MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT

A Comprehensive Report of Racism, Malfeasance and Criminal Violations

within the Miami Shores Police Department

Official Request for Investigation

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ——————————————————————3

2. Summary———————————————————————-5

3. Report Dissemination -———————————-——————7

4. Racial Inequity and Incidents- ——————————————10

5. History/Background of Agency Malfeasance - ———————28

6. Internal Affairs Investigations ——————————————37

7. Criminal and Ethical Violations of Command Staff-— ————40

8. Unethical Motives in Failure to Discipline Officers-—————-47

9. A Command Staff Complicit in Agency Ethical Failures——-—49

12. Recommendations ———————————————————51

2
 INTRODUCTION

Directors of national and local advocacy groups, heads of respective

Federal and State government and law enforcement agencies, elected
officials, Mayor Harris, Miami Shores Village Councilpersons and Manager
Scott, the following is a comprehensive report as it pertains to current
practices of racism, discrimination, malfeasance and criminal violations on
behalf of the Miami Shores Police Department spanning the last 5 1/2
years. This report is intended to serve as an official complaint provided to
each of your offices for its appropriate review and investigation as it
pertains to the respective responsibilities and jurisdictions of each of your
agencies and offices.

My name is Lt. James V. Somohano and I recently retired as the

Operations Commander for the Miami Shores Police Department. Please
refer to my notice and letter of intent to retire addressed to the Miami
Shores Village in August of 2021. Additionally, I have attached a letter of
endorsement and recommendation for a position of Chief of Police from
Chief Lystad that is also public record.

This report outlines a deeply rooted culture of indifference to race and how
the present command staff in the Miami Shores Police Department has
partaken in the furtherance of that culture’s cultivation in the police
agency. I urge you to read through every section of this report which
outlines not only ethical violations pertaining to race, but also provides you
with information related to criminal and State Code violations. The report
will also provide you with numerous patterns of ethical transgressions that
are the result of a profoundly ingrained and long standing culture within
the agency.

Prior to reading this report it is essential that you have an understanding of

my professional background and history in Miami-Dade County and my
accomplishments and contributions to the law enforcement community
over the past 36 years. To that end, my professional resume is part of my
employment documents with Miami Shores Village and can be accessed
through a request from the Village Clerk. It can also be provided to you by
the City of Miami Gardens, City of Miami Springs, Village of Biscayne Park
and the Village of Key Biscayne, all cities which have selected me as a
finalist for the position of Chief of Police from 2014 to 2021 and as was
most recently published in the local media in August of this year.

3
My professional resume can also be provided to you through the contact
information provided at the bottom of this report.

I have been a law enforcement officer in Miami-Dade County for almost 4

decades, 14 years of which have been at the Executive Command Staff
level in several police agencies. I have established myself as a leader in
the law enforcement community, have created and instructed police ethics
classes and hold several Chairperson positions with the Miami-Dade
County Association of Chiefs of Police.

I encourage each of you to research and review my professional

credentials and standing in the law enforcement community for yourself, in
order that you have a thorough confidence of the validity and purpose with
which this report is being generated and submitted. To that end and to
ensure you are well informed of my credibility, I have attached four recent
letters of recommendation from the heads of law enforcement agencies in
Miami-Dade County for the position of Chief of Police. Included is also a
letter of recommendation from the Miami Shores Village Chief of Police
who I served under in the capacity of Operations Commander for almost 6
years, which he wrote for me upon my retirement from the agency.

4
 SUMMARY

This report will primarily outline a history of racism, malfeasance and state
criminal violations on behalf of the Miami Shores Police Department over
the course of the last 6 years, with particular emphasis on the command
staff lieutenants and chief of police. In addition, it details specific
incidents as it relates to these matters, which are not only ethics violations
but violations of Florida State Statutes and violations of FDLE Florida
Administrative Codes.

Furthermore, the report will provide you with an understanding of the

profound culture of racism, malfeasance within the agency, abuse of the
public trust and the deliberate abandonment of duty to the public safety.

Lastly, the report will detail specific occurrences that demonstrate a deeply
ingrained and disturbing manifestation of misconduct and unethical
practices within the command staff which have permeated through the
agency. The report will also outline how the present command staff has
partaken and cultivated the furtherance of that culture in the police
department.

The importance of reading each section is in order that you gain a

fundamental understanding of how each area of racial and ethical
transgression is related to the other components and how together these
facets have created a sick culture in a police agency, devoid of
accountability to the public interest and to the Miami Shores Village.

Insofar as the information and allegations articulated in this report, the

Miami Shores Village Manager and government body is legally and
ethically bound to investigate each violation outlined within it,
independently of any other state, federal or public advocacy’s
investigation. Furthermore, the Miami Shores Village and particularly the
Village Manager cannot assign these matters for investigation, to the
current command staff as they are material subjects in the complaint.
Ethical reasoning dictates that neither member of the command staff can
oversee any aspect of these investigations and that it requires investigative
oversight by outside entities.

5
Separate addenda related to this report with specific evidence is being
forwarded separately to the Miami Shores Village for investigation
pursuant to an official complaint and Florida State Statutes. Likewise,
separate addenda is being forwarded to respective entities listed in the
below section, “Report Dissemination”.

6
 REPORT DISSEMINATION

This report is being disseminated to the following Federal, State and Local
agencies, in addition to the listed elected officials and directors of the
below national advocacy groups. Several of these entities are receiving
the entirety of this report. Others are receiving only the portions applicable
to their function, jurisdiction and interest. Furthermore, some sections of
this report include copies of investigations which are also being forwarded
separately to the respective agencies.

One section of this report includes violations that pertain to an employee

whose legal and medical rights were violated, the details of which have
been forward separately to agencies with jurisdiction and to the Village
Manager for investigation. For confidentiality reasons the employee’s
name has been omitted from this report. Below note the dissemination
schedule of this report.

STATE AGENCIES

Miami-Dade State Attorneys Office

Public Corruption Unit

Deputy Chief Assistant State Attorney Tim VanderGiesen

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

Commissioner Rick Swearingen

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

Executive Director Commission for Florida Accreditation

Governor Ron DeSantis

State of Florida Office of the Governor

Chief Inspector General

State of Florida Office of the Governor

Citizens Services

7
FEDERAL AGENCIES

U.S. Attorneys Office

Southern District of Florida

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Kristen Clarke Assistant Attorney General

FBI Public Corruption Unit

Civil Rights Division

ELECTED OFFICIALS

Miami Shores Village Mayor Sandra Harris

Miami Shores Village Council members

Miami-Dade Commissioner Keon Hardemon

Miami-Dade Commissioner Sally Heyman

State Representative Dotie Joseph

State Senator Jason Pizzo

U.S. Representative Fredericka Wilson

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio

NATIONAL ADVOCACY GROUPS

Director Anthony D. Romero

American Civil Liberties Union

NAACP - National Organization

President Derrick Johnson

NAACP - Florida Chapter

President Ruban Roberts

Black Lives Matter Organization

South Florida Chapter

8
Color of Change

President Rashad Robinson

Vice President Arisha Hatch

Senior Advisor Sheetal Dhir

Senior Director of Criminal Justice Campaigns Scott Roberts

Power U Center for Social Change

Executive Director James Lopez

Power U Center for Social Change

Organizing Director Ziquelle Smalls

PRIVATE COMMUNITY CITIZENS

Ms. Dynise Perry

9
 RACIAL INEQUITY, INCIDENTS and CULTURE OF INDIFFERENCE

The components of this report are broad-ranging and outline a multitude

of serious transgressions by the Miami Shores Police Department and a
malignant culture of racism, wrongdoing and indifference that permeated
the agency from the top down from each member of its present command
staff.

Although a report of this nature would normally begin with the contents of
Section 2, which provides the history and background which lead to this
report, it first addresses matters as they relate to racism and racial
injustice from the police department command staff and the indifference of
the agency to the black community in its lack of corrective action. The
report begins here because it is one of the most critical and aspects of this
document.

After being the commander of the Miami Shores Police Department’s

agency’s Operations Division for almost 6 years and attempting to address
many of these issues, it was only upon my departure that I was reminded
of not only my introduction to the agency and its culture when I began my
tenure in 2015 but how that culture flourished in the police department
over a period spanning the last six years.

The below incidents are all public record and not outlined in order of
importance or significance. They are provided to you to illustrate the
culture of racial indifference that the command staff allowed to be
cultivated in the Miami Shores Police Agency. They are also not a
complete record of incidents that occurred but rather, just some examples
of how that culture came to be and how that culture has manifested itself
in the police department today.

I implore you to read through each of them to have a full understanding of

the depth and seriousness of the transgressions of the agency as it relates
to race. Some incidents may appear to be simply footnotes, but they are
included and in great detail because they are critical in understanding how
the Miami Shores Police Department arrived at its present culture.

10
In 2016 when I assumed command of the agency’s Operations Division
one of the first priorities in learning the agency’s and understanding the
community was to simply observe. This is generally the the first order of
business for any police executive officer entering a new agency. After
some time I noted that many of the calls for service regarding suspicious
persons involved people of color, specifically blacks.

I continued to observe and study data from day to day, reading computer
data/notes not only entered by officers on the street, but especially from
dispatchers who received calls of suspicious persons from the community.
Also available to me was a particularly important tool which was the daily
and nightly recorded phone calls from citizens and residents calling the
police department.

Over time I had made it a habit of this being my first order of daily
business. The purpose was to have a healthy idea of everything that had
transpired from the time I left on the previous afternoon to the time I began
the next work day. An equally important benefit of this function was to
assess the agency’s service and work product and to identify any areas of
service that were sub-standard.

