‘StohaniY. oa, 0- ‘eat Droste Saat Ste DENVER coe PUBLIC SAFETY an frrapeis7oz8 sms. November 20, 2014 DEPARTMENTAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION Case No. 1620140077 JOSEPH G. BLACK (P79070) Capiain in the Classified Service of the Denver Police Department This is before the Executive Director of the Department of Safety to approve, mouify or disapprove the Chiefs Writen Command ordering disciplinary action for Captain Joseph Black. The Chief has determined that Captain Black violated RR-308, Inappropriate Force, of the Denver Police Department Operations Manual, when he was working off duty ai Coors Field and pushed a citizen three times without justification. The Weten Command determined that this was a Conduct Category D violation. The Chief has also determined that Captain Black violated RR-607, Failure to Make, Fe, Or Complete Official Reports, of the Denver Police Department Operations Manual, when he faled to complete a Use of Force Report related to this incident, a pre-determined Conduct Category B violation, and has determined that a penalty of a reduction in rankigrade from Captain to Lieutenant is ‘warranted for each violation. (On July 22, 2014, Captain Joseph Black was working off-duty for the Colorado Rockies Game at Coors Field when he was summoned by ushers to assist them in contacting Mr ‘Alex Buck, who they suspected of supplying alcoholic beverages to underage patrons, One Of the ushers said she saw the youngest individual in Mr. Buck's group drinking beer and ‘approached him to request his ID. The young man told her he did not have an 1D and since the usher saw Mr. Buck bring the beer to the group, she asked him for his. She said that “he immediately got ugly” and his behavior was also observed by others. ‘Mr. Buck denied providing alcohol to anyone underage, however, as the situation started to escalate, a minor patron produced his ID and admitted that he was not yet twenty-one and that he was, in fact, drinking a beer. Officer Fink and Captain Black were called over to assist withthe situation and they escorted Mr. Buck to the concourse below the ‘Rock Pile” ‘where Coors Field staff complete required contact cards for individuals they are ejecting ‘from the game. ‘According to the usher, Mr. Buck continued to behave obnoxiously by yelling and being non-compliant with Coors Field staff. She related, "At one point | just eemember this kid, his ‘chest puffed up and he is flexing his arms and he is in my face wanting hs license back and by now | am geting really uncomfortable withthe space that he isin and all remember is an officer geting between us and | honestly did not know who it was at that point” She ‘added, "| don't think | felt tke he was going to hit me. I did feel Ike he was trying to intimidate me." ees st mvorcoworg [StDEPARTMENTAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION Page 2 (Case No, 02014-0077 JOSEPH G. BLACK (79070) Captain in the Ciassified Service of the Denver Police Deparment ‘Around this time, one of Mr. Buck's fiends began video recording the incident on his cell Phone. In the video recording, Captain Black can be heard asking Mr. Buck a yes or no ‘question. Mr. Buck asked Captain Black if he could explain himself with more than a yes or no response. Captain Black replied in the affirmative before asking Mr. Buck to sit down. ‘Mr. Buck refused to sit down and Captain Black told him to sit down two more times, When ‘Mr. Buck again refused to sit down, Captain Black forcefully pushed Mr. Buck into the char. ‘Mr. Buck immediately stood up. Captain Black again forcefully pushed Mr. Buck into the chair and Mr. Buck once again stood back up. At no time was Mr. Buck threatening anyone. At no time did Mr. Buck pose a physical threat to anyone. In the video recording, Mr. Buck can be heard referring to Captain Black’s actions as abuse and challenged Captain Black to abuse him again. Captain Black proceeded to forcefully shove Mr. Buck a third time, after which Mr, Buck is taken down and handcuffed by Captain Black and Officer Fink. Mr. Buck continued to shout about his rights as an American and being abused by Capiain Black. After the Coors Field staff completed the contact cards, Captain Black ‘escorted Mr. Buck and his group of friends out of Coors Field and allowed Mr. Buck to go home. Mr. Buck was not arrested or sent to detox. Several individuals, presumably Mr Buck's friends, can be heard throughout the video recording telling him to calm down or stop, ‘According to Captain Black, “Mr. Buck wanted to tell me his story. | told him okay but he hhad to sit in the chair so we could discuss it, The reason | asked him to sit was based on his previous contact with us up in the stands. | did not feel we could conduct business in a ssafe manner.” Captain Black added, Distance and aglity ae the two things that flashed through my brain. | knew | had the distance to push (Mr, Buck into the chair, but also knew that he ‘asin close enough proximity to me that wth his younger age and my lack of agility, would not be able fo make a move to pull the trash can out and get in on the side or behind [Mr] Buck