From Daily Business Review writer Billy Shields article yesterday:
Horn said he recently invited Ranck to provide input as the investigation concludes.
After reading this, I emailed Don Horn the following, over a copy of Shields' article:
-----Original Message-----
From: DavidRanck50@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 7:28 PM
To: Don L. Horn
Subject: (no subject)
Horn said he recently invited Ranck to provide input as the investigation concludes.
I accept.
Horn's response:
that is NOT what I said to him. The comment was NOT recent.
What I told him was as follows: When I told you I was removing you from the case I also told you that you were more than welcome to provide input and/or attend the police shooting meetings once a closeout memo draft was completed. That is what I meant and that still stands. I will notify you of the meeting(s) once we get a draft of the close-out.
I know that Horn never said anything to me about this, and I believe his vigorous denial that he ever said it to Shields. However, if Shields wishes to back up his statement in writing, it will be printed here. Unless he does, his silence will be taken as his admission that what he wrote was incorrect.
I don't know what to make of Horn's offer to me to provide input on the case after the case is closed officially.
...........
In a telephone interview Tuesday, Horn defended his decision to remove Ranck from the investigation. He said he wanted to ensure the investigation was conducted fairly. He also said he agreed with the Miami-Dade police that the prosecutor should not have contacted the lead detective at that juncture.
I emailed Horn separately about these statements by Shields. Horn responded that he didn't want to get into a further email exchange on this and would talk to me personally. I wish he would respond in writing so that his words are not misinterpreted or inaccurately characterized.
Horn never said this--or anything like it--to me, but this is what Shields said Horn said, so unless corrected by Horn, it stands.
Shields' last sentence in the above, is factually incorrect. I did not contact the lead detective, the lead detective, Buck McCully, contacted me, so Horn could not possibly have said, as Shields claims, that he "agreed with the Miami-Dade police" about that.
Shields was sent a copy of this post and invited to respond. He has not.
more
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The below is provided as background to Billy Shields article in the Daily Business Review yesterday.
From: Billy Shields [mailto:BShields@alm.com]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:09 AM
To: David Ranck [S.A.O. address]
Subject: Call me when you get the chance
David,
I’m a reporter with the Daily Business Review here in Miami. I generally cover civil courts but there are occasions when I’ll follow other court stories when it speaks to how the court system and justice system functions.
I read an item about your recent dispute with the police and it sounds like something I should follow.
Please call me at your earliest convenience at 305-347-6649, and we can talk about this some.
Sincerely,
Billy Shields
Despite the tone of familiarity here, I had never met, nor heard of, Mr. Shields before this email. I did not repond to the email, nor did I call back.
Mr. Shields followed this up with, at least one, perhaps two phone calls* over the next few days. In the first he identified himself as a reporter and I did not take the call. In the other, my secretary told me that there was a Billy Shields calling for me, and when she asked for a case reference she told me that he replied, "That's what I'm trying to find out." Not remembering who Shields was, I took the call.
I told him that I would not talk about the case. He asked me if, as repercussion for the posting of the February 23, 2004 email, "your caseload has increased." I have no idea what, if anything, was behind that question, but I told him that it had not.
He then dropped the subject of the email and we talked generally, and pleasantly. He has some connection to Pittsburgh, where I went to college, and we talked about our mutual affection for the city. The call ended with Shields telling me that "If you ev
*I remember two, but I may be mistaken.
From: Billy Shields [mailto:BShields@alm.com]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:09 AM
To: David Ranck [S.A.O. address]
Subject: Call me when you get the chance
David,
I’m a reporter with the Daily Business Review here in Miami. I generally cover civil courts but there are occasions when I’ll follow other court stories when it speaks to how the court system and justice system functions.
I read an item about your recent dispute with the police and it sounds like something I should follow.
Please call me at your earliest convenience at 305-347-6649, and we can talk about this some.
Sincerely,
Billy Shields
Despite the tone of familiarity here, I had never met, nor heard of, Mr. Shields before this email. I did not repond to the email, nor did I call back.
Mr. Shields followed this up with, at least one, perhaps two phone calls* over the next few days. In the first he identified himself as a reporter and I did not take the call. In the other, my secretary told me that there was a Billy Shields calling for me, and when she asked for a case reference she told me that he replied, "That's what I'm trying to find out." Not remembering who Shields was, I took the call.
I told him that I would not talk about the case. He asked me if, as repercussion for the posting of the February 23, 2004 email, "your caseload has increased." I have no idea what, if anything, was behind that question, but I told him that it had not.
He then dropped the subject of the email and we talked generally, and pleasantly. He has some connection to Pittsburgh, where I went to college, and we talked about our mutual affection for the city. The call ended with Shields telling me that "If you ev
*I remember two, but I may be mistaken.
Legal Blogs Reignite Controversy Over Miami Shooting
Memos posted online show assistant state attorney's concern after being pulled from case in which police killed 17-year-old
Billy ShieldsMay 28, 2008 Beatriz Luis Garcia said she left Havana in 1993 to find a life away from the repression of Fidel Castro's dictatorship.
Little more than a decade later, she was identifying her 17-year-old son's body after he was shot to death by a Miami-Dade police officer during a burglary attempt. More than four years after the death of Leonardo Barquin, a string of interoffice memos from the state attorney's office has surfaced on the Internet, thrusting the open investigation of the shooting back into the spotlight.
A series of 4-year-old letters between Assistant State Attorney David Ranck and his superiors began surfacing on a Web log maintained by Ranck and were picked up May 4 by the anonymously penned , a blog that focuses on events in Miami-Dade Circuit Court's criminal division.
In the memos, Ranck, who is still a Miami-Dade prosecutor, claimed he was pulled off the investigation into Barquin's death by office brass after he raised questions about whether the shooting by police was justifiable homicide. Ranck said Barquin was shot twice from behind in the lower body Jan. 16, 2004.
"The deceased was found unarmed, and no firearm was found around where he fell nor on the co-defendant when he was captured," Ranck wrote five weeks after the shooting. Ranck sent the memo to Don Horn, chief assistant state attorney for administration; Kathleen Hoague and Howard Pohl, chief assistants for the felony division; senior trial counsel Susan Dechowitz; senior trial counsel Abe Laeser; and senior employment counsel Lorna Salomon with a copy to State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle.
Ranck said his removal from all police shooting investigations six days after Barquin's death was triggered by a call from Miami-Dade police Maj. Angus Butler to Laeser to complain about him. Butler was disturbed by a phone call between Ranck and lead detective Charles McCully, Ranck wrote his bosses Feb. 23, 2004. McCully said he was responding to calls from the Police Benevolent Association asking "what the state was thinking," Ranck wrote in a summary of events.
In a telephone interview Tuesday, Horn defended his decision to remove Ranck from the investigation. He said he wanted to ensure the investigation was conducted fairly. He also said he agreed with the Miami-Dade police that the prosecutor should not have contacted the lead detective at that juncture.
"He's voicing a conclusion to a police officer before he's received the first police report," Horn said. Espinosa, the officer who fired at the suspect, told investigators at the shooting scene that Barquin had a gun, Ranck wrote. On the phone Jan. 20, 2004, McCully told Ranck he thought Espinosa, the officer, said he saw something that looked like a weapon.
Ranck asked McCully to check his notes on that point, and McCully confirmed Ranck's thinking that Espinosa said he saw Barquin with a firearm.
McCully went on to say Barquin had a gun in one hand and a sock in the other. Ranck told McCully that sounded implausible.NO
Ranck said he couldn't tell McCully to tell the PBA representative "this was a clearly justified, uncomplicated shooting."
"This still was 'not a good shoot,'" Ranck wrote. He thought "it was wrong, that it was unnecessary, that the 17-year-old burglar victim should be in jail right now, not dead." Horn told Ranck on Jan. 23, 2004, that his conversation with McCully was "totally inappropriate." Horn's take:
"That was an inappropriate conversation to be having with that detective at that point," he said. "I would have made the same decision over again today. It was inappropriate at that point."