As many months passed I continued to note a disproportionate number of

suspicious persons calls on blacks. Call data notes along with the actual
recorded telephone calls would verify that little information other than the
person walking through a neighborhood, their race and “looking
suspicious” would be provided. It is important to note that the Miami
Shores Village is a community has a population that is over 70% white
with only 14% of the population being black. This has always begged the
question why were there not a higher number of suspicious persons calls
or officers initiating a higher number of suspicious persons enforcement
on whites walking through the community when their behavior was
identical in nature to that of black passerby’s.

The observations I made regarding the agency’s statistics in this respect

were not obscure and difficult to see. It was clear to every command staff
member (Lieutenants and Chief) that this disparity in enforcement existed.
It was also clear as time and years passed that there was little interest on
their behalf of changing this practice. Details of specific incidents and
occurrences are provided in the body of the below incidents.

11
INCIDENT #1

In 2016 the police department command staff attending a council meeting.

When the issue of crime surfaced, one of the councilpersons began to
make comments related to the crime fighting efforts of the police
department. During this councilperson’s remarks they alluded to the idea
that crime in Miami Shores didn’t originate from criminals in Miami Shores
but rather came from the citizenry just outside the areas of Miami Shores.
At this time the councilperson stated “…and we all know what’s around
us”. Because of additional remarks which prefaced this one, it was clear
that they were a reference to blacks who lived south, north and west of
Miami Shores.

I stood taken aback that the comments would be made on the record in an
official public meeting. I looked at the Chief and Lt. Golt and Lt. McLeod.
None of them seemed to be surprised or bothered by the remarks.

After the council meeting I recall the Chief and the other lieutenants
remaining silent when I remarked that the councilpersons remarks were
extremely inappropriate and that I could not believe they had made them.
There was not so much as even an acknowledgment of what I had
commented. The feeling was that they wanted to pretend they had not
heard the comments and that by responding to my remarks it would be an
acknowledgement of sorts that the remarks were made. My account of
what occurred should not be taken at face value. They can be verified as
they are part of the public record and minutes of the council meeting.

This incident also should not be categorized as an isolated one. It was

indicative of a larger or more systemic problem that permeated the fabric
of the police department through years of cultivation and indoctrination.
The significance of this incident and what should be examined is how a
public official of Miami Shores could arrive at a point in 2016 where they
would feel so comfortable making racial inferences on the record in a
public forum.

Equally appalling was that my remarks to Chief Lystad and Lt. Golt and Lt.
McLeod were returned with silence and absent any acknowledgement.
Why was this failure on their behalf to even acknowledge the transgression
important? Because is gives perspective as to how the incidents that you
will read, which are set forth below could occur with such ease and
indifference.

12
They were in part supported by a larger more widely accepted culture of
racism and one for years communicated as acceptable to the police
department and sometimes by the Village. When combined with each of
these command staff members’ individual implicit biases, a culture of
racial insensitivity had an opportunity to thrive….and it did.

Nevertheless, organizational leadership requires that despite any other

influence, the highest levels of a police department should stand up and
speak up for what is right, rather than speak even more loudly through
their silence.

INCIDENT #2

In 2018 I along with two other lieutenants heard a police call for service to
the library which was across the street from the police station. The
information provided by the dispatcher which was given to her by the
village library employee was that 3 suspicious black men had entered the
library and were sitting in one of the areas of the library but not reading
anything.

The caller could not describe any other behavior on the part of the men
that could be considered suspicious. Because of nature of this call and
what I identified as possibly lacking in legitimacy as suspicious, I
responded to the library. I was greeted with at the door by the village
library supervisor who called, and who repeated that the 3 black men had
entered the library and were sitting in a study room but not reading
anything. I asked the librarian if aside from sitting, were they engaging in
any suspicious behavior. The librarian stated no.

I responded to area where they were sitting and initiated a friendly

conversation with them and soon discovered that they had been working
outdoors all day, were very hot and stated that they were just taking
advantage of a little air-conditioning. They asked if anything was wrong
and I stated that there was not, and that they could remain where they
were and told them to have a nice day. Two other officers had responded
to the library by then and I instructed them to leave with me.

This incident would become one of many examples of the nature of calls
for service the police department would receive, not only from the

13
community, but from village employees as well. There are additional
examples of these occurrences below.

The fact is that prior to and during my recent almost 6 yr tenure in the
agency, although the command staff was readily aware of the habitual and
inordinate practice of receiving a significantly greater number of suspicious
persons calls on not only black citizens, but many times on black residents
themselves, perpetuating the practice by obliging the callers. Though
considerable in number, the agency and village did nothing to
acknowledge their validity and assess the practices in place that result in
police responding to suspicious black male or female related calls, when
nothing other than the citizen’s color was provided to the dispatcher to
describe the suspiciousness.

In other words, no policy review or training or directive was ever

contemplated despite a time of such great social awareness of the
sensitivity and importance of these matters and the types of subtle and
conspicuous inequities that manifested themselves in practices such as
the ones described, and to a far greater degree in the Miami Shores Police
Department.

After several years of observing these practices I no longer would consult

with the command staff or bring matters up for collaboration on what were
the most appropriate mechanisms in addressing them. At one point the
practice had become so commonplace that I issued a directive to each
supervisor under my command, requiring that they ensure all suspicious
persons calls included enough information to meet the criteria for
dispatching a police officer. Beyond that, there was not much more that
just one concerned command staff officer could do.

INCIDENT #3

These occurrences continued year after year up to the present. In one call
to the police department another employee (this one at Village Hall)
requested that a police officer respond to the lobby of Village Hall for a
“suspicious” black male. Upon hearing the call on my police radio I
responded to the dispatch center and asked the dispatcher who took the
call what the suspicious activity was that the caller stated the black male
was engaging in.

14
The dispatcher stated that all the employee said was that the male was
asking the employees at the windows if “there were any jobs he could
apply for.” I again asked the dispatcher if that was the only information
that the employee provided that concerned the Village Hall employee and
that qualified it as suspicious. The dispatcher responded “Yes Sir.” I
immediately instructed her to cancel the call for service and not to send
any policemen to the call. The dispatcher looked at me as if my
instructions were unorthodox in nature. I then made the comment: “We
don’t do that around here.”

These incidents are but a very small percentage of calls the police
department would choose to respond to and still does, despite recent
warnings from me that the practice served to reinforce attitudes of bias in
our officers and strongly promote the practice as acceptable if not proper,
by our officers in initiating them. One of the most disturbing parts of this
phenomenon that continues to occur in the agency is that both other
lieutenants and the chief would hear the same calls go out over the police
radio but none of them would so much as inquire about them, comment
on them or propose a need to establish a policy consistent with a criteria
for dispatching policemen that was absent a racial component.

INCIDENT #4

Earlier that same year in a Command Staff meeting, (The Chief and
Lieutenants) I brought to the attention of the group a Field Training
Evaluation form being used to evaluate new police trainees. This
particular form included several categories of evaluation including
“Relationships with Minorities”. Next to it in parentheses it then read
“Blacks and Latinos”. I made the point that in representing all minorities as
just “Blacks and Latinos” it was highly inappropriate in several aspects.

First and most importantly, by reducing all minorities to “Blacks and

Latinos”, it had the effect of categorizing those two groups of people as
different from any other part or group in the community, and secondly to
limit the groups of minorities to only those two had the effect of furthering
their perception of alienation. Lastly, relegating minorities to just these two
groups while mentoring and indoctrinating new officers only served to
influence subtle racial biases that my exist within the officer.

15
I commented that apparently the agency had been using this evaluation
form for years (all three were aware) and that the category needed to be
eliminated from the form and that officers should be evaluated on
“Relationships with all Individuals”. I recall Lt. Golt and Lt. McLeod
appearing dismissive of the problem and chuckling at what the evaluation
form said. The chief did not comment and I took the liberty of changing
the form for the agency and deleting any unused copy that may still be in
our database.

I was amazed at how these evaluation forms could be circulating

throughout the agency for years and in the present and no command staff
lieutenant or chief identify the inappropriateness and implication of the
content in that specific category.

Again, it is important to understand how the above and below incidents

and culture in the police department have been cultivated and to that end,
how studying all of these occurrences is essential to the reader’s complete
understanding of how a police department could reach such a
contemptible place in law enforcement.

INCIDENT #5

In 2018 two citizens were involved in a traffic accident on North Miami

Avenue. One of the drivers was a white male and the other was a black
female. The female contacted the police department wishing to make a
complaint and I later re-contacted her by telephone. The black female
complainant was the driver who had initially received a traffic citation and
shown as being at-fault in the accident. I spoke with her for some time
and learned that when the our officer arrived he approached the white
male driver first, asked him what occurred them approached her and
asked for her drivers license. She stated that the officer never asked her
what occurred as he had done with the white driver.

Afterwards the officer brought her a citation and informed her that she was
at fault. After pleading her case to the officer and calling her husband who
responded to the scene, the officer allowed her to provide an account of
what occurred. The female stated that afterwards the officer asked her for
the citation and voided it and then changed the accident report and
showed the other driver at fault. The officer determined, after hearing her
account, that she was not at fault.

16
Clearly the officer corrected his actions but clearly this was not the issue
which required attention. The black female had been treated with less
attention than the white male driver and in addition was improperly cited.
It was only after she argued her case and demanded an equal opportunity
to provide her account, that the proper actions were taken. The
complainant stated she was made to feel less because of her color and
wished to file an official complaint.

The complaint was logged and assigned a personnel complaint case

number by me and then assigned to the officer’s supervisor. After several
weeks I inquired what the status and progress of the investigation was.
The supervisor failed to provide a response and only after “several” more
requests, stated that they had been busy and not able to complete the
investigation. Indeed, the black female complainant had never been
contacted by the supervisor and the officer was never called in.

Several months later the supervisor had still yet to complete the
investigation and the female complainant still had yet to receive a
response of action by the police department.

