►
From YouTube: PRB Hearing 06 23 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
afternoon,
everyone
thank
you
all
for
being
here
today
for
the
personnel
review
board
hearing
for
nicole
reeves
of
the
police
department
we
do
have.
It
appears.
The
parties
are
here
for
both
the
city
and
for
the
employee,
so
I'll
go
over
my
particulars
here
and
then
we
will
yield
to
the
chair
of
the
personnel
review
board
for
today.
A
A
There
are
three
board
members
that
must
be
present
in
order
to
conduct
a
hearing,
and
we
do
have
a
more
than
three
board
members
here
today.
The
members
are
subject
to
the
code
of
ethics
that
are
contained
in
the
city's
charter.
As
such,
the
members
are
required
to
recuse
themselves
if
they
have
a
conflict
of
interest
in
the
case,
meaning
they
know
the
individual.
Miss
reeves
they've
been
her
employee
or
employer,
or
they
have
some
other
type
of
business
relationship
with
the
employee.
A
The
standard
of
review
for
today's
hearing
is
that
the
board
shall
the
board's
review
shall
be
made
in
accordance
with
the
following
standards:
adverse
actions
appeal
to
the
board.
The
board
will
be
affirmed
unless
they
are
found
to
constitute
an
abuse
of
discretion
given
by
the
official.
The
board
members
are
not
to
substitute
their
own
personal
judgment
or
to
second
guess
the
decision-makers.
A
A
A
B
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
ladies
and
gentlemen.
Welcome
you
to
today's
personal
review
board
meeting
at
this
time.
We
will
allow
the
board
members
to
introduce
themselves,
and
then
we
will
allow
the
appealing
party
to
introduce
herself
and
her
representative
and
then
at
which
time
we'll
allow
the
consolidated
government
representative
to
represent
to
introduce
herself,
and
we
can
start
without
with
me.
My
name
is
torrence
goodwin
michael
forte,.
B
B
B
B
At
this
time
the
session
can
begin,
and
when
mr
jackson
and
ms
reeves,
you
may
begin
your.
B
E
Good
afternoon
is
mr
regional
state,
I'm
attorney
stacey
jackson
I'll
be
obviously
representing
her
in
the
this
meeting
or
session
this
afternoon.
First
of
all,
let
me
just
thank
you
all
for
the
meeting
and
for
the
opportunity
to
hear
the
appeal
of
miss
reeves.
E
You
have
to
excuse
abnormally,
as
it
was
indicated,
normally
I'm
in
a
different
different
setting
in
in
a
courtroom
in
front
of
a
judge
and
a
jury
versus
a
panel.
E
So
if
bob
may
veer
off
into
that
type
of
argument
or
session,
let
me
apologize
in
the
forefront,
but
basically
for
my
understanding
that
we're
here
today
on
the
findings
of
a
violation
of
several
sections
which
are
indicated,
the
officer
professional
standards
in
the
section
1
5
2,
5,
3,
1,
7,
6,
8,
7,
six
d,
seven,
six,
h,
seven,
six,
j,
seven,
six
p
and
basically
the
whole
premise
of
my
argument.
E
I'll
just
keep
it
brief
is
that
in
looking
at
the
structure
of
the
case
and
from
my
understanding
it
wasn't
the
original
attorney
on
the
case,
and
probably
some
of
my
followings
would
be
a
little
bit
different.
But
you
know
it
was
kind
of
turned
over
to
me,
so
I'm
gonna
run
with
the
on
the
football
it
was
as
it
was
given
to
me.
But
basically,
my
understanding
of
the
background
is
that
after
miss
reeve's
arrest,
there
wasn't
an
internal
affairs
investigation.
E
She
was
arrested.
These
policies
I
mentioned
were
sustained.
She
was
put
on
administrative
leave
without
pay
and
then
at
some
point
in
time
a
decision
was
made
by,
I
believe,
at
the
time
teeth
born
to
fire
her
and
basically,
what
we're
asking
is
somewhat
of
not
a
reversal
of
everything,
but
simply
just
re
a
reversal
of
her
firing.
E
What
we're
asking
to
the
board
the
panel
to
do
is
to
rescind
the
firing
and
let
her
go
back
to
administrative
leave
without
pay
until
the
the
completion
of
the
criminal
case.
It
was
my
goal
to
actually,
as
I
received
the
case
from
the
prior
defense
team
that
was
representing
her
before
on
the
criminal
side,
to
hopefully
have
this
case
adjudicated
and
hopefully
dismissed
prior
to
coming
before
you
all
today.
E
But
the
assistant
district
attorney
that
was
assigned
to
the
case
tina
stanford
went
out
on
medical
leave,
for,
I
believe,
a
back
and
neck
surgery
and
the
case
had
to
be
reassigned
to
someone
in
the
assistant,
da's
office
and
right
now,
it's
basically
just
just
sitting
and
just
to
come.
Compare
a
couple
of
things
that
normally
in
our
in
looking
at
one
of
the
policies.
I
know
one
of
the
policies
where
it
can
be
sustained.
E
But
in
this
particular
instance,
this
case
has
sat
for
several
years
and
the
case
has
not
even
gone
to
the
grand
jury
from
the
da's
office,
and
I
understand
that
there
obviously
was
a
if
you're,
not
aware
with
the
judicial
emergency
from
about
march
of
2020
to
somewhere
around
november
of
2020
the
grand
jury
here,
muskego
county
was
not
operating,
but
this
incident
happened
well
before
the
coronavirus
pandemic
started
and
there
was
several
opportunities
to
take
the
case
of
the
grand
jury
and
since
we
began
operating
by
the
grand
jury
process
late
last
year,
the
case
still
has
not
gone
before
a
grand
jury
to
be
heard.
E
So
if
the
case
was
true
bill,
miss
reeves
were
indicted.
