Rebuttal to Charges Alleged on 2/25/2020 Allegation While beng questioned | advised Chit Sitar and Deputy Chet Schmidt on 3/27/20 that had iy own questions bout he aceray of et HR repor while revewing itn the everng 1/24/2020, 501 printed a copy ad et Kasi otk to De A abou 09 127/20, Det! AEEEIhad the day off on 1/24/20. When interrogated on 1/27/20 by Che Switter and Deputy Chet Schmid, was not ven any warning of what was to be discussed. When Det! @INNNR's report was mentioned, | told both that hed questions about and sat aside. Idd not ealhat had added anything the report had recalled tat had done so, | woul ave tld them hat, because didnot eet asa huge sues longa the report was nat submited {di not meet with 08 Adams about the ivestigation unt Thursday, 1/30/2020 with Chie Switzer and Deputy Chief Schnid. This was sic days ater I evewed Del ARs report. OA ‘Adams dd not mention that altered the rear, nor did she ak me about. AERA ime, again nad no realecton of dig inermatin tthe report ony ht had set ita to ‘emind myself to discus the content with Oet "We told Che Switzer and Deputy Chie Schmidt that I Delved that that approve the report to og out of CODY Records Management and Report Sytem). Iai not reatze that was using oD incorectiy unt the internal investigation, {take with both about how to approve reports nthe future, | did not submit Det! MIMEIB's report for discovery, because 1 was told not to do anything with {ny ofthe submited reports at that tne, and not odscuss the ivestgaion or slegaors with anybody. ‘While meeting with Che Stzer and Deputy Chief Schmidt on Wednesday, 2/29/2020 about {the final approval of reports for the case in question, | was told that | had added a line to Det. Win eon o 1/24/2020, tree days before was inal nerviewed. sed that not {recall adding anything, but could have before | decided to pit and set the report aside fora discussion with Det! MNINNBon 1/27/2020. | was then told that the report was submitted with tiscovery. old both hat 1d not submit the eport for discovery, infact the ont reports had approved that went wth cscovery were those of Det. Vance Allegation #2: (On Tuesday, 2/18/2020 | worked frm 0900 to 1715 hours. The incident being referred ton this charg occured at approximately 1800 hours while was off uty and at home with my son Prior to leaving the office at 1725 hours, Detective! INIA WR informed me that they "were going to Mount Jy and Manheim to look fr a person wth an outstanding warrantor his arrest. | old them Lhad te leave and not to leave the ofice until told Det A who woul be the supervisor after lef, what they were doing, told Det MMMMBin front of both detectives and asked bath f they had enough coverage. They sad if they found the suspect they would get more coverage. Bath then|ef the office and! returned to my office fora short time. Ithen eft ‘the office and picked up my son and went home,+ A182 hours, | eceed a calla home fom Det AEM He told me that Detectives am * pa 0 RID ha arrested! the suspect in Elabethtown an the suspect had run into a house and got aifle and he was disarmed and atestd, Del and suspect each had lacerations on one hand, Det/ my stated that Oct SURE called him after the incident was over. lasked Det MBP he knew if Ezabethtown Borough Police had assisted, and be didnot kgow + At 1835 nous calle Oe NMR and he told me tat they had tracked the suspect this ‘mothers house in flaabethtown Borough and confiemed that he was inside is mother’s {apartment by placing a phone cal ohm ad posing as a drug customer. He then tod the Suspect was Oe MN and the potce were outside the house and the suspect hung. up Det Ren went the on door te apartment wth tee mm and begpn knocking onthe door while De AMMEN covered the ear ofthe Bulding. Det. ‘gM csimated that he and the other detectives were present ouside apartment for approximately fifteen minats before Hoover's mother answered the doo and he showed her isbadge and identi himself asa police ofcer. Det MBBRacted thatthe mother knew Det Rnd knew that he was a police officer. That mathe tod them tha the suspect was inside ad pointe toward the back ofthe residence. Det MMB that he, Det and Det MBMAthen entered and as they walked through were yeing to Hoover that they were Dolce officers, Oe! WIMMAthencbserved the spect un into bedroom and heard the dor lockat the door. Det NN stated that he was nar the suspect when the door shut so he put is shoulder it the door, and opened. When the door opened Det SMa he ‘was face to face with the suspect, who was holding what he Believed to be apace baton with otitis athe tp andthe botorn, Det RED Began to struggle withthe suspect over what was believed tobe abaton, which flo the floor. thre detectives then srugsled to place the suspect under ares. It as only after the suspect was arrested that Det Fealzed the baton was a single shot.22 caller rifle without a stock. When Oe! NBR that i was ile the suspect stated something tothe efecto, “wanted you guy oll me +t 1843 hours called Chief Switzer and told him what Det gaBelated and then what et. {MUR 2< related to me, | told Che Switzer that |would ry to get moe information and get backto him. + 881852 hours calles Oe WMback and told him that Det! MEIN story was lot diferent than what et ioe + At1856 hous |called Oe MMM sean and asked ithe or any of heather detectives preset had notes Elizabethtown PD oftheir presence, location and intent prior o serving. Det. “yum sated none of them had done thisprioe, but only after he nedent had occured When | sted Det INN they were wearing equipment identitying themselves as poe ofcer when they arived at the house and made the arrest. He sad that they were not and thas they were only wearing badges around their necks. He again tated that he mother knew Det mmm and knew that he was a police officer. ‘At 1948 hours | again called Det: MR and told him that | wanted all four of the detectives Involved in thisincident to complete a report ona Word document describing everyting that had occurred during the racking and acest of Hoover. tld him want the documents competed before they went home fr the right1952 hours called CieFSwter and we dicssed he fact tha al four detectives had made huge mises by not wearing dentiing equment and nt cling the loa pace Seartment Seforehan o provide sssstanc. 