Professional Documents
Culture Documents
WWW.COLERAINPOLICE.ORG
Mark C. Denney, CLEE Michael Owens, CLEE Christopher Phillips
Chief of Police Support Services Commander Patrol Commander
The Colerain Police Department in an internationally accredited law enforcement agency through the
Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies, receiving the Gold Standard Accreditation
with Excellence Award in the last three accreditation cycles (2011-current). The Colerain Police
Department was also the very first police agency in the State of Ohio to meet the State standards for
certification. Among those standards is a mechanism for handling internal investigations. The State of
Ohio issued the following statement regarding the process:
In order to meet accreditation standards, the Police Department is required to adhere to strict policies
in regards to internal investigations. Procedures are followed to ensure the rights of both the accused
officer and the community are equally protected. The overarching goal is to complete the investigation
with factual findings based only on evidence and not emotion or bias. While there may be significant
public demand for information, the focus is on a quality investigation over a quick resolution.
Internal investigations are guided by established case law and the collective bargaining agreement
between the Township and the Fraternal Order of Police who represent the officers. The process
requires notification to the officer that an investigation is taking place. All witnesses and involved
officers are notified of interview times and have the right to be represented by a person of their choice
(usually a representative of the Fraternal Order of Police). All reports, recordings and any other available
evidence are also reviewed. Interviews are conducted in a style similar to an investigative interview
conducted in a criminal investigation.
Typically, the officer’s direct supervisor is responsible for conducting the investigation unless the
accusation could reasonably lead to serious discipline or termination. In those cases, the Chief of Police
will assign the appropriate Division Commander to conduct the investigation. The Command Staff has
Once the investigation is completed by the assigned supervisor, the Chief of Police will review the report
and evidence and make a final determination if the officer violated any rules or policies. Internal
investigations are concluded with the following findings:
EXONERATED -- Incident did occur, but the actions taken were lawful and proper.
SUSTAINED-OTHER -- Sustaining of violation or misconduct other than the allegation of the original
complaint.
Under the collective bargaining agreement and employment law, officers with sustained complaints,
and who are subject to discipline above a written reprimand, are entitled to a pre-disciplinary hearing. A
hearing is scheduled by the Township Administrator or his designee. Charges are read to the officer and
the officer is given an opportunity to respond. The officer is entitled to have representation and to call
character witnesses.
The Chief of Police will then decide on the proper discipline. The Board of Trustees has given the Chief of
Police the authority to impose a suspension of up to and including three days without consultation of
the Board. Longer terms of suspension, demotion or termination are brought to the Board for their
input and final approval.
The goal is to have the process completed within 30 days from the receipt of the complaint. All internal
investigations are tracked and reported in the Department’s Annual Report and to the Commission on
Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies.
In the investigation at issue, Division Commanders Michael Owens and Christopher Phillips were jointly
assigned to investigate with the direction to complete the investigation as thoroughly and timely as
possible. That investigation has now been completed.
The Colerain Police Department has an established track record of holding employees accountable when
appropriate. In the past eight years, the following discipline has been issued for misconduct (most often
from charges brought internally as opposed to a citizen complaint).
Year Cases Sustained Not Exonerated Suspensions Terminations Resignation Reprimand Demotions
Sustained in Lieu
2010 18 9 5 6 3 0 0 6 0
2011 11 5 12 5 2 0 0 3 0
2012 10 6 2 4 0 0 0 5 1
2013 9 3 2 0 0 0 2 5 0
2014 10 7 5 1 2 1 0 9 0
2015 7 3 2 1 0 1 1 4 0
2016 7 3 1 2 1 0 2 2 0
2017 9 7 3 1 4 0 0 3 0
2018 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
Total 84 43 33 21 12 2 6 37 1
*Some investigations had more than one accusation, thus more than one finding/action
Officer Kyle Frandoni was one of the first officers to respond and assisted Deputy Gaffney in placing Mr.
Beck on the ground outside the school as Mr. Beck continued to resist officers’ attempts to control him.