During a staff meeting with Chief Lystad, Lt. Golt and Lt. McLeod the chief
went around the room asking if any of us had issues to update him on. I
briefed him on what had been occurring with the supervisor and this
complaint and explained why this issue was more important than a typical
citizen complaint, stating that I was considering disciplining the supervisor
for their inaction and lack of attention to the importance and sensitivity of
the matter.

The Chief and other lieutenants seemed somewhat disinterested in what I

was saying. One lieutenant appeared to be texting on his telephone and
smiling and the other lieutenant made a phone call. The supervisor was
instructed again to complete the investigation and to contact the
complainant.

This incident underscores several serious issues in the police department.

First, that there exists an absence of conscientiousness in the agency as it
relates to issues of racial sensitivity. Secondly, that within the command
staff there remains no indication of concern for that lack of
conscientiousness. While the inaction on the supervisor’s part may on its

17
surface seem to be an issue of inattentiveness, it is illustrative of far
greater and obvious implications.

INCIDENT #6

In 2021 Mrs. Dynise Perry asked to meet with the Chief of Police. For
purposes of providing perspective to the reader, Mrs. Dynise Perry is a
black female resident and respected community advocate in the South
Florida community. The purpose of the meeting was to complain and seek
answers regarding one of our officers having detained a young black male
who was standing next to his driveway in a residential neighborhood. The
Chief and I met with Mrs. Perry and her husband and we discussed the
incident and discovered that the officer questioned the young man as to
what he was doing standing there. The young man lived at the home and
was awaiting an Uber Eats delivery. Non-friendly dialogue followed
between the officer and young man and eventually the officer drove off.

Mrs. Perry wanted to discuss what the chief and the police department
planned to do not only regarding the incident but insofar as taking
measures to keep incidents like this from recurring. I recall Mrs. Perry
stating that she believed that while the officer involved (a fairly new one)
had not necessarily always had an aggressive attitude with the public and
a proclivity to work under an umbrella of authority that made him treat the
public or minorities inappropriately, she believed the officer in question
had changed after being granted the authorities commensurate with the
position. The Chief told Mrs. Perry and her husband that he would be
looking into the matter and after additional discussion the meeting ended.

Protocol in any police agency after a meeting of this nature is for the chief
of police to do several things. First, to instruct the Division Command (me)
to initiate an inquiry into the matter and secondly to circle back to the
complainant (in this case Mrs. Perry) as to the efforts of the police agency
in not only addressing the specific incident, but in measures it was taken
to minimize re-occurrence.

The Chief and I departed the meeting and returned to the station. I recall
discussing with him and bringing to his attention several other issues
regarding the officer indicative of a reckless attitude which had manifested
itself in an intentional disregard for directives from supervisors. There
were 4 incidents in total.

18
This was the same officer Mrs. Perry brought concerns forward regarding.
The Chief asked me if in my opinion the officer had “changed” as Mrs.
Perry suggested. My answer was that indeed he had.

I felt certain that the chief would then request from me that I conduct an
inquiry into the matter as he had on numerous occasions for other
complainants. By now the chief was thoroughly familiar with my
investigative thoroughness, particularly as it related to Internal Affairs
matters and my professional, comprehensive and unbiased work product.

However, the Chief never brought Mrs. Perry’s complaint up again. Even
during several staff meetings that would follow, he never asked me to
conduct any inquiry or investigation whatsoever and never even requested
that I speak to the officer involved or institute any type of training designed
to mitigate or professionalize our officers’ contacts with the public,
especially as it pertained to sensitive matters potentially creating a
perception of racial bias on behalf of the public.

Also troubling is that the command staff would frequently meet with other
non-black residents who expressed concerns or complaints and during
staff meeting the status of the complaints and measures being taken to
address them would always be discussed. There seemed to clearly exist a
double standard as it related to the degree of concern and responsiveness
to each type of complainant. Both lieutenants would also be more
responsive and would outline everything that they were doing for certain
complainants.

INCIDENT #7

In 2021 two separate incidents occurred that resulted in complaints of

racial prejudice from the residents of Miami Shores. The first was brought
to the attention of the Chief as a complaint. It was clear that Mayor Wagar
would have an interest in learning the conclusion of the investigations as
the residents cc’d her when making the official complaint. My recollection
is also that Mayor Wagar forwarded one or both of the complaints to the
Village Manager and Chief for action on behalf of the citizen. (All
attachments concerning these incidents are part a separate package
being forwarded to the village manager.). Again, in order to provide
perspective to the reader, it should be noted that Mayor Crystal Wagar is
the first black mayor elected to that office in the history of Miami Shores.

19
During the first incident the complainant contacted the police department
on numerous occasions to report a resident who was allowing his large
dog to roam unleashed at Bayfront Park and that had bitten him. The chief
provided me with a copy of the complaint and all photographs, etc.

During this event the dog lunged at him and bit him through his trousers,
fortunately only biting his cellular phone which had apparently protected
him from the dog piercing his leg. The responding officer stated to him that
when he sees the dog and owner again that he should contact the police
so that we can identify the owner.

The gentleman understood and indeed called once again a few days later
when he observed the man and his dog again. A police officer was
serving as the dispatcher during this telephone call and the complainant
requested an officer respond. The officer went back and forth with the
complainant and asked him if the dog or owner were doing anything
inappropriate or illegal at the moment. The caller stated that he was
following the instructions the police department gave him during the prior
incident where he was bitten.

The officer continued to make a case for the lack of rationale in sending an
officer if the dog was not doing anything. The complainant, a second time
had to tell the officer that he had been instructed to call upon seeing the
owner and dog again. The officer on the phone reluctantly stated “I’ll see
if I can send someone”. The officer then hung up with the complainant and
“never” sent an officer or notified a supervisor.

However, the most telling aspect of this incident as it relates to the

agency’s culture of indifference to the sensitivity of perceived racial
injustice is the dialogue and tone of the officer while talking to the
complainant. For reference, this telephone call is public record and was
recorded and may be accessed through a public records request and I
emphasize the importance of listening to this call so that an understanding
can be had of how the officer reached a conclusion as to the race of the
caller.

I reviewed the calls for service and found that at the time the gentleman
called, all officers were available and there were no calls holding, meaning

20
that there were a number of officers who were available to respond yet the
officer taking the call was reluctant to bother an officer to help the citizen.

Shockingly, the most disturbing aspects regarding this event that would
take place are further spelled out below.

On this occasion I did not wait for the chief to instruct me to conduct an
investigation. I officially opened an inquiry into the matter, assigned an
internal affairs case number to it and assigned it to a supervisor. It is
important to note at this time that Village Council and Mayoral elections
were approaching.

The investigation into this matter did not take long. A thorough
investigation of the matter was concluded approximately one month
before village elections, a point that is only made as it pertains to what
followed. Shortly after the investigation was completed I met with the
chief on several matters and confirmed to him that a preliminary look into
the Mayor Wagar complaint on behalf of a resident appeared to have
substantial merit and that I had reviewed the tape recording which
revealed a gross failure to fulfill police department duties by an officer.

I made particular mention of the officer’s discourteous and insensitive

dialogue with the complainant. The chief asked me to identify the officer
and when I did his response was “that doesn’t surprise me”. Note, the
chief still had yet to ask me to conduct an official inquiry into the matter,
and even after being informed of additional violations regarding less than
professional dialogue, still did not ask me to address it or even speak to
the officer.

Less than a week later I again brought to the chief’s attention the Mayor
Wagar complaint (using those words) concerning the black citizen’s
complaint of inaction by the police department. I informed him that upon
completing the investigation I would submit it to him with disciplinary
action recommendations. The chief stated “you can hang onto that. I
don’t need for you to turn it in”

The following morning I met with Lt. Golt and told him what the chief had
said regarding Mayor Wagar’s complaint and that he basically was telling
me not to investigate it and not to submit my findings. I told Lt. Golt that it
had to be investigated and he responded by “Jim don’t make any waves.
Just leave it alone.”

21
Lt. Golt’s door was closed and we heard a knock, usually indicative of Lt.
McLeod wanting to enter. Indeed it was and I repeated to Lt. McLeod my
concerns regarding the chief not wanting Mayor Wagar’s and the black
citizen’s complaint investigated any further or any type of disciplinary
package submitted. Lt. McLeod’s response was a degree more witty and
smiled while asking “Mayor Wagar complaint?” “Dog Bite?” Then laughed
under his breath as if to say “I can’t seem to remember a complaint like
that.”

I stated “Gentlemen, this really does require a response and is a serious

complaint.” Both of them stared at each other for one moment as if
deciding whether to respond to me. As I was leaving the office they then
reminded me that elections were coming up and maybe it wasn’t a great
idea to submit it.

A few weeks later and against the chief’s request and against Lt. Golt and
Lt. McLeod’s suggestions I submitted the investigation with a
recommendation to sustain discipline against the officer.

Earlier in this document I made a reference to upcoming elections and the

timing of the results of this complaint from Mayor Wagar and the black
citizen. Throughout this episode and dialogues with both the chief and Lt.
Golt and McLeod it became clear that there was a two-fold reason why
they didn’t want me to submit it, or at least sit on the complaint for a long
period of time and not investigate it right away.

First, the chief for unknown reasons appeared to want to be careful not to
give foothold to Mayor Wagar or anyone she was supporting in the
upcoming elections that would use the incident to emphasize a need for
change in the Village and that it would not help any incumbent council
member that from the chief’s perspective was supportive of the agency.

The second is conjecture on my behalf but conjecture reached after

observing the both lieutenants’ facial gestures when bringing up Mayor
Wagar’s name. Facial gestures that can be described as indicative of a
belief on their part that Mayor Wagar represented a problem or thorn to the
agency.

