate their
BWC system during law enforcement-related encounters and self-initiated activities and when
assisting other officers on any call for service or self-initiated activity.

At the time of this incident on June 24, 2024, Officer Olthaus had responded to City Hall to
maintain order and conduct crowd control. By his own admission, when he encountered Ms. White
in the lobby to City Hall, it was shortly after responding to City Council Chambers, escorting a
suspect at City Hall with Officer Murrell, and then receiving a call for officer assistance in the lobby
to City Hall.

Officer Olthaus appears to have failed to activate his BWC during any of that enforcement activity,
which immediately preceded his interaction with Ms. White. If his BWC had been activated, it
would have shed light on the events at issue in the case and would have increased the opportunity
for his interaction with Ms. White to have been recorded. As this report describes above, the
absence of BWC capturing Officer Olthaus’s exchange with Ms. White and events preceding that
exchange deprived investigators of highly relevant evidence.

CCA concluded Officer Olthaus was in violation of CPD’s policy, procedure, and training.

4. Allegation (Collateral): Interference with Administrative Investigation

During CCA’s investigation of this matter, the Authority became aware of an effort by Officer
Olthaus to use legal process, specifically a civil lawsuit, to penalize Ms. White and Ms. Gilley
specifically because they had filed a complaint with CCA pertaining to the incident at City Hall on
June 24, 2020. CCA considered whether Officer Olthaus’s response to the complaint was
permissible under the applicable policies, procedures, and standards governing police behavior
with respect to citizen complaints.

The Collaborative Agreement created the Citizen Complaint Authority (established under Article
28 of Cincinnati’s Administrative Code) specifically so that citizens would have the right under
municipal law to submit complaints alleging police misconduct to an independent government
agency with investigative authority. For almost 20 years, during any investigation based on such
a complaint, it has been understood that such investigations must be independently conducted,
free from outside interference or obstruction. In order for an investigation to proceed without
interference, it necessarily must be free of outside attempts to influence the behavior or
cooperation of complaining witnesses and free from attempts to punish those witnesses for filing
CCA complaints.

All Cincinnati Police Officers are on notice, pursuant to CPD’s Manual of Rules and Regulations
§ 1.16(A), that “Members shall not interfere with cases being handled by other members of the
Department or other governmental agency. Interference with a case includes, but is not limited
to, actions taken which may affect” any “facet of an investigation” (emphasis added).
Administrative Regulations for the City of Cincinnati also impose a duty to avoid interference with
CCA’s investigations by requiring all City employees “to conduct themselves in a professional
manner at all times. Examples of unprofessional behavior include . . . deliberately impeding or
sabotaging a person’s work.” See Administrative Regulation 55.

159
Finally, CPD Procedure Manual § 15.100 explicitly protects a citizen’s “right to make a complaint”
and states, “Officers will not discourage any person from making a complaint” (emphasis added).
Section 15.100 lists several steps that an officer must take if an officer becomes aware that a
citizen “objects to an officer’s conduct,” and each of those steps is designed to affirm the right of
a citizen to file a complaint. See Section 15.100 ("If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, that
officer will inform the citizen of their right to make a complaint. The officer will provide the citizen
a Form 648CCI, Citizen Complaint Information, brochure and a Form 648, Citizen Complaint.
Officers will not discourage any person from making a complaint.”)

Here, there is no doubt that Officer Olthaus filed a lawsuit against Ms. White and Ms. Gilley in
significant part because they filed complaints against him with CCA. For one, in multiple places,
Officer Otlhaus’s civil complaint references Ms. White’s and Ms. Gilley’s decision to file CCA
complaints as a reason for legal claims he filed against them. See Olthaus Complaint at ¶¶ 42-46
and 48-53. In fact, Officer Olthaus’ civil complaint states that his “Third Cause of Action” against
Ms. Gilley and Ms. White is that “Gilley and White, have knowingly filed false reports with the CCA
alleging that [Ryan Olthaus] has engaged in misconduct . . . and/or that [Ryan Olthaus] has used
“white power” and/or “white supremacist” hand gestures.” See Olthaus Complaint at ¶ 66. There
is also no doubt that Officer Olthaus personally approved the filing of the lawsuit, as the litigation
is accompanied by supporting affidavits executed and submitted by him supporting the causes of
action against Ms. Gilley and Ms. White.