She
could
have
her
case
heard
and
a
court
of
law
by
12
peers
to
render
whatever
verdict
they
felt
was
proper
in
this
particular
case
and
because
on
the
criminal
side,
I
understand
this
is
an
administrative
hearing.
There
is
a
presumption
of
of
of
innocence
until
you
had
your
case
adjudicated
and
that's.
Basically,
all
we're
asking
this
panel
to
do
is
to
rescind
the
termination
lever
on
administrative
leave
without
pay
and
then
once
her
case
goes
through
adjudication.
E
Until
then,
I
will
say
from
my
understanding
as
far
as
a
pro
certification
it
has
and
through
their
investigation
it
has
not
been
terminated
her.
She
does
not
have
arrest
power,
she
can't
run.
You
know,
radar,
but
they're.
Basically,
a
post
is
waiting
for
a
disposition
from
her
criminal
action.
That's
pending
before
muscari
county
superior
court.
E
Now
my
also
my
understanding
that
there's
part
two
of
our
appeal
is
this:
that,
in
my
understanding
there
is
also
a
second
part
of
fair
treatment
report
or
response
was
filed
either
by
miss
reeves
or
the
prior
attorneys
in
the
case-
and
I
want
to
take
a
few
moments
to
focus
on
that
as
well.
E
We're
asking
miss
reeves
to
be
treated
no
differently
from
other
officers
in
the
past,
whether
it
be
by
race
or
by
gender
that
have
also
had
criminal
cases
pending
with
either
the
da's
office
or
the
solicitor's
office,
without
them
being
terminated
so
she's
just
asking
that
she
be
treated
the
the
same
way,
and
I
just
and
in
my
understanding
in
the
response
that
was
filed,
there
was
a
list
of
some
specific
cases
in
which
officers
violations
were
sustained.
E
Some
were
were
charged,
some
end
up,
not
being
terminated,
some
resigned
and
then
in
one
particular
case
that
I'll
also
point
out
one
was
actually
even
promoted.
Actually
one
and
I'll
just
just
give
the
the
panel
just
a
quick
list.
One
was
sergeant
mark
richards,
whose
patrol
car,
while
on
duty,
was
involved
in
an
accident
and
he
left
left
the
scene.
I
believe
the
accident
was
on
june
24
2016.
E
E
The
investigation
by
internal
affairs
was
undocumented
and
he
was
simply
suspended,
received
no
loss
in
pay,
for
my
understanding
was
also
able
to
use
his
vacation
hours
or
comp
time
and
to
use
as
a
resource
to
not
you
know,
lose
any
any
money
or
time.
In
2019
there
was
a
special
agent
alex
baranovis
who
formed
an
unprofessional
relationship
with
a
confidential
informant
and
actually
from
my
understanding
of
that
requested,
which
is
a
not
only
a
violation.
E
I
would
assume
city
policy,
but
also
state
in
in
federal
law,
requested
new
photos
from
the
informant
and
basically
allowed
her
to
as
long
as
he
was
getting
the
naked
photos
and
they
were
able
to
continue
their
unprofessional
relationship
that
she
could
sell
drugs
and
as
long
as
she
didn't
get
caught
from
my
understanding,
he
received
five
days
without
pay.
Now
from
my
understanding
that
actually
agent
bear
novus
now
works.
E
For
I
think
it's
a
manager
for
a
local,
I
won't
name
the
food
company,
but
a
local
food
company,
but
he
was
not
terminated.
He
did
resign,
but
he
was
not
terminated
after
confessing
to
his
ill-behavior
ill
behavior,
and
also
violating
two
policies.
E
Just
spell
that,
for
the
record,
first
name
is
c-e-t-a-n
last
name
webster
that
was
charged
with
aggravated
stalking
and
also-
and
this
actually
from
my
it
was
happened
a
long
time
ago,
january
15th
2015,
which
I
believe
in
my
limited
memory.
Maybe
in
the
case
that
I
had
actually
personally
involved
in
in
representing
the
defendant,
but
basically
officer
webster
was
having
an
illicit
affair
with
this
man's
wife
and
actually
charged
charging
with
aggravated
stalking
for
sending
an
email
that
was
in
violation
of
a
temporary
protective
order.
E
But
it
was
proved
that
this
was
actually
a
lie
because
the
person,
the
suspect
in
the
case,
was
actually
in
prison
at
the
time
and
will
make
it
absolutely
impossible
for
him
to
send
the
his
ex
an
email
and
actually
officer.
Webster
actually
tried
to
involve
another
officer
to
make
the
false
charges
for
his
personal
gain.
F
E
In
all
candor,
he
did
resign
from
the
police
department
after
some
suicide
attempts
and
a
dui
conviction,
but
he
was
only
placed
on
unpaid
administrative
leave,
but
but
never
charged
with
a
with
a
crime.
Actually
what's
also
interesting
is
that
in
this
case
one
of
the
investigative
officers
sergeant
jane
edenfield
who's.
E
Since
she
was
actually
over
the
age
of
16,
it
wouldn't
be
a
child
molestation,
but
it
would
be
a
misdemeanor
sexual
assault
because
the
the
child
been
16
years
or
above
she
was
not
charged,
but
still
would
could
be
charged
with
con
contributing
to
delinquency
of
a
minor
which,
on
the
ocga
code
16-12-1.
E
But
she
was
suspended
suspended
on
for
five
days
without
pay,
not
where
I
would
think
it
would
be
sustained
on
the
unbecoming
of
an
officer
in
a
violation
of
oath
of
office,
but
she
was
found
have
violated
nine
policies
and
I
believe
she
was
actually
may
have
been
actually
promoted
after
that
incident,
but
definitely
not
not
terminated
or
fired.
E
I
haven't
seen
the
actual
report,
but
I
do
know
that
she
was.