As previously stated, some time later and against what the chief, Lt. Golt
and Lt. McLeod suggested, I submitted disciplinary action on the matter

22
with a cover letter. It is unknown whether the chief signed and placed the
discipline in the officer’s file. In a matter such as this one, where there was
a clear disregard for the fulfillment of police duties, a false statement to the
complainant and an unprofessional response from the officer, the level of
disciplinary action should have been a suspension in any agency. Protocol
also dictates that both the complainant and Mayor Wagar be notified of
the outcome of the complaint. I am doubtful that either of two things
occurred.

INCIDENT #8

In 2021 another complaint was received by two black residents. The

complainants sent a copy to Mayor Wagar and the complaint was
forwarded to Chief Lystad.

The nature of the complaint was that one of the residents was out walking
very early in the morning and noticed a Miami Shores Police Officer
following him. The resident stated that the officer made it obvious to him
that he was being followed and felt threatened or intimidated by the officer.

Chief Lystad and the lieutenants met that week in his office and he
provided us each with a copy of the complaint. Each lieutenant read it and
the only reaction from the other lieutenants was to again make a facial
gesture or smirk indicative of something bothersome. One of them
simultaneously throwing his arms in the air as if to say “what are we
supposed to do with this?”

Later, I privately met with Lt. Golt and asked him if he believed the Chief
intended for us to conduct an inquiry or at least speak to the officer in
order to get his perspective of what occurred because the chief made no
indication that he wanted the matter looked into.

I recall Lt. Golt’s response which was “Jim, what are we supposed to do
with a complaint like that? It’s really not going to result in anything. I mean
an officer can’t drive his car through a neighborhood without these people
feeling threatened?”

There were several troubling aspects of his response. The first was the
use of the words “these people” in referring to the two black residents.
The second was the failure to recognize the importance of addressing a

23
resident’s concerns, particularly one who believed that he had been
intimidated due to his race. I left his office and said nothing more of the
complaint.

A few days later I spoke with Lt. McLeod and asked his opinion, not so
much in terms of the importance of investigating the incident but insofar
as the chief’s intent on investigating the matter, period. The reason I
asked this is because it fell into the purview of my division and if the
chief’s intent was to look into the matter it was incumbent upon me to
conduct the inquiry. Lt. McLeod’s response was “Yeah, I don’t think he is
looking to do much with that?”

Approximately one week later the Chief and I met to discuss other matters
and again prior to ending the meeting he asked me if I had anything for
him. I asked for clarification regarding the complaint forwarded by the
black resident and copied to Mayor Wagar. His response was “I don’t
think I need anything on that.”

These incidents underscore a recurring troubling theme in the Miami

Shores Police Department as it relates to racial indifference that emanates
continuously from the higher levels of the agency. They also demonstrate
the readiness of Lt. Golt and Lt. McLeod to be willing participants in
looking the other way regarding these matters; consistent with practices
related to other officer violations or citizen concerns, as you will read in
other sections of this report.

These examples did not occur or exist in a vacuum. They did not occur
overnight. They are the result of a profoundly troubled agency deeply
indoctrinated over a period of many years in a culture of racial insensitivity
and indifference, which not so amazingly exists today and has been
exacerbated by the current command. They are unquestionably the result
of the implicit belief systems of the chief, Lt. Golt and Lt. McLeod that
each demonstrates and that subtly affects the agency.

These attitudes, unchecked by the higher command, affect the behavior of

all officers in the agency as it relates to their own implicit biases and the
manner in which they perhaps unknowingly treat black members of the
community differently. An officer who has the proclivity to engage in
these behaviors already is now influenced by the absence of guiding

24
principles and policy from the agency and their attitudes are now
exacerbated as a result of the command staff’s attitudes and beliefs.

INCIDENT #9

As noted above, I observed a pattern of the MDPD continuously receiving

suspicious persons calls from residents, the subject of which would be a
black male or black female. An examination of the recorded telephone
calls and the notes in the police department’s record system revealed that
very often little information would be provided as to what suspicious
behavior the person was engaging in.

There was an obvious disparity in the number of calls received of this

nature as it related to white citizens passing through the community and
having a resident call the police. This practice is not one which should be
believed simply because it is documented in a report by a high ranking
department official. It is all public record, the notes and telephone calls all
of which can be retrieved and reviewed for yourself.

As it relates to this topic, I commented on it at a staff meeting,

recommending that we institute policies that ensure that prior to
dispatching officers on suspicious persons calls we screen them to ensure
that there exists sufficient information to justify detention by an officer and
that the basis for such calls be more than “they look suspicious”.

The chief and other lieutenants seemed to want to move on to other issues
and prioritize other projects. They did not seem to acknowledge the
importance of moving in this direction, despite the community and agency
experiencing an inordinately higher degree of calls like this than most other
communities. They also did not seem to recognize that an officer’s implicit
racial biases are further exacerbated and reinforced when members of the
community and a police agency require the officer to be placed in a
position of contact with a citizen who is not violating the law and is only
being identified as suspicious due to their color.

Some days after that meeting I saw Lt. Golt and Lt. McLeod in one of their
offices, talking. I entered as I normally would do and at one point I
brought up the issue once again, asking them what they thought. I recall
Lt. McLeod stating something such as “Well, yeah…” as if to acknowledge
that it was happening but adding little more and Lt. Golt adding “What are

25
you going to do…” as if to say “It is what it is”. The staff never brought up
the issue again when discussing training or policy matters.

There existed an inclination to indifference by the chief and lieutenants in

their lack of acknowledgement that within the police department and
within many officers, there existed implicit biases that officers themselves
are not always conscientious of and the police departments absence in
efforts to minimize and mitigate the agency’s behaviors further
exacerbated the biases. This underscored the critical importance of
developing a training regimen that would address these problems biases;
a training program that the command staff had no interest in
implementing.

The incidents described above are troubling in and of themselves.

However, the more disturbing prospect is that if these incidents are the
only ones that were actually witnessed by me the last 6 years, how many
more incidents occurred and still occur that go unreported by citizens
reluctant to report them and how many more incidents went unnoticed and
unaddressed by the command staff. It is logical to deduce that the greater
number of incidents as it pertains to race occurred without detection.

Moreover, consider the comments of racial indifference made by Lt. Golt,

Lt. McLeod and the chief that pertained to just these incidents and issues
in the agency. How many more were made either in my absence or
precipitated not by a specific incident but by the command staff’s own
attitudes and separate discussions. This remains the more concerning
issue and provides a “roadmap” if you will, of how the agency has reached
such a profound place of dismissiveness where practices concerning race
are concerned.

The past village government and the current police department command
staff’s outlook, approach and practical refusal to change this culture is the
prototypical example and reason that there exists a national distrust and a
lack of faith in law enforcement as it pertains to race.

26
OTHER OCCURRENCES

Although the following is not a tangible issue that can be validated,

throughout the last almost six years I did note that when the chief and
command staff would meet with a resident who had a concern or
complaint, the meetings would “generally” be longer meetings when a
white resident was the complainant.

However true it is that the demographic in Miami Shores is represented by

a greater number of white residents than black residents, it is also true that
many complaints came from black residents as well and that the entire
command staff should have acknowledged this and failed to. It was the
agency’s duty to display a much greater sensitivity to not just the
perception of favoritism with white residents or disparate treatment against
black residents, but to actually make a concerted effort to avoid that
perception.

27
 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OF AGENCY MALFEASANCE

In 2015 Chief Lystad recruited me to work as part of his Executive

Command Staff, making me the Operations Division Commander. This
position required the supervision of the greatest number of supervisors
and line personnel in the agency. I spent the first 6 months of my tenure
properly assessing the agency’s operational readiness and protocols. The
below categories of behavior provide to you a representation of the
agency’s condition and practices upon my arrival to the agency and in
most cases unfortunately exists today.

AGENCY CULTURE

I soon discovered that the agency seemed to operate with an incredibly

lax posture, absent any degree of urgency for most matters. This
appeared to be an accepted practice from the command staff, noticeably
evident by most officers’ demeanor and attitude toward directives. This
environment is one that had permeated the agency from the top down.
Exacerbating this problem is that there existed several cliques in the
agency that polarized the officers.

Not one, but numerous cliques and dynamics had diminished any type of
team or cooperative concept. The agency was replete with supervisors
and officers openly expressing their dislike for others. Evidence of a
serious lack of concern and an indifference toward race related incidents
and complaints would later come to light later and are detailed in Section
4. Racial Inequities and Incidents

My conclusions at the time were not reached in haste. Especially my

conclusion that the culture of the agency, to include practices of racial
inequity in the community, were the result of a systemic problem in the
agency. The conclusion was factually based and not one absent evidence
and merit. It was in fact a culture and work environment that I had never
been witness to in any law enforcement agency in almost four decades.

This culture manifested itself in examples such as the Chief and fellow
lieutenants allowing an exceptionally poor or no work ethic and officers,
detectives and supervisors showing up to work when they pleased. In
addition there was a lack of accountability on their part demanded by the
command staff.

28
I notified the chief that my inspections of the supervisors revealed that
some supervisors would sit in their offices the entire shift and never patrol
the community or supervise their officers on the street. Dispatchers often
would have to go find or call the sergeants to inform them that they
needed officers to respond to a call. This meant only 2 officers on the
street for the entire village.

I told the chief that my assessment was that these were some of worst
examples of supervisors I had ever been exposed to and that
comprehensive change and work ethic cultivation was required.

These are but a small fraction of examples of daily occurrences that

immediately called my attention, which were illustrative of how an ill
culture had permeated the agency and had become the norm for many
officers, detectives, sergeants, lieutenants and unfortunately the head of
the agency.