Given that Officer Olthaus sought “punitive damages” in connection with his “Third Cause of
Action” against Ms. Gilley and Ms. White, there is no doubt that he filed the lawsuits for the
purpose of punishing the two CCA complainants.

Finally, the date that Officer Olthaus filed the lawsuit—on July 22, 2020, less than one month after
the CCA complaints were filed and opened for investigation—is also significant. The fact that
CCA’s investigation was ongoing at the time the lawsuit was filed, and also that IIS’s parallel
investigation was ongoing, are also significant. Ultimately, by seeking to penalize the
complainants for filing CCA complaints alleging discriminatory conduct, particularly in the middle
of CCA’s investigation, Officer Olthaus both discouraged participation in the complaint process
and interfered with an administrative investigation in violation of police policy and procedure.

To be sure, Officer Olthaus’s lawsuit involves off-duty conduct. However, neither Manual of Rules
and Regulations § 1.16, nor Procedure 15.100 states that interfering with an administrative
investigation into a citizen’s complaint, or discouragement of a citizen’s complaint, is permissible
provided that the interference occurs when an officer is off-duty. On the contrary, the Manual of
Rules and Regulations requires officers who learn of complaints of misconduct while off-duty to
report those complaints to supervisors, a requirement that would make no sense if officers were
permitted to hinder the filing of complaints while off-duty. See Manual of Rules and Regulations §
2.13. Moreover, Officer Olthaus’s lawsuit against the complainants owes its entire existence to
Officer Olthaus’s professional contact with the complainants and his alleged on-duty conduct. His
lawsuit does not concern a private matter unrelated to his duties.

It is also irrelevant that Officer Olthaus believed the complaint filed against him to be false.
Procedure 15.100 contains a specific process that CPD must follow if a complaint is believed to
have been falsely filed, and if the criminal prosecution of a complainant for Falsification is desired.
Nowhere does Procedure 15.100 contemplate or allow for an officer who has been accused of
misconduct to file a civil lawsuit in response to a complainant that is believed to be false.

160
We need not prove that Officer Olthaus’s complaint actually impeded CCA’s investigation, nor
must we prove that it prevented complaining witnesses from cooperating with CCA’s investigation
or even filing the complaint in the first place. Manual of Rules and Regulations § 1.16(A) is clear
that “[i]nterference with a case includes, but is not limited to, actions taken which may affect . .
.any . . . facet of an investigation.” Punitive action taken against a witness, or an attempt at such
action, qualifies.

Finally, CCA expresses no opinion in this report as to whether Officer Olthaus possesses (or
lacks) a right under Ohio law to pursue civil litigation against the complainants in this case. Our
conclusion addresses solely whether Officer Olthaus acted consistent with the policies and
procedures of the City of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Police Department when he took action to
punish these two members of the public for filing formal complaints against him for actions alleged
to have been taken while he was on duty in his capacity as a Cincinnati Police Officer. We
conclude that as a matter of policy and procedure, Officer Olthaus was wrong to respond to these
citizen complaints and their associated investigation in the manner he chose.

For all of these reasons, the evidence has shown by a preponderance that Officer Olthaus violated
CPD’s policy and procedure.

F. Findings

Original Allegations
Officer Ryan Olthaus | Terhas White

Discrimination – There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred.
NOT SUSTAINED

Officer Ryan Olthaus | Alissa Gilley

Improper Procedure - The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the
incident did occur, and the actions of the officer were improper. SUSTAINED

Collateral Allegations

Officer Ryan Olthaus | Terhas White

Improper Procedure (BWC)- The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine

that the incident did occur, and the actions of the officer were improper. SUSTAINED

Officer Ryan Olthaus | Terhas White and Alissa Gilley

Interference with Administrative Investigation- The allegation is supported by sufficient

evidence to determine that the incident did occur, and the actions of the officer were improper.
SUSTAINED

161
G. Observations

See “Section VI. Key Observations” in CCA’s consolidated report on this investigation and ten
other protest investigations, GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI.

H. Recommendations

See R2305 and R2310 in “Section VII. Recommendations” of CCA’s consolidated report on this
investigation and ten other protest investigations (GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS REPORT: FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM INVESTIGATIONS OF POLICING COMPLAINTS IN CITY OF CINCINNATI).

