City of Cincinnati

Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet

Date: April 21, 2017

To: Board Members, Citizen Complaint Authority

From: Kim Neal, Director

Subject: Narrative Summaries – May 1, 2017 Board Meeting

# 1

Complaint # / 16150
Complainant / Renard Barnes and Claudette Hunter
CCA Investigator / Pamela King
CCA Findings / Officer Branden Mentz – Canine Operations (Track)
EXONERATED
Sergeant Samuel Igel – Entry (Residence)
EXONERATED
Sergeant Samuel Igel – Search (Residence)
EXONERATED
Sergeant Samuel Igel – Pointing of a Firearm
EXONERATED
Officer Robert Wilsman – Entry (Residence)
EXONERATED
Officer Robert Wilsman – Search (Residence)
EXONERATED
Officer Robert Wilsman – Pointing of a Firearm
EXONERATED
Officer Brian Follrod – Entry (Residence)
EXONERATED
Officer Brian Follrod – Search (Residence)
EXONERATED
Officer Brian Follrod – Pointing of a Firearm
EXONERATED
Board Finding / Agree
City Manager Finding / Agree
NARRATIVE SUMMARY

Date: July 31, 2016

Time: Approximately 4:30 a.m.

Location: 22 West University Avenue

CCA Receipt Date: August 5, 2016

On July 31, 2016, Sergeant Samuel Igel, Officers Brian Follrod, Robert Wilsman and Canine Officer Branden Mentz with his canine partner Porter responded to a dispatch regarding an aggravated robbery. An individual was robbed at gun point. Officer Follrod obtained the suspect’s description from the victim: male, black, wearing gray t-shirt and black pants. Officer Follrod broadcasted the suspect’s description and waited for additional officers to arrive.

When Sergeant Igel arrived on scene, he authorized the canine track for the suspect. Officer Wilsman was the cover officer on the track. Officer Wilsman had his weapon drawn (finger off the trigger) in the low ready position. Officer Wilsman accompanied Officer Mentz and canine Porter in tracking the suspect due to the subject being armed with a firearm.

Canine Porter lost the suspect’s scent on the exterior rear wall of the residence located at 22 West University Avenue. At that point, the canine lifted his head, which Officer Mentz stated was an indication that he was air scenting or the scent was up high. Canine Porter could not go over the wall, so they walked around. They went through a couple of yards but, canine Porter could not regain the scent track.

Officer Mentz notified Sergeant Igel after approximately twenty five minutes of tracking the suspect that canine Porter lost the track. Canine Porter did not track directly to the subject residence; however, the residence that was located in front of the retaining wall had an open gate. They entered through the gate, which led to the back yard/patio area adjacent to the wall. While in the back yard/patio area, Officers Mentz and Wilsman noticed that the rear side door to the residence was open. They believed that was suspicious, and there was a possibility the robbery suspect could have entered that residence. Officer Mentz informed Sergeant Igel that he noticed the residence’s rear door was partially opened. Sergeant Igel believed that was an indication there was a possibility that the suspect ran into the residence. Sergeant Igel and Officer Follrod responded to the rear yard of the residence.

Sergeant Igel stated that the decision to enter the residence was based on the belief that the suspect was seen in the immediate vicinity, the canine tracked to the rear of that location, and there was the possibility of harm to the residents by an armed suspect. Sergeant Igel discussed with the officers how they would tactically position themselves once they entered the residence. Sergeant Igel pushed the door open and announced the police presence and for any occupants to come out and show their hands. Officer Wilsman stated he also announced the police presence. After receiving no response, Sergeant Igel drew his firearm, finger off the trigger and in the low ready position, and entered the residence along with Officers Wilsman and Follrod. Officer Mentz and canine Porter remained outside the residence.

Sergeant Igel and Officer Wilsman entered an upstairs bedroom where they encountered Ms. Aliya Barnes and Ms. Trinity Hunter. Ms. Barnes had moved in earlier that same day. Ms. Barnes and Ms. Hunter were asleep in their bedroom, and they were awakened by Sergeant Igel and Officer Wilsman in their doorway. Officer Wilsman illuminated the room with his flashlight because there were no lights on.

Sergeant Igel and Officer Wilsman pointed their firearms at them, identified themselves and then ordered them to show their hands; they complied. Ms. Barnes and Ms. Hunter questioned what was occurring. Once they realized they were not the suspect, they lowered their firearm but remained with them. Ms. Hunter stated that Sergeant Igel stood in the room with his firearm still pointed at her until Officer Wilsman returned and told him he could leave.

Sergeant Igel apologized for disturbing them and explained the reasons for entering their residence: there was an aggravated robbery in the area, the door to their residence was open, and they entered to make sure everyone was safe.