Ranck blamed the call from Butler for his removal from the investigation. His ouster "when that ASA has expressed legitimate, justified reservations about the propriety of the shooting could hardly look worse to a community that has a right to expect independence of this office from the police agency involved," Ranck wrote.
The decision to sideline Ranck "will only embolden" Butler and other police in similar situations, he warned. In another e-mail posting, Ranck wrote to his superiors that he was told he was taken off the investigation for "diplomatic reasons."
Ranck said he and Horn discussed the case further and shook hands, "but I absolutely and vigorously deny that anything I did or said in this investigation was wrong or inappropriate in any way."
Horn said he recently invited Ranck to provide input as the investigation concludes.NO In Garcia's mind, her son and his accomplice, Rolando Llanes, were probably breaking the law, but that doesn't mean her son deserved to die. "They were obviously doing something incorrecto," she said in an interview in Spanish with the Daily Business Review. "But Espinosa was supposedly trained to capture them and put them in front of a judge and allow the judge to decide their fate. He wasn't trained to shoot at an unarmed 17-year-old from behind." Ranck had no comment on the letters. State attorney's office spokesman Ed Griffith also declined comment. Ranck's letters invoke state and federal whistleblower protections. Sources at the state attorney's office indicate the letters appear to be genuine. The situation raises a few questions.
The timing of the blog posts is conspicuous. Horn said the state attorney's office is close to concluding its investigation into Barquin's death and the internal Miami-Dade police investigation is still pending. Horn also said Ranck was replaced by Richard Scruggs on the team investigating the shooting. Scruggs did not return a call for comment by deadline. Ranck was on call to respond to reports of officer-involved shootings the day Barquin was shot. Internal protocol for police shootings calls for at least two specially trained prosecutors from the office's police shooting team to go to the scene.
Espinosa is no longer with the department, and Miami-Dade police spokesman Juan Villalba said the circumstances of his departure are unclear. Espinosa ran a failed campaign for the state Senate in 2006. There was no response to messages left on the cell phone number listed in his campaign papers.
Espinosa said he heard shots, chased Barquin and Llanes to a fence and shot Barquin after the teenager aimed a black, semi-automatic pistol at him, according to police reports. No weapon was recovered near either suspect.
Barquin's family may not have much legal recourse in his death, said Miami solo practitioner David Mishael, who is representing them.
"What laws do you have out there to prosecute the police officer or go after him for civil rights violations?" Mishael asked, noting Florida law allows an officer to shoot at suspected felons who flee crime scenes. "His use of deadly force is permitted by statute, and that's a sad situation."
A separate Florida law transfers criminal liability to Barquin's accomplice. Renaldo Llanes was convicted last year of Barquin's murder under Florida's felony murder rule based on a homicide occurring during the commission of a felony. He is serving a seven-year sentence for murder and burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, according to state Corrections Department records.
"When a police officer shoots a co-defendant in a case, then the other co-defendant gets charged with murder even though the living co-defendant had no intention that his co-defendant gets killed," said Ivonne Cuesta, the assistant public defender who represented Llanes after conviction in a probation matter. "That's the law in Florida. And my position is that it's very unfair."
Memos posted online show assistant state attorney's concern after being pulled from case in which police killed 17-year-old
Billy ShieldsMay 28, 2008 Beatriz Luis Garcia said she left Havana in 1993 to find a life away from the repression of Fidel Castro's dictatorship.
Little more than a decade later, she was identifying her 17-year-old son's body after he was shot to death by a Miami-Dade police officer during a burglary attempt. More than four years after the death of Leonardo Barquin, a string of interoffice memos from the state attorney's office has surfaced on the Internet, thrusting the open investigation of the shooting back into the spotlight.
A series of 4-year-old letters between Assistant State Attorney David Ranck and his superiors began surfacing on a Web log maintained by Ranck and were picked up May 4 by the anonymously penned , a blog that focuses on events in Miami-Dade Circuit Court's criminal division.
In the memos, Ranck, who is still a Miami-Dade prosecutor, claimed he was pulled off the investigation into Barquin's death by office brass after he raised questions about whether the shooting by police was justifiable homicide. Ranck said Barquin was shot twice from behind in the lower body Jan. 16, 2004.
"The deceased was found unarmed, and no firearm was found around where he fell nor on the co-defendant when he was captured," Ranck wrote five weeks after the shooting. Ranck sent the memo to Don Horn, chief assistant state attorney for administration; Kathleen Hoague and Howard Pohl, chief assistants for the felony division; senior trial counsel Susan Dechowitz; senior trial counsel Abe Laeser; and senior employment counsel Lorna Salomon with a copy to State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle.
Ranck said his removal from all police shooting investigations six days after Barquin's death was triggered by a call from Miami-Dade police Maj. Angus Butler to Laeser to complain about him. Butler was disturbed by a phone call between Ranck and lead detective Charles McCully, Ranck wrote his bosses Feb. 23, 2004. McCully said he was responding to calls from the Police Benevolent Association asking "what the state was thinking," Ranck wrote in a summary of events.
In a telephone interview Tuesday, Horn defended his decision to remove Ranck from the investigation. He said he wanted to ensure the investigation was conducted fairly. He also said he agreed with the Miami-Dade police that the prosecutor should not have contacted the lead detective at that juncture.
"He's voicing a conclusion to a police officer before he's received the first police report," Horn said. Espinosa, the officer who fired at the suspect, told investigators at the shooting scene that Barquin had a gun, Ranck wrote. On the phone Jan. 20, 2004, McCully told Ranck he thought Espinosa, the officer, said he saw something that looked like a weapon.
Ranck asked McCully to check his notes on that point, and McCully confirmed Ranck's thinking that Espinosa said he saw Barquin with a firearm.
McCully went on to say Barquin had a gun in one hand and a sock in the other. Ranck told McCully that sounded implausible.NO
Ranck said he couldn't tell McCully to tell the PBA representative "this was a clearly justified, uncomplicated shooting."
"This still was 'not a good shoot,'" Ranck wrote. He thought "it was wrong, that it was unnecessary, that the 17-year-old burglar victim should be in jail right now, not dead." Horn told Ranck on Jan. 23, 2004, that his conversation with McCully was "totally inappropriate." Horn's take:
"That was an inappropriate conversation to be having with that detective at that point," he said. "I would have made the same decision over again today. It was inappropriate at that point."
Ranck blamed the call from Butler for his removal from the investigation. His ouster "when that ASA has expressed legitimate, justified reservations about the propriety of the shooting could hardly look worse to a community that has a right to expect independence of this office from the police agency involved," Ranck wrote.
The decision to sideline Ranck "will only embolden" Butler and other police in similar situations, he warned. In another e-mail posting, Ranck wrote to his superiors that he was told he was taken off the investigation for "diplomatic reasons."
Ranck said he and Horn discussed the case further and shook hands, "but I absolutely and vigorously deny that anything I did or said in this investigation was wrong or inappropriate in any way."
Horn said he recently invited Ranck to provide input as the investigation concludes.NO In Garcia's mind, her son and his accomplice, Rolando Llanes, were probably breaking the law, but that doesn't mean her son deserved to die. "They were obviously doing something incorrecto," she said in an interview in Spanish with the Daily Business Review. "But Espinosa was supposedly trained to capture them and put them in front of a judge and allow the judge to decide their fate. He wasn't trained to shoot at an unarmed 17-year-old from behind." Ranck had no comment on the letters. State attorney's office spokesman Ed Griffith also declined comment. Ranck's letters invoke state and federal whistleblower protections. Sources at the state attorney's office indicate the letters appear to be genuine. The situation raises a few questions.