It
was
sustained
that
she
had
violated
policy
and
she
was
suspended
for
only
suspended
for
three
days
without
pay,
and
there
was
clear
videotape
evidence
that
she
had
also
violated
her
oath
of
office
and
that
she
had
actually
committed
a
theft
but
forever
reasons
that
she
was
not
terminated
from
her
duties.
We
also
have
officer
clay
watkins,
who
I
won't
compare
all
the
the
circumstances
to
the
george
ford
case.
E
I'm
sure
everyone
in
the
room
is
familiar
with,
but
basically
this
was
an
incident
that
took
place
in
september
18
2020,
which
I've
actually
had
opportunity
to
view
the
footage
where
it
was
sustained
that
he
actually
physically
assaulted
a
suspect
that
was
actually
handcuffed
and
was
unable
to
defend
himself,
and
it
was
only
after,
even
though
the
police
department
was
aware
of
the
the
violations
it
was
only
after.
E
I
believe
it
when
our
current
district
attorney
mark
jones
was
running
for
running
for
election
this
past
year
that,
after
some
comments,
he
had
made
about
doing
some
internal
investigations
about
police
brutality
that
the
video
went
viral
on
on
facebook
by
one
of
his
supporters
and
received
some
attention
from
the
gbi
and
fbi
that,
although
that
this
video
was
available
to
the
columbus
police
department
a
year
prior,
that
he
was
then
arrested
by
the
gbi
in
charge
with
battery
and
violation
of
oath
of
office
for
the
excessive
force.
E
And
it's
still
from
my
understanding
just
suspended
with
or
without
pay.
I
don't
know
with
pay
or
without
pay,
but
he's
still
a
member
of
columbus
police
department.
It
has
not
been
terminated,
even
though
he
has
been
arrested
by
the
dba
gbi
for
those
for
those
charges,
also
just
a
couple
of
other
cases
that
that
I'll
mention,
as
as
my
time
draws
to
closing
that
there
was
a
officer,
joel
reed.
E
E
He
was
charged
with
battery
and
some
other
related
charges
where
he
was
and
still
was,
with
the
police
department
and
not
terminated,
or
at
least,
let
me
say,
that's
not
terminated
and
then
there's
a
jane
curington
and
for
the
record
I
believe
that
c-u-r-e-n-t-o-n,
who
basically
committed
theft
by
stealing
time
he
was
actually
why
he
was
supposed
to
be
at
work.
E
He
was
also
working,
I
believe,
for
the
the
georgia
pageant
at
a
time
in
another
location,
but
basically
getting
paid
for
being
in
two
places
at
one
time,
which
is
pretty
much
impossible.
So
this
is
just
some
examples
and
then
there
was
just
one
last
incident
that
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
I
forgot
it's
a
james
bessner,
that's
b-e-z-n-e-r,.
E
Where
he
was
stalking
a
13
year
old
female,
while
online
from
my
understanding
and
then
through
the
open
records
act,
he
did.
He
never
was
charged
with
the
georgia
code
of
stalking
and
he
was
reassigned
to
another
unit.
From
my
understanding,
the
officer
did
eventually
resign
either
for
that
reason
or
others,
but
he
was
not
terminated.
E
So
these
are
just
simply
examples
that
I
mentioned
in
the
fair
treatment
aspect
of
ms
reed's
appeal
that
she
does
not
want
to
be
treated
any
differently
from
those
individuals
for
whatever
reason,
whether
it
be
gender,
whether
it
be
race
or
any
other
type
of
disparity
between
herself
and
the
the
men
and
women
in
these
cases
that
were
not
fired,
not
suspended,
and
then,
ironically,
in
the
miss,
I
believe,
she's
detective,
now
detective
stills
case
where
she
was
actually
because
she
at
the
time
she
was
a
corporal
that
actually,
after
the
incident
actually
rewarded
by
our
promotion
and
just
to
give
you
just
kind
of
just
kind
of
an
example
of
how
that
can
affect
the
police
department
cases
any
case
that
she
makes
as
a
detective
for
attorneys
myself
or
another
defense
attorney.
E
That
would
be
rep
representing
anyone
that
she's
arrested
anyone
that
she
arrests
could
now
call
in
the
question
her
her.
I
guess
sincerity
or
credibility
on
any
arrest
that
she
makes
because
it
was
found
that
to
use
or
sustained
by
the
police
department's
own
indication
of
being
a
thief
and
that
even
there's
a
case
law
that
that
basically
states
that
the
jury
doesn't
even
have
to
accept
their
testimony
as
a
witness,
regardless
of
being
a
lay
person
or
a
detective.
E
So
with
that
being
said,
we're
just
asking
again
that
the
view
board
reverse
determination
and
place
her
on
administrative
leave
without
pay
and
wait
for
the
results
of
the
criminal
investigation.
I
have
just
a
very
couple
of
minutes
of
testimony
from
miss
reeves
and
then
I'll
be
done.
E
B
If
you
would
allow
your
witness
to
go
to
the
witness
stand
in
front
of
her
and
I
think
there's
a
speak
button
there,
he
has
growing
red
now
so
so
that
please
make
sure
you're
speaking
to
the
mic
clearly,
so
that
we
can
have
a
record
of
it.
Thank
you
or
if
you
you
know,
I
know
you
you
could
probably
grab
come
to
this
stand.
If
you
want
to
yeah,
I
know
you're
a
little
tall
too.
E
I
don't
believe
this
is
there.
It
is
all
right
dude
throughout
the
course
of
then
the
investigation,
I
believe,
there's
I'm
not
sure
the
rank,
but
I
believe
he's
maybe
either
corporal
or
maybe
sergeant
alvareman,
there's
sergeant
edinfeel
other
investigating
officers
throughout
the
course
of
the
investigation.
Doing
your
statements
to
them
explanation
of
the
facts
and
circumstances:
did
you
provide
to
them
the
truthful
statements
to
the
best
of
your
natural
abilities
for
the
circumstances
surrounding
your
case.
