I.A. Report 2020-0038: Investigation of Excessive Force Complaints Against Seth Layton, Nicholas Caesar, Cleophas Williams

Citation preview

® INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION

“POLICE py

OF te Sf

Q

R

4 \ 2)

SIS BH\%2 | 5

SIL 2 fs Sa

2 Er

x \ eo

| %x \

\%. N\c17v CN

#

De

oF ricimonn 4

hii

ly Na”

©

J&

1.A.D. 2020-0038

’

/ &4

ewer COMMENTS AND TRACKING (@) REVIEWER NAVE: Crief Gerald Smith DATE RECEIVED: 12/9/2021 — 0 1 [XIcoNcurR

[]DONOT CONCUR with the investigator's recommendation

REVIEWER'S RECOMMENDATION: [J substantiated —The allegation is true. [J unfounded — The allegation is faise. [J Exonerated — The incident occurred, but the employee acted lawfully and properly. x

Exonerated, other violations noted — Employee exoneratedofthe initial charge, but violation

not alleged in the complaint is disclosed during the investigative process.

[J Not Substantiated — Evidence is not sufficient to prove or disprove the allegation. O

[

Secondary Violation Substantiated — Substantiated violation not alleged in the complaint, but disclosed during the investigative process.

See attached or COMMENT below:

|

|

|

|

| ‘The violations wedged against Officers Cleophas Williams, Officer Nicolas Ceasar, andOfficer Seth Layton | are exonerated. Their imperfect actions are not completely absolved by the stressful situation they faced

| for other officers in the same or similar situation did not respond in the same manner. One compelling point |

| in favor of exoneration is the fact that the officers were not trainedconsistently.

|

| |

| TGS

dru ; _ ~ @ Video R.F=oausonsz™" 1AD Control #

ae

2/14) 20 eff

|

REVIEWER COMMENTS AND TRACKING (0) REVIEWER NAME: Victoria Pearson

DATE RECEIVED:

1 [XJ coNcur [J DONOT CONCUR with the investigator's recommendation. REVIEWER'S RECOMMENDATION:

[J] substantiated —The allegation is true. [J unfounded — The allegation is false. [1 Exonerated - The incident occurred, but the employee acted lawfully and propery. xX

Exonerated, other violations noted — Employee exoneratedofthe initial charge, but violation not alleged in the complaint is disclosed during the investigative process.

[J Not Substantiated ~ Evidence is not sufficient to prove or disprove the allegation. a Secondary Violation Substantiated — Substantiated violation not alleged in the complaint, but

disclosed during the investigative process.

|

attachedof or COMMEN St_5eeSee Suacked SOWMENTT below: below:

—

_

| |

e | concur with the recommendations made by IAD Detective Kirby: EXONERATED WITH OTHER

|

VIOLATIONS NOTED | 1) Cleophas Williams - violation of G.0. 1-1 Code of Conduct, Paragraph 38 Use of Force cross reference | G.0. 1-8 0.C. Spray & Fogger 2) Nicolas Ceasar - violations of a) G.0. 1-1 Code of Conduct, Paragraph 38 Use of Force cross reference | G.0. 1-8 0.C. Spray & Fogger; and b) G.0. Code of Coduct, Paragraph 5 Conduct Unbecoming. 3) Seth Layton (No longer w/ RPD) - G.0. 1-1 CodeofConduct, Paragraph 38Useof Force cross

| |

| reference G.0. 1-8 O.C. Spray& Fogger

|

| 1 also concur with Lt. Angie Smith's comments re: conle for that ct ‘evening and on-going circumstances officers were facining on a daily basis in addition to the COVID-19pandemic.

| |

Lastly, | also note as stated by Captain Hudson, while the officers (Williams

had received | training on the foggers in 2017 during Use of Force annualy training, they hadandnotCeasar) received any refresher

training and their prior certifications would have expired in 2019. Notwithstanding, they had also both signed

| for having read G.0. 1-8, O.C. Spray and Foggers.

o fon

aford

@ Chic} Geald, Sach

oo

12/9/2021

—

121912021 TATE IAD Control # 2020-0038

| |

REVIEWER COMMENTS AND TRACKING (REVIEWER NAME: Captain Jason Hudson

———

h

ee

DATE RECEIVED: 11/19/2020

with the investigator's recommendation LL CONCUR [_] DO NOT CONCUR Wi e vocetorsrecommendation. REVIEWER'S RECOMMENDATION: [substantiated —The sllegation is true. [J unfounded - The allegation i faise. [1] exonerated — The incident occurred, but the employee acted lawful andproperly.

|

|

Exonerated,otherviolations noted — Emplo

exonerated of the initial charge, but violation “=! not alleged in the complaint is disclosed during theyee investigative process.

[J Not Substantiated Evidence is not suffient to prove or disprove the allegation.

