Greece Police Department

Town of Greece, New York

6 VINCE TOFANY BOULEVARD, GREECE, NEW YORK 14612 – TELEPHONE (585) 865-9200

To: William Reilich, Town Supervisor

From: Joseph Morabito, Special Deputy Chief for Internal Affairs
and Mark Case, Assistant to the Special Deputy Chief for Internal Affairs
Re: Forsythe Motor Vehicle Accident Investigation
Date: December 21, 2021

SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION
CASE NUMBER: 21IIV-005 Summary1

I. Background

In the early morning hours of Thursday, October 21, 2021, a vehicle owned by the Town of Greece (the “Town”)
and operated by the former Chief of Police, Andrew Forsythe (“Former Chief Forsythe”), was involved in a single-vehicle
motor vehicle accident (“MVA”) at approximately 12:55am. Several officers of the Greece Police Department (“GPD”) were
involved in the initial response and investigation into the accident. Throughout the following approximately forty-eight (48)
hours, additional information became known regarding the MVA which had not been adduced from the GPD response to
the MVA. The information came primarily through information published by several media outlets.

On Saturday, October 23, 2021, a GPD Command staff member became concerned regarding information about
the MVA he was learning from the media and from information coming from within the GPD. The Command officer’s
primary concern was that Former Chief Forsythe had not been forthcoming about information pertaining to the MVA.
Without checking with Former Chief Forsythe, this Command officer contacted the Town Attorney to alert him that the
MVA needed additional investigation. The Command officer wanted the Town Attorney to alert the Town Supervisor and
Deputy Town Supervisor that the MVA was not a typical fleet accident like they had been led to believe by Former Chief
Forsythe. The Town Attorney immediately contacted the Town Supervisor and Deputy Town Supervisor who instructed the
GPD Command officer to provide a recommendation regarding the best law enforcement agency to refer the matter to
immediately. GPD then referred the case to the Monroe County District Attorney. The District Attorney’s investigation was
commenced immediately. On that same date, the Town Supervisor placed Former Chief Forsythe on suspension. In less
than 24 hours of the referral to the District Attorney’s Office, the District Attorney was aware that alcohol was likely a factor
in the MVA, and the District Attorney preliminarily advised the Town Supervisor of this issue on Sunday, October 24, 2021.
On Monday morning, October 25, the Town Supervisor requested Former Chief Forsythe’s resignation.

Upon completing its investigation, the District Attorney charged Former Chief Forsythe with Driving While
Intoxicated (“DWI”) and leaving the scene of a Motor Vehicle Accident. Additionally, the District Attorney’s Office
recommended that the Town and GPD conduct a separate, independent internal investigation regarding the actions of
individuals who responded to the accident and participated in the initial investigation of the same. I was recommended by
District Attorney Doorley and the Chief Investigator for the District Attorney’s Office, CJ Dominic, to conduct the
investigation. The Town appointed me as Special Deputy Chief for Internal Affairs, and together with the Assistant to the
Special Deputy Chief, Mark Case, we investigated the accident, the events that followed, and GPD’s response.

1
Names of subject officers/involved officers deleted due to pending personnel action.

1
 II. Allegations in the Internal Investigation

This investigation was commenced upon the recommendation of the District Attorney’s Office and not in response
to any specific allegation or allegations of misconduct. Upon review of the materials gathered and provided by the District
Attorney’s Office, the following allegation was inferred: One or more members of the GPD failed to appropriately respond
to and/or investigate the fleet MVA involving Former Chief Forsythe. In addition, throughout the course of the
investigation, information was gathered that resulted in my determination that additional policy and procedure violations
may have occurred, which are set forth below.

III. Investigative Summary

On October 21, 2021, at 1:49am Former Chief Forsythe called out an accident over the GPD radio channel.
Specifically, Former Chief Forsythe attempted to contact Car 804, the Precinct 1 Sergeant at the time. Because there was
no Car 804 working that evening, XXX, Car XXX, responded to the radio transmission. Former Chief Forsythe then requested
that a vehicle be sent to the area of North Greece Road and English Road because he had struck a deer. XXX responded and
informed him that a vehicle would be sent to his location. Upon hearing the call on the radio, XXX responded to the area as
well, upon his own initiative, as it was his car beat. After responding to Former Chief Forsythe, XXX directed XXX to respond
to the MVA at North Greece Road and English Road. Each of the four involved officers who heard Former Chief Forsythe on
the radio stated that they did not believe he sounded intoxicated. XXX noted that he sounded “disheveled”, and further
noted that it was comparable to how other officers have sounded after fleet MVAs in the past.