1 0845 hours, 219/200, sow Cie Suter the Chiefs of Police Association breast meting, He old me tat what happened the night before wasnt good and could have ben Mrs. | agreed and tod him that wanted to dn al four detectives involved and natty thet respective Chis te dscitine for their personel fs, Arte meeting was ver, apolouited to chief Ed Cunningham of izabethtown Borough about what had happened the tight before and assured him the detectives were gong to be esi and something Hike ‘hat would not happen ain. "spoke to Chie Suter after the meting as wl and old him that each detective would receive 2 verbal reprimand from me, and their Chefs would be notified by emai ofthe reprimand and Could ao ascipine ter respctive detective as they saw ft. Chie Switzer again agreed wth that course of ction Aer leaving the meting and while ding tomy off, Cie Switzer called me a 2027 hours During tha conversation he tol et call the Chiefsth detectives vole inthe ncdent and inform them ofthe verbal reprimands prior to taking wth each detective, He tld me then folow-up with an emai {was able tod o except for Chit Brommer of Columbia Borough This as eto Chit Srommer not answering his hone or returning messages and the fact ht =? SNM Tad 3 1300 hous appointment at SI Phaenin Colegevie to Wile delivering the verbal eprimands tothe detectives ll were conti andrew that they had not olowe Ot operating procedures and acces te punisment rea an ovogealy, xcept fr Oe ‘This allegation can only apply to one cases investigative reports as Chief Switzer and Deputy Chie Schmidt have never reviewed LCDTF reports orcas files since they've been in their respective positions ‘The case was unique in that itwas conducted by Det. Vance for approximately 17 working days (with five days taken off by Det. Vance) untl all evidence and assets were located and seized, Det. Vance was notable to stat his reports in a timely manner because of this and had so many reports to do that t significantly delayed the process of assigning supplement reports to other detectives. Det. Vance took another 10 days off rom the tine all evidence was collected on 11/3/2018 until the time he submitted ahs reports to me, This al contributed the delay in Det. Vance submitting his completed reports andthe subsequent assigning of supplement reports by me. Det. Vance was also ff fr the three major holidays in November, December and January which also contributing tothe delay in reports being completed in anormal timely fashion. The OTF Christmas party was also 12/17/19 and itle work gets done on that day. ‘Aso, from the date the case began and the suspect was arrested, 9/11/2019, tothe time | recelved Det, Vance's reports, LCOTF detectives ather than Vance executed 18 search warrants,and two buy/bust operations. I working, Det. Vance and myself would have been involved in those operations because of DTF's low manpower during tis ime period. Ths would also delay Det. Vance’ opportunity to type reports \legation #3 Part 8 1+ During the month of September 2019, De MINN roueh fo my attention an investigation from Apri of 2039 involving Det Vance. He stated that Det. Vance ha responded to. State Parole cal out ona day when we were preparing to serve a search warant didnot recall the callout but have since determined the cl out was at the same time and date of a search warrant a 532 Lafayette St. on 2/18/2019, Ive also leamed thot Det MMB sent Outi Yared Mec ot wee strom emt ach |+ ve also learned since that Det. Vance communicated with Det” gum about the call out and not me, which the reason have no recollection of. Is also the reason that! could not recgl the incident 25 De? NB exlined + Det RMN loted! hat Det. Vance seized cocaine thatthe Stat Parole agents had located at an offender's home but never charged te subject because he wanted to work as an informant and the State Parole agents did not violate the subject. Oct. NINA told me there was no recor in our activity lg or on CODY about the seizure ofthe cocaine. He aso stated that the subject never ended up working as a land was nat charged. He then sid that the subject was a problem for State Parole, and they wanted him charged, but Vance refused to charge him Me than sad that when he di at feel that Det. Vance had handled th ovidenen Propery. told Oc? SN hat would check into it with Det Vance, 1 aso tld him tat did't necessary agree that the subject had t be charged just because State Parole thought he shouldbe, especialy because they could have requested he be charge and violated the day this ccurred, not five months ater, 4+ recall addressing this wth Mike Vance while he wes working on evidence from the case mentioned earier, which 'm estimating tobe in ate September to early October. asked him about the callout and he recalled ita told me that he dd not aeestthe subject because of ‘the way it wasrelated to him the subject was under arrest when he gave consent to State Parole to search his esgence. Pls, the subject wanted to bean informant for OTF. Oet. Vance stated that e called Det mand ran it by him and was tld to jus see the cocaine and bring it backto the DTF office, then asked Det. Vance what he aid with the cocaine and he sad he packaged it tobe destroyed. | then told him to make a record ofthe incident nthe activity log {and on CODY and he sai he woud o so. + since there was no record made fr this incden he cocaine had been packaged for destruction and submitted to Det Mm, It would have been destroyed with no BEAST {evidence control program) record "Note: While being questioned on 1/27/20 and again on 2/3/20 by Chief Switzer and Deputy Chief Schmidt | equest on both occasions that all OTF detectives be interviewed forthe internal investigation.3 ‘especialy flit was important for them to interview Det WD, because he I second in charge ofthe Unit. Those requests were ignored.