Officer Wilsman left and joined Officer Follrod who had their roommate, Mr. Tevin-Lloyd Thompson, handcuffed in another bedroom. After approximately two to three minutes, Sergeant Igel left Ms. Barnes and Ms. Hunter and joined Officers Wilsman and Follrod. Mr. Thompson was removed from the residence and when they attempted to find out what was happening with him, they were told to stay inside of the residence.

Mr. Thompson was detained because he fit the physical description of the robbery suspect. The victim of the robbery was unable to positively identify Mr. Thompson as the robbery suspect, so Mr. Thompson was released and the officers left the area. Ms. Barnes stated that the officers were in the residence for approximately five minutes. The rear door to the residence was unlocked but that was because people were in and out of the residence, and she wasn’t sure if Mr. Thompson had his keys. Mr. Thompson also provided that the lock on their back door was reversed and when Ms. Barnes, who had just moved into the residence earlier that day, thought she locked the door, she actually unlocked it.

Mr. Renard Barnes, on behalf of his daughter, and Ms. Claudette Hunter, on behalf of her daughter, filed a complaint alleging that the officers improperly entered and searched their residence, and improperly pointed their firearms at Ms. Barnes and Ms. Hunter.

ANALYSIS

CPD Procedure § 12.140, Canine Procedure, maintains that the primary use for CPD’s canine teams is as a finding tool, and not as an apprehension nor as an extraction tool. An aggravated robbery occurred in the area and a subject matching the description was seen running from the crime scene. Officer Mentz and his canine partner Porter were notified, and Sergeant Igel authorized deployment of the Canine Unit. The authorization and use of the canine fell within CPD’s policies and procedures.

According to Officer Mentz, Porter tracked to the retaining wall behind the residence, lost the track and did not track directly to the complainant’s residence. The track lasted approximately twenty-five minutes. Sergeant Igel was the officer in charge and believed that the track ended at the residence. Once in front of the residence, Officers Mentz and Wilsman observed that the gate was open and the rear door of the residence was also ajar. These additional factors raised the officers’ suspicions. Sergeant Igel believed entering the residence was necessary because it was believed that the suspect was in the immediate vicinity, the canine tracked to that vicinity, and the possibility of harm to residents by an armed suspect.

The court in State v. Sladeck, 132 Ohio App.3d 86, 724 N.E.2d 488 (1st Dist. 1998) noted that the Fourth Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, secures the right of individuals to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrantless seizure is per se unreasonable unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. One such exception is the exigent-circumstances exception. Katz v. US, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967). This exception applies when there is a reasonable basis for the police to believe that entry into a structure is necessary to protect or preserve life, or to avoid serious injury. Numerous federal and state courts, including Ohio courts, have recognized that a police officer may lawfully enter a structure, such as a private home, to protect the property of the owner or occupant, when, for example, the police reasonably believe that the premises has been or are being burglarized. The factors to be considered as to whether there is an emergency that will permit a warrantless police intrusion into a home to effect an arrest are as follows: (1) The offense is a crime of violence; (2) It is reasonably believed that the suspect is armed; (3) There is a strong reason to believe that the suspect is on the premises; and (4) It is likely that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended. These elements existed in the search for the aggravated robber.

Ms. Barnes stated that the rear door to the residence was unlocked but that was because people were in and out of the residence and she wasn’t sure if Mr. Thompson had his keys. Mr. Thompson explained that the lock on their back door was reversed and when Ms. Barnes, who just moved into the residence earlier that day, thought she was locking the door, she was actually unlocking it. So, the back door to the residence was unlocked, but it should have been closed. It appears that based on the confusion regarding the lock as well as the fact that there were people in and out of the residence, it is possible that not only was the door unlocked that it could have been left open. CCA believes that based on the preponderance of the evidence, Sergeant Igel made a good faith decision to enter the residence and search for the suspect. All officers who entered and searched the residence did so on a reasonable belief that the suspect could be inside.

CPD Procedure § 12.550, Discharging of Firearms by Police Personnel, maintains that at such time as a police officer perceives what he interprets to be a threat of loss of life or serious physical harm to himself or others at the hands of another, he has the authority to display a firearm, with finger outside the trigger guard and have it ready for self-defense. The officers entered the residence and pointed their firearms at the complainants. CCA finds that the officers handled the situation in this manner because they believed the aggravated robbery suspect was inside the residence. They announced themselves multiple times, but there was no response. At this point, they needed to ensure the public’s and their safety.

Conclusion

CCA could not confirm or refute if the complainant’s door was open as the officers alleged or if the door was just unlocked and not open. However, CCA believes that the canine track, the entry into and search of the residence and the officers’ pointing of their firearms were within CPD procedure, policy and training.

FINDINGS

Officer Branden Mentz – Canine Operations (Track)

A preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate CPD policies, procedures, or training. EXONERATED

Sergeant Samuel Igel – Entry (Residence)