# Six Kentucky Officers Disciplined Over MySpace Comments



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

*CASSONDRA KIRBY*
_HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER via Knight Ridder_

Six Lexington police officers were administratively charged yesterday after an internal investigation into comments and photos they posted on the popular Web site MySpace.com.

Two of the officers -- Joshua Cromer and Gene Haynes -- were relieved of their sworn duties with pay, meaning they can no longer make arrests, until police officials determine whether they should be disciplined and how. Cromer and Haynes will continue to work for the police department, but turned in their badges, police cars and weapons yesterday.

The other four officers -- Aaron Noel, Richard Sisk, Adam O'Quinn and Paul Stewart -- will continue to work as arresting officers as disciplinary proceedings continue.

The six were administratively charged with a variety of violations including interfering with a criminal case, acting in a way that does not reflect favorably on the division and breaking guidelines officers are required to follow when making public statements about their jobs. The investigation is ongoing and additional charges might be made, officials said yesterday.

Police officials did not elaborate on why Cromer and Haynes were relieved of their sworn duties, but Cromer's Web site is particularly controversial because of content relating to Cromer's arrest of country music star John Michael Montgomery.

Montgomery was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol in February. On Cromer's site, officers discussed the case and congratulated Cromer on such a high-profile arrest. His site also included an altered photograph -- posted by Haynes -- of Montgomery and a fan, in which Cromer's face had been placed on the body of the fan.

The officers could not be reached for comment or did not return Herald-Leader phone messages yesterday.

The police department began investigating the Web sites on March 20, when another police officer informed a supervisor about the sites. That officer was "very disturbed" by some of the content on the Web pages, Chief Anthany Beatty said yesterday. Because of First Amendment concerns, the police department sought direction from the Urban County Government law department as it investigated.

On the Web pages, officers discussed their jobs, commented on arrests they had made and used derogatory language about gays and the mentally disabled.

Officers said they worked for the "snobby people of Lexington" or the "Lexington Fayette Urban Communist Government." Many of the pages featured Lexington police badges or photos of the officers in uniform.

At a news conference yesterday morning, Beatty apologized to Fayette County citizens.

"I would ask that the citizens accept our apologies for anything that was said, stated or posted on the Web sites that was offensive to anyone in any fashion," Beatty said. "Certainly it is not from the agency as a whole, and the parties who have been involved will be dealt with."

Beatty would not say what the punishment might be for posting the comments on MySpace.com, but said discipline can include anything from a written reprimand to suspension to termination.

Although many of the officers' pages have been cleaned up or deactivated, Beatty said yesterday that he is concerned about possible lawsuits, as well as how Cromer's site might affect the Montgomery case, which is set to be back in court in Fayette County in April.

Assistant Fayette County Attorney Jack Miller said yesterday that the police department had notified his office about Cromer's page.

"We are taking a look at it to see if there is anything that may have been compromised," Miller said yesterday. He said it is too soon to tell whether Cromer's page will affect the case.

But Montgomery's attorneys, Jon Woodall and Brent Caldwell, said they think Cromer's page will have a tremendous effect.

"I do know that in a DUI case the testimony of the arresting officer is crucial," Woodall said yesterday. "Obviously, the officer's credibility is in question at this point."

Both attorneys said they have never seen conduct like this before from an arresting officer.

"I can't fathom that anybody is ignorant enough to put such things in print," Woodall said. "You run into bizarre things in this business frequently, but to see a group of police officers, who have power over us citizens, to be talking and carrying on the way they were in a public forum ... just absolutely blows me away."

There are no specific policies at the Lexington police department about what officers may post on Internet sites such as MySpace.com, a popular site where people around the world socialize and swap information. MySpace had more than 37 million unique visitors in February, according to a story this week in Business Week Online.

Beatty said the department will now look at creating such a policy.

"Seeing that kind of information out there and that kind of interaction going on was disappointing and shocking, in that I would expect that all police officers here would exercise better judgment in their actions," Beatty said yesterday.

He stressed that only a few officers were involved in the MySpace activity.

"I would stake my reputation on the fact that 99 percent of the employees here are performing at the utmost of their capability at all times, and certainly are very respectful and very mindful of the public and the actions that they exhibit, whether on or off duty," he said. "We have some individuals who are not representing us in the best light, and we will deal with that appropriately."

*Joshua Cromer*
Officer since 2002
Charged with unbecoming conduct

*Gene Haynes*
Officer since 2001
Charged with unbecoming conduct and interfering in a case

*Richard Sisk*
Officer since 1999
Charged with unbecoming conduct

*Aaron Noel*
Officer since 2004
Charged with unbecoming conduct

*Adam O'Quinn*
Officer since 2003
Charged with public appearance and statements

*Paul Stewart*
Officer since 2003
Charged with unbecoming conduct

Lexington Herald Leader








Knight Ridder content Copyright 2005 provided via The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


----------



## bluesamurai22 (Nov 20, 2004)

It won't be long now, somebody will eventually get in trouble for posting something here.

Be careful...


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

Ever see the case law that came out recently regarding freedom of speech?

The CT State Police had to pay a guy $450,000 for trying to enforce their policies on him off-duty.


----------



## SinePari (Aug 15, 2004)

kwflatbed said:


> The police department began investigating the Web sites on March 20, when another police officer informed a supervisor about the sites. That officer was "very disturbed" by some of the content on the Web pages, Chief Anthany Beatty said yesterday.


What frickin' jack-assery. What was the other officer "disturbed" about? Here's a suggestion, DON'T GO TO THAT WEBSITE.


----------



## SSPO#11 (Jan 11, 2003)

I bet the rat went from patrolman to lieutenant. This article makes me sick. If they are going to control these guys freedom of speech off duty, then pay them while they are off duty.