Officer XXX was the first individual to arrive at the scene and observed significant damage to Former Chief
Forsythe’s vehicle. Specifically, the vehicle was in the middle of North Greece Road facing northbound, straddling the
double yellow lines and partially in the southbound turning lane. The right front wheel was missing, the front driver’s side
and rear passenger side tires were flat and shredded, and there was extensive damage to the passenger side of the vehicle.
Former Chief Forsythe was walking around his vehicle when XXX approached him. Once he reached him, XXX observed
blood coming from his forehead traveling down his face, which appeared to be fresh and dripping, and he noticed an
additional abrasion on his face. Former Chief Forsythe repeatedly stated that he was okay but that his head hurt. He
declined medical attention. Former Chief Forsythe also told XXX to callout and say he did not need further assistance. At
that exact time, approximately one minute after XXX arrived at the scene, XXX and XXX arrived at the scene. After
confirming with XXX that the matter was under control, XXX informed XXX that he was not needed, and he left the scene
before having any interaction with Former Chief Forsythe.

When asked what had occurred, Former Chief Forsythe explained to both XXX and XXX that he was driving on
Interstate 390 North and had struck the guardrail when swerving to avoid hitting a deer. Former Chief Forsythe explained
that this had occurred in the area of Vintage Lane, and that upon striking the guardrail he must have hit his head inside the
vehicle. He also explained that his cellular phone went flying inside the vehicle and that he could not locate it. Additionally,
Former Chief Forsythe stated that his vehicle’s police radio was not working properly following the accident, and that his
several attempts to call out on his radio at the scene of the impact were not successful. As a result, it was explained that he
then started driving in an effort to get his damaged vehicle to GPD Precinct 1 to report the accident. He further explained
that the vehicle came to rest at its current location on North Greece Rd. and English Rd. At this point, he again tried his
radio and was able to successfully transmit the broadcast described above on his car radio. Former Chief Forsythe
requested that Officer XXX call his cellular phone to locate it within the vehicle, and it was ultimately found under the
bottom of the center console.

XXX and XXX stated that they did not observe any physical signs of intoxication or alcohol consumption from
Former Chief Forsythe during their conversations with him. No odor of alcoholic beverage was observed coming from
Former Chief Forsythe by either individual, nor did they observe his speech to be slurred, or any other signs of intoxication,
based on their training and experience. XXX also observed that he was chewing tobacco. Additionally, they both observed
him to be walking around his vehicle without staggering and deemed him to have a demeanor similar to individuals
encountered after being involved in a motor vehicle accident with a head injury and extensive vehicle damage. Both XXX
and XXX stated that they did not get closer than 2 to 4 feet from Former Chief Forsythe. XXX stated that he could not smell
very well because of a recent bout with COVID. It was understood by XXX and XXX that the vehicle was in close proximity to
Former Chief Forsythe’s home, but at the time, they say that this did not cause either to question the actual intended
destination of Former Chief Forsythe. Neither XXX nor XXX considered, as part of their reasonable suspicion evaluation, the
discrepancy in the fact that Former Chief Forsythe had initially called out that he struck a deer, but at the scene he
explained that he hit a guardrail while swerving to avoid a deer. Nor did they consider the length in which the heavily

2
damaged vehicle would have had to travel with one wheel missing and two others shredded. Additionally, shortly before
Former Chief Forsythe called out for assistance on the radio, a call went out over the radio from Dispatch providing
information regarding a suspicious vehicle sighted heading north toward North Greece Road driving on rims with sparks
flying. The officers at the scene recalled hearing the call shortly before responding to the Forsythe MVA, but initially did not
connect the call as related to Former Chief Forsythe’s accident.