C
E
And
just
as
as
I
mentioned
as
far
as
the
criminal
aspect
of
the
case,
as
I
mentioned,
to
the
board
that
I
was
not
the
first
attorney
on
the
case,
but
my
understanding
is
that
your
case
has
not
gone
through
the
criminal
process
through
muscogee
county
superior
court.
Is
that
still
the
case
correct?
Okay,
you
haven't
received
any
information
about
when
your
cases
go
to
trial
or
anything
such
as
that.
As
far
as
dependency
of
the
criminal
action.
C
E
E
Even
if
they
were
to
pitch
on
active
duty
because
of
post
suspension.
They
would
still
limit
your
abilities
to
be
a
police
officer
that
correct
yes,
because
you
don't
have
the
power
to
arrest.
B
E
But
since
post
still
has
their
suspension
in
their
investigation,
am
I
also
correct
so
what
you're
asking
is
to
reverse
determination
and
at
least
at
a
minimum,
allow
you
to
go
back
to
the
the
form
of
being
suspended
without
pay
until
the
criminal
case
is
resolved,
so
that
I
articulate
that
correctly
to
the
board.
F
B
All
right,
mr
jackson,
you
have
seven
more
minutes,
seven
minutes
and
39
seconds.
Do
you
have
any
further
witnesses.
E
I
don't
have
any
other
witnesses.
The
only
thing
I
do
want
to
mention
is
that,
from
my
understanding
is
that
you
would
have
the
same
case
summary
that
I've
been
given
by
attorney
johnson
through
their
office.
E
The
other
meant
the
thing.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
you
all
have.
I
know
before
she
was
able
to
attain
an
attorney.
Miss
reeves
filed
the
response
as
part
as
the
fair
treatment
report,
and
it
was
given
to
representatives
from
the
city.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
you
all
have
those
documents
as
a
part
of
your
file
from
those
officers
that
I
mentioned
before
is.
B
E
And
and
while
I
guess
you
never
give
an
attorney
the
opportunity
not
to
stop
talking,
but
I
mean,
let
me
just
address
a
couple
of
things
because,
obviously
you
know
it'd
be
miss
johnson's
turn
and
I'm
not
sure
what
what
she
may
argue.
So
let
me
just
take
it
since
I
have
a
couple
moments
to
address
some
of
the
parts
of
the
investigation
that
I
just
want
to
point
out
in
argument
from
my
understanding
that
there
was
the
main
testimony
was
from
from
two
in
individuals.
E
That,
I
believe,
admitted
that
they
had
been
inside
the
vehicle.
I
think
in
just
in
the
effort
of
good
police
work
officer.
Varderman
had
asked
that
the
the
vehicle
be
fingerprinted
and
once
the
car
was
fingerprinted
that
it
was
found
that
one
of
the
gentlemen
who
officer
vardaman
started
the
interview
took
the
statement
from
did
admit
being
inside
of
that
vehicle.
Obviously,
the
circumstances
we
believe
are
different,
set
a
circumstance
of
how
he
got
that
vehicle.
E
Ms
reese
contends
that
she
was
there
on
book
street
with
miss
tucker
and
a
couple
other
friends
and
then
realized.
Her
cart
had
been
missing
and
made
the
report.
E
What
we
believe
is
that
those
two
two
gentlemen
kristen
not
sure
how
to
pronounce
his
first
name,
but
mr
smith
had
took
that
the
charge,
without
her
permission,
crashed
and
damaged
the
vehicle
and
took
the
keys
back
to
the
to
the
house
in
the
effort
not
to
have
miss
re-realize
that
they
had
took
the
car
without
permission
and
damaged
it,
and
one
thing
that
I
also
want
to
point
out
too
they're
still
in
in
the
effort
of
good
police,
where
officer
varderman
did
receive
a
videotape.
E
Some
surveillance,
video
from
where
the
car
from
the
area
where
the
car
for
lack
of
their
turn,
crashed
or
was
damaged.
E
That's
mentioned
in
that
report
that,
before
arriving
after
being
called
by
police
that
she's
seen
getting
in
and
out
of
that
vehicle
by
surveillance
period,
and
we
we
believe
that
that
she
had
been
the
one
which
I'm
assuming
that
they're
trying
to
argue
that
she's,
the
one
that
that
you
know
damaged
the
card
and
the
effort
made
the
false
report.
I
would
think
that
someone
getting
out
of
a
dodge
charge-
that's
this
six,
three,
whether
they're,
male
or
female,
that's
irrelevant
that
would
have
been
on
the
videotape.
E
But
that's
that's
not
that's
not
the
the
case
so
so
ever
whatsoever
and
that
I
think,
with
the
fingerprints
that
officer
waterman
found
or
the
id
technicians
found
actually
goes.
I
actually
believe
in
ms
reed's
favor
that
either
one
of
those
gentlemen
or
both
of
them
took
the
vehicle
without
her
permission,
did
damage
to
it
and
tried
to
hide
those
events
from
miss
reeves
and
I
didn't
know
there
was
some
some
mention
in
and
I'm
not
sure
just
part
of
the
the
assertion
of
the
city
on
the
kind
of
unbecoming
of
officer.
E
There
was
some
mention
that
ms
reeve's
word
was,
or
maybe
may
have
been
when
she
came
to
the
scene
under
the
influence
of
alcohol
or
some
other
intoxicant,
but
I
just
also
just
want
to
point
out
that
she
was
off.
She
was
not
on
duty.
She
was
not
subject
to
call.
I
know
there
are
certain
officers,
detectives
and
other
officers
that
they
can
be
called
at
a
moment's
notice,
like
homicide
detectives
or
what
have
you
if
they're,
you
know
on
call
for
the
weekend.
She
was
not
in
that
position.
E
She
had
her
assigned
time
off,
so
there
was
no
legal
if
one
were
to
believe
that
she
might
have
been
had
something
to
drink
that
night.