The timing of the blog posts is conspicuous. Horn said the state attorney's office is close to concluding its investigation into Barquin's death and the internal Miami-Dade police investigation is still pending. Horn also said Ranck was replaced by Richard Scruggs on the team investigating the shooting. Scruggs did not return a call for comment by deadline. Ranck was on call to respond to reports of officer-involved shootings the day Barquin was shot. Internal protocol for police shootings calls for at least two specially trained prosecutors from the office's police shooting team to go to the scene.
Espinosa is no longer with the department, and Miami-Dade police spokesman Juan Villalba said the circumstances of his departure are unclear. Espinosa ran a failed campaign for the state Senate in 2006. There was no response to messages left on the cell phone number listed in his campaign papers.
Espinosa said he heard shots, chased Barquin and Llanes to a fence and shot Barquin after the teenager aimed a black, semi-automatic pistol at him, according to police reports. No weapon was recovered near either suspect.
Barquin's family may not have much legal recourse in his death, said Miami solo practitioner David Mishael, who is representing them.
"What laws do you have out there to prosecute the police officer or go after him for civil rights violations?" Mishael asked, noting Florida law allows an officer to shoot at suspected felons who flee crime scenes. "His use of deadly force is permitted by statute, and that's a sad situation."
A separate Florida law transfers criminal liability to Barquin's accomplice. Renaldo Llanes was convicted last year of Barquin's murder under Florida's felony murder rule based on a homicide occurring during the commission of a felony. He is serving a seven-year sentence for murder and burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, according to state Corrections Department records.
"When a police officer shoots a co-defendant in a case, then the other co-defendant gets charged with murder even though the living co-defendant had no intention that his co-defendant gets killed," said Ivonne Cuesta, the assistant public defender who represented Llanes after conviction in a probation matter. "That's the law in Florida. And my position is that it's very unfair."
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
The Miami Herald
January 14, 2004
MIA PROBE SPLITS POLICE, FEDS
Author: JOE MOZINGO, jmozingo@herald.com
Disagreement over a critical corruption investigation at Miami International Airport has prompted the Miami-Dade Police Department to cease working with the U.S. attorney's office...
.................................................
...Miami-Dade Police Director Carlos Alvarez pulled his detectives out in November, frustrated by what he said were needless delays and a general reluctance on the part of U.S. Attorney Marcos Jiménez to prosecute cases involving such powerful players.
..................................................
"Director Alvarez's decision to pull Miami-Dade detectives from public corruption cases and sever their working relationship with the FBI is regrettable and indefensible,'' [Jimenez] said in a statement. "No agency can justify abdicating its responsibility to work with federal agencies in rooting out public corruption.''
...................................
Since the two agencies began to work regularly together in 1998, they locked up former Miami police chief Donald Warshaw for stealing from a children's charity, put away the airport's building chief for taking bribes, nabbed United Teachers of Dade President Pat Tornillo for ripping off his own union, and secured the indictments of 13 Miami police officers for bad shootings.
The article excerpted above was published in the Miami Herald two days before MDPD Ofcr. Jorge Espinosa shot and killed Leonardo Barquin.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Abraham Laeser
Below is the email chain after my meeting with Dechovitz early in the morning on January 23.
Unless otherwise indicated the addressees on all were the State Attorney, Dechovitz, Horn, Hoague, Pohl, Laeser, and me.
From: David Ranck
Sent: Friday January 23, 2004 8:36 am
Earlier this morning I was told by Susan Dechovitz that at a Chief's meeting yesterday it was determined that I was being taken off this investigation for "diplomatic reasons."
Since this police shooting I have been told that Major Butler, instead of speaking to me directly, called Abe Laeser concerning my involvement, that Laeser then spoke to Susan Dannelly and asked her to speak to me and that there was a Chief's meeting at which I was not present nor made aware of at which the above decision was made.
I feel very strongly about the way that Major Butler, Laeser, Dechovitz and the Chiefs, who I assume are Pohl, Hoague and Horn, have handled this matter and I wish to consult with counsel before attending any meeting to discuss this matter further.
I intend to fully document my role in and knowledge of this investigation, whether I remain a part of it or not, and the actions of the police and all involved members of this office and will do that also under the advice of counsel. At this time also I wish to avail myself of any State and Federal "whistleblower" protection that I may be due.
Finally, I am hereby making a public records demand for any and all State Attorney's Office emails concerning this investigation.
From Dechovitz, 8:54 am.
Let me correct some: I told David that apparently he was less than diplomatic when he spoke to Det. McCully and that everyone at the meeting thought that it was best that he not continue with this investigation.
Dechovitz' reformulation of what she said to me is not true.
From: Ranck, at 9:23,
that is not what you told me. you never said to me that i was "less than diplomatic" with det. mccully. in fact you never asked me what was said between me and mccully. you may have thought that but you never said it to me. and your exact words were "yesterday at a chief's meeting it was determined that you were being taken off the case for diplomatic reasons."
pursuant to the below request, i would also like the names of all persons present at the meeting, when this meeting was scheduled and why i was not invited. (punctuation in original)
From: Laeser, to Ranck (no other addressees included), 9:29 am
I did not tell you about any call because I was told that you were in trial and should not be bothered. I had planned to speak to you when an opportunity arose--but by then, meetings were scheduled.
On the credibility of Laeser's statements in this email:
Laeser sent this email only to me. No other addressees on any earlier correspondence were copied.
Unless otherwise indicated the addressees on all were the State Attorney, Dechovitz, Horn, Hoague, Pohl, Laeser, and me.
From: David Ranck
Sent: Friday January 23, 2004 8:36 am
Earlier this morning I was told by Susan Dechovitz that at a Chief's meeting yesterday it was determined that I was being taken off this investigation for "diplomatic reasons."
Since this police shooting I have been told that Major Butler, instead of speaking to me directly, called Abe Laeser concerning my involvement, that Laeser then spoke to Susan Dannelly and asked her to speak to me and that there was a Chief's meeting at which I was not present nor made aware of at which the above decision was made.
I feel very strongly about the way that Major Butler, Laeser, Dechovitz and the Chiefs, who I assume are Pohl, Hoague and Horn, have handled this matter and I wish to consult with counsel before attending any meeting to discuss this matter further.
I intend to fully document my role in and knowledge of this investigation, whether I remain a part of it or not, and the actions of the police and all involved members of this office and will do that also under the advice of counsel. At this time also I wish to avail myself of any State and Federal "whistleblower" protection that I may be due.
Finally, I am hereby making a public records demand for any and all State Attorney's Office emails concerning this investigation.
From Dechovitz, 8:54 am.
Let me correct some: I told David that apparently he was less than diplomatic when he spoke to Det. McCully and that everyone at the meeting thought that it was best that he not continue with this investigation.
Dechovitz' reformulation of what she said to me is not true.
From: Ranck, at 9:23,
that is not what you told me. you never said to me that i was "less than diplomatic" with det. mccully. in fact you never asked me what was said between me and mccully. you may have thought that but you never said it to me. and your exact words were "yesterday at a chief's meeting it was determined that you were being taken off the case for diplomatic reasons."
pursuant to the below request, i would also like the names of all persons present at the meeting, when this meeting was scheduled and why i was not invited. (punctuation in original)
From: Laeser, to Ranck (no other addressees included), 9:29 am
I did not tell you about any call because I was told that you were in trial and should not be bothered. I had planned to speak to you when an opportunity arose--but by then, meetings were scheduled.
On the credibility of Laeser's statements in this email:
Laeser sent this email only to me. No other addressees on any earlier correspondence were copied.
Yet, by at least noon on January 22, one of those other addressees, Howard Pohl ,knew that I was not in trial.
And sometime shortly thereafter, Laeser himself knew that I was not in trial because, he told Susan Dannelly to talk to me, and Dannelly and I spoke at approximately 1:30 pm. (see email below).