Once these limited details of the accident had been obtained from Former Chief Forsythe, XXX approached the
vehicle to complete a closer inspection of the damage. After doing so, he called XXX (not on the scene yet) to try and find
the scene of the accident on 390 North at Vintage Lane and then called Deputy Chief XXX to inform him of the incident and
to receive guidance and instruction on how to proceed. XXX based his need to contact XXX because the damage was
extensive, the vehicle had traveled a considerable distance based on where Former Chief Forsythe stated he struck the
guardrail, that Former Chief Forsythe had said he was trying to go to Precinct 1 of the GPD and where he stopped was not in
the same direction, and he had never dealt with an MVA involving a higher-level officer, and certainly not a Chief, so he
wanted direction from his boss. XXX explained that he wanted to make sure the incident was being handled properly and
that once he contacted his boss, XXX, he believed he would be receiving direction from his supervisor and would be
relinquishing control and charge of the incident to XXX. This was an appropriate action on XXX’s part considering the
situation. XXX relayed the details of the accident to XXX, including the fact that the vehicle had sustained significant damage
and appeared to have traveled some distance from where the actual impact occurred, that the vehicle was driven with only
three wheels, and two of the three were shredded, and the former Chief did not sound good on the radio. XXX only
inquired whether Former Chief Forsythe was injured, and XXX explained that he had an injury on his forehead and cheek
and had blood on him. XXX then advised XXX to investigate the incident “as he saw fit” and his only guidance was that it
was critical to identify where the initial crash occurred to determine whether any other motorists or property were
involved, and to get medical attention to Former Chief Forsythe. During this discussion, XXX did not inquire as to whether
Former Chief Forsythe had been drinking, or direct XXX to inquire with Former Chief Forsythe whether he had been drinking
or even to ask where he had been prior to the accident, because, as he explained later when interviewed, he did not want
to influence XXX in any way because he was not physically at the scene (XXX was home asleep when XXX called him and was
awoken by the call). He also explained that based on the time of night and circumstances of the accident, it was in his mind
that alcohol could have been a factor but still did not convey this to XXX. During the investigation, it subsequently became
known that XXX knew that Former Chief Forsythe was at a benefit earlier in the evening, which he later learned was a New
York State Police fundraiser.

Meanwhile, XXX commenced his search for the crash site by traveling on 390 North toward the Vintage Lane exit.
Initially he could not find any signs of a collision, and proceeded to return to 390 South, making a U-turn onto 390 North,
where he traveled slowly, carefully inspecting the guardrail on the east side of the road. Ultimately, he noticed a thin line in
the pavement where it appeared to be damaged from a vehicle scraping the pavement. He followed this line, as well as
additional, heavier markings on the pavement along Vintage Lane. At this time, XXX elected to get back onto 390 South
until the Lyell Avenue exit, then got onto 390 North, and traveled slowly north in the right lane searching for the impact
site. Eventually, just north of the Latona Road overpass, XXX observed a piece of metal sticking out of the guardrail. After
exiting his vehicle and inspecting the object, he believed it to be a piece of a door of a vehicle. Additionally, XXX observed a
debris field stretching out approximately 50 feet north of the piece of metal in the guardrail, as well a wheel of a vehicle
stuck under the guardrail. XXX recognized the wheel to match those on Former Chief Forsythe’s vehicle. At this time, XXX
called XXX to advise him that he located the scene of the accident. After XXX described the damage and car parts he
observed, XXX directed him to travel to his location at North Greece Road and English Road. XXX informed him that he
would follow the path of the damage in the roadway to confirm whether anything else had been struck.

XXX then called XXX back to inform him that the scene of the accident on 390 North had been located by XXX.
During this conversation XXX informed XXX that approximately 30 minutes before Chief Forsythe’s call over the radio,
Dispatch provided information regarding a 911 call made regarding a suspicious dark colored SUV, missing a wheel, sitting
in front of a home on North Greece Avenue. He stated that he believed this was Chief Forsythe’s vehicle. XXX also inquired
as to whether XXX wanted him to contact a GPD technician to come to the scene and take photographs. XXX decided that a
technician should not be called, and instead told XXX to take photographs with his GPD cellphone. XXX took photographs of
the scene where Former Chief Forsythe’s vehicle stopped, but none were taken of Former Chief Forsythe and his injuries.
XXX asked XXX if XXX could bring Chief Forsythe home from the scene, and XXX agreed, apparently determining that there
was no need for him to remain at the scene or go to the Precinct for reports. Ultimately, XXX advised XXX that XXX could
give Former Chief Forsythe a ride home at that time. XXX explained that he was on his way to the scene and would reach
out to him again when he was close by.