I. Previous Contacts & Commendations

Officer Olthaus

Previous Contacts with CCA

Officer Olthaus had three previous contacts with CCA in the past three years.

Case Number Allegation Finding

18211 Search (Vehicle) Exonerated
18211 Pointing of a Firearm Exonerated
18241 Improper Search Exonerated
18241 Harassment Not Sustained
18241 Harassment Not Sustained
19002 Improper Search Exonerated
19002 Harassment Unfounded
19002 Discrimination Unfounded

162
 Previous Contacts with IIS

CCA is unaware of any additional previous contact by Officer Olthaus with IIS.

Commendations

Officer Olthaus received one commendation in the past three years.

Date Source of Commendation Received

06/14/2018 Civilian

1/30/2023
Gabriel Davis, Director Date

163
XI. APPENDICES

MAP

164
 AUTHORITIES

List of Authorities:

Below is a list of key authorities CCA relied upon in conducting its investigation. This list is not
exhaustive. Versions of these authorities are maintained on file at CCA. The majority of CPD
policies and procedures listed below can be found online, in their current form, at
https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/department-references/.

Statutes
• Ohio Revised Code (ORC) §2917.13 – Misconduct at Emergency
• City of Cincinnati Administrative Code Article XVIII
• Cincinnati Municipal Code 714-7

Caselaw
• Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
• Brower v. Cty. of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989)
• Hughey v. Easlick, 3 F.4th 283 (6th Cir. 2021)
• McCallum v. Geelhood, 742 F. App'x 985, 993-94 (6th Cir. 2018)
• United States v. Griffith, 193 F. App'x 538, 540-41 (6th Cir. 2006)
• Hastings v. Hubbard, 151 F. App'x 357 (6th Cir. 2005)
• Pleasant v. Zamieski, 895 F.2d 272, 274-77 (6th Cir. 1990)
• State v. Reed, 2022-Ohio-3986, (1st Dist.)

City of Cincinnati Regulations

• City of Cincinnati Administrative Regulation 25
• City of Cincinnati Administrative Regulation 55

Cincinnati Police Department Policies & Procedures

• Cincinnati Police Department Procedure Manual § 12.160 – Rumors/Potential Civil

Disturbances
• Cincinnati Police Department Procedure Manual § 12.515 – Nonviolent Demonstration
Arrest: Mass Arrest Procedure
• Cincinnati Police Department Procedure Manual § 12.540 – Body Worn Camera
• Cincinnati Police Department Procedure Manual § 12.545 – Use of Force
• Cincinnati Police Department Procedure Manual § 12.550 – Discharging of Firearms by
Police Personnel
• Cincinnati Police Department Procedure Manual §12.554 – Investigatory Stops
• Cincinnati Police Department Procedure Manual § 12.555 – Arrest/Citation: Processing of
Adult Misdemeanor & Felony Offenders
• Cincinnati Police Department Procedure Manual § 12.600 – Prisoners: Securing,
Handling, and Transporting
165
 • Cincinnati Police Department Procedure Manual § 12.715 – Property and Evidence:
Confiscation, Accountability, Processing, Storage, and Release
• Cincinnati Police Department Procedure Manual § 14.205 – Social Media
• Cincinnati Police Department Procedure Manual § 15.100 – Citizen Complaints and
Reports of Favorable Police Conduct
• Cincinnati Police Department Investigations Manual § 12.1.3
• Cincinnati Police Department Manual of Rules and Regulations § 1.06
• Cincinnati Police Department Manual of Rules and Regulations § 1.01
• Cincinnati Police Department Manual of Rules and Regulations § 1.16
• Cincinnati Police Department Manual of Rules and Regulations § 1.23
• Cincinnati Police Department Manual of Rules and Regulations § 2.13
• Cincinnati Police Department Manual of Rules and Regulations § 2.18
• Cincinnati Police Department Tactical Patrol Guide

Other Authorities
• Emergency Declarations/Curfew Orders – May and June of 2020

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

CCA acknowledges its staff and interns for their tireless work on these investigations,
consolidated report, and related research, incliuding Chief Investigator Dena Brow, Investigator
Jessalyn Goodman, Senior Administrative Specialist Michelle Bonner, Adminisrative Specialist
Heidi Woods; and interns Barb Rinto, Joseph Kathman, and Jeremiah May.

166