Thus, Laeser's statement to me on January 23, at 9:29 am,
I did not tell you about any call because I was told that you were in trial...
had been untrue since at least January 22, shortly after lunch, and by 1:30 at the latest.
From: Ranck to Laeser, 9:53 am.
you had susan dannelly call me yesterday at about 1:30. she and i spoke. you and i didn't.
Laeser did not respond to this email.
Dannelly told me generally that Butler, displeased, had called Laeser. That was all. She did not tell me--I do not know if she knew--what the substance of the Butler/Laeser call was. Laeser could have talked to me directly.
Thus, Laeser's statement,
I had planned to speak to you when an opportunity arose--but by then, meetings were scheduled.
is completely untrue as to having had no "opportunity" to speak to me. An "opportunity"--a whole afternoon of them--had existed if his plan had been to talk to me.
Or, perhaps Laeser meant what he wrote literally, that he would have spoken to me before the 4 pm meeting had been "scheduled," if he had had the opportunity. If that is the case, then Laeser is saying that, opportunity or not, he did not plan on trying to talk to me once the meeting was set, that the decision was going to be made without talking to me at all.
Under either of these meanings--and any at all-- given to Laeser's email, at 4 pm on January 22, he and Pohl, knowing all afternoon that I was not in trial, along with Dechovitz, Hoague, and Horn, met and decided to remove me from the investigation and all future police shooting investigations, without:
(1) Ever telling me about Butler's call or it's substance.
(2) Ever meeting with me or in any other way asking me about my phone call with McCully.
At 4:50, Laeser sent the following email, under the subject heading "LLANES police shooting," documenting the decision that had been made to Sandra Miller-Batiste (my colleague on the police shooting), Richard Scruggs (my replacement), Emomotimi Brisbe, and copied Horn, Pohl, Hoague, and Dechovitz. I was not informed even though the business day had not yet ended.
I understand that this criminal case (second degree felony murder) arose out of a burglary and a police shooting. Mr. Ranck and Ms. Miller went to the scene. The substantive case has fallen into Judge Ward's division.
The case will be assigned to Tim to prosecute, and I will be co-counsel. No pre-trial meeting has yet been set with the detectives or any witnesses. However, the '72 hour' review will be held on Thursday, January 29th. I cannot attend on that date, but I have been told that Ms. Miller and Mr. Scruggs will be able to attend that meeting. Sometime early next week I will try to get a firm handle on the charging decisions, after discussing ths issues with Tim.
Please notify me of anything which you believe may be relevant to our legal and practical decision making. Thank you.
Abe Laeser
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Emails received, and responses.
How police shooting investigations are conducted, and what is the chain of command?
These blog entries are all yours, right? Which means they can be used as accurate representations of your opinion so long as context is included?
And just to make sure you’re the David Ranck at the SAO – tell me where you went to law school, and where you went to undergrad. For instance, who was the best football player at your university while you went there? Also, you did some graduate work in between as well, where did you do it?
Response,
-Since I have been off police-shooting duty since the Barquin killing, I would refer you to Don Horn for the current protocol. If Horn does not respond to your question, I will answer it as it was in 2004 to the best of my ability. If he does respond, and tells you something that does not jibe with how it was done in 2004, I will immediately, and vigorously, respond.
-Anything that I have to say on this incident will be in writing on http://www.transcriptsrecordsdocuments.blogspot.com/.
-Everything posted on the blog is written by me unless attribution is indicated otherwise, for example, the email posted by Barquin's mother.
-The entries on the blog are copyrighted automatically for me by Blogger. You can characterize or summarize the posts according to your reading of them but readers should be referred to the URL for my own words and the context in which I wrote them. I emphasize, I do not give permission for anyone to quote the posts.
-I am not going to give you a biography or a portion of a biography.
"SUBJECT: David Ranck"
Ms. Dechovitz' excitement lasted through the night of January 22 and into the morning of January 23, which began early for her. At 7:38 am, she emailed me and copied Howard Pohl and Don Horn,
Please come see either Howard or me TODAY. Thanks!
Although I emailed her back at 7:43, Dechovitz used those five minutes to update Pohl and Horn on her locate efforts. Under the "Subject: David Ranck" heading, she wrote,
I have emailed him (you were cced [sic]. I'm sure you saw that already.) I am also placing a note on his door. If he finds you and not me, call Machelle [a secretary] at 0309 and she'll find me. I will find you if he finds me... (emphasis added)
The ellipses represent an interruption in mid-sentence. The interruption was caused by... Subject David Ranck,
Well, while I was typing this, David came in. He insists on going to the 72 hour meeting and 'being heard.' I told him about the meeting yesterday and that it was decided that he would not be doing the investigation. He now wants to talk to everyone at that meeting. I told him that he is supposed to meet with Howard and I (sic) today and that he should start there. I would describe him as angry (controlled angry). I did not get to tell him that he is off police shooting duty. (emphasis added)
Howard,
Now that we know David is here, I am going to ask Machelle to schedule a meeting for the three of us today.
Please come see either Howard or me TODAY. Thanks!
Although I emailed her back at 7:43, Dechovitz used those five minutes to update Pohl and Horn on her locate efforts. Under the "Subject: David Ranck" heading, she wrote,
I have emailed him (you were cced [sic]. I'm sure you saw that already.) I am also placing a note on his door. If he finds you and not me, call Machelle [a secretary] at 0309 and she'll find me. I will find you if he finds me... (emphasis added)
The ellipses represent an interruption in mid-sentence. The interruption was caused by... Subject David Ranck,
Well, while I was typing this, David came in. He insists on going to the 72 hour meeting and 'being heard.' I told him about the meeting yesterday and that it was decided that he would not be doing the investigation. He now wants to talk to everyone at that meeting. I told him that he is supposed to meet with Howard and I (sic) today and that he should start there. I would describe him as angry (controlled angry). I did not get to tell him that he is off police shooting duty. (emphasis added)
Howard,
Now that we know David is here, I am going to ask Machelle to schedule a meeting for the three of us today.
"Wow...please read below..."
January 20, 2004: Major Angus Butler calls Abe Laeser re ASA on police shooting.
January 22, 2004: Decision made to remove ASA from police shooting and all future police
shootings.
Time spent by S.A.O.: two days.
May 5, 2008: Public records request made for emails concerning police shooting.
May 20, 2008: Public records request received.
Time spent by S.A.O.: fifteen days.
Within the scope of the May 5, 2008 public records request, there were two emails from January 16, 2004, the date of the police shooting, through January 20: one from my secretary asking me if I would be able to attend the "Police Shooting Brief Conference," commonly referred to as the "Seventy-two hour meeting," on January 29, the other, my response to my secretary, asking what time the meeting was scheduled.
In between those two emails I received the phone call from Det. McCully.
On January 21, there were four emails concerning this incident, on January 22, four emails, and on January 23, fifteen emails.
The first email on January 21 was at 1:19 pm, from Miami Herald reporter Chuck Rabin to office media liaison Ed Griffith:
Thanks for taking the time to speak with me Ed. Here are a couple of questions regarding the police shooting of 17-year-old Leonardo Barquin by Miami-Dade police officer Jorge Espinosa that hopefully you, or someone in your office can answer for me:
1: Why was the teen who survived, Rolando Llanes, charged with second degree murder?
2: Is it common for the state to charge someone with murder in such a situation?
3: Do you have any type of history you can forward to me on such charges. For instance, recent cases, or how many times it's happened, say, in the last year or two?
4: And finally, the single biggest question that remains unanswered: Do police or the state have possession of the gun that Barquin allegedly pointed at officer Espinosa? Many are questioning if there ever was such a weapon. (emphasis added)
I'm writing for tomorrow, so answers to these questions today would help tremendously. Thanks again for your time. Chuck
Next is an exchange between Howard Pohl, "Sheila Phillips," I assume a secretary, and Kathleen Hoague.
The subject heading is "David Ranck."