3
 XXX then directed XXX to give Chief Forsythe a ride to his home and to make sure a family member was home to
receive him because of his head injury. Before Chief Forsythe left the scene, he informed him that he would call the Deputy
Town Supervisor which XXX subsequently conveyed to XXX. [Phone records indicate it was a one second call and the Deputy
Supervisor never spoke with Former Chief Forsythe that evening.] It took approximately 3 minutes for XXX to reach Chief
Forsythe’s home, and they did not speak during the drive. Upon arriving at Chief Forsythe’s residence, XXX observed
multiple vehicles in the driveway, including the vehicle which he knew to be Chief Forsythe’s wife’s, in addition to the lights
being on inside. XXX asked if Chief Forsythe’s wife was home, to which he replied “yes” and that she was expecting him.
Almost immediately upon pulling into the driveway, Chief Forsythe exited the vehicle and went inside. It was subsequently
learned that Chief Forsythe’s wife was not home at the time. XXX left Chief Forsythe’s home, he returned to the scene on
North Greece Road and English Road and was directed by XXX to call dispatch and send a tow truck. Towing ultimately
responded and XXX directed the driver to bring the Chief’s vehicle to the impound lot at Precinct 1. XXX then accompanied
the tow truck to the impound lot.

XXX arrived at North Greece Road and English Road after Chief Forsythe had been brought home. He had followed
the line and markings in the road from the impact site on 390 North to the Chief’s vehicle. Upon viewing Chief Forsythe’s
vehicle, XXX observed heavy damage to the passenger side and concluded that the scrape marks he had observed were
likely the result of the front end touching the pavement because of the missing right front wheel, which he had previously
observed on 390 North. It was surprising to XXX that the vehicle was able to travel as far as it had to get to its final location.
At that time, XXX advised XXX that the scratch marks in the roadway were in S-type patterns and the Chief’s car had crossed
into the oncoming traffic lane several times on 390.

XXX called XXX again to inform him that he was near the crash scene and instead of arriving at North Greece and
English Road, as he previously indicated, he was going to go directly to the accident scene on 390 North and instructed XXX
and XXX to meet him there. XXX and XXX met XXX at the scene. Upon arrival, XXX took out his phone to take photographs
and asked XXX if he wanted pictures taken, to which XXX responded that it was not necessary. It was subsequently
acknowledged, including by XXX, that in accordance with accepted policies and procedures, including for fleet MVA
incidents in particular, photographs should have been taken of the scene. At XXX’s direction, the three individuals then
proceeded to collect the various pieces of debris from Chief Forsythe’s vehicle and brought them to the Precinct 1 impound
lot to leave them with the Chief’s vehicle.

Upon arriving at the Precinct 1 impound lot, XXX viewed the damage to Chief Forsythe’s vehicle in person for the
first time and conveyed to XXX his disbelief that a vehicle with that level of damage was able to be operated. At this time,
XXX requested that XXX, XXX, and XXX all meet in his office. This meeting lasted approximately 5 to 10 minutes. XXX
conveyed to the other individuals his belief that it had been a difficult situation in responding to an accident involving the
Chief, and that there would likely be a follow-up investigation. He stated his belief that they did not need to be concerned
about any repercussions regarding their performance and that he would back them up. He also advised them they should
not participate in any gossip or discussion of rumors regarding the incident to ensure any subsequent investigation was not
tainted. According to XXX, during this discussion the individuals involved did not review any facts or observations from the
evening, however, this was disputed by XXX and XXX. Following this meeting XXX, XXX, and XXX left XXX’s office together.
In accordance with XXX’s directive, XXX ordered XXX to complete an incident report. XXX explained that he originally
started a MVA report before saving it without completing a narrative portion. Part of the rationale behind completing an
incident report as opposed to a MVA report was that XXX said it was unknown at the time whether the incident constituted
leaving the scene or whether Former Chief Forsythe was on or off duty at the time. As XXX was writing his report, XXX
assisted with some grammar and spelling choices but stated that he did not dictate what XXX should write. Once
completed, XXX approved the report, downloaded photographs taken that evening on his cellphone to a thumb drive, and
placed it in an envelope that he left in XXX’s mailbox.