There
was
no
legal
that
was
okay.
There
was
no
policy
violated
because
she
may
have
been
just
hanging
out
at
a
friend's
house
having
a
couple
of
drinks.
If
that's
to
be
to
be
believed-
and
there
are
several
just
if
this
were
to
be
a
criminal
case.
E
And
to
be
critical
of
any
prior
counsel
that
may
have
been
representing
her
there,
I
did
see
in
the
the
city's
summary
that
they
felt
there
was
a
violation
that
she
had
stopped
reporting
every
every
monday,
from
my
understanding
on
receipt
of
advice
from
council
at
the
time,
the
prior
attorney
believed
once
again
not
to
be
critical,
believe
that
since
she
was
suspended
without
pay
and
not
subject
to
being
called
into
work,
or
what
have
you
may
have
believed
that
she
wasn't
technically
a
city
employee
and
not.
E
And
not
subject
to
being
called
in
to
just
report
in
like
persons
on
probation
or
or
whatever,
if
they
if
they
would
to
a
probation
officer,
because
they
were
in
trouble,
it
may
have
been
advice
from
someone
that
may
have
not
been
familiar
with
the
policies
and
procedures
when
it
comes
into
dealing
with
these.
These
issues
and
on
the
advice
of
council
had
stopped
reporting.
E
E
And
lastly,
as
my
last
few
seconds
conclude
that
I
believe
the
only
other
violation
that
was
on
a
record
is
that
a
failure
to
report
to
duty,
I
believe
there
was
she
showed
up
late
for
work
or
something
to
that
of
fate.
I
mean
I
shown
that
day
so
with
that
being
said,
just
thank
you
for
your
time
and
I
ask
you
to
consider
our
request.
Thank
you.
D
Reeves
employment
was
terminated
after
the
columbus
police
department
office
of
professional
standards,
which
is
in
which
is
an
internal
administrative
review.
Division
determined
that
reeves
had
falsely
reported
her
cars
stolen
in
an
effort
to
avoid
a
potential
dui
in
doing
that,
reeves
wasted
valuable
city
time
and
resources
in
investigating
false
theft.
D
She
abused
her
position
as
a
police
officer
and
she
violated
her
oath
of
office.
She
also
reeves
also
behaved
unacceptably
throughout
the
internal
investigation
process,
intentionally
disregarding
orders
given
by
ops
officials
and
attempting
to
mislead
the
investigation.
Now
this
is
an
administrative
review.
The
review
and
the
investigation
that
resulted
in
reeves
termination
was
an
administrative
process
completely
separate
from
any
criminal
trial
or
process.
D
Any
arrests
that
may
have
occurred
would
have
occurred,
based
on
warrants
signed
off
by
a
judge
that
is
independent,
as
well
as
a
d.a
and
their
movements.
That
is
a
separate
organization
from
ccg
and
has
it's
a
separate
entity
and
ccg
has
no
involvement
in
that
both
cpd
and
ccg
policies
state
and
make
clear
that
an
employee
can
be
terminated
for
criminal
actions,
regardless
of
the
final
disposition
of
any
criminal
case
or
charges.
D
D
Is
it's
not
a
second
guessing
of
chief
boren's
decision
to
terminate
on
this
matter
and
it
can
only
be
found
in
two
circumstances
if
you
find
that
chief
born
somehow
failed
to
consider
some
facts
or
circumstances
relating
to
the
decision
or
if
he
arbitrarily
or
unreasonably
departed
from
policy,
he
did
neither
of
those
two
things
and
I
have
not
heard
from
miss
reeves
or
her
counsel.
That
chief
born
did
either
of
those
two
things.
I
haven't
heard
an
argument
that
chief
boren
did
an
abuse
of
discretion.
D
Here
there
was
no
facts
or
logic
left,
unconsidered
in
this
matter.
Chief
borum
based
his
decision
to
terminate
on
the
fi
on
the
findings
of
an
approximately
year-long
internal
investigation
conducted
by
a
group
of
seven
internal
investigators
with
the
office
of
of
professional
standards.
The
investigation
resulted
in
a
completion
of
this
ops
report,
which
I
will
enter
as
ccgs
exhibit
one
and
you
all
will
get
a
copy
of.
D
After
that
hearing,
miss
reeves
was
also
given
five
days
in
the
appropriate
amount
of
time
to
submit
a
written
statement
before
the
final
decision
determinant
was
made.
She
did
so
and
chief
warren
considered
that,
before
deciding
to
terminate
reeve's
employment,
reeve's
termination
was
wholly
in
line
and
supported
by
both
ccg
policy
when
hired.
D
D
I
will
not
shield
the
guilty
from
prosecution
or
punishment,
nor
will
I
be
influenced
in
the
discharge
of
my
duty
by
fear,
favor
or
affection,
reward
or
hope
thereof.
In
my
acts
and
doings,
I
will
be
governed
by
the
rules
and
ordinances
applicable
to
the
columbus
police
department,
the
code
of
ethics.
Again,
it's
long
so
I'll
read
a
small
portion.
That's
relevant
here
state
that
I
will
keep
my
private
life
unsullied
as
an
example
to
all
develop
self-restraint,
honest
and
thought.
D
I'm
going
to
go
over
them
briefly,
the
oath
of
office
violation
which
we
just
heard
about,
which
is
actually
also
a
felony
under
georgia
law
to
violate
that
the
stand.
Cpd
standard
of
conduct
rule
which
states
that
employees
shall
conduct
their
private
and
professional
lives
in
such
a
manner
as
to
avoid
adverse
criticism
upon
themselves.
D
The
department
and
law
enforcement
profession,
the
cvd
conformance
to
law
rule
which
says
that
employees
shall
obey
all
laws.
A
conviction
is
not
necessary
or
required
in
order
for
the
department
to
take
disciplinary
action
against
employees.
If
the
departmental
investigation
of
the
matter
shows,
the
violation
did
occur.