Phillips wrote to Pohl on January 21 at 4:22 pm,
Howard, I have been trying all morning (sic) to reach David and he's not responding. After lunch I spoke with his Secy. (sic) Debbie and she informed me that she advised David as soon as he got out of trial. She then paged him to call the office and as of now he hasn't respond. (sic)
Pohl responded at 4:25 and copied Hoague:
I ran into him at lunch time and he said he's not in trial. He should have still (sic) called me back.
It is clear from context that the impetus for these "Subject: David Ranck" emails was Butler's call to Laeser, and Laeser's communication to Pohl, of the conversation.
Consistent with what I was told at the January 23 meeting, the email below establishes that the decision to summarily remove me from this and all future police shooting investigations was made at a meeting on January 22 at 4 pm, a meeting of which I had no knowledge and was not invited.
The email also establishes that a conscious decision was made not to inform me of the decision that day. The email is from Laeser, at 4:50 pm, to Miller-Batiste, Richard Scruggs, my replacement, and Emomotimi Brisibe, and copied to Don Horn, Pohl, Hoague, and Susan Dechovitz. The subject is "LLANES (sic) police shooting. Llanes was Barquin's co-defendant, who was charged with the second degree felony murder of Barquin. Llanes' arrest for the murder was a subject of Herald reporter Rabin's email to Griffith.
I understand that this criminal case (second degree felony murder) arose out of a burglary and a police shooting. Mr. Ranck and Ms. Miller went to the scene. The substantive case has fallen into Judge Ward's division.
The case will be assigned to Tim [i.e. Mr. Brisibe] to prosecute, and I will be co-counsel. No pre-trial meeting has yet been set with the detectives or any witnesses. However, the '72 hour' review will be held on Thursday, January 29th. I cannot attend on that date, but I have been told that Ms. Miller and Mr. Scruggs will be able to attend that meeting. Sometime early next week I will try to get a firm handle on the charging decisions, after discussing the issues with Tim.
Please notify me of anything which you believe may be relevant to our legal and practical decision making. Thank you.
Abe Laeser (sic)
At 7:53 pm, Susan Dechovitz forwarded the email to Reid Rubin with her reaction,
Wow...please read below...
January 22, 2004: Decision made to remove ASA from police shooting and all future police
shootings.
Time spent by S.A.O.: two days.
May 5, 2008: Public records request made for emails concerning police shooting.
May 20, 2008: Public records request received.
Time spent by S.A.O.: fifteen days.
Within the scope of the May 5, 2008 public records request, there were two emails from January 16, 2004, the date of the police shooting, through January 20: one from my secretary asking me if I would be able to attend the "Police Shooting Brief Conference," commonly referred to as the "Seventy-two hour meeting," on January 29, the other, my response to my secretary, asking what time the meeting was scheduled.
In between those two emails I received the phone call from Det. McCully.
On January 21, there were four emails concerning this incident, on January 22, four emails, and on January 23, fifteen emails.
The first email on January 21 was at 1:19 pm, from Miami Herald reporter Chuck Rabin to office media liaison Ed Griffith:
Thanks for taking the time to speak with me Ed. Here are a couple of questions regarding the police shooting of 17-year-old Leonardo Barquin by Miami-Dade police officer Jorge Espinosa that hopefully you, or someone in your office can answer for me:
1: Why was the teen who survived, Rolando Llanes, charged with second degree murder?
2: Is it common for the state to charge someone with murder in such a situation?
3: Do you have any type of history you can forward to me on such charges. For instance, recent cases, or how many times it's happened, say, in the last year or two?
4: And finally, the single biggest question that remains unanswered: Do police or the state have possession of the gun that Barquin allegedly pointed at officer Espinosa? Many are questioning if there ever was such a weapon. (emphasis added)
I'm writing for tomorrow, so answers to these questions today would help tremendously. Thanks again for your time. Chuck
Next is an exchange between Howard Pohl, "Sheila Phillips," I assume a secretary, and Kathleen Hoague.
The subject heading is "David Ranck."
Phillips wrote to Pohl on January 21 at 4:22 pm,
Howard, I have been trying all morning (sic) to reach David and he's not responding. After lunch I spoke with his Secy. (sic) Debbie and she informed me that she advised David as soon as he got out of trial. She then paged him to call the office and as of now he hasn't respond. (sic)
Pohl responded at 4:25 and copied Hoague:
I ran into him at lunch time and he said he's not in trial. He should have still (sic) called me back.
It is clear from context that the impetus for these "Subject: David Ranck" emails was Butler's call to Laeser, and Laeser's communication to Pohl, of the conversation.
Consistent with what I was told at the January 23 meeting, the email below establishes that the decision to summarily remove me from this and all future police shooting investigations was made at a meeting on January 22 at 4 pm, a meeting of which I had no knowledge and was not invited.
The email also establishes that a conscious decision was made not to inform me of the decision that day. The email is from Laeser, at 4:50 pm, to Miller-Batiste, Richard Scruggs, my replacement, and Emomotimi Brisibe, and copied to Don Horn, Pohl, Hoague, and Susan Dechovitz. The subject is "LLANES (sic) police shooting. Llanes was Barquin's co-defendant, who was charged with the second degree felony murder of Barquin. Llanes' arrest for the murder was a subject of Herald reporter Rabin's email to Griffith.
I understand that this criminal case (second degree felony murder) arose out of a burglary and a police shooting. Mr. Ranck and Ms. Miller went to the scene. The substantive case has fallen into Judge Ward's division.
The case will be assigned to Tim [i.e. Mr. Brisibe] to prosecute, and I will be co-counsel. No pre-trial meeting has yet been set with the detectives or any witnesses. However, the '72 hour' review will be held on Thursday, January 29th. I cannot attend on that date, but I have been told that Ms. Miller and Mr. Scruggs will be able to attend that meeting. Sometime early next week I will try to get a firm handle on the charging decisions, after discussing the issues with Tim.
Please notify me of anything which you believe may be relevant to our legal and practical decision making. Thank you.
Abe Laeser (sic)
At 7:53 pm, Susan Dechovitz forwarded the email to Reid Rubin with her reaction,
Wow...please read below...
The following email was received.
... You assume that your children aren't supposed to die. You wait to see your children grow and mature, and at the end we, the mothers, should go first. This is the normal road life should take. The passing away of a child signifies a loss of the future, a loss of hope and dreams. It appears that this emptiness follows me wherever I go. Sometimes it is so intense and real that I can almost touch it and see it. Sometimes it is so much, that I can see nothing else. The loss of a child disorients you, it tears at you, it hurts you, and letting go is impossible. The tie you make with your child goes beyond death. Our children are in our blood, the tie that bonds us seems impenetrable. This is an infinite thread of pain and sadness, the wound may heal but the scar will stay there forever. This changes our life and we will never be the same people we once were. As we try to go on we realize that we have survived and we try to be strong enough to support what it is, one of the toughest blows life can throw you. We fight to continue living, while we make this devastation a part of our personal history, a part of our very selves. We learn to live inside of our memories with lost hopes and destroyed dreams, we will never overcome this loss, we will only learn to live with it. This is an infinite pain, it touches every aspect of my existence. When you lose a child we mothers cry for this for the rest of our lives, this pain becomes a part of us. With the passing of time we learn to appreciate this pain because it is the only thing that ties us to our children, the pain is our connection Our memories are precious gifts from our hearts, these memories give us the feeling of eternal peace, a feeling of being close to our lost little ones. I look for a reason for my loss, for my life without him, it is a long ride, sad, and heavy, and extremely lonely, a process which is never really over. The pain for the loss of a child is the only one which we cannot let go of, any other wound, we attempt to heal and forget. "We are locked away by the panic, pain, sadness, fury, and anguish." There is no relationship like the one of a mother and child, it is unique and special. The bond is so powerful that it's strength supports time, distance, and conflict. There is no comparison to losing your child. In the event of your child’s death you no longer feel complete. We will always be in pain, we will always be in remembrance, we wish more than anything to smell their scent, feel their embrace, hear their voice. Mentioning his name can fill my eyes with tears, and can also sound like music to my ears. There is no number of words or tears that can explain this pain, there is only a small piece of my heart left. I will love you forever, Tu mama,Betty
The author is the mother of Leonardo Barquin.