FAILING TO PATROL AND SAFEGUARD THE COMMUNITY

Other examples were officers failing to patrol the community/residential

neighborhoods during their shifts. GPS/AVL (Automatic Vehicle Locator)
reviews conducted by me on a nightly basis revealed that except for
perhaps a few new officers, many officers would only travel between 2 and
7 miles per shift during their “entire" shift, rather than patrolling the
neighborhoods.

GPS/AVL records are electronic records that show how many miles an
officer travelled on any given shift, what neighborhoods they patrolled (or
didn’t patrol), how many minutes or hours they patrolled, their speed while
driving, and how long they were stationary or not patrolling the village.

GPS/AVL records will substantiate the little time officers spent protecting
the Village and the enormous amount of time they spent sitting in their
police cars or congregating at the police station.

GPS/AVL data are records that the public generally is unaware exist and
ones that the police department will generally not publicize exist, therefore
they rarely if ever are requested. The above common daily and nightly
occurrences going back to 2015 are all public record, are retrievable and
are verifiable.

29
OFFICERS SLEEPING ON DUTY

Further investigation into operational practices revealed that there were

many officers on the midnight shift sleeping on-duty. One officer not only
had a long history of sleeping on duty, but had recently been the subject of
a prior investigation substantiating the activity. I could not find evidence of
past disciplinary action regarding this investigation but was able to confirm
that a prior recommendation for suspension had been forwarded to the
Chief of Police.

As the commander of the division I initiated an investigation into the

officer’s current nightly work habits. This was classified as an Internal
Affairs investigation and a thorough investigation was concluded months
later revealing an unprecedented number of egregious violations of willful
neglect in duties by sleeping throughout his shift.

Video and vehicle locater evidence was included in the investigation and a
recommendation to the chief for a “3 month” suspension from duty
without pay was made due to the number of violations and his continued
pattern in failing to fulfill his law enforcement duties and a disregard for the
public safety. The recommendation for discipline was never accepted as
public records for the agency will confirm.

Following this investigation I immediately initiated nightly officer GPS/AVL

analyses for the entire midnight shift officers. Supervisors were required to
submit nightly reports, the intent which was to curtail the activity. Indeed
this had the desired effect and this protocol needed to remain in place until
such time as the pattern of behavior changed permanently.

Chief Lystad had an informal but well known policy of allowing any officer
to speak to him at any time without seeking permission from their
supervisors. Officers were permitted to enter his office and speak to him
regarding any matter including operational issues. In a law enforcement
agency this is extremely unorthodox and a dangerous practice to allow, for
it circumvents and undermines the officer’s supervisors and chain of
command.

Officers routinely entered his office if they did wanted to question a

directive given to them by their supervisor or a policy the division
commander instituted. A short period of time after the GPS/AVL analyses
were being routinely conducted, the Chief asked to meet with me and

30
asked me if it was true that I was monitoring officers through their GPS/
AVL’s. I answered that indeed I was and reminded him of the serious
problem the agency was having on the midnight shift and officers not
patrolling the neighborhoods and the evidence discovered subsequent to
investigations that the practice was widespread, according to GPS/AVL
records.

The chief informed me that several officers (and supervisors) had

complained about the GPS/AVL analyses were being conducted and then
shockingly “asked” me if I could curtail or lay off of that practice. I
reminded him again that operations (meaning patrolling neighborhoods)
would be greatly affected and vehicle burglaries would likely rise. His
response was (quote) “sometimes you have to let operations suffer”. Were
it not for the multitude of equally disturbing practices and occurrences that
transpired in the agency from not only the chief but the other command
staff members, this directive would remain one of the most egregious
examples of neglect in duty I would be witness to.

Nevertheless the directive was followed. However, in 2020 I resumed

GPS/AVL analyses of the midnight shift after a string of burglaries
occurred on the West side of the Village over a period of two days. The
GPS records revealed that over the period of those two days, there had
been “no” patrolling in those neighborhoods. The GPS/AVL data also
confirmed that yet another officer was sleeping at discreet locations in the
Village during the time the burglaries were actually occurring. This was an
inevitable result of the directive to purposely avoid monitoring officers who
we knew were not only failing to patrol the Village but who were also
sleeping during their shifts.

The directives given to me to stop the GPS analyses and the policy of not
wanting to verify through GPS/AVL records that officers were safeguarding
the community were consistent and in line with the predominant
management philosophy of the entire command staff from the inception of
my tenure with the agency. This is an agency management philosophy
that is still in place today.

REFUSAL TO DISCIPLINE OFFICERS

In 2015 a review of personnel files revealed that there had been no history
of supervisory intervention or disciplinary action in the agency. There had
been a neglect of command staff and supervisory responsibility to address

31
most violations in the agency. In addition, from 2015 through the present,
the only disciplinary action submitted to the chief came from me, many of
which were never formally sustained and placed in the officers’ files.

This is also public record. Any citizen who reviews the personnel files of
the officers and detectives in the agency will discover that in almost six
years Lt. Golt and Lt. McLeod did not document a single policy violation,
despite having discussed many of them in private command staff
meetings. The purpose in part was to protect the agency and village from
community criticism through a public record. The secondary reason, but
not the lesser of the two reasons was the fear of the employee becoming
upset. This is the degree to which the agency was entrenched in a
systemic culture that was ill, lacked process and professionalism and one
that did not adhere to the principles it was sworn to uphold.

DETECTIVE BUREAU TRANSGRESSIONS

The Operations Division was not the only division that was and remains
severely lacking in self-discipline. The Detective Bureau has 4 detectives
assigned to it. Coming into the agency and as time passed, I noted that
two of them detectives appeared to have an acceptable work ethic. One
of the detectives stood out to Lt. Golt and I as being problematic and
appeared to have been accustomed to not being supervised and
completing work as they pleased. This was our consensus after many
private discussions.

Two detectives frequently spoke to me privately and informed me of

improper activities other detectives would engage in while on duty. On all
of these occasions I asked the detectives if they had informed Lt. Golt
their supervisor, and they indicated they that had. To be certain that the
violations were properly reported I informed Lt. Golt, who confirmed that
he had been informed of the same issues. I asked him if he was
addressing them through proper administrative and investigative means
and he indicated stated “well I have to see”, whatever that remark meant.
Later I would find learn that none of these serious violations were ever
addressed, let alone documented.

In addition to these practices Lt. Golt had discovered other incidents’

where improper action had been taken from past investigations and that
he was in the process of attempting to correct. Lt. Golt asked for my
advice regarding two of the issues and again I suggested that he not only

32
formally correct the issues, but that he bring the matters forward to the
chief and that he initiate disciplinary action to avoid a similar occurrence.
No inquiry, investigation or corrective measures were ever taken regarding
these matters either as a lack of public records will show.

The Detective Bureau would continue to display serious compatibility

issues and an increasing disfunction. This culture in the Detective Bureau
remains in place today and has been the result of the agency’s overall
culture, coupled with severe mismanagement. During one command staff
meeting the problems in the Detective Bureau were being discussed.
During that meeting Chief Lystad stated that the detective bureau spent a
fair portion of their time following the lieutenants around, acknowledging
their lack of productivity and acknowledging an environment replete with
personal motive. The chief commented further that he had received
complaints from a resident that some detectives spent a significant part of
their shift at the community center rather than investigating criminal cases.
It was unknown why they were spending so much time there. However, it
is a fact that these matters were never documented nor did they result in
any form of disciplinary action.

The most surprising part of this meeting was that neither Chief Lystad nor
the lieutenant commented further on any agency plan to look into these
matters, correct the behaviors and hold the employees accountable for
their work responsibilities.

CRITICALLY INADEQUATE STAFFING

I learned that while the community believed that the police department
was deploying the appropriate amount of resources to safeguard their
property and their personal safety, the police department would many
times have only “2” officers patrolling the entire Miami Shores Village.

For years the agency had established a policy whereby all personnel could
be granted leave as long as there remained two officers and a supervisor
working. (Meaning a total of only 3 officers for an entire village.)
Investigation into the “actual” practices revealed that in reality what was
occurring was that only 2 officers would be on duty and responding to
calls, while the supervisors would remain at the police station in their office
conducting personal business.

33
*Note: After some time I initiated a change in this policy, increasing the
police manpower minimum to “4”, a change that would later be
questioned by the chief of police and command staff. It remained
unfathomable to me that with the traffic and crime concerns of the village,
the police department would find it acceptable to have 2 officers at the
disposal of the community.

Later, I privately commented to Lt. Golt on several occasions that if the

public knew what few officers were protecting the village at any given time
there would be extreme dissatisfaction and public commentary. His
response was that I should probably not bring the matter up anymore and
stated that he believed it was probably good that the public was unaware.
After he said this, I told Lt. Golt that our responsibilities as command staff
officers was to advise and make recommendations to the chief of police in
order that the agency and village and most importantly the community be
protected. I then left his office.

*Note: The new policy and directive to increase manpower as instituted by

me was short lived and the agency returned to the former practice which
is still in place currently and which is in fact presently agency policy.

NO OFFICERS PATROLLING MIAMI SHORES

The Patrol Division is operated throughout a 24 Hr. period with 3 shifts but
with no overlap between shifts, meaning that there are three 30 minute
periods in every 24 Hr period where the village has no police on the
streets. This is a best case scenario. Prior to my becoming the
Operations Commander in 2015 what would happen in reality is that after
each shift’s roll-call, officers would remain inside the station and
congregate with no urgency to patrol the streets, and the amount of time
the Village would actually have no officers on the streets would often
extend to a full hour. At times, the dispatcher would have to actually make
a telephone call to the roll-call room where the supervisors and officers
were congregating and not listening to their police radio in order to inform
them that there was a call of an emergency nature. This is a practice that
the agency absolutely did not want the public to be aware of.