Later the same day GPD command staff discussed the matter further and determined that due to the amount of
damage sustained to the fleet vehicle, it would be most appropriate to complete a MV-104A, not an incident report. After
this discussion, XXX contacted XXX and directed him to have XXX transfer his incident report onto a MV-104A. During this
discussion XXX also instructed XXX that it was not necessary to mark the box on the form for “leaving the scene”, with the
rationale being that Chief Forsythe was not deemed to be on duty at the time of the accident and because, according to
XXX, Chief Forsythe had been unsuccessfully attempting to callout on his radio or locate his cellular phone. XXX believed
checking that box would have been appropriate but followed XXX’s instruction. During this discussion XXX also directed XXX
to complete a memorandum to his attention with XXX’s account of what had transpired, per policies and procedures
applicable to fleet MVAs.

4
 XXX then directed XXX to complete a MV-104A in TRACS. In doing so, XXX copied and pasted the information from
his previously completed incident report. XXX thereafter approved the MV-104A and completed a memorandum regarding
the incident as directed by XXX. XXX was not involved in the process of drafting this memorandum. XXX stated that he did
not rely on any documents, including XXX’s MV-104A. However, in at least ten instances the language used in XXX’s
memorandum was identical to the language used in XXX’s report and the written segments were in the exact same
sequence as the narrative of the MV-104A. In our interviews, XXX insisted that he did not copy XXX’s report or dictate to
XXX what he was to write, but, in retrospect, said that he may have impacted or influenced XXX’s report more than he had
intended to. XXX stated that the completed report reflected his words, not those of XXX, and he was unsure how the
verbatim statements ended up on XXX’s memorandum.

Shortly after arriving to work on October 21, Former Chief Forsythe entered Sergeant XXX’s office and described
the incident from earlier that morning. He told XXX that he swerved to miss a deer on 390 and hit the guardrail, that he hit
his head during the collision, and had driven the vehicle away from the impact site because he had not felt safe on 390.
XXX was aware that Former Chief Forsythe had been attending a New York State Police benefit that evening. Former Chief
Forsythe also indicated that he believed the vehicle was totaled. XXX observed Former Chief Forsythe as appearing shaken
up and more solemn than he usually is. XXX attributed this to the fact that he was in an accident in the early morning only a
few hours ago. XXX did not see a picture of the damage sustained to the vehicle until Saturday, October 25, and he
expressed being shocked at the extent of the damage when he finally saw it, especially compared to how Former Chief
Forsythe had downplayed the accident. During this discussion with XXX, Former Chief Forsythe also requested that XXX
alert him in the event he received any media inquiries regarding the accident.

Later the same morning, XXX and Former Chief Forsythe had a brief conversation. XXX provided Former Chief
Forsythe with his ballistic vest and department jacket and explained that he had responded to the incident earlier that
morning. Former Chief Forsythe conveyed the impression that it was nothing more than a fleet accident and that he had
notified the Deputy Supervisor. XXX also had a brief interaction with Former Chief Forsythe during the day on Thursday.
Former Chief Forsythe informed him that he was not injured and that he had previously discussed the accident with the
Deputy Supervisor, and that she was not upset and expressed that she was glad that he was not injured. Toward the end of
the day on October 21, Former Chief Forsythe told XXX that he was going to Town Hall to speak with the Supervisor and
Deputy Supervisor in person.