D
The
cpd
commission
of
crime
rule
which
prohibits
commission
of
crimes,
the
cpd
neglect
or
dare
election
of
duty,
which
includes
a
failure
to
comply
with
orders,
conduct
unbecoming
an
officer
which
requires
that
officers
conduct
themselves
at
all
times,
both
on
and
off
duty
in
such
a
manner
as
to
reflect
favorably
on
cpd,
the
cpd
truthfulness
rule,
which
is
cited
as
1.1-7.6,
but
it's
actually
f.
When
you
look
at
the
cpd
rules,
a
little
typo
there.
D
And
the
acts
of
insubordination,
which
also
cover
covers
failure
to
obey
lawful
orders
ruiz,
was
also
found
to
have
violated
two
ccg
works
rules,
work
rules,
conduct
on
or
off
city
property.
That
would
adversely
reflect
reflect
on
the
reputation
of
ccg
and
conduct
constituting
a
felony
under
the
laws
of
georgia,
irrespective
of
whether
or
not
criminal
charges
are
brought
for
such
conduct.
G
D
G
G
D
G
D
G
G
G
So
the
findings
of
the
fact
regards.
D
Investigation
did
the
office
of
professional
standards
find
that
reeves
on
the
night
of
august
8th
that
reeves
was
drinking
alcohol
with
her
friends
at
5833
bunch
street.
G
Right
the
course
of
this
investigation
revealed
that
officer
reeves
had
met
some
friends
at
the
house
on
bunche
street
and
where
they
engaged
in
drinking
alcoholic
beverages
and
the
investigation
the
through
the
course
of
the
investigation.
The
evidence
revealed
that
nicole
had
consumed
an
amount
of
alcoholic
beverages
and
she,
after
the
consumption
of
alcohol
beverages,
she
left
driving
her
vehicle
and
after
driving
her
vehicle
for
a
short
period
of
time,
leaving
from
the
bunches
street
location
and
route
to
her
residence,
which
is
approximately
only
about
10
minutes
away
from
the
bunches
street
location
and
traveling.
F
G
They
they
use
the
particular
run
codes
that
are
commonly
used
to
describe
a
stranded
vehicle
or
vehicles
involved
in
an
accident,
and
so
once
this
was
communicated
another
caller
called
in,
and
we
to
give
a
description
that
would
that
would
be
very
similar
to
the
features
of
officer
reeves
and
through
the
course
of
the
investigation
of
sarees,
eventually
called
the
mother
and
reported
told
the
mother.
She
was
an
important
car
stolen.
G
Someone
had
taken
the
car,
and
so
one
of
our
officers,
who
was
investigating
the
case
from
the
the
accident
portion
of
the
case
arrived
on
scene
and
shortly
a
period
of
time
after
the
officer
who
investigated
the
accident
arrived
on
scene
officer,
reeves
arrived
on
scene.
Of
course,
her
mother
had
arrived
prior
to
officers
arriving
on
scene,
so
officer
reeves,
nicole
reese,
arrives
on
the
scene.
She
was
eating
a
sandwich
displaying
the
very
nonchalant
behavior
on
the
scene
and
very
talkative.
G
She.
She
had
to
be
told
to
just
kind
of
quiet
down
as
far
as
what
she
was
in,
because
she
she
was
steadily
talking
and
that
one
of
the
officers
during
the
course
of
our
investigation
even
informed
us
that
that's
not
her
normal
behavior.
As
far
as
to
be
so
talkative,
which
was
an
indication
that
she
was
intoxicated
and
so,
which
is
also
when
she
showed
up
eating.
The
sandwich
also
gives
the
indication
that
she
was
possibly
intoxicated
and
trying
to
eat
the
sandwich
to
try
to
diminish
a
level
of
intoxication.
D
G
Right
so
during
the
investigation
it
was
discovered
that
nicole
had
the
only
key
available.
The
officer
asked
her
was
any
other
key
available
and
she
said
the
only
working
key
was
the
one
she
had
on
her
person
and
she
she
did
not
have
any
other
key.
She
made
reference
to
another
key,
but
that
key
was
not
function
without
actually
being
a
malfunction
to
the
ignition
and.
D
D
So
there
was
no
damage
to
the
ignition
found
and
you
you
mentioned
the
pin
drop
that
was
sent
via
text
message.
Who
did
re?
Send
that
text
message
to.
G
D
D
D
Okay
and
in
that
process,
deputies,
detective,
ryan,
vardman
and
virginia
duncan
were
assigned
to
the
case
right.
That's.
G
D
And
in
that
process
they
did
some
interviews
correct
right
and
they
interviewed
miss
reeves
and
her
friends.
D
And
what
did
they
find?
Did
you
watch
the
body
cam
videos
of
those
interviews?
I
did
and
were
they
incorporated
into
this
investigation?
Okay,
what
did
reeves
friends
say
about
the
events
that
occurred.
G
In
those
interviews,
okay,
so
one
witness
that
corporate
waterman
and
corporal
duncan
interviewed
was
randy
smith,
randy
smith,
communicated
that
nicole
reeves
left
the
house
that
they
were
at
on
munchie
street
driving
the
vehicle
and
she
wrecked
the
vehicle
on
chatella
road.
She
called
rainey
smith's
friend
randy
smith's
boyfriend.
G
She
she
called
him
and
was
not
able
to
get
him.
She
called
rainey
for
someone
to
come
and
to
get
her
to
assist
her
because
she
had
wrecked
the
vehicle
and
during
that
course
of
time
it
was
revealed
that
she
talked
to
corporate
watermen
talked
to
cooley
chris
christopher
cooley,
and
he
communicated
the
same
information
as
far
as
cold
leaving
the
house
with
her
keys
and
driving
the
vehicle
and
wrecked
it
out.