Officer Frandoni activated his camera to record the events at this point; the time stamp on the recording
indicates this occurred at 10:45:06. Officer Frandoni’ s body worn camera captured the interaction
Officer Huntington addressed Ms. Thomas the first time at 10:45:44 according to Officer Frandoni’s
recording and directed her, “Ma’am, back up”. He ordered her a second time at 10:45:47 to “Back up!”.
Ms. Thomas replied immediately in a defiant tone of voice, “I can video if I want”, to which Officer
Huntington replied, “You can, but back the fuck up”. The background of the audio portion of the
recording then became indiscernible for a few moments as a car horn was honking and Mr. Beck was
complaining about the chemical irritant in his eyes. Officer Huntington can be heard on the recording
over the other noises telling Ms. Thomas loudly at least once more to “back up” and one more once
again loudly commanding her to “back the fuck up,” as the sound of the distance between his voice and
Officer Frandoni’s body worn camera increased.
One other person can also be heard on the recording ordering someone to “stay back” at 10:46:26.
Officer Patrick Quinn arrived on the scene and was directed at 10:46:45 to take Ms. Thomas into
custody, which he did without incident. He escorted her to his car where he remained with her and she
had no further interaction with Officer Huntington.
Officer Henry Boyd activated his body worn camera at 10:45:21 as he was responding to the scene and
he did not arrive on the scene until 10:45:46, approximately the same time as Officer Huntington’s
interaction with Ms. Thomas was occurring. Officer Boyd exited his patrol car and began approaching
the area on foot from the parking lot at 10:46:50 and arrived at the sidewalk in front of the school at
10:47:05. Ms. Thomas had already been arrested and removed from the area by this point. No portion
of the interaction between Officer Huntington and Ms. Thomas was captured on Officer Boyd’s body
worn camera.
Officer Patrick Quinn arrived on the scene at 10:46:12, as captured by Officer Frandoni’s body worn
camera recording. Officer Quinn activated his body worn camera as he reached his patrol car with Ms.
Thomas in custody and secured her in his car. This activation was at 10:47:30 and is consistent with the
time displayed on Officer Frandoni’s body worn camera as Officer Quinn is seen in the background
reaching his patrol car and preparing to secure Ms. Thomas. No portion of the interaction between
Officer Huntington and Ms. Thomas was captured on Officer Quinn’s body worn camera.
Officer Chris Cullman activated his body worn camera t 10:47:50 as he responded to the scene and did
not arrive on scene until 10:49:50. Officer Huntington’s interaction with Ms. Thomas was over and she
was secured in Officer Quinn’s patrol car prior to Officer Cullman arriving on scene. No portion of
Officer Huntington’s interaction with Ms. Thomas was recorded on Officer Cullman’s body worn camera.
Officer Cody Ashcraft also responded to the call and activated his body worn camera at 10:48:15 as he
entered the school to assist with the unruly crowd inside. Officer Huntington’s interaction with Ms.
Thomas was over prior to the activation of Officer Ashcraft’s body worn camera. No portion of Officer
Huntington’s interaction with Ms. Thomas was recorder on Officer Cullman’s body worn camera.
Courts tasked with determining the reasonableness of a police officer’s use of force
have been guided by the United State Supreme Court to consider situations based on a
standard of “objective reasonableness.” In essence, lower courts have been directed to
view the facts surrounding an officer’s use of force as they were presented to the
officer at the time force was used without relying on the benefit of 20/20 hindsight or
second-guessing the officer’s decision. Courts are instructed to confront the facts of a
case as they were presented to the officer when the decision to use force was made
and to determine if the actions were “reasonable” given the circumstances and what
was known to the officer at the time.
We are required by law to view the officer’s actions using this as a guide. You must look at the situation
from what the officer saw and knew, and nothing else. Colerain Police policy 1.14 dictates:
The correct entry level of force is that level of force that the officer thinks will
efficiently serve the purpose in a timely manner. If that level of force is unsuccessful
in gaining control of a subject, the officer will continue to use force until successfully
accomplishing the purpose, whether it is to affect an arrest, to prevent risk of injury
to self or others, to prevent the subject from endangering himself or others, to
compel compliance or any other legitimate law enforcement purpose. As the purpose
is achieved, the force should diminish or end.
