Jess Vig Deputy Director ofthe Doparoment of Safety DENVER iain oom 302 PUBLIC SAFETY Denver.co 60208 :720813.6020 720.918.7028 swmsdomorg oe/safety August 11, 2016 DEPARTMENTAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND NEGOTIATED STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 1C2016-0020 ‘Adam Lucero (P99047) Detective in the Classified Service of the Denver Police Department This is before the Executive Director of the Department of Safety to approve, modify or disapprove the Chief of Police's Written Command ordering disciplinary action’ for Detective Adam Lucero. The Written Command contains a determination that Detective Lucero violated RR-105, Conduct Prejudicial, and AR-142, Soliciting Preferential Treatment, of the Denver Police Department Operations Manual, when he represented to hotel staff members that he was conducting an official investigation in order to obtain information for his own personal use. The Written Command determined that these were Conduct Category E violations and imposed concurrent penalties of thirty (30) suspended days without pay for these rule violations. For the reasons discussed below, and pursuant to the Negotiated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement appended hereto, the disciplinary determinations are modified as follows: The violations of RR-105 and AR-142 will be sustained as Conduct Category E violations and the penalties will be concurrent thirty (30) suspended days without pay. These penalty determinations will be held in abeyance, pursuant to the conditions set forth in the Negotiated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, for twelve (12) months. Detective Lucero's conduct will also be determined to have violated these same two rules as Conduct Category D violations for which he will serve concurrent sixteen (16) suspended days without pay. As modified, and pursuant to the Negotiated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, Detective Lucero agrees with these penalty determinations. On three occasions in February, 2016, Detective Lucero, who was experiencing marital difficulties, went to a hotel in Loveland, Colorado because he suspected that his wife was having an extra-marital affair. Each time, he was either off-duty or took leave. He used his own personal vehicle to travel to the hotel. However, he was dressed as he normally dresses for work and had his badge and side-arm. While at the hotel, Detective Lucero represented that he was looking for a fugitive “associated with a person staying at the hotel” during the first week in February, 2016. In fact, Detective Lucero was there to confirm his suspicion that his wife was involved with another man. The hotel staff told him that if he wanted to look at hotel video he would need to speak to the hotel manager. The hotel manager was out that particular day so Detective Lucero decided to come back to the hotel another day Detective Lucero retumed to the hotel on two other occasions to review surveillance video. He spoke to two different hotel employees and misrepresented his purpose in being there.DEPARTMENTAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION Page -2- Case: ADAM LUCERO (P99047) Detective in the Classified Service of the Denver Police Department Detective Lucero was given access to surveillance video and he spent at least three hours reviewing video footage confirming his suspicions. Detective Lucero did not download or obtain any of the video footage. He did take “still photos and some still videos with {his]...personal smart phone.” Detective Lucero stated he did not show these items to anyone; he did not distribute them to anyone; and he did not duplicate them. Detective Lucero realized his inappropriate behavior and timely self-reported his conduct to DPD IAB. Hotel personnel contact DPD IAB to report this but Detective Lucero had already brought his behavior to the attention of IAB. He was open and honest at all times with IAB. Detective Lucero has taken responsibility for his conduct. He is extremely remorseful. Although this does not excuse his behavior, Detective Lucero disclosed that he has been involved in interventions to help him deal with the stressors of divorce and has been compliant with his treatment plan RR-105, Conduct Prejudicial, of the Denver Police Department Operations Manual, provides that, Officers shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the good order and police discipline of the Department or conduct unbecoming an officer which: (a) May or may not specifically be set forth in Department rules and regulations of the Operations Manual. Detective Lucero used his position as a DPD officer to gain access to a hotel's surveillance video for his own personal use. Detective Lucero admitted that he traveled to a hotel outside the City on three occasions and represented to hotel personnel that he was conducting an official investigation when he was actually attempting to confirm his suspicions that his wife was having an affair. Each time, Detective Lucero was dressed as he normally dresses for work and was wearing his badge, firearm, and ID. In engaging in this behavior, Detective Lucero engaged in conduct that was “prejudicial to the good order and police discipline of the Department’ and that was “conduct unbecoming an officer.” As such, his conduct violated this departmental rule. RR-142, Soliciting Preferential Treatment, of the Denver Police Department Operations Manual, provides that, Officers shall not attempt to use their position as Department members (including displaying a badge or identifying themselves as Department members): (i) to solicit or attempt to solicit any preferential treatment not extended to the general public: or (ii) to obtain or attempt to obtain any benefit to which they would not otherwise be entitled except in furtherance of official duties or as allowed by the Department or City rule, policy, procedure or authorized practice Detective Lucero’s behavior also violated this departmental rule, He wore his DPD badge and carried his department authorized firearm to the hotel. He misrepresented his purpose in being there and, as a result, he was given access to surveillance video not normally granted to the general public. In engaging in this behavior, Detective Lucero “use{d] [his] Position as [a Department member] (including displaying a badge or