... You assume that your children aren't supposed to die. You wait to see your children grow and mature, and at the end we, the mothers, should go first. This is the normal road life should take. The passing away of a child signifies a loss of the future, a loss of hope and dreams. It appears that this emptiness follows me wherever I go. Sometimes it is so intense and real that I can almost touch it and see it. Sometimes it is so much, that I can see nothing else. The loss of a child disorients you, it tears at you, it hurts you, and letting go is impossible. The tie you make with your child goes beyond death. Our children are in our blood, the tie that bonds us seems impenetrable. This is an infinite thread of pain and sadness, the wound may heal but the scar will stay there forever. This changes our life and we will never be the same people we once were. As we try to go on we realize that we have survived and we try to be strong enough to support what it is, one of the toughest blows life can throw you. We fight to continue living, while we make this devastation a part of our personal history, a part of our very selves. We learn to live inside of our memories with lost hopes and destroyed dreams, we will never overcome this loss, we will only learn to live with it. This is an infinite pain, it touches every aspect of my existence. When you lose a child we mothers cry for this for the rest of our lives, this pain becomes a part of us. With the passing of time we learn to appreciate this pain because it is the only thing that ties us to our children, the pain is our connection Our memories are precious gifts from our hearts, these memories give us the feeling of eternal peace, a feeling of being close to our lost little ones. I look for a reason for my loss, for my life without him, it is a long ride, sad, and heavy, and extremely lonely, a process which is never really over. The pain for the loss of a child is the only one which we cannot let go of, any other wound, we attempt to heal and forget. "We are locked away by the panic, pain, sadness, fury, and anguish." There is no relationship like the one of a mother and child, it is unique and special. The bond is so powerful that it's strength supports time, distance, and conflict. There is no comparison to losing your child. In the event of your child’s death you no longer feel complete. We will always be in pain, we will always be in remembrance, we wish more than anything to smell their scent, feel their embrace, hear their voice. Mentioning his name can fill my eyes with tears, and can also sound like music to my ears. There is no number of words or tears that can explain this pain, there is only a small piece of my heart left. I will love you forever, Tu mama,Betty
The author is the mother of Leonardo Barquin.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The email posted here on May 4 was obtained by me through lawful public records request from my office on July 13, 2007. All of the addressees on the email were present at the January 23, 2004 meeting except Howard Pohl and Ms. Rundle. Ms. Salomon, who was not my girlfriend at the time, was present in her role as office Senior Employment Counsel.
A public records request will reveal that to this day, after more than four years, no written response to that email was ever sent to me, nor, to my knowledge, to anyone else. The quoted statements made to me by Mr. Horn, Mr. Laeser, and Ms. Hoague, and memorialized by me soon after the January 23 meeting, have not been challenged in any written document that I am aware of, certainly not in any that I was ever provided.
Nor was the email, or the truth of its content, ever discussed in any meeting, at least any meeting involving me, in the four+ years since. None, that is, until the day that the email was published.
Then, in place of a scheduled meeting to discuss mundane division matters, there was an impromptu three hour meeting on the email. No reason was given for why this first discussion of the email was taking place over four years later. No reason was given for why there was never a written response.
After I was taken off the investigation, I had no more involvement in it. Legally, the email could not be obtained by me via public records as long as the investigation was open. Occasionally, I ran into my more than able successor, Richard Scruggs, and he and I briefly spoke about it: he hadn't gotten the police reports yet, then he got them, there was a meeting with the Medical Examiner, a meeting with Ms. Rundle. At some point it was clear to me that the state investigation was closed and no charges were going to be filed. Sometime after that I made the formal public records request for the email, and it was promptly provided to me.
However, in Monday's three hour meeting, I was told that the investigation was still open, and that therefore I shouldn't have published the email. I reminded the person who told me this that the public records request had been sent directly to him, and copied to Ted Mannelli, who was assuming my girlfriend's public records responsibility, upon her recusal. I still had the email that I had sent to him and Mr. Mannelli to verify.
On Tuesday of this week I made another public records request for all emails among all of the addressees on the February 23, 2004 email, plus Abbe Rifkin, concerning this investigation from January 16-30, 2004, and for May 5-6, 2008. These emails should reveal who said what to whom back in 2004, at a time when the events were fresh in their memory.
A public records request will reveal that to this day, after more than four years, no written response to that email was ever sent to me, nor, to my knowledge, to anyone else. The quoted statements made to me by Mr. Horn, Mr. Laeser, and Ms. Hoague, and memorialized by me soon after the January 23 meeting, have not been challenged in any written document that I am aware of, certainly not in any that I was ever provided.
Nor was the email, or the truth of its content, ever discussed in any meeting, at least any meeting involving me, in the four+ years since. None, that is, until the day that the email was published.
Then, in place of a scheduled meeting to discuss mundane division matters, there was an impromptu three hour meeting on the email. No reason was given for why this first discussion of the email was taking place over four years later. No reason was given for why there was never a written response.
After I was taken off the investigation, I had no more involvement in it. Legally, the email could not be obtained by me via public records as long as the investigation was open. Occasionally, I ran into my more than able successor, Richard Scruggs, and he and I briefly spoke about it: he hadn't gotten the police reports yet, then he got them, there was a meeting with the Medical Examiner, a meeting with Ms. Rundle. At some point it was clear to me that the state investigation was closed and no charges were going to be filed. Sometime after that I made the formal public records request for the email, and it was promptly provided to me.
However, in Monday's three hour meeting, I was told that the investigation was still open, and that therefore I shouldn't have published the email. I reminded the person who told me this that the public records request had been sent directly to him, and copied to Ted Mannelli, who was assuming my girlfriend's public records responsibility, upon her recusal. I still had the email that I had sent to him and Mr. Mannelli to verify.
On Tuesday of this week I made another public records request for all emails among all of the addressees on the February 23, 2004 email, plus Abbe Rifkin, concerning this investigation from January 16-30, 2004, and for May 5-6, 2008. These emails should reveal who said what to whom back in 2004, at a time when the events were fresh in their memory.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Police Shooting of Leonardo Barquin
-----Original Message-----
From: David Ranck
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 9:10 AM
To: Don L. Horn; Kathleen Hoague; Howard Pohl; Susan Dechovitz; Abe Laeser; Lorna Salomon
Cc: Katherine Fernandez Rundle
Subject: Police shooting of Leonardo Barquin
In a previous email I stated that I would provide, in writing, my account of this incident. What follows is that account. I wish to expressly invoke any protections which I might have under Florida or federal "Whistle blower" laws.
On Friday, January 23 at approximately 11 a.m. I was formally told that I was being removed from this investigation [ed. note: And henceforth from ALL police shooting investigations]. Because I do not need extra work I do not object to that decision. Nonetheless, as I stated in the meeting, I do object to the manner in which this matter was handled by you, and to the criticism expressed of me in the meeting.
I was told that the decision to remove me was made in a meeting on January 22 at 4 pm, a meeting to which I was neither invited nor notified of. I was told that the January 22 meeting resulted from a call from Major Angus Butler of the M.D.P.D. to Abe Laeser complaining of a phone conversation that I had had with the lead detective Charles "Buck" McCully. Laeser, without talking to me, then communicated the complaint to Howard Pohl, who communicated it to Don Horn.