to handcuff him. Pushing [Mc] Buck (three) times inthe chair in my mind happened very fast. The chair was padded. “There was no way he could strike his head on a pole or go ever the side. In my mind it seemed minimal to get [Mr] Buck to comply and stll Keep the scone safe. After the third time, Mi] Buck came off the chai, he changed. His neck muscles and the rest of his body flexed Captain Black said that he was able to handcuff Mr. Buck after he stood up the third time because Mr. Buck moved away from a trash can, restricting his ability to handcuff Mr. Buck. According to Captain Black, “| used a left rear wrist lock to ease Mr. Buck to the ground. Within a very short time, Mr. Buck asked if| could take pressure off his wrist. | complied.” Captain Black said that he pondered his actions for a couple of days before asking Sergeant Gerry Fuller what he thought about the situation. Sergeant Fuller told Captain Black if was his officer, he would have completed a Use of Force Report. Captain Black recalled, “it was then | realized that | had made a procedural mistake.” Mr. Buck provided Photographs to IAB showing bruising and marks he claimed were sustained during the incident involving Captain Black,DEPARTMENTAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION Page 3 Case No, 02014-0077 JOSEPH G. BLACK (79070) Captain in the Ciassined Service of the Denver Police Department Captain Black's actions in repeatedly shoving Mr. Buck must be examined in the context of RR-308, Inappropriate Force, of the Denver Police Department Operations Manual, the Denver Police Department's Use of Force policies and Appendix D of the Denver Police Department Discipline Handbook. RR-306, Inappropriate Force, of the Denver Police Department Operations Manual, provides that, Officers shall not use inappropriate force in making an arrest or in dealing witha prisoner or any other person. ‘OMS 105.01(4)(d)(1) ofthe Denver Police Department Operations Manual provides that: The level of force employed must be commensurate with the threat posed by the suspect and the seriousness of the immediate situation. It is recognized land understood that circumstances are fluid and may change rapidly Officers should rely on their training, experience, and assessment of the situation, to decide the appropriate level of foree. (OMS 108.01(1)(a) ofthe Denver Police Department Operations Manual provides, in elevant part, a follows When reasonable under the totality of circumstances, officers should use advisements, warnings, verbal persuasion, and other tactics and recognize that an officer may withdraw to @ position that is tactically more secure or allows an officer greater distance in order to consider or deploy a greater variety of force options. When a suspect is under control, elther through the application of physical restraint or the suspect's compliance, the degree of force should be de-escalated accordingly. ‘OMS 108.04(2)(b) the Denver Police Department Operations Manual provides, in relevant part as follows: ‘The community expects and the Denver Police Department requires that peace Officers use only the force necessary to perform their duties, ‘Appendix D of the Denver Police Department Discipline Handbook provides that “Tall uses ‘of force which fall outside the standards established by Departmental policy shall be Classified as ‘inappropriate force” and indicates that “he term ‘inappropriate use of force’ ‘encompasses ... a situation (where [a]n officer has used force in a particular circumstance but, under Departmental policy, a lesser degree of force should have been used.” ‘Appendix D also provides that, “if a person [is] unable to pose a credible threat to the officer or unable to defend himselfiherself against the force used by the officer, itis more likely thatthe use of force would be inappropriate."DISCIPLINARY ACTION Page 4 (Case No, 102014-0077 JOSEPH G. BLACK (P79070) Captain in the Classified Service of he Denver Police Deparment Captain Black was performing a legitimate law enforcement duly when he fist foruised on Mr. Buck for what was percelved to be a law violation involving supplying liquor to minors. He appropriately isolated Mr. Buck and was prepared to eject him from Coors Field. The situation, however, was needlessly and inappropriately escalated by Captain Black’s Conduct. He aggressively and forcefully shoved Mr. Buck multiple times when Mr. Buck disobeyed commands to sit down. In doing so, Captain Black violated the above- referenced departmental pois. Captain Black did not use the “least amount of force necessary" in interacting with Mr. Buck. and the force he used in shoving Mr. Buck into the chair was unnecessary and not “commensurate with the threat posed by (Mr. Buck] and the seriousness of the immediate situation.” At the time that Captain Black began to use force against Mr. Buck by shoving him into the chair, Mr. Buck posed no credible threat to anyone. He was simply ignoring an ‘order to sit down. Mr. Buck stood up after he was shoved into the chair and Captain Black pushed him into the chair a second time. Mr. Buck stood up again and Captain Black shoved him back