identifying [himself] asDEPARTMENTAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION Page -3- Case: 12016-0020 ADAM LUCERO (P99047) Detective in the Classified Service of the Denver Police Department [a Department member)) ... to obtain or attempt to obtain any benefit to which [he] would not otherwise be entitled except in furtherance of official duties or as allowed by the Department or City rule, policy, procedure or authorized practi A violation of RR-105 and RR-142 appear in Conduct Categories A through F of the disciplinary matrix. By using his position as a DPD officer to mislead hotel staff members into believing he was conducting an official investigation in order to gain access to information not generally available to the general public for his own personal use, Detective Lucero's behavior “involve(d] the serious abuse or misuse of authority, unethical behavior, [and] and an act that results in an actual serious and adverse impact...to the professionalism of the Department.” As such, these were Conduct Category E violations. Detective Lucero’s conduct violated two separate departmental rules and are being sustained as alternate theories of misconduct. According to Section 31.8 of the Denver Police Department Discipline Handbook, Specifications which are only alternate theories of addressing the same conduct should not operate so as to unfairly increase the penalty. if multiple violations are sustained which are merely alternative theories of addressing the same conduct, the sustained violations should run concurrently with the most serious violation. Detective Lucero has no prior Conduct Category E, or higher, violations that would mandatorily increase the penalty levels. Pursuant to the disciplinary matrix for discipline level of six (6) the mitigated penalties are eighteen (18) to twenty-two (22) day suspensions, the presumptive penalties are thirty (30) day suspensions, and the aggravated penalties are thirty-eight (38) to forty-two (42) day suspensions. As noted above, the Written Command determined that concurrent thirty (30) suspended days for each rule violation were appropriate penalties. Detective Lucero has a minimal prior disciplinary history. He has been the subject of only four disciplinary actions over the course of his eighteen year career; three of them involved minor scheduled discipline. He self-reported his misconduct in this case. Detective Lucero sought professional help to address challenges he was facing and is compliant with his treatment plan, He has taken responsibility for his actions and has demonstrated genuine remorse. The presence of these significant and weighty mitigating factors warrant modification of the penalty determinations contained in the Written Command, as set forth below The Written Command is approved in part and modified in part. For violating RR 105 and RR-142, Detective Lucero shall be suspended for thirty (30) days without pay. These penalties will run concurrently. Pursuant to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, the Conduct Category E violations and the thirty (30) suspended days without pay shall be held in abeyance for twelve (12) months, provided that Detective Lucero comply with all the terms and conditions of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, appended hereto. Those terms and conditions shall include, among other things, that Detective Lucero commit no further rule violations, of a Conduct Category C or higher, during the twelve (12) month period, which commences on the date the Negotiated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement is executed, irrespective of when the new rule violations are sustained. Should Detective Lucero successfully comply with the terms and conditions of the NegotiatedDEPARTMENTAL ORDER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION Page - 4- Case: 16216-0020 ‘ADAM LUCERO (P99047) Detective in the Classified Service of the Denver Police Department Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, the Conduct Category E violations and the penalties associated with them will be removed from his disciplinary record. Further terms and conditions of the Negotiated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement include, that Detective Lucero will also be found to have violated RR-105 and RR-142, as Conduct Category D violations, for which he will serve concurrent penalties of sixteen (16) suspended days without pay. These penalty determinations will not be removed from his disciplinary record. Finally, Detective Lucero will waive any right to appeal these disciplinary determinations. The concurrent sixteen (16) suspended days without pay will begin on Sunday September 18, 2016 and run through and inclusive of Monday, October 3, 2016. Pursuant to DPD Discipline Handbook Section 35.3, the negotiated settlement of the discipline imposed in this case is not to be used for evaluation of discipline in other cases, nor to determine whether discipline received by other members of the Denver Police Department is consistent with the discipline imposed in this matter for the rule violations discussed above. Please be advised that, pursuant to the attached Negotiated Stipulation and Settlement ‘Agreement, you have waived any right to appeal this Order to the Civil Service ‘Commission, under the provisions of Denver City Charter Sec. 9.4.15, jen Vf I -lb Bg jrector of Safety Date . OFFICER'S RETURN | hereby certify that | received the within Departmental Order of Disciplinary Action and have delivered a true copy thereof to the within-named Adam Lucero this {/™ day of August, 2016. Ft signature cee es oe Pooto Printed NameNEGOTIATED STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT. Adam Lucero and the Department of Safety ‘This Negotiated Stipulation and Agreement (“Agreement”) is made between the City and County of Denver, and the Department of Safety (“the City”) and Adam Lucero ("“Mr. Lucero”): WHEREAS, Mr, Lucero is employed by the City as a Police Officer in the Denver Police Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Lucero was subject to discipline for violating Denver Police Department Rules and Regulations, as set forth more fully in Departmental Order of Disciplinary Action, dated August 11, 2016, (“Disciplinary Letter”), in Case No. IC2016-0020; and WHEREAS, Mr. Lucero and the City desire to resolve all