So
randy
smith
and
chris
cooley
went
to
the
scene
on
chicago
road
to
assist
nicole
in
retrieving
the
vehicle.
G
They
said
that
she
was
concerned
that
someone
was
going
to
steal
her
vehicle,
but
the
vehicle
was
so
badly
damaged
that
they
could
not
move
the
vehicle.
Randy
smith,
who's
approximately
five,
eight
five,
nine
much
shorter
than
nicole,
sat
in
the
driver's
seat,
as
chris
mccooley
was
in
the
rear
vehicle
trying
to
push,
and
so
the
fingerprints
of
rainy
smith
was
in
the
area
consistent
in
the
driver's
door
frame
with
him
being
in
that
area.
Trying
to
steer
the
vehicle.
G
G
They
was
able
to
get
her
cell
phone,
she
did
the
consent
search
and
where
it
was
revealed
that
the
pin
drop
was
sent
from
officer
reeves
to
jennifer,
tucker's
cell
phone,
and
so
and
she
admits
as
well
that
what
occurred
was
consistent
with
what
rainy
smith
and
chris
cooley
stated,
and
they
all
stated
that
they
were
not
aware
that
nicole
was
going
to
call
9-1-1
and
report
her
vehicle
as
stolen.
D
D
D
When
you
interviewed
reeves
and
confronted
her
with
these
facts
and
this
testimony,
the
fact
that
she
had
the
only
working
key
in
her
possession
at
the
scene-
and
there
was
no-
that
the
ignition
had
not
been
tampered
with
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
What
was
reeve's
explanation
of
what
happened?
What
did
she
say
happened.
G
Reeves
basically
was
was
very
evasive
throughout
the
course
of
our
investigation,
but
she
eventually
said
that.
I
know
this
sounds
crazy
because
unbelievable
because
it's
hard
for
me
to
believe
it
as
well,
she
made
that
statement
during
the
course
of
our
investigation
did.
D
She
say
that
sh
what
she
thought
would
hap
what
she
thought
happened
was
that
someone,
while
she
was
hanging
out
in
this
house
with
her
two
friends
someone
broke
into
the
house,
took
her
keys,
took
her
cell
phone
eventually
took
her
car
without
anybody
seeing
her
and
noticing
her
wreck,
the
car
then
came
back
and
put
the
keys
in
the
cell
phone
back
in
the
house.
Also
without
being
noticed,
is
that
was
that
her
explanation,
that
was
that's
great
okay
after
you
completed
this
well
throughout
this
ops
investigation.
D
And
I
want
to
explain:
have
you
explained
a
little
bit?
Why
termination
here
in
this
matter?
Why
not
just
leave
her
on
leave
without
pay?
Well,.
G
We
have
a
policy
that
indicates
that,
regardless,
if,
if
an
employee
has
been
convicted
in
the
criminal
case,
but
if
the
evidence
is
present
and
then
the
employee
can
be
disciplined
proportionately
to
the
level
of
crime
or
positive
violation
in
which
they
have
taken
part
in
and
so
like.
I
said,
this
evidence
was
overwhelming
and
in
spite
of
not
having
the
criminal
conviction,
it
was
clear
that
she
took
part
in
this
behavior
from
a
criminal
standpoint
which
violates
our
policy.
D
C
C
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
C
D
C
There's
a
federal
case
that
attorney
jackson
made
mention
to
he
didn't
name
it.
It's
called
giglio
versus
the
united
states
and
it
makes
it
mandatory
that
if
an
individual
has
not
been
factual
during
investigations
during
whatever
within
the
place
of
employment,
this
this
being
the
police
department,
then
based
on
giglio,
the
defense
attorney.
I'm
sorry.
The
prosecutor
has
to
tell
the
defense
attorney
that
an
individual
has
not
been
truthful
during
investigations,
and
he
made
mention
to
that
with
other
officers.
C
D
D
Thank
you
chief
born,
and
that
is
all
that
I
have
in
my
presentation.
Besides
a
brief
closing,
as
we've
talked
about.
Thank
you.
B
B
B
B
Yes,
what
we'll
do
is
five
minutes
for
cross
and
then
we'll
give
three
minutes
each
for
your
closing
arguments
or
statements.
E
Chief
blackman,
I'm
asking
you
because
you're
the
now
acting
chief
taking
over
for
chief
chief
board
in
mentioning
chief
bourne,
had
mentioned
that
giglio
cason
and
how
important
it
is
for
officers
to
be
truthful
and
not
be
accused
of
step.
Would
you
consider,
in
case
of
detectives
still
stealing
and
theft
I
mean?
E
Would
you
agree
that
in
in
dealing
with
with
citizens,
and
that
they
should
also
should
be
trustworthy
in
whatever
type
of
case,
it
is
investigating
cases
that
they
would
be
trusting
in
the
police
department
to
know
that,
while
investigating
the
case,
they
wouldn't
have
whether
it
be
a
search
warrant,
or
you
know,
money
in
a
drug
case
or
investigating
thefts
that
their
property
would
not
be
taken
by
an
investigating
officer.
Would
you
believe?
That's
that's
pretty
important.
E
Okay,
and
but
it
also
would
you
would
be
also
fair
to
say
that
that
having
the
detective
on
the
police
force
who's
been
accused
by
their
own
internal
affairs
investigators
of
committing
the
theft
that
could
complicate
that
could
have
complications,
as
steve
board
said
in
future
investigation
and
trial.
Testimony.
Would
that
be
fair
to
say.
F
E
E
Now
would
you
also
just
a
couple
more
more
questions?
I
believe
this
took
place
either
on
your
watch
or
right
or
right.
After
is
officer,
clay
watkins
is
still
in
the
force
police.
E
E
After
being
arrested
by
the
gbi,
that's
correct
all
right,
and
would
you
feel
just
as
in
situation?
I
know
there
wasn't
a
death
but
like
in
the
george
ford,
would
you
believe
that?