down again. Mr. Buck was not threatening anyone and did not make any gestures that could be reasonably deemed to be threatening, At no time did Mr. Buck pose 8 physical threat to anyone. It was not necessary for Captain Black to use the level of force he used against Mr. Buck. Captain Black had other options available to deal with Mr. Buck that did not involve pushing him into the chair or taking him to the ground in the manner that he did, ‘There was another officer present who could have assisted Captain Black in escorting Mr. Buck out ofthe facility. Captain Black was able to give Mr. Buck multiple orders to sit down ‘and Captain Black could easily have de-escalated the situaton by stepping away from Mr. Buck and allowing Mr. Buck to coo! down. This would have allowed Captain Black to ‘evaluate the situation to determine how best to handle it. Captain Black could have taken ‘Mr. Black by the arm and led him out of the faclty. There were several other options to deal with Mr. Black that did not require shoving him into a chair multiple times. The third time Captain Black pushed Mr. Buck into the chair is particularly egregious in that it was @ direct response to Mr. Buck challenging him to “abuse” him again. This demonstrated a lack of sound judgment on Captain Black's behalf. In repeatedly pushing Mr. Buck into the chair and then taking him to the ground, Captain Black used ‘inappropriate force" and he falled to “use only that force which was necessary to perform [his] duties.” ‘A violation of RR-306 appears in Conduct Categories D through F of the disciplinary matrix. In using more force than was reasonable and necessary, Captain Black's actions were “substantially contrary to the values of the Department and] substantially inerfere(d] with its professional image.” As such, this was a Conduct Category violation. Captain Black has no prior Conduct Category D, or higher, violations within the specified time-frame of seven (7) years that would mandatorly increase the penalty level. Pursuant to the disciplinary matrix for a discipline level of five (5), the mitigated penalty isa four (4) 10 ‘x (6) day suspension, the presumptive penalty is a ten (10) day suspension, and the aggravated penalty is a fourteen (14) to sixteen (16) day susvension. There are significant ‘aggravating circumstances in this case. Captain Black's inappropriate behavior wasDEPARTMENTAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION Page 5 ‘Case No, 1C2014-0077 JOSEPH G. BLACK (P78070) Captain in the Classified Service of te Denver Police Department ‘observed by several individuals. The incident was video recorded and was published on the intemet. Captain Black’s rank is another aggravating factor (Section 19.9 of the Denver Police Department's Discipine Handbook). Section 20.2 of the Denver Police Department Discipline Handbook provides that, [The supervisoryicommand rank of an officer who commited a violation may bbe considered a factor in aggravation which may warrant a penalty higher than the presumptive penalty for that violation. It is appropriate for the Department to have higher expectations for supervisors and command officers than subordinate officers, Further, itis appropriate for the Department to expect that a supervisor or command officer should exercise even greater festraint and circumspection than a subordinate officer. Supervisors and Commanders are expected to lead by example, They are responsible for holding others accountable and should likewise be accountable, Due to Captain Black's rank, he is appropriately held to a higher standard of conduct than subordinate officers. His behavior was particularly egregious because he did not act with “greater restraint and circumspection than a subordinate officer." Moreover, due to the presence of extraordinary aggravation in this case, as dscussed below, a penalty beyond the aggravated range is warranted for Captain Biack’s beravior. RR407, Failure to Make, File, or Complete Official Reports, of the Denver Police Department Operations Manual, provides that, Officers shall not fal to make, file, or complete required reports and records. Members shall make reports promptly, accurately, and completely in Conformity with specifications of the Department Members shall make all necessary reports before going off duty unless a supervisor/commander authorizes delay. As itpertains to. ‘OMS 105.02 Use of Force Procedures (1) Duty to Report ‘a. The Use of Force Report, DPD 12, related supervisory investigation and reports are required in any of the following circumstances. 