#11


----------



## PearlOnyx (Jun 28, 2002)

Any of you guys from the North Shore, if you look at the Salem Evening News regarding an employee being fired from Essex County for off-duty speech on the Internet. It seems that this is a hot topic latley.


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

TRACY GORDON FOX; Courant Staff Writer

Copyright 2006 The Hartford Courant Company

The victory of a state trooper who recently won a $450,000 settlement in a free-speech case will have repercussions beyond the Connecticut State Police, legal experts say.

``It will enhance the rights of all whistleblowers in government and will give courage to government employees who see wrongdoing and who have been afraid to say anything,'' said attorney John R. Williams of New Haven.

Roger Vann, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, said his colleagues in the state and nation noted the settlement, and ``the comments were that it seemed to be a very significant settlement and development for free speech rights for state employees.''

``It was a great day for the Bill of Rights,'' Vann said. ``It just underscores the importance of recognizing that people in all professions, whether public or private, have free speech rights.''

The case stemmed from a complaint lodged by Trooper Mark Lauretano, who alleged that his supervisors violated his right to free speech by preventing him from speaking about a sexual assault case involving a boy at Hotchkiss School in Salisbury in 1997. He also alleged that the department retaliated against him for seeking to exercise that right.

Other public agencies should take notice of the court ruling and the recent settlement with Lauretano, experts say. The settlement, which included attorney's fees, was reached in January, but made public this month.

``This absolutely applies to all government agencies,'' Williams said. ``It's a federal court ruling, and the state of Connecticut accepted the settlement, not for chump change, but for major, major money. I think it will be hugely significant for Connecticut.''

Although the case is not binding in federal districts in other states, it could be cited in legal arguments brought in similar cases, legal experts say.

Judge Dominic J. Squatrito, in U.S. District Court in Hartford in 2004, ruled that a state police policy restricting troopers from talking to the media was unconstitutional.

Squatrito imposed a permanent injunction ending the state police media policy, and enjoined the state police from preventing employees from speaking out freely on matters of public concern. The judge said the department's administrative and operations manual violated troopers' right to free speech.

``We should have those freedoms and those rights,'' said state police union President David LeBlanc, adding that the Lauretano settlement should help ensure troopers' free speech rights.

Lauretano in 1999 sued the state, Public Safety Commissioner Arthur Spada, Cols. John Bardelli and Edmond C. Brunt and Lt. Col. Timothy Barry for their refusal to allow him to speak about the investigation of how he conducted the Hotchkiss case, even though they spoke publicly about it.

After Squatrito's judgment, Lauretano was prepared to go to trial for damages, but Attorney General Richard Blumenthal decided to abandon his appeal of the ruling.

``My guess is the attorney general's office had to be aware their chances on appeal were slim,'' said attorney Karen Lee Torre, who represented Lauretano. ``It is a hefty price, but all I can tell you is I offered to settle these cases early on, and every time my efforts are rebuffed.''

Torre and Lauretano declined to discuss the settlement amount, but a portion of it went to attorney's fees.

Blumenthal at first said he was appealing the decision at the request of Public Safety Commissioner Leonard C. Boyle.

But he said he decided to settle to ``avoid a lengthy, costly litigation when there can be an agreement that serves the public interest.''

``This settlement, in our view, serves the public interest,'' he said.

Blumenthal said he would advise other state agencies to establish policies similar to the one being put in place by the state police.

``Agencies should be aware of this settlement and the general First Amendment principles that have been applied,'' he said.

Lauretano, who is Salisbury resident state trooper, said he has had calls from troopers and employees of other agencies since the settlement ``because a lot of them are facing the same kind of criticism.''

``They know how important it is,'' Lauretano said of the decision and the settlement. ``It's a mentality that infests the agency,'' he said Thursday.

He and other troopers believe they now have more freedom to speak, but he said he is troubled that the state police has not changed its media policy in its administrative and operations manual.

Boyle said the state police reached an agreement with Lauretano on what the manual should say regarding media policy. He said the department wants to make sure the policy satisfies its agreement with Lauretano and the judge's ruling.

The media policy ``is not done yet, although it will be very shortly,'' Boyle said. ``The policy is much more expansive and allows employees great access to the media.''

The Lauretano case is not the first in which the state has had to pay a significant amount in a free speech case. In 1998, Supervisory Inspector Gregory Dillon sued Chief State's Attorney John M. Bailey, claiming violation of First Amendment rights, and was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. He eventually reached a $1.5 million settlement.

Dillon was a whistleblower who alleged that federal agents on a joint state-federal fugitive task force were fabricating information on arrest warrant affidavits.

Torre said the case against the state police is significant for government employees statewide and nationwide because it addresses flawed media policies, not just individual whistleblowers.

``It's a federal court precedent that can add assistance to law enforcement employees who go to work every day and who are under the chokehold of these agencies,'' she said.


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

> It won't be long now, somebody will eventually get in trouble for posting something here.
> 
> Be careful...


Hahaha....too late....


----------



## SSPO#11 (Jan 11, 2003)

Bring the dicipline on! I could use an extra $450,000!


----------



## bluesamurai22 (Nov 20, 2004)

That CT case is good for us but remember that there are still limits. There is a balancing test that weighs the public interest and the officers free speech interests.

If your free speech interest outweighs the departments interest you are good to go. If the departments interests are greater than your interests in speeking out you can get into trouble.

An example of department interests outweighing an officers *absolute* right to free speech would be when talking about an ongoing investigation. (Just imagine talking about an open drug investigation, you can't use the 1st Amendment to defend against that). The officers making fun of their snobby community off-duty should be okay but the officer talking about a celebrity OUI case that hasn't been adjudicated might have a problem. It all depends on exactly what was written and who wrote it.


----------