At approximately 2:00pm on Thursday, XXX approached XXX between shifts and expressed concern that a possible
corrupt incident was occurring in connection with Chief Forsythe’s MVA, and no one within GPD was taking appropriate
action. When XXX asked why he felt this way, XXX explained that there is a strict chain of events that are to occur in
response to fleet MVAs which did not appear to have been followed, no one could locate Chief Forsythe’s vehicle at the
DPW, and because individuals felt there were inconsistencies in the reports related to the incident. XXX then told XXX to
stop his involvement and told him that he would look into the situation. XXX did not receive prior permission from GPD
command staff or a supervisor to work on the investigation. However, without permission, XXX gained unauthorized access
to reports related to the MVA through the Department IT systems. XXX logged into TRACS and took a picture of the report
with his personal cellphone and printed a copy as well. He also took photos of OEC information from the MDT job card,
again, using his personal cellphone. On Friday morning, October 22, 2021, XXX informed XXX that Chief Forsythe’s vehicle
was in the impound lot. Thereafter, XXX accessed the impound lot, without clearance to do so, and took photos of the
vehicle with his personal cellphone. XXX explained that he did not bring this matter to the attention of his direct supervisor,
XXX. XXX admitted that he later shared details of his unauthorized investigation, publicly, with an individual who is not a
member of the Department, Mr. Copetta, a GPD retiree. On Friday night, he forwarded Copetta, via text message, a photo
he took in the impound lot of Former Chief Forsythe’s damaged vehicle with the caption: “You mean this minor MVA?”.
That photo that he texted to Copetta was indistinguishable from the photo that was aired by the media on Saturday,
December 23, 2021. It is my conclusion that the photo XXX sent to Copetta is the same photo that the media received. XXX
admitted that he was aware of the Town’s whistleblower policy and acknowledged that he did not follow the policy. He also
admitted to providing police information and unauthorized photos to Copetta.

Also occurring on Friday, October 22, Former Chief Forsythe informed XXX that the Supervisor and Deputy
Supervisor had no issues upon learning about his accident and discussed ordering him a replacement vehicle. However, he
did not reveal to XXX that he downplayed the MVA with the Town Supervisor and Deputy Supervisor, only telling them he
hit the guardrail to avoid a deer that ran in front of him on 390 North. The same morning XXX gathered the MV-104A, the
memorandum completed by XXX, and the photographs taken by XXX at the scene where the vehicle came to a stop, placed
them in an envelope, and hand-delivered the materials to the Assistant to the Town Attorney, which is standard procedure
in fleet vehicle accidents.

5
 At approximately 2:00pm on Friday, a GPD supervisor was contacted by Ginny Ryan, who was requesting
information regarding Former Chief Forsythe’s accident. During their initial discussion, XXX confirmed the accident had
occurred and requested that she text him her specific questions. Believing this to be a minor fleet accident, XXX then called
Former Chief Forsythe, relayed Ms. Ryan’s questions, and asked how he would like him to respond. XXX and Former Chief
Forsythe engaged in a series of discussions to gather answers to the questions posed by Ms. Ryan. At this time, XXX
believed that GPD had responded to and investigated the incident, and the Chief had first-hand knowledge of the
circumstances relevant to the questions being asked. He explained that based on these facts, he did not have any basis to
question the information being provided to him by the Former Chief. After XXX responded to Ms. Ryan’s initial questions,
she stated that she was receiving information that alcohol was involved. XXX again spoke with Former Chief Forsythe on
how to respond, and he stated that alcohol was not a factor in the accident. XXX asked if that was the response he should
give to Ms. Ryan, and Former Chief Forsythe confirmed that it was. XXX then provided this information to Ms. Ryan.

On Saturday, October 23, Ms. Ryan sent XXX a photograph of Former Chief Forsythe’s vehicle from the impound lot
via text message and asked if he could confirm it was the Chief’s vehicle. XXX did not respond and contacted Former Chief
Forsythe. XXX began pressing Former Chief Forsythe for additional information regarding the accident. In his discussions
with Former Chief Forsythe during the day on Saturday, Former Chief Forsythe stated that he had in fact consumed a couple
of drinks but maintained that alcohol was not a factor in the accident. He further stated that if alcohol had been a factor, a
different agency would have been contacted to investigate the accident. At the time XXX learned this information, he had
not yet been in contact with higher level Command officers, and later explained that he had been operating under the
auspice that higher level Command officers and Former Chief Forsythe were operating on the same page and that any
information he was receiving from Former Chief Forsythe was already known by these officers. As a result, after learning
that Former Chief Forsythe had consumed alcohol before the accident, XXX did not immediately share this information with
Command officers or with the Town Supervisor.