6. An officer applies force through use o' the following, whether an arrest is or is not made, fh. Hand strike, leg thrustkick,¢TMENTAL OF LINARY ACTION Pages Case No, 02014-0077 JOSEPH G. BLACK (P79070) Captain in the Ciassiied Service of the Denver Police Department Captain Black violated this departmental rule when he failed to complete @ Use of Force Report as required by the circumstances in this incident. The Denver Police Department Operations Manual outines the circumstances requiring a Use of Force Report, one of which is applicable in the instant case: “An officer applies force through use of the following hand strike." Captain Black forcibly pushed Mr. Buck into a chair three times. A Use of Force Report was, therefore, required. Captain Black acknowledged that he was remiss in his duties by not completing a Use of Force Report. A violation of RR-607 is a pre-determined Conduct Category B violation under the disciplinary matrix because it involves conduct that has “more than a minimal negative impact on the operations [and] professional image of the Department." Captain Black has two prior Conduct Category B, of higher, violations within the specified time-frame of four (4) years that mandatory Increases the penalty level inthis case. On (October 28, 2014 n case number P20%4-0310, Captain Black was dscpined for violating RR-127, Responsibilities to Serve the Public, and received an aggravated penalty of four (4) fined days. In hat case, on July 20, 2014 while working of duly on the 16" Steet Mal, Caplan Black engaged homeless person, for no legiimate reason, took a sign he was holding and ripped f up. On November 18, 2013, in case number C2013-0083, Captain Black was disciplined for olang RR-103, Ald Another fo Violate Rule, and received penalty of two (2) fined days. In that case, it was ciscovered that in August of 2013, aptan Black had instructed an officer, who had been under the Chief's order not to wear his uniform at work for dscpinary reasons, to wear his uniform in defiance of the Chefs arse Thus, pursuant to the disciplinary matrix for a discipline level of four (4), the mitigated penalty forthe current rule violation is two (2) to four (4) fined days, the presumptive penalty is a three (3) day suspension, and the aggravated penalty is a five (5) to seven (7) day ‘suspension. As noted above, a significant aggravating circumstance in this case is the ‘command rank of Captain Black. Due to Captain Black's rank, he is appropriately held to a higher standard of conduct by the Department than subordinate officers. Moreover, due to the presence of extraordinary aggravation in this case, as discussed below, a penalty beyond the aggravated range is again warranted for Captain Black's misconduct. ‘Special Circumstances In this case, “Special Circumstances" are established by the presence of “Extraordinary ‘Aggravation” rendering the maximum penalty as established by the Matrix in elther the presumptive or aggravated ranges inadequate to effect both the purposes of discipline and to reflect the gravity of the circumstances. The interests of justice, the operations of the Department, and the purposes of discipline are most effectively served by @ reduction in rank. Section 25.6.1 of the Denver Police Department Discipline Handbook provides: Reduction in rank of an officer may occur if, after considering all of the facts ‘and circumstances surrounding an incident, itis determined that a supervisor for command officer lacks the abiliy, wilingness and worthiness to perform inDEPARTMENTAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION Page7 Case No, 02014-0077 JOSEPH G, BLACK (P79070) ‘Captain in the Classified Service ‘of the Denver Police Department the current rank. Reduction in rank reflects the determination that an officer has demonstrated by his‘her misconduct that he/she 1s unfit to fulfill the responsbbiliies and duties required for his or her current position at the specific rank, Captain Black is a high ranking command officer within the Department. He has numerous supervisory responsibilties and is charged with being a role model and a mentor. He is Fequited 10 act at all times as a leader. According to the Denver Police Department ‘Operations Manual D&R7.28 Command officers shall take proactive measures to identify performance deficiencies of personnel under their command and they will develop and implement effective interventions to correct ‘subordinate performance or behavioral issues or problems and initiate disciplinary action when appropriate. They shall monitor the Personnel Assessment System (PAS) and identify subordinate personnel within their command who exhibit performance or behavior contrary to the mission, vision, values, (goals, policies or procedures of the Department. DAR 11.03 [Captains] shall be responsible for the proper performance of duty on the part of each member under their supervision. They shall also be held responsible forthe enforcement of all orders, rules and established procedure of the [DJepartment, and the maintenance of police discipine. In breach of the responsiblties conferred upon him by his rank as well as the trust placed ‘upon him by the Department, Capiain Black has engaged in specific instances. of misconduct, as well as a pattern of misconduct, demonstrating an inability to conform his ‘own conduct to the standards of the Department. Therefore, Captain Black is not capable of effectively monitoring and correcting performance and behavioral issues of subordinates. Moreover, Captain Black has demonstrated a failure to comply with orders, rules, and established procedure of the Department, rendering him unfit to hold the rank of Captain since he has displayed an inability