|
Item
|
Value
|
|
Client case #
|
106
|
|
Client name
|
Cheryl Snow
|
|
Description of client's complaint
|
Client Complained that she and her husband were falsely
arrested by Port St. Lucie Florida police officers.
|
|
Type of complaint
|
A. Police Abuse or Misconduct
|
|
Additional information
|
March 2007 the POLICE
COMPLAINT CENTER received a contact telephone call from client Cheryl Snow.
Ms. Snow reported that during a traffic stop 3 Port St. Lucie police officers
became abusive, unprofessional and violent. According to Ms. Snow she was
falsely arrested during a driving under the influence investigation involving
her husband. Ms. Snow reported that the incident was observed by several
witnesses which she offered to make available at a later date. Ms. Snow
requested that the POLICE COMPLAINT CENTER conduct a background check on the
officers and that we conduct a hidden camera investigation that would go
national to bring attention to her case. Ms. Snow alleged that Port St. Lucie
police officers routinely engage in misconduct and that the department has a
track record of abuse. She cited several local incidents involving Port St.
Lucie police officers as examples. According to Snow there is a double
standard that deserved media attention. Snow claimed that if her husband were
a police officer he would not have been charged with DUI. According to Ms.
Snow, Port St. Lucie officers regularly drink and drive their vehicles. The
POLICE COMPLAINT CENTER agreed to conduct a hidden camera investigation and
to pitch a story to a network news affiliate. The summer of 2007 we contacted
ABC news to discuss a possible storyline. ABC news agreed but wanted to shoot
the story in Chicago. We decided to have our own team shoot the story in
Florida. If we got good material we would add it to the ABC story Over 2
months we had several (phone conference) meetings with Ms. Snow. Mrs. Snow
provided the names of local bars and restaurants she believed were frequented
by Port St. Lucie officers. We flew staff down from Washington, DC to meet
with Mrs. Snow on two occasions. Our CEO Mr. Kamau traveled to Port St. Lucie
to meet with Mrs. Snow and her husband in person. Ms. Snow was advised that
if the hidden camera investigation revealed misconduct we would air the
story. However if we did not find any misconduct we would nonetheless report
her complaint to the Justice Department, Port St. Lucie officials and the
state of Florida. Ms. Snow specifically requested that we contact officer Levasseur the arresting officer directly so that she
could speak with him and ask him questions. We called and emailed the
arresting officer and he agreed to talk with us and to speak with Ms. Snow. This is extraordinary. The officer took a substantial
risk in agreeing to talk to us. We viewed his willingness to talk with our
staff as a sign of good will and honesty. From our perspective he had little
to gain and could take on substantial liability if he disclosed any evidence
that could be used against him or his agency in a civil suit. Included
with this case summary are the following documents: Mr. Snow's original
complaint, The response to our report from the US Justice Department, Letters
to Port St. Lucie officials including the mayor in support of Ms. Snow’s
complaint E-mail record between our staff Mrs. Snow Email from one of the
accused officers Eric Lessuever. PCC staff began conducting surveillance on
Port St. Lucie officers between July and November 2007. After several days of
observations at the locations designated by Ms. Snow as Port St. Lucie police
hangouts. We detected no illegal conduct that would rise to the level of
network news broadcast. The Justice Department also rejected Mrs. Snows complaint of a civil rights violation as did
the police department. Ms. Snow’s investigation failed to produce any
evidence that could be used in a newscast related to officer misconduct. The
officer she identified agreed to meet and talk but Snow never returned our
calls our emails to set up time to meet with him. The same happened when we
requested meeting with her witnesses. Moreover we determined that after
running a background check on the Officer there was no history of civil
lawsuits as Ms. Snow claimed. In short he case had no merit. As the claims
made by Ms. Snow fell into question we repeatedly requested meetings with
Mrs. Snow over several months. Our e-mails
were either returned unanswered or we received an auto-reply from Ms. Snow’s
e-mail account. The auto reply reported that she was unavailable. When we
contacted her by phone she reported that she was too busy to meet. When we
informed Ms. Snow of our investigative conclusions she became very agitated
and began making threats that she would complain and that we (PCC) were “in
big trouble.“ We later learned that when the investigation fell short of her
expectation, Ms. Snow entered into a separate agreement with a former
volunteer of the POLICE COMPLAINT CENTER Gregory Alan Slate. The POLICE
COMPLAINT CENTER did not authorize such an agreement. Such an agreement is
against our policy. Mr. Slate was terminated for accepting a payment in his
name directly from Mrs. Snow. The POLICE COMPLAINT CENTER never received any
money from Cheryl Snow. Still, in the spirit of good business practices, we
advised Ms. Snow that we would provide her with a refund if she would
complete our refund request form. We advised her that this was being done as
a courtesy. We were under no legal obligation to refund her money as her
agreement between she and Mr. Slate remained in violation of company policy.
Ms. Snow sent a letter from her attorney advising that she was refusing to
complete our complaint a refund form. Ms. Snow and her attorney stated that
it was not necessary. We advised her that we could not issue a refund without
it and closed her case file. Since her case was closed Ms. Snow has contacted
the BBB, state officials in Florida and the FBI claiming she was not treated
fairly. None of the investigative agencies she has contacted supported her
claims. The state of Florida did issue a letter of correction requesting that
we modify our business name on state forms. We complied with their request
and the case was closed.
|
|
The client requested that the PCC perform
|
D. Document review, field investigation and report to appropriate agencies.
|
|
Number of hours reviewing client documents This includes
e-mails, faxes and letters.
|
9
|
|
Total number of documents received from client. When
documents are received by staff they are to be reviewed within 24 hours. Each
document is reviewed and is assumed to require a minimum of 15 minutes
inspection.
|
113
|
|
Documents written on behalf of client
|
Letters
|
|
Number of telephone calls to client?
|
26
|
|
Consultation with PCC staff experts or public officials
regarding client’s case
|
30
|
|
Type of consultation with individuals on client’s behalf
Choices.
|
Telephone calls
|
|
Calls on the client's behalf were made to:
|
A. Public officials
|
|
Travel Frequency
|
6
|
|
Travel
|
92
|
|
Type of work done during travel
|
A. Client meeting
|
|
Was the client honest about the allegations and facts in
his/her complaint or case?
|
Dishonest
|
|
Narrative for the Above?
|
Ms. Snow claimed to have witnesses but refused to produce
contact information. Her complaint to us is
contradictory. On one hand she says she was repeatedly told to comply with
the officers yet she says she was given no warning that she might be
arrested. After we arranged or the officer to speak with her she refused to
make time for a meeting. This was very suspicious given how adamant she
pressed us to set such meeting up.
|
|
Are the client’s allegations the result of a possible
mental health issue or hallucination?
|
Yes
|
|
Could the client be helped by other organizations
similarly staffed by experts?
|
No
|
|
Did staff provide the client with (counseling/legal/investigative)
support during the period that their case was open?
|
Yes
|
|
Was this case made against a public agency unfounded?
|
Yes
|
|
Are there documents from agencies we contacted included in
this report that reflect the findings of government officials looking into
this case?
|
Yes
|
|
Audio or video supporting findings?
|
Yes
|
|
|