Throughout the day on Saturday and into the evening, GPD received several additional media inquiries and
provided the same information provided in response to Ms. Ryan. Throughout the afternoon, Command staff members
discussed concern that the incident should be receiving greater attention internally. In furtherance of these concerns, one
of the Deputy Chiefs reached out to the Town Attorney and expressed his belief that the accident photos and
accompanying paperwork should be reviewed by Town Administration and that he believed Chief Forsythe was not telling
them the full truth. The Deputy Town Supervisor told the Deputy Chiefs that this was a serious law enforcement matter
and they needed to advise her of the best course of action to proceed with this matter. It was determined that the District
Attorney’s Office should be engaged. District Attorney Doorley agreed that her office should investigate the accident.

Additionally, with respect to media attention on the issue, a Town employee saw a news station cameraman with
whom he is familiar outside of the GPD impound lot, trying to get a picture of the lot. The Town employee reports that
there were several cameramen in the area at the time, so he approached his acquaintance to find out what was going on.
The cameraman/acquaintance said that Former Chief Pat Phelan (recently retired GPD Chief) had broke a story of the
Forsythe MVA to a particular reporter (who the cameraman named specifically) and now all the photographers were sent
down to the impound lot by their stations to try to obtain photos of the vehicle. The Town did not find out about this
encounter until sometime after the matter had been referred to the District Attorney. This information was not
documented with the GPD or the District Attorney’s Office.

IV. Findings:

1. The following GPD policies are applicable and/or were violated: Policy manual Sections 200.4.3, 200.5, 301.3,
301.3.2, 320.4, 320.5, 320.5.1, 320.5.2, 320.5.7, 320.5.8, 320.5.9, 323.4, 329.4, 403.6, 403.7, 501.1, 501.2, 501.3,
501.5.3, 600.4.1, 600.4.2, 800.3. Additionally, the Code of Ethics, Oath of Office, Vehicle and Traffic Law (related to
leaving the scene of an MVA, and the GPD Standards of Conduct Section 172(h) were not followed by GPD officers
in various instances.
2. Before Former Chief Forsythe was taken home, the responding sworn members should have recognized the
significance of what was occurring, as there was minimally sufficient reasonable suspicion to conduct field sobriety
testing and use the alco-sensor to detect alcohol.
3. Certain GPD members, including one GPD member that was contacted at the initial stages of the investigation,
were aware that Former Chief Forsythe was at a fundraiser prior to the MVA and could have/should have shared
that information with officers on the scene. This was a failure to disclose pertinent information that was critical to

6
 the assessment of reasonable suspicion. However, officers on the scene failed to ask the Chief any questions about
where he had been prior to the MVA or if he had been drinking. The highest-ranking officer involved with the MVA
response failed to instruct those involved to make these inquiries and just advised the responding officers to do
what they “saw fit”. There is no doubt that the GPD members responding needed to complete a more thorough
and complete investigation regarding the damage and overall incident. Minimally, one of the GPD members
responding should have asked the Chief if he had been drinking.
4. The highest-ranking officer involved failed to supervise or provide subordinate officers with clear directions,
though he did advise them to take Former Chief Forsythe home, provide medical care, and eventually not to take
photos of the scene in which the accident took place. Responding officers were put in an awkward position to deal
with the Chief alone when they were instructed to: "Do what they saw fit” or “Do whatever you have to do"
without further explanation or directives.
5. GPD immediately should have utilized another agency as an investigative unit based upon the circumstances
presented. GPD was influenced by the Former Chief being involved.
6. Certain individuals in the GPD were not completely forthcoming in their statements, omitted information during
the investigation, gave inconsistent and evasive testimony during internal interviews, and in at least four instances
were untruthful.
7. GPD failed in not classifying the Chief’s actions as "Leaving the Scene." GPD should have recognized that the
length of travel (6.1 miles) in a vehicle with that much damage, traveling to North Greece Rd. and English Rd. (that
was acknowledged it was closer the Chief Forsythe's home) was not in the path from 390 North to Precinct 1, and
that Chief Forsythe could have stopped anywhere once off 390 North and tried to utilize/contact a civilian to make
a call to OEC or GPD supervisor. This information would make a reasonable person believe that Former Chief
Forsythe was a leaving the scene of a property damage accident, and even more so, a trained Police Officer and/or
Command staff member.
8. One Supervisor conducted a rogue investigation, taking GPD information from systems without authorization, and
taking photos and evidence of an MVA (subsequently a criminal MVA) and distributed information related to the
MVA to a civilian without permission of the GPD (which is a violation of law and policy). The Town and the GPD
have in place a robust whistleblowing policy that can and should have been followed in this instance, if the
member believed the matter was not being handled ethically.