to “be held responsible forthe enforcement ofall orders, Tules and established procedure of the [Djepartment, and the maintenance of police discipline.” “Allowing Captain Black to remain in his current rank would negatively impact the operations of the Department, the perception of subordinate officers of the quality and professionalism of Depariment leadership, and the effectiveness of a discipline system that ‘would allow an officer to hold the rank of Captain after a serious breach of his duties and responsibilities. ‘Section 25.1 of the Denver Police Department Discipine Handbook provides: It should be recognized that any Matrix system can only be designed for the large majority of cases and that on limited occasions there will be extraordinary circumstances which would justify a penalty less than or greater than that allowed under the Matrix. This is what is generally referred to asDEPARTMENTAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION Page 8 Case No, 02014-0077 JOSEPH G. BLACK (P78070) Captain in the Classified Service ‘of the Denver Police Deparment ‘going outside the Matric’ The authority to do so is within the sound discretion of the Chief of Police and the (Executive Director] of Safety and is reasonable and necessary to avoid injustice. A properly functioning Matrix system cannot be so rigidly applied as to mandate a certain sanction or limit a certain sanction where doing so would lead to an unjust result or fail to reflect the totality ofthe particular cicumstances, ‘According to section 25.4.1, [When] the facts and circumstances surrounding a particular case warrant a Penalty greater than that allowed in the Matrix, the following are avaliable 25.4.1.1 Suspension of up to 90 days: 25.4.1.2 Reduction in rank or grade; 25.4.1.3 Termination, regardless of whether termination is the presumptive for aggravated penalty specified in the Matrix for the current Violation, Section 25.4.2 of the Discipline Handbook states: In order to recommend or impose a penalty greater than the maximum penalty called for in the Matrix, it must be concluded that the Matrix falls to appropriately address the conduct or the officer specific to the case. This could include a factor in aggravation that is so extraordinary that the maximum penalty called for in the Matrix would be inadequate to effect the purposes of discipline orto reflect the gravity of the circumstances even ifthe maximum penalty were to be imposed. Section 25.7 indicates, ‘The entirety of an officer's disciplinary history may be considered in determining whether special cicumstancee exist justifying a penal cr that allowed under the Matrix up to and including reduction in rank or termination. Extraordinary Aggravation Extraordinary aggravation exists in this case warranting a penalty outside of the Matrix for Captain Black’s misconduct. Section 25.4.4 of the Disciplinary Handbook lists several factors to consider in determining whether extraordinary aggravation exists warranting @ penalty above what the Matrix anticipated, four of which are applicable to Captain Black's ‘misconduct, A. Sestion 25.4.1: Commission of a series of acts which constitute a ‘course of conduct characterized by a continued inability or unwillingness ‘on the part ofthe officer to conform to expected standards of conduct.DEPARTMENTAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION Page ‘Case No, 1C2014-0077 JOSEPH G. BLACK (P78070) Captain in the Classified Service of the Denver Police Department During the course of an eleven month timeframe, Captain Black commited a “series of acts, which constitute a course of conduct characterized by a continued inability or unwilingness. ‘on the part of the officer to conform to expected standards of conduct." First, as discussed above, on August 9, 2013, Captain Black directed a subordinate officer to wear his uniform in violation of a Chief's order.’ Therefore, Captain Black “aidfed] ... another inthe violation of ... [a Chiefs] order’ in violation of RR-103. This was particularly egregious, given his, ‘command status. His actions demonstrated that he lacked sufficient insight into importance, in a paramilitary organization, of orders being followed. Second, on July 20, 2014, Captain Black falled to “respect the rights of [an] individual" in violation of RR-127, Responsibilities to Serve Public. Captain Black admitted to ripping an individual's sign, which is a form of ‘speech protected under the First Amendment, without justification * This action was taken in public view and demonstrates a lack of good judgment and sound discretion. Third (and present case), on July 22, 2014, Captain Black violated RR-308, Inappropriate Force, when he pushed an individual, who was not under arrest, three times into a chair, because the individual did not sit down as directed by Captain Black.’ This behavior too, occured in public view and in front of his subordinates. By his actions, he set an extremely poor ‘example for officers under his command, If these incidents of misconduct were considered in isolation, they may very well ‘demonstrate mere lapses of judgment. However, when considered together, these three cases of misconduct constitute a consistent course of conduct that demonstrate Captain Black’ inabilty or unwilingness to conform to standards of conduct expected of high level ‘command staff. Additionally, the three incidents transpired over a period of eleven months, further illustrating Captain Black’s inability or unwilingness to conform his conduct even after the misconduct was brought to his attention and disciplinary action was taken or initiated. B. Section 25.4.4.2: Commission of an act of acts which clearly cause @ Continuing, disruptive effect on the efficent ... operations of the Department, By repeatedly engaging in misconduct over a span of eleven months, Captain Black's course of conduct oulined above “clearly cause(d] a continuing disruptive effect on the ‘efficient... operations of the Department.” Moreover, Captain Black directed a subordinate to disobey a Chiefs order. Without question, this act of misconduct is disruptive to the ‘operations of the Department since it undermines the chain of command and erodes the ‘good order and police discipline of the Department. Further, by consistently fang to lead by example, Captain Black has caused a continuing disruptive effect on the efficient ‘operations of the Department. C. Section 25.4.4.3: Commission of an act or acts ... which demonstrate a Serious lack of. judgment necessary to hold the postion of police officer. gee, 12019 0052 lek Review & Fines. 2Se, P2014 0310 Block Review & rings. See 120140077 Black Revow & FinngsDEPARTMENTAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION Page 10 (Case No, 1020140077 JOSEPH G. BLACK (79070) Captain in the Classified Service of the Denver Police Department Each of Captain Black's three incidents of misconduct ‘demonstrate[é] a serious lack of judgment necessary to hold the position of [Captain]. By directing a subordinate to disregard a Chief's order, Captain Black not only aided, but knowingly directed ‘subordinate to engage in behavior contrary to the values of the Department. Moreover, as 2 supervisor, Captain Black is responsible for monitoring the conduct of subordinates and {uiding them to conduct themselves appropriately as Denver Police Officers. Captain Black falled to do so. Second, Captain Black failed to show appropriate judgment by encroaching upon an Individua's freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment when he ripped the individua's sign. While Captain Black attempts to justify his actions by claiming he was ‘concerned other citizens may be struck withthe sign, the facts suggest otherwise. The sign was crafted from cardboard and not reasonably dangerous. Moreover, there is no ‘evidence, besides the individual being agitated with police contact, suggesting he was likely to swat or stike members of the public with his sign. In fact, he created a new sign shortly after Captain Black destroyed the original sign, yet Captain Black did not confiscate the ssecond sign. Third, Captain Black showed a serious lack of judgment when he violated RR-306, Inappropriate Force, by inappropriately pushing an individual three times while he was working off duty at Coors Field. The third time Captain Black pushed the individual Particularly troubling as it was a direct response to the individual challenging him to “abuse” him again, thus demonstrating a significant lack of sound judgment on Captain Black's part D. Section 25.4.4.4: Commission of an act or acts which have had or may be reasonably demonstrated to have, an appreciable negative effect on the general public's confidence andlor trust in the operations of the Department. Ina mere two day span, Captain Black engaged in two acts of misconduct ‘which may have hhad or may be reasonably demonstrated to have, an appreciable negative effect on the general public's confidence andior trust in the operations of the Department.” On July 20, 2014, Captain Black ripped a man’s sign without justification while working off duty on the 46” Street mall. This infringement on an individual's freedom of speech creates an appreciable negative effect on the public's confidence and trust in the operations of the Department by creating questions as to the Department's abilty to respect and uphold the rights of individuals. On July 22, 2014, Captain Black pushed an individual three times into a chair while working off duty at Coors Field, The individual was not arrested, but simply ejected from a baseball ‘game. The cause of Captain Black's use of force was unrelated to sa’ety concems. Rather, the individual was attempting to explain his story to Captain Black, Saptain Black told the indWvidual to sit down, he refused, and after teling him to sit again, Captain Black forcibly pushed him into the chair. Notably, Captain Black pushed the individual a thd time after the individual challenged Captain Black to “abuse” him again. The event was captured on video and distributed to various media outlets. After being aired on the news and viewed onIARY ACTION Page 11 Case No, 12014-0077 JOSEPH G. BLACK (P78070) ‘Captain in the Classified Service ‘of the Denver Police Department ‘Youtube, Captain