At no time was the female punched or struck as she claims on the video. All of the people who claimed
online to have video showing the officer punching her in the face have failed to provide any video to us,
despite the fact that we asked for witnesses and videos on WLW, WCPO, WKRC, WXIX, WLWT and The
Cincinnati Enquirer in a written statement. Review of the video shows that Officer Huntington pushed
her back into an SUV using his “weak hand” while controlling another prisoner in his dominate hand.
The female is seen pushing back and/or striking at Officer Huntington’s hands. Officer Huntington’s
actions were completely justified and the response was the very minimum amount of force available to
him. In addition, Officer Huntington confirmed her right to continue recording, but ordered her to “get
back”.
A review of the statements indicates that the interaction between Officer Huntington and Ms. Thomas
had concluded prior to most officers’ arrival on scene and other than Officer Huntington, one officer
only heard the interaction between Officer Huntington while another two both heard and witnessed it.
Prior to Officer Huntington’s interaction with Ms. Thomas, two of the officers who responded had
removed Ms. Thomas from the immediate arrest area where she was in close proximity to arresting
officers who were attempting to effect arrests and maintain control of a chaotic and dynamic situation.
Ms. Thomas was first walked away by one officer (Detective Doerflein) and told to stay back and she
replied, “okay.” Ms. Thomas disobeyed this directive and returned to interject herself into the
immediate area a second time and was physically escorted away by the arm by a second officer
(Detective Maher), who also gave her an order to stay back. She disobeyed both of the directives of the
first two officers and inserted herself into the arrest area a third time. The third time she approached
the officers from behind and was in close proximity to arresting officers who were unaware of her
presence, creating a risk to not only the officer, but also herself. Ms. Thomas was directed by Officer
In regards to the language used by Officer Huntington. Below is an excerpt from the Colerain Police
Department Policy and Procedure Manual section 1.14:
The use of profanities towards another is generally prohibited unless the purpose is
to “verbally stun” the subject in order to gain compliance. Should a subject not
comply with lawful orders, the officer may utilize “verbal stunning” in an effort to
avoid using force. This practice should be limited as it can present a negative image
of the officer and the Police Department.
Officer Huntington stated that this was his intention when he used the language towards the suspect.
She had ignored all other attempts at correcting her behavior and Officer Huntington felt that this might
assist by letting her know how serious and unlawful her actions were. One independent witness (who
watched the entire event) stated she was actually worried when she saw the female with the cell phone
walking towards the officers. She was worried for the female and hoped she would move back.
Arresting and dealing with non-compliant people is very often “ugly”. The image and language can be
upsetting. Many have posted online how they feel, in their very limited or non-existent experience and
knowledge, how we should have responded. However, this is the reality police officers deal with every
day. If cursing at a suspect lessens the amount of force (or completely eliminates it) that is a success.
Confrontations must be ended as quickly as possible because there is always a loaded firearm at every
incident officers go to, their service weapon. Officers are trained to end the fight quickly to avoid further
violence.
The former Hamilton County Prosecutor, Cincinnati Police Officer, former Hamilton County Municipal
Court Judge and current defense attorney Michael Allen viewed the videos and commented on the
actions of the officer while being interviewed on WXIX-TV. Mr. Allen stated:
"Taking into consideration that that police officer has to make a split second decision,
in my opinion, the use of force is a valid one," Allen said. "Here the officer is saying,
'Back up, back' and she says, 'I'm taking video,' he says, 'You can do that but you need
to back up' and this ensued. In my opinion, completely appropriate. I mean he gave
the command I believe twice."
While not considered evidence, this point of view provides valuable insight. As Hamilton County
Prosecutor in 2001, Michael Allen filed criminal charges against several police officers for excessive force
(Patrick Caton, Blain Jorg and Steven Roach).
Mr. Allen has experience as a police officer (with the University of Cincinnati Police Department and the
Cincinnati Police Division), as the former Hamilton County Prosecutor for seven years and a judge on the
Hamilton County Municipal Court. Mr. Allen is currently a defense attorney who has clients with open