Would
you
believe
that
now
that
you're,
the
chief
of
police,
that
it
would
be
important
for
citizens
of
this
community
to
believe
that
even
suspects
that
are
in
in
custody
should
be
held,
safe
and
without
without
harm?
Is
that
fair
to
say,
can
you
repeat
that,
please
let
me
I
asked
it
the
wrong
way.
Let
me
let
me
rephrase
it
that.
E
Do
you
believe
that
there
should
be
confidence
in
the
citizens
of
this
city
that
if
someone
was
taken
into
custody,
they'll
be
done
done
so
in
a
way
that
would
not
cause
them
harm
or
hurt
that
there
should
be
confidence
in
the
police
department
that
they
would
hope
that
that
would
be.
The
case.
Is
that
fair.
F
E
All
right,
and
even
though
you
were
made
aware
well,
let
me
ask
it
this
way
after
clay
watkins
was
arrested
by
the
gbi
was
your
or
chief
warren's.
Only
action
was
to
play,
I'm
not
sure
who
did
the
administrative
leave,
but
any
have
you
made
any
further
actions
other
than
administrative
leave
after
he
was
arrested
by
the
gbr.
E
F
E
G
D
D
B
G
B
B
E
I'll,
just
I'll
just
mention
that
I
will,
I
will
agree
with
known
chief
warren
for
quite
some
time
in
my
days
in
da's
office.
I
I
will
agree
with
him
that
being
having
a
a
officer
that
testified
would
be
truthful
and
have
high
standards,
and
the
court
of
law
was
very
important
and
that's
one
of
the
reason.
E
I
think
that
would
be
under
cause
to
assume
or
to
assert
an
internal
affairs
investigation,
but
but
I
think
to
just
sit
back
and
sit
and
sit
on
your
hands
and
just
say:
oh,
it's
the
gbi's
case
we're
going
to
let
that
wait
for
and
let
it
go
through
its
due
course
through
the
criminal
investigation
before
we
make
a
move,
but
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
terminate
officer.
E
Reeves-
and
I
know
he's
not
here
today
to
the
and
I'm
one-
and
I
want
to
say
this
in
a
in
a
disparaging
in
disparaging
way,
because
it's
not
my
attention
but
the
truth,
the
intention,
but
the
truth
is
the
truth.
Even
our
own
elected
district
attorney
is
under
indictment
for
felony
charges
and
misdemeanor
charges,
and
he
still
has
the
ability
to
sign
off
on
accusations
every
single
day
and
charge
people
with
crimes
and
take
cases
to
the
grand
jury,
because
the
law
has
said
even
as
the
elected
disrepair
elected
district
attorney.
E
He
was
elected.
He
was
a
charge
and
maintains
his
ability
to
prosecute
cases
and
the
reason
why
is
because
he
has
the
right
to
have
his
day
in
court
in
his
due
process.
So
we're
asking
no
different
for
officer
reeves
and
I
understand
so.
We
do
our
argument
that
it's
an
abusive
discretion
and
all
we're
asking
is
for
fairness.
We're
all
the
way
from
the
district
attorney
himself
to
ashley
steele,
to
clay
watkins,
to
mark
richards.
E
To
sergeant
edinfield
that
let
the
process
take
its
course
and
we're
not
even
asking
for
the
money
back
or
anything,
let
her
stay
suspended
without
pay,
and
we
would
feel
that
would
be
a
good
halfway
point,
and
we
just
asked
the
review
panel
to
report
to
just
rescind
that
that
that
action
and
reverse
it
back
to
suspension
without
paying
to
disposition
of
a
criminal
case.
Thank
you.
D
So
this
is
reeves
appeal
internally
before
the
prb.
She
has
the
burden
of
demonstrating
that
there
is
an
abusive
discretion
here
and
she
hasn't
done
that
we
have
heard
barely
any
testimony
regarding
an
abuse
of
discretion
and
really
anything
about
the
incident
at
issue
here.
No
real
denial
of
the
events
of
the
issue.
Here,
it's
clear
that
the
report
the
investigation
here
was
extensive.
It
was
exhaustive.
There
was
no
fact
logic
or
evidence
that
was
left
unturned
or
unconsidered
here
and
we've
established
and
shown
that
the
termination
was
in
line
with
policy.
D
D
D
And
the
facts
that
support
the
facts,
consider
these
simple
facts
that
we
had
reeves
had
the
only
key
in
her
possession
at
the
scene,
and
there
was
no
evidence
that
the
ignition
was
tampered
with.
So
how
was
the
car
terminated?
You've
got
reeve's
explanation
where
she
says
she
was
in
a
1200
square
foot
house
with
her
two
friends
somebody
broke
into
that
house
without
being
hurt,
took
her
keys,
her
phone
left,
the
house
started
up
her
car,
which
she
admits
was
incredibly
loud
with
pipes
started
up
her
car
stole
it
wrecked
it
down.
D
The
road
then
somehow
made
it
back
to
the
house,
broke
back
into
the
house
and
replaced
her
keys
and
phone
where
she
was,
and
while
they
were
out
on
the
accident,
sent
a
text
message
that
pin
dropped
the
phone
to
the
scene
of
the
accident
or,
what's
the
simplest
and
most
likely
explanation,
which
is
the
explanation
accepted
by
chief
blackman
and
chief
borin,
which
was
reeves
simply
left,
she
drove
her
car
drunk
she
wrecked
her
car,
and
then
she
made
up
the
story
to
try
and
avoid
the
consequences
of
those
actions
which
is
most
likely
here.
D
B
B
No
questions,
and
so
at
this
time
we
will
take
time
to
deliberate.
Mr,
we
thought
we're
going
back
there
or
we're
staying
out
here.
Okay,
so
this
time
the
personal
review
board
will
deliberate
and
during
deliberation
there
will
be
no
voting.
All
the
voting
will
take
place
in
the
public.
Thank.