Black's actions were met with condemnaticn from several members ofthe general public, demonstrating the negative impact Captah Black's actions had on the: Public's confidence and trust in the operations of the Department. Reduction in Rank Reduction in rank is warranted in this case because the essence of Captain Black's misconduct involves his fitness to hold the rank of Captain demonstrated by his inability to lead by example and perform the duties and responsibilities of a Captain in a credible and professional manner. According to Section 25.5.1 of the Denver Police Department Disciplinary Handbook Reduction in rank of an officer may occur if, after considering all of the facts and circumstances surrounding an incident, itis detemined that a supervisor ‘or command officer lacks the abilty, wilingness and worthiness to perform in the current rank, Reduction in rank reflects the determination that an officer hhas demonstrated by his her misconduct that he/she is unfit to full the responsibilities and duties required for his or her current position at the specific rank. ‘When considering a reduction in rank, the Discipline Handbook states, “I the commission of the violation prior to attaining the current rank would have raised substantial questions as to the officer's fitness to hold that rank in the first place, a reduction in rank may be considered.” By knowingly aiding another officer in disobeying a Chiefs order, failing to respect the rights of an individual, and using inappropriate force in dealing with an individual who was not under arrest and who did not pose a threat, Captain Black engaged in a pattern of misconduct that would have raised substantial questions as to his fitness to hold the rank of Captain had his misconduct occurred prior to attaiing the rank of Captain According to the Discipline Handbook, “The importance of the abilty to lead by example and to perform the duties and responsibilies of the rank in a credible and professional ‘manner cannot be minimized.” Captain Black has shown a1 inabiity to lead by example. Captain Black knowingly old a subordinate to disregard a Chefs order, faled to respect the Fights of an individual in the presence of officers of a lower rank, and used inappropriate {force against an individual not under arrest and who did not pose a’ threat inthe presence of 2 subordinate officer. These actions demonstrate Captain Black's inablity to conform his behavior in a manner allowing him to appropriately lead by example. Moreover, these incidents of misconduct demonstrate Captain Black's failure “to perform, the duties and responsibilties of the rank in a credible anc professional manner.” As a Captain, Captain Black is a supervisory officer responsible for directing subordinate officers In a manner that is consistent with and reinforces the good order and police discipline ofthe Department. However, Captain Black usurped the chain of command when he knowingly directed a subordinate officer to disregard a Chief's order which caused a "pronounced ‘negative impact on the operations [and] professional image of the Department.” Similarly, Captain Black demonstrated an inability to perform the duties and responsibilties of aDEPARTMENTAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION Fage 12 ‘Case No, 1C2014-0077 JOSEPH G. BLACK (P78070) CCapiain in the Classified Service of he Denver Police Department Captain during the incident at Coors Field. As a Captain, Captain Black should have known. his use of force during the incident was inappropriate under the circumstances. Litewise, Captain Black, as a supervisory officer, is responsible for knowing when a Use of Force Report is to be completed, yet after clearly using force during the Coor’s Field incident, Captain Black failed to complete a Use of Force Report when one was obviously required by the circumstances, Discipline ‘The primary purposes of discipline are as follows: To modifylcorrect conduct of subject officer; To deter future misconduct by the subject officer; To impose an appropriate penalty on the subject officer; To address/teftect harm, risk of harm, and effects of misconduct; and To provide notice of the consequences of misconduct to all officers and deter future misconduct by al officer. ‘Additional goals to be achieved by the imposition of discipline 1. To ensure orderty functioning and operation of the Department; 2. To ensure adherence to Department standards; 3, To manage risk and potential future civ liability; and 4, To establish trustrespect within the Department and with the community, Penalty Imposed: AA. Violation of RR-306: Inappropriate Force = Reduction from the rank/grade of Captain to the ranki/grade of Lieutenant B. Violation of RR-607: Failure to Make, File, or Complete Official Reports + Reduction from the rank/grade of Captain to the ranki/grade of Lieutenant Discipline Handbook Section 25.5.4 indicates that a reduction in rank may be imposed in Conjuntion with or in lieu of other appropriate discipline such as suspension. Additionally, Discipline Handbook Section 31.9 indicates that the [Executive Director] of Safety may fashion a discipinary