CULTURE AND INDOCTRINATION IN ABSENCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY

The most important and most relevant point regarding the example
articulated above is that the roll-call room where the officers would remain
in, sometimes for extended periods of time is next to and across from

34
office of the Chief of Police and the offices of several other lieutenants.
Most of the time new officers in training would be present in these roll-
calls and in this fashion would be indoctrinated in these habits and in the
understanding that these practices were condoned by the agency.

The significance of this occurring everyday in the presence of the chief

and other lieutenants is that the officers never worried that any higher
ranking personnel were observing them because it was commonplace and
accepted in the organization. The officers and supervisors were aware
that if the chief or any other lieutenant walked by the roll-call room and
observed them meandering they were likely to simply say hello to them
and not address the fact that no officer was safeguarding the community.

There came the time when I informed the Chief that at many different
points during the shift, most of the officers would come off of the street
and congregate in the sergeants’ offices, absent any official business,
leaving the Village once again without any officers on the street and that
this was unacceptable. I also informed him that when I would perform
spot-checks on them, I would find that the departments’s detectives
would also be congregating with them instead of conducting
investigations.

Indeed on many different occasions the chief and other lieutenants

themselves would walk by the offices, see these occurrences but would
never correct the behavior and instruct them to perform their duties. This
was yet another example of the degree to which this type of behavior had
been condoned and made acceptable and an example of how it was
communicated to the agency that the practices were ok.

Many times some supervisors would walk the hallways of the agency with
their equipment belts off and without a police radio, spending almost the
entirely of their shifts in their offices conducting private business. This
would often result in the Police Dispatcher having to call the supervisors
on the phone or respond to their offices to inform them that a call for
service came in and that there was no one for her to dispatch. This too
would take place in the presence of the command staff with no
commentary or directive to the supervisors to be in proper and complete
uniform.

35
This was the first agency during all of my career and executive command
positions where I had to issue directives to the supervisors to wear their
complete uniform including a police belt and radio.

36
 INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATIONS

AGENCY PRACTICE

Agency records revealed that the Miami Shores Police Department did not
have a history of conducting internal affairs investigations or even inquiries
into violations of various types. Over the years, few prior investigations
were ever referred to by supervisors when inquiries were made by me.

INCEPTION OF INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS

Subsequent to my arrival in the agency and after a significant period of

time sufficient to assess the degree and number of violations and improper
practices occurring, I began to direct my supervisors to assign internal
affairs case numbers to various serious complaints and to submit findings
and recommendations. This was not an easy undertaking as I discovered
that no supervisor in the agency knew how to properly conduct and format
an internal investigation and they were unaware of the State of Florida
laws and administrative codes that govern them. This was very
unorthodox for any police agency. Several supervisors approached me
and informed me that they had never really conducted investigations in the
agency and that they needed my assistance in showing them how to
conduct them.

I personally trained each sergeant in this process and provided to them the
applicable rules and laws in addition to providing proper formats and
guidance. In addition, I sent several sergeants to internal affairs schools, a
training curriculum that the agency had never sent a single supervisor to.
The supervisors in my division were now also required to attend county-
wide networking meetings to keep up to date with new procedures or laws
as it pertained to internal investigations.

It is important to note that not all violations in an agency require an

investigation to be labeled “Internal Affairs Investigation”. Any
experienced command staff member should know that less egregious
violations can be investigated as a “Personnel Complaint” which is usually
identified in the professional law enforcement industry as any investigation
which may result in discipline but not formal discipline at the level of
suspension from duty. Nevertheless, these personnel complaints, referred
to as “PC’s” require almost the same rules of procedure.

37
The agency was not only absent a history of conducting internal affairs
investigations but also records showed an absence of any type of PC
investigation or inquiry. This remains the case today and a public records
request from the agency regarding disciplinary actions over the past 6
years will show that I was the only commander who initiated any type of
investigation resulting from citizen complaints and oversight of agency and
division practices. I also was the only commander to forward respective
disciplinary action recommendations to Chief Lystad.

Over the course of my tenure with agency it became evident that the
reason there were no investigations or a normal level of disciplinary action
in the past was because the agency frowned upon it. The agency had
made it a practice of discouraging disciplinary action so as not to create
public records that would embarrass the village or police department. It
also was a practice that avoided engagement of any type of administrative
hearing. This was unethical and not valid justification for an agency to
refrain from disciplining its officers. The agency simply did not want to
and to date still frowns upon any form of discipline for an officer or
detective.

In this respect the chief and other lieutenants always appeared bothered
each time I would bring to their attention violations from employees and
especially if I would submit disciplinary action or investigations which
required discipline as determined by the chief.

SEVERITY OF INVESTIGATIONS AND INFRACTIONS

Just over the past 24 months several internal affairs investigations of very
serious implication have been completed. Some of these examples below
provide the reader with a perspective as to the permissive culture in the
agency and the widely known fact by officers that violations would rarely if
ever have disciplinary ramifications. This was perhaps the single largest
contributing factor to a culture replete with wrongdoing from officers and
supervisors alike.

INVESTIGATION #1

In the last 24 months an officer was investigated for failing to assist a

juvenile caller who was being stalked by a vehicle. Further investigation
revealed that the officer lied to the juvenile’s parents when they questioned
the lack of response by the police department, falsified official
departmental correspondence and falsified a police report concerning the

38
incident. The investigation also found that the officer then lied to the
agency in their official statement.

INVESTIGATION #2

On another occasion in the past 24 months an officer responded to the

scene of a driver who was under the influence of alcohol and narcotics.
The driver had careened into the swale of 103rd St. knocking down a light
pole then careened into a resident’s front yard, striking several trees. The
driver then fled the scene after leaving significant portions of the
automobile in the roadway and in the residence.

The officer concealed the incident, let the driver go, collected the evidence
of the crash, then discarded the car parts in a nearby large trash container
so as to avoid detection of an accident. The officer never reported the
incident to anyone nor did they inform their supervisor of their actions.
The result of the internal affairs investigation revealed that the officer
committed all of the aforementioned infractions and gave a false official
statement to investigators.

INVESTIGATION #3

In another internal affairs investigation an officer was found to have been

sleeping on duty throughout the course of numerous “months.” This
investigation captured the officer on cctv sleeping in his police car.

INVESTIGATION #4

In another investigation another officer was found to have been sleeping in

discreet locations throughout the village while auto burglaries were
occurring over a period of several days. This investigation captured the
officer sleeping in his police car via GPS/AVL records.

The investigations referenced above are only a fraction of the incidents

and investigations that took place in the agency recently and are the result
of only “one” of the divisions of the police department. They are provided
as examples to give perspective of the breadth and seriousness of
transgressions that still take place in the agency.

References: Internal Affairs Investigations

#2006-01; #1907-01; #1611-01

39
 CRIMINAL AND ETHICAL VIOLATIONS OF STAFF

There have been several incidents by the command staff that fall within
categories of either criminal violations or ethical violations. They are as
follows:

CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS
THEFT VIA UNLAWFUL COMPENSATION

For years it has been widely known in the agency that one of the
command staff officers (Lt. David McLeod) frequently works as a driving
instructor at the Miami-Dade Community College and is compensated by
the college. For years however, that compensation has occurred for work
performed at the college during the lieutenant’s regular work hours with
the police department for which he was simultaneously compensated by
the Village. This is a practice that has regularly occurred with the
knowledge of both Chief Lystad and Lt. Golt.

Miami-Dade College class and instructor rosters, college compensation

records and Miami Shores Village compensation records will corroborate
this information and show that both entities would regularly compensate
the lieutenant at the same time. The manner in which this practice was
quietly justified by the lieutenant and Chief Lystad was by claiming that Lt.
McLeod was either owed hours by the agency and that he was utilizing
those hours to earn off-duty pay or that Lt. McLeod worked a different 8
Hr. shift on the days he was teaching at the college.

MSPD key card entries which are recorded and public record and cctv
footage at MSPD will confirm that on the dates Lt. McLeod worked at the
college and for which he simultaneously received pay from the Village, he
did not work a full 8 hour shift either before or after his work at the college.

This practice in actuality is “theft” as defined by law and is a criminal

violation, let alone an ethical one, because the officer/lieutenant is
attesting that he worked an 8 hour day and receiving pay for it when in
actuality he did not.

40
It is important to understand how the agency arrived at a place where a
practice such as this was quietly condoned and made to appear justified.
This agency and command staff members have for years been
indoctrinated into a system that viewed many practices such as these
acceptable.

The MSPD Command Staff saw nothing wrong with this practice because
the lieutenant could rely on being able to state that he had permission
from the Chief of Police, much as the Chief saw no issue with being one of
the Chief Operating Officers of the same I.T. company that contractually
provided services to the Village and police department under the
justification that he was given permission. These practices had been
condoned for such a long period of time that they eventually became
regarded as acceptable. What the command staff lost sight of was that
permission does not absolve the individual from legal or ethical
accountability.

This information is being provided to the State Attorney’s Office Public

Corruption Unit. However, the fact that the Miami Shores Village is
receiving the information via this report compels it to legally investigate the
matter which is being provided to you as a complaint on behalf of public,
community and a former command staff member with personal knowledge
of the aforementioned actions.

ETHICS VIOLATIONS
DISINGENUOUS POLICY CREATION

For some time the agency has been in the process of attempting to
become accredited. State accreditation standards require comprehensive
policy formulation and adherence and is the first and most critical part of
the accreditation process. Over the past several years the command staff
has spent significant time creating these policies. Emphasis has always
been placed on creating the policies, however little focus has ever been
given to the agency’s ability to adhere to them and even less emphasis
has been placed on abiding by the policies that it has had the ability to
abide by.

During the creation of these policies, which has taken several years, I
consistently informed the other lieutenants and chief that we could not

41
continue to establish policies that we knew in good faith we did not have
the ability to adhere to. I reminded them that not only was it disingenuous
to do this but unethical in nature. I cited many policies currently in place
that the agency was not abiding by and that needed to be either changed
or eliminated.