All of this resulted from from a phone call that I received at approximately 6 pm on Tuesday, January 20, from lead Det. McCully. Det. McCully told me that he had received more than one call that day from the P.B.A representative of shooting officer Jorge Espinosa wanting to know "what the State was thinking," so that he could make a decision on whether his client would give a statement to investigators, and that he, McCully, wanted to discuss it with me before he returned the call, which he thought he should do promptly.
Det. McCully then gave me an updated briefing on the status of the investigation so that I could give him, and through him the P.B.A. representative, an opinion with as full a fund of information as it was possible to have at that time.
The deceased was found unarmed and no firearm was found around where he fell nor on the co-defendant when he was captured. When I left the scene on Friday, January 16 at approximately 9:30 pm, crime scene investigators had not finished a complete search of the area for a firearm.
In his update, McCully told me that no gun had ever been found, that the co-def gave a formal statement in which he stated that neither he nor the deceased was armed, and that they never made any threatening statements to the officer, contrary to the ofcr's proffer.
I was told that the home owner's gun, which was originally thought possibly to have been in the house at the time of the burglary, and which could have been used by one of the burglars, was in fact at the homeowners business, remote from the scene, in the exact location that the homeowner said it was. I already knew from being briefed on the scene, that the deceased had been shot, among other places, in the top of the buttocks.
The issue of the gun was an important one, because I had been told on the scene that, in the proffer, Ofcr. Espinosa said that he saw the deceased with a firearm and that the deceased pointed the firearm at him.
In our phone conversation of January 20, Det McCully and I discussed the proffer and Det McCully said that he remembered it differently, that the proffer was that the ofcr had seen something that "looked like" a "weapon." So while we were on the phone, I had Det McCully check his notes, and he verified that the proffer was specifically that the deceased had a firearm.
The proffer was more detailed also. The ofcr said (via proffer) that the deceased had a sock on his hand. Det. McCully stated to me that perhaps the ofcr miss took the sock for a firearm. I told Det. McCully that I did not believe that that was a plausible scenario.
Det. McCully checked further through his notes and told me that the ofcr further stated that he saw the deceased with a sock on one hand and a firearm in the other. I then pointed out to Det. McCully that the implausible had now become the impossible. The officer did not mistake the sock for a firearm. He distinguished the hands, one with a sock, one holding a gun.
I further told Det. McCully that the proffer was not vague. The ofcr did not say that he saw something that "looked like" a firearm, he said he saw a firearm. He did not say that the deceased made an ambiguous but furtive movement as if he was going for a firearm. He stated that he saw a firearm and that the deceased pointed it at him.
Based on his update and all I knew previously about this shooting I told Det. McCully that I certainly could not tell him to advise the PBA representative that "what the State was thinking" was that this was a clearly justified, uncomplicated shooting and that Ofcr. Espinosa should feel free to give a statement.
In this context to say, as Don Horn said to me at the start of the January 23 meeting, that I had had a "TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE CONVERSATION" [ed. note: caps to indicate tone] with Det. McCully is unjustified.
Det McCully, the lead det in the case, called me, the senior A.S.A., personally, and brought me up to date on the investigation. He was calling because he wanted to consult with me before returning a phone call to the attorney for the shooting officer concerning a formal statement from the officer. Under these circumstances, with this evidence, to say, as Don Horn, Abe Laeser and Kathleen Hoague said to me in the meeting, that I should have said "I have no opinion at this point" is inane.
The lead det and the ASA are, supposedly, jointly and cooperatively investigating this shooting. My ROLE in this and all other homicide investigations in which I am on duty and called to the scene, is to consult and advise.
If, in any other homicide investigation, the lead det had asked for my advice on a matter of law or evidence and I had said "I have no opinion at this point," that answer would have been considered flabbergasting, and if I had persisted in not giving a candid view, the lead det would have certainly called someone else in the office to complain and to get some real assistance.
To say further, as Horn, Laeser and Hoague said at the meeting, that I should not have had a conversation with Det. McCully beyond saying "I have no opinion" "because I am not the State" is equally inane.
I was put on 24 hour call to respond as a representative of this office to consult and advise the police in this investigation. At the time I received the call, I was in the middle of an evidentiary hearing in front of Judge Diane Ward. Only after asking for a recess in the hearing and being refused once and then asking again was I excused from that hearing. I then went to the scene and was briefed, viewed the shooting location, and consulted and advised on a number of issues, evidentiary and legal for several hours.
On any other non-police shooting homicide, if I had been asked by the lead det what I thought at a preliminary stage and I had responded that "I am not the State," that "I have no opinion at this time" because we have a procedure in place to handle homicides, that the case would be blind-filed and handled by another ASA who would review the case after the investigation is complete, if, in other words, I had given the responses suggested to me by Horn and Laeser and Hoague, those responses would have been considered a refusal to perform my role as the on-call A.S.A.
It is not that I gave Det. McCully, through his phone call to, and questioning of, me my view of the case as i knew it at that time, that occasioned the meeting at 4pm on Thursday, January 22, at which I was not present or invited, that resulted in my removal from this investigation. Rather, it is the view that I expressed, that although the "fleeing felon" law may make even consideration of State charges void ab initio, this still was "not a good shoot," that in a larger "moral" and perhaps legal (i.e. federal) sense of responsibility it was wrong, that it was unnecessary, that the 17 year old burglar victim should be in jail right now, not dead. It is this perfectly legitimate view of the case as I knew it that occasioned my removal.
If I had said "Buck, I don't see at this point that the cop has anything to be concerned about" no call would have been placed by any police major to Laeser, no communication would have been made by Laeser to Pohl, no communication would have been made by Pohl to Horn, no meeting would have been called without my knowledge or participation, no decision would have been CONSIDERED to take me off the investigation, no email at 7:38 am on January 23 would have been sent to me by Susan Dechovitz asking me to see her, which resulted in me being told that I was being taken off the investigation "for diplomatic reasons," and no criticism would have been made of me for giving my thoughts on the case because "I am not the State."
These actions are not consistent with avoidance of the appearance of impropriety. To just summarily remove an A.S.A. from an investigation of a police shooting that he was assigned because of a call made by a POLICE MAJOR, when that ASA had expressed legitimate, justified reservations about the propriety of the shooting could hardly look worse to a community that has the right to expect independence of this office from the police agency involved.
The decision to remove me will only embolden Butler and perhaps other police officers and departments to "take the ball and go home" whenever there is a disagreement with an ASA, to bypass the ASA completely and go over his/her head and get the ASA removed. And when, not if, that happens I fear that an ASA, like me, who the police have complained about once, will be viewed as a "repeat offender," as one who "can't get along with the police," rather than as one who did nothing wrong in the first place.
I was told twice in the meeting on Friday that no administrative sanctions were being considered against me for my actions and statements in this investigation. I hope that that is still not the case. If after hearing me out in the meeting and reading this email you reconsider your views and do not feel now that I acted inappropriately then I accept that in a sincere spirit of comity.
Late in the day on Friday, January 23, Don came down to my office and met with me. We further discussed the case and afterwards he said that he now had a better understanding of the conversation. His actions were generous and gracious, I accepted his sentiments and we shook hands. It is my wish to put this matter to rest. I harbor no ill will toward anyone because of this incident. But I absolutely and vigorously deny that anything I did or said in this investigation was wrong or inappropriate in any way.
From: David Ranck
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 9:10 AM
To: Don L. Horn; Kathleen Hoague; Howard Pohl; Susan Dechovitz; Abe Laeser; Lorna Salomon
Cc: Katherine Fernandez Rundle
Subject: Police shooting of Leonardo Barquin
In a previous email I stated that I would provide, in writing, my account of this incident. What follows is that account. I wish to expressly invoke any protections which I might have under Florida or federal "Whistle blower" laws.
On Friday, January 23 at approximately 11 a.m. I was formally told that I was being removed from this investigation [ed. note: And henceforth from ALL police shooting investigations]. Because I do not need extra work I do not object to that decision. Nonetheless, as I stated in the meeting, I do object to the manner in which this matter was handled by you, and to the criticism expressed of me in the meeting.