V. Penalty Recommendations/Explanation

1. Certain involved sworn members recommended for Formal Written Reprimand. A Written Reprimand does
constitute discipline; this is not a mere training memo; rather, it is the first disciplinary step in the Town’s
progressive disciplinary process under the Town’s disciplinary procedures for sworn offices. Moreover, the Written
Reprimands should state that if similar misconduct occurs in the future, termination may be an appropriate
penalty. This allows sworn members notice of the deficiency and an opportunity to improve. The Written
Reprimands are recommended for officers who were tangentially involved, or those who were involved directly
but operating under instructions from a higher-level command officer.
2. Unpaid suspension days are recommended for several sworn members, with the maximum recommended
suspension being up to 30 calendar days of unpaid leave.
3. One demotion is recommended (a demotion is not disciplinary under the Town’s disciplinary procedures);
however, this is our recommendation for the ranking officer due to a failure to supervise subordinate officers and
untruthfulness, which we have identified as the primary cause of the GPD’s inadequate response to Former Chief
Forsythe’s MVA.
4. Several officers investigated were exonerated due to limited or no involvement or because no policy was violated
by their conduct.

VI. Recommendations:

1. Policy updates and training on subjects including, but not limited to: Roll Call training on Whistleblower Policy,
Fleet MVA Police Work, and Reporting Procedures (including the requirement to notify the Town Administration
immediately).
2. Fleet Vehicle Accident investigations policy should be reviewed and adjusted to include who is in charge,
notifications, medical care, documentation required, and when to use other agencies.
3. Require use of alco-sensor in all fleet vehicle accidents (possibly anything more than an officer involved minor
MVA with no unusual circumstances), along with post-accident drug and alcohol testing.

7
4. Adjust GPD Policy 501.6.1 “INVESTIGATION BY OUTSIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY” to include use of an
investigatory agency for any incident, beyond a simple accident, that a GPD member is involved in.
5. Modify officer complaints, accidents, and reporting instructions, with emphasis placed on the fact that the
involved party is not in charge of the investigation, nor can he/she be involved in the investigation. Specify that if a
Chief is involved, the Deputy Chief and Deputy Town Supervisor will be contacted immediately to determine if an
outside agency will be called. GPD needs a clear, written policy for what and when incidents should be reported to
Town Supervisor or Deputy Supervisor.
6. Modify Policy 501.6.2 “ACCIDENTS INVOLVING SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH”. This should be amended to include
more than simple Fleet Vehicle MVAs.
7. Amend Policy 503.5 to specify “reasonable suspicion” versus “probable cause” in unusual accidents.
8. Policies should include details regarding photographing of fleet MVAs: identify what should be included, such as,
scene of accident, vehicle, debris field, officer involved (showing injury or lack thereof), damage to roadway or
area in which the vehicle stopped. Write the policy to require certain documentation and photographing when
officers are injured, which can be important for workers’ compensation claims and to protect both the Town and
an involved officer. (Photos for Policy 323.5.5. “TOWN PERSONNEL OR PROPERTY”).
9. GPD should add a policy to require expectations of reporting observations made by off-duty GPD members,
especially ranking or command personnel. At a minimum GPD policy should require contact with an on-duty
supervisor, unless it is an emergency situation then to OEC.
10. GPD policy should more clearly prohibit accessing of computerized information, such as MDC or TRACS, for an
investigation that the officer is not involved in. Supervisor approval should be required for access.
11. Add an officer ethics policy to include more areas of concern than financial areas.
12. Add controls around GPD media response. The response is currently informal. More checks/process needs to be
put in place before media inquiries are answered.