disputes raised by reason of his potential disciplinary appeal without the need for further litigation, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual advantages herein contained, and further in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter more specifically set forth, the parties hereby STIPULATE AND AGREE as follows 1. The City will: a) Find that Mr. Lucero violated RR-105, Conduct Prejudicial, Conduct Category E, and RR-142, Soliciting Preferential Treatment, Conduct Category E violations b) For the Conduct Category E violations of RR-105 and RR-142, impose concurrent 30 day suspensions without pay, held in abeyance for twelve (12) months, effective the date of this agreement. If Mr. Lucero has committed no further rule violation(s) during this twelve (12) month period of a Conduct Category C or greater that are sustained, at any time, by the Chief or the Executive Director of Safety, the Conduct Category E violations and the penalties associated with them will be removed from Mr. Lucero’s disciplinary/personnel file. However, the Disciplinary Letter will not be removed from Mr. Lucero’s disciplinary/personnel file. c) Find that Mr. Lucero violated RR-105, Conduct Prejudicial, Conduct Category D, and RR-142, Soliciting Preferential Treatment, as Conduct Category D violations. @) For the Conduct Category D violations of RR-105 and RR-142, impose concurrent 16 day suspensions without pay. ‘These penalty determinations will not be removed from his disciplinary record, unless the concurrent 30 suspensions without pay are reinstated, and if so, then the Conduct Category E, violations held in abeyance will be substituted for the Conduct Category Dviolations and become permanent entries in Detective Lucero’s disciplinary record. 2. Imexchange, Mr. Lucero agrees: a) That the penalty of concurrent 30 day suspensions currently held in abeyance will be reinstated if he commits any rule violation(s) of a Conduct Category C or greater in the twelve (12) months subsequent to the signing of this agreement, that are subsequently sustained, irrespective of the date the Chief or the Executive Director of Safety has sustained such rule violation(s). b) To serve a 16 day period of suspension without pay. If the concurrent 30 day suspensions held in abeyance are reinstated, an additional 14 day period of suspension without pay will be served and the violations of RR-105 and RR-142 will be entered as Conduct Category E violations in Mr. Lucero’s permanent disciplinary record. ©) To waive any right to appeal the disciplinary determinations and penalties set forth in the Disciplinary Letter to the Denver Civil Service Commission. 3. _ This Agreement is a release of disputed claims and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of the Department of Safety or the City and County of Denver as to any matters whatsoever. 4. This Agreement has been drafted after negotiation between the City and Mr Lucero, Therefore, it is not to be strictly construed against any party to this Agreement, but instead, it is to be construed faitly, according to the plain meaning of its terms. 5. The parties hereto acknowledge that this Agreement constitutes a full, final and complete settlement of their differences and supersedes and replaces any and all other written or oral exchanges, agreements, understandings, arrangements, negotiations, mediation agreements, or memorandums of understanding between or among them relating to the subject matter hereof, and affirmatively state that there are no other prior or contemporaneous agreements, exchanges, Tepresentations, arrangements, or understandings, written or oral, between or among them relating to the subject matter hereof, other than that as set forth herein and that this Agreement contains the sole and entire Agreement between them, 6. The patties acknowledge that they have consulted with their attorneys prior to executing this Agreement, or were given the opportunity to consult with an attorney. 7. The parties represent that they have read this Agreement and understand each of its terms. Mr. Lucero further represents that no representatives, promises, agreements, stipulations, or statements have been made by this City, or their successors, predecessors, assigns, officers, employees, supervisors, agents, attorneys, or representative to induce this settlement, beyond those contained herein and that he voluntarily signs this Agreement as his own free act8. This Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns. 9. The invalidity or unenforceability of one or more provisions of this Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any of the other provisions hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provision or provisions were omitted. 10. The parties hereto acknowledge that this Agreement constitutes a full, final and complete settlement of their differences and supersedes and replaces any and all other written or oral exchanges, agreements, understandings, arrangements, or negotiations between or among them relating to the subject matter hereof, and affirmatively state that there are no other prior or contemporaneous agreements, exchanges, representations, arrangements, or understandings, written o oral, between or among them relating to the subject matter hereof, other than that as set forth herein and that this Agreement contains the sole and entire Agreement between them. The parties hereto further acknowledge and agree that language proposed for, deleted from, or otherwise changed in the various drafts of this Agreement, but not included herein, shall not be considered in any way in the interpretation and application of this Agreement, and shall not in any way affect the rights and obligations of the parties hereto. 11. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts or with signatures obtained via facsimile transmission, each of which shall have full force and effect upon execution by all patties to this Agreement. 12. Ibis understood and agreed that this Agreement shall be governed by, construed, and enforced in accordance with and subject to the laws of the State of Colorado. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement this _[['# day of 2016. STATE OF COLORADO) Bhan i uty Director of Safety Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of Fugu. 2016, by Adam Lucero:ih o F 75 |20 My Commission expires: 7