The response that I continuously received is that we could worry about

that at later date, but for now the purpose was to move toward
accreditation. Regarding the numerous policies that we presently were not
following, their response would be that it was best to just leave them as
they were.

The agency currently has numerous critical policies that it does not adhere
to and which I have consistently advised the staff need to be changed. I
implore the Village government and members of the community to not take
my word for this. These are matters that can easily be confirmed through
records requests for such things as training that agency policies have
required and oversight of units and personnel that have never existed.

COMMUNITY AND ELECTED OFFICIAL DECEPTION

The practice of an agency establishing policies it is aware it cannot abide

by for purposes of attempting to bolster the agency’s status is not only
deceptive to the public but flies in the face of all ethical standards in law
enforcement. Additionally, when Mayor Wagar was elected I recall the
chief stating to me that she requested a copy of all of our policies. What
Mayor Wagar was unaware of when she reviewed them was that the
agency did not and still does not comply with the requirements of most of
the policies.

ROUTINELY LEAVING WORK

It was common for the Chief of Police to not know which command staff
members were working on any given day. This set the stage for many
things. No system of forecasted attendance was ever instituted. As such,
it became very advantageous to some command staff members in the
below manner.

Lt. Golt would routinely ask me and the chief’s executive secretary if the
chief was in that day. The purpose of knowing that is that the lieutenant

42
would routinely leave work on days he knew the chief would not be in and
not know what time the lieutenant left. The lieutenant would routinely
quietly close his door and exit the building via a path where no one would
see him. This was not an occurrence that only I observed. Others did as
well. The topic of Lt. Golt routinely and surreptitiously leaving work
became a common topic of conversation between me and the chief’s
executive secretary.

The reader should note and recall that practices such as the last two
examples are practices that also occurred in a large police department in
Broward County which resulted in the resignation of several command
staff members, pursuant to their investigation.

COMPELLING OFFICERS TO FORFEIT LEGAL AND MEDICAL RIGHTS

(Regarding this violation and example the name of the officer involved is
withheld for reasons that are clearly confidential as it pertains to the rights
of the officer)

In early 2021 an officer requested to see Chief Lystad over a change in

work assignment. The officer however, was one of the few officers who
followed his chain of command protocol and first requested permission to
meet with me, then with the chief of police. After I met with the officer he
responded to the chief’s office and knocked on his door which was closed.
When the chief opened the door a discussion was had between them.

As is referenced in other sections of this report, It was a very common and

accepted practice for officers to go directly to the chief, enter his office
and talk with him if they disagreed with some operational or other aspect
of the agency. No permission was required from the officer’s chain of
command. After the chiefs exchange with this officer, the chief initiated ra
fitness for duty evaluation which has several components and legal
requirements.

One of those components is that the officer undergo counseling with a

psychologist and that the content of those conversations be shared with
not only the psychological services agency which makes a determination
of fitness for duty but also with chief of police.

43
This process must be carefully navigated as it involves the officer’s legal
and medical rights. Before content of any privileged and private
psychological service can be divulged to any entity, the officer must give
permission to the agency via a signed waiver. The waiver clearly indicates
that the officer is “not required” to sign and to provide those permissions.

That week a staff meeting followed where the chief met with me and Lt.
Golt to discuss this issue. The chief indicated that he wanted the
employee to sign a waiver allowing several parties to be privileged to
conversations between the officer and his therapist. I commented to both
the chief and Lt. Golt that the agency could not compel the officer to sign
the waiver they needed. Lt. Golt then commented that we could get the
officer to sign it if we informed him that he would disciplined to include
termination if he didn’t sign it. I reiterated that the officer could not be
compelled to do so. I found it inappropriate that a collective effort was
being made to accomplish something at the expense of an officer’s legal
and medical rights.

The chief remained somewhat silent on the matter when I informed them
that I believed the most appropriate first step was to see if the officer
would willingly sign the waiver.

It was no surprise to me that out of all of the command staff in the agency,
the responsibility of meeting with the officer, asking for his firearm and
informing him that the agency was beginning a fitness for duty process fell
upon my shoulders. There was no complaint from me as he was my
employee and my responsibility. However, I did take issue with the
manner and slight-handedness with which Lt. Golt and the chief proposed
we get the employee to provide his signature.

The following afternoon the chief provided me with a waiver and stated
that I “require” the employee to sign. Several days later I called the officer
and met with him at his private residence for several hours. I informed him
that I had been given instructions to require him to sign the waiver. The
officer studied the waiver for several minutes and after some time looked
at me and paused and expressed uncertainty. I informed him that the
chief and Lt. Golt both stated that if he did not sign it he would be
disciplined and possibly terminated for failing to follow a direct order,
which was the order being given to me.

44
The employee stared at the waiver, sighed very heavily and with some
reluctance signed it. That afternoon I responded to the chief’s office and
handed him the waiver. During that meeting I told the chief that I had
noticed specific language at the bottom of one of the pages which clearly
stated to the employee that they “were not required to sign the document”
and waive their rights. Recall that I had received a clear directive to
compel the employee to sign under threat of disciplinary action including
termination.

I asked the chief if had seen that specific language in the waiver before
giving it to me. Without looking up at me he stated “Yeah, I saw that…”
and made no other comments. The employee then continued to attend
counseling (which the agency compelled him to attend) and it is unknown
what if any communication or content of privileged information from those
counseling sessions was shared with any other party.

This was a serious breach of ethics that the agency partook in and one
that I brought to both the chief and Lt. Golt’s attention prior to and after
the employee signing. The employee to date is unaware of this
information, however the Village is compelled to not only investigate this
matter but from an ethical standpoint it is also compelled to inform the
employee of the mis-information that the employee was provided with.

Copies of this information are being provided to the pertinent entities with
jurisdiction over the violations.

FAILURE TO REPORT AGENCY VIOLATIONS TO FDLE

Two internal affairs investigations have been referenced in this report.

Pursuant to Florida Department of Law Enforcement requirements, internal
affairs investigations and dispositions involving sustained violations are
required to be reported to FDLE. This agency then reviews them and
makes a determination as to whether a probable cause hearing for
decertification is called for. This is the purpose of this requirement.

The two investigations referenced were classified as egregious violations

clearly meeting the guidelines for reporting to FDLE. The investigations
that were conducted were exceptionally thorough and involved making
official false statements both in writing and orally, and concealing crimes
that had occurred. Both of these investigations were submitted with

45
lengthy memorandums from me indicating that the evidence clearly
confirmed the most serious of violations, in addition to the lesser included
offenses.

Chief Lystad met with me to discuss them and stated that the
investigations were termination level cases. I agreed and left the meeting
presuming that very serious consequences were forthcoming. Several
“months” passed with no disposition and finally I received a copy of the
final dispositions where the most serious violations from the category of
“sustained violations” had been removed. By not sustaining the most
egregious violations an agency is now not required to report it to FDLE as
a sustained violation and the agency is not placed in an embarrassing
public position in addition to the officer avoiding risk of adverse action by
this State.

Additionally, the memorandums submitted by me to the chief outlining the

violations were removed from the investigations and never made part of
the internal affairs file. These documents were and still are public record
and neither an agency or chief is authorized to edit the investigations
through the removal of an official document pertinent to the investigation.
In both of these cases I do not believe that the investigation or required
State of Florida document was ever forwarded to FDLE as required by
State Administrative Code.

Un-edited complete copies of these investigations have been forwarded to

the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to include the memorandums
that the agency removed for their investigation of these matters. Copies of
these investigations have also been forwarded to the Miami Shores Village
Manager as a separate addendum to this document for its required inquiry
into the violations pursuant to ethical and governmental oversight.
Additionally, the Village is required to forward the appropriate dispositions
and documents to FDLE to include the documents omitted from the files,
pursuant to Chapter 500, Florida Administrative Code, which governs
internal investigations.

46
 UNETHICAL MOTIVES IN FAILURE TO DISCIPLINE OFFICERS

INCIDENT #1

In early 2021 the chief and I met regarding several disciplinary action
packages that had been pending for some time. A few weeks prior to the
meeting in an unrelated matter, an officer had resigned and moved to
another agency. The violations submitted by me in the disciplinary
packages were minimally reprimand and suspension level cases. I asked
the chief what his intent insofar as the dispositions of the violations was
going to be. He stated that he did not want to the discipline officers for
the moment because we had just lost an officer to another agency and he
did not want to lose anymore. While taken aback again at his remarks,
part of me was not surprised given what I had already observed and
experienced with the agency and the command staff.

INCIDENT #2

Near the time of the last Village elections and as they were approaching I
Lt. Golt met with me and during our discussions mentioned having some
personnel and some violations he was made aware of concerning two of
his detectives. I asked him what action he intended on taking. He
responded by stating that he didn’t know but for the moment was not
going to forward discipline to the chief and reminded me that elections
were approaching and he did not want to “rock the boat”. This was a
recurring theme of concern with the chief and the other lieutenants.

INCIDENT #3

In 2020 Lt. Golt became aware that two of his detectives had committed
serious infractions including making false statements to him and purposely
authoring a police report with incorrect information. He stated that he was
going to address the infractions. Several months later in a private
conversation with him I asked him about the status of those two
investigations. His response was that he decided to handle it “in-house”
meaning to not document them.

INCIDENT #4

Early on and during many of these occurrences I engaged in conversations

with Lt. Golt. During one of them he commented that he had identified

47
violations from some of his detectives but did not intend to forward
disciplinary action because he did not want to cause any trouble for the
chief, stating “I don’t want to make his last several years here difficult.”

This was and remains a recurring theme for not only Lt. Golt but for the
chief as well and is the essence of many of the issues contributing to the
agency’s lack of governance and ethical collapse.