I was told that the decision to remove me was made in a meeting on January 22 at 4 pm, a meeting to which I was neither invited nor notified of. I was told that the January 22 meeting resulted from a call from Major Angus Butler of the M.D.P.D. to Abe Laeser complaining of a phone conversation that I had had with the lead detective Charles "Buck" McCully. Laeser, without talking to me, then communicated the complaint to Howard Pohl, who communicated it to Don Horn.
All of this resulted from from a phone call that I received at approximately 6 pm on Tuesday, January 20, from lead Det. McCully. Det. McCully told me that he had received more than one call that day from the P.B.A representative of shooting officer Jorge Espinosa wanting to know "what the State was thinking," so that he could make a decision on whether his client would give a statement to investigators, and that he, McCully, wanted to discuss it with me before he returned the call, which he thought he should do promptly.
Det. McCully then gave me an updated briefing on the status of the investigation so that I could give him, and through him the P.B.A. representative, an opinion with as full a fund of information as it was possible to have at that time.
The deceased was found unarmed and no firearm was found around where he fell nor on the co-defendant when he was captured. When I left the scene on Friday, January 16 at approximately 9:30 pm, crime scene investigators had not finished a complete search of the area for a firearm.
In his update, McCully told me that no gun had ever been found, that the co-def gave a formal statement in which he stated that neither he nor the deceased was armed, and that they never made any threatening statements to the officer, contrary to the ofcr's proffer.
I was told that the home owner's gun, which was originally thought possibly to have been in the house at the time of the burglary, and which could have been used by one of the burglars, was in fact at the homeowners business, remote from the scene, in the exact location that the homeowner said it was. I already knew from being briefed on the scene, that the deceased had been shot, among other places, in the top of the buttocks.
The issue of the gun was an important one, because I had been told on the scene that, in the proffer, Ofcr. Espinosa said that he saw the deceased with a firearm and that the deceased pointed the firearm at him.
In our phone conversation of January 20, Det McCully and I discussed the proffer and Det McCully said that he remembered it differently, that the proffer was that the ofcr had seen something that "looked like" a "weapon." So while we were on the phone, I had Det McCully check his notes, and he verified that the proffer was specifically that the deceased had a firearm.
The proffer was more detailed also. The ofcr said (via proffer) that the deceased had a sock on his hand. Det. McCully stated to me that perhaps the ofcr miss took the sock for a firearm. I told Det. McCully that I did not believe that that was a plausible scenario.
Det. McCully checked further through his notes and told me that the ofcr further stated that he saw the deceased with a sock on one hand and a firearm in the other. I then pointed out to Det. McCully that the implausible had now become the impossible. The officer did not mistake the sock for a firearm. He distinguished the hands, one with a sock, one holding a gun.
I further told Det. McCully that the proffer was not vague. The ofcr did not say that he saw something that "looked like" a firearm, he said he saw a firearm. He did not say that the deceased made an ambiguous but furtive movement as if he was going for a firearm. He stated that he saw a firearm and that the deceased pointed it at him.
Based on his update and all I knew previously about this shooting I told Det. McCully that I certainly could not tell him to advise the PBA representative that "what the State was thinking" was that this was a clearly justified, uncomplicated shooting and that Ofcr. Espinosa should feel free to give a statement.
In this context to say, as Don Horn said to me at the start of the January 23 meeting, that I had had a "TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE CONVERSATION" [ed. note: caps to indicate tone] with Det. McCully is unjustified.
Det McCully, the lead det in the case, called me, the senior A.S.A., personally, and brought me up to date on the investigation. He was calling because he wanted to consult with me before returning a phone call to the attorney for the shooting officer concerning a formal statement from the officer. Under these circumstances, with this evidence, to say, as Don Horn, Abe Laeser and Kathleen Hoague said to me in the meeting, that I should have said "I have no opinion at this point" is inane.
The lead det and the ASA are, supposedly, jointly and cooperatively investigating this shooting. My ROLE in this and all other homicide investigations in which I am on duty and called to the scene, is to consult and advise.
If, in any other homicide investigation, the lead det had asked for my advice on a matter of law or evidence and I had said "I have no opinion at this point," that answer would have been considered flabbergasting, and if I had persisted in not giving a candid view, the lead det would have certainly called someone else in the office to complain and to get some real assistance.
To say further, as Horn, Laeser and Hoague said at the meeting, that I should not have had a conversation with Det. McCully beyond saying "I have no opinion" "because I am not the State" is equally inane.
I was put on 24 hour call to respond as a representative of this office to consult and advise the police in this investigation. At the time I received the call, I was in the middle of an evidentiary hearing in front of Judge Diane Ward. Only after asking for a recess in the hearing and being refused once and then asking again was I excused from that hearing. I then went to the scene and was briefed, viewed the shooting location, and consulted and advised on a number of issues, evidentiary and legal for several hours.
On any other non-police shooting homicide, if I had been asked by the lead det what I thought at a preliminary stage and I had responded that "I am not the State," that "I have no opinion at this time" because we have a procedure in place to handle homicides, that the case would be blind-filed and handled by another ASA who would review the case after the investigation is complete, if, in other words, I had given the responses suggested to me by Horn and Laeser and Hoague, those responses would have been considered a refusal to perform my role as the on-call A.S.A.
It is not that I gave Det. McCully, through his phone call to, and questioning of, me my view of the case as i knew it at that time, that occasioned the meeting at 4pm on Thursday, January 22, at which I was not present or invited, that resulted in my removal from this investigation. Rather, it is the view that I expressed, that although the "fleeing felon" law may make even consideration of State charges void ab initio, this still was "not a good shoot," that in a larger "moral" and perhaps legal (i.e. federal) sense of responsibility it was wrong, that it was unnecessary, that the 17 year old burglar victim should be in jail right now, not dead. It is this perfectly legitimate view of the case as I knew it that occasioned my removal.
If I had said "Buck, I don't see at this point that the cop has anything to be concerned about" no call would have been placed by any police major to Laeser, no communication would have been made by Laeser to Pohl, no communication would have been made by Pohl to Horn, no meeting would have been called without my knowledge or participation, no decision would have been CONSIDERED to take me off the investigation, no email at 7:38 am on January 23 would have been sent to me by Susan Dechovitz asking me to see her, which resulted in me being told that I was being taken off the investigation "for diplomatic reasons," and no criticism would have been made of me for giving my thoughts on the case because "I am not the State."
These actions are not consistent with avoidance of the appearance of impropriety. To just summarily remove an A.S.A. from an investigation of a police shooting that he was assigned because of a call made by a POLICE MAJOR, when that ASA had expressed legitimate, justified reservations about the propriety of the shooting could hardly look worse to a community that has the right to expect independence of this office from the police agency involved.
The decision to remove me will only embolden Butler and perhaps other police officers and departments to "take the ball and go home" whenever there is a disagreement with an ASA, to bypass the ASA completely and go over his/her head and get the ASA removed. And when, not if, that happens I fear that an ASA, like me, who the police have complained about once, will be viewed as a "repeat offender," as one who "can't get along with the police," rather than as one who did nothing wrong in the first place.
I was told twice in the meeting on Friday that no administrative sanctions were being considered against me for my actions and statements in this investigation. I hope that that is still not the case. If after hearing me out in the meeting and reading this email you reconsider your views and do not feel now that I acted inappropriately then I accept that in a sincere spirit of comity.
Late in the day on Friday, January 23, Don came down to my office and met with me. We further discussed the case and afterwards he said that he now had a better understanding of the conversation. His actions were generous and gracious, I accepted his sentiments and we shook hands. It is my wish to put this matter to rest. I harbor no ill will toward anyone because of this incident. But I absolutely and vigorously deny that anything I did or said in this investigation was wrong or inappropriate in any way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