O ‘Secondary Violation Substantiated — Substantiated violati on not alleged in the complaint, but disclosed during the investigative process.

|[

DX see attached or COMMENT below:

| |

®

[concur wih th recommendations by Detective Kiy of Exonerate, with her violations noted for Officers

|

Cleophas Williams, Nicholas Caesar (x2) and Seth Layton for the reaso ns listed in the Investigative Report. |

On the night in question, there were factors that certainly should be taken

into consideration in reference to the fogger deployment | 1.The involved officers were working a third straight night of protes ts/riots in which there werelarge protests, marches, and assaults on officers.

|

| 2. Due to the conditions noted above, foggers were handed out to personnel that potent

ially obtained little | or no refresher training on the OC Fogger. When in extreme situations, and in the absence of repeated | training, officers refer back to "muscle memory" and past practi ce (with personal OC spray).

| believe that those factors noted above for Officers Willams, Gaesar and Layton, and the totalit

y of the

circumstances surrounding eventsof the night, should be taken into consideration.

| |

|

Fld , TERT @ Dod Dome Vhrsia Dearne SEVERED 10 IAD Control # 2020-0038

111912020 [-20-2010 TE |

REVIEWER COMMENTS AND TRACKING © reviewer NAME: Angela M. Smith Date Received 11/19/2020 |! (X)CONCUR ()DO NOT CONCUR with Investigators recommendation. | REVIEWERS RECOMMENDATION: |

| |

| |

| | | | @

|" | |

|

()Substantiated- The allegati

|

( ) Exonerated - The incident occurred, but the employee acted lawfully and properly. (X) Exonerated, other violations noted — Employee exonerated of the initial charge,

|

on is true. {) Unfounde -The d allegation is fase.

d during the investigative process. () Not Substantiated - Evidence is not suffcion to prove or disprove irs slceaten

but violation not alleged in the complaint, but disclose

|

() Secondary Violation Substantiated - Substantiated violation not alleged in the

complaint, but disclosed during the investigative process.

|

|

(x) 500 atachad or COMMENT betow:

|

with other violations noted for Officer Cleophas Willams, Officer Nicholas Gasser, and Officer Seth Layion.

1 concur with the finding of Exonerated,

|

Itshouldbe taken into account that the officers who worked during this periodofcivil unrest faced many challenges to include: unruly crowds, armed individuals, objects being thrown at them,

|

fatigue from working continuous nights of protests, and lack of resource s and‘equipment.

|

face of the citizens they encountered was not established per General Order 1-8.

(

However, in reviewing the facts associated with this investigation, “extreme creomstiacees ur lustfication for Officers Williams, Caesar, and Layton to deploy the O.C. Fogger direclly in the

|

As revealed in this investigation, all three officers ‘acknowledged/signed General Order 1-8. Officers Williams and Caesar were also trained in the proper use of the O.C. Fogger.

|

|

| |

|

leignature a gs owvenTo:_Copain Joc Hudson

|

whaler

|

Date

DATE:

eooo

___1(]19/2000)

|

|

1 1AD Control # 2020-0038

|

REVIEWER COMMENTS AND TRACKING a

REVIEWER

NAME: Llasde “Ceavol

|

1

|

reviewers RECOMMENDATION:

| | |

|

) CONCUR

Date Received

_/(-(& 202 0

() DO NOT CONCUR with Investigators recommendation.

|

|

( ) Substantiated - The allegation is true.

( ) Unfounded -The allegation is false.

( ) Exonerated - The incident occurred, but the employee acted lawiully and properl y.

(YExonerated, other violations noted — Employee exonerated of the initial charge,

but violation not alleged in the complaint, but disclosed during the investigative proces s. () Not Substantiated - Evidence is not sufficient to prove or disprove the allegation.

() Secondary Violation Substantiated - Substantiated violation ot alleged in the complaint, but disclosed during the investigative process.

|

() See attached or COMMENT below:

/|

e —————————m—— lf |

|

—_——————

|

| |

| |

|

_

|

|

|

|

v

.

/[(-18 20v0

Signature

Date

GIVENT0: Lf, Anbo o Sti th

DATE: _//-(8- 2020

IAD Control # 2020-0038

|

|

/lemion®

ei) or

@

CONFIDENTIAL

“za

Richmond Police Department -—

INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION

INTERNAL AFFAIRS FINAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

DATE: 0: THRU:

November 17, 2020 Chief Gerald M. Smith Chief of Police Deputy Director Victoriareasoner wn ‘Captain Jason B. Hudson Lieutenant Angela M, Smit(hls 11Grit 2094 Sergeant Claude M. Picar

FROM: ®

Detective Michael A. Kirby

Internal Affairs Division (AD)

3+

oo

IAD NUMBER: 2020-0038 IBR NUMBER: NA TYPE OF INCIDENT: Excessive Force POLICE EMPLOYEES) INVOLVED: Officer Cleophas Willams, Code 3936, Second Precinct, FMT, Tactical; Officer Nicholas Caesar, Code 3571, Second Precinct, FMT Jactica; Officer Seth Layton, Code 4108, Second Precinct, FMT, Tactical (Separated 09122120) INCIDENT DATE: INCIDENT TIME:

@

(ABoTR

05/31/2020 2112 hours

INCIDENT LOCATION: 1000 block E Marshall Street SYNOPSIS OF INCIDENT: On 05/31/20 at 2127 hours, Detective Michael Kirby was working as the assigned [AD investigator forthe on-going IAD protests in Richmond. Kirby received a phone eal from Major Roger Russell and was asked 10 raport spoke with Media Relation Supervisor 0 the operalion center at 2nd Precinct. Kirby Gene Lepley. Lepley showed Kirby a tweet that

2020-003 Page 10138

leno

fm 0)

J