INCIDENT #5

From the period of 2017 to 2019 Lt. Golt was made aware of one of his
detectives not being at work and conducting personal business for hours
at a time, during the time they were being paid by the Village. I recall
having a follow-up conversation with him several months later where Lt.
McLeod was present where again I asked him what ever came of the
investigations into that matter. His response was that he was still looking
into it. This response became commonplace for him and public records
again will show that no action was ever taken, no inquiry or investigation
into the matter was ever initiated and no documentation of the matter was
ever made.

The equally disturbing aspect of these occurrences and conversations is

that Lt. McLeod who was considered the second in command of the
agency was aware of these transgressions as brought to his attention by
me and never brought them to the attention of Chief Lystad.

INCIDENT #6

In the early part of my tenure with the agency I would frequently discuss
disciplinary issues with Lt. Golt. As time went by these conversations
would become less frequent, as it was apparent that there was little
interest on his behalf of coming together as a command staff and
informing the chief that the transgressions and disciplinary issues in the
agency needed to change.

During one of my conversations with the lieutenant he agreed that there

was a very bad culture of unchecked and undisciplined behavior in the
agency but added that he was here “to do his ten years and leave and was
not going to make that time difficult for himself.” This outlook would
become a predominant one not only for him but for Lt. McLeod as well.

48
COMMAND STAFF COMPLICIT IN CULTIVATION OF ETHICAL FAILURES

INCIDENT #1

In 2018 the agency announced plans to establish a Traffic Unit. Several

officers submitted special requests to be considered. As time passed the
need for traffic enforcement was ever growing and pressure from the
community continued to build to significantly increase traffic enforcement.

As 2021 approached, the Traffic Unit had yet to be established. On

several occasions I met with the chief and inquired as to when we could
expect for it to be implemented because there was a growing number of
complaints and pressure from residents to do something about the
speeding and other traffic related issues. I would receive these complaints
almost on a daily basis. I approached him one last time several months
before the elections (the reference is explained below) again asking if we
could implement the Traffic Unit. The chief stated that he wanted to wait
until the council meeting before the elections to implement it. The timing
was important to him, confiding that it would benefit the city manager, but
particularly certain candidates who as it turned out did not get elected.

This interest seemed to take priority over the need to respond to the
immediate need for an increase in traffic enforcement. Public records and
council meeting minutes will confirm that indeed the unit was established
and announced at a Village Council meeting approximately one week
before the elections in 2021. Photographs were then taken and posted to
the Village website.

INCIDENT #2

The efforts of Chief Lystad, Lt. Golt (who was the point person for the
completion of the agency policy and accreditation initiative) and Lt.
McLeod to push policies through with the knowledge that the agency
could not adhere to them is troubling, particularly in light of my expressed
concerns to them. I would repeatedly be asked not to worry or make
issues of my concerns and to leave the policies alone for now. In an effort
to remain as compatible as I could with the command staff and with the
hopes we could address this again in the future, I did just that.

49
INCIDENT #3

Chief Lystad would call for command staff meetings as issues arose.
Often, these issues were of some confidential nature, be it an employee
that was filing an EEOC or other type of complaint or a grievance or some
other issue requiring action. Many times the meetings also involved some
issue that was sensitive from a political standpoint. A common
denominator in all of these meetings would always be the chief asking the
three lieutenants to "not stir the waters”. This phrase became the single
most vocalized request at staff meetings. It meant “Try not to do anything
that your officers and detectives are not going to agree with”. It was a
subtle way of asking not to discipline anyone.

The other lieutenants never expressed an issue with these requests

because a request of this nature didn’t place them out of their comfort
zones as evidenced by other sections of this report. However, this
overriding management philosophy to look the other way and the refusal
of the agency to hold itself accountable is what has become the single
most responsible factor for the transgressions of the agency.

50
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Never has there been a more critical need for serious reform in a police
agency than in the Miami Shores Police Department. When an agency or
organization reaches the level of racism, disfunction and sickness the
Miami Shores Police Department has and that is the result of participation
and cultivation this culture by its leadership, that reform must come from
outside or the organization in the form of serious change agents.

The command staff personnel referenced in this report are certain to

declare that the facts outlined in the report are false. There is little choice
on their behalf but to do so, given the multitude, depth and seriousness of
the infractions and ethical violations. I urge you to conduct these
investigations in the comprehensive and thorough manner they are
required to be and allow the findings to speak for themselves.

Regarding specific sections and content of this report I encourage you not
to assume the veracity of the information provided, but as part of your
investigation that you interview any of the numerous officers who have
submitted resignations in the past several years in order to corroborate
much of this information, as these officers no longer have fear of
retribution from the command staff.

On the day that I submitted my notice of intent to retire I met with the Chief
for several hours. We spoke candidly about the terrible issues that
plagued the agency. He was despondent to some degree and at one point
looked up at me and stated: “Jimmy, this agency has cancer, and I’m afraid
it’s our fault.” (Referring to the command staff) I remained silent as I had
not been a part of what he referred to. However, never in almost 6 years
had the chief been more honest regarding the agency and command staff.

A considerable amount of time has been dedicated on my behalf over

almost 6 years in combating a systemic, sick atmosphere and culture that
has been interwoven into the fabric of the Miami Shores Police
Department; One that has not been created overnight. However, a critical
component of any attempt to change that culture and to usher in
professionalism and a work ethic and a sense of duty to the community is

51
that it must be a collective effort by the entire command of the agency and
an overreaching, all-encompassing theme of management that flows
collectively from the top command of the agency, downward.

Over those almost 6 years and leading to the present the initiative to
effectuate this change on behalf of the command staff has been
conspicuously absent. Little attempt has been made to establish a system
of governance and work ethic that is required in order to minimally fulfill
the responsibilities of a law enforcement agency and the duties it has
sworn to uphold.

On the contrary, the command staff has displayed a strong aversion to the
idea of establishing discipline and taking action regarding day to day
violations on behalf of personnel and has privately displayed a greater
interest in remaining in a favorable position relative to the comforts of their
employment and positions.

The command staff lieutenants consistently displayed an unwillingness to

bring any disciplinary matter to the chief, which has exacerbated the ill
effects upon the agency and the costs to the community.

These facts as presented are not the result of conjecture or opinion. The
dynamic and lack of supervision and discipline on behalf of the lieutenants
and chief are public record and evidenced by the fact that in the period of
the past 6 years, neither of the lieutenants issued insofar as a counseling,
even in the spirit of positive reinforcement, to any officer in the agency; a
staggering fact considering the number of violations that were observed
by them from their personnel over a period of almost 6 years.

In any law enforcement agency, but particularly one with a history of non-
conformity to policy, it is unheard of to not encounter a single incident
which requires disciplinary action, even if at an informal level or at the level
of positive reinforcement. This is a commonly understood principle in
professional law enforcement administrations.

The reason there is little to no evidence of accountability in the agency’s

personnel files is not that the violations did not or do not exist. They
existed in epic proportions and still do. In the case of the Miami Shores
Police Department there has existed a deliberate effort on behalf of the

52
command staff to overlook and ignore wrongdoing, ethical transgressions
and violations of policy.

The totality of the culture, absence of leadership and known widespread

transgressions across the agency and the unprofessionalism with which it
is managed has had very recent significant repercussions in the police
department. In less than 60 days over 25% of the agency has resigned
and the resignation of an additional 10% of the agency is imminent. This
is an “alarming” percentage.

For any agency, it is normal to experience a “small” percentage of attrition

over time. However, the percentage of officers resigning from the Miami
Shores Police Department is a plea to the Village and to the public to
recognize an affliction in the agency.

An agency can be so inculcated in a culture of malfeasance and a lack of

accountability that it ends up perceiving its actions as normal and
acceptable. With systemic failure that includes an absence of oversight, a
lack of accountability to the public and the condoning of wrongdoing, the
corrupt behavior becomes a culture. However, when you add to it the
genuine and legitimate belief from the officers through their experiences
that they will not be held accountable for their behavior, then the unethical
behavior is exacerbated and becomes rampant and this is in fact what has
occurred in the Miami Shores Police Department.

This profession has seen this phenomenon occur (albeit never to this
degree) with agencies that have no choice but to introduce serious reform
by way of change agents from the outside. The Miami Shores Police
Department not only minimally requires this, but requires that those
change agents construct a foundation that is unfettered and uninfluenced
by a command staff that have been complicit in the agency’s destitute
ethical condition.

The residents of Miami Shores, the public and this profession require law
enforcement agencies whose character is defined by ethical behavior and
non-racist overtones. Furthermore it should demand that its law
enforcement officers be guided by leaders whose principles further the
transparency and humanity that are required to rid agencies of the norms
and practices that have contributed to the negative perceptions of law
enforcement and plague our profession today.

53
The Miami Shores Police Department is the precise reason for the
nationwide call for reform in policing. Its recurring theme of racial bias and
indifference to laws and the rules of ethics prominently places it at the
forefront of the need for change. The elected officials and government
entities in receipt of this report have a duty to ensure that this change
occurs and that through investigation of these issues and occurrences the
appropriate accountability occurs as well.

Finally but not least importantly, I too am required to apologize to the

residents of Miami Shores and to several entities receiving this report.
These matters should have been reported by me far sooner as a
professional and as a person who was properly indoctrinated with a

sense of human decency, principle and the importance of standing up for

what is correct. Although the cost of doing just that would have in fact
resulted in my early termination with the Village, it does not avail me of the
responsibility I had and the principles I swore to uphold.

Major James V. Somohano

Executive Command Staff

Hialeah Police Department (ret)

Lt. James V. Somohano

Operations Commander

Miami Shores Police Department (ret)

jvsomo629@gmail.com

(786-514-4157

54