sanction which he or she believes addresses the nature and totality of the misconduct but avoids unfair impact of the subject officer. Therefore, the Executive Director of the Department of Safety has determined that the interests of justice and the purposes of discipline are most effectively served by ordering the execution ofthe penalty of 2 reduction in rank/grade from Captain to Lieutenant in leu of the penalties provided by the Matrix,DEPARTMENTAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION Page 13, Case No, 1020140077 JOSEPH G. BLACK (P79070) ‘Captain in the Classified Service ‘of the Denver Police Department Conclusions ‘A. The supervisory rank of the subject officer sufficiently justifies an increase in the discipinary sanction over that which would be imposed on a non- ‘supervisory employee. B. The case is one of “Special Circumstances’ and “Extraordinary Aggravation” as detailed in Section 25.0 ofthe Discipline Handbook in that the maximum penalty as established by the Matrix in either the Presumptive or aggravated ranges are inadequate to effect the purposes ‘of discipline or to reflect the gravity ofthe circumstances. C. Extraordinary aggravation exists in this case based upon any or all of the {ollowing criteria: 1. 28.4.4.1: Commission of a series of acts which constitute a course of Conduct characterized by a continued inability or unwillingness on the Part of the officer to conform to expected standards of conduct, 2. 25442: Commission of an act or acts which clearly cause a ‘continuing, disruptive effect on the efficient ... operations of the Department, 3, 25.443: Commission of an act or acts ... which demonstrate a Serious lack of .. judgment necessary to hold the position of police officer. 4, 25.4.4.4: Commission of an act or acts which have had or may be reasonably demonstrated to have, an appreciable negative effect on the general public's confidence andlor trust in the operations of the Department, D. Pursuant to Section 25.4 of the Discipline Handbook, where “Extraordinary Aggravation” is found to exist, the following penalties are available: 25.4.1.1 Suspension of up to 90 Days; 25.4.1.2 Reduction in rank or grade; of 25.4.1.2. Termination D. The appropriateness of reducing the subject officer's rank from the postion of Captain was considered. Relying upon the guidance contained In Section 25.5 of the Disciplinary Handbook rendered the following conclusions: 1. The nature of the misconduct, and the particular circumstances under which it occurred, leads to the conclusion that allowing Captain Black to remain @ Captain would negatively affect the operations of the Department, the qualty and professionalism of the Department'sDEPARTMENTAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION Page 14 (Case No, 1C2014-0077 JOSEPH G, BLACK (P 79070) Capiain in the Classified Service of the Denver Police Department leadership, and the effectiveness of a disciplinary system that allows fan officer to continue to hold a rank after engaging in a pattern of ‘misconduct that constitutes a serious break of the officer's duties and ‘esponsibilies. 2. The subject officer fale to full his duty to lead by example and perform his duties and responsibilities in a respectable manner, 3. Reduction of the subject officer's rank is appropriate because the Matrix falis to appropriately address the conduct and gravity of the 4, Reduction of the subject office's rank is appropriate because the Matrix falls to appropriately address the officer specific to the case, 5, Reduction of the subject officer's rank is the most effective means to achieve the primary purposes and additional goals of the discipline 6. Reduction of the subject officer's supervisory rank of Captain is reasonable, appropriate, and justified under the circumstances. Due to the presence of "Special Circumstances" established by "Extraordinary Aggravation,” ‘a penalty outside the matrix, reduction from the rank/grade of Captain to the ranklgrade of Lieutenant, is warranted and hereby imposed for violation of RR-306. Due to the presence of *Speciai Circumstances” established by "Extraordinary Aggravation,” a penalty outside the matrix, reduction from the rankigrade of Captain to the rankigrade of Lieutenant, is warranted and hereby imposed for violation of RR-607. Accordingly, the Writen Command is hereby approved. Captain Black shall receive a penalty of @ reduction in rankigrade from Captain to Lieutenant and the reduction in rank/grade will be effective as of the date of this Departmental Order of Disciplinary Action. Pursuant to Denver City Charter § 9.4.15(A), Captain Joseph Black has ten (10) days from receipt of tis order to file an appeal with the Civil Service Commission, BY ORDER: Vv. puly Director of SafetyDEPARTMENTAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION Page 15 Case No, 02014-0077 JOSEPH G. BLACK (P79070) Captain in the Classified Service ‘of the Denver Police Department OFFICER'S RETURN | hereby certify that I received the within Departmental Order of Disciplinary Action and have delivered a true copy thereof to the within-named Joseph Black this __day of 2014.